MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iSignstock - new stock offering from Ingram Publishing  (Read 42021 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: October 15, 2010, 09:05 »
0
Ingram Publishing just opened their iSignStock site to contributers and are offering some cash for uploading.

The site is a subscription site with photographers share ranging from 30%-40%, although I haven't seen how the pay structure is divided up.

If you upload exclusive images they will also be automatically put on the Ingimage site.

So anyhow, here is the link if you want to check it out.


« Reply #1 on: October 15, 2010, 09:11 »
0
What an awful looking site.

Search for 'business'.  All Yuri, all the time ;)

« Reply #2 on: October 15, 2010, 09:34 »
0
i don't see anything about paying for uploading.

« Reply #3 on: October 15, 2010, 09:51 »
0
$330 per year to download 50 images a week - 2,600 images at 12.69 cents apiece.

Not sure what the photographer share in money would be but it doesn't seem this would amount to much per image.

Has a bit a of a bargain bin feel about it, no?

« Reply #4 on: October 15, 2010, 10:16 »
0
Not sure about the name but they know how to sell, as I can see through my third party sales with another site.  Subs buyers never use their full quota of downloads and 30%-40% commission is probably reasonable for subs sites.

« Reply #5 on: October 15, 2010, 10:42 »
0
$330 per year to download 50 images a week - 2,600 images at 12.69 cents apiece.

Not sure what the photographer share in money would be but it doesn't seem this would amount to much per image.
In the UK the price is 295 for an annual subscription however the FULL subscription appears to include Extended Licenses for vehicle transfers too. For images only the subscription price is just 220 which could mean as little as 8.5p per image TO THE CUSTOMER and our 30% would be less than 3p or about 4.5c.

I don't fully understand how it works for contributors either. Are commissions worked out on a 'per week' basis based on how much a customer downloads? For example if a customer downloads only 1/3 of their entitlement does that effectively treble the commission per image for the contributor? What if a customer downloads zero images in one week? Does the money for that week carry over to the next or do Isignstock get to keep the lot for themselves?

Clearly they are aimed very specifically at sign-makers which must be a relatively narrow sector of the greater market. I don't see much in this to interest me so far, the returns for the contributor are likely to be very meagre.

« Reply #6 on: October 15, 2010, 14:32 »
0
A lot of my portfolio is already on there, would be nice to have more information.  I presume we would make more money supplying the site directly than via another site.

« Reply #7 on: October 15, 2010, 15:23 »
0
Has anyone been able to determing what the lock~in time span is for pics, 1mo, 3mo, 6mo?

I cant seam to find any infor on the site about this.

nick

« Reply #8 on: October 15, 2010, 15:46 »
0
Oh,  wait a sec.

Is that 4.5 cents (US) for the photographer ? ? ?

If yes, then they can kiss my _ _ _ !

25 cents is my lowest.

When microstock gets any lower then that, then its back to taking pictures just for fun.

nick

« Reply #9 on: October 15, 2010, 16:57 »
0
I will wait and see what they say but I don't think 4.5 cents is realistic, as subs buyers don't use all their downloads, so I presume we would get much more?  Don't know why people only look at the worst case scenario, by the same logic I suppose a buyer could download just one image and we would get $66 for it?

« Reply #10 on: October 15, 2010, 17:12 »
0
Are you really uploading images there without knowing how much will you get per download??? (More if it's pressumed cents...)

« Reply #11 on: October 15, 2010, 17:21 »
0
I will wait and see what they say but I don't think 4.5 cents is realistic, as subs buyers don't use all their downloads, so I presume we would get much more?  Don't know why people only look at the worst case scenario, by the same logic I suppose a buyer could download just one image and we would get $66 for it?

The point is we don't know. They haven't actually detailed how it works. Unlike most other agencies that offer subs and pay a fixed commission to the contributor it appears to me that all the risk is being passed on to us here __ and most likely for little potential gain. Don't forget that they're selling extended licenses that could generate as little as 6c a pop to us.

It's very similar to what Istock/Getty tried on initially with Thinkstock knowing full well that whatever price they chose to sell the subscription for they would be guaranteed 80% (if I remember the figure correctly) of the subscription cost irrespective of how many images were downloaded by the customer. Fortunately the majority of contributors saw through the scheme and rejected it. This is potentially even worse than Thinkstock because it seems improbable that the volume will be there or indeed the marketing nous.

The pathetic 'incentive' scheme itself tells us all we need to know about them __ a bonus maximum of $50 for 1000+ images accepted? Do me a favour. That's all of 5c per image. When Fotolia started they were paying out 50c per image with no limitations and that was when prices and earnings were much lower.

« Reply #12 on: October 15, 2010, 17:28 »
0
Funny, just got my new book from the publishers and brought it and my one from earlier in the year home last night.
My kids looked at the front covers and said they're not your photos and I said the publisher uses Ingram and I had to choose one from there and Ingram dont seem to have direct entry, only through partners. kind of ironic

they have paid upload $50 for 1000 images

I dont like this % of subscription payments that seems about 3 or 4 now. Sharpshot, pixmac work on %, someone buys a 'pack' so many images per month / year for a price, they work that down a cost per image for that customer ie 10 cents per image and then they pay on that, whether the customer buys or not is irrelevant for the photographer.

« Reply #13 on: October 15, 2010, 17:37 »
0
Are you really uploading images there without knowing how much will you get per download??? (More if it's pressumed cents...)
No, I have sent them an email and will be asking more questions directly to them before I decide if it is worth uploading.  Much better than speculating in a forum, people often get it wrong here.

« Reply #14 on: October 15, 2010, 17:48 »
0
Much better than speculating in a forum, people often get it wrong here.

I've written to them requesting they provide additional information and answer questions here (where they are paying to advertise). Much better having an open discussion on a forum like this that all trying to do it individually. The old 'divide and conquer' just plays into their hands __ we have a much stronger voice together.

« Reply #15 on: October 16, 2010, 06:48 »
0
Oh,  wait a sec.

Is that 4.5 cents (US) for the photographer ? ? ?


I made similar calculations and agree. If customer use fully his subscription we will get much less then even on Shutterstock. Only several cents for image.
It's too low price.
But let compare with Ingram traditional subscription site http://www.ingimage.com/
There I see f529 for year with 250 images in one week. It's equal 7 cents for one image. It's very low price too but ingimage with it's subscription exists for a long time.
And for example we can compare it with prices on http://www.ingrampublishing.com/ image costs f60 and higher.
It's hard to believe that one company can sell equal images for f60 and only 7 cents. It's not good that we can't see detailed statistics about sales on Ingram.
I will be waiting more detailed reply from Ingram support about this question.

« Reply #16 on: October 19, 2010, 01:25 »
0
hope whoever got an answer can share it here, it seems no sense to earn that few cents.

and it is quite amusing, $10-50 images, $25-250, $50-1000. I am stupid but i know how to count with fingers.

that's even mention the more u submit the more u earn.

« Reply #17 on: October 19, 2010, 10:36 »
0
I have sent them a link to this thread, hopefully someone from there will answer questions.

« Reply #18 on: October 19, 2010, 11:36 »
0
Good evening,
 
My name is Johnnie and I work as a picture editor for Ingram Publishing. I would like to clear up a few of the issues being discussed here about our new site isignstock.
 
- Firstly we are offering 30% for non-exclusive images and 40% for exclusive. Exclusive images will be distributed to ingimage and more importantly throughout our existing dealer channel (where as singles they will be licensed for up to 200 each).
 
- We may include some non-exclusive images on ingimage if our editors feel they are good enough. Vectors and properly sized images stand a good chance.
 
- The photographer gets 30/40% of the full revenue - not just profit.
 
- It seems that a few of you have been calculating the cents per download based on the available maximum download numbers. With all respect this is an incredibly misleading and short sighted approach. Quite literally nobody downloads every available image. Indeed most use a tiny fraction of their quota. The reality is that the revenues per image for ingimage are close to the top of your mid tier section. This is according to our larger suppliers who widely distribute their work.
 
- We appreciate our bonus scheme doesnt offer vast riches - we simply see it as a start up fee / small incentive to encourage photographers to begin working with us.
 
We have no desire to rip photographers off - Ingram has been going for a long time now and we wouldnt be anywhere if it wasnt for the good relationships we have with our contributors.
 
Please dont hesitate to ask if you have any questions.
 
With best regards,
 
Johnnie

« Reply #19 on: October 19, 2010, 13:10 »
0
thanks for the reply Johnnie

So how are royalties calculated?  If a buyer buys a package for 100 pounds and only uses 50% of his package on only my images and another photographers images, does that mean I'll get 30% of 100 pounds multiplied by .5 since half the sales were my images?

Is this calculated at the end of each month?

thanks.

LSD72

  • My Bologna has a first name...
« Reply #20 on: October 19, 2010, 14:05 »
0
I guess we can do this like an Interview.

What sets your site(s) apart from the other Micros such as Shutterstock, Dreamstime, Fotolia and Istock?

RT


« Reply #21 on: October 19, 2010, 16:27 »
0
- It seems that a few of you have been calculating the cents per download based on the available maximum download numbers. With all respect this is an incredibly misleading and short sighted approach. Quite literally nobody downloads every available image. Indeed most use a tiny fraction of their quota.

Why such a high maximum then?

If 'quite literally nobody downloads their full quota' you should have no problem whatsoever lowering the available amount to a sensible level whereby contributors wouldn't end up in the possible scenario of getting the lowest commission rate available at any agency.

« Reply #22 on: October 19, 2010, 17:32 »
0
- It seems that a few of you have been calculating the cents per download based on the available maximum download numbers. With all respect this is an incredibly misleading and short sighted approach. Quite literally nobody downloads every available image. Indeed most use a tiny fraction of their quota.

Why such a high maximum then?

If 'quite literally nobody downloads their full quota' you should have no problem whatsoever lowering the available amount to a sensible level whereby contributors wouldn't end up in the possible scenario of getting the lowest commission rate available at any agency.

I once presented at a user's group meeting for my then employer, a well known PC software firm.  Why, I was asked, did we offer rebates on our products rather than just lowering the price?  I told the truth: that on the one hand, customers included the rebate value when they calculated price, making our products look more attractive; but on the other hand, most never filled out and submitted the rebate forms, giving us a higher profit for the vast majority of sales.  So for us it was a win-win: we got more sales because we seemed cheaper, but we made more money.

I imagine they see a similar situation.  Offer a deal that looks attractive, but that few customers will exploit to its fullest.  You get more customers, but they don't cost nearly as much as they might.  In spite of your assumption that customers make rational decisions, we/they rarely do.

« Reply #23 on: October 20, 2010, 01:12 »
0
I am going to upload some and see what happens.  They are a well known company from the UK and I already sell there through another microstock site.  By uploading direct, I will hopefully see what I am making per sale and get more of the commission.  I don't think it is worth focusing on what happens if buyers download the maximum because that isn't what usually happens.

Tried the online upload and its very good.  No categories, just upload and forget about it.

« Reply #24 on: October 20, 2010, 02:24 »
0
It says in their User Guide that they want images with 300 dpi. I remember Moodboard had a requirement like that.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
3255 Views
Last post June 17, 2008, 17:23
by litifeta
2 Replies
2797 Views
Last post February 10, 2009, 15:17
by madelaide
13 Replies
12416 Views
Last post October 15, 2010, 09:07
by leaf
2 Replies
2293 Views
Last post July 22, 2011, 14:07
by Jo Ann Snover
8 Replies
4198 Views
Last post July 21, 2013, 17:49
by Oldhand

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results