MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Update on canisters.  (Read 30946 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: December 18, 2009, 16:31 »
0
KT has announced exclusives grandfathered to next canister level numbers. Announcement here.


« Reply #1 on: December 18, 2009, 16:46 »
0
Thanks?

« Reply #2 on: December 18, 2009, 16:52 »
0
It's far better than nothing. And, by the way, being just for exclusives, puts a dilemma on the independents wich are on the fence.

« Reply #3 on: December 18, 2009, 16:56 »
0
I just read it & it is certainly better than the original plan.

Still looking at a huge jump to gold after I make silver... :-\

« Reply #4 on: December 18, 2009, 16:57 »
0
It's far better than nothing. And, by the way, being just for exclusives, puts a dilemma on the independents wich are on the fence.
Expecially as they're prepared to negotiate with independents who have contractual obligations that prevent them from going exclusive before the deadline. I presume they mean DT.

KB

« Reply #5 on: December 18, 2009, 17:02 »
0
I thought this quote makes quite a good point:

You've also effectively made it hard for anyone to give up exclusivity moving forward too because it can be assumed that they could only re-enter exclusivity under the new levels...

helix7

« Reply #6 on: December 18, 2009, 17:11 »
0
It's far better than nothing. And, by the way, being just for exclusives, puts a dilemma on the independents wich are on the fence.

Yep. It essentially means that exclusivity is back off the table for me again. If I go exclusive before hitting Diamond, there is too great a chance that I'd be making less as an exclusive than I would as an independent. Had they allowed this amended grandfathering policy for non-exclusive folks as well, I could have still considered exclusivity. Now there's no chance.

Oh well. Back to business as usual. I guess now I have more incentive to hope that the higher exclusive prices have a positive effect in non-exclusive sales.  ;)


« Reply #7 on: December 18, 2009, 17:16 »
0
I don't see anything in there for me, except they specifically stated "Our plans for next year had one goal: make more money for our exclusives" - which is of course a load of $%^&  - Their goal is to make more money for themselves, and if they have to make more for exclusives, that is part of how they get there.
Unfortunately they don't seem to have much concern for the source of a lot of their content - pity.

I fear that the best match will become a BEM. oh well.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2009, 01:56 by pancaketom »

« Reply #8 on: December 18, 2009, 17:25 »
0
It's far better than nothing. And, by the way, being just for exclusives, puts a dilemma on the independents wich are on the fence.

Yep. It essentially means that exclusivity is back off the table for me again. If I go exclusive before hitting Diamond, there is too great a chance that I'd be making less as an exclusive than I would as an independent. Had they allowed this amended grandfathering policy for non-exclusive folks as well, I could have still considered exclusivity. Now there's no chance.

Oh well. Back to business as usual. I guess now I have more incentive to hope that the higher exclusive prices have a positive effect in non-exclusive sales.  ;)




Life is made of choices. Good luck with yours.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2009, 17:32 by loop »

lisafx

« Reply #9 on: December 18, 2009, 17:29 »
0

Oh well. Back to business as usual. I guess now I have more incentive to hope that the higher exclusive prices have a positive effect in non-exclusive sales.  ;)



I seriously doubt that will happen.  We will be gathering dust at the back of the best match. 

If you would be serious about exclusivity at diamond level you should call or e-mail support and let them know so maybe they will grandfather you in.  It is certainly worth a try :)

« Reply #10 on: December 18, 2009, 17:33 »
0
I don't really care about the canister levels, it makes no difference to me as a non-exclusive.  I am still fuming about the $0.25 subs commissions.  It is a shame more people aren't protesting about that.  If buyers don't like the price rises and move to their subs sites, we could all end up losing money.

« Reply #11 on: December 18, 2009, 19:05 »
0
Expecially as they're prepared to negotiate with independents who have contractual obligations that prevent them from going exclusive before the deadline. I presume they mean DT.
I didn't see that in there or was it in another thread? All I saw was that they said they reserve the right to offer exclusivity to people under 500 downloads. That and a lot of unicorns and rainbows. :D

« Reply #12 on: December 18, 2009, 19:11 »
0
Expecially as they're prepared to negotiate with independents who have contractual obligations that prevent them from going exclusive before the deadline. I presume they mean DT.
I didn't see that in there or was it in another thread? All I saw was that they said they reserve the right to offer exclusivity to people under 500 downloads. That and a lot of unicorns and rainbows. :D

From KTs original announcement
Quote
This will apply to anyone who becomes Exclusive before February 24. If you're interested in becoming Exclusive but will be prevented by other contractual obligations before that cut-off date, get in touch with us and we can work something out. Email us at [email protected] before January 11 and we will arrange a wider window that works for you.

« Reply #13 on: December 18, 2009, 19:14 »
0
I know that I always have different optics then they from iStock, but what is that?

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=155531&page=7

look third post someone want to be they iStock T-shirt of the 2010?!?????????

First of all, they are angry when I called them iStock (Cattle in my language but is obviously that kind of animal is present on "illustration")
Second rainbow flag and something on head suggest other side.
Third this wanabee "illustration"!? They will never accept this if I upload something like this poor doodle and has more than 60dls?! Maybe little improvement in this "illustration" with stick man and rainbow umbrella on the back side in BruceLee or Chuck Norris pose in action of doodle creature will have more impact because for now we see only reaction of "horse" and third law of thermodinamic says that any action must have reaction or vice versa  ;D

For my "bad tongue" about them (iStok) I receive few warnings and about 15 or more Ignore buttons for my "wannabe jokes" about them.

Whats you conclusion in this case? Am I so wrong?

Anyhow to not to bee so offtopic. I only need bigger canister levels when I started with them and for bronze was border 500 dls same with now they announce for february. In that stage I dont remember other borders because they are been so far away from me. For now I maybe few times needs few more uploads for my current canister level but it was not so horrible to wait day or two.
Maybee they drop they canister levels when they see big drop (in Alexa and wee also in our sales while experimenting with best match algorithm) last half of 2008. to attract more submitters. Now they have recover growth from last year and now they screw pipe to old level.
My only concern is if they dont dig or hide so deep nonexclusive images for buyers.
Sorry if I was "rude" again...

« Reply #14 on: December 18, 2009, 19:36 »
0
Hi Suljo, the illustration is very metaphorical, and represents a phrase that I had never heard until joining istock (so it's probably only common in North America), which is Heart Heart Unicorn Rainbow and apparently means whatever bad things we say about you we don't realy mean it and we still love you.

A unicorn is a mythological animal resembling a horse with a horn on it's head, so that's not a penis accidently drawn in the wrong place. The rainbow represents good feeling, and the illustration was uploaded three years ago - standards have changed since then.

Perhaps if you put HHUR at the end of your posts about istock they wouldn't get angry with you.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2009, 19:40 by averil »

« Reply #15 on: December 19, 2009, 11:41 »
0
so that's not a penis accidently drawn in the wrong place.
Did Suljo think it was a penis? Oh my....

« Reply #16 on: December 19, 2009, 11:44 »
0
Thanks for posting the quote. That's good to know that they are a little flexible on it.

« Reply #17 on: December 19, 2009, 12:11 »
0
I just assumed HHUR was an iStock forum thing like Woo Yays. I've never heard either of those before iStock. Regardless, I like the illustration. A unicorn vomiting a rainbow? That's awesome!

« Reply #18 on: December 19, 2009, 12:13 »
0
Yes indeed the message and pressure seems to be once again 'Go Exclusive' or give up all hope here  ;)

Anyone any idea why they have selected February as the cut off for going Exclusive and securring a natural progression to the next cannister level ? just wondered what was on the cards after Feb  :-\

 

« Reply #19 on: December 19, 2009, 12:25 »
0
I am still fuming about the $0.25 subs commissions.  It is a shame more people aren't protesting about that.

I followed your advice and I opted out of subs, both on IS and on StockXpert. My content will only be on SS (0.36$) and on DT (0.35$) as subs. I don't want Getty to undercut my best selling agents.

(The year of the predator)

Leo Blanchette

« Reply #20 on: December 19, 2009, 14:14 »
0
Deleted
« Last Edit: December 19, 2009, 14:20 by KonaHawaii »

« Reply #21 on: December 19, 2009, 14:26 »
0
so that's not a penis accidently drawn in the wrong place.

Did Suljo think it was a penis? Oh my....


Actually not at all. My first allusion was about missing Action and Reaction like on "improved illustration". On original image is only Reaction without visible reason why mythical horse is puking rainbow.
Not like in this song. Sorry again...
Let3 feat Seve - kurcem u celo



« Reply #22 on: December 19, 2009, 16:08 »
0
I am still fuming about the $0.25 subs commissions.  It is a shame more people aren't protesting about that.

I followed your advice and I opted out of subs, both on IS and on StockXpert. My content will only be on SS (0.36$) and on DT (0.35$) as subs. I don't want Getty to undercut my best selling agents.

(The year of the predator)


I am getting some $0.70 subs sales from DT now as well.  Makes the difference even greater.

nruboc

« Reply #23 on: December 19, 2009, 17:25 »
0
I am still fuming about the $0.25 subs commissions.  It is a shame more people aren't protesting about that.

I followed your advice and I opted out of subs, both on IS and on StockXpert. My content will only be on SS (0.36$) and on DT (0.35$) as subs. I don't want Getty to undercut my best selling agents.

(The year of the predator)



I did the same. I wish some of the other agencies would get creative and reward people doing this. Doesn't have to be monetary, maybe give people opting out of Getty subscription offerings a bump in the best match. And an even bigger bump for people who don't submit at all to Getty.  :) That would also increase the chances of customers jumping from site to site, seeing content they haven't already seen.



helix7

« Reply #24 on: December 19, 2009, 18:45 »
0

Oh well. Back to business as usual. I guess now I have more incentive to hope that the higher exclusive prices have a positive effect in non-exclusive sales.


I seriously doubt that will happen.  We will be gathering dust at the back of the best match. 

If you would be serious about exclusivity at diamond level you should call or e-mail support and let them know so maybe they will grandfather you in.  It is certainly worth a try :)


I almost hate to admit it, but I think your right. Chances are the best match shift is going to be significant, since istock stands to gain so much more now from exclusive files.

As for me going exclusive, I'm still not sure. I'd have to basically contact HQ and commit to it by January 10th, which doesn't give me any time to really see what effect the new pricing will have on sales. It's a big gamble, for sure.

« Reply #25 on: December 19, 2009, 21:31 »
0
As for me going exclusive, I'm still not sure. I'd have to basically contact HQ and commit to it by January 10th, which doesn't give me any time to really see what effect the new pricing will have on sales. It's a big gamble, for sure.


You don't have to commit to it by then __ you just have to contact them to express your interest. At that point you don't even know what they're going to offer regarding the 'wider window' whatever that means.

The biggest gamble is actually putting all your eggs in one basket when you have no idea how the customers are going to react to the huge price increases, etc, let alone how the next few years are going to pan out within the greater industry. With existing credits it might take a few weeks or even months to see what happens next with IS sales. I am quite interested to see if they'll get away with it or not. The 'How was your month' threads are likely to be a good read for the next few months.

Don't get too starry-eyed about canister colours and panic yourself into a decision that you could later spend a long time regretting and also cost you a lot of money.

Personally I'm confident that exclusivity would be costing me roughly $1K per month in lost income up to now and, even if this latest wheeze should push IS marginally ahead for the next few weeks/months, it probably won't be a lasting effect. The market has a habit of regulating itself back to the status-quo.

« Reply #26 on: December 19, 2009, 22:19 »
0
I followed your advice and I opted out of subs, both on IS and on StockXpert. My content will only be on SS (0.36$) and on DT (0.35$) as subs. I don't want Getty to undercut my best selling agents.

Hmm, do I need to opt-out from subs at IS not to be at Photos.com?  Or do I need to opt-out from partner sales?  I don't mind IS subs, but I don't want to be at Photos.com.

KB

« Reply #27 on: December 19, 2009, 22:41 »
0
I followed your advice and I opted out of subs, both on IS and on StockXpert. My content will only be on SS (0.36$) and on DT (0.35$) as subs. I don't want Getty to undercut my best selling agents.

Hmm, do I need to opt-out from subs at IS not to be at Photos.com?  Or do I need to opt-out from partner sales?  I don't mind IS subs, but I don't want to be at Photos.com.
Just go to Control Panel, click on the "+ Contributor" line to open it up, and uncheck "Opt-in to Partner Program". Though it is my understanding that even if you remain opted-in, no files will be sent to partner sites unless you explicitly check "Available on Partner sites" on the "Partner Program" tab of your portfolio ("My Uploads").

I actually am still opted-in on the IS side, and have given them 3 of my oldest files which have sold a grand total of less than 5 times together. I'll take $0.25 for those if anybody's willing to buy 'em.  ;D

« Reply #28 on: December 19, 2009, 23:40 »
0
I followed your advice and I opted out of subs, both on IS and on StockXpert. My content will only be on SS (0.36$) and on DT (0.35$) as subs. I don't want Getty to undercut my best selling agents.

Hmm, do I need to opt-out from subs at IS not to be at Photos.com?  Or do I need to opt-out from partner sales?  I don't mind IS subs, but I don't want to be at Photos.com.

I think that you dont need to bother up your self with that. Its only for files older than 18 month as I understood. In they first anounce I check that I was in and after that pass thru my port by oldest files with adding new keywords and so on and leave this check box for photos konj for images which are on all sites total out and accepted by iStok. In this process I find about 80% of my vector images that they not have any category which I defined. This is whats really disturbing me, grrrr.

PLS check some of youre old vectors and tell me about you experience.
From my side its look very strange like they checked out categories from my old vector files so they are not visible for buyers in they experiment year ago with best match algorithm.
I dont want to bee paranoid about them but this is very very strange.
I my POW they just cut strings from my Portfolio from buyers and boast them selfs how they are protecting exclusive members.
If it is true I really dont want have any "business" with them and you all know how I called them...
PLS check and reply my, I really want to know if I am wrong...
« Last Edit: December 19, 2009, 23:46 by Suljo »

« Reply #29 on: December 20, 2009, 00:02 »
0
I followed your advice and I opted out of subs, both on IS and on StockXpert. My content will only be on SS (0.36$) and on DT (0.35$) as subs. I don't want Getty to undercut my best selling agents.

Hmm, do I need to opt-out from subs at IS not to be at Photos.com?  Or do I need to opt-out from partner sales?  I don't mind IS subs, but I don't want to be at Photos.com.

I think that you dont need to bother up your self with that. Its only for files older than 18 month as I understood. In they first anounce I check that I was in and after that pass thru my port by oldest files with adding new keywords and so on and leave this check box for photos konj for images which are on all sites total out and accepted by iStok. In this process I find about 80% of my vector images that they not have any category which I defined. This is whats really disturbing me, grrrr.

PLS check some of youre old vectors and tell me about you experience.
From my side its look very strange like they checked out categories from my old vector files so they are not visible for buyers in they experiment year ago with best match algorithm.
I dont want to bee paranoid about them but this is very very strange.
I my POW they just cut strings from my Portfolio from buyers and boast them selfs how they are protecting exclusive members and announce them how are "deeply have hard and tough procedure bla bla..."
In shortcut of my opinion. They just disable branching of tree in they best match algorithm non exclusives?!
If it is true I really dont want have any "business" with them and you all know how I called them...
PLS check and reply my, I really want to know if I am wrong...

« Reply #30 on: December 20, 2009, 09:57 »
0
I seriously doubt that will happen.  We will be gathering dust at the back of the best match.

I share your - rather bleak - view of the future of independents at IS. It will be interesting to see, though, if they can afford to let half of the collection "gather dust at the back of the best match"...

vonkara

« Reply #31 on: December 20, 2009, 11:24 »
0
I followed your advice and I opted out of subs, both on IS and on StockXpert. My content will only be on SS (0.36$) and on DT (0.35$) as subs. I don't want Getty to undercut my best selling agents.

Hmm, do I need to opt-out from subs at IS not to be at Photos.com?  Or do I need to opt-out from partner sales?  I don't mind IS subs, but I don't want to be at Photos.com.
Just go to Control Panel, click on the "+ Contributor" line to open it up, and uncheck "Opt-in to Partner Program". Though it is my understanding that even if you remain opted-in, no files will be sent to partner sites unless you explicitly check "Available on Partner sites" on the "Partner Program" tab of your portfolio ("My Uploads").

I actually am still opted-in on the IS side, and have given them 3 of my oldest files which have sold a grand total of less than 5 times together. I'll take $0.25 for those if anybody's willing to buy 'em.  ;D
I can't believe they are continuing with this epic fail plan. If Istock had 3% of chance to close in the next 5 years, they are now at 25% by bringing further that plan. StockXpert sunk in less than one year with this photos.com plan. I think that there is a 666 on the front page of this plan folder located in Hungary headquarters. I suggest anyone to opt out again from this.

« Reply #32 on: December 20, 2009, 12:34 »
0
I seriously doubt that will happen.  We will be gathering dust at the back of the best match.

I share your - rather bleak - view of the future of independents at IS. It will be interesting to see, though, if they can afford to let half of the collection "gather dust at the back of the best match"...

Interesting.  Here, the independents seem to feel they're going to suffer from IS changing the best match to favour Exclusives.

Over on the IS forums, the Exclusives are concerned that they'll lose out because, given that the non-exclusive images are just as good as the Exclusive ones, the buyers will always take the cheaper (non-exclusive) file over the Exclusive one, assuming it'll work just as well for them.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see...

« Reply #33 on: December 20, 2009, 13:09 »
0
Quote
Over on the IS forums, the Exclusives are concerned that they'll lose out because, given that the non-exclusive images are just as good as the Exclusive ones, the buyers will always take the cheaper (non-exclusive) file over the Exclusive one, assuming it'll work just as well for them.

I'm not sure why the Exclusives are worried about that...buyers will have to find the cheaper photos before they can buy them and I gotta believe they aren't going to be easy to find. Do you see a sort by price on IS?

I know I've read a lot on this whole business over the past week and can't recall...will non-exclusive photos be totally separated out from exclusives now? If so, then I see why they're worried. If we are all still in one hopper, then my first statement applies.

« Reply #34 on: December 20, 2009, 13:47 »
0
I'm not sure why iStock says that current canister rates are not sustainable. They are increasing prices and have an ever increasing market share yet they can't sustain current canister levels? Has anyone done the math to see what the long term loss of income will be from this move? I imagine it is substantial. To increase prices and then take the income away with this sort of move is plainly unfair. But there hasn't been too much fair with this business for some time.

« Reply #35 on: December 20, 2009, 14:16 »
0
Quote
Over on the IS forums, the Exclusives are concerned that they'll lose out because, given that the non-exclusive images are just as good as the Exclusive ones, the buyers will always take the cheaper (non-exclusive) file over the Exclusive one, assuming it'll work just as well for them.

I'm not sure why the Exclusives are worried about that...buyers will have to find the cheaper photos before they can buy them and I gotta believe they aren't going to be easy to find. Do you see a sort by price on IS?

I know I've read a lot on this whole business over the past week and can't recall...will non-exclusive photos be totally separated out from exclusives now? If so, then I see why they're worried. If we are all still in one hopper, then my first statement applies.
I think we will all be in the same hopper but buyers will be able to find the cheaper photos on lots of other sites that have the entire portfolios of some of the best microstock contributors.  Perhaps that concerns exclusives?  I have never understood why istock have upload limits for their highest earners, exclusive or non-exclusive.

« Reply #36 on: December 20, 2009, 18:01 »
0
Quote
Over on the IS forums, the Exclusives are concerned that they'll lose out because, given that the non-exclusive images are just as good as the Exclusive ones, the buyers will always take the cheaper (non-exclusive) file over the Exclusive one, assuming it'll work just as well for them.

I'm not sure why the Exclusives are worried about that...buyers will have to find the cheaper photos before they can buy them and I gotta believe they aren't going to be easy to find. Do you see a sort by price on IS?

I know I've read a lot on this whole business over the past week and can't recall...will non-exclusive photos be totally separated out from exclusives now? If so, then I see why they're worried. If we are all still in one hopper, then my first statement applies.

No, nobody knows exactly how it will be done yet - we've been told the Main collection will not provide a search option which excludes Exclusive content, that's about all.  Everything else (including the suggestion made here that the best match will bury non-exclusives) is conjecture.

I was just intrigued by the fact that both camps seem to think it will be bad for them - clearly they can't both be right!

I would guess it depends how price conscious the buyers are.  iStock say their surveys indicate that most buyers aren't that concerned about a few dollars here and there, but you can see that if a buyer has, say, selected maybe half a dozen possibles and they see one or two are cheaper and just as good, they'll most likely pick the cheaper.

Some buyers have said (in the IS forums) that they would do that, but others have indicated that they don't mind paying more for the right image.  We can only wait and see.

« Reply #37 on: December 20, 2009, 18:37 »
0
...And some buyers didn't fill out the survey. ;D

« Reply #38 on: December 20, 2009, 18:52 »
0
...And some buyers didn't fill out the survey. ;D

Quite so!

nruboc

« Reply #39 on: December 20, 2009, 19:20 »
0
From kkthompson on Istock forum:

"Our plans for next year had one goal: make more money for our exclusives."

I wouldn't be too worried if I were exclusive.

« Reply #40 on: December 20, 2009, 19:30 »
0
I wouldn't be too worried if I were exclusive.

I wouldn't be quite so sanguine.  First, they could be lying; their goal may in fact be to make more money for themselves, and hope enough trickles down to the exclusives to keep them quiet.  Alternatively, their goal may be as stated, but are they competent enough to achieve it?  These are after all the same people who can't read IPTC data from images reliably after years of trying (or not trying).  They find difficult what every other microstock agency has accomplished.  Doesn't give me a lot of confidence in their ability to execute.

nruboc

« Reply #41 on: December 20, 2009, 19:51 »
0
I wouldn't be too worried if I were exclusive.

I wouldn't be quite so sanguine.  First, they could be lying; their goal may in fact be to make more money for themselves, and hope enough trickles down to the exclusives to keep them quiet.  Alternatively, their goal may be as stated, but are they competent enough to achieve it?  These are after all the same people who can't read IPTC data from images reliably after years of trying (or not trying).  They find difficult what every other microstock agency has accomplished.  Doesn't give me a lot of confidence in their ability to execute.


After looking at IStock's supposed 6 millionth image, you may have a point on the truthfulness factor. But after moving the canister goalposts, and virtually guaranteeing that exclusives will make substantially more, I think they're confident they have enough information to deliver, and if projections don't go as planned, they always have the best match control to further tilt the scales to exclusives, and now the financial gain to do so.


« Reply #42 on: December 21, 2009, 03:13 »
0
I think they made some big mistakes with photos.com.  Does that site have better content now than it did when StockXpert supplied it?  I don't think so.  If that is an example of their planning for the future, it could be a rocky ride for everyone there next year.  There is also the potential sell off to think about.  Anyone buying them will want to increase profits again.  How will they do that?  I expect to see them taking more money from the contributors.

« Reply #43 on: December 21, 2009, 09:27 »
0
From kkthompson on Istock forum:

"Our plans for next year had one goal: make more money for our exclusives."

I wouldn't be too worried if I were exclusive.

Well I certainly don't doubt either their honesty or their business competence, but plans don't always work out as expected.

On the other hand, no, I'm not worried, just interested to see what happens.

Leo Blanchette

« Reply #44 on: December 21, 2009, 18:03 »
0
Having done the Walmart Associate thing for three years in another lifetime, I have a deep distrust for large organization "who take care of their own". Unless you play golf with them and have a beer gut, you are not their own. General rule of thumb for all big business. It also amazes me how such incredible talent and intelligent people can be herded like sheep to the slaughter with a simple carrot we like to call a canister.

I'll be five hundred downloads away from my Daimond canister when the goalposts change, and instead of their desired effect of making me want to become an exclusive, my resolve to remain non-exclusive is strengthened due to the manipulative treatment. A simple fact is that money is money, downloads are downloads, and canisters are little icons. You can't argue those simple relationships. There is also becoming more competition within Istock than all around it, and artists are artists, money is money. Its

Now there is six different "cannisters" but after feb there will be twelve. The original one which became "the grandfather Icon" and its visually identical counterpart "the new levels" canister. Artists and the portfolio strength will determine their success...not a carrot. Sadly only after people have dumped their portfolio's on other sites and their hard earned ranking on them will people realize these simple matters.

If I didn't miss this goal by such a small amount (a mere 500 downloads) perhaps I wouldn't take it so hard. If I were 2000 away, I wouldn't give it a second thought, but here the finish line moves 30 miles away after coming within feet of it, its quite irritating. Is there anyone else who will be missing it by such a meager, meager amount?

Big business....gotta love it. After two years of keeping silent, I think this one is a gimme.








vonkara

« Reply #45 on: December 21, 2009, 18:11 »
0
I have been very lucky to had decided going exclusive in the last month. At the first announcement, I thought I won't be able to be silver in years. I started to wonder if was still a good choice. Now that it's back to normal for people going exclusive before february, I feel lucky to not having uploaded at DT 6 months ago.

Leo Blanchette

« Reply #46 on: December 21, 2009, 18:18 »
0
Congrats...I hope you find your decision to be a good one! I mean that too, nobody who works hard deserves to lose.

As for me, I'll keep uploading at Istock, but its just another site to me now. I think my "being part of the community" and happy go lucky forum days have come to an end. Thank goodness the internet is so huge.

vonkara

« Reply #47 on: December 21, 2009, 18:31 »
0
I still need to get approved. Even if I deleted/disabled my portfolios everywhere, I feel like there will be a couples of issues in the process... Will see on the 26th of this month.

I can't wait to disable my last 3 images at Dreamstime and I hope I won't unable one of them by mistake. Then I'll be lost lol

« Reply #48 on: December 21, 2009, 23:18 »
0
I'm not sure why the Exclusives are worried about that...buyers will have to find the cheaper photos before they can buy them and I gotta believe they aren't going to be easy to find. Do you see a sort by price on IS?

Off-topic for IS, but DT has an option for that: exclude/include the higher priced/level images. I don't see any diminishing of sales of my higher level images. It has been said often on this forum and elsewhere: buyers don't care that much about one or two credits more if it's the right image for their needs. Of course, they should find them.

helix7

« Reply #49 on: December 22, 2009, 11:08 »
0
...A simple fact is that money is money, downloads are downloads, and canisters are little icons. You can't argue those simple relationships. There is also becoming more competition within Istock than all around it, and artists are artists, money is money...

Right, money is money. But what if following the money leads you to istock exclusivity? You make it sound as if those of us who considered this were swayed by the idea that we wouldn't have a shiny new icon next to our names as soon as we previously had thought. But really, I think most people who gave exclusivity another look did so because it might mean more money for then compared to staying independent.

Canisters aren't just little icons. They're 5% pay increases, and in some cases they add up to large sums of money. Exclusivity doesn't work out mathematically for some people. But for others, it does work out, and sometimes it equates to significantly more money than the alternatives. It's a personal decision, and it's different for everyone. One portfolio of 500 images will do better or worse at istock than another of the same quantity. It is definitely not as simple as your simple facts would suggest.  

« Last Edit: December 22, 2009, 12:05 by helix7 »

« Reply #50 on: December 22, 2009, 11:23 »
0
Canisters aren't just little icons. They're 5% pay increases,

Actually, they're something like 14-25% increases :) ...

Leo Blanchette

« Reply #51 on: December 22, 2009, 13:54 »
0
I"m over it, no biggie.  :P Yesterday I was pretty upset on the matter because I got one of those canned pre-written responses on the matter. I'll be curious to see how this plays out.

« Reply #52 on: December 22, 2009, 16:52 »
0
Sorry, I'm not understanding, you said you will be within 500 by February, and iStock has said that if you email them before Jan. 11th about going exclusive, they will likely be able to negotiate a later date to lock in your Diamond pay increase if you are unable to get free of the other sites before the February date.

So, did you ask them to work with you on exclusivity to lock in your diamond?  Was that what you received a canned response for? 

lisafx

« Reply #53 on: December 22, 2009, 17:03 »
0

So, did you ask them to work with you on exclusivity to lock in your diamond?  Was that what you received a canned response for?  

OMG, Leo, you have referred 407 buyers to Istock!!!!  :o

With all those referrals they really ought to work with you on your canister level!
« Last Edit: December 22, 2009, 17:07 by lisafx »

Leo Blanchette

« Reply #54 on: December 22, 2009, 17:27 »
0
I guess being a little irritated I didn't explain everything properly.

1. I cannot go exclusive, and do not desire too. My operation is simply too big and it would take months to deactivate files, let alone close deals. SOOOO because Istock has made so much on me, plus the continued amount they generate on my referrals, I thought it a small thing for them to bump me up a small amount to that goal I'm on the verge of making. Stupid me.

2. I'm not as angry about money as I am about treatment. I don't like big corporations, and this is why. My biggest earner, believe it or not, is a small person owned site. Istock is becoming a low earner for me. 

3. Canisters are an incentive program. I wouldn't know so much about corporate brainwashing had I not experienced it for three years straight. Sure, canisters come with some benefits but my point was (that got missed) is that the system is going to continue to favor good selling artists. So a canister (which no longer reflects downloads but rather circumstances) will not continue to hold its power in the coming years. Downloads (money) will. The golf course runs the game, not employees or dedicated underlings.

4. Istock is getting HUGE. Good for company owners, bad for artists both exclusive or nonexclusive who are sharing the pie with thousands of new people a year, millions of new images a year).

Having said all that, whether people disagree or agree, I continue to inflate life rafts while people board the titanic.

Yes, a man who makes a company what could be over a hundred thousand dollars gets a little angry when they can't help him on such a small and marginal problem. Thats what my e-mail was about, and thats what got a "canned" response. That is why I got angry. But as even I've said on this subject, nobody owes us a living, so to carry on I'd be a hypocrite.

Leo Blanchette

« Reply #55 on: December 22, 2009, 17:28 »
0
Another thing I must clarify...its not a "smear Istock" intent that I have. I understand its just the way it goes. You can't grow so big and not have unique problems, let alone listen to one ant in such a huge colony. I'm going to start evolving out of microstock in general just due to some inevitable things. Istock has had a positive place in my situation up till now, so that is where I will leave it. Thank you Istock for making such a unique situation available to people during these times.

Leo

« Last Edit: December 22, 2009, 18:02 by KonaHawaii »

« Reply #56 on: December 22, 2009, 18:53 »
0
I'm a little surprised you say you'll be only 500 downloads away from Diamond at the end of February - you seem to have less than a 1000 to go now, I'd have thought you have a pretty good chance of crossing the line before the cut off date anyway, don't you?

But then you say you don't intend to go Exclusive in any case - so I guess no big deal.  The bling would be nice though wouldn't it?

« Reply #57 on: December 22, 2009, 19:18 »
0
I think in his case the big deal is the higher upload limit.  25/week can be stifling if you are producing twice that.

« Reply #58 on: December 22, 2009, 23:02 »
0
^^ +1

« Reply #59 on: December 23, 2009, 05:07 »
0
I"m over it, no biggie.  :P Yesterday I was pretty upset on the matter because I got one of those canned pre-written responses on the matter. I'll be curious to see how this plays out.

I got a polite, but completely standard reply yesterday after enquiring about the possibility of a small extension period. Unfortunately, it didn't address the questions I had asked. From what was being said on the iStock forum I was under the impression they wanted to work with non-exclusives in reaching an agreement and to get them on board, but the reply I got made it seem like they really weren't interested.

Shame really, considering the huge leap of faith required in going exclusive - you'd think there would be a little bit of give and take. At least there's no rush now for me to make a decision - I shall see what my canister level is in Feb and make a decision then.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2009, 05:10 by designalldone »

« Reply #60 on: December 23, 2009, 05:09 »
0
*double post*

« Reply #61 on: December 23, 2009, 05:13 »
0
I think in his case the big deal is the higher upload limit.  25/week can be stifling if you are producing twice that.

But he only has 860 files up now since 2006, either he isn't using all the upload limit or he has a very high rejection rate, which seems unlikely given the quality of his work...  and it'd only be 5 more uploads in any case.

My query though was more that there are 2 months to the cut off date, with over 24000 downloads now I would have expected him to be in with a good chance of reaching the 25000 download target by then.  But Jan and Feb are slow months I guess.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
23512 Views
Last post February 23, 2006, 09:15
by leaf
Technical Update

Started by Istock News Microstock News

0 Replies
1910 Views
Last post October 26, 2007, 12:52
by Istock News
Technical Update

Started by Istock News Microstock News

0 Replies
1976 Views
Last post October 26, 2007, 14:52
by Istock News
3 Replies
4237 Views
Last post May 06, 2009, 08:20
by tan510jomast
16 Replies
8377 Views
Last post December 01, 2009, 21:48
by RacePhoto

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors