Author Topic: 0.98c sale on iStock (Read 7160 times)

Nikd90 · « **on:** May 17, 2013, 09:29 »

Had my first sale from my 21 pic portfolio in iStock. It was for 0.98c. Is there a way to check how much was it actually sold? What is the normal payout? I thought iStock pays much more but looks like I was wrong

tickstock · « **Reply #1 on:** May 17, 2013, 09:34 »

ShadySue · « **Reply #2 on:** May 17, 2013, 09:37 »

Quote from: Nikd90 on May 17, 2013, 09:29

Had my first sale from my 21 pic portfolio in iStock. It was for 0.98c. Is there a way to check how much was it actually sold? What is the normal payout? I thought iStock pays much more but looks like I was wrong

There is no such thing as a 'normal payout'.
It depends on what size was sold (unlike certain other agencies) and how much was paid per credit, which can be as low as about 42c, for which you get 15%
Still, 98c is almost 4x more than a newbie gets for a sub sale at SS. OTOH, I have to warn you that you can get much lower sales than that on iS as an indie, as well as higher sales for larger size sales.
The actual credit prices can be extremely low because the bigger the bundle the less the buyer pays, and there are often discounts given, e.g. 10% for new buyers, 15% when there's an IT glitch etc.

dingles · « **Reply #3 on:** May 17, 2013, 09:42 »

My first image sale there was 8 cents...supposedly do to sales on credits or something...so 98 cents isn't bad. Problem with images is you need a lot to see any $$$.

gillian vann · « **Reply #4 on:** May 17, 2013, 18:26 »

when iS runs a promotion and discounts their credits, WE pay for the discount.

you just have to trust them to report correctly.

dingles · « **Reply #5 on:** May 17, 2013, 19:01 »

Quote from: gillian on May 17, 2013, 18:26

when iS runs a promotion and discounts their credits, WE pay for the discount. you just have to trust them to report correctly.

Yeah, aint that a bitch?

Nikd90 · « **Reply #6 on:** May 20, 2013, 10:04 »

Thought will put an update on the next sale that I had at iStock. So far the worst at 10c

tickstock · « **Reply #7 on:** May 20, 2013, 10:06 »

ShadySue · « **Reply #8 on:** May 20, 2013, 10:19 »

Quote from: Nikd90 on May 20, 2013, 10:04

Thought will put an update on the next sale that I had at iStock. So far the worst at 10c

Yeah, but what sale it?
On Saturday I had an XS VC Sub sale, which must be the lowest possible, (but probably not at the lowest credit value possible).
It's not a flat rate, unlike other sites. Size matters!

ShadySue · « **Reply #9 on:** May 20, 2013, 10:20 »

Quote from: tickstock on May 20, 2013, 10:06

Quote from: gillian on May 17, 2013, 18:26
when iS runs a promotion and discounts their credits, WE pay for the discount. you just have to trust them to report correctly.
You do realize that pretty much all the sites do that.

How many have so many technical foul-ups then punish the contributors with discounts (which are immediately disseminated all over the web) to make up for the foul-ups?

tickstock · « **Reply #10 on:** May 20, 2013, 10:41 »

ShadySue · « **Reply #11 on:** May 20, 2013, 10:48 »

Quote from: tickstock on May 20, 2013, 10:41

Quote from: ShadySue on May 20, 2013, 10:20
Quote from: tickstock on May 20, 2013, 10:06
Quote from: gillian on May 17, 2013, 18:26
when iS runs a promotion and discounts their credits, WE pay for the discount. you just have to trust them to report correctly.
You do realize that pretty much all the sites do that.

How many have so many technical foul-ups then punish the contributors with discounts (which are immediately disseminated all over the web) to make up for the foul-ups?
I don't really get that argument, even with the discounts Istock still gets the highest price for our images. A 10-15% discount for some buyers is still much better than other sites.

It's the moral argument: why should we pay for their foul-ups? They should absorb these discounts, even if not general promotions.

tickstock · « **Reply #12 on:** May 20, 2013, 10:59 »

ShadySue · « **Reply #13 on:** May 20, 2013, 11:34 »

Quote from: tickstock on May 20, 2013, 10:59

Quote from: ShadySue on May 20, 2013, 10:48
Quote from: tickstock on May 20, 2013, 10:41
Quote from: ShadySue on May 20, 2013, 10:20
Quote from: tickstock on May 20, 2013, 10:06
Quote from: gillian on May 17, 2013, 18:26
when iS runs a promotion and discounts their credits, WE pay for the discount. you just have to trust them to report correctly.
You do realize that pretty much all the sites do that.

How many have so many technical foul-ups then punish the contributors with discounts (which are immediately disseminated all over the web) to make up for the foul-ups?
I don't really get that argument, even with the discounts Istock still gets the highest price for our images. A 10-15% discount for some buyers is still much better than other sites.
It's the moral argument: why should we pay for their foul-ups? They should absorb these discounts, even if not general promotions.
Basically a discount just changes the price for the buyer. Offering a 10% discount doesn't really seem immoral to me. Is licensing an image for $30 immoral while licensing it for $33 moral? Would it be more morally good if they licensed the image for $36? I don't see this as a moral issue at all is what I'm saying.

We'll have to agree to differ.
The moral difference isn't on the licensing price, but on the fact we have to pay for their mistakes.

tickstock · « **Reply #14 on:** May 20, 2013, 11:44 »

ShadySue · « **Reply #15 on:** May 20, 2013, 11:55 »

Quote from: tickstock on May 20, 2013, 11:44

Quote from: ShadySue on May 20, 2013, 11:34
We'll have to agree to differ.
The moral difference isn't on the licensing price, but on the fact we have to pay for their mistakes.
The discount only affects the licensing price.

Which obviously affects our share of that price, i.e. we get a percentage of a lower buyer price. So we have lost out because they have fouled up.
I've always believed I should take full responsibility and penalty for my mistakes.

zoomyimages · « **Reply #16 on:** May 26, 2013, 03:50 »

iStocks payment system is confusing and misleading. Customers have noticed and are moving away from them. We have been signing up alot of iStock customers.

ShadySue · « **Reply #17 on:** May 26, 2013, 04:59 »

Quote from: zoomyimages on May 26, 2013, 03:50

iStocks payment system is confusing and misleading. Customers have noticed and are moving away from them. We have been signing up alot of iStock customers.

I wondered how you knew that, and assumed you were asking when they signed up which agency they'd been using previously and why they left them. However, I don't see that on your buyer sign-up form, so presumbably the "lot of" customers who have never been in a shop where anything from apples to shoes come at a huge price range have been emailling you to tell you.
Did they also tell you why they're signing up to you rather than e.g. Shutterstock, which has a simple pricing system and many more images?

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #18 on:** May 26, 2013, 05:11 »

Quote from: gillian on May 17, 2013, 18:26

when iS runs a promotion and discounts their credits, WE pay for the discount. you just have to trust them to report correctly.

No, actually. We pay whatever percentage of the discount matches our percentage royalty. In my case, iStock pays 83% of the discount and I pay 17%. If I were paying the whole discount, then any time they discounted by more than 17% I would actually have to give them money for licensing one of my pictures.

So the commission we are paid is calculated on the actual price of the sale, not on the price it would have been without a discount.

I would prefer iStock to pick up the entire bill for discounts offered as compensation for problems with its site (it's harder to make the case for bulk sale discounts) but I can understand why they think it is fair to spread the burden.

heywoody · « **Reply #19 on:** May 26, 2013, 05:33 »

Quote from: tickstock on May 20, 2013, 10:06

Quote from: gillian on May 17, 2013, 18:26
when iS runs a promotion and discounts their credits, WE pay for the discount. you just have to trust them to report correctly.

You do realize that pretty much all the sites do that.
From one of the Shutterstock investor calls:
Andre Sequin - RBC Capital Markets

"Great, thanks for taking my question. I was wondering how do you think about then the approach to pricing on your enterprise contracts? Do you feel you have to give them a pretty big discount and if so, are you able to flow any of that through to your contributors?"

Thilo Semmelbauer ( President and Chief Operating Officer of Shutterstock)

"And as our contributors are paid in percentage terms, if there are discounts that will flow through to the contributors as well but the higher price points flow through to the contributors. And actually we’re getting great feedback on what they’re starting to see in terms of their payouts, much higher dollar per images."

From Seeking Alpha
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1214061-shutterstock-s-ceo-discusses-q4-2012-results-earnings-call-transcript?page=6&p=qanda&l=last

Wrong. SS (and even FT) has different buyer pricing depending on volume but contributors are paid the same. The quote refers to “higher price points”, presumably SODs, which pay from a few bucks to $120 and that’s perfectly fine.

ShadySue · « **Reply #20 on:** May 26, 2013, 05:40 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 26, 2013, 05:11

I would prefer iStock to pick up the entire bill for discounts offered as compensation for problems with its site (it's harder to make the case for bulk sale discounts) but I can understand why they think it is fair to spread the burden.

I can't. Surely the money should be take from those who caused the problem in the first place, who implemented and quality checked it, or more likely whoever demanded a change and didn't give enough time for it to be implemented and/or QCd.
After all, if our work does't meet their quality standards, we don't get any chance to make money out of it.

tickstock · « **Reply #21 on:** May 27, 2013, 19:39 »

heywoody · « **Reply #22 on:** May 28, 2013, 17:10 »

The contributor gets the same amount for subs, on demand and ELs regardless of what the buyer pays (i.e everything on the normal pricelist). Single or other downloads are an exception where the individual price is negotiated with the buyer and, presumably, commission is a percentage of these "higher price points". FT is the same without the SOD element. On IS, DT & 123 the contributor cut is very variable and not at all transparent for non-sub downloads.

tickstock · « **Reply #23 on:** May 28, 2013, 17:22 »

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: 0.98c sale on iStock (Read 7160 times)

Nikd90

tickstock

ShadySue

dingles

gillian vann

dingles

Nikd90

tickstock

ShadySue

ShadySue

tickstock

ShadySue

tickstock

ShadySue

tickstock

ShadySue

zoomyimages

ShadySue

BaldricksTrousers

heywoody

ShadySue

tickstock

heywoody

tickstock

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors