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

Putting quality first: some changes to Tes Resources

Discussion in 'Tes Authors' Group' started by tesAuthorTeam, May 16, 2018.

  1. thinkypublishing

    thinkypublishing Occasional commenter

    I wouldn't overdo the awards but the 'trusted author' thing is a good idea - something that could be lost for copyright breaches, consistent poor reviews etc. etc.
     
    LikeAnExpert, mathsmutt and nwilkin like this.
  2. mathsmutt

    mathsmutt Star commenter

    Absolutely :
    gravy17.gif



    gravy18.gif
     
  3. mathsmutt

    mathsmutt Star commenter

    (Sadly not for all maths resources!)
    Promotion is key, perhaps TES should consider more subject based promotional drives.
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2018
  4. mathsmutt

    mathsmutt Star commenter

    Or have a universal royalty of 75% (which is more than the big A) which provides returns for both TES and Authors.
    I would still like to think of TES Resources as a depository for digital goods which will provide income into retirement.
     
    mason_neil1 likes this.
  5. mathsmutt

    mathsmutt Star commenter

    A little ready reckoner for 60% royalties:


    readyreck.jpg
     
  6. mathsmutt

    mathsmutt Star commenter

    A ready reckoner for 70%:
    readyreck70.jpg
     
  7. mathsmutt

    mathsmutt Star commenter

    A ready reckoner for 80% :
    readyreck80.jpg
     
  8. mathsmutt

    mathsmutt Star commenter

    A ready reckoner for 75%:
    readyreck75.jpg
     
  9. thinkypublishing

    thinkypublishing Occasional commenter

    Those are very enlightening. Thanks
     
    MosaiK and mathsmutt like this.
  10. MosaiK

    MosaiK Occasional commenter

    Wow, so I fall off the message board for a couple of weeks and then return to find that not only I am likely to be demoted from Gold status back to Bronze and 60% (which as we can see above isn't actually 60% at all anyway), but I am also being penalised for selling resources for less popular subjects... Erm, thank you TES!
    I have been a TES author since October last year. It took me several months to work myself up to gold status and my sales picked up a bit in the new year but then went downhill again. I notice that my resources sell according to seasonal and curriculum demand.
    I fully intend to continue to update my teaching resources to bring them in line with copyright demands and to continue to upload them onto TES.
    Having read this thread with great interest (and also sadness), I would like to make the following points and suggestions:
    • Firstly, thank you Mike, @mikeshaw, for getting back to us and for the 'response blog'. I am glad you are reading us, it remains to be seen whether TES listens by making changes to the original proposal too.
    • I have never seen the reasoning behind the 30p charge and feel that this is discouraging authors from setting their prices below £3. This in return leads to resources of less worth due to their quantity : quality : price ratio.
    • Surely @tes is aware that Maths and English are taught more around the world and certainly maths given more importance than say Food Technology, French or German - mainly my subjects. So by default resources for Maths and English would sell more than those for minority subjects.
    • Having reached gold status and having had 2 of my resources recommended by TES in the few months that I have been a TES author, I consider myself an established author (albeit fairly newly...) and therefore I feel that @tes should seriously reconsider their decision before demoting current authors. Remember many of us are not in this for the money or to make a living, but we are here to share good-quality resources with our colleagues and enjoy getting something in return for our hard work rather than just giving our resources away.
    • Example: It takes me an average of 8 hours to put together an exam board linked workbook + accessories for Food Technology, much of that time is spent finding appropriate pictures on royalty-free picture websites (e.g. pixabay and pexels), formatting those pictures and then adding accessories, e.g. a presentation, cue cards and terminology, possibly a board-game. Do I really want to literally give these away for 60% royalties? No. Will I put less effort into this resource for 60% royalties? Probably not, because I take pride in my work... but I will think twice about uploading to TES.
    • I have been working on my own website recently and had decided to not sell through it but put in links to TES, *** and Lehrermarktplatz. However, if @tes go ahead and demote me and several of my co-authors from 80% to 60% then I shall most definitely consider selling directly through my own website. Currently this is only hinging on a few minor details.
    • Finally: @tes please remember that we are not simply working for you! We are in a symbiotic relationship where we benefit from each other by mutual agreement. If you pull out then so can we. If you change things then so can we. Giving us less will not encourage us to give you more. Demotion demotivates and demoralises. :mad::(:eek:
    Thank you for reading. I hope @tes continues to read and also listens to and acts upon what we are saying. Surely with so many of us speaking up, and mostly saying the same things this must amount to 'common' sense and therefore be worth considering.
    M. ;)
     
  11. ClassroomChemist

    ClassroomChemist New commenter

    well said mosaik
     
    mathsmutt and MosaiK like this.
  12. magicinkstand

    magicinkstand New commenter

    I am not sure that this change to royalty levels is 'putting quality first'. This change will make people frantically try to sell £1k/ £6k worth of resources in a year, focusing on quantity, and really demotivate all those people who worked hard to become gold authors. To improve quality, 1. crack down on the use of copyrighted material, 2. promote quality material fairly and 3. provide more encouragement/ incentives to review.
     
  13. PattyAnnsPetProject

    PattyAnnsPetProject New commenter

    Hello to All! Brand new store here. Not brand new to online book sales. Didn't realize so much dissention surrounded the commissions TES allows its authors. Seems to be a lot of nonsense over all these tier rates and other reward fringes for a sales site that should honor all products equally. TES, just provide all authors/products an 80% commission across the board. Keep it simple for authors -and TES. Current commission tiers causes separation- competition- and uploads that may not be worthy in order to gain the extra commission rate. Why is something so simple turned into something so convoluted? Now that I am informed, think I will wait on uploading more products to see how responsive TES is to their authors who are the foundation of their success.
     
  14. thinkypublishing

    thinkypublishing Occasional commenter

    My guess:
    - the UK market has proved more resistant than anticipated (and is largely taken up by another site that twinkles)
    - entering into an arrangement with White Rose Maths involving the selected promotion of a set number of resources proved to be very profitable

    The upshot being that TES wants to move towards a more traditional publisher's role whereby it can promote a limited range of "quality resources" heavily (while still giving the impression of an author driven 'marketplace' which while less profitable does drive traffic towards those things it wishes to promote).

    This was always likely to be the case given that TES itself has so much to sell that's effectively in competition with what's on offer by 'authors'. I don't imagine this is likely to change much.
     
    mathsmutt and ajs12345 like this.
  15. EC_Resources

    EC_Resources Occasional commenter

    If Tes wants to get competing with ****** they really have to start making some 'social' and 'wellbeing' facebook groups. ****** have these for all subjects / teacher issues you could imagine. and they ram their resources down thousands of peoples throats that way. For some reason, although Tes COULD very easily make big, popular teacher groups on facebook, they won't do this. I wish they would.
     
  16. EC_Resources

    EC_Resources Occasional commenter

    lol the T word has been bleeped out!!! anyone would think I was calling that resource site something very sweary lol.
     
  17. thinkypublishing

    thinkypublishing Occasional commenter

    They're relying on you doing it for them - and banking on people needing to do similar in order to retain their silver/gold status.
     
  18. Tactful_Teaching

    Tactful_Teaching New commenter

    Wow, reading these proposed changes and the teachers' reactions to them, I feel robbed of my hard work and that's as a mere Silver Author on TES. I can only imagine how cheated a Gold Author feels. It seems TES is profiteering; riding on the back of our achievements as successful teachers. Quite solipsistic to say the least. Based on the sagacious advice I've read on here today, I think I'll stop uploading anything onto TES until all of the changes are final, review what they've decided to do in October and in the mean time, move across to the ostensibly more wholesome ***.
     
    MosaiK likes this.
  19. ajs12345

    ajs12345 New commenter

    I can't say that it surprises me that TES' 'solution' to the every growing quality issue is to turn it into another vehicle for profit. I can't fathom how adjusting royalty rates alone does anything other than penalise authors, and the 'market forces' argument simply doesn't wash when you now have such a bloated catalogue inundated with so much out of date and irrelevant content.

    The author consultation made it abundantly clear that authors wanted TES to take a more active role in quality control, sifting out obvious copyright violations, poor quality resources, having staff take the time to properly appraise and promote authors other than the chosen handful that get wheeled out for every promotion...this announcement makes it seem like the consultation was a pointless endeavour.

    The big question I have is this:

    Where is all TES' royalty money going?

    Why does TES have no appetite for reinvesting this new (and massive) revenue stream in actually making TES better? It seems to me that the powers that be are only interested in milking the cash cow, skimming profits, all the while letting their platform do what it will.

    If authors feel like they aren't being listened to (and it is often the best authors that take an active role in trying to improve the site by engaging with things like forums and author consultations that you can least afford to lose) they will soon vote with their feet.
     
    mathsmutt, MosaiK and thinky like this.
  20. ilaxippatel

    ilaxippatel New commenter

    TES, what kind of the game you have started playing with us??? The ideas of changes in royalty rate with comparison to earning levels is so so so ridiculous...With the current scenario I am getting too less net amount in my hand which includes deduction in tax and transaction fees during selling of resource....Again when I get the fund in my bank account again here I have to pay tax and paypal transaction charges also deducted....So if you set the limits, what I will take at my home?? I have family and working hard to create the resources in some free time in order to cop up with family expenses..If TES is going to apply the same thing I have set my own website and will have to shutdown my TES store..Its as simple as that...

    Thank you..
     

Share This Page