MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: michealo on March 30, 2011, 10:00
-
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/interviews/kelly_thompson.do (http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/interviews/kelly_thompson.do)
> 31 million images sold per year ...
-
I love this part
The concerns of professional photographers may come from fears about a “commoditisation of the market”, about iStock driving down the price of an image, and its impact on commission rates. But Thompson rebuts this idea, and suggests that rates have risen at iStock: “We started paying 25 cents an image!” He adds that commission levels stretch from 20% to 45%.
-
At an average of $10 per image sold that would be a $310 million turnover which would be about a 10% of the global stock imagery turnover
-
Why does almost everything he is quoted as saying come across to me as spin, distortion of the truth or just wrong? He says iStock started paying 25c per sale, I remember it paying 10c minimum and I believe that in 2003 it was as low as 5c.
He says the current commission rate ranges from 20% to 45% - err, excuse me, I think you mean 15% to 45%.
Doesn't this guy know anything about the company he's running?
Then we have the "make $10,000 from one photo in a few months" rubbish - I can't say it's a lie because maybe someone has done that, but it's hardly a fair representation of reality, is it?
And if Jonathan Klein told them to slow down the growth of the collection and concentrate on quality when he bought it, why did they speed up the expansion of the collection instead?
It's all bollux IMHO.
-
At an average of $10 per image sold that would be a $310 million turnover which would be about a 10% of the global stock imagery turnover
Which is probably right and makes you wonder why they have Kelly running something that valuable.
-
I love this part
But Thompson rebuts this idea, and suggests that rates have risen at iStock: “We started paying 25 cents an image!” He adds that commission levels stretch from 20% to 45%.[/i]
I understood that at first no money changed hands?
And the commission part omits a great part of the truth. [1]
Yup, JJRD was right, it's a "new kind of trust" we have to have in our 'leaders'. Trust that we'll never know HAFC WTH is going on.
[1] Does that make it a 'sin of omission' and a 'sin of commission' at the same time?
-
"rates have risen at iStock"
Yes, for Istock. Not for contributors.
-
Yes, of course, you are right, Sue.
I almost forgot to mention my amusement over the comment about the forum community being there to offer photographers helpful advice. Isn't this overlooking the fact that his redeemed credit targets system has made us all competitors with each other, so you'd be a fool to help others get ahead?
And I take it from his advice about not cropping images in order to leave plenty of space for designers that he hasn't been a recipient of the "too-much-space" rejection form.
-
" But with the site offering advice articles – for contributors and customers – and a forum, it also manages to generate a sense of community."
yeah, I noticed that. Is this dick really as clueless as he comes across???
-
I don't know if it's a correct word, but this interview looks like a MOCKERY.
-
I don't know if it's a correct word, but this interview looks like a MOCKERY.
I'm sure it's just a fair reflection of his PR skills. I wouldn't be surprised if it was written in full in Calgary and just handed in to Canon. Remember, Canon are going to love the micros: stock sites have helped to sell thousands of high-end Canon cameras and lenses, so there is no way Canon will mock the top man at the top site.
-
" But with the site offering advice articles – for contributors and customers – and a forum, it also manages to generate a sense of community."
yeah, I noticed that. Is this dick really as clueless as he comes across???
He's a dick, yes, but clueless? I think he/they know exactly what they are doing.
-
Almost all the contributors had their royalties cuted. How this guy can say "rates have risen"? Is complete and total LIE!!!!
-
Feel I want to hide my head in the sand, everything is just too embarrasing.
-
I finally have a hundred images at iStock. I should start seeing some money pretty soon, shouldn't I? Isn't that what he said? ??? :P
-
This is just one more step in the process of cleaning up Getty for an IPO or sale. Puff pieces like this will all be included in the press packet announcing the IPO, with the hope that the financial press will focus on their side of the story. The ongoing cleanup of the forums is another part, and the push to increase profits short term at any expense is the final part. And it's going to work.
-
I think I threw up a little in my mouth. Wow does that bit of propaganda ring hollow after the last 6 months or so.
-
the article is fine IMO. it's remarkable that it's so taboo here to say anything positive at all about iStock. It was good advertising for iStock and though Kelly's comments were very general and broadly focused, that is undoubtedly the design of the publication and the interviewer. FWIW, I've never met or even spoken to him, but very good friends of mine and even other colleagues I don't know that well have consistently told me what a nice, very genuine person KK is. unfortunately being genuine almost always comes across as foot-in-mouth syndrome when a person is being paraphrased by media.
when I worked as a reporter/interviewer for magazines back when writing was my main work, magazines always have their agenda. they usually want broad statements, nothing drilled down and nothing too intimate. each article in that type of publication is simply an advertisement for both the magazine and the interviewee. The only obvious inference from the 'spin' is that Getty is actively for sale. but we already suspect that is underway. my concern with that is that iStock remains intact through a sale.
-
the article is fine IMO.
Including the blatant lie: "commission levels stretch from 20% to 45%"?
Can we hazard a guess as to the extent of this lie:
Number of contributors earning less than 20% commission = ?
Number of contributors earning 45% = ?
-
No word yet on the IS forums.
-
What did I say about a year back and I got flamed for it!! I said, " computer guys" running the show instead of creatives, as the agency world used to be run by.
and thats exactly what it turned out to be, even if Gates or Jobs were running it, it wouldn still be a total mess.
Not kellys fault anyway, he is just taking orders.
-
I recently read this 2009 article and though this line was pretty funny:
http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/yourmoney/41592872.html?page=1&c=y (http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/yourmoney/41592872.html?page=1&c=y)
"It doesn't really matter if someone considers themselves a professional or not," said iStockphoto COO Kelly Thompson.
"People aren't looking to make a whole lot of money, but they want to get that new lens cap," Thompson said.
-
Agreed with SNP. I have met Kelly only very briefly and have nothing bad to say about him. I know he and Bruce are best friends, and that says a lot. My impression is that he is a bit deer-in-the-headlights when it comes to answering questions. :)
-
the article is fine IMO.
Including the blatant lie: "commission levels stretch from 20% to 45%"?
Can we hazard a guess as to the extent of this lie:
Number of contributors earning less than 20% commission = ?
Number of contributors earning 45% = ?
would it have mattered if he had said 15% to 40%? it wouldn't have changed the context of the article in any way. to put it in perspective, in publishing authors get 4% to 8%-if we're lucky. I'm not stating that I agree with 15% for non-exclusives. I completely disagree with so low a percentage in our industry for any artist. but I'm just saying that suggesting it was a great big LIE designed to mislead seems silly. because even had they printed the 'truth', it would have hardly changed the article.
-
the article is fine IMO.
Including the blatant lie: "commission levels stretch from 20% to 45%"?
Can we hazard a guess as to the extent of this lie:
Number of contributors earning less than 20% commission = ?
Number of contributors earning 45% = ?
would it have mattered if he had said 15% to 40%? it wouldn't have changed the context of the article in any way. to put it in perspective, in publishing authors get 4% to 8%-if we're lucky. I'm not stating that I agree with 15% for non-exclusives. I completely disagree with so low a percentage in our industry for any artist. but I'm just saying that suggesting it was a great big LIE designed to mislead seems silly. because even had they printed the 'truth', it would have hardly changed the article.
Well, ya know, the devil's in the detail.
-
^ that's true, but in this case I don't really think it matters.
-
^ that's true, but in this case I don't really think it matters.
You keep your royalties rates after RC start? No hard feelings, just for curiosity.
-
the article is fine IMO.
Including the blatant lie: "commission levels stretch from 20% to 45%"?
Can we hazard a guess as to the extent of this lie:
Number of contributors earning less than 20% commission = ?
Number of contributors earning 45% = ?
would it have mattered if he had said 15% to 40%? it wouldn't have changed the context of the article in any way. to put it in perspective, in publishing authors get 4% to 8%-if we're lucky. I'm not stating that I agree with 15% for non-exclusives. I completely disagree with so low a percentage in our industry for any artist. but I'm just saying that suggesting it was a great big LIE designed to mislead seems silly. because even had they printed the 'truth', it would have hardly changed the article.
How about if he said 25 to 50%? would that have mattered? I think it matters a lot.
-
overall I think the article is decent, but the misleading part about the 20-45% is definitely a deal-killer.
in this case the fact is that the article misrepresented the facts. with an article like this I would think that Kelly or someone from istock was more than likely given a chance to review it before it went to print. the lie should have been caught and corrected. yes, it makes a big difference from 15 to 20 beause the industry low 'standard' used to always be 20% - and now it's dropped even lower. this article seems to want to forget about the fact that the majority of contributors to istock are making even less than 20%.
whether Kelly is a nice guy or not does change the fact that the article has outright untruths in it.
-
overall I think the article is decent, but the misleading part about the 20-45% is definitely a deal-killer.
in this case the fact is that the article misrepresented the facts. with an article like this I would think that Kelly or someone from istock was more than likely given a chance to review it before it went to print. the lie should have been caught and corrected. yes, it makes a big difference from 15 to 20 beause the industry low 'standard' used to always be 20% - and now it's dropped even lower. this article seems to want to forget about the fact that the majority of contributors to istock are making even less than 20%.
whether Kelly is a nice guy or not does change the fact that the article has outright untruths in it.
sadly articles are regularly published including misinformation. having watched how SOME journalists work, they have their eye on the deadline and usually know diddly squat about the subject they're writing about. which almost always results in misquotes and misinformation. in this case, I have no idea how the percentage figures were delivered to the reporter. probably info sent in an email. who knows. since I can only guess, my guess is that the numbers given were not calculated to mislead anyone. I'd suggest that iStock/Getty be more careful about how their words are represented...but even there, interviewees only see the article they've participated in for the first time when the articles are published. I don't know of any publications that would dare send an article to an interviewee for approval. it just doesn't work that way.
-
Speaking of bad reporting, there is the bit about not selling editorial 'RF', which really should have been caught.
-
sadly articles are regularly published including misinformation. having watched how SOME journalists work, they have their eye on the deadline and usually know diddly squat about the subject they're writing about. which almost always results in misquotes and misinformation. i
Having been the victim of this, I can attest and concede that this happens.
I guess there will be some disgruntled applicants 'suckered in ' by that article, then finding that they only get 15% when they start.
-
the article is fine IMO.
Including the blatant lie: "commission levels stretch from 20% to 45%"?
Can we hazard a guess as to the extent of this lie:
Number of contributors earning less than 20% commission = ?
Number of contributors earning 45% = ?
would it have mattered if he had said 15% to 40%? it wouldn't have changed the context of the article in any way. to put it in perspective, in publishing authors get 4% to 8%-if we're lucky. I'm not stating that I agree with 15% for non-exclusives. I completely disagree with so low a percentage in our industry for any artist. but I'm just saying that suggesting it was a great big LIE designed to mislead seems silly. because even had they printed the 'truth', it would have hardly changed the article.
Sorry, but digitally publishing authors (uploading an selling through the web, as we do) get 70%, i. e., at Kindle Direct of Amazon. There's a little diference from 4-8 to 70.
-
Already been covered... :)
-
overall I think the article is decent, but the misleading part about the 20-45% is definitely a deal-killer.
in this case the fact is that the article misrepresented the facts. with an article like this I would think that Kelly or someone from istock was more than likely given a chance to review it before it went to print. the lie should have been caught and corrected. yes, it makes a big difference from 15 to 20 beause the industry low 'standard' used to always be 20% - and now it's dropped even lower. this article seems to want to forget about the fact that the majority of contributors to istock are making even less than 20%.
whether Kelly is a nice guy or not does change the fact that the article has outright untruths in it.
sadly articles are regularly published including misinformation. having watched how SOME journalists work, they have their eye on the deadline and usually know diddly squat about the subject they're writing about. which almost always results in misquotes and misinformation. in this case, I have no idea how the percentage figures were delivered to the reporter. probably info sent in an email. who knows. since I can only guess, my guess is that the numbers given were not calculated to mislead anyone. I'd suggest that iStock/Getty be more careful about how their words are represented...but even there, interviewees only see the article they've participated in for the first time when the articles are published. I don't know of any publications that would dare send an article to an interviewee for approval. it just doesn't work that way.
well I know it happens because on several occasions when I've been interviewed for different stories the author sent me a copy prior to publishing to ensure things were stated correctly. granted, not always can/does this happen and evenso things can still get misrepresented, but it does happen. and back on point, this is one factoid where they quoted him and should have gotten it correct. how can a journalist possibly misinterpret 15 to 45 with 20 to 45?
-
Agreed with SNP. I have met Kelly only very briefly and have nothing bad to say about him. I know he and Bruce are best friends, and that says a lot. My impression is that he is a bit deer-in-the-headlights when it comes to answering questions. :)
He may well be a lovely person, in person, and a good friend to Bruce, but one thing Kelly is not is [a] Bruce. His Q&A skills, be it for a fluff piece or in response to the community (via the forums), leave MUCH to be desired.
The last thing you want in a leader is a chronic case of foot-in-mouth, which Kelly (sadly, for all) seems to have in spades.
-
The first thing I thought about this in reading the article is "Wow, he's put on a lot of weight!"
http://press.istockphoto.com/pr/isp/default.aspx (http://press.istockphoto.com/pr/isp/default.aspx)
-
well I know it happens because on several occasions when I've been interviewed for different stories the author sent me a copy prior to publishing to ensure things were stated correctly. granted, not always can/does this happen and evenso things can still get misrepresented, but it does happen. and back on point, this is one factoid where they quoted him and should have gotten it correct. how can a journalist possibly misinterpret 15 to 45 with 20 to 45?
I've worked in the music and film industries and we were never shown articles before they were published. You could usually make an entire drinking game out of the number of things the writer got wrong, or misquoted, or paraphrased creatively.
Maybe someone should email the editor and ask them to correct it?
-
@loop: you're probably right. I guess I should have said traditional publishing. I worked/still work in traditonal print publishing. The whopping royalty percentage for my book was 6 percent. Articles for publications are different. I'm usually paid a flat rate per piece, no royalties. anyways, back on topic...the incorrect data in the article, IMO, is more directly attributable to the publication rather than to KK.
-
the article is fine IMO.
Including the blatant lie: "commission levels stretch from 20% to 45%"?
Can we hazard a guess as to the extent of this lie:
Number of contributors earning less than 20% commission = ?
Number of contributors earning 45% = ?
would it have mattered if he had said 15% to 40%? it wouldn't have changed the context of the article in any way. to put it in perspective, in publishing authors get 4% to 8%-if we're lucky. I'm not stating that I agree with 15% for non-exclusives. I completely disagree with so low a percentage in our industry for any artist. but I'm just saying that suggesting it was a great big LIE designed to mislead seems silly. because even had they printed the 'truth', it would have hardly changed the article.
This business has no integrity. You exchange truth for lies, sorry you can't see through the darkness.
-
the article is fine IMO.
Including the blatant lie: "commission levels stretch from 20% to 45%"?
Can we hazard a guess as to the extent of this lie:
Number of contributors earning less than 20% commission = ?
Number of contributors earning 45% = ?
would it have mattered if he had said 15% to 40%? it wouldn't have changed the context of the article in any way.
So you see no difference in value between the truth and a lie? They are equally valid in your eyes? And you used to write for magazines? It explains a lot about the media today.
-
Speaking of bad reporting, there is the bit about not selling editorial 'RF', which really should have been caught.
*! I meant to bring that up and I forgot it among all the other stuff. Thanks for picking up on it, Sean.
-
Note that there is no claim by Kelly that they are now paying contributors $2 million a week. I'd think that if that September prediction had come true that would have been one of the first things he said in the article.
-
would it have mattered if he had said 15% to 40%? it wouldn't have changed the context of the article in any way.
No it would have changed the content what's the context got to do with it? and you're a writer?!
-
The first thing I thought about this in reading the article is "Wow, he's put on a lot of weight!"
[url]http://press.istockphoto.com/pr/isp/default.aspx[/url] ([url]http://press.istockphoto.com/pr/isp/default.aspx[/url])
Stress eating?
-
Note that there is no claim by Kelly that they are now paying contributors $2 million a week. I'd think that if that September prediction had come true that would have been one of the first things he said in the article.
Very good point.
-
@loop: you're probably right. I guess I should have said traditional publishing. I worked/still work in traditonal print publishing. The whopping royalty percentage for my book was 6 percent. Articles for publications are different. I'm usually paid a flat rate per piece, no royalties. anyways, back on topic...the incorrect data in the article, IMO, is more directly attributable to the publication rather than to KK.
but you don't know that for a fact.
-
the article is fine IMO.
Including the blatant lie: "commission levels stretch from 20% to 45%"?
Can we hazard a guess as to the extent of this lie:
Number of contributors earning less than 20% commission = ?
Number of contributors earning 45% = ?
would it have mattered if he had said 15% to 40%? it wouldn't have changed the context of the article in any way.
So you see no difference in value between the truth and a lie? They are equally valid in your eyes? And you used to write for magazines? It explains a lot about the media today.
Explains/says a lot about a lot ;)
-
I didn't think that there was a ton wrong with the article. The very few times I have been behind an article (been interviewed) I have always had something of what i said twisted into something I did not say or something I did not mean to say... which makes me wonder what Kelly really said. I can't imagine him trying to convince the interviewer that everyone was making $10,000 from all their photos. He could of said that they had one person .... and then in the writing things get changed.. etcetc.. .. anyhow.. I'm not trying to stand up for the article or make excuses, it just makes me curious.
obviously I agree with everyone else... the 20% minimum commission is just plain wrong and the $10,000/month in a few months is certainly possible but highly unlikely.. closer to impossible...
and all that said .. I don't have a problem with Kelly the person, I have met him a couple of times and he is a regular friendly guy. Kelly the COO, however is clearly more interested (or obligated), unfortunately, to see smiles on the investors faces than smiles on the photographers faces.
-
I don't know why people always bring up the "he is a nice person and seems like a good guy" thing. Many neighbors of Jeffrey Dahmer that were interviewed said things like "he was such a nice boy, he used to mow my lawn every week" and "he always said hi to me when he passed by".
And no, I'm not comparing KK to Jeffrey Dahmer. My point is, just because you meet a person a few times and they seem "nice" doesn't mean you really know a person.
More can said about a person by things like what kind of company they work for, how they treat their customers, how they treat their vendors, etc. – not just to their face but behind their back, too. It doesn't really matter to me what kind of a nice guy KK is. He still works for Getty/IS, and Getty/IS still took away money from me. That he affiliates himself with such a company speaks volumes to me.
For those who don't know who Jeffrey Dahmer is, in a nutshell, a serial killer who ate his victims.
-
@loop: you're probably right. I guess I should have said traditional publishing. I worked/still work in traditonal print publishing. The whopping royalty percentage for my book was 6 percent. Articles for publications are different. I'm usually paid a flat rate per piece, no royalties. anyways, back on topic...the incorrect data in the article, IMO, is more directly attributable to the publication rather than to KK.
That's the point. We don't do traditional photographing.
-
I don't know if it's a correct word, but this interview looks like a MOCKERY.
How about another one: "bull_shit", because honestly after reading it I don't know if to laugh or cry. Lol.
-
I don't know why people always bring up the "he is a nice person and seems like a good guy" thing. Many neighbors of Jeffrey Dahmer that were interviewed said things like "he was such a nice boy, he used to mow my lawn every week" and "he always said hi to me when he passed by".
And no, I'm not comparing KK to Jeffrey Dahmer. My point is, just because you meet a person a few times and they seem "nice" doesn't mean you really know a person.
More can said about a person by things like what kind of company they work for, how they treat their customers, how they treat their vendors, etc. – not just to their face but behind their back, too. It doesn't really matter to me what kind of a nice guy KK is. He still works for Getty/IS, and Getty/IS still took away money from me. That he affiliates himself with such a company speaks volumes to me.
For those who don't know who Jeffrey Dahmer is, in a nutshell, a serial killer who ate his victims.
Maybe, but often you don't need more than five minutes to know if someone you've just meet is a jerk, I've gone through this many times in my life.
-
My point is, just because you meet a person a few times and they seem "nice" doesn't mean you really know a person.
More can said about a person by things like what kind of company they work for, how they treat their customers, how they treat their vendors, etc. – not just to their face but behind their back, too. It doesn't really matter to me what kind of a nice guy KK is. He still works for Getty/IS, and Getty/IS still took away money from me. That he affiliates himself with such a company speaks volumes to me.
Very well said Cathy. I've never met either Kelly or Rob Sylvan however my originally neutral view of each of them has changed hugely over the last few months and in very different ways. It would seem if Kelly had any moral objections to what he was being asked to do then he didn't have much problem in overcoming them in favour of his bonus. On the other hand ... Rob simply chose to walk in a different direction.
It's a person's actions that count, not their small-talk in a social situation.
-
I don't know why people always bring up the "he is a nice person and seems like a good guy" thing. Many neighbors of Jeffrey Dahmer that were interviewed said things like "he was such a nice boy, he used to mow my lawn every week" and "he always said hi to me when he passed by".
And no, I'm not comparing KK to Jeffrey Dahmer. My point is, just because you meet a person a few times and they seem "nice" doesn't mean you really know a person.
Hey, at least you didn't invoke Godwin's Law and compare him to Hitler ;D
But I agree. He can be the nicest guy on Earth personally, but what matters to me is the decisions he's making that affect contributors. Assuming he IS making any decisions or just following orders. Ooops - there's Godwin's Law again ;)
-
I'm sure it's just a fair reflection of his PR skills. I wouldn't be surprised if it was written in full in Calgary and just handed in to Canon. Remember, Canon are going to love the micros: stock sites have helped to sell thousands of high-end Canon cameras and lenses, so there is no way Canon will mock the top man at the top site.
Nail on head. The camera makers have to regard microstock as a serious sales tool. They'd be happy to pass on any PR fluff those agencies care to churn out.
-
Hey, at least you didn't invoke Godwin's Law and compare him to Hitler ;D
ROFL! I didn't know what Godwin's Law was...googled it. Too funny! No, no Hitler references from me. :D
-
Hey, at least you didn't invoke Godwin's Law and compare him to Hitler ;D
ROFL! I didn't know what Godwin's Law was...googled it. Too funny! No, no Hitler references from me. :D
Me neither! Good reference Lisa. Here's the Wiki explanation if anyone else is similarly 'challenged';
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law)
-
the article is fine IMO.
Including the blatant lie: "commission levels stretch from 20% to 45%"?
Can we hazard a guess as to the extent of this lie:
Number of contributors earning less than 20% commission = ?
Number of contributors earning 45% = ?
would it have mattered if he had said 15% to 40%? it wouldn't have changed the context of the article in any way.
So you see no difference in value between the truth and a lie? They are equally valid in your eyes? And you used to write for magazines? It explains a lot about the media today.
you know that isn't what I meant, nor is it even what I said. calling it a 'lie' is a value judgment. it's precisely that type of paraphrasing that is one of the main problems with bad journalism. other than Kelly and the reporter, who knows how the information was exchanged and how it was summarized in the article. you can call it misinformation, you can call it flat out wrong, but calling it a lie is spin. You're stating that Kelly actively sought to deceive readers of the article. FWIW, I believe very strongly in ethical journalism, it's how I have always worked, so I found your comment particularly insulting. maybe that was your objective.
as for other comments that it doesn't matter if Kelly is a nice guy....yes, in fact it does. ethical people are usually ethical in all aspects of their lives. conversely unscrupulous people are unscrupulous in most areas of their lives. As I haven't met Kelly, I can only go on what I've been told and I've always heard he's an honest, nice and smart guy. I think that's relevant.
-
I don't know why people always bring up the "he is a nice person and seems like a good guy" thing. Many neighbors of Jeffrey Dahmer that were interviewed said things like "he was such a nice boy, he used to mow my lawn every week" and "he always said hi to me when he passed by".
And no, I'm not comparing KK to Jeffrey Dahmer. My point is, just because you meet a person a few times and they seem "nice" doesn't mean you really know a person.
Hey, at least you didn't invoke Godwin's Law and compare him to Hitler ;D
But I agree. He can be the nicest guy on Earth personally, but what matters to me is the decisions he's making that affect contributors. Assuming he IS making any decisions or just following orders. Ooops - there's Godwin's Law again ;)
googled it...cool reference! thanks ;-)
-
@SNP - "(...that it doesn't matter if Kelly is a nice guy)....yes, in fact it does. ethical people are usually ethical in all aspects of their lives. conversely unscrupulous people are unscrupulous in most areas of their lives"
Are you really saying what I've understood, that Kelly is "an ethical guy"??? Where's the ethics in telling people that have just potentially lost tons of money that they should be saying thanks instead of lamenting their loss? Or the ethics in screwing photogs while he sits raking in the millions? Or in saying to distraught people whose livelihood depend on this that they'll open a discussion, only to ignore thousands of posts in the thread? You really have your head right up your arse.
-
lie
1 /laɪ/ Show Spelled [lahy] Show IPA noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.
–noun
1.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2.
something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3.
an inaccurate or false statement.
4.
the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.
–verb (used without object)
5.
to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
6.
to express what is false; convey a false impression.
-
At an average of $10 per image sold that would be a $310 million turnover which would be about a 10% of the global stock imagery turnover
Which is probably right and makes you wonder why they have Kelly running something that valuable.
Yes, have you noticed that his title is COO? He's never gotten the CEO title and certainly hasn't earned it the way things have been going.
-
@SNP - "(...that it doesn't matter if Kelly is a nice guy)....yes, in fact it does. ethical people are usually ethical in all aspects of their lives. conversely unscrupulous people are unscrupulous in most areas of their lives"
Are you really saying what I've understood, that Kelly is "an ethical guy"??? Where's the ethics in telling people that have just potentially lost tons of money that they should be saying thanks instead of lamenting their loss? Or the ethics in screwing photogs while he sits raking in the millions? Or in saying to distraught people whose livelihood depend on this that they'll open a discussion, only to ignore thousands of posts in the thread? You really have your head right up your arse.
iStock is my livelihood too.
-
I don't know if it's a correct word, but this interview looks like a MOCKERY.
More like CROCKery.
"rates have risen at iStock"
Yes, for Istock. Not for contributors.
+1 and two for one quote.
What has risen is rejections for nit.
I wanted to see where in this interview the "unsustainable" comes in. Sounds like might good times to me, except for the artists of course.
Yes I'm so happy for the 15% pittance they grant me and other independents. Toss some coins to the beggars on the street. I wish SS would start that exclusive program! :D
-
That is NOT interview but PR article!
-
Agreed with SNP. I have met Kelly only very briefly and have nothing bad to say about him. I know he and Bruce are best friends, and that says a lot. My impression is that he is a bit deer-in-the-headlights when it comes to answering questions. :)
He may well be a lovely person, in person, and a good friend to Bruce, but one thing Kelly is not is [a] Bruce. His Q&A skills, be it for a fluff piece or in response to the community (via the forums), leave MUCH to be desired.
The last thing you want in a leader is a chronic case of foot-in-mouth, which Kelly (sadly, for all) seems to have in spades.
Oh, he is probably very nice, too nice in fact so Getty is bullying him into all sorts of things and ofcourse he follows.
-
They've edited the Canon article to change the figures, so they now read 15% to 45%.
Oh, the power of MSG! ;D ;D ;D
They haven't yet worked out why Sean objected to the line about editorial images not being sold RF but maybe that will get changed later since the article is, apparently, a work in progress.
-
lol, at least it looks like someone's bothered about whether the content of the article is factually correct.
-
lol, at least it looks like someone's bothered about whether the content of the article is factually correct.
Maybe some independents contacted Kelly and demanded their 20% as stated in the article.
-
the article is fine IMO.
Including the blatant lie: "commission levels stretch from 20% to 45%"?
Can we hazard a guess as to the extent of this lie:
Number of contributors earning less than 20% commission = ?
Number of contributors earning 45% = ?
would it have mattered if he had said 15% to 40%? it wouldn't have changed the context of the article in any way. to put it in perspective, in publishing authors get 4% to 8%-if we're lucky. I'm not stating that I agree with 15% for non-exclusives. I completely disagree with so low a percentage in our industry for any artist. but I'm just saying that suggesting it was a great big LIE designed to mislead seems silly. because even had they printed the 'truth', it would have hardly changed the article.
For every 1 photographer involved with iStock there are 10000 that are not and those shooters will not know that the interview contains false information.
You have to ask yourself several questions here: First what's going on? Did the interviewer alter his words? To what end? If not that means that kelly gave false information. So then you ask is the top guy at iStock a complete idiot and doesn't know what they pay contributors? If he does have that info then he deliberately gave false info i.e. lied through his teeth so again: to what end? If he lied, then how could you trust anything he or the company says?
There are no little white lies. If he's going to lie about commissions what else will he/they lie about?
I would also suspect that Canon or whoever supplied the article to Canon employs fact checkers to ensure that the interview is accurate to protect against Libel. If the interviewer falsified the numbers they would be open to legal action from iStock. Tends to make me doubt bad journalism when Kelly himself probably read the article possibly even before it was published.
In my experience the nicest guys are the ones you watch the closest.
-
And it's no surprise that they carefully adjust the 45% RC level to make sure that one contributor (who happens to be an iStock employee) reaches it.
With that in place, it was only a matter of time before iStock would use the 'we pay up to 45% royalties' claim in their marketing.
-
the article is fine IMO.
Including the blatant lie: "commission levels stretch from 20% to 45%"?
Can we hazard a guess as to the extent of this lie:
Number of contributors earning less than 20% commission = ?
Number of contributors earning 45% = ?
would it have mattered if he had said 15% to 40%? it wouldn't have changed the context of the article in any way. to put it in perspective, in publishing authors get 4% to 8%-if we're lucky. I'm not stating that I agree with 15% for non-exclusives. I completely disagree with so low a percentage in our industry for any artist. but I'm just saying that suggesting it was a great big LIE designed to mislead seems silly. because even had they printed the 'truth', it would have hardly changed the article.
For every 1 photographer involved with iStock there are 10000 that are not and those shooters will not know that the interview contains false information.
You have to ask yourself several questions here: First what's going on? Did the interviewer alter his words? To what end? If not that means that kelly gave false information. So then you ask is the top guy at iStock a complete idiot and doesn't know what they pay contributors? If he does have that info then he deliberately gave false info i.e. lied through his teeth so again: to what end? If he lied, then how could you trust anything he or the company says?
There are no little white lies. If he's going to lie about commissions what else will he/they lie about?
I would also suspect that Canon or whoever supplied the article to Canon employs fact checkers to ensure that the interview is accurate to protect against Libel. If the interviewer falsified the numbers they would be open to legal action from iStock. Tends to make me doubt bad journalism when Kelly himself probably read the article possibly even before it was published.
In my experience the nicest guys are the ones you watch the closest.
I'd be very surprised if 'fact checkers' were employed for this online article. Online magazine publishers are still in the dark ages in terms of the quality of their content. there still exists this mentality that an error in print is far worse than a mistake online, even though online work has the potential to reach a much larger, broader audience more quickly. Fact checkers cost money. Magazines are in many ways just PR vehicles, as someone said earlier. Not all magazines--but many industry publications in particular are designed simply to allow suppliers and services to advertise under the guise of a 'product review' or an objectively researched profile, which is not truly objective at all.
-
... Magazines are in many ways just PR vehicles, as someone said earlier. Not all magazines--but many industry publications in particular are designed simply to allow suppliers and services to advertise under the guise of a 'product review' or an objectively researched profile, which is not truly objective at all.
True. I used to work for the Financial Times and it was well known that 80% of revenue was generated from advertising as was also the case for all other national newspapers. That's why they're all suffering now as advertisers are spending their money elsewhere. From the point of view of the publishers most newspapers and magazines are basically just vehicles for generating advertising revenue. Almost no article or product review within them can be considered truly objective.
-
I am left wondering why IS pumps out something like this, which is basically a recruiting poster for new contributors, who will send IS a ton of low quality images, which IS will spend time and money reviewing and rejecting. Is this what IS wants - more repititious stuff from newbies?
What's the point, for IS, of encouraging people to buy DSLRs and get into this game at this time? Canon's motivation is obvious so maybe they're the real source of this "interview". All that's missing is "mention IStock when purchasing your new Canon, and receive a free lens cleaning cloth", which triggers a little kickback to IS for the camera sale.
-
I am left wondering why IS pumps out something like this, which is basically a recruiting poster for new contributors, who will send IS a ton of low quality images, which IS will spend time and money reviewing and rejecting. Is this what IS wants - more repititious stuff from newbies?
What's the point, for IS, of encouraging people to buy DSLRs and get into this game at this time? Canon's motivation is obvious so maybe they're the real source of this "interview". All that's missing is "mention IStock when purchasing your new Canon, and receive a free lens cleaning cloth", which triggers a little kickback to IS for the camera sale.
Let's look at the context. This article was in the Canon Professional Network website. I don't think it would result in tons of low quality images nor free cleaning cloths.
-
I am left wondering why IS pumps out something like this, which is basically a recruiting poster for new contributors, who will send IS a ton of low quality images, which IS will spend time and money reviewing and rejecting. Is this what IS wants - more repititious stuff from newbies?
What's the point, for IS, of encouraging people to buy DSLRs and get into this game at this time? Canon's motivation is obvious so maybe they're the real source of this "interview". All that's missing is "mention IStock when purchasing your new Canon, and receive a free lens cleaning cloth", which triggers a little kickback to IS for the camera sale.
Simple economics, because a new recruit gets paid a commission of 15% ...
-
Simple economics, because a new recruit gets paid a commission of 15% ...
Yes, but only if the new recruit's material is accepted, and sells. Does IS really win by driving out experienced producers and replacing them with newbies at lower commissions? It's not making sense, unless you assume buyers really aren't sensitive to what we think of as "quality" and will continue to buy the same number of images from IS no matter what. It costs IS money to review images. If they don't sell, that money is lost.
By 'churning' their pool of contributors like this, they're playing a pyramid game with themselves. It ends when it's no longer possibly to lure in enough new contributors to replace the experienced ones that give up.
Do they believe that 1 out of 10 newbies will actually make IS money in the long run, and those gains will offset the loss of existing contributors as commissions are cut?
-
I would guess that 90%-plus of buyers don't care about a bit of CA or noise but they probably care quite a lot about the composition and lighting. The latter are apparent at every size, the former only if you are printing huge posters for close-up viewing.
-
They've edited the Canon article to change the figures, so they now read 15% to 45%.
Oh, the power of MSG! ;D ;D ;D
They haven't yet worked out why Sean objected to the line about editorial images not being sold RF but maybe that will get changed later since the article is, apparently, a work in progress.
someone pointed it out on their Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/#!/istock (http://www.facebook.com/#!/istock)
the relevant posts:
#Lorraine Swanson Commissions from 20-45%? Why are you only paying me 16% Mr Thompson?
#iStockphoto There does seem to be some context missing from that quote regarding exclusive and non-exclusive royalty rates. That being said, I'm sure you're already familiar with the rate schedule.
-
Hey, at least you didn't invoke Godwin's Law and compare him to Hitler ;D
Hitler was intelligent, everytime I read something that Kelly Thompson has said it makes me think the exact opposite and compare him to George W Bush.
-
someone pointed it out on their Facebook page: [url]http://www.facebook.com/#[/url]!/istock ([url]http://www.facebook.com/#[/url]!/istock)
the relevant posts:
#Lorraine Swanson Commissions from 20-45%? Why are you only paying me 16% Mr Thompson?
#iStockphoto There does seem to be some context missing from that quote regarding exclusive and non-exclusive royalty rates. That being said, I'm sure you're already familiar with the rate schedule.
Guilty. I hear they had Canon correct the facts after I posted. I love the "I'm sure youre already familiar with the rate schedule". Snarky buggers.
-
someone pointed it out on their Facebook page: [url]http://www.facebook.com/#[/url]!/istock ([url]http://www.facebook.com/#[/url]!/istock)
the relevant posts:
#Lorraine Swanson Commissions from 20-45%? Why are you only paying me 16% Mr Thompson?
#iStockphoto There does seem to be some context missing from that quote regarding exclusive and non-exclusive royalty rates. That being said, I'm sure you're already familiar with the rate schedule.
Guilty. I hear they had Canon correct the facts after I posted. I love the "I'm sure youre already familiar with the rate schedule". Snarky buggers.
haha.. well to be honest, I attempted to post almost the exact same thing as you but my iphone has been having connection issues so it didn't get posted. I was happy to see you had posted.
and yeah, I thought the same thing about the snarky tone on that lastremark. One would think that even in the face of criticism a large company/presence like iStock could remain professional.
-
Simple economics, because a new recruit gets paid a commission of 15% ...
Yes, but only if the new recruit's material is accepted, and sells. Does IS really win by driving out experienced producers and replacing them with newbies at lower commissions? It's not making sense, unless you assume buyers really aren't sensitive to what we think of as "quality" and will continue to buy the same number of images from IS no matter what. It costs IS money to review images. If they don't sell, that money is lost.
By 'churning' their pool of contributors like this, they're playing a pyramid game with themselves. It ends when it's no longer possibly to lure in enough new contributors to replace the experienced ones that give up.
Do they believe that 1 out of 10 newbies will actually make IS money in the long run, and those gains will offset the loss of existing contributors as commissions are cut?
Isn't istock owned by Getty? Maybe Getty is pushing an agenda. Keep the newbies on istock so istock can't compete with it's parent. It's hard to sell a rights managed image for $500 if you can get a royalty free of similar quality for $10.
-
and yeah, I thought the same thing about the snarky tone on that lastremark. One would think that even in the face of criticism a large company/presence like iStock could remain professional.
I think they've shown repeatedly that no matter how big they get, they can't seem so shake the high school mentality.
-
Isn't istock owned by Getty? Maybe Getty is pushing an agenda. Keep the newbies on istock so istock can't compete with it's parent. It's hard to sell a rights managed image for $500 if you can get a royalty free of similar quality for $10.
It's not about competing between IS and Getty. It's about shuffling the images, and contributors, into different price tiers.
The RM that is not unique will be moved to RF or micro. Premium micro that isn't sellable will be moved to low-priced micro. Low-end micro that isn't selling will eventually get rid of itself from contributors giving up.
-
the relevant posts:
#Lorraine Swanson Commissions from 20-45%? Why are you only paying me 16% Mr Thompson?
#iStockphoto There does seem to be some context missing from that quote regarding exclusive and non-exclusive royalty rates. That being said, I'm sure you're already familiar with the rate schedule.
The quote from iStockphoto was cut off somehow. He meant to say "I'm sure you're already familiar with the rate schedule. We were just hoping to mislead potential new contributors."
-
And after 12 days, someone put link in foruns.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=323042&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=323042&page=1)
And just 3 people send happy birthday to KK... In other times, lots of community member sending your congrats to Kelly.
-
And after 12 days, someone put link in foruns.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=323042&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=323042&page=1[/url])
And just 3 people send happy birthday to KK... In other times, lots of community member sending your congrats to Kelly.
yes, I noticed that - read it and reminded myself of what my mother used to tell me "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all"
-
Go from hobby to money-maker: For freelancers, Web makes fun pursuits pay
April 7, 2009 By Andrew Newman
At iStockphoto, contributors earn a percentage of the download price -- starting at a 20 percent base royalty rate. That means for photos, earnings can range from 30 cents to more than $8 per download on a pay-as-you-go plan. The amount earned depends on the size of the photo. The rest of the money goes to the site.
iStockphoto's subscription plans offer a chance for contributors to earn even more money per download."Go from hobby to money-maker: For freelancers, Web makes fun pursuits pay."
Contributors with enough downloads and positive feedback can enter the Exclusivity program; in essence, iStockphoto becomes their agent. Exclusive contributors get more money per download and other benefits like the opportunity to submit their work to stock photo giant Getty Images.
The site is free to join, but contributors have to apply and submit three samples of their work before approval -- so pictures from the family trip to Disney World probably won't cut it.
That doesn't mean the site is professionals only."It doesn't really matter if someone considers themselves a professional or not," said iStockphoto COO Kelly Thompson.
Doctors and policemen are among the 4,000-plus Exclusive contributors, and they aren't planning on quitting their day jobs _ even though top contributors can earn $150,000 a year.
"People aren't looking to make a whole lot of money, but they want to get that new lens cap," Thompson said.
-
"People aren't looking to make a whole lot of money, but they want to get that new lens cap," Thompson said.
It's unbelieveable that this dweeb ended up in control of a huge segment of the stock photography business. Now, can the business somehow find a way to route around him, or are we doomed to remain forever under the thumb of Dear Leader?
-
"People aren't looking to make a whole lot of money, but they want to get that new lens cap," Thompson said.
It's unbelieveable that this dweeb ended up in control of a huge segment of the stock photography business. Now, can the business somehow find a way to route around him, or are we doomed to remain forever under the thumb of Dear Leader?
Maybe the one bright spot to the decline in sales (and eventually revenue) at iStock will be his termination?
-
That was a particularly peculiar thing to say wasn't it? I've never had to replace a lens cap, and never had any desire for a different kind of lens cap. If I did have such a desire, why would I go through an entrance test, spend money on equipment and software and go through all the hoops and process involved in microstock, just to buy something that would cost less then £10.00?
Truly strange.
Of course, if there's something I'm missing here, and there's a reason to work this hard for a lens cap, perhaps someone could enlighten me?
-
That was a particularly peculiar thing to say wasn't it? I've never had to replace a lens cap, and never had any desire for a different kind of lens cap. If I did have such a desire, why would I go through an entrance test, spend money on equipment and software and go through all the hoops and process involved in microstock, just to buy something that would cost less then £10.00?
Truly strange.
Of course, if there's something I'm missing here, and there's a reason to work this hard for a lens cap, perhaps someone could enlighten me?
If you don't have a supa dupa iStock lenscap all your photos get rejected as 'not suitable for stock'. :P
-
:D
-
Maybe Dear Leader will be marketing his own line of lens caps.
Seriously, I think this is just his way of saying "let them eat cake".
-
Maybe Dear Leader will be marketing his own line of lens caps.
Seriously, I think this is just his way of saying "let them eat cake".
:D
"When money won't make you happy... the revolutionary K-cap will!
OK I've done some sums. To replace my lens cap would seem to cost £8.45.
So far it's cost me over 3,000 hours of work and about £3,000 in investment. Yay me! I must be really stupid! ;D
-
Let's all start sending him old lens caps.
-
:D
-
Let's all start sending him old lens caps.
That's a brilliant idea.
Let's flood IS HQ with old lens caps as a form of protest.
-
Let's all start sending him old lens caps.
That's a brilliant idea.
Let's flood IS HQ with old lens caps as a form of protest.
Would be pretty cool send it direct to KT.
-
Let's all start sending him old lens caps.
That's a brilliant idea.
Let's flood IS HQ with old lens caps as a form of protest.
Would be pretty cool send it direct to KT.
Birthday gifts.
-
Let's all start sending him old lens caps.
That's a brilliant idea.
Let's flood IS HQ with old lens caps as a form of protest.
Would be pretty cool send it direct to KT.
hilarious!
Bithday gifts.
-
Let's all start sending him old lens caps.
That's a brilliant idea.
Let's flood IS HQ with old lens caps as a form of protest.
Let them eat lenscaps.
-
Let's all start sending him old lens caps.
That's a brilliant idea.
Let's flood IS HQ with old lens caps as a form of protest.
Would be pretty cool send it direct to KT.
It would be a waste of postage. He wouldn't even get the joke.
-
Unfortunately, at this point, I have no choice but to try and make a whole lot of money. Its not what I want of course, who would? But I was lavish with my money and blew it all on lens caps. So now I have no choice but to hope that if and when I put a picture up on iStock that it sells. I know it's a lot to expect and please pardon me for my greed.
P.S. - If you are not in it for the money either like I was, and just want a new lens cap, then no need to invest all those thousands of dollars in equipment, spend bundles of money on models and props, and hundreds of hours shooting, retouching, keywording, and uploading pictures to iStock because I will send you a lens cap for free, OK?
-
That was a particularly peculiar thing to say wasn't it? I've never had to replace a lens cap, and never had any desire for a different kind of lens cap. If I did have such a desire, why would I go through an entrance test, spend money on equipment and software and go through all the hoops and process involved in microstock, just to buy something that would cost less then £10.00?
Truly strange.
Of course, if there's something I'm missing here, and there's a reason to work this hard for a lens cap, perhaps someone could enlighten me?
Surely this has to be a miss quote? I think he meant new lens, not lens cap. If it isn't a miss quote, they really need to get someone else to do their PR.
-
That was a particularly peculiar thing to say wasn't it? I've never had to replace a lens cap, and never had any desire for a different kind of lens cap. If I did have such a desire, why would I go through an entrance test, spend money on equipment and software and go through all the hoops and process involved in microstock, just to buy something that would cost less then £10.00?
Truly strange.
Of course, if there's something I'm missing here, and there's a reason to work this hard for a lens cap, perhaps someone could enlighten me?
Surely this has to be a miss quote? I think he meant new lens, not lens cap. If it isn't a miss quote, they really need to get someone else to do their PR.
If it is a misquote, he needs to insist on the right to proof-read copy.
If it's not a misquote, they need to get a new COO.