Author Topic: New Concept on Commissions- Day Dreaming by me (Read 6045 times)

tab62 · « **on:** May 25, 2012, 14:37 »

Here is an interesting thought for start up companies- you really want to get the best MSG Folks than here is what I propose-

1. Pay them a $1 per pic/drawings right off the bat- say they have 2,000 pics pay them $2,000 and than you can sell there pics without paying them anything since you paid them already. After each year you reduce the yearly check by 7% on existing inventory up to 5 years. All new submissions get a $1 as like in the initial offer. So if you submit 10,000 pics the contributor gets the following payouts-

Year Amount
01 $10,000
02 $ 9,300
03 $ 8,649
04 $8,043
05 $ 7,500

The start up company would be allow to sell as many of your pics and at whatever prices they decide. Basically you get paid up front and that is the end - no track sales necessary for contributors. Okay, back to day dreaming again...

T

wut · « **Reply #1 on:** May 25, 2012, 14:44 »

Daydreaming?

Sounds like hell to me, I'd never shoot for such a poor return, I get a lot more as it is.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #2 on:** May 25, 2012, 14:51 »

Lol, yeah, good images make more than $1 a year. Much more.

heywoody · « **Reply #3 on:** May 25, 2012, 15:22 »

Quote from: sjlocke on May 25, 2012, 14:51

Lol, yeah, good images make more than $1 a year. Much more.

Even bad ones do

jm · « **Reply #4 on:** May 25, 2012, 16:05 »

Delete this thread. It's nonsense but new Getty owners could be inspired by this idea.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #5 on:** May 25, 2012, 16:15 »

Quote from: heywoody on May 25, 2012, 15:22

Quote from: sjlocke on May 25, 2012, 14:51
Lol, yeah, good images make more than $1 a year. Much more.

Even bad ones do

of course, 1$ per year is really peanuts!

unless we talk per agency, that said I only see over 1$ per year at SS and 2$ at IS

mtilghma · « **Reply #6 on:** May 25, 2012, 16:19 »

luis is right, the relevant question is not whether an image makes over $1 per year, but whether it makes over $1 per year per agency.

A good image? yes. A bad image? it makes well over $1 per year on SS or iS, but probably less on 123RF or CanStockPhoto (again, I'm taking about bad images).

The kicker, however, is that for such a business model to stay in business, they would have to be very picky about accepting only good images. So I don't think it can be an improvement for a good image, and the owner would have to only select really good images.

wut · « **Reply #7 on:** May 25, 2012, 17:20 »

Quote from: mtilghma on May 25, 2012, 16:19

luis is right, the relevant question is not whether an image makes over $1 per year, but whether it makes over $1 per year per agency.

A good image? yes. A bad image? it makes well over $1 per year on SS or iS, but probably less on 123RF or CanStockPhoto (again, I'm taking about bad images).

I make more than 1$ at all of the top 4 agencies (each and every one) and I only get 4% of my earnings from DT, for instance (so the earnings are not equally spread around the agencies). And I'm far far away from being successful. I'm not contributing to the sites out of the big 4 anymore anyway.

mtilghma · « **Reply #8 on:** May 25, 2012, 18:09 »

You dont have a single picture which has grossed less than $1 over the past year at a given agency, even DT or FT? Wish I could say the same, but there are definitely some which are downloaded 1 or 2 times a year. Maybe it's just me.

wut · « **Reply #9 on:** May 25, 2012, 18:25 »

Quote from: mtilghma on May 25, 2012, 18:09

You dont have a single picture which has grossed less than $1 over the past year at a given agency, even DT or FT? Wish I could say the same, but there are definitely some which are downloaded 1 or 2 times a year. Maybe it's just me.

Of course I have, tons of them. I'm talking about the average and OP was too (e.g. $10k for 10k images), so it doesn't really matter whether that amount comes almost exclusively from 1% of the photos or if it's more evenly spread (it never is, for most togs at least)

ETA typos

mtilghma · « **Reply #10 on:** May 25, 2012, 18:31 »

Yes I think we are saying the same thing.

What I'm saying is, it would be possible to game such a system by uploading the crummy photos. But in that case, the business would go out of business really fast. There's no way, on average, it can benefit both us and them in the long run.

wut · « **Reply #11 on:** May 25, 2012, 19:00 »

Oh yeah, now I see what you're getting at. Yes, as a dump site at that rates it would be great. At least for those with huge and partly old ports. I have neither, but hey a couple of hundred dollars/year for 5 min of work (I'm thinking FTP UL) sure sounds nice. But as we all know and as you said, it would go bust. Or demand quality material which no one in his right mind would contribute.

But I can see what OP was getting at. Compared to non top 4 sites, especially the low tier sites, it would still be good. If top contributors can't even get a payout in a year on some of those, than it really says everything about earnings at those sites.

stormchaser · « **Reply #12 on:** May 25, 2012, 19:06 »

Quote from: wut on May 25, 2012, 19:00

Oh yeah, now I see what you're getting at. Yes, as a dump site at that rates it would be great. At least for those with huge and partly old ports. I have neither, but hey a couple of hundred dollars/year for 5 min of work (I'm thinking FTP UL) sure sounds nice. But as we all know and as you said, it would go bust. Or demand quality material which no one in his right mind would contribute.

But I can see what OP was getting at. Compared to non top 4 sites, especially the low tier sites, it would still be good. If top contributors can't even get a payout in a year on some of those, than it really says everything about earnings at those sites.

We already have the Dump sites - remember how people got fooled by the old Albumo? I did a test there to see what there qual control was like and they took every piec of crap I could possibly load.

The OP had better adjust his sleep medications because they're kicking in at the wrong time.

wut · « **Reply #13 on:** May 25, 2012, 19:19 »

Quote from: stormchaser on May 25, 2012, 19:06

Quote from: wut on May 25, 2012, 19:00
Oh yeah, now I see what you're getting at. Yes, as a dump site at that rates it would be great. At least for those with huge and partly old ports. I have neither, but hey a couple of hundred dollars/year for 5 min of work (I'm thinking FTP UL) sure sounds nice. But as we all know and as you said, it would go bust. Or demand quality material which no one in his right mind would contribute.

But I can see what OP was getting at. Compared to non top 4 sites, especially the low tier sites, it would still be good. If top contributors can't even get a payout in a year on some of those, than it really says everything about earnings at those sites.

We already have the Dump sites - remember how people got fooled by the old Albumo? I did a test there to see what there qual control was like and they took every piec of crap I could possibly load.

The OP had better adjust his sleep medications because they're kicking in at the wrong time.

I don't, I wasn't around back then (when it happened, I've only been doing this for just over 2 years). What happened?

Nice one about sleeping pills

stormchaser · « **Reply #14 on:** May 25, 2012, 19:37 »

Quote from: wut on May 25, 2012, 19:19

I don't, I wasn't around back then (when it happened, I've only been doing this for just over 2 years). What happened?

Nice one about sleeping pills

They came around about 5 years ago I think. When the new what seemed to be fly by nights started, I had a specially prepared batch of 5 images that were, well, pretty much garbage by today's standards. I uploaded - they took them all. Only one other agency that shall remain nameless did too. It was a test to see how low the quality barrier was. All I can say was, pretty low. Turned out the place was run out of some apartment in Calif. Anyway, same old story - I had about 100 images there, 2 sales in a year. Some of the stuff on the site very sad. After while of basically no movement, I decided to pull out. I was one of the lucky ones where they actually did it for me. Because they stopped responding to support emails etc, and I think for awhile the site may have been offline. Looks like there is a new site design now that seems to be active, but perhaps only in the strict definition of the word. These days I've been deleting the losers, not keeping them.

tab62 · « **Reply #15 on:** May 25, 2012, 22:39 »

What about this model on say a middle tier company? They pick your best and you make more than before- also this type of model would force the company to really market your photos or they go bust!

Phil · « **Reply #16 on:** May 26, 2012, 16:48 »

if there was no reviewing I'd do it

. (how many shots of my dog do you want? (she is cute))

cidepix · « **Reply #17 on:** May 26, 2012, 18:49 »

The most ridiculous idea I have ever heard. Some of my vectors average nearly $1000 per year..

If the agencies were to implement this ridiculous idea, I would right away withdraw all my work and stop doing quality vectors and start shooting thousands of crapy photos.. say I shoot 100.000 per year and get 30.000 accepted, good business for me since I am not a good photographer

at least better than giving my vectors away for $1..

I would do my best to send my worst work in, while keeping the best for myself.. probably good photographers should do the opposite and start doing something they are not good at and try to get the easy $$$

cidepix · « **Reply #18 on:** May 26, 2012, 19:02 »

Quote from: tab62 on May 25, 2012, 22:39

What about this model on say a middle tier company? They pick your best and you make more than before-

no. I wouldn't make more.. this idea is definition of hell..

just give up.. it only rewards "BAD" photographers / or artists who can't sell..

Microbius · « **Reply #19 on:** May 27, 2012, 13:32 »

Quote from: tab62 on May 25, 2012, 22:39

What about this model on say a middle tier company? They pick your best and you make more than before- also this type of model would force the company to really market your photos or they go bust!

Who cares how hard they market their images if you don't get more money for the extra sales? In fact the less they sell the better. More sales on the sites that actually pay per sale.

sam100 · « **Reply #20 on:** May 27, 2012, 14:11 »

Keep dreaming.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: New Concept on Commissions- Day Dreaming by me (Read 6045 times)

tab62

wut

Sean Locke Photography

heywoody

jm

luissantos84

mtilghma

wut

mtilghma

wut

mtilghma

wut

stormchaser

wut

stormchaser

tab62

Phil

cidepix

cidepix

Microbius

sam100

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors