It's time to favor fair sites like 123RF and boycott greedy ones like fotolia

pancaketom

« Reply #25 on: October 01, 2011, 18:17 »

#link

Quote from: tdoes on October 01, 2011, 17:03

....

No agency grows by itself!

Well, they certainly should be for 40-85% of the take. Maybe some place like the old featurepics wouldn't grow itself and you had to market your own stuff, but you also got 75% of each sale.

I'm all for helping out the sites that pay well but it shouldn't be expected or required.


	Ignore \| Logged

« Reply #26 on: October 01, 2011, 18:25 »

#link

Quote from: Sammy on September 24, 2011, 04:25

Just my 2 cents... why don't we all contributors do something to favor fair sites like 123RF, canstock, veer, etc.. and put boycott on the greedy screwing ones like fotolia and istock?

Perhaps because FT makes me 1 1/2 as much as what 123 makes and 4 times of what CanStockPhoto makes? Tongue


	Ignore \| Logged

rinderart

« Reply #27 on: October 01, 2011, 19:44 »

#link

Quote from: jsnover on September 26, 2011, 12:00

Quote from: lagereek on September 26, 2011, 09:50

...I rather have a lot from greedy *insult removed*, then nothing from wannabees.

That's the sad truth. I put a good chunk of my portfolio on Stockfresh (for example) but the returns just aren't there. 50% of zero is still zero...

+1.


	Ignore \| Logged

alexmk

« Reply #28 on: October 01, 2011, 19:49 »

#link

Quote from: sharpshot on September 26, 2011, 09:52

Quote from: alexmk on September 26, 2011, 08:48

Quote from: sharpshot on September 24, 2011, 05:46

While those 3 sites are better than some of the really greedy ones, they could be better.

The sites that I think give a fair deal to microstock contributors are Stockfresh and Graphic Leftovers. Sites that pay 50% or more commission with reasonable prices, aren't getting most of their sales from cheap subscriptions and have well designed websites that are easy to use. Unfortunately, they need a lot more buyers. I hope that more can be persuaded to move from sites that have cut commissions and are making it hard to see a future for microstock.

You're right but there is one small problem with fair microstock sites. No downloads or very few. For instance GL give me 50% commission for 6$ photo and iS commission is 18% and I get for Large Regular 3.00$.
I can't see any difference apart from that iS downloads are 100x higher than GL CanStockPhoto DP 123 DT FT ...........
And that's the most important right?

It's most important if all I am concerned about is how much I am going to earn this month. What about the future? How much does the istock buyer spend on the photo that you get $3 for? Much more than they spend with GL. How likely is it that your 18% commission is going to be cut again? I think very likely. Will they encourage buyers to go to thinkstock, where you will get $0.28 for that download? That's already happening. Then you have to compete with images from Getty and the ones they own. Do I really want to keep supplying sites when it looks like my future earnings are going to sink?

What about the microstock future? Well I don't know. But I know one thing! At the moment I earn only from Thikstock as much as I earn from DT and FT together. If the future is not bright suppose I'll have to move to Tibet or Vis(small Croatian island) -tell me if you know better place.
It's peaceful and quiet to do photography for myself and don't have to make those stupid shallow stock concept which unfortunately are selling best. Well the entire marketing industry sucks.
There is always way out but you have to find the right way to go.
I'm good to go are you?


	Ignore \| Logged

sharpshot

« Reply #29 on: October 02, 2011, 01:32 »

#link

Quote from: alexmk on October 01, 2011, 19:49

...At the moment I earn only from Thikstock as much as I earn from DT and FT together....

Going by other peoples earnings reports, I don't think you can be doing well with DT and FT. And I expect none of us will earn much from Thinkstock when all the non-exclusives on istock have their images moved there. As soon as those millions of images go on, earnings are going to be severely diluted.


	Ignore \| Logged

Lagereek

« Reply #30 on: October 02, 2011, 02:08 »

#link

I rather have a lot from a greedy agency then nothing from a fair and nice agency. This is unfortunately the way it works, this must be the only industry where the bad guys always seem to win.

promoting one agency before another is just an opportune way of thinking, since this very agency might turn and go sour the very next day. We see this all the time.

In my 5 years in micro there are only 2 agencies that have stuck like glue to their promisses and acted accordingly, SS and DT. Thats it. The rest are totally unpredictable, swaying their coats with the winds.


	Ignore \| Logged

BaldricksTrousers

« Reply #31 on: October 02, 2011, 02:18 »

#link

Quote from: sharpshot on October 02, 2011, 01:32

Quote from: alexmk on October 01, 2011, 19:49

...At the moment I earn only from Thikstock as much as I earn from DT and FT together....

I've been wondering about that. We don't know how many people boycotted it. My guess is that the overwhelming majority of independents didn't bother to opt out. There may only be a few dozen in the top ranks of non-exclusives who were boycotting. If so, then forcing them to participate would be of no great importance to Getty, except as a prelude to telling the exclusives that they are all going to be pushed into it, too, probably including their most up-to-date content. Look for an announcement of that in January, since they say they will finish transferring all the independents by the year end.


	Ignore \| Logged

gostwyck

« Reply #32 on: October 02, 2011, 04:21 »

#link

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on October 02, 2011, 02:18

I've been wondering about that. We don't know how many people boycotted it (Thinkstock). My guess is that the overwhelming majority of independents didn't bother to opt out. There may only be a few dozen in the top ranks of non-exclusives who were boycotting. If so, then forcing them to participate would be of no great importance to Getty, except as a prelude to telling the exclusives that they are all going to be pushed into it, too, probably including their most up-to-date content. Look for an announcement of that in January, since they say they will finish transferring all the independents by the year end.

From the poll last week, out of the 108 who have voted, about 50% of them declared themselves to not have images at TS.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/did-you-receive-ft's-email-and-do-you-have-images-at-ts-or-pd/msg221262/?topicseen#new


	Ignore \| Logged

Lagereek

« Reply #33 on: October 02, 2011, 06:10 »

#link

Yes, but, according to the latest change of agreement, as I remember it, there was little option, was it? independants with big ports, either participated or got the boot.
As Lisa said, if you have a big port, its just too much to lose.


	Ignore \| Logged

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #34 on: October 02, 2011, 06:15 »

#link

Quote from: lagereek on October 02, 2011, 02:08

I rather have a lot from a greedy agency then nothing from a fair and nice agency. This is unfortunately the way it works, this must be the only industry where the bad guys always seem to win.

But as independents we don't have to choose! We can take what we can from the greedy agencies AND support small sites (if upload process is easy) as an investment for the future - despite their almost non-existent (but growing) sales


	Ignore \| Logged

Pages: 1 [2]

« previous next »

MicrostockGroup

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Topic: It's time to favor fair sites like 123RF and boycott greedy ones like fotolia

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results