|
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 - tickstock
Pages: 1 ... 46 47 48 49 50 [51] 52 53 54 55 56 ... 151
1251
« on: September 16, 2014, 09:35 »
I'm confused. I've had four sales today and the royalty is different for all four.
$1.11
$1.35
$1.29
$1.37 Why are the royalties different if they are all one credit? (non-exclusive)
It's been like that for a long long time. Depends what the buyer pays.
1252
« on: September 15, 2014, 16:13 »
this was just posted on the IS forum. Kinda what I am suspecting.
"We purchase images on iStock for illustrating online articles, so we don't need the high resolution images. We typically bought small versions at 2 to 6 old credits, so about $4 to $12 each. Under the new pricing structure they will now be $15 to $45 each. Our budget doesn't support this sort of pricing. Please bring back the smaller sizes at a reduced rate. Otherwise we have no choice but to pursue other more economical options for web-resolution images."
The pricing at Shutterstock is the same, $9-15 for single images, any size. No option for smaller, cheaper files.
Still, $9 - $15 is a lot less than $15 - 45, if these are the US$ figures.
Exclusive files don't have to compete as much on price as nonexclusive files you can't go to SS and get my photos.
Can one go to SS and get something as close as makes no real difference?
For some images yes, for others no. Depends. I try not to shoot fruit isolated on white for that reason.
1253
« on: September 15, 2014, 15:55 »
i have a simple question about POD, i have a few nice photos available through RF licence, and i would like to know if i can sell those images in POD agencies ( FAA, Zazzle etc) or i have any restriction?
Sure you can and depending what sites you're on other people can sell those images too.
1254
« on: September 15, 2014, 15:44 »
The pricing at Shutterstock is the same, $9-15 for single images, any size. No option for smaller, cheaper files.
Wrong.
At least here in Germany, Shutterstock shows me two different image packs:
All sizes and vectors:
5 for 39 (7.80 per image) or 25 for 179 (7.16 per image)
and:
Small and medium JPEGs:
12 for 39 (3.25 per image) or 60 for 179 (2,98 per image)
They are from the US, I don't see any option here to get smaller images. I guess it's possible that he moves to Europe to get smaller sized images from SS but I don't think that's very practical. 
1255
« on: September 15, 2014, 15:29 »
You can search only signature files if you want.
How?
There is an 'only from istock' checkbox in the search.
1256
« on: September 15, 2014, 15:25 »
You can search only signature files if you want.
1257
« on: September 15, 2014, 15:06 »
this was just posted on the IS forum. Kinda what I am suspecting.
"We purchase images on iStock for illustrating online articles, so we don't need the high resolution images. We typically bought small versions at 2 to 6 old credits, so about $4 to $12 each. Under the new pricing structure they will now be $15 to $45 each. Our budget doesn't support this sort of pricing. Please bring back the smaller sizes at a reduced rate. Otherwise we have no choice but to pursue other more economical options for web-resolution images."
The pricing at Shutterstock is the same, $9-15 for single images, any size. No option for smaller, cheaper files.
Still, $9 - $15 is a lot less than $15 - 45, if these are the US$ figures.
Exclusive files don't have to compete as much on price as nonexclusive files you can't go to SS and get my photos.
1258
« on: September 15, 2014, 14:53 »
this was just posted on the IS forum. Kinda what I am suspecting.
"We purchase images on iStock for illustrating online articles, so we don't need the high resolution images. We typically bought small versions at 2 to 6 old credits, so about $4 to $12 each. Under the new pricing structure they will now be $15 to $45 each. Our budget doesn't support this sort of pricing. Please bring back the smaller sizes at a reduced rate. Otherwise we have no choice but to pursue other more economical options for web-resolution images."
The pricing at Shutterstock is the same, $9-15 for single images, any size. No option for smaller, cheaper files.
1259
« on: September 15, 2014, 13:55 »
As far as I know, there is no S+ any more, but files can be nominated for consideration for Getty.
I read this by indie Lagereek: "I haven't followed this much but I sincerely hope it takes off, benefiting everybody. My only concern as an independent is the, Essentials/Premium. If I got that right, a totally unique and big-time selling image would then end up in the Essentials, only because is an Independent file??"
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=362716&messageid=7045477, which was subsequently confirmed.
I was surprised by the question, because I was under the impression that before the weekend, all indie files were in the Main collection (with some demoted exclusive content). Although there had been talk of moving some files 'up', I didn't think it had happened. Does anyone know otherwise?
The Main collection is the Essentials collection. There is still S+, for exclusives only.
1260
« on: September 15, 2014, 10:41 »
Small shops advertise in local circulars using images to catch eyes, and even on television sometime.
And $8-45 is too much to pay to use an image in a television ad? What percent of the project do you think that would be? I bet it's not much. I just don't see any companies saying "We would love to run this ad but if we have to spend $15 on an image it won't be profitable, now if we could get that image for $3 that would be a different story".
1261
« on: September 06, 2014, 07:52 »
the agency tells me my work is just 1-dollar worth no matter what size and sometimes my work is cheap because it's simple (the stupidest thing ever but, let's say ok..) and give me god * fifteen per cent??!!! with no expenses from their sides..
Your files won't be $1, they are going to be 1 credit which will cost $8-15.
1262
« on: September 05, 2014, 10:59 »
I didn't say I'd stop creating them. I said I'm not motivated to upload to iStock. If you're going to respond to my remarks, read them carefully and respond to the actual words I write, not the ones in your head.
I guess I miss understood you, no need to get angry. I thought you were saying you lost motivation to create high priced files "My goal was to create higher-priced files". 'was' your goal as in not your goal anymore, that's how I read your statement.
1263
« on: September 05, 2014, 10:51 »
I probably won't take the time to delete files, but I've lost all motivation to upload there. My goal was to create higher-priced files, and that's what I've been concentrating on; now all those files will have substantially reduced prices.
And I have no idea if this is because of the announcement to buyers, but sales for me have all but stopped this week. That portends poorly for the future. Very sad.
Were you only uploading your higher-priced files to iStock or to other sites as well?
Why would I only upload them to iStock? If I did that I'd miss out on 75% of my income on those files. But since their upload process is so laborious, I uploaded my more complex files to them.
Just curious why you'll stop creating high priced files because of the change at iStock? The prices aren't much different than other sites.
1264
« on: September 05, 2014, 10:35 »
I probably won't take the time to delete files, but I've lost all motivation to upload there. My goal was to create higher-priced files, and that's what I've been concentrating on; now all those files will have substantially reduced prices.
And I have no idea if this is because of the announcement to buyers, but sales for me have all but stopped this week. That portends poorly for the future. Very sad.
Were you only uploading your higher-priced files to iStock or to other sites as well?
1265
« on: September 04, 2014, 14:32 »
I fixed the Vetta.
Yes, so the RC charts, which were built on a system that included images selling for up to 170 credits, and which will not be modified, will now only have to accommodate sales of 5 and 15 credits (for images).
Your Vetta rates are still wrong. The Old system had a lower % than the New RCs. Vetta files will now get the normal %.
1266
« on: September 04, 2014, 12:47 »
I haven't read through the whole thread yet but I guess I missed them saying that.
1268
« on: September 03, 2014, 15:06 »
I think that's wrong. I think buyers went to SS not because the service was better but mainly because it was cheaper, unless by better service you mean extremely cheap subs which I guess is part service and mainly price.
Is not wanting to buy agency collection images considered bargain hunting?
My understanding is that the agency collection did very well, I know Sean mentioned how well he did with it a few times.
1269
« on: September 03, 2014, 14:57 »
2. If #1 happens, they lose buyers so the next question is can they attract new buyers to replace them? There are A LOT of small buyers and they will likely end up over at SS. So I see potential volume as a whole going down if pricing goes up too far.
It looks to me like pricing is coming down to compete with SS, I don't see how they would lose buyers to them with the new pricing. SS charges 9 to 15 dollars per image for image packs, 1 credit at iStock probably will be less expensive than that don't you think?
ya thunk? the race to the bottom continues, how cool is that?
Yep, it's easy to see what pricing pressure from the biggest competitor is doing. Looks like they just announced that the pricing will be almost exactly what SS's is.
We all know that the increase in supply of stock images has been outstripping the increase in demand for years. We also all know what usually happens when supply exceeds demand.
About the only thing keeping the situation relatively stable is the the buyers aren't really 'buying' our images (or licenses for them). What they are really doing is paying the agency for the service they provide in hosting our images and making them easy to find.
Breaking news shocker! It turns out that Istock's 'service' wasn't worth paying a premium for over that provided by SS. Who'd have thought?
I think that's wrong. I think buyers went to SS not because the service was better but mainly because it was cheaper, unless by better service you mean extremely cheap subs which I guess is part service and mainly price.
1270
« on: September 03, 2014, 13:37 »
Look at the size listed under where you click for 'marketing package small business' or 'marketing package large business', the file sizes are the same (that's what you get when you license it, I think). My understanding is that the end use size is limited but you get the full sized image to work with, say to crop it, edit it, or whatever before you use it in the final project.
1271
« on: September 03, 2014, 13:32 »
I don't think Alamy or Getty RM is priced by size.
Did you actually check?
Or did you think I'd invented my screenshots?
There is a difference between end use and what size file is downloaded.
1272
« on: September 03, 2014, 13:16 »
Wow, so at the small pack end, 5 current credits ( one new credit ) costs $10, but if you buy it in two weeks, that credit will cost $15. Wow. Hard to compare that way, tho.
Or you could look at it like a nonexclusive image costs $31 for a cash sale now but will be $15 in two weeks. That moves the price down to surprise, surprise almost exactly what SS is selling them for. It's not really hard to see what pricing pressure from that other agency is doing.
You can rake up a theoretical maximum sale price but I can't recall when I last saw that sort of sale come through. My average commission last month was 80c (on a statistically meaningful sample size) giving an average sale price of $4.70. From next month that will rise to $8-$15.
That was the price to buy the minimum amount of images compared between SS and IS. If you just want one on iStock you pay $31 for a max sized image and on SS you have to buy 2 images for $29. I guess you probably would buy 10 credits though for $20 on iStock to get that 8 credit image. The cash pricing never really made much sense but I did get cash sales every so often.
1273
« on: September 03, 2014, 13:05 »
2. If #1 happens, they lose buyers so the next question is can they attract new buyers to replace them? There are A LOT of small buyers and they will likely end up over at SS. So I see potential volume as a whole going down if pricing goes up too far.
It looks to me like pricing is coming down to compete with SS, I don't see how they would lose buyers to them with the new pricing. SS charges 9 to 15 dollars per image for image packs, 1 credit at iStock probably will be less expensive than that don't you think?
ya thunk? the race to the bottom continues, how cool is that?
Yep, it's easy to see what pricing pressure from the biggest competitor is doing. Looks like they just announced that the pricing will be almost exactly what SS's is.
1274
« on: September 03, 2014, 13:03 »
Wow, so at the small pack end, 5 current credits ( one new credit ) costs $10, but if you buy it in two weeks, that credit will cost $15. Wow. Hard to compare that way, tho.
Or you could look at it like a nonexclusive image costs $31 for a cash sale now but will be $15 in two weeks. That moves the price down to surprise, surprise almost exactly what SS is selling them for. It's not really hard to see what pricing pressure from that other agency is doing.
1275
« on: September 03, 2014, 09:18 »
I don't think Alamy or Getty RM is priced by size.
Pages: 1 ... 46 47 48 49 50 [51] 52 53 54 55 56 ... 151
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
