Author Topic: History of royalties to authors. (Read 1585 times)

Neo-Leo · « **on:** June 21, 2024, 17:25 »

It would be interesting to know the history of why exactly these royalty percentages have taken hold in the stock image industry. Where did these numbers come from?

I'm curious to know where the idea of 15-30% royalties to authors in the stock industry came from in the first place? And why other areas have completely different numbers.
The biggest example is Apple: In-app subscriptions were originally introduced for magazines, newspapers and music apps in February 2011, giving developers 70% of revenue earned and Apple 30%. And Apple even had to prove in court that 30% is not much. Why isn't it like that in the image stock industry?

Another example. Sotheby's commission rate is only 10%.

Why don't we get 70%? Why has 30% become the norm in our industry? Why is it that Apple can take 30% for itself and the whole world thinks it's a big percentage and Adobe Stock can take 70% and it's fine for everyone.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #1 on:** June 22, 2024, 08:02 »

You might as well compare potato farming to stock imagery licensing - they're not comparable markets, development/production situations or relative power situations.

Have a read about the history of stock photography if you want to learn more. If you want better returns for your work, then you need to figure out how to change the power imbalance between the agencies and the huge army of unorganized, uncoordinated contributors.

https://www.alamy.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-stock-photography

https://www.selling-stock.com/Article/history-of-the-stock-photo-industry-0

https://blog.icons8.com/articles/great-collections-collection-everything-brief-history-stock-photography/

https://www.selling-stock.com/Article/future-of-stock-photography

https://www.all-about-photo.com/photo-articles/photo-article/734/stock-photography-then-and-now-the-rise-of-a-new-aesthetic

https://www.thephotoargus.com/the-past-and-future-of-stock-photography/

cobalt · « **Reply #2 on:** June 22, 2024, 10:23 »

there are many agencies out there that pay a lot more, some even payout 90%

the only problem - they have no sales…

for apple the main money comes from selling hardware, they can easily afford to payout a lot, their margin and sales success allows that.

selling stock content is hard work, you need a large team to inspect files, you need a legal team who keeps everyone up to date with trends, you need a customer service team to deal with customer requests, you need a research and trends team and most important you need a sales team.

and good sales people cost a lot of money.

there is a huge machine needed to keep an agency running smoothly.

nobody is forcing you to sell for 10 cents or 15%.

you can always sell directly and charge whatever you want or work with the 90% agencies.

you are not a victim. none of us are.

if you can create content for apple and earn 70%, just do that.

WendyT · « **Reply #3 on:** June 22, 2024, 18:37 »

There is a big difference between submitting something to an auction site, them selling and then skimming their commission off the sale price and us submitting to an agency. The auction is a once off scenario, payment for services rendered. The Agency has a long term commitment. Just because their income is 70% to 85% does not make that amount profit. There are a lot of expenses that come out of that income, including but not exclusive, insurance, IT equipment, Software, various personnel that have to be paid, utilities etc (the list goes on), and last but not least the shareholders who provide income for the growth of the company but expect something in return (dividends). All this cuts into the income received. They are probably doing well to get 15% profit. The reality is that after you expend time and resources on your images/video etc, you submit to an agency and then you let them do all the work .... that is what you are paying them for.

I knew an author way back who had a very successful book, we knew how much the book cost to buy (approximately $30), he then said he made 20c royalty per book. This was way less than 15%. But just like us and stock images he did not have to do the work once it was in the hands of the publisher.

If you feel that the compensation is not worth the effort then this profession is probably not for you.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: History of royalties to authors. (Read 1585 times)

Neo-Leo

Jo Ann Snover

cobalt

WendyT

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors