MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStock changing royalty structure  (Read 348508 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

xst

« Reply #775 on: September 12, 2010, 12:26 »
0
don't forget,
it's already second cut for independents.

They cut prices for L, XL not that long ago.

Yes,
I'm not removing my content from the for now.

But it's just making less sense give hem new content.
May be I'll submit there rejects from other sites.


grp_photo

« Reply #776 on: September 12, 2010, 13:11 »
0
I seriously doubt this was planned greed from the beginning.  It makes more sense that they had their eye on a target, didn't meet it and made a difficult decision knowing there would be mass hysteria and retaliation.

No I am certain this is about streamlining and 20%.

I will try explaining again:

The IS system is probably less to operate. Getty still employs account managers etc.

Getty operates at 20/80. Best of both worlds for them is to move towards running IS as the RF portal but paying Getty 'standard' royalties. IS also has much more traffic than Getty Images.

Getty content is coming to IS (at the 'standard' 20% royalty). IS content is going out on Getty at the 'standard' rate (ie 20%). Royalties are definitely moving towards 20%.

So IS is being tested as a portal for work from the main Getty RF collection. I am speculating that it may ultimately be the main portal for Getty RF. So why run two inspection processes. Suppose later there will be a single place to upload for inspection from where it will be sent to a collection or directly to one of the subscription portals which will compete with microstock.

20% is the theme here. It's even the rate which many non exclusives are setting like a line in the sand.
I really don't understand why not more people can see it, Getty-RF is 20% for exclusive material.
Exclusive images as a majority are a "must" for an agency like Getty (you can't allow a smaller agency to have the same portfolio like you).
Exclusive artists are "nice to have" and gives an agency incredible power but they are not a "must".
So they are heading to 20% for exclusive material but will be become more lenient with contributor exclusivity in the future.
This was just the first step.
Personally I welcome these changes this will make the industry more professional. Contributor exclusivity is a dumb thing to do.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2010, 13:13 by grp_photo »

« Reply #777 on: September 12, 2010, 14:31 »
0

Microbius

« Reply #778 on: September 12, 2010, 14:36 »
0
Interesting ..
http://www.observer.com/2010/real-estate/mack-daddy-likes-big-bucks-and-klein-cant-not-buy

sorry if link is already posted 

It has been posted, can't remember if it was here or on IS, but in my opinion you can't post it too many times.

vlad_the_imp

« Reply #779 on: September 12, 2010, 14:44 »
0
Quote
Interesting ..

CEO of large company has expensive house shock.

lisafx

« Reply #780 on: September 12, 2010, 17:14 »
0
Interesting ..
http://www.observer.com/2010/real-estate/mack-daddy-likes-big-bucks-and-klein-cant-not-buy

sorry if link is already posted 

It has been posted, can't remember if it was here or on IS, but in my opinion you can't post it too many times.


Agreed.  It was on IS. 

Jonathan Klein's new apartment looks so opulent it is reminiscent of Versailles.  What was it that happened to the owners of that place...?  ;)

« Reply #781 on: September 12, 2010, 18:55 »
0
I've been this mulling over trying to work out what the longer term effect of all this might be on Istock and their bottom-line.

Personally I am going to be dropping from 20% down to 18% __ that's a 10% hit for me. However Istock themselves are going from 80% to 82% of my sales and that's only a 2.5% increase for them (barely noticeable you might think).

Although many smaller-selling contributors are taking bigger hits than me there are also a great many heavy sellers who will not be hit at all __ and so again the overall increase in Istock's revenue is still going to be comparatively small.

Yes, Istock will be helping themselves to a bigger chunk of Vetta sales and also exclusive EL sales too, but even so the contributions from those will be fairly small compared to overall sales.

My guess is that Istock's overall gain will probably be no more than a 3-4% increase in total revenue. Ok, because the overhead has already been paid for then the net profit figures should be much more impressive __ but at what cost?

Istock would only need to lose 3-4 buyers out of every hundred they currently have and the whole debacle becomes financially neutral as far as the overall profit goes. When you then cost in the truly massive loss of goodwill from both their customers and their contributors, the potential number of exclusives ditching their crowns and the huge boost to competing agencies .... is it ever really going to be financially worth it?

It seems to me that Istock are taking a gamble of truly staggering proportions with fairly minor potential gains to their bottom-line ... and a mind-numbingly large downside if it all goes pear-shaped.

« Reply #782 on: September 12, 2010, 19:03 »
0
gostwyck,

It's not so little for them, when you discount their costs on their share. Let's say 50% of the total is their costs, their margin is 30% and, in your case, would change to 32%, but 35% in my case.

Of course, it is difficult to quantify their costs.  It is hard to believe it is 50%.

« Reply #783 on: September 12, 2010, 19:16 »
0
Is editorial one of their new content streams?  (Mostly sports editorial in this case?) 

This announcement was made on Wed 8th (the day after the Istock announcement).

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100908005304/en

Paul Melcher's take here:   http://blog.melchersystem.com/2010/09/12/under-the-carpet/

Melcher's closing words ring so true This is not about fair competition anymore, where the best image wins, this is becoming a real monopoly. Heard that, Justice department ?

« Reply #784 on: September 12, 2010, 19:28 »
0
gostwyck,

It's not so little for them, when you discount their costs on their share. Let's say 50% of the total is their costs, their margin is 30% and, in your case, would change to 32%, but 35% in my case.

Of course, it is difficult to quantify their costs.  It is hard to believe it is 50%.

Being as they were highly profitable when selling images for $1, so much so that Getty paid $50M for them, I think you would fall on the floor if you realised what their real margins were.

Let's say they are paying $2M per week in commissions (like Kelly said) and let's assume for easy numbers that they are paying 33.3% in overall commissions (probably alot less than that in reality being as we know that 80%+++ of contributors are not exclusive). That would mean they were earning $6M per week or roughly $300M per year.

Of that $100M is paid in commissions leaving them $200M. I've heard the figure of 120 employees. If those cost an average of $60K per person per annum then the wages/insurance would come to $7.2M __ but let's call it $10M to be on the safe side. Staff cost are generally a company's biggest fixed cost __ a rule of thumb is to double it to get a handle on the building rent, energy, telephones, vehicles and other general overhead. So that all comes to $20M leaving them $180M for marketing, bandwidth and profit __ and those are probably worse case figures. If they were spending just $30M per annum on marketing/bandwidth (and that's probably more than Dreamstime's entire turnover) it would still leave them with $150M profit. My guess is that is not far from the truth __ but I'm not expecting them to tell us the real figures.

« Reply #785 on: September 12, 2010, 19:29 »
0
Is editorial one of their new content streams?  (Mostly sports editorial in this case?) 

This announcement was made on Wed 8th (the day after the Istock announcement).

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100908005304/en

Paul Melcher's take here:   http://blog.melchersystem.com/2010/09/12/under-the-carpet/

Melcher's closing words ring so true This is not about fair competition anymore, where the best image wins, this is becoming a real monopoly. Heard that, Justice department ?


I don't know if it's part of this or not but in July Examiner.com announced that their writers would be able to use Getty images for free in their articles.

« Reply #786 on: September 12, 2010, 20:05 »
0
Just watched a Seth Godin This is Broken talk on TED

http://www.ted.com/talks/seth_godin_this_is_broken_1.html

Around 18:20 he states Sometimes the best thing to do is break it for the pople you don't care about and just make it work for the pople that you do. 

Anyone thinking the same thing I am?

« Reply #787 on: September 13, 2010, 02:59 »
0
I've been this mulling over trying to work out what the longer term effect of all this might be on Istock and their bottom-line.

Personally I am going to be dropping from 20% down to 18% __ that's a 10% hit for me. However Istock themselves are going from 80% to 82% of my sales and that's only a 2.5% increase for them (barely noticeable you might think).

Although many smaller-selling contributors are taking bigger hits than me there are also a great many heavy sellers who will not be hit at all __ and so again the overall increase in Istock's revenue is still going to be comparatively small.

Yes, Istock will be helping themselves to a bigger chunk of Vetta sales and also exclusive EL sales too, but even so the contributions from those will be fairly small compared to overall sales.

My guess is that Istock's overall gain will probably be no more than a 3-4% increase in total revenue. Ok, because the overhead has already been paid for then the net profit figures should be much more impressive __ but at what cost?

Istock would only need to lose 3-4 buyers out of every hundred they currently have and the whole debacle becomes financially neutral as far as the overall profit goes. When you then cost in the truly massive loss of goodwill from both their customers and their contributors, the potential number of exclusives ditching their crowns and the huge boost to competing agencies .... is it ever really going to be financially worth it?

It seems to me that Istock are taking a gamble of truly staggering proportions with fairly minor potential gains to their bottom-line ... and a mind-numbingly large downside if it all goes pear-shaped.

I believe the impact on contributor's current commission percentage is just part of their goal. The other part is really spoken out clearly in their "not sustainable" message: They don't want more contributors (current exclusive bronze / silver / gold contributors) to increase their share in the future.
Without these changes many of these would have climbed up the ranks (and increased their commission). Slowly but surely.
Now they have the tools (yearly fixing of the necessary performance numbers) to make sure that does not happen. That is the part of their storyline where they actually are telling the truth - they want to change from a system where (exclusive) commissions rise simply by time passing by to a system that keeps them down.

alias


Microbius

« Reply #789 on: September 13, 2010, 06:16 »
0

« Reply #790 on: September 13, 2010, 06:28 »
0
As I am deactivating files, I've been using this proverb as a reason in their reason for deleting box. I know it will fall on deaf ears
but I had to say something that was real.

Better a little with righteousness
       than much gain with injustice.

« Reply #791 on: September 13, 2010, 06:32 »
0
My guess is that Istock's overall gain will probably be no more than a 3-4% increase in total revenue. Ok, because the overhead has already been paid for then the net profit figures should be much more impressive __ but at what cost?

Istock would only need to lose 3-4 buyers out of every hundred they currently have and the whole debacle becomes financially neutral as far as the overall profit goes. When you then cost in the truly massive loss of goodwill from both their customers and their contributors, the potential number of exclusives ditching their crowns and the huge boost to competing agencies .... is it ever really going to be financially worth it?

It seems to me that Istock are taking a gamble of truly staggering proportions with fairly minor potential gains to their bottom-line ... and a mind-numbingly large downside if it all goes pear-shaped.

Yes, I hit on the same idea in the "leveraged" thread:

"As iStock is only making maybe 3% extra overall from screwing us, it will take 33 x $30,000 of sales before they recover the money from the price hikes that this loss has cost them. That is  $990,000 of sales.

It also follows that if just 3% of buyers withdraw their business, the entire benefit to Getty of this crazy pay cut will be completely wiped out."

Of course, the 3% assumes that each departing buyer spends the average amount.

Another point is that because there are no costs associated with this change, all the extra cash goes directly into the bottom line. Conversely, all losses from buyers come straight out of the bottom line, because there are no savings associated with the disappearance of a buyer.

If we assume that 30% of the turnover is profit, then taking an extra 3% from us will boost profits by 10%. Losing 3% of (average spend) buyers would neutralize that. BUT  every extra additional one percent of buyers who quit would cut the profits by3.3%

The tighter their profit margins are, the bigger the hit caused by each one percent of buyers, and vice-versa.

Another point is that you can never replace a lost buyer. You can work to bring in another buyer, but you are always trying to recruit buyers, so the one you gain is one you would have had anyway. The only thing you can do to repair the damage caused by losing a buyer is to sweet-talk that buyer into coming back.

On the same lines, giving up exclusivity benefits the bottom line unless the person doing it also transfers sales elsewhere. Non-exclusives pulling pictures is unlikely to have much impact on the profits as buyers will generally find a similar image to meet their needs.

 

« Reply #792 on: September 13, 2010, 06:39 »
0
iStockphotos Unsustainable Business Model: From Crowd-Sourcing To Crowd-Shafting?


Good article, shame about the completely uninformed comments underneath it *sigh*


Lots of anger from the "trads." By the way, when I say trads, I use it as an abbreviation, not so many letters to type, NOT as a derogatory term, as one gentleman wrote. It just really cracks me up how they wish all micros would go away and they say we all got what we deserved. Do they seriously think companies are going to be able to afford $100 stock photos nowadays? There's a reason Walmart is huge and the same reason microstocks are huge, it's called demand.

By the way, Getty's new business model reminds me alot of Sam Walton's. He has the same basic principle...pay suppliers nothing. They will be clamoring to do business with me because I am the biggest.

lagereek

« Reply #793 on: September 13, 2010, 09:49 »
0
iStockphotos Unsustainable Business Model: From Crowd-Sourcing To Crowd-Shafting?


Good article, shame about the completely uninformed comments underneath it *sigh*


Lots of anger from the "trads." By the way, when I say trads, I use it as an abbreviation, not so many letters to type, NOT as a derogatory term, as one gentleman wrote. It just really cracks me up how they wish all micros would go away and they say we all got what we deserved. Do they seriously think companies are going to be able to afford $100 stock photos nowadays? There's a reason Walmart is huge and the same reason microstocks are huge, it's called demand.

By the way, Getty's new business model reminds me alot of Sam Walton's. He has the same basic principle...pay suppliers nothing. They will be clamoring to do business with me because I am the biggest.


Well although Im doing extremly well with Trad/RM, etc,  Ive got no sympathy for them at all,  theyve been copyrighting sunsets and clouds for jonks now and have had a real good time. So they blame the Micros for decreasing business and all, calling us idiots and everything, right?
Only today about 75% of all Trad-photographers I bet supply MIcros as well.

lisafx

« Reply #794 on: September 13, 2010, 10:31 »
0


Well although Im doing extremly well with Trad/RM, etc,  Ive got no sympathy for them at all,  theyve been copyrighting sunsets and clouds for jonks now and have had a real good time. So they blame the Micros for decreasing business and all, calling us idiots and everything, right?
Only today about 75% of all Trad-photographers I bet supply MIcros as well.

The successful ones are anyway :)

Frankly, I am amazed at the shortsightedness of the "trad" photographers who are celebrating Getty's screwing it's Istock contributors.   

First off, it is a trad agency doing the screwing, secondly, the largest stock agency in the world screwing it's photographers is not a good precedent for the industry.  Theirs or ours.  What do they think they gain from this?  Micro royalties going down don't do anything to benefit trad photographers at all.  Quite the opposite. 

It is amazing to me that so many of these guys are celebrating the further deterioration of their own industry.  Sheer, gloating ignorance. 

« Reply #795 on: September 13, 2010, 10:43 »
0

By the way, Getty's new business model reminds me alot of Sam Walton's. He has the same basic principle...pay suppliers nothing. They will be clamoring to do business with me because I am the biggest.

I was totally thinking the same thing!  The only difference is that Walmart often does have the lowest price, whereas Getty and iStock do not.

I spent a good portion of the weekend going over my position at iStock wrt exclusiveness and where these changes will put me.  I'm only a few months away from 40% (diamond status) but the changes will drop me from 35% down to 25%.  If I go independent not only will my earnings drop even more, but so will iStock's - at least what the earn off me.  I won't pull my portfolio from iStock if I go independent.  Granted, I'm just a small drop in the bucket for them - but dropping exclusivity also drops the prices on all my images - including the 5 or so that made it into the much-hyped Vetta collection.   That means less money for them off the top as well.  

« Reply #796 on: September 13, 2010, 12:09 »
0
I apologize if this has already been posted (the threads and posts on istock here are so many..... I'm sorry), but did you see this on wiki?

"In September 2010, Getty Images IStockphoto Brand announced plans to cut payments to contributors by as much as 30% starting in 2011, while claiming that it furthered the interest of those same contributors. The royalty paid to non-exclusive contributors becomes as low as 15%[4] on the 1st day of 2011. Getty's motivation was greeted with skepticism by the iStockphoto community. Thousands of messages of complaint from contributors were posted on the iStock forum site within a few hours of the announcement[5]. "But money isnt going to be what makes you all happy." said CEO Thompson in his reply to the complaining contributors.[6]"

here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getty_Images

Thanks to whom wrote it!

« Reply #797 on: September 13, 2010, 19:17 »
0
Has anyone else considered the other cuts we've suffered beyond this royalty cut?

I thought about it and I realized that this royalty cut will actually hurt me a lot less than other things they've done.  I'm an independent and back in October of '08 when they changed the best match it cut my income by nearly 50% (on a portfolio of about 500 images). 

After a year of hard work and more than doubling my portfolio I had recovered those losses and was starting to get BMEs again for the first half of this year.  But then I guess they made changes again and since June my income is down 30%-40% again.  This royalty cut is peanuts compared to that.

Obviously IS doesn't really want my photos even though I've made thousands of dollars for them.  Seems like a ridiculous way to run a business.  Regardless, I know where I'm not wanted.

helix7

« Reply #798 on: September 13, 2010, 21:24 »
0

Just saw this video poking fun at the situation:
Istock competitor One Stock royalty cut update OO.mov


Not sure if it's already been posted here, apologies if it has.

RacePhoto

« Reply #799 on: September 13, 2010, 21:59 »
0

I don't know if it's part of this or not but in July Examiner.com announced that their writers would be able to use Getty images for free in their articles.


Link for you if interested. I'd guess that examiner is paying for the right to use these "free" photos with some limitations. They used to offer free AP photos. We can also read this to be news photos. IS doesn't have editorial and news photos. I wish they did. Probably that Getty doesn't want to kill their expensive content and licensing by offer Micro News, but they don't mind killing RF?

http://bicyclewriter.com/47/examiner-moves-from-ap-to-getty-images


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
4456 Views
Last post February 17, 2007, 07:20
by GeoPappas
17 Replies
9606 Views
Last post September 09, 2010, 19:38
by madelaide
2 Replies
4652 Views
Last post July 15, 2010, 10:47
by HughStoneIan
2 Replies
4092 Views
Last post September 09, 2010, 17:42
by loop
22 Replies
10701 Views
Last post January 31, 2014, 09:15
by JPSDK

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors