MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStock XSmall price is a joke  (Read 16770 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

CofkoCof

« Reply #25 on: May 07, 2008, 16:03 »
0
Got 16c today for an xs image  ::) ;D


« Reply #26 on: May 07, 2008, 16:34 »
0
Quote
On the subject of XS sales:  Unfortunately I don't have the time to keep up with technology like I want to.  What's the latest in upsizing (a.k.a. uprezzing) technology?  If it's much better than the past, then wouldn't it make sense that buyers would buy the smallest usable sizes and then just uprez them themselves, in spite of the time factor?  I guess batch processing would make it a breeze.  Perhaps right now the money/cost factor is more important than it was in the recent past and would outweigh the time involved in buyer post-editing.  Any thoughts?

I work at an ad agency and have a lot of experience with print layout and web graphics. I'm pretty sure the XS size will only work on the internet. You can resize the 72 dpi photo to 300 dpi but then it would only be 1.5" wide and would basically be useless for print. Also, I would never try upsizing a 72 dpi photo. The quality is already at a very low level and upsizing it would make it much worse. You can successfully upsize 300 dpi photos but should use tifs, not jpegs to do this.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2008, 16:36 by epantha »

« Reply #27 on: May 07, 2008, 16:41 »
0
Now let's think about this.  If everyone who reads this and pulls their images from IS what will that do to IS?  Nothing if you ask me.  I would be willing to bet that if a site pops up selling images for 10 cents each and pay a commission of 2 cents people will upload there too.  They will upload their images and come over here and complain about the super low commission.

None of these sites would be as low as they are if folks like us didn't upload their images for them to sell.  If you want to make good money form stock the only way to go is Alamy, Getty and Corbis.  However Alamy has over 11 million images so if you decide to sell your images at a premium price you'd * well be on top of your game.  Otherwise you'll just have a portfolio to show off to your friends.

The only thanks we owe the microstock agencies is "Thanks for creating 100,000 photo whores"  Which I'm one of them.  Bottom line is we are greedy by nature and want instant gratification for our work.  Microstock sites are built on that.  I've seen this here more than a few times, "I don't worry about the money, I just love the fact that people download my images"  ...... "It makes me feel good that people like my photos"  The sad thing is it's not going to change either.  For every one who pulls out, there are 5 standing in line to get their share of the low commissions.

Either stop uploading to the micro sites or shut up about low commissions.  It is what it is and the small numbers here aren't going to change it.

« Reply #28 on: May 08, 2008, 02:25 »
0
the fact that there are a good number of people who work with microstock as a full time job (myself included) goes to show you that there ARE people concerned with what they make at microstock and it is important.  Microstock has been proven to be a viable business model for both the agency AND the photographer.

« Reply #29 on: May 08, 2008, 02:46 »
0
take your Istock total Revenue to date and divide it by the total downloads, mine comes in with an average of $0.98 per download, compared to SS $0.25 a download, I have pulled all my work from SS because of this very point.

A lot of designers might prefer to download a xSmall rather than a watermarked comp, then thier client do not know the image source, so think that the xSmall could be used for a mockup, and if the designers client goes for it, you may get a medium, large or xlarge sale later, thus getting two downloads for the one piece of work

Also think that if the xSmall option was not there the designer may have brought a large download of the same image over on SS or any other subscription based site that has your images, and you would not be here complaining about that, although it may have cost you revenue.

I try to look at all perspectives to balance any post, and in conclusion think that xSmall images may lead to a bigger future sale, so if I get any I am quite content.

If them 4 xSmall downloads turn into large downloads come back and complain that the poor customer was unable to trade in the xSmall download as part exchange.

David   
« Last Edit: May 08, 2008, 02:48 by Adeptris »

Contakt

    This user is banned.
« Reply #30 on: May 08, 2008, 02:52 »
0
Today i had 4  XSmall sells and the result is less than $1. that is where 20% shows its unfairness.


Getty call it a comping image and don't even charge for it so count your blessings.

« Reply #31 on: May 08, 2008, 03:19 »
0
That data isn't relevant to me, what is relevant to me is the paycheck at the end of the month and my SS one is 50% higher than the one I get off IS.
take your Istock total Revenue to date and divide it by the total downloads, mine comes in with an average of $0.98 per download, compared to SS $0.25 a download, I have pulled all my work from SS because of this very point.


« Reply #32 on: May 08, 2008, 04:17 »
0
That data isn't relevant to me, what is relevant to me is the paycheck at the end of the month and my SS one is 50% higher than the one I get off IS.
take your Istock total Revenue to date and divide it by the total downloads, mine comes in with an average of $0.98 per download, compared to SS $0.25 a download, I have pulled all my work from SS because of this very point.


Yes and for 400% more downloads, the RPI is more important to me, each to thier own, I have decided that it is better to sell 1 image for $1.00 than 4 images for $1.00, 1/4 of the effort.

I have also sold an image 1 download for $54 elsewhere, that would be 216 downloads at SS :)

lisafx

« Reply #33 on: May 08, 2008, 16:50 »
0
the fact that there are a good number of people who work with microstock as a full time job (myself included) goes to show you that there ARE people concerned with what they make at microstock and it is important.  Microstock has been proven to be a viable business model for both the agency AND the photographer.

Agreed!  I have read the charts and surveys on what trad photographers make on average, and also the polls here about what micro photographers are making and I think the micro photographers are coming out way ahead, for the most part. 

RT


« Reply #34 on: May 09, 2008, 06:35 »
0
Agreed!  I have read the charts and surveys on what trad photographers make on average, and also the polls here about what micro photographers are making and I think the micro photographers are coming out way ahead, for the most part. 

Combine the two and you're laughing , although for the record I make more each month on the trads, it's a balance of time and effort, one day I hope to find the right balance.  :D

lisafx

« Reply #35 on: May 09, 2008, 14:19 »
0
Am I right in assuming you need some particular niche to make money on the trads?  I don't see how general stock stuff could surface among all the gazillions of images on Alamy for example...


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
96 Replies
31792 Views
Last post July 12, 2010, 15:45
by Magnum
9 Replies
7674 Views
Last post May 10, 2011, 15:01
by BaldricksTrousers
104 Replies
24531 Views
Last post March 08, 2013, 06:52
by ShadySue
38 Replies
16998 Views
Last post June 27, 2018, 11:14
by madman
25 Replies
5480 Views
Last post May 30, 2022, 21:23
by Milleflore

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors