MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: NEW - MyMarketplace access on ImageBrief  (Read 11028 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Semmick Photo

« on: June 23, 2015, 13:47 »
0
Weve reached a watershed moment here at ImageBrief. Next week well be launching a brand new product called MyMarketplace. This will allow photographers to upload their best photographs and have them searchable for instant purchase by buyers. We'll be rolling out this brand new revenue stream to our Founding Premium Members first, all of whom will keep 100% of the fee on any images they sell! You can join them here.

Founding Premium Memberships are on offer for a limited time once filled, new Premium Members will pay standard commission on image sales. As an Approved ImageBrief Photographer, now is truly the best time to become a Premium Member to start selling images through MyMarketplace and being contactable for assignment work in our Find a Pro directory.

Founding Premium Member Benefits
   NEW Earn income without submitting to briefs each time
   NEW Unlimited auto-tagging of every image
   Keep 100% of image sales via MyMarketplace & briefs
   Promote yourself directly to buyers on image & assignment briefs
   Get found first and win assignments via photographer search
   Be part of an exclusive group of ImageBriefs photographer community
   Promotion to our network of top ad agencies, brands, and publishers
   One-on-one portfolio review


Join now and you'll be first on the invite list for MyMarketplace access

60 euro per month, 499 per year.

https://www.imagebrief.com/upgrade



« Reply #1 on: June 23, 2015, 13:50 »
0
What do they mean by "Be part of an exclusive group of ImageBriefs photographer community", exclusive as in great or as in only on imagebrief?

Me


« Reply #2 on: June 23, 2015, 13:53 »
+1
Exclusive as in one of the few who keeps 100% commission from sales.
$499 pa to play, or $60 pcm. Big punt. Had it been $25 pcm then maybe but $499 is not a small number to place on a bet

Semmick Photo

« Reply #3 on: June 23, 2015, 13:53 »
0
I think exclusive as in premium members

Me


« Reply #4 on: June 23, 2015, 13:53 »
0
What are your thoughts Ron? I seem to recall you being a big advocate when you first registered with them - will you be joining?

« Reply #5 on: June 23, 2015, 13:54 »
0
Ok so images are nonexclusive and RF?

Semmick Photo

« Reply #6 on: June 23, 2015, 13:55 »
0
The briefs are non exclusive RM. The marketplace I dont know.

Me


« Reply #7 on: June 23, 2015, 13:56 »
0
Ok so images are nonexclusive and RF?
RM only, non-exclusive

« Reply #8 on: June 23, 2015, 14:21 »
+15
So an agency with a spotty sales record for its existing product is introducing a standard stock agency offering and for a hefty annual fee ($500) is willing to let you keep any earnings for any purchases.

For them it's a great deal - instead of paying contributors to upload to a new site, have them pay you instead.

I wouldn't touch that "deal" with a 10 foot pole

« Reply #9 on: June 23, 2015, 14:30 »
+5
Then of course, turn you off in the search engine so they only have to payout the 50%-ers.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #10 on: June 23, 2015, 19:52 »
+3
Yup, after they've got your money, what incentive do they have to market your images (so long as they see it as a get-rich-quick scheme and wouldn't expect you to pay again next year).

« Reply #11 on: June 23, 2015, 20:01 »
+2
It's really not a huge amount to spend.  If you make $250 in a year at Shutterstock you paid them more than $600. 

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #12 on: June 23, 2015, 20:15 »
+9
It's really not a huge amount to spend.  If you make $250 in a year at Shutterstock you paid them more than $600.
Not upfront.
SS has to sell your files before they get a penny.
Huge difference, they have an incentive to market files.
If you make nothing on SS, you've also lost nothing.

« Reply #13 on: June 23, 2015, 20:19 »
+2
It's really not a huge amount to spend.  If you make $250 in a year at Shutterstock you paid them more than $600.
Not upfront.
SS has to sell your files before they get a penny.
Huge difference, they have an incentive to market files.
If you make nothing on SS, you've also lost nothing.
They have an incentive to sell your work because they want you to sign up for another year, if you aren't selling they won't make any more money.  Also SS doesn't need to sell one photo to get their money, if you buy a subscription and never use it they get paid.  $500 per year sounds like a lot until you compare it to what you are already spending on other sites, if you make $10,000 a year on SS you're paying nearly $25,000 for that privilege. 
« Last Edit: June 23, 2015, 20:24 by tickstock »

« Reply #14 on: June 23, 2015, 20:33 »
+9
There is a fundamental difference between paying up front with no guarantee of sales or any refund if they're useless at marketing their images and someone who does sell your work taking a commission from the price.

You're not spending anything to sell on Shutterstock. You're not getting 100% of the sale, but for the fledgling agency, 100% of nothing is still nothing. The agency portion of a sale is not money we spend; the full sale is not our income with the agency commission an expense (Envato tried to make it that way, but that was them indulging in fiction).

Even if you assume good faith on the part of the agency, we have lots of examples of failed agencies - where they can't generate sales from known sale-capable portfolios. If they fail, you're out your time to upload plus $500. Getty was able to get photographers to pay to place their images with them because Getty had a track record (at the time) of generating sales. I doubt they could get many people to give them cash up front today.

If a new agency is after content, asking the contributor for money as a way to get it is, IMO, the equivalent of a contributor IQ test.


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #15 on: June 23, 2015, 20:34 »
+1
It's not as though SS is alone in this, so can't understand why you singled them out for the comparison.
Still, I don't do 'speculate to accumulate' with stock, and I don't do SS.
YMMV.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2015, 20:43 by ShadySue »

« Reply #16 on: June 23, 2015, 20:36 »
+1
It's not as though SS is alone in this, so can't understand why you singled them out for the comparison.
Still, I don't do 'speculate to accumulate' with stock, YMMV.
It would be strange to pick 123RF,  SS is used by most everyone here so it makes sense for most people.

« Reply #17 on: June 23, 2015, 20:37 »
0
There is a fundamental difference between paying up front with no guarantee of sales or any refund if they're useless at marketing their images and someone who does sell your work taking a commission from the price.

You're not spending anything to sell on Shutterstock. You're not getting 100% of the sale, but for the fledgling agency, 100% of nothing is still nothing. The agency portion of a sale is not money we spend; the full sale is not our income with the agency commission an expense (Envato tried to make it that way, but that was them indulging in fiction).

Even if you assume good faith on the part of the agency, we have lots of examples of failed agencies - where they can't generate sales from known sale-capable portfolios. If they fail, you're out your time to upload plus $500. Getty was able to get photographers to pay to place their images with them because Getty had a track record (at the time) of generating sales. I doubt they could get many people to give them cash up front today.

If a new agency is after content, asking the contributor for money as a way to get it is, IMO, the equivalent of a contributor IQ test.
Not saying I'm going to sign up, just that the cost is pretty small.  How many sales would it take to break even?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #18 on: June 23, 2015, 20:44 »
+1
It's not as though SS is alone in this, so can't understand why you singled them out for the comparison.
Still, I don't do 'speculate to accumulate' with stock, YMMV.
It would be strange to pick 123RF,  SS is used by most everyone here so it makes sense for most people.
No, as more or less every micro does cheap subs, you could just have used the generic 'subscription site' in your example.

« Reply #19 on: June 23, 2015, 21:06 »
+5
It's not as though SS is alone in this, so can't understand why you singled them out for the comparison.
Still, I don't do 'speculate to accumulate' with stock, YMMV.
It would be strange to pick 123RF,  SS is used by most everyone here so it makes sense for most people.
No, as more or less every micro does cheap subs, you could just have used the generic 'subscription site' in your example.
What royalty rate would I use for "generic subs"?  I'd have to pick some fake arbitrary number that is meant to represent every single site selling subs and then deal with you telling me the next second that there is no such thing as "generic subs".  It makes sense to use the most widely used site as an example, more people will relate to and understand it than if I made some numbers up or picked a site that less people use.  The logic applies to other sites so substitute those in your head if it makes you happier.  Besides it has nothing to do with subs, I'm talking about the royalty rate.

admin edit: leave out the personal jabs
« Last Edit: June 24, 2015, 05:20 by leaf »

« Reply #20 on: June 24, 2015, 00:43 »
+2
My advice for me:

- annual cost 450$
- double that (spotty sales) 900$ (IB share 30%)
- my share 2100$ (70%)
- total annual sales 3000$

Total annual sales must be at least 3000$ before I make a premium contract! That's my advice for me. Before that all premium member marketing is something like.. "talk to the hand".

Semmick Photo

« Reply #21 on: June 24, 2015, 01:34 »
+2
Shady it's just Tickstock being tickstock. Ignore his trolling.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #22 on: June 24, 2015, 02:41 »
+1
What are your thoughts Ron? I seem to recall you being a big advocate when you first registered with them - will you be joining?
I was just happy to be accepted and I got a shortlist pretty quick after signing up, but after that my enthusiasm quickly faded. I dont recall being a big advocate for them. My thoughts, I am not paying $500 to anyone to sell my photos. I pay 500px and FAA $30 per year and that has been very profitable. But $500 dollar, never. Sales are not guaranteed at all. I rather pay a commission for every sale.

« Reply #23 on: January 26, 2016, 10:35 »
+3
I have been on ImageBrief with the non paying choice for over two years now.  I have been shortlisted twice.  One they picked a completely different kind of image look, so understood.  The other they said it was not completed.  I have had shots that no kidding, not exaggerating, twice that were exactly what the brief asked for and how on earth very many persons could've had anything even close is beyond me.  And those were not even marked as viewed. about half of mine are never marked as viewed.  So assuming they are even honest with that marking anyway, I didn't get seen much.  It takes work time to put photos on there, especially if you are making the shot per the request instead of something you already have.  Even if you already have it, chances are you need to tweak it to better present for what the say they want.  And what they say they want is another problem.  Often they pick something that isn't very close, so why even bother trying.  Some of the buys are in my opinion for fabric and other products, particularly the closeups of masses of objects like fruits.  They will be selling that, assuming it sells well, over and over.  Selling your photo over and over just printed on something.  Why would you get paid say $150. to do let them profit on your photo???  Another thing to consider is that most of the images I see as sold are flat, washed out, no details at all, just generic stock stuff that my little niece could take on a $100. camera.  So again, why use your talent, equipment, and honed skills to try??  And this is one of the killer things, I have seen images sell on there that are so so bad you have to wonder if it really happened.  I really could just go on and on I suppose.  Bottom line is, I am not paying them for anything.  And even though I am continually tempted to submit photos to them, I do not see the point of wasting my time.  I am going to try other options, maybe Shutterstock and a webpage to sell prints or something.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2016, 10:38 by krislamor »

« Reply #24 on: March 18, 2016, 18:10 »
+2
So, I am looking for anyone else who has won a brief and has not been paid?
Yes that right, I won a brief and licensed two images! well at least I thought I did because here we are 65 days latter and I have not seen any money.
Now I will say that they do tell you up front that it will take 60 day to pay, so they are only a little bit late. However, with a 2 month cushion, they should not be late.
I am not a premium member, I have heard the if you are not a premium member they will not communicate with you very well. That seems to be true.  So, I feel I need to take to the internet. I am not sure what other recourse I have.
In my experience, when this happens, it means they are hurting financially. So beware.
Contrary to what I have read, I am proof that it is possible to be awarded a brief as a free member. On the flip side, did I really win anything if I'm not getting paid??
Anyone else have this experience? I would like to know what you did.
Thanks!


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
7032 Views
Last post July 07, 2012, 16:24
by leaf
72 Replies
20315 Views
Last post January 22, 2015, 00:49
by Silken Photography
43 Replies
16349 Views
Last post November 23, 2015, 20:39
by Ntwadumela
6 Replies
2756 Views
Last post March 28, 2015, 09:21
by ShadySue
7 Replies
3002 Views
Last post June 27, 2015, 19:32
by wordplanet

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle