MicrostockGroup

I am left wondering why IS pumps out something like this, which is basically a recruiting poster for new contributors, who will send  IS a ton of low quality images, which IS will spend time and  money reviewing and rejecting.  Is this what IS wants - more repititious stuff from newbies?  

What's the point, for IS, of encouraging people to buy DSLRs and get into this game at this time?  Canon's motivation is obvious so maybe they're the real source of this "interview".  All that's missing is "mention IStock when purchasing your new Canon, and receive a free lens cleaning cloth", which triggers a little kickback to IS for the camera sale.

Simple economics, because a new recruit gets paid a commission of 15% ...

They've edited the Canon article to change the figures, so they now read 15% to 45%.

Oh, the power of MSG! 

They haven't yet worked out why Sean objected to the line about editorial images not being sold RF but maybe that will get changed later since the article is, apparently, a work in progress.

#Lorraine Swanson Commissions from 20-45%? Why are you only paying me 16% Mr Thompson?

#iStockphoto There does seem to be some context missing from that quote regarding exclusive and non-exclusive royalty rates. That being said, I'm sure you're already familiar with the rate schedule.

someone pointed it out on their Facebook page:  http://www.facebook.com/#!/istock

the relevant posts:

Yes, but only if the new recruit's material is accepted, and sells.  Does IS really win by driving out experienced producers and replacing them with newbies at lower commissions?  It's not making sense, unless you assume buyers really aren't sensitive to what we think of as "quality" and will continue to buy the same number of images from IS no matter what.   It costs IS money to review images.  If they don't sell, that money is lost.  

By 'churning' their pool of contributors like this, they're playing a pyramid game with themselves.  It ends when it's no longer possibly to lure in enough new contributors to replace the experienced ones that give up.
Do they believe that 1 out of 10 newbies will actually make IS money in the long run, and those gains will offset the loss of existing contributors as commissions are cut?

Isn't istock owned by Getty? Maybe Getty is pushing an agenda. Keep the newbies on istock so istock can't compete with it's parent. It's hard to sell a rights managed image for $500 if you can get a royalty free of similar quality for $10.

Go from hobby to money-maker: For freelancers, Web makes fun pursuits pay
April 7, 2009 By Andrew Newman

At iStockphoto, contributors earn a percentage of the download price -- starting at a 20 percent base royalty rate. That means for photos, earnings can range from 30 cents to more than $8 per download on a pay-as-you-go plan. The amount earned depends on the size of the photo. The rest of the money goes to the site.

iStockphoto's subscription plans offer a chance for contributors to earn even more money per download."Go from hobby to money-maker: For freelancers, Web makes fun pursuits pay."

Contributors with enough downloads and positive feedback can enter the Exclusivity program; in essence, iStockphoto becomes their agent. Exclusive contributors get more money per download and other benefits like the opportunity to submit their work to stock photo giant Getty Images.

The site is free to join, but contributors have to apply and submit three samples of their work before approval -- so pictures from the family trip to Disney World probably won't cut it.

That doesn't mean the site is professionals only."It doesn't really matter if someone considers themselves a professional or not," said iStockphoto COO Kelly Thompson.

Doctors and policemen are among the 4,000-plus Exclusive contributors, and they aren't planning on quitting their day jobs _ even though top contributors can earn $150,000 a year.

"People aren't looking to make a whole lot of money, but they want to get that new lens cap," Thompson said.

It's unbelieveable that this dweeb ended up in control of a huge segment of the stock photography business.   Now, can the business somehow find a way to route around him, or are we doomed to remain forever under the thumb of Dear Leader?   

That was a particularly peculiar thing to say wasn't it?   I've never had to replace a lens cap, and never had any desire for a different kind of lens cap.  If I did have such a desire, why would I go through an entrance test, spend money on equipment and software and go through all the hoops and process involved in microstock, just to buy something that would cost less then £10.00?
Truly strange.
Of course, if there's something I'm missing here, and there's a reason to work this hard for a lens cap, perhaps someone could enlighten me?

Let's all start sending him old lens caps.