pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStock changing royalty structure  (Read 228184 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

jbarber873

« Reply #75 on: September 07, 2010, 16:49 »
0
There is a very simple and clear reason why this is happening. Getty images is being dressed up for an IPO. Obviously with the image lock ups and general inertia from most contributors, the resulting profits that will accrue to the bottom line will make getty look likes it's on an earnings roll. Most investors will not know enough to dig in the details, and find out that istock is mortgaging the future by burning their contributors big time.


« Reply #76 on: September 07, 2010, 16:51 »
0
The misery will not stop here: Remember, they can tinker with their royalty targets every year, just to keep us from earning too much. Who knows, the base royalty could be 10% for 2012...

« Reply #77 on: September 07, 2010, 16:52 »
0
Any other agencies reading this - the time is now to annouce a kick ass exclusive deal. 

I have a totally opposite reaction...I would never go exclusive anywhere. When it all comes down to it...it's all about companies lining their own pockets. When it comes down to them or me, it's gonna be them.

« Reply #78 on: September 07, 2010, 16:53 »
0
Maybe a union!!
Nah, that's too proletarian. We need a guild!  :P

helix7

« Reply #79 on: September 07, 2010, 16:53 »
0
It's all about the designers, and if you guys really want to make a statement, it's going to have to be with buyers. Frankly, istock probably doesn't care if a few people delete their portfolios or stop uploading. If they are going to feel any impact from this, it'll have to come from buyers. If you're a designer and purchase stock images, look elsewhere from now on. If you know people who buy from istock, let them know what's going on and that they could actually save money AND support artists by taking their business elsewhere.

ikostudio

  • IKOstudio
« Reply #80 on: September 07, 2010, 16:54 »
0
I will stop uploading to IS completely from now one.
I hope everybody do the same, and unless they "REALY, REALY" change this new structure. I will not upload more pictures to IS.

traveler1116

« Reply #81 on: September 07, 2010, 16:55 »
0
I just got an urge to upload some images to Alamy...
Yep me too.

« Reply #82 on: September 07, 2010, 16:58 »
0
Based on my current numbers, I earn an average of 5 credits per file sold. As an independant, to keep a royalty rate of 20%, I'd have to sell 280.000 files per year, which is 767 files per day ! No need to tell you I'm FAR from it.

And thinking I just made gold canister last month... Not that it's anything to write home about for an independant as money is concerned, but I still felt good for the accomplishment. Now, my promotion to gold will mean a 20% royalty cut. Thanks iStock.

[DREAM MODE]
Now that I think about it, they said :  You will retain the royalty rate from the end of the previous year  . So i guess I should retain my current 2010 rate of 20% for the coming year ?
[/DREAM MODE]

Just to see the good part of it, I guess my plans/motivation to invest more in macro will get a HUGE boost.

« Reply #83 on: September 07, 2010, 17:00 »
0
Oh bad news for non exclusives like me
with a smallish portfolio there.

if they are going to open the door for this "premium colllection" and add
images from external??? agencies, even if they are more expensive, I guess there will be endless images to compete in ranking.

In 2009 there were 5 million files on Istock, but since is growing fast...I wonder this year they reached 6- 7 million files already?

I can't help wonder if the addition of a new collection and more contributors if that will double the number of images..

 >:( >:(

 

« Reply #84 on: September 07, 2010, 17:01 »
0
Maybe a union!!
Nah, that's too proletarian. We need a guild!  :P

 ;D ;D ;D

« Reply #85 on: September 07, 2010, 17:02 »
0

ikostudio

  • IKOstudio
« Reply #86 on: September 07, 2010, 17:05 »
0
Why not start a movement on Facebook, to fight this???

Lets to this, it's a good idea to spread our words, to a millions of designers and buyers.
Unfortunately I don't speak English very well, but I its a good idea.

« Reply #87 on: September 07, 2010, 17:09 »
0
impudence

« Reply #88 on: September 07, 2010, 17:10 »
0
umm no, they will need approx 1700 images per month based on my average redeemed credit.  Which isn't as preposterous as 4000

According to my 2009 figures each image sale netted me 4.7 'redeemed credits'. If that figure is roughly average it would mean an exclusive needing to sell about 2700 images per month on average to maintain a 40% commission into the following year.

I would guess that there are probably fewer than 40-50 contributors in total who will maintain their rate __ everyone else loses out. To reach the 45% would require approximately 30K sales per month and, as SJL has pointed out, nobody at all does that.

« Reply #89 on: September 07, 2010, 17:11 »
0
 Hi All,

 Diversify! I have mentioned this more than several times. If you keep all your eggs in one basket you better hold on tight. I am sorry to hear the news and if anyone feels they can spin this into a win / win situation they should re read the up coming changes. There are a lot of agencies out there in Macro that have never done anything like this, maybe venture forth and try all the models, just a suggestion. Again, my heart goes out to those that will get stung by the change.

Best,
Jonathan

« Reply #90 on: September 07, 2010, 17:11 »
0
What is see is a natural reaction from a company who has seen other companies (Fotolia etc.) giving it to the contributor with no downside. So I guess it's time to shoot even harder and smarter right?

helix7

« Reply #91 on: September 07, 2010, 17:11 »
0
Why not start a movement on Facebook, to fight this???

Lets to this, it's a good idea to spread our words, to a millions of designers and buyers.
Unfortunately I don't speak English very well, but I its a good idea.

I don't want to fight it. Crazy as it sounds, I'm beginning to think this is a good thing for the industry. istock has been jacking up prices, confusing buyers with varying price points for images (exclusive, non-exclusive, vetta, ex-plus), jacking up credit prices, pretty much screwing with people non-stop for years. I say let them fall. Let the exclusives drop their crowns and flood the competition with product that used to be istock's alone, and let buyers really make a choice.

Besides, there's no reason to fight it. There are plenty of good alternatives out there who offer good prices with better royalty rates, so buyers and contributors all benefit.

I'd love to see companies like Stockfresh come out of this on top. They offer fair pricing, fair royalty rates, and wouldn't it just be a little extra special to see the guys who started StockXpert come back and take down the giant. :)

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #92 on: September 07, 2010, 17:11 »
0
The misery will not stop here: Remember, they can tinker with their royalty targets every year, just to keep us from earning too much. Who knows, the base royalty could be 10% for 2012...

January 11, 2011 we will post new targets. These targets will affect your royalty growth for 2011 and set your initial royalty rate for 2012.

Notice the words "royalty growth". This almost certainly implies that the redeemed credit targets will be changing every year. So if you did 12,501 in credit sales in 2010 you get 30%. If you do 12,501 credit sales again in 2011 but they increase the target to 15,000 you now only earn 25% for the entire year.

Not only the royalty rates can be adjusted, but the redeemed credit goals as well. So what's to stop them from doing something like

2010:  12,500 = 17% non exclusive / 30% exclusive

to

2011: 15,000 = 17% non exclusive / 30% exclusive
2012: 17,500 = 15% non exclusive / 28% exclusive (sorry, times are tough, unsustainable, etc)
« Last Edit: September 07, 2010, 17:16 by PaulieWalnuts »

« Reply #93 on: September 07, 2010, 17:12 »
0
Sound like getty is taking lesson from Ebay and Enron. Corporate greed at its best or worst

« Reply #94 on: September 07, 2010, 17:13 »
0
Diversify! I have mentioned this more than several times. If you keep all your eggs in one basket you better hold on tight.

I have my "eggs" in many "baskets". The problem is that iStock is my best "basket"...

« Reply #95 on: September 07, 2010, 17:16 »
0
Haha. Fotolia is openly courting the big IS contributors on Twitter: http://twitter.com/fotolia

« Reply #96 on: September 07, 2010, 17:16 »
0
The misery will not stop here: Remember, they can tinker with their royalty targets every year, just to keep us from earning too much. Who knows, the base royalty could be 10% for 2012...

January 11, 2011 we will post new targets. These targets will affect your royalty growth for 2011 and set your initial royalty rate for 2012.

Notice the words "royalty growth". This almost certainly applies that the redeemed credit targets will be changing every year. So if you did 12,501 in credit sales in 2010 you get 30%. If you do 12,501 credit sales again in 2011 but they increase the target to 15,000 you now only earn 25% for the entire year.

Not only the royalty rates can be adjusted, but the redeemed credit goals as well. So what's to stop them from doing something like

2010:  12,500 = 17% non exclusive / 30% exclusive

to

2011: 15,000 = 17% non exclusive / 30% exclusive
2012: 17,500 = 15% non exclusive / 28% exclusive (sorry, times are tough, unsustainable, etc)

Yes or maintain this new structure and  double the price of a credit and half the number of credits and image costs.

lisafx

« Reply #97 on: September 07, 2010, 17:16 »
0
It's all about the designers, and if you guys really want to make a statement, it's going to have to be with buyers. Frankly, istock probably doesn't care if a few people delete their portfolios or stop uploading. If they are going to feel any impact from this, it'll have to come from buyers. If you're a designer and purchase stock images, look elsewhere from now on. If you know people who buy from istock, let them know what's going on and that they could actually save money AND support artists by taking their business elsewhere.

This is very smart Mike.  I have been looking into getting a site built and had been trying to decide which agency to link the images to.  Had been considering Istock just this morning.  I will be choosing another site that pays a decent % instead.  

Also, my current business cards have the link to my IS portfolio.  I will be changing that and ordering new cards ASAP.  

Maybe not much, but if everyone with their own site or blog did the same thing it could have some impact.  And what about the industry bloggers?  Hopefully they will be vocal about these changes to warn buyers.  

« Reply #98 on: September 07, 2010, 17:23 »
0
There is a very simple and clear reason why this is happening. Getty images is being dressed up for an IPO. Obviously with the image lock ups and general inertia from most contributors, the resulting profits that will accrue to the bottom line will make getty look likes it's on an earnings roll. Most investors will not know enough to dig in the details, and find out that istock is mortgaging the future by burning their contributors big time.

I think you might be right JB. Maybe not an IPO but a sale of the company anyway. H&F have owned Getty for how long? About 2 years isn't it? They'll probably be looking to move it on soon and a good hoick in profits should make them lots of extra lolly.

« Reply #99 on: September 07, 2010, 17:34 »
0
It's all about the designers, and if you guys really want to make a statement, it's going to have to be with buyers. Frankly, istock probably doesn't care if a few people delete their portfolios or stop uploading. If they are going to feel any impact from this, it'll have to come from buyers. If you're a designer and purchase stock images, look elsewhere from now on. If you know people who buy from istock, let them know what's going on and that they could actually save money AND support artists by taking their business elsewhere.

This is very smart Mike.  I have been looking into getting a site built and had been trying to decide which agency to link the images to.  Had been considering Istock just this morning.  I will be choosing another site that pays a decent % instead.  

Also, my current business cards have the link to my IS portfolio.  I will be changing that and ordering new cards ASAP.  

Maybe not much, but if everyone with their own site or blog did the same thing it could have some impact.  And what about the industry bloggers?  Hopefully they will be vocal about these changes to warn buyers.  

Someone else said it, but it bares repeating...  MANY iStock exclusives are going to drop their exclusive status and flood other sites with images that use to only be available on iStock.  I think Buyers will notice this, especially since prices are lower on most other sites.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
2833 Views
Last post February 17, 2007, 07:20
by GeoPappas
17 Replies
6835 Views
Last post September 09, 2010, 19:38
by madelaide
2 Replies
2854 Views
Last post July 15, 2010, 10:47
by HughStoneIan
2 Replies
2422 Views
Last post September 09, 2010, 17:42
by loop
22 Replies
6831 Views
Last post January 31, 2014, 09:15
by JPSDK

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results