MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Changes in royalties  (Read 15013 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

« on: August 26, 2015, 06:08 »
0
DEPOSITPHOTOS:

Dear Contributor,

Starting on September 1, 2015, Depositphotos is changing the Contributor's Levels for sales made by Pay-As-You-Go Credits.

Here is the new Contributor's Level grid in greater detail:


« Reply #1 on: August 26, 2015, 06:10 »
0
The existing Contributor's Level grid:

« Reply #2 on: August 26, 2015, 06:11 »
0
Please note: Starting on August 22, 2015, we decided to bring image prices to market rates and raise prices for files purchased by Pay-As-You-Go Credits. Thus, we expect to compensate authors' losses caused by reducing commission rate payments to keep the earnings of partners at the same level.

In addition, we still remain a photobank with one of the highest levels of payments to authors.

Our decision was dictated by the requirements of the market and the times, and is intended to change the profitability of the project, with the aim of giving it a new push toward future development. We are confident that our growth will continue, and with your help we will retain our leading position among other photobanks.

Our Support Team, working for you 24/7, is ready to answer all your questions. You can contact us anytime you need to.

Sincerely yours,
Elena Flanagan-Eister
СЕО Depositphotos
--------
END

Just got email.. do they really think this is right direction.. decrease royalties..
« Last Edit: August 26, 2015, 06:13 by jarih »

« Reply #3 on: August 26, 2015, 06:59 »
+4
Yay! announcements have begun! How exciting!!!!!

« Reply #4 on: August 26, 2015, 07:33 »
+2
Ок, basically now we get less for vectors, ELs, credit sales S, XL sizes and little bit more for M, L sizes. :(

« Reply #5 on: August 26, 2015, 07:45 »
+3
Unfortunately I believe we should get used to such bad news... I'm happy because I just sold an EL (29.92$) on DP but, probably, it will not happen again to soon...

« Reply #6 on: August 26, 2015, 08:02 »
+36
- clients pay more (or get less)
- contributors get less
- DP gets more

this is brilliant, what a genius move, so good DP ;D

ShadySue

« Reply #7 on: August 26, 2015, 08:31 »
+12
What is the "leading position" that they claim?

« Reply #8 on: August 26, 2015, 08:42 »
+29
time to drop them...

« Reply #9 on: August 26, 2015, 09:00 »
+10
Not a surprise at all. The trend is not stoping here but it is everybody's own decision what to do about where to sell. At the end of the day it is us who are responsible that such agencies/sites exist.

« Reply #10 on: August 26, 2015, 09:17 »
+3
Am I wrong or doesn't DepositPhotos still pay a higher percentage than SS or Adobe and charge more per download?  Seems to me like that's the reason they are changing.

« Reply #11 on: August 26, 2015, 09:26 »
+15
Am I wrong or doesn't DepositPhotos still pay a higher percentage than SS or Adobe and charge more per download?  Seems to me like that's the reason they are changing.

You are missing IS in your list, they pay the lowest royalty rates.

« Reply #12 on: August 26, 2015, 09:35 »
+1
Am I wrong or doesn't DepositPhotos still pay a higher percentage than SS or Adobe and charge more per download?  Seems to me like that's the reason they are changing.

You are missing IS in your list, they pay the lowest royalty rates.
I thought most people here stopped supporting them a while ago.  But if you are still supporting them then you can add iS to the list, if you accept lower rates other places why get mad about this.  It's still better than those sites isn't it.

The idea that you would drop a site that pays a higher royalty rate than another because of the royalty rate seems a bit strange to me.  Shouldn't the site you drop be the one paying the lower royalty rate?
« Last Edit: August 26, 2015, 09:41 by tickstock »

« Reply #13 on: August 26, 2015, 09:48 »
+1
Am I wrong or doesn't DepositPhotos still pay a higher percentage than SS or Adobe and charge more per download?  Seems to me like that's the reason they are changing.

You are missing IS in your list, they pay the lowest royalty rates.
I thought most people here stopped supporting them a while ago.  But if you are still supporting them then you can add iS to the list, if you accept lower rates other places why get mad about this.  It's still better than those sites isn't it.

The idea that you would drop a site that pays a higher royalty rate than another because of the royalty rate seems a bit strange to me.  Shouldn't the site you drop be the one paying the lower royalty rate?

I stopped uploading to DP long ago due to low sales.
Now lowering rates is not improving the situation. So I am considering dropping them.

I accept lower percentages at some sites (including the obvious examples FT and SS) because the make it up with a lot higher volume. I don't like their percentages, but I accept them.
At some sites paying low percentages (123RF, Bigstock) I stopped uploading. Still undecided what to do with them.

I used to accept even the lowest percentage in the industry (IS, when they paid a flat 20%), but after they thought it was a good idea to go even lower I dropped them.

For me it's always a case by case decision, some sites do get away with paying lower percentages than others.

Carl

  • Carl Stewart, CS Productions
« Reply #14 on: August 26, 2015, 09:51 »
+21
"You'll make more money if we lower the commissions and the prices."  Right.  I've heard that before.   :o

« Reply #15 on: August 26, 2015, 09:52 »
+1
Isn't the logic of lowering prices and royalty rates that the site will gain more traffic?  Jon Oringer has said something like if a site pays more than 30% they won't be able to do the marketing necessary to compete.  If DepositPhotos lowers their prices and royalties even more than SS and Adobe and gains market share you will support them?  I think with that kind of thinking it's easy to see what is going to happen.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #16 on: August 26, 2015, 10:01 »
+3
"You'll make more money if we lower the commissions and the prices."  Right.  I've heard that before.   :o

Uh yah right. Seems like contributors are always first to get hit. Was there any mention from any of these agencies of attempts to reduce operating costs? Reduce labor costs? Trim the swanky offices, free food, or trips?

« Reply #17 on: August 26, 2015, 11:28 »
+3
Has DP hit the status of swanky offices, free food and trips or are they still in a basement somewhere?  They are likely lowering commissions so they can survive - but not many of us care. 

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #18 on: August 26, 2015, 11:53 »
+9
Has DP hit the status of swanky offices, free food and trips or are they still in a basement somewhere?  They are likely lowering commissions so they can survive - but not many of us care.

Depositphotos Inc.
110 E Broward Blvd #1700
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

Street View

Map View

Looks like a pretty nice expensive corporate office building in the ultra affluent city of Fort Lauderdale Florida a few blocks from the Ocean. I doubt they're in the basement. Maybe they should have skipped the ocean view to make sure they could compete without having to cut contributor rates.

Seems to be a pattern here. Live it up and when the party bucket starts getting empty go shake down contributors.

« Reply #19 on: August 26, 2015, 11:57 »
+1
They already pay the lowest return per download of 12 agencies I upload to.  They should raise prices not cut royalties.  Royalty cuts suck.   

« Reply #20 on: August 26, 2015, 12:36 »
+2
...Oringer has said something like if a site pays more than 30% they won't be able to do the marketing necessary to compete.  If DepositPhotos lowers their prices and royalties even more than SS and Adobe and gains market share you will support them?...

Do you have a source for that Oringer statement? I'm not necessarily doubting it, seems like that's exactly how SS operates. I just want to read it in context.

To answer your question, I don't particularly "support" 30% royalties, or anything under 50% really. I tolerate them because that's how this business is right now and I'm not in any position to challenge the status quo. I also continue to work with these companies because I got involved with most of them 8 years ago and my opinions about royalty rates back then were different than my opinions today. We also know more about royalties today and the myth that anything less than 30% is unsustainable. And yes, it's a myth, as proven by companies like Creative Market who pay 70% royalties and are thriving. CM is my #2 earner most months this year.

I guess by doing business with these companies you could say I support their rates, but I consider "support" in this business to mean the companies that I actively support, recommend to buyers, enthusiastically upload to and companies who if I was just starting out in microstock today that I'd still sign on with.

Long story short, I don't support any move to lower contributor pay. It's wholly unnecessary, no matter who is doing it and for whatever bull---- reason. But that lack of support doesn't necessarily mean I would change anything I'm doing, at least not right away. It took a lot of things happening before I finally stopped uploading to iStock. One small change at DP or SS or anywhere else isn't enough for me to make any judgements about future involvement with them.

« Reply #21 on: August 26, 2015, 12:48 »
0
I stopped uploading to DP long ago due to low sales.
Now lowering rates is not improving the situation. So I am considering dropping them.

Last time, I made a decision and upload only small resized images. Maybe I have to decrease image size again..

« Reply #22 on: August 26, 2015, 12:49 »
0
Brian Fitzgerald - Jefferies
When you guys think of the rev share agreements with contributors, there are competitors out there that have more generous revenue shares. Can you -- would that tend to impact or take share from you guys over the course of time or can you talk about how that dynamic is panning out? And then, it seems like guys have been driving down pricing among your major competitors. They're now trying to price match. Have you seen any real impact from that thus far? Thanks.

Jon Oringer - Founder, CEO & Chairman
Yes, as far as our contributors go, we've had 30% of them and we've seen competitors come in and try to play with that number. What happens is if they payout more to contributors, they leave less room for marketing spend and that causes less sales in the long run and less payout to their contributors. So with this we really found the sweet spot over the past 10 years with the subscription plan, with the 30% payout, and competitors have come and gone and tried different things but we haven't seen much change.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/2037843-shutterstocks-ceo-discusses-q4-2013-results-earnings-call-transcript?page=6

Rinderart

« Reply #23 on: August 26, 2015, 18:44 »
+4
And they can't walk away with a billion dollars, he should have added.lol

« Reply #24 on: August 26, 2015, 19:20 »
+2
Microstocks are clever
They want us to believe that price and royalty rates reduction are a good things for us  ;D
It is always the same thing.  :(

The "price of life" increase but our commission decreasing
I waiting the moment when they will launch the yenphotoclub  ;D

FlowerPower

« Reply #25 on: August 26, 2015, 19:27 »
+12
Has DP hit the status of swanky offices, free food and trips or are they still in a basement somewhere?  They are likely lowering commissions so they can survive - but not many of us care.

Depositphotos Inc.
110 E Broward Blvd #1700
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

Street View

Map View

Looks like a pretty nice expensive corporate office building in the ultra affluent city of Fort Lauderdale Florida a few blocks from the Ocean. I doubt they're in the basement. Maybe they should have skipped the ocean view to make sure they could compete without having to cut contributor rates.

Seems to be a pattern here. Live it up and when the party bucket starts getting empty go shake down contributors.

That's just a front the US lawyer set up for the Russians who own DP. People have already exposed who's behind this, if nobody listens, there's nothing else to do. I hope all the people who got their 30 silver coins for uploading everything to DP for some small bribe are happy with what they broght on themselves.

DP will not get more market or more income for us, they will just get more for their own. This is not for our benefit as their lie tries to tell us.

Remember these are the same people who sell your images as a sub, to their own false front agency, which resells again at high market prices, but you get a sub payment. Why would anybody upload anything, any size to these people?

« Reply #26 on: August 27, 2015, 04:13 »
+5
Did they just recycle Fotolia's commission cut announcement from 2009? http://www.mystockphoto.org/fotolia-2010-pricing/

Flashback to 2009:
To accomplish our marketing and promotional goals, weve adjusted our artist commission structures. While some levels have increased and others have decreased in terms of percentages, a majority of contributing artists will continue to see increases in the total dollar amounts earned as we are raising prices. In comparison, Fotolia continues to pay artists one of the highest royalty rates in the industry

We all know how well that turned out.

« Reply #27 on: August 27, 2015, 05:12 »
+8
Is this what they mean by lowering royalties? A sub on 24th which netted me a whoooooping $0.01!!

« Reply #28 on: August 27, 2015, 05:50 »
+2
Is this what they mean by lowering royalties? A sub on 24th which netted me a whoooooping $0.01!!

It's totaly crazy !!!  : :-\

« Reply #29 on: August 27, 2015, 05:54 »
+6
Is this what they mean by lowering royalties? A sub on 24th which netted me a whoooooping $0.01!!
yet you are still selling your images there

Tryingmybest

  • Stand up for what is right
« Reply #30 on: August 27, 2015, 07:28 »
+3
I see nothing in those charts that shows a benefit for us. What a bunch of scum. I upload almost 100 images weekly. All this time I didn't really trust them. Now I feel like a fool. No more after today. :P

I just sent a complaint marked "Critical" priority to them. I mentioned I will stop uploading today. Maybe all of us that submit there should do the same (at least complain, if you don't want to stop uploading):

http://depositphotos.com/contact_us.html
« Last Edit: August 27, 2015, 07:35 by Striving »

« Reply #31 on: August 27, 2015, 10:53 »
+4
Russian community started to thinking about hold on the uploads til New Year.

Tryingmybest

  • Stand up for what is right
« Reply #32 on: August 27, 2015, 11:10 »
0
I see nothing in those charts that shows a benefit for us. What a bunch of scum. I upload almost 100 images weekly. All this time I didn't really trust them. Now I feel like a fool. No more after today. :P

I just sent a complaint marked "Critical" priority to them. I mentioned I will stop uploading today. Maybe all of us that submit there should do the same (at least complain, if you don't want to stop uploading):

http://depositphotos.com/contact_us.html


Here's the response I received to my complaint  :o:

To keep up with the market, we reduced commission rates for sales in credits only. However, we raised our prices in credits to compensate lower commission payments. We believe that both parties will benefit in the long run.



« Reply #33 on: August 27, 2015, 11:27 »
+1
To keep up with the market, we reduced commission rates for sales in credits only. However, we raised our prices in credits to compensate lower commission payments. We believe that both parties will benefit in the long run.[/i]

This doesn't make a lot of sense to me.  They are raising prices - which could bring in more revenue - as a way to keep our earnings the same as they reduce the commission rate, assuming of course that increasing prices doesn't reduce sales.  But how is that keeping up with the market?  Their e-mail stated, "Our decision was dictated by the requirements of the market and the times, and is intended to change the profitability of the project, with the aim of giving it a new push toward future development."  What are the requirements of the market and times?  They need to spend more on advertising?  What new ads will they be running?  Or are they planning a better delivery system?  Will "change the profitability" be for our benefit or only for the owners?

My interpretation: "We've spent a lot of time developing this company and now we want to cash out while we can".  That is exactly what they did at 123rf - there was certainly no improvement in sales after they went to the RC system to cut our commissions.  I haven't uploaded anything since January so I guess I'm ahead of the curve in that respect.

Tryingmybest

  • Stand up for what is right
« Reply #34 on: August 27, 2015, 11:30 »
0
Yes it doesn't make any sense to me. They also added "these changes will not affect your sales by subscriptions." That one totally confused me.  :o

To keep up with the market, we reduced commission rates for sales in credits only. However, we raised our prices in credits to compensate lower commission payments. We believe that both parties will benefit in the long run.[/i]

This doesn't make a lot of sense to me.  They are raising prices - which could bring in more revenue - as a way to keep our earnings the same as they reduce the commission rate, assuming of course that increasing prices doesn't reduce sales.  But how is that keeping up with the market?  Their e-mail stated, "Our decision was dictated by the requirements of the market and the times, and is intended to change the profitability of the project, with the aim of giving it a new push toward future development."  What are the requirements of the market and times?  They need to spend more on advertising?  What new ads will they be running?  Or are they planning a better delivery system?  Will "change the profitability" be for our benefit or only for the owners?

My interpretation: "We've spent a lot of time developing this company and now we want to cash out while we can".  That is exactly what they did at 123rf - there was certainly no improvement in sales after they went to the RC system to cut our commissions.  I haven't uploaded anything since January so I guess I'm ahead of the curve in that respect.

Tryingmybest

  • Stand up for what is right
« Reply #35 on: August 27, 2015, 12:09 »
0

PZF

« Reply #36 on: August 30, 2015, 01:48 »
+2
Lee doesn't mention the assorted creative wheezes they use to pay contributors.....'less generously' when he compares to other sites.

« Reply #37 on: August 30, 2015, 04:40 »
+8
What is the "leading position" that they claim?

They certainly are the leading scumbags in the industry.

fujiko

« Reply #38 on: August 30, 2015, 05:38 »
+7
Greedy corps always blame the market.
As their actions define the market they are just blaming themselves.

« Reply #39 on: August 31, 2015, 05:01 »
+1
Am I wrong or doesn't DepositPhotos still pay a higher percentage than SS or Adobe and charge more per download?  Seems to me like that's the reason they are changing.

You are missing IS in your list, they pay the lowest royalty rates.
I thought most people here stopped supporting them a while ago.  But if you are still supporting them then you can add iS to the list, if you accept lower rates other places why get mad about this.  It's still better than those sites isn't it.

The idea that you would drop a site that pays a higher royalty rate than another because of the royalty rate seems a bit strange to me.  Shouldn't the site you drop be the one paying the lower royalty rate?

I stopped uploading to DP long ago due to low sales.
Now lowering rates is not improving the situation. So I am considering dropping them.

I accept lower percentages at some sites (including the obvious examples FT and SS) because the make it up with a lot higher volume. I don't like their percentages, but I accept them.
At some sites paying low percentages (123RF, Bigstock) I stopped uploading. Still undecided what to do with them.

I used to accept even the lowest percentage in the industry (IS, when they paid a flat 20%), but after they thought it was a good idea to go even lower I dropped them.

For me it's always a case by case decision, some sites do get away with paying lower percentages than others.

I am in a similar boat I was thinking about dropping due to low sales anyway..what really annoys me is they gave so little notice, I got the email on 26th Aug and have been on holiday...

...Think I am just going to drop them....and I had forgotten about the partner site sale coming in a sub thing from these guys too until somebody reminded me in this thread!

« Reply #40 on: September 01, 2015, 05:00 »
+8
In my experience businesses that blame market forces are using it as an umbrella excuse for their failure to compete in the arena.

Instead of trading out of this position they opt to finagle their way out of it by hammering suppliers to increase margins. Weak and predictable.

« Reply #41 on: September 02, 2015, 02:29 »
+7
the adobe announcement is a big contrast to the excrement of this mafia outfit

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #42 on: September 02, 2015, 19:28 »
+3
DP is pure filth.

I honestly don't understand their reasoning. Can anyone explain why they need to reduce royalties while increasing their prices?

"Thus, we expect to compensate authors' losses caused by reducing commission rate payments to keep the earnings of partners at the same level."

Does that mean they first lowered our royalties, and then increased their prices to "make up" for contributor's losses?
« Last Edit: September 02, 2015, 19:36 by Noedelhap »

« Reply #43 on: September 02, 2015, 22:53 »
+1
I just sent a notification to Depositphotos:
I am not agree with your cut of payments for contributors. So I decided to quit upload. At least till new year.

« Reply #44 on: September 05, 2015, 21:18 »
+1
DP is pure filth.

I honestly don't understand their reasoning. Can anyone explain why they need to reduce royalties while increasing their prices?

"Thus, we expect to compensate authors' losses caused by reducing commission rate payments to keep the earnings of partners at the same level."

Does that mean they first lowered our royalties, and then increased their prices to "make up" for contributor's losses?

it means.


If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bu11$h1t.

― W.C. Fields

« Reply #45 on: September 06, 2015, 00:39 »
0
DP is pure filth.

I honestly don't understand their reasoning. Can anyone explain why they need to reduce royalties while increasing their prices?

"Thus, we expect to compensate authors' losses caused by reducing commission rate payments to keep the earnings of partners at the same level."

Does that mean they first lowered our royalties, and then increased their prices to "make up" for contributor's losses?
LOL, I hadn't realised how crazy that sounds! Yeah why would they do that for a net gain to them of zero!

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #46 on: September 06, 2015, 07:19 »
0
DP is pure filth.

I honestly don't understand their reasoning. Can anyone explain why they need to reduce royalties while increasing their prices?

"Thus, we expect to compensate authors' losses caused by reducing commission rate payments to keep the earnings of partners at the same level."

Does that mean they first lowered our royalties, and then increased their prices to "make up" for contributor's losses?
LOL, I hadn't realised how crazy that sounds! Yeah why would they do that for a net gain to them of zero!

It sounds crazy, but it wouldn't be a net gain of zero for them ;)

Hypothetical example:

Original royalties: 44% of $10 = $4.4 for us, $5.6 for them
Lowering of our royalties: 34% of $10 = $3.4 for us, $6.6 for them
Increase of price: 34% of $13 = $4.4 for us, $8.6 for them

« Reply #47 on: September 06, 2015, 07:33 »
0
Increase of price: 34% of $13 = $4.4 for us, $8.6 for them
They said 5% rise of price. So, its not $13, but $10,5. Or I don't get something?

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #48 on: September 06, 2015, 08:38 »
0
Increase of price: 34% of $13 = $4.4 for us, $8.6 for them
They said 5% rise of price. So, its not $13, but $10,5. Or I don't get something?

It's just a hypothetical example to show that when they increase prices to compensate for our lower royalties, their net gain is not zero. Percentages and prices shown here don't reflect actual prices / royalties.

« Reply #49 on: November 23, 2015, 23:43 »
+3
I will stop upload there now...

This place got the most "refund" for every high earning for me.

Apart from that I almost got 99% sub.


Good bye Deposite photo.

« Reply #50 on: November 24, 2015, 03:32 »
+1
My last 160 earnings was about 20% credits and 80% subs. I think it's better than year or two ago. But, DP is also most "look out" partner.

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #51 on: November 30, 2015, 06:03 »
+2
I will stop upload there now...

This place got the most "refund" for every high earning for me.

I recently got 3 video sales on DP...and normally I never get video sales there. All three were refunded within a day because of 'unauthorized credit card use'. At least, that's what they told me. I have to trust them on their word if they say the downloader's account was blocked and this person no longer has access to the file.

« Reply #52 on: December 01, 2015, 14:31 »
0
Just logged in to see I have a negative balance after payout request. So I guess my latest video sale got a refund as well.

« Reply #53 on: December 01, 2015, 15:31 »
+10
If you have your images for sale in DP, you deserve to be ripped off and abused. We all know who these guys are, their methods and their ways of making business since long time ago. Knowing all these facts if you are willing to stay in DP you deserve everything they decide to do with you.

« Reply #54 on: February 19, 2016, 09:32 »
0
The more I'm close to the next level, the less I sell  >:(  Very strange !

« Reply #55 on: February 19, 2016, 10:45 »
+5
Who cares about levels, 0.30$ with green level compared to 0.31$ for bronze level for sub sale, I mean, why did they even bother with these levels.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2016, 11:40 by Dumc »

Rinderart

« Reply #56 on: February 26, 2016, 16:54 »
0
If you have your images for sale in DP, you deserve to be ripped off and abused. We all know who these guys are, their methods and their ways of making business since long time ago. Knowing all these facts if you are willing to stay in DP you deserve everything they decide to do with you.

Can You be more specific?? I've been around a Long time and seen all the games and scams. Haven't seen any there.

stock-will-eat-itself

« Reply #57 on: February 26, 2016, 18:22 »
+2

« Reply #58 on: February 26, 2016, 19:08 »
+2
ironic that a newbie knows more than people claiming newbies have no clue

« Reply #59 on: February 26, 2016, 19:12 »
+2
If you have your images for sale in DP, you deserve to be ripped off and abused. We all know who these guys are, their methods and their ways of making business since long time ago. Knowing all these facts if you are willing to stay in DP you deserve everything they decide to do with you.


Can You be more specific?? I've been around a Long time and seen all the games and scams. Haven't seen any there.


The Shotshop scam was their most sleazy episode IMO.

Very brief summary is that they did a partnership with another site where the sales were up to 99 euros and the DP contributor was paid a subscription download royalty per sale. People who were opted out of partner deals had their work on Shotshop too - DP's explanation was that they weren't a partner but were using the API to make the purchase, so that was different. After the images were removed from Shotshop they came back again and were removed a second time after contributor outcry.

« Reply #60 on: February 26, 2016, 19:30 »
+1
If you have your images for sale in DP, you deserve to be ripped off and abused. We all know who these guys are, their methods and their ways of making business since long time ago. Knowing all these facts if you are willing to stay in DP you deserve everything they decide to do with you.


Can You be more specific?? I've been around a Long time and seen all the games and scams. Haven't seen any there.


The Shotshop scam was their most sleazy episode IMO.

Very brief summary is that they did a partnership with another site where the sales were up to 99 euros and the DP contributor was paid a subscription download royalty per sale. People who were opted out of partner deals had their work on Shotshop too - DP's explanation was that they weren't a partner but were using the API to make the purchase, so that was different. After the images were removed from Shotshop they came back again and were removed a second time after contributor outcry.


In some cases Shotshop images came back twice and had to be removed a third time! 

Plus, last years big royalty cut... especially sucked.  DP has the lowest average return per download of the 15 sites I license through. 
« Last Edit: February 26, 2016, 20:15 by trek »

« Reply #61 on: February 29, 2016, 19:41 »
+2
Dropped them like a bad habit :D
Very low sales and my images were sold by dubious sites, using DP's API :p

I don't even want to think about those dreaded refunds ... like a nightmare.

« Reply #62 on: March 01, 2016, 00:08 »
+1
Can You be more specific?? I've been around a Long time and seen all the games and scams. Haven't seen any there.

Look into their very early days and the company they were built out of. Plenty of reading on that in this forum years back.


« Reply #63 on: March 01, 2016, 01:03 »
+1
Also agree since royalty cut they are again the worst rpd. Below IS. Not sure how you don't know this? They have the worst reputation of any site.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
2072 Views
Last post January 29, 2016, 20:57
by Zero Talent
1 Replies
2374 Views
Last post January 04, 2017, 19:38
by SpaceStockFootage
27 Replies
4473 Views
Last post February 23, 2017, 01:08
by Justanotherphotographer
1 Replies
1682 Views
Last post August 02, 2017, 17:58
by ShadySue
58 Replies
12707 Views
Last post May 11, 2018, 07:08
by namussi

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results