Alright, folks, this is going to be a long one, but bear with me.

My comments on Creative Market are from the perspective of a vector artist, and I think that vectors are currently the leading products at CM so my opinions may be somewhat influenced by the fact that vectors and related graphics do well there.

Let�s put it this way: I like Creative Market enough that I�ve started to put some stuff on there exclusively, even though I have no direct incentive to do so (there's no exclusivity program). I just really like their setup enough that it makes me want to give them more of my work to the extent that I�d actually hold some work back from other places.

I�ve been at CM for a year, and my perception is that they do a lot of things really well. 70% commission across the board (no exclusivity) and "set-your-own" pricing is fantastic. They�re a small company, 13 employees last I heard, but they�re incredibly good at what they do. There are features and functions built in to the CM system that few (if any) other companies have pulled off as nicely. For example, they have a �followers� system. I know, big deal, SS has that too. But the version of it that CM implemented is actually useful. Your followers get emails when you release a new product. Buyers also get notifications when an update to a product they purchased is released. For example if I decide to add more items to a set of graphics or add an additional file format, I can check a box to notify customers that an update is available and they can get it without having to re-purchase the product.

I think the tools they�ve built to allow customers and contributors to connect are really nice. There is some cool social integration, a �likes� function for each product, and a commenting system.

There is no image review process at CM. Once you�re approved to sell there, you can upload whatever you want and it is immediately available for sale. But that means that the initial review is more strict than your typical microstock application process. I expect that the rejection rate is higher than most other places. I�ve already heard from a few frustrated vector artists who sell elsewhere but were rejected at CM. And honestly, I don�t have a problem with this. I know that�s easy to say when I�m already in, but I�d feel the same way even if I was rejected. I think it�s good that we have places with higher standards, and I�d be supportive of any of these companies even if I�m not able to be a part of them myself. 

Regarding vectors specifically: For vectors and graphics templates that use text, it is expected that you include files that are fully editable. I know this can seem like a hassle, but honestly I�ve grown to embrace this part of the kind of work I do. I consider this an added incentive for people to get my stuff at CM, vs. other stock sites where I can�t even upload a fully editable vector file. I also include PSDs of a few of my vector sets, which again is sort of an exclusive to CM thing. And again, added incentive for people to get my work there, where I choose the price and get 70%. I�d love to see more and more of my sales come from CM at the expense of the places that don�t pay as well.

One other note for vector folks: If you�re going to give CM a try, be prepared to spend some time building your store and product previews. You�re really going to want to create interesting preview images (which, by the way, you can include several of, not just one) to help sell your work. Just browse the site and see how people create their thumbnails and previews, you�ll see what I mean.

Where I think CM struggles a little is in perceived value. They come across as a premium marketplace, and in a lot of respects I think they uphold that value. But there will always be people who price their stuff too low and make it a little harder for others to justify higher prices. Where I think this is most apparent right now is in the photos category, unfortunately. Browsing the Photos section I see a lot of $3 - 5 images. Which, mind you, isn�t terrible when you�re getting 70%. That�s $2.10 - 3.50 royalties on those sales. But the problem of perceived value by pricing images at $3 is troublesome.

Still, at the end of the day artists decide their own prices. And even though right now the trend at CM is for low prices on photos, that doesn�t mean it has to stay that way. What I�ve found is that people will pay higher prices for stuff if they really want it. My lowest-priced product is one of my worst sellers there. And my highest-priced product, one of my better sellers. My average royalty over the past year per sale is $8.10, which puts my average sale price at around $11.50. Sure there are people who undercut me on price. But my stuff still sells, so to me it looks like buyers are willing to spend more if the product is what they really want/need.

Bottom line, I think Creative Market is an interesting company with a good setup and huge potential. They do a lot with a small team and pay well, which is very much what a lot of people (myself included) have been looking for in this business for years now. They�re the opposite of microstock in a lot of ways, running a lean company with less bloat, a robust system, a variety of products, and royalties that are truly the opposite of what a lot of other places offer. But I also think that CM may be an acquired taste for a lot of contributors. I have no idea how photos are doing and if it�s worth getting into CM for that. And even on the vector side, although I really like CM, I know it�s not for everyone. Just the investment in time needed to set up a shop and putting your products together will be a complete turn-off for many people.

But what Creative Market does well, I think they do very well. And the positives far outweigh the negatives.

I recently discovered that a fairly well-known company is using one of my stock icons as their logo. I actually saw it in an ad, and spotted it immediately. The logo is everywhere, in their offices (obviously), on t-shirts, event displays, online ads, videos, etc.

I'm pretty sure this goes way beyond any reasonable stock license, and the fact that the icon is used as the logo and primary symbol of the company surely is beyond the scope of any license from any stock agency I sell with.

I just have no idea how to handle this. I know I could talk to a lawyer, and probably should. Just wondering if anyone else here has ever dealt with this kind of thing and if you have any advice.

Jo Ann, Creative Market is nothing like Fiverr. And I'd be happy to get into a discussion as to why that is, but this is a discussion about Envato and I'm hoping to bring it back around to that topic.

People actually upload to that place?

I posted this over at the Envato forums but I think it's worth repeating and discussing here. And I'm posting this in the GR sub-forum here but I think this applies to other Envato marketplaces as well.

I think I�m officially done uploading my work to GraphicRiver. I just can�t do it anymore. I�m getting good results from a similar marketplace where I set my own price and get 70% of each sale without having to be exclusive there. So what�s the incentive when my work gets priced too low at GraphicRiver (often half of what it sells for elsewhere) and I get just 33%?

Let�s go, Envato. The competition is putting you guys to shame. At the very least you need to get the prices up so that we�re getting better royalties on sales. Right now we get hit hard twice with low prices AND low royalty percentages. Right now, when my vectors gets priced at $5, that's the lowest price I get anywhere I currently upload to.

I�m done uploading there until I see some changes.

What an awful name.  I'd avoid them just for that.

I did exactly that. I got an email from them. The name is a total turn-off, it doesn't even matter what their offer is. It's confusing and a little disturbing. It's just weird.

I used to think Yay Micro was the worst name in the business. I stand corrected.

So far I'm pretty bummed with how things have been going with vectors at Pond5. And these videos they released around the Accel/Stripes deal doesn't make me feel like they have much intention of putting any additional emphasis on vectors or photos any time soon.

Which, in a way, isn't necessarily a bad thing. If video is what they are really good at and where they see the most potential, I don't blame them for focusing on that. Better to do stick with what works and not try to be too many things to too many people. It just makes me wonder why they even bothered with other media then.

I'm not sure that there is much we can realistically ask for from the big companies at this point. We have to remember that these companies were built and have grown on the long-standing financial culture of microstock paying out far less than fair royalties. A lot of these companies, Shutterstock among them for sure, couldn't survive if they paid us more. And that doesn't make it right or ok that they pay as little as they do, it's just a reality of the business today.

That said, it doesn't mean that we need to accept low percentages from every new company. Some of them seem to believe that because some older established company pays out 30% then they can get away with it as well. Fortunately not many people are buying what these new companies are selling, as was seen when a video company came around here recently and was promptly snubbed by most folks because they only offered 30% to contributors.

Going forward, I think that setting a new kind of standard is our best bet. We likely will never change what companies like Shutterstock, iStock, Fotolia, etc., pay us. And they can't pay us more unless they drastically change their internal company culture to allow more room in the budget for us. Again, not likely to ever happen.

I'm a big proponent of change in this business brought on by pressure from startups. And there are a ton of areas in which I think startups can (and already do) compete with the big boys. I've seen small companies launch features that no other stock company has figured out yet. Better ways to communicate with buyers, promote new products, and as it relates to this conversation, do it all while paying fair royalties. Some as much as 70%. Small companies can prove that you can innovate, grow, profit, and still pay fairly.

So just imagine what happens when a small company emerges that pays well, truly innovates and develops exciting new technologies and features, search tools that work and are actually helpful, gives buyers what they want (highly useful stock assets at fair prices) while creating huge contributor interest from both existing microstock artists and also (and probably more importantly) from top artists who have stayed out of this because of the poor royalties. That's how new companies can compete with (and possibly beat) the existing big companies.

So in the context of this discussion and what we should ask for, I think that going forward it should be more about setting a new standard for new companies. That's an area where we can make a difference. Getting the old companies to change just because we ask them to isn't going to do much. But if they see new companies emerging and gaining the support of a wider range of contributors, including contributors that those old companies can't get because they pay too little, then they may be forced to change to keep up with these newer companies.

The number I've kicked around here as the bare minimum I'll accept from a new company is 50%. I'm sticking by that personal standard. It's 50% or don't bother asking for my work. I don't even care what the pricing looks like just yet. We can get to that later. If a company wants to even start a conversation with me about getting me on as a contributor, that conversation starts with 50% minimum. More if you really want to get my attention and support.

I sent in a disc full of vectors, and they've been processed and on sale for a few weeks now. No sales yet.

I'm hopeful that vector sales pick up at Alamy, but so far I'm not seeing much to suggest that it will happen. I wonder if they're just too late to the vector game, and buyers who need vectors have gotten in the habit of going elsewhere already.

What's weird about this one is they're not even trying to call it a subscription. And although it's not as bad as what others are offering, the idea that they can have a "pack" product and call it exactly that and yet still just pay out subscription royalties is disturbing.

...the good thing about them is their strategy, which, at the same time, excludes many of us for subject, style or simply because they (you) want to limit the amount of photographers (which is good)...

It is good to limit who gets in. So how would you suggest changing that? Let in more people than Stocksy lets in, but still less than what the big microstock companies allow?

In my view the buyer wants an "agency feeling" with a large selection not many sites in a network. The things have to be simple for buyers...

Bingo.

I was just reading on another forum about a buyer who is annoyed to have to sign in to the site at all. They don't want an account anywhere, not even at an agency site where they do most of their buying. They just want to pay and go. I personally think that's sort of silly (having an account saves time, helps track purchases, etc), but I think it speaks loudly to some buyer sentiment.

If having one single account is a hassle to some buyers, having an account at every Symbiostock site they want to buy from is a non-starter. They won't do it.

Symbiostock never stood a chance unless the lack of a single point of entry to the network was resolved somehow.