Author Topic: StockXpert - subs only? (Read 15307 times)

Freedom · « **on:** March 09, 2009, 10:27 »

How are you doing at StockXpert?

It has been sub sales only for me in March, and the income has become the lowest among all my micro sites.

fullvalue · « **Reply #1 on:** March 09, 2009, 10:29 »

I just got my first non sub download today. But yes, subs are about 70-80% of the downloads for me there. I'm doing better at SS with their "on demand" feature. Ironic.

vonkara · « **Reply #2 on:** March 09, 2009, 10:48 »

Subs flying everywhere. Incomes down. I think nobody work at StockXpert anymore LOL.

goldenangel · « **Reply #3 on:** March 09, 2009, 11:10 »

I have a similar experience, about 70% of all downloads are subs.

Pixart · « **Reply #4 on:** March 09, 2009, 11:20 »

Quote from: Vonkara on March 09, 2009, 10:48

I think nobody work at StockXpert anymore LOL.

Maybe you are right? http://blog.melchersystem.com/2009/03/03/the-dark-side-of-jupiter/

sharpshot · « **Reply #5 on:** March 09, 2009, 11:25 »

Lots of subs but I still get plenty of StockXpert pay per download. My overall earnings have increased since they introduced photos.com.

tan510jomast · « **Reply #6 on:** March 09, 2009, 11:35 »

maybe there has to be a change of personnel after Getty, and like the consensus here... StockXpert is to be put to sleep leaving IS for micro.
the reviewers are meaner nowadays, and the rejections are almost identical to IS

anton9 · « **Reply #7 on:** March 09, 2009, 11:41 »

I get the occasional normal download but most of mine are sub sales too

jim_h · « **Reply #8 on:** March 09, 2009, 12:15 »

I'm just getting into this and having a hard time convincing myself it's worth pursuing - that there will be any market at all in a year or 2.

How long before it's 100% subs, everywhere... and after that, free with optional donation? The term is "crowdsourcing" and the model is YouTube.

ibogdan · « **Reply #9 on:** March 09, 2009, 12:52 »

I also have pay-per-download about 40% of the total dwls and the other 60% subs but not complaining, sales are better than DT and sometimes better than Fotolia.

jim_h · « **Reply #10 on:** March 09, 2009, 13:11 »

My message of doom and gloom for today.

Right now, the price of music downloads is being kept artificially high only because the recording industry - a cartel - owns the rights to all the content, and there are really only 2 online retailers - Apple and Amazon. Imagine if anyone could set up a new music site and deal directly with the artists, who would then have no collective representation. The artists would soon be driven to the floor and downloads would be 10 cents, or free. There would be no more profit in recordings per se except for their value in promoting a live tour. I think that day is coming.

There is also a saturation factor in stock photos that is different than music. There's a much bigger, constant demand for "new" music than there is for new photos. The subscription model is letting buyers build there own image archives which eventually will reduce the demand for new downloads.

I could go on, about how the failure of meaningful keywording - accompanied by the accelerating growth of these image banks - is leading to "search fatigue" which is driving buyers to subscriptions, because it's too hard to find an image at the time you need it...

But let's think positive. Hey, how about that stock market...

Pixart · « **Reply #11 on:** March 09, 2009, 13:57 »

Well, I would never buy a Lilly Allen cd but I might download a song or two, so who benefits? She gets paid, I get a song that I could really live without. Who is downloading the music? Likely 15-25 year olds who couldn't afford to buy more than a few cd's a month. Downloading from Apple just means that they can have a more diverse playlist.

You are forgetting that buyers have to be able to afford subs. Subs packages aren't affordable for most. They are only really suitable for a buyer with huge content needs. If only we were privy to buyer demographics. There's a lot more regular guys with blogs and websites buying images today (itty bitty sizes sell very well). Small businesses create their own newsletters. I even visit scrapbooking sites and the scrappers talk about buying little details for their pages from Istock. I definitely don't think subs will take over. How many scrapbookers and church groups would buy a subscription? It's just a bummer that the demographic that presumably has the most money is buying the subs packages.

jim_h · « **Reply #12 on:** March 09, 2009, 14:31 »

Good points. As always, reality is endlessly complicated and the future is impossible to predict. And I know nothing about buyers outside of one contact in the advertising/catalog business.

I think what bothers me the most is the terrible performance of keyword search on these sites. I shoot objects, and if I can't even find my own pictures, how can anyone else? The example I've cited before is: I did a photo of an old "instant" camera, then searched for "instant camera". I didn't even see a camera - of any type - until page 3. Another on 7. Everything else was stuff other than cameras - mostly dozens of weirdly similar images of film strips and blank photos. I think mine was on 9. This is bad enough now, and is only going to get worse as new images flood in, loaded with 50 keywoards of which maybe 4 describe what the image "is".

null · « **Reply #13 on:** March 09, 2009, 14:49 »

Last 12 downloads:

(Stockxpert pay-per-download)   2      $2.00
(Stockxpert subscription)      1      $0.30
(Photos.com subscription)      1      $0.30
(Jupiterimages Unlimited subscription)      8      $2.40

Exactly the same period in 2008, with 1/2 portfolio:

(Stockxpert pay-per-download)       2      $1.50
(Stockxpert pay-per-download)       2      $1.50
(Stockxpert pay-per-download)       1      $0.50
(Stockxpert pay-per-download)       1      $1.50
(Stockxpert pay-per-download)       1      $0.50
(Stockxpert pay-per-download)       2      $4.00

Tomboy2290 · « **Reply #14 on:** March 09, 2009, 15:11 »

Quote from: anton9 on March 09, 2009, 11:41

I get the occasional normal download but most of mine are sub sales too

Same here. I have suspended uploading to StockXpert ...

jim_h · « **Reply #15 on:** March 09, 2009, 15:17 »

I wonder if this subscription thing isn't going to eat its own tail. Every vendor in the world dreams of getting their customers on some sort of 'subscription' because it gives them predictable cash flow - and, they think, buyer commitment. But the commitment doesn't last. For example I used to buy tracks from EMusic, which runs on a subscription model - a monthly fee for a fixed number of downloads. It was ok for a while, but soon became a burden and I dropped it.

Come to think of it, EMusic was very similar to microstock in other ways. To justify the subscription I had to find and download my quota of tracks each month - but because of the vast number of tracks by little-known artists there was no easy way to find stuff I liked. My hard drive was filling up with mediocre tracks that I never played twice. It was all just too much work, I gave it up and now pay a lot more money to Amazon.com but only for tracks I really want.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #16 on:** March 09, 2009, 15:41 »

Guess I picked a bad time to "jump in." Does opting to NOT participate in the subscription program mean that I won't sell anything there?

cdwheatley · « **Reply #17 on:** March 09, 2009, 15:45 »

Sales way down and mostly subs...Sad story. Almost 0 views on new uploads there lately.

madelaide · « **Reply #18 on:** March 09, 2009, 15:58 »

I'm opted out, and although in the past months I had a reduction of sales in StockXpert (and in most sites), I still get nice dlds in StockXpert. Today I even had one that got me US$5. StockXpert is au pair with (IS+DT) this month for me and just slightly behind FT.

Regards,
Adelaide

Pixart · « **Reply #19 on:** March 09, 2009, 16:18 »

Quote from: cdwheatley on March 09, 2009, 15:45

Sales way down and mostly subs...Sad story. Almost 0 views on new uploads there lately.

I had noticed that almost my entire first page of uploads had 0 views (for AGES) and then last night they all have 1. Makes me think they were just indexed at JI or P.C . or something else that wasn't random. I had 5 approved today, I'll try to watch when they get views and if they are at the same time again.

sharpshot · « **Reply #20 on:** March 09, 2009, 17:06 »

Quote from: jim_h on March 09, 2009, 15:17

...Come to think of it, EMusic was very similar to microstock in other ways. To justify the subscription I had to find and download my quota of tracks each month - but because of the vast number of tracks by little-known artists there was no easy way to find stuff I liked. My hard drive was filling up with mediocre tracks that I never played twice. It was all just too much work, I gave it up and now pay a lot more money to Amazon.com but only for tracks I really want.

I don't think there is much comparison with stock photos because they are for commercial use. Buyers can bill their clients, people buying music to listen to use their own money. Microstock is very cheap compared to prices pre-microstock, so a subscription might be a small price to pay for lots of designers.

tan510jomast · « **Reply #21 on:** March 09, 2009, 17:08 »

Quote from: jim_h on March 09, 2009, 13:11

My message of doom and gloom for today.

Right now, the price of music downloads is being kept artificially high only because the recording industry - a cartel - owns the rights to all the content, and there are really only 2 online retailers - Apple and Amazon. Imagine if anyone could set up a new music site and deal directly with the artists, who would then have no collective representation. The artists would soon be driven to the floor and downloads would be 10 cents, or free. There would be no more profit in recordings per se except for their value in promoting a live tour. I think that day is coming.

There is also a saturation factor in stock photos that is different than music. There's a much bigger, constant demand for "new" music than there is for new photos. The subscription model is letting buyers build there own image archives which eventually will reduce the demand for new downloads.

I could go on, about how the failure of meaningful keywording - accompanied by the accelerating growth of these image banks - is leading to "search fatigue" which is driving buyers to subscriptions, because it's too hard to find an image at the time you need it...

But let's think positive. Hey, how about that stock market...

speaking as a once active indie musician, the more popular artists actually started their own distribution directly with their fans, bypassing the record company. loreena mckeena, and prince to name 2 of the more reknown in their genre. U2 also do this, even letting fans know of last minute free concerts . grateful dead, the first of the greatest in their genre, were the first to bypass record companies, even encouraging fans to bring recorders to tape concerts. making money on via concerts tickets and paraphanelia.
i cannot see stock photographers doing this. what else do you sell, other than the license of usage?

jim_h · « **Reply #22 on:** March 09, 2009, 17:17 »

tan510jomast, maybe in the future when the web is more evolved, photographers will be able to sell directly to clients. The web today has no database-like structure that can be searched - all we have is mindless keyword searching (Google). There is no way to search web for "stock photographers who sell direct" without simply getting a thousand pages that contain those keywords - but in the future, there will be.

Microstock companies basically do 3 things. One, they let buyers find the work of photographers. Two, they impose some quality control on the images. And three, they take most of the money. Someday we will all be able to 'advertise' our products in a way that lets buyers find them.

You are right about the music business. The money is going out of selling recordings - they're becoming just promotion for live concerts.

NYTumbleweeds · « **Reply #23 on:** March 09, 2009, 18:52 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on March 09, 2009, 15:41

Guess I picked a bad time to "jump in." Does opting to NOT participate in the subscription program mean that I won't sell anything there?

Considering the opinion of most if sub sales are the only sales unfortunately it doesn't seem too good for any sales if you opt out. Don't forget if you do that the rule is a 90 day waiting period to be out of the JIU & Photos.com sales for subs also.

I was happy to see to ppd's recently. This after abt a month of only sub sales. Really hoping something changes for the positive there.

goldenangel · « **Reply #24 on:** March 09, 2009, 18:59 »

Quote from: Pixart on March 09, 2009, 16:18

Quote from: cdwheatley on March 09, 2009, 15:45
Sales way down and mostly subs...Sad story. Almost 0 views on new uploads there lately.
I had noticed that almost my entire first page of uploads had 0 views (for AGES) and then last night they all have 1. Makes me think they were just indexed at JI or P.C . or something else that wasn't random. I had 5 approved today, I'll try to watch when they get views and if they are at the same time again.

There is a thread on StockXpert forum about this problem. One has reported there that the views are coming again. I think I see the same, some of my images today have a few views.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: StockXpert - subs only? (Read 15307 times)

Freedom

fullvalue

vonkara

goldenangel

Pixart

sharpshot

tan510jomast

anton9

jim_h

ibogdan

jim_h

Pixart

jim_h

null

Tomboy2290

jim_h

WarrenPrice

cdwheatley

madelaide

Pixart

sharpshot

tan510jomast

jim_h

NYTumbleweeds

goldenangel

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors