MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Why we should remove our Dreamstime affiliate links  (Read 20287 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

fotorob

  • I am a professional stock photographer

« on: July 13, 2012, 13:12 »
0
Lee Torrens posted a blog article on why he should removed all his Dreamstime affiliate links and why we all should do the same:
http://www.microstockdiaries.com/why-i-removed-my-dreamstime-referral-links.html

Long story short: The commissions for the affiliate spreader will be taken from the photographers share, not from the agency share now.

Based on that I removed all my Dreamstime affiliate links, because it seems unfair that a photographer earns less if I referred him instead of him signing up without my help.

What do you think?

Update: I postet a short article on my blog about removing my affiliate links as well:
http://www.alltageinesfotoproduzenten.de/2012/07/14/warum-ich-meine-referal-links-zu-dreamstime-entfernt-habe/
« Last Edit: July 14, 2012, 13:51 by fotorob »


« Reply #1 on: July 13, 2012, 13:17 »
0
I always think that DT is the most friendly site for contributors!

Last month I changed my opinion when my sales were dropped more than 60% suddenly due to "intervention" on search engine!
Also I don't know how it is possible to lose "sales" but retain "views"?

Now even this info from Lee!
« Last Edit: July 13, 2012, 13:52 by borg »

« Reply #2 on: July 13, 2012, 13:20 »
0
Last month I changed my opinion when my sales were dropped more than 60% suddenly due to "intervention" on search engine!
Also I don't know how it is possible to lose "sales" but retain "views"?

+ 1 (50%)

p.s: dump it until they do something lol
« Last Edit: July 13, 2012, 13:23 by luissantos84 »

« Reply #3 on: July 13, 2012, 13:23 »
0
I certainly think that any referral fees should be paid out of the DT share - since it is someone else doing the marketing that DT is taking their % to cover.

lisafx

« Reply #4 on: July 13, 2012, 13:44 »
0
Really?!  I was never aware of this.  I would like to hear more about this.  Hard to believe. 

WarrenPrice

« Reply #5 on: July 13, 2012, 13:45 »
0
Lee Torrens is removing his personal referral links to DT is what I understand.  Or, is there a way to remove links to Partners selling our images and causing us to receive a reduction in commission?  IE; is he suggesting we can opt out of subscription sales through DT partners???

Microbius

« Reply #6 on: July 13, 2012, 13:57 »
0
Really?!  I was never aware of this.  I would like to hear more about this.  Hard to believe.  

http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/this-is-how-microstock-agencies-really-calculate-your-royalties/

I was totally stunned when I read this. Can't believe that the agencies are so underhand about how much they actually pay out. If we could ever be organised enough to mount a lawsuit (and I know we never will be), I would think this one issue is the one most likely to be successful, I mean they are clearly claiming to pay out one percentage while actually paying out a completely different one.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2012, 14:02 by Microbius »

« Reply #7 on: July 13, 2012, 14:02 »
0
"Evil" has a new name ....

« Reply #8 on: July 13, 2012, 14:16 »
0
"Profit desire" formula of many agencies constantly calculate with our ignorance...

WarrenPrice

« Reply #9 on: July 13, 2012, 15:16 »
0
Even the exclusives and a few of the "cheerleaders" are starting to grumble ... and not just about this revelation.  Is DT digging the hole deeper?

@Pancaketom ... thanks for posing the question in DT Forum.

« Reply #10 on: July 13, 2012, 16:33 »
0
Long story short: The commissions for the affiliate spreader will be taken from the photographers share, not from the agency share now.


Just to clarify, Dreamstime still pays 'part' of the referral costs.  The referral costs are subtracted from the transaction value before our royalties are calculated, so the costs are shared. 

This is the relevant text from the Dreamstime site:  "For each transaction, the photographer receives a 25-50 percent Revenue Share, which is calculated based on the net sales amount for the transaction, after referral fees have been paid."

It's on this page:  http://www.dreamstime.com/sellimages

Note that "25-50" refers to previous rates. That needs to be updated to 20 - 60, or 20-50 if it's meant to refer to non-exclusive contributors only.

Lee Torrens is removing his personal referral links to DT is what I understand.  Or, is there a way to remove links to Partners selling our images and causing us to receive a reduction in commission?  IE; is he suggesting we can opt out of subscription sales through DT partners???


This has nothing to do with the partner program or subscriptions specifically.  This is about 'affiliates' (or 'referrers') who refer buyers and contributors to Dreamstime. They're a different group of people, in this context, to 'partners', who sell image licenses on behalf of Dreamstime. 

« Reply #11 on: July 13, 2012, 16:44 »
0
Just to clarify, Dreamstime still pays 'part' of the referral costs.  The referral costs are subtracted from the transaction value before our royalties are calculated, so the costs are shared. 

I think the real issue with all these sorts of "sharing" is which costs are included in calculating the amount to be shared. I wouldn't mind if I could deduct the amortized cost of my camera, lighting, etc. from the total the buyer pays and then "share" the remainder with DT. They might not like that deal any more than I like the ones that take a bunch of promotional expenses - which I think are entirely theirs - and deduct those from the gross before "sharing" with me.

In the movie business, the whole scheme for big stars getting a percentage of the gross (versus the profits) came about because the studios always managed to keep the books so that there was no profit. The agencies are increasingly following the same path and trying to effectively continue to cut contributor shares while assisting their own bottom line.

lisafx

« Reply #12 on: July 13, 2012, 19:24 »
0

Just to clarify, Dreamstime still pays 'part' of the referral costs.  The referral costs are subtracted from the transaction value before our royalties are calculated, so the costs are shared.  

This is the relevant text from the Dreamstime site:  "For each transaction, the photographer receives a 25-50 percent Revenue Share, which is calculated based on the net sales amount for the transaction, after referral fees have been paid."

It's on this page:  http://www.dreamstime.com/sellimages

Note that "25-50" refers to previous rates. That needs to be updated to 20 - 60, or 20-50 if it's meant to refer to non-exclusive contributors only.

 (snip)

This has nothing to do with the partner program or subscriptions specifically.  This is about 'affiliates' (or 'referrers') who refer buyers and contributors to Dreamstime. They're a different group of people, in this context, to 'partners', who sell image licenses on behalf of Dreamstime.  


Thanks for clarifying Lee. The way it was presented in this thread made me think that my referred photographers were having the referral fees I get for referring them deducted directly from their earnings.

I was aware of this policy regarding affiliates.  The way they justify it is that those are not buyers directly on the site and we might not get those sales without the affiliates.  Not crazy about it.  I would certainly like to get the whole royalty,  but at least it isn't a new surprise.    

« Reply #13 on: July 13, 2012, 19:35 »
0
Thanks for clarifying Lee. The way it was presented in this thread made me think that my referred photographers were having the referral fees I get for referring them deducted directly from their earnings.

You had it right the first time.  They are.  Just not 100% - that's what I was correcting.  So, a portion of your affiliate earnings is deducted from the contributors you referred to Dreamstime.  That's why I removed my affiliate links - I don't want my referred contributors to be penalized.

I was aware of this policy regarding affiliates.  The way they justify it is that those are not buyers directly on the site and we might not get those sales without the affiliates.  Not crazy about it.  I would certainly like to get the whole royalty,  but at least it isn't a new surprise.   

I think you're confusing affiliates with partners here.  Affiliate just refer buyers and contributors, having them become direct customers and contributors with their own Dreamstime accounts.  Partners connect to Dreamstime via the API to sell to *their* customers, so the transaction is not handled by Dreamstime on the Dreamstime website and the customers don't have a Dreamstime account.  Partner sales are, as far as I can tell, completely unaffected by this policy, given a customer buying through a partner doesn't involve any Dreamstime member account. 

And this policy is new as of April this year, when they updated the levels. 

« Reply #14 on: July 13, 2012, 21:29 »
0
I think DT now has pushed as far as possible in terms of hiding and camouflaging what we contributors are supposed to receive.

5 years ago, all an agency had to do was post their royalty rate XX%. Today it's a mix of non-traceable factors that determine our payouts.

It's time for a contributor owned stock agency. If someone like Yuri (with the necessary background and financial punch) would start setting it up, I'd drop 5 to 10 agencies in a heart beat.

We have been slapped all over the place. IS, Fotolia, DT and many more implement insane policies, pay cuts and other nonsense.

« Reply #15 on: July 13, 2012, 21:49 »
0

In the movie business, the whole scheme for big stars getting a percentage of the gross (versus the profits) came about because the studios always managed to keep the books so that there was no profit. The agencies are increasingly following the same path and trying to effectively continue to cut contributor shares while assisting their own bottom line.



--------------------------------------------
Art Buchwald where are you when we need you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buchwald_v._Paramount

lisafx

« Reply #16 on: July 13, 2012, 22:34 »
0


You had it right the first time.  They are.  Just not 100% - that's what I was correcting.  So, a portion of your affiliate earnings is deducted from the contributors you referred to Dreamstime.  That's why I removed my affiliate links - I don't want my referred contributors to be penalized.

(snip)

And this policy is new as of April this year, when they updated the levels.  

Thanks for clarifying - again.  Hope they will rethink this policy.  Doesn't seem right to penalize new contributors just for being referred by someone else.  
« Last Edit: July 13, 2012, 22:39 by lisafx »

grafix04

« Reply #17 on: July 14, 2012, 00:10 »
0
This has been happening for quite some time now.  I remember someone kicking up a fuss about it in the forums and Serban responded by saying it was a 'mistake' - that it was something they missed and should have been deducting referral money from contributors all along.  Yeah right  ::)

I've suspected since then that they're in financial trouble.  Since then they've been fiddling with the algorithm, testing royalties, changing levels, raising prices, adding the 'pin-it' button, giving our images away from free on Facebook in a desperate attempt to get more buyers, removing the weekly subscription plan and now reducing our royalties from subscriptions.  DT, who once was the most trusted and most promising agent is now the most conniving, most deceitful one out there. 

They've pissed off buyers and contributors and every time someone questions one of their dodgy new policies, Serban responds by saying that they need to make the change to remain competitive.  BS!  He's used that excuse when removing the levels on subscriptions but he had no problem shafting buyers by increasing the levels making the credit package they already bought worth less than it was before the change.  Then they shaft them again by increasing the prices of the credit packages. 

The company doesn't seem too healthy at all.  They're going down the pan and they deserve it.

« Reply #18 on: July 14, 2012, 05:06 »
0
It is a shame Dreamstime is pushing (half) the cost of their referral program onto the photographer.  I feel this should come out of the advertising budget and not out of the contributers commission.

If Dreamstime wasn't it's contributers to advertise for them (with the referral program), they shouldn't punish those who use their links.

I posted this on Lee's blog as well.  I'll wait to see how this all pans out, but if nothing changes I don't see a point in sending photographers (or buyers) to Dreamstime through a referral link. 

And.. for those sites who aren't interested in providing a referral program for those of us who advertise their site I don't see a value in providing a link at all.

« Reply #19 on: July 14, 2012, 06:30 »
0
Once again!

We contributors have to promote our portfolios on agencies where is the best deal for us...
That must be aggressive campaign!

« Reply #20 on: July 14, 2012, 06:45 »
0
Once again!

We contributors have to promote our portfolios on agencies where is the best deal for us...
That must be aggressive campaign!

I think YAYmicro takes the cake on the best referral program.
Quote
You get a 20% commission on all sales - forever- generated by your referrals!

Direct Referral
Direct sale is the customers who use your link or bonus code when the register at YAY. You get a 20 % commission on all sales from your referred customers - each time they buy anything at YAY, forever!

2-Tier Referral
Along with giving you a whopping 20 % commission on all direct sales, we'll also give you 5 % commission on all indirect sales, generated by people you refer! This is called 2-tier sale. You'll get an overview of all your referrals at the My Referrals page.

« Reply #21 on: July 14, 2012, 11:16 »
0
Yeah, I don't see removing the referral code making much of a difference either. I guess you could remove the link altogether which would punish them by eliminating a back link. Even without the link on the word, Dreamstime, you still could be referring people to the site. Call me pessimistic, but I don't see any action taken really being enough to stop DT from continuing to do this. And when one agency does it, you can be sure another one is soon to follow.

« Reply #22 on: July 14, 2012, 11:20 »
0
Since I already gave the serious answer, it's time for the joke answer...

I think everyone should sign up for my affiliate program and replace their Dreamstime links with MyStockVectors links. That will show them.  ;)

« Reply #23 on: July 14, 2012, 18:26 »
0
quite curious to know if there is any reply from Serban

« Reply #24 on: July 15, 2012, 02:31 »
0

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 »

grafix04

« Reply #50 on: July 16, 2012, 10:36 »
0
Great result - well done Lee.


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??

They got plenty feedback November 11 when everyone made a fuss over it in the DT forum.  But they have control there and are quick to shut people up - deleting posts, banning members and burying threads. The difference was Lee made a fuss over it on an influential site that he has no control over and has the gall to complain that people raise these issues off-site without his consent.

« Reply #51 on: July 16, 2012, 10:44 »
0
and PLEASE lets not forget they are still advertising something they arent doing

buyer that get plans in EUR we are actually getting from 22.34% to 22.63% NOT the 25%
buyer that get plans in POUND we are actually getting 22.21% NOT the 25%

how hard can it be to make some conversions?

grafix04

« Reply #52 on: July 16, 2012, 11:00 »
0
and PLEASE lets not forget they are still advertising something they arent doing

buyer that get plans in EUR we are actually getting from 22.34% to 22.63% NOT the 25%
buyer that get plans in POUND we are actually getting 22.21% NOT the 25%

how hard can it be to make some conversions?

True.  I may have to drop them just to simplify my life (and spreadsheets).  Reversing the referral policy is a good result but it doesn't do anything about the other dozens of decisions they've made that has me losing faith in them.  There are too many trust and transparency issues with DT.  The fact that they didn't have a problem double dipping with marketing costs (and sneaking it in hoping no-one would notice almost a year ago) and offering our images to the public to help themselves to for free, does not make me want to invest any more time with them.  They'd have to do some serious * up' to get a lot of us back on side.  They can learn some suck-up techniques from the handful of brown-nosing cheerleaders in their forum.

« Reply #53 on: July 16, 2012, 11:02 »
0
the conversion cuts happen on DT, FT and SS (actually we will never know that because they only have % in sod/footage).. and perhaps a ton other.. I am sure Lee will continue to fight this :)
« Last Edit: July 16, 2012, 11:05 by luissantos84 »

« Reply #54 on: July 16, 2012, 11:17 »
0
In addition to Lee, I'd like to thank Leaf for this forum.  Without MSG, I would never have seen Lee's orginal post, and DT would have not felt nearly as much pressure as they evidently did.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #55 on: July 16, 2012, 11:42 »
0
In addition to Lee, I'd like to thank Leaf for this forum.  Without MSG, I would never have seen Lee's orginal post, and DT would have not felt nearly as much pressure as they evidently did.

Yes... and appreciation to the courage each displays in walking that fine line between maintaining good relations with agencies and providing information that could harm their "easy access" to leaders of the microstock industry.
Much like reporters in the news business ... reporting vs entertainment. 

Thanks Lee and Tyler ...

« Reply #56 on: July 16, 2012, 12:06 »
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.

Great news, thanks for the update.

Kudos to Serban for making things right.  Even if it should have been like that from the start, that doesn't mean it's easy to make the change afterwards, so well done Dreamstime.  I'm happy to see you made a choice positive for the photographers on this one.

And kudos to Lee for brining this to light and sticking his ground.

« Reply #57 on: July 16, 2012, 14:07 »
0
I'm happy to see the change but have mixed feelings about DT's "See, we listen to you and improve things." message.

It is true that this isn't the first time that DT has responded to contributor feedback by changing a program - going back to early days when we protested the 1 year hold on uploaded images and they cut it to 6 months. At that time we were able to do it in the DT forums as the "ban all dissenters" mentality wasn't so strong.

But they didn't make the change in response to contributor feedback or they'd have done it in November 2011 when various people complained in their forums - and I wasn't thrilled then about the way they tried to fob us off with the notion that it had been this way from the beginning but a bug had prevented it from being implemented. Lee's blog and persistence provided the kick in the backside that just coincidentally opened up their ears to contributor feedback. That's not dialog, but just a little power play arm wrestling where DT figured the PR black eye wasn't worth it.

It's just depressing that without the big stick, the right thing seems to be so elusive to so many of the agencies.

But thanks to Lee and Tyler - shining a bright light on bad behavior is a great second best to the agencies treating contributors reasonably just because we're long term partners in a good business.

« Reply #58 on: July 16, 2012, 15:58 »
0
Bravo, Lee and Leaf!

At least Serban can be reasoned. :)

« Reply #59 on: July 16, 2012, 16:01 »
0
Bravo, Lee and Leaf!

At least Serban can be reasoned. :)

buyer that get plans in EUR we are actually getting from 22.34% to 22.63% NOT the 25%
buyer that get plans in POUND we are actually getting 22.21% NOT the 25%

sure he can do more :D

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #60 on: July 16, 2012, 21:42 »
0
Wait a second? Now when a high level image gets sold via subscription, it won't cost the buyer 2 downloads anymore, but only 1? So we will earn less money on high level subscription downloads?

« Reply #61 on: July 16, 2012, 22:03 »
0
Wait a second? Now when a high level image gets sold via subscription, it won't cost the buyer 2 downloads anymore, but only 1? So we will earn less money on high level subscription downloads?

YEP we know that for a few weeks I guess

lisafx

« Reply #62 on: July 17, 2012, 12:29 »
0


Kudos to Serban for making things right.  Even if it should have been like that from the start, that doesn't mean it's easy to make the change afterwards, so well done Dreamstime.  I'm happy to see you made a choice positive for the photographers on this one.

And kudos to Lee for brining this to light and sticking his ground.

Absolutely!  Great work Lee on pointing out the issue, Tyler for providing a place to discuss it, and Serban for making the changes. 

grafix04

« Reply #63 on: July 17, 2012, 16:03 »
0
What?  Kudos to Serban?  What is wrong with you people?  The guy decides that cutting off our heads may be detrimental to his business so he cuts off both our legs instead and still manages to be thanked for it?  Kudos to Lee, yes, but no kudos should go to Serban.  On the one hand he tells people "if you don't like my policies, leave" and the other he says, "we listen to your feedback."

The only reason why he has reversed this particular policy, is because no-one was going to tolerate subscriptions for level 5 images dropping from $1.05 to $0.17.  I can't understand why anyone of you would thank him.  We should be sending him a direct clear message saying "pull a stunt like this again and you'll live to regret it!"  Why are you people thanking him anyway?  Do you have some false belief that he'll look after you individually if you kiss his backside?  The guy is so stubborn that he'd rather risk losing Yuri than ever admit that he in the wrong so you think your 'thank you' is going to protect you or get you any favors?  All it does is tell him that you'll accept any move he makes as long as he does it two steps ie, threaten to cut off your head first and then cut off your legs instead.

You'll point the finger at the agents for leading the race to the bottom but will excuse your role in it which is a major one.  DT has increased credit package prices in foreign countries as well as increase the image levels and this will (if it hasnt already) drive off buyers to sites like DP.  Why would credit buyers stay with DT when they can get the exact same deal for less than a quarter of the price elsewhere?  To assume that they'll stay loyal to DT (who has shafted them) is naive.  DP is the fastest growing site and we have contributors congratulating their achievements why are people happy about this?  The faster this bargain basement site grows the faster the nail goes in the coffin on other sites.  I dont really care about DT anymore
  
Dreamstime has responded to the rising success of sites like DP to try to remain competitive.  They got rid of the levels on subscriptions in an attempt to attract more subscription buyers.  This will benefit them but it's bad news for us.  The question is, how many of you will stick around and take it?  History tells me (and them) that a lot of you will.  They've made their move but what is your move?  When your sales sink to the bottom (and they will), how many of you will stay there complaining about your drop in sales while continuing to support sites like DP which has caused the problem in the first place?  Im making my move.  Wut had the right idea. Im going to do the unthinkable and become exclusive with IS.  I figure they're evil but at least they don't hide it and I know where I stand with them.  I also figure, given enough unique quality exclusive content, buyers just might stick around.

I hope DT sinks and continues to sink until they're low enough to rot in hell.

admin edit
Two potentially libelous sentences removed
« Last Edit: July 18, 2012, 00:19 by admin »

« Reply #64 on: July 17, 2012, 16:34 »
0
Here's an observation that has nothing specifically to do with the stock industry but has some possible relevance in the DT / IS comparison.  Successful companies are started by people with vision who may or may not be particularly honest or may or may not be "nice guys".  They may have ups and downs but while the guy with the vision is in charge, the company tends to adapt to circumstances and survive and do quite well.  However, when taken over by corporate bean counters who look at nothing but the balance sheet, the attributes that made the company successful tend to suffer and the rot sets in - I have seen this so many times in the IT industry.  It looks like DT have made a few errors in judgement recently but I'd still have more confidence in them being a player while IS declines.  As an example look at Apple with and without Steve Jobs.

« Reply #65 on: July 17, 2012, 16:37 »
0
What?  Kudos to Serban?  What is wrong with you people?  The guy decides that cutting off our heads may be detrimental to his business so he cuts off both our legs instead and still manages to be thanked for it?  Kudos to Lee, yes, but no kudos should go to Serban.  

So true. I was baffled myself to read "kudos to serban", what the plank... Stockholm syndrome anyone?
« Last Edit: July 17, 2012, 16:38 by Tabimura »

Poncke

« Reply #66 on: July 17, 2012, 17:35 »
0
The name Serban alone makes me cringe

lisafx

« Reply #67 on: July 17, 2012, 17:56 »
0
What?  Kudos to Serban?  What is wrong with you people? 

I can't speak for anyone else, but I will be happy to explain my thinking. I believe it is important to be vocal and complain about decisions the agencies make that I don't like.  But by the same token, when the agencies have listened to their contributors and reversed bad policies, it is equally important to be vocal in praising their decision.

I see a lot of people around here who ONLY complain, but never offer a word of praise when the agencies decide (under pressure sometimes) to do the right thing. 

If you (the general "you" not specifically directed at anyone)  are going to complain and raise He11 no matter what they do, why should they bother trying to appease you?  It takes both negative reinforcement AND positive reinforcement to get the best outcomes. 

Lots may disagree, but I'm sorry, I refuse to subscribe to the "all b*tching all the time" philosophy. 

« Reply #68 on: July 17, 2012, 18:11 »
0
I agree w/ Lisa on this one (and plenty of other things too).

When sites do things I don't approve of I want to let them know. When they do something I do approve of I think it is important to let them know I (we) notice that too. I am still a little leery of "alliance" sales, but the fact that they are doing the right thing with referrals is worth noting. I think it should have always been this way and maybe they were dragged kicking and screaming to do the right thing, but they did do the right thing.

There are still plenty of things wrong that I will complain about though (like the fact that my sales are pretty weak this month and the repeated commission drops).

« Reply #69 on: July 17, 2012, 18:13 »
0
What?  Kudos to Serban?  What is wrong with you people?  

I can't speak for anyone else, but I will be happy to explain my thinking. I believe it is important to be vocal and complain about decisions the agencies make that I don't like.  But by the same token, when the agencies have listened to their contributors and reversed bad policies, it is equally important to be vocal in praising their decision.

I see a lot of people around here who ONLY complain, but never offer a word of praise when the agencies decide (under pressure sometimes) to do the right thing.

If you (the general "you" not specifically directed at anyone)  are going to complain and raise He11 no matter what they do, why should they bother trying to appease you?  It takes both negative reinforcement AND positive reinforcement to get the best outcomes.  

Lots may disagree, but I'm sorry, I refuse to subscribe to the "all b*tching all the time" philosophy.  

I totally complain about istock. I don't really complain about SS. I am complaining now ALOT about DT because they aren't doing the right thing. And I don't for one minute think that ANY decision that is made is made to appease ME. This particular policy, which I don't know a lot about because it didn't affect me personally, may have been reversed because some of the players involved represent quite a bit of money for Serban and DT. Other contributors might benefit from the reversal, but I seriously doubt that anything would have been done if someone, maybe like me, had posted the exact same thing that Lee Torrens posted. I would have gotten the same response that I got in the pinterest thread. "We might be looking into it, it's possible, maybe..."

This is the same crap that istock pulled. Try to pull the wool over contributors eyes until somebody BIG complains, then ask forgiveness and apologize and look like the big hero. It just goes to show that history does repeat itself and people never learn anything from it. It is the istockholm syndrome all over again!

If these guys can get this kind of result from agencies, why aren't they all over the copyright infringement thing?
« Last Edit: July 17, 2012, 18:16 by cclapper »

« Reply #70 on: July 17, 2012, 21:20 »
0
+1

What?  Kudos to Serban?  What is wrong with you people? 

I can't speak for anyone else, but I will be happy to explain my thinking. I believe it is important to be vocal and complain about decisions the agencies make that I don't like.  But by the same token, when the agencies have listened to their contributors and reversed bad policies, it is equally important to be vocal in praising their decision.

I see a lot of people around here who ONLY complain, but never offer a word of praise when the agencies decide (under pressure sometimes) to do the right thing. 

If you (the general "you" not specifically directed at anyone)  are going to complain and raise He11 no matter what they do, why should they bother trying to appease you?  It takes both negative reinforcement AND positive reinforcement to get the best outcomes. 

Lots may disagree, but I'm sorry, I refuse to subscribe to the "all b*tching all the time" philosophy. 

« Reply #71 on: July 17, 2012, 23:24 »
0
What?  Kudos to Serban?  What is wrong with you people?  The guy decides that cutting off our heads may be detrimental to his business so he cuts off both our legs instead and still manages to be thanked for it?  Kudos to Lee, yes, but no kudos should go to Serban.  

So true. I was baffled myself to read "kudos to serban", what the plank... Stockholm syndrome anyone?
I don't think Serban made it because it was right think to do. He made because he was afraid of removing referral links.

I hope that Lee takes look to partner's program too, which is completely opaque. Why contributors should pay for it?

« Reply #72 on: July 18, 2012, 01:17 »
0
What?  Kudos to Serban?  What is wrong with you people?  


+1

« Reply #73 on: July 18, 2012, 06:26 »
0
I'm kind of lost on all this refer this/refer that stuff, but congrats to Lee for effecting a change.

Now, get IS to eat the cost of the promotional codes they give out.  I've had no luck. :)

digitalexpressionimages

« Reply #74 on: July 18, 2012, 08:36 »
0
What?  Kudos to Serban?  What is wrong with you people? 

I can't speak for anyone else, but I will be happy to explain my thinking. I believe it is important to be vocal and complain about decisions the agencies make that I don't like.  But by the same token, when the agencies have listened to their contributors and reversed bad policies, it is equally important to be vocal in praising their decision.

I see a lot of people around here who ONLY complain, but never offer a word of praise when the agencies decide (under pressure sometimes) to do the right thing. 

If you (the general "you" not specifically directed at anyone)  are going to complain and raise He11 no matter what they do, why should they bother trying to appease you?  It takes both negative reinforcement AND positive reinforcement to get the best outcomes. 

Lots may disagree, but I'm sorry, I refuse to subscribe to the "all b*tching all the time" philosophy. 

I would agree with that if DT actually listened and actually chose to do the right thing. But what they really did was react to enormous negative feedback in order to save their referral system from going into the toilet. Would you praise a squirrel for running off the road when you come barreling toward it in your car? Is it displaying good judgement or an adequate survival instinct?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #75 on: July 18, 2012, 08:59 »
0
What?  Kudos to Serban?  What is wrong with you people? 

I can't speak for anyone else, but I will be happy to explain my thinking. I believe it is important to be vocal and complain about decisions the agencies make that I don't like.  But by the same token, when the agencies have listened to their contributors and reversed bad policies, it is equally important to be vocal in praising their decision.

I see a lot of people around here who ONLY complain, but never offer a word of praise when the agencies decide (under pressure sometimes) to do the right thing. 

If you (the general "you" not specifically directed at anyone)  are going to complain and raise He11 no matter what they do, why should they bother trying to appease you?  It takes both negative reinforcement AND positive reinforcement to get the best outcomes. 

Lots may disagree, but I'm sorry, I refuse to subscribe to the "all b*tching all the time" philosophy. 

I would agree with that if DT actually listened and actually chose to do the right thing. But what they really did was react to enormous negative feedback in order to save their referral system from going into the toilet. Would you praise a squirrel for running off the road when you come barreling toward it in your car? Is it displaying good judgement or an adequate survival instinct?
Still, it's a better response than a rival, who faced with enormous negative feedback silenced some, wore down others than smiled and said, "It all blew over".

WarrenPrice

« Reply #76 on: July 18, 2012, 10:07 »
0
deleted

« Reply #77 on: July 18, 2012, 11:21 »
0
I hope that Lee takes look to partner's program too, which is completely opaque. Why contributors should pay for it?

I'm opted out, but yes, it's on the list.

« Reply #78 on: July 18, 2012, 11:29 »
0
delete

lisafx

« Reply #79 on: July 18, 2012, 12:22 »
0

Still, it's a better response than a rival, who faced with enormous negative feedback silenced some, wore down others than smiled and said, "It all blew over".

Yes, exactly!

digitalexpressionimages

« Reply #80 on: July 18, 2012, 12:46 »
0
What?  Kudos to Serban?  What is wrong with you people? 

I can't speak for anyone else, but I will be happy to explain my thinking. I believe it is important to be vocal and complain about decisions the agencies make that I don't like.  But by the same token, when the agencies have listened to their contributors and reversed bad policies, it is equally important to be vocal in praising their decision.

I see a lot of people around here who ONLY complain, but never offer a word of praise when the agencies decide (under pressure sometimes) to do the right thing. 

If you (the general "you" not specifically directed at anyone)  are going to complain and raise He11 no matter what they do, why should they bother trying to appease you?  It takes both negative reinforcement AND positive reinforcement to get the best outcomes. 

Lots may disagree, but I'm sorry, I refuse to subscribe to the "all b*tching all the time" philosophy. 

I would agree with that if DT actually listened and actually chose to do the right thing. But what they really did was react to enormous negative feedback in order to save their referral system from going into the toilet. Would you praise a squirrel for running off the road when you come barreling toward it in your car? Is it displaying good judgement or an adequate survival instinct?
Still, it's a better response than a rival, who faced with enormous negative feedback silenced some, wore down others than smiled and said, "It all blew over".

Still still, comparing two evils and choosing the lesser one doesn't mean it should be thanked simply because it's less evil. We're all so used to being treated like poo by these guys that it's become normal and any behavior slightly less despicable becomes praise worthy.

I agree with Lisa that complaining endlessly is no solution but then when you're powerless to effect change (as contributors usually are, this incident notwithstanding) complaining is the only recourse. It would be great if we had some things to praise and thank them for more often.

« Reply #81 on: July 18, 2012, 12:54 »
0
Still still, comparing two evils and choosing the lesser one doesn't mean it should be thanked simply because it's less evil. We're all so used to being treated like poo by these guys that it's become normal and any behavior slightly less despicable becomes praise worthy.

I agree with Lisa that complaining endlessly is no solution but then when you're powerless to effect change (as contributors usually are, this incident notwithstanding) complaining is the only recourse. It would be great if we had some things to praise and thank them for more often.

Exactly. Like maybe raises in commission instead of taking things away.  :)

« Reply #82 on: July 24, 2012, 19:06 »
0
I hope that Lee takes look to partner's program too, which is completely opaque. Why contributors should pay for it?

I'm opted out, but yes, it's on the list.
Great, cannot wait to read about. Thank you Lee.


 

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