pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Ingimage - Accepting New Contributors / A Few Changes  (Read 22370 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 24, 2015, 08:51 »
-2


Semmick Photo

« Reply #1 on: February 24, 2015, 08:56 »
+5


Any questions please let me know.

Henry

Hi Henry, why do you think taking 80% is fair? What do you do to earn that 80% cut of our work?

Thanks,

« Reply #2 on: February 24, 2015, 09:41 »
+5
Your prices are too low (subscription: 250 images per week, 139 for one month, 789 for 12 month).
Extended licenses are too cheap also.
You are undercutting the competition, that's not what I will support.

And most certainly not if you offer an insulting 20%.

Sorry, that's a complete non-starter for me.

« Reply #3 on: February 24, 2015, 10:15 »
+4
... Your royalties will be the regular 20% ($16 / $8)..

Are you serious?  ???  I won't even read the rest "great news"...


In first moment I thought we are talking about Inmagine.com, lol... Who was first?
« Last Edit: February 24, 2015, 10:21 by Ariene »


« Reply #5 on: February 24, 2015, 10:40 »
+3
Hi Semmick and dirkr,

The honest answer is that the royalty % is calculated on what allows us to grow our business and support our team.

We have a traditional sales team & customer service led approach which has high running costs. Each of our subscribers has a personal account manager that they can call & and who will give them updates throughout the course of their subscription. I am aware this sounds old-fashioned, but there is a niche for this - with many customers choosing us specifically because they enjoy the experience of working with a smaller company.

Our subscription pricing reflects the more niche product & smaller collection size.

There are higher subscription royalty rates elsewhere, however, on a big subscription-based site each image is competing against another 20M - 50M, on Ingimage the choice is smaller - as a result each contributor ultimately receives a much greater share of our revenue.

Thanks,
Henry

Simple answer: Raise your prices (significantly) and that should allow you to raise the royalties then.

Your argue you have higher costs because you provide better service to customers. Than they should pay for that.

With the current setup I don't want you to grow your business.

If your argument is, because of your smaller collection size we should expect more downloads (less competition) and thus accept lower royalties, then I do have a proposal for you (to back up that promise):

A guaranteed commission amount per file and month. Every file I upload I get x.xx $ per month. It's your job to make that up with sales. Interested? Just tell me what x.xx is, and I tell you if I'm interested...



Semmick Photo

« Reply #7 on: February 24, 2015, 11:16 »
0
Do you  require exclusivity? Do you sell RF? Do you sell editorial?


« Reply #9 on: February 24, 2015, 13:56 »
+2
I downloaded your terms document to take a look - I don't feel "premium" whatever that is, but was curious.

You apparently pay 20% of subscription revenues and if I understand the calculation in the document, the payout is based on the number of actual downloads. So if a buyer of a monthly subscription, which costs $199 and for which the buyer gets up to 1,000 images (250/week) downloads only 750 images, the revenue to the agency is 26.5 cents a download and the contributor gets 5.3 cents for each of their sales?

If the buyer only downloaded 500 images, the revenue to the agency is 39.8 cents a download and the contributor gets 7.9 cents?

I hope I have something wrong because those numbers are insane. Even the terrible agency payments are 25 cents a download for subscriptions, and there's no way your volume could match the big dog in the subscription business, so you're not going to make it up on volume...

Modified to note this term which seems like an uncomfortably long image lock (3 years from the date the image is included in "a Product" - whatever that means):

"Regardless of Termination of this Agreement, COMPANY will be entitled to continue to license any Image if it is featured in a Product, with the exception of the COMPANY website, for a period of three years from the date of first inclusion in its Product "

This type of lock would be a major problem for many, especially if they have no control over which images get treated this way.

« Last Edit: February 24, 2015, 17:43 by Jo Ann Snover »


« Reply #11 on: February 25, 2015, 11:29 »
+2
Thanks for the additional information. I assume that the lower competition is a result of having fewer images on the site and the astonishingly low download numbers - a buyer theoretically entitled to 13,000 images in one year only downloads 350 on average - tied to low prices and relatively few images.

This model doesn't scale well - at least not for the contributor - should the agency become successful. I have to believe that the subscription downloads will increase, thus lowering the return per download, and $2 for a credit sale average isn't all that high.

My return per download at Shutterstock - a mix of subscription and credit sales - hovers around $1 per download, with lots of competition and decent volume. I can't imagine you'll improve your royalties for contributors as the site gets more successful - it's generally worked the other way around. Sites are nicest to contributors when they need content to get started, so low rates at the beginning don't bode well, in my experience.

« Reply #12 on: February 25, 2015, 11:41 »
+1
I can't imagine you'll improve your royalties for contributors as the site gets more successful - it's generally worked the other way around. Sites are nicest to contributors when they need content to get started, so low rates at the beginning don't bode well, in my experience.

And that's why this is a non-starter.
They're asking for new contributors with a royalty percentage that was barely acceptable at Istock when they were the number one microstock agency (in terms of volume).

@Henry: make that average for subs a minimum payout and increase your percentage for credit downloads to 50% (at least).
Then we're talking.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #13 on: February 25, 2015, 18:07 »
0
He must be having a laugh.

« Reply #14 on: February 25, 2015, 18:35 »
+2
A royalty % less than half of Pond5 and alamy, doesn't get me motivated to apply.

« Reply #15 on: February 25, 2015, 19:03 »
0
I found my images on Ingimage! I don't upload them directly, so could you tell me do you have partnership with other microstock sites?

« Reply #16 on: February 25, 2015, 19:13 »
0
My only response is: No way, Jos!

« Reply #17 on: February 25, 2015, 19:15 »
+2
Am I the only one not seeing Agree/Disgree buttons on this thread?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #18 on: February 25, 2015, 19:16 »
+1
I don't see them either!

« Reply #19 on: February 25, 2015, 19:18 »
0
Glad it's not just me.

I really, really, really want to be able to Agree and Disagree with some statements here!

« Reply #20 on: February 25, 2015, 19:21 »
+5
20% is not a carrot, it's a turd. Not for me.

« Reply #21 on: February 25, 2015, 19:31 »
0
I found my images on Ingimage! I don't upload them directly, so could you tell me do you have partnership with other microstock sites?

I found the answer to my question:

Ingram Image Ltd>Ingimage
Ingram Image Ltd>SignElements !!!
Ingram Image Ltd>signbiblio.nl
Ingram Image Ltd>signimages.com.au
Ingram Image Ltd>dynamicgraphics.co.nz
Ingram Image Ltd>istockmax.co.uk
Ingram Image Ltd>cadlinkdesignelements.com
Ingram Image Ltd>fontsandphotos.com

H2O

« Reply #22 on: February 25, 2015, 19:43 »
0
This is just Rubbish, why did he even bother to publicise this

« Reply #23 on: February 25, 2015, 20:36 »
+2
Hi Semmick and dirkr,

The honest answer is that the royalty % is calculated on what allows us to grow our business and support our team.



With honest respect the royalty % should be also calculated by keeping in mind on what allows contributors to grow their business and support our families.




Semmick Photo

« Reply #24 on: February 25, 2015, 20:59 »
0
I am with an agency who pays me 50% ..... of their cut 20%. 10% for me, thus. 90% of my work goes to other people. Its mind blowing.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
3502 Views
Last post March 20, 2013, 02:42
by Yure
19 Replies
5743 Views
Last post May 23, 2014, 07:21
by Maximilian
5 Replies
4084 Views
Last post February 16, 2017, 13:53
by unnonimus
73 Replies
20830 Views
Last post May 08, 2018, 05:52
by photomichael
1 Replies
2657 Views
Last post February 25, 2018, 10:49
by Sean Locke Photography

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle