MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Getty e-mail about iStock "Contributor Facing Changes"  (Read 31690 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #150 on: July 18, 2016, 09:19 »
+3
Getty has never allowed you to remove an image unless it is for the same reasons they have posted for removal from Istock. Hmmmm, come to think of it most of the macros operate the same way ever since I can remember. At least the ones I have dealt with did not allow you to remove anything on a bipolar whim which seems to be common place in the microstock world.

Alamy may not count in your definition of macro, but their 6 month wait is a very different thing from what Getty is looking to impose. Alamy just makes you wait to delete so customers can complete their cycle of transactions, but you don't have to justify what you're doing to them.

Alamy's restrictions (given their business model) seem very reasonable and a good balance of customer and contributor interests. Getty's are one-sided and unreasonable, especially given the much lower royalty rates they offer contributors.

Jo Ann,  I agree with you. Alamy's terms for removal are sweet and make total sense. I have been shooting stock for way too long, and I honestly don't feel the doom and gloom on having a image locked in as I have become accustomed to it with the macros for years so it's not a big surprise to me. In my view, the micros are full of amateur behaving photographers that take this business personally and pull what they want when they want and more often than not in a herd mentality based on what a select few say on a forum like this one. Not a way to run a business in my view. Also with keywords, do it once and do it right then you don't have to keep going back and changing them.

As much as I don't like Getty Images I also think they are doing the right thing here as they have clearly mentioned why in their correspondence and on their forums. (granted I would prefer if they did the Alamy model, but they don't)

On the other hand, if they start to mess with things such as suddenly dropping royalties, then in my view that would warrant a complete closing of the account, not just withdrawal of images.

For me stock photography is really no different from the stock market. You can keep buying and selling on the flavor of the day which does lead to a few people getting rich and most losing their shirts, or you can just buy good old boring index dividend funds and wait it out, and more often then not come out ahead in the long run.

I prefer to create some work, place it where I choose be it macro or micro, then forget about it and move on. Over the years it has worked out just like a really good dividend fund.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2016, 09:23 by Rose Tinted Glasses »


« Reply #151 on: July 18, 2016, 09:42 »
+13
This definitely seems like the lead-up to the release of iStock September Self-Destruct v3.0, as they drop everybody's royalty rates to the flat Getty 20%.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2016, 09:57 by PixBoxx »

B8

« Reply #152 on: July 18, 2016, 09:50 »
0
This definitely seems like the lead-up to a iStock September Self-Destruct v3.0 as they drop everybody's royalty rates to the flat Getty 20%.

Agreed, but the part I can't work out though is how they are going to justify only paying people 20% when all the other micros are paying much higher.

Also, there will be this mass exodus of Exclusives when that happens, as there will be no economic benefit to being exclusive anymore. But maybe that is no longer a relevant concern to them either.

I can see paying Getty content creators 20% when the average download price is over $50 a pop. But when people are now paying mostly subs rates for a download on iStock, and you cut the royalty rate in half for exclusives, it leaves you with a royalty of only a few cents on a download.

Then again, Shutterstock only pays you on average $0.33 on a download too. So I guess it wouldn't be much different. But at least the volume of downloads on a file on Shutterstock is many multiples of what it is on iStock.

« Reply #153 on: July 18, 2016, 10:09 »
+6
This definitely seems like the lead-up to a iStock September Self-Destruct v3.0 as they drop everybody's royalty rates to the flat Getty 20%.

Agreed, but the part I can't work out though is how they are going to justify only paying people 20% when all the other micros are paying much higher.

Also, there will be this mass exodus of Exclusives when that happens, as there will be no economic benefit to being exclusive anymore. But maybe that is no longer a relevant concern to them either.

I can see paying Getty content creators 20% when the average download price is over $50 a pop. But when people are now paying mostly subs rates for a download on iStock, and you cut the royalty rate in half for exclusives, it leaves you with a royalty of only a few cents on a download.

Then again, Shutterstock only pays you on average $0.33 on a download too. So I guess it wouldn't be much different. But at least the volume of downloads on a file on Shutterstock is many multiples of what it is on iStock.

I don't think they have the critical thinking skills to foresee the cause and effect of anything they do to screw themselves. History has already proven that. They have already dropped self destruct bombs twice during the month of September in the past, which resulted in massive losses of revenue, etc. So this is going to be no different come September when they drop another self destruct bomb and end up screwing everyone and themselves yet again.

I also think Getty is at a point where they don't care as much about what actually happens to iStock sales. They seem more focused on wanting to simply absorb it into the Getty system and standardize all their sites under one brand/business model.

So I think when they do drop everyone to 20%, you get this mass exodus of Exclusives, and they are only left with perhaps 1/3 of their contributors who are even willing to continue to upload to the site for such low payouts, they just wont care. As long as the buyers keep buying that is all they are focused on. They have enough content now under the Getty umbrella that they probably feel they can just sail this ship with its slow, rotting leak until it just finally sinks completely and they have to file for bankruptcy reorganization.

I think we as contributors, who are emotionally attached to the health of a site where we upload our content to like iStock, focus too much on trying to see the logic in all the mistakes they make. Maybe they don't even see these loses of revenue and good will as being mistakes, but the path of consolidating and absorbing their smaller brands into a bigger, and more significant machine.

But if you said "Hey Getty, How's That Business Approach Been Workin' For Ya So Far?" I think the answer lies clearly in all the red on their balance sheets.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2016, 10:13 by PixBoxx »

« Reply #154 on: July 18, 2016, 11:45 »
+8
This definitely seems like the lead-up to the release of iStock September Self-Destruct v3.0, as they drop everybody's royalty rates to the flat Getty 20%.

Now that would be an improvement on the crappy 15% they give to none exclusives
with no chance of making it to the 16% threshold

« Reply #155 on: July 18, 2016, 11:45 »
+1
This definitely seems like the lead-up to a iStock September Self-Destruct v3.0 as they drop everybody's royalty rates to the flat Getty 20%.

Agreed, but the part I can't work out though is how they are going to justify only paying people 20% when all the other micros are paying much higher.

Also, there will be this mass exodus of Exclusives when that happens, as there will be no economic benefit to being exclusive anymore. But maybe that is no longer a relevant concern to them either.

I can see paying Getty content creators 20% when the average download price is over $50 a pop. But when people are now paying mostly subs rates for a download on iStock, and you cut the royalty rate in half for exclusives, it leaves you with a royalty of only a few cents on a download.

Then again, Shutterstock only pays you on average $0.33 on a download too. So I guess it wouldn't be much different. But at least the volume of downloads on a file on Shutterstock is many multiples of what it is on iStock.

I don't think they have the critical thinking skills to foresee the cause and effect of anything they do to screw themselves. History has already proven that. They have already dropped self destruct bombs twice during the month of September in the past, which resulted in massive losses of revenue, etc. So this is going to be no different come September when they drop another self destruct bomb and end up screwing everyone and themselves yet again.

I also think Getty is at a point where they don't care as much about what actually happens to iStock sales. They seem more focused on wanting to simply absorb it into the Getty system and standardize all their sites under one brand/business model.

So I think when they do drop everyone to 20%, you get this mass exodus of Exclusives, and they are only left with perhaps 1/3 of their contributors who are even willing to continue to upload to the site for such low payouts, they just wont care. As long as the buyers keep buying that is all they are focused on. They have enough content now under the Getty umbrella that they probably feel they can just sail this ship with its slow, rotting leak until it just finally sinks completely and they have to file for bankruptcy reorganization.

I think we as contributors, who are emotionally attached to the health of a site where we upload our content to like iStock, focus too much on trying to see the logic in all the mistakes they make. Maybe they don't even see these loses of revenue and good will as being mistakes, but the path of consolidating and absorbing their smaller brands into a bigger, and more significant machine.

But if you said "Hey Getty, How's That Business Approach Been Workin' For Ya So Far?" I think the answer lies clearly in all the red on their balance sheets.

Great post....we all see this coming....it's up to everyone to act accordingly. It doesn't matter what they say.......their actions are much louder  In any case they still act under the moto " "money isn't going to be what makes you happy""......... ??? I wonder how many will have thrown their crowns by december 31th

« Reply #156 on: July 18, 2016, 12:34 »
+4
This definitely seems like the lead-up to the release of iStock September Self-Destruct v3.0, as they drop everybody's royalty rates to the flat Getty 20%.

Now that would be an improvement on the crappy 15% they give to none exclusives
with no chance of making it to the 16% threshold
I wouldn't count on that.  They could rather drop all non exclusive's royalties to 10%.    :-\
« Last Edit: July 18, 2016, 12:38 by Digital66 »

« Reply #157 on: July 18, 2016, 13:10 »
+6
I think the answer lies clearly in all the red on their balance sheets.
Getty has a HUGE DEBT...
Many years they have been squeezing iStock until the last drop of a juice, until it's dead.
Now they have no choice but to lock everybody in their cage before they die.  >:(

drd

« Reply #158 on: July 18, 2016, 13:55 »
+3
File deactivation seems to be locked at the moment. Has anyone else experienced the same?

« Reply #159 on: July 18, 2016, 14:06 »
+2
Im just trying it - and yep, it doesnt work. When I get to the screen where you need to put the deactivation reason and click on Deactivate file button - nothing happens! Is this a joke?  >:(

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #160 on: July 18, 2016, 14:07 »
0
Working fine here.

« Reply #161 on: July 18, 2016, 14:08 »
0
Didnt visit their site for a while...

So whats the procedure to delete files or if they dont let me to do that, then to close the account or whatever name they gave for that?

Thx

« Reply #162 on: July 18, 2016, 14:19 »
+4
This definitely seems like the lead-up to the release of iStock September Self-Destruct v3.0, as they drop everybody's royalty rates to the flat Getty 20%.

Now that would be an improvement on the crappy 15% they give to none exclusives
with no chance of making it to the 16% threshold

LOL.  I was thinking the same thing.  I'd love it if they would drop me to 20%.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #163 on: July 18, 2016, 14:29 »
0
Didnt visit their site for a while...

So whats the procedure to delete files or if they dont let me to do that, then to close the account or whatever name they gave for that?

Thx
Deactivate files one at a time via Manage File, or contact CR to close your account, as per your contract with them.

« Reply #164 on: July 18, 2016, 14:31 »
0
Didnt visit their site for a while...

So whats the procedure to delete files or if they dont let me to do that, then to close the account or whatever name they gave for that?

Thx
Deactivate files one at a time via Manage File, or contact CR to close your account, as per your contract with them.

Tnx  ;)

« Reply #165 on: July 18, 2016, 14:50 »
+1
Im just trying it - and yep, it doesnt work. When I get to the screen where you need to put the deactivation reason and click on Deactivate file button - nothing happens! Is this a joke?  >:(

agreed this has stopped working and only 700 to go

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #166 on: July 18, 2016, 15:02 »
+1
Working fine here.
Strange, I deactivated one after reading the previous post and it worked.
Now I tried another one and it didn't.
No message to say I couldn't do it; it just seemed to 'time out' without generating a time out message.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #167 on: July 18, 2016, 15:55 »
+1
Working again, at least once.
iSNAFU

PS, I read that uploading was 'iffy' during that period, so just a normal iSnafu, rather than a particular deactivating one.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2016, 16:58 by ShadySue »

« Reply #168 on: July 18, 2016, 16:06 »
+1
I have old version of DeepMeta, because i don't upload already long time. Started it to see the balance. Modal popup on start:
"Attention. Please note that keywords cannot be edited once the file has been uploaded. Please donwload the latest version of DeepMeta, v2.0.23, which is conform to this change".
And current version of DeepMeta delets only local copy of file, not at IS.

Always been that way for deletions with DM.

I think it's time to let what's there make a little money, see what changes. I won't be sending anything new. A little money was a view of the future at IS since they are already terrible and getting worse with this new version. RC, Royalty changes, who knows what prices will be, in a general way, this totally sucks.

« Reply #169 on: July 18, 2016, 16:53 »
+7
This definitely seems like the lead-up to the release of iStock September Self-Destruct v3.0, as they drop everybody's royalty rates to the flat Getty 20%.

I have been anticipating this for years. But wondered if they had the balls to do it. Lowering all exclusives to 20% will kill or greatly damage this segment for them. When they use the term "unification", it implies 20% for all...well, to me. I hope I am wrong but locking down accounts is an ominous sign.

« Reply #170 on: July 18, 2016, 17:02 »
0
File deactivation seems to be locked at the moment. Has anyone else experienced the same?
I was able to deactivate a few-at least that's what the site said....I will check later and make sure it sticks.  Lol.

« Reply #171 on: July 18, 2016, 18:02 »
+1
I deactivated all pending images last night - no problem, and several recently accepted images this morning - no problem. And just deactivated another with no problem.

« Reply #172 on: July 18, 2016, 19:45 »
+9
I deactivated all pending images last night - no problem, and several recently accepted images this morning - no problem. And just deactivated another with no problem.

I deactivated all my files yesterday afternoon also.  Sent them a request to cancel my exclusivity.
I've waited around a few years already and watched this ship sinking.  I'm swimming away now.

« Reply #173 on: July 18, 2016, 19:55 »
0
This definitely seems like the lead-up to the release of iStock September Self-Destruct v3.0, as they drop everybody's royalty rates to the flat Getty 20%.

Now that would be an improvement on the crappy 15% they give to none exclusives
with no chance of making it to the 16% threshold

Thanks for making that point. Seems like the conversation mixes exclusive vs indie and it  can get confusing. As a nonex I'd look forward to 20% flat rate. If I was Exc and happy, I'd be pissed off.

We won't know until IS drops the details but as usual, they miss that their greatist selling point is they have exclusive pictures. Everybody can get everything else from anyplace for the lowest price. Maybe not you or me, but most people prostitute their work to anyplace that will pay them pennies a download. Exclusive in IS don't.

Not changing keywords means the seo will be stable. I can undrestand why they would do that. Also stop people from spamming keywords and data after accepted. No more childs play, serious, what you have on upload is what youy get.

This is all looking like making the database stable instead of a mess that flows and changes all the time. No I don't like the nondelete, but I can see why.

If it means more money for me and more exposure on Getty I'm all for this. If it's just another way to put frosting on a Getty Turd Spinning deal, we've come to expect sugar coated BS from them. If it means they kill partners and TS I'll celebrate.

« Reply #174 on: July 18, 2016, 20:15 »
+5
I received a email from Istock today who said that the new system will still allow you to close your account with a 30-day notice.  You can also close parts of your account, videos, for example, and keep your stills if you want. 


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
1887 Views
Last post February 12, 2009, 17:55
by Gannet77
90 Replies
17807 Views
Last post March 22, 2010, 11:28
by stockastic
163 Replies
15421 Views
Last post April 08, 2013, 13:13
by alberto
1 Replies
798 Views
Last post September 25, 2015, 13:07
by Microstock Posts
0 Replies
400 Views
Last post July 02, 2017, 00:34
by Chichikov

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors