|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
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 - dirkr
Pages: 1 ... 46 47 48 49 50 [51] 52 53 54 55 56
1251
« on: June 17, 2009, 06:23 »
It is an interesting dilemma that Getty have with StockXpert.
Judging by my own sales, in proportion to the greater collection, StockXpert appear to have annual sales of about $4-5M. That might be chickenfeed in comparison to IS and Getty but nonetheless it is still a valuable asset and it is probably higher than the sales of JIU/PC combined too.
If they close StockXpert down then they lose the value of their asset and StockXpert customers are probably more likely to go to DT/FT/BigStock as they are a closer fit price-wise than IS. Giving the competition a boost is not going to be a particularly attractive option. On the other hand if they don't continue to invest in marketing and infrastructure for StockXpert then it will probably die a slow death anyway.
I can't really see the sense in boosting JIU/PC (with IS images) whilst at the same time ignoring or killing off StockXpert. All 3 companies are still competing for customers against IS __ unless you believe the market is firmly segmented price-wise. In that case you might as well support StockXpert and JIU/PC as they are primarily competing against other agencies. My guess is that they haven't got much choice but to support StockXpert into the future.
What would you do if you were in charge of Getty?
I don't see such a big problem in keeping the competition inhouse - it's still better than letting the customers move to an outside competitor. Having different branches and let them compete can be a viable business, so there might be a reason to keep StockXpert alive. But what I expect: Their margins are greatly different at Istock (paying 20% - 40% depending on exclusivity status and cannister level) and StockXpert (paying 50% and more - they pay 50% based on a credit value of 1$, independent of volume discounts). That is where they will try to have changes - cut royalties for contributors. If they do that, what harm is in there for them in keeping a second venue inhouse.
1252
« on: June 16, 2009, 18:11 »
I just realized that I normally get >$2.00 for an x-large image, but from a "subscription sale" i'm gettin gsomething like 0.37!
what?
If they don't opt me out of subscription, I'm leaving. For 0.37, subscription should get X-Small only or I should get 5* that amount for X-Large. There just isn't enough volume there to justify it. 
My uploads to SS are intentionally down at "minimum acceptable size". You want larger, you pay for larger.
There is no opt out. And it is not a secret that they sell subscription and you receive 35 cents per sub sale. You did read the agreements before signing up, didn't you?
1253
« on: June 16, 2009, 07:08 »
Dear Mr. Krabs, welcome to this board  ...
You're referring to me? Then you're wrong. (little hint: you assume that one of the founders of Zoonar has his port all over the place at all the micros  )
1254
« on: June 16, 2009, 06:08 »
The ratings are irrelevant on the site, have nothing to do with search ranking etc. The good things about Zoonar: - Fair commissions, from 50% up to 80% depending on sales or portfolio size. - They let you choose between three different price scales (obviously you should not price images on other micro sites too high...) - Very good communication with contributors (for those who do speak German take a look at www.foto-talk.de) Sales are still few, but they claim to be in the black and have always talked about needing time to grow. I am staying there with some hope for the future. And that they upload my port for me to polylooks is another goody...
1255
« on: June 15, 2009, 16:13 »
I wonder if the next announcement will say StockXpert will be shut down?
Either that or "sorry, but we must comply with the Getty standard commission of 20% bla bla bla, but it will be so great for you all, Whoo Yay !!!"
1256
« on: June 15, 2009, 16:10 »
One other point that has not been mentioned: What do they tell their (photos.com and JIUnlimited) customers?
Right now they will have a majority of the independent content.
If they stop the distribution via StockXpert that will be gone and be replaced with what?
The "unsold files" of Istock? Whatever will be opted in there...
I would expect a majority of Istock exclusives not opting in anything and probably most independents the same.
So what's left to distribute via photos.com and JIU will be significantly less than today.
Does this help to sell more subscriptions?
What else do they plan for the future?
1257
« on: June 15, 2009, 16:06 »
I don't know.... Istock has its exclusive content, but they don't have all of the "inferior" stuff that every other site has - so don't they need StockXpert or they aren't competing with the entire market. Unless of course they permit the photos that don't pass IS inspection to go into the subs pool anyway. But by restricting uploads to 15 per week, they aren't exactly competition for Shutterstock with "fresh".
maybe they will keep StockXpert, I am just afraid they will not keep the 50% commission....
1258
« on: June 15, 2009, 15:10 »
That reads like they want to shut down StockXpert.
And the reason for that is more than clear: Considering my files (8,2 MP out of a Canon 30D): What sells as an XL at StockXpert for 10 Credits (which is a price for the customer from 8$ to 10$ depending on size of the credit pack) sells as L on Istock for 12 Credits (which is between 11,40$ and 18$ if I am not mistaken). Now taking into account the different commissions: StockXpert pays 50 cents per credit (they actually pay more than 50% for the larger credit packages), Istock pays 20% of money spent. For Getty: What used to give them between 3$ and 5$ now gives them between 9,12$ and 14,4$. For me: What used to bring me 5$ is now down to 2,28$ to 3,6$. Now more questions. I really do hope that Corbis (Veer Marketplace) will be successful as competition to Getty.
1259
« on: June 15, 2009, 12:11 »
Seems like a logical move - motivated by pure greed.
I was opted in via StockXpert, I am opted out via Istock (and will stay out).
1260
« on: June 15, 2009, 05:55 »
I only started with 123 in late April, uploaded about 800 pictures in May, got only six downloads in May, but already 8 in June now - one of them a Tiff giving me 4,50.
That is a lot better than Bigstock at least.
1261
« on: June 12, 2009, 14:22 »
You're right, I never tried that far...
So it is obviously preferred placement for those pictures. Some I came over when checking right now sell for 95 Credits for XS... And are attributed to "Corbis"... It would really be nice to know, if any of them sell, as sometimes images with the same quality can be available for roughly 1% of the price in the regular collection.
But I'm afraid we will never know...
1262
« on: June 12, 2009, 13:35 »
I'd agree on the quality issue but, out of interest, what makes you think that FT's Infinite collection is a 'success'?
Obviously download numbers aren't visible and I'd always assumed that their favoured search order positioning was due to them being placed rather than having earned it __ although that was just a guess based on their apparent saleability.
They don't show the download numbers, but if you sort a search by downloads, then the Infinite collection pictures seem to appear in the right order, thus you can derive the approximate number of downloads. Not sure that this is really true or if they are presented there in some random order, but I would assume that FT would not put effort in programming something like that (after all, sort by download is just a simple database query...)
1263
« on: June 10, 2009, 09:50 »
Panthermedia ..
Don't let them hear that you call them microstock They believe they are something better and punish anyone who offers at "micros" with 30% instead of 50% commission...
1264
« on: June 10, 2009, 08:58 »
There is. AFAIK Fotolia - though incorporated in New York - originates from France. And there biggest market is Europe, and in Europe their biggest market is Germany.
1265
« on: June 10, 2009, 03:15 »
Mine are still all at 30%, no changes. Doesn't seem to be a site problem.
1266
« on: June 10, 2009, 02:57 »
Once you are accepted, you have to go trough few forms (name, address, etc.) and this particular form shows up automatically... With plenty infos on how to fill it.
How sweet it is...
Claude
Ok, thanks, I'll wait what they have to say about my initial 10 pictures...
1267
« on: June 09, 2009, 17:37 »
Well: I just complete my personal information at veer marketplace and was very surprised when i saw this in their US TAX information.
Dumb question: Where did you fill that out? There was nothing to fill out when I registered with Veer and I can't find any link to this form on the site as well 
1268
« on: June 08, 2009, 17:34 »
10mp images should be around $7-$10.
Who says so??? Istock charges 12 Credits for my 8 Mpx files, depending on Credit package that can be up to 18 $. At FT those files go as XL, thats 6 Credits. Or for higher ranked contributors it can be 12 Credits, that would be (in Europe) 12 . At DT depending on image level prices for that size can go up to 20$. The same files sell via StockXpert as PPD on Photos.com for higher prices (admittedly not often...). I sell the same files in German Midstock sites for prices between 15 and 50 for full size (again, not the same number of sales as on SS but they do sell). So why do you believe the only way to go is to drive prices down? I do not believe in the fairy tale of the customer who checks all sites before making a purchase just to save a few dollars.
1269
« on: June 08, 2009, 06:06 »
Important to know: They are a company of Deutsche Telekom, the biggest telecom company in Germany. That might bring in some good marketing via their T-Online internet branch.
1270
« on: June 03, 2009, 19:05 »
I posted the following on the FP forum, but I think it makes sense to include it here as well: Elena, I can't say I like what I see. I recently joined FP because I wanted to support the site due to two facts: - 70% commission. It is great when a agency cares for the authors and pays out a high percentage. - Pricing. I do not care too much that I can set my own prices, but it allows me to NOT take part in any kind of price war. With these announcements you are taking away those advantages of your site. First: Why do you need to reduce commissions??? That is very very disappointing. Second: The proposed pricing for "standard" would even be ok, but the sizes are looking strange. "Max Size 4800, 6400, 8000, 9600" What kind of pictures do you expect here? Like we all gonna buy Hasselblad from now on? Third: I do not believe in the price sensitivity of customers as it is implied by this new scheme. The distinction between "standard" and "Mid-stock" is a bit strange - as well as asking authors to guarantee that they don't offer these images at "micros". What defines a microstock site in that context? Will you give a list of sites? Or a minimum price that must be achieved? I believe that distinction is a very bad idea... Last but not least: I don't think the industry needs another low-priced subscription site. All you will do is take away customers from existing subscription sites. Why should I support that? Why not try a better subscription model? Educate buyers! A subscription is nothing else than a volume rebate with some special terms. So if you give buyers a subscription for e.g. 10 images a day for 500$ a month, that is less than 2$ per image. If you give them away full size, assuming a reasonable price of 10$ for a full size image, that would still be a discount of 80%. That is enough. And you could probably still pay contributors 2$ per sub download... As said before, these changes as proposed are not what I wanted to see when I joined a few weeks ago. It took me some time to upload my port here and I would be sorry if I had to remove it again. Best Regards, Dirk
1271
« on: May 22, 2009, 17:49 »
Oh I think this has been a long time in the coming - we've been offered the option to 'donate images to the free collection' for years when uploading - just the way is been done that's bad.
In FT? Aren't you making a confusion with DT?
You could always send rejected photos to the free section on FT...
1272
« on: May 22, 2009, 09:10 »
Yet no one mentions the garbage that is on the SS forum. At least iStock doesn't require you to upload 40 photos a day to keep up your income. And I found the IS review system as a non-exclusive to be very good, very helpful in making me a better photographer. I still don't like the 'artifacting' rejection, but thats just because they don't like the photo in general.
Why does no one complain about StockXpert where they just say "we don't want that photo", meanwhile its got 40 downloads on DT?
iStock is the leader, so it will get a lo of the verbal punishment, but that just means its still on-top.
May I dare to disagree? Probably there is not much specific discussion on the SS forums, but there has been enough discussion about threads being closed and even contributors banned for their activity on site forums of other agencies (DT, FT). So the criticism exists on this great forum here, it is not only focused on Istock. Maybe these other forums don't lend them as well to such a satiric view - and maybe that is due to the fact, that no other site has such a huge number of exclusive contributors, who defend and applaude almost every move of "their" agency on the agency's forum. And about the rejections, just look in the current discussions on DT, there are many people complaining. Again, it's not all about Istock. To me it just seems (but correct me if I'm wrong) that some Istock exclusives are obviously only interested in discussions about Istock. And so they miss similar discussions about other agencies. So I would disagree with whatalife as well, Istock is not "the favorite target", it is one target amongst others. And yes, where I do agree: If they weren't that big in the business, there would be a lot less discussions.
1273
« on: May 22, 2009, 06:07 »
The main issue I have is one little sentence in the original anouncement:
Starting in August, everyone who contributes to Photos.com will receive the standard Getty Images commission of 20% for these single image sales.
With this sentence they allowed their real goal to slip out.
Is that something new? I thought everybody who supplied images to other Getty collections already know that 20% is their standard commission in the RF field and most other areas.
No, it is not new. But they currently have some areas in their "imperium" where that standard is not applied (Istock exclusives, StockXpert). What I read between the lines (and yes, I may be reading too much into it) is that they want to change that in the long term. By establishing more outlets that follow the rule of keeping 80% of revenues in Getty's pockets they hope to reduce payments to contributors overall. And once these new outlets are established and provide significant revenue, the next step would be to remove the remaining "outliers". Just the direction of "selling cheaper" and "lowering commissions" at the same time does not look contributor friendly. If they wanted to achieve something in the subscription market, why not try a model that explains customers the value of what they are buying? Increase subscription prices (and commissions) and try to use Getty's power to move the whole market into the right direction. But I have to agree, just joining the price war is so much easier...
1274
« on: May 22, 2009, 03:21 »
It is a 10% difference.
Actually it's 20% difference. The main issue I have is one little sentence in the original anouncement: Starting in August, everyone who contributes to Photos.com will receive the standard Getty Images commission of 20% for these single image sales. With this sentence they allowed their real goal to slip out. In the end it is all about increasing the company's (Getty's) profits. And the easiest way to do so is to lower the commissions for contributors. The current 20% commission on Istock is already insulting. Until now they have made that up with (relatively) high prices and high sales. No they try to implement the same in the lowest price sector. Now would be the best time to leave Getty and Istock - if they wouldn't provide such good sales currently. But I will closely watch every future move...
1275
« on: May 20, 2009, 16:51 »
Some agencies have introduced different (bigger) sizes in the past. When I started with FT in early 2007 they had three sizes: S, M and L (if I remember correctly).
For them (and for us) that was a neat way to increase prices - just add more sizes and keep the price for the smallest size, automatically the bigger sizes were priced higher.
If they will do similar steps in the future you limit your earnings potential by not uploading your maximum size.
The exceptions for me would be:
- if you gain in quality by downsizing (sharper, less noise)
- for SS, if you're willing to have an additional step in your workflow. As they upsize anyway, you have no benefit in uploading bigger sizes (assuming they don't change their model in the future)
I personally would probably avoid any additional work to have different sized versions for different agencies and upload full resolution to all... (currently not an issue, as I shoot with an 8 MP 30D)
Pages: 1 ... 46 47 48 49 50 [51] 52 53 54 55 56
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
