pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStock Exclusives Download Royalty Rate Targets For 2020  (Read 4578 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: December 18, 2019, 02:40 »
+16
Getty just increased the download targets necessary for exclusive contributors on photos sales in 2020 to 8,500 downloads to reach 35% royalties and to 34,500 to reach 40% royalties. In 2019 you needed only 6,500 to get 35% royalties and 26,500 to get 40% royalties. To get 45% royalties you now need 515,000 downloads, up from 396,000 downloads in 2019. So they are basically cutting peoples royalty again and perhaps within another year or two they will make the targets so high that everyone who is exclusive will end up on a flat 20% (or less).
« Last Edit: December 18, 2019, 15:50 by iStop »


« Reply #1 on: December 18, 2019, 02:53 »
+2
Xmas ruined.

« Reply #2 on: December 18, 2019, 02:55 »
+8
Agreed, Getty how about lowering the targets instead of increasing them to keep up with inflation and rising production costs and increased cost of living for their contributors around the world? But that's not their game plan obviously. Keep lowering prices in the race to the bottom and all the while screwing their suppliers even harder every year to keep the divide between the top 1% and the other 99% growing even more.

« Reply #3 on: December 18, 2019, 03:41 »
+10
Gettyimages relation with contributors has always been based on abuse. There are people that want to be abused even if prevented again and again. But like personal toxic relationships the abuse always escalates. It does not stop or go backwards. Only the victim is responsible for saying stop and walk away.


« Reply #4 on: December 18, 2019, 04:11 »
+3
soon there will be zero professional micro stock contributor in any agency, so they will rely with amateur snapshot who could not compete with any free photos website...they are simply milking cow till it's the end of this market..it's pretty evident....i expect next year ss and as will even cut our royalty to make their manager receive their bonus....it's the same in any industry....but maybe people forgot the russian revolution own 1919? when the people are hungry we know how everything ends up.

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #5 on: December 18, 2019, 05:32 »
+5
Gettyimages relation with contributors has always been based on abuse. There are people that want to be abused even if prevented again and again. But like personal toxic relationships the abuse always escalates. It does not stop or go backwards. Only the victim is responsible for saying stop and walk away.



In the case of business relationships, sure. But victim blaming is not right when it comes to personal relationships. Those situations can be a lot more emotional and complex, and walking away from abuse is sometimes easier said than done. Especially when violent threats are involved, or kids.

« Reply #6 on: December 18, 2019, 06:06 »
+9
Just leave getty and their minion istock

Problem solved and you need never have to put up with this abuse ever again

« Reply #7 on: December 18, 2019, 08:51 »
+5
Royalty targets should be gradually lowered every year to allow to be competitive in an ever growing collection.

If the size of the collection grows by 30% in a year, the visibilty of your files drops drastically if you always produce the same volume, for instance 2000 files a year.

You simply cannot outshoot the flood, artists cannot produce 30% more every year.

You can look for niches and up your quality, but even for that you have limits.

wds

« Reply #8 on: December 18, 2019, 09:21 »
+7
Wow, so in a time when downloads per contributor have in general been trending down....they are increasing targets?!

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #9 on: December 18, 2019, 09:22 »
+7
^^^ Yebbut that's talking about being fair to contributors. When was that ever Getty's modus operandi, or indeed any of the other micros?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #10 on: December 18, 2019, 09:27 »
+6
Wow, so in a time when downloads per contributor have in general been trending down....they are increasing targets?!
They do it every year. They need to increase their profits. It takes a lot of money to service a debt. It's a major disincentive but l don't mistake them for a company which gives a d*mn

wds

« Reply #11 on: December 18, 2019, 09:38 »
+1
You wonder how far exclusive contributors can be pushed before they just walk away from exclusivity in significant numbers.

« Reply #12 on: December 18, 2019, 10:41 »
+10
You'll make it up in volume!

« Reply #13 on: December 18, 2019, 11:00 »
+7
If you can't walk away now then you have no reason to complain! So happy I did!!!

« Reply #14 on: December 18, 2019, 11:29 »
+2
Wow, so in a time when downloads per contributor have in general been trending down....they are increasing targets?!

Actually, for me at least, the number of downloads - both actual and "recorded" (where a Getty download counts as two)  - have been trending up, for actual by about 4% and for recorded by about 7%;  what's going down is revenue.

I looked at my stats and this is apparently because the number of downloads at 20% royalty (Getty) has gone up at the expense of the number of iStock downloads at 30% (my rate).

Now I don't work very hard at it so it's no surprise to me that I'm never likely to reach the 35% rate again - but I really can't see how anyone could possibly increase their downloads by 30% a year anyway, unless perhaps they've only just started.

So it would seem that the trend is for sales to move from the iStock platform to the Getty platform, where they may sell for more but only earn a flat 20% for the contributor.  As an Exclusive, I'm never likely to drop to 25% on iStock - at least, not for some time yet - but my revenue will continue to decrease even as downloads increase.

So not much to look forward to there.

« Reply #15 on: December 18, 2019, 11:31 »
+8
I left iStock almost 3 years ago. Their history is like the boiling frog experiment unfolding in real life. I have no sympathy for those who accept such a despicable treatment.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #16 on: December 18, 2019, 14:10 »
+1
I left iStock almost 3 years ago. Their history is like the boiling frog experiment unfolding in real life. I have no sympathy for those who accept such a despicable treatment.
So, I get 30% from iS. I understand that's about the same as the average at SS. I don't know about Adobe, can anyone enlighten me?
Getty is a bunch of foetid dingoes' kidneys, but the rest aren't much better; and I probably get a higher average rpd than most on SS and Adobe also. That isn't saying much, my sales are way down and my rpd way, waaaaaay down from a few years back, but I don't see that I'd do better elsewhere.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2019, 14:44 by ShadySue »

drd

« Reply #17 on: December 18, 2019, 14:37 »
+3
Intellectual Property is the oil of the 21st Century (Mark Getty)

« Reply #18 on: December 18, 2019, 15:38 »
+4
So they basically raised the royalty rate targets by nearly 25% across the board this year. As the OP said, if they do this for a few more years (each year), then it wont be long before everyone will struggle to hit targets in the future to even earn a 20% royalty. But at the same time it seems many contributors are losing about 20%-30% in total stock photo income year on year because of Getty's constant cutting of royalty free image prices, more Getty buyers moving over to subscription plans and away from credit packs, the massive growth to the overall size of the Getty collection each year because of millions more new pictures being added every day, and the fact that they are now going to dump their entire rights managed collection in with the royalty free collection thus, increasing the number of royalty free pictures exponentially even more. Pretty soon I don't think it is going to matter what royalty rate anyone is on anymore. Whether it is 20%, 30%, or 45%, any royalty rate percentage of $0 in sales will still amount to $0 in income for contributors.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2019, 15:40 by CraigMiller »

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #19 on: December 18, 2019, 15:44 »
+1
I left iStock almost 3 years ago. Their history is like the boiling frog experiment unfolding in real life. I have no sympathy for those who accept such a despicable treatment.

Yes I don't expect one tear for my choice to stay with IS. On the other hand I do have sympathy for the loyal exclusives who keep working for the small advantage and gains over us 15%ers. While every year Getty cuts and nips a little more from the exclusives.

I left iStock almost 3 years ago. Their history is like the boiling frog experiment unfolding in real life. I have no sympathy for those who accept such a despicable treatment.
So, I get 30% from iS. I understand that's about the same as the average at SS. I don't know about Adobe, can anyone enlighten me?
Getty is a bunch of foetid dingoes' kidneys, but the rest aren't much better; and I probably get a higher average rpd than most on SS and Adobe also. That isn't saying much, my sales are way down and my rpd way, waaaaaay down from a few years back, but I don't see that I'd do better elsewhere.

Percentages aren't the only way to look at earnings, in fact, they might be one of the worst. You can't spend a percentage.  ;)

Hypothetical: You drop Exclusive on IS, and upload everything to SS, AS and Alamy. Yes I know you already do some on Alamy, but just for example. Just using the poll from here, you'll make estimated,  double what you do now on IS. That's money in the bank, not a pretty sounding percentage number. Volume does matter?

I don't know what SS pays "percentage" we don't get that personal information very clearly. I do know my RPD is currently lifetime 75, and Adobe is 89, and Alamy is RPD $51 Net and probably going down (only made $225 there this year, so money not RPD would make more sense?) My point is, SS and AS have more volume for me, than IS and SS makes much more than AS because I have nearly ten times more images.

Maybe another way from my results. I make far more a month on SS, than I do on IS, without even doing the math. But that's absurd and I make more in one day on SS sometimes than I do a month at IS. My case is an extreme, and pretty lame as a statistical example.

Here's my final answer  :) Ask Sean how he feels about the differences in return. I know he was one of the top ten for years on IS, but now that he's off there and working the non-exclusive sites, maybe he can tell you what you might expect? I know we all have different images and markets, yours vs yours?

And maybe you are better off staying exclusive, less work for the peanuts we get for our effort? I don't claim to know anyone else's finances nor would I say, I know what you should do. Just looking at ideas and differences. No way to promise or predict if your same images will sell better or worse on other sites? What's your current and lifetime RPD on IS? (ask yourself, I'm not prying into your finances) That might tell you something.

My RPD on SS and AS are mostly subs, it's not like I get all kinds of ELs or others that pump up the numbers. So mine are base numbers for some pretty average images.

wds

« Reply #20 on: December 18, 2019, 16:11 »
+3
I left iStock almost 3 years ago. Their history is like the boiling frog experiment unfolding in real life. I have no sympathy for those who accept such a despicable treatment.
So, I get 30% from iS. I understand that's about the same as the average at SS. I don't know about Adobe, can anyone enlighten me?
Getty is a bunch of foetid dingoes' kidneys, but the rest aren't much better; and I probably get a higher average rpd than most on SS and Adobe also. That isn't saying much, my sales are way down and my rpd way, waaaaaay down from a few years back, but I don't see that I'd do better elsewhere.

If you are saying you are exclusive on iS and get 30%. The difference is, you would be getting revenue from 3 or more agencies vs. 1. You'd have to do the math.

« Reply #21 on: December 18, 2019, 16:17 »
+5
The recent Seattle Times article said Getty isnt really seeing revenue growth any longer. But if they increase the royalty targets for iStock exclusives by 25% then they will probably increase their own revenue by at least 20% on the iStock collection. So if they cant grow revenue from buyers anymore it seems they are happy to take it from the contributors instead in order to show their investors there is still some (perceived) areas of growth in their business.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #22 on: December 18, 2019, 17:02 »
+3

Here's my final answer  :) Ask Sean how he feels about the differences in return. I know he was one of the top ten for years on IS, but now that he's off there and working the non-exclusive sites, maybe he can tell you what you might expect?
Sean's port and mine are polar opposites, so I'm afraid his experience would be extremely different to mine. E.g. I don't do models.

Quote
I know we all have different images and markets, yours vs yours?
I do know that two people who submit similar subjects to me to SS don't do well there, even though they combined ports to get to higher levels quicker.

My intention still is, as I've said often before, that when I finally get sick of iS, I'll probably give up on micro altogether, and donate my wildlife pics to charities I support. As always, reserving the right to change my mind. I have caring responsibilities, so almost no time to shoot nowadays. I know I'm always on here, but that's mostly on my very long commute, or at night.

« Reply #23 on: December 18, 2019, 18:45 »
+2
^^^ Yebbut that's talking about being fair to contributors. When was that ever Getty's modus operandi, or indeed any of the other micros?

Sue, you mentioned checking out Adobe and here's some info you may find of interest:

Adobe's blog https://medium.com/adobetech/evaluating-addressing-position-bias-in-adobe-stock-search-9807b11ee268 about how they are changing things to account for how placement on the page in addition to what page your image lands on effects how it is seen and taking that into consideration in ranking images (i.e. "position bias"). It shows an appreciation for how new images and even older images are fighting for position and an interest in opening things up so that more than just the "top sellers" get seen. Sure, their primary focus is to give buyers more diversity in what they see, but it also helps contributors. And it shows they are adapting to the realities of the market.

Mat, their contributor liaison here, answers questions and replies to messages, so you have a real person to deal with consistently.

Adobe had a different kind of target this year (and last), which I think shows what a difference there is between the companies' attitudes toward their contributors. I'm a very small fish at Adobe, but I qualified for the free Adobe CC Photography program (PS & LR subscription) for a year by getting 300 images accepted in 2019. It was a bit of a challenge because I shoot a lot of editorial, which they don't take, and I didn't read about it until October, so I uploaded most of the files in the past 10 weeks. But it was a realistic goal even for small contributors like me, and was open to everyone, not just the big fish.  (Except Illustrators aren't getting what they need - Illustrator or the full program- so they need to make that right).

I'd encourage you and others who are thinking about it to check out Adobe. I do better sales wise on SS and even on Alamy, but I had fewer than 200 images on Adobe until this year, so it is not a fair comparison. I'm hoping now that I have more than doubled my portfolio there I'll see better results. There are plenty of big fish here to give you advice.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2019, 18:56 by wordplanet »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #24 on: December 18, 2019, 19:00 »
0

Sue, you mentioned checking out Adobe and here's some info you may find of interest:
I didn't really. I only asked what the average percentage is there.
Like I said, I have virtually no time to make more images now. I also don't know anyone with my sort of port there, particularly location, to know if there would be any point me submitting (I don't have models, I don't have a studio, I live in the boonies: none of these is going to change).
Thanks anyway.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2019, 19:04 by ShadySue »

« 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 Good New 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

« 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 Good New 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 Good New 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).

« Reply #50 on: December 24, 2019, 10:27 »
+1

(Now I know how good it feels to view the iStock/Getty shenanigans from the outside, rather than being one of their serfs).
Me too!  I pulled my entire port in 2016 and haven't missed their $100/month OR their shenanigans one bit.

« Reply #51 on: December 24, 2019, 19:51 »
+5

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.

I have been with Getty since almost day 1. I was in two very well known and respected agencies that got bought out by Getty and one regional well know and respected agency, and just like that all of my work was represented by Getty via three 'brands' as they used to call it. That was when Getty was respected and it was a badge of honor. True, Getty through their greed started turning this industry upside down and reducing commissions. I joined IS in 2007 with rejected images by none other than Getty Images cause I could see the writing on the wall back then, and was chastised heavily by all the cool kids who apparently thought stock was a closed door activity and/or thought they had invented stock and had new stock shooting idols. Speed up the truck to 2020 and the writing on the wall has come to full fruition.

It is what it is. But if I was a newbie at this in today's climate, and reading the writing on the wall for the next generation, I would not give anything to Getty Images at all. Knowing what I know now I also don't think I would have the dream of being a stock photographer for a sustainable career. I have been full time stock shooter long before IS and any of the micros, the business has been very good to me, and continues to be 'okay' albiet barely 'okay'. 

The industry has changed, so be it. There is no going back, and it it not going to get any better moving forward.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #52 on: December 25, 2019, 10:27 »
+1
I have been with Getty since almost day 1. I was in two very well known and respected agencies that got bought out by Getty and one regional well know and respected agency, and just like that all of my work was represented by Getty via three 'brands' as they used to call it. That was when Getty was respected and it was a badge of honor. True, Getty through their greed started turning this industry upside down and reducing commissions. I joined IS in 2007 with rejected images by none other than Getty Images cause I could see the writing on the wall back then, and was chastised heavily by all the cool kids who apparently thought stock was a closed door activity and/or thought they had invented stock and had new stock shooting idols. Speed up the truck to 2020 and the writing on the wall has come to full fruition.

It is what it is. But if I was a newbie at this in today's climate, and reading the writing on the wall for the next generation, I would not give anything to Getty Images at all. Knowing what I know now I also don't think I would have the dream of being a stock photographer for a sustainable career. I have been full time stock shooter long before IS and any of the micros, the business has been very good to me, and continues to be 'okay' albiet barely 'okay'. 

The industry has changed, so be it. There is no going back, and it it not going to get any better moving forward.





 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
2801 Views
Last post August 26, 2012, 14:58
by fritz
50 Replies
13335 Views
Last post July 22, 2013, 13:52
by gclk
56 Replies
14437 Views
Last post August 31, 2015, 22:48
by tickstock
12 Replies
6189 Views
Last post January 01, 2018, 00:30
by KB
10 Replies
2939 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