Quote from: sharpshot on April 09, 2013, 03:30

Quote from: MisterElements on April 08, 2013, 21:00

I'm not fond of IS (understatement) however I see SS becoming much less contributor friendly of late. This position toward new content (massive rejections) from SS and the new rates on BS just allows IS the breathing room it needs to recover. Sadly IS/GI is clever..... very clever and SS mistakes will allow a recovery for IS/GI. New content is king and who gets the most wins no matter how these companies want to spin the facts making it seem we don't matter......we do in fact we control the content and its flow. This is only my opinion.

Massive rejections?  I don't see that.  They've always had some bad reviewers, like most of the sites.  I occasionally get more rejections than usual but it's always been temporary and most of the time they've had a very high acceptance rate.

I agree with you about the new rates with BS.  That's such a huge error and I'm still in shock that Jon Oringer didn't step in and fix that.  I'm sure a large part of the success of SS is because they haven't cut commissions like the other big sites in recent years.  They've shattered that by allowing a site they own to pay us less commission for subs.

But I don't think IS/GI are clever.  It would of been easy to crush the other microstock sites at one point, by paying us a bit more.  Then when there was little competition, they could of got away with cutting commissions.  Instead, they ruined their reputation with the majority of contributors and built up their competition.  Why would clever people make such a dumb mistake?  It might not of killed istock but it's so damaged now that I can't see it ever dominating the microstock business again.  They missed their chance and they wont get another one.

I think we judge sites bases on our experiences.  A year and a half ago I started getting mass rejections at SS after 7 years of almost 100% acceptance.  I am fine with rejections when they make sense, however these were completely off and the entire batch was always rejected. At one point I quit uploading because every batch was rejected and I was hearing the same thing from some very high end shooters.  This went on for about 6 month and I took a long break from uploading to SS because of it. I started uploading again after a long break and found that once again that 99% of my images are being accepted. While everything is back to normal for me, I am not surprised to hear that other submitters are experiencing the former.

If I had not experienced the bizarre run of rejections I would tend to agree with you. However my experience has coloured my view of the SS review process.

I agree with your IS summary.  As for BS, I suspect that Jon was involved with the entire decision and it is part of his long term business plan to improve cost per sale.

It is happening to me now   ......what is sad is I must now upload new content on IS again so my microstock income does not suffer during my time off from SS. This then just aides in a IS recovery but being a full time stock artist I have little choose. Thanks for your post

Quote from: gbalex on April 09, 2013, 10:56

Quote from: sharpshot on April 09, 2013, 03:30

Quote from: MisterElements on April 08, 2013, 21:00

I'm not fond of IS (understatement) however I see SS becoming much less contributor friendly of late. This position toward new content (massive rejections) from SS and the new rates on BS just allows IS the breathing room it needs to recover. Sadly IS/GI is clever..... very clever and SS mistakes will allow a recovery for IS/GI. New content is king and who gets the most wins no matter how these companies want to spin the facts making it seem we don't matter......we do in fact we control the content and its flow. This is only my opinion.

Massive rejections?  I don't see that.  They've always had some bad reviewers, like most of the sites.  I occasionally get more rejections than usual but it's always been temporary and most of the time they've had a very high acceptance rate.

I agree with you about the new rates with BS.  That's such a huge error and I'm still in shock that Jon Oringer didn't step in and fix that.  I'm sure a large part of the success of SS is because they haven't cut commissions like the other big sites in recent years.  They've shattered that by allowing a site they own to pay us less commission for subs.

But I don't think IS/GI are clever.  It would of been easy to crush the other microstock sites at one point, by paying us a bit more.  Then when there was little competition, they could of got away with cutting commissions.  Instead, they ruined their reputation with the majority of contributors and built up their competition.  Why would clever people make such a dumb mistake?  It might not of killed istock but it's so damaged now that I can't see it ever dominating the microstock business again.  They missed their chance and they wont get another one.

I think we judge sites bases on our experiences.  A year and a half ago I started getting mass rejections at SS after 7 years of almost 100% acceptance.  I am fine with rejections when they make sense, however these were completely off and the entire batch was always rejected. At one point I quit uploading because every batch was rejected and I was hearing the same thing from some very high end shooters.  This went on for about 6 month and I took a long break from uploading to SS because of it. I started uploading again after a long break and found that once again that 99% of my images are being accepted. While everything is back to normal for me, I am not surprised to hear that other submitters are experiencing the former.

If I had not experienced the bizarre run of rejections I would tend to agree with you. However my experience has coloured my view of the SS review process.

I agree with your IS summary.  As for BS, I suspect that Jon was involved with the entire decision and it is part of his long term business plan to improve cost per sale.

It is happening to me now   ......what is sad is I must now upload new content on IS again so my microstock income does not suffer during my time off from SS. This then just aides in a IS recovery but being a full time stock artist I have little choose. Thanks for your post

Your welcome, I wish some more of the higher end shooters would speak out, however it is understandable why they do not.

Yes it is sad in regard to IS. That said as you mentioned we do have more power over our income than we have been led to believe.  If we buy into that and become fatalist the long slide will continue. Find some new sites instead of IS.

I joined ISP in 2007. I worked hard at it and was able to phase out of wedding photography and shoot only stock. I became exclusive as soon as I was qualified. Life was good! I've never gone a month without uploading, and still continue to do so. I now have over 4 thousand files in my port. My highest year for income was in 2011, and it's been sliding downhill ever since. I can no longer justify spending money on shoots, and I have to consider my plan B options.

I keep my head down in the forums, because I know it's possible that IS can punish people in the best match. I've never posted in the end of the month sales threads, but always read them.

I'm certain there is some sort of limit or quota on IS as to how much I'm allowed to earn in a week. It's obvious from my stats. Kind of like the door to my port just gets slammed shut when downloads had just been going well. I've been at 35% royalty for years now, but with my "quota" or whatever limit that's been imposed keeps getting lowered, I'm not sure I'll be able to keep that 35% after this year finishes.

I'm still making enough income that I can't afford to jump ship yet, but I must be realistic and accept that I may have to leave exclusivity in the not too distant future. I have a faint glimmer of hope that the latest survey will actually be the one to prompt positive changes. By June, something should be in the works I would think/hope. By the end of this year, my RC tally (that I have no control over) may pave the way for a necessary exit.

I keep my head down in the forums, because I know it's possible that IS can punish people in the best match.

Is this speculation? I know they technically could, but do you know this is the case?

Thanks aeonf, I hope so! I would love to see your results. And dingles, it is only speculation. They most certainly can technically. I've noticed that those who vent in the forums oft times appear to be falling at a faster rate than I have according to their postings in the sales threads. Which is why I generally rant and rave in private. "Us" against "them" is pretty useless for affecting change anyway.

I'd like to think all the recent threads asking for contributor input are more than fluff, but I rarely see any action.

Indeed. We got a questionnaire last year, but did anything good come of it? Other than an exclusive questionnaire this year which they must have hoped would give them different feedback.

There was a thread a while back asking specifically about editorial, http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=351249&page=1 , but the recent Creative briefing had nothing about editorial. (Previously we were told that there would be editorial comment in briefings and previous briefings had them.)

Grief, I'm getting loads of rejections, having had a really high acceptance rate for years, other than some issues with certain inspectors not having read the editorial guidelines when editorials were introduced.

I have to say there are some high issues that just aren't getting any resolve...I understand there are priorities and things can take time, but there has been zero progress over a half of a year from my point of view. I wish they'd have a little more transparency. All this generating feedback is gonna hurt them more in the long run if they don't produce some results. I think they fail to understand that contributors are also buyers and have influence over buyers. It bothers me that it seems more time is spent moderatating the forums then actually making their product better.

I am really shocked by the numbers crossbrain66 posted in the best match thread. If these are the results for the black diamonds, how will the normal people pay for studio and shooting costs:

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=352023&messageid=6873457

I have so many files from the Lenklypse that I would love to upload, but this just scares me completly. No use uploading files that die an instant death. I will continue to upload videos, but I hope they sort out the photo best match soon.

I hope he doesn�t mind that I quote part of his numbers:

"To further verify this 'assumption' of chancelessness for new files to become hot sellers i examined the performance of files uploaded the last six months by a selection of the most successful exclusive istock contributors (mostly black diamonds). Those files should have the best possibility to succeed because of increased visibility through crosslinking with very successful old files by these contributors and the 'name - brand' reputation. Here are my depressing and thesis confirming results:

Average portfoliosize: 7.313
Average uploads past 6 months: 937


of those uploaded past 6 months:
files with over 100 downloads: 0,01 %
files with over 10 downloads: 0,38 %
files with over 5 downloads: 1,19 %
files with over 2 downloads: 5,03 %
files with over 1 downloads: 6,00 %
files with zero downloads: 87,39 %


Considering the advantages these new files had (and the throughout highest quality), their performance is disappointing to say the least."

That's the main reason I ditched the crown, new work just got vaporised in the best match. They lost a lot of essential tech knowledge when they shrunk the IT department.

The amount of inaction is quite unbelievable

Agree with you Stacey!! Dropped my crown recently. Appreciating fresh motivation for shooting, energetic about diversifying, and experiencing a breath of fresh air each day by no longer being highly dependent on one company that's rudderless and unable to make positive moves for it's suppliers.

I cannot fathom what GettyCarlyle's long term plan is for the iStock brand; unless it's the seemingly obvious of squeezing every ounce of profit from the former iStock business unit and it's contributors for short term gains. That may be profitable for Getty and Carlyle, and they can sell off or write down the empty husk, but it's not sustainable for iStock employees, it's buyers, or it's contributors. iStock tweets daily now, welcoming new exclusives, but conspicuously absent is any appreciation for veteran exclusives -- whether they are staying exclusive or departing after bringing in hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue.

After the buyouts, there is little hope for a sustainable career path as an iStock exclusive, unless you can land a spot on the inspection team. The supplier cycle becomes: welcome hobbyists and newbies, grow them a bit, but with RC based royalty growth suppression, income peaks and levels out prematurely, professionals must nab a subcontractor job or find other venues for growth. Generally, it's up, then out. Over the long haul in this pattern, the average level of experience of iStock contributors falls. (And by extension the overall quality of the library.) If they were still aiming squarely at microstock price points, it might work. But selling at close to mid stock prices, with a contributor base trending toward more inexperienced, and one that increasingly cannot earn enough to hire good locations and models... it just doesn't add up.

Let's hope other agencies watch what iStock has done and use it as a cautionary tale. Losing some of your longest term contributors by squeezing them relentlessly is not the stuff that business legends are made of.

I'll say for SS, Jon Oringer and his execs are photographers first. They're artists and actively participate on the frontlines. So I give them more leeway than the upper echelon suits running iStock. having said that, I'm not loving piddly amounts for dls on SS thus far. but these are early days and I don't have enough files up yet. Offset has me intrigued too, which tells me they're thinking in the right direction.

^ while having the freedom and opportunity to do lots of other stuff without being at the mercy of one company being run in a manner I thoroughly disagree with. I won't argue with the royalty comparisons...but you have cherry picked to make your point. there are way more fires in which to place the irons.