MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Royalties, subscriptions and SR-EL update on dreamstime  (Read 34518 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: August 12, 2009, 10:16 »
0
Changes to Royalties, subscriptions and SR-EL are coming on DT.  More details can be found in the following thread:

http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_18104


« Reply #1 on: August 12, 2009, 10:24 »
0


This is a big deal for subs.  Maybe the others will follow soon. 

Are we not getting screwed once again with a drop in commissions though?

WarrenPrice

« Reply #2 on: August 12, 2009, 10:29 »
+1
Of course we are getting screwed.  When was the last time a CHANGE benefited a contributor?

One odd thing I noticed ... on the SR-EL, the more times it has sold the more expensive it becomes.  Does that make sense?  You pay more for an image that has sold 25 times ... with God only knows how many reproductions ... and it costs you more to have "all rights?"  ??????

« Reply #3 on: August 12, 2009, 10:54 »
0
In DT particularly, except for the forced opt-in in subs, there have not been any change that was detrimental to us, am I wrong?

I'm happy to see improvements in subs, but very upset about the reduction in credit comissions - up to 60%!  I think not even FT was so aggressive, although it is true DT started in a higher level.  And the disappointing thing is that this (FT's 30-40% commission, IS's 20%) will be used as a justification for the reduction. 

« Reply #4 on: August 12, 2009, 11:36 »
0
They are really pushing people to become IS exclusives.

lisafx

« Reply #5 on: August 12, 2009, 11:38 »
0
Wow, very disappointing.  Thanks for posting this py.  

News just seems to keep getting worse in micro.  It's not surprising that once Fotolia managed to lower commissions the other sites would follow suit.

I have always been one of the biggest cheerleaders for Dreamstime, but there is very little here to feel positive about.  The high royalties for PPD sales has been the only thing compensating for the rising number of sub sales.   Now with those royalties slashed on the majority of files I don't see how my income from DT can possibly sustain itself.  

They have been a consistent 2nd tier earner for me (behind istock) along with FOT and SS.  Now it is likely they will join BigStock, StockXpert, and 123 on my third tier.

So sad  :'(

I wonder if IS will get any new exclusives as a result of this deal?  

(freedom, I notice you posted the same thought while I was typing :) )

« Reply #6 on: August 12, 2009, 11:57 »
0
I'm not complaining...because I'm exclusive :)

sorry to hear another agency is trying to cut into that already nicely cut up pie

« Reply #7 on: August 12, 2009, 12:29 »
0
I have stopped uploading because they suddenly started rejecting more of my photos.  It isn't the quickest site to upload to.  How will this motivate me to upload more?  I am going to spend more time building my portfolio on alamy, they pay a decent commission and higher prices than most of the microstock sites. 

So are DT now going to spend more on marketing or are they going to keep the extra money?  I haven't seen an increase in sales since FT lowered our commissions.  Unfortunately I need my microstock earnings or I would leave the sites that cut commissions.

We should all get behind zymmetrical, as they are paying 70% commissions.  If they can do it with fairly low sales, the big 6 sites should all pay at least 50% and more to exclusives.

« Reply #8 on: August 12, 2009, 13:00 »
0
this happens over and over

high commissions up front to attact those with lots of time to waste to upload there, cut down later to increase the bottom line.  that never changes.  not much fun in the end

« Reply #9 on: August 12, 2009, 13:13 »
0
More rejections here too, :( photos that I was sure would be accepted like objects isolated on white.

Also got a rejection notice for a "too many in same series" when it was the only photo in the series. The rejections don't even make sense.

« Reply #10 on: August 12, 2009, 13:22 »
0
From DT forum:

Achilles said:

   Don't rush to say it's a big disappointment just because you check the difference for level 1 files. We think that this system rewards older members who provide quality. Check the Excel archives and see how many level 2-5 files you had one year ago and how many you have today. Then see how many downloads you have from those files. You shouldn't count files but downloads.

Second, remember how many downloads were required several years ago for a file to become level 2: 100! Only 5 downloads are required today and there will be less in the future (oops). Remember my previous statements where I was explaining how subscriptions play an active role within our pricing system. Your patience paid off and these count as extra downloads now, while helping them achieve the next level.

Of course that your feedback will be taken into account. We think the system is fair already and we correlate it with our future credits 2009 launch (oops again). Dreamstime is still growing and there are many more things to come. Don't expect to earn a fortune over night and don't think you will lose either. As you can see above, we continue to provide the highest royalties and we'll continue to take care of our contributors.

lisafx

« Reply #11 on: August 12, 2009, 14:08 »
0
Yeah, those too "oops" statements may be the actual silver lining.   Let's keep our fingers crossed this turns out okay. 

WarrenPrice

« Reply #12 on: August 12, 2009, 15:20 »
0
In DT particularly, except for the forced opt-in in subs, there have not been any change that was detrimental to us, am I wrong?

I'm happy to see improvements in subs, but very upset about the reduction in credit comissions - up to 60%!  I think not even FT was so aggressive, although it is true DT started in a higher level.  And the disappointing thing is that this (FT's 30-40% commission, IS's 20%) will be used as a justification for the reduction. 

Pardon the cynacism, Adalaide.  I am old, cranky and very disillusioned with the microstock business.  Perhaps you are right but, I've seen no changes in my first year that actually improved conditions for me as a photographer.

Don't give up on me.  I will always remember that you used your credits to encourage me.   :-X

« Reply #13 on: August 12, 2009, 15:35 »
0
Wow! That is really crap-tacular. Hopefully, their credit increase will offset that a little. I ran some rough numbers based on July and it looks like a decrease of 30% for me. Who knows how it will actually work out, but it doesn't look good.

Xalanx

« Reply #14 on: August 12, 2009, 15:56 »
0
Didn't you all learned during the last years that ANYTHING can happen in microstock? Every single agency made a move that looked (and many times was) outrageous to the contributors. WHAT difference made the unpleased choir from MSG or anywhere else? None, zero. It's gonna be the same this time too. Either you agree or not, this is how the things are, it's not your agency, you can't change rules, you either accept them or not - and then leave. It's as simple as that. Nobody would give a *, no matter how big you are in stock business (see Bobby Deal / Fotolia case).

We can only adapt, people. That's all. Getting emotional will lead you nowhere. The agencies (with 1-2 exceptions) don't care what you'll do or think.

« Reply #15 on: August 12, 2009, 16:02 »
0
high commissions up front to attact those with lots of time to waste to upload there, cut down later to increase the bottom line.  that never changes. 
Well, their 50% commission had been on for years, so it is not like they had just done it to attract us...

« Reply #16 on: August 12, 2009, 16:04 »
0
Either you agree or not, this is how the things are, it's not your agency, you can't change rules, you either accept them or not - and then leave.
There have been some mild changes in the past - FT itself had to change back part of the level changes they had first imposed and the subs commission increased. Maybe insignificantly, but it changed. Maybe they had counted on this from the start, we can not tell.

Xalanx

« Reply #17 on: August 12, 2009, 16:09 »
0
Either you agree or not, this is how the things are, it's not your agency, you can't change rules, you either accept them or not - and then leave.
There have been some mild changes in the past - FT itself had to change back part of the level changes they had first imposed and the subs commission increased. Maybe insignificantly, but it changed. Maybe they had counted on this from the start, we can not tell.

Yes, insignificantly. I didn't counted those. When I say fotolia I can only think of the latest comission drop.

« Reply #18 on: August 12, 2009, 16:20 »
0
When I say fotolia I can only think of the latest comission drop.
About which I was very skeptic at first, but indeed proved positive in earnings and RPD.  Not that I liked the reduction...

Xalanx

« Reply #19 on: August 12, 2009, 16:27 »
0
When I say fotolia I can only think of the latest comission drop.
About which I was very skeptic at first, but indeed proved positive in earnings and RPD.  Not that I liked the reduction...

I'm happy for you. For the vast majority, the reduction wasn't that positive. Me included.

I am not commenting directly the math behind DT's latest move, however I am having a wild guess that it's not gonna be good for us, just the same as their change in search engine affected a lot of us quite badly, not so long ago.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #20 on: August 12, 2009, 16:30 »
0
When I say fotolia I can only think of the latest comission drop.
About which I was very skeptic at first, but indeed proved positive in earnings and RPD.  Not that I liked the reduction...

I left!  But it was more about their heavy-handed attitude than the change itself.

« Reply #21 on: August 12, 2009, 16:39 »
0
When I say fotolia I can only think of the latest comission drop.
About which I was very skeptic at first, but indeed proved positive in earnings and RPD.  Not that I liked the reduction...
I didn't like the reduction either, but it seems like earnings have gone up lately for me too.

« Reply #22 on: August 12, 2009, 18:02 »
0
When I say fotolia I can only think of the latest comission drop.
About which I was very skeptic at first, but indeed proved positive in earnings and RPD.  Not that I liked the reduction...
I didn't like the reduction either, but it seems like earnings have gone up lately for me too.

It's true that the sales are picking up. However, the increase will soon be offset by the price and percentage deceases. Although my port is growing, my income has not, comparing to 2007 and 2008
« Last Edit: August 12, 2009, 18:49 by Freedom »

lisafx

« Reply #23 on: August 12, 2009, 18:28 »
0
Xalanx has a point that the trend definitely seems to be against contributors interests. 

But I still think it is worth discussing here.  Members of this group have managed to band together to get some positive changes or at least make improvements in the worst changes the sites have tried to put over on us. 

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. 

WarrenPrice

« Reply #24 on: August 12, 2009, 19:06 »
0
It is the cut in "exclusive images" that annoys me most.  Is there some retardent to removing images from exclusivity? 

If they are not of any special value to DT, I am thinking it might be time to make Cutcaster the recipient of my Exclusive images.  At least there you get paid for them as an exclusives ... if you can only get Cutcaster started selling.   :(

« 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?


WarrenPrice

« Reply #50 on: August 13, 2009, 15:08 »
0
This from Achille

Honestly, I think that you either need to be exclusive with us or direct your critique somewhere else.


Every Agency is trying make all contributors Exclusive. 

« Reply #51 on: August 13, 2009, 15:49 »
0
From DT forum:

Achilles said:

Don't rush to say it's a big disappointment just because you check the difference for level 1 files. We think that this system rewards older members who provide quality. Check the Excel archives and see how many level 2-5 files you had one year ago and how many you have today. Then see how many downloads you have from those files. You shouldn't count files but downloads.

I do not contribute to DT so this is an observation, why do they have to reward older members, why do IS have canisters, why does SS have different rates, it is all an excuse to pay new contributors less, I have heard the excuse that new contributors assets cost more to get online because of rejections but sourcing a product is a part of the cost to running any business and an image is worth what a buyer will pay.  

I like Alamy each image stands alone and are almost equal in the search, all artists get the same 60% share of a sale, that is the way it should be, the microstock Customers get discounts for buying more credits not for how long they have been buying images, the image sells at the same rate regardless of the photographers percentage.

It is going from a community base where all are equal to a tiered system and we are seeing the elitism and splits that was the downfall of the traditional services.

See a lawyer, but it is written into every contract that you have agreed to, they have the right to change prices, you have the right to close your accounts and walk away and contribute to other agencies, that is a choice you have to make.

B.T.W.
How can they expect anyone go exclusive with an agency that changes photographers payments without any consultation, Alamy have the same terms but give 45 days notice to contributors, which has lead to feedback and a change of policy before, maybe some of the big websites need to do what they are meant to do, that is to facilitate the transaction of your asset to the buyer and not dictate, we are suppliers and also customers that they have to sell thier service to as they are not buying our assets only providing a service.  

David  :(
« Last Edit: August 13, 2009, 15:52 by Adeptris »

« Reply #52 on: August 13, 2009, 15:51 »
0
Dopple post  ::)

« Reply #53 on: August 13, 2009, 16:21 »
0
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.

Everyone including me were upset, but the maths showed a positive balance, with a higher RPD.  I haven't done this math lately, but on the first 3 months it meant 10-15% more for me, and May was my best month excluding EL sales.

But in DT's case, the previous credit price increase did not raise my RPD enough to compensate the loss I'm going to have now (20-40% as most images are level 1-3).  I hope I am wrong as I was in FT, but I'm not so sure.

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

The exclusives are all saying "Great!"   :D

lisafx

« Reply #54 on: August 13, 2009, 18:29 »
0


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

The exclusives are all saying "Great!"   :D

Yeah, good point.  :)

For the life of me I can't understand why exclusives at any site are happy to see conditions in micro deteriorate for anyone.  I guess they just don't realize they are ultimately as vulnerable as the rest of us.

I do feel bad for Achilles and DT getting all this heat, frankly.  I think Phil is correct that a lot of the anger is a reaction to the general trend of cutting royalties (and how badly it has been handled elsewhere), rather than to Dreamstime specifically.  First Alamy, then Fotolia, now Dreamstime. 

To be fair to DT, they have probably been at a competitive disadvantage by offering the highest royalties.   From their perspective they must have felt they had to do this. 

At least they announced it well in advance and timed it with the raise in prices to minimize the negative affects.  Not to mention Achilles is in the forums taking questions himself and dealing with contributor concerns.  It is a vast improvement over the poor communication on other sites.

« Reply #55 on: August 13, 2009, 18:44 »
0
At least they announced it well in advance and timed it with the raise in prices to minimize the negative affects.  Not to mention Achilles is in the forums taking questions himself and dealing with contributor concerns.  It is a vast improvement over the poor communication on other sites.

This is a good aspect of DT.  I do hope they are right, although I'm not quite optimistic.

« Reply #56 on: August 13, 2009, 20:42 »
0
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.

It seems strange to me to hear all of the Fotolia-bashing. Yes, they lowered commissions, but they are still my TOP EARNER! More than IS. More than DT. More than SS. EVERY SINGLE MONTH.

« Reply #57 on: August 13, 2009, 21:41 »
0
It seems strange to me to hear all of the Fotolia-bashing. Yes, they lowered commissions, but they are still my TOP EARNER! More than IS. More than DT. More than SS. EVERY SINGLE MONTH.

Maybe because your experience isn't one the rest of us share?  Fotolia is consistently in third or fourth place for me.  Except this month, where they're in seventh place thanks to a very large chargeback from an EL sale last month.

As you might put it, they've failed to be my TOP EARNER.  EVERY SINGLE MONTH.

« Reply #58 on: August 13, 2009, 22:04 »
0
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.

It seems strange to me to hear all of the Fotolia-bashing. Yes, they lowered commissions, but they are still my TOP EARNER! More than IS. More than DT. More than SS. EVERY SINGLE MONTH.

my earnings were rising with them every month, almost made it be my 2nd earner but earnings with them dropped around when they lowered commissions, now they are almost back up to what they were. sat in 3rd place consistently, be a while before they are 2nd

WarrenPrice

« Reply #59 on: August 14, 2009, 15:24 »
0
If you are not exclusive but have exclusive images at Dreamstime, you are taking a severe cut on those images.  In my opinion, there is no longer a reason to give Dreamstime exclusive rights to an image. 

All exclusive images at Dreamstime can only be removed from exclusivity by writing to admin.  You must wait 30 days to have those images removed.  I have sent my notification.  Will others join me in expressing our objections in a meaningful way?


« Reply #60 on: August 15, 2009, 12:15 »
0
I do this Microstock thing for 3 years now.
One observation, is getting harder and harder, the quality standards increase so much, well this is a good thing I guess, the rejections are higher, now seems DT wants to decrese the percentage for the contributors, FT did some crap some time ago, SS start taking on US sales 30% taxes........where all this will end up for the contributor ?
I wont start now complaining and praise the contributor, but I never saw anything good from all this changes, I just know I have more pictures, better quality, and the sales did not increse accordingly.
I think everybody should look from a  productivity point of view, at the end of the day it all thats matter and compare with 2008 that is way down.
Flip that $1 images is a tough market, and will get harder as the libraries increase databases, the agencies at leaset the big 6 will make money, the buyers are happy for the bargains they get, you will work your bumb off forever unless something changes.
I realised in todays market you can not make it alone, you need to get more people to work for you to do actually something.

This is way to long,
 Ta,ta

WarrenPrice

« Reply #61 on: August 15, 2009, 14:37 »
0
I do this Microstock thing for 3 years now.
One observation, is getting harder and harder, the quality standards increase so much, well this is a good thing I guess, the rejections are higher, now seems DT wants to decrese the percentage for the contributors, FT did some crap some time ago, SS start taking on US sales 30% taxes........where all this will end up for the contributor ?
I wont start now complaining and praise the contributor, but I never saw anything good from all this changes, I just know I have more pictures, better quality, and the sales did not increse accordingly.
I think everybody should look from a  productivity point of view, at the end of the day it all thats matter and compare with 2008 that is way down.
Flip that $1 images is a tough market, and will get harder as the libraries increase databases, the agencies at leaset the big 6 will make money, the buyers are happy for the bargains they get, you will work your bumb off forever unless something changes.
I realised in todays market you can not make it alone, you need to get more people to work for you to do actually something.

This is way to long,
 Ta,ta

Excellent point.  I think that is what makes me a hobbiest.  I am old, set in my ways, and don't want any responsibility.  Hope you find some good employees.   8)

lisafx

« Reply #62 on: August 15, 2009, 15:30 »
0


Excellent point.  I think that is what makes me a hobbiest.  I am old, set in my ways, and don't want any responsibility.  Hope you find some good employees.   8)

I don't think more employees is the way to go.  If I had to split my income among employees I would end up netting less than I do now, even if you factor in the likely raise in productivity. 

« Reply #63 on: August 17, 2009, 12:39 »
0
Hardly good news and this from the Agency that ties you in for six months

I am surprised there have not been more protests about this in their Forum, I for one will be uploading with less vigor and concentrating my efforts elswhere. Despite the spin (sub increase on higher level Files will not come close to compensating for me) it will still result in a substantial financial loss for most Contributers other than perhaps Exclusives.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #64 on: August 17, 2009, 13:18 »
0
Hardly good news and this from the Agency that ties you in for six months

I am surprised there have not been more protests about this in their Forum, I for one will be uploading with less vigor and concentrating my efforts elswhere. Despite the spin (sub increase on higher level Files will not come close to compensating for me) it will still result in a substantial financial loss for most Contributers other than perhaps Exclusives.

Negative comments on the DT Forum are not well received, iclick.  DT is not quite as defensive as FT but do not miss it by much.  Using my real name helps me be recognized by clients but ... I am also visible to the agencies.  I sometimes wish I had chosen to use a variety of aliases.   :(

« Reply #65 on: August 18, 2009, 11:55 »
0
Update by Achilles from DT forum:

Quote
Here are the levels as they are to be launched soon:
Non exclusive images:
level 1: 40%
level 2: 42.5%
level 3: 45%
level 4: 47.5%
level 5: 50%

Exclusive images from non exclusive contributors (+15%):
level 1: 46%
level 2: 48.88%
level 3: 51.75%
level 4: 54.63%
level 5: 57.5%

Exclusive contributors: no change, as announced.
SR-EL recommended prices: change as announced.

Subscriptions are updated as announced in the first post:
level 1: 1 download
level 2: 1 downloads
level 3: 2 downloads
level 4: 2 downloads
level 5: 3 downloads

These will consume the subscription's downloads as above (+royalties) but will not accelerate higher levels. There is significant difference in quality for a level 2 image compared to level 5.

On our next price update, the additional format will cost double the price of a regular subscription download:
level 1: 2 downloads, level 2: 4 downloads, level 3: 4 downloads, level 4: 6 downloads, level 5: 6 downloads
This is a significant price update and can't be included at this stage, due to its impact on buyers.


« Reply #66 on: August 18, 2009, 12:05 »
0
That looks better.  Perhaps I will start uploading again now.

« Reply #67 on: August 18, 2009, 12:17 »
0
Just read a few pages back in the DT forum and this is just an interim step to the 30% royalties for level 1 images, so I am still annoyed and wont be uploading again.  If they spend more on advertising and increase sales, I might change my mind but for now 30% seems far too low for the money I am making and the time it takes to upload there.

« Reply #68 on: August 18, 2009, 12:25 »
0
Okay, they get more money to spend on marketing and advertising. What is that good for? Dreamstime may increase their market share a bit, but that will most likely to decrease our earnings from other sites.

This is like moving money from one pocket to another (and loosing some of it during it)  :-\
« Last Edit: August 18, 2009, 12:28 by Perry »

« Reply #69 on: August 18, 2009, 12:28 »
0
Just read a few pages back in the DT forum and this is just an interim step to the 30% royalties for level 1 images, so I am still annoyed and wont be uploading again.  If they spend more on advertising and increase sales, I might change my mind but for now 30% seems far too low for the money I am making and the time it takes to upload there.

You're missing the point surely? They need to reduce royalties slightly in order to spend more on marketing and compete with all the other major players who have always paid us much smaller commissions.

They've always been as generous as they could be (probably too generous for too long in such a competitive marketplace) and at least they have the decency to tell us what's going on, give us notice of the changes and discuss our questions on the forum __ quite unlike some other agencies.

« Reply #70 on: August 18, 2009, 12:37 »
0
Just read a few pages back in the DT forum and this is just an interim step to the 30% royalties for level 1 images, so I am still annoyed and wont be uploading again.  If they spend more on advertising and increase sales, I might change my mind but for now 30% seems far too low for the money I am making and the time it takes to upload there.

You're missing the point surely? They need to reduce royalties slightly in order to spend more on marketing and compete with all the other major players who have always paid us much smaller commissions.

They've always been as generous as they could be (probably too generous for too long in such a competitive marketplace) and at least they have the decency to tell us what's going on, give us notice of the changes and discuss our questions on the forum __ quite unlike some other agencies.
The problem is, I make much less with DT than istock and SS.  It takes me longer to upload there than SS, as they are more fussy with keywords and they reject a lot more.  istock takes even longer to upload to and pay me less commission but I earn over 3x more there.  FT have lowered their commissions but at least I will one day hit the higher levels and can raise my prices.  FT is the highest earning site for some of the big contributors.

If DT do spend more on advertising and my earnings go up, I might accept the commission cut but for now I will wait and see what happens.

lisafx

« Reply #71 on: August 18, 2009, 14:03 »
0


They've always been as generous as they could be (probably too generous for too long in such a competitive marketplace) and at least they have the decency to tell us what's going on, give us notice of the changes and discuss our questions on the forum __ quite unlike some other agencies.

Totally agree with this ^^. 

Nobody likes a commission drop, but it is pretty obvious why Dreamstime felt they had to do this, and they have handled it in a much more fair and considerate way than any of the other agencies who have done similar.

« Reply #72 on: August 18, 2009, 17:02 »
0
I understand this is a first step, but not necessarily they will go to the lower step.  Did I get it wrong?

« Reply #73 on: August 18, 2009, 17:07 »
0
Well, one of my sub sales today was 70 cents which I should be happy for.  I do think subs prices should be based on sizes before popularity though. 

« Reply #74 on: August 18, 2009, 17:22 »
0
I understand this is a first step, but not necessarily they will go to the lower step.  Did I get it wrong?
I think so, they are going to 30% for level 1 images.

« Reply #75 on: August 18, 2009, 17:33 »
0
From Achilles in the thread, page 6:
Quote
We will not reduce the royalties from 50% to 30% instantly. Instead, we will reduce it in separate stages, with 5-10% per decrease, depending on several factors. The most important one is that we will monitor the revenue paid to most photographers (overall and average) and will proceed with the changes only when these parameters increase, probably on a month to month basis. 

So I understand they will make this first step and, according to what happens, they may even stop there. It's no guarantee, but it's a second chance.  It is still a significant reduction (up to 20%), but we will see.

« Reply #76 on: September 12, 2009, 11:47 »
0
Dragging up an old(ish) thread here, but I just had my first 70 cent subscription sale on DT for a level III file.  I forgot that the increase was that much. 

« Reply #77 on: September 12, 2009, 14:10 »
0
I had one too this week.  But on the other hand, 100% of my few sales in DT this month were subs.  :'(

« Reply #78 on: September 21, 2009, 04:27 »
0
I had a different "first" last week:
The first time that a credit sale (1 credit for an extrasmall size) brought in less than a sub. Only 32 cents...  >:(

« Reply #79 on: September 21, 2009, 08:38 »
0
I've had some for 1.05$ on level 5 files.

Dragging up an old(ish) thread here, but I just had my first 70 cent subscription sale on DT for a level III file.  I forgot that the increase was that much. 

WarrenPrice

« Reply #80 on: September 21, 2009, 09:22 »
0
I've had some for 1.05$ on level 5 files.

Dragging up an old(ish) thread here, but I just had my first 70 cent subscription sale on DT for a level III file.  I forgot that the increase was that much. 

seventy cents for a level 3 image?  Is that good?

« Reply #81 on: September 21, 2009, 09:27 »
0
(Not that I'm a fan of subs, but...)
For a sub, yes 70 is good compared to what I get with my ranking at
-  StockXpert 30
-  FT 32 & 36
-  SS 33
-  123 36


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
10 Replies
5837 Views
Last post October 18, 2007, 19:38
by epixx
84 Replies
19605 Views
Last post October 07, 2011, 07:32
by sam100
13 Replies
5301 Views
Last post November 19, 2011, 21:33
by pancaketom
4 Replies
2824 Views
Last post February 11, 2017, 05:17
by outoftheblue
35 Replies
10710 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