The strategy is clearly to offer the lowest price for images in the industry (trying to pull a SS). They do not want to fork out the 50% portion of loss in revenue the move would cost them. Now they make their contributors carry approximately 60% of the loss and they only 40%. They call this marketing cost, so that we do not feel done in by carrying more of the burden of their new "low price marketing" strategy, than they do themselves. But first we will take the bulk of the financial hit. If it works, with luck, we can recover and earn again what we did (or according to their grand hopes - more) due to volume increase, if not, we hurt even more and we all die with them.

Quote from: CD123 on December 22, 2012, 12:55

... If it works, with luck, we can recover and earn again what we did due to volume increase, if not, we hurt even more and we all die with them.

But buyers will go somewhere else - somewhere that we will probably also be. So we don't "die" even if they do. Seems to me there's no loser in that scenario but 123rf.

The only way they could hurt us - indies in general versus the top factories - is if they were amazingly successful and put the other agencies out of business. I'm not worried about that happening as they've been around since 2005 and have been completely unable to lift themselves out of the middle tier. They're not going to do that with this latest "We're the cheapest" move. Fotolia already tried that and they're still trailing the two leaders.

"we die" = those who will stay and their total income from 123RF. I do not say their plan will work.  Actually as pointed out about 1000x in this thread - history has proven the opposite, but it is clearly not deterring them to try.

They are bargaining on:
1. The main contributors (large ones bringing currently 80% of revenue in) will stay.
2. Their current customers will stay.
3. They will attract more customers with aggressive marketing as being the cheapest.
4. They will be like SS nr. 2
5. Contributors will not mind getting less % and per image wise because the volumes will be enormous.

About 95% of us disagrees.

Uncertainties:
1. Will enough top contributors stay and/or continue contributing?
2. Will buyers follow a pure price incentive and flock to 123RF? Most marketing experts will tell you that price is just one of many factors determining buyer behaviour. Does 123RF have the rest to make this work? We will see.....

To be continued 2013...... 

If you have an income problem you might take from your suppliers, but you will not lower your sales price, as that will defeat the object of gaining immediate extra income.

Quote from: grafix04 on December 22, 2012, 09:31

123rf has more crap than other site and now you're saying they've suddenly decided to get rid of anyone with 4999 and below yearly downloads?  That's a lot of sales to let go don't you think? 

And you're correct, 'threats' of leaving won't have much effect on them.  Actually leaving might though.

I'd have thought SS has the most "crap" as you call it, as more people submit there than anywhere else. And if you read what I wrote you'll see I said they may be trying to get rid of those contributors who's work doesn't sell (therefore no they won't be losing much), there's some mid tier contributors who may take a 5% drop, will they leave - I doubt it very much, and I expect 123RF know this as the royalties they pay are still higher than most.

Judging by your guess, I suspect that you don't contribute to either SS or 123rf.  If you did, you'd know that more people submit to SS because they make us more money than any other micro.  Despite having the most content, SS doesn't have the most crap because it has a decent review program (tougher than IS at times these days) and 123 basically has no review program, accepting anything and everything that's thrown at them.  All my crap that's been rejected at other sites is happily parked at 123rf (I considered leaving them there but decided to offer them exclusively for free on my site).  123 has everyone's crap, even the elite's crap so your guess about 123 trying to build a site with superior content has to be incorrect.

Another thing that supports their lack of interest in offering superior content only, is that they have one of the most pathetic search system in the industry.  Apart from the idiotic search algorithms they most likely use, they have  that stupid 'fave' program that allows people to 'fave' their crap bringing it to the first page of the search.

And even one more reason why they don't care too much about quality is that they're cheap - the cheapest in the industry - and discount more heavily than any other micro.  Surely if they were trying to come off as the micro with the most superior content, they wouldn't have to price it so low and have to offer large discounts in order to sell it.

As I said I'm only guessing, they are many contributors I know of who produce stunning work albeit in low quantity, those are the folks I feel sorry for because they're taking a drop purely because they can't produce enough, anybody that's got a substantial portfolio and yet is getting dropped to 30% really need to look at why there stuff isn't selling - or is that the "crap" you're referring to?

Why are you only focusing on the 30%?  What about quality contributors with a large portfolio that are dropping from 50% to anywhere above 30%?  They may be having trouble selling enough to get 50% for lots of reasons.  They may have entered later in the game meaning their content is taking longer to be seen.  As I mentioned above, the search engine at 123 is ridiculous.  Didn't lagerreek pull his entire port because of this?  Even his niche content couldn't be found.  A lot of my best sellers at other sites are not selling at 123 and when I search for them, I can't find them in the sea of crap - that I'm referring to.

Edited to fix my quote

@RT
I think you are missing the point of what most of the members are trying to tell you here:
1. The issue with 123RF is not only the % they are paying their contributors, but the price of their image packages, which COMBINEDLY will make it one of the worst (if not the worst) paying sites.
2. 123RF will not go to this extreme lengths to get rid of smaller contributors, if there was a much easier and less risky method of just refusing most of their work. It has nothing to do with good or bad the reviewers is/are/should be. It is about the business strategy.

This is why no one so far agrees with your analysis of 123RF's actions.

Actually I'm fully aware of the point some members here are trying to tell me, they're not selling enough and as a result they are going to drop down. The point most of those members are missing is that - The reason they're going to drop is pure and simply down to them, nobody else, nothing to do with the amount of "crap" on the site and nothing to do with the price of image packages.

And they don't agree with my analysis because it's easier to blame someone/something else than accept the truth.

And they don't agree with my analysis because it's easier to blame someone/something else than accept the truth.

now you are reminding me of oxman, who said yesterday that the ones having drops at iStock its actually their fault

Quote from: luissantos84 on December 22, 2012, 12:49

RT I do think you are an intelligent guy and sure you add a lot of value to this forum but I don't think showing off or bullying other will ever work out, maybe only for the person who does it, anyway I believe you know why iStock dropped you too back in 2009, don't forget we are all on the same boat, yes yours will take longer to sink

Umm..... thanks but I think you've got the wrong guy, by that I mean the "dropped by iStock" not the intelligent part 

And sorry if you think I'm showing off or bullying others (although I haven't got a clue why you'd say that), I work dammed hard to reach the levels I have, I admit I'm easily into the level to retain 50% but that's because I've done the work to get there, as have many others. As I said early I sympathise with anyone who's taking a drop.

congratulations, I had no idea that you have kept the 20%

Quote

Quote from: grafix04 on Today at 18:32
Judging by your guess, I suspect that you don't contribute to either SS or 123rf.

Well you're wrong and to be honest I'd have thought it was plainly obvious I contribute to 123RF otherwise why would I be commenting on a thread about them!!

The same reason why IS exclusives comment about micros they don't contribute to.  The same reason you just commented about SS without being a contributor there.  Why would it be obvious where you contribute?  Sorry, I don't keep up with the Joneses and where they contribute.  I've been commenting about 123rf  since they made their announcement to cut commissions and this is the first time I've noticed a post from you about it.

Quote

Quote from: grafix04 on Today at 18:32
Why are you only focusing on the 30%? What about quality contributors with a large portfolio that are dropping from 50% to anywhere above 30%? They may be having trouble selling enough to get 50% for lots of reasons. They may have entered later in the game meaning their content is taking longer to be seen.

Apart from the obvious oxymoron I believe 123RF are basing it on a 12 month rolling scale so those who joined 'later in the game' have the ability to climb up to a higher percentage irrelevant of historical statistics.

Nothing personal but the rest of what you said just comes over to me as 'sour eggs' towards 123RF in general, read what I've said a couple of posts above, work harder to produce stuff that sells and you'll reap the benefits across all the sites you decide to submit to. If you really feel as bad about 123RF as you seem to I really can't understand why you just don't leave.

Seriously why would you want to stay on a site where you don't like the - content, prices, search results and royalties. I'm genuinely intrigued as to why you're arguing over this, if I felt that bad about a site I'd just leave.

Did I not make it clear that I'm not staying?

I�m going to have to 'guess' that you're either not aware of all the issues with 123rf or, like a stray dog, you're happy to receive whatever scraps they give you.

Like most people, I signed up partly because of the praises they were getting and mostly based on their terms and conditions which included the BS 50% that they were supposed to be offering.  Nowhere in their contract terms did it say that they will be heavily discounting almost every sale at the contributors' expense.   Nowhere on the site did it say that they accept 100% of what is uploaded.  Nowhere on the site did it mention that they'll be ripping off their contributors with the 'mistakes' they make in paying us. 'Mistakes' that are mostly impossible to detect unless they're extreme. 

Sounds like "sour grapes"?  You bet it's sour grapes.  Had I known about their now obvious dodgy practices back then, I wouldn't have wasted my time signing up and uploading at all. I stopped uploading over a year ago, even before they made the announcement about the cuts.  I'm at level 4 and I know I would have easily made level 5 if I kept uploading in that year.  But this isn't about  'how hard I work', this is about a microstock site who boasts about being the cheapest in the industry.  This is about a microstock site who makes massive errors in their favor.  This is about a site that heavily discounts without our knowledge of the supposed discounts being offered. This is about a site that most probably gets away with ripping us off intentionally and gets away with it due to their lack of transparency.  This is about a site that has removed their forums and deletes their member's comments on social media to hide how sly they are. This is about a site that most likely that has banked or spent money that belongs to me.

You bet it's about sour grapes.  I have no problem leaving the site.  My concern is that there may be too many people like you who will either ignore or put up with their dodgy practices and will help bring down the entire industry (from the contributor's perspective, not the micros).  All I can do is voice my concerns to make more people aware so that they make better informed decisions that will be beneficial to them and the industry as a whole � long term.

And please don't assume you produce 'better stuff that sells' than I do.  Or that you've worked harder than I have.  A little presumptuous and arrogant when you don't know how large or what my portfolio looks like, don't you think?

Quite a bit has been said lately about the actual commission paid per credit by 123RF due to the selling of discounted credits, with many people claiming that a large quantity of their credit sales are discounted to some degree or other.

Based on my last couple of hundered of credit sales at 123RF, I have received �200.53 in commissions from 508 credits. This is from 195 actual credit image sales, which should represent an acceptable sample size to base some calculations on.

This equates to an actual average price paid by the buyer of $0.79 per credit (however I have seen much larger discounts on individual sales - many in the 50% plus discount range).

Using the average credit price paid by the buyer we can come up with a $ royalty commision for each image size for each of the proposed new levels at 123RF, something which has been hard to do in the past due to the wide range in actual dollar commissions recived due to the dicounted credits.

The following tabel shows the $amounts paid for the new levels, based on $0.79 per credit purchase price.

123RF                         Small   Medium   Large   XLarge   XXLarge
Image                         400x    881x      2607x   3600x    2800x
Dimensions                  247      544       1609     2221     4214
Level 1 (30%)              $0.24    $0.47    $0.71   $0.95    $1.18
Level 2 (35%)              $0.28    $0.55    $0.83   $1.11    $1.38
Level 3 (40%)              $0.32    $0.63    $0.95   $1.26    $1.58
Level 4 (45%)              $0.36    $0.71    $1.07   $1.42    $1.78
Level 5 (50%)              $0.39    $0.79    $1.18   $1.58    $1.97

This can then be compared to Fotolia and Depositphotos:

Fotolia                       XSmall   Small   Medium   Large   XLarge
Image                        485x     850x    1691x     2360x   4214x
Dimensions                 282      565      1124       1568    2800
White Level (20%)      $0.20    $0.60   $1.00      $1.40   $1.60
Bronze Level (23%)    $0.23    $0.69   $1.15      $1.61   $1.84
Silver Level (25%)      $0.25    $0.75   $1.25      $1.75    $2.00


Deposit Photos           XSmall   Small   Medium   Large   XLarge
Image                       425x     867x    1735x      2454x   4214x
Dimensions                282       576     1153       1630     2800
Green Level (44%)     $0.35   $0.66    $1.32      $1.76   $2.64
Bronze 46%               $0.46   $0.92   $1.84       $2.76   $3.68
Silver 48%                 $0.48   $0.96   $1.92      $2.88   $3.84
Gold 50%                  $0.50    $1.00   $2.00      $3.00   $4.00

One thing that people do need to take into account is the actual images sizes sold, eg 123RF does not have XS and therefore a 123RF small equates to a Fotolia / DP XSmall. However Large is comparable across all 3 of the sites.

If we take Large as an example even a lowly White Level contributor at Fotolia would earn $1.40, a Green Level contributor at DP would earn $1.76, whereas a Level 1 contributor at 123RF would earn $0.71 (next year), with even a Level 5 Contributor at 50% (next year) only earning $1.18.

123Rf seems to compare better at the small/medium sizes but pays much less from large image size upwards.

Hopefully this goes some way to showing the levels of actual $royalties paid and clearly shows that the actual %commission isn't the be all and end all in determining whether a site pay a good or bad commission.

123Rf has been seen as paying a high commission % up till now, however 50% of a low credit price (especially when discounted further for buyers) equates to a lower royalty payment in $ than many sites paying a lower %.

Food for thought and some discussion.

What is missing from that analysis is that 123RF gives massive discounts on our backs. In that regard, your L size sale will rarely earn you $1.18. The average is MUCH smaller and they will never tell you how much smaller in fact. You will never be certain about the money you'll get from them at the end of the month.
I'm at level 5 after this month but that doesn't make them less shady or their business practices easier to accept.

For example, four L sales from my yesterday's income are like this: 1.335, 0.870, 1.320, 0.935.
Yep.

Alright, so you made an average of the discounts they pull out of our earnings too. It's better, but still it's based on one's bad luck in getting discounted sales. I could have had four 0.870 sales instead of what I had and the situations would have been worse.
However, for an approximation is ok.

Quite a bit has been said lately about the actual commission paid per credit by 123RF due to the selling of discounted credits, with many people claiming that a large quantity of their credit sales are discounted to some degree or other.

Based on my last couple of hundered of credit sales at 123RF, I have received �200.53 in commissions from 508 credits. This is from 195 actual credit image sales, which should represent an acceptable sample size to base some calculations on.

This equates to an actual average price paid by the buyer of $0.79 per credit (however I have seen much larger discounts on individual sales - many in the 50% plus discount range).

Using the average credit price paid by the buyer we can come up with a $ royalty commision for each image size for each of the proposed new levels at 123RF, something which has been hard to do in the past due to the wide range in actual dollar commissions recived due to the dicounted credits.

The following tabel shows the $amounts paid for the new levels, based on $0.79 per credit purchase price.

123RF                         Small   Medium   Large   XLarge   XXLarge
Image                         400x    881x      2607x   3600x    2800x
Dimensions                  247      544       1609     2221     4214
Level 1 (30%)              $0.24    $0.47    $0.71   $0.95    $1.18
Level 2 (35%)              $0.28    $0.55    $0.83   $1.11    $1.38
Level 3 (40%)              $0.32    $0.63    $0.95   $1.26    $1.58
Level 4 (45%)              $0.36    $0.71    $1.07   $1.42    $1.78
Level 5 (50%)              $0.39    $0.79    $1.18   $1.58    $1.97

This can then be compared to Fotolia and Depositphotos:

Fotolia                       XSmall   Small   Medium   Large   XLarge
Image                        485x     850x    1691x     2360x   4214x
Dimensions                 282      565      1124       1568    2800
White Level (20%)      $0.20    $0.60   $1.00      $1.40   $1.60
Bronze Level (23%)    $0.23    $0.69   $1.15      $1.61   $1.84
Silver Level (25%)      $0.25    $0.75   $1.25      $1.75    $2.00


Deposit Photos           XSmall   Small   Medium   Large   XLarge
Image                       425x     867x    1735x      2454x   4214x
Dimensions                282       576     1153       1630     2800
Green Level (44%)     $0.35   $0.66    $1.32      $1.76   $2.64
Bronze 46%               $0.46   $0.92   $1.84       $2.76   $3.68
Silver 48%                 $0.48   $0.96   $1.92      $2.88   $3.84
Gold 50%                  $0.50    $1.00   $2.00      $3.00   $4.00

One thing that people do need to take into account is the actual images sizes sold, eg 123RF does not have XS and therefore a 123RF small equates to a Fotolia / DP XSmall. However Large is comparable across all 3 of the sites.

If we take Large as an example even a lowly White Level contributor at Fotolia would earn $1.40, a Green Level contributor at DP would earn $1.76, whereas a Level 1 contributor at 123RF would earn $0.71 (next year), with even a Level 5 Contributor at 50% (next year) only earning $1.18.

123Rf seems to compare better at the small/medium sizes but pays much less from large image size upwards.

Hopefully this goes some way to showing the levels of actual $royalties paid and clearly shows that the actual %commission isn't the be all and end all in determining whether a site pay a good or bad commission.

123Rf has been seen as paying a high commission % up till now, however 50% of a low credit price (especially when discounted further for buyers) equates to a lower royalty payment in $ than many sites paying a lower %.

Food for thought and some discussion.

Andy, great effort putting that together.  I'm guessing your intention was to compare the three cheapest micro sites that are leading the race to the bottom? 

I appreciate your effort because apart from them ripping us off in the other ways, you've just highlighted another reason for me to leave.  Considering DP will give a better return than 123rf will next year, and that I've left DP because they're too cheap and their commissions are too low, what does that say about 123rf?

123 may compare better than FT at the lower levels but we have to remember that not too long ago FT didn't look like that.  They've had two commission cuts in the same year and have changed their levels, moving the goalposts for everyone which resulted in many contributors turning against them.  So showing that 123rf who is a low volume, relative new site is not much better than FT, who has been around, is a high volume site and a top earner doesn't say much for them apart from saying that 123 has a real nerve thinking they can get away with acting as bad as the big boys without seeing any consequences.

Thanks again.

Quote from: grafix04 on December 22, 2012, 22:07

The same reason you just commented about SS without being a contributor there. 

...................

A little presumptuous and arrogant when you don't know how large or what my portfolio looks like, don't you think?

And yet despite me telling you earlier that I am on SS and 123Rf you still make assumptions about me, a bit presumptuous don't you think.

Please point out where you told me about SS.  I even quoted you where you only mentioned 123rf.  Were you drunk or on something at the time or are you drunk or on something now?  Did you miss the word 'either'?  For an English man, I expect more from you, given that English isn't even my first language.

As I said earlier if you don't sell enough at 123RF or don't like the way they sell your stuff then just leave, and if they think they've taken money from you illegally then do something about it instead of just coming here with the 'boo hoo' attitude. I can't have any respect for somebody like you who states they hate a site so much but still has their portfolio there. And if I were a betting man I'd bet that you won't actually leave and that you'll continue to moan on and on about them whilst actually doing nothing.

Why don't you put the drink down, go back over my posts (and others) and read them again before you continue making a fool of yourself.  Do you have trouble understanding the issues that have been raised many times by myself and others or are you just a stubborn fool who sticks to his guns because he doesn't like to admit he's wrong? You don�t need to answer that, it's a rhetorical question

There is no 'boo hoo attitude' from me.  I�m not the one who's been here more than half a decade 'boo hooing'.  I only found out recently about them ripping us off and I AM doing something about it.  This is it.  If you're happy to be robbed, good luck to you.  I'm here discussing with others the issues about their errors in our pay which they've just admitted to.  I've already said that due to their lack of transparency it's impossible to prove and I'm discussing it to make people aware of the issue.  I think the 'boo hoo attitude' (very grown up by the way) is with you.  I think you're the one 'boo hooing' over us raising the issue because you're sh!t scared people will walk and 123rf will sink like IS is sinking now.  Despite there being a possibility of them robbing you (intentionally or by error), you seem to be upset because it's difficult for YOU to walk away after 'all the hard work' you've put in, am I correct?  I was clever enough to work on a plan a year ago, replacing 123rf�s income (and others) before I leave.  It looks like you're just going to have to stay there getting the rug pulled out from under you for some time knowing they're ripping you off

You're also a bit of hypocrite.  I recall some months ago you 'boo hooing' over Veer before you left them.  Aside from a general comment about their recent dealings with Alamy in an unrelated thread, you didn't get a peep from me before I pull my port from Veer.  And yet here we are, we just found out about 123rf making numerous errors in our payments, which is a very serious issue and you're complaining that we're complaining? 

As for my portfolio still being at 123rf, I said when they made the announcement that I will be deleting my port when the changes go through in January.  It's not January yet.  Deleting them individually takes time and I and others have asked them for an easier way to delete the entire portfolio.  We have not heard back yet. If they don't give us this option, I'll delete them during the holidays when things are quiet and I have more time on my hands.  So if you were a betting man, you would lose.  But clearly you're okay with losing since you're happy to stay at 123rf accepting their rock bottom commissions, their BS discounting and their constant errors (or possible theft � who knows).  As I've mentioned in many threads, I've already left a good number of micro sites without reducing my total income and 123 is next on the list. 

Now I�m going to go back to skipping over your posts because they're as crappy as 123rf's gallery.  Usually your babble is contained in the IS threads which I've learned to tune out since it's full of the same grumpy old men bickering about the same issues over and over again for years.  It's a shame your babble had to spill into and ruin this thread.  You've been talking the same 'shite' since the Talkmicro days.  You bored back then and you're still doing it.  I have never had time for you, let alone respect.