Author Topic: Photodune's 25% commission for independent photographers??? (Read 14959 times)

gbg2000 · « **on:** November 07, 2011, 17:40 »

I am reading the above on their author tutorial site and cannot comprehend it... Are they for real? That must be THE lowest cut for independents in the industry?

And how come is photodune at no.7 for earnings on the right? Does that mean that many people here on MSG are exclusives for photodune, or are they doing some unbelievable traffic to be able to earn serious money at 25% commission (more than canstock, veer and even BIGSTOCK, which is, personally, a serious earner for my portfolio)?

Any thoughts appreciated

lisafx · « **Reply #1 on:** November 07, 2011, 17:46 »

Quote from: gbg2000 on November 07, 2011, 17:40

I am reading the above on their author tutorial site and cannot comprehend it... Are they for real? That must be THE lowest cut for independents in the industry?

The lowest in the industry is 25%?? I guess you aren't on Istock then. I make 19% there and they go as low as 15% for some independents.

But regarding Photodune, yes, they are selling very well. They passed low earners like Canstock for me and are giving 123RF a run for their money.

Elenathewise · « **Reply #2 on:** November 07, 2011, 21:21 »

I really don't understand why Photodune is being attacked for low commissions. Istock pays 15% to independents and if you work your ass off and earn them hundreds of thousands of dollars then - hooray! - you can possibly make as high as 20%. Other agencies claim they pay more commissions but also have sub programs and I doubt very much we're getting 25% of sales there. There are also "games" with euro/dollar sales and credit prices that fotolia is very good at. Compared to that, Photodune's starting commission is fair enough. At least it's straightforward. It puzzles me why some people are upset with them.

shiyali · « **Reply #3 on:** November 07, 2011, 23:02 »

Quote from: Elenathewise on November 07, 2011, 21:21

I really don't understand why Photodune is being attacked for low commissions. Istock pays 15% to independents and if you work your ass off and earn them hundreds of thousands of dollars then - hooray! - you can possibly make as high as 20%. Other agencies claim they pay more commissions but also have sub programs and I doubt very much we're getting 25% of sales there. There are also "games" with euro/dollar sales and credit prices that fotolia is very good at. Compared to that, Photodune's starting commission is fair enough. At least it's straightforward. It puzzles me why some people are upset with them.

+1

ppdd · « **Reply #4 on:** November 08, 2011, 00:32 »

I think much of the angst comes from their low, low, low EL pricing.

Microstock Posts · « **Reply #5 on:** November 08, 2011, 00:45 »

Once the competition (ie. other contributors) jump on board, those that are with PD now will see their earnings drop. I remember when GL started and people were raving about it, then everyone jumped on board and now people don't make as much. But at least they still make 52% from their work.

If everyone jumps on board when they start off at 25%, it won't be so hard for them to drop commissions to istock's level. Don't encourage the greedy sites, we have enough of them already.

grp_photo · « **Reply #6 on:** November 08, 2011, 01:54 »

Quote from: Microstock Posts on November 08, 2011, 00:45

Once the competition (ie. other contributors) jump on board, those that are with PD now will see their earnings drop. I remember when GL started and people were raving about it, then everyone jumped on board and now people don't make as much. But at least they still make 52% from their work.

If everyone jumps on board when they start off at 25%, it won't be so hard for them to drop commissions to istock's level. Don't encourage the greedy sites, we have enough of them already.

+1

sharpshot · « **Reply #7 on:** November 08, 2011, 02:59 »

I couldn't really justify boycotting PhotoDune while still being with istock. Unfortunately, I rely on my income from microstock. If I didn't need the money, I would be much more selective with the sites I use. I also get bored of arguing that sites have too low commission when most of the big contributors couldn't care less and have their portfolios everywhere. I can't help but think why should they get all the money from sites with low commissions? I can't make a difference on my own and without the support of most of the big sellers, we aren't going to get anywhere. I think microstock might not be sustainable for me in the future, so I might as well try and make as much as I can now.

I have lost all enthusiasm to keep producing new images for microstock. That's what happens when commissions are so low. I'm sure the sites would do much better if they paid us more, it gives us a reason to work harder with microstock. Until that dawns on them, we are fighting a losing battle.

dirkr · « **Reply #8 on:** November 08, 2011, 04:01 »

Quote from: Elenathewise on November 07, 2011, 21:21

I really don't understand why Photodune is being attacked for low commissions. Istock pays 15% to independents and if you work your ass off and earn them hundreds of thousands of dollars then - hooray! - you can possibly make as high as 20%. Other agencies claim they pay more commissions but also have sub programs and I doubt very much we're getting 25% of sales there. There are also "games" with euro/dollar sales and credit prices that fotolia is very good at. Compared to that, Photodune's starting commission is fair enough. At least it's straightforward. It puzzles me why some people are upset with them.

I dropped IS after they cut commissions. I'm still with FT, haven't decided yet what to do about them (but I get payed in Euros, that does make it better).

Other than those two, I don't know of any agency paying such low commissions (Shutterstock is a little hard to know).

But compared to the above, PD is a newcomer with no proven sales record (at least not for photos). That does make a difference. If nobody had uploaded to them after they came up with their stock photo site, we would now see higher commissions.
If they are successful now, they are just a good example for the likes of DT, CS, 123RF etc etc who still pay higher percentages. They will learn that they are completely stupid, because they will get the same files if they just pay 25%.

Deyan Georgiev Photography · « **Reply #9 on:** November 08, 2011, 04:19 »

Fully naturally Photodune are on position 7, they sells good...
Do not be abusive because of the commissions, yes for me 50% is the fair commission, but think that one new agency need money to invest in marketing more than one big old(IS, SS...) that already have established market.

Everybody loose money if do not sell in every possible serious agency like Photodune. Even if we do not like this fact(because of the commissions) it is the truth.

I like Photodune, because of the very good website, good sales and business potential they carried

sharpshot · « **Reply #10 on:** November 08, 2011, 04:58 »

Quote from: dirkr on November 08, 2011, 04:01

...If nobody had uploaded to them after they came up with their stock photo site, we would now see higher commissions....

Unfortunately, that didn't happen. Lots of top contributors were with them from the start. Some of them complain about lowering commissions on other sites but uploaded everything for 25%. I've given up arguing about commissions. It looks like its too late, I dread to think how low a commission lots of the top contributors will accept. It looks like microstock will be unsustainable for me, so I might as well upload everywhere and make as much as I can while I'm working on other ways to make money.

I still think the sites would make more if they payed a more reasonable commission. My motivation to make new microstock images has gone now. I would make more and the sites would make more if they payed a higher commission and I had a reason to carry on producing more for their buyers.

Eco · « **Reply #11 on:** November 08, 2011, 06:18 »

Quote from: sharpshot on November 08, 2011, 04:58

I've given up arguing about commissions. It looks like its too late, I dread to think how low a commission lots of the top contributors will accept. It looks like microstock will be unsustainable for me, so I might as well upload everywhere and make as much as I can while I'm working on other ways to make money.

I agree with you Sharpshot. It is not the (greedy) agencies that will eventually cause the demise of the Microstock model but the contributors themselves. As long as there is support for agencies such as PhotoDune who not only pay a very low commission, but also undercutting other agencies by their low prices or RPD (revenue per download) will continue to decline to the point that you will need a huge portfolio of images just to maintain your income. This is already happening.

What I don't understand is that from the initial discussion here on MSG I got the impression from Collis (PhotoDune) that they were quite receptive for an increase in the royalty rate. I have no doubt that if we as contributors applied some pressure on them by not uploading immediately they would have increased the royalty rate. It did not happen and the rest is history. I don't think we will ever see an increase in royalty rate because they have the support of many of the top contributors and some even defend the 25% rate and their low prices here.

As you said - lets get busy uploading to PhotoDune and take what we can from this sinking ship that is Microstock.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #12 on:** November 08, 2011, 06:23 »

Quote from: sharpshot on November 08, 2011, 04:58

Quote from: dirkr on November 08, 2011, 04:01
...If nobody had uploaded to them after they came up with their stock photo site, we would now see higher commissions....
Unfortunately, that didn't happen. Lots of top contributors were with them from the start. Some of them complain about lowering commissions on other sites but uploaded everything for 25%. I've given up arguing about commissions. It looks like its too late, I dread to think how low a commission lots of the top contributors will accept. It looks like microstock will be unsustainable for me, so I might as well upload everywhere and make as much as I can while I'm working on other ways to make money.

I still think the sites would make more if they payed a more reasonable commission. My motivation to make new microstock images has gone now. I would make more and the sites would make more if they payed a higher commission and I had a reason to carry on producing more for their buyers.

I agree! I am already contributing there BUT yes I don´t think 25% is enough, we all know where we are heading, so at least start high and then screw us

at least make some ranks like you have for exclusives, we cannot take 25% forever..

Deyan Georgiev Photography · « **Reply #13 on:** November 08, 2011, 06:50 »

Quote

at least make some ranks like you have for exclusives, we cannot take 25% forever..

I agree, why not 25% until one contributor upload up to 5000 images and after this level 35% or something like that. On this way Photodune will grow their portfolio quick and meantime will have enough $ income (75% for the agency) for marketing.Another level(%s) can be depending on the sales amount.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #14 on:** November 08, 2011, 06:58 »

Quote from: deyangeorgiev on November 08, 2011, 06:50

Quote
at least make some ranks like you have for exclusives, we cannot take 25% forever..

I agree, why not 25% until one contributor upload up to 5000 images and after this level 35% or something like that. On this way Photodune will grow their portfolio quick and meantime will have enough $ income (75% for the agency) for marketing.Another level(%s) can be depending on the sales amount.

5k pictures? must be in terms of sales not amount of files, it doesn´t make sense

Microstock Posts · « **Reply #15 on:** November 08, 2011, 07:05 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on November 08, 2011, 06:23

...BUT yes I don´t think 25% is enough, we all know where we are heading, so at least start high and then screw us

at least make some ranks like you have for exclusives, we cannot take 25% forever..

Could be a case of nymphotomania. People can't get screwed enough, so they're happy to get screwed whatever the offer.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #16 on:** November 08, 2011, 07:14 »

Quote from: Microstock Posts on November 08, 2011, 07:05

Quote from: luissantos84 on November 08, 2011, 06:23
...BUT yes I don´t think 25% is enough, we all know where we are heading, so at least start high and then screw us

at least make some ranks like you have for exclusives, we cannot take 25% forever..

Could be a case of nymphotomania. People can't get screwed enough, so they're happy to get screwed whatever the offer.

true for sure but like sharpshot said here if top contributors support them, what else can we do? let them collect all? they are the only one that can do something regarding better royalties, we all have in our minds the latest Veer deal where they have looked at our concerns and once in a lifetime an agency respected our wishes.. the ranking would be a very cool thing and for sure will bring the ones that aren´t already there

gbg2000 · « **Reply #17 on:** November 08, 2011, 08:10 »

Quote from: lisafx on November 07, 2011, 17:46

The lowest in the industry is 25%?? I guess you aren't on Istock then. I make 19% there and they go as low as 15% for some independents.

I am on IS, Lisa. They were one of my 'initial set' of agencies when I started in microstock 5-6 years ago, however I completely stopped uploading when they changed their commissions for independents. I didn't go through the trouble of deleting my portfolio there, as I went through lots of frustration to get even those accepted, IS being who they are - one 'new' rule from indentured slavery. Obviously only 'exclusives' prosper at IS, however my biggest earner has always been SS, and if they had exclusivity I'd probably go with them, regardless of their 'unknown' contributor percentage.

IS robotniks...ahem...'exclusives' seem to do pretty well, though. A buddy of mine who started in microstock about the same time as me, went exclusive for IS after a few months, and nowadays he makes about a $1000 a month, enough to move his 'real' job to part-time status. Unfortunately, I make much less than that with ALL my agencies combined (I started with getting into 13 agencies back in the day, but cut them down to 5 in time), so having my real job as top priority and microstock as a moderately serious hobby is paramount

DT, BS and 123 were always nice to me and my pics, so I think photogs should support them. After reading the above, I'm definitely not putting anything on PD. If enough people did the same, maybe PD, and others (probably not IS, since they think they are just one step below God) would reconsider their policies. But maybe that's just a vain hope. With the advent of the digital, photography has become so commoditized I've heard many art curators not wanting to consider it art anymore. When I was studying photography at my undergrad university in the mid-90s things were different. Not everyone could handle the finicky taste of Velvia 50 or get just the 'right' creamy tonality from Ilford, and there was a camaraderie among photogs, a sense of solidarity, of belonging. That all seems to be gone now. RIP.

/end rant

Elenathewise · « **Reply #18 on:** November 08, 2011, 09:51 »

Many people here give DT as a example of "fair" agenicy. Have you visited their front page? Here is what it says:

2. Buy credits for downloading stock photos; high-resolution stock images can reach as low as $0.20 each or FREE.

Seriously. My hi-res 24 mp image shot with D3X is offered for 20 cents or FREE (if I am not vigilant enough to keep my images from being moved to "free" section automatically). How this is better then PD?
Ok these are sub prices. Let's look at the credits. Just now an image of mine sold on DT for 13 credits. I got $4.21 from the sale. If I (wrongly) assume that 1 credit equals one dollar, my commission rate is about 32%. But one credit doesn't cost 1 dollar to the buyer. It can be anywhere from 1.05 (if you buying a package with max credits) to 1.42 per credit (for 8 credits). That brings the commissions even lower. So it's not far from PD rates at all. Like I said, at least PD is straightforward about their pricing and commissions.

click_click · « **Reply #19 on:** November 08, 2011, 10:24 »

Quote from: Elenathewise on November 08, 2011, 09:51

...(if I am not vigilant enough to keep my images from being moved to "free" section automatically). ...

OT, you do know that you can set your unsold images to be removed automatically instead of being tossed into the free section right?

No need to be vigilant.

FD · « **Reply #20 on:** November 08, 2011, 10:27 »

Quote from: Elenathewise on November 08, 2011, 09:51

Like I said, at least PD is straightforward about their pricing and commissions.

You ignore a troupe of elephants in the room, oh Wise Elena

(1) First of all, you don't mention the ridiculously low price of extended licenses on PD, the deal-breaker for most.

(2) Second, the free images on DT are about images that didn't sell for 4 years. The Nikon 3DX was introduced less than 3 years ago. So you can't have "forced" free images on DT of a Nikon 3DX, not without using a time machine. What's more, your images go only in the free section after your approval. You can set that default easily on the site. No vigilance needed, at least less than on FT. What's more, the usage of these free images is very limited. I was asked recently to reupload a "free" image again as paying because the buyer wanted a full RF license.

(3) Last but not least, top photographers cut a "special" deal at PD. That suggestion in this or another thread was never denied, so I assume it's true. Even Lee Torrens certifies on his site that top photographers can easily cut special deals with new agencies. Fair enough, they (and you) deserve it very well. But just don't think we low-life mortal snap-shooters will upload to PD just because we were told to do so.

Comparing PD to DT is even a little bit insulting. Does PD has a level system for instance? Etc... etc...
You can compare PD to iSuck and Stinkstock, fair enough. But not to DT.

And this is not a flame at all. Elena is and was an inspiration to us all.

dirkr · « **Reply #21 on:** November 08, 2011, 10:36 »

Quote from: Elenathewise on November 08, 2011, 09:51

...
But one credit doesn't cost 1 dollar to the buyer. It can be anywhere from 1.05 (if you buying a package with max credits) to 1.42 per credit (for 8 credits). That brings the commissions even lower. So it's not far from PD rates at all. Like I said, at least PD is straightforward about their pricing and commissions.

The minimum price per credit for the packages advertised is $0,93 (for 108 credits). The price per credit can go down to $0,77 according to the DT website when you buy a custom package bigger than the maximum of 108 credits. At least that is what I get when I check the DT website.

Elenathewise · « **Reply #22 on:** November 08, 2011, 10:42 »

Quote from: AttilaTheNun on November 08, 2011, 10:27

But just don't think we low-life mortal snap-shooters will upload to PD just because we were told to do so.

Oh I am not trying to convince anyone to upload to PhotoDune. My point was that their commission rates are not that far off from other agencies (hence my wondering what's so upsetting about PD's 25%).

velocicarpo · « **Reply #23 on:** November 08, 2011, 10:48 »

Quote from: Elenathewise on November 08, 2011, 10:42

Quote from: AttilaTheNun on November 08, 2011, 10:27
But just don't think we low-life mortal snap-shooters will upload to PD just because we were told to do so.

Oh I am not trying to convince anyone to upload to PhotoDune. My point was that their commission rates are not that far off from other agencies (hence my wondering what's so upsetting about PD's 25%).

Just because others do worse, it isn`t a justification for Photodune. And yes, we ARE upset about the others too.
If all contributors would have refused to upload under those conditions, they would have been forced to change their terms. Therefore I make everyone of the early uploaders to PD responsible for the mess we have here and partially responsible for other Agencies which may reduce our cut. I really lost some respect for some individuals known here I highly valued before.

Face it. Profit at all costs is destroying our environment, ecology, financial markets etc. This type of business Model has to be abandoned. While I understand those individuals who do NOT stop to upload to established Companies like istock because they have to make a living, I do NOT understand how anybody can support such unfair conditions from a newcomer Agency.

FD · « **Reply #24 on:** November 08, 2011, 10:49 »

Quote from: Elenathewise on November 08, 2011, 10:42

Oh I am not trying to convince anyone to upload to PhotoDune. My point was that their commission rates are not that far off from other agencies (hence my wondering what's so upsetting about PD's 25%).

The extended license fee.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Photodune's 25% commission for independent photographers??? (Read 14959 times)

gbg2000

lisafx

Elenathewise

shiyali

ppdd

Microstock Posts

grp_photo

sharpshot

dirkr

Deyan Georgiev Photography

sharpshot

Eco

luissantos84

Deyan Georgiev Photography

luissantos84

Microstock Posts

luissantos84

gbg2000

Elenathewise

click_click

FD

dirkr

Elenathewise

velocicarpo

FD

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors