MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStock Royalty Change  (Read 114125 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #225 on: October 27, 2016, 04:44 »
+6
Great post.

Notice that no one is trying to organise a "deactivation day" or similar over this one.

People are just looking at what's happened and thinking by themselves "of course, that's the end of IStock" and deleting their work.

The writing on the wall has gotten so big you don't need anyone to point it out anymore.

Agreed, it become crystall clear that it is a dead end.


« Reply #226 on: October 27, 2016, 05:28 »
+11
I don't get why people are still contributing to microstock at all at the moment. The only thing which is growing is the total number of images. And that means, inevitably, that the prices are only going down. Ever closer to zero. The size of the market was vastly over-estimated. That boom era is never coming back. Is everyone just hoping that everyone else will give up first? Otherwise it seems like a rather costly hobby.

And if you are really into pictures as a hobby then why not give up taking pictures which you think might sell and start taking pictures you like or which interest you instead? That's the thing about the best of the stuff in the non-microstock and more bespoke collections like Stocksy - that, at best, the pictures seem much more real. They seem like pictures made by people who love pictures.

« Reply #227 on: October 27, 2016, 05:40 »
+8
I contribute to microstock and my income grows. Not like in the easy years, but it makes money.

getty has decided to kill off istock, instead of wasting everyones time with a new rc system more confusing than the last, they should just give us all a flat 5% and be done with it.

Nobody is going to invest in shooting for them, all attention will be on the other sites that are growing. Nobody is going to organize a boycott, because they are not important enough.

I will leave what I have there out of nostalgia, all my attention is elsewhere.

It's over.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2016, 05:43 by cobalt »

« Reply #228 on: October 27, 2016, 05:46 »
+2
Of course the elephant in the room is that Getty with their free hand to discount and effectively pocket the cash will try and steam roller the competition.

The worst thing that could happen is they suck sales from other better paying agencies and contributors will end up with poor revenues across all sites.

It also doesn't help that Getty's #1 competitor SS is currently making a real mess of things for contributors and has done since May.
Yes but their mistake is they are just not that significant anymore they act as if they have a monopoly but in reality they are not in the top division anymore.

« Reply #229 on: October 27, 2016, 05:47 »
+3
Nobody is going to invest in shooting for them, all attention will be on the other sites that are growing.

None of the microstock sites are ever again going to be a good investment for individual contributing photographers (vs, for example, a minimum wage job).

The microstock sites depend today upon the legacy collections and upon new hobbyists coming in at the bottom of the pyramid - probably believing that their initial growth (from no sales to a few sales) is a trend they can track.

Justanotherphotographer

« Reply #230 on: October 27, 2016, 05:58 »
+10
Nobody is going to invest in shooting for them, all attention will be on the other sites that are growing.

None of the microstock sites are ever again going to be a good investment for individual contributing photographers (vs, for example, a minimum wage job).

The microstock sites depend today upon the legacy collections and upon new hobbyists coming in at the bottom of the pyramid - probably believing that their initial growth (from no sales to a few sales) is a trend they can track.

Honestly I don't want the thread to derail with an argument but it's pointless you posting over and over again that it isn't IStock's fault and the industry is on its knees.

I get that you couldn't make it work for you, and that isn't necessarily because of the quality of your work, but some people are doing just fine with this still.

My income is still increasing year on year. My returns from most sites per download have increased not decreased. The industry is doing just fine for those who know how to make it work for them.

Were you an exclusive at IStock? IStock has been going down the toilet for years, so I guess that could explain your pessimism. Those of us who have been putting all our eggs in all the baskets for the last decade can see the bigger picture.

« Reply #231 on: October 27, 2016, 06:00 »
+5
getty is also going to lose macrostock. offset, adobe, stocksy.. that is the future of macro.

And SS is attacking them with editorials, if Adobe also invests in that, what do they have left?

« Reply #232 on: October 27, 2016, 06:46 »
+3
My income is still increasing year on year. My returns from most sites per download have increased not decreased

If your profit is not growing proportionate to the total size of your collection then you are running to stand still. Most microstockers are struggling to keep up.  Well done if you have been in this for more than a few years and are ahead of the trend - when you take into account your hourly rate vs minimum wage and the cost of your investment.

Traditionally, photographers' back catalogues also represented a passive income, an investment. That is less and less the case for microstockers.

I guess that could explain your pessimism

I'm not pessimistic. I think that constant change is a fantastic thing. And I really admire the direction taken by sites such as Stocksy - both the work which they represent and the seemingly more sustainable and positive approach to the changing market. I also very much admire much of the work which Getty represents.

« Reply #233 on: October 27, 2016, 07:06 »
+2
"If your profit is not growing proportionate to the total size of your collection then you are running to stand still." Not really you are running to go more slowly uphill..rather like SS themselves. As you allude to what matters is if you can turn a profit that makes it worth it for you for the hours and expense  you put in. What is also a factor is how long the "tail" is if you stop uploading completely...I suspect it is much shorter than people anticipated but never the less there is a period of true "passive income" if you do stop.

Justanotherphotographer

« Reply #234 on: October 27, 2016, 07:19 »
+6
My guess is that your work is of a quality and production value that is unsuited to microstock. Perhaps you started out when returns were much higher and could justify the outlay. Work like that shouldn't be on the micros as it requires a higher return per download to justify producing it.

I started around ten years ago and my workflow is optimised for micro. I was never on the trad sites. I can see why to someone who is used to selling licensed for hundreds or thousands of dollars it looks like there is little difference between 2c and 38c per download. The difference for someone running a business as a microstock contributor it is actually beyond vast. I believe the people running IStock now are suffering from the same delusion, being used to licensing images for many hundreds of dollars and not having the faintest idea of the difference between a 2c and 38c sub return on our bottom lines.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2016, 08:10 by Justanotherphotographer »

« Reply #235 on: October 27, 2016, 07:21 »
+3
getty is also going to lose macrostock. offset, adobe, stocksy.. that is the future of macro.

And SS is attacking them with editorials, if Adobe also invests in that, what do they have left?

Macro will appear soon in Adobe. Maybe in the next year. They have the basis from the Infinity collection.

« Reply #236 on: October 27, 2016, 07:31 »
+5
And adobe also allows exclusive images for higher returns. They have very interesting options.

JaenStock

  • Bad images can sell.
« Reply #237 on: October 27, 2016, 08:38 »
+3
Macro run today in adobe in the in infinite collection. They pay 40% and this is good.

« Reply #238 on: October 27, 2016, 08:51 »
+2
Can we apply directly to join Adobe infinite?

ETA: Love your tagline!!

"Bad images can sell."
« Last Edit: October 27, 2016, 08:57 by cobalt »

« Reply #239 on: October 27, 2016, 09:39 »
0
Context; I sold in excess of one million licenses and make a six figure profit every year

That's excellent and I am very impressed. Your work is obviously very good. My own contribution to microstock was certainly lousy and insignificant by comparison. (Would it be rude to ask how many you are currently selling per year ? I am guessing that it must be in excess of 200,000. Would that be about right?)

Based on these numbers, I totally get your point about the difference between 0.38c and 0.02c. It certainly puts things in perspective.

But FWIW - I believe that you would be very much the exception. The majority of people still supporting the microstock model or joining today will be hobbyists and beginners who will struggle to make back their costs.

« Reply #240 on: October 27, 2016, 09:47 »
+9
Hobbyists buy their equipment for hobby purposes, so basicaly they dont have to get "their costs back". Every $ they earn is basically plus form them, since they didn't buy equipment for selling photos but for themselves.

Justanotherphotographer

« Reply #241 on: October 27, 2016, 09:50 »
+5
Context; I sold in excess of one million licenses and make a six figure profit every year

That's excellent and I am very impressed. Your work is obviously very good. My own contribution to microstock was certainly lousy and insignificant by comparison. (Would it be rude to ask how many you are currently selling per year ? I am guessing that it must be in excess of 200,000. Would that be about right?)

Based on these numbers, I totally get your point about the difference between 0.38c and 0.02c. It certainly puts things in perspective.

But FWIW - I believe that you would be very much the exception. The majority of people still supporting the microstock model or joining today will be hobbyists and beginners who will struggle to make back their costs.

200,000 is approximately right (withing 10%), probably just below. My ramping up of download numbers hasn't been a straight line from 2006 till today. 2010 to 2013 saw a much steeper growth as I got my workflow down.

It's the same in any industry, it's a bell curve and I am more to the right than most.  IStock's new payment structure is unsustainable for anyone.

ETA, and thanks for the compliment but my work isn't that great. Technically sound but otherwise mediocre. I am capable of producing very high quality work, but it wouldn't be worth uploading to the micros. I used to produce high quality work for fun but frankly now I work in the same field I don't get the same pleasure from it. I do this to support my family, not for the fun of it. I plan to take up the more arty side of things again when I retire.

« Last Edit: October 27, 2016, 09:55 by Justanotherphotographer »

« Reply #242 on: October 27, 2016, 09:54 »
0
Can we apply directly to join Adobe infinite?

ETA: Love your tagline!!

"Bad images can sell."

As far as i know is possible for Emerald or upper ranked contributors.

« Reply #243 on: October 27, 2016, 09:58 »
+1
Hobbyists buy their equipment for hobby purposes, so basicaly they dont have to get "their costs back". Every $ they earn is basically plus form them, since they didn't buy equipment for selling photos but for themselves.

Exactly. And therefore I doubt they will care that much. Many would probably carry on contributing even for badges and likes. And it will probably come to that.

« Reply #244 on: October 27, 2016, 10:16 »
0
As an Exclusive, The Corporation still makes enough to pay our large mortgage and go on shooting trips. I still upload everyday. I listen to what Istock asks for and try to shoot it. I never waivered from Exclusivity in 10 years and hope this change will keep earning status quo or go up. I never hired a model, I don't have a fancy studio.
I do feel bad for non exclusives but I was getting a little annoyed at the better placement of files when Exclusive only earn their money from Getty. They are finally realizing how important Exclusive contributors really are and are giving non exclusive the chance to become exclusive with the new sub system being counted as downloads. The downloads may be .o2, (at worst)  but it counts as a download toward exclusivity. In the chart to the right Istock exclusive earnings at 154.7 still blows all other agencies away. If I were you, and I'm not, I wouldn't be doing this mass exodus but rethinking how to become exclusive and becoming part of that 154.7 number. The other agencies will follow shortly behind, it's all business. SS started the standard with their sub style .38 sales and IS had to follow them and we became very successful with subs. if you wanted to know where your sub sales are going. In any given day, I could have 30 to 100 sub sales and growing and our program isn't that old so we are pulling from SS. Instead of pulling your ports, think about becoming exclusive and do the opposite of what you are doing, ignoring your port.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2016, 10:23 by jodijacobson »

« Reply #245 on: October 27, 2016, 10:20 »
+1

My income is still increasing year on year. My returns from most sites per download have increased not decreased. The industry is doing just fine for those who know how to make it work for them.

I'm an iStock exclusive, I realize you are not. Are your sales and/or income on iStock also increasing year on year, or are you saying your income is increasing year on year from all sites combined. I can't see how anyone who has been around for a while can increase income at iStock year on year. I've increased my upload and I still make less.

Justanotherphotographer

« Reply #246 on: October 27, 2016, 10:22 »
+13
As an Exclusive, The Corporation still makes enough to pay our large mortgage and go on shooting trips. I still upload everyday. I listen to what I stock asks for and try to shoot it. I never waivered from Exclusivity in 10 years and hope this change will keep earning status quo or go up. I never hired a model, I don't have a fancy studio.
I do feel bad for non exclusives but I was getting a little annoyed at the better placement of files when Exclusive only earn their money from Getty. They are finally realizing how important Exclusive contributors really are and are giving non exclusive the chance to become exclusive with the new sub system being counted as downloads. The downloads may be .o2, (at worst)  but it counts as a download toward exclusivity. In the chart to the right Istock exclusive earnings at 154.7 still blows all other agencies away. I were you, and I'm not, I wouldn't be doing this mass exodus but rethinking how to become exclusive and becoming part of that 154.7 number. The other agencies will follow shortly behind, it's all business. SS started the standard with their sub style .38 sales and IS had to follow them and we became very successful with subs. if you wanted to know where your sub sales are going. In any given day, I could have 30 to 100 sub sales and growing and our program isn't that old so we are pulling from SS. Instead of pulling your ports, think about becoming exclusive and do the opposite of what you are doing, ignoring your port.
Your maths is way off. As a non exclusive you need to add up all the numbers from the other agencies and compare to the IStock exclusive number. 

Also bear in mind that there is a minimum hurdle to become exclusive. The numbers for an independent who can become exclusive with IStock will on average be significantly higher for the other agencies than those shown in the chart, as these also include those who have not yet passed that hurdle.

I am sorry if you are in too deep with IStock to cut the cord, but don't kid yourself. They are only heading one way.


Justanotherphotographer

« Reply #247 on: October 27, 2016, 10:23 »
+7

My income is still increasing year on year. My returns from most sites per download have increased not decreased. The industry is doing just fine for those who know how to make it work for them.

I'm an iStock exclusive, I realize you are not. Are your sales and/or income on iStock also increasing year on year, or are you saying your income is increasing year on year from all sites combined. I can't see how anyone who has been around for a while can increase income at iStock year on year. I've increased my upload and I still make less.
No I am saying IStock is the only major agency where income has steadily declined. I believe my words were "going down the toilet for years"

ETA and they are also one of the only agencies consistently cutting commissions, a clear act of desperation leading to death spiral

« Reply #248 on: October 27, 2016, 10:54 »
+18
Instead of pulling your ports, think about becoming exclusive and do the opposite of what you are doing, ignoring your port.

Lol.

Justanotherphotographer

« Reply #249 on: October 27, 2016, 10:59 »
+3
Instead of pulling your ports, think about becoming exclusive and do the opposite of what you are doing, ignoring your port.

Lol.
I know. I think some people just don't have a breaking point I guess?


 

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
37581 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
4844 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