Author Topic: Veer marketplace and %35 commission for contributors! (Read 27841 times)

cidepix · « **on:** May 07, 2009, 10:25 »

Let's just discuss.. Just do some brainstorming on why many of you so eagerly want to help veer become a success despite %35 commission and being nothing special..

Let's give the reasons to why support a new website that comes with an exciting %35 commission.

Since Brian loves to answer questions here and be friendly but he doesn't seem to notice my questions about commissions I thought we would just brainstorm..

I am sure Brian is aware that I wanted to help him to get an idea about vectors by starting a pole on reliability of rivals. And I am again sure Brian is aware that it is very natural that I am asking for %50 commission on the content I DID CREATE.. (not veer, me)

I don't know why are you people so loving to help veer despite they are getting your content for FREE and paying you %35.. I would like and extra website to sell my images as well (like all of you) so that's why convince me about %35 please.

Stand now! Do not submit! and they will have to come begging you with probably even more than %50 which you deserve. Why do you think they are here trying to market veer so desperately.

Veer needs you! You don't need veer at this point!

cthoman · « **Reply #1 on:** May 07, 2009, 10:40 »

This seems like a standard royalty. I can't quote what every different site gives, but this is more than iStock nonexclusive. I think it really depends on what the price is and how many downloads you get.

It would be nice to get 50%, but realistically Veer is taking most of the risk. They have to hire employees, advertise, image storage, etc. All I have to do is upload a few test images to see if I like it.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #2 on:** May 07, 2009, 10:53 »

It's a good question and one you have to ask an iStocker as well. Most of them don't see 35% until they are well up the food chain contributing as exclusives. I'm not trying to dance around your original question but answer it by way of example. I suspect the reason iStockers do it is for the money. I find in general that too many contributers, me included, contribute to far too many sites. This same argument of percentages goes on in one from or another on dozens of forums; why should I only take 40% for RM from Getty (home territory only??), I like Alamy they pay 60%, why is RF only paying 20%, These guys pay this, those guys pay that. In the end no bank, grocery store, car dealer or coffee shop will do business based on a commission levels; all of them want to see the green. If you think Veer will generate a good income based on those percentages then go with it, if you think you can do better elsewhere go with that. The old 50/50 relationship still exists in a few places but for the most part they have been replaced with deals that favour the distributor, like it or not. In the case of Veer they can easily argue that they already have a large customer base that is there the second the first image goes live. Advertising is in place, buyers are coming to the site now. No need to go through an exercise of bottom feeding in an attempt to attract a few fickle buyers. I'm sure that's the reason of the switch from SV to VMP. You decide if that's worth arguing over an extra 5%.

cidepix · « **Reply #3 on:** May 07, 2009, 10:54 »

Quote from: cthoman on May 07, 2009, 10:40

This seems like a standard royalty. I can't quote what every different site gives, but this is more than iStock nonexclusive. I think it really depends on what the price is and how many downloads you get.

It would be nice to get 50%, but realistically Veer is taking most of the risk. They have to hire employees, advertise, image storage, etc. All I have to do is upload a few test images to see if I like it.

That's what Brian would say, If he actually said something.

If you are a new website, you shouldn't come here offering the same as the market. Istockphoto was the first so you can not argue with them really. It is wrong as well. %50 would be more than enough for all you mentioned.

istockphoto for example (last year) made about $100 million and paid about $20 million to contributor. So they are getting %80. Say they were paying %50 to us. Please explain what's not to RUN with %50 or $50 million dollars. It is our content at the end of the day.

When you say we just upload you forget the time spent in creating the images. I can assure you we are doing most of the business by giving them ready to sell images for FREE. All a reviewer does is hit a button to accept or reject in an automated system.

Image storage is not the most expensive thing in the world. I was into web design, I know a few things about websites if you will excuse me

The summary is I am drawing and while Brian (veer) gets %65 for approval or rejection, I get %35 for my own content. Dreamstime, 123rf and bigstockphoto pays about %50 so it is possible to run the business like that, right?!

As far as I know dreamstime is far from going bankrupt. It is the opposite! They are getting very rich with %50 believe it or not.

Veer, on the other hand, If it were to become a success, would get rich rich with their %65, not just rich.

bittersweet · « **Reply #4 on:** May 07, 2009, 11:07 »

Quote from: cidepix on May 07, 2009, 10:54

That's what Brian would say, If he actually said something.

If you are a new website, you shouldn't come here offering the same as the market. Istockphoto was the first so you can not argue with them really. It is wrong as well. %50 would be more than enough for all you mentioned.

istockphoto for example (last year) made about $100 million and paid about $20 million to contributor. So they are getting %80. Say they were paying %50 to us. Please explain what's not to RUN with %50 or $50 million dollars. It is our content at the end of the day.

When you say we just upload you forget the time spent in creating the images. I can assure you we are doing most of the business by giving them ready to sell images for FREE. All a reviewer does is hit a button to accept or reject in an automated system.

Image storage is not the most expensive thing in the world. I was into web design, I know a few things about websites if you will excuse me

The summary is I am drawing and while Brian (veer) gets %65 for approval or rejection, I get %35 for my own content. Dreamstime, 123rf and bigstockphoto pays about %50 so it is possible to run the business like that, right?!

As far as I know dreamstime is far from going bankrupt. It is the opposite! They are getting very rich with %50 believe it or not.

Veer, on the other hand, If it were to become a success, would get rich rich with their %65, not just rich.

You know, I understand your desire to get 50% royalty, but it is really hard to take your argument seriously when it is so glaringly obvious that you have done absolutely ZERO research on Veer. They are hardly a start-up site. As a designer, I have been purchasing macro from them for years. They have a very tight community of loyal designer customers, few of whom hang out there because they are also contributors. I have also been purchasing marketplace images from them since they first became available. They sent promos out to every single one of their customers, via email AND direct mail, giving us $10 toward our first (no minimum) purchase from the Marketplace. That is huge.

They are doing all the right things, in my opinion, in order to make this work. You are free to not participate, of course. I really don't think it is necessary to rant and lob insults at someone who I believe is doing his best to be helpful and straightforward as much as is possible. If you expected an easy "answer" to your multi-paragraph "question"/rant about why you deserve 50%, I think you might be disappointed, as you would be asking the same question of any of the other many sites who do not pay 50%.

cidepix · « **Reply #5 on:** May 07, 2009, 11:16 »

Quote from: whatalife on May 07, 2009, 11:07

You know, I understand your desire to get 50% royalty, but it is really hard to take your argument seriously when it is so glaringly obvious that you have done absolutely ZERO research on Veer. They are hardly a start-up site. As a designer, I have been purchasing macro from them for years. They have a very tight community of loyal designer customers, few of whom hang out there because they are also contributors. I have also been purchasing marketplace images from them since they first became available. They sent promos out to every single one of their customers, via email AND direct mail, giving us $10 toward our first (no minimum) purchase from the Marketplace. That is huge.

They are doing all the right things, in my opinion, in order to make this work. You are free to not participate, of course. I really don't think it is necessary to rant and lob insults at someone who I believe is doing his best to be helpful and straightforward as much as is possible. If you expected an easy "answer" to your multi-paragraph "question"/rant about why you deserve 50%, I think you might be disappointed, as you would be asking the same question of any of the other many sites who do not pay 50%.

You are %100 wrong sir that I did ZERO research on veer. I know they are not a start up, and I also know they are new at microstock. So you may need to re-phrase your argument since it started from a wrong point of view claiming I know NOTHING about veer.

Tell me what makes veer so powerful if we don't submit any images? If we don't submit images, they have nothing achieved in "microstock" yet.

and please see, that they are giving $10 towards the content they get for FREE.

And Oh god! Where on earth did you see that I insulted Brian. He is eager to help. I like his attitude. He seems a nice guy, but %35 commission bothers me for a new "microstock" company, and there is no reason to show bad examples as if they are the ones to follow.

bittersweet · « **Reply #6 on:** May 07, 2009, 11:49 »

Quote from: cidepix on May 07, 2009, 11:16

Tell me what makes veer so powerful if we don't submit any images? If we don't submit images, they have nothing achieved in "microstock" yet.

What makes them so powerful? Their existing and very loyal customer base which is unlike that of any other macro agency that I've seen.

Marketplace images are easily accessible in all search results right alongside the macros and, as I said, they are already and have been selling images via Marketplace, despite the fact that your images may have not yet arrived.

I will amend my original comments to state that you know very little about Veer.

But it really doesn't matter to me what you wish to believe, so I have no idea why I bothered to engage you in the first place.

Carry on.

cidepix · « **Reply #7 on:** May 07, 2009, 12:01 »

Quote from: whatalife on May 07, 2009, 11:49

Quote from: cidepix on May 07, 2009, 11:16

Tell me what makes veer so powerful if we don't submit any images? If we don't submit images, they have nothing achieved in "microstock" yet.

What makes them so powerful? Their existing and very loyal customer base which is unlike that of any other macro agency that I've seen.

Marketplace images are easily accessible in all search results right alongside the macros and, as I said, they are already and have been selling images via Marketplace, despite the fact that your images may have not yet arrived.

I will amend my original comments to state that you know very little about Veer.

But it really doesn't matter to me what you wish to believe, so I have no idea why I bothered to engage you in the first place.

Carry on.

Thanks for the input!

I understand. I have no intention to argue. But discuss.
If you misunderstood me, I am sorry. I just don't get it why a contributor is accusing me of many things while I only ask for fair trade.

As for the other sites: I am here on MSG because I was banned from FT forum for shouting against commissions reduction. But I see that contributors are loving it. So, I will remind it to celebrate the next reduction.

Thank you anyway.

sharpshot · « **Reply #8 on:** May 07, 2009, 12:13 »

There should be a balance between commissions and sales. With FP I get 70% commission but I earn 50x more with istock on 20% commission. FP should pay us less and spend money on marketing to boost sales. istock should raise commissions but I still prefer them to several sites that don't spend money on marketing and don't make me much money.

SV spent lots on marketing but the site wasn't good. Hopefully Veer will spend as much and will provide the buyers with a good service. If they don't, I wont put up with 35%.

bittersweet · « **Reply #9 on:** May 07, 2009, 12:24 »

Quote from: sharpshot on May 07, 2009, 12:13

SV spent lots on marketing but the site wasn't good. Hopefully Veer will spend as much and will provide the buyers with a good service. If they don't, I wont put up with 35%.

At the risk of sounding like a cheerleader, Veer has some features already in place that are very helpful for designers. My unbridled enthusiasm for them stems from my experience as a buyer over the past several years. I have no experience with them as a seller, but I can only surmise that a company that inspires its customers has a very bright future in store for it.

cthoman · « **Reply #10 on:** May 07, 2009, 12:33 »

Good argument!

I knew this one had the potential to get bloody, but I decided to participate anyway. That's what I like about MSG, the carnage... oops I mean the calm discussions.

I can't say I know enough about the inner workings of any of the agencies to know where the majority of their money goes (ie. contributors, advertising, etc.) You could be right that some guy that looks like the monopoly guy could be walking away with all of our money.

In the end, I will probably give Veer a shot to see if it works for me. I'll have to read all the terms first, though.

cidepix · « **Reply #11 on:** May 07, 2009, 12:39 »

I was just looking at veer website and noticed that prices translate to pounds (£) over here. And If I am paid in dollars ($) than it means I am getting even less than %35 on UK sales.

1$ - 20$ price range = £1 - £20 in the UK

Edit: Just checked again and although when I do a search it says £1 - £20 range, when you click on an image the range becomes £1 - £14

Still, they make "istock commissions" on extra small size from UK sales.

bittersweet · « **Reply #12 on:** May 07, 2009, 12:46 »

Quote from: cidepix on May 07, 2009, 12:39

I was just looking at veer website and noticed that prices translate to pounds (£) over here. And If I am paid in dollars ($) than it means I am getting even less than %35 on UK sales.

1$ - 20$ price range = 1£ - £20 in the UK

I'm not a math whiz, but I believe the pound is currently stronger than the dollar by quite a lot, so wouldn't this exchange work in your favor?

cidepix · « **Reply #13 on:** May 07, 2009, 12:51 »

Quote from: whatalife on May 07, 2009, 12:46

Quote from: cidepix on May 07, 2009, 12:39
I was just looking at veer website and noticed that prices translate to pounds (£) over here. And If I am paid in dollars ($) than it means I am getting even less than %35 on UK sales.

1$ - 20$ price range = 1£ - £20 in the UK

I'm not a math whiz, but I believe the pound is currently stronger than the dollar by quite a lot, so wouldn't this exchange work in your favor?

It works in veer's favor because veer still pays $$$ to all contributors as far as I can see from FAQ.

Milinz · « **Reply #14 on:** May 07, 2009, 12:54 »

Never mind...

cidepix · « **Reply #15 on:** May 07, 2009, 12:56 »

They charge UK customers £1 for XS and pay contributors 0.35 cents which is about %20 of the sale price £1

bittersweet · « **Reply #16 on:** May 07, 2009, 12:57 »

So you are saying that they do not pay you 35% of the actual sale price; they pay you a percentage of what the sales price would be if the customer lived in the U.S.?

Are you sure about that? (This is a serious question; I have not read the FAQ. Please provide a link and I will do just that.)

thanks!

cidepix · « **Reply #17 on:** May 07, 2009, 12:58 »

Quote from: whatalife on May 07, 2009, 12:57

So you are saying that they do not pay you 35% of the actual sale price; they pay you a percentage of what the sales price would be if the customer lived in the U.S.?

Are you sure about that? (This is a serious question; I have not read the FAQ. Please provide a link and I will do just that.)

thanks!

Yes! %100 sure!

BTW, I haven't joined yet but this is what I can make up from FAQ.

cidepix · « **Reply #18 on:** May 07, 2009, 13:01 »

Quote from: whatalife on May 07, 2009, 12:57

So you are saying that they do not pay you 35% of the actual sale price; they pay you a percentage of what the sales price would be if the customer lived in the U.S.?

Are you sure about that? (This is a serious question; I have not read the FAQ. Please provide a link and I will do just that.)

thanks!

http://www.veer.com/download/pdf/vmp_faq.pdf the link to contributor FAQ

bittersweet · « **Reply #19 on:** May 07, 2009, 13:12 »

Okay, I see now. Thank you for the link.

It is listed as a "royalty per download", as opposed to a percentage of sale. I was basing my question on your previous references to "35%" and had only looked at the submissions guidelines, and not the other doc.

You're right; that's not great.

cidepix · « **Reply #20 on:** May 07, 2009, 13:20 »

Quote from: whatalife on May 07, 2009, 13:12

Okay, I see now. Thank you for the link.

It is listed as a "royalty per download", as opposed to a percentage of sale. I was basing my question on your previous references to "35%" and had only looked at the submissions guidelines, and not the other doc.

You're right; that's not great.

Unfortunately veer in my opinion is:

looking great,
talking great,
but thinking cheeky

I am sure as the xs prices in UK start from £1, in other parts of europe they start from 1 euro. Either way, the commission for us is not %35 but about %20

batman · « **Reply #21 on:** May 07, 2009, 13:25 »

Quote from: cidepix on May 07, 2009, 13:20

Quote from: whatalife on May 07, 2009, 13:12
Okay, I see now. Thank you for the link.

It is listed as a "royalty per download", as opposed to a percentage of sale. I was basing my question on your previous references to "35%" and had only looked at the submissions guidelines, and not the other doc.

You're right; that's not great.

Unfortunately veer in my opinion is:

looking great,
talking great,
but thinking cheeky

I am sure as the xs prices in UK start from £1, in other parts of europe they start from 1 euro. Either way, the commission for us is not %35 but about %20

Double talk. They learn that from the supermarket grocery business... advertise in cts /gm
and sell in cts/lbs , or something like that. Which always ends up to you getting less and paying more in the store, if you don't double check the fine prints.

cidepix · « **Reply #22 on:** May 07, 2009, 13:28 »

Now I would be happy if it was even %35

litifeta · « **Reply #23 on:** May 07, 2009, 17:00 »

Reality of the world is the smaller sites have no scale. Therefore they need a larger cut to make it viable. Then, when the site gets bigger, it still needs a larger cut because its overheads are high. The site - once established - then makes a decision whether to cut its costs, pass on a slice to the artist, or simply make more money.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Veer marketplace and %35 commission for contributors! (Read 27841 times)

cidepix

cthoman

PeterChigmaroff

cidepix

bittersweet

cidepix

bittersweet

cidepix

sharpshot

bittersweet

cthoman

cidepix

bittersweet

cidepix

Milinz

cidepix

bittersweet

cidepix

cidepix

bittersweet

cidepix

batman

cidepix

litifeta

Brian O'Shea

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors