MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: estike on November 13, 2013, 04:46
-
I just had two PPs on October 1st and 2nd.
-
I see only the 7 first days of october, but on those days my PP sales are about two times what they usually are... I'm starting to suspect something is wrong... (I hope not, I'm certainly enjoying the money rolling in!)
-
We're talking about it over on the stats thread. Everybody is seeing a surge in earnings. I suspect it is the Getty 360 program getting under way.
-
Compared to earlier PP sales, these seem to have a huge increase in RPD. For instance:
Nov 1st: 9 PP downloads, $47,55
Nov 2nd: 9 PP downloads, $6,52
That's more than your average $0,28 (although I see some of those as well)!
-
.
-
It did change. GI 360 is being reported under PP sales.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=357474&messageid=6956574 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=357474&messageid=6956574)
-
.
-
However, if it's keep going like this PP sales will be the BME. They're as good as SS sales in terms of $.
What a nice surprise!
-
how can iStock report PP and not main sales on the charts? guess they hired some of Yuri's distribution team folks ;D
(yeah it must be a different process but sure it is the same "code" no?)
-
It did change. GI 360 is being reported under PP sales.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=357474&messageid=6956574[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=357474&messageid=6956574[/url])
True, but when I got one, it was a green section in the stats bar, but came in with the Getty sales, not PP. 'Under', but not 'with' PP sales.
That could have changed in the last couple of months, of course.
-
However, if it's keep going like this PP sales will be the BME
OMG - that will confound the miserablists.
-
However, if it's keep going like this PP sales will be the BME
OMG - that will confound the miserablists.
However, if it's keep going like this Oct PP sales will be the Worst Month Ever. They're not good at all in terms of $.
Is it better now?
-
I got one 3.96 (for me) and another for .58 as well as the usual .28
-
I have so few files remaining on iStock (109) that I was surprised to see a big balance jump from the start of the PP numbers. On Nov 3rd there was a 24.02 PP sale - just one, so I assume that must be some sort of EL?
-
.
-
I see only the 7 first days of october, but on those days my PP sales are about two times what they usually are... I'm starting to suspect something is wrong... (I hope not, I'm certainly enjoying the money rolling in!)
I have the first 11 days reported: 99 PP sales.... Hope there is nothing wrong, my BME for PP sales so far:):):)
-
I see only the 7 first days of october, but on those days my PP sales are about two times what they usually are... I'm starting to suspect something is wrong... (I hope not, I'm certainly enjoying the money rolling in!)
I have the first 11 days reported: 99 PP sales.... Hope there is nothing wrong, my BME for PP sales so far:):):)
you can't add more "smiles" this month ;D
-
Been getting a number of thinkstock sales for $3.96.
-
39.84$ ???????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
.
-
Oh em gee. If the rest of the month goes the way the first 11 days have, I may make the same amount on iStuck as I did on Shutterstock last month. That would be mind-boggling. :o
-
I'm not sure what's going on, but it looks good. Too bad I didn't upload to iStock for almost two years, so my portfolio there is 15% of my shutterstock portfolio.
-
I have PP sales reported until the 13th and the amount is incredibly high when compared with the average month. In fact I think I've earned more in these 13 days than the whole month in the previous reports.
Hope this is not an error because I may be headed to my best month of the year.
-
I have so few files remaining on iStock (109) that I was surprised to see a big balance jump from the start of the PP numbers. On Nov 3rd there was a 24.02 PP sale - just one, so I assume that must be some sort of EL?
If people start reporting good sales there would you think about uploading again ?
-
I have PP sales reported until the 13th and the amount is incredibly high when compared with the average month. In fact I think I've earned more in these 13 days than the whole month in the previous reports.
Same here. If the trend continues then I'm on target to earn almost twice as much from the PP in October ... as I did from my Istock portfolio.
-
Isn't it weird that they've removed the choice of uploading to the PP for Exclusives.
It must be significant.
-
1.12$ and counting
-
Isn't it weird that they've removed the choice of uploading to the PP for Exclusives.
It must be significant.
Pretty difficult to flaunt the 'Only on iStock' theme if most of the exclusive content is on the PP. Although, in reality, that tag is a joke for a good number of images anyway, those exclusive images that are on the PP now and other reasons that have been discussed to death in other threads.
I suspect indie content will eventually be removed from iStock and exist only on the PP sites...but, if they do that, they had better remove the present exclusive content from those sites.
-
Pretty difficult to flaunt the 'Only on iStock' theme if most of the exclusive content is on the PP.
It's from, not on.
-
Double digits for the PP sales this month :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
-
Pretty difficult to flaunt the 'Only on iStock' theme if most of the exclusive content is on the PP.
It's from, not on.
Would you care to explain that nuance. L*bo came out with it, but I don't see the technical difference, as they're clearly not only 'from' iStock either.
-
I have so few files remaining on iStock (109) that I was surprised to see a big balance jump from the start of the PP numbers. On Nov 3rd there was a 24.02 PP sale - just one, so I assume that must be some sort of EL?
If people start reporting good sales there would you think about uploading again ?
Not unless they do something to give back contributor control over special deals.
It was the Getty-Google deal and their unwillingness to offer an opt out that had me pull most of my portfolio earlier this year. They have made it pretty clear in what I've read that they will not offer an opt out and feel they may make any sort of deal with contributor content they see fit.
Things change - it's possible they may decide that their high-handed approach to their suppliers has been ill advised - but I'm not holding my breath :)
-
If I remember correctly, Getty 360 included exclusives, not just indies. Someone posted a link to the forums where Lobo said that Getty 360 sales were showing up in the PP "bucket" for contributors.
So isn't it possible that the big jump is because of Getty 360 taking off? And in that case, where would exclusive returns from Getty 360 show up in the iStock UI? In the PP section?
-
Pretty difficult to flaunt the 'Only on iStock' theme if most of the exclusive content is on the PP.
It's from, not on.
Would you care to explain that nuance. L*bo came out with it, but I don't see the technical difference, as they're clearly not only 'from' iStock either.
I cannot speak for anyone else, but in this context it seems completely obvious that content uploaded to iStock which is also part of the PP or is sold at GI is from iStock. From iStock the brand. Clearly it is not only on iStock, the portal.
-
Pretty difficult to flaunt the 'Only on iStock' theme if most of the exclusive content is on the PP.
It's from, not on.
Would you care to explain that nuance. L*bo came out with it, but I don't see the technical difference, as they're clearly not only 'from' iStock either.
I cannot speak for anyone else, but in this context it seems completely obvious that content uploaded to iStock which is also part of the PP or is sold at GI is from iStock. From iStock the brand. Clearly it is not only on iStock, the portal.
That's just legal semantics. In this context, it may technically be accurate, even if that's not how most of the public would see it. Of course, the label is still slapped on images which are available outwith iStock the brand, but that's a different thread.
-
I cannot speak for anyone else, but in this context it seems completely obvious that content uploaded to iStock which is also part of the PP or is sold at GI is from iStock. From iStock the brand. Clearly it is not only on iStock, the portal.
That's just legal semantics. In this context, it may technically be accurate, even if that's not how most of the public would see it. Of course, the label is still slapped on images which are available outwith iStock the brand, but that's a different thread.
No it isn't. It's iStock branded content. The iPad, only from Apple, is available on many different websites. It's a perfect reasonable distinction, the difference between from and on. And it is a distinction which anyone would understand properly.
-
I cannot speak for anyone else, but in this context it seems completely obvious that content uploaded to iStock which is also part of the PP or is sold at GI is from iStock. From iStock the brand. Clearly it is not only on iStock, the portal.
That's just legal semantics. In this context, it may technically be accurate, even if that's not how most of the public would see it. Of course, the label is still slapped on images which are available outwith iStock the brand, but that's a different thread.
No it isn't. It's iStock branded content. The iPad, only from Apple, is available on many different websites. It's a perfect reasonable distinction, the difference between from and on. And it is a distinction which anyone would understand properly.
Haven't they shoved stuff in from Getty's collections and possibly from elsewhere and put that "only from istock" line on it? Yuri's "only from iStock" files should be labelled "only from Yuri", since he, not istock is the one who supplies them to the other agencies.
-
I cannot speak for anyone else, but in this context it seems completely obvious that content uploaded to iStock which is also part of the PP or is sold at GI is from iStock. From iStock the brand. Clearly it is not only on iStock, the portal.
That's just legal semantics. In this context, it may technically be accurate, even if that's not how most of the public would see it. Of course, the label is still slapped on images which are available outwith iStock the brand, but that's a different thread.
No it isn't. It's iStock branded content. The iPad, only from Apple, is available on many different websites. It's a perfect reasonable distinction, the difference between from and on. And it is a distinction which anyone would understand properly.
Nope, an analogous situation would be "Only From LisaFX" as the content is produced, owned and uploaded by Lisa. iStock is merely a distributor, not the owner, or copyright holder or any such thing.
eta: Great Minds and all that... :)
-
.
-
I cannot speak for anyone else, but in this context it seems completely obvious that content uploaded to iStock which is also part of the PP or is sold at GI is from iStock. From iStock the brand. Clearly it is not only on iStock, the portal.
That's just legal semantics. In this context, it may technically be accurate, even if that's not how most of the public would see it. Of course, the label is still slapped on images which are available outwith iStock the brand, but that's a different thread.
No it isn't. It's iStock branded content. The iPad, only from Apple, is available on many different websites. It's a perfect reasonable distinction, the difference between from and on. And it is a distinction which anyone would understand properly.
They wouldn't understand it when they can find the files in other, non iS-branded places.
-
Haven't they shoved stuff in from Getty's collections and possibly from elsewhere and put that "only from istock" line on it? Yuri's "only from iStock" files should be labelled "only from Yuri", since he, not istock is the one who supplies them to the other agencies.
Yuri's stuff has the 'only from iStock' tag, which often isn't true in any sense; and he himself has his iStock link banners saying, "by PeopleImages.com and YuriArcurs"
-
So it is an impossibility to get any content from Stocksy? I thought we could get your content from Stocksy now and on top of that it is the only place I can get that content from. Seems like normal use of the word 'from' to me?
You're losing the "Only From" distinction, as well as iStock is using "from" in conjunction with a multi-site distributor, neither of which you are doing with your Stocksy example.
To expand. Yes, you can get my content "from" Stocksy, but when I get Lisa's content "from" TS, it is not "from" iStock in the sense of "only FROM istock".
-
Haven't they shoved stuff in from Getty's collections and possibly from elsewhere and put that "only from istock" line on it? Yuri's "only from iStock" files should be labelled "only from Yuri", since he, not istock is the one who supplies them to the other agencies.
I am not not responding. But, simply, I am not going to comment on (stick my nose into) someone else’s business. I am not going to speculate about any contributor, agency etc.
Especially as I don't care.
@Sean - you will find that most, probably all, agencies will use expression such as "our content", "our images" etc. It does not imply ownership.
-
when I get Lisa's content "from" TS, it is not "from" iStock in the sense of "only FROM istock".
iStock content at TS is there via iStock. In that context it is iStock content. It is content which is on and which has come from iStock. The artist's arrangement is with iStock.
Obviously her content is not sold as being "only FROM iStock". I do not think you are deliberately implying that but there is room for misunderstanding I think, how you have written it.
-
iPad only from Apple, but sold in many places, sure, but Yuris images, only from istock, sold in many places, is not the same. The ipad is exclusive to Apple, Yuris images are not exclusive to Istock. So its not only from istock, its a lie, they are everywhere.
-
iPad only from Apple, but sold in many places, sure, but Yuris images, only from istock, sold in many places, is not the same. The ipad is exclusive to Apple, Yuris images are not exclusive to Istock. So its not only from istock, its a lie, they are everywhere.
You said it clearer than I. I was starting to get all confunderated with my analogies.
-
.
-
Haven't they shoved stuff in from Getty's collections and possibly from elsewhere and put that "only from istock" line on it? Yuri's "only from iStock" files should be labelled "only from Yuri", since he, not istock is the one who supplies them to the other agencies.
I am not not responding. But, simply, I am not going to comment on (stick my nose into) someone else’s business. I am not going to speculate about any contributor, agency etc.
Especially as I don't care.
Who it is is completely irrelevant and it's not poking anyone's nose into his business, it's about istock. your response is purely evasive.
-
iPad only from Apple, but sold in many places, sure, but Yuris images, only from istock, sold in many places, is not the same. The ipad is exclusive to Apple, Yuris images are not exclusive to Istock. So its not only from istock, its a lie, they are everywhere.
This wasn't about Yuri. Go back an read the thread and you can see the context of that comment. It was in response to this "Pretty difficult to flaunt the 'Only on iStock' theme if most of the exclusive content is on the PP."
Is it any different is "most of the exclusive content" is on Getty?
-
FWIW - I am not claiming that this whole thing is necessarily entirely squared quite just yet. There are definitely a few anomalies which I am sure will be resolved. And I would be the last person to speak for iStock.
In terms of the PP the distinction between from and on seems to work perfectly well in that context. Which is where I came in.
-
.
-
It doesn't work perfectly well if "only from iStock" means "We have this on istock and TS and Getty, which are all istock families, but only from istock may also mean that it is on Dreamstime who got it in a way that had nothing to do with us".
-
It doesn't work perfectly well if "only from iStock" means "We have this on istock and TS and Getty, which are all istock families, but only from istock may also mean that it is on Dreamstime who got it in a way that had nothing to do with us".
That
-
.
-
iPad only from Apple, but sold in many places, sure, but Yuris images, only from istock, sold in many places, is not the same. The ipad is exclusive to Apple, Yuris images are not exclusive to Istock. So its not only from istock, its a lie, they are everywhere.
This wasn't about Yuri. Go back an read the thread and you can see the context of that comment. It was in response to this "Pretty difficult to flaunt the 'Only on iStock' theme if most of the exclusive content is on the PP."
Is it any different is "most of the exclusive content" is on Getty?
I dunno. iStock (actually iStock by Getty Images) isn't really distinct from Getty (or TS for that matter). If they are all the same company what's it matter? I see a problem claiming content that is on other sites as 'only from iStock' but I don't really see any problem if it says 'only from iStock' and it's on Thinkstock. Who does it hurt?
What you are saying is Yes means yes and No means yes.
-
.
-
It doesn't work perfectly well if "only from iStock" means "We have this on istock and TS and Getty, which are all istock families, but only from istock may also mean that it is on Dreamstime who got it in a way that had nothing to do with us".
Right but that was a different issue than what was being talked about before. Two different things that some people have conflated into one.
Yes
@Baldrick - I am not going to speculate about someone else's private business - none of my business and which I know nothing about. I am sorry if you consider that evasive - but it is not intended to be disrespectful.
-
It doesn't work perfectly well if "only from iStock" means "We have this on istock and TS and Getty, which are all istock families, but only from istock may also mean that it is on Dreamstime who got it in a way that had nothing to do with us".
Right but that was a different issue than what was being talked about before. Two different things that some people have conflated into one.
Yes
@Baldrick - I am not going to speculate about someone else's private business - none of my business and which I know nothing about. I am sorry if you consider that evasive - but it is not intended to be disrespectful.
OK, so are you going to comment on this, which is not about anybody's private business (unless you regard the private business of iStock in selling photo licenses as nothing to do with us), since we have no idea how many agencies or individuals iStock has engaged in "faux exclusivity":
It doesn't work perfectly well if "only from iStock" means "We have this on istock and TS and Getty, which are all istock families, but only from istock may also mean that it is on Dreamstime who got it in a way that had nothing to do with us".
-
Holy mackerel, woke up to a 42$ jump on IS. I only have about 32 images on IS, and PP is now showing 11 dls for 43$. That changes a whole lot in my perspective.
-
WOW! Thinkstock rockt!
1 Day PP=1/2 Mon. SS !!! Love it!
-
So far PP sales up to 22nd Oct are double my BME, with my RPD more than doubling - a pleasant surprise from IS for once!
-
If I'm lucky I'll end up with four digits Oct PP $. I can't believe!
-
Wow, at this rate PP will knock SS out of the park for October. Am looking at the stats with mild disbelief!
-
Same for me, the October is my best month ever on Istock.
Could somebody throw some light and explain how the heck it all happens ? Will it last, or is it some experiment ?
If these are mainly partner royalties, where might our portfolios be found ??
-
If these are mainly partner royalties, where might our portfolios be found ??
Thinkstockphotos or photos.com.
Or ... ?
-
Another 40 dollar on 2 sales. Thats 83 dollar on 13 PP sales. Sick.
-
So it is not just me :o
My PP sales are 4x higher than usual and results from last week are yet to come.
I'm willing to share expressions of joy, but I can't believe for one second that iStock's partner quadrupled their sales just like that. Isn't it some numbers play? Why were my sales decreasing steadily for 12 months and SUDDENLY I earn so much more with no new uploads? I'd like to know what happened, why it hadn't happened earlier and whether it is going to last. I love good news... but still... this is iStock. ???
-
iPad only from Apple, but sold in many places, sure, but Yuris images, only from istock, sold in many places, is not the same. The ipad is exclusive to Apple, Yuris images are not exclusive to Istock. So its not only from istock, its a lie, they are everywhere.
This wasn't about Yuri. Go back an read the thread and you can see the context of that comment. It was in response to this "Pretty difficult to flaunt the 'Only on iStock' theme if most of the exclusive content is on the PP."
Is it any different is "most of the exclusive content" is on Getty?
I dunno. iStock (actually iStock by Getty Images) isn't really distinct from Getty (or TS for that matter). If they are all the same company what's it matter? I see a problem claiming content that is on other sites as 'only from iStock' but I don't really see any problem if it says 'only from iStock' and it's on Thinkstock. Who does it hurt?
It could hurt iStock, because it's misleading and could be illegal.
-
Stupid me, I requested payout, thinking now I will end up in the red... lol. Thats fine, I am not going to pay them back. They can make it back selling my images. If this PP thing is a fluke they can wait 2 years to earn back, what they overpaid me.
-
Not yet 50% of my earnings at the venerable SS for October but nonetheless I am impressed and hope this means they have finally got their arse in gear.
My flabber is well and truly gasted.
PS. RPD is 0.85
-
The PP earnings per sale are way up and with some very significant sums thrown in, even so I think you have struck very lucky on that, Ron. My RPD is coming in close to $1, I suspect your $6 average is going to be quite exceptional.
-
Any one got pp sales for after the 25th?
-
Another 40 dollar on 2 sales. Thats 83 dollar on 13 PP sales. Sick.
I'm not having high value downloads like those. I'm just having hundreds and hundreds of sales. At this moment I believe I'll have close to the double of sales when comparing to last month, but the most interesting is that the average value per download has gone from 0.48 to 0.80.
I'm really puzzled by what's happening. Could these be due to the discovery of a glitch in the system that have withhold royalties from other months?
-
I'm very happy with the Oct 2013 PP on IS!
-
I wonder why no one is reporting the sales on the IS forum, its really quiet over there, people reporting a bad month.
-
I wonder why no one is reporting the sales on the IS forum, its really quiet over there, people reporting a bad month.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=357474&page=3 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=357474&page=3)
-
I wonder why no one is reporting the sales on the IS forum, its really quiet over there, people reporting a bad month.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=357474&page=3[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=357474&page=3[/url])
Thanks, couldnt find that.
-
I wonder why no one is reporting the sales on the IS forum, its really quiet over there, people reporting a bad month.
You're reading a different page than I see:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=357474&page=3 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=357474&page=3)
-
The extra money this month is something to do with the Getty 360 scheme. Lobo has confirmed that Getty 360 sales are being reported in the PP.
For those who are not aware, a few months ago Getty announced a new scheme called Getty 360. This is a private web site available only to Getty's largest customers. The site merges all Getty, iStock and PP content into one place and allows those customers to browse everything on the one site.
I presume that one reason for reduced 'normal' sales from iStock is the transfer of large accounts to the new Getty arrangement. However, 'lost' sales from those accounts are now being credited in the PP numbers.
I hope this makes sense.
-
Has anyone who does not have files in the regular PP seen PP sales being recorded this month, i.e. in the 360 scheme?
I have none for October. As I've said already, the previous 360 sale I got (one only, but a gratifying $50) came in with the Getty sales, but was recorded like PP (green bar).
I think Mantis (below, I forgot I was modifying, not making a new post!) has an excellent point re the RC killer aspect.
They spin everything to suit themselves.
"Only from iStock" means 'from anywhere in the Getty group' originating from iStock (or not, in the case of ingested files).
But of course, we can't get RCs from files sold outwith iStock, because, obviously, they were not 'sold from iStock', even if we didn't give any consent for the files to be sold elsewhere, and buyers are being redirected there.
It's nasty however you look at it; and I say that even though it now looks as though I should crawl over my RC target - at long last - within the next few days1. I'm perfectly aware that their incompetence and malice, in whatever proportion is appropriate, is preventing many other people from reaching their target, and can hardly believe that it's not deliberate.
1 An EL on Tuesday (only my fifth this year) with a paltry 51c credit value was mitigated in that at least it was 125 RCs.
Added: and I'd forgotten, exclusives only get 20% on Getty360 sales, so they get us two ways. >:(
-
The extra money this month is something to do with the Getty 360 scheme. Lobo has confirmed that Getty 360 sales are being reported in the PP.
For those who are not aware, a few months ago Getty announced a new scheme called Getty 360. This is a private web site available only to Getty's largest customers. The site merges all Getty, iStock and PP content into one place and allows those customers to browse everything on the one site.
I presume that one reason for reduced 'normal' sales from iStock is the transfer of large accounts to the new Getty arrangement. However, 'lost' sales from those accounts are now being credited in the PP numbers.
I hope this makes sense.
This makes total sense, Hatman. There must then be a phase two because Shadysue (Liz) brings up a good question about exclusive income. I wonder what the whole value proposition is by Getty 360, whether it's simply customer convenience, or a better, less transparent way to keep chipping away at commissions. People who don't understand and may be blinded by the hike in commissions must ask how much would they have made if those same images were sold on Istock? Moreover, since they are recorded as PP, it's a RC KILLER, thus ensuring that the lions share of contributors on IS do not meet their current levels and drop to a lower commission. While I too like the hike in revenue, I am suspicious of the broader intentions.
-
I wonder why no one is reporting the sales on the IS forum, its really quiet over there, people reporting a bad month.
You're reading a different page than I see:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=357474&page=3[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=357474&page=3[/url])
Correct, I confirmed that in the comment right above yours when someone posted that link right above me.
-
I wonder why no one is reporting the sales on the IS forum, its really quiet over there, people reporting a bad month.
You're reading a different page than I see:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=357474&page=3[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=357474&page=3[/url])
Correct, I confirmed that in the comment right above yours when someone posted that link right above me.
Sorry - too often I make a post, get distracted and forget to hit 'post' until a while later. :-[
-
PP program sales constitute about 95% of my Istock sales this month ;). And the revenue digit is lovely.
I wonder what's behind it and how it will look in a broader view in the future....
If it keeps going like that, Istock for non-exclusives will jump back into the Top Tier in no time.
-
Seeing all of these oh yeah numbers for non-exclusives makes me feel left out.
-
Seeing all of these oh yeah numbers for non-exclusives makes me feel left out.
Are you istock exclusive ?
-
I only have 500 files in pp, but over 76 dollars. I hope there will be no refunds.
-
.
-
.
-
Yes I am exclusive
-
All content is in getty360. including exclusive content. you cannot opt out of that one. so if these are getty360 sales, you should be getting them too.
-
.
-
Seeing all of these oh yeah numbers for non-exclusives makes me feel left out.
Exclusive or non-exclusive....it's your choice.
-
I wonder why no one is reporting the sales on the IS forum, its really quiet over there, people reporting a bad month.
Because these sales are reported in the Partners Program Forum, no in the general "Discussion" forum.
-
Had my BME on Istock!! 8) The royalties from PP are 12 times more than what I made on Istock with a RPD of $0.9. Almost all the sales are from Thinkstock, with a handful from Photos.com. The connector started working the past few months and about 80% of my images made it to PP. I think it was the same for a lot of non-exclusives. So the boost in income was expected. But the non-subs sale this month was a surprise helped with a couple of extended license sales.
-
Any one got pp sales for after the 25th?
Yup, mine started showing up this morning. Easily my BME there, even without the iStock sales from the 25th on showing up. Closing in on Shutterstock. Amazed and happy and hoping it's real.
-
Amazed and happy and hoping it's real.
Perhaps it's a dream. You can never be sure.
-
The extra money this month is something to do with the Getty 360 scheme. Lobo has confirmed that Getty 360 sales are being reported in the PP.
For those who are not aware, a few months ago Getty announced a new scheme called Getty 360. This is a private web site available only to Getty's largest customers. The site merges all Getty, iStock and PP content into one place and allows those customers to browse everything on the one site.
I presume that one reason for reduced 'normal' sales from iStock is the transfer of large accounts to the new Getty arrangement. However, 'lost' sales from those accounts are now being credited in the PP numbers.
I hope this makes sense.
This makes total sense, Hatman. There must then be a phase two because Shadysue (Liz) brings up a good question about exclusive income. I wonder what the whole value proposition is by Getty 360, whether it's simply customer convenience, or a better, less transparent way to keep chipping away at commissions. People who don't understand and may be blinded by the hike in commissions must ask how much would they have made if those same images were sold on Istock? Moreover, since they are recorded as PP, it's a RC KILLER, thus ensuring that the lions share of contributors on IS do not meet their current levels and drop to a lower commission. While I too like the hike in revenue, I am suspicious of the broader intentions.
Yeah, me too. I suspect the proverbial fly in the ointment will rear its ugly head soon.
Losing out on RC's is not that bad for me anymore, as illustrators have a standard 20% again since the change this year. So for now, I'm gladly welcoming the sales.
-
I hope they have managed to get all these sales from IS and Getty rather than somewhere that paid a better percent. If there isn't something equivalent for exclusives coming along that is a tough blow. One does wonder if this is a real boost all of a sudden or if they are only now reporting something that has been going on for a while though, with IS you never know.
It is a way to lower RC totals, but personally RC doesn't seem to matter for me anymore since there is no way I am going to make my target.
-
@tickstock
what does getty360 have to do with price? I thought the program was for super special customers who would obviously be getting super large discounts. and lobo confirmed these sales where from 360.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=357474&messageid=6956574 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=357474&messageid=6956574)
-
.
-
I know the rate schedule, but nowhere does it say anything about the size of the to be expected 360 downloads. And everyone in the PP thread is wondering about the unusually higher royalties, I understood Lobo that these sales were from 360.
Why should they be higher? We cannot see the prices that the customers pay. I would´t mind if they are higher, but it all seems very confusing.
-
I hope they have managed to get all these sales from IS and Getty rather than somewhere that paid a better percent. If there isn't something equivalent for exclusives coming along that is a tough blow.
From what one reads, the sums we are now getting on PP would not be considered very good by exclusives, it's just that expectations are so low among indes. What this has done for me this month is compensate for the loss in earnings from the commission cuts a few months back, putting me back where I was. But the total is still significantly below what I was getting a few years ago. I'm going to end up 10-35% below the same month last year and 20-30% below October 2011, so while it's better than a boot in the face it isn't really something to be deliriously happy about.
-
.
-
.
-
chit-chat, but the balance keep growing :)
for me it's now on October 28th so it'll be end soon.
-
I know the rate schedule, but nowhere does it say anything about the size of the to be expected 360 downloads. And everyone in the PP thread is wondering about the unusually higher royalties, I understood Lobo that these sales were from 360.
Why should they be higher? We cannot see the prices that the customers pay. I would´t mind if they are higher, but it all seems very confusing.
They should be higher or lower probably not exactly the same numbers like $24.02, $3.96, $39.84. You would expect numbers that don't exactly match the ones on PP rate schedule like the ones that happened last month. If those were Getty 360 sales the buyer would have paid $160.13, $26.40, and $265.60.
got a 39.84$ on October 22
-
Something doesn't add up for me in all this.
My 'PP sales' are on target to be almost double my royalties from Istock last month or roughly equivalent to my earnings from DT and FT combined. Where has all this 'new business' come from almost overnight?
The sales from which these PP royalties are derived must be in the tens of millions of dollars (annually it could be the equivalent of a new agency with $100M in sales revenue). How is it possible that the market for our work has apparently grown so much so quickly? It is not as if anyone is reporting an equivalent fall in their earnings elsewhere.
Could this be an error or could it be that historic under-reporting has been discovered and is now being corrected? If so why would these new sales be so evenly distributed throughout the month? It is all very strange.
-
I hope they have managed to get all these sales from IS and Getty rather than somewhere that paid a better percent. If there isn't something equivalent for exclusives coming along that is a tough blow.
From what one reads, the sums we are now getting on PP would not be considered very good by exclusives, it's just that expectations are so low among indes. What this has done for me this month is compensate for the loss in earnings from the commission cuts a few months back, putting me back where I was. But the total is still significantly below what I was getting a few years ago. I'm going to end up 10-35% below the same month last year and 20-30% below October 2011, so while it's better than a boot in the face it isn't really something to be deliriously happy about.
Yep, 50% or 250% up is not very much. PP RPD is 5-10% of my regular iStock sales. We also get GI sales which have an RPD of 15-30x more than the PP.
I guess I was saying that if the indy take is doubling (to put it in longer term perspective up to a small drop instead of a colossal drop) and the exclusive take isn't then it represents shifting sales from somewhere to indy sales. It is worth remembering on a regular basis how hard indies are screwed by IS.
I am quite curious where these sales are coming from - are they transferred from previous Getty customers, other microstock sites (I would think there would have been a more dramatic drop elsewhere), new customers, previous IS customers. It is odd that it seems to have basically started Oct 1.
-
We are all suspicious, but maybe Istock did make a wise business move. They may have invested in Photos.com and Think stock, maybe they have opened new gates for distribution for indies, or maybe they just realized that they just can't screw independent contributors any longer to survive (see the cancellation of upload limit as the first step)...
I've been seeing an increase in PP sales for some months already, since spring this year I guess, but October broke all the records indeed.
-
Something doesn't add up for me in all this.
My 'PP sales' are on target to be almost double my royalties from Istock last month or roughly equivalent to my earnings from DT and FT combined. Where has all this 'new business' come from almost overnight?
The sales from which these PP royalties are derived must be in the tens of millions of dollars (annually it could be the equivalent of a new agency with $100M in sales revenue). How is it possible that the market for our work has apparently grown so much so quickly? It is not as if anyone is reporting an equivalent fall in their earnings elsewhere.
Could this be an error or could it be that historic under-reporting has been discovered and is now being corrected? If so why would these new sales be so evenly distributed throughout the month? It is all very strange.
Well, I really don't know, but in previous months tey were pushing very hard TS in the Getty's main page (don't ask me way they want to re-directed getty well paying customers to TS...)
-
I wonder if also a number of 1 year subs have expired and the buyers realized that for the number of images they used it made more sense to go with image packs or some other deal where individual images sales yield more $ for the photographer.
-
I know the rate schedule, but nowhere does it say anything about the size of the to be expected 360 downloads. And everyone in the PP thread is wondering about the unusually higher royalties, I understood Lobo that these sales were from 360.
Why should they be higher? We cannot see the prices that the customers pay. I would´t mind if they are higher, but it all seems very confusing.
All I can say is that I got $50, which as my rate was 20% means the buyer paid $250 for a file they could have got at S rate on iS.
-
We are all suspicious, but maybe Istock did make a wise business move. They may have invested in Photos.com and Think stock, maybe they have opened new gates for distribution for indies, or maybe they just realized that they just can't screw independent contributors any longer to survive (see the cancellation of upload limit as the first step)...
I've been seeing an increase in PP sales for some months already, since spring this year I guess, but October broke all the records indeed.
Or maybe they're trying to persuade exclusives to leave exclusivity.
-
Something doesn't add up for me in all this.
My 'PP sales' are on target to be almost double my royalties from Istock last month or roughly equivalent to my earnings from DT and FT combined. Where has all this 'new business' come from almost overnight?
The sales from which these PP royalties are derived must be in the tens of millions of dollars (annually it could be the equivalent of a new agency with $100M in sales revenue). How is it possible that the market for our work has apparently grown so much so quickly? It is not as if anyone is reporting an equivalent fall in their earnings elsewhere.
Could this be an error or could it be that historic under-reporting has been discovered and is now being corrected? If so why would these new sales be so evenly distributed throughout the month? It is all very strange.
I wonder where my 2 sales for 40 dollar fit in. I do think you have a point, but my sales are quite unexplainable.
-
@tickstock
what does getty360 have to do with price? I thought the program was for super special customers who would obviously be getting super large discounts. and lobo confirmed these sales where from 360.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=357474&messageid=6956574[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=357474&messageid=6956574[/url])
I didn't read that as suggesting the sale were Getty360.
In reply to: "Royalties from Getty Images 360 will be reported monthly under the Getty Images category in your stats."
Lobo said the reporting had changed: "It did change. GI 360 is being reported under PP sales."
He didn't say it was being reported 'at the same time as' PP.
Prepositions seem to be everything at iS. ::)
-
I am no longer familiar with the subtleties of istock communication. Anyway, I am happy to see money coming in, but like others I am curious about what really happened. If they signed on some new companies, they must have signed up several extralarge cooperations. What is being reported here is a huge increase in sales.
What about the exclusives that still have files in the pp. What are they saying?
-
Something doesn't add up for me in all this.
My 'PP sales' are on target to be almost double my royalties from Istock last month or roughly equivalent to my earnings from DT and FT combined. Where has all this 'new business' come from almost overnight?
The sales from which these PP royalties are derived must be in the tens of millions of dollars (annually it could be the equivalent of a new agency with $100M in sales revenue). How is it possible that the market for our work has apparently grown so much so quickly? It is not as if anyone is reporting an equivalent fall in their earnings elsewhere.
Could this be an error or could it be that historic under-reporting has been discovered and is now being corrected? If so why would these new sales be so evenly distributed throughout the month? It is all very strange.
My sales haven't increased, they are still in exactly the same narrow range they have been all year, what has changed is that the RPD has almost doubled. That suggests that the market for the work hasn't changed, but the price being paid for the work has.
How could that be? Has the TS price changed? Has there been a major drive to convince clients who were on subs that credit packages make more sense? I don't know, but perhaps someone out there has had experience of a change in Getty tactics for TS over the last couple of months.
If this is a sign that there has been under-reporting in the past then my portfolio indicates that it would be under-reporting of the value of sales, not the volume of sales. But maybe others are actually seeing an increase in dl numbers, too.
-
My PP earnings almost equal my iStock earnings for October...typically they are maybe 15-20% of my earnings. Is this in error? I hope not, but we've all seen iStock take money back before
-
My PP earnings almost equal my iStock earnings for October...typically they are maybe 15-20% of my earnings. Is this in error? I hope not, but we've all seen iStock take money back before
When did Istock take money back ?
-
My PP earnings almost equal my iStock earnings for October...typically they are maybe 15-20% of my earnings. Is this in error? I hope not, but we've all seen iStock take money back before
When did Istock take money back ?
After credit card frauds over Chrismas, was one instance.
-
.
-
Seeing all of these oh yeah numbers for non-exclusives makes me feel left out.
JJ, the non-exclusive jump is a difficult one to make. Seven months in and I am still a ways from making what I did as an exclusive. And when you add up that consistent monthly shortfall, it is a lot. If/when I begin making more as a non-ex, it will take significant time to cover that loss and consider the move a net positive financially. (There are of course peace of mind and other aspects that contribute to a broader "bottom line".) Don't give up exclusivity lightly if earning money is a key reason you sell stock!
Now, that said, HOLY CRAP! Partner Program is blowing up and thank goodness for that. In October, PP swamped what I made everywhere else, including iStock proper as a non-exclusive. October was my BME as a non-exclusive, and only 30% below my best month as an IS exclusive this year.
As a non-exclusive, PP has been welcome and valuable to my overall monthly income. I hope Getty is on to something (oh, not that word)... reliable. I would love to see this stream of income in the PP continue it's solid trend.
-
Something doesn't add up for me in all this. Where has all this 'new business' come from almost overnight?
The sales from which these PP royalties are derived must be in the tens of millions of dollars (annually it could be the equivalent of a new agency with $100M in sales revenue). How is it possible that the market for our work has apparently grown so much so quickly?
It is all very strange.
Didn't you hear? iStock recently hired Fed chairman Ben Bernanke.
8)
-
Its my RPD. I have the same amount of sales as September, but still less than May Juny Juy August. I had an RPD of about 0.30$ on PP, this month it's 5.22$. I have a decrease of volume of 50% but an increase of RPD of 1700% lol :D Factor 34
-
It´s just another shady Google deal or Microsoft or Yahoo or .........
-
PP Started- PP Ended now for October...
-
BME at IS for me, almost entirely thanks to PP.
What's actually quite gratifying is that files that have been rejected elsewhere are selling great guns on PP. I know a lot of dross has appeared on IS since the acceptance requirements were relaxed (...completely disappeared) and I'll be the first to say that those images of mine that have been rejected on other sites aren't necessarily razor sharp or perfectly exposed, but the buyers have spoken and sometimes buyers want a certain concept or look more than they want perfection only appreciated by pixel peeping.
Not that I'll be uploading a photo of my half-eaten greasy breakfast on a dirty plate under flourescent cafe lighting any time soon! ;)
-
Something doesn't add up for me in all this.
My 'PP sales' are on target to be almost double my royalties from Istock last month or roughly equivalent to my earnings from DT and FT combined. Where has all this 'new business' come from almost overnight?
The sales from which these PP royalties are derived must be in the tens of millions of dollars (annually it could be the equivalent of a new agency with $100M in sales revenue). How is it possible that the market for our work has apparently grown so much so quickly? It is not as if anyone is reporting an equivalent fall in their earnings elsewhere.
Could this be an error or could it be that historic under-reporting has been discovered and is now being corrected? If so why would these new sales be so evenly distributed throughout the month? It is all very strange.
I'm pretty sure its the effect of the marketing from Thinkstock poaching customers from iStock. I know several designers who use iStock and have been contacted directly by Thinkstock with a heavy sales pitch towards their subs plan.
It's like Getty have given up on iStock and are concentrating on subs and macro, the PP increase reflects the downtrend exclusives have been experiencing. I guess they're pre-emting customers moving to SS and Fotolia.
-
Does anyone know if these Getty 360 sales will show up on the "Stats from Partner Sites" page? You know, if you click on Details in your portfolio and then select the Partner Program section.
-
It´s just another shady Google deal or Microsoft or Yahoo or .........
Not unless they simultaneously lost all their previous customers. It's a change in the sales price, not in the sales volume.
-
Best month at IS since august 2011... this is crazy!
-
Can someone explain why are these coming in separately a month later? Why aren't they reported instantly, like other things in the 21st century? Are they selling these pics on some mongolian farmers' market from camelback or what?
Also some of you write about checking them out ordered by date of downloads. How do you do that, I don't see any option for it. :/ What a junk site....
-
Can someone explain why are these coming in separately a month later? Why aren't they reported instantly, like other things in the 21st century? Are they selling these pics on some mongolian farmers' market from camelback or what?
Also some of you write about checking them out ordered by date of downloads. How do you do that, I don't see any option for it. :/ What a junk site....
iStock is about taking what they are willing to offer you (zero) or leave, not much we can understand because that would be a waste of time, the right word is acceptation! ;D
-
Can someone explain why are these coming in separately a month later? Why aren't they reported instantly, like other things in the 21st century? Are they selling these pics on some mongolian farmers' market from camelback or what?
Also some of you write about checking them out ordered by date of downloads. How do you do that, I don't see any option for it. :/ What a junk site....
iStock is about taking what they are willing to offer you (zero) or leave, not much we can understand because that would be a waste of time, the right word is acceptation! ;D
So how can you see these downloads by date? Is it one of Sean's scripts?
-
stockperformer
-
Just to chime in, October's PP was more than double my previous BME for the PP (which was this Sept. ).
As others have said, it was roughly the same number of DL's, but higher value sales.