Today I recieved 26.08 USD from Alamy for "DACS payment 2014"
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Show posts Menu


Quote from: stockmarketer on February 21, 2012, 18:36
Imagine you open a store and 100 vendors sign up to supply you with products.
After a few years, it's clear to you that 20 of those vendors are supplying products that fly off the shelves, and the other 80 are giving you products that don't sell very well, and frankly, are taking up space on the shelves. If you could put more products from those 20 high-selling vendors front-and-center in front of your customers, you would probably sell more. You could make your store larger and larger to treat every vendor the same and give everyone equal shelf space, but your customers would get lost, and the shopping experience would become maddening, sending them elsewhere.
So you decide to sweeten your financial arrangements with your 20 best selling vendors and make the deal less financially attractive for the other 80. The end result is that the 20 best sellers give you more and more stuff since you strengthened those relationships, and a number of the other 80 decide to stop supplying you. You're OK with this, since their products weren't bringing in customers, and the extra shelf space makes more room for the additional products from the top sellers.
And before the obvious is pointed out, yes, a physical store is very different from an online store... one has a fixed amount of space for products and one has infinite space. BUT... as a buyer, wouldn't you rather be presented with 100 great results than 10,000 -- some great but many more just OK? Looking at it like that, I think the analogy holds up.
Frankly, where the analogy truly breaks down is here... if you were the store owner in this scenario, you simply wouldn't carry the stuff that doesn't sell. Those non-selling vendors would be history.
Quote from: Eireann on September 29, 2011, 13:06
Deposit Photos?
Why would they be targeting Deposit Photos?
It makes no sense whatsoever, sorry.
Deposit Photos pays a higher commission and their subscription payment is higher than Fotolia's, (at least at my level, it is). How can they target Deposit Photos, an agency that pays more?
(Can we have the link in Italian please? Not that I don't believe you, but I just want to read it myself).
Well, I don't know, but I'm still firmly convinced Fotolia's new rules, specially at this time, are a direct response to last month's IStock's decision to force independents to contribute to ThinkStock.
I might be wrong, of course, but it makes a lot more sense to me.
Time will tell, meanwhile good luck everyone![]()