Author Topic: This is getting contagious -123 new "deal" (Read 4190 times)

chromaco · « **on:** May 20, 2014, 14:32 »

100 images for $89 with rollover.
Limited time - for now.

Just got the e-mail.
We need to make sure that DPC gets shut down to stop the other guys from completely following suit.

Ariene · « **Reply #1 on:** May 20, 2014, 14:34 »

How much is for photographer?

cthoman · « **Reply #2 on:** May 20, 2014, 14:42 »

Quote from: chromaco on May 20, 2014, 14:32

100 images for $89 with rollover.
Limited time - for now.

Just got the e-mail.
We need to make sure that DPC gets shut down to stop the other guys from completely following suit.

Rollover images? Really? I guess it begs the question of these just being marketing gimmicks or legitimate perks. In other words, are buyers really going to use those extra image downloads?

Goofy · « **Reply #3 on:** May 20, 2014, 14:46 »

If feel like "DPC" was like STD (Sexually Transmitted Disease) and spread thought the community!

pancaketom · « **Reply #4 on:** May 20, 2014, 14:48 »

How many RC for these?

chromaco · « **Reply #5 on:** May 20, 2014, 14:51 »

Quote from: pancaketom on May 20, 2014, 14:48

How many RC for these?

I can't quite figure it out but I'm not really the guy at MSG you want researching things.
Just guessing but at 52% the best I would get would be $.46 for an eps or XXL unless it comes in as a sub sale.

EmberMike · « **Reply #6 on:** May 20, 2014, 14:54 »

Aright, hold on a second. Before everyone gets all freaked out...

I'm pretty sure 123RF has had $89 subscriptions for a while now. A couple of years at least, as far as I remember. In fact, I can go onto the site right now and sign up for an $89 subscription for 5 images a day, (150 total if I use the whole allotment). I hate DPC as much as the next contributor, but let's not spin this as a possible reaction from 123RF as a result of DPC when that's simply not at all true.

Second, the biggest issue with DPC is the $10 buy-in. $89 is still cheap for a subscription, but it's not $10. And as has already been mentioned here before, Bigstock offers a similar subscription for $69.

Again, I agree DPC sucks. But these other products were actually around before DPC and there wasn't much outrage back then. Let's keep this in perspective and somewhat in the realm of fairness. Companies like 123RF were selling cheap subscriptions long before DPC came along.

And I was really trying not to talk about DPC anymore...

So much for that.

chromaco · « **Reply #7 on:** May 20, 2014, 14:59 »

Fair enough but 123 is still one of my best earners because of the amount of XXL image sales I get. They are coming in at a lot more than $.46 ea. Also when you follow the link the image pack shows a price of $139. For some reason the price dropped to $89 this month. Maybe it is just a coincidence. Nevertheless I don't like the trend.

disorderly · « **Reply #8 on:** May 20, 2014, 15:10 »

Sounds more like a sale than a general price reduction. As with other sales, the question is whether the reduced price comes out of the agency, the supplier or some combination. I would hope it's the agency's sales or marketing budget that's taking the hit.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #9 on:** May 20, 2014, 15:16 »

So I looked at 123rf's current pricing page and noticed this deal to sign up for a 2 year subscription for the price of one year (25 a day) - which they tout to the buyer as costing 13 cents an image.

I know that buyers are unlikely to download their entire amount, but isn't 13 cents an image a new low? SS's lowest is 28 cents an image if you buy a year..

As 123rf pays me 32.4 cents per subs (now) does that mean we're about to see some sort of cut in compensation to have this work out?

I'm glad to see sites try to head off DPC at the pass, but I don't see how they can make deals like the above work?

Not to mention the $1.39 for an XXL image in the pack above - for which I'd see all of 62.5 cents, much less than is typical now

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #10 on:** May 20, 2014, 15:41 »

I'll separate out the download pack pricing from the subscriptions so things stay easier to read.

A while back, 123rf confirmed that for calculating royalties, the minimum price per credit would be 40 cents - so for me, that's 18 cents per credit minimum. An XXL JPEG is 6 credits, so at a minimum I'd get $1.08.

I don't know if the download packs would be subject to that floor? When the buyer pays $1.39 for the image, 45% is 62.5 cents which would be a huge drop for me - and I'm not thrilled with $1.08 per XXL! I had one this month at that rate, but the rest were at $1.35 and $2.592

The picture looks even worse at the higher pack pricing - buyer pays $1.158 and 123rf pays me all but 7.8 cents

At their base rate of 30%, they'd pay out 72 cents on XXL, leaving them about half the total. At 50%, they'd pay out $1.20 and keep just 19 cents - just 13.6% of the buyer price.

Perhaps they hope buyers will buy smaller sizes? (I wouldn't). Or buy only images from new contributors (not likely).

How can this work over time?

MxR · « **Reply #11 on:** May 20, 2014, 16:30 »

Remembr Bigstock 39 euro 5 images per day... 150 images 50 dollars... killing himself on demand sales...

This is the end... my friend...

dpimborough · « **Reply #12 on:** June 04, 2014, 14:31 »

Well if this s**t carries on I can see myself submitting to fewer and fewer agencies.

Are they really that stupid that the only fundamental marketing principle they ALL ignore is never to compete on price?

Once a price goes down you can't raise it back up again with out a lot of problems with the client base.

These agencies seem determined to wreck their own market.

Talk about dumb

In case they have an issue with the above statement here's some help

http://getmoremomentum.com/10-reasons-compete-price/

http://www.inc.com/articles/2002/08/24551.html

Guys STOP IT!!!