Quote from: RT on February 17, 2012, 13:55

You get 38 cents commission for an XXXL on Shutterstock

I specifically emphasized I was talking about credit sales. Yet we still get this crap about SS almost every single time (usually from exclusives). Stay on topic ppl

Quote from: wut on February 17, 2012, 14:12

Quote from: RT on February 17, 2012, 13:55

You get 38 cents commission for an XXXL on Shutterstock

I specifically emphasized I was talking about credit sales. Yet we still get this crap about SS almost every single time (usually from exclusives). Stay on topic ppl

I know you did, but my point was to highlight that you're moaning about getting $1.20 for an XL file on one site, yet on another site you're happy to get 38c for an XXL, or is it that you're happy to get 38c commission as long as you know the buyers has bought a subscription package, even though out of that purchase you might only get one sale for 38c.

The point being, it shouldn't matter to you whether the image was bought by the buyer under a subscription or a credit package, at the end of the day you're selling an XL on one site for 38c and an XL on another site for $1.20. That's microstock for you - some commission sales some subscription sales, some sites pay more than others, some have higher sales some lower, as an independent contributor you should either get over it and stop moaning or do something about it - by which I mean pull your port from the sites that don't pay you enough commission, or who's upload process you don't like, or who's reviewers reject lots of your images for reasons you don't agree with.

So $1.20 commission for an XL sale on 123RF isn't as much as you'd get like for like on other sites, I agree and I'd like more, but then I'd like SS to pay us more in fact I'd like every site to pay us more - at least we can vote with our feet, that's the great thing about being independent isn't it  

Oh and FTR I'm not an exclusive - but you know that could be a solution for you, find a site you are happy with and go exclusive there. Is there a site you're happy with?

And we bitch about getting 7c/cr at IS, which brings us 1.61$. But to be honest it really happens rarely at IS, but at 123RF it happens all the time in the best case scenario I get 2$. Yes, 2 lousy bucks!

I'm really thinking of not only stopping uploads on these small sites, but deleting the ports, I'm sure I'm loosing a sale here and there because of that at a better paying site. It's horrible to see how many ppl are blinded by the 50% royalties (which are going to get lowered for the vast majority anyway), when all that really matters is the bottom line earning. There's no basis for good bottom line earnings, volume is low or medium at best, but royalties for credit purchases, at least for XL files are the lowest (At least I get more at every single site I contribute to, 10 or so)

ETA I just noticed there that XXL is really 21 mpix and costs 5 instead of 4 credits, so you get 30-50c more. But I rarely get those DLs anyway. Still pathetic!

That is why I downsize for SS

I've really covered most of the things in your last reply, I've color matched it so you won't miss it this time . me too, but as I said, the bottom line earnings are BY FAR the best, the volume is just there, so I can't really mind. I do really like SS and that's about it, I either don't have an opinion on other (meaning they're OK), most of them I don't like, they just don't deliver and there's just too much hassle with most of them (UL process, bugs, complete muppets reviewing and rejecting stuff that gets accepted everywhere else etc. All that being said I'm really thinking of deleting stuff from everywhere besides my top 2 earners (SS and IS) and give a chance to FT and DT (123RF just fell of the list obviously), those 2 bring decent earnings a couple of months in the year. 123RF is a bit better for now, well FT is looking a lot better this month, but by 2013, it'll go down for 95% of the contributors

I'm really thinking of not only stopping uploads on these small sites, but deleting the ports, I'm sure I'm loosing a sale here and there because of that at a better paying site.

Every single one besides top 4. Their prices are pathetic, it doesn't help at all that they pay us up to 50% royalties

Quote from: Pixart on February 17, 2012, 16:12

That is why I downsize for SS

I did that during the first year, but then again, that can bring down your OD/WL sales. Now I downsize only if the photo is not really super sharp (it usually is on a 5D2 coupled with good primes), because they're really nitpicking when it comes to sharpness and focus. I'd say I downsize a third of my images.

It's no generalization, it's a fact. You can say whatever you want and you actually are talking about it without doing the math. I've done the math, I did post it already and even if you get payed only 7c/credit at IS (which really happens rarely), you still get 1.61$ and not less than a dollar. But as well all know you usually get over 5$ even if you're getting only 15% royalties. So what good does that 50% cut do for you? Absolutely nothing, it's just something that is comforting you, but in fact only blinding you. And as we all know and you pointed it out, there's no volume, so in fact you don't only get over 5 times less, it's more like 50 times less. That's why ppl are reporting getting only 10% from non-top 4 agencies, even though they contribute to as much as 25 agencies!!! I really don't know what these ppl are thinking, they're so shortsighted, they don't see they're helping in the race to the bottom. And yeah, which top 4 agency has poor prices? I mean compared to the rest. Which is so utterly pathetic to charge only 5 cr for a full sized JPG (and the big uns usually charge more per credit)

It seems that it might be best for you to not worry about microstock and move on to something bigger and better.

Unless of course you enjoy trolling ?

Your posts call everyone involved in the agencies either a Muppet or a puppet. Royalities are pathetic, the list goes on.

Next you'll be talking about how you make more money flipping burgers etc.

But you do realize I'm talking about photos, do you?

Quote from: wut on February 17, 2012, 13:43

And we bitch about getting 7c/cr at IS, which brings us 1.61$. But to be honest it really happens rarely at IS, but at 123RF it happens all the time in the best case scenario I get 2$. Yes, 2 lousy bucks!

Trouble is, if you're non-exclusive at IS, your files will presumably all be transferred to TS where your return on a huge file is even less, and you can't opt to send only smaller files there (if independent). Can't remember how many cents you get, but it's so low, they don't post them on the FAQ locked sticky. Surely 'how much would I get?' must be the most FAQ.

Quote from: ShadySue on March 13, 2012, 09:27

Quote from: wut on February 17, 2012, 13:43

And we bitch about getting 7c/cr at IS, which brings us 1.61$. But to be honest it really happens rarely at IS, but at 123RF it happens all the time in the best case scenario I get 2$. Yes, 2 lousy bucks!

Trouble is, if you're non-exclusive at IS, your files will presumably all be transferred to TS where your return on a huge file is even less, and you can't opt to send only smaller files there (if independent). Can't remember how many cents you get, but it's so low, they don't post them on the FAQ locked sticky. Surely 'how much would I get?' must be the most FAQ.

Indeed, but that's a sub model, it's the same everywhere (more or less, getting 1,05$ for level 5 subs at DT ain't so bad;). BTW I opted in voluntarily, the volume was good, so I got almost as much as from regular IS sales. It's the same at SS, the volume makes up for it. At smaller sites, it doesn't, not even close. When we get to credit sales, those small agencies price full (20+ mpix) res photos ridiculously

Quote from: ShadySue on March 13, 2012, 10:31

It's the low sub prices that are forcing or holding prices down in general.

Even if they're, those super low credit prices sure don't help. And if you look at 123RF, all you see is cheap files sold by credits and subs. The big sites at least balance the average with decently priced files sold by credits

Quote from: wut on March 13, 2012, 10:58

Quote from: ShadySue on March 13, 2012, 10:31

It's the low sub prices that are forcing or holding prices down in general.

Even if they're, those super low credit prices sure don't help. And if you look at 123RF, all you see is cheap files sold by credits and subs. The big sites at least balance the average with decently priced files sold by credits

Were these super low credit prices available to you before you signed up to 123RF?
What makes me miffed is these secret deals that iStock make (also e.g. Alamy) knowledge of which not made available to contributors before they sign up, so you're not making a 'fully informed decision' about expected income if you choose to sign up there.

Quote from: wut on March 13, 2012, 11:06

GL's highest price is 6$. You get 3$. It's better than 123RF, that's for sure, but still just half of what you get at IS, SS, DT (if it's a higher level image, then a lot less). But still, with such low volume, the prices would have to be dozen times higher to make it up...

I must be magical then because mine goes up to $15.  

Yes, you can set your price at $6, $10 or $15. That contributor set their price a $6. It was their choice. Cutcaster does the same thing. So do sites like Clipartof and Drawshop. There might be others that do that to. It's a nice feature.