pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: istock update for non-exclusives  (Read 12643 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: March 22, 2013, 17:06 »
0
Im standing in  "only income" shoes, didnt like my normal job and im really on the edge with incomes...

And i rethinked it many times,  Ill risk and cut them loose slowly building income to replace their share elsewhere...even if i have to add some extra time. Ill organize something and produce more.

while building that way up ill be reducing  istocks share...

The day that extra share  matches my current istock income they will already be deleted...and replaced like they would replace me. Its business.

Im getting that share from places that i was never earning too much , filling portfolios on smaller sites, joining new with better deals  i never contributed, throwing few products on sites I have heavily neglected.

I worked some overtime on that last days and see some small  cash raise so i started deleting 1 or 2 files daily starting from the bottom , but houses are build from bottom up right?

 if my new income stops ill stop deleting until im able to rise it again.

For starters everyone can afford to delete few years old files that never sold...because who of us seriously believe will build their way up...


« Reply #76 on: March 22, 2013, 17:25 »
+3
My head is kind of still spinning.  Let me get this straight:

Newsletter:

To our exclusives: we love you and want to know what we can do improve our relationship

In the same newsletter:

To our exclusives: We cut your commission on Partner sales to 20%

Am I missing something here? Are they dyslexic?

Exclusives were already making 20% on Partner Sales.  Sad to see so many +'s for faulty information but hearing what you want is better than facts I guess?
Here is a link to the thread: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=352445&page=1
Here is the line in bold, like it is in the thread:  NOTE: Royalty rates for exclusive content will not change and will be paid at the standard 20% rate.


It was more of a question....than a fact.  Glad the 20% was clarified.  Feel free to give me a minus if you fee so compelled.

« Reply #77 on: March 22, 2013, 17:37 »
+4
We can't actually look at the pricing (what the buyer pays) of course, $1 sales are impossible for me since the lowest price is $10 when I go to the website but some buyers get discounts.  Lobo has said: " the fact that they will be licensing content at the Getty Images Standard RF pricing ".    I think the pricing(what is written on the website) will be the same but the discount unknown as is the case now.

Ok, you tell me what the "standard rf pricing" is.

« Reply #78 on: March 22, 2013, 17:54 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 15:01 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #79 on: March 22, 2013, 19:48 »
+3
Again. what is 'standard rf pricing'?  You don't know.  Could start at $20, could start at $50.  You don't know and you don't get to know.

« Reply #80 on: March 22, 2013, 19:59 »
+22
As far as I can tell and from what has been said (read what I quoted above, standard Getty pricing) this is just offering all Istock content to a small amount of buyers at the normal prices.  Big buyers might get a discount but I don't know how much, I've said what my average RPD is at Getty so I would expect about the same from this.  Getty Connect is a totally different model and I don't think it has any similarity to this deal at all.

To come into this without the ability to comment on the actual pricing details is just asking for trouble.  Look, it's hidden behind a log in.  You'll never know what the prices are, how big the discounts are, or anything.  All you'll know is you got $2 for a sale.
That's how the mirroring of Vetta, Agency and E+ already is, isn't it?  I don't see any additional problems coming from this, please correct me if I'm wrong.  I have some $1 Getty sales and some $80 sales but the average is higher than Istock.

Well, you're wrong because we can go look at the pricing of those.  You can't see the pricing of 360.
We can't actually look at the pricing (what the buyer pays) of course, $1 sales are impossible for me since the lowest price is $10 when I go to the website but some buyers get discounts.  Lobo has said: " the fact that they will be licensing content at the Getty Images Standard RF pricing ".    I think the pricing(what is written on the website) will be the same but the discount unknown as is the case now.

I really can't believe what a total c**k you are making of yourself here in defending what is so clearly against the interests of all contributors.

The proposition, when it happens, is that Getty will be selling an unknown variety of OUR images to unknown buyers, at an unknown price, at an unknown discount with, effectively, an unknown value to the OWNER OF THE CONTENT (and you don't actually have any real choice about it) with no possibility of said owner of content being able to check that sales are being reported. Good luck with that.

At least with any other of Getty/Istock sales we have the opportunity to become 'secret shoppers' in that we could actually club together and test whether sales are being reported properly. With the 'exclusive' nature of 'Getty 360' we can't even do that.

If Getty wanted to design a system by which they could effectively pay zero royalties, because there was no possibility that the content providers could actually track any sales, then this would be it.

« Reply #81 on: March 22, 2013, 20:26 »
-4
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 15:01 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #82 on: March 22, 2013, 20:39 »
-1
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 15:01 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #83 on: March 22, 2013, 20:41 »
+13
I really can't believe what a total c**k you are making of yourself here in defending what is so clearly against the interests of all contributors.
Real mature.

... and yet uncannily accurate.

wds

« Reply #84 on: March 22, 2013, 21:15 »
+2
Again. what is 'standard rf pricing'?  You don't know.  Could start at $20, could start at $50.  You don't know and you don't get to know.
Maybe I'm missing something here, are you saying as it is now there is no standard rf pricing so 'standard rf pricing' is a meaningless term?   Or are you saying you think they are lying and they'll change the pricing even though they seem to have said they won't?

"Standard RF pricing" is a vague term. if you go onto gettyimages.com there are stated price points ("list prices" if you will) for the images there and they vary by "collection" there is no absolute standard. With 360 you cannot even look at the actual "list prices" of the images because you have no access to the 360 website.

« Reply #85 on: March 22, 2013, 21:20 »
-3
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 15:01 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #86 on: March 22, 2013, 23:01 »
+4
"Standard RF pricing" is a vague term. if you go onto gettyimages.com there are stated price points ("list prices" if you will) for the images there and they vary by "collection" there is no absolute standard. With 360 you cannot even look at the actual "list prices" of the images because you have no access to the 360 website.

Thank you.  Apparently, I wasn't clear enough.


« Reply #87 on: March 22, 2013, 23:01 »
+7
Yeah I'm assuming we'll get that specific info sometime soon.

I'm guessing we won't.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #88 on: March 22, 2013, 23:20 »
+2
You were already making 20% on 'partner' sales.
But we could opt out before.
Glad their new spin doctor has fooled no-one, though.
Not really, all Vetta, Agency and E+ were automatically transferred and offered at 20%.  You could only "opt out" if you didn't have any of those file types.
That's what I meant. It was our choice whether or not to include files in any of these.

« Reply #89 on: March 22, 2013, 23:38 »
-3
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 15:00 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #90 on: March 23, 2013, 01:12 »
0
Video files and illustrations are going to getty360 as well. I wonder if that 1.50 video sale jjneff mentioned was already a getty360 sale.



From Lobo:

"There are no plans to include Editorial content to Getty 360.

(Edited on 2013-03-23 06:16:51 by Lobo)

And what about our Agency/Vetta/E+ files? Will these be available under the 360 umbrella? Sorry, I know I asked this before but I haven't seen a response to this yet so I'm not sure if it got lost in all the back n forth.

ALL Content(except editorial).

That means Photo, Vector, Video, Flash, and Audio. Again, not Editorial."
« Last Edit: March 23, 2013, 08:49 by cobalt »

« Reply #91 on: March 23, 2013, 09:58 »
+4
iStock buyers do not purchase photo licenses with dollars. They purchase them with 'Credits'.

iStock trained their contributors that 1 credit = 1 dollar. Nothing could be further from the truth. But that is the pricing model everyone seems to be using in this thread.

For years, iStock has sold credits at discounted prices to buyers. Everybody should know this already. This is why you sometimes make more on a small sale than on a medium sale. This is also why you sometimes see royalty amounts less than 10 - I've had some of those. The buyers paid vastly different prices for their credits. I just looked at my last two large sales. The royalties were $2.88 and $2.50 respectively at 15% royalty rate. The buyers paid 10 credits for each image which means (2.88.1510=) $1.92 and (2.50.1510=) $1.6667 per credit respectively. I'm sure most of you understand the arithmetic but I included it in case any readers might not. The lowest royalty I've seen was 7 meaning the buyer purchased the credit for only 47.

With that in mind, Lobo can say with a straight face that "The price points will not be lower than what is available via iStock". That's because there is no change to the number of credits buyers will pay.

But then he adds "I can't comment on the entire pricing piece at this time". Might this mean that it is the credit pricing that iStock is diddling with? It would make sense that Getty 360 is primarily a special deal for selected buyers to purchase cheaper credits - maybe another attempt to retain those buyers in the Getty family. This is all speculation on my part but that seems to have been the intention behind the no opt-out for the PP program.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2013, 10:08 by LesHoward »

« Reply #92 on: March 23, 2013, 10:09 »
+2
Getty doesn't use credits.

1 credit equals a dollar is good average look at it.  While discounts can go to $.50, credits also go for $1.50 .

« Reply #93 on: March 23, 2013, 10:15 »
-2
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 15:00 by Audi 5000 »

KB

« Reply #94 on: March 23, 2013, 10:38 »
0
Getty doesn't use credits.

1 credit equals a dollar is good average look at it.  While discounts can go to $.50, credits also go for $1.50 .
You have more info than most of us, isn't the average about $1.40?

I've been tracking that for my own sales. Over the last 14 months, the monthly average has ranged from $1.31 to $1.51, with the overall average being $1.42.

« Reply #95 on: March 23, 2013, 10:44 »
0
Getty doesn't use credits.

1 credit equals a dollar is good average look at it.  While discounts can go to $.50, credits also go for $1.50 .
You have more info than most of us, isn't the average about $1.40?

I don't worry about stuff like that.  I'm just saying that $1 a credit isn't too terribly far off.

mlwinphoto

« Reply #96 on: March 23, 2013, 11:41 »
+5
Getty has a House collection 'Premium Access' pricing structure for their high volume customers at which images are sold at (quite) a discount.  I would assume this is the same customer base that 360 is meant for and if 'Premium Access'-like discounts are applied to the 360 files then we'll be getting peanuts for our work. 

Correct me if I'm wrong....

« Reply #97 on: March 23, 2013, 12:16 »
0
Being relatively new to MSG I'm curious, do iStock staff ever come to MSG to explain/clarify certain items of interest? 

Many other MS sites staff come along from time to time to explain things and answer questions.  If someone from iStock would stop in to answer questions, it would go a long way with people. 

Too much to ask?

« Reply #98 on: March 23, 2013, 12:25 »
0
Being relatively new to MSG I'm curious, do iStock staff ever come to MSG to explain/clarify certain items of interest? 


Lobo comes across sometimes under the alias of pieman. You can see his posts from this link
http://www.microstockgroup.com/profile/?u=1063
« Last Edit: March 23, 2013, 12:29 by fotografer »

lisafx

« Reply #99 on: March 23, 2013, 12:45 »
+6
Being relatively new to MSG I'm curious, do iStock staff ever come to MSG to explain/clarify certain items of interest? 

Many other MS sites staff come along from time to time to explain things and answer questions.  If someone from iStock would stop in to answer questions, it would go a long way with people. 

Too much to ask?

I'm pretty sure at least one participant in this discussion is an Istock admin, but he/she mostly comes in to try and derail the discussions and create confusion, not answer questions or shed any real light on anything. 


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
1154 Views
Last post February 25, 2013, 10:29
by Pinocchio
50 Replies
8048 Views
Last post July 22, 2013, 13:52
by gclk
9 Replies
1384 Views
Last post August 19, 2014, 03:48
by qwerty
8 Replies
2312 Views
Last post December 27, 2014, 02:10
by Holmes
15 Replies
2986 Views
Last post November 30, 2015, 13:15
by landbysea

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors