MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStock changing royalty structure  (Read 348552 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

« Reply #300 on: September 08, 2010, 11:35 »
0
I checked his port after reading his post, his images were still there when I looked.

Wow someone just posted on the iStock forum that their portfolio was being deleted just for speaking up on the forum

Here's the post with a copy and paste

"cr8tivguy
cr8tivguy
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo, Flash and Illustration downloads in the past 0 months Exclusive
Posted 7 mins ago

Quote
   
WOW ISTOCK IS REMOVING MY IMAGES FOR SPEAKING UP HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!"


« Reply #301 on: September 08, 2010, 11:43 »
0
Photoshow on the SS forum:
Quote
Well I see my portfolio not being there much longer. At those royalty rates having my port there will only canabalize my sales elsewhere on better paying agencies

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #302 on: September 08, 2010, 11:45 »
0
I checked his port after reading his post, his images were still there when I looked.

Wow someone just posted on the iStock forum that their portfolio was being deleted just for speaking up on the forum

Here's the post with a copy and paste

"cr8tivguy
cr8tivguy
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo, Flash and Illustration downloads in the past 0 months Exclusive
Posted 7 mins ago

Quote
   
WOW ISTOCK IS REMOVING MY IMAGES FOR SPEAKING UP HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Guess he was being sarcastic with the statement

« Reply #303 on: September 08, 2010, 11:45 »
0
As an independent, I accepted a low percentage from iStock because they could deliver a significant amount of income.  They were my best earner for a while, dropping to 2nd place in large part because their low upload quota let me build much bigger portfolios elsewhere.  Last month they slipped to 3rd.  That may be a fluke or maybe the start of a trend.  But they don't exactly hold a lot of my loyalty, and they have a lot less today.  If I were exclusive I'd be pissed, and I'd have given my 30 days notice already.

RacePhoto

« Reply #304 on: September 08, 2010, 11:58 »
0
I think you guessed right. :D

http://tinyurl.com/34xy6ck

Still there.


I checked his port after reading his post, his images were still there when I looked.

Wow someone just posted on the iStock forum that their portfolio was being deleted just for speaking up on the forum

Here's the post with a copy and paste

"cr8tivguy
cr8tivguy
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo, Flash and Illustration downloads in the past 0 months Exclusive
Posted 7 mins ago

Quote
   
WOW ISTOCK IS REMOVING MY IMAGES FOR SPEAKING UP HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!"



Guess he was being sarcastic with the statement

« Reply #305 on: September 08, 2010, 12:15 »
0
The various views here make an interesting mosaic. Unfortunately we are a bit culprit of sites doing what they do, because in the end we (or most of us) always accept the changes, and accepted IS low commission from the start.

But I think nobody ever expected IS to set the photographers' commission ever lower than 20%.  Even if we have an increase in sales, 20% was already a shame.

All this talk about "accepting" or "not accepting" rates makes little sense to me. The only way to reject what they do is to pull your portfolio. As iS has changed the terms of the submitter agreement, you are entirely entitled to withdraw from it.

By the time you've rejected iSTock's and Fotolia's price cuts and been a bit iffy about DT, and refused to accept the lack of pay rise at SS, you will be left with Cutcaster and Canstock among your leading earners.

The fault is in "crowdsourcing". When a product comes from a huge mass of uncoordinated volunteers, none of them have any economic clout (except maybe one or two at the very pinnacle, who are looking out for themselves, not for thousands of rivals). The agency is an organisation with discipline and a unified purpose, we are not. They can control us just the same way that an army of a few thousand can control a country of millions. Take up arms against them and they'll shoot you - or at least close your account. When others hear about it, they will tot up the cost of resistance and balance that against the cost of submission. Meanwhile, potential ringleaders are bought off with a few extra privileges.

« Reply #306 on: September 08, 2010, 12:52 »
0
Act locally, think globally.

Calgary is proud of it's little picture agency.  If you would like to write a brief letter to the editor of the Calgary Herald, I am confident they would be interested in hearing what you have to say about their home grown success story.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion/letters/letters-to-the-editor.html

Call me nuts, but we should really send out well crafted press release with contact information of artists who will take calls from columnists?

This isn't just a story about some moms with cameras getting screwed.  This is National story of a proud little Canadian company that took on the photo industry and changed everything.  This is a story of a Canadian company that was swallowed up by a monopoly-ish (American) agency that chewed it up and spit it out.  This is a multi-billion dollar industry that is not regulated.  Workers are not protected, even their membership agreements are subject to change at the sole discretion of the agency.  This story is a modern example of how the Internet has changed all the rules within an industry.  Their success will built on the backs of it's artists, but the artist seems to have become irrelevant.

We'll definitely get a few lines in the Herald, as a local business they will care.  Why can't we send a press release to PhotoShop Magazine, USA Today, The Globe and Mail etc.?  They may find the evolution of this unregulated industry quite interesting.

« Reply #307 on: September 08, 2010, 13:03 »
0
All this talk about "accepting" or "not accepting" rates makes little sense to me. The only way to reject what they do is to pull your portfolio. As iS has changed the terms of the submitter agreement, you are entirely entitled to withdraw from it.

On the contrary, that's not the only way.  There are plenty of options, although some of them require that significant numbers of submitters act.
  • Exclusives can elect to go independent.  They given 30 days notice, which is plenty of time for iStock to see what they're going to lose and maybe reconsider.
  • Both exclusives and independents can cut back on their uploads or stop completely.  That'll take longer to percolate in the minds of iStock management, but it'll show that people are seriously pissed and wiling to act on it.
  • Submitters can remove content.  Less obvious, and likely less effective.  But an interesting symbolic act.
  • Submitters can make a public stink, affecting buyers, investors and other potential submitters.  Maybe iStock & Getty won't care about the bad press, and maybe they won't see enough lost sales soon enough to affect their decisions.  Then again, maybe they will.

There are probably lots of other actions, short of leaving iStock entirely.  And I suspect a lot of people to sit tight and hope making a stink alone will cause a change in plans before January 1st.  I doubt it, but I've been wrong before.

xst

« Reply #308 on: September 08, 2010, 13:08 »
0
As history shows you can sqeeze some concessions from them
http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/esearch/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003641060

however don't expect a lot.
even if half of contributors are out, they will have huge collection and content to sell

« Reply #309 on: September 08, 2010, 13:09 »
0

20% is the norm for RF with Getty and yes it has to be exclusive too (though session- and not contributorwise).
If 20% for exclusive stuff is not enough for you, you are free to choose a different agency - good luck!

A bit simplistic, as it's image exclusivity and not artist.

I think the worst thing about all this is the inability to plan. It's impossible to be sure that the lines won't be redrawn in the near future. You work your butt off and just as you are nearing a milestone the map is redrawn. Detour time.
It's not image-exclusivity its session- and similiar-exclusivity (you can read the guidelines at Getty they are quite strict) and I said so.
Getty pays their pro-photographers 20% why oh why should they pay housewives 40% in the long term.
In five years it will 20% for all and 10% for non-exclusives - you don't believe me - well you didn't believe all the people that said to you five years ago after Getty bought iStock.
It's a genius plan from Getty and you have to adore it. Istock will prosper and they will be the only microstock-agency which content will grow creative- and quality-wise and not just number-wise. And Getty will make a lot more money out of it. That is to kill two birds with one stone - genius!

Yes it is similar exclusive, but that is still a far cry from artist exclusive. Also an image has value regardless of the status of the creator. That is exactly how the mentality of microstock got going. People thinking they are out just having a little fun making a few dollars here and there. Now that many of them are making more than a few dollars they don't like the idea of seeing their income dwindle. Obviously. Who would? I won't argue at all that the percentages, or other creative income limiting changes won't happen. I would agree completely with this. Anyone making 40% on iStock right now and is a housewife is also one hell of a photographer as well. As a matter of fact the notion of housewives should not make this kind of income should send a rain of crap down on your head.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2010, 13:12 by Zeus »

« Reply #310 on: September 08, 2010, 13:10 »
0
Thanks for the link I just sent a letter to Calgary!

grp_photo

« Reply #311 on: September 08, 2010, 13:23 »
0

20% is the norm for RF with Getty and yes it has to be exclusive too (though session- and not contributorwise).
If 20% for exclusive stuff is not enough for you, you are free to choose a different agency - good luck!

A bit simplistic, as it's image exclusivity and not artist.

I think the worst thing about all this is the inability to plan. It's impossible to be sure that the lines won't be redrawn in the near future. You work your butt off and just as you are nearing a milestone the map is redrawn. Detour time.
It's not image-exclusivity its session- and similiar-exclusivity (you can read the guidelines at Getty they are quite strict) and I said so.
Getty pays their pro-photographers 20% why oh why should they pay housewives 40% in the long term.
In five years it will 20% for all and 10% for non-exclusives - you don't believe me - well you didn't believe all the people that said to you five years ago after Getty bought iStock.
It's a genius plan from Getty and you have to adore it. Istock will prosper and they will be the only microstock-agency which content will grow creative- and quality-wise and not just number-wise. And Getty will make a lot more money out of it. That is to kill two birds with one stone - genius!

Yes it is similar exclusive, but that is still a far cry from artist exclusive. Also an image has value regardless of the status of the creator. That is exactly how the mentality of microstock got going. People thinking they are out just having a little fun making a few dollars here and there. Now that many of them are making more than a few dollars they don't like the idea of seeing their income dwindle. Obviously. Who would? I won't argue at all that the percentages, or other creative income limiting changes won't happen. I would agree completely with this. Anyone making 40% on iStock right now and is a housewife is also one hell of a photographer as well. As a matter of fact the notion of housewives should not make this kind of income should send a rain of crap down on your head.
Actually I'm expecting that they will change the current exclusive Status from all RF to only all Micro-, Mid-RF so people are allowed to do RF with different sessions at traditional agencies. This way important contributors and photographers like iofoto, Jonathan Ross and Monkeybusiness could become exclusive at IS and I'm very  sure many would especially pros with no former Microstock-experience.
Second housewives that evolved will keep their 40% for a while but there are a lot of housewives that started 2002,2003,2004 that didn't evolved at all they had just been lucky to be early starters at istock from a business point of view you must get rid of them a soon as possible.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2010, 13:31 by grp_photo »

« Reply #312 on: September 08, 2010, 13:26 »
0
All this talk about "accepting" or "not accepting" rates makes little sense to me. The only way to reject what they do is to pull your portfolio. As iS has changed the terms of the submitter agreement, you are entirely entitled to withdraw from it.

On the contrary, that's not the only way.  There are plenty of options, although some of them require that significant numbers of submitters act.
  • Exclusives can elect to go independent.  They given 30 days notice, which is plenty of time for iStock to see what they're going to lose and maybe reconsider.
  • Both exclusives and independents can cut back on their uploads or stop completely.  That'll take longer to percolate in the minds of iStock management, but it'll show that people are seriously pissed and wiling to act on it.
  • Submitters can remove content.  Less obvious, and likely less effective.  But an interesting symbolic act.
  • Submitters can make a public stink, affecting buyers, investors and other potential submitters.  Maybe iStock & Getty won't care about the bad press, and maybe they won't see enough lost sales soon enough to affect their decisions.  Then again, maybe they will.

There are probably lots of other actions, short of leaving iStock entirely.  And I suspect a lot of people to sit tight and hope making a stink alone will cause a change in plans before January 1st.  I doubt it, but I've been wrong before.

Quitting exclusivity is a huge step, likely to lead to a major loss of earnings. Getty will get to keep a larger slice of the pie (maybe they even want to drive out a heap of the lower-ranked exclusives, who knows?). It would take a lot of people including some big names for this to have a real impact. As usual, the pain would be on the submitters' side.

Reducing uploads is futile, we did it to Fotolia with absolutely not effect whatsoever. After a little while, everybody drifts back.

Removing content - would they even notice? I guess it would appear as a blip in the stats report. Which content do you remove? The 20% that makes 90% of your money, which might actually hurt them? Or the 80% that makes 20% of your money, which they might be happy to see removed from their servers?  They already progressively remove it themselves, which says they don't really want it.

Making a stink might work. If you can drive buyers away that would certainly hurt them (and I am pretty sure they will delete the porfolios of anyone they catch doing that) but they would probably never get those buyers back, which would hurt submitters in the long term, too. Of course, if it taught them and the rest of the industry a lesson the cost in lost sales would probably be worth it in the long run. It is also about the only thing a small group of activists could do without the support of the masses.

« Reply #313 on: September 08, 2010, 13:27 »
0
As a (non exclusive) contributor I've already stopped uploading months ago, because I was simply  tired of constantly taking slaps in my face (And I'm *not* talking about rejections only.), as a buyer I've already moved on to other places as well.
Still, I've tried hard not to take things personally, since this is business, but NOW I DO. I definitely won't take this slap, I've had enough. It's not about the money I'm going to lose, but their attitude. If these changes will take effect, I'll definitely pull my port.
I've already been invited to join Stockfresh some time ago and just decided to massively support them both by uploading everything I have and bringing in as many contributors and clients as I can find. I don't care, whether they're "ready" - they're fair and that counts.

« Reply #314 on: September 08, 2010, 13:29 »
0
Photoshow on the SS forum:
Quote
Well I see my portfolio not being there much longer. At those royalty rates having my port there will only canabalize my sales elsewhere on better paying agencies

What have royalty rates go to do with cannibalization of sales?

« Reply #315 on: September 08, 2010, 13:31 »
0
Another interesting way to protest would be to do something like what was done to CBS when they canceled the show Jericho. Fans got together and sent tons of peanuts to CBS headquarters in NYC until they agreed to do another season. It worked.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2010, 13:35 by Kngkyle »

helix7

« Reply #316 on: September 08, 2010, 13:32 »
0

What have royalty rates go to do with cannibalization of sales?

If you're selling an image on istock and earn $2 for the sale, but could have sold the same image elsewhere at a higher royalty rate and earned $3 for the sale, you're cannibalizing. On that single transaction, you're basically cheating yourself out of your own money.

It happens across the board, no avoiding it. But I guess in this case as Bobby sees it, the new percentage at istock is crossing that line with him to the point where it's just too far off his average earnings per sale.

helix7

« Reply #317 on: September 08, 2010, 13:40 »
0
Rob locked the thread at istock, says an announcement will be coming within 1 hour.

Anyone want to take a guess at what it will be?

I'm guessing nothing new. Changes are slated to go ahead as originally planned.

« Reply #318 on: September 08, 2010, 13:44 »
0
Never a dull moment.  ;)

vonkara

« Reply #319 on: September 08, 2010, 13:48 »
0
From Sylvanworks (copy paste)...

OK, the folks at HQ have been reading the responses and have been putting together a reply. I'm going to lock this so everyone can catch their breath for a few minutes. I've been told the response will be posted within the next hour

« Reply #320 on: September 08, 2010, 13:50 »
0
15 % is too low.
Regardless of how much money 15 % translates into. It's ethics.
You tell me when is the best time to delete my port. Today? Tomorrow? On the 1-st of January?
I'll do it.
I'll never take anything less than 20 % commission.
Unacceptable.

And I'm all for supporting the better paying sites, Anja. I'll go with you.

« Reply #321 on: September 08, 2010, 13:53 »
0
Someone has mentioned in the IS thread that this is simply a ploy. They want to do something but they know we won't like it. So, they announce this fiasco to get us upset. Now they will announce what they really wanted and it won't seem as bad as the fiasco so we will accept because they are "meeting us 1/2 way".

I stand by what I posted in the other thread. I contracted for 20% - if I'm not guaranteed a minimum of 20% then there is no reason for me to stay. IS already has the lowest percentages in the industry so there is no reason to lower them.

macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #322 on: September 08, 2010, 13:54 »
0
BLA BLA BLA BLA ....

nobody of you will leave iStock.
you invested too much time and resource on it and now you're "locked in".

i predicted all this a long time ago, and i'm sure the entry-level royalties
will be lowered again in the future ... 10% ?  5% ? why not ! there's a fool
born every minute isnt it ?

p.s.
if you sell a fine-art photo in an art gallery you never get less than 50% of the sale,
and these guys spend real money in order to make an exibition, calling people by phone,
sending printed invitations ... getty instead doesn't move a finger, it's all computer automated
and the product is a digital download and pretends a whopping 85% !

you better flip burgers at McDonalds than getting 15% of YOUR work.




« Reply #323 on: September 08, 2010, 13:55 »
0
I doubt the coming announcement will change anything. They will likely just try to explain it better and answer some of our questions. And of course add in some lines about how great this is for the contributors.  ::)

« Reply #324 on: September 08, 2010, 13:58 »
0
I suspect that they might redact some of the really bad parts, but still keep it essentially intact.  My suspicion goes along the lines of how my youngest son requests dessert: "cookies, ice cream with toppings and a brownie"  "No!"  "well, how about the ice cream with toppings?"


 

Related Topics

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

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors