pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStock Exclusives Download Royalty Rate Targets For 2020  (Read 7646 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: December 18, 2019, 19:11 »
+2
Sue, sorry to hear about your carer duties. It's so hard.
My portfolio is a mishmash of all kinds of things and they all sell - lots of travel, some concepts, a little bit of studio stuff, and illustrations I've made using Photoshop (my version of Illustrator is from my pre-Mac days- ancient) - they all sell on both sites. Travel does well for me, even nature - flowers sell - not what you'd expect. I don't do wildlife though so if that's you entire port, I'd check with Martha since she does primarily wildlife I believe.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2019, 19:15 by wordplanet »


PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #26 on: December 18, 2019, 21:58 »
+9
I turned in my crown years ago. Was great while it lasted. Downward sales trend plus increased unreachable targets? What's the word I'm looking for? "Unsustainable"

"Money won't make you happy"

"We have some great news"

"Lovely to get the milk, the cream, cheese, yoghurt and the meat without buying the cow"

  ;D

jonbull

    This user is banned.
« Reply #27 on: December 19, 2019, 05:48 »
+2
at this point going non exclusive is totally useless if you don't have a big portfolio, with model released images and strong concept...if you have a thousand of wildlife images, as soon as they are uploaded in sss, if they not sell soon they won't sell ever....in istok probably some of your file have still visibility and so sell sometime i think, in ss you risk to sell nothing.

B8

« Reply #28 on: December 19, 2019, 10:56 »
+5
The royalty rate target increase of 25% (across all tiers) is by no means a little pin prick to the finger. It is an outright knife in the back!

Keep lowering prices of pictures, keep lowering royalty rates, and keep increasing the size of the collection with anything that anyone is willing to upload. What could possibly be more incentivizing for contributors?
« Last Edit: December 19, 2019, 13:14 by B8 »

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #29 on: December 19, 2019, 17:41 »
+1
The royalty rate for photo, illustrations, and vector content licensed on Adobe Stock is 33% of the amount paid by the customer for the content. For video, the royalty rate is 35% of the amount paid. Subs can be 33, 66 or 99. 33 is the lowest commission you will ever get, unlike some of the IS deals.

Earnings breakdown AS: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/royalty-details.html

Lowest you will ever get on SS is 25c until you reach $500, then you get a raise.

Earnings breakdown SS: https://submit.shutterstock.com/payouts

Alamy 40% or 50% for Exclusive (Image Exclusive) When a distributor sells, they get their share and the Alamy/ARist split is the same percentages, of what's left.

I'd only hope that if you dropped exclusive, you would find the returns worth your time and effort. Good Luck!
« Last Edit: December 20, 2019, 01:41 by Uncle Pete »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #30 on: December 19, 2019, 17:57 »
0
I'd only hope that if you dropped exclusive, you would find the returns worth your time and effort. Good Luck!
I'm pretty sure I wouldn't, hence my exit strategy (no current plans to start supplying any of the others when I get too p*ssed off with iS. Or vice versa.). I guess I could put my non-wildlife images on Alamy, but I earn much less on Alamy, with more files there, than I do on iS, so hardly worth the effort.

« Reply #31 on: December 19, 2019, 18:09 »
+4
The royalty rates at Istock be it exclusive or non-exclusive (forget about the ever moving target nonsense) is at the very least misleading. 15% is 15%. 35% is 35%. Premium Access is what %? For example, I am exclusive and my video is 30%, my wife's is non-exclusive at 20%. I sold close to 40 videos last month for less than what she sold her videos for. The same goes with photos, at 35% royalty rate I sold hundreds/thousands more per month for less than her 15% royalty. 

The IS/GI images contract is totally misleading. In my world 15% or whatnot is just that 15%. Can you imagine having a mortgage rate that is as variable or acredit card rate that is as variable with no clear explanation. That's right, a credit card rate of 21.99% but you only pay in reality on average 11.32% interest and on some purchases you only pay 1.2% interest.

One thing for sure, I now believe it is not worth it to support IS and/or GI in any way moving forward.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2019, 18:13 by Clair Voyant »

« Reply #32 on: December 19, 2019, 18:55 »
0

The royalty rate for photo, illustrations, and vector content licensed on Adobe Stock is 33% of the amount paid by the customer for the content. For video, the royalty rate is 35% of the amount paid. Subs can be 33, 66 or 99. I'm the lowest level because I only rejoined after FT was sold to Adobe. 33 is the lowest commission you will ever get, unlike some of the IS deals. Earnings breakdown AS: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/royalty-details.html

That is for non-subscription sales, for subs sales, AS is kind of like SS, depends on your lifetime downloads (0.33-0.38 USD).

BTW, at SS, for custom/enhanced license image sales and for all video sales, the royalties are percentage-based (20-30%).
« Last Edit: December 19, 2019, 18:58 by flywing »

« Reply #33 on: December 20, 2019, 13:34 »
0
What are the DL numbers for lower end of 2020 targets?

How many DLs are required to get 30%? Do exclusives still get 25% at least?

I forget how to log into GI.

People working in sweat shops don't have to tell you why. It's not fair to ask them to defend themselves. Anyone has a reason to do what they have to do.

Like Sue said, even though I get a higher % at Alamy, my earnings are much lower. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying GI is an angel.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #34 on: December 20, 2019, 13:50 »
0
What are the DL numbers for lower end of 2020 targets?

How many DLs are required to get 30%? Do exclusives still get 25% at least?
Well, yes, for iS sales, but of course 20% for Getty sales, which presumably buyers are being pushed towards.

Anyway:
Photos: Default - 25%;  30% - 800;  35% - 8,500;  40% - 34,500;  45% - 515,000
Illos:    Default - 30%;                     35% - 7200;   40% - 26,000;  45% - 172,000
Videos: Default - 25%;  30% - 300;  35% - 2,000;  40% -  4,600;    45% -  35,000

« Reply #35 on: December 21, 2019, 00:30 »
+1
What are the DL numbers for lower end of 2020 targets?

How many DLs are required to get 30%? Do exclusives still get 25% at least?
Well, yes, for iS sales, but of course 20% for Getty sales, which presumably buyers are being pushed towards.

Anyway:
Photos: Default - 25%;  30% - 800;  35% - 8,500;  40% - 34,500;  45% - 515,000
Illos:    Default - 30%;                     35% - 7200;   40% - 26,000;  45% - 172,000
Videos: Default - 25%;  30% - 300;  35% - 2,000;  40% -  4,600;    45% -  35,000

Thanks! You are always doing due diligence for others. I apologize for being lazy. :)

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #36 on: December 21, 2019, 14:35 »
0
What are the DL numbers for lower end of 2020 targets?

How many DLs are required to get 30%? Do exclusives still get 25% at least?
Well, yes, for iS sales, but of course 20% for Getty sales, which presumably buyers are being pushed towards.

Anyway:
Photos: Default - 25%;  30% - 800;  35% - 8,500;  40% - 34,500;  45% - 515,000
Illos:    Default - 30%;                     35% - 7200;   40% - 26,000;  45% - 172,000
Videos: Default - 25%;  30% - 300;  35% - 2,000;  40% -  4,600;    45% -  35,000

Thanks! You are always doing due diligence for others. I apologize for being lazy. :)
Didn't you get the email?
I've opted out of custom briefs etc, but still got this one, which is fair enough.

« Reply #37 on: December 21, 2019, 15:13 »
0
What are the DL numbers for lower end of 2020 targets?

How many DLs are required to get 30%? Do exclusives still get 25% at least?
Well, yes, for iS sales, but of course 20% for Getty sales, which presumably buyers are being pushed towards.

Anyway:
Photos: Default - 25%;  30% - 800;  35% - 8,500;  40% - 34,500;  45% - 515,000
Illos:    Default - 30%;                     35% - 7200;   40% - 26,000;  45% - 172,000
Videos: Default - 25%;  30% - 300;  35% - 2,000;  40% -  4,600;    45% -  35,000

Thanks! You are always doing due diligence for others. I apologize for being lazy. :)
Didn't you get the email?
I've opted out of custom briefs etc, but still got this one, which is fair enough.

Yes, I got the email. But it requires me to log in. I am too lazy to look for password.  ;)

« Reply #38 on: December 21, 2019, 17:44 »
+1
What are the DL numbers for lower end of 2020 targets?

How many DLs are required to get 30%? Do exclusives still get 25% at least?
Well, yes, for iS sales, but of course 20% for Getty sales, which presumably buyers are being pushed towards.

Anyway:
Photos: Default - 25%;  30% - 800;  35% - 8,500;  40% - 34,500;  45% - 515,000
Illos:    Default - 30%;                     35% - 7200;   40% - 26,000;  45% - 172,000
Videos: Default - 25%;  30% - 300;  35% - 2,000;  40% -  4,600;    45% -  35,000

Thanks! You are always doing due diligence for others. I apologize for being lazy. :)
Didn't you get the email?
I've opted out of custom briefs etc, but still got this one, which is fair enough.

Yes, I got the email. But it requires me to log in. I am too lazy to look for password.  ;)

Get a password manager for your browser :)

« Reply #39 on: December 21, 2019, 20:54 »
+7
This looks to me like another sign that Getty is up against the wall with their debt.

« Reply #40 on: December 21, 2019, 21:41 »
+6
This looks to me like another sign that Getty is up against the wall with their debt.

The sheer greed of Getty Images will be the collapse of a once decent company. Once upon a time being a part of the Getty family was a badge of honor. Now I don't see any value in contributing to Getty Images or Istock be it exclusive or non-exclusive. The numbers simply don't add up.

I think it is only a matter of time before contributors stop uploading fresh and new content there. Consider it the first domino, the rest is just chain reaction.

I have seen a person shoot themselves in the foot, but to shoot yourself in both feet is reckless to say the least. And Getty as an entity is doing just that.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #41 on: December 23, 2019, 00:14 »
+3
This looks to me like another sign that Getty is up against the wall with their debt.

The sheer greed of Getty Images will be the collapse of a once decent company. Once upon a time being a part of the Getty family was a badge of honor. Now I don't see any value in contributing to Getty Images or Istock be it exclusive or non-exclusive. The numbers simply don't add up.

I think it is only a matter of time before contributors stop uploading fresh and new content there. Consider it the first domino, the rest is just chain reaction.

I have seen a person shoot themselves in the foot, but to shoot yourself in both feet is reckless to say the least. And Getty as an entity is doing just that.

Greed may have been a major factor at one time. Now it's probably more competitive desperation. Big licensing fees are drying up. Competition from Adobe growth. Falling prices. Increasing oversupply of images.

Great time to be a buyer. Buyers have been conditioned to expect unlimited everything for peanuts.

« Reply #42 on: December 23, 2019, 22:29 »
+5
This looks to me like another sign that Getty is up against the wall with their debt.

The sheer greed of Getty Images will be the collapse of a once decent company. Once upon a time being a part of the Getty family was a badge of honor. Now I don't see any value in contributing to Getty Images or Istock be it exclusive or non-exclusive. The numbers simply don't add up.

I think it is only a matter of time before contributors stop uploading fresh and new content there. Consider it the first domino, the rest is just chain reaction.

I have seen a person shoot themselves in the foot, but to shoot yourself in both feet is reckless to say the least. And Getty as an entity is doing just that.

Greed may have been a major factor at one time. Now it's probably more competitive desperation. Big licensing fees are drying up. Competition from Adobe growth. Falling prices. Increasing oversupply of images.

Great time to be a buyer. Buyers have been conditioned to expect unlimited everything for peanuts.

Competitive desperation is certainly a factor. But this in part is due to lack of solid management in every way.

You can't keep screwing over the very people that makes your business thrive. As mentioned there is a chain reaction, first your contributors leave as many have throughout the years, then the chatter on social media about how poorly they treat the talent that is their main resource, then eventually this floods into the very people (the creatives) that purchase the content. It is the perfect storm for competitive desperations, you are losing the competitive edge with new content cause nobody supplies quality, and you lose a client base because your offerings are only the dregs of what is available elsewhere. Getty in many ways under estimated both contributors and buyers.

I find it odd that SS and AS actually pay out minimums and increase the royalty based on sales, yet IS is always reducing royalties by an impossible moving target. And you factor in Premium Access where contributors don't get a cut of the 'fee' charged to access our content for SFA.

Not that the Site Results on the left are accurate, but if you have been around long enough there was a time when IS Exclusive killed it and the first 5-7 other totals still did not add up to IS Exclusive. Now there are two agencies almost eclipsing IS. Getty did this to themselves and market conditions just fuelled it.


 

« Reply #43 on: December 23, 2019, 23:28 »
+1
then the chatter on social media about how poorly they treat the talent that is their main resource, then eventually this floods into the very people (the creatives) that purchase the content.

Sadly, BBC is still their partner.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #44 on: December 24, 2019, 00:20 »
+4
This looks to me like another sign that Getty is up against the wall with their debt.

The sheer greed of Getty Images will be the collapse of a once decent company. Once upon a time being a part of the Getty family was a badge of honor. Now I don't see any value in contributing to Getty Images or Istock be it exclusive or non-exclusive. The numbers simply don't add up.

I think it is only a matter of time before contributors stop uploading fresh and new content there. Consider it the first domino, the rest is just chain reaction.

I have seen a person shoot themselves in the foot, but to shoot yourself in both feet is reckless to say the least. And Getty as an entity is doing just that.

Greed may have been a major factor at one time. Now it's probably more competitive desperation. Big licensing fees are drying up. Competition from Adobe growth. Falling prices. Increasing oversupply of images.

Great time to be a buyer. Buyers have been conditioned to expect unlimited everything for peanuts.

Competitive desperation is certainly a factor. But this in part is due to lack of solid management in every way.

You can't keep screwing over the very people that makes your business thrive. As mentioned there is a chain reaction, first your contributors leave as many have throughout the years, then the chatter on social media about how poorly they treat the talent that is their main resource, then eventually this floods into the very people (the creatives) that purchase the content. It is the perfect storm for competitive desperations, you are losing the competitive edge with new content cause nobody supplies quality, and you lose a client base because your offerings are only the dregs of what is available elsewhere. Getty in many ways under estimated both contributors and buyers.

I find it odd that SS and AS actually pay out minimums and increase the royalty based on sales, yet IS is always reducing royalties by an impossible moving target. And you factor in Premium Access where contributors don't get a cut of the 'fee' charged to access our content for SFA.

Not that the Site Results on the left are accurate, but if you have been around long enough there was a time when IS Exclusive killed it and the first 5-7 other totals still did not add up to IS Exclusive. Now there are two agencies almost eclipsing IS. Getty did this to themselves and market conditions just fuelled it.

There are more contributors joining and creating new images than leaving and removing images. And this seems to be by a large margin if I'm remembering the numbers correctly. So what we've taught these sites is, you can treat us as poorly as you like and there are plenty of people who will accept it, and more new contributors will join than leave. We're our own worst enemy. These sites know they can continue removing benefits with little impact other than a few people on a forum creating some noise. It's calculated loss.

Also, buyers don't care. Well, they do, but they don't. They're sympathetic when they hear contributors are increasingly getting squeezed. But when they need that photo for a deadline where their bonus, or even job, is on the line, they buy whatever image they need regardless of what plight the creator has faced. This is the ME economy.

I used to think there was a bottom. A point where they paid us so little the entire model would near collapse and they would be forced to turn things around. I no longer believe that. I now think a disruptive new model will replace the current one long before that bottom is reached. Something, mostly likely Artificial Intelligence, will eventually replace many of us and possibly even many of these stock sites.


« Reply #45 on: December 24, 2019, 01:14 »
+3
Travel does well for me, even nature - flowers sell - not what you'd expect. I don't do wildlife though so if that's you entire port, I'd check with Martha since she does primarily wildlife I believe.

I'm arriving late to this conversation but will pop in here since my name came up.  :D

For decades I exclusively photographed wildlife, especially birds. It's what I find most challenging and just plain fun. "Non-lethal hunting" is my favorite way of describing it.

In recent years, however, I've upped my production of travel/landscape stills and videos and native trees and flowers, too and with that am seeing a significant rise in sales. Greater variety in my port has turned out to be a good thing.

As far as IS is concerned, I remain downright proud of myself for seeing the handwriting on the wall back in 2011 and escaping that quicksand. Never have regretted it.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2019, 01:27 by marthamarks »

« Reply #46 on: December 24, 2019, 01:17 »
+1

Getty is a bunch of foetid dingoes' kidneys

Great image! Thanks for the good laugh, which I needed tonight.

« Reply #47 on: December 24, 2019, 02:22 »
+4
Agree on every point. Many top producers that I know have left Getty or Istock and have left the stock business or are feeding other channels. The quantity of search results is very inferior to the competition and the quality advantage is long gone. They compete on price and in this war with a 20 ton debt on their heads they just cannot raise from past disaster they commited.

 Mark Getty and Jonathan Klein are most responsible of how they raised and trashed a company. They thought that they could do it again rebuying and beginning the cycle all over again. But this time customers and suppliers have not followed along. So no cheese,no milk, no skin..... only a smelling corpse left. The drama is slowly unfolding in front of our eyes.........


This looks to me like another sign that Getty is up against the wall with their debt.

The sheer greed of Getty Images will be the collapse of a once decent company. Once upon a time being a part of the Getty family was a badge of honor. Now I don't see any value in contributing to Getty Images or Istock be it exclusive or non-exclusive. The numbers simply don't add up.

I think it is only a matter of time before contributors stop uploading fresh and new content there. Consider it the first domino, the rest is just chain reaction.

I have seen a person shoot themselves in the foot, but to shoot yourself in both feet is reckless to say the least. And Getty as an entity is doing just that.

Greed may have been a major factor at one time. Now it's probably more competitive desperation. Big licensing fees are drying up. Competition from Adobe growth. Falling prices. Increasing oversupply of images.

Great time to be a buyer. Buyers have been conditioned to expect unlimited everything for peanuts.

Competitive desperation is certainly a factor. But this in part is due to lack of solid management in every way.

You can't keep screwing over the very people that makes your business thrive. As mentioned there is a chain reaction, first your contributors leave as many have throughout the years, then the chatter on social media about how poorly they treat the talent that is their main resource, then eventually this floods into the very people (the creatives) that purchase the content. It is the perfect storm for competitive desperations, you are losing the competitive edge with new content cause nobody supplies quality, and you lose a client base because your offerings are only the dregs of what is available elsewhere. Getty in many ways under estimated both contributors and buyers.

I find it odd that SS and AS actually pay out minimums and increase the royalty based on sales, yet IS is always reducing royalties by an impossible moving target. And you factor in Premium Access where contributors don't get a cut of the 'fee' charged to access our content for SFA.

Not that the Site Results on the left are accurate, but if you have been around long enough there was a time when IS Exclusive killed it and the first 5-7 other totals still did not add up to IS Exclusive. Now there are two agencies almost eclipsing IS. Getty did this to themselves and market conditions just fuelled it.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #48 on: December 24, 2019, 06:01 »
+3

You can't keep screwing over the very people that makes your business thrive. As mentioned there is a chain reaction, first your contributors leave as many have throughout the years, then the chatter on social media about how poorly they treat the talent that is their main resource, then eventually this floods into the very people (the creatives) that purchase the content.
Except that as far back as 2006 when I joined iS, Getty already had a bad reputation among photographers that even I, who wasn't in the game, knew about.

« Reply #49 on: December 24, 2019, 09:13 »
+5
Wow, so in a time when downloads per contributor have in general been trending down....they are increasing targets?!
The effect, of course, is either to cushion Getty's bottom line if their overall sales are declining or to boost their income if sales aren't declining overall. It all makes perfect sense when viewed from the office's penthouse suite over a glass of Glenlivet.
(Now I know how good it feels to view the iStock/Getty shenanigans from the outside, rather than being one of their serfs).


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
3158 Views
Last post August 26, 2012, 14:58
by fritz
50 Replies
14939 Views
Last post July 22, 2013, 13:52
by gclk
56 Replies
17644 Views
Last post August 31, 2015, 22:48
by tickstock
12 Replies
6676 Views
Last post January 01, 2018, 00:30
by KB
10 Replies
3362 Views
Last post December 17, 2018, 18:56
by everest

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle