MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: stockastic on June 11, 2012, 10:35
-
I had a sale for 9 cents today.
Seriously - has anyone had one for less?
-
I had a sale for 9 cents today.
Seriously - has anyone had one for less?
Never, ever. My first sale on iStock was in dec 2006 and it was a Sm, which I think was the smallest size they did then; I got 20c and was seriously underwhelmed. I think I had a few 19c, but nothing lower.
Never expected it to go downhill from there. >:(
-
there were many topics about this, I had one for 7 cents
-
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.
-
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.
They just click that box for any query about prices, even if irrelevant.
-
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.
They just click that box for any query about prices, even if irrelevant.
It was actually Rob Sylvan on here rather than a ticked box. Whoever bought those thousands of credits when they were cheap certainly did themselves a huge service.
-
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.
They just click that box for any query about prices, even if irrelevant.
It was actually Rob Sylvan on here rather than a ticked box. Whoever bought those thousands of credits when they were cheap certainly did themselves a huge service.
Oh well, fair enough if it was Uncle Rob.
I had that explanation for a query when it was totally irrelevant. When I got back to them to explain that this was not even a possible explanation for the specific issue, I didn't get a reply.
-
This one has me thinking seriously about closing the account. I have a tiny portfolio there anyway, and there's no future - I quit submitting there long ago, just too much hassle. Now it's like they're daring me to leave. Next week it will be 7 cents, then 3... :)
-
I wouldn't worry about it too much a 1 credit XS for 9 cents comes out to a 23 credit XXXL for $2.07, aren't you selling those same XXXL files at SS for at most 38 cents or about 1.5 cents per credit? Just a little different perspective.
-
If I understand this correctly you are getting about 4.3% (.09/2.03) commission on that pic?
-
If I understand this correctly you are getting about 4.3% (.09/2.03) commission on that pic?
No, the commission is always the same - %15 or whatever.
Use this to figure out price per credit:
http://seanlockephotography.com/2011/12/20/calculating-price-paid-per-credit/ (http://seanlockephotography.com/2011/12/20/calculating-price-paid-per-credit/)
-
I wouldn't worry about it too much a 1 credit XS for 9 cents comes out to a 23 credit XXXL for $2.07, aren't you selling those same XXXL files at SS for at most 38 cents or about 1.5 cents per credit? Just a little different perspective.
no
-
I wouldn't worry about it too much a 1 credit XS for 9 cents comes out to a 23 credit XXXL for $2.07, aren't you selling those same XXXL files at SS for at most 38 cents or about 1.5 cents per credit? Just a little different perspective.
no
No? You mean you downsize all your images for SS? Even then you would be selling at least medium sized images that cost 7 credits, so at 9 cents so you would still be getting 63 cents on IS instead of the max of 38 cents on SS.
-
I don't have any XXXL images on SS (that I know of), but mostly I was disagreeing with the "at most" and "max" that you said. Although I haven't had any I think the max is up around 90$ (although highly unlikely). 2.85 is quite common and 5 something not that rare. Actually selling the XXXL at a PP site for .28 or whatever they offer is more likely if IS ever gets the stuff ported over.
-
I don't have any XXXL images on SS (that I know of), but mostly I was disagreeing with the "at most" and "max" that you said. Although I haven't had any I think the max is up around 90$ (although highly unlikely). 2.85 is quite common and 5 something not that rare. Actually selling the XXXL at a PP site for .28 or whatever they offer is more likely if IS ever gets the stuff ported over.
We are talking about low numbers here not ELs or $90 sales, the vast majority of sales at SS are sub sales which at the best give 38 cents. My friend on SS with about 1000 sales has an RPD of 35 cents even counting some video sales, els, on demand etc.. My point is that a vast majority of sales at SS are paying a lower amount (by a lot) if you looked at them like IS credit sales.
-
I don't have any XXXL images on SS (that I know of), but mostly I was disagreeing with the "at most" and "max" that you said. Although I haven't had any I think the max is up around 90$ (although highly unlikely). 2.85 is quite common and 5 something not that rare. Actually selling the XXXL at a PP site for .28 or whatever they offer is more likely if IS ever gets the stuff ported over.
We are talking about low numbers here not ELs or $90 sales, the vast majority of sales at SS are sub sales which at the best give 38 cents. My friend on SS with about 1000 sales has an RPD of 35 cents even counting some video sales, els, on demand etc.. My point is that a vast majority of sales at SS are paying a lower amount (by a lot) if you looked at them like IS credit sales.
I agree with what you are saying BUT the ODs and other are increasing, that said RPD is lot higher than 35 cents, last month had 0.67$ (yes it is higher on IS but a lot less money)
-
I wouldn't worry about it too much a 1 credit XS for 9 cents comes out to a 23 credit XXXL for $2.07, aren't you selling those same XXXL files at SS for at most 38 cents or about 1.5 cents per credit? Just a little different perspective.
..and it never goes as low as 9 or 6 cents...
-
I don't have any XXXL images on SS (that I know of), but mostly I was disagreeing with the "at most" and "max" that you said. Although I haven't had any I think the max is up around 90$ (although highly unlikely). 2.85 is quite common and 5 something not that rare. Actually selling the XXXL at a PP site for .28 or whatever they offer is more likely if IS ever gets the stuff ported over.
We are talking about low numbers here not ELs or $90 sales, the vast majority of sales at SS are sub sales which at the best give 38 cents. My friend on SS with about 1000 sales has an RPD of 35 cents even counting some video sales, els, on demand etc.. My point is that a vast majority of sales at SS are paying a lower amount (by a lot) if you looked at them like IS credit sales.
Nevertheless, you know what you're going into with SS.
On iStock you can look at credit prices and calculate what your minimum should be per sale, but they don't tell you about the huge discounts offered to big buyers.
Also, surely the ancient credits thing is wearing very thin. To give 9c, how old would the credits have to be, even if someone has picked up a 25% discount code online? It really beggars belief that there are so many c2004 credits around.
-
I wouldn't worry about it too much a 1 credit XS for 9 cents comes out to a 23 credit XXXL for $2.07, aren't you selling those same XXXL files at SS for at most 38 cents or about 1.5 cents per credit? Just a little different perspective.
..and it never goes as low as 9 or 6 cents...
Depends how you look at it is what I'm saying. SS minimum size is equivalent to a 7 credit medium file on IS and the max size is equivalent to a 28 credit P+. Therefore the vast majority of sales at SS would be the equivalent per credit royalty of between less than 1 cent (25 cents per download on a 28 credit P+) and 5.5 cents (38 cents on a 7 credit medium regular). Either way they would be lower than anything on IS for an equivalent license. I'm not saying SS is the worst either I think crestock is still selling subs for 25 cents, it's just that IS even with such a small royalty doesn't look as bad to me as most of the other sites when comparing similar sales.
ShadySue I'm not sure there are really any number of 2004 credits out there but they offer fairly large discounts to big buyers, down to around 46 cents per credit.
-
I wouldn't worry about it too much a 1 credit XS for 9 cents comes out to a 23 credit XXXL for $2.07, aren't you selling those same XXXL files at SS for at most 38 cents or about 1.5 cents per credit? Just a little different perspective.
Your 'perspective' is sadly distorted. Microstock is not and has never has been about RPD. It's a volume thing. If RPD is such a big deal to you then sell your stuff at RM prices.
My earnings at IS peaked just over 2 years ago with an RPD of $1.25. Nowadays my RPD at IS is about $1.89 but my earnings have almost halved as volume has shrunk by 55%.
Over the same period my earnings at SS are up 50% and considerably higher than those at IS despite an RPD of just 66c. It's a volume thing.
-
I wouldn't worry about it too much a 1 credit XS for 9 cents comes out to a 23 credit XXXL for $2.07, aren't you selling those same XXXL files at SS for at most 38 cents or about 1.5 cents per credit? Just a little different perspective.
Your 'perspective' is sadly distorted. Microstock is not and has never has been about RPD. It's a volume thing. If RPD is such a big deal to you then sell your stuff at RM prices.
My earnings at IS peaked just over 2 years ago with an RPD of $1.25. Nowadays my RPD at IS is about $1.89 but my earnings have almost halved as volume has shrunk by 55%.
Over the same period my earnings at SS are up 50% and considerably higher than those at IS despite an RPD of just 66c. It's a volume thing.
guess we can close this topic ;D
-
ShadySue I'm not sure there are really any number of 2004 credits out there but they offer fairly large discounts to big buyers, down to around 46 cents per credit.
Indeed, but that info is not transparent to new contributors. The info accessible to new UK contributors is that credits can be bought for "as little as £0.77", which today is $1.19.
-
Your 'perspective' is sadly distorted. Microstock is not and has never has been about RPD. It's a volume thing. If RPD is such a big deal to you then sell your stuff at RM prices.
I don't think you can say either definitively for every contributor. I personally do much better selling lower volumes at higher prices, but others sell very well through sub models. RPD is very important to me, but that doesn't mean everyone will have (or does have) the same experience.
-
I wouldn't worry about it too much a 1 credit XS for 9 cents comes out to a 23 credit XXXL for $2.07, aren't you selling those same XXXL files at SS for at most 38 cents or about 1.5 cents per credit? Just a little different perspective.
Your 'perspective' is sadly distorted. Microstock is not and has never has been about RPD. It's a volume thing. If RPD is such a big deal to you then sell your stuff at RM prices.
My earnings at IS peaked just over 2 years ago with an RPD of $1.25. Nowadays my RPD at IS is about $1.89 but my earnings have almost halved as volume has shrunk by 55%.
Over the same period my earnings at SS are up 50% and considerably higher than those at IS despite an RPD of just 66c. It's a volume thing.
I think your interpretation of what I was saying is sadly distorted. I never said RPD was the most important thing what I said was that selling an XXXL file on SS gets 38 cents and selling the same file for the very very low rate of 9 cents per credit on IS gets you $2.07 (even higher if the same file is offered as P+) so I don't think 9 cents per credit looks that bad when you compare it to what SS is selling, which could be an equivalent file for less than 1 cent per credit.
-
...the vast majority of sales at SS are sub sales ...
Just not true. There are many regular (ie non-EL, no extra license goodies) sales at the on-demand, and singles prices where I get $2.85 or $5.70 for the equivalent of an IS XXXL. 1,000 on SS is nothing - I wouldn't take that contributor's experience as in any way typical of life at SS.
And my 38 cents for a subs download looks a lot better than the 11 cents I occasionally get for a non-Photo+ XS on IS, if you want to make random comparisons
-
And my 38 cents for a subs download looks a lot better than the 11 cents I occasionally get for a non-Photo+ XS on IS, if you want to make random comparisons
Not to speak for him, but I took his point to mean that if you buy large credit packs, it's like buying a subs package. Then, was comparing the royalties of the two.
-
...the vast majority of sales at SS are sub sales ...
Just not true. There are many regular (ie non-EL, no extra license goodies) sales at the on-demand, and singles prices where I get $2.85 or $5.70 for the equivalent of an IS XXXL. 1,000 on SS is nothing - I wouldn't take that contributor's experience as in any way typical of life at SS.
And my 38 cents for a subs download looks a lot better than the 11 cents I occasionally get for a non-Photo+ XS on IS, if you want to make random comparisons
I think you are missing my point that 9 or 11 cents for a 1 credit sale doesn't really look that bad if you compare it to other sites especially sub sites that would sell the equivalent file for less than 1 cent per credit. Obviously there are bigger sales on IS and SS than the 9 cent 1 credit XS or a 25 cent sub but this topic was about a 1 credit sale for 9 cents not those other things. I do find it hard to believe that your experience is so different with subs though, my friend had about 950+ out of 1000 sales being subs, you must be doing something right if you are seeing a near 50-50 ratio between subs and nonsubs.
-
I do find it hard to believe that your experience is so different with subs though, my friend had about 950+ out of 1000 sales being subs, you must be doing something right if you are seeing a near 50-50 ratio between subs and nonsubs.
SS themselves, in their IPO offering, reported that 56% of their income is derived from subscription sales with the other 44% coming from OD's, EL's and SIS (which are also reported to be growing strongly). My own earnings ratio is almost exactly the same.
-
Indeed, but that info is not transparent to new contributors. The info accessible to new UK contributors is that credits can be bought for "as little as £0.77", which today is $1.19.
And I see that USians can buy credits for 'as low as' $1.04.
Hmmm
-
I think you are missing my point that 9 or 11 cents for a 1 credit sale doesn't really look that bad if you compare it to other sites especially sub sites that would sell the equivalent file for less than 1 cent per credit.
I don't see anyone missing your point. Just disagreeing with it.
Out of curiosity, when did you last sell on SS, if ever? Unless you have recent experience of other sites than Istock, it is purely hypothetical to you. For indies, this is a personal and significant issue, not some theoretical debate.
I agree with Gostwyck, JoAnn, and most other non-exclusives. I care about the floor, bottom line price I will get for each license sold, and I care even more about monthly income each site brings me. It is very different to sell on a site where the lowest price you will get for an image sale is .38, vs. .09 (or lower). Size is fairly irrelevant. What we are selling in not cans of beans, where size is an important factor. With art/intellectual property, it's not about the size of the image, but about the value and quality of the idea and its execution.
-
I think you are missing my point that 9 or 11 cents for a 1 credit sale doesn't really look that bad if you compare it to other sites especially sub sites that would sell the equivalent file for less than 1 cent per credit.
I don't see anyone missing your point. Just disagreeing with it.
Out of curiosity, when did you last sell on SS, if ever? Unless you have recent experience of other sites than Istock, it is purely hypothetical to you. For indies, this is a personal and significant issue, not some theoretical debate.
I agree with Gostwyck, JoAnn, and most other non-exclusives. I care about the floor, bottom line price I will get for each license sold, and I care even more about monthly income each site brings me. It is very different to sell on a site where the lowest price you will get for an image sale is .38, vs. .09 (or lower). Size is fairly irrelevant. What we are selling in not cans of beans, where size is an important factor. With art/intellectual property, it's not about the size of the image, but about the value and quality of the idea and its execution.
I guess it's been about 2 years now and I didn't sell much there I think it was about 16,000 licenses. I guess the difference and disagreement is about whether or not the size is relevant. I think a larger file size is more valuable but if you don't then I can understand how you can call an XS at IS equal to an XXXL at SS and only look at the royalty received as the important difference. If I held that viewpoint I'm not sure how I would explain people buying XXXL's or for that matter any size other than tiny?
-
I had a sale for 9 cents today.
Seriously - has anyone had one for less?
Me too, a couple of days ago. It was pay to go, not a sub. However I'm getting 10c subs quite often.
-
If I held that viewpoint I'm not sure how I would explain people buying XXXL's or for that matter any size other than tiny?
People buy the size they need for the usage they have in mind.
I am surprised that, having praised Istock for raising prices in the industry, you would be defending .09 royalties, just because the image was purchased at xsmall size. If you seriously don't see anything wrong with a .09 royalty on a commercial license for an image, then I can see why this discussion has you confused.
Either that, or you are just deliberately trying to bait anyone who has any criticism whatsoever of Istock. ;)
-
If I held that viewpoint I'm not sure how I would explain people buying XXXL's or for that matter any size other than tiny?
People buy the size they need for the usage they have in mind.
I am surprised that, having praised Istock for raising prices in the industry, you would be defending .09 royalties, just because the image was purchased at xsmall size. If you seriously don't see anything wrong with a .09 royalty on a commercial license for an image, then I can see why this discussion has you confused.
Either that, or you are just deliberately trying to bait anyone who has any criticism whatsoever of Istock. ;)
Exactly then size does make a difference. I'm not defending 9 cent royalties for XS images at all I'm just saying that 38 cents for an XXXL is worse. They are both too low.
-
It's funny that SS are increasing the ratio of non-subs sales while istock are encouraging buyers to move to Thinkstock, where we get mostly sub sales. And I get a lot less for them with Thinkstock. Some people used to upload smaller sizes only to the subs sites but they would have to leave istock to avoid selling subs on Thinkstock as independents.
-
I think there are some brilliant rationalizations here, using the new math of 'credits' and the pricing stuctures of these agencies - which are now more complicated than quantum physics - to convince ourselves that getting 9 cents for use of a photo is, actually, just fine. Because we're selling pixels, not photographs, right? If someone thinks a 32 pixel wide image is all they need for their web site, then they should pay about 2 cents I guess. Or are we selling by the photon now?
And why stop there? Let's be fair with our buyers and let them pay only for actual eyeball contact. Instead of a commission on the sale, we could collect .001 cents for every hit on their web page.
Let's say we're musicians, selling MP3s through iTunes. If a buyer has cheap earbuds, he'd get a reduced resolution, low bitrate version for, say, 9 cents. Only elite snobs with big speakers would pay full price. It's only fair, right? And we'd make it up on volume.
-
... With art/intellectual property, it's not about the size of the image, but about the value and quality of the idea and its execution.
Yeah!!
-
Exactly then size does make a difference. I'm not defending 9 cent royalties for XS images at all I'm just saying that 38 cents for an XXXL is worse. They are both too low.
You're comparing subscription with pay as you go and that just isn't apples to apples. For a variety of reasons, subscription buyers download more - I suspect they don't use all they download, bu unlike PAYG, they don't seek a refund when it turns out they didn't use it. Given they have a use it or loose it situation each day, lots of buyers will download rather than not.
So the net is that my download total at a subs site like SS - all the others just have never managed to do the volume thing right, so subs have been more of a pain in the butt - is much, much higher than for a PAYG site like IS. The total income each month, even back in the days before SS had all the single image sales, might be about the same, but the DL total would be a ton higher from the subs site.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
guess we can close this topic ;D
:D
-
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.
Subs suck, so does getting paid under 20%. Like you said above, both royalties are too low.
-
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. So yes __ it was the wrong place to say anything, negative or positive, about subs.
-
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.
Cheer up! I'm with you! What nobody has said is that... yes... maybe OD sales are good for some in percentage... but if you are exclusive at IS one (any) big size regular (not E+, nor Vetta) IS sale give you 3-6x what you would get with the OD. I agree that having fair percentatges is very important, but selling at acceptable prices is important too.
-
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.
No need to feel that way. Go ahead and keep posting your thoughts, it makes for an interesting forum. I don't need to see only posts that agree with me.
-
Back to topic - yep, I've had those 9c sales too sadly, even a 7c one! Luckily they're very few and far between.
-
I think you are missing my point that 9 or 11 cents for a 1 credit sale doesn't really look that bad if you compare it to other sites especially sub sites that would sell the equivalent file for less than 1 cent per credit.
I don't see anyone missing your point. Just disagreeing with it.
Out of curiosity, when did you last sell on SS, if ever? Unless you have recent experience of other sites than Istock, it is purely hypothetical to you. For indies, this is a personal and significant issue, not some theoretical debate.
I agree with Gostwyck, JoAnn, and most other non-exclusives. I care about the floor, bottom line price I will get for each license sold, and I care even more about monthly income each site brings me. It is very different to sell on a site where the lowest price you will get for an image sale is .38, vs. .09 (or lower). Size is fairly irrelevant. What we are selling in not cans of beans, where size is an important factor. With art/intellectual property, it's not about the size of the image, but about the value and quality of the idea and its execution.
You're spot on here. Usage is usage. We should be receiving the same high royalty rates for an XS as we do for an XXXL. Websites should be restricted to use a smaller sized image, but as far as I'm concerned, there should be one price for all sizes under the standard RF license. Breaking them down in size 'and' price is just another way the agents screw us over. The only time there should be a difference in the price is under an EL license because they offer extra types of usage.
-
Is there an easy way to see what an image has sold for at IS without clicking on each sale? Pages open so slowly for me at IS that I never bother clicking to look at individual sales.
-
I wouldn't worry about it too much a 1 credit XS for 9 cents comes out to a 23 credit XXXL for $2.07, aren't you selling those same XXXL files at SS for at most 38 cents or about 1.5 cents per credit? Just a little different perspective.
..and it never goes as low as 9 or 6 cents...
Depends how you look at it is what I'm saying. SS minimum size is equivalent to a 7 credit medium file on IS and the max size is equivalent to a 28 credit P+. Therefore the vast majority of sales at SS would be the equivalent per credit royalty of between less than 1 cent (25 cents per download on a 28 credit P+) and 5.5 cents (38 cents on a 7 credit medium regular). Either way they would be lower than anything on IS for an equivalent license. I'm not saying SS is the worst either I think crestock is still selling subs for 25 cents, it's just that IS even with such a small royalty doesn't look as bad to me as most of the other sites when comparing similar sales.
ShadySue I'm not sure there are really any number of 2004 credits out there but they offer fairly large discounts to big buyers, down to around 46 cents per credit.
subscription has two points for the contrib: entice buyers into downloading a lot, and get rid of the ultra low commisions coming from web sizes. Thats why it's just screwing the contribs at other sites than SS, because those still have tiny size tiny price regular dls besides subs. Thats means they use those when need a small pic for web, and subs just start to replace regular downloads of larger sizes... but I guess figuring out how a price structure works is beyond many...
-
Is there an easy way to see what an image has sold for at IS without clicking on each sale? Pages open so slowly for me at IS that I never bother clicking to look at individual sales.
Use Sean's incredibly useful scripts:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=297012&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=297012&page=1)
-
Is there an easy way to see what an image has sold for at IS without clicking on each sale? Pages open so slowly for me at IS that I never bother clicking to look at individual sales.
Use Sean's incredibly useful scripts:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=297012&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=297012&page=1[/url])
Duh, thanks I had totally forgotten about that script. I changed my computer last year and didn't re-install it.
-
Just got the second 9c sale in a few days :o . What's going on, where are these ancient/mega discounted credits coming from?
-
Just got the second 9c sale in a few days :o . 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 ;)
-
Just got the second 9c sale in a few days :o . 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 ;)
You think they're going the 123RF way?
-
I've just been through my last 4 pages using Sean's script and found one for 10c and one for 11c. Pathetic!!! I wish I hadn't looked.
-
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.
Perhaps from the Phoenician era
-
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.
Perhaps from the Phoenician era
LOL! Wonder if those credits were issued on stone tablets or papyrus? ;D
-
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.
With respect. Just because you say it is irrelevant that does not mean that it actually is irrelevant..
I do think it is fair to make a comparison between tiny pictures occassionally being sold or peanuts vs large resolution images routinely being sold for almost peanuts.
-
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.
-
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? ;D
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 -------------->)
-
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? ;D
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.
-
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? ;D
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
there are a few more too, I believe we need to see what works best, some are happy with just a few sales other need a payout every month, I am all about easy upload and fair royalties, we all have our way of dealing with agencies (with more or less patience)
-
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...
-
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...
It's hard to have a discussion with you, you never answer my questions, while at the same time you're always saying I don't get it and just state the same things over and over (without further explanation). I try to explain why I think the way I do and if nothing else, my opinion is backed by polls (at least when it comes to earnings). So in a way, it's really hard to understand you. The point of all discussions is to illustrate your point, make other ppl understand your view (not agree with it, there's a big difference). Unless they're really dumb, then of course, you can't do anything...
Why is the small agency crookery nothing? IS tells you straight ahead, it's up to you to decide. There's not hidden agenda like with lots of the smaller ones that I mentioned. I forgot about DP not deleting your photos although you've ask them the, they say they've deactivated it and when you get back to do business with them, they pay you out the money you've earned with "deactivated" files. How can you believe ppl like that? :o
-
It's hard to have a discussion with you, you never answer my questions, while at the same time you're always saying I don't get it and just state the same things over and over (without further explanation). I try to explain why I think the way I do and if nothing else, my opinion is backed by polls (at least when it comes to earnings). So in a way, it's really hard to understand you. The point of all discussions is to illustrate your point, make other ppl understand your view (not agree with it, there's a big difference). Unless they're really dumb, then of course, you can't do anything...
So what was your question? To name an agency with fair share, decent prices and volume? I thought I answered that: I don't think there is any, at least if "volume" means comparable to IS or SS.
And yes, I agree with you, the top four bring in the lion's share of the earnings (else they wouldn't be the top four).
But still I believe supporting the smaller ones (with fair shares and decent prices) is worth it. Which are they? To name a few: Zoonar (my experience with their support is totally different to what you mention here, so no complains from me), GL, Yay, Featurepics,... Do they sell a lot? No. But as long as the amount of time needed to upload to them is not too big, I will keep on supporting them.
-
My own new personal worst: Two downloads on sixteen days for an incredible amount of 9.95$. Way to go ;D ;D
-
On day this week I had four downloads with (all different) credit values from 80c/credit down to 46c/credit.