MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Yay unlimited images for only $4.95  (Read 5764 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

BD

« on: December 13, 2013, 14:58 »
0
Yay unlimited images for only $4.95. I just received this email. Is this the lowest?  :(


« Reply #1 on: December 13, 2013, 15:24 »
+5
and how does this work for commissions?

I have a feeling this might be their swan song

« Reply #2 on: December 13, 2013, 17:53 »
+11
I am glad I never uploaded to them.  And I feel for those of you who have to plow through this.

« Reply #3 on: December 13, 2013, 21:11 »
0
Is there anywhere we can read about this?

BD

« Reply #4 on: December 13, 2013, 21:24 »
0
Is there anywhere we can read about this?

After looking back over it, it looks like they are having special discounts and the regular unlimited streaming subscription is 9.90 a month. This is from the email:

(title of email): Happy holidays! Lets celebrate with unlimited images for only $4.95. Only at YAY's new subscription site.

....Were also ringing in the season by launching our new subscription site, and offering you 50% off your first month of bright, gorgeous photos at YAY Images! Code (I took this out).

Awesome, right? 

Thats 50% off our new streaming subscription (regularly $9.90 a month)

These .4 megapixel, web-sized images are great for blog posts, e-newsletters, funny ecards you send to your BFF.  You get access to our 4 million+ images, theres no limit on how many images you use, and you get our in-browser editing and filters! Watch video.

50% off our digital subscription (regularly $49.90 a month)

Three megapixel images that are perfect for ebooks, Powerpoints, and apps. Again, you get access to all our 4 million+ images, no daily limit on images, and access to our in-browser editing and filters. Price plan.

50% off our print subscriptions (regularly $99.90 a month)

Do you work in print and design? This is for you! High-res downloads and (of course) access to all our images and all vector files, our in-browser editing and filters, and no daily download limits.  Compare plans.

Interested?  Great! 

Were starting fresh with YAYimages.com, so wed love it if you created a new account (dont worry, you can use the same username and password.) 

Just want to buy a few images at a time?  Thats cool!  Were still doing that at Yaymicro.com.

Happy holidays to you and yours,

Yay Images

« Reply #5 on: December 13, 2013, 22:12 »
0
thanks BD

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #6 on: December 13, 2013, 23:40 »
-3
.4 megapixel

« Reply #7 on: December 13, 2013, 23:50 »
0
thanks for bringing this to my attention. I started a new thread, as I think the main issue is that most contributors are still opted in. Also I had heard about their streaming service but not the unlimited hi-res downloads, which is way more insane imo

http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/yay-emergency-unlimited-download-of-high-res-images-for-99$!/msg357341/?topicseen#new


stock-will-eat-itself

« Reply #9 on: December 16, 2013, 07:35 »
+6
Linda please explain how this deal is in anyway sustainable as an income to the photographers that supply you with the images you sell.

If this deal becomes the success you hope, it could potentially bankrupt many photographers who supply you with content.

« Reply #10 on: December 16, 2013, 08:57 »
-12
First, we hope to reach people that don't pay for images today. It's estimated that 85% of all images online are used without a legal license. Not all people will be willing to pay for something they perceive should be free, but until now many image users haven't had a good alternative. A sub from Shutterstock or single images from other agencies is way to much money for most online users, and it's also paying for more than they need.

As for the download subs, it's not much point in discussing this in depth before I can give you any actual numbers. But, compared with the largest provider and the main source of income for many photographers - Shutterstock: If you look at Shutterstocks numbers on earnings ($2.35 for each image downloaded) and their commission ($0.25 -$0.38), the commission actually paid is from  9% to 16%. To end with the same $-commission our customers must on average download 130-200 images each, each month. Our numbers indicate that the average will be much lower, giving you not only a fairer cut of 50% of our earnings, but also a higher price per download. But this discussion will be more meaningful when I can give you real numbers on average download and average commission for each download. Our first numbers should be ready in mid-February, but we should get a good indication during January. Currently the average is around 20 images and the commission around $3-4 per image, but the subs haven't run a full month yet and the mix of digital and print can change.

 

Linda

« Reply #11 on: December 16, 2013, 09:10 »
+15
While I do think there is a market for reaching bloggers with images which are low resolution and low cost, I dare say that selling images for less than half a penny is an atrocious idea. 1000 images for $4.95?

I once regretted leaving Yay and considered coming back into the fold. But this is truly a new low for microstock, and you might as well just give the images away at these rates. If you truly intend to go through with this plan, I sincerely hope you are soon out of business. We need fewer agencies actively devaluing the hard work of talented contributors.

« Reply #12 on: December 16, 2013, 09:12 »
+13
If you look at Shutterstocks numbers on earnings ($2.35 for each image downloaded) and their commission ($0.25 -$0.38), the commission actually paid is from  9% to 16%.

That's plain wrong. You are conveniently leaving out royalties from ODs and SODs which are roughly half of earnings for both SS and photographers. SS royalties are more like 30%.

I don't really understand your logic either. To summarise it seems to be "people don't like paying for content so we're going to give them your content for virtually free".

I'm so glad I chose not to upload my portfolio to Yay.

stock-will-eat-itself

« Reply #13 on: December 16, 2013, 09:42 »
+17
OK so this deal is about reaching people who don't like to pay for images.
Have you thought about the implications for the customers who do like to pay for images?
I don't see a robust business plan here, this deal makes me think you guys are desperate for any kind of market share irrespective of long term consequences.
This is nothing more than a garage sale.

« Reply #14 on: December 16, 2013, 11:20 »
+3

As for the download subs, it's not much point in discussing this in depth before I can give you any actual numbers. But, compared with the largest provider and the main source of income for many photographers - Shutterstock: If you look at Shutterstocks numbers on earnings ($2.35 for each image downloaded) and their commission ($0.25 -$0.38), the commission actually paid is from  9% to 16%. To end with the same $-commission our customers must on average download 130-200 images each, each month. Our numbers indicate that the average will be much lower, giving you not only a fairer cut of 50% of our earnings, but also a higher price per download. But this discussion will be more meaningful when I can give you real numbers on average download and average commission for each download. Our first numbers should be ready in mid-February, but we should get a good indication during January. Currently the average is around 20 images and the commission around $3-4 per image, but the subs haven't run a full month yet and the mix of digital and print can change.

First, 123rf tried this model at the very beginning - a 50% royalty on the sale and you get a share based on the number of your images downloaded, but they had to switch to a floor of xx cents per sale because the numbers were too low and contributors started walking.

Second, your take on Shutterstock is based on an apparent misunderstanding of their business. Most of us make most of our money from Shutterstock from things other than subscription sales (where the royalty is much higher than 25 to 38 cents). Their average download number includes those non subscription sales and thus your percentages are way off.


« Reply #15 on: December 16, 2013, 11:41 »
0
First, 123rf tried this model at the very beginning - a 50% royalty on the sale and you get a share based on the number of your images downloaded, but they had to switch to a floor of xx cents per sale because the numbers were too low and contributors started walking.

Jo Ann, that's not how I remember 123rf's early days.  I believe they went from a percentage to a fixed royalty per download because the delay in knowing what we made was unpopular with suppliers.  We might have been credited with some minimum per sale right away (I don't remember that far back) but had to wait until the end of the month to know what we really earned.  It was just easier and more satisfying all around to make a sale and know what our cut was. 

Now we have delayed reporting from iStock (always a popular topic of discussion), StockXpert, and SignElements.  SE is even more opaque, never telling us what sold but only reporting royalties at the end of the month.  Delays may be popular with agencies; I doubt many of us are happy with them.

« Reply #16 on: December 16, 2013, 12:36 »
0
We need a new plan, besides just cutting prices again and again in hopes of finding a point at which this "85%" will actually pay. Because the 15% that does pay is really loving the current plan.


« Reply #17 on: December 16, 2013, 12:37 »
+3
If you truly intend to go through with this plan, I sincerely hope you are soon out of business. .
It's just a question of time, I hope.

« Reply #18 on: December 16, 2013, 12:57 »
+11
Well done, Linda. You've managed to transform an agency from one that contributors were largely ambivalent about (due to very low sales) to one that is now attracting open hostility.

I'd like to ask you once again your policy on closing accounts. Will you pay me the measly $9 or so that you've made for me in the last 12 months? I don't want to support your agency with my work for a moment longer - but I don't want to leave you with a penny either.

« Reply #19 on: December 17, 2013, 11:07 »
+2
And this is how you kill an industry?

Goofy

« Reply #20 on: December 17, 2013, 12:03 »
0
I didn't realize that they had a partnership with China? Just like the software (ie Windows operating system) plan- one paid for copy turns into millions of free copies. Heck even Google Image deal is starting to look good compared to Yay deal!

« Reply #21 on: December 17, 2013, 17:51 »
+1
I am asking Yay to put the link up to opt out of this program and the link to remove our accounts. I have asked once by email and it was not given. The lack of any sales and now this is the last straw for many of us

« Reply #22 on: December 17, 2013, 20:26 »
0
... only $4.95 ... Is this the lowest?

Nope. The lowest is when you pay for your electricity + Internet only, and download 80000 stock photos originals from torrrrrrents. Of course, with all possible licenses until the end of life.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2013, 21:23 by 4seasons »

« Reply #23 on: December 18, 2013, 02:34 »
0
A sub from Shutterstock is way too much money for most online users

This cant be serious!... ok, lets give them everything free then..  Where will this madness end? :-/

fujiko

« Reply #24 on: December 18, 2013, 03:15 »
+2
A sub from Shutterstock is way too much money for most online users

This cant be serious!... ok, lets give them everything free then..  Where will this madness end? :-/

It will not end. At some point one agency will have the great idea to pay users to download, click or share images, instead of paying contributors... I am joking but it's obvious that for some people 1 cent is too much money for content and the trend may go for fractions of cents for clicks and views.

It's becoming the Internet of the Free! Just not the kind of Free that involves Freedom but the other kind of Free like in Free Beer.

« Reply #25 on: December 18, 2013, 03:53 »
+18
So YAY cannot compete and cannot attract the customers who can and want to pay.
So they aim at a new market segment of people who do not want to pay, but are used to stealing the content.
By selling the licence so cheap that it compares to giving the good away.

It is called dumping.
And what is it they dump? Licences for digital content.

It would not be possible with physical goods like tomatoes or light bulbs since they are physical products and there is a limit for how cheaply they can be produced.

Such malpractice can only happen in a digital world of endless copies, and only if the the production costs are not borne by the agency.

It is malpractice, it is shortsighted and it is stupid!

And it might also be a breach of contract, since it is the artist who owns the rights to distribute the goods, is not likely to agree to such a onesided step.

I just checked, and Im happy that I have no images on YAY, and I hope YAY goes out of business, the sooner the better! and I strongly suggest all contributors to send a take down email.


« Reply #26 on: December 18, 2013, 12:09 »
+2
Eeek.  I'm out. I will pull my meagre portfolio right away.  I have been meaning to do it anyway as they have only made me five bucks in two years - now I can see why!


« Reply #27 on: December 18, 2013, 12:32 »
+3
A sub from Shutterstock is way too much money for most online users

This cant be serious!... ok, lets give them everything free then..  Where will this madness end? :-/

When the desparados will see the light and quit such agencies.

« Reply #28 on: December 18, 2013, 12:40 »
+1
A sub from Shutterstock is way too much money for most online users

This cant be serious!... ok, lets give them everything free then..  Where will this madness end? :-/

When the desparados will see the light and quit such agencies.

We forget that Shutterstock IS expensive.  Without checking, doesn't the buyer have to pay $249 per month?  I think that's expensive.  Not for what they have access to, but we only see the .25 or .38 downloads, I'm sure the customers see the 250 bucks they dropped on the first of the month.

« Reply #29 on: December 18, 2013, 12:48 »
+8
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 00:00 by tickstock »

« Reply #30 on: December 18, 2013, 12:51 »
+5
I dont know why agencies try to go after an impossible sector of the market - people who dont want to pay for images.
With these kind of people it is NEVER about the price - it is a mentality, a way of thinking, and even selling images for a nickel will not break that way of thinking down.

Your way better off trying to find a decent price point that is worthwhile for the customer to pay, and for the agency/contributors to be able to run their business, and just stick to this segment of the market. Sure it would probably be a struggle to continually grow this business - but the alternative is you are just going to alienate everyone and piss them off. Then what? Your final circumstances are even worse than what you thought they were.

« Reply #31 on: December 18, 2013, 12:58 »
0
Well, tickstock, the media kit states that it reaches more than 23 million.  Shouldn't advertisers buy an EL and not use a sub for this type of advertising?  ($199 for 2-pack)

« Reply #32 on: December 18, 2013, 13:07 »
+1
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 00:00 by tickstock »

« Reply #33 on: December 18, 2013, 13:19 »
0
I wonder if the agencies could go back in time if they ever would have created subs.  If someone is downloading 750 images a month for $250, surely they would have paid for at least 25% of them.

I guess subs are an awful lot like retainers.  Retain a lawyers and he receives a monthly fee if he performs services or not.  If customers sign up for a 1 year plan it certainly helps with everyone's cash flow, and also the CFO will have a hard time taking that subscription out of next year's budget. 



« Reply #34 on: December 18, 2013, 13:28 »
0
I wish more people would get over their infatuation with Shutterstock and realize that the new "deal" with Facebook is just as bad as this Yay giveaway.

SS has simply decided to write off the entire future of FB advertising (at least for contributors) by making FB one big subscription.  We'll get 35 cents for a photo used on FB.  Because, of course, these advertisers are all new buyers, and can't possibly pay more than that.  Meanwhile Forbes reports that FB will charge up to $2 million a DAY for video ads.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthof/2013/12/17/update-facebook-to-try-out-video-ads-this-week/
« Last Edit: December 18, 2013, 14:01 by stockastic »

Goofy

« Reply #35 on: December 18, 2013, 14:25 »
+5
Okay, so most of us are in agreement that we don't get paid crap by almost all the Micro stock companies but at least Shutter pays my rent with my earnings where with Yay I couldn't buy a few apples!

« Reply #36 on: December 18, 2013, 14:26 »
+1
And I get minused for saying that?  Amazing.  Seriously.

Shutterstock has become a religion.


« Reply #37 on: December 18, 2013, 14:45 »
+2
Okay, so most of us are in agreement that we don't get paid crap by almost all the Micro stock companies but at least Shutter pays my rent with my earnings where with Yay I couldn't buy a few apples!

No - I don't agree. I DO get paid crap by almost all microstock companies.  Esp SS, but at the end of the day, SS and DT are the only sites I make real revenue on.  SS has its redeeming qualities (like sales that net $112 every once in a while) - but they do typically pay crap (Goofy's definition is as good as any I can think of) .

« Reply #38 on: December 18, 2013, 15:02 »
+1
I wonder if the agencies could go back in time if they ever would have created subs.  If someone is downloading 750 images a month for $250, surely they would have paid for at least 25% of them.
We don't know how much money an agency makes from a subscription.  That's the whole point.  They can charge whatever they want in "fees", and payments to contributors don't change.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2013, 16:13 by stockastic »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
14 Replies
4121 Views
Last post December 22, 2006, 20:17
by Keefo
6 Replies
3366 Views
Last post December 15, 2008, 14:46
by tdoes
18 Replies
4944 Views
Last post May 07, 2009, 16:23
by batman
53 Replies
16776 Views
Last post December 17, 2013, 16:38
by anonymous
11 Replies
4602 Views
Last post March 11, 2014, 10:33
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results