MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: This is what got my iStock forum privileges and sitemail access revoked  (Read 102398 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

vlad_the_imp

« Reply #150 on: September 21, 2010, 10:17 »
0
Quote
contributors have seen decreases in downloads. I communicate with several (former) buyers. They have all pretty much phased iStock out of their purchasing.

This is no doubt true. My download numbers have dropped over the years but my sales have increased. As long as this continues I'm OK with it. Clients will definitely come and go, some will drop by the wayside as IS continue to try and position themselves at a higher point than other microstock companies. The Mom and Pop clients go to other sites, bigger fish fill the gap. Is this sustainable? Who know, none of us to be honest, and I have to admit every time there's a big hiccup I start bookmarking other sites but once it all settles down again I delete them One day something major will happen and I may be forced to go, and after the latest debacle I'll be less sorry to go than before, but I earn a good income and until it starts seriously dropping I'll stay put.


« Reply #151 on: September 21, 2010, 10:26 »
0
I understand the argument that everyone has the right to complain about changes and everyone deserves a fair commission, etc.  Which I 100% agree with.  There's a faction here that says downloads don't matter, and there's a faction that says that past performance does matter in judging the validity of the argument.  I do believe that DLs and tenure do matter because the statistical reference point that a person that has 38 downloads over 1 year or 500 downloads over 5 years carries much less weight than someone who is at 12000 dls over 3 years or something like that.  Experience is a huge player in almost any job and this is obviously no different.  

I'm not saying that people with crappy ports or low dls do not have valid arguments, and in a lot of cases they do, what I'm saying is that when people who are predicting the future from a such a small reference sample its hard to take that prediction seriously given the lack of data/experience to back up claims.

Then there's always those that just go off the deep end anyways....whatever it is...this off topic reply is just to try to incorporate the idea that dls and experience and portfolio exposure do matter a bit more than many peopel here are willing to admit.

You are right, the size of a portfolio and the number of sales is a reasonable metric for past experience in the microstock market.

Whether it is sufficient to give you any indication about things happening in the future after the recently announced changes (for which you have no equivalent data points in your past history, however successful you are) is a completely different questions.
My personal belief is that these changes are fundamentally different than any of the other changes in the past (e.g. price increases) that have been mentioned in this and other threads. Therefore extrapolating past experiences into the future might lead to wrong results.

On the other hand (as I have been on the receiving side of such comments as well I feel the need to comment) most of the times when the port size or sales numbers of member here have been brought up it was not in the context of how much experience was needed to take part in the discussion - mostly it seems to me that making such statements is nothing else but the attempt to attack the reputation of a person out of the lack of real arguments.

« Reply #152 on: September 21, 2010, 10:27 »
0
I understand the argument that everyone has the right to complain about changes and everyone deserves a fair commission, etc.  Which I 100% agree with.  There's a faction here that says downloads don't matter, and there's a faction that says that past performance does matter in judging the validity of the argument.  I do believe that DLs and tenure do matter because the statistical reference point that a person that has 38 downloads over 1 year or 500 downloads over 5 years carries much less weight than someone who is at 12000 dls over 3 years or something like that.  Experience is a huge player in almost any job and this is obviously no different.  

I'm not saying that people with crappy ports or low dls do not have valid arguments, and in a lot of cases they do, what I'm saying is that when people who are predicting the future from a such a small reference sample its hard to take that prediction seriously given the lack of data/experience to back up claims.

Then there's always those that just go off the deep end anyways....whatever it is...this off topic reply is just to try to incorporate the idea that dls and experience and portfolio exposure do matter a bit more than many peopel here are willing to admit.
Then it is safe to say that you are assuming that independents who choose not to upload significant amounts of images to istock also have small ports on other micro and macro sites.

Did it occur to you that many people who did not upload to istock because of the attitudes here at istock may have seen the pricing and royalty problems coming?

Did it ever occur to you that many of the submitters who are independents or exclusives with small ports on istock; have those small ports because they are working in the business fields which actually buy and use your images and that they make more producing advertising materials and web sites than the majority of exclusives do by shooting stock?

Those are the buyers you stand to lose and those are also the buyers who take note of the elitist and greedy comments made by the let them eat cake crowd.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2010, 10:31 by gbalex »

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #153 on: September 21, 2010, 10:27 »
0
I understand the argument that everyone has the right to complain about changes and everyone deserves a fair commission, etc.  Which I 100% agree with.  There's a faction here that says downloads don't matter, and there's a faction that says that past performance does matter in judging the validity of the argument.  I do believe that DLs and tenure do matter because the statistical reference point that a person that has 38 downloads over 1 year or 500 downloads over 5 years carries much less weight than someone who is at 12000 dls over 3 years or something like that.  Experience is a huge player in almost any job and this is obviously no different.  

I'm not saying that people with crappy ports or low dls do not have valid arguments, and in a lot of cases they do, what I'm saying is that when people who are predicting the future from a such a small reference sample its hard to take that prediction seriously given the lack of data/experience to back up claims.

Then there's always those that just go off the deep end anyways....whatever it is...this off topic reply is just to try to incorporate the idea that dls and experience and portfolio exposure do matter a bit more than many peopel here are willing to admit.

Oh I agree with what you say. Those with large ports do have more experience. The impact with the cuts will be felt more because their sales are more as well as their income, but you must also realize that if even a thousand contributors with small ports of say 100 or 500 leave....that's a loss of between 100,000 to 500,000 photos. If 500 with larger ports of say 2000, were to leave that is a loss of 1,000,000 more photos. Maybe it won't happen that way, only time will tell.

« Reply #154 on: September 21, 2010, 10:29 »
0
The weight of arguments on DLs doesn't wash. Im a new photographer, but ive been a buyer for 20 years. That being said, designers are motivated by price. Almost exclusively by price.

Ive watched the market for a long time. I have almost no DLs, but, my read on the industry and my opinions DO matter. Why? Most of my business friends are buyers, not contributors. The ones I have spoken with (2 major companies, major buyers), others being independent owners,  are exploring other options. Again, why? Not because of the price decrease for contributors, but because of all the high priced images that they have to slog through to get to the "regular" collection. Most of the buyers I have spoken with do what is comfortable and don't like to waste time changing. Right now they are exploring other companies, looking at price and how fast they can find what they need. I've given them lists to explore to help. Not because my stuff is there, but who I deem as fair to buyers and contributors.

You cannot judge people by their DLs or their anonymous status. You have no idea where they are coming from. I was taught a long time ago, do not burn your bridges, you never bow when you may need to cross it again.    

« Reply #155 on: September 21, 2010, 10:41 »
0
If 1000 buyers leave and each buyer buys 2000$ a year in photos, which could be pretty substantial that would mean that $2 million in revenue disappears.  If iStock has revenues in excess of 200 million, that would mean that approximatley 1% of business goes.  That is nothing more than the general ebb and flow, or maybe just slightly higher than that.  Those 1000 buyers are small little ants compared to the whole pie.  A small change that no one will even see.  And the few buyers that have already said they would leave probably don't combine to spend 2 mil.  Even at 10 million in lost revenue, I don't think that the impact is going to make that big of a difference. 

And to address the blufish point - I'm not saying I'm discounting everyone's opinion based on port size, I'm taking the credibility of the opinion of only contributors based on port size unless they indicate that they have some other information that they base their arguments on.

Another point was made that these changes are way radical:  no they aren't that radical.  And the outcome can be easily anticipated using buyer behaviour and contributor behaviour - especially similar to that from previous events.  May not be identical, but may be close enough to make it worthwhile using past data.  We do NOT operate in a vacuum, and these events are NOT mutually exclusive. 

« Reply #156 on: September 21, 2010, 10:42 »
0
--snip--

You cannot judge people by their DLs or their anonymous status. You have no idea where they are coming from. I was taught a long time ago, do not burn your bridges, you never know when you may need to cross it again.    

well said.

« Reply #157 on: September 21, 2010, 10:47 »
0
If 1000 buyers leave and each buyer buys 2000$ a year in photos, which could be pretty substantial that would mean that $2 million in revenue disappears.  If iStock has revenues in excess of 200 million, that would mean that approximatley 1% of business goes.  That is nothing more than the general ebb and flow, or maybe just slightly higher than that.  Those 1000 buyers are small little ants compared to the whole pie.  A small change that no one will even see.  And the few buyers that have already said they would leave probably don't combine to spend 2 mil.  Even at 10 million in lost revenue, I don't think that the impact is going to make that big of a difference. 

And to address the blufish point - I'm not saying I'm discounting everyone's opinion based on port size, I'm taking the credibility of the opinion of only contributors based on port size unless they indicate that they have some other information that they base their arguments on.

Another point was made that these changes are way radical:  no they aren't that radical.  And the outcome can be easily anticipated using buyer behaviour and contributor behaviour - especially similar to that from previous events.  May not be identical, but may be close enough to make it worthwhile using past data.  We do NOT operate in a vacuum, and these events are NOT mutually exclusive. 


The global recession could be a game changer.

Talk to a few advertising agencies and maybe a few of the people who work for them and ask them how business is doing?  Then ask them if price matters?

« Reply #158 on: September 21, 2010, 10:47 »
0
I understand the argument that everyone has the right to complain about changes and everyone deserves a fair commission, etc.  Which I 100% agree with.  There's a faction here that says downloads don't matter, and there's a faction that says that past performance does matter in judging the validity of the argument.  I do believe that DLs and tenure do matter because the statistical reference point that a person that has 38 downloads over 1 year or 500 downloads over 5 years carries much less weight than someone who is at 12000 dls over 3 years or something like that.  Experience is a huge player in almost any job and this is obviously no different.  

I'm not saying that people with crappy ports or low dls do not have valid arguments, and in a lot of cases they do, what I'm saying is that when people who are predicting the future from a such a small reference sample its hard to take that prediction seriously given the lack of data/experience to back up claims.

Then there's always those that just go off the deep end anyways....whatever it is...this off topic reply is just to try to incorporate the idea that dls and experience and portfolio exposure do matter a bit more than many peopel here are willing to admit.


So , if that's the case , why u wrote that i don't know what im talking about ?  

I believe that numbers say my portfolio is side to side with yours,  even on IS only ?   Both +1000 images both about 9000 dl and we started almost at same time ?

So please tell me you base your claims not to loose or even rise your % on what facts exactly ?

Please, please ,  tell me what u know and I don't , any fact  that is going to rise my optimism


Thank u

« Reply #159 on: September 21, 2010, 11:00 »
0
I understand the argument that everyone has the right to complain about changes and everyone deserves a fair commission, etc.  Which I 100% agree with.  There's a faction here that says downloads don't matter, and there's a faction that says that past performance does matter in judging the validity of the argument.  I do believe that DLs and tenure do matter because the statistical reference point that a person that has 38 downloads over 1 year or 500 downloads over 5 years carries much less weight than someone who is at 12000 dls over 3 years or something like that.  Experience is a huge player in almost any job and this is obviously no different.  

I'm not saying that people with crappy ports or low dls do not have valid arguments, and in a lot of cases they do, what I'm saying is that when people who are predicting the future from a such a small reference sample its hard to take that prediction seriously given the lack of data/experience to back up claims.

Then there's always those that just go off the deep end anyways....whatever it is...this off topic reply is just to try to incorporate the idea that dls and experience and portfolio exposure do matter a bit more than many peopel here are willing to admit.


So , if that's the case , why u wrote that i don't know what im talking about ?  

I believe that numbers say my portfolio is side to side with yours,  even on IS only ?   Both +1000 images both about 9000 dl and we started almost at same time ?

So please tell me you base your claims not to loose or even rise your % on what facts exactly ?

Please, please ,  tell me what u know and I don't , any fact  that is going to rise my optimism


Thank u

you are dumb.  i said don't tell me stuff about me losing commission because you don't know anythign about me or my portfolio or where my credits are or how my portfolio performance at iStock has increased over the past year hence my ability to stay at the same level with a good chance at rising up to the next level.  How hard is that to understand? its not rocket science, but given the math abilities displayed lately.....

« Reply #160 on: September 21, 2010, 11:01 »
0
If 1000 buyers leave and each buyer buys 2000$ a year in photos, which could be pretty substantial that would mean that $2 million in revenue disappears.  If iStock has revenues in excess of 200 million, that would mean that approximatley 1% of business goes.  That is nothing more than the general ebb and flow, or maybe just slightly higher than that.  Those 1000 buyers are small little ants compared to the whole pie.  A small change that no one will even see.  And the few buyers that have already said they would leave probably don't combine to spend 2 mil.  Even at 10 million in lost revenue, I don't think that the impact is going to make that big of a difference. 

And to address the blufish point - I'm not saying I'm discounting everyone's opinion based on port size, I'm taking the credibility of the opinion of only contributors based on port size unless they indicate that they have some other information that they base their arguments on.

Another point was made that these changes are way radical:  no they aren't that radical.  And the outcome can be easily anticipated using buyer behaviour and contributor behaviour - especially similar to that from previous events.  May not be identical, but may be close enough to make it worthwhile using past data.  We do NOT operate in a vacuum, and these events are NOT mutually exclusive. 


The global recession could be a game changer.

Talk to a few advertising agencies and maybe a few of the people who work for them and ask them how business is doing?  Then ask them if price matters?

because istock only has a few ad agencies as clients and their customer portfolio isn't diversified or anything.  and this global recession is currently recovering slowly.  Its no longer a recession.  its in "recovery" - the pace at which is highly debated

« Reply #161 on: September 21, 2010, 11:27 »
0
I understand the argument that everyone has the right to complain about changes and everyone deserves a fair commission, etc.  Which I 100% agree with.  There's a faction here that says downloads don't matter, and there's a faction that says that past performance does matter in judging the validity of the argument.  I do believe that DLs and tenure do matter because the statistical reference point that a person that has 38 downloads over 1 year or 500 downloads over 5 years carries much less weight than someone who is at 12000 dls over 3 years or something like that.  Experience is a huge player in almost any job and this is obviously no different.  

I'm not saying that people with crappy ports or low dls do not have valid arguments, and in a lot of cases they do, what I'm saying is that when people who are predicting the future from a such a small reference sample its hard to take that prediction seriously given the lack of data/experience to back up claims.

Then there's always those that just go off the deep end anyways....whatever it is...this off topic reply is just to try to incorporate the idea that dls and experience and portfolio exposure do matter a bit more than many peopel here are willing to admit.


So , if that's the case , why u wrote that i don't know what im talking about ?  

I believe that numbers say my portfolio is side to side with yours,  even on IS only ?   Both +1000 images both about 9000 dl and we started almost at same time ?

So please tell me you base your claims not to loose or even rise your % on what facts exactly ?

Please, please ,  tell me what u know and I don't , any fact  that is going to rise my optimism


Thank u

you are dumb.  i said don't tell me stuff about me losing commission because you don't know anythign about me or my portfolio or where my credits are or how my portfolio performance at iStock has increased over the past year hence my ability to stay at the same level with a good chance at rising up to the next level.  How hard is that to understand? its not rocket science, but given the math abilities displayed lately.....

I know u have 9000 downloads in 4+ years and I don't have to be a rocket scientist to make a conclusion , and I agree Im dump, only  because I try  get into conversations with arrogant liars.

Now go find someone with 100 dl in few years and cure your complexes there.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #162 on: September 21, 2010, 11:39 »
0
so - how's everyone doing today? lol. look, insults aside blah blah blah....I think some important points have been made. to suggest past performance and tenure are not issues is silly. it has nothing to do with being nice. much of the outrage is from people who stand to lose because they have not uploaded significantly to their portfolios, or they have reached a canister level slowly over many years...and therefore have not really built their portfolio up enough to compete.

the actually percentages aside, which I agree seem unfair in some cases.....people who work harder are going to reap higher percentages. I produce work constantly, and I know many who are in a similar position remaining at their current percentage do the same. the 5% loss is theoretical for me on my next canister and frankly 5% is not something I'm going to sink my exclusivity over. to extrapolate and suggest iStock are going to whittle away at that every year to nothing is absurd.

independents are getting a raw deal, for sure. but perhaps this is an impetus to go exclusive, or perhaps it is a means to discourage independence, in order to maximize the value of the iStock collections as not being available anywhere but on Getty sites. You can magnify that to the absurd too and suggest Getty is trying to monopolize the industry, but contributors hold too much copyright power with their work.

don't underestimate the sense of ownership we all have over our work. those of us happy to be at iStock simply believe that reasonably speaking, it's where the most money is and the best representation of our work. that doesn't mean that we won't act if there is a LEGITIMATE reason to. so far though, all the furor has been the same people seemingly crying wolf and it's getting old. and it's too bad, because you've created such an uproar upon the announcement of every change, you can't expect people to keep listening.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2010, 11:42 by hawk_eye »

vlad_the_imp

« Reply #163 on: September 21, 2010, 11:49 »
0
+1

« Reply #164 on: September 21, 2010, 11:54 »
0
I understand the argument that everyone has the right to complain about changes and everyone deserves a fair commission, etc.  Which I 100% agree with.  There's a faction here that says downloads don't matter, and there's a faction that says that past performance does matter in judging the validity of the argument.  I do believe that DLs and tenure do matter because the statistical reference point that a person that has 38 downloads over 1 year or 500 downloads over 5 years carries much less weight than someone who is at 12000 dls over 3 years or something like that.  Experience is a huge player in almost any job and this is obviously no different.  

I'm not saying that people with crappy ports or low dls do not have valid arguments, and in a lot of cases they do, what I'm saying is that when people who are predicting the future from a such a small reference sample its hard to take that prediction seriously given the lack of data/experience to back up claims.
The point you're missing is that Istockphoto aren't merely reshuffling things to give a higher sellers more and lower sellers less __ they're just keeping more of the money for themselves. Nobody (that I'm aware of) is getting more money and everyone is getting less, one way or another.

Unfortunately your feeble-minded unconditional love for Istockphoto means you are completely blind to their real motives.

« Reply #165 on: September 21, 2010, 12:03 »
0
the 5% loss is theoretical for me on my next canister

Again, math issues, 5% = 12.5% money loss for 40% royalties to 35%; 10% = 25% money loss for 40% to 30%;

How you read that entire thread and managed to still get this math incorrect boggles my mind considering how many times it was mentioned.

« Reply #166 on: September 21, 2010, 12:18 »
0
I understand the argument that everyone has the right to complain about changes and everyone deserves a fair commission, etc.  Which I 100% agree with.  There's a faction here that says downloads don't matter, and there's a faction that says that past performance does matter in judging the validity of the argument.  I do believe that DLs and tenure do matter because the statistical reference point that a person that has 38 downloads over 1 year or 500 downloads over 5 years carries much less weight than someone who is at 12000 dls over 3 years or something like that.  Experience is a huge player in almost any job and this is obviously no different.  

I'm not saying that people with crappy ports or low dls do not have valid arguments, and in a lot of cases they do, what I'm saying is that when people who are predicting the future from a such a small reference sample its hard to take that prediction seriously given the lack of data/experience to back up claims.
The point you're missing is that Istockphoto aren't merely reshuffling things to give a higher sellers more and lower sellers less __ they're just keeping more of the money for themselves. Nobody (that I'm aware of) is getting more money and everyone is getting less, one way or another.

Unfortunately your feeble-minded unconditional love for Istockphoto means you are completely blind to their real motives.

indeed! i'm totally blind

« Reply #167 on: September 21, 2010, 12:22 »
0
Again, math issues, 5% = 12.5% money loss for 40% royalties to 35%; 10% = 25% money loss for 40% to 30%;
...


Looks to me like you're off a bit: He's currently at Gold, so he might be looking at going down from 35% to 30% - a 14% income reduction.
On the bright side, if he can sell $18,550 per year he won't be affected. On the dark side, it looks like he was almost at Diamond - now he'll need to earn $69,500 before he can get that 40% commission he used to be so close to. See this chart for income references.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2010, 12:25 by sharply_done »

« Reply #168 on: September 21, 2010, 12:33 »
0
The point you're missing is that Istockphoto aren't merely reshuffling things to give a higher sellers more and lower sellers less __ they're just keeping more of the money for themselves. Nobody (that I'm aware of) is getting more money and everyone is getting less, one way or another.
...

Heh, you've ironically made a statement - "Nobody (that I'm aware of) is getting more money and everyone is getting less, one way or another." - to someone who claims to be getting more money.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2010, 12:38 by sharply_done »

bittersweet

« Reply #169 on: September 21, 2010, 12:39 »
0
Donding-Member for 4 years. 400 downloads.

Call me crazy, but I wonder how many opinions are being dismissed as not valid because of the perceived value of their portfolios, when in fact some of these may actually have a primary role at istock that consists of being a buyer.

Edited to acknowledge that gbalex and others made the same point, and that I should have read the entire thread before replying to anything.  :) I was a buyer for quite a while before becoming a contributor, so my "join date" has absolutely nothing to do with my portfolio performance.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2010, 12:54 by whatalife »

« Reply #170 on: September 21, 2010, 12:41 »
0
Heh, you've ironically made a statement - "Nobody (that I'm aware of) is getting more money and everyone is getting less, one way or another." - to someone who claims to be getting more money. On top of that, there's even an ongoing dispute about it between him and another member, and you made your post right in the middle of it!
I suppose it is ironic. I'd love hear a detailed explaination from him on how he thinks he's getting a 'rise'. I'm sure we'd all get a good chuckle from it.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #171 on: September 21, 2010, 12:47 »
0
FWIW, so you can accurately calculate my percentages....I'll be at 55K RC thereabouts by the end of the year. I won't be reduced, except in terms of the additional 5% I would have been raised once I hit diamond. I understand what that translates to in actual percentage, but that wasn't really my point.

if you have to try SO hard to invalidate my opinion, what does that say about your position?

« Reply #172 on: September 21, 2010, 12:52 »
0
nevermind, my numbers are meaningless to you because you will just twist them with your effed up math anyways
« Last Edit: September 21, 2010, 12:55 by ichiro17 »

« Reply #173 on: September 21, 2010, 12:55 »
0
I suppose it is ironic. I'd love hear a detailed explaination from him on how he thinks he's getting a 'rise'. I'm sure we'd all get a good chuckle from it.

The only thing I know is that he's currently at Silver level, and so would have to earn $15,900 in 2011 to be bumped up to Gold. If he hits Gold by Dec 31, he'll have to earn $18,550 to stay at there, which works out to somewhere around 3850 main collection DLs. Given the time he's been on iStock (4 years) and his total sales (9,000+), I'd say either is doable.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2010, 13:08 by sharply_done »

« Reply #174 on: September 21, 2010, 13:07 »
0
The only thing I know is that he's currently at Gold level, and so would have to earn $18,550 in 2011 to stay there. That works out to somewhere around 3850 main collection DLs. Given the time he's been on iStock (4 years) and his total sales (10,000+), I'd say it's doable.
He's actually currently Silver. From January you'll need 40K RC's to stay at 35%, the existing level for Gold. I gather an exclusive might average about 7 RC's per sale? If so you'd need over 5000 sales per year to do achieve that. That looks like a big stretch to me and even then he'd only be getting what he'd have got anyway under the current system. He can certainly kiss his arse goodbye to ever getting 40%.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
4389 Views
Last post April 18, 2007, 16:56
by GeoPappas
20 Replies
13590 Views
Last post April 07, 2014, 02:20
by hakusan
40 Replies
12877 Views
Last post April 02, 2013, 07:54
by Luppload
8 Replies
4993 Views
Last post December 03, 2016, 18:46
by YadaYadaYada
1 Replies
4653 Views
Last post September 26, 2017, 11:03
by ShadySue

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors