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