pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Pixamba - Please keep us informed!  (Read 20398 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 04, 2009, 06:57 »
0
Hi David and all at Pixamba.
I do realise that you are busy getting the site up and running, but it would be nice, specially for those who have signed up to keep us informed of developments as we go along.
It would be good to hear when the forum will be open,maybe a few words about membership, sales, sales strategy etc.
So many other sites have opened up, got submissions and just left contributors hanging - checking in occasionally to find "zero" sales and eventually closing their account.

I believe also that keeping your members regularly informed will sustain interest and that they will continue to upload.


« Reply #1 on: July 04, 2009, 09:12 »
0
So many other sites have opened up, got submissions and just left contributors hanging - checking in occasionally to find "zero" sales and eventually closing their account.

Of course. The market has been taken since 2005. No new site made it after that, and no new site will.

« Reply #2 on: July 04, 2009, 10:00 »
0
I believe also that keeping your members regularly informed will sustain interest and that they will continue to upload.


Sure, we'll do our best trying to keep you informed.

Here is the current status:

- we see a very nice stream of uploads, much larger than we expected for the first week. That's so great, thank you guys!

- we are working on making the uploads easier. Soon: PSM uploads and acceptance of DVDs, like it was proposed in this thread and by other contributors who send us emails about that. In fact, since the delivery of DVD will take a few days you are welcome to send them right away. Mail them to our postal address. FTP uploads will be implemented a bit later

- categories: we plan experimenting with shrinking them down to primary categories only, plus auto-suggestion of the first category

- 'advanced search' will be available soon in its initial version. If you have any specific suggestion for the advanced search functionality we'll be happy to hear. More stuff is on its way

- marketing, sales & business development: we are very active in this field and we have a nice marketing plan & many ideas how to do the things right. Obviously, none of them I can share in a public forum, even if I would love to hear your feedback. When the time comes you will see the things moving. We do not plan sitting for 2 years in the office waiting for the buyers, like some others micros did in the past. We are full of energy and we know exactly what we want, and how to get there.

- openness, information and service: we love to be in the direct contact with our members, listening to you, learning from you and giving you any help you might need. People who work with ProStockMaster know that we typically react very fast to any customer's inquiry and this is an important part of Pixamba customers service policy.  For any matter, it's easy to reach me directly by email, Skype or phone, and it always will stay this way.

@cevapici
- there is no such thing like 'taken market', particularly when we are speaking about just a 5-6 years old microstock industry.

zymmetricaldotcom

« Reply #3 on: July 04, 2009, 10:42 »
0
David, just playing devil's advocate here, how do you reconcile the Prostockmaster service with Pixamba?  I think aggregation/upload services are a fantastic idea (you know well we have been looking at supporting them as much as possible on Zymmetrical, and we hear good news from Panthermedia about your integration), but now that you have a 'birds eye view' of sales statistics via Prostockmaster, is it (I guess the rather nasty word is) 'ethical' that Prostockmaster is a paid submissions/stats service that could offer an inherent benefit to your stock agency service? 

I tried looking around for a legal text or disclaimer on the Prostockmaster site regarding "how we deal with your data" but couldn't find it.

I'm not trying to single you out however I was anticipating an aggregator to  try to monetize their data source (whether that's your intent I have no idea, but I bet you would find it hard to 'forget' the trends you learn as Prostockmaster admin :) ). 

Having a live data stream is infinitely more effective than monitoring message forums or polls to see what content succeeding. I would just hope it's all been thought through with the privacy concerns. Maybe everything is encrypted and you never had even considered crossing the data over, I don't know. If it is the case of a connection, from a business POV, perhaps Prostockmaster would be better with a clear notice that Pixamba can use aggregated sales data for it's advantage.       

Anyhow again, not to single your operation out, it's just a situation/discussion I haven't seen come up before: with cloud costs lowering costs daily to run an upload/sales stats service, the true competitive value may lie in the trend statistics returned - if I was a submitter I would expect that kind of data to not be utilized for free by services I use.  If we can make it known what people would expect for their money and what could be done with the info about their statistics, it may help run off an 'oops' situation in the future.






« Reply #4 on: July 04, 2009, 11:15 »
0
I tried looking around for a legal text or disclaimer on the Prostockmaster site regarding "how we deal with your data" but couldn't find it.

Prostockmaster never had the guts to put a real business address or a street name on its site. That's why I never trusted them. The same with their new stock site, no real address, no company info at all. The site has an Israeli telephone number, so we have to assume it's in Israel. And that's all we know. No privacy statement, no guarantee. What is the Israeli law concerning privacy, and how can we get satisfaction when the site(s) run away with our passwords? Only Mozes knows. If the guy has nothing to hide, why does he hide his business info? I'll pass.

Keith was much too kind and diplomatic, but then, Zymmetrical doesn't operate from within the bushes.  ;)
« Last Edit: July 04, 2009, 11:24 by cevapcici »

zymmetricaldotcom

« Reply #5 on: July 04, 2009, 11:46 »
0
Well Pixamba does have a pretty standard looking legal text, defining the jurisdiction and business entity: http://www.pixamba.com/legal.html. Maybe I missed the one on Prostockmaster, or, like most software it is agreed on when the program is installed on desktop. I don't know, so that's why i'm asking.

I really am not being only diplomatic, it's just (as far as I know) the first case where an aggregator/uploader is competing directly in the field of selling.  

Aggregators could be classified as the town taxi service: they know where the popular restaurants are, whose making late night visits to their affairs, and lot's of other info gained by transporting people (digital content) around town.  

While I would think it would be cool and just good business (and probably already done somewhere) if a city guide service could tap into a taxi companies pick-up and drop-off addresses to offer a live stream of info about where the hotspots are, there has to be some standards and ethics involved otherwise your wife will find out about your late-night visit to your secretary. ;)    Also you would expect your taxi fee in some way or another to be lowered due to the fact the taxi company is selling info about you.

« Last Edit: July 04, 2009, 11:47 by zymmetrical »

« Reply #6 on: July 04, 2009, 12:02 »
0
Prostockmaster never had the guts to put a real business address or a street name on its site. That's why I never trusted them. The same with their new stock site, no real address, no company info at all.


I am delighted to know that being with this community just from April 2009 you already have heard about PSM, want to share your opinion about it, and can operate words like 'never' and 'always'.
However, you are very wrong telling others that there is no address or company info on our web.
The postal address and the direct phone number are listed on our site. FYI, Pixamba Ltd. registration number is 514250653.

While I respect Keith's questions and going to address them soon, your comments are ... very far from being correct

« Reply #7 on: July 04, 2009, 13:40 »
0
I believe also that keeping your members regularly informed will sustain interest and that they will continue to upload.


Sure, we'll do our best trying to keep you informed.

Here is the current status:

- we see a very nice stream of uploads, much larger than we expected for the first week. That's so great, thank you guys!

- we are working on making the uploads easier. Soon: PSM uploads and acceptance of DVDs, like it was proposed in this thread and by other contributors who send us emails about that. In fact, since the delivery of DVD will take a few days you are welcome to send them right away. Mail them to our postal address. FTP uploads will be implemented a bit later

- categories: we plan experimenting with shrinking them down to primary categories only, plus auto-suggestion of the first category

- 'advanced search' will be available soon in its initial version. If you have any specific suggestion for the advanced search functionality we'll be happy to hear. More stuff is on its way

- marketing, sales & business development: we are very active in this field and we have a nice marketing plan & many ideas how to do the things right. Obviously, none of them I can share in a public forum, even if I would love to hear your feedback. When the time comes you will see the things moving. We do not plan sitting for 2 years in the office waiting for the buyers, like some others micros did in the past. We are full of energy and we know exactly what we want, and how to get there.

- openness, information and service: we love to be in the direct contact with our members, listening to you, learning from you and giving you any help you might need. People who work with ProStockMaster know that we typically react very fast to any customer's inquiry and this is an important part of Pixamba customers service policy.  For any matter, it's easy to reach me directly by email, Skype or phone, and it always will stay this way.  
@cevapici
- there is no such thing like 'taken market', particularly when we are speaking about just a 5-6 years old microstock industry.
Thanks for the quick response David!

« Reply #8 on: July 05, 2009, 03:32 »
0
Dear Keith,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

I appreciate your opinion, however I guess we have quite a different view on our industry.

You differentiate between the microstock 'sellers' and microstock 'aggregators' while I, for many reasons, see them all like very similar entities. Today, when people say 'microstock aggregators' they probably mean a couple of different companies that pretend to play this role, actually storing content for re-distribution. While I wish a lot of good luck to both of them, PSM is far from being in their league just because the content is delivered directly to the targeted agencies and not aggregated anywhere.
Labeling the market players on this young and unstable market is probably too early and too risky. A straight-forward division of the market players to the 'sellers' and 'aggregators' seems to me as an over-simplified business approach and that's why this approach actually did not work for you. In my understanding, the market reality is much more colorful and much more complicated than just a monochrome 'sellers vs. aggregators' vision.

Furthermore, you claim that there is a lot of value in knowing the sales stats. Let me put this statement in question too.
In fact, there is absolutely no secret what pictures sell well and what do not.
It's so simple, just browse one of the 'big 6' by 'popular' section and you get the idea.
Selling microstock for a few years do not you know what is sellable and what it is not, do you really need any stats to tell you that? No Keith, there is  no secret weapon in the selling statistics. Each and every microstock editor / inspector after 1 month of work can distinguish between a 'good' (i.e. sellable) and 'not so good' (i.e. rarely-if-ever sellable) contribution, so you are looking for our competitive advantage in the very wrong place.

It definitely can be very frustrating to see that the competition is getting much tighter, so I completely understand your disappointment.
I wish Zymmetrical great sales and prosperity and I look forward to meet you in person one day, so we can continue sharing our thoughts.

« Reply #9 on: July 05, 2009, 06:03 »
0
Each and every microstock editor / inspector after 1 month of work can distinguish between a 'good' (i.e. sellable) and 'not so good' (i.e. rarely-if-ever sellable) contribution, so you are looking for our competitive advantage in the very wrong place.

David good points,
This thinking is correct and the exact reason for the amount of similar stale images out there, editor / inspectors were AD's, editors, designers etc: so they should know what sold and what styles would sell from their experience but often in their sector, but how in microstock do they keep up with current changing trends in all sectors of the business.

Microstock websites are just libraries and not collections, they only require plenty of diverse assets in each section (category), some will be the asset of the month and get lots of downloads, some will be steady sellers, other are there just make up the numbers and to stack the shelves for browsers and so the library can say they have 5 million assets, it is the same for the library as it is for the authors a percentage game, a small percentage of downloads from a large library, giving a recurring revenue, the only selling points these offer is on price.

To late to jump on the bandwagon, there is already a Microstock library in every district with an ample supply of good assets, with a loyal customer and vendor base, so any new start-up will not be able to compete or find a competitive advantage anywhere, with just a hash of the same old model.

If microstock is the library, then macrostock is the high end bookstore, exclusive, selective, high value, low distribution, the staff and inspectors here need to understand the active market and have insight as to current trends, the customers will put in a request and the stores 'personal shoppers' will select and fulfil a selection of assets for the customer, this information helps in identifying new trends.

With the Vetta collection and other similar offerings the potential of the middle ground, high street, medium volume bookstore will vanish fast, I have spoken to Keith at length and it looks like he is looking to surround himself with good people like inspectors that have a little more insight and vision, the problem as I see it for all new websites is getting the correct suppliers with their assets, and to find any competitive advantage you need to have these people supporting you, if you cannot market your agency and generate interest with the established suppliers how can you market to customer.

Offering a carrot of higher percentages has just been done to death, the initial thought is "wow 50% of no sales how much is that", that is why established artist are asking all new agencies where the customer base is coming from, and what is the unique selling point that will give a competitive advantage before joining, every new offering will still get a large number of assets uploaded, these will have a heavy cost with inspection to rejection ratio's, and may not be the expected content, and a year down the line the agency will close.

Easy uploads, slick websites, high commission, ftp uploads, by photographers for photographers, these are no longer attractive to artists, artists are waiting for a website with a unique selling point and a new potential customer base.

I do wish both you and Keith well, but the train has have already left the station.

David

zymmetricaldotcom

« Reply #10 on: July 06, 2009, 06:16 »
0
Hi David (M),

I tried to generalize as much as possible in my proposition, because I meant it in no way to be a question specifically about your business, just that you are the first entity I know of that has 'a service' (aggregator, software, whatever the name is - the service is distribution of digital content and sales statistics collection).  Therefore, you have a dataset that offers you alone direct competitive analysis of your Pixamba competition.
I tried to download the free Prostockmaster demo just now but the URL www.prostockmaster.com.nyud.net/dc2/Setup_ProStockMaster_njvm.exe  throws an error of some sort. Posting any included TOS on the website itself would probably be beneficial to all, but you are the experienced software dev, i'm guessing the standard is to just have it bundled in the install?

Did you mean the 'view download count at big 6' as satire?  :)    I believe an MBA could not really work with a description of 'sillhouetted goldfish businessmen shaking hands while blowing dandelions jumping on a blue sky background with reflections' as a basis for a business plan.  At any rate, i'd be more than happy to discuss these types of things offline with you..  I was just interested in your perspective on the user data collected by Prostockmaster/Isyndica/etc. services, web or desktop.  No intention for a sales strategy conversation - I could say that this industry is built from the granular sales up but that's just more hot air - stats and info is where it's at so i'm curious how thing's will play out with the technical side of distribution being flattened.


                
  




Dear Keith,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

I appreciate your opinion, however I guess we have quite a different view on our industry.

You differentiate between the microstock 'sellers' and microstock 'aggregators' while I, for many reasons, see them all like very similar entities. Today, when people say 'microstock aggregators' they probably mean a couple of different companies that pretend to play this role, actually storing content for re-distribution. While I wish a lot of good luck to both of them, PSM is far from being in their league just because the content is delivered directly to the targeted agencies and not aggregated anywhere.
Labeling the market players on this young and unstable market is probably too early and too risky. A straight-forward division of the market players to the 'sellers' and 'aggregators' seems to me as an over-simplified business approach and that's why this approach actually did not work for you. In my understanding, the market reality is much more colorful and much more complicated than just a monochrome 'sellers vs. aggregators' vision.

Furthermore, you claim that there is a lot of value in knowing the sales stats. Let me put this statement in question too.
In fact, there is absolutely no secret what pictures sell well and what do not.
It's so simple, just browse one of the 'big 6' by 'popular' section and you get the idea.
Selling microstock for a few years do not you know what is sellable and what it is not, do you really need any stats to tell you that? No Keith, there is  no secret weapon in the selling statistics. Each and every microstock editor / inspector after 1 month of work can distinguish between a 'good' (i.e. sellable) and 'not so good' (i.e. rarely-if-ever sellable) contribution, so you are looking for our competitive advantage in the very wrong place.

It definitely can be very frustrating to see that the competition is getting much tighter, so I completely understand your disappointment.
I wish Zymmetrical great sales and prosperity and I look forward to meet you in person one day, so we can continue sharing our thoughts.

« Reply #11 on: July 06, 2009, 06:34 »
0
I do wish both you and Keith well, but the train has have already left the station.

I had a look at Pixamba again, and I changed my mind. The site has real business info now. The guy is obviously a fighter since he can take critique and he listens. The site looks better programmed than Zymmetrical (sorry) and faster, but I'm not sure about the upload process, in which Release attach is the factor that slows most down. Anybody has experience uploading there?

Pixamba takes editorial, Zymmetrical doesn't. Traditional microstocks like Dreamstime and ShutterStock are getting very critical now about editorial. They seem to confound it with "News". I think I'll give them a try for editorial when they do something about the huge 4.7MP - 11.2MP gap in their pricing system, which excludes my (still popular) 10MP cam.

Prices at Pixamba seem more to lean towards midstock, just like Zymmetrical. I think sites like that deserve full support. The 0.25$ train has left the station but some trains are known to derail.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2009, 06:40 by cevapcici »

« Reply #12 on: July 06, 2009, 13:15 »
0
Prices at Pixamba seem more to lean towards midstock, just like Zymmetrical. I think sites like that deserve full support. The 0.25$ train has left the station but some trains are known to derail.

Pixamba is leaning towards midstock???  What are you looking at???

Pixamba sells images starting from $0.75.  Almost every other stock site starts selling images at $1.00.  So Pixamba has undercut the other sites by 25%!

Pixamba also allows unlimited runs (which most other sites don't allow) and sells Extended Licenses starting at $3.75 (most other sites charge much much more)!

I'm not sure what you are looking at, but that definitely doesn't resemble midstock to me.

I feel that Pixamba is going in the other direction: nanostock!

« Reply #13 on: July 06, 2009, 14:44 »
0
Our credit price is on par with other microstocks.

Let's see what some other sites offer:
Site A: Credits: $0.85/image (a big package)
Site A: Subscription: Up to 300 images as low as $0.33/image
Site B: Purchase 2000+ credits and get an additional 25% for free! (i.e. the real credit price is $0.75 - they start from $1/credit)
Site B: Subscriptions starting from $0.14/image!

Are you sure you want me to continue, GeoPappas? Who exactly goes to 'nano-'?
Is that us or your trusted agencies A and B?

Whatever is the credit price for the buyer your contributors commission is still 40% of 1 credit = $1, i.e. $0.40
This is much better than you can get at many micros, so make your own calculations.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2009, 14:46 by davidm »

« Reply #14 on: July 06, 2009, 16:02 »
0
davidm:

I. Credit Price Comparison

Our credit price is on par with other microstocks.

Sorry, but that is simply not true.

Out of the Big 6 (see the column to the right of this), ALL of the sites that provide a pay per image option charge $1.00 or more for the smallest size.

IS charges $18 for 12 credits (or $1.50/credit).  So an XSmall image would cost $1.50.

DT charges $6.99 for 5 credits (or $1.40/credit).  So an XSmall image would cost $1.40.

FT charges $10 for 10 credits (or $1.00/credit).  So an XSmall image would cost $1.00.

StockXpert charges $4.99 for 5 credits (or $1.00/credit).  So an XSmall image would cost $1.00.

123RF charges $15 for 15 credits (or $1.00/credit).  So an XSmall image would cost $1.00.

Notice that all of the sites charge $1.00 or more for an XSmall image.

Yet you decided to charge $0.75 for an XSmall image.  Not only did you undercut the competition, but you did it by a whopping 25% or more.

So your credit price isn't "on par with other microstocks" as you stated.

II. Royalty Comparison

Whatever is the credit price for the buyer your contributors commission is still 40% of 1 credit = $1, i.e. $0.40
This is much better than you can get at many micros, so make your own calculations.

Once again, this is simply not true.

Here are the royalty comparisons:

IS: 20% of $1.50 = $0.30
DT: 50% of $1.40 = $0.70 (NOTE: royalty amounts go up if an image has >= 5 sales)
FT: 30% of $1.00 = $0.30 (NOTE: contributors can make 32% or more if they have >= 100 sales)
StockXpert: 50% of $1.00 = $0.50
123RF: 50% of $1.00 = $0.50

Pixamba: 40% of $0.75 = $0.30

If you notice, Pixamba is once again at the bottom of the comparison (along with IS and FT).  It isn't "much better than you can get at many micros" as you stated.

III. Unlimited Runs & Extended Licenses

On top of that, you allow unlimited runs (which almost all other sites require an Extended License for) and you start your Extended Licenses at $3.75 (which is ridiculously low).

Why should we support another stock site that wants to race to the bottom?

« Reply #15 on: July 06, 2009, 16:38 »
0
Pixamba: 40% of $0.75 = $0.30

According to Davidm's post, it's always 40c per credit, no matter how much the buyer paid for it.

IS credit can be US$0.95 in the largest package.  I observe more commonly ~1.10.

gbcimages

« Reply #16 on: July 06, 2009, 16:40 »
0
it's .40 I had one xs small DL today
« Last Edit: July 06, 2009, 17:51 by gbcimages »

« Reply #17 on: July 06, 2009, 17:31 »
0
Pixamba: 40% of $0.75 = $0.30


According to Davidm's post, it's always 40c per credit, no matter how much the buyer paid for it.


According to the Pixamba home page, an XSmall image costs $0.75 (or 1 credit).  See here:



Additionally, another Pixamba web page (http://www.pixamba.com/prices.html) also states that an XSmall image costs $0.75.

That is what I was using for the comparison (since they provided the only info that I could find that showed the cost per image).

But it seems that this is just a marketing ploy by Pixamba.  The price that is displayed on these Pixamba web pages is only valid for a buyer that purchases 500 credits!

After joining the site, I found that the cost for a base package is $4.99 for 5 credits (or about $1/credit).  So this confirms that an XSmall image costs about $1.00 and that the royalty would be $0.40, but these amounts are still both near the bottom of the industry.

It has been shown time and again that buyers are not extremely sensitive to price.  They will gladly pay a little more if they can find the correct image for their project.  So why are new sites still trying to compete on price?

And there are still the issues of unlimited production runs and industry low prices for Extended Licenses.

How would any of you like to receive $2.00 for an Extended License and then find your image on a product for resale by an upscale company (Martha Stewart, Nieman Marcus, etc)???

« Reply #18 on: July 06, 2009, 17:35 »
0
Geo,

What Davidm said is that you get 40c per credit, and cbg received such earnings.

Probably the first sentence in the FAQ should be changed; the second seems coherent:
Quote
You get 40% of each sale of your image. For instance, if the sale price was 10 credits you get $4 on this sale.

It's not 40%, but 40c per credit.

Prices should say "as low as 75c" or something like that.  In the link you sent, there is a note:
Quote
* - content prices vary depending on (...) the credits package you got.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2009, 17:38 by madelaide »

« Reply #19 on: July 06, 2009, 17:52 »
0
Quote
You get 40% of each sale of your image. For instance, if the sale price was 10 credits you get $4 on this sale.

It's not 40%, but 40c per credit.

I don't think that you are correct.

I believe that the royalty is 40% per credit.  As the credit price decreases (depending on the credit package purchased), the royalty decreases as well.  So if a buyer purchases 500 credits, then you will receive $0.30 per credit (since a credit is worth $0.75).

This means that the contributor eats the discount that is given to the buyer.  This is similar to how IS operates.  If you remember, there was a lot of dissent when IS made that change.

« Reply #20 on: July 06, 2009, 18:21 »
0
It's better have Davidm clarify this.  It's his site, I haven't even signed up to it.

« Reply #21 on: July 06, 2009, 19:12 »
0
I just "reserved" my user name :-)

« Reply #22 on: July 06, 2009, 20:44 »
0
Pixamba: 40% of $0.75 = $0.30


According to Davidm's post, it's always 40c per credit, no matter how much the buyer paid for it.


According to the Pixamba home page, an XSmall image costs $0.75 (or 1 credit).  See here:



Additionally, another Pixamba web page (http://www.pixamba.com/prices.html) also states that an XSmall image costs $0.75.

That is what I was using for the comparison (since they provided the only info that I could find that showed the cost per image).

But it seems that this is just a marketing ploy by Pixamba.  The price that is displayed on these Pixamba web pages is only valid for a buyer that purchases 500 credits!

After joining the site, I found that the cost for a base package is $4.99 for 5 credits (or about $1/credit).  So this confirms that an XSmall image costs about $1.00 and that the royalty would be $0.40, but these amounts are still both near the bottom of the industry.

It has been shown time and again that buyers are not extremely sensitive to price.  They will gladly pay a little more if they can find the correct image for their project.  So why are new sites still trying to compete on price?

And there are still the issues of unlimited production runs and industry low prices for Extended Licenses.

How would any of you like to receive $2.00 for an Extended License and then find your image on a product for resale by an upscale company (Martha Stewart, Nieman Marcus, etc)???



Maybe I'm over sensitive to that sort of thing but if saw the front page and found a nice xxl image at 9 credit image at $6.75, I really wouldn't be impressed to find it cost me around a thrid more at $9.  Definetly needs some "from"'s on there

« Reply #23 on: July 07, 2009, 01:00 »
0
Geo,

What Davidm said is that you get 40c per credit, and cbg received such earnings.

Probably the first sentence in the FAQ should be changed; the second seems coherent:
Quote
You get 40% of each sale of your image. For instance, if the sale price was 10 credits you get $4 on this sale.


It's not 40%, but 40c per credit.

Prices should say "as low as 75c" or something like that.  In the link you sent, there is a note:
Quote
* - content prices vary depending on (...) the credits package you got.


Thanks madelaide, it is a good clarification.
Whatever is our credits selling price the contributor gets 40% of 1 credit which is always considered to be $1, i.e. $0.40
If we sell credits for less than $1 our commission is smaller, but yours remains to be $0.40
So yes, it is better to say that this is a $0.40/credit contributor's commission

Like with others, the credit price depends on how many credits the buyer buys and at the moment the credit price varies from $1 to $0.75, depending on the package size. This is on par with other microstocks, if you can read their pricing correctly - see my previous post here.

Every agency offers today at least 25% discount for the large credits bulks, so we do. Comparing the credit price for credits sold in small packages, where they cost $1 to $1.5 to the prices for credits sold in the large packages ($0.85 - $0.75 and even less) would be incorrect. Of course you will see 25% and even more price difference comparing small package credit price of agency A to the large package credit price of agency B, but it is pretty much like comparing apples to oranges.

The ad on our main page shows the lowest credit price the buyer can get, i.e. $0.75/credit for a big package. There is a text below saying that the images prices vary according to the licenses and the credits packages.

When we sell a 1-credit image your earnings are $0.40 even if the buyer actually paid us just $0.75/credit, so in fact you get 53% of the sale price for a non-exclusive contribution.

« Reply #24 on: July 07, 2009, 04:18 »
0
Pixamba sells images starting from $0.75.  Almost every other stock site starts selling images at $1.00.  So Pixamba has undercut the other sites by 25%!
I just looked at a shot that was on Panthermedia, then compared it with the Pixamba price. Largest size was mention 60 credits.

Pixamba also allows unlimited runs (which most other sites don't allow) and sells Extended Licenses starting at $3.75 (most other sites charge much much more)!
Yes I saw that later. 3.75$ x 40% = 1.50$. Can't believe that's right since it's ridiculous. ShutterStock gives as much or double of it for a simple on demand, and around 28$ for an extended license, any size.

I'm not sure what you are looking at, but that definitely doesn't resemble midstock to me.
I feel that Pixamba is going in the other direction: nanostock!
It gives at least an uncomfortable feeling, all this slickness and cleverness as to pricing tricks. Superficially looking, I had the impression that Pixamba was more midstock, then when you read all the small numbers, it turns out you can sell and extended license for just 1.50$. That will harm your EL sales a lot on other sites, as soon as EL buyers find out it's a giveaway on Pixamba. And ELs are the cream and butter of microstock. I'm also annoyed by the clever trick to make a jump from a mere 4.7MP to 11.2MP, bypassing the most popular cam formats like 6, 8 and 10. Slick. Too slick.

Time will tell when the uploaders on all new sites will report their actual RPD. If it's OK, there is still time to jump on the bandwagon.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2009, 04:22 by cevapcici »

« Reply #25 on: July 07, 2009, 05:30 »
0
I'm also annoyed by the clever trick to make a jump from a mere 4.7MP to 11.2MP, bypassing the most popular cam formats like 6, 8 and 10.
I believe that since we start selling images today and not 5 years ago, our "XL" size should represent the truly high resolution pictures coming from 12+ MP sensors and not 6-8 MP images. What was an extra large image size in the past is not considered XL anymore. Today even entry level $600-$800 DSLRs come with 12-15 MP sensors and they perfectly can do that and even more, so I can not see any problem here.

« Reply #26 on: July 07, 2009, 06:14 »
0
I believe that since we start selling images today and not 5 years ago, our "XL" size should represent the truly high resolution pictures coming from 12+ MP sensors and not 6-8 MP images. What was an extra large image size in the past is not considered XL anymore. Today even entry level $600-$800 DSLRs come with 12-15 MP sensors and they perfectly can do that and even more, so I can not see any problem here.

The point is simple: You are undercutting the competition. No more to say. What you sell for five credits sells for 12 at Istock (independent of credit prices). Changing the sizes for the levels could partly mitigate that problem.

But as you have been deliberately ignoring all comments about your pricing, I do not expect a meaningful answer to this one as well.

« Reply #27 on: July 07, 2009, 07:47 »
0
What was an extra large image size in the past is not considered XL anymore. Today even entry level $600-$800 DSLRs come with 12-15 MP sensors and they perfectly can do that and even more, so I can not see any problem here.

Today yes, and for future photos. Many have a portfolio that dates back years when > 10MP cams were exceptional. The huge gap between 4.7MP and 11MP I can only see as a clever move to depreciate the 10MP cams. Why 11 and not 10? There are no 11MP cams around, but many at 10MP. The pixel size increase (widest orientation) of 10 to 11MP is marginal. So yes, it's a trick.

Extralarge on one of the market leaders Dreamstime is 10MP.

Also very meaningful that you never reply on the Extended Licenses for just 1.50$, a ridiculous amount when ShutterStock gives 28.0$. But I don't expect any. I'm out of this thread now. Things become clearer and clearer.

« Reply #28 on: July 07, 2009, 08:43 »
0
Also very meaningful that you never reply on the Extended Licenses for just 1.50$, a ridiculous amount when ShutterStock gives 28.0$.

I am sorry I did not answer you yet.
I probably missed your question dealing with other angry questions kindly asked by my fellow colleagues from competing agencies who run multiple personalities here at MSG.

It seems that you just compare apples and oranges, like we already saw right here in this thread when some other guy compared credits prices for credits packages of very different sizes.

We offer extended licenses at all sizes: XS - XXXL, so you just took our minimal available size XS with EL price, which is 5 credits (which should gave you, BTW 5 * $0.4 = $2 contributor's fee, but not $1.5 - where this number came from?) and compared this sum to Shutterstock EL price. You did not take in account that XS is 0.11MP while SS only sells ELs for sizes 3,000x3,000 and 6,000x6,000 pixels.

So, if you want to compare apples to apples here are you go.
A size like 6,000x6,000 fails into our XXXL size (20+ MP, approx. 5610 x 3740 or larger) and our EL price for XXXL is $60. The contributor's cut of $60 is always $24. Well, it's probably not $28, but SS is not the only agency which sales ELs, and the prices vary. Anyway, $24 is far from being something 'ridiculous' or unfair to the contributors.

« Reply #29 on: July 07, 2009, 08:52 »
0
I'm also annoyed by the clever trick to make a jump from a mere 4.7MP to 11.2MP, bypassing the most popular cam formats like 6, 8 and 10.
I believe that since we start selling images today and not 5 years ago, our "XL" size should represent the truly high resolution pictures coming from 12+ MP sensors and not 6-8 MP images. What was an extra large image size in the past is not considered XL anymore. Today even entry level $600-$800 DSLRs come with 12-15 MP sensors and they perfectly can do that and even more, so I can not see any problem here.
I think you shouldn't be thinking of cameras but what these file sizes can be used for.  A 6, 8 or 10mp file is suitable for most uses, often 12mp+ is just overkill.  Don't forget that we often downsize images for microstock because of the very low prices.  I don't upload many 12mp+ files to the microstock sites.

zymmetricaldotcom

« Reply #30 on: July 07, 2009, 09:17 »
0
I am sorry I did not answer you yet.
I probably missed your question dealing with other angry questions kindly asked by my fellow colleagues from competing agencies who run multiple personalities here at MSG.

.. who is that?

« Reply #31 on: July 07, 2009, 09:32 »
0
I'm also annoyed by the clever trick to make a jump from a mere 4.7MP to 11.2MP, bypassing the most popular cam formats like 6, 8 and 10. Slick. Too slick.


FYI, just checked iStock sizes:

-------------------------------- quote from the link above ------------------------
From the FAQ:

What size do the images come in?

Our images are available in X-Small, Small, Medium and Large. We also have some files available in XL and XXL.

The x-small size is 400 x 300
small size is 800 x 600
medium size is 1600 x 1200
large size is 2560 x 1920
XL size is 4200 x 2800
XXL size is 4900 x 3300.
-------------------------------- end of quote --------------------------------------

It is quite interesting that Pixamba images sizes are exactly the same.

Oops...
It seems that all your kudos go to iStock. These guys are definitely so clever and so slick, so slick.

« Reply #32 on: July 07, 2009, 09:34 »
0
Also very meaningful that you never reply on the Extended Licenses for just 1.50$, a ridiculous amount when ShutterStock gives 28.0$.
It seems that you just compare apples and oranges, like we already saw right here in this thread when some other guy compared credits prices for credits packages of very different sizes.

I assume that the "some other guy" that you are talking about is me.  If so, then just come out and say so.

And I couldn't compare "apples to apples" because your website is very misleading (as I explained previously in this thread).  There is nothing on the site that states that the prices that you are displaying are for the largest price package.  All your web site states is that an XSmall image is 1 credit or $0.75.

We offer extended licenses at all sizes: XS - XXXL, so you just took our minimal available size XS with EL price, which is 5 credits...

The problem with this reasoning is that the majority of sales are for XSmall and Small images.  This has been confirmed by a lot of contributors as well as the COO of IS (Kelly Thompson).  Mr. Thompson stated (in an article for TechCrunch) "Definitely the print side is declining and we are seeing lots of Web usage".

On top of that, you only need a small image to put on a mug, mousepad, business card, etc., which can then be resold for lots more.

Finally, you still haven't addressed why you feel the need to offer unlimited production runs for a standard license (where almost all other sites require an Extended License).  In my opinion, if an ad gets placed in a top-selling magazine that has millions of readers, then they should be able to pay a little extra for the license.

So in almost every area that you address, it seems that you are just trying to undercut your competitors to get some sales.  Is that your business plan?  Undercut the competition!

« Reply #33 on: July 07, 2009, 11:08 »
0
So in almost every area that you address, it seems that you are just trying to undercut your competitors to get some sales.  Is that your business plan?  Undercut the competition!


No Geo, this is not our business plan, we have a better one.
Not sure about the others though:

I just received a Fotolia newsletter from Fotolia Germany  that they will introduce Premium subscription.
That means buyers can download high res files, vector images and videos with this subscription.

For high res images the royalty will be:


White        0.35 Credits
Bronze        0.36 Credits
Silver        0.37 Credits
Gold                0.38 Credits
Emerald        0.39 Credits
Sapphire        0.40 Credits
Rubis         0.41 Credits
Diamond        0.42 Credits

For vector images 3x and videos 10x this royalty.

What do you think?


Can we really 'undercut' something like this with our offer?

« Reply #34 on: July 07, 2009, 11:10 »
0

Can we really 'undercut' something like this with our offer?

Why compare yourself with the worst offerings of others?

Compare yourself with Istock prices, Zymmetrical commission, and Shutterstock volume.

And then offer something on top.

puravida

  • diablo como vd
« Reply #35 on: July 07, 2009, 11:11 »
0
So in almost every area that you address, it seems that you are just trying to undercut your competitors to get some sales.  Is that your business plan?  Undercut the competition!


Geopappas, good point. However, I don't think david holds the proprietary rights to "UNDERCUT THE COMPETITION". Every single one of the Big 6 has got there before him. This is why we are still discussing "better pay". If the disparity in subs price between StockXpert and  IS  is not equivalent to "UNDERCUTTING THE COMPETITION" albeit in the same team, what is?  Which one of the Big 6 has not UNDERCUT THE COMPETITION? Hmm? 8)

Squat

  • If you think you know, you know squat
« Reply #36 on: July 07, 2009, 11:46 »
0
So in almost every area that you address, it seems that you are just trying to undercut your competitors to get some sales.  Is that your business plan?  Undercut the competition!


Geopappas, good point. However, I don't think david holds the proprietary rights to "UNDERCUT THE COMPETITION". Every single one of the Big 6 has got there before him. This is why we are still discussing "better pay". If the disparity in subs price between StockXpert and  IS  is not equivalent to "UNDERCUTTING THE COMPETITION" albeit in the same team, what is?  Which one of the Big 6 has not UNDERCUT THE COMPETITION? Hmm? 8)

Does big 6+1  count?
Bigstock as far as I know has not undercut the competition. I am still getting 50 cts - $1 for each download. They don't sell so much but it's a relief to see Bigstock not trying to follow the rest over the cliff, so to speak .
Keep it up Liz, Joseph, BigStock !!!

« Reply #37 on: July 07, 2009, 16:07 »
0
I am sorry I did not answer you yet.
I probably missed your question dealing with other angry questions kindly asked by my fellow colleagues from competing agencies who run multiple personalities here at MSG.

.. who is that?

Just putting the questions and the answers in some order here.
 ;D

Bigstock as far as I know has not undercut the competition. I am still getting 50 cts - $1 for each download. They don't sell so much but it's a relief to see Bigstock not trying to follow the rest over the cliff, so to speak .
Keep it up Liz, Joseph, BigStock !!!

« Reply #38 on: July 07, 2009, 16:15 »
0
The biggest question here is volume. Is there enough customers for 50 agencies? Anybody coming so late into this game should better have some revolutionary idea otherwise they can only advertise lower prices. Where these new agencies getting customers from? My impression is they try to get them from bigger ones. Is saving 5 cents worth moving?

puravida

  • diablo como vd
« Reply #39 on: July 07, 2009, 16:25 »
0
I am sorry I did not answer you yet.
I probably missed your question dealing with other angry questions kindly asked by my fellow colleagues from competing agencies who run multiple personalities here at MSG.

.. who is that?

Just putting the questions and the answers in some order here.
 ;D

Bigstock as far as I know has not undercut the competition. I am still getting 50 cts - $1 for each download. They don't sell so much but it's a relief to see Bigstock not trying to follow the rest over the cliff, so to speak .
Keep it up Liz, Joseph, BigStock !!!

sorry david, can you be a little more specific. if you are here to recruit contributors and win their confidence you will have to dispense with expecting us to be mind readers too. if you don't mind, please answer the questions rather than expect us to figure out what it is you are trying to say.

zymmetricaldotcom

« Reply #40 on: July 07, 2009, 16:47 »
0
Not sure I understand but Tanjomast is (as far as my experience tells me) a nice photographer dude from Halifax - I did not think he was affiliated with any agency other than as a submitter.  As to multiple accounts, only the overlord Leaf shall know.. and I suspect he is not paid enough in this context to really be expected to sort that out on a daily basis.  As long as everyone behaves why not.. let off some steam with your alter-ego. 

It is so literal in forums that trying to post new ideas in an objective way is quickly tainted by a few clicks or a language/personality barrier, if people want to stir things up, it should be allowed IMO as long as it doesn't go into the stupid-zone. Agencies smearing other agencies would be unexpected and uncalled for. We all know how hard thing's can be on both sides of the industry fence, I would pray no one has the time to engage in negativity games because it would mean they have already lost their way.

In any case, I am sorry to be still bumpin' around your thread, I will give you a ring this week to discuss my original question and the other co-op in person. 







Squat

  • If you think you know, you know squat
« Reply #41 on: July 07, 2009, 17:00 »
0
Not sure I understand but Tanjomast is (as far as my experience tells me) a nice photographer dude from Halifax - I did not think he was affiliated with any agency other than as a submitter.  As to multiple accounts, only the overlord Leaf shall know.. and I suspect he is not paid enough in this context to really be expected to sort that out on a daily basis.  As long as everyone behaves why not.. let off some steam with your alter-ego. 

It is so literal in forums that trying to post new ideas in an objective way is quickly tainted by a few clicks or a language/personality barrier, if people want to stir things up, it should be allowed IMO as long as it doesn't go into the stupid-zone. Agencies smearing other agencies would be unexpected and uncalled for. We all know how hard thing's can be on both sides of the industry fence, I would pray no one has the time to engage in negativity games because it would mean they have already lost their way.

In any case, I am sorry to be still bumpin' around your thread, I will give you a ring this week to discuss my original question and the other co-op in person. 


Cheers Keith for the vote of confidence.
I am surprised that I was being singled out by david, and I being a nice dude is not really so nice when it comes to insinuation of any sort.
Yes, if I am affliated with some of the agencies in conflict with Pixamba, then david knows much more than I do, as I haven't been that blessed to be offered a CEO spot with any of you, not even Zymmetrical, lol.

What concerns me more is the defensiveness of the OP. As other posters already mentioned, there are questions and there are questions we like to post, and like you Keith, or John from Cutcaster, we are used to getting answers to questions.

If david chooses to ignore these questions , and put me in the middle of all this, I am not very impressed with his method of presenting himself, whatever his ulterior motive.

OK, I got that off my chest. If anyone wants to say anything about me in future, I suggest you speak now or forever hold your peace.
Cheers again Keith. You are a cool dude too, in my book.

puravida

  • diablo como vd
« Reply #42 on: July 07, 2009, 17:17 »
0
confused already? that makes 3 of us , Keith , tan510jomast. 
david i am confused too, or maybe you do not understand English too well to realise that tan and myself actually was on your side in replying to Geopappas about you trying to undercut the competition. or are you so much in a diz that you only see zymmetrical, Bigstock, and go into a tailspin at the mere mention of a competitor.
i too cannot help to think that you are indeed not answering the questions posted by many of us here (Geo, mela, et al), choosing instead to fudge around and doublespeak. if you keep doing this, i suggest you change your aspirations and try running for political office, you'll do far better and make more money that way.

« Reply #43 on: July 07, 2009, 17:29 »
0
[quote author=davidm link=topic=8355.msg107009#msg107009
I am sorry I did not answer you yet.
I probably missed your question dealing with other angry questions kindly asked by my fellow colleagues from competing agencies who run multiple personalities here at MSG.
[/quote]

So what's it to you if there are indeed multiple personalities representing competiting agencies?
In the past it is not uncommon for representatives of another site to join in the discussion of another site, and no one made a stink about it.
If you prefer some kind of censorship, I don't think this forum is the right place for you. You might try it on your own site's forum, though, as that would not be any of my business. However, right here on Tyler's forum, it is .
« Last Edit: July 07, 2009, 17:31 by Perseus »

« Reply #44 on: July 07, 2009, 18:18 »
0
We offer extended licenses at all sizes: XS - XXXL, so you just took our minimal available size XS with EL price, which is 5 credits (which should gave you, BTW 5 * $0.4 = $2 contributor's fee, but not $1.5 - where this number came from?)
I took the price on the prices page of 3.75$ and multiplied by 0.4 (40%). So, an extended license is 2.0$ and not 1.5$, not much difference when compared with the 28$ of ShutterStock.

and compared this sum to Shutterstock EL price. You did not take in account that XS is 0.11MP while SS only sells ELs for sizes 3,000x3,000 and 6,000x6,000 pixels.
That's an advantage for the buyer, as I said. The main thing is that a buyer can get an EL for which we only get 2$.

A size like 6,000x6,000 fails into our XXXL size (20+ MP, approx. 5610 x 3740 or larger) and our EL price for XXXL is $60. The contributor's cut of $60 is always $24. Well, it's probably not $28, but SS is not the only agency which sales ELs, and the prices vary. Anyway, $24 is far from being something 'ridiculous' or unfair to the contributors.
Tricky.  Most downloads in general are XS and S since that's more than enough for web use. People that need/buy XL and XXL are not many, in general. Almost all my maximum size downloads on Dreamstime for instance are subscription, since there is no size limit on subs. For many EL products like mugs, XS is more than enough. It would be better to add, let's say, a flat 20$ (return for contributor) fee to any EL sale as the EL premium, then add the normal fee for size.

As to the remark about iStock's sizes, that might be right but I was referring to Dreamstime that put the boundary on 10MP and not 11MP to include the popular 10MP cams. They did it to encourage contributors to upload full size. With a huge gap between 4.7 and 11MP, the 10MP people will upload downsized versions to the previous step, i.e. 4.7 or 5MP.

« Reply #45 on: July 07, 2009, 19:38 »
0
I'm also annoyed by the clever trick to make a jump from a mere 4.7MP to 11.2MP, bypassing the most popular cam formats like 6, 8 and 10.
I believe that since we start selling images today and not 5 years ago, our "XL" size should represent the truly high resolution pictures coming from 12+ MP sensors and not 6-8 MP images. What was an extra large image size in the past is not considered XL anymore. Today even entry level $600-$800 DSLRs come with 12-15 MP sensors and they perfectly can do that and even more, so I can not see any problem here.
I think there is room for an intermediate size, 7 or 8 MPix.

« Reply #46 on: July 07, 2009, 19:41 »
0
We offer extended licenses at all sizes: XS - XXXL, so you just took our minimal available size XS with EL price, which is 5 credits (which should gave you, BTW 5 * $0.4 = $2 contributor's fee, but not $1.5 - where this number came from?)
I took the price on the prices page of 3.75$ and multiplied by 0.4 (40%). So, an extended license is 2.0$ and not 1.5$, not much difference when compared with the 28$ of ShutterStock.

It seems the issue is that Pixamba is offering ELs for XS, whereas other sites (correct me if I am wrong) only offer ELs in the maximum available size.  I wonder if an XS EL makes sense?  What use would be that?

« Reply #47 on: July 07, 2009, 20:02 »
0
It seems the issue is that Pixamba is offering ELs for XS, whereas other sites (correct me if I am wrong) only offer ELs in the maximum available size.  I wonder if an XS EL makes sense?  What use would be that?

Most resale items (web templates, magnets, mugs, mouse pads, tshirts, business cards, etc) only require a small image.  They don't require an XXL image.

« Reply #48 on: July 07, 2009, 20:45 »
0
Ok, but it doesn't make sense to provide an image for resale items for so cheap.

« Reply #49 on: July 08, 2009, 01:57 »
0
The main reason for ELs is not at all related to image size, but it is a different licence with different (less) usage restrictions.
People who need those extended usages are willing to pay a higher price (as we see on other sites).
Offering the same less-restricted licences for such low prices is an absolute no-go.

« Reply #50 on: July 08, 2009, 02:46 »
0
i too cannot help to think that you are indeed not answering the questions posted by many of us here (Geo, mela, et al), choosing instead to fudge around and doublespeak.

Well, let's summarize some claims & answers posted above, just to be sure that they are answered and nothing was left in the air.

Claim: There is no physical address on their site.
Answer: This is incorrect, just go to our site and check by yourself.

Claim: They came with unfair commission to the contributor.
Answer: We offer $0.40/credit non-exclusive commission, which is currently 40%-53% depending on the credits/package price. It is quite hard to call it unfair.

Claim: Their idea is just to sell for less, undercuting the competition with $0.75 credit price while others charge $1 - $1.5 per credit
Answer: It would be wrong to compare credit prices for small credits packages and big packages. The credit prices for our small packages ($1) are on par with the competition as well as $0.75/credit price for a large credits package.

Claim: Their images sizes are designed to take some advantage.
Answer: We offer exactly the same pixel-to-pixel sizes like iStock do, there is nothing new here.

Claim: They offer a ridiculous $1.5 contributor's commission for a EL sale, while Shutterstock' commission is $28.
Answer: Shutterstock sells 6,000x6,000 or 3,000x3,000 ELs only. If we sell a 6,000x6,000 EL the contributor's cut is $24, quite similar to $28 and definitely on par with many others.

No I do not think I left too many unanswered questions here.

The two last questions were:

Q: Why do you feel that it will be correct to offer unlimited run with the standard license?
A: Because we believe that the market goes in this direction. The current market leaders already did it or will do it soon.

Q: Why do you offer small size EL licenses?
A: Because others do not, and we want to give it a try.
Being a commercial venture, we'll definitely try to maximize our revenues if we'll see a strong demand for this type of size/license, meaning that the prices and your revenues will go up.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2009, 03:10 by davidm »

« Reply #51 on: July 08, 2009, 04:59 »
0
Q: Why do you feel that it will be correct to offer unlimited run with the standard license?
A: Because we believe that the market goes in this direction. The current market leaders already did it or will do it soon.

Q: Why do you offer small size EL licenses?
A: Because others do not, and we want to give it a try.

I smell a contradiction here.

« Reply #52 on: July 08, 2009, 05:26 »
0
I think it's not bad idea to have different sized ELs,but the minimum for the smallest size should be at least $10 for the contributor and you still can have the cheapest ELs in the market.
I'm registered with Pixamba but actualy the EL issue is the only thing that stopping me to start uploading.

« Reply #53 on: July 08, 2009, 06:57 »
0
I think it's not bad idea to have different sized ELs,but the minimum for the smallest size should be at least $10 for the contributor and you still can have the cheapest ELs in the market.
I'm registered with Pixamba but actually the EL issue is the only thing that stopping me to start uploading.
We are here and we are listening carefully.

You are absolutely right - EL pricing is the only question which remains open here after such a long and colorful discussion.
$10 with $0.4/credit contributor's commission makes $25 for a microstock XS EL. This is slightly more than $18 which is the agreed XS EL price for our midstock collection.

Respecting the opinions of people who posted here and their industry experience, I assume that it can be the right thing to make our EL pricing the same for both micro- and midstock collections. Thus, all ELs in both collections will go like this:

EL XS - 18 credits -> $7.2 to the contributor
EL S - 39 credits -> $15.6 to the contributor
EL M - 109 credits -> $43.6 to the contributor
EL L - 169 credits -> $67.6 to the contributor
EL XL - 189 credits -> $75.6 to the contributor
EL XXL - 239 credits -> $95.8 to the contributor
EL XXXL - 289 credits -> $115.6 to the contributor

I think such a pricing can work for all parties involved. Your input are welcome.

« Reply #54 on: July 08, 2009, 07:07 »
0
That looks better, I especially like the XXXL EL :)  I sometimes sell EL's for $100 or more on the other sites, so I don't see a problem with higher prices.  As people are using these on products, I presume the license fee isn't going to make a huge difference to their profit margin.

« Reply #55 on: July 08, 2009, 08:44 »
0
Why not sell ELs on M and above only?

« Reply #56 on: July 08, 2009, 09:04 »
0
Why not sell ELs on M and above only?

+1

as said above, for ELs size does not matter. Different licence matters.

« Reply #57 on: July 08, 2009, 12:28 »
0
I think such a pricing can work for all parties involved. Your input are welcome.

We're almost there, just delete the very small sizes for EL. ELs don't happen that often and buyers don't care that much for 10$ if they can market a template e.g. for thousands.

« Reply #58 on: July 08, 2009, 14:33 »
0
I think a lot of people are like me. I was put off uploading by the extended licence pricing.
Now, let us know when you have FTP uploading, and we will be looking at your site with interest!

« Reply #59 on: July 08, 2009, 17:32 »
0
imo, kudos to David for working through some hard questions and critisicms and for listening and making changes.  Certainly beats the 1 post wonders :)

« Reply #60 on: July 09, 2009, 12:26 »
0
Thanks guys, this thread was full of feedback, what turned to be really helpful and pushed us in the right direction.
I guess people had a chance to post their thoughts here in the last 24h. And we used this time talking to the buyers about their ELs-buying habits, trying to understand the EL prices elasticity.

Here are the results:

We have united both ELs, micro- and midstock, and the final ELs table which we already put in work at Pixamba looks this way:

EL XS - 69 credits -> $27.6 to the contributor, i.e. we match Shutterstock payout starting from the XS EL sale
EL S - 89 credits -> $35.6 to the contributor

----- all the rest goes like it was shown above -----

EL M - 109 credits -> $43.6 to the contributor
EL L - 169 credits -> $67.6 to the contributor
EL XL - 189 credits -> $75.6 to the contributor
EL XXL - 239 credits -> $95.8 to the contributor
EL XXXL - 289 credits -> $115.6 to the contributor

Next, following Geo' confusion with Pixamba credits pricing we have added 'Credits packages' price table to 'Prices and Licenses'.

Third, FAQ is modified clearly stating that the contributors commission is $0.40/credit, whatever is the credit' price in the purchased package.

Fourth, we start seeing some tiny sales coming, 5-10 credits packages, downloading SL-micros mostly in XS-S range, here and there, drop by drop.

« Reply #61 on: July 09, 2009, 17:09 »
0
Now everything with ELs is OK for me to start uploading !
The next is sales :)

« Reply #62 on: July 10, 2009, 08:39 »
0
Good response, David.  Sounds like Pixamba is willing to listen and keep and open mind.

« Reply #63 on: July 10, 2009, 16:29 »
0
How about the site's Forum David?
When do you think it will be up and running?

« Reply #64 on: July 11, 2009, 15:44 »
0
How about the site's Forum David?

I'd rather prefer flash-multiupload or FTP, and a proper Release management first. Right now, you can only attach one single release. The "isolated" checkbox can be prefilled checked/unchecked by determining the % if pixels #FFF > 15. The "number of people" can easily be derived from the number of attached model releases. Ah yes, and there is a typo in the Categories: "chrisitan" instead of "christian".  ;)

Good thing that the keywords are not re-ranked alphabetically. For those contributors that put their most relevant keywords first in the IPTC, it's easy to determine relevance in the search algorithm.

« Reply #65 on: July 21, 2009, 04:55 »
0
David, your forum construction is taking some time.
Is there a hold up with the cement delivery? :D

Would be nice to have it so that people could interact more and get ideas etc going.

« Reply #66 on: August 08, 2009, 08:41 »
0
Things have gone very quiet at Pixamba - have you noticed?
And still no forum.

« Reply #67 on: August 11, 2009, 19:32 »
0
HMMM sincelast week I can't upload illustrations.
Any one the same problem?????

Photo's no problem at all.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
92 Replies
34769 Views
Last post July 08, 2009, 02:02
by dirkr
16 Replies
6839 Views
Last post March 21, 2010, 04:49
by Stu49
3 Replies
28864 Views
Last post April 26, 2010, 08:56
by m@m
4 Replies
7509 Views
Last post April 26, 2010, 15:46
by cidepix

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors