Author Topic: FT subs already started! (Read 10168 times)

stokfoto · « **on:** June 02, 2008, 11:58 »

wow that was quick!

Peter · « **Reply #1 on:** June 02, 2008, 13:03 »

Quote from: stokfoto on June 02, 2008, 11:58

wow that was quick!

USD 249 for 3 months
USD 999 for 6 moths
USD 1899 for a year

your info is not correct...

not 3 months (it is 599$), but 1 month (249$).

also, for photographers:

(this is partial screenshot of Chad's post on the forum)

jsnover · « **Reply #2 on:** June 02, 2008, 13:09 »

I think FT made a mistake in the order of rankings - Sapphire comes after emerald (that's just Andres and Yuri for now), so they get 30 cents and Ruby gets 31 if anyone ever sticks around long enough to get there.

nativelight · « **Reply #3 on:** June 02, 2008, 13:37 »

ooooooooohhhhhhhhhh....an extra penny for each new rank! What an incentive! NOT!

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #4 on:** June 02, 2008, 14:43 »

Giving away 25 "L" images for $10 a day is an absolute scandal. Fotolia should be embarrassed.

stokfoto · « **Reply #5 on:** June 02, 2008, 15:52 »

Quote from: Chode on June 02, 2008, 13:03

your info is not correct...

Thank you Chode for correcting .sorry I must have been so surprised ( I mean shocked)and got the numbers wrong.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #6 on:** June 02, 2008, 16:02 »

From a buyers perspective, is there anything that really sets apart one agency from another?

stokfoto · « **Reply #7 on:** June 02, 2008, 16:06 »

Quote from: Zeus on June 02, 2008, 16:02

From a buyers perspective, is there anything that really sets apart one agency from another?

may be IS has the advantage of offering some exclusive content among them other than that no I don't think so.

lisafx · « **Reply #8 on:** June 02, 2008, 16:07 »

Quote from: stokfoto on June 02, 2008, 16:06

Quote from: Zeus on June 02, 2008, 16:02
From a buyers perspective, is there anything that really sets apart one agency from another?
may be IS has the advantage of offering some exclusive content among them other than that no I don't think so.

I agree with this. From my limited buying experience the main difference was the exclusive content offered by istock.

stokfoto · « **Reply #9 on:** June 02, 2008, 16:08 »

Quote from: sjlocke on June 02, 2008, 14:43

Giving away 25 "L" images for $10 a day is an absolute scandal. Fotolia should be embarrassed.

others already offering XL size images on that price aren't they.But I agree with you I'd rather they didn't

madelaide · « **Reply #10 on:** June 02, 2008, 18:42 »

Given what they may get for the 3months and above packages, maybe we should be grateful for their commission?

I had one sale only today, non-subs, 4 credits. If I could only stay this way... edited: another 4-credit sale. let me enjoy the moment while it lasts...

On the forum they said "only" 5% of the sales were subs. I find it in fact an impressively high number for a first day.

Regards,
Adelaide

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #11 on:** June 02, 2008, 21:56 »

Does anyone know how many images the average sub user downloads? i.e. what does an agency actually make?

madelaide · « **Reply #12 on:** June 02, 2008, 21:57 »

Quote from: Zeus on June 02, 2008, 21:56

Does anyone know how many images the average sub user downloads? i.e. what does an agency actually make?

Actually I really don't care. All I know is that the buyer is getting too much for too little!

Regards,
Adelaide

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #13 on:** June 02, 2008, 22:18 »

Quote from: madelaide on June 02, 2008, 21:57

Quote from: Zeus on June 02, 2008, 21:56
Does anyone know how many images the average sub user downloads? i.e. what does an agency actually make?

Actually I really don't care. All I know is that the buyer is getting too much for too little!

Regards,
Adelaide

I believe you are correct!!

bravajulia · « **Reply #14 on:** June 02, 2008, 23:17 »

on the average time I think buyer don't reach to download the total number of photos they subscribe on, or if they do, never use more than a little part of the downloaded. In the first case, there is a gain for the agency, and not too much interest for the photographer, in the second case there is a loss for the agency (0,33 x 750=247,5$ to pay photographers ) and interesting income for photographer. Is like a bet, we hope for the second behavior....

andresr · « **Reply #15 on:** June 03, 2008, 02:54 »

I am part of a subscription site in asia which pays 50% of the royalties made from subscriptions to photographers and I average between $0.65 and 0.70 per sale, that means subscription agencies in micro are getting about 65-75% of subscription sales earnings.

I hate subscriptions, we have no control over our images and it is the best place for thieves.
I am seriously going to reconsider my position in microstock later this year.

steppysteph · « **Reply #16 on:** June 03, 2008, 04:29 »

What! Was there a newsletter about it? Anyway still no sales.. darn.. what's the "style" in fotolia (in SS you should always upload).

Andresr, what's the name of the subscription site in Asia?

epixx · « **Reply #17 on:** June 03, 2008, 06:16 »

Quote from: andresr on June 03, 2008, 02:54

I am seriously going to reconsider my position in microstock later this year.

Ditto. I'm actually re-editing a batch right now for macro/RM that was prepared for upload to the micros this week. I'll probably lose money short-term, but the way this is going, that won't last long.

stokfoto · « **Reply #18 on:** June 03, 2008, 10:33 »

I wonder what Yuri ,Ron and other big players reactions like. I don't think it'd be any differentl from Andres's.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: FT subs already started! (Read 10168 times)

stokfoto

Peter

jsnover

nativelight

Sean Locke Photography

stokfoto

PeterChigmaroff

stokfoto

lisafx

stokfoto

madelaide

PeterChigmaroff

madelaide

PeterChigmaroff

bravajulia

andresr

steppysteph

epixx

stokfoto

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors