1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Author Consultation Follow-up 3: Royalty Levels

Discussion in 'Tes Authors' Group' started by tesAuthorTeam, Jan 19, 2018.

  1. ResourcesandCourses

    ResourcesandCourses New commenter

    I don’t agree with a membership fee either.
     
  2. ResourcesandCourses

    ResourcesandCourses New commenter

    No donation model, this will not work. Who would want to pay for something they could have for free,it doesn't make sense to me.
     
    kibishipaul likes this.
  3. mrajlong

    mrajlong Established commenter

    Howsabout a proportion of Tes's advertising (plastered all over my screen and phone) revenue , based on the number of views/downloads or summink else?
     
  4. mathsmutt

    mathsmutt Star commenter

    Basing royalties on views, sales or downloads is inequitable since so many resources are positioned hundreds of pages into the catalogue and are neither sighted nor promoted.

    I would suggest a flat rate of 75% for all resources - with the abolition of the transaction fee and no minimum charge.
    Shops should be randomly picked for promotion.
    Authors should be able to issue codes for their own promotions beyond the current 25% boundary - the royalty would be 75% of the reduced purchase value after VAT.
    A special forum should be started here which allows authors to actively promote their resources. ( it would be special since currently advertising products is against the T&C's. ) People can visit - or not - as they wish.

    TES is still offering some very good rates compared with some of their competitors!
     
    CurriculumForAutism and Kazg1 like this.
  5. EC_Resources

    EC_Resources Occasional commenter

    That would essentially mean a pay cut for lots of people who have worked very hard and dedicated themselves to making the service a success. If transaction fees were abolished this might make up for some of it though.

    This wouldn't stop people uploading millions of crosswords at £3 though (which was the whole point of these discussions) as their royalty rate would go UP under the flat rate system!

    I can kind of see why Tes has the £2 minimum charge. I would love it if we could post homeworks/assessments and the sort for 50p or £1. However, I imagine (with all the undercutting that goes on already discussed) lots of people would post much more than that for £1. Really though, if you're going to put something on for £1 at the moment, you may as well put it on for free. You get 30p after all deductions.

    I honestly think conversion is the key to this somewhere. Whether you are on page 37 and get 10 views or on page 1 and get 100 views, a relative and fair conversion rate could be worked out for each author. This would also work if you did it by product (as some people want to) as niche products would no longer be at a disadvantage.

    If you put loads of **** on and lots of people look at it, but you have a very low conversion rate = bronze.
    If you put a few excellent things on and only have a few people look at it (page 37) and sales are relatively good in proportion to this then = gold.
    Somewhere in the middle is silver.

    We can already see our overall conversion rates as authors so I imagine this woud be easy to implement?

    This would also drive up quality.

    Maybe there's another fairer solution but I can't think of one.
    Flat rate = lots of top authors miss out.
    Donation = don't think anyone will.
    Revenue based on adverts = no thanks (what control do we have over this??)

    I will say now that I don't understand conversion rates and what are good/bad ones 100% so it would be great if someone from Tes could say why this would or wouldn't work. I don't have strong feeling about it, just trying to come up with something fair.
     
  6. EC_Resources

    EC_Resources Occasional commenter

    Did not know c .......p was a swear word on here!
     
  7. MosaiK

    MosaiK Occasional commenter

    It is difficult enough to get down-loaders / buyers to leave a review, I really cannot imagine them wanting to leave donations if they can have our resources for free :confused: and even if they did, I agree with Krazikas, they would presumably not leave as much as the price we put on our resources ourselves or indeed what current charges leave us with.

    I don't understand why we are being consulted on the current royalty system. It works for me and if anything, then it is encouraging me to keep re-vamping and uploading my resources in order to finally reach the 80% gold level.
    It would of course be nice to see royalties put up by 5-10% on each of the Bronze/Silver/Gold levels. ;)

    What makes the current royalty system look wrong, is in fact the vast variety of quality of resources we encounter on TES (and indeed on many other teaching resource sites). I often wonder how a resource including a wordsearch and some colouring in can sell at the same price as one of my resources where I might have included differentiated word games, cue cards and other activities for the same price.
    What is a good resource for one teacher can be a poor resource for another. I think it always depends on what is right for your learners at any given time. e.g. I am not a big fan of word searches but I can see that, how and why they appeal to learners. I believe that learners of my subjects at secondary level should not be asked to colour in anymore, but I can see that there may be a place for it in other subjects, depending on the topic area studied. Now, these are just 2 simple examples I have used to illustrate my point, though I am fully aware that there are many more. In the end it is always up to the buyer whether they think they are buying their money's worth.
    It also depends on the reason why you might be downloading/buying someone else's resource,
    e.g. Ofsted lesson v cover lesson due to flue etc... Often, when we are ill we look for something that is easy to download, print and give to our learners, in the hope that they will be able to get on with the work easily and on their own because we have no way of knowing who the cover teacher will be and frankly when the flue hits, we don't actually put much thought into it either... However, when Ofsted hits, we kind of hope it were just the flue...

    I categorically do not believe that royalty-levels should be made dependent on sales, quality or reviews purely because all 3 are subjective on so many levels, e.g. minority subjects probably sell far less than core-subjects, due to the narrower audience margin, practical subjects do not require as many printed resources as others, and I am sure we can all think of many other examples...:D

    Thank you to all my readers. :)
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2018
    EmmyCD, Krazikas, Kazg1 and 1 other person like this.
  8. MosaiK

    MosaiK Occasional commenter

    :oops:oops... flu not flue of course... :oops::)
     
    Kazg1 likes this.
  9. Maths_Shed

    Maths_Shed Occasional commenter

    But how do you define conversion rate? All resources or paid for only? If you want to get round the system, stuff a single download with loads of files and because each file is counted as a download you'll get a high conversion rate.
     
  10. thinkypublishing

    thinkypublishing Occasional commenter

    Although I agree that conversion rate is one of the better indicators of quality, the irony might be that it would put those resources that are promoted most at a disadvantage.
     
    Krazikas and Maths_Shed like this.
  11. Maths_Shed

    Maths_Shed Occasional commenter

    You suggesting that we should subvert and spend all day repeatedly viewing without downloading? Great idea.
     
    Krazikas likes this.
  12. thinkypublishing

    thinkypublishing Occasional commenter

    This is quite pertinent. I've no doubt at all that certain members of the 'we hate anything premium' club would enjoy racking up views if they knew that doing so would inflict some damage on earnings.
     
    nick_redshaw and Krazikas like this.
  13. thinkypublishing

    thinkypublishing Occasional commenter

    I think a lot of us would appreciate some clarity on the motivations behind all of this.
     
  14. Maths_Shed

    Maths_Shed Occasional commenter

    With a site as open as this, there is a way to subvert every suggestion made so far.
     
  15. EC_Resources

    EC_Resources Occasional commenter

    I hadn't thought of that. Yep you're right, that could happen. It's open to abuse. Scrap that then!
     
    Krazikas and thinky like this.
  16. mrajlong

    mrajlong Established commenter

    To an extent every opportunity/promotion on TES has been subverted or abused in someway by some people: voucher codes, the solicitation of reviews, buying their own resources, setting up multiple accounts, uploading garbage to hit gold level, buyers blatantly sharing resources with friends, schools not buying a school licence and probably many more I hadn't thought of.

    This is why Rising stars and their like charge so much money - to cover losses due to this kind of behaviour. Unfortunately, I don't think we can do the same...
     
  17. Krazikas

    Krazikas Occasional commenter

    I think using conversion rates as a basis for royalty levels is too complicated. Would royalty be paid on the conversion rates of a particular product or an author's overall conversion rates? What about a new author putting on resources for the first time. What rate would he/she get? In some areas there are hundreds of resources for a particular subject or area eg phonics. A potential purchaser may well look at many many resources before picking a purchase, yet the ones that are not chosen are still of a high quality. To be honest Emily, I don't know what my conversion rates are. There is no data on this anywhere on the author's dashboard. I strongly agree that this information be made available so that authors can assess their own resources to try and improve quality and hence sales. Whatever royalty system is used needs to be simple and transparent and whatever changes are made should not result in TES taking the opportunity to lower royalty rates. If this were the case I would rather it remain as it is with other ways used to help improve overall quality.
     
  18. Krazikas

    Krazikas Occasional commenter

    Just noticed this - yes conversion rates would take a considerable hit if unscrupulous authors / the anti-paid resources league cotton on to this!
     
  19. Krazikas

    Krazikas Occasional commenter

    If TES want to retain a hierarchical royalty system (I know this is debatable!) with bronze, silver and gold authors, perhaps it should be based on achievement - like most other models. In this case, I think sales would be the best indicator. Bronze = new author. 100 sales = silver author and 1000+ sales = gold author. This model would not put long established and successful authors at a disadvantage and would encourage the production of good quality resources from new authors who would be keen to make good quality products to achieve sales, thereby eradicating the one page, hastily made resources. Personally, I like incentives. It gives me a target and something to aim for. It would provide the motivation for authors to produce good quality resources and be duly rewarded.
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2018
  20. MosaiK

    MosaiK Occasional commenter

    Erm... I strongly believe this would hit those of us who upload resources for minority subjects harder than others. I mainly upload MFL and Food tech resources, but I struggle to get reviews and yet I am constantly striving to improve and upload even better quality resources as well as bundles. Achievement is not necessarily equal to amount of sales as the demand for resources varies from subject to subject as well as from learner to learner.

    I agree that incentives give us a goal. I agree that this system may not hit already-established authors and it would eradicate weak one-page resources.
    However, it would make it extremely hard for several of us to climb up the levels. I have been selling on here since mid-October and have just scraped my 34th sale - buys the potatoes and puts butter on them, but hardly pays for more than that. Going by that and taking into account that I still have many resources to re-vamp and upload, I would possibly reach gold level at 1000+ sales in about 5 years from now? By the current system I am 36 resources away from gold, so less likely to go hungry while climbing the level ladder.

    :):cool:
     

Share This Page