pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStock is SO BAD THESE DAYS  (Read 1624 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: September 04, 2017, 04:48 »
+3
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 »
+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.


« 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 »
+3
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 »
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.

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 »
+1
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 »
+1
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.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
14 Replies
3587 Views
Last post April 21, 2009, 20:59
by RacePhoto
QC 5 days?

Started by CD123 Alamy.com

16 Replies
6625 Views
Last post March 22, 2011, 19:43
by Blufish
7 Replies
1120 Views
Last post March 12, 2013, 16:09
by rubyroo
41 Replies
5998 Views
Last post March 12, 2015, 21:49
by YadaYadaYada
6 Replies
1601 Views
Last post April 27, 2016, 09:42
by marthamarks

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors