|
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 - GeoPappas
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 51
376
« on: April 11, 2008, 06:43 »
I agree that SS will probably only do a .05 to .10 increase to .35 or .40, but it will probably be associated with another sales tier. For example, raise the current rates from .25/.30 to .30/.35, but then add another tier for .40 (possibly for sales over $1000). Sort of like this:
.30 - < $500 sales
.35 - < $1000 sales
.40 - > $1000 sales
They can't change anything drastically because they have already raised prices to customers and are basing their increase on that change in price.
If they do go over .40, then I believe that they will just be adding more sales tiers. For example:
.30 - < $500 sales
.35 - < $1000 sales
.40 - < $1500 sales
.45 - < $2500 sales
.50 - < $5000 sales
.55 - > $5000 sales
Or something like that.
I also don't think that they will raise prices as high as the $1 that Yuri suggests, because if they did it would show that they were making much more profit than they previously stated and then people would want to know why they were keeping so much profit previously.
377
« on: April 10, 2008, 06:52 »
 Thanks for the laugh. That was hilarious.
378
« on: April 10, 2008, 06:48 »
We seem to have killed his site.
It still works for me.
380
« on: April 07, 2008, 11:30 »
Pixart: I believe that a clear canister is the base canister (< 250 downloads). As a contributor sells more, they get different canisters. You can see them here: http://www.istockphoto.com/icons.phpAlthough, freelancers (aka non-exclusives) get different canisters, their royalty % does not change from the base 20%.
381
« on: April 07, 2008, 04:48 »
Could someone please tell me when it has changed from V1 to V2 ?
Around september 07 ?
Around June 07.
382
« on: April 06, 2008, 09:51 »
yeah, but when they uspize, there is loss of quality. i guess.
Correct me if Im missing something here but its my impression they upsize your image regardless of orginal size.
That is true for the most part, but they don't upsize images that are above a certain megapixel size. I'm not sure exactly what that limit is , but I believe that it is somewhere around 16 MP.
383
« on: April 06, 2008, 06:29 »
I can't understand how a company whose primary purpose is for buyers to find images, can't get their search engine to work properly.
The search engine is the lifeblood of the company. V2 was released last June. We are now approaching the anniversary of the V2 release in the next two months. How could they still be having these issues?
Something is rotten in the state of Fotolia!
384
« on: April 06, 2008, 06:07 »
Yes, yingyang, and this is why I've expressed concern that buying subs will be so ridiculously attractive that all the old 26c credit payments will evaporate and be replaced by 19c payments.
Forgive me,but what 26c credit payments are we talking about here?
385
« on: April 05, 2008, 13:03 »
Anyway, one of the scenarios they gave - 30 credits a day - is not so unrealistic. That's just 6 M-sized images or 3 L-sized ones, and it's monthly cost is US$300. (For you SS contributors: how those daily limits compare with an similar SS packages price?)
The lowest SS plan is $199 for 25 images/day. As you are aware, on SS though, a buyer can download the largest image sizes that are available.
386
« on: April 05, 2008, 08:13 »
Sorry to report, but there is no conspiracy at StockXpert. All you need to do is try a search to find that non-subscription images will also show up with subscription images. For example, if you search for "water drop" by popularity (the default search)(@ http://www.stockxpert.com/browse.phtml?f=search&type=2&txt=water%20drop), you will find that there are about a dozen non-sub images in the top sixty. One thing that I would like to see at StockXpert is the ability to opt-in/out by the image.
387
« on: April 04, 2008, 20:09 »
madelaide:
IS has guaranteed a minimum payout of 0.96*(your current royalty rate) per credit for subs. This means that a non-exclusive submitter will receive the following (minimum) royalties for an image:
XSmall - 0.19
Small - 0.58
Medium - 0.96
Large - 1.92
XLarge - 2.88
XXLarge - 3.84
For an exclusive, the royalties will be even higher.
So that is the worst case scenario.
388
« on: April 04, 2008, 17:53 »
The big impact of this new scheme will be felt at DT, StockXpert and 123, who will now be seen to be quite miserly (and in fact unacceptable) compared to iStock.
Those were my thoughts exactly. That is why I started another thread on this topic (here http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php/topic,4164.msg40940/topicseen.html#new). I feel that the other sites will definitely be looking at this new model, especially SS (since they are coming out with their royalty increase next month). I also feel that some submitters might possibly change their alliances if things turn out the way IS seems to indicate.
389
« on: April 04, 2008, 17:23 »
So there isn't an added risk for contributors really unless I'm missing something.
I think that this does indeed sound a little too good to be true, but we'll have to wait and see. For instance, the two examples that were given in the IS thread ( http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=67685&page=1) do not contain enough detail for me: Contributors stand to make more per file than they've ever made before from iStock. Here are two examples of what a non-exclusive can make off subscriptions:
- If a subscriber with a daily credit limit of 480 uses only 10 credits that day, all on one of your files, you'd earn 480 20% $130*. That means a payout of about $26 for your single file.
- If a subscriber with a daily credit limit of 30 uses only 10 credits that day, including 5 credits on your image, you'd earn (30/2) 20% $10*. A payout of about $1.
* These values are 'Credit Package Value per Day', and have not been set yet. They are for illustrative purposes only. In the first example, it shows a buyer that has a daily credit limit of 480! 480 seems like an awful lot of credits for one day. Interestingly enough, the credits "value" is stated as only $130. That calculates to a cost of 0.27/credit for the buyer, which is almost exactly the same as the cost of an image on SS ($199 for 750 images or 0.265/image). But if you calculate the cost of the subs package for a month ($130/day * 30 days), then it comes to $3,900/month. I can't imagine someone spending that much money for a month (but what do I know).
390
« on: April 04, 2008, 16:55 »
Maybe I didn't get my point across properly. I apologize. Let me try again:
IS has guaranteed a minimum payout of 0.96*(your current royalty rate) per credit for subs. This means that a non-exclusive submitter will receive the following (minimum) royalties for an image:
XSmall - 0.19
Small - 0.58
Medium - 0.96
Large - 1.92
XLarge - 2.88
XXLarge - 3.84
For an exclusive, the royalties will be even higher.
Meanwhile, SS is currently paying only 0.30/image no matter what the size.
Since royalties are much higher (per image) at IS, it seams to me that submitters might start pulling their images from SS.
Granted, there are some people that downsize their images for SS, but I think that a majority of submitters don't take the extra time to do that.
391
« on: April 04, 2008, 16:15 »
As many of you are aware, IS has announced that they will be offering subs. But there are the following changes to the standard subs package:
- Buyers will be purchasing an allotment of credits per day and month (and not downloads).
- Larger size images will cost more credits.
- They are offering an opt-out per portfolio OR per image.
- Submitters can possibly receive a larger royalty (depending on the number of credits allocated per day, and the number of images purchased). For example, if a buyer is allocated 10 credits per day and only buys 1 image, then the owner of that image will receive the royalties for all 10 credits.
SS has also made an announcement last month that they will be raising royalties in May.
The IS announcement will obviously affect SS (and all other agencies that offer subs packages). The question is how will this affect them and how will they react?
For example, will you guys (and gals) still keep your images on SS, since having images on SS might cannibalize IS subs sales (which will probably have higher royalties)?
392
« on: April 04, 2008, 16:07 »
Seriously, I'm shocked on this one. I never expected iStock to be willing to take all of the risk while sharing the reward, because I sure wouldn't have in my business. I hope it works.
I am also extremely shocked on this one, but I doubt that IS will take "all of the risk". They will most likely greatly benefit from the lack of sales on the weekends, holidays, sick days, vacation days, business trip days, etc in which case they will receive 100% of the profit for that day (and we will receive none). But this is definitely a strong step in the right direction for subscriptions. I really look forward to SS's response next month. They now have their work cut out for them (if they don't want to lose a lot of contributors).
393
« on: April 04, 2008, 14:55 »
The amount of calculations for an entire day of activity on istock in linear passes through the database is insignificant next to just 10 seconds of a modern 3D video game where literally millions of similar calculations are made (just to refresh the pixels at 30 fps takes at least 30 million calculations per second) across multiple databases each have to be continuously updated as well.
The difference between the two can be quite dramatic. Calculations done on a 3D video game are basically all done on the CPU (or GPU) which is lightning fast, whereas database calculations usually require multiple disk reads which are orders of magnitude slower. While speed is always relevant, and the database update for subs will probably only take a few minutes, updating a database will still look like slow-motion when compared to calculations done on a CPU. I apologize for the tech-speak. Carry on...
394
« on: April 04, 2008, 11:24 »
Forecasting, and efficient use of time are very important to businesses as well as accounting means for determining price structure. As is right now when per photo purchases are made by the design firm, it has to accounted to an individual project as part of the project price. Initial cost estimating for the project is more difficult somewhat as well as the project cost tracking. Anything that takes more time raises the cost of the image to the firm more than simply the purchase price. Accounting and estimating time is not cheap. Then also consider the photo acquisition process. Per photo sales transactions take longer to complete for the buyer than simply downloading on a subscription plan. Again, time is money, and the downloader's time is worth more than the person that could be doing the paying.
That's all just semantics. You could have an automatic plan that buys X credits a month (that don't expire for a year), and it's just as simple. Purchasing the photo, you're still going to do it per photo. I see no difference whether you purchase a standard amount of normal credits each month, or have a "subscription" plan where you purchase a standard amount of credits per day (essentially). Except that the company benefits when you let those daily ones expire.
I agree with this point 100% If a buyer or accountant wants stability (which is the argument that IS is making), then all a company needs to do is buy a credit package. IS currently has packages that range from $13 for 10 credits ($1.30/credit) to $1,450 for 1,500 credits ($0.97/credit). A company can easily purchase a credit package and then use the credits as they are needed. A subscription service is very different. Buyers want a subscription service because they can get images for bargain basement prices. Agencies want a subscription service because it allows the agency to absorb 100% of the profits for unused credits (and there are loads of them). While a credit package might have unused credits at the end of the year, it will usually only be a small % of loss. A subscription service has a much higher rate of credit loss, since most people don't work weekends or holidays. Weekends and holidays account for ~ 32% of the year. That doesn't include vacation days or sick leave. So, at least 32% of the profits will be absorbed by the agency (since buyers will rarely buy on those days). Most of you already see this sort of activity on SS. During the week, you will get lots of downloads, but during the weekends or holidays, you will see a significant drop off. Well, that drop off is money in the bank for subscription services, but lost royalties for us.
395
« on: April 04, 2008, 08:10 »
Well you contribute to 9 sites (judging by your links)
so you costs are are spread over these 9 sites and are tax deductible
First, your original statement was that IS doesn't make 80% profit (from non-exclusives). I was just replying to the statement and trying to show that contributors don't make 20% profit either (since we have costs as well). What people are trying to show is that IS is already making a lion's share of the profit. Now with subscriptions, IS will make an even higher profit %, while the contributors profit % will go down. Second, yes, I am not exclusive (never said I was). I don't believe in putting my eggs in one basket (as the saying goes). Third, as always, you can't just say that costs are lower because a person is non-exclusive. There are costs associated with uploading images (especially the time involved). If you look at some of the top contributors, they hire staff to upload, keyword, etc. So uploading to multiple sites costs money. In addition, each site also has its own quirks. IS has its funky tagging/DA system, Fotolia wants keywords in order, most sites have their own proprietary categorization system. Many people downsize for subscription sites (which takes extra time). IS wants mostly non-edited/out-of-the-camera images. DT wants edited/saturated images. So you can't make the generalization that costs are spread out evenly among sites. Costs actually go up when submitting to multiple sites. The object is to actually make more from each site than you spend. That is why I don't submit to the dozens (if not hundreds) of small sites. The cost for submitting to those sites isn't outweighed by the profits made.
396
« on: April 04, 2008, 07:30 »
Geopappas
Once again wrong logic, if you are non exclusive then you are selling the images somewhere else, but you have to pay for the shooting costs only once
Huh!!! What does this have to do with your original statement???
397
« on: April 04, 2008, 06:55 »
I am not an iStock Fanboy but statements like the following annoy me
"Istock keep 80% of the profit"
When a sale is made its revenue not profit.
They pay out 20% to non exclusives and up to 40% for non exclusives.
They then subtract all of their SG&A costs and what is left is profit.
Yes, but then wouldn't the same be true for the contributor? Contributors also have costs (cameras, lighting, computer equipment, internet services, models, travel, etc.). On top of that, the 20-40% we receive is after discounts have been applied to the buyer. So the net result is much lower. What basically everyone is saying is that IS gets 80% of the cut (for non-exclusives) and contributors get 20% of the cut.
398
« on: April 03, 2008, 18:34 »
madelaide:
That scenario is really wishful thinking. There is no way that IS would give the contributors that much of a cut. For example, what if a buyer doesn't buy anything on a day (for example a holiday or a weekend day or a sick day)?
The whole idea behind a subscription is two-fold:
1. for the agency - it is to keep profits from unused downloads
2. for the buyer - it is to be able to get images for extremely cheap
That leaves the contributor out of the equation.
399
« on: April 03, 2008, 16:15 »
400
« on: April 03, 2008, 16:02 »
There goes the neighborhood!
One thing that I like is that they are offering an opt-out either for all images or individual images.
Another is that larger image sizes will cost more credits. So all sizes are not the same subscription price.
We'll have to wait and see what royalties will be.
But just to make it clear - I really hate subscriptions. They only benefit the agencies and the buyers.
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 51
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
