MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: RC Levels 2012  (Read 9553 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

traveler1116



ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #1 on: August 30, 2012, 16:45 »
0
It's a relief that it's staying the same. I had been nervous they were going to vastly increase them.  :)

« Reply #2 on: August 30, 2012, 16:56 »
0
It sure is a relief, but that of course still doesn't justify these rediculously low royalty percentages. At least it seems we're moving up a tier. A whopping 1% increase.

The threshold actually went down. we used to be under 40.000 RC, netting 17%, now the threshold for 18% is 35.000 RC

EmberMike

« Reply #3 on: August 30, 2012, 16:57 »
0
My earnings are so far down this year that I'm dropping one point to 16%. Awesome. But I knew that already. They'd have to lower the targets big time for me to have retained my 17%.

The best I can hope for with istock is that the pile of work I wasn't able to upload all year because of text usage can now start earning well for me, now that they're finally accepting images with text. So far, it looks to be working. But that could also be because of the fact that I don't have a lot of competition in this area yet. Time will tell if I can turn this around. I'm hopeful, but realistically I know it's probably a long shot.

traveler1116

« Reply #4 on: August 30, 2012, 17:23 »
0
Looks like they will be paying people for levels they passed earlier in the year, that's a bit surprising to me if that's what this means:

"Regarding people who have gone up a level this year: we'll have a follow up post next week with the details of how that will all be credited."

stan

    This user is banned.
« Reply #5 on: August 30, 2012, 17:29 »
0
Looks like they will be paying people for levels they passed earlier in the year, that's a bit surprising to me if that's what this means:

"Regarding people who have gone up a level this year: we'll have a follow up post next week with the details of how that will all be credited."

Why is that surprising? That is what they should do and they're only going to have to do it because the RC targets were announced 8 months over the deadline. If they did announce them in time, people would start getting the higher percentage the moment they've reached their (next level) target.

traveler1116

« Reply #6 on: August 30, 2012, 17:34 »
0
Looks like they will be paying people for levels they passed earlier in the year, that's a bit surprising to me if that's what this means:

"Regarding people who have gone up a level this year: we'll have a follow up post next week with the details of how that will all be credited."

Why is that surprising? That is what they should do and they're only going to have to do it because the RC targets were announced 8 months over the deadline. If they did announce them in time, people would start getting the higher percentage the moment they've reached their (next level) target.
They didn't do it last year though when they revised the targets downwards, so doing it this year is a surprise to me.

« Reply #7 on: August 30, 2012, 17:36 »
0
Looks like they will be paying people for levels they passed earlier in the year, that's a bit surprising to me if that's what this means:

"Regarding people who have gone up a level this year: we'll have a follow up post next week with the details of how that will all be credited."

Why is that surprising? That is what they should do and they're only going to have to do it because the RC targets were announced 8 months over the deadline. If they did announce them in time, people would start getting the higher percentage the moment they've reached their (next level) target.

Wonder if they will pay with interest?

traveler1116

« Reply #8 on: August 30, 2012, 17:38 »
0
Wonder if they will pay with interest?
Don't count on that but at least they payout every week instead of once a month, do you get the interest from those sites?

« Reply #9 on: August 30, 2012, 17:40 »
0
Wonder if they will pay with interest?
Don't count on that but at least they payout every week instead of once a month, do you get the interest from those sites?

Of course not, and it was meant as a joke, mostly.

« Reply #10 on: August 30, 2012, 17:49 »
0
If we get half our RC in the last 4 months of the year as previously said by IS (but completely untrue in my case that year) I would actually retain my current level. In reality,  not very likely.

« Reply #11 on: August 30, 2012, 17:52 »
0
The new targets are at least realistic. If you look at the survey we have recently, most of the contributors (who are also the forum members too) have reached or expect to maintain last year's levels.

« Reply #12 on: August 30, 2012, 17:59 »
+1
The new targets are at least realistic. If you look at the survey we have recently, most of the contributors (who are also the forum members too) have reached or expect to maintain last year's levels.

That doesn't make them realistic. Maybe realistic to reach your current level from last year, but completely unrealistic to grow your income via the next level and completely unrealistic to get a fair commission.  This whole RC thing is a money grab my IS.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2012, 18:09 by Mantis »

« Reply #13 on: August 30, 2012, 18:04 »
0
Yay, I get to keep my measly 16%.  Should I be dancing?  Why don't I feel like dancing?

« Reply #14 on: August 30, 2012, 18:13 »
0
"They didn't do it last year though when they revised the targets downwards, so doing it this year is a surprise to me."

I don't remember them not paying back money.

« Reply #15 on: August 30, 2012, 18:59 »
0
"They didn't do it last year though when they revised the targets downwards, so doing it this year is a surprise to me."

I don't remember them not paying back money.

"Takes out onion" Wow __ so apparently they actually agreed to beletedly up someone from 15% to 16% out of the goodness of their hearts? If true that's got to be worth a Nobel nomination for humanity alone. Otherwise it'll be good for a Pulitzer for fiction anyway.

« Reply #16 on: August 30, 2012, 19:02 »
0
Overall, the targets have dropped. In some segments, significantluy so, in others, they've stayed the same. A useful telltale of how iStock's business is evolving.

Comparison chart:
/ download

« Reply #17 on: August 30, 2012, 19:03 »
0
"They didn't do it last year though when they revised the targets downwards, so doing it this year is a surprise to me."

I don't remember them not paying back money.
Yeah but this year their record of paying back royalties is not that great, as you know

« Reply #18 on: August 30, 2012, 19:06 »
0
Overall, the targets have dropped. In some segments, significantluy so, in others, they've stayed the same. A useful telltale of how iStock's business is evolving.

Comparison chart:


They have not changed from the revised 2011 targets
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=338873

« Reply #19 on: August 30, 2012, 19:12 »
0
Overall, the targets have dropped. In some segments, significantluy so, in others, they've stayed the same. A useful telltale of how iStock's business is evolving.

Comparison chart:


They have not changed from the revised 2011 targets
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=338873


In that case, they never adjusted their RC charts on http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=1090. The revisement didn't affect us last time, so I didn't pay notice to it.

traveler1116

« Reply #20 on: August 30, 2012, 19:13 »
0
It should also say in your comparison 2011 and 2012, the 2012 targets were just released not 2013.

« Reply #21 on: August 30, 2012, 19:14 »
0
Overall, the targets have dropped. In some segments, significantluy so, in others, they've stayed the same. A useful telltale of how iStock's business is evolving.

Comparison chart:


They have not changed from the revised 2011 targets
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=338873


In that case, they never adjusted their RC charts on http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=1090. The revisement didn't affect us last time, so I didn't pay notice to it.

They haven't fixed a lot of things on the site.  ::)

« Reply #22 on: August 30, 2012, 19:19 »
0
Overall, the targets have dropped. In some segments, significantluy so, in others, they've stayed the same. A useful telltale of how iStock's business is evolving.

Comparison chart:


They have not changed from the revised 2011 targets
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=338873


In that case, they never adjusted their RC charts on http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=1090. The revisement didn't affect us last time, so I didn't pay notice to it.

They haven't fixed a lot of things on the site.  ::)


Now thats a solid point. Impossible to argue that one, you win, sir!

« Reply #23 on: August 30, 2012, 21:21 »
0
Based on the revised targets, it appears that I'll be going down again. Before this redeemed credit thing I was making 35% as exclusive Gold illustrator and patiently waiting for Diamond to roll over for the 40% cut... Now it's going to 25% the base exclusive royalty. meh - kills the enthusiasm.

Microbius

« Reply #24 on: August 31, 2012, 01:29 »
0
On 17%, if I was a photographer not an illustrator I would be on 18% for bringing in the same number of credits. Truly a bunch of a**holes

« Reply #25 on: August 31, 2012, 03:16 »
0
Can you guys help me out? I'm trying to understand this Redeemed Credits business, mainly the relationship between my income and the RC levels.

Using my royalty percentage and my income for the year so far, I calculated the total revenue my images have created. I then divided this figure by the RC number for the same period, which gave me the average value of each Redeemed Credit at about $1.4.

I'm surprised by this number, it seems high. This number shouldn't vary much across the site, all contributors should see a similar result. If you do the same calculation for yourself, what do you get?

« Reply #26 on: August 31, 2012, 04:26 »
+1
On 17%, if I was a photographer not an illustrator I would be on 18% for bringing in the same number of credits. Truly a bunch of a**holes

If they burn in hell, I won't be the first to extinguish the fire.

Actually I would get myself a beer, some popcorn and a comfortable chair!
« Last Edit: August 31, 2012, 10:01 by cidepix »

traveler1116

« Reply #27 on: August 31, 2012, 08:48 »
0
Can you guys help me out? I'm trying to understand this Redeemed Credits business, mainly the relationship between my income and the RC levels.

Using my royalty percentage and my income for the year so far, I calculated the total revenue my images have created. I then divided this figure by the RC number for the same period, which gave me the average value of each Redeemed Credit at about $1.4.

I'm surprised by this number, it seems high. This number shouldn't vary much across the site, all contributors should see a similar result. If you do the same calculation for yourself, what do you get?
I can't easily figure it out exactly (due to sales at other royalty rates and the PP) but $1.40 seems about right to me too, roughly my number was $1.38.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #28 on: August 31, 2012, 08:56 »
0
Mine is $1.38 also.
Added: No PP, but I just realised that counts a few GI sales, so the real iStock total will be less than that.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2012, 09:07 by ShadySue »

KB

« Reply #29 on: August 31, 2012, 13:14 »
0
I'm at $1.39/credit for the year, through the end of July.

But look at my month-by-month averages:
$1.39
$1.43
$1.40
$1.43
$1.46
$1.32
$1.31

And I'm pretty certain August will continue that trend.

« Reply #30 on: August 31, 2012, 13:53 »
0
Hi All,

 Not surprised at all by this new change that will keep on changing as long as their profits continue to grow. I believe that Corepics had the best information on this topic so far, great feedback. IS are making very large changes and there will be more to come until they see their return start to drop. Hope ya all are doing well, it's been a while.

Best,
Jonathan

traveler1116

« Reply #31 on: August 31, 2012, 14:35 »
+1
Hi All,

 Not surprised at all by this new change that will keep on changing as long as their profits continue to grow. I believe that Corepics had the best information on this topic so far, great feedback. IS are making very large changes and there will be more to come until they see their return start to drop. Hope ya all are doing well, it's been a while.

Best,
Jonathan
I think you need to read the info again, there was no change.  Corepics chart is incorrect, first the two years are 2011 and 2012 not 2012 and 2013 and second the targets were revised down at the end of last year to the same level as this year.
From the post at iStock:
"We are happy to announce that there is no increase in any of the RC targets over the previous year all redeemed credit targets for all file types will stay the same for 2012."
« Last Edit: August 31, 2012, 14:41 by traveler1116 »

« Reply #32 on: August 31, 2012, 15:05 »
+2
I think you need to read the info again, there was no change.  Corepics chart is incorrect, first the two years are 2011 and 2012 not 2012 and 2013 and second the targets were revised down at the end of last year to the same level as this year.
From the post at iStock:
"We are happy to announce that there is no increase in any of the RC targets over the previous year all redeemed credit targets for all file types will stay the same for 2012."


Notwithstanding the comparison I posted yesterday is incorrect, (using the initial 2012 targets, in stead of the revised one) I think the tell tales remain unchanged. When they posted the initial RC targets for 2012, they were up compared to the revised 2011 RC targets. Later, they were revised, and the initial 2013 targets are identical to those revised 2012 RC targets.

In other words, instead of higher targets in 2011-2012, the initial 2013 are now par. I do think that tells us something about iStock's performance.

For a full overview:
Inital 2011 targets
Revised 2011 targets

Initial 2012 targets
Revised 2012 targets

Initial 2013 targets

The years are correct, though, but that's a matter of definition. The gained Redeemed credits for 2011 determined the royalty percentage for 2012. Hence, the RC targets for 2012, where set in 2011, and iStock refers to those as 2011 Redeemed Credit Tagets.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2012, 15:07 by corepics »

traveler1116

« Reply #33 on: August 31, 2012, 15:09 »
0
I think you need to read the info again, there was no change.  Corepics chart is incorrect, first the two years are 2011 and 2012 not 2012 and 2013 and second the targets were revised down at the end of last year to the same level as this year.
From the post at iStock:
"We are happy to announce that there is no increase in any of the RC targets over the previous year all redeemed credit targets for all file types will stay the same for 2012."


Notwithstanding the comparison I posted yesterday is incorrect, (using the initial 2012 targets, in stead of the revised one) I think the tell tales remain unchanged. When they posted the initial RC targets for 2012, they were up compared to the revised 2011 RC targets. Later, they were revised, and the initial 2013 targets are identical to those revised 2012 RC targets.

In other words, instead of higher targets in 2011-2012, the initial 2013 are now par. I do think that tells us something about iStock's performance.

For a full overview:
Inital 2011 targets
Revised 2011 targets

Initial 2012 targets
Revised 2012 targets

Initial 2013 targets

The years are correct, though, but that's a matter of definition. The gained Redeemed credits for 2011 determined the royalty percentage for 2012. Hence, the RC targets for 2012, where set in 2011, and iStock refers to those as 2011 Redeemed Credit Tagets.

I hate to keep pointing this out but there are no 2013 targets yet, the link you have for them is the 2012 RC Targets hence the big heading at the top of the link:  "2012 Redeemed Credit Targets".  The 2012 RC Targets go into effect in 2012 and only have to do with RCs from 2012 although the royalty rate carries over to the next year.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2012, 15:11 by traveler1116 »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #34 on: August 31, 2012, 15:12 »
+1
I hate to keep pointing this out but there are no 2013 targets yet, the link you have for them is the 2012 RC Targets hence the big heading at the top of the link:  "2012 Redeemed Credit Targets".  The 2012 RC Targets go into effect in 2012 and only have to do with RCs from 2012 although the royalty rate carries over to the next year.
So, to be accurate, the RC targets have to be earned in 2012 to affect your %age in 2013.

« Reply #35 on: August 31, 2012, 15:13 »
0
The years are correct, though, but that's a matter of definition. The gained Redeemed credits for 2011 determined the royalty percentage for 2012. Hence, the RC targets for 2012, where set in 2011, and iStock refers to those as 2011 Redeemed Credit Tagets.
I hate to keep pointing this out but there are no 2013 targets yet, the link you have for them is the 2012 RC Targets hence the big heading at the top of the link:  "2012 Redeemed Credit Targets"

Read it again. The 2012 Targets determine your royalty rate for 2013, right? So, yes. I referred to the 2011 RC targets as 2012, and the 2012 RC targets as 2013. I realise it's misleading, and my apologies for not adapting the iStock lingo, but the information is correct.

KB

« Reply #36 on: August 31, 2012, 16:48 »
0
It'll be interesting to see if they lower the targets this year or not in December.

My guess is, they will not do so this year.

« Reply #37 on: September 02, 2012, 10:38 »
0
It'll be interesting to see if they lower the targets this year or not in December.

My guess is, they will not do so this year.

Probably they will not, if we remain quietly in a corner.

« Reply #38 on: September 02, 2012, 22:08 »
0
 Hi All,

 Here is a question that may not be relevant but I suppose it depends on how you look at running a business. How much money do you think an agency can pay out in percentage and still make a whopping good profit. Do you think an 80/20 split will sustain the distributors business or do you think they will have to ask for more percentage to keep the business running? Bottom line, we need our distributors to sustain their business in order to represent us but when is it more than necessary and starts to decrease the quality of the product from the content providers and eventually hurts the entire industry? Just throwing it out there. I still believe that Corepics has put far more effort into finding fact based answers than anyone else on this post and I appreciate their effort.

Best,
Jonathan

traveler1116

« Reply #39 on: September 02, 2012, 22:20 »
0
I still believe that Corepics has put far more effort into finding fact based answers than anyone else on this post and I appreciate their effort.
I'm not sure what that means?  The fact is that the RC levels have not changed from last year.

Microbius

« Reply #40 on: September 03, 2012, 01:31 »
0

Hi All,

 Here is a question that may not be relevant but I suppose it depends on how you look at running a business. How much money do you think an agency can pay out in percentage and still make a whopping good profit. Do you think an 80/20 split will sustain the distributors business or do you think they will have to ask for more percentage to keep the business running? Bottom line, we need our distributors to sustain their business in order to represent us but when is it more than necessary and starts to decrease the quality of the product from the content providers and eventually hurts the entire industry? Just throwing it out there. I still believe that Corepics has put far more effort into finding fact based answers than anyone else on this post and I appreciate their effort.

Best,
Jonathan
The problem is that a whopping good profit is never good enough, if they made a whopping good profit this year they would have to make a whopping good profit+x next year. So the answer is they could do it with (say) a 50% cut in year one, but they will inevitably want 51% in year two, not because they need the extra to grow the business, but because the extra is itself the growth. IStock was making plenty of money with a lower cut, but it's backers don't just want a nice pile of cash, they want a new bigger pile the next year. It's not to do with sustaining the business but growing their profits by squeezing suppliers. Nothing wrong with it really, they aren't charities.

As a business an agency has no interest other than increasing its profits by squeezing us and their buyers for every penny they can get. It is our responsibility to push back to ensure our interests are also taken into account.

lisafx

« Reply #41 on: September 03, 2012, 09:29 »
+1

As a business an agency has no interest other than increasing its profits by squeezing us and their buyers for every penny they can get. It is our responsibility to push back to ensure our interests are also taken into account.

I agree with most of your post, but if I understand correctly, Jonathan was wondering at what point does "squeezing us and their buyers for every penny they can get" become counter productive for the agency, and actually lead to reduced profits?   

Personally, I believe we have already reached that point.  Exclusives are dropping exclusivity, many independents have either reduced/stopped submissions or quit Istock altogether, and buyers are clearly leaving in droves.   I am absolutely certain that profits have been affected. I believe that last year's drop in RC targets and the recent price drops are evidence of that. 

Microbius

« Reply #42 on: September 03, 2012, 10:24 »
0
Ahhh okay, I think I got the wrong end of the stick.
I thought he was asking about when our wanting higher commissions becomes counter productive for the agencies and our sales. I was just saying that the agencies' priority isn't only taking a cut to market their site and increase sales, but also to cut our commissions as a means to directly increase their bottom line, and that they will always do this to the maximum level they can get away with.

« Reply #43 on: September 03, 2012, 10:41 »
0
I don't think you can relate it to any specific percentage.  Obviously Alamy pays out 65% and keeps %35 or whatever, and that's enough, because they are big enough to still have enough for operating costs.  Superduperlooperghug can pay out %10 or %90, but it doesn't matter, because they won't have enough either way.

« Reply #44 on: September 03, 2012, 11:57 »
0
I don't think you can relate it to any specific percentage.  Obviously Alamy pays out 65% and keeps %35 or whatever, and that's enough, because they are big enough to still have enough for operating costs.  Superduperlooperghug can pay out %10 or %90, but it doesn't matter, because they won't have enough either way.

In most industries there tend to be ratio 'sweet spots' or rules-of-thumb that are known to provide for sustainable businesses. If you wanted to open a restaurant, for example, you might be advised that your menu pricing should be derived from one-third food ingredients, one-third overhead and one-third profit.

With SS as the most currently successful microstock agency, with apparently the most sustainable future, I'd assume that their financial formula (as detailed in the IPO) would be the one for others to copy.

RacePhoto

« Reply #45 on: September 03, 2012, 19:57 »
0
I don't think you can relate it to any specific percentage.  Obviously Alamy pays out 65% and keeps %35 or whatever, and that's enough, because they are big enough to still have enough for operating costs.  Superduperlooperghug can pay out %10 or %90, but it doesn't matter, because they won't have enough either way.

I hear Superduperlooperghug is going co-op and paying out 110%.  :D

Actually Alamy donates most of their profits to charity as well, so when they make salaries and expenses, plus pay us, the rest is dispersed to something other than Stock Holders, or investors or some holding company, which would demand returns at a good level. And that's a big difference.

What I'm trying to say is using Alamy as an example for anything, beside the fact that they aren't microstock either, is a poor example of "business".

Pretty much, SS, IS, FT and DT make the reality of the business, and my personal opinion is the first two are the only ones that count. It's a small club.

« Reply #46 on: September 03, 2012, 20:09 »
0
What I'm trying to say is using Alamy as an example for anything, beside the fact that they aren't microstock either, is a poor example of "business".

I dunno - they still have enough cash to renew their domain every year and still draw in buyers...

« Reply #47 on: September 03, 2012, 21:39 »
+2
Hi All,

 I have to agree with Sean on this one. I also agree with what was expressed by Lisa and the one comment about knowing your price break in owning a restaurant from another poster. Thanks for the feedback, I think we are all feeling that the cut is getting a bit low for the return the companies are producing yet they themselves are having stellar years in sales. Spread the love, make photographers enough money so they can continue to produce at the level they did when the agency first thought they were good enough to represent. Just my two cents.

Best,
Jonathan


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
3452 Views
Last post August 08, 2006, 14:42
by Striker77s
94 Replies
25663 Views
Last post January 23, 2013, 14:58
by RacePhoto
84 Replies
15566 Views
Last post May 29, 2013, 21:00
by cascoly
12 Replies
3313 Views
Last post March 03, 2016, 15:56
by Justanotherphotographer
8 Replies
3633 Views
Last post August 02, 2017, 15:49
by jarih

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle