|
Open letter to Charles Mauzy
|
The following was sent from me to ‘charles@digitalrailroad.net’ (CEO of DRR). I would strongly encourage anyone else affected by the recent changes to also make their feelings known!
Dear Charles,
I have been with DRR from the beginning of Marketplace and I’m certainly not alone in regarding it as (hopefully) the great way forward for stock image sales. I’ve been more than pleased with the first year’s performance and had been looking forward to further growth in year 2, so as to slowly wean myself away from reliance on Getty and Corbis.
And so it was with great disappointment that I read of the changes in the Marketplace fee structure. It was very widely felt among photographers that the 80% you were paying your contributors would be one of the major factors in turning picture buyers away from traditional sources. Certainly the researchers I speak to are regularly horrified to hear that only as little as 20 or 30% typically trickles down to the shooter.
If I’m not mistaken, until recently the 80% figure was trumpeted on the Marketplace home page as something that DRR was (rightfully) especially proud of. And yet just over a year into the game, DRR finds they need a bigger cut and you are seriously altering the way that you will be perceived both by photographers and buyers. No more knight-in-shining-armour then, and your claim to be unequivocally on the side of the photographer is substantially undermined.
I am very realistic about business and business decisions. I am perfectly aware that DRR is not a charity. And yet your claim in your published discussion with David Sanger that “Our early modeling clearly showed that a 30% Marketplace transaction fee would likely be required to run DRR” leaves me wondering: why then was this not made apparent to early adopters? Why did you not state clearly and honestly that the 80% cut was not going to be permanent and may only last a year?
You go on to say that “It is easy for the cynical mind to suggest that this was a loss-leader strategy” but can you not see how easily you could have defused that cynicism if you had been transparent about your intentions from the beginning. I have only discussed the recent changes with a handful of colleagues, but in all cases it is only partly the issue of getting 70% instead of 80%; on top of that there is the undermining of trust in the DRR superstructure. It immediately makes me wary of what other unpleasant surprises might be in store for 2009, 2010 etc.
After all, if the % can slide from 80 to 70, why not 65 (like Alamy) or 45 (like Corbis) – and so, by a few ‘minor’ incremental changes, DRR is suddenly no less parasitic than any other photo agency.
Needless to say, I strongly hope that will never be the case, but in the handling of this issue I feel it will be a major challenge for you to win back the full confidence of your contributors that you enjoyed up until a week ago.
Very best regards,
David Sutherland
by
david sutherland
at
Thu Jul 10 18:23:28 UTC 2008
(ed. Jul 12 2008)
London,
United Kingdom
| Bookmark this
| Digg this
|
|
|
To be completely fair, DRR has always taken at least 30% of image sales. Depending on how much/if you sell, the percentage of what DRR takes could be 300-400% or more. That $50 monthly fee happens every month, whether you sell anything or not. Say you sell an image next month for $300. After the $50 monthly fee, the net commission for DRR is 46.7% (If someone wants to double-check my math, I think this is right). If you don’t sell anything else for the next two months, that commission grows to 80%.
I could be wrong, but it seems that the Alamy model of 35% commission, period (doesn’t look like they charge for storage, monthly fees, etc.), is a better avenue for photographers just starting to sell their images online. The DRR 10% hike in commissions if you sell something seems paltry compaired to the guaranteed monthly fee of $50.
I think David’s letter is dead on from his perspective, but for many people who do not sell massive amount of images, the focus should be on the real-dollar commission amounts.
|
Bump – I’d like to hear if others think my thinking is way off base or not.
|
I think you are right Brian. That is a very level headed point of view.
|
In the old days (pre-1999, or so) the traditional stockhouses needed about 60-70% of the cut to survive – keep in business. Altho the internet eliminated need for brick and mortar storefronts, etc., the business model that DRR started with was unrealistic. I doubt there’s anyway that over the longhaul they could survive at 20%. DRR has cut staff and we probably won’t see the lavish parties they use to host. Hang in there and keep ‘em on their toes david. Good luck. [ disclaimer – I worked as a photo editor and managing editor at The Image Bank (before sold to Getty) until 1998. Today I have no connection with any stock agency. ]
|
Brian, i’m fairly pissed off with DRR at the moment so its hard to come to their defense, but i imagine their argument would be that the archive fee is for a separate service altogether and unrelated to the MP %.
(In separate communication with Charles Mauzy, i had pushed for the option of having the archive fee deducted from MP sales and his reply was basically the above: they see them as completely separate operations, not to be conflated)
Of course, you cant get into MP without paying the archive fee, but hard to calculate as a % because it’s fixed. If you bill $1000 a year through MP then your REAL take is only 20%, if you bill $10,000 then you keep 74%
The bad news is that from August, those figures will fall to 10% and 64% respectively. I think that for a lot of people who dont necessarily need a personal archive, the Photoshelter Collection just became more attractive, as it pays the same 70% with no archive necessary.
|
|
Get notified when someone replies to this thread:
|
 via RSS
Recommended
|
 via email
You can unsubscribe later.
|
|
|
|
