I'd prefer to get away from both, but you've got to do what you've got to do.

Where do images sell for .20?  All the subs sites are .25 or higher aren't they?  I don't agree with any model that lowers the floor of what we get paid now. 

Where do images sell for .20?  All the subs sites are .25 or higher aren't they?  I don't agree with any model that lowers the floor of what we get paid now.

I'll give you an example of licensing affecting my tolerance for price variations and lower royalties. I've been experimenting as a supplier on Canva - it's essentially a very limited RM license (one time, one design) but I only get paid 35 cents (35% of the gross). Given that all the designs are done online, the buyer has no access to the image other than as part of the design they produce on Canva. It strikes me as a potentially very interesting business model and I decided it'd be worth exploring. I've seen encouraging sales so far given that the site's still in beta and I have only 100 images online (50 more in the queue).

I wouldn't sell RF at that price. I wouldn't sell RM at that price if the buyer got their hands on the image file (no way anyone could police it). I'm not comfortable with the SOD licenses at SS - nice as it is to see $90 or $100 -because they won't tell us what rights we're licensing for that amount. It could be great for us - or terrible - but being in the dark is objectionable. I've put up with it because they clearly won't budge and so far, nothing unpleasant has come to light.

The sustainability (not my favorite word after iStock's abuse of it, but it's still a useful concept) of a site's business model also matters - I am not interested in schemes that will necessarily implode in short order, or scam buyers in some way, and I certainly don't want to be taken for a ride by the agencies.

37 cents for an RF license for an XXL image with no print run limits (which is what 123rf's latest download packs offer) is massively worse, IMO than the 35 cents per use that Canva pays me.

Quote from: cthoman on July 21, 2014, 11:36

Quote from: PixelBytes on July 21, 2014, 11:28

Where do images sell for .20?  All the subs sites are .25 or higher aren't they?  I don't agree with any model that lowers the floor of what we get paid now.

Fotolia

Fotolia have subs that pay .20?  First I heard of it. 

Canva sounds interesting.  Thanks for that Jo Ann.

And lower and regular sales that pay even lower. I thought it was a little amusing that people got all upset about DPC when regular sales seem to pay just as little.

The uproar about DPC is not because the absolute payout per sale, but because DPC is meant to replace higher paying on demand sales elsewhere.

Doesn't that apply to the whole existence of Fotolia?

Quote from: dirkr on July 21, 2014, 16:36

The uproar about DPC is not because the absolute payout per sale, but because DPC is meant to replace higher paying on demand sales elsewhere.

Doesn't that apply to the whole existence of Fotolia?

You could say it applies to the whole existence of microstock.

But in comparison to other microstocks their credit prices aren't too far off.
Offering high res files for one dollar with a minimum commitment of only 10 dollars is what's making DPC an ugly deal - because, if successful, that will take away those higher paying on demand sales (both on FT and elsewhere) that make the low subs commission acceptable.