pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: 123, any improvements?  (Read 17825 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Lagereek

« on: May 28, 2012, 00:54 »
0
I deleted some 800 shots there about a year ago, couldnt get on with it. In looking at the site now, it seems as if theres been lots of improvements, they seem to have better reviewers then earlier, etc, the site seems more user-friendly, etc.
Has there been improvement?  anybody?


« Reply #1 on: May 28, 2012, 01:02 »
0
Reviews no longer take a month, that is a plus.

Since reviews happen faster, you are less likely to get a month worth of uploads all rejected for the same thing in one review, that is a plus.

I haven't been hit by Attilla the reviewer since the faster reviews, that is a plus.

Sales are up slightly from last year, that is a plus.


I only have to redo the captcha each time I try to access my stats (assuming it has been over an hour or 2 since I last looked at the site) instead of having to re-login and redo the captcha, that is a small plus.

They are still planning on going with an RC scheme and thus dropping most contributor's commission percent. That is a big minus.

Unfortunately the last one seems to be the biggie. They do assure us that sales are going to pick up but they better do it soon or I won't be keeping my 50% next year.

Lagereek

« Reply #2 on: May 28, 2012, 01:05 »
0
Reviews no longer take a month, that is a plus.

Since reviews happen faster, you are less likely to get a month worth of uploads all rejected for the same thing in one review, that is a plus.

I haven't been hit by Attilla the reviewer since the faster reviews, that is a plus.

Sales are up slightly from last year, that is a plus.


I only have to redo the captcha each time I try to access my stats (assuming it has been over an hour or 2 since I last looked at the site) instead of having to re-login and redo the captcha, that is a small plus.

They are still planning on going with an RC scheme and thus dropping most contributor's commission percent. That is a big minus.

Unfortunately the last one seems to be the biggie. They do assure us that sales are going to pick up but they better do it soon or I won't be keeping my 50% next year.

Thanks mate!  at least the pluses seems to outweigh the minuses. :)

Wim

« Reply #3 on: May 28, 2012, 02:51 »
0
Atilla on 123RF? lol! on DT & SS, yes, but not123RF?

Atilla is a bad name btw, more like someone who think can do good for the agency and got lucky to get payed for it while all he does is rob us and the agency from our money, he gets his cheque though, every month.
It has nothing to do with how strict they are, more like how incompetent they are or how far their god complex reaches. In Microstock there are no strict reviewers, only cleaners who reject randomly because they have to meet their daily quota and you can bet they won't pick the big players to do that, hence the big players rarely complain, but when they have them, oh then the world is coming to an end! when we get them though, it's all justified. Those who think different probably suffer from the same god complex.
There are some good reviewers out there though which get a bad rep because of these guys.

Happy Days :)

Chris, 123RF for me is still my 4th best earner (above FT, below DT) with almost zero rejections and between 24-72h reviews. Starting again now I doubt you'll make the 50% commission so keep that in mind if you want to re-join. Sales are still regular but have not picked up. It's the high commission that makes this a good agency so things might be a lot different next year. They could lose a lot of contributors, including me.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2012, 03:21 by Wim »

Wim

« Reply #4 on: May 28, 2012, 03:21 »
0
Double post  ::)

« Reply #5 on: May 28, 2012, 07:08 »
0
Ditto the previous remarks. Sales are consistently bland but major acceptance ratio. I'm looking forward to an overhaul of their contributor's home page. I know they'll eventually get the message. Certainly there's been enough negative comments to open their eyes. Use DP and DT as a model where everything is up front and streamlined. Still, at least I can interpret their captcha unlike SS. And, as previously mentioned, maximum 72 hour review time. At least for now....

 

« Reply #6 on: May 28, 2012, 10:45 »
0
Sales have been reasonable, but not spectacular.

I haven't uploaded there since they announced their plans for 2013. I'd happily resume uploading if they scrap that larceny and stick with their current payout system (or improve it!).

If my monthly payouts are reasonable after the royalty slashing I might keep my portfolio there, but I see no reason to encourage a greedy middle-tier player by uploading more. If royalties drop too much - and I mean monthly payout, not percentage - then I'll pull my portfolio.

If I hadn't already established a part of my portfolio there, I don't think I'd start now.

« Reply #7 on: May 28, 2012, 10:54 »
0
Sales have been reasonable, but not spectacular.

I haven't uploaded there since they announced their plans for 2013. I'd happily resume uploading if they scrap that larceny and stick with their current payout system (or improve it!).

If my monthly payouts are reasonable after the royalty slashing I might keep my portfolio there, but I see no reason to encourage a greedy middle-tier player by uploading more. If royalties drop too much - and I mean monthly payout, not percentage - then I'll pull my portfolio.

If I hadn't already established a part of my portfolio there, I don't think I'd start now.

beside the very low royalties % for the 100MB sales I believe thats a little unfair sure they have pulled their royalties down and sales havent increased at least in the way they told us BUT I really think that they are being a lot more fair (in terms of royalties %) than IS, FT, DT and perhaps SS.. that said I dont think I need to say that I dont agree with the cuts too

wut

« Reply #8 on: May 28, 2012, 11:00 »
0
Sales have been reasonable, but not spectacular.

I haven't uploaded there since they announced their plans for 2013. I'd happily resume uploading if they scrap that larceny and stick with their current payout system (or improve it!).

If my monthly payouts are reasonable after the royalty slashing I might keep my portfolio there, but I see no reason to encourage a greedy middle-tier player by uploading more. If royalties drop too much - and I mean monthly payout, not percentage - then I'll pull my portfolio.

If I hadn't already established a part of my portfolio there, I don't think I'd start now.

beside the very low royalties % for the 100MB sales I believe thats a little unfair sure they have pulled their royalties down and sales havent increased at least in the way they told us BUT I really think that they are being a lot more fair (in terms of royalties %) than IS, FT, DT and perhaps SS.. that said I dont think I need to say that I dont agree with the cuts too
50% of next to nothing is worse than 15% of decently priced images. I can get more for an XS at DT (and level 3 is enough;) than for the largest sized Dl at 123RF. That sums it up pretty well I think

« Reply #9 on: May 28, 2012, 11:03 »
0
Sales have been reasonable, but not spectacular.

I haven't uploaded there since they announced their plans for 2013. I'd happily resume uploading if they scrap that larceny and stick with their current payout system (or improve it!).

If my monthly payouts are reasonable after the royalty slashing I might keep my portfolio there, but I see no reason to encourage a greedy middle-tier player by uploading more. If royalties drop too much - and I mean monthly payout, not percentage - then I'll pull my portfolio.

If I hadn't already established a part of my portfolio there, I don't think I'd start now.

beside the very low royalties % for the 100MB sales I believe thats a little unfair sure they have pulled their royalties down and sales havent increased at least in the way they told us BUT I really think that they are being a lot more fair (in terms of royalties %) than IS, FT, DT and perhaps SS.. that said I dont think I need to say that I dont agree with the cuts too
50% of next to nothing is worse than 15% of decently priced images. I can get more for an XS at DT (and level 3 is enough;) than for the largest sized Dl at 123RF. That sums it up pretty well I think

I agree but if we went that way we would stay only at the top agencies and drop all other, in my case I would lose like 30%

wut

« Reply #10 on: May 28, 2012, 11:11 »
0
I've already stopped submitting to them in my case 6 of those agencies don't even account for 10% of my earningz, so I don't really care. They're mostly a constant hassle too

« Reply #11 on: May 28, 2012, 11:21 »
0
I get a lot of subs and SM sales there and each month I sell about 1/10th the amount of images I sell at SS with essentially the same number of images.  For me to retain my current commission 123RF would need to be selling almost 3 times the number of images I sell at SS each month or start selling a lot more of the higher credit images.  I've continued to upload for now to increase my portfolio since its small and I've only been at this a short time but they will moving from a mid-tier agency to a bottom tier agency for me once they implement the new commission structure and at that time I'll be reassessing whether or not they are worth the effort.

What irks me the most is with the initial short-lived commission change they floated out there first I was considered a valued contributer that had enough approved images and enough sales to keep my current rate.  Now with the new structure it's not just a drop one level, I've been kicked down several levels with virtually no hope of climbing back to my current level until I can increase my portfolio substantially.  I haven't seen any significant change in sales over the last 5 months despite increasing my portfolio by about 25%.

grafix04

« Reply #12 on: May 28, 2012, 11:46 »
0
beside the very low royalties % for the 100MB sales I believe thats a little unfair sure they have pulled their royalties down and sales havent increased at least in the way they told us BUT I really think that they are being a lot more fair (in terms of royalties %) than IS, FT, DT and perhaps SS.. that said I dont think I need to say that I dont agree with the cuts too

Besides the 100MB sales (which is enough reason alone to leave them - in my opinion), there was also the fact that they lied to their contributors to get them to upload before the new year, promising them that if they reach certain thresholds they'll keep the 50%.  Then later they scapped that promise and decided to bring in the RC system slashing most contributors royalties.  Have you forgotten that, Luis?  Apart from even that, there's the heavy discounting, IF in fact they're really discounting.  Looking at a sample of some of my earnings for just the large size, the royalties all vary.  

At $1.07 per credit, a large size image costs the buyer $3.21.  At 50% commission, I should receive $1.61 for each.  This is what I've received along with the commission %.  Not even one 50% commission as promised and these figures are likely to fall next year after the commission cuts.

Apart from that little scam, they have the lowest prices in the industry.  They can afford to because they're based in Hong Kong.  They'd be driving prices down across the industry.  

So that's how they've made it to where they are now - through blatant lies, empty promises, deceit and because of their location.  I don't trust them one bit.  They're crooked and don't even hide the fact but who knows what they ARE hiding.  Piracy is rife there, so who knows what they're doing with our images.  I'm going to be happy to ditch them.
   
« Last Edit: May 28, 2012, 11:48 by grafix04 »


« Reply #14 on: May 28, 2012, 12:29 »
0
Besides the 100MB sales (which is enough reason alone to leave them - in my opinion), there was also the fact that they lied to their contributors to get them to upload before the new year, promising them that if they reach certain thresholds they'll keep the 50%.  Then later they scapped that promise and decided to bring in the RC system slashing most contributors royalties.

It could have been a lie, however I believe that they genuinely planned to keep the royalties at 50% for most existing contributors ie. those which met the threshold, which wasn't set very high. I just think that they came up with another plan afterwards, which obviously will give them more. In my books, whether it was actually a lie or just a change of policy, it reflected very badly on them, particularly as they went from one plan to another within just a few weeks. I've always got the impression that they're a bit disorganised or understaffed. I won't go into detail, but it's just the impression I get from any communication with them. I think one of the prime reasons for getting rid of their forum was because they couldn't cope with it.

« Reply #15 on: May 28, 2012, 12:48 »
0
I tried stopping uploads to sites that cut commissions but now most of them seem to be at it.  So I gave in and now don't bother thinking about the future of microstock.  Most of my stock photos are going to alamy only and the microstock sites will get a few scraps, until it dawns on them that they need to pay a decent commission for good new images or buyers are going to look elsewhere.

« Reply #16 on: May 28, 2012, 13:00 »
0
beside the very low royalties % for the 100MB sales I believe thats a little unfair sure they have pulled their royalties down and sales havent increased at least in the way they told us BUT I really think that they are being a lot more fair (in terms of royalties %) than IS, FT, DT and perhaps SS.. that said I dont think I need to say that I dont agree with the cuts too

Besides the 100MB sales (which is enough reason alone to leave them - in my opinion), there was also the fact that they lied to their contributors to get them to upload before the new year, promising them that if they reach certain thresholds they'll keep the 50%.  Then later they scapped that promise and decided to bring in the RC system slashing most contributors royalties.  Have you forgotten that, Luis?  Apart from even that, there's the heavy discounting, IF in fact they're really discounting.  Looking at a sample of some of my earnings for just the large size, the royalties all vary.  

At $1.07 per credit, a large size image costs the buyer $3.21.  At 50% commission, I should receive $1.61 for each.  This is what I've received along with the commission %.  Not even one 50% commission as promised and these figures are likely to fall next year after the commission cuts.

Apart from that little scam, they have the lowest prices in the industry.  They can afford to because they're based in Hong Kong.  They'd be driving prices down across the industry.  

So that's how they've made it to where they are now - through blatant lies, empty promises, deceit and because of their location.  I don't trust them one bit.  They're crooked and don't even hide the fact but who knows what they ARE hiding.  Piracy is rife there, so who knows what they're doing with our images.  I'm going to be happy to ditch them.
   

I believe that most of those large sales have discount, like IS a buyer gets their own plan which will hurt or not us, I am not sure if I will keep the 50% but I cannot ditch an agency that does over 100$ per month, they dont look as shady in my opinion, only the 100MB which is confusing

« Reply #17 on: May 28, 2012, 17:21 »
0
I deleted some 800 shots there about a year ago, couldnt get on with it. In looking at the site now, it seems as if theres been lots of improvements, they seem to have better reviewers then earlier, etc, the site seems more user-friendly, etc.
Has there been improvement?  anybody?

What are your top concerns?

1. Sales? Haven't increased for me within the last year with continual uploads (300+) but have not decreased either. Could be my port or just the luck of the draw.
2. Review time? Better.
3. Acceptance? All over the place for me, 100% here 50% there and silly stuff (usually).
4. Navigation? Horrible. Nothing has changed here.

Just my experience, of course.

grafix04

« Reply #18 on: May 28, 2012, 19:53 »
0
Besides the 100MB sales (which is enough reason alone to leave them - in my opinion), there was also the fact that they lied to their contributors to get them to upload before the new year, promising them that if they reach certain thresholds they'll keep the 50%.  Then later they scapped that promise and decided to bring in the RC system slashing most contributors royalties.

It could have been a lie, however I believe that they genuinely planned to keep the royalties at 50% for most existing contributors ie. those which met the threshold, which wasn't set very high. I just think that they came up with another plan afterwards, which obviously will give them more. In my books, whether it was actually a lie or just a change of policy, it reflected very badly on them, particularly as they went from one plan to another within just a few weeks. I've always got the impression that they're a bit disorganised or understaffed. I won't go into detail, but it's just the impression I get from any communication with them. I think one of the prime reasons for getting rid of their forum was because they couldn't cope with it.

There's nothing genuine about them.  They got rid of their forums not because they're disorganized and can't cope with it.  It's because they'd rather avoid questions about their commissions.  Every time anyone has questioned it, they avoid answering.  Contributors like Luis have been praising them for in here for years saying how fair they are because they give us 50%.  But they don't give us 50% and they hide that through this 'discounting'.  How can every sale be discounted?  Will people continue to brand them as fair when they realize they're earning 19% on some sales, 26% on others?  This is why they got rid of the forum.  They're the shadiest micro out there but they've been hiding it well.  The one good thing about this drop in commissions next year is that it forced people to do some calculations on their earnings to see what they're actually getting.  When they realize they're not earning 50% and that rates will fall next year, how many are going to stay or if they stay, how many are going to continue labeling them as fair?

grafix04

« Reply #19 on: May 28, 2012, 20:06 »
0
I believe that most of those large sales have discount, like IS a buyer gets their own plan which will hurt or not us, I am not sure if I will keep the 50% but I cannot ditch an agency that does over 100$ per month, they dont look as shady in my opinion, only the 100MB which is confusing

What is confusing about the 100MB?  A buyer purchased a 100MB sized image from you.  If you had sold that yourself with 123rf's pricing, 150 credits @ $1.07/credit, you would pocket $160.50.  Selling that size through 123rf, you should receive $80.25 at 50%.  Instead you receive $11.58 at 7%.  Nothing confusing here.  It's a blatant rip off.
 
They don't look as shady to you because you don't want to see it.  You've drawn the line in the sand.  $100 a month.  As long as you keep earning that, you won't leave.  What message does this say to them?  They know that they can keep reducing your commission as long as you keep getting $100 every month.  You'll keep uploading more images and they'll probably sell more through heavier discounting but you won't earn much more.  I bet they can push the boundaries so that your earnings will drop to $90 a month and you'll chock it down to ebb and flow and put up with it.

« Reply #20 on: May 29, 2012, 00:26 »
0
I believe that most of those large sales have discount, like IS a buyer gets their own plan which will hurt or not us, I am not sure if I will keep the 50% but I cannot ditch an agency that does over 100$ per month, they dont look as shady in my opinion, only the 100MB which is confusing

What is confusing about the 100MB?  A buyer purchased a 100MB sized image from you.  If you had sold that yourself with 123rf's pricing, 150 credits @ $1.07/credit, you would pocket $160.50.  Selling that size through 123rf, you should receive $80.25 at 50%.  Instead you receive $11.58 at 7%.  Nothing confusing here.  It's a blatant rip off.
 
They don't look as shady to you because you don't want to see it.  You've drawn the line in the sand.  $100 a month.  As long as you keep earning that, you won't leave.  What message does this say to them?  They know that they can keep reducing your commission as long as you keep getting $100 every month.  You'll keep uploading more images and they'll probably sell more through heavier discounting but you won't earn much more.  I bet they can push the boundaries so that your earnings will drop to $90 a month and you'll chock it down to ebb and flow and put up with it.

my friend I agree 100% on everything you just said! second I am a fan of all agencies that keep increasing and are steady (at least in "my income") not only 123RF! third I only see them shady on this 100 MB which they "have explained" a while ago here in this forum, that said there's not much I can do beside upload and collect, I have tried many times with many agencies to change something around this industry, smaller ones that maybe will never get anywhere hear us other just keep on doing whatever they want! even after that I still believe 123RF is a nice agency with actually nice communication, for sure Alex will show up and explain us once more this license.. perhaps ending it too

after all this crap talk shall we stop doing stock and get a "real" job?
« Last Edit: May 29, 2012, 00:28 by luissantos84 »

« Reply #21 on: May 29, 2012, 04:27 »
0
Hmmmm... interesting stuff....
but I notice that at 123 the basic sub is 36c. At FT most sales are 23 or 27 cents - surely even worse.
Any thoughts?
I've abandoned uploading to FT as the rates are SO low and the upload process such a pain. But the 123 commission planned cut also stinks....

« Reply #22 on: May 29, 2012, 05:24 »
0
As well as sales plummeting at fotolia RPD is also plummeting.  123rf came very close to catching up after a couple of good months there. I never in my wildest dreams expected to see that day!!!!
RPDs for last month
123rf - 1.50$
fot - 99c
DT  3.50$

« Reply #23 on: May 29, 2012, 11:17 »
0
My monthly earnings are the same as last year. I do not see the promised increase in sales. Some time ago I did not upload more pictures. His last movements seem strange and false. Is less for 2013, the great drop!

« Reply #24 on: May 29, 2012, 11:21 »
0
in order to maintain the same commission in future.. one needs to reach contributor level 5, that's 12 month credit total 5,000 - 19,999, what does it means does it mean I need to have a $5000 for 12 month total minimum?

« Reply #25 on: May 29, 2012, 11:36 »
0
in order to maintain the same commission in future.. one needs to reach contributor level 5, that's 12 month credit total 5,000 - 19,999, what does it means does it mean I need to have a $5000 for 12 month total minimum?

it means 123RF now

"Gives a stable, measureable, predictable and most important of all, specific milestones for achieving targets.
Fosters healthy competition for new and old contributors alike."

It means you have to average over 13 credits a day - either 13 sub and small sales, or some other mix according to the schedule posted on the captcha page. Of course they won't tell you exactly how many RC you have any given month or anything. The $ you earn are not exactly correlated to the credits, and it can vary widely.

For example with just .36 subs you could hit 5000 RC with 1800$
For .60 large sales 5000 RC would be $1000
For 1.50 large sales it would take $2500

Obviously there would be some sort of mix. Of course with the "healthy competition" I shouldn't help explain any of this to you anymore.

« Reply #26 on: May 29, 2012, 11:56 »
0
in order to maintain the same commission in future.. one needs to reach contributor level 5, that's 12 month credit total 5,000 - 19,999, what does it means does it mean I need to have a $5000 for 12 month total minimum?

you cannot make the maths that fast, I would say around half of that, it depends on the licenses you sell

Subscription
1
S
1
M
2
L
3
XL
4
XXL
5
XXL TIFF
10
EPS
10
100MB TIFF
20
200 MB TIFF
40
300 MB TIFF
60
Print EL
50
Electronic EL
75
Comprehensive EL
100
Multiseat
25

« Reply #27 on: May 29, 2012, 12:02 »
0
why come out with contributor level that's so difficult to understand? so the 1 credits is not equal to $1, where can we see the credits we accumulate?

« Reply #28 on: May 29, 2012, 12:11 »
0
why come out with contributor level that's so difficult to understand? so the 1 credits is not equal to $1, where can we see the credits we accumulate?


you cannot, its the IS system but without telling us the accumulated

http://davidgilder.com/misc/123RF_credit_calculator.html

« Reply #29 on: May 29, 2012, 13:28 »
0
Hmmmm... interesting stuff....
but I notice that at 123 the basic sub is 36c. At FT most sales are 23 or 27 cents - surely even worse.
Any thoughts?
I've abandoned uploading to FT as the rates are SO low and the upload process such a pain. But the 123 commission planned cut also stinks....

This will be the subs next year.

12 Month Credit    Total Earnings Per Download (Subscription)

0 - 249                          $0.216

250 - 999                       $0.252

1,000 - 1,999                 $0.288

2,000 - 4,999                 $0.324

5,000 - 19,999               $0.360

20,000 - 49,999              $0.374

50,000 - 99,999              $0.389

100,000 - 499,999          $0.403

500,000 - 999,999          $0.418

1,000,000 and above      $0.432

« Reply #30 on: May 29, 2012, 13:37 »
0
why come out with contributor level that's so difficult to understand? so the 1 credits is not equal to $1, where can we see the credits we accumulate?

because they will not tell you

wut

« Reply #31 on: May 31, 2012, 05:16 »
0
This will be the subs next year.

12 Month Credit    Total Earnings Per Download (Subscription)

0 - 249                          $0.216

250 - 999                       $0.252

1,000 - 1,999                 $0.288

2,000 - 4,999                 $0.324

5,000 - 19,999               $0.360

20,000 - 49,999              $0.374

50,000 - 99,999              $0.389

100,000 - 499,999          $0.403

500,000 - 999,999          $0.418

1,000,000 and above      $0.432

This really is absurd. You have to redeem 1 mil credits, while the largest sized JPG costs 5 credits. At IS you have to get 1,2 mil to get to the top level, but you get 20-25 credits for XXXL DLs. Not to mention you get payed 3x more for them anyway and actually sell 10x more (volume depends on your port of course, but I'm sure 99% of the ppl that have equally sized ports at both sites sell a lot more at IS)

« Reply #32 on: May 31, 2012, 05:33 »
0
So as long as we sell a lot more there next year than we do with istock, everything's fine :)  They might adjust these targets a bit in out favour to make it easier to swallow.  I'm tired of that old trick though, if they cut my commission and my earnings go down, I'll stop uploading.  They're not a big earner for me.

« Reply #33 on: May 31, 2012, 10:55 »
0
... Apart from even that, there's the heavy discounting, IF in fact they're really discounting.  Looking at a sample of some of my earnings for just the large size, the royalties all vary.  

At $1.07 per credit, a large size image costs the buyer $3.21.  At 50% commission, I should receive $1.61 for each. ..

A sale today made me take a look at some of this month's sales to see what sort of discounting of credit prices was going on. I wasn't happy with what I saw.

If you look at their prices, they offer credit prices as low as 68 cents a credit via web purchases - so we would get 34 cents a credit from those sales. I don't much like that, but the actual prices per credit go way, way lower. They're offering a 42% discount on those (supposedly rock-bottom) prices based on royalties I've seen just looking at May's stats. 40 cents a credit, or thereabouts. That leaves us with 20 cents a credit in royalties (under the current scheme).

There's no reason to think the discounts will go away Jan 2013, so they'll be paying even lower than 50% of 40 cents a credit to many contributors.

I saw my royalty at 80 cents for an XL, 60 cents for L and $1.00 for an XXL. There were some smaller discounts - an XL for $1.13 which means the buyer got a 17% discount on the 68 cents "minimum" credit price.

At 60 cents for a large, that's what I used to get from IS in 2004 when the prices were $1/2/3 and we got 20 cents/40/60 for S-M-L

The idea that 123-rf is lowering even these wretched royalties come January is just shameful.

grafix04

« Reply #34 on: May 31, 2012, 12:01 »
0
... Apart from even that, there's the heavy discounting, IF in fact they're really discounting.  Looking at a sample of some of my earnings for just the large size, the royalties all vary.  

At $1.07 per credit, a large size image costs the buyer $3.21.  At 50% commission, I should receive $1.61 for each. ..

A sale today made me take a look at some of this month's sales to see what sort of discounting of credit prices was going on. I wasn't happy with what I saw.

If you look at their prices, they offer credit prices as low as 68 cents a credit via web purchases - so we would get 34 cents a credit from those sales. I don't much like that, but the actual prices per credit go way, way lower. They're offering a 42% discount on those (supposedly rock-bottom) prices based on royalties I've seen just looking at May's stats. 40 cents a credit, or thereabouts. That leaves us with 20 cents a credit in royalties (under the current scheme).

There's no reason to think the discounts will go away Jan 2013, so they'll be paying even lower than 50% of 40 cents a credit to many contributors.

I saw my royalty at 80 cents for an XL, 60 cents for L and $1.00 for an XXL. There were some smaller discounts - an XL for $1.13 which means the buyer got a 17% discount on the 68 cents "minimum" credit price.

At 60 cents for a large, that's what I used to get from IS in 2004 when the prices were $1/2/3 and we got 20 cents/40/60 for S-M-L

The idea that 123-rf is lowering even these wretched royalties come January is just shameful.

Well this is interesting and I think together we just let the cat out of the bag.  You see 0.68 per credit.  Well let me tell you that the price per credit varies in different countries.  I had a look at their site from different servers in different countries and they're all different and they don't convert accurately from currency to currency.  Very interesting indeed!  We've been asking for an explanation on these credits for years and not once has Alex mentioned this. 

From an old thread:

Hi All,

I shall explain pricing.

The scenario :
Our cheapest package = $15 for 15 credits.
Price per credit = $1 / credit
50% share to you = $0.50 / credit

If customer purchases an S size image from you, you'll get $0.50. Clear?
If the customer purchases an XXL image from you (5 credits), you'll get 5 x $0.50 = $2.50 for that image downloaded.

Of course, we have discounts, loyal customers, customer who want a big discount as they've been with us for a very long time, so we then discount them for bulk purchases. Nevertheless, we will go through the same calculations and contributors will get 50% of the effective credit price.

So where does the $0.20/credit come from? These credits come from our PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES such as the case of giving away CREDITS to prospective clients whom we think require a bit of a test drive on the 123RF system before they make their first purchase. A demo if you like, we give these out at our discretion. The client DID NOT PAY for these credits, it's given to them courtesy of 123RF.com.

Therefore, seeing as 123RF is giving away these credits, it comes out from our Advertising and Promotions Budget and there is a cost attached to it - 20 cents per credit given away.  I do hope you'll see this a bonus from your business partner 123RF as the prospective client did not pay for them in the first place.

As I have maintained many times before, 123RF Limited is running a business, we are not here to give away to charity nor as some have eloquently put it - "screw" our contributors.

Thank you for maintaining your objectivity on this matter. If there are any questions, you can always email us : [email protected]

P/S - Forums were closed because we decided to shift to Facebook. They have excellent searchable threads there.

Alex

What about the different pricing in different countries, Alex?  Did that slip your mind.  Why would you hide this?  Is this your way of making a little extra under the table ;) 

Dodgy!  They're based Hong Kong so I shouldn't have expected anything less! 

« Reply #35 on: May 31, 2012, 13:12 »
0
BME at 123RF for me in May.

grafix04

« Reply #36 on: June 01, 2012, 08:34 »
0

Well this is interesting and I think together we just let the cat out of the bag.  You see 0.68 per credit.  Well let me tell you that the price per credit varies in different countries.  I had a look at their site from different servers in different countries and they're all different and they don't convert accurately from currency to currency.  Very interesting indeed!  We've been asking for an explanation on these credits for years and not once has Alex mentioned this.  


No-one commented on my little finding.  I get it.  Everyone is happy because of a great month at 123rf (including myself) so we don't want to talk about it.

But I've dug out this little bit in red so we can discuss it next time we have a bad month and need something to b-itch about.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2012, 08:37 by grafix04 »

wut

« Reply #37 on: June 01, 2012, 14:29 »
0

Well this is interesting and I think together we just let the cat out of the bag.  You see 0.68 per credit.  Well let me tell you that the price per credit varies in different countries.  I had a look at their site from different servers in different countries and they're all different and they don't convert accurately from currency to currency.  Very interesting indeed!  We've been asking for an explanation on these credits for years and not once has Alex mentioned this.  


No-one commented on my little finding.  I get it.  Everyone is happy because of a great month at 123rf (including myself) so we don't want to talk about it.

But I've dug out this little bit in red so we can discuss it next time we have a bad month and need something to b-itch about.

Nothing really surprises me anymore about them. They're the biggest thugs and thieves in the industry. I'd trust a Moroccan street hustler more (I've just had the most terrible trip over there, with the biggest ripoffs I've ever seen). They deduct their promo discounts from out share, lied about royalties staying the same if you had over xy sales, added a disgusting spin while they broke the promise they gave just a month before that etc. But I don't care. My sales are slowly dropping there and I'd hate them just us much if I had a BME there

Lagereek

« Reply #38 on: June 01, 2012, 14:45 »
0
What I faile to understand here is this: we are not talking about one of the major sites here, everyone seems to be extremely unhappy, earning peanuts and when royalty falls, even worse.  So why lingering on, why not just bail out?  heck! by the sound of it, you would probably do better at one of the low-earners.
I dont get it? ::)

grafix04

« Reply #39 on: June 02, 2012, 06:24 »
0
We're not talking about a low earner either.  They're currently number five on my list overall.  This month they came in 3rd.  I will be dropping them next year if they go ahead and drop commissions.  I won't take a penny less than what they give me now because prices are so low.  I suppose we're lingering on hoping they have a change of heart.  It won't be difficult to drop them but I prefer not to if they come clean.  I doubt they will but I'm still hopeful.

As for the issue I raised above in red.  I've been trying to work out what these "discounts" are for a couple of years now.  I just worked out they're discounting by country.  Why wouldn't I want to share that fact with others who have been scratching their heads for as long as I have? I want to know more about these price variances.  I want to know (or be convinced of) how they handle these variances.  Are we being ripped off?  One way or the other, it will make it easier to stick around if they don't drop the commissions, or make it easier to leave if they do.   

I suppose I want to figure out whether I don't trust them due to their lack of transparency or whether I genuinely believe they're crooks.

« Reply #40 on: June 02, 2012, 07:24 »
0
Not to change the subject...maybe I should start a new thread....but I think 123 is the most likely one to get "absorbed" in the industry consolidation.  They are not too big, and big enough to be taken off the market.  As I think through consolidation, who cares about DP, CanStockPhoto, SF, AYCS, etc...they are small gnats comparatively.  But 123 is just big enough to be a target for SS or FT.  I can see SS wanting to move their customers (in as much as possible) to BigStock, or kill BigStock and use 123, calling it a merger of 'super powers' lol....something silly like that.  FT, maybe snags 123, shuts them down, gets some of their buyers and is able to suck more blood out of the contributors. 


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
30 Replies
9582 Views
Last post August 15, 2006, 20:47
by Greg Boiarsky
2 Replies
2911 Views
Last post June 07, 2007, 06:47
by CJPhoto
0 Replies
1694 Views
Last post May 14, 2008, 16:45
by News Feed
41 Replies
11280 Views
Last post November 13, 2009, 18:16
by epantha
0 Replies
5737 Views
Last post February 09, 2014, 02:31
by Jo Ann Snover

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors