Author Topic: 123RF Image Enlargement Services & Your Earnings (Read 33566 times)

alex123rf · « **on:** April 06, 2010, 04:47 »

Hi Everyone,

Great news! We've introduced another value added service to our clients - 123RF Image Enlargement Service. And you can now see this as being available on the website if you look at your file sizes, we now have the following:
Size Credits Your share S 1 50% M 2 50% L 3 50% XL 4 50% XXL 5 50% 100 MB TIFF 150 20 credits 200 MB TIFF 300 40 credits 300 MB TIFF 450 60 credits

We are employing an external party to provide this service to our clients. We are using your 5 credit version of the image to enlarge it to 100, 200, 300 MB TIFFs with some minor touch up, removal of noise, etc. Don't worry about your original images, we do make sure that we keep everything cataloged and our external service provider will not distribute this version without first consulting 123RF.

The good news is, you're now getting approximately 13.3% of the FULL VALUE (not 50% as in the case of the S-XXL size images) of the credits for each image enlarged, while we share the remaining amount with the image enlargement service provider.

We hope that this will prove to be a good and profitable business model for you and our clients as it will increase the earning capacity for everyone. We will promote this service to all our clients and soon you should see some heavy hitting sales coming your way!

Thank you very much.

Alex.
for 123RF.com

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #1 on:** April 06, 2010, 05:55 »

"Don't worry about your original images, we do make sure that we keep everything cataloged and our external service provider will not distribute this version without first consulting 123RF."

Why in heavens name would there be a question of the external service provider distributing someone's content?

"The good news is, you're now getting approximately 13.3% of the FULL VALUE"

That's ridiculous. Without the content, you have nothing to sell. You run some scripts on an image, jack up the price, and think it's smart to cut the contributor's percentage? The minute cost of processing should come out of your percentage, not the contributor's.

Of course, anyone dumb enough to drop $450 on an image that cost $5, just to upsize it should probably be separated from their money on principle.

gostwyck · « **Reply #2 on:** April 06, 2010, 06:32 »

^^^ Exactly.

Is this a joke? Have 123RF still got their calendar on 1st April?

RT · « **Reply #3 on:** April 06, 2010, 08:12 »

So you're going to charge $445 to run a $5 image through software like Genuine Fractals, buyers could save themselves some money and buy the software themselves for $160.

As for "Don't worry about your original images, we do make sure that we keep everything cataloged and our external service provider will not distribute this version without first consulting 123RF."

Yeah and 123RF had better consult me before allowing anyone else to distribute my images, to do so without my prior knowledge is against the T&C's.

Klauts · « **Reply #4 on:** April 06, 2010, 09:15 »

Quote from: alex123rf on April 06, 2010, 04:47

The good news is, you're now getting approximately 13.3% of the FULL VALUE (not 50% as in the case of the S-XXL size images) of the credits for each image enlarged[...]

I fail to see where the good news is. Like Sean said, you're still selling the picture, enlarged or not. No picture, no sale.

And, ok maybe the client can save some time buying the enlarged version, but asking 10 times more for basically the same amount of detail seems way off.

alex123rf · « **Reply #5 on:** April 06, 2010, 09:48 »

Honestly folks, I am gob smacked and shocked to receive such a response from you.

Please allow me to say my piece - I know you'll be worried if people get their hands on your images, your work, your copyright, and we played the responsible party and made ABSOLUTELY SURE that our partners will not go and distribute them without your knowledge, or ours. I know you'll be worried, I would like to take the initial step to reassure you that your works will not be treated in a way that would upset you.

Also another misconception that I'd like to set straight, our partners do not only enlarge the image, but also do minor touch ups, clean up the noise and artifacting amongst other things. They do add value to the image itself. It is not some "one setting for all" server side script that automatically does the job. Our clients do really feel happy that we provide such a service, and are willing to pay good money for it.

We didn't hood wink anyone, they can still download the 5 credits version, we didn't FORCE anyone to take the 300MB TIFF version, it's JUST THERE. IF they want it, they can get it, and so far, nobody's complaining, I've had several thank you emails from clients who were pleased that we provided such a service, and several more from contributors who have had such downloads.

We are here working hard to create opportunities for everyone to earn a little more, the question is -- why the bad vibes? This, I simply cannot understand! I can't believe I have to defend something that just gives money to our community, I find this highly astonishing!

Thank you, and I'm real sorry if I offended anyone.

Alex
for 123RF.com

KB · « **Reply #6 on:** April 06, 2010, 11:45 »

Quote from: alex123rf on April 06, 2010, 09:48

why the bad vibes? This, I simply cannot understand! I can't believe I have to defend something that just gives money to our community, I find this highly astonishing!

My guess is that it's just a natural reaction nowadays to any microstock agency announcement these days -- especially if it starts out with "good news".

Perhaps most contributors have become jaded, disillusioned, disappointed, and distrustful of their agents. Sad times, indeed (but not without merit considering the moves made last year by several of the big guns).

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #7 on:** April 06, 2010, 11:53 »

Probably because you seem to have thought that since %13 of the price ends up being more than anything else the contributor currently gets, that it is a wonderful deal. For some reason you seem to relish that you are dropping the contributor's share from 50% to %13.

Assuming you are splitting the cost of this outsourcing evenly (

), then you would be giving the outsourcer $325 every time you sell a 300MB image. So, are you telling us that you are paying the outsourcer $325 every time? Or are you maybe paying them $5 an image to resize it, and you're pocketing $390 each time?

Snufkin · « **Reply #8 on:** April 06, 2010, 11:57 »

Hi Alex,
while I appreciate that you're introducing a new, higher-priced product, it is somewhat difficult to understand why 13,3 % should be good news.
Shouldn't it be 33,3 %? That would mean 1/3 for 123RF, 1/3 for the contributor and 1/3 for the third party.
I think everybody here would be happy with that.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #9 on:** April 06, 2010, 11:59 »

Quote from: Tom on April 06, 2010, 11:57

Hi Alex,
while I appreciate that you're introducing a new, higher-priced product, it is somewhat difficult to understand why 13,3 % should be good news.
Shouldn't it be 33,3 %? That would mean 1/3 for 123RF, 1/3 for the contributor and 1/3 for the third party.
I think everybody here would be happy with that.

Why should the third party get paid every time? Resizing it (of dubious value to start with) is a one time cost.

lisafx · « **Reply #10 on:** April 06, 2010, 13:03 »

Alex, I really do appreciate your making this announcement and not leaving it for contributors to discover on our own.

Higher prices and more $ for contributors is certainly welcome. Particularly from 123RF where sales have been slow for most of us, according to the monthly polls.

I believe the sticking point, certainly for me, is the 13% royalty for contributors. As someone who works with images for a living, I can assure you that the greatest value and expense is in the production of the original image. Any editing and enlarging after the fact takes relatively little effort and adds minimal value compared to the work involved in conceptualizing, setting up, and capturing an image. Therefore such a tiny percentage for the individuals who did the majority of the work seems rather insulting.

borg · « **Reply #11 on:** April 06, 2010, 14:01 »

Quote from: sjlocke on April 06, 2010, 11:59

Why should the third party get paid every time? Resizing it (of dubious value to start with) is a one time cost.

Exactly!!!
Someone else gets money every time when my photo has been downloaded only because he enlarged it...??

What we are experiencing lately??

Bigger prices in many collections, but less and less percentages for contributors... This is not new, We saw it before (FT etc.)
It seems that everyone wants to earn more and more money from OUR WORK, but also they try to comfort us with the smallest part of the cake....
So, customers can pay more but we will get less and less... And where is good news?
My photos are sold for a higher price, but I get a smaller portion???
Also, now some third-parties are pushing in, to make profit on our work...

P.S.
We will have to establish our trade union...

lisafx · « **Reply #12 on:** April 06, 2010, 14:20 »

Quote from: borg on April 06, 2010, 14:01

P.S.
We will have to establish our trade union...

I remain ready to join, but so far nobody's done more than talk...

borg · « **Reply #13 on:** April 06, 2010, 14:29 »

Quote from: lisafx on April 06, 2010, 14:20

Quote from: borg on April 06, 2010, 14:01

P.S.
We will have to establish our trade union...

I remain ready to join, but so far nobody's done more than talk...

Heheheehehe!

It would be great, then we would have legal representation...
It seems that "drivers for first steps" should be people familiar with Microstock, famous bloggers, more experienced photographers,forum administrators etc.
Then we would all be able to join as members, and have a unique and strong approach to problems...

Xalanx · « **Reply #14 on:** April 06, 2010, 14:34 »

Yes Alex, I think too that you have to rethink the commission structure. As said above, 13.3% is rather insulting.

If you feel shocked about the way photographers received the "good news", think of how shocked we were.

madelaide · « **Reply #15 on:** April 06, 2010, 14:35 »

Quote from: alex123rf on April 06, 2010, 09:48

Honestly folks, I am gob smacked and shocked to receive such a response from you.

You wouldn't if you were here frequently.

gostwyck · « **Reply #16 on:** April 06, 2010, 14:49 »

Quote from: alex123rf on April 06, 2010, 09:48

I am gob smacked and shocked to receive such a response from you.

I am gob smacked and shocked that you describe a 13% commission rate as "good news". Please can you explain where the other 87% goes and for what? As Lisa and others have pointed out the major investment in producing an image is made by the contributor.

Kone · « **Reply #17 on:** April 06, 2010, 16:14 »

@ sjlocke
At first I would like to thank sjlocke who first stood up for all of us even if this is not directly affecting him.
Thank you sjlocke!

This is just proof that customers are willing and ready to pay more for our work, it is just agencies between themselves trying to bring prices down to attract new customers. But sadly we are paying for this and agencies don't treat us fairly.
Yes Borg, we need a union, I am all for it.

Kone

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #18 on:** April 06, 2010, 16:22 »

I didn't read the entire OP. I just assumed it was ridiculous. How is this different from the FLOP at Dreamstime? I can't see how normal buyers would want 123RF to print images that they purchase. What kind of buyer is looking for a printer? Isn't that something you would expect at a "fine art" site?

Seems to me 123RF is floundering ... what with the prints and the recent venture into editorial uploads. Has anyone sold an editorial image there? Are your editorial images in the data base? Are they available for sale?

If it works, wonderful. How is this being marketed? Perhaps it would be better to stick to what you do best.

LostOne · « **Reply #19 on:** April 06, 2010, 16:23 »

Can I upsize the images for you and get the "lost" 37% of commissions? I swear I won't redistribute the images. Pretty plz!

borg · « **Reply #20 on:** April 06, 2010, 16:55 »

Right or wrong, but we're all guilty for that what happens to us in this industry ...

ThomasAmby · « **Reply #21 on:** April 06, 2010, 17:01 »

Hi Alex,

1) Can you please tell us how the remaining percentages are split between you and the third party? That would be only fair.
2) As already pointed out, why should the third party receive a commission every time the image is sold?
3) Will there be the possibility of opting out?

I'm glad you made an announcement, but please respond to the above questions so people can decide for themselves whether or not to stay with you. At this point, the deal sounds extremely bad to me as a contributor, so it would be great if you could clear things up. I don't care about 20, 40 or 60 credits if I know that would be 13,5% of the full sales price and there is a chance that the third party might be earning more money from my image than I am myself.

Best regards
Thomas

justin83 · « **Reply #22 on:** April 06, 2010, 17:06 »

You know to be quite frank I don't see what's wrong with what they're doing. Sure 13% may look very low compared to what they're earning but look at it this way: why would they distribute the profit evenly when they are the one that jump-started and implemented this service? We are contributors, not co-owners. What justifies us in getting 33% of profits? Also we don't know the costs of the implementation of this service. How much of the 87% are they keeping as profit? We certainly don't know and 123rf definitely don't have the obligation to tell you this information

Also come to think of it, if you sell your image at XXL without this service you get a commission of 2.5 credits. But if a client decides to use this service for this same image you earn 13% of 150credits =20 credits. That means you earn close to 800% of what you should have earned if there's no such service. That's a HUGE plus imho

Am I making sense here? I'm not siding with them, just trying to think from their point of view

le_cyclope · « **Reply #23 on:** April 06, 2010, 17:08 »

Hey guys, let's see it from another angle;

Customer 1 buys a large size photo, send it to a graphist (pay him few hundreds $) for touch up and upsize, ends up with a 450 mb photo. Photographer gets 5$.

Customer 2 buys the same photo at 123 RF and choose the 450mb TIFF photo, and use it without any other work on it. Photographer gets 60 credits ( $ ?).

What do you prefer?

Do you know of any photograph that had received a commission on the work done after his photo is sold? I don't.

(edit: agree with previous post! I don't type very fast

)

Claude

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #24 on:** April 06, 2010, 17:31 »

Quote from: justin83 on April 06, 2010, 17:06

Also come to think of it, if you sell your image at XXL without this service you get a commission of 2.5 credits. But if a client decides to use this service for this same image you earn 13% of 150credits =20 credits. That means you earn close to 800% of what you should have earned if there's no such service. That's a HUGE plus imho

That's why he thinks you should be absolutely thrilled with 13%. It's more than 2.5 credits! You should be kissing their feet for the opportunity!

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: 123RF Image Enlargement Services & Your Earnings (Read 33566 times)

alex123rf

Sean Locke Photography

gostwyck

RT

Klauts

alex123rf

KB

Sean Locke Photography

Snufkin

Sean Locke Photography

lisafx

borg

lisafx

borg

Xalanx

madelaide

gostwyck

Kone

WarrenPrice

LostOne

borg

ThomasAmby

justin83

le_cyclope

Sean Locke Photography

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors