pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Is iStock worth it?  (Read 35327 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: March 24, 2017, 16:00 »
0
The lowest you could get paid is 19c for subs.
I wonder why my Feb report has the following 'iStock Subscription' sale entries then?
0.03
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.14
0.15
0.15

I guess "minimum" means, "the lowest you can get ... except when it's lower".  ::) Or, maybe all those sales were reported incorrectly?

But what's this? My Jan statement has these sub sales listed:
0.03
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.15

I guess those were all a mistake, too.
Are you exclusive?  If yes, have you read the forums?


« Reply #51 on: March 24, 2017, 16:02 »
+1
Yes, I have too sub sales for 8 $, one of 17$ etc. But I don't think they make up for the 1.68 sales for an S+ (that until Dec were 2.50).Or maybe yes. But the only way to have a RPD a bit (just a bit higher) is to be at 40 or 45%%. According to todayis20 my RPD right now is about 3.15.  On the other hand, I see some sales with royalties that seem to be below the minimun guaranteed.

KB

« Reply #52 on: March 24, 2017, 16:04 »
+1
The lowest you could get paid is 19c for subs.
I wonder why my Feb report has the following 'iStock Subscription' sale entries then?
0.03
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.14
0.15
0.15

I guess "minimum" means, "the lowest you can get ... except when it's lower".  ::) Or, maybe all those sales were reported incorrectly?

But what's this? My Jan statement has these sub sales listed:
0.03
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.15

I guess those were all a mistake, too.
Are you exclusive?  If yes, have you read the forums?
Yes. No. Why should I bother? If 19c is the minimum (I mistakenly thought it was 16c, so there are more that should be listed above), it's the minimum. Apparently there are exceptions; I don't care what they are. It means there IS no minimum in reality.

« Reply #53 on: March 24, 2017, 16:07 »
0
The lowest you could get paid is 19c for subs.
I wonder why my Feb report has the following 'iStock Subscription' sale entries then?
0.03
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.14
0.15
0.15

I guess "minimum" means, "the lowest you can get ... except when it's lower".  ::) Or, maybe all those sales were reported incorrectly?

But what's this? My Jan statement has these sub sales listed:
0.03
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.15

I guess those were all a mistake, too.
Are you exclusive?  If yes, have you read the forums?
Yes. No. Why should I bother? If 19c is the minimum (I mistakenly thought it was 16c, so there are more that should be listed above), it's the minimum. Apparently there are exceptions; I don't care what they are. It means there IS no minimum in reality.
19c is the lowest for exclusives.

KB

« Reply #54 on: March 24, 2017, 16:09 »
+3
The lowest you could get paid is 19c for subs.
I wonder why my Feb report has the following 'iStock Subscription' sale entries then?
0.03
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.14
0.15
0.15

I guess "minimum" means, "the lowest you can get ... except when it's lower".  ::) Or, maybe all those sales were reported incorrectly?

But what's this? My Jan statement has these sub sales listed:
0.03
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.15

I guess those were all a mistake, too.
Are you exclusive?  If yes, have you read the forums?
Yes. No. Why should I bother? If 19c is the minimum (I mistakenly thought it was 16c, so there are more that should be listed above), it's the minimum. Apparently there are exceptions; I don't care what they are. It means there IS no minimum in reality.
19c is the lowest for exclusives.

OH!!

« Reply #55 on: March 24, 2017, 16:22 »
0
Sorry but it's my understanding we aren't supposed to be quoting things from the forum so you'll have to go there yourself.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #56 on: March 24, 2017, 17:13 »
+3
Not sure the exact questions you have but most have been answered on the forums, it's not always easy to find that answer though.
Whenever I ask a question, you can bet I follow a thread very closely for at least two weeks afterwards. Likewise if I see someone else has asked a question I'd like to know the answer to.
If they answer somewhere else altogether without posting a link in the original thread, that is deliberate unhelpfulness.

BTW, when I raised the point about serious questions going unanswered in the forums, admin said it was because they wanted to be sure the issue had been solved. Not sure how that relates to sales below the quoted minimum, or what to do about files whose most important keywords not added a year after request and not in Getty's CV.  I guess it's time to take out tickets to see if "you have rendered my file unfindable" is reason enough to have a file deactivated.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #57 on: March 24, 2017, 17:44 »
+2
According to todayis20, my RPD for Jan was $1.99, but I'm only at 30%, because of their previous broken promise.
And when I think about it, some of the tiny sales I've had over the past year have been listed as Getty sales, not G+, premium access etc
« Last Edit: March 24, 2017, 17:47 by ShadySue »

« Reply #58 on: March 24, 2017, 18:37 »
+3
As an exclusive I can say I'm excited about IS for the first time in a long while.  Jan. and Feb. earnings were better than almost every month from the past couple years.
Good for you.
For me, Jan and Feb were both far lower than every month last year. And every month in 2016 was the worst Jan, Feb, March since becoming exclusive in 2007. Certainly no reason for me to resume uploading - far too many tiny value sales (sub 10c as an exclusive) which isn't fair trade, but interesting to see at least one person is having a different experience.
The lowest you could get paid is 19c for subs.
Well, that was the theory, but the truth is that exclusives are getting as low as $0.02 per subscription.  $0.19 is already ridiculous, mainly for such a low volume of subscriptions that iStock has.

« Reply #59 on: March 24, 2017, 19:43 »
0
As an exclusive I can say I'm excited about IS for the first time in a long while.  Jan. and Feb. earnings were better than almost every month from the past couple years.
Good for you.
For me, Jan and Feb were both far lower than every month last year. And every month in 2016 was the worst Jan, Feb, March since becoming exclusive in 2007. Certainly no reason for me to resume uploading - far too many tiny value sales (sub 10c as an exclusive) which isn't fair trade, but interesting to see at least one person is having a different experience.
The lowest you could get paid is 19c for subs.
Well, that was the theory, but the truth is that exclusives are getting as low as $0.02 per subscription.  $0.19 is already ridiculous, mainly for such a low volume of subscriptions that iStock has.
If someone got less I'm sure it will be corrected, 19c is the minimum.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #60 on: March 24, 2017, 20:11 »
+2
The lowest you could get paid is 19c for subs.
I wonder why my Feb report has the following 'iStock Subscription' sale entries then?
0.03
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.14
0.15
0.15

I guess "minimum" means, "the lowest you can get ... except when it's lower".  ::) Or, maybe all those sales were reported incorrectly?

But what's this? My Jan statement has these sub sales listed:
0.03
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.15

I guess those were all a mistake, too.
Are you exclusive?  If yes, have you read the forums?
Yes. No. Why should I bother? If 19c is the minimum (I mistakenly thought it was 16c, so there are more that should be listed above), it's the minimum. Apparently there are exceptions; I don't care what they are. It means there IS no minimum in reality.
19c is the lowest for exclusives.
No, that's just what they told us.
That doesn't make it true, like grandfathering us in at our next level, or it will ne er be possible to exclude exclusive files from search, or mirroring all editorial to Getty - a very limited and in my case at least random selection has been mirrored, and instead of calling it editorial, they're calling it 'unreleased creative' or some such meaningless title, meaning people looking for editorial almost certainly bypass that collection. Still, at only 20% for these sales, which are someimes very low anyway, that's not necessarily totally bad news, just another broken promise.

« Reply #61 on: March 24, 2017, 20:16 »
0
No, that's just what they told us.
That doesn't make it true, like grandfathering us in at our next level, or it will ne er be possible to exclude exclusive files from search, or mirroring all editorial to Getty - a very limited and in my case at least random selection has been mirrored, and instead of calling it editorial, they're calling it 'unreleased creative' or some such meaningless title, meaning people looking for editorial almost certainly bypass that collection. Still, at only 20% for these sales, which are someimes very low anyway, that's not necessarily totally bad news, just another broken promise.
So you're saying they changed the minimum for subs?  Where did you see that?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #62 on: March 24, 2017, 20:45 »
+4
No, that's just what they told us.
That doesn't make it true, like grandfathering us in at our next level, or it will ne er be possible to exclude exclusive files from search, or mirroring all editorial to Getty - a very limited and in my case at least random selection has been mirrored, and instead of calling it editorial, they're calling it 'unreleased creative' or some such meaningless title, meaning people looking for editorial almost certainly bypass that collection. Still, at only 20% for these sales, which are someimes very low anyway, that's not necessarily totally bad news, just another broken promise.
So you're saying they changed the minimum for subs?  Where did you see that?
It's de facto, e.g. from the figures quoted above by KB. Many people have reported subs sales lower than iS's stated minimum.

« Reply #63 on: March 24, 2017, 20:50 »
+1
No, that's just what they told us.
That doesn't make it true, like grandfathering us in at our next level, or it will ne er be possible to exclude exclusive files from search, or mirroring all editorial to Getty - a very limited and in my case at least random selection has been mirrored, and instead of calling it editorial, they're calling it 'unreleased creative' or some such meaningless title, meaning people looking for editorial almost certainly bypass that collection. Still, at only 20% for these sales, which are someimes very low anyway, that's not necessarily totally bad news, just another broken promise.
So you're saying they changed the minimum for subs?  Where did you see that?
It's de facto, e.g. from the figures quoted above by KB. Many people have reported subs sales lower than iS's stated minimum.
It's been discussed in the feb earnings thread.

« Reply #64 on: March 24, 2017, 21:03 »
+17

Years ago, there was some debate about what a decent royalty rate was. And certainly it's still debatable today. But what has changed in the last few years is that the myth that higher rates were impossible for companies to pay while sustaining their own business has been debunked.

Companies like Getty will still say that they can't afford to pay more, but it's B.S. We've seen other companies come along that pay a reversed royalty rate, instead of keeping the majority, they pay out the majority percentage. Companies like Creative Market are paying 70%. And not going out of business while doing it. In fact, they're thriving, and so are contributors.

It's been said in this forum by myself and many others that no company jumping into this business today should offer anything less than a 50% royalty at minimum. We all know too well that 50% or more is not only sustainable, but it's the only truly fair starting point.

So by today's standards, istock's rates are sub-standard, by a lot. Add in the deceit they've become famous for over the years, the shady subscription deals, the condescending attitudes and treating contributors like garbage, it's just too much.

I still have images at iStock but I haven't uploaded there in a long time, and won't ever again. I'm ok with my older stuff getting low subs royalties and the occasional 20% on a credit sale. But I wouldn't lift a finger to give them anything new or help them grow in any way. If I were new to this, I'd have zero images there and I'd leave it that way.


KB

« Reply #65 on: March 24, 2017, 23:45 »
0
No, that's just what they told us.
That doesn't make it true, like grandfathering us in at our next level, or it will ne er be possible to exclude exclusive files from search, or mirroring all editorial to Getty - a very limited and in my case at least random selection has been mirrored, and instead of calling it editorial, they're calling it 'unreleased creative' or some such meaningless title, meaning people looking for editorial almost certainly bypass that collection. Still, at only 20% for these sales, which are someimes very low anyway, that's not necessarily totally bad news, just another broken promise.
So you're saying they changed the minimum for subs?  Where did you see that?
It's de facto, e.g. from the figures quoted above by KB. Many people have reported subs sales lower than iS's stated minimum.
It's been discussed in the feb earnings thread.
You are correct. There are a lot of pages in that thread, and it took a lot of time before I finally found the post with the explanation. I don't know why they want to hide this, but whatever. Then it took even longer for me to try to get the data together in a format to actually verify what they were saying, but verify it I did.

So the bottom line for me is, my sub RPD is higher than I thought (about where it had been before these changes), but the number of sub sales is lower (and has been declining steadily now for over half a year). But it's true, there were very few sub sales in the lower reaches, and none under 19c. So thanks for letting me know.

« Reply #66 on: March 25, 2017, 01:15 »
+1
As an exclusive I can say I'm excited about IS for the first time in a long while.  Jan. and Feb. earnings were better than almost every month from the past couple years.
Good for you.
For me, Jan and Feb were both far lower than every month last year. And every month in 2016 was the worst Jan, Feb, March since becoming exclusive in 2007. Certainly no reason for me to resume uploading - far too many tiny value sales (sub 10c as an exclusive) which isn't fair trade, but interesting to see at least one person is having a different experience.
The lowest you could get paid is 19c for subs.

I am sorry but you are out of the line with some of your statements. I sell many thousands licenses a month at Getty/Istock. Some of them are even for 0.05c even as a 40% exclusive, so right now (for 2 months already) they are not respecting minimum ppf.

Also "diamond "exclusives (look at their forums) are reporting less average return per subscription file. Sure, you get a few 5+$ licenses for 10 images/month subs that killed many credit sales but all those 2.5$ E+ sub sales are gone and usually the revenue is now much lower. On normal E files I would say that in my case the revenue per file is a few cents higher.

« Reply #67 on: March 25, 2017, 02:10 »
+1
As an exclusive I can say I'm excited about IS for the first time in a long while.  Jan. and Feb. earnings were better than almost every month from the past couple years.
Good for you.
For me, Jan and Feb were both far lower than every month last year. And every month in 2016 was the worst Jan, Feb, March since becoming exclusive in 2007. Certainly no reason for me to resume uploading - far too many tiny value sales (sub 10c as an exclusive) which isn't fair trade, but interesting to see at least one person is having a different experience.
The lowest you could get paid is 19c for subs.

I am sorry but you are out of the line with some of your statements. I sell many thousands licenses a month at Getty/Istock. Some of them are even for 0.05c even as a 40% exclusive, so right now (for 2 months already) they are not respecting minimum ppf.

Also "diamond "exclusives (look at their forums) are reporting less average return per subscription file. Sure, you get a few 5+$ licenses for 10 images/month subs that killed many credit sales but all those 2.5$ E+ sub sales are gone and usually the revenue is now much lower. On normal E files I would say that in my case the revenue per file is a few cents higher.
19c is the minimum for sub sales for exclusives, I wasn't talking about any other type of licenses.   I also wasn't saying everyone is doing better, I have no idea what other people are doing all I can see is what I'm doing.

« Reply #68 on: March 25, 2017, 04:21 »
+4
Companies like Getty will still say that they can't afford to pay more, but it's B.S.
Not necessarily. Remember that they have piled up gigantic debts in the vulture capitalist merry-go-round of buying the company, borrowing in the market to repay the people who bought it all charged against (our) future earnings, then selling it on to somebody else who repeats the process. They've piled up so much debt to line the pockets of the "investors" that the rating agencies were starting to downgrade them the last I heard of it.

« Reply #69 on: March 25, 2017, 04:58 »
+8
Companies like Getty will still say that they can't afford to pay more, but it's B.S.
Not necessarily. Remember that they have piled up gigantic debts in the vulture capitalist merry-go-round of buying the company, borrowing in the market to repay the people who bought it all charged against (our) future earnings, then selling it on to somebody else who repeats the process. They've piled up so much debt to line the pockets of the "investors" that the rating agencies were starting to downgrade them the last I heard of it.
That's true but I still think if they had offered everyone 50% a few years ago, when they still had some credibility, they would of wiped away the competition.  They have lost billions over the long term because they got greedy in the short term.  Now like every other business that doesn't do what's best for long term sustainability, they're in serious trouble.  Their rival sites have taken a huge chunk of the market.  So they can't afford to pay 50% now and they will probably have to keep squeezing contributors but that will kill them in the long term.

drd

« Reply #70 on: March 25, 2017, 05:01 »
+2
Companies like Getty will still say that they can't afford to pay more, but it's B.S.
They've piled up so much debt to line the pockets of the "investors" that the rating agencies were starting to downgrade them the last I heard of it.
Here is some info on this: https://www.moodys.com/credit-ratings/Getty-Images-Inc-credit-rating-823229142

Something else happening at Getty, which I haven't heard of until today:
https://www.law360.com/articles/874422/ex-getty-vp-restrained-from-sharing-trade-secrets
« Last Edit: March 25, 2017, 05:06 by drd »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #71 on: March 25, 2017, 05:18 »
+1
As an exclusive I can say I'm excited about IS for the first time in a long while.  Jan. and Feb. earnings were better than almost every month from the past couple years.
Good for you.
For me, Jan and Feb were both far lower than every month last year. And every month in 2016 was the worst Jan, Feb, March since becoming exclusive in 2007. Certainly no reason for me to resume uploading - far too many tiny value sales (sub 10c as an exclusive) which isn't fair trade, but interesting to see at least one person is having a different experience.
The lowest you could get paid is 19c for subs.

I am sorry but you are out of the line with some of your statements. I sell many thousands licenses a month at Getty/Istock. Some of them are even for 0.05c even as a 40% exclusive, so right now (for 2 months already) they are not respecting minimum ppf.

Also "diamond "exclusives (look at their forums) are reporting less average return per subscription file. Sure, you get a few 5+$ licenses for 10 images/month subs that killed many credit sales but all those 2.5$ E+ sub sales are gone and usually the revenue is now much lower. On normal E files I would say that in my case the revenue per file is a few cents higher.
19c is the minimum for sub sales for exclusives, I wasn't talking about any other type of licenses.   I also wasn't saying everyone is doing better, I have no idea what other people are doing all I can see is what I'm doing.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that we had a misunderstanding at first. I said I had far too many sub 10c sales and you apparently thought I was talking about subs.
Some might think you were deliberately trying to muddy the waters, but 19c is nothing to be happy about.
Fact is, 19c for subs and less than 10c for any sort of sale is totally unacceptable, especially for exclusives. At the moment, I'll keep my port there, but can't see any reason to resume uploading. My next move will be to try to have my unfindable files released.

And if as you say they answered the question about submitted I mum subs in the Feb thread, that's just disingenuous, since questions were being asked about this from the day the new system reports came out.
Any idea in which thread they've answered the question about why ESP reports the total for every month in 2016 to be different from the figure in their charts? (At least for some contributors, of which I'm one).
« Last Edit: March 25, 2017, 06:52 by ShadySue »

Justanotherphotographer

« Reply #72 on: March 25, 2017, 06:09 »
+1
Companies like Getty will still say that they can't afford to pay more, but it's B.S.
Not necessarily. Remember that they have piled up gigantic debts in the vulture capitalist merry-go-round of buying the company, borrowing in the market to repay the people who bought it all charged against (our) future earnings, then selling it on to somebody else who repeats the process. They've piled up so much debt to line the pockets of the "investors" that the rating agencies were starting to downgrade them the last I heard of it.
I suspect this is also why they seem to be doing a lot of the tech stuff in house using a team that can't even seem to keep the existing framework bug free (with disastrous results). Implementing a new system like esp would have cost them in hundreds of thousands to do properly outsourcing to a company with the specialist knowledge required. They don't have that sort of money, the lenders wouldn't stand for it.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #73 on: March 25, 2017, 06:54 »
+1
Companies like Getty will still say that they can't afford to pay more, but it's B.S.
Not necessarily. Remember that they have piled up gigantic debts in the vulture capitalist merry-go-round of buying the company, borrowing in the market to repay the people who bought it all charged against (our) future earnings, then selling it on to somebody else who repeats the process. They've piled up so much debt to line the pockets of the "investors" that the rating agencies were starting to downgrade them the last I heard of it.
I suspect this is also why they seem to be doing a lot of the tech stuff in house using a team that can't even seem to keep the existing framework bug free (with disastrous results). Implementing a new system like esp would have cost them in hundreds of thousands to do properly outsourcing to a company with the specialist knowledge required. They don't have that sort of money, the lenders wouldn't stand for it.
It beggars belief that they even tried, given their long history of technical balls-ups. Why do they never learn?

« Reply #74 on: March 25, 2017, 10:48 »
0
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that we had a misunderstanding at first. I said I had far too many sub 10c sales and you apparently thought I was talking about subs.
Some might think you were deliberately trying to muddy the waters, but 19c is nothing to be happy about.
Fact is, 19c for subs and less than 10c for any sort of sale is totally unacceptable, especially for exclusives. At the moment, I'll keep my port there, but can't see any reason to resume uploading. My next move will be to try to have my unfindable files released.

And if as you say they answered the question about submitted I mum subs in the Feb thread, that's just disingenuous, since questions were being asked about this from the day the new system reports came out.
Any idea in which thread they've answered the question about why ESP reports the total for every month in 2016 to be different from the figure in their charts? (At least for some contributors, of which I'm one).
I did misunderstand you it sounded like you were talking about subs, my bad.  "And if as you say they answered the question about submitted I mum subs in the Feb thread, that's just disingenuous, since questions were being asked about this from the day the new system reports came out."  Sorry but I don't know what this means?  I was saying the answer about sub 19c subs was in that thread, that's all.
I wasn't trying to say everything was perfect just that for me earnings were way up in jan and feb.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
29 Replies
12155 Views
Last post January 26, 2008, 22:14
by digitalfood
32 Replies
10701 Views
Last post March 19, 2013, 16:07
by tickstock
31 Replies
16988 Views
Last post October 26, 2016, 17:15
by NeonRobot
23 Replies
10577 Views
Last post October 30, 2017, 01:48
by derek
14 Replies
8106 Views
Last post October 13, 2017, 22:53
by dragonblade

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors