MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Bundled earning from all the stock sites  (Read 5351 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 14, 2009, 18:55 »
0
I know it's just a wishful thinking but it would be really nice if earnings from all the sites could be bundled together in one account for photographers. This way, the photographers with smaller portfolios, and those who participate in sites where sales are seldom, could get paid more often.

Perhaps it could be a business opportunity, for a company to offer a bundled account service. The problem is, the stock sites would not be interested in that, as they wouldn't see any benefit. Any thoughts on this?


« Reply #1 on: January 14, 2009, 18:58 »
0
Yeah, that would be really great :)

« Reply #2 on: January 14, 2009, 19:27 »
0
Not only there is no benefits for stock sites, but I think they would lose some money because many contributors never reach payout levels so this is good profit for the sites...

Claude

« Reply #3 on: January 14, 2009, 19:37 »
0
It is a great idea and would be a nice tool for the submitters. Someone just needs to figure out a way to get the microstock sites on board.

« Reply #4 on: January 14, 2009, 19:47 »
0
Golden angel and I were talking about this today, and as he said "it's just a wishful thinking" but it would be really stimulating for contributors. Unfortunately, there is one more thing agencies wouldn't like: The fact that our money would not stay at agencies a single day, and agencies don't want that. They probably use our money everyday for their transactions.

« Reply #5 on: January 14, 2009, 19:56 »
0
I doubt they would bother having more trouble just for our happiness.  I think it might be more feasible to pledge for smaller pay-outs.  BigStock's US$30 is quite reasonable, why can't bigger sites use that limit too?  IS and DT could also be more reasonable and at least reduce theirs to US$50 like StockXpert and FT.

Apart from having more cash in their hands, is there any technical difficulty is making smaller payouts?  I suppose all is handled automatically, even if someone has to click on a button before releasing the payout orders.  I don't believe that each time I request a payout they need three employees stamping a form and a dozen of carbon copies.   :-\

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #6 on: January 14, 2009, 20:23 »
0
I can't imagine any reason they would do this.  Walmart doesn't get together with Target and Kmart to pay suppliers, ya know?

« Reply #7 on: January 14, 2009, 20:39 »
0
I can't imagine any reason they would do this.  Walmart doesn't get together with Target and Kmart to pay suppliers, ya know?

Exactly. Oh well, that's why it is just wishful thinking. :)

« Reply #8 on: January 15, 2009, 01:52 »
0
I doubt they would bother having more trouble just for our happiness.  I think it might be more feasible to pledge for smaller pay-outs.  BigStock's US$30 is quite reasonable, why can't bigger sites use that limit too?  IS and DT could also be more reasonable and at least reduce theirs to US$50 like StockXpert and FT.

Apart from having more cash in their hands, is there any technical difficulty is making smaller payouts?  I suppose all is handled automatically, even if someone has to click on a button before releasing the payout orders.  I don't believe that each time I request a payout they need three employees stamping a form and a dozen of carbon copies.   :-\

Regards,
Adelaide

I am guessing payouts are handled manually.  I havent heard of any type of automatic paypal payment function.  I suppose there could be one, but that would seem risky if there was.  I am guessing they keep a minimum for people who like to request payout every time their account goes over the top.  If people requested payout every day, it would start getting a little much.

« Reply #9 on: January 15, 2009, 04:24 »
0
I think some sites (ahem.. Crestock) trade on the fact that many of their contributors will never reach payout and can have all that allocated cash sitting a savings account earning interest for them.

« Reply #10 on: January 15, 2009, 04:46 »
0
I am guessing payouts are handled manually.  I havent heard of any type of automatic paypal payment function.  I suppose there could be one, but that would seem risky if there was. 

It would be interesting to know how sites handle this.  As I said, I suppose there should be something at least partially automatic.  My payout from IV, on a Sunday if I am not mistaken, was so fast that I assumed there was very little, if any, human intervention.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #11 on: January 15, 2009, 06:02 »
0
This way, the photographers with smaller portfolios, and those who participate in sites where sales are seldom, could get paid more often.

Another option is to grow your portfolio in order to get multiple payouts per month and remove your portfolio from low seller sites  ;)

At least, YOU can do something here: it's not just wishful thinking.

michealo

« Reply #12 on: January 15, 2009, 06:25 »
0
Slightly unrelated - but it would be nice if the sites would allow you to make payments to charity even if one hadn't reached the limit ...

Microbius

« Reply #13 on: January 15, 2009, 06:28 »
0
I think some sites (ahem.. Crestock) trade on the fact that many of their contributors will never reach payout and can have all that allocated cash sitting a savings account earning interest for them.

I think probably they all do. The bigger paying sites also have a lot of contributors with one or two images or low selling ports that take ages to, or never, reach payout. Or perhaps get forgotten about by the contributor.

graficallyminded

« Reply #14 on: January 15, 2009, 07:13 »
0
That would never happen, as it would get complicated for tax reasons and such.  Like having a payroll company or something.  That's sort of what paypal works as...all of your earnings go there, and then you withdraw in one lump sum. 

« Reply #15 on: January 15, 2009, 10:06 »
0
As Sean says, it doesn't make sense for them to cooperate in this way. They're competitors with each other and there's no financial or business benefit to do so.  They're less interested in small portfolios than the big ones.

An intermediary could do it. If they represented the portfolios of many contributors with small portfolios they could take payout reguarly and distribute the revenue for each contributors' combined earnings across agencies.  But then the intermediary would need to cover costs, which means taking a cut, which isn't in the interests of small contributors. 

On automation, the agencies have PayPal MassPay.  I don't have personal experience with it, but if it's anything like bank payroll systems, the agency just sends a secure file to PayPal listing all the accounts and amounts to pay and they're processed in batches.  Can you imagine having to manually pay 60,000 contributors, or even the portion that regularly make payout?

I have little doubt agencies use the unpaid royalties that acrue, even if just to generate or offset interest payments. This means more money for the agency, which for us is a good thing if they reinvest it in marketing, but indifferent if they take it out as profit.  So don't begrudge them for doing it - at least most agencies - as it can work in our favour.

The minimum payout threshhold makes sense for other reasons too. It's the micropayment concept.  They don't process a credit card transaction for $1 every time someone wants to buy a photo.  The transactions costs are prohibitively high for that.  So they make a minimum parcel of ~$10 so the transaction is worthwhile for them.  It's the same on the contributor side.  Rather than sending you a PayPal payment every time you earn a dollar or less in commission, they batch the payment.

I liked the LuckyOliver system where on one day of the year you could cashout your earnings regardless of the amount.  That was a generous idea. 

But Araminta is spot on.  Agencies are there to sell photos, so if you're not reaching payout, you're not selling photos.  I don't blame agencies for not being interested in such trivial problems for contributors with small or slow selling portfolios.  we were all in that position once and I agree with Araminta that it's a better use of your time to sell more photos than concern yourself with what agencies are doing with your $16.63. :)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
3348 Views
Last post August 04, 2007, 09:35
by hospitalera
2 Replies
3052 Views
Last post December 03, 2007, 01:18
by redfig
0 Replies
2925 Views
Last post January 30, 2008, 07:25
by Arian
6 Replies
5359 Views
Last post February 26, 2008, 22:19
by RacePhoto
9 Replies
6613 Views
Last post January 30, 2020, 12:59
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors