Most of the downloads are from $1 credits; therefore, you are getting 50% commission for almost every download.

If this is the case, then why not change your commission scheme to pay out 50% always.

It would not be a great loss for you (as you claim we already get 50% for almost every download) and you would immediately stop the ongoing discussion here and have full support of all photographers here. Sounds like a smart move to me.

So they wouldn't mind selling the same pictures you have on DT for mid-stock prices? Or do they require that you upload different stuff?

I'll check again somewhere in August, but in the mean time I figure I'll start with Panthermedia. Those shots will be on Zymm anyways.

I just decided to go the other way round. I have all my port up on Panther already.
If it sells at Zymm for 50$ (which is the price that it is up for), than Zymm takes 40% of that for them (at least that is what the Panther site shows what they pay their partner agencies) and I'll get 30% of the remainder - in this example that means I'll get 9$ for the sale.

If I put the image up on Zymm directly it would be 35$ for the same sale.
Or I set the price at 15$, get 10,5$ and probably sell a lot more 

So I registered with Zymm and will start uploading my port...

Quote from: dirkr on May 07, 2009, 03:04

I was more concerned with the main message of that statement being who is cheaper.

The whole of the statement and especially the part about Fotolia being cheaper is aimed at any potential buyers who may read it, I don't think there's any hidden agenda to be read into it.

Think logically about how a buyer might read the statement - so a guy moved from one company to another so what, what difference would that make to any buyer out there, however add the little comment about the other place being cheaper and now they have a reason to look.

Let's hope you are right. Maybe I am too busy looking for hidden agendas....

Thanks everyone for your thought, I will look into the tools you suggested (though I don't plan on spending money on it, I won't need that permanently).

Good idea to contact FP and ask them, that might work as well ;-)

@madelaide:
When I upload pictures via FTP and then go to their "Bulk Editor", it tells me that IPTC data is missing. I played around a bit and found that it was the title and what field they expected it (can't remember right now which fields exactly that were and can't look it up here in the office  ).
So it's just that field, I tried another file where I put the title there and it worked.

I don't know Patrick Lor (not long enough in this business), so maybe I am missing a point of the positive news here.
But what I read is that the main statement in that press release is that Istock is too expensive (and Mr. Lor is disappointed about that) and that Fotolia is cheaper.
(Not to mention that the numbers quoted show a completely wrong picture).

So we are all happy to have more focus on price war, more emphasis on being the cheapest?

At least that part worries me a bit...

First of all let me say that I (as a non-exclusive contributor) feel not directly affected by this change, as I can (and most likely will) simply opt out.
But I do see the consequences for the value of exclusivity at Istock (not a direct concern for me) and I do not like the move as it looks like a move to promoting cheaper images, which in turn could put competitive pressure on other agencies - and that is the point where independents will be affected as well.
So overall, I do not believe that this concept is positive for neither IS exclusives nor non-exclusives.

But I have some question marks around the numbers that have been thrown around in this thread and the two long threads on the Istock forum:

It was stated, that the minimum possible commission would be around 3 cents. (This is obviously calculated from the cheapest photos.com plus subscription, one year for 1199,95).
It was also stated, that the "expected average" would be around 30 to 55 cents.

Now: many people assumed, that the reality will be closer to the 3 cents than to the "expected average". That puts one question to my mind. StockXpert currently pays a fixed 30 cents per download - out of the same subscription prices.
If the assumption were correct, that 20% (or 22,5%) of the real revenue of photos.com were at or near 3 cents, StockXpert would currently loose a gib amount of money. I can't believe that. So assuming that they take a similar 70% from total revenues for subscriptions as they do for PPD, the gross revenue per download would be at 1$ - leading to 20 - 22.5 cents per download for the proposed IS plan on average.

Still not a good deal (and still not one I support), but very different indeed.
Any mistakes in my thinking?

Last week 5 of 5 rejected, I resubmitted right away, all 5 accepted.

Did you change / correct them or did you re-submit unchanged?

Please read my last reply..

I did. It basically says: Wait and see. That I'll do.

and we will try to add more information about conditions.

regards

That will be helpful anyway.

Just some suggestions from me:

Why do you think it is a good idea to undercut your competition (biggest file size costs only 5$ from what I can see)? Do you want to win market share only based on price?
That's a really bad idea. If you succeed you'll probably take away business from other sides that have managed to raise prices in the past - and that would simply be the wrong direction. Why not start with slightly higher prices (like 2$ for the smallest size, 20$ for the full resolution)? If you have nothing more to offer than just cheap prices, you're doomed anyway.

Another one: You state contributors can earn up to 75% from each sale. But nowhere I can find any information about specifics. What is the exact pricing scheme, what is the commission, are there any ELs available etc.

I would like to see that before I open an account.

Cheers,
Dirk

I would add that you should expect BigStock to be a slow and steady performer.  I wouldn't expect much more than 40-60% of the sales you make at Dreamstime.  But every bit counts, and they certainly perform much better than all of the new microstock sites combined.

That's what I figured after reading this forum for a while, so I decided to give them a try. As it isn't too much effort just to upload the files per FTP (they are fully keyworded sitting on my harddrive) the extra money, even if not much, might be worth it.

Hi,

I just started with Bigstock (found time to add another agency) and have two questions I could not easily find an answer to:
1: Is there any way to see the number of views (other than clicking on the image)?
2: If an image is rejected, do they have a process to re-submit (after correcting what was wrong obviously)? Comparable to DT and IS? Or do you just correct and re-submit (is there a way to leave a note to the reviewer)?

Thanks for any help,
Dirk