MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Update about subs...(iStock vs photos.com)  (Read 19428 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: May 22, 2009, 03:21 »
0
It is a 10% difference.  

Actually it's 20% difference.

The main issue I have is one little sentence in the original anouncement:

Starting in August, everyone who contributes to Photos.com will receive the standard Getty Images commission of 20% for these single image sales.

With this sentence they allowed their real goal to slip out.
In the end it is all about increasing the company's (Getty's) profits. And the easiest way to do so is to lower the commissions for contributors.

The current 20% commission on Istock is already insulting. Until now they have made that up with (relatively) high prices and high sales. No they try to implement the same in the lowest price sector.

Now would be the best time to leave Getty and Istock - if they wouldn't provide such good sales currently.

But I will closely watch every future move...


« Reply #51 on: May 22, 2009, 03:26 »
0
I meant 20%, far too early in the morning for my brain to function ::)

« Reply #52 on: May 22, 2009, 05:50 »
0
The main issue I have is one little sentence in the original anouncement:
Starting in August, everyone who contributes to Photos.com will receive the standard Getty Images commission of 20% for these single image sales.
With this sentence they allowed their real goal to slip out.

Is that something new? I thought everybody who supplied images to other Getty collections already know that 20% is their standard commission in the RF field and most other areas.

« Reply #53 on: May 22, 2009, 06:07 »
0
The main issue I have is one little sentence in the original anouncement:
Starting in August, everyone who contributes to Photos.com will receive the standard Getty Images commission of 20% for these single image sales.
With this sentence they allowed their real goal to slip out.

Is that something new? I thought everybody who supplied images to other Getty collections already know that 20% is their standard commission in the RF field and most other areas.

No, it is not new. But they currently have some areas in their "imperium" where that standard is not applied (Istock exclusives, StockXpert).

What I read between the lines (and yes, I may be reading too much into it) is that they want to change that in the long term.
By establishing more outlets that follow the rule of keeping 80% of revenues in Getty's pockets they hope to reduce payments to contributors overall. And once these new outlets are established and provide significant revenue, the next step would be to remove the remaining "outliers".

Just the direction of "selling cheaper" and "lowering commissions" at the same time does not look contributor friendly.

If they wanted to achieve something in the subscription market, why not try a model that explains customers the value of what they are buying? Increase subscription prices (and commissions) and try to use Getty's power to move the whole market into the right direction.

But I have to agree, just joining the price war is so much easier...

« Reply #54 on: May 22, 2009, 06:47 »
0

As an Exclusive contributor for 3 years I'm starting the see that being independent might be a better choice for me. I have my hand on the button to become independent again and I might press it today.

Anyone else thinking the same thing and planning to become independent again after hearing about the new changes?

I would love to hear suggestions either way?

lisafx

« Reply #55 on: May 22, 2009, 08:37 »
0
The main issue I have is one little sentence in the original anouncement:
Starting in August, everyone who contributes to Photos.com will receive the standard Getty Images commission of 20% for these single image sales.
With this sentence they allowed their real goal to slip out.

Is that something new? I thought everybody who supplied images to other Getty collections already know that 20% is their standard commission in the RF field and most other areas.

Of course it's something new.  Otherwise why would they start it in August?  It would already be happening, right?

Right now through StockXpert, as you know, we are getting .30 sub commission and 30% on PPD sales on the photos.com/jui sites.  Based on the highlighted statement above, they are evidently planning to reduce even that modest commission.

The writing on the wall is starting to become pretty clear for both exclusives and independents who submit to Getty sites.  All that happened was they tried to toss the frogs into the boiling water and they jumped out.  This time around they are wisely placing the frogs in the cool pot of water and slowly turning up the heat.

 
« Last Edit: May 22, 2009, 08:39 by lisafx »

puravida

  • diablo como vd
« Reply #56 on: May 22, 2009, 09:03 »
0

Of course it's something new.  Otherwise why would they start it in August?  It would already be happening, right?

Right now through StockXpert, as you know, we are getting .30 sub commission and 30% on PPD sales on the photos.com/jui sites.  Based on the highlighted statement above, they are evidently planning to reduce even that modest commission.

The writing on the wall is starting to become pretty clear for both exclusives and independents who submit to Getty sites.  All that happened was they tried to toss the frogs into the boiling water and they jumped out.  This time around they are wisely placing the frogs in the cool pot of water and slowly turning up the heat.

 

AND based on the latest bit of counter comments to catastrophe's hilarious thread on IS,
there are still a lot of happy froggies  :D
... mostly old ones, though  ;)
« Last Edit: May 22, 2009, 09:04 by puravida »

bittersweet

« Reply #57 on: May 22, 2009, 09:31 »
0

AND based on the latest bit of counter comments to catastrophe's hilarious thread on IS,
there are still a lot of happy froggies  :D
... mostly old ones, though  ;)

I missed those "lots" of "counter comments". I hope you are not referring to mine. If so, you need to give it another read. (If you can't make the logic leap to get it, and the wink at the end doesn't help, I am a gold exclusive contributor.)
« Last Edit: May 22, 2009, 09:40 by whatalife »

« Reply #58 on: May 22, 2009, 10:11 »
0
I don't see the problem here with what they are doing.  A lot of this will drive more traffic to iStock which will benefit those on the agency. I think the way they are handling exclusive content and giving the opt-in and out will be a good way to keep some IS files circulating, especially if they aren't selling on IS.  It would seem they are tiering their offerings, and photos.com is a great domain name.

The fact that people complain about commissions but still submit to SS is hilarious too.  I can't remember the exact figures, but somoene posited that the commission at SS for a regular contributor could have potentially been less than 20% or in that range. 

« Reply #59 on: May 22, 2009, 10:26 »
0

As an Exclusive contributor for 3 years I'm starting the see that being independent might be a better choice for me. I have my hand on the button to become independent again and I might press it today.

Anyone else thinking the same thing and planning to become independent again after hearing about the new changes?

I would love to hear suggestions either way?

I've been exclusive for 9 months (was independent for nearly 4 years before that), and after the first announcement was pretty convinced I'd be returning to independent status very soon. I decided to wait for the revised plan before pulling the 30 day trigger as I didn't want to jump the gun in my fury at the wretchedness of the first plan and first "response" to it.

Right now I'm thinking I'll stay exclusive for a while longer - it's a complex mix of things, not just one factor.

best match 2.0 has been good to me, so May has been a very good month. My vectors are mostly complex ones that sell for very good prices (they quickly rise to the top 50 earners in my portfolio - though bear in mind some of the older photos were only earning 10-20-30 cent commissions when I started at iStock, so it's not an apples and apples comparison). Vector pricing, for complex vectors, is rotten everywhere else, so I used to upload just JPEGs of them when I was independent. I think that the established (gold/diamond) exclusives at IS will by and large act in their own self interest and keep a large body of exclusive work, which will keep IS viable for a while. I actually would like it if I could upload some of my former SS best sellers (very filtered images or raster illustrations) to photos.com as it would represent nice additional income. If IS will just let us upload JPEGs of vectors to Photos.com/JIU, I'll be very happy.

I think the long term worries about Getty and H&F are valid ones. However the recent moves at other agencies to squeeze contributors and some folks at DT seeing earnings drop suddenly (which is what happened to me a while ago for no reason I could fathom other than I got on the wrong side of some search results shift) remind me that it's overall quite a risky time for contributors. Even if I'm making just a short/medium term plan by staying exclusive at IS, I think it's probably marginally better for me than the short/medium term being independent again.

I plan to follow the IS thread and digest all that's said (pro and con), but that's my initial reaction to yesterday's new plan.

« Reply #60 on: May 22, 2009, 10:36 »
0

The writing on the wall is starting to become pretty clear for both exclusives and independents who submit to Getty sites.  All that happened was they tried to toss the frogs into the boiling water and they jumped out.  This time around they are wisely placing the frogs in the cool pot of water and slowly turning up the heat.

 

Perfect synopsis of what is going on. But there are some who are too blind or blinkered to see.

« Reply #61 on: May 22, 2009, 10:46 »
0

The writing on the wall is starting to become pretty clear for both exclusives and independents who submit to Getty sites.  All that happened was they tried to toss the frogs into the boiling water and they jumped out.  This time around they are wisely placing the frogs in the cool pot of water and slowly turning up the heat.

 

Perfect synopsis of what is going on. But there are some who are too blind or blinkered to see.  I would love to see your portfolio and how its too good for exclusivity?



So what you are saying is that you aren't blind or you are smarter than the rest of the contributors in the marketplace?

What makes people think other agencies are safe havens?  SS routinely goes on a rejection binge, and its already mentioned that other agencies also have hiccups
« Last Edit: May 22, 2009, 10:50 by ichiro17 »

« Reply #62 on: May 22, 2009, 10:54 »
0
I said some, you can draw your own conclusions  ;)
« Last Edit: May 22, 2009, 11:03 by dunsmore »

« Reply #63 on: May 22, 2009, 11:05 »
0
Bingo Dunsmore. Exclusive contracts are like work for hire. The only positive part of Istocks exclusive contract is they let you pull out if you want to. I hope they keep that option open over time. Like watching grass grow. It does but you never see it even if you sit and watch for days.. Ichiro it is the combination of all the agencies and the opportunity to join the new ones coming. They will be coming, this game is still in the top of the second inning.

« Reply #64 on: May 22, 2009, 11:09 »
0
Densmore,

Don't feel the need to explain yourself when you are spoken to in such a manner. You have as much right as anyone on this site to state your opinion. It is as valid as any of this stuff. Nobody here knows for sure what will take place including myself. The only thing you can guarantee is there will always be more change.

« Reply #65 on: May 22, 2009, 11:40 »
0
I don't see the problem here with what they are doing.  A lot of this will drive more traffic to iStock which will benefit those on the agency. I think the way they are handling exclusive content and giving the opt-in and out will be a good way to keep some IS files circulating, especially if they aren't selling on IS.  It would seem they are tiering their offerings, and photos.com is a great domain name.

The fact that people complain about commissions but still submit to SS is hilarious too.  I can't remember the exact figures, but somoene posited that the commission at SS for a regular contributor could have potentially been less than 20% or in that range. 

I don't think I've read quite so many nonsensical statements in so short a post for a very long time.

Why are you so emphatic that traffic will be driven towards IS when logic and economics suggest it is more likely to be the other way around? You can buy a one-month sub on Photos.com (750 Large images) for less than the cost of 6 Large images on IS.

Have you checked the current traffic figures at IS and Photos.com? Even if all of Photos.com customers migrated to IS it wouldn't even make a blip on the graph.

All they are likely to achieve is to boost a low cost competitor at the very great risk of undermining the crown jewels of microstock.

I wish you wouldn't keep perpetuating the idiotic supposition that "the commission at SS for a regular contributor could have potentially been less than 20% or in that range." For starters 'less than 20%' is not 'a range'. SS actually pay out 35-40%. How do we know this? Because Jon told us and the post is still on the forum. Look it up.

My average commission at SS is 53c per sale whereas at Photos.com it is 33c and JIU it is 30c. The volume of licenses sold at SS is about 700% higher than Photos.com/JIU combined too. Why do you think it is 'hilarious' that people express concerns about commissions at Photos/JIU?

I do wish you would go to the trouble of actually learning some facts before making such ridiculous statements.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2009, 11:47 by gostwyck »

« Reply #66 on: May 22, 2009, 11:43 »
0

The writing on the wall is starting to become pretty clear for both exclusives and independents who submit to Getty sites.  All that happened was they tried to toss the frogs into the boiling water and they jumped out.  This time around they are wisely placing the frogs in the cool pot of water and slowly turning up the heat. 


Very well put Lisa. The three monkeys also comes to mind.

I don't know about others, but from my experience photos.com and JIU have not increased my PPD sales at StockXpert and I am yet to see any PPD from photos.com or JIU. If I had to make any conclusions at all it would be that my PPD sales have been cannibalized by subs from the three afore mentioned sites, I would even go as far as to suggest that these sites have even eaten into sales from Shutterstock.

I'm not trying to pretend to be a big player, my portfolio is quite modest, but it's been earning me a nice little income for nearly three years, however, in the last year or so I have seen my income at StockXpert tumble to around 25% of what it was.

I would love to hear anything positive from anyone who has financially benefited from the introduction of subs at and via StockXpert.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #67 on: May 22, 2009, 11:49 »
0
I would take ichiro's posts with a grain of salt.  He seems to be trying to justify this decision:

http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/gone-exclusive/msg99177/?topicseen#new

 ;D

KB

« Reply #68 on: May 22, 2009, 12:19 »
0
You can buy a one-month sub on Photos.com (750 Large images) for less than the cost of 6 Large images on IS.
Wow.

I think that statement says it all. That is ridiculous.

« Reply #69 on: May 22, 2009, 12:21 »
0
I don't see the problem here with what they are doing.  A lot of this will drive more traffic to iStock which will benefit those on the agency. I think the way they are handling exclusive content and giving the opt-in and out will be a good way to keep some IS files circulating, especially if they aren't selling on IS.  It would seem they are tiering their offerings, and photos.com is a great domain name.

The fact that people complain about commissions but still submit to SS is hilarious too.  I can't remember the exact figures, but somoene posited that the commission at SS for a regular contributor could have potentially been less than 20% or in that range. 

I don't think I've read quite so many nonsensical statements in so short a post for a very long time.

Why are you so emphatic that traffic will be driven towards IS when logic and economics suggest it is more likely to be the other way around? You can buy a one-month sub on Photos.com (750 Large images) for less than the cost of 6 Large images on IS.

Have you checked the current traffic figures at IS and Photos.com? Even if all of Photos.com customers migrated to IS it wouldn't even make a blip on the graph.

All they are likely to achieve is to boost a low cost competitor at the very great risk of undermining the crown jewels of microstock.

I wish you wouldn't keep perpetuating the idiotic supposition that "the commission at SS for a regular contributor could have potentially been less than 20% or in that range." For starters 'less than 20%' is not 'a range'. SS actually pay out 35-40%. How do we know this? Because Jon told us and the post is still on the forum. Look it up.

My average commission at SS is 53c per sale whereas at Photos.com it is 33c and JIU it is 30c. The volume of licenses sold at SS is about 700% higher than Photos.com/JIU combined too. Why do you think it is 'hilarious' that people express concerns about commissions at Photos/JIU?

I do wish you would go to the trouble of actually learning some facts before making such ridiculous statements.

I don't need to.  I'm exclusive and I'm taking at attitude. 

And I'm not really inclined to believe management of a corporation either.

And I'm hope that consolidation in the industry hits you very hard, you have to eat your words

On a final note, it doesn't matter what I think, its what I earn.  I'm earning enough that it doesn't matter what you say, and if Photos.com or whatever adds an extra 100 per month for me, then I'm cool with that.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2009, 12:24 by ichiro17 »

« Reply #70 on: May 22, 2009, 12:28 »
0
I would take ichiro's posts with a grain of salt.  He seems to be trying to justify this decision:

http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/gone-exclusive/msg99177/?topicseen#new

 ;D


whatever, i'm happy with my decision

edit:  i wrote something else but upon second look it was very mean and so i'm editing it out
« Last Edit: May 22, 2009, 12:32 by ichiro17 »

« Reply #71 on: May 22, 2009, 12:39 »
0
... and if Photos.com or whatever adds an extra 100 per month for me, then I'm cool with that.


It might well do so. Unfortunately you'll probably lose 5x that from your IS income. Enjoy the ride ... and look forward to a dwindling income now that all your eggs are in one rather leaky basket. I guarantee you'll be regretting your decision within a year.

You clearly understand very little about the microstock market and I'm afraid your lack of research will cost you a great deal of money (and even more angst) in the medium to long term. Oh well!

« Reply #72 on: May 22, 2009, 12:47 »
0
... and if Photos.com or whatever adds an extra 100 per month for me, then I'm cool with that.


It might well do so. Unfortunately you'll probably lose 5x that from your IS income. Enjoy the ride ... and look forward to a dwindling income now that all your eggs are in one rather leaky basket. I guarantee you'll be regretting your decision within a year.

You clearly understand very little about the microstock market and I'm afraid your lack of research will cost you a great deal of money (and even more angst) in the medium to long term. Oh well!

...and you think you know more than anyone else?  My lack of research has shown me that I don't have to upload to 4 tedious processes and I can spend more time shooting instead of worrying about 5 or 6 sites and how they manage their businesses.  I also don't have toi listen to apparently enlightened posters talk about how they know whats going on and others don't.

« Reply #73 on: May 22, 2009, 12:52 »
0
edited for the fact i'm not going to argue and waste my time anymore.  have fun and i have hope that you stop uploading to SS and your sales fall through the floor gostwyck

and if i want to remove my exclusivity, i can.  istock doesn't say no to that
« Last Edit: May 22, 2009, 12:56 by ichiro17 »

lisafx

« Reply #74 on: May 22, 2009, 12:53 »
0

My average commission at SS is 53c per sale whereas at Photos.com it is 33c and JIU it is 30c. The volume of licenses sold at SS is about 700% higher than Photos.com/JIU combined too.

This mirrors my stats pretty exactly.  Average on SS is .54 due to icreased PPD and EL sales.  The least I ever make for a DL at SS is .38.  I would have to be one of the black diamond exclusives on istock to get that princely sum from a Getty sub site.

PPD and EL sales are almost unheard of on photos.com/jui.  And of the very rare one or two you get they now want to keep 80% of that.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
106 Replies
23526 Views
Last post August 28, 2015, 08:35
by madman
4 Replies
1881 Views
Last post October 19, 2008, 14:24
by cascoly
5 Replies
1594 Views
Last post July 19, 2012, 04:32
by sharpshot
12 Replies
2398 Views
Last post August 28, 2015, 11:29
by ShadySue
43 Replies
7396 Views
Last post October 14, 2015, 15:34
by Gel-O Shooter

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results