|
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 - dirkr
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 30 ... 56
601
« on: August 09, 2013, 02:16 »
.65 is 27% of $2.33
That's probably as close to the "truth" as it gets...
602
« on: August 09, 2013, 01:21 »
i wonder, is wildlife photography so lucrative ? i know nothing about it but if the lenses are so expensive the photos will have to be priced accordingly ?
For me it's not profitable, it's an (expensive) hobby
603
« on: August 08, 2013, 16:46 »
Why don't they call it a 280-560mm f/5.6? You can't shoot it at 200mm or f4.
You can. It's a 200-400 f/4. And you can use it as such. Or you can switch in the 1.4 converter, making it into a 280-560mm f/5.6. And it is amazingly sharp and has an awesome IS. Really tempting...
604
« on: August 08, 2013, 13:26 »
Thinking about it a little more, the "Contributor royalties payable" might be money that is left on contributors accounts but is below the payout level.
This is what it is. It is on the Balance Sheet under liabilities. It's money they owe to contributors but haven't paid out yet. The contributor royalties paid out in Q2 are somewhere in the "cost of revenue" of $21,768 m. This number must also include other items like technology costs (as the other line items of operating expenses don't seem to contain those). One has to consider that revenue in Q2 and royalties paid in Q2 (even if we knew the exact number within the 21 million) will still not give an exact royalty percentage, as the payments in Q2 relate to the amounts received by contributors in the months March to May, while the revenue contains the months April to June (as Shutterstock pays out in the middle of the month for the prior month). Also to consider: all sales of people that did not reach payout are not included as well (those are in the 8.1 million tickstock mentioned - but only part of it, because some of that amount will come from older downloads). The best way to derive your own average royalty rate at Shutterstock is still to take your own received RPD for Q2 and divide it by the published number of revenue per download ($2,33 in Q2).
605
« on: August 08, 2013, 07:07 »
They're changing it again... By accident I found the following paragraph: "Please note that after 6 months (180 days) without a sale, content prices are automatically set to minimum price (see pricing chart below). Afterwards, if the file sells 3 times in a period of 6 months, the contributor will once again be able to update their prices. After 24 months (720 days) without a sale, content prices are automatically set to these prices: XS = 1 Credit, S = 2 Credits, M = 3 Credits, L = 4 Credits, XL = 5 Credits, XXL = 6 Credits. Afterwards, if the file sells 3 times in a period of 24 months the content prices are set back to the minimum price (see pricing chart below). If these 3 sales are made in a period of 6 months, the contributor will once again be able to update their prices."To be found here. So now the six months only affect exclusive files or emerald or above contributors, reducing the price to the standard price starting with one credit for XS. And every file is reduced in price if it is not sold for 24 months. That all sounds a lot more reasonable to me. Not great, but way better than the first version.
606
« on: August 08, 2013, 05:14 »
So let's check if I understood well :
For new files :
1. I upload a new file on 1st January : regular price
2. After 6 months, it has sold 1x : price stays the same
3. After 6 months, it has not sold at all : price goes down
4. If the price has gone down, it needs to sell 3x, and then the price will AUTOMATICALLY go up again.
Question for (4) : does it need to sell 3x IN 6 MONTHS? Or just 3x ?
For old files :
1. An old file has sold at least 1x the last 6 months : regular price (IS THIS CORRECT??)
2. An old file has not sold the last 6 months : price goes down
3. If the price is down, it needs to sell 3x for the price to go up again = AUTOMATICALLY
Same question here : does it need to sell 3x in 6 months, or just 3x ?
This is how I understood it as well, only that I'm unsure about new uploads. Do they start with the regular or the reduced pricing? Anybody who uploaded recently can clarify (I not uploading to them...)?
And to the bolded part above: as stated earlier in the thread, I do have two files fulfilling that condition (old file, one download within the past six month), one has regular pricing, one has reduced pricing.
However they mean to do it, there seem to be bugs in their processing...
Well, their inconsistency in applying this new policy obviously goes both ways. I just had a sale with the old (regular) pricing (7 credits for a L size) of a file that has not sold for more than one year...
607
« on: August 02, 2013, 03:21 »
Either there is another Fotolia out there that I haven't heard of or the theory of parallel universes is right and the OP and I happen to live in different ones... 
608
« on: August 01, 2013, 06:00 »
It all sounds really, really good. I'd love to jump in and open my own site.
What's holding me back?
Essentially two things:
1: I have zero experience with building websites. None. Never had a website, I don't even know the most basic things. But I flipped through the info on symbioguides.com, and that will help a great deal.
I would hope the technical part is covered.
2: More important: What do I need to know with regards to legal and tax implications (e.g. what about collecting VAT) in Germany?
I have no idea what needs to be considered. Having your own shop is certainly different than selling via agencies.
If anybody has any information about that, that would be a great help.
Without having that second point clarified I feel I can't really start setting something up...
609
« on: August 01, 2013, 03:07 »
So let's check if I understood well :
For new files :
1. I upload a new file on 1st January : regular price
2. After 6 months, it has sold 1x : price stays the same
3. After 6 months, it has not sold at all : price goes down
4. If the price has gone down, it needs to sell 3x, and then the price will AUTOMATICALLY go up again.
Question for (4) : does it need to sell 3x IN 6 MONTHS? Or just 3x ?
For old files :
1. An old file has sold at least 1x the last 6 months : regular price (IS THIS CORRECT??)
2. An old file has not sold the last 6 months : price goes down
3. If the price is down, it needs to sell 3x for the price to go up again = AUTOMATICALLY
Same question here : does it need to sell 3x in 6 months, or just 3x ?
This is how I understood it as well, only that I'm unsure about new uploads. Do they start with the regular or the reduced pricing? Anybody who uploaded recently can clarify (I not uploading to them...)? And to the bolded part above: as stated earlier in the thread, I do have two files fulfilling that condition (old file, one download within the past six month), one has regular pricing, one has reduced pricing. However they mean to do it, there seem to be bugs in their processing...
610
« on: July 31, 2013, 14:06 »
You never explained what the issue is. And when people ask you start to insult them.
Troll.
611
« on: July 26, 2013, 17:05 »
The answer I received from support indicated that an image needs to be sold 3 Times within 6 months in order not to be reduced in price. (I knew it needed 3 sales to get back to minimal pricing (not the price you had previously set) after a reduction) - but I did not read their statement as meaning if an image does not sell three times within 6 months it will be reduced in price.
I wouldn't believe support has any clue on what's going on. I am sure their system screws up those changes. I have just checked, I found two of my files, both of them have exactly one download, both of these downloads are newer than six months. One file has still the original pricing (1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10), the other has reduced prices (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). No logic there... At least the change they did to the amount of price reduction (not anymore giving out XXLs for 3 credits) makes it a little easier to take. But certainly no new uploads from me.
612
« on: July 24, 2013, 09:36 »
time to leave....
613
« on: June 06, 2013, 09:21 »
So it changes depending on location? I am in South America so I get charged (much) more? 
Where in South America? What's the local currency?
I am in Ecuador... the local currency is US$
Ok, that does not explain it. I thought they may convert into local currency and only (wrongly) display a $-sign...
614
« on: June 06, 2013, 05:52 »
I had a sale for 7 credits ( M size ) and I got 1.73 dollars for it. Then had a sale for 8 credits ( L size ) and only got 1.54 dollars. How is it possible to get less money if the picture was bigger and more expensive? 
a) Credit Values depend upon the price the customer paid, so when he/she bought a bigger package, the price per credit will be lower. b) Your commission varies by image level, from 25% for Level 0 and 1 to 45% for level 5.
615
« on: June 06, 2013, 05:49 »
So it changes depending on location? I am in South America so I get charged (much) more?
Where in South America? What's the local currency?
616
« on: May 27, 2013, 06:26 »
From the "contributors" link on their page (bold from me):
"At Zoomy Images we are always on the look out for fresh, new talent. One way we like to stay ahead of the pack is to only accept content that is exclusive to the Zoomy Images site. That way we can ensure that our clients are not seeing the same images that are found on other stock photo sites. We offer a 40% commission on all exclusive content licensed through us. "
And that when they are obviously source images from Yay, so the same images are likely everywhere.
Pretty crappy, I'd say.
Some of mine are there too, not all of them though. I assume via Yay, but even then they should attribute them to the copyright holder. Bad business.
Zoomy, if your are reading: Better fix that asap!
617
« on: May 27, 2013, 04:10 »
I am staying with Canon mainly because this is what I (or better: we, as my wife shoots with Canon as well) had from the start. We bought our first digital SLR in 2003 when, the Canon 300D was more or less the only affordable model. Over time we upgraded (30D, 1DMkIIn, 1DMkIV) and added a lot of glass.
Now a switch to another manufacturer would mean we had to replace all those lenses - that's the main reason I don't even look at Nikon for new cameras.
And one additional point: I am now using a 1DMkIV. I fully believe the capabilities of that camera are far beyond my own capabilities. Hoping to improve my photography by switching to another camera body is completely pointless. I'd rather invest the time improving my own skills. My camera is not the limiting factor.
618
« on: May 22, 2013, 06:14 »
4$ for the largest size? For a new site without buyers?
Does not sound appealing.
Come back when you can tell us how you want to attract buyers, and it better not be via undercutting the competition...
619
« on: May 17, 2013, 14:19 »
Just seems like the industry is dooming itself by lowering prices and undercutting the competition
I might be wrong, but I am not aware of examples of (established) microstock companies lowering prices. Quite the opposite, looking at what has happened at e.g. Istock, Fotolia, Dreamstime over the last five or six years. When I remember correctly, the prices have been quite a bit lower when I started with microstock in 2007.
Multiple agencies have lowered their royalties during that time, but that's a different issue.
You are not considering subscriptions.
So did subscription prices decrease over the last years? Where was the price of a standard Shutterstock subs plan five years ago? I have no idea...
I think he's saying sites like Dreamstime, Fotolia, and Bigstock have added subs which have lower royalties than credit or single image sales.
That's right, and I don't disagree with the lowering of royalties. But did they introduce subs that are significantly lower priced than those of the competition? What I am asking is whether the statement I quoted is correct - about lowering prices and undercutting the competition. Because I believe that is not the current problem of this industry.
620
« on: May 17, 2013, 14:16 »
Just seems like the industry is dooming itself by lowering prices and undercutting the competition
I might be wrong, but I am not aware of examples of (established) microstock companies lowering prices. Quite the opposite, looking at what has happened at e.g. Istock, Fotolia, Dreamstime over the last five or six years. When I remember correctly, the prices have been quite a bit lower when I started with microstock in 2007.
Multiple agencies have lowered their royalties during that time, but that's a different issue.
FT have lowered prices in the past by reducing how much higher-ranking contributors can set prices to and then also lowering individual images to the base rate again if they don't sell quickly enough. Even IS has actually reduced the prices of some sizes of images ... whilst usually increasing them elsewhere at the same time.
Right, I did not consider the ability to set prices higher (since I don't have that...). But I remember when I started with FT they had three sizes (M, L, XL) for 1 - 3 credits. So when one of my images sold in full size, the customer paid 3 credits. The same image today in full size (8 MP) costs 8 credits (and if it's bigger the price is even higher). So it looks to me in recent years at least the major microstocks have significantly increased prices (though there were single steps in the other direction as well).
621
« on: May 17, 2013, 14:08 »
Just seems like the industry is dooming itself by lowering prices and undercutting the competition
I might be wrong, but I am not aware of examples of (established) microstock companies lowering prices. Quite the opposite, looking at what has happened at e.g. Istock, Fotolia, Dreamstime over the last five or six years. When I remember correctly, the prices have been quite a bit lower when I started with microstock in 2007.
Multiple agencies have lowered their royalties during that time, but that's a different issue.
You are not considering subscriptions.
So did subscription prices decrease over the last years? Where was the price of a standard Shutterstock subs plan five years ago? I have no idea...
622
« on: May 17, 2013, 10:46 »
Just seems like the industry is dooming itself by lowering prices and undercutting the competition
I might be wrong, but I am not aware of examples of (established) microstock companies lowering prices. Quite the opposite, looking at what has happened at e.g. Istock, Fotolia, Dreamstime over the last five or six years. When I remember correctly, the prices have been quite a bit lower when I started with microstock in 2007. Multiple agencies have lowered their royalties during that time, but that's a different issue.
623
« on: May 16, 2013, 17:03 »
I think it's got nothing to do with an EL (remember: on FT the standard licence has no print run restriction!) but rather it is when a big corporation wants to use an image in a corporate design for multiple subsidiaries. Each of them needs a separate licence.
624
« on: May 15, 2013, 14:31 »
... it's no longer people selling their vacation snapshots...
I do plead guilty to that charge... 
625
« on: May 15, 2013, 14:30 »
@ dirkr
Buyers doesn't care where the most artist will send their work, so random agencies won't sell more just if they reach 20M photos. It's not nearly enough just to stop send to one place and start send to other.
That's what I said. It needs some kind of step change. Whatever that will be. This is about marketing, and marketing costs (unless there is a lot of buzz on the internet). If those agencies can't or won't put their effort in marketing, somebody has to...
Yes. And whoever has the deepest pockets (e.g. by giving the smallest part of earnings to contributors) can afford to spend the most on marketing. Giving them competitive advantage, more sales, making them more attractive to contributors. An incentive to cut commissions... That's the vicious circle I meant.
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 30 ... 56
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
