This OP, must surely qualify for the moron of the year award, lets not feed the troll.

Good Idea! I already removed many links from my HP!

Brilliant. Divert traffic to smaller sites. And then they'll become one of the big sites. Oh wait a minute. The big sites are cutting commissions...

This is a complete loser mentallity. When you never fight injustice and bad behaviour it will continue, sure. But if a site treats me bad or tries to fuck me I treat them equally. �as long as they learn.

We are not Victims. We are the suppliers.

Quote from: joanne.watson on February 13, 2011, 22:55

Hello , here are some simple steps we do to divert traffic from istock ...

Judging by the "Buyers Bailing ..." thread it seems to me that Istock are perfectly capable of diverting traffic away themselves. They don't need any help from us.

Amen to that.

Judging by the "Buyers Bailing ..." thread it seems to me that Istock are perfectly capable of diverting traffic away themselves. They don't need any help from us.

:-)

Interesting idea and it is probably a good idea to link or refer the sites that you want "your customers" to shop at. Is there actually a consensus of what people think are the best sites though (not best earners, but most fair)? I remember when that thread about fair paying agencies got started, pretty much every agency got added to it or nominated. I mean are SS or DT really any better than IS or FT when it comes to fair pay?

Quote from: WarrenPrice on February 14, 2011, 11:07

Wouldn't you agree that hard work trumps talent?

Not a chance. True talent always beats hard work (e.g. you can work at your running as hard as you like but you're not going to beat Bolt).

I'm guessing Bolt puts in more work than most too.

Being exclusive to istock these days is obviously not a good decision ;-)

Well I wouldn't mind betting I earn quite a bit more than you do. I could be wrong of course, but i'd still bet on it. So not a bad decision really.

Recommend everyone do the same, and we can have an impact.

Don't kid yourself.

what a stupid thread

Good Idea! I already removed many links from my HP!

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on February 14, 2011, 07:30

Brilliant. Divert traffic to smaller sites. And then they'll become one of the big sites. Oh wait a minute. The big sites are cutting commissions...

This is a complete loser mentallity. When you never fight injustice and bad behaviour it will continue, sure. But if a site treats me bad or tries to  me I treat them equally. �as long as they learn.

We are not Victims. We are the suppliers.

Changed the color for emphasis. This is where the problem is really. There is too much supply and not enough demand and it looks to get worse. Agencies knows this and in istocks case, they are purely focusing on contributors with more talent than the rest. Everyone has talent to some extent. Early in micro years, anyone made money. Currently, you have to have a lot of talent to be successful or you should really get out of the game and stop whining about a couple of dollars a month you make less. When the money isnt there for the super talented, the game really is over.

Business is all about profits and rarely cares for injustice.

Good Idea! I already removed many links from my HP!

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on February 14, 2011, 07:30

Brilliant. Divert traffic to smaller sites. And then they'll become one of the big sites. Oh wait a minute. The big sites are cutting commissions...

This is a complete loser mentallity. When you never fight injustice and bad behaviour it will continue, sure. But if a site treats me bad or tries to  me I treat them equally. �as long as they learn.

We are not Victims. We are the suppliers.

Oh yes, I'm a total loser. Where shall I sign up for the winners club where I can join the crusade of a couple dozen sheeple throwing pebbles at battleships?

I'm not sure if you noticed, but the near riot level of fighting here about Istock's commission cut resulted in Istock doing almost nothing in response. Fotolia then right after added insult to injury by also dropping commissions. You need leverage before you can win a fight. And right now the agencies have most of the leverage. If another agency suddenly gets more leverage then they will cut commissions.

Not sure why everyone is jumping all over the OP?

This makes perfectly logical sense...wouldn't you rather on the rare occasion that we can influence a buyer where to purchase that we should send them to sites that have the highest Return Per Download for us.  That is perfect business sense and I applaud your efforts to support sites with fair payouts for me it is not the percentage that matters but how much money I actually make per sale on average.   If I send a buyer to Dreamstime or canstock I get the highest Return for the download. If I send a client to fotolia, I get one of the lowest payments in the industry.  It makes perfect sense.  We don't need to drop all big sites, we just need to start directing our clients to the places that will pay us the most for the purchase.  

Not sure why everyone has a problem with such logical thinking.  The argument that the mid sites will become big and lower their commissions doesn't make any sense...what would likely happen is that the big sites will see that people are flocking to other sites and try and adjust their business model to be more like the competition.  

There is not a lot we can do to influence these sites but on the rare opportunity we have to direct someone we really should send them to places that benefit us the most...everyone needs to figure out there own statistics and do what works in their own best interest, Make a list of RPD and direct traffic to the site with the highest RPD.  Percentages of commissions don't mean a whole lot and neither does which site has the highest overall earnings. what matters is who pays the most per download.

Here are my numbers in order of highest pay per download, I use this as my guide to direct buyers where to go.

dreamstime  $1.69
canstock       $1.42
bigstock        $1.15
Istock           $0.92*
123rf            $0.65
Fotolia          $0.64*
Shutterstock  $0.55

*all numbers are an average of the past 12 months these are numbers not taking into account the recent commision cut since they just happened, so presumably fotolia and IS will have roughly 20% lower numbers in the coming year.

Not sure why everyone is jumping all over the OP?

This makes perfectly logical sense...wouldn't you rather on the rare occasion that we can influence a buyer where to purchase that we should send them to sites that have the highest Return Per Download for us.  That is perfect business sense and I applaud your efforts to support sites with fair payouts for me it is not the percentage that matters but how much money I actually make per sale on average.  

Exactly! I completly agree!
Lately I see the tendency of some People to defend an Company just because their emotional reactions to some posters and not because it makes sense. Not a surprise to me that many of the Agencies are just doing whatever they want if the chant is "we can`t change anything so lets do nothing"...(which is not true, we can make a difference IMHO)