MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Yay unlimited images for only $4.95  (Read 5767 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« 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
4128 Views
Last post December 22, 2006, 20:17
by Keefo
6 Replies
3368 Views
Last post December 15, 2008, 14:46
by tdoes
18 Replies
4950 Views
Last post May 07, 2009, 16:23
by batman
53 Replies
16782 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