Author Topic: Indivstock - Looking for Illustration (Read 17887 times)

indivstock.com · « **on:** March 13, 2013, 16:41 »

Hello microstockgroup users,

http://www.indivstock.com/

We have started a few weeks ago. We want to make it as easy as possible for our contributors.
Want to know more? http://www.indivstock.com/pages/sell-images.html

Thank you. Greetings from Germany.
Andreas

Mantis · « **Reply #1 on:** March 13, 2013, 17:14 »

I think you need to offer more information like commissions, pricing, basic marketing plan, etc. These data will make or break this post. And the first turnoff is that you promote uploading but say that:

A Ftp-Access is possible too. Contact us.
But beware,:
1. only accept .jpg files at the moment
2. it may take some time until a ftp-access is possible for you it could take

This is likely to create some additional questions.

Good luck.

indivstock.com · « **Reply #2 on:** December 24, 2013, 10:04 »

We wish you all a Merry Christmas and thank all contributors and buyers. We are proud of our picture stock. We will continue to take over the categorization and search words-indexing. Fast server, friendly support and a growing image inventory .. we look forward to 2014.
Thank you.
Andreas

indivstock.com · « **Reply #3 on:** September 13, 2014, 14:14 »

outdated information deleted

EmberMike · « **Reply #4 on:** September 14, 2014, 12:01 »

So... from what I can tell from your website:

36-50% commissions on single image sales and packs. $0.18-$0.25 commissions on membership sales (subscriptions). Is that right?

indivstock.com · « **Reply #5 on:** September 14, 2014, 12:18 »

outdated information deleted

dirkr · « **Reply #6 on:** September 14, 2014, 17:03 »

too cheap.

EmberMike · « **Reply #7 on:** September 14, 2014, 23:20 »

Those are less than impressive pack commission rates and downright terrible subscription commissions. I'll pass.

indivstock.com · « **Reply #8 on:** September 15, 2014, 01:11 »

outdated information deleted

dirkr · « **Reply #9 on:** September 15, 2014, 02:28 »

to make it short:

- your prices are too low, full size images should go for around $20.
- commissions should start at 50%, not end there.
- your subscription royalties are outright insulting, $0.25 is the entry level on Shutterstock

You want to compete against established agencies.
If you want people to contribute, you have to offer more.

Tror · « **Reply #10 on:** September 15, 2014, 03:06 »

Every newcomer who offers less then 50% commission is not worth even looking at the site.

indivstock.com · « **Reply #11 on:** September 15, 2014, 12:33 »

outdated information deleted

cthoman · « **Reply #12 on:** September 15, 2014, 13:42 »

Quote from: Indivstock on September 15, 2014, 12:33

Thank you for the feedback Regarding the first impression.
Surely it would be possible to increase the commissions.
In the long run it reduces the possible measures that we could implement. These measures directly contribute to the possible success. Therefore, 50% are not to be despised. This is an absolute maximum (purely Costing). On the other hand, I agree to the Subscriber Shares are not the highest. So here we have room for improvement. Here Indivstock can come to meet the artists. In addition Indivstock takes all steps after upload. In addition, the artist Receives sales shares for Easy Image Changes. In addition, the seller Receives at the beginner packages commissions up to 80% ($6). Each image is manually checked for keywords. Each image is complemented by Important keywords, if some are missing. Unfortunately, prices of $ 20 per image are not feasible. The market price is significantly lower. 70% Commission would be theoretically possible. But what sense does this, when Indivstock ran unable to move. 60% of a a few sales ist not much. 70% of even less is almost nothing. 80% commission is nothing, since no sales are coming into existence.

If you can't charge more or pay more, then I don't really understand how the feedback you received here was helpful at all. Most of us have no interest in new low paying sites. We have enough problems with the existing low paying sites.

dirkr · « **Reply #13 on:** September 15, 2014, 15:58 »

Quote from: Indivstock on September 15, 2014, 12:33

Thank you for the feedback Regarding the first impression.
Surely it would be possible to increase the commissions.
In the long run it reduces the possible measures that we could implement. These measures directly contribute to the possible success. Therefore, 50% are not to be despised. This is an absolute maximum (purely Costing).

No, 50% are ok. As a start, but not as the last step in your commission schedule. You have no proven track record, nobody knows if you will ever reach 1000 sales as an agency, let alone for a single contributor. And that's what - according to your site - is needed to achieve these 50%.

Quote from: Indivstock on September 15, 2014, 12:33

On the other hand, I agree to the Subscriber Shares are not the highest. So here we have room for improvement. Here Indivstock can come to meet the artists.

"Are not the highest"? Do you think that's funny? $0.18 is clearly the lowest in the industry, not even 123RF pays that little, and they are the worst I've ever seen!

Start at $0.50 per download to be better then your competition. Adapt prices accordingly. Or leave out subs completely. If all your strategy is competing on price, then good luck finding contributors here.

Quote from: Indivstock on September 15, 2014, 12:33

In addition, the artist Receives sales shares for Easy Image Changes.

Can you elaborate on that? What is that?

Quote from: Indivstock on September 15, 2014, 12:33

Unfortunately, prices of $ 20 per image are not feasible.

They are feasible. Yes, this will lead to less sales. But I don't need another agency competing on price. There's too much of them already.

Quote from: Indivstock on September 15, 2014, 12:33

The market price is significantly lower. 70% Commission would be theoretically possible. But what sense does this, when Indivstock ran unable to move. 60% of a a few sales ist not much. 70% of even less is almost nothing. 80% commission is nothing, since no sales are coming into existence.

This sounds like you have an idea of how the commission percentage will affect your ability to invest in marketing. How many sales you will make, how much money you can invest. So what's your business plan? How much sales do you think you can generate (overall, as agency) with your proposed commissions? How much money will go into marketing? How will you attract buyers?

EmberMike · « **Reply #14 on:** September 15, 2014, 15:59 »

Quote from: Indivstock on September 15, 2014, 12:33

...In the long run it reduces the possible measures that we could implement. These measures directly contribute to the possible success. Therefore, 50% are not to be despised. This is an absolute maximum (purely Costing)...

...Unfortunately, prices of $ 20 per image are not feasible. The market price is significantly lower. 70% Commission would be theoretically possible. But what sense does this, when Indivstock ran unable to move. 60% of a a few sales ist not much. 70% of even less is almost nothing. 80% commission is nothing, since no sales are coming into existence.

I'm sorry if this comes across as harsh, but let me be frank here. It's not 2004 and we're not idiots.

Some companies have gotten away with paying low percentages and low subscription royalties over the years, but it's a different game now. We're past the point where many of us still believe that royalties over 50% are impossible. Especially not when I'm looking at my monthly earnings and seeing a company that pays 70% as my 3rd highest earner.

And we're way past the point where I'll even look at a company paying less than 50%.

I kind of feel somewhat insulted these ridiculous notions of yours about what is and what isn't feasible. We're a community that includes many people who have been around here for a while, and you're acting like we just don't know what we're talking about.

Of course you don't have to take my word for it. Bruce Livingstone has stated that, "Every photographer should ... understand that if they get anything less than 50%, they're not being fairly paid." Less than 50%, as in, 50% is the new acceptable minimum. Not as the high-end down-the-road possible earnings level.

And $0.18-0.25 subscription royalties? Come on. If I wasn't already insulted enough by your weak explanation of why royalties over 50% aren't feasible, I'm entirely insulted by an offer of possibly the worst subscription royalties I've ever seen.

EmberMike · « **Reply #15 on:** September 15, 2014, 16:11 »

Aside from the above mentioned concerns, I'm also a bit concerned by your artist terms. Particularly this one:

Quote

5.1 The artist allows Indivstock the exchange and sale of sub-licenses of the works in compliance with the terms and services and additional of use by granting Indivstock the simple, temporally and spatially unlimited usage rights. To this end, the artist allows his works by Indivstock to make available as a download and sell it under their own name. The sale proceeds will be occupied by Indivstock and credited pro rata according to seller share the artist. The artist admits Indivstock a right to use their own license terms for licenses under this and after with immediate validity to change at any time and to complement. The artist admits Indivstock the rights referred to in point 5 a charge.

I don't completely understand it and certainly some things are lost in translation, but it sounds very odd to me, pro rata credits and all.

indivstock.com · « **Reply #16 on:** September 15, 2014, 16:45 »

outdated information deleted

cascoly · « **Reply #17 on:** September 16, 2014, 13:28 »

in addition to the insulting payments, they require the biggest files of any microstock agency

"The minimum resolution must be on the shortest side at least 3500 pixels."

ie, a MINIMUM file size of 10 mp!

indivstock.com · « **Reply #18 on:** September 16, 2014, 13:39 »

outdated information deleted

indivstock.com · « **Reply #19 on:** September 16, 2014, 13:41 »

outdated information deleted

indivstock.com · « **Reply #20 on:** September 28, 2014, 18:03 »

outdated information deleted

indivstock.com · « **Reply #21 on:** November 11, 2014, 04:30 »

outdated information deleted

Maximilian · « **Reply #22 on:** November 28, 2014, 23:03 »

It now looks quite ok. But how can a friend of mine enter directly as commission 3?
Talked about but I can not find any information about..

indivstock.com · « **Reply #23 on:** December 02, 2014, 09:45 »

outdated information deleted

indivstock.com · « **Reply #24 on:** December 04, 2014, 19:28 »

outdated information deleted

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Indivstock - Looking for Illustration (Read 17887 times)

indivstock.com

Mantis

indivstock.com

indivstock.com

EmberMike

indivstock.com

dirkr

EmberMike

indivstock.com

dirkr

Tror

indivstock.com

cthoman

dirkr

EmberMike

EmberMike

indivstock.com

cascoly

indivstock.com

indivstock.com

indivstock.com

indivstock.com

Maximilian

indivstock.com

indivstock.com

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors