123RF Image Enlargement Services & Your Earnings

« Reply #50 on: April 07, 2010, 12:20 »

#link

Quote from: alex123rf on April 06, 2010, 18:36

I would like to ask you this question now: If you'd like to opt out, kindly let me know and we will try to build an opt out mechanism for those who wish to opt out. I am sure that some of you here are programmers and don't like to have lots and lots of if...then....elses.

hi alex:

i just had a great month at 123, so am not complaining. if you do include this as an opt in/opt out (maybe even on individual images) for contributors, there is really nothing that i can find fault with.


	Ignore \| Logged

click_click

« Reply #51 on: April 07, 2010, 12:30 »

#link

Quote from: lisafx on April 07, 2010, 12:04

...
I like the suggestion from FD-amateur about uploading an original TIFF on request for an extra slice of the pie. Certainly this would yield a higher quality final product.
...

Lisa,
obviously 123RF has not previously considered of using converted TIFFs from our RAW files in order to maintain high quality.

This is what upsets me, that our content is not appreciated the way we appreciate it. We would go way beyond in order to make the client happy but instead we see blown up JPGs ( Tongue

) for a price that can be EASILY dropped to a more realistic level.

This is way too much money for this service.

Secondly, also sadly, a third party makes a killing off of retouching our own images.

Heck, 123RF can send me an email whenever a customer wants an image enlarged and I'll do it for $50 - jeepers creepers (no blasphemy intended).

You can't tell me that it takes 24 hours to work on such an image.

People, I'm in the wrong business. This sounds like we Microstockers are really doing something wrong.


	Ignore \| Logged

Dreamframer

« Reply #52 on: April 07, 2010, 13:46 »

#link

Hi Alex,
I think this is not bad at all, because if someone wants enlarged and retouched image and wants to pay for it, it's better for us all to get some money from it than to get nothing if the client goes to someone else to tho the same job. Probably many clients are not graphic designers who are able to do this job for them selves, so they pay other graphic designers to retouch images they bought on 123RF. In that case, 123RF made a pretty good deal. 123RF is providing new clients to X company that does retouching, and it's normal that X company gets the biggest piece of money. X company basically gives a discount to 123RF for providing new clients, and 123RF is sharing that smaller piece with us, giving us few percents more.
Anyone who thinks we are in worse position than company X should maybe open an Y company that will do the same job as Company X
I don't say I am satisfied with less and less money we make on microstock, but I'm afraid that we will earn even less in future. Starting from macrostock, through microstock, and subscriptions finally I see only the trend of decreasing earnings.

Alex, you should maybe provide an "opt out" button for those who don't want to be part of this service.


	Ignore \| Logged

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #53 on: April 07, 2010, 15:02 »

#link

if a buyer actually believes that a picture - converted to tiff from jpg and enlarged with some fancy fractal software and retouched - is really worth that ridiculous extra price, than he/she deserves to pay so much

for me, lossy cannot turn into lossless again, and true resolution cannot be invented through interpolation or reconstruction, however good the algorithm/retoucher - but then again if that's what the buyers want...

regarding our cut, I am NOT happy with 13%, however I admit it can't do any harm to us: it's extra cash for an additional service; so this deal is more acceptable than too low % for actual sales at some agencies

now the next time my clients will send me their 320x240 pictures made with a mobile phone and ask me to design a 3 storey high billboard, I know I can charge them a few extra hundred $ for resampling instead of telling them they went nuts Grin


« Last Edit: April 07, 2010, 16:26 by microstockphoto.co.uk »	Ignore \| Logged

Kone

« Reply #54 on: April 07, 2010, 15:21 »

#link

Quote from: click_click on April 07, 2010, 12:30

People, I'm in the wrong business. This sounds like we Microstockers are really doing something wrong.

I ask myself this question very often lately.


	Ignore \| Logged

ljooc

« Reply #55 on: April 07, 2010, 15:55 »

#link

I also had a great month @123rf. In fact the Ext license sales pay much better than at FT for me). 123rf has not reduced the contributor % unilaterally the last 18 months when things were slow (not the same can be said about FT for eg) What I got paid for each download, subscription or credit sales has not changed for the past 2 years, again not the case with FT. Furthermore 123rf communicates, they do consult contributors and value our inputs, I can't say that for many other sites. I am in favor of the additional revenue possibilities and I speak for myself only. I think adding an opt out option for contributors would be the right step.


	Ignore \| Logged

WarrenPrice

« Reply #56 on: April 07, 2010, 17:11 »

#link

Quote from: ap on April 07, 2010, 12:20

Quote from: alex123rf on April 06, 2010, 18:36

I too have had decent results since joining 123rf. My critical post was not intended to be negative but to bring attention to the fact that Dreamstime ... and I think a few others ... have tried selling prints and flopped. There are several other agencies who do this as their primary source of business. I do NOT think it is something that will produce any significant profit for 123rf.

And after reading the OP and comments more closely ... still do not believe there will be enough money generated to warrant the trouble. Are there any buyers here who would buy prints from 123rf rather than use your current publishers/printers?


	Ignore \| Logged

plrang

« Reply #57 on: April 07, 2010, 18:25 »

#link

300 bucks for resizing.. wow, it looks like the best April Fool's Grin

So when i sell my regular (not MS) image for 325$, the work i've put in it is 25$ and the rest is just for the resolution changes - ok now i know what to tell to the client:>

Also i think FTP does not work for me, have to use the XP tool instead :/ maybe it could be fixed too. And the Twitter checkboxes do not work - should they disappear after submitting?

And by the way, the OPT OUT of this would be great.


« Last Edit: April 07, 2010, 18:30 by plrang »	Ignore \| Logged

Anglee

« Reply #58 on: April 08, 2010, 02:13 »

#link

Quote from: plrang on April 07, 2010, 18:25

300 bucks for resizing.. wow, it looks like the best April Fool's Grin

Hi, the twitter checkbox has been fixed, it should work now. Thanks for the heads up!


	Ignore \| Logged

borg

« Reply #59 on: April 08, 2010, 05:47 »

#link

Alex explained to us that this is not usual "higher resolution sale"...
This is deal about resizing where contributor gets small part ,but still part of amount...
Buyer can make the same after transaction without contributor so thi is better option than nothing...


	Ignore \| Logged

ThomasAmby

« Reply #60 on: April 08, 2010, 12:24 »

#link

Quote from: alex123rf on April 06, 2010, 18:36

Hello All,

I read some of the responses yesterday right before I went to bed and was tempted to draft out a reply but after re-reading my draft, I found it to highly personal in nature and would prove to be highly embarrassing if I were to post it. After sleeping on it I believe I'm in the right frame of mind to write my response in a more logical light.

Let's consider the scenarios:

Scenario 1:
Customer purchases 5 credit version from us. They employ their own 3rd party agency for the enlargement, for which they'll be charged at around the same price.

Your earnings: Max $2.50
Our earnings: Max $2.50
How much did you earn from the enlargement process: $0.00

Scenario 2:
Customer A purchases 5 credit version from us. They employ their own 3rd party agency for the enlargement, for which they'll be charged at around the same price. Customer B purchases the SAME image, also goes and employs the same 3rd party agency for the enlargement...

Your earnings: 2 x Max $2.50
Our earnings: 2 x Max $2.50
How much did you earn from the enlargement process: $0.00

Question: Do you think Customer B will get the enlargement for FREE when the same agency has done the enlargement before?

Scenario 3
Agency purchases your image on behalf of a client, creates an entire ad campaign for the client, edits the image a little and puts in some copy.

Your earnings: Max $2.50
Our earnings: Max $2.50

Question: Can you ask for all 3 parties (Agency, Contributor - You and 123RF) to share the earnings to be split in 1/3 shares?

Scenario 4
I purchase some anti-virus, say AVG. I go over to my client's place, and clean up their PC and perform an installation of AVG. I later billed the client, with the cost of AVG purchase built into my invoice.

Question: Can Grisoft request for 1/2 of what I earn with their Anti-virus?

Scenario 5
A plumber purchases a stop-cog and goes to a client's place to replace a faulty stop-cog. He charges whatever he wishes to charge at a level that the customer can accept.

Question: Is the plumber then, obligated to share his earnings with the stop-cog manufacturer apart from the price of the stop-cog itself?

Coming back, I hope this puts things into a clearer picture for everyone. Please stop looking at 13.3% as being unfair because under a free economy, ANYONE can add on value to your product and charge 100% for that service and leave you out of the loop entirely. I believe with 13.3% we have been equitable as we have built in asset management, infrastructure, bandwidth and a market place for which these transactions can take place.

As for the questions that Thomas has posed:

1. How much is 123RF making, the answer is simple:
We make 25% - 13.3% = 11.7% from the transaction. Why we come up with 13.3% for you and be happy with a smaller cut? Because it's easier for us to calculate earnings and we do treat you as equal business partners.

2. Why should an image get charged again and again for the same blow up.
Because it's easier that way to view it as a request on the client's behalf. At the moment, these downloads are very sporadic, we receive at most 3 per day, and 1 per day on average. The likelihood of another enlargement occurring on the exact same image, at the same size is remote. Therefore, for the sake of simplicity we simplified things further in this manner.

3. We have (wrongly apparently) thought that we have done everyone a great favor by introducing this as no matter how we cut things, everyone seems to benefit, hence, opting out, was not built in. I would like to ask you this question now: If you'd like to opt out, kindly let me know and we will try to build an opt out mechanism for those who wish to opt out. I am sure that some of you here are programmers and don't like to have lots and lots of if...then....elses.

Now for the question "Why does 123RF seem to think this is a piece of GOOD NEWS?"
Wise men say, "13.3% of something is always better than 100% (or 50% or 33.3%) of N-O-T-H-I-N-G!" We'd honestly thought that our share of 11.7% is good, because we got nothing previously, and your share of 13.3% is a little better than ours. So everyone should 'technically' be happier!

Thank you, if you have any further questions, do let me know.

Alex
for 123RF.com

Thanks for the clarification. I'm seeing it from a completely different perspective now (I still think 75% to the third party is an awful lot though)

Thomas