pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Changes in royalties  (Read 15285 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest 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


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
2109 Views
Last post January 29, 2016, 20:57
by Zero Talent
1 Replies
2521 Views
Last post January 04, 2017, 19:38
by SpaceStockFootage
27 Replies
4589 Views
Last post February 23, 2017, 01:08
by Justanotherphotographer
1 Replies
1725 Views
Last post August 02, 2017, 17:58
by ShadySue
58 Replies
13004 Views
Last post May 11, 2018, 07:08
by namussi

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results