Unless I'm misunderstanding this, I'll be earning 17% next year at istock.Me too. Was close to going exclusive, now I'm thinking about dropping IS altogether.
20% was pretty low in the industry. Less than that is just a joke.
I just started a thread in a local designer's forum about the pay cut for non-exclusives and told them that if they want the photographer to get a more fair payment they should shop their images elsewhere; I also gave links to SS, DT and FT. (I wish SX would still exist...)
Wow! This is bad across the board.....exclusives and non-exclusives. A few months ago they enticed contributors to go exclusive with the guaranteed next level (total downloads) and now we're being hit with this. Glad I didn't make the jump, but I'm still getting a big cut.I don't think there will be many more contributors going exclusive after this. I think we may see more of them dropping the crown than getting one.
Unless I'm misunderstanding this, I'll be earning 17% next year at istock.
20% was pretty low in the industry. Less than that is just a joke.
I know there is a stream of replies, but I just want to figure out something. If I am silver exclusive and I sell approximatively 4 to 6 pictures a day,mostly medium and large sizes... How much will I loose ??Lets say you sell 5 pictures every single day and lets say they are all large or medium. The average of medium and large which is (10+15)/2 = 12.5. This means you earn 60 credits per day (5 pictures * 12.5 credits). That is 21900 credits in a year. That would get you 30% royalty with the new structure. You would need 40000 credits in a year for the next canister.
If anyone have two minutes to explain me this new structure, I would appreciate it. I would certainly reconsider my exclusivity if I loose anything near 5% and more
What does this mean? :
"You will retain the royalty rate from the end of the previous year "
Even exclusives are going to need to be sell about 4000 images per month to maintain the 40% rate.
So now canister levels are meaningless. This is a real kick in the teeth to the exclusives who helped build the business, but maybe haven't had as much time to keep up their portfolios in the past year.
I am BD on istock and I don't sell anything close to the 1,400,000 files per year that would be necessary to keep the measly 20%. I wonder if even Yuri or Andres sells that much on istock alone? They have affectively made the top rate just for show hardly anyone will actually get it.
For exclusives this seems just devastating. For independents it is a DANGEROUS precedent. I don't think we can just sit back and eat this one or we will find ourselves facing the same from the other sites.
Personally, I think it would be a good idea for EVERYONE who doesn't like these changes to stop uploading to IS completely until our concerns are addressed. These numbers need to at least be attainable and not pulled from the realm of fantasy.
Why do they bother to elaborate complicated royalty structures? It's a paycut. As simple as that.
Unless I'm misunderstanding this, I'll be earning 17% next year at istock.
20% was pretty low in the industry. Less than that is just a joke.
I am BD on istock and I don't sell anything close to the 1,400,000 files per year that would be necessary to keep the measly 20%. I wonder if even Yuri or Andres sells that much on istock alone?
Personally, I think it would be a good idea for EVERYONE who doesn't like these changes to stop uploading to IS completely until our concerns are addressed. These numbers need to at least be attainable and not pulled from the realm of fantasy.
Unless I'm misunderstanding this, I'll be earning 17% next year at istock.
20% was pretty low in the industry. Less than that is just a joke.
That's what I calculated mine out as too. Applied to my monthly earnings that 3% drop is a pretty serious hit. I just don't get this.
So now canister levels are meaningless. This is a real kick in the teeth to the exclusives who helped build the business, but maybe haven't had as much time to keep up their portfolios in the past year.
I am BD on istock and I don't sell anything close to the 1,400,000 files per year that would be necessary to keep the measly 20%. I wonder if even Yuri or Andres sells that much on istock alone? They have affectively made the top rate just for show hardly anyone will actually get it.
For exclusives this seems just devastating. For independents it is a DANGEROUS precedent. I don't think we can just sit back and eat this one or we will find ourselves facing the same from the other sites.
Personally, I think it would be a good idea for EVERYONE who doesn't like these changes to stop uploading to IS completely until our concerns are addressed. These numbers need to at least be attainable and not pulled from the realm of fantasy.
So now canister levels are meaningless.They are not meaningless your upload-limit still depends on your canister level.
Changes like this happen for a reason, their previous business models were most likely unsustainable. Add in the fact that the US is entering a depression and the future just looks very bleak.They are selling more than ever and their business model is unsustainable. Geez. If it weren't for recession they would double their earnings then. It's just greedy.
I am BD on istock and I don't sell anything close to the 1,400,000 files per year
Just wait for a few days for their old and verified tactics. They will offer something that is just slightly less awful than this and people will start saying "Thanks istock".
Just wait for a few days for their old and verified tactics. They will offer something that is just slightly less awful than this and people will start saying "Thanks istock".
I am BD on istock and I don't sell anything close to the 1,400,000 files per year
"credits per year", not files.
Lisa sold 200.000 files altogether, even she won't be keeping the 20% royalty. Looks like Yuri will be the only one from the non-exclusives to be up at the 20%?So now canister levels are meaningless. This is a real kick in the teeth to the exclusives who helped build the business, but maybe haven't had as much time to keep up their portfolios in the past year.
I am BD on istock and I don't sell anything close to the 1,400,000 files per year that would be necessary to keep the measly 20%. ...
Actually they don't require 1,400,000 files. They requirement is for "credits". My account works out to about 3.34 credits for each sale so the 1,400,000 requires about 419,000 sales. I certainly won't be looking at 20% but maybe you have a chance.
fred
I am BD on istock and I don't sell anything close to the 1,400,000 files per year
"credits per year", not files.
Personally, I think it would be a good idea for EVERYONE who doesn't like these changes to stop uploading to IS completely until our concerns are addressed...
Just wait for a few days for their old and verified tactics. They will offer something that is just slightly less awful than this and people will start saying "Thanks istock".
+1
That's what I suspect too. First announce a REALLY bad news, then « listen » to the masses by taking a step back to just a bad news. Reminds me our politicians...
How do you figure out the number of credits you sold?It says under your stats page now.
Personally, I think it would be a good idea for EVERYONE who doesn't like these changes to stop uploading to IS completely until our concerns are addressed. These numbers need to at least be attainable and not pulled from the realm of fantasy.
We will continue to pay out royalties based on the value of the credit purchased. In the case of royalties from Subscription credits we are adjusting the minimum value of the subscription credit from $0.95 to $0.65.
And for those opted into the sub plan it only gets worse.
Reminds me of Fotolia nothing will happen and they knew it. The leaders (Yuri,Andresr etc.) are already investing in macro. The rest will upload as usual new contributors will welcome these changes so were will no shortage in new material for istock. Also Agencies can post their pictures in a high-priced collection so even more supply.Personally, I think it would be a good idea for EVERYONE who doesn't like these changes to stop uploading to IS completely until our concerns are addressed. These numbers need to at least be attainable and not pulled from the realm of fantasy.
We should stop uploading to IS completely !! We need several leaders from the big players. Maybe a union!!
Personally, I think it would be a good idea for EVERYONE who doesn't like these changes to stop uploading to IS completely until our concerns are addressed. These numbers need to at least be attainable and not pulled from the realm of fantasy.
Absolutely agree.
How do you figure out the number of credits you sold?It's now at the top of your stats page. Just appeared with the announcement, so I guess they're serious about this one. Maybe no backtracking this time. Maybe Kelly's getting scared about achieving his target of 50% growth.
Any other agencies reading this - the time is now to annouce a kick ass exclusive deal.
Maybe a union!!Nah, that's too proletarian. We need a guild! :P
I just got an urge to upload some images to Alamy...Yep me too.
Maybe a union!!Nah, that's too proletarian. We need a guild! :P
umm no, they will need approx 1700 images per month based on my average redeemed credit. Which isn't as preposterous as 4000
Why not start a movement on Facebook, to fight this???
Lets to this, it's a good idea to spread our words, to a millions of designers and buyers.
Unfortunately I don't speak English very well, but I it´s a good idea.
The misery will not stop here: Remember, they can tinker with their royalty targets every year, just to keep us from earning too much. Who knows, the base royalty could be 10% for 2012...
Diversify! I have mentioned this more than several times. If you keep all your eggs in one basket you better hold on tight.
The misery will not stop here: Remember, they can tinker with their royalty targets every year, just to keep us from earning too much. Who knows, the base royalty could be 10% for 2012...
January 11, 2011 we will post new targets. These targets will affect your royalty growth for 2011 and set your initial royalty rate for 2012.
Notice the words "royalty growth". This almost certainly applies that the redeemed credit targets will be changing every year. So if you did 12,501 in credit sales in 2010 you get 30%. If you do 12,501 credit sales again in 2011 but they increase the target to 15,000 you now only earn 25% for the entire year.
Not only the royalty rates can be adjusted, but the redeemed credit goals as well. So what's to stop them from doing something like
2010: 12,500 = 17% non exclusive / 30% exclusive
to
2011: 15,000 = 17% non exclusive / 30% exclusive
2012: 17,500 = 15% non exclusive / 28% exclusive (sorry, times are tough, unsustainable, etc)
It's all about the designers, and if you guys really want to make a statement, it's going to have to be with buyers. Frankly, istock probably doesn't care if a few people delete their portfolios or stop uploading. If they are going to feel any impact from this, it'll have to come from buyers. If you're a designer and purchase stock images, look elsewhere from now on. If you know people who buy from istock, let them know what's going on and that they could actually save money AND support artists by taking their business elsewhere.
There is a very simple and clear reason why this is happening. Getty images is being dressed up for an IPO. Obviously with the image lock ups and general inertia from most contributors, the resulting profits that will accrue to the bottom line will make getty look likes it's on an earnings roll. Most investors will not know enough to dig in the details, and find out that istock is mortgaging the future by burning their contributors big time.
It's all about the designers, and if you guys really want to make a statement, it's going to have to be with buyers. Frankly, istock probably doesn't care if a few people delete their portfolios or stop uploading. If they are going to feel any impact from this, it'll have to come from buyers. If you're a designer and purchase stock images, look elsewhere from now on. If you know people who buy from istock, let them know what's going on and that they could actually save money AND support artists by taking their business elsewhere.
This is very smart Mike. I have been looking into getting a site built and had been trying to decide which agency to link the images to. Had been considering Istock just this morning. I will be choosing another site that pays a decent % instead.
Also, my current business cards have the link to my IS portfolio. I will be changing that and ordering new cards ASAP.
Maybe not much, but if everyone with their own site or blog did the same thing it could have some impact. And what about the industry bloggers? Hopefully they will be vocal about these changes to warn buyers.
It's all about the designers, and if you guys really want to make a statement, it's going to have to be with buyers. Frankly, istock probably doesn't care if a few people delete their portfolios or stop uploading. If they are going to feel any impact from this, it'll have to come from buyers. If you're a designer and purchase stock images, look elsewhere from now on. If you know people who buy from istock, let them know what's going on and that they could actually save money AND support artists by taking their business elsewhere.
This is very smart Mike. I have been looking into getting a site built and had been trying to decide which agency to link the images to. Had been considering Istock just this morning. I will be choosing another site that pays a decent % instead.
Also, my current business cards have the link to my IS portfolio. I will be changing that and ordering new cards ASAP.
Maybe not much, but if everyone with their own site or blog did the same thing it could have some impact. And what about the industry bloggers? Hopefully they will be vocal about these changes to warn buyers.
Someone else said it, but it bares repeating... MANY iStock exclusives are going to drop their exclusive status and flood other sites with images that use to only be available on iStock. I think Buyers will notice this, especially since prices are lower on most other sites.
One has to try to understand the strategy here. So let's see. The only way the vast majority of contributors will make the same or more despite their royalty rate going down is if they raise the prices by more than that cut. Maybe that's coming.
What I see here though, in the now, and this is purely my musing, is an effort to get the large customers slowly used to the idea of paying more for more elaborate and expensive artwork, in other words getting them accustomed to buying from Getty directly or from their other macro collections. Of course lost Getty customers who saved by buying from IS will slowly be brought back to macro at the same time. The success of Vetta and the implementation of the agency proves that this is working.
At the same time, they are trying to convince their best selling photographers and exclusive farms to contribute to macro, while discouraging the rest from submitting, even to micro. They've got the numbers and it probably won't hurt them that much to have the small guys rant and leave IS, even if that small guys turns out to be most exclusives and non exclusives below diamond. In any case, by force of habit, most contributors will take the bullet and keep submitting... to preserve their lifestyle. It's all just a news cycle anyways, and people will stop their turmoil in a couple of weeks and settle back into their routines.
...Getty slowly wants to move out of the micro business, and hurt it good on the move, taking away big names and big customers with it. Perhaps they didn't buy Istock to help it flourish? Perhaps they bought it to recuperate what they could and then slowly choke it to death... hoping to do it in a way that would prove how micro is inferior to all serious, sensible art buyers in the world. Perhaps in their view it would be great if eventually they all blushed in shame after someone recognized that they used some cheap stuff from micro in their prestigious publication...
After all, let's not forget that the brand that Getty is trying to polish and grow here is... Getty.
For me it's basically a drop from 40% as a silver exclusive to 25% or 30% with luck at the end of this year.
I might cancel my exclusivity soon and go back with Shutterstock and Dreamstime. It will take myself around 3 hours to resubmit at SS and 20 minutes to reactivate all my files at Dreamstime... sigh
MANY iStock exclusives are going to drop their exclusive status and flood other sites with images that use to only be available on iStock.That was the first thing that crossed my mind. Imagine Sjlocke flooding SS and DT. :-[
It's all about the designers, and if you guys really want to make a statement, it's going to have to be with buyers. Frankly, istock probably doesn't care if a few people delete their portfolios or stop uploading. If they are going to feel any impact from this, it'll have to come from buyers. If you're a designer and purchase stock images, look elsewhere from now on. If you know people who buy from istock, let them know what's going on and that they could actually save money AND support artists by taking their business elsewhere.
It's what I calculated from the % sheet, I might be wrong I'm confused. I get 0.76$ out of a 1.56$ credit... that would even be 50%. All I know is I get 0.76$ for my lowestFor me it's basically a drop from 40% as a silver exclusive to 25% or 30% with luck at the end of this year.
I might cancel my exclusivity soon and go back with Shutterstock and Dreamstime. It will take myself around 3 hours to resubmit at SS and 20 minutes to reactivate all my files at Dreamstime... sigh
You get 40% as a silver exclusive. i thought you are just getting 30% as a silver exclusive.
MANY iStock exclusives are going to drop their exclusive status and flood other sites with images that use to only be available on iStock.That was the first thing that crossed my mind. Imagine Sjlocke flooding SS and DT. :-[
Istock was such a great place to keep them locked up while we regulars had some nice sales at SS. :P
I smell an IPO or possibly a "Pretty Woman" sell off coming... lots of partners have been gathered into the fold.
It's what I calculated from the % sheet, I might be wrong I'm confused. I get 0.76$ out of a 1.56$ credit... that would even be 50%. All I know is I get 0.76$ for my lowestFor me it's basically a drop from 40% as a silver exclusive to 25% or 30% with luck at the end of this year. I might cancel my exclusivity soon and go back with Shutterstock and Dreamstime. It will take myself around 3 hours to resubmit at SS and 20 minutes to reactivate all my files at Dreamstime... sighYou get 40% as a silver exclusive. i thought you are just getting 30% as a silver exclusive.
I'm guessing this will change over 95% of contributors commissions for the worse, and that not one single "premium content" contributor will be better rewarded.
I smell an IPO or possibly a "Pretty Woman" sell off coming... lots of partners have been gathered into the fold.
I googled it and can't find what a "Pretty Woman" sell off is. ???
MANY iStock exclusives are going to drop their exclusive status and flood other sites with images that use to only be available on iStock.That was the first thing that crossed my mind. Imagine Sjlocke flooding SS and DT. :-[
Istock was such a great place to keep them locked up while we regulars had some nice sales at SS. :P
I smell an IPO or possibly a "Pretty Woman" sell off coming... lots of partners have been gathered into the fold.
I googled it and can't find what a "Pretty Woman" sell off is. ???
Sorry Lisa. The movie "Pretty Woman" was about a tycoon (Richard Gere) who bought up companies in an appearance to make it look like he was trying to help them survive when in reality he would break them up and sell them off for huge profits.
I smell an IPO or possibly a "Pretty Woman" sell off coming... lots of partners have been gathered into the fold.
I googled it and can't find what a "Pretty Woman" sell off is. ???
It probably means istock is being dressed up. Meaning do whatever it takes to increase financial performance and make istock look attractive to potential buyers, regardless of consequences.
It wouldn't matter if contributor relationships are permanently damaged. As long as it looks good when it sells is all that counts. If it blows up afterwards it doesn't matter. The sale is already completed. Kind of the same thing with selling a car that has problems. Clean and wax it, do your best to hide the problems, sell it at top dollar, and let the buyer deal with the problems that are sure to come up shortly after the sale.
I don't know what insults me more, the veiled attempt to hide what is an obvious commission cut or this statement:
''With that overriding objective, we wanted to produce a solution that:
- would not change most contributors' total compensation (except for the better)
- adjusts the model to better reward contributors of premium content"
Either the person who wrote that is incredibly naive or they're hoping that everyone who reads it is.
I'm guessing this will change over 95% of contributors commissions for the worse, and that not one single "premium content" contributor will be better rewarded.
Sorry Lisa. The movie "Pretty Woman" was about a tycoon (Richard Gere) who bought up companies in an appearance to make it look like he was trying to help them survive when in reality he would break them up and sell them off for huge profits.
Oh, I see. Yes, that or an IPO does sound like exactly what's going on here.
Thanks for explaining John. I have seen PW a couple of times but for some reason Richard Gere made more of an impression than what his character did for a living ;)
The IPO thing is an interesting theory but it could also be that Getty, as a whole, is just making less money. Way less money. I doubt they could sell the business for anything close to what was paid for it. It could be just their way of trying to maintain an money stream by taking it from their contributors, the ones least likely to effect their business. We'll know fairly soon if it is IPO.
All of this reminds me of why I love Shutterstock.
All of this reminds me of why I love Shutterstock.
Don't kid yourself. You'll eventually need vaseline over there too.
All of this reminds me of why I love Shutterstock.
Don't kid yourself. You'll eventually need vaseline over there too.
The IPO thing is an interesting theory but it could also be that Getty, as a whole, is just making less money. Way less money. I doubt they could sell the business for anything close to what was paid for it. It could be just their way of trying to maintain an money stream by taking it from their contributors, the ones least likely to effect their business. We'll know fairly soon if it is IPO.
People, there's NO IPO coming soon. If there is, its silly. There's no money in the capital markets for anything at the moment, so an IPO will be a long ways away and will happen when they can get premium dollar - not for iStock, but for Getty as a whole. iStock without Getty and vice versa isn't going to work
I think they are trying to drive off non-exclusives and keep exclusives (not sure how) and I'm borderline for a pay raise. This isn't over yet, and its going to be interesting. Yay for industry shakeup?
The IPO thing is an interesting theory but it could also be that Getty, as a whole, is just making less money. Way less money. I doubt they could sell the business for anything close to what was paid for it. It could be just their way of trying to maintain an money stream by taking it from their contributors, the ones least likely to effect their business. We'll know fairly soon if it is IPO.
iStock will now set royalty levels annually. The levels are set based on overall iStock credit usage from the previous year.
All of this reminds me of why I love Shutterstock.All this reminds me of why I have always loved Dreamstime too. Achilles makes a conscious effort to create a level playing field for contributors new and old, the opposite of what IS has always done.
The IPO thing is an interesting theory but it could also be that Getty, as a whole, is just making less money. Way less money. I doubt they could sell the business for anything close to what was paid for it. It could be just their way of trying to maintain an money stream by taking it from their contributors, the ones least likely to effect their business. We'll know fairly soon if it is IPO.
People, there's NO IPO coming soon. If there is, its silly. There's no money in the capital markets for anything at the moment, so an IPO will be a long ways away and will happen when they can get premium dollar - not for iStock, but for Getty as a whole. iStock without Getty and vice versa isn't going to work
I think they are trying to drive off non-exclusives and keep exclusives (not sure how) and I'm borderline for a pay raise. This isn't over yet, and its going to be interesting. Yay for industry shakeup?
When i brought up IPO, I meant Getty. They are currently owned by a private equity firm, and I think they can see the writing on the wall. The best move it can make is to squeeze profits for 6 months and make the earnings grow ( at the price of destroying the franchise). Microstock is the only growth in the whole space, and the value will never be better than now.
As for no money in the capital markets, it's quite the opposite- corporations have never had more money on the balance sheet than right now. Investors are getting 1% on treasuries. I think there will be a ton of deals getting done soon.
The IPO thing is an interesting theory but it could also be that Getty, as a whole, is just making less money. Way less money. I doubt they could sell the business for anything close to what was paid for it. It could be just their way of trying to maintain an money stream by taking it from their contributors, the ones least likely to effect their business. We'll know fairly soon if it is IPO.
People, there's NO IPO coming soon. If there is, its silly. There's no money in the capital markets for anything at the moment, so an IPO will be a long ways away and will happen when they can get premium dollar - not for iStock, but for Getty as a whole. iStock without Getty and vice versa isn't going to work
I think they are trying to drive off non-exclusives and keep exclusives (not sure how) and I'm borderline for a pay raise. This isn't over yet, and its going to be interesting. Yay for industry shakeup?
When i brought up IPO, I meant Getty. They are currently owned by a private equity firm, and I think they can see the writing on the wall. The best move it can make is to squeeze profits for 6 months and make the earnings grow ( at the price of destroying the franchise). Microstock is the only growth in the whole space, and the value will never be better than now.
As for no money in the capital markets, it's quite the opposite- corporations have never had more money on the balance sheet than right now. Investors are getting 1% on treasuries. I think there will be a ton of deals getting done soon.
Corporations don't buy stock, they are holding it for acquisitions. That has nothing to do with IPOs.
The number of investment firms looking at stuff like this in a time of uncertainty is small - hence the few IPOs and startiving investment bankers. Just saying, you can make it look pretty but no one has to buy you a drink just because you may look nice
this has made a pretty good ripple in the pond, Got this on my FB page today
Fotolia @sjlocke Our Non-Exclusives start at 25% with no reset. Just saying... :) microstock istockphoto istock
@adijr - the lowest commission for exclusives stays at 25%
this has made a pretty good ripple in the pond, Got this on my FB page today
Fotolia @sjlocke Our Non-Exclusives start at 25% with no reset. Just saying... :) microstock istockphoto istock
0.76$ for my lowestI get 0.19$ as my lowest XXXXXXS ;D - Half of SS.
@adijr - the lowest commission for exclusives stays at 25%
Thanks alot for the answer! are you guessing this from what you've read, or did you see this somewhere specific? I'd like to give it a read and re-consider this whole exclusivity thing.
Thanks again!
Anyone notice the usual iStock apologist's have been conspicuously absent from this discussion?Looks like you managed to rouse one from the depths.
they will probably resume the old royalties or offer some improvement from this announcement, and people will be happy.History repeats itself...
reading the announcement, doing the math....and then reading through the monster thread, the only thing I know for sure is that only a few people in there actually understand the announcement. same goes in here, the basic math skills of microstock contributors in general are sorely lacking...
no, I don't. though again, I do feel for non-exclusives, they are bearing the brunt of this and the past three or four major upheavals.
But I wonder, do they really get the same deal everybody else gets? I wouldn't be surprised if the biggest players with the most profitable portfolios don't negotiate secret sweetheart deals so that IS can continue to lock up their portfolios.
Non-exclusives will definitely be hurt by this. But with a 1-5% drop on just one their selling avenues. Middle of the road exclusives though seem to be hurt the most. Many are saying they'll be dropping 5%. Thankfully mine is staying the same, but that 1.4million mark seems next to impossible.
On the other hand, I as well think we will hear a second announcement later this week with a compromise of some kind. Probably a lowering of the targets for next year or some kind of 1-year royalty lock-in rate.
So I was expecting to make it to diamond and 40% by the end of the year or early next year. Now I will only receive 30% under this new plan. That is a difference of 10 percentage points, but in terms of real money, 30 is 75% of 40. So I will be making 25% less than I was expecting to make next year, and 14.3% less than I am actually making this year.
Non-exclusives will definitely be hurt by this. But with a 1-5% drop on just one their selling avenues.This sounds less harsh than it really is. For non-exclusives, they will be seeing as much as a 20% (oops! 25%) drop in commissions.
Ha! I didn't think I was one of the math challenged. Next time, I'm going to have to use my calculator. ;DNon-exclusives will definitely be hurt by this. But with a 1-5% drop on just one their selling avenues. Middle of the road exclusives though seem to be hurt the most. Many are saying they'll be dropping 5%. Thankfully mine is staying the same, but that 1.4million mark seems next to impossible.
On the other hand, I as well think we will hear a second announcement later this week with a compromise of some kind. Probably a lowering of the targets for next year or some kind of 1-year royalty lock-in rate.
Just to clarify a simple math principle, when you go from 20% to 15 % you do not lose 5% you lose 25%. That is one quarter not one twentieth.
Everyone was going to pull their ports or stop uploading. The question is how many actual did it??
Everyone was going to pull their ports or stop uploading. The question is how many actual did it??
I did, I dropped FT long before I went back exclusive with iStock.
Non-exclusives will definitely be hurt by this. But with a 1-5% drop on just one their selling avenues. Middle of the road exclusives though seem to be hurt the most. Many are saying they'll be dropping 5%. Thankfully mine is staying the same, but that 1.4million mark seems next to impossible.
On the other hand, I as well think we will hear a second announcement later this week with a compromise of some kind. Probably a lowering of the targets for next year or some kind of 1-year royalty lock-in rate.
Just to clarify a simple math principle, when you go from 20% to 15 % you do not lose 5% you lose 25%. That is one quarter not one twentieth.
Just to clarify a simple math principle, when you go from 20% to 15 % you do not lose 5% you lose 25%. That is one quarter not one twentieth.
Yes you lose a flat 5% but you also lose 25% of the commission. Thanks for making it more confusing for the math challenged.
I don't believe anyone threatening to drop exclusivity will do it.
Non-exclusives will definitely be hurt by this. But with a 1-5% drop on just one their selling avenues.This sounds less harsh than it really is. For non-exclusives, they will be seeing as much as a 20% (oops! 25%) drop in commissions.
I recently (sadly) became an iStock photo exclusive, but I can now look forward to seeing a 16% cut in my commissions in 2011. >:(
Just to clarify a simple math principle, when you go from 20% to 15 % you do not lose 5% you lose 25%. That is one quarter not one twentieth.
Yes you lose a flat 5% but you also lose 25% of the commission. Thanks for making it more confusing for the math challenged.
At the risk of making another math error ....
It's really quite simple. If you make, say, $2000 (a week / month / year) from iStock in 2010 and sell the same amount in 2011, you'll make 75% of that -- $1500.
I think most people would see a cut from $2000 to $1500 as being pretty significant. 5% may not sound too bad, but in reality, it is.
^ not again.....if you're that serious, just dump your crown and be gone. talk all you want, but put your money where your mouth is.
I think Fotolia, as much as I hate them with a passion, is doing the right thing trying to steal all IS's exclusives. Its a great thing to see
So now canister levels are meaningless. This is a real kick in the teeth to the exclusives who helped build the business, but maybe haven't had as much time to keep up their portfolios in the past year.
I am BD on istock and I don't bring in anything close to the 1,400,000 credits per year that would be necessary to keep the measly 20%. I wonder if even Yuri or Andres sells that much on istock alone? They have affectively made the top rate just for show hardly anyone will actually get it.
For exclusives this seems just devastating. For independents it is a DANGEROUS precedent. I don't think we can just sit back and eat this one or we will find ourselves facing the same from the other sites.
Personally, I think it would be a good idea for EVERYONE who doesn't like these changes to stop uploading to IS completely until our concerns are addressed. These numbers need to at least be attainable and not pulled from the realm of fantasy.
I think Fotolia, as much as I hate them with a passion, is doing the right thing trying to steal all IS's exclusives. Its a great thing to see
cant say I blame them, I'd be personally emailing anyone gold or above, match your cannister, instant upload with 100% approval and I'd even put a staff member on clicking through categories, I'd be "hey I can have your whole portfolio up in 2-3 days" :)
Um, except any increased traffic is offset by exclusives images dropping in the best match results due to a flood of new 'high quality' images.
exactly! If it's an IPO, the present owners get taken out and the new suckers- I mean shareholders -will have to deal with the mess. As they say "past performance is no guarantee of future results"
Um, except any increased traffic is offset by exclusives images dropping in the best match results due to a flood of new 'high quality' images.
Crap!! what new high quality images?? you mean the same old isolations on whites or the young business man?
All of this reminds me of why I love Shutterstock.All this reminds me of why I have always loved Dreamstime too. Achilles makes a conscious effort to create a level playing field for contributors new and old, the opposite of what IS has always done.
It's all about the designers, and if you guys really want to make a statement, it's going to have to be with buyers. Frankly, istock probably doesn't care if a few people delete their portfolios or stop uploading. If they are going to feel any impact from this, it'll have to come from buyers. If you're a designer and purchase stock images, look elsewhere from now on. If you know people who buy from istock, let them know what's going on and that they could actually save money AND support artists by taking their business elsewhere.
I don't believe anyone threatening to drop exclusivity will do it. the cost would be far greater to the contributor.
people are still in there explaining CURRENT royalty structures to one another. how can you get mad about something you don't even understand?
Already done! I'm not just a contributor but as of this year a rather large subscription buyer (240 credits/day!) and I'm sure I'll look elsewhere now to make my next large purchases.
Of course if the past is anything to go by now that this Bombshell has been dropped they will come along with a little sweetener ;)
All I can say it better be a huge Candy Store!
Already done! I'm not just a contributor but as of this year a rather large subscription buyer (240 credits/day!) and I'm sure I'll look elsewhere now to make my next large purchases.
Make sure you let IS sales people know about that move and why you are doing it...
I will not accept 15% royalty rate. I will stop uploading to Istock and probably delete all my images.
This is too much..
I think there would be real poetic justice if contributors went all out to support Stockfresh and enabled them to triumph after what Getty did to the remains of StockXpert. I believe they're paying 50% commission.
I think there would be real poetic justice if contributors went all out to support Stockfresh and enabled them to triumph after what Getty did to the remains of StockXpert. I believe they're paying 50% commission.
I don't like unions, never used one but I do think we could get behind the sites that pay a decent commission and have reasonable prices for the buyers. If the vast majority of contributors and buyers abandoned sites that pay low commissions, we would all be better off. Why is that so difficult? I really find it hard to understand why we can't get together contributors and buyers to improve microstock for all of us.
This isn't like some other industries where the contributors have no power and have to put up with being treated unfairly, it's easy to buy and sell images and I don't see why it should cost more now than a few years ago when the costs of running a site and marketing were higher.
All we need to do is select the sites that are fair to contributors and buyers and only use them. If the other sites want our business, they can make changes.
this definitely screws non-exclusives, and to those of you I have great respect for, it's a raw deal. but if I remove the emotion, you have not taken the risk exclusives have taken. I think assuming iStock is nose-diving is far from accurate. they will continue to lead and jumping ship just makes it better for those of us who don't.Actually this hits most exclusives far harder than independents. If like me and many others you are at diamond level and say comfortably between the 40-150K redeemed credits here's how the numbers work out;
Actually this hits most exclusives far harder than independents. If like me and many others you are at diamond level and say comfortably between the 40-150K redeemed credits here's how the numbers work out;
Exclusive drops from 40% to 35% __ a reduction of 12.5% of total income.
Independent drops from 20% to 18% or 10% of Istock income. However being as Istock is probably only about 35% of total income the actual reduction in total income will be about 3.5%.
hahahaha ! hohohoho !! bwahahahahaha !!
i'm reading the +80 pages rants in the IS forum ... i think it will take a few hours but it's so funny i can't stop....
but what keeps surprising me is how many deluded contributors are out there, talking of BS and buzzwords
like "comunity" and yadda yadda ...
IS is a company, and worst of all it's owned by Getty ... their task is only one : making profits, and lot of them,
no matter if this means squeezing the balls of their photographers, they've so many of them they're probably glad
to see some of them leaving in droves for greener pastures.
community, canisters, gold, diamond, etc ... it's all rubbbish ... go to Flickr if you want this stuff.
the only thing a serious agency must do is provide the CLIENTS and make sales !
it's not facebook or myspace, it's a focking agency ... why crying and venting and ranting over and over ?
15% of a sale .. good deal ... at least for Getty :)
I've stopped up loading to Istock unless they fix this mess.
It looks like the commission cut comes in January 2011, I wont start deleting my portfolio before then but unless they go back to paying me 20% and start improving my sales, they have left me no option. I don't think they will reverse this decision, as they stuck to the $0.25 subs commissions with thinkstock. I'm not interested in a site that wants to improve their earnings by taking more of the little bit they pay me.I don't like unions, never used one but I do think we could get behind the sites that pay a decent commission and have reasonable prices for the buyers. If the vast majority of contributors and buyers abandoned sites that pay low commissions, we would all be better off. Why is that so difficult? I really find it hard to understand why we can't get together contributors and buyers to improve microstock for all of us.
This isn't like some other industries where the contributors have no power and have to put up with being treated unfairly, it's easy to buy and sell images and I don't see why it should cost more now than a few years ago when the costs of running a site and marketing were higher.
All we need to do is select the sites that are fair to contributors and buyers and only use them. If the other sites want our business, they can make changes.
I don't like unions too and you are right when you say that contributors have power, but I think that abandoning istock should be the last move.
Most of us (if not all) will be damaged by this new istock's policy and I think it will be easier to convince a large number of people to stop uploading this time. Can it be worthy to try to negotiate something better before saying goodbye to istock and go elsewhere?
Exclusives and non exclusives are equally independent. The best way of maintaining a portable portfolio is to manage your collection right. Especially keywords. Keyword generically & in detail ahead of specifically keywording for any particular site. You want to be able to quickly upload to a new site or destination if you choose to. And you want the keywords, descriptions etc to be in the IPTC data. Even exclusives.
I am 100% certain that dissatisfaction with the latest Getty announcement brings closer viable new investment which will ultimately undermine the value of IS as a business. Irrespective of the royalty numbers, the manner of the announcement undermines trust. Nearly everyone who contributes to IS would quickly move somewhere else immediately given a better offer. Getty bought a community. That was what crowd-sourcing was all about. That was why IS was such a thing. That is still where the next opportunity lies.
What happened today it is not a minor change. It's a turning point. Never thougth I would consider the idea of leaving exclusivity. Too early to say, it's difficult, but maybe there's is some backpedaling. For the moment, I'll wait. For becoming independent; it would help being offered by other sites the possibility of swallowing all my portfolio at once.
I don't believe anyone threatening to drop exclusivity will do it. the cost would be far greater to the contributor. and to what end? I was supposed to hit diamond this year, so I'm losing the added income in theory. my level is not dropping, I should have the 40K redeemed credits top maintain 35% royalties, but I won't get 40% for hitting diamond. I see potential for increased business. I'll take in volume what I'm losing in percentage to a certain point. I also think the marketing value of attracting more traditional pros is being overlooked. someone posted earlier that the invitation is ironic, but it's not in fact. the Agency Collection will be priced like traditional RM and RF imagery. they're just putting it all under one umbrella and bringing that traffic to iStock. why is that bad? it's already for sale elsewhere.
I wonder what would happen if the top istock contributors (like may the top 100 that probably make up over 10-20% of istock's revenue) set up their own site with mostly exclusive content.
the real value of IS are their loyal clients, not the millions of photos.
photos are just a commodity nowadays, that's why they rightfully
treat you guys iike crap.
I don't think I should say anything about the commission cut, since it is so well discussed. However, it is interesting to see a change in canister levels similar to that of Fotolia. This new level system is more friendly to new contributors, but still far from supporting new talents. I think the agencies who set up static levels for canisters (like previous istock, fotolia and shutterstock) are still back in 2005 when these limits seemed hard to achieve. Now several contributors reached the limits just because they are participating in MS from early on. It's not that they are so talented, its just that they have started earlier. Fotolia have already realized that the canister levels are not useful without constantly rising the bar, so only those who are talented will stay on the higher canister levels they deserve. However they have implemented this very badly because they set up the levels so high that new talents might not even start after seeing the levels set up for the ones who were with fotolia in the past five years. Istock has made a step further, and dropped the original canister system to a more democratic one, which also supports new talents on some levels. My only problem with their system that they still require you to wait a year to increase your canister level. An ideal system would use the past year as the basis for the canister level instead of using the year boundaries. I would be happy to see this level system to appear on other sites.
I don't think I should say anything about the commission cut, since it is so well discussed. However, it is interesting to see a change in canister levels similar to that of Fotolia. This new level system is more friendly to new contributors,
...Non exclusives are much more affected than they might think at first. It is not only the lowering commission. The dominance of the Getty conglomerate is taking over and as time passes, the alternative sites where to place images with reasonable return are diminishing....This isn't what I am experiencing. Some of the other sites are getting stronger, istock has fallen back. They have sent some of their buyers to the other sites by raising prices too high and now they will lose a lot of their contributors by cutting commissions. There is a real opportunity now for a rival site to become the No.1 and I hope one of them take it.
I don't think I should say anything about the commission cut, since it is so well discussed. However, it is interesting to see a change in canister levels similar to that of Fotolia. This new level system is more friendly to new contributors,
How is is more friendly to new contributors? As I read it, for the first calendar year you will be stuck on 15% instead of 20%. In your first year, you have to build your portfolio slowly, since uploads are so limited. After one year, you are starting to take off and by the end of year two, your sales are excellent, you are well into silver level ... but your credits are tallied for the entire year, so your average still leaves you on the bottom rung thoughout year three, by which time you have hit gold level, and you maybe just scrape onto 16% (non-exclusive) as the rate to be paid in your fourth year. If you go exclusive, you might get all the way up to the 30% level as a gold canister. That's the first four years for someone who is doing well above average.
How is that friendly to newcomers?
1st January: delete all photos
the real value of IS are their loyal clients, not the millions of photos.
photos are just a commodity nowadays, that's why they rightfully
treat you guys iike crap.
That is why we, the photographers, must target our actions in informing Picture Buyers about the exploitive nature of IS and that there are other alternatives in the market. Show them the agencies that give us the better commissions which allow us to invest and create higher value images.
Picture buyers only hear about the marketing of agencies telling them they are the best. Maybe it's time that the content producers have a word near the buyers pointing the best alternatives to both and putting the exploitative middlemen in their places.
I agree, unless they take away upload limits it is worse for new contributors.
How is that friendly to newcomers?
Just wait for a few days for their old and verified tactics. They will offer something that is just slightly less awful than this and people will start saying "Thanks istock".so true :-[
Just wait for a few days for their old and verified tactics. They will offer something that is just slightly less awful than this and people will start saying "Thanks istock".so true :-[
If there is diamond contributor, currently taking 40% and if you sold 39,999 credits worth of images in 2010.
That means for your sales in 2011, your rate would drop from 40% to 30%.
That is a 25% pay decrease from what you were earning! not to be confused with a 10 percent rate decrease!
Is there any reason why to reduce 25% pay for this contributor???
Would you guys come to istocky.com? I will open it if you will
If there is diamond contributor, currently taking 40% and if you sold 39,999 credits worth of images in 2010.
That means for your sales in 2011, your rate would drop from 40% to 30%.
That is a 25% pay decrease from what you were earning! not to be confused with a 10 percent rate decrease!
Is there any reason why to reduce 25% pay for this contributor???
All of this reminds me of why I love Shutterstock.All this reminds me of why I have always loved Dreamstime too. Achilles makes a conscious effort to create a level playing field for contributors new and old, the opposite of what IS has always done.
Agree (while there could have been some weaker spots).
However far more importantly - this moves make it very difficult for the fairer sites to survive and compete. Their fairer (to contributors) strategy means they have less (and probably far less) money to use to grab market share.
I think there would be real poetic justice if contributors went all out to support Stockfresh and enabled them to triumph after what Getty did to the remains of StockXpert. I believe they're paying 50% commission.
I'd love to do that. But I'm waiting for my application to be approved since several months now... :-[
people are still in there explaining CURRENT royalty structures to one another. how can you get mad about something you don't even understand?
LOL stil trying to work out my loss, but one thing for sure it will be significant as my numbers thus far are almost 40% down on last year
Once upon a time like many Independents IS was my biggest earner but it has been going backwards for some time now despite what, when and how often I upload. Take only this month so far as an example, SS is triple in $ the amount at IS with Dreamstime and Fotolia not far behind that is a huge dip. Very convenient also dont you think that many are seeing a loss in numbers then this ridiculous insult comes along to rub salt into the wound.
The writing was always on the wall since the Getty takeover, but this is simply to Brutal!
I for one will be taking action in my own small way as it would seem the words and the well being of its Contributers now count for very little and this sort of unacceptable treatment of those who have made IS what it is today will continue as long as they feel they can get away with it. I really do feel that they have gone to far this time
Of course if the past is anything to go by now that this Bombshell has been dropped they will come along with a little sweetener ;)
All I can say it better be a huge Candy Store!
1st January: delete all photos
I would never delete my photos from IS. I have too much time invested in uploading and keywording etc.
It would be much better to inform the clients about other sites where photographers are treated more fairly.
1st January: delete all photos
I would never delete my photos from IS. I have too much time invested in uploading and keywording etc.
It would be much better to inform the clients about other sites where photographers are treated more fairly.
It is stupid to completely remove a revenue source until/unless other sites can take up the slack. You are MUCH better off just stopping uploading to iStock and continuing to collect revenue from your existing work.
Just wait for a few days for their old and verified tactics. They will offer something that is just slightly less awful than this and people will start saying "Thanks istock".so true :-[
Yes!
First shock and then "goodwill"...
And all will say "thanks ", for "new iStock social programs"
Please can someone put this fact on their forum... I am not so good in English.
Would you guys come to istocky.com? I will open it if you will
1st January: delete all photos
I would never delete my photos from IS. I have too much time invested in uploading and keywording etc.
It would be much better to inform the clients about other sites where photographers are treated more fairly.
And what will you do once you have destroyed IS's credibility and the buyers who used to purchase your images have moved to sites which have better compensation for their photographers?
Your strategy will only work if you and many others move your portfolio's to a site which is offering fair compensation and your buyers are willing to follow you there.
I did it, but th thread develops so quickly no one actually saw it. :)
Plus, I got a sitemail from admin to stop posting, because I said that this would be handled in in other way if their headquarters were somewhere in Eastern Europe.
They are just being lucky to be based in civilized country like Canada. :)
Borg, I'm not sure if you know what happened to our national TV and it's CEO back in nineties?
I did it, but th thread develops so quickly no one actually saw it. :)
Plus, I got a sitemail from admin to stop posting, because I said that this would be handled in in other way if their headquarters were somewhere in Eastern Europe.
They are just being lucky to be based in civilized country like Canada. :)
Borg, I'm not sure if you know what happened to our national TV and it's CEO back in nineties?
Come on! :D :D
What they would think about ...
90-ties are behind us, we are now part of civilized world... ;) ;) 15% in enough to live in Eastern Europe... ;D ;D :P
Ditto... The folks at Stockfresh don't answer emails... I'm not impressed so far.
I did it, but th thread develops so quickly no one actually saw it. :)
Plus, I got a sitemail from admin to stop posting, because I said that this would be handled in in other way if their headquarters were somewhere in Eastern Europe.
They are just being lucky to be based in civilized country like Canada. :)
Borg, I'm not sure if you know what happened to our national TV and it's CEO back in nineties?
Come on! :D :D
What they would think about ...
90-ties are behind us, we are now part of civilized world... ;) ;) 15% in enough to live in Eastern Europe... ;D ;D :P
I agree with some of the others who said this is a tactic. It's indirect negotiation. If it's not, and they really are trying to shove this model down our throats with no negotiation, it's a pretty ominus sign.+1
The tactic is to present a really bad deal that angers almost everybody. They will then come back with something that is still pretty bad, but just not as bad. This will then get "Woo-Yays", "Thank-you Istocks", and "we still love you's". So they will still get more money, we will happily get a pay cut, and everything is back to normal.
What I think they'll come back with is a slightly more attainable plan. They probably already have 2-3 alternate plans ready to drop in place. They'll lower the goals a bit, or grandfather in some people for a year, etc. More people will get to keep their current commission % but very few will ever get a raise. Mission accomplished. They will have lowered the average commission percentage accross the board. Probably by 5-7% which would instantly put millions back in their pocket.
So when, or if, they come back with a slightly revised bad model, is everybody going to be happy with something that is still bad? Maybe it's time to start discussing that if this current model isn't acceptable, what would be acceptable to us? They're not going back to the old model. So what would be acceptable for performance goals?
I think there would be real poetic justice if contributors went all out to support Stockfresh and enabled them to triumph after what Getty did to the remains of StockXpert. I believe they're paying 50% commission.
If there is diamond contributor, currently taking 40% and if you sold 39,999 credits worth of images in 2010.
That means for your sales in 2011, your rate would drop from 40% to 30%.
That is a 25% pay decrease from what you were earning! not to be confused with a 10 percent rate decrease!
Is there any reason why to reduce 25% pay for this contributor???([url]http://www.thephoto.ca/temp/iSCAPRC.jpg[/url])
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!
Helix,
I agree about SFresh. But they're not ready yet...
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.
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.
Actually, thinking about it after having read some more of the IStock thread, if we do go to StockFresh and it actually becomes successful surely Peter will just be selling it on quick smart (to Getty or similar) the same as he did with StockXpert. Same as Bruce did with IStock back in the day?
Jumping from ship to ship not going to get us anywhere, sadly.
Helix,
I agree about SFresh. But they're not ready yet...
Yet. But they will be. All the more reason to throw our support behind them now, do our small part to grow the business. I'm going to start buying there exclusively, and will urge other designers to do the same.
The only way to scare the sh*t out of Getty and IS management is for non-exclusives to start a campaign globally targeting picture buyers. Let's make an e-mail, showing how exploitive IS is, and that they can buy the same images from agencies like DT, SS, etc., and even alamy, for a lower price for them and a far higher and fairer commission for the photographers.
The tactic is to present a really bad deal that angers almost everybody. They will then come back with something that is still pretty bad, but just not as bad. This will then get "Woo-Yays", "Thank-you Istocks", and "we still love you's". So they will still get more money, we will happily get a pay cut, and everything is back to normal.
Actually, thinking about it after having read some more of the IStock thread, if we do go to StockFresh and it actually becomes successful surely Peter will just be selling it on quick smart (to Getty or similar) the same as he did with StockXpert. Same as Bruce did with IStock back in the day?
Jumping from ship to ship not going to get us anywhere, sadly.
I doubt he would do that. He sold StockXpert to Jupiter, not Getty, and Jupiter kept things going at StockXpert. It wasn't until Getty bought Jupiter that things took a turn for the worse.
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.
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
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
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
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
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
Photoshow on the SS forum:QuoteWell 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?
Never a dull moment. ;)
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.
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
never say never ... i've read yesterday on TechCrunch that the users of Digg.com mounted a rebellion and left Digg in droves for their direct
competitor Reddit.com .. Digg now is dead and worth nothing, and all this in just one week !
It's all so tedious and time-wasting.
First the subscription scheme, then the partner project and the Thinkstock fiasco.
Now this.
:-(
never say never ... i've read yesterday on TechCrunch that the users of Digg.com mounted a rebellion and left Digg in droves for their direct
competitor Reddit.com .. Digg now is dead and worth nothing, and all this in just one week !
What's Digg? Is that a shovel company?
I already mentioned that earlier in this thread, but the thread is so long, it's impossible to read and retain everything.It's all so tedious and time-wasting.
First the subscription scheme, then the partner project and the Thinkstock fiasco.
Now this.
:-(
You missed the canister changes, that never ended up happening but still caused a controversy. I think we'd all rather have those canister changes and this load of crap.
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.
([url]http://wigmaster.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/mcdonalds_is_evil.jpg[/url])
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.
Ultimately Getty/Istock want to make more and more money. If we collectively give them such a kick in the nuts ... by not uploading ... with email campaigns ... with as much negative publicity as we can generate ... etc, etc, etc ... then we will ultimately be successful.
Just shows that going exclusive anywhere sets you up to be used and abused. ... Diversify.
Ultimately Getty/Istock want to make more and more money. If we collectively give them such a kick in the nuts ... by not uploading ... with email campaigns ... with as much negative publicity as we can generate ... etc, etc, etc ... then we will ultimately be successful.
We could use our creative network "friends" to do the email campaign. Though, even by stopping the uploads, the Istock collection will remain one of the biggest. But I thought the "friends" mass mail could be a nice way to reach a lot of Istock users
It's just occurred to me that there are probably more people waiting for this announcement then were waiting for the last "F5" announcement.
It's just occurred to me that there are probably more people waiting for this announcement then were waiting for the last "F5" announcement.
Here it is:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252322&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252322&page=1[/url])
Here it is:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252322&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252322&page=1[/url])
Since roughly 2005 we've been aware of a basic problem with how our business works. As the company grows, the overall percentage we pay out to contributing artists increases. In the most basic terms that means that iStock becomes less profitable with increased success. As a business model, it’s simply unsustainable: businesses should get more profitable as they grow. This is a long-term problem that needs to be addressed.
At least they're being honest about one thing. To paraphrase: "You think you're being *removed coarse language*? That's nothing compared to what we're doing to independents!"
QuoteSince roughly 2005 we've been aware of a basic problem with how our business works. As the company grows, the overall percentage we pay out to contributing artists increases. In the most basic terms that means that iStock becomes less profitable with increased success. As a business model, it’s simply unsustainable: businesses should get more profitable as they grow. This is a long-term problem that needs to be addressed.
That is such crap. They already pay the lowest commission in the industry and now they are trying to convince us that is unsustainable? How . do the other sites stay afloat then? It's just pure greed. They keep trying to sugar coat it and I hope nobody buys it.
OK so they made their "difficult decisions". Now make yours.
I think you can only deactivate one at a time, which would be a pain with a port as big as yours.OK so they made their "difficult decisions". Now make yours.
I made my first one: I clicked that Pause Uploads button on DeepMeta. No more new content for iStock.
But here's a problem. I can't find any way to deactivate or delete existing images. Am I missing something?
I did it.
Exclusivity Cancellation Application
Thank you. Your exclusivity status will be deactivated in 30 days.
I did it.
Exclusivity Cancellation Application
Thank you. Your exclusivity status will be deactivated in 30 days.
Kudos.
Congratulations, and welcome to the wonderful world of independents. Enjoy your new freedom.I did it.
Exclusivity Cancellation Application
Thank you. Your exclusivity status will be deactivated in 30 days.
Kudos.
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.
I did it.A brave move, congratulations. I don't think I would take this decision so fast.
Exclusivity Cancellation Application
Thank you. Your exclusivity status will be deactivated in 30 days.
I did it.
Exclusivity Cancellation Application
Thank you. Your exclusivity status will be deactivated in 30 days.
Okay, their current system is unsustainable. Then why . can't they for example freeze the current royalties? 20% for every independent and for the exclusives whatever percentage they are currently earning.
That would be worse than what is proposed. The new and up-coming talents should be rewarded, and should not be banned from advancement.
they don't care it's a senseless action, also I find it strange that new members popping in just to announce that they have removed their portfolio from iStock ::)
Yep, iStock was my first agency years ago. I've never been a "big fish" over there, therefor most people may not know my (former) portfolio, but many illustrators over at Shutterstock do, since I'm pretty active in their (illustrators') forum. I'm just new to this board, because I was using different sources of information til now, but felt like joining this particular discussion.they don't care it's a senseless action, also I find it strange that new members popping in just to announce that they have removed their portfolio from iStock ::)
They are new members here, but they may have been at IS for a long time.
This board has always had more independents than IS exclusives active because we need to keep abreast of developments across the whole industry, whereas they may have felt they only needed to follow Istock. Now they are joining here to find out what their other options are. Nothing wrong with that. It's a smart move.
The people we should worry about are the defeatists who are always complaining that there's nothing we can do about anything and we should all just bend over and touch our toes. :P
they don't care it's a senseless action, also I find it strange that new members popping in just to announce that they have removed their portfolio from iStock ::)
They are new members here, but they may have been at IS for a long time.
This board has always had more independents than IS exclusives active because we need to keep abreast of developments across the whole industry, whereas they may have felt they only needed to follow Istock. Now they are joining here to find out what their other options are. Nothing wrong with that. It's a smart move.
The people we should worry about are the defeatists who are always complaining that there's nothing we can do about anything and we should all just bend over and touch our toes. :P
they don't care it's a senseless action, also I find it strange that new members popping in just to announce that they have removed their portfolio from iStock ::)
They are new members here, but they may have been at IS for a long time...
It looks like they want the majority contributors stay at bronze and silver level and never be able to move up unless you are hugely productive. It is very demoralizing, to say the least.
Just some numbers to think about.
Unsustainable: 40%.
Assuming that everyone who qualifies for exclusivity became exclusive:
There are a total of 738 people who qualify for the 40% royalties. That is only 2.4% of all contributors. They are the only ones who can get the 40% commission.
There are 1056 people who qualify for 35% royalties, only 3.5% of contributors. Combined, there are only 5.9% of all iStock contributors who qualify for 35% and up. Many of these people have had accounts on iStock for over 6 years just to get to this level.
This is unsustainable? Lets say that triples in the next six years, so roughly 18% of iStock contributors qualify for more than 35% royalties. Unsustainable?
The people we should worry about are the defeatists who are always complaining that there's nothing we can do about anything and we should all just bend over and touch our toes. :P
why not to do this:
keep "canister level" payments for all of us who will lose with the new rules
use "redeemed credits" payments for those who will "move up" with them.
It looks like they want the majority contributors stay at bronze and silver level and never be able to move up unless you are hugely productive. It is very demoralizing, to say the least.
They could at least freeze the royalties of the 20% guys (like me), for every one of us this is a kick in the teeth. (And our steady 20% don't affect the sustainability of the business at all, because it stays the same all the time)
The people we should worry about are the defeatists who are always complaining that there's nothing we can do about anything and we should all just bend over and touch our toes. :P
Do you really think anything as feeble as an upload boycott is going to work, when 90% of submitters are probably still in blissful ignorance about this?
I think you can only deactivate one at a time, which would be a pain with a port as big as yours.
Today I opened an company account for our ad agency on dreamstime and advised the employees not to use istock anymore. Beyond that I changed the PW of istock to prevent that some of the guys are just following an routine and accidentially buy there.
Check this out . .
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252382&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252382&page=1[/url])
Today I opened an company account for our ad agency on dreamstime and advised the employees not to use istock anymore. Beyond that I changed the PW of istock to prevent that some of the guys are just following an routine and accidentially buy there.
Well done! Applause from me. Hope others follow suit
I think you can only deactivate one at a time, which would be a pain with a port as big as yours.
I can't even find a way to do that. I figured I could start deleting a few at a time, starting with stuff that hasn't sold in a while. But I can't see a delete or deactivate button anywhere.
Check this out . .
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252382&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252382&page=1[/url])
Sorry but this is just a waste of time and effort. Starting petitions, changing your avatar to a red ribbon, it's all pointless and Getty doesn't care. If the people who started these "movements" spent the same amount of time contacting buyers to educate them on what is happening, we could solve this problem inside of a month.
It's like taking part in a community walk to fight a disease. The disease doesn't care about your solidarity and your commitment to go for a walk. You want to make a difference? Put down your hard earned cash to give it to researchers who are capable of finding a cure. It's the same with this situation. Those of you with connections to buyers need to get on the horn if you want real changes. That takes real work and commitment. Signing a petition just points out to Getty exactly who needs to be eliminated first.
I posted a translation of iStock's reply. LOL (Those of you who know me know what's coming. For the rest of you, this ought to be a bit fun.)
[url]http://bit.ly/istockchanges[/url] ([url]http://bit.ly/istockchanges[/url])
Check this out . .
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252382&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252382&page=1[/url])
Sorry but this is just a waste of time and effort. Starting petitions, changing your avatar to a red ribbon, it's all pointless and Getty doesn't care. If the people who started these "movements" spent the same amount of time contacting buyers to educate them on what is happening, we could solve this problem inside of a month.
It's like taking part in a community walk to fight a disease. The disease doesn't care about your solidarity and your commitment to go for a walk. You want to make a difference? Put down your hard earned cash to give it to researchers who are capable of finding a cure. It's the same with this situation. Those of you with connections to buyers need to get on the horn if you want real changes. That takes real work and commitment. Signing a petition just points out to Getty exactly who needs to be eliminated first.
I doubt the majority of buyers care how much we earn. They just want the right image and at bargain price.
I doubt the majority of buyers care how much we earn. They just want the right image and at bargain price.
I posted a translation of iStock's reply. LOL (Those of you who know me know what's coming. For the rest of you, this ought to be a bit fun.)
[url]http://bit.ly/istockchanges[/url] ([url]http://bit.ly/istockchanges[/url])
Well done! :-)
Click on the file. Click on Administration. Type something in the box. Click the big blue Deactivate button. It's a PITA.
Do you really think anything as feeble as an upload boycott is going to work, when 90% of submitters are probably still in blissful ignorance about this?
Yes, given enough months, I think it has a very good chance. It's not as feeble an idea as doing nothing at all which seems to be your main suggestion. All submitters should be aware of the situation as they have had the email.
Do you stop buying cheap things because they are made by cheap labor?
Click on the file. Click on Administration. Type something in the box. Click the big blue Deactivate button. It's a PITA.
No wonder I couldn't find it. Thanks; I figure I can deactivate a few every day as my little protest.
I doubt the majority of buyers care how much we earn. They just want the right image and at bargain price.
As was pointed out earlier in this thread, many designers are artists too and all too are familiar with the plights we face trying to get agencies to treat us fairly. Therefor it is possible some amount of empathy can be expected.
However the best argument to make to any designer is that -
1) The same images are available at a cheaper price at other sites
2) Despite the cheaper price, the artist will receive a larger commission due to a more fair profit sharing between the agency and artist
That's all that needs to be said. Include a direct link to the same image selling cheaper (but not ridiculously cheap) at a reputable agency. I also think it goes without saying that most artists are slightly anti-authoritarian and probably would view Getty in a much more negative light than say, Bigstock or Stockfresh.
I really don't think it is a difficult sell at all.
Do you stop buying cheap things because they are made by cheap labor?
Actually, Yes.
For example, my husband and I stopped shopping at WalMart a few years ago when I found out they were squeezing their suppliers to shut down US and other Western factories that paid a living wage and instead open sweatshops in third world countries. I have persuaded others to do the same.
Just today I drove 5 miles out of my way to buy a bouquet of flowers for a friend from a local Florist who supports my church, rather than just picking them up at the supermarket by my house.
Are WalMart or the supermarket going to go out of business? No. But I feel better about my choices, and if enough people did the same then the economy would not be in the toilet as it is.
It may be the case for the non-exclusives.
However, do you get paid more at other sites? From my recollections, even though IS only gave me 20%, I still got higher dollar amount, than, SS and FT, 123, Veer, etc. With DT, my Level 4 images were doing comparably ok but their sub sales sucked.
It may be the case for the non-exclusives.
However, do you get paid more at other sites? From my recollections, even though IS only gave me 20%, I still got higher dollar amount, than, SS and FT, 123, Veer, etc. With DT, my Level 4 images were doing comparably ok but their sub sales sucked.
Just for informational purposes - this past August my $/DL numbers at the top three PPD sites were: Istock $1.07, Fotolia $ 1.44, and Dreamstime $1.83. This is including sub sales. The very high rates for PPD still mean that I score considerably higher on a per sale basis at FT and DT than IS. And that is as it currently stands. Only gonna get worse when the new rates kick in. So yeah, it only makes sense to direct buyers to those sites.
Don't understand your WalMart question? What does it matter to me whether or not WalMart carries the 5DII if I don't shop there?
(...)The people we should worry about are the defeatists (...)
For the moment, I am going to contact every buyer I know, let them know what's happening to image producers at Istock, and offer them better choices of where to shop. I have also suspended uploading for the time being. I am leaving it open when I will resume uploading - don't want to box myself into a corner. Others are free to do what their consciences dictate.
BTW, Balderick, my initial comment about defeatism was not directed at you, and I don't think you fit that description.
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
You're now in the clear majority with that thinking, Cathy.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
This has become their modus operandi and I am SOOOO tired of it. I will be happy to make things easier for them. I have ZERO trust in the cr*p that comes out of their mouths anymore.
I doubt the majority of buyers care how much we earn. They just want the right image and at bargain price.
KB, do I detect a little sarcasm in your remark? Or is my general pissiness from this whole debacle spilling over into your innocent post? ;)
I just wonder in what drugs are iStock and Greedy???Welcome. We have been expecting you. :P
I just wonder in what drugs are iStock and Greedy???Welcome. We have been expecting you. :P
KB, do I detect a little sarcasm in your remark? Or is my general pissiness from this whole debacle spilling over into your innocent post? ;)
FWIW, I didn't read it as sarcastic. But I can TOTALLY relate to general pissiness spilling over. I am so aggravated over this my family is afraid to get near me :o
I doubt the majority of buyers care how much we earn. They just want the right image and at bargain price.
Do you stop buying cheap things because they are made by cheap labor?
Almighty Angry Parokeet, guide us through this iStock mess.
I doubt the majority of buyers care how much we earn. They just want the right image and at bargain price.
Do you stop buying cheap things because they are made by cheap labor?
So buyers do care, as well as some people only buy mahogany furniture with certified origin, or gives preference to local producers, or avoids buying imported stuff even if paying more for national, etc. You know, sustainability is a poweful word these days. Of course, not all buyers will care, maybe just a minority will care, but those of us who have access to buyers, this is a valid strategy. They can find good images elsewhere for basically the same price or cheaper.
KB, do I detect a little sarcasm in your remark? Or is my general pissiness from this whole debacle spilling over into your innocent post? ;)
FWIW, I didn't read it as sarcastic. But I can TOTALLY relate to general pissiness spilling over. I am so aggravated over this my family is afraid to get near me :o
KB, do I detect a little sarcasm in your remark? Or is my general pissiness from this whole debacle spilling over into your innocent post? ;)I'm afraid it's the latter. I genuinely believe that most iStockers, exclusive & independent, no longer trust management. How could they after this?
In September 2010, Getty Images iStock Photo Brand announced plans to cut payments to contributors by as much as 25% starting in 2011, while claiming that it furthered the interest of those same contributors. Getty's motivation was greeted with skepticism by the iStock community.[4]It's quite clear that the corporate nitwits of Getty are jealous at the bonuses in the financial world, even if those screwed up an entire economy. They need their fat payout at the end of the year. Looking at the couple of thousand I made on IS, that means 8000$ for them. I'd rather send my stuff for free on Flickr in the future.
Ditto... The folks at Stockfresh don't answer emails... I'm not impressed so far.
Not sure where you wrote, but we haven't received any e-mails from the address in your account. If you use the online form, we will definitely get it.
Do you stop buying cheap things because they are made by cheap labor?
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getty_Images[/url] ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getty_Images[/url])
Upload boycotts have worked to improve things with other sites that lowered royalties. I don't know if one will work at IS. I don't even know if doing what we can to drive buyers to the more reasonable sites will work. But I do know that doing nothing will guarantee we all go down the tubes. There is no doubt about that.
At some point it isn't just about how much you think you can change. I am not certain we can get them to change anything. For me it is an issue of deciding whether I want to to stand up for myself or just accept whatever crumbs Istock wants to toss my way without protest.
Either way, my income is going to be affected. Not only will I lose probably 10% of my IS income (which is 4-5% of my overall income), but I expect I will also lose income on the other sites when brilliant photographers who have been exclusive begin competing with me on the other sites. We are all in for some pain. The question is should we try to salvage the industry or just let it go down. I'm gonna try and salvage what I can because that's what I believe in.
For the moment, I am going to contact every buyer I know, let them know what's happening to image producers at Istock, and offer them better choices of where to shop. I have also suspended uploading for the time being. I am leaving it open when I will resume uploading - don't want to box myself into a corner. Others are free to do what their consciences dictate.
See the new line in they history ;D
In September 2010, Getty Images iStock Photo Brand announced plans to cut payments to contributors by as much as 25% starting in 2011, while claiming that it furthered the interest of those same contributors. Getty's motivation was greeted with skepticism by the iStock community.[4]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getty_Images[/url] ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getty_Images[/url])
IS have planned for this reaction. They held off an already preplanned reply for 24 hours, and will have another up their sleeve if the response remains at the same level. They have appeased the top contributors with the tiered system, so they won't cause a problem.
Maybe 100-1000 people will delete their potfolio - again anticipated. Maybe the amount of uploads will be 50% of the usual amount next week - again anticipated.
IS's end goal is to weather the protest and get their way. Bit by bit uploading will resume and the comments on the forum get less.
What we need is concerted, directed action. A small group of respected contributors should canvas popular opinion, and then with a mandate from us approach IS. Is are quite happy for us to moan for weeks, what they do not want is actual action. Direct emails to buyers, articles in newspapers, facebook campaigns etc etc. Neither do they want us to have a focal point. They see the community approach as a weakness, when in fact it is our strength.
I "Mr and Mrs X" represent the wishes of the following 10,000 contributors with a total portfolio size of 5 Million. We need to open constructive dialogue with IS, or on such a day at 12am MST everyone will begin deleting their portfolios at the rate of 1 picture per hour until an announcement is fothcoming on your site. A press release will also be issued etc, etc.
Candidates please step forward.
Oldhand'
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getty_Images[/url] ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getty_Images[/url])
I think the text don't fit there, it should be on iStock's page, for example here [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IStockphoto#Controversies[/url] ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IStockphoto#Controversies[/url])
1 - Ask for leaf's help on this site!
2. State an intention to run a poll for anyone interested in representing the wishes of Micro photographers against IS specifically. Post here, on Microstockdiaries, IS, plus all other micro sites (they might like that!) Interested parties to contact Leaf by say Monday 9am.
3. Poll runs for 48 hours. You can choose as many candidates as you like, then everyone with over 75% is in the negotiating group. If too many people have over 75%, then it will be the 6 most popular.
4. The group then privately discuss options for reaching agreement with IS. Total refusal, acceptance on condition your current level remains the same, etc, etc..
5. They canvas our opinion on their ideas by another poll, again advertised in advance.
6. They approach IS on our behalf, in private, and communicate back the best deal they can. Needs a 75% approval to pass.
7. Bargaining power! We need to operate from strength. so the group has to co-ordinate a list of all photographers supporting them with image numbers etc.
8. What happens if IS refuse to move. Then everyone on the list starts removing image every hour until negotiations begin again from a set date after negotiations break down. Press are contacted with a release.
As my old teacher would say, needs work, but we have to start concerted action to succeed.
Oldhand
Click on the file. Click on Administration. Type something in the box. Click the big blue Deactivate button. It's a PITA.
No wonder I couldn't find it. Thanks; I figure I can deactivate a few every day as my little protest.
Its a waste!! do you really think they care? IS same as the others are Agents, our agents, no contributor is fully employed with rights, etc, they merely represent us in selling our pics and we recieve a percentage, etc. They dont care! and if anybody wants to get out, so what? its thanks for the coffee and bye bye.
I agree! crap DOES sometimes happen but from a business point, its no use to stop uploading, what for? I remember back in the mid-90s in the RM sector when Getty cut us down from 50/50 to 60/40, even in some cases 70/30.
I agree! crap DOES sometimes happen but from a business point, its no use to stop uploading, what for? I remember back in the mid-90s in the RM sector when Getty cut us down from 50/50 to 60/40, even in some cases 70/30.
What do you mean "it's no use to stop uploading"? Of course it is. Maybe if you and others had taken a stand against Getty "back in the mid-90s", as you keep going on about, then you wouldn't have lost out as much as you did. Doing nothing will only ensure that history repeats itself.
Quite frankly, considering the PITA that the Istock upload systen is, I simply can't be bothered to upload there for a poxy 18%. At 20% it is bad enough already __ at some point you simply have to draw a line in the sand and say "No more".
I believe istock is encouraging big producers at the expense of smaller producers. Only the biggest producers will be able to access the best royalties. The long term effect of this will be a lack of diversity, with a huge number of similar images in the library. Short term profits but long term death.+1
I believe istock is encouraging big producers at the expense of smaller producers. Only the biggest producers will be able to access the best royalties. The long term effect of this will be a lack of diversity, with a huge number of similar images in the library. Short term profits but long term death.
I believe istock is encouraging big producers at the expense of smaller producers. Only the biggest producers will be able to access the best royalties. The long term effect of this will be a lack of diversity, with a huge number of similar images in the library. Short term profits but long term death.+1
I agree! crap DOES sometimes happen but from a business point, its no use to stop uploading, what for? I remember back in the mid-90s in the RM sector when Getty cut us down from 50/50 to 60/40, even in some cases 70/30.
What do you mean "it's no use to stop uploading"? Of course it is. Maybe if you and others had taken a stand against Getty "back in the mid-90s", as you keep going on about, then you wouldn't have lost out as much as you did. Doing nothing will only ensure that history repeats itself.
Quite frankly, considering the PITA that the Istock upload systen is, I simply can't be bothered to upload there for a poxy 18%. At 20% it is bad enough already __ at some point you simply have to draw a line in the sand and say "No more".
I believe istock is encouraging big producers at the expense of smaller producers. Only the biggest producers will be able to access the best royalties. The long term effect of this will be a lack of diversity, with a huge number of similar images in the library. Short term profits but long term death.+1
Hmm, I see very many diamond and even black diamond contributors voicing the fact that they will see huge cut in the IS forum. Or are these not considered big enough to be big producers. If not, then there is only handful of big producers, two or three?
One thing must be said in favor of IS: they are showing and almost incredible tolerance with the people's opinions in the thread, just deleting an absolute minority coming from people really out of their minds. They are tolerating insults, calls for deleting portfolios, calls for delintg buyyers accounts, calls for buying at another sites etc etc.
Yes, that doesn't solve the problem, I agree. But I don't know if that would be possible elsewhere.
We could start filling out our queues with over/under exposed noisy images. Or images that have no potential to sell but are perfectly lit. Inspectors would have to work, server costs would still go up, but it wouldn't bring them any profit.
We could start filling out our queues with over/under exposed noisy images. Or images that have no potential to sell but are perfectly lit. Inspectors would have to work, server costs would still go up, but it wouldn't bring them any profit.
Actually the more I think about it the more I am convinced that Istock/Getty/Hellerman know exactly what they are doing and they have structured this change to create exactly the result they want. The people who are talking about leaving are exactly they people they want gone. They are changing the structure of who they are and the vast majority of people contributing to the site they no longer want or feel they need. Thinkstock is the old istock - the new istock is going to be something different.
We could start filling out our queues with over/under exposed noisy images. Or images that have no potential to sell but are perfectly lit.
I agree! crap DOES sometimes happen but from a business point, its no use to stop uploading, what for? I remember back in the mid-90s in the RM sector when Getty cut us down from 50/50 to 60/40, even in some cases 70/30.
What do you mean "it's no use to stop uploading"? Of course it is. Maybe if you and others had taken a stand against Getty "back in the mid-90s", as you keep going on about, then you wouldn't have lost out as much as you did. Doing nothing will only ensure that history repeats itself.
Quite frankly, considering the PITA that the Istock upload systen is, I simply can't be bothered to upload there for a poxy 18%. At 20% it is bad enough already __ at some point you simply have to draw a line in the sand and say "No more".
I am not going to be uploading to this site anymore, and it has little to do with how it's going to affect IS's bottom line. Sure, it's going to affect my bottom line, but I am done with their games. They have wanted to get rid of independents since Getty bought the place, and that's exactly what's going to happen. I don't give a rat's a*s about what they think any more...this is about how I expect to be treated as a human being, and their way just isn't cutting it.
This is just one more big corporation using the whole bad economy thing to ream people and get them down to third world country wages. Look around, Getty isn't the only one. It's pretty sad that people with college degrees and years of experience in their field are having to accept minimum wage jobs just to make some kind of money, and the people who are lucky enough to still have jobs are having their wages lowered, all because of the "bad economy." Meanwhile, top management still drives around their Benz's and have 3 homes and vacation in Europe 4 times a year.
It's about self-respect. Something that doesn't seem to mean much anymore.
I am just waiting for the RM folks to jump in here with their "you didn't have any self respect when you started uploading to microstock. You get what you deserve." ::)
We could start filling out our queues with over/under exposed noisy images. Or images that have no potential to sell but are perfectly lit. Inspectors would have to work, server costs would still go up, but it wouldn't bring them any profit.
Use your time and energy more profitably by uploading your images to all the other agencies __ just not Istock.
Actually the more I think about it the more I am convinced that Istock/Getty/Hellerman know exactly what they are doing and they have structured this change to create exactly the result they want. The people who are talking about leaving are exactly they people they want gone. They are changing the structure of who they are and the vast majority of people contributing to the site they no longer want or feel they need. Thinkstock is the old istock - the new istock is going to be something different.
I'd agree with this. They've had nine months to carefully craft this program. It's getting the exact response and results they expected. It's pretty clear they want people who constantly produce a high volume of fresh highly sellable exclusive images. In other words, the good performers. It's probably safe to say the people most negatively affected aren't what they now consider good perfomers so if they protest or complain it doesn't matter. They probably don't want those people anyway.
Another thing that just hit me is that this is just the beginning of the weeding-out process. They will probably continue weeding-out the poor or even average performers who decided to stay anyway. These people will see rejection rates will go higher from tougher inspections. Eventually, if not already, your Redeemed Credit performance will affect your search placement further pushing down poor performers. They will continue to discourage people they don't want.
Actually the more I think about it the more I am convinced that Istock/Getty/Hellerman know exactly what they are doing and they have structured this change to create exactly the result they want. The people who are talking about leaving are exactly they people they want gone. They are changing the structure of who they are and the vast majority of people contributing to the site they no longer want or feel they need. Thinkstock is the old istock - the new istock is going to be something different.
I'd agree with this. They've had nine months to carefully craft this program. It's getting the exact response and results they expected. It's pretty clear they want people who constantly produce a high volume of fresh highly sellable exclusive images. In other words, the good performers. It's probably safe to say the people most negatively affected aren't what they now consider good perfomers so if they protest or complain it doesn't matter. They probably don't want those people anyway.
Another thing that just hit me is that this is just the beginning of the weeding-out process. They will probably continue weeding-out the poor or even average performers who decided to stay anyway. These people will see rejection rates will go higher from tougher inspections. Eventually, if not already, your Redeemed Credit performance will affect your search placement further pushing down poor performers. They will continue to discourage people they don't want.
Actually the more I think about it the more I am convinced that Istock/Getty/Hellerman know exactly what they are doing and they have structured this change to create exactly the result they want. The people who are talking about leaving are exactly they people they want gone. They are changing the structure of who they are and the vast majority of people contributing to the site they no longer want or feel they need. Thinkstock is the old istock - the new istock is going to be something different.
I'd agree with this. They've had nine months to carefully craft this program. It's getting the exact response and results they expected. It's pretty clear they want people who constantly produce a high volume of fresh highly sellable exclusive images. In other words, the good performers. It's probably safe to say the people most negatively affected aren't what they now consider good perfomers so if they protest or complain it doesn't matter. They probably don't want those people anyway.
Another thing that just hit me is that this is just the beginning of the weeding-out process. They will probably continue weeding-out the poor or even average performers who decided to stay anyway. These people will see rejection rates will go higher from tougher inspections. Eventually, if not already, your Redeemed Credit performance will affect your search placement further pushing down poor performers. They will continue to discourage people they don't want.
Actually the more I think about it the more I am convinced that Istock/Getty/Hellerman know exactly what they are doing and they have structured this change to create exactly the result they want. The people who are talking about leaving are exactly they people they want gone. They are changing the structure of who they are and the vast majority of people contributing to the site they no longer want or feel they need. Thinkstock is the old istock - the new istock is going to be something different.No, I wouldn't agree. If they didn't want certain contributors then there's lots of other things they could do about it.
Actually the more I think about it the more I am convinced that Istock/Getty/Hellerman know exactly what they are doing and they have structured this change to create exactly the result they want. The people who are talking about leaving are exactly they people they want gone. They are changing the structure of who they are and the vast majority of people contributing to the site they no longer want or feel they need. Thinkstock is the old istock - the new istock is going to be something different.No, I wouldn't agree. If they didn't want certain contributors then there's lots of other things they could do about it. This is about Istock reducing commissions for them to make even more eye-watering profits. That's why virtually EVERY contributors is losing out (if not in basic sales then from Vetta, EL's, vectors, etc), not just a select few. This is ONLY about PROFIT. It's purely about them exploiting contributors __ because they think they can.
Actually the more I think about it the more I am convinced that Istock/Getty/Hellerman know exactly what they are doing and they have structured this change to create exactly the result they want. The people who are talking about leaving are exactly they people they want gone. They are changing the structure of who they are and the vast majority of people contributing to the site they no longer want or feel they need. Thinkstock is the old istock - the new istock is going to be something different.No, I wouldn't agree. If they didn't want certain contributors then there's lots of other things they could do about it.
This is about Istock reducing commissions for them to make even more eye-watering profits. That's why virtually EVERY contributors is losing out (if not in basic sales then from Vetta, EL's, vectors, etc), not just a select few. This is ONLY about PROFIT. It's purely about them exploiting contributors __ because they think they can.
I believe istock is encouraging big producers at the expense of smaller producers. Only the biggest producers will be able to access the best royalties. The long term effect of this will be a lack of diversity, with a huge number of similar images in the library. Short term profits but long term death.
Big producers may be being hit less than others but almost all of them will be taking a hit somewhere. Don't forget that Vetta commissions have been slashed, so have EL commissions for exclusives and Vector artists' sales are worth barely half the redeemed credits of photographers for the purposes of calculating future earnings.
I agree with Walnuts but actually not even Yuri will get the 1.4Million, so who are the good performers??
This is most likely the case. At least one diamond as mentioned getting a personal phone call from an admin on the IS thread. I can only guess that they are soothing over the stock house contributors so that they will stay exclusive while not caring if the others leave.
I agree with Walnuts but actually not even Yuri will get the 1.4Million, so who are the good performers??
They have wanted to get rid of independents since Getty bought the place, and that's exactly what's going to happen.Is that so? Some simple math leads me to the conclusion that IS makes much more money (84%) off small independents than off big time exclusives (60%) given the same amount of credits spent. That scenario (of kicking out the John Doe independents) doesn't make sense, logically.
I'd agree about the profits. But, if it was only about profits they wouldn't have set up a performance based model. A main goal of any performance model is that it automatically weeds out weak performers. They have effectively turned every contributor into a sales person that carries a quota. The more you miss your quota the less you make and eventually you leave because it's not worth it. The model makes you get rid of yourself rather than making them look bad by them getting rid of you. First prize is a Cadillac, second prize is a set of steak knives, third prize is you're fired.
It's also probably more profitable to not spend operatings costs on poor performers. So in the end, it's all about profit anyway.
The only antidote to the above will be if they end up losing customers. We have to do whatever we can to make sure that happens!
They have wanted to get rid of independents since Getty bought the place, and that's exactly what's going to happen.Is that so? Some simple math leads me to the conclusion that IS makes much more money (84%) off small independents than off big time exclusives (60%) given the same amount of credits spent. That scenario (of kicking out the John Doe independents) doesn't make sense, logically.
They have wanted to get rid of independents since Getty bought the place, and that's exactly what's going to happen.Is that so? Some simple math leads me to the conclusion that IS makes much more money (84%) off small independents than off big time exclusives (60%) given the same amount of credits spent. That scenario (of kicking out the John Doe independents) doesn't make sense, logically.
Maybe you're simplifying the math too much. Look at the other side of the equation: the expense of reviewing. Independents represent a lot more uploads, with lower limits but a lot more of us. That likely means a lot more reviewer time, which is a direct expense. Assuming exclusives' work sells better, due to better search placement or better quality or both, then the cost/benefit balance slides toward exclusives. Heck, just the dollar or whatever they pay to PayPal MassPay whenever we ask for our money probably favors exclusives as well.
iStock seems determined to piss off independents. I have to assume they've determined there's a financial benefit to doing so.
Independents represent a lot more uploads, with lower limits but a lot more of us. That likely means a lot more reviewer time, which is a direct expense. Assuming exclusives' work sells better, due to better search placement or better quality or both, then the cost/benefit balance slides toward exclusives. Heck, just the dollar or whatever they pay to PayPal MassPay whenever we ask for our money probably favors exclusives as well.It surely cost the same to review a file whether it is from an independent or an exclusive and exclusivity does not place you higher in the search engine (other than Vetta). Independents also get paid a lot less commission so we only help Istock's desire for ever higherprofitability.
iStock seems determined to piss off independents. I have to assume they've determined there's a financial benefit to doing so.
Cultivating or exploiting the community?
Thompson bristles when questioned whether iStock's size and market power might mean it's turning from cultivating its community of contributors to strip-mining it.
"There's no way we could do that," he said. "We have no motivation to watch our contributors go elsewhere. Unless we provide a fair royalty, that will happen."
I agree with Walnuts but actually not even Yuri will get the 1.4Million, so who are the good performers??
I agree with Walnuts but actually not even Yuri will get the 1.4Million, so who are the good performers??
how can you make these statements? you don't know how much he sells and at what sizes, so you don't know if he does or doesn't.
if he averages 10 credits per sale, and sells 140,000 photos in a year, then its completely plausible. And thats only 12,000 photos per month for a stock photo machine that is legendary for being prolific - its completely plausible if I average 10 credits per image.
It surely cost the same to review a file whether it is from an independent or an exclusive and exclusivity does not place you higher in the search engine (other than Vetta). Independents also get paid a lot less commission so we only help Istock's desire for ever higher profitability.
how can you make these statements? you don't know how much he sells and at what sizes, so you don't know if he does or doesn't.
if he averages 10 credits per sale, and sells 140,000 photos in a year, then its completely plausible. And thats only 12,000 photos per month for a stock photo machine that is legendary for being prolific - its completely plausible if I average 10 credits per image.
Maybe you're simplifying the math too much. Look at the other side of the equation: the expense of reviewing. Independents represent a lot more uploads, with lower limits but a lot more of us. That likely means a lot more reviewer time, which is a direct expense.Looking at my own AR over 5 years and credits spent on my shots, it's still very profitable. CanStockPhoto reviewers get 4ct per review, SS reviewers get 2 cents more. Assume IS pays 15 or 20ct. Assuming I had 500 rejects (quod non), that would have cost them 100$ over 5 years. Compared with well over 2000 credits spent by customers on my stuff in 2010 alone (of which they keep 80%), that's still a huge profit. If the placement costs were really the issue, they could charge a placement fee of 25ct per image, or throttle down the upload limits of contributors with an appalling AR, like DT does. I still don't see the business sense of all this, but maybe I'm thick.
Maybe you're simplifying the math too much. Look at the other side of the equation: the expense of reviewing. Independents represent a lot more uploads, with lower limits but a lot more of us. That likely means a lot more reviewer time, which is a direct expense.Looking at my own AR over 5 years and credits spent on my shots, it's still very profitable. CanStockPhoto reviewers get 4ct per review, SS reviewers get 2 cents more. Assume IS pays 15 or 20ct. Assuming I had 500 rejects (quod non), that would have cost them 100$ over 5 years. Compared with well over 2000 credits spent by customers on my stuff in 2010 alone (of which they keep 80%), that's still a huge profit. If the placement costs were really the issue, they could charge a placement fee of 25ct per image, or throttle down the upload limits of contributors with an appalling AR, like DT does. I still don't see the business sense of all this, but maybe I'm thick.
It costs the same, but I wonder if that image has the same value over time. If they were to determine that the average exclusive's image generates more revenue than the average independent's, then the review cost of that exclusive's image is a smaller expense at the front end. So independents represent a greater cost due to the reduced benefit, and getting rid of a bunch of them improves profit even as it decreases revenue.This a self-inflicted artifact or a self-fulfilling prophecy since exclusives have a better placement in the best match.
Actually this is happening right now. Many buyers are announcing in the iS forum that they will stop buying from iS if they don't change their mind.
Also, the news are spreading fast:
[url]http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20015830-264.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20}[/url] ([url]http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20015830-264.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20}[/url])
I just wonder in what drugs are iStock and Greedy???Welcome. We have been expecting you. :P
See the new line in they history ;D
In September 2010, Getty Images iStock Photo Brand announced plans to cut payments to contributors by as much as 25% starting in 2011, while claiming that it furthered the interest of those same contributors. Getty's motivation was greeted with skepticism by the iStock community.[4]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getty_Images[/url] ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getty_Images[/url])
Actually this is happening right now. Many buyers are announcing in the iS forum that they will stop buying from iS if they don't change their mind.
Also, the news are spreading fast:
[url]http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20015830-264.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20}[/url] ([url]http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20015830-264.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20}[/url])
This is great news! I am trying to troll through the 100 or so pages of the current thread to find buyers posts, but not having a lot of luck.
Anyone who finds a buyer's posting care to link to it or quote them here for all of us that are desperately trying (and failing) to keep up ???
ETA: Just started a new thread to try and organize buyer's opinions into one place.
Actually this is happening right now. Many buyers are announcing in the iS forum that they will stop buying from iS if they don't change their mind.
Also, the news are spreading fast:
[url]http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20015830-264.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20}[/url] ([url]http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20015830-264.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20}[/url])
This is great news! I am trying to troll through the 100 or so pages of the current thread to find buyers posts, but not having a lot of luck.
Anyone who finds a buyer's posting care to link to it or quote them here for all of us that are desperately trying (and failing) to keep up ???
ETA: Just started a new thread to try and organize buyer's opinions into one place.
Surfing through the enormous thread is a pain. I found three, though:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252322&messageid=4613522[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252322&messageid=4613522[/url])
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252322&messageid=4616262[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252322&messageid=4616262[/url])
and this one, crying out loud:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252322&messageid=4615822[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252322&messageid=4615822[/url])
This time next year, I'd love to see StockFresh in the Big Four, with iStock in the Middle Tier.
Let's do whatever we can to make that happen.
If they want me out, they made it. :) I am happy that I found another place to sell my talent for for music for more money and I'm already approved there. Since I disabled all my audio files today, the next step will be dropping exclusivity.
Awesome! Many thanks to the three buyers represented here! One of them isn't even a contributor. Thanks Peresanz for posting the links. Hop you don't mind if I repost them in the Buyers Bail thread?
Absolutely, please do it!
...Until 2005/2006 (well, actually until the photos.com/thinkstock affair) Istockphoto was the fairer a better rewarding agency. But even then, it was regularly attacked for many people.
Yeah, hey everybody, i think the idea here is to try and get better terms from Istock.
This angry mob stuff with pitchforks and torches stuff aint the best route. By driving off buyers you are burning the house down that some of your fellow contributors are still in. And what happens if istock decides to make adjustments that are more acceptable to contributors. Are those buyers coming back? Probably not.
Think before just doing stuff.
...Until 2005/2006 (well, actually until the photos.com/thinkstock affair) Istockphoto was the fairer a better rewarding agency. But even then, it was regularly attacked for many people.
istock has been on the low end of artist commissions for a lot longer than the photos.com/thinkstock days. They've been fairly attacked and criticized for doing exactly what they're pushing forward with today, keeping the bar low on royalties. In 2005 and 2006 I'm pretty sure StockXpert was already around, and they certainly offered a more fair rate than istock ever offered, even to exclusives.
istock has never been the more fair and rewarding agency.
And what happens if istock decides to make adjustments that are more acceptable to contributors. Are those buyers coming back? Probably not.
Think before just doing stuff.
Yeah, hey everybody, i think the idea here is to try and get better terms from Istock. This angry mob stuff with pitchforks and torches stuff aint the best route. By driving off buyers you are burning the house down that some of your fellow contributors are still in. And what happens if istock decides to make adjustments that are more acceptable to contributors. Are those buyers coming back? Probably not. Think before just doing stuff.
sorry but that is non-sense.. someone reduce your paycheck and you just stay very quiet to earn something, that's another problem in microstock, everybody is accepting whatever the deal is (I am not saying I am not one of those) but there are limits.. 15% is ridiculous! 80% wasn't enough to run this business, always listening that they do 700k daily.. when is going to be enough???..
If they want me out, they made it. :) I am happy that I found another place to sell my talent for for music for more money and I'm already approved there. Since I disabled all my audio files today, the next step will be dropping exclusivity.
Well, that's better and more reasonable than trashing cars or burning buildings.
Think before just doing stuff.
Yeah, hey everybody, i think the idea here is to try and get better terms from Istock.
[...]
Think before just doing stuff.
Yeah, hey everybody, i think the idea here is to try and get better terms from Istock.
This angry mob stuff with pitchforks and torches stuff aint the best route. By driving off buyers you are burning the house down that some of your fellow contributors are still in. And what happens if istock decides to make adjustments that are more acceptable to contributors. Are those buyers coming back? Probably not.
Think before just doing stuff.
By driving off buyers you are burning the house down that some of your fellow contributors are still in.
Yeah, hey everybody, i think the idea here is to try and get better terms from Istock.
This angry mob stuff with pitchforks and torches stuff aint the best route. By driving off buyers you are burning the house down that some of your fellow contributors are still in. And what happens if istock decides to make adjustments that are more acceptable to contributors. Are those buyers coming back? Probably not.
Think before just doing stuff.
Sean already stated that neither he, DNY59, nor even LISE can meet the 1.4 million credit threshold to be in the highest tier. That's NOBODY. Same for independents. It's a total red herring.
Sean already stated that neither he, DNY59, nor even LISE can meet the 1.4 million credit threshold to be in the highest tier. That's NOBODY. Same for independents. It's a total red herring.
In fairness though, DNY59 disagreed with Sean on this issue and felt the 1.4m threshold was attainable. It's buried somewhere in the first thread. FWIW I agree with Sean that it is unattainable, but DNY59 is amazingly talented and if he thinks he can do it, then I am not going to doubt him.
Yeah, hey everybody, i think the idea here is to try and get better terms from Istock.
This angry mob stuff with pitchforks and torches stuff aint the best route. By driving off buyers you are burning the house down that some of your fellow contributors are still in. And what happens if istock decides to make adjustments that are more acceptable to contributors. Are those buyers coming back? Probably not.
Think before just doing stuff.
Exclusives have quite a lengthy record of dancing round the bonfire as istock torches the independents, if I remember rightly. If burning down the barn on istock's farm puts an end to micros trying to screw their contributors then it may turn out to be best for all of us.
What happens will happen. It's got a life of its own. Either the spark will catch or it will go out.
This time next year, I'd love to see StockFresh in the Big Four, with iStock in the Middle Tier.
Let's do whatever we can to make that happen.
This is a worthy goal Mike, and I agree with you completely. I am on SF already and have very high hopes for its success. Only problem is that SF is not ready for us yet, and most people here don't have their images there. So redirecting buyers there is going to leave the vast majority of disaffected istockers out in the cold.
I suggest sending buyers to FT or DT, both of which give us a fair % and both of which are fully up and operational with a collection that's able to rival istock's for scope and quality.
is FT Fotolia?
Yeah, hey everybody, i think the idea here is to try and get better terms from Istock.
This angry mob stuff with pitchforks and torches stuff aint the best route. By driving off buyers you are burning the house down that some of your fellow contributors are still in. And what happens if istock decides to make adjustments that are more acceptable to contributors. Are those buyers coming back? Probably not.
Think before just doing stuff.
Exclusives have quite a lengthy record of dancing round the bonfire as istock torches the independents, if I remember rightly. If burning down the barn on istock's farm puts an end to micros trying to screw their contributors then it may turn out to be best for all of us.
Yeah, hey everybody, i think the idea here is to try and get better terms from Istock.
This angry mob stuff with pitchforks and torches stuff aint the best route. By driving off buyers you are burning the house down that some of your fellow contributors are still in. And what happens if istock decides to make adjustments that are more acceptable to contributors. Are those buyers coming back? Probably not.
Think before just doing stuff.
Exclusives have quite a lengthy record of dancing round the bonfire as istock torches the independents, if I remember rightly. If burning down the barn on istock's farm puts an end to micros trying to screw their contributors then it may turn out to be best for all of us.
What happens will happen. It's got a life of its own. Either the spark will catch or it will go out.
Looking at your portfolio you better stay exclusive!
This time next year, I'd love to see StockFresh in the Big Four, with iStock in the Middle Tier.
Let's do whatever we can to make that happen.
This is a worthy goal Mike, and I agree with you completely. I am on SF already and have very high hopes for its success. Only problem is that SF is not ready for us yet, and most people here don't have their images there. So redirecting buyers there is going to leave the vast majority of disaffected istockers out in the cold.
I suggest sending buyers to FT or DT, both of which give us a fair % and both of which are fully up and operational with a collection that's able to rival istock's for scope and quality.
is FT Fotolia? I'm researching my options - plan to go Independent the first of the year. Might as well, I'm screwed if I stay exclusive at iStock.
I don't think you fully comprehend what just happened. You want to negotiate better terms with con artists? Because that's what these parasites are.
Luring so many people into exclusivity and then screwing everybody with no mercy - that must be one of the greatest cons in the history of stock photography.
I don't think you should even hope that it will stop here, their goal is to squeeze as much as possible, this monster is insatiable. Unless they lose some ground I expect in 3-4 years it will be 5-10% for non-exclusives and 20% for exclusives. The show has just begun.
What's even more dangerous, they have a history of acquisitions. I'm pretty convinced they are planning to buy other microstock agencies until they can shape the whole stock market the way they wish. That's why they need cash, loads of cash. If they succeed you will have to be happy with the crumbs they will throw you.
What can we do to protect our incomes? Basically it comes down to cause them to gradually lose their market share.
1. Short term goal: make a stink around them, kick and bite, draw the buyers away from them.
Sure, they are big but there are very many of us. So it is like the fight of Liliputians against Gulliver. It can get very, very unpleasant for them.
2. Mid-term goal: find a way to strenghten the market share of the weaker but fair agencies. We need 10-15 agencies that are more or less equally strong that would compete for contributors.
I don't know how to achieve this, but only 4 top agencies is a potentially dangerous situation. Getty can buy SS, DT, FT at any time and then it's Game Over for pretty much everyone.
3. Long-term goal: come up with a new, decentralised distribution model to replace or complement microstock. This has been discussed before. I believe this is possible but it it is a topic for another thread. There are very many clever people among contributors, I hope that we will invent something better.
I know it hurts if you're exclusive Paulie, but in 2012 you can consider yourself very lucky or succesful if you keep your current roaylty rate. The show has just begun. They have set up a hamster wheel for you and us, can't you see it?
I have always thought going exclusive was reckless and a bad business decision because I was afraid eventually something like this could happen. I hate to be right this time and I really don't like the idea of former exclusives flooding SS,DT etc. with their images...
In fairness though, DNY59 disagreed with Sean on this issue and felt the 1.4m threshold was attainable. It's buried somewhere in the first thread. FWIW I agree with Sean that it is unattainable, but DNY59 is amazingly talented and if he thinks he can do it, then I am not going to doubt him.
In fairness though, DNY59 disagreed with Sean on this issue and felt the 1.4m threshold was attainable. It's buried somewhere in the first thread. FWIW I agree with Sean that it is unattainable, but DNY59 is amazingly talented and if he thinks he can do it, then I am not going to doubt him.
He was talking with me in part of that, and he very specifically said he himself could NOT make that target.
27.1% of my 2,166 images in my port were uploaded this year. I also went exclusive in February of this year. I am a little over 3,000 downloads from hitting diamond, and if I double my credits redeemed by the end of the year, I will still not have enough to keep the 35% I now have as a gold exclusive, let alone hit the 40% I was promised (when I hit 25K) in exchange for my exclusivity at the start of the year.
I have already uploaded more than I uploaded during the entire last year, and last year I had almost doubled what I had uploaded in any of the 6 years I have been with iStock.
I have been producing more content, like iStock is hoping to encourage, and practically everything I have uploaded this year has been XXXL. I am not going to have enough redeemed credits to even keep the 35% I currently get, let alone the 40% iStock guaranteed I would be locked into when I agreed to remove my files from other sites.
He was talking with me in part of that, and he very specifically said he himself could NOT make that target.
So if I have more credits redeemed, better search rankings, etc as a fresh exclusive, AND increased the size of my portfolio by 37% in that same time period, yet still cannot reach even the minimum level to simply keep 35% royalties, what kind of contributors are they expecting to see maintain their current levels or increase?
He was talking with me in part of that, and he very specifically said he himself could NOT make that target.
I think you'll find that "he" (DNY59) is definitely female. It's the bit when she talks about her 'husband' that gives it away somewhat.
He was talking with me in part of that, and he very specifically said he himself could NOT make that target.
I think you'll find that "he" (DNY59) is definitely female. It's the bit when she talks about her 'husband' that gives it away somewhat.
I thought he was a she, too, because I think her name is Diane.
Sean already stated that neither he, DNY59, nor even LISE can meet the 1.4 million credit threshold to be in the highest tier. That's NOBODY. Same for independents. It's a total red herring.
In fairness though, DNY59 disagreed with Sean on this issue and felt the 1.4m threshold was attainable. It's buried somewhere in the first thread. FWIW I agree with Sean that it is unattainable, but DNY59 is amazingly talented and if he thinks he can do it, then I am not going to doubt him.
This is interesting. The poll stands at 37% leaving iStock completely at the moment.
[url]http://www.micropoll.com/akira/mpresult/852926-275197[/url] ([url]http://www.micropoll.com/akira/mpresult/852926-275197[/url])
Doesn't matter much if they are really about to lose 37% of their contributors.
So if I have more credits redeemed, better search rankings, etc as a fresh exclusive, AND increased the size of my portfolio by 37% in that same time period, yet still cannot reach even the minimum level to simply keep 35% royalties, what kind of contributors are they expecting to see maintain their current levels or increase?
This is so disgusting David. You, Kyle, and others that just got persuaded to go exclusive this year with their promises of preserving canister levels.
It is absolutely no coincidence that they used that deal to get everyone interested in exclusivity on board by August, and then the first week of September they drop this bomb.
I was sooo clooose to doing it myself. I even signed the contract to preserve my canister, and when I did I got personal contacts from some high up admins promising they would "take very good care" of me. It absolutely sickens me how they have breached their promises to you.
Looking at your portfolio you better stay exclusive!
This time next year, I'd love to see StockFresh in the Big Four, with iStock in the Middle Tier.
Let's do whatever we can to make that happen.
This is a worthy goal Mike, and I agree with you completely. I am on SF already and have very high hopes for its success. Only problem is that SF is not ready for us yet, and most people here don't have their images there. So redirecting buyers there is going to leave the vast majority of disaffected istockers out in the cold.
I suggest sending buyers to FT or DT, both of which give us a fair % and both of which are fully up and operational with a collection that's able to rival istock's for scope and quality.
is FT Fotolia? I'm researching my options - plan to go Independent the first of the year. Might as well, I'm screwed if I stay exclusive at iStock.
I've never had much contact with her before, so apologies for the gender misstatement :)
Looking at your portfolio you better stay exclusive!
why do you say that?
I might be wrong, but I think it was a back-handed compliment in reference to the idea of your work being released onto other sites = stiff competition. :)
As much as I support boycotting further uploads for a few months we have to consider what the outcome (most likely) will be.
The 100+ inspectors will be out of work after approx. 7-10 days. That means that iStock starts saving money as they won't be paying any inspectors for the period of no images coming in.
Over 3 months I assume they would save around $0.5 million maybe more. That's actually not even bad for them considering that they keep running their business technically as if nothing happened, just without brand new images. I'm sure naive buyers don't care.
I can't see how this would dramatically affect IS.
The only way we, as contributors can take action, is removing our files. This way we make the decision for the buyers and they don't even have an option of buying our images at IS. Just by telling them might not even work as some are probably sitting on credit packages that they need to use anyway.
You think they would forget about tens or hundreds of $$$ just because some photographer they know is not getting paid enough - next year...?
It's like ripping my own heart out when thinking about pulling my port at IS due to the hard work I put in. I will take enough time necessary to think about that one.
Exactly why I go exclusive and was happy until this. I'm still happy since I can reactivate my portfolio at Dreamstime and Shutterstock quite easily (couple of hours). Still I don't know if my images will keep their search popularity they had before at SS, and neither If my images will stay level 2 and 3 at DT :-\
Lobo eats tacos while contributors burn.LOL! Sadly.
...for the maximum impact, we should set up D-day, a day where contributors deactivate their most popular files. this could be for a day or a week or longer, but it isn't permanent and you don't even have to pull your entire port. it sends a clear message to the management that the contributors can turn off the spigot anytime we choose. it will impact your bottom line, but collectively, it will impact is bottom line tremendously, perhaps to the tune of $.5 million a day. will someone listen then?
I really can't remember that. Post some real example, please.
I really can't remember that. Post some real example, please.
Go and read the responses to the pay rate announcement made at the beginning of the year.
Do you think it's an accident that the COO made a special point in his last post of saying that he was shafting non-exclusives really hard? He was expecting it to get the usual WooYay from the in-crowd.
I really can't remember that. Post some real example, please.
Go and read the responses to the pay rate announcement made at the beginning of the year.
Just did it. Nothing at all of what you mean. Zero examples. Sorry, I fear you could be a little paranoid, or personally interested in a comfromtation between exclusives and independents that just can weaken the contributors strength in these decisive moments.
I really can't remember that. Post some real example, please.
Go and read the responses to the pay rate announcement made at the beginning of the year.
Just did it. Nothing at all of what you mean. Zero examples. Sorry, I fear you could be a little paranoid, or personally interested in a comfromtation between exclusives and independents that just can weaken the contributors strength in these decisive moments.
No you didn't, you haven't had time to go through that lot. So you're just saying whatever comes into your head.
More interestingly, Shank Ali has turned negative on iStock and accused them of destroying trust and stealing contributors money... I never thought I would see the day
Not everybody is so slow.
I'm still evaluating, but right now I'm leaning strongly toward dropping my exclusive status at iStock come the first of the year.That's what we are afraid of. So many top talents exclusives on IS and if they decide to flood the other sites with their work, we regulars at those other sites will suffer. :P (it's a compliment).
I'm still evaluating, but right now I'm leaning strongly toward dropping my exclusive status at iStock come the first of the year.
Not everybody is so slow.
Sixty-nine thread pages read in full and digested in less than 26 minutes. I'm impressed. You should be a forum moderator.
Not everybody is so slow.
Sixty-nine thread pages read in full and digested in less than 26 minutes. I'm impressed. You should be a forum moderator.
Who I am it's not your business. And if you think that I would spend more than fifteen minutes browsing in a thread when you have been not able to cut and paste one single example (in so many pages!) in a full day to support your campaign to confront exclusives and independents, you are very wrong.
You won't waste time trawling through hundreds of posts to find out what I am saying, but you demand that I should waste time trawling through them to provide evidence that you can't be bothered to look for yourself.
Just when you thought is was over, it starts again, like a bloody headache. Getty Images, the agency that suffers and profits the most from micro stock is about to launch a cross brand collection. Called the Agency Collection, at least on Istock, it will be priced at a premium to Vetta and will be available on iStock, Getty Images, Jupiter and PunchStock.
It will include images from Getty Images, but also from Istock contributors.
Why is this important ? Because this will be the first time that the same image will be available on all brands owned by Getty Images. Will they be priced the same? The post from Istock Kelly Thomspon doesn’t say, although the mention that they will be “priced at a premium to Vetta”seems to indicate that there is a good chance they will be.
A long awaited natural step, this cross brand collection will give Getty a lot of valuable data.
First and foremost, it will show which brand is the most successful at selling these images. If Istockphoto sells more than twenty times what Getty images has sold, you can be sure that will prompt the Seattle giant to revisit the need for sales people, something they are trying hard to prove. If Punchstock doesn’t sell any, they might shut down that brad.. And so on.
It will also show if an image sells better if available on multiple sites at the same time. In theory, it should be.
Istockphoto certainly has an edge in this competition. Not only it is a 100% royalty free platform, unlike the others, but it has much, much more traffic than the others, which, for RF, is critical.
A couple weeks ago they said they were paying out $1.7 million a week in royalties. At the first of the year I believe it was $1.2 million. Let's assume $1.7 million for the whole 52 weeks. That's about $88 million paid out to contributors in a year. Is he saying it costs $212 million a year to operate that web site? What is the staff being paid? Sure money is spent on advertising, but really how much "profit" do they need?? They expected to grow revenue 50% in 2010. The payout to contributors sure hasn't grown by 50%. I don't see any way that he could argue that the business has "become less profitable with increased success."
A couple weeks ago they said they were paying out $1.7 million a week in royalties. At the first of the year I believe it was $1.2 million. Let's assume $1.7 million for the whole 52 weeks. That's about $88 million paid out to contributors in a year. Is he saying it costs $212 million a year to operate that web site? What is the staff being paid? Sure money is spent on advertising, but really how much "profit" do they need?? They expected to grow revenue 50% in 2010. The payout to contributors sure hasn't grown by 50%. I don't see any way that he could argue that the business has "become less profitable with increased success."
It's all just BS, Getty gave the new CEO that target. New CEO has to meet +50%. No sustainable way to reach that crazy level of growth, so they take the easy route and screw their contributors. It's easy to say IStock is run independently of Getty, but when they set the targets to cover the price they paid for the company and the targets are crazy unobtainable by steady growth blam, it's grab the soap time for me and you.
You can have 500% growth in revenue and -200% growth in profit.
You can have 500% growth in revenue and -200% growth in profit.
the only thing you need for that is an incredibly bad management... ;D
We've got 5531 exclusive contributors in our contributor charts:
base contributors 105 ( 1.9%)
bronze contributors 2417 (43.7%)
silver contributors 1647 (29.8%)
gold contributors 760 (13.7%)
diamond contributors 574 (10.4%)
blackdiamond contributors 28 ( 0.5%)
Here is something that makes me angry. The iStockcharts folks emailed this to me this morning.Quote
We've got 5531 exclusive contributors in our contributor charts:
base contributors 105 ( 1.9%)
bronze contributors 2417 (43.7%)
silver contributors 1647 (29.8%)
gold contributors 760 (13.7%)
diamond contributors 574 (10.4%)
blackdiamond contributors 28 ( 0.5%)
Kelly says 76% of exclusives will not take a hit. 43.7% of them won't because they are bronze. Another 29.8% are silver, and stand a fairly good chance of hitting that low 2000 credit target. Add in the 1.9% base contributors that are guaranteed to go up. That is 75.4% of exclusives.
iStock is gunning for your royalties golds and exclusives, I guess we now know why the silver target was set so comparatively low. It makes it easier for them to say that 76% of people will not see a change.
You can have 500% growth in revenue and -200% growth in profit.the only thing you need for that is an incredibly bad management... ;D
It's not bad management. It's desparate or greedy management depending on the person. Depends on which type of person you believe Kelly is.
Kelly may be telling the truth that this new model didn't come from up above. But what did come from up above were probably some insane revenue and profit goals. "Kelly, here are your goals. You are expected to meet these for 2011." So Kelly came up with this model to either keep his job (desparate) or get a big fat bonus (greedy). Unfortunately after he spent 9 months of going through the numbers he realized some drastic changes had to be made to meet those goals.
- He changed to a performance model. Not enough. Still short of goal.
- He cut commissions a little. Still short of goal.
- He cut commissions more. Still short of goal.
- He raised performance goals. Still short of goal.
- So why did he cut the extended license bonus? He had to. Every little bit counts
H&F/Getty set the goals. Management are making decisions based on the goals.
Did anyone notice this? ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_23946[/url])
Did anyone notice this? ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_23946[/url])
Here is something that makes me angry. The iStockcharts folks emailed this to me this morning.Quote
We've got 5531 exclusive contributors in our contributor charts:
base contributors 105 ( 1.9%)
bronze contributors 2417 (43.7%)
silver contributors 1647 (29.8%)
gold contributors 760 (13.7%)
diamond contributors 574 (10.4%)
blackdiamond contributors 28 ( 0.5%)
Kelly says 76% of exclusives will not take a hit. 43.7% of them won't because they are bronze. Another 29.8% are silver, and stand a fairly good chance of hitting that low 2000 credit target. Add in the 1.9% base contributors that are guaranteed to go up. That is 75.4% of exclusives.
iStock is gunning for your royalties golds and diamonds, I guess we now know why the silver target was set so comparatively low. It makes it easier for them to say that 76% of people will not see a change.
Did anyone notice this? ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_23946[/url])
Yes, previously posted here:
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/for-exclusives-at-is-here-is-info-on-alternatives/msg159929/?topicseen#new[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/for-exclusives-at-is-here-is-info-on-alternatives/msg159929/?topicseen#new[/url])
... And what happens if istock decides to make adjustments that are more acceptable to contributors. Are those buyers coming back? Probably not...
Did anyone notice this? ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_23946[/url])
Yes, previously posted here:
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/for-exclusives-at-is-here-is-info-on-alternatives/msg159929/?topicseen#new[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/for-exclusives-at-is-here-is-info-on-alternatives/msg159929/?topicseen#new[/url])
Neither did I. Thanks for posting here Thomas.
Sorry I didn't see that :-)
I just took a step back and reassessed the IStock changes. If you think about what they say they are trying to, reward contributors for what they are contributing now rather then the legacy stuff they uploaded, the changes look even stupider and unnecessarily convoluted.
If their goal is really this why not just offer flat percentages, one rate for exclusive one for nonexclusives. Those who sell more make more, why bother with the tiered system at all. I wonder if this is where they are heading (?)
I just took a step back and reassessed the IStock changes. If you think about what they say they are trying to, reward contributors for what they are contributing now rather then the legacy stuff they uploaded, the changes look even stupider and unnecessarily convoluted.
If their goal is really this why not just offer flat percentages, one rate for exclusive one for nonexclusives. Those who sell more make more, why bother with the tiered system at all. I wonder if this is where they are heading (?)
Kelly says 76% of exclusives will not take a hit. 43.7% of them won't because they are bronze. Another 29.8% are silver, and stand a fairly good chance of hitting that low 2000 credit target. Add in the 1.9% base contributors that are guaranteed to go up. That is 75.4% of exclusives.
iStock is gunning for your royalties golds and diamonds, I guess we now know why the silver target was set so comparatively low. It makes it easier for them to say that 76% of people will not see a change.
I dind't say the agency that payed higher comissions, but the more rewarding, the one that generated most incoming for their contributors. Well I suppose you understood it, but maybe yoy felt better misinterpreting.
Don't agree neither in the second point. Even now, IS (Istock, not Getty Thinkstock) have the only fair subs systems.
@Loop,
Oh, please. Baldrick is right.
There are a lot of exclusives who don't give a d*** about what happens to independents. Not only that, but deep down they harbour this lovely hope that independents get crushed further and further - commissions, best match - search position, exposure, collections access - , give nothing to independents, let them rot.
This is OUR site, We built it, We deserve every perk, it's US, the Exclusives who should get all the rewards. Independents are kindly invited to bear the blows and rot in hell.
It's a common attitude and one of the main reasons I never wanted to be part of the 'crowned' group. Not cool. At all.
Of course Baldrick is right. And don't ask me to cut and paste, it's stupid, but I might well do it.
That doesn't mean that every exclusive is guilty.
And it's definitely not a subject we should be discussing right now.
What bothers me right now is this - how far is too far?
How many independents are willing to take the cut and submit their images for 15 % commission? Probably most of them.
I strongly belive that there's no such thing as 'going too far' in the world of microstock photographers. 10% commission is fine, and so is 5.
0.25 cents is better than nothing and the race is on.
QuoteI'm still evaluating, but right now I'm leaning strongly toward dropping my exclusive status at iStock come the first of the year.
Yeah, well I'd evaluate very carefully. I know of two reasonably high selling exclusives who dropped exclusivity last year, they're now back on IS with their tails between their legs, back as exclusives. Your income will plummet, I kid you not, I've seen one of the figures. If you have a few years to spare to crawl back up the rankings elsewhere ( an increasingly hard task) and your IS income is just pocket money it may be worth a punt, if you have more to lose than pocket money I'd be very careful. Most of the people here pulling their work are very small fishes making a huge amount of noise completely out of all proportion to their sales. They will miss the loss in income more than IS will miss them.
Kelly says 76% of exclusives will not take a hit. 43.7% of them won't because they are bronze. Another 29.8% are silver, and stand a fairly good chance of hitting that low 2000 credit target. Add in the 1.9% base contributors that are guaranteed to go up. That is 75.4% of exclusives.
iStock is gunning for your royalties golds and diamonds, I guess we now know why the silver target was set so comparatively low. It makes it easier for them to say that 76% of people will not see a change.
Even if you maintain your current level, is it safe to say that any serious advancement is dead in the water for most people?
Another news article about us:
[url]http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/61173/20100910/istockphoto-gets-ire-of-contributors-over-new-payment-scheme.htm[/url] ([url]http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/61173/20100910/istockphoto-gets-ire-of-contributors-over-new-payment-scheme.htm[/url])
Another news article about us:
[url]http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/61173/20100910/istockphoto-gets-ire-of-contributors-over-new-payment-scheme.htm[/url] ([url]http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/61173/20100910/istockphoto-gets-ire-of-contributors-over-new-payment-scheme.htm[/url])
Written by Getty, apparently.
QuoteI'm still evaluating, but right now I'm leaning strongly toward dropping my exclusive status at iStock come the first of the year.
Yeah, well I'd evaluate very carefully. I know of two reasonably high selling exclusives who dropped exclusivity last year, they're now back on IS with their tails between their legs, back as exclusives. Your income will plummet, I kid you not, I've seen one of the figures. If you have a few years to spare to crawl back up the rankings elsewhere ( an increasingly hard task) and your IS income is just pocket money it may be worth a punt, if you have more to lose than pocket money I'd be very careful. Most of the people here pulling their work are very small fishes making a huge amount of noise completely out of all proportion to their sales. They will miss the loss in income more than IS will miss them.
What a load of crap. The potential is there for even MORE income by diversifying. You cannot say definitively for every single exclusive that they're income will drop MORE by dropping exclusivity over staying and taking it up the rear.
Has anyone else noticed a connection between istock's announcement and a rash of obnoxious spamming?Yap, Sumos is one of those obnoxious iSyndica guys, spamming all over.
I am on the video side and will retain my current level in 2011. That being said sometimes I am jealous of Non-Exclusives. I started video there when video started at IS. I did a ton of research and the only people I could find on the web who were making any decent money was IS exclusives. So I closed my accounts everywhere and went exclusive. It has been good for me. My medical job was cut in April of this year so iStock is what is feeding my family. Now if you think that is easy street think again! I am not holding out for any change. I just need to focus on getting good content out there. If I dropped my exclusive in 2011 I would go from 35% to 18% ahh could you afford that? I just can't afford it and I can't find a Cat Scan job in my area at all. I can relocate as there are medical jobs out there if I have to. Wish me luck and I have been fighting for all you non-exclusives. I feel the bottom of the barrel should be 20%
Expect update announcement from IS later today:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253252&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253252&page=1[/url])
Another announcement filled with lies?
I feel very sorry for those who need iStock to put food on their tables.
Another news article about us:
[url]http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/61173/20100910/istockphoto-gets-ire-of-contributors-over-new-payment-scheme.htm[/url] ([url]http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/61173/20100910/istockphoto-gets-ire-of-contributors-over-new-payment-scheme.htm[/url])
Written by Getty, apparently.
Another news article about us:
[url]http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/61173/20100910/istockphoto-gets-ire-of-contributors-over-new-payment-scheme.htm[/url] ([url]http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/61173/20100910/istockphoto-gets-ire-of-contributors-over-new-payment-scheme.htm[/url])
Written by Getty, apparently.
Yes, this is not really an article, it is a Getty press release. The "IBTimes" may just be a site which prints press releases for a fee.
It shows that IS/Getty, while not openly responding to the outrage of their suppliers on their own forums, do feel it necessary to take PR steps outside their own site.
@Jamirae,
I don't hate you. I like you actually :)
And I wish you best of luck. I mean it.
And if indeed there are many IStock Exclusives who think independents have been treated unfairly over the years, well, they should have been more vocal.
I'm not going to go into all that now; let's just wait for the announcement and hope for the best.
For all of us.
Another news article about us:
[url]http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/61173/20100910/istockphoto-gets-ire-of-contributors-over-new-payment-scheme.htm[/url] ([url]http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/61173/20100910/istockphoto-gets-ire-of-contributors-over-new-payment-scheme.htm[/url])
just when you think you can't get any more pissed off they go and write some crap like that. There's so much BS and misinformation in that release it's untrue arrrghhhhhhhhhh
Another news article about us:
[url]http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/61173/20100910/istockphoto-gets-ire-of-contributors-over-new-payment-scheme.htm[/url] ([url]http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/61173/20100910/istockphoto-gets-ire-of-contributors-over-new-payment-scheme.htm[/url])
just when you think you can't get any more pissed off they go and write some crap like that. There's so much BS and misinformation in that release it's untrue arrrghhhhhhhhhh
just when you think you can't get any more pissed off they go and write some crap like that. There's so much BS and misinformation in that release it's untrue arrrghhhhhhhhhh
That article may calm some clients, but makes me (contributor) even more pissed of! I don't think Getty/IS understands that they can't fight the truth with lies.
Unfortunately you can. Look at governments and other big corps that get themselves in trouble. Spinning is a science.
Expect update announcement from IS later today:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253252&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253252&page=1[/url])
Expect update announcement from IS later today:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253252&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253252&page=1[/url])
What a bunch of drama. And I am willing to bet there are a lot of people anxiously awaiting to hear what the news will be. It doesn't even matter to me what they announce. Trust is gone, their words mean NOTH-ING!
I get the feeling that there isn't going to be any movement on their side at all.It would be nice if they would just say something rather than leaving everyone blowing in the wind. I'm with you, I doubt what they have to say is going to be any better.
The second statement didn't have any give in it, and I doubt the next one will.
So if it is really true that they can't sustain these levels of commissions, why bother to keep their exclusive program? Isn't it easier to tick off 20% of their contributors rather than 80-100%? Then just raise the prices on all the better selling files or higher canister contributors to exclusive level. And maybe keep an exclusive image program for Vetta. That would allow them to have more higher priced content and everybody would only get 20%. Hell, at that point you could probably bump it up to 1 or 2 percent and still come out ahead.
Maybe not the best solution, but it just seems there could have been so many other solutions that wouldn't make everyone mad.
[/quote
I don't believe for a minute it was not sustainable. Imagine how many sales it would take for everyone to make it to platinum. It's just greed plain and simple, they aren't happy with higher profits, they want higher profits in proportion to revenue. It's all total BS that stems from Getty buying the site and wanting a good return on the investment, even if it means squeezing IStock till the pips squeak.
I don't believe for a minute it was not sustainable. Imagine how many sales it would take for everyone to make it to platinum. It's just greed plain and simple, they aren't happy with higher profits, they want higher profits in proportion to revenue. It's all total BS that stems from Getty buying the site and wanting a good return on the investment, even if it means squeezing IStock till the pips squeak.
I'm not sure I believe it either that it is unsustainable. My point was more of why come up with a solution that makes everyone mad? There had to have been a way to do it that would make more or most people happy to drown out all the negatives.Well if they want to keep the brand but change the content, that's one hell of a good way to do it.
Some one earlier was asking about where to find this. I don't know if anyone posted it yet or not, but if they didn't here it is. Its the contributor charts at iStock. It will tell you how many of what canister level there is.
[url]http://istockcharts.multimedia.de/[/url] ([url]http://istockcharts.multimedia.de/[/url])
We've got 5531 exclusive contributors in our contributor charts:
base contributors 105 ( 1.9%)
bronze contributors 2417 (43.7%)
silver contributors 1647 (29.8%)
gold contributors 760 (13.7%)
diamond contributors 574 (10.4%)
blackdiamond contributors 28 ( 0.5%)
So the numbers here are accurate:But I ask again -- how can we trust the accuracy when it shows 105 base level exclusive contributors?QuoteWe've got 5531 exclusive contributors in our contributor charts:
base contributors 105 ( 1.9%)
bronze contributors 2417 (43.7%)
silver contributors 1647 (29.8%)
gold contributors 760 (13.7%)
diamond contributors 574 (10.4%)
blackdiamond contributors 28 ( 0.5%)
But I ask again -- how can we trust the accuracy when it shows 105 base level exclusive contributors?
Thanks! That wild guess sounds exactly correct to me.But I ask again -- how can we trust the accuracy when it shows 105 base level exclusive contributors?
Just a wild guess, but it seems the canisters shown on iStockCharts are determined after the # of downloads. But the # of DL are given by the API in ranges, not exact numbers. Contributors with >200 downloads seem to be at base canister, while contributors with >300 are bronze. Maybe the API doesn't deliver the canister info ?
"Contributors who don't sell exclusively will get a maximum 20 percent royalty instead of a minimum 20 percent royalty in the previous payment scheme."
Thanks! That wild guess sounds exactly correct to me.But I ask again -- how can we trust the accuracy when it shows 105 base level exclusive contributors?
Just a wild guess, but it seems the canisters shown on iStockCharts are determined after the # of downloads. But the # of DL are given by the API in ranges, not exact numbers. Contributors with >200 downloads seem to be at base canister, while contributors with >300 are bronze. Maybe the API doesn't deliver the canister info ?
They just updated everyone again. They are sticking to their previous statements:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&page=1[/url])
They just updated everyone again. They are sticking to their previous statements:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&page=1[/url])
Something just occurred to me...you know how since F5 we don't seem to be able to opt-out of subs?You are right, all we can do at the moment is to opt in/out from partner program (TS is one, I believe).
Not sure if this already was posted...
The end of iStockphoto at Ember Studio: :(
[url]http://www.emberstudio.com/blog/?p=193[/url] ([url]http://www.emberstudio.com/blog/?p=193[/url])
Wow. Three replies and nothing has changed. Brutal.
If this thing with Istock goes unnoticed on the money side for Istock, I'm afraid all agencies will start to screw us in the same way.You bet. That's what's coming.
Except that last time they 'reconsidered', they made promises (grandfathering) that they are not going to keep.Wow. Three replies and nothing has changed. Brutal.
The strange thing is they never should have sent message #2 or #3. The first announcement told us where they stood, and the 2nd and 3rd got everyone's hopes up for a concession for no good reason at all. Why does Kelly keep announcing what he has already said? I prefer not to hear anything again, except "We are reconsidering..."
Something just occurred to me...you know how since F5 we don't seem to be able to opt-out of subs?
You are right, all we can do at the moment is to opt in/out from partner program (TS is one, I believe).
And in fact I can't see how to change that. I click in "All Off", it asks me to confirm, but I don't see any change in the profile. I mean, I can't even know if I am part of the partner program or not (I should not, I am almost sure I opted out before). If I unselect "Opt-in to Partner Program", nothing happens either.
Wow. Three replies and nothing has changed. Brutal.
The strange thing is they never should have sent message #2 or #3. The first announcement told us where they stood, and the 2nd and 3rd got everyone's hopes up for a concession for no good reason at all. Why does Kelly keep announcing what he has already said? I prefer not to hear anything again, except "We are reconsidering..."
Except that last time they 'reconsidered', they made promises (grandfathering) that they are not going to keep.
Not sure if this already was posted...
The end of iStockphoto at Ember Studio: :(
[url]http://www.emberstudio.com/blog/?p=193[/url] ([url]http://www.emberstudio.com/blog/?p=193[/url])
This is nice. Too bad I can't leave a comment thanking them - getting an error.
Not sure if this already was posted...
The end of iStockphoto at Ember Studio: :(
[url]http://www.emberstudio.com/blog/?p=193[/url] ([url]http://www.emberstudio.com/blog/?p=193[/url])
This is nice. Too bad I can't leave a comment thanking them - getting an error.
That's Helix 7 site. He's a member here
Ariel and Sumo, enough of the spamming already.Leaf should have banned those spammers a long time ago.
One example of the real reasons for the changes:
[url]http://www.observer.com/2010/real-estate/mack-daddy-likes-big-bucks-and-klein-cant-not-buy[/url] ([url]http://www.observer.com/2010/real-estate/mack-daddy-likes-big-bucks-and-klein-cant-not-buy[/url])
I'm more and more convinced they feel they have no choice, whether because of greed higher up the chain or because they're overleveraged and can't survive on less. But all that means is that they can't and won't survive.
As for me, I'm going to keep to my plan. No more uploading, and remove existing images a few at a time. If iStock reverses their changes regarding independents, I'd consider reversing mine.
Wow. Three replies and nothing has changed. Brutal.
The strange thing is they never should have sent message #2 or #3. The first announcement told us where they stood, and the 2nd and 3rd got everyone's hopes up for a concession for no good reason at all. Why does Kelly keep announcing what he has already said? I prefer not to hear anything again, except "We are reconsidering..."
Yes, that's exactly what I've been thinking also. Why on earth pre-announce these statements as though they'll deliver something useful when they don't? Bizarre.
The more likely scenario is that IS is forecasting to come out with a slightly lower massive profit than first expected and that Getty is forcing them to make up the difference to enable them to invest in their next major f-up.
Something just occurred to me...you know how since F5 we don't seem to be able to opt-out of subs? I'm guessing that non-exclusives will not be able to do that...meaning we are going to be shuffled over to ThinkStock. No choice anymore to opt-out. Anybody else thinking this?
The more likely scenario is that IS is forecasting to come out with a slightly lower massive profit than first expected and that Getty is forcing them to make up the difference to enable them to invest in their next major f-up.
No it is part of strategy to streamline RF stock business. Many factors but eg IS is cheaper to run than Getty and has more traffic. Getty employs account managers etc. eg the more work goes through IS the fewer office staff they need. Arty Vetta shows that IS can be portal for more expensive work - ie Agency Collections.
20% is standard Getty rate. This affects people at Getty as much as it affects IS. It affects everyone who works in the industry.
As much as I hate all these changes, I have to give them credit for allowing us to really hammer them on their forums. You would never see Fotolia or Dreamstime allow that.
Yea thats about the only positive thing I can say. ;D
Just a quote from the IS forums, in relation to these ones...........
" Don't bother with that forum anymore.I found the same loonies over there that are on here"
Just a quote from the IS forums, in relation to these ones...........
" Don't bother with that forum anymore.I found the same loonies over there that are on here"
Just a quote from the IS forums, in relation to these ones...........
" Don't bother with that forum anymore.I found the same loonies over there that are on here"
You consider yourself a loony?
I consider you ignored from now on. Go on and enjoy your 15% royalties.
As much as I hate all these changes, I have to give them credit for allowing us to really hammer them on their forums. You would never see Fotolia or Dreamstime allow that.
Yea thats about the only positive thing I can say. ;D
Of course there's the other ridiculous theory going around that they came up with this evil plan in order to drive out non-exclusives. If that was their intention they wouldn't have shafted exclusives as well. They would have thrown in a sweetener instead and enticed non-exclusives to join the other side.
Of course there's the other ridiculous theory going around that they came up with this evil plan in order to drive out non-exclusives. If that was their intention they wouldn't have shafted exclusives as well. They would have thrown in a sweetener instead and enticed non-exclusives to join the other side.
Actually I think independents are collateral damage, since the beef seems to be the growing number of folks to reach the 35-40% mark, or expected to in the near future, which is certainly not the independents. But had they messed only with their exclusive structure, the headlines would have been "Istock screws their exclusives" which would have been incredibly worse. With the damage done to our wallet, they're appeasing a few of their exclusives who would have gone even more berserk trashing IS reputation, but more importantly killing the awful headline. Of course making more money during a PR operation certainly made that decision more obvious. Being on the receiving end of this PR op, though, plainly sucks.
Of course there's the other ridiculous theory going around that they came up with this evil plan in order to drive out non-exclusives. If that was their intention they wouldn't have shafted exclusives as well. They would have thrown in a sweetener instead and enticed non-exclusives to join the other side.
Actually I think independents are collateral damage, since the beef seems to be the growing number of folks to reach the 35-40% mark, or expected to in the near future, which is certainly not the independents. But had they messed only with their exclusive structure, the headlines would have been "Istock screws their exclusives" which would have been incredibly worse. With the damage done to our wallet, they're appeasing a few of their exclusives who would have gone even more berserk trashing IS reputation, but more importantly killing the awful headline. Of course making more money during a PR operation certainly made that decision more obvious. Being on the receiving end of this PR op, though, plainly sucks.
Exactly. Since the day Getty bought IS, their path has been to transform IS to Getty, and that path NEVER included non-exclusives.
Of course there's the other ridiculous theory going around that they came up with this evil plan in order to drive out non-exclusives. If that was their intention they wouldn't have shafted exclusives as well. They would have thrown in a sweetener instead and enticed non-exclusives to join the other side.
Actually I think independents are collateral damage, since the beef seems to be the growing number of folks to reach the 35-40% mark, or expected to in the near future, which is certainly not the independents. But had they messed only with their exclusive structure, the headlines would have been "Istock screws their exclusives" which would have been incredibly worse. With the damage done to our wallet, they're appeasing a few of their exclusives who would have gone even more berserk trashing IS reputation, but more importantly killing the awful headline. Of course making more money during a PR operation certainly made that decision more obvious. Being on the receiving end of this PR op, though, plainly sucks.
Exactly. Since the day Getty bought IS, their path has been to transform IS to Getty, and that path NEVER included non-exclusives.
Of course there's the other ridiculous theory going around that they came up with this evil plan in order to drive out non-exclusives. If that was their intention they wouldn't have shafted exclusives as well. They would have thrown in a sweetener instead and enticed non-exclusives to join the other side.
Actually I think independents are collateral damage, since the beef seems to be the growing number of folks to reach the 35-40% mark, or expected to in the near future, which is certainly not the independents. But had they messed only with their exclusive structure, the headlines would have been "Istock screws their exclusives" which would have been incredibly worse. With the damage done to our wallet, they're appeasing a few of their exclusives who would have gone even more berserk trashing IS reputation, but more importantly killing the awful headline. Of course making more money during a PR operation certainly made that decision more obvious. Being on the receiving end of this PR op, though, plainly sucks.
Exactly. Since the day Getty bought IS, their path has been to transform IS to Getty, and that path NEVER included non-exclusives.
I get what you're both saying but if that was the case, woudn't they have reduced the commission of independents and left exclusives as is? That way independents would have either jumped ship or become exclusive and exclusives would have been happy. Their current structure now will force quite a few exclusives to leave as well, maybe not in a hurry, but they'll definitely consider alternatives in the next couple of months.
I seriously doubt this was planned greed from the beginning. It makes more sense that they had their eye on a target, didn't meet it and made a difficult decision knowing there would be mass hysteria and retaliation.
Of course there's the other ridiculous theory going around that they came up with this evil plan in order to drive out non-exclusives. If that was their intention they wouldn't have shafted exclusives as well. They would have thrown in a sweetener instead and enticed non-exclusives to join the other side.
Actually I think independents are collateral damage, since the beef seems to be the growing number of folks to reach the 35-40% mark, or expected to in the near future, which is certainly not the independents. But had they messed only with their exclusive structure, the headlines would have been "Istock screws their exclusives" which would have been incredibly worse. With the damage done to our wallet, they're appeasing a few of their exclusives who would have gone even more berserk trashing IS reputation, but more importantly killing the awful headline. Of course making more money during a PR operation certainly made that decision more obvious. Being on the receiving end of this PR op, though, plainly sucks.
Exactly. Since the day Getty bought IS, their path has been to transform IS to Getty, and that path NEVER included non-exclusives.
I get what you're both saying but if that was the case, woudn't they have reduced the commission of independents and left exclusives as is? That way independents would have either jumped ship or become exclusive and exclusives would have been happy. Their current structure now will force quite a few exclusives to leave as well, maybe not in a hurry, but they'll definitely consider alternatives in the next couple of months.
But money isn’t going to be what makes you all happy. You want to know that this is still the best place to be, to hang out, and sell your work. You may not be convinced today like you were last week, but it’s our job to make sure you feel that way again soon.
I think I'm caught up on the latest on the threads about the latest changes - to sum it up, IS haven't changed their position, and the vast majority are still unhappy. Both exclusives and non-exclusives.
At the moment we have:
- an Avitar campaign going
- a petition thread: [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252382&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252382&page=1[/url])
- people contacting buyers
- people twittering / blogging
- individuals cancelling exclusivity
- individuals deleting portfolios
etc. etc.
KK's last thread is titled: "Where we go from here". To me the line that stands out is: "Tuesday was iStock’s "bridge" day, and we crossed it full on." It sounds like they not only crossed it, but burned it down behind them.
To make any change this time we're going to need more than a pettition or new avitars. Rather than everyone running in different directions we really need to come up with a co-ordinated and professional response to this from both exclusives and non-exclusives.
I think I'm caught up on the latest on the threads about the latest changes - to sum it up, IS haven't changed their position, and the vast majority are still unhappy. Both exclusives and non-exclusives.
At the moment we have:
- an Avitar campaign going
- a petition thread: [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252382&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252382&page=1[/url])
- people contacting buyers
- people twittering / blogging
- individuals cancelling exclusivity
- individuals deleting portfolios
etc. etc.
KK's last thread is titled: "Where we go from here". To me the line that stands out is: "Tuesday was iStock’s "bridge" day, and we crossed it full on." It sounds like they not only crossed it, but burned it down behind them.
To make any change this time we're going to need more than a pettition or new avitars. Rather than everyone running in different directions we really need to come up with a co-ordinated and professional response to this from both exclusives and non-exclusives.
People are doing what they think that they can afford to do in regards to this. If we really all wanted to destroy IS, well then we would have to do all of the above at a precise moment, plus a lawsuit. But for most, the right moment is not now, but more like February or March after we see the real results of this.
Thing is, I don't want to destroy Istock... and I don't think I'm alone in not wanting this major player to go down the tubes overnight. Isn't something like this exactly why we're not exclusives? We should just pat each other on the back and congratulate ourselves for making the choice we did and openly encourage better managed companies to help them take the lead. Istock has already lost the trust of their "cult" as someone else put it. That's a lot of word of mouth that will in the long term make sure that karma does its thing.
I'm presently exclusive, so I definitely don't want IS to go down the tubes overnight. But if I'm going to go back to being independent, I want an arangement that's more beneficial over the long term than what's there now. If anything worthwhile is going to come out of this, its going to have to develop over more than a few months.
I went exclusive recently, partly because I was sick of being slowly screwed by 10 different agencies - and went to the one that didn't seem to have screwed exclusives quite so much in the past. Uploading to 10 different agencies does involve a lot more work, and you simply can't say to buyers "go here" because all of the options have major drawbacks from a contributor point of view.
A large number of unsustainable agencies doesn't really help us as contributors. If there were some way of creating another big agency that had much more favourable terms, and could be set up so as not to screw us, it would be far more beneficial for us than simply increasing the number of non-exclusive images on a wide range of agencies.
Simple create a "RM" site that allows previous licensing as RF. Exclusives would be able to move content there to send IS a message without burning their bridge.
People are doing what they think that they can afford to do in regards to this. If we really all wanted to destroy IS, well then we would have to do all of the above at a precise moment, plus a lawsuit. But for most, the right moment is not now, but more like February or March after we see the real results of this.
Thing is, I don't want to destroy Istock... and I don't think I'm alone in not wanting this major player to go down the tubes overnight. Isn't something like this exactly why we're not exclusives? We should just pat each other on the back and congratulate ourselves for making the choice we did and openly encourage better managed companies to help them take the lead. Istock has already lost the trust of their "cult" as someone else put it. That's a lot of word of mouth that will in the long term make sure that karma does its thing.
I went exclusive recently, partly because I was sick of being slowly screwed by 10 different agencies - and went to the one that didn't seem to have screwed exclusives quite so much in the past. Uploading to 10 different agencies does involve a lot more work, and you simply can't say to buyers "go here" because all of the options have major drawbacks from a contributor point of view.
As much as I hate all these changes, I have to give them credit for allowing us to really hammer them on their forums. You would never see Fotolia or Dreamstime allow that.
Yea thats about the only positive thing I can say. ;D
Has anyone else noticed a sharp and unusual increase in their rejections at IS all of a sudden? Like anyone who has been active on this forum?
For the past several weeks leading up to this I have had 100% approval rate. My overall rate there is over 90%. Just today, all of a sudden I had more than a third of images submitted in my last batch rejected. The reasons listed were things like artifacts and/or purple fringing. Images from the same shoots were accepted 100% without exception over the last several weeks.
Very hard not to view this as some sort of retaliation from speaking out here in the forums.
I went exclusive recently, partly because I was sick of being slowly screwed by 10 different agencies - and went to the one that didn't seem to have screwed exclusives quite so much in the past. Uploading to 10 different agencies does involve a lot more work, and you simply can't say to buyers "go here" because all of the options have major drawbacks from a contributor point of view.
Has anyone else noticed a sharp and unusual increase in their rejections at IS all of a sudden? Like anyone who has been active on this forum?
For the past several weeks leading up to this I have had 100% approval rate. My overall rate there is over 90%. Just today, all of a sudden I had more than a third of images submitted in my last batch rejected. The reasons listed were things like artifacts and/or purple fringing. No attachments were included to show the "problem" areas, and I can't see them on my monitor. Plus images from the same shoots were accepted 100% without exception over the last several weeks.
Very hard not to view this as some sort of retaliation from speaking out here in the forums.
Simple create a "RM" site that allows previous licensing as RF. Exclusives would be able to move content there to send IS a message without burning their bridge.
Brilliant idea.
I just re-read the exclusive agreement. This could work extremely well. We could develop a new simple Micro RM license that allowed a single image use - the buyer is automatically tracked against the image in question for each "use" so as to make the arrangement within the excusion in the IS exclusive agreement.
Simple create a "RM" site that allows previous licensing as RF. Exclusives would be able to move content there to send IS a message without burning their bridge.
Brilliant idea.
I just re-read the exclusive agreement. This could work extremely well. We could develop a new simple Micro RM license that allowed a single image use - the buyer is automatically tracked against the image in question for each "use" so as to make the arrangement within the excusion in the IS exclusive agreement.
It seems to me that this would be a very good idea - not only for IS exclusives, but generally.
First, unlike changing payment terms that would require a whole new contributors agreement and who is going to sign a new contract with IStock now?. Second, I believe singling a business out like that for exclusion would be illegal but not being a lawyer, I can’t be certain.
Simple create a "RM" site that allows previous licensing as RF. Exclusives would be able to move content there to send IS a message without burning their bridge.
Brilliant idea.
I just re-read the exclusive agreement. This could work extremely well. We could develop a new simple Micro RM license that allowed a single image use - the buyer is automatically tracked against the image in question for each "use" so as to make the arrangement within the excusion in the IS exclusive agreement.
It seems to me that this would be a very good idea - not only for IS exclusives, but generally.
And what makes you think istock won't change their agreement to "you may upload to any RM site, EXCEPT for this one you created"?
Simple create a "RM" site that allows previous licensing as RF. Exclusives would be able to move content there to send IS a message without burning their bridge.
Brilliant idea.
I just re-read the exclusive agreement. This could work extremely well. We could develop a new simple Micro RM license that allowed a single image use - the buyer is automatically tracked against the image in question for each "use" so as to make the arrangement within the excusion in the IS exclusive agreement.
You need to understand that RM requires customer accounts teams, negotiators, sometime lawyers etc and is more, much more, costly to operate. The market is going in opposite direction. RM is never simple.
Has anyone else noticed a sharp and unusual increase in their rejections at IS all of a sudden? Like anyone who has been active on this forum?
...
Oh of course but I am anonymous, a very small fish, not overly angry or stressed at these changes, and not really worth crushing or teaching a lesson.
So, that was it. The thread on istock is slowing down, and we did nothing....I did...closed my account and our firm just put them on the sh%t-list for purchasing...F'em and feed 'em fish heads. Alot will stay but I mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore...let Mr. Getty pay for his new house with the $ from those who stay, but it won't be mine anymore...."Thank you sir, may I have another?"
Has everyone seen this from Dreamstime? Apologies if this has been posted before!
IS : "September, 2010: $3.05 royalties" - oh noooo! My "bizness model" is ruined. ;D
This is really bad news. I think I will have to order a medium instead of a large monthly Frappuchino in Starbux on their behalf. :P
There is going to come a point where it all breaks down.
Has anyone else noticed a sharp and unusual increase in their rejections at IS all of a sudden? Like anyone who has been active on this forum?
For the past several weeks leading up to this I have had 100% approval rate. My overall rate there is over 90%. Just today, all of a sudden I had more than a third of images submitted in my last batch rejected. The reasons listed were things like artifacts and/or purple fringing. No attachments were included to show the "problem" areas, and I can't see them on my monitor. Plus images from the same shoots were accepted 100% without exception over the last several weeks.
Very hard not to view this as some sort of retaliation from speaking out here in the forums.
While this appears to be an across the board cut in royalties, it is not. The possibility is there for creative, productive contributors to do very well with higher priced content, even if royalty percentage is down. The people who are really istock's bread and butter, the top few percent of contributors, will stay and prosper. The influx of getty content will also ensure that Istock as a company does well into the future. I'm sure their analysts have done the homework.
Has anyone else noticed a sharp and unusual increase in their rejections at IS all of a sudden? Like anyone who has been active on this forum?
For the past several weeks leading up to this I have had 100% approval rate. My overall rate there is over 90%. Just today, all of a sudden I had more than a third of images submitted in my last batch rejected. The reasons listed were things like artifacts and/or purple fringing. No attachments were included to show the "problem" areas, and I can't see them on my monitor. Plus images from the same shoots were accepted 100% without exception over the last several weeks.
Very hard not to view this as some sort of retaliation from speaking out here in the forums.
I stopped uploading to IS a while ago, so I can't say whether you are seeing retaliation. Nothing would surprise me, but another thing to consider is that maybe it's just a bad batch of reviewers. We just had a holiday and all, maybe there were substitute reviewers?
Has anyone else noticed a sharp and unusual increase in their rejections at IS all of a sudden? Like anyone who has been active on this forum?
For the past several weeks leading up to this I have had 100% approval rate. My overall rate there is over 90%. Just today, all of a sudden I had more than a third of images submitted in my last batch rejected. The reasons listed were things like artifacts and/or purple fringing. No attachments were included to show the "problem" areas, and I can't see them on my monitor. Plus images from the same shoots were accepted 100% without exception over the last several weeks.
Very hard not to view this as some sort of retaliation from speaking out here in the forums.
I stopped uploading to IS a while ago, so I can't say whether you are seeing retaliation. Nothing would surprise me, but another thing to consider is that maybe it's just a bad batch of reviewers. We just had a holiday and all, maybe there were substitute reviewers?
I sure hope this is more just a new inspector or some else. I find it hard to believe that any inspector or company would retaliate like this. to retaliate by rejecting images would be unprofessional and childish, and as pissed off as I am about the changes, I would find it hard to believe that some inspector at istock would drop to that level. I've had that kind of crazy batch of rejections happen after new inspectors came on board. Although, to be honest, I've not uploaded anything in some time due to personal issues and a general lack of time to do it.
the problem is that ALMOST nobody will leave... today everybody is complaining tomorrow or the next day it will be fine.. in 2012 will be 10%.. it won't stop, thats microstock! cheap cheap cheap :PI don't care what other people do but I wont be uploading any more to istock and will be leaving if the commission cuts go through. I haven't left other sites when they have cut commissions because they have never gone below istock's 20% but this is too much for me, I would rather do another job than accept this.;
I don't care what other people do but I wont be uploading any more to istock and will be leaving if the commission cuts go through. I haven't left other sites when they have cut commissions because they have never gone below istock's 20% but this is too much for me, I would rather do another job than accept this.;
I don't care what other people do but I wont be uploading any more to istock and will be leaving if the commission cuts go through. I haven't left other sites when they have cut commissions because they have never gone below istock's 20% but this is too much for me, I would rather do another job than accept this.;
Agree total!the problem is that ALMOST nobody will leave... today everybody is complaining tomorrow or the next day it will be fine.. in 2012 will be 10%.. it won't stop, thats microstock! cheap cheap cheap :PI don't care what other people do but I wont be uploading any more to istock and will be leaving if the commission cuts go through. I haven't left other sites when they have cut commissions because they have never gone below istock's 20% but this is too much for me, I would rather do another job than accept this.;
Couldn't say; my last batch (last = both most recent & last they're getting) is still waiting for review after eight days.
Ha ha, the Istock site is down right now. Not even an error message.
Who ever caused that ... could you PLEASE do it again, and again, and again .... ;D
Please- (Sorry for the rant. After 20 years in sales it's a pet peeve)
We collect royalties. We pay IStock commissions. IStock is commissioned to sell our work. We are the artists/tradesmen/whatever who created the product.
And yes, this is a small but important distinction. We are suppliers. We are not employees or even "like employees".
Yes, IStock is making this decision based on "Greed". Just like when I went independent several years ago and then exclusive this year, those decisions were based on "Greed".
Their perception is that unless you have truly unique content, moving your images off IStock will problably not impact them as the buyers will operate on the "equivalent option" principle and purchase the next in line just to get the job done.
Where they fail is the targets themselves are out of line and many of the "casual contributors" are also their customer base.
I really don't understand why not more people can see it, Getty-RF is 20% for exclusive material.I seriously doubt this was planned greed from the beginning. It makes more sense that they had their eye on a target, didn't meet it and made a difficult decision knowing there would be mass hysteria and retaliation.
No I am certain this is about streamlining and 20%.
I will try explaining again:
The IS system is probably less to operate. Getty still employs account managers etc.
Getty operates at 20/80. Best of both worlds for them is to move towards running IS as the RF portal but paying Getty 'standard' royalties. IS also has much more traffic than Getty Images.
Getty content is coming to IS (at the 'standard' 20% royalty). IS content is going out on Getty at the 'standard' rate (ie 20%). Royalties are definitely moving towards 20%.
So IS is being tested as a portal for work from the main Getty RF collection. I am speculating that it may ultimately be the main portal for Getty RF. So why run two inspection processes. Suppose later there will be a single place to upload for inspection from where it will be sent to a collection or directly to one of the subscription portals which will compete with microstock.
20% is the theme here. It's even the rate which many non exclusives are setting like a line in the sand.
Interesting ..
[url]http://www.observer.com/2010/real-estate/mack-daddy-likes-big-bucks-and-klein-cant-not-buy[/url] ([url]http://www.observer.com/2010/real-estate/mack-daddy-likes-big-bucks-and-klein-cant-not-buy[/url])
sorry if link is already posted
Interesting ..
Interesting ..
[url]http://www.observer.com/2010/real-estate/mack-daddy-likes-big-bucks-and-klein-cant-not-buy[/url] ([url]http://www.observer.com/2010/real-estate/mack-daddy-likes-big-bucks-and-klein-cant-not-buy[/url])
sorry if link is already posted
It has been posted, can't remember if it was here or on IS, but in my opinion you can't post it too many times.
gostwyck,
It's not so little for them, when you discount their costs on their share. Let's say 50% of the total is their costs, their margin is 30% and, in your case, would change to 32%, but 35% in my case.
Of course, it is difficult to quantify their costs. It is hard to believe it is 50%.
Is editorial one of their new content streams? (Mostly sports editorial in this case?)
This announcement was made on Wed 8th (the day after the Istock announcement).
[url]http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100908005304/en[/url] ([url]http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100908005304/en[/url])
Paul Melcher's take here: [url]http://blog.melchersystem.com/2010/09/12/under-the-carpet/[/url] ([url]http://blog.melchersystem.com/2010/09/12/under-the-carpet/[/url])
Melcher's closing words ring so true This is not about fair competition anymore, where the best image wins, this is becoming a real monopoly. Heard that, Justice department ?
I've been this mulling over trying to work out what the longer term effect of all this might be on Istock and their bottom-line.
Personally I am going to be dropping from 20% down to 18% __ that's a 10% hit for me. However Istock themselves are going from 80% to 82% of my sales and that's only a 2.5% increase for them (barely noticeable you might think).
Although many smaller-selling contributors are taking bigger hits than me there are also a great many heavy sellers who will not be hit at all __ and so again the overall increase in Istock's revenue is still going to be comparatively small.
Yes, Istock will be helping themselves to a bigger chunk of Vetta sales and also exclusive EL sales too, but even so the contributions from those will be fairly small compared to overall sales.
My guess is that Istock's overall gain will probably be no more than a 3-4% increase in total revenue. Ok, because the overhead has already been paid for then the net profit figures should be much more impressive __ but at what cost?
Istock would only need to lose 3-4 buyers out of every hundred they currently have and the whole debacle becomes financially neutral as far as the overall profit goes. When you then cost in the truly massive loss of goodwill from both their customers and their contributors, the potential number of exclusives ditching their crowns and the huge boost to competing agencies .... is it ever really going to be financially worth it?
It seems to me that Istock are taking a gamble of truly staggering proportions with fairly minor potential gains to their bottom-line ... and a mind-numbingly large downside if it all goes pear-shaped.
iStockphotos “Unsustainable” Business Model: From Crowd-Sourcing To Crowd-Shafting? ([url]http://www.jeremynicholl.com/blog/2010/09/13/istockphotos-unsustainable-business-model-from-crowd-sourcing-to-crowd-shafting-2/[/url])
My guess is that Istock's overall gain will probably be no more than a 3-4% increase in total revenue. Ok, because the overhead has already been paid for then the net profit figures should be much more impressive __ but at what cost?
Istock would only need to lose 3-4 buyers out of every hundred they currently have and the whole debacle becomes financially neutral as far as the overall profit goes. When you then cost in the truly massive loss of goodwill from both their customers and their contributors, the potential number of exclusives ditching their crowns and the huge boost to competing agencies .... is it ever really going to be financially worth it?
It seems to me that Istock are taking a gamble of truly staggering proportions with fairly minor potential gains to their bottom-line ... and a mind-numbingly large downside if it all goes pear-shaped.
iStockphotos “Unsustainable” Business Model: From Crowd-Sourcing To Crowd-Shafting? ([url]http://www.jeremynicholl.com/blog/2010/09/13/istockphotos-unsustainable-business-model-from-crowd-sourcing-to-crowd-shafting-2/[/url])
Good article, shame about the completely uninformed comments underneath it *sigh*
iStockphotos “Unsustainable” Business Model: From Crowd-Sourcing To Crowd-Shafting? ([url]http://www.jeremynicholl.com/blog/2010/09/13/istockphotos-unsustainable-business-model-from-crowd-sourcing-to-crowd-shafting-2/[/url])
Good article, shame about the completely uninformed comments underneath it *sigh*
Lots of anger from the "trads." By the way, when I say trads, I use it as an abbreviation, not so many letters to type, NOT as a derogatory term, as one gentleman wrote. It just really cracks me up how they wish all micros would go away and they say we all got what we deserved. Do they seriously think companies are going to be able to afford $100 stock photos nowadays? There's a reason Walmart is huge and the same reason microstocks are huge, it's called demand.
By the way, Getty's new business model reminds me alot of Sam Walton's. He has the same basic principle...pay suppliers nothing. They will be clamoring to do business with me because I am the biggest.
Well although Im doing extremly well with Trad/RM, etc, Ive got no sympathy for them at all, theyve been copyrighting sunsets and clouds for jonks now and have had a real good time. So they blame the Micros for decreasing business and all, calling us idiots and everything, right?
Only today about 75% of all Trad-photographers I bet supply MIcros as well.
By the way, Getty's new business model reminds me alot of Sam Walton's. He has the same basic principle...pay suppliers nothing. They will be clamoring to do business with me because I am the biggest.
I don't know if it's part of this or not but in July Examiner.com announced that their writers would be able to use Getty images for free in their articles.
I don't know that they are looking to sell the company.
Heh, I just realized how much the lyrics to NIN's Terrible Lies ([url]http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Terrible-Lie-lyrics-Nine-Inch-Nails/1B972B54C1545F2F48256CC600240000[/url]) relate to how I feel about iStock at the moment.
I haven't seen any discussions about the apparant necessity to regularily grow your portfolio under the new model, or the culling that will be needed to keep things managable. Chasing ones tail, so to speak, comes to mind.
I looked with my eagle eye at one of the fan'boys' accounts and it seems that out of 5000 some images about 1/2 are not performing (some roughly 2500 without even one sale) - and many others that only have only 1 or 2, etc. If heavy handed culling to purge the non-perfomers comes down, as I'm guessing is inevitable, I think they will be lucky not to lose 1/2 their folio to make room for fresh new files. That would result in a huge loss of the market share (the number of uploads they have relative to the entire library) that they currently enjoy by retaining so many files. I think they are in for a rude awakening and may soon have to face the reality that their perceived past 'success' had more to do with 'the numbers game' than any real knack for making useful stock. The numbers game charade is soon to be no more, IMO.I haven't seen any discussions about the apparant necessity to regularily grow your portfolio under the new model, or the culling that will be needed to keep things managable. Chasing ones tail, so to speak, comes to mind.
You're right. I think ITLR the pressure to keep uploading will become a big issue. It just hasn't sunk in yet.
For me, one of the things that seemed most attractive when I was considering exclusivity was the fact that you didn't have to constantly "Feed the Beast" like you do at subs sites. I know several people who went exclusive for that very reason, too.
Now it looks like those hoping to succeed on Istock will have to work harder at cranking out images than even those of us on subs sites.
No rest for the weary in this business, it seems.
It is so hard to get the cursor where you need it! arrgh!If you are using FireFox/Win, the input box script on this site (the old SMF) is very resource intensive, which doesn't go well with the huge memory leaks in Firefox. Remedy: restart your PC or (better) kill the FireFox process three with the task manager (ctrl-alt-del). Do not close FireFox the conventional way in Windows since it will stay in memory.
It is so hard to get the cursor where you need it! arrgh!If you are using FireFox/Win, the input box script on this site (the old SMF) is very resource intensive, which doesn't go well with the huge memory leaks in Firefox. Remedy: restart your PC or (better) kill the FireFox process three with the task manager (ctrl-alt-del). Do not close FireFox the conventional way in Windows since it will stay in memory.
It is so hard to get the cursor where you need it! arrgh!If you are using FireFox/Win, the input box script on this site (the old SMF) is very resource intensive, which doesn't go well with the huge memory leaks in Firefox. Remedy: restart your PC or (better) kill the FireFox process three with the task manager (ctrl-alt-del). Do not close FireFox the conventional way in Windows since it will stay in memory.
THANK YOU! That did the trick!It is so hard to get the cursor where you need it! arrgh!If you are using FireFox/Win, the input box script on this site (the old SMF) is very resource intensive, which doesn't go well with the huge memory leaks in Firefox. Remedy: restart your PC or (better) kill the FireFox process three with the task manager (ctrl-alt-del). Do not close FireFox the conventional way in Windows since it will stay in memory.
The same thing happens with me using IE8 on WinXP. Very annoying.
You can make it go away by clicking the 'Compatibility View' button at the end of the address bar - it's the broken-sheet-of-paper thing next to the 'Refresh' & 'Stop' buttons.
I haven't seen any discussions about the apparant necessity to regularily grow your portfolio under the new model, or the culling that will be needed to keep things managable. Chasing ones tail, so to speak, comes to mind.That is going to be a nightmare. Even for the uber-creative prolifics.
I think the real kicker is that you don't - and can't - know up front what you have to do in any given year to keep your royalty rate for the next year.Seems like the new model all but guarantees burnout. And unlike the old model, you can't really take a sabbatical or healthy inspiration-break and continue to reap top benefits from all the hard work you did (consistently or not) in years past. That's just bananas. Don't the kids at the top know/understand that quality creative work isn't really an on-demand, high volume, 24/7 kind of skill/talent? I would hazard that such a skill/talent is rare, indeed. And that when you push artists too far they break/down and/or their work suffers. Which isn't good for either the artists or the business of selling their work.
Seems like the new model all but guarantees burnout. And unlike the old model, you can't really take a sabbatical or healthy inspiration-break and continue to reap top benefits from all the hard work you did (consistently or not) in years past. That's just bananas. Don't the kids at the top know/understand that quality creative work isn't really an on-demand, high volume, 24/7 kind of skill/talent? I would hazard that such a skill/talent is rare, indeed. And that when you push artists too far they break/down and/or their work suffers. Which isn't good for either the artists or the business of selling their work.
Why is it so hard to type when replying? The lines of text jump up and down and are most of the time hiding underneat the bottom of the input window?
Does anyone know why this is and how to avoid it. It is so hard to get the cursor where you need it! arrgh!
Hi Marisa :)Hey chica :)
Good point.Seems like the new model all but guarantees burnout. And unlike the old model, you can't really take a sabbatical or healthy inspiration-break and continue to reap top benefits from all the hard work you did (consistently or not) in years past. That's just bananas. Don't the kids at the top know/understand that quality creative work isn't really an on-demand, high volume, 24/7 kind of skill/talent? I would hazard that such a skill/talent is rare, indeed. And that when you push artists too far they break/down and/or their work suffers. Which isn't good for either the artists or the business of selling their work.Actually, I'm thinking it will make less difference because the levels are so vast that it will be hard to make a change unless you're near one end of it. If you upload 0 files or 1000 files during the year, you will probably still be at the same level at the end of the year. Now, whether the level moves on you is another story.
Hi Marisa :)
Hey chica :)
I'd successfully avoided reading or posting in these forums for years, but as I approach un-exclusivity, it has been recommended to me by several friendly iStockers that I follow along here. But my god, without a Lobo, it's like the Wild West over here! It's the very model of mayhem :)
I'll do my best to behave ...
So far, mine are consistently updating the day after the sales.Really?! Hmm.... strange, mine have updated 3 or 4 times after 'the announcement', every time for a fraction of the amount i sold. Maybe time to shoot a mail to support.
Hi Marisa :)Hey chica :)
I'd successfully avoided reading or posting in these forums for years, but as I approach un-exclusivity, it has been recommended to me by several friendly iStockers that I follow along here. But my god, without a Lobo, it's like the Wild West over here! It's the very model of mayhem :)
...
Just try to stay out of the bar fights and you should be fine :)
I guess i have to take 'their word' that in the end the amount will be correct? "Their word", ha! (hahaha!)With all stock sites, you have to 'take their word' that their reporting figures are correct.
So far, mine are consistently updating the day after the sales.
Really?! Hmm.... strange, mine have updated 3 or 4 times after 'the announcement', every time for a fraction of the amount i sold. Maybe time to shoot a mail to support.
Gross Margin and Real Profit
By Jim Pickerell 9/21/2010
iStockphoto COO Kelly Thompson says the company cannot keep growing profit at the old royalty rates, so they have to reduce what they are paying suppliers. The problem is not that the company does not have substantial profits. Rather, it is Getty Images’ arbitrary standard for what the gross profit margin in the stock photo industry should be that causes the problem. "
It is indeed a bit rowdy at times, but these forums have been enormously helpful in dealing with all sorts of issues when they come up. Although there is no Lobo riding shotgun, be aware (if you do start submitting to other sites) that there are one or two who will (and have) retaliated against contributors for things said in this forum. That's why there are a number of independents here who don't use their regular name so they don't face their account getting terminated if they speak out about things that need to be addressed.All good to know. Much appreciated! Thank you :)
Just try to stay out of the bar fights and you should be fine :)
By Jim Pickerell 9/21/2010
iStockphoto COO Kelly Thompson says the company cannot keep growing profit at the old royalty rates, so they have to reduce what they are paying suppliers. The problem is not that the company does not have substantial profits. Rather, it is Getty Images’ arbitrary standard for what the gross profit margin in the stock photo industry should be that causes the problem. "
How is this unsustainable? Just another lie.
It is indeed a bit rowdy at times, but these forums have been enormously helpful in dealing with all sorts of issues when they come up. Although there is no Lobo riding shotgun, be aware (if you do start submitting to other sites) that there are one or two who will (and have) retaliated against contributors for things said in this forum. That's why there are a number of independents here who don't use their regular name so they don't face their account getting terminated if they speak out about things that need to be addressed.All good to know. Much appreciated! Thank you :)
Just try to stay out of the bar fights and you should be fine :)
ETA: I see from my profile that I've already been "ignored" by 1 member. How exciting!
what does that mean to be "ignored"? they can't see anything you post or you just can't sitemail them?
Welcome to the club Jami!
If you aren't ignored by at least on person, you aren't doing it right ;)
I think all the posts that would get me ignored never made it past the "Post" button. I tend to read, respond, then re-read and think about it before I hit the "Post" button. I have abandoned many 'knee-jerk' snipey replies that way. :)
I think all the posts that would get me ignored never made it past the "Post" button. I tend to read, respond, then re-read and think about it before I hit the "Post" button. I have abandoned many 'knee-jerk' snipey replies that way. :)
Don't supress those feelings __ let's hear them loud and clear! It is only an internet forum, not the United Nations or something.
So far, mine are consistently updating the day after the sales.
Really?! Hmm.... strange, mine have updated 3 or 4 times after 'the announcement', every time for a fraction of the amount i sold. Maybe time to shoot a mail to support.
This issue has been brought up a few times in the 'where do we go to from here?' thread, but there is a main thread on the help forum:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253622&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253622&page=1[/url])
However, I can't explain why Lobo couldn't get a straight answer way back when the thread was started.
His current posting, that he'd rather give an accurate answer is creditable, but rather disingenuous. It's surely a simple enough question, and you'd think he could get a simple enough answer. (even if it's only, "Your reported RCs are not currently accurate, but they're working on it"). Seems very odd that he can't.
I think all the posts that would get me ignored never made it past the "Post" button. I tend to read, respond, then re-read and think about it before I hit the "Post" button. I have abandoned many 'knee-jerk' snipey replies that way. :)Good on you for
If you ignore someone their posts do have a small Show button you can use to remind yourself why you ignored them in the first place.
...
Yeah, I do that sometimes (press the 'Show' button), but 99% of the time it just serves to remind me why I pressed the 'Ignore' button in the first place. As they say, a tiger can't change it's stripes ...
Another move by a competitor to flush out some new blood :)
[url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/newsletter/259/article1.html[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/newsletter/259/article1.html[/url])
Another move by a competitor to flush out some new blood :)
[url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/newsletter/259/article1.html[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/newsletter/259/article1.html[/url])
Another move by a competitor to flush out some new blood :)
[url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/newsletter/259/article1.html[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/newsletter/259/article1.html[/url])
"We're growing. We're aggressively signing up new customers, our download counts are very high"
And yet while they have raised prices for buyers they have not given a contributor royalty increase in two years.
If he left out of principle due to recent changes....RESPECT!I think it's safe to assume that is not what his official announcement will say, but the timing makes you wonder. I had nothing but the greatest respect for Rob before this, so nothing will change there, regardless of his reasons.
Wow. Really sorry to hear Rob's left. He was always a calm and reassuring presence. He will really be missed.
Yeah, it's a sad shocker, alright. No matter the reason he might give for leaving, people are going to chalk it up the commission restructuring - it's the natural thing to do.
Soooo __ are you giving up exclusivity now? I wasn't expecting to have a drink on you quite this soon!
It took me a while with Google to find this, but here's ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=171201&messageid=2947041[/url]) a post from Rob when the Partner Program was introduced. We asked if those who opted out would see their best match placement worsened. In case the text goes away at some point, he said:
"What would the point of negatively affecting best match placement for people who opt-out but not telling them? That isn't consequence or punishment that is just being mean. If you see me quit then perhaps you can assume that is how they are running things.
I know of no consequence currently or in the future for people who choose to not include their files in the partner program."
^^^ Good post Sadstock (and welcome!). My sources tell me that several inspectors are leaving too. Lots going on behind the scenes at the moment.
I can't make up my mind: Are you counting your chickens before they hatch, or are you simply trying to gloat? Hmm, maybe both.
Istockphoto's heading south mate __ seriously. The good old days are history. Trust Uncle Gostwyck.
I have as hard a time believing that Rob's departure is unrelated to the recent announcements as I do that anyone will acknowledge that that's the reason. [snip] iStock is the poorer for your departure. I hope they realize that. Any other organization that gets you is lucky indeed :)
oh, and FWIW - he may not be gone completely, I see from his profile page ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/sylvanworks[/url]) that he still has the Admin and Moderator badges. I would think once he leaves those positions and the privileges are removed, those will be gone as well.
^Unfortunately the good guys serve to give a false impression of who we're really dealing with. istock maintains the front of being a community to encourage contributors to give their all (while taking less), but quite obviously this is only done to further their business interests. Rob and Roger and Lobo are like the happy smiling business team images that designers use to get customers in.
But without the good guys we can only expect an acceleration of the rape and pillage.
what does that mean to be "ignored"? they can't see anything you post or you just can't sitemail them?
try vlad_the_imp ;)what does that mean to be "ignored"? they can't see anything you post or you just can't sitemail them?
OT: Congrats, Jami! Looks like you're "doing it right" as jsnover instructed - I see you've got two people ignoring you. I've still got you beat. I'm up to four! I like it that you can see everyone's stats. That hawk_eye has the highest I've seen so far with nine!
what does that mean to be "ignored"? they can't see anything you post or you just can't sitemail them?
OT: Congrats, Jami! Looks like you're "doing it right" as jsnover instructed - I see you've got two people ignoring you. I've still got you beat. I'm up to four! I like it that you can see everyone's stats. That hawk_eye has the highest I've seen so far with nine!
Anyway. As you were.
Ijust found out imignored by 2! Yay me!That makes two of us.
Oo arrrrrrrrrPirates have feelings too, you know :'(
(sorry)
Welcome to the club Jami!
If you aren't ignored by at least on person, you aren't doing it right ;)
^^^ Rob leaving now, 2 weeks after this bombshell, is a bit too much of a quinky-dinky for me __ whatever the offical line might be. Maybe Rob will pop in here to explain things.
what does that mean to be "ignored"? they can't see anything you post or you just can't sitemail them?
OT: Congrats, Jami! Looks like you're "doing it right" as jsnover instructed - I see you've got two people ignoring you. I've still got you beat. I'm up to four! I like it that you can see everyone's stats. That hawk_eye has the highest I've seen so far with nine!
Anyway. As you were.
^^^ Rob leaving now, 2 weeks after this bombshell, is a bit too much of a quinky-dinky for me __ whatever the offical line might be. Maybe Rob will pop in here to explain things.
Rob is also a big-time contributor, no? Everyone has always said he is a good guy, so maybe he's had it up to his eyeballs with the whole thing, too.
Well I'm banned from the forums & sitemail haha! Called a trolls response pathetic & responded to Lobo saying I wouldn't be intimidated by his bullish behaviour and thinly veiled threats to me on sitemail.
It would appear somone is a tad insecure in their authority... go figure.
How many others have felt the light touch of the wiffle hammer?
Anyhoo - had to register somewhere and voice my displeasure at censorship. Carry on all! (and hello all on these forums!)
I can. I don't ignore anyone. I'm too nosey! ;D
well I was at 4 last night...and I've made one post....so I'm not sure which 5 people I ticked off last night...lol. oh well, half of you probably can't see this post anyways.
Rogermexico hasn't shown up since the announcement either. I'm worried he's another person departing from his official role.
Rogermexico hasn't shown up since the announcement either. I'm worried he's another person departing from his official role.He's iStock's offical spin doctor. Maybe he hasn't been given any 'spinning' to do? Or maybe it's just too unpalatable.
[Pollyanna] Or maybe there will be some news coming sometime, just 'not yet'. [/Pollyanna]
Or maybe not.
Seems he's very busy with the Japan Lypse arrangements.
Well I'm banned from the forums & sitemail haha! Called a trolls response pathetic & responded to Lobo saying I wouldn't be intimidated by his bullish behaviour and thinly veiled threats to me on sitemail.
It would appear somone is a tad insecure in their authority... go figure.
How many others have felt the light touch of the wiffle hammer?
Anyhoo - had to register somewhere and voice my displeasure at censorship. Carry on all! (and hello all on these forums!)
Well I'm banned from the forums & sitemail haha! Called a trolls response pathetic & responded to Lobo saying I wouldn't be intimidated by his bullish behaviour and thinly veiled threats to me on sitemail.
It would appear somone is a tad insecure in their authority... go figure.
How many others have felt the light touch of the wiffle hammer?
Anyhoo - had to register somewhere and voice my displeasure at censorship. Carry on all! (and hello all on these forums!)
I think it's too funny that they ban you from sitemail too. What is the point of that? The whole banning thing seems rather childish and vindictive anyway, especially considering the random nature of the whole thing. I see people on there who have posted much more than my 10 or so posts and have been way more critical and insulting and they apparently still have their posting privileges.
As a buyer who is taking my business elsewhere now, I still get the last laugh though. :D
banning from sitemail may be so that the person can't then start blasting everyone on their CN with their rants. that would be the only logical thing to me about the sitemail.
Maybe, but I've got a couple sitemails that I can't respond to now. And it could be regarding a potential sale because, at the time of the ban, I had an active request for new content. I can't even see who the sitemails are from. Again, this doesn't hurt me. I can shop elsewhere, but iStock may have lost a sale. Oh well. I just feel bad for the contributors.
Purchased a nice maximum sized image from Dreamstime. :)
...I popped on over to Dreamstime to check and see if the image was there. While it didn't show up on the first page, similar photos from that photographer did, so finding it was pretty easy using general keywords.
I actually originally found the image I wanted to use on Shutterstock, but since I just wanted to buy the one image I didn't want to buy their lowest PAYG package, so, just for the heck of it, I popped on over to Dreamstime to check and see if the image was there. While it didn't show up on the first page, similar photos from that photographer did, so finding it was pretty easy using general keywords.
I did have a slight problem with the purchase though. I actually had a client sign up and buy the credits and when I went to buy the image the site wanted me to finish filling out her profile. I did and went back to the image page. Unfortunately, I did not notice that the Medium size was selected by default (since I thought by going back to the image page it would remember the option that I clicked). So I contacted customer service and they immediately refunded the credits so I could buy the correct size.
The one thing that I did find strange though was that the price of the image changed three times thoughout this process. When I first searched for it, it was priced at 9 credits. When I went to purchase it, it changed to 11 credits, and then after I accidentally purchased the wrong size, it went up to 15 credits. After they refunded my money it went back to 11 credits. What is with that?
Thanks for that. Interesting that you chose to initially search on SS although apparently you had no intention of buying from them. Do you find that SS produces decent search results, easier than DT? I've always thought DT's results to be embarassingly bad in most instances __ why they don't recognise that themselves amazes me.I initially started out just searching a couple different sites, just to see what was available, without necessarily having a clear idea of what I wanted, and just happened to land at SS. It was only after I narrowed down the choices that I looked to see if they were available eslewhere. At first, I didn't have a particular preference of where I was going to purchase an image. Just getting my feet wet after being a loyal iStock customer for so long... ;)
It may have been the level system at Dreamstime. The more sales an image has the more expensive the image becomes. After you searched for it, others could have bought copies increasing the price. When you purchased it the first time you could of bumped it up to a new price level. When DT removed the sale the image dropped back to the previous level. As a seller the rising level system is one of the best things about DT.
It may have been the level system at Dreamstime. The more sales an image has the more expensive the image becomes. After you searched for it, others could have bought copies increasing the price. When you purchased it the first time you could of bumped it up to a new price level. When DT removed the sale the image dropped back to the previous level. As a seller the rising level system is one of the best things about DT.
While I'm glad for the seller, I found it a little annoying that the price suddenly changed without notice, in the course of an hour. It almost felt like a bait and switch. Still, the price was reasonable enough so it didn't deter me.
Well I'm banned from the forums & sitemail haha! Called a trolls response pathetic & responded to Lobo saying I wouldn't be intimidated by his bullish behaviour and thinly veiled threats to me on sitemail.
It would appear somone is a tad insecure in their authority... go figure.
How many others have felt the light touch of the wiffle hammer?
Anyhoo - had to register somewhere and voice my displeasure at censorship. Carry on all! (and hello all on these forums!)
I think it's too funny that they ban you from sitemail too. What is the point of that? The whole banning thing seems rather childish and vindictive anyway, especially considering the random nature of the whole thing. I see people on there who have posted much more than my 10 or so posts and have been way more critical and insulting and they apparently still have their posting privileges.
As a buyer who is taking my business elsewhere now, I still get the last laugh though. :D
You don't remember well.
One of the two don't remeber well, but I'm not going now to dive in istock forums archives to make my point. Maybe others remember too.
This is a discussion forum, remember? Having read scores of posts by you every time they had a price raise at the Istock one I coudn't avoid a smile. Sorry. And you can buy your files and your food wherever you want, of course. But you can't forbid me to have my own opinion.
One of the two don't remeber well, but I'm not going now to dive in istock forums archives to make my point. Maybe others remember too.
No, we don't. Either make your point with substantiated evidence or shut the f*ck up.
This is a discussion forum, remember? Having read scores of posts by you every time they had a price raise at the Istock one I coudn't avoid a smile. Sorry. And you can buy your files and your food wherever you want, of course. But you can't forbid me to have my own opinion.
I don't want to pick on caspixel, but if I were to make a constructive comment.....she has truly been threatening to stop buying at iStock since I joined, which was four years ago. it was one of the very first things I noticed about her username in the forums.
so, to suggest that loop's comment was anything but correct just makes you look as biased as you clearly are. seriously tired of watching you attack people, it's completely unproductive.
I think the 'other' thread on istock is the longest of its kind too. I don't know what is happening there. I haven't any real interest since it's the same discussion circling in there now, the whole situation seems a bit moot. we're moving forward, it's done and I don't know that much else will be said. perhaps gradual additions to the sticky and that's it.
sales seem good. glad about that.
I don't want to pick on caspixel, but if I were to make a constructive comment.....she has truly been threatening to stop buying at iStock since I joined, which was four years ago. it was one of the very first things I noticed about her username in the forums.
so, to suggest that loop's comment was anything but correct just makes you look as biased as you clearly are. seriously tired of watching you attack people, it's completely unproductive.
koolaid isn't as bitter as whatever you're drinking....
koolaid isn't as bitter as whatever you're drinking....
I think the 'other' thread on istock is the longest of its kind too. I don't know what is happening there. I haven't any real interest since it's the same discussion circling in there now, the whole situation seems a bit moot. we're moving forward, it's done and I don't know that much else will be said.
^^^ Yeah, how about stopping this bashing that you guys pollute this forum with (and in multiple threads)? I know this is an open arena, not a kindergarten, but, we almost always managed to self-moderate here, so...
You don't remember well.
she has truly been threatening to stop buying at iStock since I joined, which was four years ago.
I suggest you shut the f*ck up too
QuoteYou don't remember well.
I remember
Quoteshe has truly been threatening to stop buying at iStock since I joined, which was four years ago.
I have definitely noticed this, I think she was particularly vocal when the Logo program was first discussed.
shut the f*ck up too
That's exactly why I'd be extremely wary about using special needs models in micro.Not cool dude, not coolAgree. Bad taste
I agree too. Completely unwarranted.
That's exactly why I'd be extremely wary about using special needs models in micro.Not cool dude, not coolAgree. Bad taste
I agree too. Completely unwarranted.
Not that I'm suggesting that the image used above was sourced from a micro (I don't know), but it does show the danger.
And that poster has been posted in 261 forums or blogs already. :-(
QuoteYou don't remember well.
I remember
You're memory is faulty too. See my post from up above where I pulled MY OWN posts from price increase threads. I don't deny speaking out against price increases, but loop's, Hawk Eye's (and now your) characterization that I have been threatening to stop buying at iStock for four years is a flat out lie.Quoteshe has truly been threatening to stop buying at iStock since I joined, which was four years ago.
I have definitely noticed this, I think she was particularly vocal when the Logo program was first discussed.
Also not only flat out wrong, but another lie. I couldn't care less out about the logo program. Have fun looking through 1954 posts for all 14 of my posts which will prove you 100% WRONG. And since you can't prove your claim, you should... (see below)Quoteshut the f*ck up too
Seems to me you guys have a real memory problem or something. Must be another side effect of the iStock Kool-Aid. (BTW, I'd rather be angry than a liar.)
@shady: I don't know if I agree with that, but it's probably a topic for another thread. I'm entirely offended by the usage of the image. but at the same time, if I use another example...I had every one of my Dachau Concentration Camp shots deactivated, even though they had sold, because the camp is considered a Nazi symbol and they have a zero tolerance on anything related to the Nazi party. one of the suggested reasons was that it could be used to promote the ideology.Everyone has to make up their own mind. If I had photos of Dachau, I'd put them as RM editorial only. The legal uses for RF are too wide, far less that it's more likely that an abuser would be happier to pay less at a Macro site. Also, I'm not sure how much 'protection' we really get, even as iStock exclusives for abuse of images outside the t&c: IMO, they should name and shame and stress what action they took. They never do that, and the only 'punishment' I know of for abused images (where I've sitemailled 'togs) is a 'cease and desist', or if the damage is done, a rap over the knuckles. Hardly likely to discourage others.
maybe it is my perspective as an exclusive, since we have a bit more protection regarding the use of our images, but frankly almost any image could be construed to convey a negative or offensive message with the right copy. to suggest that we keep end use in mind in this context when shooting is absurd. in my example, Dachau is now a memorial to those lives lost. it is a sombre reminder of a terrible period in history. it has a place in the collection, as do images of people with disabilities.
admin note: A rather untasteful (politically incorrect etc.) image has been removed along with comments responding to that image
admin note: A rather untasteful (politically incorrect etc.) image has been removed along with comments responding to that imageThank you.
Here's one of your posts end of 2007 where you said you will start looking elsewhere. See the third post from the top ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=61510&page=1[/url]). You may not have said you'll stop buying at iStock, but you sure have made it clear that you were planning to look elsewhere.
I think some of us are just tired of your posts over time how much you dislike where iStock is going (away from "the designer's dirty little secret") and that there are so many other places where you can buy good photos. Just do what you feel is right for you and be done with it.
Does anyone know if the Vetta taking so many spots in searches is recent adjustment or it was always this way? I know there were always quite a few Vetta files, but recently it looks like 90%+ spots on first and second page are really occupied by Vetta images. I wonder if this is part of some greater scheme of things. Or just thing I did not notice before.
Also, unless I'm missing something, it now appears to be more complicated to exclude Vetta files. One has to first do the search and then access the advanced tab and limit the results.
Try New Your City or Fashion (Phoho only) searches.
Good
Also, unless I'm missing something, it now appears to be more complicated to exclude Vetta files. One has to first do the search and then access the advanced tab and limit the results.
Does anyone know if the Vetta taking so many spots in the searches is recent adjustment or if it was always this way? I know there were always quite a few Vetta files in the top results, but recently it looks like 90%+ spots on the first and second page are occupied by Vetta images. I wonder if this is part of a greater scheme of things. Or just thing I did not notice before.It seems to depend on the search. Try 'men'.
Try New York City or Fashion (Phoho only) searches.
So Lobo deleted all the posts that had a link to this wonderful YouTube video of an Air Tran commercial. But I think it's funny (in a sick way) given our current situation with iStock.
So Lobo deleted all the posts that had a link to this wonderful YouTube video of an Air Tran commercial. But I think it's funny (in a sick way) given our current situation with iStock.
[youtube]w6Xe_tquHgQ[/youtube]
Does anyone know if the Vetta taking so many spots in the searches is recent adjustment or if it was always this way? I know there were always quite a few Vetta files in the top results, but recently it looks like 90%+ spots on the first and second page are occupied by Vetta images. I wonder if this is part of a greater scheme of things. Or just thing I did not notice before.It seems to depend on the search. Try 'men'.
Try New York City or Fashion (Phoho only) searches.
Here's one of your posts end of 2007 where you said you will start looking elsewhere. See the third post from the top ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=61510&page=1[/url]). You may not have said you'll stop buying at iStock, but you sure have made it clear that you were planning to look elsewhere.
I think some of us are just tired of your posts over time how much you dislike where iStock is going (away from "the designer's dirty little secret") and that there are so many other places where you can buy good photos. Just do what you feel is right for you and be done with it.
ONE post in four years (and ONLY stating that I'd be looking for high res elsewhere) certainly is a lot different than claiming it's been an endless litany of threats to leave. :D It's certainly not much different than views many other people have expressed, but apparently I get to be the whipping boy for everybody.
What I find interesting is how buyers were just supposed to take the price increases, shut up and sit down. But I knew there would (inevitably) be a huge uproar when Getty finally started reducing the contributors cut. It was bound to happen. What can I say...first they came for the buyers...
I think some of us are just tired of your posts over time how much you dislike where iStock is going (away from "the designer's dirty little secret") and that there are so many other places where you can buy good photos. Just do what you feel is right for you and be done with it.
I think some of us are just tired of your posts over time how much you dislike where iStock is going (away from "the designer's dirty little secret") and that there are so many other places where you can buy good photos. Just do what you feel is right for you and be done with it.
Everyone has to make up their own mind. If I had photos of Dachau, I'd put them as RM editorial only. The legal uses for RF are too wide, far less that it's more likely that an abuser would be happier to pay less at a Macro site.
I wish more buyers would use the other sites, then perhaps istock wouldn't be able to raise prices and cut commissions? They can only get away with this because they have so much power, being the biggest site. We hold all the cards though, all we have to do is take some positive action. I have stopped uploading, started deleting, removed any links I can find to istock and replaced them with other sites. Buyers have more control, they can really make a difference by buying images elsewhere. Its a shame people are picking on you here, we should all be working hard to change things for the better. I don't really care if you have been threatening to leave istock for years or not. I've threatened to leave a few times and done nothing but this time is different, they have really messed up lately and I can see it isn't going to be beneficial for me to work with them if they keep this up.
I think some of us are just tired of your posts over time how much you dislike where iStock is going (away from "the designer's dirty little secret") and that there are so many other places where you can buy good photos. Just do what you feel is right for you and be done with it.
Why because she was right? I mean there's certainly something of Cassandra about the situation.
It is annoying when the person you thought was a niggling repetitive doom-sayer turns out to have been spot on about the direction a company was going and the yoo yaying majority tun out to have been deceived, but this is a strange way to show gratitude for the warnings she was putting out there.
Both of them are really nice and honest people that I personally know and trust. That said, I will act according to my financial results. By the way, today is shaping really great, and even for Vettas.
... FWIW, I'm having a fabulous week so far at istock, but that doesn't mean I'm going to sit around and keep waiting for for some dramatic change to the Sept 7 'bad news.' Decisions have been made, the process is moving forward.
Don't know if anyone noticed but Joyze updated the FAQs on the new structure a couple of hours ago. She really should change her avatar if she wants to project a friendlier image.
She had that avatar from the very first announcement about these changes. Just preparing I guess...Don't know if anyone noticed but Joyze updated the FAQs on the new structure a couple of hours ago. She really should change her avatar if she wants to project a friendlier image.
maybe she doesn't want to. I wouldn't after taking all that crap. I can only imagine the sitemails being sent to her and everyone else. She is really helpful and sweet by all accounts, so it goes to show you even the nicest ones might be done with the haters...BANNED....
For the record, I did not mean to impune the character of either RogerMexico or JJRD, but rather using them as a figurehead for the company at which they are employed (HF/Getty - the abusive spouse). I suppose they are as much a victim of them as the contributors. Sad, really. They are tied to the bed and the house is on fire.
For those who did not see this.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=257202&page=3[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=257202&page=3[/url])
JJRD said
"Over the course of the past 2 weeks, kkthompson & I have put our own asses on the line many, many times over for this community of artists... and we'll do it again and again every single time that we feel it necessary."
Sounds to me like JJRD is saying the whole thing is a Getty or H&F idea and that he and KK have fought on our behalf to minimize the damage. But why "past 2 weeks", after the announcement? Seems like this would have been planned for much longer then that, so the fighting with Getty/H&F would have been months ago.
So if the asses were on the line for something else, what would that be? Turning off the forums?
He also said "Let me add the following, however: if one day I do not believe in iStockphoto anymore, I will be out of here in a snap. Faster than a speeding bullet. It is not the case at the very moment. I still believe in this place, just as on day one. I am in it for the long haul & for the well being of the entire community."
His point about "not the case at the very moment" seems to suggest that he has had his own doubts, or that he fears that he may in the future.
For the record, I did not mean to impune the character of either RogerMexico or JJRD, but rather using them as a figurehead for the company at which they are employed (HF/Getty - the abusive spouse). I suppose they are as much a victim of them as the contributors. Sad, really. They are tied to the bed and the house is on fire.
I guess I disagree. Everyone has a choice, and these guys have chosen to stay. They maybe don't agree with what's happening, but they are happily taking the paycheck. I just don't see them as a "victim". More of a willing participant.
. which is too bad. but I don't think it is the time to jump ship. if JJ ever leaves, that won't be an immediate signal to me to leave. even if the community aspect were to dissolve or become more of a corporate culture, I wouldn't necessarily leave. perhaps the community is no longer as realistic given the size of the contributor base now.
I was trying to be nice. LOL. You are right. They choose to stay. iStockholm Syndrome, perhaps? :D
I was trying to be nice. LOL. You are right. They choose to stay. iStockholm Syndrome, perhaps? :D
Don't try and be nice __ they're not worth it. They're choosing to sell Istockphoto, it's values and all of us down the Swanee in pursuit of their own bonuses. All this misty-eyed faux 'concern' and 'ass-on the-line' nonsense is just that __ utter f*cking bollocks. Amazingly some poeple are actually falling for it.
Crowd is out, elite is in.
Why can't you write properly? You describe yourself as a 'professional author' (my arse) and yet you don't seem to understand the basic rules of capitalisation, sentence construction or grammar that might actually make your messages comprehensible. Are you pretending to be young and trendy, just f*cking lazy or are you simply plain stupid?
Crowd is out, elite is in.
I think you're partly correct. it is too early to refer to that as regrettable. I'd modify your comment--crowd is out, and exclusive means something else now. take it or leave it.
I was trying to be nice. LOL. You are right. They choose to stay. iStockholm Syndrome, perhaps? :D
Don't try and be nice __ they're not worth it. They're choosing to sell Istockphoto, it's values and all of us down the Swanee in pursuit of their own bonuses. All this misty-eyed faux 'concern' and 'ass-on the-line' nonsense is just that __ utter f*cking bollocks. Amazingly some poeple are actually falling for it.
Can I just say, I love your no BS forthright attitude. :D
I was trying to be nice. LOL. You are right. They choose to stay. iStockholm Syndrome, perhaps? :D
Don't try and be nice __ they're not worth it. They're choosing to sell Istockphoto, it's values and all of us down the Swanee in pursuit of their own bonuses. All this misty-eyed faux 'concern' and 'ass-on the-line' nonsense is just that __ utter f*cking bollocks. Amazingly some poeple are actually falling for it.
Can I just say, I love your no BS forthright attitude. :D
...Crowd is out, elite is in.
...Crowd is out, elite is in.
I might have agreed with this statement, except that I think iStock missed their chance to really go elite and corner the market. Late last year they had some of the elite independent artists (Andres being one of them) reconsidering exclusivity after the prices for exclusive files were increased while non-exclusive file prices did not see the same increase. iStock had the elite independents coming back to the table to give the crown another look, and then they lit the table on fire with this pay cut.
Just imagine what things might look like today if iStock had, at some point this year, raised exclusive rates 5% across the board. Or offered a Black Diamond rate of 45%. They could have even moved forward with the non-exclusive rate cut. Drop all independents down to 15%, and offer a pretty sweet exclusive deal with a rate increase. Maybe guys like Andres would be exclusive today. What if more top tier independents were enticed by the deal and were sold on a higher rate? Maybe Yuri would be exclusive, Ron, Lisa, etc. iStock might have been on the verge of major market dominance by just sweetening the deal a bit more. And we all know they could have done it and that 55-60% profit is sustainable.
Instead, any chance of the most sought-after independent talent ever becoming exclusive is gone, and some people are actually reverting from exclusive back to independent. Makes you wonder if the folks at HQ will ever be looking back on 2010 as the year that could have been.
...Crowd is out, elite is in.
I might have agreed with this statement, except that I think iStock missed their chance to really go elite and corner the market. Late last year they had some of the elite independent artists (Andres being one of them) reconsidering exclusivity after the prices for exclusive files were increased while non-exclusive file prices did not see the same increase. iStock had the elite independents coming back to the table to give the crown another look, and then they lit the table on fire with this pay cut.
Just imagine what things might look like today if iStock had, at some point this year, raised exclusive rates 5% across the board. Or offered a Black Diamond rate of 45%. They could have even moved forward with the non-exclusive rate cut. Drop all independents down to 15%, and offer a pretty sweet exclusive deal with a rate increase. Maybe guys like Andres would be exclusive today. What if more top tier independents were enticed by the deal and were sold on a higher rate? Maybe Yuri would be exclusive, Ron, Lisa, etc. iStock might have been on the verge of major market dominance by just sweetening the deal a bit more. And we all know they could have done it and that 55-60% profit is sustainable.
Instead, any chance of the most sought-after independent talent ever becoming exclusive is gone, and some people are actually reverting from exclusive back to independent. Makes you wonder if the folks at HQ will ever be looking back on 2010 as the year that could have been.
My sales at IS this week have been the worst for years. I checked my biggest selling image that a few weeks ago was on the first page search result.Don't worry. Some exclusives are experiencing vastly increased rejection rates recently. I was up to over 90% acceptance, if you excluded the first few months, but now it's more like 80% rejection - mostly for 'poor light', though what they expect from natural history images taken in a rainforest, I'm not sure. Some of these were of species not found on iStock or any other micro I could find (but to be fair, the people looking for these images probably wouldn't be looking in the micros, so maybe they thought the images were unsaleable; though I could also say this about a lot of images which have come through recently).
I have also received two sets of 100% rejections for unquantifiable reasons (i.e., "over filtered" and "artifacts" with no sample crops provided). My acceptance rates had been running at over 70%. Those same sets had 90% or better acceptance rates at all my other agencies.
Even if they hadn't come right out and said so, it's obvious now that independents are no longer second class citizens. We're now third or fourth class.
My sales at IS this week have been the worst for years. I checked my biggest selling image that a few weeks ago was on the first page search result.Don't worry. Some exclusives are experiencing vastly increased rejection rates recently. I was up to over 90% acceptance, if you excluded the first few months, but now it's more like 80% rejection - mostly for 'poor light', though what they expect from natural history images taken in a rainforest, I'm not sure. Some of these were of species not found on iStock or any other micro I could find (but to be fair, the people looking for these images probably wouldn't be looking in the micros, so maybe they thought the images were unsaleable; though I could also say this about a lot of images which have come through recently).
I have also received two sets of 100% rejections for unquantifiable reasons (i.e., "over filtered" and "artifacts" with no sample crops provided). My acceptance rates had been running at over 70%. Those same sets had 90% or better acceptance rates at all my other agencies.
Even if they hadn't come right out and said so, it's obvious now that independents are no longer second class citizens. We're now third or fourth class.
Looks like they're moving on to purely 'studio' (indoor or outdoor) work.
I was trying to be nice. LOL. You are right. They choose to stay. iStockholm Syndrome, perhaps? :D
Don't try and be nice __ they're not worth it. They're choosing to sell Istockphoto, it's values and all of us down the Swanee in pursuit of their own bonuses. All this misty-eyed faux 'concern' and 'ass-on the-line' nonsense is just that __ utter f*cking bollocks. Amazingly some poeple are actually falling for it.
Can I just say, I love your no BS forthright attitude. :D
JJRD said
"Over the course of the past 2 weeks, kkthompson & I have put our own asses on the line many, many times over for this community of artists... and we'll do it again and again every single time that we feel it necessary."
This is the scariest thing of all. It sounds like there has is a battle beung waged between the old IStock admins and Getty. You can bet there will only be one winner in the end.
The result can only be a maximum payout of 20%, same as across all other Getty agencies. This rate will be for exclusives, hate to think what independents will be making by then!!!
...Crowd is out, elite is in.
I might have agreed with this statement, except that I think iStock missed their chance to really go elite and corner the market. Late last year they had some of the elite independent artists (Andres being one of them) reconsidering exclusivity after the prices for exclusive files were increased while non-exclusive file prices did not see the same increase. iStock had the elite independents coming back to the table to give the crown another look, and then they lit the table on fire with this pay cut.
Just imagine what things might look like today if iStock had, at some point this year, raised exclusive rates 5% across the board. Or offered a Black Diamond rate of 45%. They could have even moved forward with the non-exclusive rate cut. Drop all independents down to 15%, and offer a pretty sweet exclusive deal with a rate increase. Maybe guys like Andres would be exclusive today. What if more top tier independents were enticed by the deal and were sold on a higher rate? Maybe Yuri would be exclusive, Ron, Lisa, etc. iStock might have been on the verge of major market dominance by just sweetening the deal a bit more. And we all know they could have done it and that 55-60% profit is sustainable.
Instead, any chance of the most sought-after independent talent ever becoming exclusive is gone, and some people are actually reverting from exclusive back to independent. Makes you wonder if the folks at HQ will ever be looking back on 2010 as the year that could have been.
GREAT points. Cas is right. They should have hired you as a consultant. They'd be untouchable in the market and it would be a veritable IS lovefest at the contributor level.
snip... it should have been golden handcuffs.
How many employee-employer relations are based on the employer unilaterally reviewing the wage levels each year and setting them in accordance with what is most agreeable to the company. Would you take a job on those terms?
I think our brand is being given some steroids....not necessarily a bad thing
I think our brand is being given some steroids....not necessarily a bad thing
Steroids cause brain cancer....
How many employee-employer relations are based on the employer unilaterally reviewing the wage levels each year and setting them in accordance with what is most agreeable to the company. Would you take a job on those terms?
They aren't my employer though. They are my agent. I use them to sell my work.
Several of you replied to my recent post, saying in effect that istock appears to be simply too incompetent in their decisions to be evolving in an intelligent and productive way. There may be something in that :D
It's certainly possible that they are screwing this up. In my previous experience as an employee of large companies I saw this happen several times, and there is one major cause of this. Once a company reaches a certain size and complexity the average employee can no longer hear what the customers and suppliers are saying. Instead they only hear the noise of their internal organization. Survival and career growth in a large company depend on satisfying the bureaucracy and especially the management, whereas if you stick up for the customer or supplier you are branded by the powers that be as "not a team player".
This tends to happen in companies which have a dominant market position, because for a while they will be shielded from the consequences of their incompetence. Customers and suppliers will keep dealing with them for some time after things go bad, for lack of alternatives. By the time management notice that the company is stumbling badly it is often too late. Even recognizing the problem clearly does no good if there is too much internal corporate inertia to turn the ship around. Recognizing mistakes requires one to admit having made the mistake, losing face and taking a blow to one's *internal* *corporate* reputation.
Now that I review this in my mind and look back at the last three weeks of shock, anger, confusion and frustration, I see some evidence that this is going on at Getty/IS. For one thing, if IS represents only a relatively small part of Getty then the consequences of screwing up IS will not be as noticeable to Getty management as they would have been to the management of IS alone if they were still an independent company. They can point to overall company results or to overall industry trends or economic factors and make excuses while the ship sinks and some other smaller and more nimble company passes them. "The ship isn't listing because of a hole in its side, it's just that all those damned passengers raced over to one side to look at the iceberg." LOL
This is all just speculation of course ... now if you'll excuse me I have some images to send to scout ::)
snip... it should have been golden handcuffs.
I think the partial golden handcuffs deal ran its course with the current exclusivity program. You can only offer so many incentives. When incentives no longer work well then there is only leverage which is what's going on now.
And yes, competition is the point. Even moreso now that Istock is trying to raise prices. The higher the prices go at Istock the less competitive non-exclusive files become because everywhere else will be cheaper.
the friendly neighbourhood naysayers
Several of you replied to my recent post, saying in effect that istock appears to be simply too incompetent in their decisions to be evolving in an intelligent and productive way. There may be something in that :D
It's certainly possible that they are screwing this up. In my previous experience as an employee of large companies I saw this happen several times, and there is one major cause of this. Once a company reaches a certain size and complexity the average employee can no longer hear what the customers and suppliers are saying. Instead they only hear the noise of their internal organization. Survival and career growth in a large company depend on satisfying the bureaucracy and especially the management, whereas if you stick up for the customer or supplier you are branded by the powers that be as "not a team player".
This tends to happen in companies which have a dominant market position, because for a while they will be shielded from the consequences of their incompetence. Customers and suppliers will keep dealing with them for some time after things go bad, for lack of alternatives. By the time management notice that the company is stumbling badly it is often too late. Even recognizing the problem clearly does no good if there is too much internal corporate inertia to turn the ship around. Recognizing mistakes requires one to admit having made the mistake, losing face and taking a blow to one's *internal* *corporate* reputation.
Now that I review this in my mind and look back at the last three weeks of shock, anger, confusion and frustration, I see some evidence that this is going on at Getty/IS. For one thing, if IS represents only a relatively small part of Getty then the consequences of screwing up IS will not be as noticeable to Getty management as they would have been to the management of IS alone if they were still an independent company. They can point to overall company results or to overall industry trends or economic factors and make excuses while the ship sinks and some other smaller and more nimble company passes them. "The ship isn't listing because of a hole in its side, it's just that all those damned passengers raced over to one side to look at the iceberg." LOL
This is all just speculation of course ... now if you'll excuse me I have some images to send to scout ::)
I agreed with your earlier post, I thought it was a concise and balanced perspective. but this one.....you've gone down the same road as the friendly neighbourhood naysayers--. your 'facts' aren't facts at all and your comments are skewed to kowtow to the point of view of the majority here. you seem to have quite a bit of business sense, so it's disappointing to see your latest post.
Several of you replied to my recent post, saying in effect that istock appears to be simply too incompetent in their decisions to be evolving in an intelligent and productive way. There may be something in that :D
It's certainly possible that they are screwing this up. In my previous experience as an employee of large companies I saw this happen several times, and there is one major cause of this. Once a company reaches a certain size and complexity the average employee can no longer hear what the customers and suppliers are saying. Instead they only hear the noise of their internal organization. Survival and career growth in a large company depend on satisfying the bureaucracy and especially the management, whereas if you stick up for the customer or supplier you are branded by the powers that be as "not a team player".
This tends to happen in companies which have a dominant market position, because for a while they will be shielded from the consequences of their incompetence. Customers and suppliers will keep dealing with them for some time after things go bad, for lack of alternatives. By the time management notice that the company is stumbling badly it is often too late. Even recognizing the problem clearly does no good if there is too much internal corporate inertia to turn the ship around. Recognizing mistakes requires one to admit having made the mistake, losing face and taking a blow to one's *internal* *corporate* reputation.
Now that I review this in my mind and look back at the last three weeks of shock, anger, confusion and frustration, I see some evidence that this is going on at Getty/IS. For one thing, if IS represents only a relatively small part of Getty then the consequences of screwing up IS will not be as noticeable to Getty management as they would have been to the management of IS alone if they were still an independent company. They can point to overall company results or to overall industry trends or economic factors and make excuses while the ship sinks and some other smaller and more nimble company passes them. "The ship isn't listing because of a hole in its side, it's just that all those damned passengers raced over to one side to look at the iceberg." LOL
This is all just speculation of course ... now if you'll excuse me I have some images to send to scout ::)
I agreed with your earlier post, I thought it was a concise and balanced perspective. but this one.....you've gone down the same road as the friendly neighbourhood naysayers--. your 'facts' aren't facts at all and your comments are skewed to kowtow to the point of view of the majority here. you seem to have quite a bit of business sense, so it's disappointing to see your latest post.
Disappointing to you, because it differs from your opinion. It could be that the majority are right. That's probably another reason why it's so disappointing to you. Frankly, as someone who seemed so anti-establishment in the past, "& then...", I'm quite surprised you keep sticking up for "the man".
Frankly, as someone who seemed so anti-establishment in the past, "& then...", I'm quite surprised you keep sticking up for "the man".
even if the community aspect were to dissolve or become more of a corporate culture, I wouldn't necessarily leave.
"Shill" can also be used pejoratively to describe a critic who appears either all-too-eager to heap glowing praise upon mediocre offerings, or who acts as an apologist for glaring flaws. In this sense, they would be an implicit "shill" for the industry at large, possibly because their income is tied to its prosperity.
the friendly neighbourhood naysayers
You seem to be missing the fact that *you* are the naysayer in this neighborhood.
GREAT points. Cas is right. They should have hired you as a consultant. They'd be untouchable in the market and it would be a veritable IS lovefest at the contributor level.
And having caught everybody who was anybody in the iStock exclusive net .... they would have cut the commission rates, because in the absence of competition why would they need to pay so much?
That's a little detail that gets overlooked: it was the existence of competition that let to "exclusivity" being invented in the first place, and props up the commission rates to this day.
This says as much as anyone needs to know about any argument you will put forth: "I don't do it, unless its convenient for me, regardless of impact to others".
the friendly neighbourhood naysayers
You seem to be missing the fact that *you* are the naysayer in this neighborhood.
lol, actually, that's true....:-D I had to laugh...
FWIW, iStock and I have had a number of disagreements. I usually take them straight to contributor relations, and they deal with it or they don't.if you really 'know' me...and you were to actually take the time to go back and review my history with iStock...you'd see there are plenty of issues I'm not on board with. but I do respect iStock staff immensely, and I think they know their sh*t.
I think a lot of people over here feel otherwise because they've had bad experiences getting work accepted, or because you're independents, and you have a legitimate gripe with iStock, especially with the latest royalty drop for independents. I think you are being screwed, which I've said since it was announced. I'm not opted into the partner program, I think TS etc., is a joke. since the announcement about Agency and Vetta results being tied together...I'm very worried that at some point the partner program will not be optional.
they've gone back on their word about Vetta price increases, not much can be said about that. it's done. I take those concerns straight to admin/contributor relations. when I post here, it's simply because so much of what is reported is inaccurate. that has been perverted into I'm a cheerleader for iStock. whatever, I'm not going to fight that....it will just make me look defensive. but it's not accurate.
[snip]
...
This is all just speculation of course ... now if you'll excuse me I have some images to send to scout ::)
I agreed with your earlier post, I thought it was a concise and balanced perspective. but this one.....you've gone down the same road as the friendly neighbourhood naysayers--. your 'facts' aren't facts at all and your comments are skewed to kowtow to the point of view of the majority here. you seem to have quite a bit of business sense, so it's disappointing to see your latest post.
Jeez, I take one HALF day off from keeping up with this ongoing train wreck and I feel like I am completely in the dark.
Apparently Joyze posted some updates? Would anyone be willing to break down the changes (if any) for me?
Yes, you would all be well within your rights to tell me to ferret it out for myself, in that massive forum thread, or elsewhere. But I hope someone will take pity on me and at least post a link to where I can find out any new, relevant information.
Thanks in advance :)
the friendly neighbourhood naysayers
You seem to be missing the fact that *you* are the naysayer in this neighborhood.
lol, actually, that's true....:-D I had to laugh...
FWIW, iStock and I have had a number of disagreements. I usually take them straight to contributor relations, and they deal with it or they don't.if you really 'know' me...and you were to actually take the time to go back and review my history with iStock...you'd see there are plenty of issues I'm not on board with. but I do respect iStock staff immensely, and I think they know their sh*t.
I think a lot of people over here feel otherwise because they've had bad experiences getting work accepted, or because you're independents, and you have a legitimate gripe with iStock, especially with the latest royalty drop for independents. I think you are being screwed, which I've said since it was announced. I'm not opted into the partner program, I think TS etc., is a joke. since the announcement about Agency and Vetta results being tied together...I'm very worried that at some point the partner program will not be optional.
they've gone back on their word about Vetta price increases, not much can be said about that. it's done. I take those concerns straight to admin/contributor relations. when I post here, it's simply because so much of what is reported is inaccurate. that has been perverted into I'm a cheerleader for iStock. whatever, I'm not going to fight that....it will just make me look defensive. but it's not accurate.
People are getting pissy with you because you’re not allowing them to tell their piece without you jumping in and smacking them in the face.
From what I can see, those that have had negative experiences with Istock (which is the majority) are voicing their beefs and you’re knocking them down because you haven’t had the same experiences as they have. Your good experience and confidence in istock doesn’t erase their bad experiences and mistrust in them.
If you have concerns you take them to contributor relations... why? You don’t want the negative press affecting your sales in the long run, am I right? I can understand your position. You’ve had it easy on istock and you’re worried that these people are going to screw things up for you in the future but it’s istock that has screwed things up and that’s what you’re failing to recognise.
Only 17% of contributors are exclusive and next year, how many independents do you think will stick around getting paid peanuts for their efforts? You can argue all you like but if you think this announcement won’t have a negative effect on you in the long run, you’re deluded. If the company can’t sustain itself now, how will it survive when a good majority of independents walk out or at best stop uploading and upload elsewhere? Istock will have to make their money up for their losses somehow and the only ones left to screw will be the exclusives.
Also, to say that istock’s content is better than those at any other agent is just arrogant. There are many talented exclusives at istock, but there are just as many, if not more independents at both istock and the other agents that are equally talented. Without being able to differentiate their products with superior content, istock’s model is going to fall on it’s arse. It doesn’t matter how you look at it or from which angle, istock ‘s future is looking grim. Contributors have lost confidence and trust in them, buyers are starting to see the light and their exclusives (even you) are having doubts about them... even if they fail to admit to it.
So if independents have had it as rough as you say, why not allow them to speak their minds here, freely. Your increase in sales have not made their losses easier to stomach. Let them vent, they have a right.
From what I can see, those that have had negative experiences with Istock (which is the majority) are voicing their beefs and you’re knocking them down because you haven’t had the same experiences as they have.There is a good chance our hammer wielding friend is only interested in how these changes affect her own life and business
If you have concerns you take them to contributor relations... why? You don’t want the negative press affecting your sales in the long run, am I right? I can understand your position. You’ve had it easy on istock and you’re worried that these people are going to screw things up for you in the future but it’s istock that has screwed things up and that’s what you’re failing to recognise.I think the main reason she is taking on people in this forum is that she believes the changes at istock will be beneficial to her brand. She believes that high producing exclusives will be rewarded by the changes istock has made and she is choosing to believe the parts of the propaganda machine which she feels will be benificial to her own business; she will be part of the club who will benifit from inclusion into the "elite superchared istock brand" whos financial benifits are avaliable only to high producing exclusives, the elite club will recieve a significant boost in sales an the changes will mean less competition from independents and low producing exclusives who can no longer compete because they will have diminishing shooting/production budgets, etc. There are a few istock exclusives participating more often on the msg boards; in hopes of detering the shut out and departing competition from generating and spreading negative istock press which will derail their new found boost in percieved income and prestige
Only 17% of contributors are exclusive and next year, how many independents do you think will stick around getting paid peanuts for their efforts? You can argue all you like but if you think this announcement won’t have a negative effect on you in the long run, you’re deluded. If the company can’t sustain itself now, how will it survive when a good majority of independents walk out or at best stop uploading and upload elsewhere? Istock will have to make their money up for their losses somehow and the only ones left to screw will be the exclusives.You have only to look at Getty's history to see that this will be the case. Denial, selfishness and arrogance can be costly.
Also, to say that istock’s content is better than those at any other agent is just arrogant.I think this has already happend in the eyes of buyers. I came to the conclusion that image quality was not superior at istock a few years ago and these days you do not have any trouble finding images of equal quality and content on other agencies for a much better price. I have discused this with a number of buyers, design firms and agencies and we all agree.
There are many talented exclusives at istock, but there are just as many, if not more independents at both istock and the other agents that are equally talented. Without being able to differentiate their products with superior content, istock’s model is going to fall on it’s arse. It doesn’t matter how you look at it or from which angle, istock ‘s future is looking grim. Contributors have lost confidence and trust in them, buyers are starting to see the light and their exclusives (even you) are having doubts about them... even if they fail to admit to it.
Jeez, I take one HALF day off from keeping up with this ongoing train wreck and I feel like I am completely in the dark.
Apparently Joyze posted some updates? Would anyone be willing to break down the changes (if any) for me?
Yes, you would all be well within your rights to tell me to ferret it out for myself, in that massive forum thread, or elsewhere. But I hope someone will take pity on me and at least post a link to where I can find out any new, relevant information.
Thanks in advance :)
Wow. It certainly is a seachange at iStock, with the contributors now saying the prices are too expensive. Fascinating.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=255972[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=255972[/url])
So, oh great business guru , the majority have had negative experiences? Link please?
as for the corporate shill BS....David, keep justifying your position....I would be too if I'd made the error in judgment I believe you have.I see "corporate shill" very clearly...if you do not understand this view point, I'm not sure what else I can say to enlighten you...the pom poms are looking very dirty and tattered... *steps off bodily fluid covered platform*...
Wow. It certainly is a seachange at iStock, with the contributors now saying the prices are too expensive. Fascinating.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=255972[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=255972[/url])
Remember tnat 1-2-3 credits was unbearable for you, and that you asked scores (if not hundreds) of times that these prices were reduced (an so, potographer's earnings)
So, oh great business guru , the majority have had negative experiences? Link please?
When talking of exclusives" and "elite" it should be reminded that this status is not an istock election, but a free choice for anyone with 250 or 500 downloads. Have we exclusive some privileges? Yes, but in exchange of not selling at 10 other sites. It's no a matter of "elite", it's a simple matter of choice.
What are the royalties?
For dowloads here at iStockphoto, the royalties will range from 22, 24, 26, 28 & 30%.
What's that... wasn't 25-30-35-40-45% for exclusive downloads ???
Wow. It certainly is a seachange at iStock, with the contributors now saying the prices are too expensive. Fascinating.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=255972[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=255972[/url])
just had a XS sale for 0.15$.. I am on fire :)
what is the min or max for a XS?? :P
So, oh great business guru , the majority have had negative experiences? Link please?
So, they sent me a coupon for 15% off any bundle of 50 credits or more. I just laughed. Any takers?qYou could reply and ask them for a 85% discount, because anything less is not sustainable... ;D
just had a XS sale for 0.15$.. I am on fire :)
what is the min or max for a XS?? :P
The buyer must have paid $0,75 per credit. Remember that there was recently a 25% discount
So, they sent me a coupon for 15% off any bundle of 50 credits or more. I just laughed. Any takers?q
Look what I found.
([url]http://i56.tinypic.com/a43l07.png[/url])
So, they sent me a coupon for 15% off any bundle of 50 credits or more. I just laughed. Any takers?q
We got one here at my office, too. Suffice it to say my boss isn't interested. With no input from me, even.
Look what I found.
([url]http://i56.tinypic.com/a43l07.png[/url])
Oh my ... Disturbing image. And funny, too. If only because it is such an accurate picture of the shafting.
What are the royalties?
For dowloads here at iStockphoto, the royalties will range from 22, 24, 26, 28 & 30%.
What's that... wasn't 25-30-35-40-45% for exclusive downloads ???
The first numbers are the new Vetta royalty percentages. They put Vetta prices up on Monday and changed Vetta percentages the same day. Other royalties are unchanged until January 2011
Hilarious! Literally laughing out loud by myself!
Hilarious! Literally laughing out loud by myself!
Did you notice it's disguised as one of those participation award ribbons.
Look what I found.
([url]http://i56.tinypic.com/a43l07.png[/url])
"You hit my G spot!" ;D
"You hit my G spot!" ;D
OMG, that's funny.
Hilarious! Literally laughing out loud by myself!
Did you notice it's disguised as one of those participation award ribbons.
should have included that link !
[url]http://artist.gettyimages.com/logos[/url] ([url]http://artist.gettyimages.com/logos[/url])
I did a pie chart of my 17% commission and changed the colors a bit. Anyone remember pacman :)
([url]http://a.yfrog.com/img827/2201/92146811.jpg[/url])
:'(:0(
I just became a diamond contributor at Istock (a few minutes ago).
I knew this would happen somewhere in Autumn, and I was looking forward to this milestone for months.
Now why am I not celebrating ???
:'(
I just became a diamond contributor at Istock (a few minutes ago).
I knew this would happen somewhere in Autumn, and I was looking forward to this milestone for months.
Now why am I not celebrating ???
:'(-------------
I just became a diamond contributor at Istock (a few minutes ago).
I knew this would happen somewhere in Autumn, and I was looking forward to this milestone for months.
Now why am I not celebrating ???
:'(
I just became a diamond contributor at Istock (a few minutes ago).
I knew this would happen somewhere in Autumn, and I was looking forward to this milestone for months.
Now why am I not celebrating ???
:'(
I just became a diamond contributor at Istock (a few minutes ago).
I knew this would happen somewhere in Autumn, and I was looking forward to this milestone for months.
Now why am I not celebrating ???
:'(
I just became a diamond contributor at Istock (a few minutes ago).
I knew this would happen somewhere in Autumn, and I was looking forward to this milestone for months.
Now why am I not celebrating ???
Thanks for the congrats!
I think I'll give myself a cake with 17 candles, one for each percent of next year's royalties ;D
Just noticed the inspection queue is over 79000, the biggest I've ever seen it.
Wonder if the inspectors are tied up with getting to grips with Agency requirements or on a go-slow as a protest against the changing royalty structure. Or maybe they're just all on holiday. Don't remember ever seeing the queue that big.
:'(
I just became a diamond contributor at Istock (a few minutes ago).
I knew this would happen somewhere in Autumn, and I was looking forward to this milestone for months.
Now why am I not celebrating ???
errr .... because you still get 20% regardless?
:'(
I just became a diamond contributor at Istock (a few minutes ago).
I knew this would happen somewhere in Autumn, and I was looking forward to this milestone for months.
Now why am I not celebrating ???
errr .... because you still get 20% regardless?
Nope. If you don't make 1.4 million in RC's then you drop below 20%
Thanks for the congrats!
I think I'll give myself a cake with 17 candles, one for each percent of next year's royalties ;D
Just noticed the inspection queue is over 79000, the biggest I've ever seen it.
Wonder if the inspectors are tied up with getting to grips with Agency requirements or on a go-slow as a protest against the changing royalty structure. Or maybe they're just all on holiday. Don't remember ever seeing the queue that big.
Just had one approved from the 1st, not sure what this means though.
Just had one approved from the 1st, not sure what this means though.
Generally my reviews are taking about a week - so no real advantage over non-exclusive review times.
Just had one approved from the 1st, not sure what this means though.
Generally my reviews are taking about a week - so no real advantage over non-exclusive review times.
Lately its been taking a while, but its been sporadic with some reviewed in 2 days, some taking 10
Woohoo! Just had a 15 cent sale on Istock!!!
Woohoo! Just had a 15 cent sale on Istock!!!
If you think that's cool, wait until you see what that sale will bring in come January ;)
I'm hoping to see them raise their prices a little come January, perhaps bumping independent
images priced from 1, 3, and 6 credits to something like 2, 4, 7. Larger sizes could remain
unchanged for all I care and this would at least provide me with the incentive to keep
uploading my images there despite the % cut.
Earlier you guys lost money because smaller number of images were sold during recession, now with this you will suffer even after recession when the better time comes - taking the base for the commission from the earlier year will mean this. And those of you who are saing reaching proper income means you should sell so many images that it really is not possible, are mainly right. The users are still buying less images than earlier, and they are buying smalle sizes than earlier; that means less credits, too.
I am discussing with users daily, 90 % of them are saying they will buy only microstock imagery, and I see that happening every day. And I am talking about professional users; ad.agencies, graphic designers, corporate users, magazines etc. So unfortunately I see no turn point back to old days when it was easy to sell multiple images with hundreds or thousands of dollars or euros.
But I still believe in image business and in microstock. Now it just means users are demanding better quality, better keywording, better collections - and personal service. So why don't you choose agencies that have local reps really serving users, marketing your images daily to all possible local users, updating their customer register actively, pushing your images - and honoring your images like they should be honored. Users are tired in just getting some marketing email from London or from some other place, and to be forced to wait for several days to get help or reply when they have some trouble.
The meaning was not to make you depressed but to take actions.Earlier you guys lost money because smaller number of images were sold during recession, now with this you will suffer even after recession when the better time comes - taking the base for the commission from the earlier year will mean this. And those of you who are saing reaching proper income means you should sell so many images that it really is not possible, are mainly right. The users are still buying less images than earlier, and they are buying smalle sizes than earlier; that means less credits, too.
I am discussing with users daily, 90 % of them are saying they will buy only microstock imagery, and I see that happening every day. And I am talking about professional users; ad.agencies, graphic designers, corporate users, magazines etc. So unfortunately I see no turn point back to old days when it was easy to sell multiple images with hundreds or thousands of dollars or euros.
But I still believe in image business and in microstock. Now it just means users are demanding better quality, better keywording, better collections - and personal service. So why don't you choose agencies that have local reps really serving users, marketing your images daily to all possible local users, updating their customer register actively, pushing your images - and honoring your images like they should be honored. Users are tired in just getting some marketing email from London or from some other place, and to be forced to wait for several days to get help or reply when they have some trouble.
Not another one of these posts :(
So why don't you choose agencies that have local reps really serving users, marketing your images daily to all possible local users, updating their customer register actively, pushing your images - and honoring your images like they should be honored.
I could be wrong but I think 123rf has area sales reps.
The meaning was not to make you depressed but to take actions.Earlier you guys lost money because smaller number of images were sold during recession, now with this you will suffer even after recession when the better time comes - taking the base for the commission from the earlier year will mean this. And those of you who are saing reaching proper income means you should sell so many images that it really is not possible, are mainly right. The users are still buying less images than earlier, and they are buying smalle sizes than earlier; that means less credits, too.
I am discussing with users daily, 90 % of them are saying they will buy only microstock imagery, and I see that happening every day. And I am talking about professional users; ad.agencies, graphic designers, corporate users, magazines etc. So unfortunately I see no turn point back to old days when it was easy to sell multiple images with hundreds or thousands of dollars or euros.
But I still believe in image business and in microstock. Now it just means users are demanding better quality, better keywording, better collections - and personal service. So why don't you choose agencies that have local reps really serving users, marketing your images daily to all possible local users, updating their customer register actively, pushing your images - and honoring your images like they should be honored. Users are tired in just getting some marketing email from London or from some other place, and to be forced to wait for several days to get help or reply when they have some trouble.
Not another one of these posts :(
Is anybody else seeing strange sales today? I've sold 4 really old images with hardly any sales and it doesn't seem to be one buyer that has gone through my portfolio as they were bought at different times of the day.
Is anybody else seeing strange sales today? I've sold 4 really old images with hardly any sales and it doesn't seem to be one buyer that has gone through my portfolio as they were bought at different times of the day.
it's been like that for me the last few days. There must have been a Best Match shake up or it could just be the October increase that I tend to see every year. Not sure why, but October is generally good for me and then things drop off after that (I dont have a lot of winter holiday stuff).
Sorry but for me the only actions I need to take are to get out and take more/better pics, make my portfolio better and increase my revenues that way. Everyone speaks about going and taking action, yet they want everyone else to do it for them so they don't have to. I'm not pretending to want action taken when I'm not going to do it myself.
Sorry but for me the only actions I need to take are to get out and take more/better pics, make my portfolio better and increase my revenues that way. Everyone speaks about going and taking action, yet they want everyone else to do it for them so they don't have to. I'm not pretending to want action taken when I'm not going to do it myself.
^^ Agree!
I feel my time is more productively spent shooting too. I pay my representatives 50-80% to take action for me. Seems like for that hefty rate they should be counted on to do it!
So why don't you choose agencies that have local reps really serving users, marketing your images daily to all possible local users, updating their customer register actively, pushing your images - and honoring your images like they should be honored.
Sorry, could you point me toward those microstock agencies that have local reps in my area to market my work? I am on all the major micros and I am not aware that any of them offer this service...
I could be wrong but I think 123rf has area sales reps.
In what area?
There is one microstock agency, which is not only microstock agency but has also so called traditional RF collection, which means photographer can upload both microstock and more expensive RF imagery into database. That is Pixmac. It has been working around 2 years but the people behind the agency are from image business and have had big professional agency for over 10 years. For example Corbis and Science Photo Library are now selling through them. I have my own collection there, too, and get 50 % from the sales, no matter if 1 or 1000 images are sold, same commission. They are selling DT, FT, Colossus, Moodboard, their own collection, Yuri Arcurs directly and many more, and it looks like new collections are coming in all the time. In Cepic I learned they have local offices worldwide (USA, France, Germany, UK, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, China, Spain, Italy, Morocco, Poland, Austria, Hungary, Czech, Slovakia, Russia etc); local office means privately owned companies runned by people who have professional background, know their market areas and know the professional customers, make active marketing, have the website in local language, give personal service to users. They also launched this one-stop-shopping system which allows users to buy single images with higher pricing and not only credit packs. In Cepic it was said they are the only agency really making SEO, too.
There is one microstock agency, which is not only microstock agency but has also so called traditional RF collection, which means photographer can upload both microstock and more expensive RF imagery into database. That is Pixmac. It has been working around 2 years but the people behind the agency are from image business and have had big professional agency for over 10 years. For example Corbis and Science Photo Library are now selling through them. I have my own collection there, too, and get 50 % from the sales, no matter if 1 or 1000 images are sold, same commission. They are selling DT, FT, Colossus, Moodboard, their own collection, Yuri Arcurs directly and many more, and it looks like new collections are coming in all the time. In Cepic I learned they have local offices worldwide (USA, France, Germany, UK, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, China, Spain, Italy, Morocco, Poland, Austria, Hungary, Czech, Slovakia, Russia etc); local office means privately owned companies runned by people who have professional background, know their market areas and know the professional customers, make active marketing, have the website in local language, give personal service to users. They also launched this one-stop-shopping system which allows users to buy single images with higher pricing and not only credit packs. In Cepic it was said they are the only agency really making SEO, too.
Do you work for them?
Because you delivered an excellent sales pep talk. :PDo you work for them?I will soon. Why?
:) You can ask them if they're interested in your collection. I've seen somewhere that they have a duplicity system that detects what's a duplicate and what's unique pic. For Yuri it seems they simply don't take his imagery from any other sourceBecause you delivered an excellent sales pep talk. :PDo you work for them?I will soon. Why?
Pixmac had a very bumpy ride but you can't deny a passion for their business.
But seriously, can you upload to Pixmac directly when your port is already on DT and FT?
Your remark about Arcurs suggested that, as he is literally everywhere.
If so, this is a change of policy and that would change things. It's easy to send them a DVD but how do they handle duplicated content on FT and DT?
A duplicity system???? I thought that was a trait of a different agency altogether :D:D Yep, stupid word used, sorry, I should know english better. Anyway, what I meant was a system which can track similar images away. And that photographers can sell their pix through multiple channels, no demand of being exclusively there, and at the same time have direct relationship with Pixmac.
I am already on Pixmac via FT and DT. It's impossible AFAIK to tell when sales come from there, but I assume I am getting my correct commissions from these sites via their partner program. Of course I would love to get the 50% commission instead, but not sure that's possible in my situation.That's what I was hinting at. Those 3d party sales on FT and DT have to pass an extra middle man. Why not negotiate with Pixmac directly since they apparently can block out the dupes. They even don't have to resort to image recognition technology: they can just filter on the user name.
Wow. It's getting even worse over at iStock with the censoring. And look who the new user/forum moderator is that snipped the links for the "Setting the Table" search. "iStock Collections"?
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=262721&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=262721&page=1[/url])
iStock changingroyalty structureexclusivity definition:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14244133-young-man-thinking.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14244133-young-man-thinking.php[/url])
[url]http://images.inmagine.com/img/imagesource/is485/is485031.jpg[/url] ([url]http://images.inmagine.com/img/imagesource/is485/is485031.jpg[/url])
Wow. It's getting even worse over at iStock with the censoring. And look who the new user/forum moderator is that snipped the links for the "Setting the Table" search. "iStock Collections"?
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=262721&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=262721&page=1[/url])
It has to be some weird disambiguation mapping to a box that should not be checked, but I've tried a bunch of possibilities and can't replicate it.
iStock changingroyalty structureexclusivity definition:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14244133-young-man-thinking.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14244133-young-man-thinking.php[/url])
[url]http://images.inmagine.com/img/imagesource/is485/is485031.jpg[/url] ([url]http://images.inmagine.com/img/imagesource/is485/is485031.jpg[/url])
Yeah, looks like they pulled all of the ImageSource images from inMagine, so they could be "exclusively" at iStock.
Are inMagine or ImageSource part of the "Getty Family" ?
I'm going to bet they had the keyword "setting" maybe outdoor setting or something of that nature that got "disambiguated" to setting the table within iStock's lovely keywording system. And perhaps since they all got dumped in so fast and have other special privileges the keywords are not being reviewed at time of upload. I looked at a few of the images keywords and setting the table is the only really funky one in there and its there for a ton of them. The one that irritates me more is "business" on an image of a young guy in a t-shirt with no business props clothing or backgrounds, mentioned earlier. I'm quite sure under normal circumstances that wouldn't fly.
The fact that they're forcing Vetta and any IS Agency work onto Getty sites (no opt out), plus dumping this dreck at high prices onto IS is just wretched. My guess is that Getty traffic is down IS is up and management wants to put the Getty material where the traffic is in the hope it might sell.
I'm going to bet they had the keyword "setting" maybe outdoor setting or something of that nature that got "disambiguated" to setting the table within iStock's lovely keywording system. And perhaps since they all got dumped in so fast and have other special privileges the keywords are not being reviewed at time of upload. I looked at a few of the images keywords and setting the table is the only really funky one in there and its there for a ton of them. The one that irritates me more is "business" on an image of a young guy in a t-shirt with no business props clothing or backgrounds, mentioned earlier. I'm quite sure under normal circumstances that wouldn't fly.
yes, it was an admitted keyword CV issue, but STILL... the fact that this "Agency Collection" is allowed to do the following (listed in no particular order) really stinks:
1) have the exact same file for sale on other sites
2) get uploaded in bulk without regard to quotas
3) get listed as an "exclusive" photographer (see #1)
4) have higher weight in the best match, especially after it has been written in the FAQs that they would not
5) have a huge price premium for shots that mostly do not stand out from other non-Agency images thus causing buyer confusion (and outrage)
I am already on Pixmac via FT and DT. It's impossible AFAIK to tell when sales come from there, but I assume I am getting my correct commissions from these sites via their partner program. Of course I would love to get the 50% commission instead, but not sure that's possible in my situation.
Anyway, I have heard very good things from people who have dealt with Pixmac directly. I wish you all success in your new job with them. :)
However, I would not stop uploading to the other sites either, even if they don't have sales reps pounding the pavement. I get a majority of my earnings from the top 4 micros, and it would be suicidal to dump them in favor of only working with Pixmac or any other one site.
Are inMagine or ImageSource part of the "Getty Family" ?
Inmagine isn't - not sure about ImageSource.
I'm going to bet they had the keyword "setting" maybe outdoor setting or something of that nature that got "disambiguated" to setting the table within iStock's lovely keywording system. And perhaps since they all got dumped in so fast and have other special privileges the keywords are not being reviewed at time of upload. I looked at a few of the images keywords and setting the table is the only really funky one in there and its there for a ton of them. The one that irritates me more is "business" on an image of a young guy in a t-shirt with no business props clothing or backgrounds, mentioned earlier. I'm quite sure under normal circumstances that wouldn't fly.
yes, it was an admitted keyword CV issue, but STILL... the fact that this "Agency Collection" is allowed to do the following (listed in no particular order) really stinks:
1) have the exact same file for sale on other sites
2) get uploaded in bulk without regard to quotas
3) get listed as an "exclusive" photographer (see #1)
4) have higher weight in the best match, especially after it has been written in the FAQs that they would not
5) have a huge price premium for shots that mostly do not stand out from other non-Agency images thus causing buyer confusion (and outrage)
But there's something many of you should realize: you are experiencing the same kind of aggressive intrusion into your little playfield, as did old time pros by you with the onslaught of microstock. They are kinda getting back at you for that .
You guys really are being treated as 4th class citizens there. They also lied to you: they said the new content gonna go thru inspection just like your stuff. You have to go thru inspections, get a lot of rejections, and if you do get rejections, start all over with uploading, keywording, etc... The agency stuff was uploaded in bulk, and when found to have bad keywording, it just gets corrected by the nice people at istock for them : ) But if you do wrong keywording, you have to start all over and it's deducted from your upload limit. This is humiliating beyond all measures.
But there's something many of you should realize: you are experiencing the same kind of aggressive intrusion into your little playfield, as did old time pros by you with the onslaught of microstock. They are kinda getting back at you for that .
But there's something many of you should realize: you are experiencing the same kind of aggressive intrusion into your little playfield, as did old time pros by you with the onslaught of microstock. They are kinda getting back at you for that .
Yeah. We get it. You don't like Microstock. Troll. ::)
Sure, it's always the easiest to just call anyone a troll who has a different opinion. I find it kinda curious tho, how many of you even go down to the level of getting personal with someone criticizing the system that they got repeteadly shafted by in a really mean way... prejiduce never shows much reason, does it? It wasn't getty or anything, the going of things was built into this system. It was inevitable. You get into a business with sites competing by having super low cut flea-market prices, and than they compete among each other starting from that point... what . do you expect? Do you people ever think?
You guys really are being treated as 4th class citizens there. They also lied to you: they said the new content gonna go thru inspection just like your stuff. You have to go thru inspections, get a lot of rejections, and if you do get rejections, start all over with uploading, keywording, etc... The agency stuff was uploaded in bulk, and when found to have bad keywording, it just gets corrected by the nice people at istock for them : ) But if you do wrong keywording, you have to start all over and it's deducted from your upload limit. This is humiliating beyond all measures.
But there's something many of you should realize: you are experiencing the same kind of aggressive intrusion into your little playfield, as did old time pros by you with the onslaught of microstock. They are kinda getting back at you for that .
How this is different, is that it is our 'coachs and managers' have sold out to the big boys league and have invited them to take up residence and are giving them the advantage, on our home turf.
This is completely contrary to the field notes we were given:
QUOTE
"It's important for our professional photographers to understand that it's completely separate," says Getty director of photography and filmmaker relations Paul Banwell, adding, "It effectively means nothing changes. It's business as usual."
Similarly, iStock CEO Bruce Livingstone and vice president of marketing Kelly Thompson say their day-to-day operations will not change as a result of the sale to Getty.
"They want us to keep our culture. It's what makes our site great," Thompson says.
Getty spokesperson Deb Trevino and Thompson both say there are no plans to market the two brands together, or to direct traffic from one web site to the other.
END QUOTE
from this article - now only on the wayback machine
[url]http://web.archive.org/web/20060317050825/http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001994651[/url] ([url]http://web.archive.org/web/20060317050825/http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001994651[/url])
well... do you just generally beleive everything people tell you? thats all
well... do you just generally beleive everything people tell you? thats all
No, actually, personally, I DON'T, and I, like a handful of others, questioned it. We were made assurances. We were operating on trust. We were betrayed. That trust has being irreconcilably destroyed.
Gloat on that.
No. As I noted, I used due diligence.well... do you just generally beleive everything people tell you? thats all
No, actually, personally, I DON'T, and I, like a handful of others, questioned it. We were made assurances. We were operating on trust. We were betrayed. That trust has being irreconcilably destroyed.
Gloat on that.
Ok i get that. I very much doubt tho that you had any real assurances. I doubt even more that they really did think that's the way things will go when they said that. I have this question for you, seriuos question, please don't take it as any kind of mokckery no inention of that sort: would say now, that you were naive?
But there's something many of you should realize: you are experiencing the same kind of aggressive intrusion into your little playfield, as did old time pros by you with the onslaught of microstock. They are kinda getting back at you for that .
Yeah. We get it. You don't like Microstock. Troll. ::)
Sure, it's always the easiest to just call anyone a troll who has a different opinion. I find it kinda curious tho, how many of you even go down to the level of getting personal with someone criticizing the system that they got repeteadly shafted by in a really mean way... prejiduce never shows much reason, does it? It wasn't getty or anything, the going of things was built into this system. It was inevitable. You get into a business with sites competing by having super low cut flea-market prices, and than they compete among each other starting from that point... what . do you expect? Do you people ever think? jesus... : )
I'd say I'm not too worried about the competition of the agency stuff, but I do worry that it is going to poison the well. That is, adding overpriced files to the micro collection at the top of searches may turn buyers away.
But there's something many of you should realize: you are experiencing the same kind of aggressive intrusion into your little playfield, as did old time pros by you with the onslaught of microstock. They are kinda getting back at you for that .
Yeah. We get it. You don't like Microstock. Troll. ::)
Sure, it's always the easiest to just call anyone a troll who has a different opinion. I find it kinda curious tho, how many of you even go down to the level of getting personal with someone criticizing the system that they got repeteadly shafted by in a really mean way... prejiduce never shows much reason, does it? It wasn't getty or anything, the going of things was built into this system. It was inevitable. You get into a business with sites competing by having super low cut flea-market prices, and than they compete among each other starting from that point... what . do you expect? Do you people ever think? jesus... : )
I personally welcome the alternate view. That's why I read this forum is to see what everyone is thinking (good or bad and right or wrong). I'd say I'm not too worried about the competition of the agency stuff, but I do worry that it is going to poison the well. That is, adding overpriced files to the micro collection at the top of searches may turn buyers away. Although, that worry is a little tempered by not really giving a crap about what IS does anymore. As far as revenge from the macros, someone is always claiming that one thing or another is destroying the industry, but the industry is still here.
Precisely. The competition isn't just about price, it's also about attention, and they are getting top billing. Whether that gives them a competive edge or scares the customers off is not so much important to those for which it has the same affect (like you pointed out - the exclusives).
I'd say I'm not too worried about the competition of the agency stuff, but I do worry that it is going to poison the well. That is, adding overpriced files to the micro collection at the top of searches may turn buyers away.
Absolutely. I don't think anyone is saying that the Agency stuff is serious competition for the existing IS collections. Just that its being rammed to the front of the searches with it's mediocre quality and extremely high prices will turn off buyers.
As an independent, the prospect of Agency files chasing buyers to other sites doesn't bother me all that much, but if I was exclusive I would be really, really worried.
I think what most people ment was destroying the industry as a noble means of making a good living for photographers, turning it into something far less respectable, reliable and stylish, not that the whole thing just stops.Was my job supposed to be respectable, reliable and stylish? When I got my BFA, I was just hoping I wouldn't be working at McDonalds. ;D
I'm with 11 altogether, but I only upload regularly to 8 - all from the top and middle tier. The other three were just small ones I tried out for a while, but didn't turn out to be worth my while.
I think what most people ment was destroying the industry as a noble means of making a good living for photographers, turning it into something far less respectable, reliable and stylish, not that the whole thing just stops.Was my job supposed to be respectable, reliable and stylish? When I got my BFA, I was just hoping I wouldn't be working at McDonalds. ;D
Those results for "Setting the table" are really, unbelievably TERRIBLE!
What a horrible, horrible joke. Please tell me it's April 1st over at Istock?!
Those results for "Setting the table" are really, unbelievably TERRIBLE!
What a horrible, horrible joke. Please tell me it's April 1st over at Istock?!
So six hours ago it was apparently fixed:
Posted by ducksandwich: This search has been batch edited as promised yesterday. Wait a few hours and you will see the difference.
Now it's even worse. LOL.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&text=setting%20the%20table&oldtext=leaf%20scroll&textDisambiguation={%22language%22%3A%204%2C%20%22maps%22%3A%20{%221%22%3A%20{%22tag%22%3A%20%22scroll%22%2C%20%22language%22%3A%204%2C%20%22choices%22%3A%20[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&text=setting%20the%20table&oldtext=leaf%20scroll&textDisambiguation={%22language%22%3A%204%2C%20%22maps%22%3A%20{%221%22%3A%20{%22tag%22%3A%20%22scroll%22%2C%20%22language%22%3A%204%2C%20%22choices%22%3A%20)[/url][%225_196%22]}}}&oldTextDisambiguation={%22language%22%3A%204%2C%20%22maps%22%3A%20{%221%22%3A%20{%22tag%22%3A%20%22scroll%22%2C%20%22language%22%3A%204%2C%20%22choices%22%3A%20[%225_196%22]}}}&abstractType=4&bestmatchmix=100&filterContent=false&perPage=200&showContributor=true&showDownload=true&showTitle=true
from this article - now only on the wayback machine
But there's something many of you should realize: you are experiencing the same kind of aggressive intrusion into your little playfield, as did old time pros by you with the onslaught of microstock. They are kinda getting back at you for that .
Yeah. We get it. You don't like Microstock. Troll. ::)
Sure, it's always the easiest to just call anyone a troll who has a different opinion. I find it kinda curious tho, how many of you even go down to the level of getting personal with someone criticizing the system that they got repeteadly shafted by in a really mean way... prejiduce never shows much reason, does it? It wasn't getty or anything, the going of things was built into this system. It was inevitable. You get into a business with sites competing by having super low cut flea-market prices, and than they compete among each other starting from that point... what . do you expect? Do you people ever think? jesus... : )
But there's something many of you should realize: you are experiencing the same kind of aggressive intrusion into your little playfield, as did old time pros by you with the onslaught of microstock. They are kinda getting back at you for that .
Yeah. We get it. You don't like Microstock. Troll. ::)
Sure, it's always the easiest to just call anyone a troll who has a different opinion. I find it kinda curious tho, how many of you even go down to the level of getting personal with someone criticizing the system that they got repeteadly shafted by in a really mean way... prejiduce never shows much reason, does it? It wasn't getty or anything, the going of things was built into this system. It was inevitable. You get into a business with sites competing by having super low cut flea-market prices, and than they compete among each other starting from that point... what . do you expect? Do you people ever think? jesus... : )
Yeah, and it's easy to come back and gloat when something changes for a competitor, troll. The fact is that the microstock photographers beat the traditional ( read : oldtimers with connections and legacy images paid for by clients) at their own game by creating fresh, new and creative work. Digital imaging and the internet ran a bulldozer through your little playground and you don't like it. It's called creative destruction, and it's happened throughout history. What you were part of was a guild, and the microstock photographers weren't allowed in. Rather than just give up, they went around your tired old distribution model and created a new one, and now you're on the outside looking in. Any changes at istock will be dealt with, adapted to and taken advantage of, with the same creative spirit that made this whole community what it is. The sad part for you is that you just want to have someone to blame. Do you really think that if microstock hadn't come along, your old world would be intact? Now, that's naive!
But that's not big deal, because stock in general is anything but creative - it works around reproducing qiute banal cliches over and over, in a restrictive, narrowed down visual manner. If you want ceativity I suggest look you somehwere else... unless your idea of creativity is stuff like someone holding a copyspace banner upside down. ; )
Yeah, and it's easy to come back and gloat when something changes for a competitor, troll. The fact is that the microstock photographers beat the traditional ( read : oldtimers with connections and legacy images paid for by clients) at their own game by creating fresh, new and creative work. Digital imaging and the internet ran a bulldozer through your little playground and you don't like it. It's called creative destruction, and it's happened throughout history. What you were part of was a guild, and the microstock photographers weren't allowed in. Rather than just give up, they went around your tired old distribution model and created a new one, and now you're on the outside looking in. Any changes at istock will be dealt with, adapted to and taken advantage of, with the same creative spirit that made this whole community what it is. The sad part for you is that you just want to have someone to blame. Do you really think that if microstock hadn't come along, your old world would be intact? Now, that's naive!
The only thing I'v got to do with macrostock is buying it for layouts.
Well, if that's true, then I wonder why you're even here. And if macrostock is so superior, I'm sure your clients are happy to pay up for it, given your great creative sensibilities. If i had to guess, however, i would say that you're more like a deer in the headlights- not sure what is happening. But you've got to be angry at someone, so here you are. So let's see- "The only thing I'v got to do with macrostock is buying it for layouts"- brings up the question- what have you got to do with microstock? Except trolling, of course.
The only thing I'v got to do with macrostock is buying it for layouts.
Well, if that's true, then I wonder why you're even here. And if macrostock is so superior, I'm sure your clients are happy to pay up for it, given your great creative sensibilities. If i had to guess, however, i would say that you're more like a deer in the headlights- not sure what is happening. But you've got to be angry at someone, so here you are. So let's see- "The only thing I'v got to do with macrostock is buying it for layouts"- brings up the question- what have you got to do with microstock? Except trolling, of course.
" you're more like a deer in the headlights- not sure what is happening."
that's a decent description of this thread about istock isn't it? Actually I'v been saying a long time ago to people involved with istock and the like: 'just wait untill they tank up on images and market position, they'll start really skinning you'. Nobody beleived me. Now that I took a look inside I realized that's far from the truth - actually they have been treating cintributors like second class citizens way before the current mess, It's just that the poeple I talked to involved in it played fanboys, but I'm not bad at reading people, it was very apparent reading between the lines things weren't that nice at all.
"what have you got to do with microstock?"
I bought rather large amounts of that too, one of the agencies I worked for, was buying thousands of credits there, so that's where I had to go for images when working for them, unless marketing poeple at the clients started searching for images (they like to do that nowadays) they liked, for some reason their preference seemed to be shutterstock. Oh man I'v browsed pages and pages and pages, getting thru thuosands and thousands and thousands of images to find something that might at least to some extent worked with the concept at hand, and of course always in rush. It was so bad, I had to actually train myself to only spend a certain amount of time looking at each thumb. That's something most of you might not comprehend, but I got so tired with all that, I said to myself that I never-ever want to go around browsing that, unless someone is paying for it, because I'm gonna have nightmares of falling into an endless void with floating thumbnails : ) and I'm truly sorry but still find it hard to get myself to look at people's ports that argue around here too, tho I know this and that nick is a succesful contributor, etc.
But more and more of my time went to photography as hobby, which got me talking to people doing micro, so I wanted to have peek inside this. It's like a little subculture, and people involved in it seemed to be so secretive, only giving vague hints of information, that it was almost fishy. And of yourse the kind of stuff that floats around, like for examle "istock's standards are os darconian, they reject most of the stuff", etc, didn't tell me much, becouse people saying things like that were usually total amateurs at visual 'arts' and even more at PS. I realized the obviuos : ) that getting involved is the only way to see what this whole thing really is.. So I started contributing to several places to have a peek inside. It's not nice. You poeple are really badly treated, even besides the financial things, just terribly disrespectfully, and many of you cheer for it (???). This is beyond me. If I would ever have been handled like that at the places I worked, I would have thorn heads off and put them up on a spike raised really high for everyone to see. Thats it basically. Satisfied? : )
But that's not big deal, because stock in general is anything but creative - it works around reproducing qiute banal cliches over and over, in a restrictive, narrowed down visual manner. If you want ceativity I suggest look you somehwere else... unless your idea of creativity is stuff like someone holding a copyspace banner upside down. ; )
I'm not sure I'd confuse commercial work with lacking creativity. Some of the best commercial work is reinventing a cliche or defining an archetype perfectly. I was never all that into editorial or conceptual stuff (some of that seems like a concept slapped onto poor execution). I like the freedom of creating bright and colorful stuff that I'm interested in. Yeah, making money influences it, but I think that is probably true with all art. I agree that there are a lot of people in stock that are just producing "me too" items, but I don't think there is anything wrong or lacking creativity about coming up with new images in a known commercial niche.
The only thing I'v got to do with macrostock is buying it for layouts.
Well, if that's true, then I wonder why you're even here. And if macrostock is so superior, I'm sure your clients are happy to pay up for it, given your great creative sensibilities. If i had to guess, however, i would say that you're more like a deer in the headlights- not sure what is happening. But you've got to be angry at someone, so here you are. So let's see- "The only thing I'v got to do with macrostock is buying it for layouts"- brings up the question- what have you got to do with microstock? Except trolling, of course.
" you're more like a deer in the headlights- not sure what is happening."
that's a decent description of this thread about istock isn't it? Actually I'v been saying a long time ago to people involved with istock and the like: 'just wait untill they tank up on images and market position, they'll start really skinning you'. Nobody beleived me. Now that I took a look inside I realized that's far from the truth - actually they have been treating cintributors like second class citizens way before the current mess, It's just that the poeple I talked to involved in it played fanboys, but I'm not bad at reading people, it was very apparent reading between the lines things weren't that nice at all.
"what have you got to do with microstock?"
I bought rather large amounts of that too, one of the agencies I worked for, was buying thousands of credits there, so that's where I had to go for images when working for them, unless marketing poeple at the clients started searching for images (they like to do that nowadays) they liked, for some reason their preference seemed to be shutterstock. Oh man I'v browsed pages and pages and pages, getting thru thuosands and thousands and thousands of images to find something that might at least to some extent worked with the concept at hand, and of course always in rush. It was so bad, I had to actually train myself to only spend a certain amount of time looking at each thumb. That's something most of you might not comprehend, but I got so tired with all that, I said to myself that I never-ever want to go around browsing that, unless someone is paying for it, because I'm gonna have nightmares of falling into an endless void with floating thumbnails : ) and I'm truly sorry but still find it hard to get myself to look at people's ports that argue around here too, tho I know this and that nick is a succesful contributor, etc.
But more and more of my time went to photography as hobby, which got me talking to people doing micro, so I wanted to have peek inside this. It's like a little subculture, and people involved in it seemed to be so secretive, only giving vague hints of information, that it was almost fishy. And of yourse the kind of stuff that floats around, like for examle "istock's standards are os darconian, they reject most of the stuff", etc, didn't tell me much, becouse people saying things like that were usually total amateurs at visual 'arts' and even more at PS. I realized the obviuos : ) that getting involved is the only way to see what this whole thing really is.. So I started contributing to several places to have a peek inside. It's not nice. You poeple are really badly treated, even besides the financial things, just terribly disrespectfully, and many of you cheer for it (???). This is beyond me. If I would ever have been handled like that at the places I worked, I would have thorn heads off and put them up on a spike raised really high for everyone to see. Thats it basically. Satisfied? : )
Yeah. And really tired of reading these rants.
Yeah, and it's easy to come back and gloat when something changes for a competitor, troll. The fact is that the microstock photographers beat the traditional ( read : oldtimers with connections and legacy images paid for by clients) at their own game by creating fresh, new and creative work. Digital imaging and the internet ran a bulldozer through your little playground and you don't like it. It's called creative destruction, and it's happened throughout history. What you were part of was a guild, and the microstock photographers weren't allowed in. Rather than just give up, they went around your tired old distribution model and created a new one, and now you're on the outside looking in. Any changes at istock will be dealt with, adapted to and taken advantage of, with the same creative spirit that made this whole community what it is. The sad part for you is that you just want to have someone to blame. Do you really think that if microstock hadn't come along, your old world would be intact? Now, that's naive!
Excellent summation. I agree, digital imaging and the internet have SO many advantages, but they created huge changes, for a lot of industries.
The only thing to do is deal with it and use it to your advantage, instead of blaming and griping.
wow, this is even better than the old xsreality forums with pent up frustrated pimplefaced teens all raging from too much and duke nukem and coke-sugar : )
I can't even tell any more if there's any new news on iStock - because I have to keep skimming posts to get past all the agro.
wow, this is even better than the old xsreality forums with pent up frustrated pimplefaced teens all raging from too much and duke nukem and coke-sugar : )
duke nukem=windows 3.0=traditional stock=1993=macrosaur=molka
math in everyday life
Eh, blah, blah, somethin' somethin', etc... Yadda Yadda... Whatever.... End quote...
Yadda Yadda... Whatever.... End quote...
I am upset at the changes at Istock and even more upset my macro sales aren't doing better. Please tell me how to fix this Molka. Maybe I should start shooting large format film again. Where do you sell? Are you the Molka at Can Stock or did just use that name?
from what I gather you don't sell much. No not the rally guy, the photographer.
Eh, blah, blah, somethin' somethin', etc... Yadda Yadda... Whatever.... End quote...
"bogging"? Ow well keep trying. Why don't you try to sell something? No talent troll. This is about microSTOCK not microBRAINS
Well there is some truth in it.
the only rant here is 47 pages of microshooter's : )
Well there is some truth in it.
the only rant here is 47 pages of microshooter's : )
^Ignored by 20 people already, is that a record? Including me, so no need to respond.
22^Ignored by 20 people already, is that a record? Including me, so no need to respond.21
well, is it niche or clihe? It's not all the people that lack creativity, but the final product. And if it doesn't lack real creativity, it's prolly not really stock coz it wont sell. There are quite a few micro shooters who show great talent, but I really don't think it's gonna be the micro or macro where it's they can truly show it. But I don't want to get too deep into that argument, because the term 'creativity' has been totally hijacked for dacedes now, most people simply use it instead of 'gimmick'. Stuff like shooting your models with eyes crossed is considered top-notch creativity nowadays. : )
So did this 47 pages of 'intelligent conversation' achieve anything? Yeah, I thought so. But when I add my 5c in few posts to the end of that freight train of pure smart, it's 'rant' ::)
Can't this idiot be banned? One inane post after another, shut up already!
Can't this idiot be banned? One inane post after another, shut up already!
Use the ignore button and I think the resultant lack of attention will take care of this. Banning adds fuel to a fire you wish to smother :)
Just noticed the inspection queue is over 79000, the biggest I've ever seen it.
Wonder if the inspectors are tied up with getting to grips with Agency requirements or on a go-slow as a protest against the changing royalty structure. Or maybe they're just all on holiday. Don't remember ever seeing the queue that big.
22^Ignored by 20 people already, is that a record? Including me, so no need to respond.21
22^Ignored by 20 people already, is that a record? Including me, so no need to respond.21
Wow, I'm kinda proud I got in on the ground floor. It was only 7 when I ignored him ;D
You're always ahead of the curve, Lisa. As i recall, you were also the first one to call him "troll" :D
I am still banned from forums & sitemail... any other ban'ees in a similar spot? Whats the record for these sorts of things (other than permanent ban, of course).Still banned too. I expect mine is permanent. I'm still ticked about not being able to check sitemail though. I'm considering contacting support about that. Could really care less about posting on the forums.
I am still banned from forums & sitemail... any other ban'ees in a similar spot? Whats the record for these sorts of things (other than permanent ban, of course).Still banned too. I expect mine is permanent. I'm still ticked about not being able to check sitemail though. I'm considering contacting support about that. Could really care less about posting on the forums.
...apparently Lobo called me a few days ago but I'm still out of the country...
What will happen to best match search after Jan. 1st?Just noticed the inspection queue is over 79000, the biggest I've ever seen it.
Wonder if the inspectors are tied up with getting to grips with Agency requirements or on a go-slow as a protest against the changing royalty structure. Or maybe they're just all on holiday. Don't remember ever seeing the queue that big.
There is not any protest. I think that is the best match Placement frenzy for they own images before 1. Jan. thats why they are so slow.
Just noticed the inspection queue is over 79000, the biggest I've ever seen it.
Wonder if the inspectors are tied up with getting to grips with Agency requirements or on a go-slow as a protest against the changing royalty structure. Or maybe they're just all on holiday. Don't remember ever seeing the queue that big.
There is not any protest. I think that is the best match Placement frenzy for they own images before 1. Jan. thats why they are so slow.
What will happen to best match search after Jan. 1st?
After all this talk about royalties and percentages I missed that one.
You're always ahead of the curve, Lisa. As i recall, you were also the first one to call him "troll" :DYou are not here long enough to know that macrosour and alzheimerhippie are synonyms for troll. Trolls are senile autistics with a leftover ADHD syndrom characterized by a pathetic need for attention compounded by extreme jealousy .
Just noticed the inspection queue is over 79000, the biggest I've ever seen it.
Wonder if the inspectors are tied up with getting to grips with Agency requirements or on a go-slow as a protest against the changing royalty structure. Or maybe they're just all on holiday. Don't remember ever seeing the queue that big.
There is not any protest. I think that is the best match Placement frenzy for they own images before 1. Jan. thats why they are so slow.
What will happen to best match search after Jan. 1st?
After all this talk about royalties and percentages I missed that one.
Yes, that's what I asked. Thanks!
If you're asking specifically about the best match algorithm and what gets weighted heavier than no one really knows. It's a corporate secret, but you can do your own searches and see what shows up under that sort order. The general feeling is that the Agency and Vetta high-priced collections will take up a lot of the front pages in searches. iStock has specifically stated (in the FAQ ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253532&page=1[/url])) that the Agency files will not be weighted any differently, however anecdotal and several actual searches have shown otherwise already.
You're always ahead of the curve, Lisa. As i recall, you were also the first one to call him "troll" :DYou are not here long enough to know that macrosour and alzheimerhippie are synonyms for troll. Trolls are senile autistics with a leftover ADHD syndrom characterized by a pathetic need for attention compounded by extreme jealousy .
Don't feed the trolls (don't reply to their messages) and they'll just move on to another forum about creationism, evolution, god, atheism, politics or the unbearable lightness of being. This particular specimen has no life, isn't a photographer at at all, so why bother? Ignoramus igitur. If he comes back under another nick, I'll kill the attention sucker with a wooden stick right in his weak spot. ;D Prolly.
server error when uploading? Awesome!! Can't post in the forums though, is anyone else having this problem?
server error when uploading? Awesome!! Can't post in the forums though, is anyone else having this problem?
I think you're wearing out the upload servers with all those Balkans images. I think you're at #30 of the most prolific up-loaders at IS at the moment!
server error when uploading? Awesome!! Can't post in the forums though, is anyone else having this problem?
I think you're wearing out the upload servers with all those Balkans images. I think you're at #30 of the most prolific up-loaders at IS at the moment!
Maybe, I'm trying to fill my upload slots up every week and I've come close with above 85% acceptance (I haven't done the numbers but I think it's at least that high). Still looks as though I won't get 40,000 RCs this year, probably 39,000 or something.
I am still banned from forums & sitemail... any other ban'ees in a similar spot? Whats the record for these sorts of things (other than permanent ban, of course).Still banned too. I expect mine is permanent. I'm still ticked about not being able to check sitemail though. I'm considering contacting support about that. Could really care less about posting on the forums.
server error when uploading? Awesome!! Can't post in the forums though, is anyone else having this problem?
I think you're wearing out the upload servers with all those Balkans images. I think you're at #30 of the most prolific up-loaders at IS at the moment!
Maybe, I'm trying to fill my upload slots up every week and I've come close with above 85% acceptance (I haven't done the numbers but I think it's at least that high). Still looks as though I won't get 40,000 RCs this year, probably 39,000 or something.
I'm be aiming for the same, but sort of a massive turn-around there's no chance that I'll make the 40K this year. Comfortably past the 30% mark, and on my current sales I'd have made it if I was exclusive full year. Will just have to aim for 40% next year ;)
I noticed you don't have many Vetta or Exclusive plus files, did you try to get any into Vetta? and have you decided not to put a lot into Exclusive plus?
I found this post from Paul Cowan on the Istock forum thread interesting. I certainly didn't know that Istock had been skimming fractions of a cent from us for some time now....
What's even more surprising is that there was so little reaction to the news. Guess we are all becoming shell shocked.
Big companies employ lawyers and bean-counters to come up with this crap, I'm guessing it's happening to us on a larger scale and is not just an IS thing. Not sure what can be done about it...class-action lawsuit?
I found this post from Paul Cowan on the Istock forum thread interesting. I certainly didn't know that Istock had been skimming fractions of a cent from us for some time now....
What's even more surprising is that there was so little reaction to the news. Guess we are all becoming shell shocked.
Posted By PaulCowan:
[snip]
I don't understand how it is possible for them to quote percentage commission rates in the terms of agreement and then pay a lower rate than stated. Perhaps they would like to give us all back those fractions of cents that have accumulated over the years? BTW, the place that invented crowdshafting in its pricing scheme does actually calculate earnings to fractions of a cent, presumably to avoid being accused of failing to comply with its own contract terms.
I found this statement by Andrew (RogerMexico) in the Paypal hiccup thread quite depressing:
"People's nerves are raw around here from bad news and the fall out from bad news. So every time we screw something up - like this - it's just that much testier. It makes for a bad atmosphere but its understandable.
I don't know how much time its all going to take. When I look around the forums this week, its seems a little more normal than it did last week, which was better than the week before. But there's still a lot of hard feelings pretty close at hand."
So basically they know that if they wait long enough, we'll all be OK. They don't see that trust has been permanently lost, probably irrecoverably so.
And I noticed that in that Paypal problem thread, they didn't mention who was getting the interest for the two days - them or Paypal.
Not to mention all the fractions of a cent multiplied by gazillions.
And they are still unsustainable.
Tchah.
You're always ahead of the curve, Lisa. As i recall, you were also the first one to call him "troll" :DYou are not here long enough to know that macrosour and alzheimerhippie are synonyms for troll. Trolls are senile autistics with a leftover ADHD syndrom characterized by a pathetic need for attention compounded by extreme jealousy .
Don't feed the trolls (don't reply to their messages) and they'll just move on to another forum about creationism, evolution, god, atheism, politics or the unbearable lightness of being. This particular specimen has no life, isn't a photographer at at all, so why bother? Ignoramus igitur. If he comes back under another nick, I'll kill the attention sucker with a wooden stick right in his weak spot. ;D Prolly.
Honestly it's hard to tell, I do feel that since a lot of my images are of places that no so many people go there isn't a lot of competition on IS or any of the micros so it probably won't affect sales too much if I choose the right images. But just looking at one of my "stock" images it appears to have sold more this year than last so putting it into E+ may not have hurt it. We were also told that we would get a bump in the best match 6 months ago or whenever it was but nothing yet as far as I can see, the Admins recently said this was still going to happen but who knows when?
I noticed you don't have many Vetta or Exclusive plus files, did you try to get any into Vetta? and have you decided not to put a lot into Exclusive plus?
I'm still trying to get a better idea on how what I've nominated on E+ is selling before putting in more. I haven't nominated much for vetta yet - and what I have nominated has either been knocked back or is still waiting for review by the Vetta team (I think!).
How are your E+ files going?
I think the shock has worn off and a lot of contributors are now accepting whatever damage is being done. There's not much chatter about it here in the forum anymore. I really hope it doesn't turn out like Fotolia....yelling and screaming threatening to leave then accepting it and staying. The screwing never stops rather it be iStock or Fotolia.Fotolia still pay much higher commissions than istock, my earnings have increased there and the next ranking level is still possible for me to reach. They pay much higher commissions for subs than thinkstock. Istock are going to lower my commissions far below their rivals and hide my images below several exclusive collections and have made it an impossible task for me to get back to the already insultingly low 20% commission. I can't see my earnings going anywhere but down there now, don't see why I should put up with that so I have stopped uploading and started deleting.
Honestly it's hard to tell, I do feel that since a lot of my images are of places that no so many people go there isn't a lot of competition on IS or any of the micros so it probably won't affect sales too much if I choose the right images. But just looking at one of my "stock" images it appears to have sold more this year than last so putting it into E+ may not have hurt it. We were also told that we would get a bump in the best match 6 months ago or whenever it was but nothing yet as far as I can see, the Admins recently said this was still going to happen but who knows when?
I noticed you don't have many Vetta or Exclusive plus files, did you try to get any into Vetta? and have you decided not to put a lot into Exclusive plus?
I'm still trying to get a better idea on how what I've nominated on E+ is selling before putting in more. I haven't nominated much for vetta yet - and what I have nominated has either been knocked back or is still waiting for review by the Vetta team (I think!).
How are your E+ files going?
Uh oh.. I did just check the forums and JJRD said "E+ is doing superbly well. " and that was it, does this mean a Vetta style lowering of commissions soon?
Honestly it's hard to tell, I do feel that since a lot of my images are of places that no so many people go there isn't a lot of competition on IS or any of the micros so it probably won't affect sales too much if I choose the right images. But just looking at one of my "stock" images it appears to have sold more this year than last so putting it into E+ may not have hurt it. We were also told that we would get a bump in the best match 6 months ago or whenever it was but nothing yet as far as I can see, the Admins recently said this was still going to happen but who knows when?
I noticed you don't have many Vetta or Exclusive plus files, did you try to get any into Vetta? and have you decided not to put a lot into Exclusive plus?
I'm still trying to get a better idea on how what I've nominated on E+ is selling before putting in more. I haven't nominated much for vetta yet - and what I have nominated has either been knocked back or is still waiting for review by the Vetta team (I think!).
How are your E+ files going?
Uh oh.. I did just check the forums and JJRD said "E+ is doing superbly well. " and that was it, does this mean a Vetta style lowering of commissions soon?
If a lot of your images are less frequented places (and therefore lower demand?) wouldnt you do better doing rm/rf in a macro library with strong travel focus like loney planet / robert harding / etc etc?
^I'm not sure, it's something I've been thinking about more and more but it's hard to give up a few sales here and there when I could be waiting months to get anything... I will be traveling to albania and the middle east soon so probably a big portion of those files will go towards Alamy. I've been slow to upload so far but in the last month or so I've tripled my portfolio. Here it is, zero sales so far so any advice would be appreciated: [url]http://www.alamy.com/search-results.asp?CreativeOn=1&qt=graham+klotz&all=1&creative=&adv=1&dtfr=&dtTo=&et=0x000000000000000000000&ag=0&vp=0&loc=0&lic=6&lic=1&hc=&selectdate=1&txtdtfr=&txtdtto=&size=0xFF&ot=1&ot=2&ot=4&ot=8&archive=1&chckarchive=1&aqt=&epqt=&oqt=&nqt=#BHM=foo%3Dbar%26st%3D11%26pn%3D1%26ps%3D30%26qt%3Dgraham%2520klotz%26lic%3D3%26mr%3D0%26pr%3D0%26aoa%3D1%26creative%3D%26nu%3D%26ccc%3D%26ag%3D0%26hc%3D%26et%3D0x000000000000000000000%26vp%3D0%26loc%3D0%26ot%3D15%26imgt%3D0%26dtfr%3D%26dtto%3D%26size%3D0xFF%26archive%3D1%26name%3Dgraham%2520klotz%26groupid%3D1029423%26pseudoid%3D{276CDA91-6A5B-4779-A21B-A1B1D1060D03}%26userid%3D%26id%3D%26a%3D%26cdid%3D%26cdsrt%3D%26cc%3DUSD%26xstx%3D0%26alamyuid%3D%26editorial%3D%26nasty%3D%26t%3D0%26edoptin%3D[/url] ([url]http://www.alamy.com/search-results.asp?CreativeOn=1&qt=graham+klotz&all=1&creative=&adv=1&dtfr=&dtTo=&et=0x000000000000000000000&ag=0&vp=0&loc=0&lic=6&lic=1&hc=&selectdate=1&txtdtfr=&txtdtto=&size=0xFF&ot=1&ot=2&ot=4&ot=8&archive=1&chckarchive=1&aqt=&epqt=&oqt=&nqt=#BHM=foo%3Dbar%26st%3D11%26pn%3D1%26ps%3D30%26qt%3Dgraham%2520klotz%26lic%3D3%26mr%3D0%26pr%3D0%26aoa%3D1%26creative%3D%26nu%3D%26ccc%3D%26ag%3D0%26hc%3D%26et%3D0x000000000000000000000%26vp%3D0%26loc%3D0%26ot%3D15%26imgt%3D0%26dtfr%3D%26dtto%3D%26size%3D0xFF%26archive%3D1%26name%3Dgraham%2520klotz%26groupid%3D1029423%26pseudoid%3D{276CDA91-6A5B-4779-A21B-A1B1D1060D03}%26userid%3D%26id%3D%26a%3D%26cdid%3D%26cdsrt%3D%26cc%3DUSD%26xstx%3D0%26alamyuid%3D%26editorial%3D%26nasty%3D%26t%3D0%26edoptin%3D)[/url]
From what I remember about LP it doesn't seem worth it at all and they use other agencies for a lot of images in their guides, especially cover images. I'll check out robert harding since I haven't heard of that before.
^I'm not sure, it's something I've been thinking about more and more but it's hard to give up a few sales here and there when I could be waiting months to get anything... I will be traveling to albania and the middle east soon so probably a big portion of those files will go towards Alamy. I've been slow to upload so far but in the last month or so I've tripled my portfolio. Here it is, zero sales so far so any advice would be appreciated: [url]http://tinyurl.com/2v8m3bc[/url] ([url]http://tinyurl.com/2v8m3bc[/url])
From what I remember about LP it doesn't seem worth it at all and they use other agencies for a lot of images in their guides, especially cover images. I'll check out robert harding since I haven't heard of that before.
I noticed an ad on my opening e-mail page for Istock....it says:
"WE MISS YOU...you know you want royalty-free images and videos for $1.....get 10% off and 10 free images"
Recon they really MISS their buyers... ;)
I can't speak for anyone else, but it's not in my business plan to lose money. I spend alot of time, money and effort on my photo shoots. I expect a decent return and a fair chance for them to be seen by buyers. Instead of ranting in the forums I've been deleting images from the site, roughly 160 so far. I only hope that as more people realize that IS has become nothing more than a machine that is looking for slave labor, that they are also deleting their images and that this tedious one at a time process is keeping them to busy to rant in the forums.
New mail from IS. Learn all about collections. They say "Agency Collection photos cost from 55 to 200 credits. " XXXL images cost 250 credits but I guess that's not meant to mislead anyone, just a typo. They also say vetta "cost between 30 and 125 credits. " XXXL Vetta is 150, another typo? They also say "Exclusive photos can cost between 2 and 25 credits" not exactly an E+ XXXL costs 35 credits, maybe it's a typo too?
New mail from IS. Learn all about collections. They say "Agency Collection photos cost from 55 to 200 credits. " XXXL images cost 250 credits but I guess that's not meant to mislead anyone, just a typo. They also say vetta "cost between 30 and 125 credits. " XXXL Vetta is 150, another typo? They also say "Exclusive photos can cost between 2 and 25 credits" not exactly an E+ XXXL costs 35 credits, maybe it's a typo too?
New mail from IS. Learn all about collections. They say "Agency Collection photos cost from 55 to 200 credits. " XXXL images cost 250 credits but I guess that's not meant to mislead anyone, just a typo. They also say vetta "cost between 30 and 125 credits. " XXXL Vetta is 150, another typo? They also say "Exclusive photos can cost between 2 and 25 credits" not exactly an E+ XXXL costs 35 credits, maybe it's a typo too?
New mail from IS. Learn all about collections. They say "Agency Collection photos cost from 55 to 200 credits. " XXXL images cost 250 credits but I guess that's not meant to mislead anyone, just a typo. They also say vetta "cost between 30 and 125 credits. " XXXL Vetta is 150, another typo? They also say "Exclusive photos can cost between 2 and 25 credits" not exactly an E+ XXXL costs 35 credits, maybe it's a typo too?
The whole thing is so convoluted, even IS is confused.
Can someone explain to me why so many of the mug shots of people's heads are Vetta? Shots like this: [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-7922437-young-boy-smiling.php.[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-7922437-young-boy-smiling.php.[/url])
Sounds too consistent to be a result of error and confusion to me. But what do I know?
I will say this - in my life in non-photography and non-graphic arts business, I've heard lots of tales of financial skullduggery. Especially when a company is desperate to present themselves as being in more robust financial health than they really are. Once they become convinced that impressing their shareholders NOW is more important than maintaining good, long-term business relationships with their customers and their suppliers, there is practically no dodge which won't be employed. Mostly these are bookkeeping scams involving the recognition of revenue, hiding returned products, chiseling suppliers, etc. (especially the small suppliers who have no leverage to complain or cut them off).
.....
How are people's sales going at iStock this month?
Mine were rising in the last couple of weeks in September and since Oct 1st have been dire: July-like. Two sales yesterday, one so far today. Without a big rush, I doubt if I'll make half the $$$ I made in October 2008. It doesn't seem to be Best Match.
I know, Ebb and Ebb, but I just wondered how others are doing, specifically in October.
New mail from IS. Learn all about collections. They say "Agency Collection photos cost from 55 to 200 credits. " XXXL images cost 250 credits but I guess that's not meant to mislead anyone, just a typo. They also say vetta "cost between 30 and 125 credits. " XXXL Vetta is 150, another typo? They also say "Exclusive photos can cost between 2 and 25 credits" not exactly an E+ XXXL costs 35 credits, maybe it's a typo too?
We'll see if anything (other than the thread getting locked) comes of it, but I posted something about the errors in the prices here ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=266531[/url]). You have to wonder if anyone acts as an editor on these things or if they just write them and ship them out.
Can someone explain to me why so many of the mug shots of people's heads are Vetta? Shots like this: [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-7922437-young-boy-smiling.php.[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-7922437-young-boy-smiling.php.[/url])
Something about this shot is creeps me out. He's 8 or 9, where are his clothes???? Why is he shirtless in a studio shot?
It looks like a kid's mug shot in juvenile detention with this grin on his face saying"Heh they can't try me as adult...I'm to young...."... :D
It looks like a kid's mug shot in juvenile detention with this grin on his face saying"Heh they can't try me as adult...I'm to young...."... :D
ROFL! All he needs is a piece of hair sticking up and he could be Alfalfa.
([url]http://www.pbase.com/image/129595620/original.jpg[/url])
New mail from IS. Learn all about collections. They say "Agency Collection photos cost from 55 to 200 credits. " XXXL images cost 250 credits but I guess that's not meant to mislead anyone, just a typo. They also say vetta "cost between 30 and 125 credits. " XXXL Vetta is 150, another typo? They also say "Exclusive photos can cost between 2 and 25 credits" not exactly an E+ XXXL costs 35 credits, maybe it's a typo too?
We'll see if anything (other than the thread getting locked) comes of it, but I posted something about the errors in the prices here ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=266531[/url]). You have to wonder if anyone acts as an editor on these things or if they just write them and ship them out.
journalism and copy editing are lost arts it seems.
It looks like a kid's mug shot in juvenile detention with this grin on his face saying"Heh they can't try me as adult...I'm to young...."... :D
ROFL! All he needs is a piece of hair sticking up and he could be Alfalfa.
([url]http://www.pbase.com/image/129595620/original.jpg[/url])
In case anyone was still holding out hope for a change, it seems Lobo is feeling lock happy today.
[url=http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&page=346#post5067981]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&page=346#post5067981 ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&page=346#post5067981[/url])[/url]
OMG, feels like the end of an era.... ;)
Lobo is a dick. Suffice to say if i met him in person I would censor him from the public or at least make it very hard for him to type.
And yes, it is the start of a new corporate IS where "it's just business" and they clearly don't give a flying fig what contributors think.
In case anyone was still holding out hope for a change, it seems Lobo is feeling lock happy today.
[url=http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&page=346#post5067981]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&page=346#post5067981 ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&page=346#post5067981[/url])[/url]
OMG, feels like the end of an era.... ;)
...and all along he deleted posts, diverted public discourse with snide remarks, banned members he couldn't intimidate with sitemails and at the end locked the threads with a little stab of a statement to finish it off (see "we are undersigned" thread lock).
From where I am standing - he is a total Di...
... with a little stab of a statement to finish it off (see "we are undersigned" thread lock)
...and all along he deleted posts, diverted public discourse with snide remarks, banned members he couldn't intimidate with sitemails and at the end locked the threads with a little stab of a statement to finish it off (see "we are undersigned" thread lock).
...and all along he deleted posts, diverted public discourse with snide remarks, banned members he couldn't intimidate with sitemails and at the end locked the threads with a little stab of a statement to finish it off (see "we are undersigned" thread lock).
From where I am standing - he is a total Di...
...and all along he deleted posts, diverted public discourse with snide remarks, banned members he couldn't intimidate with sitemails and at the end locked the threads with a little stab of a statement to finish it off (see "we are undersigned" thread lock)
...and all along he deleted posts, diverted public discourse with snide remarks, banned members he couldn't intimidate with sitemails and at the end locked the threads with a little stab of a statement to finish it off (see "we are undersigned" thread lock).
From where I am standing - he is a total Dick...
Thread ended because someone posted that agency collection pictures are upscaled ?
Thread ended because someone posted that agency collection pictures are upscaled ?
I had missed that. Are Agency images upscaled? Isn't that one of the biggest taboos on Istock?
I don't want to believe Istock is in demise, but things like this cause me real concern.
Thread ended because someone posted that agency collection pictures are upscaled ?
I had missed that. Are Agency images upscaled? Isn't that one of the biggest taboos on Istock?
What I care about a lot is (a) being told one thing when what happens clearly contradicts it and (b) one set of rules for a special group that bypasses those rules the rest of us have to abide by.
What I care about a lot is (a) being told one thing when what happens clearly contradicts it and (b) one set of rules for a special group that bypasses those rules the rest of us have to abide by.
+1 And - btw - bravo what you said on that now dead thread about "the contest" ... I was in the process of quoting you and posting a reply when Lobo hammered it.
^^ I totally hear you. Please excuse my candor - sometimes I get a little ahead of myself.Hey..if it walks like a duck...... ;)
I think Risamay is referring to a post I made ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&messageid=5050961[/url])in the locked oh-shut-up!-no?-ok-complain-in-here thread about why the contest wasn't a neutral thing to do, IMO.
+1, I tried to ask him a question through sitemail about the changes (since I am not really involved in stock photography) and he was an complete tool and an ass to me. Then, he baited me (and I bit) resulting in my ban.
In another locked thread, he claims it wasn't locked for any other reason that it was turning into a circus.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=268031&page=1#post5071751[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=268031&page=1#post5071751[/url])
Interestingly, in defending the decision to close the thread (because HQ thought it was a circus) he makes the comment that, '...many people didn't see it as a discussion...' Well of course they didn't, because istock leadership refused to answer questions or engage in any dialogue. Quite the straw man argument. And apparently it wasn't critiques of istock that they didn't like, they just felt people were being too emotional.
I suspect they closed it to minimize the negative contributor feedback for the loopholes that agency collection is exploiting.
I have learned an incredible amount from here (and istock forum) in the last few months. Back to lurker status now...
The Agency Collection is about 9,000+ images from multiple sources (most are company names but who knows who that actually is) sold on gettyimages.com. I don't know that there's any way to know the terms under which that content is licensed to Getty. IS is displaying a portion of that content . I assume IS is just a storefront in this case as the images are still shown on gettyimages.com as well.
The IS Agency collection is now at 5,000+ images but some of those are from real IS contributors - those who submitted an application and got approved the way all of us did.
"There are plenty of places for people to spit fire about iStock outside of these forums. Peoole are free to participate without fear of being censored or banned on other message boards. "
If that isn't a slap in the face I don't know what is....
Just have a look at the last two or three pages of the "Where we go from here"-thread. It is obvious "where we go from here": Someone at Getty/Istock management made the decision that it would be more profitable to screw their contributors every which way, than to have a happy community.
Just have a look at the last two or three pages of the "Where we go from here"-thread. It is obvious "where we go from here": Someone at Getty/Istock management made the decision that it would be more profitable to screw their contributors every which way, than to have a happy community.
I just can't beleive all you people talking about istock as comunity... that's beyond naivity, that's ridiculous. You guys are a community, but that has nothing to do with IS. It migth have been a community at the very start when people were exhancing files, but they have been conning you eversince. You can hiss at getty as much as you want, and they deserve it being overtly agressive business people, but the microstock bunch are a lot-lot worse, they are just frudulant bandits. I read back in in IS forums, Lobo and other admins -with some rare exceptions-, have been dictatorial hostile little pricks as long as I could read back, and they have been messing with file sizes, credits way before getty took action. They so much didn't give a crap about contributors that the best you got was single file upload buttons straight from the eighties, and upload and inspection system that creates enormous amount of eytra work without that having any pint at all (reauploading stuff because of bad keywording?? what?) and that has nothing to do with getty. I ran into some rare occasions when Yuri got involved in forums, and the admins trash talked him too, locked his threads.. doing that to the guy who single handidly made them millions! You call that a happy community site??? You are out your mind.
And then the worst part: subscritions (it's not just about istock of course) That's a huge paycut to start with, and everybody just blatantly accepts it because it was presented as s "new structure". I guess dumbos only new to be fed a buzzword, and they'll go with any crap : ((( The whole subscription thing is doorway to conning the s**t out of you. Imho it wouldn't be a huge surprsie if it turned out that you don't even get noted - and of course payed - for all the downloads you get in that system, they just hide it, and there you go. How . would you now? On SS f.e. there isn't even a download number, only a listing for 'popularity' which seems to be a combination of age and downloads, but it's obscure to say the least. Any of your files might have been downloaded more than you know, and you'll never know, bacause once a subscription has expired, they just can just erase all data of it except for it being payed for, and than reaching expiration by downloads or date. It's pretty much clear that almost none of the subscriions reach all the downloads possible, so the only way you could find out how things actually went is to cross reference clients downloads with your track record, which is practically impossible. I suspect you are F-ed BiG TimE all over the place with these sites... : (
There is a community at istock. I'm part of a group of 60 odd contributors who encourage each other through friendly competition and support to achieve goals it would be very hard for most of us to reach working on our own. Perhaps there isn't much in it for you pros, but I suspect quite a few successful istock contributors (and probably similar for other sites) have found community support invaluable. Now, for how much the management supports/is involved in/uses the community, that's another question, and the answer varies over time and from individual to individual within the business.
You guys are a community, but that has nothing to do with IS. It migth have been a community at the very start when people were exhancing files, but they have been conning you eversince.
There is a community at istock. I'm part of a group of 60 odd contributors who encourage each other through friendly competition and support to achieve goals it would be very hard for most of us to reach working on our own. Perhaps there isn't much in it for you pros, but I suspect quite a few successful istock contributors (and probably similar for other sites) have found community support invaluable. Now, for how much the management supports/is involved in/uses the community, that's another question, and the answer varies over time and from individual to individual within the business.
... with a little stab of a statement to finish it off (see "we are undersigned" thread lock)
Yes, I saw that little flourish and thought that was totally uncalled for - sort of kicking someone when they're already on the ground just 'cause you can.
You should call it as you see it. I wasn't trying to talk you out of it, just put another point of view.
Especially in the "what have you done for me lately" culture that Getty/IS is morphing into, anything nice or helpful someone did a while back isn't worth anything anyway. Or at least it's worth the same as the promise that Vetta prices wouldn't go up this year, or canisters would be grandfathered, or...
It is very easy to know if they hide or "steal" downloads or subscriptions. I'm not going to tell you how. You should know it just thinking a little. Maybe it would help if you didn't have a conclusion you want/need to expose before you begin your thinking process.
It is very easy to know if they hide or "steal" downloads or subscriptions. I'm not going to tell you how. You should know it just thinking a little. Maybe it would help if you didn't have a conclusion you want/need to expose before you begin your thinking process.
I'm sorry, but it's impossible to discover if they steel downloads if they want to hide them, and it's very easy to do on their end.
It would be fair tho, if you could explain your theory about impossibility to hide downloads from contributors, because the only thing you can check is the number of downloads that you can see in your port, and you can never be sure if they hide 1-2% of downloads from you.
Obviously you're smarter than everyone else here, so why don't you just share? I am "thinking" and not coming up with a magical answer for an easy way to see downloads that are hidden.It is very easy to know if they hide or "steal" downloads or subscriptions. I'm not going to tell you how. You should know it just thinking a little. Maybe it would help if you didn't have a conclusion you want/need to expose before you begin your thinking process.
I'm sorry, but it's impossible to discover if they steel downloads if they want to hide them, and it's very easy to do on their end.
It would be fair tho, if you could explain your theory about impossibility to hide downloads from contributors, because the only thing you can check is the number of downloads that you can see in your port, and you can never be sure if they hide 1-2% of downloads from you.
Think a little bit, please.
L'etat, c'est moi.QuoteThere is a community at istock. I'm part of a group of 60 odd contributors who encourage each other through friendly competition and support to achieve goals it would be very hard for most of us to reach working on our own. Perhaps there isn't much in it for you pros, but I suspect quite a few successful istock contributors (and probably similar for other sites) have found community support invaluable. Now, for how much the management supports/is involved in/uses the community, that's another question, and the answer varies over time and from individual to individual within the business.
I think the point Molka is trying to make is that while you are making a little money out of your photography, someone else is making a great deal more for doing a hell of a lot less, and you are more willing to accept this because you believe you're part of a community.
Getty, Klein, Evans-Lombe, Calvert, Catalane, Gurke, Heck, Lapham, Martin, Murrell, Peters, Rockafellar and Teaster are the biggest earners on iStock. None of them have had an image accepted or communicated with an iStock contributer. iStock is not a community.
Either you know how it's impossible for them to hide downloads or you don't. Are you suggesting we get someone to download our own images occasionally so we can check that the appropriate royalties are accredited to us? If so, it's only a suggestion, not an admission, so why not share it with us?
Personally, I don't think downloads are being hidden, but that's just me.
It is very easy to know if they hide or "steal" downloads or subscriptions. I'm not going to tell you how. You should know it just thinking a little. Maybe it would help if you didn't have a conclusion you want/need to expose before you begin your thinking process.
I'm sorry, but it's impossible to discover if they steel downloads if they want to hide them, and it's very easy to do on their end.
It would be fair tho, if you could explain your theory about impossibility to hide downloads from contributors, because the only thing you can check is the number of downloads that you can see in your port, and you can never be sure if they hide 1-2% of downloads from you.
Think a little bit, please.
It is very easy to know if they hide or "steal" downloads or subscriptions. I'm not going to tell you how. You should know it just thinking a little. Maybe it would help if you didn't have a conclusion you want/need to expose before you begin your thinking process.
I'm sorry, but it's impossible to discover if they steel downloads if they want to hide them, and it's very easy to do on their end.
It would be fair tho, if you could explain your theory about impossibility to hide downloads from contributors, because the only thing you can check is the number of downloads that you can see in your port, and you can never be sure if they hide 1-2% of downloads from you.
Think a little bit, please.
He deleted the last post, then posted himself and locked the thread. It would have made more sense if he had left it.
I think the point Molka is trying to make is that while you are making a little money out of your photography, someone else is making a great deal more for doing a hell of a lot less, and you are more willing to accept this because you believe you're part of a community.
Getty, Klein, Evans-Lombe, Calvert, Catalane, Gurke, Heck, Lapham, Martin, Murrell, Peters, Rockafellar and Teaster are the biggest earners on iStock. None of them have had an image accepted or communicated with an iStock contributer. iStock is not a community.
Some of the blame for this whole royalty cut debacle belongs at the feet of the community. Everyone who prayed at the altar of iStock gave too much power to this company. Even in a moment of revolt, when that petition came up on the forum, you guys still gave iStock so much credit. "From a company we had passion for, loved and cherished..." Really? You loved and cherished a company? No wonder the company is raking everyone over the coals now. You pledged your undying loyalty to a company, a business entity, one that would never make any such a pledge to you.
You gave iStock all the power by regarding the company as a member of the community, right alongside the contributors. In reality, the company was always very separate, and always acts in it's own best interests, not those of the community. Can you really blame HQ for doing all of this? They probably just looked at the forums over the years and thought, "These guys love us! We can get away with anything! Slash those royalty rates, the community won't mind!"
On another note - How is the response to the Stockys.... Remember when they said that if they announced something and noone responded then they would be worried? Ha! As self destructive as the prospect is I can only laugh at the way things are going. So many parrallels to events around the world. Oh the irony. Creative foresight is definitely lacking at HQ.
Just have a look at the last two or three pages of the "Where we go from here"-thread. It is obvious "where we go from here": Someone at Getty/Istock management made the decision that it would be more profitable to screw their contributors every which way, than to have a happy community.
I just can't beleive all you people talking about istock as comunity... that's beyond naivity, that's ridiculous. You guys are a community, but that has nothing to do with IS. It migth have been a community at the very start when people were exhancing files, but they have been conning you eversince. You can hiss at getty as much as you want, and they deserve it being overtly agressive business people, but the microstock bunch are a lot-lot worse, they are just frudulant bandits. I read back in in IS forums, Lobo and other admins -with some rare exceptions-, have been dictatorial hostile little pricks as long as I could read back, and they have been messing with file sizes, credits way before getty took action. They so much didn't give a crap about contributors that the best you got was single file upload buttons straight from the eighties, and upload and inspection system that creates enormous amount of eytra work without that having any pint at all (reauploading stuff because of bad keywording?? what?) and that has nothing to do with getty. I ran into some rare occasions when Yuri got involved in forums, and the admins trash talked him too, locked his threads.. doing that to the guy who single handidly made them millions! You call that a happy community site??? You are out your mind.
And then the worst part: subscritions (it's not just about istock of course) That's a huge paycut to start with, and everybody just blatantly accepts it because it was presented as s "new structure". I guess dumbos only new to be fed a buzzword, and they'll go with any crap : ((( The whole subscription thing is doorway to conning the s**t out of you. Imho it wouldn't be a huge surprsie if it turned out that you don't even get noted - and of course payed - for all the downloads you get in that system, they just hide it, and there you go. How . would you now? On SS f.e. there isn't even a download number, only a listing for 'popularity' which seems to be a combination of age and downloads, but it's obscure to say the least. Any of your files might have been downloaded more than you know, and you'll never know, bacause once a subscription has expired, they just can just erase all data of it except for it being payed for, and than reaching expiration by downloads or date. It's pretty much clear that almost none of the subscriions reach all the downloads possible, so the only way you could find out how things actually went is to cross reference clients downloads with your track record, which is practically impossible. I suspect you are F-ed BiG TimE all over the place with these sites... : (
Wow - the meer thought of Bruce putting into practice anything written by Robert Greene sends shivers up my spine.
Wow - the meer thought of Bruce putting into practice anything written by Robert Greene sends shivers up my spine.
I wonder if he was reading the book to understand what he was up against with his new bosses or if it was his personal executive manual for Istock.
Some other teachings of Greene ([url]http://www2.tech.purdue.edu/cg/courses/cgt411/covey/48_laws_of_power.htm[/url])
Wow - the meer thought of Bruce putting into practice anything written by Robert Greene sends shivers up my spine.
I wonder if he was reading the book to understand what he was up against with his new bosses or if it was his personal executive manual for Istock.
Some other teachings of Greene ([url]http://www2.tech.purdue.edu/cg/courses/cgt411/covey/48_laws_of_power.htm[/url])
I'm trying to believe this is irony, as it seems to be, in the genre of Dilbert. [url]http://www.dilbert.com/strips]http://www.dilbert.com/strips] [url]http://www.dilbert.com/strips (http://[url=http://www.dilbert.com/strips)[/url]
But I've also heard that Americans don't do/understand Irony, so maybe not.
Oh yes, and every other country and its people are perfect.Not at all. My imperfection would have been reading that Greene stuff and laughing, assuming it was meant to be funny.
Some other teachings of Greene ([url]http://www2.tech.purdue.edu/cg/courses/cgt411/covey/48_laws_of_power.htm[/url])