pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStock changing royalty structure  (Read 348657 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #275 on: September 08, 2010, 09:53 »
0
I think there would be real poetic justice if contributors went all out to support Stockfresh and enabled them to triumph after what Getty did to the remains of StockXpert.  I believe they're paying 50% commission.

Yes, great thought but it would be about a month before they were bought out by Getty and just to stiff it to the decenters they would create a new sub agency and pay the photogs 5%.


« Reply #276 on: September 08, 2010, 09:57 »
0
IStock is the last site I submit to.
IStock is the last site I buy from.
Almost all my IStock images have between 5 - 7 keywords, (keywords rejection terror), are nothing special and never sell.
In my books IStock sits at the bottom of the list. Some months, lower than sites like Featurepics.
To exclude IStock completely would be easy for me.
I also don't like Getty.
I can't bring myself to upload to a site that pays me 15 %. Impossible. No matter how many sales or how much money 15 % translates into.
20 % is painful as it is. Anything less is unacceptable to me.

If an organized protest succeeds in taking form (sign petition, stop uploading on Day X, delete ports on Day Y) count me in.
By myself I don't matter, but part of a larger group I might be able to help.
I'm willing to participate, just let me know what to do.

If nothing else happens, I'll follow Sharpshot's example, and come 1-st January I will delete every single one of my images, bar the 3 ugliest IStock photos I've got.

I'm sure the very intelligent people at Getty have already taken this possibility into account. Exodus of non-exclusives. But they don't care; they'll quickly replace us with Getty collections and Getty professional photographers. And in their world all is well again.

grp_photo

« Reply #277 on: September 08, 2010, 10:03 »
0
If there is diamond contributor, currently taking 40% and if you sold 39,999 credits worth of images in 2010.
That means for your sales in 2011, your rate would drop from 40% to 30%.
That is a 25% pay decrease from what you were earning! not to be confused with a 10 percent rate decrease!
Is there any reason why to reduce 25% pay for this contributor???

20% is the norm for RF with Getty and yes it has to be exclusive too (though session- and not contributorwise).
If 20% for exclusive stuff is not enough for you, you are free to choose a different agency - good luck!

« Reply #278 on: September 08, 2010, 10:05 »
0
I never thought I could start thinking about restoring my FT account (with phrase in my mind - "they are not as bad as I thought").

« Reply #279 on: September 08, 2010, 10:18 »
0

20% is the norm for RF with Getty and yes it has to be exclusive too (though session- and not contributorwise).
If 20% for exclusive stuff is not enough for you, you are free to choose a different agency - good luck!

A bit simplistic, as it's image exclusivity and not artist.

I think the worst thing about all this is the inability to plan. It's impossible to be sure that the lines won't be redrawn in the near future. You work your butt off and just as you are nearing a milestone the map is redrawn. Detour time.

helix7

« Reply #280 on: September 08, 2010, 10:18 »
0
I think StockFresh could be the iStock killer. Better compensation for artists, better prices for buyers. Just need to grow the collection and then promote . out of it.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #281 on: September 08, 2010, 10:23 »
0
The key to all this is the BUYERS. There are millions of contributors who probably don't even know what is going on or don't even care and continue to upload. The target should be the BUYERS. That is the only way to burn a hole in the pocket of Getty and will also send a message to other sites that the photograph's won't put up with all this abuse any more.

« Reply #282 on: September 08, 2010, 10:27 »
0
Helix,
I agree about SFresh. But they're not ready yet.
I also like Veer, very much.
But they haven't reviewed any of my images in over 3 months. That's how long it takes for Veer inspections - over 3 months.
These sites need to step up their game and do it soon.

And I agree with Sharpshot. We should support the sites that pay us better. It's in our hands and it seems like an easy job. I'm all for it.

helix7

« Reply #283 on: September 08, 2010, 10:29 »
0
Helix,
I agree about SFresh. But they're not ready yet...

Yet. But they will be. All the more reason to throw our support behind them now, do our small part to grow the business. I'm going to start buying there exclusively, and will urge other designers to do the same.

Microbius

« Reply #284 on: September 08, 2010, 10:34 »
0
Actually, thinking about it after having read some more of the IStock thread, if we do go to StockFresh and it actually becomes successful surely Peter will just be selling it on quick smart (to Getty or similar) the same as he did with StockXpert. Same as Bruce did with IStock back in the day?

Jumping from ship to ship not going to get us anywhere, sadly.

grp_photo

« Reply #285 on: September 08, 2010, 10:37 »
0

20% is the norm for RF with Getty and yes it has to be exclusive too (though session- and not contributorwise).
If 20% for exclusive stuff is not enough for you, you are free to choose a different agency - good luck!

A bit simplistic, as it's image exclusivity and not artist.

I think the worst thing about all this is the inability to plan. It's impossible to be sure that the lines won't be redrawn in the near future. You work your butt off and just as you are nearing a milestone the map is redrawn. Detour time.
It's not image-exclusivity its session- and similiar-exclusivity (you can read the guidelines at Getty they are quite strict) and I said so.
Getty pays their pro-photographers 20% why oh why should they pay housewives 40% in the long term.
In five years it will 20% for all and 10% for non-exclusives - you don't believe me - well you didn't believe all the people that said to you five years ago after Getty bought iStock.
It's a genius plan from Getty and you have to adore it. Istock will prosper and they will be the only microstock-agency which content will grow creative- and quality-wise and not just number-wise. And Getty will make a lot more money out of it. That is to kill two birds with one stone - genius!
« Last Edit: September 08, 2010, 10:40 by grp_photo »

« Reply #286 on: September 08, 2010, 10:42 »
0
Before campaigning to drive all the customers to other sites, it might be a good move to work out how much money we get from one sale elsewhere compared to the money we get from iStock. If we convert a 15% commission worth $2 into a "fair percentage" commission worth 38c, who is the winner?

I seem to remember that a year or two back there was great enthusiasm for the "Midstock" idea, which has flopped everywhere except at iStock. It will probably flop there, too, given enough time, but until then the per sale commission value remains one of the highest, even if it is at a humiliating low percentage.

If we throw the baby out with the bathwater, a third of our earnings vanish overnight. To be realistic, I can't afford to do that. Suspending uploads for two or three weeks or months will achieve nothing (are we all still firmly behind the Fotolia upload boycott? Remember that? Hands up those who didn't cave in and start uploading again).

They're doing this to us because we're screwed and they know it. It isn't a negotiating ploy, it's an ultimatum. Nowhere are they asking for feedback or opinions, they're just telling us how it is going to be and letting us rant (up to the permitted level where you get an official warning, or "bitch-slapping" as they probably call it). The only question we need to ask is whether we are bending over far enough.

« Reply #287 on: September 08, 2010, 10:43 »
0
Actually, thinking about it after having read some more of the IStock thread, if we do go to StockFresh and it actually becomes successful surely Peter will just be selling it on quick smart (to Getty or similar) the same as he did with StockXpert. Same as Bruce did with IStock back in the day?

Jumping from ship to ship not going to get us anywhere, sadly.

+1

« Reply #288 on: September 08, 2010, 10:47 »
0
Helix,
I agree about SFresh. But they're not ready yet...

Yet. But they will be. All the more reason to throw our support behind them now, do our small part to grow the business. I'm going to start buying there exclusively, and will urge other designers to do the same.

Great. And most of us can't make any sales there at all because they can't even handle the number of applications.

lisafx

« Reply #289 on: September 08, 2010, 10:51 »
0
The only way to scare the sh*t out of Getty and IS management is for non-exclusives to start a campaign globally targeting picture buyers. Let's make an e-mail, showing how exploitive IS is, and that they can buy the same images from agencies like DT, SS, etc., and even alamy, for a lower price for them and a far higher and fairer commission for the photographers.


Better yet, all the tweeters, facebookers, and bloggers should publicize this.  And some of the talented videographers (who are getting hit even harder than photographers) should do a Youtube video.  Something along the lines of United Breaks Guitars.  That was a big hit and did impact on United Airlines.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YGc4zOqozo[/youtube]

alias

« Reply #290 on: September 08, 2010, 10:51 »
0
The tactic is to present a really bad deal that angers almost everybody. They will then come back with something that is still pretty bad, but just not as bad. This will then get "Woo-Yays", "Thank-you Istocks", and "we still love you's". So they will still get more money, we will happily get a pay cut, and everything is back to normal.

Trust is ebbing away.

The canister debacle ended with what has now turned out to be a disingenuous promise that everyone would be grandfathered in. The PP thread resulted in 'exclusive' content being pushed to the back of the PP search.

helix7

« Reply #291 on: September 08, 2010, 10:54 »
0
Actually, thinking about it after having read some more of the IStock thread, if we do go to StockFresh and it actually becomes successful surely Peter will just be selling it on quick smart (to Getty or similar) the same as he did with StockXpert. Same as Bruce did with IStock back in the day?

Jumping from ship to ship not going to get us anywhere, sadly.

I doubt he would do that. He sold StockXpert to Jupiter, not Getty, and Jupiter kept things going at StockXpert. It wasn't until Getty bought Jupiter that things took a turn for the worse.

Besudes, even if Peter did sell, it wouldn't be for several years. Look at how long StockXpert was around. I think he would have to show a few years of good revenues before he could even entice a good buyer. In the meantime, we can make good money at 50% per sale until that happens, if it ever happened.

cmcderm1

  • Chad McDermott - Elite Image Photography
« Reply #292 on: September 08, 2010, 10:55 »
0
PLAN:  Let's do a survey as contributors of best sites to participate in; Rank them 1-##; upload to site surveyed as #1 first - wait a month - upload to site surveyed as #2 - wait another month - ..... and so on.

That way the site we recognize as best gets our newer images first, and "exclusive" for a month, then the next best has a shot.  We need to be disciplined in much the same way OPEC regulates supply of oil (though they have their moments too).  So whenever to have new images to upload go to site #1 first and upload, police ourselves and wait the month, then upload to site #2.

Not perfect but more disciplined and structured.

« Reply #293 on: September 08, 2010, 10:56 »
0
Has there been a reply to all this , or are we just throwing all we got without waiting and listening?  Like said before here.  lower percentage can actually be more cash than before.  Depends on the sell price.

 Istock has always been paying the lowest percentage, and we all have raised them to the sky.  No wonder they lower it even more ;)

rubyroo

« Reply #294 on: September 08, 2010, 11:07 »
0
I doubt he would do that. He sold StockXpert to Jupiter, not Getty, and Jupiter kept things going at StockXpert. It wasn't until Getty bought Jupiter that things took a turn for the worse.

Yes, that was my understanding of what happened also.   

« Reply #295 on: September 08, 2010, 11:07 »
0

In five years it will 20% for all and 10% for non-exclusives - you don't believe me - well you didn't believe all the people that said to you five years ago after Getty bought iStock.


I'm starting to believe you!
I use to be optimistic, but I don't see the glass half-full this time. It clearly seems to me that istock followed the move of FT when cutting royalties so what scares me is that other agencies will follow this pattern sooner or later.
Besides, how many exclusives will drop the crown? I don't know if this will affect the traffic to istock but it may turn in less sales=less redeemed credits=less royalties.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #296 on: September 08, 2010, 11:13 »
0
Wow someone just posted on the iStock forum that their portfolio was being deleted just for speaking up on the forum

Here's the post with a copy and paste

"cr8tivguy
cr8tivguy
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo, Flash and Illustration downloads in the past 0 months Exclusive
Posted 7 mins ago

Quote
   
WOW ISTOCK IS REMOVING MY IMAGES FOR SPEAKING UP HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

« Reply #297 on: September 08, 2010, 11:18 »
0
Anyone remember this article?  Things have surely changed (in order to remain the same, of course).

http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=159

« Reply #298 on: September 08, 2010, 11:20 »
0
FALSE ALARM apparently - iStock moved instantly to deny this.

It proves that they can issue quick denials when they want to.

 




Just saw this on iStock thread - more news would be welcome

cr8tivguy
cr8tivguy
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo, Flash and Illustration downloads in the past 0 months Exclusive
Posted 22 mins ago

Quote
   
WOW ISTOCK IS REMOVING MY IMAGES FOR SPEAKING UP HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
« Last Edit: September 08, 2010, 11:31 by BaldricksTrousers »

« Reply #299 on: September 08, 2010, 11:32 »
0
The various views here make an interesting mosaic. Unfortunately we are a bit culprit of sites doing what they do, because in the end we (or most of us) always accept the changes, and accepted IS low commission from the start.

But I think nobody ever expected IS to set the photographers' commission ever lower than 20%.  Even if we have an increase in sales, 20% was already a shame.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
4457 Views
Last post February 17, 2007, 07:20
by GeoPappas
17 Replies
9609 Views
Last post September 09, 2010, 19:38
by madelaide
2 Replies
4653 Views
Last post July 15, 2010, 10:47
by HughStoneIan
2 Replies
4093 Views
Last post September 09, 2010, 17:42
by loop
22 Replies
10704 Views
Last post January 31, 2014, 09:15
by JPSDK

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors