MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Time to punish some mid/low tier agencies  (Read 26485 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

wut

« on: February 17, 2012, 19:09 »
0
With all the stunts that 123RF has started pulling, I think we should show them who's boss. It's obviously they think they've become big enough to start pushing us around, start walking all over us with their "RC system". Some other agencies like Photodune etc, that don't have the volume, also pay just 33%. I think no mid/low tier agency should pay us less than 50% (no agency really, but we should take one step at the time). I know ppl are not willing to pull stuff from IS (those that were have already done it), most ppl wouldn't do it at FT either since those agencies still bring in a relatively big chunk of their earnings. It's not easy to just write off 20 or 30% of your earnings. But for the vast majority of indies SS brings the most money in most cases 50% or even more (at least to those that are not spread around all agencies or make a lot at other top 4 agencies). But loosing 1 or 2 percent of earnings for deleting your port there and send them a strong msg, I really think if ppl would think about it, what that would bring us in the long run, no more squeezing of contributors all the time, would make it more than worth it. So if we make a list of all the baddies, put down reasons why they need a slap on the wrist (though it would be better in the face and with a punch) to make an end of this extortion. Since it's obviously not doable with the big agencies, we should at least do it with the small. We'll send them a msg, play fair or go bankrupt (or at least suffer big losses). You can't afford it small timers, not until you get big, but we won't let you become big unless you play fair.

To paint you a picture ;)
NEMESIS


RT


« Reply #1 on: February 17, 2012, 19:17 »
0
There's two types of readers here: Those that do it for business and those that do it for fun.

No disrespect but as I told you in your thread about 123RF I make my own decisions on whether I upload or stick with an agency and everyone else that does this as a business will most probably do exactly the same.

Some people here do it for fun and are happy to get $10 a year from an agency.

If you're looking to start a revolution I think you're wasting your breath.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #2 on: February 17, 2012, 19:24 »
0
There's two types of readers here: Those that do it for business and those that do it for fun.

No disrespect but as I told you in your thread about 123RF I make my own decisions on whether I upload or stick with an agency and everyone else that does this as a business will most probably do exactly the same.

Some people here do it for fun and are happy to get $10 a year from an agency.

If you're looking to start a revolution I think you're wasting your breath.

Not only that, Wut, but you are trying to take a leadership role from a seemingly weak position; have you looked at how many MSG users are ignoring you?

wut

« Reply #3 on: February 17, 2012, 19:28 »
0
@RT: I'd like to make a change. We make our own luck/fate/destiny/whatever you call it, but if we all remain passive, there will never be a change. However I do understand your way of thinking and just focusing on business. Your speedometers are impressive, so you must be doing things right. OTOH I wouldn't care either if I'd make 5k/month, loosing 20% sure is loosing more in dollars compared to someone making a fraction of that, but I wouldn't care too much about loosing a grand, 4k is still plenty ;) (if one is not a greedy bas-tard, but if one is, he/she's no better than those agencies and is mentally in sync with them). But for someone barely making it through the month, making 25% more is really significant, huge actually. It would be for me, I would de facto be able to live off of MS earnings (now I still have to hustle to make the difference by doing things I don't like doing as much as MS).

I think it's definitely worth a try. Otherwise they'll just keep on laughing (pissing really) in our faces and keep on eating free lunches (at our expenses of course)

wut

« Reply #4 on: February 17, 2012, 19:29 »
0
There's two types of readers here: Those that do it for business and those that do it for fun.

No disrespect but as I told you in your thread about 123RF I make my own decisions on whether I upload or stick with an agency and everyone else that does this as a business will most probably do exactly the same.

Some people here do it for fun and are happy to get $10 a year from an agency.

If you're looking to start a revolution I think you're wasting your breath.

Not only that, Wut, but you are trying to take a leadership role from a seemingly weak position; have you looked at how many MSG users are ignoring you?

Check my signature ;)

velocicarpo

« Reply #5 on: February 17, 2012, 19:44 »
0
You got my support...

wut

« Reply #6 on: February 17, 2012, 19:55 »
0
You got my support...

Great, tnx, I hope for many more.

That being said, Warren Price said I'm trying to take a leadership role. I'm really not, I've just come up with the idea, just an outline plan. Whoever can be a leader, though I think there's no need for one, since all we have to do is to determine which agencies we have to show what the time is (and why). Everyone than just pulls his/her port, or leaves 1 photo so if things change we can than easily upload and get higher royalties. We just have to do it in large enough number to make a difference, that's all there's to it. Otherwise we're actually just depriving ourselves for that few percent, for nothing. Well we would feel better about ourselves anyway, wouldn't we ;)

WarrenPrice

« Reply #7 on: February 17, 2012, 20:09 »
0
Don't get me wrong, Wut; I respect your initiative.  But, how many times have we already been thru this scenario?  Several for sure.  We just make a lot of noise then go back to sleep.   ::)

And, I can not offer any support.  I deleted my 123rf portfolio in December 2010.

« Reply #8 on: February 17, 2012, 20:15 »
0
There's two types of readers here: Those that do it for business and those that do it for fun.

No disrespect but as I told you in your thread about 123RF I make my own decisions on whether I upload or stick with an agency and everyone else that does this as a business will most probably do exactly the same.

Some people here do it for fun and are happy to get $10 a year from an agency.

If you're looking to start a revolution I think you're wasting your breath.

of course we all make our decisions from the shooting to the upload, not a question there.. but no matter how big you are you need to be concerned about agencies moves, sure you can be doing insanely good in all agencies for years and years but you dont know what will happen tomorrow (IS drop and FT emerals per example)

the "union" is a very hard idea as we all know and for sure will never happen but it would be nice to have some respect from agencies :)

helix7

« Reply #9 on: February 17, 2012, 20:33 »
0

You're assuming that the top, mid, and low tier agencies are the same for everyone. What you might consider a low earner, I might consider a high earner. So why should I sacrifice a high earner for your campaign against low percentages?

I make a few hundred bucks per month at an agency that isn't even on that list at right (no, I'm not telling anyone which agency, don't ask). But to you, they'd be a low tier agency, not worth the time. Some people do well at 123RF, some (like me) make hardly anything there. Barely enough money to put gas in the car each month. I could drop 123RF without it making much difference in my life, but for someone else that would be a huge loss. You're asking people to make cuts that you feel are appropriate based on your own personal experience and opinion about specific agencies. Kinda selfish, no?

« Reply #10 on: February 17, 2012, 20:38 »
0
I make a few hundred bucks per month at an agency that isn't even on that list at right (no, I'm not telling anyone which agency, don't ask)

come on  ;D ;D vectors?

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #11 on: February 17, 2012, 20:56 »
0
You cant hurt the agency because they will be able to survive from all the new people they pick up just like any business will.

They dont care if you walk off or not because they will find someone else to do your job and pay them even less which they will be happy with.

« Reply #12 on: February 17, 2012, 21:01 »
0
I won't be leaving, as I sell well at 123RF and I won't be seeing a cut.  

But I actually agree with the sentiment of the original post here, as well as replies who say everyone must make his/her own decision.

If a partner changed the terms of a deal on me, I would have every right to leave.  If I feel I'm being negatively impacted, I would say so, and if I end up being ignored, I would leave.  I would be a fool not to.  

We all should respect every individual's right to make decisions in his or her best interest.  If I were in the shoes of someone upset at the new terms, I would want to leave.  And if you were in my shoes, retaining your rate or even seeing a possible increase, you would want to stay.

The thing I have a hard time respecting is whining.  Or a victim mentality... taking abuse and sticking around for more.  By all means, make noise and try to get the other party to see your side, but if that ultimately doesn't work, you have to make a decision and live with it.  You're no one's slave.

« Reply #13 on: February 17, 2012, 21:09 »
0
There's two types of readers here: Those that do it for business and those that do it for fun.

No disrespect but as I told you in your thread about 123RF I make my own decisions on whether I upload or stick with an agency and everyone else that does this as a business will most probably do exactly the same.

Some people here do it for fun and are happy to get $10 a year from an agency.

If you're looking to start a revolution I think you're wasting your breath.

You are right in your initial suggestion however it is 'those who do it for business' who probably generate 90%+ of the sales and without whom no agency could grow. Therefore, at least in theory, they should hold the power if only they could stick together. Unfortunately many of them just scatter their work everywhere and anywhere that asks them to, probably for a handful of change. Personally I didn't like 123's attitude from the start and so have never bothered with them.

« Reply #14 on: February 17, 2012, 21:27 »
0
Not only that, Wut, but you are trying to take a leadership role from a seemingly weak position; have you looked at how many MSG users are ignoring you?

I wouldn't take notice of 'Ignores'! Even SJL has 18 of them and yet there is no more knowledgeable or helpful a guy in microstock. That's 18 complete muppets for you __ absolutely no reflection whatsoever of the poster or the quality of his advice. No-one commands more respect on the IS forum either.

« Reply #15 on: February 17, 2012, 21:36 »
0
Not only that, Wut, but you are trying to take a leadership role from a seemingly weak position; have you looked at how many MSG users are ignoring you?

I wouldn't take notice of 'Ignores'! Even SJL has 18 of them and yet there is no more knowledgeable or helpful a guy in microstock. That's 18 complete muppets for you __ absolutely no reflection whatsoever of the poster or the quality of his advice. No-one commands more respect on the IS forum either.

Locke's comments are hard to decipher.  Sometimes his posts sound like they come a European's perspective, sometimes he's a blimey, other times he's serious and other times he us a crutch and he blends the well into confusion for those who don't know anything about him.   Therein lies the SL Zone.

« Reply #16 on: February 17, 2012, 21:52 »
0
Locke's comments are hard to decipher.  Sometimes his posts sound like they come a European's perspective, sometimes he's a blimey, other times he's serious and other times he us a crutch and he blends the well into confusion for those who don't know anything about him.   Therein lies the SL Zone.

I think it is much simpler than that. An element of green-eye coupled with not being able to accept the truth/reality about the issues.


WarrenPrice

« Reply #17 on: February 17, 2012, 22:12 »
0
Not only that, Wut, but you are trying to take a leadership role from a seemingly weak position; have you looked at how many MSG users are ignoring you?

I wouldn't take notice of 'Ignores'! Even SJL has 18 of them and yet there is no more knowledgeable or helpful a guy in microstock. That's 18 complete muppets for you __ absolutely no reflection whatsoever of the poster or the quality of his advice. No-one commands more respect on the IS forum either.

I stand by my comment, Gostwyck.  I don't see any organized effort; more like total chaos.  
I repeat ... we've been here many times before. It is going to take a much more respected profile than Wut to "organize" any beneficial protest.
Are you up to it?

Uh Oh... you also have more ignores than me.   :P  ;D
« Last Edit: February 17, 2012, 22:14 by WarrenPrice »

« Reply #18 on: February 17, 2012, 22:37 »
0
We all should respect every individual's right to make decisions in his or her best interest.  If I were in the shoes of someone upset at the new terms, I would want to leave.  And if you were in my shoes, retaining your rate or even seeing a possible increase, you would want to stay.

sounds to me like, I will score more money $$$

lagereek

« Reply #19 on: February 18, 2012, 02:23 »
0
Wut!

Take no notice!  to be ignored by the ignoramus, is a blessing, yes, they have done you a favour because in a forum like this,  thats exactly the kind of faint hearted pussys you dont want in your posts and threads anyway,  they are wastes of space, thats all, hangers-ons and the first ones to jump on gravy-trains in arguments.

Ive had some epic shoot-outs with old members here, calling each other for everything under the sun, BUT!  we sort of kiss and make up, we dont ignore each other, why?  because were professionals and thereby can take the heat. simple as that.

There is nothing wrong with taking a leader role, it means you got balls!  so be my guest and you carry on writing and posting whatever you want and take no notice of the small fries.

best.

lagereek

« Reply #20 on: February 18, 2012, 05:28 »
0
Not only that, Wut, but you are trying to take a leadership role from a seemingly weak position; have you looked at how many MSG users are ignoring you?

I wouldn't take notice of 'Ignores'! Even SJL has 18 of them and yet there is no more knowledgeable or helpful a guy in microstock. That's 18 complete muppets for you __ absolutely no reflection whatsoever of the poster or the quality of his advice. No-one commands more respect on the IS forum either.

Locke's comments are hard to decipher.  Sometimes his posts sound like they come a European's perspective, sometimes he's a blimey, other times he's serious and other times he us a crutch and he blends the well into confusion for those who don't know anything about him.   Therein lies the SL Zone.

Few years back, I was absoloutely sure he was a Scotsman. He very politely told me, he wasnt. Its the way he writes sometimes. :)

wut

« Reply #21 on: February 18, 2012, 05:47 »
0
I won't be leaving, as I sell well at 123RF and I won't be seeing a cut.  

But I actually agree with the sentiment of the original post here, as well as replies who say everyone must make his/her own decision.

If a partner changed the terms of a deal on me, I would have every right to leave.  If I feel I'm being negatively impacted, I would say so, and if I end up being ignored, I would leave.  I would be a fool not to.  

We all should respect every individual's right to make decisions in his or her best interest.  If I were in the shoes of someone upset at the new terms, I would want to leave.  And if you were in my shoes, retaining your rate or even seeing a possible increase, you would want to stay.

The thing I have a hard time respecting is whining.  Or a victim mentality... taking abuse and sticking around for more.  By all means, make noise and try to get the other party to see your side, but if that ultimately doesn't work, you have to make a decision and live with it.  You're no one's slave.

What a great post, so well put! Great perspective on things. I'd also say it's about dignity and self respect as an extension to the slave analogy that I completely agree with. There's a better expression for the behaviour that would also be needed, if not for "this cause of ours" (la cosa nostra haha), for your own good in life (even if you go down, you go down with dignity), but I don't know how it's said in English, the closest would be, I guess, to hold your head up (high).

wut

« Reply #22 on: February 18, 2012, 05:49 »
0
There's two types of readers here: Those that do it for business and those that do it for fun.

No disrespect but as I told you in your thread about 123RF I make my own decisions on whether I upload or stick with an agency and everyone else that does this as a business will most probably do exactly the same.

Some people here do it for fun and are happy to get $10 a year from an agency.

If you're looking to start a revolution I think you're wasting your breath.

You are right in your initial suggestion however it is 'those who do it for business' who probably generate 90%+ of the sales and without whom no agency could grow. Therefore, at least in theory, they should hold the power if only they could stick together. Unfortunately many of them just scatter their work everywhere and anywhere that asks them to, probably for a handful of change. Personally I didn't like 123's attitude from the start and so have never bothered with them.

Indeed, but the point is to get as much of those, as well as small fish (it can't hurt, right) together in this thread and make a group move.

wut

« Reply #23 on: February 18, 2012, 06:15 »
0
Wut!

Take no notice!  to be ignored by the ignoramus, is a blessing, yes, they have done you a favour because in a forum like this,  thats exactly the kind of faint hearted pussys you dont want in your posts and threads anyway,  they are wastes of space, thats all, hangers-ons and the first ones to jump on gravy-trains in arguments.

Ive had some epic shoot-outs with old members here, calling each other for everything under the sun, BUT!  we sort of kiss and make up, we dont ignore each other, why?  because were professionals and thereby can take the heat. simple as that.

There is nothing wrong with taking a leader role, it means you got balls!  so be my guest and you carry on writing and posting whatever you want and take no notice of the small fries.

best.

Lagereek!

I won't and I didn't, don't worry ;) . The text I've put in bold is pure gold and really the way I think about ppl, life and reality. I know I can be a bit too rebellious at times, I always hated authority (horrible bosses at least and I never put up with their crap, which always turned out to be good for me at the end, besides I felt good about myself), but everything is better than just bending over or even bending over with a tube of lube in your hand :)

Tnx for the support, I'll do my best to make an impact, to make something out of that. I hope and other big timers will be in when we'll need you to pull your ports. Perhaps you'll hold back on Glenfiddich for a while, but those few less glasses that you'll drink will sure taste better and in the long run you'll be able to afford so much of it you won't be able to drink it if you lived another 200 years :) (surely a joke since it really won't make any difference when it comes to Glenfiddich;)

wut

« Reply #24 on: February 18, 2012, 06:18 »
0

You're assuming that the top, mid, and low tier agencies are the same for everyone. What you might consider a low earner, I might consider a high earner. So why should I sacrifice a high earner for your campaign against low percentages?

I make a few hundred bucks per month at an agency that isn't even on that list at right (no, I'm not telling anyone which agency, don't ask). But to you, they'd be a low tier agency, not worth the time. Some people do well at 123RF, some (like me) make hardly anything there. Barely enough money to put gas in the car each month. I could drop 123RF without it making much difference in my life, but for someone else that would be a huge loss. You're asking people to make cuts that you feel are appropriate based on your own personal experience and opinion about specific agencies. Kinda selfish, no?

As I said, the point of this thread is to get together, make a list of agencies that are mistreating us and then even taking us for fools with spins and twisting of words as we've seen from Alex who works for 123RF, his explanations are basically a c/p of KKT's. And they both make me sick, one thing is to get the deal you singed up for changed, but if it gets topped with such manipulative posts, that are really just offending our intelligence (well for most of us:), than this really is what tipped me over the edge. OK to get back to the point, we should do it according to the list, though everyone can decide to pull his/her ports from the other sites, but the impact would of course only be felt at the site where enough of the content (not contributors) walked away. For a smaller site, with less content a relatively small number of files would be enough, while at 123RF with 12 mil+, the number would have to be pretty significant. But we'll never know unless we try. So how can this be selfish if I'm trying to do something that would be in everyone's best interest, even of those who won't cooperate, won't take the small sacrifice?

« Reply #25 on: February 18, 2012, 06:33 »
0
This is not my fight at all as I am IS exclusive, but yet again I fail to understand how are SS any better when they are probably paying one of the worst commitions out there!  (exept IS, for indys that is), not only is it so low, you don't even know how much!

If I was an agency I would simply lower all of you guys comissions and ssimply don't even let you know how much %%% you get!
Thats what SS does and everybody seems to be happy with them...

« Reply #26 on: February 18, 2012, 06:45 »
0
But loosing 1 or 2 percent of earnings for deleting your port there and send them a strong msg, I really think if ppl would think about it, what that would bring us in the long run, no more squeezing of contributors all the time, would make it more than worth it. So if we make a list of all the baddies, put down reasons why they need a slap on the wrist (though it would be better in the face and with a punch) to make an end of this extortion.

I wouldn't call it extortion as that would be unlawful. The agencies aren't doing unlawful things (probably). I do however think it should be unlawful, i.e. There should be regulations to ensure that companies, not just in the microstock industry but in any industry are required to pay decent royalties to the people whose work they distribute. I don't believe a lot of people would stop at a red traffic light if they know the rule is not enforced (I know they don't, I live in a country where when the police go home at night, a lot people then ignore red lights). I also don't believe a lot of companies would act fairly despite them knowing that they are not doing the right thing (they would have to know, surely?), unless the rule is enforced.

I think it is one of the most basic human instincts to want to be treated fairly. I'm sure Alex, Andy, Jack, Anglee, Jaycee and anyone else connected to 123rf, live their lives everyday wanting and even demanding to be treated fairly. People always look at themselves and ask for fair treatment, but may not look to others and think am I being fair. That's why there is need for good government, laws and regulations for these kind of things.


wut

« Reply #27 on: February 18, 2012, 06:48 »
0
This is not my fight at all as I am IS exclusive, but yet again I fail to understand how are SS any better when they are probably paying one of the worst commitions out there!  (exept IS, for indys that is), not only is it so low, you don't even know how much!

If I was an agency I would simply lower all of you guys comissions and ssimply don't even let you know how much %%% you get!
Thats what SS does and everybody seems to be happy with them...

Here we go again! :o ::) As I explained in more detail to someone stating the same on the previous page, it's all about the bottom line. They still earn a lot more than any other agency for the vast majority of contributors. I really don't care what's the RPD, if I get more of the money from them than from all other agencies combined. I wouldn't care if they were paying me 1c/sale. Still better than getting a 10$ but only 20% of those sales, or 1% or so like in the case of Alamy. I admit, I'd feel all nice and warm at the moment I'd get a 200$+ sale, but if they happen so rarely that the bottom line is pathetic compared to the one with 1c sales it doesn't really do me much good now, does it. Bragging rights don't buy you lunches ;)

SA

« Reply #28 on: February 18, 2012, 06:51 »
0
-
« Last Edit: October 24, 2013, 06:35 by SA »

« Reply #29 on: February 18, 2012, 06:56 »
0
This is not my fight at all as I am IS exclusive, but yet again I fail to understand how are SS any better when they are probably paying one of the worst commitions out there!  (exept IS, for indys that is), not only is it so low, you don't even know how much!

If I was an agency I would simply lower all of you guys comissions and ssimply don't even let you know how much %%% you get!
Thats what SS does and everybody seems to be happy with them...

Here we go again! :o ::) As I explained in more detail to someone stating the same on the previous page, it's all about the bottom line. They still earn a lot more than any other agency for the vast majority of contributors. I really don't care what's the RPD, if I get more of the money from them than from all other agencies combined. I wouldn't care if they were paying me 1c/sale. Still better than getting a 10$ but only 20% of those sales, or 1% or so like in the case of Alamy. I admit, I'd feel all nice and warm at the moment I'd get a 200$+ sale, but if they happen so rarely that the bottom line is pathetic compared to the one with 1c sales it doesn't really do me much good now, does it. Bragging rights don't buy you lunches ;)

So if I understand you correctly, you don't really have a problem with 123rf's (for example) percentage, you real
problem is that they don't earn you enough money, right ?
According to your logic, the bigger the agency, the more percentage they are "permitted" to get, right ?

wut

« Reply #30 on: February 18, 2012, 07:09 »
0
Im quite new to the forum and not a big shark in the microstock world. But I think I can resonate about this and here is how I see it:

The agencies will survive as long as they have good pictures to provide and costumers that want to buy them. Our role is then none of power because there will always be talented people in the world that want to contribute with images for less money.

It doesn't matter to the agencies if they dump the commissions to the contributors. There is always someone that can be a contributor for less money. Either because they just do it for fun, or because they live in a country where the money is worth more.

I think the agencies can, and probable will, keep lower the commissions to the contributors. They will not have to low supply of good pictures because of this. I can imagine many of us not doing this in 20 years from now, and see a bunch of Indian and Chinese contributors working for 1 cent per subscription download.  :)  

This business is new and it has been a bit "to good to be true" for contributors that was in it from the start where there were not so many pictures and good contributors around. I think we just have to keep settling for less and less paid per image in the future. But we can still make money because we have been in it for a long time and have lots of pictures uploaded, and maybe good positions in search results because of that. So in that regard. We are not screwed in the future. I also think that the demand for microstock pictures will increase in the future due to the growth of internet and computers all over the world.

So we just have to move along with the changes that comes, and keep uploading and improving if we want more and not less money from this. We have no power, but we can enjoy making money from microstock for a long time still!

Or am I wrong?

/Simon

You're the perfect employee! I wish I could forward your post to your boss. He'd lower your pay every quarter, since there are a lot of ppl willing to do it for less, unemployment is high all over the world and still rising.

wut

« Reply #31 on: February 18, 2012, 07:15 »
0
This is not my fight at all as I am IS exclusive, but yet again I fail to understand how are SS any better when they are probably paying one of the worst commitions out there!  (exept IS, for indys that is), not only is it so low, you don't even know how much!

If I was an agency I would simply lower all of you guys comissions and ssimply don't even let you know how much %%% you get!
Thats what SS does and everybody seems to be happy with them...

Here we go again! :o ::) As I explained in more detail to someone stating the same on the previous page, it's all about the bottom line. They still earn a lot more than any other agency for the vast majority of contributors. I really don't care what's the RPD, if I get more of the money from them than from all other agencies combined. I wouldn't care if they were paying me 1c/sale. Still better than getting a 10$ but only 20% of those sales, or 1% or so like in the case of Alamy. I admit, I'd feel all nice and warm at the moment I'd get a 200$+ sale, but if they happen so rarely that the bottom line is pathetic compared to the one with 1c sales it doesn't really do me much good now, does it. Bragging rights don't buy you lunches ;)

So if I understand you correctly, you don't really have a problem with 123rf's (for example) percentage, you real
problem is that they don't earn you enough money, right ?
According to your logic, the bigger the agency, the more percentage they are "permitted" to get, right ?

That's what I said before, they don't have the volume and are now going to cut royalties. This, in fact, is much worse than what IS did, at least they had the volume, most are reporting falling sales, though for me are either stagnant or on the slow rise. At 123RF earnings are in a decline and they'll just speed it up now. I don't like both agencies, but moneywise IS is better and IS can't be punished so I skipped them on purpose.
Right, the sad truth, if they're big, we are just David against Goliath

P.S. In a way you have it better as an exclusive, not worrying about such stuff. I don't like focusing on such matters as well, but someting needs and has to be done!

« Reply #32 on: February 18, 2012, 07:24 »
0
This is not my fight at all as I am IS exclusive, but yet again I fail to understand how are SS any better when they are probably paying one of the worst commitions out there!  (exept IS, for indys that is), not only is it so low, you don't even know how much!

If I was an agency I would simply lower all of you guys comissions and ssimply don't even let you know how much %%% you get!
Thats what SS does and everybody seems to be happy with them...

Here we go again! :o ::) As I explained in more detail to someone stating the same on the previous page, it's all about the bottom line. They still earn a lot more than any other agency for the vast majority of contributors. I really don't care what's the RPD, if I get more of the money from them than from all other agencies combined. I wouldn't care if they were paying me 1c/sale. Still better than getting a 10$ but only 20% of those sales, or 1% or so like in the case of Alamy. I admit, I'd feel all nice and warm at the moment I'd get a 200$+ sale, but if they happen so rarely that the bottom line is pathetic compared to the one with 1c sales it doesn't really do me much good now, does it. Bragging rights don't buy you lunches ;)

So if I understand you correctly, you don't really have a problem with 123rf's (for example) percentage, you real
problem is that they don't earn you enough money, right ?
According to your logic, the bigger the agency, the more percentage they are "permitted" to get, right ?

That's what I said before, they don't have the volume and are now going to cut royalties. This, in fact, is much worse than what IS did, at least they had the volume, most are reporting falling sales, though for me are either stagnant or on the slow rise. At 123RF earnings are in a decline and they'll just speed it up now. I don't like both agencies, but moneywise IS is better and IS can't be punished so I skipped them on purpose.
Right, the sad truth, if they're big, we are just David against Goliath

P.S. In a way you have it better as an exclusive, not worrying about such stuff. I don't like focusing on such matters as well, but someting needs and has to be done!

So if they had the volume of IS then cutting commissions wouldn't be so bad as they would still be paying for some of your lunches. I think I'm not going to follow ur revolution.

wut

« Reply #33 on: February 18, 2012, 07:33 »
0
This is not my fight at all as I am IS exclusive, but yet again I fail to understand how are SS any better when they are probably paying one of the worst commitions out there!  (exept IS, for indys that is), not only is it so low, you don't even know how much!

If I was an agency I would simply lower all of you guys comissions and ssimply don't even let you know how much %%% you get!
Thats what SS does and everybody seems to be happy with them...

Here we go again! :o ::) As I explained in more detail to someone stating the same on the previous page, it's all about the bottom line. They still earn a lot more than any other agency for the vast majority of contributors. I really don't care what's the RPD, if I get more of the money from them than from all other agencies combined. I wouldn't care if they were paying me 1c/sale. Still better than getting a 10$ but only 20% of those sales, or 1% or so like in the case of Alamy. I admit, I'd feel all nice and warm at the moment I'd get a 200$+ sale, but if they happen so rarely that the bottom line is pathetic compared to the one with 1c sales it doesn't really do me much good now, does it. Bragging rights don't buy you lunches ;)

So if I understand you correctly, you don't really have a problem with 123rf's (for example) percentage, you real
problem is that they don't earn you enough money, right ?
According to your logic, the bigger the agency, the more percentage they are "permitted" to get, right ?

That's what I said before, they don't have the volume and are now going to cut royalties. This, in fact, is much worse than what IS did, at least they had the volume, most are reporting falling sales, though for me are either stagnant or on the slow rise. At 123RF earnings are in a decline and they'll just speed it up now. I don't like both agencies, but moneywise IS is better and IS can't be punished so I skipped them on purpose.
Right, the sad truth, if they're big, we are just David against Goliath

P.S. In a way you have it better as an exclusive, not worrying about such stuff. I don't like focusing on such matters as well, but someting needs and has to be done!

So if they had the volume of IS then cutting commissions wouldn't be so bad as they would still be paying for some of your lunches. I think I'm not going to follow ur revolution.

It was about SS, not IS. I suggest you read more carefully before you decide ;)

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #34 on: February 18, 2012, 07:43 »
0
Im quite new to the forum and not a big shark in the microstock world. But I think I can resonate about this and here is how I see it:

The agencies will survive as long as they have good pictures to provide and costumers that want to buy them. Our role is then none of power because there will always be talented people in the world that want to contribute with images for less money.

It doesn't matter to the agencies if they dump the commissions to the contributors. There is always someone that can be a contributor for less money. Either because they just do it for fun, or because they live in a country where the money is worth more.

I think the agencies can, and probable will, keep lower the commissions to the contributors. They will not have to low supply of good pictures because of this. I can imagine many of us not doing this in 20 years from now, and see a bunch of Indian and Chinese contributors working for 1 cent per subscription download.  :)  

This business is new and it has been a bit "to good to be true" for contributors that was in it from the start where there were not so many pictures and good contributors around. I think we just have to keep settling for less and less paid per image in the future. But we can still make money because we have been in it for a long time and have lots of pictures uploaded, and maybe good positions in search results because of that. So in that regard. We are not screwed in the future. I also think that the demand for microstock pictures will increase in the future due to the growth of internet and computers all over the world.

So we just have to move along with the changes that comes, and keep uploading and improving if we want more and not less money from this. We have no power, but we can enjoy making money from microstock for a long time still!

Or am I wrong?

/Simon

Regardless if for profit or for fun, if contributors' commissions keep getting cut they will eventually run out of money. I can't think of too many people that have a savings account that never goes empty. To do well, this is an expensive business. When enough people can no longer afford to produce images, supply will drop. When supply drops agencies will start losing customers and money because their collection becomes stale and buyers will start looking elsewhere for the right images. At that point the agency will probably drop prices in order to compete which will further accelerate the exodus of whatever contributors are left. The agencies are simply slowly wringing us dry to figure out where "dry" is.

Also, keep in mind that for countries with low living costs, the equipment still costs the same and may be create a pretty high barrier to entering the business.

« Reply #35 on: February 18, 2012, 07:52 »
0
This is not my fight at all as I am IS exclusive, but yet again I fail to understand how are SS any better when they are probably paying one of the worst commitions out there!  (exept IS, for indys that is), not only is it so low, you don't even know how much!

If I was an agency I would simply lower all of you guys comissions and ssimply don't even let you know how much %%% you get!
Thats what SS does and everybody seems to be happy with them...

Here we go again! :o ::) As I explained in more detail to someone stating the same on the previous page, it's all about the bottom line. They still earn a lot more than any other agency for the vast majority of contributors. I really don't care what's the RPD, if I get more of the money from them than from all other agencies combined. I wouldn't care if they were paying me 1c/sale. Still better than getting a 10$ but only 20% of those sales, or 1% or so like in the case of Alamy. I admit, I'd feel all nice and warm at the moment I'd get a 200$+ sale, but if they happen so rarely that the bottom line is pathetic compared to the one with 1c sales it doesn't really do me much good now, does it. Bragging rights don't buy you lunches ;)

So if I understand you correctly, you don't really have a problem with 123rf's (for example) percentage, you real
problem is that they don't earn you enough money, right ?
According to your logic, the bigger the agency, the more percentage they are "permitted" to get, right ?

That's what I said before, they don't have the volume and are now going to cut royalties. This, in fact, is much worse than what IS did, at least they had the volume, most are reporting falling sales, though for me are either stagnant or on the slow rise. At 123RF earnings are in a decline and they'll just speed it up now. I don't like both agencies, but moneywise IS is better and IS can't be punished so I skipped them on purpose.
Right, the sad truth, if they're big, we are just David against Goliath

P.S. In a way you have it better as an exclusive, not worrying about such stuff. I don't like focusing on such matters as well, but someting needs and has to be done!

So if they had the volume of IS then cutting commissions wouldn't be so bad as they would still be paying for some of your lunches. I think I'm not going to follow ur revolution.

It was about SS, not IS. I suggest you read more carefully before you decide ;)

Makes no difference, the decision is the same. I've often said that ss don't give good enough royalties. Look at the prices of ELs and then see how much we get. Everyone is happy with their ss income, they don't calculate how much they would be getting if the royalties were at least evenly split. Most of the agencies don't give as much as they really should and the ones that do, when they start getting popular do exactly the same as the what the big agencies do, i.e. take more.

« Reply #36 on: February 18, 2012, 09:33 »
0
The only people that win are the agencies. It take a lot of funding to shoot stock...how many can say they've even broke even. At the end of the day the only people that get rich are the agencies...I can't believe how many people give up their hard work for peanuts.


« Reply #37 on: February 18, 2012, 09:40 »
0
I won't be leaving, as I sell well at 123RF and I won't be seeing a cut. 

But I actually agree with the sentiment of the original post here, as well as replies who say everyone must make his/her own decision.

If a partner changed the terms of a deal on me, I would have every right to leave.  If I feel I'm being negatively impacted, I would say so, and if I end up being ignored, I would leave.  I would be a fool not to. 

We all should respect every individual's right to make decisions in his or her best interest.  If I were in the shoes of someone upset at the new terms, I would want to leave.  And if you were in my shoes, retaining your rate or even seeing a possible increase, you would want to stay.

The thing I have a hard time respecting is whining.  Or a victim mentality... taking abuse and sticking around for more.  By all means, make noise and try to get the other party to see your side, but if that ultimately doesn't work, you have to make a decision and live with it.  You're no one's slave.

It is really no secret that the folks who shoot full time would not be upset at all to see those who do not shoot full time leave the marketplace. Their departure just leaves a bigger piece of the pie for themselves and conversely if they choose to stay their exploitation to fund company growth could also be seen as beneficial to their bottom line.

The folks who shoot part time are either hobbyist with hit or miss images or they are buyers who produce HCV content as a second business in smaller quantities. Income for the former HCV content is already lower in recent years because that content is buried overnight by volumes of images from hobbyist and factories, so these royalty changes will impact the income of those producers especially in the lower tier sites. 

IS found out what happens when you reduce income for the later camp.

wut

« Reply #38 on: February 18, 2012, 10:35 »
0
Makes no difference, the decision is the same. I've often said that ss don't give good enough royalties. Look at the prices of ELs and then see how much we get. Everyone is happy with their ss income, they don't calculate how much they would be getting if the royalties were at least evenly split. Most of the agencies don't give as much as they really should and the ones that do, when they start getting popular do exactly the same as the what the big agencies do, i.e. take more.

What's your point, really? Just a pointless rant, you don't offer any solution

« Reply #39 on: February 18, 2012, 11:37 »
0
Makes no difference, the decision is the same. I've often said that ss don't give good enough royalties. Look at the prices of ELs and then see how much we get. Everyone is happy with their ss income, they don't calculate how much they would be getting if the royalties were at least evenly split. Most of the agencies don't give as much as they really should and the ones that do, when they start getting popular do exactly the same as the what the big agencies do, i.e. take more.

What's your point, really? Just a pointless rant, you don't offer any solution

Just stating the facts Wut. None of the top agencies pay us what they know they could pay us and what they should pay us, they don't have to, it's their business, not yours. As I mentioned before unless there is regulation to prevent them, they can do what they want and that's what they do. You're trying to start some kind of movement in this thread, but u yourself are showing ur own selfishness. For you to say you want us to punish agencies like 123rf, but the the big guys are alright cos they send enough money ur way is ludicrous. If 123rf were bringing you as much as ss or other big players, then 123rf would be ok in ur books.

You asked me what my solution is, the answer is noone has one. It's a messed up industry and so are many others.   

« Reply #40 on: February 18, 2012, 12:05 »
0
...it's their business, not yours.

Should we just upload all our photos to every agency on the planet and gratefully accept whatever they choose to give us in return? 

« Reply #41 on: February 18, 2012, 12:09 »
0
...it's their business, not yours.

Should we just upload all our photos to every agency on the planet and gratefully accept whatever they choose to give us in return? 

If you want, no-one's forcing you either way.

« Reply #42 on: February 18, 2012, 12:26 »
0
I fail to understand how are SS any better when they are probably paying one of the worst commitions out there!  (exept IS, for indys that is), not only is it so low, you don't even know how much!

That's kind of my opinion. If I were going to make a naughty list, I'd probably put all the agencies to the right on it. Until I got down to GL, CLO and DS. There are some other good ones in there too, but sales are low or I'm not a contributor.

Obviously though, you can't go to war with everybody, and I made my stands and cuts last year already. 123RF might get axed too, but I'm not really in the mood to make a decision on that until later in the year.

« Reply #43 on: February 18, 2012, 13:05 »
0
SS gives me a lot of those 33 cent sales.   PD pays the same but sells next to nothing.    I feel like I did a dumb thing uploading to PD just so they could contribute to price erosion and accelerate that "race to the bottom".

« Reply #44 on: February 18, 2012, 13:24 »
0
Surely the only number that matter are those on the top right of the screen?  The agencies are there to make money and wellbeing / happiness of contributors is only relevant in that context.  Seems a little ironic that folks are only complaining about "fairness" from agencies but were perfectly happy for the original 123 proposal to kick in because that would only affect newbies.

wut

« Reply #45 on: February 18, 2012, 14:06 »
0
Surely the only number that matter are those on the top right of the screen?  The agencies are there to make money and wellbeing / happiness of contributors is only relevant in that context.

I'm not sure why so many of you are writing about agencies. Yes it's their business, they can do whatever they want, they don't care about us, so why should we care about them and more importantly why wouldn't we care about us, our money? We should be doing what's best for us just as they're doing it for themselves.

wut

« Reply #46 on: February 18, 2012, 14:15 »
0
Makes no difference, the decision is the same. I've often said that ss don't give good enough royalties. Look at the prices of ELs and then see how much we get. Everyone is happy with their ss income, they don't calculate how much they would be getting if the royalties were at least evenly split. Most of the agencies don't give as much as they really should and the ones that do, when they start getting popular do exactly the same as the what the big agencies do, i.e. take more.

What's your point, really? Just a pointless rant, you don't offer any solution

Just stating the facts Wut. None of the top agencies pay us what they know they could pay us and what they should pay us, they don't have to, it's their business, not yours. As I mentioned before unless there is regulation to prevent them, they can do what they want and that's what they do. You're trying to start some kind of movement in this thread, but u yourself are showing ur own selfishness. For you to say you want us to punish agencies like 123rf, but the the big guys are alright cos they send enough money ur way is ludicrous. If 123rf were bringing you as much as ss or other big players, then 123rf would be ok in ur books.

You asked me what my solution is, the answer is noone has one. It's a messed up industry and so are many others.   

Well I guess you decided to come and stir sheat up in this thread, since you're playing dumb and mentioning everything I didn't. I said why this isn't pointed at the big agencies. Law and regulations? Sure they can do whatever they want, but so can we. That's the point. If you're so brainwashed to believe otherwise, then I really feel sorry for you. I'm selfish, but they're not? What an absurd statement, now I'm not sure you actually are playing dumb anymore ;D .


« Reply #47 on: February 18, 2012, 14:56 »
0
Makes no difference, the decision is the same. I've often said that ss don't give good enough royalties. Look at the prices of ELs and then see how much we get. Everyone is happy with their ss income, they don't calculate how much they would be getting if the royalties were at least evenly split. Most of the agencies don't give as much as they really should and the ones that do, when they start getting popular do exactly the same as the what the big agencies do, i.e. take more.

What's your point, really? Just a pointless rant, you don't offer any solution

Just stating the facts Wut. None of the top agencies pay us what they know they could pay us and what they should pay us, they don't have to, it's their business, not yours. As I mentioned before unless there is regulation to prevent them, they can do what they want and that's what they do. You're trying to start some kind of movement in this thread, but u yourself are showing ur own selfishness. For you to say you want us to punish agencies like 123rf, but the the big guys are alright cos they send enough money ur way is ludicrous. If 123rf were bringing you as much as ss or other big players, then 123rf would be ok in ur books.

You asked me what my solution is, the answer is noone has one. It's a messed up industry and so are many others.   

Well I guess you decided to come and stir sheat up in this thread, since you're playing dumb and mentioning everything I didn't. I said why this isn't pointed at the big agencies. Law and regulations? Sure they can do whatever they want, but so can we. That's the point. If you're so brainwashed to believe otherwise, then I really feel sorry for you. I'm selfish, but they're not? What an absurd statement, now I'm not sure you actually are playing dumb anymore ;D .

I never said that they're not, they are undoubtedly selfish. They are looking after themselves, you are too. You didn't want to punish 123rf when they announced commission cuts for newbies. At that time you felt that you were privileged.
Well at least for once I'm among the privileged. The first time ever and I missed all the promotions too (like 10c for every accepted file at DP etc)

wut

« Reply #48 on: February 18, 2012, 15:18 »
0
Makes no difference, the decision is the same. I've often said that ss don't give good enough royalties. Look at the prices of ELs and then see how much we get. Everyone is happy with their ss income, they don't calculate how much they would be getting if the royalties were at least evenly split. Most of the agencies don't give as much as they really should and the ones that do, when they start getting popular do exactly the same as the what the big agencies do, i.e. take more.

What's your point, really? Just a pointless rant, you don't offer any solution

Just stating the facts Wut. None of the top agencies pay us what they know they could pay us and what they should pay us, they don't have to, it's their business, not yours. As I mentioned before unless there is regulation to prevent them, they can do what they want and that's what they do. You're trying to start some kind of movement in this thread, but u yourself are showing ur own selfishness. For you to say you want us to punish agencies like 123rf, but the the big guys are alright cos they send enough money ur way is ludicrous. If 123rf were bringing you as much as ss or other big players, then 123rf would be ok in ur books.

You asked me what my solution is, the answer is noone has one. It's a messed up industry and so are many others.   

Well I guess you decided to come and stir sheat up in this thread, since you're playing dumb and mentioning everything I didn't. I said why this isn't pointed at the big agencies. Law and regulations? Sure they can do whatever they want, but so can we. That's the point. If you're so brainwashed to believe otherwise, then I really feel sorry for you. I'm selfish, but they're not? What an absurd statement, now I'm not sure you actually are playing dumb anymore ;D .

I never said that they're not, they are undoubtedly selfish. They are looking after themselves, you are too. You didn't want to punish 123rf when they announced commission cuts for newbies. At that time you felt that you were privileged.
Well at least for once I'm among the privileged. The first time ever and I missed all the promotions too (like 10c for every accepted file at DP etc)

And then they broke the deal, a digusting move IMO. Your point being? Selfishness because I'm against cuts? As I said this is for the greater good, even those who're not willing to sacrifice a small, usually super minimal part of their income for getting more in the long run will benefit from this, if we pull it through. How's that selfish? I would be among those willing to earn less for a while...I could understand it if you said I made a selfish statement once. But who hasn't and more importantly what has that got to do with what I'm trying to achieve here? I suggest we focus on the task at hand, not personal imperfections ;)

helix7

« Reply #49 on: February 18, 2012, 15:29 »
0
This is not my fight at all as I am IS exclusive, but yet again I fail to understand how are SS any better when they are probably paying one of the worst commitions out there!  (exept IS, for indys that is), not only is it so low, you don't even know how much...

What? The rates are posted on the site. I get $0.38 for subs, close to 30% for multi ODs, 30% for single ODs. The subs rate is one of the best in the business. And 30% isn't great but it's not bad either. Certainly not "one of the worst."
 

lagereek

« Reply #50 on: February 18, 2012, 15:39 »
0
This is not my fight at all as I am IS exclusive, but yet again I fail to understand how are SS any better when they are probably paying one of the worst commitions out there!  (exept IS, for indys that is), not only is it so low, you don't even know how much!

If I was an agency I would simply lower all of you guys comissions and ssimply don't even let you know how much %%% you get!
Thats what SS does and everybody seems to be happy with them...


What are you dribbling about?  why do you time and time again keep syaing this?  you know very well that its 0.38, subs, ODs are 2.85 and single sales are 5.75.  Just the other day I clocked in 25, ODs, at 2.85 and 35 subs at 0.38 and one EL, at 28 bucks,  so how in the bloody hell can it be the worst paying site?
Or is it that you dont want to know?  ::)

WarrenPrice

« Reply #51 on: February 18, 2012, 15:40 »
0
And then they broke the deal, a digusting move IMO. Your point being? Selfishness because I'm against cuts? As I said this is for the greater good, even those who're not willing to sacrifice a small, usually super minimal part of their income for getting more in the long run will benefit from this, if we pull it through. How's that selfish? I would be among those willing to earn less for a while...I could understand it if you said I made a selfish statement once. But who hasn't and more importantly what has that got to do with what I'm trying to achieve here? I suggest we focus on the task at hand, not personal imperfections ;)


What are WE trying to "pull it through"?  and What are YOU "trying to achieve."
Have you really stated a goal; an objective?
If you are going to lead, then get organized.  Take the lead and stop arguing with every dissenter.  What do YOU want US to do?

I don't think Winston woulda done it thissa way.   ;D
« Last Edit: February 18, 2012, 15:42 by WarrenPrice »

« Reply #52 on: February 18, 2012, 15:56 »
0
Quote
I'm not sure why so many of you are writing about agencies. Yes it's their business, they can do whatever they want, they don't care about us, so why should we care about them and more importantly why wouldn't we care about us, our money? We should be doing what's best for us just as they're doing it for themselves.

I agree. But to me this way seems to be two-faced act. You say - I know we can't agree on pulling our ports from top tiers so let's punish low earners. To sacrifice few dollars a month is really not a heroism. In fact - new sites need more money to start their business while low commissions on iS aren't necessary for financial health of company, it's just pure greed. I don't like commissions bellow 50% either but showing artists power to low earners is like imposing an embargo on Northtern Korea because of human rights and doing business with China at the same time.

« Reply #53 on: February 18, 2012, 16:40 »
0
What are you dribbling about?  why do you time and time again keep syaing this?  you know very well that its 0.38, subs, ODs are 2.85 and single sales are 5.75.  Just the other day I clocked in 25, ODs, at 2.85 and 35 subs at 0.38 and one EL, at 28 bucks,  so how in the bloody hell can it be the worst paying site?
Or is it that you dont want to know?  ::)

You can probably move the stats around a lot of ways to tell the story a lot of different ways.

I could say that SS pays me the least amount per download (123RF by the way is a close second). But, I could counter that by saying they make it up in volume. I could say those sales volumes are falling from a peak in 2009. But, I could counter that by saying that the loss of volume is made up for by increased profits from On Demand and Single Sales.

Truth is, SS is the micro of the micros (the alpha micro) with a very low RPD, but they are a proven model for earning money.

My only concern for the future would be if it can maintain those large sales volume and is it stable with its lenient review policies (at least on vector side) and massive contributor base.

And if the high volume philosophy does fail, can you put the lid back on it now that subs model has spread to almost every agency?

rinderart

« Reply #54 on: February 18, 2012, 16:55 »
0
Wut, I understand your points and agree... and Im all for an alliance or union or whatever you wanna call it and always have been BUT...... I've been here like others at the beginning when we got 20 cents an Image. No EL;s Or  OD's , Nothing. In Months the flood Gates opened and thousands started uploading everything they ever shot for 20 cents and ya know what? and I hate to admit it that if it was still 20 cents there would be the same amount of submitters, Maybe not the same submitters But...? The sites know this very well That, if say you got 1000 on your team to pull there ports at 123 or anywhere else I think they would be replaced in 10 days or less that would be willing to do a isolated girl or strawberry or a business man shaking hands with someone for what they offered. Thats the reality of crowd sourcing. I have no problem with 123, it's just another outlet as is all the others. I could teach just about anyone to do what anyone here does [Except the Illustrators] in 24 hours MAX, Were not curing Cancer or saving Babies and I'll bet dollars to donuts that if it was 20 cents across the board there would still be 100,000 submitted every week to SS Just like now. Thats not negative,Thats just the way it is. Would quality go down?? Oh Maybe slightly but it wouldn't take long to go back up to current levels.

I also agree that a 50% cut for everything sold should be a standard across the board, if they can't turn a profit and Pay back there investors Maybe they got into the wrong Business. But...I wouldn't if I were you be diluted into thinking we will be missed or even make a dent in Punishing them.

Just My Opinion. Which Means basically Nothing

helix7

« Reply #55 on: February 18, 2012, 18:27 »
0
...Truth is, SS is the micro of the micros (the alpha micro) with a very low RPD, but they are a proven model for earning money...

That's all that really matters to me. RPD is a nice stat to make you feel all warm and fuzzy when you're all-in with istock. But my warm-and-fuzzy comes from a nice big fat bottom line at the end of the month that's around 50% made up of SS earnings.

« Reply #56 on: February 18, 2012, 19:30 »
0
That's all that really matters to me. RPD is a nice stat to make you feel all warm and fuzzy when you're all-in with istock. But my warm-and-fuzzy comes from a nice big fat bottom line at the end of the month that's around 50% made up of SS earnings.

LOL. It's probably the opposite of a warm fuzzy feeling for me. When I realize that it would take about 32 sales at SS to equal one sale at my own site. But if I sold 32 images at my site, I'd probably equal my SS income for the month.

When it only takes one sale a day to be as good as SS, it really makes me realize where I should focus my priorities.


« Reply #57 on: February 18, 2012, 23:19 »
0
I like the "don't get mad get even" idea.

We really need to make our own agency/coop/collective.  And we need EVERYONE to join.   Artist sets their own price, get a 50% commission.  The host that we hire/contract gets 25% and all they do is give us a search engine and store the photos.  They never get greedy and if they do either negotiate before the contract expires or fire them and move to another service provider.  We'll need union/membership dues and maybe the host will need an annual fee ($25-100 depending on the space we want?) The other 25% goes to the cooperative/union/agency to pay admin and do a bit of marketing.

As a cooperative we can rate agencies and publish ratings and Deposit Photos (?) can put the Gold Seal of Approval from said Stock Photographers Association on their front page.  IS will get a bronze and might not want to brag about it , SS a silver, etc. etc. and eventually buyers will recognise the ratings and only work with the gold seals. 

Maybe we'd have to vote for the president/administrator each year or every 2-4 years and they would have a predetermined salary.  Haha, but what happen when noone wants to run for office?

« Reply #58 on: February 19, 2012, 00:01 »
0
Now this is a pretty good idea. It would need to be run by a fairly small committee. Say 10-20 voters representing a wide spectrum of contributers. Illustrators, and photographers with varying size portfolios would represent for their particular demographic. I don't know much about web development but it does seem like an opportunity for a company that is already set up to do this sort of thing. I would absolutely contribute a reasonable deposit (say $50) to get something like this started. $50 x 200 members is $10,000. That should peak the interest of some web design firm. Not sure how to avoid some sort of a scam but I bet collectively we could solve that problem.

« Reply #59 on: February 19, 2012, 00:06 »
0
I feel like I did a dumb thing uploading to PD just so they could contribute to price erosion and accelerate that "race to the bottom".

Um... yes, you did, but many others did as well, so don't feel too bad.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2012, 00:13 by stockmarketer »

« Reply #60 on: February 19, 2012, 00:19 »
0
Now this is a pretty good idea. It would need to be run by a fairly small committee. Say 10-20 voters representing a wide spectrum of contributers. Illustrators, and photographers with varying size portfolios would represent for their particular demographic. I don't know much about web development but it does seem like an opportunity for a company that is already set up to do this sort of thing. I would absolutely contribute a reasonable deposit (say $50) to get something like this started. $50 x 200 members is $10,000. That should peak the interest of some web design firm. Not sure how to avoid some sort of a scam but I bet collectively we could solve that problem.
Yes, and the committee/board of directors would have to be elected and reelected.

There's a ton of sites we could approach
smugmug
zenfolio
backprint
photodeck
and so on and so on

There's dead sites - maybe Keith Tuomi/Bryan Zimewski (what was his name again?)

If it's the right word - A "mirror" site would be pretty easy for them wouldn't it?  They already charge an annual fee already with approx 15% fee for digital downloads (backprint is flat 15%).  We are still at the mercy of them being honest, paying out on time, and it then there's always that American withholding taxes from non-residents issue. Individual shopping carts would be nice. 

« Reply #61 on: February 19, 2012, 04:34 »
0
Hi all,
I agree with Chromaco, PixArt and others.
I can't say that I'm holding my breath (I've seen these kind of good ideas being abandoned many times before), but for what is worth, consider me in.
We have to think of the future and do 'something' to stop the race to the bottom.
The first thing we need is organization and leadership.
Without it, all this is nothing but smoke and empty words.
We need someone to take charge, dedicate his time and efforts and start organizing things.
It's not easy, but it's a potential avenue to great success.
 
I agree to offer financial support and participate with all my images.
For what is worth, I'm in.

I'm not holding my breath, but hope never dies :)
Good luck :)

lagereek

« Reply #62 on: February 19, 2012, 07:11 »
0
Hi all,
I agree with Chromaco, PixArt and others.
I can't say that I'm holding my breath (I've seen these kind of good ideas being abandoned many times before), but for what is worth, consider me in.
We have to think of the future and do 'something' to stop the race to the bottom.
The first thing we need is organization and leadership.
Without it, all this is nothing but smoke and empty words.
We need someone to take charge, dedicate his time and efforts and start organizing things.
It's not easy, but it's a potential avenue to great success.
 
I agree to offer financial support and participate with all my images.
For what is worth, I'm in.

I'm not holding my breath, but hope never dies :)
Good luck :)


Man!  you are all either total newbies, which I know youre not so therefore you must be totally naive, the lot of you four. YOU NEED THEM, THEY DONT NEED YOU!  you are all replaceable within 5 minutes flat.
Some of us, more experienced have been fighting this battle for lightyears, back in the old trad-film agencies and got nowhere. You think this is exclusive to micro?  think again.

When Wut, said punish, I am sure he did not mean to form some stupid socialistic union. Stockphotography has always and will always be a matter of playing the game, regardless of what they do to you,  why?  because you need them to sell your shots so that you can earn MONEY!  hard to grasp isnt it. ::)

« Reply #63 on: February 19, 2012, 08:16 »
0

you are all replaceable within 5 minutes flat.
[/quote]

Herein lies the root of the problem "WHY" agencies "CAN" and "DO" gouge their contributors.  And with the advent of digital, everyone's a "photographer". 

« Reply #64 on: February 19, 2012, 08:26 »
0
This is not my fight at all as I am IS exclusive, but yet again I fail to understand how are SS any better when they are probably paying one of the worst commitions out there!  (exept IS, for indys that is), not only is it so low, you don't even know how much!

If I was an agency I would simply lower all of you guys comissions and ssimply don't even let you know how much %%% you get!
Thats what SS does and everybody seems to be happy with them...


What are you dribbling about?  why do you time and time again keep syaing this?  you know very well that its 0.38, subs, ODs are 2.85 and single sales are 5.75.  Just the other day I clocked in 25, ODs, at 2.85 and 35 subs at 0.38 and one EL, at 28 bucks,  so how in the bloody hell can it be the worst paying site?
Or is it that you dont want to know?  ::)

I was talking about subs. percentage wise, on subs the comission is much lower then 123rf and even Thinkstock.
I'm talking about percentage, yes ?

« Reply #65 on: February 19, 2012, 08:49 »
0
"Man!  you are all either total newbies, which I know youre not so therefore you must be totally naive, the lot of you four. YOU NEED THEM, THEY DONT NEED YOU!  you are all replaceable within 5 minutes flat.
Some of us, more experienced have been fighting this battle for lightyears, back in the old trad-film agencies and got nowhere. You think this is exclusive to micro?  think again."

We'll for my part I essentially am a newbie. I've only been doing this seriously for 6 months. However, I'm more interested in actually doing something proactive and positive than constantly bitching and moaning about how I'm being treated badly. Maybe I am naive but I've seen over and over again how a group of people can accomplish something by simply refusing to let the issue die. Things have a tendency to build up steam and pretty soon you have actually done something pretty big.

It's like that saying "how do you eat an elephant?" Answer " One bite at a time."

The secret to success here is to start with small goals and keep going. Don't stop eating so to speak.

I know I'm replaceable and for the most part I like the agencies. They offer me a service that I need and I am willing to pay them for it. If the price is to high I don't join. However, that doesn't mean there isn't room for a contributor owned agency which guarantees a fair rate and other perks.

lagereek

« Reply #66 on: February 19, 2012, 08:53 »
0

you are all replaceable within 5 minutes flat.

Herein lies the root of the problem "WHY" agencies "CAN" and "DO" gouge their contributors.  And with the advent of digital, everyone's a "photographer". 
[/quote]

Correct! glad you see it!  but this is a problem stockphotographers have been battling with for the past 25 yerars and ofcourse with the arrival of digital and billions of images, jeez!  what chance have one got? zip.
Today, even the very best are replaceable and ofcourse it works both ways, no agency is irreplacable either, one doesnt like an agency, well just quit and move to the next. Our product is replaceable, most unfortunately.


« Reply #67 on: February 19, 2012, 08:59 »
0
seriously guys hear the pros here ;D

lagereek

« Reply #68 on: February 19, 2012, 09:15 »
0
"Man!  you are all either total newbies, which I know youre not so therefore you must be totally naive, the lot of you four. YOU NEED THEM, THEY DONT NEED YOU!  you are all replaceable within 5 minutes flat.
Some of us, more experienced have been fighting this battle for lightyears, back in the old trad-film agencies and got nowhere. You think this is exclusive to micro?  think again."

We'll for my part I essentially am a newbie. I've only been doing this seriously for 6 months. However, I'm more interested in actually doing something proactive and positive than constantly bitching and moaning about how I'm being treated badly. Maybe I am naive but I've seen over and over again how a group of people can accomplish something by simply refusing to let the issue die. Things have a tendency to build up steam and pretty soon you have actually done something pretty big.

It's like that saying "how do you eat an elephant?" Answer " One bite at a time."

The secret to success here is to start with small goals and keep going. Don't stop eating so to speak.

I know I'm replaceable and for the most part I like the agencies. They offer me a service that I need and I am willing to pay them for it. If the price is to high I don't join. However, that doesn't mean there isn't room for a contributor owned agency which guarantees a fair rate and other perks.

There are some contributor owned agencies, if you got great stuff, try Dans,  warmpicture.com.  great guy who runs it.

« Reply #69 on: February 19, 2012, 09:36 »
0
@PixelArt, Chromaco and others thinking alike,
see?
This is what I meant by not having much hope.
This is the exact mentality that has brought us here, at the rock-bottom and the 0.7 cent sale from IStock.
Nevermind that, arguing it's futile and a waste of time.  
However, if, against all hope, things start moving and organizing, please remember that I want to be counted in.
It's my choice to believe in the step forward, and I'm standing by it.
I'll give my support with money and images.
That's all I can do, and all that matters to me.
best,  

lagereek

« Reply #70 on: February 19, 2012, 11:57 »
0
@PixelArt, Chromaco and others thinking alike,
see?
This is what I meant by not having much hope.
This is the exact mentality that has brought us here, at the rock-bottom and the 0.7 cent sale from IStock.
Nevermind that, arguing it's futile and a waste of time.  
However, if, against all hope, things start moving and organizing, please remember that I want to be counted in.
It's my choice to believe in the step forward, and I'm standing by it.
I'll give my support with money and images.
That's all I can do, and all that matters to me.
best,  

Erianne!  what has brought you and the other guys here is that you joined up with micro agencies, among another 10 million photographers, no pain, no game, you know the score. :)

« Reply #71 on: February 19, 2012, 12:09 »
0
"There are some contributor owned agencies, if you got great stuff, try Dans,  warmpicture.com.  great guy who runs it."

I just checked out his site. Looks great- I think I looked this site a while ago and the "Invitation Only" scared me away. I took it to mean that he was hand picking his contributors and I wasn't invited. I'll send him an e-mail.
Thanks for the heads up.

« Reply #72 on: February 19, 2012, 16:41 »
0
I wouldn't take notice of 'Ignores'! Even SJL has 18 of them and yet there is no more knowledgeable or helpful a guy in microstock. That's 18 complete muppets for you __ absolutely no reflection whatsoever of the poster or the quality of his advice. No-one commands more respect on the IS forum either.

I would argue that SJL's extensive work with Disney has allowed him to converse quite well with muppets.  8)

« Reply #73 on: February 19, 2012, 16:53 »
0
"There are some contributor owned agencies, if you got great stuff, try Dans,  warmpicture.com.  great guy who runs it."

I just checked out his site. Looks great- I think I looked this site a while ago and the "Invitation Only" scared me away. I took it to mean that he was hand picking his contributors and I wasn't invited. I'll send him an e-mail.
Thanks for the heads up.


We do hand pick the contributors, but anyone may inquire about joining. When we first started some 9 months ago, I personally invited about 30 contributors and I think maybe 2/3 of them joined. That was just the point where I was trying to get things off the ground and wanted to surround myself with people I trusted.

The key with us is that we are not a microstock agency. We cater more to traditional RF, and our licensing terms are very similar to Getty. We price images similar to Corbis/Alamy/GettyRF, and offer unlimited usage. This saves a lot of time and headache worrying about Extended Licenses, etc.

I don't know how things will shake out over time. What I will say is that so far our buyers tend to go for more of a macrostock, traditional look. The isolated, microstock type images sell less frequently.

lisafx

« Reply #74 on: February 19, 2012, 18:24 »
0
As I stated in the other thread, and as I have stated every time this subject of forming a co-op has come up - I stand ready to join and do what I can to support it.  Not to "punish" any existing sites, BTW, but just to establish ourselves so we are not so reliant on the micro agencies.  

Although I don't have the organizational skills or time to run something like that, I think it could flourish under the right leadership.  Unfortunately, there is never any leadership forthcoming.  I regret to say this idea may die on the vine once again. That doesn't mean it's a bad idea, just that we haven't found the right person or group to implement it.  Hope springs eternal.

ETA:  Kudos to Dan for working so tirelessly to get Warmpicture off the ground.  Although that is not exactly a co-op, it is certainly a promising start on a fair trade agency. 
« Last Edit: February 19, 2012, 18:28 by lisafx »

« Reply #75 on: February 20, 2012, 03:32 »
0
The stupid thing about all this is the idea that if you sacrifice a tiny income you are going to hurt the agency. It's not those with a tiny income who can hurt them, it's those with a big income.
Abandoning $10 to "punish" an agency won't even be a flea-bite because the buyers will find a similar from another contributor. If you abandon $10,000 a month, there's a chance they will notice your absence, but it will still hurt you infinitely more than it hurts them.
And why punish 123 for wanting to pay 30% and not punish iStock for wanting to pay 15%? As someone said, it's not a concern about fairness, its just dissatisfaction over the site's lack of success (which might be because it was paying contributors too much to have a big enough advertising budget).

wut

« Reply #76 on: February 20, 2012, 05:06 »
0
The stupid thing about all this is the idea that if you sacrifice a tiny income you are going to hurt the agency. It's not those with a tiny income who can hurt them, it's those with a big income.
Abandoning $10 to "punish" an agency won't even be a flea-bite because the buyers will find a similar from another contributor. If you abandon $10,000 a month, there's a chance they will notice your absence, but it will still hurt you infinitely more than it hurts them.
And why punish 123 for wanting to pay 30% and not punish iStock for wanting to pay 15%? As someone said, it's not a concern about fairness, its just dissatisfaction over the site's lack of success (which might be because it was paying contributors too much to have a big enough advertising budget).

It was about a tiny percentage and that could mean either 10c or 10k. I'd say the percentage is more or less the same for most contributors, while the money amount varies greatly.


« Reply #77 on: February 20, 2012, 06:59 »
0
But iStock and Fotolia both pay a far lower percentage. Why do you want to punish a site that pays more and ignore those that pay less?

wut

« Reply #78 on: February 20, 2012, 09:22 »
0
But iStock and Fotolia both pay a far lower percentage. Why do you want to punish a site that pays more and ignore those that pay less?

Volume is far greater, the bottom line is still noticeably fatter and as I said, IS can't be punished, since it still represents a large chunk of the earnings for most (still a #2 earner for most) - it would be better put that it's harder to convince ppl to give up 15-30% of their earnings, than a percent or two (I get 1,5% from 123RF and that percentage will drop in Jan 2013 as it will for the vast majority).Those who wanted to do it, already pulled their ports or at least stopped ULing.

« Reply #79 on: February 20, 2012, 10:09 »
0
So it's absolutely nothing to do with fair treatment of contributors, it's purely about punishing sites for not being successful enough, regardless of the commission rate.

wut

« Reply #80 on: February 20, 2012, 10:16 »
0
So it's absolutely nothing to do with fair treatment of contributors, it's purely about punishing sites for not being successful enough, regardless of the commission rate.

C'mon Baldrick stop playing dumb...everything is in my previous posts (OP etc), broken promises, spins and twisting of words from Alex...

« Reply #81 on: February 20, 2012, 10:24 »
0
^^^ I read your posts and understand them exactly as BT does...

wut

« Reply #82 on: February 20, 2012, 10:27 »
0
Well it just looked to me that some ppl can't be bothered with reading all of the posts and then they ask you questions about matters that have already been covered. It's almost like asking about something that's in FAQ :D

RT


« Reply #83 on: February 20, 2012, 12:47 »
0
You are right in your initial suggestion however it is 'those who do it for business' who probably generate 90%+ of the sales and without whom no agency could grow. Therefore, at least in theory, they should hold the power if only they could stick together.

Absolutely and I'd say there's only about 1000 contributors in total that produce the 90+%, but I'm sure you're equally aware that we will never stick together, we're in direct competition with each other, sure we'll all agree that we should band together to create a better environment but in reality we'll (I) all wait until the other 999 guys have left an agency before we make our move because - A. we don't really trust each other and B. there's a good chance once the others have left we'll (I) clean up on sales. Hence this thread and it's noble and justifiable suggestion will go the way of all those before it - sad but true.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #84 on: February 20, 2012, 13:41 »
0
You are right in your initial suggestion however it is 'those who do it for business' who probably generate 90%+ of the sales and without whom no agency could grow. Therefore, at least in theory, they should hold the power if only they could stick together.

Absolutely and I'd say there's only about 1000 contributors in total that produce the 90+%, but I'm sure you're equally aware that we will never stick together, we're in direct competition with each other, sure we'll all agree that we should band together to create a better environment but in reality we'll (I) all wait until the other 999 guys have left an agency before we make our move because - A. we don't really trust each other and B. there's a good chance once the others have left we'll (I) clean up on sales. Hence this thread and it's noble and justifiable suggestion will go the way of all those before it - sad but true.

And C. the more you publish your strategies and all of their weaknesses for everyone to see the more your opponent can use them against you. Anyone who wants to launch an initiative needs to come up with a private plan, get buyin from the right people, and execute it.

wut

« Reply #85 on: February 21, 2012, 17:14 »
0
You are right in your initial suggestion however it is 'those who do it for business' who probably generate 90%+ of the sales and without whom no agency could grow. Therefore, at least in theory, they should hold the power if only they could stick together.

Absolutely and I'd say there's only about 1000 contributors in total that produce the 90+%, but I'm sure you're equally aware that we will never stick together, we're in direct competition with each other, sure we'll all agree that we should band together to create a better environment but in reality we'll (I) all wait until the other 999 guys have left an agency before we make our move because - A. we don't really trust each other and B. there's a good chance once the others have left we'll (I) clean up on sales. Hence this thread and it's noble and justifiable suggestion will go the way of all those before it - sad but true.

And C. the more you publish your strategies and all of their weaknesses for everyone to see the more your opponent can use them against you. Anyone who wants to launch an initiative needs to come up with a private plan, get buying from the right people, and execute it.

Sadly, this has always been the result of threads like this so far. It just couldn't get more contraproductive, we're digging our own graves.

It's also said the situation is the same as in the case of 99 vs 1 (occupy wall st). We can look at it as agencies being the banks and on top of all we're the one who bail them out - for instance H&F to keep their greedy investors happy. Or now the 123RF owners, which are a lot worse than IS, 2 broken promises in a matter of months, accompanied by manipulative, patronising replies and explanations in the forums.

« Reply #86 on: February 21, 2012, 17:21 »
0
Yes, it is a bit like "Occupy". The problem with "Occupy" at least here in Colorado was the execution. The Governor actually agreed to meet with a representative from "Occupy Colorado" to discuss ideas. They took a vote and elected a dog. Yes... a dog. End of "Occupy Colorado"


« Reply #87 on: February 21, 2012, 17:50 »
0
Yes, it is a bit like "Occupy". The problem with "Occupy" at least here in Colorado was the execution. The Governor actually agreed to meet with a representative from "Occupy Colorado" to discuss ideas. They took a vote and elected a dog. Yes... a dog. End of "Occupy Colorado"

Was it at least a talking dog?  ;)

lisafx

« Reply #88 on: February 22, 2012, 12:20 »
0
Yes, it is a bit like "Occupy". The problem with "Occupy" at least here in Colorado was the execution. The Governor actually agreed to meet with a representative from "Occupy Colorado" to discuss ideas. They took a vote and elected a dog. Yes... a dog. End of "Occupy Colorado"

Oh wow.  Wasted opportunity.

RacePhoto

« Reply #89 on: February 22, 2012, 16:39 »
0
You cant hurt the agency because they will be able to survive from all the new people they pick up just like any business will.

They dont care if you walk off or not because they will find someone else to do your job and pay them even less which they will be happy with.


Nail on the head...

No union, no power, no unity and even then, there's no way that artists have any way to enforce demands. One leaves, one hundred leave, the agency doesn't care, another thousand are waiting to make $10 a month for days and days of work. Just like "Occupy Everywhere" it failed because each group only wanted what they wanted and had no common cause. How do people in Canada protesting against the US and People in Italy and people in Greece, plus the real cause in NY all claim to be part of the same movement?

Yeah sorry I can't Occupy 123 or the rest of the cheesy agencies. I already left them. I don't care if they notice, I'm just not taking their crap anymore! Personal decision, not some union group-think follow the sheeple mentality. People with thousands of images, working for years are making what? $10 a month at some of these places. Losing that would mean going out for a beer once a month less, or one bag of chips and some dip a month. Oh boy Agency X pays 50% but that's no sales, so it's still nothing!

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8755020/whatis.wav

Ten crummy dollars and some people are willing to sell their soul to the agency? No thanks!

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8755020/madashell.WAV

wut

« Reply #90 on: February 22, 2012, 19:21 »
0

Yeah sorry I can't Occupy 123 or the rest of the cheesy agencies. I already left them. I don't care if they notice, I'm just not taking their crap anymore! Personal decision, not some union group-think follow the sheeple mentality. People with thousands of images, working for years are making what? $10 a month at some of these places. Losing that would mean going out for a beer once a month less, or one bag of chips and some dip a month. Oh boy Agency X pays 50% but that's no sales, so it's still nothing!


Ten crummy dollars and some people are willing to sell their soul to the agency? No thanks!


Great, that also counts. I hope for more personal decisions like that. It can add up to a significant numbers, more than their calculated loss for double cutting/crossing us.

And I also can't help myself but wonder w-t-f's the matter with those ppl with big ports willing to submit to dozen agencies to get a 10$ return/agency.

And regarding the 50% royalties, that's what I'm trying to tell ppl in these thread. As well as why SS is not bad even if they pay a few times more; because it adds up to a lot, the most of all agencies for almost every indie.

« Reply #91 on: February 22, 2012, 22:54 »
0
Are we really such pathetic defeatists?

It does not take much for the collective mindset to change, in fact the courage of just one person can ignite a lasting change in mindset.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qq8zFLIftGk[/youtube]

We forget the very roots of microstock which are different than traditional stock, in that IS and SS were created by buyers who wanted a cost effective product for themselves.

Today there are still a substantial number of stock photographers who are also buyers. And many of us produce content which is used by our colleagues; therefore we have the opportunity to influence where those colleagues buy the product they need. 

Why in the world would we choose to continue to hand over our power to corruption or greed; when clearly amongst our own numbers we have the buying power to protect our own interests.

History has proven over and over that when the collective balance become disproportionally out of wack we unite as collectives to restore a semblance of fairness and balance.  It took only a few people to stand up and start the trade unions and they had more to lose.

How much courage does it take to vote with our pocket book and encourage our friends, family and co-workers to do the same?

RacePhoto

« Reply #92 on: February 22, 2012, 23:25 »
0
Are we really such pathetic defeatists?

How much courage does it take to vote with our pocket book and encourage our friends, family and co-workers to do the same?

What's you alternative? I read the message, I don't understand the how? You want people to stop buying from IS, and then write messages complaining that sales are down?  ???

Hey, simple and honest the only way to provide for a message and show the agencies, would be start a Microstock agency owned by artists. There's your revolution. Pay 50%, be simple and honest.

Without power, leverage, or something to negotiate with, we have nothing.

Yeah wut I think there are more people here that would support a protest but we've already dropped in protest last year when this was going around for the 4th or 5th time.

How's Softpix (whatever it is) doing? I think that was the first person to try to do something, instead of talk about it, and it became a closed shop from the start. So much for the people's union agency. There's still room for another one. If the answer is a communal agency and people would drop all others to "show them" maybe you would have something. Seems the problem with this model comes back around to income and no one is willing to give up their income to protest or strike out against the big ones.

What does that mean. What people are answering is this: You go jump off that cliff, I'll watch and see how things work out.  ;D (you go stand in front of a tank, I'll take pictures of you doing it) The lack of unity, shared risk and taking the plunge as a group will never happen, so the idea is interesting, it's never going to get off the ground.

« Reply #93 on: February 22, 2012, 23:36 »
0
Perhaps the issue is that people are focusing on the wrong problem and therefor coming up with the wrong solutions. I think that is where paradigm needs to shift. Maybe its not about hurting the wrong agencies but helping the right ones. Forget about the now and focus on the future.

« Reply #94 on: February 23, 2012, 01:03 »
0
Perhaps the issue is that people are focusing on the wrong problem and therefor coming up with the wrong solutions. I think that is where paradigm needs to shift. Maybe its not about hurting the wrong agencies but helping the right ones. Forget about the now and focus on the future.

I agree.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2012, 01:06 by cthoman »

« Reply #95 on: February 23, 2012, 04:40 »
0
Perhaps the issue is that people are focusing on the wrong problem and therefor coming up with the wrong solutions. I think that is where paradigm needs to shift. Maybe its not about hurting the wrong agencies but helping the right ones. Forget about the now and focus on the future.

Who are the "right" ones ?

« Reply #96 on: February 23, 2012, 09:50 »
0
Who are the "right" ones ?

It's your business. You have to figure it out who the right business partners are for yourself. Maybe, it's one company, maybe it's all of them or maybe you have a few select ones.


« Reply #97 on: February 23, 2012, 09:56 »
0
I would bet that for the majority of contributors it's the same few agencies.

« Reply #98 on: February 23, 2012, 10:00 »
0
I would bet that for the majority of contributors it's the same few agencies.

of course the top 5, beside the ones we hide


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
16 Replies
5190 Views
Last post May 10, 2011, 14:49
by Microstock Posts
0 Replies
1906 Views
Last post July 26, 2011, 03:40
by Mr Korn Flakes
15 Replies
5432 Views
Last post November 07, 2011, 03:24
by Wim
12 Replies
3223 Views
Last post March 07, 2012, 16:47
by lisafx
8 Replies
2517 Views
Last post May 18, 2012, 02:13
by Wim

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results