Author Topic: iStock Content to Sell on Photos.com and JupiterUnlimited (Read 95722 times)

tan510jomast · « **Reply #100 on:** May 02, 2009, 18:30 »

Quote from: batman on May 02, 2009, 18:19

do you see any IS exclusive screaming bloody murder over this? where is the IS mob? do i have to paint it for everyone ? if i were exclusive, i would laugh too , hmm?

and u r not laughing, because bats can't laugh

lisafx · « **Reply #101 on:** May 03, 2009, 17:25 »

Quote from: alias on May 02, 2009, 18:09

Quote from: lisafx on May 02, 2009, 17:10
How does istock exclusivity enable one to "quickly respond to the evolving market"? If anything, doesn't it do the opposite? Particularly with images that are model released only for istock and keyworded according to istock's unique scheme.

Keywording and model releases would be two areas to think about definitely. Aperture and Lightroom are both great tools for managing a collection. Then it can relatively quickly be output at different sizes and with different keywords, profiles etc.

People who are exclusive at one site or who have content exclusively at one site still might want to think ahead and keep their future options open by being careful about how they manage and organize their work as they go along. If only from now on.

By keeping our options open we are often much more relaxed and less jittery about our current arrangements.

Ahh. Gotcha. Yes, that does sound like a wise strategy.

crazychristina · « **Reply #102 on:** May 03, 2009, 17:41 »

Given that SS and istock are the top two earners here I'm wondering how subs can be so disastrous, and how the two models can't coexist successfully.

lisafx · « **Reply #103 on:** May 03, 2009, 18:02 »

Quote from: averil on May 03, 2009, 17:41

Given that SS and istock are the top two earners here I'm wondering how subs can be so disastrous, and how the two models can't coexist successfully.

Well, for starters, at SS I make .38 per sub sale. Their lowest royalty for a sub sale is for newbies with less than 500 DL's (which happens VERY quickly at SS) and that is .25. Once they reach 500 it jumps to .33. With decent volume .33 (or .38) adds up to a nice chunk of change.

That doesn't begin to compare to the .03 bottom rate that Getty is offering istock members, including exclusives. Yeah, hypothetically you could earn more, but having been on Photos.com and JUI for months, I can tell you that the bottom price is mainly what you will get. There is no realistic amount of volume that would make .03 add up to anything beyond diddly squat.

IF istock goes ahead with this they should offer the same deal to Istock members that StockXpert members got. .30/sub DL and 30% of other sales. Or better yet cannister level % for exclusives.

le_cyclope · « **Reply #104 on:** May 03, 2009, 18:09 »

Correction: the raise happens after 500$, not 500 dl's

Claude

cdwheatley · « **Reply #105 on:** May 03, 2009, 18:17 »

For 3 cents, why bother. I'm not understanding that at all. They should at least have a base commission of something like 25 cents and go up from there. I've only had a few ppd sales on jupiter and photos.com and agree its a non factor. Those two sites should not be marketed as PPD sites, they are subsciption sites as far as I'm concerned. Maybe someone else here has had a different experience?? I'm sure some Istock exclusives would like to know what the deal is.

lisafx · « **Reply #106 on:** May 03, 2009, 18:27 »

Quote from: le_cyclope on May 03, 2009, 18:09

Correction: the raise happens after 500$, not 500 dl's

Claude

Oooops. Thanks for the correction Claude

lisafx · « **Reply #107 on:** May 03, 2009, 18:32 »

Quote from: cdwheatley on May 03, 2009, 18:17

For 3 cents, why bother. I'm not understanding that at all. They should at least have a base commission of something like 25 cents and go up from there. I've only had a few ppd sales on jupiter and photos.com and agree its a non factor. Those two sites should not be marketed as PPD sites, they are subsciption sites as far as I'm concerned. Maybe someone else here has had a different experience?? I'm sure some Istock exclusives would like to know what the deal is.

Well, I have a pretty large portfolio and I will be happy to share that PPD downloads accounted for 2 tenths of one percent of my downloads on the Jupiter family of sites. All the rest were subscription at the base price.

KB · « **Reply #108 on:** May 03, 2009, 18:37 »

Is $0.03 a worst-case scenario or the expected average commission?

kkthompson in the original post stated that they are "projecting the average royalty payout to be 30¢ – 55¢".

Was this later rescinded? $0.03 is a long way from $0.30 - $0.55.

lisafx · « **Reply #109 on:** May 03, 2009, 18:56 »

Quote from: KB on May 03, 2009, 18:37

Is $0.03 a worst-case scenario or the expected average commission?

kkthompson in the original post stated that they are "projecting the average royalty payout to be 30¢ – 55¢".

Was this later rescinded? $0.03 is a long way from $0.30 - $0.55.

There is no guaranteed bottom under the istock plan. It could be .03 or it could be .30-.55. The higher estimate is VERY optimistic. Having been selling on Photos.com and JUI for a year, the higher commissions we were told would be abundant aren't.

When istock started their subscription plan there was also optimistic talk from admins about the subscription "lottery" where if someone didn't download their allotment you would get your % of all their alloted sales for the day. Please anyone step in if you have gotten more than one or two of these big payouts on a sub sale on istock. From my experience of selling sub sales and what I have read and heard from others, the vast majority are at the lowest end of the royalty structure. NO REASON to assume that it won't be the same in this case.

So many IS exclusives have voiced the opinion that their work is worth so much more than a .25 or .30 (or even .38) subscription royalty, that I can't believe any of them would honestly consider accepting a royalty of as low as .03. I sure as heck wouldn't.

The only reason might be if it gained you some exposure for your better istock work, like the free sections at DT and 123 link back to similar better work in our portfolios. Well, having been on Photos.com and JUI from the beginning of their tie in with StockXpert, in the exact same collection the istock images will be going in not only is there no promotional link back to our portfolios, contributors aren't even credited. I have been reluctantly willing to put up with it for a guaranteed .30/DL and 30% of higher sales (that 2/10 of one % of my sales I mentioned above).

FWIW, istockers are getting the shaft bigtime here. I will be opting out on istock and if they try to force the same horrendous terms on StockXpert members I will pull my stuff from that deal too.

I would rather have my stuff sitting on my hard drive rotting than accept .03 for a sale.

KB · « **Reply #110 on:** May 03, 2009, 19:48 »

Quote from: lisafx on May 03, 2009, 18:56

There is no guaranteed bottom under the istock plan. It could be .03 or it could be .30-.55. The higher estimate is VERY optimistic. Having been selling on Photos.com and JUI for a year, the higher commissions we were told would be abundant aren't.

Indeed. I am still waiting for my first > $0.30 sale on photos.com. Based on your 0.2% average, that's 1 in 500, isn't it? (I'm assuming that you included subs on all 3 StockXpert, um Jupiter, um Getty/Jupiter sites?). If so, I'm well past due by now. :-(

The biggest problem, then, is no guaranteed bottom. $0.03 for a DL is ridiculous and insulting, of course. However, if the average did turn out to be $0.30 or higher, as promised in "writing", then as painful as those -- I keep coming back to the word "ridiculous" -- $0.03 DLs would be, I suppose I wouldn't complain too much. I still think $0.30 per DL is too low, but as my total StockXpert earnings per DL is still above SS, I again can't complain too much.

Thanks for the info, Lisa.

lisafx · « **Reply #111 on:** May 03, 2009, 19:52 »

Quote from: KB on May 03, 2009, 19:48

Quote from: lisafx on May 03, 2009, 18:56
There is no guaranteed bottom under the istock plan. It could be .03 or it could be .30-.55. The higher estimate is VERY optimistic. Having been selling on Photos.com and JUI for a year, the higher commissions we were told would be abundant aren't.
Indeed. I am still waiting for my first > $0.30 sale on photos.com. Based on your 0.2% average, that's 1 in 500, isn't it? (I'm assuming that you included subs on all 3 StockXpert, um Jupiter, um Getty/Jupiter sites?). If so, I'm well past due by now. :-(

Yes, I did include the StockXpert sub sales too. Hoping you get your PPD DL soon.

NoData · « **Reply #112 on:** May 03, 2009, 20:20 »

I am not happy with the direction that things are going for contributors and feel a need to add my 2 cent's worth.

Since most of us agree that this in not a good deal for contributors. Why don't all of us agree to not upload for a month. Say from now till the Que drops to zero to send a message that we are the reason they are so successful. Would that get their attention? Just wondering.

helix7 · « **Reply #113 on:** May 03, 2009, 20:23 »

Quote from: snaprender on May 02, 2009, 15:41

...the question why Exclusives would only get 22.5% royalty has still not be answered by the admin's over on the IS forum. Why not? Why no answers...

Anyone else thinking litigiously like I am and wondering when a lawsuit will be brought against istock for breech of contract? 22.5% is not the promised percentage that exclusives were supposed to get...

m@m · « **Reply #114 on:** May 03, 2009, 20:43 »

I'll tell you guys something, for the moment I'll wait and see how all of this IS, StockXpert is going to develop, but the first DL that pays me $0.03 as commission, I'll be pulling out all of my photos from both sites. If I needed a handout I'll go to the corner with a tin can and beg for pennies, as Lisa mention I would rather have them on my hard drive then give them away for 0.03, as far as I'm concern this would be the biggest insult a site could do to us,the people that makes them money, exclusives and nonexclusives.

It seems that Getty want to be a pimp, and I'm to old to be a prostitute.

stacey_newman · « **Reply #115 on:** May 03, 2009, 21:23 »

well after a couple of days doing my homework (in other words, researching . out of this neurotically) as only I can do....it is terrible to admit a tiny bit of excitement about seeing where this one goes?

I thought when the announcement first came out that it would bring the exclusivity decision back into the foreground for me...and it did briefly.

but I have been reading and reading, and researching all these companies and how they are positioned in the market and you know, this plan might actually, shockingly, be a pretty intelligent thing to do. I can't believe I am saying it myself. though speculation means nothing without proof so I'll be opting in some files to see what happens. but, it feels a bit like an adventure.

my main concern was iStock changing its business model, which I no longer believe is the plan. and I see the potential for photos.com to compete well in the subscription theatre, which iStock has not been able to do since they are primarily known as a premium PAYG site.

in any case, I'm way less freaked and more optimistic.

fotografer · « **Reply #116 on:** May 04, 2009, 00:27 »

Don't get too excited Stacey, these sites between them account for considerably less tha1% of my total microstock earnings. To give you an idea how that relates to you IS give me 25% of my earnings.

Quote from: stacey_newman on May 03, 2009, 21:23

well after a couple of days doing my homework (in other words, researching . out of this neurotically) as only I can do....it is terrible to admit a tiny bit of excitement about seeing where this one goes?

I thought when the announcement first came out that it would bring the exclusivity decision back into the foreground for me...and it did briefly.

but I have been reading and reading, and researching all these companies and how they are positioned in the market and you know, this plan might actually, shockingly, be a pretty intelligent thing to do. I can't believe I am saying it myself. though speculation means nothing without proof so I'll be opting in some files to see what happens. but, it feels a bit like an adventure.

my main concern was iStock changing its business model, which I no longer believe is the plan. and I see the potential for photos.com to compete well in the subscription theatre, which iStock has not been able to do since they are primarily known as a premium PAYG site.

in any case, I'm way less freaked and more optimistic.

sharpshot · « **Reply #117 on:** May 04, 2009, 01:40 »

Quote from: helix7 on May 03, 2009, 20:23

Quote from: snaprender on May 02, 2009, 15:41
...the question why Exclusives would only get 22.5% royalty has still not be answered by the admin's over on the IS forum. Why not? Why no answers...

Anyone else thinking litigiously like I am and wondering when a lawsuit will be brought against istock for breech of contract? 22.5% is not the promised percentage that exclusives were supposed to get...

No, this is selling through photos.com, exclusives get their higher commission for istock. They also have an opt out. It looks like most of them will be using it.

sharpshot · « **Reply #118 on:** May 04, 2009, 01:50 »

Quote from: lisafx on May 03, 2009, 18:56

Quote from: KB on May 03, 2009, 18:37
Is $0.03 a worst-case scenario or the expected average commission?

kkthompson in the original post stated that they are "projecting the average royalty payout to be 30¢ – 55¢".

Was this later rescinded? $0.03 is a long way from $0.30 - $0.55.

There is no guaranteed bottom under the istock plan. It could be .03 or it could be .30-.55. The higher estimate is VERY optimistic. Having been selling on Photos.com and JUI for a year, the higher commissions we were told would be abundant aren't.

When istock started their subscription plan there was also optimistic talk from admins about the subscription "lottery" where if someone didn't download their allotment you would get your % of all their alloted sales for the day. Please anyone step in if you have gotten more than one or two of these big payouts on a sub sale on istock. From my experience of selling sub sales and what I have read and heard from others, the vast majority are at the lowest end of the royalty structure. NO REASON to assume that it won't be the same in this case.

So many IS exclusives have voiced the opinion that their work is worth so much more than a .25 or .30 (or even .38) subscription royalty, that I can't believe any of them would honestly consider accepting a royalty of as low as .03. I sure as heck wouldn't.

The only reason might be if it gained you some exposure for your better istock work, like the free sections at DT and 123 link back to similar better work in our portfolios. Well, having been on Photos.com and JUI from the beginning of their tie in with StockXpert, in the exact same collection the istock images will be going in not only is there no promotional link back to our portfolios, contributors aren't even credited. I have been reluctantly willing to put up with it for a guaranteed .30/DL and 30% of higher sales (that 2/10 of one % of my sales I mentioned above).

FWIW, istockers are getting the shaft bigtime here. I will be opting out on istock and if they try to force the same horrendous terms on StockXpert members I will pull my stuff from that deal too.

I would rather have my stuff sitting on my hard drive rotting than accept .03 for a sale.

I think if the average is anything under 30 cents, istock will have problems. Only a few people will want to opt in and this venture will be sunk. Anything over 30 cents and it is already above the current level for non-exclusives. Opting in for images that are over 18 months old with no sales might be a good option but these probably wont sell much on photos.com either. What is the point in clogging the site up with inferior images?

I had hoped that StockXpert would increase the 30 cents level and I will only put up with it for so long. I have already stopped uploading to crestock because they shouldn't be allowed to get away with 25 cents. I hope more people stop uploading there, as it could stop the other subs sites raising our commissions. If subs sites don't keep increasing their commissions, I will have to move on.

crazychristina · « **Reply #119 on:** May 04, 2009, 02:22 »

Don't assume eligible images are necessarily inferior. Plenty of istock photographers complain of good images disappearing into a black hole due to the vagaries of best match or something else. JJRD said pretty much the same thing about this deal.

bittersweet · « **Reply #120 on:** May 04, 2009, 07:44 »

Quote from: stacey_newman on May 03, 2009, 21:23

well after a couple of days doing my homework (in other words, researching . out of this neurotically) as only I can do....it is terrible to admit a tiny bit of excitement about seeing where this one goes?

I thought when the announcement first came out that it would bring the exclusivity decision back into the foreground for me...and it did briefly.

but I have been reading and reading, and researching all these companies and how they are positioned in the market and you know, this plan might actually, shockingly, be a pretty intelligent thing to do. I can't believe I am saying it myself. though speculation means nothing without proof so I'll be opting in some files to see what happens. but, it feels a bit like an adventure.

my main concern was iStock changing its business model, which I no longer believe is the plan. and I see the potential for photos.com to compete well in the subscription theatre, which iStock has not been able to do since they are primarily known as a premium PAYG site.

in any case, I'm way less freaked and more optimistic.

I wish I could agree. Maybe if I were a photographer and used to seeing tiny commissions on XS sales, I could more easily slide into the mentality that all this is okay. But as a vector artist who rarely makes less than a dollar per sale, and averages closer to $3 per sale, this is a huge laughable insult.

No way in hell I will opt into this, no matter how many shades of rosy opportunity they try to paint it with.

GeoPappas · « **Reply #121 on:** May 04, 2009, 09:03 »

Not that it will matter much to IS, but I will definitely be opting out of this as well.

I really hate subscriptions. They are really only beneficial to the the stock agencies and buyers.

Gregor909 · « **Reply #122 on:** May 04, 2009, 09:11 »

Quote from: m@m on May 03, 2009, 20:43

I'll tell you guys something, for the moment I'll wait and see how all of this IS, StockXpert is going to develop, but the first DL that pays me $0.03 as commission, I'll be pulling out all of my photos from both sites. If I needed a handout I'll go to the corner with a tin can and beg for pennies, as Lisa mention I would rather have them on my hard drive then give them away for 0.03, as far as I'm concern this would be the biggest insult a site could do to us,the people that makes them money, exclusives and nonexclusives.

It seems that Getty want to be a pimp, and I'm to old to be a prostitute.

Very well said! 3 cents is definitely an insult. I will be opting out on that as well!

Inga · « **Reply #123 on:** May 04, 2009, 10:08 »

I'll just opt out and forget about it.

stacey_newman · « **Reply #124 on:** May 04, 2009, 10:34 »

I'm optimistic still. I think if it doesn't work out, they'll kill it. and if it does work out, it could be good. the way they announced it is awful. their worst announcement yet, what did they think contributors would do?

they announce something like this, they know there are contributors who are going to freak (not really me this time), but lots of others have. and let me tell you, it is like a union in there right now. I have said I will opt in under plan B to see how it works. I have received nasty emails from some thug contributor on IS. feels like the teamsters to me. I just ignored him, it is from someone who is known for being a thug around there.

in any case, there is a sense of freedom for me, perhaps I'm optimistic because this might be a great reason to leave the crown behind and feel good about it. or it might be a great reason to stay. either way, I'm looking forward to being off the fence.

iStock is run by a very smart group of people, and I believe they truly care about contributors for the most part. we'll see.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: iStock Content to Sell on Photos.com and JupiterUnlimited (Read 95722 times)

tan510jomast

lisafx

crazychristina

lisafx

le_cyclope

cdwheatley

lisafx

lisafx

KB

lisafx

KB

lisafx

NoData

helix7

m@m

stacey_newman

fotografer

sharpshot

sharpshot

crazychristina

bittersweet

GeoPappas

Gregor909

Inga

stacey_newman

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors