MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: small size: $0.20; full size: $4  (Read 3099 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 21, 2014, 06:06 »
0
I thought twice about the SS full resolution concept.
Many sites use low prices. Some are offering high prices. Would you join the mix?
Would you sell your pictures in small size for sell let's say 20 cents,
as long as a full resolution brings you at least $ 4 Commission each download?


« Reply #1 on: July 21, 2014, 10:07 »
0
I'd prefer to get away from both, but you've got to do what you've got to do.

« Reply #2 on: July 21, 2014, 10:13 »
0
It depends :)

What is the license, what is the buyer paying  and what is the commitment for volume to get those prices?

« Reply #3 on: July 21, 2014, 11:28 »
0
Where do images sell for .20?  All the subs sites are .25 or higher aren't they?  I don't agree with any model that lowers the floor of what we get paid now. 

« Reply #4 on: July 21, 2014, 11:36 »
0
Where do images sell for .20?  All the subs sites are .25 or higher aren't they?  I don't agree with any model that lowers the floor of what we get paid now.

Fotolia

« Reply #5 on: July 21, 2014, 12:02 »
+2
Where do images sell for .20?  All the subs sites are .25 or higher aren't they?  I don't agree with any model that lowers the floor of what we get paid now.

I'll give you an example of licensing affecting my tolerance for price variations and lower royalties. I've been experimenting as a supplier on Canva - it's essentially a very limited RM license (one time, one design) but I only get paid 35 cents (35% of the gross). Given that all the designs are done online, the buyer has no access to the image other than as part of the design they produce on Canva. It strikes me as a potentially very interesting business model and I decided it'd be worth exploring. I've seen encouraging sales so far given that the site's still in beta and I have only 100 images online (50 more in the queue).

I wouldn't sell RF at that price. I wouldn't sell RM at that price if the buyer got their hands on the image file (no way anyone could police it). I'm not comfortable with the SOD licenses at SS - nice as it is to see $90 or $100 -because they won't tell us what rights we're licensing for that amount. It could be great for us - or terrible - but being in the dark is objectionable. I've put up with it because they clearly won't budge and so far, nothing unpleasant has come to light.

The sustainability (not my favorite word after iStock's abuse of it, but it's still a useful concept) of a site's business model also matters - I am not interested in schemes that will necessarily implode in short order, or scam buyers in some way, and I certainly don't want to be taken for a ride by the agencies.

37 cents for an RF license for an XXL image with no print run limits (which is what 123rf's latest download packs offer) is massively worse, IMO than the 35 cents per use that Canva pays me.

« Reply #6 on: July 21, 2014, 15:05 »
0
Where do images sell for .20?  All the subs sites are .25 or higher aren't they?  I don't agree with any model that lowers the floor of what we get paid now.

Fotolia

Fotolia have subs that pay .20?  First I heard of it. 

Canva sounds interesting.  Thanks for that Jo Ann.

« Reply #7 on: July 21, 2014, 16:17 »
+1
Where do images sell for .20?  All the subs sites are .25 or higher aren't they?  I don't agree with any model that lowers the floor of what we get paid now.

Fotolia

Fotolia have subs that pay .20?  First I heard of it. 

Canva sounds interesting.  Thanks for that Jo Ann.

And lower and regular sales that pay even lower. I thought it was a little amusing that people got all upset about DPC when regular sales seem to pay just as little.

« Reply #8 on: July 21, 2014, 16:36 »
0
I thought it was a little amusing that people got all upset about DPC when regular sales seem to pay just as little.

The uproar about DPC is not because the absolute payout per sale, but because DPC is meant to replace higher paying on demand sales elsewhere.

On topic:
I'm with JoAnn on that one: it depends.

« Reply #9 on: July 21, 2014, 17:43 »
+1
The uproar about DPC is not because the absolute payout per sale, but because DPC is meant to replace higher paying on demand sales elsewhere.

Doesn't that apply to the whole existence of Fotolia?

« Reply #10 on: July 21, 2014, 18:12 »
+1
The uproar about DPC is not because the absolute payout per sale, but because DPC is meant to replace higher paying on demand sales elsewhere.

Doesn't that apply to the whole existence of Fotolia?

Yes. In my mind DPC and FOTOLIA are not mutuality exclusive. They are their own worst enemy.

« Reply #11 on: July 22, 2014, 02:10 »
+1
The uproar about DPC is not because the absolute payout per sale, but because DPC is meant to replace higher paying on demand sales elsewhere.

Doesn't that apply to the whole existence of Fotolia?

You could say it applies to the whole existence of microstock.

But in comparison to other microstocks their credit prices aren't too far off.
Offering high res files for one dollar with a minimum commitment of only 10 dollars is what's making DPC an ugly deal - because, if successful, that will take away those higher paying on demand sales (both on FT and elsewhere) that make the low subs commission acceptable.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
60 Replies
20467 Views
Last post April 01, 2010, 10:12
by stockastic
6 Replies
2514 Views
Last post September 07, 2013, 09:37
by Ron
6 Replies
2418 Views
Last post October 18, 2013, 13:46
by scenicoregon
3 Replies
3258 Views
Last post December 03, 2013, 06:45
by Metsafile
0 Replies
2981 Views
Last post January 14, 2017, 22:33
by palagarde

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle