pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Envato Elements

Poll

Do you agree with IS structure change as it was announced on Sep 7?

I agree
2 (1.4%)
I disagree
119 (86.2%)
I don't care
9 (6.5%)
I agree, but improvement can be made
8 (5.8%)

Total Members Voted: 124

Author Topic: Poll: Do you agree with IS structure change announcement?  (Read 12115 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: September 08, 2010, 19:10 »
0
I saw the petition on IS forum but thought it was too simple an emotional response. So I didn't vote.

I understand IS intention to reward new talents faster. However, the major flaws in KT's announcement are, as I see it:
 
- goals too high
- few consideration for long-term contributors
- few hope for advancement for the majority

I propose to revise it as:

- setting up rewards for the talented and productive, and,
- setting up rewards for the long-term members (meaning that your seniority will mean something), if you get a minimum numbers (for instance 100) of images accepted every year.

Do you have any other and better suggestions?
« Last Edit: September 08, 2010, 19:17 by Freedom »


« Reply #1 on: September 08, 2010, 20:51 »
0
Someone who has a low acceptance rate is wasting Istock's money because they have to pay inspectors to look at junk.  Someone who gets a lot of images accepted but who gets very few downloads per image is wasting Istock's server space and bandwidth because they have to store and retrieve the image for users, who then have to look at it (or skim over it) and reject it as unsuitable.  These unsuitable images spam the search results and can make it harder to find the diamonds among the trash, which discourages customers.

Therefore Istock should use the commission schedule to encourage "good" (profitable) uploaders and punish "bad" (unprofitable) uploaders.  A formula can be applied to each contributor, which rates their cost/benefit based on acceptance rate and return per image per month.  New contributors get a low, basic rate, and it goes up from there.  The exclusive/non-exclusive difference should be based on how much Istock charges for exclusive vs. non-exclusive images.  The commission percentage should be the same.  Likewise the best match should take into account the contributor's "kicks" versus "licks" rating - in order to maximize the customers' precious time, so the cream is always on top.

Contributors would probably be a lot more careful about uploading and more aggressive in deleting unsold images, because this diminishes the commission they receive on their popular images.  The focus would shift more to quality and away from shoving as many images as possible into the upload queue week after week.

The advantage of this scheme is that it is entirely objective and based on sound business principles which anyone can understand.  None of this weird, arbitrary assigniment of levels which jump from 150,000 credits to 1,400,000 credits (which looks like they pulled out of their azzes in order to keep certain people in the club and certain people out).  Everyone is happier when the rules are "strictly business" because they can easily see and comprehend why they get $$$$ or why they only get $.

Also, the reviewers should be strictly recruited from customers and not from contributors in order to eliminate conflicts of interest.  All images should be strictly anonymous to eliminate any bias in the reviews based on contributor's name and reputation, country of origin, and so on.

Do you get it, Istock?  "Strictly business" is good for business.

« Reply #2 on: September 08, 2010, 21:04 »
0
20% was a disgrace, 15% is an insult

« Reply #3 on: September 08, 2010, 21:32 »
0
Therefore Istock should...
Yeah right. Where are your port links, Macrosaur?  ;D

« Reply #4 on: September 08, 2010, 22:02 »
0
I agree. IS should not go lower than 20% for anyone.

20% was a disgrace, 15% is an insult

« Reply #5 on: September 08, 2010, 22:19 »
0
I don't care. I just hope they can make some adjustments to keep all their great and wonderful exclusives on board, so we don't have those competitors at the sites that really make money.  ;D
I'm just a pissed off a bit I'll have to remove my referral links everywhere.
I won't cull my port for now. According to the guy with the bleeding heart at the IS forum, half from the sales are from September till December. Will catch those, of course.
After that, dear pet_chia, rest assured I won't clutter up your godly platinum disks any more with my snapshots.  I will be proud looking at myself in the mirror saying: iStock? Been there, done that. Sadly enough, they weren't up to my standards.  :P

If any business that just has to store other's peoples images can't be profitable with 80% overhead, they'd better size down the corporate jets and the bonuses of their Getty lowlife "managers".
« Last Edit: September 08, 2010, 23:35 by FD-regular »

« Reply #6 on: September 08, 2010, 23:03 »
0
Hmmm, not a single person has said "I agree" so far.

Have you noticed that at IS forum, the majority admins and inspectors are silent? I take it as a sign that they are not happy either.

Yuri is also silent. I wonder how he would vote.

« Reply #7 on: September 08, 2010, 23:12 »
0
I wouldn't expect anyone who works for iStock to express an opinion on the forum.  I take that back; one inspector did comment, but it was a carefully worded message of support for management.  I doubt anyone who wanted to keep their job would say anything else in this situation.  Free speech may be free, but it's not free of consequences.

« Reply #8 on: September 08, 2010, 23:28 »
0
I agree in theory that commission percentages should be based upon your ability to sell images in the present, and I think giving new contributors (and experienced lower end contributors) the chance to move up fast is absolutely the right thing to do.

The problem clearly resides in where they have set the bar for all these levels.  You could cut the numbers in half, and probably have a ballpark figure for something reasonable.

The other issue is with regard to non-exclusives having a royalty below 20%.  Personally I think 20% is ridiculously low to begin with, and I'd like to see non-exclusives perhaps start at 20% have the chance to advance to 30% at the top level.

A less talked about issue is the big cut to the subscription commissions.  This will surely lead more buyers to go for the subs program, and bring down the RPD for all of us. 

And finally there is the drastic reduction in Vetta commissions.  Like the non-exclusive commission percentages, this doesn't affect me at all since my material has never been deemed Vetta worthy.  But if we don't stick together on these issues, we will surely all suffer from it.

« Reply #9 on: September 08, 2010, 23:42 »
0
I agree that the commision should be based on acceptance but also on sales. I amazed of the quailty of photos that are accepted and passed.

I would not even tried to show this to any of my photo instructors when I was taking photo-101 25 years ago




If pictures like this are constantly sent by a contributor they should be limited by the uploads or removed

KB

« Reply #10 on: September 08, 2010, 23:43 »
0
A less talked about issue is the big cut to the subscription commissions.  This will surely lead more buyers to go for the subs program, and bring down the RPD for all of us.  

+1

Many of the things that attracted me to iStock exclusivity (higher commission, grandfathered to 35% Gold in the future, and reasonable sub prices) have disappeared in an instant. In retrospect, I'm an idiot for not listening to the wise folks here who time and time again cautioned against putting all your eggs in one basket (not to mention those who warned that Getty would drop commissions to 20% on average, eventually). I simply didn't believe it would happen, and the numbers I was looking at made the decision to go exclusive a "no-brainer".

Well, what do you know, indeed I was right: It takes someone with no brain to make such a decision!  :D

ETA: Sorry, I didn't realize which thread this was on! To make it more on topic: I don't agree with the structure change, simply because it is unfair (IMO) to change the rules of the game in the middle. I stopped UL'ing for 6 months, I removed my portfolios permanently from most sites, and committed to exclusivity based on one set of rules (that had been in place for years). Then in a matter of 2 months (for me), the rules are changed from what I had agreed to.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2010, 23:47 by KB »

« Reply #11 on: September 09, 2010, 00:13 »
0
I don't care. I just hope they can make some adjustments to keep all their great and wonderful exclusives on board, so we don't have those competitors at the sites that really make money.  ;D
I'm just a pissed off a bit I'll have to remove my referral links everywhere.
I won't cull my port for now. According to the guy with the bleeding heart at the IS forum, half from the sales are from September till December. Will catch those, of course.
After that, dear pet_chia, rest assured I won't clutter up your godly platinum disks any more with my snapshots.  I will be proud looking at myself in the mirror saying: iStock? Been there, done that. Sadly enough, they weren't up to my standards.  :P

If any business that just has to store other's peoples images can't be profitable with 80% overhead, they'd better size down the corporate jets and the bonuses of their Getty lowlife "managers".

I think you've mistaken me for someone else.  I have never seen your portfolio and I never meant to imply that it (or anyone else's portfolio) is not good enough.  I posted my suggestions above because I wish that IS would come up with a business plan that is more ... (like I said) ... business-like.  If they did so it would cool people's emotions and make microstock more profitable for everyone.

« Reply #12 on: September 09, 2010, 01:40 »
0
The community has been stunned.

Let's not fight with our fellow contributors.

KB, I believe you can at least re-activate DT and Veer. Not sure about FT and others.

« Reply #13 on: September 09, 2010, 02:03 »
0
I'm pretty sure DT deletes inactive files after several months to save server space.  So depending on how long you have been gone, you may be starting with an empty portfolio.  Achilles would have to chime in for exactly how they handle things, but memory tells me files eventually get deleted if you don't come back.

« Reply #14 on: September 09, 2010, 09:28 »
0
I think you've mistaken me for someone else.  I have never seen your portfolio and I never meant to imply that it (or anyone else's portfolio) is not good enough.  I posted my suggestions above because I wish that IS would come up with a business plan that is more ... (like I said) ... business-like.  If they did so it would cool people's emotions and make microstock more profitable for everyone.
Sorry in that case. But you (or somebody else) implied that the small fish should be punished for a low production and content that only sells occasionally. If you're in a niche, that's unavoidable. It would make more sense to reward on a per-picture base than on a per-contributor base. As Shadysue said, kicking out the "unproductive" contributors will diminish IS's diversity and the site will be full of lookalikes in the style of the top 100-500. I don't see that as "good business" since part of the buyers might be attracted by diversity, even if they don't buy the diverse shots.

« Reply #15 on: September 09, 2010, 09:33 »
0
There is one AGREE... who is that??? :P

« Reply #16 on: September 09, 2010, 10:03 »
0
Who can predict the outcome of this?

« Reply #17 on: September 09, 2010, 10:06 »
0
Who can predict the outcome of this?

that one!!! :)

lisafx

« Reply #18 on: September 09, 2010, 10:08 »
0
my choice: HELL NO!!!! was not available, so I went with disagree :)

« Reply #19 on: September 09, 2010, 10:11 »
0

« Reply #20 on: September 09, 2010, 10:16 »
0
is there a online tool that who wants can express/vote their disagreement on this IS change??.. like a online petition??

Total Contributors: 30562
Exclusive Contributors: 5531 (18.10%)
Last statistics update: Thursday, September 9th

from http://istockcharts.multimedia.de/

it would be nice to know the number, maybe IS could awake up.. LOL

« Reply #21 on: September 09, 2010, 10:19 »
0
I honestly believe that this could be the end of Istockphoto as the overwhelming force of microstock we have known until now.

Their truly breathtaking greed has caused them to massively overplay their hand and they are about to reap the whirlwind of their own actions. More or less overnight they have turned blindly-loyal supporters into individuals actively trying to undermine them in every way possible.

« Reply #22 on: September 09, 2010, 10:38 »
0
More or less overnight they have turned blindly-loyal supporters into individuals actively trying to undermine them in every way possible.

Why o why?

The Scorpion and the Frog parable.
Quote
Halfway across the river, the frog suddenly felt a sharp sting in his back and, out of the corner of his eye, saw the scorpion remove his stinger from the frog's back. A deadening numbness began to creep into his limbs.
"You fool!" croaked the frog, "Now we shall both die! Why on earth did you do that?"
The scorpion shrugged, and did a little jig on the drownings frog's back.
"I could not help myself. It is my nature."
;D

« Reply #23 on: September 09, 2010, 11:13 »
0
More or less overnight they have turned blindly-loyal supporters into individuals actively trying to undermine them in every way possible.

Why o why?

The Scorpion and the Frog parable.
Quote
Halfway across the river, the frog suddenly felt a sharp sting in his back and, out of the corner of his eye, saw the scorpion remove his stinger from the frog's back. A deadening numbness began to creep into his limbs.
"You fool!" croaked the frog, "Now we shall both die! Why on earth did you do that?"
The scorpion shrugged, and did a little jig on the drownings frog's back.
"I could not help myself. It is my nature."
;D


LOL . . . . .  that parable also applies to Wall Street over the last decade . . . . I could not help myself. It is my nature.

« Reply #24 on: September 09, 2010, 11:33 »
0
Actually, I agree with some of the changes they propose. It's a good way for new talented peoples to get better earning faster. And I also think it's faire that the more you bring money, the higher your commission should be.

BUT! I can't agree with a commission lower than 20%. Even 20% was very low and I can't believe they want to go lower than that. IMO, they should have kept the independant at a fixed 20%. From a PR perspective, there would be a LOT less screaming.

As for the credit levels, the numbers are not realistic. They should tone that down to more fair levels. For someone to generate 2 million dollars in revenue to get to the highest level is ridiculous. I'm pretty sure they will readjust that to try to make peace with the exclusives but unfortunately, I think the damage is done. With the news expanding everywhere, iStock's reputation is going down the drain. That's sad! I miss Bruce!

« Reply #25 on: September 09, 2010, 11:42 »
0
Actually, I agree with some of the changes they propose. It's a good way for new talented peoples to get better earning faster. And I also think it's faire that the more you bring money, the higher your commission should be.
There is a lot of sense in what Thomson said, in the way that historical earnings will break down the profitability model in the end. They could have had 2 responses: cut in their fat (who needs all those costly lypses?) and bonuses, or make image earnings dependent, not on contributor performance, but on image performance (the level system of DT).

« Reply #26 on: September 09, 2010, 15:51 »
0
Kelly has been silent since his last explanation.

lisafx

« Reply #27 on: September 09, 2010, 16:13 »
0
Actually, I agree with some of the changes they propose. It's a good way for new talented peoples to get better earning faster. And I also think it's faire that the more you bring money, the higher your commission should be.

BUT! I can't agree with a commission lower than 20%. Even 20% was very low and I can't believe they want to go lower than that. IMO, they should have kept the independant at a fixed 20%. From a PR perspective, there would be a LOT less screaming.

As for the credit levels, the numbers are not realistic. They should tone that down to more fair levels. For someone to generate 2 million dollars in revenue to get to the highest level is ridiculous. I'm pretty sure they will readjust that to try to make peace with the exclusives but unfortunately, I think the damage is done. With the news expanding everywhere, iStock's reputation is going down the drain. That's sad! I miss Bruce!

You make good points Eric.  I think the points you enumerated - going below 20% for non-exclusives, and making the credit levels so unattainable - that are causing the most stir.  If they had been more reasonable on those two issues they could probably have gotten the changes in the way royalties are calculated past the majority of contributors. 

« Reply #28 on: September 09, 2010, 17:23 »
0
There is a lot of sense in what Thomson said, in the way that historical earnings will break down the profitability model in the end. They could have had 2 responses: cut in their fat (who needs all those costly lypses?) and bonuses, or make image earnings dependent, not on contributor performance, but on image performance (the level system of DT).

But you see this is at the heart of corporate greed. They will NEVER cut those things away. They got theirs, screw everybody else. And I totally believe that corporate jets and lypses are just the tip of the fat iceberg. There are probably a lot of people making unheard-of salaries on the IS payroll.

lisafx

« Reply #29 on: September 09, 2010, 17:29 »
0

 There are probably a lot of people making unheard-of salaries on the IS payroll.

Seriously!!  How else get people who have worked hand-in-hand with contributors for years to support screwing them so badly? 

« Reply #30 on: September 09, 2010, 17:40 »
0
Actually, I agree with some of the changes they propose. It's a good way for new talented peoples to get better earning faster. And I also think it's faire that the more you bring money, the higher your commission should be.

BUT! I can't agree with a commission lower than 20%. Even 20% was very low and I can't believe they want to go lower than that. IMO, they should have kept the independant at a fixed 20%. From a PR perspective, there would be a LOT less screaming.

As for the credit levels, the numbers are not realistic. They should tone that down to more fair levels. For someone to generate 2 million dollars in revenue to get to the highest level is ridiculous. I'm pretty sure they will readjust that to try to make peace with the exclusives but unfortunately, I think the damage is done. With the news expanding everywhere, iStock's reputation is going down the drain. That's sad! I miss Bruce!

You make good points Eric.  I think the points you enumerated - going below 20% for non-exclusives, and making the credit levels so unattainable - that are causing the most stir.  If they had been more reasonable on those two issues they could probably have gotten the changes in the way royalties are calculated past the majority of contributors. 

I think all but the very top exclusive credit levels aren't out of reach at all - I'll be maintaining my 40% commission without even breaking a sweat. The top exclusive credit level and non-exclusive credit levels need a rethink, though - cutting these in half would go a long way. It should be very interesting to see how this all plays out ...

« Reply #31 on: September 09, 2010, 17:47 »
0
Actually, I agree with some of the changes they propose. It's a good way for new talented peoples to get better earning faster. And I also think it's faire that the more you bring money, the higher your commission should be.

BUT! I can't agree with a commission lower than 20%. Even 20% was very low and I can't believe they want to go lower than that. IMO, they should have kept the independant at a fixed 20%. From a PR perspective, there would be a LOT less screaming.

As for the credit levels, the numbers are not realistic. They should tone that down to more fair levels. For someone to generate 2 million dollars in revenue to get to the highest level is ridiculous. I'm pretty sure they will readjust that to try to make peace with the exclusives but unfortunately, I think the damage is done. With the news expanding everywhere, iStock's reputation is going down the drain. That's sad! I miss Bruce!

You make good points Eric.  I think the points you enumerated - going below 20% for non-exclusives, and making the credit levels so unattainable - that are causing the most stir.  If they had been more reasonable on those two issues they could probably have gotten the changes in the way royalties are calculated past the majority of contributors.  

I think all but the very top exclusive credit levels aren't out of reach at all - I'll be maintaining my 40% commission without even breaking a sweat. The top exclusive credit level and non-exclusive credit levels need a rethink, though - cutting these in half would go a long way. It should be very interesting to see how this all plays out ...

it SHOULD just be forbidden to pay less than 20%.. it is already low enough no???..

instead of 1.4M credits should be 140K! and 25%!

ShadySue

« Reply #32 on: September 09, 2010, 17:58 »
0

 There are probably a lot of people making unheard-of salaries on the IS payroll.

Seriously!!  How else get people who have worked hand-in-hand with contributors for years to support screwing them so badly? 
Oh yes. One summer when I was a student I worked chambermaiding in a hotel. The chefs were on a bonus for money they could save from their allocated food allowance. The easiest way they could save money was on staff meals. So twelve out of fourteen lunches/dinners we got in a week was horrible cheap, greasy mince. (or you could wait until after 10p.m. to see if there were any leftovers from guest meals, but since we had to be up at 5.30 to do room service early morning teas, that wasn't a great option). I was spending most of my wages on food bought outside the hotel.
Oh, the parallels are closer than I realised before starting to write this reply.  :'(

Microstock InsiderEnvato Elements

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
7 Replies
3829 Views
Last post September 09, 2010, 20:11
by Freedom
410 Replies
78674 Views
Last post November 14, 2012, 11:47
by heywoody
3 Replies
1088 Views
Last post April 30, 2013, 01:00
by cascoly
Do you Agree or Disagree?

Started by stocked « 1 2  All » Site Related

28 Replies
7073 Views
Last post September 23, 2014, 15:40
by JPSDK
Agree not agree

Started by Pauws99 « 1 2 3 4  All » Site Related

84 Replies
16442 Views
Last post June 14, 2015, 00:01
by PixelBytes

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

Envato Elements