Attention: These forums are no longer active. The iStock Contributor forums have moved to the Contributor Community site.

Royalty Change Follow up

Displaying 41 to 60 of 3336 matches.
redmal
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Illustrator
Posted Wed Sep 8, 2010 2:06PM
I think you would have been better off saying nothing.
wdstock
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloads
Posted Wed Sep 8, 2010 2:06PM

Is the "unfairness" of just missing a target and getting a substantial decrease in royalty revenue going to be addressed?


Also, regarding the statement:


"But we can't pay everyone 40% and remain competitive, which is what our previous structure would have eventually amounted to, when taken to its logical conclusion."


This is not totally logical as:


1. There will always be new contributors coming in at a lower than 40% royalty rate.


2. There will always be a percentage of non-exclusives at a lower than 40% rate.


3. There will always be an attrition of contributors including "Diamonds".

It is more likely some equilibrium aggregate royalty rate that will be reached.
PickStock
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed Sep 8, 2010 2:06PM
I cal BS. If your selling more images at higher prices then your making more profit. Its not rocket science. You raise rates and cut contributors commissions. What the hell am I missing here other than the obvious. Spread the word folks. Get to those designer friends and tell them the skibby, contact all known buyers .


Cut the crap iStock. First you say no ones commissions go down now you admit 24% of us will. Heres a clue KK how about cutting your Salary 10 to 15 %. That should balance the sheets eh ? How about cutting un-needed staff ? How would that make them feel ? Shit we all know that ain't happening, It all comes down to iStock and TPTB getting that yearly Bonus on our dime.

(Edited on 2010-09-08 14:08:47 by Curt_Pickens)
himbeertoni
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloads
Posted Wed Sep 8, 2010 2:06PM
Fail. 
ZanyZeusCLOSED
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloads
Posted Wed Sep 8, 2010 2:06PM
The ultimate question is, was iStock making enough money prior to this "change"? It's easy to say that payouts increase yearly and it's just as easy to say that retained earnings increase by a factor of 1.5 (40%) to 4 (20%) for Getty. So each dollar you bring in you get to keep the lions share. So payouts go up but retained earnings go way, way up. Even if you paid every single contributor 40% for every sale I would think there is still a business in it for you guys. So  I am having trouble feeling sorry for you. 

(Edited on 2010-09-08 14:08:01 by ZanyZeus)
retroimages
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 125 Audio downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Illustrator
Posted Wed Sep 8, 2010 2:07PM
So this isn't Getty, it's your beloved iStock who never want to be in a position where they are taking 60% of all contributors royalties.
Well, good luck with your profitability, I hope it's worth it. I'm one who's going down and I feel let down.
For the first time ever, I'm looking at other places.
sjlocke
Member is a Black Diamond contributor and has more than 200,000 Photo downloadsMember is a Gold contributor and has 5,000 - 12,499 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsMember is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Wed Sep 8, 2010 2:07PM

Posted By bmcent1:

Posted By kkthompson:
As the company grows, the overall percentage we pay out to contributing artists increases. In the most basic terms that means that iStock becomes less profitable with increased success. As a business model, it’s simply unsustainable: businesses should get more profitable as they grow.

ONLY IF YOU LOOK AT PROFITS AS A PERCENTAGE.


I have to agree. There's no reason not to look at a higher profitability that comes from growth, which as we know, has been wildly successful, both regular sales and Vetta. The more contributors keep in their pockets, the higher and better quality content arises, that is purchased in greater numbers by more and more buyers.
OliverChilds
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed Sep 8, 2010 2:07PM
60% is unsustainable. Why?
mightyisland
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsMember is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Illustrator
Posted Wed Sep 8, 2010 2:08PM

Whoa. Ok, that does make sense to me. There is no point having a business model that diminishes in profit as it grows - that makes NO sense to anyone. I am looking like I will be one of the 24% on the decline, but that won't be forever.


I, for one, am happy with this, so thanks for the upfront nature of the post.


The only thing I would like to know is what is in store for vectors - this message has been a blow to the community, lets PLEASE not have another for us Vectorians?


I would also like to add, that I cannot image ANY OTHER business on this planet where weekly figures of $2 million are talked about that would communicate in this manner to it's community (I may be wrong) but I think this should be considered by the community before this thread turns nasty.
Luministes
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed Sep 8, 2010 2:08PM
Still, I am going to see a 10% drop and never attain the 35% level again based on the last two years figures. I hope your right and I am very wrong. This is very discouraging at face value when you consider the cost of high end gear, the time and efforts required. The stars are ok but the grunts like me are not!
SoopySue
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed Sep 8, 2010 2:08PM
Posted By benjikat:

Posted By kkthompson:
Since roughly 2005 we've been aware of a basic problem with how our business works. As the company grows, the overall percentage we pay out to contributing artists increases. In the most basic terms that means that iStock becomes less profitable with increased success. As a business model, it’s simply unsustainable: businesses should get more profitable as they grow. This is a long-term problem that needs to be addressed.



It's a great pity that this paragraph was missing yesterday


It's weird, though. Old images which continue to sell, even slowly, are incurring the company no expenses apart from a small share of the server 'rent' price. It's not like I'm selling tins of beans, and every time I want to sell a tin for 30p, I have to buy one for 25p, then when it sells it's gone.


If someone uploaded a photo five years ago, it cost a bit of money then for it to be inspected, from then on it's only earning, other than the miniscule server rental.


And it forgets the benefits/value of the 'less popular' images of unique subjects. Maybe few buyers want them, so they don't get many 'redeemed credits', but they encourage buyers to stick wtih istock rather than go somewhere else.
PaulaConnelly
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed Sep 8, 2010 2:08PM
Posted By themoog:
All very well but no-one should be dropping royalty rates. We should never fall below the royalty rate we are currently getting - I have no problem about striving to get a higher rate but I am just not happy at having my rate cut. And my rate will be cut next year. Still unhappy, still feeling let down, and still unhappy that you are making more profit from me and I am making less from you. Think it is time to get out.

(Edited on 2010-09-08 14:06:03 by themoog)


Very well put indeed! 
Habman_18
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloads
Posted Wed Sep 8, 2010 2:08PM
/ /
Posted By rswift:
I'm struggling to understand how a percentage can vary as income increases?

+1
alohaspirit
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed Sep 8, 2010 2:08PM
peresanz
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloads
Posted Wed Sep 8, 2010 2:08PM
This is insulting!!!
ssuni
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 125 Audio downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed Sep 8, 2010 2:08PM

Don't know about you but I'm not gonna make it to 40%... Even if my redemeed credits is going to double.. SO HOW DO YOU COME UP WITH THAT 76%. I think your projections are way off...


You didn't say anything about new collection. Is that really necessary?
JoeGough
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Wed Sep 8, 2010 2:08PM

Your profitability AS A PERCENTAGE might be reducing marginally per year __ but only due to the hard work and endeavour of the individual artists who produce the library for you. Their success is your success too; it's not 'a problem' you have to deal with.
iShootPhotosLLC
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsExclusive
Posted Wed Sep 8, 2010 2:08PM
Sorry, this response doesn't work for me. Grow your market like every other successful company.
pheonix3d
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Illustrator
Posted Wed Sep 8, 2010 2:08PM

wow


great we are all happy that u stop using this redeem credit 


thank you .


 


 
kk5hy
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a Gold contributor and has 5,000 - 12,499 Video downloads
Posted Wed Sep 8, 2010 2:08PM

Other sites seem to be profitable giving between 30%- 50%


Guess I don't understand why the second class (non-exclusive) people have to go down to an insulting 15% of our hard earned work.


20%? Maybe Yuri will be the only non-exclusive to get that. Ever.....
This thread has been locked.
Displaying 41 to 60 of 3336 matches.
Not a member?Join