MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: "Download pack" = massive discounts & 1 royalty credit per sale. Bad news.  (Read 14025 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 07, 2014, 14:00 »
+15
Edited to summarize what we now know about Download Packs:

Bulk credit-like packs but a buyer gets any image (up to XXL) or EPS (no EVO, audio or video) for max $1.39 and minimum 82.2 cents (USD prices) - i.e. massively cheaper than buying credits.

The contributor gets one royalty credit (instead of 6 or 10 for XXL or EPS; think of what that will do for your future royalty level) and their percentage of the above price. There is a one month pack or one year - so expiration is the same as credits (12 months).

After much prodding, 123rf finally provided the details in this post:

http://www.microstockgroup.com/123royaltyfree-com/royalties-on-'download-pack'-aren't-at-your-level/msg387443/#msg387443

This is my original post:

123rf has a Download Pack option - not sure when it first started, but it currently says "limited time offer"

http://www.123rf.com/islogin_globalv10.2.php

And here's the image in case it isn't the same everywhere or goes away



I noticed this because I had contacted support about a subscription download that wasn't showing the right amount. I get 45% royalties, so my subs downloads should be 32.4 cents. I check at the beginning of the month because in the past they have paid out at the wrong rate for a while. This sub was at 26.7 cents - not the base rate of 21.6 cent I've seen before.

A day or so later the amount went up to 40.1 cents so I replied to support that the number had changed but it still wasn't correct - now it was too high. I received a reply this morning that it was correct because the "subscription" was from a download pack and that was the rate.

I'm not sure what to think of this. At $1.39 per image (if they buy for a month and get 100 images), my 40.1 cents is 28.7%, quite a bit shy of my 45% royalty. As this is a non-subscription subscription (the numbers roll over if you renew in 30 days) that seems very much like the scams we've seen with DP and Fotolia's Dollar Photo Club.

If someone buys the  1200 images for a year I get 34.6% - better, but still shy of 45%

I didn't see any e-mail to contributors about this and honestly I don't see why it's OK to slightly hike the subscription payout on a credit pack instead of paying the agreed upon rate (45% in my case) - 62.6 cents or 52.1 cents, depending on the package.

ETA: Is the unlimited print run new? I hadn't realized they had no limit on print runs....
« Last Edit: July 17, 2014, 10:28 by Jo Ann Snover »


« Reply #1 on: July 07, 2014, 18:03 »
+2
I'd love to see 123 come in here and provide some clarification. Their silence, knowing they follow these forums, is telling.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2014, 06:23 by Mantis »

« Reply #2 on: July 08, 2014, 12:53 »
+16
I sent a note to support about this, saying they need to fix this and pay me the 45% I'm owed on these sales, and that they can't start calling things subscriptions when they aren't just to cut payments to us.

I'll post here when I get an answer.

« Reply #3 on: July 08, 2014, 13:04 »
+10
It's beginning to feel like the agencies are colluding to shift the definition of 'subscriptions' in their favour.....

« Reply #4 on: July 08, 2014, 13:18 »
+7
What's weird about this one is they're not even trying to call it a subscription. And although it's not as bad as what others are offering, the idea that they can have a "pack" product and call it exactly that and yet still just pay out subscription royalties is disturbing.

« Reply #5 on: July 08, 2014, 14:05 »
+2
What's weird about this one is they're not even trying to call it a subscription. And although it's not as bad as what others are offering, the idea that they can have a "pack" product and call it exactly that and yet still just pay out subscription royalties is disturbing.

Furthering your point, how long have they been doing this, how many other "packs" have they offered like this over the years that were essentially priced the same way but the commission scheme wasn't caught? I mean, Joanne had to check just because something didn't see right, and low and behold, they are pulling the same thing as the other two turds in a toilet.

« Reply #6 on: July 09, 2014, 12:04 »
+4
I don't yet have an answer from support, but I had a download this morning in the subscription column with a royalty of 52.2 cents.

At a guess, I'd say this might be for the $1.39 sale (100 images a month for $139) and perhaps the 40.1 cents from July 3 was the volume pack (1200 images a year for $1390)

Even if this is right, that's still 37.5% and 34.6%, not the 45% I should be receiving.

« Reply #7 on: July 09, 2014, 12:15 »
+2
I don't yet have an answer from support, but I had a download this morning in the subscription column with a royalty of 52.2 cents.

At a guess, I'd say this might be for the $1.39 sale (100 images a month for $139) and perhaps the 40.1 cents from July 3 was the volume pack (1200 images a year for $1390)

Even if this is right, that's still 37.5% and 34.6%, not the 45% I should be receiving.

Please keep us posted, Jo Ann. How they respond is important. My guess is that they are trying to craft a response that is believable.


« Reply #9 on: July 11, 2014, 09:08 »
+24
This doesn't explain anything!  None of those numbers match the two amounts I have received

I did write already

These payouts are a total ripoff and not at the percentages shown given the price the buyer pays

ETA: some comparisons of prices and royalties

These download packs include images up to XXL (normally 6 credits) and EPS (10 credits).

At the lowest rates for credit sales  (our past guarantee was that 40 cents per credit was the lowest for royalty calculations) at 45% (level 4) that would mean:

$1.08 royalty for XXL and $1.80 for EPS

Using the pricing available on the site, if I were to buy 7200 credits (enough to buy 1200 XXL images) I'd pay $5,140.80, or 71 cents a credit. That would mean royalties of

$1.92 for XXL and $3.19 for EPS

Of course I don't know why I'd buy 7200 credits when I can buy a download pack for $1,390 - why pay over 3.6 times as much? The one year expiration is the same for both.

Even if I received 45% of what the buyer paid for these packs, I'd get 62.5 cents for the monthly pack and 52.1 cents for the annual pack - not 37 cents

I have so far see two of these sales. I'm going to monitor them because it seems to me that the pricing is attractive and the cut in royalties - once again; I'm not forgetting the cut from 50% to 45% - is an utterly unjustifiable action.

I will consider pulling my portfolio over this - good income or no (and 123rf is a good earner). I am so sick of scummy, underhanded tactics where agencies just take more for themselves without (a) telling us up front and (b) giving us anything in return (those doubled sales promises from the time of the introduction of the rolling 12 month royalty rate scheme ring rather hollow).
« Last Edit: July 11, 2014, 12:31 by Jo Ann Snover »

« Reply #10 on: July 11, 2014, 09:23 »
+6
This doesn't explain anything!  None of those numbers match the two amounts I have received

I did write already

These payouts are a total ripoff and not at the percentages shown given the price the buyer pays

Either there is a reporting bug or they are doing the same thing as Fotolia and Depositphotos. I am at 45% as well and this just doesn't make sense to me.

« Reply #11 on: July 11, 2014, 22:50 »
+14
I just checked the rest of today's downloads and I have a third new number for a "subscription" download:

0.374

That's not my regular subscription (45%) royalty of 0.324, or the number Anglee posted, or the number I got on July 3 that they corrected, or the 0.522 from a sub on July 9th!

It's also not 45% of any of the posted download pack prices. What on earth is going on with these "subscription" amounts?

Support can't or won't reply to me (I haven't received anything since the explanation that 0.401 was the correct sub royalty for a download pack).

We need to be paid the earned percentage on these sales and know just how low they're discounting - i.e. does it go lower than one year for 1200 downloads at $1,390?

The fact that they corrected the first one that I happened to notice, plus the conflicting information given so far does not fill me with confidence.

These are my files and I believe I have a right to know how and for how much they are being sold.
 

« Reply #12 on: July 14, 2014, 00:37 »
+3
Hiya,

Please find the commission level of each download pack as below:

Contributors LevelCommission LevelEarnings/Download
130.00%$0.25
235.00%$0.29
340.00%$0.33
445.00%$0.37
550.00%$0.41
652.00%$0.43
754.00%$0.44
856.00%$0.46
958.00%$0.47
1060.00%$0.49

Please email to submission@123rf.com if got any download pack inquiries


Cheers,
Anglee

How did 123RF come up with those numbers?

If you are going to pretend that they are subscriptions then you need to pay a higher percentage than the per image cost based on the fact that not all subscription downloads are realized. If all dl are realized then they are not subs, but you still need to pay the listed percentages of the per image cost.

I fear 123RF are going on double secret probation. The percent cut without the promised doubling of sales was bad enough.

Thanks for keeping an eye on these things Jo Ann. All I have had is my regular low low sub sales there so far.

MxR

« Reply #13 on: July 14, 2014, 03:36 »
+2
Hiya,

Please find the commission level of each download pack as below:

Contributors LevelCommission LevelEarnings/Download
130.00%$0.25
235.00%$0.29
340.00%$0.33
445.00%$0.37
550.00%$0.41
652.00%$0.43
754.00%$0.44
856.00%$0.46
958.00%$0.47
1060.00%$0.49

Please email to submission@123rf.com if got any download pack inquiries


Cheers,
Anglee

hey!!!!

Levels are incorrect!!

First level is 0,21 subs (worst in market)...

PZF

« Reply #14 on: July 14, 2014, 07:06 »
+1
And I'm level 3 and get just 28c for a sub.
Something's wrong here.....have emailed them.

« Reply #15 on: July 14, 2014, 08:42 »
+3
I received a useful reply from support. I've asked if I can list it here

The amounts are paid as a percentage at your level. The variations are because of different currencies and different discounts (bigger than shown on the web site)

It's a bundle that results in very cheap images, but only with very large volume commitments

« Reply #16 on: July 14, 2014, 09:29 »
0
I'm level 4 and I get 32 cents for a sub. Those levels aren't correct.

« Reply #17 on: July 14, 2014, 12:27 »
+4
I received a useful reply from support. I've asked if I can list it here

The amounts are paid as a percentage at your level. The variations are because of different currencies and different discounts (bigger than shown on the web site)

It's a bundle that results in very cheap images, but only with very large volume commitments

Not that 123 is doing this, but who knows......at Dollar Photo Club (FOTOLIA) they claimed the same thing, but in fact I qualified as a large customer...me, one single person who no longer buys images. Just sayin.

« Reply #18 on: July 16, 2014, 01:54 »
-3
Hiya,

Download pack is introduced by 123RF as another type of subscription.  The download pack is offered in all different currencies and additional discounts depending on situation. Thus, it is NOT a flat rate in contributor earnings. The difference between "Subscription Plan" and "Download Pack" is as below:

  • Subscription plan = Daily Limit
  • Download Pack = Total Download Limit

The table that posted earlier showed the Lowest Earnings/Download of Download Pack that contributors received on each level. In short, Download Pack will still be recorded under subscription with a different payout price; slightly higher compare to the traditional subscription plan. You may refer to the table below:

   Contributors Level      Commission Level      Earnings/Download (Subscription Plan)      Earnings/Download (Download Pack)   
   1      30.00%      $0.216      $0.25 - $0.46   
   2      35.00%      $0.252      $0.29 - $0.53   
   3      40.00%      $0.288      $0.33 - $0.61   
   4      45.00%      $0.324      $0.37 - $0.69   
   5      50.00%      $0.360      $0.41 - $0.76   
   6      52.00%      $0.374      $0.43 - $0.79   
   7      54.00%      $0.389      $0.44 - $0.82   
   8      56.00%      $0.403      $0.46 - $0.85   
   9      58.00%      $0.418      $0.47 - $0.88   
   10      60.00%      $0.432      $0.49 - $0.91   

Hope this explanation could help in clearing your misunderstanding and confusion on our newly launched download pack.


Thanks,
Anglee

« Reply #19 on: July 16, 2014, 02:48 »
+16
In other words, just another scheme to sell images as cheap as possible.

Why don't you ever come up with ideas how to sell for higher prices and pay more to your contributors?

« Reply #20 on: July 16, 2014, 03:14 »
+10
  • Subscription plan = Daily Limit
  • Download Pack = Total Download Limit

In other words another attempt to disguise a credit package as a "subscription" in order to pay us a lower royalty. Is it a coincidence that I see a drastic reduction in my "credit sales" in favor of "subscription" sales?

MxR

« Reply #21 on: July 16, 2014, 05:02 »
+10
Hiya,

Download pack is introduced by 123RF as another type of subscription.  The download pack is offered in all different currencies and additional discounts depending on situation. Thus, it is NOT a flat rate in contributor earnings. The difference between "Subscription Plan" and "Download Pack" is as below:

  • Subscription plan = Daily Limit
  • Download Pack = Total Download Limit

The table that posted earlier showed the Lowest Earnings/Download of Download Pack that contributors received on each level. In short, Download Pack will still be recorded under subscription with a different payout price; slightly higher compare to the traditional subscription plan. You may refer to the table below:

   Contributors Level      Commission Level      Earnings/Download (Subscription Plan)      Earnings/Download (Download Pack)   
   1      30.00%      $0.216      $0.25 - $0.46   
   2      35.00%      $0.252      $0.29 - $0.53   
   3      40.00%      $0.288      $0.33 - $0.61   
   4      45.00%      $0.324      $0.37 - $0.69   
   5      50.00%      $0.360      $0.41 - $0.76   
   6      52.00%      $0.374      $0.43 - $0.79   
   7      54.00%      $0.389      $0.44 - $0.82   
   8      56.00%      $0.403      $0.46 - $0.85   
   9      58.00%      $0.418      $0.47 - $0.88   
   10      60.00%      $0.432      $0.49 - $0.91   

Hope this explanation could help in clearing your misunderstanding and confusion on our newly launched download pack.


Thanks,
Anglee

and... we are agree with this? new terms and conditions?

Dollar Photo Club- Out
Deposit Photos- Out
123RF- ... first RC "imposible" earning (and you are NOT a big earner like Istock) and now these... future: Out

« Reply #22 on: July 16, 2014, 05:11 »
+7
Oh dear, I thought things were bad at 123RF with the introduction of their RC system and low, low subs pricing. The promise of doubled downloads / income never materialised (anyone surprised?). Now they introduce subscription priced credit packs. *sighs*

« Reply #23 on: July 16, 2014, 07:17 »
+1
Oh dear, I thought things were bad at 123RF with the introduction of their RC system and low, low subs pricing. The promise of doubled downloads / income never materialised (anyone surprised?). Now they introduce subscription priced credit packs. *sighs*

Yes m-gue I believe this is the new norm. Reversing it will be next to impossible as we do not have the influence to change policy. Yes we own the images, but 10 of us pulling our ports won't cut the mustard. We need 50-75% of all contributors to pull their ports and that simply won't happen.  It's irreversible in my mind.

« Reply #24 on: July 16, 2014, 08:14 »
+13
Download pack is introduced by 123RF as another type of subscription.  The download pack is offered in all different currencies and additional discounts depending on situation. Thus, it is NOT a flat rate in contributor earnings. The difference between "Subscription Plan" and "Download Pack" is as below...

Thanks for popping in to discuss this, Anglee.

So this is a sort of variable subscription royalty system under the Download Pack product, right? That's kind of unusual, and I hope you can appreciate how disturbing this is. It is already a bit difficult to accept these new products that are very loosely defined as subscription products even when they don't even bear the name "subscription" in the title. Now we're adding in the variable subscription royalty, in which it seems that the contributor eats the cost of a discount or currency exchange.

I'm disappointed to hear that 123RF is joining this trend of finding new and creative ways to pay contributors less. I sincerely hope the company will reconsider going in this direction.

Valo

« Reply #25 on: July 16, 2014, 10:20 »
+11
I am actually depressed right now. We are being pushed into a corner. There is no where to go. All agencies are going with this new model. I hope for the love of anything that the factories will start to become unsustainable so that they will start pulling their weight and hopefully turn things around.

ShadySue

« Reply #26 on: July 16, 2014, 10:43 »
0
I am actually depressed right now. We are being pushed into a corner. There is no where to go. All agencies are going with this new model. I hope for the love of anything that the factories will start to become unsustainable so that they will start pulling their weight and hopefully turn things around.

It'll take longer for the factories, if they're sharing studios, equipment, models, props - economies of scale (depending on how they work).

« Reply #27 on: July 16, 2014, 11:26 »
+23
So I'm glad that 123rf has posted the earnings chart here and explained how this new credit bundle works. I'm no longer concerned that my rate is below the level I have attained, but I do have other questions/issues:

1. For the purpose of calculating our 12 month credit total, how many virtual credits does this new download pack count for? Subscriptions count for 1, but 123rf makes much more money per image via a download pack than via a subscription, so I think contributors should be credited for more than one as well

http://www.123rf.com/contrib_structure.php

If someone purchased an XXL image of mine via credits, however heavily discounted, I made 6 credits for the purpose of future royalty calculations and minimum $1.08 royalty. With these new download packs, I make 1 credit for royalty purposes and 37 cents. That's a 65% reduction in earnings and an 83% reduction in credit for future royalties.

It doesn't take a math genius to see that I'll soon be dropping down the royalty levels if these download packs take off.

2. Is the earnings chart per download pack posted anywhere on the site? I don't see it in the link above where subscription royalties are posted. We shouldn't have to ask to have our earnings charts updated as soon as new products are introduced.

3. Why were contributors not notified of this new product? You have the ability to alert us to things on login, there's a blog, you could send out e-mail... The only conclusion I can draw is that you knew we wouldn't like it and were hoping we might not notice. That's just not acceptable.

4. What is the smallest number of images a buyer can purchase with a download pack? What number of images, and what expiration period, get the buyer the lowest price?

You've posted two options ($139 a month or $1,390 a year) on the site but there are clearly more options given the royalty chart you provided.

At the lowest price, working back from what contributors are paid, a buyer can purchase an XXL image or vector for 82.2 cents! That buyer price is below my current royalty floor ($1.08) for a 6 credit XXL sale.

Given a one year expiration, why would any large, regular buyer purchase credits after their current bundle runs out? Video, EVO (but if Sean's experience with EVO is any guide, that's not a big seller) & TIFF are the only things you'd need credits for. I don't sell two of those and the TIFF purchases are very few and far between.

So this looks to me like a massive price cut for buyers and for contributors a path to a drastically lower future royalty level.

Is there any "good news" I'm missing is this train wreck?

« Reply #28 on: July 16, 2014, 11:37 »
+1
So I'm glad that 123rf has posted the earnings chart here and explained how this new credit bundle works. I'm no longer concerned that my rate is below the level I have attained, but I do have other questions/issues:

1. For the purpose of calculating our 12 month credit total, how many virtual credits does this new download pack count for? Subscriptions count for 1, but 123rf makes much more money per image via a download pack than via a subscription, so I think contributors should be credited for more than one as well

http://www.123rf.com/contrib_structure.php

If someone purchased an XXL image of mine via credits, however heavily discounted, I made 6 credits for the purpose of future royalty calculations and minimum $1.08 royalty. With these new download packs, I make 1 credit for royalty purposes and 37 cents. That's a 65% reduction in earnings and an 83% reduction in credit for future royalties.

It doesn't take a math genius to see that I'll soon be dropping down the royalty levels if these download packs take off.

2. Is the earnings chart per download pack posted anywhere on the site? I don't see it in the link above where subscription royalties are posted. We shouldn't have to ask to have our earnings charts updated as soon as new products are introduced.

3. Why were contributors not notified of this new product? You have the ability to alert us to things on login, there's a blog, you could send out e-mail... The only conclusion I can draw is that you knew we wouldn't like it and were hoping we might not notice. That's just not acceptable.

4. What is the smallest number of images a buyer can purchase with a download pack? What number of images, and what expiration period, get the buyer the lowest price?

You've posted two options ($139 a month or $1,390 a year) on the site but there are clearly more options given the royalty chart you provided.

At the lowest price, working back from what contributors are paid, a buyer can purchase an XXL image or vector for 82.2 cents! That buyer price is below my current royalty floor ($1.08) for a 6 credit XXL sale.

Given a one year expiration, why would any large, regular buyer purchase credits after their current bundle runs out? Video, EVO (but if Sean's experience with EVO is any guide, that's not a big seller) & TIFF are the only things you'd need credits for. I don't sell two of those and the TIFF purchases are very few and far between.

So this looks to me like a massive price cut for buyers and for contributors a path to a drastically lower future royalty level.

Is there any "good news" I'm missing is this train wreck?


Great summary.

« Reply #29 on: July 16, 2014, 12:14 »
+1
So I'm glad that 123rf has posted the earnings chart here and explained how this new credit bundle works. I'm no longer concerned that my rate is below the level I have attained, but I do have other questions/issues:

1. For the purpose of calculating our 12 month credit total, how many virtual credits does this new download pack count for? Subscriptions count for 1, but 123rf makes much more money per image via a download pack than via a subscription, so I think contributors should be credited for more than one as well

http://www.123rf.com/contrib_structure.php

If someone purchased an XXL image of mine via credits, however heavily discounted, I made 6 credits for the purpose of future royalty calculations and minimum $1.08 royalty. With these new download packs, I make 1 credit for royalty purposes and 37 cents. That's a 65% reduction in earnings and an 83% reduction in credit for future royalties.

It doesn't take a math genius to see that I'll soon be dropping down the royalty levels if these download packs take off.

2. Is the earnings chart per download pack posted anywhere on the site? I don't see it in the link above where subscription royalties are posted. We shouldn't have to ask to have our earnings charts updated as soon as new products are introduced.

3. Why were contributors not notified of this new product? You have the ability to alert us to things on login, there's a blog, you could send out e-mail... The only conclusion I can draw is that you knew we wouldn't like it and were hoping we might not notice. That's just not acceptable.

4. What is the smallest number of images a buyer can purchase with a download pack? What number of images, and what expiration period, get the buyer the lowest price?

You've posted two options ($139 a month or $1,390 a year) on the site but there are clearly more options given the royalty chart you provided.

At the lowest price, working back from what contributors are paid, a buyer can purchase an XXL image or vector for 82.2 cents! That buyer price is below my current royalty floor ($1.08) for a 6 credit XXL sale.

Given a one year expiration, why would any large, regular buyer purchase credits after their current bundle runs out? Video, EVO (but if Sean's experience with EVO is any guide, that's not a big seller) & TIFF are the only things you'd need credits for. I don't sell two of those and the TIFF purchases are very few and far between.

So this looks to me like a massive price cut for buyers and for contributors a path to a drastically lower future royalty level.

Is there any "good news" I'm missing is this train wreck?


Great questions, Jo Ann - will be interesting to see how 123rf respond to this...

« Reply #30 on: July 16, 2014, 12:31 »
0
So I'm glad that 123rf has posted the earnings chart here and explained how this new credit bundle works. I'm no longer concerned that my rate is below the level I have attained, but I do have other questions/issues:

1. For the purpose of calculating our 12 month credit total, how many virtual credits does this new download pack count for? Subscriptions count for 1, but 123rf makes much more money per image via a download pack than via a subscription, so I think contributors should be credited for more than one as well

http://www.123rf.com/contrib_structure.php

If someone purchased an XXL image of mine via credits, however heavily discounted, I made 6 credits for the purpose of future royalty calculations and minimum $1.08 royalty. With these new download packs, I make 1 credit for royalty purposes and 37 cents. That's a 65% reduction in earnings and an 83% reduction in credit for future royalties.

It doesn't take a math genius to see that I'll soon be dropping down the royalty levels if these download packs take off.

2. Is the earnings chart per download pack posted anywhere on the site? I don't see it in the link above where subscription royalties are posted. We shouldn't have to ask to have our earnings charts updated as soon as new products are introduced.

3. Why were contributors not notified of this new product? You have the ability to alert us to things on login, there's a blog, you could send out e-mail... The only conclusion I can draw is that you knew we wouldn't like it and were hoping we might not notice. That's just not acceptable.

4. What is the smallest number of images a buyer can purchase with a download pack? What number of images, and what expiration period, get the buyer the lowest price?

You've posted two options ($139 a month or $1,390 a year) on the site but there are clearly more options given the royalty chart you provided.

At the lowest price, working back from what contributors are paid, a buyer can purchase an XXL image or vector for 82.2 cents! That buyer price is below my current royalty floor ($1.08) for a 6 credit XXL sale.

Given a one year expiration, why would any large, regular buyer purchase credits after their current bundle runs out? Video, EVO (but if Sean's experience with EVO is any guide, that's not a big seller) & TIFF are the only things you'd need credits for. I don't sell two of those and the TIFF purchases are very few and far between.

So this looks to me like a massive price cut for buyers and for contributors a path to a drastically lower future royalty level.

Is there any "good news" I'm missing is this train wreck?


Great questions, Jo Ann - will be interesting to see how 123rf respond to this...


I would be shocked if they responded in here. Especially in a way that made sense. I am quite certain that this is merely another way to gouge contributors and they were exposed. Just like deposit photos and Fotolia. And I also personally don't think they care what we think, just like deposit photos and Fotolia.

« Reply #31 on: July 16, 2014, 13:35 »
+5
I agree. They don't seem to give a sh*t what we think. My biggest worry is that SS will be forced to travel down this route to compete. If that happens it might just be game over...

« Reply #32 on: July 16, 2014, 13:54 »
+6
I'm going to watch my sales more closely than I usually do to see what sort of volume this new approach brings.

If it never picks up speed, then we're good - whatever goodwill I had towards 123rf disintegrated when they changed the royalty scheme from 50% for everyone. At this point it's just about the cash at the end of the month.

If the volume picks up (I wish they'd separate these out, but I'll count any non 32.4 cent subscription as a download pack), I'll have to decide whether or not to pull my images - I know they don't care either way, but I'm not going to help these agencies beat me up!

« Reply #33 on: July 16, 2014, 14:22 »
+3
I'm going to watch my sales more closely than I usually do to see what sort of volume this new approach brings.

If it never picks up speed, then we're good - whatever goodwill I had towards 123rf disintegrated when they changed the royalty scheme from 50% for everyone. At this point it's just about the cash at the end of the month.

If the volume picks up (I wish they'd separate these out, but I'll count any non 32.4 cent subscription as a download pack), I'll have to decide whether or not to pull my images - I know they don't care either way, but I'm not going to help these agencies beat me up!

Have you seen on their log in page "earn up to 60% of the net selling price"? Wow what a misleading statement.

« Reply #34 on: July 17, 2014, 11:26 »
+6
So another "download pack" sale this morning - 44.6 cents.

I decided to take a look back at June (I don't normally monitor things all that closely) and I found some download pack sales there!

And May!

April looked clean, so I stopped checking. May 13th was the first of these sales and I have a total of 16 so far, for $6.83 royalty for me.

If I assume all these were XXL sales, I have 16 royalty credits vs. 96 and even at the minimum royalty for credits (based on 40 cents per at the buyer end) I would have earned $17.28.

That is a drop of $10.45 in my income for those 16 sales (a 60.5% drop)!

There might be more of the sales, because for any day with multiple sales for one image I can't tell whether the item listed in the subs column is a download pack or an actual subscription.

So 123rf has been offering these packs since at least May 13th without bothering to notify contributors.

Only one of the sales was at the high end of the rate scale (indicating a monthly pack), suggesting 15 of the 16 were people buying into the larger annual expiration bundle - and thus more of these sales to come.

One was for a royalty just about at the bottom of the scale for my level (4) - 37.4 cents, where 37 cents is the floor. I don't know how many images were in such a pack, but it'd be a lot more than 1,200, the largest pack they advertise openly on the site.

The more I look at this the nastier it appears...

« Last Edit: July 17, 2014, 12:34 by Jo Ann Snover »

Valo

« Reply #35 on: July 17, 2014, 11:47 »
0
I was on the up till April and then it dropped, I wondered why... now we know. Sigh.

« Reply #36 on: July 17, 2014, 12:29 »
+1
The more I look at this the nastier it appears...

This describes microstock on the whole.  Kind of like looking under a rock or a rotted log. 

« Reply #37 on: July 19, 2014, 06:22 »
+8
Keep pissing people off,  one of these days some smart person is going to see a chance at instant success just by offering all the contributors respect of not bending them over and going at them anytime you want more money.  Some day somebody might just get an attourney and all this crap and all these lies are going to step on some anti trust law.

And also someday some of these contributors are going to figure out that their hanging on to the lies for a few pennies is what is allowing these companies to treat them like whores.

Grease up people, it's not going to stop here.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2014, 05:44 by old crow »

« Reply #38 on: July 19, 2014, 06:53 »
+4
When i closed my account with 123rf they asked me "for their records" what the reasons were for me leaving.

My response (shortened quote): .." feel that you are trying to compete in the market by strongly undercutting prices - a policy that for me as the artist is not beneficial at all and that I do not wish to support any further."

And that was before the download packs made any impact... .

I am sure they value contributors ...  :-\ :-\ [/sarcasm off]

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #39 on: July 19, 2014, 19:49 »
+12
Oh please no, not another shady scheme to lower contributor's commissions? I've had it with EVERY. SINGLE. agency trying to pull crap like this. 123RF is already one of the 'bad' ones (remember the sudden commission cut and the promised doubling of sales that never happened? Another crap story...) and this is another step in the wrong direction. Why do agencies ALWAYS seem to want the worst for their contributors? Sure, it's business, and it's not always fair, but the microstock industry is poisoned enough already with greedy, money-grubbing agencies. And yes, 123RF, you're one of them.

« Reply #40 on: July 20, 2014, 00:26 »
0
... remember the sudden commission cut and the promised doubling of sales that never happened?

In the fact I was doing much better before that... Now I even can't get $50 to close account  ::)  With this 0.216 I'd have to sell over 230 files. Now I sell 0-5 monthly! I'll be old woman when get my payment  >:(  :-\ Will 123rf still exist?

Who is making images cheaper is killing himself - wrong way to improve income.

« Reply #41 on: July 20, 2014, 00:33 »
+4
These payouts are a total ripoff.  >:(

« Reply #42 on: July 20, 2014, 05:51 »
+3
Contributors need to be provided OPT OUT options on all these crappy schemes!!

As far as 123RF is concerned, my slide down began there some time after they introduced their 'tier system', which seems to punish contributors for the agency's own inability to sell one's content.  Rates at this agency are already among the lowest. And now this - the pack.  We need opt out.

Tryingmybest

  • Stand up for what is right
« Reply #43 on: July 20, 2014, 16:58 »
+8
Generally speaking, those with power prefer to keep all wealth and suck the blood of the poor, hard-working laborers. History is replete with them. However, history is also replete with revolution against these bloodsuckers. People like JoAnn another others are important sounding boards to warn the digital lords of the land that they had better listen and shun greed. 8)

Oh please no, not another shady scheme to lower contributor's commissions? I've had it with EVERY. SINGLE. agency trying to pull crap like this. 123RF is already one of the 'bad' ones (remember the sudden commission cut and the promised doubling of sales that never happened? Another crap story...) and this is another step in the wrong direction. Why do agencies ALWAYS seem to want the worst for their contributors? Sure, it's business, and it's not always fair, but the microstock industry is poisoned enough already with greedy, money-grubbing agencies. And yes, 123RF, you're one of them.

PZF

« Reply #44 on: July 24, 2014, 12:42 »
+2
I've already emailed my disappointment to Microstockgroup over the fact that DP is promoted so prominentnly in this month's July News email to contributors.

oops. wrong thread.sorry!
« Last Edit: July 26, 2014, 06:25 by PZF »

« Reply #45 on: July 24, 2014, 13:00 »
+1
The more I look at this the nastier it appears...

This describes microstock on the whole.  Kind of like looking under a rock or a rotted log.

+100
or more like gosano (worms from a carcass, as the latinos say).

still, knowing the calibre and history of you, Jo Ann...
along with some sorely missed regularly like Lisafx, Paulie Walnut, christian,lagereek,etc..

i am even asking why you are not with Stocksy, Offset, or Symbiostock. or even starting your own
coop , or "tribal stock" , as i call it. you all know microstock is  rotten already,
why sit and get beat up???

if you (lisa, paulie, christian, ...) start a war, "Tribal-stock", many will follow you...
, i am sure !  even little salemanders can feed off a sewer and rotten wood
(as in ft, 123,even SS soon as rinderart thread ask SS do you care? )

 grow big together.  better than sit and rot with wood and die under rock with other gusanos
« Last Edit: July 24, 2014, 14:16 by etudiante_rapide »

« Reply #46 on: July 24, 2014, 16:44 »
+3
i am even asking why you are not with Stocksy, Offset, or Symbiostock. or even starting your own
coop , or "tribal stock" , as i call it. you all know microstock is  rotten already,
why sit and get beat up???

I'm not with Stocksy because Bruce wrote back asking if it had work "more like this" - pointing to their Pinterest board - and I don't. I don't think like that, shoot like that and so although I'd be happy to be part of something like Stocksy, I'm not what they want for the moment. I haven' approached offset - I think they're looking for well known names, but I haven't really explored that.

I have a Symbiostock site and was part of the WarmPicture coop (I didn't run it; Dan Padavona did that). I'd rather crush my skull with a rock than run a coop :)

I'm exploring Canva; I'm with GL stock (fair trade just not much in the way of sales); I considered Stockbo but haven't uploaded. I remain open to new ideas if there are any (Pocketstock seemed like a good idea but just struggled for a while and then I left before it became RooM).

PZF

« Reply #47 on: July 26, 2014, 06:26 »
+1
To think I used to consider 123 as one of the 'fair' sites - 50/50 and all that.
Sad..............

« Reply #48 on: September 04, 2014, 09:41 »
+3
So it appears the download packs are gone - this is what I see today on the pricing page (US site): http://digitalbristles.com/temp/123rf-no-download-packs.jpg

I had been tracking the "subs" that weren't my regular rate and noticed some big gaps - after July 24th, I didn't see another until August 19th. One more on Aug 22 and nothing since. I guess they stopped selling these and the stragglers in August were just using up what they had?

I don't remember seeing anything about these packs going away (but then they didn't tell us they had introduced them either) but I'm happy that they have.

« Reply #49 on: September 04, 2014, 18:50 »
+4
So it appears the download packs are gone - this is what I see today on the pricing page (US site): http://digitalbristles.com/temp/123rf-no-download-packs.jpg

I had been tracking the "subs" that weren't my regular rate and noticed some big gaps - after July 24th, I didn't see another until August 19th. One more on Aug 22 and nothing since. I guess they stopped selling these and the stragglers in August were just using up what they had?

I don't remember seeing anything about these packs going away (but then they didn't tell us they had introduced them either) but I'm happy that they have.


Well, by in large we have you to thank for them killing the idea. Mucho appreciado!!!

« Reply #50 on: November 14, 2014, 15:48 »
0
I got three more "subscription" downloads today at 40.1 cents (my normal sub at 45% is 32.4 cents) - that's one of the package numbers I'd seen a lot of back when these rotten packages first appeared. As far as I know, there hasn't been one of these (for me) since August.

I don't see the packages back on the pricing page, but there is a new item asking businesses to contact them for a special deal:



It's possible these subscriptions are leftovers from an annual package purchased months ago, but I'm wondering if the comment about odd prices for subscriptions in this thread might relate to a revival of these download packages in some form:

http://www.microstockgroup.com/123royaltyfree-com/strange-subscription-royalty-on-123rf/

« Reply #51 on: November 14, 2014, 16:16 »
+2
I got a bunch of 0.695 subs just a couple of days ago, and 1 today for 0.4 something, my usual is 0.36. At first glance they look good as subs, until you know the real truth behind. They also (again) paid me $5 less than the amount in my account last month. They are shady at best. I am just tired of this, i dont even bother to contact them anymore as i know exactly the answer they will come up with. Stopped uploading a long time ago.

« Reply #52 on: November 16, 2014, 20:14 »
0
i have 25 new sub download for $ 0.216 (that`s only $0.21 !) . omg that is so * low! They do not get any new upload from mine.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
2643 Views
Last post January 30, 2008, 07:19
by kgtoh
11 Replies
4179 Views
Last post July 22, 2010, 16:28
by madelaide
11 Replies
1446 Views
Last post July 20, 2013, 15:32
by Redneck
3 Replies
1030 Views
Last post August 28, 2013, 17:57
by Leo Blanchette
8 Replies
656 Views
Last post November 07, 2018, 05:08
by amabu

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors