MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - BaldricksTrousers

Pages: 1 ... 36 37 38 39 40 [41] 42 43 44 45 46 ... 206
1001
What I find interesting is the three peaks in earnings at 20k, 30k and 40k.  The latter I understand, but do the other two represent particular types of portfolio?

1002
Subject matter is very important. If you don't chase the "lifestyle" market you might need a lot more than 40,000 files to get 10k a month. I know I would (and I see "40,000" is the most favoured response - I suspect that means "quite a bit more than 40,000).

1003
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock has got so bad I now owe THEM money
« on: September 29, 2014, 17:51 »
Curiously, I never made as much as that and I've never made as little (well, excluding April 2004, but that hardly counts).
You seem to be a victim of the "eggs in one basket" problem, highlighted long ago by those of us who sacrificed the benefits of exclusivity for the sake of not being beholden to a single managment. And if that sounds like schadenfreud, well, I guess it is.

1004
General Stock Discussion / Re: how long you need for a stockpicture
« on: September 27, 2014, 12:57 »
I can't help wondering whether 200 shots of a model at a single shoot get anywhere near twice as many downloads as 100 shots of the model would.  I don't do models, so I'm curious,

1005
It's implied in what you said in reply to Pixelbytes' observation.
No it's not.   Lots of buyers are getting much cheaper files now, overall the prices have come down since the change.  Some buyers may feel shafted and may not come back even with lower prices but some buyers will probably look at the prices and that's all they will be concerned with.
How do you know that "overall prices have come down since the change"? That depends on a whole lot of data about what the sales volume at different price points was that neither you nor I are privy to.  There's no doubt at all that some buyers are feeling shafted, and with good reason.
So when you say buyers might just look at the price comparison between SS and iS and go for iS based on price alone, in response to Pixelbytes' observation about customers possibly being put off by iStock's record of unilaterally scrapping its deals with buyers and substituting other stuff, you are being obtuse. Istock has made itself unreliable to customers by devaluing/revaluing/messing about with their accounts. That's beyond question.
You obviously feel very strongly about this.  I'm not going to be bullied into agreeing with your position just because you call me names though.  I think I'll step away from this argument before things get too heated.

I'm not bullying you, and I only feel strongly about the truth, regardless of whether it favours iStock, SS or any other company.

1006
It's implied in what you said in reply to Pixelbytes' observation.
No it's not.   Lots of buyers are getting much cheaper files now, overall the prices have come down since the change.  Some buyers may feel shafted and may not come back even with lower prices but some buyers will probably look at the prices and that's all they will be concerned with.
How do you know that "overall prices have come down since the change"? That depends on a whole lot of data about what the sales volume at different price points was that neither you nor I are privy to.  There's no doubt at all that some buyers are feeling shafted, and with good reason.
So when you say buyers might just look at the price comparison between SS and iS and go for iS based on price alone, in response to Pixelbytes' observation about customers possibly being put off by iStock's record of unilaterally scrapping its deals with buyers and substituting other stuff, you are being obtuse. Istock has made itself unreliable to customers by devaluing/revaluing/messing about with their accounts. That's beyond question.

1007
Who would want to commit to a one year plan at a site that changes its terms and prices several times a year?  Especially after what just happen to customers holding credits?  If you want to buy a year sub makes more sense to do at a stable site like SS.
I wouldn't be surprised if buyers just look at the price and see they can get a more usable, cheaper subscription at iStock but I guess we'll see.  We should know some more info on this in about 5 weeks.
So  you're saying that iStock (and those of us selling there) can benefit from buyers being ignorant of the history of buyers being shafted by iStock?

+1 except you are quoting Tickstock not me :)
Sorry! The stacked quote system confuses me at times!

1008
I wouldn't call $1,999 for 9,000 full sized images a "very expensive option".  That's only 22 cents an image,

It's a "very expensive option" if you only  want 25 microstock images.  It's about $80 per image, not 22c an image.
There are cheaper options if you want 25 images.  I don't think a subscription is what a buyer would be looking at to get 25 images.  Maybe I'm missing your point?

25-30 images is what the originally quoted post was about - a single project. It's not about the theoretically cheapest price for a user who willy-nilly uses up every download they're allowed, it's about the real-world experience of a particular buyer with particular - and quite ordinary - needs.

Edit - for the record, it was this:
Posting here in case it disappears from the iS forum: (added: removed already, which isn't entirely unreasonable as it names the competitor)
"I am a customer and a contributor (granted I don't have many files but I see things from both sides).
I am a web designer and currently working on a new project. I am going to have to purchase around 30-40 images. I don't need massive file sizes, it's all for web and mediums will be enough to produce standard and @2x retina images.
The cheapest I can do this on iStock is 224.75 and that assumes all but 3 images are 'essentials' and not 'signature'. If I go to Shutterstock, it is 139... and I will still have about 30 images left in my allowance."


1009
Who would want to commit to a one year plan at a site that changes its terms and prices several times a year?  Especially after what just happen to customers holding credits?  If you want to buy a year sub makes more sense to do at a stable site like SS.
I wouldn't be surprised if buyers just look at the price and see they can get a more usable, cheaper subscription at iStock but I guess we'll see.  We should know some more info on this in about 5 weeks.
So  you're saying that iStock (and those of us selling there) can benefit from buyers being ignorant of the history of buyers being shafted by iStock?
I never said that.
It's implied in what you said in reply to Pixelbytes' observation.

1010
Who would want to commit to a one year plan at a site that changes its terms and prices several times a year?  Especially after what just happen to customers holding credits?  If you want to buy a year sub makes more sense to do at a stable site like SS.
I wouldn't be surprised if buyers just look at the price and see they can get a more usable, cheaper subscription at iStock but I guess we'll see.  We should know some more info on this in about 5 weeks.
So  you're saying that iStock (and those of us selling there) can benefit from buyers being ignorant of the history of buyers being shafted by iStock?

1011
I wouldn't call $1,999 for 9,000 full sized images a "very expensive option".  That's only 22 cents an image,

It's a "very expensive option" if you only  want 25 microstock images.  It's about $80 per image, not 22c an image.

1012
Sue is right IMO that it is not clear enough. The eye goes to the words "one year plan" which are bolded next to the headline figure. A lazy reader like me can easily not notice the word "monthly" and fail to realise that other options exist.

It's not lazy reading to take it that way - it's exactly what it means, you can get a sub for $100 a month as long as you pay for a full year.  They don't mention that you can get monthly subs for 124 unless you click on the link, and you won't click unless you are ready to commit for a full year.

It's a grade-A marketing fail.

They should advertise the 124 as the monthly rate and then trumpet the special discount to less than 100 for year-long subscriptions - unless, of course they want people not to buy the subs and to stick to the credits. It's a curious reversal of "bait and switch" they're doing, hiding the bait until you fall for the very expensive option.

1013
If you want a one month plan it will cost you a lot more. So they can't argue with the guy and it's best not to tell your customers that it costs more to shop at iSTock.

It's 129 for a single one-off 1 month. That's 129 for 250 images.

According to Sue's post the customer was concerned that the cheapest they can get 30-40 images is 224.75 at iStock vs a minimum spend of 139 at Shutterstock. But the actual figure is 129.

So it's cost less at iStock.

OK, I can't see that because all the pricings I get are in AED.

Oh .... I see, the poster assumes that because they only give the price for one-year contracts for subs that he will have to buy enough individual credits to meet his need - which would cost the 224.75 that he mentions.

1014
Still - why didn't the mod point out the better iS deal?

Lets hope that someone from customer relations contacted the client directly. Assuming the post was not simply someone indignation-trolling for the sake of (it seems a weird post given that the subscription offer is on the same pricing page). Wow those 1 month subs are cheap.

There isn't a better deal. You can have the 100 a month deal as long as you pay 1,200 for it, it's a "one year plan" so you have to buy the whole year. If you want a one month plan it will cost you a lot more. So they can't argue with the guy and it's best not to tell your customers that it costs more to shop at iSTock.

1015
Are you actually getting sales with them, though?  I'd rather have lower commission and decent sales than higher commission and no sales, but I'm not sure whether my lack of sales is because my images got pushed to the back of the search because I submitted early, or if it is just that they're not getting sales.

1016
It wasn't the contributor fees for payouts, it was splitting the processing fees for the buyer's purchase with the contributor - "...but processing fees for image purchases on the website will now be shared equally between FotoArabia and the contributor. This additional cost will at most be 3% of the value of the purchase."
Ooops! Yup, I didn't read it through to the end of the par!

1017
I'll talk to them about the paypal fees. My first payment went by bank transfer to the UK at their expense, which was probably significantly more expensive than Paypal, it may be that sort of thing that they want to cut out. If they would cover Paypal it would at least be something.

1018
I had a meeting with them today. They're a start-up who are trying to find their feet as a niche supplier in a difficult industry. I think these changes reflect an initial miscalculation by them which they are trying to correct. It's unfortunate - but is anybody making enough money from sales there for this to make a noticeable difference to your monthly earnings?
If this had blossomed into a rip-roaring success then the changes would be scandalous but I think some of the comments may be a bit hard on them when you take into consideration that they are a small outfit struggling to get off the ground.

1019
sales are back again to me....let's see how october will be

So far, we haven't really seen the effects. People have had five credits swapped for one and have those still to spend. People who were going to buy two or three images will now only be able to buy one, but will they buy a new credit pack when their current one expires? If they don't , the impact will be seen weeks or months from now.

It astonishes me that every single change iStock makes seems - if one goes by what the forums say - to cut the earnings of suppliers, and since iStock's earnings are proportional to the suppliers' earnings, that means it cuts iStock's earnings, too.  Yet Getty predicts improving profits in its submissions to its backers. It would be interesting to see what the going rate is for its debt, and how it's changed over time.

1020
iStockPhoto.com / Re: First Week of New iStock - How are you doing?
« on: September 22, 2014, 09:45 »
So is nobody doing well? Have Getty finally wiped out the site that founded the industry? (Talk about making things bloomin' unsustainable!)

Here, for old times' sake, is the post where we first discovered that istock is unsustainable http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252322&page=1

Jeez! It was only 4 effing years ago! I was making some decent money from iS before that post popped up. How fast things change!

1021
iStockPhoto.com / Re: First Week of New iStock - How are you doing?
« on: September 21, 2014, 10:06 »
Okay, clearly it's way too early for meaningful trends []

So, why do you ask?

I've actually had the slowest week for downloads for more than 10 years (I'm not kidding), down 70% on the previous week, so I think it might be meaningful.

1022
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Istock's back
« on: September 21, 2014, 06:04 »

How are your SS sales in relation? I'm asking, because I'm also having a good month at BS, but only a so-so month on SS, and I'm wondering if the migration might SS to BS, rather than IS to BS...

SS seems to be doing what it was before the iS change. Its been a bit weak for several months without BS showing any improvement (in fact, BS has looked quite horrible up to the last few days).

1023
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Istock's back
« on: September 21, 2014, 04:05 »
I don't know if it means anything, but my Bigstock sales over the last three days have picked up sharply. Eight sales on a Saturday is very unusual - and they were well spaced out, too, not all from one person.

It's worth remembering that if Istock is the market leader by a large margin, as is widely supposed, then losing 20% of its customers to other sites could lead to much more than a 20% boost for places like BS.

1024
General - Top Sites / Re: Beautiful Keyword
« on: September 20, 2014, 12:03 »
I'd be surprised if people used it as a search term. I was once told that its main purpose is to make the models feel good when they see it.

1025
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Istock's back
« on: September 20, 2014, 02:16 »
how much of our sales are actually coming from the bottom feeders ? nobody knows, it could be 1% as far as we know, or 50% for some obscure niches.

if they were really so many then it would be obvious from the number of sales in the cheapest price range but this is not happening, in the best scenario they're probably just 10-20% of the total.

If you're exclusive then you were probably already priced out of the market for the "bottom feeders". I've just looked at the stats for the last three files I've sold and on the first page of DLs for those 50% of the sales (i.e. 30 out of 60) were for small or extra-small sizes.

(PS: You're an unusual person, in wishing good-riddance to what you think may be 10% or 20% of your sales. Most people don't enjoy a pay cut).

Pages: 1 ... 36 37 38 39 40 [41] 42 43 44 45 46 ... 206

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors