MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: How to fight against lower and lower commissions!?  (Read 28819 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 20, 2011, 09:16 »
0
Deleting a portfolio is a drastic but probably ineffective method, because many photographers will stay...
So what else we can do?

Here is my part of solution:

1.If you promote your portfolio, do it only with your portfolios on "friendly agencies"...
2.Send new content first to "friendly agencies" and later (old materials, for a few months or even more)  to the "problematic ...".

Please continue with suggestions...

3..
4...
« Last Edit: January 20, 2011, 15:11 by borg »


« Reply #1 on: January 20, 2011, 11:25 »
0
The problem is... what is a friendly agency? DT seems to be the friendliest (yet they still don't let me opt out from subs), but how long will it take before they cut our commissions too?

I think I'll remove all my referrals in my website (not that they've been getting me anything lately) and only refer to FP.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #2 on: January 20, 2011, 12:00 »
0
We're spinning our wheels; running in circles.
First iStock, then Fotolia. Next ?
We can't concentrate an effort because the target keeps changing.  They are always one step ahead.  And, I see that as a corporate conspiracy.

DIVIDE AND CONQUER

Maybe we should choose ONE target.  Take them on one at the time.

helix7

« Reply #3 on: January 20, 2011, 12:04 »
0

There's nothing we can do. This is the new reality in microstock.

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #4 on: January 20, 2011, 12:23 »
0
I'll say it again: there's something THEY could do. I mean the small agencies with fair % but little returns.

They should make it easy for us to upload: no categories, no boxes to tick, fields to fill... just FTP and forget. Lightburner makes it even easier now.

Take advantage of this moment when we're angry at a number of bigger sites. As much as I would like to support small sites, I don't have the time to go through their ugly upload process.

« Reply #5 on: January 20, 2011, 12:36 »
0
They should make it easy for us to upload: no categories, no boxes to tick, fields to fill... just FTP and forget. Lightburner makes it even easier now.
As much as I would like to support small sites, I don't have the time to go through their ugly upload process.

Why bother? I dumped a thousand images that had made me thousands of dollars elsewhere on a new fair-deal start-up agency and they haven't sold a single one of them in a year. All these agencies are the photographers' friend until they make a mark on the industry, then half of them turn against us. Make a small site big, the way we did with iS and SS and Fot and DT and you don't know what they will do to you. And before they become big, you won't earn much anyway.

« Reply #6 on: January 20, 2011, 12:41 »
0
They should make it easy for us to upload: no categories, no boxes to tick, fields to fill... just FTP and forget. Lightburner makes it even easier now.
As much as I would like to support small sites, I don't have the time to go through their ugly upload process.

Why bother? I dumped a thousand images that had made me thousands of dollars elsewhere on a new fair-deal start-up agency and they haven't sold a single one of them in a year. All these agencies are the photographers' friend until they make a mark on the industry, then half of them turn against us. Make a small site big, the way we did with iS and SS and Fot and DT and you don't know what they will do to you. And before they become big, you won't earn much anyway.

bingo!.. it seems their only friendly or trustworthy (never trust agencies) when their desperate for buyers

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #7 on: January 20, 2011, 12:47 »
0
Absolutely! But we could enjoy another 3 years of fair rates and then dump them and start again with newer sites. Bandwidth is so cheap nowadays. No more shooting for microstock, just re-uploading again and again to new sites.
Unfortunately, you're right that most of them can't sell a single picture at present.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2011, 12:49 by microstockphoto.co.uk »

« Reply #8 on: January 20, 2011, 12:59 »
0
I'll say it again: there's something THEY could do. I mean the small agencies with fair % but little returns.

They should make it easy for us to upload: no categories, no boxes to tick, fields to fill... just FTP and forget. Lightburner makes it even easier now.

I second that.

« Reply #9 on: January 20, 2011, 13:04 »
0
There's only one solution: a new distribution model which will eliminate those parasites.
The only artists for whom microstock is sustainable in the long run are the con artists from IS, FT, etc.

« Reply #10 on: January 20, 2011, 13:17 »
0
 The ideal situation would be that we have a union that would represent contributors as a whole and could negotiate with the agencies or threaten them with mass pullouts which if there was a large base of people that were part would be a pretty big problem for agencies.. That would be the only way to be able to really effect a change otherwise they know there is really no resistence for them because there is no organization on this end. nothing will happen unless the majority is organised together, which happens in Macro, but I don't think that it will happen in micro because of the mass amounts of "small fish" that don't have enough of an interest in the business to want to make that kind of effort or sacrifice..

 I am personally not uploading any more to either IS or FT, and as a buyer I will not purchase from them for my designs either.. I will start to give more images to my Macro agencies.

« Reply #11 on: January 20, 2011, 13:19 »
0
Alamy has 60% for their contributors...

rubyroo

« Reply #12 on: January 20, 2011, 13:20 »
0
Has anyone ever contacted these people?

http://www.stockartistsalliance.org/

« Reply #13 on: January 20, 2011, 13:21 »
0

There's nothing we can do. This is the new reality in microstock.

+1

« Reply #14 on: January 20, 2011, 13:23 »
0
Alamy has 60% for their contributors...

 Exactely and places like AGE and others while maybe not big volume earners are fair and at least I feel like my images are not missused and I am treated as a professional. Getty is not great but they have more volume and the higher price point make it worth it, as well as the fact that most of the macro shooters are well enough organized to fight back collectively to effect their opinions.

« Reply #15 on: January 20, 2011, 13:25 »
0
Has anyone ever contacted these people?

http://www.stockartistsalliance.org/


They are not really micro freindly.. Good for Macro people though..

rubyroo

« Reply #16 on: January 20, 2011, 13:34 »
0
Hmmm... I can understand their not being micro friendly in the old days - but with the quality standards so high now, and a fair few macro shooters participating, I'd have thought we might be considered worthy of inclusion by now.


« Reply #17 on: January 20, 2011, 13:53 »
0
Graphic leftovers has the simplest upload of any site I have ever used.  Just FTP and they do the rest, no categories, you don't even have to click anything after upload.  I don't do models, so I don't know about releases.  They do sell and they pay 52% commission.  My referral is in my signature.

I'm also going to work much harder with alamy.  There's no way I want to stay working with sites that cut commissions every year, that's unsustainable for all but the few that are the best sellers.

helix7

« Reply #18 on: January 20, 2011, 14:10 »
0
Hmmm... I can understand their not being micro friendly in the old days - but with the quality standards so high now, and a fair few macro shooters participating, I'd have thought we might be considered worthy of inclusion by now.

There's still some anti-micro sentiment on their website, so yeah, I'd say they haven't exactly changed their views in recent years.

« Reply #19 on: January 20, 2011, 14:12 »
0
why would they include the very people who support sites that pay 25 cents per download and less and undercut them, when they are used to receiving hundreds per sale. how can you even take us seriously, we are not looked at as professionals but as bottom feeders willing to take literally pennies, and we really will take anything they give us there are sites like photospin that give .02 cents per download and have over a million images up clearly people are willing to take .02 cents a download.  why would you want us in an organization that is trying to maintain a level of fair pricing in the industry? We have very few full time stockers so technically we are not "pros" as we don't earn 100% of our income from this.  We really need to collectively start an RF Guild that helps educate contributers as to why it is a good thing in the long run to not upload to unfair agencies. interesting to note that in the new 2011 Photographers Market Book, on the section about stock photography micro is only listed as a small side note while a hundred other macro/specialty agenies are listed.

« Reply #20 on: January 20, 2011, 14:15 »
0
Graphic leftovers has the simplest upload of any site I have ever used.  Just FTP and they do the rest, no categories, you don't even have to click anything after upload.  I don't do models, so I don't know about releases.  They do sell and they pay 52% commission.  My referral is in my signature.

I'm also going to work much harder with alamy.  There's no way I want to stay working with sites that cut commissions every year, that's unsustainable for all but the few that are the best sellers.

ScanStock quite similar !  but you do have to click ONCE to move ALL ftp images to review queue :)

« Reply #21 on: January 20, 2011, 15:10 »
0
Guys!
Please!

Suggestions!

How to avoid low and lower commissions and how to move buyers to the better agencies for us!?
Probably we will never have a union, we must act like individuals what might have also "global impact" ... But ,We must do the same!
« Last Edit: January 20, 2011, 19:40 by borg »

« Reply #22 on: January 20, 2011, 15:24 »
0
Okay...suggestion...

Perhaps we can get stock http://www.stockartistsalliance.org/ to open up a branch dedicated to improving micro RF commissions, it really would be in their best interest to have the hundreds of thousands of photographers they hate to actually be on their side and paying dues.

Throughout the history of the world the only way any human being in the arts ever made fair wages was if they joined a guild.  Because there will always be another more poor artist who is willing to do the job for less. Whether it is the Screen Actors Guild  or Masonry guild or Photographers, there are guilds for every single type of art there is a pastel artists guild.  Why have we yet to convince SAA to start working with us to help raise the bar. 

So who will volunteer to be our liason and speak with the president of SAA about how it would be in there benefit to stop hating us micros and try to get us to set a commision limit which we will absolutely refuse to accept.  Any volunteers...I nominate yuri he is one of the few with the celeb status to get enough followers to really make it have any impact.

« Reply #23 on: January 20, 2011, 15:33 »
0
Okay...suggestion...

Perhaps we can get stock http://www.stockartistsalliance.org/ to open up a branch dedicated to improving micro RF commissions, it really would be in their best interest to have the hundreds of thousands of photographers they hate to actually be on their side and paying dues.

Throughout the history of the world the only way any human being in the arts ever made fair wages was if they joined a guild.  Because there will always be another more poor artist who is willing to do the job for less. Whether it is the Screen Actors Guild  or Masonry guild or Photographers, there are guilds for every single type of art there is a pastel artists guild.  Why have we yet to convince SAA to start working with us to help raise the bar. 

So who will volunteer to be our liason and speak with the president of SAA about how it would be in there benefit to stop hating us micros and try to get us to set a commision limit which we will absolutely refuse to accept.  Any volunteers...I nominate yuri he is one of the few with the celeb status to get enough followers to really make it have any impact.



I would gladly volunteer, but I don't have any clout.. If someone like Yuri did it, it would be from his helpful naure not because it would help him any, as these things don't effect that status pint.. But he would definately be able to get people on board I imagine.. But if Yuri won't do it then who? Maybe Tyler would do it.. He has a voice here and would have the ability to get peoples attention to it.. I would volunteer to do leg work or whatever to help push things along..

« Reply #24 on: January 20, 2011, 15:33 »
0
I wouldn't mind closing my accounts in IS and FT (and possibly DT in the furture, the way things are going) and have them all in an agency that cares to work with us. That's why I've mentioned FP, Elena has always been responsive and there may be potential to make FP grow.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
2766 Views
Last post November 21, 2006, 11:48
by FunkMaster5
104 Replies
18950 Views
Last post June 22, 2009, 11:00
by Jonathan Ross
88 Replies
18438 Views
Last post February 24, 2010, 07:23
by macrosaur
59 Replies
13213 Views
Last post March 10, 2011, 15:05
by djpadavona
1 Replies
1282 Views
Last post June 28, 2014, 00:33
by Valo

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results