MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Getty's new $100m debt  (Read 10876 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: November 22, 2015, 19:22 »
0
I would leave the little bit I have on there and focus my energy in new directions. I lot to decided on here


« Reply #51 on: November 22, 2015, 19:30 »
0
I would leave the little bit I have on there and focus my energy in new directions. I lot to decided on here

Well you have my respect. You are in a tough spot.

« Reply #52 on: November 23, 2015, 04:58 »
+4
$6 for 4k?  They make the decision for me.  I don't supply them anyway because I can't do it for less than 20% but if I had kept my clips there, they would be gone now.  I did leave 1 on there but it has never sold, I don't think buyers like the really low prices either, they must know that if contributors can't make any money, they aren't going to upload anything worth buying.

« Reply #53 on: November 23, 2015, 06:27 »
0
To be fair the $6 is a promotion of some kind not all 4k or HD is that low. That being said 18 out of my 28 Dl's in Oct. were below $20.00. I have a few at really good prices but those 1 and 6 dollar sales kill me.

« Reply #54 on: November 23, 2015, 13:07 »
+12
To be fair the $6 is a promotion of some kind not all 4k or HD is that low. That being said 18 out of my 28 Dl's in Oct. were below $20.00. I have a few at really good prices but those 1 and 6 dollar sales kill me.

It's called Premium Access. It's where large companies pay getty $$$ upfront every year to be able to license a large quantity of images or footage at highly reduced rates. G keeps all the money upfront and pays the contributor their contractual royalty percentage on very small dollar amount sales. They've been doing this for years and it blows. It's just a way to payout less to contributors.

« Reply #55 on: November 23, 2015, 13:15 »
0
To be fair the $6 is a promotion of some kind not all 4k or HD is that low. That being said 18 out of my 28 Dl's in Oct. were below $20.00. I have a few at really good prices but those 1 and 6 dollar sales kill me.

It's called Premium Access. It's where large companies pay getty $$$ upfront every year to be able to license a large quantity of images or footage at highly reduced rates. G keeps all the money upfront and pays the contributor their contractual royalty percentage on very small dollar amount sales. They've been doing this for years and it blows.

« Reply #56 on: November 23, 2015, 15:40 »
+6
To be fair the $6 is a promotion of some kind not all 4k or HD is that low. That being said 18 out of my 28 Dl's in Oct. were below $20.00. I have a few at really good prices but those 1 and 6 dollar sales kill me.

It's called Premium Access. It's where large companies pay getty $$$ upfront every year to be able to license a large quantity of images or footage at highly reduced rates. G keeps all the money upfront and pays the contributor their contractual royalty percentage on very small dollar amount sales. They've been doing this for years and it blows. It's just a way to payout less to contributors.
PA is a heartless corporate move to dig ever deeper into our nearly empty pockets.

« Reply #57 on: November 23, 2015, 20:29 »
+1
To be fair the $6 is a promotion of some kind not all 4k or HD is that low. That being said 18 out of my 28 Dl's in Oct. were below $20.00. I have a few at really good prices but those 1 and 6 dollar sales kill me.

It's called Premium Access. It's where large companies pay getty $$$ upfront every year to be able to license a large quantity of images or footage at highly reduced rates. G keeps all the money upfront and pays the contributor their contractual royalty percentage on very small dollar amount sales. They've been doing this for years and it blows. It's just a way to payout less to contributors.

^ Is this true? Is this how Getty does business? Is this a known fact or speculation? Does anyone have any evidence to support this assertion..??

« Reply #58 on: November 23, 2015, 21:15 »
+3
This is a fact I have been exclusive there since 2006. This program is confirmed.

« Reply #59 on: November 23, 2015, 22:23 »
+3
It's a fact. If you are Getty contributor, those PA sales always appear on the statement.

« Reply #60 on: November 24, 2015, 05:52 »
+1
This is a fact I have been exclusive there since 2006. This program is confirmed.

...and it's definitely the case that Getty keeps 100% of the fee that clients pay to be part of the programme - and only pass on a royalty based on the sale of the heavily discounted license..?

« Reply #61 on: November 24, 2015, 06:16 »
+2
Yes, artist do not get a cut on the access fee Getty charges. I have no clue what that is.

« Reply #62 on: November 24, 2015, 13:41 »
+3
It's not much different than a subscription; the whole idea is to get the real money in upfront 'fees' which contributors never see, then pay royalties on a token  'sale price'.    If you're at an agency and your conscience bothers you for more than a moment, just say that buyers are really paying for search functionality, not imagery.  Eventually I think some agencies will stop using the word "royalty" altogether. 

There's nothing we can do except stop giving our work to companies that operate like this.


op

« Reply #63 on: November 24, 2015, 17:02 »
+1
It's not much different than a subscription; the whole idea is to get the real money in upfront 'fees' which contributors never see, then pay royalties on a token  'sale price'.    If you're at an agency and your conscience bothers you for more than a moment, just say that buyers are really paying for search functionality, not imagery.  Eventually I think some agencies will stop using the word "royalty" altogether. 

There's nothing we can do except stop giving our work to companies that operate like this.

And what to do when stock companies copy what the others do and all end up doing the same thing?..

« Reply #64 on: November 24, 2015, 17:10 »
+3
It's not much different than a subscription; the whole idea is to get the real money in upfront 'fees' which contributors never see, then pay royalties on a token  'sale price'.    If you're at an agency and your conscience bothers you for more than a moment, just say that buyers are really paying for search functionality, not imagery.  Eventually I think some agencies will stop using the word "royalty" altogether. 

There's nothing we can do except stop giving our work to companies that operate like this.

And what to do when stock companies copy what the others do and all end up doing the same thing?..

Fortunately, there *are* some stock agencies that want to distance themselves from this kind of deceptive behaviour and create sustainable business practices for both agency and photographer. Feed them, starve the charlatans.

ShadySue

« Reply #65 on: November 24, 2015, 18:12 »
0
Fortunately, there *are* some stock agencies that want to distance themselves from this kind of deceptive behaviour and create sustainable business practices for both agency and photographer. Feed them, starve the charlatans.
Care to name names (of those with open access).

« Reply #66 on: November 24, 2015, 18:37 »
+2
Fortunately, there *are* some stock agencies that want to distance themselves from this kind of deceptive behaviour and create sustainable business practices for both agency and photographer. Feed them, starve the charlatans.
Care to name names (of those with open access).

I'm not sure there are many with open access, I'm afraid  (with the exception of perhaps Pond 5 and maybe GL). The agencies that are providing a sustainable future tend select their contributors diligently and curate their collections with great care. They also offer minimum 50% royalties (yes, iStock, that is both possible and sustainable). I see a future where crowd sourced agencies continue to erode royalties whilst talented contributors gravitate away from them and towards the agencies that *are* working to create a sustainable future. The better paying clients will increasingly follow the more talented contributors whilst the crowd sourcing agencies will continue to dilute their own ponds with more of the same...

ShadySue

« Reply #67 on: November 24, 2015, 18:51 »
0
Fortunately, there *are* some stock agencies that want to distance themselves from this kind of deceptive behaviour and create sustainable business practices for both agency and photographer. Feed them, starve the charlatans.
Care to name names (of those with open access).

I'm not sure there are many with open access, I'm afraid  (with the exception of perhaps Pond 5 and maybe GL).
Neither of which have a reputation for selling (stills)
Quote
The agencies that are providing a sustainable future tend select their contributors diligently and curate their collections with great care. They also offer minimum 50% royalties (yes, iStock, that is both possible and sustainable). I see a future where crowd sourced agencies continue to erode royalties whilst talented contributors gravitate away from them and towards the agencies that *are* working to create a sustainable future. The better paying clients will increasingly follow the more talented contributors whilst the crowd sourcing agencies will continue to dilute their own ponds with more of the same...
Indeed, there are plenty of specialist macro agencies.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
2617 Views
Last post January 15, 2010, 04:09
by leaf
Getty's 20%

Started by rubyroo « 1 2  All » iStockPhoto.com

46 Replies
10156 Views
Last post January 24, 2012, 12:15
by lisafx
39 Replies
9119 Views
Last post January 10, 2014, 20:33
by KimsCreativeHub
5 Replies
2061 Views
Last post June 19, 2015, 06:31
by chrisdorney
34 Replies
2371 Views
Last post March 26, 2019, 01:26
by Pauws99

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results