Subscriptions have finally been upped to 0.30 bucks. Thanks!

http://www.canstockphoto.com/payout_schedule.php

No need to thank.
Nothing has changed. 30 cents is "Distribution Subscription" like it was.. 

Can Stock Photo
Subscriptions, Small to Large JPG
                          X-Large & Vector    $0.25 / each

Distribution / Fotosearch
Image Subscriptions    1-1,999 Sales         $0.30

you beat me to it jsnover... here is a link to the Canstock announcement though
http://www.canstockphoto.com/forum_read.php?id=5140

What's the commission percentage? I can't find that info, they're just beating around the bush http://www.canstockphoto.com/submit_images.php and that sure doesn't give you much motivation to try, nor much credibility to them. As I see it's a low earner, but the UL process seems to be a breeze, so if commissions are fair it might be good to give it a try.

Tnx jsnover. But no thanks canstockphoto. XL (I presume it's the largest size) for $1.25? And I thought IS was bad :s. I still get at least 2$ for an XXXL over there, not to mention it's usually over 5, or around 6-7$ if it's a P+file (which usually is if I get a max sized DL). Not to mention the volume.

I guess it makes sense for someone like you with thousands of photos. I'd probably barely get my first payout (50$ that is) by the end of the year with 500 photos.

I must have been a bit out of the loop on this one, so please correct me if I'm wrong here:

1 XL-JPG credit purchase costs 5 credits - that includes my biggest file with 55MP (panorama)
Cost for buyer: $2.50 (or less) respectively, using the highest price credit package (18 credits)
Payout for photographer: $1.25 (50% and more if bigger credit packages have been purchased)

1 XL-JPG instant purchase costs $5 - that includes my biggest file with 55MP (panorama)
Cost for buyer: $5
Payout for photographer: $2.50 (=50%)

Besides Scanstock, can anyone name any agency that pays a lower commission amount than Canstock?

I'm not talking about the percentage.

I can't think of one (non-subscription plan) agency that sells the images for less money.

Maybe I'm just so in shock that I cannot think anymore but that's awfully low.

Even at Crestock I get $4.50 for an XXXL sale priced at $25 = 18% commission.

Anyone, something?  

I think you are looking at the page that shows the payout to photographers, the cost is twice that.  See the schedule here:

http://www.canstockphoto.com/about.php

I do agree the subs payment is too low though.


What are the cutoffs for S M L XL etc. there?

Sorry to bump this but maybe this is getting buried for some who are interested.

$1.25 for a full high res image through credit sales while the buyer pays $2.50 or less...?

There is no increase in royalties with the number of downloads or anything of that kind.

Everyone is cool with that?

The price is very low.  I would like it to be higher.  OTOH, it is a 50% royalty, so nothing to complain about as far as royalty % goes.  Also, still beats a sub sale.

Bottom line is pricing on the various sites is something we have no control over.  And fortunately there are enough lucrative Fotosearch sales, which can go as high as $20 or so, that it balances out. 

For some reason, I haven't had a Fotosearch sale for a while. Used to have them regularly and I wouldn't be so upset if I had some lately...

It's the amount of credits required to buy the image which I think is very low.

$5 for instant full resolution purchase is a steal.

6MP images are sold as L for $4.
The same images interpolated by Canstock are 13.5MP and cost $10 (sold as XXL...!!!)

My 55MP panorama is sold as XL for $5 (please see the contradiction between a 13.5MP XXL upsized ($10) and my native 55MP ($5))
and the interpolated version of it is 123MP as XXL for $10

There has to be something off.

How can you sell a 13.5MP image at the same price as a 123MP image?

And how can a 13.5MP (upsized) image cost double than a 55MP (native) image?

Not to mention that the native resolution image is of better quality than an upsized one.

Doesn't anyone pick up on this?

This stinks.

Hi click_click,

While 55MP is certainly a big image and I can naturally appreciate your point, the reality is that it's 5x larger than our average size images. We base our pricing & sizing on the assumption that the images submitted will be a standard 10-20mp file. Panoramas of course are much bigger files and are exceptions. Perhaps we'll look at adding a larger JPG size to accommodate unusually large images, but that's not something that we have in the works at the moment.

We periodically review our pricing and make adjustments when they're supported and responsible. I'm sure everyone in the business aspect of microstock would like to see prices trend upwards, but we also need to balance other market demands and realities. In the mean time I hope that our contributors can appreciate the high commissions that you noted we pay, vs. the much lower percentages paid by many others (also noted earlier).

Cheers,
Duncan

Duncan, thank you for discussing this here on the forum. I really appreciate an open talk about this.

I understand that this is not the place and we contributors are not the people to tell you how you have to price our images.

50% commission is absolutely fine don't get me wrong.

However I feel we (or I) can rise my opinion about contradicting image pricing and/or the lowest payout amounts for XL priced images.

Let me reiterate the contradicting pricing issue:
This image from Yuri is shot at 23MP (unless he downsized it, no idea):
http://www.canstockphoto.com/couple-with-three-kids-6765227.html
It costs $5 or 5 credits as I understand for the XL size.
Also, Canstock upsizes that image to 51MP for $10

Duncan, I really do understand that the vast majority of the image buyers don't need a 50MP+ image. However, Canstock does offer the service and charges accordingly for XXL images. That is a good thing, technically.

I use the term technically, because Canstock charges for my panoramas at 55MP (native) $5 or 5 credits.

As a buyer I would be confused how a 51MP image could cost $10 (or 10 credits) while another one at a higher resolution is sold for half the price. This doesn't make sense.

I think Canstock is the only agency where this phenomenon is happening that a smaller size costs more than a larger (native resolution) one.

I'm sure you got the point Duncan, English is just not my native tongue so I want to make sure I get my point across.

Now, the $5 or 5 credits price for XL images (23MP out of the camera) is, like I mentioned before, a steal. This might be one of the strong points of Canstock to undercut other agencies prices but nonetheless the royalty amount (not percentage) is the lowest I've encountered.

Even at iStock non-exclusives get more than that even at 15% commission. Looking at credit sales non-exclusives get in fact more than twice as much in royalties at 15%.

So the statement of paying out 50% commission is absolutely meaningless as long as image prices are fractions of the ones at the competition.

I mean, looking at this from a business standpoint (which some of us have to do), on average I make $5 to $10 per full resolution sale (credit sales!) at other agencies.

At Canstock $1.25 for a credit sale is not a big incentive and I have to admit that I have to make a decision of whether I don't bother uploading at all anymore to Canstock or taking additional time to downsize my images to Large size and that's it. At least that way I can get $10 or 10 credit sales for resolutions I would have offered for $5.

It's a bit inconvenient to say the least.