iStock royalty changes (and an agency list for exclusives)
iStock followed up their wildly popular royalty change yesterday with a brief statement clarifying some things. I thought in the interest of fun I’d post some of that today. I hope you enjoy the translations. (Part 1 here)
First, it needs to be noted that while iStock is a part of Getty, we are still run independently. The announced changes were decisions — difficult decisions — made by iStock for the benefit of iStock and its community.
Translation: it wasn’t Getty that screwed you guys, it was us. Love us still for being honest?
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.
Translation: Our business should be more profitable as it grows. Yours shouldn’t. Well, yours could be if you triple production. But we don’t really care of yours is. We can’t survive off 80% of non-exclusive money so we’re taking 85%. This should amount to more of you leaving which is what we ultimately want anyways.
Last year we proposed changes to canister levels designed to stave off, but ultimately not solve, this problem. In the end, we chose to scrap those. The royalty changes we released yesterday are not a band-aid solution, they are a permanent fix.
Translation: last year you made us change the canister level thing. We really REALLY want to take more of your money so now we created another way to do it and we’re not changing our minds this time. That’ll teach you to stand up for yourselves, peons.
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.
Translation: Even though most businesses would kill for 60+% pure profit with no inventory to manage, we can’t survive on that. IMAGINE how large our checks are. Oh yeah, no, we mean… we market a lot to sell your images. That’s it. Oh yeah, and ignore the fact that it was impossible for every non-exclusive to ever hit 40%. By logical conclusion we mean corporate double speak and again, lies.
According to our projections 76% of Exclusive contributors will either retain their current royalty rate or move up.
Translation: we all failed math.
Again, these are our projections based on months of number crunching.
Translation: “Number crunching” isn’t really math is it? Because as we said, we failed math.
None of this is comfort to the 24% of Exclusives who will see a rate decrease – or to any of the non-Exclusives who are, quite frankly, bearing the brunt of these changes.
Translation: Dear Non-Exclusives, We’ve been trying to get rid of you for YEARS. Do you get the hint? If this were a personal relationship, we’d have just punched you in the face. Do you still want to be with us? And if you do, what is wrong with you!?
But, we expect to see our total royalty payout increase by more than 30% next year, from $1.7-million per week to well over $2-million per week. Make no mistake, the total amount of money iStock contributors are making is going up.
Translation: Agency sales will account for a 40% growth in our bottom line to balance the loss 90% of you are going to feel. But don’t take these numbers to heart… you know us and math.
We understand it’s a difficult change.
Translation: This is why we told you it was such a happy, joyous thing yesterday when we knew we were lying through our teeth. We said up front in this announcement we knew the reaction would be huge. Forgive us for telling you yesterday it was going to be good?
Agencies
A lot of exclusives in the forums have asked for a list of sites to contribute to and I figured I’ll provide one.
* note – these are referral links. I do use referral links and if you’re finding this info here I’d love if you’d use mine. If you don’t want to, just use the site name dot com. Shutterstock dot com, etc.
Share This Post
25 Comments
Sep 8, 20105:51 pm
StockFresh has not really been released yet. I have been waiting for contributor approval for probably 3 months now. It’s … long. If anyone wants to get in line it’s either stockfresh.com or:
Sep 8, 20105:56 pm
Very nice translation. I would laugh, but … its true. :{
Sep 8, 20106:03 pm
Heh Thanks Brandon. I would NOT laugh if I depended on iStock and I do feel bad for those who do. My post wasn’t really intended to be ALL that funny…it IS true.
Sep 8, 20106:06 pm
I am a seasoned graphic designer and owner of a mid-size microstock agency and I know first hand how much time and effort goes into design and photography.
It is truly a shame when agencies do not value the hard work of the people that made them successful.
A bit of advice to these stock agencies: Don’t bite the hand that feeds you!
Sep 8, 20106:19 pm
Matt – master translator 
Such a funny post, but in the end it’s not funny at all. What can we do but shake our heads at all of this?
Sep 8, 20106:20 pm
Exactly my thoughts, Todd. It’s funny – and NOT funny. 
Sep 8, 20107:14 pm
LMAO that is too funny, I am an exclusive but have to laugh at this whole situation, change is inevitable.
Sep 8, 20108:11 pm
I got several chuckles out of your post. Certainly explains a few things I’ve experienced with iStock. Humilty and partnership were never two of their strong points.
Sep 8, 20108:56 pm
I hope this doesn’t give other stock sites ideas to do the same
Sep 8, 20109:07 pm
LMAO, Matt!
Sep 8, 20109:19 pm
If someone has the time, it’d be great to compile a list of the funniest (/saddest) responses in those threads..
Sep 8, 201011:43 pm
@Cyril I thought about doing that but figured you own your words the moment you write them. I probably don’t have the right to republish those quotes. I would have LOVED to. Especially the “I didn’t get a kiss” one.
Sep 9, 20103:01 am
lol funny post.
get in touch with stockfresh Matt and check, they took less than 2 weeks to approve my application, perhaps you got missed somehow
Sep 9, 20108:51 am
If someone has the time, it’d be great to compile a list of the funniest (/saddest) responses in those threads..
Tadaaaaa!
you guys are full of crap, royalties are based on percentage, the more you pay in royalties the more money you made. saying 40% is not sustainable is total bullshit
Wislander
Wislander
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 – 24,999 Photo, Flash and Illustration downloads in the past 0 months Member is a contributor and has more than 0 Logo downloads in the past 0 months Exclusive
Posted 17 hours ago
Quote
So basically screw the little guy on iStock. We hear you loud and and clear.
So all the time we were forgiving you in the other thread for having this BS imposed on you by Getty, you are in fact solely responsible for this. Unbelievable. To be blunt, if you can’t make this business grow on the percentages you are currently taking, then it’s time for you to go – you are lousy managers.
HOW MUCH FRIGGIN PROFIT DO YOU NEED MAN ? If you cant operate on a model such as this your just a failure and a failed company. We all know that this company is a fucking cash hog. Getty would not have bought you if you weren’t.
Please DO NOT treat us like fucking kindergartens. AT least have some kind of decency.
I have enormous wish to say Thanks for robbery IS! Much appreciate!
I can give you number of my bank acc, if you would like to take more, hmm?
Sh*t smells same, even if you wrap it in nice chocolate box with the cheery on top. That’s how i see your kind words. Thanks once again.
First of all, stop calling your self istock, use your real name, THE GREEDY GETTY GROUP. (lol)
Sep 9, 201010:12 am
Perfect translations Matt. Did you post this on the iS thread?…
Ayesha, Wislander is the man!! I think iS will eventually bend and come up with a (slightly) less polemic solution.
Sep 9, 201010:29 am
Carlos,
This is what they do everytime – hit with the big stick first, then come back with a smaller one and everyone, for some unbelievable reason, says, “Oh, thank you iStock, you listened and we love you” and they get what they wanted all along – their true bottom line. Maybe this time the love won’t return.
Sep 9, 201010:52 am
Hi there!
If you don’t agree with the new change at IS royalties please sign here: http://www.petitiononline.com/istock11/petition.html
Sep 9, 201011:02 am
@Carlos – I didn’t post it in the forums but someone else did like three times. It got removed at least once though.
Sep 9, 20103:57 pm
sorry for reposting the quotes Matt, I didnt see your post, but I didnt post names 
and I just couldnt find the ‘kiss’ one LOL
Sep 10, 20101:59 am
Matt, you did a wonderful sum up of what’s happening at IS. I don’t know if the officials at IS are aware of what they are just doing. A great community of photogs and designers is just being taken to pieces. The spirit of a once so tight connected community breaks apart. It is nothing but a shame. The future of IS will not look too promising if there won’t be an adjustment to those new formalities.
Sep 11, 201011:41 am
Nice one Matt. There are two agencies which rejected my work. Stockxpert and iStockphoto. Stockxpert closed and iStock accepted just 3 of my photos, so it’s as good as saying they don’t want me. In retrospect the rejections have proved to be in my favour. I’m watching the iStock furor as a bystander. I can’t help thinking that this one of the nails in their coffin.
Sorry, comments are closed.
« iStock Changes Royalty Structure Next Post
iStock royalty changes, part 3 »
Blog RSS Feed
Subscribe via E-mail
Follow Me on Twitter
5:46 pm
I hear “StockFresh.com” is an new stock photo site started by some of the folks behind stock.xchng and stockxpert.