Author Topic: DT subs, 33c? (Read 15181 times)

nicku · « **Reply #25 on:** November 09, 2011, 01:37 »

Post by Achilles on DT forum:

http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_29407

''The referral share is calculated taking into account the percentage awarded to the referral. Some of the partners in the alliance program will send users to our site, as they don't have access to subscriptions but still need access to this product. Their share is taken into account just as we take it into account for referrals, in fact they become referrals in this part, because the buyer is sent to Dreamstime. Dreamstime was supporting the entire fee until a while ago, this is actually what changed. We corrected that and probably missed to announce it.''

dirkr · « **Reply #26 on:** November 09, 2011, 03:03 »

Paying for referrals is essentially nothing else but marketing costs - money spent to reach new customers. That should never come from our share.
These marketing costs are the main reason why we pay agencies such high commissions. If they can't cover their costs with their 50+% of the sales price, then there is something fundamentally wrong.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #27 on:** November 09, 2011, 11:17 »

After posting on the DT forums about this issue, Serban asked for the ticket number for the unanswered support message from 2 weeks ago about my unusual sub sale. He followed up with me and said that when someone asked for clarification before answering, the ticket fell through the cracks when the answer didn't come. He apologized and acknowledged it shouldn't have happened.

I suggested that it'd be good to have an internal flagging system for tickets that aren't answered after a certain time to catch such slip ups, but that in general I've had good experience with DT support.

Edited to add that I received a very apologetic and straightforward e-mail from the customer service rep who got the original support ticket. I've often felt that how an organization handles mistakes is in some ways more important than the fact that they occasionally make them. I'm really impressed with DT's handling of this goof. They were forthright and apologetic. Very refreshing and commendable.

digitalexpressionimages · « **Reply #28 on:** November 09, 2011, 12:47 »

Quote from: jsnover on November 09, 2011, 11:17

After posting on the DT forums about this issue, Serban asked for the ticket number for the unanswered support message from 2 weeks ago about my unusual sub sale. He followed up with me and said that when someone asked for clarification before answering, the ticket fell through the cracks when the answer didn't come. He apologized and acknowledged it shouldn't have happened.

I suggested that it'd be good to have an internal flagging system for tickets that aren't answered after a certain time to catch such slip ups, but that in general I've had good experience with DT support.

Edited to add that I received a very apologetic and straightforward e-mail from the customer service rep who got the original support ticket. I've often felt that how an organization handles mistakes is in some ways more important than the fact that they occasionally make them. I'm really impressed with DT's handling of this goof. They were forthright and apologetic. Very refreshing and commendable.

In dealing with a support ticket that got misplaced I guess it is commendable. However, in offhandedly remarking that they missed announcing a "correction" in commissions to contributors it is not commendable. Every contributor shouldn't be required to submit a support ticket to find out something so important. It shows a lack of respect for the people that supply them with the very product they sell. They're not redeemed in my book.

madelaide · « **Reply #29 on:** November 09, 2011, 15:31 »

Quote from: nicku on November 09, 2011, 01:37

"Dreamstime was supporting the entire fee until a while ago, this is actually what changed. We corrected that and probably missed to announce it.''

A mistake. I see.

Carl · « **Reply #30 on:** November 10, 2011, 08:34 »

As our race to the bottom proceeds full-steam ahead, there comes a point at which it's no longer profitable for contributors to continue - either with a particular site or perhaps with microstock overall. Seems like that point is just around the next curve.

pancaketom · « **Reply #31 on:** November 10, 2011, 19:23 »

I got a reply from support after they asked about the image number. They were somewhat vague but said that it could be a partner or a referral. I replied that the page listing our returns only listed .35, .70, and 1.05 for indy subs. I was told that that page represents the maximum value. When I said that page should show the range I was told that the ranges were too complex but that they would update it.

Basically it looks like for whatever reason our commissions are being cut again by DT. frustrating. Last time they dropped our commissions my earnings there took about a year to recover.

Karimala · « **Reply #32 on:** November 12, 2011, 00:13 »

This sounds almost identical to Alamy's partner program. Any time someone buys an image through one of Alamy's partners, my commission drops from 60% to 40% (while Alamy's drops from 40% to 20%), and the partner is paid 40%. I don't see anything wrong with paying a partner to facilitate a sale, so long as my commission is high enough to start with and I'm aware of the details. Alamy keeps it simple, like SS, while most of the other sites just keep us guessing.

qwerty · « **Reply #33 on:** November 12, 2011, 03:34 »

This should come out of Dreamstime's large percentage share of the sale.

The agency could set up their own partner sites that "refer" to their own agency and then skim another 10-20% off the top.

cathyslife · « **Reply #34 on:** November 12, 2011, 08:03 »

Quote from: dirkr on November 09, 2011, 03:03

Paying for referrals is essentially nothing else but marketing costs - money spent to reach new customers. That should never come from our share.
These marketing costs are the main reason why we pay agencies such high commissions. If they can't cover their costs with their 50+% of the sales price, then there is something fundamentally wrong.

I don't have any referrals and I am opted out of the PP. I must be dense because I am still not getting why I got a .32 sub commission on a maximum size image, when there should have been no referral cost or partner payment associated with that image. Or does the referral mean that anytime anyone is referred from somewhere else and they purchase my image, I pay out of my pocket? If that's true, then this commission cut isn't referring specifically to the Referral Program some may be participating in, but the word referral being used in a broader sense, relative to DTs business associations.

And I agree, dirkr, these are DTs marketing costs, not ours.

madelaide · « **Reply #35 on:** November 12, 2011, 14:37 »

Karimala,

Alamy at least already takes the smallest bite, unlike micros. What is more annoying in DT's new policy is
- changes were not announced
- they make it sound like this should have always been like this, so that this is not actually a change

Microstock Posts · « **Reply #36 on:** November 12, 2011, 15:45 »

They stopped/paused weekly subscriptions shortly before the referral change/correction. Timing is everything.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #37 on:** January 01, 2012, 14:15 »

I wasn't happy to start the new year off at DT with a 49 cent subscription sale for a level 3 image - what would once have been a 70 cent sale.

I've been keeping track of subs (which haven't been all that numerous, thankfully) and there have been seven (including the above) that were below 35 cents or 70 cents. The lowest until today was 28 cents for a 35 cent subs - i.e. getting 80% of what I expected. but 49 cents on a 70 cent sale is getting only 70% of the 70 cents I expected. That's a huge chunk for a referral bonus and why is it a bigger percentage than the others?

Has anyone else been keeping track of the discounted subs and how much we're losing?

pancaketom · « **Reply #38 on:** January 01, 2012, 16:42 »

I've sort of been keeping an eye out for them but at this point they seem pretty rare. I still think it is pretty underhanded and lame both in implementation/communication and the way it is. As long as it is a tiny % I suppose there are bigger things to be annoyed about (like the drop from 50% to as low as 25%). If this becomes the future for subs at DT, that would be bad.

My worst was a sub that should have been .70 but was instead .52, so I suppose you "win" there.

luceluceluce · « **Reply #39 on:** January 03, 2012, 15:09 »

Quote from: jsnover on January 01, 2012, 14:15

I wasn't happy to start the new year off at DT with a 49 cent subscription sale for a level 3 image - what would once have been a 70 cent sale.

I've been keeping track of subs (which haven't been all that numerous, thankfully) and there have been seven (including the above) that were below 35 cents or 70 cents. The lowest until today was 28 cents for a 35 cent subs - i.e. getting 80% of what I expected. but 49 cents on a 70 cent sale is getting only 70% of the 70 cents I expected. That's a huge chunk for a referral bonus and why is it a bigger percentage than the others?

Has anyone else been keeping track of the discounted subs and how much we're losing?

I've got a few subs sales that are down 30% on what they should be too....

madelaide · « **Reply #40 on:** January 04, 2012, 15:29 »

I've had many 49c but I've always assumed those were USA purchases, as I am cut in 30% of such sales and as DT doen't show which sales are USA-based.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #41 on:** January 04, 2012, 20:18 »

I'm in the US, so there are no tax-related deductions from my numbers.

MatHayward · « **Reply #42 on:** January 05, 2012, 00:38 »

None of the commission rates on DT make sense to me to be perfectly honest. I have yet to see a simple explanation of what I am getting paid for sales. Right now I am looking at a 1 credit sale I was paid .23 for, just below it a 1 credit sale I'm paid .25 for, next a 5 credit sale I received .91 (18%).

All those were level 0 sales. All paid at different rates all within a short period of time for each other.

On the topic at hand I've got a level 4 sub sale at .70, a level 1 at .35, a level 5 at $1.05.

How does anyone make any sense of it?

pancaketom · « **Reply #43 on:** January 05, 2012, 11:27 »

Quote from: MatHayward on January 05, 2012, 00:38

None of the commission rates on DT make sense to me to be perfectly honest. I have yet to see a simple explanation of what I am getting paid for sales. Right now I am looking at a 1 credit sale I was paid .23 for, just below it a 1 credit sale I'm paid .25 for, next a 5 credit sale I received .91 (18%).

All those were level 0 sales. All paid at different rates all within a short period of time for each other.

On the topic at hand I've got a level 4 sub sale at .70, a level 1 at .35, a level 5 at $1.05.

How does anyone make any sense of it?

I think you aren't really supposed to make sense of it.

The percentage you make is based on the level of the image (24 to 50%). The actual amount per credit depends on the package and any discounts the buyer might have used. I don't know the lowest there, but it can vary quite a bit. The Number of credits also depends on size and the level of the file.

for subs it is a little simpler except when they make it lower for some reason or other (like to reward a referral and taking the $ out of your sale).

In any case, having higher level files can really make a big difference in RPI.

You can see their explanation here:

http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_26512

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: DT subs, 33c? (Read 15181 times)

nicku

dirkr

Jo Ann Snover

digitalexpressionimages

madelaide

Carl

pancaketom

Karimala

qwerty

cathyslife

madelaide

Microstock Posts

Jo Ann Snover

pancaketom

luceluceluce

madelaide

Jo Ann Snover

MatHayward

pancaketom

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors