Author Topic: pixmac - a new low $0.028 sale (Read 18475 times)

Phil · « **on:** June 07, 2009, 07:09 »

Well I was opposed to Istocks original subs plan based on a percentage with no minimum amount because I couldnt accept a $0.05 (or lower) payment for an image... didnt realise I was already submitting to a similar system.

I started a couple of months ago with pixmac, then there was the issue with the competition on heroturko but I think to myself mistakes happen (shouldnt with a professional business, but I accept that they do)

Anyway I just went had a look and I see that I have 7.32 credits with them.

So I look at the break down

0000110389    2009-06-05 10:17:34 Image sell 0.047 cr. Image: 0012475965 0.1 MPix    2010-06-05 10:17:34
0000097613    2009-05-22 04:43:10    Image sell    1.99 cr.    Image: 0013088495    0.5 MPix    2010-05-22 04:43:10
0000091809    2009-05-18 08:30:04    Image sell    0.089 cr.    Image: 0012398535    0.5 MPix    2010-05-18 08:30:04
0000088035    2009-05-13 00:47:33    Image sell    0.028 cr.    Image: 0012434443    0.1 MPix    2010-05-13 00:47:33
0000080227    2009-05-05 07:18:49    Image sell    0.198 cr.    Image: 0012398579    2 MPix    2010-05-01 07:18:49
0000044499    2009-03-24 16:37:07    Image sell    4.97 cr.    Image: 0012445189    30 MPix    2010-03-20 16:37:07

actually took me a bit to realise what I was seeing, I receive $0.047, $0.089 and a whole $0.028 cents for a sale. (so a little over 1700 $0.028 sales and you reach payout). They offer subs packages at $0.06 a credit and the artist gets 50%, oh well serves my right for looking into things properly.

but then it gets even more interesting...

I open up the images sold, and one of them shows downloads = 2, but its only listed once in my sales listing??? (ironically it is the image with the 2 cent sale)

and then I search images, find one of mine and open it. User clearviewstock downloads =2 (doesnt include subs??) my 2 "bestsellers" aren't any of those that have sold?? 1 of them is actually an image they rejected (for poor lighting they are the only site inc ss, is etc to reject it, but I'm long over rejections). So I go to manage my images and delete all the rejected images and now I am clearviewstock downloads =1

I think it is time that my portfolio was deleted

rene · « **Reply #1 on:** June 07, 2009, 08:01 »

6 sales! Congratulations, microstock rocks

Phil · « **Reply #2 on:** June 07, 2009, 08:02 »

opened about 20 images, found another with 2 downloads that isnt even on my earnings list at all. Wonder how many downloads I've really had when I open 800+ images

Clivia · « **Reply #3 on:** June 07, 2009, 09:11 »

http://www.pixmac.com/picture/000012030693/0012030693

This image has 2 downloads. Only one of them shows on my sold images list.

null · « **Reply #4 on:** June 07, 2009, 11:21 »

Quote from: Phil on June 07, 2009, 07:09

I think it is time that my portfolio was deleted

You can't. The lock in period is one year and last time I checked, you had to cancel your account by registered snail mail to Prague. People that upload to a site with 0.06$ on the front page only have to blame themselves.

Clivia · « **Reply #5 on:** June 07, 2009, 11:35 »

It wasn't on the front page when I uploaded!

stockastic · « **Reply #6 on:** June 07, 2009, 11:39 »

Ok enough with the "blame the victim" stuff. The fact that someone agreed to a bad deal doesn't mean it's a good deal, or a fair deal. This site is obviously a royal ripoff and the only good thing is, they probably don't have the resources or the attention span to go after you if violate the one-year lockin. Assuming of course it's even possible to delete your files.

On this forum I see posts attempting to justify every shabby thing these agencies do, by saying it was all covered in the original agreement, caveat emptor, etc. In a narrow legalistic sense that may be true but I'll bet these same people aren't as happy when they themselves get ripped off by a rental car company, or an insurer that wiggles out of a claim, based on some "fine print". And I'm sure Phil wishes he'd never clicked "Ok" on this one.

Phil, thanks for posting and I'll put this pathetic microstock on my list of ones to avoid.

null · « **Reply #7 on:** June 07, 2009, 11:49 »

Quote from: stockastic on June 07, 2009, 11:39

This site is obviously a royal ripoff and the only good thing is, they probably don't have the resources or the attention span to go after you if violate the one-year lockin.

How can you avoid it? It's your problem to remove the images, not theirs. All anybody uploaded there is locked in for a year (initially they said 2 years) at least and you will have to send a snail mail to remove the images. Better send it registered or they probably will deny that they received it. Of course it's a rip off, and I told you so when they started. Nobody there is a victim, you could read all when you started uploading.

loop · « **Reply #8 on:** June 07, 2009, 11:56 »

I don't know if it's possible at this site, but if you don't want your photos to be sold there for these miserable prices and you can't delete them, maybe you could (if possible) alter all the keywords, reducing them to a minimun of improbable keywords, so your photos won't be found.

sharpshot · « **Reply #9 on:** June 07, 2009, 11:58 »

I uploaded 500 there. They didn't have an advert for $0.06 on the front page at that time. There is no way to delete so what can we do? I received $100 from them, so I am not suffering yet but it could be nasty if there are lots of downloads there.

Hopefully this is just a very short term marketing campaign to get some buyers to the site. They are not going to make any money selling at those prices. They wont get anyone uploading either, so they need to go back to sensible pricing quickly. Sites don't get much of a chance and they will ruin their reputation doing this.

stockastic · « **Reply #10 on:** June 07, 2009, 12:39 »

I have a dinky web site of my own, with a database behind it, and I pay the hosting company about 8 dollars a month. I could write the code to sell images off of it After that, I pay for more storage, and it could be anywhere. Amazon S3 charges about 15 cents per gigabyte per month. Maybe pixmac is just one of a group of web sites run by the same guy, all sharing server and storage. Who knows.

Any time these sites cut commissions (or I should say, every time) they're going to issue a PR statement about how they're just raising money for - as Fotolia just put it - "marketing, technology and human resource growth". Hey let's face it, they're raising money to raise money.

Phil · « **Reply #11 on:** June 07, 2009, 16:59 »

Quote from: Clivia on June 07, 2009, 11:35

It wasn't on the front page when I uploaded!

Me neither, it wasn't there in february when I signed up. although I did say and admit that I should have looked into it some more, a number of people on this site thought they were looking ok. Aanyway I accept that I was the fool and got done on a dodgy deal, yep I'm too trusting...

Regardless sales that they make should be paid to the contributor, that is just plain old stealing. (I found a couple more unreported sales).

Phil · « **Reply #12 on:** June 07, 2009, 17:09 »

it gets better... Terms and conditions

The royalty for images uploaded before April 1st 2009 downloaded with the non-exclusive license is 50% for the contributor, and 60%, for images downloaded with the exclusive license.

The royalty for images uploaded after April 1st 2009 downloaded with the non-exclusive license is between 30% and 44% for the contributor, and between 45% and 60% for images downloaded with the exclusive license - in both cases depending on volume of sales.

and further down

Pixmac reserves the right to change this agreement anytime and without any further notice.

so they've chnaged the royalties without telling anyone, on a sliding commission which doesn't seem to be listed anywhere on there site and faq infocenter for photographers still says 50% commission

so images uploaded after 1st april = 30% of $0.06 and the terms and conditions can change daily if they want, there are at least 4 or 5 differences since I agreed, so much for zager's we pay the best blah blah blah blah

madelaide · « **Reply #13 on:** June 07, 2009, 17:29 »

Quote from: Phil on June 07, 2009, 17:09

Pixmac reserves the right to change this agreement anytime and without any further notice.

Unfortunately I think this is a common writing:

from IS: "The Rate Schedule is subject to change in the sole discretion of iStockphoto in the ordinary course of its business without notice by posting such changes on the Site."

from DT: "We reserve the right to change this agreement at any time without further notice."

from FT: "Fotolia shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to amend the terms and conditions of this Agreement, in whole or in part, at any time, and any such changes shall be effective immediately upon member notification and publication of such changes on the Website."

sharpshot · « **Reply #14 on:** June 07, 2009, 17:38 »

I think the main reason why I trusted pixmac was because my images were already on their site, through fotolia. I wonder what FT think about the pixmac subs prices?

Phil · « **Reply #15 on:** June 07, 2009, 17:45 »

Quote from: madelaide on June 07, 2009, 17:29

Quote from: Phil on June 07, 2009, 17:09
Pixmac reserves the right to change this agreement anytime and without any further notice.

Unfortunately I think this is a common writing:

from IS: "The Rate Schedule is subject to change in the sole discretion of iStockphoto in the ordinary course of its business without notice by posting such changes on the Site."

from DT: "We reserve the right to change this agreement at any time without further notice."

from FT: "Fotolia shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to amend the terms and conditions of this Agreement, in whole or in part, at any time, and any such changes shall be effective immediately upon member notification and publication of such changes on the Website."

but even though they have the capacity they dont change important stuff without letting us know, its about trust and respect. If things like this happen you have check the terms and conditions before each upload in case it has changed to make sure you still agree and you are not now uploading to 10% commission etc

stockastic · « **Reply #16 on:** June 07, 2009, 17:50 »

I think I see an opportunity for a software product.

I'll create an application for image buyers. Give it an image (it can be small) and the keywords you used to find it, and it will search all the microstock sites for the same image, finding the lowest price.

RGebbiePhoto · « **Reply #17 on:** June 07, 2009, 19:47 »

I believe the issue on unreported sales was talked about before...

When they pulled the information from Fotolia, the views and downloads were recorded with the images. So, sales you "see" could be from FT. Check your sales on that image through Fotolia, and you may see them there.

Pixmac was just one of the reasons we deleted our port at Fotolia.

Gebbie

Phil · « **Reply #18 on:** June 07, 2009, 20:13 »

Quote from: RGebbiePhoto on June 07, 2009, 19:47

I believe the issue on unreported sales was talked about before...

When they pulled the information from Fotolia, the views and downloads were recorded with the images. So, sales you "see" could be from FT. Check your sales on that image through Fotolia, and you may see them there.

Pixmac was just one of the reasons we deleted our port at Fotolia.

Gebbie

the first image in question with 2 reported downloads and only 1 showing isnt on fotolia, so its not that, but thanks anyway

Phil · « **Reply #19 on:** June 08, 2009, 00:14 »

Quote from: loop on June 07, 2009, 11:56

I don't know if it's possible at this site, but if you don't want your photos to be sold there for these miserable prices and you can't delete them, maybe you could (if possible) alter all the keywords, reducing them to a minimun of improbable keywords, so your photos won't be found.

thanks, I think that is what I am going to have to do

Phil · « **Reply #20 on:** June 09, 2009, 04:12 »

all titles, descriptions and keywords removed and resubmitted for inspection

(the last batch that I uploaded have just been approved without them) and in the meantime clicking on any of my images just comes up with a 404 image deleted error. What a fun way to spend a day, not

oh well, I learn to be more careful before I bother with any other new sites

null · « **Reply #21 on:** June 09, 2009, 04:38 »

Quote from: stockastic on June 07, 2009, 17:50

I'll create an application for image buyers. Give it an image (it can be small) and the keywords you used to find it, and it will search all the microstock sites for the same image, finding the lowest price.

Hey, you stole my secret idea!

sharpshot · « **Reply #22 on:** June 09, 2009, 06:42 »

I emailed them about these low prices but haven't received a response. I hope zager can come here and explain their strategy. We wont make money with these low prices but they wont either, so what are they up to?

loop · « **Reply #23 on:** June 09, 2009, 07:06 »

Quote from: stockastic on June 07, 2009, 17:50

I think I see an opportunity for a software product.

I'll create an application for image buyers. Give it an image (it can be small) and the keywords you used to find it, and it will search all the microstock sites for the same image, finding the lowest price.

Go ahead with that! It would be a great improvement, because it would "help" many contributors to fight the temptaion of putting their files in cheapo sites as well, knowing that doing that the would probably loss better sales at decent sites.

null · « **Reply #24 on:** June 09, 2009, 09:07 »

Quote from: loop on June 09, 2009, 07:06

Go ahead with that! It would be a great improvement, because it would "help" many contributors to fight the temptaion of putting their files in cheapo sites as well, knowing that doing that the would probably loss better sales at decent sites.

That would be a deadly application for the all you can eat for 0.01$ sites and I wondered how long it would take before somebody had that idea. Lookstat used the same technology for matching images on different sites and Tineye had it already for a while. Everybody then will probably end up with photos.com. Only exclusives are "safe".

It's just a matter of time till Google gets hold of the technology and makes it its base for Google images.

stockastic · « **Reply #25 on:** June 09, 2009, 10:06 »

Flemish, I think it's only a matter of time before Google drops the bomb with 'Google Stock', a searchable archive of 10,000,000 free stock images. Paid for by ad revenue.

Google already did this with maps. They're trying to do it with books. And with the money they have, they could send someone out to buy up these microstock sites tomorrow during lunch break.

The market has now been completely 'developed' by the microstocks. And what they've developed is the feeling that stock images should be free. Here we are, talking about how 25 cents now looks good, since someone has started selling at 6 cents. And 6 cents isn't as bad as 2.

These are token payments. The images are virtually free already; the subscription price is covering the overhead of the search engine development, transaction processing, advertising.

sharpshot · « **Reply #26 on:** June 09, 2009, 10:26 »

I couldn't disagree more. I get bored reading about this. I am livid about 6 cents and will do all I can to get away from pixmac. Pay per download prices are way above subs levels and those sites are still doing great. It is obvious that most buyers don't mind paying dollars instead of cents.

I don't see the free and cheap sites getting much decent content, they will be full of junk. Perhaps people will use them but they are not going to take away much from the other sites. Google like to make money and they are not going to buy all the micros and put prices down because we can remove our images.

stockastic · « **Reply #27 on:** June 09, 2009, 10:35 »

Sure, when Google Stock goes live, we'll all get our 'opt out' notices. So we can opt out of the only game in town. Google will give the images away, and promise to pay the contributors a micro-percentage of the ad revenue. But of course we won't know how much we'll make until we click 'Ok' and give them our images to sell.

Of course, sharpshot, I hope you're right and I'm wrong.

null · « **Reply #28 on:** June 09, 2009, 10:37 »

Quote from: stockastic on June 09, 2009, 10:06

Flemish, I think it's only a matter of time before Google drops the bomb with 'Google Stock', a searchable archive of 10,000,000 free stock images. Paid for by ad revenue.

Did you ever try to search for images for clients on free sites? Flickr for instance. You'll have to wade through tons of crap to find anything decent and it's not even tagged well. If you find a gem after 30 mins, you can't even buy fast let alone get the assurance there is a model release. Stock agencies offer quality control and security. It's fast to search and buy. That's worth money too.

I'm not that much worried about Google stock, but an app that looked up the same quality image over stock sites and presented the best buy would really hurt to those that upload both to Alamy and Nanostock like Pixmac. Up till now, huge price differentiation over sites was possible due to ignorance.

stockastic · « **Reply #29 on:** June 09, 2009, 10:43 »

Flemish, give Google credit where credit is due. If there's one thing they know how to do well, it's "search". Their algorithms are light-years beyond anything cooked up by developers working for microstocks. In fact that's how they'll win - by coming up with a better search.

Look at the quality of Google Maps, all the tricks it can do. You go to a restaurant and find it's closed. Google Maps will instantly show you other Chinese restaurants within a given radius.

Google's resources make the microstocks look like Kool-Aid stands.

null · « **Reply #30 on:** June 09, 2009, 10:50 »

Quote from: sharpshot on June 09, 2009, 10:26

I am livid about 6 cents and will do all I can to get away from pixmac.

You will have to wait a year and send them a registered snail mail for that. I reviewed the site and its terms when it started and I gently put it down. Their link density is generated by the typical E-European link circles. They smelt slightly fishy with their sweepstakes and later with their association with Heroturko. Everybody seemed to be blinded by those 100$. I hate to say "I told you so", but I told you so.

Looked at the 123RF landing page? "Images as low as 0.19$".
Fotolia : images from 14 cents.
Dreamstime: high-resolution stock images can reach as low as $0.20 each.

They are all playing the price competition game.

null · « **Reply #31 on:** June 09, 2009, 10:57 »

Quote from: stockastic on June 09, 2009, 10:43

Flemish, give Google credit where credit is due. If there's one thing they know how to do well, it's "search". Their algorithms are light-years beyond anything cooked up by developers working for microstocks. In fact that's how they'll win - by coming up with a better search.

A map is a map. An image isn't an image. Can Google search for quality images? Quality can't be quantified yet and as long as it can't be objective, no search algorithm can search for it.

stockastic · « **Reply #32 on:** June 09, 2009, 11:05 »

Google already has a powerful image search, of course. They could extend its tentacles into the micro/macro stock archives by signing agreements with those companies. The agencies could still sign up contributors and review images.

Whether 'quality' could be quantified and identified by algorithms is an open question. Obviously past sales history is one factor, contributor history is another. Images could be heuristically analyzed for contrast, color range, complexity, noise and a brute-foce metric for "quality" could emerge. For example, I'd suggest that image 'simplicity', in terms of the number of detectable objects and edges, is a powerful indicator of success for a stock image. So is a harmonious relationshiop of colors, which could also be picked up by an algorithm

Google has people hard at work on all sorts of ways to 'monetize' the serach technologies they've developed.

I'm just playing devil's advocate here. But I do think there's an inevitablity about 'free' stock images.

null · « **Reply #33 on:** June 09, 2009, 11:18 »

Quote from: stockastic on June 09, 2009, 11:05

I'm just playing devil's advocate here. But I do think there's an inevitablity about 'free' stock images.

You are certainly right about the superiority of the search technology of Google into large databases. We all witnessed how major stock sites struggle with their search engine and with ways to evaluate relevance. One of the problems is that there is only a limited set of keywords to describe a virtually infinite collection of images, especially if all keywords have the same weight.

Let's assume for a moment that Google only addressed images from major stock sites, then the quality issues would be solved. If the search results were more relevant than those of the sites themselves, then there could be major changes for some contributors that are favored one way or another in a particular search engine. Plus that the price competition would become very transparant.

So basically you are right and it's in the best interest of contributors to stay out from nanostock for those images that are also on midstock. I don't assume that Google would sell those images themselves. They would only mediate the search.

stockastic · « **Reply #34 on:** June 09, 2009, 11:28 »

I'm thinking back to Netscape Navigator. People were actually paying money for this this new application called a "browser" - remember that?. Then Microsoft stepped in and decided browsers should be free. Then later Google decided that all applications - word processors, spreadsheets, image editors (Picassa), 3D CAD (AutoSketch) - should be free, paid for by ads. Oh and news, too. That's why AP is now litigating against Google, trying to stop their news aggregator.

Google wants people's online lives to be lived entirely inside Google, with ads just a ubiquitous part of the landscape. To do that they're buying or creating all the content people might want.

Phil · « **Reply #35 on:** June 12, 2009, 16:47 »

response from pixmac re non showing downloads & changed royalty rate in terms and conds.

we have checked your problem with different count of displayed downloads and there was really a mistake on our side. Your image was downloaded twice but by the same user, therefore he didn't pay for the second download and that is why you don't see the second download in your account. We have improved our system to count downloads for each user only once so you will see there the right number of paid downloads.
According to your second complaint: We have changed payment rates only for new users - not for users registered before this change. So you are
still getting the 50% of the image price.

hmm I only gave them 1 image number so not much for them to go on, but 6 images in my downloads but I have 4 images that show 2 downloads, 2 arent in my listing of payments at all and then the payment rates for new users? not how its written in t&c

The royalty for images uploaded before April 1st 2009 downloaded with the non-exclusive license is 50% for the contributor, and 60%, for images downloaded with the exclusive license.
The royalty for images uploaded after April 1st 2009 downloaded with the non-exclusive license is between 30% and 44% for the contributor, and between 45% and 60% for images downloaded with the exclusive license - in both cases depending on volume of sales.

oh well, lesson learn't, half my collection has no keywords (some got put back in by the system) they wont delete my account and I'm not real keen to do what people have done on Albumo. my stuff can sit for a year and then I'll delete it

sharpshot · « **Reply #37 on:** July 29, 2009, 04:27 »

Thanks for the reply. I did send a message via the contact form but I never received a reply. $0.10 is still much too low and is a big insult to those of us who uploaded some of our portfolios. The minimum commission I want from a subs sale is $0.30, even that wont keep me interested for long. Shutterstock pay me $0.38 and have huge sales volumes.

The reputation of the pixmac site has been tarnished by this and I hope you can do something to repair the damage. I have no incentive to upload more now until confidence has been restored.

zager · « **Reply #38 on:** July 29, 2009, 09:24 »

Thx. I'll keep the number $0.38 in my mind! Proof attached :-)

No Longer Cares · « **Reply #39 on:** July 29, 2009, 10:09 »

Maybe we can add another column to the polll to the right; Submitter Trust.

puravida · « **Reply #40 on:** July 29, 2009, 11:58 »

Quote from: null on June 09, 2009, 10:50

Looked at the 123RF landing page? "Images as low as 0.19$".
Fotolia : images from 14 cents.
Dreamstime: high-resolution stock images can reach as low as $0.20 each.

They are all playing the price competition game.

sooo right null.
every day tossing burgers is getting more and more attractive.

if i were the manager of a burger joint ..., no, let's make it a "sub-marine" joint, i would put up a sign, "why be a micro stock photographer?
we pay better wages than your subs...PLUS you get free lunch !"

puravida · « **Reply #41 on:** July 29, 2009, 12:03 »

oh,
and also, " we supply the equipment.
you don't have to keep upgrading to the latest DSLR .
sell it, and use the money for your next christmas vacation !".

willie · « **Reply #42 on:** July 29, 2009, 12:08 »

Quote from: puravida on July 29, 2009, 11:58

Looked at the 123RF landing page? "Images as low as 0.19$".
Fotolia : images from 14 cents.
Dreamstime: high-resolution stock images can reach as low as $0.20 each.

They are all playing the price competition game.

Wouldn't it be nice if we do find a site with a different sales pitch?
Something like ---

OUR PRICE IS HIGHER BECAUSE OUR IMAGES ARE BETTER !

However, I won't hold my breath for this to happen.

Phil · « **Reply #43 on:** July 29, 2009, 16:27 »

Quote from: sharpshot on July 29, 2009, 04:27

Thanks for the reply. I did send a message via the contact form but I never received a reply. $0.10 is still much too low and is a big insult to those of us who uploaded some of our portfolios. The minimum commission I want from a subs sale is $0.30, even that wont keep me interested for long. Shutterstock pay me $0.38 and have huge sales volumes.

The reputation of the pixmac site has been tarnished by this and I hope you can do something to repair the damage. I have no incentive to upload more now until confidence has been restored.

thats 50% of $0.10

a.k.a.-tom · « **Reply #44 on:** July 29, 2009, 18:51 »

okay, I read the whole thing.....

I never submitted to these clowns, how'd my pix wind up there? Gravitate from FT....?? I've got to start reading fine print everywhere now..
thank the powers that I decided to take my FT 'folio down to 2 pix a long time ago...due to my credits being ripped off. I think I'm just going to delete the 2 and cut my losses with FT.

Or am I wrong?

=tom

puravida · « **Reply #45 on:** July 29, 2009, 18:56 »

Quote from: a.k.a.-tom on July 29, 2009, 18:51

okay, I read the whole thing.....

I never submitted to these clowns, how'd my pix wind up there? Gravitate from FT....?? I've got to start reading fine print everywhere now..
thank the powers that I decided to take my FT 'folio down to 2 pix a long time ago...due to my credits being ripped off. I think I'm just going to delete the 2 and cut my losses with FT.

Or am I wrong? =tom

tom,
i sure would like to know what's happening too.
seems like this whole micro stock business is coming up with more and more curve balls at us contributors every single week.

maybe we are the clowns as this whole business is becoming a circus. freak show !

is there an alarm we can pull for scavengers alert ?

Phil · « **Reply #46 on:** July 29, 2009, 19:50 »

They are a partner of fotolia and resell all of fotolia's image. For FT's images they sell you get a normal sale at FT and never see them (or other FT partners).

The very small amounts are for people who sign to sell direct with pixmac (as well as the FT offering) they did offer 50%, but now have since cut it to 30% and they have a credit / size based subs package that is also based on % commission. Before a small image on a years sub package was worth $0.06, now the min is $0.10 but that is on a monthly subs package so more likely to occur.

Anyway few posts ago I said 50% of $0.10 but remembered the commission drop in April so,

for new images thats 30% of $0.10 so still only $0.03 (as opposed to $0.02, so its a 50% improvement but still only a whole whopping $0.01 rise, wow!) and its 30% of $0.70 ($0.21) for 30mp extralarge (other sizes in between)

But basically subs buyers are not first time buyers from new markets etc. Most of the time these would mostly be bigger customers who have bought elsewhere.

If a subs customer buys my small image and I get $0.03, this is only 12% of the minimum that I would earn anywhere else (minimum anyone else offers is $0.25) and its just under 8% of what I get for a SS sale (I get $0.38 at ss and I dont submit to anyone below $0.30 so 10% for me).

This means I am at 833% worse off than if that customer bought it from any other site and 1266% worse off if you've pulled one of SS customers

Best case is that they buy superlarge (but is a credit based subs so there is incentive to only get the size they need) and then I am only getting 84% of what I get elsewhere and 55% of ss.

I'm sure you're nice people but really why should I support your site and give myself an horrendously massive paycut by selling images to people who in msot cases you are going to try and poach from elsewhere?? (not to mention support the race to the bottom).

a.k.a.-tom · « **Reply #47 on:** July 29, 2009, 19:57 »

Phil.. all I can say to that is 'Amen". Your point is well taken!! Right on, right on, right on, bro!

=tom

Phil · « **Reply #48 on:** July 29, 2009, 20:08 »

Quote from: zager on July 29, 2009, 03:38

4. Lower commisions

Sorry, Ftolia contract limits. At least the commisions changed for newcomers only.

For newcomers? this is what I got from support too, but the terms and conditions says for new images after april?? (it also says a sliding scale between 30-44% but with no explanation anywhere on the site as to how this works or what increments are involved (and I did ask), which also implies new images rather than new contributors

)

zager · « **Reply #49 on:** July 30, 2009, 04:02 »

Phil: sorry, sure for newcommers. I've send a task to Lucie at Pixmac so she will take care of it soon.

The subscription generally.

As far as I know, the subscription is for bigger customers that need easier acces (no care about prepaing, justmonthly price) and also needs a feeling of good price. That is why SS is that successful from my point of view.

So mostly, you get more downloads for less money per dl, but after all, those customers try to use their daily credits, so they're motivated more to download "anything". But at Pixmac, subscription is not a big deal, so as I mentioned, we're working on something better for us, customer and sure the photographers (belive me or not).

Thx.

Nesidez · « **Reply #50 on:** July 31, 2009, 02:54 »

zager:
and what about this?

Quote

it also says a sliding scale between 30-44% but with no explanation anywhere on the site as to how this works or what increments are involved

Nesidez · « **Reply #53 on:** July 31, 2009, 08:59 »

hi zager.

do we here know your t&c better than you? seems so.
take a look at your t&c!
here is the link:
newbielink:http://www.pixmac.com/infocenter/termsandconditions [nonactive]

at "royalties for contributors":

Quote

The royalty for images uploaded after April 1st 2009 downloaded with the non-exclusive license is between 30% and 44% for the contributor, and between 45% and 60% for images downloaded with the exclusive license - in both cases depending on volume of sales.

i would call this sliding commissions.
so in which case do i get 30% of the non-exclusive and when 44?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: pixmac - a new low $0.028 sale (Read 18475 times)

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors