Author Topic: iStock changing royalty structure (Read 125340 times)

Albert Martin · « **Reply #25 on:** September 07, 2010, 15:37 »

Most of people talk about Istock as: "they are the best and greatest"... Now most will must add: "And they pay the lowest royalties in the industry"... Incredible!

Herg · « **Reply #26 on:** September 07, 2010, 15:38 »

This has been a terrible year at Istock. They mess up the website with a horrible new design (hyped up to the hilt before it went live) which decresed a lot of people's sales, they are making it nigh on impossible to get good images that are perfectly well lit approved, sales are poor for most at the moment and now this !!! It's absolutley dire.

Kngkyle · « **Reply #27 on:** September 07, 2010, 15:39 »

I guess the only silver lining for me is that my commission wont decrease. But the chance of me ever going up to the next level is slim.

I regret going exclusive now.

Vonkara · « **Reply #28 on:** September 07, 2010, 15:39 »

LostOne · « **Reply #29 on:** September 07, 2010, 15:40 »

Quote from: dehooks on September 07, 2010, 15:33

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.

Mr. Stock · « **Reply #30 on:** September 07, 2010, 15:41 »

Quote

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.

Yep, same for me, dropping down to 17%, maybe 16% (depends how I do the next three months.) My sale were up for a year but recently tanked so unless my sales increase again, I will have to stop uploading and perhaps even delete my portfolio. I feel like I see the end for microstock, at least for me, istock and micro in general just aint what it used to be.

Perry · « **Reply #31 on:** September 07, 2010, 15:43 »

What does this mean? :
"You will retain the royalty rate from the end of the previous year "

lisafx · « **Reply #32 on:** September 07, 2010, 15:45 »

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.

LostOne · « **Reply #33 on:** September 07, 2010, 15:45 »

Quote from: Vonkara on September 07, 2010, 15:39

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 ??

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

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.

PS: You can see how many credits you earned this and the last year in the stats page. It says redeemed credit total.

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #34 on:** September 07, 2010, 15:45 »

Quote from: Perry on September 07, 2010, 15:43

What does this mean? :
"You will retain the royalty rate from the end of the previous year "

It means lifetime achievements don't count anymore. Only credits sold on the previous year will count towards our level.

ichiro17 · « **Reply #35 on:** September 07, 2010, 15:47 »

Quote from: gostwyck on September 07, 2010, 14:48

Even exclusives are going to need to be sell about 4000 images per month to maintain the 40% rate.

umm no, they will need approx 1700 images per month based on my average redeemed credit. Which isn't as preposterous as 4000

Albert Martin · « **Reply #36 on:** September 07, 2010, 15:47 »

Quote from: lisafx on September 07, 2010, 15:45

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.

I support this! You all must STOP working with those self pronounced experts and ASK 50% royalty!!!

Snufkin · « **Reply #37 on:** September 07, 2010, 15:48 »

Greedy a**#%les.

graficallyminded · « **Reply #38 on:** September 07, 2010, 15:48 »

Quote from: microstockphoto.co.uk on September 07, 2010, 15:22

Why do they bother to elaborate complicated royalty structures? It's a paycut. As simple as that.

Amen. It's yet another illustration of corporate greed at it's finest. Economy my arse; it's the company wanting to line their halls with more granite and marble. What is this, the pharmaceutical or insurance industry? Oh wait no, it's just microstock.

cthoman · « **Reply #39 on:** September 07, 2010, 15:49 »

Quote from: helix7 on September 07, 2010, 15:13

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.

rubyroo · « **Reply #40 on:** September 07, 2010, 15:50 »

This would be a great time for SS to offer exclusivity.

mantonino · « **Reply #41 on:** September 07, 2010, 15:51 »

Quote from: lisafx on September 07, 2010, 15:45

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?

Sean said absolutely nobody will quality for 45% on the iStock forums (I'm sure he'll chime in here as well)

skvoor · « **Reply #42 on:** September 07, 2010, 15:51 »

Quote from: lisafx on September 07, 2010, 15:45

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.

Perry · « **Reply #43 on:** September 07, 2010, 15:52 »

Quote from: cthoman on September 07, 2010, 15:49

Quote from: helix7 on September 07, 2010, 15:13
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.

It's not a "3% drop", it's a 15% drop.

Dreamframer · « **Reply #44 on:** September 07, 2010, 15:54 »

Quote from: lisafx on September 07, 2010, 15:45

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.

I agree. I won't upload. This is not just too much. This is very humiliating.

LostOne · « **Reply #45 on:** September 07, 2010, 15:54 »

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".

cardmaverick · « **Reply #46 on:** September 07, 2010, 15:55 »

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.

grp_photo · « **Reply #47 on:** September 07, 2010, 15:56 »

Quote from: lisafx on September 07, 2010, 15:45

So now canister levels are meaningless.

They are not meaningless your upload-limit still depends on your canister level.

LostOne · « **Reply #48 on:** September 07, 2010, 15:59 »

Quote from: cardmaverick on September 07, 2010, 15:55

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.