Agency Based Discussion > GLStock

GL Stock (GraphicLeftover) - The state of the situation

<< < (2/8) > >>

Diddly squat.  They're coming off my roster for 2018.  Not worth the effort to keep them in my spreadsheet.

Selling all image sizes for the same price is their biggest mistake IMO.


--- Quote from: Fairplay on November 07, 2017, 04:40 ---Selling all image sizes for the same price is their biggest mistake IMO.

--- End quote ---

That's one of the best parts (along with setting prices). I'm glad they aren't like every other agency. A few sales there actually add up to something.


--- Quote from: sharpshot on November 06, 2017, 14:48 ---I think they forgot the No.1 priority, keeping enough buyers to make it worth contributors uploading.  The old site seemed fine to me, they could of spent money marketing while working on the new site design.  Now, like many other sites, it looks nice but isn't frequented by enough buyers.

--- End quote ---

It's silly to say we "forgot" that buyers are crucial to the business, as that is a given.  It's a lot easier said than done when competing with companies who are spending tens of thousands of dollars a day (if not more), and the average lifetime value of a buyer is dramatically higher.

There's a lot more than throwing marketing dollars that goes into converting visitors into paying members.  We are working on this every day, and we are finding obstacles that we have to overcome.

For those who don't think we're worth uploading to, you're welcome to your opinion.  At no point did we set unrealistic expectations for the members of MSG here.  We said from day one this is going to be a long process, and one in which we are working towards.  We receive significant amounts of uploads each day, and we review images each day.  Unlike our competitors with hundreds or thousands of employees, we're a couple of people doing everything.  We of course want to earn everybody's business, and attract more buyers, and there are things we are working on to do that. 

Some of our sellers do relatively well and are frequently seeing sales, some see a few sales per month, and of course some see little to no sales.

Giving up control of pricing to our sellers does in fact pose challenges.  We are in the works of pursuing additional purchasing packages that would enable us to control pricing for those packages, while trying to attract the larger buyers out there.  We are treading carefully around this idea, as we need to ensure that our sellers still have control of their pricing, as we believe (and most sellers believe) this is a source of positivity, since you can determine the market value of your images.

As you can imagine, our site attracts people looking for a few images here and there, and only some bigger buyers who buy more frequently.  It always has been the case.  That's the difference between a la carte buying, versus subscription buying.  The larger companies who have significant budgets much rather spend $.12 per image than $1 - $30 per image.   Yet, as a seller, you rather make $0.40 - $16 per download, than $.10 per download. 

Buyers could care less how much a seller is making per image, they only care about how little they can pay per image.  The challenge of paying contributors high commissions, and allowing you to determine your own pricing is one that often discourages buyers.  Unlike the buyers, we do care how much you make per image sale.  So we are trying to find that healthy medium where we ensure high commissions for our sellers, while putting together packages that are attractive for buyers. 

We are also not trying to make massive changes on a whim, and spend a lot of time doing research and planning, before queuing up our developers with new initiatives.

In the near future, you will likely see new buying options for sellers, where the price per image is controlled, and based on the package they chose, will determine the commission you earn.  This would be in addition to the a la carte pricing.  This is not set in stone, but something we are working on and discussing internally.

I am still Having Problems uploading 6mp images that have one side under 2000px. The uploader is saying the image needs to have at least one side OVER 2000px.( which of course it does).

Even though their (GL's) belated support reply said that ALL IS NORMAL with uploading???

Is anyone else experiencing this problem or am I the only sufferer?
I would like to support GL but without their support, it is a no go.


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version