Author Topic: That's $2 for smallest file size and $10 for the largest (Read 10693 times)

kelby · « **on:** September 13, 2012, 04:13 »

Hey folks , what about this http://2ten.info/

qwerty · « **Reply #1 on:** September 13, 2012, 04:48 »

All those keen for a strike here's your chance

sharpshot · « **Reply #2 on:** September 13, 2012, 04:55 »

I've never really understood the race to the bottom. Microstock started from a free site. So it started at the bottom. It would be nice if there were no subscriptions but they've been around for years and I'm sure the prices were lower when Shutterstock started them.

The real problem I see is commission cuts. 15% of $2 is 30 cents, less than I get from SS for subs.

This all seems futile anyway. The big sites have been able to get away with almost anything they like for several years with very little action taken by contributors. Why would that change now? The smaller sites that pay a decent commission are usually ridiculed because they can't get enough buyers. It's hard to see how things are going to improve and that's why I'm spending most of my time doing non-microstock work now.

leaf · « **Reply #3 on:** September 13, 2012, 04:57 »

Here's the full press release

2ten supporting a fair deal for stock contributors Hello, I have just arrived in New York City and was in Starbucks. Having parted company with $2.85 for a coffee for a colleague, I was further reminded how expensive coffee is compared with the best images as sold by stock agencies - in particular as part of a subscription plan. The subscription Mafia 7, in order of power Shutterstock 33 cents per image iStock 31 cents per image Fotolia 33 cents per image Dreamstime 32 cents per image 123RF 29 cents per image Depositphotos 24 cents per image Veer 38 cents per image I thought to myself, I’ll see if I can get a similar deal from Starbucks. “Look,” I said “someone from our company will be back in here every day for the next month, so, can we do a deal on 15 coffees per day?” “What kind of deal?” they asked. “I thought you might do us a subscription deal?” I replied. Needless to say they looked at me as if I was completely mad, but did kindly point me in the direction of a Starbucks reward card. To be honest though, I was looking for a deal in the region of 10 cents per cup, not a free refill every now and then. You win some you lose some. We like your pricing At Pocketstock we have our largest file size priced at around $53 or higher. Now, if I take the average price of a monthly subscription of 31 cents and compare it to our pricing, subscription comes in at 17,000 times less expensive than ours per file. That’s 17,000% less expensive than Pocketstock’s list price. Now, if you were an image buyer, who would you go to for your content? Clearly we are in a no win position here and I believe, have only two ways to go forward, we either reduce our prices by a few thousand percent or, we try to help stop the rush to the bottom, that is the subscription price war. 2ten We have decided through the development of 2ten, to stick to our beliefs and try change the industry’s pricing structure, for new images at the very least, through a strategic 3 step plan. Should you be supplying your best images to subscription plans? Well, that’s your choice, but if you continue to do it in the way you currently are, expect the worst. What is the worst that can happen? You don’t want to know how bad it will get, but I’ll give you an idea of what will happen in the short-term - within months, subscription pricing per image will be in single figures – and I don’t mean dollars of course, but cents. Yes, that’s right your images will be sold for less than 10 cents if you don’t do something about it right now. One of the subscription mafia 7 is already offering your content for 13 pence per image in the UK (that’s around 20 cents) and they are throwing in 1000 additional free credits for good measure as an incentive. Shouldn’t 13 pence per image be enough of a bargain? Is it worth producing images if they are going to be sold for these prices? Only you can make that call. Collectively, we can make a change and stop the constant lowering of stock content prices, which will destroy your earnings and fair competition, but still line the pockets of those that sell your work. $2 for the smallest file size and $10 for the largest So having now set up 2ten to help support a fair deal for stock contributors, the objective is simple, get all contributors to refuse to allow any subscription agency to sell their new content for less than $2 for the smallest file size and $10 for the largest. This way we hope to change the pricing structure that is currently so destructive for all contributors. Sign up Check out the latest subscription offers at www.2ten.info and maybe, just maybe, it will convince you to sign up and help change the way your content is sold. Spread the word Please tell all stock contributors about this campaign and ask them to sign up. The more support we get, the more we will be able do about the pricing scandal perpetuated by big business, who are currently commoditizing your material into something that is worth less than a cup of coffee, much less. www.2ten.info We promise never to use your name or personal details. All information will be treated as confidential. Russell Glenister CEO Pocketstock

gostwyck · « **Reply #4 on:** September 13, 2012, 05:06 »

How come they haven't included Thinkstock and Photos.com in their "subscription mafia"?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #5 on:** September 13, 2012, 05:12 »

Why are $2 and $10 magic numbers?

And by the way, iStock subs pay on a minimum of $.65 per credit: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=300542&page=1

sharpshot · « **Reply #6 on:** September 13, 2012, 05:26 »

While they're wasting time on this, my Pocketstock balance is still $0.00. Perhaps they need to start selling subs

heywoody · « **Reply #7 on:** September 13, 2012, 06:21 »

Quote from: gostwyck on September 13, 2012, 05:06

How come they haven't included Thinkstock and Photos.com in their "subscription mafia"?

Maybe this is the IS 0.31?

I don't expect that many will trade thousands @ 33/36/38c for tens @ $2/$10.

ShadySue · « **Reply #8 on:** September 13, 2012, 06:29 »

Quote from: sjlocke on September 13, 2012, 05:12

Why are $2 and $10 magic numbers?

And by the way, iStock subs pay on a minimum of $.65 per credit: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=300542&page=1

Ha! So their minimum sub credit is considerably above their minimum 'regular' credit, which IIRC is .42c.

fotorob · « **Reply #9 on:** September 13, 2012, 08:59 »

This site suggest as "Step 1" to "stop the Shutterstock IPO"

That's one way to try to beat a competitor if you cannot compete with their business model...

Somehow that doesn't look reputable to me.

Microbius · « **Reply #10 on:** September 13, 2012, 09:06 »

Isn't this called price fixing and illegal? If this was just a group of contributors it may be a good idea to try to apply some pressure to stop the slide in prices. Coming from an agency they are on very shaky ground.

ShadySue · « **Reply #11 on:** September 13, 2012, 09:36 »

I wouldn't set up with someone who is even more arithmtically challenged than I am.
He said his coffee cost $2.85.
He asked for a discount for every 15 mugs, and was pointd in the direction of the Starbucks Loyalty Card.
He said, "I was looking for 10c per cup,not a free refill now and then".

So not being a coffee drinker, I had to look it up, but it seems that Starbucks offers:
"Use your card once, get your first reward. And membership is free. Sweet!
Free drink every 15 Stars
We want to give you more of what you love. Use your Card 15 times and the next one’s on us. "

Which is a saving of just under double his 10c a cup discount.

Just a thought.

Microbius · « **Reply #12 on:** September 13, 2012, 09:38 »

I think he was saying he wanted a coffee for 10c per cup total, not that he wanted a discount of 10c

ShadySue · « **Reply #13 on:** September 13, 2012, 09:40 »

Quote from: Microbius on September 13, 2012, 09:38

I think he was saying he wanted a coffee for 10c per cup total, not that he wanted a discount of 10c

Oh, fair enough, that would be a very reasonable interpretation of what he wrote.

cthoman · « **Reply #14 on:** September 13, 2012, 10:00 »

I can't say I agree with $2 and $10 (seems too low). They don't really mention royalty percentages either (not surprising after looking at Pocketstock). If I were going to boycott Shutterstock or any other agency, I'd be asking for a lot more and would want to have a lot more leverage.

I guess I'll just stick with my one man revolutionary movement.

ShadySue · « **Reply #15 on:** September 13, 2012, 10:01 »

It's maybe just me, but I'm confused about why this appears particularly in the iStock forum?

Ed · « **Reply #16 on:** September 13, 2012, 10:19 »

Scratching my head...I just looked at the prices on Pocketstock

...and their royalty schedule

So - for a small image, a non-exclusive contributor gets $1.14 (not enough for a Starbucks coffee) or $11.38 for the largest size (enough for a coffee and a scone).

I think I can make more money standing outside of the Starbucks asking people if they can spare any change.

What is this campaign about again? What are they trying to revolutionize?

....and in the meantime, there are other agencies giving contributors 70% of royalties on images licensed from $100 - $5,000. Take a look at the September 6 PDN featured article for the name of the agency (and generally speaking, they don't want royalty free images).

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #17 on:** September 13, 2012, 10:52 »

I was just amazed at this e-mail - they're nothing short of delusional.

I'd have to leave every other micro agency to meet the minimum $2 for the smallest size - that's not even true at iStock where a buyer can purchase an XS of a 1 credit image for 46 cents and up.

I am not unsympathetic to the overall concern about subscriptions and the long term effect, but I don't get the doomsday talk about single digit royalties being around the corner - at least at SS. I started there getting 20 cents a download and I'm now getting a minimum of 38 cents and am averaging much more on a monthly basis. I already get single digit royalties from IS on a few sales, but still the overall RPD (including PP sales which I'm now forced into unless I quit IS altogether) is around $1

And as noted by another poster, my balance at PocketStock is $0 so asking me to give up my entire microstock income for that is a non-starter.

sharpshot · « **Reply #18 on:** September 13, 2012, 11:57 »

Quote from: Ed on September 13, 2012, 10:19

Scratching my head...I just looked at the prices on Pocketstock

...and their royalty schedule

So - for a small image, a non-exclusive contributor gets $1.14 (not enough for a Starbucks coffee) or $11.38 for the largest size (enough for a coffee and a scone).

I think I can make more money standing outside of the Starbucks asking people if they can spare any change.

What is this campaign about again? What are they trying to revolutionize?

....and in the meantime, there are other agencies giving contributors 70% of royalties on images licensed from $100 - $5,000. Take a look at the September 6 PDN featured article for the name of the agency (and generally speaking, they don't want royalty free images).

And buyers can get a discount, using their bid system. Having shot themselves in the foot with that idea, I hoped their next one would be researched a bit more carefully but this email just makes them look completely out of touch with reality.

What I would like to see is a new site that comes up with better ways for us to sell to buyers and one that's more appealing to buyers than the current big sites. Ideas that have been tried before and failed or campaigns that have zero chance of success aren't going to make me want to upload. Hopefully it will be third time lucky and they will come up with something innovative next time but that looks as likely as FT raising commissions

lisafx · « **Reply #19 on:** September 13, 2012, 15:12 »

Seems like an admirable idea, but I agree that it is not financially feasible to implement.

Freedom · « **Reply #20 on:** September 13, 2012, 17:44 »

Does anyone know Starbuck's profit margins?

Does anyone know how much or a percentage a coffee farmer gets from a cup of coffee?

gillian vann · « **Reply #21 on:** September 13, 2012, 17:46 »

Quote from: Microbius on September 13, 2012, 09:38

I think he was saying he wanted a coffee for 10c per cup total, not that he wanted a discount of 10c

He wants Starbucks to sell coffee for less that what it costs (presumably) but then is upset that stock agencies are selling our stuff cheaply?

*$2.85 for a coffee!! it's already cheap and he wants it cheaper. we pay $4 in Australia. (not Starbucks, good cafe coffee)

qwerty · « **Reply #22 on:** September 14, 2012, 02:42 »

Quote from: vannphoto on September 13, 2012, 17:46

Quote from: Microbius on September 13, 2012, 09:38
I think he was saying he wanted a coffee for 10c per cup total, not that he wanted a discount of 10c

He wants Starbucks to sell coffee for less that what it costs (presumably) but then is upset that stock agencies are selling our stuff cheaply?

*$2.85 for a coffee!! it's already cheap and he wants it cheaper. we pay $4 in Australia. (not Starbucks, good cafe coffee)

$4 is okay, atleast the staff get more than $2 per hour in Australia

Should the analogy be a chinese buffet

sharpshot · « **Reply #23 on:** September 14, 2012, 03:55 »

I don't think the analogy works with any business that has a physical product. Perhaps a better comparison is music. The latest single costs around $1 to download. The production costs must be much higher than anything I have ever produced for the microstock sites. And the artist usually has to pay other musicians and their managers, so they might only make a tiny fraction of that $1. They can make much more money, with high sales volume and they have lots of other ways to make money, like playing live but I think it makes a better comparison than selling coffee.

loop · « **Reply #24 on:** September 14, 2012, 04:45 »

Quote from: sharpshot on September 14, 2012, 03:55

I don't think the analogy works with any business that has a physical product. Perhaps a better comparison is music. The latest single costs around $1 to download. The production costs must be much higher than anything I have ever produced for the microstock sites. And the artist usually has to pay other musicians and their managers, so they might only make a tiny fraction of that $1. They can make much more money, with high sales volume and they have lots of other ways to make money, like playing live but I think it makes a better comparison than selling coffee.

Musicians sell songs for private use, to a very much broader audiences. We sell commercial and editorial licenses. Maybe you should compare with the cost of a music license to use a song commercially.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: That's $2 for smallest file size and $10 for the largest (Read 10693 times)

kelby

qwerty

sharpshot

leaf

gostwyck

Sean Locke Photography

sharpshot

heywoody

ShadySue

fotorob

Microbius

ShadySue

Microbius

ShadySue

cthoman

ShadySue

Ed

Jo Ann Snover

sharpshot

lisafx

Freedom

gillian vann

qwerty

sharpshot

loop

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors