pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Canstockphoto - is it worth it?  (Read 10542 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: February 12, 2017, 15:07 »
+2
I have always submitted there because it is easy.  CS and DT usually have the highest variance in sales per month, and CS has been quite poor the past few months, with a lot of 25-35-cent subs rather than regular DLs.  Lately regular DLs have been better, but I just checked out prices versus returns and am not sure I will continue - they seem to be paying the lowest commission rates in the industry. 

Size                          Price        Commission      Percent
Small                         3.00               0.50            16.7           
Medium                      6.00               0.75            12.5     
Large                         7.00               1.00            14.3
X-Large                      8.00               1.25            15.6
XX-Large TIFF           12.00               2.50            20.8

These are based on actual sales during the past month and the posted prices on their site.  With the commission for a Medium at only 12.5% they are really not treating contributors well - worse than iStock.  Are they worth it?  At those rates maybe not.

(If I've made any errors in those calculations please let me know)


????

What happened to:    
50% of images sales (20% via fotosearch), subscription downloads $0.25 (fotosearch tiered starting at $0.30 per download. Nothing extra for exclusive images. Enhanced Licenses $22.00 per download


Wow, is it possible that this change flew under our radar? I was also under the impression that we get 50%!

Well, not contributing there anymore.

Edit: this is funny: (from http://www.canstockphoto.com/payout_schedule.php)

Our contributors are paid some of the highest percentages in the industry.

12.5%-20.8%. Highest percentages. Isn't this false advertising, which is illegal? :)



The table with the calculations is simply wrong.
Taking "instant" prices and "credit" commissions.

Real commissions are better, though still not good and certainly not 50%.


« Reply #76 on: February 12, 2017, 16:36 »
+1
They also do not show you the sale price on CSV sales reports, only your commission. I suspect that is intentional.

« Reply #77 on: February 12, 2017, 17:16 »
0
Does anyone here know about downloads which show as "free prints" at Canstock.
I just received the princely sum of 25c for one. If this is becomes a regular thing it might be enough for me to close my account there.


Yes, I got one, should I reach payout I'm out of there.

https://www.freeart.com/
http://www.microstockdiaries.com/canstock-partners-with-print-supplier-freeart.html

« Reply #78 on: February 13, 2017, 09:30 »
+1


Don't know if this is still the case but when it launched they offered an opt out from the Free Art site (without effecting opt in to other CS partners such as Fotosearch). I sent them a support ticket and was opted out within a couple of hours. In my case I sell direct on POD sites like FAA and Redbubble so it wasn't an attractive deal for me. I guess if you've no intention of ever selling direct on art sites you could see it as a bit of extra income. More information from when it launched here http://www.microstockgroup.com/canstockphoto-com/exciting-announcement/
« Last Edit: February 13, 2017, 09:35 by Newsfocus1 »

« Reply #79 on: February 13, 2017, 10:24 »
0
Thanks for the useful info.
I have opted out of my images being used for free, I (obviously wrongly) assumed this meant all free usage. I will contact support and see if they will opt out all my images.

« Reply #80 on: February 13, 2017, 11:35 »
+2
I have always submitted there because it is easy.  CS and DT usually have the highest variance in sales per month, and CS has been quite poor the past few months, with a lot of 25-35-cent subs rather than regular DLs.  Lately regular DLs have been better, but I just checked out prices versus returns and am not sure I will continue - they seem to be paying the lowest commission rates in the industry. 

Size                          Price        Commission      Percent
Small                         3.00               0.50            16.7           
Medium                      6.00               0.75            12.5     
Large                         7.00               1.00            14.3
X-Large                      8.00               1.25            15.6
XX-Large TIFF           12.00               2.50            20.8

These are based on actual sales during the past month and the posted prices on their site.  With the commission for a Medium at only 12.5% they are really not treating contributors well - worse than iStock.  Are they worth it?  At those rates maybe not.

(If I've made any errors in those calculations please let me know)


????

What happened to:    
50% of images sales (20% via fotosearch), subscription downloads $0.25 (fotosearch tiered starting at $0.30 per download. Nothing extra for exclusive images. Enhanced Licenses $22.00 per download


Wow, is it possible that this change flew under our radar? I was also under the impression that we get 50%!

Well, not contributing there anymore.

Edit: this is funny: (from http://www.canstockphoto.com/payout_schedule.php)

Our contributors are paid some of the highest percentages in the industry.

12.5%-20.8%. Highest percentages. Isn't this false advertising, which is illegal? :)



The table with the calculations is simply wrong.
Taking "instant" prices and "credit" commissions.

Real commissions are better, though still not good and certainly not 50%.


How do you know they're wrong?  I just took the prices they advertise and the actual commissions I received.  What are the "credit" prices then?  You say that real commissions are better but provide no data.  If that is so I'd love to see the numbers but pronouncing something wrong without backing it up with real numbers is not helpful.  Please redo the table with the correct numbers if you can - I'm sure we'd all like to see them.

« Reply #81 on: February 13, 2017, 15:25 »
+2
Commissions:

http://www.canstockphoto.com/payout_schedule.php

Prices:

http://www.canstockphoto.com/about.php

Both have two sections, "Instant Downloads" and "Credit Downloads".

The prices you quoted are those for "Instant Downloads", the royalties those for "Credit Downloads".
Credit prices differ depending on the amount of credits you buy, as on most sites.

Just one example: the worst percentage in your table is for the medium size. But the 0,75 commission you state is for credit sales, and that size costs 3 credits. The most expensive credits you can buy is 12 credits for $9, so $0,75 per credit.
In that example the commission would be 33%.
You arrive at 12.5% because you compare the credit commission to the instant price. Taking the correct instant commission ($1,50) you arrive at 25%. As I said, still not good, but not as bad as in your calculation.
Taking the extreme opposite example for a medium size photo: The largest credit plan they show on their site is 25.000 credits for $10.000 (price per credit: $0,40). Price for the photo in this plan: $1,20. Commission ($0,75): 62,5%.

Looking at your sales you see them marked as "instant" or "regular" (or subscription, distribution, fotosearch subscription), that's where you see what you actually sold.

I'm not defending Canstock here, but their commission are not as bad as you calculated. There are worse offenders out there.

« Reply #82 on: February 15, 2017, 14:54 »
0
OK. My brain hurts.
So does anybody really have an idea what percentage we get???
:(

« Reply #83 on: February 15, 2017, 16:02 »
+2
I sell with them. They aren't the best comission wise but better than istock, depositphotos and bigstock.

« Reply #84 on: February 15, 2017, 21:04 »
+3
OK. My brain hurts.
So does anybody really have an idea what percentage we get???
:(

I emailed them two days ago and asked specifically what their commission was.  They (Duncan) would not tell me. We had a back and forth until I gave up.  They definitely don't want to be transparent. 

« Reply #85 on: February 16, 2017, 01:50 »
0
OK. My brain hurts.
So does anybody really have an idea what percentage we get???
:(

I emailed them two days ago and asked specifically what their commission was.  They (Duncan) would not tell me. We had a back and forth until I gave up.  They definitely don't want to be transparent.

That's also a nice signal.

« Reply #86 on: February 16, 2017, 20:58 »
+3
I see from the Poll on the right that CanStock is showing results similar to BigStock.  Does this reflect reality for most people?  Is CanStock worth uploading to, or are the numbers misleading like Deposit?  Has there been any improvement and/or progress at CanStock since they were integrated into Fotosearch?

If you are beginning now, no, waste your time elsewhere. I made one dollar there in one year. Much more on other sites. It was a waste of time for me.

« Reply #87 on: February 17, 2017, 02:54 »
0
OK, they don't sell a lot but upload is easy and a link to current commissions - which haven't changed for years and are better than most I think - is here:
 http://www.canstockphoto.com/payout_schedule.php

« Reply #88 on: February 17, 2017, 04:09 »
0
$0.25 for subs (Small to Large size) is too low for low earning tier agency.
They should pay equal commission to their Distribution/Fotosearch subs according to the number of lifetime sales.
BTW I wonder why my Sales History stats show few hundred sales more than on my Profile page. It's not something new and will ask them when I'm close to the next level. Unfortunately my sales there are going down.

suwanneeredhead

  • O.I.D. Sufferer (Obsessive Illustration Disorder)
« Reply #89 on: February 17, 2017, 15:19 »
0
They are my #3, I get a lot of those $5 commissions on EPS files, it adds up fast. 

« Reply #90 on: February 17, 2017, 16:58 »
+1
In almost 12 months I've only had a few sales but most are better than 25c. Maybe if I had a large port it would be worth it. Uploading is easy so I can live in hope of a payout one day 😁

« Reply #91 on: February 17, 2017, 17:13 »
+4
Guys, you writing how easy uploading process is and because of this simple uploading process, is worth to upload there.
Think twice what you writing.
Who cares about easy upload if then sales are almost zero.
No, for photos is not worth to upload there.

« Reply #92 on: February 18, 2017, 01:28 »
+1
And I forgot to mention:
Unique stupid rejection reasons.

Boss Duncan is on holidays all the time ;-)
and his very brave inspectors see Out of focus or even better:
File is not unique enough for acceptance,
in some SS and Adobe FT bestsellers
4, 5 years ago we are expecting a lot from CS, agree?
« Last Edit: February 18, 2017, 01:33 by enstoker »

« Reply #93 on: February 18, 2017, 03:23 »
0
Guys, you writing how easy uploading process is and because of this simple uploading process, is worth to upload there.
Think twice what you writing.
Who cares about easy upload if then sales are almost zero.
No, for photos is not worth to upload there.
Time to upload is the only cost if you already have the pictures so it is a factor....and though no one has said its a great performer for some itis not close to zero

substancep

  • Medical, science, nature, and macro photography

« Reply #94 on: February 18, 2017, 06:49 »
+1
And I forgot to mention:
Unique stupid rejection reasons.

Boss Duncan is on holidays all the time ;-)
and his very brave inspectors see Out of focus or even better:
File is not unique enough for acceptance,
in some SS and Adobe FT bestsellers
4, 5 years ago we are expecting a lot from CS, agree?

I have to a agree with that. The most common one seems to be "inappropriate keywords." I've given up on them for over a year for this reason.

« Reply #95 on: February 18, 2017, 08:09 »
0
Yes, inappropriate keywords is really irritating - especially when they are OK!
25c is indeed feeble for subs - but FT gives even less - and most CS commissions are for more than this (I refuse to do BS for 25c with keywording hassle and rarely anything other than subs).
It is the lowest earning site I will deal with - but at the end of the year it's a nice little bonus for minimal uploading effort.
Everyone must decide for themselves. Would love to get more - but such is life!

« Reply #96 on: February 18, 2017, 11:40 »
0
Gives me a solid 3% of the total income. Down from 4% a couple years ago. I guess it only makes sense if you would like to squeeze every last dollar out of your portfolio.

« Reply #97 on: February 18, 2017, 20:01 »
0
Yes, inappropriate keywords is really irritating - especially when they are OK!
25c is indeed feeble for subs - but FT gives even less - and most CS commissions are for more than this (I refuse to do BS for 25c with keywording hassle and rarely anything other than subs).
It is the lowest earning site I will deal with - but at the end of the year it's a nice little bonus for minimal uploading effort.
Everyone must decide for themselves. Would love to get more - but such is life!
Hi Sarah, uploading to BS is really easy now and they accept almost everything. I even got an EL yesterday... nearly fell off my chair!  ;D I also find they have accepted things rejected by SS and they actually sell! But you're right, mostly subs from them but I only receive 25c from SS and as you noted, even less from FT for subs.

« Reply #98 on: February 19, 2017, 02:35 »
0
Thanks Zalee. If times get really bad then I might reconsider.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
2954 Views
Last post June 23, 2011, 05:38
by Carl
4 Replies
1478 Views
Last post December 02, 2011, 20:28
by santosa laksana
11 Replies
2899 Views
Last post June 29, 2014, 06:42
by Nikovsk
27 Replies
3316 Views
Last post April 01, 2014, 06:27
by spike
5 Replies
581 Views
Last post February 10, 2017, 06:20
by Vlad

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors