Author Topic: RC Levels 2012 (Read 14805 times)

ffNixx · « **Reply #25 on:** August 31, 2012, 03:16 »

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?

cidepix · « **Reply #26 on:** August 31, 2012, 04:26 »

Quote from: Microbius on August 31, 2012, 01:29

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!

traveler1116 · « **Reply #27 on:** August 31, 2012, 08:48 »

Quote from: ffNixx on August 31, 2012, 03:16

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 · « **Reply #28 on:** August 31, 2012, 08:56 »

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.

KB · « **Reply #29 on:** August 31, 2012, 13:14 »

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.

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #30 on:** August 31, 2012, 13:53 »

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 »

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on August 31, 2012, 13:53

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."

corepics · « **Reply #32 on:** August 31, 2012, 15:05 »

Quote from: traveler1116 on August 31, 2012, 14:35

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.

traveler1116 · « **Reply #33 on:** August 31, 2012, 15:09 »

Quote from: corepics on August 31, 2012, 15:05

Quote from: traveler1116 on August 31, 2012, 14:35
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.

ShadySue · « **Reply #34 on:** August 31, 2012, 15:12 »

Quote from: traveler1116 on August 31, 2012, 15:09

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.

corepics · « **Reply #35 on:** August 31, 2012, 15:13 »

Quote from: traveler1116 on August 31, 2012, 15:09

Quote from: corepics on August 31, 2012, 15:05
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 »

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.

26ISO · « **Reply #37 on:** September 02, 2012, 10:38 »

Quote from: KB on August 31, 2012, 16:48

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.

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #38 on:** September 02, 2012, 22:08 »

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 »

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on September 02, 2012, 22:08

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 »

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on September 02, 2012, 22:08

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 »

Quote from: Microbius on September 03, 2012, 01:31

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 »

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.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #43 on:** September 03, 2012, 10:41 »

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.

gostwyck · « **Reply #44 on:** September 03, 2012, 11:57 »

Quote from: sjlocke on September 03, 2012, 10:41

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 »

Quote from: sjlocke on September 03, 2012, 10:41

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%.

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.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #46 on:** September 03, 2012, 20:09 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on September 03, 2012, 19:57

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...

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #47 on:** September 03, 2012, 21:39 »

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

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: RC Levels 2012 (Read 14805 times)

ffNixx

cidepix

traveler1116

ShadySue

KB

Jonathan Ross

traveler1116

corepics

traveler1116

ShadySue

corepics

KB

26ISO

Jonathan Ross

traveler1116

Microbius

lisafx

Microbius

Sean Locke Photography

gostwyck

RacePhoto

Sean Locke Photography

Jonathan Ross

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors