MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: Photostocker on September 04, 2017, 04:48
-
Hi everybody!
I suggest that all of you contributors STOP uploading photos in iStock until they start to appreciate us.
They must pay us more like the old times! This is ridiculous!
And the quality of the service is SO BAAAAAAAD!!! >:(
-
They must pay us more like the old times! This is ridiculous!
What "old" times do you mean?
When I started contributing to iStock twelve years ago, I got 10c for every download. Now I get a lot more.
-
They must pay us more like the old times! This is ridiculous!
What "old" times do you mean?
When I started contributing to iStock twelve years ago, I got 10c for every download. Now I get a lot more.
Are you exclusive or non-exclusive?
-
"What "old" times do you mean?
When I started contributing to iStock twelve years ago, I got 10c for every download. Now I get a lot more/ a lot less depending on what they feel like giving me"
FTFY
-
To be fair, although they're a bunch of foetid dingoes' kidneys, my rpd is much higher than it was in 2007, but vastly lower than it was subsequently up to 2015, when they chose to join the race to the bottom.
However, downloads are far, fewer.
-
To be fair, although they're a bunch of foetid dingoes' kidneys, my rpd is much higher than it was in 2007, but vastly lower than it was subsequently up to 2015, when they chose to join the race to the bottom.
However, downloads are far, fewer.
But why now? What's changed? What has changed is how they report $$. Given the defection of artists, a highly probable defection of buyers, I can only conclude that the reporting was very inaccurate in the 'older days'. My personal evidence is that when this ESP reporting started in Jan I more than doubled to almost tripled my income from about $200 a month to $500-$600 a month with doing NOTHING. This happened only after they transitioned to the new reporting system, so it was quick, not gradual over time. Leads me to believe there either is or was very inaccurate reporting. I bet IS/GETTY would CR_AP their pink panties if their royalty system was audited for the last 10 years.
-
To be fair, although they're a bunch of foetid dingoes' kidneys, my rpd is much higher than it was in 2007, but vastly lower than it was subsequently up to 2015, when they chose to join the race to the bottom.
However, downloads are far, fewer.
But why now? What's changed? What has changed is how they report $$. Given the defection of artists, a highly probable defection of buyers, I can only conclude that the reporting was very inaccurate in the 'older days'. My personal evidence is that when this ESP reporting started in Jan I more than doubled to almost tripled my income from about $200 a month to $500-$600 a month with doing NOTHING. This happened only after they transitioned to the new reporting system, so it was quick, not gradual over time. Leads me to believe there either is or was very inaccurate reporting. I bet IS/GETTY would CR_AP their pink panties if their royalty system was audited for the last 10 years.
@mantia I think we are in a different series. My best month has been almost 14 000$ and after all the updates and messing in (2013-2016) up my income fell more than half to somewhere 3000$. Since 2014, I have uploaded photos ten times the amount it was in 2013 and mean thousands more photos...but my income is still only half of what it was at its best. SO THAT WHY iStock is crap COMPANY THESE DAYS...They wondered just how to get the best winnings for themselves!
-
14000 dollar per month ?? Holy cow. Thats insane. Is that correct?
-
They must pay us more like the old times! This is ridiculous!
What "old" times do you mean?
When I started contributing to iStock twelve years ago, I got 10c for every download. Now I get a lot more.
You're misremembering. By April 2004 the commission at iStock was 10c, 20, and 30c, depending on the size of image downloaded. What was good about those times was that almost anything got downloaded frequently, whereas now even outstanding images may not sell at all. But you knew that...
-
My personal evidence is that when this ESP reporting started in Jan I more than doubled to almost tripled my income from about $200 a month to $500-$600 a month with doing NOTHING. This happened only after they transitioned to the new reporting system, so it was quick, not gradual over time. Leads me to believe there either is or was very inaccurate reporting. I bet IS/GETTY would CR_AP their pink panties if their royalty system was audited for the last 10 years.
And my earnings slumped with the introduction of ESP.I have no idea what they are up to, but I don't bother uploading to them any more.
-
(http://www.whitcombe.org.uk/files/getty.PNG)
Yeah the new system is doing well....for them id guess not me!
-
My graph isn't the same shape as yours, but I was unhappy to see the big jump in PA sales in July. :(
Also, lest anyone think this isn't a gloom and doom post, I should point out that July '17 was 60.5% down on July 2012, and my worst July since 2007.
(http://www.lizworld.com/graph.jpg)
-
To be fair, although they're a bunch of foetid dingoes' kidneys, my rpd is much higher than it was in 2007, but vastly lower than it was subsequently up to 2015, when they chose to join the race to the bottom.
However, downloads are far, fewer.
But why now? What's changed? What has changed is how they report $$. Given the defection of artists, a highly probable defection of buyers, I can only conclude that the reporting was very inaccurate in the 'older days'. My personal evidence is that when this ESP reporting started in Jan I more than doubled to almost tripled my income from about $200 a month to $500-$600 a month with doing NOTHING. This happened only after they transitioned to the new reporting system, so it was quick, not gradual over time. Leads me to believe there either is or was very inaccurate reporting. I bet IS/GETTY would CR_AP their pink panties if their royalty system was audited for the last 10 years.
All in, class action suit, I'm for it. Make them tell the truth.
-
They must pay us more like the old times! This is ridiculous!
What "old" times do you mean?
When I started contributing to iStock twelve years ago, I got 10c for every download. Now I get a lot more.
Then you would be happy with sales like these? Under 10c per download. Why do you defend Getty when it's obvious that they have been lowering our earnings and finding new ways to lower commissions, every year.
Regular 2017-07 7/18/2017 0.09450 15% 0.63000 Photo iStock Essentials Premium Access Time Limited Getty US Illinois
Regular 2017-04 3/30/2017 0.08480 15% 0.56536 Photo iStock Essentials iStock Subscription iStock non-US France
Regular 2017-04 4/10/2017 0.08175 15% 0.54498 Photo iStock Essentials iStock Subscription iStock non-US Germany
Regular 2017-04 3/20/2017 0.07950 15% 0.53000 Photo iStock Essentials iStock Subscription iStock non-US Argentina
Regular 2017-01 1/17/2017 0.07539 15% 0.50262 Photo iStock Essentials iStock Subscription iStock non-US India
Regular 2017-01 1/18/2017 0.07539 15% 0.50262 Photo iStock Essentials iStock Subscription iStock non-US India
Regular 2017-02 1/24/2017 0.06300 15% 0.42000 Photo iStock Essentials iStock Subscription iStock non-US Mexico
Regular 2017-04 3/18/2017 0.05760 15% 0.38402 Photo iStock Essentials iStock Subscription iStock non-US Netherlands
Regular 2017-07 6/26/2017 0.04203 15% 0.28017 Photo iStock Essentials iStock Subscription iStock non-US Italy
Regular 2017-04 3/23/2017 0.04050 15% 0.27000 Photo iStock Essentials iStock Subscription iStock US Florida
Regular 2017-04 4/8/2017 0.03972 15% 0.26480 Photo iStockphoto RF Image Partner Portal non-US China
-
Then you would be happy with sales like these? Under 10c per download. Why do you defend Getty when it's obvious that they have been lowering our earnings and finding new ways to lower commissions, every year.
To add to the "Sub-10c" league, I regularly get 1.5-2.5c downloads. That's right, it's 0.015-0.025 bucks' download. How many of such downloads? At least 10% of all dls I get at iStock.
I quietly moaned and grumped and chuckled over iStock's mishaps and horrible downs since December 2016, but nevertheless always had them on first place in terms of revenue, even SS and FT didn't quite reach them. Until this year when I had already three months whereby SS and FT individually overtook IS. Coupled with terrible feedback vis-a-vis contributors, humiliating 1.5-2.5c royalties and plummeting revenues month after month, I can easily see myself making a new year's resolution for 2018 regarding iStock...
-
0.005$
-
0.005$
Actually, if you check, it's not 0.005, your gross royalty is actually 0.00081
These technically aren't downloads, they're views, but I still don't understand how it works. :-[ (Don't bother trying to explain it; like cryptocurrency, my brain can't cope with it!)
This month, all my Connect 'views' are "Worldwide right to display and use the Metadata in connection with the Pinterest Platform and services." and netted me $0.00108 each (sic)
-
0.005$
These technically aren't downloads, they're views, but I still don't understand how it works. :-[ (Don't bother trying to explain it; like cryptocurrency, my brain can't cope with it!)
This month, all my Connect 'views' are "Worldwide right to display and use the Metadata in connection with the Pinterest Platform and services." and netted me $0.00108 each (sic)
Precisely.
They are like "pay per view". Still, it's bs.
-
0.005$
These technically aren't downloads, they're views, but I still don't understand how it works. :-[ (Don't bother trying to explain it; like cryptocurrency, my brain can't cope with it!)
This month, all my Connect 'views' are "Worldwide right to display and use the Metadata in connection with the Pinterest Platform and services." and netted me $0.00108 each (sic)
Precisely.
They are like "pay per view". Still, it's bs.
That's why I didn't list the views or negative numbers. Just real commissions under 10 cents. They are non-us partners except the one from FL and the time limited from Getty. This is wrong.
-
I actually like iStock allot. I make $1,70 per image per month. That is higher than SS with $1,55 for last month. But SS went down since last November. Before November it was $1,90. In my experience iStock has been stable and growing since 2013 when I joined them and sales have only gone up for me since ESP started.
-
Momma Getty seems to be adjusting their commissions again. I haven't paid to read the article and I haven't run across other outside news sources. So what does this headline really mean?
https://www.selling-stock.com/Article/getty-cuts-royalties-again (https://www.selling-stock.com/Article/getty-cuts-royalties-again)
-
How am I doing?
-
Momma Getty seems to be adjusting their commissions again. I haven't paid to read the article and I haven't run across other outside news sources. So what does this headline really mean?
https://www.selling-stock.com/Article/getty-cuts-royalties-again (https://www.selling-stock.com/Article/getty-cuts-royalties-again)
I'm curious, but not enough to spend money to access the article. "According to sources" means nothing, and it says that Getty has reduced commissions. If they have done it already without telling us, they are in breach of contract. Whatever, spending money on credits to read the article won't change anything.
-
[
Then you would be happy with sales like these? Under 10c per download. Why do you defend Getty when it's obvious that they have been lowering our earnings and finding new ways to lower commissions, every year.
Low commissions from Premium Access actually value the images more highly than standard RF sales.
In a standard RF sale, you get a few dollars for selling the right to use the image basically for infinity.
In a Premium Access/pay per view you get a few cents for allowing a customer to use the image for a short period.
I'm quite happy with this. It's a good application of the principle of price discrimination. Sensible marketing to maximise income.
Returns on microstock are falling. That's due to market forces. Chill out. You can't do anything. The tiny commissions from PA/pay per view are actually a way of making you more money than you would have anyway
Would I like higher commissions? Of course. But it ain't gonna happen, is it? The trend is clear. You may not like it, but you can't stop it. So accept it, and stop stressing yourself out.
-
According to the little subtext, it says that everyone now gets only 15% instead of 20, not just the non exclusive istock artists.
So you submit exclusive content to getty and only get 15%. If you are supplying getty via a third party, then you only get a percentag from the 15%.
For instance Eyeem splits their getty earnings 50% with their photographers. This would mean we will only get 7,5% going forward.
-
You're misremembering. By April 2004 the commission at iStock was 10c, 20, and 30c, depending on the size of image downloaded. What was good about those times was that almost anything got downloaded frequently, whereas now even outstanding images may not sell at all. But you knew that...
True. But in those days the resolution of my camera was only enough for the 10c size.
And yes, you're right, any old crap would sell. But a handful of my best-selling images from more than a decade ago (shot on film) are still downloaded at least once a month.
-
I actually like iStock allot. I make $1,70 per image per month. That is higher than SS with $1,55 for last month. But SS went down since last November. Before November it was $1,90. In my experience iStock has been stable and growing since 2013 when I joined them and sales have only gone up for me since ESP started.
I have to admit that iStock outperformed itself, in August. My RPD was $0.96, the highest ever. It was even higher than Fotolia's ($0.95 in August). However, it is still significantly less than my $1.33 on Shutterstock, for August.
Even so, I firmly believe that August is just and exception for them, since my 2017 iStock average RPD is only $0.78. And it hurts to see a bunch sales earning only 5, 6, 7 or 8 cents/sale
This is why I DON'T like iStock, I also firmly believe that it is in our best interest to see as many customers as possible switching away from iStock, towards any of the other "Big 4, 5 or 6" agencies
-
In a Premium Access/pay per view you get a few cents for allowing a customer to use the image for a short period.
Hmmm - where do you see 'short period', the licence says 'time limited', but it doesn't specify how long, so we don't know what timespan they got.
"Generous Usage Rights
A wide range of rights and few restrictions means you can use our content in almost any way, worry-free. Use our content with:
Unlimited users
Product packaging
Advertising and marketing
TV and film
Non-profit, business or commercial projects
Apps, websites and social media
Presentations, newspapers, magazines and books"
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/resources/premiumaccess#rights (http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/resources/premiumaccess#rights)
"Premium access offers stress free licensing so that there's no need to worry about the fine print" (scary re editorial)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDS4rLFG148&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDS4rLFG148&feature=youtu.be) 1.48
Also it has never been denied that via Premium Access we really can't tell what percentage we're being paid.
-
I haven't had any communication that the Getty commission rate is going to drop from 20 to 15%, which is a major 25% reduction in royalties.
I'm assuming they'd tell the artists first before a stock news site. Perhaps it's just for photographers who supply them with pictures from phone or similar 'non-traditional' methods.
-
In a Premium Access/pay per view you get a few cents for allowing a customer to use the image for a short period.
Hmmm - where do you see 'short period', the licence says 'time limited', but it doesn't specify how long, so we don't know what timespan they got.
"Generous Usage Rights
A wide range of rights and few restrictions means you can use our content in almost any way, worry-free. Use our content with:
Unlimited users
Product packaging
Advertising and marketing
TV and film
Non-profit, business or commercial projects
Apps, websites and social media
Presentations, newspapers, magazines and books"
[url]http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/resources/premiumaccess#rights[/url] ([url]http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/resources/premiumaccess#rights[/url])
"Premium access offers stress free licensing so that there's no need to worry about the fine print" (scary re editorial)
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDS4rLFG148&feature=youtu.be[/url] ([url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDS4rLFG148&feature=youtu.be[/url]) 1.48
Also it has never been denied that via Premium Access we really can't tell what percentage we're being paid.
1) Time limited is short compared to the right to use forever.
2) How are the other conditions different to traditional RF?
-
Unlimited users is different - in non-premium access, an EL must be bought for multiple users.
-
Yes, RPD is moving up, but sales are 1/4 of last year. Lets talk money in the bank and dollars? Dismal, dire, disaster, horrible. Don't quote some empty stat when I know my actual earnings are down to almost nothing.
-
what i see is that stock has a 0,75 rpd...better than folia not far from ss...what i like is that stock seems really seeing a lot of new content...for me is very good cause I'm uploading much better and more stock oriented content than in the past.
SS instead sell much more than any other agency, but mostly content uploaded in the past or till end 2016...evey stuff uploaded after 2016 sell very seldom or at all...
I hope ss change algorithm and eliminate the Best search because i have the impression that most stuff is sold through best images, so if u have files up the best u keep selling mining any hope to increase earning through new files.
-
for all people: Getty will pay 15% for images Distributors like Blend, Eyeem, Westend61, Imagesource... time ago Getty paid 30-25-22-20% for split agencies and contributors in not exclusive images (images that sell in offset, infinite, alamy...)
Contributors continue with amazing 20% with exclusives collections (e+ for istock signature plus exclusives or moment for direct indi contributors)