Author Topic: Pixamba - Please keep us informed! (Read 20616 times)

davidm · « **Reply #25 on:** July 07, 2009, 05:30 »

Quote from: cevapcici on July 07, 2009, 04:18

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.

dirkr · « **Reply #26 on:** July 07, 2009, 06:14 »

Quote from: davidm on July 07, 2009, 05:30

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.

lurkertwo · « **Reply #27 on:** July 07, 2009, 07:47 »

Quote from: davidm on July 07, 2009, 05:30

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.

davidm · « **Reply #28 on:** July 07, 2009, 08:43 »

Quote from: cevapcici on July 07, 2009, 07:47

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.

sharpshot · « **Reply #29 on:** July 07, 2009, 08:52 »

Quote from: davidm on July 07, 2009, 05:30

Quote from: cevapcici on July 07, 2009, 04:18
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 »

Quote from: davidm on July 07, 2009, 08:43

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?

davidm · « **Reply #31 on:** July 07, 2009, 09:32 »

Quote from: cevapcici on July 07, 2009, 04:18

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.

GeoPappas · « **Reply #32 on:** July 07, 2009, 09:34 »

Quote from: davidm on July 07, 2009, 08:43

Quote from: cevapcici on July 07, 2009, 07:47
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.

Quote from: davidm on July 07, 2009, 08:43

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!

davidm · « **Reply #33 on:** July 07, 2009, 11:08 »

Quote from: GeoPappas on July 07, 2009, 09:34

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:

Quote from: Freezingpictures on July 07, 2009, 04:27

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?

dirkr · « **Reply #34 on:** July 07, 2009, 11:10 »

Quote from: davidm on July 07, 2009, 11:08

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 · « **Reply #35 on:** July 07, 2009, 11:11 »

Quote from: GeoPappas on July 07, 2009, 09:34

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?

Squat · « **Reply #36 on:** July 07, 2009, 11:46 »

Quote from: puravida on July 07, 2009, 11:11

Quote from: GeoPappas on July 07, 2009, 09:34
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?

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 !!!

davidm · « **Reply #37 on:** July 07, 2009, 16:07 »

Quote from: zymmetrical on July 07, 2009, 09:17

Quote from: davidm on July 07, 2009, 08:43
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.

Quote from: tan510jomast on July 07, 2009, 11:46

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 !!!

melastmohican · « **Reply #38 on:** July 07, 2009, 16:15 »

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 · « **Reply #39 on:** July 07, 2009, 16:25 »

Quote from: davidm on July 07, 2009, 16:07

Quote from: zymmetrical on July 07, 2009, 09:17
Quote from: davidm on July 07, 2009, 08:43
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.

Quote from: tan510jomast on July 07, 2009, 11:46
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 »

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 · « **Reply #41 on:** July 07, 2009, 17:00 »

Quote from: zymmetrical on July 07, 2009, 16:47

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 · « **Reply #42 on:** July 07, 2009, 17:17 »

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.

willie · « **Reply #43 on:** July 07, 2009, 17:29 »

[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 .

lurkertwo · « **Reply #44 on:** July 07, 2009, 18:18 »

Quote from: davidm on July 07, 2009, 08:43

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.

Quote from: davidm on July 07, 2009, 08:43

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$.

Quote from: davidm on July 07, 2009, 08:43

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.

madelaide · « **Reply #45 on:** July 07, 2009, 19:38 »

Quote from: davidm on July 07, 2009, 05:30

Quote from: cevapcici on July 07, 2009, 04:18
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.

madelaide · « **Reply #46 on:** July 07, 2009, 19:41 »

Quote from: cevapcici on July 07, 2009, 18:18

Quote from: davidm on July 07, 2009, 08:43
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?

GeoPappas · « **Reply #47 on:** July 07, 2009, 20:02 »

Quote from: madelaide on July 07, 2009, 19:41

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.

madelaide · « **Reply #48 on:** July 07, 2009, 20:45 »

Ok, but it doesn't make sense to provide an image for resale items for so cheap.

dirkr · « **Reply #49 on:** July 08, 2009, 01:57 »

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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Pixamba - Please keep us informed! (Read 20616 times)

davidm

dirkr

lurkertwo

davidm

sharpshot

zymmetricaldotcom

davidm

GeoPappas

davidm

dirkr

puravida

Squat

davidm

melastmohican

puravida

zymmetricaldotcom

Squat

puravida

willie

lurkertwo

madelaide

madelaide

GeoPappas

madelaide

dirkr

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors