MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Why commisions are so low?  (Read 54672 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

madman

    This user is banned.
« on: August 18, 2015, 16:10 »
+6
I dont understand why our sale commisions are so low in image sales? e.g. one images are sold to 1 credits equally $10 but our sale commision only $1.5, what about other $8.5 ?... I wonder is it so costly to being agent to selling our images? why our earnings are limited by only 15% or something like very low amounts on image sales ? I dont know is this a good sample but I get 60% sale commision from 3d model sale on a 3d model sale site which is in the wery similar sale sector and which has wery similarly sale contours.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2015, 17:10 by madman »


« Reply #1 on: August 18, 2015, 16:14 »
0
.

« Reply #2 on: August 18, 2015, 18:30 »
+22
Give me a G, Give me an R, Give me an E, Give me an E, Give me a D.

« Reply #3 on: August 18, 2015, 19:23 »
+17
In the earlier days of iStock being a number one success, they sold such volume that contributor income was nice - even with low percentages. Even earlier, before Getty, the percentages were a bit better but not a lot.

With the Getty purchase of iStock (while iS was on top), Getty effectively dropped the commissions and used that money to pay back the Getty investors. Now that iS is no longer the top microstock agency the lower sales AND lower commissions are obvious to us contributors. But Getty is tight for money and can't see a way (or doesn't want to see a way) to advance the contributors. Further, there are so many contributors that positive changes would hardly be felt by us in the ranks. So Getty business decisions keep us in bad times while they struggle with their own bad times.

« Reply #4 on: August 19, 2015, 00:33 »
+8
Replacing the rc system with something logical does not have to cost more and is easy to justify because both adobe and SS have much better systems.

At least a little logic...

The biggest problem is the lack of a CEO and the lack of vision.

Just look at how quickly adobe is working and changing the reputation of Fotolia. Moving fast from the hated dpc creator to the one that defends higher prices  and has a new manager who believes that the needs for content will grow into a Billions more in the future.

To achieve growth, you have to see it and visualize it. You will not earn more money if you don't even believe growth is possible.


« Reply #5 on: August 19, 2015, 00:40 »
+2
I dont understand why our sale commisions are so low in image sales? e.g. one images are sold to 1 credits equally $10 but our sale commision only $1.5, what about other $8.5 ?... I wonder is it so costly to being agent to selling our images? why our earnings are limited by only 15% or something like very low amounts on image sales ? I dont know is this a good sample but I get 60% sale commision from 3d model sale on a 3d model sale site which is in the wery similar sale sector and which has wery similarly sale contours.

In the earlier days of iStock being a number one success, they sold such volume that contributor income was nice - even with low percentages. Even earlier, before Getty, the percentages were a bit better but not a lot.

With the Getty purchase of iStock (while iS was on top), Getty effectively dropped the commissions and used that money to pay back the Getty investors. Now that iS is no longer the top microstock agency the lower sales AND lower commissions are obvious to us contributors. But Getty is tight for money and can't see a way (or doesn't want to see a way) to advance the contributors. Further, there are so many contributors that positive changes would hardly be felt by us in the ranks. So Getty business decisions keep us in bad times while they struggle with their own bad times.

While your explanation is accurate, it isn't the full picture. It explains the overall low commissions but not why it needs to be 15% for non-exclusives. We can't forget that the iStock exclusivity system rewards people signing up their imagery for exclusive distribution by paying out higher commissions. As a matter of fact, 35 or 40% of royalties is more than what you earn at most other places (though even someone at 40% does not really get 40% any more given the lower rates for GI sales and the unknown percentages for the subscription sales).

But Getty/iStock still have to compete with Shutterstock (which pays out somewhere between 25 and 30% if I read their financial statements correctly), and the cost of marketing has been rising the tighter the market gets. So they could not really afford to pay out more to contributors than Shutterstock does. So they have to pay out lower royalties for some people to be able to pay out more than average for their top exclusives.

Simply said: In a way, non-exclusive contributors subsidize the exclusive contributors for their decision.

« Reply #6 on: August 19, 2015, 02:17 »
+10
Why?
Because they can, and because there are no unity among the crowdsourced contributors.
The agencies excist on terms that are heavily onesided.
Because they can, because they sideslip between laws.

The impact on people of globalisation before global legislation is made.

madman

    This user is banned.
« Reply #7 on: August 19, 2015, 03:16 »
0
because there are no unity among the crowdsourced contributors.

I was thinking about it but how do we do that?

« Reply #8 on: August 19, 2015, 03:29 »
+7
I was thinking about it but how do we do that?

Convince five people to stop uploading their images to whatever agency sells best for them. If you can manage to do that, I'm sure you can manage the rest.

madman

    This user is banned.
« Reply #9 on: August 19, 2015, 03:55 »
0
I was thinking about it but how do we do that?

Convince five people to stop uploading their images to whatever agency sells best for them. If you can manage to do that, I'm sure you can manage the rest.

I am ready to participate in something like this, let's open a topic about this formation and announce to everyone. I am ready for this...

Negative posts are deleting immediately written their own forum, most stock contributors do not know this forum, so I learned much later too, need to promote that there is such a discussion forum.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2015, 05:02 by madman »

madman

    This user is banned.
« Reply #10 on: August 19, 2015, 05:10 »
0

While your explanation is accurate, it isn't the full picture. It explains the overall low commissions but not why it needs to be 15% for non-exclusives. We can't forget that the iStock exclusivity system rewards people signing up their imagery for exclusive distribution by paying out higher commissions. As a matter of fact, 35 or 40% of royalties is more than what you earn at most other places (though even someone at 40% does not really get 40% any more given the lower rates for GI sales and the unknown percentages for the subscription sales).


but there is a Redeemed Credit Targets (RC) directly proportional with contributor's annual sales, and RC targets are resetting every year, I dont believe I can get 35 or 40% commision sales after all badly developments because my sales dropped to almost zero, how it will raise RC's while almost no sales?
« Last Edit: August 19, 2015, 05:13 by madman »

« Reply #11 on: August 19, 2015, 05:49 »
+6
Therehave been many cases were artists pulled files in a collective effort. Over the getty google deal, because of dpc etc...I think fotolia lost 7 million files in 4 weeks.

with dpc it worked, the place will be closed down. But not every agency will react in a positive way.

If the management is capable of listening, then you dont need to withhold files, if they have no vision nothing the contributors say or do will stop them from heading full steam into all the walls they can find. Sometimes they even build walls to crash into...

That is why it is so important to have more than one marketplace to sell through, because all agencies have good times and times they drive you crazy.

« Reply #12 on: August 19, 2015, 08:23 »
+5
because there are no unity among the crowdsourced contributors.

I was thinking about it but how do we do that?

We have discussed it before and it proves that whereas Europeans, Asians and South Americans are not so afraid of unions, and can use left wing means and fight for their rights, even when having losses, Americans are paralyzed by fear and stick to individually providing for their family and all that lonely old song.

"El pueblo unido jamais sera vencido". As we said when I was young 30 years ago. We believed it, saw the good results, and built things up. Now its lost knowledge in the post modern hedeonistic society.

« Reply #13 on: August 19, 2015, 08:44 »
+11
The answer is simple.  It's because contributors accept it.

« Reply #14 on: August 19, 2015, 09:08 »
0
The answer is simple.  It's because contributors accept it.

Definitely agree !!!

« Reply #15 on: August 19, 2015, 10:14 »
+2
because there are no unity among the crowdsourced contributors.

I was thinking about it but how do we do that?

We have discussed it before and it proves that whereas Europeans, Asians and South Americans are not so afraid of unions, and can use left wing means and fight for their rights, even when having losses, Americans are paralyzed by fear and stick to individually providing for their family and all that lonely old song.

"El pueblo unido jamais sera vencido". As we said when I was young 30 years ago. We believed it, saw the good results, and built things up. Now its lost knowledge in the post modern hedeonistic society.
You are wrong. There are a lot of unions in US. Their problem is that they are as much in bed with the big government as big corporations are. Both seek favours and preferential treatment.
In a lot of areas, jobs are impossible to get unless you become a union member.
Unions pressurize politicians to regulate as many jobs as possible, to prevent newcomers to compete with union members, on the job market.
Unions pressurize politicians to impose minimum wage laws, thus preventing inexperienced young people to gain the skills necessary to be promoted to better jobs. Moreover  restrictions imposed by unions make black market and illegal hiring attractive.
Nothing wrong with people getting together to negociate better deals, but not when politicians interfere with the process, with the free market and other liberties, only to get these union votes.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: August 19, 2015, 10:16 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #16 on: August 19, 2015, 14:35 »
+2
Instead of crying how bad they treat us while we let them, why don't we invest in OUR stock site?  We could have good prices, comparing to top tier cause no ceos holiday sponsoring, only fee for site maintenance.  We are creative minds capable of good and big ad campaign in media. I think customers would like the idea that they pay straight to artists pocket, avoiding addicional agency fee.
Is it possible?

just thinking out loud..

madman

    This user is banned.
« Reply #17 on: August 19, 2015, 15:22 »
0
why don't we invest in OUR stock site?

did you mean that, we must create a new site shaped by the contributors?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #18 on: August 19, 2015, 15:47 »
+6
why don't we invest in OUR stock site?

did you mean that, we must create a new site shaped by the contributors?

Isn't that what symbiostock is?

« Reply #19 on: August 20, 2015, 02:05 »
0
We know how to do pictures and videos but web programming & marketing I don't know if we can do it  :-\

« Reply #20 on: August 20, 2015, 02:10 »
+2
Instead of crying how bad they treat us while we let them, why don't we invest in OUR stock site?  We could have good prices, comparing to top tier cause no ceos holiday sponsoring, only fee for site maintenance.  We are creative minds capable of good and big ad campaign in media. I think customers would like the idea that they pay straight to artists pocket, avoiding addicional agency fee.
Is it possible?

just thinking out loud..

Bad idea. Who will decide what images are at page 1?
We accept all images? You know my first 100 images was so bad you will not believe how ugly.
So we accept ugly images too? "My images are the best" i thought some years ago :)
Image price as regular market prices? I can already hear some msg members cry about. "Set up the prices starting by $30 for small sizes".  ;D
You can contact a new agency you like, tell them about this msg idea.
Maybe they give us 50% of this new company.

« Last Edit: August 20, 2015, 02:13 by Maximilian »

« Reply #21 on: August 20, 2015, 05:13 »
+1
madman - yes
ShadySue - i don't think symbio is now a threat to big agencies
Sebalos - that is why i said about investing.
Maximilian - prices similar to other sites but higher percentage for us, there would be a lot to discuss. maybe to avoid hassle with inspecion of each file we could for example accept only trusted contributors considering their portfolio.

I have no plan just the idea but if you say it is bad let's stick to the topic, sit in a circle and hold hands; my name is Anna, last month i've earned 2grands less than in the same month last year.
Your turn now  ;)

« Reply #22 on: August 20, 2015, 05:30 »
0
madman - yes
ShadySue - i don't think symbio is now a threat to big agencies
Sebalos - that is why i said about investing.
Maximilian - prices similar to other sites but higher percentage for us, there would be a lot to discuss. maybe to avoid hassle with inspecion of each file we could for example accept only trusted contributors considering their portfolio.

I have no plan just the idea but if you say it is bad let's stick to the topic, sit in a circle and hold hands; my name is Anna, last month i've earned 2grands less than in the same month last year.
Your turn now  ;)

We could start with a market. Also no buyer would join.
But we could use a trick.
Many images are used for prints.
We are many, we can upload a max size of 4000 pixels to SS, FT and all others.
We will earn the same and we could also start a contributor collected marktplace.
Once a customer needs an image size for printing then he is forced to buy this from our contributor page.

One idea. Now your turn.


« Reply #23 on: August 20, 2015, 06:10 »
+5
madman - yes
ShadySue - i don't think symbio is now a threat to big agencies
Sebalos - that is why i said about investing.
Maximilian - prices similar to other sites but higher percentage for us, there would be a lot to discuss. maybe to avoid hassle with inspecion of each file we could for example accept only trusted contributors considering their portfolio.

I have no plan just the idea but if you say it is bad let's stick to the topic, sit in a circle and hold hands; my name is Anna, last month i've earned 2grands less than in the same month last year.
Your turn now  ;)

We could start with a market. Also no buyer would join.
But we could use a trick.
Many images are used for prints.
We are many, we can upload a max size of 4000 pixels to SS, FT and all others.
We will earn the same and we could also start a contributor collected marktplace.
Once a customer needs an image size for printing then he is forced to buy this from our contributor page.

One idea. Now your turn.

you can come up with a thousand ideas but without Millions to invest in marketing nothing will happen, not even going to talk about the thousands of contributors at those agencies (over 60 Million pictures), at this moment we only follow agencies or leave

« Reply #24 on: August 20, 2015, 06:17 »
0
any idea of approximate cost to set up a stock selling site?

« 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 »

« Reply #50 on: August 27, 2015, 10:48 »
0
They must be trying different plans out, I don't have that.  The plan you're pointing to though is for Signature not Essentials meaning the royalties paid could be up to $2.50 per download or theoretically up to 100%.  Where are you located, I'm in the US.  Is that Turkey?

madman

    This user is banned.
« Reply #51 on: August 27, 2015, 10:49 »
0
These arw credit prices, not subs.

look at right side options, I checked wit a blue circle, these are subscription prices.

madman

    This user is banned.
« Reply #52 on: August 27, 2015, 10:50 »
0
They must be trying different plans out, I don't have that.  The plan you're pointing to though is for Signature not Essentials meaning the royalties paid could be up to $2.50 per download or theoretically up to 100%.  Where are you located, I'm in the US.

I am in Turkey, maybe prices are changing by country.

« Reply #53 on: August 27, 2015, 10:51 »
0
They must be trying different plans out, I don't have that.  The plan you're pointing to though is for Signature not Essentials meaning the royalties paid could be up to $2.50 per download or theoretically up to 100%.  Where are you located, I'm in the US.

I am in Turkey, maybe prices are changing by country.
Yep, I see you're in Turkey.  They must be trying different plans out in different countries. 

« Reply #54 on: August 27, 2015, 11:23 »
0
This are sub price for signatures pictures (exclusive istock assets)

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?



ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #55 on: August 27, 2015, 15:20 »
0
Sorry, Madman, for some reason I didn't see your entire screendump on my phone.

Anyway, the prices are about the same for the UK:
Of course, when considering the %age to contributors, we'd have to factor in those getting smaller subs packages, which cost more per image.



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
4319 Views
Last post May 23, 2012, 06:26
by HerMajesty
17 Replies
14536 Views
Last post February 21, 2016, 08:51
by thepokergod

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors