Author Topic: Introducing pixamba.com - by creators of ProStockMaster software (Read 34972 times)

davidm · « **on:** June 25, 2009, 19:06 »

Hi all,
I am happy to invite you to take a look at what we have worked on during the last few months:
http://www.pixamba.com
We have just released the public Beta with 255,000 midstock images and we will be very happy to get your microstock contributions. Built on an advanced cloud computing infrastructure, Pixamba is probably the world fastest online stock agency today. Since the first introduction of ProStockMaster in June 2006 we had many opportunities to demonstrate our technology awareness and our ability to convert the imagination into the products and we proud of supportive community that we built with PSM. Starting to work with Pixamba web site today, you can expect more new services coming from our ProStockMaster - Pixamba client - server platform.

Since we have worked hard delivering the Beta release of Pixamba web site on time, Pixamba uploads are not supported by PSM yet. We are working on adding the site support to PSM and it will be available very soon.

We'll be happy to get your feedback on Pixamba. Tell us what you think by emailing me david(at)pixamba.com, reply in this thread and follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/pixamba

louoates · « **Reply #1 on:** June 25, 2009, 20:20 »

I think if you want any traction with this crowd you'll need to do a lot more explaining how you will be marketing your site. We've been buried with new wanna-bees -- few of whom had the slightest clue in that department. If memory serves me the last admitted "beta version" micro stock agency site never made it out of beta.

If I were an odds maker I'd give you about a 1,000 to 1 shot on getting many of us to spend more time uploading to a new site based on what you've told us so far.

shiyali · « **Reply #2 on:** June 25, 2009, 20:33 »

Minimum payout amount is 100.-U$, that's way too high for a new site, 20.- would be more appropriate for a new site.

Phil · « **Reply #3 on:** June 25, 2009, 21:34 »

Quote from: louoates on June 25, 2009, 20:20

I think if you want any traction with this crowd you'll need to do a lot more explaining how you will be marketing your site. We've been buried with new wanna-bees -- few of whom had the slightest clue in that department. If memory serves me the last admitted "beta version" micro stock agency site never made it out of beta.

If I were an odds maker I'd give you about a 1,000 to 1 shot on getting many of us to spend more time uploading to a new site based on what you've told us so far.

yep, personally I want to be 'sold' on why I should take my time to submit.

Even then I am at pretty much near my capacity to upload, so I would want to hear of the best uploading procedure and earnings that exceed one of my low earners so they can be dropped in its place.

Pixart · « **Reply #4 on:** June 25, 2009, 22:12 »

Hey davidm, site sure looks purty. It's quite refreshing to see the tangello colour theme. I hate to contribute any negative comments, but your front page looks amazing, yet that Pixamba logo is screaming loudly "I'm a free font!!!" Likely Florentine or Florentine Swashcaps.

Sorry, I know you weren't looking for that kind of feedback. My husband is building a website right now and he is getting pissed off at me for all the negative comments I keep giving him. I don't see it as negative, who do I know that spends more time on the web than me?

dirkr · « **Reply #5 on:** June 25, 2009, 22:52 »

Prices from $0,75 to $9, unlimited run included (others require an EL for that).
EL prices starting from $3,75, depending on size.
40% commission.

Doesn't thrill me... Another "me too".

michaeldb · « **Reply #6 on:** June 25, 2009, 22:59 »

Good luck on your site. I would like to keep an eye on it, if you plan to accept vectors.

DWL · « **Reply #7 on:** June 26, 2009, 01:49 »

Good Luck with your site, but in my opinion you are joining an over saturated competitive marketplace with just another microstock offering.

In todays market any new offering needs to have a unique selling point for Buyers and Photographers, looking at the lifestyle category and some of the first images I see are from Yuri Arcurs nothing new and exciting there.

The search is fast enough, but I much prefer websites where the longest side of a thumbnail is about 170px plus, it would be nice (on all sites) to be able to switch of the irritating mouse over previews.

Looking at the selected image I do not need to see 100 keywords, or the number of views or comments, these might be nice for the photographer but no use to the buyer, the downloads count does have some merit for a buyer.

As already said the $100 payout level for a new website is not good news for the photographers that needs a major re-think maybe a payout of any royalties under $100 at the year end, or is the fact that 75% of contibutors with sales never make a payout part of your business plan.

Where and how will this website be marketed, what is the unique selling point that will see the buyer downloading the same lifestyle image from Yuri Arcurs or any other Photographer from pixamba and not from any of the other major microstock websites, as a buyer I would not care if the photographers share is higher or the site is designed by yourself, only what I am getting as a buyer.

I think for any new offering entering the current market with the same model as many rivals it will be a struggle without a unique selling point, but I do wish you well.

David

davidm · « **Reply #8 on:** June 26, 2009, 04:07 »

Quote from: Pixart on June 25, 2009, 22:12

Hey davidm, site sure looks puty. It's quite refreshing to see the tangello colour theme. I hate to contribute any negative comments, but your front page looks amazing, yet that Pixamba logo is screaming loudly "I'm a free font!!!" Likely Florentine or Florentine Swashcaps.

Thanks for the feedback, it's good for us to know who it looks in your eyes. We'll definitely make many changes in design as we go.

davidm · « **Reply #9 on:** June 26, 2009, 04:20 »

Quote from: dirkr on June 25, 2009, 22:52

Prices from $0,75 to $9, unlimited run included (others require an EL for that).
EL prices starting from $3,75, depending on size.
40% commission.

Doesn't thrill me... Another "me too".

Good point, thanks. Tell me what would thrill you?
Adjusting the prices and commissions at this moment, when we are just starting, is probably the least painful operation we can do :-)

RE 'me too' - everyone starts from some point, so we do. All the biggest agencies were started as small unknown web sites, sometimes competing with already existing and well established 'big brothers'. At the moment Pixamba probably looks very similar to any other agency, but it will change as we go. Of course, we can make it only with your help, not alone.

qwerty · « **Reply #10 on:** June 26, 2009, 05:44 »

Hope your venture goes well, however looking at the list on the right there are already a lot of new sites/low earners. Most of which I think most people don't bother with due to low return for time spent.

some ideas that might help

No categories
No categories
Easy upload essential (FTP)
No long lock in time for submissions
Submission allowance a combination of number of photos online and % acceptance rate. eg someone with 75% acceptance with 2000 photos online gets a higher allocation than 75% with 30 online.
No categories
If subscription based site limited size of download or variable commission dependent on the size downloaded. eg customers can DL 10 small per day, or 3XXL or some combination. (artist get commission based on size)
Plan for attracting customers, preferably new customers not another dilution of the existing pool.
Extended licences are one area contributors are picky about - These should not be too cheap.
No categories
Set reasonable quality levels for acceptance inline with sales and database size. You can't expect to only accept the best with no sales because the best won't submit without some chance of return.
No categories
"best match search" takes no input from reviews from other contributors

DWL · « **Reply #11 on:** June 26, 2009, 06:21 »

Quote from: qwerty on June 26, 2009, 05:44

Plan for attracting customers, preferably new customers not another dilution of the existing pool.
No categories

There is a massive potential New Customer base are out there, but the existing model will not attract them the images need to go to the Customers not the Customers to the images, and they need to purchase instantly via a browser plug-in, only what they need at the time, no registration, no credits and no subscriptions.

Why do you say no categories, the way forward is standardization this means categories and controlled vocabulary tools.

David

Phil · « **Reply #12 on:** June 26, 2009, 06:26 »

Quote from: DWL on June 26, 2009, 06:21

Quote from: qwerty on June 26, 2009, 05:44
Plan for attracting customers, preferably new customers not another dilution of the existing pool.
No categories

There is a massive potential New Customer base are out there, but the existing model will not attract them the images need to go to the Customers not the Customers to the images, and they need to purchase instantly via a browser plug-in, only what they need at the time, no registration, no credits and no subscriptions.

Why do you say no categories, the way forward is standardization this means categories and controlled vocabulary tools.

David

people begrudgingly put up with the catgories and cv at big agencies with high returns, but try and do that with a new agency with low sales and you might as well shut the door and turn off the lights as so few people will bother to upload. who wants to put that much time doing something very tedious for little expected return

davidm · « **Reply #13 on:** June 26, 2009, 08:30 »

Quote from: DWL on June 26, 2009, 06:21

[..] the Customers [..] need to purchase instantly via a browser plug-in, only what they need at the time, no registration, no credits and no subscriptions.

David

I agree that this is probably the best way to proceed with a new customer, thus streamlining the find-n-buy process. However, it can work with midstock+ pricing only. For a microstock payment the micro-transaction fees and the cost of handling will erase the revenue margins. That's why on all sites the credits are sold in packages, there are multi-credits/multi-days subscriptions etc, i.e. credits always come in bulks.
Also, by streamlining the buying flow and by allowing customers to 'pay-and-go' you probably going to miss the opportunity to offer them more images (same artist, same model, similar subject etc) and more services - this is another point of view on the same issue.

Trying to help the new customers to get in, we offer small 5-credits packages to start with. It's not really micro-payments yet and from the other hand it gives the buyers a quick and cheap option to try us and to 'taste' our collection.

DWL · « **Reply #14 on:** June 26, 2009, 08:44 »

Quote from: davidm on June 26, 2009, 08:30

Trying to help the new customers to get in, we offer small 5-credits packages to start with. It's not really micro-payments yet and from the other hand it gives the buyers a quick and cheap option to try us and to 'taste' our collection.

David,
That package is a good offer, the problem is I cannot find the package prices on the website without registration, I would never sign up for anything without knowing the cost per credit or package before joining.

As to micropayments, the payment gateway providers like PayPal and Amazon have realized the potential and are making micropayments a viable option and affordable, so it will not be long before a company picks this system up and runs with it, I am talking more about getting new business and markets, I have just posted my thoughts on my blog about this.

David

Phil · « **Reply #15 on:** June 26, 2009, 09:22 »

Quote from: DWL on June 26, 2009, 08:44

Quote from: davidm on June 26, 2009, 08:30
Trying to help the new customers to get in, we offer small 5-credits packages to start with. It's not really micro-payments yet and from the other hand it gives the buyers a quick and cheap option to try us and to 'taste' our collection.
David,
That package is a good offer, the problem is I cannot find the package prices on the website without registration, I would never sign up for anything without knowing the cost per credit or package before joining.

As to micropayments, the payment gateway providers like PayPal and Amazon have realized the potential and are making micropayments a viable option and affordable, so it will not be long before a company picks this system up and runs with it, I am talking more about getting new business and markets, I have just posted my thoughts on my blog about this.

David

hi, just read your blog and I think integration with software will have to come (with a cut for the software producer), but then fotolia has agents / partners etc how hard would it be for software producer to get the agents cut. Thinking about I bet there are some software producers who would definetly be keen.

The question springs to mind, how much extra would you be willing to pay to buy a single (or two) credits? (I'm not a buyer so dont know) would you, knowing you only want xsmall say pay 1.5 or 2 rather than 1.16 (sorry cant do the symbol

knowing that buying 12 credits gets them at 1.16 each. Would this cover the extra costs to the agency?

Phil

DWL · « **Reply #16 on:** June 26, 2009, 09:57 »

Phil:
I do not want to hijack David's thread so I have opened one up here:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/microstock-services/other-potential-new-markets-and-how-to-open-them-up/msg105622/?topicseen#new

dirkr · « **Reply #17 on:** June 26, 2009, 12:16 »

Quote from: davidm on June 26, 2009, 04:20

Quote from: dirkr on June 25, 2009, 22:52
Prices from $0,75 to $9, unlimited run included (others require an EL for that).
EL prices starting from $3,75, depending on size.
40% commission.

Doesn't thrill me... Another "me too".
Good point, thanks. Tell me what would thrill you?
Adjusting the prices and commissions at this moment, when we are just starting, is probably the least painful operation we can do :-)

RE 'me too' - everyone starts from some point, so we do. All the biggest agencies were started as small unknown web sites, sometimes competing with already existing and well established 'big brothers'. At the moment Pixamba probably looks very similar to any other agency, but it will change as we go. Of course, we can make it only with your help, not alone.

About the points I mentioned the unlimited runs for the standard license and the low EL prices are the most important. Standard license should have some limitation (e.g. 250.000 copies) and ELs should be at $50, better $100. I don't see the benefit of having size dependent ELs, if somebody wants to use my picture to re-sell prints, posters etc. he better pay a lot for that, independent of size.

The prices in general are e.g. around half of what Istock would charge. That looks a little like trying to pull customers from existing agencies via offering lower prices. But lower prices is the last thing I want to see.
So in general from a new agency I would want to see higher prices to motivate me to upload there.

The commission of 40% is not as bad as some competitors, but 50% would of course be better.

These points together clearly show the dilemma: As a newcomer to be able to charge higher prices and pay higher commissions you definitely need something else to attract customers.

And that is the most important point (as has been mentioned above by some other posters): What do you plan to do to attract (new) customers?
If you have any new, brilliant ideas on this front you will likely have a big number of supporters in short time (although I have to admit, I have no good idea what that could be - if I had, I would be starting an agency myself

)

davidm · « **Reply #18 on:** June 26, 2009, 15:12 »

Quote from: dirkr on June 26, 2009, 12:16

Standard license should have some limitation (e.g. 250.000 copies) and ELs should be at $50, better $100.

Note, that at last some leading agencies start offering unlimited run, e..g. Fotolia. Thus, the limited run would not attract the buyer.

Quote from: dirkr on June 26, 2009, 12:16

The commission of 40% is not as bad as some competitors, but 50% would of course be better.

That's right, but please take in consideration that this is a 40% commission for a non-exclusive submission. Assuming that we are going to offer more for an exclusivity (say, 60%? sounds fair?), we have to make some room between exclusive and non-exclusive fees. 40% - 60% sounds OK, I guess while 50% - 60% sounds like a very similar stuff.

Quote from: dirkr on June 26, 2009, 12:16

And that is the most important point (as has been mentioned above by some other posters): What do you plan to do to attract (new) customers?
If you have any new, brilliant ideas on this front you will likely have a big number of supporters in short time (although I have to admit, I have no good idea what that could be - if I had, I would be starting an agency myself )

We have a few interesting ideas in our mind. However, unfortunately it is not enough to come to the market with just the ideas in your pocket. To deploy them we needed a working stock agency, so this is what we did. Hopefully, with your support we'll have enough resources to introduce the new stuff and attract the new buyers, probably expanding the current market.

Phil · « **Reply #19 on:** June 26, 2009, 15:35 »

Quote from: DWL on June 26, 2009, 09:57

Phil:
I do not want to hijack David's thread so I have opened one up here:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/microstock-services/other-potential-new-markets-and-how-to-open-them-up/msg105622/?topicseen#new

sorry David, I had hoped you might be able to comment with your knowledge of transaction fees etc.

IMO I think 40% is smart (obviously as a contributor more is better) probably what I would offer if I was in the same situation. I think its high enough to keep people interested but low enough that you have plenty for marketing etc. (obviously I may be way off with what others think

takestock · « **Reply #20 on:** June 26, 2009, 15:39 »

Hi David!
Your site looks and moves pretty well and I wish you the best.
The difficult part is to get contributors onboard.
You really have to be able to show that something is happening ie. like marketing plan, what is popular, what is selling etc.

Also a forum I feel, which you are probably planning.
Like some above, I think the min payout is too high and it's off putting for a new site. I would suggest something like 50 or even less.
Sorry to say, I wouldn't consider signing up for 100 pay out.

Anyway, good luck and will keep an eye on developments.

melastmohican · « **Reply #21 on:** June 26, 2009, 15:46 »

There are 32 agencies listed on the right side of this site. You are 33rd now. Last year people were so excited about YAYMicro which got great site technology-wise but still no sales. It's going to be very hard to convince anybody to join.

GeoPappas · « **Reply #22 on:** June 26, 2009, 16:15 »

Quote from: davidm on June 26, 2009, 15:12

Quote from: dirkr on June 26, 2009, 12:16
Standard license should have some limitation (e.g. 250.000 copies) and ELs should be at $50, better $100.
Note, that at last some leading agencies start offering unlimited run, e..g. Fotolia. Thus, the limited run would not attract the buyer.

Just because ONE other agency does it, does not mean that all other agencies should immediately race to the bottom. Almost all of the other agencies differentiate between a standard sale and an EL sale.

It has been shown time and again that buyers are not that sensitive to prices. The fact that you seem to be racing to the bottom on price, just shows me that you really don't understand the industry and are trying to make a quick buck off of other people's work.

This type of attitude really concerns me and has left a very sour taste in my mouth in regards to your agency.

qwerty · « **Reply #23 on:** June 26, 2009, 17:11 »

I said no categories because I (and others) hate filling them out and slows down the upload process.
In order to attract contributors to a new site everything needs to be as easy as possible.
Istock's categories is a pain in the $$#@ but they have a solid track record of sales.
Most people also believe that customers very rarely search by category (wether this is true or not I don't know)

Quote from: DWL on June 26, 2009, 06:21

Quote from: qwerty on June 26, 2009, 05:44
Plan for attracting customers, preferably new customers not another dilution of the existing pool.
No categories

There is a massive potential New Customer base are out there, but the existing model will not attract them the images need to go to the Customers not the Customers to the images, and they need to purchase instantly via a browser plug-in, only what they need at the time, no registration, no credits and no subscriptions.

Why do you say no categories, the way forward is standardization this means categories and controlled vocabulary tools.

David

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #24 on:** June 26, 2009, 17:12 »

Anti-Getty Image slogans might attract contributors. Not so sure what the effect would be on buyers.

LSD72 · « **Reply #25 on:** June 26, 2009, 17:49 »

If you build it, we will come..as long as there are sales to be had for a decent % for the contributors. That's where your Advertising / Marketing comes in. I personally would like to know more about that end of it. I also agree that the $100 payout limit is a little steep for a startup when you have established big sellers ranging from $75 to $100 (as low as $30 with BS). $50 I would have no problem with.

As you can see, you got some ears open...now fill them up.

Pixart · « **Reply #26 on:** June 26, 2009, 18:14 »

Back to the $100 minimum. This minimum isn't that high if they would do like many other crowd-sourced enterprises and pay out whatever balance is accumulated under this threshold at the end of each calendar year.

Adeptris · « **Reply #27 on:** June 27, 2009, 00:45 »

Quote from: Pixart on June 26, 2009, 18:14

Back to the $100 minimum. This minimum isn't that high if they would do like many other crowd-sourced enterprises and pay out whatever balance is accumulated under this threshold at the end of each calendar year.

It is estimated that 75% of stock contributors will never make the minimum for a payout, it is more than likely that this un-claimed revenue is calculated as part of any business plan, it is really quite cynical of the agencies to collect royalties and never pass them on the the artist, some of this revenue will be shown on the balance sheet as short term liabilities to be paid out, some will be moved from a liability to an asset or used to cover other costs, when we read how well a site is doing, some of that will be royalty revenue it collected but never paid out.

We really need to get away from this 'We are a Community so lets help each other' scenario, the stock sites are a business that have to maximize and protect their margin, they are not our buddies, we are the Vendors and have the assets they need and should be looking for the best return for the least effort, the stock site should payout on every asset licence they sell once a month providing the transaction cost is met and that is a very small amount, so how about no minimum but a small transaction cost if the payout is less that $10, that might bring in a few Photographers.

David

nruboc · « **Reply #28 on:** June 27, 2009, 01:22 »

Quite honestly... the one thing that turns me off against this site is the overwhelming presence yet again of Yuri. Don't get me wrong, I think his content if awesome... but it is literally EVERYWHERE..... you will not distinguish your site with his content, let me repeat... it is literally EVERYWHERE. When I see his content on a site, I think to myself.... what concessions has he negotiated with the site to get them to be able to display all his content. Will he be getting a advantageous position in the search engine? Was he given the special priveledge of just sending in a DVD of all his photos, with you placing them on the site....etc...etc... The Yuri factor, quite honestly turns me off... no disrespect to his images. To be honest, I won't be uploading to your site, not that you'll care much... but Veer is the only new site I have the time to take on at the moment. But, with 40% as your commission (which is fair) I will be watching your site if it picks up, and I do wish you good luck! And hopefully you'll learn from the failure that is the IStockphoto's time consuming upload process, and make yours as easy as possible!

All the Best!

davidm · « **Reply #29 on:** June 27, 2009, 06:11 »

We listen to you very carefully. The minimal payout amount was dropped to $50.

takestock · « **Reply #30 on:** June 27, 2009, 06:16 »

Quote from: davidm on June 27, 2009, 06:11

We listen to you very carefully. The minimal payout amount was dropped to $50.

Nice start - WTG!

One thing - I see from your submitter FAQ that the min file size is 6mp but I have found one file at 4.8.

LSD72 · « **Reply #31 on:** June 27, 2009, 09:46 »

Apparently the Photos that I have sized for SS minimum are to small for this site. So 2460 x 1640 wont cut it. Hmmm.

etienjones · « **Reply #32 on:** June 27, 2009, 10:08 »

Dave

First I wish you good luck on your adventure. My question concerns the "Best Match" search on the site (I realize that only the beta version is up). I like to test sites by searching for the word "Grave" and on the site I got pocker chips and birds as results . . . some with german titles. How far along are you with your "search" development?

E

DWL · « **Reply #33 on:** June 27, 2009, 10:20 »

Quote from: FAQ

Is there any copyright information or a watermark in the image / content which I license from Pixamba?
No. (there is nothing more to say)

That means that all asset metadata is stripped out of the downloaded image, I had never looked before and just checked one from Istock, that has only Exif data, I would have thought that the stocksites would add a line of metadata with a transaction reference to reduce theft.

David

davidm · « **Reply #34 on:** June 27, 2009, 11:15 »

Quote from: DWL on June 27, 2009, 10:20

[...] I would have thought that the stocksites would add a line of metadata with a transaction reference to reduce theft.

David

As far as I know no stock adds metadata to their downloads at the moment. With JPGs, it is perfectly doable though.
Can some additional metadata protect us from the images theft? I am in doubt, particularly because it's just a 5-seconds work for a thief to strip out any metadata.

gbcimages · « **Reply #35 on:** June 27, 2009, 11:25 »

I would like to see the file sizes smaller. I tried to upload some of my graphics and It said to small.

willie · « **Reply #36 on:** June 27, 2009, 11:40 »

David, welcome to MSG . Most of what I want to say has already been said by others before me here. So only to echo that Yay (no pun intended), the last thing we need is another new site with easy review and no sales. And of course the ubiquitous "give us a few years and we will show you it's worth uploading to us".
Many already have a few years and lots of contributors but STILL NO SALES.
If your buyer base is non existent, you won't win too many new contributors over here. But if you show me I can expect some sales you might just convince me to submit to your site.
btw, the move to reduce to $50 payout is great. It show you listen , wish I can say the same to Dreamstime and IS to do the same. But then again, they get sales and echo, the new sites don't.
But I am definitely watching your site to give me the signal to upload to you...
get more sales and I will do that.
Good luck to Pixamba. Maybe you will prove to us you can be different

davidm · « **Reply #37 on:** June 28, 2009, 02:09 »

Quote from: etienjones on June 27, 2009, 10:08

Dave

First I wish you good luck on your adventure. My question concerns the "Best Match" search on the site (I realize that only the beta version is up). I like to test sites by searching for the word "Grave" and on the site I got pocker chips and birds as results . . . some with german titles. How far along are you with your "search" development?

E

Thanks to all for wishing us good luck, some luck will definitely help.

@etienjones:
I must admit I like your search keyword

- it's so refreshing vs. 'girl with a mobile phone' that I typically see in searches

A good search results depend on two major things: a) good search infrastructure (supportive data structure, wise queries etc); b) well-indexed content with all the data / metadata elements in place. I believe we are already fine with (a), mostly because we have designed the system that way, however as you saw we have a lot of work to do with (b) yet, cleaning up some images data.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #38 on:** June 28, 2009, 07:38 »

You should probably hire a copywriter. This doesn't read well, and some of the sentences aren't even sentences:
"Pixamba is for color, freshness and creativity. We deliver digital vitamins for design and advertising projects. Our high resolution stock photos and illustrations are everywhere, used online on thousands web sites, in digital documents, presentations, brochures, welcomed by publishing houses and magazines, adopted in packagings designs and merchandize. Hundreds thousands hi-res images available online at Pixamba worth more than thousands words. These are milllions of words and a zillion of new concepts and inspirations, all at one low price. "

Also, you may want to be more careful of images like this: http://www.pixamba.com/beim-doc-business-medicine-stockphotos-236771.html which may be illegal in some countries.

What country are you marketing to? Your splash is in English, but images are titled "Frau legt Geschenk unter Weihnachtsbaum" and the like. I don't know what that means.

I don't see anything at all in your legal about the terms of the licensing agreement: http://www.pixamba.com/legal.html ie. what the images can be used for. You have a little bit here: http://www.pixamba.com/prices.html , but that is an info page, not any kind of contract. I would be wary of submitting anything to this site until your legal work is up to speed.

davidm · « **Reply #39 on:** June 28, 2009, 08:15 »

Quote from: sjlocke on June 28, 2009, 07:38

You should probably hire a copywriter. This doesn't read well, and some of the sentences aren't even sentences:
"Pixamba is for color, freshness and creativity. We deliver digital vitamins for design and advertising projects. Our high resolution stock photos and illustrations are everywhere, used online on thousands web sites, in digital documents, presentations, brochures, welcomed by publishing houses and magazines, adopted in packagings designs and merchandize. Hundreds thousands hi-res images available online at Pixamba worth more than thousands words. These are milllions of words and a zillion of new concepts and inspirations, all at one low price. "

Also, you may want to be more careful of images like this: http://www.pixamba.com/beim-doc-business-medicine-stockphotos-236771.html which may be illegal in some countries.

What country are you marketing to? Your splash is in English, but images are titled "Frau legt Geschenk unter Weihnachtsbaum" and the like. I don't know what that means.

I don't see anything at all in your legal about the terms of the licensing agreement: http://www.pixamba.com/legal.html ie. what the images can be used for. You have a little bit here: http://www.pixamba.com/prices.html , but that is an info page, not any kind of contract. I would be wary of submitting anything to this site until your legal work is up to speed.

Agree with everything you have said, thank you.

The image removed.

Tim Markley · « **Reply #40 on:** June 28, 2009, 08:48 »

I like the look of the site, but another micro site will be tough sell. But since I like your PSM software i'll give a try.

davidm · « **Reply #41 on:** June 29, 2009, 00:00 »

Quote from: gbcimages on June 27, 2009, 11:25

I would like to see the file sizes smaller. I tried to upload some of my graphics and It said to small.

First, thanks for your submission, these are very nice illustrations.

What min MP size would you consider as reasonable?
Would it be a good idea to separate MIN upload size for illustrations(raster) and photos, making it e.g. 2MP for illustrations and e.g. 4? 5? 6? (now) MP for photos?

takestock · « **Reply #42 on:** June 29, 2009, 02:55 »

Quote from: davidm on June 29, 2009, 00:00

Quote from: gbcimages on June 27, 2009, 11:25
I would like to see the file sizes smaller. I tried to upload some of my graphics and It said to small.
First, thanks for your submission, these are very nice illustrations.

What min MP size would you consider as reasonable?
Would it be a good idea to separate MIN upload size for illustrations(raster) and photos, making it e.g. 2MP for illustrations and e.g. 4? 5? 6? (now) MP for photos?

How about 4mp for photos? I'm sure a lot of contributors have good selling images from when the pixel count was much lower than it is today, and would be able to upload these to you. It will also mean more images for your database.

Dook · « **Reply #43 on:** June 29, 2009, 03:18 »

You should stick to 4MP for start. When you build up your collection you can move up a little bit. But you should also ask for ID, so you get sure you do not sell stolen images.

dirkr · « **Reply #44 on:** June 29, 2009, 04:37 »

Quote from: takestock on June 29, 2009, 02:55

How about 4mp for photos? I'm sure a lot of contributors have good selling images from when the pixel count was much lower than it is today, and would be able to upload these to you. It will also mean more images for your database.

Agreed, good suggestion.
4 MP is good enough for web use and small prints.

gbcimages · « **Reply #45 on:** June 29, 2009, 09:02 »

Quote from: davidm on June 29, 2009, 00:00

Quote from: gbcimages on June 27, 2009, 11:25
I would like to see the file sizes smaller. I tried to upload some of my graphics and It said to small.
First, thanks for your submission, these are very nice illustrations.

What min MP size would you consider as reasonable?
Would it be a good idea to separate MIN upload size for illustrations(raster) and photos, making it e.g. 2MP for illustrations and e.g. 4? 5? 6? (now) MP for photos?

Yes ,that will work,it's a good all around size.Thanks

RacePhoto · « **Reply #46 on:** June 29, 2009, 13:42 »

Quote from: qwerty on June 26, 2009, 05:44

Hope your venture goes well, however looking at the list on the right there are already a lot of new sites/low earners. Most of which I think most people don't bother with due to low return for time spent.

some ideas that might help

No categories
No categories
Easy upload essential (FTP)
No long lock in time for submissions
Submission allowance a combination of number of photos online and % acceptance rate. eg someone with 75% acceptance with 2000 photos online gets a higher allocation than 75% with 30 online.
No categories
If subscription based site limited size of download or variable commission dependent on the size downloaded. eg customers can DL 10 small per day, or 3XXL or some combination. (artist get commission based on size)
Plan for attracting customers, preferably new customers not another dilution of the existing pool.
Extended licences are one area contributors are picky about - These should not be too cheap.
No categories
Set reasonable quality levels for acceptance inline with sales and database size. You can't expect to only accept the best with no sales because the best won't submit without some chance of return.
No categories
"best match search" takes no input from reviews from other contributors

And yes, NO CATEGORIES

they are a waste of time, nearly impossible to make any sense of them because you have to buttonhole an image into something that's frozen and inflexible to making a good match for many photos.

kosmikkreeper · « **Reply #47 on:** June 29, 2009, 14:46 »

I can only say what I think but I also think that many top contributors might agree... if you want to attract top contributors, you'll need to invest in them. We need a risk to reward ratio that makes good business sense. We invest our product and uploading time. What will you invest? For me, I would need financial compensation to invest with a new agency. A bit like what Fotolia did when they started.

With many startups falling like flies, our risk to reward ratio is too high to warrant our investment without a financial risk from the new agency.

davidm · « **Reply #48 on:** June 29, 2009, 14:47 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on June 29, 2009, 13:42

And yes, NO CATEGORIES they are a waste of time, nearly impossible to make any sense of them because you have to buttonhole an image into something that's frozen and inflexible to making a good match for many photos.

Well, there are are at least 3 different points of view on categories issue, and I agree with all three

- artists: who needs it? waste of our time
- buyers: let's take a quick look what these guys have to offer us in "health & beauty" cat. Hmmm... they do get something that catch my eye.. (or - no, they do not

- search engines: we'll crawl this stuff one by one, sit back and let us do the job, thank you

These 3 are well-kept stock-photo-web secrets, but you got them all now

How about automating the first category selection, C--stock-style? I guess it can reduce or even remove the 'categorization' pain.

melastmohican · « **Reply #49 on:** June 29, 2009, 23:31 »

Quote from: davidm on June 29, 2009, 14:47

How about automating the first category selection, C--stock-style? I guess it can reduce or even remove the 'categorization' pain.

If you can automate categories it proves they are not needed, you can create them on the fly. It's like folders on a disk, you can create fantastic hierarchies or put everything into one bucket, at the end of the day everybody needs search to find files. What would be percentage of the cases you want to browse hierarchy? I guess very, very low.

Phil · « **Reply #50 on:** June 29, 2009, 23:41 »

could you duplicate the effect categories for people wishing to browse by create links for searches of "business", "wildlife", "apples isolated on a white background"

davidm · « **Reply #51 on:** June 30, 2009, 06:17 »

Yes Phil, I guess we can do that

Following our discussion above, the minimal upload size was changed to 4 MP.

LSD72 · « **Reply #52 on:** June 30, 2009, 10:17 »

Good Stuff David. A site that is actually listening and implementing changes based on its contributors.

Now I can add photos.

Edit: Maybe not. I tried to upload more pics but it said they were too small. One I checked was 2460 x 1647 which equals 4,051,620. Why would it be kicked out for being too small?

davidm · « **Reply #53 on:** June 30, 2009, 10:57 »

Quote from: LSD72 on June 30, 2009, 10:17

Edit: Maybe not. I tried to upload more pics but it said they were too small. One I checked was 2460 x 1647 which equals 4,051,620. Why would it be kicked out for being too small?

Please send me a sample to my email below, we'll find out why

fotorob · « **Reply #54 on:** June 30, 2009, 11:26 »

Categories are mostly used by buyers who are new to the stock market (believe me, I've asked over 10 stock agencies ;-) http://bit.ly/category ) and as microstock gets wider known the need for categories vanishes. That's why pro agencies like Getty, Corbis etc. don't have categories. They hand-pick the best images for "portfolios" which is a much more inspirational approach...

Bye,
Robert

LSD72 · « **Reply #55 on:** June 30, 2009, 11:46 »

Thanks David. Sent you 3 pics that were rejected for size.

Update.
The size problem seems to be fixed. took 5 of my shots without a problem. Thank you again David.

stockastic · « **Reply #56 on:** June 30, 2009, 14:05 »

With my tiny portfolio I should not even be commenting here. But, here goes.

To make me want to come in, make it easy for me to get out. Let me explain. I recently submitted all my images to a couple of sites, waited a few months and saw that I was getting no sales and would never reach payout. I didn't want to leave my images there, and might want to be exclusive somewhere, someday (who knows) so I decided to close the accounts. That turned out to be a major pain, requiring me to remove each image individually. I will NEVER go through that again. So now, before I'd consider a new site, I'd want to know how easy it is to get out, if it isn't working for me.

No categories. t's just too much work, and my images typically don't fit well into the categories anyway.

davidm · « **Reply #57 on:** July 01, 2009, 04:42 »

Quote from: LSD72 on June 30, 2009, 11:46

The size problem seems to be fixed. took 5 of my shots without a problem. Thank you again David.

Now, here is the funny stuff.
For us, a thousand is 1,000 and a million is 1,000,000, and a megapixel is a million of pixels - 1,000,000 of them.
Sounds reasonable, but not for the programmers.
For them, a thousand must be 1024 (it's a 'K', is not it, man?), and a million is obviously 1024 * 1024, so the MP becomes to be 1,048,576 pixels.
That's why any image of 4MP could not pass - it was treated as just a 3.8 MP picture

Konstantin Sutyagin · « **Reply #58 on:** July 01, 2009, 05:15 »

Quote from: GeoPappas on June 26, 2009, 16:15

Quote from: davidm on June 26, 2009, 15:12
Quote from: dirkr on June 26, 2009, 12:16
Standard license should have some limitation (e.g. 250.000 copies) and ELs should be at $50, better $100.
Note, that at last some leading agencies start offering unlimited run, e..g. Fotolia. Thus, the limited run would not attract the buyer.

Just because ONE other agency does it, does not mean that all other agencies should immediately race to the bottom. Almost all of the other agencies differentiate between a standard sale and an EL sale.

It has been shown time and again that buyers are not that sensitive to prices. The fact that you seem to be racing to the bottom on price, just shows me that you really don't understand the industry and are trying to make a quick buck off of other people's work.

This type of attitude really concerns me and has left a very sour taste in my mouth in regards to your agency.

I second what GeoPappas said. I don't need another Fotolia.

Freezingpictures · « **Reply #59 on:** July 01, 2009, 06:06 »

Quote from: kosmikkreeper on June 29, 2009, 14:46

I can only say what I think but I also think that many top contributors might agree... if you want to attract top contributors, you'll need to invest in them. We need a risk to reward ratio that makes good business sense. We invest our product and uploading time. What will you invest? For me, I would need financial compensation to invest with a new agency. A bit like what Fotolia did when they started.

With many startups falling like flies, our risk to reward ratio is too high to warrant our investment without a financial risk from the new agency.

+1

DWL · « **Reply #60 on:** July 01, 2009, 07:04 »

Quote

With many startups falling like flies, our risk to reward ratio is too high to warrant our investment without a financial risk from the new agency.

Many startups fail because established artists "sit on the fence" waiting to see what happens, a new agency could have $500.000+ of "financial risk" before going to market, it is not that cheap setting up a new business, the risk to the artist with a collection of stock quality assets is more of time and bandwith, the biggest risk is of faith "will this stocksite survive and not stuff the contributors later".

Nagging thoughts could be how can a new agency deliver higher percentages, one factor is cost, the older sites have the assets on olders technologies, newer sites are using "the cloud", SmugMug made a smart move and saved $1 Million back in 2007 moving to the cloud, so the new websites are starting with the cloud from a lower cost base, but without established artists submitting their portfolio's, new sites will pick up new contributors and a much higher cost with acceptance to rejections ratios which is a manual process and prepaid cost.

Each site that fails adds strength the big players position and weakens the artists power base, it could be wise to "bite the bullet" to get behind a couple of new agencies and see what happens, maybe a special commission rate for one to two years with a coupon code from MicroStockGroup?.

It is a matter of Fair Trade, Chickens and Eggs: http://tinyurl.com/l8dqvb

David

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #61 on:** July 01, 2009, 07:59 »

"the cloud" ? You mean this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_computing ?

That mentions:
Cloud computing customers do not generally own the physical infrastructure serving as host to the software platform in question. Instead, they avoid capital expenditure by renting usage from a third-party provider. They consume resources as a service and pay only for resources that they use.

Phil · « **Reply #62 on:** July 01, 2009, 08:30 »

Quote from: DWL on July 01, 2009, 07:04

Quote
With many startups falling like flies, our risk to reward ratio is too high to warrant our investment without a financial risk from the new agency.

Many startups fail because established artists "sit on the fence" waiting to see what happens, a new agency could have $500.000+ of "financial risk" before going to market, it is not that cheap setting up a new business, the risk to the artist with a collection of stock quality assets is more of time and bandwith, the biggest risk is of faith "will this stocksite survive and not stuff the contributors later".

Nagging thoughts could be how can a new agency deliver higher percentages, one factor is cost, the older sites have the assets on olders technologies, newer sites are using "the cloud", SmugMug made a smart move and saved $1 Million back in 2007 moving to the cloud, so the new websites are starting with the cloud from a lower cost base, but without established artists submitting their portfolio's, new sites will pick up new contributors and a much higher cost with acceptance to rejections ratios which is a manual process and prepaid cost.

Each site that fails adds strength the big players position and weakens the artists power base, it could be wise to "bite the bullet" to get behind a couple of new agencies and see what happens, maybe a special commission rate for one to two years with a coupon code from MicroStockGroup?.

It is a matter of Fair Trade, Chickens and Eggs: http://tinyurl.com/l8dqvb

David

Just my opinion

I agree but the problem is how many do you support? I have supported a number of small macro agencies, luckyoliver, albumo, pixmac, geckostock etc but wasted my time and effort. I still upload to some such as scanstock, mostphotos, zymm etc in the hope they can one day become bigger like canstock has done and hopefully as snap / veer will. If there was any significant effort to the uploading (like categories) they would be dropped very quickly.

I dont need instant financial reward to upload, but I want to feel it is going to worth my time and effort. I want to feel that the owners of the site are going to invest serious cash into marketing and promotion and know where to spend that money. I really dont want to hear that a site is just 'going to do seo tricks' yet again. I dont expect the next istock but I want to believe that say within 6-12 months a site could be around my number 10 earner and then rising. Luckyoliver made it to this level and still failed, around the time of failure it was mentioned that the owner didnt believe in advertising? If I'd known that at the beginning, I would never have bothered uploading. Albumo spent about $25000 getting people to upload and apparently had over double that for marketing, they now get about 1-2 images uploaded a day, sales are next to nothing and most people want to pull their portfolios.

I still get the impression of a number of sites that are announced (although not necessarily in this case) of someone who can write a website with no idea of business or the industry sees istock earning a lot and says hey I'll sell photos and become rich . Which is no worse than what happened in macro stock, I've got a nice collection of images, I'll start a stock library. Nothing real bad about it, I just dont want to waste my time with either. There is a long list of dead stock libraries, both micro and macro.

So for me, like I said in my first post, I want to be sold on the site either by stories of other people selling images, which as you said is impossible if you dont get enough images to begin with, or by the site owners, which I admit is hard with all of those that have gone before (there have been many others that havent even made it to the list on the right). I'd like to hear how a new site will be different from the others, how it will offer something different for buyers or target different buyers etc etc. Basically why it will succeed. I also would think a reasonably small amount of research, even if only looking through this forum would provide answers to peoples impressions of categories, payout levels etc etc.

All that said I wish David and Pixamba all the best, hopefully in 6-12 months time people will be telling me I was an idiot for not jumping aboard straight away

gbcimages · « **Reply #63 on:** July 01, 2009, 08:57 »

I thought I would try them and see if any sales come. I was browsing some of the pages of other top photographers and didn't see no downloads .

DWL · « **Reply #64 on:** July 01, 2009, 09:24 »

Quote from: sjlocke on July 01, 2009, 07:59

"the cloud" ? You mean this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_computing ?

That mentions:
Cloud computing customers do not generally own the physical infrastructure serving as host to the software platform in question. Instead, they avoid capital expenditure by renting usage from a third-party provider. They consume resources as a service and pay only for resources that they use.

That is correct many new stocksites use the "Amazon Cloud", when there is high demand in search requests there is an automatic system that will deal with this demand, server clones are quickly started up, these will multi-thread to deal with the traffic demands maintaining fast searches, as the traffic falls the clones are shut down, the stocksite only pays for the times each server is online and the traffic resources they used, this will maintain a minimum cost to market, and may allow for higher returns to the artists, technology is not a problem getting enough assets is a problem for new sites.
http://aws.amazon.com/what-is-aws/

When I started with microstock Istock were having problems with peak server demand, with the physical servers going to meltdown, to solve this there is a high cost in expanding their own the physical infrastructure to deal with peaks in demand, the higher costs to market affect what can be paid to artists.

There are online backup services for photographers that charge a monthly fee, I have an Amazon S3 bucket, in FireFox I have an S3 plug-in, I can upload store and download my assets into my own space for a much smaller cost, and I can take my laptop and providing I can get online have all my assets ready for download.
The selling point for me on this method is I only pay for what I use, if I do not upload or download then I am only charged for asset storage at micropayment rates, the first 150 images (900mb) I uploaded as a trail for a month cost $0.17, to upload, then $0.15 a month to store.
http://aws.amazon.com/s3/#pricing

Many companies use Amazon Web Services so I do not see a problem:
Case Studies: http://aws.amazon.com/solutions/case-studies/
SmugMug: http://aws.amazon.com/solutions/case-studies/smugmug/
Alexa: http://aws.amazon.com/solutions/case-studies/alexa/
ShareThis: http://aws.amazon.com/solutions/case-studies/sharethis/

David

puravida · « **Reply #65 on:** July 01, 2009, 10:03 »

David, let me be naive here to ask you this.
Reading the link that Sean has given here, I find the cloud computing usage very accounting wise, in term of cost savings . Granted your nobleness to pass on the savings to contributors in the form of higher %age commissions.
Q1) If this is so, don't you think that older establishments like IS, FT, etc.. can also move to the cloud computing to give us more commissions? They would if they can, as I cannot see any sustaining corporation seeking to displease the contributors, who are their source of income.
Q2) Many here have already a list of redundant newbies which we joined since their inception with a promise of better slice of the pie for contributors vs the Big 6 consistently reducing our take. They succeed with their commendable PR (public relations), but till today have never delivered on what really matters (sales).
The lingering doubt can be solved with one answer from you, of this question:
What are your buyer base? What are you doing that is so different from the others (Zymmetrical, Cutcaster,Moodboard,etc) who have not turn a dime for many?

sharpshot · « **Reply #66 on:** July 01, 2009, 12:10 »

I signed up and uploaded a few. Looks like a nice site but as others have said, we need buyers to motivate us to upload. Hope you find a way to get them interested.

takestock · « **Reply #67 on:** July 02, 2009, 02:50 »

Quote from: sharpshot on July 01, 2009, 12:10

I signed up and uploaded a few. Looks like a nice site but as others have said, we need buyers to motivate us to upload. Hope you find a way to get them interested.

I have also signed up and would like to see the site succeed, as it has a nice look and style.
My only gripe is the categories which seem to be so many and a bit mixed up.
If we are going to have to use them, then I would like to have them in better order and more easy to find.

Looking forward to the Forum opening where people can throw in their suggestions.

davidm · « **Reply #68 on:** July 02, 2009, 04:29 »

Quote from: takestock on July 02, 2009, 02:50

I have also signed up and would like to see the site succeed, as it has a nice look and style.
My only gripe is the categories which seem to be so many and a bit mixed up.
If we are going to have to use them, then I would like to have them in better order and more easy to find.

Thanks, I think we have fixed this issue now - please take a look if it is make more sense this way.

We do keep thinking how to speed up your uploads and one of the suggestions was temporary shrink down the list of categories, leaving the primaries only, i.e. just go with about 20 main categories visible on the site, at least for now. This way you can upload faster. Plus, if your image comes with IPTC data we can try auto-suggest you the first category selection (needs your verification though).
How this sounds?

takestock · « **Reply #69 on:** July 02, 2009, 04:45 »

Quote from: davidm on July 02, 2009, 04:29

Quote from: takestock on July 02, 2009, 02:50
I have also signed up and would like to see the site succeed, as it has a nice look and style.
My only gripe is the categories which seem to be so many and a bit mixed up.
If we are going to have to use them, then I would like to have them in better order and more easy to find.

Thanks, I think we have fixed this issue now - please take a look if it is make more sense this way.

Yes David, this is much better and quicker.
Thanks a lot!

We do keep thinking how to speed up your uploads and one of the suggestions was temporary shrink down the list of categories, leaving the primaries only, i.e. just go with about 20 main categories visible on the site, at least for now. This way you can upload faster. Plus, if your image comes with IPTC data we can try auto-suggest you the first category selection (needs your verification though).
How this sounds?

Perry · « **Reply #70 on:** July 03, 2009, 07:56 »

To get me as a contributor I would need this:

-Submission by DVD, and no extra clicks for categories or such, just sending a couple of discs with images equipped with IPTC data. (This was propably the reason I joined snapvillage and scanstockphoto)

BTW. categories...who needs them anyway?

davidm · « **Reply #71 on:** July 05, 2009, 03:36 »

Quote from: Perry on July 03, 2009, 07:56

To get me as a contributor I would need this:

-Submission by DVD [...]

Now accepting!
Please mail them to us

kaycee · « **Reply #72 on:** July 05, 2009, 12:52 »

@davidm
Why must we provide with our vectors such a big jpg file

?? 5000pixels at the longest side little bit over the top don't you think 3000pixels is more that enough or mayby less for preview.

gbcimages · « **Reply #73 on:** July 05, 2009, 13:30 »

they take smaller sizes

kaycee · « **Reply #74 on:** July 05, 2009, 14:05 »

@davidm

I just send in 25 images and a few had this kind of massages another member has already send this imagew with this image name if your are sure your the owner please contact support.
Well after a quick search I foud these images and guess what they are mine the fun part is NO THEY ARE NOT STOLEN my name is on all of these images so I was wondering WHO ARE YOU PARTNER AGENCIES

?
At least I think this is the case.
Just strange there are only a few of mine at pixamba.....

PS I send support already an e-mail about this issue.

I just posted here because other members have the same issue and wondering what to do with it.

sharpshot · « **Reply #75 on:** July 05, 2009, 15:18 »

I emailed them and they let me know that they have some of my photos from Panthermedia.

kaycee · « **Reply #76 on:** July 05, 2009, 19:55 »

Quote from: sharpshot on July 05, 2009, 15:18

I emailed them and they let me know that they have some of my photos from Panthermedia.

If it was Panthermedia it should been far more images over there and not just a few....

lurkertwo · « **Reply #77 on:** July 05, 2009, 23:11 »

Quote from: kaycee on July 05, 2009, 19:55

If it was Panthermedia it should been far more images over there and not just a few....

So both Zymmetrical and Pixamba are resellers of Panthermedia.

The logical action then is to upload to Panthermedia alone and leave those two sites for what they are.
If Pixamba only takes what's not on Panthermedia or other major sites we don't know of, we have a Pixmac situation at hand.

dirkr · « **Reply #78 on:** July 06, 2009, 02:23 »

Quote from: cevapcici on July 05, 2009, 23:11

Quote from: kaycee on July 05, 2009, 19:55
If it was Panthermedia it should been far more images over there and not just a few....

So both Zymmetrical and Pixamba are resellers of Panthermedia.
The logical action then is to upload to Panthermedia alone and leave those two sites for what they are.
If Pixamba only takes what's not on Panthermedia or other major sites we don't know of, we have a Pixmac situation at hand.

The logical action is to upload to Zymmetrical but not to Pixamba. Why? Very simple.
Zymmetrical let's you choose the price. You can set the price lower than the default set by Panthermedia and still earn more (Panther takes a cut of the sale price and pays you only 30% of what is left!).
But at Pixamba, if you upload yourself you sell for very low prices (even undercutting some of the other successful micros), but the Panther images are up there for midstock prices.

lurkertwo · « **Reply #79 on:** July 06, 2009, 03:37 »

Quote from: dirkr on July 06, 2009, 02:23

But at Pixamba, if you upload yourself you sell for very low prices (even undercutting some of the other successful micros), but the Panther images are up there for midstock prices.

Take for instance this image (waterfall in forest) on pixamba: 60 credits full size = 45$ = 32 euro, while on Panthermedia the same image is 53.39 euro full size. I wouldn't call 32 euro on Pixamba "microstock price".

On a side note, Pixamba put its business address/info on line in the info, which is great.

dirkr · « **Reply #80 on:** July 06, 2009, 04:08 »

Quote from: cevapcici on July 06, 2009, 03:37

Quote from: dirkr on July 06, 2009, 02:23
But at Pixamba, if you upload yourself you sell for very low prices (even undercutting some of the other successful micros), but the Panther images are up there for midstock prices.

If Pixamba sells images lower than on Panther, I can't see where the profit is for them. What's more, Panther will undercut its own price model. And what's most, Panther will only pay you 30% if your images are on low-priced microstocks, but they offer those themselves on microstock by the Pixamba liaison. Where is the logic?

The pictures distributed via Panther are for offer at Pixamba at higher prices (I found mine at 60 Credits for Large size). So that is roughly in line with Panther's pricing model.
Only if I upload directly to Pixamba, there seems to be no choice for different prices.

That's why I said I won't upload to Pixamba directly.

For Zymm it's different, I can set my prices as I want and therefore I can benefit from cutting out the middleman.

lurkertwo · « **Reply #81 on:** July 06, 2009, 04:20 »

Quote from: dirkr on July 06, 2009, 04:08

The pictures distributed via Panther are for offer at Pixamba at higher prices (I found mine at 60 Credits for Large size). So that is roughly in line with Panther's pricing model.

Correct. I had a better look at Pixamba and I changed my message. I'm still not happy with the huge jump in price from 4.7MP to 11MP which excludes the very popular 10MP cams (included mine). If I ever would upload to Pixamba, I would just upload the 5MP version then like on ShutterStock since the original 10MP size doesn't make me any profit.

kaycee · « **Reply #82 on:** July 06, 2009, 04:40 »

I just received an e-mail from DavidM and confirmed in my case the images were from Panthermedia.
Only strange thing and question I have:
Were are the rest of the images I send through panthermedia in Pixamba library.There are only 39 alive or visable in the Pixamba library.

zymmetricaldotcom · « **Reply #83 on:** July 06, 2009, 06:29 »

Don't forget to balance out any choices like this with the facts that Panthermedia is long established and has an excellent sales team and multiple distribution partners. You may gain a volume advantage from the extra exposure their core business and distribution network provides.

I would not want to endorse direct uploads to Zymmetrical over Panthermedia by remaining silent on this point, there is no simple answer other than to perhaps try a bit of both. We can arrange for partial batch uploads if you'd like to experiment, just drop a support note.

davidm · « **Reply #84 on:** July 06, 2009, 07:03 »

@kaycee
As per my email, your account is now ready for your submissions.

A small note:
If you guys read the beginning of this thread you see that we have started with a 255,000-images collection.
Some images came directly from the artists who already started to work with us, while some others came from our valued resale partners. We work with a few of them, often hand-picking the specific images that we want to re-sell.
This explains why you might
a) find your portfolio listed with us
b) see a smaller number of images there than you probably have with some other agency
Obviously, we apply a different criteria to your submissions so you are warmly welcome to take the full control of your account if it is already exists with us.
Please send us an email with your picture ID, so we can identify you granting you the access to your portfolio / account.

dirkr · « **Reply #85 on:** July 06, 2009, 08:14 »

Quote from: zymmetrical on July 06, 2009, 06:29

Don't forget to balance out any choices like this with the facts that Panthermedia is long established and has an excellent sales team and multiple distribution partners. You may gain a volume advantage from the extra exposure their core business and distribution network provides.

The distribution network of Panthermedia makes sense when they distribute to agencies I cannot directly submit to (or when the pure number of agencies would be too much work).

For me it's not an "either Panther or directly" approach, it's better to combine those two offerings (as I'm with Panther anyway).

Quote from: zymmetrical on July 06, 2009, 06:29

I would not want to endorse direct uploads to Zymmetrical over Panthermedia by remaining silent on this point, there is no simple answer other than to perhaps try a bit of both. We can arrange for partial batch uploads if you'd like to experiment, just drop a support note.

I understand that you don't want to endorse that (as Panther is your partner in that deal), but I as a simple contributor have a simple view on that. All that partner deals have one thing in common I do not like at all: The total sales price is split amongst every agency in the chain and the contributor (the owner of the intellectual property!) gets only the remainders.
Which in case of Zymmetrical / Panther is 30% of 70% = 21 % (if my information is correct about that you pay Panther the same royalty as you pay your own contributors).
And the upload to your site is not so painful that it would scare me away from uploading my portfolio directly.

dirkr · « **Reply #86 on:** July 06, 2009, 08:17 »

Quote from: davidm on July 06, 2009, 07:03

@kaycee
As per my email, your account is now ready for your submissions.

A small note:
If you guys read the beginning of this thread you see that we have started with a 255,000-images collection.
Some images came directly from the artists who already started to work with us, while some others came from our valued resale partners. We work with a few of them, often hand-picking the specific images that we want to re-sell.
This explains why you might
a) find your portfolio listed with us
b) see a smaller number of images there than you probably have with some other agency
Obviously, we apply a different criteria to your submissions so you are warmly welcome to take the full control of your account if it is already exists with us.
Please send us an email with your picture ID, so we can identify you granting you the access to your portfolio / account.

What do you mean by "take the full control of your account"?

Change those files from being delivered by Panther to "direct uploaded" thus cutting off the middleman? Keep the higher prices? Allow to upload more for the same price structure (which is a lot different from what you have for contributors on your homepage)?

Now that would get my interest!

davidm · « **Reply #87 on:** July 06, 2009, 15:39 »

Quote from: dirkr on July 06, 2009, 08:17

What do you mean by "take the full control of your account"?
Change those files from being delivered by Panther to "direct uploaded" thus cutting off the middleman?

Well done dirkr, appreciate your sense of humor!
"Converting" images delivered by a resale partner to be your own is very much like "converting" a rental car to become your own

Sorry, we can not do that.

If your already have some images listed with us drop us an email, and we'll help you uploading, will take care of possible duplications in your portfolio and will do anything you need to get in control of your account, laying you a red carpet VIP path to get on board.

dirkr · « **Reply #88 on:** July 06, 2009, 16:13 »

Quote from: davidm on July 06, 2009, 15:39

Quote from: dirkr on July 06, 2009, 08:17
What do you mean by "take the full control of your account"?
Change those files from being delivered by Panther to "direct uploaded" thus cutting off the middleman?

Well done dirkr, appreciate your sense of humor!
"Converting" images delivered by a resale partner to be your own is very much like "converting" a rental car to become your own

Sorry, we can not do that.

If your already have some images listed with us drop us an email, and we'll help you uploading, will take care of possible duplications in your portfolio and will do anything you need to get in control of your account, laying you a red carpet VIP path to get on board.

Well you could do that if you wanted...

But seriously: I made my points about your prices and licences earlier in this thread.
As long as I don't see a change there I don't feel like uploading.

But if you tell me you will offer my photos for the same price structure that is obviously ok for the same files if they come via a distribution partner, that would be a different story.

lurkertwo · « **Reply #89 on:** July 07, 2009, 23:56 »

Quote from: dirkr on July 06, 2009, 16:13

But if you tell me you will offer my photos for the same price structure that is obviously ok for the same files if they come via a distribution partner, that would be a different story.

I'm more worried that pictures on Panthermedia will be sold as XS Extended License via Pixamba for a share of 2$.

Phil · « **Reply #90 on:** July 08, 2009, 00:33 »

Quote from: cevapcici on July 07, 2009, 23:56

Quote from: dirkr on July 06, 2009, 16:13
But if you tell me you will offer my photos for the same price structure that is obviously ok for the same files if they come via a distribution partner, that would be a different story.
I'm more worried that pictures on Panthermedia will be sold as XS Extended License via Pixamba for a share of 2$.

my images on pixamba from panthermedia start at 6 credits and go up to 60 credits, so $4 at their cheapest. Which is interesting because it is just under $2 on panther and if you bought 5000 credits

on panther you could get the same image for $0.80

lurkertwo · « **Reply #91 on:** July 08, 2009, 01:36 »

Quote from: Phil on July 08, 2009, 00:33

my images on pixamba from panthermedia start at 6 credits and go up to 60 credits, so $4 at their cheapest. Which is interesting because it is just under $2 on panther and if you bought 5000 credits on panther you could get the same image for $0.80

Is that an Extended License on Panther?

dirkr · « **Reply #92 on:** July 08, 2009, 02:02 »

Quote from: cevapcici on July 07, 2009, 23:56

Quote from: dirkr on July 06, 2009, 16:13
But if you tell me you will offer my photos for the same price structure that is obviously ok for the same files if they come via a distribution partner, that would be a different story.
I'm more worried that pictures on Panthermedia will be sold as XS Extended License via Pixamba for a share of 2$.

Good point.
I checked, the XS EL goes for 18 Credits.

Now...

Assuming Pixamba pays Panther the same as they pay their direct contributors (40 cents per credit...) that would be $7.20 to Panther, thereof 30% = $2.16 to me....

These are the calculations that make me think of directly contributing to such partner sites, if possible - and if they allow me to sell for a decent price, which Pixamba obviously won't do.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Introducing pixamba.com - by creators of ProStockMaster software (Read 34972 times)

WarrenPrice

nruboc

gbcimages

Dook

gbcimages

RacePhoto

gbcimages

gbcimages

zymmetricaldotcom

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors