pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...  (Read 41488 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: January 08, 2012, 10:31 »
0
Not a major gamble if done correctly. Which I would imagine the goal was to keep high performers at the same % levels and drop the % for poorer performers. For the poorer performers does IS really care if they get angry or leave? I'm guessing not.

Nope, they sure don't care. Just like they sure don't care if the poorer performing buyers leave. Obviously.


« Reply #76 on: January 08, 2012, 11:00 »
0
My Stats may be insignificant, Lisa, but here they are anyways.
I had stopped uploading after IS announced the RC system (plus, my main job required attention).
Then suddenly after March 2011 my sales at IS started to plummet dramatically, sometime hardly making me 20$ a month (on a port with 300 images). I deactivated my images in September 2011. I do not miss 20-25$ a month. SS performed really well for me in Oct and Nov, the other agencies performed ok. Not sure if that has any relation with me leaving IS though.

« Reply #77 on: January 08, 2012, 11:34 »
0
My plan was to pull my port at the end of this year if nothing positive comes out of IS, but if this announcement is negative I'll probably go ahead and pull it.  I'm really tired of companies (not just in this business) screwing with people just to see what they can get away with. 

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #78 on: January 08, 2012, 11:38 »
0
Not a major gamble if done correctly. Which I would imagine the goal was to keep high performers at the same % levels and drop the % for poorer performers. For the poorer performers does IS really care if they get angry or leave? I'm guessing not.
I think it's the other way around, there were too many diamonds making 40%, which didn't go well along with their greedy calculations. In fact, that is what happened many diamonds and golds dropping a level or 2. OTOH some low canisters gained 2 levels in a single year, like aeonf etc, the ppl that would be able to get so many raises under the canister system. The plan was to overall lower the royalty recentage across the board, exclusives weren't spared, especially many high canisters.
[/quote]
I guess they were reckoning on only a small percentage of people pulling their ports/stopping submitting.
After all 60% of something (from their point of view) should be better than 70% of nothing.

wut

« Reply #79 on: January 08, 2012, 12:05 »
0
^^Especially those with big and old ports, they know they wouldn't get much accepted at SS. Photos really have to be up to "2012" standards and if you don't get most of your shots in SS, then it really is better getting even 25% royalties (even though you were at 40%). I'm speaking theoretically of course, I don't think anyone really dropped 3 levels, not yet anyway. I'm curious what's the announcement going to be next week, if in fact there's going to be one.

P.S. You messed up the quote a bit, you didn't really quote my post ;)

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #80 on: January 08, 2012, 12:23 »
0
^^Especially those with big and old ports, they know they wouldn't get much accepted at SS. Photos really have to be up to "2012" standards and if you don't get most of your shots in SS, then it really is better getting even 25% royalties (even though you were at 40%). I'm speaking theoretically of course, I don't think anyone really dropped 3 levels, not yet anyway. I'm curious what's the announcement going to be next week, if in fact there's going to be one.

P.S. You messed up the quote a bit, you didn't really quote my post ;)

The vice is entirely versa.

wut

« Reply #81 on: January 08, 2012, 12:29 »
0
^^Especially those with big and old ports, they know they wouldn't get much accepted at SS. Photos really have to be up to "2012" standards and if you don't get most of your shots in SS, then it really is better getting even 25% royalties (even though you were at 40%). I'm speaking theoretically of course, I don't think anyone really dropped 3 levels, not yet anyway. I'm curious what's the announcement going to be next week, if in fact there's going to be one.

P.S. You messed up the quote a bit, you didn't really quote my post ;)

The vice is entirely versa.

I'm sorry you lost me... ???

« Reply #82 on: January 08, 2012, 12:36 »
0
I'd say introducing the RC system was a major gamble. Istock stood to gain a little, if it worked, or potentially ruin the business if it didn't. With sales down by 20% in 2010 and probably continuing to fall further it's looking like one gamble too many.

Not a major gamble if done correctly. Which I would imagine the goal was to keep high performers at the same % levels and drop the % for poorer performers. For the poorer performers does IS really care if they get angry or leave? I'm guessing not.

No, the overall goal was to make more money/profit for themselves. Looking after higher performers was merely intended to minimise the risk of a backlash. Unfortunately they miscalculated (because so many of their customers were their contributors) and have ended up losing money for themselves and almost everyone else in the process.

It was a huge gamble, it has failed spectacularly and the eventual losses to Istock and their owners will be astronomical.

« Reply #83 on: January 08, 2012, 12:53 »
0
I don't think they would gamble with a company that has a turnover of what, $300 million?

I'd say introducing the RC system was a major gamble. Istock stood to gain a little, if it worked, or potentially ruin the business if it didn't. With sales down by 20% in 2010 and probably continuing to fall further it's looking like one gamble too many.

Not a major gamble if done correctly. Which I would imagine the goal was to keep high performers at the same % levels and drop the % for poorer performers. For the poorer performers does IS really care if they get angry or leave? I'm guessing not.

It stings to be recognized as a "poorer performer" but I believe that I'm exactly the type of contributor iStock wanted to get rid of. I'd made it to 40% royalties but wasn't selling at the rate of the factories or stars like Sean and Lise. As had been noted in other threads, there was no "exit survey" given when the 30 day notice was given - they just had no interest.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #84 on: January 08, 2012, 12:56 »
0
^^Especially those with big and old ports, they know they wouldn't get much accepted at SS. Photos really have to be up to "2012" standards and if you don't get most of your shots in SS, then it really is better getting even 25% royalties (even though you were at 40%). I'm speaking theoretically of course, I don't think anyone really dropped 3 levels, not yet anyway. I'm curious what's the announcement going to be next week, if in fact there's going to be one.

P.S. You messed up the quote a bit, you didn't really quote my post ;)

The vice is entirely versa.

I'm sorry you lost me... ???

I think we may have crossed threads.
I'm not sure where you got the bit about SS - seems like a total non-sequitur.
You suggested that iS wouldn't care any if lower-performing contributors, who dropped %age rate, left, and that does seem likely to be the case.
My point was that you might think they might prefer to keep the contributors even though they were costing them e.g. 40%, than dropping them to e.g. 30% and losing everything they might earn if they deactivated everything.
They were reckoning that not that many people would actually pull their ports, and I'm guessing overall their gamble paid off.  >:(

wut

« Reply #85 on: January 08, 2012, 13:19 »
0
Contributor-wise yes, traffic and consequently profit wise, it hasn't payed off, they're in a downward spiral, so I think they're gonna put even more on stake this time/next time.

But also, when it comes to contributor wise, I think they've demotivated a lot of ppl, more than they actually motivated (I'm talking about exclusives, I don't know how could any indie get motivated by their action). They kept most ports and content online, but we'll never know just how much less lots of ppl uploaded, compared to what they would have if they wouldn't make the cuts (for lots of them, those affected really)
« Last Edit: January 08, 2012, 13:24 by wut »

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #86 on: January 08, 2012, 13:53 »
0
I don't think they would gamble with a company that has a turnover of what, $300 million?

I'd say introducing the RC system was a major gamble. Istock stood to gain a little, if it worked, or potentially ruin the business if it didn't. With sales down by 20% in 2010 and probably continuing to fall further it's looking like one gamble too many.

Not a major gamble if done correctly. Which I would imagine the goal was to keep high performers at the same % levels and drop the % for poorer performers. For the poorer performers does IS really care if they get angry or leave? I'm guessing not.

I think it's the other way around, there were too many diamonds making 40%, which didn't go well along with their greedy calculations. In fact, that is what happened many diamonds and golds dropping a level or 2. OTOH some low canisters gained 2 levels in a single year, like aeonf etc, the ppl that would be able to get so many raises under the canister system. The plan was to overall lower the royalty recentage across the board, exclusives weren't spared, especially many high canisters.

A combination of both. Too many diamonds making 40% who were performing poorly.

Yes, I've seen some diamonds say that they've dropped from 2-3 canister % levels under the new RC system. What does that indicate? For some probably that they've been there for a long time and aren't selling a whole lot. For others, maybe IS overall sales are down. It's a hard truth but not everyone performs equally. Should everybody get a trophy no matter how they perform?

I don't know of any company that pays their sales team or even their distributors based on how long they've been there. There's a monthly quota and it's all about performance. Those who don't hit quota either make a lower percentage or don 't get paid at all. Weaker salespeople leave because they can't afford to stay. This is sales 101.

Taking IS's overall sales performance out of the equation, who's more valuable?
- Someone who started in 2002, has 25,000 files, and just hit 25,000 downloads to reach diamond ten years later?
- Or someone who joined in 2010, has 100 files, and already hit 25,000 downloads to reach diamond in a year?

Which one is more profitable? Which one is producing what buyers want? Should they be compensated equally?

« Reply #87 on: January 08, 2012, 13:58 »
0
^^^ And I was thinking I am the only one here who gets it...

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #88 on: January 08, 2012, 14:04 »
0

Yes, I've seen some diamonds say that they've dropped from 2-3 canister % levels under the new RC system. What does that indicate? For some probably that they've been there for a long time and aren't selling a whole lot. For others, maybe IS overall sales are down. It's a hard truth but not everyone performs equally. Should everybody get a trophy no matter how they perform?

I don't know of any company that pays their sales team or even their distributors based on how long they've been there. There's a monthly quota and it's all about performance. Those who don't hit quota either make a lower percentage or don 't get paid at all. Weaker salespeople leave because they can't afford to stay. This is sales 101.

Taking IS's overall sales performance out of the equation, who's more valuable?
- Someone who started in 2002, has 25,000 files, and just hit 25,000 downloads to reach diamond ten years later?
- Or someone who joined in 2010, has 100 files, and already hit 25,000 downloads to reach diamond in a year?

Which one is more profitable? Which one is producing what buyers want? Should they be compensated equally?

Your analogy falls down at one vital point.
In the sales force, the underachiever will be replaced by someone who may (or may not, in fact) do better.
At iStock, people will join or not join notwithstanding 'low achievers'.
The danger is that they will just get more and more people producing Yuri/Sean/Andres/Lise type photos which currently sell extremely well. People who sell less popular subjects could get discouraged and leave, and new people in these genres won't have a reason to join. So there will be a very limited range of images, so buyers won't find it a one-stop-shop. Plus people thinking of submitting will see that 'they' can and will change the goalposts to suit themselves.

The two types of producer you mention are not being compensated equally: that would mean they got the same salary whether they were selling 10 pics a year or 100,000, and clearly that never happened. They got a percentage of what sold - and the only cost to iStock was storage space, and inspector time, which, if they weren't producing much more stuff, wasn't very much, whereas with a sales team there are expenses involved with keeping them on the books, which iStock doesn't have. Given the number of false failures I've had for date format on editorials, they can't be that bothered about inspection time/expense.

In addition, (almost) everyone's current poster child of stock 'fairness', SS, currently pays according to 'lifetime earnings'. I guess you'll be suggesting to them that they should change that in the interests of fairness.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2012, 14:35 by ShadySue »

« Reply #89 on: January 08, 2012, 14:08 »
0
A combination of both. Too many diamonds making 40% who were performing poorly.
Taking IS's overall sales performance out of the equation, who's more valuable?
- Someone who started in 2002, has 25,000 files, and just hit 25,000 downloads to reach diamond ten years later?
- Or someone who joined in 2010, has 100 files, and already hit 25,000 downloads to reach diamond in a year?

Which one is more profitable? Which one is producing what buyers want? Should they be compensated equally?

They are both equally profitable per sale. They don't receive the same income because one sells more than the other in a given time period __ the 'compensation differential' is already built in by the monthly sales themselves. If Istock wanted to encourage producivity then why not pay some people more (and maybe others less) to pay for it. They could simply divide the same pie differently if that's what they wanted to achive. But they didn't __ Istock wanted more pie for themselves and begrudgingly allowed a few important producers to be unaffected.

I don't know why you are trying to justify their greed on their behalf anyway. Istock gambled, they lost and, as a consequence, they'll be paying a very high price for a long time to come.

« Reply #90 on: January 08, 2012, 14:11 »
0
^^^ And I was thinking I am the only one here who gets it...

You will ... eventually. Trust me, your gushing enthusiasm for all things Istock, will come to an abrupt halt before too long.

« Reply #91 on: January 08, 2012, 14:23 »
0
^^^ And I was thinking I am the only one here who gets it...

You will ... eventually. Trust me, your gushing enthusiasm for all things Istock, will come to an abrupt halt before too long.

It's incredibly stupid to value only the fastest selling material. People can get that anywhere, it's so copied. It is the slow-selling niche subjects that give a collection breadth and value to buyers.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #92 on: January 08, 2012, 14:33 »
0
A combination of both. Too many diamonds making 40% who were performing poorly.
Taking IS's overall sales performance out of the equation, who's more valuable?
- Someone who started in 2002, has 25,000 files, and just hit 25,000 downloads to reach diamond ten years later?
- Or someone who joined in 2010, has 100 files, and already hit 25,000 downloads to reach diamond in a year?

Which one is more profitable? Which one is producing what buyers want? Should they be compensated equally?

They are both equally profitable per sale. They don't receive the same income because one sells more than the other in a given time period __ the 'compensation differential' is already built in by the monthly sales themselves. If Istock wanted to encourage producivity then why not pay some people more (and maybe others less) to pay for it. They could simply divide the same pie differently if that's what they wanted to achive. But they didn't __ Istock wanted more pie for themselves and begrudgingly allowed a few important producers to be unaffected.

I don't know why you are trying to justify their greed on their behalf anyway. Istock gambled, they lost and, as a consequence, they'll be paying a very high price for a long time to come.

I'm not trying to justify their greed. To understand the model is different from agreeing with it which you seem to frequently fail to see the difference. Under the old model I would have hit the next level over a year earlier so understandably I wasn't overly thrilled with its introduction.

Whether or not they are winning or losing is on their P&L which I haven't seen and I highly doubt you have either. If they are losing anything it's suffering from a declining public image among contributors and they may, or may not, have any affect on their revenue and profits. Same answer for Alexa traffic, etc.

« Reply #93 on: January 08, 2012, 15:01 »
0
Another problem with the salesman analogy is that Istock is not rewarding the multi-talented contributors.

You can have a photographer that barely gets 40k RCs and achieves 35%.

You can have a photographer/illustrator that gets 35k Photo/ 40k ill and gets only 30% despite nearly doubling the RCs of the other contributor.

There are not a lot of people that fit the multi-talented category but those that do are, more often than not, highly talented.

« Reply #94 on: January 08, 2012, 15:42 »
0
Contributor-wise yes, traffic and consequently profit wise, it hasn't payed off, they're in a downward spiral, so I think they're gonna put even more on stake this time/next time.

But also, when it comes to contributor wise, I think they've demotivated a lot of ppl, more than they actually motivated (I'm talking about exclusives, I don't know how could any indie get motivated by their action). They kept most ports and content online, but we'll never know just how much less lots of ppl uploaded, compared to what they would have if they wouldn't make the cuts (for lots of them, those affected really)

Maybe the people running it just aren't so good at microstock.  They are dominant in Sports, Entertainment and Editorial and RM.  I guess 4 out of 5 is not that bad.  I remember it did not go so well when they tried to compete with istock before buying them.  I don't think they would have ever been able to beat them in market place with the last 3 years of decisions.  It doesn't seem like they know how to run a competitive microstock company very well.  They could not leave well enough alone. 

wut

« Reply #95 on: January 08, 2012, 16:02 »
0
Contributor-wise yes, traffic and consequently profit wise, it hasn't payed off, they're in a downward spiral, so I think they're gonna put even more on stake this time/next time.

But also, when it comes to contributor wise, I think they've demotivated a lot of ppl, more than they actually motivated (I'm talking about exclusives, I don't know how could any indie get motivated by their action). They kept most ports and content online, but we'll never know just how much less lots of ppl uploaded, compared to what they would have if they wouldn't make the cuts (for lots of them, those affected really)

Maybe the people running it just aren't so good at microstock.  They are dominant in Sports, Entertainment and Editorial and RM.  I guess 4 out of 5 is not that bad.  I remember it did not go so well when they tried to compete with istock before buying them.  I don't think they would have ever been able to beat them in market place with the last 3 years of decisions.  It doesn't seem like they know how to run a competitive microstock company very well.  They could not leave well enough alone.  

It's not about knowing how to run a MS agency or competence. It's simply about looking only for short term profits, that's what every speculator (I'm talking about H&F) only cares for. That's what's pushing us into recession yet again. And that's what's really bringing IS down. It's also about supply and demand. Supply is in abundance. We could be honest and confess that we're shortsighted as well, especially indies. We're, in fact, making the same mistake as IS is. If we all deactivated our ports, we'd force them to raise royalties, then we'd to it to all of the rest, one by one (so that we don't loose all the income at once). But of course, who'd orchestrate all that. They know that, like the rest of the companies or better said CEOs and owners, politicians etc. That they can get away with it, because the little man would not survive long enough to see things through.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2012, 16:04 by wut »

« Reply #96 on: January 08, 2012, 16:46 »
0
Should they be compensated equally?

Yes. Just pay everyone the same rate.

« Reply #97 on: January 08, 2012, 17:02 »
0

I don't know of any company that pays their sales team or even their distributors based on how long they've been there. There's a monthly quota and it's all about performance. Those who don't hit quota either make a lower percentage or don 't get paid at all. Weaker salespeople leave because they can't afford to stay. This is sales 101.

The sales analogy is completely off base. Sales people don't build the product, they just flog it (and I used to work in pre-sales support for a publishing software company; I know the sales reps work hard, but they don't create things). And the sales reps who don't perform usually get fired before they can quit.

On top of that, iStock was never paying for contributors having been there a long time - it was always for sales. Go take a look at how many people have been there ages and have sold squat - there's a large group.

Also, sales is an inherently short-term thinking business. Many software companies had problems with sales reps booking business that cost the company way too much over the long run, making it much less profitable. One of my favorite quotes from a sales rep with whom I once worked, referring to this issue was that he'd be long gone by then.  

Even someone whose volume of images produced is lower than the factories but who doesn't cost the company much (in terms of images that don't sell or masses and masses of rejects) can be a big asset over time, particularly if they fill out the collection. They're profitable, just not high volume. Having more non-factory contributors also helps your collection stay fresh looking - you have a wide variety of looks and styles, not just one or two.

It's a small thing, but lots of people used to volunteer their time in the forums - people who weren't on staff and who weren't paid. In an environment where you put everyone on the treadmill - and in competition with each other - lots of that just stops.

If you could just turn the crank on the stock photography machine and crank out the images, perhaps the sales rep analogies would be closer. The other big disconnect is that in the case of stock agencies, they can put their finger on the scale and influence what sells by how they present the offerings to the customer. Sales reps don't have to contend with that. I could produce 10K images a year and if the best match results that were given the last two weeks of December were in place, it wouldn't amount to squat, even for someone like Yuri or Andres.

« Reply #98 on: January 08, 2012, 17:19 »
0
^^^ Superbly put JoAnne. Istock should have hired you as a consultant rather than having banned you from their forums. It is truly amazing how big wealthy businesses can self-implode by doing things that are overtly stupid to even the casual observer.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #99 on: January 08, 2012, 17:58 »
0

I don't know of any company that pays their sales team or even their distributors based on how long they've been there. There's a monthly quota and it's all about performance. Those who don't hit quota either make a lower percentage or don 't get paid at all. Weaker salespeople leave because they can't afford to stay. This is sales 101.

The sales analogy is completely off base. Sales people don't build the product, they just flog it (and I used to work in pre-sales support for a publishing software company; I know the sales reps work hard, but they don't create things). And the sales reps who don't perform usually get fired before they can quit.

Okay, let's try a different model. Any model you can think of. Walmart. Do you think Walmart values products, and their creators, based on sales volume and profit or how long the supplier has been supplying? If a product creator stops producing sellable products then what? Regarding sales reps getting fired, that's the old way. The new way is most sales reps positions are based on performance and when reps miss their quota their pay is gradually lowered until they quit. This enables companies to reduce paying unemployment and other costs. 

On top of that, iStock was never paying for contributors having been there a long time - it was always for sales. Go take a look at how many people have been there ages and have sold squat - there's a large group.

They are paying top commissions, 40%, to a lot of diamonds whose main contribution is that they have been there long enough to reach a diamond canister and are not necessarily good performers

Also, sales is an inherently short-term thinking business. Many software companies had problems with sales reps booking business that cost the company way too much over the long run, making it much less profitable. One of my favorite quotes from a sales rep with whom I once worked, referring to this issue was that he'd be long gone by then.  

I'd agree.

Even someone whose volume of images produced is lower than the factories but who doesn't cost the company much (in terms of images that don't sell or masses and masses of rejects) can be a big asset over time, particularly if they fill out the collection. They're profitable, just not high volume. Having more non-factory contributors also helps your collection stay fresh looking - you have a wide variety of looks and styles, not just one or two.

This is not about volume of images produced. It's about revenue generated from each image, whether it's 100 or 10,000. I've seen some newbies with 100 images that are producing exceptional work and are doing incredible download numbers.

It's a small thing, but lots of people used to volunteer their time in the forums - people who weren't on staff and who weren't paid. In an environment where you put everyone on the treadmill - and in competition with each other - lots of that just stops.

If you could just turn the crank on the stock photography machine and crank out the images, perhaps the sales rep analogies would be closer. The other big disconnect is that in the case of stock agencies, they can put their finger on the scale and influence what sells by how they present the offerings to the customer. Sales reps don't have to contend with that. I could produce 10K images a year and if the best match results that were given the last two weeks of December were in place, it wouldn't amount to squat, even for someone like Yuri or Andres.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
10 Replies
4966 Views
Last post October 23, 2009, 06:09
by MicrostockExp
10 Replies
4144 Views
Last post October 05, 2010, 17:45
by donding
4 Replies
4554 Views
Last post June 08, 2015, 11:48
by Dumc
47 Replies
19781 Views
Last post December 12, 2018, 04:53
by Ronib
25 Replies
10411 Views
Last post June 18, 2020, 10:45
by pics2

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors