0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I guess the next step will be subscriptions.
Quote from: borg on June 28, 2013, 03:06EVERY OTHER AGENCY IS A FRIENDLY AGENCY! Absolute rubbish. Look at the shenanigans at Fotolia (I still think they're worse than iStock with all their hidden little tricks). Even SS is doing funny things with Bigstock. DT has such a confusing earnings structure that I'm never quite sure what they're doing. 123 just cut our commissions. So did Alamy.
EVERY OTHER AGENCY IS A FRIENDLY AGENCY!
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on June 28, 2013, 05:02Quote from: borg on June 28, 2013, 03:06EVERY OTHER AGENCY IS A FRIENDLY AGENCY! Absolute rubbish. Look at the shenanigans at Fotolia (I still think they're worse than iStock with all their hidden little tricks). Even SS is doing funny things with Bigstock. DT has such a confusing earnings structure that I'm never quite sure what they're doing. 123 just cut our commissions. So did Alamy.I think Fotolia are almost as bad as istock but they seem to of followed there lead. Its the same with the other sites that have seen what most contributors are willing to tolerate and have decided there's no point paying a decent commission percentage, when a lower one still gets a good supply of images. I wouldn't put alamy in the same class as some of the others though. 50% commissions still seems fair compared to the 17% I get with istock that will probably be even worse next year. It would be a huge financial loss for non-exclusives to take action against all the sites that have cut commissions but I think dealing with the one that pays the lowest commission percentage and has done the dreadful Google deal would send a message that we can only be pushed so far. If nothings done on a large scale to make the sites see we mean business, there's no point in all these endless threads about the latest changes that are going to hit our earnings.
Quote from: cthoman on June 27, 2013, 23:57Quote from: tickstock on June 27, 2013, 22:54You weren't talking about royalties, you said the cheapest license. But if now you want to talk about the lowest paying royalties per license then look at the sub sites, some pay as low as 21 cents to license a full sized image.But, iStock has/is a sub site. If you are going to average out your RPD at iStock, you have to include Thinkstock. Just like you include Single sales and On Demand in the RPD for Shutterstock and other sites that sell subs and individual image sales.Fair enough. For independents the RPD is probably about the same across many of the sites, what it looks like to me is that Istock has been lowering prices to compete with Shutterstock for a while first as you say with Thinkstock and now on the main site. There probably isn't much difference anymore but if people will accept it at Shutterstock (even praise it) then why wouldn't they accept it at Istock?BTW whatever happened with Fotolia talking about lowering royalties for contributors that were on cheaper sites?
Quote from: tickstock on June 27, 2013, 22:54You weren't talking about royalties, you said the cheapest license. But if now you want to talk about the lowest paying royalties per license then look at the sub sites, some pay as low as 21 cents to license a full sized image.But, iStock has/is a sub site. If you are going to average out your RPD at iStock, you have to include Thinkstock. Just like you include Single sales and On Demand in the RPD for Shutterstock and other sites that sell subs and individual image sales.
You weren't talking about royalties, you said the cheapest license. But if now you want to talk about the lowest paying royalties per license then look at the sub sites, some pay as low as 21 cents to license a full sized image.
I stopped uploading, removed 500 of my best images and left them with the LCV stuff, what is everyone else doing?
Maybe I am boring but we need our stock agency! Microstockgroup agency!So, how many of us are active here!?We can make first round of IPO with first 100$ for contributors who want to participate and be shareholder....Of course, we have to find country for agency registration, to find employees from this forum and start, easily, slowly...When MSG agency will be "alive and kicking", contributors will be payed on usual way and on the end of year, with profit after taxes...When every contributor start to feel this agency as his own, then you will see marketing explosion....www.msgstockphoto.com can be domain...One idea! On that site you don't have to be exclusive contributor, but unique demand can be that you have to be "timeshare exclusive contributor" or you have to upload new content for example 1 year only on "msgstock agency"... After that period you can upload anywhere...
But they can have 100$ to participate in project... People in active team will work for salary not to be volunteer....Every successful agency mainly start from one man, I don't see reason why people who are already involved in microstock might not know how to built up another one...
Quote from: borg on June 28, 2013, 10:56But they can have 100$ to participate in project... People in active team will work for salary not to be volunteer....Every successful agency mainly start from one man, I don't see reason why people who are already involved in microstock might not know how to built up another one...Search past threads on the subject and you will see.
But they can have 100$ to participate in project... People in active team will work for salary not to be volunteer....Every successful agency mainly start from one man, I don't see reason why people who are already involved in microstock might not know how to built up another one...Also my question is:Is there some agency (low earner) whose owner is willing to sold complete web and infrastructure to MSG contributors? Then we can make several IPO rounds to collect money for put that agency in "top tier"...
So, we need another topic, "War against iStock", not "How to support friendly agencies"!
...Istock will regain customers, no doubt....
They get points for doing a survey, but I can't imagine that the current state of the site is the result of listening to buyers in prior surveys.
Quote from: loop on June 28, 2013, 12:43...Istock will regain customers, no doubt....I'm not so sure they will regain customers. Virtually getting rid of QC and swamping the sites with images that they used to reject might make buyers decide they aren't worth bothering with. I think they've worked hard to get rid of their buyers, it will be even harder to get them back.