MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: Elke_S on October 17, 2013, 06:02
-
I woke up this morning to find that Bigstock have a promotion offering 85% off all their plans - or $99 for 1800 downloads! Having done the calculations this means that my images could be sold for less than 1C per image! This is astoundingly low and I certainly don’t feel happy about being sold so cheaply. Shutterstock surely can’t expect us to stay quiet about this?
-
where is that promotion? can you show us?
-
Nothing on the site about it and no email either ????
-
You can see it at the link below:
http://www.bigstockphoto.com/promo/supersavings/?utm_campaign=DiscountMB&utm_medium=Email&utm_source=MediaBistro (http://www.bigstockphoto.com/promo/supersavings/?utm_campaign=DiscountMB&utm_medium=Email&utm_source=MediaBistro)
There is no mention of it on the pricing page!
-
The link is being blocked! try this one:
www[DOT]bigstockphoto[DOT]com/promo/supersavings/?utm_campaign=DiscountMB&utm_medium=Email&utm_source=MediaBistro
-
yep, this is insane, their biggest plan:
20 pictures x 365 days = 7300 pictures = 2.1 pennies / picture
You will be charged £154.35 (85% Off)
Renews at £1,029.00 on October 17, 2014. You can cancel anytime.
-
I don't think them doing discount packages is a huge problem, as long as I'm paid the full subs commission.
-
I don't think them doing discount packages is a huge problem, as long as I'm paid the full subs commission.
sorry but I never expected that one from you, do you really believe it isn't a huge problem to sell our pictures for 2 pennies? and happy because you still collect 27 cents, are you feeling alright?
we worry about the other "agency" buying perpetual distribution rights but then we approve this ::)
-
Well said Luis
-
Exactly Luis!
-
I don't think them doing discount packages is a huge problem, as long as I'm paid the full subs commission.
sorry but I never expected that one from you, do you really believe it isn't a huge problem to sell our pictures for 2 pennies? and happy because you still collect 27 cents, are you feeling alright?
we worry about the other "agency" buying perpetual distribution rights but then we approve this ::)
I get 38 cents. Don't really have a problem if they're funding the discount. BigStock is a small site that doesn't have a lot of buyers. I don't think this will make all subs buyers go to them but if they did get some from sites that pay me a lot less than 38 cents, I don't think it would be bad for me.
For a buyer to get images for 2 pennies, don't they have to download the maximum every day for a year? That's not what happens, none of the sites would have the subs deals they have now if all buyers downloaded their maximum limit. If you think about it, as we get paid more when they download more, it would make us a lot more money if they did that.
So when it comes to subs, it seems I do think differently to most people here. I don't mind buyers getting a discount paid for by the site and downloading more, as that should increase my earnings significantly.
-
I don't think them doing discount packages is a huge problem, as long as I'm paid the full subs commission.
sorry but I never expected that one from you, do you really believe it isn't a huge problem to sell our pictures for 2 pennies? and happy because you still collect 27 cents, are you feeling alright?
we worry about the other "agency" buying perpetual distribution rights but then we approve this ::)
I get 38 cents. Don't really have a problem if they're funding the discount. BigStock is a small site that doesn't have a lot of buyers. I don't think this will make all subs buyers go to them but if they did get some from sites that pay me a lot less than 38 cents, I don't think it would be bad for me.
For a buyer to get images for 2 pennies, don't they have to download the maximum every day for a year? That's not what happens, none of the sites would have the subs deals they have now if all buyers downloaded their maximum limit. If you think about it, as we get paid more when they download more, it would make us a lot more money if they did that.
So when it comes to subs, it seems I do think differently to most people here. I don't mind buyers getting a discount paid for by the site and downloading more, as that should increase my earnings significantly.
27 or 38 cents isn't the main concern here, its the value of our work going down without any permission or request or other
statements like yours tell agencies that they can keep digging our pockets in the future and we are happy about it! at this exact moment, where would you license pictures if you were a buyer?
I had the idea that the 38 cents period was gone at BigStock, have you reached their RCs?
-
I don't think them doing discount packages is a huge problem, as long as I'm paid the full subs commission.
sorry but I never expected that one from you, do you really believe it isn't a huge problem to sell our pictures for 2 pennies? and happy because you still collect 27 cents, are you feeling alright?
we worry about the other "agency" buying perpetual distribution rights but then we approve this ::)
I get 38 cents. Don't really have a problem if they're funding the discount. BigStock is a small site that doesn't have a lot of buyers. I don't think this will make all subs buyers go to them but if they did get some from sites that pay me a lot less than 38 cents, I don't think it would be bad for me.
For a buyer to get images for 2 pennies, don't they have to download the maximum every day for a year? That's not what happens, none of the sites would have the subs deals they have now if all buyers downloaded their maximum limit. If you think about it, as we get paid more when they download more, it would make us a lot more money if they did that.
So when it comes to subs, it seems I do think differently to most people here. I don't mind buyers getting a discount paid for by the site and downloading more, as that should increase my earnings significantly.
27 or 38 cents isn't the main concern here, its the value of our work going down without any permission or request or other
statements like yours tell agencies that they can keep digging our pockets in the future and we are happy about it! at this exact moment, where would you license pictures if you were a buyer?
I had the idea that the 38 cents period was gone at BigStock, have you reached their RCs?
They extended it to the end of the year.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong but I have an impression that things are pretty much b&w. What's good for one agency it's bad for the other.
That's called double standard.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong but I have an impression that things are pretty much b&w. What's good for one agency it's bad for the other.
That's called double standard.
yes that is the trouble and unfortunately we are contributors in the middle of the fire, guess we know what is going to happen, and much worst when some contributors approve their promotions, cuts, this and that
one for all doesn't apply in stock and because of that we are stuck on the race to the bottom, buckle up!
-
ummmmm....yeh......and who trusts Wall Street?
-
I don't think them doing discount packages is a huge problem, as long as I'm paid the full subs commission.
sorry but I never expected that one from you, do you really believe it isn't a huge problem to sell our pictures for 2 pennies? and happy because you still collect 27 cents, are you feeling alright?
we worry about the other "agency" buying perpetual distribution rights but then we approve this ::)
I get 38 cents. Don't really have a problem if they're funding the discount. BigStock is a small site that doesn't have a lot of buyers. I don't think this will make all subs buyers go to them but if they did get some from sites that pay me a lot less than 38 cents, I don't think it would be bad for me.
For a buyer to get images for 2 pennies, don't they have to download the maximum every day for a year? That's not what happens, none of the sites would have the subs deals they have now if all buyers downloaded their maximum limit. If you think about it, as we get paid more when they download more, it would make us a lot more money if they did that.
So when it comes to subs, it seems I do think differently to most people here. I don't mind buyers getting a discount paid for by the site and downloading more, as that should increase my earnings significantly.
27 or 38 cents isn't the main concern here, its the value of our work going down without any permission or request or other
statements like yours tell agencies that they can keep digging our pockets in the future and we are happy about it! at this exact moment, where would you license pictures if you were a buyer?
I had the idea that the 38 cents period was gone at BigStock, have you reached their RCs?
Can you explain to me how they are "digging our pockets" if they're funding this discount and paying us the same commission? I would be annoyed if the amount they were paying us was reduced but this just looks like a discount for buyers funded by the site. So buyers pay very little, download more and we should make more money? That's quite different to sites that have made us pay for the discount they have given buyers.
They should of informed us about this but unfortunately microstock sites don't seem to bother anymore. For the few people that don't like what they do, there must be thousands that aren't bothered. On D-day with istock, there were more people uploading images than deactivating them. So I've given up thinking that anything we say or do here has any influence on the sites.
If you want to limit how low a price your images are being sold for, don't put them on the microstock sites. I hope Symbiostock is a big success and we wont have to waste time arguing over things like this in the future.
-
If you want to limit how low a price your images are being sold for, don't put them on the microstock sites. I hope Symbiostock is a big success and we wont have to waste time arguing over things like this in the future.
The more agencies pull this sort of stunt, the more difficult they are making it for Symbiostock to succeed.
I agree, this is just totally devaluing the value of contributors' work. It's a real insult and slap in the face combined. Even if they are giving them 38c. ::)
-
I believe I was clear enough, I am concerned with future diggings and approving this one will open doors for more as you know
I am also worried with the fact that a buyer can get a picture of mine for 2 pennies even if the agency pays me 5$ after, don't you think it is devaluing our work and most certainly spreading our work all around paying pennies, do you think they will come back and buy more if they got everything already due to the 2 pennies?
I don't understand how you don't see or understand what I am talking about, you are doing microstock for longer than me, quite scary actually!
-
I got a feeling that Bigstock performs Thinkstock role for Shutterstock.
-
I woke up this morning to find that Bigstock have a promotion offering 85% off all their plans - or $99 for 1800 downloads...
I think this is part of some promotion they have going on with MediaBistro. I got an email promoting a 7-day free trial of Bigstock, but the email came from MediaBistro.
(http://www.emberstudio.com/random/mediabistro.jpg)
https://www.bigstockphoto.com/free-trial/?utm_campaign=FreeTrial&utm_medium=Email&utm_source=MediaBistro (https://www.bigstockphoto.com/free-trial/?utm_campaign=FreeTrial&utm_medium=Email&utm_source=MediaBistro)
-
I don't think them doing discount packages is a huge problem, as long as I'm paid the full subs commission.
sorry but I never expected that one from you, do you really believe it isn't a huge problem to sell our pictures for 2 pennies? and happy because you still collect 27 cents, are you feeling alright?
we worry about the other "agency" buying perpetual distribution rights but then we approve this ::)
Its exactly what I expect of him. Complain about agencies, and sharpshot will tell you he has no sympathy for you. Its the second time he is taking sides with the agencies after bad news for contributors.
-
Active link because Elke is new here, her links are no follow.
http://www.bigstockphoto.com/promo/supersavings/?utm_campaign=DiscountMB&utm_medium=Email&utm_source=MediaBistro (http://www.bigstockphoto.com/promo/supersavings/?utm_campaign=DiscountMB&utm_medium=Email&utm_source=MediaBistro)
-
I don't think them doing discount packages is a huge problem, as long as I'm paid the full subs commission.
sorry but I never expected that one from you, do you really believe it isn't a huge problem to sell our pictures for 2 pennies? and happy because you still collect 27 cents, are you feeling alright?
we worry about the other "agency" buying perpetual distribution rights but then we approve this ::)
Its exactly what I expect of him. Complain about agencies, and sharpshot will tell you he has no sympathy for you. Its the second time he is taking sides with the agencies after bad news for contributors.
I think you'll find plenty of examples here when I've been against what the sites are doing. I'm the mug that deactivated images while other people here were uploading them :) I'm entitled to my opinion and I'm sorry if sometimes I don't agree with all the other contributors here. It would be a bit strange if we all agreed on everything wouldn't it?
-
Where is the incentive for buyers now to shop at Shutterstock when a mirror site offers the same image for 26 times cheaper?
26 cent is cheap, 1 cent is fuck all. It sending a completely wrong message to buyers. Why dont these * agencies dont understand they are DEVALUATING THEIR OWN BUSINESS.
-
I don't think them doing discount packages is a huge problem, as long as I'm paid the full subs commission.
sorry but I never expected that one from you, do you really believe it isn't a huge problem to sell our pictures for 2 pennies? and happy because you still collect 27 cents, are you feeling alright?
we worry about the other "agency" buying perpetual distribution rights but then we approve this ::)
Its exactly what I expect of him. Complain about agencies, and sharpshot will tell you he has no sympathy for you. Its the second time he is taking sides with the agencies after bad news for contributors.
I think you'll find plenty of examples here when I've been against what the sites are doing. I'm the mug that deactivated images while other people here were uploading them :) I'm entitled to my opinion and I'm sorry if sometimes I don't agree with all the other contributors here. It would be a bit strange if we all agreed on everything wouldn't it?
Its not about your opinion, its about rubbing salt.
-
I believe I was clear enough, I am concerned with future diggings and approving this one will open doors for more as you know
I am also worried with the fact that a buyer can get a picture of mine for 2 pennies even if the agency pays me 5$ after, don't you think it is devaluing our work and most certainly spreading our work all around paying pennies, do you think they will come back and buy more if they got everything already due to the 2 pennies?
I don't understand how you don't see or understand what I am talking about, you are doing microstock for longer than me, quite scary actually!
They aren't usually getting them for 2 pennies though are they? That's only for people that spend every day downloading their maximum quota. Having done this for a few years, I know people don't usually do that. They have to pay £154.35 and they might only download 100 images or less in that year. With subs, we get paid more if they download more, so if they did download their maximum quota every day, the sites would go bankrupt and we would get a lot more money.
If it did lead to the sites selling at much lower prices, that would be bad but I haven't seen that happen before. A site offers a discount but then hopes the buyer will stick with them afterwards. If it works out like that, I don't have a problem with it.
-
you keep on forgetting the main issue here, which is devaluing our work, stop and think for a while if this is good for stock photography, I am done trying to explain it :)
-
I don't think them doing discount packages is a huge problem, as long as I'm paid the full subs commission.
sorry but I never expected that one from you, do you really believe it isn't a huge problem to sell our pictures for 2 pennies? and happy because you still collect 27 cents, are you feeling alright?
we worry about the other "agency" buying perpetual distribution rights but then we approve this ::)
Its exactly what I expect of him. Complain about agencies, and sharpshot will tell you he has no sympathy for you. Its the second time he is taking sides with the agencies after bad news for contributors.
I think you'll find plenty of examples here when I've been against what the sites are doing. I'm the mug that deactivated images while other people here were uploading them :) I'm entitled to my opinion and I'm sorry if sometimes I don't agree with all the other contributors here. It would be a bit strange if we all agreed on everything wouldn't it?
Its not about your opinion, its about rubbing salt.
If you really think like that, just put me on ignore, that's what I'll do with you, if this carries on.
-
I'm still not seeing any chains attaching me to any one agency. All of us non-exclusives have options to come and go as we want. Most of us can agree that the microstock business was created to minimize image costs for both the user and the provider, including a sustainable profit margin, and subject to the immutable laws of supply and demand.
-
I'm still not seeing any chains attaching me to any one agency. All of us non-exclusives have options to come and go as we want. Most of us can agree that the microstock business was created to minimize image costs for both the user and the provider, including a sustainable profit margin, and subject to the immutable laws of supply and demand.
yes and? leaving BigStock?
-
Most of us can agree that the microstock business was created to minimize image costs for both the user and the provider, including a sustainable profit margin, and subject to the immutable laws of supply and demand.
AIUI, iStock was the original micro model, and I don't think minimising costs for the provider or a sustainable profit margin were even thought of at its creation, which was as a free sharing site, subsequently charging to offset the cost of the hosting.
The rest came later.
-
you keep on forgetting the main issue here, which is devaluing our work, stop and think for a while if this is good for stock photography, I am done trying to explain it :)
Luis I get the point you and Sue are making. I dont care if they pay 157 GBP only to DL one image. The fact that the images are discounted to 1 cent is disturbing.
-
I'm still not seeing any chains attaching me to any one agency. All of us non-exclusives have options to come and go as we want. Most of us can agree that the microstock business was created to minimize image costs for both the user and the provider, including a sustainable profit margin, and subject to the immutable laws of supply and demand.
yes and? leaving BigStock?
I no longer upload to any of my 5 sites, mostly due to many of the shrinking-income complaints noted here. I'm just content to keep reaping commissions as they come in. I totally agree with Sharp on this issue. I'll add that none of us has any upfront investments in any of the sites, and no say in their management decisions. Like us, they're doing what they need to survive. I don't begrudge them whatever marketing strategy they choose.
-
I'm still not seeing any chains attaching me to any one agency. All of us non-exclusives have options to come and go as we want. Most of us can agree that the microstock business was created to minimize image costs for both the user and the provider, including a sustainable profit margin, and subject to the immutable laws of supply and demand.
yes and? leaving BigStock?
I no longer upload to any of my 5 sites, mostly due to many of the shrinking-income complaints noted here. I'm just content to keep reaping commissions as they come in. I totally agree with Sharp on this issue. I'll add that none of us has any upfront investments in any of the sites, and no say in their management decisions. Like us, they're doing what they need to survive. I don't begrudge them whatever marketing strategy they choose.
I get it, you will be happy with 1% because we cannot control what agencies do, that is a cool statement as well ;D
I believe there should be an opt in/out for this kind of promotions, that is the minimum/maximum we can accept!
-
I largely agree with Sharpshot. Provided the discount is coming out of the agency's cut then we don't have too much to complain about.
We know that SS spends $30M+ annually on 'marketing' so maybe this is one way of targeting a certain segment of customers. It might simply be a more direct and effective means of signing up new subscription customers than say all those pay-per-click adverts on Google. In effect it means that BigStock will be paying us, the contributors, rather than Google, for their advertising.
We also know that SS has always tested out new products, price increases, etc. at closely-defined geographical areas. Maybe this is more of the same? Maybe they know that they are under-represented in the UK (where possibly TS is their main competitor) and this is their way of targeting those potential customers.
The clever thing about this deal is that a potential customer who is already a subscriber to a competitor would not feel the need for their existing subscription to expire before signing up. With that level of discount they could comfortably afford to run both subscriptions together and then later choose which to continue with.
-
I'm still not seeing any chains attaching me to any one agency. All of us non-exclusives have options to come and go as we want. Most of us can agree that the microstock business was created to minimize image costs for both the user and the provider, including a sustainable profit margin, and subject to the immutable laws of supply and demand.
yes and? leaving BigStock?
I left. When my RPD dropped to 50 cents, the alarms went off.
-
The problem is that BS doesn't need to lower our cut - they already did that (at least for most of us who don't sell 50,000 per year). Sure, if you are on the bridge, they are stringing you along for another 6 months, but if they can move enough buyers from SS to BS (where they pay less), they will make more $ and we will make less. They keep saying that the BS customers don't come from SS, but I am doubtful that is 100% true. They figure that taking a short term loss (or maybe just breaking even instead of 75%) to move more buyers to BS (from SS and from the competition) is worth it. For them - yes, for me - no, since BS is about the cheapest paying sub site.
-
there is not anything clever in this promotion, they are mainly undercutting SS and all other sites we contribute to, saying that microstock is even cheaper than most buyers believe isn't the right attitude in order to maintain a sustainable business, after a while agencies will cut us again because buyers are heading to the 2 pennies/picture more often and it is becoming unsustainable for them to keep the previous royalties like we were doing millions before
everybody opening their personal stores are often attacked for lowering the price of their work and now we accept this bargain from BigStock believing it will be great for us!
-
I pretty much agree with luissantos84 on this. We can speculate about promotional schemes, bringing in "new buyers", and how we're holding a line at 38 cents (!) but at the end of the day, what's left is the steady devaluation of imagery in the minds of the buyers.
And we have now officially reached the bottom. Congratulations, SS.
-
When a buyer buys a subscription they don't think to themselves, " I get these images for $.02" they say to themselves I get access to the entire library for $xx per month/ year. They have to really value all the images in the collection to commit to this amount.
From a business point of view subscriptions are great because you can budget cash flow.... they have a better idea of what they will receive in the following months.
-
I believe I was clear enough, I am concerned with future diggings and approving this one will open doors for more as you know
I am also worried with the fact that a buyer can get a picture of mine for 2 pennies even if the agency pays me 5$ after, don't you think it is devaluing our work and most certainly spreading our work all around paying pennies, do you think they will come back and buy more if they got everything already due to the 2 pennies?
I don't understand how you don't see or understand what I am talking about, you are doing microstock for longer than me, quite scary actually!
They aren't usually getting them for 2 pennies though are they? That's only for people that spend every day downloading their maximum quota. Having done this for a few years, I know people don't usually do that. They have to pay £154.35 and they might only download 100 images or less in that year. With subs, we get paid more if they download more, so if they did download their maximum quota every day, the sites would go bankrupt and we would get a lot more money.
If it did lead to the sites selling at much lower prices, that would be bad but I haven't seen that happen before. A site offers a discount but then hopes the buyer will stick with them afterwards. If it works out like that, I don't have a problem with it.
Shutterstock and Bigstock are the same company. They do not even mention Bigstock in the SEC filings any more and the old management is long gone.
Why do you suppose they ran this "promotion" through Bigstock in lieu of Shuttterstock?
If you want to make the race to the bottom easier for this wallstreet crowd; leave your images on Bigstock for them to exploit at will. At these prices you have to know that .38 royalty will last just long enough for them to get the content they need for the demographic they are targeting.
-
When a buyer buys a subscription they don't think to themselves, " I get these images for $.02" they say to themselves I get access to the entire library for $xx per month/ year. They have to really value all the images in the collection to commit to this amount.
From a business point of view subscriptions are great because you can budget cash flow.... they have a better idea of what they will receive in the following months.
Exactly.
Only a fraction of the average subscriber's allowance is ever downloaded (because otherwise the agency would lose money) and, most likely, an even smaller fraction of the downloaded images are ever actually used for anything more than comping.
A subscription, in the way that it is provided/used, is actually a service rather than a cost-per-item transaction. To talk of 'pennies per image' is to not understand the reality.
-
I'm still not seeing any chains attaching me to any one agency. All of us non-exclusives have options to come and go as we want. Most of us can agree that the microstock business was created to minimize image costs for both the user and the provider, including a sustainable profit margin, and subject to the immutable laws of supply and demand.
yes and? leaving BigStock?
I no longer upload to any of my 5 sites, mostly due to many of the shrinking-income complaints noted here. I'm just content to keep reaping commissions as they come in. I totally agree with Sharp on this issue. I'll add that none of us has any upfront investments in any of the sites, and no say in their management decisions. Like us, they're doing what they need to survive. I don't begrudge them whatever marketing strategy they choose.
You must have read the SEC filings, they are doing far more than surviving and using Bigstock to undercut Shutterstock and the rest of the micros to gain market share is not only unnecessary; it devalues the assets SS has on it books, the assets which SS contributors produce using our own funds and resources.
Trust me if SS had to pay to produce it's own tangible assets, they would take great care to preserve their worth.
In fact if SS had to pay to produce it's own assets they would not be priced at the low levels they are today!
-
.
-
When a buyer buys a subscription they don't think to themselves, " I get these images for $.02" they say to themselves I get access to the entire library for $xx per month/ year. They have to really value all the images in the collection to commit to this amount.
From a business point of view subscriptions are great because you can budget cash flow.... they have a better idea of what they will receive in the following months.
Exactly.
Only a fraction of the average subscriber's allowance is ever downloaded (because otherwise the agency would lose money) and, most likely, an even smaller fraction of the downloaded images are ever actually used for anything more than comping.
A subscription, in the way that it is provided/used, is actually a service rather than a cost-per-item transaction. To talk of 'pennies per image' is to not understand the reality.
so the reality we need to understand is that our work needs to be priced as cheap as possible in order to sell more? or in fact less because buyers don't download all their quota? I guess we need to find a sweet spot but BigStock promotion is very far from that
might be a little OT but weren't we unhappy with iStock's removal of photo+ collection and also the pricing slash?
-
I hope Symbiostock is a big success
Lots of hearts have gone into Symbiostock. Anyone who dared to question whether it is going to be a success would certainly see their post voted into invisibility.
-
I believe I was clear enough, I am concerned with future diggings and approving this one will open doors for more as you know
I am also worried with the fact that a buyer can get a picture of mine for 2 pennies even if the agency pays me 5$ after, don't you think it is devaluing our work and most certainly spreading our work all around paying pennies, do you think they will come back and buy more if they got everything already due to the 2 pennies?
I don't understand how you don't see or understand what I am talking about, you are doing microstock for longer than me, quite scary actually!
They aren't usually getting them for 2 pennies though are they? That's only for people that spend every day downloading their maximum quota. Having done this for a few years, I know people don't usually do that. They have to pay £154.35 and they might only download 100 images or less in that year. With subs, we get paid more if they download more, so if they did download their maximum quota every day, the sites would go bankrupt and we would get a lot more money.
If it did lead to the sites selling at much lower prices, that would be bad but I haven't seen that happen before. A site offers a discount but then hopes the buyer will stick with them afterwards. If it works out like that, I don't have a problem with it.
Shutterstock and Bigstock are the same company. They do not even mention Bigstock in the SEC reports any more and the old management is long gone.
Why do you suppose they ran this "promotion" through Bigstock in lieu of Shuttterstock?
If you want to make the race to the bottom easier for this wallstreet crowd; leave your images on Bigstock for them to exploit at will. At these prices you have to know that .38 royalty will last just long enough for them to get the content they need for the demographic they are targeting.
I've removed my portfolio or deactivated all my best images from several sites. The problem is, not many others do it. So all I'm doing is making it easier for the people that carry on using those sites. Good luck to anyone who leaves BigStock over this. In my experience, it makes no difference, other than the earnings loss for the contributor. Don't blame me if the $0.38 goes, I did try to do something but it was absolutely pointless. There's too many people that couldn't care less about their commission. I wish that wasn't true but it is.
Perhaps the most positive thing we can do is build up the Symbiostock network? That seems a better option than trying to stop what seems inevitable with the microstock sites. Hopefully if there's an option for us to sell direct, the sites will see that they can't keep cutting commissions.
-
I hope Symbiostock is a big success
Lots of hearts have gone into Symbiostock. Anyone who dared to question whether it is going to be a success would certainly see their post voted into invisibility.
Huh?
-
I believe I was clear enough, I am concerned with future diggings and approving this one will open doors for more as you know
I am also worried with the fact that a buyer can get a picture of mine for 2 pennies even if the agency pays me 5$ after, don't you think it is devaluing our work and most certainly spreading our work all around paying pennies, do you think they will come back and buy more if they got everything already due to the 2 pennies?
I don't understand how you don't see or understand what I am talking about, you are doing microstock for longer than me, quite scary actually!
They aren't usually getting them for 2 pennies though are they? That's only for people that spend every day downloading their maximum quota. Having done this for a few years, I know people don't usually do that. They have to pay £154.35 and they might only download 100 images or less in that year. With subs, we get paid more if they download more, so if they did download their maximum quota every day, the sites would go bankrupt and we would get a lot more money.
If it did lead to the sites selling at much lower prices, that would be bad but I haven't seen that happen before. A site offers a discount but then hopes the buyer will stick with them afterwards. If it works out like that, I don't have a problem with it.
Shutterstock and Bigstock are the same company. They do not even mention Bigstock in the SEC reports any more and the old management is long gone.
Why do you suppose they ran this "promotion" through Bigstock in lieu of Shuttterstock?
If you want to make the race to the bottom easier for this wallstreet crowd; leave your images on Bigstock for them to exploit at will. At these prices you have to know that .38 royalty will last just long enough for them to get the content they need for the demographic they are targeting.
I've removed my portfolio or deactivated all my best images from several sites. The problem is, not many others do it. So all I'm doing is making it easier for the people that carry on using those sites. Good luck to anyone who leaves BigStock over this. In my experience, it makes no difference, other than the earnings loss for the contributor. Don't blame me if the $0.38 goes, I did try to do something but it was absolutely pointless. There's too many people that couldn't care less about their commission. I wish that wasn't true but it is.
Perhaps the most positive thing we can do is build up the Symbiostock network? That seems a better option than trying to stop what seems inevitable with the microstock sites. Hopefully if there's an option for us to sell direct, the sites will see that they can't keep cutting commissions.
If we leave our images on these sites their value will drop.
Think about this for a moment
What type of contributor did they pick for Offset? Was their work available for sale on any of the Microsites and is the quality of their content superior to the HCV images on the micros?
-
Don't you think it's strange that if a buyer downloads more than 9-12% of their allowance Bigstock (Shutterstock) loses money? They are clearly pricing this at below cost. Anyone know much about predatory pricing?
If they're targeting this at UK customers then, as far as I'm aware, there is no law in the UK against 'predatory pricing'. It's well known that supermarkets for example sell popular items as 'loss leaders' all the time.
On that subject does anyone from outside the UK have that deal available and/or in any other currency than GBP?
-
the OP talked in $
-
.
-
On that subject does anyone from outside the UK have that deal available and/or in any other currency than GBP?
I didn't get the discounted subscription offer, but I did get the free trial offer I mentioned on page 1, which was also a Media Bistro related offer so I'm guessing that these offers are connected and probably not limited to UK customers (I'm in the US).
And in checking out the offer page for the discounted subscriptions, prices do appear in dollars for me and I don't seem to be blocked from signing up. So yeah, it's a widespread offer.
-
I'm increasingly feeling like I'm being backed up against a wall with Bigstock. They are pretty clearly pushing hard on their new subscription offerings, and not relenting on the terrible RC-style structure for contributors. I emailed Ben Pfeifer when that announcement went out about continuing with the existing RC tiers and benchmarks asking for him or someone else in the office to call me. I just got a generic "we'll continue to evaluate this" response.
It's nearly impossible for anyone to be getting $0.38 per subscription sale on their own merit. Who gets 50k sales a year at Bigstock? Maybe Yuri did but he's not even there anymore. I just think I'm sending a really bad message to agree to a $0.29 royalty from a company that shares space and employees with a company that pays $0.38. And not because I think the $0.38 company will influence the $0.29 company. Quite the other way around really.
It's only a matter of time before enough management folks at SS start asking why one side of the office is paying out so much more per download than the other side of the office. And I know I'm only making it easier for them to decide not to pay out $0.38 to anyone, ever, when I continue to accept less at Bigstock.
I've been kicking this issue around for months now and I really feel like my hand if being forced here.
-
This might have something to do with the promo DepositPhotos has been running on MightyDeals for the last few weeks.
http://www.mightydeals.com/deal/depositphotos.html?hmref=home (http://www.mightydeals.com/deal/depositphotos.html?hmref=home)
The link might expire. Basically it's 100 images for $99 or 200 for $160. No daily download quotas.
It's been popular among people who make book covers because it's a really good deal for them.
-
Price war. As predicted :)
-
.
-
I'm increasingly feeling like I'm being backed up against a wall with Bigstock. They are pretty clearly pushing hard on their new subscription offerings, and not relenting on the terrible RC-style structure for contributors. I emailed Ben Pfeifer when that announcement went out about continuing with the existing RC tiers and benchmarks asking for him or someone else in the office to call me. I just got a generic "we'll continue to evaluate this" response.
It's nearly impossible for anyone to be getting $0.38 per subscription sale on their own merit. Who gets 50k sales a year at Bigstock? Maybe Yuri did but he's not even there anymore. I just think I'm sending a really bad message to agree to a $0.29 royalty from a company that shares space and employees with a company that pays $0.38. And not because I think the $0.38 company will influence the $0.29 company. Quite the other way around really.
It's only a matter of time before enough management folks at SS start asking why one side of the office is paying out so much more per download than the other side of the office. And I know I'm only making it easier for them to decide not to pay out $0.38 to anyone, ever, when I continue to accept less at Bigstock.
I've been kicking this issue around for months now and I really feel like my hand if being forced here.
It is annoying but I'm not going to leave BigStock and stay with other sites that pay under $0.30 for subs. It would be a choice of leaving several sites for me and I can't afford to do that right now. It does motivate me to work on non-microstock things though.
-
This might have something to do with the promo DepositPhotos has been running on MightyDeals for the last few weeks.
[url]http://www.mightydeals.com/deal/depositphotos.html?hmref=home[/url] ([url]http://www.mightydeals.com/deal/depositphotos.html?hmref=home[/url])
The link might expire. Basically it's 100 images for $99 or 200 for $160. No daily download quotas.
It's been popular among people who make book covers because it's a really good deal for them.
How much do DP contributors earn per download under this offer?
-
When a buyer buys a subscription they don't think to themselves, " I get these images for $.02" they say to themselves I get access to the entire library for $xx per month/ year. They have to really value all the images in the collection to commit to this amount.
From a business point of view subscriptions are great because you can budget cash flow.... they have a better idea of what they will receive in the following months.
Exactly.
Only a fraction of the average subscriber's allowance is ever downloaded (because otherwise the agency would lose money) and, most likely, an even smaller fraction of the downloaded images are ever actually used for anything more than comping.
A subscription, in the way that it is provided/used, is actually a service rather than a cost-per-item transaction. To talk of 'pennies per image' is to not understand the reality.
Don't you think it's strange that if a buyer downloads more than 9-12% of their allowance Bigstock (Shutterstock) loses money? They are clearly pricing this at below cost. Anyone know much about predatory pricing?
I'm tempted to buy one of these 99 dollar suscriptions and dedicate myself everyday to download all and each one of the 1.800 shots just for the h·ll. of it.
-
.
-
I'm tempted to buy one of these 99 dollar suscriptions and dedicate myself everyday to download all and each one of the 1.800 shots just for the h·ll. of it.
make a torrent after ;D
-
When a buyer buys a subscription they don't think to themselves, " I get these images for $.02" they say to themselves I get access to the entire library for $xx per month/ year. They have to really value all the images in the collection to commit to this amount.
From a business point of view subscriptions are great because you can budget cash flow.... they have a better idea of what they will receive in the following months.
Exactly.
Only a fraction of the average subscriber's allowance is ever downloaded (because otherwise the agency would lose money) and, most likely, an even smaller fraction of the downloaded images are ever actually used for anything more than comping.
A subscription, in the way that it is provided/used, is actually a service rather than a cost-per-item transaction. To talk of 'pennies per image' is to not understand the reality.
Don't you think it's strange that if a buyer downloads more than 9-12% of their allowance Bigstock (Shutterstock) loses money? They are clearly pricing this at below cost. Anyone know much about predatory pricing?
I'm tempted to buy one of these 99 dollar suscriptions and dedicate myself everyday to download all and each one of the 1.800 shots just for the h·ll. of it.
It's only $69 to get the 3 month 20/day subscription plan that gets you 1800 images. Just writing that makes me sick to my stomach.
looks like we are agreeing, what an absurd promotion!
-
Fotolia also has very cheap monthly subs, as little as 80 cents for full sized images. [url]http://us.fotolia.com/Info/Subscriptions[/url] ([url]http://us.fotolia.com/Info/Subscriptions[/url])
But those seem to have monthly quotas. With the DP promo, people just need to get their images within the space of a year. It's actually not even a subscription. Customers go to a different part of the site ("image packs").
How much do DP contributors earn per download under this offer?
I don't know. Never uploaded there.
Oh, I almost forgot. This is a super good deal for designers who make something called "premade book covers." Most agencies require an EL for a book cover that's made in advance and customized for an author (ETA: pretty much no one actually pays for the EL because they either don't know or don't care). This is different than a custom book cover not made in advance, which only requires a SL. DepositPhotos, however, allows premades under an SL, at least according to the rep I spoke to.
So, yeah, this is a really popular offer.
-
How much do DP contributors earn per download under this offer?
It varies by level. I get .33 whether it is sold under a promotional deal or a regular subscription.
-
1 cent! My images are worth double that!
(Just my 2 cents)
-
It's only a matter of time before enough management folks at SS start asking why one side of the office is paying out so much more per download than the other side of the office...
I doubt it's even 2 sides of the office, or 2 groups of people. I'm guessing that at this point BS is just another 'brand' and associated marketing plans. Basically just a way to sell cheaper and pay us less, while avoiding a big public kickback that might occur if SS openly cut royalties.
-
A guy goes into an "all you can eat" restaurant and pays 5 bucks. In the very unlikely event that he eats an entire cow, does the farmer who raised the animal and for which he received payment at the market rate, feel that is work has been devalued?
-
It's only a matter of time before enough management folks at SS start asking why one side of the office is paying out so much more per download than the other side of the office...
I doubt it's even 2 sides of the office, or 2 groups of people. I'm guessing that at this point BS is just another 'brand' and associated marketing plans. Basically just a way to sell cheaper and pay us less, while avoiding a big public kickback that might occur if SS openly cut royalties.
agree
I wonder when the anger against BS jumps over to SS. While we all praise SS we seem to forget its the same CEO who is running the show over at BS.
-
I don't and that is why I am concerned, not with 20$ / month at BigStock
MINUS folk, why don't you quote me and reply like an adult? you are pathetic!
big boys I can tell you one thing, when I put a minus I post a reply as well ;D
only? minus 10 guys!
-
A guy goes into an "all you can eat" restaurant and pays 5 bucks. In the very unlikely event that he eats an entire cow, does the farmer who raised the animal and for which he received payment at the market rate, feel that is work has been devalued?
Yes, obviously.
-
It's only a matter of time before enough management folks at SS start asking why one side of the office is paying out so much more per download than the other side of the office...
I doubt it's even 2 sides of the office, or 2 groups of people. I'm guessing that at this point BS is just another 'brand' and associated marketing plans. Basically just a way to sell cheaper and pay us less, while avoiding a big public kickback that might occur if SS openly cut royalties.
agree
I wonder when the anger against BS jumps over to SS. While we all praise SS we seem to forget its the same CEO who is running the show over at BS.
Good cop/bad cop? :)
-
It's only a matter of time before enough management folks at SS start asking why one side of the office is paying out so much more per download than the other side of the office...
I doubt it's even 2 sides of the office, or 2 groups of people. I'm guessing that at this point BS is just another 'brand' and associated marketing plans. Basically just a way to sell cheaper and pay us less, while avoiding a big public kickback that might occur if SS openly cut royalties.
agree
I wonder when the anger against BS jumps over to SS. While we all praise SS we seem to forget its the same CEO who is running the show over at BS.
Good cop/bad cop? :)
probably more like a shell game
-
It is annoying but I'm not going to leave BigStock and stay with other sites that pay under $0.30 for subs. It would be a choice of leaving several sites for me and I can't afford to do that right now...
I view it as more harmful to take $0.29 from Bigstock than it is to take the same (or less) from other companies. Bigstock and SS are in the same office. It's one thing to take a bad rate from an independent company and send a bad message to the industry at large. It's an entirely different thing to take a bad rate from a company that shares space and employees with the company that keeps most of us in this business. That message is potentially far more harmful, I think. And far more costly to us if it ever comes to fruition than the negative effects of a few smaller companies cutting rates because they saw someone else doing it.
I doubt it's even 2 sides of the office, or 2 groups of people. I'm guessing that at this point BS is just another 'brand' and associated marketing plans. Basically just a way to sell cheaper and pay us less, while avoiding a big public kickback that might occur if SS openly cut royalties.
True. I know for a fact that there are some people in the SS/BS office that are officially part of both companies.
-
Why? They are selling your images for a penny because you allow them to.
-
A guy goes into an "all you can eat" restaurant and pays 5 bucks. In the very unlikely event that he eats an entire cow, does the farmer who raised the animal and for which he received payment at the market rate, feel that is work has been devalued?
Probably he does not feel that way. Because tomorrow that guy will feel hungry again and will need another cow. But in MS, once you download a RF image you use it until the end of time, if not you share it with your colleagues/friends.
-
It is annoying but I'm not going to leave BigStock and stay with other sites that pay under $0.30 for subs. It would be a choice of leaving several sites for me and I can't afford to do that right now...
I view it as more harmful to take $0.29 from Bigstock than it is to take the same (or less) from other companies. Bigstock and SS are in the same office. It's one thing to take a bad rate from an independent company and send a bad message to the industry at large. It's an entirely different thing to take a bad rate from a company that shares space and employees with the company that keeps most of us in this business. That message is potentially far more harmful, I think. And far more costly to us if it ever comes to fruition than the negative effects of a few smaller companies cutting rates because they saw someone else doing it....
Several sites have used the excuse that their rivals pay a lower commission to lower theirs, bringing them inline with the market. So I would think its at least equally important that people don't accept lower subs commissions with SS rival sites. But the vast majority of contributors couldn't care less, so we are left in a precarious situation. I know there are people that get $0.25 with SS but they are the one site that gives people a realistic chance to get to the higher levels. We just have to hope they think that they can continue to keep their shareholders happy without taking more from us.
-
A guy goes into an "all you can eat" restaurant and pays 5 bucks. In the very unlikely event that he eats an entire cow, does the farmer who raised the animal and for which he received payment at the market rate, feel that is work has been devalued?
Probably he does not feel that way. Because tomorrow that guy will feel hungry again and will need another cow. But in MS, once you download a RF image you use it until the end of time, if not you share it with your colleagues/friends.
But the farmer can only sell his cow once, while I can sell an image many, many times.
-
A guy goes into an "all you can eat" restaurant and pays 5 bucks. In the very unlikely event that he eats an entire cow, does the farmer who raised the animal and for which he received payment at the market rate, feel that is work has been devalued?
Probably he does not feel that way. Because tomorrow that guy will feel hungry again and will need another cow. But in MS, once you download a RF image you use it until the end of time, if not you share it with your colleagues/friends.
But the farmer can only sell his cow once, while I can sell an image many, many times.
He can sell his cow once but he can produce as much as he want when he sees an opportunity. Also he does not have to be creative, he can produce the similar ones over and over again. But here I need to be creative; I can produce the same image only once.
-
I'm not against the normal subscription model as you sign up knowing the pricing. What gets me is how Shutterstock discounted Bigstock 85%(!!) without any kind of notice.
-
I'm not against the normal subscription model as you sign up knowing the pricing. What gets me is how Shutterstock discounted Bigstock 85%(!!) without any kind of notice.
And that 85% is on a discounted BS subscription product which had already undercut SS subscription pricing by a wide margin with the intent on utilizing those discounted prices to gain market share.
It is becoming increasing clear that SS intends on driving existing customers to BS where SS management has made the the conscious choice to pay us lower royalties.
Bigstock is not a separate company with different management than the parent company, they have the very same management. Bigstock is simply a division of SS which is being utilized by key SS management to maximize long term profit at the contributors expense.
Key SS management developed this stratagem long ago and driving profits at our expense via BS is clearly part of their roadmap.
When I think of the .38 bridge program I hear a giant * sound.
-
When a buyer buys a subscription they don't think to themselves, " I get these images for $.02" they say to themselves I get access to the entire library for $xx per month/ year. They have to really value all the images in the collection to commit to this amount.
From a business point of view subscriptions are great because you can budget cash flow.... they have a better idea of what they will receive in the following months.
BINGO! Yep that's correct, that's what I always thought it wasn't till I became a contributor that I do the math per image :)
My Very Best :)
KimsCreativeHub.com
-
This right here is why I opt out of any "partner programs" when ever possible.
My Very Best :)
KimsCreativeHub.com
-
So here's a little buyers' perspective for you...
I have a subscription at SS right now, just for a month for a big client project I've been working on. I'm sort of regretting buying that subscription now. Most of the images I've used so far from SS I could have gotten at Bigstock.
I hate to say it, but next time I need to get a subscription for a big project, I'm going to Bigstock.
And I highly doubt I'm the only buyer realizing this.
-
I've removed my portfolio or deactivated all my best images from several sites. The problem is, not many others do it. So all I'm doing is making it easier for the people that carry on using those sites. Good luck to anyone who leaves BigStock over this. In my experience, it makes no difference, other than the earnings loss for the contributor. Don't blame me if the $0.38 goes, I did try to do something but it was absolutely pointless. There's too many people that couldn't care less about their commission. I wish that wasn't true but it is.
Perhaps the most positive thing we can do is build up the Symbiostock network? That seems a better option than trying to stop what seems inevitable with the microstock sites. Hopefully if there's an option for us to sell direct, the sites will see that they can't keep cutting commissions.
FWIW - I removed my best selling/favorite images from the MS sites and moved them over to Stocksy (http://www.stocksy.com/Mellimage). :) And yes, with some images I took a risk - as some of them had earned over 100 USD per piece (and thus far haven't sold on Stocksy).
-
It does look like it's a policy to move subscription buyers to BigStock. Seems like a big risk though, as the other sites could offer a big discount as well. Then there's the chance that SS pay per download buyers will switch to BigStock subs. I wonder if that's already happening? Might explain the big doom and gloom thread about poor sales in the SS forum in a month that's usually strong.
-
I've removed my portfolio or deactivated all my best images from several sites. The problem is, not many others do it. So all I'm doing is making it easier for the people that carry on using those sites. Good luck to anyone who leaves BigStock over this. In my experience, it makes no difference, other than the earnings loss for the contributor. Don't blame me if the $0.38 goes, I did try to do something but it was absolutely pointless. There's too many people that couldn't care less about their commission. I wish that wasn't true but it is.
Perhaps the most positive thing we can do is build up the Symbiostock network? That seems a better option than trying to stop what seems inevitable with the microstock sites. Hopefully if there's an option for us to sell direct, the sites will see that they can't keep cutting commissions.
FWIW - I removed my best selling/favorite images from the MS sites and moved them over to Stocksy ([url]http://www.stocksy.com/Mellimage[/url]). :) And yes, with some images I took a risk - as some of them had earned over 100 USD per piece (and thus far haven't sold on Stocksy).
I like your portfolio. I'll have to apply to Stocksy soon. Seems like one of the positive options we have at the moment.
-
We just have to hope they think that they can continue to keep their shareholders happy without taking more from us.
I would not put any chips on that square.
-
I personally have noticed a large increase in sales on BigStock and at the same time a DROP in money per month with the new sub sales. I don't like subs, but I will stay with Bigstock as I have for over six years. Many months BigStock has been my Best earner, but I do not see that happening anymore with downloads paying .27 cents for most!
An additional note: I have not uploaded anything to anybody for about four years! Reason I earn FAR more selling photos as art on eBay. .... and with far less effort.
-Larry
-
eBay sales for me, from their records:
Sales to date: $147,129.28
Transactions: 7070
First eBay Sale: 11/23/2002
Sure beats most ways of sitting at a desk and printer and earning some money.
Regards -Larry
-
Hey everyone,
Eli from Bigstock here. Earlier this week Bigstock tested emailing different promotional offers through a partner site (MediaBistro), as you've noticed. One of these offers accidentally applied the limited time discount offer to all subscription types, when the intention was to have the discount apply towards the first month of a monthly subscription. This was an error on our part and we apologize for any confusion. We quickly caught the error and the offer will be restrained.
Bigstock often tests different promotional offers but it's important to note we never move forward broadly unless a test has proven to drive increased downloads or overall sales that result in increased downloads. These investments are made to ensure our business continues to grow and stays competitive in the marketplace, which benefits both contributors and Bigstock. None of this affects contributor royalty rates.
Again, sorry for the confusion. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.
Best,
-E
-
eBay sales for me, from their records:
Sales to date: $147,129.28
Transactions: 7070
First eBay Sale: 11/23/2002
Sure beats most ways of sitting at a desk and printer and earning some money.
Regards -Larry
we need to have a chat sometime Larry, is that ok?
-
eBay sales for me, from their records:
Sales to date: $147,129.28
Transactions: 7070
First eBay Sale: 11/23/2002
Sure beats most ways of sitting at a desk and printer and earning some money.
Regards -Larry
we need to have a chat sometime Larry, is that ok?
Greatest thread hijack ever.
-
eBay sales for me, from their records:
Sales to date: $147,129.28
Transactions: 7070
First eBay Sale: 11/23/2002
Sure beats most ways of sitting at a desk and printer and earning some money.
Regards -Larry
we need to have a chat sometime Larry, is that ok?
Greatest thread hijack ever.
eBay sales for me, from their records:
Sales to date: $147,129.28
Transactions: 7070
First eBay Sale: 11/23/2002
Sure beats most ways of sitting at a desk and printer and earning some money.
Regards -Larry
we need to have a chat sometime Larry, is that ok?
Greatest thread hijack ever.
I did not intend to hijack the post. :)
-
of course you haven't Larry ;D
in fact I was serious, I have looked into your eBay profile and you sell indeed a lot of stuff but I have found more gun accessories than pictures, is that why you have made close to 150k $? please enlighten us, I am very interesting in getting that amount of cash, that said I am not willing to sell gun accessories :)
-
Hey everyone,
Eli from Bigstock here. Earlier this week Bigstock tested emailing different promotional offers through a partner site (MediaBistro), as you've noticed. One of these offers accidentally applied the limited time discount offer to all subscription types, when the intention was to have the discount apply towards the first month of a monthly subscription. This was an error on our part and we apologize for any confusion. We quickly caught the error and the offer will be restrained.
Bigstock often tests different promotional offers but it's important to note we never move forward broadly unless a test has proven to drive increased downloads or overall sales that result in increased downloads. These investments are made to ensure our business continues to grow and stays competitive in the marketplace, which benefits both contributors and Bigstock. None of this affects contributor royalty rates.
Again, sorry for the confusion. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.
Best,
-E
Thanks Elijah. Please can you get yourself 'verified' by Leaf as speaking on behalf of BigStock so we know it is 'gospel', so to speak.
-
I learned long ago to pay attention to actions. Words are meaningless.
Bottom line Bigstock is undercutting Shutterstocks prices and they are paying contributors less, until that changes I have lost respect for the Bigstock division of Shutterstock and I will not be purchasing images from them either.
-
of course you haven't Larry ;D
in fact I was serious, I have looked into your eBay profile and you sell indeed a lot of stuff but I have found more gun accessories than pictures, is that why you have made close to 150k $? please enlighten us, I am very interesting in getting that amount of cash, that said I am not willing to sell gun accessories :)
If it is all prints, there might be a few costs involved printing 7,070 of them. Still looks a lot better than most of the microstock sites though.
-
A guy goes into an "all you can eat" restaurant and pays 5 bucks. In the very unlikely event that he eats an entire cow, does the farmer who raised the animal and for which he received payment at the market rate, feel that is work has been devalued?
Probably he does not feel that way. Because tomorrow that guy will feel hungry again and will need another cow. But in MS, once you download a RF image you use it until the end of time, if not you share it with your colleagues/friends.
But the farmer can only sell his cow once, while I can sell an image many, many times.
He can sell his cow once but he can produce as much as he want when he sees an opportunity. Also he does not have to be creative, he can produce the similar ones over and over again. But here I need to be creative; I can produce the same image only once.
@michaeldb - Exactly!!
@ ACS - you're obviously missing a trick - most people repeat pretty much the same thing over and over
-
of course you haven't Larry ;D
in fact I was serious, I have looked into your eBay profile and you sell indeed a lot of stuff but I have found more gun accessories than pictures, is that why you have made close to 150k $? please enlighten us, I am very interesting in getting that amount of cash, that said I am not willing to sell gun accessories :)
Gun acessories are new for my site. as for my selling info on how I sell images on eBay and earn a nice profit, I found out through much trial and error. The way to do it......... I'm not telling. Sorry.
Also Bigstock Photo will bounce back, they always have in the past. If they have the sub sales that SS may be giving up .... WELL I will stick around to see what good news the future brings to all sellers on BigStock.
Now we are back on subject.
-Larry
-
of course you haven't Larry ;D
in fact I was serious, I have looked into your eBay profile and you sell indeed a lot of stuff but I have found more gun accessories than pictures, is that why you have made close to 150k $? please enlighten us, I am very interesting in getting that amount of cash, that said I am not willing to sell gun accessories :)
Gun acessories are new for my site. as for my selling info on how I sell images on eBay and earn a nice profit, I found out through much trial and error. The way to do it......... I'm not telling. Sorry.
Also Bigstock Photo will bounce back, they always have in the past. If they have the sub sales that SS may be giving up .... WELL I will stick around to see what good news the future brings to all sellers on BigStock.
Now we are back on subject.
-Larry
I understand but in fact you aren't hiding anything, the same nickname you ave here you have on eBay and everyone can check what you are selling, what is the big secret?
curious that you are still collecting "cents" at microstock if you are doing large thousands at eBay, if it is so worth why giving it for cents at agencies?
-
The way to do it......... I'm not telling. Sorry.
But I assume it's all in your book and accompanying DVD, right? :)
-
The way to do it......... I'm not telling. Sorry.
But I assume it's all in your book and accompanying DVD, right? :)
this is reminding me of a constant pop-up I have been receiving lately with a guy talking about how he got to 500$ a day and the only request is having internet access, only if I had that ;D
-
Thanks, Eli, for coming in and responding to concerns. I think it would go long way to gain contributor trust if Bigstock would pay everyone the rate they make on SS, or alternatively, make the levels more attainable at BigStock.
FWIW, I do appreciate that at least you are doing that for Bridge members, and hope it will continue.
-
If SS allowed anyone at the 38 cent level to be in the Bridge and guaranteed the same earnings at BigStock as at SS, I'd be happy to have them move my SS port over there (I quit BigStock in March as I'm not part of bridge and they wouldn't permit me to opt out of the lowball royalties on subs - I asked and they said no).
Otherwise, any and all moves to undercut SS prices at BigStock is a long term lose for contributors - even those in the Bridge who temporarily have been given golden handcuffs so there is something to sell at BigStock.
-
THe bridge is no longer offered on new contribs.
-
of course you haven't Larry ;D
in fact I was serious, I have looked into your eBay profile and you sell indeed a lot of stuff but I have found more gun accessories than pictures, is that why you have made close to 150k $? please enlighten us, I am very interesting in getting that amount of cash, that said I am not willing to sell gun accessories :)
Gun acessories are new for my site. as for my selling info on how I sell images on eBay and earn a nice profit, I found out through much trial and error. The way to do it......... I'm not telling. Sorry.
Also Bigstock Photo will bounce back, they always have in the past. If they have the sub sales that SS may be giving up .... WELL I will stick around to see what good news the future brings to all sellers on BigStock.
Now we are back on subject.
-Larry
I understand but in fact you aren't hiding anything, the same nickname you ave here you have on eBay and everyone can check what you are selling, what is the big secret?
curious that you are still collecting "cents" at microstock if you are doing large thousands at eBay, if it is so worth why giving it for cents at agencies?
There's probably a big difference between the total amount made with eBay and the profit. Looking at the prices and that they include postage, there might not be a big profit margin.
-
of course you haven't Larry ;D
in fact I was serious, I have looked into your eBay profile and you sell indeed a lot of stuff but I have found more gun accessories than pictures, is that why you have made close to 150k $? please enlighten us, I am very interesting in getting that amount of cash, that said I am not willing to sell gun accessories :)
Gun accessories are new for my site. as for my selling info on how I sell images on eBay and earn a nice profit, I found out through much trial and error. The way to do it......... I'm not telling. Sorry.
Also Bigstock Photo will bounce back, they always have in the past. If they have the sub sales that SS may be giving up .... WELL I will stick around to see what good news the future brings to all sellers on BigStock.
Now we are back on subject.
-Larry
I understand but in fact you aren't hiding anything, the same nickname you ave here you have on eBay and everyone can check what you are selling, what is the big secret?
curious that you are still collecting "cents" at microstock if you are doing large thousands at eBay, if it is so worth why giving it for cents at agencies?
There's probably a big difference between the total amount made with eBay and the profit. Looking at the prices and that they include postage, there might not be a big profit margin.
There is far more to it than just listing a photo for sale. Sure there is overhead in this as there is in anything else. Why do I still sell on BigStock and DT ..... the images were accepted years ago and the still sell and BigStock and DT both mail checks to me. I just spend the money. Why would I quit them if I am making money somewhere else??
Go ahead and copy how I list on eBay and make some money...... after you loose money for the first year or two. I am one of about 10 photographers on eBay that actually makes money. Price, Keywords, sales, description, return policy, finding BIG wholesale buyers, and about 50 other things need to work for you. Remember there is over a million photos competing against you. Yes, go ahead and give it a shot.
-Larry