Quote:
Originally Posted by sharpshot
$0.30 is 20% more than $0.25, it is a significant amount in the long term and most of the sites I use pay more than $0.30 now, I was never happy with that from SXP. I do use canstock that have very few $0.25 but they have nearly as many $19 fotosearch sales, my average sale there is higher than most sites. I don't see that happening with thinkstock.
I am sure subs wont go away and because our commissions have been stagnant while PPD have gone up, they are probably damaging our earnings but I don't see why that makes it easier to accept a site that is paying the industries lowest subs commission level, after they have just doubled the prices for their PPD exclusives.
|
Would you believe 16% not 20%?
And when someone gets 2000 sales and reaches $500 on SS the raise is 33%, but in real money it's 8 cents. So the point isn't percentages of 30c vs 25c but that it's a crummy nickel!
But no one answers the other question. Maybe I'm the only one who thinks that the problem for the whole industry isn't
all about us, but that agencies are fighting their way to the bottom. 10c subs, 20c subs, free photos! (and there are people who allow free photos, which I won't)
How long are agencies going to be in business if they sell photos for 10c and pay us 30c? What about selling for 20c and paying us 30c? Wow, they can make up the losses on volume?
TSP sells for 27c and pays out 25c, which means they aren't giving away pictures to attract business. The subs are a loss leader to get people in the door.
Let me put it in a different light, You are CEO of "Crapstock" agency. You have three business plans to present to the BOD and explain how you are going to make money for the owners. (based on an annual subscription sales program)
1) lose 20c on every sub sale
2) lose 10c on every sub sale
3) make 2 cents on every sub sale
Which one makes the most sense as a business which isn't running as a charity? In other words, they may pay more, but where will they be in two years?
I know there are other types of sales on all these sites and they aren't 100% annual subs. TSP is adding an on demand download package / PPD, but no one knows if we will get more or if they will try to stick it to us and continue to only pay 25c a download. In that case I would expect a mass exodus.
How much is the 16% that FT pays worth your work? Since you brought up percentages. I removed all my photos from their site. Did you, or have all the people who are claiming TSP is ripping them off, closed their FT accounts? TSP pays 92% of the sale price to photographers. There's a percentage to look at.
Why not? Because they make money at FT? But I thought the objection was low percentages?
I'll still say that 30c per download isn't much different from 25c per download and both are just as insulting. We are working for peanuts and as slave labor in both cases. That's why I still don't understand people who will sell for 30c but object to 25c.
People are pissed off because a cheaper hooker has come to town, she's better looking and charges less, and that's going to hurt business. That's about the size of subscription sales on Microstock with the 25c downloads.
I don't like the situation, but it's here. There are many ways to look at the causes and effects. Low percentage or volume, but selling at a loss, is not going to make the agencies anything and they will go under if they can't make a profit.
ThinkStock is not going to go away if people don't give them photos. They have multiple collections that they already own, sold on that site.
Bottom line? I'd rather make 83% of something (25 cents) than 100% of nothing which is still nothing.
I'm looking to add a few new agencies this year, to make up for the fact that I'm losing a nice chunk of my income from the closing of Stockxpert. I've got a collection of 5000 photos graphics and vectors. I'm not looking to sign up on just any old new site - only sites you've personally had good sales on. 
Linear Mode
