MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: New to this - why are some royalties $0.00 for some sales?  (Read 4863 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 22, 2017, 00:25 »
0
So the royalty statements are out... that's great, but I'm new to this and I can't find the answer to this... why do some sales result in a $0 commission? How come it shows the sale amount as negative? Ugh. If someone knows I'd love to know.  I feel ripped off. I worked hard to make those images!


« Reply #1 on: February 22, 2017, 00:41 »
+3
i think it will take days to decipher the new reporting scheme.

i've also spotted some files with 0.00 commission, but in those cases I also see another entry with same file and buyer with a 15% commission.

what makes me really unhappy is that i see a lot of files with 0.05 and 0.09 commissions from subscriptions

« Reply #2 on: February 22, 2017, 01:10 »
0
i think it will take days to decipher the new reporting scheme.

i've also spotted some files with 0.00 commission, but in those cases I also see another entry with same file and buyer with a 15% commission.

what makes me really unhappy is that i see a lot of files with 0.05 and 0.09 commissions from subscriptions

Upsss, great news starting.
And this are not FAKE NEWS.

Photodune Reject

« Reply #3 on: February 22, 2017, 01:16 »
+16
Nobody is holding a gun to your heads! Just quit and your problem is gone...

« Reply #4 on: February 22, 2017, 03:57 »
+12
sadly my number 2 agency...last year.
Stopped uploading while looking for other options.
This all completely stinks.
:(

JimP

« Reply #5 on: February 22, 2017, 11:09 »
+2
So the royalty statements are out... that's great, but I'm new to this and I can't find the answer to this... why do some sales result in a $0 commission? How come it shows the sale amount as negative? Ugh. If someone knows I'd love to know.  I feel ripped off. I worked hard to make those images!

Same file downloaded twice by same person after paying. You didn't lose anything. The returns will show as a same amount - for same file. Tell me somebody gets a sub on TS and retirns it? They did with one of mine. Load of horse crap at Getty. They don't want anything but exclusives.

outoftheblue

« Reply #6 on: February 22, 2017, 11:16 »
+1
i think it will take days to decipher the new reporting scheme.

i've also spotted some files with 0.00 commission, but in those cases I also see another entry with same file and buyer with a 15% commission.

what makes me really unhappy is that i see a lot of files with 0.05 and 0.09 commissions from subscriptions

Upsss, great news starting.
And this are not FAKE NEWS.

Even more interesting than the minimum commissions would be the average commission: if it's in line with other sites (my average RPD at shutterstock is about $0.65), that's fine - I wouldn't even care about the $0.02 sales. If it's less than $0.65, then they are stealing sales from better paying sites.

If they'll ever send my invitation to ESP I'll know and decide whether resuming uploads or not.


ShadySue

« Reply #7 on: February 22, 2017, 11:44 »
+5
So the royalty statements are out... that's great, but I'm new to this and I can't find the answer to this... why do some sales result in a $0 commission? How come it shows the sale amount as negative? Ugh. If someone knows I'd love to know.  I feel ripped off. I worked hard to make those images!

Same file downloaded twice by same person after paying. You didn't lose anything. The returns will show as a same amount - for same file. Tell me somebody gets a sub on TS and retirns it? They did with one of mine. Load of horse crap at Getty. They don't want anything but exclusives.
If they wan't exclusives, they have a funny way of showing it: loads of subs sales priced at even under the desultory minimum 26c they promised. Why upload anything for even 26c, certainly not for less. They break promises to exclusives just like to everyone else (e.g. mirroring editorials to Getty, though that's a mixed blessing/curse as some GI net us tiny sums.)

« Reply #8 on: February 22, 2017, 13:01 »
+3
Is anyone showing any high value sales from being included in Getty collections?  If so, are you exclusive or indie? 

The only way it would be worthwhile to continue with istock would be if there were enough high value sales (earning hundreds each) to compensate for the  minimal ones.  So far not the case for me.

« Reply #9 on: February 22, 2017, 13:17 »
0
Is anyone showing any high value sales from being included in Getty collections?  If so, are you exclusive or indie? 

The only way it would be worthwhile to continue with istock would be if there were enough high value sales (earning hundreds each) to compensate for the  minimal ones.  So far not the case for me.

got 2 huge sales from Getty, which actually saved my January stats. I'm not exclusive so it was a bit surprising, before I only had those 1cent sales from Getty Connect.

the other thing I was wondering about and never saw it before is the sold files marked as "Microsoft COO/Portal" in "Agent" column. Does anyone know what are these?
« Last Edit: February 22, 2017, 13:21 by sigalavaca »

« Reply #10 on: February 22, 2017, 13:17 »
0
wrong button sry
« Last Edit: February 22, 2017, 13:19 by sigalavaca »

« Reply #11 on: February 22, 2017, 13:19 »
0
So the royalty statements are out... that's great, but I'm new to this and I can't find the answer to this... why do some sales result in a $0 commission? How come it shows the sale amount as negative? Ugh. If someone knows I'd love to know.  I feel ripped off. I worked hard to make those images!

Maybe the $0.00 ones are files that were used for promotional purposes. I don't think we get paid for those. Anyone know?

H2O

« Reply #12 on: February 22, 2017, 13:23 »
+2
What is the point in giving a image away for nothing this is ridiculous, I have absolutely loads of them, I am at the moment so angry and upset to be rational with this.

I am absolutely furious.

ShadySue

« Reply #13 on: February 22, 2017, 13:27 »
0
So the royalty statements are out... that's great, but I'm new to this and I can't find the answer to this... why do some sales result in a $0 commission? How come it shows the sale amount as negative? Ugh. If someone knows I'd love to know.  I feel ripped off. I worked hard to make those images!


Maybe the $0.00 ones are files that were used for promotional purposes. I don't think we get paid for those. Anyone know?


Apparently they are where a buyer downloaded the file twice during the allowed timeframe, maybe a faulty download the first time. So far, all the ones I can see have a duplicate download of the same file next to the $0 record (immediately above or immediately below), with exactly the same details except that the other one has a royalty value, so that could be right.

« Reply #14 on: February 22, 2017, 13:43 »
+2
Price per image .03 (they must not pay much).

Do the buyers get additional rights for "premium access" since I got a whopping .35 for that (those?) sales.

If I hadn't already culled out my decent images I'd be doing that now.

Is there anywhere to see what image actually sold (is that in the downloadable file?). Lots of smoke and mirrors and not a lot of straight information. I guess I should be glad that they got this information out only 2 days after they said they would that was only 50 to 20 days after it actually happened).

Well, my hopes that they would turn something around have yet to be realized. With a few tweaks in 2006 or so Istock could have ruled microstock, instead they went the Getty route.

ShadySue

« Reply #15 on: February 22, 2017, 14:03 »
+1
Price per image .03 (they must not pay much).

Do the buyers get additional rights for "premium access" since I got a whopping .35 for that (those?) sales.
No, that was formerly known as Getty Plus, and before that Getty 360. It's a selected sample of Getty buyers who have access to all Getty assets, including iS etc in one account. Sales can be surprisingly high but far more usually very low (this month I've netted from 16c to $13.94 for these. 16c is possibly my lowest so far, but my first one was  $50 net).

Quote
If I hadn't already culled out my decent images I'd be doing that now.

Is there anywhere to see what image actually sold (is that in the downloadable file?). Lots of smoke and mirrors and not a lot of straight information. I guess I should be glad that they got this information out only 2 days after they said they would that was only 50 to 20 days after it actually happened).

Yes, the file numbers and titles are there, but it's all over the place and AFAICS, there are no thums.


Quote
Well, my hopes that they would turn something around have yet to be realized. With a few tweaks in 2006 or so Istock could have ruled microstock, instead they went the Getty route.
Well, inasmuch that the founder of iStock sold it to Getty in 2007, despite Getty's already poor reputation for how they treated photographers. It's only business.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2017, 14:06 by ShadySue »

« Reply #16 on: February 22, 2017, 14:08 »
+1
16 cents?  5 cents? 0 cents?   Not to worry.  It's "a sale you would otherwise not have gotten" to a buyer "who would never have paid for an image anyway".   
« Last Edit: February 22, 2017, 22:42 by stockastic »

« Reply #17 on: February 22, 2017, 14:10 »
0
So the royalty statements are out... that's great, but I'm new to this and I can't find the answer to this... why do some sales result in a $0 commission? How come it shows the sale amount as negative? Ugh. If someone knows I'd love to know.  I feel ripped off. I worked hard to make those images!


Maybe the $0.00 ones are files that were used for promotional purposes. I don't think we get paid for those. Anyone know?


Apparently they are where a buyer downloaded the file twice during the allowed timeframe, maybe a faulty download the first time. So far, all the ones I can see have a duplicate download of the same file next to the $0 record (immediately above or immediately below), with exactly the same details except that the other one has a royalty value, so that could be right.



I thought there was a deal a while back where bloggers or something could embed files for free, with the hope that they would buy from Getty when they later needed files that required licensing. It's been a while, so maybe I'm remembering wrong.

If these are duplicate downloads, is that being accurately reflected in the download counter that determines rates for exclusives? I can see a lot of howling if counters are dialed back...

ShadySue

« Reply #18 on: February 22, 2017, 15:34 »
+1
16 cents?  5 cents? 0 cents?   Not to worry.  It's "a sale you would otherwise not have gotten" to a buyer "who would otherwise never have paid for an image anyway".   
Nonono, you're off message.  ;D
These are sales to the biggest buyers, who, in general (but not always) have the deepest discounts.

JaenStock

  • Bad images can sell.
« Reply #19 on: February 22, 2017, 15:56 »
0
Peoplee.... All you are wrong!! PPF was NOT applied. Istock forget minimun ppf for exclusives and non exclusives. This is a 15% for example of 5 cents ppf and are not enought zeros at the right of the point 0.0075 for see in report!!!   I repeat... Check getty forums... Exclusives with s+ , signature or essentials sales dont received warranty minimun PPF... And non exclusives dont received minimun  too
« Last Edit: February 22, 2017, 15:59 by JaenStock »

« Reply #20 on: February 22, 2017, 17:22 »
+4
16 cents?  5 cents? 0 cents?   Not to worry.  It's "a sale you would otherwise not have gotten" to a buyer "who would otherwise never have paid for an image anyway".   
Nonono, you're off message.  ;D
These are sales to the biggest buyers, who, in general (but not always) have the deepest discounts.

Those discounts couldn't get much deeper.    But knowing you've sold to one of the "biggest" buyers:  priceless!

« Reply #21 on: February 22, 2017, 18:25 »
+2
All these graphs and statements are a mess. I cannot figure out how much money I made in january since also sales from november/december show up.
don'
Did they hire the same bookkeepers as "The Donald" did? The ones that don't want to publish clear figures. It's a disaster, total disaster!

« Reply #22 on: February 22, 2017, 18:50 »
+1
Export the .txt file from ESP, go to https://www.todayis20.com/, register and upload it... and prepare to be amazed!

Well, OK, maybe not too amazed, but it's pretty good.  Try it.


« Reply #23 on: February 22, 2017, 20:47 »
+1
I would like to know how I can extrapolate these figures to regular color bars in the iStock site.  I simply cannot tell what is for what month and or sale type all is combined into a listing that makes no direct connection with any past reporting.

Why not keep it as it was just in the different site. The pie chart should correspond to the color bars we were seeing at the iStock site.  My guess is this is by design to make it close to impossible to figure out.  Selling my footage selling for mere cents is also insane. 

« Reply #24 on: February 22, 2017, 22:52 »
0
Export the .txt file from ESP, go to https://www.todayis20.com/, register and upload it... and prepare to be amazed!

Well, OK, maybe not too amazed, but it's pretty good.  Try it.

Thanks for that link - makes things much easier


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
3294 Views
Last post December 19, 2011, 22:49
by RacePhoto
17 Replies
5410 Views
Last post March 27, 2012, 10:33
by Tryingmybest
13 Replies
3070 Views
Last post May 30, 2014, 17:04
by ShadySue
63 Replies
16151 Views
Last post March 01, 2016, 01:03
by Justanotherphotographer
0 Replies
1124 Views
Last post December 14, 2018, 03:51
by mojaric

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results