MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Why commisions are so low?  (Read 54663 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: August 20, 2015, 06:33 »
0
any idea of approximate cost to set up a stock selling site?

100 pounds per year but what for? (maybe there are even cheaper options)


« Reply #26 on: August 20, 2015, 06:52 »
+2
what for? for our future

« Reply #27 on: August 20, 2015, 07:11 »
+2
what for? for our future

are you serious? how long have you been doing stock photography? why only now?

« Reply #28 on: August 20, 2015, 08:24 »
+3
Getty is running out of money

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-25/carlyle-s-getty-images-said-to-run-tight-on-cash-as-profit-drops

so you can expect even more elaborate schemes to reduce our royalties and present them to us as great new opportunities.

madman

    This user is banned.
« Reply #29 on: August 20, 2015, 09:46 »
+1
Getty is running out of money

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-25/carlyle-s-getty-images-said-to-run-tight-on-cash-as-profit-drops

so you can expect even more elaborate schemes to reduce our royalties and present them to us as great new opportunities.



link says "Profit from that business fell 17 percent in the fourth quarter" still they lost less than me :)

What else could it be? they ruined istok so themselves ruined too and we have seen how to be destroyed within 2 years day by day. congratulation getty, congratulations, you have achieved something very difficult to make...
« Last Edit: August 20, 2015, 10:03 by madman »

madman

    This user is banned.
« Reply #30 on: August 20, 2015, 09:58 »
0
any idea of approximate cost to set up a stock selling site?

it's nice to think about make a new selling site but it should not be so easy to execute while there are so many sales site already.

« Reply #31 on: August 20, 2015, 09:59 »
+4
They got ruined buy paying huge dividends to hellmann and co and being burdened with the debt of their own buying price which was much too high for a company already in struggle. I am surprised nobody can sue the hedge funds for ruining the business with too much debt.

Now they are trying to raise money by handing out equity.

https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-says-Getty-Images-plan-to-issue-additional-debt-is--PR_332559

But where is the new CEO?
« Last Edit: August 20, 2015, 13:40 by cobalt »

madman

    This user is banned.
« Reply #32 on: August 20, 2015, 11:06 »
0
But where is the new CEO?

I wonder who is the CEO in the last two years?

« Reply #33 on: August 20, 2015, 11:14 »
+2
I believe in a new stock site we made !!! this is what we need. A community again, not a just a business. It can happen again.

Hongover

« Reply #34 on: August 20, 2015, 11:29 »
+6
any idea of approximate cost to set up a stock selling site?

The company I work for is spending $35,000 per month on server space...that's probably a fraction what it takes to keep a stock websites with millions of high resolution images up. Add a dev team, design team, marketing team, support team, review team, sales team, and a few differences services to prevent DDOS attacks, an on call dev ops team to keep the servers up...you're looking at about $300k a month for a team of 25 people (with about 10-20 support guys/gals in India or Philippines.

The hard part then becomes the task of convincing customers to spend more money on images instead of heading to SS and opening a monthly subscription.

« Reply #35 on: August 20, 2015, 13:26 »
+5
Everyone's always trying to reinvent the wheel.  We have tried starting our own sites, tried linking them through various means with Symbiostock being the latest.  We have tried a contributors co-op ( Warmpictures was it?).  This stuff has all been done.  I really thought Symbiostock had the best chance.  But at this point it is annoying to hear this suggestions of lets get together and make our own stock site like it wasn't tried and failed already more then once.

I put my heart, soul, and time into several of these ventures and just end up disappointed.   You think a contributor run websites a great idea? Start one yourself, but talk to Dan and Leo first.

« Reply #36 on: August 20, 2015, 13:31 »
+4
Warmpictures and Symbiostock are not good examples, especially symbiostock those sites looked terrible and even worse was that everyone had different licensing terms some of which were incoherent.  It was never going to succeed without major changes.  Stocksy is a much better example.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2015, 13:34 by tickstock »

« Reply #37 on: August 20, 2015, 13:44 »
+1
Warmpictures and Symbiostock are not good examples, especially symbiostock those sites looked terrible and even worse was that everyone had different licensing terms some of which were incoherent.  It was never going to succeed without major changes.  Stocksy is a much better example.

Yeah but Stocksy was started by Bruce Livingstone and run as an actual business,  not a bunch of individual microstoskers.

« Reply #38 on: August 20, 2015, 13:50 »
+4
Warmpictures and Symbiostock are not good examples, especially symbiostock those sites looked terrible and even worse was that everyone had different licensing terms some of which were incoherent.  It was never going to succeed without major changes.  Stocksy is a much better example.

Yeah but Stocksy was started by Bruce Livingstone and run as an actual business,  not a bunch of individual microstoskers.
Yep, I took that to be her suggestion.  A bunch of individual sites probably will not do well at all unless each one fills a specific niche.  Symbiostock was a bunch of sites with a poor look, the same files as on the micros, no curating, confusing and poorly written terms, etc... A professionally run site is what's needed to be successful most likely with exclusive files, something similar to stocksy's model.

« Reply #39 on: August 21, 2015, 08:46 »
+3
It has all been tried, and it does not work. There are too many screwbreakers.
Symbiostock, was a nice enthusiastic idea, but it was totally amateurish and died because individuals tried to outsmart eachother and forgot to create a reasonable interface for the buyer.

Another thing, big stock companies with websites are maybe dying, and maybe someone should try and sell images via facebook or other outlets.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2015, 00:43 by JPSDK »

« Reply #40 on: August 22, 2015, 23:00 »
+3
Well if people really wanted a long term view we'd all be selling only at pond5, stocksy and 500px. But then we all want present day cash flow as well. so in comes shutterstock and istock and we settle for a low % of the price just to see a paycheck every month.

Its a costing game, As long as we don't have a way to judge what the product costs (our images) we will be ok with selling it at any cost as long as it sells.

It's also a perceived value game. If a buyer sees an image with perfect lighting, properly organized and doctored food, shot with a full frame with a great lens and treats it in the same way as an image that i snapped in a restaurant before my meal then its impossible to get the buyer to pay more for the quality shot

Then there is supply and demand. We all crib about how the agencies now have the highest no of images and more images get added everyday. We've created a panic amongst us that the industry is going down and the only way to sell is "be less greedy and settle for lower commission". I've hardly ever seen a post that talks about how much image useage has increased. How now even if my blog needs an image I'll hit SS or iStock. Like small farmers we know almost nothing about what our final customer is doing

And then there's the finance bit, if a company is taking 70% of the price then they have that much more money to spend on marketing, promotions, meetings with buyers etc. So its hard for a new company to retain less money and be more competitive unless we all realize that if we get more money we also have to shoulder some of the marketing responsibility (stocksy did this well, with all the contributors-owners sharing it heavily on social media) maybe we all can do the same for 500px or Pond5 or Canva or Alamy

Hope someone reads this long post :)
« Last Edit: August 22, 2015, 23:06 by izzikiorage »

« Reply #41 on: August 23, 2015, 09:21 »
+2
Well if people really wanted a long term view we'd all be selling only at pond5, stocksy and 500px. But then we all want present day cash flow as well. so in comes shutterstock and istock and we settle for a low % of the price just to see a paycheck every month.

Its a costing game, As long as we don't have a way to judge what the product costs (our images) we will be ok with selling it at any cost as long as it sells.

It's also a perceived value game. If a buyer sees an image with perfect lighting, properly organized and doctored food, shot with a full frame with a great lens and treats it in the same way as an image that i snapped in a restaurant before my meal then its impossible to get the buyer to pay more for the quality shot

Then there is supply and demand. We all crib about how the agencies now have the highest no of images and more images get added everyday. We've created a panic amongst us that the industry is going down and the only way to sell is "be less greedy and settle for lower commission". I've hardly ever seen a post that talks about how much image useage has increased. How now even if my blog needs an image I'll hit SS or iStock. Like small farmers we know almost nothing about what our final customer is doing

And then there's the finance bit, if a company is taking 70% of the price then they have that much more money to spend on marketing, promotions, meetings with buyers etc. So its hard for a new company to retain less money and be more competitive unless we all realize that if we get more money we also have to shoulder some of the marketing responsibility (stocksy did this well, with all the contributors-owners sharing it heavily on social media) maybe we all can do the same for 500px or Pond5 or Canva or Alamy

Hope someone reads this long post :)

I did and found it very insightful.  Not sure what the solution is, but you stated the problem well, including some aspects I never thought about.

« Reply #42 on: August 23, 2015, 10:04 »
+2
And then there's the finance bit, if a company is taking 70% of the price then they have that much more money to spend on marketing, promotions, meetings with buyers etc. So its hard for a new company to retain less money and be more competitive unless we all realize that if we get more money we also have to shoulder some of the marketing responsibility (stocksy did this well, with all the contributors-owners sharing it heavily on social media) maybe we all can do the same for 500px or Pond5 or Canva or Alamy

One problem is that some of them are using their take for CEO bonuses and stock options while their market share decreases. 

Alamy and 123rf both gave us commission cuts with the promise that their extra take was going for increased marketing for better sales but I didn't notice an increase at either one.  At 123 I'm sure it was just for the owners.  Alamy gives most of their profits to charity, but it is a charity run by the family that runs the agency.  I have tried to find out what the charity supports and what percentage of their money goes to charitable operations versus administration but was not able to find out anything - it may be that the "charity" is mostly for the family and a way of hiding how much they are earning (it also may be perfectly legitimate, I was just surprised that I could find almost nothing about it outside of Alamy).

Maybe marketing costs are so high that it is impossible for an agency that charges less than 50% commission to survive - I don't know.  Pond5 and featurepics both pay 50%.  Featurepics is hanging in there but sales are slow.  Canva pays us 35% but they are increasing sales so that is OK - they are the one agency nowadays that really seems to be doing something different to increase customers.  I guess the Adobe deal at FT also is a new variant but it hasn't translated into much of an increase so far.  The others are mainly just competing on price.  Using commission cuts to advertise their low prices, which results in the need for more commission cuts is not a good use of resources IMO.

« Reply #43 on: August 23, 2015, 10:11 »
+1
And then there's the finance bit, if a company is taking 70% of the price then they have that much more money to spend on marketing, promotions, meetings with buyers etc. So its hard for a new company to retain less money and be more competitive unless we all realize that if we get more money we also have to shoulder some of the marketing responsibility (stocksy did this well, with all the contributors-owners sharing it heavily on social media) maybe we all can do the same for 500px or Pond5 or Canva or Alamy

One problem is that some of them are using their take for CEO bonuses and stock options while their market share decreases. 

Alamy and 123rf both gave us commission cuts with the promise that their extra take was going for increased marketing for better sales but I didn't notice an increase at either one.  At 123 I'm sure it was just for the owners.  Alamy gives most of their profits to charity, but it is a charity run by the family that runs the agency.  I have tried to find out what the charity supports and what percentage of their money goes to charitable operations versus administration but was not able to find out anything - it may be that the "charity" is mostly for the family and a way of hiding how much they are earning (it also may be perfectly legitimate, I was just surprised that I could find almost nothing about it outside of Alamy).

Maybe marketing costs are so high that it is impossible for an agency that charges less than 50% commission to survive - I don't know.  Pond5 and featurepics both pay 50%.  Featurepics is hanging in there but sales are slow.  Canva pays us 35% but they are increasing sales so that is OK - they are the one agency nowadays that really seems to be doing something different to increase customers.  I guess the Adobe deal at FT also is a new variant but it hasn't translated into much of an increase so far.  The others are mainly just competing on price.  Using commission cuts to advertise their low prices, which results in the need for more commission cuts is not a good use of resources IMO.

Exactly. You all make valid points, this is one that I align with more. Alamy is a great example. We're cutting your commissions but you should make more money through volume sales. That was an inverse statement. Where I was making 700-900 a month with Alamy (before split) they cut my commissions, reduced pricing and keep adding junk into their collection.  Last month I made $38 before my cut. To me the whole reasoning behind commission cuts was just another excuse to RETAIN the luxuries Alamy already enjoyed, but at our expenses. I know the argument will be that they still pay 50%, better than most agencies.  My response would be it was 70% and that argument won't satisfy the naysayers until it is perhaps below 30%. Either way, with the commission cuts and the promise of more revenue, I am down 95% from five years ago.

« Reply #44 on: August 23, 2015, 10:15 »
+1
And then there's the finance bit, if a company is taking 70% of the price then they have that much more money to spend on marketing, promotions, meetings with buyers etc. So its hard for a new company to retain less money and be more competitive unless we all realize that if we get more money we also have to shoulder some of the marketing responsibility (stocksy did this well, with all the contributors-owners sharing it heavily on social media) maybe we all can do the same for 500px or Pond5 or Canva or Alamy

One problem is that some of them are using their take for CEO bonuses and stock options while their market share decreases. 

Alamy and 123rf both gave us commission cuts with the promise that their extra take was going for increased marketing for better sales but I didn't notice an increase at either one.  At 123 I'm sure it was just for the owners.  Alamy gives most of their profits to charity, but it is a charity run by the family that runs the agency.  I have tried to find out what the charity supports and what percentage of their money goes to charitable operations versus administration but was not able to find out anything - it may be that the "charity" is mostly for the family and a way of hiding how much they are earning (it also may be perfectly legitimate, I was just surprised that I could find almost nothing about it outside of Alamy).

Maybe marketing costs are so high that it is impossible for an agency that charges less than 50% commission to survive - I don't know.  Pond5 and featurepics both pay 50%.  Featurepics is hanging in there but sales are slow.  Canva pays us 35% but they are increasing sales so that is OK - they are the one agency nowadays that really seems to be doing something different to increase customers.  I guess the Adobe deal at FT also is a new variant but it hasn't translated into much of an increase so far.  The others are mainly just competing on price.  Using commission cuts to advertise their low prices, which results in the need for more commission cuts is not a good use of resources IMO.

Exactly. You all make valid points, this is one that I align with more. Alamy is a great example. We're cutting your commissions but you should make more money through volume sales. That was an inverse statement. Where I was making 700-900 a month with Alamy (before split) they cut my commissions, reduced pricing and keep adding junk into their collection.  Last month I made $38 before my cut. To me the whole reasoning behind commission cuts was just another excuse to RETAIN the luxuries Alamy already enjoyed, but at our expenses. I know the argument will be that they still pay 50%, better than most agencies.  My response would be it was 70% and that argument won't satisfy the naysayers until it is perhaps below 30%. Either way, with the commission cuts and the promise of more revenue, I am down 95% from five years ago.
When so many people put the same photos on Alamy that they have on SS it's no surprise that Alamy has to lower royalty rates.  Jon Oringer said that himself, if you pay more than 30% you won't be able to compete with SS's marketing. 

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #45 on: August 23, 2015, 14:28 »
0
Alamy and 123rf both gave us commission cuts with the promise that their extra take was going for increased marketing for better sales but I didn't notice an increase at either one. 

With Alamy, it was specifically to establish a US office to service that market directly. They have reported that that has gone very well, but now that they have established it, they haven't returned us to our previous percentages.

Quote
Alamy gives most of their profits to charity, but it is a charity run by the family that runs the agency.  I have tried to find out what the charity supports and what percentage of their money goes to charitable operations versus administration but was not able to find out anything - it may be that the "charity" is mostly for the family and a way of hiding how much they are earning (it also may be perfectly legitimate, I was just surprised that I could find almost nothing about it outside of Alamy).

I presume this is the page you found?
http://www.alamy.com/about-alamy/our-philosophy.asp
I don't suppose it's unique for some members of a family to start a business to support a family charity.
This one is quite a strange charity in some ways IMO ]http://www.fft.org.uk/about-us/Fischer-Family-Trust.aspx] (parts of their website is due to be down from 18:00 on Monday 24 August to 06:00 on Thursday 27 August - [presumably BST])., but it must operate under the very stiff UK charity regulations https://www.gov.uk/topic/running-charity/setting-up.

They say, "Alamy donates a significant proportion of their operating profits to charity. In fact since 2007, they have donated over 2.8 million to good causes, with the majority of the money used for cancer research."
Of course, 'significant proportion of profit' isn't very specific. Presumably the figures must be available to anyone who has the time to search more extensively.

Here is a criticism of the fft's data analysing tools for education in England and Wales (only):
http://icingonthecakeblog.weebly.com/blog/fft-tea-leaves-in-education
(other critiques are available)
« Last Edit: August 23, 2015, 14:36 by ShadySue »

madman

    This user is banned.
« Reply #46 on: August 27, 2015, 09:05 »
0
Please look istock subscription sales, in a basic math setup, buyers give $2,5 per image to istock for monthly 100 image download, but we get $0,27 per image, it almost equal 10% commision!......

so istock get 90%, we get 10% from one subscription sales,

look what a big difference and what a big GREED!!!

« Reply #47 on: August 27, 2015, 09:14 »
0
Please look istock subscription sales, in a basic math setup, buyers give $2,5 per image to istock for monthly 100 image download, but we get $0,27 per image, it almost equal 10% commision!......

so istock get 90%, we get 10% from one subscription sales,

look what a big difference and what a big GREED!!!
You are saying iStock has a subscription plan that is 100 images for $250?  I don't see that anywhere.  They have a 750 image plan for $166 or a 250 image plan for $200.

madman

    This user is banned.
« Reply #48 on: August 27, 2015, 10:44 »
0
Please look istock subscription sales, in a basic math setup, buyers give $2,5 per image to istock for monthly 100 image download, but we get $0,27 per image, it almost equal 10% commision!......

so istock get 90%, we get 10% from one subscription sales,

look what a big difference and what a big GREED!!!

You are saying iStock has a subscription plan that is 100 images for $250?  I don't see that anywhere.  They have a 750 image plan for $166 or a 250 image plan for $200.


by clicking download button appearing any image's description page and a page appear that showing price options, here is a snapshot...

http://i.hizliresim.com/lyq1RB.jpg

where did you see "750 image plan for $166 or a 250 image plan for $200" any link?

« Last Edit: August 27, 2015, 10:48 by madman »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #49 on: August 27, 2015, 10:47 »
0
These are credit prices, not subs.
Sorry, I could only see the credit prices on your post  :-[
« Last Edit: August 27, 2015, 15:49 by ShadySue »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
4316 Views
Last post May 23, 2012, 06:26
by HerMajesty
17 Replies
14535 Views
Last post February 21, 2016, 08:51
by thepokergod

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors