MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Is there a perfect time now for a "fair agency" to rise?  (Read 11532 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: June 08, 2011, 12:56 »
0
Nice and easy process uploading to Stockfresh, hope they get the success they deserve.


Slovenian

« Reply #26 on: June 08, 2011, 13:13 »
0

Veer - Upload is simple and reviews are fair, but with limits it will take me over a year to get my back catalogue up there, not to mention new images I am producing.  With 1300 images I get a sale or two a week. 

GL - incredibly easy upload.  Don't even have to mess with releases - just send in a file.  Great people running the site.  Only a couple of sales a month, though.  Hopefully it will pick up.

Others might have a different experience with the above sites.  Would love to hear them.  Hope this was helpful :)

Very helpful, tnx.

I left those 2 agencies in the quote intentionally; I really wonder if it's worth your time. Few bucks a month for a port 1300 or even 6k, that brought you 6 figure earnings on IS and SS (you don't have to comment on these numbers, I just put them down so that it's obvious that sales are about 1/1000 of those on IS and SS). I obviously have a totally wrong mentality for refusing to UL to sites like FT and DT because they make me as little as 4-5% of what SS brings me

« Reply #27 on: June 08, 2011, 13:18 »
0
..Any fair agency that grows will incur increased operating costs. They will then raise prices and cut commissions. Then contributors will complain and look for the next fair agency. Repeat cycle.
I don't see it like that.  The small sites must have much lower turnover and I'm sure it's more expensive for them to operate, as they make less profit per image that they have to review and store.  As a site grows, their costs go up but so should their profits and it should be more profitable than a small site because they have much higher turnover.

I'm sure the reason why the big sites cut commissions is because they think we can no longer do without them.  It's an easy way for them to keep their investors, owners or shareholders happy.

« Reply #28 on: June 08, 2011, 13:22 »
0
Buyers wont use smaller sites because they have smaller collections and less choice.  The only way to change that is for us to give them a chance but unfortunately most people would just prefer to complain about their low sales.  It's one of the few positive things we can do to make a change, much better than wishing the big sites would pay us more.  I made money with a few small sites before they closed and I haven't regretted giving them a chance.  What really annoys me is that the solution to our problems is there but people aren't even willing to try it.

I'm sorry, but that's naive thinking. When they become big, they start behaving like big agencies ;)
Not as naive as it is to think that any of the big sites are going to increase commissions.  And the sites would be much less inclined to cut commissions if they saw it didn't work with sites like istock and Fotolia.

Slovenian

« Reply #29 on: June 08, 2011, 13:31 »
0
Buyers wont use smaller sites because they have smaller collections and less choice.  The only way to change that is for us to give them a chance but unfortunately most people would just prefer to complain about their low sales.  It's one of the few positive things we can do to make a change, much better than wishing the big sites would pay us more.  I made money with a few small sites before they closed and I haven't regretted giving them a chance.  What really annoys me is that the solution to our problems is there but people aren't even willing to try it.

I'm sorry, but that's naive thinking. When they become big, they start behaving like big agencies ;)
Not as naive as it is to think that any of the big sites are going to increase commissions.

I never said that :o

Slovenian

« Reply #30 on: June 08, 2011, 13:34 »
0
Didn't Dreamstime and Fotolia hammer down commissions?

I know about FT, but when did DT cut commissions? (I tried to google it too before asking)

« Reply #31 on: June 08, 2011, 13:51 »
0
Buyers wont use smaller sites because they have smaller collections and less choice.  The only way to change that is for us to give them a chance but unfortunately most people would just prefer to complain about their low sales.  It's one of the few positive things we can do to make a change, much better than wishing the big sites would pay us more.  I made money with a few small sites before they closed and I haven't regretted giving them a chance.  What really annoys me is that the solution to our problems is there but people aren't even willing to try it.

I'm sorry, but that's naive thinking. When they become big, they start behaving like big agencies ;)
Not as naive as it is to think that any of the big sites are going to increase commissions.

I never said that :o
So how do they do this without increasing commissions?
...So is it the perfect timing for an agency announcing something in the line of:"we intend to split the profit 50/50 with our dear contributors..."? I think it should be one of the big 4...
...I meant "we'll pay our contributors 50%/up to 60%/at least 40%/40-60%". Something along these lines;)...
« Last Edit: June 08, 2011, 13:56 by sharpshot »

lisafx

« Reply #32 on: June 08, 2011, 14:02 »
0

I left those 2 agencies in the quote intentionally; I really wonder if it's worth your time.

I think you are right in wondering if it is worth the time.  That's why the main criteria I have for uploading to a new site is how much time it will cost me.  And the answer had better be "hardly any". 

lagereek

« Reply #33 on: June 08, 2011, 14:06 »
0
Never stops to amaze me. On one end buyers are crying, Oh dear, IS,  is too expensive, this and that, end of the world, now Im leaving and all that jazz. So why on earth dont they shop around? they must be stupid or blind, really.
Whats the harm in trying other agencies and some of the smaller ones.
I mean if you go to a Mac-store, you always pay a bit more then an independant store, selling the same Mac. Crazy.

Slovenian

« Reply #34 on: June 08, 2011, 14:14 »
0
Buyers wont use smaller sites because they have smaller collections and less choice.  The only way to change that is for us to give them a chance but unfortunately most people would just prefer to complain about their low sales.  It's one of the few positive things we can do to make a change, much better than wishing the big sites would pay us more.  I made money with a few small sites before they closed and I haven't regretted giving them a chance.  What really annoys me is that the solution to our problems is there but people aren't even willing to try it.

I'm sorry, but that's naive thinking. When they become big, they start behaving like big agencies ;)
Not as naive as it is to think that any of the big sites are going to increase commissions.

I never said that :o
So how do they do this without increasing commissions?
...So is it the perfect timing for an agency announcing something in the line of:"we intend to split the profit 50/50 with our dear contributors..."? I think it should be one of the big 4...
...I meant "we'll pay our contributors 50%/up to 60%/at least 40%/40-60%". Something along these lines;)...

Oh that, I was thinking in a completely different context. I don't expect them to, the way things are going. It would probably be a great idea, but I'm afraid it'll stay at that.

« Reply #35 on: June 08, 2011, 14:29 »
0
I know about Fotolia, but when did Dreamstime cut commissions? (I tried to google it too before asking)

They cut their royalties in the summer of 2009 from I think 50% to their level system. Fotolia has cut royalty rates the last 3 years.

Slovenian

« Reply #36 on: June 08, 2011, 14:35 »
0
I know about Fotolia, but when did Dreamstime cut commissions? (I tried to google it too before asking)

They cut their royalties in the summer of 2009 from I think 50% to their level system. Fotolia has cut royalty rates the last 3 years.

What does that mean exactly? You get half as much for every level that you climb or what (for instance a 2% bumb instead of a 4%)

« Reply #37 on: June 08, 2011, 14:44 »
0
What does that mean exactly? You get half as much for every level that you climb or what (for instance a 2% bumb instead of a 4%)

No, I meant you used to get a flat 50%. Now, the percent you get is based on how many times the image sold starting at 25%.

Slovenian

« Reply #38 on: June 08, 2011, 14:53 »
0
What does that mean exactly? You get half as much for every level that you climb or what (for instance a 2% bump instead of a 4%)

No, I meant you used to get a flat 50%. Now, the percent you get is based on how many times the image sold starting at 25%.
Oh, so that's what happened. Well at least everybody still has a realistic chance of getting higher percentages (not saying I support it), unlike on IS, where it's virtually impossible to get to the last 2, well I can just dream of reaching 17% this year. OTOH I'm sure I could get to level 2 with some photos on DT easily. I just uploaded 70 photos or so after 9 months.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
38 Replies
8928 Views
Last post June 28, 2011, 12:50
by cthoman
163 Replies
22182 Views
Last post April 08, 2013, 13:13
by alberto
3 Replies
1590 Views
Last post September 16, 2014, 14:08
by Uncle Pete
11 Replies
2588 Views
Last post November 19, 2015, 21:58
by YadaYadaYada
74 Replies
9481 Views
Last post September 20, 2017, 02:30
by Brasilnut

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results