DT has always been a strong number three but has recently - last two months - been underperforming and is now dead last - of my 7 sites -  for November with 0 downloads.  Others having this problem?

PS: Was it the Mcain/Palin pic's in their rotation that turned people off? (Didn't see any comparable Obama images there but maybe I missed them.)

fred

A quick check seems to indicate to me that the bias has been pushed (more?) towards exclusives than big sellers.  My search showed mostly exclusives on the first page but most were bronze canisters.  fred

I have the same problem today.  Just sent an e-mail to support.  Will advise if they answer.

c h e e r s
fred

I think SS (and probably most sites) have a good idea of how many times an image must sell to payback their investment in it (reviewer time, storage, etc.) and so reviewers base their LCV rejections on that number of DLs.  Doesn't mean it won't sell at all.  It is just their opinion that it won't sell enough to be worth keeping.

So unless you have 5 or 10 DLs (guesstimate) at another site they are probably correct.

fred

additionally the reviewers are often working on per pic basis.  If they find one reason to reject a photo, they tick that reason and reject it, they don't go searching for more reasons - that would be a waste of time.

IE.  if a reviewer looks at a photo and thinks it has bad cropping and rejects it, he isn't going to look at it 100% and check for noise, jpg artifacts, sharpness etc. etc.  bad cropping was enough - rejected.
If then the photographer fixes the cropping and resubmits it, well - you know what is going to happen.

I think this system makes sense and I'm all in favor of it.  Reviewers should just review as quickly as possible with a minimum of comment on the problems with the images.  If contributors want a critique they should go to the critique forum to get advice.

The more the reviewers fool around with critiquing images the more they cost - in both their time and mine (waiting to get my images online).  Reviewing costs should be cut to the bone so the money can go towards more advertising or higher commissions.  Let the critiquing be done for free by other contributors.

fred

Unless you designed and built the trophy I'd sat you're SOL. It's neither theft nor copyright violation IMO.

Would not be surprised if someone holds a copyright on the trophy design though.  Maybe both are violations!

fred

Are you in any way connected to Bilderking... ?..

I just can't understand why you won't accept the fact fotolia and bilderking are violating the TOS.

Patrick H.

ps  : a lot of legitimate sales..?.. seriously doubt that... let's talk again within a year or so... if you made more than two sales for bilderking i give you hats up.

If you read FT's TOS you will find the following under point 14. Miscellaneous" "...Fotolia shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to assign any or all of its rights or obligations under this Agreement..."  I am no lawyer but I believe this will cover any concerns you have with TOS violations - and if it doesn't I am sure there is some other verbiage in the TOS to cover it.  FT didn't write the TOS to limit their ability to make the business work.

I would hardly expect to make a fortune from Bilderking sales on FT, however, I would like to see this idea spread to other vendors and markets so that my images would have more exposure and the possibility of more sales.   Will it work?  Who knows but then there were plenty who said Microstock wouldn't work.

How would any connection of mine with Bilderking have anything to do with the logic of my reasoning?  Could you not find some flaw that you could at least hang a decent argument on?  Are you reduced to silly rhetorical questions?  I'm here to support ideas and innovations that might help me sell more images.  What is your agenda?

fred

Quote from: Fred on September 26, 2008, 00:57

The economics here seem clear.  The lower price due to the Bilderking business model will increase demand for images (and thus the volume of sales) and more sale are better for everyone.

I don't see "lower prices" in their site.  I tried one image and the smallest size costed almost EUR$30, so roughly US$45, which is much more than what you find in Imagekind or even (I think) Art.com.  Ok, maybe these higher prices are the norm in Europe.

Anyway, I still think the correct deal would be a % or a mark-up on the price. 

Regards,
Adelaide

The prices are lower relative to what they would be if Bilderking had to purchase an EL for every image they thought someone might want to print and include that in their markup.   I could have worded it better - something like: "The lower costs allow Bilderking to make a profit at a lower price with this business model which..."

You can get a deal with a mark up from Red Bubble.  They let you put your own markup on the prints of your work that you list with them.  However, their prices - before the markup - seem to be a little bit more than Bilderking.  I have some work there but have not sold anything.  I suspect that with my markup - 20 to 25% - I have priced myself out of the market.  I am not sure how others have done.

I think my images on FT working through Bilderking - and hopefully others eventually - represent much better prospects for sales.

c h e e r s
fred

The way you and Fred are reasoning we might as well just abolish EL sales.

Let's elaborate a bit more.

If caf� press, ebay etc sellers of mouse pads, calendars, t-shirts, mugs etc... all items for resale that require the use of an EL sale start using the API program EL sales would be completely non existent.  By allowing Bilderking to work in this way you open the door for everyone to open an online shop where items can be ordered, and the seller is just buying a standard license via Fotolia.

Patrick H.

The caf� press, ebay etc sellers' business model requires that they sell 100's of mouse pads, calendars, etc. to cover the costs of the EL.   They have to make more than they are paying you for the use of the image to show a profit.  They do this through their volume of sales.  If they choose well they will make-up the EL cost and show a profit after they sell some given number of items with the image.  However, their mark-up must also cover costs of the losers that they choose (i.e images that do not sell enough to cover the costs of an EL).  In practice these sellers must sell 100's or perhaps 1,000's of copies of a few well chosen images to make up for the many that just don't make enough.

The Bilderking business model lets the end customer select the image they want so that the seller does not have to waste money on images that are not going to sell.  This permits them to lower their prices and lower prices will increase the volume of sales.

The economics here seem clear.  The lower price due to the Bilderking business model will increase demand for images (and thus the volume of sales) and more sale are better for everyone.

In short.  The current model for the resellers requires them to waste capital licensing images that do not sell.  Eliminating that waste with a more efficient business model is beneficial to all.

The EL should still be available to buyers with other requirements not covered under the standard license.

fred


 

Get Real People!!

Do you really think this business model would work if Bilderking had to buy EL's in advance for all the FT images their customers might want to print!!  Besides the greater markup required they would have to go through all of FT to find images for their inventory that might be in demand.  This approach would be so unlikely to produce profits that no sane company would try to make it work.  And - of course - if no company tried it NO FT contributors would have any sales in this market.

The method they are using makes the business model work and gives us some sales - and NOT subscription but PPD sales.  If it technically violates the license terms then the terms need to be changed to allow it.  All that can happen is we have more exposure and more sales.  There is no downside here for FT contributors.

You may think you are being ripped off because Bilderking has a large markup on the products they are selling.  However, they also have a lot of expenses they need to cover.  If their profit margin is exploitive then others will get into the same business and the competition will drive prices and profits down to a minimum. 

Most contributors probably do not have a lot to gain from Bilderking sales but the exposure gives them an opportunity for PPD sales that they won't have at all if FT doesn't allow this usage.  I think some people could do quite well with this.  A popular image would easily make the contributor more than a single EL sale.

fred

   

I have some images there - not a great lot though.
Could have uploaded more but decided to wait.

Personally I don't think YAY is presently sending out any real positive signals.
Yes! there is not much patience amongst contributors. This is justified to a great extent as we are all here to make money and not to hang around waiting and waiting. This demanding attitude I feel arises from the recent "stings" people have had with new sites and thus the tolerance level has really come down.

Whatever way, it's now really up to YAY to convince us that things are on the up.

I feel (as this initial post indicates) that as the weeks and months go by more contributors are likely to drop off unless they see real action.

Time is not on YAY's side!

Seems to me once you have decided to upload - especially a significant number of images - you need to give the site a chance.  Once you have invested the time to upload your portfolio I cannot see the upside to investing more time getting them off the site - sometimes this can be non-trivial.  Doesn't cost anything to keep them there.  You don't have to upload anymore and you can just collect whatever little they do take in.  YAY especially has not really had a chance to show what they can do.  If they spend some money on the right kind of marketing they could have a chance but it will not happen overnight.

Downside of pulling your account will at least mean reuploading your portfolio if the site starts doing well and you want back in.  fred

fred

Bilderking states their policy regarding uploads from customers on their website:

"Your photo is handled confidential and is not given to 3rd parties and would not public available in any way."

Since images from FT are licensed to the customer and not Bilderking I would think the same rules apply and normal FT licensing would require another license for each customer.

Not sure I really care if the customer gets a digital copy or not - they have the license for one, after all - but  many/most would probably not be aware of that and perhaps would not even want one.  If they don't it would seem to provide a little more IP protection than if FT customers had to download and find their own printer.  In they do it themselves then we have to trust every drugstore and fly-by-night printing framing/outfit around.

I would really like to see this take off.  One benefit I could see is that if some of my pictures start selling on Bilderking very well then I would know they are popular and I could then print them myself and sell them at fairs and flea markets - better than guessing which ones might sell.  If some do really well at Bilderking I could pull them off of FT and arrange to sell them myself online or perhaps make a deal with Bilderking for a better cut of the sales price.

fred

Seems to tell me that the industry cannot support higher commissions.  You either give the money to the contributors or use it for marketing.  Sacrificing marketing for happier contributors just may not be economically feasible. 

fred