MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: BaldricksTrousers on March 28, 2011, 10:22
-
I just got the lowest sale ever from iStock. Lower than the lowest rate in 2004.
Yup, it was for 8 effing cents.
Thanks for the insult, iS.
-
how is that possible? from deep discounted credit packs?
-
I just got the lowest sale ever from iStock. Lower than the lowest rate in 2004.
Yup, it was for 8 effing cents.
Thanks for the insult, iS.
That sucks
the partner program looks lofty by comparison ;-)
-
Maybe a deep discount but more likely its a 2003 or 2004 50c credit.
But if it is a 50c credit, then my 17% commission should pay 8.5c. But the iStock rounding down reduces 8.5c to 8c, which is a further commission cut of 5.9%.
It's amazing how they grab 5% or 10% or 15% more to top up their commission share, as it's vital for their "sustainability", then casually slash an extra 5.9% off my commission in what appears to be violation of the terms they imposed on us, because it's merely "rounding" the money and 6% therefore is of no consequence.
-
How about contacting support and confirm. Could be an error.
-
History tells us there are no errors when it comes to how low a commission can be.
-
How about contacting support and confirm. Could be an error.
i'm waiting for support responses by weeks.
-
wow... 8 cents... talk about micro royalties... i think time would be better spent going through trash and getting plastic bottles for recycling. In the US, at least u get like 5 cents per plastic bottle. ;D
I get pissed when i see $5 royalties when usually they earn me close to $8 on my vectors.
-
I got a .10 royalty before they cut the %, so I guess that could get rounded down to .07
That is pretty sad.
-
Maybe a deep discount but more likely its a 2003 or 2004 50c credit.
But if it is a 50c credit, then my 17% commission should pay 8.5c. But the iStock rounding down reduces 8.5c to 8c, which is a further commission cut of 5.9%.
It's amazing how they grab 5% or 10% or 15% more to top up their commission share, as it's vital for their "sustainability", then casually slash an extra 5.9% off my commission in what appears to be violation of the terms they imposed on us, because it's merely "rounding" the money and 6% therefore is of no consequence.
What an affront. On all fronts.
-
Ugh. I'm having a hell of a time adjusting to my new fancy 23 cent royalties for XS :( You know it's bad when you can't tell by looking at the balance if you've had sales or not.
And yes, that * partner program. I'm thoroughly against it, always have been, but man, would I love to make more than a buck or two a day again :(
-
my lowest is on 0.11$
-
Ugh. I'm having a hell of a time adjusting to my new fancy 23 cent royalties for XS :( You know it's bad when you can't tell by looking at the balance if you've had sales or not.
And yes, that partner program. I'm thoroughly against it, always have been, but man, would I love to make more than a buck or two a day again :(
Without the PP, I'd not clear $100 per month now.
As an exclusive, I was clearing about $500 per month.
The PP offered (and still does) a nice monthly boost.
-
Ugh. I'm having a hell of a time adjusting to my new fancy 23 cent royalties for XS :( You know it's bad when you can't tell by looking at the balance if you've had sales or not.
And yes, that partner program. I'm thoroughly against it, always have been, but man, would I love to make more than a buck or two a day again :(
Without the PP, I'd not clear $100 per month now.
As an exclusive, I was clearing about $500 per month.
The PP offered (and still does) a nice monthly boost.
only 100$ with a 2500 portfolio?
-
Without the PP, I'd not clear $100 per month now.
As an exclusive, I was clearing about $500 per month.
To be honest , a lot of remaining exclusives are also dropping $$ and dl, though not quite that much - yet.
-
I just got the lowest sale ever from iStock. Lower than the lowest rate in 2004.
Yup, it was for 8 effing cents.
Thanks for the insult, iS.
Wow. Just...Wow. :o
-
In the US, at least u get like 5 cents per plastic bottle. ;D
You get 25,- Euro-cents here in Germany :-). That is close to eight times more - you can call it the macro or traditional world of the "collecting-plastic-bottle-business" ;D
-
Without the PP, I'd not clear $100 per month now.
As an exclusive, I was clearing about $500 per month.
To be honest , a lot of remaining exclusives are also dropping $$ and dl, though not quite that much - yet.
My numbers were dropping like a stone before the crown fell off, but now things are just BLEAK. I'm uploading and taking photos, but it's slow. And since iStock income is so bad, I keep having to stop and take other gigs that don't pay jack but at least it's something. Screwed either way :/
-
In the US, at least u get like 5 cents per plastic bottle. ;D
You get 25,- Euro-cents here in Germany :-). That is close to eight times more - you can call it the macro or traditional world of the "collecting-plastic-bottle-business" ;D
In Scotland, we recycle plastic bottles etc for the virtuous feeling.
-
I had about 10 downloads today most of which were 16 cents to 25 cents. What ever happened to 2-3 buck dl's? Geeze.
-
I had about 10 downloads today most of which were 16 cents to 25 cents. What ever happened to 2-3 buck dl's? Geeze.
That was my question . . . I used to get mostly medium sales, some large, some small and xs. I bet I might have gotten a handful of large downloads in the last month. It seems almost everything is small and smaller. With prices as they are though, I guess I can't blame the buyers :/
-
Maybe a deep discount but more likely its a 2003 or 2004 50c credit.
But if it is a 50c credit, then my 17% commission should pay 8.5c. But the iStock rounding down reduces 8.5c to 8c, which is a further commission cut of 5.9%.
It's amazing how they grab 5% or 10% or 15% more to top up their commission share, as it's vital for their "sustainability", then casually slash an extra 5.9% off my commission in what appears to be violation of the terms they imposed on us, because it's merely "rounding" the money and 6% therefore is of no consequence.
Wow, that's disturbing but what I find even more disturbing is that you haven't packed your bags and left. Really is 8.5c a whole lot better than 8c? They have insulted you and many others time and time again with these degrading commissions yet a lot refuse to leave? Why? What exactly are you all waiting for? At what point will enough be enough for you? Do they need to actually give your images away for free before you decide it's not worth selling through these arseholes?
These companies rip you off because you allow them to. They're going to keep squeezing you until you've bled dry because they know you're a bunch of suckers. I'm not trying to be rude but you can't argue here that you're not when you complain about 8c commissions and still stay. And what's worse about people staying is that it brings down commissions in the entire industry over time. 8c!!! Give them the flick already, Jesus!
That makes me so mad, but not just with them, with you and your tolerance for it!
-
Maybe a deep discount but more likely its a 2003 or 2004 50c credit.
But if it is a 50c credit, then my 17% commission should pay 8.5c. But the iStock rounding down reduces 8.5c to 8c, which is a further commission cut of 5.9%.
It's amazing how they grab 5% or 10% or 15% more to top up their commission share, as it's vital for their "sustainability", then casually slash an extra 5.9% off my commission in what appears to be violation of the terms they imposed on us, because it's merely "rounding" the money and 6% therefore is of no consequence.
Wow, that's disturbing but what I find even more disturbing is that you haven't packed your bags and left. Really is 8.5c a whole lot better than 8c? They have insulted you and many others time and time again with these degrading commissions yet a lot refuse to leave? Why? What exactly are you all waiting for? At what point will enough be enough for you? Do they need to actually give your images away for free before you decide it's not worth selling through these arseholes?
These companies rip you off because you allow them to. They're going to keep squeezing you until you've bled dry because they know you're a bunch of suckers. I'm not trying to be rude but you can't argue here that you're not when you complain about 8c commissions and still stay. And what's worse about people staying is that it brings down commissions in the entire industry over time. 8c!!! Give them the flick already, Jesus!
That makes me so mad, but not just with them, with you and your tolerance for it!
Wow. I wish you'd harness some of that passion and start up a company that pays us better. I dropped the crown 1 Feb, and I'm still trying to get things online elsewhere. This is not my only job, and I'm going as fast as I can. Believe me, there's nothing at all I'd like better than to have better alternatives . . . but in the meantime, I still have bills to pay and iStock isn't making me a lot, but I can't turn it down just this second.
I'll be the first to admit: when they started all their baloney with the PP so long ago, I fought hard against that because I thought there was a battle to be won by the contributors. I never dreamed that the canister thing, the RC thing, the Agency thing and now the fraud would follow within two years and bring the site so far down. In 2007, I was able to pay my house payment with my monthly earnings (on less than 300 images). I foresaw dilution and increased competition, but I never in a million years saw it coming to this. And it's * hard to get everything placed with other agencies.
-
I just got the lowest sale ever from iStock. Lower than the lowest rate in 2004.
Yup, it was for 8 effing cents.
Thanks for the insult, iS.
------------------------------
Don't worry! Its all part of JJ's plan to reverse the tide and reach a new level of trust. Doesn't this feel like a new level of trust to you? He did promise it would be a different kind of trust.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=314342&messageid=6107482#post6107482 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=314342&messageid=6107482#post6107482)
-
I had about 10 downloads today most of which were 16 cents to 25 cents. What ever happened to 2-3 buck dl's? Geeze.
That was my question . . . I used to get mostly medium sales, some large, some small and xs. I bet I might have gotten a handful of large downloads in the last month. It seems almost everything is small and smaller. With prices as they are though, I guess I can't blame the buyers :/
people who buy lots of large images are the first to go to subscription plans
-
Wow, that's disturbing but what I find even more disturbing is that you haven't packed your bags and left. Really is 8.5c a whole lot better than 8c? They have insulted you and many others time and time again with these degrading commissions yet a lot refuse to leave? Why? What exactly are you all waiting for? At what point will enough be enough for you? Do they need to actually give your images away for free before you decide it's not worth selling through these arseholes?
....
That makes me so mad, but not just with them, with you and your tolerance for it!
I have no idea if you are making a living from this or not, but I am. It's not a huge fortune but without the $600-$700 a month I make from iStock there's no way I can carry on doing that. My $100 a month from Alamy won't magically turn into $800 if I kiss iStock goodbye (well, last year it was $100, this year it is $60). My "style" isn't sophisticated enough for traditional stock so I wouldn't get anywhere with Getty or Corbis etc.
Unless one of my other projects starts paying off, I'm not in a position to tell them to sod off.
As for the difference between 8c and 8.5c, it bothers me because it is the difference between having the percentage stated in the agreement and having someone help themselves to money out of my wallet. It doesn't matter how much it is, it is the principle. They appear arbitrarily cut my commission rate from the agreed 17% to 16%. And if it was just once it wouldn't bother me, but over the years these 0.5c deductions (which I guess is the average per sale) gradually add up. If it is $2 or $4 a month for four or five years, that amounts to between $48 and $240 overall. For Yuri Arcurs it could be $100 a month.
-
I'm in the same position, it's really not an option to just leave at the moment. I'm not just tolerating this though, I'm slowly deleting images and I haven't uploaded any to istock since last September. I'm doing all I can to make some extra money elsewhere, so I can take the loss with istock. I'm not intending to leave, as they might change owners at some point. I will trim my portfolio down and not supply them with any new images.
There's no way to stop other people uploading to istock, there are some here that said they had stopped uploading but carried on. It's annoying but that's what people do, there's a big fear of missing out on the tiny commissions they pay us.
-
Terrible! but you know the old saying, anything is better then a SMACK in the bollucks?
-
Terrible! but you know the old saying, anything is better then a SMACK in the bollucks?
How about a different kind of smack in the bolux, when you can't pay the mortgage? Which is going to hurt more?
Sharpshot, your approach does have the merit of providing an "orderly transition" as the current catchphrase puts it.
-
Wow. I wish you'd harness some of that passion and start up a company that pays us better. I dropped the crown 1 Feb, and I'm still trying to get things online elsewhere. This is not my only job, and I'm going as fast as I can. Believe me, there's nothing at all I'd like better than to have better alternatives . . . but in the meantime, I still have bills to pay and iStock isn't making me a lot, but I can't turn it down just this second.
I'll be the first to admit: when they started all their baloney with the PP so long ago, I fought hard against that because I thought there was a battle to be won by the contributors. I never dreamed that the canister thing, the RC thing, the Agency thing and now the fraud would follow within two years and bring the site so far down. In 2007, I was able to pay my house payment with my monthly earnings (on less than 300 images). I foresaw dilution and increased competition, but I never in a million years saw it coming to this. And it's hard to get everything placed with other agencies.
Believe me, it wouldn't be too difficult starting one of these agencies but if I was going to invest money, time and effort into a startup, it wouldn't be in a decaying industry such as microstock. The market is oversaturated with these agents just as much as it is saturated with contributors. There are quite a few fair paying agencies already out there but the problem here lies with the mentality of many contributors who will settle for anything thrown at them and are afraid to take a risk. I'm not referring to you personally because you've come up with an exit strategy... probably a little late but at least you’re looking to leave. Unlike you, however, there are still many that are crap scared to make a move because they're worried about dropping their current income. For those saying “but I make a living out of this”, isn’t an excuse. If anything, it's those who rely on their microstock income that should be the ones trying to drive the market to increase their profits long term. Protecting their current diminishing income isn't going to help them in the future. If they don't step up and take action, they may blink and find their income has halved suddenly and haven't bothered to come up with a plan on how to replace this loss. iStock haven’t just dropped commissions recently. Everyone should have told them to stick it at 20% commission many moons ago. Even 20% is insulting yet contributors were happy to stay because they were selling higher volumes. This kind of thinking is what's ruined this industry. To say that it's okay to sell your product for peanuts because you sell more is devaluing your product. If contributors don't believe their product has worth, why would a buyer?
Contributors also need to work smarter and play the market to suit them. A lot of contributors dump their entire portfolios on any microstock database, regardless of the variations in prices and commissions. Doing that won't maximise their income in the long run. I'll give you an example of what I'm talking about. Say I have a really hot image that is selling frequently and I have it uploaded at every agency and buyers are able to buy it from wherever they like. If it's a hot image, I should pull it from those cheaper agents. If I have it on Dreamstime for instance and it has climbed to a level 5 in a relatively short period of time, I can be fairly certain that it's in demand, has some worth and is probably coming up high in google. If that's the case, why would I want to make it available at DT for $5.63 for an extra small size and also make it available at $0.28 for the same size at Fotolia? I should (and have) pull it from Fotolia so buyers can only buy it at DT price. Buyers are as loyal to agencies as we are... they’re not at all. They’re not stupid, they’re going to buy it at the cheaper price and I would miss out on income if I allow that image to sit with Fotolia. Competition is fierce in this game and we can't rest on our laurels and rely on these agencies to have full control over how we earn our income. Nowhere else would you see this sort of thing happening. You don't see a brand of milk selling at huge price differences at various supermarkets. If you create a new brand of milk that's fortified with some special ingredient that benefits consumers in a different way to other common brands, you wouldn't sell it at a higher price at one store (for what it's really worth) and then sell it for the same cheaper price as the common brands at another store. Same applies here and contributors need to play the market a little better if they want to maximise their profits. It's not just about deciding which agency get's your images. It's also about deciding which agencies get which images.
-
^^^It looks to me that buyers are usually loyal to one site. A few might use two sites and a few might shop around for the best price but I don't think its many. If they were all looking for the cheapest prices, we would sell a lot more on the cheaper sites. The sites would cut their prices to keep their buyers. I haven't seen that happening.
-
^^^It looks to me that buyers are usually loyal to one site. A few might use two sites and a few might shop around for the best price but I don't think its many. If they were all looking for the cheapest prices, we would sell a lot more on the cheaper sites. The sites would cut their prices to keep their buyers. I haven't seen that happening.
I disagree, I don't think they're loyal at all, why would they be. They may be lazy to sign up with another but it's definitly not loyalty. If they really want an image they will sign up. They don't really need to at the moment if the image is already available at the agent they already have an account with.
"The sites would cut their prices to keep their buyers. I haven't seen that happening."
You haven't? I certainly have with my own images. 10 months ago, I was selling more of my images at Fotolia... I wasn't earning more but I was selling much much more than any other agency. I pulled about 75% of my images from Fotolia about 6 months ago. Price wasn't even the deciding factor then (although it should have been). I pulled them because of the watermark. Not long after doing that, things picked up at Dreamstime. Images that had not sold at all on Dreamstime but had sold well on Fotolia began selling well at Dreamstime. We all know Fotolia is way cheaper than Dreamstime.
ETA: Sorry I went off on a tangent, didn't I? ;D I probably shouldn't post at 3 in the morning.
It's really not that simple. If the agencies drop prices, we lose money and they'll lose contributors. It's bad enough they're shafting us by reducing our commissions, I don't think anyone will stick around if they drop prices as well.... unless they're on istock lol.
-
My assumption is that most buyers stick to a single agency. My own experience in business is that the management authorises the use of a service and doesn't want juniors coming along all the time saying "it's better to buy at site X" or "lets go to site Y instead". The contract details and pricing of site Z will have been checked and approved, discussed and cleared in a committee and nobody wants to have to go through the process again, just because Fred Smith took his photo somewhere else.
Even if they do go to DT, what if they buy a subscription there and download your Level 5 images at the lower rate? It's true that DT's average sale price is still $1 while Fotolia is 50c but you would need half your buyers to be personally loyal to you rather than committed to an agency to make up for scrapping files on DT.
And why do you think buyers lack loyalty to sites but have loyalty to individual photographers?
-
I keep posting this, and maybe I should quit, but...
With a subscription plan, any real concept of a 'commission' is lost. A customer paid something for that image... but what? And when? Depends on the terms of the subscription, and on how the accountants choose to look at it.
And the contributor gets paid something for that specific sale - but how much should that be? It's really arbitrary and totally up to the microstock.
This is how they're grinding us down to nothing - by destroying the relationship between a sale price and a commission.
-
It's really arbitrary and totally up to the microstock.
This is how they're grinding us down to nothing - by destroying the relationship between a sale price and a commission.
But isn't 16% of 50c also really arbitrary and totally up to the site? Credit prices are all over the place, Fotolia completely disconnects the sale price from whatever they pay you and link it to what sites they had in existence when you joined and which they let you sign up for.
At least none of the subscription sales deliver 8c.
-
PSEUDONYMS, is in fact right in some respect and a very important one as well, namely saturating the market wont stand up in the long run. When I started in Micro 4 years back it was pretty bad then but nowdays its just a plain joke and the agencies dont care as long as we feed them. I bet if they employed professional picture-editors, not even 10% would pass inspections.
In the film days with Stones and Image-Bank, etc, when you submitted a shot, no matter how good, if it was too much alike some other photographers shot, it was rejected!! that way the old agencies didnt fill up the shelves with piles of copies and rubbish.
The reason Micros accept copying, this and that is to have back-ups, just in case contributors get pissed off and leave, thats the only reason why, consequently, they dont give a crap if say 50 guys deactivate their portfolios and leave, they are well backed-up, well in most cases anyway.
So thanks to us, the contributors we have a situation whereby no one is indispencible, no one walks safe. Its not the fault of the agencies, we have only ourselves to blame. BASTA.
Im doing extremly well at Micro so Im not complaining at that but I do agree its totally insane, crazy, to just dump a massive portfoilio with just about anybody. It might pay off for a year or two and then just slowly vanish into oblivion.
-
Don't worry! Its all part of JJ's plan to reverse the tide and reach a new level of trust. Doesn't this feel like a new level of trust to you? He did promise it would be a different kind of trust.
LOL! Yes - the UNtrustworthy kind ;)
-
[At least none of the subscription sales deliver 8c.
Yet.
-
PSEUDONYMS, is in fact right in some respect and a very important one as well, namely saturating the market wont stand up in the long run.
....
The reason Micros accept copying, this and that is to have back-ups, just in case contributors get pissed off and leave, thats the only reason why, consequently, they dont give a crap if say 50 guys deactivate their portfolios and leave, they are well backed-up, well in most cases anyway.
So thanks to us, the contributors we have a situation whereby no one is indispencible, no one walks safe. Its not the fault of the agencies, we have only ourselves to blame. BASTA.
....
I do agree its totally insane, crazy, to just dump a massive portfoilio with just about anybody. It might pay off for a year or two and then just slowly vanish into oblivion.
I don't follow the logic of that. If nobody is indispensable because everything is duplicated, then surely dumping your portfolio everywhere is the only way to maximise profits. The sites won't miss you if you're not there, someone else will fill the gap - you, on the other hand - are losing sales to someone else.
And if they have five of everything, then there is absolutely no reason for buyers to jump between sites to find one particular person's work unless there is something exceptional about it (and, lets face it, 99% of the stuff is not exceptional and 99.9% of the artists are not exceptional, either).
-
PSEUDONYMS, is in fact right in some respect and a very important one as well, namely saturating the market wont stand up in the long run.
....
The reason Micros accept copying, this and that is to have back-ups, just in case contributors get pissed off and leave, thats the only reason why, consequently, they dont give a crap if say 50 guys deactivate their portfolios and leave, they are well backed-up, well in most cases anyway.
So thanks to us, the contributors we have a situation whereby no one is indispencible, no one walks safe. Its not the fault of the agencies, we have only ourselves to blame. BASTA.
....
I do agree its totally insane, crazy, to just dump a massive portfoilio with just about anybody. It might pay off for a year or two and then just slowly vanish into oblivion.
I don't follow the logic of that. If nobody is indispensable because everything is duplicated, then surely dumping your portfolio everywhere is the only way to maximise profits. The sites won't miss you if you're not there, someone else will fill the gap - you, on the other hand - are losing sales to someone else.
And if they have five of everything, then there is absolutely no reason for buyers to jump between sites to find one particular person's work unless there is something exceptional about it (and, lets face it, 99% of the stuff is not exceptional and 99.9% of the artists are not exceptional, either).
Well, not exactly. what I meant was, all agencies work on the assumption they will loose photographers work, I happen to know this for a fact. Now if they loose somebody totally unique and alone in his nieche, well, it might be a very, very costly affair, right? so by accepting as many photographers, copy-cats, you name it, they try to safeguard themselves. Think of it as a shop that will never run out of stock, that was the motto of Image-Bank.
Micro industry is a numbers game and by spreding the numbers you stand a better chance of winning, right? only in our case buyers are paying for the numbers. At this moment the supply is outstripping the demand, by far.
-
... all agencies work on the assumption they will loose photographers work ... Now if they loose somebody totally unique ...
Arrgghhh __ stop doing that. The word is LOSE. How many times ...?
-
My assumption is that most buyers stick to a single agency. My own experience in business is that the management authorises the use of a service and doesn't want juniors coming along all the time saying "it's better to buy at site X" or "lets go to site Y instead". The contract details and pricing of site Z will have been checked and approved, discussed and cleared in a committee and nobody wants to have to go through the process again, just because Fred Smith took his photo somewhere else.
It would be better for you to research buyer behaviour rather than assume that most buyers stick to a single agency. Not all buyers need to have agencies approved by management but even if they did, management's number one priority, in any business, is to reduce costs and would encourage their staff to lower costs by any means possible. The purchasing process isn't that difficult, especially in this case. We're talking microstock here. We're not talking about management having to approve a large electricity contract worth millions. I really don't see "committees" being involved here. Most companies these days empower their employees to make their own decisions on purchasing up to a certain montly amount anyway. You're also assuming all buyers are the same. A lot of buyers are freelance designers and make their own decisions and will buy the right image for their client, even if it costs a few dollars more. Of course if they find the same image at a cheaper price, they're going to buy the cheaper one. Economic times are tough and to assume a buyer wouldn't maximise his or her profit is a little naive. Signing up with a new agency isn't a difficult process. It takes a couple of minutes and is well worth saving a few bucks here and there.
Even if they do go to Dreamstime, what if they buy a subscription there and download your Level 5 images at the lower rate? It's true that Dreamstime's average sale price is still $1 while Fotolia is 50c but you would need half your buyers to be personally loyal to you rather than committed to an agency to make up for scrapping files on Dreamstime.
Well you've answered your own question here but also if they download a Level 5 image at a lower rate for a subscription, I'll still get around $1 for that level 5 image at DT and only about $0.30 at FT, so why would I make that image available at FT. I’m not talking about pulling all images, I’m talking about hot images that are unique. I’m not talking about your best tomato photo that sells well. If you pull that, the customer will buy the next best tomato image from someone else.[/quote]
And why do you think buyers lack loyalty to sites but have loyalty to individual photographers?
Sorry but I find this funny that you would even think that. Buyers aren't loyal to photographers. They stick to them because they like the photographer's work. If the photographer ceases to produce quality work and starts producing crap, they can kiss their buyers goodbye. So buyers, if anything stick with a photographer because of their high quality work, in which case, my point about pulling your quality images from low paying agents such as FT and making them available at higher paying agents such as DT makes even more sense. The buyer is likely to follow your work no matter where you have it.
-
I keep posting this, and maybe I should quit, but...
With a subscription plan, any real concept of a 'commission' is lost. A customer paid something for that image... but what? And when? Depends on the terms of the subscription, and on how the accountants choose to look at it.
And the contributor gets paid something for that specific sale - but how much should that be? It's really arbitrary and totally up to the microstock.
This is how they're grinding us down to nothing - by destroying the relationship between a sale price and a commission.
I agree and that’s why there’s even more reason to pull images from agents that pay you less from subscriptions (like FT) and only keep them with agencies that pay a little more like DT (for a level 5). Stockfresh is very appealing to me because they will only allow buyers to purchase up to a medium size via subscription plus they offer commissions of at least 50%. Every contributor should sign up with them and should promote them like crazy.
-
PSEUDONYMS, is in fact right in some respect and a very important one as well, namely saturating the market wont stand up in the long run.
....
The reason Micros accept copying, this and that is to have back-ups, just in case contributors get pissed off and leave, thats the only reason why, consequently, they dont give a crap if say 50 guys deactivate their portfolios and leave, they are well backed-up, well in most cases anyway.
So thanks to us, the contributors we have a situation whereby no one is indispencible, no one walks safe. Its not the fault of the agencies, we have only ourselves to blame. BASTA.
....
I do agree its totally insane, crazy, to just dump a massive portfoilio with just about anybody. It might pay off for a year or two and then just slowly vanish into oblivion.
I don't follow the logic of that. If nobody is indispensable because everything is duplicated, then surely dumping your portfolio everywhere is the only way to maximise profits. The sites won't miss you if you're not there, someone else will fill the gap - you, on the other hand - are losing sales to someone else.
And if they have five of everything, then there is absolutely no reason for buyers to jump between sites to find one particular person's work unless there is something exceptional about it (and, lets face it, 99% of the stuff is not exceptional and 99.9% of the artists are not exceptional, either).
Yes but I wasn't talking about work that isn't exceptional. I was talking about the winners that are unique. A lot of contributors have a portion of their stock that stands out from everybody elses work. It's these images they should be protecting and not making them available everywhere. It's also these images that contributors should be striving to produce.
-
Pseudonymous, on your first point, it a company's aim is to minimise costs then that is all the more reason for them to insist on a particular agency - the cheapest one. Sure there are plenty of independent designers and some of them shop around but you also see many designers saying that it isn't worth their time to trawl between different sites looking at much the same images all over the place. You say I should "research" this rather than express opinions, but what research have you done ... if it's talking to a few chums then it is just opinions of your particular set, if it involves surveying hundreds or thousands of microstock buyers then I obviously defer to you.
Of course, you would be happier to get $1 for a DT sale than 30c at Fotolia. But, again, this presumes that by withdrawing your file from Fotolia you force all your Fotolia buyers to migrate to dreamstime to get it. If 25% of your would-be buyers work out where the file is and then go to DT to buy it, then for every $1 you get, you lose $1.20 at Fotolia.
First you say it's funny that I think you said buyers are loyal to individual photographers, then you repeat it again: "They stick to them because they like the photographer's work" ... that's called loyalty. I can think of a handful of microstock contributors who are so well known/well respected that they command the sort of personal following that might significantly shift buyer behaviour, I doubt if I am among that set. Even if I was, wouldn't I have to shift the entire portfolio before they would notice my work wasn't there? Istock doesn't seem at all bothered that it doesn't have half Yuri Arcurs's work because of upload restrictions. If buyers were flooding to other sites to grab particular files of his, I'm pretty sure Istock would notice and do something about it ... or maybe not, given the odd goings on there.
For your system to work it requires a high percentage of buyers to understand what you are doing, where your work has gone and then to consider that it is so superior that they will switch agencies to get it. In my opinion that is an improbable combination of circumstances and the sales bump you report from doing it may be a statistical accident (obviously, I don't know how many files you sell, but if you are actually getting "about 30c" per subscription at Fotolia it suggests you are near the bottom of the sales ladder).
.
-
I agree and that’s why there’s even more reason to pull images from agents that pay you less from subscriptions (like Fotolia) and only keep them with agencies that pay a little more like Dreamstime (for a level 5). Stockfresh is very appealing to me because they will only allow buyers to purchase up to a medium size via subscription plus they offer commissions of at least 50%. Every contributor should sign up with them and should promote them like crazy.
I put all my photos on GraphicLeftovers last year. I made encouraging sales for a few months, but I flatlined in November - absolutely zero sales since then. I think GL became known as a good place to be, and a lot of images poured in, and now their sales volume doesn't begin to match the size of their archive. (Just guessing on this, but I don't know why else I would just go to zero). BUT if sales ever picked up at GL, that would be a very good sign and I'd start thinking about dropping the big 3, especially if GL offered some benefit for exclusivity.
8 cents is not the bottom. Zero is the bottom. The agencies will let you post a URL to be seen by the customer, which will lead to your website, where you'll make money by selling coffee cups, or prints, or something.
-
Yes but I wasn't talking about work that isn't exceptional. I was talking about the winners that are unique. A lot of contributors have a portion of their stock that stands out from everybody elses work. It's these images they should be protecting and not making them available everywhere. It's also these images that contributors should be striving to produce.
I do see your point, but if you are doing that then I would have thought istock was the place to put them, not DT where the sales volume is much lower. But doing that will lose you all the sales from that material at SS, Fot, DT and anywhere else you might put it. Unless you get widespread buyer migration.
The idea of being non-exclusive is to maximise returns from the widest possible number of outlets, not to concentrate the 10% of the portfolio that makes 80% of the money all in one place. If you're going to effectively write off all the agencies bar one, why not go for exclusivity?
-
8 cents is not the bottom. Zero is the bottom.
True. You can always click on the "I donate this image" button if you like. An extraordinary number of people seem to do that.
-
Pseudonymous, on your first point, it a company's aim is to minimise costs then that is all the more reason for them to insist on a particular agency - the cheapest one.
I think you're missing the point I am trying to make. If it comes to deciding which agency to buy the same unique quality image that the buyer really HAS to have for a particular project, then they're going to buy it from the cheaper agency. Cost isn't the only factor when choosing images, quality and originality are two other big ones. I'm saying that if it comes down to buying a unique quality image that's available at different agencies, then buyers will buy it from the cheapest one. My point here is that because contributors tend to dump their entire portfolios on most agencies, buyers don't even have to think about moving or looking at other agencies. The same image is likely to be available where they are now... for the lower price.
You say I should "research" this rather than express opinions, but what research have you done ... if it's talking to a few chums then it is just opinions of your particular set, if it involves surveying hundreds or thousands of microstock buyers then I obviously defer to you.
Well actually, to understand buyers better, I became a designer a while ago and now have lots and lots of 'chums' I talk to behind the scenes trying to nut out the way they think. I've stuck to it because in the process of doing this, I’ve found I make at least three times more designing than selling microstock but that's another issue. The point is, I’ve learnt a lot about the way they work and think doing this. I also read and participate in a lot of their forums and see what they're saying about different agencies. Buyers have opinions about the agencies just like contributors do and they share them amongst each other all the time.
First you say it's funny that I think you said buyers are loyal to individual photographers, then you repeat it again: "They stick to them because they like the photographer's work" ... that's called loyalty.
Sorry, I don’t agree that it’s loyalty to the photographer. It’s just personal preference. If it were loyalty, a buyer wouldn’t dare buy an image from another photographer in fear that they would insult the photographer they worship lol I do understand what you're saying though and I do agree that buyers do follow certain photographers/illustrators because of the quality of their work. We just define 'loyalty' differently.
Istock doesn't seem at all bothered that it doesn't have half Yuri Arcurs's work because of upload restrictions. If buyers were flooding to other sites to grab particular files of his, I'm pretty sure Istock would notice and do something about it ... or maybe not, given the odd goings on there.
Personally, I don’t believe Yuri produces work that is unique, so I don’t think using him is a good example. He mass produces quality images but they're far from unique.
For your system to work it requires a high percentage of buyers to understand what you are doing, where your work has gone and then to consider that it is so superior that they will switch agencies to get it.
Again, you’re assuming that one buyer sticks to one site. They don’t. They may already be on one of the sites I’ve left the image on. They also may be following me on my blog, facebook or twitter etc. They may have found the image on google since it comes up high in search results. They may have seen the image somewhere else on another site if another contributor has referred it. Again, I’m not talking of images that are common. I’m talking of those that ARE quality and unique.
In my opinion that is an improbable combination of circumstances and the sales bump you report from doing it may be a statistical accident (obviously, I don't know how many files you sell, but if you are actually getting "about 30c" per subscription at Fotolia it suggests you are near the bottom of the sales ladder).
It’s definitely not a statistical accident. It was strategically planned and it worked. Again (and again and again, I’ll keep repeating it till hones in), this wouldn’t work with the common tomato image. I’m talking about the ones that are unique and superior.
With regards to Fotolio, I’m not at the bottom of the ladder. I'm not high up on it either and don't see any incentive to climb it. I just rounded it to 30c because unlike you who sees a vast difference in 8c and 8.5c, I don’t see much difference between the 30c subscription on fotolia for those on a white level, and the 37c subscription that those on diamond levels receive. To have to sell 1 million images just to receive an extra 7c is a real joke and that is another reason why anyone should give FT the big flick.
-
I agree and that’s why there’s even more reason to pull images from agents that pay you less from subscriptions (like Fotolia) and only keep them with agencies that pay a little more like Dreamstime (for a level 5). Stockfresh is very appealing to me because they will only allow buyers to purchase up to a medium size via subscription plus they offer commissions of at least 50%. Every contributor should sign up with them and should promote them like crazy.
I put all my photos on GraphicLeftovers last year. I made encouraging sales for a few months, but I flatlined in November - absolutely zero sales since then. I think GL became known as a good place to be, and a lot of images poured in, and now their sales volume doesn't begin to match the size of their archive. (Just guessing on this, but I don't know why else I would just go to zero). BUT if sales ever picked up at GL, that would be a very good sign and I'd start thinking about dropping the big 3, especially if GL offered some benefit for exclusivity.
GL is a good site and I love how we can set our own prices. Our portfolios are made up of stock that have different worth so it’s great that we can adjust prices but unfortunately, GL has one massive flaw. It doesn’t allow the buyer to buy varying sizes at various prices. Unless they want to buy a large image, I cannot see them spending the extra money when they only need an XS size. This is the major reason why I don’t see them succeeding. Stockfresh is the site that has potential but it’s still early days.
-
unfortunately, GL has one massive flaw. It doesn’t allow the buyer to buy varying sizes at various prices. Unless they want to buy a large image, I cannot see them spending the extra money when they only need an XS size.
Good point and actually I wasn't aware of that. But if I think about it for a moment I realize that maybe that's ok because these XS sales aren't adding up to anything anyway.
-
Yes but I wasn't talking about work that isn't exceptional. I was talking about the winners that are unique. A lot of contributors have a portion of their stock that stands out from everybody elses work. It's these images they should be protecting and not making them available everywhere. It's also these images that contributors should be striving to produce.
I do see your point, but if you are doing that then I would have thought istock was the place to put them, not Dreamstime where the sales volume is much lower. But doing that will lose you all the sales from that material at Shutterstock, Fot, Dreamstime and anywhere else you might put it. Unless you get widespread buyer migration.
The idea of being non-exclusive is to maximise returns from the widest possible number of outlets, not to concentrate the 10% of the portfolio that makes 80% of the money all in one place. If you're going to effectively write off all the agencies bar one, why not go for exclusivity?
I would never sign up with a company like istock. I said it almost a year ago that they were bonkers to put it politely. I don’t like anything about that agency or their management. They’ve been on a downward spiral for quite some time now and have made some pretty dodgy decisions. I also don’t care for selling high volumes with low commissions. As I said, I don’t want to devalue my own work. I’d rather receive $5.63 royalty from one sale than 70 $0.08 sales to make up that amount at iStock.
I didn’t say anywhere that you should keep your images on one site only. I used DT and FT as an example where one agent pays well for a high selling image and the other pays you peanuts for the same high selling image. One of my images that reached level 5, I pulled it from Fotolia, Bigstock and 123rf and it’s selling more at the other agents. I never joined iStock because I never liked them. I haven’t joined Shutterstock because I’m not fond of subscriptions. I left the image with Dreamstime, Canstock, Graphic Leftovers and Stockfresh. It’s a unique image that’s in demand and more than 60% of my entire earnings come from that one particular image. It's these sort of images that one needs to protect.
Okay, I've said my piece. We'll just go around in circles if we keep this up and I don't want to disappear up my own butt like the oozelum bird ;D
-
unfortunately, GL has one massive flaw. It doesn’t allow the buyer to buy varying sizes at various prices. Unless they want to buy a large image, I cannot see them spending the extra money when they only need an XS size.
Good point and actually I wasn't aware of that. But if I think about it for a moment I realize that maybe that's ok because these XS sales aren't adding up to anything anyway.
That's true in most cases. But on the other hand, going back to my example using DT for a level 5, I receive $5.63 for an XS. It really depends on the image and the agents. I still like GL and promote them wherever I can. I still get the odd sale here and there. I really hope things pick up with them.
-
I believe there are agencies we should support and GL, is one of them, small team trying to do something differant from the usual meat market. All things aside, the percentage cut, the best match screw up, etc, IS, is still a good agency and for many the foundation of Micro, unfortunately I cant see them get back to their former glory days. Getty very effectively put a stop to that as they do with most things nowdays.
Neither do I believe buyers has any sentiments for agency or photographer ( that was the old days) buyers go with the prices, they have to.
As I said before, the agencies have very greatfully allowed us, the contributors, to so completely flod the market that our supply is by lightyears outstripping the demand and its beginning to show, how? well every agencies search-engine is collapsing, possibly with the exeption of Shutterstock.
I mean just look at some of the searches among the bigger agencies and you will see whole series of almost identical shots plastering a full page, etc, this is a down out stupidity but frankly I dont think they have the know-how, to fix it. All the search-engines are just fumbling in the dark.
Quality of reviewers/editors? well just look at it? at IS, I can understand this job does not provide any glamour anymore but still when a reviewer can only see the values in the same old generic, cats, dogs, flower shot, well, he shouldnt be a reviewer, when he cant see the differance between natural colors and a toning image, he shouldnt be doing this job.
I dont know? maybe its time to re-think the whole strategy?
-
If buyers are willing move around as much as you say and based on price how come yuri's sold a million licences on Istock when they can buy them at other agencies for lower.
I understand your logic but I don't think it would work for me. Maybe it works for you but how can you measure the unmeasurable.
-
If buyers are willing move around as much as you say and based on price how come yuri's sold a million licences on Istock when they can buy them at other agencies for lower.
I understand your logic but I don't think it would work for me. Maybe it works for you but how can you measure the unmeasurable.
Its a big mistake to compare everything to Yuri! he is an institution! and yes, possibly one of the few that buyers actually look for, he is well known among buyers, designers, etc and his name stand for a certain panache, cache, if you know what I mean. That alone can many times result in that buyers are prepared to pay slightly more.
Me? Im well known in the Industrial advertising world for assignment works but I can assure you not many are looking for me in the world of Micro.
-
How many more of them before you get that reported (last sentence of story on linked page) coveted lens cap?
http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/yourmoney/41592872.html?page=2&c=y (http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/yourmoney/41592872.html?page=2&c=y)
-
How many more of them before you get that reported (last sentence of story on linked page) coveted lens cap?
[url]http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/yourmoney/41592872.html?page=2&c=y[/url] ([url]http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/yourmoney/41592872.html?page=2&c=y[/url])
from ebay :)
-
Ugh. I'm having a hell of a time adjusting to my new fancy 23 cent royalties for XS :( You know it's bad when you can't tell by looking at the balance if you've had sales or not.
And yes, that partner program. I'm thoroughly against it, always have been, but man, would I love to make more than a buck or two a day again :(
Without the PP, I'd not clear $100 per month now.
As an exclusive, I was clearing about $500 per month.
The PP offered (and still does) a nice monthly boost.
only 100$ with a 2500 portfolio?
Yup.
-
Without the PP, I'd not clear $100 per month now.
As an exclusive, I was clearing about $500 per month.
To be honest , a lot of remaining exclusives are also dropping $$ and dl, though not quite that much - yet.
My numbers were dropping like a stone before the crown fell off, but now things are just BLEAK. I'm uploading and taking photos, but it's slow.
Ditto. My day job has ramped up and I just can't put in the stock hours I'd like, after hours. So my uploading to other agencies has been slow. I essentially created and uploaded a small number of files to a handful of agencies in January and haven't submitted anything since. I figure, what's the rush? As I'm already so late to the party at the other big agencies. I may as well take my time as, thank god, stock photography is not my main source of income.
-
Without the PP, I'd not clear $100 per month now.
As an exclusive, I was clearing about $500 per month.
To be honest , a lot of remaining exclusives are also dropping $$ and dl, though not quite that much - yet.
My numbers were dropping like a stone before the crown fell off, but now things are just BLEAK. I'm uploading and taking photos, but it's slow.
Ditto. My day job has ramped up and I just can't put in the stock hours I'd like, after hours. So my uploading to other agencies has been slow. I essentially created and uploaded a small number of files to a handful of agencies in January and haven't submitted anything since. I figure, what's the rush? As I'm already so late to the party at the other big agencies. I may as well take my time as, thank god, stock photography is not my main source of income.
I like your shots of Venice, close-ups and straight to the point. Nice!
-
Bloody h*ll, by accident I see I have an 8 cent sale yesterday too. They make it so difficult to actually see your sales, you have to dig to find them. Not to mention they randomly update your stats and credits so you have no clue what is going on in real time.
-
there's a greasemonkey script available from Sean Locke that enables you to view the size/frequency of dls for each file on the My Uploads page. you can get it here:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=258262&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=258262&page=1)
-
Bloody h*ll, by accident I see I have an 8 cent sale yesterday too. They make it so difficult to actually see your sales, you have to dig to find them. Not to mention they randomly update your stats and credits so you have no clue what is going on in real time.
That's true, very annoying and probably designed to keep us guessing, but AFAIK, the 'balance' in the bar at the bottom of the page (unless you've chosen to hide it) is updated in real time and you can check sales in real time via My Uploads > Last Download. It is a footer, though.
-
there's a greasemonkey script available from Sean Locke that enables you to view the size/frequency of dls for each file on the My Uploads page. you can get it here:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=258262&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=258262&page=1[/url])
Yes, this script is a real godsend :)
-
I just received freaking $10 for a 125 credit EL! At $1/credit i should receive $21,27... this means LESS than $0,50 per credit!
I'm so outraged i want to go over to freaking Calgary and slap someone in the face....still thinking about shooting a ticket to CR, but i guess i already know what the answer will be. ARGH!!!!!!
-
Something can't be right. Please call them on it. They mention an "as low as .95" credit in the introductory paragraph, but there's no credits even offered that low.
If they paid 125 credits at .95 = $118.75. If you make the minimum of 15%, you should get at least $17.8 shouldn't you?
How does one get the .95 credits they mention in the first line.
Buy Pay-as-you-go credits whenever you need them. Use your credits to download royalty-free stock photography, vector illustrations, video footage, audio tracks and Flash files. Credits cost as little as 95¢ USD/credit.
Pay-as-you-go credit packages
Credits Price (USD)
12 $18.50 ($1.54/credit)
26 $39.50 ($1.52/credit)
50 $75.00 ($1.50/credit)
120 $175.00 ($1.46/credit)
300 $430.00 ($1.43/credit)
600 $800.00 ($1.33/credit)
1000 $1,250.00 ($1.25/credit)
2000 $2,250.00 ($1.13/credit)
-
Behind-the-scenes special deals are made with companies and they get deep discounts. So yes, apparently $.50 per credit is entirely possible.
-
Behind-the-scenes special deals are made with companies and they get deep discounts. So yes, apparently $.50 per credit is entirely possible.
still I think you should call them on it. make them tell you it was a special deal - then keep that documentation for when/if you decide to have an audit done - just in case. :)
-
Buy Pay-as-you-go credits whenever you need them. Use your credits to download royalty-free stock photography, vector illustrations, video footage, audio tracks and Flash files. Credits cost as little as 95¢ USD/credit.
Pay-as-you-go credit packages
Credits Price (USD)
12 $18.50 ($1.54/credit)
26 $39.50 ($1.52/credit)
50 $75.00 ($1.50/credit)
120 $175.00 ($1.46/credit)
300 $430.00 ($1.43/credit)
600 $800.00 ($1.33/credit)
1000 $1,250.00 ($1.25/credit)
2000 $2,250.00 ($1.13/credit)
That's false advertising right there. They really need a class action lawsuit against them for all the crap they've been doing, whether its accidental or deliberate.
-
Behind-the-scenes special deals are made with companies and they get deep discounts. So yes, apparently $.50 per credit is entirely possible.
still I think you should call them on it. make them tell you it was a special deal - then keep that documentation for when/if you decide to have an audit done - just in case. :)
That's a good point. Then, coupled with caspixels post above, it would all be documented.
-
see also this current thread:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312002&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312002&page=1)
-
I sent them a ticket mainly because i want to SOMETHING... but i expect a standard reply about discounts being given to 'loyal customers'.
We really, really need this audit get going... i've heard around in my surroundings but there doesnt seem to be anyone who knows enough to really help out or give the right info so i cant get it started ;(
-
Buy Pay-as-you-go credits whenever you need them. Use your credits to download royalty-free stock photography, vector illustrations, video footage, audio tracks and Flash files. Credits cost as little as 95¢ USD/credit.
Pay-as-you-go credit packages
Credits Price (USD)
12 $18.50 ($1.54/credit)
26 $39.50 ($1.52/credit)
50 $75.00 ($1.50/credit)
120 $175.00 ($1.46/credit)
300 $430.00 ($1.43/credit)
600 $800.00 ($1.33/credit)
1000 $1,250.00 ($1.25/credit)
2000 $2,250.00 ($1.13/credit)
That's false advertising right there. They really need a class action lawsuit against them for all the crap they've been doing, whether its accidental or deliberate.
It says right under that table: "You can also purchase 5000 credits for $5,250. USD, or 10000 credits for $10,000.00 USD, or 20000 credits for $19,000 USD. To order, phone Customer Sales toll-free 1-866-478-6251."
Or in the PDF: http://www.istockphoto.com/docs/mail_fax_orderform_q1_2011.pdf (http://www.istockphoto.com/docs/mail_fax_orderform_q1_2011.pdf). Not that I imagine many would spend $20K on a credit package up front, but it seems you can actually get credits for $0.95 as advertised...
-
Buy Pay-as-you-go credits whenever you need them. Use your credits to download royalty-free stock photography, vector illustrations, video footage, audio tracks and Flash files. Credits cost as little as 95¢ USD/credit.
Pay-as-you-go credit packages
Credits Price (USD)
12 $18.50 ($1.54/credit)
26 $39.50 ($1.52/credit)
50 $75.00 ($1.50/credit)
120 $175.00 ($1.46/credit)
300 $430.00 ($1.43/credit)
600 $800.00 ($1.33/credit)
1000 $1,250.00 ($1.25/credit)
2000 $2,250.00 ($1.13/credit)
That's false advertising right there. They really need a class action lawsuit against them for all the crap they've been doing, whether its accidental or deliberate.
It says right under that table: "You can also purchase 5000 credits for $5,250. USD, or 10000 credits for $10,000.00 USD, or 20000 credits for $19,000 USD. To order, phone Customer Sales toll-free 1-866-478-6251."
Or in the PDF: [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/docs/mail_fax_orderform_q1_2011.pdf[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/docs/mail_fax_orderform_q1_2011.pdf[/url]). Not that I imagine many would spend $20K on a credit package up front, but it seems you can actually get credits for $0.95 as advertised...
Okay, not false advertising, but sure looks like a bait and switch when the homepage says as low as $0.95. Of course anyone who is spending $20k on credits over there is probably getting one of those super special discounts and actually getting their credits for $.0.50. ;)
-
This is how I would do it (in Imaginationland...)
If I were iStock and I actually get individual customers that throw $20,000 at me to buy images then I should call this a celebration and reward both buyer and contributors.
Give the buyer the credits mentioned BUT put a cap on how low the commission per credit can go, say $0.75 or $0.85 something like that. Sure it it's not as profitable for IS but just the fact that a quick, single sale puts 20k in their pocket should have some effect (positive that is... for contributors...).
Maybe I'm just getting delirious.
-
Being a Green Horn in this new area thus really depresses me. I guess I should keep my daytime job a the 'Golden Arches' flipping quarter pounders for a while...
-
Okay, not false advertising, but sure looks like a bait and switch when the homepage says as low as $0.95. Of course anyone who is spending $20k on credits over there is probably getting one of those super special discounts and actually getting their credits for $.0.50. ;)
Agreed - I have to think you'd be buying a subscription long before buying $20K worth of credits. For 75% of the price you can get a 1 year sub plan that lets you download over 40,000 credits worth over a year. In other words, it is kind of false advertising as hopefully no one would be foolish enough to actually buy that plan! Nice that they expire after a year, too! I would be very concerned, though, if they claim the cheapest credit price is $0.95 but people are seeing royalties based on half that value...
It is kind of like how on DT they give maximum numbers in their table for royalty payouts, but it is based on a $1.25 credit value (which you get when you buy the 8 credit pack). It would be a foolish buyer indeed that would buy seven 8-credit packs to buy a 50 credit print license, rather than buy a 52 credit pack for a 20% discount... At least on DT I have never seen a case where I received royalties that seemed to indicate an original purchase price lower than available on their 'buy credits' page - and I frequently see royalties that indicate the buyer did actually pay $1.25 a credit!
-
see also this current thread:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312002&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312002&page=1[/url])
Your link takes me to the main forum page...did the thread get deleted?
-
see also this current thread:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312002&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312002&page=1[/url])
Your link takes me to the main forum page...did the thread get deleted?
I just clicked on the link in your post and it took me to the thread: Vetta Extended License.
Ah, it's been moved from the Help forum to the Vetta forum, which non-exclusives can't access. Sorry.
Someone posted that he had an Vetta Extended License / 150 credits and got $36 for it and was questioning if that was right.
I have to say, these extended license %age cuts make a surprisingly huge difference. And presumably there must be a lot more discounted credits than before. Looking at this years EL amounts compared to those sold in previous years is really depressing. :-(
-
Ah, it's been moved from the Help forum to the Vetta forum, which non-exclusives can't access. Sorry.
Ah yes, moved to the Vetta forum, safely away from the prying eyes of the general public.
-
Ah, it's been moved from the Help forum to the Vetta forum, which non-exclusives can't access. Sorry.
Ah yes, moved to the Vetta forum, safely away from the prying eyes of the general public.
There you go.
-
I guess it was a Vetta related question.
But this is still up on an open forum:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=311262 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=311262)
-
Being a Green Horn in this new area thus really depresses me. I guess I should keep my daytime job a the 'Golden Arches' flipping quarter pounders for a while...
I ran some numbers a while back in response to a question about newbie expectations and I think I came up with about 10 cents an hour for people just getting started. If you run your numbers you may find that flipping burgers does pay a lot more.
-
I sent them a ticket mainly because i want to SOMETHING... but i expect a standard reply about discounts being given to 'loyal customers'.
We really, really need this audit get going... i've heard around in my surroundings but there doesnt seem to be anyone who knows enough to really help out or give the right info so i cant get it started ;(
This wouldn't be an "Extended Legal Guarantee" EL for which the contributor gets no commission ?
-
thesentinel: nope; its a 125credits unlimited reproduction/print run EL :(
-
thesentinel: nope; its a 125credits unlimited reproduction/print run EL :(
Eek!
-
Washington Minimum Wage 2011 - $8.67
April, 21 x 8 x 8.67 = $1456,56
-
Got the response i expected from CR today (at least it came quick!)
Due to privacy reasons they cant go into details but the mere $10 royalty for a 125 credit EL is correct and can be the result of very old credits floating around (as if) or various discounts (more likely).
Bah (bah, bah!).
-
Got the response i expected from CR today (at least it came quick!)
Due to privacy reasons they cant go into details but the mere $10 royalty for a 125 credit EL is correct and can be the result of very old credits floating around (as if) or various discounts (more likely).
Bah (bah, bah!).
No surprise there.
-
Wonderful (not really)
I just got one of these deep discount/old credit EL of multi seat 75 credits + unlimited 125 credits = 200 credits at around .78 per credit.
Argh!!!!