MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: This is what got my iStock forum privileges and sitemail access revoked  (Read 102432 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #175 on: September 21, 2010, 13:13 »
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?

I'm just trying to keep you from introducing bad math again, so you don't confuse someone new who comes reading this thread and doesn't fully understand the impact.  It happened many times in the iStock threads.  So its not an attempt to invalidate your opinion, just an attempt to clarify something that you apparently wanted to keep muddy.

I'm also not sure why you think I have to put much effort into invalidating your opinions, you seem to do a pretty good job of that on your own.


« Reply #176 on: September 21, 2010, 13:19 »
0

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%.


Yeah, I realized my mistake and corrected it while you were responding - sorry about that.

Your math is a bit off, but that's excusable because you don't have access to real exclusive sales data, and are going on speculation and heresay. Needless to say, gostwyck, being on the exclusive side of the fence puts me in a better position to make these calculations. As far as the numbers go, my data shows that 1 RC = $0.53 at Diamond, which can be scaled down to $0.46 for Gold. My data also shows that the average main collection commission for Gold to be about $4.80. Putting those numbers together gives 1 RC = 10 DLs. Or thereabouts - it's certainly not 7.

You may want to take a look at this chart to see how everything works out with respect to income and commission level.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2010, 13:24 by sharply_done »

« Reply #177 on: September 21, 2010, 13:33 »
0
I gather an exclusive might average about 7 RC's per sale?

Yep, 6.9 here.

which can be scaled down to $0.46 for Gold. My data also shows that the average main collection commission for Gold to be about $4.80.

I (gold) come up with $0.44 / RC, or $3.04 / sale
« Last Edit: September 21, 2010, 13:38 by dgilder »

« Reply #178 on: September 21, 2010, 13:40 »
0
I gather an exclusive might average about 7 RC's per sale?


Yep, 6.9 here.


Yeah, but you guys either aren't exclusive (gostwyck) or have a mix of exclusive and nonexclusive sales data (dgilder).
Trust me, as someone who does a lot  of sales analyses, it works out differently when you consider only exclusive sales data.

Also, dgilder, a quick look at your portfolio shows a lack of attention to your E+ image management. I know it's moot now, but you might want to consider Googling "optimal product mix". Or maybe go here.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2010, 13:46 by sharply_done »

« Reply #179 on: September 21, 2010, 13:44 »
0
I went exclusive mid Feb, so perhaps you are right, but either way, it doesn't have much impact.  You need to make iStock a lot of cash to bump to the higher levels.

« Reply #180 on: September 21, 2010, 13:44 »
0
funny because i average about 9.5, (approx 40 cents per credit) so it varies per person - and i was never going to get to diamond level 40% anyways under the previously new cannister changes as they put that well out of reach, so being grandfathered to gold was my aim.  And seeing as I will either hit or come very close to getting to that level, I'm totally fine with that.  i'll refrain from saying anything else because whatever i say you won't believe me because it doesn't suit your agendas

« Reply #181 on: September 21, 2010, 13:53 »
0
funny because i average about 9.5, (approx 40 cents per credit) so it varies per person - and i was never going to get to diamond level 40% anyways under the previously new cannister changes as they put that well out of reach, so being grandfathered to gold was my aim.  And seeing as I will either hit or come very close to getting to that level, I'm totally fine with that.  i'll refrain from saying anything else because whatever i say you won't believe me because it doesn't suit your agendas

Mine works out to 13.1, but my numbers show I might be able to get it higher once I can change my E+ images in October. Needless to say, if you want to maximize your income, there's more involved than simply adding stuff to your portfolio.

« Reply #182 on: September 21, 2010, 14:00 »
0
Sharply, don't forget that I have already deleted over a third of my portfolio, and E+ along with the rest.

Also, dgilder, a quick look at your portfolio shows a lack of attention to your E+ image management. I know it's moot now, but you might want to consider Googling "optimal product mix". Or maybe go here.

« Reply #183 on: September 21, 2010, 14:19 »
0
Sharply, don't forget that I have already deleted over a third of my portfolio, and E+ along with the rest.

Yes, I know, but I assumed you'd only deleted those images which weren't generating income. Correct?

« Reply #184 on: September 21, 2010, 14:37 »
0
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.
You speak madness, lass. I`ll tell ye what`s gettin' old. Th' same madness ye rain down on th' IS forums ye spout here, but t' a deeper degree. Swabbies be havin' a valid reason fer the'r anger an' displeasure. That ye consistently dismiss emotions as sophmoric or childish or th' like be par fer yer course. Why dasn't ye muzzle yersef already an' jus' give th' BS a rest? If ye dasn't want t' listen, nay one`s got a gun t' yer hade.

« Reply #185 on: September 21, 2010, 14:45 »
0
My smile fortheday was reading Bliss. I hear it in my head and the accent makes me happy.

traveler1116

« Reply #186 on: September 21, 2010, 15:00 »
0
Is it talk like a pirate day already, I'm so unprepared. 

traveler1116

« Reply #187 on: September 21, 2010, 15:01 »
0
Is it talk like a pirate day already, I'm so unprepared. 


Wait I missed it >:(
http://www.talklikeapirate.com/piratehome.html

« Reply #188 on: September 21, 2010, 15:12 »
0
Sharply, don't forget that I have already deleted over a third of my portfolio, and E+ along with the rest.

Yes, I know, but I assumed you'd only deleted those images which weren't generating income. Correct?

Incorrect, I've been deleting based on my own cataloging system as I sort out what is going where next month.

traveler1116

« Reply #189 on: September 21, 2010, 15:14 »
0

rubyroo

« Reply #190 on: September 21, 2010, 15:15 »
0
Weird... it just so happens I was talking like a pirate on the right day - but apologised to my other half because I thought I was early!!

Must've just picked up the wave... length...

« Reply #191 on: September 21, 2010, 15:28 »
0
...
Incorrect, I've been deleting based on my own cataloging system as I sort out what is going where next month.

Okay, my bad then - sorry.

As an independent you still might want to check up on product mix, though - you might find it more profitable to list some images exlcusively at DT/FT than have everything scattered everywhere. But then again, maybe the word "exclusive" isn't in your vocabulary anymore.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #192 on: September 21, 2010, 16:19 »
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?

I'm just trying to keep you from introducing bad math again, so you don't confuse someone new who comes reading this thread and doesn't fully understand the impact.  It happened many times in the iStock threads.  So its not an attempt to invalidate your opinion, just an attempt to clarify something that you apparently wanted to keep muddy.

I'm also not sure why you think I have to put much effort into invalidating your opinions, you seem to do a pretty good job of that on your own.

whatever dude, just pointing out that my math wasn't an issue in this case despite you highlighting my post as though it was. for once you and I sort of agree. the math errors being made in the istock forum have been driving me crazy, particularly in cases where contributors are complaining about their future losses, but have no idea how much they actually make currently. ironic, no?

« Reply #193 on: September 21, 2010, 18:05 »
0
whatever dude, just pointing out that my math wasn't an issue in this case despite you highlighting my post as though it was. for once you and I sort of agree. the math errors being made in the istock forum have been driving me crazy, particularly in cases where contributors are complaining about their future losses, but have no idea how much they actually make currently. ironic, no?
Argh, ye crazy lass! Swabbies may be havin' made math errors here or thar, but ye needn`t be a mathematician t' understand that ye`ll soon be shafted under th' new commission structure. Bilge water. Ye dasn't e'en need a calculator - n`er understand how t' operate one - t' figure that ou'!

« Reply #194 on: September 21, 2010, 22:17 »
0
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.



The real issue isn't the changes. I don't like them but that's beside the point. I've bolded the portion that I think bears looking at -- and it bears looking at because we've been told this is how things will operate. I will concede that iStock can change the rules all they like (I think it's crappy business, but to each his own), but three months' time to go from almost reaching gold to being knocked back down to bronze level? That's a tad harsh . . .  if this was coming down the pipe all along (as I suspect it was), then they should have broken the news last year and let everyone have time to ramp up.

« Reply #195 on: September 21, 2010, 22:37 »
0
I gather an exclusive might average about 7 RC's per sale?


Yep, 6.9 here.


Yeah, but you guys either aren't exclusive (gostwyck) or have a mix of exclusive and nonexclusive sales data (dgilder).
Trust me, as someone who does a lot  of sales analyses, it works out differently when you consider only exclusive sales data.

Also, dgilder, a quick look at your portfolio shows a lack of attention to your E+ image management. I know it's moot now, but you might want to consider Googling "optimal product mix". Or maybe go here.


I've been exclusive since August 2008 and when I calculated my numbers for this year (some time last week) it was 8.19 rc / DL and 47.5 cents per RC.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #196 on: September 21, 2010, 23:07 »
0
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.



The real issue isn't the changes. I don't like them but that's beside the point. I've bolded the portion that I think bears looking at -- and it bears looking at because we've been told this is how things will operate. I will concede that iStock can change the rules all they like (I think it's crappy business, but to each his own), but three months' time to go from almost reaching gold to being knocked back down to bronze level? That's a tad harsh . . .  if this was coming down the pipe all along (as I suspect it was), then they should have broken the news last year and let everyone have time to ramp up.


okay, so first of all, I'm not trying to sell you or anyone else on the new royalty model. what makes you think I like it? I've never said I liked it. I simply disagree on the extrapolation that this (like other changes were predicted to do) spells doom for istock. it's a series of decisions, made with many variables and considerations in mind. I think that iStock are probably at least attempting to advocate on our behalf, but I also think that iStock HQ is interested in evolving, and that perhaps they are in agreement with the changes. the next move, like any move in business designed to generate an increase in revenue, is going to require some risk-taking, model changes etc., especially as contributors continue to grow their download numbers and portfolios. point = I don't believe the decisions have been made maliciously or without regard for the entire future of stock photography.

secondly, no one was promised anything after the last uproar about canister levels except that the issue was PUT ON HOLD, and for the TIME BEING all canisters would be delivered according to the original model. this was not something I remembered today myself, but instead something pointed out to me by one of the top 20 iStock diamonds with whom I spoke today at length about this issue.

to suggest that any one of us knows anything at all about the cost of doing business at iStock/Getty/H&F/SS/DT/FT etc.......is moot, because none of you know, I don't know. only those privy to that information know. we retain power insofar as we hire them to be our agent, or we don't. that's where your choices are. picketing, unions, co-ops....this isn't Norma Rae and we don't work in a canning factory or a meat plant circa 1929. don't contribute to iStock. there you go. to suggest that all other MS agencies will follow iStock's business model if you don't protest.....I don't see how anyone can say that with a straight face. it's such an absurd magnification. has anyone ever tallied how many of the dire predictions have been false? I would do that but I can't be bothered, because even if I did, someone would have a reason for it.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2010, 23:13 by hawk_eye »

TheSmilingAssassin

    This user is banned.
« Reply #197 on: September 22, 2010, 00:22 »
0
Quote
Oh theyll pay for sure.  Id be betting theyre already starting to feel the effects slightly but come January next year, itll hit them like a tonne of bricks.

If you really believe this you are very naive.

Quote
which, yes, means losing a significant number of sales

I'm having a very good week this week, I'm getting back to pre-summer sales. I agree IS are a bunch of arrogant SoB's and of course I don't want my income to drop (not sure if it will yet, I'll be close to my target if not on it by the new year) I've been at IS long enough to see every price rise of change be met with a chorus of "We're taking our clients away' or "we're stopping buying at IS". It make no difference. This will be the same. That is my prediction, especially when you see who is making the threats. It has to be said they're not big sellers. To be honest, the more work is removed, the more likely those left are to sell stuff. I'm not happy with IS's handling of this, but to see it as some apocalyptic microstock event is just not true.


I think its naive to believe theyre going to cruise through this.  Theywouldnt be banning members from their forums after letting everyone rant and rave if they werent worried about their reputation being ruined... which it is.  Nicknames like isuck will stick around for a long time.

As for your sales, why would you, individually, feel such a drop just yet?  It is the point I was making earlier about not feeling the effects till next year.  Buyers... the ones who have already decided to leave, are still probably using up their credits.  I agree with you on your comment about contributors threatening to take clients away.  Thats insulting to buyers.  Im sure they will make up their own minds but you have to remember that there are a lot of contributors who are also designers who will not only stop buying, but will spread the isuck message throughout designers circles. 

Also I dont see this as a microstock apocalyptic event either but I do mark September as the month that istock made the worst decision out of a bunch of consecutive screw ups that will lead to them falling next year.  I dont believe istock necessarily will become extinct.  I predict Kelly, whos management and communication skills are embarrassing, but whos following direct orders, will be made the scapegoat and sacked next year and replaced with some new hot shot who will make promises to get people back on side.  I just dont reckon many will trust them again and will have settled elsewhere by then.

« Reply #198 on: September 22, 2010, 00:42 »
0
I think its naive to believe theyre going to cruise through this.  Theywouldnt be banning members from their forums after letting everyone rant and rave if they werent worried about their reputation being ruined... which it is.  Nicknames like isuck will stick around for a long time.

As for your sales, why would you, individually, feel such a drop just yet?  It is the point I was making earlier about not feeling the effects till next year.  Buyers... the ones who have already decided to leave, are still probably using up their credits.  I agree with you on your comment about contributors threatening to take clients away.  Thats insulting to buyers.  Im sure they will make up their own minds but you have to remember that there are a lot of contributors who are also designers who will not only stop buying, but will spread the isuck message throughout designers circles. 

Also I dont see this as a microstock apocalyptic event either but I do mark September as the month that istock made the worst decision out of a bunch of consecutive screw ups that will lead to them falling next year.  I dont believe istock necessarily will become extinct.  I predict Kelly, whos management and communication skills are embarrassing, but whos following direct orders, will be made the scapegoat and sacked next year and replaced with some new hot shot who will make promises to get people back on side.  I just dont reckon many will trust them again and will have settled elsewhere by then.

I think you could be right on this one, it happens far too often.  It could be that Kelly has very little say in the matter, sometimes key people stay on to try to protect the business they helped build and its loyal employees only to find that there is very little they can do to mitigate the damage and a little bit of them dies with each nasty change that they are required to implement. 

TheSmilingAssassin

    This user is banned.
« Reply #199 on: September 22, 2010, 00:44 »
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.

Sorry but this does not make any sense.  How is it possible that downloads have dropped, commission rates have dropped and you've earned more?  It's not possible if you've kept everything constant.  What you're probably saying is that you're earning more (at IS) because you switched to exclusivity, thereby artificially inflating your commission rate, in which case, you're not earning more because you have no idea about the potential loss of revenue you would have made had you spread your portfolio accross other agents.  Also if the trend is for downloads to drop after a price increase, you're going to have to earn less this time around because IS has reduced your commission, yes?  What happens when they reduce it even more later, because they're going to have to make up their profit they're about to lose, one way or another after independents flee the coop.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
4389 Views
Last post April 18, 2007, 16:56
by GeoPappas
20 Replies
13591 Views
Last post April 07, 2014, 02:20
by hakusan
40 Replies
12882 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