pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Room the Agency - thoughts on this email?  (Read 3382 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: May 27, 2014, 17:07 »
0
I received this long email from Room the Agency - i must have signed up at some stage, but have never submitted anything.  I am curious what others, particularly those with tonnes more experience than me (err, just about everyone), might have to say about this - thoughts, comments, etc?

.......................................

This month, we send out our first sales reports its just a start
 
On Thursday we will be reporting our first sales reports to members, as reported to us by Getty I took a quick look this morning and its much as expected for a first month.
 
Payment due to those who have earned 25 ($42) or more our minimum payment will be paid on 5th June.
 
As from now, every month we will report to you by 30th of each month, sales as reported to us by Getty for the previous month. Payment will be made to members with 25 ($42) or more owing, around 5th of the month following, or the amount due will be carried forward to the next months payment date if below 25 ($42).
 
We need your payment details
Please ensure that you have input your bank (UK members only) or PayPal details into the Images, Sales & Payments section of your profile, or we will not be able pay you, when money is due.
 
We live in a Spotify World
 
For those of you that have been around for as long as I have, things are different, subscription was not part of the royalty remit and as such payouts per sale were higher than they are now. Times have, however, changed significantly and we now live in a subscription based, micropayment World.
 
What this means to us all is that earnings per sale will be significantly lower than they once would have been, but the amount of sales, over time, may become considerably higher as more customers become buyers.
 
When Spotify started out some 5 years back there was an outcry. They paid out very little to copyright holders, hit tracks were earning, on average, between $0.006 and $0.0084 per stream.
 
In 2009 this amounted to a few million dollars being paid out to all bands, for all songs accessed through Spotify in total. Shared amongst the many copyright holders, this amounted to little more than small change, a few dollars each on average per year if they were lucky.
 
In 2013, however, the model had matured significantly and Spotify paid out $500 million in royalties. For top global albums, in July 2013 alone, Spotify paid a rather more appealing $425,000 in royalties to each producer, for each album and at the bottom end of the scale, $3,300 to each niche indie album rights owner.
 
iStock are coming, our sales will grow significantly
 
During April, we had no images live on iStock, who run a similar model to Spotify, with their subscription offerings. Over the next few weeks, all our content, unless it has been opted out by you, will go live on iStock. This will significantly increase our sales potential, as iStock makes up half of Gettys $1 billion turnover.
 
Because of the global change in royalty based businesses, Getty have had to change the way they sell to clients that change is only just beginning. Many clients are now on annual deals and much of Gettys sales are made below 6 ($10) per image.
 
As a result, we are expecting our average sale to come in at around 4.2 ($7), which will mean around 2 ($3) to you.
 
If you compare this with Spotify and its average $0.007 per stream, its a significant uplift, but not what we would like to see, of course.
 
Sure, you will still see some 0.20 ($0.30) or so sales on your sales reports, but over time these will grow to significant monthly payouts. Remember, it took Spotify 5 years to get where they are now and thats without a great deal of competition, so dont expect Getty to be paying out significant sums to us for at least a few months yet.
 
But, it will happen.
 
If its free, is not always, well, free
 
Some of you may have noticed that Getty made the brave decision to stop selling images to bloggers (most all were being stolen anyway) and started giving them away. Now, this may sound rather stupid, but in fact it is part of a long-term plan to earn more from these sales than they did when they tried to sell the content. As Getty track usage and users they will build into this model an advertising system that will benefit us all and we will all get paid from revenue earned from selling advertising, much as YouTube do with their videos.
 
Google earned over $5 billion from their YouTube advertising channel in 2013.
 
YouTube will bring in about $5.60 billion in gross ad revenues this year (2013), according to eMarketers first-ever analysis of how much advertisers spend on the platform.
 
Stay tuned for more news on this, over coming months.
 
A lesson learned, is a lesson taught
 
When I first got into shooting stock photography many years ago, I, like you guys was expecting a bumper payday first time round. It didnt happen and it is unlikely happen for you either, although our member with the most earnings this month, earned over 500 ($840), which really quite good.
 
Most of the images we now have live were not live during April and the majority  of you will not have had any images live on Getty at all - we had no sales from iStock that will take 3 months at least to build and we had few slots in Gettys ranking system that builds with our image intake - so please, please, keep the images streaming in.
 
Things will all change over the coming months for the good, but realistically, like me, all those years back, you will have to give it a year before you can make any sort of judgment on your sales potential.
 
After that first year of sales I was overjoyed with my income but because sales didnt start rolling in for 6 months, I stopped supplying after month 1, as many people before me probably did too Ill wait and see what happens, was the usual retort.
 
Then, after 6 months, I was rushing through content. I wish I had listened to my agency and continued to supply early on.
 
Now for something really special and unique to end this message
 
Next month, as we tighten up our membership, making it even more difficult to join RooM without the right content and belief in what we are doing, we will be offering you all something really special and unique.
 
We will be offering you a way to earn much, much more money over time:
 
A profit share in the business.
 
We see our business as a collective and want to ensure that if we do well as a company, we all share in the profits after all, without your content we are nothing more than a few images and a name.
 
As a collective we have real power and can have significant pull and influence at Getty. Alone, as suppliers, most of us would not have Getty RF contracts, let alone, Getty RM/RF and iStock accounts combined. As for search slots, wed have none without each other.
 
As we grow the quality and number of our images significantly, Getty will give us more exposure and with that will come more sales, many more sales. For example, if we have, say, 2 slots in every 100 search results and earn $2m, doubling those slots to 4 will likely double our income to $4m.
 
Can we do that alone? No. Can we do this, with our in depth knowledge of Getty and the industry and your fantastic content? Yes, we can.
 
Stay tuned for news on our unique profit share offering, as we work it through with our accountants.
 
Thank you for your time, support and above all, fantastic images.
 


« Reply #1 on: May 27, 2014, 17:14 »
+2
Never heard of them, but if their goal is splitting IS sub sales with the contributor, that doesn't sound very interesting.

« Reply #2 on: May 27, 2014, 17:26 »
0
they were pocketstock before

« Reply #3 on: May 27, 2014, 17:26 »
+2
My only reaction is: Yikes! Waaaaaay too much verbiage!!! :o

THP Creative

  • THP Creative

« Reply #4 on: May 27, 2014, 18:00 »
+1
they were pocketstock before
Really? If so, avoid them. WAY too many promises that never eventuate.

dk

« Reply #5 on: May 27, 2014, 18:10 »
0
Never heard of them but there are some interesting points in the article.

I think however that we don't need a spotify for stock but a bandcamp. People who are serious about music prefer bandcamp because they can download directly from the artist/label and they have a choice between mp3/flac and many other formats, real innovation not just cheap streaming like spotify. Most indie labels reacted to spotify feeling ripped off but are embrassing bandcamp and sell CD's and digital formats through them.

In our world that would mean that we can upload and sell directly, set price, sell a whole series or a single photo, automatcially offer jpg, tif or any other format and size needed by the customer at no extra charge. We are still missing a site like that, that would act not as a stock agency but as a place to sell direct at the price we want and offer product that is tempting to those that care about stock the most, serious clients that love photography.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #6 on: May 27, 2014, 18:32 »
+2
"Over the next few weeks, all our content, unless it has been opted out by you, will go live on iStock. ...
As a result, we are expecting our average sale to come in at around 4.2 ($7), which will mean around 2 ($3) to you."

But they said they were going to iStock, not Getty. As indies on iStock, newly starting, their average sale is going to be well under $7 gross. Apart from which, unless they have made some sort of best match deal, new files are hardly getting views far less sales, except on TS, which pays even less.

"Some of you may have noticed that Getty made the brave decision to stop selling images to bloggers (most all were being stolen anyway) and started giving them away. "
They didn't decide to stop selling to bloggers. If a blogger wants to buy an image from Getty, they'll be made very welcome.

As Getty track usage and users they will build into this model an advertising system that will benefit us all and we will all get paid from revenue earned from selling advertising, much as YouTube do with their videos.
How will it 'benefit us all', and how will "we all get paid"? Is Getty going to share their advertising revenue with 'everybody', whether their images are embedded or not?

Run as fast as you can away from this lot of charlatans.



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
5135 Views
Last post June 30, 2007, 09:12
by hospitalera
7 Replies
5335 Views
Last post July 14, 2011, 16:31
by luissantos84
4 Replies
1887 Views
Last post May 02, 2013, 19:46
by gillian vann
1 Replies
4097 Views
Last post August 27, 2013, 11:59
by cidepix
7 Replies
5527 Views
Last post April 09, 2014, 10:42
by AYA

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle