Author Topic: Istock F5 epic fail (Read 105061 times)

gostwyck · « **Reply #925 on:** March 23, 2011, 10:54 »

Quote from: Maui on March 23, 2011, 10:36

Perhaps they became aware how much those targets can tell about the sales performance of the different tiers.

Yep. I'm sure when they dreamed up the RC method of reducing commissions that aspect didn't occur to them. Of course it probably didn't occur to them that sales might fall either. My downloads for this this year at IS are running at 20% below the same period in 2010 (whereas in 2010 I slightly increased over 2009). At Shutterstock my sales are 25% above 2010 figures so I don't think the issue at IS is down to competition from other contributors. If my own figures are simply reflecting the greater scheme of things could Istock possibly admit to that by reducing the RC targets by 20%? I just can't see that happening.

gostwyck · « **Reply #927 on:** March 23, 2011, 11:03 »

Quote from: halfshag on March 23, 2011, 10:56

Quote from: photoagogo on March 23, 2011, 10:19
Good job we've got haters like you to keep us informed.

Eh? Without the eyes and ears of the MSG people we'd be much worse off. And if you contribute to microstock so would you.

I'm guessing that's a poor exclusive speaking Halfshag. Some of them are in a very uncomfortable place right now ... and it's probably becoming more uncomfortable with every month that passes. It can't be helping if Istock have reduced their marketing too.

caspixel · « **Reply #929 on:** March 23, 2011, 11:29 »

Quote from: gostwyck on March 23, 2011, 11:03

Quote from: halfshag on March 23, 2011, 10:56
Quote from: photoagogo on March 23, 2011, 10:19
Good job we've got haters like you to keep us informed.

Eh? Without the eyes and ears of the MSG people we'd be much worse off. And if you contribute to microstock so would you.

I'm guessing that's a poor exclusive speaking Halfshag. Some of them are in a very uncomfortable place right now ... and it's probably becoming more uncomfortable with every month that passes. It can't be helping if Istock have reduced their marketing too.

Or an iStock admin going incognito. Lobo, is that you? LOL

lisafx · « **Reply #930 on:** March 23, 2011, 11:48 »

Quote from: Maui on March 23, 2011, 10:36

Perhaps they became aware how much those targets can tell about the sales performance of the different tiers.

Quote from: halfshag on March 23, 2011, 10:56

Eh? Without the eyes and ears of the MSG people we'd be much worse off. And if you contribute to microstock so would you.

I'd like to add a very enthusiastic +1 to both of those statements.

Good thing nobody is forced to come here and read these forums if they don't like what they see. And wow, even an ignore button if you find a particular member annoying.

On the RC issue, I would be willing to bet we won't hear until the end of the year, and then, if there's a drop, it will be packaged as a benevolent gesture.

caspixel · « **Reply #931 on:** March 23, 2011, 11:49 »

Quote from: lisafx on March 23, 2011, 11:48

On the RC issue, I would be willing to bet we won't hear until the end of the year, and then, if there's a drop, it will be packaged as a benevolent gesture.

We should start a betting pool.

lisafx · « **Reply #932 on:** March 23, 2011, 11:53 »

Quote from: caspixel on March 23, 2011, 11:49

Quote from: lisafx on March 23, 2011, 11:48

On the RC issue, I would be willing to bet we won't hear until the end of the year, and then, if there's a drop, it will be packaged as a benevolent gesture.

We should start a betting pool.

I'm in. $5 on the week before Christmas holidays.

cclapper · « **Reply #933 on:** March 23, 2011, 11:54 »

Quote from: lisafx on March 23, 2011, 11:53

I'm in. $5 on the week before Christmas holidays.

And on a Friday.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #934 on:** March 23, 2011, 12:01 »

Quote from: lisafx on March 23, 2011, 11:48

On the RC issue, I would be willing to bet we won't hear until the end of the year, and then, if there's a drop, it will be packaged as a benevolent gesture.

But how are we going to strive to achieve our next "target" that we have been set if we aren't told what it is until the game's over?

click_click · « **Reply #935 on:** March 23, 2011, 12:07 »

Quote from: cclapper on March 23, 2011, 11:54

Quote from: lisafx on March 23, 2011, 11:53
I'm in. $5 on the week before Christmas holidays.

And on a Friday.

No, probably Thursday so they can release a post on Friday (one minute before the office closes) that they will release an explanation on the following Monday, which will be delayed by "the huge amount of inquiries from contributors" so they have to postpone it to Tuesday in order "to get it right". Lobo will take the heat and keep banning people as usual.

Next.

caspixel · « **Reply #936 on:** March 23, 2011, 12:09 »

Quote from: cclapper on March 23, 2011, 11:54

Quote from: lisafx on March 23, 2011, 11:53
I'm in. $5 on the week before Christmas holidays.

And on a Friday.

Right before they announce they are all going on a three week paid vacation.

nruboc · « **Reply #937 on:** March 23, 2011, 12:15 »

Quote from: photoagogo on March 23, 2011, 10:19

Good job we've got haters like you to keep us informed.

Awwww... did someone's feelings get hurt?

lisafx · « **Reply #938 on:** March 23, 2011, 12:17 »

Quote from: caspixel on March 23, 2011, 12:09

Quote from: cclapper on March 23, 2011, 11:54
Quote from: lisafx on March 23, 2011, 11:53
I'm in. $5 on the week before Christmas holidays.

And on a Friday.

Right before they announce they are all going on a three week paid vacation.

Leaving the site unsecured....

ShadySue · « **Reply #939 on:** March 23, 2011, 12:34 »

The thing is, these targets could be motivating for some and demotivating for others. If some see that they could reach the next target they could beaver away, competing with other suppliers for the few spaces at the higher rate - and to make 'them' more money, of course.
If some see, realisitically, that they are very unlikely to reach the higher rate, whatever stage they're at, they could just say, what.
They were far better having people co-operating to raise each other.

dirkr · « **Reply #940 on:** March 23, 2011, 16:16 »

Dumb question (not that it would affect me anymore

):
Why do you believe Istock's setting of the RC targets tells anything about their sales performance?

gostwyck · « **Reply #941 on:** March 23, 2011, 16:26 »

Quote from: dirkr on March 23, 2011, 16:16

Dumb question (not that it would affect me anymore ):
Why do you believe Istock's setting of the RC targets tells anything about their sales performance?

Because it was designed to produce a fixed percentage of profit and therefore only a certain percentage of contributors can be at each commission level. If average sales were to rise and they didn't increase the targets then more contributors would qualify for higher commissions. However ... if sales were to fall ... then fewer and fewer contributors will be able to sustain their own commission levels ... unless they adjust the targets accordingly. That's why RC targets were 'generously' reduced at the end of the year __ because the original sales projections turned out to be over-optimistic.

dirkr · « **Reply #942 on:** March 23, 2011, 16:59 »

That sounds too logical to be true. We're still talking of Istock, aren't we?

I think they will only lower the targets when they are afraid they could lose too much support from their contributors, probably looking only at a very tight selection of (top) contributors.
So I think it's a big step to conclude that tells something about overall sales levels. As far as I can tell all those target setting is a big black box nobody outside of Istock knows anything about.

Maybe it tells less about how sales numbers developed compared to their projection but more how contributor reactions developed compared to their projection...

But of course that could be all wrong as well.

lisafx · « **Reply #943 on:** March 23, 2011, 17:10 »

Quote from: gostwyck on March 23, 2011, 16:26

Because it was designed to produce a fixed percentage of profit and therefore only a certain percentage of contributors can be at each commission level. If average sales were to rise and they didn't increase the targets then more contributors would qualify for higher commissions. However ... if sales were to fall ... then fewer and fewer contributors will be able to sustain their own commission levels ... unless they adjust the targets accordingly. That's why RC targets were 'generously' reduced at the end of the year __ because the original sales projections turned out to be over-optimistic.

Exactly. Great explanation

It seems pretty obvious that RC targets will be connected to sales levels. Not sure why that should even be up for debate?

caspixel · « **Reply #944 on:** March 23, 2011, 17:12 »

AUDIT! AUDIT! AUDIT!

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=310482&page=1

That guy is lucky he found his photo in use. Makes me wonder how many others this is happening to and they don't even know it.

lisafx · « **Reply #945 on:** March 23, 2011, 17:24 »

Quote from: caspixel on March 23, 2011, 17:12

AUDIT! AUDIT! AUDIT!

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=310482&page=1

That guy is lucky he found his photo in use. Makes me wonder how many others this is happening to and they don't even know it.

Wow. Really scary. As is this comment:

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_permalink_popup.php?threadid=310482&messageid=6162042

Hope Sean will post when he finds out what's up with his $0 sale.

Danicek · « **Reply #946 on:** March 23, 2011, 17:25 »

Quote from: lisafx on March 23, 2011, 17:10

Quote from: gostwyck on March 23, 2011, 16:26
Because it was designed to produce a fixed percentage of profit and therefore only a certain percentage of contributors can be at each commission level. If average sales were to rise and they didn't increase the targets then more contributors would qualify for higher commissions. However ... if sales were to fall ... then fewer and fewer contributors will be able to sustain their own commission levels ... unless they adjust the targets accordingly. That's why RC targets were 'generously' reduced at the end of the year __ because the original sales projections turned out to be over-optimistic.

Exactly. Great explanation

It seems pretty obvious that RC targets will be connected to sales levels. Not sure why that should even be up for debate?

Except that it could be to opposite :]. They may have targets in $ instead of %. Which would require moving the targets up in case of lower sales to get the overall % down and hit the $ target.

Uhhh....

caspixel · « **Reply #947 on:** March 23, 2011, 17:35 »

Quote from: lisafx on March 23, 2011, 17:24

Wow. Really scary. As is this comment:

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_permalink_popup.php?threadid=310482&messageid=6162042

Hope Sean will post when he finds out what's up with his $0 sale.

It's my understanding that the $0 royalty issue has been going on for a while. Or maybe his $0 sale was a promo item or deeply discounted credits.

ShadySue · « **Reply #948 on:** March 23, 2011, 17:48 »

There has been an ongoing $0 sale issue.
It looks like Getty Images is the most likely answer for the OP. The images were only put up on Getty at the very end of January, and February sales aren't due to be notified until the end of March.
I've often wondered what happens if someone gets a free image via, e.g. free credits from a Moo card. Do they show up as $0 sales. I can't remember ever reading of anyone that happened to (probably because most people wouldn't be able to work out how to get the free sale!)

Xalanx · « **Reply #949 on:** March 23, 2011, 17:51 »

Quote from: caspixel on March 23, 2011, 17:12

AUDIT! AUDIT! AUDIT!

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=310482&page=1

That guy is lucky he found his photo in use. Makes me wonder how many others this is happening to and they don't even know it.

I'm starting to feel good that I only have 300 files on istock...