Author Topic: Istock raises payouts to partner program (Read 39049 times)

borg · « **Reply #25 on:** February 24, 2011, 05:23 »

Quote from: ShadySue on February 24, 2011, 05:16

Quote from: borg on February 24, 2011, 05:12
This is the attack on Shutterstock!!!!
Indeed, I was just about to add the following to my earlier post, but will add it here.
At first, I was happy with the idea that we (!!) would be stealing sales from Shutterstock, but with everything that's happened at iStock since then, I'd rather there were other agencies and not one monopoly that could then screw us even harder.

Maybe they have plan to shut down Istockphoto also one day... True value is in customers, when someone want to buy site, he doing that only because of market part of that site...
So, they try to redirect subs customers to Thinkstock, also Veeta and Agency collection is step to traditional RF and RM and that part of customers they will redirect to Getty in a future..
Probably they don't want to have double crew on more than one site...

ShadySue · « **Reply #26 on:** February 24, 2011, 05:27 »

Quote from: aeonf on February 24, 2011, 05:16

OT: How can I know exactly how many of my photos are ACTUALLY on the PP site (Thinkstock) ?

IIRC you can put your real name into the search box.

aeonf · « **Reply #27 on:** February 24, 2011, 05:33 »

Quote from: ShadySue on February 24, 2011, 05:27

Quote from: aeonf on February 24, 2011, 05:16
OT: How can I know exactly how many of my photos are ACTUALLY on the PP site (Thinkstock) ?
IIRC you can put your real name into the search box.

Nop. Doesn't work.

qwerty · « **Reply #28 on:** February 24, 2011, 05:37 »

is there any change to the commissions via the old stockxpert ?

What would be acceptable ?

30c like we got at stockxpert ?
33-38c like shutterstock ?

ShadySue · « **Reply #29 on:** February 24, 2011, 06:20 »

Quote from: aeonf on February 24, 2011, 05:33

Quote from: ShadySue on February 24, 2011, 05:27
Quote from: aeonf on February 24, 2011, 05:16
OT: How can I know exactly how many of my photos are ACTUALLY on the PP site (Thinkstock) ?
IIRC you can put your real name into the search box.

Nop. Doesn't work.

Sorry. I'm pretty sure it used to. I double checked with an iStocker's image I knew was there. Couldn't find it by his real name or user name (but the image is still there, triple check).
Hopefully someone else knows.

Ariene · « **Reply #30 on:** February 24, 2011, 06:34 »

Used to work with:
'name surname'
but today I don't see my images too.

Ploink · « **Reply #31 on:** February 24, 2011, 06:40 »

Quote from: Ariene on February 24, 2011, 06:34

Used to work with:
'name surname'
but today I don't see my images too.

I just used "Real Name" and it worked as it always did

Maybe it's double vs. single quotes?

ShadySue · « **Reply #32 on:** February 24, 2011, 06:55 »

Quote from: Ploink on February 24, 2011, 06:40

Quote from: Ariene on February 24, 2011, 06:34
Used to work with:
'name surname'
but today I don't see my images too.

I just used "Real Name" and it worked as it always did Maybe it's double vs. single quotes?

I forgot the double quotes.

Tx!

aeonf · « **Reply #33 on:** February 24, 2011, 08:14 »

Ploink: thanks, worked like a charm!

ThomasAmby · « **Reply #34 on:** February 24, 2011, 09:03 »

Quote from: Eco on February 24, 2011, 00:35

28c for non-exclusives?

I will remain opted out and I encourage all other non-exclusives to do the same.

+1

Not falling for that

Microstock Posts · « **Reply #35 on:** February 24, 2011, 09:04 »

Quote from: sharpshot on February 24, 2011, 05:21

This is just another insult. 28 cents is still below what was being paid by StockXpert years ago, 30 cents. It's still 10 cents lower than I get with Shutterstock and all they have done is stop the other sites from raising their subs commissions.

And I presume the only way I could supply them is through istock and I don't upload there any more because 17% commission doesn't interest me.

Getty/istock have really gone a long way to ruin my desire to be a microstock contributor. The fact that they can't even bring themselves to match the old StockXpert subs commissions doesn't restore my faith in them, it feels like another big let down. I will stay opted out and recommend any subs buyers go to shutterstock, as they have a much better collection and give their higher selling contributors a much fairer commission.

But don't they just not want non-exclusives? All their actions indicate that they do everything possible to deter non-exclusives, without actually saying out loud we don't want you.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #36 on:** February 24, 2011, 09:11 »

I guess we now know why the constant forced grab for content from the recent 'lypses for the PP.

gostwyck · « **Reply #37 on:** February 24, 2011, 09:25 »

Quote from: Komar on February 24, 2011, 09:04

But don't they just not want non-exclusives? All their actions indicate that they do everything possible to deter non-exclusives, without actually saying out loud we don't want you.

Of course they want non-exclusive content. They're just not prepared to pay fairly for it.

Even if they matched subscription commission levels at other agencies I don't think I'd participate. I just don't feel I can trust them. Nobody ever seems to know when and how their sales are going to be reported or paid and I don't know how anyone can have confidence that the reports are accurate. I don't think they care enough about it to provide the necessary resources.

Those of you that are in the PP should consider clubbing together and buying a month's subscription to test whether sales are being accurately reported. If you download most of the entitlement then the cost should be minimal as you'll be reimbursed through commissions.

ShadySue · « **Reply #38 on:** February 24, 2011, 09:49 »

Quote from: sjlocke on February 24, 2011, 09:11

I guess we now know why the constant forced grab for content from the recent 'lypses for the PP.

Kudos to you for actually getting them to state the enforced content grab.
After the Japan bash, you'd have thought they'd have been right upfront with this one, but even after you questioned it several times, they dithered and swithered about whether they were actually going to admit it.
I guess all the woo-wayers will still be in the bucket, though.
But at least you forced 'fully informed consent'.

caspixel · « **Reply #39 on:** February 24, 2011, 10:21 »

What boggles my mind is that people are thanking iStock for an 8 cent raise. Is my memory faulty, or didn't they recently CUT PP royalties? And now they are giving it back and people are woo-yaying? Classic iStockholm Syndrome.

mlwinphoto · « **Reply #40 on:** February 24, 2011, 10:56 »

Quote from: ThomasAmby on February 24, 2011, 09:03

Quote from: Eco on February 24, 2011, 00:35
28c for non-exclusives?

I will remain opted out and I encourage all other non-exclusives to do the same.

+1 Not falling for that

Ditto!!

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #41 on:** February 24, 2011, 11:01 »

Quote from: caspixel on February 24, 2011, 10:21

What boggles my mind is that people are thanking iStock for an 8 cent raise. Is my memory faulty, or didn't they recently CUT PP royalties? And now they are giving it back and people are woo-yaying? Classic iStockholm Syndrome.

I don't think they changed PP royalties recently. There was the huge fuss when it was first announced and they changed the percentage system to the flat rate, but after that, I think it has stayed the same.

If I were independent and opted in already I'd be happy to take the extra few cents, although I'd be more concerned to have the portal to get new content to the site actually working. If I were one of the exclusives who chose to opt in earlier, the extra money would be a plus, but not a big one. They didn't touch the 20% on "image pack" sales, I notice.

With subscription sites the big thing is volume - SS has it and almost everywhere else doesn't. I watch the monthly threads where those in the PP report earnings, and it still seems pretty low numbers to me.

Starbucks · « **Reply #42 on:** February 24, 2011, 11:28 »

Quote from: caspixel on February 24, 2011, 10:21

iStockholm Syndrome.

Funny, clever, and a little accurate.

Freedom · « **Reply #43 on:** February 24, 2011, 13:18 »

Even though the raise does not excite me, iStock's PP never bothers me because the contributor is the decision maker, you can opt in or out. Not only that, you can decide which ones you want to opt in. If you don't like it, stay out of it.

The raise is better than a cut or mandatory opt-in, let's put it this way.

Risamay · « **Reply #44 on:** February 24, 2011, 13:25 »

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that there was some change. Maybe per the institution of RCs or going from a percentage to a flat rate. I can't recall now. There have been so many changes over the last year, it's hard to keep track and keep them all straight.

As I have PP files and earn a pittance now from ISP, I'm happy to have the additional $0.08 - though, I'm not doing cartwheels. But money DOES make me happy, so the tiny extra is welcome.

melastmohican · « **Reply #45 on:** February 24, 2011, 14:29 »

I decided to opt out now after participating since ThinkStock was opened. Results are actually pathetic and number of downloads is going down. They were not able to attract enough buyers to make it viable competition to Shutterstock so I will no longer going to help them competing :-)

lisafx · « **Reply #46 on:** February 24, 2011, 17:14 »

Well, most of my opinions on this have been well covered, but I will add to the chorus in case anyone's counting up who feels how...

My first reaction is happiness that, apparently, the boycott of TS by many of us has been successful in starving it for content. It is rewarding to have this tangible confirmation that if enough of us band together, we can affect the conditions we work under.

Of course, .28 is ridiculous. I've seen the figure of an 8 cent raise mentioned several times, but for independents it's just a 3 cent raise. And still 2 cents under what we were making through StockXpert two years ago. Not tempting. Sorry.

Funny thing is, if they had simply kept us at the .30 we were making when they bought StockXpert, I would have stayed opted in. But now, seeing how Getty wants to undermine the fairer agencies, how they have been directing Istock buyers to Thinkstock, and their insatiable greed and ruthlessness toward contributors and buyers alike, I can't imagine myself supporting them, even if the .30 was offered.

Because of the income I have built up on Istock, I can't afford to quit them right now. But I don't have any TS income, so I can definitely afford not to start up with them in the first place. I object to helping Getty further undermine the industry where I make my living. And fortunately, the lowball offer of .28 makes the decision that much easier

And to everyone who has been opted in to the partner program and is getting a raise as a result of those who have stood firm against it: You're welcome.

iclick · « **Reply #47 on:** February 24, 2011, 17:49 »

Quote from: Sadstock on February 23, 2011, 20:33

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=307512&page=1

Here are the new Partner Program commissions, (retroactively) effective January 1, 2011:

Non-exclusives will earn 28¢ per download (was 25¢).

Exclusives will earn the following amounts per download, according to their current royalty level here at iStock:
25% at iStock - 38¢ (was 30¢)
30% – 40¢ (was 32¢)
35% – 42¢ (was 34¢)
40% – 44¢ (was 36¢)
45% – 46¢ (was 38¢)

So Istock is seeking to encourage participation at the low end while discouraging it at the mid-level (cutting commissions)

JJRD's comment "Thanks to you for fighting, KK." seems to suggest that KK wanted to raise PP payouts, but somebody above him needed convincing.

Insert jokes about sustainability here

28 cents?? you have to be kidding me, and we are suppoised to be thankful for that? Thanks but no thanks!

This is so transparent...... so now they want our support? IS/Getty may just get a wake up call that support and respect is a two way thing and hard to regain once lost!

iclick · « **Reply #48 on:** February 24, 2011, 18:00 »

Quote from: lisafx on February 24, 2011, 17:14

My first reaction is happiness that, apparently, the boycott of TS by many of us has been successful in starving it for content. It is rewarding to have this tangible confirmation that if enough of us band together, we can affect the conditions we work under.

I object to helping Getty further undermine the industry where I make my living. And fortunately, the lowball offer of .28 makes the decision that much easier

+1

Phil · « **Reply #49 on:** February 24, 2011, 18:03 »

I cant get past the thinking that this is offered now, people say yay! add 2 million images and next year we have, oh its not sustainable / need more money for marketing and it will get cut back down.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Istock raises payouts to partner program (Read 39049 times)

borg

ShadySue

aeonf

qwerty

ShadySue

Ariene

Ploink

ShadySue

aeonf

ThomasAmby

Microstock Posts

Sean Locke Photography

gostwyck

ShadySue

caspixel

mlwinphoto

Jo Ann Snover

Starbucks

Freedom

Risamay

melastmohican

lisafx

iclick

iclick

Phil

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors