Author Topic: Big Change at IS (Read 54630 times)

Zephyr · « **Reply #150 on:** August 06, 2011, 11:53 »

@bunhill

Do you do this full time? There is a big difference in having your fun money cut and having the money you pay bills with cut.

My stock money pays bills. It's not fun money. If your stock money pays bills, I'm amazed at your carefree attitude that we shouldn't feel entitled to receiving fair payment for our work. Also, don't fool yourself into thinking that silence in the forums translates into acceptance of the new changes from the big contributors.

cobalt · « **Reply #151 on:** August 06, 2011, 11:57 »

You just have to look at the webtraffic on compete.com and compare it with the competition. Plus talk to other diamonds or black diamonds. You saw the last sales thread on istock, it is pitiful.

The USA may be having a recession but world economy hasn´t stopped advertising. Here in Germany hardly any business uses stock sites as a resource, with the exception of webdesigners. So there is no reason for a web based company selling universal digital products to stop growing. 9 million members? Even if they just focussed on webdesigners, there must be a lot more in the world. Plus all small to medium businesses, plus the consumer market/blogs/greeting cards etc...

Don´t get me wrong, they´ve done a great job, but the competition isn´t sleeping and they all have full time managers to build the brand.

If you hire a salesman and he tells you he couldn´t grow the business because "everyone is down" but you can clearly see many other internet based business and the competition growing - would you pay him a bonus or look for a new salesman? And why is the growth on Shutterstock so strong? Wasn´t Thinkstock supposed to replace it?

Think of the growth of other digitally sold content - software, videos, music, think of the sales of smart phones, ipads...is the world market slowing down?

I love istock and I hope it bounces back to the No 1 spot. But in the meantime pretending that everything is fine doesn´t help IMO.

Rebecca says she wants to focus on sales. Would she mention that as her first agenda if growth was fantastic and exploding like mushrooms?

For many artists istock is their main income. Obviously they will be concerned about what their agent does.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #152 on:** August 06, 2011, 12:13 »

cynicism.. it rules our lifes daily and watching IS thread and this one here says it all, it is sick the difference between both, some talk there one way other here (the same person) it is depressing to watch that, some think will take advantage somehow, other are just lunatic.. how can someone think that they still have a "great" business and contributors are happy?

other agencies might have a lot of problems but nobody is talking about them.. IS is just day after day, contributors fighting and struggling

Freedom · « **Reply #153 on:** August 06, 2011, 12:24 »

bunhill, we are entitled to have our end of agreement honored, no?

bunhill · « **Reply #154 on:** August 06, 2011, 12:57 »

Quote from: retrorocket on August 06, 2011, 11:53

@bunhill

Do you do this full time?

Broadly yes. But I have not got all of my eggs in stock. I respect iStockphoto as a brand and the exclusive arrangement suits me well enough for the moment. I have learned a huge amount from being involved there and I should put more into it sooner or later. I am broadly sanguine.

Quote from: retrorocket on August 06, 2011, 11:53

If your stock money pays bills, I'm amazed at your carefree attitude that we shouldn't feel entitled to receiving fair payment for our work.

I worked as an assistant in the 90s these same arguments existed around people who sold RF. One of the guys I worked for hated people who sold RF. RF has always been an evolving story. I hope I am being realistic rather than carefree. If I did not feel that I was receiving a fair payment I would not be involved. The money I get is about right I reckon - which is not to say that more money would not be lovely.

So anyhow I am not here to defend iStockphoto against overwhelming negative opinion. The people I listen to see it as a great brand. I do not believe that the anti iStockphoto attitudes often expressed here are especially indicative or typical. I certainly do not feel locked in. Digital assets are portable. I certainly very much admire and like some of the other sites. I'm not one of those "woo yayers" either despite "gostwyck"'s caustic post. For example I much prefer the toned down quieter way the forum is at iStock today.

Freedom · « **Reply #155 on:** August 06, 2011, 13:34 »

bunhill, like you, I am also an exclusive.

iStock is no longer what it was. The driving force for its success was due to an innovative and enterprising leadership, an artistic and supportive environment and hope for better compensation as we work hard to build up our digital assets.

From Rebecca's appointment and her intro, I suspect that her mandate may not be providing innovative leadership but pure management. I hope it is not going to be true but am afraid that her task is to squeeze more milk out of the cow without feeding her much.

Under normal circumstances, she deserves our open mind and support. But the anxiety is not directed at her, it is a result of iStock's past broken promises and our concerns for the future, or whether or not we have a bright future under Getty's management.

Quote from: bunhill on August 06, 2011, 12:57

Quote from: retrorocket on August 06, 2011, 11:53
@bunhill

Do you do this full time?

Broadly yes. But I have not got all of my eggs in stock. I respect iStockphoto as a brand and the exclusive arrangement suits me well enough for the moment. I have learned a huge amount from being involved there and I should put more into it sooner or later. I am broadly sanguine.

Quote from: retrorocket on August 06, 2011, 11:53
If your stock money pays bills, I'm amazed at your carefree attitude that we shouldn't feel entitled to receiving fair payment for our work.

I worked as an assistant in the 90s these same arguments existed around people who sold RF. One of the guys I worked for hated people who sold RF. RF has always been an evolving story. I hope I am being realistic rather than carefree. If I did not feel that I was receiving a fair payment I would not be involved. The money I get is about right I reckon - which is not to say that more money would not be lovely.

So anyhow I am not here to defend iStockphoto against overwhelming negative opinion. The people I listen to see it as a great brand. I do not believe that the anti iStockphoto attitudes often expressed here are especially indicative or typical. I certainly do not feel locked in. Digital assets are portable. I certainly very much admire and like some of the other sites. I'm not one of those "woo yayers" either despite "gostwyck"'s caustic post. For example I much prefer the toned down quieter way the forum is at iStock today.

lisafx · « **Reply #156 on:** August 06, 2011, 14:03 »

Bunhill, in response to Retrorocket's question about whether you rely on IS income to pay your bills, I see that you started uploading a couple of months after I did in 2005 (I joined in Jan, but didn't start uploading until March). In that time, you have had accepted 734 (admittedly good and useful) images to my 6500+. With 16k sales in over 6 years, it is clear that IS is not a big part of your monthly income.

I am not saying you are not entitled to your opinion. You certainly are and I respect that we have a difference of opinion. But it is insulting to me and the many other people who rely on their microstock income to pay all, or a significant portion of their living expenses, to hear our very real grievances belittled out of hand.

It is sort of the difference between saying "I think Istock is doing a good job" and "If you don't think Istock is doing a good job then you are a moaner with an unjustified sense of entitlement". You see what I mean? One is a statement of support for Istock. The other is a put-down of fellow contributors who have concerns about the direction Istock is going.

Just like to add that my husband and I are putting in an offer on a house today. Two years ago I would have no doubt that I could afford the mortgage for the long term. Now, I am worried that because of Istock's and other agencies' actions, I may find my income drying up in a couple of years and not be able to pay the mortgage. I can't help but feel resentful that my hard earned income might be in jeopardy just when I need to rely on it more than ever.

cthoman · « **Reply #157 on:** August 06, 2011, 14:07 »

Quote from: bunhill on August 06, 2011, 12:57

The people I listen to see it as a great brand.

Are you saying you aren't listening to us?

Seriously though, I think there are still many positive things about IS, and it is all still salvageable. But, my gut and my numbers tell me things are just going to get worse.

lisafx · « **Reply #158 on:** August 06, 2011, 14:08 »

Quote from: caspixel on August 06, 2011, 09:49

I wanted to give your post a heart, Lisa, but MSG is telling me that I give you too much love. LOL

Great post!

Thanks Carolyn, and backatcha! I love to be loved

Zephyr · « **Reply #159 on:** August 06, 2011, 14:27 »

@bunhill

I agree that Istock is a great brand (I'm exclusive) and putting aside the entitlement comments I think that I better see your point of view. The RM photographers fought hard against RF and lost and now the RF people are fighting another losing battle against agencies and market forces.

If that is the case, or something like it, then the ability to individually adapt to market changes is the smartest course going forward. If that's the case then I have to further question the logic of being exclusive. It made sense for me in 2008 but it's a different market now and in 3 years will likely be very different from today.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #160 on:** August 06, 2011, 14:44 »

Quote from: lisafx on August 06, 2011, 14:03

Just like to add that my husband and I are putting in an offer on a house today. Two years ago I would have no doubt that I could afford the mortgage for the long term. Now, I am worried that because of Istock's and other agencies' actions, I may find my income drying up in a couple of years and not be able to pay the mortgage. I can't help but feel resentful that my hard earned income might be in jeopardy just when I need to rely on it more than ever.

This is why, instead of moving to a larger home in our area, we are finishing the basement instead. I'm not getting locked into double the payments, and I'm upping the value of my current investment.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #161 on:** August 06, 2011, 15:11 »

Quote from: sjlocke on August 06, 2011, 14:44

Quote from: lisafx on August 06, 2011, 14:03
Just like to add that my husband and I are putting in an offer on a house today. Two years ago I would have no doubt that I could afford the mortgage for the long term. Now, I am worried that because of Istock's and other agencies' actions, I may find my income drying up in a couple of years and not be able to pay the mortgage. I can't help but feel resentful that my hard earned income might be in jeopardy just when I need to rely on it more than ever.

This is why, instead of moving to a larger home in our area, we are finishing the basement instead. I'm not getting locked into double the payments, and I'm upping the value of my current investment.

number 4 and 30 having issues, bunhill help them out, giving some of your FAIR royalties

bunhill · « **Reply #162 on:** August 06, 2011, 15:24 »

Quote from: lisafx on August 06, 2011, 14:03

a put-down of fellow contributors who have concerns about the direction Istock is going.

No you are mistakenly reading it like that. I do feel I also did a reasonable job of attempting to clarify the point with respect to what I meant by "entitlement". I believe it was a dispassionate point of view I was trying to express. I am not your bad guy. Like everyone else, I think you are great.

Quote from: lisafx on August 06, 2011, 14:03

Bunhill, in response to Retrorocket's question about whether you rely on IS income to pay your bills, I see that you started uploading a couple of months after I did in 2005 (I joined in Jan, but didn't start uploading until March). In that time, you have had accepted 734 (admittedly good and useful) images to my 6500+. With 16k sales in over 6 years, it is clear that IS is not a big part of your monthly income.

Yes I am incredibly lazy and should upload more but you are making some rather weak assumptions about how much money I need to live on at this point. iStock is certainly a very important part of my yearly income however and the whole thing works well enough for me thanks. I do not believe this makes any difference to any of the points I have tried to make - which I believe are about being realistic.

I have no idea how much other people's portfolios gross for them when all of the different outlets are taken into account - or how they choose to use that revenue. It is none of my business.

lisafx · « **Reply #163 on:** August 06, 2011, 16:08 »

Quote from: bunhill on August 06, 2011, 15:24

Quote from: lisafx on August 06, 2011, 14:03

No you are mistakenly reading it like that. I do feel I also did a reasonable job of attempting to clarify the point with respect to what I meant by "entitlement". I believe it was a dispassionate point of view I was trying to express. I am not your bad guy.

Guess I am just overly sensitive after taking so many big hits to the income in the past year. Apologies if it sounded like I am making you the boogey man. Just so frustrated with Istock, especially considering the aforementioned housing dilemma...

@Sean - smart move finishing the basement instead. We don't have basements in Florida

. With only 1200 sq. feet, and a house built in 1970, there is just no way to use this place for lifestyle shots. If I want a house to double as a studio I have to upgrade. Keeping this one to rent out, though, in case microstock comes down around us in a couple of years.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #164 on:** August 06, 2011, 16:44 »

Quote from: bunhill on August 06, 2011, 10:06

..The moans (okay .. concerns) here are exactly analogous to the concerns (moans) which were expressed by a previous generation of stock photographers when microstock first came along. It is the same thing which always happens which is that the people established at one point in a cycle often look back to that point in the cycle as a better time. Or else adapt.

I do not the the situation is analogous to the traditional versus micro arguments at all. The key differences are that in the former case, prices were propped up by a closed shop which limited supply - sort of like DeBeers and diamonds. When microstock started, it wasn't the existing agencies who reneged on their contracts with their suppliers. New suppliers came in to the market and at first were pooh-poohed as a bunch of no-talent amateurs by the trads and then, when it appeared that (a) existing customers found the prices appealing and the quality good enough and (b) new customers flocked to the affordable prices and the market for stock photography expanded, the newcomers were hollered at for destroying photographer's livelihoods.

I could have summarized a bit too briefly, but the basics are close.

Our current situation is that when microstock became successful, the agencies got greedy and decided that they could keep more of the total for themselves. They tossed a few crumbs from the table to try and keep photographers from getting too restive (we're cutting your Vetta percentage but we're hosing the buyers by putting the prices up so you'll get more dollars than before). As the download volumes declined, they offered big discounts to larger customers who were unhappy (further cutting the take for contributors) - Vetta sale at year end, etc. Then they figured they'd try to re-jigger the royalty rates so that overall they paid out 20% instead of 20-40% (50% if you count ELs, which was woefully low at 50% IMO once an EL cost them nothing to administer beyond what a regular sale did; remember when ELs were custom?)

This is much closer, IMO, to the first wife who puts her husband through university and med school and who is then dumped for a younger trophy wife once the loans are paid off and the money's rolling in. If you're saying that adapting means accepting that lots of businesses are massively lacking in ethics (the way of thinking that says if it's not illegal, quit complaining adapt), I'll grant you that there's plenty more examples of Enron like companies than there are good corporate citizens.

I have adapted - I dropped exclusivity. I don't agree with your glib statement that digital assets are portable - that's fine in theory, but there's a cost to switching from exclusivity to non (which I can itemize in detail if you doubt that I know what I'm talking about). Portable with barriers to exit and entry that mean it isn't a trivial thing to switch.

I will deal with whatever iStock dishes out, but I've read and re-read what you originally wrote and it's pretty clear to me that you could have chosen other words if you wanted to make your point with neutral language. You can disagree with people's point of view without marking it as invalid by using words like moan and entitlement. Claiming you were misinterpreted is trying to duck responsibility for what you wrote, IMO.

cobalt · « **Reply #165 on:** August 06, 2011, 17:34 »

There is a group of istockers who like to belittle MSG as a place for the whining "beermoney crowd" and obviously they think that only people on istock are "real photographers". I find it so sad every time I hear it. I love istock and will remain exclusive, but IMO a little humbleness is a sign of professionalism in doing business. After all, you never know who you might be making the next deal with.

However, if istock wanted to work on their reputation over here, they could easily appoint a staff member to be helpful and answer questions, just like other agencies do. My colleague MichaelJay used to do this very patiently and bravely on an outside German forum. I think he was quite successful at reaching out to those who were genuinely interested in istock.

But the best thing is to have the reputation of being the site that brings in the most money.

Preferably double or triple to any competitor.

Pheby · « **Reply #166 on:** August 06, 2011, 17:39 »

That's the one thing I'm missing here - an appointed istock official!

caspixel · « **Reply #167 on:** August 06, 2011, 18:18 »

Quote from: bunhill on August 06, 2011, 12:57

The people I listen to see it as a great brand. I do not believe that the anti iStockphoto attitudes often expressed here are especially indicative or typical. I

I don't think it's a great brand. But obviously you are not listening to people who say things contrary to what you believe. There's also a thread on here of about 50 pages or so of others who don't think it's a great brand. You might have seen it, "Buyers bailing on iStock". Might want to check it out for an educational read.

Mantis · « **Reply #168 on:** August 06, 2011, 18:21 »

Quote from: cobalt on August 06, 2011, 17:34

There is a group of istockers who like to belittle MSG as a place for the whining "beermoney crowd" and obviously they think that only people on istock are "real photographers". I find it so sad every time I hear it. I love istock and will remain exclusive, but IMO a little humbleness is a sign of professionalism in doing business. After all, you never know who you might be making the next deal with.

However, if istock wanted to work on their reputation over here, they could easily appoint a staff member to be helpful and answer questions, just like other agencies do. My colleague MichaelJay used to do this very patiently and bravely on an outside German forum. I think he was quite successful at reaching out to those who were genuinely interested in istock.

But the best thing is to have the reputation of being the site that brings in the most money.

Preferably double or triple to any competitor.

Those group's you speak of are here, have been here and will always be here:)

bunhill · « **Reply #169 on:** August 06, 2011, 18:24 »

@jsnover - I am not going to argue with you. You are finding negative nuances where none are intended. Really I was being about being positive about the often amazing work from a whole new influx of photographers who never post on any of the forums.

FWIW I regret bothering to express my honest opinion.

cobalt · « **Reply #170 on:** August 06, 2011, 18:25 »

"That's the one thing I'm missing here - an appointed istock official! "

LOL! I can see what you mean, but I believe a friendly and patient contributor relations admin (who respectfully stays out of the istock bashing threads) could be useful. Someone service oriented.

VB inc · « **Reply #171 on:** August 06, 2011, 18:25 »

Quote from: cobalt on August 06, 2011, 17:34

But the best thing is to have the reputation of being the site that brings in the most money.
Preferably double or triple to any competitor.

The best thing to who? Certainly not to the contributors, exclusive or independents. In fact, its clearly the reason why such hatred exist on this forum for istock since its a clear indication of corporate greed.

caspixel · « **Reply #172 on:** August 06, 2011, 18:26 »

Quote from: cobalt on August 06, 2011, 10:26

so i hope that rebecca brings the customers back. after all that is the service that the contributors are paying for.

At what cost to you though? What if they say they need to cut commissions again in order to advertise more or fix the site and need more money from the contributors to do it?

Mantis · « **Reply #173 on:** August 06, 2011, 18:38 »

Quote from: caspixel on August 06, 2011, 18:26

Quote from: cobalt on August 06, 2011, 10:26

so i hope that rebecca brings the customers back. after all that is the service that the contributors are paying for.

At what cost to you though? What if they say they need to cut commissions again in order to advertise more or fix the site and need more money from the contributors to do it?

/or
There will never be a reversal of "value" ..giving back to the contributor. That would only happen if contributors either slowed or stopped uploading and nobody else signed up. New supply drying up.

ShadySue · « **Reply #174 on:** August 06, 2011, 18:48 »

Quote from: cobalt on August 06, 2011, 17:34

However, if istock wanted to work on their reputation over here, they could easily appoint a staff member to be helpful and answer questions, just like other agencies do.

That's a great point. There are an awful lot of sensible questions which either don't get answered, get answered with 'contact CR', which can take months and then it depends who you get what answer you get, or get an answer from an admin which isn't borne out by the facts (e.g. [frequently] on whether a subject is or is not acceptable. Just recently, as I've posted a few times already, I've been astonished at things which were categorically said by an admin could not be accepted, and there are loads on the site. Of course, they would just say, "case by case".

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Big Change at IS (Read 54630 times)

Zephyr

cobalt

luissantos84

Freedom

bunhill

Freedom

lisafx

cthoman

lisafx

Zephyr

Sean Locke Photography

luissantos84

bunhill

lisafx

Jo Ann Snover

cobalt

Pheby

caspixel

Mantis

bunhill

cobalt

VB inc

caspixel

Mantis

ShadySue

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors