MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Buyers Bailing on Istock  (Read 387858 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #150 on: September 14, 2010, 11:23 »
0
... but sending buyers away from a site is just plain stupid. talk about shooting off your entire leg.

I'd say that sending buyers away from the site that'll pay me 17% and directing them to the site that will pay me 50% is more like getting a fancy new shoe and pair of pants for that leg. Fancy pants, with all that extra income from every single sale.

:)

LOL!  good analogy!


« Reply #151 on: September 14, 2010, 11:25 »
0
Today I had two of the smallest sales; one on DT and one on IS. The sale at IS gave me $0.19, the one on DT gave me 0.30. In january the minimum price at IS will be $0.14

Please explain how it will hurt me if I ask my designer friends to shop at DT, when I get twice as much money per sale there.

Not only is it NOT hurting non-exclusives by sending buyers to other sites, it is actually saving buyers money, too. Using basic minimum credit purchases to illustrate, a L image on IS costs $15.20, I get $3.00. The exact same image on DT costs the buyer $13.20 while I make $4.07.

Going exclusive made sense IF IS had honored their side of the bargain, but they have not. Now exclusives are SOL. And trust me I am not gloating. I have friends who have been with them from the start and it sucks big time that after all their commitment, they are getting the shaft.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #152 on: September 14, 2010, 11:25 »
0
Lisa - I'm sorry you feel I was personally attacking you, which I would never do, to you, or to anyone. but I feel very strongly that it is very bad business to be pushing buyers away from any site and that it could backfire for all of us, short-term and in the long run. leaving iStock out of it entirely....it would be a bad decision, IMO, with any site. biting the hand that feeds you in many ways. having said that, I certainly have acknowledged that I am not in the position of independents. but I am privy to a number of conversations happening at agencies, and it also bothers me to see fellow contributors I know and care about going off the rails and making themselves look less than professional.

you can't really expect support when you are intentionally trying to take business away from all of us. and as I said earlier, which I think is still valid, that this strategy, if you can even call it that, will only work once. if I put myself in the shoes of an independent, you are setting yourselves up to be fairly beholden and vulnerable to the agencies where you put your work after you burn the iStock bridge.

but I do apologize if my tone was rude. the negativity and attempts to pull business from us all have put all of us in very bad moods. no one is enjoying the diatribes.

« Reply #153 on: September 14, 2010, 11:30 »
0
Not only is it NOT hurting non-exclusives by sending buyers to other sites, it is actually saving buyers money, too. Using basic minimum credit purchases to illustrate, a L image on IS costs $15.20, I get $3.00. The exact same image on DT costs the buyer $13.20 while I make $4.07.

Going exclusive made sense IF IS had honored their side of the bargain, but they have not. Now exclusives are SOL. And trust me I am not gloating. I have friends who have been with them from the start and it sucks big time that after all their commitment, they are getting the shaft.

And in January (if the prices aren't upped) the difference for me will be IS: 2.28, DT: 4.07
I wonder what choice is better for me?  ::)

helix7

« Reply #154 on: September 14, 2010, 11:35 »
0
...you can't really expect support when you are intentionally trying to take business away from all of us...

Who's taking business away from everyone? I'm only intent on taking it away from iStock. I'm fairly sure that most buyers leaving iStock will end up on one of the 14 sites I have my work available at, so it's just relocating business, not taking it away entirely.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #155 on: September 14, 2010, 11:38 »
0
well, I guess there's not any real point in pushing the issue. but I would never pull any buyers into this kind of fight in this way. I think it is so unprofessional and assumptive to cause buyers the trouble of taking sides. A: it assumes they can't make up their own minds based on the agency they wish to buy from, and B: it sends to another agency or multiple agencies, who could turn around tomorrow and do something else or similar in terms of pricing.

I get being upset, I get trying to leverage your position in any way that you can...but to take this approach less than a week after the announcements, with barely half the information and to alienate yourselves from your peers and clients by taking such an inflammatory position. it just doesn't make sense. don't underestimate how many contributors are angry about this, even non-exclusives who realize that sending business away is never good, for anyone.

in any case, we're all in it together...whether it seems like it or not. the agencies and contributors combined make one big ecosystem, and that's the biggest concern.

helix7

« Reply #156 on: September 14, 2010, 11:45 »
0
well, I guess there's not any real point in pushing the issue. but I would never pull any buyers into this kind of fight in this way. I think it is so unprofessional and assumptive to cause buyers the trouble of taking sides. A: it assumes they can't make up their own minds based on the agency they wish to buy from, and B: it sends to another agency or multiple agencies, who could turn around tomorrow and do something else or similar in terms of pricing...

It also does a service to the client by directing them to sites that are also cheaper than iStock, so they're saving money. I doubt any client would be offended by me suggesting they save money and shop elsewhere. Certainly wouldn't call it "unprofessional" to offer a client a better option.

And so what if an agency I send buyers to cuts their rates. What are they going to do, cut from 50% to 48%? 45%? Still beats the crap out of iStock's rates.

...I get being upset, I get trying to leverage your position in any way that you can...but to take this approach less than a week after the announcements, with barely half the information and to alienate yourselves from your peers and clients by taking such an inflammatory position...

You're assuming that independent contributors are only directing buyers away from iStock since last week. I've always directed buyers to the 50%+ sites, and promoted those sites exclusively on my website. Sending buyers away from iStock is nothing new. Just more people are doing it in light of last week's announcement.

...in any case, we're all in it together...whether it seems like it or not. the agencies and contributors combined make one big ecosystem, and that's the biggest concern.

No we aren't. There's the iStock ecosystem where sub-20% rates are acceptable, and the rest of the stock world where that sort of rate is disgustingly low. Sorry, but we're not in this together. You're hoping to maintain the status quo at iStock and encourage buyers to keep paying higher prices and contributors to keep accepting the lowest pay rate. I'm hoping to see iStock fall and see a fair trade company rise. A company that pays fairly and offers fair pricing for buyers.

lisafx

« Reply #157 on: September 14, 2010, 11:48 »
0


in any case, we're all in it together...whether it seems like it or not. the agencies and contributors combined make one big ecosystem, and that's the biggest concern.

I agree 100% with the above.  I can't speak to anyone else's motivations, but for myself, I am making the biggest stink possible for one reason - to try and benefit the entire ecosystem, not just my own tiny part of it.  

This isn't just about istock, this is about a precedent in the industry.  The 20% barrier has been broken.  The "protect our exclusives" barrier has been broken.  

This doesn't just affect us on istock.  The other sites are watching.  

If we don't protest this in the strongest terms, and do whatever we can to show istock this will hurt their financial bottom line, the other sites will quickly follow suit.  Then independents will be completely screwed and so will exclusives, because if you should find you are getting a raw deal at istock, you will no longer have the safety net of going independent to recover your income.  If istock succeeds and profits from shafting its contributors this way, very soon there won't be any place to do to get a better deal.  

traveler1116

« Reply #158 on: September 14, 2010, 11:53 »
0
well, I guess there's not any real point in pushing the issue. but I would never pull any buyers into this kind of fight in this way. I think it is so unprofessional and assumptive to cause buyers the trouble of taking sides. A: it assumes they can't make up their own minds based on the agency they wish to buy from, and B: it sends to another agency or multiple agencies, who could turn around tomorrow and do something else or similar in terms of pricing.

I get being upset, I get trying to leverage your position in any way that you can...but to take this approach less than a week after the announcements, with barely half the information and to alienate yourselves from your peers and clients by taking such an inflammatory position. it just doesn't make sense. don't underestimate how many contributors are angry about this, even non-exclusives who realize that sending business away is never good, for anyone.

in any case, we're all in it together...whether it seems like it or not. the agencies and contributors combined make one big ecosystem, and that's the biggest concern.

I'm exclusive now and for nonexclusives to ask buyers to leave with them is completely understandable.  If IS goes ahead with the changes they have announced, I will leave and the extra buyers at other sites will be good for me.  If IS reverses the changes then hopefully a lot of buyers won't leave.  Remember  a lot of smaller buyers are contributors too and when they get screwed they keep saying they are leaving and taking their buying $ to other sites.  People still need images so there is no way that a net loss will result from any of this, no business is being sent away it's just redirected to fairer paying companies.

« Reply #159 on: September 14, 2010, 11:54 »
0
Lisa - I'm sorry you feel I was personally attacking you, which I would never do, to you, or to anyone. but I feel very strongly that it is very bad business to be pushing buyers away from any site and that it could backfire for all of us, short-term and in the long run. leaving iStock out of it entirely....it would be a bad decision, IMO, with any site. biting the hand that feeds you in many ways. having said that, I certainly have acknowledged that I am not in the position of independents. but I am privy to a number of conversations happening at agencies, and it also bothers me to see fellow contributors I know and care about going off the rails and making themselves look less than professional.

you can't really expect support when you are intentionally trying to take business away from all of us. and as I said earlier, which I think is still valid, that this strategy, if you can even call it that, will only work once. if I put myself in the shoes of an independent, you are setting yourselves up to be fairly beholden and vulnerable to the agencies where you put your work after you burn the iStock bridge.

but I do apologize if my tone was rude. the negativity and attempts to pull business from us all have put all of us in very bad moods. no one is enjoying the diatribes.

After your conversations with the agencies and fellow buyers why would you be in a very bad mood if you do not feel that any significant number of buyers will shift to agencies which offer contributors and buyers better incomes/prices?

You have reason to be upset only if you believe that both sides can benefit from change and if that is the case then why in the world would you support or risk your livelihood with an agency that is less than beneficial to both buyers and contributors?

lisafx

« Reply #160 on: September 14, 2010, 12:15 »
0
Another relevant buyer post on Istock:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&messageid=4712662

Text by Aleishaknight here:

Oh, I think more people are upset that are not posting. I've been a long time buyer, but just started contributing photos about two weeks before the big announcement. (Seriously, ugh.) I haven't said anything because I felt that everything that needed to be said has been posted already, (and my whole 27 files don't matter way one or the other). I have been trying to get the word out, though, encouraging all the buyers I know to write in and tell IS that they will only do business with a company that gives fair commissions.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #161 on: September 14, 2010, 12:29 »
0
All of your questions presume that your point of view on the situation provides an accurate prediction of the future available to us at istock. I don't have the same point of view, but I'm not an independent. And taking business from me to suit your career choices (remaining independent) is pretty crappy. Anyways, just offering my ten cents, because there's s pretty big bias here most of the time. But I suspect no one is interested is discussing the value of another perspective. I do hope that istock reconsiders the floor for independents to 20%. Believe it or not, exclusives do care what happens with independents. But you're eroding that sense of support, at least speaking for myself.    

« Reply #162 on: September 14, 2010, 12:38 »
0


in any case, we're all in it together...whether it seems like it or not. the agencies and contributors combined make one big ecosystem, and that's the biggest concern.

I agree 100% with the above.  I can't speak to anyone else's motivations, but for myself, I am making the biggest stink possible for one reason - to try and benefit the entire ecosystem, not just my own tiny part of it.  

This isn't just about istock, this is about a precedent in the industry.  The 20% barrier has been broken.  The "protect our exclusives" barrier has been broken.  

This doesn't just affect us on istock.  The other sites are watching.  

If we don't protest this in the strongest terms, and do whatever we can to show istock this will hurt their financial bottom line, the other sites will quickly follow suit.  Then independents will be completely screwed and so will exclusives, because if you should find you are getting a raw deal at istock, you will no longer have the safety net of going independent to recover your income.  If istock succeeds and profits from shafting its contributors this way, very soon there won't be any place to do to get a better deal.  

I totally agree with Lisa on this. Talking about us pushing business to other site, are not making business like deecitions are bull.
You've got to draw a line somewhere. Thres also ethics in business - god and bad.
Istock are like doing business wiht the mafia - the photo mafia - and I for one don't want to contribute, or in any other way be assosisated with the kind os business IS practices.

As for directing buyers to sites where the price for the same product are lower,a nd my indcome higher, can I not se hurting me, nor the buyer - it's a win-win situation.

As for the exclusives at Istock - sorry - you made your own decition about doing so - now you have to take whatever crap comes down from above at the IS halls...

« Reply #163 on: September 14, 2010, 12:41 »
0
Believe it or not, exclusives do care what happens with independents. But you're eroding that sense of support, at least speaking for myself.    

To be honest the best support you could give to us and to yourself is to abandon exclusivity. Collectively we need to reduce Istock's power. Quite simply Istock shouldn't have the nerve to attempt such a stunt let alone have the ability to get away with it. The power they have comes mainly from their base of exclusive contributors which is why 74% of them are getting away relatively unscathed (at least for now).

« Reply #164 on: September 14, 2010, 12:42 »
0
Quote
As for the exclusives at Istock - sorry - you made your own decition about doing so - now you have to take whatever crap comes down from above at the IS halls...

Thank you for these kind words  :)

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #165 on: September 14, 2010, 13:07 »
0
Well gostwyck, your expectations of me supporting that kind of tactic are way off the mark. Especially if how people are treating other people is any kind of factor. I'm exclusive for a lot of reasons, but I also actively educate myself about the other sites constantly. Everything I know keeps me at istock. I think they continue to lead and bring us new and sustainable business. That does not imply absolute support for each and every decision they make, but I know where I want to be and that has not changed. And the support I do give to independents has been carried out in the form of cr sitemails to hq and on conversations with admins about the reduction for independents. But I don't support anyone pulling business out, no way.

helix7

« Reply #166 on: September 14, 2010, 13:08 »
0
...And taking business from me to suit your career choices (remaining independent) is pretty crappy...

Kind of sounds like the argument a lot of traditional stock photographers used when iStock contributors were taking their business to suit their careers.

Anyway, why should I alter my career to suit your choice to go all-in with one agency? Sounds pretty crappy to me, asking independent artists to sacrifice their careers and not encourage buyers to shop where we stand to gain the most, just so that you can maintain your status at iStock.

You made your choice, and now you don't like that you're locked in at the most unethical company in the business. I'm not going to stop supporting the companies that pay fair rates so that you can keep your earnings. Sorry.

« Reply #167 on: September 14, 2010, 13:11 »
0
All of your questions presume that your point of view on the situation provides an accurate prediction of the future available to us at istock. I don't have the same point of view, but I'm not an independent. And taking business from me to suit your career choices (remaining independent) is pretty crappy. Anyways, just offering my ten cents, because there's s pretty big bias here most of the time. But I suspect no one is interested is discussing the value of another perspective. I do hope that istock reconsiders the floor for independents to 20%. Believe it or not, exclusives do care what happens with independents. But you're eroding that sense of support, at least speaking for myself.

Fair enough

Support is a two way street, what are you as a group of exclusive contributors willing to do to support independent contributors besides "hoping"?

What productive options do you see available for independents to recover their lost income on IS and how can exclusives help support that process?

« Reply #168 on: September 14, 2010, 13:16 »
0
Just been posted in 'That thread'  :) if you are gathering Quotes from Buyers

"Since 2006, i've spent over 7k with istock. Me and other art buyers are starting to realize this is like buying cloths made in China. I stock is like a third world county, where say Veer or Almay are thridworld too, but at least they are fair trade. I'm going to start buying photos from agencys that pay their continbutors more then 15%. Istock if you think this mess is just pissed off your contributors, think again. Art buyers have a conscience too"

« Reply #169 on: September 14, 2010, 13:18 »
0
Well gostwyck, your expectations of me supporting that kind of tactic are way off the mark. Especially if how people are treating other people is any kind of factor. I'm exclusive for a lot of reasons, but I also actively educate myself about the other sites constantly. Everything I know keeps me at istock. I think they continue to lead and bring us new and sustainable business. That does not imply absolute support for each and every decision they make, but I know where I want to be and that has not changed. And the support I do give to independents has been carried out in the form of cr sitemails to hq and on conversations with admins about the reduction for independents. But I don't support anyone pulling business out, no way.

Classic! I know all about your 'support'.

« Reply #170 on: September 14, 2010, 13:24 »
0
All of your questions presume that your point of view on the situation provides an accurate prediction of the future available to us at istock. I don't have the same point of view, but I'm not an independent. And taking business from me to suit your career choices (remaining independent) is pretty crappy. Anyways, just offering my ten cents, because there's s pretty big bias here most of the time. But I suspect no one is interested is discussing the value of another perspective. I do hope that istock reconsiders the floor for independents to 20%. Believe it or not, exclusives do care what happens with independents. But you're eroding that sense of support, at least speaking for myself.

Fair enough

Support is a two way street, what are you as a group of exclusive contributors willing to do to support independent contributors besides "hoping"?

What productive options do you see available for independents to recover their lost income on IS and how can exclusives help support that process?

Well - support is nice, even if it only as hope for the better...

But look - we have to get the most out of your business - if that includes attracting buyers to other sites that IS, where we earn the lowest commision - thats a sound business decition for us.

I recon, that you as an excluse got an other perspective, but that dosen't change the way we have to do businnes - and survice. And a paltry 15% is not enough to survive...

On a personal level, one feels sorry for those exclusive and lockes up with an unethical company, but funny thing is that you folks did so to maximise your profits short term. (sounds familiar?) Nothing wron with that, but dont whine when things change, and your bedpartner in the morning suddenly looks way less attractive :)


 

RacePhoto

« Reply #171 on: September 14, 2010, 13:29 »
0
Believe it or not, exclusives do care what happens with independents. But you're eroding that sense of support, at least speaking for myself.    

To be honest the best support you could give to us and to yourself is to abandon exclusivity. Collectively we need to reduce Istock's power. Quite simply Istock shouldn't have the nerve to attempt such a stunt let alone have the ability to get away with it. The power they have comes mainly from their base of exclusive contributors which is why 74% of them are getting away relatively unscathed (at least for now).

74% of 16% are getting away unscathed? Where did you figure out that those exclusives wouldn't be effected at all? I'm just a lowly independent losing 25% of my low income, in 2011. Can you explain the figure? Seems to me that many more of the low exclusives, the ones with under 500 lifetime downloads, will be taking a cut as well.

« Reply #172 on: September 14, 2010, 13:33 »
0
74% of 16% are getting away unscathed? Where did you figure out that those exclusives wouldn't be effected at all? I'm just a lowly independent losing 25% of my low income, in 2011. Can you explain the figure? Seems to me that many more of the low exclusives, the ones with under 500 lifetime downloads, will be taking a cut as well.

The 74% was originally quoted by Kelly T. It was investigated by DGilder who worked out how the figures had been arrived at (basically most exclusives are currently at the base levels and therefore cannot actually drop any further). You'll need to keep up with the threads though if you want the full story.

« Reply #173 on: September 14, 2010, 13:34 »
0
I don't think exclusives should worry about us taking away buyers because a lot of us aren't uploading to istock now and might be forced to start deleting our portfolios.  You will earn more from the buyers that stay with istock if there is less competition.

The buyers can always keep their istock accounts to buy from exclusives, I have no problem with that but they will need to use the other sites to see new images from a lot of us.

lisafx

« Reply #174 on: September 14, 2010, 13:50 »
0
Just been posted in 'That thread'  :) if you are gathering Quotes from Buyers

"Since 2006, i've spent over 7k with istock. Me and other art buyers are starting to realize this is like buying cloths made in China. I stock is like a third world county, where say Veer or Almay are thridworld too, but at least they are fair trade. I'm going to start buying photos from agencys that pay their continbutors more then 15%. Istock if you think this mess is just pissed off your contributors, think again. Art buyers have a conscience too"

Thanks a lot for posting Iclick.  How nice of you to actually post ON TOPIC ;D


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
30 Replies
17295 Views
Last post October 23, 2010, 14:12
by gbalex
18 Replies
5817 Views
Last post November 24, 2011, 15:34
by lagereek
162 Replies
33333 Views
Last post May 14, 2012, 10:27
by jbryson
20 Replies
7323 Views
Last post February 14, 2013, 17:41
by Poncke
9 Replies
4678 Views
Last post January 15, 2014, 19:56
by djpadavona

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors