MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Has DT gone over to the dark side  (Read 14322 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: October 24, 2012, 03:53 »
+1
I've got a Level 0 image on DT that was downloaded as an EL on SS last week.
On DT's scale its SS sales add up to a Level 3 image. I've got quite a few images that are selling
elsewhere but are dead at DT. Could be search placement or buyer demographics?

"fill her up and check that oil you know it could be the distributor and it could be your coil"
Tom Waits

Better Tom Waits reference - "What's he building in there?"  :D


« Reply #26 on: October 24, 2012, 10:11 »
0
The official announcement has now come out about what the change actually is:

http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_32755

« Reply #27 on: November 30, 2012, 12:44 »
0
I feel like iStock set the bar in the industry in terms of how bad we can be treated without leaving the agency.

Not cool.
clap clap clap (this are aplauses)

im new in stock. I start my way in a more serious way 6 weeks ago and i have now 110 files on DT. In IS i start about 6 months and i have 16 files online. Upload limit is low , the review process is long , and they put problems in everything. Now they refuse my 18 new bach because my custom model release errors but is accept in all other agencies i submit....this put my racio in less that 20%. I made 5 sales IS until now. 5 months with any sale and from 10 weeks until now made 5 sales. They pay me $1.20 total for 5 sales, this is ridiculous. $0,28 in 4 subs but the most impressive is my last sale that give me $0,08 profit. If IS ask me the file for free i offer that for charity , i think....ridiculous ....

At DT in 6 weeks i have more than 110 files online, 4 sales. More than $7 profit . If i was exclusive i have received more than $12 for these and $0,20 per image upload. I cannot say they are a bad agency. I see everyone saying bad of DT and good of IS , for me IS is stolen my files and im let this happen. They pay 15% per sale and put so many problems in reviews that im tired that agency for so little profit. Anyone exclusive at IS is well taken but the others not. They can sell my images like they think better, for me, they even can give my images for free, BUT i refuse $0,08 profit to me, they must have to pay . I am not a charity agency. They make the promotons they think correct but to me they have to pay something. The we go to the forum and put our fellings and problems. A moderator quickly response to question , change the topic place and close it....F*** to IS.  Otherwise DT makes the price up or down like they think better but we always receive the same amount in final commission. I dont think IS is better or more serious agency. I will delete all of my misery 16 files from there, and ofter the $1.20 for free to them charity if they pay 0,08 one more time, because i believe that buyers look in all agencies for files and if i have one file in one agency that is cheaper they buy there. The main difference is what i receive for my work.  Promotions , low prices, and other sh*** just to treat us like kids is what IS is doing.

DT is what it is , but they invest in their contributors (EXClusive) , they pay the uploads (so they have to sell it, right?) and they sell with profit ($3,18 profit my last non-exclusive sale) .For me, Dt is more files online, more quick uploads, same or more sales, and more profit in my 110 files port compared to IS. Better contributor support too.

SS, i think is great, i pass the admission 15 days ago and have 7 files online with one sale. But they are with serious problems in review process. Some people talk about payments problem too.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2012, 13:00 by brmonico »

« Reply #28 on: December 03, 2012, 10:59 »
+3
I sold a P-EL this morning on DT - 50 credits, level 0 image (25% royalty) and I netted $8.57. These were apparently heavily discounted credits - 68.5 cents - but even so, this brings home how much less DT is paying us than they used to.

Buyer pays $34.28, DT keeps $25.71 and passes on $8.57 to me. Back when credits were a flat $1 and we received 50%, DT would have paid me $25 and kept $25. The buyer gets a deal, DT's take is unchanged and the contributor gets the short end of the stick.

Pretty general description of how contributors are treated by microstock agencies at the moment. Depressing.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #29 on: December 03, 2012, 11:19 »
0
I sold a P-EL this morning on DT - 50 credits, level 0 image (25% royalty) and I netted $8.57. These were apparently heavily discounted credits - 68.5 cents - but even so, this brings home how much less DT is paying us than they used to.

Buyer pays $34.28, DT keeps $25.71 and passes on $8.57 to me. Back when credits were a flat $1 and we received 50%, DT would have paid me $25 and kept $25. The buyer gets a deal, DT's take is unchanged and the contributor gets the short end of the stick.

Pretty general description of how contributors are treated by microstock agencies at the moment. Depressing.

As Serban would say, "A sale is a sale."
 :-X

« Reply #30 on: December 03, 2012, 11:26 »
+1
I sold a P-EL this morning on DT - 50 credits, level 0 image (25% royalty) and I netted $8.57. These were apparently heavily discounted credits - 68.5 cents - but even so, this brings home how much less DT is paying us than they used to.

Buyer pays $34.28, DT keeps $25.71 and passes on $8.57 to me. Back when credits were a flat $1 and we received 50%, DT would have paid me $25 and kept $25. The buyer gets a deal, DT's take is unchanged and the contributor gets the short end of the stick.Pretty general description of how contributors are treated by microstock agencies at the moment. Depressing.

... and that's a good part of the reason why I haven't uploaded to DT for the best part of 2 years.

An agency can deliver few sales but keep contributors happy by treating them nicely. Alternatively an agency can treat contributors badly but they'll put up with it if they generate decent sales. It seems that DT is attempting to get away with ever-reducing commissions, operating a nonsensical "too similar" rejection policy whilst also ... wait for it ... delivering few sales. Good luck with that.

fritz

  • I love Tom and Jerry music

« Reply #31 on: December 03, 2012, 11:33 »
0
Dt is the last agency on my priority list. I simply dislike the way they do so I quit upload regally there. I think Serban is even worse than Lobo.
Welcome to the most North Korean agency style on the list.

« Reply #32 on: December 03, 2012, 11:36 »
0

As Serban would say, "A sale is a sale."
 :-X

In which case he can take the $8.57 and I'll have the $25.71 :)

« Reply #33 on: December 03, 2012, 12:59 »
+1
Welcome to the most North Korean agency style on the list.

Yes, Achilles/Serban aka "Dear Leader" has alienated me as well.

The buyer gets a deal, DT's take is unchanged and the contributor gets the short end of the stick.

Says it all.  And that end of the stick is only going to get shorter.  It's early for New Year's resolutions, but I'm determined not to continue lining this guy's pockets by giving him my photos, and be sitting here a year from now talking about how DT paid even lower commissions in 2013.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2012, 14:13 by stockastic »

« Reply #34 on: December 03, 2012, 14:26 »
0
Action taken by us has had little effect in the past few years.  Sites are still trying to lower the amount they pay us.  There's a few sites that haven't cut their commissions and what we really need is for lots more buyers to move to them.  How can we persuade them to do that?

Poncke

« Reply #35 on: December 03, 2012, 14:37 »
0
Action taken by us has had little effect in the past few years.  Sites are still trying to lower the amount they pay us.  There's a few sites that haven't cut their commissions and what we really need is for lots more buyers to move to them.  How can we persuade them to do that?
I dont know how you can move buyers but you can bring down a company. The problem is you need a big chuck of contributors to pull their portfolio, including the Yuris and Seans of stock. But this will never happen. 123 is the next big chance to show we no longer tolerate cuts, but I am afraid it will all blow over in 2 weeks, just as it all blew over at Alamy. Business as usual and all agencies now know that they can cut all they want, a few will leave but the rest will all take it up the tail pipe.

« Reply #36 on: December 03, 2012, 15:14 »
0
Action taken by us has had little effect in the past few years.  Sites are still trying to lower the amount they pay us.  There's a few sites that haven't cut their commissions and what we really need is for lots more buyers to move to them.  How can we persuade them to do that?

The only leverage we have is our choice of who gets our photos.  The cuts will continue because they aren't meeting any serious resistance, and the payoff to the agency is immediate. 

In the short term there is nothing we can do.  In the long run,  we can pull our portfolios from sites that are routinely cutting commissions.  And even if we don't want to do that, we can give new photos only to sites committed to paying reasonable commissions.   

Even if many photographers started taking these steps, the effects wouldn't be evident for a long time.

Speaking only for myself, I'm thinking about pulling my port at DT (because of all the cuts and shell games, and also the 6 month lock-in, and the keyword flagging scammers) and my small port  at IS (because they're crazy).  New photos would go only to SS, Alamy and GL.   I predict that SS will begin cutting commissions in 2013 to satisfy investors' demands for higher profits.   
« Last Edit: December 03, 2012, 19:53 by stockastic »

« Reply #37 on: December 03, 2012, 16:00 »
0
They are our agents. And if they cant produce dollars, they are not worth while.

I actively pull my port from agencies that dont deliver. I dont let it sit and earn crums.

For one main reason. Then these underperforming agencies are not having me compete with myself on their terms.

But then there is also the "annoy factor".
I will support new and promising agencies with new concepts.
But when an agency begins to smell too greedy and arrogant, the party stops.

In my opinion, its important to not be spread too thinly and sold too cheaply. I can influence that by selecting which agencies I allow to resell my licences.

DT is one agency where the annoy factor has risen, and they do not perform.

But yet, they have some leaway.....

« Reply #38 on: December 03, 2012, 16:03 »
0
I sold a P-EL this morning on DT - 50 credits, level 0 image (25% royalty) and I netted $8.57. These were apparently heavily discounted credits - 68.5 cents - but even so, this brings home how much less DT is paying us than they used to.

Buyer pays $34.28, DT keeps $25.71 and passes on $8.57 to me. Back when credits were a flat $1 and we received 50%, DT would have paid me $25 and kept $25. The buyer gets a deal, DT's take is unchanged and the contributor gets the short end of the stick.

Pretty general description of how contributors are treated by microstock agencies at the moment. Depressing.

Pretty accurate description.

« Reply #39 on: December 03, 2012, 17:06 »
+1
Quote
123 is the next big chance to show we no longer tolerate cuts, but I am afraid it will all blow over in 2 weeks, just as it all blew over at Alamy. Business as usual and all agencies now know that they can cut all they want, a few will leave but the rest will all take it up the tail pipe.

Alas..this unfortunately is the way of micro stock. The biggest problem is that the bulk of microstockers are ordinary people who do this part time and don't seriously care about how much their earnings decrease over time, hence the agencies can do what they want. Its very difficult to change the way an entire industry operates with participants who are non-business part time people...this is what has created the agency monopolies.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #40 on: December 03, 2012, 17:15 »
+1
Quote
123 is the next big chance to show we no longer tolerate cuts, but I am afraid it will all blow over in 2 weeks, just as it all blew over at Alamy. Business as usual and all agencies now know that they can cut all they want, a few will leave but the rest will all take it up the tail pipe.

Alas..this unfortunately is the way of micro stock. The biggest problem is that the bulk of microstockers are ordinary people who do this part time and don't seriously care about how much their earnings decrease over time, hence the agencies can do what they want. Its very difficult to change the way an entire industry operates with participants who are non-business part time people...this is what has created the agency monopolies.

This is so Right On.  Think about how many regular (non-professional) contributors have never heard of or use this forum.  WE -- are only the tip of the ice berg, so to speak. 
What happens here; stays here.   :o :-X

« Reply #41 on: December 03, 2012, 18:06 »
+1
Thats right. But we are those who face the future.

« Reply #42 on: December 03, 2012, 19:29 »
0
Action taken by us has had little effect in the past few years.  Sites are still trying to lower the amount they pay us.  There's a few sites that haven't cut their commissions and what we really need is for lots more buyers to move to them.  How can we persuade them to do that?
I dont know how you can move buyers but you can bring down a company. The problem is you need a big chuck of contributors to pull their portfolio, including the Yuris and Seans of stock. But this will never happen. 123 is the next big chance to show we no longer tolerate cuts, but I am afraid it will all blow over in 2 weeks, just as it all blew over at Alamy. Business as usual and all agencies now know that they can cut all they want, a few will leave but the rest will all take it up the tail pipe.

Right^^

« Reply #43 on: December 03, 2012, 20:57 »
0
The problem is you need a big chuck of contributors to pull their portfolio, including the Yuris and Seans of stock.

You know this is one recent phenomena that always annoys me __ the absurd pluralisation of individuals or teams to supposedly make a general point. There is in fact only one Yuri and only one Sean in the context of microstock so we don't need to talk of them as if they were an army of individuals. It's utterly ridiculous.

They do it all the time in football too. All this talk of "the Arsenals and the Man U's" or "the Messi's and the Ronaldos". Arggghhh!

« Reply #44 on: December 04, 2012, 05:12 »
+1
The problem is you need a big chuck of contributors to pull their portfolio, including the Yuris and Seans of stock.

You know this is one recent phenomena that always annoys me __ the absurd pluralisation of individuals or teams to supposedly make a general point. There is in fact only one Yuri and only one Sean in the context of microstock so we don't need to talk of them as if they were an army of individuals. It's utterly ridiculous.

They do it all the time in football too. All this talk of "the Arsenals and the Man U's" or "the Messi's and the Ronaldos". Arggghhh!
Thank goodness for the gostwyck's of this forum that point things like this out :)

« Reply #45 on: December 04, 2012, 11:46 »
0
I see lots of complaints of DT being a low earner and the desire of punishing them for it.  However, from what I can tell the RPD at DT is generally much higher than at most other mid and top tier sites.  Sure, sales are greater at SS, but the RPD is generally MUCH lower.  It seems to me that DT is compensating us more than some of these other sites, but they just aren't getting enough buyers.  Why aren't we trying to bring more people to DT to increase sales rather than trying to punish them?

« Reply #46 on: December 04, 2012, 11:58 »
0
RPD what is that? Return Per Day? or what?

« Reply #47 on: December 04, 2012, 12:01 »
0
RPD what is that? Return Per Day? or what?

Revenue per download

« Reply #48 on: December 04, 2012, 12:15 »
+2
I see lots of complaints of DT being a low earner and the desire of punishing them for it.  However, from what I can tell the RPD at DT is generally much higher than at most other mid and top tier sites.  Sure, sales are greater at SS, but the RPD is generally MUCH lower.  It seems to me that DT is compensating us more than some of these other sites, but they just aren't getting enough buyers.  Why aren't we trying to bring more people to DT to increase sales rather than trying to punish them?

I started with DT in 2004. My Best Month Ever there was November 2006 when the RPD was about half what it was Nov 2012 and I made slightly less in Nov 212. I'd rather have the higher monthly return than the feel good factor of a higher RPD.

People seem to forget that if you make the images more expensive, fewer people buy them. There's a careful tinkering to find the sweet spot where you're maximizing monthly revenue. DT has failed to grow as an agency over time and continues to bump along at the bottom of the top tier. Trumpeting an improved RPD doesn't make up for that

« Reply #49 on: December 04, 2012, 12:21 »
0
There's a careful tinkering to find the sweet spot where you're maximizing monthly revenue. 0

But that spot isn't the same for all images.  Some will make a zillion sales at a low price. Others would make only a few sales, but buyers would pay a lot more to get what they need.  These dumb one-size-fits-all pricing plans are a big reason microstock is ceasing to work.  You can't possibly make money on niche market material, unless it costs you practically nothing to produce. 

Look around in one of the "Everything's $1" stores in the malls.  What sort of products do you see there?  Exactly.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
1837 Views
Last post May 20, 2007, 20:08
by rjmiz
16 Replies
8891 Views
Last post August 02, 2010, 20:08
by Suljo
5 Replies
4175 Views
Last post May 26, 2011, 14:28
by DiscreetDuck
7 Replies
3337 Views
Last post February 02, 2013, 12:38
by brmonico
11 Replies
3795 Views
Last post March 31, 2016, 06:42
by Melissa22

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle