MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: Justanotherphotographer on February 12, 2017, 04:08
-
Well I've been routing through my IStock/ Getty sales. It's no fun even with third party software to help.
Turns out I made a not insignificant number of 2c sales through PP in 2016. So I guess that answers the question about whether they are really serious about 2c downloads. Looks like they've already been at it and are just getting their ducks in a row before really tearing into us with the new scheme.
-
Bunch of crooks.
-
Well I've been routing through my IStock/ Getty sales. It's no fun even with third party software to help.
Turns out I made a not insignificant number of 2c sales through PP in 2016. So I guess that answers the question about whether they are really serious about 2c downloads. Looks like they've already been at it and are just getting their ducks in a row before really tearing into us with the new scheme.
Just out of interest, were these green bar sales (PP or G+) or black bar (Getty Connect) sales? There's a technical difference, but black bar sales are for fractions of 1c, but only added to your charts when they aggregate to a full cent or two. The black bar sales are very shallow, obviously.
-
PP. A much larger volume of 7-19c but still quite a few 2c
-
PP. A much larger volume of 7-19c but still quite a few 2c
That would likely be Getty Plus, which reports under PP for no explained or rational reason.
Some of these sales are shockingly low, indeed; as are some Getty Images sales for exclusives.
-
I had a good selling Vetta file on Istock, which after it was mirrored onto Getty it started selling for a whopping 1c. I have deactivated the file after I realized what is happening. One of the exclusive perks, I guess!
-
Getty Connect income isn't for "sales" of images. It's a share of advertising income from ads appearing where somebody (blog etc) has been allowed to embed your image from Getty. Their argument is that these embedded images only go to uses where somebody wouldn't normally have purchased a license for images and, therefore, is extra monetisation for your work. Just Google "Getty Connect for contributors" and you should get the full info. It's a bit like someone coming to my blog and clicking on one of the Google ads there -I get a penny or so per click.
-
I'm surprised people even call these things "sales". Basically, we've arrived at "free" with a token micro-payment that lets the agency call it a "sale" for legal and accounting purposes.
-
Well I've been routing through my IStock/ Getty sales. It's no fun even with third party software to help.
Turns out I made a not insignificant number of 2c sales through PP in 2016. So I guess that answers the question about whether they are really serious about 2c downloads. Looks like they've already been at it and are just getting their ducks in a row before really tearing into us with the new scheme.
First 2c sale shows on my IS account and I'll be shutting them off. It's bad enough that I've stayed through changes and insults this long.Bunch of crooks.
-
Are you sure you haven't had some already? They don't make it easy to look through all those pp sales and track individual sales. Anyone on esp, is it any easier with the new system?
I have of course stopped uploading to istock over the incredibly bad rpd and treatment of contributors.
-
Getty Connect income isn't for "sales" of images. It's a share of advertising income from ads appearing where somebody (blog etc) has been allowed to embed your image from Getty. Their argument is that these embedded images only go to uses where somebody wouldn't normally have purchased a license for images and, therefore, is extra monetisation for your work. Just Google "Getty Connect for contributors" and you should get the full info. It's a bit like someone coming to my blog and clicking on one of the Google ads there -I get a penny or so per click.
I am taliking about actual sales not getty connect.
-
Getty Connect income isn't for "sales" of images. It's a share of advertising income from ads appearing where somebody (blog etc) has been allowed to embed your image from Getty. Their argument is that these embedded images only go to uses where somebody wouldn't normally have purchased a license for images and, therefore, is extra monetisation for your work. Just Google "Getty Connect for contributors" and you should get the full info. It's a bit like someone coming to my blog and clicking on one of the Google ads there -I get a penny or so per click.
I am taliking about actual sales not getty connect.
You're right. Many contributors have been reporting actual sales (purple bars) that were for mere pennies.
-
A pure Getty exclusive contributor (not iStock) I know started receiving 1 cent royalties and at that point they deleted their entire portfolio.
In their view it was just pointless continuing with them
-
I honestly thought they reserved the treatment for nonexclusives. How is their model supposed to succeed when they are even shafting their exclusives to that degree? I can't work out their long term game plan.
-
I honestly thought they reserved the treatment for nonexclusives. How is their model supposed to succeed when they are even shafting their exclusives to that degree? I can't work out their long term game plan.
Hard to work out something that doesn't exist. I really don't get them I thought perhaps they would just let the Mstock sidefade away then they embark on the potentially disastrous ESP "program" . I think they are trying to make it more attractive to go exclusive but making it worse for Indies won't work.....going exclusive with them now makes no sense.
-
I honestly thought they reserved the treatment for nonexclusives. How is their model supposed to succeed when they are even shafting their exclusives to that degree? I can't work out their long term game plan.
I don't think they've ever had a long-term game plan for iS- it's just a whole lot of totally unconnected exciting announcements, each unconnected to the last. Throwing half-baked stuff at the wall, none of which has a chance of sticking / succeeding, as they have't been thought through.
-
I honestly thought they reserved the treatment for nonexclusives. How is their model supposed to succeed when they are even shafting their exclusives to that degree? I can't work out their long term game plan.
Hard to work out something that doesn't exist. I really don't get them I thought perhaps they would just let the Mstock sidefade away then they embark on the potentially disastrous ESP "program" . I think they are trying to make it more attractive to go exclusive but making it worse for Indies won't work.....going exclusive with them now makes no sense.
I also thought they were making a statement that it wasn't really a place for independents anymore (as you'd have to be crazy to still upload there) but making it better for exclusives so they have a USP with quality exclusive content. They surely wont be getting any of that for 1c a download.
It's like they think they are the only game in town. I guess I can understand it as most of their expansion over the last twenty years seems to have been fuelled by creating a near monopoly, buying up and shutting down the competition. I know a lot of older photographers who never actually signed up to Getty but found themselves tied when agencies they invested time and effort into for decades were bought up. Getty could then squeeze them more and more as they had less and less options to abandon ship.
Oh well, guess they are about to find out that there's other players in town again now.
-
I honestly thought they reserved the treatment for nonexclusives. How is their model supposed to succeed when they are even shafting their exclusives to that degree? I can't work out their long term game plan.
Hard to work out something that doesn't exist. I really don't get them I thought perhaps they would just let the Mstock sidefade away then they embark on the potentially disastrous ESP "program" . I think they are trying to make it more attractive to go exclusive but making it worse for Indies won't work.....going exclusive with them now makes no sense.
I also thought they were making a statement that it wasn't really a place for independents anymore (as you'd have to be crazy to still upload there) but making it better for exclusives so they have a USP with quality exclusive content. They surely wont be getting any of that for 1c a download.
It's like they think they are the only game in town. I guess I can understand it as most of their expansion over the last twenty years seems to have been fuelled by creating a near monopoly, buying up and shutting down the competition. I know a lot of older photographers who never actually signed up to Getty but found themselves tied when agencies they invested time and effort into for decades were bought up. Getty could then squeeze them more and more as they had less and less options to abandon ship.
Oh well, guess they are about to find out that there's other players in town again now.
Very true acting like the big boys but haven't woken up to the fact their classmates have outgrown them....they might be in for a whopping.......