MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Depositphotos pays 3% to contributors on 5-image "subscription"  (Read 32144 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

MxR

« Reply #50 on: June 30, 2014, 08:27 »
+3
15 July? 1 August?

they are 1% or 2% of my income


« Reply #51 on: June 30, 2014, 11:09 »
0
How do you know these pay out like that?

I sent an email asking for confirmation. I asked:

Quote
I would like clarification on contributor royalties paid out in your monthly subscription plans. It is my understanding that the lowest-priced monthly subscription offer of 5 images per month for $49 pays out subscription royalties to contributors. So in a typical scenario, out of that $9.80 paid per image by the customer, the contributor would get their subscription royalty of $0.30-$0.35. Is that correct?

And the reply I got was:

Quote
Yes, you are correct that you receive your fixed royalties of each subscription sale. We have daily subscription plans with $0,15 per image, but your royalty rate remains the same $0.31. Please take a look at our daily plans and you will notice that the most expensive image is $0.46 if customers purchase daily plans.
In addition, we offer a 7-day subscription plan for free to all new customers. You get the same subscription commissions even though it is a free trial.

Valo

« Reply #52 on: June 30, 2014, 11:20 »
+6
To me that reads as you get 200% royalty on a 15c image sale, and you get 3% on a $9.80 image sale. For it to be fair, I believe they should make that a fixed percentage rate of the sale, not a fixed dollar rate.

« Reply #53 on: June 30, 2014, 11:23 »
+9
To me that reads as you get 200% royalty on a 15c image sale, and you get 3% on a $9.80 image sale. For it to be fair, I believe they should make that a fixed percentage rate of the sale, not a fixed dollar rate.

Or they just shouldn't call a 5 or 10 images plan a "subscription". (Fotolia at least started to pay us better for these things after the D-day...  but still something needs to be done about DPC...)
« Last Edit: June 30, 2014, 11:26 by Desintegrator »

Valo

« Reply #54 on: June 30, 2014, 11:27 »
+11
To me that reads as you get 200% royalty on a 15c image sale, and you get 3% on a $9.80 image sale. For it to be fair, I believe they should make that a fixed percentage rate of the sale, not a fixed dollar rate.

Or they just shouldn't call a 5 or 10 images plan a "subscription".
On Shutterstock they are called Images on Demand and we are paid a fixed amount of the sale, depending on your level. I would call that a fair royalty as well. That would indeed be another option for Deposit Photos to consider. But given their reputation, and the state of the industry, it is very  unlikely to happen. Fairness is no longer considered when paying out image producers.

« Reply #55 on: June 30, 2014, 11:34 »
+4
why they give free trial for free, does shutter gives?  No.  Wrong business model.  This agencies must go bankruptcy


15 July for D day

« Reply #56 on: June 30, 2014, 12:17 »
+3
How do you know these pay out like that?

I sent an email asking for confirmation. I asked:

Quote
I would like clarification on contributor royalties paid out in your monthly subscription plans. It is my understanding that the lowest-priced monthly subscription offer of 5 images per month for $49 pays out subscription royalties to contributors. So in a typical scenario, out of that $9.80 paid per image by the customer, the contributor would get their subscription royalty of $0.30-$0.35. Is that correct?

And the reply I got was:

Quote
Yes, you are correct that you receive your fixed royalties of each subscription sale. We have daily subscription plans with $0,15 per image, but your royalty rate remains the same $0.31. Please take a look at our daily plans and you will notice that the most expensive image is $0.46 if customers purchase daily plans.

That doesn't take in account the non-used quotas. After all, this is the main source of benefit por subs sites. You can be sure they are not losing money, these "%&*

« Reply #57 on: June 30, 2014, 12:21 »
+19

Quote
Yes, you are correct that you receive your fixed royalties of each subscription sale. We have daily subscription plans with $0,15 per image, but your royalty rate remains the same $0.31. Please take a look at our daily plans and you will notice that the most expensive image is $0.46 if customers purchase daily plans.
In addition, we offer a 7-day subscription plan for free to all new customers. You get the same subscription commissions even though it is a free trial.

That does seem pretty clear now.  I also sent an inquiry over the weekend.  I'll dispute their idea of tagging anything they like as a "subscription" as a way out of paying the correct royalties.

« Reply #58 on: June 30, 2014, 12:27 »
+6

Quote
Yes, you are correct that you receive your fixed royalties of each subscription sale. We have daily subscription plans with $0,15 per image, but your royalty rate remains the same $0.31. Please take a look at our daily plans and you will notice that the most expensive image is $0.46 if customers purchase daily plans.
In addition, we offer a 7-day subscription plan for free to all new customers. You get the same subscription commissions even though it is a free trial.

That does seem pretty clear now.  I also sent an inquiry over the weekend.  I'll dispute their idea of tagging anything they like as a "subscription" as a way out of paying the correct royalties.

Thanks, Sean. Good to know you and your brand are at least helping clarify a very unpopular business practice.

stocked

« Reply #59 on: June 30, 2014, 12:34 »
+1

Quote
Yes, you are correct that you receive your fixed royalties of each subscription sale. We have daily subscription plans with $0,15 per image, but your royalty rate remains the same $0.31. Please take a look at our daily plans and you will notice that the most expensive image is $0.46 if customers purchase daily plans.
In addition, we offer a 7-day subscription plan for free to all new customers. You get the same subscription commissions even though it is a free trial.

That does seem pretty clear now.  I also sent an inquiry over the weekend.  I'll dispute their idea of tagging anything they like as a "subscription" as a way out of paying the correct royalties.
Great move respect!

« Reply #60 on: June 30, 2014, 13:08 »
+9
...tagging anything they like as a "subscription" as a way out of paying the correct royalties.

Seems like a trend now, doesn't it? Any optionally repeatable purchase seems open to being called a "subscription".

What a scam.

« Reply #61 on: June 30, 2014, 14:26 »
+12
For those who are considering staying with DepositPhotos, I'd suggest that you need to get more detailed sales reporting so you can keep tabs on them in the future.

Even if they agree to start paying the appropriate percentages on the Monthly "subscriptions", there'll be some new product in the future and you'll need to know how much the buyer paid and what your payout was for each sale.

Given how they handled the ShotShop deal - taking away the opt out they finally implemented (after a delay), an opt out they at first refused, then provided, then tried to do an end run around by saying ShotShop was an API reseller not a partner - you can't assume they'll continue to honor any concession offered when faced with portfolio removal.

Obviously any agency can flat out lie in anything they report to us, but the risks of that are so huge, I think it's reasonably safe to assume that if they implement a detailed sales reporting system - gross amount paid per image (or the plan type if it's something like a 25 a day monthly subscription where they don't know the exact amount), sale date, sale site (for partner sites) and royalty paid - it'll be as accurate as they can make it. And all should be downloadable as a CSV file.

« Reply #62 on: June 30, 2014, 17:40 »
+3
I disabled everything except SS rejects a few weeks ago. (really close to pay-out and hate to give it them as a present.)  As soon as I get my $50 I will then re-keyword the remaining files before I quit them for good.
Here is my list of keywords to leave on them so far:
DP, DECEITFUL, GREEDY, INEQUITABLE, MANIPULATIVE, MONEY-GRUBBING, ROTTEN, SCUM, STINGY, UNFAIR, UNDERHANDED.

Any more suggestions?  I think they have to be in alphabetical order. 8)

« Reply #63 on: June 30, 2014, 18:12 »
0
Jo Ann, Sean, could you contact them and say to them we will leave this page if they dont change in one week this plan?

« Reply #64 on: June 30, 2014, 20:06 »
0
Jo Ann, Sean, could you contact them and say to them we will leave this page if they dont change in one week this plan?

I'm just an adviser here - I have never been a DepositPhotos contributor.

« Reply #65 on: July 02, 2014, 14:25 »
+2
I got another response to an email from DP:

Quote
We are currently working on our API functionality, so our API re-sellers will be able to purchase our images by credits only. Once it is done, our contributors will be receiving higher commissions once their files are purchased by our re-sellers.

Afterwards, we will be reviewing our monthly plans based on our contributors' feedback.  We are trying to make a win-win situation here.

So it sounds like they are at least open to the idea of adjusting things, both with the reseller issue and the monthly subscription offer.

Can't say I'm feeling all warm and fuzzy about DP just yet, but it's progress.

stock-will-eat-itself

« Reply #66 on: July 02, 2014, 17:32 »
+13
I'm getting very weary of these deals where agencies are trying to trick artists into paying the bare minimum and only relinquish once a huge fuss is kicked up.

What ever happened to just straight forward business practises built on trust and respect. I don't try and stiff my design clients at every opportunity, judging by the repeat work I get they seem to appreciate it.

« Reply #67 on: July 04, 2014, 19:52 »
+8
I'm getting very weary of these deals where agencies are trying to trick artists into paying the bare minimum and only relinquish once a huge fuss is kicked up.

What ever happened to just straight forward business practises built on trust and respect. I don't try and stiff my design clients at every opportunity, judging by the repeat work I get they seem to appreciate it.

That's assuming they are relinquishing. Unless they are upping the commission to normalize to 30-50% of credits, define subscriptions properly, define credits properly and be transparent on their deals with partners, they have a mt. Everest to climb with many of us, not to mention how they behave going forward. Their checkered past has been a norm for them so I don't expect then to re-engineer their commission scheme in any way that is fair and transparent. 


« Reply #68 on: July 05, 2014, 14:21 »
+2
DP also forgot the fact that a lot of contributors are buyers too and they stop buying from the hated greedy agencies!

MxR

« Reply #69 on: July 05, 2014, 15:47 »
0
We must ake any colective action...!

« Reply #70 on: July 05, 2014, 16:24 »
0
I suggested, no one wants close accounts,  i think that is only option.

« Reply #71 on: July 05, 2014, 19:40 »
+2
I suggested, no one wants close accounts,  i think that is only option.

I think we would all love to have a great relationship with all agencies, but some have to resort to sneaky, low down, dirty dog tactics and that usually requires unfavorable actions on the contributors' side.

Batman

« Reply #72 on: July 07, 2014, 21:13 »
+4
I got another response to an email from DP:

Quote
We are currently working on our API functionality, so our API re-sellers will be able to purchase our images by credits only. Once it is done, our contributors will be receiving higher commissions once their files are purchased by our re-sellers.

Afterwards, we will be reviewing our monthly plans based on our contributors' feedback.  We are trying to make a win-win situation here.

So it sounds like they are at least open to the idea of adjusting things, both with the reseller issue and the monthly subscription offer.

Can't say I'm feeling all warm and fuzzy about DP just yet, but it's progress.

Just like FT when caught for cheating us and DPC scam, they come up with a new plan, opt out. DP could have had a fair plan before they got caught cheating us with fake subs. We were warned when DP started to open pretending to be in FL. Then the pay for uploads bribe to entice people to make the bad decision to trust DP. They started dishonest and have not changed. Now to late they have more suckers who don't know the truth.

« Reply #73 on: July 08, 2014, 13:21 »
+6
I'm impressed how little the reaction from contributors after this reveal, 3% must be a record low in the industry. I'm so new in MS but already had to deal with 2 scams in a row, and it's just a matter of time until they will come up with a another one. You don't get an agency much worse than that.

« Reply #74 on: July 08, 2014, 13:49 »
+10
I'm impressed how little the reaction from contributors after this reveal, 3% must be a record low in the industry. I'm so new in MS but already had to deal with 2 scams in a row, and it's just a matter of time until they will come up with a another one. You don't get an agency much worse than that.

Well I can say that I am done with both Fotolia and deposit photos. When microstock becomes nano stock, and it is becoming nano stock, you will have two agencies at the forefront to blame the most and that is FT and DP the two most destructive agencies in microstock today.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
10 Replies
4472 Views
Last post November 01, 2007, 11:03
by grp_photo
12 Replies
3453 Views
Last post September 18, 2014, 13:36
by cascoly
156 Replies
26812 Views
Last post October 30, 2016, 14:06
by YadaYadaYada
27 Replies
7280 Views
Last post March 21, 2018, 08:29
by panicAttack
5 Replies
646 Views
Last post October 08, 2019, 11:01
by PhotoBomb

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results