MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: Gunter Nezhoda on January 08, 2013, 01:32
-
One thing I don't understand is that the agencies and everybody else always calls our payout a commission. Maybe I'm wrong, but my understanding is that we pay commission to the agency. They are, well, an agent, we have the merchandise/product, they sell it for us and receive a commission. Which means, that to some of the agents or on some of the transactions the seller (Photographer) pays 80% commission. I don't know any other industry where those numbers would be valid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission)
-
That's absolutely right !! And to add insult to injury many of these so called agencies are on the path to dropping the "commissions" further - as for example Istock, then Fotolia, and now 123RF. One wonders where this industry is headed .. because the current situation is increasingly untenable..
-
One thing I don't understand is that the agencies and everybody else always calls our payout a commission. Maybe I'm wrong, but my understanding is that we pay commission to the agency. They are, well, an agent, we have the merchandise/product, they sell it for us and receive a commission. Which means, that to some of the agents or on some of the transactions the seller (Photographer) pays 80% commission. I don't know any other industry where those numbers would be valid.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission[/url] ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission[/url])
Yes I know and they do such a great job that we pay them 80% commission.....I don't know about anybody else, but I'm willing to pay for great service. ;)
-
Agencies are no longer agents, they are service providers and contributors are just users of the service that happen to upload things to the service, buyers are users that download from the service.
Both users pay for the service.
-
Agencies are no longer agents, they are service providers and contributors are just users of the service that happen to upload things to the service, buyers are users that download from the service.
Both users pay for the service.
Most service providers charge a fee, not a percentage (and a huge one) of your earnings.
-
We may call it 'commissions' but technically we get paid 'Royalites'.
-
I think we call them agencies but they don't call themselves agencies, at least not any more. It implies a certain responsibility to their clients (us) and heaven knows they don't want any of that.
-
I think we call them agencies but they don't call themselves agencies, at least not any more. It implies a certain responsibility to their clients (us) and heaven knows they don't want any of that.
You hit the nail on the head. :D
-
I think we call them agencies but they don't call themselves agencies, at least not any more. It implies a certain responsibility to their clients (us) and heaven knows they don't want any of that.
It's because crowdsourced zoo doesn't have the same appeal. ;D
-
We may call it 'commissions' but technically we get paid 'Royalites'.
BEat me to it.
-
It's because crowdsourced zoo doesn't have the same appeal. ;D
LOL
Excellent.
I guess it's up to us to use the word 'royalties' rather than 'commissions' in this forum. Hopefully in time it'll get some traction.
-
It's because crowdsourced zoo doesn't have the same appeal. ;D
LOL
Excellent.
I guess it's up to us to use the word 'royalties' rather than 'commissions' in this forum. Hopefully in time it'll get some traction.
Exactly, I have been calling it royalties for a while now
-
In the fine art world, the gallery/representation generally gets 40% or 50%, so there's a long history of organizations being successful with a cut around half. Any higher and all the artists would revolt, killing the gallery.
-
Agencies are no longer agents, they are service providers and contributors are just users of the service that happen to upload things to the service, buyers are users that download from the service.
Both users pay for the service.
Most service providers charge a fee, not a percentage (and a huge one) of your earnings.
Read the terms of service of 'Agencies'. It's all in the wording of the agreement you accept when creating an account to use the service. They offer a service they are not contributor's agents.
I wonder if anyone would accept the agreement if it was written in a way that made it clear that contributors must pay 70%-85% of the earnings as a fee. Would anyone accept such agreement in other service sites involving sales of goods like ebay, itunes or any other shop service.
-
Agencies are no longer agents, they are service providers and contributors are just users of the service that happen to upload things to the service, buyers are users that download from the service.
Both users pay for the service.
Most service providers charge a fee, not a percentage (and a huge one) of your earnings.
Read the terms of service of 'Agencies'. It's all in the wording of the agreement you accept when creating an account to use the service. They offer a service they are not contributor's agents.
I wonder if anyone would accept the agreement if it was written in a way that made it clear that contributors must pay 70%-85% of the earnings as a fee. Would anyone accept such agreement in other service sites involving sales of goods like ebay, itunes or any other shop service.
The Ebay reference is an excellent one. Ebay offers a platform for the sale of goods on their website. They are providing a service that brings sellers and buyers together, much like stock photo agencies. Why is it that Ebay can be hugely successful while charging a 9% sales fee when companies like Istock claim that an 80% fee for sellers is "unsustainable"?
-
It's because we are their bee-aaa-cccchs :P
OX
...doing three point finger snap
-
The ebay reference is an excellent point. I haven't sold in several years, but isn't there a small fee to setup a limited-time auction and then a percentage to ebay and of course Paypal who is actually ebay aren't they? I am not sure we would be so enthusiastic if we had to pay per-photo to have an agency represent it, but it sure would take a big dent out of the crap that is stagnating on the sites - why would anyone renew certain photos if they are losing money on its placement.
Agencies do spend a bit of money marketing. They go to trade shows and run ads in industry mags. ebay almost doesn't have to market does it? Is there real competition for them (serious question - I don't know!).
-
Ebay owns paypal, but paypal has outgrown ebay in terms of revenue. Funny thing. But ebay and paypal have their crap together. Obviously.