pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: 123RF Image Enlargement Services & Your Earnings  (Read 24667 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: April 06, 2010, 04:47 »
0
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
« Last Edit: April 06, 2010, 04:53 by alex123rf »


« Reply #1 on: April 06, 2010, 05:55 »
0
"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."

Why in heavens name would there be a question of the external service provider distributing someone's content?

"The good news is, you're now getting approximately 13.3% of the FULL VALUE"

That's ridiculous.  Without the content, you have nothing to sell.  You run some scripts on an image, jack up the price, and think it's smart to cut the contributor's percentage?  The minute cost of processing should come out of your percentage, not the contributor's.

Of course, anyone dumb enough to drop $450 on an image that cost $5, just to upsize it should probably be separated from their money on principle.

« Reply #2 on: April 06, 2010, 06:32 »
0
^^^ Exactly.

Is this a joke? Have 123RF still got their calendar on 1st April?

RT


« Reply #3 on: April 06, 2010, 08:12 »
0
So you're going to charge $445 to run a $5 image through software like Genuine Fractals, buyers could save themselves some money and buy the software themselves for $160.

As for "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."

Yeah and 123RF had better consult me before allowing anyone else to distribute my images, to do so without my prior knowledge is against the T&C's.

« Reply #4 on: April 06, 2010, 09:15 »
0

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[...]


I fail to see where the good news is. Like Sean said, you're still selling the picture, enlarged or not. No picture, no sale.

And, ok maybe the client can save some time buying the enlarged version, but asking 10 times more for basically the same amount of detail seems way off.

« Reply #5 on: April 06, 2010, 09:48 »
0
:o Honestly folks, I am gob smacked and shocked to receive such a response from you.

Please allow me to say my piece - I know you'll be worried if people get their hands on your images, your work, your copyright, and we played the responsible party and made ABSOLUTELY SURE that our partners will not go and distribute them without your knowledge, or ours. I know you'll be worried, I would like to take the initial step to reassure you that your works will not be treated in a way that would upset you.

Also another misconception that I'd like to set straight, our partners do not only enlarge the image, but also do minor touch ups, clean up the noise and artifacting amongst other things. They do add value to the image itself. It is not some "one setting for all" server side script that automatically does the job. Our clients do really feel happy that we provide such a service, and are willing to pay good money for it.

We didn't hood wink anyone, they can still download the 5 credits version, we didn't FORCE anyone to take the 300MB TIFF version, it's JUST THERE. IF they want it, they can get it, and so far, nobody's complaining, I've had several thank you emails from clients who were pleased that we provided such a service, and several more from contributors who have had such downloads.

We are here working hard to create opportunities for everyone to earn a little more, the question is -- why the bad vibes? This, I simply cannot understand! I can't believe I have to defend something that just gives money to our community, I find this highly astonishing!

Thank you, and I'm real sorry if I offended anyone.

Alex
for 123RF.com
« Last Edit: April 06, 2010, 09:55 by alex123rf »

KB

« Reply #6 on: April 06, 2010, 11:45 »
0
why the bad vibes? This, I simply cannot understand! I can't believe I have to defend something that just gives money to our community, I find this highly astonishing!

My guess is that it's just a natural reaction nowadays to any microstock agency announcement these days -- especially if it starts out with "good news".  ;D

Perhaps most contributors have become jaded, disillusioned, disappointed, and distrustful of their agents. Sad times, indeed (but not without merit considering the moves made last year by several of the big guns).  :(

« Reply #7 on: April 06, 2010, 11:53 »
0
Probably because you seem to have thought that since %13 of the price ends up being more than anything else the contributor currently gets, that it is a wonderful deal.  For some reason you seem to relish that you are dropping the contributor's share from 50% to %13.

Assuming you are splitting the cost of this outsourcing evenly ( ::)), then you would be giving the outsourcer $325 every time you sell a 300MB image.  So, are you telling us that you are paying the outsourcer $325 every time?  Or are you maybe paying them $5 an image to resize it, and you're pocketing $390 each time?

« Reply #8 on: April 06, 2010, 11:57 »
0
Hi Alex,
while I appreciate that you're introducing a new, higher-priced product, it is somewhat difficult to understand why 13,3 % should be good news.
Shouldn't it be 33,3 %? That would mean 1/3 for 123RF, 1/3 for the contributor and 1/3 for the third party.
I think everybody here would be happy with that.

« Reply #9 on: April 06, 2010, 11:59 »
0
Hi Alex,
while I appreciate that you're introducing a new, higher-priced product, it is somewhat difficult to understand why 13,3 % should be good news.
Shouldn't it be 33,3 %? That would mean 1/3 for 123RF, 1/3 for the contributor and 1/3 for the third party.
I think everybody here would be happy with that.

Why should the third party get paid every time?  Resizing it (of dubious value to start with) is a one time cost.

lisafx

« Reply #10 on: April 06, 2010, 13:03 »
0
Alex, I really do appreciate your making this announcement and not leaving it for contributors to discover on our own. 

Higher prices and more $ for contributors is certainly welcome.  Particularly from 123RF where sales have been slow for most of us, according to the monthly polls.

I believe the sticking point, certainly for me, is the 13% royalty for contributors.  As someone who works with images for a living, I can assure you that the greatest value and expense is in the production of the original image.  Any editing and enlarging after the fact takes relatively little effort and adds minimal value compared to the work involved in conceptualizing, setting up, and capturing an image.  Therefore such a tiny percentage for the individuals who did the majority of the work seems rather insulting.

« Reply #11 on: April 06, 2010, 14:01 »
0
Why should the third party get paid every time?  Resizing it (of dubious value to start with) is a one time cost.

Exactly!!!
Someone else gets money every time when my photo has been downloaded only because he enlarged it...??

What we are experiencing lately??

Bigger prices in many collections, but less and less  percentages for contributors... This is not new, We saw it before (FT etc.)
It seems that everyone wants  to earn more and more money from OUR WORK, but also they try to comfort us with the smallest part of the cake....
So, customers can pay more but we will get less and less... And where is good news?
My photos are sold for a higher price, but I get a smaller portion???
Also, now some third-parties are pushing in, to make profit on our work... >:( >:( >:(

P.S.
We will have to establish our trade union...
« Last Edit: April 06, 2010, 15:12 by borg »

lisafx

« Reply #12 on: April 06, 2010, 14:20 »
0

P.S.
We will have to establish our trade union...

I remain ready to join, but so far nobody's done more than talk...

« Reply #13 on: April 06, 2010, 14:29 »
0

P.S.
We will have to establish our trade union...

I remain ready to join, but so far nobody's done more than talk...

Heheheehehe!  :D
It would be great, then we would have legal representation...
It seems that "drivers for first steps" should be people familiar with Microstock, famous bloggers, more experienced photographers,forum administrators etc.
Then we would all be able to join as members, and have a unique and strong approach to problems...
« Last Edit: April 06, 2010, 15:04 by borg »

Xalanx

« Reply #14 on: April 06, 2010, 14:34 »
0
Yes Alex, I think too that you have to rethink the commission structure. As said above, 13.3% is rather insulting.

If you feel shocked about the way photographers received the "good news", think of how shocked we were.

« Reply #15 on: April 06, 2010, 14:35 »
0
:o Honestly folks, I am gob smacked and shocked to receive such a response from you.

You wouldn't if you were here frequently.   ;D

« Reply #16 on: April 06, 2010, 14:49 »
0
I am gob smacked and shocked to receive such a response from you.

I am gob smacked and shocked that you describe a 13% commission rate as "good news". Please can you explain where the other 87% goes and for what? As Lisa and others have pointed out the major investment in producing an image is made by the contributor.

« Reply #17 on: April 06, 2010, 16:14 »
0
@ sjlocke
At first I would like to thank sjlocke who first stood up for all of us even if this is not directly affecting him.
Thank you sjlocke!

This is just proof that customers are willing and ready to pay more for our work, it is just agencies between themselves trying to bring prices down to attract new customers. But sadly we are paying for this and agencies don't treat us fairly.
Yes Borg, we need a union, I am all for it.

Kone

WarrenPrice

« Reply #18 on: April 06, 2010, 16:22 »
0
I didn't read the entire OP.  I just assumed it was ridiculous.  How is this different from the FLOP at Dreamstime?  I can't see how normal buyers would want 123RF to print images that they purchase.  What kind of buyer is looking for a printer?  Isn't that something you would expect at a "fine art" site?

Seems to me 123RF is floundering ... what with the prints and the recent venture into editorial uploads.  Has anyone sold an editorial image there?  Are your editorial images in the data base?  Are they available for sale?

If it works, wonderful.  How is this being marketed?  Perhaps it would be better to stick to what you do best. 

« Reply #19 on: April 06, 2010, 16:23 »
0
Can I upsize the images for you and get the "lost" 37% of commissions? I swear I won't redistribute the images. Pretty plz!

« Reply #20 on: April 06, 2010, 16:55 »
0
Right or wrong, but we're all guilty for that what happens to us in this industry ...

« Reply #21 on: April 06, 2010, 17:01 »
0
Hi Alex,

1) Can you please tell us how the remaining percentages are split between you and the third party? That would be only fair.
2) As already pointed out, why should the third party receive a commission every time the image is sold?
3) Will there be the possibility of opting out?

I'm glad you made an announcement, but please respond to the above questions so people can decide for themselves whether or not to stay with you. At this point, the deal sounds extremely bad to me as a contributor, so it would be great if you could clear things up. I don't care about 20, 40 or 60 credits if I know that would be 13,5% of the full sales price and there is a chance that the third party might be earning more money from my image than I am myself.

Best regards
Thomas

« Reply #22 on: April 06, 2010, 17:06 »
0
You know to be quite frank I don't see what's wrong with what they're doing. Sure 13% may look very low compared to what they're earning but look at it this way: why would they distribute the profit evenly when they are the one that jump-started and implemented this service? We are contributors, not  co-owners. What justifies us in getting 33% of profits? Also we don't know the costs of the implementation of this service. How much of the 87% are they keeping as profit? We certainly don't know and 123rf definitely don't have the obligation to tell you this information

Also come to think of it, if you sell your image at XXL without this service you get a commission of 2.5 credits. But if a client decides to use this service for this same image you earn 13% of 150credits =20 credits. That means you earn close to 800% of what you should have earned if there's no such service. That's a HUGE plus imho

Am I making sense here? I'm not siding with them, just trying to think from their point of view

« Reply #23 on: April 06, 2010, 17:08 »
0
Hey guys, let's see it from another angle;

Customer 1 buys a large size photo, send it to a graphist (pay him few hundreds $) for touch up and upsize, ends up with a 450 mb photo.  Photographer gets 5$.

Customer 2 buys the same photo at 123 RF and choose the 450mb TIFF photo, and use it without any other work on it.  Photographer gets 60 credits ( $ ?).

What do you prefer?

Do you know of any photograph that had received a commission on the work done after his photo is sold?  I don't.

(edit: agree with previous post! I don't type very fast ;)  )

Claude
« Last Edit: April 06, 2010, 17:10 by le_cyclope »

« Reply #24 on: April 06, 2010, 17:31 »
0
Also come to think of it, if you sell your image at XXL without this service you get a commission of 2.5 credits. But if a client decides to use this service for this same image you earn 13% of 150credits =20 credits. That means you earn close to 800% of what you should have earned if there's no such service. That's a HUGE plus imho

That's why he thinks you should be absolutely thrilled with 13%.  It's more than 2.5 credits!  You should be kissing their feet for the opportunity! ;)

« Reply #25 on: April 06, 2010, 18:07 »
0
Look.. whatever sjlocke. It's great that we have the inquisitive sense to stand up and question this scheme but we must also look at 123rf's point of view as a company doing business, as I've tried to explain on my previous post

In addition, we stand to benefit anyway. Don't you think it's great that we have yet another way to earn income now? Would you rather stick with what they had previously and earn credits only by image sales? You accuse me of kissing their feet but you know what? Maybe I am. Go out there and find me any other microstock company that offers a similar service. Last I checked, I don't think I've found one. I think it's a good thing cos to tell you the truth I'm miles away from getting the sales figures I want but with this scheme I can at least have an additional opportunity to earn something extra. And anything to help my meager earnings is * welcome in my eyes. If 123rf were to take this away due to this thread we all lose

« Reply #26 on: April 06, 2010, 18:36 »
0
Hello All,

I read some of the responses yesterday right before I went to bed and was tempted to draft out a reply but after re-reading my draft, I found it to highly personal in nature and would prove to be highly embarrassing if I were to post it.  After sleeping on it I believe I'm in the right frame of mind to write my response in a more logical light.

Let's consider the scenarios:

Scenario 1:
Customer purchases 5 credit version from us. They employ their own 3rd party agency for the enlargement, for which they'll be charged at around the same price.

Your earnings: Max $2.50
Our earnings: Max $2.50
How much did you earn from the enlargement process: $0.00

Scenario 2:
Customer A purchases 5 credit version from us. They employ their own 3rd party agency for the enlargement, for which they'll be charged at around the same price. Customer B purchases the SAME image, also goes and employs the same 3rd party agency for the enlargement...

Your earnings: 2 x Max $2.50
Our earnings: 2 x Max $2.50
How much did you earn from the enlargement process: $0.00

Question: Do you think Customer B will get the enlargement for FREE when the same agency has done the enlargement before?

Scenario 3
Agency purchases your image on behalf of a client, creates an entire ad campaign for the client, edits the image a little and puts in some copy.

Your earnings: Max $2.50
Our earnings: Max $2.50

Question: Can you ask for all 3 parties (Agency, Contributor - You and 123RF) to share the earnings to be split in 1/3 shares?

Scenario 4
I purchase some anti-virus, say AVG. I go over to my client's place, and clean up their PC and perform an installation of AVG. I later billed the client, with the cost of AVG purchase built into my invoice.

Question: Can Grisoft request for 1/2 of what I earn with their Anti-virus?

Scenario 5
A plumber purchases a stop-cog and goes to a client's place to replace a faulty stop-cog. He charges whatever he wishes to charge at a level that the customer can accept.

Question: Is the plumber then, obligated to share his earnings with the stop-cog manufacturer apart from the price of the stop-cog itself?

Coming back, I hope this puts things into a clearer picture for everyone. Please stop looking at 13.3% as being unfair because under a free economy, ANYONE can add on value to your product and charge 100% for that service and leave you out of the loop entirely. I believe with 13.3% we have been equitable as we have built in asset management, infrastructure, bandwidth and a market place for which these transactions can take place.

As for the questions that Thomas has posed:

1. How much is 123RF making, the answer is simple:
We make 25% - 13.3% = 11.7% from the transaction. Why we come up with 13.3% for you and be happy with a smaller cut? Because it's easier for us to calculate earnings and we do treat you as equal business partners.

2. Why should an image get charged again and again for the same blow up.
Because it's easier that way to view it as a request on the client's behalf. At the moment, these downloads are very sporadic, we receive at most 3 per day, and 1 per day on average. The likelihood of another enlargement occurring on the exact same image, at the same size is remote. Therefore, for the sake of simplicity we simplified things further in this manner.

3. We have (wrongly apparently) thought that we have done everyone a great favor by introducing this as no matter how we cut things, everyone seems to benefit, hence, opting out, was not built in. I would like to ask you this question now: If you'd like to opt out, kindly let me know and we will try to build an opt out mechanism for those who wish to opt out. I am sure that some of you here are programmers and don't like to have lots and lots of if...then....elses.

Now for the question "Why does 123RF seem to think this is a piece of GOOD NEWS?"
Wise men say, "13.3% of something is always better than 100% (or 50% or 33.3%) of N-O-T-H-I-N-G!" We'd honestly thought that our share of 11.7% is good, because we got nothing previously, and your share of 13.3% is a little better than ours. So everyone should 'technically' be happier!

Thank you, if you have any further questions, do let me know.

Alex
for 123RF.com


« Reply #28 on: April 06, 2010, 19:10 »
0
...What justifies us in getting 33% of profits? Also we don't know the costs of the implementation of this service. ...

The answer to the first question is very simple - because you created the copyrighted content that is the sole reason the buyer is forking over cash for a version of it.

Regardless of the costs of upsizing and "cleanup", they occur one time, not for every sale as was pointed out earlier.

This is a bad deal for the customer and a bad deal for the contributor. The bribe to get you to accept this rotten deal is the extra cash.

« Reply #29 on: April 06, 2010, 19:13 »
0
Go out there and find me any other microstock company that offers a similar service.

Shutterstock and Dreamstime both offer upsized files (SS offers TIFFs).

In all cases these are upsized JPEGs which really isn't the way to go - and isn't anything a customer couldn't do in a few seconds themselves.

« Reply #30 on: April 06, 2010, 19:34 »
0
Go out there and find me any other microstock company that offers a similar service.

 - and isn't anything a customer couldn't do in a few seconds themselves.

that's the point: anyone can do it.  But how much will you get from that customer?

123 is offering to do that upsize and give a commission to the photographer.  No one else is doing this.  So I think it is unfair to compare the rate (13.3%) 123 is offering to regular commission we get on sales anywhere else.

Claude

« Reply #31 on: April 06, 2010, 19:36 »
0
Agree with jsnover.

Then:
If I have understood well, the TIFF file is made from a JPG. That's rubbish. Should be done by the contributor from the RAW file and be paid accordingly.

Then

I don't understand this 25- 13= 11%.

Then

This sentence "13.3% of something is always better than 100% (or 50% or 33.3%) of N-O-T-H-I-N-G!"

also works with "0.01% of something is always better than 100% (or 50% or 33.3%) of N-O-T-H-I-N-G!"

Maybe this is the future. But I won't be there.

KB

« Reply #32 on: April 06, 2010, 19:54 »
0
I don't understand this 25- 13= 11%.
Just to make sure it's not the math you're confused with, the exact equation was 25% - 13.3% = 11.7%. I believe Alex means that 75% goes to the 3rd party doing the enlarging.

This is a big todo over nothing. Most contributors here, I suspect, will never see even one of these sales.

It's the same discussion we had a year or two ago over Fotolia's (?) 3rd party printing partner. Except in that case all we got was an 'L' sale commission, IIRC. Much more than 75% of those sales go to that 3rd party printer.

« Reply #33 on: April 06, 2010, 20:53 »
0
1. How much is 123RF making, the answer is simple:
We make 25% - 13.3% = 11.7% from the transaction.

You're telling me that you're paying this third party $337 every time someone will buy a 300MB image?  Holy bananas.  Why didn't you call me?  I'd do it for $325.

Seriously, that is a really poor negotiation on your part.

« Reply #34 on: April 06, 2010, 21:05 »
0
.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2010, 21:48 by FD-amateur »

« Reply #35 on: April 06, 2010, 21:13 »
0
.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2010, 21:47 by FD-amateur »

« Reply #36 on: April 06, 2010, 21:45 »
0
In all cases these are upsized JPEGs which really isn't the way to go - and isn't anything a customer couldn't do in a few seconds themselves.
As I understood it, the service will include much more than just automatic up-sizing, but custom retouching. It probably will be done on demand and on an image per image base for very demanding customers that need a gigantic size for a billboard or so, and don't have a guy in house to do it properly. Working hours in the graphic industry aren't cheap.
If 123RF managed to outsource this job itself and gives us part of the overhead they charge, it's more advantageous than when the buyer bought the image for 5$, then let it enlarge/post-process himself.

On a side-note, the 123RF contributors here must feel very happy that iStock exclusives are so worried about their interests.  :)

You're telling me that you're paying this third party $337 every time someone will buy a 300MB image?  Holy bananas.  Why didn't you call me?  I'd do it for $325.
I guess it's 123RF's policy not to call exclusives from the competition.  ;)

Thank you, and I'm real sorry if I offended anyone.
Why not add the possibility to upload our original 16-bit TIFFs from RAW? Going through an 8-bit lossy degradation adds some jitter in JPGs, especially visible on isolations.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2010, 21:48 by FD-amateur »

« Reply #37 on: April 06, 2010, 21:59 »
0
It probably won't happen very often. It looks like cost of sale is 75% of price and agency splits revenue of 25% almost in half with contributors.

« Reply #38 on: April 06, 2010, 22:21 »
0
Note to OP.  Next time, announce it like this:
"We're happy to announce a new service for buyers.  We are partnering with X, who will be providing upsizing and retouching services on a custom per image request basis.  The price for this service includes a bonus amount for the contributor supplying the original image."

Then it wouldn't seem so ridiculous.

« Reply #39 on: April 07, 2010, 00:30 »
0
Cool, thanks Alex for annoucing it and for the further explanation.

If a customer wants to pay for custom work on one my images and I get a cut of it, it sounds good to me :)

Nice to see an agency adding extra forms of revenue that aren't a race to the bottom :)

« Reply #40 on: April 07, 2010, 03:17 »
0
Note to OP.  Next time, announce it like this:
"We're happy to announce a new service for buyers.  We are partnering with X, who will be providing upsizing and retouching services on a custom per image request basis.  The price for this service includes a bonus amount for the contributor supplying the original image."

Then it wouldn't seem so ridiculous.

Agreed,
Next time don't start with "good news, we've cut your commission by three on our new service". You also should have specified there's custom(for each customer, if I understood) retouching rather than a one time upsizing.
Now let's see how many customers will go this route.

« Reply #41 on: April 07, 2010, 03:40 »
0
Note to OP.  Next time, announce it like this:
"We're happy to announce a new service for buyers.  We are partnering with X, who will be providing upsizing and retouching services on a custom per image request basis.  The price for this service includes a bonus amount for the contributor supplying the original image."

Then it wouldn't seem so ridiculous.
Yeah, this way you could expect a bunch of woo-yays!

RT


« Reply #42 on: April 07, 2010, 04:47 »
0
@Alex

Who is the 'external party' that you're using to resize and touch up the photos?

Saying the buyer gets the extra benefit of having the photo touched up is all well and good, but I've yet to see any 'touch up' service that's any good, most are India based and the results I've seen are absolute cr*p, so to try and gain some confidence from your contributors please post a link to this companies site so we can see the quality of their work.

When you employ a company to retouch my work I want to make sure the end result is not something that could damage my reputation with buyers, I would also like to see a statement alongside the purchase button telling potential buyers that the 100mb + files will be a resized version of the original file and may be retouched by an external source for which the contributor has no quality control.

And as I mentioned earlier if you do allow this company to distribute images you have a legal obligation to inform contributors who they are.

I'm sure I'm not the only person sitting on the fence considering whether it's worth uploading new images to 123RF because of the lack of sales increase, I'm sure you don't want to give folk a reason to pull their existing images from the site for the lack of transparency in how our images are being sold.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2010, 05:03 by RT »

« Reply #43 on: April 07, 2010, 06:25 »
0

Thank you Alex for this further clarification ...

I am somewhat calmer, especially because always be a good relationship between contributors and 123support...
You talk with us, some others don't...

We are slowly fed with  these phrases "Congratulations, good news, great, excellent etc..."
That frighten us in some way ...

We need clear and objective approach...

« Reply #44 on: April 07, 2010, 07:13 »
0
We are slowly fed with  these phrases "Congratulations, good news, great, excellent etc..."
That frighten us in some way ...


yep, my first reaction is, oh sh*t what now??? which certainly makes me think about what I'm doing...

(for me I was pleasantly surprised with this one :) esp. by the time I got to the extra info)

« Reply #45 on: April 07, 2010, 07:34 »
0
1. How much is 123RF making, the answer is simple:
We make 25% - 13.3% = 11.7% from the transaction.

You're telling me that you're paying this third party $337 every time someone will buy a 300MB image?  Holy bananas.  Why didn't you call me?  I'd do it for $325.

Seriously, that is a really poor negotiation on your part.

Ill do it for 320$...

« Reply #46 on: April 07, 2010, 07:41 »
0
Race to the bottom!


« Reply #48 on: April 07, 2010, 11:30 »
0
Hello All,

...
Now for the question "Why does 123RF seem to think this is a piece of GOOD NEWS?"
Wise men say, "13.3% of something is always better than 100% (or 50% or 33.3%) of N-O-T-H-I-N-G!" We'd honestly thought that our share of 11.7% is good, because we got nothing previously, and your share of 13.3% is a little better than ours. So everyone should 'technically' be happier!

Thank you, if you have any further questions, do let me know.

Alex
for 123RF.com

Buhahahahaha! You are so funny! 60% of something is 60% of something! Your undercutting is going together with GI policy and is even worse than that.
20% is what anyone can get on GI and there is even more percentage on Corbis. Why you microstock slavemasters think that people don't know how to sell their images? Until when you will consider that 13.3% is better than nothing? You are so silly and funny!

$450 per image sold? It comes to $270 my cut at Alamy...  And I do my upsizing as I like in as many MB as needed! So, why I would even consider to upload on your agency and similar?

lisafx

« Reply #49 on: April 07, 2010, 12:04 »
0
Alex, after reading your thoughtful explanations and clarifications I have a much better understanding of what's being offered. 

It definitely sounds like a positive for everyone concerned. :)

I like the suggestion from FD-amateur about uploading an original TIFF on request for an extra slice of the pie.  Certainly this would yield a higher quality final product.

Also, I agree completely with Phil about being paranoid every time I hear from one of the sites what a great new deal they are offering us.  Most of us contributors are a bit shell shocked at this point so we tend to see the glass as half empty until a persuasive case is made to the contrary.

ap

« Reply #50 on: April 07, 2010, 12:20 »
0
I would like to ask you this question now: If you'd like to opt out, kindly let me know and we will try to build an opt out mechanism for those who wish to opt out. I am sure that some of you here are programmers and don't like to have lots and lots of if...then....elses.



hi alex:

i just had a great month at 123, so am not complaining. if you do include this as an opt in/opt out (maybe even on individual images) for contributors, there is really nothing that i can find fault with.

« Reply #51 on: April 07, 2010, 12:30 »
0
...
I like the suggestion from FD-amateur about uploading an original TIFF on request for an extra slice of the pie.  Certainly this would yield a higher quality final product.
...

Lisa,
obviously 123RF has not previously considered of using converted TIFFs from our RAW files in order to maintain high quality.

This is what upsets me, that our content is not appreciated the way we appreciate it. We would go way beyond in order to make the client happy but instead we see blown up JPGs ( :P) for a price that can be EASILY dropped to a more realistic level.

This is way too much money for this service.

Secondly, also sadly, a third party makes a killing off of retouching our own images.

Heck, 123RF can send me an email whenever a customer wants an image enlarged and I'll do it for $50 - jeepers creepers (no blasphemy intended).

You can't tell me that it takes 24 hours to work on such an image.

People, I'm in the wrong business. This sounds like we Microstockers are really doing something wrong.

« Reply #52 on: April 07, 2010, 13:46 »
0
Hi Alex,
I think this is not bad at all, because if someone wants enlarged and retouched image and wants to pay for it, it's better for us all to get some money from it than to get nothing if the client goes to someone else to tho the same job. Probably many clients are not graphic designers who are able to do this job for them selves, so they pay other graphic designers to retouch images they bought on 123RF. In that case, 123RF made a pretty good deal. 123RF is providing new clients to X company that does retouching, and it's normal that X company gets the biggest piece of money. X company basically gives a discount to 123RF for providing new clients, and 123RF is sharing that smaller piece with us, giving us few percents more.
Anyone who thinks we are in worse position than company X should maybe open an Y company that will do the same job as Company X
I don't say I am satisfied with less and less money we make on microstock, but I'm afraid that we will earn even less in future. Starting from macrostock, through microstock, and subscriptions finally I see only the trend of decreasing earnings.

Alex, you should maybe provide an "opt out" button for those who don't want to be part of this service.

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #53 on: April 07, 2010, 15:02 »
0
if a buyer actually believes that a picture - converted to tiff from jpg and enlarged with some fancy fractal software and retouched - is really worth that ridiculous extra price, than he/she deserves to pay so much

for me, lossy cannot turn into lossless again, and true resolution cannot be invented through interpolation or reconstruction, however good the algorithm/retoucher - but then again if that's what the buyers want...

regarding our cut, I am NOT happy with 13%, however I admit it can't do any harm to us: it's extra cash for an additional service; so this deal is more acceptable than too low % for actual sales at some agencies

now the next time my clients will send me their 320x240 pictures made with a mobile phone and ask me to design a 3 storey high billboard, I know I can charge them a few extra hundred $ for resampling instead of telling them they went nuts  ;D
« Last Edit: April 07, 2010, 16:26 by microstockphoto.co.uk »

« Reply #54 on: April 07, 2010, 15:21 »
0
People, I'm in the wrong business. This sounds like we Microstockers are really doing something wrong.

I ask myself this question very often lately.

« Reply #55 on: April 07, 2010, 15:55 »
0
I also had a great month @123rf. In fact the Ext license sales pay much better than at FT for me). 123rf has not reduced the contributor % unilaterally the last 18 months when things were slow (not the same can be said about FT for eg) What I got paid for each download, subscription or credit sales has not changed for the past 2 years, again not the case with FT. Furthermore 123rf communicates, they do consult contributors and value our inputs, I can't say that for many other sites. I am in favor of the additional revenue possibilities and I speak for myself only. I think adding an opt out option for contributors would be the right step.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #56 on: April 07, 2010, 17:11 »
0
I would like to ask you this question now: If you'd like to opt out, kindly let me know and we will try to build an opt out mechanism for those who wish to opt out. I am sure that some of you here are programmers and don't like to have lots and lots of if...then....elses.



hi alex:

i just had a great month at 123, so am not complaining. if you do include this as an opt in/opt out (maybe even on individual images) for contributors, there is really nothing that i can find fault with.

I too have had decent results since joining 123rf.  My critical post was not intended to be negative but to bring attention to the fact that Dreamstime ... and I think a few others ... have tried selling prints and flopped.  There are several other agencies who do this as their primary source of business.  I do NOT think it is something that will produce any significant profit for 123rf. 

And after reading the OP and comments more closely ... still do not believe there will be enough money generated to warrant the trouble.  Are there any buyers here who would buy prints from 123rf rather than use your current publishers/printers?

« Reply #57 on: April 07, 2010, 18:25 »
0
300 bucks for resizing.. wow, it looks like the best April Fool's ;D

So when i sell my regular (not MS) image for 325$, the work i've put in it is 25$ and the rest is just for the resolution changes - ok now i know what to tell to the client:>

Also i think FTP does not work for me, have to use the XP tool instead :/ maybe it could be fixed too. And the Twitter checkboxes do not work - should they disappear after submitting?

And by the way, the OPT OUT of this  would be great.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2010, 18:30 by plrang »

« Reply #58 on: April 08, 2010, 02:13 »
0
300 bucks for resizing.. wow, it looks like the best April Fool's ;D

So when i sell my regular (not MS) image for 325$, the work i've put in it is 25$ and the rest is just for the resolution changes - ok now i know what to tell to the client:>

Also i think FTP does not work for me, have to use the XP tool instead :/ maybe it could be fixed too. And the Twitter checkboxes do not work - should they disappear after submitting?

And by the way, the OPT OUT of this  would be great.

Hi, the twitter checkbox has been fixed, it should work now. Thanks for the heads up!

« Reply #59 on: April 08, 2010, 05:47 »
0
Alex explained to us that this is not usual "higher resolution sale"...
This is deal about resizing where contributor gets small part ,but still part of amount...
Buyer can make the same after transaction without contributor so thi is better option than nothing...

« Reply #60 on: April 08, 2010, 12:24 »
0
Hello All,

I read some of the responses yesterday right before I went to bed and was tempted to draft out a reply but after re-reading my draft, I found it to highly personal in nature and would prove to be highly embarrassing if I were to post it.  After sleeping on it I believe I'm in the right frame of mind to write my response in a more logical light.

Let's consider the scenarios:

Scenario 1:
Customer purchases 5 credit version from us. They employ their own 3rd party agency for the enlargement, for which they'll be charged at around the same price.

Your earnings: Max $2.50
Our earnings: Max $2.50
How much did you earn from the enlargement process: $0.00

Scenario 2:
Customer A purchases 5 credit version from us. They employ their own 3rd party agency for the enlargement, for which they'll be charged at around the same price. Customer B purchases the SAME image, also goes and employs the same 3rd party agency for the enlargement...

Your earnings: 2 x Max $2.50
Our earnings: 2 x Max $2.50
How much did you earn from the enlargement process: $0.00

Question: Do you think Customer B will get the enlargement for FREE when the same agency has done the enlargement before?

Scenario 3
Agency purchases your image on behalf of a client, creates an entire ad campaign for the client, edits the image a little and puts in some copy.

Your earnings: Max $2.50
Our earnings: Max $2.50

Question: Can you ask for all 3 parties (Agency, Contributor - You and 123RF) to share the earnings to be split in 1/3 shares?

Scenario 4
I purchase some anti-virus, say AVG. I go over to my client's place, and clean up their PC and perform an installation of AVG. I later billed the client, with the cost of AVG purchase built into my invoice.

Question: Can Grisoft request for 1/2 of what I earn with their Anti-virus?

Scenario 5
A plumber purchases a stop-cog and goes to a client's place to replace a faulty stop-cog. He charges whatever he wishes to charge at a level that the customer can accept.

Question: Is the plumber then, obligated to share his earnings with the stop-cog manufacturer apart from the price of the stop-cog itself?

Coming back, I hope this puts things into a clearer picture for everyone. Please stop looking at 13.3% as being unfair because under a free economy, ANYONE can add on value to your product and charge 100% for that service and leave you out of the loop entirely. I believe with 13.3% we have been equitable as we have built in asset management, infrastructure, bandwidth and a market place for which these transactions can take place.

As for the questions that Thomas has posed:

1. How much is 123RF making, the answer is simple:
We make 25% - 13.3% = 11.7% from the transaction. Why we come up with 13.3% for you and be happy with a smaller cut? Because it's easier for us to calculate earnings and we do treat you as equal business partners.

2. Why should an image get charged again and again for the same blow up.
Because it's easier that way to view it as a request on the client's behalf. At the moment, these downloads are very sporadic, we receive at most 3 per day, and 1 per day on average. The likelihood of another enlargement occurring on the exact same image, at the same size is remote. Therefore, for the sake of simplicity we simplified things further in this manner.

3. We have (wrongly apparently) thought that we have done everyone a great favor by introducing this as no matter how we cut things, everyone seems to benefit, hence, opting out, was not built in. I would like to ask you this question now: If you'd like to opt out, kindly let me know and we will try to build an opt out mechanism for those who wish to opt out. I am sure that some of you here are programmers and don't like to have lots and lots of if...then....elses.

Now for the question "Why does 123RF seem to think this is a piece of GOOD NEWS?"
Wise men say, "13.3% of something is always better than 100% (or 50% or 33.3%) of N-O-T-H-I-N-G!" We'd honestly thought that our share of 11.7% is good, because we got nothing previously, and your share of 13.3% is a little better than ours. So everyone should 'technically' be happier!

Thank you, if you have any further questions, do let me know.

Alex
for 123RF.com

Thanks for the clarification. I'm seeing it from a completely different perspective now (I still think 75% to the third party is an awful lot though)

Thomas

« Reply #61 on: April 22, 2010, 09:59 »
0
I love this services, thanks 123RF.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
3533 Views
Last post June 04, 2008, 07:48
by ozbandit
14 Replies
7133 Views
Last post September 03, 2008, 05:33
by DanP68
3 Replies
4219 Views
Last post August 12, 2011, 04:49
by Slovenian
11 Replies
5119 Views
Last post August 22, 2011, 18:43
by Slovenian
4 Replies
3790 Views
Last post September 28, 2013, 10:00
by KimsCreativeHub

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle