Author Topic: Have you all seen this, SS on demand (Read 20874 times)

leaf · « **Reply #25 on:** August 06, 2008, 05:43 »

Quote from: takestock on August 06, 2008, 05:39

I agree Sharpshot.

Yes!, so heavily biased towards new images and the new ones are not necessarily the best!

Also, the constant demand of having to "feed" I think can be off putting for new contributors.
Should be more balanced I feel.

Quote from: sharpshot on August 06, 2008, 05:34
I just had my first one for $2.85 as well. SS need to find a way to bring some of our older images back to life now. The heavy bias towards new images leaves a lot of older images that once sold well doing nothing. I liked the Lucky Oliver sideshow and I am surprised the other sites haven't copied that idea.

It is weighted less strongly towards new images than what it used to be. Previously the default search was new images, now it is most popular.
The most popular also has a sprinkle of new images in it, but the oldies but goodies are there as well. I think it is a fair system.
What I think is more frustrating is sites that bury new images on page 50 and they never get a chance.

With shutterstock, new images are given a chance to shine, if they are good, they will stay at the top, if they aren't popular they will sink to the bottom like a rock.

takestock · « **Reply #26 on:** August 06, 2008, 05:46 »

Good to know that Leaf.

Thanks!

Quote from: leaf on August 06, 2008, 05:43

Quote from: takestock on August 06, 2008, 05:39
I agree Sharpshot.

Yes!, so heavily biased towards new images and the new ones are not necessarily the best!

Also, the constant demand of having to "feed" I think can be off putting for new contributors.
Should be more balanced I feel.

Quote from: sharpshot on August 06, 2008, 05:34
I just had my first one for $2.85 as well. SS need to find a way to bring some of our older images back to life now. The heavy bias towards new images leaves a lot of older images that once sold well doing nothing. I liked the Lucky Oliver sideshow and I am surprised the other sites haven't copied that idea.

It is weighted less strongly towards new images than what it used to be. Previously the default search was new images, now it is most popular.
The most popular also has a sprinkle of new images in it, but the oldies but goodies are there as well. I think it is a fair system.
What I think is more frustrating is sites that bury new images on page 50 and they never get a chance.

With shutterstock, new images are given a chance to shine, if they are good, they will stay at the top, if they aren't popular they will sink to the bottom like a rock.

Fred · « **Reply #27 on:** August 06, 2008, 06:32 »

Quote from: cphoto on August 06, 2008, 01:02

Quote from: Fred on August 06, 2008, 00:53

... I am glad I didn't go to the trouble of downsizing everything to 4MP before uploading to them. Could pay off a bit now.

c h e e r s
fred

Why would that pay off??

All images in SS have a SMALL/MEDIUM/LARGE/SUPER format, regardless of the original size.

In my case I always downsize to 3 or 4MP, so my large version of the image is 3 or 4MP, and this will most likely result in having the buyer buying the large version, hence making me more money

Guess I misunderstood a previous thread where everyone was considering downsizing to minimums for subscription sites so that they did not give away the larger size images.

This is good news though - lets me downsize to improve quality without losing the bigger sales.

c h e e r s
fred

lisafx · « **Reply #28 on:** August 06, 2008, 08:51 »

I just got my first On-Demand sales too. Very exciting stuff!

nativelight · « **Reply #29 on:** August 06, 2008, 09:14 »

This motivates me to start uploading again. I was really getting bored with the whole thing (microstock that is).

Stu99 · « **Reply #30 on:** August 06, 2008, 09:52 »

Just got my first OD sale for $2.48 :-)

I have also noticed a recent increase in sales of older images. Most of which were forgotten about, but like an old friend, sometimes nice to see, and sometimes not

domencolja · « **Reply #31 on:** August 06, 2008, 11:07 »

I'm not sure the whole downsizing thing is not detrimental to SS with this new SOD programme. I might me wrong (and please someone correct me if I am), but does that mean that SS sells on demand inflated photos? 4Mpix uploaded pictures interpolated to bigger sizes and sold at the highest price tier?

p.s.: If that's true, buyers won't like it.
p.p.s.: I understand the upsizing for subscription sales is acceptable (pricewise), but definitely not for "credits". If a buyer goes off to buy a "super" size, he * sure wants it to be an original 1:1 pixel format.

sharpshot · « **Reply #32 on:** August 06, 2008, 11:52 »

Quote from: leaf on August 06, 2008, 05:43

Quote from: takestock on August 06, 2008, 05:39
I agree Sharpshot.

Yes!, so heavily biased towards new images and the new ones are not necessarily the best!

Also, the constant demand of having to "feed" I think can be off putting for new contributors.
Should be more balanced I feel.

Quote from: sharpshot on August 06, 2008, 05:34
I just had my first one for $2.85 as well. SS need to find a way to bring some of our older images back to life now. The heavy bias towards new images leaves a lot of older images that once sold well doing nothing. I liked the Lucky Oliver sideshow and I am surprised the other sites haven't copied that idea.

It is weighted less strongly towards new images than what it used to be. Previously the default search was new images, now it is most popular.
The most popular also has a sprinkle of new images in it, but the oldies but goodies are there as well. I think it is a fair system.
What I think is more frustrating is sites that bury new images on page 50 and they never get a chance.

With shutterstock, new images are given a chance to shine, if they are good, they will stay at the top, if they aren't popular they will sink to the bottom like a rock.

Didn't they change the default search over 2 years ago? I think it was before I started there. Images that continually get downloads stay on the first few pages but I have lots that do well on other sites but end up out of site on SS. They have the fastest sales slow down when I stop uploading for a while. A nice side bar where we could select some images to display might work. I would also like to be able to charge more for some images.

cdwheatley · « **Reply #33 on:** August 06, 2008, 13:12 »

Agree, this looks pretty good. just got 2 sales for 2.85 each which is pretty much on par with everywhere else. I hope this just the beginning of plans to offer a pay per download system??

lisafx · « **Reply #34 on:** August 06, 2008, 13:29 »

Quote from: cdwheatley on August 06, 2008, 13:12

... I hope this just the beginning of plans to offer a pay per download system??

Me too. Would only be fair considering all the other sites have poached on their subscription model...

imageZebra · « **Reply #35 on:** August 06, 2008, 14:56 »

Very interesting news, I would like to see how it unfolds. Would it take away regular subscription sales from individual contributors, as someone projected on SS message board, or improves the direction microstock industry is taking with its Wal-Mart tendencies? So far, I gravitate to idea that SS is moving in right direction.

lisafx · « **Reply #36 on:** August 06, 2008, 16:07 »

Quote from: imageZebra on August 06, 2008, 14:56

Would it take away regular subscription sales from individual contributors, as someone projected on SS message board...

Can't see how taking away regular subscription sales for .38 and turning them into 2.85 sales could possibly be a loss?

peep · « **Reply #37 on:** August 07, 2008, 09:53 »

Perfect! I have just come back after a few days, seen this notice and checked my account - and I have had OnDemandSale today!!! I have more money from this one than from the other nine sales! Well done SS! I hope there will be much more of them!

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #38 on:** August 07, 2008, 10:27 »

Had one yesterday, my share 81 cents my share.

Dreamframer · « **Reply #39 on:** August 08, 2008, 01:37 »

I hade one on demand today

1.88$

justice · « **Reply #40 on:** August 08, 2008, 05:28 »

for those who dosen't understand.....

i mean those to whom LIKE the hole idea...

?

the whole thing... ( might be not so good in english but i can understand of business tricks easily)

MEAN

1. the site is under pressure afterwards the other sites start all together their sub programs

2. Before clients leave the site and go elsewhere with subs and better and bigger images (istock

) they decide to sacrifice US....

The multiple downloads in SS was because of the "pressure" of 25 / day images

since this stops little by little guess WHAT?

NO MORE

DOWNLOADS (at least no "big" numbers of downloads)

UNDERSTOOD ?

vphoto · « **Reply #41 on:** August 08, 2008, 06:22 »

understood. the end of the world is near. the number of downloads have fallen. still July was my my best month at SS.

steppysteph · « **Reply #42 on:** August 08, 2008, 07:35 »

I have had a great start in August and even had one on demand sale yesterday for 2.48. I also just reached the $500 mark and I'm now getting 0.33 per download. And with higher numbers this august.. that was really nice. The high downloads was probably a result of a change in upload style. I am now uploading JPEGs as well as vectors and I spread it out throughout the week so every time there are images/vectors approved, I upload a new set on the same day. Probably helped the downloads.

lisafx · « **Reply #43 on:** August 08, 2008, 08:29 »

Yes, surprisingly we actually DO understand the "hole" thing. Yet many disagree with you and see this as a positive step. We must all be idiots

Quote from: justice on August 08, 2008, 05:28

for those who dosen't understand.....

i mean those to whom LIKE the hole idea...?

the whole thing... ( might be not so good in english but i can understand of business tricks easily)

MEAN

1. the site is under pressure afterwards the other sites start all together their sub programs

2. Before clients leave the site and go elsewhere with subs and better and bigger images (istock ) they decide to sacrifice US....

The multiple downloads in SS was because of the "pressure" of 25 / day images

since this stops little by little guess WHAT?

NO MORE

DOWNLOADS (at least no "big" numbers of downloads)

UNDERSTOOD ?

leaf · « **Reply #44 on:** August 08, 2008, 19:00 »

FINALLY i got my first SS on demand download. It was about time.

And yes, if you were wondering, it felt good

sharpshot · « **Reply #45 on:** August 09, 2008, 00:30 »

I have had 4 now. Looks like this is catching on much better than when SS had a separate site to sell pay per download.

epixx · « **Reply #46 on:** August 09, 2008, 01:51 »

I must be doing something wrong. Still no ppd at SS, and 8 days into August, my earnings there are behind those at DT. The latter is performing like never before, with no subs whatsoever, but still it looks a bit weird

mwp1969 · « **Reply #47 on:** August 14, 2008, 15:25 »

I am still awaiting my first OD sale. However, the reason for that may be that I only have 137 images online at SS so far ...

-Mark

nativelight · « **Reply #48 on:** August 14, 2008, 15:35 »

I got my second one today!

It looks like On Demand might breathe new life into older images.

leaf · « **Reply #49 on:** August 14, 2008, 15:56 »

yeah, this seems like something very well implemented by shutterstock.

It is basically a pay per download, the subscriptions are so small and it is worked into their site.. and we get paid a decent comission. Hopefully the number of sales only increases.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Have you all seen this, SS on demand (Read 20874 times)

leaf

takestock

Fred

lisafx

nativelight

Stu99

domencolja

sharpshot

cdwheatley

lisafx

imageZebra

lisafx

peep

PeterChigmaroff

Dreamframer

justice

vphoto

steppysteph

lisafx

leaf

sharpshot

epixx

mwp1969

nativelight

leaf

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors