Author Topic: shrinking downloads (Read 7207 times)

stokfoto · « **on:** May 09, 2008, 06:33 »

not necessarily in numbers but in sizes. lately I have been getting more and more XS size downloads,do you experience the same? I know some people here already mentioned their concerns over the XS size but to me they are more visible now.I wish they just got rid of it....

Pixart · « **Reply #1 on:** May 09, 2008, 08:42 »

Millions of Bloggers need small images. And it is nice to be able to buy something that doesn't have to be resized in another program before you upload it to your blog. Buying these tiny files is better than stealing them somewhere.

But yeah, the price sucks.

helix7 · « **Reply #2 on:** May 09, 2008, 09:48 »

Is there actually concern that the XS size is taking away from larger size downloads?

If so, I don't see how that's possible. It's not like the buyer has an option to buy a smaller size if their project requires a print-resolution image. If anything, the XS size probably just appeals to a different type of buyer (bloggers), or to designers who want an unwatermarked comp image. They might just be buying the XS image for a comp, then come back and buy the larger size if they end up using the image in the project.

Pixart · « **Reply #3 on:** May 09, 2008, 09:50 »

Quote from: helix7 on May 09, 2008, 09:48

They might just be buying the XS image for a comp, then come back and buy the larger size if they end up using the image in the project.

That is a very good point because very often you sell both sizes of some obscure photo within a span of 4 hours or so.

stokfoto · « **Reply #4 on:** May 09, 2008, 10:19 »

Quote from: helix7 on May 09, 2008, 09:48

Is there actually concern that the XS size is taking away from larger size downloads?

I see your point Helix7 but what I referring was selling xs size instead of S I think sites created xs size so they could still advertise their prices staring from one dollar,or one credit. had there not been xs size buyers would be taking the S instead.that's what I meant.

stokfoto · « **Reply #5 on:** May 09, 2008, 10:21 »

Quote from: Pixart on May 09, 2008, 08:42

Millions of Bloggers need small images. And it is nice to be able to buy something that doesn't have to be resized in another program before you upload it to your blog.

that's a good point too never thought of that before.

lisafx · « **Reply #6 on:** May 09, 2008, 14:06 »

Quote from: stokfoto on May 09, 2008, 10:19

Quote from: helix7 on May 09, 2008, 09:48
Is there actually concern that the XS size is taking away from larger size downloads?
I see your point Helix7 but what I referring was selling xs size instead of S I think sites created xs size so they could still advertise their prices staring from one dollar,or one credit. had there not been xs size buyers would be taking the S instead.that's what I meant.

I agree with this completely. Most of my S sales migrated to XS when they introduced that size. And it was pretty obviously created so they could still advertise images for a dollar.

That said, I don't get too bothered about XS sales. Any sales are good as far as I'm concerned. Mostly they seem to be in the .20-.25 range rather than the dreaded .19<

jsnover · « **Reply #7 on:** May 09, 2008, 22:07 »

I seem to see a pattern of larger sizes earlier in the week and more XS on Fridays. I don't see any problem with the XS size as the buyer gets less for a low price (versus subscription deals where you can get the maximum size on the cheap).

I think it's also not a bad thing to get bloggers in the habit of buying images (versus swiping them) and keeping the entry point low encourages that.

ianhlnd · « **Reply #8 on:** May 09, 2008, 22:30 »

Let's face it, buyer's aren't stupid. buy the smallest resolution you can get then run it through alien skin or genuine fractels. Huh? it costs a buck for a 5 buck picture. They may not use it at that resolution, but they have it. Then they can say to the boss how smart they are, and how they're saving the company money, if and independent, they charge for the upsize and charge the client. What's the question?

Personally, which isn't much of a of a recommendation, I only upload to the lowest acceptable resolution of the particular site, saving the highe resolution for other sites who pay more for the higher resolution. I'm sure you do the same thing.

michaeldb · « **Reply #9 on:** May 10, 2008, 17:15 »

Quote from: lisafx on May 09, 2008, 14:06

Quote from: stokfoto on May 09, 2008, 10:19
Quote from: helix7 on May 09, 2008, 09:48
Is there actually concern that the XS size is taking away from larger size downloads?
I see your point Helix7 but what I referring was selling xs size instead of S I think sites created xs size so they could still advertise their prices staring from one dollar,or one credit. had there not been xs size buyers would be taking the S instead.that's what I meant.

I agree with this completely. Most of my S sales migrated to XS when they introduced that size. And it was pretty obviously created so they could still advertise images for a dollar.

That said, I don't get too bothered about XS sales. Any sales are good as far as I'm concerned. Mostly they seem to be in the .20-.25 range rather than the dreaded .19<

I agree completely with Lisafx's complete agreement. It iscalled 'micro'stock. I would be happy if IS sold one of my images for .01, if they could sell it a million times.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: shrinking downloads (Read 7207 times)

stokfoto

Pixart

helix7

Pixart

stokfoto

stokfoto

lisafx

jsnover

ianhlnd

michaeldb

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors