Author Topic: December stats are up (Read 6314 times)

WendyT · « **Reply #25 on:** January 19, 2025, 17:48 »

Quote from: Stockhome Syndrome on January 19, 2025, 14:32

I'm new to using DeepMeta for iStock/Getty. What are "connect" downloads, and why does iStock seperate them in the TXT reports?

From what I can work out Connect are not "real" downloads, they are pay per view. EG the slide show on your windows machines that shows up when you boot up. They show up one day and then a different one the next. As such they are separated out in the report.

I also had a set of images downloaded twice, casssowaries in my case. I saw someone mention before that it was possibly "Sony" .... but it does smell rather like AI training

December was one of my best for the year for downloads but worst for RPD.

cobalt · « **Reply #26 on:** January 20, 2025, 23:39 »

for questions considering possible istock exclusivity

did you consider that also prices will be higher? the real value imo is not just from a higher royalty but higher prices.

i do think with the merger considering exclusivity with one media type will become interesting again for many, especially those that see stock more as a hobby.

uploading to only one place is certainly easier.

for me the ship has sailed, i would never want to give up adobe.

but i do have a few exclusive agencies or distributors like bb.

yuriy · « **Reply #27 on:** January 20, 2025, 23:45 »

i'm with cobalt on this one. i don't see why i would want to be exclusive with the 3rd best agency. maybe the higher rate will make them the 2nd best agency and it'll be slightly less effort to upload to 3 agencies but there's no reason to believe they will do well enough to cover the earnings from AS/SS.

danielvisuals · « **Reply #28 on:** January 21, 2025, 02:55 »

I believe that exclusivity can lead to lost revenue regardless of the agency.

cobalt · « **Reply #29 on:** January 21, 2025, 07:01 »

Quote from: danielvisuals on January 21, 2025, 02:55

I believe that exclusivity can lead to lost revenue regardless of the agency.

I wouldn't say that. Focussing on one agency and their customers can give very reliable results, hence so many people who only work with getty, especially when they have a house contract.

getty has a huge amount of partner agencies across the world and now with the merger...i wouldn't be surprised if those doing organised people shootings and exclusive getty/istock on average make more than those doing the same but sending everywhere themselves.

To balance, you then really need an exclusive partner who...often distributes to gettyimages...

I think the real goal for those interested in macrostock/people lifestyle is either getting a House contract for exclusive content or getting into a high end macrostock agency that distributes to getty.

This way you get to enjoy both, you can have a huge port on Adobe, some content on all micros and still get a good revenue from exclusive macrostock.

But...it all requires a lot of work and is usually only useful for those who do stock full time.

zeljkok · « **Reply #30 on:** January 21, 2025, 13:56 »

Quote from: danielvisuals on January 21, 2025, 02:55

I believe that exclusivity can lead to lost revenue regardless of the agency.

Totally agreed; For the life of it I can't figure why anyone would want to be Getty exclusive in particular. As usual cobalt lives in fantasy world with little grasp on reality of microstock industry.

Only way I'd be consider exclusivity is if Adobe and Alamy would merge

cobalt · « **Reply #31 on:** January 21, 2025, 14:44 »

You have amazing entertainment value.

After all, I am not the one doing stock as a hobby.

Please remind us - for how many years did you make a full time living from stock photography?

danielvisuals · « **Reply #32 on:** January 21, 2025, 18:19 »

Jasmine, I believe you when you say that exclusive contributors at Getty can earn more than those who submit to multiple agencies.

If I were to choose an exclusive agency, I would likely select BB. However, it’s important to note that they aren’t truly exclusive since they submit to most agencies. 😊

I’ve started uploading to iStock, and I’ve found the disambiguation process to be cumbersome. Nevertheless, I think it’s a valuable exercise for improving my overall keywording skills.

WendyT · « **Reply #33 on:** January 21, 2025, 19:29 »

As far as I understand IS exclusive files are not more expensive, the contributor just gets a bigger percentage. Exclusives do however get the chance to have files designated S+ and they are mirrored to Getty, the indie files do not have that advantage.
I dont know if it still happens, but a google search of my files pointed me at Getty and then it said it was "not available to purchase" and did not point you to IS (that was really annoying)

cobalt · « **Reply #34 on:** January 21, 2025, 19:50 »

The S+ files cost 3 credits, the normal files 1 credit. So S+ is three times more expensive. And in addition it gets mirrored on Getty.

Obviously you need good quality but the pros get a lot of their files into S+.

In addition many exclusives also have a separate contract with Getty house and can upload to only Getty if they want to.

That will then open the option of having your content included into more expensive collections. In my days Digital vision was very profitable, no idea which collection is the most coveted now.

Customers on istock can also choose to look at s+ only, which then shows them only high quality exclusive content.

A lot of people who are fully exclusive to istock/getty still make a full time income and can afford good quality lifestyle production.

adempercem · « **Reply #35 on:** January 22, 2025, 05:58 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 18, 2025, 07:13

Quote from: adempercem on January 18, 2025, 06:22
Hi. My average income for December is...

by the way, have the "AI Service" payments been made?

See reply #9. You were probably typing while I posted. Although it's listed as "Consolidated" in TodayIs20, it's "AI Services" elsewhere.

Thanks. Only $2

I finally learned how it is.
1- download November 2024 connect txt from export at getty
2- open deepmeta 4 from online https://www.deepmeta.com/
3- click statement , and add November 2024 connect txt file..
4- and click info.. you will see the text "ai service".

ShadySue · « **Reply #36 on:** January 22, 2025, 10:27 »

Quote from: cobalt on January 21, 2025, 19:50

The S+ files cost 3 credits, the normal files 1 credit. So S+ is three times more expensive. And in addition it gets mirrored on Getty.

Not quite, Signature, and Signature Plus cost 3 credits sometimes*.
Sig+ get mirrored to Getty, and the plussing seems to depend solely on which inspector randomly inspected your batch, I can't see any other reason why some of mine get plussed and why some others, which IMO are better, not in the same batch, don't (we can't nominate files to be plussed nowadays, though for a while we could).
Sig+ files, and Signature editorial files get mirrored to Getty, where we all get bumped down to a 20% commission. Some of these sales are high value, more are very small,: whichever, we get 20%.

*However, they only cost three credits if they buyer is on a Basic plan.
If they're on a Premium plan, all stills are one credit, but the credits cost more.
If they're on a Premium Plus plan, all files, stills and video are one credit, but the credits cost more still.
https://www.istockphoto.com/plans-and-pricing

ShadySue · « **Reply #37 on:** January 22, 2025, 11:49 »

Quote from: WendyT on January 21, 2025, 19:29

I dont know if it still happens, but a google search of my files pointed me at Getty and then it said it was "not available to purchase" and did not point you to IS (that was really annoying)

It does still happen. The message is:
"RESTRICTED ASSET
Sorry, we are not able to license media #123456789 due to country, company and/or publication restrictions."
Which makes the 'asset' look very dodgy. Although I thought it was untrue, I guess 'company restrictions' means the company Getty restricts the buyers they sell it to, as Premium Access buyers can buy all assets, iStock or Getty from one account, and maybe soon also Shutterstock.

I also think putting our iS editorials into Getty as "Creative Unreleased" rather than 'Editorial' reads 'dodgy'. It's not that Editorial means 'hot news' - I just checked some photos of a chainstore. Mine, for example are 'Creative Unreleased', but other equally non-specific photos of the chain can be "Editorial".

I'd think it must also be annoying to buyers to click on an image and get that Getty message. For example, the one I just checked is a locally well-known waterfall, with legends. It's not known nationally or internationally, but it's very specific. On that page are loads of other waterfalls, but none of them is this waterfall, and if someone wants a photo of this specific waterfall, they're going to waste a lot of time clicking on the others to check.
Also, I don't like my image being used as a bait and switch, to lure people to other images, if they want a generic waterfall photo - they clicked on my file in e.g. Google, why can't they buy it? You'd think that even if they don't want to send people to iS from Getty, they could at least say, "Sign up to Premium Access to buy this file".

yuriy · « **Reply #38 on:** January 22, 2025, 14:01 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 22, 2025, 10:27

Quote from: cobalt on January 21, 2025, 19:50
The S+ files cost 3 credits, the normal files 1 credit. So S+ is three times more expensive. And in addition it gets mirrored on Getty.
Not quite, Signature, and Signature Plus cost 3 credits sometimes*.
Sig+ get mirrored to Getty, and the plussing seems to depend solely on which inspector randomly inspected your batch, I can't see any other reason why some of mine get plussed and why some others, which IMO are better, not in the same batch, don't (we can't nominate files to be plussed nowadays, though for a while we could).
Sig+ files, and Signature editorial files get mirrored to Getty, where we all get bumped down to a 20% commission. Some of these sales are high value, more are very small,: whichever, we get 20%.

*However, they only cost three credits if they buyer is on a Basic plan.
If they're on a Premium plan, all stills are one credit, but the credits cost more.
If they're on a Premium Plus plan, all files, stills and video are one credit, but the credits cost more still.
https://www.istockphoto.com/plans-and-pricing

do only exclusive contributors get into signature? are all exclusive images automatically signature? i've seen some sales through getty (i believe) though i'm not exclusive.

cobalt · « **Reply #39 on:** January 22, 2025, 14:08 »

s and s* is only for the exclusives

non exclusives can have sales via getty, I had a few editorial sales last month.

but our content is not added to the prestige collections.

ShadySue · « **Reply #40 on:** January 22, 2025, 14:56 »

Quote from: yuriy on January 22, 2025, 14:01

I've seen some sales through getty (i believe) though i'm not exclusive.

I 'think' these are via the Premium Access program, but I'm not 100% sure.

From this Getty promotion video, at 1.08, you can see iStock images included along with (surprisingly few) Getty images on a Premium Access search via Getty.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvbrlBcwapc

WendyT · « **Reply #41 on:** January 22, 2025, 16:30 »

@Shady Sue I agree that it makes the files look dodgy. You would think that a company as big as Getty would want to keep the buyers within the umbrella of themselves. However showing them an image then not showing them "how" to buy it is ludicrous. The buyer wont head over to IS and "hope" they can find it. They are more likely to look elsewhere.

All independent files are put into the "Essentials" category. "Unreleased creative" (illustrative editorials or editorials on other agencies) are mirrored to Getty and get us the 20% if you get a sale there. Though 20% of "not much" is "not much". "Unreleased creative" as a term can be very confusing to buyers even if it makes TPTB feel more comfortable with it.

ShadySue · « **Reply #42 on:** January 22, 2025, 17:29 »

Quote from: WendyT on January 22, 2025, 16:30

@Shady Sue I agree that it makes the files look dodgy. You would think that a company as big as Getty would want to keep the buyers within the umbrella of themselves. However showing them an image then not showing them "how" to buy it is ludicrous. The buyer wont head over to IS and "hope" they can find it. They are more likely to look elsewhere.

All independent files are put into the "Essentials" category. "Unreleased creative" (illustrative editorials or editorials on other agencies) are mirrored to Getty and get us the 20% if you get a sale there. Though 20% of "not much" is "not much". "Unreleased creative" as a term can be very confusing to buyers even if it makes TPTB feel more comfortable with it.

Agreed.

I also wonder if Unreleased Creative was to keep the Getty house editorial photographers happy. Remember back in the day they said that all exclusive editorial pics were going to be mirrored at Getty, and started the process. Then with a smallish percentage of editorial photos mirrored, they stalled the process for quite a while, certainly weeks not days, maybe even into months.
There was speculation at that time that it was because there were murmurings among Getty togs - I can't remember whether that was pure speculation or whether it was confirmed. Anyway, the earlier photos went up as Editorial on Getty, but after the hiaitus, they were 'Creative Unreleased'.

I wonder if anyone has been keeping an accurate timeline of what has gone on with iStock/Getty over the years. My mind gets different things muddled, and my timeline isn't clear.

zeljkok · « **Reply #43 on:** January 22, 2025, 19:33 »

Quote from: cobalt on January 21, 2025, 19:50

A lot of people who are fully exclusive to istock/getty still make a full time income and can afford good quality lifestyle production.

Same like all these people that play lottery and win jackpot. In land of Rainbows and Unicorns. And Cobalts.

qunamax · « **Reply #44 on:** January 22, 2025, 20:28 »

Anyone have a clue why Getty just sent me 0.24$ to my PayPal? (I didn't reach the payout this month).

SimonSays · « **Reply #45 on:** January 23, 2025, 02:16 »

Quote from: qunamax on January 22, 2025, 20:28

Anyone have a clue why Getty just sent me 0.24$ to my PayPal? (I didn't reach the payout this month).

You should have had an email stating: Pictoright Collective Licensing Payback 2024 H2. It's a Dutch institution. Google it if you want more information.

cobalt · « **Reply #46 on:** January 23, 2025, 04:30 »

Ok, the troll is blocked.

Some people really only come here for nonsense and have zero interest in actually making money.

Also just saw he has only been here since 2021, so real newbie with no experience and no port dedicated to make money.

But of course he has an opinion.

danielvisuals · « **Reply #47 on:** January 23, 2025, 07:04 »

Quote from: cobalt on January 23, 2025, 04:30

Ok, the troll is blocked.

Some people really only come here for nonsense and have zero interest in actually making money.

Also just saw he has only been here since 2021, so real newbie with no experience and no port dedicated to make money.

But of course he has an opinion.

It seems that defeatists are everywhere, even in microstock. To make a living from microstock, one needs to be a hardworking optimist. Pessimists and quitters wouldn’t succeed in any endeavors.

Jch · « **Reply #48 on:** January 27, 2025, 04:01 »

Have you received your payment for December yet?

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #49 on:** January 27, 2025, 10:04 »

Yes - last week. I think Jan 22

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: December stats are up (Read 6314 times)

WendyT

cobalt

yuriy

danielvisuals

cobalt

zeljkok

cobalt

danielvisuals

WendyT

cobalt

adempercem

ShadySue

ShadySue

yuriy

cobalt

ShadySue

WendyT

ShadySue

zeljkok

qunamax

SimonSays

cobalt

danielvisuals

Jch

Jo Ann Snover

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors