MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: SS`s strange Partnerships - giving your Images away for nothing??  (Read 5611 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: October 13, 2013, 04:29 »
-9
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://hqstockphotos.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
« Last Edit: October 13, 2013, 04:33 by FritzFox »


Ron

« Reply #1 on: October 13, 2013, 04:33 »
+1
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.

« Reply #2 on: October 13, 2013, 04:35 »
-5
So SS is tricking their buyers, or what?
Quote from one of these sites:
"€0,23 per image"

Ron

« Reply #3 on: October 13, 2013, 05:24 »
0
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.



« Reply #4 on: October 13, 2013, 06:46 »
-2
really?
Quote:
" the lowest royalty on SS is 25 cent"

But they sell them for 23 cent over their "SEO-Sites"

« Reply #5 on: October 13, 2013, 06:50 »
+6
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

« Reply #6 on: October 13, 2013, 06:54 »
-8

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 ;-)

« Reply #7 on: October 13, 2013, 06:57 »
+5
this must be a case of too much meds or lack of them ;D

Ron

« Reply #8 on: October 13, 2013, 06:57 »
+5
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.

« Reply #9 on: October 13, 2013, 07:07 »
+9
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.


« Reply #10 on: October 13, 2013, 07:12 »
0
"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

« Reply #11 on: October 13, 2013, 07:17 »
+1
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

« Reply #12 on: October 13, 2013, 07:32 »
0
"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.

Ron

« Reply #13 on: October 13, 2013, 07:37 »
+1
Fritz and Fred are different persons.

« Reply #14 on: October 13, 2013, 07:45 »
0
Fritz and Fred are different persons.

Asking the same question again and again...

Ron

« Reply #15 on: October 13, 2013, 07:51 »
+3
No, Fred is explaining to Fritz there is no problem with the pricing.

« Reply #16 on: October 13, 2013, 07:53 »
+2
"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'.


« Reply #17 on: October 13, 2013, 08:40 »
0
"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.

« Reply #18 on: October 13, 2013, 08:55 »
+1
No, Fred is explaining to Fritz there is no problem with the pricing.

Then I've misunderstood that post. Sorry.

« Reply #19 on: October 13, 2013, 09:34 »
+1
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

« Reply #20 on: October 13, 2013, 12:48 »
0
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


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
5553 Views
Last post March 12, 2008, 01:45
by Peter
4 Replies
5426 Views
Last post February 05, 2012, 17:39
by cybernesco
14 Replies
8267 Views
Last post October 05, 2012, 15:53
by lisafx
45 Replies
10176 Views
Last post July 19, 2013, 05:05
by dbvirago
11 Replies
8544 Views
Last post January 27, 2016, 10:02
by ShadySue

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle