pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Which Agencies is the most Stingy and cheapest????  (Read 6241 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

DavidBaker

    This user is banned.
« on: December 17, 2012, 11:33 »
0
I am trying to decide which agencies to join and see which are the ones that i am going to blacklist.

Can any veterans here tell me Which Agencies is the most Stingy and cheapest so that i can blacklist and avoid.

123RF, at 20cent per downloads???


tab62

« Reply #1 on: December 17, 2012, 12:08 »
+1
How about this as your approach since you want to make money at this game-

Join all the Top Tier (Big 4)  and all the Middle Tier plus Envato, GL, Yay and Alamy  and not worry about the commissions. If the commission is your main goal that RM is your business and Not RF...


Tom

lisafx

« Reply #2 on: December 17, 2012, 13:01 »
0
A read through these forums should answer you questions pretty thoroughly :)

Poncke

« Reply #3 on: December 17, 2012, 13:19 »
0
How about this as your approach since you want to make money at this game-

Join all the Top Tier (Big 4)  and all the Middle Tier plus Envato, GL, Yay and Alamy  and not worry about the commissions. If the commission is your main goal that RM is your business and Not RF...


Tom
Not sure about that. I joined PM because they were top middle tier but look where they are now. I deleted my port after two zero sales months. Same for BS 1 sale in 4 months.

Veneratio

« Reply #4 on: December 17, 2012, 16:22 »
+2
So let's get this right Poncke.....

You joined PM and sales tanked, you joined BigStock and sales tanked, any other sites you have joined?

LOL!!

Seriously though, you have to give it more than two months and a few hundred images, it takes time for you to get recognised and develop a customer base.....marathon not a sprint.....develop your style and get known for it. I think it's pretty safe to say this is one industry where you do not make a fast buck!

Les

« Reply #5 on: December 17, 2012, 17:12 »
+2
I got today from IS full eight cents ($.08) for an image.
Here is your answer.
 

traveler1116

« Reply #6 on: December 17, 2012, 17:16 »
+2
I got today from IS full eight cents ($.08) for an image.
Here is your answer.
I had an E+ today for about $25 and it wasn't even at full size or an EL.
Here is your answer.

« Reply #7 on: December 17, 2012, 17:29 »
0
I got today from IS full eight cents ($.08) for an image.
Here is your answer.
I had an E+ today for about $25 and it wasn't even at full size or an EL.
Here is your answer.

I am sure you aren't the only exclusive happy, enjoy while it last, hope its forever!

« Reply #8 on: December 17, 2012, 17:38 »
+3
Most of the sites have a little black mark on their record (cut commissions, low commissions, unclear terms etc).  Shutterstock has been pretty clean (so far).  iStock gives by far, the lowest commission - if you want to black list because of that reason.  They also have one of the best sales numbers of any site, even if it appears to be shrinking lately.  If I were you, I'd probably join the top 10 sites on the right.  If you want fewer sites because of a poor deal for photographers I'd probably cut out iStock, then Fotolia.

traveler1116

« Reply #9 on: December 17, 2012, 17:39 »
0
I am sure you aren't the only exclusive happy, enjoy while it last, hope its forever!
Funny I see somebody gave me a minus for posting something positive and someone gave a plus to the guy posting a bad sale, not surprising though there seem to be a lot people on here now that are happy when others do poorly. 

« Reply #10 on: December 17, 2012, 17:46 »
0
I am sure you aren't the only exclusive happy, enjoy while it last, hope its forever!
Funny I see somebody gave me a minus for posting something positive and someone gave a plus to the guy posting a bad sale, not surprising though there seem to be a lot people on here now that are happy when others do poorly.

before the new website we could see who have hearted us, would be interesting to see it again

traveler1116

« Reply #11 on: December 17, 2012, 17:47 »
0
Most of the sites have a little black mark on their record (cut commissions, low commissions, unclear terms etc).  Shutterstock has been pretty clean (so far).  iStock gives by far, the lowest commission - if you want to black list because of that reason.  They also have one of the best sales numbers of any site, even if it appears to be shrinking lately.  If I were you, I'd probably join the top 10 sites on the right.  If you want fewer sites because of a poor deal for photographers I'd probably cut out iStock, then Fotolia.
Wouldn't the royalty rate for someone starting at SS be around 17%? 

« Reply #12 on: December 17, 2012, 17:52 »
0
Subscription
a) 263$ for 750 downloads - 0.35$ each (71.4%, 94.2%, 102.8%, 108.5%)
b) 708$ for 2250 downloads -  0.314$ each (79.6%, 105%, 114.6%, 121%)
c) 1367$ for 4500 downloads - 0.303$ each (82.5%, 108.9%, 118.8%, 125.4%)
d) 2584$ for 9000 downloads - 0.287$ each (87.1%, 114.9%, 125.4%, 132.4%)

On Demand
- All sizes
a) 51$ for 5 downloads - 10.2$ each (18.4%, 24.3%, 26.4%, 27.9%)
b) 235$ for 25 downloads - 9.4$ each (20%, 26.3%, 28.7%, 30.3%)
- S and M sizes
a) 51$ for 12 downloads - 4.25$ each (18.9%, 25.1%, 27.5%, 29.1%)
b) 235$ for 60 downloads -  3.92$ each (20.6%, 27.3%, 29.8%, 31.6%)

EL
a) 201$ for 2 downloads - 100.5$ each (27.8%)
b) 455$ for 5 downloads - 91$ each (30.7%)
c) 1722$ for 25 downloads - 69$ each (40.5%)

Poncke

« Reply #13 on: December 17, 2012, 17:56 »
0
So let's get this right Poncke.....

You joined PM and sales tanked, you joined BigStock and sales tanked, any other sites you have joined?

LOL!!

Seriously though, you have to give it more than two months and a few hundred images, it takes time for you to get recognised and develop a customer base.....marathon not a sprint.....develop your style and get known for it. I think it's pretty safe to say this is one industry where you do not make a fast buck!
I am not in it for the quick bucks. But you cant argue that PM and BS are not performing for a lot of people. I am still with DP PD CanStockPhoto SS FT and 123. DP is on my watchlist since I havent had a paypout in 9 months.

Les

« Reply #14 on: December 17, 2012, 17:58 »
+2
I am sure you aren't the only exclusive happy, enjoy while it last, hope its forever!
Funny I see somebody gave me a minus for posting something positive and someone gave a plus to the guy posting a bad sale, not surprising though there seem to be a lot people on here now that are happy when others do poorly.
Maybe because the topic of the thread is: Which Agency IS the most Stingy and Cheapest? 

« Reply #15 on: December 17, 2012, 18:10 »
-1
CC is dead dead dead.. why all the concern?  ;D

1 year and half ago I got kicked out after saying that and I will repeat this every time there is a similar topic, I will continue to show up and telling how they have acted with me, I wonder why can they be considered a fair agency.... I am talking about CutCaster!

« Reply #16 on: December 17, 2012, 21:13 »
-1
I am trying to decide which agencies to join and see which are the ones that i am going to blacklist.

Can any veterans here tell me Which Agencies is the most Stingy and cheapest so that i can blacklist and avoid.

123RF, at 20cent per downloads???

Well if you're starting out you will be getting 25 cents for subscription downloads on Shutterstock, for full res. images. In terms of stingiest as Leaf says, "If you want fewer sites because of a poor deal for photographers I'd probably cut out iStock, then Fotolia."

So will these 3 agencies be on the blacklist?

When IS were giving 20% to contributors, most people were happy as sales were great, now they give as low as 15%, which isn't massively different from 20%, but there then followed furor that commissions were outrageously low. This furor continues to be fuelled not because people are outraged by commissions as low as 15%, but because their sales have been declining. The real term money they get has been falling. However, IS was at the top and despite falling they are still making people money. Most people will only leave them if they are no longer an earner, few will leave them and few will not sign up with them because they are stingy.


grafix04

« Reply #17 on: December 17, 2012, 23:11 »
0
  If you want fewer sites because of a poor deal for photographers I'd probably cut out iStock, then Fotolia.

And 123rf

grafix04

« Reply #18 on: December 17, 2012, 23:14 »
0
I am sure you aren't the only exclusive happy, enjoy while it last, hope its forever!
Funny I see somebody gave me a minus for posting something positive and someone gave a plus to the guy posting a bad sale, not surprising though there seem to be a lot people on here now that are happy when others do poorly.
Maybe because the topic of the thread is: Which Agency IS the most Stingy and Cheapest?

Haha, good one.  The answer is in the question  ;D


Les

« Reply #19 on: December 18, 2012, 00:29 »
0
Quote
When IS were giving 20% to contributors, most people were happy as sales were great, now they give as low as 15%

Even 15% wouldn't be so bad. But once they figured out a legal way to form "partnerships" and skim away even more from the contributors, that allowed a quiet transition from merely a comfortably sustainable M.O. to something really lucrative (and I didn't mean lucrative for the contributors).

What's the minimum cost to buy a small/extrasmall image?
If it is $1.00, and contributor gets $.08 from the sale, that would translate to 8% royalty. If the image costs the buyer $2.00, the effective royalty is only 4%. Very profitable, indeed.
 

traveler1116

« Reply #20 on: December 18, 2012, 00:58 »
0
Quote
When IS were giving 20% to contributors, most people were happy as sales were great, now they give as low as 15%

Even 15% wouldn't be so bad. But once they figured out a legal way to form "partnerships" and skim away even more from the contributors, that allowed a quiet transition from merely a comfortably sustainable M.O. to something really lucrative (and I didn't mean lucrative for the contributors).

What's the minimum cost to buy a small/extrasmall image?
If it is $1.00, and contributor gets $.08 from the sale, that would translate to 8% royalty. If the image costs the buyer $2.00, the effective royalty is only 4%. Very profitable, indeed.
15 percent of 2 dollars is 30 cents.  (2 x .15 = .30)   What "partnerships" are you referring to?  The minimum cost is around 46 cents (I have never heard of lower).

Les

« Reply #21 on: December 18, 2012, 01:41 »
0
Quote
When IS were giving 20% to contributors, most people were happy as sales were great, now they give as low as 15%

Even 15% wouldn't be so bad. But once they figured out a legal way to form "partnerships" and skim away even more from the contributors, that allowed a quiet transition from merely a comfortably sustainable M.O. to something really lucrative (and I didn't mean lucrative for the contributors).

What's the minimum cost to buy a small/extrasmall image?
If it is $1.00, and contributor gets $.08 from the sale, that would translate to 8% royalty. If the image costs the buyer $2.00, the effective royalty is only 4%. Very profitable, indeed.
15 percent of 2 dollars is 30 cents.  (2 x .15 = .30)   What "partnerships" are you referring to?  The minimum cost is around 46 cents (I have never heard of lower).

Minimum cost of 46 cents?

I presume, you are thinking about the artist's royalty (commission), not the image purchase price. If so, this is unfortunately not true. Indies at IS are sometimes paid only 8 or 9 cents per image.

IS calls it "Partner program", other agencies may call their partners in crime "affiliates" or "distributors". The split between the hosting agency and distributors depends on the particular agency, but effectively the money is taken from the contributor and given to the distributor. In case of Alamy, their new contract for images sold by distributors specifies the split as follows: 30% to Alamy, 40% to the distributor, which leaves 30% to the artist.

In case of IS, the 8 cents image royalty would be substantially less than 30% of the image purchase price.

traveler1116

« Reply #22 on: December 18, 2012, 01:55 »
0
Quote
When IS were giving 20% to contributors, most people were happy as sales were great, now they give as low as 15%


Even 15% wouldn't be so bad. But once they figured out a legal way to form "partnerships" and skim away even more from the contributors, that allowed a quiet transition from merely a comfortably sustainable M.O. to something really lucrative (and I didn't mean lucrative for the contributors).

What's the minimum cost to buy a small/extrasmall image?
If it is $1.00, and contributor gets $.08 from the sale, that would translate to 8% royalty. If the image costs the buyer $2.00, the effective royalty is only 4%. Very profitable, indeed.

15 percent of 2 dollars is 30 cents.  (2 x .15 = .30)   What "partnerships" are you referring to?  The minimum cost is around 46 cents (I have never heard of lower).


Minimum cost of 46 cents?

I presume, you are thinking about the artist's royalty (commission), not the image purchase price. If so, this is unfortunately not true. Indies at IS are sometimes paid only 8 or 9 cents per image.

IS calls it "Partner program", other agencies may call their partners in crime "affiliates" or "distributors". The split between the hosting agency and distributors depends on the particular agency, but effectively the money is taken from the contributor and given to the distributor. In case of Alamy, their new contract for images sold by distributors specifies the split as follows: 30% to Alamy, 40% to the distributor, which leaves 30% to the artist.

In case of IS, the 8 cents image royalty would be substantially less than 30% of the image purchase price.

Seems like you are confused here.  You said:  "What's the minimum cost to buy a small/extrasmall image? " My answer: 46 cents for a 1 credit XS nonexclusive file. The buyer pays around 50 cents and you get 15% of that, sometimes a different buyer pays $1.50 for the same file and you get 15% of that.  Buyers pay different amounts depending how many credits they buy so there is a wide range in what you get, the average is around 1.30 if I remember correctly.
The partner program doesn't run like Alamy it runs like SS here is the relevant info on that under the partner program tab:  http://www.istockphoto.com/help/sell-stock/rate-schedule

Les

« Reply #23 on: December 18, 2012, 03:06 »
0
Thank you.
Indeed, I wanted to know the minimum image purchase price, since I wanted to calculate the base price required for the 8 cents royalty.
Armed with that information, and assuming a generous 16% commission rate (NOT purchased through Partners Program), it's now easy to calculate that a buyer has to part with $0.50 to generate the aforementioned 8 cents artist's royalty. If purchased through the Partners Program at the same $.50 base price, the already miniscule royalty would decline even further.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2012, 03:19 by Les »

« Reply #24 on: December 18, 2012, 03:28 »
+2
I am trying to decide which agencies to join and see which are the ones that i am going to blacklist.

Can any veterans here tell me Which Agencies is the most Stingy and cheapest so that i can blacklist and avoid.

123RF, at 20cent per downloads???

Well if you're starting out you will be getting 25 cents for subscription downloads on Shutterstock, for full res. images. In terms of stingiest as Leaf says, "If you want fewer sites because of a poor deal for photographers I'd probably cut out iStock, then Fotolia."

So will these 3 agencies be on the blacklist?

When IS were giving 20% to contributors, most people were happy as sales were great, now they give as low as 15%, which isn't massively different from 20%, ...

I beg to differ.  It's a 25% pay cut which is quite massive indeed.

« Reply #25 on: December 18, 2012, 03:38 »
+2
IS & FT

« Reply #26 on: December 18, 2012, 04:05 »
0
I am trying to decide which agencies to join and see which are the ones that i am going to blacklist.

Can any veterans here tell me Which Agencies is the most Stingy and cheapest so that i can blacklist and avoid.

123RF, at 20cent per downloads???

Well if you're starting out you will be getting 25 cents for subscription downloads on Shutterstock, for full res. images. In terms of stingiest as Leaf says, "If you want fewer sites because of a poor deal for photographers I'd probably cut out iStock, then Fotolia."

So will these 3 agencies be on the blacklist?

When IS were giving 20% to contributors, most people were happy as sales were great, now they give as low as 15%, which isn't massively different from 20%, ...

I beg to differ.  It's a 25% pay cut which is quite massive indeed.
+1


« Reply #27 on: December 18, 2012, 04:07 »
+1
I am trying to decide which agencies to join and see which are the ones that i am going to blacklist.

Can any veterans here tell me Which Agencies is the most Stingy and cheapest so that i can blacklist and avoid.

123RF, at 20cent per downloads???

Well if you're starting out you will be getting 25 cents for subscription downloads on Shutterstock, for full res. images. In terms of stingiest as Leaf says, "If you want fewer sites because of a poor deal for photographers I'd probably cut out iStock, then Fotolia."

So will these 3 agencies be on the blacklist?

When IS were giving 20% to contributors, most people were happy as sales were great, now they give as low as 15%, which isn't massively different from 20%, ...

I beg to differ.  It's a 25% pay cut which is quite massive indeed.

Sorry, yes ur right it is, but I go on to say the "furor continues to be fuelled not because people are outraged by commissions as low as 15%, but because their sales have been declining." If sales were still as high as they were at IS's peak, many of the complaints we see about how low royalties are, would have long since dissipated.

The industry was stingy from the offset and it was always supported. 80/20 ratio can not be called generous, but people were happy to join because of sales and people still stay and new people join because of sales. I admire the OP's stance of only contributing to 'good' agencies, but he'll have his work cut out making anything if he doesn't send his stuff to the top agencies, which are essentially all "stingy".
« Last Edit: December 18, 2012, 04:13 by Microstock Posts »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #28 on: December 18, 2012, 04:35 »
0
Quote
What's the minimum cost to buy a small/extrasmall image?
I think the lowest we know about is .42c per credit, an unadvertised rate for huge buyers, which could buy an indie XS image. That would earn the tog from 6c, I guess, if rounded down, and the tog was on 15%.

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #29 on: December 18, 2012, 08:51 »
0
Looks like it is now Instagram and Facebook!

Tyler has locked the thread about it so everyone needs to deleted whatever they have on FB and or delete your account both there and at Instagram.

Quote
Facebook wrote:   
For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.

« Reply #30 on: December 18, 2012, 10:03 »
0
Looks like it is now Instagram and Facebook!

Tyler has locked the thread about it so everyone needs to deleted whatever they have on FB and or delete your account both there and at Instagram.

Quote
Facebook wrote:   
For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.


He locked a duplicate thread of the same subject. I see you've found the other thread now, here it is for anyone else. http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/instagram-can-sell-your-pics-under-new-tc/

« Reply #31 on: January 07, 2013, 03:19 »
0
How about this as your approach since you want to make money at this game-

Join all the Top Tier (Big 4)  and all the Middle Tier plus Envato, GL, Yay and Alamy  and not worry about the commissions. If the commission is your main goal that RM is your business and Not RF...


Tom


Tend to agree except GL because they seem to reject a lot and sell very little for me.  See link: http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/cant-figure-out-gl-stock!/

« Reply #32 on: January 07, 2013, 03:48 »
0
There are no 'good' agencies, they're all stingy and they all rip off photographers, the only people getting rich quick are the agencies and a handful of photographers that started early and have big studios  ;)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
4517 Views
Last post August 25, 2014, 23:08
by images
0 Replies
2258 Views
Last post November 24, 2011, 11:38
by KB
3 Replies
1296 Views
Last post March 04, 2014, 09:07
by feel
0 Replies
392 Views
Last post June 09, 2021, 15:30
by Stocksaurus
0 Replies
556 Views
Last post June 11, 2021, 08:09
by Brightontl

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle