pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: "Download pack" = massive discounts & 1 royalty credit per sale. Bad news.  (Read 16773 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Valo

« Reply #25 on: July 16, 2014, 10:20 »
+11
I am actually depressed right now. We are being pushed into a corner. There is no where to go. All agencies are going with this new model. I hope for the love of anything that the factories will start to become unsustainable so that they will start pulling their weight and hopefully turn things around.


ShadySue

« Reply #26 on: July 16, 2014, 10:43 »
0
I am actually depressed right now. We are being pushed into a corner. There is no where to go. All agencies are going with this new model. I hope for the love of anything that the factories will start to become unsustainable so that they will start pulling their weight and hopefully turn things around.

It'll take longer for the factories, if they're sharing studios, equipment, models, props - economies of scale (depending on how they work).

« Reply #27 on: July 16, 2014, 11:26 »
+23
So I'm glad that 123rf has posted the earnings chart here and explained how this new credit bundle works. I'm no longer concerned that my rate is below the level I have attained, but I do have other questions/issues:

1. For the purpose of calculating our 12 month credit total, how many virtual credits does this new download pack count for? Subscriptions count for 1, but 123rf makes much more money per image via a download pack than via a subscription, so I think contributors should be credited for more than one as well

http://www.123rf.com/contrib_structure.php

If someone purchased an XXL image of mine via credits, however heavily discounted, I made 6 credits for the purpose of future royalty calculations and minimum $1.08 royalty. With these new download packs, I make 1 credit for royalty purposes and 37 cents. That's a 65% reduction in earnings and an 83% reduction in credit for future royalties.

It doesn't take a math genius to see that I'll soon be dropping down the royalty levels if these download packs take off.

2. Is the earnings chart per download pack posted anywhere on the site? I don't see it in the link above where subscription royalties are posted. We shouldn't have to ask to have our earnings charts updated as soon as new products are introduced.

3. Why were contributors not notified of this new product? You have the ability to alert us to things on login, there's a blog, you could send out e-mail... The only conclusion I can draw is that you knew we wouldn't like it and were hoping we might not notice. That's just not acceptable.

4. What is the smallest number of images a buyer can purchase with a download pack? What number of images, and what expiration period, get the buyer the lowest price?

You've posted two options ($139 a month or $1,390 a year) on the site but there are clearly more options given the royalty chart you provided.

At the lowest price, working back from what contributors are paid, a buyer can purchase an XXL image or vector for 82.2 cents! That buyer price is below my current royalty floor ($1.08) for a 6 credit XXL sale.

Given a one year expiration, why would any large, regular buyer purchase credits after their current bundle runs out? Video, EVO (but if Sean's experience with EVO is any guide, that's not a big seller) & TIFF are the only things you'd need credits for. I don't sell two of those and the TIFF purchases are very few and far between.

So this looks to me like a massive price cut for buyers and for contributors a path to a drastically lower future royalty level.

Is there any "good news" I'm missing is this train wreck?

« Reply #28 on: July 16, 2014, 11:37 »
+1
So I'm glad that 123rf has posted the earnings chart here and explained how this new credit bundle works. I'm no longer concerned that my rate is below the level I have attained, but I do have other questions/issues:

1. For the purpose of calculating our 12 month credit total, how many virtual credits does this new download pack count for? Subscriptions count for 1, but 123rf makes much more money per image via a download pack than via a subscription, so I think contributors should be credited for more than one as well

http://www.123rf.com/contrib_structure.php

If someone purchased an XXL image of mine via credits, however heavily discounted, I made 6 credits for the purpose of future royalty calculations and minimum $1.08 royalty. With these new download packs, I make 1 credit for royalty purposes and 37 cents. That's a 65% reduction in earnings and an 83% reduction in credit for future royalties.

It doesn't take a math genius to see that I'll soon be dropping down the royalty levels if these download packs take off.

2. Is the earnings chart per download pack posted anywhere on the site? I don't see it in the link above where subscription royalties are posted. We shouldn't have to ask to have our earnings charts updated as soon as new products are introduced.

3. Why were contributors not notified of this new product? You have the ability to alert us to things on login, there's a blog, you could send out e-mail... The only conclusion I can draw is that you knew we wouldn't like it and were hoping we might not notice. That's just not acceptable.

4. What is the smallest number of images a buyer can purchase with a download pack? What number of images, and what expiration period, get the buyer the lowest price?

You've posted two options ($139 a month or $1,390 a year) on the site but there are clearly more options given the royalty chart you provided.

At the lowest price, working back from what contributors are paid, a buyer can purchase an XXL image or vector for 82.2 cents! That buyer price is below my current royalty floor ($1.08) for a 6 credit XXL sale.

Given a one year expiration, why would any large, regular buyer purchase credits after their current bundle runs out? Video, EVO (but if Sean's experience with EVO is any guide, that's not a big seller) & TIFF are the only things you'd need credits for. I don't sell two of those and the TIFF purchases are very few and far between.

So this looks to me like a massive price cut for buyers and for contributors a path to a drastically lower future royalty level.

Is there any "good news" I'm missing is this train wreck?


Great summary.

« Reply #29 on: July 16, 2014, 12:14 »
+1
So I'm glad that 123rf has posted the earnings chart here and explained how this new credit bundle works. I'm no longer concerned that my rate is below the level I have attained, but I do have other questions/issues:

1. For the purpose of calculating our 12 month credit total, how many virtual credits does this new download pack count for? Subscriptions count for 1, but 123rf makes much more money per image via a download pack than via a subscription, so I think contributors should be credited for more than one as well

http://www.123rf.com/contrib_structure.php

If someone purchased an XXL image of mine via credits, however heavily discounted, I made 6 credits for the purpose of future royalty calculations and minimum $1.08 royalty. With these new download packs, I make 1 credit for royalty purposes and 37 cents. That's a 65% reduction in earnings and an 83% reduction in credit for future royalties.

It doesn't take a math genius to see that I'll soon be dropping down the royalty levels if these download packs take off.

2. Is the earnings chart per download pack posted anywhere on the site? I don't see it in the link above where subscription royalties are posted. We shouldn't have to ask to have our earnings charts updated as soon as new products are introduced.

3. Why were contributors not notified of this new product? You have the ability to alert us to things on login, there's a blog, you could send out e-mail... The only conclusion I can draw is that you knew we wouldn't like it and were hoping we might not notice. That's just not acceptable.

4. What is the smallest number of images a buyer can purchase with a download pack? What number of images, and what expiration period, get the buyer the lowest price?

You've posted two options ($139 a month or $1,390 a year) on the site but there are clearly more options given the royalty chart you provided.

At the lowest price, working back from what contributors are paid, a buyer can purchase an XXL image or vector for 82.2 cents! That buyer price is below my current royalty floor ($1.08) for a 6 credit XXL sale.

Given a one year expiration, why would any large, regular buyer purchase credits after their current bundle runs out? Video, EVO (but if Sean's experience with EVO is any guide, that's not a big seller) & TIFF are the only things you'd need credits for. I don't sell two of those and the TIFF purchases are very few and far between.

So this looks to me like a massive price cut for buyers and for contributors a path to a drastically lower future royalty level.

Is there any "good news" I'm missing is this train wreck?


Great questions, Jo Ann - will be interesting to see how 123rf respond to this...

« Reply #30 on: July 16, 2014, 12:31 »
0
So I'm glad that 123rf has posted the earnings chart here and explained how this new credit bundle works. I'm no longer concerned that my rate is below the level I have attained, but I do have other questions/issues:

1. For the purpose of calculating our 12 month credit total, how many virtual credits does this new download pack count for? Subscriptions count for 1, but 123rf makes much more money per image via a download pack than via a subscription, so I think contributors should be credited for more than one as well

http://www.123rf.com/contrib_structure.php

If someone purchased an XXL image of mine via credits, however heavily discounted, I made 6 credits for the purpose of future royalty calculations and minimum $1.08 royalty. With these new download packs, I make 1 credit for royalty purposes and 37 cents. That's a 65% reduction in earnings and an 83% reduction in credit for future royalties.

It doesn't take a math genius to see that I'll soon be dropping down the royalty levels if these download packs take off.

2. Is the earnings chart per download pack posted anywhere on the site? I don't see it in the link above where subscription royalties are posted. We shouldn't have to ask to have our earnings charts updated as soon as new products are introduced.

3. Why were contributors not notified of this new product? You have the ability to alert us to things on login, there's a blog, you could send out e-mail... The only conclusion I can draw is that you knew we wouldn't like it and were hoping we might not notice. That's just not acceptable.

4. What is the smallest number of images a buyer can purchase with a download pack? What number of images, and what expiration period, get the buyer the lowest price?

You've posted two options ($139 a month or $1,390 a year) on the site but there are clearly more options given the royalty chart you provided.

At the lowest price, working back from what contributors are paid, a buyer can purchase an XXL image or vector for 82.2 cents! That buyer price is below my current royalty floor ($1.08) for a 6 credit XXL sale.

Given a one year expiration, why would any large, regular buyer purchase credits after their current bundle runs out? Video, EVO (but if Sean's experience with EVO is any guide, that's not a big seller) & TIFF are the only things you'd need credits for. I don't sell two of those and the TIFF purchases are very few and far between.

So this looks to me like a massive price cut for buyers and for contributors a path to a drastically lower future royalty level.

Is there any "good news" I'm missing is this train wreck?


Great questions, Jo Ann - will be interesting to see how 123rf respond to this...


I would be shocked if they responded in here. Especially in a way that made sense. I am quite certain that this is merely another way to gouge contributors and they were exposed. Just like deposit photos and Fotolia. And I also personally don't think they care what we think, just like deposit photos and Fotolia.

« Reply #31 on: July 16, 2014, 13:35 »
+5
I agree. They don't seem to give a sh*t what we think. My biggest worry is that SS will be forced to travel down this route to compete. If that happens it might just be game over...

« Reply #32 on: July 16, 2014, 13:54 »
+6
I'm going to watch my sales more closely than I usually do to see what sort of volume this new approach brings.

If it never picks up speed, then we're good - whatever goodwill I had towards 123rf disintegrated when they changed the royalty scheme from 50% for everyone. At this point it's just about the cash at the end of the month.

If the volume picks up (I wish they'd separate these out, but I'll count any non 32.4 cent subscription as a download pack), I'll have to decide whether or not to pull my images - I know they don't care either way, but I'm not going to help these agencies beat me up!

« Reply #33 on: July 16, 2014, 14:22 »
+3
I'm going to watch my sales more closely than I usually do to see what sort of volume this new approach brings.

If it never picks up speed, then we're good - whatever goodwill I had towards 123rf disintegrated when they changed the royalty scheme from 50% for everyone. At this point it's just about the cash at the end of the month.

If the volume picks up (I wish they'd separate these out, but I'll count any non 32.4 cent subscription as a download pack), I'll have to decide whether or not to pull my images - I know they don't care either way, but I'm not going to help these agencies beat me up!

Have you seen on their log in page "earn up to 60% of the net selling price"? Wow what a misleading statement.

« Reply #34 on: July 17, 2014, 11:26 »
+6
So another "download pack" sale this morning - 44.6 cents.

I decided to take a look back at June (I don't normally monitor things all that closely) and I found some download pack sales there!

And May!

April looked clean, so I stopped checking. May 13th was the first of these sales and I have a total of 16 so far, for $6.83 royalty for me.

If I assume all these were XXL sales, I have 16 royalty credits vs. 96 and even at the minimum royalty for credits (based on 40 cents per at the buyer end) I would have earned $17.28.

That is a drop of $10.45 in my income for those 16 sales (a 60.5% drop)!

There might be more of the sales, because for any day with multiple sales for one image I can't tell whether the item listed in the subs column is a download pack or an actual subscription.

So 123rf has been offering these packs since at least May 13th without bothering to notify contributors.

Only one of the sales was at the high end of the rate scale (indicating a monthly pack), suggesting 15 of the 16 were people buying into the larger annual expiration bundle - and thus more of these sales to come.

One was for a royalty just about at the bottom of the scale for my level (4) - 37.4 cents, where 37 cents is the floor. I don't know how many images were in such a pack, but it'd be a lot more than 1,200, the largest pack they advertise openly on the site.

The more I look at this the nastier it appears...

« Last Edit: July 17, 2014, 12:34 by Jo Ann Snover »

Valo

« Reply #35 on: July 17, 2014, 11:47 »
0
I was on the up till April and then it dropped, I wondered why... now we know. Sigh.

« Reply #36 on: July 17, 2014, 12:29 »
+1
The more I look at this the nastier it appears...

This describes microstock on the whole.  Kind of like looking under a rock or a rotted log. 

« Reply #37 on: July 19, 2014, 06:22 »
+8
Keep pissing people off,  one of these days some smart person is going to see a chance at instant success just by offering all the contributors respect of not bending them over and going at them anytime you want more money.  Some day somebody might just get an attourney and all this crap and all these lies are going to step on some anti trust law.

And also someday some of these contributors are going to figure out that their hanging on to the lies for a few pennies is what is allowing these companies to treat them like whores.

Grease up people, it's not going to stop here.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2014, 05:44 by old crow »

« Reply #38 on: July 19, 2014, 06:53 »
+4
When i closed my account with 123rf they asked me "for their records" what the reasons were for me leaving.

My response (shortened quote): .." feel that you are trying to compete in the market by strongly undercutting prices - a policy that for me as the artist is not beneficial at all and that I do not wish to support any further."

And that was before the download packs made any impact... .

I am sure they value contributors ...  :-\ :-\ [/sarcasm off]

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #39 on: July 19, 2014, 19:49 »
+12
Oh please no, not another shady scheme to lower contributor's commissions? I've had it with EVERY. SINGLE. agency trying to pull crap like this. 123RF is already one of the 'bad' ones (remember the sudden commission cut and the promised doubling of sales that never happened? Another crap story...) and this is another step in the wrong direction. Why do agencies ALWAYS seem to want the worst for their contributors? Sure, it's business, and it's not always fair, but the microstock industry is poisoned enough already with greedy, money-grubbing agencies. And yes, 123RF, you're one of them.

« Reply #40 on: July 20, 2014, 00:26 »
0
... remember the sudden commission cut and the promised doubling of sales that never happened?

In the fact I was doing much better before that... Now I even can't get $50 to close account  ::)  With this 0.216 I'd have to sell over 230 files. Now I sell 0-5 monthly! I'll be old woman when get my payment  >:(  :-\ Will 123rf still exist?

Who is making images cheaper is killing himself - wrong way to improve income.

« Reply #41 on: July 20, 2014, 00:33 »
+4
These payouts are a total ripoff.  >:(

« Reply #42 on: July 20, 2014, 05:51 »
+3
Contributors need to be provided OPT OUT options on all these crappy schemes!!

As far as 123RF is concerned, my slide down began there some time after they introduced their 'tier system', which seems to punish contributors for the agency's own inability to sell one's content.  Rates at this agency are already among the lowest. And now this - the pack.  We need opt out.

Tryingmybest

  • Stand up for what is right
« Reply #43 on: July 20, 2014, 16:58 »
+8
Generally speaking, those with power prefer to keep all wealth and suck the blood of the poor, hard-working laborers. History is replete with them. However, history is also replete with revolution against these bloodsuckers. People like JoAnn another others are important sounding boards to warn the digital lords of the land that they had better listen and shun greed. 8)

Oh please no, not another shady scheme to lower contributor's commissions? I've had it with EVERY. SINGLE. agency trying to pull crap like this. 123RF is already one of the 'bad' ones (remember the sudden commission cut and the promised doubling of sales that never happened? Another crap story...) and this is another step in the wrong direction. Why do agencies ALWAYS seem to want the worst for their contributors? Sure, it's business, and it's not always fair, but the microstock industry is poisoned enough already with greedy, money-grubbing agencies. And yes, 123RF, you're one of them.

PZF

« Reply #44 on: July 24, 2014, 12:42 »
+2
I've already emailed my disappointment to Microstockgroup over the fact that DP is promoted so prominentnly in this month's July News email to contributors.

oops. wrong thread.sorry!
« Last Edit: July 26, 2014, 06:25 by PZF »

« Reply #45 on: July 24, 2014, 13:00 »
+1
The more I look at this the nastier it appears...

This describes microstock on the whole.  Kind of like looking under a rock or a rotted log.

+100
or more like gosano (worms from a carcass, as the latinos say).

still, knowing the calibre and history of you, Jo Ann...
along with some sorely missed regularly like Lisafx, Paulie Walnut, christian,lagereek,etc..

i am even asking why you are not with Stocksy, Offset, or Symbiostock. or even starting your own
coop , or "tribal stock" , as i call it. you all know microstock is  rotten already,
why sit and get beat up???

if you (lisa, paulie, christian, ...) start a war, "Tribal-stock", many will follow you...
, i am sure !  even little salemanders can feed off a sewer and rotten wood
(as in ft, 123,even SS soon as rinderart thread ask SS do you care? )

 grow big together.  better than sit and rot with wood and die under rock with other gusanos
« Last Edit: July 24, 2014, 14:16 by etudiante_rapide »

« Reply #46 on: July 24, 2014, 16:44 »
+3
i am even asking why you are not with Stocksy, Offset, or Symbiostock. or even starting your own
coop , or "tribal stock" , as i call it. you all know microstock is  rotten already,
why sit and get beat up???

I'm not with Stocksy because Bruce wrote back asking if it had work "more like this" - pointing to their Pinterest board - and I don't. I don't think like that, shoot like that and so although I'd be happy to be part of something like Stocksy, I'm not what they want for the moment. I haven' approached offset - I think they're looking for well known names, but I haven't really explored that.

I have a Symbiostock site and was part of the WarmPicture coop (I didn't run it; Dan Padavona did that). I'd rather crush my skull with a rock than run a coop :)

I'm exploring Canva; I'm with GL stock (fair trade just not much in the way of sales); I considered Stockbo but haven't uploaded. I remain open to new ideas if there are any (Pocketstock seemed like a good idea but just struggled for a while and then I left before it became RooM).

PZF

« Reply #47 on: July 26, 2014, 06:26 »
+1
To think I used to consider 123 as one of the 'fair' sites - 50/50 and all that.
Sad..............

« Reply #48 on: September 04, 2014, 09:41 »
+3
So it appears the download packs are gone - this is what I see today on the pricing page (US site): http://digitalbristles.com/temp/123rf-no-download-packs.jpg

I had been tracking the "subs" that weren't my regular rate and noticed some big gaps - after July 24th, I didn't see another until August 19th. One more on Aug 22 and nothing since. I guess they stopped selling these and the stragglers in August were just using up what they had?

I don't remember seeing anything about these packs going away (but then they didn't tell us they had introduced them either) but I'm happy that they have.

« Reply #49 on: September 04, 2014, 18:50 »
+4
So it appears the download packs are gone - this is what I see today on the pricing page (US site): http://digitalbristles.com/temp/123rf-no-download-packs.jpg

I had been tracking the "subs" that weren't my regular rate and noticed some big gaps - after July 24th, I didn't see another until August 19th. One more on Aug 22 and nothing since. I guess they stopped selling these and the stragglers in August were just using up what they had?

I don't remember seeing anything about these packs going away (but then they didn't tell us they had introduced them either) but I'm happy that they have.


Well, by in large we have you to thank for them killing the idea. Mucho appreciado!!!


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
2945 Views
Last post January 30, 2008, 07:19
by kgtoh
11 Replies
4767 Views
Last post July 22, 2010, 16:28
by madelaide
11 Replies
1733 Views
Last post July 20, 2013, 15:32
by Redneck
8 Replies
1157 Views
Last post April 06, 2019, 01:20
by Chichikov
5 Replies
689 Views
Last post October 08, 2019, 11:01
by PhotoBomb

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results