MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: The answer you've been looking for ($49 vs $79)  (Read 2796 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: July 11, 2017, 03:37 »
0
I don't even think they lied at all.  They said they'll sell for $49 (to paid members) and give us 100% royalty.  They're just doing that.

Please read again.

They are just being sneaky with the $30 "membership fee". That exists ONLY to state 100% royalties without having to say "100% on membership purchases, and 62% on non-membership purchases".

That is all that's required!

If they just write out "100% on $49 purchases, and 62% on $79 purchases" it's all good. They choose not to do that which is purposefully misleading.

It has nothing to do with any other sites at all. 100 and 62 are still incredibly great numbers. But not hiding certain things is also great.

Also, as a side note, none of the other sites have PayPal fees. I think VB should get a business account...


« Reply #26 on: July 11, 2017, 03:40 »
0
easy way to test that theory is to have a "friend" (in another region) purchase your clip as a non-member, and record the process while on skype (let's say) if the royalties show up and all is there we're good, if only $49 shows up on contributor side then we prove the theory, if nothing shows up then we PANIC!

youtube and social media is a powerful tool, no agency would want that kind of stain on them.

PS. if contributor keeps "100%" -minus a dollar or so, then this experiment will cost very little
PSS. if anyone tries this please follow up in this thread.

Cheers,
Bart

EDIT: I believe the $30 non-member fee goes to agency not contributor, so we always get $49 for HD.

I already said that I KNOW that for a fact.  :) It's in the first post.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2017, 03:46 by increasingdifficulty »

« Reply #27 on: July 11, 2017, 09:10 »
0
isn't it funny, how many contributors justified their "100%" contributor commission system as a "right" way to go in stock industry... now it seems they earning the same as many other agencies  ;D ;D :laughingoutloud:

They pay like $47 for a HD sale unlike others that pay like $23.  It's not the same, bro.    ;D ;D :laughingoutloud:

nazlisart

  • I create therefore I AM
« Reply #28 on: July 11, 2017, 10:28 »
+2
Sorry Guys, I'm not a videographer and I don't know this agency but reading through this post I keep wondering how the heck do these people make money if they give you 100% commission??? :o

Thanks

« Reply #29 on: July 11, 2017, 10:48 »
0
Sorry Guys, I'm not a videographer and I don't know this agency but reading through this post I keep wondering how the heck do these people make money if they give you 100% commission??? :o

Thanks

They either charge a $30 "temporary membership fee" which is what we're discussing here, or they get people to sign up for their full membership program.

« Reply #30 on: July 12, 2017, 01:24 »
0
isn't it funny, how many contributors justified their "100%" contributor commission system as a "right" way to go in stock industry... now it seems they earning the same as many other agencies  ;D ;D :laughingoutloud:

They pay like $47 for a HD sale unlike others that pay like $23.  It's not the same, bro.    ;D ;D :laughingoutloud:

not with so many tax witholds we had at VB. Then the incomes was as bad as elsewhere.

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #31 on: July 12, 2017, 03:49 »
+2
isn't it funny, how many contributors justified their "100%" contributor commission system as a "right" way to go in stock industry... now it seems they earning the same as many other agencies  ;D ;D :laughingoutloud:

They pay like $47 for a HD sale unlike others that pay like $23.  It's not the same, bro.    ;D ;D :laughingoutloud:

not with so many tax witholds we had at VB. Then the incomes was as bad as elsewhere.

What an agency charges for a clip, and what percentage they pay to the author of the clip, is unrelated to what tax you have withheld. It may influence your decision to upload to them, and sure, it may affect your level of satisfaction with them overall... but 100% of $49 (minus fees), is still 100% of $49 (minus fees), whichever way you look at it.

Just like the 100% claim could be considered misleading if the price is $79 and the sale results in $49... it would be misleading to say that VB only pay out 70% based on certain individuals tax situations. Yes, some people do get 70% of the sale price, but that's due to withholding tax, which doesn't detract from the fact that 100% of $49 is a pretty good deal. Especially seeing that iStock and others might withhold tax on top of the much lower commission percentage. Get 30% withheld there and you're barely making just over 10%!

« Reply #32 on: July 12, 2017, 03:54 »
+1
not with so many tax witholds we had at VB. Then the incomes was as bad as elsewhere.

Don't mix in unrelated issues here. Withheld taxes are dictated by the IRS and the US government, and depends on the politics of your country and the US.

It has nothing to do with VB, iS, P5 etc. (except their location).

---

100% is great. 62% is great. 70% is great.

Sneaking in a $30 "temporary fee" and calling the price $49 is not great.

All I want is honesty in a company.

And the argument "but the other companies are worse" is pretty weak...

« Reply #33 on: July 12, 2017, 23:31 »
0
Once I was paid by SS 69.00 for Edmonton city view picture. It was good alternative for 0.25.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
2248 Views
Last post October 26, 2008, 13:17
by Perry
10 Replies
2782 Views
Last post December 10, 2015, 02:42
by Liorpt
1 Replies
914 Views
Last post January 31, 2013, 06:32
by ShadySue
IRS 1099-K Answer

Started by Uncle Pete Shutterstock.com

3 Replies
1605 Views
Last post September 18, 2014, 19:29
by Uncle Pete
1 Replies
530 Views
Last post August 19, 2017, 14:35
by JetCityImage

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors