Quote from: lisafx on April 07, 2011, 23:23
Ah.  Thanks.  Will keep my eye out for them.  None so far today.

I'm very interested in the value of the level 0 purchases.  Anyone using these just signed up, presumably may know about the weekly sub, and picks credits or not.  I've had two such sales so far, and both were with credits - and both appeared to be via 13 credit packs based on the value I received.  So they aren't all buying sub plans yet!  I have not seen any level 0 subs yet.  I don't think there would be any way to tell if it was a weekly sub unless a level 0 is purchased.  All that said, the absence of level 0 sub purchases could just mean that people who buy subs pick more expensive images since they don't really cost more.  But the two I sold were both editorial, and don't have much else to pick from (i.e. location specific).

Quote from: lisafx on April 07, 2011, 22:09

Quote from: pancaketom on April 07, 2011, 19:56

In other news, I've gotten my first 2 level 0 sales.

What color swirlly icon represents the level 0?  

Kind of a bronze color:

It is getting very fast.  I wonder what the numbers are like - now that they have such low limits have they eliminated a lot of rejections so that they are still getting a similar number of images online each week?  interestingly, I've put up more images as I try to max out the 35 each week - where before I didn't pay much attention to my weekly limit

Quote from: pseudonymous on April 07, 2011, 04:38
You have to ask yourself how many downloads will 52 credits buy under the new pricing structure.

Say a buyer bought this package, they could only purchase two level 1 vector files, or just one level 5 vector, or five extra large level 1 jpegs or 17 extra small level 1 jpegs etc.

The table below is a summary of my sales this year grouped by size and level.  The third column shows how many of those type/level images can be bought using the 52 credit package.

For the sake of this little exercise, let's assume that all these downloads were purchased using the 52 credit package and that the buyers bought only 1 type of size/level.  This would indicate that for 67% of my sales, the buyer could only purchase 1-5 images with the 52 credit package.  In this scenario, the buyer is likely to switch to the weekly subs deal.  This is what I'm concerned about.  There's not much incentive for most buyers to purchase the 52 credit package.

You are assuming that the buyer is ready to max out the package in the first week, which is surely true for some, and not others.  There is lots of incentive to buy credits if you don't know what you need them for yet, and just have a short term need to buy an image.  I see credit sales with 100 and 200 credit packs all the time - and there are monthly subs cheaper than a 200 pack.

Still, I'm as interested as anyone is whether these new packs will cannibalize sales from credits or not.

Quote from: Komar on April 06, 2011, 22:23
Except we get paid per sub download, which isn't as much as what they get paid which is per sub package bought, as how many buyers won't download their full quota of 10, 25 or 50 images a day? Those who have credits though would generally use them up. There will definitely be a swing towards subs, but it just depends on how large the swing will be to find out how much we lose.

Definitely remains to be seen.  It isn't a given that Dreamstime makes more money on a $45 sub package than a $50 credit package - a full payout for 70 exclusive subs is $29.40, a minimum payout on a 50 credit pack for non-exclusive level 0's is $12.50.  I realize these aren't equivalent purchases, but neither is saying that a buyer who currently comes to Dreamstime for 4 images suddenly now wants 70 in a week.

I'm trying to figure out who the buyers of 50 credit package are and how this would impact them.  People currently buying smaller credit packages likely have a one time or infrequent need for images or they would spend more and get a discount.  People who buy 100 credit and larger packs already have a sub option for a similar price, and aren't buying it.  So who are the 50 credit pack buyers that will suddenly be flocking to this deal?  The one worry would be the buyer who comes for 4 or 5 images and realizes they can get those via the sub and have more left over whether they use them or not - for the same price.  Keep in mind, though, that they might have to take two days if they are interested in more than 3 level 5's.

There is the possibility that this draws sub buyers from other sites and both adds revenue as well as driving up levels.  Could be my personal pipe dream, though

I think I read somewhere that 95.4322345% of statistics are made up on the spot 

I won't argue that I know this to be good for contributors, but I'd be interested to see behind the scenes what kind of buyer actually goes for this.  It would be a no brainer to buy the weekly sub if you were already going to buy a 50 pack for some specific purchases that used the whole 50 pack.  But if you occasionally need images the weekly sub is still hard to take full advantage of.  As someone who occasionally buys credit packs for specific purposes, I would not want a sub pack that expired in a week for my $50.  I'd rather use the 5-10 credits out of the pack for the image I need today and then have a full year to use up the rest.  If you are a blogger and you need small images, the credit pack still gets you a large number of photos (i.e. you aren't taking advantage of the full size anyways) and you don't have to know in advance what you might need.

I have no data to support this conclusion, but I'm optimistic that this will tend to draw sub buyers away from monthly plans or other sites more than it will cause credit buyers to step up to subs.  Either you have a need for 70 images a week, or you don't, in my opinion.  It takes time to log in and spend the time to grab 10 images a day that you might use in the future...  Whether this is good or bad for contributors remains to be seen, but will depend a lot on why buyers are coming to Dreamstime.  People will still need credit packs for ELs, which I believe is the main reason people would buy a large credit pack in the first place.

Another way to look at this is to look into what price people are paying for the credits they use to buy your images now.  To get a credit value around $0.92 you have to spend about $100 on credits at once.  The monthly sub is only $128 - the same argument applies there - why don't people buy the sub for a month instead of a 100 credit pack?  If the argument is that the price is so similar everyone will pick subs were valid, then you wouldn't see any credit sales where the buyers spent more than $100 on the credits - yet it happens all the time in my credit sales.  For this reason, am I optimistic that there are truly two kinds of buyers...  Don't get me wrong, this will surely push some people to buy subs that didn't before.  But will they be new buyers, buyers from other sites, monthly sub buyers, or existing credit buyers?

Quote from: Komar on April 05, 2011, 14:45

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on April 05, 2011, 13:46

Quote from: corepics on April 04, 2011, 22:36
Might want to double check (older pages, also) if the changes actually went through. I've tried this on several occasions, but nothing changed. I've sent a support ticket to Dreamstime about this a while ago, but gave up when they didn't address the issue I wrote them about.

It turns out the new prices are only for customers who join the site from this month on. Existing customers are being charged at last year's rate, for the moment. So there are two different price schedules running in tandem. Very strange.

Yes strange. Maybe there will be cases of existing customers opening new accounts so they can get a better deal. 

What better deal?  A Level 0 costs what a Level 1 used to, and everything else is higher across the board for the new customers.  Whether you are an old customer or not you have access to the weekly subscription...

Quote from: caspixel on April 04, 2011, 21:37Okay, not false advertising, but sure looks like a bait and switch when the homepage says as low as $0.95. Of course anyone who is spending $20k on credits over there is probably getting one of those super special discounts and actually getting their credits for $.0.50. 

Agreed - I have to think you'd be buying a subscription long before buying $20K worth of credits.  For 75% of the price you can get a 1 year sub plan that lets you download over 40,000 credits worth over a year.  In other words, it is kind of false advertising as hopefully no one would be foolish enough to actually buy that plan!  Nice that they expire after a year, too!  I would be very concerned, though, if they claim the cheapest credit price is $0.95 but people are seeing royalties based on half that value...

It is kind of like how on DT they give maximum numbers in their table for royalty payouts, but it is based on a $1.25 credit value (which you get when you buy the 8 credit pack).  It would be a foolish buyer indeed that would buy seven 8-credit packs to buy a 50 credit print license, rather than buy a 52 credit pack for a 20% discount...  At least on DT I have never seen a case where I received royalties that seemed to indicate an original purchase price lower than available on their 'buy credits' page - and I frequently see royalties that indicate the buyer did actually pay $1.25 a credit!

Quote from: caspixel on April 04, 2011, 21:14

Quote from: Pixart on April 04, 2011, 20:27

Buy Pay-as-you-go credits whenever you need them. Use your credits to download royalty-free stock photography, vector illustrations, video footage, audio tracks and Flash files. Credits cost as little as 95¢ USD/credit.

Pay-as-you-go credit packages
Credits Price (USD)
12 $18.50 ($1.54/credit)
26 $39.50 ($1.52/credit)
50 $75.00 ($1.50/credit)
120 $175.00 ($1.46/credit)
300 $430.00 ($1.43/credit)
600 $800.00 ($1.33/credit)
1000 $1,250.00 ($1.25/credit)
2000 $2,250.00 ($1.13/credit)

That's false advertising right there. They really need a class action lawsuit against them for all the crap they've been doing, whether its accidental or deliberate.

It says right under that table: "You can also purchase 5000 credits for $5,250. USD, or 10000 credits for $10,000.00 USD, or 20000 credits for $19,000 USD. To order, phone Customer Sales toll-free 1-866-478-6251."

Or in the PDF: http://www.istockphoto.com/docs/mail_fax_orderform_q1_2011.pdf.  Not that I imagine many would spend $20K on a credit package up front, but it seems you can actually get credits for $0.95 as advertised...

Quote from: cclapper on April 04, 2011, 18:15
Thanks for that tip. I went over to uncheck that option, and I already have it unchecked. Which is odd because I just had a request for sell-the-rights not too long ago (of course, never heard back). I suppose a client can ask, even if that is unchecked.

You are right, a buyer can still request an SR-EL or RAW if it isn't available...  (you are free to decline or not respond)

I think the pricing for these has got a lot more confusing all of a sudden.  The fact that the SR-EL1 is only 25% of the SR-EL price makes it pretty unappealing to a non-exclusive if you have your prices set to the minimum or the automatic ones (as low as $250 for the SR-EL).  This means you might only get $31 for taking it offline for a year ($250 x 50% royalty x 25%).  This is pretty low - I routinely get $12 for one level 5 TIFF sale!  If you aren't exclusive the problem is compounded as what isn't selling on DT could be a big seller elsewhere.  I think many people have it in the back of their mind that it would be worth pulling an image from other sites to get a few hundred dollars, but those people obviously aren't making hundreds a year from their images in the first place!

Bottom line, non-exclusive and exclusives should both be reviewing their pricing and their decision to make SR-ELs available at all.  To me the SR-EL1 pricing is what you need to base your decision on, as it is the lowest of the three...  They aren't saying anything about where that image ends up in the searches when it comes back after a year or three, either.  On DT I am of the opinion that an older image with low sales gets lost in the search after a while.  They should consider an automatic level bump or two if an SR-EL1 or 3 happens...  Taking an image offline for 3 years would likely kill it for future sales!

Innovative idea, but it doesn't seem very good for non-exclusives unless you set your prices really high - in which case buyers were probably better off with just a high priced SR-EL in the first place...  This does seems good for exclusives, as by definition they aren't doing much with their photos other than selling it on DT anyways.

Quote from: Anyka on April 03, 2011, 17:17I think I prefer to switch off that choice for all my images now.  Can this be done in one move?  Anyone now how?

Yes, you can click the Manage Licenses link in your management area http://www.dreamstime.com/extended_license.php.  At the top you can set (or remove) the SR-EL license option/pricing for all images at once...

How do you know it is stupid policy?  Do you know how many buyers actually want 'similars' as a percentage of buyers out there?  It is totally possible that Dreamstime buyers tend NOT to buy similars and complain that the results are clogged up with similar images from the same contributor, and that Dreamstime is actually trying to increase their revenue (and yours) by forcing contributors to self select.  I have no doubt that both types of buyers exist, but who are we to say in what proportion and on which site?  What is good for the site is rarely good for all contributors - do you happen to be one of those negatively affected?  I for one am willing to entertain the idea that their buyers fit the pattern of people who are willing to pay more for a single image, and less likely to want similars...  If nothing else, isn't it a good sign that a stock agency seems to be pushing buyers to pay more for imagery?  Unlike some other sites you get a higher royalty when they sell an image for more...

The wording of 5/day is a bit misleading.  I think they must just mean 5/day in the sense of 35/week - I have had no trouble uploading more than 5 a day as long as I'm under the 35/week.

As for why, they are trying to force contributors to prune their submissions, with the stated goal of reducing similar images.  There is a lot of discussion around this, on the DT boards and here, and it isn't as simple as it first sounds.  DT doesn't have a strict policy, and you can see that there are some types of similars that they seem to encourage (i.e. facial expressions and poses) and other that they want you to combine into sets (i.e. illustrations of balls).

Quote from: RedScarlet on March 25, 2011, 15:20
All those highly quality extra small pics for dirt cheap. Good deal.

And then you post them on a blog and 30 seconds later they are on Google images for free. WordPress should come up with a pluign to stop that.

What makes you think the images on the DVD that you sold on ebay for $29 didn't end up on the web for free?  There is no difference between someone buying an image on a DVD and using it on their blog (full res?) and buying it RF and using it on their blog in terms of someone willing to steal an image...  Only in your case you sold it for $0.10 an image !

I would never buy anything off eBay in terms of image licensing for fear it was pirated in the first place!

See http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_26324.  The images are no longer online...

Quote from: luissantos84 on March 19, 2011, 09:50

Quote from: visceralimage on March 19, 2011, 08:53
This is standard practice for Dreamstime; they vary the upload limits almost on a weekly basis

sorry but never like this one

Agreed - first time in 3 years I can't upload (because I already uploaded 35 this week)...

You are not alone, I find it very frustrating as well.  It didn't surprise me when I read that Google had acquired reCaptcha as a way of using crowds to figure out stuff that their OCR can't make out.  So don't feel bad if you can't figure it out - it may be Google trying to get you to decipher something that no one can read

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2011/02/28/f-vp-misener-captcha.html

From the article:

"The Captcha images it provides are also used to help decipher words that can't be identified during the process of digitizing printed material (see sidebar)."

Quote from: Elenathewise on March 03, 2011, 19:35

Quote from: trek on March 03, 2011, 18:40
How long does it take before unsold files fall into the trap?  I'm a compulsive editor with an itchy delete finger.  I wanna mark my calendar!

It used to be 4 years, now it's 3. Soon they'll start giving away your images for free after a couple of months....

Is it 3 years?  Everything I see in the thread and the oldfiles page say 4+...  I still think it should default to delete rather than donate as well, but at least they let you change it ahead of time now...

Quote from: Danybot on February 25, 2011, 02:26
The concept in RF doesn't make a lot of sense.  If it was a rights managed site, where the image might only have been sold a few times to specific markets, there could be value to buying it.   But if somebody buys out an image that has already sold many times on an RF site, what value do they really get? 

No new user in future will have it, but there might be lots of existing uses of it kicking around on all kinds of websites, etc.   The buyer has no assurance of any kind of meaningful exclusivity, since the RF seller can't retrieve it from all the previous users.

Buying it from microstock channels for exclusive use doesn't really make any sense, so one must conclude it is for another reason.  My thought is that it would make sense for someone who might have a need to acquire additional licenses in the future and wants to guarantee availability...  For example, if the Extended print license gives you license to print and sell 10,000 items, and you thought you might exceed that.  On DT it is 50 credits for the P-EL, so if you had a need for 5 P-ELs (to be able to sell 50,000 items) it would seem logical to just buy the image outright if it was for sale for anything close to $250.  Even $800 isn't that much to add to an item's unit cost if you are making 10,000+ units.  And you eliminate the risk of the image been taken down in the future and come close to preventing anyone else from using the image.  Further, you get all the benefits of ALL the extended licenses for one price.

At some point, one would hope the buyer would just hire a photographer or designer to do their project so they do truly have something unique they can market.

Count me in as a positive response  Great idea having color balanced lights in the wardrobe / setup room !  I think it is great to see what goes on behind the scenes in Yuri's studio.

Quote from: madelaide on February 21, 2011, 20:59
I used to browse my portfolio, right-click an image and get its link (FF has this option, IE doesn't).

Can't you just right-click in IE and go to properties to get the link?

Quote from: rubyroo on February 12, 2011, 08:20
I recall that the reason Fotolia stopped giving out that information was because buyers were being hassled by photographers to buy more of their work...

I'm not sure why the sites seem to think that providing feedback on use has to give away the buyers' information?  Certainly if they provide a website, or other information it would, but it wouldn't be too hard to have a dropdown for some generic information that would be easy to categorize - like 'blog', 'advertising', 'corporate', 'book', etc.  In some cases, of course, the buyers don't actually know how or if they will actually be used in the future.

Personally, I find that the fewer the sales you have, the more you want to know where they went.  Once you hit a certain volume of sales you will start to find your images in use - and a trickle of interesting ones is enough to satisfy you...

Quote from: jsnover on February 11, 2011, 06:14
The basic search problems (type red white blue into the top search box and see the mess you get in the crumb trail box) have been there for nearly two months. They fixed some problems with the layout of my_uploads and about a week later pushed fixes for other things and the broken layout came back. That sort of thing really smells like poor development procedures with checkin/checkout of code and one person's changes overwriting someone else's fixes.

Wow - they really have something messed up.  I thought I was missing something when a basic search returned no results for me the other day until I removed some of the double keyword entries...

Quote from: visceralimage on February 11, 2011, 06:08
Another example, go a search for Eastern Great Tit (a bird) and you get thousands of images of pretty girls from the east or looking east or that have been  on a trip to the east, etc.  Do a search for Eastern Great Tit, Amur and you will get photos of a small bird with a colorful pale yellow belly.  But, DT will not allow the words Primorski, Russia or Amur in the keywords.

I, the seller, am screwed because the buyer can not find my work and the buyer is screwed because he/she must wade through junk to find the images

Am I missing something?  On both Shutterstock and DT if I search on 'Great Tit' I get all bird photos (minus the one girl in the pool on SS).  Interestingly, I choose the best one I saw in the top five on DT and it happened to be yours   I agree with Gostwyck - you are missing the latin names and other keywords.  Adding 'Russia' is really just a form of keyword spam and will cause your bird photos to appear in a search on Russia.  DT will let you put that in the description so a buyer can still find out where you took the photo if they care about that...

I would expect a buyer (on DT) to begin such a search within the Animal category to avoid getting all the 'junk'...or by checking 'no people'.

Google is an amazing search engine - but even it has trouble showing photos of yellow birds if you are going to search on 'great tits'