pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStock is SO BAD THESE DAYS  (Read 5229 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: September 04, 2017, 04:48 »
+4
Hi everybody!

I suggest that all of you contributors STOP uploading photos in iStock until they start to appreciate us.

They must pay us more like the old times! This is ridiculous!

And the quality of the service is SO BAAAAAAAD!!!  >:(


« Reply #1 on: September 04, 2017, 05:03 »
+2


They must pay us more like the old times! This is ridiculous!


What "old" times do you mean?

When I started contributing to iStock twelve years ago, I got 10c for every download. Now I get a lot more.


« Reply #2 on: September 04, 2017, 08:31 »
0


They must pay us more like the old times! This is ridiculous!


What "old" times do you mean?

When I started contributing to iStock twelve years ago, I got 10c for every download. Now I get a lot more.

Are you exclusive or non-exclusive?

« Reply #3 on: September 04, 2017, 08:35 »
0

"What "old" times do you mean?

When I started contributing to iStock twelve years ago, I got 10c for every download. Now I get a lot more/ a lot less depending on what they feel like giving me"

FTFY

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #4 on: September 04, 2017, 08:44 »
+1
To be fair, although they're a bunch of foetid dingoes' kidneys, my rpd is much higher than it was in 2007, but vastly lower than it was subsequently up to 2015, when they chose to join the race to the bottom.
However, downloads are far, fewer.

« Reply #5 on: September 04, 2017, 08:51 »
+4
To be fair, although they're a bunch of foetid dingoes' kidneys, my rpd is much higher than it was in 2007, but vastly lower than it was subsequently up to 2015, when they chose to join the race to the bottom.
However, downloads are far, fewer.

But why now? What's changed? What has changed is how they report $$. Given the defection of artists, a highly probable defection of buyers, I can only conclude that the reporting was very inaccurate in the 'older days'. My personal evidence is that when this ESP reporting started in Jan I more than doubled to almost tripled my income from about $200 a month to $500-$600 a month with doing NOTHING.  This happened only after they transitioned to the new reporting system, so it was quick, not gradual over time.  Leads me to believe there either is or was very inaccurate reporting.  I bet IS/GETTY would CR_AP their pink panties if their royalty system was audited for the last 10 years. 
« Last Edit: September 04, 2017, 08:54 by Mantis »

« Reply #6 on: September 08, 2017, 01:12 »
+1
To be fair, although they're a bunch of foetid dingoes' kidneys, my rpd is much higher than it was in 2007, but vastly lower than it was subsequently up to 2015, when they chose to join the race to the bottom.
However, downloads are far, fewer.

But why now? What's changed? What has changed is how they report $$. Given the defection of artists, a highly probable defection of buyers, I can only conclude that the reporting was very inaccurate in the 'older days'. My personal evidence is that when this ESP reporting started in Jan I more than doubled to almost tripled my income from about $200 a month to $500-$600 a month with doing NOTHING.  This happened only after they transitioned to the new reporting system, so it was quick, not gradual over time.  Leads me to believe there either is or was very inaccurate reporting.  I bet IS/GETTY would CR_AP their pink panties if their royalty system was audited for the last 10 years.

@mantia I think we are in a different series. My best month has been almost 14 000$ and after all the updates and messing in (2013-2016) up my income fell more than half to somewhere 3000$. Since 2014, I have uploaded photos ten times the amount it was in 2013 and mean thousands more photos...but my income is still only half of what it was at its best. SO THAT WHY iStock is crap COMPANY THESE DAYS...They wondered just how to get the best winnings for themselves!

« Reply #7 on: September 08, 2017, 01:57 »
0
14000 dollar per month ?? Holy cow. Thats insane. Is that correct?

« Reply #8 on: September 08, 2017, 02:06 »
+1


They must pay us more like the old times! This is ridiculous!


What "old" times do you mean?

When I started contributing to iStock twelve years ago, I got 10c for every download. Now I get a lot more.

You're misremembering. By April 2004 the commission at iStock was 10c, 20, and 30c, depending on the size of image downloaded. What was good about those times was that almost anything got downloaded frequently, whereas now even outstanding images may not sell at all. But you knew that...

« Reply #9 on: September 08, 2017, 02:09 »
+2
My personal evidence is that when this ESP reporting started in Jan I more than doubled to almost tripled my income from about $200 a month to $500-$600 a month with doing NOTHING.  This happened only after they transitioned to the new reporting system, so it was quick, not gradual over time.  Leads me to believe there either is or was very inaccurate reporting.  I bet IS/GETTY would CR_AP their pink panties if their royalty system was audited for the last 10 years.

And my earnings slumped with the introduction of ESP.I have no idea what they are up to, but I don't bother uploading to them any more.

« Reply #10 on: September 08, 2017, 07:54 »
+2


Yeah the new system is doing well....for them id guess not me!

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #11 on: September 08, 2017, 09:09 »
+2
My graph isn't the same shape as yours, but I was unhappy to see the big jump in PA sales in July.  :(
Also, lest anyone think this isn't a gloom and doom post, I should point out that July '17 was 60.5% down on July 2012, and my worst July since 2007.

« Reply #12 on: September 08, 2017, 14:17 »
+1
To be fair, although they're a bunch of foetid dingoes' kidneys, my rpd is much higher than it was in 2007, but vastly lower than it was subsequently up to 2015, when they chose to join the race to the bottom.
However, downloads are far, fewer.

But why now? What's changed? What has changed is how they report $$. Given the defection of artists, a highly probable defection of buyers, I can only conclude that the reporting was very inaccurate in the 'older days'. My personal evidence is that when this ESP reporting started in Jan I more than doubled to almost tripled my income from about $200 a month to $500-$600 a month with doing NOTHING.  This happened only after they transitioned to the new reporting system, so it was quick, not gradual over time.  Leads me to believe there either is or was very inaccurate reporting.  I bet IS/GETTY would CR_AP their pink panties if their royalty system was audited for the last 10 years.

All in, class action suit, I'm for it. Make them tell the truth.

« Reply #13 on: September 20, 2017, 12:45 »
+2


They must pay us more like the old times! This is ridiculous!


What "old" times do you mean?

When I started contributing to iStock twelve years ago, I got 10c for every download. Now I get a lot more.

Then you would be happy with sales like these? Under 10c per download. Why do you defend Getty when it's obvious that they have been lowering our earnings and finding new ways to lower commissions, every year.

Regular   2017-07   7/18/2017       0.09450    15%   0.63000   Photo   iStock Essentials   Premium Access Time Limited   Getty   US   Illinois
Regular   2017-04   3/30/2017       0.08480    15%   0.56536   Photo   iStock Essentials   iStock Subscription   iStock   non-US   France
Regular   2017-04   4/10/2017       0.08175    15%   0.54498   Photo   iStock Essentials   iStock Subscription   iStock   non-US   Germany
Regular   2017-04   3/20/2017       0.07950    15%   0.53000   Photo   iStock Essentials   iStock Subscription   iStock   non-US   Argentina
Regular   2017-01   1/17/2017       0.07539    15%   0.50262   Photo   iStock Essentials   iStock Subscription   iStock   non-US   India
Regular   2017-01   1/18/2017       0.07539    15%   0.50262   Photo   iStock Essentials   iStock Subscription   iStock   non-US   India
Regular   2017-02   1/24/2017       0.06300    15%   0.42000   Photo   iStock Essentials   iStock Subscription   iStock   non-US   Mexico
Regular   2017-04   3/18/2017       0.05760    15%   0.38402   Photo   iStock Essentials   iStock Subscription   iStock   non-US   Netherlands
Regular   2017-07   6/26/2017       0.04203    15%   0.28017   Photo   iStock Essentials   iStock Subscription   iStock   non-US   Italy
Regular   2017-04   3/23/2017       0.04050    15%   0.27000   Photo   iStock Essentials   iStock Subscription   iStock   US   Florida
Regular   2017-04   4/8/2017       0.03972    15%   0.26480   Photo   iStockphoto   RF Image   Partner Portal   non-US   China

« Reply #14 on: September 20, 2017, 14:10 »
+3
Then you would be happy with sales like these? Under 10c per download. Why do you defend Getty when it's obvious that they have been lowering our earnings and finding new ways to lower commissions, every year.

To add to the "Sub-10c" league, I regularly get 1.5-2.5c downloads. That's right, it's 0.015-0.025 bucks' download. How many of such downloads? At least 10% of all dls I get at iStock.

I quietly moaned and grumped and chuckled over iStock's mishaps and horrible downs since December 2016, but nevertheless always had them on first place in terms of revenue, even SS and FT didn't quite reach them. Until this year when I had already three months whereby SS and FT individually overtook IS. Coupled with terrible feedback vis-a-vis contributors, humiliating 1.5-2.5c royalties and plummeting revenues month after month, I can easily see myself making a new year's resolution for 2018 regarding iStock...

« Reply #15 on: September 20, 2017, 14:55 »
+1
0.005$

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #16 on: September 20, 2017, 15:09 »
0
0.005$

Actually, if you check, it's not 0.005, your gross royalty is actually 0.00081

These technically aren't downloads, they're views, but I still don't understand how it works.  :-[ (Don't bother trying to explain it; like cryptocurrency, my brain can't cope with it!)

This month, all my Connect 'views' are "Worldwide right to display and use the Metadata in connection with the Pinterest Platform and services." and netted me $0.00108 each (sic)
« Last Edit: September 20, 2017, 15:44 by ShadySue »

« Reply #17 on: September 20, 2017, 15:41 »
0
0.005$
These technically aren't downloads, they're views, but I still don't understand how it works.  :-[ (Don't bother trying to explain it; like cryptocurrency, my brain can't cope with it!)

This month, all my Connect 'views' are "Worldwide right to display and use the Metadata in connection with the Pinterest Platform and services." and netted me $0.00108 each (sic)

Precisely.

They are like "pay per view". Still, it's bs.

« Reply #18 on: September 20, 2017, 17:13 »
0
0.005$
These technically aren't downloads, they're views, but I still don't understand how it works.  :-[ (Don't bother trying to explain it; like cryptocurrency, my brain can't cope with it!)

This month, all my Connect 'views' are "Worldwide right to display and use the Metadata in connection with the Pinterest Platform and services." and netted me $0.00108 each (sic)

Precisely.

They are like "pay per view". Still, it's bs.

That's why I didn't list the views or negative numbers. Just real commissions under 10 cents. They are non-us partners except the one from FL and the time limited from Getty. This is wrong.

« Reply #19 on: September 21, 2017, 05:52 »
+1
I actually like iStock allot. I make $1,70 per image per month. That is higher than SS with $1,55 for last month. But SS went down since last November. Before November it was $1,90. In my experience iStock has been stable and growing since 2013 when I joined them and sales have only gone up for me since ESP started.

« Reply #20 on: September 21, 2017, 06:09 »
0
Momma Getty seems to be adjusting their commissions again. I haven't paid to read the article and I haven't run across other outside news sources. So what does this headline really mean?
https://www.selling-stock.com/Article/getty-cuts-royalties-again

« Reply #21 on: September 21, 2017, 08:09 »
+2
How am I doing?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #22 on: September 21, 2017, 08:28 »
+1
Momma Getty seems to be adjusting their commissions again. I haven't paid to read the article and I haven't run across other outside news sources. So what does this headline really mean?
https://www.selling-stock.com/Article/getty-cuts-royalties-again

I'm curious, but not enough to spend money to access the article. "According to sources" means nothing, and it says that Getty has reduced commissions. If they have done it already without telling us, they are in breach of contract. Whatever, spending money on credits to read the article won't change anything.

« Reply #23 on: September 21, 2017, 08:54 »
0
[
Then you would be happy with sales like these? Under 10c per download. Why do you defend Getty when it's obvious that they have been lowering our earnings and finding new ways to lower commissions, every year.



Low commissions from Premium Access actually value the images more highly than standard RF sales.

In a standard RF sale, you get a few dollars for selling the right to use the image basically for infinity.

In a Premium Access/pay per view you get a few cents for allowing a customer to use the image for a short period.

I'm quite happy with this. It's a good application of the principle of price discrimination. Sensible marketing to maximise income.

Returns on microstock are falling. That's due to market forces. Chill out. You can't do anything. The tiny commissions from PA/pay per view are actually a way of making you more money than you would have anyway

Would I like higher commissions? Of course. But it ain't gonna happen, is it? The trend is clear. You may not like it, but you can't stop it. So accept it, and stop stressing yourself out.


« Reply #24 on: September 21, 2017, 08:57 »
+2
According to the little subtext, it says that everyone now gets only 15% instead of 20, not just the non exclusive istock artists.

So you submit exclusive content to getty and only get 15%. If you are supplying getty via a third party, then you only  get a percentag from the 15%.

For instance Eyeem splits their getty earnings 50% with their photographers. This would mean we will only get 7,5% going forward.



 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
14 Replies
3657 Views
Last post April 21, 2009, 20:59
by RacePhoto
QC 5 days?

Started by CD123 Alamy.com

16 Replies
6915 Views
Last post March 22, 2011, 19:43
by Blufish
7 Replies
1291 Views
Last post March 12, 2013, 16:09
by rubyroo
41 Replies
6636 Views
Last post March 12, 2015, 21:49
by YadaYadaYada
6 Replies
1707 Views
Last post April 27, 2016, 09:42
by marthamarks

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors