pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Love This By iStock On Video Production Cost  (Read 3855 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: May 19, 2014, 09:03 »
+3
I many times jump through hoops,hire models, hike long miles, pay for props and the list goes on. I really appreciate this video by iStock!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gE3hmnbzRc&list=UU3A-zX2ockfb5Fe73KCpQyg


« Reply #1 on: May 19, 2014, 09:07 »
+1
Is that supposed to convince photographers not to shoot video because of the high costs, or to show buyers that the "style and quality" of the typical IS video?  ;)

« Reply #2 on: May 19, 2014, 09:11 »
0
Hopefully Both :-)

Shelma1

« Reply #3 on: May 19, 2014, 09:44 »
+2
We grumble about tiny budgets for 30-second commercials...tiny being $250,000.

« Reply #4 on: May 19, 2014, 09:55 »
+10
Is that supposed to convince photographers not to shoot video because of the high costs, or to show buyers that the "style and quality" of the typical IS video?  ;)
I thought it was created as an argument for photographers who actually bear these cost to get a bigger percentage from agencies. Oh no hang on.......

« Reply #5 on: May 19, 2014, 12:04 »
+4
I guess they consider us all puppets?

ShadySue

« Reply #6 on: May 19, 2014, 12:08 »
+5
I guess they consider us all puppets?
Or muppets.

« Reply #7 on: May 19, 2014, 14:12 »
+4
Istock are masters in shooting themselves in the foot.

« Reply #8 on: May 19, 2014, 14:21 »
+4
I love the video! Really nice work!

Now they just have to accept their own logic and pay me 30% or more instead of 15%.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2014, 14:23 by cobalt »

Shelma1

« Reply #9 on: May 19, 2014, 14:26 »
0
In all fairness, we do shoot in Canada if we need to save money. Especially if we're shooting the ubiquitous businessman with a puppet scenario. Those puppeteers always want the big bucks and the most expensive bottled water.

($500 for a director? On what planet?)

EmberMike

« Reply #10 on: May 19, 2014, 16:07 »
+14

There's a certain irony in an agency promoting the high cost of quality stock content production while paying one of the worst percentages in the business to the contributors who foot the bill for productions like this.

« Reply #11 on: May 19, 2014, 16:34 »
+3

There's a certain irony in an agency promoting the high cost of quality stock content production while paying one of the worst percentages in the business to the contributors who foot the bill for productions like this.

Ironic for sure.  Totally outrageous in fact!

« Reply #12 on: May 19, 2014, 16:40 »
+3
Who are they kidding...that video is an insult.

OM

« Reply #13 on: May 19, 2014, 19:23 »
+5
Only confirms my suspicion that in any large, dysfunctional corporation, there are significant numbers of executives at various levels that have a screw loose. Did it not occur to anyone at iStock involved with this farce, that You Tube means 'public' and that their audience would partly consist of contributors who rightly feel insulted by the low commission rates they receive for producing 'expensive' footage. UFB wi' knobs on!

stockphoto-images.com

« Reply #14 on: May 20, 2014, 00:13 »
+4
Only confirms my suspicion that in any large, dysfunctional corporation, there are significant numbers of executives at various levels that have a screw loose. Did it not occur to anyone at iStock involved with this farce, that You Tube means 'public' and that their audience would partly consist of contributors who rightly feel insulted by the low commission rates they receive for producing 'expensive' footage. UFB wi' knobs on!
I agree. It's not a very successful approach to show off how we contributors all record with REDs and thousands of $$$ in props, locations, models and MUAs etc.

Microstock has pushed the limits on how to produce as cheap as possible. Otherwise there is not much money to be made.

I guess iStock didn't realize that yet... Wouldn't surprise me.

« Reply #15 on: May 20, 2014, 00:14 »
+6
iStock showing yet again how they are perfecting the art of alienating their contributor base.

« Reply #16 on: May 20, 2014, 17:52 »
0
This is just showing buyers that making a good video takes a lot of cash when stock could be a much more affordable way. I don't know why people are hard on iStock video "pictures" I understand" but on the video side I earn a good return on every sale!


« Reply #17 on: May 20, 2014, 17:56 »
+4
You are not getting 15% for a video sale.

i think istock has by far the lowest video royalty in the industry for indepedents.

The istock video team are absolutely lovely people, the royalties are not their fault.

But if istock paid out a normal industry standard of around 30% their work would be more appreciated.

« Reply #18 on: May 20, 2014, 23:36 »
+2
You are not getting 15% for a video sale.

i think istock has by far the lowest video royalty in the industry for indepedents.

The istock video team are absolutely lovely people, the royalties are not their fault.

But if istock paid out a normal industry standard of around 30% their work would be more appreciated.

I'm independent video and make $16 per sale at iStock and $21 per sale at SS. That's not that much different imo, both pretty good money-wise. And it looks like Shutterstock may pay out as low as 12% at the lowest level. They're both low for independents. Pond5 is by far the best in regards to rates of the biggies.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2014, 23:40 by asiseeit »

« Reply #19 on: May 21, 2014, 01:18 »
+2
...and the video itself is a retar_ded-concept-coupled-with-really-bad-taste type useless junk. bad acting, bad props, just bad everything.

Ron

« Reply #20 on: May 21, 2014, 01:35 »
+3
Thats a ridiculous ad. Basically admitting they pay next to nothing to contributors. So you spend 5000 dollar for making a video, and you can get it for less than a price of a puppet, meaning the contributor can get a cup of coffee for coughing up the 5 grand.

They have completely lost touch with reality, I would be pissed off if  I was submitting videos to istock.

« Reply #21 on: May 21, 2014, 01:50 »
0
May be they will raise the prices...  ;)

« Reply #22 on: May 21, 2014, 02:24 »
+1
For video the SS earnings schedule says I get a flat 30%

http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml

I dont see how I can get 12% this way?

pond5 is the better deal, I agree.

Didnt Fotolia have an extremely low royalty and then they raised it to 30%?

So I think istock can pay out more than 15%. Of course I am being realistic, so I am focussing on pond5 and SS. They have the best sales anyway.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2014, 02:28 by cobalt »

« Reply #23 on: May 21, 2014, 20:08 »
0
Istock is saying we need more puppets in our videos

« Reply #24 on: May 21, 2014, 23:03 »
0
For video the SS earnings schedule says I get a flat 30%

http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml

I dont see how I can get 12% this way?

pond5 is the better deal, I agree.

Didnt Fotolia have an extremely low royalty and then they raised it to 30%?

So I think istock can pay out more than 15%. Of course I am being realistic, so I am focussing on pond5 and SS. They have the best sales anyway.


Pond5 has been the better deal for quite a while. They seem able to make it work very well by paying a fair trade royalty of 50%.  Obviously with the other agencies we are leaving at least 20% on the table for no good reason!


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
3421 Views
Last post September 07, 2006, 06:57
by jjneff
14 Replies
2272 Views
Last post March 20, 2013, 19:35
by gillian vann
1 Replies
2665 Views
Last post May 16, 2013, 07:21
by Mantis
42 Replies
6329 Views
Last post June 11, 2015, 12:29
by robhainer
4 Replies
1279 Views
Last post June 18, 2015, 14:14
by Gannet77

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results