Why should I contribute to Onepixel ?

More income for Onepixel Contributors
Onepixel only sources content from a much lower number of stock contributors than other platforms, which is why the extra income generated by each Onepixel Contributor will be significantly higher.

Contributors who are approved early receive better indexation and promotion in the collection.

Industry standard commissions - 35%

They are new but they already treat stockers like tools with 0 IQ. They must think they are extremely smart. Tossers indeed...

Just for those who missed the earlier discussion on this "agency"

http://www.microstockgroup.com/microstock-news/onepixel-stock-new-agencyhelp/msg517299/#msg517299

$1 for a full size image. It's even worse than the Dollar Photo Club. Tossers

I hoped that it was 1 pixel for 1 $

So they want premium contributors, but instead of premium prices or at least regular ones, they are racing to the bottom. That's double devaluation. Congratulations to their team for such a brilliant idea I guess.

I am not sure I see what is wrong with this agency. SS pays me 38 cents a sell. This company pays 35 cents a sale. I highly doubt they will sell the numbers of SS but the pay per image is nearly the same. I know SS has extended sales but those have all but gone away for me. Just my thoughts.

Jacoblund you may be correct . I do know when a customer buys your image that customer will never buy that image again , anywhere. I have always wondered and maybe you have numbers on this. How much do people shop around for image prices. I know for myself when I am looking for ideas and inspiration on sites I get very bored and lose interest fast at looking at pages and pages of images. Do buyers do the same, I am guessing they do. We all want instant gratification. That is why Amazon works so well. Find your item and leave, sometimes price high or low is not a factor?

Quote from: mj007 on November 07, 2018, 11:06

I am not sure I see what is wrong with this agency. SS pays me 38 cents a sell. This company pays 35 cents a sale. I highly doubt they will sell the numbers of SS but the pay per image is nearly the same. I know SS has extended sales but those have all but gone away for me. Just my thoughts.

1. 38 cents is the least you'll ever get paid at Shutterstock. 35 cents is the highest you'll ever get paid at OnePixel.
2. When you have a 38 cents sale at SS, clients have a subscription which leads to more sales for you and other contributors.
3. It's a huge devaluation of stock photos!

In my opinion not a sustainable way to push this industry forward. It ensures that photographers get paid close to nothing for their work, for their crew, models, location, gear, etc.

Not so.
"$26.25 (or �26.25) when their content is licensed for $75 (or for �75) with an Extended License."
That's more than most extended licenses at Shutterstock.

So they do pay more than 35cents an image. About the same as SS. Thanks,

It's worse than Dollar Photo Club, they paid $40 for extended licenses.

I am not sure I see what is wrong with this agency. SS pays me 38 cents a sell. This company pays 35 cents a sale. I highly doubt they will sell the numbers of SS but the pay per image is nearly the same. ...

The amount of money you receive is a lousy way to compare two business transactions to see which one is better - it omits a bunch of factors that may make a huge difference to you over time. A money difference.

First, you need to be sure the same rights are being sold for the two compared amounts - more rights should result in higher income for you.

Second, you need to look at the overall deal for the buyer in both cases. If a buyer pays $5 in one case and $499 in the other and you get 38 cents for each, you got a much worse deal in the second example. It's highly likely (and it was this way before microstock) that in a business that charges buyers $499 to license an image that you'll see overall lower numbers of images licensed. The market will be smaller at those high prices.

Third, what volume commitment, if any, comes with a particular price. If two buyers pay $1 to license an image at different agencies, it matters - to contributors - whether their $1 price came with no commitments at all or only as part of a volume deal. If the buyer can just buy a single image for $1 (and you get 38 cents), you're much worse off than if that price only occurs if they commit to buy a true monthly subscription (i.e. a use-it-or-lose-it deal) of 250 images. While it may be someone else's images that get licensed this month, over many months, the fact that the buyer only gets a deal if they're a volume purchaser benefits the contributor community (excluding the spammy, schlocky, repetitive portfolios, but that's OK as they deserve to be ignored).

Fourth, how many different entities are getting a share of the buyer's money - just you and the agency, or you, a distributor or partner, plus the agency. In an era of low price deals, adding in more entities to those taking a share makes it hard for the business to succeed (and if an agency fails, all your work uploading their is wasted even if you get paid before they go belly up). IMO distributor arrangements are almost always lousy deals for the contributor, especially from any smaller/newer agencies

Understanding who benefits and who is shortchanged by the various agency arrangements is important if you plan to build a portfolio and continue to sell it for a few years. Top tip: if an agency email says they have "exciting news", you're about to get hosed

To me the mechanics are pretty simple.

Let's say you choose to support OnePixel. OnePixel gets more content to sell -> Which can lead to more customers -> Which can lead to a bigger market share.

Now after a while competitors will have to fight back for that market share. So what do they do? They lower their prices. Agencies are not going to take that loss - so they lower contributor commissions.

Who looses? We do.

Only way we win (or at least maintain status quo) is by not allowing price dumping like that by simply not letting them sell our content.

On a side note: Yes 38 cents from a sub sale at Shutterstock might not be much - but more than 60% of our revenue from SS comes from enhanced licenses, on demand, or single sales.

sorry, misread something

The name of the game get played only between 3 agencies in still images and vectors, and 4/5 in the footage department. Everything else is noise and wasting time. Trust me with more that half a million $ net revenue in the last 8 years I know what I am talking about........The small agencies are really no competition for the big ones. Every second you loose with one of them you are loosing precious time that would bring you larger profits if you spent that times on the big boys.

Quote from: jacoblund on November 08, 2018, 03:48

To me the mechanics are pretty simple.

Let's say you choose to support OnePixel. OnePixel gets more content to sell -> Which can lead to more customers -> Which can lead to a bigger market share.

Now after a while competitors will have to fight back for that market share. So what do they do? They lower their prices. Agencies are not going to take that loss - so they lower contributor commissions.

Who looses? We do.

Only way we win (or at least maintain status quo) is by not allowing price dumping like that by simply not letting them sell our content.

On a side note: Yes 38 cents from a sub sale at Shutterstock might not be much - but more than 60% of our revenue from SS comes from enhanced licenses, on demand, or single sales.

There is more than one market even within agencies, they compete at all levels. The agencies are not the problem, they are not our competitors, contributors are, and there is no getting around the fact that they will hunt out every penny they can until it becomes unsustainable.  If you are a premium supplier it will not affect you, if not you're screwed and you might as well take every penny from anywhere and everywhere.

The name of the game get played only between 3 agencies in still images and vectors, and 4/5 in the footage department. Everything else is noise and wasting time. Trust me with more that half a million $ net revenue in the last 8 years I know what I am talking about........The small agencies are really no competition for the big ones. Every second you loose with one of them you are loosing precious time that would bring you larger profits if you spent that times on the big boys.

Quote from: obj owl on November 08, 2018, 04:22

Quote from: jacoblund on November 08, 2018, 03:48

To me the mechanics are pretty simple.

Let's say you choose to support OnePixel. OnePixel gets more content to sell -> Which can lead to more customers -> Which can lead to a bigger market share.

Now after a while competitors will have to fight back for that market share. So what do they do? They lower their prices. Agencies are not going to take that loss - so they lower contributor commissions.

Who looses? We do.

Only way we win (or at least maintain status quo) is by not allowing price dumping like that by simply not letting them sell our content.

On a side note: Yes 38 cents from a sub sale at Shutterstock might not be much - but more than 60% of our revenue from SS comes from enhanced licenses, on demand, or single sales.

There is more than one market even within agencies, they compete at all levels. The agencies are not the problem, they are not our competitors, contributors are, and there is no getting around the fact that they will hunt out every penny they can until it becomes unsustainable.  If you are a premium supplier it will not affect you, if not you're screwed and you might as well take every penny from anywhere and everywhere.

I have good percentage of my income from this "noise and wasting time" agencies and the upload to most of them is as easy as drag and drop the files in FTP. Where i spent a lot of time was iStock, i spent hours and days to iStock selecting keywords and synonyms with checkboxes one by one...and now where is iStock. Canva also could be assumed as "noise and wasting time" in its first days, but now is on the top. Finally of course there are so many agencies to which should not upload, but the things are not just black or white, there are many midtones which bring some income and those midtones blended all together can bring good income.

The fact that in their official corporate communication they cannot formulate a proper sentence in English automatically disqualifies them for me. 

their terms say you assert you have any possible releases for ALL images you upload ad must supply them on request - which means, exterior shots, automobile and other trademarked designs, etc that most agencies accept could make you vulnerable - they never replied to my request for clarification.

Most photographers are broke and no one is going to sue a broke photographer.

So anyone here who joined this website?

I would recommend anyone who is thinking of uploading should speak to Chad before deciding to trust them with your portfolio.

I'll leave it at that.

I have had a couple phone conversations with one of their recruting partners...

Yup, you're getting the idea. Sounds like Chad has found some peas to get into this particular pod with him. Let's hope it dies on the vine.

Whenever a business states --"It's market standards for prices. " Run like hell!

Onepixel is now open for business!

and.... they're gone.

Did they close?

Enviado desde mi ALP-L29 mediante Tapatalk

That was unusually quick!

great news

Hello,

We hope you are well.

Despite our best efforts and investments, we have made the difficult decision to shut down Onepixel on February 28th.

Unfortunately, the Onepixel business model does not allow us to continue providing top tier service and pay fair commissions to our contributors due to the high customer acquisition costs converting long-tail free image users to paid customers.

Every contributor will be paid for every sale regardless of the total amount earned.

Our team will reach out with you in the next few days to arrange payment. Your portfolio and data will be deleted before we close the service, so please take accurate notes of your sales and purchases.

The Onepixel service and platform will close according to the following timeline:

On February 28th:
All customer sales will stop
Contributor uploads will be disabled
From February 28th to March 15th:
Contributors will have access to the contributor.onepixel.com website to review earnings and account details
The Onepixel team will reach out to arrange payment to every contributor
Customers will be able to redownload images they have previously purchased, review their account settings, and payment receipts
On March 15th:
The contributor and customer interface will go offline
We appreciate your trust and support in the early days of this adventure and trust you will have a successful future.

Feel free to get in touch with our contributor support team if you have any questions.

Best regards,

The Onepixel Team

Tell Chad not to worry... after all money isn�t the most important thing!