Author Topic: iS exclusive rates slashed next year? (Read 7374 times)

ShadySue · « **on:** June 27, 2013, 03:48 »

Just saw this over on the iStock forum:

http://www.istockphoto.com/help/sell-stock/rate-schedule
which would make the maximum exclusive rate 30%
They have already 'promised' (whatever that means in iStockspeak) that the rates for next year will be the same as this year, and in fact, that is still shown on my Stats page.
People are hoping it's a typo, but an entire column of exclusive percentages can't be a typo.
It's either their intention being published before an announcement, or at very least a proposal so serious they've had an IT guy draw up a new table which was 'accidentally' published.
So - Malice, or Malice and Incompetence?
Presumably Lobo or someone will have to make an announcement on this thread:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=354592

gemmy12 · « **Reply #1 on:** June 27, 2013, 04:38 »

Hmm seems to be typo according to Kelvinjay-

"Good morning one and all,

This isn't something I've been briefed on, so I'll leave it to someone at HQ to explain why those particular figures are being shown, but it does strike me as rather odd that the Vetta rates and regular photo rates are exactly the same, which would incline me to think it's a simple copy & paste error, but I'm sure Lobo will be able to offer an official explanation shortly."

Monkeyman · « **Reply #2 on:** June 27, 2013, 04:41 »

Illustrator royalties have changed too.

I'm bitter and hateful so I'll just assume that this is not a mistake. It's quite clear to me that iStock has been dying for a couple of years, and all they do to "save" the company is to raise prices and give less to contributors to keep the profit on the same level in the short run.

What are they gonna do when there are twenty buyers left? Charge a million for one credit?

fotografer · « **Reply #3 on:** June 27, 2013, 04:42 »

Quote from: gemmy12 on June 27, 2013, 04:38

Hmm seems to be typo according to Kelvinjay-

This isn't something I've been briefed on,[/i]

He's just making guesses like the rest of us.

ShadySue · « **Reply #4 on:** June 27, 2013, 04:44 »

Quote from: gemmy12 on June 27, 2013, 04:38

Hmm seems to be typo according to Kelvinjay-

"Good morning one and all,

This isn't something I've been briefed on, so I'll leave it to someone at HQ to explain why those particular figures are being shown, but it does strike me as rather odd that the Vetta rates and regular photo rates are exactly the same, which would incline me to think it's a simple copy & paste error, but I'm sure Lobo will be able to offer an official explanation shortly."

Explanation makes no sense. Why did the chart have to be changed to induce a 'simple copy and paste error'?

tickstock · « **Reply #5 on:** June 27, 2013, 07:14 »

JFP · « **Reply #6 on:** June 27, 2013, 07:25 »

Like if we could trust that guy!

Quote

[Presumably Lobo or someone will have to make an announcement on this thread:]

ShadySue · « **Reply #7 on:** June 27, 2013, 07:50 »

I'm now coming round to the idea that it might, just might, be a 'genuine mistake'.
But as others have said, it does raise questions of whether anyone senior checks posts as they go up, and why KelvinJay, who 'hadn't been briefed' about this, could not raise someone, from sleep if necessary, to clarify a really important question.

tickstock · « **Reply #8 on:** June 27, 2013, 07:58 »

ShadySue · « **Reply #9 on:** June 27, 2013, 07:59 »

Quote from: tickstock on June 27, 2013, 07:58

Quote from: ShadySue on June 27, 2013, 07:50
I'm now coming round to the idea that it might, just might, be a 'genuine mistake'.
But as others have said, it does raise questions of whether anyone senior checks posts as they go up, and why KelvinJay, who 'hadn't been briefed' about this, could not raise someone, from sleep if necessary, to clarify a really important question.
People should be woken up from sleep to fix a typo? The office is still closed (is if flooded too?) and a response was made within a few hours.

The typo should never have gone live. It's not as though it's a misplaced apostrophe.
Was the office flooded? I didn't read that.

tickstock · « **Reply #10 on:** June 27, 2013, 08:01 »

ShadySue · « **Reply #11 on:** June 27, 2013, 08:05 »

Quote from: tickstock on June 27, 2013, 08:01

Quote from: ShadySue on June 27, 2013, 07:59
Quote from: tickstock on June 27, 2013, 07:58
Quote from: ShadySue on June 27, 2013, 07:50
I'm now coming round to the idea that it might, just might, be a 'genuine mistake'.
But as others have said, it does raise questions of whether anyone senior checks posts as they go up, and why KelvinJay, who 'hadn't been briefed' about this, could not raise someone, from sleep if necessary, to clarify a really important question.
People should be woken up from sleep to fix a typo? The office is still closed (is if flooded too?) and a response was made within a few hours.
The typo should never have gone live.
Was the office flooded? I didn't read that.
Of course typos shouldn't go live but waiting a couple hours to get a response doesn't seem unreasonable especially when the office is closed and the area where it's located has been dealing with massive flooding.

It has at last been confirmed as a typo.
Wonder why it was posted on facebook first?

ShadySue · « **Reply #12 on:** June 27, 2013, 08:08 »

From Lobo:
"The Rate Schedule bug was reported to Dev on Tuesday. It's not a high priority to fix this immediately, but we will get to it in the next week or so."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=354592&messageid=6906466
I don't see that that could be so hard to fix, but once they knew about it, at the very least shouldn't they have made an official reassurance in the forums?

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #13 on:** June 27, 2013, 09:23 »

It was not a typo. hTis is a typo. A transposed or dropped letter. Publishing a false remuneration list is a major mistake that stressed out a lot of people. I've yet to see a typo causing anybody other than a proof-reader or editor any stress. Letting them get away with "oh, it's just a typo, it's nothing really" just adds fuel to their "couldn't care less about contributors" attitude.

(edited to fix a real typo)

tickstock · « **Reply #14 on:** June 27, 2013, 09:37 »

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #15 on:** June 27, 2013, 09:45 »

Quote from: tickstock on June 27, 2013, 09:37

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on June 27, 2013, 09:23
It was not a typo. hTis is a typo. A transposed or dropped letter. Publishing a false remuneration list is a major mistake that stressed out a lot of people. I've yet to see a typo causing anybody other than a proof-reader or editor any stress. Letting them get away with "oh, it's just a typo, it's nothing really" just adds fuel to their "couldn't care less about contributors" attitude.

(edited to fix a real typo)
Would it be a typo if one mistyped character in the coding caused this error? A typo that caused the wrong rates to be displayed, for instance.

You're just undermining your own argument that a "typo" is a trivial thing that doesn't merit disturbing the iStock high-ups. I suppose a similar typo somewhere could cause a nuclear explosion - but by your argument it wouldn't be worth waking the President for because it was only a typo.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #16 on:** June 27, 2013, 09:53 »

Quote from: tickstock on June 27, 2013, 09:37

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on June 27, 2013, 09:23
It was not a typo. hTis is a typo. A transposed or dropped letter. Publishing a false remuneration list is a major mistake that stressed out a lot of people. I've yet to see a typo causing anybody other than a proof-reader or editor any stress. Letting them get away with "oh, it's just a typo, it's nothing really" just adds fuel to their "couldn't care less about contributors" attitude.

(edited to fix a real typo)
Would it be a typo if one mistyped character in the coding caused this error? A typo that caused the wrong rates to be displayed, for instance.

You can't use semantics to defend against such gross incompetence, and the poor decision not to inform the contributor base of the "typo" that will be up for weeks, so nobody freaks.

fotoVoyager · « **Reply #17 on:** June 27, 2013, 10:05 »

The level of mistrust is so high having shafted Exclusives so comprehensively and regularly in the past that even if they say it's a typo I don't really believe them.

I'm sure they told Lobo it's an error, but somewhere in a skyscraper office a greedy private equity vampire is figuring out a new way to bleed me.

ShadySue · « **Reply #18 on:** June 27, 2013, 10:06 »

Quote from: tickstock on June 27, 2013, 07:58

People should be woken up from sleep to fix a typo? The office is still closed (is it flooded too?) and a response was made within a few hours.

That'll be 'a few hours' in the iS redefining lexicon, as we now know it was 'about 48 hours'.

tickstock · « **Reply #19 on:** June 27, 2013, 10:33 »

tickstock · « **Reply #20 on:** June 27, 2013, 10:43 »

Ron · « **Reply #21 on:** June 27, 2013, 11:20 »

Its not a decision to make a mistake, its incompetence. And if it was a typo in the coding to show a different RC table, that means at some point someone drew up that new table. It just wasnt supposed to be posted yet.

You dont typo a complete new RC table and then it post it accidentally as well. My guess is, those are the new royalties. And if it was a typo and an error then indeed its gross incompetence.

tickstock · « **Reply #22 on:** June 27, 2013, 11:28 »

Ron · « **Reply #23 on:** June 27, 2013, 11:35 »

Fair enough, but if nothing is changing, why does someone have to copy paste something in the RC table and then also it gets published? Doesnt add up.

ShadySue · « **Reply #24 on:** June 27, 2013, 11:37 »

Quote from: tickstock on June 27, 2013, 11:28

As it is, a few people got worried but no harm was done.

However, it speaks volumes about what even exclusives think about iS that they got worried.

tickstock · « **Reply #25 on:** June 27, 2013, 11:40 »

tickstock · « **Reply #26 on:** June 27, 2013, 11:41 »

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #27 on:** June 27, 2013, 12:20 »

Quote from: tickstock on June 27, 2013, 11:41

Quote from: ShadySue on June 27, 2013, 11:37
Quote from: tickstock on June 27, 2013, 11:28
As it is, a few people got worried but no harm was done.
However, it speaks volumes about what even exclusives think about iS that they got worried.
I would be surprised if Shutterstock accidently posted incorrect royalty rates that were lower and nobody got worried. I think everyone in the industry is worried about falling royalties, not just exclusives.

That's true. But if you can see how easily spooked the contributor base is over financial issues, how can iStock be so out of touch with their suppliers that they didn't see panic approaching and act to head it off as soon as they found out about it.

sharpshot · « **Reply #28 on:** June 27, 2013, 12:34 »

I still cringe every time I see that a non-exclusive has to get 1,200,000 redeemed credits to get what used to be the lowest commission in the industry a few years ago, just 20%. I thought whowever came up with that number must of been grossly incompetent but it still applies. And the craziness spread to BigStock, who now have their own astronomical targets for subs commissions.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: iS exclusive rates slashed next year? (Read 7374 times)

ShadySue

gemmy12

Monkeyman

fotografer

ShadySue

tickstock

JFP

ShadySue

tickstock

ShadySue

tickstock

ShadySue

ShadySue

BaldricksTrousers

tickstock

BaldricksTrousers

Sean Locke Photography

fotoVoyager

ShadySue

tickstock

tickstock

Ron

tickstock

Ron

ShadySue

tickstock

tickstock

BaldricksTrousers

sharpshot

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors