MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Are things going well in microstock?  (Read 117539 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #200 on: January 10, 2008, 06:26 »
0
I wasn't against subscriptions before reading this thread but it has really changed my mind.

It does seem that we are not getting a good deal at the moment.  Perhaps if we were given 50% of the commission on subscriptions it wouldn't be so bad but it seems we get a lot less than that.

We can see how much commission we are receiving from the per download sites, I would like to see these figures for the subscription sites.

istock gets away with paying low commission because it has a big volume of sales and it is an incentive to go exclusive.  Other sites pay a higher commission because they have lower sales.  With subscriptions, the smaller sites with much lower sales are giving us a similar commission to shutterstock.  This doesn't seem right.

« Last Edit: January 10, 2008, 06:27 by sharpshot »


« Reply #201 on: January 10, 2008, 07:17 »
0
"With subscriptions, the smaller sites with much lower sales are giving us a similar commission to shutterstock.  This doesn't seem right."

that is why i am thinking of stopping uploading to 123rf. time of uploading to such sites is better spend taking additional pictures and sending them to big 5.

vphoto

nruboc

« Reply #202 on: January 10, 2008, 14:23 »
0
But I'm  suppose to be against subscription sites? I don't see why.

nruboc:

Greed seems to be blinding your judgment. 

Kind of ironical don't you think. Here you are accusing me of greed, when I'm the one who's happy with .30 subscription commission, and your the one arguing for more, more, more.

A little like your hyprocritical friends who bash and complain about subscription plans yet are still submitting to them...man the irony is comical.





« Reply #203 on: January 10, 2008, 14:34 »
0
But I'm  suppose to be against subscription sites? I don't see why.

nruboc:

Greed seems to be blinding your judgment. 

Kind of ironical don't you think. Here you are accusing me of greed, when I'm the one who's happy with .30 subscription commission, and your the one arguing for more, more, more.

A little like your hyprocritical friends who bash and complain about subscription plans yet are still submitting to them...man the irony is comical.


forgive me but your remarks seems to me more like a from a buyers point of view and it is perfectly understandable they'd  willing to pay less. you might be  a also a contributer right now but  I got the impression you wouldn't mind if micro stock is just over now.
as for greed  matter I don't think it can be considered as greed  to request what you deserve. there are many people doing microstock as hobby but also some serious amount o people considering it a serious business which is why they are so concerned about the future of  it. IMHO

« Reply #204 on: January 10, 2008, 14:47 »
0
and one more  think I am not personally against a fairer  sub model but the way it works now doesn't seem to be the best model.and only ones who benefits from it seem to be the buyers.

« Reply #205 on: January 10, 2008, 15:52 »
0
Well buyers will benefit in any case. Difference between 1 and 2$ is irrelevant if they want to buy images which are 99% ready for some kind of advertisement (they only need to add customer logo or some words on it).

Well you received a lot of attention on Dizajnzona forums.

helix7

« Reply #206 on: January 10, 2008, 16:16 »
0
...A little like your hyprocritical friends who bash and complain about subscription plans yet are still submitting to them...man the irony is comical.

I think this whole thread has taken a wrong turn somewhere. StockXpert became the unfair recipient of some frustration simply for doing the right thing and offerring an opt-out. I think StockXpert is doing everything right, and they are one of the best in the business.

I'll admit it, I'm regretting my name being on that list a bit. It's a jab at StockXpert, and as said above it is undeserved. However, I wouldn't say that this whole thread is just a bunch of hypocritical chatter. The problem with subscriptions is very real, and the simple fact that SS takes such a huge cut of each image sold is worthy of some discussion.

« Reply #207 on: January 10, 2008, 16:25 »
0


I think this whole thread has taken a wrong turn somewhere. StockXpert became the unfair recipient of some frustration simply for doing the right thing and offerring an opt-out. I think StockXpert is doing everything right, and they are one of the best in the business.



[/quote]


Agreed

« Reply #208 on: January 10, 2008, 17:28 »
0
helix7 and fotografer I agree but this thread shouldn't look like this I assume like me none of the posters have anything against StockXpert.

« Reply #209 on: January 10, 2008, 17:36 »
0
I have nothing against StockXpert.  I hope they one day become as big as istock.  I am still with SS because they have lots of sales.  SS doesn't have a pay per download option, so I can upload lower resolution images there.

At the moment, I don't see the point in selling my images for 30 cents on StockXpert.  Perhaps if they increased the price, I might reconsider.

nruboc

« Reply #210 on: January 10, 2008, 17:44 »
0
...A little like your hyprocritical friends who bash and complain about subscription plans yet are still submitting to them...man the irony is comical.

I think this whole thread has taken a wrong turn somewhere. StockXpert became the unfair recipient of some frustration simply for doing the right thing and offerring an opt-out. I think StockXpert is doing everything right, and they are one of the best in the business.

I'll admit it, I'm regretting my name being on that list a bit. It's a jab at StockXpert, and as said above it is undeserved. However, I wouldn't say that this whole thread is just a bunch of hypocritical chatter. The problem with subscriptions is very real, and the simple fact that SS takes such a huge cut of each image sold is worthy of some discussion.


I'm not saying the whole thread is hyprocritical chatter, there's been some good suggestions, and I've pointed them out. I really like the idea of having the subscriptions only at a medium sized resolution, and if they want higher resolutions, they pay more for a higher "enhanced subscription" plan and the photographers get paid more for these downloads. That to me sounds like a darn good idea, props to whoever mentioned it. I'm not sure if there's anyone who would disagree with this, if so, speak up.

So what would it take to get the agencies to implement something like this? You've already shown your ability to get alot of the major players to group together around a purpose in this thread (although the original purpose was misplaced imo). Why not group up and pressure all the subscription sites (not just pick on one site) to implement it, or something similar.

Now if your totally against subscriptions in general, then I hate to say it, but you're out of luck, they aren't going away. Let's work together to make them better, that I'm all for.






« Reply #211 on: January 10, 2008, 18:42 »
0
I am 100% in agreement with what sharpshot said in the last post. Most of us have nothing personal with StockXpert and want it to grow, not at our expense, though.

vphoto

« Reply #212 on: January 10, 2008, 18:58 »
0
Stockxpert is  my favorite  for a few reasons. Easy upload, fast review,good sales etc..., but I didn't like when they started with subscription. If I put opt out I thought thats not gonna change anything, but if many of us do the same thing thats will be different. At least StockXpert is fair enough to have option out, I would like to see same opt out on Dreamstime since i have a lot of subscription sales there lately.

« Reply #213 on: January 10, 2008, 19:29 »
0
StockXpert is doing the right thing. Subs will not disappear, but I want to choose if my images are going to be a part of it or not. FP is the ideal solution: no subs, individual pricing, 70% cut and the accept editorial images. SV is somewhere in between.

The ideal target would be if we could persuade agencies like DT and 123 to offer an opt out possibility as well.

« Reply #214 on: January 10, 2008, 19:38 »
0
I pretty much like what I have on StockXpert, but some of the stuff that I have on other sites... the stuff from my early days... oh, I'd be happy to give away for 30 cents.  A "per photo" option would be very nice.  I'm sure in a couple years I won't be so attached to my current photos and would happy to opt them in one at a time to a subscription.  Just, please let me earn a little from them first.

« Reply #215 on: January 10, 2008, 23:08 »
0
StockXpert has been receiving the bashing since they are the latest in getting into the subscription model, after being very very succesful in the credits model.  How can they justify giving away my images for 0.30 cents when the same day the same images earned the maximum...?  They (despite being nice and everything) deserve some bashing.  This is wrong.

Micros are not wrong setting affordable low prices for buyers.  The problem is that those prices are too low for what they are demanding from photographers.  They incentivate the buying of better and bigger equipment promising higher returns for XXL and upper sizes images, and then give us the cold shower of introducing subscriptions and giving away those images for pennies. 

Then, what will follow?  I would hate to see Fotolia, where I have a lot of large size sales, go the same way pressured because about everybody else went subscription.


josh_crestock

« Reply #216 on: January 11, 2008, 01:51 »
0
Quote
I really like the idea of having the subscriptions only at a medium sized resolution, and if they want higher resolutions, they pay more for a higher "enhanced subscription" plan and the photographers get paid more for these downloads. That to me sounds like a darn good idea, props to whoever mentioned it. I'm not sure if there's anyone who would disagree with this, if so, speak up.

This seems to make good sense. I want to make sure this gets discussed further for possible implementation @ Crestock.

I agree that to keep microstock a sustainable industry, the subscription model needs to be looked at, for possible changes to it.

BTW, we had a record day of non-subscription sales yesterday. Hope those of you submitting to Crestock felt that.

Regards,

Josh Hodge
The Crestock Team


« Reply #217 on: January 11, 2008, 02:12 »
0
Hi Josh

Good to see that stock sites are actually taking note of discussions like this. Maybe we can make a difference after all. I am surprised that there are still non-subscription sales on Crestock. While I have experienced a sharp increase in downloads on Crestock lately they were all subscription sales and at 0.25c a download I don't feel too exited about that.  I am seriously reconsidering my continued involvement with sites that offer subscriptions. I will either stop uploading or downsize my images drastically. Limiting the size of images available for subscription downloads may be a very practical compromise.  In this way we don't give away our high res images for pennies and still have the opportunity to make a decent sale at a more realistic price for our high res images.

« Reply #218 on: January 11, 2008, 03:25 »
0
Quote
I really like the idea of having the subscriptions only at a medium sized resolution, and if they want higher resolutions, they pay more for a higher "enhanced subscription" plan and the photographers get paid more for these downloads. That to me sounds like a darn good idea, props to whoever mentioned it. I'm not sure if there's anyone who would disagree with this, if so, speak up.

This seems to make good sense. I want to make sure this gets discussed further for possible implementation @ Crestock.

I agree that to keep microstock a sustainable industry, the subscription model needs to be looked at, for possible changes to it.

BTW, we had a record day of non-subscription sales yesterday. Hope those of you submitting to Crestock felt that.

Regards,

Josh Hodge
The Crestock Team

I like crestock and the sales are much better than I had expected but with over 100 sales, I average 35 cents a sale.  This is too small.  With the big istock raise in prices, I would like to see the other sites raising their prices.  It doesn't seem to of slowed down istock.  I can see a lot of people going exclusive there if the other sites don't raise their prices soon.

« Reply #219 on: January 11, 2008, 03:36 »
0
With the big istock raise in prices, I would like to see the other sites raising their prices.  It doesn't seem to of slowed down istock.  I can see a lot of people going exclusive there if the other sites don't raise their prices soon.

A very strong reason for the other agencies.

« Reply #220 on: January 11, 2008, 04:50 »
0
Lee wrote a blogpost about this thread in www.microstockdiaries.com. He has some good points, but I do not agree on everything. Yes for many Shutterstock is still the top earner, But the loudest voices and amazement over the earnings you can achieve at SS you hear from those who are new to SS and we know why, because SS favours new contributers. IF it were not for new contributers I doubt that SS to right would be at the top. And true there are many for those SS is still the highest earner after a longer period of time. However, for me and I believe for many others it is not so anymore. SS stagnates for me, while I have strong growth from month to month in average on other agencies. How come? The half-life of my files at SS in general seems to be shorter than elsewhere. Would I abondon SS? No, but I will also give them just what is required, not more. That is in this case in my opinion a good business descision. It will not affect my sales, but will give the customer what they payed for. Lower quality to lower prices.

So letting the agencies know that I downsize with many other photographers is something I am in favour of, it is not punishment from my point of view but a business descision.
 Combined voices are louder than single ones. And voicing your opinion is better than saying nothing. What can be done I want do.

What about StockXpert? StockXpert is I agree probably the agenciy who listens most to its contributers. They seem to care most about there photographers and I totally appreciate that. This is a model more agencies should adopt. As was pointed out this is not against StockXpert. But opting out has here also a lot to do with business descisions too. If there are 5 subscribers who want to download my file but cannot do so to subscription prices, at least one might be convinced to download a medium file, which makes up for the missed subscription sales. Even if I miss a few 30 cent sales I honestly would not mind. The ratio is so low it will not make a dent in my earnings.
And by putting my name on the list I voice my opinion. Honestly I do not think StockXpert would loose much either. In the long run I am the opinion if there will be a change throught the industry in the subscription model lets say to make only low resultion files available for subscription, it will benefit us and the agencies.

Do the agencies listen? Is this entirely pointless? No it is not, Steve and Josh are listening, I very much appreciate it. There were some really good suggestions, like limiting the filsize for subscription. This is actually my favourite suggestion and I am allready doing it at SS, because I can.
For me it is not about fairness, not to build a union, but to make good business descisions and voice my opinion.
Again the agencies are not our enemies, they are our friends, they provide possibilities so we are able to make money from photography. We should not work against each other but with each other. And with Steve and Josh listening to us there is a good starting point.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2008, 04:55 by Freezingpictures »

DanP68

« Reply #221 on: January 11, 2008, 06:05 »
0
I don't think Shutterstock favors new contributors.  It clearly favors new images.  Roughly 8.5 out of every 10 images downloaded from my portfolio are new images, and this is consistently true for me.  So it stands to reason that any new contributor, once they upload an existing portfolio, is going to do particularly well at Shutterstock.

As I have found however, I really cannot grow earnings.  I get a minor rise over time due to a larger number of images online, but the bulk of the DL's continue to be new images.  Increasing the port by 50% might yield a 5% rise in long term earnings, by my estimates at least.

It's really like clockwork.  I knew all I had to do was upload about 20 new images each week for the last 2 weeks, and I would set a new BDE.  So I decided to test it out.  And yesterday, I set a new BDE.  Totally predictable.  Those images won't be downloaded anymore 2 months from now, except for once in a great while.  Shutterstock will make you some good money, but it is in no way an investment.

« Reply #222 on: January 11, 2008, 06:28 »
0
Since DT allowed subscription I have stopped uploading big size images and vectors there. The difference in price between subscription and normal price is galling me. IStock has low prices as well, but at least I get more money for bigger file sizes and more complex vectors there.
Shutterstock- I just dont upload my best photos there any more. They get the second rate images, the best images go to midstock. Besides even with more uploads I get no increase I sales at SS, which together with the low price is disencouraging.

lisafx

« Reply #223 on: January 11, 2008, 10:46 »
0

It's really like clockwork.  I knew all I had to do was upload about 20 new images each week for the last 2 weeks, and I would set a new BDE.  So I decided to test it out.  And yesterday, I set a new BDE.  Totally predictable.  Those images won't be downloaded anymore 2 months from now, except for once in a great while.  Shutterstock will make you some good money, but it is in no way an investment.

Dan, I don't see how predictability is a bad thing.  Yes, Shutterstock is predictable and yes, it leans toward newer images,  but my experience there is that once people are pulled into your portfolio by the new images, they often browse and buy older ones too.   I find it very reassuring to know that if I work hard and upload consistently I will be consistently rewarded on Shutterstock.

Contrasting that to some other sites where new images can sit totally unnoticed for weeks until they drop off the face of the map, I think I prefer Shutterstock's system.

« Reply #224 on: January 11, 2008, 11:26 »
0
I agree with lizafx.  that is how i feel SS works.

vphoto


 

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
6476 Views
Last post August 14, 2012, 00:30
by Microbius
40 Replies
17236 Views
Last post June 19, 2019, 01:32
by georgep7
17 Replies
21562 Views
Last post June 28, 2019, 00:17
by Clair Voyant

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors