over on istock all your results are public, so if you have reached a certain level on the success ladder your data is being included anyway.

Exclusives are probably averaging something over $10 per sale. A few sales today is equivalent to many sales how things once were. An exclusive selling 3 images per week day is making about $650 per month [EDIT: some] are very probably making that much again from GI. The numbers here would make more sense in $ than %

Getty has had the same manager for 20 years with Klein at the top. He won't change and Getty's corporate culture won't change just because the company is no longer owned by H&F. I cannot detect any difference in how they are doing their business.

How they do business and corporate culture is quite different from strategy. Corporate culture is a fairly nebulous idea and gradual thing. I would not expect any sudden changes there.

But strategy has clearly shifted. If nothing else a year of significant changes makes that obvious.

bhr
I think we use the word "data" differently. To me, data are pieces of raw information that can be interpreted to reach conclusions (that might be right or wrong, depending on how good the data are, among other things). I suspect you regard data as a complete and collated set of figures - but that's just my guess. Anyway, it doesn't mean the same to you as to me or you wouldn't say "snippets of data" are not "data".

I'd agree that the data we have are woefully incomplete and don't all reflect the same thing. It doesn't meen that there isn't enough information to derive at least a broad picture of the general direction things are going in (but you don't agree to that - which is fair enough).

All I am interested in from this is the direction that iStock is going in for exclusives and independents. The GI sales have no relevance to me.

Understanding direction helps me to know whether to expect more dramatic changes, or whether things are likely to stay as they are. Currently, I expect another dramatic change of some kind - don't know what, but it probably won't help me.

I do know that Getty's policy is to grow its revenues, of which "midstock" is an important part. They have predicted growth to their bondholders, but I gather the promised growth didn't appear so the promise has been booted across to next year and at the same time they have introduced changes that seem to me - and many others - to be certain to cause contraction in their "midstock" arena rather than growth - but, yeah, maybe wholly owned files or something else are filling the gap, though I don't understand how that would happen.

You know, all the figures in the survey on the right are just self-reported snippets of data but despite not being "the data" they still provide an awful lot of quite useful information.
 





 

@Baldrick

The data is not available. There are only individual snippets of data and lots of extrapolation. I certainly agree with Tickstock that people are far more likely to post in those threads if their sales are down and they are expressing frustration. Most people in other businesses would never go to an internet forum to bray about how well they are doing - it's a curious thing. You also have to remember that most contributors never post anything anywhere.

And what are you trying to derive from these snippets of data ? If it is about money then it clearly makes sense to report total sales including GI and PP - since that is where the business has shifted. If it is about how well Getty is performing and how any shift might relate to their strategies then that could not be extrapolated from such partial data. Lots of people seem to be reporting significantly increased PP sales - perhaps that means that Getty are doing well selling subs. But we can only guess. And a strategy may play out over a few years. Certainly the equilibrium has changed now that indy content is offered at roughly the same prices as they (indies) offer it at elsewhere.

Given the economy and increased competition - anyone who was doing well at the peak of the boom could reasonably expect to be considerably down unless they have  been continually producing very large quantities of very high quality work which is in demand. A non stellar 'exclusive' who is still earning around about the same is doing quite well - all things considered.

Though I was astonished recently here to read of someone struggling to even make a monthly payout at SS.

How many images, what kind of images, portfolio age? Blanket statements hold no value.

Quote from: bhr on November 01, 2013, 06:24

Though I was astonished recently here to read of someone struggling to even make a monthly payout at SS.

How many images, what kind of images, portfolio age? Blanket statements hold no value.

That's not a blanket statement, it's someone's experience.

A blanket statement is such as I've read often "Shutterstock is where we all (sic) make most of our $$". Some people with broadly similar ports at several places don't report SS as top, so the 'blanket statement' is disproved.

Quote from: bhr on November 01, 2013, 06:24

Though I was astonished recently here to read of someone struggling to even make a monthly payout at SS.

How many images, what kind of images, portfolio age? Blanket statements hold no value.

I would be astonished if more than 10% of contributors at any site make a monthly payout. There are probably 150,000 contributors to iStock, if each of them made $50 a month the site would be paying out 7.5million a month and, iirc, they are only paying out about a quarter of that, ergo more than three quarters of contributors don't hit a monthly payout.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on November 01, 2013, 06:51

Quote from: Ron on November 01, 2013, 06:42

Quote from: bhr on November 01, 2013, 06:24

Though I was astonished recently here to read of someone struggling to even make a monthly payout at SS.

How many images, what kind of images, portfolio age? Blanket statements hold no value.

I would be astonished if more than 10% of contributors at any site make a monthly payout. There are probably 150,000 contributors to iStock, if each of them made $50 a month the site would be paying out 7.5million a month and, iirc, they are only paying out about a quarter of that, ergo more than three quarters of contributors don't hit a monthly payout.

I thought payout was 100 dollar on IS.

Only 10%? SS has 35k contributors.

Still, it depends on what you sell, how many and for how long.

Most contributors have tiny portfolios and lose interest fairly quickly. Your're still a contributor with three snapshots in your portfiolio.
I thought iS was doing $50, if it is $100 then the figure would be $15m a month, which would certainly mean less than 10% of contributors getting paid every month.

ges per weekday at iStockphoto is making $650 per month on those very few sales. I am guessing that a person would have to sell many many more than that to make the same money at SS even accepting that not all sales are less than 50c subs. I chose a small number because I think it reflects the typical scale of things here. Though I was astonished recently here to read of someone struggling to even make a monthly payout at SS.

Getting back to numbers: my average on istock as an exclusive at 35% was around 6 dollars not 10. My last data is from March 2013, so i doubt it would have changed very much until now. If you are getting 10 dollars on average for your photos, you are either in a higher royalty group than me, have a ton of Vetta files (Congrats!) or are selling many more files at larger sizes. My results from getty under the Getty House contract (i.e. directly on getty itself,not through the E+ program) was between 10-14 dollars with HUGE variations and trending downwards. Volume of sales much lower than on istock of course.

At the moment I only have data from around 500 files on the new sites and I am not supplying everyone. It is difficult to compare single image results because the volume of sales varies greatly and the sites also have quite a large number of extended licenses and other special single image deals. But even just with 500 files and still being at the lowest rank on most of the new agencies, i know I will be earning more once I have 5000 files online (and 5000 or more files on istock).

There is absolutely no financial incentive for me to go back to being fully artist exclusive. None at all. And this is my honest conclusion after just 6 months of independence. And with all the difficulties of sending files in an environment where there is a total oversupply of images

Obviously it will take me time to reach a full living wage again. But the basic question will I make more as an indie than as an exclusive? That question for me is decided in favour of independence.

However, as a means of overall portfolio strategy, I don�t believe in putting all files everywhere. There are high volume files that will do well on sites with low individual sales prices and I also have content that can demand a higher price but will rarely be needed. As a result I am very much in favour of sites that take exclusive images, especially if the agency has a clearly defined style or subject matter like stocksy does.

I will keep monitoring the market of course, if for some reason istock was suddenly growing again to a point where my analysis showed me real advantage to be exclusive again, I might consider it (if I saw an appropriate longterm future as well). But I sincerely doubt it will happen. It will take them at least 2 years to rebuild trust and change direction of their business. But in the meantime the other agencies will grow as well, so I think I will stay indie for life.

But exclusive images, if istocksy offered the Third path, I would send them files, like I send exclusive files to stocks,west end or fotolia.

Obviously everybody has to make their own decisions and being exclusive with one company is very comfortable, so if people want to go fully artist exclusive good luck to them.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on November 01, 2013, 06:51

Quote from: Ron on November 01, 2013, 06:42

Quote from: bhr on November 01, 2013, 06:24

Though I was astonished recently here to read of someone struggling to even make a monthly payout at SS.

How many images, what kind of images, portfolio age? Blanket statements hold no value.

I would be astonished if more than 10% of contributors at any site make a monthly payout. There are probably 150,000 contributors to iStock, if each of them made $50 a month the site would be paying out 7.5million a month and, iirc, they are only paying out about a quarter of that, ergo more than three quarters of contributors don't hit a monthly payout.

I am guessing $10 per download for an exclusive. So 3 sales per weekday is $650. Sue says half that. So $325. Lets go with her number then (though I think it seems low).

How many downloads per day on average to earn $325 at SS ?

People quote an average of about 70c per dl, so you would need somwhere just short of 500 (errr.... yeah, that's per month, not per day).

Quote from: Ron on November 01, 2013, 06:58

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on November 01, 2013, 06:51

Quote from: Ron on November 01, 2013, 06:42

Quote from: bhr on November 01, 2013, 06:24

Though I was astonished recently here to read of someone struggling to even make a monthly payout at SS.

How many images, what kind of images, portfolio age? Blanket statements hold no value.

I would be astonished if more than 10% of contributors at any site make a monthly payout. There are probably 150,000 contributors to iStock, if each of them made $50 a month the site would be paying out 7.5million a month and, iirc, they are only paying out about a quarter of that, ergo more than three quarters of contributors don't hit a monthly payout.

I thought payout was 100 dollar on IS.

Only 10%? SS has 35k contributors.

Still, it depends on what you sell, how many and for how long.

Most contributors have tiny portfolios and lose interest fairly quickly. Your're still a contributor with three snapshots in your portfiolio.
I thought iS was doing $50, if it is $100 then the figure would be $15m a month, which would certainly mean less than 10% of contributors getting paid every month.

Just as an FYI http://istockfaq.gettyimages.com/how-do-i-request-a-payment-of-earnings/

By the way, I am not arguing you are wrong about hitting pay outs 

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on November 01, 2013, 06:51

Quote from: Ron on November 01, 2013, 06:42

Quote from: bhr on November 01, 2013, 06:24

Though I was astonished recently here to read of someone struggling to even make a monthly payout at SS.

How many images, what kind of images, portfolio age? Blanket statements hold no value.

I would be astonished if more than 10% of contributors at any site make a monthly payout. There are probably 150,000 contributors to iStock, if each of them made $50 a month the site would be paying out 7.5million a month and, iirc, they are only paying out about a quarter of that, ergo more than three quarters of contributors don't hit a monthly payout.

I am guessing $10 per download for an exclusive. So 3 sales per weekday is $650. Sue says half that. So $325. Lets go with her number then (though I think it seems low).

How many downloads per day on average to earn $325 at SS ?

  17 from experience

Quote from: Ron on November 01, 2013, 06:51

I think we know by now I am not native English and dont always know the correct phrasing. I meant to say, without knowing that persons situation, the statement holds no value. If that person has 10 editorial images its not a surprise, if they have 10,000 HCV photos, then something is wrong. I hope thats clear enough for you.

Absolutely I knew what you meant. As I've explained already, from the experience of three very good-to-excellent wildlife togs I know personally, SS is not necessarily a good place to sell UK wildlife; clearly other subjects will be better or worse (isn't it SS who reject for lcv?).

SS no longer give the LCV rejection, Scott Braut mentioned that on MSG.

so what do they give now? other reason even if not the proper "reason"?

Quote from: luissantos84 on November 01, 2013, 09:43

so what do they give now? other reason even if not the proper "reason"?

No they accept the images.

I like that