Author Topic: Canon interview with Kelly Thompson > 31 million images sold per year (Read 40267 times)

SNP · « **Reply #25 on:** March 30, 2011, 11:39 »

^ that's true, but in this case I don't really think it matters.

Chico · « **Reply #26 on:** March 30, 2011, 11:46 »

Quote from: SNP on March 30, 2011, 11:39

^ 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.

pancaketom · « **Reply #27 on:** March 30, 2011, 11:52 »

Quote from: SNP on March 30, 2011, 11:30

Quote from: ShadySue on March 30, 2011, 11:22
Quote from: SNP on March 30, 2011, 11:19
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.

jamirae · « **Reply #28 on:** March 30, 2011, 11:55 »

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.

SNP · « **Reply #29 on:** March 30, 2011, 12:15 »

Quote from: jamirae on March 30, 2011, 11:55

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.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #30 on:** March 30, 2011, 12:49 »

Speaking of bad reporting, there is the bit about not selling editorial 'RF', which really should have been caught.

ShadySue · « **Reply #31 on:** March 30, 2011, 13:30 »

Quote from: SNP on March 30, 2011, 12:15

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.

loop · « **Reply #32 on:** March 30, 2011, 13:44 »

Quote from: SNP on March 30, 2011, 11:30

Quote from: ShadySue on March 30, 2011, 11:22
Quote from: SNP on March 30, 2011, 11:19
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.

lisafx · « **Reply #33 on:** March 30, 2011, 14:17 »

Already been covered...

jamirae · « **Reply #34 on:** March 30, 2011, 14:26 »

Quote from: SNP on March 30, 2011, 12:15

Quote from: jamirae on March 30, 2011, 11:55
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?

Risamay · « **Reply #35 on:** March 30, 2011, 14:55 »

Quote from: FreeTransform on March 30, 2011, 11:27

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.

Sadstock · « **Reply #36 on:** March 30, 2011, 15:02 »

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

jen · « **Reply #37 on:** March 30, 2011, 15:10 »

Quote from: jamirae on March 30, 2011, 14:26

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?

SNP · « **Reply #38 on:** March 30, 2011, 15:16 »

@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.

brm1949 · « **Reply #39 on:** March 30, 2011, 15:37 »

Quote from: SNP on March 30, 2011, 11:30

Quote from: ShadySue on March 30, 2011, 11:22
Quote from: SNP on March 30, 2011, 11:19
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.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #40 on:** March 30, 2011, 15:39 »

Quote from: SNP on March 30, 2011, 11:30

Quote from: ShadySue on March 30, 2011, 11:22
Quote from: SNP on March 30, 2011, 11:19
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.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #41 on:** March 30, 2011, 15:41 »

Quote from: sjlocke on March 30, 2011, 12:49

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.

Sadstock · « **Reply #42 on:** March 30, 2011, 15:51 »

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.

Microbius · « **Reply #43 on:** March 30, 2011, 15:58 »

Quote from: SNP on March 30, 2011, 11:30

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?!

caspixel · « **Reply #44 on:** March 30, 2011, 16:10 »

Quote from: Sadstock on March 30, 2011, 15:02

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

Stress eating?

gostwyck · « **Reply #45 on:** March 30, 2011, 16:17 »

Quote from: Sadstock on March 30, 2011, 15:51

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.

jamirae · « **Reply #46 on:** March 30, 2011, 16:18 »

Quote from: SNP on March 30, 2011, 15:16

@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.

Risamay · « **Reply #47 on:** March 30, 2011, 16:23 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 30, 2011, 15:39

Quote from: SNP on March 30, 2011, 11:30
Quote from: ShadySue on March 30, 2011, 11:22
Quote from: SNP on March 30, 2011, 11:19
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

leaf · « **Reply #48 on:** March 30, 2011, 16:24 »

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.

cathyslife · « **Reply #49 on:** March 30, 2011, 16:40 »

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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Canon interview with Kelly Thompson > 31 million images sold per year (Read 40267 times)

SNP

Chico

pancaketom

jamirae

SNP

Sean Locke Photography

ShadySue

loop

lisafx

jamirae

Risamay

Sadstock

jen

SNP

brm1949

BaldricksTrousers

BaldricksTrousers

Sadstock

Microbius

caspixel

gostwyck

jamirae

Risamay

leaf

cathyslife

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors