pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Ingimage - Accepting New Contributors / A Few Changes  (Read 33691 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.

« Reply #25 on: February 26, 2015, 03:11 »
+4
This thread (and website) is just a waste of time. Sorry Henry - your start was not good here. Looks like 100% people gave you the same reply - there's no carrot.

Quote
We now offer an Extended License option - a single image cost $80 or $40 if the customer has an active subscription with us. Your royalties will be the regular 20% ($16 / $8)
This is just a shame (for photographers). With your offer 20% (of low pricing) just don't bother.

Quote
The honest answer is that the royalty % is calculated on what allows us to grow our business and support our team.
Your calculations won't allow us (authors) to grow.

You say you are small agency and pricing can't be large? How then is it possible that (for one of few examples) Stocksy sells for nice pricing?
And...
We already have micros with low pricing and they (at least SS) have mass clients. Why would any of us devote time on you more than doing new work for already good sellers? Why you think we should upload our work to you?

Good pricing and royalty?
Support local or fair treating?
Good marketing (bringing rich clients)?
etc.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2015, 03:16 by Ariene »

« Reply #26 on: February 26, 2015, 04:36 »
+2
Maybe Ingimage should take notice of what's happening with Getty/istock?  They took away any incentive for non-exclusives to supply istock and now it's in decline, while Shutterstock is doing well.  Why don't some other sites learn that lesson?  Pond5 is doing great paying 50%, I know they are mostly a video site but I think it still proves that paying their contributors a reasonable amount had helped them become successful.

« Reply #27 on: February 26, 2015, 04:53 »
0
I really need to able to agree or disagree with some of the comments here! Leaf what's going on with the + and -


« Reply #29 on: February 26, 2015, 09:00 »
+1
Thanks for all your feedback, this is very much taken on board.

  • To clarify, Ingimage does not require exclusive content.
  • Our royalty % is lower than single-purchase / credit based sites - but as a subscription site our 'per download' royalties are high.
  • We are a smaller library catering to a more specific market - the small size of our collection means that we can & do provide a steady & significant extra stream of income to our photographers and artists.

If you'd like to apply here's the link: Ingimage Application Page


No content means no traffic means no sales. Not trying to be negative but so many start ups come here and tout how they are different (and you have too) and none of it is realistic or far and many use cookie cutter statements like you have. NONE of it will work. 20%=non starter; small collection=no traffic (or not nearly enough traffic to excite contributors); no traffic=no sales.  I can only think of one new agency of late that seems to a actually be working but it is a closed agency: Stocksy.  I will never get in, my game isn't assigned with their needs like many other here and in this business. To those who are aligned, you deserve it.  For the rest of us we are in my opinion still waiting for a start up that has:

1. The right pieces (commissions, UI, content, money, differentiation......what's unique that a buyer would want to leave Stocksy or SS or IS and come to Ingimage?)
2. Is able to get ample buyer traffic.

The list of those who have tried is long.

Those two things are core to a start up.  You don't meet either based on your comments in their thread....at least for me. I can't speak for other artists.


« Reply #31 on: February 26, 2015, 09:49 »
0
I think ingimage does not need to change anything.
Have a look at photospin. Customers buys a credit for $0.06. So we earn 40% of these $0.06?
And they have thousands of images  :(

« Reply #32 on: February 26, 2015, 10:22 »
+1
Why do you not identify the artist?    You can click on "more from this artist", but no credit is given as to who it is.

« Reply #33 on: February 26, 2015, 10:40 »
0
For the rest of us we are in my opinion still waiting for a start up that has:

1. The right pieces (commissions, UI, content, money, differentiation......what's unique that a buyer would want to leave Stocksy or SS or IS and come to Ingimage?)
2. Is able to get ample buyer traffic.


Hi Mantis,

Ingimage is not a start-up, we have grown gradually over the last seven years - not through traffic but through sales generated by traditional marketing methods and word of mouth. We are not huge, but our traffic levels are in a similar league to Stocksy - more importantly our loyal customers represent the majority of our traffic, and that group is steadily growing. Many of our present contributors already make very significant royalties through us.

I appreciate we have not reinvented the wheel. But as a smaller collection we do offer a different experience for buyers. Customers do choose us over larger collections as they prefer browsing our edited library.

We offer high royalties compared to other subscriptions  (we are accepting applications until April 30th - Ingimage Application Page [nofollow])

« Reply #34 on: February 26, 2015, 10:48 »
+1
Please let us know how many applications you received on April 30 and the numbers you accepted/refused!

« Reply #35 on: February 26, 2015, 10:52 »
0
Hi Henry,

Got a few of questions for you...

I'm a SignElements contributor, and over there the royalty rate is 30%. Why can't that rate be matched at Ingimage?

Why is my work at Ingimage? I thought that only exclusive SignElements content was ported over to other sites.

When my work is sold at Ingimage, what rate am I getting? I'd assume 30% but please let me know if it's different for these partner site sales.

Thanks

H2O

« Reply #36 on: February 26, 2015, 11:06 »
0
It does not matter that Ingimage pays such a low rate, how long are they going to be in business with these rates, the people who upload to them are going to be making some serious losses, and their business model will collapse.

« Reply #37 on: February 26, 2015, 11:17 »
+1
Guessing this e-mail from HOW + Print Partners is part of their promotion:


Exclusive Invitation | Low Volume Stock Images
Open this email in your browser
Dear How magazine reader,
 
We're pleased to announce that we're reopening our hugely popular budget option for low volume stock image users.
 
For just one day you can purchase a full year ingimage subscription for only $199, instead of the standard price of $999. The only difference is you're limited to 50 downloads each month instead of the usual weekly limit.
 
Be sure to take advantage while you can.
\
 
I'd like to emphasise that this Low Volume option still gives you access to every single image on the website, including super high resolution.
 
Our Low Volume option is the perfect option for designers looking for quality rather than quantity, and at an affordable price.
 
To take advantage you can follow this link to setup online, or if you prefer contact me by email now.
 
Best regards,

 
Flora Chen
North American Sales Manager
ingimage.com
 
\
 
 

This email was sent to: * by F+W 10151 Carver Road, Suite 200, Blue Ash, OH, 45242 USA
One-Click Unsubscribe | Manage Subscriptions | Update Profile | Forward to a Friend

« Reply #38 on: February 26, 2015, 11:41 »
+3
As I mentioned in my previous post Ingimage and SignElements are part of Ingram Image Ltd!

http://www.signelements.com/p/about.html
http://www.ingimage.com/p/about-us-en.html

I still have small part of my portfolio on SignElements. They still don't report the sales! No info of which image is sold and how much I get!
My experience and the info from many contributors I know: they pay almost the same amount every month, no matter how much images you upload! I mean extreme differences (+100-200%) in portfolio size (thousands) and just a few pounds (+5-10%) difference in royalties paid! Very suspicious! I don't trust them!
I actually requested termination of my account after payment long time ago with no success! I should try again!

Ingimage = SignElements = No deal
« Last Edit: February 26, 2015, 11:43 by Fairplay »

« Reply #39 on: February 26, 2015, 12:39 »
+4
"...For just one day you can purchase a full year ingimage subscription for only $199, instead of the standard price of $999. The only difference is you're limited to 50 downloads each month instead of the usual weekly limit...."

$199 / 600 downloads = 33 cents each x 20% = 6 cents for the contributor with their current payout.

The more we hear, the less interesting this agency becomes

« Reply #40 on: February 26, 2015, 12:50 »
+2
20%. Are you serious. You are not going to get quality images with this percentage...not nowadays.....unless you have a huge selling volume Only my opinion.....

« Reply #41 on: February 26, 2015, 13:38 »
+3
20%. Are you serious. You are not going to get quality images with this percentage...not nowadays.....unless you have a huge selling volume Only my opinion.....

Why do you say "only my opinion" when your previous statement is obviously true?

You undercut your argument when you add wimpy stuff like that. But that's only my opinion.  ;D

« Reply #42 on: February 26, 2015, 15:03 »
0
As I mentioned in my previous post Ingimage and SignElements are part of Ingram Image Ltd!

http://www.signelements.com/p/about.html
http://www.ingimage.com/p/about-us-en.html

I still have small part of my portfolio on SignElements. They still don't report the sales! No info of which image is sold and how much I get!
My experience and the info from many contributors I know: they pay almost the same amount every month, no matter how much images you upload! I mean extreme differences (+100-200%) in portfolio size (thousands) and just a few pounds (+5-10%) difference in royalties paid! Very suspicious! I don't trust them!
I actually requested termination of my account after payment long time ago with no success! I should try again!

Ingimage = SignElements = No deal


SignElements lack of detailed reporting is why I closed my account with them.

« Reply #43 on: February 27, 2015, 06:07 »
+4

Ingimage is not a start-up, we have grown gradually over the last seven years - not through traffic but through sales generated by traditional marketing methods and word of mouth. We are not huge, but our traffic levels are in a similar league to Stocksy - more importantly our loyal customers represent the majority of our traffic, and that group is steadily growing. Many of our present contributors already make very significant royalties through us.

I appreciate we have not reinvented the wheel. But as a smaller collection we do offer a different experience for buyers. Customers do choose us over larger collections as they prefer browsing our edited library.

We offer high royalties compared to other subscriptions  (we are accepting applications until April 30th - Ingimage Application Page)

Ingimage is still uninteresting until they'll offer higher comissions. They does not have the download amount of Shutterstock or Fotolia etc but they pay less! Why should we then offer our work? No, first must an agency offer something that makes them interesting for providers. And there I see nothing at the moment!

« Reply #44 on: March 06, 2015, 11:13 »
0

@Henry: How can I contact you directly? Have some questions about SignElements and partner relationships.

Thanks



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
4536 Views
Last post March 20, 2013, 02:42
by Yure
19 Replies
7676 Views
Last post May 23, 2014, 07:21
by Maximilian
5 Replies
5668 Views
Last post February 16, 2017, 13:53
by unnonimus
73 Replies
27297 Views
Last post May 08, 2018, 05:52
by photomichael
1 Replies
3487 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