Quote from: wut on June 12, 2012, 09:38

Just got the second 9c sale in a few days . What's going on, where are these ancient/mega discounted credits coming from?

I had 2 in the last couple of weeks too - knowing how greedy they are I guess they're probably just skimming a bit off the top

Quote from: luissantos84 on June 11, 2012, 10:42

there were many topics about this, I had one for 7 cents

True. I had one for 5 or 6 cents about 18 months ago. 'Ancient credits' was the explanation.

Quote from: traveler1116 on June 11, 2012, 18:09

Ok ok you guys win, looks like this is the wrong place say anything negative about subs.  It feels more and more like it's the wrong place to talk about anything of interest to me, have fun guys.

The OP was nothing whatsover to do with subs. It was you who was so determined to manufacture, despite the total irrelevance to the OP, an artificial introduction of the subject.

Quote from: wut on June 11, 2012, 18:07

Quote from: jsnover on June 11, 2012, 17:47

I think if you consider that there are n buyers spending y dollars on photos each month for their projects, from the seller's point of view, it doesn't much matter how they spend their dollars beyond what cut of it we get (share of total sales and then what the agencies hand over out of that). It's a mistake to think that if the buyers didn't have subscriptions, you'd get PAYG sales on a 1-for-1 basis instead - they'd buy, but probably fewer images.

And what the price of those files is. Let's say we compare 2 credit based agencies (so that we compare apples to apples), one is selling images starting at 1$ and is charging 1-5 credits for a photo DL (S-XXL) and gives contributors 50% (and is about to cut commissions soon anyway). The other it selling images from 1,2$ and charges 1-250 credits for a photo DL (XS-XXXL, E+, V, A), paying 15-45%. Ppl just look at the royalty % they get, which is just so stupid, the equation is missing an essential bit of info. Then there is volume on top of that, that should be included when doing the calculations.

Just 2 real life examples. This IS spitting is getting a bit tiresome. I know, if you get a bad rep it's hard to get rid of it, most of it is justified, but there are many more worse examples out there. In this industry, for most of us, there's really just 2 agencies that can deliver. Well only one if you're exclusive.

I disagree. It's not stupid. In the end the royalty percentage is the most important factor. If a buyer has a fixed budget of 1000 dollars, where do you want him to spend that for buying images? At a site that prices images at 100$ and pays 15% commission or at a site that prices images at 10$ and pays 50% commission?

In the long run supporting low-paying (in terms of percentage!) sites is doing nothing but reducing the total amount of money in the pockets of image producers.

Quote from: wut on June 12, 2012, 17:31

Quote from: dirkr on June 12, 2012, 17:22

Quote from: wut on June 11, 2012, 18:07

Quote from: jsnover on June 11, 2012, 17:47

I think if you consider that there are n buyers spending y dollars on photos each month for their projects, from the seller's point of view, it doesn't much matter how they spend their dollars beyond what cut of it we get (share of total sales and then what the agencies hand over out of that). It's a mistake to think that if the buyers didn't have subscriptions, you'd get PAYG sales on a 1-for-1 basis instead - they'd buy, but probably fewer images.

And what the price of those files is. Let's say we compare 2 credit based agencies (so that we compare apples to apples), one is selling images starting at 1$ and is charging 1-5 credits for a photo DL (S-XXL) and gives contributors 50% (and is about to cut commissions soon anyway). The other it selling images from 1,2$ and charges 1-250 credits for a photo DL (XS-XXXL, E+, V, A), paying 15-45%. Ppl just look at the royalty % they get, which is just so stupid, the equation is missing an essential bit of info. Then there is volume on top of that, that should be included when doing the calculations.

Just 2 real life examples. This IS spitting is getting a bit tiresome. I know, if you get a bad rep it's hard to get rid of it, most of it is justified, but there are many more worse examples out there. In this industry, for most of us, there's really just 2 agencies that can deliver. Well only one if you're exclusive.

I disagree. It's not stupid. In the end the royalty percentage is the most important factor. If a buyer has a fixed budget of 1000 dollars, where do you want him to spend that for buying images? At a site that prices images at 100$ and pays 15% commission or at a site that prices images at 10$ and pays 50% commission?

In the long run supporting low-paying (in terms of percentage!) sites is doing nothing but reducing the total amount of money in the pockets of image producers.

Do you know just how absurd you sound?

First off, buyers won't buy 50x more images because their budget allows them to (as you put it 100$ per image on one site and other sites are selling them well under a dollar). Second, if that was true, those cheap agencies would be on top of the industries, not getting 0,1% of the market, or even 3%, but no such agency gets a significant piece of the pie. If they would, they'd just raise prices and cut commissions. Every single site has done so, when it became big (SS doesn't count since they're predominantly a sub site, 54% of the income is from subs and they pay 20-30% for credit sales, which is second lowest in the industry). As you can see second point is closely related to the first (well I hope you see the connection;)

ETA check your shares and how much gets in your pockets from supporting low price agencies. You'll break down in tears if you will (a quick look on the right also paints a great picture -------------->)

You got it all wrong. I am not advocating low prices, I am pointing out the importance of high royalty percentages. The example of "lower price with higher royalty vs. higher price with lower royalty" is an artificial one to illustrate that the often heard argument "I don't care for the percentage as long as the RPD is higher" is a flawed one.

In an ideal world we would have (reasonable) high prices AND high royalty percentages.

And you are right, the agencies bringing in the most money today are not the ones paying the highest percentages. Is there any way to change that? I honestly don't know, but by NOT supporting those agencies that pay decent percentages (and if you want, only those that charge not too low prices - there are enoug of them) you are not giving them any chance.

If you only support (i.e. at least upload to) those agencies that pay lower percentages (because they are the ones bringing in the bulk of the money), you're giving them an advantage over those that pay more. If you (or we all) continue to do so, that will only strengthen their position - which will lead to further commission cuts simply because they can get away with it.

I am not saying everybody should leave IS because they pay the lowest percentage (to indies), but the least thing we should do is to try our best to keep some viable alternatives alive. Which agencies will be those alternatives in the future? I don't know, so I support many of the mid and lower level sites who pay out a "fair" share. My risk is that I spend uploading time for no return. The upside potential is, that one (or more) of these sites will develop into such an alternative that at least keeps the big sites from cutting commissions even further.

Like I've said about a thousand times before, that's not how it is for everybody. I'm probably the exception to the rule, but there is an exception.

Quote from: wut on June 12, 2012, 19:33

Which, name at least one. That has the volume as well. So GL etc is out of the picture. We all like Alamy, although it doesn't perform for 99% of us (you need a huge port to succeed there, unlike on MS where you can succeed with a small, but high quality port).

You've correctly put it as "because they are the ones bringing in the bulk of the money", but over those who pay more? Again, which. Looking at middle tier, they pay sheat. 123RF pays 1-2.5$ for a 21 mpix JPG, the rest (DP, CS etc) are not better. That is a pathetic return for us. IS, DT, SS (ODs, SODs) pay a lot more, on average 2-5x more. And there is no volume. So you actually get 50x less. That's the reason I've given up on all of those agencies. Am I running a business or a charity? It's not only money either but all the crookery involved, 123RF with their lies, spins, cuts, Zoonar's rude support and again rip off strategy to make it almost impossible for you to get the money if you close your account, CS notifying you about a MB fee only when you're about to withdraw the money. It never ends! I'm sick and tired of them. You don't get that sheat from top 4 agencies. Sure they cut our commissions, but as we can see so do the small when they become big.

So to hell with a fair share of the price that is insultingly low, selling in almost non-existant volumes. There is no upside potential, since no top 4 agency considers any non-top 4 agency as a threat. With their 0,1% market share. C'mon, look at it realistically . I was trying to be idealistic like you, but it got me nowhere, I just lost a lot of time and a lot of nerves and never ever got compensated nearly enough for my efforts and optimism.

You're missing the point. Again. I don't say there are agencies out there with a fair share and a reasonable price that can compete with the big four in terms of volume. But there are enough agencies that do have reasonable prices and pay a fair share. And I do support them, because even their smaller volume adds up.

And the "crookery" you mention is nothing - in my view - compared to IS's attitude of telling me that 15% is good enough and money doesn't matter to me...