MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Query re: minimum commission levels  (Read 1046 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: April 01, 2020, 16:21 »
0
Hi!

Is there a list anywhere of minimum commission levels at different agencies?  I currently sell quite a lot with Shutterstock, and also quite a few with Adobe & Alamy and am thinking of trying one or two others. I have been accepted with iStock, so may try that - but then found an article with someone saying that they had commission of just 2-4c on some photos.  I feel that's too low to be worthwhile, and so am now wondering whether to get started with them or not.  With Shutterstock I sell a lot at 25c, which is also the lowest amount (also quite a few at $1.88 and a few other prices). Adobe seems to state a minimum of 33c - although I generally get more per image, and Alamy has averaged vastly more.

If anyone can let me know what iStock (non-exclusive) generally pays per image and if there are some very low commission options, are these common.  Or for any other agency I may try.

Thanks for your time.


Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #1 on: April 02, 2020, 14:07 »
0
Hi!

Is there a list anywhere of minimum commission levels at different agencies?  I currently sell quite a lot with Shutterstock, and also quite a few with Adobe & Alamy and am thinking of trying one or two others. I have been accepted with iStock, so may try that - but then found an article with someone saying that they had commission of just 2-4c on some photos.  I feel that's too low to be worthwhile, and so am now wondering whether to get started with them or not.  With Shutterstock I sell a lot at 25c, which is also the lowest amount (also quite a few at $1.88 and a few other prices). Adobe seems to state a minimum of 33c - although I generally get more per image, and Alamy has averaged vastly more.

If anyone can let me know what iStock (non-exclusive) generally pays per image and if there are some very low commission options, are these common.  Or for any other agency I may try.

Thanks for your time.

iStock 15% of what they charge, for independent photo, 20% for illustration (raster or vector), there is no minimum commission, only a percentage.

commission  0.00062   15%   they charged the customer  0.00416   Image   iStockphoto   Price Per Image   "Getty"   US   "California"

Maybe that's unfair, how about this one?
Commission  0.04873   15%   sold for 0.32488   Image   iStock Essentials   iStock Subscription   "iStock"   non-US   "India"

That's 4.873 cents

This year I have had better (HA!  ::) ) 13, 19, 18

If you are willing, like I am, to take what falls on me and ignore these low commissions, that's a choice. I buy one bottle of expensive scotch a year with the one payment a year, which is what I get on average, from Getty/iStock.

« Reply #2 on: April 03, 2020, 06:27 »
0
Thanks Uncle Pete!  Appreciate your time.  I may try putting just a few up, to see how labour intensive it is to submit previously keyworded photos, and what needs doing once uploading - if there are super keywords / other things to do. If it's low work, then I guess that the low commission doesn't matter as much.  Personally, I do prefer the agencies that have a specific minimum amount, not just a percent. 

« Reply #3 on: April 03, 2020, 07:54 »
0

If anyone can let me know what iStock (non-exclusive) generally pays per image and if there are some very low commission options, are these common.  Or for any other agency I may try.

Thanks for your time.

Speaking for myself here: I see little difference in RPD between Shutterstock and iStock for the past year. Yes, iStock is giving away some images practically for free, leaving you with horrible 2$c commissions, but I also have a higher volume of bigger sales than I have at Shutterstock, so it more or less levels out. Yeah, I'm still with them, despite their respectless attitude to contributors. After all, they're my second best performing agency after Shutterstock. 

If RPD is important, Adobe Stock does way better, but keep in mind that they don't take editorials from most of us.
Dreamstime's RDP is also better, but low sales volume, so for starters it will probably take ages to reach that stiff 100$ payout threshold.
Alamy has a great RPD ratio, but for me, sales became are so scarce there I don't even bother to check them anymore. I just wait for a nice surprise to hit me.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #4 on: April 03, 2020, 09:08 »
0

If anyone can let me know what iStock (non-exclusive) generally pays per image and if there are some very low commission options, are these common.  Or for any other agency I may try.

Thanks for your time.

Speaking for myself here: I see little difference in RPD between Shutterstock and iStock for the past year. Yes, iStock is giving away some images practically for free, leaving you with horrible 2$c commissions, but I also have a higher volume of bigger sales than I have at Shutterstock, so it more or less levels out. Yeah, I'm still with them, despite their respectless attitude to contributors. After all, they're my second best performing agency after Shutterstock. 

If RPD is important, Adobe Stock does way better, but keep in mind that they don't take editorials from most of us.
Dreamstime's RDP is also better, but low sales volume, so for starters it will probably take ages to reach that stiff 100$ payout threshold.
Alamy has a great RPD ratio, but for me, sales became are so scarce there I don't even bother to check them anymore. I just wait for a nice surprise to hit me.

Yes to all of that, except my RPD on IS is lower than SS, otherwise, pretty much the same. Especially the parts about better RPD but less downloads, so less income.

Since I'm 85% Editorial, that can make a big difference in my experiences and yours, or anyone else. Plus I don't do video.

« Reply #5 on: April 03, 2020, 10:53 »
+2
You don't really want to know the lowest commission on iStock :)

It is 0.01$

« Reply #6 on: April 03, 2020, 11:47 »
0
You don't really want to know the lowest commission on iStock :)

It is 0.01$

You triggered me to check again. Holy moly. I have some 0,00062$ (no typo) commissions.
Lots actually. Wasn't even aware.
And looking at my precious lowest commissions, all of them, without exception, are coming from territory California.
Guys! What's up there?

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #7 on: April 04, 2020, 07:46 »
+1
You don't really want to know the lowest commission on iStock :)

It is 0.01$

You triggered me to check again. Holy moly. I have some 0,00062$ (no typo) commissions.
Lots actually. Wasn't even aware.
And looking at my precious lowest commissions, all of them, without exception, are coming from territory California.
Guys! What's up there?

True, .01 is not the lowest, I have those 0.00062 commissions also.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #8 on: April 04, 2020, 07:54 »
+1
You don't really want to know the lowest commission on iStock :)

It is 0.01$

You triggered me to check again. Holy moly. I have some 0,00062$ (no typo) commissions.
Lots actually. Wasn't even aware.
And looking at my precious lowest commissions, all of them, without exception, are coming from territory California.
Guys! What's up there?
These are Getty Connect, which is a sort of pay-per-view scheme I can't get much info about. Best is to go to Contributor Community > Help > type Connect into the search box.

« Reply #9 on: April 04, 2020, 10:16 »
+1
Thanks for the new replies.  It's helpful to know there are also higher commissions from them too.

If the very low fees are from Connect, then I found this article: https://www.fastcompany.com/1817835/connect-getty-images-leaps-21st-century [nofollow]

It sounds like someone doesn't buy your image, but has Getty (presumably iStock) images relevant to the keywords they put in automatically displaying?  So I could interpret that as a way around buying a specific image (negative), or interpret it as the site wouldn't have purchased an image anyway so this virtually free commission isn't actually a payment (more neutral).

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #10 on: April 04, 2020, 16:04 »
0
It sounds like someone doesn't buy your image, but has Getty (presumably iStock) images relevant to the keywords they put in automatically displaying?  So I could interpret that as a way around buying a specific image (negative), or interpret it as the site wouldn't have purchased an image anyway so this virtually free commission isn't actually a payment (more neutral).
You can interpret it how you like! I have had a few reaching payments, but most don't net us anything, as they need to make at least a cent from one photo in a calendar month for us to get anything, it doesn't get carried forward or aggregated. In Feb my gross total for Connect was 5c, which Getty got to keep. Wonder how much they get altogether with us hardly getting a cent. So IMO it's disingenuous for Craig Peters to say, " Its a good thing for the business, for the copyright owners, and ultimately the photographers" - because what difference has it made to me that the pics weren't just stolen?
« Last Edit: April 04, 2020, 19:14 by ShadySue »

« Reply #11 on: April 04, 2020, 21:08 »
0
I was shocked to see how many of those micro commissions show up.  When I looked into it, it seemed they were mostly from Pinterest - I assume when one of our images gets added to someone's collection then we get the micro commission every time it is viewed.  But like Sue said we only get something if they add up to over 1 cent, and there aren't many of those so basically a waste of time.  They really should let us opt out of that kind of nonsense or make the rate high enough so that we benefit.

« Reply #12 on: April 05, 2020, 02:52 »
0
It sounds like someone doesn't buy your image, but has Getty (presumably iStock) images relevant to the keywords they put in automatically displaying?  So I could interpret that as a way around buying a specific image (negative), or interpret it as the site wouldn't have purchased an image anyway so this virtually free commission isn't actually a payment (more neutral).
You can interpret it how you like! I have had a few reaching payments, but most don't net us anything, as they need to make at least a cent from one photo in a calendar month for us to get anything, it doesn't get carried forward or aggregated. In Feb my gross total for Connect was 5c, which Getty got to keep. Wonder how much they get altogether with us hardly getting a cent. So IMO it's disingenuous for Craig Peters to say, " Its a good thing for the business, for the copyright owners, and ultimately the photographers" - because what difference has it made to me that the pics weren't just stolen?

The only possible benefit for the photographers I can see is the extra exposure you get of a low resolution version your image being shared on social media platforms like Pinterest. It might reach someone that way who actually wants to license it. That would, ideally, require a link to the image on iStock and I suppose that's not happening. Apart from that, it's a take the money and run dick move from Getty.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #13 on: April 05, 2020, 11:23 »
0
It sounds like someone doesn't buy your image, but has Getty (presumably iStock) images relevant to the keywords they put in automatically displaying?  So I could interpret that as a way around buying a specific image (negative), or interpret it as the site wouldn't have purchased an image anyway so this virtually free commission isn't actually a payment (more neutral).
You can interpret it how you like! I have had a few reaching payments, but most don't net us anything, as they need to make at least a cent from one photo in a calendar month for us to get anything, it doesn't get carried forward or aggregated. In Feb my gross total for Connect was 5c, which Getty got to keep. Wonder how much they get altogether with us hardly getting a cent. So IMO it's disingenuous for Craig Peters to say, " Its a good thing for the business, for the copyright owners, and ultimately the photographers" - because what difference has it made to me that the pics weren't just stolen?

The only possible benefit for the photographers I can see is the extra exposure you get of a low resolution version your image being shared on social media platforms like Pinterest. It might reach someone that way who actually wants to license it. That would, ideally, require a link to the image on iStock and I suppose that's not happening. Apart from that, it's a take the money and run dick move from Getty.

Good reading, thanks, but doesn't address, what do we get paid?  :)  https://www.fastcompany.com/1817835/connect-getty-images-leaps-21st-century

I think at the time in 2012 there was a contributor protest and no opt out and some people responded by pulling images from iStock, rather than have them used via API links on other sites.

So lets see, I'm getting "exposure", is that it. LOL  :(



As far as I see this, we are paid. Feb 2020 connect sales.

« Last Edit: April 05, 2020, 11:37 by Uncle Pete »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
2468 Views
Last post March 17, 2011, 02:31
by oxman
4 Replies
1948 Views
Last post September 18, 2011, 11:39
by Jo Ann Snover
6 Replies
2819 Views
Last post July 03, 2016, 11:21
by KnowYourOnions
93 Replies
13367 Views
Last post October 04, 2018, 12:31
by MatHayward
4 Replies
1174 Views
Last post October 14, 2019, 10:56
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle