MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Istock Second "Explanation" to Contributors  (Read 15990 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: September 09, 2010, 15:15 »
0
Why couldn't Istockphoto just leave their 20% as a base and added more to contributors with more yearly sales? I am sure that would have been fine with most people. And it wouldn't make them "less profitable". Simple as that. If you don't take greed into account.

I have to wonder the same thing. 20% isn't that much. This explanation doesn't really hold water for non-exclusives. They make more off of exclusives sales because of the price difference. Even at 45%. Why take even more from the contributors that can't increase their earnings? Also, they say 76% of exclusives won't lose. What percent of their contributors are exclusive?

My guess is that they put the screws to independents in hope that exclusives would feel better about what's happening to them.  It's a kind of "Don't Raise the Bridge; Lower The River" approach to supplier relations.  "You think you have it bad?  Hah!"  Didn't work, though.


« Reply #26 on: September 09, 2010, 15:38 »
0
Their business modell is not working - they said it - because the royalty percentage of exclusives is contantly raising and it is too much for them now. I accept cuz I see why is it happening. So what they do? They cut the royalty of the independents even below the base level? Is this fair?

« Reply #27 on: September 09, 2010, 15:48 »
0
Their business modell is not working - they said it - because the royalty percentage of exclusives is contantly raising and it is too much for them now. I accept cuz I see why is it happening. So what they do? They cut the royalty of the independents even below the base level? Is this fair?

Of course it's not fair. Twenty effing percent is grossly 'unfair' as it is. Why do you 'accept' them stating that their business model is not working? That is obviously utter bollocks too. The only thing that is 'unsustainable' is the insatable greed of Istock's management.

If you let them get away with this one then it'll just get even worse next year ... and so on.

« Reply #28 on: September 09, 2010, 15:50 »
0
The point is simple.  They are working on trying to make iStock exclusive only and pay 20%.

They will continue to drop the % for non-exclusives until they all leave (or work for free).  In the process they will drive exclusives down also to 20% like the rest of Getty and throw a few unreachable goals to keep the mice turning the wheel.

Once that is done, the door to iStock will be exclusive only and 20% (or less starting out).

That is my prediction.  Only time will tell.

As others have said, its not about "losing" money or being about to "sustain" the business; its about their long term (or short) goals and how they can get there.

This is exactly how I see it, too.

ap

« Reply #29 on: September 09, 2010, 16:05 »
0
The point is simple.  They are working on trying to make iStock exclusive only and pay 20%.

They will continue to drop the % for non-exclusives until they all leave (or work for free).  In the process they will drive exclusives down also to 20% like the rest of Getty and throw a few unreachable goals to keep the mice turning the wheel.

Once that is done, the door to iStock will be exclusive only and 20% (or less starting out).

That is my prediction.  Only time will tell.

if that is the case, it's in every photographer's interest to be proactive and promote other agencies to take istock's place.

« Reply #30 on: September 09, 2010, 16:09 »
0
In the most basic terms that means that iStock becomes less profitable with increased success.

I've never heard that any company can become less profitable with increased success...

« Reply #31 on: September 09, 2010, 16:31 »
0
In the most basic terms that means that iStock becomes less profitable with increased success.

I've never heard that any company can become less profitable with increased success...

I don't know much about stock but I guess when the royalties go down, it would be hard to raise right?...

« Reply #32 on: September 09, 2010, 16:51 »
0
I just had a .16 sale there, I guess next year maybe I'll be getting .12 sales or something like that. ouch.

What is unsustainable is the bonuses for the executives. If they can't run their business with 80% of the take, that is pathetic. They really should be able to be profitable with 60%. I'd gladly trade with them... I hope they get reamed by their suppliers and buyers over this nonsense.

--=Tom

« Reply #33 on: September 09, 2010, 16:59 »
0
Their business modell is not working - they said it - because the royalty percentage of exclusives is contantly raising and it is too much for them now. I accept cuz I see why is it happening. So what they do? They cut the royalty of the independents even below the base level? Is this fair?

Of course it's not fair. Twenty effing percent is grossly 'unfair' as it is. Why do you 'accept' them stating that their business model is not working? That is obviously utter bollocks too. The only thing that is 'unsustainable' is the insatable greed of Istock's management.

If you let them get away with this one then it'll just get even worse next year ... and so on.

Well, what I say might sound a bit dispassionate... but I belive it is true.
They know their business better. I accept what they say because it sounds logical. I can understand why do they want to change the current royalty stucture and I agee the direction they have choosen. I just don't like the numbers they attached to it. And I tell you why... because I don't mind/buy what a company tells. As I don't mind how they calculate my royalty... I do not mind if they make a lot more money on my images as I do. This is how the world goes. But there is one thing I do care, because it is the only real thing: how much income my whole portfolio is making for me in a months with that given agency. All the rest are just reasoning and complications.
I am worried cuz I think my income will be lower if they lower my royalty percentage. Yes, they will lower it for sure cuz there is no chance I'll reach that 1,4mil credits. But who does?
Currently all the other agencies are going up while IS is going down when I look at my monthly figures (from the very 1st place they felt back to the 3rd) and this is not a good sign together with a royalty decrease.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2010, 17:02 by NitorPhoto »

« Reply #34 on: September 09, 2010, 17:07 »
0
WE ARE NOT HELPLESS WE HAVE THE MEDIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  PLEASE ALERT YOUR LOCAL MEDIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  EVERY   VOICE COUNTS!!!!!!!!!!!!


http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20015830-264.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20&refresh=1284065078008

http://techcrunch.com/2009/06/24/microstock-photography-is-getting-big-istockphoto-projects-200-million-in-revenues/


eheheeh I will call TVI (portuguese tv channel) :P

« Reply #35 on: September 10, 2010, 02:54 »
0
I've never heard that an agency takes even greater percentage of earnings from their partners (in this case contributors) just because a "joint business" is growing....
« Last Edit: September 10, 2010, 02:56 by borg »

RT


« Reply #36 on: September 10, 2010, 03:45 »
0
But there is one thing I do care, because it is the only real thing: how much income my whole portfolio is making for me in a months with that given agency.

This is my way of thinking also.

« Reply #37 on: September 10, 2010, 04:41 »
0
The facts that there wasn't any reference to the change in yesterday's Contact Sheet for contributors, and that no more answers have been provided in the forum, could indicate they could be planning some softening changes (and that wouldn't be a fast or easy task, because they should satisfy many people, newbies, veterans, independants, exclusives without losing some increase in their margins, as they pretend).

But maybe I'm wrong.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2010, 04:43 by loop »

« Reply #38 on: September 10, 2010, 04:53 »
0
The point is simple.  They are working on trying to make iStock exclusive only and pay 20%.

They will continue to drop the % for non-exclusives until they all leave (or work for free).  In the process they will drive exclusives down also to 20% like the rest of Getty and throw a few unreachable goals to keep the mice turning the wheel.

Once that is done, the door to iStock will be exclusive only and 20% (or less starting out).

That is my prediction.  Only time will tell.

As others have said, its not about "losing" money or being about to "sustain" the business; its about their long term (or short) goals and how they can get there.

+++++1  And we have a winner!
The sad irony is they are modeling the profitable segment of their business after the unprofitable segment.  They don't care about losing non-exclusives or the casual contributor because they are planning on doing their "crowdsourcing" through Flickr.

lagereek

« Reply #39 on: September 10, 2010, 06:56 »
0
AND??  what future exclusive ( unless lobotomized) do you think is going to trust any agency acting in this way when their heads could be on the block next time?

forget it,  Getty wants more money, its as simple as that. There are many, many Diamond independants raking in a fortune to IS!  now if they were to force them out, they would obviously go somewhere else, increasing the competition even more, i.e. one companys loss is another ones gain.

You might think IS, is stupid but I dont think theyre insane.

RT


« Reply #40 on: September 10, 2010, 07:07 »
0
The point is simple.  They are working on trying to make iStock exclusive only and pay 20%.

Exclusivity in RF means nothing these days, the images on Getty's main site aren't all exclusive and haven't been for a long time, I can't see any reason why they'd want iS as an all exclusive agency.

I agree with lagereeks statement "Getty wants more money"

« Reply #41 on: September 10, 2010, 07:54 »
0
The point is simple.  They are working on trying to make iStock exclusive only and pay 20%.

Exclusivity in RF means nothing these days, the images on Getty's main site aren't all exclusive and haven't been for a long time, I can't see any reason why they'd want iS as an all exclusive agency.

I agree with lagereeks statement "Getty wants more money"

OK Getty wants more money.  They don't want to pay more than 20% to any contributor.  They want to maintain the illusion of Exslcusivity for marketing purposes and therefore need to maintain some spread between exclusive and non-exclusive content.  They aren't trying to get rid of independent contributors; they just don't care if they keep them.
Seriously there are major parts of this decision that seem to defy logic.

« Reply #42 on: September 10, 2010, 08:39 »
0
What's this "Agency" stuff? Is it top drawer work or crap that Getty can't sell elsewhere. Also, is the royalty locked in at 20% or above for these new contributors, forcing IS to claw it back from their current slaves? Whenever I see something like this I wonder at the back story...having listened to years of corporate speak I know the top suits only ever give you a scratch and sniff, never the real thing.

« Reply #43 on: September 10, 2010, 09:00 »
0
The point is simple.  They are working on trying to make iStock exclusive only and pay 20%.

They will continue to drop the % for non-exclusives until they all leave (or work for free).  In the process they will drive exclusives down also to 20% like the rest of Getty and throw a few unreachable goals to keep the mice turning the wheel.

Once that is done, the door to iStock will be exclusive only and 20% (or less starting out).

That is my prediction.  Only time will tell.

As others have said, its not about "losing" money or being about to "sustain" the business; its about their long
term (or short) goals and how they can get there.

I feel that you are correct. This is probably the ultimate goal.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #44 on: September 10, 2010, 22:38 »
0
The point is simple.  They are working on trying to make iStock exclusive only and pay 20%.
They will continue to drop the % for non-exclusives until they all leave (or work for free).  In the process they will drive exclusives down also to 20% like the rest of Getty and throw a few unreachable goals to keep the mice turning the wheel.Once that is done, the door to iStock will be exclusive only and 20% (or less starting out).That is my prediction.  Only time will tell.
As others have said, its not about "losing" money or being about to "sustain" the business; its about their long term (or short) goals and how they can get there.

I'd agree with this. They now can move the goals whenever they want. And the goals won't be going down.

« Reply #45 on: September 11, 2010, 03:17 »
0
The facts that there wasn't any reference to the change in yesterday's Contact Sheet for contributors, and that no more answers have been provided in the forum, could indicate they could be planning some softening changes (and that wouldn't be a fast or easy task, because they should satisfy many people, newbies, veterans, independants, exclusives without losing some increase in their margins, as they pretend).

But maybe I'm wrong.
I think they were just afraid that even more people would know about it. Not everyone reads the forums.

RacePhoto

« Reply #46 on: September 13, 2010, 00:22 »
0
In the most basic terms that means that iStock becomes less profitable with increased success.

I've never heard that any company can become less profitable with increased success...

The people who wrote "Getty wants more money" are right, but here's their logic, which I understand but like you, can't agree with on the whole. It's flawed math as well.

The more that we make sales, if someone is an exclusive, the higher percentage the artists get, so more sales means lower percentages for Getty. However, as you pointed out, increased sales also mean more profits, even if they are at a lower rate. So their unsustainable rhetoric is pure BS. They make up the difference on volume! The problem is that people are making money and selling images (hey interesting concept, isn't that what we're supposed to do and the original claim?) but because they are reaching the higher canisters over time, Getty's cut is going down. Remember they are getting more sales volume, more income, just that they are forced to share a little higher percentage.

Independents don't count for anything, There are few exceptions, but IS and Getty couldn't care less if Ind. stay or leave. At 15% it's obvious that Getty isn't trying to enhance artists interests with potential profits. The message they are sending is, you can leave or stay, we don't care enough to pay you more than 15%!

Think about it for a minute. If independents were of value to IS, they would be encouraging us with income potential, not driving us away with lower commissions.

« Reply #47 on: September 13, 2010, 01:58 »
0
The point is simple.  They are working on trying to make iStock exclusive only and pay 20%.

Exclusivity in RF means nothing these days, the images on Getty's main site aren't all exclusive and haven't been for a long time, I can't see any reason why they'd want iS as an all exclusive agency.

I agree with lagereeks statement "Getty wants more money"

Well, but Getty results, with this formula, aren't and haven't been for years good at all. Maybe the should stick with the formula that really works.

RT


« Reply #48 on: September 13, 2010, 04:53 »
0
Well, but Getty results, with this formula, aren't and haven't been for years good at all. Maybe the should stick with the formula that really works.

What do you mean their results haven't been good for years?

« Reply #49 on: September 13, 2010, 05:15 »
0
Well, but Getty results, with this formula, aren't and haven't been for years good at all. Maybe the should stick with the formula that really works.

What do you mean their results haven't been good for years?

Well I think they have faced financial trouble and operating at loss, the same as Corbis and others. Actually it would be better Getty copying the formula of istock, than viceversa (what they tend to do now).


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
30 Replies
11543 Views
Last post September 30, 2008, 01:03
by RacePhoto
3 Replies
4176 Views
Last post December 17, 2010, 05:11
by anc
24 Replies
4740 Views
Last post September 26, 2011, 04:14
by michealo
141 Replies
24722 Views
Last post May 09, 2018, 10:05
by PZF
4 Replies
751 Views
Last post July 12, 2018, 08:25
by MatHayward

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors