|
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 - bunhill
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 ... 62
451
« on: September 04, 2014, 14:41 »
A few people blowing off steam in the comments on mYFace is all very well. That's what the internet is like. But anecdotal commentary is meaningless. Also - there can be no doubt the customer support team will be on hand to fix any serious gripes with respect to existing credits. Those customers may very well find that moving forward a subscription suits them better.
The clear reality is that Getty are going to know exactly how much of their customer base still buys small web sized images using credit packs these days - and exactly how much that business is worth against the whole.
452
« on: September 04, 2014, 09:14 »
I always thought by far the biggest market in the world of image usage are the small to medium sized businesses in the world. But it looks like istock has given up on them.
Most of their images at most sizes are going to be less costly. The pricing is broadly similar to Shutterstock pricing but with a better selection of content. The minimum spend is less than at Shutterstock. Their subscription plans are at a lower entry price point than Shutterstock. What specifically makes you say that they have given up on small to medium sized businesses ?
453
« on: September 04, 2014, 08:22 »
They could have easily given the customers 3 months to prepare for the changes or "upgrade" them to the new system when they buy new credits.
That is what computers are for. You can do more than just show different currencies.
Given how helpful customer support can be, it would not surprise if the handful of customers who would likely be affected by your concerns find an easy solution to any issues. Given that today this would likely relate to relatively few users - that would surely be the more sensible solution. Rather than implementing some kind of transitional code fix. You are talking about those few people who would be sitting on a small credit pack and who intended to use it for web sized Essential Collection images only.
454
« on: September 04, 2014, 07:54 »
What a surprise...customers can use a calculator and realise their buying power for single files will drop by 80% in 10 days.
The majority of the collection at most sizes is clearly going to cost considerably less. Some specific content is going to be costing more - specifically web sized images. But the only place I ever see those image sizes today are in editorial style articles - and these users typically want regular content - they are not typically going to be paying for their use via the existing 10 credit packs.
455
« on: September 03, 2014, 14:37 »
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 Absolutely 100% spot on. ETA: exception for Vector and 3D artists. Done well, that really is a different thing.
456
« on: September 03, 2014, 13:56 »
with five current credits you could buy 2.5 small inde pictures, with 1 new credit you can buy one inde picture. It's a hell of an increase for the small buyer.
At first I was also wondering whether this would be an issue. But thinking about it - the only place I see those small uses these days are on articles - typically editorial uses. And those sorts of clients do not buy one or two images here and there, they have subscriptions.
457
« on: September 03, 2014, 13:45 »
Has anyone got sales since the announcement?
I haven't seen a single sale since the announcement.
I have got more then average sales on SS since the announcement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia
458
« on: September 03, 2014, 12:30 »
However it also means my videos will be sold between 7.2 - 13.5 dollars.
Essentials video clips will be 6 credits. So that means them being sold for $48 - $90 surely ? ETA: oh - I guess you mean your royalty. What size normally sells best ?
459
« on: September 03, 2014, 10:59 »
Remember, credits aren't attached to actual value (aside from paying contributors). If a buyer has 10 credits that they paid $20 for, they get 2 new credits, regardless of the price. If 1 new credit "pack" is only $5, then that buyer got hosed. If 1 new credit pack is $10, then he feels ok. If 1 new credit pack is $15, then he's very smiley, since the value of his credits just went up.
Another way to do it, which would be more obvious to buyers that they are getting hosed or a better deal, is to evaluate the value of all the credits being held by a buyer and then divide by the middle price for new credits, assuming different numbers of credits cost more or less depending on a bulk discount.
The only correct way of looking at it IMO from the customer perspective is in terms of what you can buy for the $ spend. 10 credits @ $20 is currently worth 2 mediums + 1 small
460
« on: September 03, 2014, 10:40 »
Obviously it won't be anywhere near $2, as that would equate to one of today's credits costing $.40 at the maximum.
I will be very surprised if it is not about $8 - $10 per credit depending on the pack. My guess is $9.99 for 1 credit and about $24 for 3. 1 Medium Essential image is currently $8 if you buy the current minimum of 10 credits. Slightly less if they want to be very competitive. Be fun to see what other people guess.
461
« on: September 03, 2014, 05:09 »
New credits will be more than $2? Hell, they've got to cost more than $5, otherwise everyone holding old credits is boned.
Why would that one contributor think they'll be $1? That's even less than now plus it's five times the 'value'.
iS entry point is currently $19.99 for 10 credits. 10 credits buys 5 web sized Essentials images. At minimum buy those images are therefore currently appx $4 each. Under the new system 1 credit = 1 Essential image. If the credit price is based on current Small (web sized) image pricing then a credit will be $4 - or less if you spend more. But perhaps regular web content users are the market for subs.
If credit pricing is based on Medium then a credit will cost $10. That would make the images (at minimum spend) appx the same price as Shutterstock where the minimum spend is $49 and that buys 5 JPEGs at any size.ETA: sorry my mistake. If credit pricing is based on current Medium Essential (at minimum spend) then a credit will cost $8. (Medium Essential images are 4 credits each. 10 credits currently cost appx $20 meaning credits are $2 each). That is less than Shutterstock where the minimum spend is $49 and that buys 5 JPEGs at any size - making them appx $10 each/ --- The lower price entry point vs SS already gives them an advantage. If credits are anything less than $10 then they will also be less expensive than SS for mostly the same (Essentials) content.
462
« on: September 02, 2014, 16:04 »
I can hear the champagne corks popping at Shutterstock headquarters from here.
Interesting that so many people have voted your post up. I think that must be more to do with sentiment than careful analysis. Since nobody knows the outcome. Hands up - I am iStock exclusive ! Though at this point I am completely neutral being 8 months into a completely different thing. And I always was. I am more curious than concerned about iS at this point. Though FWIW I have been personally around photo agencies since 1989 - and the friends and family since the 60s. And iStock is just a bit of what Getty does and how it works. If I was an SS stock holder; as an investor I would be worried about them being seriously under diversified. What else do they actually do which justifies their price in a market for cheap pictures which is moving towards free. Maybe it wasn't champagne corks you heard 
463
« on: September 02, 2014, 10:16 »
Subs let you earn money by selling a lot of images, and non-subs let you earn money by selling fewer images for more money
The larger the collections inevitably grow, the more likely it is that the RF sub model will be about the agency selling in volume and not the individual contributor. Because individual contributors cannot hope to keep up with collection growth. As the market for cheap stock inevitably declines, the more likely it is that agencies will strike deals which effectively mean that content is provided free at the point of use. If I was a Shutterstock contributor I would be trying to persuade the buyers to download their complete allowance every day.
464
« on: September 01, 2014, 11:56 »
It's been widely reported that most SS veterans are reporting lower sales. There are two primary reasons:
- THE BIG CRASH OF EARLY 2013...
- HUGE INCREASE IN OVERALL COMPETITION. ..
There are two other potentially very significant factors: 1. Likely decline in the market for cheap stock photo content. Many companies and other potential clients for stock photography have substantially switched to using social media. Today they are just as likely to re-share a picture which one of their customers ('friends') took on their iPhone and instantly shared. Also - today most professional blogs use free content supplied by the companies which they are writing about (promoting). In the early 2000s everyone running a corner-shop or church choir thought that they needed to be on the web. And maybe they even printed a newsletter. Lots of little clubs and community groups used to have websites and blogs which potentially needed content. Today they are all on Facebook - and their users share iPhone photos. 2. iStock launched subs. IMO microstock (cheap and relatively low production value stock) was a 2000s phenomenon. Today shared content (and free / bundled stock) is where it is going.
465
« on: September 01, 2014, 05:24 »
Yes, they dont own the content, being peoples physical property
I was perhaps not clear. They do not own the images. They licence the images from content providers - satellite and aerial photography companies etc.
466
« on: September 01, 2014, 04:06 »
Google OWN the images you see on google earth
No. It is possible that they own some of the content (I do not know). But I know for certain that much of it they licence currently from content providers. Many jurisdictions have strict regulations with respect to commercial aerial photography using remote aircraft. Also - in some US states AFAIK there are laws which under some circumstances may be used against people photographing farms etc.
467
« on: August 30, 2014, 14:25 »
Contributors should band together to end subscription sales.
This is not a realistic proposition. Also - there are more and more images. When a thing is in unlimited supply the price is going to approach zero. Most images are going be available free. But buyers will pay because they find subscription to be a convenient service. It is the service they will pay for. Not the images.
468
« on: August 29, 2014, 13:10 »
An interesting thread about IS vs SS from a buyers viewpoint.
The pricing quoted in the article is completely out of date. Today: At iStock - 1 month - 250 'essentials' downloads priced in GBP (like the article) is 129.00 At Shutterstock - 1 month - 25 images per day is $249 which is maybe 150 in GBP So it works out like this. The subscription entry price is less at iStock. In theory you get many more images at Shutterstock - but who seriously uses 25 images per day ? Nobody. I've been thinking about this whole subscription thing. Contributors should maybe start a Facebook Twitter fair-trade campaign to encourage the customers to download their full quota even if they do not use it (= increased contributor revenues ) - costs the customers nothing except a few minutes of their time. ETA: the more I look at that article, the more it looks like shill to me. What kind of genuinely busy person wastes their time writing long glowing testimonials. Which makes me doubt the site which is hosting it.
469
« on: August 28, 2014, 09:50 »
Electronic view finder. It's something I absolutely love about my Fuji cameras Yep. I love the EVF on my Fuji XE1. Better than either a DSLR or a rangefinder IMO. An articulated screen would be good too if they could do that without adding additional bulk - preferably with a well designed fold-out hood. The option to use it like a TLR would be excellent. ETA: a built in (switchable) ND fllter would be good too - for using the lens wide open on sunny days.
470
« on: August 26, 2014, 04:44 »
good sources without advertising ? where ? how ?
I pay for advertising free content. Subscription and donation. It exists if you want it.
471
« on: August 26, 2014, 03:32 »
do you know there are journalists earning as low as 10-20$ per article in national newspapers ? and you think we're having it bad ?
Advertising funded websites, including the websites of once great newspapers, are increasingly publishing articles designed to annoy the readers - to encourage them to click and then to comment. It's the comments sections which are generating a good deal of the traffic which is being sold to advertisers. And the commenters commenting on each other's comments too. The commenters are unpaid content producers. It would not surprise me if the article writers are paid according to how much commentary traffic they can generate (certainly the editors will know that certain writers are particularly good at generating response and therefore traffic). The best content IMO is going to be from sources which do not have any advertising (and advertising includes underwriting and sponsorship - which is still advertising and which inevitably affects editorial decision making).
472
« on: August 24, 2014, 12:35 »
As I was washing my car outside (Seattle Washington) a rental truck drove by my house and guess who's image was on the back of the truck! It was Mike! OMG! It was full size body image of him!
Was he also driving it ? Are you sure ?
473
« on: August 20, 2014, 05:29 »
pirates will always find a way to get stuff for free, no matter what.
They won't need to find a way - because pirates are users - and are therefore assumed to represent a potential market. If they won't pay then they will increasingly be given the content via bundling deals etc - such that it ends up being free to the users. The theory used to be that one day they might pay directly. But now it is also about the deals which can be made around content - and the money which can be made (or might be made one day) simply from keeping people engaged. It's genius that people who will never spend anything are now viewed as valuable customers. It will suit the stockholders and investors who put non profit growth ahead of $. But it won't make photographers happy unless they own stock. Microstock is going to end up paying at about the same rate as other user content - including the comments under click-bait articles etc.
474
« on: August 19, 2014, 04:28 »
Tax - regional, state and national sales taxes/VAT/TVA etc is a very complicated issue. Many customers would find it difficult to use most of the existing standalone sites because they not compliant from any sort of accounting and invoicing perspective. From a technical perspective the accounting and legals aspects of compliance look to me like the most difficult aspect.
Sites in one country are required to apply different taxes depending where the customer is based. It's the customers' countries' governments in many cases which require this. Whilst one might be tempted to argue that this is not your problem (that a foreign govt should have no say what you do) - it is the potential customer who is ultimately potentially affected. A professional customer (their accountant anyhow) is likely to need to be able to provide proper invoicing showing that tax has been charged etc (or not if they are exempt).
The whole thing is a great big muddle. Different rules everywhere - it does not just depend where you are but also where your customer is. It is something which the agencies can do properly because they have lawyers and accountants. It is not something which I think can be solved, reliably, at a community level. Even if a compliant shopping cart could be developed it would need constant updates in order to remain compliant as tax law is under constant revision.
IMO the solution to this would be to find and integrate a compliant third party commercial shopping cart which is capable of doing digital downloads and which solves the tax issue. I have no idea which.
475
« on: August 18, 2014, 16:45 »
The VAT thing was always going to be important - certainly for any sites which want to sell images to EU customers.
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 ... 62
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
