pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Change in Commission Structure for *ALL* 123RF.com Contributors  (Read 79521 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #300 on: February 16, 2012, 14:10 »
0
honestly I dont understand why you guys come here with non fundamented stuff when there isnt a positive argument to talk about.. BUT yes can make them look pretty, perhaps you will get somekind of reward, seriously dont blame the agencies/contributors

Luis, it is well known that some of us were directly contacted by one of the big players and told that there were certain small players we contributed to that were undercutting their business.  Agree with that argument or not, it has happened, and it is a real concern that we all have to keep in mind.  The older, big players ARE feeling threatened by the newer, small players.  And if you support the new agencies offering lower prices and commissions, you are helping to drive business away from the older agencies that you also support.  At some point you have to ask yourself if that is smart business.

thats was FT not 123RF.. sorry to tell but you sound like a broken record no matter what I say.. happy royalties my friend!


« Reply #301 on: February 16, 2012, 15:21 »
0
honestly I dont understand why you guys come here with non fundamented stuff when there isnt a positive argument to talk about.. BUT yes can make them look pretty, perhaps you will get somekind of reward, seriously dont blame the agencies/contributors

Luis, it is well known that some of us were directly contacted by one of the big players and told that there were certain small players we contributed to that were undercutting their business.  Agree with that argument or not, it has happened, and it is a real concern that we all have to keep in mind.  The older, big players ARE feeling threatened by the newer, small players.  And if you support the new agencies offering lower prices and commissions, you are helping to drive business away from the older agencies that you also support.  At some point you have to ask yourself if that is smart business.

Which is exactly why I supported this site first as a buyer and then as a contributor.  If I see a drop in earnings or search engine tweaking that benefits site earnings at the cost of contributors, I will no longer support this site as a buyer!

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #302 on: February 17, 2012, 09:14 »
0
What a bullcrap, Alex. This is 'money isn't going to be what makes you happy' all over again.

YOU are expecting growth, but at our expense. We will only get a cut, yet we are to believe that that's good for us? If you'd really be growing steadily, a paycut wouldn't be necessary. I will sit out the year, then remove my portfolio. Screw you and your greedy crap.

m@m

« Reply #303 on: February 17, 2012, 10:23 »
0
I will sit out the year, then remove my portfolio. Screw you and your greedy crap.

That makes two of us bud!!! ;)

« Reply #304 on: February 17, 2012, 10:51 »
0
I will sit out the year, then remove my portfolio. Screw you and your greedy crap.

That makes two of us bud!!! ;)
another here.  If 123 loses customers (in the way IS/FT did) I wonder if finally sites will think it worth treating contributors fairly...probably not

« Reply #305 on: February 17, 2012, 11:30 »
0
will we have RCs revised too?  ;D ;D

« Reply #306 on: February 17, 2012, 11:31 »
0
Oh, they will, have no doubt about that.  The designers who contacted me after the whole IS debacle were very concerned about  the impact to contributors.   There is a reason people buy fair trade coffee.

« Reply #307 on: February 17, 2012, 13:27 »
0

Which is exactly why I supported this site first as a buyer and then as a contributor.  If I see a drop in earnings or search engine tweaking that benefits site earnings at the cost of contributors, I will no longer support this site as a buyer!

When are these companies going to realize that at the microstock level there is a huge crossover between the buyers and sellers.  Screw one and you screw both.  Istock was able to get away with selling images at much higher prices than their competitors because whenever they raised prices many buyers took solace in the fact that they were going to make more money at least on the selling side.  Between that and the intense loyalty both buyers and sellers had at istock they were able to make it work ..... until they pushed too far and started lowering commissions.  123rf is doing the same thing only it won't take them as long to fall apart as they don't have the loyalty and earning power that istock did.

Again, at the microstock level when you anger and alienate your contributors you are also angering and alienating many of your buyers.

wut

« Reply #308 on: February 17, 2012, 13:52 »
0
What a bullcrap, Alex. This is 'money isn't going to be what makes you happy' all over again.

YOU are expecting growth, but at our expense. We will only get a cut, yet we are to believe that that's good for us? If you'd really be growing steadily, a paycut wouldn't be necessary. I will sit out the year, then remove my portfolio. Screw you and your greedy crap.

Yeah, Alex makes me sick as well with this spinning, twisting of words, how can these ppl even look at themselves in the mirror. I hate 123RF, I'm going to do the same as you, though I'm not sure, I'm going to wait that long

« Reply #309 on: February 17, 2012, 16:09 »
0
Another point that drives me insane is the fact that they think a sub - no matter what size is only worth 1 royalty credit.   A XXL sub dl should be 5 credits unless they only dl an XS.

Especially considerly 123 is really a subs agency and regular sales are spare.

« Reply #310 on: February 17, 2012, 16:16 »
0
Another point that drives me insane is the fact that they think a sub - no matter what size is only worth 1 royalty credit.   A XXL sub dl should be 5 credits unless they only dl an XS.

we can add FT on that one too which actually gives us 1/4 :o

« Reply #311 on: February 17, 2012, 16:17 »
0
Yeah, but we know what kind of people are running FT.  And to think we had to fight to get that 1/4. 

« Reply #312 on: February 17, 2012, 17:54 »
0
Another point that drives me insane is the fact that they think a sub - no matter what size is only worth 1 royalty credit.   A XXL sub dl should be 5 credits unless they only dl an XS.

Especially considerly 123 is really a subs agency and regular sales are spare.

This scheme is a loser - I might have mentioned that once or twice before :) - but I don't think it's logical to credit subs differently for different sizes when we get compensated at a flat rate for subs, no matter the size.

And I took a look at my percentage of subs sales of the monthly totals since last June (when I returned to independence) and it was 41% by units (downloads) and 18% by $$, so I would say it's pretty similar to SS in that a lot of the money is coming from non-sub sales

« Reply #313 on: February 17, 2012, 18:15 »
0

Which is exactly why I supported this site first as a buyer and then as a contributor.  If I see a drop in earnings or search engine tweaking that benefits site earnings at the cost of contributors, I will no longer support this site as a buyer!

When are these companies going to realize that at the microstock level there is a huge crossover between the buyers and sellers.  Screw one and you screw both.  Istock was able to get away with selling images at much higher prices than their competitors because whenever they raised prices many buyers took solace in the fact that they were going to make more money at least on the selling side.  Between that and the intense loyalty both buyers and sellers had at istock they were able to make it work ..... until they pushed too far and started lowering commissions.  123rf is doing the same thing only it won't take them as long to fall apart as they don't have the loyalty and earning power that istock did.

Again, at the microstock level when you anger and alienate your contributors you are also angering and alienating many of your buyers.

You can add to that buyers that either work for large agencies or buyers that have solid working relationships with key buyers within large agencies. I no longer purchase or upload to IS and many of my contacts and associates chose to end their relationship with them as well.  

What really irks me about these new changes, is that the company feels completely justified in funding their expansion and pet projects at the expense of its submitters; who provide and fund the resources that make their business possible.  

« Reply #314 on: February 17, 2012, 18:19 »
0
And I took a look at my percentage of subs sales of the monthly totals since last June (when I returned to independence) and it was 41% by units (downloads) and 18% by $$, so I would say it's pretty similar to SS in that a lot of the money is coming from non-sub sales

123RF - 49% (downloads) and 22% $$ (subs)
SS - 31% $$ (not subs)

« Reply #315 on: February 18, 2012, 03:01 »
0
I will sit out the year, then remove my portfolio. Screw you and your greedy crap.

That makes two of us bud!!! ;)
another here.  If 123 loses customers (in the way IS/FT did) I wonder if finally sites will think it worth treating contributors fairly...probably not

another here! I am deeply angered by the decision to 123RF.

I have a small portfolio (170 img), but with a high quality.
Under an earnings threshold, it leads in the robbery.
Who wants to be robbed remains well. But it was a massacre.

If these are the intentions of 123RF,
before the end of the year will cancel my portfolio.

« Reply #316 on: February 18, 2012, 04:35 »
0
I don't think 123rf will double their sales after we start to steer the traffic to some nicer sites and badmouthing (only with facts!) them on forums. The IS/FT phenomenon will happen to them. They will be lucky to have half of their current sales.

« Reply #317 on: February 18, 2012, 04:54 »
0
I don't think 123rf will double their sales after we start to steer the traffic to some nicer sites and badmouthing (only with facts!) them on forums. The IS/FT phenomenon will happen to them. They will be lucky to have half of their current sales.

Yup, they just don't get it do they. To be in a position of assent and to risk it all in a move like this is completely disastrous, for them. They may have got away unscathed if they stuck to their original plan of commission cuts for new contributors. Bad press such as what IS and ft have and are still receiving can do untold harm for a company.

« Reply #318 on: February 18, 2012, 06:16 »
0
Yup, they just don't get it do they.

They also don't get how close relations most of the professional photographers have with different advertising/design agencies/magazines etc. I have been telling facts about IS and FT to them, and next time I think I'll add 123rf to my "black list".

« Reply #319 on: February 18, 2012, 09:59 »
0
Add me to the list of angry contributors.  Based on my average RC per DL I'll need to increase my portfolio to six times it's current size and 123 will need to triple the sales if I'm going to keep my 50%.  That's quite a leap from what they promised just a month ago when they told me my current portfolio and download rate would grandfather me in at 50%.  >:(

« Reply #320 on: February 18, 2012, 13:24 »
0
Another unhappy contributor here.

One thing that hasn't been touched on much is that the 123RF commission % is based on the price the buyer paid for the credits and not based on 1 credit = $1.

It appears that 123RF seems to quite heavily discount their credit packages.

From a quick review of my last 100 credit sales, 308 credits were required for their purchase.

One would assume that at a 50% royalty that the commission would be close to $154, however the actual commission received was actually $126.

This represents an average credit discount of 18% given by 123RF to its buyers, which takes a substantial chunk out of our commission earnings.

I have had some XXL and XXL TIFF sales where the discount that 123RF must have given to the buyer is close to 60%.

Based on an average discount of 18% (from review of my last 100 credit sales) our sales are currently already being sold at what is effectively a percentage much lower than 50%, by hiding it behind buyer credit discounts.

If 123Rf are planning to increase sales dramatically as Alex says, how much of that is going to be at the cost of the contributor, by large credit discounts to buyers, even before they cut the commissions.

The proposed cut in commissions coupled with the fact that our dollars received are often based on substantial buyer credit discounts is just one step too far.

Alex if you are out there, I would like to here your reply to this.

XPTO

« Reply #321 on: February 18, 2012, 13:49 »
0
Still waiting for the reply to this question:

Why a sale from a big contributor is more valuable than a sale from a smaller one, when for the buyer each image is the best one for their project and don't care for the name of the photographer. And you even charge the same for each image!

Please explain to me why a niche contributor who has a unique collection, which doesn't sell thousands of photos per month but is the only one supplying that type of imagery, should accept the commission cut when it's you who are privileged to have those photos in the first place?!

I still need to be explained why a sale from a particular contributor, is less valuable than a sale from another one to the point that one suffers discrimination!

And please don't come with the excuse that some contributors produce more salable content. If you have non-salable content in your collection blame and punish yourself for having accepted it, don't punish the contributor for submitting it.

« Reply #322 on: February 18, 2012, 14:02 »
0
@XPTO. You know the answer to your question and that they'll probably never say it directly or in public.

They want to minimize their payout to contributors but they're afraid that the most successful contributors will walk if they cut their commissions too much. The tiered payout structure isn't because your images are worth any less than Yuri's or Monkey Business Images' but because they can't afford for them to walk and they feel they can live without you (or me or any of the other smaller contributors).

They - 123rf - are exercising their power (no logic or reason, just because they can as the agency with the storefront) and softening the impact on the contributors who hold more than average leverage of their own. They hope they'll keep us all quiet this way and up their take from the business.

If all this talk about improving sales produces some actual improvement in sales over the next several months, I might decide to stay come Jan 2013. At the moment I see a site that is barely functioning with contributor login (see the other thread about problems loading) and sales bumping along about as they have been - good, but not iStock good where I feel I have to tolerate their greedy ways.

« Reply #323 on: February 18, 2012, 14:57 »
0
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)

Not anymore.

rubyroo

« Reply #324 on: February 18, 2012, 15:06 »
0
After some dwelling and ruminating on this issue, I'm completely failing to see any logical relationship between these two proposals.

The first one read to me like a very reasonable 'carrot' for under-performing contributors to push through a big influx of images before the deadline to continue to enjoy their 50% cut, with a slow and gradual increase in 123RF's 'take' over time from newer contributors who haven't contributed to their success to date.

The second reads like a 'stick' to beat almost all contributors with, as if 123rf will fall down if it doesn't hugely increase it's cut from our work.

I can't make any sense of how 'A' became 'B' in this scenario. 


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
56 Replies
17019 Views
Last post February 25, 2010, 14:01
by BaldricksTrousers
7 Replies
3921 Views
Last post September 09, 2010, 20:11
by Freedom
38 Replies
6985 Views
Last post August 29, 2012, 12:00
by CD123
1 Replies
1845 Views
Last post December 31, 2014, 08:05
by klsbear
18 Replies
2907 Views
Last post November 22, 2018, 14:19
by pkphotos

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results