MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: Dreamframer on September 21, 2010, 09:15
-
Since you guys are mostly in photos/illustrations, I will keep it short.
After deleting my audios from IS I decided to contact several audio libraries, and I was quite shocked how they all hate Istock/Getty. No one had nice words for them. And not only that. The comments were describing Istock management with words like "idiots", "very bad for artists", "people who are destroying this business"etc. These words are not mine. They are quoted directly from emails I received from contact persons who work on other sites.
Istock is reducing prices of audio in general. They are one of the cheapest audio libraries on internet, yet they pay their non-exclusive contributors 15%, while other libraries have 50/50, or in worst case 60-40 deal. Plus, Istock doesn't allow their artists to join PRO and receive performance royalties, while artists who submit their files to other libraries regularly receive money whenever their music is played.
So, please tell me, what could be worse for artists?
Getty/Istock obviously destroys, not only photography business, but music business too, and artists are suckers to support such company.
-
I don't do audio but maybe you should post some links to the sites you are talking about especially if you can get some referrals.
-
I can't reveal which words I quoted, but I will post the list of audio libraries, with ratings.
http://musiclibraryreport.com/ratings/ (http://musiclibraryreport.com/ratings/)
As you can see, Istock is on 33rd place
-
The big companies are bad, and small are good. Basically - Eat crap or die. Thatīs what we have to do, Or start our own successful company. Wich is impossible today.
-
Since you guys are mostly in photos/illustrations, I will keep it short.
After deleting my audios from IS I decided to contact several audio libraries, and I was quite shocked how they all hate Istock/Getty. No one had nice words for them. And not only that. The comments were describing Istock management with words like "idiots", "very bad for artists", "people who are destroying this business"etc. These words are not mine. They are quoted directly from emails I received from contact persons who work on other sites.
Istock is reducing prices of audio in general.
How would that be different from the complaints macro agencies made and make about micros?
-
Since you guys are mostly in photos/illustrations, I will keep it short.
After deleting my audios from IS I decided to contact several audio libraries, and I was quite shocked how they all hate Istock/Getty. No one had nice words for them. And not only that. The comments were describing Istock management with words like "idiots", "very bad for artists", "people who are destroying this business"etc. These words are not mine. They are quoted directly from emails I received from contact persons who work on other sites.
Istock is reducing prices of audio in general.
How would that be different from the complaints macro agencies made and make about micros?
Yes, I forgot to compare those two. It's similar thing, but not exactly the same, since Istock prices for RF audio are about two times lower than prices for RF audio files at other music libraries.
So, It's not another category (like RM photos and RF photos). It's the same category of product, just twice cheaper. It would be like if some agency would lower their prices for RF photos to 50%, and pay their contributors 15% of that.
-
I passed the audio application with istock but never bothered uploading. The prices are too low and with the low commissions, I would probably make a loss on my time. Pond5 is much better, I have only uploaded a few files but already have sales. They let you set your own price and have 50% commission.
-
It seems to me that in front of contributors is a hard and long campaign how to divert customers from "G family" to artist friendly sites....