Author Topic: new mail from istock iStock Unification – Contributor Recap (Read 8469 times)

Nica · « **on:** November 15, 2016, 13:47 »

got a new mail

We’ve announced some big changes in the past few weeks so we thought it would be a good idea to step back and address some common questions we are hearing from you.

Exclusive vs. Non-Exclusive

We value your non-exclusive content and we believe that iStock can play an important part of your revenue mix if you are uploading quality imagery.

We’re also open about our desire for exclusive content. From January 3rd we’ll have a new exclusive application process which no longer requires a minimum number of downloads or an acceptance ratio – it will just be subject to editor review and that you meet the conditions of the Exclusive ASA.

Minimum Payments for Subscriptions

There has been a lot of talk about the minimum payments under the new ‘price per file’ download rates. Please keep in mind that:

You will enjoy higher royalty payments than you currently receive from subscriptions where customers have lower utilization, with no maximum payments (unlike under the previous system).

Full utilization of high volume subscription offerings are rare.

Customer Utilization of Subscriptions

The number of files downloaded per subscription differs from customer to customer and is highly dependent on the type of subscription they have.

For the most part, the higher the allowed number of downloads in a subscription, the lower the utilization.

However, the lower download subs (like our 10 download per month products) have a much higher price per file so even though these subs have higher utilization, you will see higher royalties, on average, from those subscriptions.

There have been questions about how we calculate annual subscriptions and subscriptions where there are rollover downloads.

All subscriptions are calculated on a monthly basis – based on the monthly price paid for that subscription and the number of downloads made against it in that given month, including any rollover downloads.

This means if a subscription has a low utilization in a particular month it will result in a higher price per file for those files in that month. In a subsequent month the roll over could lead to a high utilization and a lower price per file for those files.

Statements and Stats

With the move to the Getty Images royalty platform we are splitting file performance into two very distinct parts:

Licenses and royalties will be reported on the 20th of the month after the month in which the transactions take place and will be paid on the 25th of that month. The statement is static but the data is exportable in PDF or TXT formats. You will see additional detail on subscription payments made via gettyimages.com on these new statements, increasing transparency.

Stats will be shown in a new interface via ESP from January, which will give you the real time data you need on downloads and other customer interactions.

ESP

Our new submission platform will significantly improve time to market! ESP brings:

Batch submissions.

An improved workflow which allows you to fix issues in the existing submission rather than needing to resubmit from scratch.

A brand new editing process for inspectors which will be far more efficient.

The move to ESP and the Unification project in general is a very significant investment in the future of the company. It will get your content to customers quicker so that you can concentrate on creating more great work.

In order to reflect the new process that ESP provides, we have updated the ASA. The changes will come in to effect on December 1.

Summary

To continue to be competitive in the market we must attract and retain the best content.
To this end we are:

Paying out more royalties to contributors overall.

Investing in our contributor tools and upload platform.

Bringing more transparency to royalty statements.

We hope you continue to choose to upload your work to iStock and benefit in all of these investments.

Many thanks

The iStock team

zsooofija · « **Reply #1 on:** November 15, 2016, 13:50 »

Quote from: Nica on November 15, 2016, 13:47

We hope you continue to choose to upload your work to iStock and benefit in all of these investments.

Hope dies last.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #2 on:** November 15, 2016, 14:08 »

I'm betting applications to become exclusive won't be so many to crash the system. Is anyone seriously considering it?...surely the risk is enormous.

Nica · « **Reply #3 on:** November 15, 2016, 14:15 »

EmberMike · « **Reply #4 on:** November 15, 2016, 14:27 »

Quote

...To this end we are: Paying out more royalties to contributors overall...

Do you know how many times I've heard that tired old line? Every time a company cuts something, it's always because we'll somehow magically do better in the long run. Nine years in this business and I have yet to benefit from these kinds of changes.

I'm beginning to think maybe these companies are being dishonest with us.

zorba · « **Reply #5 on:** November 15, 2016, 14:52 »

I read this but can't find:

1) FTP
2) per-image exclusivity : I don't think mr. Mark Getty doesn't diversifies his activities and income sources and really can't figure out that someone says "uh not, no no no bad guy! If you do business with someone else we are no more friends, nyaaaaahhh!"

They aren't paying a granted wage, so why have we to give us for granted? But we of course could give them PART of our work in exclusive at the ASA conditions.

I can't find this in iStock and this is not a so hard "investment" : it's their (free, and this is a broad definition) choice.

What I can't see in the third party collaboration chances are API that work for guys like Bob at PicWorkflow : something that's useful to every contributor that want to make some (additional) investment in high quality work.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #6 on:** November 15, 2016, 15:09 »

In order to reflect the new process that ESP provides, we have updated the ASA. We were going to have the VP for a PC, but since the VP is such a VIP, we decided to keep the PC on the QT. 'Cause if it leaks to the VC he could end up MIA, and then we'd all be put on KP.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #7 on:** November 15, 2016, 15:37 »

Love the little "if you are uploading quality imagery" dig. Because if we make less money with their fabulous new deal, it's our [email protected] images' fault.

lemonyellow · « **Reply #8 on:** November 15, 2016, 16:08 »

zsooofija · « **Reply #9 on:** November 15, 2016, 17:24 »

Quote from: EmberMike on November 15, 2016, 14:27

Quote
...To this end we are: Paying out more royalties to contributors overall...

Do you know how many times I've heard that tired old line? Every time a company cuts something, it's always because we'll somehow magically do better in the long run. Nine years in this business and I have yet to benefit from these kinds of changes.

I'm beginning to think maybe these companies are being dishonest with us.

Come on, don't be a conspirationist. Corporations are nice, honest and they care about people. They want us to earn more, didn't you read the letter?

Digital66 · « **Reply #10 on:** November 15, 2016, 18:02 »

Quote from: Nica on November 15, 2016, 13:47

You will enjoy higher royalty payments than you currently receive from subscriptions where customers have lower utilization

Well, in some cases that utilization will have to be really low:

At current price, Essentials/Year 750 downloads/month: Non exclusives will need the customer to download no more than 85 files to keep the current $0.28 per download. That's about only 11% of what they can download.

At current price, Essentials/Month 250 downloads/month: Non exclusives will need the customer to download no more than 106 files to keep the current $0.28 per download

Quote from: Nica on November 15, 2016, 13:47

the lower download subs (like our 10 download per month products) have a much higher price per file so even though these subs have higher utilization, you will see higher royalties, on average, from those subscriptions.

The only way to get higher royalties from such package will be when customers download no more than 5 files! Non exclusives currently make $1 per download from that package.

SpaceStockFootage · « **Reply #11 on:** November 15, 2016, 18:18 »

Quote from: EmberMike on November 15, 2016, 14:27

Quote
...To this end we are: Paying out more royalties to contributors overall...

Do you know how many times I've heard that tired old line? Every time a company cuts something, it's always because we'll somehow magically do better in the long run. Nine years in this business and I have yet to benefit from these kinds of changes.

I'm beginning to think maybe these companies are being dishonest with us.

Although, to be fair, I think a lot of people interpret these emails wrong. They're not saying that all contributors are going to earn more as a result of whatever change they're implementing... they're saying that they're going to be paying out a total of more money after the change than before the change.

So if the amount of items on the site increases by 100%, and the total revenue increases by 101%, and they cut the commission from 16% to 8%.... then on average, every contributor is making a 75% loss. BUT... they're still paying out more royalties to contributors 'overall'.

dpimborough · « **Reply #12 on:** November 15, 2016, 18:37 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on November 15, 2016, 15:09

In order to reflect the new process that ESP provides, we have updated the ASA. We were going to have the VP for a PC, but since the VP is such a VIP, we decided to keep the PC on the QT. 'Cause if it leaks to the VC he could end up MIA, and then we'd all be put on KP.

Bravo sir!! Bravo!

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #13 on:** November 16, 2016, 01:48 »

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on November 15, 2016, 18:18

Quote from: EmberMike on November 15, 2016, 14:27
Quote
...To this end we are: Paying out more royalties to contributors overall...

Do you know how many times I've heard that tired old line? Every time a company cuts something, it's always because we'll somehow magically do better in the long run. Nine years in this business and I have yet to benefit from these kinds of changes.

I'm beginning to think maybe these companies are being dishonest with us.

Although, to be fair, I think a lot of people interpret these emails wrong. They're not saying that all contributors are going to earn more as a result of whatever change they're implementing... they're saying that they're going to be paying out a total of more money after the change than before the change.

So if the amount of items on the site increases by 100%, and the total revenue increases by 101%, and they cut the commission from 16% to 8%.... then on average, every contributor is making a 75% loss. BUT... they're still paying out more royalties to contributors 'overall'.

And they always wildly overestimate growth. So "we are halving royalty percentage but will be making 1000% more sales next year so predict paying out more".

I wonder if the staff on forums or sending out emails realise what is going on? Is there a high enough turnover of staff that they don't understand the company they work for I wonder?

Hildegarde · « **Reply #14 on:** November 16, 2016, 14:59 »

Quote

I'm betting applications to become exclusive won't be so many to crash the system. Is anyone seriously considering it?...surely the risk is enormous. .

I was.. BEFORE the changes simply because I was making a lot more there and the other agencies had slower sales. But then they made the announcement and I decided not to go elusive and stop uploading.

1. Too risky if this company changes commissions so fast and so drastically.
2. Sales with other agencies have picked up a lot very recently
3. My approval rates at the other agencies climbed significantly after making some changes ,,,, and I am having more fun too.
I had even thought maybe I will upload my rejects but now it is rare that I get an mage rejected at all places that actually inspect the images somehow.
4. I would rather help grow agencies that are paying me more.

Makes me wonder many people who might have gone exclusive in near future they suddenly lost.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #15 on:** November 16, 2016, 16:11 »

Quote from: Hildegarde on November 16, 2016, 14:59

Quote
I'm betting applications to become exclusive won't be so many to crash the system. Is anyone seriously considering it?...surely the risk is enormous. .

I was.. BEFORE the changes simply because I was making a lot more there and the other agencies had slower sales. But then they made the announcement and I decided not to go elusive and stop uploading.

1. Too risky if this company changes commissions so fast and so drastically.
2. Sales with other agencies have picked up a lot very recently
3. My approval rates at the other agencies climbed significantly after making some changes ,,,, and I am having more fun too.
I had even thought maybe I will upload my rejects but now it is rare that I get an mage rejected at all places that actually inspect the images somehow.
4. I would rather help grow agencies that are paying me more.

Makes me wonder many people who might have gone exclusive in near future they suddenly lost.

Indeed, I can understand those who are already exclusive and have built a following etc sticking with them but I really can't see anyone signing up to them now. Come on someone tell me I'm wrong!

ShadySue · « **Reply #16 on:** November 16, 2016, 16:25 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on November 16, 2016, 16:11

Quote from: Hildegarde on November 16, 2016, 14:59
Quote
I'm betting applications to become exclusive won't be so many to crash the system. Is anyone seriously considering it?...surely the risk is enormous. .

I was.. BEFORE the changes simply because I was making a lot more there and the other agencies had slower sales. But then they made the announcement and I decided not to go elusive and stop uploading.

1. Too risky if this company changes commissions so fast and so drastically.
2. Sales with other agencies have picked up a lot very recently
3. My approval rates at the other agencies climbed significantly after making some changes ,,,, and I am having more fun too.
I had even thought maybe I will upload my rejects but now it is rare that I get an mage rejected at all places that actually inspect the images somehow.
4. I would rather help grow agencies that are paying me more.

Makes me wonder many people who might have gone exclusive in near future they suddenly lost.
Indeed, I can understand those who are already exclusive and have built a following etc sticking with them but I really can't see anyone signing up to them now. Come on someone tell me I'm wrong!

I can't imagine anyone wanting to become exclusive, but even over the last year or two I've been astonished when I've read of exclusive wannabes.
If I was thinking of starting out in micro now, I wouldn't bother.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #17 on:** November 16, 2016, 16:26 »

You would have to be either mad or bad at math. Can't think of a third reason.

dpimborough · « **Reply #18 on:** November 16, 2016, 18:06 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on November 16, 2016, 16:26

You would have to be either mad or bad at math. Can't think of a third reason.

I can but it involves lots of illegal drugs

NitorPhoto · « **Reply #19 on:** November 17, 2016, 09:01 »

1. They keep a "small" portion of the licence price in order to have the best possible marketing.
2. They spend a lot to work with the very best marketing professionals.
3. But they want us to earn more.
4. And they want us to know this is what they want.
5. So very best marketing professionals suggest cut the contributor's royalty in order to clearly communicate them the message.

Ok, it seems I don't understand marketing.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #20 on:** November 17, 2016, 09:22 »

Quote from: NitorPhoto on November 17, 2016, 09:01

1. They keep a "small" portion of the licence price in order to have the best possible marketing.
2. They spend a lot to work with the very best marketing professionals.
3. But they want us to earn more.
4. And they want us to know this is what they want.
5. So very best marketing professionals suggest cut the contributor's royalty in order to clearly communicate them the message.

Ok, it seems I don't understand marketing.

Its simple really I-stock are acting like the market leaders and think people will be begging to join them as exclusives if they make this (marginally) more attractive and make non-exclusive worse. They are probably no 3 and falling whilst SS is maintaining its position and Adobe is rising fast.........what is commonly called delusional.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #21 on:** November 17, 2016, 09:27 »

The only people who will joining up now are people who have never discovered the other sites and only frequent the IStock forums.

PureArt · « **Reply #22 on:** November 17, 2016, 13:03 »

Ok, they tell they want to pay more to us (authors). In this case they could just raise the royalty % from the current 18% to, let's say, 25%. Simple and easy to implement (just change 1 number in their system)! But ... instead they create a sophisticated system including "subscription utilization" etc. Why?

I guess they are trying to fool us.

blamb · « **Reply #23 on:** November 17, 2016, 14:13 »

They pulled the 'subscription utilization' thing on us years ago when they first tried subs, and those earnings never materialized. Another shell game.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: new mail from istock iStock Unification – Contributor Recap (Read 8469 times)

Nica

zsooofija

Pauws99

Nica

EmberMike

zorba

Sean Locke Photography

Shelma1

lemonyellow

zsooofija

Digital66

SpaceStockFootage

dpimborough

Justanotherphotographer

Hildegarde

Pauws99

ShadySue

Justanotherphotographer

dpimborough

NitorPhoto

Pauws99

Justanotherphotographer

PureArt

blamb

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors