Author Topic: 100MB sale for $11.58 wow (Read 24731 times)

nicku · « **on:** May 28, 2012, 05:27 »

last days i have got two 100MB sales..... for $11,58 each.... is this right or i miss something here??? 150 credits sale and 50% revenue just 11 bucks...

jm · « **Reply #1 on:** May 28, 2012, 05:39 »

Hi Everyone,

Great news! We've introduced another value added service to our clients - 123RF Image Enlargement Service. And you can now see this as being available on the website if you look at your file sizes, we now have the following:

Size Credits Your share
S 1 50%
M 2 50%
L 3 50%
XL 4 50%
XXL 5 50%
100 MB TIFF 150 20 credits
200 MB TIFF 300 40 credits
300 MB TIFF 450 60 credits

We are employing an external party to provide this service to our clients. We are using your 5 credit version of the image to enlarge it to 100, 200, 300 MB TIFFs with some minor touch up, removal of noise, etc. Don't worry about your original images, we do make sure that we keep everything cataloged and our external service provider will not distribute this version without first consulting 123RF.

The good news is, you're now getting approximately 13.3% of the FULL VALUE (not 50% as in the case of the S-XXL size images) of the credits for each image enlarged, while we share the remaining amount with the image enlargement service provider.

We hope that this will prove to be a good and profitable business model for you and our clients as it will increase the earning capacity for everyone. We will promote this service to all our clients and soon you should see some heavy hitting sales coming your way!

Thank you very much.

Alex.
for 123RF.com

nicku · « **Reply #2 on:** May 28, 2012, 05:42 »

ok... than why on the site says 150 credits?

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #3 on:** May 28, 2012, 05:59 »

Quote from: nicku on May 28, 2012, 05:42

ok... than why on the site says 150 credits?

They are charging 150 credits and giving 13.3% of the earnings to you, apparently, which is the equivalent of what 20 credits cost.

It seems a bit of a swindle, since the "upsizing service" will simply click the button on their interpolation program and apparently that amount of work is worth 61.7 credits.

grafix04 · « **Reply #4 on:** May 28, 2012, 06:01 »

Roll on Jan-1, 2013. I won't even give a second thought dumping this site along with the slimy management that run it.

Lagereek · « **Reply #5 on:** May 28, 2012, 06:05 »

Blimey! thats all I can say, blimey! and again, blimey. Its turning into a Herbert-Strasse in Hamburg.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #6 on:** May 28, 2012, 06:05 »

BTW, will these 150 credit sales take you 150 credits closer to your credit target in January or just 20 credits closer?
If the latter, it amounts to raising the target before the system has even started.

jm · « **Reply #7 on:** May 28, 2012, 06:08 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 28, 2012, 06:05

BTW, will these 150 credit sales take you 150 credits closer to your credit target in January or just 20 credits closer?
If the latter, it amounts to raising the target before the system has even started.

20

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #8 on:** May 28, 2012, 06:14 »

Do you think they'd let me be their external resizing company? I'd happily resize images in PS for that much, I'd even give them a 20% discount. It's a better pay rate than I get taking and editing my own photos.

jm · « **Reply #9 on:** May 28, 2012, 06:18 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 28, 2012, 06:14

Do you think they'd let me be their external resizing company? I'd happily resize images in PS for that much, I'd even give them a 20% discount. It's a better pay rate than I get taking and editing my own photos.

They say "we share the remaining amount with the image enlargement service provider." It doesn't necessarily mean that resizing company really gets 36,7% :-)

heywoody · « **Reply #10 on:** May 28, 2012, 07:52 »

So, instead of getting 2.5 credits, you are getting 20 credits for the same file - not seeing a problem here

sharpshot · « **Reply #11 on:** May 28, 2012, 08:20 »

deleted

wut · « **Reply #12 on:** May 28, 2012, 08:34 »

They're the biggest thieves in the industry. I despise them

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #13 on:** May 28, 2012, 09:16 »

Quote from: heywoody on May 28, 2012, 07:52

So, instead of getting 2.5 credits, you are getting 20 credits for the same file - not seeing a problem here

The problem is that the division of the spoils should be in line with agreed percentages. The deduction they are making for upsizing is not commensurate with the costs they are incurring. Suppose an agency flipped one of your shots horizontally, sold the result for a million dollars and geve you $100 for it, saying it's more than you normally get and they had enhanced your image with their work - would you be happy?

Tabimura · « **Reply #14 on:** May 28, 2012, 09:17 »

Quote from: wut on May 28, 2012, 08:34

They're the biggest thieves in the industry. I despise them

They're not the biggest, Fotolia reigns supreme here.
But they're shady to say the least (123RF).

wut · « **Reply #15 on:** May 28, 2012, 09:29 »

Quote from: Tabimura on May 28, 2012, 09:17

Quote from: wut on May 28, 2012, 08:34
They're the biggest thieves in the industry. I despise them

They're not the biggest, Fotolia reigns supreme here.
But they're shady to say the least (123RF).

FT at least didn't add such spins. A company loses all respect (from me), when they start to add those on top of everything (cuts), they're insulting our intelligence, mocking us really. Showing us disrespect and how we're dispensable (mess off if you don't like the deal)

click_click · « **Reply #16 on:** May 28, 2012, 09:31 »

Quote from: heywoody on May 28, 2012, 07:52

So, instead of getting 2.5 credits, you are getting 20 credits for the same file - not seeing a problem here

Huh, why am I uploading to Alamy then if someone there pays $500+ for a RF file leaving me $200+ commission?

Why even upload to any micros when we can give our files for free...

I don't understand your argument.

If a company charges 30 times as much for an enlargement compared to the XXL file size then it would be a little bit more, let's say, respectful to also pay 30 times as much in commission. Hell make it 20 times as much.

I have to sell TWO XS Level 5 images on DT to get more $$$ than an 100 MB enlargement at 123RF. Pathetic.

wut · « **Reply #17 on:** May 28, 2012, 09:34 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 28, 2012, 09:16

Quote from: heywoody on May 28, 2012, 07:52
So, instead of getting 2.5 credits, you are getting 20 credits for the same file - not seeing a problem here

The problem is that the division of the spoils should be in line with agreed percentages. The deduction they are making for upsizing is not commensurate with the costs they are incurring. Suppose an agency flipped one of your shots horizontally, sold the result for a million dollars and geve you $100 for it, saying it's more than you normally get and they had enhanced your image with their work - would you be happy?

That would be in line with their spins, yes, you nailed it

wut · « **Reply #18 on:** May 28, 2012, 09:36 »

Quote from: click_click on May 28, 2012, 09:31

I have to sell TWO XS Level 5 images on DT to get more $$$ than an 100 MB enlargement at 123RF. Pathetic.

Indeed!

All of their royalties (for all file sizes) are utterly pathetic. But sheeple still keep on saying they're paying 50%, they're a fair agency! (not that they're takin that away from 99% of the contributors at the end of the year)

heywoody · « **Reply #19 on:** May 28, 2012, 09:46 »

I don't buy into this fair and unfair bit at all - these companies are all there to make money for themselves, not us - it's commerce and fairness doesn't come into it except as a marketing ploy. So, while I agree with you all from a moral viewpoint, the work in making the image, uploading it etc is all done. The very same image could be licenced from less than $0.10 to tens of dollars depending on artificial criterial like size and licence and, on a practical level, I prefer a $10 commission to a 10c commission.

Tabimura · « **Reply #20 on:** May 28, 2012, 09:48 »

Quote from: wut on May 28, 2012, 09:29

Quote from: Tabimura on May 28, 2012, 09:17
Quote from: wut on May 28, 2012, 08:34
They're the biggest thieves in the industry. I despise them

They're not the biggest, Fotolia reigns supreme here.
But they're shady to say the least (123RF).

FT at least didn't add such spins. A company loses all respect (from me), when they start to add those on top of everything (cuts), they're insulting our intelligence, mocking us really. Showing us disrespect and how we're dispensable (mess off if you don't like the deal)

FT did add their share of spins, you can find them on msg with a simple search - they're the worse in my view. However, 123RF shows great disrespect for artists. BUT, unlike FT, they're not that important and these stunts will surely spin their arses off when artists will leave the site. Which will happen, I'm sure a lot of us can get rid of 123RF without remorse or big dent in income.

wut · « **Reply #21 on:** May 28, 2012, 10:04 »

Quote from: heywoody on May 28, 2012, 09:46

I don't buy into this fair and unfair bit at all - these companies are all there to make money for themselves, not us - it's commerce and fairness doesn't come into it except as a marketing ploy. So, while I agree with you all from a moral viewpoint, the work in making the image, uploading it etc is all done. The very same image could be licenced from less than $0.10 to tens of dollars depending on artificial criterial like size and licence and, on a practical level, I prefer a $10 commission to a 10c commission.

And this kind of attitude makes it possible for them to get away with it

(millions of ppl are thinking that way)

click_click · « **Reply #22 on:** May 28, 2012, 10:08 »

Quote from: heywoody on May 28, 2012, 09:46

I don't buy into this fair and unfair bit at all - these companies are all there to make money for themselves, not us - it's commerce and fairness doesn't come into it except as a marketing ploy. So, while I agree with you all from a moral viewpoint, the work in making the image, uploading it etc is all done. The very same image could be licenced from less than $0.10 to tens of dollars depending on artificial criterial like size and licence and, on a practical level, I prefer a $10 commission to a 10c commission.

We're in this for the money as well. It's a partnership between the supplier and the distributor.

No product -> no sales, as easy as that.

While the world is not fair, we can and do ask for respect, give us a contract that states you get 50%, period.

But to turn around and then introduce such premium, high priced services leaving us with 20% is not what has been advertised on the package.

The agencies can do as they see fit, no problem with me, just be honest - at least to us contributors because it's still our content they're selling, not theirs...

cthoman · « **Reply #23 on:** May 28, 2012, 10:21 »

Quote from: jm on May 28, 2012, 05:39

The good news is, you're now getting approximately 13.3% of the FULL VALUE (not 50% as in the case of the S-XXL size images) of the credits for each image enlarged, while we share the remaining amount with the image enlargement service provider.

That's pretty cheesy. I'll probably never sell any of these, but it still seems like a bad precedent.

wut · « **Reply #24 on:** May 28, 2012, 10:40 »

Quote from: cthoman on May 28, 2012, 10:21

Quote from: jm on May 28, 2012, 05:39

The good news is, you're now getting approximately 13.3% of the FULL VALUE (not 50% as in the case of the S-XXL size images) of the credits for each image enlarged, while we share the remaining amount with the image enlargement service provider.

That's pretty cheesy. I'll probably never sell any of these, but it still seems like a bad precedent.

I have and it left me with a bad taste in my mouth. I almost felt like Monica Levinsky

It's a shame I can't opt out of this steal

drugal · « **Reply #25 on:** May 28, 2012, 15:12 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 28, 2012, 05:59

Quote from: nicku on May 28, 2012, 05:42
ok... than why on the site says 150 credits?

They are charging 150 credits and giving 13.3% of the earnings to you, apparently, which is the equivalent of what 20 credits cost.

It seems a bit of a swindle, since the "upsizing service" will simply click the button on their interpolation program and apparently that amount of work is worth 61.7 credits.

I'll upsize twice their size for the same $$

Anybody? I'm very good.. practiced it for years.

djpadavona · « **Reply #26 on:** May 28, 2012, 22:57 »

My RPD has fallen through the floor at 123RF the last few months. And since downloads have not increased to compensate, it is now one of my lowest tier earners. Can't say I'll be uploading much to them in the future.

nicku · « **Reply #27 on:** May 28, 2012, 23:47 »

Quote from: djpadavona on May 28, 2012, 22:57

My RPD has fallen through the floor at 123RF the last few months. And since downloads have not increased to compensate, it is now one of my lowest tier earners. Can't say I'll be uploading much to them in the future.

For me 123RF is my 4th earner; way over DP from the beginning. The sales are slowly but steadily increasing.

heywoody · « **Reply #28 on:** May 29, 2012, 09:22 »

Quote from: wut on May 28, 2012, 10:04

Quote from: heywoody on May 28, 2012, 09:46
I don't buy into this fair and unfair bit at all - these companies are all there to make money for themselves, not us - it's commerce and fairness doesn't come into it except as a marketing ploy. So, while I agree with you all from a moral viewpoint, the work in making the image, uploading it etc is all done. The very same image could be licenced from less than $0.10 to tens of dollars depending on artificial criterial like size and licence and, on a practical level, I prefer a $10 commission to a 10c commission.

And this kind of attitude makes it possible for them to get away with it (millions of ppl are thinking that way)

Nothing to do with attitude - they get away with it because they can.

wut · « **Reply #29 on:** May 29, 2012, 09:24 »

It has everything to do with it; they couldn't get away with it if we wouldn't let them

Perry · « **Reply #30 on:** May 29, 2012, 14:43 »

Quote from: Alex for 123RF.com

Hi Everyone,

Great news!

Yeah, really great

Sounds like: Great news! You have cancer!

The bin in my avatar is almost full, I need to fit Veer and 123rf there too...

Tabimura · « **Reply #31 on:** May 29, 2012, 15:04 »

I've had several sales of these enlarged tiffs. I asked 123RF if I can opt out of this and they said no. I suspect the "company" doing the resizing would be a person from the agency, like Alex or someone else.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #32 on:** May 29, 2012, 17:10 »

Quote from: Perry on May 29, 2012, 14:43

...The bin in my avatar is almost full, I need to fit Veer and 123rf there too...

Easy Photoshop fix - just squish them a bit as they're shoved in the bin. Sort of seems fitting anyway

Beach Bum · « **Reply #33 on:** May 29, 2012, 19:14 »

Quote from: Tabimura on May 29, 2012, 15:04

I've had several sales of these enlarged tiffs. I asked 123RF if I can opt out of this and they said no. I suspect the "company" doing the resizing would be a person from the agency, like Alex or someone else.

True. I can't imagine them outsourcing something as simple as upsizing.

briciola · « **Reply #34 on:** May 29, 2012, 19:18 »

Quote from: Perry on May 29, 2012, 14:43

Quote from: Alex for 123RF.com
Hi Everyone,

Great news!

Yeah, really great

Sounds like: Great news! You have cancer!

The bin in my avatar is almost full, I need to fit Veer and 123rf there too...

just out of curiosity, who will you be left with? Seems to me the only ethical company out there is Alamy...

MatHayward · « **Reply #35 on:** May 29, 2012, 19:37 »

Download your stats at 123rf and look at the commissions you have received for each sale. Compare the commission amount to the size of the file and the price they charge. Can anyone in this forum claim a full price sale?

Right now you should receive...

50 cents for a Small
$1 for a Medium
$1.50 for a Large
$2 for an XL
$2.50 for an XXL Jpeg
$5.00 for an XXL Tiff

If they were paying us that it is still demoralizing and grossly undercutting the other sites for the same content. Take a look at your stats though...they aren't paying that. The closest I came was $1.41 for a large sale. Makes me feel dirty.

Mat

wut · « **Reply #36 on:** May 29, 2012, 19:42 »

Quote from: MatHayward on May 29, 2012, 19:37

Download your stats at 123rf and look at the commissions you have received for each sale. Compare the commission amount to the size of the file and the price they charge. Can anyone in this forum claim a full price sale?

Right now you should receive...

50 cents for a Small
$1 for a Medium
$1.50 for a Large
$2 for an XL
$2.50 for an XXL Jpeg
$5.00 for an XXL Tiff

If they were paying us that it is still demoralizing and grossly undercutting the other sites for the same content. Take a look at your stats though...they aren't paying that. The closest I came was $1.41 for a large sale. Makes me feel dirty.

Mat

You've hit the nail on the head! I just got 3.1$ for an XS at DT. Their full res JPG is way cheaper than that

pancaketom · « **Reply #37 on:** May 29, 2012, 20:16 »

Quote from: MatHayward on May 29, 2012, 19:37

Download your stats at 123rf and look at the commissions you have received for each sale. Compare the commission amount to the size of the file and the price they charge. Can anyone in this forum claim a full price sale?

Right now you should receive...

50 cents for a Small
$1 for a Medium
$1.50 for a Large
$2 for an XL
$2.50 for an XXL Jpeg
$5.00 for an XXL Tiff

If they were paying us that it is still demoralizing and grossly undercutting the other sites for the same content. Take a look at your stats though...they aren't paying that. The closest I came was $1.41 for a large sale. Makes me feel dirty.

Mat

I have gotten .50 for sm, 1.50 for L, and 2.00 for XL this month, but they are the exceptions.

They advertise credits as low as .68/credit - which at 50% would result in S = .34, M = .68, L = 1.02, XL = 1.36 ... Which still doesn't explain the .60 I got for a large.

On DT I got .22 for an extra small last month, so they are not immune from returns below the expected.

briciola · « **Reply #38 on:** May 29, 2012, 20:28 »

Quote from: MatHayward on May 29, 2012, 19:37

Download your stats at 123rf and look at the commissions you have received for each sale. Compare the commission amount to the size of the file and the price they charge. Can anyone in this forum claim a full price sale?

Right now you should receive...

50 cents for a Small
$1 for a Medium
$1.50 for a Large
$2 for an XL
$2.50 for an XXL Jpeg
$5.00 for an XXL Tiff

If they were paying us that it is still demoralizing and grossly undercutting the other sites for the same content. Take a look at your stats though...they aren't paying that. The closest I came was $1.41 for a large sale. Makes me feel dirty.

Mat

F&ck me I've been well screwed, 1.74 for my last XXL tiff. Every single sale I have checked is below your numbers, rip off *insult removed* - they can f*ck off, same as veer

luissantos84 · « **Reply #39 on:** May 29, 2012, 23:18 »

guys don´t forget that buyers have discounts, same goes for IS, I really don´t believe 123RF is taking our share going that way

Perry · « **Reply #40 on:** May 30, 2012, 00:16 »

Quote from: briciola on May 29, 2012, 19:18

just out of curiosity, who will you be left with? Seems to me the only ethical company out there is Alamy...

I'm still left with Alamy, SS and DT (DT is very borderline here, I hope they don't try some stupid radical stunt!)

luissantos84 · « **Reply #42 on:** October 01, 2012, 07:05 »

PEL for 11.25$ ??

JPSDK · « **Reply #43 on:** October 01, 2012, 10:03 »

13%
and we hear of 7-9 cents.

We are clowns in a circus.

We are only there because else the agency had nothing to sell. They sell our copyrights in form of licences, but not only that, they restribute our copyrights to all kinds of obscure affiliates. There is a whole subbusiness going on there, with agencies selling collections to eachother. Partent sites, sister sites and clean pirate sites.

We think they sell images, but they do not. The images rest on servers in basements, whereas copies are sold, by our permission.

What I try to say, is that the middleman part of the circus is soon being able to do without us, we are only a necessary evil.

When you look at iStock, its obvious that they would rather be without us.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #44 on:** October 03, 2012, 10:31 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on October 01, 2012, 07:05

PEL for 11.25$ ??

I just got two of those today. If we're still being paid 50% royalty, that means we got paid 22.5 cents per credit (it's 50 credits for a PEL) and the buyer paid 45 cents per.

Using their online purchase tool, you can't get lower than 68 cents a credit (I tried up to 60,000 and it was still 68 cents per). So either they're shortchanging us on the percentage already - and it wasn't supposed to happen until January - or they're discounting the credits way beyond what they say on the site (as iStock does).

We should have received $17 at a minimum (50% of 68 cents x 50 credits). Did you already contact support about this? I don't suppose it'll change anything, but FWIW I'll find out what weasley excuse they can come up with for this if no one else already has.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #45 on:** October 03, 2012, 17:22 »

Quote from: jsnover on October 03, 2012, 10:31

Did you already contact support about this?

I haven´t, they seem so active here

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #46 on:** October 03, 2012, 19:16 »

I just sent in a support ticket. They do come here on and off, but even if the answer is that they're flogging very discounted credits, I'd like to get them to say that's what they're doing. I'll post here when I get a reply if they don't jump into the thread first

alex123rf · « **Reply #47 on:** October 04, 2012, 09:19 »

Hi Everyone,

Please allow me to address the issue on promotional credits.

1. We do give out promotional credits.
2. These credits are free.
3. We often give this out to prospective clients to test drive 123RF so that they'll search and look for content.
4. In the event that these clients use the credits to download content, 123RF is committed to pay 20 cents per credit to our contributors.
5. These payments come out from our allocated Advertising and Promotion budget.

I hope you will find this explanation satisfactory. We DO NOT DEDUCT payment from you when these credits are present.

Thank you very much,

Alex.

alex123rf · « **Reply #48 on:** October 04, 2012, 09:22 »

Also,

I overheard members of the 123RF Submission Email team discussing and investigating Jo Ann's query today. I believe they have sent a reply to Jo Ann as well.

We're always open to dialogue, do email us.

Thanks,

Alex.

click_click · « **Reply #49 on:** October 04, 2012, 09:30 »

I once actually got paid by Crestock so that they can use one of my images on their homepage.

I think those days are over...

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #50 on:** October 04, 2012, 09:38 »

Alex is correct - I received a reply from support this morning. The purchase was made with 45 cent credits - "From time to time, we do give large discounts to loyal and consistent clients who buy large amount of credits in bulk and the discount is given at the discretion of our Sales and Marketing director."

So I guess luissantos84 and I were both blessed by purchases from one of these loyal and consistent clients.

Pixart · « **Reply #51 on:** October 24, 2012, 13:10 »

Quote from: alex123rf on October 04, 2012, 09:19

Hi Everyone,

Please allow me to address the issue on promotional credits.

1. We do give out promotional credits.
2. These credits are free.
3. We often give this out to prospective clients to test drive 123RF so that they'll search and look for content.
4. In the event that these clients use the credits to download content, 123RF is committed to pay 20 cents per credit to our contributors.
5. These payments come out from our allocated Advertising and Promotion budget.

I hope you will find this explanation satisfactory. We DO NOT DEDUCT payment from you when these credits are present.

Thank you very much,

Alex.

Wow, you pay more per credit for freebies than you do for the super-duper-we-are-so-lucky-you-offer-it-upsizing service. Nice to see an $8 sale until you see the real price - .053 per credit for a 150 credit sale!!! Less than 6 cents per credit! Congratulations, you have managed to surpass Istock. None of us thought it was possible.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #52 on:** November 13, 2012, 12:24 »

So this note about royalties will feel a little upside down compared to most. Today I checked my sales and among them were two XL images, one of which had a $1.20 royalty and the other $6.50

XL is 4 credits, so is it really the case that a buyer paid $3.25 a credit? I did double check that the "Downloads" column showed only one sale today for that image - it isn't multiple royalties added together. I can contact support, but thought I'd see if there's some sort of partner deal I don't know about that pays more than the typical amounts.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #53 on:** November 27, 2012, 11:08 »

This morning's check had an XL sale (5 credits) with 31 cents royalty to me. At 50% that means the buyer paid 12.4 cents a credit! I assume it's one of their recent promotions - but those are ridiculous numbers. I make more for an XS at PhotoDune (often talked about as a low price site) than I did for an XL here. Even a sub at 123rf would have made 36 cents.

It's a good month (BME) there, but virtually giving away my XL images just ticks me off. They can pay for promotional expenses from their 50%, not mine.

Bah humbug!

gillian vann · « **Reply #54 on:** November 27, 2012, 19:59 »

doesn't the taking our jpegs and turning them into TIFFs kinda fly in the face of image quality? Why not ask us to upsize our own files and provide them in whatever format they want?

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #55 on:** November 27, 2012, 20:42 »

Quote from: vannphoto on November 27, 2012, 19:59

doesn't the taking our jpegs and turning them into TIFFs kinda fly in the face of image quality? Why not ask us to upsize our own files and provide them in whatever format they want?

You'd think, but SS, DT and 123rf all do it. I think it's that some of the old fashioned buyers think they want TIFFs and rather than argue the toss with them, the sites give them what they want. Logistically, contacting us for custom items wouldn't work well, IMO.

Once, having us upload TIFFs would have been impossible given bandwidth and speed issues. Today it wouldn't be such a problem and I wouldn't mind doing it if sites offered the option.

And on the cheap credits issue I mentioned above, 123rf contacted me via email to confirm which file I was talking about and said they'll look into it. I'll post when they let me know the story.

gillian vann · « **Reply #56 on:** November 28, 2012, 16:55 »

well how weird, sold my first XXL tiff yesterday.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #57 on:** December 05, 2012, 11:15 »

I didn't hear back from 123rf support, so I sent them an e-mal yesterday asking what they found out when they looked at the XXL with a 31 cent royalty.

The reply was that it was an error and I actually earned $1.55. I'm glad they fixed it, but the reason they gave is rather worrying as I wonder how many more of these there might be:

"This occurs because our system miscalculate the earning from one of our partner's site. All error had been checked and fixed.
Thank you for notifying us about the error, and do not hesitate to let us know if any irregularity occurs."

I don't check the details of every sale out - I just happened to notice it because it was such a small amount and not a small. How many other "miscalculations" have been happening that I didn't notice? Really unnerving.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #58 on:** December 10, 2012, 21:48 »

I sent a note to support this afternoon because I had an XXL sale today with an 87.5 cent royalty. That means the buyer paid 35 cents a credit. I looked back over November and December XXL (JPEG) sales and they were all within the $1.50 to $2.50 range.

I'll post when I get a reply, but you might want to check out any abnormally low numbers on XXL sales in your own records. I find it hard to imagine that the error they found and fixed last time is the only such error.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #59 on:** December 19, 2012, 03:11 »

After one week with no reply to my most recent support ticket (the 87.5 cent royalty, above), I sent them a reminder e-mail asking if they'd found anything out.

I just received an e-mail back saying that they had fixed the amount to be $1.00 with the following explanation:

"These earnings are from the image sold on API account for a large Credit purchase.
The previous cases were caused by a minor glitch on the earning calculation system and thanks to your prompt notification,
we already get it fix.
As promised , earning shall never go below 20 cent per credit from now onwards."

(Bold italics are mine)

I'm not thrilled that this is a second "minor glitch" - they told me it was fixed last time I contacted them. However, the promise of no royalty lower than 20 cents per credit is something I haven't heard before - and I assume what they mean is that the price per credit for calculating the royalty will never be lower than 40 cents - after January, the percentages for contributors will no longer be 50% across the board.

40 cents a credit is still dirt cheap - below even iStock's bargain basement amounts - and could result in very small earnings for those on the minimum royalty rate.

How hard can it be to keep a decent set of books? I'm assuming if I really combed through things there would be tons more errors, but they're relying on us just not having the time to do this...

grafix04 · « **Reply #60 on:** December 19, 2012, 08:45 »

Quote from: jsnover on December 19, 2012, 03:11

After one week with no reply to my most recent support ticket (the 87.5 cent royalty, above), I sent them a reminder e-mail asking if they'd found anything out.

I just received an e-mail back saying that they had fixed the amount to be $1.00 with the following explanation:

"These earnings are from the image sold on API account for a large Credit purchase.
The previous cases were caused by a minor glitch on the earning calculation system and thanks to your prompt notification,
we already get it fix.
As promised , earning shall never go below 20 cent per credit from now onwards."

(Bold italics are mine)

I'm not thrilled that this is a second "minor glitch" - they told me it was fixed last time I contacted them. However, the promise of no royalty lower than 20 cents per credit is something I haven't heard before - and I assume what they mean is that the price per credit for calculating the royalty will never be lower than 40 cents - after January, the percentages for contributors will no longer be 50% across the board.

40 cents a credit is still dirt cheap - below even iStock's bargain basement amounts - and could result in very small earnings for those on the minimum royalty rate.

How hard can it be to keep a decent set of books? I'm assuming if I really combed through things there would be tons more errors, but they're relying on us just not having the time to do this...

Yet I got told off for calling them unprofessional.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #61 on:** December 27, 2012, 13:56 »

$4.80 royalty for a 100MB TIFF sale - so the buyer paid 48 cents a credit (20 credits is the royalty basis for that 150 credit sale).

I guess I should be happy I'm above (just) the 20 cents royalty per credit thresshold... In the last week a 20 credit TIFF sale at DT (on a level 2 image) paid me $6.46.

I'm amazed that buyers are paying anyone anything to upsize their images, but that's a separate topic

pancaketom · « **Reply #62 on:** December 30, 2012, 20:33 »

Quote from: jsnover on December 19, 2012, 03:11

After one week with no reply to my most recent support ticket (the 87.5 cent royalty, above), I sent them a reminder e-mail asking if they'd found anything out.

I just received an e-mail back saying that they had fixed the amount to be $1.00 with the following explanation:

"These earnings are from the image sold on API account for a large Credit purchase.
The previous cases were caused by a minor glitch on the earning calculation system and thanks to your prompt notification,
we already get it fix.
As promised , earning shall never go below 20 cent per credit from now onwards."

(Bold italics are mine)

I'm not thrilled that this is a second "minor glitch" - they told me it was fixed last time I contacted them. However, the promise of no royalty lower than 20 cents per credit is something I haven't heard before - and I assume what they mean is that the price per credit for calculating the royalty will never be lower than 40 cents - after January, the percentages for contributors will no longer be 50% across the board.

40 cents a credit is still dirt cheap - below even iStock's bargain basement amounts - and could result in very small earnings for those on the minimum royalty rate.

How hard can it be to keep a decent set of books? I'm assuming if I really combed through things there would be tons more errors, but they're relying on us just not having the time to do this...

So I guess the .60 L sales I got recently are legit then at .40/credit. It is still somewhat painful, but I guess more than I the bottom that I am used to per credit from DT and IS - Of course there images can sell for more credits too so even if I get .17 (or .08) for a credit it usually isn't that bad for the total sale.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #63 on:** December 31, 2012, 11:19 »

5 credits for an XXL - or in your case 3 for a large - is a lot less than either IS or DT, so yes, 20 cents royalty per credit as a floor is nothing to get excited about.

In looking at sales over the last few days I saw an XXL (JPEG) sale, 5 credits, for a larger amount than if they bought the most expensive credits from the site - my royalty was $3.125, meaning the buyer paid $1.25 a credit. I assume a partner site sale.

I think the highest royalty per credit that I've noticed was one in November - $6.50 for an XL (4 credit) sale, which meant the buyer paid $3.25 a credit. I assume it's a partner site, but we have no information on 123rf about which sales are partner sales. Perhaps I should be happy there's a partner that's selling at higher prices than 123rf does, but I can't check accuracy on anything when I have no idea about who's selling it and what the prices to the buyer are.

We need at a minimum indication that it's a partner sale in the stats. It'd be preferable to see the site (a code for each perhaps) and a sale price.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: 100MB sale for $11.58 wow (Read 24731 times)

grafix04

Lagereek

wut

wut

wut

wut

wut

wut

wut

wut

grafix04

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors