You have to login first in order to be able to post messages.
Click here to login or register if you are a new user.


Page:
< 1 2 3 4 
5
 6 7 8 9 10 >
 of 10
Showing posts 81 - 100 of 182

Levels update (2012 levels)

Author Message
BCritchley
3719 posts
80
Message posted at 04/27/2012, 13:21:13 PM by BCritchley - member is an admin

Originally posted by Pancaketom:
Quoted Message: Somehow DT has decided that 80% for them and 20% for the artist is acceptable in some situations.


Just remind me how much 80% of zero is???? This only counts if your file has been online with no sales for 2 years, not likely to be a big earner is it??????
Canon 5D MK III & II, Canon 300mm F/2.8L, Canon L 180mm macr...

Uploaded files:2247 | Total Sales: 10439
Komar
392 posts
72
Message posted at 04/27/2012, 13:27:54 PM by Komar

Originally posted by Peanutroaster:
Quoted Message: "If you worry about your royalties you should stop using agencies that provide low percentages or ask them to raise them for you. As long as you contribute there don`t expect us to keep royalties more than theirs because it would be impossible to compete. "Achilles makes a good basic point - as long as contributors are willing to give away images for peanuts, that`s where the market will go. It would be nice to educate the general public on the value of their images so they stop giving away great images for nothing around the web, but its hard when contributors who claim to be serious about making money on their work, also give it away for next to nothing.

@Peanutroaster Your words are the exact same words people said when microstock first appeared 10 years ago and many people still say about companies like DT and the others today. Ironic. When IS (I'm sure you know which agency I'm talking about) decided to take as much as 85% of the cut last year, this only lead more contributors to find further sources. It may surprise you, but I believe that most independents here took quite a hit from DT, when commissions were reduced from 50% to the other rates starting at 30% and now starting at 20%. So what do they do, they look for even more sources of revenue. If the top agencies actually gave us a raise, I mean percentage wise (and no, don't suggest going exclusive) many contributors wouldn't spread their work as far and as wide as they do, as just a few agencies would be enough. And about ur comment about giving away images for nothing, DT has a site where it gives 500,000 images away for nothing, from DT contributors. Giving away images for less than "peanuts" is encouraged here.


Uploaded files:353 | Total Sales: 824
Cthoman
31 posts
<10
Message posted at 04/27/2012, 14:21:43 PM by Cthoman

Originally posted by Achilles:
Quoted Message: If you worry about your royalties you should stop using agencies that provide low percentages or ask them to raise them for you. As long as you contribute there don`t expect us to keep royalties more than theirs because it would be impossible to compete.


Can you raise my royalty rate?


Uploaded files:3408 | Total Sales: 14960
Komar
392 posts
72
Message posted at 04/27/2012, 14:43:29 PM by Komar
Originally posted by Achilles:
Quoted Message: If you worry about your royalties you should stop using agencies that provide low percentages or ask them to raise them for you. As long as you contribute there don`t expect us to keep royalties more than theirs because it would be impossible to compete.


Originally posted by Cthoman:
Quoted Message: Can you raise my royalty rate?

I want a raise too. DT is a low percentage site now so can we have a raise please? How many of the files currently affected is less of an issue (it will affect more and more files/levels etc. as the years go on, or do you think it stops here?), once an agency takes 75%, 80%, from sales of any image, it has decided to pay a low percentage. I would like a raise please. Thank you.


Uploaded files:353 | Total Sales: 824
Pancaketom
54 posts
Message posted at 04/27/2012, 14:47:43 PM by Pancaketom

Originally posted by Achilles:
Quoted Message: ... If you worry about your royalties you should stop using agencies that provide low percentages or ask them to raise them for you. As long as you contribute there don`t expect us to keep royalties more than theirs because it would be impossible to compete.


I think that DT now offers the lowest % age to contributors of any site I actively contribute to - the 20% for level 0, so Serban, can you please raise this so that I can expect the other sites to keep percentages higher? I don't want them to have to lower them so that they can compete, that is moving things in the wrong direction.

Thank you.

(I do understand that only a small percentage of sales will actually occur at this 20% rate, but I don't want to give other sites an excuse to lower rates (as you are using other sites as an excuse to lower rates).
Canon Powershot A80, S3 IS, 400D, Pentax K-5 and any other c...

Uploaded files:2109 | Total Sales: 4873
Lfmpereira
347 posts
<10
Message posted at 04/27/2012, 14:59:17 PM by Lfmpereira
I like the changes. :)
Nikon D3100 Nikon 18-105 Sigma 50mm f2.8

Uploaded files:430 | Total Sales: 143
Asakalaskas
136 posts
63
Message posted at 04/27/2012, 15:04:27 PM by Asakalaskas
Excellent, thanks for the update.
Canon 5D Mark II; 16-35 f/2.8; 24-105 f/4

Uploaded files:97 | Total Sales: 168
Luissantos84
235 posts
74
Message posted at 04/27/2012, 15:08:30 PM by Luissantos84
I would like to have a raise :)
Nikon D800, D90, 50, 24-70, 80-200, 18-135 (all Nikkor ...

Uploaded files:2730 | Total Sales: 2463
Androniques
814 posts
60
Message edited at 04/27/2012, 15:47:55 PM by Androniques
Guys, what's all this buzz about the 20% for old unsold stuff? These level 0 images have not sold for 2 years and now we have a higher chance selling them than before, because buyers will seek the occasion of making first sale bargains, and then you have them straight on level 2! What's the problem? You don't want to pay the agency extra 5% (for increasing your chances selling what did not sell), then you have the option of deleting/disabling those images.

Well, I would understand if most complaints were about level 5 %-cut, but even that level, being now readily accessible, will bring you/us much more revenue than if you waited for the same images to sell twice as much before even reaching level 5. Perhaps level 6 (old level 5 but with correspondingly larger credits) would settle the matters, I guess.

The only danger I see in unchanged subscriptions, which might storm in fact. Still, I did not see any sign of that during the testing period. As a matter of fact, in April my subscriptions reduced to only 25 %, as compared to 50% previously. Let's just hope the subs stay below 40-50% in the future too.

ps: I can't help thinking that this royalties change is really very smart and justified!
Nikon D5000, 18-105mm Nikkor VR, Nikon CP-8800 (rarely,...

Uploaded files:437 | Total Sales: 617
67
Message posted at 04/27/2012, 15:35:25 PM by Digitalexpressionimages
Odd business plan to raise rates for buyers and lower commissions for contributors in the name of trying to compete. Seems counter intuitive. What would happen if you tried it the other way?

Lower the cost to buyers and raise commissions for contributors. I think it would make more money for DT than they ever imagined. Consider: if you lower costs for buyers you would be able to lure more buyers. Perhaps even lure buyers away from competing agencies. Plus buyers actually support the idea of paying photographers a fair rate, so if you announced lower prices and higher commissions it would be an added incentive for them. in addition, raising the commissions would be an incentive for contributors to upload even more, expanding the image bank and maybe even attracting contributors away from lower paying sites which would provide more exclusive content here. Through pure sales volume DT would rake in more money, lead the way for buyer and contributor satisfaction and cause other agencies to play catch up to try to compete with you.

I know the very idea of taking a smaller cut seems absurd but it would actually pay off.
Canon 5D Mark II, Canon 40D, Canon EF 24-105mm L, Canon EF 1...

Uploaded files:649 | Total Sales: 1518
Androniques
814 posts
60
Message edited at 04/27/2012, 15:43:44 PM by Androniques
Digitalexpressionimages, yep, please consider the possibility of going just 1 credit below the old level/credit system and increase of royalties by 5%... what would the complaints be about? ;)
Nikon D5000, 18-105mm Nikkor VR, Nikon CP-8800 (rarely,...

Uploaded files:437 | Total Sales: 617
Luissantos84
235 posts
74
Message posted at 04/27/2012, 15:48:45 PM by Luissantos84

Originally posted by Digitalexpressionimages:
Quoted Message: Odd business plan to raise rates for buyers and lower commissions for contributors in the name of trying to compete. Seems counter intuitive. What would happen if you tried it the other way?Lower the cost to buyers and raise commissions for contributors. I think it would make more money for DT than they ever imagined. Consider: if you lower costs for buyers you would be able to lure more buyers. Perhaps even lure buyers away from competing agencies. Plus buyers actually support the idea of paying photographers a fair rate, so if you announced lower prices and higher commissions it would be an added incentive for them. in addition, raising the commissions would be an incentive for contributors to upload even more, expanding the image bank and maybe even attracting contributors away from lower paying sites which would provide more exclusive content here. Through pure sales volume DT would rake in more money, lead the way for buyer and contributor satisfaction and cause other agencies to play catch up to try to compete with you.I know the very idea of taking a smaller cut seems absurd but it would actually pay off.


write a book my friend :)
Nikon D800, D90, 50, 24-70, 80-200, 18-135 (all Nikkor ...

Uploaded files:2730 | Total Sales: 2463
67
Message edited at 04/27/2012, 16:00:45 PM by Digitalexpressionimages

Originally posted by Androniques:
Quoted Message: Digitalexpressionimages, yep, please consider the possibility of going just 1 credit below the old level/credit system and increase of royalties by 5%... what would the complaints be about? ;)


If you sold an image for $1 and paid a commission of 20% the contributor gets 20 cents. If you sold that image for .90 cents and paid the contributor 30% the contributor get 27 cents. Contributors would not complain about getting more, buyers would not complain about paying less and DT would not mind when sales increase due to lower prices. They would make more too.

Get it? BTW the numbers are not real they are for demonstration only.
Canon 5D Mark II, Canon 40D, Canon EF 24-105mm L, Canon EF 1...

Uploaded files:649 | Total Sales: 1518
Androniques
814 posts
60
Message edited at 04/27/2012, 16:28:49 PM by Androniques

Originally posted by Digitalexpressionimages:
Quoted Message: Andromatic think about it for a minute. If you sold an image for $1 and paid a commission of 20% the contributor gets 20 cents. If you sold that image for .90 cents and paid the contributor 30% the contributor get 27 cents. Contributors would not complain about gettingmore, buyers would not complain about paying less and DT would not mind when sales increase due to lower prices. They would make more too.Get it? BTW the number are not real they are for demonstration only.


You see, I was reversing the current change, yet used only half of the major credit change, also I presumed +5% of revenues, while we have now 0% change for revenues, except level 5. Now, about your suggestion: this scheme will only work in practice in the case of negative inflation, which is never the case (or only temporarily and locally). I mean, do you really want DT become bankrupt?

I do see a very wise move here, because obviously DT needs to maintain and process progressively more and more images every day, how do you suggest to cover the increasing costs on the background of the increasing inflation? DT team should be proud that they found such an elegant and painless (actually profitable for everyone) solution! :)
Nikon D5000, 18-105mm Nikkor VR, Nikon CP-8800 (rarely,...

Uploaded files:437 | Total Sales: 617
Sharpshot
44 posts
75
Message posted at 04/27/2012, 16:19:21 PM by Sharpshot
I've reduced the amount of new images I make for microstock to almost nothing, due to the cuts in commission percentages. I hope sites one day realise that cuts demotivate contributors. I am sure DT would make more from me by paying a better rate, giving me motivation to upload more and get sales going. I work to make money for me, not the microstock sites.

It might seem like a crazy theory but it's the same as countries that cut taxes. People work harder and produce more if they keep more of the money they make. That in turn makes more tax revenue. Countries that raise taxes too much usually end up in a mess.
Canon 550D

Uploaded files:1079 | Total Sales: 7182
Photog2112
29 posts
71
Message edited at 04/27/2012, 17:33:31 PM by Photog2112

Originally posted by Digitalexpressionimages:
Quoted Message: If you sold an image for $1 and paid a commission of 20% the contributor gets 20 cents. If you sold that image for .90 cents and paid the contributor 30% the contributor get 27 cents. Contributors would not complain about getting more, buyers would not complain about paying less and DT would not mind when sales increase due to lower prices. They would make more too.Get it? BTW the numbers are not real they are for demonstration only.





Uploaded files:362 | Total Sales: 1705
Luissantos84
235 posts
74
Message posted at 04/27/2012, 16:38:46 PM by Luissantos84

Originally posted by Photog2112:
Quoted Message: They are just happy with the fact that someone used an image or wanted their image. Some people are made happy just by the fact people view their work.


are you serious? how big and useful are their portfolios? those weren´t the ones building microstock, sure microstock was about that too but hey we all know how low we can get if we shoot 2 or 3 pictures per month..
Nikon D800, D90, 50, 24-70, 80-200, 18-135 (all Nikkor ...

Uploaded files:2730 | Total Sales: 2463
Androniques
814 posts
60
Message posted at 04/27/2012, 16:39:17 PM by Androniques
Heh, it is pointless to participate in the discussion where people do not listen to each other and mainly want to experess their views without much of thinking... :(
Nikon D5000, 18-105mm Nikkor VR, Nikon CP-8800 (rarely,...

Uploaded files:437 | Total Sales: 617
Luissantos84
235 posts
74
Message posted at 04/27/2012, 16:43:32 PM by Luissantos84

Originally posted by Androniques:
Quoted Message: Heh, it is pointless to participate in the discussion where people do not listen to each other and mainly want to experess their views without much of thinking... :(


does that mean we need to agree with you or other?
Nikon D800, D90, 50, 24-70, 80-200, 18-135 (all Nikkor ...

Uploaded files:2730 | Total Sales: 2463
Androniques
814 posts
60
Message edited at 04/27/2012, 17:01:10 PM by Androniques

Originally posted by Luissantos84:
Quoted Message: does that mean we need to agree with you or other?


Why? I would merely expect weighted arguments against equal arguments, and prefer seeing that the responder at least read and understood the view of the other. That's all.

For ex., it is quite clear that there has been only one % cut - at level 5, whereas the cut at level 0 can be actually considered as a bonus in chances of selling old unsold images. Did anyone care to think of that? NO, the buzz is all about spooky "robbery" from the contributors' pocket of something that has not been in that pocket at all... etc

sorry, of course the cut is not a bonus, but the new system provokes buyers to buy that "something", so where is the "robbery"?
Nikon D5000, 18-105mm Nikkor VR, Nikon CP-8800 (rarely,...

Uploaded files:437 | Total Sales: 617
Page:
< 1 2 3 4 
5
 6 7 8 9 10 >
 of 10
Showing posts 81 - 100 of 182
Current Server Time: 09/02/2014, 23:44:28 PM