pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStock Royalty Change  (Read 114136 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #125 on: October 26, 2016, 01:06 »
0
Today: buyer pays $149 for Essentials 100 and iStock keeps up to $121 of the cash. December: iStock keeps up to $147 of the cash.

But I don't think that can be right, not if they are paying the 15% they talk about. The Essentials subscription would have to be massively discounted for 15% of a sale to equal 2c. You'd have to be getting 100 downloads for a subscription costing $13, and using them all, for 15% commission to come to 2c. I wonder if its a mis-type for 20c in their original e-mail.


dpimborough

« Reply #126 on: October 26, 2016, 01:25 »
+4
Today: buyer pays $149 for Essentials 100 and iStock keeps up to $121 of the cash. December: iStock keeps up to $147 of the cash.

But I don't think that can be right, not if they are paying the 15% they talk about. The Essentials subscription would have to be massively discounted for 15% of a sale to equal 2c. You'd have to be getting 100 downloads for a subscription costing $13, and using them all, for 15% commission to come to 2c. I wonder if its a mis-type for 20c in their original e-mail.

Either way 20 cents is still less than the measly 28 cents they currently pay  :'( and the lowest I've come across from any agency

Jonathon Klein is not only milking the cow stealing the yoghurt and cream his company is also slicing pieces off the poor animal and draining it's blood too  >:(

« Reply #127 on: October 26, 2016, 01:27 »
+6
And this is why I will never defend Getty in any situation. They are predatory and completely unethical. If the company goes bankrupt, I doubt many will shed a tear.

« Reply #128 on: October 26, 2016, 01:36 »
+3
Refund for me too.......I can only conclude they are trying to encourage Exclusivity by making non Exclusive less attractive. Leaving the morals and fairness issues aside it wont work as I doubt many people see any prospect of making more overall by going exclusive and less customers will go there if contributors "follow through" and remove their content.

BD

« Reply #129 on: October 26, 2016, 01:42 »
0
Deleted. Misread something. I think the yearly subscription for 750 images would leave a non-exclusive around a few cents though. One year for $166.58 a month for 750 images.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2016, 02:22 by BD »

Justanotherphotographer

« Reply #130 on: October 26, 2016, 01:53 »
+9
I also had a load of refunds. My guess is it's not a coincidence. Contacting buyers offering refunds if the buyer takes up a discounted subscription maybe? Maybe with a few months free? That way the client starts paying under the new scheme.

« Reply #131 on: October 26, 2016, 02:09 »
+1
Today: buyer pays $149 for Essentials 100 and iStock keeps up to $121 of the cash. December: iStock keeps up to $147 of the cash.

But I don't think that can be right, not if they are paying the 15% they talk about. The Essentials subscription would have to be massively discounted for 15% of a sale to equal 2c. You'd have to be getting 100 downloads for a subscription costing $13, and using them all, for 15% commission to come to 2c. I wonder if its a mis-type for 20c in their original e-mail.
Maybe, you can always rely on I-Stock to bungle these things maybe an even more confusing "clarification" email to follow....meanwhile adobe go from strength to strength. I don't really understand how they derive some of their payments but I do know I'm getting more and more for a respectable amount :-)
« Last Edit: October 26, 2016, 02:11 by Pauws99 »

BD

« Reply #132 on: October 26, 2016, 02:20 »
0
I think the yearly subscription for 750 images would leave a non-exclusive around a few cents though. One year for $166.58 a month for 750 images.

Just wanted to make sure people were looking at the yearly subscriptions, not just the monthly. I think this is where the minimum of only a few cents is coming from.

« Reply #133 on: October 26, 2016, 02:47 »
+16
refunds and no payment for last month!

First they make it impossible to delete images months a go.
Than refunds, no payment and 0.2$ commisions.

Why only ever be victim? Lets fight back.

Suggestions:

1. Flood there support and socialmedia with requests.
2. If possible delete account.
3. Make them invisible by clicking away there adwords advertisement on google (they have to pay for every click and if there budget ends there advertisement is away).

We are many this is our advantage.
Lets give Getty a 24/7 "contributor service" around the planet.



« Last Edit: October 26, 2016, 03:05 by r2d2 »

« Reply #134 on: October 26, 2016, 03:15 »
+5
refunds and no payment for last month!

First they make it impossible to delete images months a go.
Than refunds, no payment and 0.2$ commisions.

Why only ever be victim? Lets fight back.

Suggestions:

1. Flood there support and socialmedia with requests.
2. If possible delete account.
3. Make them invisible by clicking away there adwords advertisement on google (they have to pay for every click and if there budget ends there advertisement is away).

We are many this is our advantage.
Lets give Getty a 24/7 "contributor service" around the planet.

Haha.... like it. Even if it doesn't stop from showing up, you could rack up a massive advertising bill for them...... more than the money they are saving by skimping on our commission if everyone does this.

Chichikov

« Reply #135 on: October 26, 2016, 03:23 »
0
refunds and no payment for last month!

First they make it impossible to delete images months a go.
Than refunds, no payment and 0.2$ commisions.

Why only ever be victim? Lets fight back.

Suggestions:

1. Flood there support and socialmedia with requests.
2. If possible delete account.
3. Make them invisible by clicking away there adwords advertisement on google (they have to pay for every click and if there budget ends there advertisement is away).

We are many this is our advantage.
Lets give Getty a 24/7 "contributor service" around the planet.

Where is the official Facebook page?

« Reply #136 on: October 26, 2016, 03:23 »
+14
I'm also out.  >:( It was my best agency I've dealt with. For the past months I've seen a decrease in sales and I was already pretty upset. With the new payment  algorithm, I have reached my breaking point.
I hope there are many as us, so we can give them a lesson and in the future to not have the same surprise with other agencies. I am sick and tired of stupid people who think they are well prepared to say how much my work worth. Most of them have no clue how much time you need to create something, but they can very well evaluate others work. The only thing they are doing well is negotiating a very big salary. Then they take bad decision and destroy big businesses (see yahoo :) ). I hope Istock goes really really  down.

dpimborough

« Reply #137 on: October 26, 2016, 03:35 »
+3
refunds and no payment for last month!

First they make it impossible to delete images months a go.
Than refunds, no payment and 0.2$ commisions.

Why only ever be victim? Lets fight back.

Suggestions:

1. Flood there support and socialmedia with requests.
2. If possible delete account.
3. Make them invisible by clicking away there adwords advertisement on google (they have to pay for every click and if there budget ends there advertisement is away).

We are many this is our advantage.
Lets give Getty a 24/7 "contributor service" around the planet.

Where is the official Facebook page?


Here https://www.facebook.com/istock/?fref=ts

Sad to see no one is really complaining here when they should

And for that matter

Twitter https://twitter.com/iStock?lang=en


« Reply #138 on: October 26, 2016, 04:05 »
0
Oh i see there are some contributor comments on Istock-Facebook page. :o

If you google from germany "stockfoto" than the istpockphoto advertisement appears as second result on top.
If you click at this advertisment istock has to pay for every click to google.
When there budget is empty this advertise will disappear.
If you click this it is important to stay a while on the clicked site or do somthing there (search an image). Because otherwise it is possible that google do not accept this click for payment.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2016, 04:19 by r2d2 »

« Reply #139 on: October 26, 2016, 04:31 »
+13
These changes and then 7 refunds in a row - that's too much.
In stead of having breakfast this morning and starting to work I manually cancelled more than 100 recent uploads and started deactivating files (170 already and counting).

Justanotherphotographer

« Reply #140 on: October 26, 2016, 04:41 »
+13
These changes and then 7 refunds in a row - that's too much.
In stead of having breakfast this morning and starting to work I manually cancelled more than 100 recent uploads and started deactivating files (170 already and counting).

You have some great work.

As predicted with them preventing deletions, some people will be brave enough to make a stand and delete content/ shut down portfolios. Most will just stop uploading new content, IStock will become ever less relevant and in more financial difficulty. Buyers will continue to migrate to FL, SS and other sites with stronger collections and better websites.

I bet in a years time they will be sitting around scratching their heads again wondering where it all went wrong. They will conclude that it is all someone else's fault no doubt (google, the internet their competitors) and come up with the solution of cutting royalties to remain competitive.

If my income wasn't involved I would be laughing.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2016, 04:43 by Justanotherphotographer »

« Reply #141 on: October 26, 2016, 04:54 »
+6
These changes and then 7 refunds in a row - that's too much.
In stead of having breakfast this morning and starting to work I manually cancelled more than 100 recent uploads and started deactivating files (170 already and counting).

Also have got 5 refunds after years without even single one.
There must be thousands of refunds reported to all the contributors!
All these sudden refunds reported by Getty are very fishy  >:(
Who are all those buyers? And why are all of them decided to cancel all these purchases in one day?

« Reply #142 on: October 26, 2016, 04:57 »
+4
No ones talk about that on twitter. Or ... maybe getty have block all the hashtag about that ? mmmm !
I just wish that buyers goes on shutter or fotolia instead.

« Reply #143 on: October 26, 2016, 04:59 »
+3
Its a pity they dont sell istock to SS or Fotolia. Then the artists would have professional management with longterm vision.

Getty is good at selling macrostock, they should just get out of microstock altogether. That whole social media/internet culture/community thing, they just dont get it. And all this online transparency...it just isnt them.

Just focus on macrostock and take in files from partners that are stock houses and distribute. Their own house artist are a permanently unhappy bunch, there are many other places that would take good care of them.

But Getty has great editors and they put together lovely collections with completly different styles and they have an active macrostock sales team.

But all that online thing, just ditch it and stick to what you understand. Sell istock to a competitor who would know how to grow the business.

Justanotherphotographer

« Reply #144 on: October 26, 2016, 05:01 »
+19
We need to get the message out to the deign community too. Getty treats creatives like s**t. Designers actually care about this!

« Reply #145 on: October 26, 2016, 05:10 »
+3
We need to get the message out to the deign community too. Getty treats creatives like s**t. Designers actually care about this!

This is most important!

« Reply #146 on: October 26, 2016, 05:13 »
+6
We need to get the message out to the deign community too. Getty treats creatives like s**t. Designers actually care about this!

why not start posting it here on Istock facebook?

https://www.facebook.com/istock

« Reply #147 on: October 26, 2016, 05:15 »
+11
I plan to leave my existing portfolio at iStock for the timebeing - after all the pain of uploading there it hurts me to delete all that effort. However, I will review the earnings in three months or so. If I begin to see those 2c royalties rolling in then it is without doubt time to leave them for good.


« Reply #148 on: October 26, 2016, 06:05 »
+3
" Royalties based on Subscription usage
There also seems to be some confusion related to how your royalties will differ depending on the number of downloads a customer has made against a subscription. We've prepared a few examples to demonstrate how things are going to work. For the purpose of this demonstration, we will use the Essentials 10 Subscription, which has a list price of $40 USD.

Low Utilization (20%)
# of downloads made: 2
PPF: $20 ($40/2 downloads)
Non Exclusive Royalty: $3 ($20*0.15)

Medium Utilization (50%)
# of downloads made: 5
PPF: $8 ($40/5 downloads)
Non Exclusive Royalty: $1.20

Full Utilization (100%)
# of downloads made: 10
PPF: $4 ($40/10 downloads)
Non Exclusive Royalty: $0.60

This examples illustrates your royalty for this subscription can range from 60 cents to $3 based on the number of downloads, and how for this subscription, the minimum royalty is not applied"

Yeh, like I always go to supermarket to buy one milk pack and pay for 10. I do this all the time, 'couse I'm a philantropist, but I don't want people to see it. Or maybe I'm not and I never do it.

I don't see how someone who pays for a big subscription pack, would take only a few of the images. That's why we stay to chase our images on so many illegal sites. This is also a part of the deal that they do not respect it: we create and take 20%, they sell, advertise and PROTECT our work and take 80%.  >:(

I am already tired of deactivating images on Istock, but I will do it until my last one. I don't want yet to delete my account, because you never know: maybe they fire the idiot who took this smart decision and I might change my mind.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #149 on: October 26, 2016, 06:16 »
+11
As Jo Anne said, they conveniently completely forgot to highlight that subs roll over, therefore there won't be many subs buyers who don't use up their quota, therefore by far the majority of sales will yield the minimum possible royalty.





 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
17 Replies
9606 Views
Last post September 09, 2010, 19:38
by madelaide
iStock royalty cut goes live

Started by helix7 « 1 2 3 4  All » iStockPhoto.com

85 Replies
37584 Views
Last post January 24, 2011, 12:54
by ShadySue
6 Replies
4758 Views
Last post July 25, 2014, 08:32
by KimsCreativeHub
3 Replies
4845 Views
Last post October 30, 2015, 13:47
by Microstock Posts
6 Replies
4634 Views
Last post February 27, 2017, 00:56
by stockmn

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors