Author Topic: Cheapest price for your stock images (Read 3816 times)

Will · « **on:** May 23, 2014, 15:37 »

Help for buyers to find the cheapest price for your images... made easy!

http://microstock.photos/

Guess my post was too subtle, had to add a couple of frown emoticons so more visually inclined people will catch my drift.

marthamarks · « **Reply #1 on:** May 23, 2014, 15:47 »

Quote from: Will on May 23, 2014, 15:37

Help for buyers to find the cheapest price for your images... made easy!

http://microstock.photos/

So... please explain why we photographers would want to use that service?

EmberMike · « **Reply #2 on:** May 23, 2014, 15:47 »

I guess it would be great for buyers if it worked. The results are wacky. On one of my images it says that a buyer will need to spend $250.00 minimum to get an image from DT. Most of my images show up as being available at 2 or 3 agencies, when they're available at most of the available options on the list.

Seems horribly broken to me.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #3 on:** May 23, 2014, 16:06 »

I'd echo the broken part.

I did find a few images (none of mine) where more than one agency showed up in the search.

I also saw the nutso pricing - not just the $250 minimum spend at DT but the price for a brand new image (i.e. it was just uploaded and thus is level 1) is shown as if you bought the smallest credit package - where the minimum spend is $14.99.

As a buyer, I'd want to see all the agencies as the sizes differ (for the few I found that did offer more than one agency that was shown, which was helpful) - medium isn't the same everywhere.

They aren't really doing a good price comparison either. For example, with PhotoDune, you can only get the $1 for an extra small price if you are paying from deposited cash - minimum $20. If you pay cash it's $3. None of that is listed in the minimum spend.

If this is going to work for buyers, it'll need to be accurate. Not saying that's an easy task given the complex tangle of pricing options out there, but this right now isn't ready for prime time IMO

pancaketom · « **Reply #4 on:** May 23, 2014, 16:15 »

I wonder if its sole purpose is for referral links and they don't really care if it is accurate. Maybe they get a worse referral payment from DT so they jack up the minimum buy to send people somewhere they get a bigger cut? I can't see them putting it in, but it would be nice if they also listed what the artist got from the sale.

Will · « **Reply #5 on:** May 23, 2014, 16:20 »

Quote from: marthamarks on May 23, 2014, 15:47

Quote from: Will on May 23, 2014, 15:37
Help for buyers to find the cheapest price for your images... made easy!

http://microstock.photos/

So... please explain why we photographers would want to use that service?

Well... it simply shows that it will become easier over time for buyers to identify the cheapest available deal and by extension, usually the least return for the photographer. For example my work mostly shows up as Photodune or Canstock being the cheapest. I'll now re-examine the royalty on those sites and decide if I still want to upload to them. They can't sell at rock bottom prices what they don't have!

It is still in Beta version so the search and other functions will probably improve over time.

Again, for me it just means submitting new files only to the best fair trade options available.

EmberMike · « **Reply #6 on:** May 23, 2014, 17:22 »

Quote from: Will on May 23, 2014, 16:20

Well... it simply shows that it will become easier over time for buyers to identify the cheapest available deal and by extension, usually the least return for the photographer...

Sites like this have been around for years. They generally aren't very effective for buyers and don't do us any harm. I wouldn't worry about it.

r2d2 · « **Reply #7 on:** May 23, 2014, 17:39 »

Yes in times of subscrition plans these sites are no problem cause the buyers can not switch like they want on the agencys. But in days of DPC such image searchengines are usefull for buyers.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #8 on:** May 23, 2014, 17:57 »

Looking at the referral links, most are numbers or strings of numbers and letters, but for two agencies (PhotoDune and 123rf) it's a user name: Pressmaster

The contact information on this site is not for Dmitriy Shironosov (pressmaster) but I would have to assume it's his project.

The domain record is privacy protected

http://whois.domaintools.com/microstock.photos

So is this just a way to try and generate some referral income for a big contributor??

fotorob · « **Reply #9 on:** May 24, 2014, 08:51 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on May 23, 2014, 17:57

Looking at the referral links, most are numbers or strings of numbers and letters, but for two agencies (PhotoDune and 123rf) it's a user name: Pressmaster

Nice find.

I was wondering why for many searches Pressfoto turned up as the number 1 agency.