MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Why we should remove our Dreamstime affiliate links  (Read 20288 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #25 on: July 15, 2012, 09:58 »
0
Serban just made a response on Lee's blog here
http://www.microstockdiaries.com/why-i-removed-my-dreamstime-referral-links.html#comment-216679


Was the comment removed, Tyler?  I'm not seeing anything from Serban.


lisafx

« Reply #26 on: July 15, 2012, 10:39 »
0
Serban just made a response on Lee's blog here
http://www.microstockdiaries.com/why-i-removed-my-dreamstime-referral-links.html#comment-216679


Was the comment removed, Tyler?  I'm not seeing anything from Serban.


Nope.  Me either. 

KB

« Reply #27 on: July 15, 2012, 10:42 »
0
Serban just made a response on Lee's blog here
http://www.microstockdiaries.com/why-i-removed-my-dreamstime-referral-links.html#comment-216679


Was the comment removed, Tyler?  I'm not seeing anything from Serban.


Nope.  Me either. 


That's strange, because I sure do (there's 3 of them, along with 3 responses from Lee). I'm using FF 10 (I refuse to upgrade!).

WarrenPrice

« Reply #28 on: July 15, 2012, 10:50 »
0
Serban just made a response on Lee's blog here
http://www.microstockdiaries.com/why-i-removed-my-dreamstime-referral-links.html#comment-216679


Was the comment removed, Tyler?  I'm not seeing anything from Serban.


Nope.  Me either. 


That's strange, because I sure do (there's 3 of them, along with 3 responses from Lee). I'm using FF 10 (I refuse to upgrade!).


Was there one from Serban?  I'm seeing responses; just none from Serban.
 

« Reply #29 on: July 15, 2012, 10:57 »
0
Serban just made a response on Lee's blog here
http://www.microstockdiaries.com/why-i-removed-my-dreamstime-referral-links.html#comment-216679


Was the comment removed, Tyler?  I'm not seeing anything from Serban.


I didn't see them either when I fist looked at it, then I refreshed my browser and they were there. Interesting reply, but I think I'm more confused now.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #30 on: July 15, 2012, 11:09 »
0
^^Thanks, cthoman; refreshing solved the problem

« Reply #31 on: July 15, 2012, 11:11 »
0
Serban just made a response on Lee's blog here
http://www.microstockdiaries.com/why-i-removed-my-dreamstime-referral-links.html#comment-216679


I have been having problems looking at comments there, already spoken to Lee but sometimes they show up other not, this time I cannot see them

grafix04

« Reply #32 on: July 15, 2012, 12:04 »
0
I distinctly remember there being a thread in the forums a while ago about contributor's royalties being reduced when their images were referred by other contributors or affiliates.  It's no surprise that the thread is now gone but I clearly remember reading it and people kicking up a fuss.  They complained that the royalties should never be reduced because marketing costs should come out of DT's cut from the sale of the image, therefore DT should be the one that wears the cost instead of the contributor.  Serban then came into the thread saying that this was a recent change they made and that they should have been reducing the royalty from the contributor all along.  Contributor's weren't happy about it.

Does anyone else remember this?

grafix04

« Reply #33 on: July 15, 2012, 12:10 »
0
^ Looks like it was around February this year.

In general I would say that microstock prices aren't going down. What is going down is artists commissions. The difference goes to the agency.

It is also a lot harder to tell what exactly we get and what the sale was for these days. For example we recently discovered that DT is taking a cut out of our take to pay referrals. We only found this out because it was in subs which we thought we knew the minimum price for. Does that happen with regular sales too? We have no real way of knowing, but probably. This could be another 20 or 30% out of our pocket from time to time.

It would be illuminating if all the sites posted the sale price and our take like they do at PD and Alamy.

Do the math for your monthly income at IS - and be horrified by how big their take is in comparison.

Despite all the lower royalties I have managed a number of BME's in the last 6 months, so despite that I am making the most I have (with the largest port I've ever had).


http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/the-stock-market-hits-a-record-low-(pun-intended)/msg244332/#msg244332


EDIT:

Okay, I found it.  It was November 2011 when they corrected the 'mistake'.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/dreamstime-com/dt-subs-33c/msg236121/#msg236121

http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_29407
« Last Edit: July 15, 2012, 12:20 by grafix04 »

« Reply #34 on: July 15, 2012, 13:30 »
0
And in that thread it said that a referral fee comes off the top whan a sale is from a referral but that referred contributors don't have a cut due to the % paid to the referrer.  It would be hard in conscience to refer someone if that's changed now.

"Your earnings are not lower when you refer someone else. We still cover the earnings sent to the photographers you refer. If that is your point. Not covering them would mean that these photographers will always earn less. So this is not about referring other contributors.



It is about people referring buyers and getting a share for each of their purchases.

That share is subtracted from the price of whatever plan they choose: credits or subscriptions. Once that share is removed, the remaining is split between the contributor and agency as per our royalties graph.



Make sure you make the difference between the users you refer vs. the users referred by other persons. Once you refer a user you receive a share of his purchases or sales. Once a user that is referred by someone else will download from you, the share awarded to that someone else will be taken into account. "

« Reply #35 on: July 15, 2012, 13:43 »
0
And in that thread it said that a referral fee comes off the top whan a sale is from a referral but that referred contributors don't have a cut due to the % paid to the referrer.  It would be hard in conscience to refer someone if that's changed now.

"Your earnings are not lower when you refer someone else. We still cover the earnings sent to the photographers you refer. If that is your point. Not covering them would mean that these photographers will always earn less. So this is not about referring other contributors.



It is about people referring buyers and getting a share for each of their purchases.

That share is subtracted from the price of whatever plan they choose: credits or subscriptions. Once that share is removed, the remaining is split between the contributor and agency as per our royalties graph.



Make sure you make the difference between the users you refer vs. the users referred by other persons. Once you refer a user you receive a share of his purchases or sales. Once a user that is referred by someone else will download from you, the share awarded to that someone else will be taken into account. "


Yeah, that's what Serban also said in Lee's post.  It seems like that is how it was working but that wasn't clear at all on the commissions overview page.

However ... even though it is better than it sounded at first, I'm still not a big fan of sharing the cost of referring a contributer to Dreamstime.  I still feel it should be an advertising expensive covered by dreamstime.  Not an expense shared with the photographer.

« Reply #36 on: July 15, 2012, 13:44 »
0
^ Looks like it was around February this year.

In general I would say that microstock prices aren't going down. What is going down is artists commissions. The difference goes to the agency.

It is also a lot harder to tell what exactly we get and what the sale was for these days. For example we recently discovered that DT is taking a cut out of our take to pay referrals. We only found this out because it was in subs which we thought we knew the minimum price for. Does that happen with regular sales too? We have no real way of knowing, but probably. This could be another 20 or 30% out of our pocket from time to time.

It would be illuminating if all the sites posted the sale price and our take like they do at PD and Alamy.

Do the math for your monthly income at IS - and be horrified by how big their take is in comparison.

Despite all the lower royalties I have managed a number of BME's in the last 6 months, so despite that I am making the most I have (with the largest port I've ever had).


http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/the-stock-market-hits-a-record-low-(pun-intended)/msg244332/#msg244332


EDIT:

Okay, I found it.  It was November 2011 when they corrected the 'mistake'.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/dreamstime-com/dt-subs-33c/msg236121/#msg236121

http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_29407


Thanks for digging up the links

Microbius

« Reply #37 on: July 15, 2012, 15:55 »
0
I can see the posts and responses, and well done lee for sticking to your guns!


grafix04

« Reply #39 on: July 16, 2012, 05:44 »
0
No worries, Leaf.




Serban wrote in Lee's comments:

Quote
The referral fee calculated via net price for buyers is a standard approach to most if not all agencies.

Which agencies is he referring to?  Alamy does it but they pay high commissions and are excused.  Maybe 123rf does it but how can we tell?   Since Serban has mentioned previously that DT is one of the the last agents to do it, I'd like him to list 'all' these agencies because I have a strong feeling he's telling tall tales again. 

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #40 on: July 16, 2012, 06:48 »
0
Serban wrote in Lee's comments:
Quote
The referral fee calculated via net price for buyers is a standard approach to most if not all agencies.
Which agencies is he referring to?  Alamy does it but they pay high commissions and are excused. 
I didn't even realise Alamy had a referral programme!
<off to ferret>

« Reply #41 on: July 16, 2012, 07:03 »
0
No worries, Leaf.




Serban wrote in Lee's comments:

Quote
The referral fee calculated via net price for buyers is a standard approach to most if not all agencies.


Which agencies is he referring to?  Alamy does it but they pay high commissions and are excused.  Maybe 123rf does it but how can we tell?   Since Serban has mentioned previously that DT is one of the the last agents to do it, I'd like him to list 'all' these agencies because I have a strong feeling he's telling tall tales again. 


Yes, I'd be interested in hearing about all those other companies to take out commissions first then pay photographers.   I know for a fact that all agencies don't do that though.
YAYimages has a little graph of how their commissions are calculated.  Nothing fancy, everyone gets the share they were promised
http://yaymicro.com/view.action?page=affiliate_split_money
I still think YAY is one of the most fair and open agencies... I just wish they had more sales.

 

grafix04

« Reply #42 on: July 16, 2012, 07:17 »
0
Serban wrote in Lee's comments:
Quote
The referral fee calculated via net price for buyers is a standard approach to most if not all agencies.
Which agencies is he referring to?  Alamy does it but they pay high commissions and are excused.  
I didn't even realise Alamy had a referral programme!
<off to ferret>

Sorry Sue, thought I read it yesterday skimming over a few threads when I was hunting down the old links I posted above but I've double checked now and it was Karimala's post where she was referring to the partner program, not referrals from other contributors.

*EDIT I mean not where one contributor refers a buyer who purchases another contributor's image.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2012, 07:24 by grafix04 »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #43 on: July 16, 2012, 08:15 »
0
Serban wrote in Lee's comments:
Quote
The referral fee calculated via net price for buyers is a standard approach to most if not all agencies.
Which agencies is he referring to?  Alamy does it but they pay high commissions and are excused.  
I didn't even realise Alamy had a referral programme!
<off to ferret>

Sorry Sue, thought I read it yesterday skimming over a few threads when I was hunting down the old links I posted above but I've double checked now and it was Karimala's post where she was referring to the partner program, not referrals from other contributors.

*EDIT I mean not where one contributor refers a buyer who purchases another contributor's image.
No worries; I thought it was something I'd missed. I'm always missing stuff.

red

« Reply #44 on: July 16, 2012, 10:11 »
0
This just in on the DT forums -

We have updated the referral rewarding system and all the referral shares will be supported by the agency as of today, July 17th. The agency did cover most of the referral shares until now but shares for referred purchases for instance were split between the agency and the contributor. Not anymore, we're now covering for all. The new structure is already live so you may start noticing different royalties for some of your sales.

Your feedback is important to us. Following members' suggestions, we have taken two major decisions these last weeks, meant to improve user experience and increase earnings and number of downloads: cover all referral referral commissions and eliminate levels for subscription plans.

Please keep in mind that the Alliances program works on a different structure so sales and shares remain the same for these. Some of these partnerships will award the regular 25-60% royalties to the contributor from the agency's share, while other alliances will still award them based on the sale price.

« Reply #45 on: July 16, 2012, 10:16 »
0
Even if they do say they have made a change and are covering 100% of the fees out of their pocket, how will contributors even be able to do the accounting, with all the schemes going on? Rhetorical question...the answer is contributors don't. They can only "trust"...can't verify.

« Reply #46 on: July 16, 2012, 10:19 »
0
This just in on the DT forums -

We have updated the referral rewarding system and all the referral shares will be supported by the agency as of today, July 17th. The agency did cover most of the referral shares until now but shares for referred purchases for instance were split between the agency and the contributor. Not anymore, we're now covering for all. The new structure is already live so you may start noticing different royalties for some of your sales.


Result!

Amazing what can be achieved by making a fuss and bringing dodgy dealing into the light. Well done Lee Torrens.

« Reply #47 on: July 16, 2012, 10:20 »
0
your feedback?? serisouly?? Lee needed to pull that crap out and now they saying they want feedback, maybe they should have done this right from start not after 10 years!

Copyright 2000-2012 Dreamstime.

must have been other thing in 2000 no??

WarrenPrice

« Reply #48 on: July 16, 2012, 10:29 »
0
your feedback?? serisouly?? Lee needed to pull that crap out and now they saying they want feedback, maybe they should have done this right from start not after 10 years!

Copyright 2000-2012 Dreamstime.

must have been other thing in 2000 no??

I am Banned from the forum ... TOO MUCH FEEDBACK!!!

« Reply #49 on: July 16, 2012, 10:30 »
0
your feedback?? serisouly?? Lee needed to pull that crap out and now they saying they want feedback, maybe they should have done this right from start not after 10 years!

Copyright 2000-2012 Dreamstime.

must have been other thing in 2000 no??

I am Banned from the forum ... TOO MUCH FEEDBACK!!!

cant be, they want to hear it :D

their annoucement is missing a big APOLOGIES, even if they dont feel it, should be there
« Last Edit: July 16, 2012, 10:31 by luissantos84 »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
2326 Views
Last post October 14, 2007, 11:28
by leaf
4 Replies
2445 Views
Last post January 23, 2008, 05:18
by leaf
25 Replies
8652 Views
Last post November 27, 2008, 16:23
by Pheby
27 Replies
7199 Views
Last post July 20, 2011, 18:59
by TheSmilingAssassin
4 Replies
2541 Views
Last post June 24, 2016, 12:18
by Dumc

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle