pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: We still have 50% of royalties?  (Read 5438 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: March 14, 2012, 12:59 »
0
Today I had a sale on 123rf and my profit is $ 0.20. It was a picture of size S. But I do not understand:
- The price of credit is at least EUR 0.68 in Europe.
- S size is equivalent to 1 credit
- We have a gain of 50% (until 31 December ...)

???

I have written to 123rf, but lately the service is bad ...

Thanks!


wut

« Reply #1 on: March 14, 2012, 13:11 »
0
Yeah right, XL is 4 credits, M is 2, and I only got 1,2$ for 6 credits. Something smells very fishy over there. They sure aren't giving the buyers a 60% discount.

« Reply #2 on: March 14, 2012, 14:09 »
0
They sure aren't giving the buyers a 60% discount.

I'm sure they are actually.  It is very rare I see a payment for a sale that represents the full price listed.  Even at the full price it's too cheap in my opinion.  They give out promotional credits as incentive to lure buyers away from other sites then they discount the promotional credit from our commissions. 

Hypothetical situation:

Buyer spends $50 but receives $100 in credits for his purchase.  The credits are then worth just 50 cents on the dollar and the purchase amount is cut in half with our commission reflected on the discounted price. 


Can anyone in this forum that actively contributes to 123rf claim they have more full price sales than discounted? 

wut

« Reply #3 on: March 14, 2012, 15:38 »
0
They sure aren't giving the buyers a 60% discount.

I'm sure they are actually.  It is very rare I see a payment for a sale that represents the full price listed.  Even at the full price it's too cheap in my opinion.  They give out promotional credits as incentive to lure buyers away from other sites then they discount the promotional credit from our commissions. 

Hypothetical situation:

Buyer spends $50 but receives $100 in credits for his purchase.  The credits are then worth just 50 cents on the dollar and the purchase amount is cut in half with our commission reflected on the discounted price. 


Can anyone in this forum that actively contributes to 123rf claim they have more full price sales than discounted? 

That was not what I was saying (I opened a thread about their pathetic returns), I'd say it's more likely we're being ripped off, that them giving 60% discounts most of the time

« Reply #4 on: March 14, 2012, 17:14 »
0
The only fixed payment at 123rf is the 36 cent sub royalty. Everything else varies a lot just as it does at IS and for the same reason. The buyers are getting volume or promotional discounts

CD123

« Reply #5 on: March 15, 2012, 01:03 »
0
.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2012, 01:05 by CD123 »

« Reply #6 on: March 17, 2012, 04:54 »
0
The answer of 123rf. There was quick response (not irony)

"Hello,
Thank You for your email in regards to your sale earnings.
$0.20 is the lowest credit earnings which was bought with a subscription credit package that the client has purchased your image with. Here, the calculation for subscription package is when the client buys a 12-month package, your images are priced at $0.20 because they bought more credits at an affordable rate.
Images sold at $0.68 are usually bought with a "Pay-as-you-go" credit package.
We hope this is clearer to you
Sincerely, "


......... >:(


« Reply #8 on: March 19, 2012, 02:42 »
0
Alex, Thanks for the answer
but this practice does not quite satisfy me. There should be no less than commissions paid for subscription. Anyway ...
« Last Edit: March 20, 2012, 13:44 by ToniFlap »

« Reply #9 on: March 20, 2012, 10:52 »
0
Hello,

Sorry about the miscommunication. An investigation was carried out and we are correcting the understanding of contributor commissions.

Here are the answers you require:

1. Yes, you will continue to receive 50% of all nett earnings till January 1, 2013.
2. What ToniFlap got was a promotional credit sale. These promotional credits are valued at $0.20 to the contributor. At times we give out free credit sponsorships, giveaways, test drive 123RF credits and other promotional credits in an effort to market 123RF to potential customers. These credits are billed as a part of 123RF's Advertising and Promotional budget. The client did not pay at all for these credits, the cost comes directly out of 123RF.
3. JoAnn is right, all subscription downloads are still valued at $0.36 per download to a contributor.

Thank you very much and once again, I apologize for the error in our reply.

Alex.

I might be misunderstanding, but...  if it is "billed as a part of 123RF's Advertising and Promotional budget," or "the cost comes directly out of 123RF," wouldn't that mean credits aren't devalued to the contributor?  Sounds to me like costs are coming from the contributor.

« Reply #10 on: March 20, 2012, 13:29 »
0
I might be misunderstanding, but...  if it is "billed as a part of 123RF's Advertising and Promotional budget," or "the cost comes directly out of 123RF," wouldn't that mean credits aren't devalued to the contributor?  Sounds to me like costs are coming from the contributor.

That is exactly right.  We are expected to eat the cost of their promotional credits.  Looking at my sales stats it is extremely disproportionate with the overwhelming majority of my sales coming at a discounted rate.  I just uploaded my first new batch of images to SS, DT and FT in recent weeks and for the first time made a conscious decision to omit 123 from the process as a result of this unfair practice.  They will not be getting any more of my photos in the future.  The intent of the upcoming change appears to be motivational but that and these freebies we are forced to give away have had the opposite affect on me. 

wut

« Reply #11 on: March 20, 2012, 13:40 »
0
I might be misunderstanding, but...  if it is "billed as a part of 123RF's Advertising and Promotional budget," or "the cost comes directly out of 123RF," wouldn't that mean credits aren't devalued to the contributor?  Sounds to me like costs are coming from the contributor.

That is exactly right.  We are expected to eat the cost of their promotional credits.  Looking at my sales stats it is extremely disproportionate with the overwhelming majority of my sales coming at a discounted rate.  I just uploaded my first new batch of images to SS, DT and FT in recent weeks and for the first time made a conscious decision to omit 123 from the process as a result of this unfair practice.  They will not be getting any more of my photos in the future.  The intent of the upcoming change appears to be motivational but that and these freebies we are forced to give away have had the opposite affect on me. 

Nothing they do surprises me anymore. They're crooks. Ripping us off wherever they can. Their rates are beyond pathetic already without being discounted

« Reply #12 on: March 20, 2012, 17:21 »
0
I haven't uploaded there since they announced their 2013 royalty grab. I haven't pulled my portfolio, but I see no reason to give them any further support. I'll see where we are January 1 2013 and decide then about whether I stay or not.

« Reply #13 on: March 21, 2012, 00:21 »
0
I mean, I don't particularly care.  Lots of microstock companies do it.  If they really think it will bring in more money and raise traffic, I can't argue... I have a terrible mind for marketing.  My only gripe is when they claim to be taking all the risk in such endeavors.  The risk is split as evenly as the royalty ratio.  Let's call spades spades.

Carl

  • Carl Stewart, CS Productions
« Reply #14 on: March 21, 2012, 05:11 »
0
I mean, I don't particularly care.  Lots of microstock companies do it.  If they really think it will bring in more money and raise traffic, I can't argue... I have a terrible mind for marketing.  My only gripe is when they claim to be taking all the risk in such endeavors.  The risk is split as evenly as the royalty ratio.  Let's call spades spades.

I tend to agree.  I'm not running a stock site; I'm just a humble photographer, so I would hope that the folks who do operate the stock sites know what they're doing, especially when it comes to marketing and promotions.  Giving away free samples is a tried-and-true marketing method, so if they're willing to give us something out of their advertising budget, I can go with it until it becomes obvious that it is or isn't working out as anticipated.  Granted, there's a world of difference between getting a free sample of food at the local grocery store and getting a free photograph from my portfolio.  The latter tends to give me indigestion!   :P

CD123

« Reply #15 on: March 21, 2012, 06:04 »
0
IMO they must be doing something right, because they are still (and even stronger now) in my no. 1 position. Stop uploading and withdrawing ports is unfortunately not a principle statement I can afford, whatever my view of the 2013 decrease.

« Reply #16 on: March 22, 2012, 19:47 »
0
I might be misunderstanding, but...  if it is "billed as a part of 123RF's Advertising and Promotional budget," or "the cost comes directly out of 123RF," wouldn't that mean credits aren't devalued to the contributor?  Sounds to me like costs are coming from the contributor.

That is exactly right.  We are expected to eat the cost of their promotional credits.  Looking at my sales stats it is extremely disproportionate with the overwhelming majority of my sales coming at a discounted rate.  I just uploaded my first new batch of images to SS, DT and FT in recent weeks and for the first time made a conscious decision to omit 123 from the process as a result of this unfair practice.  They will not be getting any more of my photos in the future.  The intent of the upcoming change appears to be motivational but that and these freebies we are forced to give away have had the opposite affect on me. 

Nothing they do surprises me anymore. They're crooks. Ripping us off wherever they can. Their rates are beyond pathetic already without being discounted
I must admit, I tend to agree.  They do seem like rip off merchants.  Also, reading comments from Alex makes me think he's been through the KK/JJRD school of communication...which doesn't exactly inspire me with trust ;)

Tryingmybest

  • Stand up for what is right
« Reply #17 on: March 27, 2012, 10:33 »
0
IMO they must be doing something right, because they are still (and even stronger now) in my no. 1 position. Stop uploading and withdrawing ports is unfortunately not a principle statement I can afford, whatever my view of the 2013 decrease.


I have to agree. However, the new scheme is very confusing to me. Is there another thread or a straight answer as to how I know how many credits I have to get those percentages as a contributor? I don't even know if I'm using the right terms. That chart was very difficult to understand. Here's the link for it: http://www.123rf.com/submit/commission.php.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2012, 10:36 by TheBlackRhino »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
55 Replies
17672 Views
Last post August 17, 2010, 16:57
by cmcderm1
Subs Royalties at DT

Started by WarrenPrice Dreamstime.com

1 Replies
1374 Views
Last post April 02, 2012, 20:39
by pancaketom
1 Replies
1424 Views
Last post November 22, 2012, 23:51
by Pixart
1 Replies
2824 Views
Last post January 04, 2017, 19:38
by SpaceStockFootage
27 Replies
4976 Views
Last post February 23, 2017, 01:08
by Justanotherphotographer

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results