pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: % income from PP and Getty in February for IS exclusives  (Read 11930 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

michealo

« on: March 29, 2011, 09:04 »
0
20% of my Feb income came from GI and PP sales


jen

« Reply #1 on: March 29, 2011, 09:44 »
0
5.68% was from Getty.  No PP sales.

« Reply #2 on: March 29, 2011, 09:51 »
0
I hope you have considered the long term effects that the PP will have on your IS sales. If you don't care, then cheers to you on your recent short-term income boost.

michealo

« Reply #3 on: March 29, 2011, 09:53 »
0
I hope you have considered the long term effects that the PP will have on your IS sales. If you don't care, then cheers to you on your recent short-term income boost.


I'd rather a cup of coffee today that 2 cups of coffee next year ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_present_value

lagereek

« Reply #4 on: March 29, 2011, 09:58 »
0
I hope you have considered the long term effects that the PP will have on your IS sales. If you don't care, then cheers to you on your recent short-term income boost.


I'd rather a cup of coffee today that 2 cups of coffee next year ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_present_value



Yeah but next years harvest for coffee beans is much more promising.

« Reply #5 on: March 29, 2011, 11:12 »
0
I'd rather a cup of coffee today that 2 cups of coffee next year ...


Your statement perfectly illustrates what a short-sighted idiot you are. The primary aim in providing stock content is indeed to have 2 cups of coffee next year ... and the year after ... and the year after that ... etc. Otherwise you have to keep going to work everyday just to pay your bills.

It's called residual or passive income;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_income

Willfully destroying the market you sell into is pretty stupid IMHO.

« Reply #6 on: March 29, 2011, 12:42 »
0
Sounds like Shank :)

« Reply #7 on: March 29, 2011, 13:48 »
0
0% PP - for exclusives, it is your ticket to 20% maximum royalty in the future.

0% Getty. I realize the money is in some cases more (if you discount those sales through distributors or the 20% of a $5 sale that somehow comes out to 91 cents using iStock math) but again, it's a sucker's game if you hope to continue to earn more than 20% for RF sales. My take on this is that Getty hopes that the allure of saying you sell via Getty plus the larger prices ($525 for a XXXL Agency image) will get people to say yes.

No RCs for either of these outlets, which means it'll be harder to maintain (or increase) your royalty for IS sales. That cycle plays out a few times and you're stuck with the 20% royalty sites plus 25% at IS assuming they keep exclusivity once they've migrated most of the business away from there.

If you don't think you'll be selling microstock in a couple more years, grabbing whatever cash while you can might make sense. Otherwise you're just selling out your future for a small amount of cash today.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #8 on: March 29, 2011, 17:10 »
0
Willfully destroying the market you sell into is pretty stupid IMHO.

Doesn't this imply that anyone who is submitting to Shutterstock is stupid too?

« Reply #9 on: March 29, 2011, 17:32 »
0
Willfully destroying the market you sell into is pretty stupid IMHO.

Doesn't this imply that anyone who is submitting to Shutterstock is stupid too?

right! lets end all agencies and go all on 15%-20% at IS with huge 10 cents regular sales!

lisafx

« Reply #10 on: March 29, 2011, 17:39 »
0

Doesn't this imply that anyone who is submitting to Shutterstock is stupid too?

Nope.  Shutterstock has existed since 2004.  The market has grown substantially since then, so apparently they managed to coexist without destroying anything. In fact, their success contributed to the necessity for Istock to start it's exclusivity program and pay you more.  I am sure if you wrote them a nice thank-you-note they would appreciate it ;)

Now, in addition to paying among the highest subscription rates, they also have a booming business in PPD sales.  

Don't know what they plan to do in the future, but as of right now, they haven't screwed either their contributors or their buyers the way Getty/Istock/H&F have been doing repeatedly for two years.  And as an added bonus - Shutterstock's site functions!  :)

« Reply #11 on: March 29, 2011, 18:09 »
0
Willfully destroying the market you sell into is pretty stupid IMHO.

Doesn't this imply that anyone who is submitting to Shutterstock is stupid too?

Taken to its logical conclusion, it means anyone supplying micros instead of the high-price agencies is stupid. It's a revamped version of the old trad guys' complaints. They had a fair point but they couldn't stem the tide.

BTW, Lisa, the fact the market has grown doesn't mean that SS hasn't destroyed sales at iS. The sales there might have been four times what they are if SS hadn't appeared on the scene. So maybe we are losing $3 at iS for every $1 we make at SS. There's just no way of knowing.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2011, 18:22 by BaldricksTrousers »

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #12 on: March 29, 2011, 18:24 »
0
Willfully destroying the market you sell into is pretty stupid IMHO.

Doesn't this imply that anyone who is submitting to Shutterstock is stupid too?

Taken to its logical conclusion, it means anyone supplying micros instead of the high-price agencies is stupid. It's a revamped version of the old trad guys' complaints. They had a fair point but they couldn't stem the tide.

BTW, Lisa, the fact the market has grown doesn't mean that Shutterstock hasn't destroyed sales at iS. The sales there might have been four times what they are if Shutterstock hadn't appeared on the scene. So maybe we are losing $3 at iS for every $1 we make at Shutterstock. There's just no way of knowing.

My thoughts exactly

lisafx

« Reply #13 on: March 29, 2011, 19:02 »
0

BTW, Lisa, the fact the market has grown doesn't mean that Shutterstock hasn't destroyed sales at iS. The sales there might have been four times what they are if Shutterstock hadn't appeared on the scene. So maybe we are losing $3 at iS for every $1 we make at Shutterstock. There's just no way of knowing.

You are certainly correct that SS has taken sales from Istock.  Perhaps where we differ is in interpreting the word "destroy".  Istock has grown robustly for years (until recent unrelated decisions) despite Shutterstock's existence.  I don't see how that can be described as "destroying the market". 

My point was that contributing to Shutterstock isn't stupid. 

My other point was that competition from Shutterstock and the other early sites are what forced Istock to offer exclusivity.  Without it everyone who is exclusive at Istock would be would have been making 20% or less as rank and file.  And they wouldn't have those cool Moo cards... ;)
« Last Edit: March 29, 2011, 19:09 by lisafx »

« Reply #14 on: March 29, 2011, 19:07 »
0

BTW, Lisa, the fact the market has grown doesn't mean that Shutterstock hasn't destroyed sales at iS. The sales there might have been four times what they are if Shutterstock hadn't appeared on the scene. So maybe we are losing $3 at iS for every $1 we make at Shutterstock. There's just no way of knowing.

You may be right, and you are definitely right that there's no way of knowing.  My point was that contributing to Shutterstock isn't stupid.  You seem to agree with that. 

My other point was that competition from Shutterstock and the other early sites are what forced Istock to offer exclusivity.  Without it everyone who is exclusive at Istock would be would have been making 20% or less as rank and file.  And they wouldn't have those cool Moo cards... ;)

I agree, and there is the "eggs in one basket" argument to be added to the mix. That was my reason for not going exclusive - because there was no way of knowing what might happen if everything relied on one agency.
As some people have found out.

lisafx

« Reply #15 on: March 29, 2011, 19:11 »
0

I agree, and there is the "eggs in one basket" argument to be added to the mix. That was my reason for not going exclusive - because there was no way of knowing what might happen if everything relied on one agency.
As some people have found out.

Arrgghhh.  You are too fast for me.  I amended my above post to explain why I think Paulie's choice of words "destroying the market" was a massive overstatement.  

« Reply #16 on: March 29, 2011, 19:29 »
0

I agree, and there is the "eggs in one basket" argument to be added to the mix. That was my reason for not going exclusive - because there was no way of knowing what might happen if everything relied on one agency.
As some people have found out.

Arrgghhh.  You are too fast for me.  I amended my above post to explain why I think Paulie's choice of words "destroying the market" was a massive overstatement.  

Actually, those were Gostwyck's words about the PP. Paulie was just saying that the same logic can be applied to selling on SS. He wasn't accusing SS of actually doing that, just questioning Gostwyck's assertion.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #17 on: March 29, 2011, 21:52 »
0

I agree, and there is the "eggs in one basket" argument to be added to the mix. That was my reason for not going exclusive - because there was no way of knowing what might happen if everything relied on one agency.
As some people have found out.

Arrgghhh.  You are too fast for me.  I amended my above post to explain why I think Paulie's choice of words "destroying the market" was a massive overstatement.  

Actually, those were Gostwyck's words about the PP. Paulie was just saying that the same logic can be applied to selling on Shutterstock. He wasn't accusing Shutterstock of actually doing that, just questioning Gostwyck's assertion.

Wow, I'm glad somebody's paying attention around here.   ;)

RacePhoto

« Reply #18 on: March 30, 2011, 00:36 »
0

I agree, and there is the "eggs in one basket" argument to be added to the mix. That was my reason for not going exclusive - because there was no way of knowing what might happen if everything relied on one agency.
As some people have found out.

Arrgghhh.  You are too fast for me.  I amended my above post to explain why I think Paulie's choice of words "destroying the market" was a massive overstatement.  

Actually, those were Gostwyck's words about the PP. Paulie was just saying that the same logic can be applied to selling on Shutterstock. He wasn't accusing Shutterstock of actually doing that, just questioning Gostwyck's assertion.

Wow, I'm glad somebody's paying attention around here.   ;)

That and percentages thrown out as income, as a point of debate.

Here are my Feb. numbers, very simple. Both average about the same monthly income, it varies, but comes out pretty close to 50/50

Average sale on IS February, including PP sales 95 cents
Average sale on SS February, all types, 52 cents

If IS is paying 20% (15% in my case, I'm the lowest of low, independent) and I get more per license, what is SS paying me? Must be less, correct? Or is someone going to tell me that SS pays a higher percentage, and charges less? But the problem is, with approximately the same number of sales from both, IS makes nearly twice as much.

Bottom line? IS pays more even after they have trashed the achievement levels, screwed with the commissions and gone back on their promises.

I can understand anger and resentment but the math doesn't lie. IS pays more than SS!

« Reply #19 on: March 30, 2011, 02:01 »
0
^^^^^

I wish the number of sales on istock was equal to what I get on shutterstock.

« Reply #20 on: March 30, 2011, 03:06 »
0
^^^^^

I wish the number of sales on istock was equal to what I get on shutterstock.

+1

The whole ethos of microstock going right back to before Shutterstock even existed is that you don't look at the individual download commissions (which are universally cr*p - whether it is 8c or 50c or $1 or even $5) you look at the bottom line. I sell three or four times as many files on Shutterstock as I do on IS. So I'm now making more money from Shutterstock than from iS (which is not how it used to be).

My Alamy average is higher than any of my microstock averages and Canstock (with its PP) is now my highest averaging micro. But the same voices that tell us that the low commissions from iStock's PP destroy our business have also told us that the highest averaging agencies like Alamy, Canstock and Crestock are a waste of time because they don't deliver sufficient earnings.

So do we look at this from the Trad perspective and say the higher average commission agencies should be supported and the lower ones shunned, or do we look at it from the micro perspective and say the thing that matters is the bottom line and we judge by that. Or do we say we apply one perspective to one agency and another perspective to another one in order to justify whatever personal prejudices and untestable hypotheses we happen to have acquired along the way?

Maybe I'm just not subtle enough to understand these things. But at the end of the month, $2 from the iS PP still looks like more than $1 from Fotolia when it goes into my wallet.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2011, 04:22 by BaldricksTrousers »

michealo

« Reply #21 on: March 30, 2011, 03:57 »
0
I'd rather a cup of coffee today that 2 cups of coffee next year ...


Your statement perfectly illustrates what a short-sighted idiot you are. The primary aim in providing stock content is indeed to have 2 cups of coffee next year ... and the year after ... and the year after that ... etc. Otherwise you have to keep going to work everyday just to pay your bills.

It's called residual or passive income;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_income

Willfully destroying the market you sell into is pretty stupid IMHO.


Thanks for the wonderful education on passive income, perhaps you could explain this to the major record labels too?

They thought they had a sure thing residual income too ...

I'll still take my one cup of joe now versus my two cups in the future

« Reply #22 on: March 30, 2011, 04:39 »
0
0% from PP, I am not participating  ;D
0% from Getty, very low number of vetta files  :-\

I dont like the PP program nor the misleading way it has been advertised. Trying to make buyers leave istock with incredible statements from representatives visiting well stablished istock customers is not the way to go. This behaviour has been reported by some in the istock forums.

Not to mention the price and the way they are forcing people attending lypses to participate  :-[

I would rather go independent that participating in the PP with the current conditions.

lisafx

« Reply #23 on: March 30, 2011, 11:23 »
0

Arrgghhh.  You are too fast for me.  I amended my above post to explain why I think Paulie's choice of words "destroying the market" was a massive overstatement.  

Actually, those were Gostwyck's words about the PP. Paulie was just saying that the same logic can be applied to selling on Shutterstock. He wasn't accusing Shutterstock of actually doing that, just questioning Gostwyck's assertion.

Right.  And I was explaining why I don't think that term applies to Shutterstock.  I didn't jump in on whether or not the PP is destroying Istock sales.  I have opinions on that, but I have tried to be respectful over it because I know we are each in different situations and have to make business decisions as we see fit.  

My point, for the final time, is that contributing to Shutterstock demonstrably did NOT "destroy" Istock sales.  

I know you are a wordsmith, so I don't see how you could be misunderstanding me so consistently.  I can only assume that you are trying to make some broader point by repeatedly taking my comments out of context. ???

« Reply #24 on: March 30, 2011, 11:38 »
0
Wow! No need to reach for the red ink, Lisa! I'm not wilfully misunderstanding you. Sure, if you take "destroy" SS hasn't destroyed iS and TS hasn't destroyed either of them. It's safe to presume they poach some sales from each other, though.

I don't quite get how quoting your entire passage is taking it out of context, but never mind.

« Reply #25 on: March 30, 2011, 12:21 »
0
Sounds like Shank :)

Who else would post something similar? ;)

« Reply #26 on: March 30, 2011, 12:27 »
0
Sure, if you take "destroy" Shutterstock hasn't destroyed iS and TS hasn't destroyed either of them. It's safe to presume they poach some sales from each other, though.

Actually I'm seriously starting to wonder if all the promotion of TS to 'selected IS customers' has in fact been a gift to SS?

They might have enlightened such customers about the advantages of a subscription but that didn't necessarily mean that they went on to buy from TS. If a potential customer bothers to do any research whatsoever on subscription packages they are very unlikely to choose TS.

My stat's for this month project Istock to be 37% down and SS to be 35% up (and massive BME) compared to March 2010. It's difficult to believe that the contrasting fortunes of each agency are not somehow linked by a common factor.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
70 Replies
16232 Views
Last post December 01, 2008, 09:33
by Read_My_Rights
0 Replies
2704 Views
Last post September 16, 2009, 07:07
by NancyCWalker
2 Replies
2356 Views
Last post February 25, 2013, 10:29
by Pinocchio
29 Replies
8614 Views
Last post May 04, 2015, 20:37
by a and n
11 Replies
5088 Views
Last post March 09, 2018, 17:03
by increasingdifficulty

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle