pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStock changing royalty structure  (Read 348556 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

« Reply #975 on: September 28, 2010, 17:28 »
0
Both of them are really nice and honest people that I personally know and trust. That said, I will act according to my financial results. By the way, today is shaping really great, and even for Vettas.


SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #976 on: September 28, 2010, 17:34 »
0
@loop: agree entirely about JJ. I can't speak for KK, I've never interacted with him directly but I've heard he is the same, sales this week so far are really good, so something positive seems to be happening. I'm relieved to see that no further news etc., will be announced. closure of some form, not good for everyone but a point to begin at or depart from as a contributor on iStock. I presume January will bring with it an upheaval as RC adjustments begin to affect royalties.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2010, 17:36 by & then... »

« Reply #977 on: September 28, 2010, 17:41 »
0
I meant JJRD and rogermexico. I've never met KK, so I can't say anything about him.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #978 on: September 28, 2010, 17:49 »
0
@loop: Andrew then too, never met him, but he's always kind and helpful, and seems to be a fairly straight shooter. and Lobo gets a lot of smack downs, but truly, that guy is a really good guy.

« Reply #979 on: September 28, 2010, 17:50 »
0
Both of them are really nice and honest people that I personally know and trust. That said, I will act according to my financial results. By the way, today is shaping really great, and even for Vettas.


I'll second both of those sentiments - both about JJRD, rogermexico, Lobo being good people and about today being great. I had a Vetta sale this morning - because contributor relations hasn't yet gotten around to moving all my Vetta files out - and it was for an XXXL size. $73.50 royalty was certainly nice (even though I'd have rather had my old share of the old Vetta price). It was tempting to think of changing my mind about opting out, but only for a few minutes ;)

« Reply #980 on: September 28, 2010, 18:03 »
0
I dont think anyone is disagreeing that there are nice guys at iStock HQ/Admins.  And it was nice that someone finally came in and said something and there were even questions and answers now added to the FAQ.  I honestly dont think it should go this long without any word at all.  Why couldn't someone have said "we can't respond right now, we are working on some issues" instead of letting people hang there not knowing anything.

It seems to me that iStock is moving more towards special collections (i.e. Vetta, Agency, Hulton, Retro) and farther away from a unique mix of great images from a variety of talented artists.  I always envisioned iStock as the later, but if the model they envision is more about special "collections" then that is their prerogative, of course.  I am too small to matter to the bottom line, I know that. 

FWIW, I'm having a fabulous week so far at istock, but that doesn't mean I'm going to sit around and keep waiting for for some dramatic change to the Sept 7 'bad news.'  Decisions have been made, the process is moving forward.

« Reply #981 on: September 28, 2010, 18:41 »
0
... FWIW, I'm having a fabulous week so far at istock, but that doesn't mean I'm going to sit around and keep waiting for for some dramatic change to the Sept 7 'bad news.'  Decisions have been made, the process is moving forward.

Glad you're having a great week.

My sales this week are lousy, and worse than that the review time is abysmal and I've been getting a string of 100% rejections - the isolations are always "too feathered or too rough" and the non-isolations are "lighting".  These are images from the same series, the same day, same outdoor lighting, same subjects from different angles, and identical processing to images which during the two weeks before were nearly 100% accepted.

I know that you can quibble with practically any complicated isolation - when you have a complex object there are always decisions to make about "how round or how sharp" to cut around a protruding bump in the blurry back of the picture, and some areas don't look "right" even when you trim precisely around the object, just because some things look funny when isolated.   But c'mon, nearly 100% approval to 100% rejection?  Stop yanking my chain!  As for outdoor lighting, get real.  Either we leave saturation alone and get "flat dull lighting" or we crank it up and get "overprocessed".  :P

It could be just a run of bad luck, but I fear they're going to have a policy of extreme cherry picking of only a small number of new, non-exclusive images they wish to be seen in the company of their "collections".  Smells like they're going midstock, if that's the right word for this (apparent) policy.

« Reply #982 on: September 28, 2010, 19:23 »
0
Don't know if anyone noticed but Joyze updated the FAQs on the new structure a couple of hours ago. She really should change her avatar if she wants to project a friendlier image.

« Reply #983 on: September 28, 2010, 19:36 »
0
For the record, I did not mean to impune the character of either RogerMexico or JJRD, but rather using them as a figurehead for the company at which they are employed (HF/Getty - the abusive spouse). I suppose they are as much a victim of them as the contributors. Sad, really. They are tied to the bed and the house is on fire.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #984 on: September 28, 2010, 19:45 »
0
Don't know if anyone noticed but Joyze updated the FAQs on the new structure a couple of hours ago. She really should change her avatar if she wants to project a friendlier image.

maybe she doesn't want to. I wouldn't after taking all that crap. I can only imagine the sitemails being sent to her and everyone else. She is really helpful and sweet by all accounts, so it goes to show you even the nicest ones might be done with the haters...BANNED....

« Reply #985 on: September 28, 2010, 19:47 »
0
Don't know if anyone noticed but Joyze updated the FAQs on the new structure a couple of hours ago. She really should change her avatar if she wants to project a friendlier image.

maybe she doesn't want to. I wouldn't after taking all that crap. I can only imagine the sitemails being sent to her and everyone else. She is really helpful and sweet by all accounts, so it goes to show you even the nicest ones might be done with the haters...BANNED....
She had that avatar from the very first announcement about these changes. Just preparing I guess...

« Reply #986 on: September 28, 2010, 19:48 »
0
For those who did not see this.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=257202&page=3

JJRD said
"Over the course of the past 2 weeks, kkthompson & I have put our own asses on the line many, many times over for this community of artists... and we'll do it again and again every single time that we feel it necessary."

Sounds to me like JJRD is saying the whole thing is a Getty or H&F idea and that he and KK have fought on our behalf to minimize the damage.  But why "past 2 weeks", after the announcement?  Seems like this would have been planned for much longer then that, so the fighting with Getty/H&F would have been months ago.  

So if the asses were on the line for something else, what would that be?  Turning off the forums?  

He also said "Let me add the following, however: if one day I do not believe in iStockphoto anymore, I will be out of here in a snap. Faster than a speeding bullet.  It is not the case at the very moment. I still believe in this place, just as on day one. I am in it for the long haul & for the well being of the entire community."

His point about "not the case at the very moment" seems to suggest that he has had his own doubts, or that he fears that he may in the future.

« Reply #987 on: September 28, 2010, 19:58 »
0
My sales at IS this week have been the worst for years.  I checked my biggest selling image that a few weeks ago was on the first page search result.  It's now on the third page (behind a bunch of vetta and crowned files that haven't sold as well as my image).

I really don't get that.  Sure you want to reward exclusives but they are in the business of selling images.  It's just a stupid business practice try to discourage your customers from buying your best products.  Especially when in this case you'd make more in percentage terms by selling them the most popular item.  And even more especially when they can go elsewhere and get the most popular item for less money.  Who does that make sense to?

I have also received two sets of 100% rejections for unquantifiable reasons (i.e., "over filtered" and "artifacts" with no sample crops provided).  My acceptance rates had been running at over 70%.  Those same sets had 90% or better acceptance rates at all my other agencies.

Even if they hadn't come right out and said so, it's obvious now that independents are no longer second class citizens.  We're now third or fourth class.

« Reply #988 on: September 28, 2010, 19:59 »
0
For the record, I did not mean to impune the character of either RogerMexico or JJRD, but rather using them as a figurehead for the company at which they are employed (HF/Getty - the abusive spouse). I suppose they are as much a victim of them as the contributors. Sad, really. They are tied to the bed and the house is on fire.

I guess I disagree. Everyone has a choice, and these guys have chosen to stay. They maybe don't agree with what's happening, but they are happily taking the paycheck. I just don't see them as a "victim". More of a willing participant.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #989 on: September 28, 2010, 20:18 »
0
For those who did not see this.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=257202&page=3

JJRD said
"Over the course of the past 2 weeks, kkthompson & I have put our own asses on the line many, many times over for this community of artists... and we'll do it again and again every single time that we feel it necessary."

Sounds to me like JJRD is saying the whole thing is a Getty or H&F idea and that he and KK have fought on our behalf to minimize the damage.  But why "past 2 weeks", after the announcement?  Seems like this would have been planned for much longer then that, so the fighting with Getty/H&F would have been months ago.  

So if the asses were on the line for something else, what would that be?  Turning off the forums?  

He also said "Let me add the following, however: if one day I do not believe in iStockphoto anymore, I will be out of here in a snap. Faster than a speeding bullet.  It is not the case at the very moment. I still believe in this place, just as on day one. I am in it for the long haul & for the well being of the entire community."

His point about "not the case at the very moment" seems to suggest that he has had his own doubts, or that he fears that he may in the future.



I admit that I read it that way too. which is too bad. but I don't think it is the time to jump ship. if JJ ever leaves, that won't be an immediate signal to me to leave. even if the community aspect were to dissolve or become more of a corporate culture, I wouldn't necessarily leave. perhaps the community is no longer as realistic given the size of the contributor base now. I also think that the loudest of the teamster brigade communicating their demands as contributors have handicapped us all. ironically it seems to have resulted in TPTB losing tolerance for the community voices hurtling rotten vegetables at them. why would any company allow that?

I know it sounds selfish, but I simply want sales to be the focus, happy customers and predictable and adequate compensation according to what I believe is adequate. I think the days of the iStock watercooler are coming to an end.

« Reply #990 on: September 28, 2010, 20:30 »
0
For the record, I did not mean to impune the character of either RogerMexico or JJRD, but rather using them as a figurehead for the company at which they are employed (HF/Getty - the abusive spouse). I suppose they are as much a victim of them as the contributors. Sad, really. They are tied to the bed and the house is on fire.

I guess I disagree. Everyone has a choice, and these guys have chosen to stay. They maybe don't agree with what's happening, but they are happily taking the paycheck. I just don't see them as a "victim". More of a willing participant.

I was trying to be nice. LOL. You are right. They choose to stay. iStockholm Syndrome, perhaps? :D

« Reply #991 on: September 28, 2010, 20:35 »
0
. which is too bad. but I don't think it is the time to jump ship. if JJ ever leaves, that won't be an immediate signal to me to leave. even if the community aspect were to dissolve or become more of a corporate culture, I wouldn't necessarily leave. perhaps the community is no longer as realistic given the size of the contributor base now.

Why can't you write properly? You describe yourself as a 'professional author' (my arse) and yet you don't seem to understand the basic rules of capitalisation, sentence construction or grammar that might actually make your messages comprehensible. Are you pretending to be young and trendy, just f*cking lazy or are you simply plain stupid?

« Reply #992 on: September 28, 2010, 20:40 »
0
Maybe with the proliferation of good equipment and good technique they feel it is no longer necessary to crowdsource to get an adequate library of images.  And they decided they can do pretty well, with lower expenses, higher profits and less squabbling and grief if they use off-the-shelf collections plus "friend sourcing" or whatever you want to call their very small group of elite contributors with high commissions.

The 85% rakeoff on crowd contributors will make it (barely) tolerable for them to continue to coddle along a large and noisy B-team of what they consider to be beginners, dilettantes and mercenaries (non-exclusives).  They know that only a tiny number of the crowd will have the stubbornness and perseverance to earn their way out of this ghetto, which should be sufficient to replenish the ranks of the elite as they eventually die or quit.

That might explain the new rate structure, the rejections of any but the snappiest and most perfect-looking imagery, and the sharp jerking of chains on their forums.  Crowd is out, elite is in.

« Reply #993 on: September 28, 2010, 20:44 »
0
I was trying to be nice. LOL. You are right. They choose to stay. iStockholm Syndrome, perhaps? :D

Don't try and be nice __ they're not worth it. They're choosing to sell Istockphoto, it's values and all of us down the Swanee in pursuit of their own bonuses. All this misty-eyed faux 'concern' and 'ass-on the-line' nonsense is just that __ utter f*cking bollocks. Amazingly some poeple are actually falling for it.

« Reply #994 on: September 28, 2010, 20:47 »
0
I was trying to be nice. LOL. You are right. They choose to stay. iStockholm Syndrome, perhaps? :D

Don't try and be nice __ they're not worth it. They're choosing to sell Istockphoto, it's values and all of us down the Swanee in pursuit of their own bonuses. All this misty-eyed faux 'concern' and 'ass-on the-line' nonsense is just that __ utter f*cking bollocks. Amazingly some poeple are actually falling for it.

Can I just say, I love your no BS forthright attitude. :D

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #995 on: September 28, 2010, 20:48 »
0
Crowd is out, elite is in.

I think you're partly correct. it is too early to refer to that as regrettable. I'd modify your comment--crowd is out, and exclusive means something else now. take it or leave it.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #996 on: September 28, 2010, 21:02 »
0

Why can't you write properly? You describe yourself as a 'professional author' (my arse) and yet you don't seem to understand the basic rules of capitalisation, sentence construction or grammar that might actually make your messages comprehensible. Are you pretending to be young and trendy, just f*cking lazy or are you simply plain stupid?

I wasn't going to reply. But, you're constantly maligning me with unprovoked, unprofessional and uncalled-for attacks. can I simply ask that you just ignore me and be done with it? I'm here to legitimately talk with my peers, I presume same as you. I'm not here for any other reason. whatever it is that you dislike about me, which I think we can all agree is EVERYTHING, that's your prerogative. I disagree with so much that you write in these forums. you constantly embellish the negative, you are dogmatic in your hatred of iStock and you go after anyone who disagrees with you. I'm simply a photographer. I'm also a writer. not an editor, a writer. thank goodness for good editors, in forums I write as though I'm speaking...I think that's a common approach to forum posting.

when you have nothing legitimate to attack me with, you attack my grammar? come on, really? are you that little a man? press ignore, it's easy. then you don't have to see any more of my stupid, incomprehensible drivel.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2010, 21:13 by & then... »

« Reply #997 on: September 28, 2010, 21:38 »
0
Crowd is out, elite is in.

I think you're partly correct. it is too early to refer to that as regrettable. I'd modify your comment--crowd is out, and exclusive means something else now. take it or leave it.

I agree, it may not be regrettable, in the scheme of things.

One analogy that occurred to me is this - traditionally, in North America anyways, if you put in several years at college or university (or in a traditional apprenticeship) with low or no pay, you don't really learn a tremendous amount or become incredibly intelligent or anything.  But what you do is separate yourself from the pack.  Your sacrifice bought you a ticket to get into a (relatively) elite group of people in a "club" for lack of a better word, in which they allow you to take home a better-than-average salary.  Generally speaking, the greater the sacrifice, the greater the (eventual) reward.  This foregoing of current revenue in order to gain a greater income in the future is called "time preference" by economists.  The people who were in a hurry to get $$$ dropped out of school and quickly reached a plateau of USD40k (or whatever) as truck drivers and store clerks, whereas the people who lived in relative poverty through college and possibly grad school took longer but ended up with jobs paying far more money.

Not coincidentally, the microstock industry may be maturing into something like this.  The crowd must be weeded out and barriers must be put in place, because if anyone can do it and make big bucks for little work then everyone WILL do it, and the $$$ will quickly be diluted.  I suspect that the same time horizon of 3-5 years will evolve in the stock business, during which you will have to suffer with low commissions and high rejection rates before "graduating" into the "club".  If you don't drop out.

As for exclusivity, it may also evolve until you're practically an employee of a single stock agency.  Relatively few people in the real world end up as anything other than an employee, and I believe that a large number of people who are nominally "independent" end up in practice working for long periods of time for the same shop.  Lots of engineering and technical consultants work like this, and many lawyers too from what I gather.  A relatively small number of elite and famous (in their industry) people - who because of their skill and reputation can write their own tickets - might be the only ones to remain true independents instead of being more or less "locked in" to a single large client.

If it's any consolation, having to put in the time and (probably) having to make a long-term commitment to an agency is a natural evolution.  Like anything that happens in a free market (without legal i.e. violent coercion), this is the path to greater wealth for everyone involved.  Good workers and honest companies rise to the top, bad ones sink to the point where they are forced learn from the best and improve.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #998 on: September 28, 2010, 21:42 »
0
^ great post...agree with just about everything you wrote. JJ has just posted a note about Agency....I don't know. I think our brand is being given some steroids....not necessarily a bad thing. I think work will be rewarded and it's clear they want contributors all under the Getty umbrella. I'm fine with being branded if it brings in more business and allows me to grow as an artist. but it is such a worry to have everything riding on one agency. guess that's nothing new, but the latest shake up was a big one. I'm still getting used to it.

« Reply #999 on: September 28, 2010, 21:44 »
0
I was trying to be nice. LOL. You are right. They choose to stay. iStockholm Syndrome, perhaps? :D

Don't try and be nice __ they're not worth it. They're choosing to sell Istockphoto, it's values and all of us down the Swanee in pursuit of their own bonuses. All this misty-eyed faux 'concern' and 'ass-on the-line' nonsense is just that __ utter f*cking bollocks. Amazingly some poeple are actually falling for it.

Can I just say, I love your no BS forthright attitude. :D

LOL!  I dont know what to 'believe' as I usually prefer having facts before jumping to conclusions, but this is freaking hilarious because it's pretty much what I feel about now!


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
4456 Views
Last post February 17, 2007, 07:20
by GeoPappas
17 Replies
9606 Views
Last post September 09, 2010, 19:38
by madelaide
2 Replies
4652 Views
Last post July 15, 2010, 10:47
by HughStoneIan
2 Replies
4092 Views
Last post September 09, 2010, 17:42
by loop
22 Replies
10703 Views
Last post January 31, 2014, 09:15
by JPSDK

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors