pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Are things going well in microstock?  (Read 117529 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

« Reply #175 on: January 09, 2008, 10:33 »
0
I can't see the orange sub indicator on any of the photos is it just  me or does it mean  so many people opt- out?

StockXpert is a great place and I am sure without subs it will be even better like how  it  was just a couple of months ago.
I hope other sites will follow the trend too

edit:spell check
« Last Edit: January 09, 2008, 11:01 by stokfoto »


nruboc

« Reply #176 on: January 09, 2008, 12:03 »
0

When StockXpert first said they were introducing subscription, there was a big fuss, everyone said they didn't want it.
The solution was there for the taking, StockXpert said if not enough people joined, they would abandon it. What happened? Just about everyone opted in.
I said from the beginning that if subscription was introduced with no opt out, I would delete our portfolio. I'm still prepared to do that. I understand perfectly that my decision is of no importance to StockXpert, but it is to me.
When it comes to DT, I haven't uploaded there for a while. I'm still hopeful that they will abandon the idea. If they don't, I'm prepared to give them up too. Again, I realise that my decision is irrelevant.
But Steven, your decision is not irrelevant.  Yuri and Andres have had the guts to take some action. You, and a few others, could make a difference, but you aren't prepared to do that. I don't really understand why.
As for punishing the good guys, I don't see what you see. I see a company trying to grab a slice of a pie baked by someone else. When this first came up, Steve-oh talked about new customers. I asked if they were new to StockXpert, or new to Microstock. No answer was given.
Now we see people claiming that SS sales are down. Is it a coincidence?
Please don't say that you don't see a way out of this mess. You were partially to blame and you know it. You also know what the answer is.
Linda


To me it's not a big problem, would I like to see more money paid to contributors for high res images in subscription plans? Yes. Will I stop submitting or opt out if they don't? No.

Why? I fail to see how one person's bad business decisions (Thread starter here) means that subscription plans are bad. Look how much he pays in production costs. Is that typical of the average microstocker? I would say not. Yet many of his groupies follow along on his advice.

Shutterstock alone, pays back what I spend in production costs and alot more, so there is no way I'm going to bash subscription plans. StockXpert has never been better for me, they are the fastest growing site in my experience, even after Subscriptions were introduced.

I am not one of the major players, I do stock part-time which is what the majority of microstockers do, for the love of it, not the greed.

As for SS being down, it's that time of year. It happened last year, and will happen next year. Things ramp up to November and then take a dive for awhile. Let's wait awhile before we press the panick button shall we.

I still think it's hyprocritical to opt out of StockXpert, and not only still submit to Crestock, but to accept a lower subscription payout. That is what the thread starter is doing. Crestock gives a 30% commission (after 100 sales) and a 25 cent subscription payout. If anything he should be complaining about this and not StockXpert, who pays 50% commission and 30 cent subs.

Let's start a movement around getting Crestock up (commission % and subscription payout). I'm all for that. But no one else seems to want to take a stand on that.






« Reply #177 on: January 09, 2008, 13:03 »
0

When StockXpert first said they were introducing subscription, there was a big fuss, everyone said they didn't want it.
The solution was there for the taking, StockXpert said if not enough people joined, they would abandon it. What happened? Just about everyone opted in.
I said from the beginning that if subscription was introduced with no opt out, I would delete our portfolio. I'm still prepared to do that. I understand perfectly that my decision is of no importance to StockXpert, but it is to me.
When it comes to DT, I haven't uploaded there for a while. I'm still hopeful that they will abandon the idea. If they don't, I'm prepared to give them up too. Again, I realise that my decision is irrelevant.
But Steven, your decision is not irrelevant.  Yuri and Andres have had the guts to take some action. You, and a few others, could make a difference, but you aren't prepared to do that. I don't really understand why.
As for punishing the good guys, I don't see what you see. I see a company trying to grab a slice of a pie baked by someone else. When this first came up, Steve-oh talked about new customers. I asked if they were new to StockXpert, or new to Microstock. No answer was given.
Now we see people claiming that SS sales are down. Is it a coincidence?
Please don't say that you don't see a way out of this mess. You were partially to blame and you know it. You also know what the answer is.
Linda


To me it's not a big problem, would I like to see more money paid to contributors for high res images in subscription plans? Yes. Will I stop submitting or opt out if they don't? No.

Why? I fail to see how one person's bad business decisions (Thread starter here) means that subscription plans are bad. Look how much he pays in production costs. Is that typical of the average microstocker? I would say not. Yet many of his groupies follow along on his advice.

Shutterstock alone, pays back what I spend in production costs and alot more, so there is no way I'm going to bash subscription plans. StockXpert has never been better for me, they are the fastest growing site in my experience, even after Subscriptions were introduced.

I am not one of the major players, I do stock part-time which is what the majority of microstockers do, for the love of it, not the greed.

As for SS being down, it's that time of year. It happened last year, and will happen next year. Things ramp up to November and then take a dive for awhile. Let's wait awhile before we press the panick button shall we.

I still think it's hyprocritical to opt out of StockXpert, and not only still submit to Crestock, but to accept a lower subscription payout. That is what the thread starter is doing. Crestock gives a 30% commission (after 100 sales) and a 25 cent subscription payout. If anything he should be complaining about this and not StockXpert, who pays 50% commission and 30 cent subs.

Let's start a movement around getting Crestock up (commission % and subscription payout). I'm all for that. But no one else seems to want to take a stand on that.







We don't submit to Crestock and don't plan to. At the moment there are too many sites, IMHO.
Some of them will surely fail.
To be honest, I'm thinking very hard about going exclusive on IS. I have always been against putting all eggs in one basket, but just now all the other baskets seem to be broken.
Unfortunately a visit to the IS forums reveals many thinking of giving up their exclusivity.
And who's to say they won't start their own subscription plan?
I'm going to take the easy way out, stop thinking and go and take some photos :)
Linda

« Reply #178 on: January 09, 2008, 13:11 »
0
I just did some statistics for the first 8 days in January. Not much to base anything on, but:

SS: down 23% from 2007

All sites combined: up 99% from 2007

DT and IS are each almost as big as SS so far. If I didn't have the vectors at SS, I could as well have closed my account.

khz

« Reply #179 on: January 09, 2008, 13:11 »
0
opt out now ...
Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures (558)
GeoPappas
Smithore (596)
rene
sharpshot (2756)
ldambies
epixx
latex
FlemishDreams.
RTimages
Vonkara
helix7
Travelling-light
Mjp (994)
northflyboy
ason
sorsillo (538)
boatman
Alex
Eco
Rozmaryna (68)
Pixelbrat
Read_My_Rights (277)
vphoto
faber (300)
dbvirago
cmcderm1
boryak
HughStoneIan
digiology
moori
pixart
fauxware
rosendo  (313)
Lukasphoto
aremafoto (2147)
IKOphotos (1842)
Kiya
erwinova
Velvia
DanP68
Jorgeinthewater
digitalfood
nativelight (195-StockXpert & 213-SV)
ljupco (1920)
fotomy
Batman2000
stokfoto
khz

« Reply #180 on: January 09, 2008, 13:16 »
0
I opted out for my own reasons.
Sales suck at StockXpert and they reject 2/3 of what I send them.
Usually for lame reasons for the rejections. I don't even bother checking there to see what got accepted or why they rejected this or that.
Most rejections seem to be for "we dont need this type of image" or something similar, yet the ones that actually sell on the site are the exact same type that they don't need.

As far as both Yuri and Lev go...
Guys, you both are too good to be doing stock! You both have distinct styles and personalities that the commercial world would totally embrace.
If I were to offer advice, I would suggest that both of you start focusing on the big clients directly, if you haven't already.
You have both inspired and spawned many imitators, but you two are both the best at what you do.

Spread your wings my friends! Go get 2 grand for a magazine cover instead of 20 bucks!
Get the real clients giving you real money to do the shoots you are best at! Seek out the clients that will fly you any where in the world because they believe in your vision. The real advertising and publishing world that pays real money for Artists such as yourselves!

Let microstock and stock in general be a hobby or something to do when you retire.

In my opinion, Yuri and Lev, you are too good, you have outgrown microstock and neither of you will truly make what you are worth as Artists if all your energy goes to this niche of the photography world!


« Reply #181 on: January 09, 2008, 15:37 »
0
Let's start a movement around getting Crestock up (commission % and subscription payout). I'm all for that. But no one else seems to want to take a stand on that.


I stopped uploading there because subs sales are so prevailing.  Well, I uploaded my New Year 2008 images there (and wow, got them all accepted!), but then they're very seasonal images (with "2008") so I thought that even subs sales would be neat, and indeed
I sold two.  But unfortunately, is subs prevails, I will only upload there occasionally.


Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #182 on: January 09, 2008, 16:08 »
0
Hi guys,

Just read every one of the posts in this thread. I remember discussing with the StockXpert team whether or not we should include opt-out as a feature. I argued that if we truly believe subscriptions is another opportunity to make the contributors and us money, then we should offer the opt-out because we should have nothing to fear. It's a way of simply being honest with them about our intentions. Everyone agreed.

I think a month later I reported that only a small handful of existing ppd customers actually became subscribers. And of those only a couple were on pace to spend more on credits than subscription. And the average customer is downloading like only 8 or 9 images a day with their subscription.

So basically, most of the subscribers were new customers. And we are still adding many new customers who ppd. I don't have the latest subscriber stats. I will try to look into it, but I cannot imagine subscription is the cause for a noticeable decrease in contributor revenue, especially around the holidays.

We still believe in the subscription model, but we are following this thread with interest.

-Steve

vonkara

« Reply #183 on: January 09, 2008, 16:28 »
0
I agree that subs at StockXpert are not that much an handicap, but I honestly understand that this tread is more about a symbolic move against the subs model.

It's badly one of the only thing we can do for the moment and that's maybe don't have an energetic repercussion, again for now...

« Reply #184 on: January 09, 2008, 17:12 »
0
I would have believed in subscription model, if prices were not  set to cheat the photographers.  $1-$2 per subscriptions dl would have made the list of opting out very short, but it will grow.

vphoto


« Reply #185 on: January 09, 2008, 18:53 »
0
Another idea for vector contributors: ungroup the icon set or object groups and send it to shutterstock as separate files. The basic idea is to obtain a more just pay for our work.

« Reply #186 on: January 09, 2008, 20:55 »
0
I agree that subs at StockXpert are not that much an handicap, but I honestly understand that this tread is more about a symbolic move against the subs model.

Symbolic - partly true.  The general vibe I'm getting though is that contributors are annoyed to no end by subs, but have done nothing to arbitrate between the agency and contributor.  It's like when the hubby leaves the toilet seat up.. happens a few times, it's mildly tolerable, but one night you'll get up to pee in the middle of the night and that seat will be ice cold and the screams will be blood curdling.  This is an issue that has been festering for a while now and it really needs to be addressed?  Right?

What would our solution to subs be?  I'm not convinced I'm against them.  What I'm against is giving away large files for less than a coffee. 

Unfortulately, subs are likely not just a trend - shouldn't we come up with a model we can both profit by?  (Both us and the agency?)  At least DT "rewards" us - if a file becomes popular with the help of subs it is elevated to a higher price point for the regular customer.

How much would it take per sale for us not to feel ripped off?

What size file would we happily give away for nothing, er-um - for 30 cents?

I was at Walmart over Christmas and one of my photos was on a blanket.  I've only had 2 ELs on that photo, and I'm pretty darn positive that the only EL sales in Oct and November were too close to Christmas for that blanket to be printed in China, shipped to Montreal, distributed to Saskatchewan and stocked on Walmart shelves.  Did they buy the right license?   This leads to my biggest fear:  (partly because the blanket was printed in China and I've heard - on this site - that in China everything is pirated - please don't slam me for contributing to that steriotype)

Bad Man gets a 1 month subscription, downloads 750 of incredible high rez photos; puts them on disks and distribute them himself.  750 photos for 200 bucks.   That could turn into 15 discs/categories with 50 high rez photos each on them.  From what I've HEARD, the agencies don't seem to have much desire to help when the rules are broken, either. 


So, getting back to it:  Can we determine a happy middle ground on subs?

« Reply #187 on: January 09, 2008, 20:57 »
0
opt out now ...
Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures (558)
GeoPappas
Smithore (596)
rene
sharpshot (2756)
ldambies
epixx
latex
FlemishDreams.
RTimages
Vonkara
helix7
Travelling-light
Mjp (994)
northflyboy
ason
sorsillo (538)
boatman
Alex
Eco
Rozmaryna (68)
Pixelbrat
Read_My_Rights (277)
vphoto
faber (300)
dbvirago
cmcderm1
boryak
HughStoneIan
digiology
moori
pixart
fauxware
rosendo  (313)
Lukasphoto
aremafoto (2147)
IKOphotos (1842)
Kiya
erwinova
Velvia
DanP68
Jorgeinthewater
digitalfood
nativelight (195-StockXpert & 213-SV)
ljupco (1920)
fotomy
Batman2000
stokfoto
khz
techno (2057)

« Reply #188 on: January 09, 2008, 21:06 »
0
opt out now ...
Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures (558)
GeoPappas
Smithore (596)
rene
sharpshot (2756)
ldambies
epixx
latex
FlemishDreams.
RTimages
Vonkara
helix7
Travelling-light
Mjp (994)
northflyboy
ason
sorsillo (538)
boatman
Alex
Eco
Rozmaryna (68)
Pixelbrat
Read_My_Rights (277)
vphoto
faber (300)
dbvirago
cmcderm1
boryak
HughStoneIan
digiology
moori
pixart
fauxware
rosendo  (313)
Lukasphoto
aremafoto (2147)
IKOphotos (1842)
Kiya
erwinova
Velvia
DanP68
Jorgeinthewater
digitalfood
nativelight (195-StockXpert & 213-SV)
ljupco (1920)
fotomy
Batman2000
stokfoto
khz
techno (2057)
Aurelio (2426)
« Last Edit: January 09, 2008, 21:30 by Aurelio »

« Reply #189 on: January 09, 2008, 21:54 »
0
Hi guys,

Just read every one of the posts in this thread. I remember discussing with the StockXpert team whether or not we should include opt-out as a feature. I argued that if we truly believe subscriptions is another opportunity to make the contributors and us money, then we should offer the opt-out because we should have nothing to fear. It's a way of simply being honest with them about our intentions. Everyone agreed.

I think a month later I reported that only a small handful of existing ppd customers actually became subscribers. And of those only a couple were on pace to spend more on credits than subscription. And the average customer is downloading like only 8 or 9 images a day with their subscription.

So basically, most of the subscribers were new customers. And we are still adding many new customers who ppd. I don't have the latest subscriber stats. I will try to look into it, but I cannot imagine subscription is the cause for a noticeable decrease in contributor revenue, especially around the holidays.

We still believe in the subscription model, but we are following this thread with interest.

-Steve

Steve,
The fact is: for anyone buying a subscription, the alternative is to buy at full microstock price. Where the customers are coming from is irrelevant. If they come from a non-subscription scheme somewhere else, must of us lose, since we are represented at all the major sites anyway, if they come from another subscription scheme, I suppose the reason is something like: a year or two subscription at SS give them the opportunity to DL most of what is of interest there. By moving on to the next major subscription agency (StockXpert or DT), they can download whatever is of interest there as well, until they have built a decent image bank themselves.

Most of them will obviously have further needs in the future, but that need will be reduced, which affects our, and your, income potential. What subscription is, is giving away future sales at a heavily discounted price.

« Reply #190 on: January 10, 2008, 00:13 »
0
...I think a month later I reported that only a small handful of existing ppd customers actually became subscribers. And of those only a couple were on pace to spend more on credits than subscription. And the average customer is downloading like only 8 or 9 images a day with their subscription.

We get 50% commission for ppd, what are we getting for subscription sales?  It is hard selling images for 30 cents when I could get $5 with a ppd.

grp_photo

« Reply #191 on: January 10, 2008, 00:19 »
0


Most of them will obviously have further needs in the future, but that need will be reduced, which affects our, and your, income potential. What subscription is, is giving away future sales at a heavily discounted price.
Totally agree on this i really don't understand why it's so hard for some people to recognize this problem.


nruboc

« Reply #192 on: January 10, 2008, 00:35 »
0
Most of them will obviously have further needs in the future, but that need will be reduced, which affects our, and your, income potential. What subscription is, is giving away future sales at a heavily discounted price.

Then please explain to us why you still have your work on ShutterStock. Sounds to me like your saying one thing, but doing another..hmmmm

« Reply #193 on: January 10, 2008, 00:49 »
0
And the average customer is downloading like only 8 or 9 images a day with their subscription.

-Steve

That's around 3,000 images per year, or 9,000 in 3 years. As a graphic designer, I have no problems composing a portfolio that will cover 70-80% of my needs for the next 5-10 years, possibly longer, with a 9,000 image portfolio. I would obviously invoice my clients $10-50 per image, explaining to them the effort the photographer had to invest to take the photo in question, so that I can make a healthy profit on them, while the photographer is left with his $0.30 for the effort.

« Reply #194 on: January 10, 2008, 00:56 »
0
Most of them will obviously have further needs in the future, but that need will be reduced, which affects our, and your, income potential. What subscription is, is giving away future sales at a heavily discounted price.

Then please explain to us why you still have your work on ShutterStock. Sounds to me like your saying one thing, but doing another..hmmmm

You are right, and that is one of my considerations right now. Somewhere further up this thread, I state the need to take a short term loss to improve long term earnings. I've always been skeptical to subs, but with the falling sales at SS, it has become increasingly clear.

The dilemma for me, is that nothing changes if only one photographer withdraws his portfolio. But if several act together, we may see some changes from the agencies.

SS has been a special case, being so dominant in the subs market. With increasing competition from other agencies, we will see sales at SS decreasing further, and the real nature of subs will become apparent: it's microstock with the lowest pay possible. Although some of the sales at IS generate a lower profit, those are low-res sales. With subscriptions, we always get the lowest rate. Hasselblad or camera phone: same pay.

nruboc

« Reply #195 on: January 10, 2008, 01:12 »
0

You are right, and that is one of my considerations right now. Somewhere further up this thread, I state the need to take a short term loss to improve long term earnings. I've always been skeptical to subs, but with the falling sales at SS, it has become increasingly clear.

The dilemma for me, is that nothing changes if only one photographer withdraws his portfolio. But if several act together, we may see some changes from the agencies.

SS has been a special case, being so dominant in the subs market. With increasing competition from other agencies, we will see sales at SS decreasing further, and the real nature of subs will become apparent: it's microstock with the lowest pay possible. Although some of the sales at IS generate a lower profit, those are low-res sales. With subscriptions, we always get the lowest rate. Hasselblad or camera phone: same pay.

That's the whole point with Microstock, isn't it? You don't need a Hasselblad, thank god! Those who are buying Hasselblad's and spending insane money at producing their images, end up exactly in this thread, complaining that they're not making enough to cover their expenses.

And as a web designer, I have a different experience than you.  I did purchase several subscriptions for the purpose of building an image library,  and I maxed out my downloads during the subscription period. However, in my client projects it is very  rare that I can find one in my library that fits the purpose I need. The problem is that it is almost impossible to anticipate future need. Also, many of the picures with technology and styles are dated pretty quickly. Not to mention that you need a content management system to even search and find the ones I need in my own library. I still find myself going back to purchase credits to get the pictures I need most of the time, and the ones in my library are almost all unused. Which represents free money to those who I downloaded from, because there's no way I would have downloaded 1/100th the number I did in a credits based system.

This is why I will always be a believer in the subscription model. Is there room for improvement with this model, sure, but the concept is beneficial for us photographers, IMO.






« Reply #196 on: January 10, 2008, 02:22 »
0
That's the whole point with Microstock, isn't it? You don't need a Hasselblad, thank god!
you are right but that doesn't mean we don't need to invest in equipment.and as you know decent equipment (not necessarily  Hassy) still cost  a lot

nruboc

« Reply #197 on: January 10, 2008, 02:49 »
0
That's the whole point with Microstock, isn't it? You don't need a Hasselblad, thank god!
you are right but that doesn't mean we don't need to invest in equipment.and as you know decent equipment (not necessarily  Hassy) still cost  a lot


I'm not saying that at all, I've invested about $6,000 in equipment which is  more than decent - 5D with L lenses, and ShutterStock has covered that easily alone in the last few months. But I'm  suppose to be against subscription sites? I don't see why. My secret, ok, don't tell anyone, but I don't spend a cent on location shoots, or professional models, or people to edit my photos. Why, because I understand that high production shots don't belong on the micros.






« Reply #198 on: January 10, 2008, 03:38 »
0
But I'm  suppose to be against subscription sites? I don't see why.

nruboc:

Greed seems to be blinding your judgment.  Just because you are making money from subscriptions doesn't make them good.

Subscriptions are just plain bad business for the artist.

1. Deep Discounts

First, in the business world, deep discounts are normally given to the best customers.  Giving a deep discount (up to 35% off or more from the normal price) is understandable.  But subscriptions go much, much deeper than that.

The approximate cost and royalty for a maximum size image is as follows at the top sites:

IS: $20 ($4)
DT: $8 ($4)
StockXpert: $10 ($5)
FT: $5 ($1.50)

So an artist will receive between $1.50 and $5 for a maximum size image from the largest sites.

If a customer buys lots of images, then a discount should be given.  Giving discounts to large customers is good business.  But most sites already have discounts for purchasing large token packages.  For example, on IS if you buy 1500 credits, then you will receive a 34% discount.  On DT, if you buy over 150 credits, then you will receive a 25% discount.  On StockXpert, if you buy 500 credits, then you will receive a 20% discount.

But subscriptions go above and beyond these deep discounts.  Almost to the point of giving away our images.

For example, on DT, a submitter receives 0.30 for a subscription.  That is a 93% discount from the normal royalty (of $8 for a maximum size image with over 100 sales).  On StockXpert, a submitter receives 0.30  for a subscription.  That is a 97% discount from the normal royalty (of $10 for an XXL image).

2. Macro Buyers

Second, the buyers that are purchasing subscription packages are normally the large agencies that need lots and lots of images.  These are the agencies that used to purchase macrostock images for $100s (if not $1,000s) of dollars apiece.  These are the customers that could actually afford to purchase images individually (if needed).  According to the financial news, this is a multi-billion dollar industry.  They have deep pockets.  But yet, they now want to offer them even deeper discounts (over 95% off) on images that are already cheap.  It makes no sense.

IMO, it is easy to see why people are upset with subscriptions.  They benefit the buyer and agency, but hurt the artist and devalue their work.

« Reply #199 on: January 10, 2008, 04:11 »
0
why people are upset with subscriptions (summary from posters):

1. subscription sales are much more destructive for the business as a whole, than microstock in general. Subscriptions enable customers to build large image archives that reduces the need to download photos in the future and thus our (photographers) profit potential.

2. average subscribers only use about 15 - 30% of the full potential of their membership. This means that most pictures in a subscription sell at a 5-6USD price-point in average, giving us (photographers) about 25 cents in commission. A bottom-line commission of about 5 percent. Even if I was totally wrong and every subscriber actually downloaded the double of what I have heard, the commission would still only be 10%.

3. Same price at all size, even 16mp the price same as 1.3mp?

4. Deep Discounts
First, in the business world, deep discounts are normally given to the best customers.  Giving a deep discount (up to 35% off or more from the normal price) is understandable.  But subscriptions go much, much deeper than that.

The approximate cost and royalty for a maximum size image is as follows at the top sites:

IS: $20 ($4)
DT: $8 ($4)
StockXpert: $10 ($5)
FT: $5 ($1.50)

So an artist will receive between $1.50 and $5 for a maximum size image from the largest sites.

If a customer buys lots of images, then a discount should be given.  Giving discounts to large customers is good business.  But most sites already have discounts for purchasing large token packages.  For example, on IS if you buy 1500 credits, then you will receive a 34% discount.  On DT, if you buy over 150 credits, then you will receive a 25% discount.  On StockXpert, if you buy 500 credits, then you will receive a 20% discount.

But subscriptions go above and beyond these deep discounts.  Almost to the point of giving away our images.

For example, on DT, a submitter receives 0.30 for a subscription.  That is a 93% discount from the normal royalty (of $8 for a maximum size image with over 100 sales).  On StockXpert, a submitter receives 0.30  for a subscription.  That is a 97% discount from the normal royalty (of $10 for an XXL image).

5. Macro Buyers
Second, the buyers that are purchasing subscription packages are normally the large agencies that need lots and lots of images.  These are the agencies that used to purchase macrostock images for $100s (if not $1,000s) of dollars apiece.  These are the customers that could actually afford to purchase images individually (if needed).  According to the financial news, this is a multi-billion dollar industry.  They have deep pockets.  But yet, they now want to offer them even deeper discounts (over 95% off) on images that are already cheap.  It makes no sense


Anything else?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
14 Replies
5465 Views
Last post June 05, 2008, 14:00
by sharpshot
19 Replies
6169 Views
Last post February 17, 2012, 10:51
by luissantos84
15 Replies
6474 Views
Last post August 14, 2012, 00:30
by Microbius
40 Replies
17233 Views
Last post June 19, 2019, 01:32
by georgep7
17 Replies
21560 Views
Last post June 28, 2019, 00:17
by Clair Voyant

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors