MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: jjneff on May 19, 2014, 09:03
-
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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gE3hmnbzRc&list=UU3A-zX2ockfb5Fe73KCpQyg)
-
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? ;)
-
Hopefully Both :-)
-
We grumble about tiny budgets for 30-second commercials...tiny being $250,000.
-
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.......
-
I guess they consider us all puppets?
-
I guess they consider us all puppets?
Or muppets.
-
Istock are masters in shooting themselves in the foot.
-
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%.
-
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?)
-
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.
-
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!
-
Who are they kidding...that video is an insult.
-
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!
-
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.
-
iStock showing yet again how they are perfecting the art of alienating their contributor base.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/what-does-shutterstock-actually-pay-out-i've-figured-it-out!/msg268989/#msg268989). They're both low for independents. Pond5 is by far the best in regards to rates of the biggies.
-
...and the video itself is a retar_ded-concept-coupled-with-really-bad-taste type useless junk. bad acting, bad props, just bad everything.
-
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.
-
May be they will raise the prices... ;)
-
For video the SS earnings schedule says I get a flat 30%
http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml (http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml)
I donīt see how I can get 12% this way?
pond5 is the better deal, I agree.
Didnīt 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.
-
Istock is saying we need more puppets in our videos
-
For video the SS earnings schedule says I get a flat 30%
[url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml[/url])
I donīt see how I can get 12% this way?
pond5 is the better deal, I agree.
Didnīt 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!
-
Istock is saying we need more puppets in our videos
More puppets in the videos and more muppets to make 'em. ;)