MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: FritzFox on October 13, 2013, 04:29
-
Did you ever realized this??
I am sure that you will find your port there as well as i found mine.
http://vector-background.com/ (http://vector-background.com/)
http://hqstockphotos.com/ (http://hqstockphotos.com/)
http://vector-set.com/ (http://vector-set.com/)
Cheap websites (smell quite bad like "SEO" and definitely is Duplicate Content for Google) selling your port?
Some questions to SS:
1: If they sell our images for 23 Cent / image.....how much do you keep and how much does a contributor gets? 8 Cent?? 4 ???
2:How many of these "partnersites" do you run?
3: where in our sales-statistic do we find these sales?
4: How can we prevent to get our images "sold" over these "websites"??
FF
-
YOu get your royalty as normal. The business model is based on buyers not downloading their full allotment.
This is not IS, the lowest royalty on SS is 25 cent. Period.
-
So SS is tricking their buyers, or what?
Quote from one of these sites:
"€0,23 per image"
-
I have no idea what you mean by tricking. Did you check the pricing on Shutterstock?
€199
1 month
€569
3 months
SAVE
€28
€1079
6 months
SAVE
€115
€2049
1 year
SAVE
€373
Its identical. There is nothing wrong.
-
really?
Quote:
" the lowest royalty on SS is 25 cent"
But they sell them for 23 cent over their "SEO-Sites"
-
I must be missing something here ::)
the 3 sites you are talking about here are redirecting to SS so I don't understand your wounds here
-
The business model is based on buyers not downloading their full allotment.
? ? ?
"Hey, we can sell your whole port for cents - but probably no one everwill buy our offer" ???
or
"We will never do it. Promised. You can trusssssstt us..." (Spoken in a soft hissed voice. Whats the snakes name in "The Jungle Book" from Rudyard Kipling ??)
I am speechless in the light of such a high level of respectability. Promised ;-)
-
this must be a case of too much meds or lack of them ;D
-
really?
Quote:
" the lowest royalty on SS is 25 cent"
But they sell them for 23 cent over their "SEO-Sites"
Dude, read my previous comments, its a KNOWN business model, the buyers dont download their full allotment so the bottom line is a profit for SS.
This is general knowledge.
I just showed you the pricing is the SAME on SS. So yes, they sell an image for 23 cents and pay you 25-38 cents.
SS makes their profit as well on selling ODDs and SODs and ELs and Footage.
Thats the end of it.
-
You are 30 years too late Fritz. The subscription model is the same as the "all you can eat buffet" in restaurants. They also rely on an "average" that people eat. if everyone ate three full plates, they would have to close down their business as well.
Is this your first time ever in business? I understand that if you have no previous experience and only do stock as a hobby that many things seem new, although they are being used everywhere.
-
"So SS is tricking their buyers, or what?
Quote from one of these sites:
"€0,23 per image"
€0,23 = $0.31 at current exchange rate.
Where's the beef?
fred
-
You are 30 years too late Fritz. The subscription model is the same as the "all you can eat buffet" in restaurants. They also rely on an "average" that people eat. if everyone ate three full plates, they would have to close down their business as well.
Is this your first time ever in business? I understand that if you have no previous experience and only do stock as a hobby that many things seem new, although they are being used everywhere.
"he" said "he" has 8k files at SS, oh whatever not losing my time with this guy
-
"So SS is tricking their buyers, or what?
Quote from one of these sites:
"€0,23 per image"
€0,23 = $0.31 at current exchange rate.
Where's the beef?
fred
You still don't get it? You don't have to go to those other sites. Have a look at Shutterstock's main site: The annual package costs €2049 and you get to download 25 images per day. 25 * 365 = 9.125. If you take €2049 and divide it by 9.125 images, you get to €0.2245. Still Shutterstock pays out 25 $-cents per download on the entry level. That just is how the subscription model at all sites is working.
As has been explained before, the business model works because almost all buyers are not even close to using up the maximum. It's a convenient way for buyers to have access to as many as they might need at a fixed annual fee. Some might only use 200, others might use 1.000. But they only have to ask their manager once a year for a budget. Convenience is more important than downloading as much as they could. Downloading images you don't need is costing you time and effort, and no one is going to spend that time if there is no need for it.
-
Fritz and Fred are different persons.
-
Fritz and Fred are different persons.
Asking the same question again and again...
-
No, Fred is explaining to Fritz there is no problem with the pricing.
-
"So SS is tricking their buyers, or what?
Quote from one of these sites:
"€0,23 per image"
€0,23 = $0.31 at current exchange rate.
Where's the beef?
fred
You still don't get it? You don't have to go to those other sites. Have a look at Shutterstock's main site: The annual package costs €2049 and you get to download 25 images per day. 25 * 365 = 9.125. If you take €2049 and divide it by 9.125 images, you get to €0.2245. Still Shutterstock pays out 25 $-cents per download on the entry level. That just is how the subscription model at all sites is working.
As has been explained before, the business model works because almost all buyers are not even close to using up the maximum. It's a convenient way for buyers to have access to as many as they might need at a fixed annual fee. Some might only use 200, others might use 1.000. But they only have to ask their manager once a year for a budget. Convenience is more important than downloading as much as they could. Downloading images you don't need is costing you time and effort, and no one is going to spend that time if there is no need for it.
MSG member Cupofcoffee gave a very good explanation of how her employers used their SS subscription some time ago. Essentially they used SS as an external 'server', downloading whatever images they needed at the time they needed them. They might well have downloaded the same image before (or even at the same time by different employees) but it was quicker to find suitable images on SS's database than storing them internally and then trying to find them again. The cost of a multi-seat subscription to SS is virtually nothing for a medium-sized business __ or indeed any business big enough to have 'employees'.
-
"So SS is tricking their buyers, or what?
Quote from one of these sites:
"€0,23 per image"
€0,23 = $0.31 at current exchange rate.
Where's the beef?
fred
You still don't get it? You don't have to go to those other sites. Have a look at Shutterstock's main site: The annual package costs €2049 and you get to download 25 images per day. 25 * 365 = 9.125. If you take €2049 and divide it by 9.125 images, you get to €0.2245. Still Shutterstock pays out 25 $-cents per download on the entry level. That just is how the subscription model at all sites is working.
As has been explained before, the business model works because almost all buyers are not even close to using up the maximum. It's a convenient way for buyers to have access to as many as they might need at a fixed annual fee. Some might only use 200, others might use 1.000. But they only have to ask their manager once a year for a budget. Convenience is more important than downloading as much as they could. Downloading images you don't need is costing you time and effort, and no one is going to spend that time if there is no need for it.
MSG member Cupofcoffee gave a very good explanation of how her employers used their SS subscription some time ago. Essentially they used SS as an external 'server', downloading whatever images they needed at the time they needed them. They might well have downloaded the same image before (or even at the same time by different employees) but it was quicker to find suitable images on SS's database than storing them internally and then trying to find them again. The cost of a multi-seat subscription to SS is virtually nothing for a medium-sized business __ or indeed any business big enough to have 'employees'.
This is exactly how my company uses SS. Basically it's a way to have a "folder" of sorts with all kinds of images. We have departments that touch each other (similar) but sharing, storing, categorizing, organizing images isn't practical for what they pay. If the images were $200 apiece, you can bet they'd share, store, categorize & organize.
-
No, Fred is explaining to Fritz there is no problem with the pricing.
Then I've misunderstood that post. Sorry.
-
No, Fred is explaining to Fritz there is no problem with the pricing.
Then I've misunderstood that post. Sorry.
Your explanation was still very well said... even if you said it to the wrong guy. :P
-
No, Fred is explaining to Fritz there is no problem with the pricing.
Then I've misunderstood that post. Sorry.
No problem. Your explanation was good and complete. I just thought the FX conversion rate was simpler.
c h e e r s
fred