‘Silver’ commission model

[Gorilla Dave]

The 20% offered to contributors with small portfolios is a massive disincentive to providing new stock.

Is there a reason for retaining the 'Silver' commission model ?

[Sultanpepa]

On the contrary I think the incentive is to work towards getting a bigger portfolio as soon as possible giving you the best chance of reaching higher commission levels. There's less incentive to submit just a few images. However on the whole commission prices are awful and the $1.60gr licenses to the newspapers are an absolute insult. Same goes for bulk deals, these are definitely not in the contributors interest or benefit. 

[Gorilla Dave]

22 minutes ago, Sultanpepa said:

On the contrary I think the incentive is to work towards getting a bigger portfolio as soon as possible giving you the best chance of reaching higher commission levels. There's less incentive to submit just a few images. However on the whole commission prices are awful and the $1.60gr licenses to the newspapers are an absolute insult. Same goes for bulk deals, these are definitely not in the contributors interest or benefit. 

 

There are a number of reasons why a contrib’s portfolio might be smaller.

My first sale came in 2006 when I had just 20 images on-line and I received 70% commission at that time.

Being offered 20% of smaller fees is not an incentive.

 

[imageplotter]

Well. It certainly incentivises certain photographers and agencies to file en mass, at low, often embarrassingly low quality. We can see whole CFexpress cards of same-samey images being filed via the newsfeed which will grant certain people a fairly quick route to 40%, and via large stock uploads too.