Author Topic: Getty's 20% (Read 3727 times)

rubyroo · « **on:** January 20, 2012, 07:47 »

I'm just wondering what those who are very experienced, long-standing Getty contributors can tell us on this subject.

I am thinking that the iStock system is probably quite complex, compared with Getty's usual systems. Presumably their sites don't usually list downloads for all to see (for example), and I'm unclear on how much information direct Getty contributors can access online regarding their sales stats.

My assumption is that they will bring all their sites into line with each other in terms of display/reporting, and that perhaps they'll drop RCs altogether, level exclusives out at their usual 20% flat rate and adopt a flat rate below that level for indies.

What do you Getty-veterans think will happen?

(Of course this could all be rendered redundant if H&F sell the whole shebang to a company with very different plans).

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #1 on:** January 20, 2012, 07:53 »

I would see no reason to be exclusive at 20%.

michealo · « **Reply #2 on:** January 20, 2012, 08:12 »

Quote from: rubyroo on January 20, 2012, 07:47

I'm just wondering what those who are very experienced, long-standing Getty contributors can tell us on this subject.

I am thinking that the iStock system is probably quite complex, compared with Getty's usual systems. Presumably their sites don't usually list downloads for all to see (for example), and I'm unclear on how much information direct Getty contributors can access online regarding their sales stats.

My assumption is that they will bring all their sites into line with each other in terms of display/reporting, and that perhaps they'll drop RCs altogether, level exclusives out at their usual 20% flat rate and adopt a flat rate below that level for indies.

What do you Getty-veterans think will happen?

(Of course this could all be rendered redundant if H&F sell the whole shebang to a company with very different plans).

the race to the bottom ie 20% will just leave room for a well capitalised competition come in and raise commissions to 70% for contributors while lowering prices for customers ...

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #3 on:** January 20, 2012, 08:19 »

I'd agree with Sean. They have removed most of the original exclusive perks minus higher commissions. If they drop that to 20% flat rate i can't see how it would make financial sense for me, or anyone else, to stay exclusive.

I'm guessing they will try to drop it to something not totally rock bottom but close, like 25%, for exclusives along with pitching the advantages of being a collection on the Getty site.

And since Getty is all exclusive content I can't see them wanting to put non-exclusive content there. It would seem to make sense that independent stuff would go to Thinkstock and Photos or some other offering they came up with.

Plus I'm guessing they will tighten up collections and shuffle images around based on what they feel an image's, or contributor's, perceived value is. Some GI people may find their stuff moved to micro-pricing, some micro stuff may get moved to macro pricing, and some images and people may get pushed out the door.

2012 will be an interesting year.

cobalt · « **Reply #4 on:** January 20, 2012, 08:31 »

It would not make any financial sense to be exclusive at 20%.

Microstock is sold at much lower prices than the content on Getty. the artists need a sensible working marging to pay for studios, models etc...At 20% I really don´t see how anyone could produce stock especially if getty wants more localized content from Paris, Tokyo or New York.

RapidEye · « **Reply #5 on:** January 20, 2012, 08:40 »

No, 20% wouldn't make any sense at all. It's even debatable whether it's a sane position at 40%, when you factor in the eggs-in-basket risk. Any further royalty cuts and I'm out of there.

rubyroo · « **Reply #6 on:** January 20, 2012, 08:43 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on January 20, 2012, 08:19

And since Getty is all exclusive content I can't see them wanting to put non-exclusive content there. It would seem to make sense that independent stuff would go to Thinkstock and Photos or some other offering they came up with.

Ah yes, great point. In which case they may continue as they seem to be now, going for an overall average of 20% commission.

I was just thinking in terms of simplification of integration, from their POV. If everyone walks away then they'll have simplified things too far, clearly.

blamb · « **Reply #7 on:** January 20, 2012, 08:51 »

At 20%, only "superstars" can generate enough of a return to make a decent income. Higher royalty rates are what makes it possible for the rest of us plebs to make some $$$.

jjneff · « **Reply #8 on:** January 20, 2012, 09:15 »

If they drop Exclusives to 20% I will drop my exclusivity

michealo · « **Reply #9 on:** January 20, 2012, 09:22 »

Quote from: jjneff on January 20, 2012, 09:15

If they drop Exclusives to 20% I will drop my exclusivity

that may just be their plan, and just sell wholly owned content

RT · « **Reply #10 on:** January 20, 2012, 09:23 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on January 20, 2012, 08:19

And since Getty is all exclusive content I can't see them wanting to put non-exclusive content there.

No it isn't and hasn't been for years, a large proportion of the images on Getty are there via distributions agencies and are on every macro site, it's only individual contributors who have to submit exclusive images to them.

stockpuppet · « **Reply #11 on:** January 20, 2012, 09:44 »

This is that information vacuum which was not going to happen.

rubyroo · « **Reply #12 on:** January 20, 2012, 09:54 »

So it is! Well spotted.

gostwyck · « **Reply #13 on:** January 20, 2012, 10:09 »

Quote from: michealo on January 20, 2012, 09:22

Quote from: jjneff on January 20, 2012, 09:15
If they drop Exclusives to 20% I will drop my exclusivity

that may just be their plan, and just sell wholly owned content

Forget it. There's not a chance of that happening.

Right now they're wondering what happened to their wonderful $300M turnover business, with explosive growth and eye-watering profits, and trying to work out how to get it back on-track. Admittedly those making the decisions don't appear to have much of a clue what they are dealing with.

Zeus · « **Reply #14 on:** January 20, 2012, 10:10 »

History shows that most people will keep taking whatever they are handed no matter how bad the situation.

loop · « **Reply #15 on:** January 20, 2012, 10:18 »

No way, 20, 25 or whatever. I doubt the do do that. WIt¡hout exclusives they would have the same content that any other site, just more expensive. And, should they do that (wich I don't believe) itw ould be the moment for a competitor to launch a strong exclusive program. Or for a new site all exclusive site.

jjneff · « **Reply #16 on:** January 20, 2012, 10:24 »

History may show that but not for me. I really don't think that plan is on the table.

Zeus · « **Reply #17 on:** January 20, 2012, 10:31 »

It's never about one big move. It's always encroachment. Any single move is just tolerable for most of the contributors or there no viable alternatives. If everything that has happened in the past 2 years came down at once, I do think most would leave but that isn't the case. It won't be the case when you take 20%.

jjneff · « **Reply #18 on:** January 20, 2012, 10:39 »

Very true Zeus

ShadySue · « **Reply #19 on:** January 20, 2012, 10:42 »

"death by a thousand cuts"

Of course, that's the way they want it. They've almost certainly got a five year plan or at least a two year plan.
If they shared that with us, we could make informed decisions, but they won't do that, they'll drip it in, slowly, slowly just as they have been doing.

john_woodcock · « **Reply #20 on:** January 20, 2012, 10:55 »

I don't think personally it's the percentage that counts, it's all down to the income. If my income halves from what it currently is, that would be my tipping point.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #21 on:** January 20, 2012, 10:58 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 20, 2012, 10:42

"death by a thousand cuts"

Of course, that's the way they want it. They've almost certainly got a five year plan or at least a two year plan.
If they shared that with us, we could make informed decisions, but they won't do that, they'll drip it in, slowly, slowly just as they have been doing.

makes me wonder what will happen next? iStock is not only the first microstock agency but the most talked one too, from 2010 until when? not sure if in a good way

disorderly · « **Reply #22 on:** January 20, 2012, 11:02 »

Quote from: john_woodcock on January 20, 2012, 10:55

I don't think personally it's the percentage that counts, it's all down to the income. If my income halves from what it currently is, that would be my tipping point.

And yet for me the percentage was the last straw. I wasn't thrilled with 20%, especially as my income from iStock started to slide. But it was the September, 2010 announcement and the way it turned success into a zero sum game that made me angry enough to stop uploading and start deactivating. I didn't wait to see my income there drop, although I was pretty certain the 20% decrease in royalties would hurt. I decided that I'd put up with iStock's greed and abuse long enough.

oxman · « **Reply #23 on:** January 23, 2012, 16:23 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on January 20, 2012, 08:19

I'd agree with Sean. They have removed most of the original exclusive perks minus higher commissions. If they drop that to 20% flat rate i can't see how it would make financial sense for me, or anyone else, to stay exclusive.

I'm guessing they will try to drop it to something not totally rock bottom but close, like 25%, for exclusives along with pitching the advantages of being a collection on the Getty site.

And since Getty is all exclusive content I can't see them wanting to put non-exclusive content there. It would seem to make sense that independent stuff would go to Thinkstock and Photos or some other offering they came up with.

Plus I'm guessing they will tighten up collections and shuffle images around based on what they feel an image's, or contributor's, perceived value is. Some GI people may find their stuff moved to micro-pricing, some micro stuff may get moved to macro pricing, and some images and people may get pushed out the door.

2012 will be an interesting year.

Agree completely.

lisafx · « **Reply #24 on:** January 23, 2012, 17:52 »

Since we're making predictions, here's mine: Artist exclusivity and exclusive commissions and perks will become a thing of the past within a couple of years. I'm betting the "bug" preventing people from applying for exclusivity wasn't an accident and won't get fixed.

Exclusive artists with Vetta, TAC, and maybe some E+ will be invited to have those images all moved over to Getty as image exclusive (hasn't this already happened?), at the standard Getty 20%. The rest of their ports, presumed to be of low interest or over saturated subject matter, will be shuttled to TS, and also freed up to be uploaded to other micros.

Superstars like Lise and Sean may be able to negotiate special deals.

Non-exclusives will also be given the opportunity to create unique exclusive content for Getty collections.

Istock will probably not exist in two years. I imagine that the url will be redirected to TS and/or Getty.

Nobody freak out - this is just my guess about where things are headed. I would LOVE to be wrong!