Author Topic: RC systems reward portfolio size not quality (Read 7078 times)

heywoody · « **on:** February 05, 2013, 19:15 »

Discuss...

tickstock · « **Reply #1 on:** February 05, 2013, 19:16 »

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #2 on:** February 05, 2013, 20:44 »

All incentive systems are designed to get the originator of the system what they want - if they're badly designed things can go severely awry though.

As contributors we have no control over the system, just whether we play or not. Unless agencies respond to pressure - and 123rf hasn't thus far - it's a power struggle, not a discussion, to change the incentive system.

davidgoh · « **Reply #3 on:** February 05, 2013, 21:05 »

Quote from: heywoody on February 05, 2013, 19:15

Discuss...

How does the RC system reward portfolio size? Isn't it quality that determines number of downloads at the end of the day?

sharpshot · « **Reply #4 on:** February 06, 2013, 04:43 »

Who cares? The RC system is just to boost istock's profits by taking money from its contributors. It's like getting a tax increase. It demotivates me and makes me want to work harder with the sites that pay non-exclusives a flat 50% or more. Istock have lost a lot of money from my images because of this. It's a shame so many people don't care how little their cut is.

Microbius · « **Reply #5 on:** February 06, 2013, 05:31 »

RC systems reward sales. They aren't at all bad in principle, IStock's is terrible because of the pathetic compensation levels and and unreachable goals. Just thinking about it is making my blood boil!

JFP · « **Reply #6 on:** February 06, 2013, 06:04 »

My royalty rate with the new RC system has gone higher much faster than with the old system.

The problem with the RC system is when it is managed by a company which has no integrity and start playing with the best match at the end of the year to adjust their targets!

heywoody · « **Reply #7 on:** February 06, 2013, 08:22 »

Quote from: Microbius on February 06, 2013, 05:31

RC systems reward sales. They aren't at all bad in principle, IStock's is terrible because of the pathetic compensation levels and and unreachable goals. Just thinking about it is making my blood boil!

All other things being equal (and they frequently aren't), bigger port = bigger sales. DT is the only site that actually rewards quality (in stock terms) with their levels system. However, even the systems used by SS and FT will allow contributers to advance over time. Granted the guy with 100 files can make a 1000 sales in a given period and the guy with a 1000 files might only make 100, but those are the exceptions. Many, many contributers with less than 1000 images may perform as well or better than their colleagues on a per image basis but have zero chance of advancing with the RC system.

dirkr · « **Reply #8 on:** February 06, 2013, 09:45 »

RC systems do reward recent (last year) performance as opposed to the old IS cannister system that awarded historical (lifetime) performance.

In general I would not be against such system, as it can motivate people to improve their performance.
The big issue I have with those system (as introduced by both IS and 123RF) is not the mechanics per se, but the fact that the previously agreed flat royalty rate was essentially set as the future maximum rate (at IS, 123RF did introduce higher rates for the higher levels, but they are only achievable for a few contributors) - so the effect was mainly a pay cut.

Had IS introduced the very same scheme but set the royalty rates per level at 20% - 25% for independents (essentially the opportunity to achieve a pay rise), I bet they would have received a lot of praise from independents for that.

heywoody · « **Reply #9 on:** February 06, 2013, 10:14 »

Indeed that's true. The mathematical point remains true though - to have any hope of advancing you need 1000s of images. A system that actually rewards quality would be based on DLs per image within a timeframe or acceptance ratio or both.

tickstock · « **Reply #10 on:** February 06, 2013, 11:30 »

lisafx · « **Reply #11 on:** February 06, 2013, 11:37 »

Quote from: sharpshot on February 06, 2013, 04:43

The RC system is just to boost istock's profits by taking money from its contributors.

^^Is the right answer. The RC credit system wasn't designed to reward anything except Getty's greed.

tickstock · « **Reply #12 on:** February 06, 2013, 11:47 »

heywoody · « **Reply #13 on:** February 06, 2013, 13:02 »

Quote from: tickstock on February 05, 2013, 19:16

Quote from: heywoody on February 05, 2013, 19:15
Discuss...
Nope. Pointless.

Possibly, but then the vast majority of threads here and on site fora are pointless and very repetitive if viewed objectively - maybe 10 themes in total??? I actually agree that one rate for all is the correct way to go and am not making any historical moral judgement about any site - just pointing out that RCs are essentially about port size (anyone with < 1000 images keep 50% on 123?). The DT arrangement is the only one where "size doesn't matter"

tickstock · « **Reply #14 on:** February 06, 2013, 13:12 »

lisafx · « **Reply #15 on:** February 06, 2013, 13:25 »

Quote from: tickstock on February 06, 2013, 11:47

Quote from: lisafx on February 06, 2013, 11:37
Quote from: sharpshot on February 06, 2013, 04:43
The RC system is just to boost istock's profits by taking money from its contributors.

^^Is the right answer. The RC credit system wasn't designed to reward anything except Getty's greed.
The same is true for any of these level based royalty systems, like on Shutterstock, Dreamstime, Fotolia, 123RF, etc.. They say starting out with low royalties gives incentive to move up when really it's just that they get higher profits. It would be much better if all systems were like Pond5 and we got a set 50% whether newbie or veteran.

You may be right, however this thread was about RC Systems, which only IS and 123 currently have, so I was addressing the subject of the thread

tickstock · « **Reply #16 on:** February 06, 2013, 13:31 »

lisafx · « **Reply #17 on:** February 06, 2013, 13:43 »

Quote from: tickstock on February 06, 2013, 13:31

Quote from: lisafx on February 06, 2013, 13:25
Quote from: tickstock on February 06, 2013, 11:47
Quote from: lisafx on February 06, 2013, 11:37
Quote from: sharpshot on February 06, 2013, 04:43
The RC system is just to boost istock's profits by taking money from its contributors.

^^Is the right answer. The RC credit system wasn't designed to reward anything except Getty's greed.
The same is true for any of these level based royalty systems, like on Shutterstock, Dreamstime, Fotolia, 123RF, etc.. They say starting out with low royalties gives incentive to move up when really it's just that they get higher profits. It would be much better if all systems were like Pond5 and we got a set 50% whether newbie or veteran.

You may be right, however this thread was about RC Systems, which only IS and 123 currently have, so I was addressing the subject of the thread
Depends how you look at RCs. Couldn't it mean Redeemed as in sold and Credits as in files, so any system based on how many files sold to determine royalty rates. I don't see the different systems as being all that different one is lifetime RCs and the other is yearly resetting RCs both are designed to take money from the contributor under the guise of helping the contributor. Both are also unfair to contributors in varying degrees. I know it was meant to be an Istock and 123RF thread but the OP did bring up Dreamstime first so I assume that is fair game and on topic?

Right, none of which negates my original point about Getty's greed that you seem to take issue with.

I see you joined January 13, just when the Getty/google fiasco came to light. Judging from your posts, you are some sort of shill for Getty, here to drag every discussion about them off topic or else argue with anyone who is justifiably angry with their treatment of contributors.

Whatever. That's why we have an ignore button.

tickstock · « **Reply #18 on:** February 06, 2013, 13:48 »

heywoody · « **Reply #19 on:** February 06, 2013, 14:45 »

Quote from: tickstock on February 06, 2013, 13:12

Quote from: heywoody on February 06, 2013, 13:02
Quote from: tickstock on February 05, 2013, 19:16
Quote from: heywoody on February 05, 2013, 19:15
Discuss...

Nope. Pointless.

Possibly, but then the vast majority of threads here and on site fora are pointless and very repetitive if viewed objectively - maybe 10 themes in total??? I actually agree that one rate for all is the correct way to go and am not making any historical moral judgement about any site - just pointing out that RCs are essentially about port size (anyone with < 1000 images keep 50% on 123?). The DT arrangement is the only one where "size doesn't matter"

Dreamstime lowered their royalty rates for the levels system, it has screwed over contributors and you think that's the model for a good arrangement? It used to be 50% per sale now it's as low as 25% and if you sell a lot you can get up to 45%, still happy about it? Compare the old royalties to the new ones. http://web.archive.org/web/20070210004541/http://www.dreamstime.com/sellimages

Sorry, where did I say that DT is a model for a good arrangement? The thrust of the thread is that RC is about volume and DT is the only site that actually rewards quality – this is a logical conclusion and nothing to do with which of the bullies stole your lunch money recently. I’m amused at the negatives Lisa has got for staying on topic.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: RC systems reward portfolio size not quality (Read 7078 times)

heywoody

tickstock

Jo Ann Snover

davidgoh

sharpshot

Microbius

JFP

heywoody

dirkr

heywoody

tickstock

lisafx

tickstock

heywoody

tickstock

lisafx

tickstock

lisafx

tickstock

heywoody

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors