I have just sold an image (extra small) for $ 0.11 - Something new for me.

What is the next step?
1) pay for upload
2) pay the customers for downloading our work

Someone expressed earlier in a different topic dealing with DT that the
agency may have dropped in sales but the individual sales are often
large "credit" purchases and bring in far more money per sale.

That's been my experience as well. Two sales all this week but
generated $28.00 because they were both credit sales....I have about
2200 images with DT and although I'm disappointed in the number
of sales per month, at least the earnings per image are much higher
than with other images.

You spent a lot of time building your portfolio with DT. I would either
continue uploading or stop uploading and simply cash in each time
you reach the $100 mark.....

My lowest recent extra small was 26 cents (level 0 image) but I think the problem is not any one sale but the amount the portfolio brings in each month compared to (a) before on DR and (b) other agencies.

The ratio of 35 cents subscriptions to the higher credit sales is rising - and it could just be perception, but as the images rise to the highest level I think the credit sales drop off. There are some, and they're great when they happen, but it's not enough to make up for the drop in sales volume. The only way their pricing model could work, IMO, is for exclusive images where there really weren't any alternatives to the expensive level 4 and 5 images at DT. Common images (fruits and veggies on white, for example) won't do well even if exclusive because there's a bazillion of them everywhere.

I see DT sinking in monthly performance even though their RPD number is reasonable. I'd rather have the larger monthly totals

As a comparison, an image I uploaded to both SS and DT in 2011 (after I returned to being an indie following iStock exclusivity) has one tenth the number of downloads at DT and about one quarter the earnings.

I'm not uploading there (I stopped when sales took a nosedive) and just collect the payouts as I reach $100.

I assume at some point they'll get acquired or fold, but until then (or until they make some pricing or royalty changes I can't live with) I'll leave what I have there

Maybe it's an error in their system.   Email them and ask.

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on November 24, 2015, 15:24
The ratio of 35 cents subscriptions to the higher credit sales is rising - and it could just be perception, but as the images rise to the highest level I think the credit sales drop off. There are some, and they're great when they happen, but it's not enough to make up for the drop in sales volume.

Yes as the images rise through the levels the credit sales for the images drop off. My level 4 and 5 sales are pretty much all subs.

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on November 24, 2015, 15:24
My lowest recent extra small was 26 cents (level 0 image) but I think the problem is not any one sale but the amount the portfolio brings in each month compared to (a) before on DR and (b) other agencies.

The ratio of 35 cents subscriptions to the higher credit sales is rising - and it could just be perception, but as the images rise to the highest level I think the credit sales drop off. There are some, and they're great when they happen, but it's not enough to make up for the drop in sales volume. The only way their pricing model could work, IMO, is for exclusive images where there really weren't any alternatives to the expensive level 4 and 5 images at DT. Common images (fruits and veggies on white, for example) won't do well even if exclusive because there's a bazillion of them everywhere.

I see DT sinking in monthly performance even though their RPD number is reasonable. I'd rather have the larger monthly totals

As a comparison, an image I uploaded to both SS and DT in 2011 (after I returned to being an indie following iStock exclusivity) has one tenth the number of downloads at DT and about one quarter the earnings.

I'm not uploading there (I stopped when sales took a nosedive) and just collect the payouts as I reach $100.

I assume at some point they'll get acquired or fold, but until then (or until they make some pricing or royalty changes I can't live with) I'll leave what I have there

I doubt DT is going to fold anytime soon. They still seem to be spending quite a bit in online advertising. And with their website running fine, why would they shut it down and turn off the revenue stream? The Stockxpert site is still online. I cannot remember very many microstock sites 'folding', only Lucky Oliver comes to mind.

People seem to love Prophesying disaster on this site .......decline maybe but lets not get carried away

Strange agency, lately I have noticed ten types of income for clips with same lvl, same license....etc
I do not bother to understand Dreamstime

I tend to find the stuff that sells there doesn't sell so much on other sites it does thinks a bit differently thats why I quite like it.

Quote from: ravens on November 24, 2015, 15:37
Maybe it's an error in their system.   Email them and ask.

I asked them, but I am still waiting for the answer.

Checkbox with "sell rights" again is checked when i change license type. Just again i want to tell publicly - i don't want to sell the rights, Dreamstime! It is extrim to find there images in the port where this checkbox was checked. This checkbox is not checked always, it is something for sure not random, but not for all cases, what also is doing difficult to detect.

there is another thread asking if comatose time is dead
now this one is of end of the road.

really, comatose-time fell off a cliff a long time ago. the irony is that they keep sending you those reminders that you have no dls for 3 years and you can donate it for free image if you don't do anything.

i did them a bigger favor, i just deactivated as many images as i can . although i like to delete most of the portfolio but hey, guess what? they won't let you. i think it's even more difficult to de-exclusive your image too.

amazing how much trouble this agency gives you for not getting any dls for 3 years on line.
ss does nothing of this sort, as bad as they are these days, they don't bug . out of you for not getting any dls.
hey guess what? it's because most of the time, you do get dls with ss.

Quote from: Chichikov on November 24, 2015, 13:57
I have just sold an image (extra small) for $ 0.11 - Something new for me.

What is the next step?
1) pay for upload
2) pay the customers for downloading our work

congrats on your $.11 sale :)))

But seriously, you are spot on, @Chichikov: you are one of the only guys out there who already got the entire concept of NIRP (negative interest rate policy -- by central banks, or other microstock agencies).

With your attitude and examples 1) and 2) above (I like it, don't get me wrong), you should be an economist -- preferably a central banker in (what used to be) the "West"!

It's the state of the dollar-based world economy (on its way out, though), and it's symptomatic...

Quote from: michaeldb on November 25, 2015, 04:42

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on November 24, 2015, 15:24
My lowest recent extra small was 26 cents (level 0 image) but I think the problem is not any one sale but the amount the portfolio brings in each month compared to (a) before on DR and (b) other agencies.

The ratio of 35 cents subscriptions to the higher credit sales is rising - and it could just be perception, but as the images rise to the highest level I think the credit sales drop off. There are some, and they're great when they happen, but it's not enough to make up for the drop in sales volume. The only way their pricing model could work, IMO, is for exclusive images where there really weren't any alternatives to the expensive level 4 and 5 images at DT. Common images (fruits and veggies on white, for example) won't do well even if exclusive because there's a bazillion of them everywhere.

I see DT sinking in monthly performance even though their RPD number is reasonable. I'd rather have the larger monthly totals

As a comparison, an image I uploaded to both SS and DT in 2011 (after I returned to being an indie following iStock exclusivity) has one tenth the number of downloads at DT and about one quarter the earnings.

I'm not uploading there (I stopped when sales took a nosedive) and just collect the payouts as I reach $100.

I assume at some point they'll get acquired or fold, but until then (or until they make some pricing or royalty changes I can't live with) I'll leave what I have there

I doubt DT is going to fold anytime soon. They still seem to be spending quite a bit in online advertising. And with their website running fine, why would they shut it down and turn off the revenue stream? The Stockxpert site is still online. I cannot remember very many microstock sites 'folding', only Lucky Oliver comes to mind.

red---  good point. they are no longer considered a stock agency interested in earning money for dls for us. it all started with fb likes, and then offering your 3 yr non-sellers for free.
you are correct in that they are making money on traffic and giving away free images from those
contributors who thinks free means future income for them. them being dt, and not them that
voted to give away their work for free.
no surprise they are no longer in the top 4.

I have seen quite a few google adverts for dreamstime today.  I'm in the UK and can't remember seeing many before.  ALSO I have received an email from dreamstime in which they are promoting 50% off all images today.

So I'd say they are still working hard.

JC

Quote from: jwsc101 on November 26, 2015, 17:49
I have seen quite a few google adverts for dreamstime today.  I'm in the UK and can't remember seeing many before.  ALSO I have received an email from dreamstime in which they are promoting 50% off all images today.

So I'd say they are still working hard.

JC

I wouldn't spalsh too much dirt on DT either. After all, they are still THE original microstock agency, and they're doing a hell of a better job than Shutterstock or Fotolia!

Quote from: Mackie on November 26, 2015, 23:38
...After all, they are still THE original microstock agency, and they're doing a hell of a better job than Shutterstock or Fotolia!

I don't understand the above. DT was one of the early agencies, but it wasn't the original - iStock was. As far as DT, Canstock, SS go, I don't know which came first, but they were all new-ish in 2004 when I came upon them. Fotolia didn't start until 2005

And how is DT doing a better job than SS? Not in earnings or collection size or search or anything else I can think of.

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on November 27, 2015, 02:11

Quote from: Mackie on November 26, 2015, 23:38
...After all, they are still THE original microstock agency, and they're doing a hell of a better job than Shutterstock or Fotolia!

I don't understand the above. DT was one of the early agencies, but it wasn't the original - iStock was. As far as DT, Canstock, SS go, I don't know which came first, but they were all new-ish in 2004 when I came upon them. Fotolia didn't start until 2005

And how is DT doing a better job than SS? Not in earnings or collection size or search or anything else I can think of.

lmao, perharps at playing dead, and just living on free images 

Quote from: lex-icon on November 25, 2015, 23:58

Quote from: Chichikov on November 24, 2015, 13:57
I have just sold an image (extra small) for $ 0.11 - Something new for me.

What is the next step?
1) pay for upload
2) pay the customers for downloading our work

congrats on your $.11 sale ))

But seriously, you are spot on, @Chichikov: you are one of the only guys out there who already got the entire concept of NIRP (negative interest rate policy -- by central banks, or other microstock agencies).

With your attitude and examples 1) and 2) above (I like it, don't get me wrong), you should be an economist -- preferably a central banker in (what used to be) the "West"!

It's the state of the dollar-based world economy (on its way out, though), and it's symptomatic...

Thanks for the congrats, I really appreciate.
To be an economist, no, I don't want to be a Dead Soul.

___
Still waiting Dreamstime answer...

DT continue to slowly grow in income for me. They are still one of the top agencies and they do things a bit different than SS or FL with pricing tiers and tighter reviews. I like the idea that there's  some competition in agencies and models so also wouldn't  knock them.

Got the answer.

"The price per credit was unusually low because they purchased a large package of 260 credits during our Black Friday sale last year which gave a 50% discount. "

So, they discount and we pay...
I'm speechless!...

Credits are the ultimate 'funny money', a currency that the agency controls, with no fixed exchange rate.  A credit is worth whatever they say it is, at any particular moment.

Quote from: michaeldb on November 25, 2015, 04:42

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on November 24, 2015, 15:24
My lowest recent extra small was 26 cents (level 0 image) but I think the problem is not any one sale but the amount the portfolio brings in each month compared to (a) before on DR and (b) other agencies.

The ratio of 35 cents subscriptions to the higher credit sales is rising - and it could just be perception, but as the images rise to the highest level I think the credit sales drop off. There are some, and they're great when they happen, but it's not enough to make up for the drop in sales volume. The only way their pricing model could work, IMO, is for exclusive images where there really weren't any alternatives to the expensive level 4 and 5 images at DT. Common images (fruits and veggies on white, for example) won't do well even if exclusive because there's a bazillion of them everywhere.

I see DT sinking in monthly performance even though their RPD number is reasonable. I'd rather have the larger monthly totals

As a comparison, an image I uploaded to both SS and DT in 2011 (after I returned to being an indie following iStock exclusivity) has one tenth the number of downloads at DT and about one quarter the earnings.

I'm not uploading there (I stopped when sales took a nosedive) and just collect the payouts as I reach $100.

I assume at some point they'll get acquired or fold, but until then (or until they make some pricing or royalty changes I can't live with) I'll leave what I have there

I doubt DT is going to fold anytime soon. They still seem to be spending quite a bit in online advertising. And with their website running fine, why would they shut it down and turn off the revenue stream? The Stockxpert site is still online. I cannot remember very many microstock sites 'folding', only Lucky Oliver comes to mind.

If you cannot remember that makes it true and fact. Have you looked at closed sites topic here or the recent close that didn't pay people, or the site that sold and never opened again. Let me be help for you.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/sites-that-no-longer-exist/ sites that no longer exist 

Quote from: FlowerPower on November 30, 2015, 22:48

Quote from: michaeldb on November 25, 2015, 04:42

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on November 24, 2015, 15:24
My lowest recent extra small was 26 cents (level 0 image) but I think the problem is not any one sale but the amount the portfolio brings in each month compared to (a) before on DR and (b) other agencies.

The ratio of 35 cents subscriptions to the higher credit sales is rising - and it could just be perception, but as the images rise to the highest level I think the credit sales drop off. There are some, and they're great when they happen, but it's not enough to make up for the drop in sales volume. The only way their pricing model could work, IMO, is for exclusive images where there really weren't any alternatives to the expensive level 4 and 5 images at DT. Common images (fruits and veggies on white, for example) won't do well even if exclusive because there's a bazillion of them everywhere.

I see DT sinking in monthly performance even though their RPD number is reasonable. I'd rather have the larger monthly totals

As a comparison, an image I uploaded to both SS and DT in 2011 (after I returned to being an indie following iStock exclusivity) has one tenth the number of downloads at DT and about one quarter the earnings.

I'm not uploading there (I stopped when sales took a nosedive) and just collect the payouts as I reach $100.

I assume at some point they'll get acquired or fold, but until then (or until they make some pricing or royalty changes I can't live with) I'll leave what I have there

I doubt DT is going to fold anytime soon. They still seem to be spending quite a bit in online advertising. And with their website running fine, why would they shut it down and turn off the revenue stream? The Stockxpert site is still online. I cannot remember very many microstock sites 'folding', only Lucky Oliver comes to mind.

If you cannot remember that makes it true and fact. Have you looked at closed sites topic here or the recent close that didn't pay people, or the site that sold and never opened again. Let me be help for you.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/sites-that-no-longer-exist/ sites that no longer exist 

Look at the list again. One is Stockxpert, which did NOT fold, it is still there, as I mentioned in my post, and I get paid from it every month or so. The others on the list were never big enough to be listed in the Microstock Poll Results. They were just tiny startups which never got off the ground, except for Lucky Oliver, which I also mentioned in my post. None of those companies was ever in the same ballpark as even GL or Vectorstock, let alone DT.