Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on August 26, 2015, 17:53

Quote from: Pixart on August 26, 2015, 17:28
Has DP hit the status of swanky offices, free food and trips or are they still in a basement somewhere?  They are likely lowering commissions so they can survive - but not many of us care.

Depositphotos Inc.
110 E Broward Blvd #1700
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

Street View

Map View

Looks like a pretty nice expensive corporate office building in the ultra affluent city of Fort Lauderdale Florida a few blocks from the Ocean. I doubt they're in the basement. Maybe they should have skipped the ocean view to make sure they could compete without having to cut contributor rates.

Seems to be a pattern here. Live it up and when the party bucket starts getting empty go shake down contributors.

That's just a front the US lawyer set up for the Russians who own DP. People have already exposed who's behind this, if nobody listens, there's nothing else to do. I hope all the people who got their 30 silver coins for uploading everything to DP for some small bribe are happy with what they broght on themselves.

DP will not get more market or more income for us, they will just get more for their own. This is not for our benefit as their lie tries to tell us.

Remember these are the same people who sell your images as a sub, to their own false front agency, which resells again at high market prices, but you get a sub payment. Why would anybody upload anything, any size to these people?

Did they just recycle Fotolia's commission cut announcement from 2009? http://www.mystockphoto.org/fotolia-2010-pricing/

Flashback to 2009:
To accomplish our marketing and promotional goals, we've adjusted our artist commission structures. While some levels have increased and others have decreased in terms of percentages, a majority of contributing artists will continue to see increases in the total dollar amounts earned as we are raising prices. In comparison, Fotolia continues to pay artists one of the highest royalty rates in the industry

We all know how well that turned out.

Is this what they mean by lowering royalties? A sub on 24th which netted me a whoooooping $0.01!!

Quote from: Tom23 on August 27, 2015, 11:12
Is this what they mean by lowering royalties? A sub on 24th which netted me a whoooooping $0.01!!

It's totaly crazy !!!  :

Quote from: Tom23 on August 27, 2015, 11:12
Is this what they mean by lowering royalties? A sub on 24th which netted me a whoooooping $0.01!!

yet you are still selling your images there

I see nothing in those charts that shows a benefit for us. What a bunch of scum. I upload almost 100 images weekly. All this time I didn't really trust them. Now I feel like a fool. No more after today.

I just sent a complaint marked "Critical" priority to them. I mentioned I will stop uploading today. Maybe all of us that submit there should do the same (at least complain, if you don't want to stop uploading):

http://depositphotos.com/contact_us.html

Russian community started to thinking about hold on the uploads til New Year.

Quote from: Striving on August 27, 2015, 13:28
I see nothing in those charts that shows a benefit for us. What a bunch of scum. I upload almost 100 images weekly. All this time I didn't really trust them. Now I feel like a fool. No more after today.

I just sent a complaint marked "Critical" priority to them. I mentioned I will stop uploading today. Maybe all of us that submit there should do the same (at least complain, if you don't want to stop uploading):

http://depositphotos.com/contact_us.html

Here's the response I received to my complaint  :

To keep up with the market, we reduced commission rates for sales in credits only. However, we raised our prices in credits to compensate lower commission payments. We believe that both parties will benefit in the long run.

Quote from: Striving on August 27, 2015, 17:10
To keep up with the market, we reduced commission rates for sales in credits only. However, we raised our prices in credits to compensate lower commission payments. We believe that both parties will benefit in the long run.[/i]

This doesn't make a lot of sense to me.  They are raising prices - which could bring in more revenue - as a way to keep our earnings the same as they reduce the commission rate, assuming of course that increasing prices doesn't reduce sales.  But how is that keeping up with the market?  Their e-mail stated, "Our decision was dictated by the requirements of the market and the times, and is intended to change the profitability of the project, with the aim of giving it a new push toward future development."  What are the requirements of the market and times?  They need to spend more on advertising?  What new ads will they be running?  Or are they planning a better delivery system?  Will "change the profitability" be for our benefit or only for the owners?

My interpretation: "We've spent a lot of time developing this company and now we want to cash out while we can".  That is exactly what they did at 123rf - there was certainly no improvement in sales after they went to the RC system to cut our commissions.  I haven't uploaded anything since January so I guess I'm ahead of the curve in that respect.

Yes it doesn't make any sense to me. They also added "these changes will not affect your sales by subscriptions." That one totally confused me. 

Quote from: sgoodwin4813 on August 27, 2015, 17:27

Quote from: Striving on August 27, 2015, 17:10
To keep up with the market, we reduced commission rates for sales in credits only. However, we raised our prices in credits to compensate lower commission payments. We believe that both parties will benefit in the long run.[/i]

This doesn't make a lot of sense to me.  They are raising prices - which could bring in more revenue - as a way to keep our earnings the same as they reduce the commission rate, assuming of course that increasing prices doesn't reduce sales.  But how is that keeping up with the market?  Their e-mail stated, "Our decision was dictated by the requirements of the market and the times, and is intended to change the profitability of the project, with the aim of giving it a new push toward future development."  What are the requirements of the market and times?  They need to spend more on advertising?  What new ads will they be running?  Or are they planning a better delivery system?  Will "change the profitability" be for our benefit or only for the owners?

My interpretation: "We've spent a lot of time developing this company and now we want to cash out while we can".  That is exactly what they did at 123rf - there was certainly no improvement in sales after they went to the RC system to cut our commissions.  I haven't uploaded anything since January so I guess I'm ahead of the curve in that respect.

Lee Torrens wrote about it.

http://www.microstockdiaries.com/depositphotos-raises-prices-and-lowers-royalties.html

Lee doesn't mention the assorted creative wheezes they use to pay contributors.....'less generously' when he compares to other sites.

Quote from: ShadySue on August 26, 2015, 14:31
What is the "leading position" that they claim?

They certainly are the leading scumbags in the industry.

Greedy corps always blame the market.
As their actions define the market they are just blaming themselves.

Quote from: dirkr on August 26, 2015, 15:48

Quote from: tickstock on August 26, 2015, 15:35

Quote from: dirkr on August 26, 2015, 15:26

Quote from: tickstock on August 26, 2015, 15:17
Am I wrong or doesn't DepositPhotos still pay a higher percentage than SS or Adobe and charge more per download?  Seems to me like that's the reason they are changing.

You are missing IS in your list, they pay the lowest royalty rates.

I thought most people here stopped supporting them a while ago.  But if you are still supporting them then you can add iS to the list, if you accept lower rates other places why get mad about this.  It's still better than those sites isn't it.

The idea that you would drop a site that pays a higher royalty rate than another because of the royalty rate seems a bit strange to me.  Shouldn't the site you drop be the one paying the lower royalty rate?

I stopped uploading to DP long ago due to low sales.
Now lowering rates is not improving the situation. So I am considering dropping them.

I accept lower percentages at some sites (including the obvious examples FT and SS) because the make it up with a lot higher volume. I don't like their percentages, but I accept them.
At some sites paying low percentages (123RF, Bigstock) I stopped uploading. Still undecided what to do with them.

I used to accept even the lowest percentage in the industry (IS, when they paid a flat 20%), but after they thought it was a good idea to go even lower I dropped them.

For me it's always a case by case decision, some sites do get away with paying lower percentages than others.

I am in a similar boat I was thinking about dropping due to low sales anyway..what really annoys me is they gave so little notice, I got the email on 26th Aug and have been on holiday...

...Think I am just going to drop them....and I had forgotten about the partner site sale coming in a sub thing from these guys too until somebody reminded me in this thread!

In my experience businesses that blame market forces are using it as an umbrella excuse for their failure to compete in the arena.

Instead of trading out of this position they opt to finagle their way out of it by hammering suppliers to increase margins. Weak and predictable.

the adobe announcement is a big contrast to the excrement of this mafia outfit

DP is pure filth.

I honestly don't understand their reasoning. Can anyone explain why they need to reduce royalties while increasing their prices?

"Thus, we expect to compensate authors' losses caused by reducing commission rate payments to keep the earnings of partners at the same level."

Does that mean they first lowered our royalties, and then increased their prices to "make up" for contributor's losses?

I just sent a notification to Depositphotos:
I am not agree with your cut of payments for contributors. So I decided to quit upload. At least till new year.

Quote from: Noedelhap on September 03, 2015, 01:28
DP is pure filth.

I honestly don't understand their reasoning. Can anyone explain why they need to reduce royalties while increasing their prices?

"Thus, we expect to compensate authors' losses caused by reducing commission rate payments to keep the earnings of partners at the same level."

Does that mean they first lowered our royalties, and then increased their prices to "make up" for contributor's losses?

it means.


"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bu11$h1t."

― W.C. Fields

Quote from: Noedelhap on September 03, 2015, 01:28
DP is pure filth.

I honestly don't understand their reasoning. Can anyone explain why they need to reduce royalties while increasing their prices?

"Thus, we expect to compensate authors' losses caused by reducing commission rate payments to keep the earnings of partners at the same level."

Does that mean they first lowered our royalties, and then increased their prices to "make up" for contributor's losses?

LOL, I hadn't realised how crazy that sounds! Yeah why would they do that for a net gain to them of zero!

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on September 06, 2015, 06:39

Quote from: Noedelhap on September 03, 2015, 01:28
DP is pure filth.

I honestly don't understand their reasoning. Can anyone explain why they need to reduce royalties while increasing their prices?

"Thus, we expect to compensate authors' losses caused by reducing commission rate payments to keep the earnings of partners at the same level."

Does that mean they first lowered our royalties, and then increased their prices to "make up" for contributor's losses?

LOL, I hadn't realised how crazy that sounds! Yeah why would they do that for a net gain to them of zero!

It sounds crazy, but it wouldn't be a net gain of zero for them

Hypothetical example:

Original royalties: 44% of $10 = $4.4 for us, $5.6 for them
Lowering of our royalties: 34% of $10 = $3.4 for us, $6.6 for them
Increase of price: 34% of $13 = $4.4 for us, $8.6 for them

Quote from: Noedelhap on September 06, 2015, 13:19
Increase of price: 34% of $13 = $4.4 for us, $8.6 for them

They said 5% rise of price. So, its not $13, but $10,5. Or I don't get something?

Quote from: Swill on September 06, 2015, 13:33

Quote from: Noedelhap on September 06, 2015, 13:19
Increase of price: 34% of $13 = $4.4 for us, $8.6 for them

They said 5% rise of price. So, its not $13, but $10,5. Or I don't get something?

It's just a hypothetical example to show that when they increase prices to compensate for our lower royalties, their net gain is not zero. Percentages and prices shown here don't reflect actual prices / royalties.

I will stop upload there now...

This place got the most "refund" for every high earning for me.

Apart from that I almost got 99% sub.


Good bye Deposite photo.