Can any one tell me what the new royalty is for new photogs to the site?

It was supposed to change in the beginning of January and should have been  updated by now i would think!

The site still has the old rates posted and no new ones?

I sent them an email asking them back on Friday and then did one of the IM's with someone and they had no idea so he asked me to resend the email which i did and still haven't heard anything.

This seems to have just been added to the contributors section....

"January 18, 2012 - Change in Commission Structure

We will be changing our Contributors� commission structure effective February 1, 2012.

Here�s what you need to know:

    All existing contributors shall continue to enjoy the current 50% nett commission share ONLY IF they fulfill ALL of the following criteria.:
        Have registered with 123RF.com before February 1, 2012.
        Have at least 150 accepted images in their respective portfolios by January 9, 2012.
        Have had a minimum of 10 paid downloads by January 27, 2012.
    All new contributors who start submitting images to 123RF.com AFTER January 27, 2012 OR do not meet all the criteria above shall be enrolled under the new commission structure.
    For our veteran contributors who have been supporting us all this while, we thank you for your support and we will try our best to grow the business further in 2012. We will also try our very best to maintain the levels of 50% nett commission to you for as long as possible.

More details on the new commission structure shall be announced closer very soon.

In the light of the criteria above:

    We urge you to continue uploading your images to 123RF.com if you haven�t already met all of the criteria above.
    We believe it is more expedient to upload your images now rather than later if you haven�t met the sales quota criteria.

Thank you very much for your attention,
Best Regards,"

Seems the deadlines have changed a bit, but still nothing concrete on the new structure.

I wonder what you mean Rux?
a breeze?
Are you refering to the "wind of change"?
or what?

You had to have 150 on line by Jan 9th.

It appears some editing was done but not very carefully. Why have a registration deadline of February 1st with a requirement to have 150 images accepted by a month earlier than that?

I also don't like this "We will also try our very best to maintain the levels of 50% nett commission to you for as long as possible." W*T*F is that supposed to mean?

This here doesnt make any sense at all!

        Have registered with 123RF.com before February 1, 2012.
        Have at least 150 accepted images in their respective portfolios by January 9, 2012.
        Have had a minimum of 10 paid downloads by January 27, 2012.
    All new contributors who start submitting images to 123RF.com AFTER January 27, 2012 OR do not meet all the criteria above shall be enrolled under the new commission structure.

Is anyone else concerned about this sentence (emphasis added by me): We will also try our very best to maintain the levels of 50% nett commission to you for as long as possible.

right, have read that too and wondered the same, perhaps its just a way of speaking/saying

Color me uncomfortable with the direction things are proceeding here.

Absolutely!  Their statement reads to me like "we're just cutting newbies for now, but established folks can expect to be cut later if we don't reach our (unspecified) goals". 

Is anyone else concerned about this sentence (emphasis added by me): We will also try our very best to maintain the levels of 50% nett commission to you for as long as possible.

Well, the response can only be: I will try my very best to keep on supporting 123RF for as long as reasonable.

Quote from: lisafx on January 20, 2012, 15:10

Is anyone else concerned about this sentence (emphasis added by me): We will also try our very best to maintain the levels of 50% nett commission to you for as long as possible.

Well, the response can only be: I will try my very best to keep on supporting 123RF for as long as reasonable.

Perfect! 

Hi all,

I read this forum for a while now, but unfortunately I missed the announcement 123rf made here about the changes in royalties. Never received an email about it, not a site mail or anything else for that matter. Two days ago I logged in my 123 account and saw the announcement on the earnings page. Well, that's just great! I have a tiny portfolio of around 100 vector illustrations and way more downloads than required to remain at my royalty level. And now, because I don't fulfill all three requirements, my earnings are going to suffer.

I can (hardly) understand the need for this cut, but the thing that's really disappointing in this case is the lack of communication between the agency and the contributors. An agency that was considered one of the best in that area of business. Really, 123? How was it even possible for anyone who doesn't visit MSG forum regularly to be informed in a timely manner about these changes? When you finally posted the requirements on the site it was already january 18! "Have at least 150 accepted images in their respective portfolios by January 9, 2012." Someone give me a time machine, please

And the thing that's even more disturbing is the following sentence: "We will also try our very best to maintain the levels of 50% nett commission to you for as long as possible." At first I thought that's the only good thing about this whole mess (let the hard working, long time contributors have some deserved privileges) but on a second look, even that's not sure.

Such a disappointment! 

Does anyone else see that we as contributors are at least partly to blame for this?

123RF gives us a very fair commission of 50%, they perform pretty well for us, and in the meantime new agencies pop up offering lower commissions and prices and we stand in line to join. 

It's the Fotolia story all over again.  How can we expect the larger players that sell at higher prices and offer decent commissions to maintain those prices and commissions if we keep adding to the "race to the bottom" pressure?  It's simple economics, and we're a big part of the equation.

Does anyone else see that we as contributors are at least partly to blame for this?...

No

Does anyone else see that we as contributors are at least partly to blame for this?

123RF gives us a very fair commission of 50%, they perform pretty well for us, and in the meantime new agencies pop up offering lower commissions and prices and we stand in line to join. 

It's the Fotolia story all over again.  How can we expect the larger players that sell at higher prices and offer decent commissions to maintain those prices and commissions if we keep adding to the "race to the bottom" pressure?  It's simple economics, and we're a big part of the equation.

I agree.  Most of the problem is us but if you think about what people put up with in their lives, it shouldn't be a surprise.  It's amazing the amount of time that's wasted discussing the latest calamity with istock.  If we all left, there wouldn't be a problem anymore and the other sites would know there's only so far they can push contributors.  Some of the most anti istock people have been busy uploading all they can to them while complaining about them constantly here.

I'm guilty of still having my portfolio there but after nearly a year of uploading nothing and deleting lots of images, I thought it was pointless.  Too many people are willing to carry on as normal when commissions are cut, I don't gain anything removing my portfolio when they are so well supported by other contributors.