MicrostockGroup
Macro Stock / Midstock => General Macrostock => Topic started by: leaf on November 29, 2011, 09:39
-
Following the sweep of recent cuts (on iStock) Getty is doing the same and cutting Editorial comissions to a flat 35% accross the board. Previously the rate was 35% for some sales and 50% for others.
I can't imagine being a photographer currently getting 50% for most of my sales being cut down to 35%.
According to PDN (http://pdnpulse.com/2011/11/getty-cuts-pay-for-editorial-contributors.html), this move was to allow Getty to sell images for cheaper yet suffer little loss (ie, pass it on to the photograhpers). The photographers, well... looks like they get the short end of the stick again. I wonder how many are not going to sign the new contract, which they have 30 days to decide upon in a take it or leave it deal.
As an example.
Before
Gross Sale: $100
Getty $50
Photographer $50
After
Gross Sale: $50
Getty: 32.5
Photographer: $17.5
Or in other words, Getting can now sell their photos for $77 instead of $100 and still get the same amount in their pockets.
http://pdnpulse.com/2011/11/getty-cuts-pay-for-editorial-contributors.html (http://pdnpulse.com/2011/11/getty-cuts-pay-for-editorial-contributors.html)
http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2011/11/28/getty-cuts-pay-for-editorial-contributors/ (http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2011/11/28/getty-cuts-pay-for-editorial-contributors/)
-
Mathematically, it is the same as going from 20% to 14%, which is pretty much what they did to indies on iS. If you take account of the fact that some sales were already at that level, it might be more like going from 20% to 16% or 17% which, I suppose, is the sort of loss that they have determined most photographers will swallow.
I suppose our basic problem is that since we have already done the work against the hope of future payment, it becomes difficult to say we would rather take nothing at all than accept a less than we expected. Psychology is always on Getty's side.
-
Mathematically, it is the same as going from 20% to 14%, which is pretty much what they did to indies on iS. If you take account of the fact that some sales were already at that level, it might be more like going from 20% to 16% or 17% which, I suppose, is the sort of loss that they have determined most photographers will swallow.
I suppose our basic problem is that since we have already done the work against the hope of future payment, it becomes difficult to say we would rather take nothing at all than accept a less than we expected. Psychology is always on Getty's side.
I suspect that they are trying to get to a blended rate of 20% on IS down form the blended rate of 28%
that would be a hefty increase to net margin
as in if the net margin is 8%, doing nothing but dropping the blended payout from 28% to 20% doubles your net margin
simplistic example
2008
total cost of sales 64%
blended contributor 28%
margin 8%
2011
total cost of sales 64%
blended contributor 20%
margin 16%
or if they managed cost of sales tightly
2011
total cost of sales 56%
blended contributor 20%
margin 24%