pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Which agency treats contributors the best?  (Read 1460 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: June 12, 2022, 18:36 »
0
Beyond raw dollar amounts (which I know is ultimately what we usually look at), which agency(ies) do you feel treat you the best? Where do you get the best responses to questions you ask? Which ones help you feel like part of a community? Who provides you the best value per download? Which agency(ies) do you wish had a larger market share than they do?


« Reply #1 on: June 13, 2022, 01:25 »
+10
None of them  :-\

« Reply #2 on: June 13, 2022, 02:09 »
+3
From what I have heard Stocksy, but that's because it is a platform cooperative and basically run by contributors. So the interests of the 'agency' aligns with the interests of the contributors. I am not even sure they are considered an agency?
But they are picky about who they accept and only take exclusive content.

I wouldn't know of any other agency that isn't constantly searching for new ways to increase their own profit knowing very well that it will decrease therr contributors' earnings.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2022, 06:13 by Firn »

« Reply #3 on: June 13, 2022, 02:26 »
+1
Agree with Firn 100%

Outside of the co-ops they arent people with good and bad personalities. They treat contributors well as long as they need more contributors/ content, then tighten the screws as much as they can.

If we want to be treated well all we have to do is withhold content from the sites treating us badly and give it to the ones treating us better at any given time. If we keep giving the same work to everyone regardless, of course they will all do/ give the bare minimum.

« Reply #4 on: June 13, 2022, 03:41 »
+2
Adobe stock

« Reply #5 on: June 13, 2022, 04:28 »
+1
nocompany . com

MxR

« Reply #6 on: June 13, 2022, 06:04 »
0
Stocksy...but is hard be in

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #7 on: June 13, 2022, 07:01 »
+1
Out of traditional stock agencies, Alamy, have always been very cordial to me.

I still have a love/hate relationship with them though! This month is more hate as I'm "owning the blank page" with 0 earnings.

« Reply #8 on: June 13, 2022, 08:03 »
+1
Well.

I suggest to use Wirestock and you dont need to worry about which agency is behaving which way :)

« Reply #9 on: June 13, 2022, 08:06 »
+1
Out of traditional stock agencies, Alamy, have always been very cordial to me.

I still have a love/hate relationship with them though! This month is more hate as I'm "owning the blank page" with 0 earnings.
I agree with Alex.  While Alamy contributor share is down to 40% or lower for distributors, I still make more money there than SS or AS.  They accept everything.  Uploads are easy and accepted instantly.  They have a forum of helpful people.  e-mails to contributor relations are answered. What's not to like?

« Reply #10 on: June 13, 2022, 08:54 »
+6
What's not to like?

How about:
- Sales aren't registered automatically, but customers have to report their own sales, meaning unless you happen to stumble across your own image being used somewhere online and credited back to Alamy by chance, you won't even ever know one of your images has been sold and won't get paid for it if the buyer has not reported it.
- Customers can claim refunds for bought and used images even after a year
- Sometimes customers do report sails, but never pay for the image. Then you have to fight for your money for months.
- Even if customers pay the images on their own accord, it usually takes months to get the money
- They have sales with comissions as low as 0.04$, which is even less that Shutterstock.
- They let customers scam you by letting them buy images with a cheap "personal use" licence that clearly aren't suitable for any kind of personal use.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2022, 11:03 by Firn »

« Reply #11 on: June 13, 2022, 12:00 »
0
What's not to like?

How about:
- Sales aren't registered automatically, but customers have to report their own sales, meaning unless you happen to stumble across your own image being used somewhere online and credited back to Alamy by chance, you won't even ever know one of your images has been sold and won't get paid for it if the buyer has not reported it.
- Customers can claim refunds for bought and used images even after a year
- Sometimes customers do report sails, but never pay for the image. Then you have to fight for your money for months.
- Even if customers pay the images on their own accord, it usually takes months to get the money
- They have sales with comissions as low as 0.04$, which is even less that Shutterstock.
- They let customers scam you by letting them buy images with a cheap "personal use" licence that clearly aren't suitable for any kind of personal use.
All correct Firn. 
Although I'm not sure what you mean by "sales aren't registered automatically".  But fraud (stolen images) is an issue across this industry.  Alamy is not immune.  Alamy gives more immediate info on sales than other places, so adjustments happen occasionally.  No site is perfect.  Although it has been slipping in the last while, I still find Alamy the least less perfect.

« Reply #12 on: June 13, 2022, 12:20 »
+2

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #13 on: June 13, 2022, 12:27 »
+2
Out of traditional stock agencies, Alamy, have always been very cordial to me.

I still have a love/hate relationship with them though! This month is more hate as I'm "owning the blank page" with 0 earnings.
I agree with Alex.  While Alamy contributor share is down to 40% or lower for distributors, I still make more money there than SS or AS.  They accept everything.  Uploads are easy and accepted instantly.  They have a forum of helpful people.  e-mails to contributor relations are answered. What's not to like?
I make a lot less on Alamy than I do on iS, with more files on Alamy, but that doesn't make iS a great site for contributors.

They all seem to look at each other and copy the ways they screw us.

« Reply #14 on: June 13, 2022, 14:26 »
+3
What's not to like?

How about:
- Sales aren't registered automatically, but customers have to report their own sales, meaning unless you happen to stumble across your own image being used somewhere online and credited back to Alamy by chance, you won't even ever know one of your images has been sold and won't get paid for it if the buyer has not reported it.
- Customers can claim refunds for bought and used images even after a year
- Sometimes customers do report sails, but never pay for the image. Then you have to fight for your money for months.
- Even if customers pay the images on their own accord, it usually takes months to get the money
- They have sales with comissions as low as 0.04$, which is even less that Shutterstock.
- They let customers scam you by letting them buy images with a cheap "personal use" licence that clearly aren't suitable for any kind of personal use.
All correct Firn. 
Although I'm not sure what you mean by "sales aren't registered automatically".  But fraud (stolen images) is an issue across this industry.  Alamy is not immune.  Alamy gives more immediate info on sales than other places, so adjustments happen occasionally.  No site is perfect.  Although it has been slipping in the last while, I still find Alamy the least less perfect.

I am not talking about stolen images. I am talking about Alamy letting customers download images without paying for them. They can then do with the image whatever they want. And if they actually use the image - in a newspaper, or online - they are supposed to kindly let Alamy know that the downloaded images have been used and only then the image will be reported as sale in your account. Unlike with other agencies on Alamy customers don't have to pay for downloading the image, they only have to pay for using them and Alamy trusts them to tell them when an image has been used. And that - obviously - results in many customers never telling Alamy they have used an image so they don't have to pay for it. It happens all the time, it happens to me as well. From time to time I do an image search with my name and Alamy and then I send links to all images that I never saw sales for in my account to Alamy and then they start hunting down the buyers demanding to pay for the images. I found images of mine credited to Alamy in articles that were over a year old and the images were never reported as used, thus I never saw a sale for them and never got my money and even after reporting this to Alamy it took months and several mails inquiring about it to finally have the sales registered and get my money.
I think this "pay on a trust basis"-method is unacceptable. What other bussiness does that? "Hey, you can take this apple with you and if you get home and decide to eat it, you can come back and pay me."
« Last Edit: June 13, 2022, 14:34 by Firn »

« Reply #15 on: June 13, 2022, 14:48 »
0
What's not to like?

How about:
- Sales aren't registered automatically, but customers have to report their own sales, meaning unless you happen to stumble across your own image being used somewhere online and credited back to Alamy by chance, you won't even ever know one of your images has been sold and won't get paid for it if the buyer has not reported it.
- Customers can claim refunds for bought and used images even after a year
- Sometimes customers do report sails, but never pay for the image. Then you have to fight for your money for months.
- Even if customers pay the images on their own accord, it usually takes months to get the money
- They have sales with comissions as low as 0.04$, which is even less that Shutterstock.
- They let customers scam you by letting them buy images with a cheap "personal use" licence that clearly aren't suitable for any kind of personal use.
All correct Firn. 
Although I'm not sure what you mean by "sales aren't registered automatically".  But fraud (stolen images) is an issue across this industry.  Alamy is not immune.  Alamy gives more immediate info on sales than other places, so adjustments happen occasionally.  No site is perfect.  Although it has been slipping in the last while, I still find Alamy the least less perfect.

I am not talking about stolen images. I am talking about Alamy letting customers download images without paying for them. They can then do with the image whatever they want. And if they actually use the image - in a newspaper, or online - they are supposed to kindly let Alamy know that the downloaded images have been used and only then the image will be reported as sale in your account. Unlike with other agencies on Alamy customers don't have to pay for downloading the image, they only have to pay for using them and Alamy trusts them to tell them when an image has been used. And that - obviously - results in many customers never telling Alamy they have used an image so they don't have to pay for it. It happens all the time, it happens to me as well. From time to time I do an image search with my name and Alamy and then I send links to all images that I never saw sales for in my account to Alamy and then they start hunting down the buyers demanding to pay for the images. I found images of mine credited to Alamy in articles that were over a year old and the images were never reported as used, thus I never saw a sale for them and never got my money and even after reporting this to Alamy it took months and several mails inquiring about it to finally have the sales registered and get my money.
I think this "pay on a trust basis"-method is unacceptable. What other bussiness does that? "Hey, you can take this apple with you and if you get home and decide to eat it, you can come back and pay me."

I hear you Firn.  I think Alamy does have special arrangements with some large users like newspapers that is based on an honor system (that doesn't always work).  Using images you didn't pay for is fraud (or stealing).

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #16 on: June 13, 2022, 15:24 »
0
I am not talking about stolen images. I am talking about Alamy letting customers download images without paying for them. They can then do with the image whatever they want. And if they actually use the image - in a newspaper, or online - they are supposed to kindly let Alamy know that the downloaded images have been used and only then the image will be reported as sale in your account. Unlike with other agencies on Alamy customers don't have to pay for downloading the image, they only have to pay for using them and Alamy trusts them to tell them when an image has been used. And that - obviously - results in many customers never telling Alamy they have used an image so they don't have to pay for it. It happens all the time, it happens to me as well. From time to time I do an image search with my name and Alamy and then I send links to all images that I never saw sales for in my account to Alamy and then they start hunting down the buyers demanding to pay for the images. I found images of mine credited to Alamy in articles that were over a year old and the images were never reported as used, thus I never saw a sale for them and never got my money and even after reporting this to Alamy it took months and several mails inquiring about it to finally have the sales registered and get my money.
I think this "pay on a trust basis"-method is unacceptable. What other bussiness does that? "Hey, you can take this apple with you and if you get home and decide to eat it, you can come back and pay me."
^^^ and when they (at least 'Old Alamy') finally bill them, it's at the lower rate of today rather than the higher rate which applied at the time they bought the image.
Where's the incentive to report a file?

Hopefully, New Alamy seems to be a bit more proactive than Old Alamy was in hunting down infringements, but still, it takes time.

In mid-March I reported an editorial file sold for PU which I found on a commerical website. About five weeks later, I got an email telling me the website use was by the buyer and they would chase it up, but I'm still waiting ...


« Reply #17 on: June 13, 2022, 15:53 »
+2
Adobe Stock seems to be the most responsive, in my experience. I really appreciated the community they built on Discord during the worst of the pandemic, though I've been too busy to drop in there much these days. Mat's responsiveness here and via email is also appreciated.

Alamy used to be the most responsive but for all the reasons set out above by others, I've lost much of my confidence in them. Having $$$ in earnings reversed many many months later, once even after the payment had cleared, is unsettling, as is the need to search for my images online to make sure sales are recorded. Still, their contributor relations continues to respond promptly and they're always courteous.

« Reply #18 on: June 24, 2022, 09:39 »
+2
I think Shutterstock treats contributors best.
Yes, even with the 10 cent subs, they sell more which makes up
for the loss.
Fast reviews - tough too so you are encouraged to submit better photos
Great support - I don't know of any other agency that has equal or finer
contributor stats. They just rock.
Shutterstock sells more of my images than the rest of the agencies combined!
I would rate Wirestock the worst. Sorry, sorry review work. They take days and days
to get around to looking at your submissions and now they want to charge $12.99
for faster reviews. To think people call Shutterstock greedy  ;D
When  I submit to Wirestock I retain control of Shutterstock, Dreams Time and Adobe stock.
I get more money that way. The rest I let Wirestock handle, so I don't care about their sorry
review time.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2022, 09:45 by UPLOAD-UPLOAD-UPLOAD »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
6878 Views
Last post March 12, 2011, 21:47
by djpadavona
4 Replies
3335 Views
Last post April 15, 2011, 09:04
by stockastic
4 Replies
2846 Views
Last post November 25, 2011, 11:24
by nicemonkey
21 Replies
7089 Views
Last post May 05, 2014, 02:09
by r2d2
15 Replies
3406 Views
Last post March 28, 2020, 02:02
by gnirtS

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle