Would you welcome 70% royalties on stock images?

06/10/2012 10:57:17 AM · #1

I have worked in the stock photo industry for the past 15 years and currently run a successful independent stock image agency called Wildcard Images.

I am however looking to set up a new agency with a new approach giving more benefits to contributors and I am looking for photographers feedback as to whether they would welcome such a type of agency as the one I am looking to establish.

As well as running Wildcard, I also personally shoot images for other stock agencies.
With my involvement on both sides of the industry, it has become increasingly apparent the Photographers are not being rewarded for their efforts with the emergence of low priced micro stock and royalty payment to photographers being as low as 30% with some stock agencies.

I believe that there is now scope for change.
The new agency I am proposing would pay to contributors a royalty payment of 70% on all Rights Managed and Royalty Free image sales.

All major stock agencies have a distribution network where photographers images are supplied to 3rd party agencies for sale in global territories, this system generates as much as 75% of photographers stock sales.

The new agency I am proposing would not make direct sales but instead utilise this distribution network, placing photographers images with the top agencies around the world.
Buy cutting direct selling the agency would not need to employ sales staff
and direct marketing, meaning that these savings can be passed onto photographers in the form of a higher 70% royalty payment rate.

The new agency site would still have a searchable database and buyers would still be able to view photographer�s work, with a link to all the global agencies where the images can be purchased.
The new agency site would also give contributors back end site access to upload new material directly onto the site ensuring that work is online and available for sale as soon as possible.

Any feedback form photographers (especially those who already supply stock imagery) as to whether they would interested in contributing to an agency such as to one I am proposing would be greatly received.

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED VR

06/10/2012 11:16:28 AM · #2

I think you may have a problem with people trusting you here when you sign up for an account and post something the same day. I think I would have to have a lot more details before committing to something.

As for input I checked out wildcard images website and it just doesn't look very professional or organized. Not very tempting for those of us already making good money on other sites.

What is you success rate? And what good is 70% if you never sell any of our images?

littlemav

Nikon D90

06/10/2012 12:25:38 PM · #3

Yeah Trust issue BIG BIG thing to me on stock images!!! Why not use your real name and show us your results of the work your doing right now.. I googled wildcard Images, and found out little to nuthin' about that company besides it's located in England. I think had it been me I probably would've listed my website and signed my real name at the bottom of this post.

Like Jen said 70% of nuthin' is still nuthin, and it's a hard trust not to go to a well established, well known stock company!

Ecce_Signum

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

06/10/2012 12:33:49 PM · #4

Don't do stock agencies so of no interest to me however, in addition to the earlier replies you say your not a stock agency yourself but place images with other agencies? does that mean you give 70% of the 100% the other stock agency would pay? (ie if the photographer submitted the image to the stock agency himself s/he would earn more commission?)

snaffles

Nikon D7100

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

06/10/2012 12:36:08 PM · #5

Uhmm 70% of...what? Sorry but think I'll stick with Alamy.

06/10/2012 01:14:06 PM · #6

Thank's all for your comments, all comments are gratefully received.

I think however there may be some misunderstanding to the purpose of my post. I am not looking for photographers contributions.

I purely joined this forum looking for feedback as part of my market research into whether a new type of agency that offers contributors a 70% royalty payment on 3rd party distribution would be of interest.

For example, If you supply images to Alamy, Alamy will then distribute those images through dijitalimaj.com in Turkey (among other international agencies).
On the images that dijitalimaj.com sell for Alamy. Alamy will pay photographers "I think" 40%. We would offer 70% on this form of distribution sale.
We would be using well established distribution agency networks but give a greater return, this is not about direct sales.
Another example is Foto.S.A in Russia, they make sales on Corbis's behalf. I don't know exactly what the percentage Corbis pays to photographers, but is it 70% for image sales Corbis make for photographers through Foto.S.A?

And this was the point that i was making. All large agencies use other agencies in other territories to sell your work.

This also has nothing to do about Wildcard, I only mentioned Wildcard to point out that I have an established agency and have worked in the business for many years.

The 70% return we would be offering is via a totally new agency (Not Wildcard)

Many thanks for taking the time to post your comment.

Neville Mountford-Hoare

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

06/10/2012 01:36:15 PM · #7

I guess then I just don't understand what you are talking about enough to make any helpful feedback. There are not many active forum posters here that are involved in stock that are going to be able to give you feedback.

Bear_Music

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

06/10/2012 02:05:42 PM · #8

Originally posted by sjhuls:

I don't think you're missing anything. From where I'm sitting, it seems like Neville is being a tad disingenuous. He doesn't need "market research" to tell him that stock photographers would rather get 70% on their sales than 40%; that's a no-brainer. All other things being equal, of COURSE they would! It seems to me this post is an attempt to generate interest in his proposed business, get photographers contacting him asking to be a part of it. It doesn't make any sense otherwise.

I just wish he'd come right out and say so, instead of giving us what looks like double-talk; that's not exactly a confidence-builder.

But I could be wrong...

R.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

06/10/2012 04:06:03 PM · #9

With the greatist respect Bear_Music, you are wrong,

This is purely market research for the idea of a new agency.
Please everyone, stop being so cynical.

Before I shell out thousands of pounds to create a new website and database, I simply want to test the water
as to whether there was any interest in a new agency that does not sell images to clients directly, but instead
distributes photographers work through a network of the best agencies within individual territories.

I also would say that it is a no brainer that photographers would prefer 70% instead of 40%, but business is not that simple.

I too am a photographer, but with my insight into the industry, I am just looking for a better ways to sell OUR work.

OK, In laymen's terms,
Would photographers be interested in an agency that did not sell images directly to buyers, but instead used a network of distributing agencies (which would include Getty and Corbis) to sell the work, and in return receive royalties of 70%?

Honestly, all I am looking for is simple yes or no answers.
If you like the idea say Yes if not say No.

If after gathering all my research and if I believe this to be a viable agency I will use my friends and contacts in
the on-line and editorial photographic media to promote and advertise the agency. (believe me, it's fare more effective)

All the best

Neville

Ecce_Signum

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

06/10/2012 04:34:15 PM · #10

Neville, thanks for coming back to explain again but I am still confused, if I were to have an image with (say) Getty submitted by myself and they offered 40% royalty are you saying if I listed the image with you and you submitted it to Getty then you would offer me 70% of the 40% royalty that Getty were offering? I don't see how I would benefit sorry. Or would you have a deal with getty where they would offer you more than the 40%?

Ozzie

Nikon D90

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED VR

06/10/2012 04:51:16 PM · #11

//moneyland.time.com/2012/03/08/drug-prices-up-or-not-either-way-treatments-will-chew-up-retirement-savings/ One of his Getty images is on here

//www.modelmayhem.com/1742580

//www.reflexstock.com/stock-photos-images-seq/28/Neville-Mountford-Hoare.html#s0

He seems legitimate then.

I'm always interested in how others gain a good benefit from having their photography on stock websites

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

06/10/2012 05:31:18 PM · #12

Hi Ecce Signum

Yes, the royalty payment to agencies is greater to that than to individual photograpers.
Most royalties to agencies are 60% but some including Getty being 50%.

i.e. From what I understand (please anyone correct me if I'm wrong) Getty pay most Photographers 30%.
so you make a sale of £100 you get £30.
If we made a sale for you through Getty of £100 we would receive 50% =£50 you would then receive 70% of that
£50-30% = £35.

Now an additional £5 doesn't sound like much but over a year and with 100's/1000's of images this adds up.

One also has to take into account that Getty is the only exception in being that they do not distribute imagery to
3rd party agencies. If you are with Getty then your images will only be sold through Getty offices.

However Getty do not cover every territory and in many territories they are not actually the largest agency.
In the US and the UK Getty is "God" (fact), but in say somewhere like Germany or India they are not as strong as
local agencies.
Now lets look at Corbis, as I previously mentioned Corbis distribute imagery through Foto.S.A for sale in Russia.
I also have a partnership with Foto.S.A
If Corbis sell through Foto.S.A they will receive 60% for the sale. as would we, however we are proposing to pay
70% on the amount received, I can not state what Corbis would pay, But I would be very happy to bet that its not 70%.

I hope this has explained things a little further without being confusing?

Best

Neville

Ecce_Signum

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

06/10/2012 05:38:16 PM · #13

Originally posted by Nevstock:

I hope this has explained things a little further without being confusing?

Thanks, and yes, makes much more sense now. So, it would actually make sense to upload an image to somebody like yourself and you would submit to other stock sites?

Hey, now your a member why not take a look at out challenges? As was mentioned in an earlier post/s it can do you no harm Neville ;) and welcome btw.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

06/10/2012 06:28:23 PM · #14

Alright then. IN simple terms, I like the idea. I wish you luck :-)

R.

06/10/2012 06:29:33 PM · #15

Yes makes more sense, but you are making it sound as though we would receive 70% but really it's more like 35%. That is a big difference and probably be helpful to know before I would have said yes or no. I don't submit to macro stock just micro stock. I'm more concerned about the volume of sales than how much I receive. For instance I may receive more per photo at Alamy but I've never made a sell. Where as at shutterstock I make many sales a day and receive payouts every month. So in a case like this percentage is meaningless.