MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: FightForArtists on April 07, 2011, 11:38
-
Let's face it... Strict upload limits? Lengthy review times? vague, generic rejection notices? A site plagued with bugs? 15% commissions? iStockPhoto doesn't respect you. If you're like me, you've known this for a long time. You've perhaps wondered what you can do to make a difference. I am going to tell you.
If you are one of the ones who have pulled their content after the recent pricing restructure, I applaud you. I did not pull my content. I'm a full-time, non-exclusive contributor who made 60K in commissions last year. 25K of that came from iStock, so I think you can understand why I stayed.
But that doesn't mean I'm helpless. For us non-exclusives, it's in our best interest for buyers to shop elsewhere. In fact, it's in our best interest to bring the entire iStock company down so those buyers would shop at the competitors' sites, who will then pay us higher commissions.
A friend of mine who is a contributor and also works at a video production house in Chicago, said that with every client he works with, he always recommends against buying from iStock. I thought, "That's brilliant. Why don't I do that?" So yesterday, I finished doing a custom edit to one of my footage clips for a company that found me on iStock. After the job, I wrote an FYI in the email, just explaining the facts. I told her what iStock pays the artist as opposed to Pond5's 50% commission and Revostock's 45%. I told her how iStock actually reduced my commission rate after I signed up with them and uploaded all my content. I told her how the selection is bigger on the other sites and the prices are generally much lower (of course, this applies to photos as well, not just footage). She wrote back and said that she had forwarded the email to upper management and will see what she can do.
Do you ever work with, or for, companies that require stock media? A simple paragraph at the end of your email explaining the facts can make a big difference. I believe this is how we fight unfair treatment of artists. We don't have unions, folks. It's up to us. If you want to fight, forward this message to anyone you know who is in the same situation.
-
You want to bring down a company that paid you $25,000?
-
as far as I understand he wants to make 40k out of the 25k he made there, but elsewhere instead...
-
You want to bring down a company that paid you $25,000?
You seem to miss the point. If the customers had shopped the same videos elsewhere, he would have gotten $50,000 (or even more).
I don't think the customers vanish even if iStock does.
I have made about 25k at iStock too. iStock has made about 100k (yes I know it's not all profit, so don't bother to correct me) from my photos. Makes me very sad when I think about it.
For the next 25k the figures are: 25k for me, 142k for iStock.
-
Yeah, but a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
-
There was a big long thread about this. I think it was about removing links though. While I'm not going to take time to un-recommend iStock or any other site, I do advertise my personal stock site to my freelance clients.
-
You want to bring down a company that paid you $25,000?
iStock has paid me a lot of money in 5 years, no doubt. And I have made them five times more. I certainly don't owe them anything. I would rather make my money elsewhere, at a rate that I feel is fair. So yeah, I would love to take down a company that I perceive as evil to get to that position.
-
Once, I was fed up of another stock company where I submitted. I earned money there. I resigned (I would says that's coherent) , and, even having done it, I never bad-mouthed them.
-
There is a certain difference between bad-mouthing and telling the plain truth.
-
I wouldn't like to see istock collapse, as all the exclusives would then have to use the other sites and there's enough competition already. I would like to see the commission cuts backfire, so they lose money and it puts off other sites following their example. Unfortunately I'm not even sure that will happen, as it seems that people will keep uploading to istock whatever they do. I think we are going to have to hope that more buyers get fed up with the changes they have made and look elsewhere.
-
I stopped uploading as soon as the announcement was made.
I pulled my port before the changes took place.
And I am absolutely going to take all the time needed to let all my customers (friends, family and everyone I know included), know that IStock should be avoided like the plague.
Like the plague.
Compared to the other sites IStock prices are too high, their images are in now way special or unique anymore, the multitude of collections, crowns, canisters, exclusive, only somewhat exclusive, part exclusive, independent, partners and so on, are bewildering to say the least, their search engine never works and their customer services are slow and unhelpful.
They also happen to pay the lowest commission in the industry.
And have the crappiest upload system.
Of course, but of course I'm going to bad mouth them.
I have been doing it for months and until they come to their senses, I'll never stop.
No designer should buy at IStock anymore. There is no practical reason for them to do so.
To the OP - can you not at least delete some of your clips? Or stop uploading? Are you really in danger of starvation if you do so?
-
It does seem kind of hypocritical to bad mouth a company, that you actually promote, by allowing them to sell your photos. If you work for an "evil" company, are you not evil also?
-
I'd say "anger" is justified. We signed up with the promise of a certain commission rate, we put up with their lousy site, and we were rewarded with a 25% paycut.
-
I'd say "anger" is justified. We signed up with the promise of a certain commission rate, we put up with their lousy site, and we were rewarded with a 25% paycut.
At least get your math right, if you make 25K a year at IS then your pay cut is 5%-10% .
If % is what bothers you, go exclusive and make 40% .
-
Haha, thank you for this thread! I have been a lurker for a while now, content to read and be silent, and it took a topic like this to get me involved!
I am in the same boat. When my income was cut by 30%, it really hurt.... especially knowing that the money I used to get paid was now going towards padding istocks bottom line even further. I'm sorry, but no company has THAT much overhead that they need to take 85% of every dollar that comes in! Think of it like this folks... in any other industry in which an agent represents talent, the talent gets 85% and the agent gets 15. Fellow contributors, we are the talent! Without us, istock doesn't make a dime. We are being taken advantage of... especially when other sites in this industry pay over 3x the % that istock does.
Istock has forgotten the people that made them great. We are the reason that they are where they are today. We spent countless hours dealing with their difficult upload system. We waited patiently while they took months to review our footage only to tell us that one little thing didn't meet their "high quality standards" but we were welcome to fix it and resubmit with the hope that they'd get around to looking at it in another 3 months... For all of our patience and understanding, they have rewarded us with a simple slap in the face.
I'm with you OP!
-
Let's face it... Strict upload limits? Lengthy review times? vague, generic rejection notices? A site plagued with bugs? 15% commissions? iStockPhoto doesn't respect you. If you're like me, you've known this for a long time. You've perhaps wondered what you can do to make a difference. I am going to tell you.
If you are one of the ones who have pulled their content after the recent pricing restructure, I applaud you. I did not pull my content. I'm a full-time, non-exclusive contributor who made 60K in commissions last year. 25K of that came from iStock, so I think you can understand why I stayed.
But that doesn't mean I'm helpless. For us non-exclusives, it's in our best interest for buyers to shop elsewhere. In fact, it's in our best interest to bring the entire iStock company down so those buyers would shop at the competitors' sites, who will then pay us higher commissions.
A friend of mine who is a contributor and also works at a video production house in Chicago, said that with every client he works with, he always recommends against buying from iStock. I thought, "That's brilliant. Why don't I do that?" So yesterday, I finished doing a custom edit to one of my footage clips for a company that found me on iStock. After the job, I wrote an FYI in the email, just explaining the facts. I told her what iStock pays the artist as opposed to Pond5's 50% commission and Revostock's 45%. I told her how iStock actually reduced my commission rate after I signed up with them and uploaded all my content. I told her how the selection is bigger on the other sites and the prices are generally much lower (of course, this applies to photos as well, not just footage). She wrote back and said that she had forwarded the email to upper management and will see what she can do.
Do you ever work with, or for, companies that require stock media? A simple paragraph at the end of your email explaining the facts can make a big difference. I believe this is how we fight unfair treatment of artists. We don't have unions, folks. It's up to us. If you want to fight, forward this message to anyone you know who is in the same situation.
Agree, keep up the good work, I let as many folks know about the alternatives as well, spread the word wide and far :)
-
I'd say "anger" is justified. We signed up with the promise of a certain commission rate, we put up with their lousy site, and we were rewarded with a 25% paycut.
At least get your math right, if you make 25K a year at IS then your pay cut is 5%-10% .
If % is what bothers you, go exclusive and make 40% .
Are you serious? Going from the former rate of 20% to the new rate of 15% is a 25% paycut. This is what the majority of contributors experienced.
-
^^^ Nobody serius into stock makes 15% at IS.
The OP makes 25K that means he hit the RC for 19% easily !!
That is a 10% drop, not 25% .
-
I agree with the OP 100%. It's all about the future of this business - in fact, whether there will be any future. Any chance I get, I'll advise people not to use IS.
IS has a lot in common with Ebay. Over the last few years, Ebay has steadily squeezed their 'storefront' sellers with increased fees and restrictions, ignoring their loud complaints, confident that they had no other place to go. Slowly but steadily, alternatives have opened up and many sellers have left Ebay - and are now selling through Amazon, for example.
Viable alternatives to IS, and in fact to all the big microstocks, will appear in time and we should all do what we can to make that happen.
-
a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
I thought it was the other way around ?
-
^^^ Nobody serius into stock makes 15% at IS.
The OP makes 25K that means he hit the RC for 19% easily !!
That is a 10% drop, not 25% .
Not if his income is split up between multiple media formats, like illustrations, audio, photos, and video - which is common for the big players.
-
We were talking about this before...
I suggested that we stay at Istock, but also we need to offer customers same products at agencies with better deal...
-
In reply to the OP...
I stopped uploading last Sept. when the paycuts were announced, and pulled all but 5 of my images from IS in Jan-Feb. I vent a lot here at this forum, every chance I get, about IS. And if I run across someone who needs photos, I recommend one of the other sites, stating that IS prices are too high and the search is broken. And every time my teacher at school recommends buying from IS, I take the student aside and mention other sites for better prices.
I am (and have been for a few months now) fed up with istock.
I don't really think I need to do much else, because I think that istock is doing a grand job of killing themselves off. ;)
-
Why shouldn't we be venting our anger with IS? They're killing our business. Sure, you can say that systematically destroying your suppliers is itself "just business" but that doesn't mean we have to like it, or should just passively accept it. Telling other microstockers (especially new ones) what we think is wrong about IS, and trying to promote alternatives - and doing this frequently - is also quite legal and is in fact "just business".
-
admin edit: I just removed about 10 posts from this thread (and one other 'spring off' thread) ... which were a sour exchange of comments
-
admin edit: I just removed about 10 posts from this thread (and one other 'spring off' thread) ... which were a sour exchange of comments
Darn. I was just about to pull up a chair and grab some popcorn. ;D
-
admin edit: I just removed about 10 posts from this thread (and one other 'spring off' thread) ... which were a sour exchange of comments
Darn. I was just about to pull up a chair and grab some popcorn. ;D
The "show" always seems to happen on a Friday night. ???
-
In view of the recent law enforcement action my previous post can be disregarded :-) as it is now out of context.
-
I'd say "anger" is justified. We signed up with the promise of a certain commission rate, we put up with their lousy site, and we were rewarded with a 25% paycut.
^ It's more than that for nons. With the addition of Ex+, Vetta then Agency, three new layers of best match priority have been bestowed upon the non-exclusives. So in addition to a ~15-25% pay cut, we now have poorer placement in the search as a result because these other layers receive preferred placement. I've been keeping track of my DL volume and I've gone from averaging 15 dl per day to 10 since January. I will be tracking this for the year to get enough data to make a reasonable inference as to whether these layers have affected my volume...but I am pretty sure it's contributing at least to some degree.
-
Once, I was fed up of another stock company where I submitted. I earned money there. I resigned (I would says that's coherent) , and, even having done it, I never bad-mouthed them.
Please quote the portion of the OP where the bad mouthing occurred. Perhaps we should all be subservient and never mention the 15% commissions to anyone. I'd hate for customers to find out iStockphoto keeps 85% of the commission. That might make customers mad, and iStockphoto sad. ::)
-
We contributors behave really silly in some ways. I know everyone needs money so its hard to quit IS. But I dont think telling pure truth about IS is badmouthing. In my opinion, agencies SHOULD NOT change agreements as they like - we do business together and try to change just one side of agreements in "normal" business - you will be broken ASAP! Clear example is Fotolia, where I still have in my agreement with them 30% commision but in fact they pay me much less. what?!
I do not recommend IS to both customers and photographers. I also wrote on my blog I dont think they are fair partner and why.
I also have very good insight on small stock agency and anything over 60% for agency is simply greed. Old stock agencies had to print catalogues, send them to customers, send all invoices, slides etc. via normal slow-mail and their share was 50%. Microstock DOES NOT have these costs and they told us 20% commision is too high?! OMG!
-
This entire discussion and the inability of submitters on this forum to form any sort of consensus is exactly why IS can, will and does whatever it wants to do. And they know that.
-
You want to bring down a company that paid you $25,000?
You could have said:
"IStock want to screw the contributors that built them up from nothing and make them millions every year?"
The relationship works both ways, and lets not forget who stuck the knife in first.
-
This entire discussion and the inability of submitters on this forum to form any sort of consensus is exactly why IS can, will and does whatever it wants to do. And they know that.
I don't know, there are a lot of us doing something about this, even if it's just recommending buyers to other sites. They might be able to get new contributors to take the place of those that have stopped uploading or removed their portfolios but I think they would make more money if they hadn't cut commissions. It makes the future of microstock much more uncertain and its going to make a lot of people look at other ways to make money from their images.
This isn't like some of the businesses that can just squeeze their suppliers because they know there's no alternatives for them. We have lots of other microstock sites and lots of non-microstock markets to use.
-
You want to bring down a company that paid you $25,000?
Your argument is invalid. If istock goes out of business the sales don`t just disappear. Buyers will buy elsewhere and since istock ahs the lowest commissions this means automatically that his revenue goes UP. Or, in other words:
if istock with 25.000 goes down, he earns automatically 50.000 and more elsewhere.
-
I apply the formula: don`t buy at istock, don`t sell at istock.
Istock is an abusive system.
If you buy at istock, you support an abusive system.
If you upload to istock, you support a abusive system.
If you are an exclusive artist at istock you give your name and all your creativity to an abusive system. Nothing to be proud of, buth rather ashamed.
Simple and clear.
-
I apply the formula: don`t buy at istock, don`t sell at istock.
Istock is an abusive system.
If you buy at istock, you support an abusive system.
If you upload to istock, you support a abusive system.
If you are an exclusive artist at istock you give your name and all your creativity to an abusive system. Nothing to be proud of, buth rather ashamed.
Simple and clear.
That's a good philosophy, but where does it stop? Does it extend to FT, DT, SS? There are very few agencies that I think have got it right.
-
IS has the right to cut what they offer to contributors, to change the way images are ranked in searches, or to change prices to buyers What's abusive is the fact that getting your products on those shelves is a long and tedious effort, and is only worthwhile if you believe that pricing, commission and placement will stable long enough to get a reasonable return. In my experience, that's at least a year.
What would make this system 'fair' instead of exploitive would be a guarantee that the commission and placement structure in place at the time a photo was submitted would remain unchanged - for that photo - for a reasonable length of time, at least a year. Changes to commissions and search placement would initially apply only to new submissions.
I didn't say that implementing this arrangement would be easy for IS. But it would restore some fairness to what is becoming essentially a big scam perpetrated on photographers.
-
Ok, so after being inspired by this thread yesterday, I got brave and called up 3 local production houses to tell them about istock and their poor treatment of contributors. The response I got was quite mixed. Company 1: Thank you for letting us know. We actually do use istock for a lot of our stock needs and I will certainly pass this information along to other producers that we work with. Company 2: They didn't care about what I had to say, treated me like a telemarketer, etc... not that I entirely blame them as this was an unsolicited call. Company 3: Yes we are aware of the issues with istock and have slowly tapered off our use of them. We typically try other stock sites first to see if we can find the subject we need.
I'm going to try to call a couple more today. Can you imagine what would happen if everybody started doing this?? What we need is a leader to organize this "movement." Individually we can't accomplish much, but together we are a force to be reckoned with.
As long as we're dreaming and talking about off the wall ideas, here's another one: What if we created a boycott istock petition and got a massive amount of contributors to sign it. The petition basically says that on July 4th, 2011, if Istock does not raise their royalties back up to the levels they were at when we signed up with them, then everybody on the list will pull their content. We make a website with a big counter on it, counting down to "Independance Day." As contributors, this alleviates some of the doubts that individually removing our content will accomplish anything and makes us a part of something bigger. As I said before, I doubt this would ever get going... but its fun to dream right!
-
Ok, so after being inspired by this thread yesterday, I got brave and called up 3 local production houses to tell them about istock and their poor treatment of contributors. The response I got was quite mixed. Company 1: Thank you for letting us know. We actually do use istock for a lot of our stock needs and I will certainly pass this information along to other producers that we work with. Company 2: They didn't care about what I had to say, treated me like a telemarketer, etc... not that I entirely blame them as this was an unsolicited call. Company 3: Yes we are aware of the issues with istock and have slowly tapered off our use of them. We typically try other stock sites first to see if we can find the subject we need.
I'm going to try to call a couple more today. Can you imagine what would happen if everybody started doing this?? What we need is a leader to organize this "movement." Individually we can't accomplish much, but together we are a force to be reckoned with.
As long as we're dreaming and talking about off the wall ideas, here's another one: What if we created a boycott istock petition and got a massive amount of contributors to sign it. The petition basically says that on July 4th, 2011, if Istock does not raise their royalties back up to the levels they were at when we signed up with them, then everybody on the list will pull their content. We make a website with a big counter on it, counting down to "Independance Day." As contributors, this alleviates some of the doubts that individually removing our content will accomplish anything and makes us a part of something bigger. As I said before, I doubt this would ever get going... but its fun to dream right!
Didn't some contributors sign up when they were giving images away?
-
The bottom line is always profit. I belong to the top 8 stock sites. They all turn a profit. Some turn more profit than others. Some are more fair than others. But it's not good business to wish that the least fair go away, on the speculation that I might turn more profit at another site. There will always be a site that is the least fair. If iStock goes away then some other site will be the least fair. So what then? Go after that site?
If you don't like a company's business practices don't work for that company. I recommend that buyers visit the site that earns me the best percentage. I can't support the elimination of of my second biggest earner just because their percentage is low.
-
Istock to Duck Photographer
(http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/196401_10150181335436201_30776731200_8718105_412431_n.jpg)
-
I apply the formula: don`t buy at istock, don`t sell at istock.
Istock is an abusive system.
If you buy at istock, you support an abusive system.
If you upload to istock, you support a abusive system.
If you are an exclusive artist at istock you give your name and all your creativity to an abusive system. Nothing to be proud of, buth rather ashamed.
Simple and clear.
Im only talking about myself here but i feel that there are no viable alternatives for me as a vector exclusive on istock. Im sure a lot of exclusives would agree that the sept announcement killed off any warm feelings contributors had towards the company. Your right, the pride is no longer there but i feel trapped. I'd like to know if there are any independents making hundreds a day off vector at other sites. I have no experience on other sites but i just dont think there are any at the moment to replace sales from istock. I know vectors and photos are different but i feel that the buyers are the same for both.
-
Well, it seems we have a boycott on track, with all that's needed; its leaders, its followers, its "official board", its telephonic evangelists etc.
It's not that I'm fearing that this kind of boycott can work. Always never happens. But I'm surprised by one one the most recurrent arugments: "let's show to our customers where they can get files cheaper". That's to say: "files are to expensive in stock", "send the customers to the places where they will be fastly get used (and spoiled) to get files for 0.30 c". Where our work is less valued. Let's make of all them subscription buyers. That will make impossible a raise in prices, and more probable cuts in comissions. In two or three years, number of files will double and I really doubt it will be possible to stand in this business selling files at 0.30.
If IS has done something good, it has been reedeming the "nothing" microprices from 2000 to more resonable microprices, affordable to both big firms and new MS customers. They can get a big size, even at IS, for one tenth of what they had to pay ten years back. Even a Vetta is three times cheaper.
And comissions for independants ... they are not so different, if you consider subs (it seems that is where more customers go, according to posts of many independants in thios very forums). Ther's always the question: what matters more? Your cut or what you really get for your sale?
At the end, you are asking for a business where the designer gets money, the printer gets momeny, the creative gets money... and the 0.30 paid for the photographer it isn't worth to be written in the budget.
-
I apply the formula: don`t buy at istock, don`t sell at istock.
Istock is an abusive system.
If you buy at istock, you support an abusive system.
If you upload to istock, you support a abusive system.
If you are an exclusive artist at istock you give your name and all your creativity to an abusive system. Nothing to be proud of, buth rather ashamed.
Simple and clear.
Im only talking about myself here but i feel that there are no viable alternatives for me as a vector exclusive on istock. Im sure a lot of exclusives would agree that the sept announcement killed off any warm feelings contributors had towards the company. Your right, the pride is no longer there but i feel trapped. I'd like to know if there are any independents making hundreds a day off vector at other sites. I have no experience on other sites but i just dont think there are any at the moment to replace sales from istock. I know vectors and photos are different but i feel that the buyers are the same for both.
I completely understand your feelings and decisions, but it is OUR responsibility to support other sites and build up alternatives. Otherwise, may it be from a business or moral standpoint, we are screwed on the long run.
I recommend cancel exclusivity in any case. Yes. This is painful. But even if in the beginning there is a commercial loss (which may recover within short time) the feeling of freedom and not-beeing-abused rewards a lot.
If we start to support other sites they will be just as strong and you will be able to earn more.
If you enver support other sites and never make the step the dependence will lead to a abuse of power from istock.
If your strategic horizon is short, you will be trapped into a histeric and reaction-only circle where you only can lose.
-
Ok, so after being inspired by this thread yesterday, I got brave and called up 3 local production houses to tell them about istock and their poor treatment of contributors. The response I got was quite mixed. Company 1: Thank you for letting us know. We actually do use istock for a lot of our stock needs and I will certainly pass this information along to other producers that we work with. Company 2: They didn't care about what I had to say, treated me like a telemarketer, etc... not that I entirely blame them as this was an unsolicited call. Company 3: Yes we are aware of the issues with istock and have slowly tapered off our use of them. We typically try other stock sites first to see if we can find the subject we need.
I'd suggest using your time to go out and shoot rather than harassing design companies. You sound like a real jerk.
-
Ok, so after being inspired by this thread yesterday, I got brave and called up 3 local production houses to tell them about istock and their poor treatment of contributors. The response I got was quite mixed. Company 1: Thank you for letting us know. We actually do use istock for a lot of our stock needs and I will certainly pass this information along to other producers that we work with. Company 2: They didn't care about what I had to say, treated me like a telemarketer, etc... not that I entirely blame them as this was an unsolicited call. Company 3: Yes we are aware of the issues with istock and have slowly tapered off our use of them. We typically try other stock sites first to see if we can find the subject we need.
I'd suggest using your time to go out and shoot rather than harassing design companies. You sound like a real jerk.
Or, as an alternative, use most of your time by going out and shooting, and continue to make your calls. Just don't report them all here. Keep it on the down-low, to avoid being called names. :)
-
I have always wondered why one would be aiming to become a free, self-employed photographer just to sign exclusivity with an "virtual" MS company, that does not make any sense at all. No matter how many little tiny icons they offer you for that and no matter how that company is called.
-
I have always wondered why one would be aiming to become a free, self-employed photographer just to sign exclusivity with an "virtual" MS company, that does not make any sense at all. No matter how many little tiny icons they offer you for that and no matter how that company is called.
Really? You've always wondered that? Nothing better to wonder about?
-
I have always wondered why one would be aiming to become a free, self-employed photographer just to sign exclusivity with an "virtual" MS company, that does not make any sense at all. No matter how many little tiny icons they offer you for that and no matter how that company is called.
Really? You've always wondered that? Nothing better to wonder about?
Are you wondering about ?? ;D ;D
-
I have always wondered why one would be aiming to become a free, self-employed photographer just to sign exclusivity with an "virtual" MS company, that does not make any sense at all. No matter how many little tiny icons they offer you for that and no matter how that company is called.
Maybe IS, stock or microstock are the only source of work for self-employed photographers??? That's new!
Make the world wider.
-
Ok, so after being inspired by this thread yesterday, I got brave and called up 3 local production houses to tell them about istock and their poor treatment of contributors. The response I got was quite mixed. Company 1: Thank you for letting us know. We actually do use istock for a lot of our stock needs and I will certainly pass this information along to other producers that we work with. Company 2: They didn't care about what I had to say, treated me like a telemarketer, etc... not that I entirely blame them as this was an unsolicited call. Company 3: Yes we are aware of the issues with istock and have slowly tapered off our use of them. We typically try other stock sites first to see if we can find the subject we need.
I'm going to try to call a couple more today. Can you imagine what would happen if everybody started doing this?? What we need is a leader to organize this "movement." Individually we can't accomplish much, but together we are a force to be reckoned with.
As long as we're dreaming and talking about off the wall ideas, here's another one: What if we created a boycott istock petition and got a massive amount of contributors to sign it. The petition basically says that on July 4th, 2011, if Istock does not raise their royalties back up to the levels they were at when we signed up with them, then everybody on the list will pull their content. We make a website with a big counter on it, counting down to "Independance Day." As contributors, this alleviates some of the doubts that individually removing our content will accomplish anything and makes us a part of something bigger. As I said before, I doubt this would ever get going... but its fun to dream right!
Great job, I definitely encourage this, let as many companies as possible know how IStock treats it's contributors and the other alternatives out there. Don't worry about the name callers, sometimes a conference call will do that to ya.
-
The bottom line is always profit. I belong to the top 8 stock sites. They all turn a profit. Some turn more profit than others. Some are more fair than others. But it's not good business to wish that the least fair go away, on the speculation that I might turn more profit at another site. There will always be a site that is the least fair. If iStock goes away then some other site will be the least fair. So what then? Go after that site?
If you don't like a company's business practices don't work for that company. I recommend that buyers visit the site that earns me the best percentage. I can't support the elimination of of my second biggest earner just because their percentage is low.
I still don't understand. Istock had by far the lowest commissions, if we accept them being cut, surely the other sites will follow? There's also nothing to stop istock doing this again.
Istock are also my second biggest earner but I don't want lower and lower commissions until there isn't enough for me to do this any more.
-
You don't have to accept it. Quit. Vote with your feet. Put your money where your mouth is.
-
I'm not accepting it. I haven't uploaded anything to istock since last September and I have deleted a lot of images and video clips. I lost a lot of money when they closed stockxpert and I can't afford to just leave but I'm doing all I can to get to the point where I can leave without taking another big financial hit. I probably wont delete some of my best selling images because some people have made very similar copies and I'm not going to make it easy for them.
-
Good for you. I respect your stance. iStock's not the only game in town.
-
StockNRoll rocks! If contributors are actually angry enough to start cold-calling design shops, that word will spread. Companies that use IS will at least start getting a creepy feeling about it and wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea to start looking at alternatives.
-
Heh, well thanks for the vote of confidence, but I am only one person. Like you said, just imagine what could happen if 10 or even 100 of us started doing this...
-
Ok, so after being inspired by this thread yesterday, I got brave and called up 3 local production houses to tell them about istock and their poor treatment of contributors. The response I got was quite mixed. Company 1: Thank you for letting us know. We actually do use istock for a lot of our stock needs and I will certainly pass this information along to other producers that we work with. Company 2: They didn't care about what I had to say, treated me like a telemarketer, etc... not that I entirely blame them as this was an unsolicited call. Company 3: Yes we are aware of the issues with istock and have slowly tapered off our use of them. We typically try other stock sites first to see if we can find the subject we need.
I'd suggest using your time to go out and shoot rather than harassing design companies. You sound like a real jerk.
roger that...:)
-
Ok, so after being inspired by this thread yesterday, I got brave and called up 3 local production houses to tell them about istock and their poor treatment of contributors. The response I got was quite mixed. Company 1: Thank you for letting us know. We actually do use istock for a lot of our stock needs and I will certainly pass this information along to other producers that we work with. Company 2: They didn't care about what I had to say, treated me like a telemarketer, etc... not that I entirely blame them as this was an unsolicited call. Company 3: Yes we are aware of the issues with istock and have slowly tapered off our use of them. We typically try other stock sites first to see if we can find the subject we need.
I'd suggest using your time to go out and shoot rather than harassing design companies. You sound like a real jerk.
roger that...:)
sjlocke and SNP... please elaborate on why you think he is a jerk... He's calling design companies about IStock's poor treatment of contributors....truth hurts???
-
sjlocke and SNP... please elaborate on why you think he is a jerk... He's calling design companies about IStock's poor treatment of contributors....truth hurts???
They are scared exclusives. And they should be. The word is getting out and sales are dropping. People always lash out when they are frightened.
-
sjlocke and SNP... please elaborate on why you think he is a jerk... He's calling design companies about IStock's poor treatment of contributors....truth hurts???
They are scared exclusives. And they should be. The word is getting out and sales are dropping. People always lash out when they are frightened.
Agree, if I was a design company on the receiving end of this call, not knowing the alternatives out there and the way IStock was treating contributors, I would be thankful for the info.
-
sjlocke and SNP... please elaborate on why you think he is a jerk... He's calling design companies about IStock's poor treatment of contributors....truth hurts???
They are scared exclusives. And they should be. The word is getting out and sales are dropping. People always lash out when they are frightened.
Agree, if I was a design company on the receiving end of this call, not knowing the alternatives out there and the way IStock was treating contributors, I would be thankful for the info.
I don't blame them for being scared, though. If I was relying on income from iStock, I'd be terrified right now.
-
sjlocke and SNP... please elaborate on why you think he is a jerk... He's calling design companies about IStock's poor treatment of contributors....truth hurts???
They are scared exclusives. And they should be. The word is getting out and sales are dropping. People always lash out when they are frightened.
Agree, if I was a design company on the receiving end of this call, not knowing the alternatives out there and the way IStock was treating contributors, I would be thankful for the info.
I don't blame them for being scared, though. If I was relying on income from iStock, I'd be terrified right now.
I expected as much from SNP, but you would think sjlocke would rise above the name calling.... guess not.
-
Ok, so after being inspired by this thread yesterday, I got brave and called up 3 local production houses to tell them about istock and their poor treatment of contributors. The response I got was quite mixed. Company 1: Thank you for letting us know. We actually do use istock for a lot of our stock needs and I will certainly pass this information along to other producers that we work with. Company 2: They didn't care about what I had to say, treated me like a telemarketer, etc... not that I entirely blame them as this was an unsolicited call. Company 3: Yes we are aware of the issues with istock and have slowly tapered off our use of them. We typically try other stock sites first to see if we can find the subject we need.
I'd suggest using your time to go out and shoot rather than harassing design companies. You sound like a real jerk.
It must be pretty hard for exclusives who enter independent forums to see almost every thread on their sole or major source of artistic income being absolutely battered. Maybe one comfort is that most buyers probably don't read here. However, no other agency is quite getting it like iStock, in terms of negative threads and this is obviously justifiable. Usually people can only take so much before they lash out.
-
I don't think istock will lose all its buyers. A lot of them must be as loyal as the long term exclusives. I don't see anything wrong with letting buyers know how little commission non-exclusives get from istock. I would hope that if they go to the other sites, they can still buy images from exclusives at istock. It probably wouldn't be good for any of us if a big proportion of exclusive were forced in to putting their portfolios on the other sites.
I can understand why exclusives would feel uneasy about buyers being persuaded to look elsewhere but what other options do we have? Istock still make a significant amount of money for non-exclusives but its really hard to take commissions under 20% when other sites can pay 50% and make a profit. Its also going to cost us a lot of money if we just accept these low commissions and the other sites follow suit.
-
Everything would be so simple if nobody was exclusive. We could just bash the site together. I was an IS exclusive about 2005 to 2006, then already I did some research about other sites and thought that I don't want to have my all eggs in one basket, because it's just not very wise.
-
I apply the formula: don`t buy at istock, don`t sell at istock.
Istock is an abusive system.
If you buy at istock, you support an abusive system.
If you upload to istock, you support a abusive system.
If you are an exclusive artist at istock you give your name and all your creativity to an abusive system. Nothing to be proud of, buth rather ashamed.
Simple and clear.
At the same time I started at iStock, I also submitted pics RM to a small, independent agency which gave contributors 60%. Made one sale in four years and last week pulled my images.
60% of (almost) nothing is (almost) nothing.
Agree also with what others have said, e.g. about other agencies having a history of treating their contributors badly in different ways, iStock is topping them all now, but that could change.
Also, nothing great about getting 30c for sub images, agree totally.
It's never as simple and clear as you imply.
-
Agree, if I was a design company on the receiving end of this call, not knowing the alternatives out there and the way IStock was treating contributors, I would be thankful for the info.
If I was running a design house, busy doing my work, and some random person called me to "inform me" of his opinions about how I should run my business, I'd hang up. Who asked you for your opinion?
And if I want to think you're a jerk for trying to damage my primary source of income, I think I'm allowed to feel that way.
-
Heh, well thanks for the vote of confidence, but I am only one person. Like you said, just imagine what could happen if 10 or even 100 of us started doing this...
Actually, you aren't, but some folks just aren't voicing their gameplans here. I feel confident that others are right along side of you.
-
Heh, well thanks for the vote of confidence, but I am only one person. Like you said, just imagine what could happen if 10 or even 100 of us started doing this...
Actually, you aren't, but some folks just aren't voicing their gameplans here. I feel confident that others are right along side of you.
Getty themselves in the first place; i remember them cold calling istock customers suggesting them to move over to Thinkstock .
-
Agree, if I was a design company on the receiving end of this call, not knowing the alternatives out there and the way IStock was treating contributors, I would be thankful for the info.
If I was running a design house, busy doing my work, and some random person called me to "inform me" of his opinions about how I should run my business, I'd hang up. Who asked you for your opinion?
And if I want to think you're a jerk for trying to damage my primary source of income, I think I'm allowed to feel that way.
I wouldn't even have replied, but I'm glad you did. I've already said what I think about contributors like this attempting to destroy business at iStock. it's not worth repeating in this ridiculous thread which includes serial posts from two people who have nothing to do with iStock except that they've made a career out of being haters.
-
it's not worth repeating in this ridiculous thread which includes serial posts from two people who have nothing to do with iStock except that they've made a career out of being haters.
Les deux Tricoteuse ?!
-
People who cold-call businesses, and try to convince them to use their products and their preferred distributors, might be called "jerks" - or maybe "entrepreneurs".
People who sweet-talk suppliers into investing time and money in long-term committments - and then slash payments once the inventory is in hand - might be called lots of things.
I'd suggest that people who are heavily invested in IS try to maintain some perspective and not fall into "my country, right or wrong" thinking. Does IS have a flag?
-
And if I want to think you're a jerk for trying to damage my primary source of income, I think I'm allowed to feel that way.
Why do I feel like I'm watching an abused spouse lashing out at those who are trying to stop that long cycle of abuse? Sean, I can't stop you from feeling the way you feel, and don't know that I'd try even if I thought it would work. But insulting those who have decided to stand up to their abusers? That's both counterproductive and wrong.
Granted, my income from iStock was never enough to matter except in a personal satisfaction sense. And granted, I never would have entered into an exclusivity arrangement with any agency, much less one that made such (in my view) unreasonable demands. But I can see what you either can't or just won't acknowledge: that the arrangement we have with iStock is unequal and, dare I repeat the word, abusive. We all have to deal with that reality in our own ways, including having to acknowledge that some people will react to mistreatment more strongly and more angrily than others. They have cause for that anger, and much as I might wish they might channel it into something more positive, I doubt insulting them will have any desirable effect. It just makes you look petty and dishonest as you attempt to defend the indefensible.
-
it's not worth repeating in this ridiculous thread which includes serial posts from two people who have nothing to do with iStock except that they've made a career out of being haters.
Les deux Tricoteuse ?!
had to look it up, great reference
-
Lol, Stacey said 'haters'.
-
Agree, if I was a design company on the receiving end of this call, not knowing the alternatives out there and the way IStock was treating contributors, I would be thankful for the info.
If I was running a design house, busy doing my work, and some random person called me to "inform me" of his opinions about how I should run my business, I'd hang up. Who asked you for your opinion?
And if I want to think you're a jerk for trying to damage my primary source of income, I think I'm allowed to feel that way.
I wouldn't even have replied, but I'm glad you did. I've already said what I think about contributors like this attempting to destroy business at iStock. it's not worth repeating in this ridiculous thread which includes serial posts from two people who have nothing to do with iStock except that they've made a career out of being haters.
I don't think that those contributors who see what is going on at Istock and look for ways to react to it should be called "haters". That's so tea party/fox news it's just childish. Creating images is a valid way to make a living, and if a particular site is not giving a fair percentage to those contributors, it's perfectly normal to look for ways to get more return for your efforts. This is just another example of the exclusive vs independent divide and conquer game going on at Istock. If there are ways to influence and create a better deal for contributors, then I say go for it. Istock is doing all they can to punish and marginalize non-exclusives, and it's sad to see the exclusive contributors buying into this. Once they drive away the non-exclusives, do you really think they will reward the exclusives with a better deal?
-
Agree, if I was a design company on the receiving end of this call, not knowing the alternatives out there and the way IStock was treating contributors, I would be thankful for the info.
If I was running a design house, busy doing my work, and some random person called me to "inform me" of his opinions about how I should run my business, I'd hang up. Who asked you for your opinion?
And if I want to think you're a jerk for trying to damage my primary source of income, I think I'm allowed to feel that way.
I wouldn't even have replied, but I'm glad you did. I've already said what I think about contributors like this attempting to destroy business at iStock. it's not worth repeating in this ridiculous thread which includes serial posts from two people who have nothing to do with iStock except that they've made a career out of being haters.
Again...pot...kettle...black. Hypocrite.
When someone here states their point of view over and over, they're a hater. When you, and now, Sean, come and post your point of view, you're what...??? That you have narrowed down the number of posters who are adamantly speaking out about istock to just two is pretty ridiculous...that makes me think that in fact you too must be a hater against those specific two people and have mounted your own personal campaign to misalign them. Check out all of the other threads on this forum AND on the istock forum (oh, but wait, you can't...all of the threads have been deleted there). You will see WAY more than 2 people speaking out.
And that you specifically keep coming back here to repeat the same thing over and over and over makes you a hater too, no? You keep saying you don't need to repeat it, but then you do. ;)
I truly feel bad for you two, and other exclusives. That you have backed yourselves into a corner by being exclusive is YOUR choice, not anyone elses. Blame the abuser, Getty/istock instead of all the people choosing to take a stand. If you aren't happy with your choice, do something about. People who have chosen to make a different choice...good on them!
And another funny thing is that the sentinel jumps in too...but wait...I think I remember seeing a post from him/her complaining about the best match and/or sales being down. Why I think that constitutes a hater! ::)
-
Acting out a desire to put iStock out of business doesn't automatically make you a hater. It might just be strategic. To quote Voltaire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Minorca), "Dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres." ("In this country, it is wise to kill an admiral from time to time to encourage the others.")
-
Agree, if I was a design company on the receiving end of this call, not knowing the alternatives out there and the way IStock was treating contributors, I would be thankful for the info.
If I was running a design house, busy doing my work, and some random person called me to "inform me" of his opinions about how I should run my business, I'd hang up. Who asked you for your opinion?And if I want to think you're a jerk for trying to damage my primary source of income, I think I'm allowed to feel that way.
Oh wait, let me wait next time until the all mighty sjlocke asks for my opinion before I give it....lol
-
'I truly feel bad for you two, and other exclusives. '
Aw gosh, thanks. That makes me feel better. Could you send me some flowers?
Right now, my choice has proved beneficial, so I'm good. No need to waste your pity.
Obviously, because of my choice, it is not in my interest to stand and applaud your efforts to derail my business. I'm surprised that is such an unexpected revelation. Do I think 15% or whatever sucks? Yes. I don't think it's necessary or warranted, really. However that does not directly affect my dealings with IS currently. If you want to boycott uploads or change avatars or whatever, that's great. But trying to directly affect my business will not make any exclusive particularly happy.
-
Lol, Stacey said 'haters'.
no right-wing tea party reference intended. definitely do not support anything of that sort.
-
Oh wait, let me wait next time until the all mighty sjlocke asks for my opinion before I give it....lol
Try addressing things in the context they were said instead of bolding a bit and trying to be funny.
-
Agree, if I was a design company on the receiving end of this call, not knowing the alternatives out there and the way IStock was treating contributors, I would be thankful for the info.
If I was running a design house, busy doing my work, and some random person called me to "inform me" of his opinions about how I should run my business, I'd hang up. Who asked you for your opinion?
And if I want to think you're a jerk for trying to damage my primary source of income, I think I'm allowed to feel that way.
I wouldn't even have replied, but I'm glad you did. I've already said what I think about contributors like this attempting to destroy business at iStock. it's not worth repeating in this ridiculous thread which includes serial posts from two people who have nothing to do with iStock except that they've made a career out of being haters.
Again...pot...kettle...black. Hypocrite.
When someone here states their point of view over and over, they're a hater. When you, and now, Sean, come and post your point of view, you're what...??? That you have narrowed down the number of posters who are adamantly speaking out about istock to just two is pretty ridiculous...that makes me think that in fact you too must be a hater against those specific two people and have mounted your own personal campaign to misalign them. Check out all of the other threads on this forum AND on the istock forum (oh, but wait, you can't...all of the threads have been deleted there). You will see WAY more than 2 people speaking out.
And that you specifically keep coming back here to repeat the same thing over and over and over makes you a hater too, no? You keep saying you don't need to repeat it, but then you do. ;)
I truly feel bad for you two, and other exclusives. That you have backed yourselves into a corner by being exclusive is YOUR choice, not anyone elses. Blame the abuser, Getty/istock instead of all the people choosing to take a stand. If you aren't happy with your choice, do something about. People who have chosen to make a different choice...good on them!
And another funny thing is that the sentinel jumps in too...but wait...I think I remember seeing a post from him/her complaining about the best match and/or sales being down. Why I think that constitutes a hater! ::)
Great post as usual cclapper! This whole thing of calling people "haters" because they are critical of a company that deserves it is beyond childish.
-
Oh wait, let me wait next time until the all mighty sjlocke asks for my opinion before I give it....lol
Try addressing things in the context they were said instead of bolding a bit and trying to be funny.
Your post made no sense, where did the OP tell the people he called how to run their business? Talk about taking things out of context..LOL
Trying to justify your pettiness name calling doesn't seem to be working, everyone's fed up with that here.
-
Oh wait, let me wait next time until the all mighty sjlocke asks for my opinion before I give it....lol
Try addressing things in the context they were said instead of bolding a bit and trying to be funny.
Your post made no sense, where did the OP tell the people he called how to run their business? Talk about taking things out of context..LOL
Trying to justify your pettiness name calling doesn't seem to be working, everyone's fed up with that here.
I think many are fed up with the bickering, period. No matter from which side its coming. (not only in this thread)
This clash of interests is just going round and round in circles, why not just hit ignore instead of getting worked up over eachother...?
-
If you've got no stake in iStock and you just repeatedly troll these forums stirring up hated for no reason other than you hate the company, then yes, you're a hater. That's you caspixel. You're obsessed with something that's nothing to do with you.
The others who are campaigning to send clients elsewhere because they'll benefit are just activists, right or wrong, but since they have something at stake they're perfectly justified in being annoyed with iStock and taking those actions.
As far as I can see you have no work with iStock and don't buy anything from there. You aren't a contributor to any of the agencies we discuss here just a designer who decided that they were paying too much for artists work and decided to continually rubbish the agent that other members rely on for their whole income.
I think it's a given that iStock's behaviour pisses its contibutors off, I just don't understand why you can't let it go since you have no involvement on either side of the buying or selling fence.
-
If you've got no stake in iStock and you just repeatedly troll these forums stirring up hated for no reason other than you hate the company, then yes, you're a hater. That's you caspixel. You're obsessed with something that's nothing to do with you.
The others who are campaigning to send clients elsewhere because they'll benefit are just activists, right or wrong, but since they have something at stake they're perfectly justified in being annoyed with iStock and taking those actions.
As far as I can see you have no work with iStock and don't buy anything from there. You aren't a contributor to any of the agencies we discuss here just a designer who decided that they were paying too much for artists work and decided to continually rubbish the agent that other members rely on for their whole income.
I think it's a given that iStock's behaviour pisses its contibutors off, I just don't understand why you can't let it go since you have no involvement on either side of the buying or selling fence.
This is in defense of ANYONE who chooses to post here...they have a right just as much as anyone else. Whatever anyone's affiliation with istock is, was, or will be, is really no one else's business. There are PLENTY of people posting against istock, here and formerly in the istock forum. Look at all the other threads. Even some of the name-callers here (who I would define as a hater too) are complaining in other threads.
I get that everyone is wanting to protect their own interests, but that is a two way street, whether you folks going the opposite way likes it or not. ;)
-
I just don't understand why you can't let it go since you have no involvement on either side of the buying or selling fence.
Excuse me? I am a buyer, used to be a loyal iStock customer and now purchase from other agencies, agencies that give the contributor a fairer royalty percentage. And I also have friends who are contributors. If you don't like reading my opinions or my posts, it's been said before, but I'll say it again, USE THE IGNORE BUTTON. It's absolutely stupid and childish to call someone a "hater". So photoagogo, if you don't like what you are reading from me, you are free to agogo go away.
-
Sean and Stacey are sometimes critical of iStockphoto. When someone is often positive then I take more notice of them if they are sometimes critical. That seems like a much more neutral position.
-
I just don't understand why you can't let it go since you have no involvement on either side of the buying or selling fence.
Excuse me? I am a buyer, used to be a loyal iStock customer and now purchase from other agencies. And I also have friends who are contributors. If you don't like reading my opinions or my posts, it's been said before, but I'll say it again, USE THE IGNORE BUTTON. It's absolutely stupid and childish to call someone a "hater". So photoagogo, if you don't like what you are reading from me, why don't you just agogo go away.
My 12 year old nephew used to use 'hater' all the time. I think he's matured now, because he doesn't use it anymore. :)
-
Sean and Stacey are sometimes critical of iStockphoto. When someone is often positive then I take more notice of them if they are sometimes critical. That seems like a much more neutral position.
I felt the same way too, until they started with the personal attacks.
-
iHateiStock.com is available for registration if anyone wants it.
So is iHateGetty.com.
Just sayin' .... ;D
-
iHateiStock.com is available for registration if anyone wants it.
So is iHateGetty.com.
Just sayin' .... ;D
I'm actually surprised iHateGetty.com is available. ;D
-
My 12 year old nephew used to use 'hater' all the time. I think he's matured now, because he doesn't use it anymore. :)
LOL
-
If you don't like reading my opinions or my posts, it's been said before, but I'll say it again, USE THE IGNORE BUTTON. It's absolutely stupid and childish to call someone a "hater". So photoagogo, if you don't like what you are reading from me, you are free to agogo go away.
There wouldn't be anything left to read here if I did that.
-
And if I want to think you're a jerk for trying to damage my primary source of income, I think I'm allowed to feel that way.
Why do I feel like I'm watching an abused spouse lashing out at those who are trying to stop that long cycle of abuse? Sean, I can't stop you from feeling the way you feel, and don't know that I'd try even if I thought it would work. But insulting those who have decided to stand up to their abusers? That's both counterproductive and wrong.
Granted, my income from iStock was never enough to matter except in a personal satisfaction sense. And granted, I never would have entered into an exclusivity arrangement with any agency, much less one that made such (in my view) unreasonable demands. But I can see what you either can't or just won't acknowledge: that the arrangement we have with iStock is unequal and, dare I repeat the word, abusive. We all have to deal with that reality in our own ways, including having to acknowledge that some people will react to mistreatment more strongly and more angrily than others. They have cause for that anger, and much as I might wish they might channel it into something more positive, I doubt insulting them will have any desirable effect. It just makes you look petty and dishonest as you attempt to defend the indefensible.
Totally agree about the abusive spouse thing. I wonder if psychologists will one day coin a term for this type of Stockholm Syndrome thing where the abused party tries to protect their abuser in an effort to help themselves feel more in control of the abusive situation. I think professors will be teaching their psych 101 classes all about Classic Istock-exclusive-syndrome, where the abused party continues to protect the abuser as their commissions slowly get lowered over time to 1%. It is one thing to think that being exclusive will make you the most money but it is another thing to actually call people jerks who are looking out for your best interest long term. In the end if those "jerks" get istock to raise commissions back up you will be calling them your heros.
I have been doing my part and referring clients to the sites that pay the larges royalty per download....for me that is Canstock and dreamstime, not counting alamy who I refer my clients to if I think they will actually pay the big bucks. Why would I refer clients to a company where I know I will get paid the lowest average Royalty for a sale of any stock site that exists
-
If you don't like reading my opinions or my posts, it's been said before, but I'll say it again, USE THE IGNORE BUTTON. It's absolutely stupid and childish to call someone a "hater". So photoagogo, if you don't like what you are reading from me, you are free to agogo go away.
There wouldn't be anything left to read here if I did that.
If you ignored me there wouldn't be anything left to read? Well, that makes no sense. Um, in case you haven't noticed, I'm not the only one who posts here. And clearly, if you continue to come here, despite being bothered by all the "haters" then you want to read what they have to say. So stop complaining about it and calling people names.
-
snip
Totally agree about the abusive spouse thing. I wonder if psychologists will one day coin a term for this type of Stockholm Syndrome thing where the abused party tries to protect their abuser in an effort to help themselves feel more in control of the abusive situation.
Now that's funny!
-
snip
Totally agree about the abusive spouse thing. I wonder if psychologists will one day coin a term for this type of Stockholm Syndrome thing where the abused party tries to protect their abuser in an effort to help themselves feel more in control of the abusive situation.
Now that's funny!
There's already a name for it - iStockholm syndrome. ;D
-
incessantly going on about not liking iStockphoto does seem a bit pointless. Not just you.
And I think it has the potential to somewhat undermine this forum TBH. I think this forum is at its best when it is more to do with trends and the picture industry in general.
-
snip
Totally agree about the abusive spouse thing. I wonder if psychologists will one day coin a term for this type of Stockholm Syndrome thing where the abused party tries to protect their abuser in an effort to help themselves feel more in control of the abusive situation.
Now that's funny!
There's already a name for it - iStockholm syndrome. ;D
Now that is Hilarious! Seriously some of these istock exclusives are starting to sound like Patty Hearst....Reality check...how could you possibly support a company that takes 85% of the commission...The lowest commission of any stock site that exists on this planet. Fine upload to them if you need the money but for God's sake don't be happy about it and lash out at the people who are trying to put pressure on istock to make this whole situation better. jeez it baffles the mind.
-
Agree, if I was a design company on the receiving end of this call, not knowing the alternatives out there and the way IStock was treating contributors, I would be thankful for the info.
If I was running a design house, busy doing my work, and some random person called me to "inform me" of his opinions about how I should run my business, I'd hang up. Who asked you for your opinion?
And if I want to think you're a jerk for trying to damage my primary source of income, I think I'm allowed to feel that way.
I wouldn't even have replied, but I'm glad you did. I've already said what I think about contributors like this attempting to destroy business at iStock. it's not worth repeating in this ridiculous thread which includes serial posts from two people who have nothing to do with iStock except that they've made a career out of being haters.
And note that at least one of them was already a hater about four or five years ago, way before thinkstock, changes in royalties and new macrostock agency contributors. That really makes me wonder.
(And the other, for not contributing nor buying at istock spents looooooots of time there, always the first to notice and report here anything, big or tiny, that happens --More food for thought)
-
I think this forum is at its best when it is more to do with trends and the picture industry in general.
Nothing wrong with that feeling. And we accomodate it by naming threads. The name of this thread is "READ THIS if you're fed up with iStock".
Maybe someone should start another thread: "READ THIS if you think that people who complain about IStock are a bunch of naive fools".
-
I think this forum is at its best when it is more to do with trends and the picture industry in general.
Nothing wrong with that feeling. And we accomodate it by naming threads. The name of this thread is "READ THIS if you're fed up with iStock". So if you aren't fed up, why are you here, reading this, and ridiculing other posters?
You beat me to it. There are TONS of other threads here on the home page having nothing to do with istock. If someone is tired of reading about it, why even click on the thread? I think we have a bunch of in-the-closet haters here. ;)
-
Agree, if I was a design company on the receiving end of this call, not knowing the alternatives out there and the way IStock was treating contributors, I would be thankful for the info.
If I was running a design house, busy doing my work, and some random person called me to "inform me" of his opinions about how I should run my business, I'd hang up. Who asked you for your opinion?
And if I want to think you're a jerk for trying to damage my primary source of income, I think I'm allowed to feel that way.
I wouldn't even have replied, but I'm glad you did. I've already said what I think about contributors like this attempting to destroy business at iStock. it's not worth repeating in this ridiculous thread which includes serial posts from two people who have nothing to do with iStock except that they've made a career out of being haters.
And note that at least one of them was already a hater about four or five years ago, way before thinkstock, changes in royalties and new macrostock agency contributors. That really makes me wonder.
(And the other, for not contributing nor buying at istock spents looooooots of time there, always the first to notice and report here anything, big or tiny, that happens --More food for thought)
You're right, I was a 'hater' five years ago when they were paying 20% commissions (the lowest in the industry at that point too) and had a ridiculously tedious upload process. There was alot to hate even back then.....LOL.. thanks for bringing that up.
-
And note that at least one of them was already a hater about four or five years ago, way before thinkstock, changes in royalties and new macrostock agency contributors. That really makes me wonder.
(And the other, for not contributing nor buying at istock spents looooooots of time there, always the first to notice and report here anything, big or tiny, that happens --More food for thought)
LOL. Clearly you've spent a lot of time thinking about it and following this person around. Why does it matter to you so much?
-
There are TONS of other threads here on the home page having nothing to do with istock. If someone is tired of reading about it, why even click on the thread?
There are a few posters here who seem to have a tendency towards taking every thread here in the same inevitable direction whatever the thread title.
I just don't see how it is useful to hold such partisan opinions. Surely it's more useful to be more neutral and to try to take a longer view.
-
There are TONS of other threads here on the home page having nothing to do with istock. If someone is tired of reading about it, why even click on the thread?
There are a few posters here who seem to have a tendency towards taking every thread here in the same inevitable direction whatever the thread title.
I just don't see how it is useful to hold such partisan opinions. Surely it's more useful to be more neutral and to try to take a longer view.
she's not looking for a real answer. any of us coming into this thread expecting a relevant discussion should have known better, me included.
-
There are TONS of other threads here on the home page having nothing to do with istock. If someone is tired of reading about it, why even click on the thread?
There are a few posters here who seem to have a tendency towards taking every thread here in the same inevitable direction whatever the thread title.
I just don't see how it is useful to hold such partisan opinions. Surely it's more useful to be more neutral and to try to take a longer view.
she's not looking for a real answer. any of us coming into this thread expecting a relevant discussion should have known better, me included.
The discussion IS relevant however. What boggles my mind is why anyone would click on this title and expect a "non-partisan" discussion. Which again begs the question, why are *you* here? Are you fed up with iStock?
-
There are TONS of other threads here on the home page having nothing to do with istock. If someone is tired of reading about it, why even click on the thread?
There are a few posters here who seem to have a tendency towards taking every thread here in the same inevitable direction whatever the thread title.
I just don't see how it is useful to hold such partisan opinions. Surely it's more useful to be more neutral and to try to take a longer view.
she's not looking for a real answer. any of us coming into this thread expecting a relevant discussion should have known better, me included.
The discussion IS relevant however. What boggles my mind is why anyone would click on this title and expect a "non-partisan" discussion. Which again begs the question, why are *you* here? Are you fed up with iStock?
Exactly, the title of this thread says it all
-
I *am* fed up with iStock and their crap, so I come here looking for discussion, commiseration and ideas from my peers and fellow contributors. Instead, all I get is the mad screechings of an obsessed ex-buyer on this and every other thread with the word iStock in the title.
-
I *am* fed up with iStock and their crap, so I come here looking for discussion, commiseration and ideas from my peers and fellow contributors. Instead, all I get is the mad screechings of an obsessed ex-buyer on this and every other thread with the word iStock in the title.
IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT USE THE IGNORE BUTTON. It's quite simple, really. But see, I think you *like* to read my posts, because it makes *you* feel better to attack me.
-
Istock really have no morals! Robbing contributors! Making their banker owners filthy rich. Remember Klein bought a $10million apartment with your earnings.
It is the the great photographers that made istock the success it is. Sadly there exists nothing out there that can compete.
If some of the clever photographers at istock could create your own sales platform and everyone went there it could work.
Blend is made up of a small number of photographer/owners and they are now very successful. Bringing several million dollars.
-
It wasn't my intention to upset anybody in here or to solicit their seemingly "self-deflecting" insults. I have simply decided that the more people in this industry that know the truth about istock, the better. I'm not making anything up, just providing pure facts. From there it is up to the individual to decide what to do with those facts. To my critics, I'm not a "hater" just somebody who is tired of the fact that iStock continues to profit off of the ignorance of others. It is my theory that if everybody understood exactly what goes on behind the scenes at iStock, many would choose to take their business elsewhere. That's all folks. Please allow me a moment to put my "flame" retardant suit on before you begin with the insults.... ok I'm ready now.
-
I wonder if browser companies can create a button to ignore entire websites. I just can't stop coming back here to watch this Jerry Micro-Springer show and need a feature like that.
-
That's Entertainment! :D
-
There are TONS of other threads here on the home page having nothing to do with istock. If someone is tired of reading about it, why even click on the thread?
There are a few posters here who seem to have a tendency towards taking every thread here in the same inevitable direction whatever the thread title.
I just don't see how it is useful to hold such partisan opinions. Surely it's more useful to be more neutral and to try to take a longer view.
she's not looking for a real answer. any of us coming into this thread expecting a relevant discussion should have known better, me included.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out. One person's "neutral" is another person's "sheep". If the OP's point is to try to influence the direction of microstock as a business, then it's worth discussing. Just watching it happen and crying about it won't change anything. I don't see how any of the posts here, aside from the "hater's" and "jerk" posts, are not appropriate.
-
In defense of the exclusives, sending iStock's customers to DT, FT or SS isn't beneficial for my business either. I'd end up making less money. Sending them to Pond5 doesn't seem very beneficial either since I don't have images there. I applaud the OP for trying to do the right thing, but it isn't necessarily helpful or beneficial to the rest of us. That said, I send customers to my own site and that doesn't help anybody but me. The moral is every man/woman for themselves. ;D
-
In defense of the exclusives, sending iStock's customers to Dreamstime, Fotolia or Shutterstock isn't beneficial for my business either. I'd end up making less money. Sending them to Pond5 doesn't seem very beneficial either since I don't have images there. I applaud the OP for trying to do the right thing, but it isn't necessarily helpful or beneficial to the rest of us. That said, I send customers to my own site and that doesn't help anybody but me. The moral is every man/woman for themselves. ;D
There's going to be collateral damage no matter what happens. When the exclusives' files were being bumped to the front, the independents were losing out and the exclusives did not much care about doing anything about it. Now the tide has shifted and bloody murder is being screamed and all hell is breaking out.
I'm sad that it had to come down to this for anybody. We all would have been happier if istock had not been sold to Getty/H&F, whoever.
Yes, every man/woman for themselves.
-
I'm sad that it had to come down to this for anybody. We all would have been happier if istock had not been sold to Getty/H&F, whoever.
I completely echo this. What's been going on at Istock for the past 6 months or more is not good for ANY contributors ITLR.
Would love to see them get the search and site functionality back on track so everybody can start making (more) money again.
-
I'm sad that it had to come down to this for anybody. We all would have been happier if istock had not been sold to Getty/H&F, whoever.
I completely echo this. What's been going on at Istock for the past 6 months or more is not good for ANY contributors ITLR.
Would love to see them get the search and site functionality back on track so everybody can start making (more) money again.
Agreed, but I'd REALLY like to see them get their commission %ages back on track too.
-
Lol, Stacey said 'haters'.
no right-wing tea party reference intended. definitely do not support anything of that sort.
Oh, it's the left wing then, even worse.
-
Lol, Stacey said 'haters'.
no right-wing tea party reference intended. definitely do not support anything of that sort.
Oh, it's the left wing then, even worse.
because no one can have moderate views. has to be right or left, white or black. hate or love. no balanced perspectives or critical thinking allowed. got it.
-
I still don't understand why buyers can't use other sites to buy from non-exclusives and use istock to buy from exclusives. Is it really too difficult to use 2 sites? A lot of non-exclusives either don't have their portfolio on istock or only have a small part of it there. Buyers might find what they want on another site. They can still use istock to look at the exclusive collection. Wont that work for all of us?
-
As a buyer you donīt care about all this exclusive/non exclusive stuff. You donīt look at the names of the photographers, you very often donīt realize they are real, single artist putting up their files for sale. When I started buying I more or less assumed it was all produced by the stock agency itself, just like a software product.
Sourcing images is a tedious task and you anyway have no time. The deadline is looming and you just need to get your work done. So for stock you go to your one stop shop for images, just like you would buy all your music from the itunes store and not shop around the internet to see if the song is a little cheaper on Amazon or other outlets.
When you go shopping on the internet how many times are you interested in the story behind the product?
-
Ok, so after being inspired by this thread yesterday, I got brave and called up 3 local production houses to tell them about istock and their poor treatment of contributors. The response I got was quite mixed. Company 1: Thank you for letting us know. We actually do use istock for a lot of our stock needs and I will certainly pass this information along to other producers that we work with. Company 2: They didn't care about what I had to say, treated me like a telemarketer, etc... not that I entirely blame them as this was an unsolicited call. Company 3: Yes we are aware of the issues with istock and have slowly tapered off our use of them. We typically try other stock sites first to see if we can find the subject we need.
I'd suggest using your time to go out and shoot rather than harassing design companies. You sound like a real jerk.
Yeah, I sanction that!! maybe he hasnt even got a camera, just mouth?
-
Ok, so after being inspired by this thread yesterday, I got brave and called up 3 local production houses to tell them about istock and their poor treatment of contributors. The response I got was quite mixed. Company 1: Thank you for letting us know. We actually do use istock for a lot of our stock needs and I will certainly pass this information along to other producers that we work with. Company 2: They didn't care about what I had to say, treated me like a telemarketer, etc... not that I entirely blame them as this was an unsolicited call. Company 3: Yes we are aware of the issues with istock and have slowly tapered off our use of them. We typically try other stock sites first to see if we can find the subject we need.
I'd suggest using your time to go out and shoot rather than harassing design companies. You sound like a real jerk.
Yeah, I sanction that!! maybe he hasnt even got a camera, just mouth?
Now there's a big surprise. ::)
-
Ok, so after being inspired by this thread yesterday, I got brave and called up 3 local production houses to tell them about istock and their poor treatment of contributors. The response I got was quite mixed. Company 1: Thank you for letting us know. We actually do use istock for a lot of our stock needs and I will certainly pass this information along to other producers that we work with. Company 2: They didn't care about what I had to say, treated me like a telemarketer, etc... not that I entirely blame them as this was an unsolicited call. Company 3: Yes we are aware of the issues with istock and have slowly tapered off our use of them. We typically try other stock sites first to see if we can find the subject we need.
I'd suggest using your time to go out and shoot rather than harassing design companies. You sound like a real jerk.
Yeah, I sanction that!! maybe he hasnt even got a camera, just mouth?
Or, to put it another way- Get back to work you peasant!
-
" Or, to put it another way- Get back to work you peasant!"
Help, help, I'm being repressed!
Shut up you!
-
Bloody peasant :D
-
snip
Totally agree about the abusive spouse thing. I wonder if psychologists will one day coin a term for this type of Stockholm Syndrome thing where the abused party tries to protect their abuser in an effort to help themselves feel more in control of the abusive situation.
Now that's funny!
that's indeed excellent :-)
-
" Or, to put it another way- Get back to work you peasant!"
Help, help, I'm being repressed!
Shut up you!
Yes master, I will obey your command.
-
Fechez la vache!
-
And note that at least one of them was already a hater about four or five years ago, way before thinkstock, changes in royalties and new macrostock agency contributors. That really makes me wonder.
(And the other, for not contributing nor buying at istock spents looooooots of time there, always the first to notice and report here anything, big or tiny, that happens --More food for thought)
LOL. Clearly you've spent a lot of time thinking about it and following this person around. Why does it matter to you so much?
Not a single second. Note that not everyone spends his/her whole life in the forums, here or at the "enemy" , in a watching and snitching perpetual mission. Some people has a life. And is easy to remember correctly facts that for being absurd or ludicrous remain easily in mind. I. e, when youy had the opinion that photographers defending rises in prices -to 1, 2, 3 dollars-- where greedy people.
-
And note that at least one of them was already a hater about four or five years ago, way before thinkstock, changes in royalties and new macrostock agency contributors. That really makes me wonder.
(And the other, for not contributing nor buying at istock spents looooooots of time there, always the first to notice and report here anything, big or tiny, that happens --More food for thought)
LOL. Clearly you've spent a lot of time thinking about it and following this person around. Why does it matter to you so much?
Not a single second. Note that not everyone spends his/her whole life in the forums, here or at the "enemy" , in a watching and snitching perpetual mission. Some people has a life. And is easy to remember correctly facts that for being absurd or ludicrous remain easily in mind. I. e, when youy had the opinion that photographers defending rises in prices -to 1, 2, 3 dollars-- where greedy people.
Obviously you've spent more than a single second. You've read my posts and responded to them. That takes much more than a single second.
Also, you don't remember facts correctly, and I've already proven that several times in the past. And you are also wrong about my "opinion" that photographers are greedy people. I never said that. Not once. Nor did I ever complain when prices were at 1, 2, & 3 dollars. LOL. IN FACT, not one single thing *you've* said was a "fact" was correct. You are clearly deranged, because you appear to live in some kind of fantasy world where you make things up about me. :D
-
" Or, to put it another way- Get back to work you peasant!"
Help, help, I'm being repressed!
Shut up you!
Oh, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you.
-
" Or, to put it another way- Get back to work you peasant!"
Help, help, I'm being repressed!
Shut up you!
Oh, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you.
Sounds like a Monty Python movie. ???
-
"watery tart". Love this!
-
" Or, to put it another way- Get back to work you peasant!"
Help, help, I'm being repressed!
Shut up you!
Oh, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you.
"if I went 'round sayin' I was Emperor, just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!"
-
Fechez la vache!
What are ya goin' ta do with the cow? Never mind, I don't wanna know ;D
-
@ all. I'm impressed with your knowledge of Monty Python. I never really knew how big it was outside of the UK.
My favourite is from the Life of Brian, when Brian addresses the crowd in an attempt to persuade them that he's not the Messiah.
Brian: Look, you've got it all wrong! You don't need to follow me, you don't need to follow anybody! You've got to think for yourselves! You're all individuals!
The Crowd (in unison): Yes! We're all individuals!
Brian: You're all different!
The Crowd (in unison): Yes, we are all different!
Man in Crowd: I'm not.
-
Life of Brian and The Holy Grail are both great, but the Monty Python movie we always watched growing up was The Meaning of Life. I grew up thinking "just one thin wafer" was my father's original joke. I know "every sperm is sacred" by heart...lol. Monty Python has a big presence and following in Canada, maybe it's a throwback to our imperialist roots ;)
-
I had to ship a case of wine to Eric Idle once. I was so pissed off, we were in Chapter 11, many of my coworkers were stiffed wages and none of our suppliers had been paid, this celebrity signs a contract and I had to ship him a freaking crate of expensive wine. I was so pissed off I almost sent some $8 per bottle domestic crap. Not that this is much of a story (but someone brought up Monty Python) but those idiots remind me of the fat management at Istock. The $1100 bucks I spent on wine could have paid someones wages who actually worked for it but got screwed. Oh well, money doesn't make us happy does it? Sure can make us angry though.
-
@ all. I'm impressed with your knowledge of Monty Python. I never really knew how big it was outside of the UK.
My favourite is from the Life of Brian, when Brian addresses the crowd in an attempt to persuade them that he's not the Messiah.
Brian: Look, you've got it all wrong! You don't need to follow me, you don't need to follow anybody! You've got to think for yourselves! You're all individuals!
The Crowd (in unison): Yes! We're all individuals!
Brian: You're all different!
The Crowd (in unison): Yes, we are all different!
Man in Crowd: I'm not.
Too funny!