Author Topic: iStock changing royalty structure (Read 123669 times)

dgilder · « **on:** September 07, 2010, 14:36 »

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=251812&page=1

Basically, you get x% royalties based on how many credits were used to download your files the past year.

As a gold exclusive, next year my royalty will drop 5% based on the new plan, even after I finally hit diamond.

dgilder · « **Reply #1 on:** September 07, 2010, 14:38 »

Also, if you brought in more than $1,000,000 of business to iStock, they will throw you an extra 5%, so max is 45% now.

http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=861

Scroll down for royalty charts

Perry · « **Reply #2 on:** September 07, 2010, 14:42 »

If I understand this correctly, this will be very VERY BAD NEWS to non-exclusives.

Their new royalty base level will be 15%!!!

For the current crappy 20% you should sell files for 1,400,000 credit (yes, over a million credits)

Please tell me this is just a bad dream...

dgilder · « **Reply #3 on:** September 07, 2010, 14:44 »

Yep, they'd have to sell 1.4M credits worth just to get back to 20%.

Perry · « **Reply #4 on:** September 07, 2010, 14:45 »

I just started to hate iStock.

They are a bunch of greedy a**holes.

gostwyck · « **Reply #5 on:** September 07, 2010, 14:48 »

Even exclusives are going to need to be sell about 4000 images per month to maintain the 40% rate.

Perry · « **Reply #6 on:** September 07, 2010, 14:49 »

And yet they dare to say:
"With that overriding objective, we wanted to produce a solution that:
- would not change most contributors' total compensation (except for the better)"

I think for most of the contributors this sucks big time.

15% must be the crappiest compensation ever, anywhere. it's so close to giving images for free.

This new royalty-bullcrap-structure was a great dissappointment...when I started to read the thing I thought I would get MORE than 20%...

dgilder · « **Reply #7 on:** September 07, 2010, 14:52 »

It depends on how many non-exculsive contributors they have, but yeah, this actually seems like less money for the vast majority of iStockers. Even if they had said more money for vast majority of exclusive I would still think that would be incorrect.

grp_photo · « **Reply #8 on:** September 07, 2010, 15:06 »

lol

Awesome news I really start to love istock 15% for more than 90% of the non-exclusives that is a new record - wow!
But it is good in general and good news for me prices go up I'm all for it. Istock will represent pictures from other agencies - great!
And one has to say it is much more fair to newer contributors for the old 2004-istock-woohay-exclusives it is a slap in the face - good :-)!

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #9 on:** September 07, 2010, 15:08 »

Like dgilder, after running some preliminary numbers this looks like it just massively delayed a 5% raise I was about to get for hitting the next cannister level.

I've been saying for a long time that more sites would start moving toward a performance based model. Where the people who make them the most credits/money are rewarded and poor performers are essentially discouraged through a less favorable compensation model.

ETA: It's a 5% delay in commission percentage (30 to 35%). But the increase from 30 to 35 is 16%. So as far as money in my pocket goes I've just been told the 16% raise I was going to get in a couple of months has just been delayed indefinately until I can ~~increase~~ double my sales volume. Which I plan to do but...

helix7 · « **Reply #10 on:** September 07, 2010, 15:13 »

Unless I'm misunderstanding this, I'll be earning 17% next year at istock.

20% was pretty low in the industry. Less than that is just a joke.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #11 on:** September 07, 2010, 15:14 »

And it's pretty clear this move is all Getty. The new Agency Collection will have Getty, Jupiter and Punchstock to tap into the massive Istock buyer base.

Oh, and notice the commission is 20-30%.

tsmarkley · « **Reply #12 on:** September 07, 2010, 15:16 »

We will continue to pay out royalties based on the value of the credit purchased. In the case of royalties from Subscription credits we are adjusting the minimum value of the subscription credit from $0.95 to $0.65.

And for those opted into the sub plan it only gets worse.

Perry · « **Reply #13 on:** September 07, 2010, 15:17 »

I just started a thread in a local designer's forum about the pay cut for non-exclusives and told them that if they want the photographer to get a more fair payment they should shop their images elsewhere; I also gave links to SS, DT and FT. (I wish SX would still exist...)
I Also mentioned Veer because I think they would like their attitude.

I wish some of you did the same, just to get people to understand that iStock/Getty are greedy *insult removed* that don't care if the photographer will be able to pay his/her bills.

LostOne · « **Reply #14 on:** September 07, 2010, 15:18 »

Quote from: helix7 on September 07, 2010, 15:13

Unless I'm misunderstanding this, I'll be earning 17% next year at istock.

20% was pretty low in the industry. Less than that is just a joke.

Me too. Was close to going exclusive, now I'm thinking about dropping IS altogether.

jsnover · « **Reply #15 on:** September 07, 2010, 15:20 »

Totally sucky news - can't see any upside except perhaps for the factories with huge volume.

helix7 · « **Reply #16 on:** September 07, 2010, 15:21 »

Quote from: Perry on September 07, 2010, 15:17

I just started a thread in a local designer's forum about the pay cut for non-exclusives and told them that if they want the photographer to get a more fair payment they should shop their images elsewhere; I also gave links to SS, DT and FT. (I wish SX would still exist...)

I stopped buying at istock recently. I'd encourage any designers around here who purchase stock images to do the same. There are plenty of sites around that pay a far rate to artists and in some cases they'll even save you money with lower overall prices. I'm throwing my support behind sites like GraphicLeftovers and Stockfresh.

skvoor · « **Reply #17 on:** September 07, 2010, 15:21 »

I will not accept 15% royalty rate. I will stop uploading to Istock and probably delete all my images.
This is too much..

Perry · « **Reply #18 on:** September 07, 2010, 15:22 »

-- /Double post/ --

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #19 on:** September 07, 2010, 15:22 »

Why do they bother to elaborate complicated royalty structures? It's a paycut. As simple as that.

FD · « **Reply #20 on:** September 07, 2010, 15:26 »

IS : "September, 2010: $3.05 royalties" - oh noooo! My "bizness model" is ruined.

This is really bad news. I think I will have to order a medium instead of a large monthly Frappuchino in Starbux on their behalf.

There is going to come a point where it all breaks down.

Kngkyle · « **Reply #21 on:** September 07, 2010, 15:28 »

This is bad. There really isn't anything positive about these changes, especially for independents.

Beach Bum · « **Reply #22 on:** September 07, 2010, 15:33 »

Wow! This is bad across the board.....exclusives and non-exclusives. A few months ago they enticed contributors to go exclusive with the guaranteed next level (total downloads) and now we're being hit with this. Glad I didn't make the jump, but I'm still getting a big cut.

Albert Martin · « **Reply #23 on:** September 07, 2010, 15:33 »

Screw...

I've told you that Getty will play with most of people there... It is just a start...

Very sad joke for non-exclusives there!

[ADDED] I always forget the most important thing: What is next? Shutterstock downing to $0.15 basic tier downloads?
HAHA!

disorderly · « **Reply #24 on:** September 07, 2010, 15:35 »

This is a giant fsck you to both independents and exclusives. A 20% royalty was bad enough, but at my level of sales I'm looking at a 20% reduction from that! Way to go, iStock. You finally found a way to outdo Fotolia in the greedy *insult removed* competition.