MicrostockGroup

Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: lisafx on January 05, 2012, 17:52

Title: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: lisafx on January 05, 2012, 17:52
With sales at Istock becoming scarcer, and all but disappearing for Independents, it doesn't seem worth uploading there anymore.   I can imagine that at some point it may not be worth having my port there at all, either because TS threatens SS, or because sales have dried up completely. 

I know there are a fair number of indies who pulled out of Istock altogether over the past 15 months or so since Sept. 2010.

Would any of you mind sharing if you saw a noticeable increase of sales on other sites?  Or did you just lose that IS income and not see it replaced elsewhere?  And if your income has recovered, how long did it take? 

Would also be helpful if you could mention when you pulled out of IS. 

Thanks in advance anyone willing to share this info.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: wut on January 05, 2012, 18:00
lagereek is deactivating blue&red flames, basically a lot of best sellers and said he's experiencing increased sales at other sites (and he says he knows a few top contributors who had the same experience).

I don't think it's a good idea to sell everwhere just on every little (new) site. I'm going to delete my BS and CS ports and if Deposit photos won't improve, I'm deleting everthing over there as well
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: lisafx on January 05, 2012, 18:15
lagereek is deactivating blue&red flames, basically a lot of best sellers and said he's experiencing increased sales at other sites (and he says he knows a few top contributors who had the same experience).

Hope he will chime in here.  Would also love to hear from the folks who pulled out of IS entirely. 
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: cathyslife on January 05, 2012, 18:16
I know you already know my story, Lisa, but I'll share for others' benefit. We have a whole lot of newbies here on MSG.

I pulled my images off of istock last Jan. 2011. I did lose $$ making that move, as they represented 44% of my income (in 2010). I feel certain that had I stayed, this year would have been abysmal for me. I am not a full-time photog and would never fit into the Getty mold. If your sales are diminishing, Lisa, with the size of your port, mine would have been non-existent.

I have seen a rise in my sales at SS and DT, especially since October. I think I uploaded less than 50 new images in 2011. It has not replaced my istock loss of income, but that's mostly my fault. If I ever get the motivation back, I believe I might be able to replace the loss the income. Hard to tell, though, in the past year, microstock has changed faces drastically.

By the way, for those who don't know me, I was a Gold at istock, thinking of becoming exclusive (I had already stopped uploading to other sites and was very near the end of those time constraints), when the sh$t hit the fan at istock, with the lies about grandfathering canisters and the RC system being introduced, and finally, the clawbacks. I was just shy of having 1,000 images online, and was looking forward to passing that milestone.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: velocicarpo on January 05, 2012, 19:04
I stopped uploading at istock in Nov. 2010 (if I remember correctly), then in April 2011 I picked up again (me greedy basta*rd) and stopped again to upload around October 11. Uploading again or stopping just had slight effects on sales. Generally sales are tanking there. But....

...my overall income did NOT change. I have no exact data if this has to do with buyers moving or not since I did not observe it that well or track sales so detailled, but I assume they did so. From my (unapproved and unofficial) observations I do not only see a move of buyers moving from istock to the other established ones, but also a move from the other established agencies to newcomers like depositphotos.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: mlwinphoto on January 05, 2012, 19:07
Are you assuming they concurrently had the same images on these other sites as they had on iStock?  If they did then an increase in sales on the other sites once pulling out of iStock would imply that buyers were following those particular photogs to wherever they went.  If they did not have those same iStock images elsewhere then an increase in sales would be due to the increased content (ex-iStock images) they are now putting on those other sites.

An interesting question....looking forward to the answers as I'm considering pulling my port.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: Karimala on January 05, 2012, 19:23
I have only pulled old non-sellers so far, so I can't really say what kind of effect it's had.  I'm taking it slow, because I can't afford to shoot myself in the foot until I get more photos online elsewhere. 
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: pancaketom on January 05, 2012, 19:44
I stopped uploading when they made the RC announcement. I deactivated just under 95% of my port at the end of Sept 2011. I left a mix of random "crapstock" and images that either seemed to be selling ok at IS and nowhere else or didn't get accepted other places. I made them all P+ too before I deactivated the rest.

As expected, sales dropped a lot. However the next 2 months were BMEs at SS (lots of sales plus OD and EL sales) and both beat any previous month overall. I won't pretend that I had any buyers leave IS to get my stuff elsewhere, but I will say that it is nice to be able to somewhat ignore most of the drama at IS these days. I would love for them to get their act together and treat buyers and contributors in a reasonable fashion, but to be perfectly honest I have no reason to believe that will happen unless IS gets sold to someone else (and even then it would be unlikely). December was down somewhat, but that is usually the case for me and it was pretty much offset by good Alamy sales.

The lower IS sales get the easier it will be for indies to just give up on them completely.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: Karimala on January 05, 2012, 20:18
The lower IS sales get the easier it will be for indies to just give up on them completely.

Very true!  And I'm one of those indies.  I've been slowing deactivating images, but at this point I might as well just drop IS altogether.  Used to be I had regular 20-sales days...now I have regular zero-sales days.   
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on January 05, 2012, 20:42
I know you know this, but with so many things changing all the time, it's really hard to pinpoint cause and effect. So SS had a great last three months but was it greater for those who had pulled their IS port than for me who still had mine? Hard to say.

You might try to contact David Gilde (http://www.davidgilder.com/news.html)r who dropped exclusivity and pulled his whole port when iStock turned on its contributors last September. I don't think he frequents MSG much but his site has contact information.

If you've ever read about bacterial films (meaning a collection of bacteria on a surface, not a movie) nothing much special happens until they're there in sufficient quantity. It may be that there is no immediate effect of one or two photographers leaving iStock, especially if those anecdotes about how buyers work that we've heard here are true - that buyers choose a site and stick with it rather than shopping around for each purchase to find their chosen image at the cheapest price.

However, if a site outage, price increase or other disruption causes buyers to re-evaluate where they shop, possibly the reduced choice at iStock might be a factor in their decision to switch or change which place they shop first. Perhaps when they do and they wonder where all those great images of seniors went to, they ones they used to buy all the time but aren't there any more, your portfolio not being there any more (along with others) might be an influence.

I have thought about removing my iStock portfolio more than once, most recently at the end of December where indie sales were so awful and for a while it appeared they were ramping up the transfer to the partner sites. I was thinking that once on Thinkstock/photos.com it would take iStock forever to remove the files, so if all indie files were buried long term at iStock, leaving the only measurable sales from the partner program I wanted out.

I decided to wait until the New Year and they did improve things quite a bit; they've also stopped transferring files (mine anyway) as I'm at 14 files in the PP and holding for weeks now.

I'm back on that fence again :)
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: cthoman on January 05, 2012, 20:48
Interesting question. I think it's a little too early to tell for me. I got rid of them in September, so I really only have 2 months of info to go on. Also, I'm not really uploading to SS, DT and I've left FT & VS too, so that may skew my numbers. I have seen some growth though.

Last year was pretty transitional for me, so my numbers are down. Hopefully, this year will be more about growth. I'm planning on creating a ton of images, kicking butt and taking no prisoners.  ;)
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: lagereek on January 06, 2012, 03:43
lagereek is deactivating blue&red flames, basically a lot of best sellers and said he's experiencing increased sales at other sites (and he says he knows a few top contributors who had the same experience).

Hope he will chime in here.  Would also love to hear from the folks who pulled out of IS entirely. 

Hi Lisa!

Yes I deactivated some 60, of my most sold and commercial files. Want to point out, I did NOT!  do it as some sort of vengeance towards IS, or something!  I did it because I found a better place for them, rather then hang around at page 50, and that goes for any agenys search. Ofcourse I have noticed an increase at some other places, I knew this woiuld happen or else I would not have deactivated them in the first place.

I do not want to spend the entire 2012, uploading to dozens of agencies, its futile and creates unnecessary competition among your own files,  OK, for generic stuff I suppose but not for my type of material.

Yes, I have noticed a big increase in these files revenues but, that might also be coincidental?  who knows?  time will tell.

Also!  my type of photography, is too hard to come by, involves lots of security, MRs and PRs and is based on many years of mutual client/photographer trust. Dont want to waste them on agencies that pushes them way down the search and give prefs to other files that shouldnt even be there in the first place.

best.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: sharpshot on January 06, 2012, 04:50
The main reason I see not to leave istock is that they might have different owners and management in the future.  I also don't like the thought of removing images that have been almost copied and letting the copycats have money that I should have.  Having invested a lot of time uploading my portfolio and making public lightboxes, I still can't bring myself to leave.  I was on the brink last year but decided that if the majority of independents stay there, removing my portfolio isn't going to make much difference.  I did upload some new images towards the end of last year but my sales have fallen again.  I think the final straw for me would be slipping in to the next lower commission level.

If the site is sold in 2012 and the new owners are more non-exclusive friendly, I would feel stupid leaving now.  If it isn't sold this year, I will probably run out of patience.

I would love to leave, if more independents left.  Putting up with such low commissions and decreasing sales isn't any fun and sends the wrong message to the other sites.  If there was a long list of independents leaving this year, I would add my name to it.  I just don't see much point in leaving when so many others are still there and continue to upload new images.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: lagereek on January 06, 2012, 05:42
The main reason I see not to leave istock is that they might have different owners and management in the future.  I also don't like the thought of removing images that have been almost copied and letting the copycats have money that I should have.  Having invested a lot of time uploading my portfolio and making public lightboxes, I still can't bring myself to leave.  I was on the brink last year but decided that if the majority of independents stay there, removing my portfolio isn't going to make much difference.  I did upload some new images towards the end of last year but my sales have fallen again.  I think the final straw for me would be slipping in to the next lower commission level.

If the site is sold in 2012 and the new owners are more non-exclusive friendly, I would feel stupid leaving now.  If it isn't sold this year, I will probably run out of patience.

I would love to leave, if more independents left.  Putting up with such low commissions and decreasing sales isn't any fun and sends the wrong message to the other sites.  If there was a long list of independents leaving this year, I would add my name to it.  I just don't see much point in leaving when so many others are still there and continue to upload new images.

Hi Race!

"differant owners and management in the future"?  this argument does not stick anymore,  before TS, yes, but not now, since our images are slooooowly being mirrored over there. Besides, a new owner doesnt give a * about Excl/Indepts,  he wants the money, regardless.

See, this is the fallacy many are under, that owners, buyers, etc, seem to care about contributors of pictures. They dont.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: nicku on January 06, 2012, 06:00
The only think that will make IS to change their politics is that say half of best selling photographers ex. or non ex. ( including Yuri, and others big indies ) will poll their ports out of there. Personally i don't think they will do that.... money is more important (regardless the sum) than commissions cuts or other nasty thinks.

The ''law'' that 20% of the contributors bring 80% of the income is applying even to IS.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: fotografer on January 06, 2012, 07:20
I'm a diamond indie.  In the good old days I was selling 60 -70 images a day.  So far this year I have sold a total of 14 images.!!! Like jsnover I only have 15 images at the partner sites but if this continues I will seriously consider pulling my port once my images are all transferred.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: Gannet77 on January 06, 2012, 07:31
I'm a diamond indie.  In the good old days I was selling 60 -70 images a day.  So far this year I have sold a total of 14 images.!!! Like jsnover I only have 15 images at the partner sites but if this continues I will seriously consider pulling my port once my images are all transferred.

My sympathies for your situation - but I don't understand the logic here.

If you pull your port from IS then they will remove all your images from the PP too.  So why wait for them to be transferred?
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: gostwyck on January 06, 2012, 07:40
As frustrating as Istock is for independent contributors, I will probably keep my portfolio with them for the foreseeable future. As much as anything else I want to monitor what happens to them and I can only do that by keeping my port there. If sales are on the slide at Istock, as most of the available evidence suggests, then at some point I assume they'll be forced to take some realistic action to address the situation. At the moment Istock appear to acting like a deer in the headlights, rooted to the policies that have put them in the position they are and refusing to accept that there is a problem. Mind you, short of going back to their roots as a 'proper microstock agency' and returning commission levels to the original canister system, I'm not sure what they can do. Istock's inability to fix all the site bugs without creating even more in the process is particularly concerning.

Yesterday I checked the sales of the last 100 images I have uploaded to Istock and compared them with the same images at SS. The images have been on both sites about 3 months. Somewhat to my surprise the images had earned about $80 at both agencies although about half the earnings at Istock were from an EL. That was obviously before the massive change to the best match so I'll continue to monitor the sales on those images at Istock before deciding whether to upload any further work to them.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: microstockphoto.co.uk on January 06, 2012, 07:46
I did NOT pull my port AND noticed a significant increase at all other sites (more than I lost there).
It's an interesting question, but very difficult to answer, as there may be many causes.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: sodafish on January 06, 2012, 08:28
Personally, I don't see why it would be of any advantage to delete images from iStock. If they are buried in the best match they won't sell, and since they can't be found they will not be any competition for the other sites. If it's placed good in Istock's best match it will sell so there's no reason to deactivate.
Also, I do not believe buyers follow specific photographers. I think they search the image(s) they need for a specific project. But I could be wrong, just my personal thoughts.

I'm officially un-exclusive (Photo) for 2 days now and started uploading to the competition, but so far haven't thought a moment about deleting images at iStockphoto. For the reasons stated here and maybe because I still have silent hopes things will be like before again, I don't know.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: lagereek on January 06, 2012, 08:46
Personally, I don't see why it would be of any advantage to delete images from iStock. If they are buried in the best match they won't sell, and since they can't be found they will not be any competition for the other sites. If it's placed good in Istock's best match it will sell so there's no reason to deactivate.
Also, I do not believe buyers follow specific photographers. I think they search the image(s) they need for a specific project. But I could be wrong, just my personal thoughts.

I'm officially un-exclusive (Photo) for 2 days now and started uploading to the competition, but so far haven't thought a moment about deleting images at iStockphoto. For the reasons stated here and maybe because I still have silent hopes things will be like before again, I don't know.

True!  buyers dont follow photographers, unless they are famous, household name or something but in general buyers dont give a * who has taken the shot as long as it fits the brief. Its a fallacy.

Although, I cant see the point in having all shots mirrored at TS and for peanuts and then the same shots selling at IS, for much more.

Im personally a bit tired of all this nonsense and certainly dont intend to spend the entire 2012, like the previous 2011. If an agency cant get their stuff together, dump them.

best.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: fotografer on January 06, 2012, 10:29
I'm a diamond indie.  In the good old days I was selling 60 -70 images a day.  So far this year I have sold a total of 14 images.!!! Like jsnover I only have 15 images at the partner sites but if this continues I will seriously consider pulling my port once my images are all transferred.

My sympathies for your situation - but I don't understand the logic here.

If you pull your port from IS then they will remove all your images from the PP too.  So why wait for them to be transferred?
You are absolutely right but I suppose that I am living with some hope that things will change before then.   Also they don't seem to be in any hurry to move them over to the partner sites so at the moment I have nothing to lose.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: Karimala on January 06, 2012, 10:33
The advantage, for me at least, is peace of mind.  I can't in good conscience support a company that refuses to support its contributors.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: cathyslife on January 06, 2012, 10:41
The advantage, for me at least, is peace of mind.  I can't in good conscience support a company that refuses to support its contributors.

+1 Well said.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on January 06, 2012, 10:45
I'm a diamond indie.  In the good old days I was selling 60 -70 images a day.  So far this year I have sold a total of 14 images.!!!...

This is a weird sort of reverse bragging, but my total (another diamond indie) in 2012 is 28 images - it really is a very sad thing to measure just how down things are
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: velocicarpo on January 06, 2012, 10:54
The advantage, for me at least, is peace of mind.  I can't in good conscience support a company that refuses to support its contributors.

+1. Moral has value, not only profit.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: fotografer on January 06, 2012, 11:35
I'm a diamond indie.  In the good old days I was selling 60 -70 images a day.  So far this year I have sold a total of 14 images.!!!...

This is a weird sort of reverse bragging, but my total (another diamond indie) in 2012 is 28 images - it really is a very sad thing to measure just how down things are
LOL at least that made me laugh
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: lagereek on January 06, 2012, 11:52
I'm a diamond indie.  In the good old days I was selling 60 -70 images a day.  So far this year I have sold a total of 14 images.!!! Like jsnover I only have 15 images at the partner sites but if this continues I will seriously consider pulling my port once my images are all transferred.


Same here!  Diamond indie with at least 70-80, sales per day. Nowdays, more like 6-7, sales per day. So, is this the result of indies being pushed way down?  no, hardly. Its tough for any business if the customer isnt around and the revenue coming in is then going to the fully employed and debts, loans, etc. Nothing lefte for the staff on the floor.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: luissantos84 on January 06, 2012, 12:05
seriously.. the more pro you are the more liar you are right?

70-80 sales... make it 75
365 days... make it 260 (average week days in a year)

1 year = 75 x 260 = 19500
2 years = 39k sales

right :D

(sorry but I cannot hold myself)
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: fotografer on January 06, 2012, 12:10
seriously.. the more pro you are the more liar you are right?

70-80 sales... make it 75
365 days... make it 260 (average week days in a year)

1 year = 75 x 260 = 19500
2 years = 39k sales

right :D

(sorry but I cannot hold myself)
I know you are quoting Lagereek's figures and not mine but mine were similar.   I didn't mean that I had those figures for years but there was certainly at least a year when I did those sort of numbers just about every week day.   Sad to see how bad things have gone.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: lagereek on January 06, 2012, 12:53
Luis!  jealous? are we?  we are talking averages Luis, on an average, right, or are you being stupid on purpose. Boing!, boing!  or do I have to expalin the maths formula for working out the average, boing!
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: CarlssonInc on January 06, 2012, 12:58
Luis!  jealous? are we?  we are talking averages Luis, on an average, right, or are you being stupid on purpose. Boing!, boing!  or do I have to expalin the maths formula for working out the average, boing!

I think he is missing the obvious in what you were saying. That you had managed to get to a level where 70-80 perweekday was the norm, just for it to catastrophically be reduced to 6-7 sales a weekday now. Obviously you didn't start out with 70-80 per day in the from the moment you signed with iStock, but that is probably what he thought you meant. Always nice when someone calls you a liar eh! Don't expect an apology, we don't do them around here I learnt hahaha!
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: lagereek on January 06, 2012, 13:02
seriously.. the more pro you are the more liar you are right?

70-80 sales... make it 75
365 days... make it 260 (average week days in a year)

1 year = 75 x 260 = 19500
2 years = 39k sales

right :D

(sorry but I cannot hold myself)
I know you are quoting Lagereek's figures and not mine but mine were similar.   I didn't mean that I had those figures for years but there was certainly at least a year when I did those sort of numbers just about every week day.   Sad to see how bad things have gone.

Dont worry about this kid,  he automatically dislikes anybody doing well. He would even call Yuri a lier if he wasnt scared of him.

Anyway one can work it out, Ive had for the last three years ( when it really took off) had 43000 dls, divide that by 3 and its pretty close. Must be the same for you?
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: Artemis on January 06, 2012, 13:02
The advantage, for me at least, is peace of mind.  I can't in good conscience support a company that refuses to support its contributors.

+1. Moral has value, not only profit.
Apart from that my main reason for pulling most of my port is that i'm very convinced sales are not reported accurately there (no hard proof, but 1+1=2), istock to me these days feels more like a scam than a MS agency.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: lagereek on January 06, 2012, 13:03
Luis!  jealous? are we?  we are talking averages Luis, on an average, right, or are you being stupid on purpose. Boing!, boing!  or do I have to expalin the maths formula for working out the average, boing!

I think he is missing the obvious in what you were saying. That you had managed to get to a level where 70-80 perweekday was the norm, just for it to catastrophically be reduced to 6-7 sales a weekday now. Obviously you didn't start out with 70-80 per day in the from the moment you signed with iStock, but that is probably what he thought you meant. Always nice when someone calls you a liar eh! Don't expect an apology, we don't do them around here I learnt hahaha!

Hi Martin!  yep!  Luis is well known for ALWAYS thinking to much or rather too little :D
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: CarlssonInc on January 06, 2012, 13:08
Luis!  jealous? are we?  we are talking averages Luis, on an average, right, or are you being stupid on purpose. Boing!, boing!  or do I have to expalin the maths formula for working out the average, boing!

I think he is missing the obvious in what you were saying. That you had managed to get to a level where 70-80 perweekday was the norm, just for it to catastrophically be reduced to 6-7 sales a weekday now. Obviously you didn't start out with 70-80 per day in the from the moment you signed with iStock, but that is probably what he thought you meant. Always nice when someone calls you a liar eh! Don't expect an apology, we don't do them around here I learnt hahaha!

Hi Martin!  yep!  Luis is well known for ALWAYS thinking to much or rather too little :D

Again I'm surprised by the lack of manners and courtesy, people seem to act so differently behind a keyboard then in real life.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: luissantos84 on January 06, 2012, 13:27
Again I'm surprised by the lack of manners and courtesy, people seem to act so differently behind a keyboard then in real life.

can you please tell me where was I lacking manners? please go over my posts and quote me

I am not even going to talk about what lagereek said
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: CarlssonInc on January 06, 2012, 13:53
seriously.. the more pro you are the more liar you are right?

70-80 sales... make it 75
365 days... make it 260 (average week days in a year)

1 year = 75 x 260 = 19500
2 years = 39k sales

right :D

(sorry but I cannot hold myself)

I bet you are going to back-track somehow, but you are in a not a very round-about way calling Christian a liar - uncalled for and rude.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: wut on January 06, 2012, 14:02
This brilliant Einstein's quote often comes to my mind (and it doesn't matter if the situation is real life or happening on the internet):

“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe.”
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: cathyslife on January 06, 2012, 15:21
The advantage, for me at least, is peace of mind.  I can't in good conscience support a company that refuses to support its contributors.

+1. Moral has value, not only profit.
Apart from that my main reason for pulling most of my port is that i'm very convinced sales are not reported accurately there (no hard proof, but 1+1=2), istock to me these days feels more like a scam than a MS agency.

That's an excellent point, also.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: luissantos84 on January 06, 2012, 16:00
I bet you are going to back-track somehow, but you are in a not a very round-about way calling Christian a liar - uncalled for and rude.

I belive you don´t know well lagereek and worst "our talk" in this forum, I could actually apologise but after what he said I believe we are more than even
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: lisafx on January 06, 2012, 16:09
Thanks a lot to everyone who has posted useful info in this thread.  Cathy, JoAnn, and Christian, I know we have talked privately about this but I also appreciate your participating in a public discussion about it. 

I just requested my Friday weekly payout from IS and it was literally 1/4 of what it had been from 2008 through the first part of 2011.   I will admit that when folks like David Gilder and Cathy pulled their ports, I admired them, but could never see myself doing the same.  Of course I could also never see myself sinking from 150 sales/weekday to 20 or 30, with a portfolio of nearly 7k images. 

Looks like so far there has been some increase in sales elsewhere for most individuals who deleted all or most of their ports from Istock, but it isn't enough to conclude that buyers followed you to other sites. 

I think at the very least I will not be uploading to Istock until/unless sales improve.  I'll join JoAnn on that fence about whether to start deleting.  JoAnn, I'll bring the tea if you bring the cookies :)
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on January 06, 2012, 16:20
Thanks a lot to everyone who has posted useful info in this thread.  Cathy, JoAnn, and Christian, I know we have talked privately about this but I also appreciate your participating in a public discussion about it. 
...  JoAnn, I'll bring the tea if you bring the cookies :)

I'm up for cookies any time, but I don't know about you bringing the tea :) I drink masses of it, and buy British tea bags - nearly as much caffeine as coffee!

Although if sales keep plummeting, I think it should be something much stronger to drink...
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: Karimala on January 06, 2012, 16:35
The advantage, for me at least, is peace of mind.  I can't in good conscience support a company that refuses to support its contributors.

+1. Moral has value, not only profit.
Apart from that my main reason for pulling most of my port is that i'm very convinced sales are not reported accurately there (no hard proof, but 1+1=2), istock to me these days feels more like a scam than a MS agency.

That's an excellent point, also.

+1  It's beginning to look like 1984 where 1+1 doesn't =2.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: gostwyck on January 06, 2012, 16:46
The advantage, for me at least, is peace of mind.  I can't in good conscience support a company that refuses to support its contributors.

+1. Moral has value, not only profit.
Apart from that my main reason for pulling most of my port is that i'm very convinced sales are not reported accurately there (no hard proof, but 1+1=2), istock to me these days feels more like a scam than a MS agency.

That's an excellent point, also.

+1  It's beginning to look like 1984 where 1+1 doesn't =2.

True __ and there's been plenty of 'doublespeak' from TPTB there too.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: StockCube on January 06, 2012, 18:03
Hi Lisa, as you may remember I went indie in October of 2010.  I left all my portfolio there until a few weeks ago, when I deleted my nine best sellers.  I feel very unhappy to be getting only 16% of revenue for these files and so deleted the ones that I felt had fared well on other sites and had found a worthwhile 'new home'.  Some of my other images that have done well at iStock have not been accepted on other sites (DT and SS in particular) and so I just left them there.  In time I would like to delete all of the images that I have on iStock that have found a good home elsewhere.  While I agree with Lagereek that I don't for a second think buyers will search all over the net to find my images for sale, I also can't stomach supporting the bunch of greedy *insult removed* that iStock have become to the tune of 84% of revenue.

When I went indie I remember posting on a forum site on iS that I expected my iStock income to drop from about $350 a month to around $50.  I wasn't far off - I was earning around $70 a month for most of last year.  I also said that in that case it would not be a huge deal for me to drop iStock altogether and delete my images there.  I hope to soon have my other agencies built up to the level where that will be financially possible.  I have learnt a lot in my first year+ as an indie - knowledge and skill which I will be putting into creating images for the likes of SS, DT, Veer etc in the future.  I haven't uploaded to iS since I left exclusivity as to do so feels like cutting my own throat - if I allow them to profit from my new work at vastly reduced commission then they will have won, and if they win then others will follow suit.  I don't think it is an overly dramatic statement to make that I feel that iStock must now fail in order for the rest of the industry to survive.

If you want to check out my income figures then the link is in my sig line below,
Cheers,
Bridget
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: lagereek on January 06, 2012, 18:28
Thanks a lot to everyone who has posted useful info in this thread.  Cathy, JoAnn, and Christian, I know we have talked privately about this but I also appreciate your participating in a public discussion about it. 

I just requested my Friday weekly payout from IS and it was literally 1/4 of what it had been from 2008 through the first part of 2011.   I will admit that when folks like David Gilder and Cathy pulled their ports, I admired them, but could never see myself doing the same.  Of course I could also never see myself sinking from 150 sales/weekday to 20 or 30, with a portfolio of nearly 7k images. 

Looks like so far there has been some increase in sales elsewhere for most individuals who deleted all or most of their ports from Istock, but it isn't enough to conclude that buyers followed you to other sites. 

I think at the very least I will not be uploading to Istock until/unless sales improve.  I'll join JoAnn on that fence about whether to start deleting.  JoAnn, I'll bring the tea if you bring the cookies :)

Hi Lisa! how goes?

Yep!  its nothing to hang in a x-mas tree, is it?  Although I agree, with the size of your port, its a very difficult call. To confirm your thoughts, I think you are probably doing the right thing in holding on a bit.
Remember, I only deactivated my best sellers, the rest, some 1600 files are still there and the reason for deactivating these images, I explained to you privately.

speak to you soon, best. Christian
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: lagereek on January 06, 2012, 18:30
seriously.. the more pro you are the more liar you are right?

70-80 sales... make it 75
365 days... make it 260 (average week days in a year)

1 year = 75 x 260 = 19500
2 years = 39k sales

right :D

(sorry but I cannot hold myself)

I bet you are going to back-track somehow, but you are in a not a very round-about way calling Christian a liar - uncalled for and rude.

Hi Martin!  One thing is for sure,  we do come across some funny dudes in this place, dont we. :)

best.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: mynameis on January 06, 2012, 19:36
seriously.. the more pro you are the more liar you are right?

70-80 sales... make it 75
365 days... make it 260 (average week days in a year)

1 year = 75 x 260 = 19500
2 years = 39k sales

right :D

(sorry but I cannot hold myself)
what's your point?
That was stupid comment (math) you made!
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: cthoman on January 06, 2012, 19:55
Personally, I don't see why it would be of any advantage to delete images from iStock.

It was the math that drove me insane. Little hypothetical gems like this:

Let's say you bring in 100K in sales and make 18% of that, it's 18K a year ($1500 a month). Although you are a fairly successful contributor, your 18K (pre-tax/pre-expenses) income isn't going to get you very far in the US. How did 100K turn into 18K? That's when it hits you that IS is taking 82K of your 100K booty...

82K? Seriously? What are they doing with all that? Advertising?

If that's the case, then shouldn't there be a billboard somewhere with you sitting atop a throned pyramid in golden sun god robes with some sort of tagline extolling your photography or illustrative godliness? (I want chiseled abs on my billboard. Maybe a panther or a dragon. There has to be some scantily clad women as well. Definitely some lightning bolts too as I call the thunder for my throng of adoring worshipers below.)

By this time, my brain has gone from simmering to boiling and I'm wondering why anybody is there as an independent. Doesn't Yuri have a calculator? Doesn't he want an awesome billboard too? He could buy a lot of billboards.  ;)
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: Karimala on January 06, 2012, 20:13
Personally, I don't see why it would be of any advantage to delete images from iStock.

It was the math that drove me insane. Little hypothetical gems like this:

Let's say you bring in 100K in sales and make 18% of that, it's 18K a year ($1500 a month). Although you are a fairly successful contributor, your 18K (pre-tax/pre-expenses) income isn't going to get you very far in the US. How did 100K turn into 18K? That's when it hits you that IS is taking 82K of your 100K booty...

82K? Seriously? What are they doing with all that? Advertising?

If that's the case, then shouldn't there be a billboard somewhere with you sitting atop a throned pyramid in golden sun god robes with some sort of tagline extolling your photography or illustrative godliness? (I want chiseled abs on my billboard. Maybe a panther or a dragon. There has to be some scantily clad women as well. Definitely some lightning bolts too as I call the thunder for my throng of adoring worshipers below.)

By this time, my brain has gone from simmering to boiling and I'm wondering why anybody is there as an independent. Doesn't Yuri have a calculator? Doesn't he want an awesome billboard too? He could buy a lot of billboards.  ;)

+1 a thousand times over.  I've done the math, and the truth is IS alone has earned more off my photos than I have across all the sites in six years.  That's the kind of math I can't live with. 
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: Mantis on January 06, 2012, 20:43
The advantage, for me at least, is peace of mind.  I can't in good conscience support a company that refuses to support its contributors.

+1 Well said.

support = support AND the way they treat them. They have the "I don't give a sh_t if you pull your port or not" attitude and LOBO makes things worse when people who care try to gain info in their forums.  I honestly think he waits excitedly like a child at Christmas for a post to appear that he can belittle, embarrass and demean the OP and then say FU and lock it.  It makes people angry and amplifies the way we feel about the other aspects of IS's poor business decisions.

Just frustrating.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: pancaketom on January 06, 2012, 23:23


It was the math that drove me insane. Little hypothetical gems like this:

Let's say you bring in 100K in sales and make 18% of that, it's 18K a year ($1500 a month). Although you are a fairly successful contributor, your 18K (pre-tax/pre-expenses) income isn't going to get you very far in the US. How did 100K turn into 18K? That's when it hits you that IS is taking 82K of your 100K booty...

82K? Seriously? What are they doing with all that? Advertising?

If that's the case, then shouldn't there be a billboard somewhere with you sitting atop a throned pyramid in golden sun god robes with some sort of tagline extolling your photography or illustrative godliness? (I want chiseled abs on my billboard. Maybe a panther or a dragon. There has to be some scantily clad women as well. Definitely some lightning bolts too as I call the thunder for my throng of adoring worshipers below.)

By this time, my brain has gone from simmering to boiling and I'm wondering why anybody is there as an independent. Doesn't Yuri have a calculator? Doesn't he want an awesome billboard too? He could buy a lot of billboards.  ;)

I agree completely. I had a nice sale on Alamy and when I calculated my share it was noticeably smaller - then I started thinking about all the other sites which took a higher % - Imagine if IS posted the actual sale price. I'd look at it and think - sweet, a 20$ sale - oh, never mind I only get 3.20 $   (or 3$ if you were at 15%)
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: CarlssonInc on January 07, 2012, 00:02
I bet you are going to back-track somehow, but you are in a not a very round-about way calling Christian a liar - uncalled for and rude.

I belive you don´t know well lagereek and worst "our talk" in this forum, I could actually apologise but after what he said I believe we are more than even

You're right, I don't know "your" history. Anyway, for every action there is a re-action and you threw the first rock calling him a liar, he then stooped to the same level - you are both guilty, now off to your naughty corners! hahaha :)
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: Eireann on January 07, 2012, 12:18
Hi Lisa, :)
you already know my story, but just in case here we go again :
- stopped uploading in Sept. 2010
- deleted 90 per cent of the port in Jan. 2011 (took great care to leave only images with zero, or very few sales)

Reasons:
- anything below 20% commission is an insult to me. I'm sorry, but I do care about the artists commission  rate, I believe that there must be a limit and this is mine. Regardless of sales. 
- I cannot handle their attitude, the way they treat us, contributors and buyers alike.
- I absolutely do NOT want a single cent of my money to go towards paying people like Lobo. 
On the other hand, I do not ever want him to leave. Single handed, he lost IStock thousands and thousands of dollars in business. This is a fact.
Way to go Lobo, you're doing great, get them all out of there! :) You're my hero :)
- I do not want to support sites like ThinkStock and I don't want any of my images there.
- last, but not least, I have lived all my life (40 +) with no financial help from IStock. Something told me I would do just fine, with or without their payments.
Ah!
And one more reason!
Deleting my port from IStock felt great! Absolutely wonderful feeling, priceless :)
I wish I could do it all again, just for the rush :)


But did sales at other sites increase?
Yes, absolutely. Of course they did. A lot, infact. 
But unfortunately I don't think this increase had anything to do with my deleting my port from IStock. I kept on uploading to the other sites, more and more images naturally resulting in more and more sales.

Having said all that my port is tiny. 550 - 600 images, and I might not be relevant at all.
There you go Lisa, that's my story :)
all the best,
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: cathyslife on January 07, 2012, 12:40
- last, but not least, I have lived all my life (40 +) with no financial help from IStock. Something told me I would do just fine, with or without their payments.
Ah!
And one more reason!
Deleting my port from IStock felt great! Absolutely wonderful feeling, priceless :)

That's a great way to say it. Ditto me, except the number behind the word "life" is a little larger for me.  :D

Funny thing, life works like that for me most of the time. Like the Seinfeld "even Steven" episode. If I lose some money, somewhere, somehow, other money comes and makes up for it.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: lagereek on January 08, 2012, 01:15
One can always argue, coincidence or not?  but I am seeing a clear increase in sales of the actual images I deactivated from IS ( having in mind they were thrown way back in the, IS, search,  earning nothing),  so on the whole I did the right thing.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: CarlssonInc on January 08, 2012, 01:29
There is a recent post (friday 6th) by Lobo in the forum (exclusive) alluding to something being posted regarding the plans for iStock in 2012 in the next couple of days - should be interesting reading, as well as important for the many that are probably on the fence regarding dropping the crown or not.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: lagereek on January 08, 2012, 02:51
There is a recent post (friday 6th) by Lobo in the forum (exclusive) alluding to something being posted regarding the plans for iStock in 2012 in the next couple of days - should be interesting reading, as well as important for the many that are probably on the fence regarding dropping the crown or not.

Hi!

Nope,  I cant find anything there?
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: CarlssonInc on January 08, 2012, 03:16
There is a recent post (friday 6th) by Lobo in the forum (exclusive) alluding to something being posted regarding the plans for iStock in 2012 in the next couple of days - should be interesting reading, as well as important for the many that are probably on the fence regarding dropping the crown or not.

Hi!

Nope,  I cant find anything there?

It is in the sub-forum for exclusives only.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: lagereek on January 08, 2012, 03:42
There is a recent post (friday 6th) by Lobo in the forum (exclusive) alluding to something being posted regarding the plans for iStock in 2012 in the next couple of days - should be interesting reading, as well as important for the many that are probably on the fence regarding dropping the crown or not.

Hi!

Nope,  I cant find anything there?

It is in the sub-forum for exclusives only.

Come on Martin,  do some evesdropping, will ya! ;D  ofcourse he would have to put it in that forum!  or 80%, of the entire IS, would do a walk-out.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: CarlssonInc on January 08, 2012, 03:57
There is a recent post (friday 6th) by Lobo in the forum (exclusive) alluding to something being posted regarding the plans for iStock in 2012 in the next couple of days - should be interesting reading, as well as important for the many that are probably on the fence regarding dropping the crown or not.

Hi!

Nope,  I cant find anything there?

It is in the sub-forum for exclusives only.

Come on Martin,  do some evesdropping, will ya! ;D  ofcourse he would have to put it in that forum!  or 80%, of the entire IS, would do a walk-out.

I'll see what I can do hahaha.

It wasn't Lobo starting the thread. It was a contributor (exclusive) starting a thread and asking all these questions etc. and Lobo's response was that something (a statement) would be forthcoming in the next few days. That's it.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: sharpshot on January 08, 2012, 05:05
The plans for 2012 will be interesting.  I just hope they don't announce bad news and try to make it look positive again.  There's very little incentive for me to use istock now, only an honest acknowledgement of mistakes and good changes for the future would keep me interested.  It was different when I was relying on the income from istock, it will be a lot easier to leave now.

If they screw this up, I can see a lot of exclusives, non-exclusives and buyers getting out of there.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: lagereek on January 08, 2012, 05:45
The plans for 2012 will be interesting.  I just hope they don't announce bad news and try to make it look positive again.  There's very little incentive for me to use istock now, only an honest acknowledgement of mistakes and good changes for the future would keep me interested.  It was different when I was relying on the income from istock, it will be a lot easier to leave now.

If they screw this up, I can see a lot of exclusives, non-exclusives and buyers getting out of there.

Yeah,  see,  back in the old days, many were probably extremly dependant on the IS income and they knew that, giving them carte blanche, to do whatever they wanted really. Pretty differant today though, isnt it. Most have got well rooted with other agencies, making up the loss, etc.
The shoe is on the other foot.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: ShadySue on January 08, 2012, 06:36
There is a recent post (friday 6th) by Lobo in the forum (exclusive) alluding to something being posted regarding the plans for iStock in 2012 in the next couple of days - should be interesting reading, as well as important for the many that are probably on the fence regarding dropping the crown or not.
This would be the time when they have traditionally announced any price rises (2nd week of Jan).
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: CarlssonInc on January 08, 2012, 06:45
There is a recent post (friday 6th) by Lobo in the forum (exclusive) alluding to something being posted regarding the plans for iStock in 2012 in the next couple of days - should be interesting reading, as well as important for the many that are probably on the fence regarding dropping the crown or not.
This would be the time when they have traditionally announced any price rises (2nd week of Jan).

Yes a price rise! That would go down a treat right now....never had a problem with them as long as the RPI/month was increasing or stable, but with such a decline throughout '11 I wouldn't exactly be thrilled.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: wut on January 08, 2012, 06:54
There is a recent post (friday 6th) by Lobo in the forum (exclusive) alluding to something being posted regarding the plans for iStock in 2012 in the next couple of days - should be interesting reading, as well as important for the many that are probably on the fence regarding dropping the crown or not.
This would be the time when they have traditionally announced any price rises (2nd week of Jan).

Yes a price rise! That would go down a treat right now....never had a problem with them as long as the RPI/month was increasing or stable, but with such a decline throughout '11 I wouldn't exactly be thrilled.

Remember, the way things are going they can't loose much by gambling. Perhaps the time for all or nothing has come (or double or nothing, which ever you prefer) ;)
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: CarlssonInc on January 08, 2012, 07:04
There is a recent post (friday 6th) by Lobo in the forum (exclusive) alluding to something being posted regarding the plans for iStock in 2012 in the next couple of days - should be interesting reading, as well as important for the many that are probably on the fence regarding dropping the crown or not.
This would be the time when they have traditionally announced any price rises (2nd week of Jan).

Yes a price rise! That would go down a treat right now....never had a problem with them as long as the RPI/month was increasing or stable, but with such a decline throughout '11 I wouldn't exactly be thrilled.

Remember, the way things are going they can't loose much by gambling. Perhaps the time for all or nothing has come (or double or nothing, which ever you prefer) ;)

I don't think they would gamble with a company that has a turnover of what, $300 million?
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: sharpshot on January 08, 2012, 07:08
^^^They've been gambling like crazy in recent years and they don't seem to be very lucky.  Why would they stop now?  Nothing they do will surprise me anymore.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: wut on January 08, 2012, 07:14
^^^They've been gambling like crazy in recent years and they don't seem to be very lucky.  Why would they stop now?  Nothing they do will surprise me anymore.

Indeed, that's what I meant. Not really that they were gambling up until now in the real sense of word, but I wouldn't be surprised if do would start gambling now, with water pouring down their throat
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: ShadySue on January 08, 2012, 07:15
There is a recent post (friday 6th) by Lobo in the forum (exclusive) alluding to something being posted regarding the plans for iStock in 2012 in the next couple of days - should be interesting reading, as well as important for the many that are probably on the fence regarding dropping the crown or not.
This would be the time when they have traditionally announced any price rises (2nd week of Jan).

Yes a price rise! That would go down a treat right now....never had a problem with them as long as the RPI/month was increasing or stable, but with such a decline throughout '11 I wouldn't exactly be thrilled.

Remember, the way things are going they can't loose much by gambling. Perhaps the time for all or nothing has come (or double or nothing, which ever you prefer) ;)

I don't think they would gamble with a company that has a turnover of what, $300 million?

You'd think, huh  ;D  :o ::)

I wasn't saying there would be a price rise, only that this is the time of year when they've been announced in the past and I wondered if that might be what Lobo was alluding to. Or maybe there's something else. Or maybe nothing at all. Not everything that an admin hints at in the forums comes to anything.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: CarlssonInc on January 08, 2012, 07:21
True, could be something/nothing of importance. Time will tell.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: gostwyck on January 08, 2012, 09:56
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.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: PaulieWalnuts on January 08, 2012, 10:24
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.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: wut on January 08, 2012, 10:30
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.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: cathyslife on January 08, 2012, 10:31
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.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: Mellimage on January 08, 2012, 11:00
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.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: Beach Bum on January 08, 2012, 11:34
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. 
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: ShadySue on January 08, 2012, 11:38
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.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: wut on January 08, 2012, 12:05
^^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 ;)
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: ShadySue on January 08, 2012, 12:23
^^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.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: wut on January 08, 2012, 12:29
^^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... ???
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: gostwyck on January 08, 2012, 12:36
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.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on January 08, 2012, 12:53
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.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: ShadySue on January 08, 2012, 12:56
^^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.  >:(
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: wut on January 08, 2012, 13:19
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)
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: PaulieWalnuts on January 08, 2012, 13:53
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?
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: aeonf on January 08, 2012, 13:58
^^^ And I was thinking I am the only one here who gets it...
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: ShadySue on January 08, 2012, 14:04

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.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: gostwyck on January 08, 2012, 14:08
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.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: gostwyck on January 08, 2012, 14:11
^^^ 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.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on January 08, 2012, 14:23
^^^ 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.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: PaulieWalnuts on January 08, 2012, 14:33
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.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: Zephyr on January 08, 2012, 15:01
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.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: pro@stockphotos on January 08, 2012, 15:42
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. 
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: wut on January 08, 2012, 16:02
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.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: cthoman on January 08, 2012, 16:46
Should they be compensated equally?

Yes. Just pay everyone the same rate.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on January 08, 2012, 17:02

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.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: gostwyck on January 08, 2012, 17:19
^^^ 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.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: PaulieWalnuts on January 08, 2012, 17:58

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.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on January 08, 2012, 18:41

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. 

You keep coming back to the time issue - and iStock never gave anyone more money for having been around a long time. It's all about measuring the money you brought in - the old way was lifetime and the current way is loosely related to how much money over the last year. I say loosely because the charts are not linear for any given media (look at the gap between the top two levels for photos vs. for illustrations) and they are hopelessly unfair when you compare money in for illustrators vs. money in for photographers. It's even worse if you compare total money delivered to the compay for anyone foolish enough to still be contributing in multiple media.

If they felt so inclined they couild have a scheme that paid you for the current six months based on the last six months' earnings. That would be really dastardly. The rate you earn for the the first six months (typically slower except for March) gets you lower royalties for the high selling half of the year. You then earn a higher royalty rate but only for the slow selling half of the year.

What you're missing is that all the iStock schemes so far have been pay for performance - no longevity pay for anyone ever. What makes the 6 month scheme more or less fair than the current RC system? IMO the RC scheme was an attempt to move the overal payout for the contributor base to 20% and given that iStock wanted to keep exclusives it had to figure out some way to pay a lot of people less. It wasn't about weeding out poor performers.

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

I don't know what you mean by "a lot" but there are around 900 diamonds and 45 black diamonds out of over 38,000 contributors. The reality is that most of those 38,000 won't make diamond no matter how long they hang around. There are under 10K bronze and under 4K silver, and that's with iStock having been around over 10 years. I think it's just a myth that the real problem was a world where everyone ends up diamond and poor iStock goes broke. That would never happen.

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 is not about revenue generated from each image, it's about RCs generated per year, per medium. iStock doesn't care if you upload masses and masses of images to get your RC totals (easier to do for an exclusive than independent, but if you hang around long enough you can build up some numbers). They might at some future point start to set royalties on the basis of having a high number of successful images, but right now they don't
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: ShadySue on January 08, 2012, 18:53
Besides, they'd save much more money if they fixed the whole system properly. There are more and more bugs reported all the time and there are far fewer fixes than new reports. Plus almost every fix adds more problems.
None of that is our fault, so we shouldn't be penalised for it.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: wut on January 08, 2012, 18:54
I think it's just a myth that the real problem was a world where everyone ends up diamond and poor iStock goes broke. That would never happen.

It's a myth even if it did happen - why would they go broke if every single exclusive would make 40%? That's still just a small percentage of contributors, so factoring in independents earning 20% no matter the canister, but also that exclusives usually sell more (most top contributors are exclusive and they make the majority for IS) the average payout would be what, 30%? It would surely be below 35% and if Alamy is getting along just fine by paying double of those mythical 30%, than IS would do twice as good ;)
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: disorderly on January 08, 2012, 19:18
Perhaps I missed it, but let's remember that Independents were never rewarded for longevity, or even for making a lot of sales over a long or short period of time.  Our only rewards were new canister colors, which have no real value, and the right to a larger upload quota.  Our compensation was fixed: 20% of the sale price, whether it was our first sale or our 500,000th.  The only way we cost iStock more over time were the storage costs for our growing portfolios and the extra time for reviewers to look over a few more images per week.  Exclusives cost more as their work sold, not Independents.

That has changed, but in a negative way.  Keep in mind that the maximum compensation, which none of us will ever see again, is that same 20% that we all signed up for back in the dark ages before September, 2010.  I'd have to produce content that sells far better than anything I've produced, and would still be able to upload only a small number of images.  So I cost them less, 20% less last year and this year, and likely another few percent in 2013 when I can't meet their minimums.

Oh, and for anyone who believes that sales reps can't be screwed with by Corporate, ask a few reps how many times their territories were broken up or their compensation plans reevaluated.  I've seen it happen way too often.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: luissantos84 on January 08, 2012, 21:21
Our compensation was fixed: 20% of the sale price, whether it was our first sale or our 500,000th.

they were the lowest already but wanted to make sure again

the more curious was the 25% overall collection grow despite the 15% less downloads, will see 2012
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: cthoman on January 08, 2012, 22:07
Wow! This topic really went off the rails. I promised myself I'd try not to do too much IS bashing this year, but it seems to show up everywhere and hard to avoid.  ;)
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: SNP on January 08, 2012, 23:21
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?

good post and I almost completely agree....except that it still doesn't explain some of the top performers getting stung. if what you are saying is true (and for the most part I think it is), I'd think iStock would be taking special care to continue to incentivize the top performers like Sean, but a number of those major sales generators are also reporting losses. iStock aren't providing incentive to produce, so I'd be interested in your thoughts on this.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: ann on January 08, 2012, 23:39
jsnover's comment about bacterial films - which reminds me of "the tipping point" - is well-worth keeping in mind.

Jsnover: "If you've ever read about bacterial films (meaning a collection of bacteria on a surface, not a movie) nothing much special happens until they're there in sufficient quantity. It may be that there is no immediate effect of one or two photographers leaving iStock, especially if those anecdotes about how buyers work that we've heard here are true - that buyers choose a site and stick with it rather than shopping around for each purchase to find their chosen image at the cheapest price."


The advantage, for me at least, is peace of mind.  I can't in good conscience support a company that refuses to support its contributors.

+1 Well said.

+1
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: Karimala on January 09, 2012, 01:54
jsnover's comment about bacterial films - which reminds me of "the tipping point" - is well-worth keeping in mind.

Jsnover: "If you've ever read about bacterial films (meaning a collection of bacteria on a surface, not a movie) nothing much special happens until they're there in sufficient quantity. It may be that there is no immediate effect of one or two photographers leaving iStock, especially if those anecdotes about how buyers work that we've heard here are true - that buyers choose a site and stick with it rather than shopping around for each purchase to find their chosen image at the cheapest price."


The advantage, for me at least, is peace of mind.  I can't in good conscience support a company that refuses to support its contributors.

+1 Well said.

+1

A very good reminder.  Documentation is mounting, and eventually something is going to give that will expose what's really going on at IS.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: fujiko on January 09, 2012, 02:48
'Sales & performance' analogy fails completely for one thing.

How can performance be measured properly when one big factor of it is the search engine and there are serious doubts that it works at all? Good performers are almost hand picked at this point with so many best mast shifts.

They are also pissing a lot of 'sales people' in the way, 'sales people' that helped build the company from scratch and sure have contacts they will take with them when they leave.

And last thing, contributors are not sales people, Istock is the salesman here. It's istock the one that has to prove it's performance to the contributor year after year.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: ShadySue on January 09, 2012, 06:00
Plus, never let it be forgotten that they made various promises, in particular that people would be 'grandfathered in' at their next level, extending that promise to those who became exclusive within a certain timeframe, then broke the promise.
I don't see how they can hope to attract new, outstanding talent with a record of breaking very serious promises.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: StockCube on January 09, 2012, 07:42
It is really very simple. iStock is being fattened up for sale.  Whether that is being done successfully or not, we are not privvy to as we don't see their income figures.  Everyone who works there knows it is being sold and has an appropriately short term mentality and approach. iStock was screwed from the moment Bruce Livingstone decided to sell it.  No good ever comes from making decisions based on purely how much money you will make and the great shame is that those sort of values have been imposed upon a company that once strived for fairness, inclusion, employee and contributor reward and having fun over a drive for pure profit alone.  Someone in here recently posted a copy of a current iStock staff recruitment ad, telling of an in-house masseur for those stiff shoulders, subsidised courses and time off to take them, a groovy canteen full of cool arcade games etc.  It sounded like the sort of place we would all like to work at and many of us once thought that in some small way, we did.

It is a shame, but it has happened and it cannot be reversed.   Time to move on - my energies are far better focussed on agencies that are going to be around and will be big players in five years time.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: Tomboy2290 on January 09, 2012, 18:16
The lower IS sales get the easier it will be for indies to just give up on them completely.

Very true!  And I'm one of those indies.  I've been slowing deactivating images, but at this point I might as well just drop IS altogether.  Used to be I had regular 20-sales days...now I have regular zero-sales days.   

+ 1
Exact same story here
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: mtilghma on January 09, 2012, 18:45
Sorry if there has been a response similar to this, but I read this and felt the need to respond, and haven't read the rest yet.

Quote
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?

I get that that was their thinking, and I get that it does make SOME sense.  Really, I do get it, and you won't find me with any iStock voodoo dolls.

But really, I think there's another type of very valuable contributor that got screwed, like me.  The high-performing-files but low-amount-of-files type of contributor.  By the time I reached 10k downloads, it had been about 5 years and I had about 300 files.  Thats a download per file per day of about 0.02, which is pretty good.  Not the word's greatest, but by no means shabby at all.  If you're not familiar with ballpark figures, istock provides enough data for you to calculate it yourself, using some famous names you know, if you want.

What's my point?  My point is that, while I'm certainly not as "valuable" as the big names, I'm no more deserving of a royalty reduction, because although I earn less money, they'd also be saving less money by slashing my royalties.  It's very simple.  Like gostwyk keeps saying, we are all equally valuable per download, which is at the heart of what I mean.  But it goes even further... what do we cost istock? Server/storage space, time (reviewing), and advertising.  When factoring in these admittedly secondary factors, high-performing-files but low-amount-of-files type of contributor are even more valuable "per download".  

If RC targets were per file, I'd have done just fine.  Even if I didn't do just fine, I wouldnt have felt that their move was unfair.  Instead, it felt like a move that had nothing to do with true performance/cost analysis, but rather a way to screw contributors while keeping the biggest names relatively happy.  I'm sorry, but 20 of this type of contributor are at LEAST as valuable as an image factory, and far more than that have dropped the crown as a result.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: lisafx on January 10, 2012, 16:31
Thanks a lot to everyone who has posted useful info in this thread.  Cathy, JoAnn, and Christian, I know we have talked privately about this but I also appreciate your participating in a public discussion about it. 
...  JoAnn, I'll bring the tea if you bring the cookies :)

I'm up for cookies any time, but I don't know about you bringing the tea :) I drink masses of it, and buy British tea bags - nearly as much caffeine as coffee!

Although if sales keep plummeting, I think it should be something much stronger to drink...

LOL!  Good point.  You bring the tea, I'll bring the bourbon ;D
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: lisafx on January 10, 2012, 16:54
Really interesting thread.  Thanks to everyone who has posted about their sales post leaving Istock.  Sounds like there IS life after Istock, for those brave enough to try it.  :)

@Bridget (Stockcube), you have been great about sharing your post-exclusive experiences.  Your blog is great reading.  I recommend it to people all the time :)
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: StockCube on January 10, 2012, 17:10
Aw, thanks Lisa, that reminds me, I must update it....
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: wut on January 10, 2012, 17:58
Really interesting thread.  Thanks to everyone who has posted about their sales post leaving Istock.  Sounds like there IS life after Istock, for those brave enough to try it.  :)

I always thought you were a brave gal ;)

So what it's going to be after so many posts and opinions? Are you any closer to pulling the plug?
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: lisafx on January 10, 2012, 18:18
Really interesting thread.  Thanks to everyone who has posted about their sales post leaving Istock.  Sounds like there IS life after Istock, for those brave enough to try it.  :)

I always thought you were a brave gal ;)

So what it's going to be after so many posts and opinions? Are you any closer to pulling the plug?

You must have me confused with someone else.  I am a big chicken! 

In my original post I stated that I can foresee a time when I would not be making enough at Istock to be worth sticking around.  Things at IS haven't reached that point yet, but the way they are going, it's something I have to consider, and it seems others are giving it some thought too. 

Meanwhile, I'm going to hold off uploading any new content until after it's been on SS and the rest for awhile, to give them an advantage over TS.  Beyond that, it's wait-and-see. 
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: wut on January 10, 2012, 18:41
Meanwhile, I'm going to hold off uploading any new content until after it's been on SS and the rest for awhile, to give them an advantage over TS.  Beyond that, it's wait-and-see. 

I'll do exactly that with my 100 photos that I'm going to submit during this month (I still have to pp and keyword 20 or so). And it feels pretty good :) . I actually don't know when I'll submit to IS again, I'll wait until this best match mess gets back to normal and then I'll wait for a couple of weeks just to see if it was just a trick to lure us back in (to fill PP sites more than anything). Because they could return it for a week so that everybody who was holding off ULing, dumps all of their accumulated stuff on IS
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: Wim on January 11, 2012, 05:34
This is something I've been struggling with for the last couple of weeks now.
Does TS bite in SS sales? if so then I would immediately remove my SS best Sellers from IS.
SS triples my IS income and I doubt this will change anytime soon.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: wut on January 11, 2012, 05:45
This is something I've been struggling with for the last couple of weeks now.
Does TS bite in SS sales? if so then I would immediately remove my SS best Sellers from IS.
SS triples my IS income and I doubt this will change anytime soon.

I think any subs based site sites into SS sales. The more the traffic they have, the more market share they take from them. Ans TS is growing fast with all the tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of images they transfer every month. My port for example is already fully transferred over there, I kept many out of PP before that and I was about to remove all files from PP, because I too didn't want to jeopardize IS and also SS sales.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: WarrenPrice on January 11, 2012, 09:28
I've started doing what Lisa recommended -- not uploading files to iS that I have accepted at SS.  That should give me some idea of how much effect TS has on SS sales.  Maybe?   ???
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: pro@stockphotos on January 11, 2012, 10:06
This is something I've been struggling with for the last couple of weeks now.
Does TS bite in SS sales? if so then I would immediately remove my SS best Sellers from IS.
SS triples my IS income and I doubt this will change anytime soon.

This what I have said over the last couple of months.  I was promptly told that price was not the defining issue to buyers.  That even though you were distributing your photos online to sites that were selling the exact photos at different price points the buyers were going to equally choose between expensive price points ( istock, dreamstime, etc.)  and the cheap sites like SS.   I found this wishful thinking as when I looked for some top selling indies on istock at the SS and even bigstock they were basically in the same position of the best match.  The only difference was they were even easier to find since there weren't any istock exclusives in the mix.  Lets see BMW is selling its M3 at its company owned dealership for $69,000 and down the street the non-BMW car shack has the exact M3 for $4600 ( actually difference between cost of IS and SS for same photo at the  large file size for a independent file).  But I love the lattes at BMW.  so I will pay the higher price. 
   Getty has seen this price war before.  So now instead of getting thumped by a low price site they are keeping SS in check by creating their own SS.  This will keep SS from raising prices to compete with Istock.  Without exclusive content SS is stuck in the low price model.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on January 11, 2012, 10:34
If you look at the example here (http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/istock-to-thinkstock/msg237127/#msg237127), Getty apparently thinks it can sell the same image at $10 - $350 via its own site verus subscription or $20 (image pack) via Thinkstock.  This is two BMW dealers a few blocks apart selling for $70,000 or $4,000 (again using the ratio of actual prices from Getty and TS image packs).
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: xst on January 11, 2012, 15:09
Good idea.
I've gone the same root for FT when they changed their subs plan last time.
And I'm going to do the same for IS.

Lisa,

What are your thoughts about appropriate delay time?
I was thinking about 6-9 months.
Meanwhile, I'm going to hold off uploading any new content until after it's been on SS and the rest for awhile, to give them an advantage over TS.  Beyond that, it's wait-and-see. 
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: lisafx on January 11, 2012, 15:41
Good idea.
I've gone the same root for FT when they changed their subs plan last time.
And I'm going to do the same for IS.

Lisa,

What are your thoughts about appropriate delay time?
I was thinking about 6-9 months.


I was thinking a couple of months, but maybe as long as 6 months.  Not sure 9 months would provide any additional gain.  Really hard to say for sure.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: WarrenPrice on January 11, 2012, 15:46
Good idea.
I've gone the same root for FT when they changed their subs plan last time.
And I'm going to do the same for IS.

Lisa,

What are your thoughts about appropriate delay time?
I was thinking about 6-9 months.
Meanwhile, I'm going to hold off uploading any new content until after it's been on SS and the rest for awhile, to give them an advantage over TS.  Beyond that, it's wait-and-see. 

This theory and several mentions of SS offering Exclusive Bennies got me to thinking (That Ain't Good  ;D ).  Why not upload ONLY to SS for a period of time.  See what effect that might have?  Could it result in more OD and EL downloads?

Might give it a try?
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: Karimala on January 11, 2012, 15:58
Good idea.
I've gone the same root for FT when they changed their subs plan last time.
And I'm going to do the same for IS.

Lisa,

What are your thoughts about appropriate delay time?
I was thinking about 6-9 months.
Meanwhile, I'm going to hold off uploading any new content until after it's been on SS and the rest for awhile, to give them an advantage over TS.  Beyond that, it's wait-and-see.  

This theory and several mentions of SS offering Exclusive Bennies got me to thinking (That Ain't Good  ;D ).  Why not upload ONLY to SS for a period of time.  See what effect that might have?  Could it result in more OD and EL downloads?

Might give it a try?

That's exactly what I've been doing the past two years.  Only uploading to SS (with a pipeline to BigStock), DT and Mostphotos (for archiving purposes).  My new images are selling much better than they had been when I was uploading everywhere.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: xst on January 11, 2012, 16:42
Also,

I've just noticed - number of under .20c downloads on IS is too high last week for me
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: Artemis on January 11, 2012, 17:50
Although i swore to myself not to get worked up about them anymore, i failed at it, again...
One of my leftover files there got a 125 credit EL (items for resale), of which i got $10.33... (2nd time this happens). I really rather didnt have an EL at all if this is what i get.  >:(
(i post it here because its another step towards pulling my port entirely... and i needed a place to vent)
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: Elenathewise on January 11, 2012, 22:33
Hey Lisa, I just went though my last 300 new files accepted on Istock, and you know what just a sad handful of them sold, and most of them for ridiculous money like 12 cents... ! the time spent uploading there is absolutely not worth it, not at this time.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: THP Creative on January 11, 2012, 22:46
The time it takes to upload to IS is crazy, and the returns as an Indie are very sad indeed.  My port there is very small in comparison to my overall port at other sites (about a 10th) but the lack of sales and the very low returns makes me very reluctant to add more to it. 

And thats not even to mention the terribly clunky website (and that fun site outage last month...)
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: lisafx on January 12, 2012, 12:35
Hey Lisa, I just went though my last 300 new files accepted on Istock, and you know what just a sad handful of them sold, and most of them for ridiculous money like 12 cents... ! the time spent uploading there is absolutely not worth it, not at this time.

Thanks a lot for this info Elena.  :)

I haven't uploaded anything since September, so I didn't have any basis for comparison. With the popularity of your work, if your new uploads aren't selling at IS then there's not much chance for any indies at the moment. 
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: wut on January 12, 2012, 12:49
SS has sold today 2/3 of what IS sold from the beginning of this year and no, I didn't get any ELs today. I think it says it all. IS is done with indies. I'm not even thinking about uploading anymore.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: luissantos84 on January 12, 2012, 13:13
SS has sold today 2/3 of what IS sold from the beginning of this year and no, I didn't get any ELs today. I think it says it all. IS is done with indies. I'm not even thinking about uploading anymore.

small player here but I am with 30$ at IS and 175$ at SS (no EL)

last week uploads at IS, have 2 sales from 2 new fies (1.8$ and 3.6$)
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: jamirae on January 12, 2012, 14:50
Well for whatever it's worth, I wont' be pulling my portfolio from istock.  I'll defnitely not be uploading as quickly there and like the idea that Lisa and others have mentioned about waiting until files have been on the other sites for 3-6 months before putting them istock. 

while I'm making pennies now there at istock a lot of my portfolio I can't sell elsewhere because they were images taken at an istock sponsored minilypse event, so essentially they are exclusive to istock.  These, of course, I've opted in to the Photos+ so that I can at least try to get a little more money from them. 

As most of you know I've not yet put my entire portfolio (less the minilypse images, of course) on the other sites since dropping my exclusivity last year. However my top goal this year is to do exactly that.  i'm already seeing strong sales at DT and SS while IS continues to give me pennies. 

I don't know if this is completely on topic but just thought I'd add it since many indies may not realize that some images on istock are contractually obligated to stay exclusive to IS. (although without any exclusive bonus).
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: lisafx on January 12, 2012, 16:55
Very good point Jami. I hadn't thought about that aspect of dropping exclusivity.  Did you have to sign a contract promising to keep lypse images exclusive to Istock?  If so, I would think you should be paid exclusive royalties on them. 
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: Pixart on January 12, 2012, 17:41
SS has sold today 2/3 of what IS sold from the beginning of this year and no, I didn't get any ELs today. I think it says it all. IS is done with indies. I'm not even thinking about uploading anymore.

LOL, I just said the same thing in another thread.  Sold more per day at SS lately than I've made at IS - OR FT all month, although it looks like FT sold quite a few subs today (always subs) so they are starting to look a wee bit better.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: ShadySue on January 12, 2012, 17:42
Very good point Jami. I hadn't thought about that aspect of dropping exclusivity.  Did you have to sign a contract promising to keep lypse images exclusive to Istock?  If so, I would think you should be paid exclusive royalties on them. 
You do have to sign a contract, even at a supported minilypse, but of course the contract is only a restriction for participants.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: traveler1116 on January 12, 2012, 18:20
Very good point Jami. I hadn't thought about that aspect of dropping exclusivity.  Did you have to sign a contract promising to keep lypse images exclusive to Istock?  If so, I would think you should be paid exclusive royalties on them. 
Does SS still do the redcarpet program?  I remember they had an exclusivity clause for images they helped you get, which I would guess is the same idea with the lypse images.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: lisafx on January 12, 2012, 18:23
Very good point Jami. I hadn't thought about that aspect of dropping exclusivity.  Did you have to sign a contract promising to keep lypse images exclusive to Istock?  If so, I would think you should be paid exclusive royalties on them. 
You do have to sign a contract, even at a supported minilypse, but of course the contract is only a restriction for participants.

Wow.  Sorry you are losing out on all the money you should be making on those files :(

Does SS still do the redcarpet program?  I remember they had an exclusivity clause for images they helped you get, which I would guess is the same idea with the lypse images.

True enough, but the exclusive vs. non-exclusive royalty issue isn't a factor at SS.  Everyone is non-exclusive.    And SS doesn't charge anyone for those redcarpet passes.  As an independent, I have never been to a lypse, but I was under the impression they charged for them.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: traveler1116 on January 12, 2012, 18:26
They are different things but for the minilypses IS doesn't charge, the organizers (contributors) put a price on them to cover costs of studio space, models, muas, etc..  The regular lypses are sometimes free I think although the one I went to in London was not free.  I only attended one of the minilypses but other than t-shirts I'm not sure what part IS played in it, unless they offer more than that I won't be attending a minilypse especially when you can do the same thing by just meeting up with a few people and do it on your own if you want.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on January 12, 2012, 18:28
At the HQ 'lypse in 2009 I signed an agreement that I would only sell the 'lypse images at iStock. That was an official 'lypse and was not free.

In Tokyo (last year? two ago?) I believe there was a fuss because they tried to say that any images you shot on your own - i.e. out in the evening or on a day before or after the lypse - had to be exclusive to iStock too. That seemed totally insane given that they weren't paying for anyones' travel or expenses. Don't know how that came out.

I get P+ royalties on most the 'lypse images, but there's nothing in the agreement you sign about keeping the higher exclusive prices (it does mention the requirement to keep those images on iStock even if you leave exclusivity.

My thinking was that if iStock went out of business I could sell them wherever I liked, but otherwise I'll adhere to the deal I agreed to.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: lisafx on January 12, 2012, 18:40
They are different things but for the minilypses IS doesn't charge, the organizers (contributors) put a price on them to cover costs of studio space, models, muas, etc..  The regular lypses are sometimes free I think although the one I went to in London was not free.  I only attended one of the minilypses but other than t-shirts I'm not sure what part IS played in it, unless they offer more than that I won't be attending a minilypse especially when you can do the same thing by just meeting up with a few people and do it on your own if you want.

Thanks for the clarification.  Makes sense.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: gostwyck on January 12, 2012, 20:03
.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: jamirae on January 13, 2012, 13:59
They are different things but for the minilypses IS doesn't charge, the organizers (contributors) put a price on them to cover costs of studio space, models, muas, etc..  The regular lypses are sometimes free I think although the one I went to in London was not free.  I only attended one of the minilypses but other than t-shirts I'm not sure what part IS played in it, unless they offer more than that I won't be attending a minilypse especially when you can do the same thing by just meeting up with a few people and do it on your own if you want.

Thanks for the clarification.  Makes sense.

okay.. for those who've never been involved in a minilypse, thought I'd add a bit more details based on my own experience.  I have helped organized 5 or 6 of them, one of which I was the lead organizer.  For each one istock supplied "swag" which varied, but included things like t-shirts, lanyards, mousepads, and a handy lens cleaning cloth (the one thing I still use all the time :) ).  The first one was in 2006 (Desert'lypse in Phoenix) and iStock provided some funding along with the swag.  We didn't have official minilypse forms back then (model releases and photographer release form) from what I recall as the program was still early in its infancy.  The lead organizer was Emyerson (Ethan - now an istock admin and moderator, but he wasn't all that back then :) ). The next year I helped out with RedRock 1 in Utah and they also got some funding from iStock to help with fees (location fees, paying models, etc).  We also paid to attend as well.  oh, and iStock now had some streamlined forms - releases- for us to use that helped out a lot.

Then in the fall of 2007 I organized the 2nd Desert'lypse in Phoenix.  When I contacted iStock about financial assistance and sponsoring the event, they told me that they were no longer funding minilypses but would be coming out with a whole new program for these events.  However, because I had contacted them at the beginning of the year when I was planning the event and they said they would provide funding, I did end up getting a small amount that helped to pay for the costs involved.  Attendees also paid but I think i ended up shilling out an additional $300 out of my pocket to cover models and location costs.  

So as far as I know iStock may still provide some swag, but the last one I attended in November 2010, I dont think we got much (if any) swag from iStock and I dont think there was any funding provided from them either.  We created our own t-shirts through Cafepress for most of the ones I helped with.  Really, all the work is done by the organizers - all photographers/contributors and iStock makes it easy with the forms and quick approval of the releases.  

I would say that those events were all worth it to me, i learned a lot and most importantly got to know so many other stock contributors to share ideas with and just chat.  Now, though, I have a shooting buddy here in town and we get together about once a quarter and plan a shoot with models and a specific theme/location.  it's about the same as a half day at a minilypse but less photographers and the chaos involved with such a big event.  :)
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: jamirae on January 13, 2012, 14:07
oh.. and now I see the finally came out with the new minilypse program that they told me they were working on back in 2007: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=339193&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=339193&page=1)

so apparently now they offer funding and even more assistance.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: djpadavona on January 13, 2012, 14:31
I left Exclusivity for obvious reasons in September 2010, and ceased uploads. I have not pulled my portfolio, but I am becoming more inclined to do so. I make 2x more money at Dreamstime than iStock, with 2x more uploads at iStock. Last I checked iStock was down to about 7% of my photo earnings. Sales are so slow these days that I they are one of the last sites that I think to check.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: lisafx on January 13, 2012, 17:20
Great info on lypses Jami.  For the ones where they provide all that assistance and swag it makes sense to insist on exclusivity.  For the more recent ones where they didn't provide any assistance it seems a lot to ask. 
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: jamirae on January 13, 2012, 18:06
Great info on lypses Jami.  For the ones where they provide all that assistance and swag it makes sense to insist on exclusivity.  For the more recent ones where they didn't provide any assistance it seems a lot to ask. 

true, but most attendees are exclusive anyway.  back when I was attending these I didn't think twice about it because I always expected to be exclusive there.  My how things have changed.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: lisafx on January 13, 2012, 18:13
My how things have changed.

So true.  I don't think (m)any of us could have anticipated how much. 
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: jamirae on January 13, 2012, 18:56
My how things have changed.

So true.  I don't think (m)any of us could have anticipated how much. 

you got that right!
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: gostwyck on January 13, 2012, 19:27
My how things have changed.

So true.  I don't think (m)any of us could have anticipated how much. 

you got that right!

I suspect you ain't seen nothing yet. A lot is going to change in the next couple of years, possibly quite a bit sooner. I don't mean just at Istock either. Think about what's happening and how the various agencies will react.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: LesHoward on January 13, 2012, 19:45
oh.. and now I see the finally came out with the new minilypse program that they told me they were working on back in 2007: [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=339193&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=339193&page=1[/url])

so apparently now they offer funding and even more assistance.


I read over all the information about the 'new' minilypse program a few days ago. Frankly, I didn't see how much different it is from the old program except perhaps to try to add some visibility to an almost dead program by starting a "sis - boom - bah" thread. Nobody had announced any new minilypses in months except for the two super-minilypses iStock themselves put on. There wasn't even a 2011 Toronto or a 2011 RedRock minilypse two events that had been held annually for years. I guess the cheerleading worked. Since the January 5 announcement three new lypses have been proposed (Switzerland, Sacramento & Minneapolis) and interest has been revived in two others (Orlando & South Africa).

In particular, I didn't see where they offered any financial assistance. Basically all they ever did was offer swag in return for exclusive photos. That doesn't appear to have changed.

Or did I miss something?
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: wut on January 13, 2012, 20:04
I suspect you ain't seen nothing yet. A lot is going to change in the next couple of years, possibly quite a bit sooner. I don't mean just at Istock either. Think about what's happening and how the various agencies will react.

I'm quite interested in your scenario ;)
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: luissantos84 on January 13, 2012, 20:19
Think about what's happening and how the various agencies will react.

they will get more content, will be more powerful and even less dependent of contributors (how many files will be uploaded into them? that much? or the high quality? or new uploads everyday after?)

I really hope the "drop" of iStock will be good thing to all of us but don´t really think it would, not a big earner anywhere but I wonder how and where it will "drive" buyers, to subs at 28 cents (TS) or into SS (a lot higher, some months 2 times more than TS and the trend looks good)

are the IS buyers into subs? it was never the idea of iStock, are they ready to buy at TS/SS? (for sure I guess..)

like you said many times iStock still have a long run but what do you think it will happen in terms of prices and royalties?
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: lisafx on January 14, 2012, 15:40
I suspect you ain't seen nothing yet. A lot is going to change in the next couple of years, possibly quite a bit sooner. I don't mean just at Istock either. Think about what's happening and how the various agencies will react.

I'm quite interested in your scenario ;)

Me too.  Your crystal ball's better than most, Gostwyck.  Would love to hear your predictions... :)
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: jamirae on January 14, 2012, 17:02
oh.. and now I see the finally came out with the new minilypse program that they told me they were working on back in 2007: [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=339193&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=339193&page=1[/url])

so apparently now they offer funding and even more assistance.


I read over all the information about the 'new' minilypse program a few days ago. Frankly, I didn't see how much different it is from the old program except perhaps to try to add some visibility to an almost dead program by starting a "sis - boom - bah" thread. Nobody had announced any new minilypses in months except for the two super-minilypses iStock themselves put on. There wasn't even a 2011 Toronto or a 2011 RedRock minilypse two events that had been held annually for years. I guess the cheerleading worked. Since the January 5 announcement three new lypses have been proposed (Switzerland, Sacramento & Minneapolis) and interest has been revived in two others (Orlando & South Africa).

In particular, I didn't see where they offered any financial assistance. Basically all they ever did was offer swag in return for exclusive photos. That doesn't appear to have changed.

Or did I miss something?


actually the Sacramento one has been in early planning stages for a few months now - I only know this because I know the organizers and they contacted me offline regarding some of the details on running a 'lypse. 

and they do offer financial support.. under the "What's in it for me" heading - I bolded the part about financial support:

Quote
What you (the Organizer of a Minilypse) get:
- Step-by-Step guidance including access to planning resources including a Organizer's Guidebook with all sorts of papers and checklists and stuff like that.
- Access to technical and logistical resources at HQ to help plan
- Lighting and technical suggestions, setup diagrams and resources
- Creative briefs and regionally relevant shooting concepts
- Financial support to help cover event costs (hiring models, equipment rentals, facilities costs). This is based on the size of your event and the current state of our sponsorship budget.
- Custom suggestions for improving your event; such as potentially including workshops, live inspections or lighting discussions
- Glory and bragging rights when it's all done with


and I might add that none of those other things were offered previously (except maybe the last one)
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: WarrenPrice on January 15, 2012, 17:20
Good idea.
I've gone the same root for FT when they changed their subs plan last time.
And I'm going to do the same for IS.

Lisa,

What are your thoughts about appropriate delay time?
I was thinking about 6-9 months.
Meanwhile, I'm going to hold off uploading any new content until after it's been on SS and the rest for awhile, to give them an advantage over TS.  Beyond that, it's wait-and-see. 

This theory and several mentions of SS offering Exclusive Bennies got me to thinking (That Ain't Good  ;D ).  Why not upload ONLY to SS for a period of time.  See what effect that might have?  Could it result in more OD and EL downloads?

Might give it a try?

Thinking of an adjustment to the upload procedure ... Will submit images that are rejected by SS.  Strange but many of my SS rejects are accepted at iS.  If they want to relegate me to 28 cents ... okay. 
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: wut on January 15, 2012, 17:44
Good idea.
I've gone the same root for FT when they changed their subs plan last time.
And I'm going to do the same for IS.

Lisa,

What are your thoughts about appropriate delay time?
I was thinking about 6-9 months.
Meanwhile, I'm going to hold off uploading any new content until after it's been on SS and the rest for awhile, to give them an advantage over TS.  Beyond that, it's wait-and-see. 

This theory and several mentions of SS offering Exclusive Bennies got me to thinking (That Ain't Good  ;D ).  Why not upload ONLY to SS for a period of time.  See what effect that might have?  Could it result in more OD and EL downloads?

Might give it a try?

Thinking of an adjustment to the upload procedure ... Will submit images that are rejected by SS.  Strange but many of my SS rejects are accepted at iS.  If they want to relegate me to 28 cents ... okay. 

I'm not even uploading what SS considers as garbage to IS. Not if something spectacular happens over there. For now I'm leaving my port, but if sales will start dropping, I'm outta there
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: cuethesun on January 18, 2012, 10:24
Great info on lypses Jami.  For the ones where they provide all that assistance and swag it makes sense to insist on exclusivity.  For the more recent ones where they didn't provide any assistance it seems a lot to ask. 

true, but most attendees are exclusive anyway.  back when I was attending these I didn't think twice about it because I always expected to be exclusive there.  My how things have changed.

I've done three shoot events in AU. Only the 2nd one in Melbourne in 2010 was a mini-lypse. We got a box of swag and a subsidy of US$30/photographer regardless of them being indie or exclusive, but the images were exclusive to istock. The money was paid to me after the event had concluded.

As the organiser I had to be exclusive as well.

At the end of it, the feedback from indies was very clear. Not worth it to only be able to upload to one site. From an organiser pespective I also didn't feel it was worthwhile.

I think the key changes in the new program are mainly around logistical support (identifying content gaps and making sure the details are covered), and it seems as though funding support is a sliding scale ie: the more backing you get, the more IS will contributr (i hope it goes in that direction).

I've been sounding them out a bit on a shoot event in Peru in a few years but it means I'd have to go back to being exclusive to qualify for sponsorship. If it's only US$30/attendee it's probably not worth it (US$ aren't worth what they used to be either).
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on January 18, 2012, 10:45
Great info on lypses Jami.  For the ones where they provide all that assistance and swag it makes sense to insist on exclusivity.  For the more recent ones where they didn't provide any assistance it seems a lot to ask. 


http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=339193&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=339193&page=1)

Personally, I'm not sure why people are so into hosting these.  You give away a bunch of your good ideas, you flood a niche with content, devaluing all the efforts by individuals already with that content, and for the most part, you don't even get to shoot yourself, because you're so busy putting out fires.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: WarrenPrice on January 18, 2012, 10:51
Great info on lypses Jami.  For the ones where they provide all that assistance and swag it makes sense to insist on exclusivity.  For the more recent ones where they didn't provide any assistance it seems a lot to ask. 


[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=339193&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=339193&page=1[/url])

Personally, I'm not sure why people are so into hosting these.  You give away a bunch of your good ideas, you flood a niche with content, devaluing all the efforts by individuals already with that content, and for the most part, you don't even get to shoot yourself, because you're so busy putting out fires.


I've been curious because of the locations ... not hosting; just attending ... but it seems to be nothing more than a very expensive social event.   ??? ???
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: Karimala on January 18, 2012, 11:00
I've done three shoot events in AU. Only the 2nd one in Melbourne in 2010 was a mini-lypse. We got a box of swag and a subsidy of US$30/photographer regardless of them being indie or exclusive, but the images were exclusive to istock. The money was paid to me after the event had concluded.

As the organiser I had to be exclusive as well.

At the end of it, the feedback from indies was very clear. Not worth it to only be able to upload to one site. From an organiser pespective I also didn't feel it was worthwhile.

I think the key changes in the new program are mainly around logistical support (identifying content gaps and making sure the details are covered), and it seems as though funding support is a sliding scale ie: the more backing you get, the more IS will contributr (i hope it goes in that direction).

I've been sounding them out a bit on a shoot event in Peru in a few years but it means I'd have to go back to being exclusive to qualify for sponsorship. If it's only US$30/attendee it's probably not worth it (US$ aren't worth what they used to be either).

I've been to numerous photo shoot Meetups in Sacramento and met a lot of IS exclusives.  Can't tell you how many times one of them has gotten the "brilliant" idea to organize a minilypse and how many times I've told them I won't be coming, because of the image exclusivity.  It never seems to register...not until after they've done all the work and no one shows up.  Looks like the latest Sacto'lypse won't suffer the same fate, but...$425 to attend??  OUCH!!! 
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: cuethesun on January 18, 2012, 11:14

[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=339193&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=339193&page=1[/url])

Personally, I'm not sure why people are so into hosting these.  You give away a bunch of your good ideas, you flood a niche with content, devaluing all the efforts by individuals already with that content, and for the most part, you don't even get to shoot yourself, because you're so busy putting out fires.



I get a personal buzz out of seeing the images others create as a result of my efforts. At every event I've done I see people come up with images I'd never have thought of. I tend to leave the ideas to contributors tho - get them good locations, models, hair and makeup, wardrobe, let them do the rest. Some people really shine with this approach, others struggle.

On the flip side you're right. At the most recent shoot I put together I got to shoot for a total of 2hrs in a 3.5 day event. The rest of my time was taken up with trying to run the event and dealing with numerous issues as they arose. Afterwards I got accused of profiteering (when I actually sank a heap of my own money into it). Really demotivating.

In future I'm doing them as invite only.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: cuethesun on January 18, 2012, 11:21
I've been to numerous photo shoot Meetups in Sacramento and met a lot of IS exclusives.  Can't tell you how many times one of them has gotten the "brilliant" idea to organize a minilypse and how many times I've told them I won't be coming, because of the image exclusivity.  It never seems to register...not until after they've done all the work and no one shows up.  Looks like the latest Sacto'lypse won't suffer the same fate, but...$425 to attend??  OUCH!!! 

The ones I've done in AU have cost between $100 and $150 per day & that's with costs squeezed to the max. Keeping them to 1-2 days is important I think but if the images are exclusive to a single site, people cam't make that money back.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: cuethesun on January 18, 2012, 11:30
To circle back to the original post from Lisa, how have people gone on other sites with regards to model releases?

I have a lot of files on istock that aren't from lypses etc but I only have an istockphoto release for them. I hear Dreamstime are particular about only their releases being good enough, what about the others? Do they accept istock releases in lieu of their own?

Ben
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: Zephyr on January 18, 2012, 11:42
Stockcube gave me this link in another thread (thanks btw!)

http://www.arcurs.com/what-is-a-model-release (http://www.arcurs.com/what-is-a-model-release)
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: cuethesun on January 18, 2012, 12:03
Stockcube gave me this link in another thread (thanks btw!)

[url]http://www.arcurs.com/what-is-a-model-release[/url] ([url]http://www.arcurs.com/what-is-a-model-release[/url])


Yeah I've seen Yuri's generic release. That's not what I'm asking about as it onoy deals with future shoots.

I want to know if istock releases get accepted by the other agencies for shoots that have happened in the past where there's no option for getting a new release (or set thereof) done for migrating a folio.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on January 18, 2012, 12:43
...I want to know if istock releases get accepted by the other agencies for shoots that have happened in the past where there's no option for getting a new release (or set thereof) done for migrating a folio.


Have a look at this thread (http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/moving-backwards-with-istock/msg209751/#msg209751). DT is one agency that won't accept the iStock release as is. With some of the newer agencies, I don't know their stance.

Most of my released pictures are family and so I just did new universal releases (a mixture of Getty's standard and Yuri's). The only other images are restricted to iStock anyway - from the 2009 HQ 'lypse - so the issue is moot.

Possibly you could get DT to accept IS releases for a small subset of existing content via contacting support - it's possible that they might be able to do something as a one-off, even if they wouldn't accept those as a rule. Can't hurt to ask.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: disorderly on January 18, 2012, 13:13
Doesn't help with old releases, but I've been able to get the iStock release accepted at Dreamstime and every other site to which I contribute with a small change to the language of the release.  I used Adobe Illustrator to change
Quote
I agree that this release is irrevocable, worldwide and perpetual, and will be governed by the laws (excluding the law of conflicts) of the country/state from the following list that is nearest to the address of the Model (or Parent*) given opposite: New York, Alberta, England, Australia and New Zealand.

to
Quote
I agree that this release is irrevocable, worldwide and perpetual, and will be governed by the laws (excluding the law of conflicts) of the United States of America.

Someone, I can't recall who, identified this as the language that Dreamstime found objectionable.

I can make copies of my modified release available to anyone who wants one.
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: cuethesun on January 18, 2012, 17:32
Thanks Joan and Hank - I'll give the modified release a crack.

I favourited both posts but can't seem to give you an influence rating yet because I'm too new?

Ben
Title: Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
Post by: jamirae on January 18, 2012, 18:54
Great info on lypses Jami.  For the ones where they provide all that assistance and swag it makes sense to insist on exclusivity.  For the more recent ones where they didn't provide any assistance it seems a lot to ask. 


[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=339193&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=339193&page=1[/url])

Personally, I'm not sure why people are so into hosting these.  You give away a bunch of your good ideas, you flood a niche with content, devaluing all the efforts by individuals already with that content, and for the most part, you don't even get to shoot yourself, because you're so busy putting out fires.


I've been curious because of the locations ... not hosting; just attending ... but it seems to be nothing more than a very expensive social event.   ??? ???


in some cases they can end up being just that, however, I would say that I got a lot of value out of attending and hosting.  yes, we had same models, same locations, but the models get rotated at locations so, for instance the models I had at a barn shoot were different for my group then for the previous group that rotated in when I rotated to the next location out behind the barn at the chicken coop.  And while sometimes you have a same concept, I see a lot of different ideas from different photographers in the same and different groups.  And it's a teamwork approach where you help each other out and build on ideas.  That's what I got out of it.   

I must admit at some of the 'lypses I attended there was a bit of drama but you need to expect that when you have so many different personalities in one place.  That's why if you decide to attend one, pick one that has a low number of attendee spots (like 12 or less).  There are some rules also that are provided in advance.  things like "No shooting over another photographer's shoulder" and "if you see someone else with an idea, don't steal it"  Golden Rule stuff ("do unto others as you'd have done unto you") that we all should have learned in Kindergarten but often need to be reminded of now that we are 'grown up.'  :)  For the most part a good organizer will cover these and the attendees will honor the 'rules.' 

As for making your money back.. I can say that I DID earn back what I spent on some of the minilypses (about half of the ones I attended) from the images I took at the specific lypse.  Mostly it was the RedRock 'lypses that AJ Rich (aka RichVintage) hosted.  He is also the one who  wrote the article that is referred to in the new minilypse guidelines.  AJ knows how to run a 'lypse, knows how to get great locations and models and is an all around class act.