|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
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.
Messages - everest
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 23
251
« on: June 10, 2020, 02:22 »
So you are still here after saying you were leaving a dozen times ??. The only one making an "idiot" of himself here is you. But that is a common trait of fools. They never notice they are. Sad. But I'm tired to try to explain to a bunch of idiots what they should do really. Do whatever you want. Couldn't care less.
252
« on: June 09, 2020, 11:55 »
Good luck and be watchful if the wind changes direction as all those thousands "peeing against the wind" might splash you if you stayed on the wrong place.
253
« on: June 09, 2020, 03:40 »
You are right to some point but the options of the agencies are many more than cutting the royalty commission to contributors. When Istock/Getty had Vettas/Agency for 199$ each image, no subscription, and every sold image was giving a net commission of 12-15$(at 40%) and I was making over 10.000 downloads (blue flames) on some of them people where still supplying on Shutter,Bigstocks and the likes with ultra low subscriptions. What happened- a price war that still goes on today. How did Istock react lowering drastically prices, establishing royalty targets (increasing every year to make everyone at last in the 15-30% range), jumping on the subs wagon......and creating sales for cents sometimes (still images and video). Many people left. I could not at that time as I was too deep entrenched in the exclusuivity and even with all the cuts the alternative to get 0.38 c per image sold when my net image sale was 10x times higher was not very enticing. Even so I tried for 3 months. In 2 months I was already at the 0.36$/level and making 1000$/month only on Shutter and 500$/month on Adobe. Still very very far of what I was making as an exclusive so I returned to the crown. But when I started with video I didn't want to fall into a trap again (content exclsuivity is not a problem if you can delete, contributor exclsuivity I would NOT recommend to anyone), so I uploaded to any agency that paid at least 30%. How did others tackle the problem to people contributing their content to other sites that sell much cheaper. I think P5 has taken the best approach. Content exclusivity that pays 60% (very fair reward IMHO) and 40% for the rest but they leave us the freedom to establish our prices but they have to be in line with the competition. At any moment P5 and Adobe will have to go subs on video too. They don't have another choice specially with Getty and Shutter on the field giving content away. I am ok with that, I understand that they will have to make this move so that anyone still shops there. As far as they mantain their commission structure I respect that decision. What I will NEVER agree is a money grab under the excuse of market conditions that ends up in the owner pockets. If they need to lower the price to compete wr all share that cost , not on our backs only. If you ask me and I think many top producers share my opinion, the only way to protect prices in some way is content (again not contributor ) exclusivity. With this you take out some of the power away from the clients to shift it back to agencies and contributors. In resume "lowering commissions to Istock standards" is not the right approach. At least for me. For years SS has been subsidizing Istock, most of the contributors I know used to upload their same portfolio to SS and IS, they used to get the big$$$ from SS and residual earnings from IS. IS pays a 15% flat rate to their independent contributors. SS could not compete with a company who paid a fraction to the contributors that SS used to pay,
What happened today is the fault of the contributors who uploaded their work to every possible image bank regardless of how much they pay.
For SS to remain competitive they must lowered their commissions to Istock standards.
This is the raw reality.
254
« on: June 07, 2020, 15:13 »
Let me first say that I have only videos on P5 but my strategy with pricing those is as follows: Never let size dictate price, it is irrelevant and I think this is one of the few things that Getty understood and got right. You are competing on a very tough market where all the actors are offering very low subscription prices (or even free) so you have to be aware of that situation. 5-20$ should be right for very "common" images that are available everywhere. For a red apple on a white background, two businesspeople handshaking, a beautiful generic forest, a grungy background,etc ....don't overprice as you might get lucky a few times but it is not a good strategy to get consistent sales and those generic images should play more on sell high volume at low prices than the contrary. Now if you have unique images that you know for sure they cannot be found elsewhere I would put those exclusive on P5 and ramp it all the way up to 99-399$ ( a lucky shot, unique editorials, very high production value images,etc). Let me explain an anecdote that happened to me in a short time after I left the Rights Managed collection of Getty as I was angry about their low prices. A client approached me a short time after that he had an image ( very expensive to create) on a Getty lightbox that they wanted to use for a book cover, and was told by the agency support to contact me directly as they did not represent more my images. They first wanted to pay me 500$ at most for exclusive rights in perpetuity for the image and similars. Of course I was not interested at all and we begun negotiating. The final result was a 2000$ sale for exclusive use for 2 years only in the editorial market. A few weeks later another client contacted me in a similar way but this time it was for a very mundane shot of chameleon on white background. I asked for 400$ and never heard back. It is tough to decide when to price high or low but scarcity of alternatives should be your biggest incentive to price way higher once you have researched that image and know there is no competition for it. But those are usually only a minority of our portfolios. Think also that ranking is also important and once any of your images gets traction it is much easier to slowly rice the price and stop if you see a dip. So don't overprice at the beggining as it can drop your work into the darkness of low results in searches and that is the death of any generic content. But again, P5 is not an agency yet that sells a lot of still images......I hope this will change some day. Remember that 40-60% of 10$ is still much more than those 10c-40c or less that Getty and Shutterstock. Hello:
How do you price photos on P5? Photos available from other stock agencies and photos exclusive to P5? Almost all of my pics are high rez-6000x4000.
255
« on: June 07, 2020, 14:16 »
Your civil and "CONSTRUCTIVE" words on this forum on past posts  : "So I should disable my port and not pay my rent this month because of your communist nonsense?" "You people remind me of the American burger market, that consumers thought that 1/4 was bigger than 1/3 ... because of the ... 4>3. Learn some math and then come to the business." "I'm out of this sentimental bs that some people that can't calculate throw at me"
If you want "constructive" posts learn first to follow what you preach, and don't put yourself on a higher pedestal than the rest of the other forum participants. Only then you will earn the respect of the community. And if your skin is too sensitive to some little dialective scratches you might not be in the right place. If the new structure can earn you more money, then why Shutterstock want to do it? Your data sample is so small that it is totally irrelevant. Even a Level 6 will have a dip of 20-30% at least.
With all respect to you Charlene, this thread was created for everyone that wants to really find out what the heck is going on and the only objective way to do so is by calculating average RPDs. If you want to find out or help with this, contribute with your info in the requested format. If you want to keep flaming against Shutterstock, me or anything else that is bothering you, please do so in a different post, in a different forum even or not in a forum at all. Forums are NOT your own personal space social media, they are common grounds for CONSTRUCTIVE dialogues to take place. I have been in forums since 1996 and it's the first time I ever encountered such ignorance in any forum I have ever been a part in.
256
« on: June 06, 2020, 14:03 »
If he lives in the Ukraine or any other eastern european country the living costs and wages specially on lifestyle model shoots can make a few thousands a month (if he makes that) go a long way. In Western Europe and USA you can surely not get a proper return on yours costs at this ridicolous commissions. Thats a reason why big names in this industry are also taking a stance and might well move to greener pastures........Shutter is alienating the big and small players. A shitstorm that will damage them deeply . But hey if the numbers work for him let him dance along to the playing melody........ What a liar and manipulator this astockphotographer088. He's saying that he has to pay a rent with SS earnings, so he won't disable his port. Level 4 can't afford to pay rent and make a living out of this job. i don't trust him anything.
257
« on: June 06, 2020, 13:51 »
He is still the top lifestyle producer in the world and maybe the reason that lots of accounts stayed with Getty. Nobody is irreplaceable but for sure when content providers move their creations it has a big effect. You will see what this effect will have long term on Shutter. Thousands will move exclusive content to other sites or remain non exclusive and supply to Adobe Artgrid Stocksy etc. This move will benefit their profits for sure the same that when Getty did similar but at least without the january reset. If you push enough that's the maximum you will get as a big favour from them. What I am noticing since I disabled my portfolio is that my video sales have a "not normal" growth in sales at Adobe and P5. Every single sale over 28$ to 90$ net, no pennies. Maybe luck but it might be a possibility that some customers not finding their lightboxed content in Shutter look for it in the competing agencies. Imagine that by thousands of contributors. Not very clever piss off your contributors and send away your clients to your competition. As I said give it time (1-3 years) and Shutter will lose their leadership as a content provider. Sometimes profiting short term has this undesirables consequences........ You saw how quickly eyeidea pulled his port, you see in the forums ports with 50 000 files being disabled.
Yea ok, but big contributors pull themselves out all the time. Arcurs also pulled 80k images out of SS back in the day and went exclusive on iStock. His quality was top also. But after some years, SS received other studios of 500k images that delivered an equal or better quality than Arcurs.
258
« on: June 06, 2020, 01:01 »
"Communist nonsense" ?? Are you a McCarthyism apostle? My ideology is quite the opposite of communism and like already thousands of creatives I can see a bad deal in front of me , no matter how much nice wrapping paper you put around it. Emotions? No, facts. This business is "serious for many of us". Tha's the reason while many don't accept another dent into their pockets at the expense of more wealth to the company shareholders and directive team. You can do what you want with your portfolio, it's your business run the numbers but by some of your comments in the previous post I wonder who you refer to when you say "to our serious business" .
So I should disable my port and not pay my rent this month because of your communist nonsense? How about NO? I am not trolling by stating accurate and mathematical truths and facts. You are trolling by bringing in your "emotions" to our serious business. At least for some of us it's serious.
259
« on: June 06, 2020, 00:32 »
Go back to your deep dark Shutter cave troll. Talking about burguers maybe you ate too many of those and your brain cannon function nor calculate properly. The proof is in the pudding as many contributors that haven't yet disabled their portfolios are now confronting. Reality is stubborn and no gibberish talk will hide a fact in capital letters. The disgraceful money grab they implemented from one day to the other without even having the face to confront the suppliers that made them rich. This firm needs to go under so moroons like Oringer, Pavlosvsky, Getty,Klein.......get buried. People like them are a disgrace for the whole society. The amount of criers in here is too high ... so does this single mother calculate the 2/3 by the reduction on the minimum earnings? Or was it another miscalculated mistake?
...................................
The percentage tier earnings seemed fair all along. I never understood why Shutterstock should be selling .22 and pay .38 to someone. Even paying 0.10 might put them at a loss here.
You people remind me of the American burger market, that consumers thought that 1/4 was bigger than 1/3 ...
260
« on: June 06, 2020, 00:22 »
Great post. Agree 100% with it. We live in a ruthless world where ethics, specially in the economic system, from big pharmaceutical companies that rise their medicines in monopoly x5 or more to banks that have to be bailed out on bad times by everyones taxes and keep all the profist when the sun comes out. Nearly all the large companies are located in semi-paradise countries and compete in advantage to all the small business that have to pay much larger taxes in their home countries,etc,etc,etc....... Private equity mafia that you described very well what they do............ We will see more street revolutions around the world like the one happening now in the US. People are slowly fed up with this unequal and corrupted system. This is what happens when the wealthy move in on the talent and steal the assets.
American companies are renowned for this in the UK, over the years they have moved into loads of companies and asset stripped them.
Their usual exit plan after a couple of years, is once they have taken everything that isn't nailed down, they flog off what is left to the management and a couple of years later the company goes bust. The American company Blackstone did this to a Company called Southern Care Homes, they sold all the freeholds and then sold the company having walked away with many millions. When they had to pay rents the business became unsustainable, by that time Blackstone was long gone.
The British Government ended up having to bail them out, otherwise they would have had over twenty thousand old people with nowhere to live.
We have a long list of American Companies doing this over here in the UK and our Government does nothing about it, and this is apart from them offshoring the tax they owe, like Amazon and Google.
Personally I believe that the American system of Capitalism seems to have become corrupted, mostly they act like the Mafia in a Martin Scorsese film.
Shutterstock shareholders are doing exactly the same at the moment, they are asset stripping the creatives.
It is the ordinary people who's lives they destroy that is the real travesty.
261
« on: June 04, 2020, 05:47 »
Their stock has gone up slightly.
Not a shock as all the changes directly benefit the share holders.
The next quarters I guess that Stock will go up without a doubt as net earning will rise dramatically with the commission slash. 2020,2021 maybe up.........from there on lets see. If Mr Oringer is clever he will sell before that because sooner or later clients will jump to the site has the best offer and I am quite sure that Shutterstock will not be in that list.
262
« on: June 04, 2020, 03:17 »
I disabled portfolio before June first and got already a few nice Adobe video sales since them. Just now one for 70$ net. I wonder if with portfolios disabled all those customers that had content in lightboxes and cannot find them search for the other sites to get the file. I am for once glad I took the decision as I was gettying more and more 0.60 video sales and I guess after the new structure thing would be looking really ugly.
I am in the process of moving all my editorial video files to Pond5 exclusive as Adobe does not accept such content yet. Those editorials were only on Shuter and P5 so the transition is easy. With the creative files I still have to decide if they are worth being keps as nonexclusive now that I am not longer distributing footage to Istock and Shutter.
In any case glad that other agencies are picking up and if enough people don't accept the draconian new commissions of Shutterstock and disable / delete the portfolios there another unfair agency will nosedive as the 800 pound gorilla did.
263
« on: June 04, 2020, 00:59 »
You are totally right. I think his twitter account tells a lot about him. But remeber that the brain behind it is Mr Oringer who got impatient seeing that the company did not reach past heights. He obviously want to cash in and sell his participation and will try to pump up the stock price whatever it takes. Pavlovsky is only his puppet to reach the goal. Not only is Mr Oringer greedy and disrispectful to thousands of contributors that made him a billionare but he also a coward. After the biggest uprising of small and big contributors in the lifetime of his company he does not have the dignity to step up and face all the worried people that have their income at stake. I would stay away from a person like this at all costs. His twitter feed has only 281 followers? What kind of a CEO is this?
And you are right, his likes are a lot of Trumpian glory likes.
Every day I learn something new that is worse than before.
@spavlovsky
https://twitter.com/spavlovsky?s=20
Why dont even the employees follow their own boss? Business partners? Some of the 1.2 Million producers?
How is this profile designed to represent the company, get ready to connect with all the other CEOs and impress potential customers?
264
« on: June 02, 2020, 07:36 »
It has to be seen how the competition will react to this recent move. Istock and Shutter are in a heavy price war and hope that in the meantime they can suffocate the other players in the battle for customers. At the same time they don't want to affect the profit of their investors so they have slashed contributors percentages.
What will happen next.........It will depend on what the other players do.
When Getty/Istock kicked the face of contributors Stocksy appeared. Of all the great contributors that left I heard of not a single one that has gone back to Getty. They work now on a fairer agency. They might or might not earn what the golden (Vetta/Agency) years brought at Istock but they get a fair compensation for their work and they can thing medium long term.
I believe in this hard competitive market with only a few other players only exclusive content distributed on an honorable agency will save us. Once you no longer compete on price for the same content you push the burden on clients. This is exclusive content, you will not get it for cents so you pay higher for it or that particular file will not end in your basket.
Pond5 has their exclusive content program ready at 60% and ability to set prices. If Adobe follows with something similar Istock and Shutterstock will be in deep trouble. The exodus has just begun of these leeching agencies. If they implement a good alternative now that we are in a disruptive moment, they could fade away in only a few years.
I really hope that agencies and contributors are well aware of this opportunity.
265
« on: June 01, 2020, 14:26 »
Welcome to the club of "disabled portfolios". I hope more big names like you follow course once they realize what a bad deal is presented in front of them. If 50% of contributors would disable portfolios their value at the Nasdaq would crash in no time, and Mr Stan Pavlovsky would get a hefty boot where the back looses its name. Oringer might realize that his decision was the most ill one he has taken in his life. Who I am:
I've been doing stock for 14 years. At one time I was the #1 video contributor at iStock. My videos have earned millions for the agencies I submit to. I've been with ShutterStock for about 10 years. Today I have thousands of top performing videos at several agencies.
Who I am not:
A desperate artist that will accept a pittance in royalties from any agency.
Today I opted out of image and video sales at ShutterStock.
266
« on: May 31, 2020, 13:37 »
It is always a tough decision to take a stance, specially if in the short term your earnings will suffer s trong hit when you walk away. But somehow self esteem is more important at the end of the day. There is nothing worse than to work with or for a company that disrespects your work.
I am still image exclusive with Getty. At the time they started messing up with contributors I was making 11000$/month so it was difficult to go away. Even so when I went down to 5000$/month a left exclusivity for a few month and uploaded aggresively to many other outlets to see if it would compensate sucha move. I saw quickly that it would take quite a while to arrive to those numbers so I went back to the crown. Since then my income has fluctuated from 3k to 4.5k from images there.
Two years ago I decided to jump to video production and of course went non exclusive(past lesson learned) and started with any option above 30% for the contributor. That meant not a single video of the 3000 ones I have made to Getty. I have focused my energies to footage as I am no longer motivated to produce expensive photo shoots that don't get valued. I don't care of the lost revenue not selling through them. At one point you have to recognize those that treat you with respect. Not doing so is accepting mistreatment and an invitation that other follow course.
Now Shutterstock has gone down the same road. For the time being I have disabled my portfolio. If they don't backtrack still have no made my mind yet but probably:
1- Will not uploaded new content nor a single file more to them.
2- Editorial footage as it is not on Adobe will be deleted and put as Pond5 exclsuive.
3- Depending on sales of Adobe P5 exclusive and other outlets delete forever what is at Shutter and close permanently my account.
What is for sure is that once an agency makes such moves with so much desdain for their contributors (such a drastic royalty reduction, only silence from their directive and support team, attacking directly contributors disabling portfolios,etc) only bad thing lie ahead in the future. Get out as soon as you can to minimize loses, pain and embarrasement to be part of a lousy company.
+ Attachments and other options
267
« on: May 31, 2020, 07:30 »
The biggest advantage is being able to set price and get 60% of the sale. As non exclusive you get the right to choose price too which is very considerate by P5 knowing that you might set a price for 199$ when that same file can be aquired by a few quids on Shutterstock. If I would be P5 I would not allow setting free prices and allign those with competition. But with an exclusive file the power balance is different, that file is nowhere to be found so the client pays for what you ask for or he does not get the candy. The eggs in one basket. The problem with video is that there are not many baskets left. Basically there are 4 strong players: Getty pays peanuts (percentage wise and also in absolute terms with most of the sales), Shutterstock (was a good basket with 30% share and creative and editorial files but now with subs, lower royalties your revenues are not looking great anymore) Adobe (35% share but no editorial) and P5 (editorial and creative 40-60% of the sale and the ability to set your own prices). Secondary players are much lower in the ladder. So once you take out of the equation Shutter and Istock/Getty only two real deep baskets to play with. If you create unique content being able to sett your file at 199$ and get 60% is an amazing deal. Doing so with a timelapse of moving clouds, shaking hands, light flares,etc does not make so much sense as there are already similar files dimes a dozen. Video is still not that saturated as the photo market and if you create content with low competition the choose your price feature is "priceless" What are the advantages at o5 for exclusivity? Aside from pricing your vids is there search placement advantages, or some other value that goes with putting eggs in one basket?
268
« on: May 31, 2020, 01:26 »
It is not that easy. Of course we can never see what had happen if...... What if Sean was never quicked out, what if Arcurs would no had joined Getty and left Shutter and the others. Adding small motions to the wheel can slowly change the course of any giant. Getty is a shadow of what they were. They are riddled with debt to a point that looking at the numbers the probability that they fade into oblition into the future, at least in the creative market, is high (editorial is another thing- their position there is stronger). Shutter stock value has been on decline ever since they went public. Their growth is quite small now and one of the reason we have this shitstorm now. Adobe on the rise but they do not depend on stock but rather their software division. We are all small fish but without us nobody comes to the aquarium to see an empty glass tank. I wish we would be a little more aware of the power we have as a collective group. This garbage is just like Getty closing Sean Locke's & Rob Sylvan's (and others) accounts and Fotolia closing a whole bunch of accounts. You try to keep a lid on things by making a public example of trouble-makers.
Not saying I agree with what Istock did to Sean, but in all fairness he (and others) were actively working behind the scenes against Istock, and against the terms of the contract. They got busted.
And the end result is Istock does not miss any of them, just as Shutterstock won't miss anyone who leaves.
It's all in the numbers.
It's a very bitter pill to swallow, but it's very sadly the truth.
269
« on: May 31, 2020, 00:11 »
You have to create two different accounts with different names. It is not possible as now to have both accounts under the same umbrella-name. What I did is to use the same name but with a "_exclusive" added so any potential client could guess that I had another non exclusive account there.
270
« on: May 31, 2020, 00:03 »
I have an exclusive account in P5 too. If you have files on P5 in exclusivity and anywhere else you are in breach of the exclusivity contract and they will terminate it if they find out. Another thing is that those P5 exclusive files can go to Adobe or Vimeo or where they want. It's their call and not yours. Reread your exclusivity contract again.
I had an exclusive account with P5. My clips showed up on Adobe stock because of their partnership. What do you doubt?
271
« on: May 30, 2020, 05:31 »
You are right. They don't give a * about contributors,nor do they care a coma about Shutter Istock or blablastock, they only follow our content. That is the only thing that matters. Istock/Getty lost its predominant position not because of prices or because they weren't the coolest kid in the neighbourhood anymore. They lost it because clients could find similar content anywhere else. Once P5 or Adobe have a better selection of content at attractive prices Shutter will loose their leadership too. Give it time and it will happen. Their bosses will get their nice fat bonuses the same as Hellman & Friedman sucked Getty dry. But if I had to bet on Shutter in a 5 years timeframe my position would be definitely bearish.........Once you f.ck up your suppliers in such a disripectful way they have done trust is broken forever and people will move out the same way they did with Getty. People keep saying (hoping) that customers will go to Adobe. They will go to Istock and Getty, unfortunately. There is bigger possibility for that, it's a bigger stock company.
Right. Most of the contributors take their desires for a reality...
I know different people who went from Shutterstock to iStock, not Adobe.
Buyers go where they think it's more convenient for them, and frankly they don't give a dаmn about our "little problems" as contributors!
272
« on: May 30, 2020, 02:31 »
i have contacted their support, did you know that you can leave videos on adobestock and same videos can be exclusive to pond5?
because of adobestock and pond5 deal.
that's something we all needed to know.
I very much doubt that.
273
« on: May 29, 2020, 07:03 »
I'd imagine they looked at what happened when Getty shafted iStock. Some people left, some people became indie, some people stopped contributing but left their files onboard, some people joined. They're probably guessing the same will happen for them.
And be clear, after the Getty/iS fiasco, everyone was all over SS. Now lots of these same people are all over Adobe - just how long will they resist the 'profits above everything' scenario? (I have no crystal ball and don't offer an opinion on this, but some people on here were 'sure' that SS would never sink to Getty levels of grasping.) Kelly Thomson was tasked with increasing profit, and the new SS CEO has a similar remit. The suppliers are ususally the ones who are shafted, in retail and in stock.
I agree with you. People put now faith on Adobe and the story will repeat again in the future. Why? Adobe is a public stock that has to show growth and value for their investors. Right now they have an impressive growth because of their shift to subscription, but at some point this will slow down,stop or reverse and then you will have the pressure to look where to trim costs. If the main market competitors go away with a median of 20% to contributors why should they pay 35%. It only diminishes their competitive advantage. The only real sustainable models are business like Stocksy or companies not on the stock market that care for long growth. The problem is that there are not many alternatives out there. Stocksy is a great business but with a restricted community of contributors. At some point I hope something similar comes out but not so much narrowed down in style and membership. Diverse but at the same time strict on content spamming that has hit Shutterstock for a long time. Stcok is a very mature market with little growth. It has been tougher for a long time and this is only accelerating. Very little maneuvering possibilities.......
274
« on: May 29, 2020, 06:50 »
EDIT: of course, I hope I'm wrong, and some top contributors stand up and call SS out on their crap by hurting them where they feel it the most: loss in content, loss in customers, loss in earnings and a horrible reputation as cherry on the sour cake.
I think they will give is a bone in some way, -if enough people disable their ports-. As usual, selfish people that don't will benefit from the stance of others. That's life. Selfish acts have deep roots inside of us. The rolling over next year is the most probable thing that they will give us if we stay united on this. If not, well everybody know the rules of the game now. But once a big corporation takes such a decision they don't go back. I agree with you that Public stocks, Companies held by Private Equities, look for the short term. Getty did not go back in any of their decisions and contributors tried. Adobe did not trail back from their subscription model either. It is what it is. In any case, once a Company trumps their contributors it usually does not get better. So i would recommend all of you to slowly think of an exit startegy because from now on things are only going downhill, remember that Shutterstock is only following the lead of Getty here, and once you disrespect so deeply your contributors no sweet path lies ahead. Whatever happens, look at you balance sheets. The time spent, production costs, storage costs, petrol, model fees etc. It is quite easy to calculate your hour returns. For the amateur this does not mater that much as they can go forward even at a loss. But to all that take this as a revenue stream with profits you have to be very careful where you put your assets.
275
« on: May 29, 2020, 00:42 »
Not interested in any of the options you give in the survey. I am not going again on a hamster wheel. Today they might backtrack and make a rollover to next year. But i tell you that, those targets are going to be worse and worse as the years pass by.
My rule is simple. Everyone that pays under 30% gets no content from me. The only agencies that are fair are those that pay a reasonable fixed percentage (the higher the better) and share the risk and success with you, that percentage can be different depending if you are exclusive or not.
Don't fall into the yearly target trap. It will bite you back very hard.
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 23
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
