MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Royalties, subscriptions and SR-EL update on dreamstime  (Read 34488 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: August 12, 2009, 19:18 »
0
Until/unless we really get serious about forming a trade group to represent our interests we can probably expect more unappealing changes in the future.  
I agree. The question is what kind of influence or pressure could this trade group have? To stop uploading? To threaten with portfolio deletion? I see that agreeing to the sort of influence would be very hard as contributors are very diverse.

If this is agreed on anyway, a member of the group could come up with an issue and post a poll where other members would vote for or against. If more than half of the members vote for an issue, all the members would agree to proceed with the action. With could have that even implemented here in the new section "Issues" or "Take action". I think implementation is not an issue but rather agreeing on how to influence decisions of the big players in the industry.


WarrenPrice

« Reply #26 on: August 12, 2009, 19:26 »
0
Until/unless we really get serious about forming a trade group to represent our interests we can probably expect more unappealing changes in the future.  
I agree. The question is what kind of influence or pressure could this trade group have? To stop uploading? To threaten with portfolio deletion? I see that agreeing to the sort of influence would be very hard as contributors are very diverse.

If this is agreed on anyway, a member of the group could come up with an issue and post a poll where other members would vote for or against. If more than half of the members vote for an issue, all the members would agree to proceed with the action. With could have that even implemented here in the new section "Issues" or "Take action". I think implementation is not an issue but rather agreeing on how to influence decisions of the big players in the industry.

"Big Players" could play a huge role here.  People like Lisa and Monkeybusiness (with 15,000 images) could be the ones most affected by this cut.  I'm pretty sure they are NOT exclusive?  Or, maybe they are too busy taking and selling images to get involved in a "minor" squabble?


« Reply #27 on: August 12, 2009, 19:30 »
0
Warren, with "big players" I actually meant big stock agencies (Big 6). we should find a way to influence their decisions as more and more of those are done against contributors interests.

« Reply #28 on: August 12, 2009, 19:36 »
0
Why would dreamstime pay us more than %30 while we are obviously OK with fotolia screwing us?  :)

Interesting to see how many losers are burning valuable oxygen in the world.

Thanks to microstock, I am getting a priceless life experience on how to screw people and make them say "thank you" at the same time!

I am 29, so I -presumably- have enough time to screw the ones begging to be screwed. I regret not getting it done yet!

I think I have just been converted to the darkside!  ;D

« Reply #29 on: August 12, 2009, 19:40 »
0
I agree. The question is what kind of influence or pressure could this trade group have? To stop uploading? To threaten with portfolio deletion? I see that agreeing to the sort of influence would be very hard as contributors are very diverse.

Taking them to court?

I think what's been going on recently in all microsites was not really ethical in business sense, was it? You can't just lower the commissions and get away with it. We are just so passive. This will become a trend unless we slap them in the face!

If someone deliberately steps on my foot, I kick his ass to make sure it doesn't happen again! If I say "thank you, it wasn't so hard" others will be tempted to step on my foot!
« Last Edit: August 12, 2009, 19:42 by cidepix »

« Reply #30 on: August 12, 2009, 19:47 »
0
Taking them to court?
For what? They are not doing anything illegal. We can consider their actions unfair, unethical, or similar, but illegal is usually not of of them.

« Reply #31 on: August 12, 2009, 19:52 »
0
Taking them to court?
For what? They are not doing anything illegal. We can consider their actions unfair, unethical, or similar, but illegal is usually not of of them.

For screwing suppliers? It is not against their stupid agreement. But it is against human rights. My rights are screwed.

« Reply #32 on: August 12, 2009, 21:34 »
0
posted my response in dt forums, for me it appears to be a loss of around $100+ a month. the increase subs doesnt come close to the loss in ppd.  Have asked some questions and hopefully Achilles or someone will come along and point out where I am wrong and how everything is good.

« Reply #33 on: August 12, 2009, 21:39 »
0
Why would dreamstime pay us more than %30 while we are obviously OK with fotolia screwing us?  :)

With that line of thought, we should be ok that all sites would pay us 20% like IS.  

The commissions proposed by DT are a drastic cut from the current values.  One member in their forum said we would actually get the same as we did months ago before credit prices were risen.  So in the end it's lie all the extra $ from higher prices are for DT.  The cut is apparently worse than FT did (10%?).  

It is not easy to do the maths because there are the image levels and different credit costs, but basically with a 40% cut on level 1 images and 30% on level 2 images our RPD will not be the same as before the previous price changes.  I wished I had the numbers, but I don't keep track of site changes.

« Reply #34 on: August 12, 2009, 23:43 »
0
I have just done some analysis and although it is not certain to be 100% accurate because of the different credit packages people can buy, based on current earnings of 50% commission (and ignoring ELs), I would see the income on my last 250 sales drop from $303 to $229 which is a drop of 24%.

« Reply #35 on: August 13, 2009, 04:22 »
0
there is a price increase that goes with it, so will hopefully offset the loss.

« Reply #36 on: August 13, 2009, 04:28 »
0
As an exclusive, I float around in my happybubble, ignorant of negative changes. But those of you who are not sharing my happybubble; what would you say is the biggest problem with the reductions; the overall cut in commission, or the cut in commission on exclusive pictures?

« Reply #37 on: August 13, 2009, 04:41 »
0
there is a price increase that goes with it, so will hopefully offset the loss.

can you, or I, quote your dreamstime post here?  I thought it was very informative.

« Reply #38 on: August 13, 2009, 05:15 »
0
I hadnt want to post here because i had the feeling I'd missed something (especially seeing how many times we were told that it was all ok) (as it turns out I had missed the price increase) and basically didnt want to be seen to jumping around if i had :). So I need to redo the figures, which depends on the package that customers buy etc. The price increase is 167% increase for small packages (I assume 10 credits - havent looked) but varies depending on the packages bought, so the average package bought may vary and hopefully there will a sales increase and the implementation is going to be staggered

Basically it has turned out that my figures aren't valid anymore. the price increase changes it. (really if they could use this to get to sales level of istock, I'd more than happy :)

anyway the thread has gone on and I mentioned that I was concerned and that it seemed negative on the face of it and that there is a guilt by association because of other sites screwing contributors. (I mentioned that DT havent done that in the past) anyway Achilles has just come back (and I hope he doesnt mind me reposting here, but I found it reassuring)

Phil, I agree, part of the negativism may be related to other moves in the industry. Moves that after all required this repositioning on our side. It was hard work to become a leader in 5 years with 50-60% while much lower paying competitors were supported. Dreamstime will continue its growth and we're happy that you're all aboard, it will continue to be a great ride.

We're keen to keep our contributors happy and we expect them to criticize our own work, because we learn, but without making us pay for someone else's policy.

The first thing someone see in my OP is lower % for non exclusives and that seems a drawback. But if you look carefully, the numbers are different. I expect an increase, not a decrease and I'll do my best to make that happen.


WarrenPrice

« Reply #39 on: August 13, 2009, 10:31 »
0
DIVIDE AND CONQUER!

It's working AGAIN!  Why are we fighting amongst ourselves?  Don't you see what happened at iStock?  Can't you see Dreamstime doing exactly the same thing.  Get the contributors fighting amongst themselves.  Make it better for some by lowering rates for others.  The "some" will join you in shouting down the "others."  Then... lower the boom on the "some."

I wonder how long exclusives at iStock will be smiling?  Maybe six months; maybe a year.  Will it be until iStock comes up with a way to divide the exclusives into smaller groups?  Is that the purpose of Vetta?  I'm sure they have the plan in place.  None of this is Knee Jerk.  It is all planned into the future ... five year plans; ten year plans.  We are killing ourselves because we can't stick together.  And, the Big Man knows it.  ... or Woman.   ::)

« Reply #40 on: August 13, 2009, 10:49 »
0
I hadnt want to post here because i had the feeling I'd missed something (especially seeing how many times we were told that it was all ok) (as it turns out I had missed the price increase) and basically didnt want to be seen to jumping around if i had :). So I need to redo the figures, which depends on the package that customers buy etc. The price increase is 167% increase for small packages (I assume 10 credits - havent looked) but varies depending on the packages bought, so the average package bought may vary and hopefully there will a sales increase and the implementation is going to be staggered


I know that I as a buyer buy less if product is more expensive.. so i have my doubt the new price scheme will deliver more sales.

But, only time will tell... ...  ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

Patrick H.

« Reply #41 on: August 13, 2009, 11:05 »
0
there is a price increase that goes with it, so will hopefully offset the loss.

So, we should be ok that we get the same money, while DT gets the big bite of the credit price increase?

I am in this business, to earn more every month. If I wanted to be even, month after month, I would go and work for a traditional company.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2009, 11:22 by cidepix »

grp_photo

« Reply #42 on: August 13, 2009, 11:34 »
0
To make DT sellable it must be more profitable looks pretty normal to me. AFAIK DT is the last privately owned agency (Neither IS,SS or StockXpert are belonging anymore to their founders, I'm not sure about the actual state of FT). He wouldn't get 50mill like B.Livingstone but I guess to achieve a few millions after a few tweaks/contributorscrews should be no problem.

« Reply #43 on: August 13, 2009, 12:18 »
0
So, we should be ok that we get the same money, while DT gets the big bite of the credit price increase?

I am in this business, to earn more every month. If I wanted to be even, month after month, I would go and work for a traditional company.

I think the point is that supposedly they are going to reinvest some of that money in advertising to bring in new buyers. Look at istock. They have fairly high prices in the micros and they pay a low percentage, but they advertise like crazy. I see a ton of istock ads when I'm surfing the web. Am I happy about the change? No, but if I can lose 20% now so I can gain 60% in the future, I'd do it. Will it work out? Who knows?

« Reply #44 on: August 13, 2009, 12:24 »
0
I have a lot of faith in DT, but this looks very bad at first glance.  I find the drop to 30% very concerning, but Achillies "oops" comments intriguing.  It sounds like the levels will be changing fairly dramatically, if a level II is already 5 sales and it will be even lower hopefully the higher levels will be much lower as well.  

Most seem to agree that the change in subscription structure is no big deal, but I think it may be a very big deal.

Although microstock has matured, the subs model is still very young and I really do think it has to evolve or these agencies will starve.  First, there was Shutterstock.  Then one by one the competitors had to adapt or lose customers to SS.  For the most part, the agencies entered the subs market within a few months of each other desperate not to lose their share of the market.  Istock's late entry to subs seemed to be more strategically planned, thank god it wasn't as dumb as these others.  Now that the micros have experienced that subs are indeed what major buyers want, it is the time to make subs more profitable.  

If I remember correctly, was DT not the first micro to offer subs?  Now they are the first (after Istock's late entry) to make the first big change to the platform, and they are doing exactly what many of us have whined for by making subs a credit method based on size.  In my opinion, the prices are still too low - but perhaps next year at this time we will see improvement.  Lets see how long before other micros follow Dreamstime's changes.  I know FT just introduced it's premium program, but that site is so greedy, if there is more money to be made, they will definitely follow.

« Reply #45 on: August 13, 2009, 13:01 »
0
I think the point is that supposedly they are going to reinvest some of that money in advertising to bring in new buyers. Look at istock. They have fairly high prices in the micros and they pay a low percentage, but they advertise like crazy. I see a ton of istock ads when I'm surfing the web. Am I happy about the change? No, but if I can lose 20% now so I can gain 60% in the future, I'd do it. Will it work out? Who knows?

I doubt they will spend more than 1/3 of that money for advertising. This is only fair if they put all of it on advertising. Otherwise I am not going to find kind words for getting screwed.

We are getting screwed. This is like saying "thank you" to someone who slaps you in the face.

« Reply #46 on: August 13, 2009, 13:37 »
0
DIVIDE AND CONQUER!

It's working AGAIN!  Why are we fighting amongst ourselves?  Don't you see what happened at iStock?  Can't you see Dreamstime doing exactly the same thing.  Get the contributors fighting amongst themselves.  Make it better for some by lowering rates for others.  The "some" will join you in shouting down the "others."  Then... lower the boom on the "some."

I wonder how long exclusives at iStock will be smiling?  Maybe six months; maybe a year.  Will it be until iStock comes up with a way to divide the exclusives into smaller groups?  Is that the purpose of Vetta?  I'm sure they have the plan in place.  None of this is Knee Jerk.  It is all planned into the future ... five year plans; ten year plans.  We are killing ourselves because we can't stick together.  And, the Big Man knows it.  ... or Woman.   ::)

They already have - it's why I left exclusivity there.

lisafx

« Reply #47 on: August 13, 2009, 14:01 »
0
Why would dreamstime pay us more than %30 while we are obviously OK with fotolia screwing us?  :)

Interesting to see how many losers are burning valuable oxygen in the world.

Thanks to microstock, I am getting a priceless life experience on how to screw people and make them say "thank you" at the same time!


Remembering back to the Fotolia royalty drop, I don't remember too many folks being okay with it.  And I sure didn't see people saying "thank you" for it.

I don't see anyone jumping for joy over this change at DT either.

The issue isn't really whether we like having our royalties cut, but what we can do about it, which at the moment appears to be: not much.  To pull all photos from a good earning site is much more damaging to the individual contributor than to the agency. 

I think this sense of helplessness combined with a genuine feeling of good will that Dreamstime has earned over the years is the reason people are mostly taking a wait and see attitude. 

« Reply #48 on: August 13, 2009, 14:15 »
0
To pull all photos from a good earning site is much more damaging to the individual contributor than to the agency. 

We have to find a way of doing this in an organized way.

Only once. That's how many times we need to succeed. If we manage to sink one agency, (preferably fotolia) the rest will come to us offering %70- 80 percent commission.

The way we are unorganized troops, they will keep getting rich, like they wouldn't be rich enough paying us %70.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #49 on: August 13, 2009, 15:03 »
0
Why would dreamstime pay us more than %30 while we are obviously OK with fotolia screwing us?  :)

Interesting to see how many losers are burning valuable oxygen in the world.

Thanks to microstock, I am getting a priceless life experience on how to screw people and make them say "thank you" at the same time!


Remembering back to the Fotolia royalty drop, I don't remember too many folks being okay with it.  And I sure didn't see people saying "thank you" for it.

I don't see anyone jumping for joy over this change at DT either.

The issue isn't really whether we like having our royalties cut, but what we can do about it, which at the moment appears to be: not much.  To pull all photos from a good earning site is much more damaging to the individual contributor than to the agency. 

I think this sense of helplessness combined with a genuine feeling of good will that Dreamstime has earned over the years is the reason people are mostly taking a wait and see attitude. 

I don't know what to do.  You are absolutely right about that sense of helplessness, Lisa. 
@cidepix ... I hear you, mate, but we do not have a legal leg to stand on.  It would have to be something like the Opt Out revolution at iStock.

I am thinking of starting a "disable" campaign.  I am only $3.20 from my very first payout .... but ... if others will promise to follow, I will start disabling my 227 images.

It is good to have you on the same page, Lisa.  Godfer, with a nice folio, has already jumped ship.  I tried to rationalize that and can only figure that she is saved by so many Level 5 images.  Maybe that was the DT enticement to sway the Big Players?

Anyway... is there enough of us willing to start disabling images?



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
10 Replies
5824 Views
Last post October 18, 2007, 19:38
by epixx
84 Replies
19585 Views
Last post October 07, 2011, 07:32
by sam100
13 Replies
5292 Views
Last post November 19, 2011, 21:33
by pancaketom
4 Replies
2822 Views
Last post February 11, 2017, 05:17
by outoftheblue
35 Replies
10696 Views
Last post September 21, 2017, 02:48
by namussi

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle