pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Time to punish some mid/low tier agencies  (Read 8198 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: February 20, 2012, 03:32 »
0
The stupid thing about all this is the idea that if you sacrifice a tiny income you are going to hurt the agency. It's not those with a tiny income who can hurt them, it's those with a big income.
Abandoning $10 to "punish" an agency won't even be a flea-bite because the buyers will find a similar from another contributor. If you abandon $10,000 a month, there's a chance they will notice your absence, but it will still hurt you infinitely more than it hurts them.
And why punish 123 for wanting to pay 30% and not punish iStock for wanting to pay 15%? As someone said, it's not a concern about fairness, its just dissatisfaction over the site's lack of success (which might be because it was paying contributors too much to have a big enough advertising budget).


wut

« Reply #76 on: February 20, 2012, 05:06 »
0
The stupid thing about all this is the idea that if you sacrifice a tiny income you are going to hurt the agency. It's not those with a tiny income who can hurt them, it's those with a big income.
Abandoning $10 to "punish" an agency won't even be a flea-bite because the buyers will find a similar from another contributor. If you abandon $10,000 a month, there's a chance they will notice your absence, but it will still hurt you infinitely more than it hurts them.
And why punish 123 for wanting to pay 30% and not punish iStock for wanting to pay 15%? As someone said, it's not a concern about fairness, its just dissatisfaction over the site's lack of success (which might be because it was paying contributors too much to have a big enough advertising budget).

It was about a tiny percentage and that could mean either 10c or 10k. I'd say the percentage is more or less the same for most contributors, while the money amount varies greatly.

« Reply #77 on: February 20, 2012, 06:59 »
0
But iStock and Fotolia both pay a far lower percentage. Why do you want to punish a site that pays more and ignore those that pay less?

wut

« Reply #78 on: February 20, 2012, 09:22 »
0
But iStock and Fotolia both pay a far lower percentage. Why do you want to punish a site that pays more and ignore those that pay less?

Volume is far greater, the bottom line is still noticeably fatter and as I said, IS can't be punished, since it still represents a large chunk of the earnings for most (still a #2 earner for most) - it would be better put that it's harder to convince ppl to give up 15-30% of their earnings, than a percent or two (I get 1,5% from 123RF and that percentage will drop in Jan 2013 as it will for the vast majority).Those who wanted to do it, already pulled their ports or at least stopped ULing.

« Reply #79 on: February 20, 2012, 10:09 »
0
So it's absolutely nothing to do with fair treatment of contributors, it's purely about punishing sites for not being successful enough, regardless of the commission rate.

wut

« Reply #80 on: February 20, 2012, 10:16 »
0
So it's absolutely nothing to do with fair treatment of contributors, it's purely about punishing sites for not being successful enough, regardless of the commission rate.

C'mon Baldrick stop playing dumb...everything is in my previous posts (OP etc), broken promises, spins and twisting of words from Alex...

« Reply #81 on: February 20, 2012, 10:24 »
0
^^^ I read your posts and understand them exactly as BT does...

wut

« Reply #82 on: February 20, 2012, 10:27 »
0
Well it just looked to me that some ppl can't be bothered with reading all of the posts and then they ask you questions about matters that have already been covered. It's almost like asking about something that's in FAQ :D

RT


« Reply #83 on: February 20, 2012, 12:47 »
0
You are right in your initial suggestion however it is 'those who do it for business' who probably generate 90%+ of the sales and without whom no agency could grow. Therefore, at least in theory, they should hold the power if only they could stick together.

Absolutely and I'd say there's only about 1000 contributors in total that produce the 90+%, but I'm sure you're equally aware that we will never stick together, we're in direct competition with each other, sure we'll all agree that we should band together to create a better environment but in reality we'll (I) all wait until the other 999 guys have left an agency before we make our move because - A. we don't really trust each other and B. there's a good chance once the others have left we'll (I) clean up on sales. Hence this thread and it's noble and justifiable suggestion will go the way of all those before it - sad but true.

PaulieWalnuts

  • You talkin' to me?
« Reply #84 on: February 20, 2012, 13:41 »
0
You are right in your initial suggestion however it is 'those who do it for business' who probably generate 90%+ of the sales and without whom no agency could grow. Therefore, at least in theory, they should hold the power if only they could stick together.

Absolutely and I'd say there's only about 1000 contributors in total that produce the 90+%, but I'm sure you're equally aware that we will never stick together, we're in direct competition with each other, sure we'll all agree that we should band together to create a better environment but in reality we'll (I) all wait until the other 999 guys have left an agency before we make our move because - A. we don't really trust each other and B. there's a good chance once the others have left we'll (I) clean up on sales. Hence this thread and it's noble and justifiable suggestion will go the way of all those before it - sad but true.

And C. the more you publish your strategies and all of their weaknesses for everyone to see the more your opponent can use them against you. Anyone who wants to launch an initiative needs to come up with a private plan, get buyin from the right people, and execute it.

wut

« Reply #85 on: February 21, 2012, 17:14 »
0
You are right in your initial suggestion however it is 'those who do it for business' who probably generate 90%+ of the sales and without whom no agency could grow. Therefore, at least in theory, they should hold the power if only they could stick together.

Absolutely and I'd say there's only about 1000 contributors in total that produce the 90+%, but I'm sure you're equally aware that we will never stick together, we're in direct competition with each other, sure we'll all agree that we should band together to create a better environment but in reality we'll (I) all wait until the other 999 guys have left an agency before we make our move because - A. we don't really trust each other and B. there's a good chance once the others have left we'll (I) clean up on sales. Hence this thread and it's noble and justifiable suggestion will go the way of all those before it - sad but true.

And C. the more you publish your strategies and all of their weaknesses for everyone to see the more your opponent can use them against you. Anyone who wants to launch an initiative needs to come up with a private plan, get buying from the right people, and execute it.

Sadly, this has always been the result of threads like this so far. It just couldn't get more contraproductive, we're digging our own graves.

It's also said the situation is the same as in the case of 99 vs 1 (occupy wall st). We can look at it as agencies being the banks and on top of all we're the one who bail them out - for instance H&F to keep their greedy investors happy. Or now the 123RF owners, which are a lot worse than IS, 2 broken promises in a matter of months, accompanied by manipulative, patronising replies and explanations in the forums.

« Reply #86 on: February 21, 2012, 17:21 »
0
Yes, it is a bit like "Occupy". The problem with "Occupy" at least here in Colorado was the execution. The Governor actually agreed to meet with a representative from "Occupy Colorado" to discuss ideas. They took a vote and elected a dog. Yes... a dog. End of "Occupy Colorado"

« Reply #87 on: February 21, 2012, 17:50 »
0
Yes, it is a bit like "Occupy". The problem with "Occupy" at least here in Colorado was the execution. The Governor actually agreed to meet with a representative from "Occupy Colorado" to discuss ideas. They took a vote and elected a dog. Yes... a dog. End of "Occupy Colorado"

Was it at least a talking dog?  ;)

lisafx

« Reply #88 on: February 22, 2012, 12:20 »
0
Yes, it is a bit like "Occupy". The problem with "Occupy" at least here in Colorado was the execution. The Governor actually agreed to meet with a representative from "Occupy Colorado" to discuss ideas. They took a vote and elected a dog. Yes... a dog. End of "Occupy Colorado"

Oh wow.  Wasted opportunity.

Uncle Pete

  • Evidence please...

« Reply #89 on: February 22, 2012, 16:39 »
0
You cant hurt the agency because they will be able to survive from all the new people they pick up just like any business will.

They dont care if you walk off or not because they will find someone else to do your job and pay them even less which they will be happy with.


Nail on the head...

No union, no power, no unity and even then, there's no way that artists have any way to enforce demands. One leaves, one hundred leave, the agency doesn't care, another thousand are waiting to make $10 a month for days and days of work. Just like "Occupy Everywhere" it failed because each group only wanted what they wanted and had no common cause. How do people in Canada protesting against the US and People in Italy and people in Greece, plus the real cause in NY all claim to be part of the same movement?

Yeah sorry I can't Occupy 123 or the rest of the cheesy agencies. I already left them. I don't care if they notice, I'm just not taking their crap anymore! Personal decision, not some union group-think follow the sheeple mentality. People with thousands of images, working for years are making what? $10 a month at some of these places. Losing that would mean going out for a beer once a month less, or one bag of chips and some dip a month. Oh boy Agency X pays 50% but that's no sales, so it's still nothing!

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8755020/whatis.wav

Ten crummy dollars and some people are willing to sell their soul to the agency? No thanks!

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8755020/madashell.WAV

wut

« Reply #90 on: February 22, 2012, 19:21 »
0

Yeah sorry I can't Occupy 123 or the rest of the cheesy agencies. I already left them. I don't care if they notice, I'm just not taking their crap anymore! Personal decision, not some union group-think follow the sheeple mentality. People with thousands of images, working for years are making what? $10 a month at some of these places. Losing that would mean going out for a beer once a month less, or one bag of chips and some dip a month. Oh boy Agency X pays 50% but that's no sales, so it's still nothing!


Ten crummy dollars and some people are willing to sell their soul to the agency? No thanks!


Great, that also counts. I hope for more personal decisions like that. It can add up to a significant numbers, more than their calculated loss for double cutting/crossing us.

And I also can't help myself but wonder w-t-f's the matter with those ppl with big ports willing to submit to dozen agencies to get a 10$ return/agency.

And regarding the 50% royalties, that's what I'm trying to tell ppl in these thread. As well as why SS is not bad even if they pay a few times more; because it adds up to a lot, the most of all agencies for almost every indie.

« Reply #91 on: February 22, 2012, 22:54 »
0
Are we really such pathetic defeatists?

It does not take much for the collective mindset to change, in fact the courage of just one person can ignite a lasting change in mindset.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qq8zFLIftGk[/youtube]

We forget the very roots of microstock which are different than traditional stock, in that IS and SS were created by buyers who wanted a cost effective product for themselves.

Today there are still a substantial number of stock photographers who are also buyers. And many of us produce content which is used by our colleagues; therefore we have the opportunity to influence where those colleagues buy the product they need. 

Why in the world would we choose to continue to hand over our power to corruption or greed; when clearly amongst our own numbers we have the buying power to protect our own interests.

History has proven over and over that when the collective balance become disproportionally out of wack we unite as collectives to restore a semblance of fairness and balance.  It took only a few people to stand up and start the trade unions and they had more to lose.

How much courage does it take to vote with our pocket book and encourage our friends, family and co-workers to do the same?


Uncle Pete

  • Evidence please...

« Reply #92 on: February 22, 2012, 23:25 »
0
Are we really such pathetic defeatists?

How much courage does it take to vote with our pocket book and encourage our friends, family and co-workers to do the same?

What's you alternative? I read the message, I don't understand the how? You want people to stop buying from IS, and then write messages complaining that sales are down?  ???

Hey, simple and honest the only way to provide for a message and show the agencies, would be start a Microstock agency owned by artists. There's your revolution. Pay 50%, be simple and honest.

Without power, leverage, or something to negotiate with, we have nothing.

Yeah wut I think there are more people here that would support a protest but we've already dropped in protest last year when this was going around for the 4th or 5th time.

How's Softpix (whatever it is) doing? I think that was the first person to try to do something, instead of talk about it, and it became a closed shop from the start. So much for the people's union agency. There's still room for another one. If the answer is a communal agency and people would drop all others to "show them" maybe you would have something. Seems the problem with this model comes back around to income and no one is willing to give up their income to protest or strike out against the big ones.

What does that mean. What people are answering is this: You go jump off that cliff, I'll watch and see how things work out.  ;D (you go stand in front of a tank, I'll take pictures of you doing it) The lack of unity, shared risk and taking the plunge as a group will never happen, so the idea is interesting, it's never going to get off the ground.

« Reply #93 on: February 22, 2012, 23:36 »
0
Perhaps the issue is that people are focusing on the wrong problem and therefor coming up with the wrong solutions. I think that is where paradigm needs to shift. Maybe its not about hurting the wrong agencies but helping the right ones. Forget about the now and focus on the future.

« Reply #94 on: February 23, 2012, 01:03 »
0
Perhaps the issue is that people are focusing on the wrong problem and therefor coming up with the wrong solutions. I think that is where paradigm needs to shift. Maybe its not about hurting the wrong agencies but helping the right ones. Forget about the now and focus on the future.

I agree.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2012, 01:06 by cthoman »

« Reply #95 on: February 23, 2012, 04:40 »
0
Perhaps the issue is that people are focusing on the wrong problem and therefor coming up with the wrong solutions. I think that is where paradigm needs to shift. Maybe its not about hurting the wrong agencies but helping the right ones. Forget about the now and focus on the future.

Who are the "right" ones ?

« Reply #96 on: February 23, 2012, 09:50 »
0
Who are the "right" ones ?

It's your business. You have to figure it out who the right business partners are for yourself. Maybe, it's one company, maybe it's all of them or maybe you have a few select ones.

« Reply #97 on: February 23, 2012, 09:56 »
0
I would bet that for the majority of contributors it's the same few agencies.

« Reply #98 on: February 23, 2012, 10:00 »
0
I would bet that for the majority of contributors it's the same few agencies.

of course the top 5, beside the ones we hide


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
16 Replies
2864 Views
Last post May 10, 2011, 14:49
by Microstock Posts
0 Replies
956 Views
Last post July 26, 2011, 03:40
by Mr Korn Flakes
15 Replies
2691 Views
Last post November 07, 2011, 03:24
by Wim
12 Replies
1543 Views
Last post March 07, 2012, 16:47
by lisafx
8 Replies
1265 Views
Last post May 18, 2012, 02:13
by Wim

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors