Author Topic: Time to punish some mid/low tier agencies (Read 6483 times)

lagereek · « **Reply #50 on:** February 18, 2012, 15:39 »

Quote from: aeonf on February 18, 2012, 06:33

This is not my fight at all as I am IS exclusive, but yet again I fail to understand how are SS any better when they are probably paying one of the worst commitions out there! (exept IS, for indys that is), not only is it so low, you don't even know how much!

If I was an agency I would simply lower all of you guys comissions and ssimply don't even let you know how much %%% you get!
Thats what SS does and everybody seems to be happy with them...

What are you dribbling about? why do you time and time again keep syaing this? you know very well that its 0.38, subs, ODs are 2.85 and single sales are 5.75. Just the other day I clocked in 25, ODs, at 2.85 and 35 subs at 0.38 and one EL, at 28 bucks, so how in the bloody hell can it be the worst paying site?
Or is it that you dont want to know?

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #51 on:** February 18, 2012, 15:40 »

And then they broke the deal, a digusting move IMO. Your point being? Selfishness because I'm against cuts? As I said this is for the greater good, even those who're not willing to sacrifice a small, usually super minimal part of their income for getting more in the long run will benefit from this, if we pull it through. How's that selfish? I would be among those willing to earn less for a while...I could understand it if you said I made a selfish statement once. But who hasn't and more importantly what has that got to do with what I'm trying to achieve here? I suggest we focus on the task at hand, not personal imperfections

What are WE trying to "pull it through"? and What are YOU "trying to achieve."
Have you really stated a goal; an objective?
If you are going to lead, then get organized. Take the lead and stop arguing with every dissenter. What do YOU want US to do?

I don't think Winston woulda done it thissa way.

jm · « **Reply #52 on:** February 18, 2012, 15:56 »

Quote

I'm not sure why so many of you are writing about agencies. Yes it's their business, they can do whatever they want, they don't care about us, so why should we care about them and more importantly why wouldn't we care about us, our money? We should be doing what's best for us just as they're doing it for themselves.

I agree. But to me this way seems to be two-faced act. You say - I know we can't agree on pulling our ports from top tiers so let's punish low earners. To sacrifice few dollars a month is really not a heroism. In fact - new sites need more money to start their business while low commissions on iS aren't necessary for financial health of company, it's just pure greed. I don't like commissions bellow 50% either but showing artists power to low earners is like imposing an embargo on Northtern Korea because of human rights and doing business with China at the same time.

cthoman · « **Reply #53 on:** February 18, 2012, 16:40 »

Quote from: lagereek on February 18, 2012, 15:39

What are you dribbling about? why do you time and time again keep syaing this? you know very well that its 0.38, subs, ODs are 2.85 and single sales are 5.75. Just the other day I clocked in 25, ODs, at 2.85 and 35 subs at 0.38 and one EL, at 28 bucks, so how in the bloody hell can it be the worst paying site?
Or is it that you dont want to know?

You can probably move the stats around a lot of ways to tell the story a lot of different ways.

I could say that SS pays me the least amount per download (123RF by the way is a close second). But, I could counter that by saying they make it up in volume. I could say those sales volumes are falling from a peak in 2009. But, I could counter that by saying that the loss of volume is made up for by increased profits from On Demand and Single Sales.

Truth is, SS is the micro of the micros (the alpha micro) with a very low RPD, but they are a proven model for earning money.

My only concern for the future would be if it can maintain those large sales volume and is it stable with its lenient review policies (at least on vector side) and massive contributor base.

And if the high volume philosophy does fail, can you put the lid back on it now that subs model has spread to almost every agency?

rinderart · « **Reply #54 on:** February 18, 2012, 16:55 »

Wut, I understand your points and agree... and Im all for an alliance or union or whatever you wanna call it and always have been BUT...... I've been here like others at the beginning when we got 20 cents an Image. No EL;s Or OD's , Nothing. In Months the flood Gates opened and thousands started uploading everything they ever shot for 20 cents and ya know what? and I hate to admit it that if it was still 20 cents there would be the same amount of submitters, Maybe not the same submitters But...? The sites know this very well That, if say you got 1000 on your team to pull there ports at 123 or anywhere else I think they would be replaced in 10 days or less that would be willing to do a isolated girl or strawberry or a business man shaking hands with someone for what they offered. Thats the reality of crowd sourcing. I have no problem with 123, it's just another outlet as is all the others. I could teach just about anyone to do what anyone here does [Except the Illustrators] in 24 hours MAX, Were not curing Cancer or saving Babies and I'll bet dollars to donuts that if it was 20 cents across the board there would still be 100,000 submitted every week to SS Just like now. Thats not negative,Thats just the way it is. Would quality go down?? Oh Maybe slightly but it wouldn't take long to go back up to current levels.

I also agree that a 50% cut for everything sold should be a standard across the board, if they can't turn a profit and Pay back there investors Maybe they got into the wrong Business. But...I wouldn't if I were you be diluted into thinking we will be missed or even make a dent in Punishing them.

Just My Opinion. Which Means basically Nothing

helix7 · « **Reply #55 on:** February 18, 2012, 18:27 »

Quote from: cthoman on February 18, 2012, 16:40

...Truth is, SS is the micro of the micros (the alpha micro) with a very low RPD, but they are a proven model for earning money...

That's all that really matters to me. RPD is a nice stat to make you feel all warm and fuzzy when you're all-in with istock. But my warm-and-fuzzy comes from a nice big fat bottom line at the end of the month that's around 50% made up of SS earnings.

cthoman · « **Reply #56 on:** February 18, 2012, 19:30 »

Quote from: helix7 on February 18, 2012, 18:27

That's all that really matters to me. RPD is a nice stat to make you feel all warm and fuzzy when you're all-in with istock. But my warm-and-fuzzy comes from a nice big fat bottom line at the end of the month that's around 50% made up of SS earnings.

LOL. It's probably the opposite of a warm fuzzy feeling for me. When I realize that it would take about 32 sales at SS to equal one sale at my own site. But if I sold 32 images at my site, I'd probably equal my SS income for the month.

When it only takes one sale a day to be as good as SS, it really makes me realize where I should focus my priorities.

Pixart · « **Reply #57 on:** February 18, 2012, 23:19 »

I like the "don't get mad get even" idea.

We really need to make our own agency/coop/collective. And we need EVERYONE to join. Artist sets their own price, get a 50% commission. The host that we hire/contract gets 25% and all they do is give us a search engine and store the photos. They never get greedy and if they do either negotiate before the contract expires or fire them and move to another service provider. We'll need union/membership dues and maybe the host will need an annual fee ($25-100 depending on the space we want?) The other 25% goes to the cooperative/union/agency to pay admin and do a bit of marketing.

As a cooperative we can rate agencies and publish ratings and Deposit Photos (?) can put the Gold Seal of Approval from said Stock Photographers Association on their front page. IS will get a bronze and might not want to brag about it , SS a silver, etc. etc. and eventually buyers will recognise the ratings and only work with the gold seals.

Maybe we'd have to vote for the president/administrator each year or every 2-4 years and they would have a predetermined salary. Haha, but what happen when noone wants to run for office?

chromaco · « **Reply #58 on:** February 19, 2012, 00:01 »

Now this is a pretty good idea. It would need to be run by a fairly small committee. Say 10-20 voters representing a wide spectrum of contributers. Illustrators, and photographers with varying size portfolios would represent for their particular demographic. I don't know much about web development but it does seem like an opportunity for a company that is already set up to do this sort of thing. I would absolutely contribute a reasonable deposit (say $50) to get something like this started. $50 x 200 members is $10,000. That should peak the interest of some web design firm. Not sure how to avoid some sort of a scam but I bet collectively we could solve that problem.

stockmarketer · « **Reply #59 on:** February 19, 2012, 00:06 »

Quote from: stockastic on February 18, 2012, 13:05

I feel like I did a dumb thing uploading to PD just so they could contribute to price erosion and accelerate that "race to the bottom".

Um... yes, you did, but many others did as well, so don't feel too bad.

Pixart · « **Reply #60 on:** February 19, 2012, 00:19 »

Quote from: chromaco on February 19, 2012, 00:01

Now this is a pretty good idea. It would need to be run by a fairly small committee. Say 10-20 voters representing a wide spectrum of contributers. Illustrators, and photographers with varying size portfolios would represent for their particular demographic. I don't know much about web development but it does seem like an opportunity for a company that is already set up to do this sort of thing. I would absolutely contribute a reasonable deposit (say $50) to get something like this started. $50 x 200 members is $10,000. That should peak the interest of some web design firm. Not sure how to avoid some sort of a scam but I bet collectively we could solve that problem.

Yes, and the committee/board of directors would have to be elected and reelected.

There's a ton of sites we could approach
smugmug
zenfolio
backprint
photodeck
and so on and so on

There's dead sites - maybe Keith Tuomi/Bryan Zimewski (what was his name again?)

If it's the right word - A "mirror" site would be pretty easy for them wouldn't it? They already charge an annual fee already with approx 15% fee for digital downloads (backprint is flat 15%). We are still at the mercy of them being honest, paying out on time, and it then there's always that American withholding taxes from non-residents issue. Individual shopping carts would be nice.

Eireann · « **Reply #61 on:** February 19, 2012, 04:34 »

Hi all,
I agree with Chromaco, PixArt and others.
I can't say that I'm holding my breath (I've seen these kind of good ideas being abandoned many times before), but for what is worth, consider me in.
We have to think of the future and do 'something' to stop the race to the bottom.
The first thing we need is organization and leadership.
Without it, all this is nothing but smoke and empty words.
We need someone to take charge, dedicate his time and efforts and start organizing things.
It's not easy, but it's a potential avenue to great success.

I agree to offer financial support and participate with all my images.
For what is worth, I'm in.

I'm not holding my breath, but hope never dies

Good luck

lagereek · « **Reply #62 on:** February 19, 2012, 07:11 »

Quote from: Eireann on February 19, 2012, 04:34

Hi all,
I agree with Chromaco, PixArt and others.
I can't say that I'm holding my breath (I've seen these kind of good ideas being abandoned many times before), but for what is worth, consider me in.
We have to think of the future and do 'something' to stop the race to the bottom.
The first thing we need is organization and leadership.
Without it, all this is nothing but smoke and empty words.
We need someone to take charge, dedicate his time and efforts and start organizing things.
It's not easy, but it's a potential avenue to great success.

I agree to offer financial support and participate with all my images.
For what is worth, I'm in.

I'm not holding my breath, but hope never dies
Good luck

Man! you are all either total newbies, which I know youre not so therefore you must be totally naive, the lot of you four. YOU NEED THEM, THEY DONT NEED YOU! you are all replaceable within 5 minutes flat.
Some of us, more experienced have been fighting this battle for lightyears, back in the old trad-film agencies and got nowhere. You think this is exclusive to micro? think again.

When Wut, said punish, I am sure he did not mean to form some stupid socialistic union. Stockphotography has always and will always be a matter of playing the game, regardless of what they do to you, why? because you need them to sell your shots so that you can earn MONEY! hard to grasp isnt it.

Mantis · « **Reply #63 on:** February 19, 2012, 08:16 »

you are all replaceable within 5 minutes flat.
[/quote]

Herein lies the root of the problem "WHY" agencies "CAN" and "DO" gouge their contributors. And with the advent of digital, everyone's a "photographer".

aeonf · « **Reply #64 on:** February 19, 2012, 08:26 »

Quote from: lagereek on February 18, 2012, 15:39

Quote from: aeonf on February 18, 2012, 06:33
This is not my fight at all as I am IS exclusive, but yet again I fail to understand how are SS any better when they are probably paying one of the worst commitions out there! (exept IS, for indys that is), not only is it so low, you don't even know how much!

If I was an agency I would simply lower all of you guys comissions and ssimply don't even let you know how much %%% you get!
Thats what SS does and everybody seems to be happy with them...

What are you dribbling about? why do you time and time again keep syaing this? you know very well that its 0.38, subs, ODs are 2.85 and single sales are 5.75. Just the other day I clocked in 25, ODs, at 2.85 and 35 subs at 0.38 and one EL, at 28 bucks, so how in the bloody hell can it be the worst paying site?
Or is it that you dont want to know?

I was talking about subs. percentage wise, on subs the comission is much lower then 123rf and even Thinkstock.
I'm talking about percentage, yes ?

chromaco · « **Reply #65 on:** February 19, 2012, 08:49 »

"Man! you are all either total newbies, which I know youre not so therefore you must be totally naive, the lot of you four. YOU NEED THEM, THEY DONT NEED YOU! you are all replaceable within 5 minutes flat.
Some of us, more experienced have been fighting this battle for lightyears, back in the old trad-film agencies and got nowhere. You think this is exclusive to micro? think again."

We'll for my part I essentially am a newbie. I've only been doing this seriously for 6 months. However, I'm more interested in actually doing something proactive and positive than constantly bitching and moaning about how I'm being treated badly. Maybe I am naive but I've seen over and over again how a group of people can accomplish something by simply refusing to let the issue die. Things have a tendency to build up steam and pretty soon you have actually done something pretty big.

It's like that saying "how do you eat an elephant?" Answer " One bite at a time."

The secret to success here is to start with small goals and keep going. Don't stop eating so to speak.

I know I'm replaceable and for the most part I like the agencies. They offer me a service that I need and I am willing to pay them for it. If the price is to high I don't join. However, that doesn't mean there isn't room for a contributor owned agency which guarantees a fair rate and other perks.

lagereek · « **Reply #66 on:** February 19, 2012, 08:53 »

Quote from: Mantis on February 19, 2012, 08:16

you are all replaceable within 5 minutes flat.

Herein lies the root of the problem "WHY" agencies "CAN" and "DO" gouge their contributors. And with the advent of digital, everyone's a "photographer".
[/quote]

Correct! glad you see it! but this is a problem stockphotographers have been battling with for the past 25 yerars and ofcourse with the arrival of digital and billions of images, jeez! what chance have one got? zip.
Today, even the very best are replaceable and ofcourse it works both ways, no agency is irreplacable either, one doesnt like an agency, well just quit and move to the next. Our product is replaceable, most unfortunately.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #67 on:** February 19, 2012, 08:59 »

seriously guys hear the pros here

lagereek · « **Reply #68 on:** February 19, 2012, 09:15 »

Quote from: chromaco on February 19, 2012, 08:49

"Man! you are all either total newbies, which I know youre not so therefore you must be totally naive, the lot of you four. YOU NEED THEM, THEY DONT NEED YOU! you are all replaceable within 5 minutes flat.
Some of us, more experienced have been fighting this battle for lightyears, back in the old trad-film agencies and got nowhere. You think this is exclusive to micro? think again."

We'll for my part I essentially am a newbie. I've only been doing this seriously for 6 months. However, I'm more interested in actually doing something proactive and positive than constantly bitching and moaning about how I'm being treated badly. Maybe I am naive but I've seen over and over again how a group of people can accomplish something by simply refusing to let the issue die. Things have a tendency to build up steam and pretty soon you have actually done something pretty big.

It's like that saying "how do you eat an elephant?" Answer " One bite at a time."

The secret to success here is to start with small goals and keep going. Don't stop eating so to speak.

I know I'm replaceable and for the most part I like the agencies. They offer me a service that I need and I am willing to pay them for it. If the price is to high I don't join. However, that doesn't mean there isn't room for a contributor owned agency which guarantees a fair rate and other perks.

There are some contributor owned agencies, if you got great stuff, try Dans, warmpicture.com. great guy who runs it.

Eireann · « **Reply #69 on:** February 19, 2012, 09:36 »

@PixelArt, Chromaco and others thinking alike,
see?
This is what I meant by not having much hope.
This is the exact mentality that has brought us here, at the rock-bottom and the 0.7 cent sale from IStock.
Nevermind that, arguing it's futile and a waste of time.
However, if, against all hope, things start moving and organizing, please remember that I want to be counted in.
It's my choice to believe in the step forward, and I'm standing by it.
I'll give my support with money and images.
That's all I can do, and all that matters to me.
best,

lagereek · « **Reply #70 on:** February 19, 2012, 11:57 »

Quote from: Eireann on February 19, 2012, 09:36

@PixelArt, Chromaco and others thinking alike,
see?
This is what I meant by not having much hope.
This is the exact mentality that has brought us here, at the rock-bottom and the 0.7 cent sale from IStock.
Nevermind that, arguing it's futile and a waste of time.
However, if, against all hope, things start moving and organizing, please remember that I want to be counted in.
It's my choice to believe in the step forward, and I'm standing by it.
I'll give my support with money and images.
That's all I can do, and all that matters to me.
best,

Erianne! what has brought you and the other guys here is that you joined up with micro agencies, among another 10 million photographers, no pain, no game, you know the score.

chromaco · « **Reply #71 on:** February 19, 2012, 12:09 »

"There are some contributor owned agencies, if you got great stuff, try Dans, warmpicture.com. great guy who runs it."

I just checked out his site. Looks great- I think I looked this site a while ago and the "Invitation Only" scared me away. I took it to mean that he was hand picking his contributors and I wasn't invited. I'll send him an e-mail.
Thanks for the heads up.

djpadavona · « **Reply #72 on:** February 19, 2012, 16:41 »

Quote from: gostwyck on February 17, 2012, 21:27

I wouldn't take notice of 'Ignores'! Even SJL has 18 of them and yet there is no more knowledgeable or helpful a guy in microstock. That's 18 complete muppets for you __ absolutely no reflection whatsoever of the poster or the quality of his advice. No-one commands more respect on the IS forum either.

I would argue that SJL's extensive work with Disney has allowed him to converse quite well with muppets.

djpadavona · « **Reply #73 on:** February 19, 2012, 16:53 »

Quote from: chromaco on February 19, 2012, 12:09

"There are some contributor owned agencies, if you got great stuff, try Dans, warmpicture.com. great guy who runs it."

I just checked out his site. Looks great- I think I looked this site a while ago and the "Invitation Only" scared me away. I took it to mean that he was hand picking his contributors and I wasn't invited. I'll send him an e-mail.
Thanks for the heads up.

We do hand pick the contributors, but anyone may inquire about joining. When we first started some 9 months ago, I personally invited about 30 contributors and I think maybe 2/3 of them joined. That was just the point where I was trying to get things off the ground and wanted to surround myself with people I trusted.

The key with us is that we are not a microstock agency. We cater more to traditional RF, and our licensing terms are very similar to Getty. We price images similar to Corbis/Alamy/GettyRF, and offer unlimited usage. This saves a lot of time and headache worrying about Extended Licenses, etc.

I don't know how things will shake out over time. What I will say is that so far our buyers tend to go for more of a macrostock, traditional look. The isolated, microstock type images sell less frequently.

lisafx · « **Reply #74 on:** February 19, 2012, 18:24 »

As I stated in the other thread, and as I have stated every time this subject of forming a co-op has come up - I stand ready to join and do what I can to support it. Not to "punish" any existing sites, BTW, but just to establish ourselves so we are not so reliant on the micro agencies.

Although I don't have the organizational skills or time to run something like that, I think it could flourish under the right leadership. Unfortunately, there is never any leadership forthcoming. I regret to say this idea may die on the vine once again. That doesn't mean it's a bad idea, just that we haven't found the right person or group to implement it. Hope springs eternal.

ETA: Kudos to Dan for working so tirelessly to get Warmpicture off the ground. Although that is not exactly a co-op, it is certainly a promising start on a fair trade agency.