Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 26, 2012, 16:50

MicrostockGroup

MicrostockGroup » Forum » Top Tier - Big 4 » iStockPhoto.com » Revised targets

Microstockgroup Sponsors

« previous next »

Pages: [1] 2

Topic: Revised targets

(Read 2854 times)

ShadySue

Premium Member

« on: December 22, 2011, 17:45 »

#link

Istock have revised their targets downwards.
Felicitations to those who will benefit.


	Ignore \| Logged

fotografer

Premium Member

« Reply #1 on: December 22, 2011, 17:50 »

#link

I will still be going from 18% to 17%, pathetic!!!!!! Even sites like 123rf and bigstock are starting to catch up


	Ignore \| Logged

PaulieWalnuts

« Reply #2 on: December 22, 2011, 17:51 »

#link

Quote from: ShadySue on December 22, 2011, 17:45

Istock have revised their targets downwards.
Felicitations to those who will benefit.

Here, let me help you with the link


	Ignore \| Logged

Perry

« Reply #3 on: December 22, 2011, 17:53 »

#link

LOL they moved my next target from 40,000 to 35,000 (-12,5%) but in the meantime my sales are down -50% from previous year.


	Ignore \| Logged

ShadySue

Premium Member

« Reply #4 on: December 22, 2011, 17:54 »

#link

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on December 22, 2011, 17:51

Quote from: ShadySue on December 22, 2011, 17:45

Istock have revised their targets downwards.
Felicitations to those who will benefit.

Here, let me help you with the link

Whoops

Tx.


	Ignore \| Logged

Freedom

« Reply #5 on: December 22, 2011, 18:16 »

#link

Congrats to those who will benefit!

I have reached my target for this year, the revision still gives me a more realistic goal to work towards to next year. I am glad that iStock has listened.


	Ignore \| Logged

luissantos84

« Reply #6 on: December 22, 2011, 18:18 »

#link

2009: 48 downloads
2010: 336 downloads (1403 credits)
2011: 629 downloads (3476 credits)

what will we have in 2012?


	Ignore \| Logged

« Reply #7 on: December 22, 2011, 18:35 »

#link

Quote from: Freedom on December 22, 2011, 18:16

I have reached my target for this year, the revision still gives me a more realistic goal to work towards to next year. I am glad that iStock has listened.

How is that? These revisions don't imply a thing really about what next year's targets might be.

This year's targets were set the same as the initial targets for last year. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see the same targets once again being used for 2013's targets.

As for iStock listening; sorry, I don't buy that a bit. They have shown far too many times that they don't listen. Whatever reason they had for lowering the targets to these numbers, it had nothing to do with listening.


	Ignore \| Logged

lthn

« Reply #8 on: December 22, 2011, 18:41 »

#link

I heard the rumor that they soon gonna revise the independent percentage tiers too:

15%
15.1%
15.2%
15.3%
15.3% + a happy meal
15.3% + a happy meal + a krispy kreme donut

the inside source said that after some brainstorming they simply figured the current tiers weren't insultive enough


	Ignore \| Logged

kelby

« Reply #9 on: December 22, 2011, 18:44 »

#link

this mean that istock has sold less content than the previous year, in particular for photos !!???!!!???
nothing to be happy Sad


	Ignore \| Logged

ShadySue

Premium Member

« Reply #10 on: December 22, 2011, 18:45 »

#link

Quote from: kelby on December 22, 2011, 18:44

this mean that istock has sold less content than the previous year, in particular for photos !!???!!!???

They revised downwards last year too.


	Ignore \| Logged

« Reply #11 on: December 22, 2011, 18:46 »

#link

Quote from: ShadySue on December 22, 2011, 18:45

Quote from: kelby on December 22, 2011, 18:44

this mean that istock has sold less content than the previous year, in particular for photos !!???!!!???

They revised downwards last year too.

But this year's downwards revisions are larger than last year (i.e., lower).

If they had lowered them to this level last year, I'd be a bit less pissed at them! Grin


	Ignore \| Logged

wolfman

New Member

« Reply #12 on: December 22, 2011, 18:52 »

#link


« Last Edit: December 22, 2011, 18:56 by wolfman »	Ignore \| Logged

wolfman

New Member

« Reply #13 on: December 22, 2011, 18:55 »

#link

Quote from: Freedom on December 22, 2011, 18:16

Congrats to those who will benefit!

I have reached my target for this year, the revision still gives me a more realistic goal to work towards to next year. I am glad that iStock has listened.

Dude if you think they've listened you are dillusional.

A lot of people are experiencing 40% drops since last year and istock reduce some levels 12.5% - do the maths and tell me who's winning in this scenario.


	Ignore \| Logged

Freedom

« Reply #14 on: December 22, 2011, 19:12 »

#link

I interpret it differently. It means that iStock has had a bigger profit margin in 2011 (due to higher prices), so it can afford to let more contributors into higher RC levels and remain "sustainable". I see this as a good sign, and not a doom's day signal.

Quote from: kelby on December 22, 2011, 18:44

this mean that istock has sold less content than the previous year, in particular for photos !!???!!!???
nothing to be happy Sad


	Ignore \| Logged

gostwyck

« Reply #15 on: December 22, 2011, 19:32 »

#link

Quote from: wolfman on December 22, 2011, 18:55

Quote from: Freedom on December 22, 2011, 18:16

Congrats to those who will benefit!

I have reached my target for this year, the revision still gives me a more realistic goal to work towards to next year. I am glad that iStock has listened.

Yes but they can't possibly admit to just how far sales have fallen can they? It's both commercially sensitive and extremely embarassing for Istock. Expect more of the same in future years. The dam has been breached. The only question now is at what point they'll be able to stem the flow.


	Ignore \| Logged

jsnover

Premium Member

« Reply #16 on: December 22, 2011, 20:11 »

#link

The change means nothing to me. Last year I had almost 45K RCs and this year it looks like I'll be just under 30K. The good news is that it's only from 18% to 17% and sales are so crappy, it matters less and less what happens there.

Why did the illustrators get royally shafted? I read masses of reports of people experiencing large drops in sales and yet all but one level of illustrator stays exactly the same. I know the issue of the real disparities between the media was worked over when this sorry system was introduced, but looking at what it takes to get to the highest level of illustration royalties versus for photos, it's reverse unfairness. You just about double the 40/19% level and you get 45/20 if you're an illustrator, but for a photographer you have to make almost 10x the 40/19% level to get 45/20.

Reminds me of gerrymandered congressional districts drawn in weird and whacky shapes to suit those in power.


	Ignore \| Logged

WarrenPrice

« Reply #17 on: December 22, 2011, 20:17 »

#link

Quote from: jsnover on December 22, 2011, 20:11

The change means nothing to me. Last year I had almost 45K RCs and this year it looks like I'll be just under 30K. The good news is that it's only from 18% to 17% and sales are so crappy, it matters less and less what happens there.

Why did the illustrators get royally shafted? I read masses of reports of people experiencing large drops in sales and yet all but one level of illustrator stays exactly the same. I know the issue of the real disparities between the media was worked over when this sorry system was introduced, but looking at what it takes to get to the highest level of illustration royalties versus for photos, it's reverse unfairness. You just about double the 40/19% level and you get 45/20 if you're an illustrator, but for a photographer you have to make almost 10x the 40/19% level to get 45/20.

Reminds me of gerrymandered congressional districts drawn in weird and whacky shapes to suit those in power.

Are you from Texas? Roll Eyes


	Ignore \| Logged

gostwyck

« Reply #18 on: December 22, 2011, 20:21 »

#link

Quote from: jsnover on December 22, 2011, 20:11

Reminds me of gerrymandered congressional districts drawn in weird and whacky shapes to suit those in power.

Well obviously it is 'gerrymandered' in that the system is precisely designed to produce the outcome that they want. If things change then they simply adjust the targets to suit __ or maybe not, but always in their favour anyway. Heads Istock wins, tails you lose.


	Ignore \| Logged

Sadstock

« Reply #19 on: December 22, 2011, 20:36 »

#link

Quote from: gostwyck on December 22, 2011, 20:21

Quote from: jsnover on December 22, 2011, 20:11

Reminds me of gerrymandered congressional districts drawn in weird and whacky shapes to suit those in power.

-------------------------------------------------------

So true. Why else would they be adjusting the 40% targets for illustration and flash but not for the other percentages?


	Ignore \| Logged

jsnover

Premium Member

« Reply #20 on: December 22, 2011, 20:37 »

#link

Quote from: WarrenPrice on December 22, 2011, 20:17

Quote from: jsnover on December 22, 2011, 20:11

...
Reminds me of gerrymandered congressional districts drawn in weird and whacky shapes to suit those in power.

Are you from Texas? Roll Eyes

No, but I lived in Austin for 3 years, so I do follow along. That skinny district snaking from Austin to San Antonio caught my attention...


	Ignore \| Logged

Sadstock

« Reply #21 on: December 22, 2011, 20:45 »

#link

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on December 22, 2011, 17:51

Quote from: ShadySue on December 22, 2011, 17:45

Istock have revised their targets downwards.
Felicitations to those who will benefit.

Here, let me help you with the link

-----------------------------------------

All the people in the thread thanking Istock for its generosity makes me ill. It was Istock's decisions that put these folks percentage at risk, so Istock does not deserve any praise for the change.

Note who announced this news? "iStockHQ"! Guess nobody there has the guts to put their name out there and take responsibility for the RC system and the grief they will get about it.


	Ignore \| Logged

Freedom

« Reply #22 on: December 22, 2011, 21:17 »

#link

They probably won't admit bad news, but they have to answer to their bosses and shareholders. If they have lost profits, they will definitely not be handing out candies.

Quote from: gostwyck on December 22, 2011, 19:32

Quote from: wolfman on December 22, 2011, 18:55

Quote from: Freedom on December 22, 2011, 18:16

Congrats to those who will benefit!

I have reached my target for this year, the revision still gives me a more realistic goal to work towards to next year. I am glad that iStock has listened.


	Ignore \| Logged

jbarber873

« Reply #23 on: December 22, 2011, 21:18 »

#link

Big change downward in the video targets as well. One of the rarely commented on issues at Istock is their antiquated, soviet-era upload system for video, and the insanely long time for reviews. They get woo-yays and fawning thanks from the regulars when the queue gets down to 6 weeks. Non-exclusives can wait 2 months or more, usually more. Meanwhile the other outlets for video are selling better, reviewing in week or less, and make uploading much easier. Given that SS pays better than Istock for non-exclusive video sales, I have been submitting less and less of my content to Istock. But now, with that extra 1%- woo-yay!


	Ignore \| Logged

pixdeluxe

« Reply #24 on: December 23, 2011, 01:12 »

#link

After talking with iStock about the RC targets, their announcement was a lot more generous than I was hoping for. Overall, 2011 has been a steady year with steady growth. Downloads are down 8% but overall revenue up about 15% and there was some good momentum during the last few months, I hope that is carried into 2012 and beyond..
Biggest change for 2011 has been the introduction of exclusive vetta & agency content to Getty which adds 10% revenue monthly.

I think (and hope) the old dog has some life in her yet.


	Ignore \| Logged

Pages: [1] 2

« previous next »

Jump to:

Related Topics
	Subject	Started by	Replies	Views	Last post
	Kelly announces slightly downsized RC targets « 1 2 ... 7 8 » iStockPhoto.com	ShadySue	198	12526	January 20, 2011, 06:13 by ShadySue
	Will you benefit from Istock's revised RC credit targets? « 1 2 » iStockPhoto.com	lisafx	42	3016	February 11, 2011, 21:57 by VB inc
	Second delay in RC targets « 1 2 » iStockPhoto.com	gclk	32	2612	April 01, 2011, 05:13 by ProArtwork
	IS New Members Per Year - Revised iStockPhoto.com	RacePhoto	6	484	November 10, 2011, 19:23 by Mantis
	2012 RC targets. Postoponed again because of their desperate best match change? iStockPhoto.com	wut	18	971	December 27, 2011, 17:11 by ShadySue

Microstockgroup Sponsors

MicrostockGroup Email Updates

Microstock Poll Results

Site	Earnings Rating
Top Tier - Big 4
Shutterstock	100
iStock	66.7
Fotolia	34.9
Dreamstime	26.7

Middle Tier
DepositPhotos	21.6
123RF	16.3
Canstockphoto	11.2
Bigstockphoto	9.5
Veer	8.7

Low Earners
PantherMedia	6.7
PhotoDune	5.8
isignstock	4.1
Zoonar	3.5
GLStockImages	2.7
Stockfresh	2.2
YayMicro	1.8
FeaturePics	1.4
MostPhotos	1.3
ScanStockPhoto	1.1
Crestock	0.8
Cutcaster	0.6
AllYouCanStock	0.1
ClipartOf
Pond5
RevoStock
Clipcanvas
DrawShop
ClipDealer
PhotoSpin
VectorStock
GraphicRiver
Pixmac
PhotoCase
The3dStudio
photaki
SuperHug
PhotoKore
StockPhotoMedia
Regimages
ImageVortex
Imagegate
ViscoImages
iRockStock
Vivozoom

More Poll Results Updated: 2012-05-26

Advertise on Microstockgroup.com | Contact: [email protected]