Holgs said "in percentage terms".

On just percentages, it's hard to say. My guess would be that IS averages between 20-25%, so I guess that theoretical number is less than SS theoretical 30%. 

Quote from: holgs on October 10, 2011, 12:04

SS have been smart in finding a formula, and not changing it once it worked, but in percentage terms, they're still the lowest paying agency amongst the top 4, which is how its been since they started.

How do you work that out? I get about 30% from SS but only 18% from Istock. Istock are by far the lowest paying agency when compared directly to others on either exclusive or non-exclusive terms. The only difference with SS is that they don't have an exclusive option ... yet.

Instead of always trying to run down the competition to Istock you'd better start waking up to the fact that you've jumped on-board a sinking ship. They've run that ship into the rocks and my guess is that it won't be too much longer before you'll be begging SS & DT to rescue your portfolio earnings.

I know this is off topic, but I agree with Holgs. SS pays less than the others. Even with On Demand, at the highest rate and with more EL's than the others, it still averages out to far less than most sites (per download) because of all the subs.

What are you talking about?  catch22 ? I have created a bloody good deal for myself and thats free to anybody to do,  BUT, you do have to have a cosiderable port or unique material, otherwise  its pointless. This I did over a year back.

OK. Now, I'm confused. Do you already have these deals? I thought this was a theory or hypothetical on how to make more. And my point was that I thought most of the larger agencies didn't give sweet heart deals anymore or it wouldn't be an option for most if not all contributors.

I apologize if my tone was a little harsh.

Never mind what you like, you have to go with the selling power, put personal feelings aside and think dollars.

If it's pure earnings power, then I'd have to include iStock. But, that negotiation ship set sail without me in 2010. Same with FT. There isn't too much negotiation to be done with SS. I assume they run some pretty tight margins.

That would leave just DT from your list to negotiate with, and I'm not sure they offer enough sales to go exclusive with. So, I'm not sure I get the point?

Credit packages are a good way to make customers spend money they otherwise wouldn't spend. I'd like to know what amount of credits bought is not used over the long term. At best this is additional profit for the agency, at least is it an interest-free loan.

This is what I always assumed. They want each customer to spend at least $10, but they don't want to raise the price of the minimum purchase to $10.

If it was 1985, then my crayon drawings of He-Man would never get accepted. 

Nice set of tools. I don't see using it very much, but interesting idea.

Everyone keeps saying this is about commissions.  Based on Chad's posts here and all my recent emails with people at FT, I believe them when they say it's about image pricing.  Just do the math.  An Emerald's pics at FT will sell for as little as 1/6th the price at a site like DP.   If I were FT, I would be shaking my head and wondering why on God's green earth my suppliers would want to undercut their own sales.

I guess it depends on what side of the fence you sit on. As a former Silver contributor, the price my images were sold at and the royalties I received at FT were vastly lower than most other sites. I could name at least 10 sites. I'm sure there are worse paying sites, but that seems like a shorter list than better paying sites.

With those of you selling on your own sites, are you doing any backlinking for your sites? Link Wheels, Buffer Sites, Scrapebox blasting and such?

OK. I have to admit that I had to look most of these terms up. I guess my jargon isn't up to date. I have links to my site from various sources and sites. I'm not sure if that counts.

If I was paying $30 a month for the site and I sold $25 of image licenses, then it would effectively cost me $5.  That's what puts me off, I would have to sell a lot more than $30 a month to make it worthwhile, or go with a cheaper option.

Thanks for the explanation. I understand now, and it's true. There is no guarantee that you'll make money or even break even each month. I guess the reverse is true too though. There's no guarantee that it will lose you money or be a failure.

I guess I'm an optimist. 

The designer gave them the layered files and the vector art and even instructed to them how to change it, showing intent to let them use the art as needed for various things. Apparently the designer did not send a contract initially, but accepted payment, and then tried to force a contract on the client later, after things started getting sour.

As far as I know, verbal/email agreements and paid invoices are also contracts.

I wouldn't trust any of that as binding. Most conversations and emails are open to interpretation and not as specific as a contract. There are a lot of different types of rights you can sell. And, I think any creative rights, copyrights or moral rights should always fall to the creator if no clear agreement or arrangement can be found. After all, signing an NDA is a lot different than saying, "Don't worry. I'll keep your secret".

That doesn't mean this particular artist is right, but I don't see anything wrong or unusual about them fighting for what they think is right or what they think they agreed to.

Quote from: cthoman on October 03, 2011, 23:19

Good to see they are back up. They kicked butt last month.

Meaning that your images sold well there last month?

Yep, that's what I meant. I got lucky and a buyer came in and bought a lot of images from a series. It really doesn't take too many sales to have a pretty solid month over there. It's funny how that works when you are actually getting properly paid for your work. If only some of the other sites would follow their example, I'd be a happy camper.