Author Topic: Have you all seen this, SS on demand (Read 20872 times)

fotografer · « **on:** August 05, 2008, 14:33 »

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/abt43615.html
Sounds great

CofkoCof · « **Reply #1 on:** August 05, 2008, 14:37 »

At least one agency that didn't present an awful new strategy. Wait, let me read that again, there must be something evil lurking behind this news.

cphoto · « **Reply #2 on:** August 05, 2008, 14:38 »

Yes, but I wish our commission would be more than 30%. Other than that great idea!

lilcrazyfuzzy · « **Reply #3 on:** August 05, 2008, 15:18 »

Definitely a good thing in my opinion, good decision

lilcrazyfuzzy · « **Reply #4 on:** August 05, 2008, 15:23 »

Just a test, 25 large images OD are 179€ = 289$
=> 12$ per image
we get between 15,66% and 23,75%

sharpshot · « **Reply #5 on:** August 05, 2008, 15:24 »

Hopefully they will get some new customers and not just those leaving the other sites. SS had to do something after istock, DT, StockXpert and fotolia all introduced subscriptions. This looks like a good way of exploiting some of the pay per download market.

As SS have been my No.1 site every month since I started, I hope this does very well.

leaf · « **Reply #6 on:** August 05, 2008, 16:00 »

Looks good.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out in the next few months. It seems like lots of the sites are getting a game plan for the fall.

Dreamstime - new prices
Fotolia - subscription
stockxpert - photos.com
shutterstock - SS on demand
123rf - their special photos area (i forget what it is called)....

I wonder who will gain the most market share.

mwp1969 · « **Reply #7 on:** August 05, 2008, 17:06 »

It seems they've covered many potential issues in their statement. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out for everyone ...

-Mark

dgilder · « **Reply #8 on:** August 05, 2008, 17:19 »

Yeah, this should be interesting, they've already updated their stats page. I could see this being popular with smaller design firms, especially since you can run multiple subscription programs at once now. That might mean buying an on demand subscription for a single project as a way to set a specific cost for their customer.

Kngkyle · « **Reply #9 on:** August 05, 2008, 18:32 »

This is the commission % we are getting from these new packages which can be seen here. As lilcrazyfuzzy showed, the commission we receive is even worse when buyers purchase in Euros.

I am going to assume that the average commission given out is the $500 - $3000 tier.

All Resolution
5 images for $49
+ 2.48 commission for photographers per image = $36.60 profit for SS = 25.3% commission for us.
25 images for $229
+ 2.48 commission for photographers per image = $167.00 profit for SS = 27.1% commission for us.

Lower Resolutions
12 images for $49
+ 1.07 commission for photographers per image = $36.16 profit for SS = 26.2% commission for us.
60 images for $229
+ 1.07 commission for photographers per image = $164.80 profit for SS = 28.0% commission for us.

---

So 2nd lowest commission in the industry after Istock non-exclusive. Yay?

epixx · « **Reply #10 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

dgilder · « **Reply #11 on:** August 05, 2008, 19:13 »

They have a pretty attractive package for designers who need short term or project by project images at a reasonable price for the designers. It pays out more money for the same license that they currently get via the standard subscription that you receive .36 for. So you want even more than 25%, even though it is three times what you would normally get for the same license terms?

Yeah, SS takes a bigger cut on those, but they also have to pay for a whole new advertising campaign for it, pay the programmers who probably had to make some pretty severe code changes to allow multiple subscriptions on the same account, most likely add server hardware to manage a more complicated system, etc. I suppose ideally they would pay the same percentages, but at the most basic level you are receiving more money for licensing the same photo under the same restrictions as you would have if they bought one of the original packages. And possibly having more sales, as this should attract a tier of designers who didn't need 25 a day, but might have needed ten or fifteen for a specific project this week.

epixx · « **Reply #12 on:** August 05, 2008, 19:50 »

Quote from: dgilder on August 05, 2008, 19:13

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.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #13 on:** August 05, 2008, 20:00 »

Doesn't seem like a big deal. More like a new pay per download program. Credits good for a year like iStock - check. $50 for 5 large images, like iStock - check. Less than %20 - %30ish percent to contributor.

Not a bad plan, but nothing groundbreaking.

Fred · « **Reply #14 on:** August 06, 2008, 00:53 »

Quote from: epixx on August 05, 2008, 19:50

Quote from: dgilder on August 05, 2008, 19:13
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.

Well, it would be kind of silly for SS to take that into consideration :-) - but 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

cphoto · « **Reply #15 on:** August 06, 2008, 01:02 »

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

Well, it would be kind of silly for SS to take that into consideration :-) - but 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

rene · « **Reply #16 on:** August 06, 2008, 02:30 »

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

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

Well, it would be kind of silly for SS to take that into consideration :-) - but 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

Cphoto is right.

Magnum · « **Reply #17 on:** August 06, 2008, 03:40 »

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

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

Well, it would be kind of silly for SS to take that into consideration :-) - but 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

Or look elsewhere, for bigger photos, cheaper...

domencolja · « **Reply #18 on:** August 06, 2008, 04:15 »

Well, the image price for buyers isn't astonishing and I could bet that those already purchasing "our" images on other sites are not swapping agencies at all.

p.s.: Let's not forget there are other competitors out there with, imho, better site structure, better buyer experience browsing-wise and primarily lower prices.
p.p.s.: The good news is that we don't lose a nickle. SS subscribers will definitely not change plan (from sub to sod), which means this is mostly a marketing boost for SS.. They now offer the complete package (that is nevertheless less competitive in the "credit" department than what most other agencies offer).

Jimi King · « **Reply #19 on:** August 06, 2008, 04:37 »

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

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

Shutterstock's "Super" size is 3888 x 5184 (20MP). I have photo's on there that were taken at 1944 x 2592 (5MP) and less. I can't imagine how they'd come out.

fintastique · « **Reply #20 on:** August 06, 2008, 05:27 »

Just had my first on demand sale which earnt me $2.85 the uploaded file was 4mp (a 9mp file went elsewhere and SS are selling a uprezzed 16mp version). I only ever had one $5.99 sale at SS sister site.

Not a great % for us but I prefer getting $2.85 instead of 38c rather than 30c instead of $7.50 at another site that a few of us have been complaining about recently.

takestock · « **Reply #21 on:** August 06, 2008, 05:31 »

Congrats!

Good to see that it's moving.
Hopefully I will get my first soon!

Quote from: fintastique on August 06, 2008, 05:27

Just had my first on demand sale which earnt me $2.85 the uploaded file was 4mp (a 9mp file went elsewhere and SS are selling a uprezzed 16mp version). I only ever had one $5.99 sale at SS sister site.

Not a great % for us but I prefer getting $2.85 instead of 38c rather than 30c instead of $7.50 at another site that a few of us have been complaining about recently.

sharpshot · « **Reply #22 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.

takestock · « **Reply #23 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 who could be very talented, but don't need the pressure of having to constantly shoot for SS.
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.

leaf · « **Reply #24 on:** August 06, 2008, 05:41 »

wow, that was quick.

Nice to see that it has been to work quickly. Now I just have to wait patiently to be able to report my first sale

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.

Peter · « **Reply #50 on:** August 15, 2008, 01:28 »

I still have 0 on demand downloads.

sharpshot · « **Reply #51 on:** August 15, 2008, 02:33 »

August is a slow month and I don't expect to see many pay per download sales at the moment. Hopefully they will pick up in the Autumn.

CofkoCof · « **Reply #52 on:** August 15, 2008, 03:04 »

Quote from: Peter on August 15, 2008, 01:28

I still have 0 on demand downloads.

Me too.

lobby · « **Reply #53 on:** August 15, 2008, 04:27 »

zero

for me 2

all i got less downloads

Stu99 · « **Reply #54 on:** August 15, 2008, 07:09 »

I had on demand downloads for the first two days it went live and then nothing since, Regular sub sales have been normal, so no impact there for me.

lisafx · « **Reply #55 on:** August 15, 2008, 14:01 »

My experience is the same as Stu99's. Subscriptions sales are normal and no on demand sales in a few days.

vonkara · « **Reply #56 on:** August 15, 2008, 14:37 »

vphoto · « **Reply #57 on:** August 15, 2008, 14:47 »

innocent, naive, environmental, embracing the whole world, smile on a politician face.

scrappinstacy · « **Reply #58 on:** August 15, 2008, 18:19 »

I had one OD sale on 8-7-08 for $1.07

leaf · « **Reply #59 on:** August 16, 2008, 11:28 »

Quote from: Vonkara on August 15, 2008, 14:37

Did you guys see the new Sutterstock logo

http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php/topic,5505.msg59184/topicseen.html#new

Fred · « **Reply #60 on:** August 16, 2008, 11:31 »

Had my first SS OD - $.81. Also had my first subs on IS - $.19! Hmmmmmmm.

lisafx · « **Reply #61 on:** August 16, 2008, 15:53 »

Quote from: leaf on August 16, 2008, 11:28

Quote from: Vonkara on August 15, 2008, 14:37
Did you guys see the new Sutterstock logo

http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php/topic,5505.msg59184/topicseen.html#new

I noticed that. Very attractive.

DanP68 · « **Reply #62 on:** August 17, 2008, 00:03 »

Quote from: Fred on August 16, 2008, 11:31

Had my first SS OD - $.81. Also had my first subs on IS - $.19! Hmmmmmmm.

LOL. I had my first SS OD 2 weeks ago for $2.38. The same day, I sold an XS on IS for $0.18. I think my reaction was more colorful than "hmmmmmmm."

epixx · « **Reply #63 on:** August 18, 2008, 18:24 »

At last, I've had my first two ppd dl's at SS as well at 2.7 each. They really saved my day, and it will absolutely help keep SS on top, which hasn't been as obvious as it used to be the last 6 months. This seems to be all good to me. It will be interesting to see how it develops long-term. I'm all hopes

steppysteph · « **Reply #64 on:** August 18, 2008, 22:11 »

Only had one OD sale since it started... i thought it would be like a regular thing with at least one OD per week or something.. so not really much difference for me.. normal sub sales also.. nothing great.. hope the OD sales pick up soon

Peter · « **Reply #65 on:** August 19, 2008, 04:15 »

whee. sold my 1st OD for $2.7

kewl.

leaf · « **Reply #66 on:** August 19, 2008, 04:38 »

finally! congrats.

Peter · « **Reply #67 on:** August 19, 2008, 05:30 »

mwp1969 · « **Reply #68 on:** August 21, 2008, 17:47 »

Still haven't "OD'd" yet at SS or on stock photography

-Mark

tdoes · « **Reply #69 on:** August 21, 2008, 18:43 »

Finally got some OD downloads on the 19th & 20th of this month.

How cool would it be to contribute to a site that gets you constant OD downloads while being the only site where subscription downloads pay significantly!

CofkoCof · « **Reply #70 on:** August 24, 2008, 07:18 »

I didn't get any OD sales until today when I got 3 in a row. Not bad for a sunday

graficallyminded · « **Reply #71 on:** August 24, 2008, 08:13 »

I like this feature - got about 4 sales so far this month with OD. Nothing to make me say HOLY CRAP like an EL sale...but it's better than nothing. SS is finally getting smart, similar to how you can purchase credit packages with iStock. Designers don't always want to pay a lot of money for an entire month's subscription. Sometimes they just need a handful of photos.

Egypix · « **Reply #72 on:** August 24, 2008, 08:54 »

I got 3 SS on demand this month ..... it's good

ragsac · « **Reply #73 on:** August 24, 2008, 22:51 »

Sold my 1st OD for $2.48 this month!

a.k.a.-tom · « **Reply #74 on:** August 25, 2008, 16:06 »

.... so I guess it's nothing like HBO on demand?

=tom

Hey... is anyone else experiencing increase EL's on SS.

fotografer · « **Reply #75 on:** August 25, 2008, 16:46 »

Yes, I've had 5 or 6 this month, I usually average about 2 a month.
I've had 14 OD sales so far which gives me over 30$ extra as a large percentage of them were for 2.48$

Quote from: a.k.a.-tom on August 25, 2008, 16:06

Hey... is anyone else experiencing increase EL's on SS.

Phil · « **Reply #76 on:** August 26, 2008, 01:55 »

up to $27 so far, not about to retire

but I aint complaining

fintastique · « **Reply #77 on:** August 31, 2008, 02:34 »

I eventually read the forum post where it explained the variation in prices for members so time for a new table for my microstock guide.

SS on demand earnings table

scroll up that page for more info

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Have you all seen this, SS on demand (Read 20872 times)

CofkoCof

lisafx

lisafx

lisafx

lisafx

CofkoCof

lisafx

vonkara

lisafx

DanP68

CofkoCof

graficallyminded

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors