|
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 - epixx
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... 47
301
« on: August 05, 2008, 19:50 »
Yeah, SS takes a bigger cut on those, but they also have to pay for a whole new advertising campaign for it, .....
The problem is that none of us are making any extra profit when a customer moves from one agency to another, since most of us are represented at all the major agencies anyway. So all the money spent on advertising will make a difference for each agency, but for us, it's just an unnecessary cost.
302
« on: August 05, 2008, 19:42 »
I believe so. If a designer find an image that would be perfect for a project, spending an extra $10 should not make much difference.
I'd assume the opposite actually. A buyer in the StockXpert forum a while back asked if there was a way to filter searches to exclude PPD-only images, so they only saw sub images. That leads me to believe that some subscribers won't even consider a PPD image.
He's probably the exception. I'm a buyer as well as a contributor, and I wouldn't dream of choosing anything other than the photo that is best suited for the purpose. Save a couple of bucks and then risk that my client finds the better photo afterwards? No, thank you.
303
« on: August 05, 2008, 19:08 »
Ummmm.... yawn.....? This has been suggested to them a number of times since they discontinued their sister site which had pay-per-dl, but only when they are developing negatively (surprise, surprise... that's what competition do to you if you aren't innovative enough), they are able to react. The pay is more or less the same as with other pay-per-dl agencies, and guess where the customers will come from. Oh well, it's positive that they finally do it, and very nice to have something new that is not subs 
304
« on: August 05, 2008, 11:48 »
Absolutely right. The problem is that with the subscription model the agencies no longer take their commission as a percentage of our earnings.
This disconnect between our success and their success has made it very easy for them to forget that they work for us. They no longer get directly paid from our earnings.
Again, sorry guys, but this all comes down to Shutterstock. It is their model that is the problem and its success that is making the other agencies copy it.
It's a fantastic model for the agencies and an appalling one for submitters.
Well said
305
« on: August 05, 2008, 04:48 »
Contributors do remember, Epixx. I gather it will take a long time to build back trust. Fotolia eventually raised sub commissions, but from reading recent posts it is obvious contributors still view them with a wary eye.
You are right of course, and the positive side of this is that a number of contributors actually did pull out their guns. The competition between the agencies is much to hard for them to lose the top contributors. Those are much more important than a price difference of a few dollars. I'm a buyer too, and if I can't find the photo I'm looking for one place, I go elsewhere, and it really doesn't matter much if the price is 1 or 20 dollars. I can't afford to lose a client over 19 dollars.
306
« on: August 05, 2008, 03:28 »
They made a mistake, ...
They made the mistake of believing that photographers enjoy being stabbed in the back. Then, when it appeared that photographers weren't masochists after all, and some of them drew their guns, they were suddenly "Oh, so sorry...". Either that, or they are completely ignorant with regards to the microstock photography business. With StockXpert, they have a very nice stock portfolio, and with photos.com, they have a great brand name. So, they wanted to combine the two, which is understandable. What is not acceptable is the kind of "changing the rules so that we make more and you make less" that they and other microstock agencies have been trying lately. Ethics aren't much valued these days. It's very much "if you don't get caught, it's ok", and if you do get caught, you just say you're sorry and launch plan B.
307
« on: August 05, 2008, 02:22 »
I can't see why it's a problem opting out of subs at StockXpert. Are anybody making big money on subs there? If not, if StockXpert subs die a silent death, all the better for our earnings.
As for photos.com, it's a nice domain name with garbage quality contents, and the photo buyers probably know that already. Whatever the terms are, I see no reason to have my name associated with a low class sales outlet. The microstock business is shaky enough as it is without it. Why spend a lot of money and resources giving the garbage truck a new layer of paint, when they already have a nice little limousine called StockXpert?
308
« on: August 04, 2008, 23:52 »
I don't get this consistency thing. If everything is going to be so consistent, what's the point with multiple brands anyway. Isn't the whole point with multiple brands that they cater for different needs and different tastes? To me, this looks as if they are going to offer the same product with different packaging, and where the packaging decides the prise, not the product.
Photos.com is a very obvious low price, low quality thing, while StockXpert is good quality, but more expensive. Why not keep it that way? It's as if GM started selling Cadillacs in Chevrolet outlets for slightly more than Chevrolets, but much cheaper than in their Cadillac outlets. If they did, they would destroy both brands. I think that is what JI is about to do with StockXpert and photos.com right now.
309
« on: August 04, 2008, 21:00 »
Opt-out is intact, which is the most important thing here, at least to me. What is a bit worrying is their attitude towards ELs. They seem to be of the opinion that ELs are something out of the ordinary that just happens to a special few. As has been mentioned earlier on this thread, it doesn't need to be like that, and it's their responsibility to fix it through better marketing of that option.
310
« on: August 04, 2008, 15:13 »
I'm a little late to the party here, and there's something I don't understand:
On photo.com's homepage, it's possible to buy a one year subscription for 450 (fourhundredandfifty) dollars. That's less than 20% of the price at SS. Unless they plan to pay us just a couple of cents per dl, there's no way they are going to make a profit on a price like that. In fact, the more customers they attract with that price, the faster they will go bankrupt.
If this represents the new policy at StockXpert/JI, there's only one thing to do: cancel our portfolios as fast as our keyboards will allow us.
311
« on: August 04, 2008, 12:21 »
Hi Chumley,
Here are some rough numbers:
The portfolios at the moment are all around 1,000 images plus/minus a couple of hundred. The exceptions are IS, which is 570 and FP and Scanstock which are around 1,500. All portfolios were about 30% smaller during the first half of 2007, so the growth has been between 30 and 40%.
All figures are earnings, not volume.
312
« on: August 04, 2008, 02:48 »
While doing my weekly statistics, I found that it might be a good idea to have a look at how well I've done with the micros so far this year, compared to 2007. Here are the results for week 1-31 2008 compared to the same weeks 2007. The figures are share of sales 2007, share of sales 2008, increase/decline of sales:
SS: 41.6 – 35.7, up 13%
IS: 17.8 – 17.0, up 26%
DT: 16.7 – 14.6, up 15%
FT: 7.4 – 11.9, up 111%
StockXpert: 4.9 – 7.2, up 94%
BS: 3.6 – 4.2, up 54%
rf123: 3.0 – 3.3, up 43%
FP: 0.6 – 1.6, up 228%
Scan: 0.9 – 1.6, up 130%
Cre: 1.2 – 1.1, up 17%
Can: 1.3 – 0.6, down 39%
Total increase: 32%
A few comments to the figures:
At the start of 2007, SS represented more than 50% of my revenue, while halfway through 2008, they are below 30%. Their relative decline is very steady, even though they have increased commissions twice during this period.
I stopped uploading to Crestock and Canstock almost a year ago, which probably influences the sales in a negative way.
Since Scanstock is the only one of these that pays in Euro, I haven't bothered to convert to dollars (I use 1 EUR = 1 USD here), so they are doing better than the figures indicate. Their growth rate is correct though.
If there is any conclusion to draw from this, it must be that nothing has settled down yet. There are lots of fluctuations, and there is no way of telling which will be the top agency in five years.
313
« on: August 01, 2008, 04:00 »
Here are my figures, all compared to July 2007.
Total: Up 31%
SS 29% – down 15%
IS 15% – up 1%
DT 15% – up 82%
FT 14% – up 59%
StockXpert 7% – up 48%
FP 6% – no sales July last year BME
123 5% – up 193% BME
BS 4% – up 73%
Cre 2% – up 1600%
Scanstock 1% – up 100%
SV 1% – no sales July last year
Canstock 1% – up 0%
SS is very disappointing, particularly considering their recent increase in payouts. That means that the decline is actually much steeper, but this seems to be the long term trend. DT had a very good last half of July after a disappointing start with many subs. FT is also showing solid performance, but the real winners are 123rf and FP. Particularly FP is interesting, since the sales there have been spread out throughout the month.
314
« on: August 01, 2008, 03:41 »
BME, and more than 100% up from the previous BME. Interesting, since July is one of my slowest months. Also nice that the sales were spread all over the month, so it's apparently not one shot from a single customer. FP was slightly better than 123rf this month, and much better than BS.
315
« on: July 31, 2008, 08:08 »
Works fine for me
316
« on: July 25, 2008, 07:32 »
Example:
3 level (nothing extraordinary, only over 20dls) costs 9 credits for 8-12MP size. If designer needs 10 photos he have to pay 90$. One month subscription price is 89.99$ and levels and sizes limits are not applied. So if this designer buy 1 month subscription he will spend same money with a possibility to download other... 290 images.
And with this example, DT's profit will increase drastically, while the photographer is left with next to nothing. Bad deal.
317
« on: July 22, 2008, 20:44 »
Miklav is right of course. Seems like some people are expecting the impossible: new agencies should build a customer portfolio and big sales overnight, but none are going to contribute their own work.
It takes years to build success as a stock agency, just as it does in any other kind of business.
318
« on: July 20, 2008, 20:25 »
Agree with Pixart.
Another thing, if majority of contributors delete their portfolio WM site will go out of business. Buyers should go to serious site like IS, SS... to download your image. You will be payed. At WM no chance to get your $20.
If that was the attitude among the majority of photographers, IS and SS wouldn't even exist. They too have been upstarts. And if we allow IS and SS to dominate the market, they are free to reduce payouts to photographers. Competition is good. If nobody support the competition, we end up with no choices, like in a communist world.
319
« on: July 18, 2008, 05:16 »
delete and re-upload your best sellers.
Not necessary. Subs option can be removed on uploaded images, and prices can be changed.
320
« on: July 18, 2008, 05:14 »
Photographers who sell "news worthy" editorial shots on the micros are doing themselves a disservice. Go with an editorial agency and get the most bang for your buck. Make it worthwhile shooting this type of event.
I agree. The only value of the "editorial" category at agencies like SS, is to be allowed to upload images that would have been rejected because of trade marks etc. The real valuable, but low volume ones should be sold as RM. Alamy is an obvious place to upload those, but there are other alternatives as well.
321
« on: July 17, 2008, 23:31 »
Erratic sales figures for me at DT, up and down and up and down....despite constant uploads.
Same for me. Yesterday was BDE, but most days are just..... yaaaawn. They are struggling to keep their fourth position. Used to fight with IS for second.
322
« on: July 17, 2008, 23:30 »
Sounds like a subscription sale.
323
« on: July 17, 2008, 19:07 »
It's also true and a proven fact:
If you stand on one leg while you rub your stomach with one hand, and pat your head with the other, while reciting "Mary had a little lamb"
you will increase your chances of downloads for the day by 63% on iStock.
This I know to be true.
Cranky MIZ
The voice of reason
I've heard that too, but only if you wear a pink hat 
324
« on: July 17, 2008, 19:02 »
As far as I have seen Yaymicro is the only one that truly understands editorial images. Except nothing is selling there so far.
Alamy obviously understands editorial as well. It even dominates most of the portfolios there. FP and Scanstock will also accept most or any editorial photos in my experience
325
« on: July 17, 2008, 18:57 »
I've had just over a dollar there in one your. To make things worse, their uploading procedure sucks.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... 47
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
