Quote from: Slovenian on June 09, 2011, 04:35

Quote from: luissantos84 on June 09, 2011, 04:26

Sean is right (again lol) we may want to have better royalties for our work but it is almost impossible to fight that.. they have the fork and the cheese (portuguese expression I guess) so not easy, it is just like other industry when there is a lot of supply and perhaps demand is not increasing on the same way but thats another question

I don't see any logic in that. Deactivating files is the same as stopping work, as Sean said. The only difference is you won't get paid for those few days (like workers still get), but you have to sacrifice something for the greater, long term good (it'll return for you, not just return, you'll profit in the long run, a lot). And the ones who could make the difference are the top players like Sean, if top 25 contributors at IS would do that it would make a huge difference in IS sales. And they could afford it too, they made so much money anyway that they could leave off of it (and the interest) for the rest of their lives. They're just doing it for fun anyway or because they want to buy themselves a new yacht or an island

It's not at all the same as stopping work from the auto factory or whatever.  If you deactivate files, who is to say if it is resubmitted, it will ever be as successful?  A site is not likely to blindly reinstate files deactivated this way.  If they wanted you messing with it, they would have put it a button that says "Temporarily put on hold", like I have on my netflix account.

Yeah, fun...

I was not aware of that you loose best match placement.  Then indeed there isn't much contributors can do to change the current and future situation.

Quote from: sjlocke on June 09, 2011, 03:35

The problem is, most realize, or think, that such an alliance really would have no "power".  It isn't like a union where stopping work for a few days accomplishes something.  The stuff is still there to sell.

I agree but there might be some positive things we could do to promote sites that pay a fair commission and have good prices for buyers.  I know that might not interest istock exclusives.

I think the best thing we can do is start a huge agency ourselves where we the Contributors are the shareholders and pay good commissions like 70 %
We have enough people among us with all sorts of qualities and expertise to make this work.
Then we the contributors are in control.

Quote from: aeonf on June 02, 2011, 04:48

Quote from: Phil on June 02, 2011, 04:24

a 'fair' system would be that everyone earns the same amount. a fixed percentage.

why should I earn more or less on image than anyone

In communist cuba maybe.  In my book a fair system means: The better you are and the harder you work, the more you make! (absolute and in percentage).

You mean like if everyone earns a fixed percentage. Then the better you are the more you make. Absolute and in percentage (?!?!?!?!?)

What I mean is a better and more active contributor then you (for example) should make more %% then you and obviously more $$ as well.
Only MHO.

Quote from: Slovenian on June 09, 2011, 04:35

Quote from: luissantos84 on June 09, 2011, 04:26

Sean is right (again lol) we may want to have better royalties for our work but it is almost impossible to fight that.. they have the fork and the cheese (portuguese expression I guess) so not easy, it is just like other industry when there is a lot of supply and perhaps demand is not increasing on the same way but thats another question

I don't see any logic in that. Deactivating files is the same as stopping work, as Sean said. The only difference is you won't get paid for those few days (like workers still get), but you have to sacrifice something for the greater, long term good (it'll return for you, not just return, you'll profit in the long run, a lot). And the ones who could make the difference are the top players like Sean, if top 25 contributors at IS would do that it would make a huge difference in IS sales. And they could afford it too, they made so much money anyway that they could leave off of it (and the interest) for the rest of their lives. They're just doing it for fun anyway or because they want to buy themselves a new yacht or an island

It's not at all the same as stopping work from the auto factory or whatever.  If you deactivate files, who is to say if it is resubmitted, it will ever be as successful?  A site is not likely to blindly reinstate files deactivated this way.  If they wanted you messing with it, they would have put it a button that says "Temporarily put on hold", like I have on my netflix account.

Yeah, fun...

Oh, I didn't know that! I tried deactivating a file once on Dreamstime, and it's no hassle. When you deactivate it, it's moved to deactivated files section, when you reactivate it, it's moved back directly in the collection. Though I don't know if you loose levels, but on IS there are no image levels, so I thought it would be "a piece of pie" to move it back and forth .

What I mean is a better and more active contributor then you (for example) should make more %% then you and obviously more $$ as well.
Only MHO.

Why should a better or more active contributor make a bigger percentage. They will make more money by virtue of making more sales. If everyone got the same percentage then the more successful contributors would make more money in real terms anyway.
I'm not sure why all these complex pay structures are necessary at all.
Just pay everyone a fixed percentage (more for exclusives obviously) and the cream will rise to the top.

Quote from: Balmoral on June 09, 2011, 05:44

Quote from: sharpshot on June 09, 2011, 04:58

Quote from: sjlocke on June 09, 2011, 03:35

The problem is, most realize, or think, that such an alliance really would have no "power".  It isn't like a union where stopping work for a few days accomplishes something.  The stuff is still there to sell.

I agree but there might be some positive things we could do to promote sites that pay a fair commission and have good prices for buyers.  I know that might not interest istock exclusives.

I think the best thing we can do is start a huge agency ourselves where we the Contributors are the shareholders and pay good commissions like 70 %
We have enough people among us with all sorts of qualities and expertise to make this work.
Then we the contributors are in control.

If the top 10-20% of contributors who make up the majority of the sales started their own site and removed their files from all other sites then you'd have a gameplan.

"Enough people" probably wouldn't work. Enough of the right people is what it would take to get the ball rolling and shift leverage back to contributors.

The problem is that the top 10-20 % would never remove their files unless the site that they created will make up for it.
That will take a couple of years of marketing but when the agency start to draw more and more customers the high commissions will make it easy to go exclusive..
The other agencies will have to make it more and more attractive to stay with them.
Now they change what ever they want and mostly not in favor of the photographer, nobody can do a thing about it.

Creating an union is not a big work.
We all can choose one fair agency. Then we can select 3-4 people for our negotiator. They can talk for us with this agency.
This make us union without spending efforts.

People can think that this union is useless without power.
Maybe i am not a big buyer ( 150$ last year ) and maybe i am not a big referrer (100 referral last year) but if we multiply these amounts with 100 or 1000 it will make us powerfull.
it does not seem to me something impossible.

...It's highly unlikely to ever happen though as the people that earn the most are least likely to take a big risk like that.  The rest of us could start our own site but that would take a lot of expenditure and isn't likely to succeed.

If we're at a point where any of the top tier contributors are thinking about bailing on the major microstock companies and taking their work to a new, collaborative, unknown site, it's already game-over. Besides, it would probably never get to that point. If things get bad enough, guys like Yuri will just shut it down, cut their staff loose, sell the studio, and let the declining residual income flow in for the next few years, while they move on to something else.

An alliance is useless. What incentive would any company have to listen to an alliance? I think that was one of the problems with the SAA. At some point the stock companies realize that they could lose everyone associated with any alliance and still keep their business moving easily. It's a powerless entity.

It's the same mentality that has permeated microstock for years. These companies learned a long time ago that they have no reason to bend to the demands of contributors. It's why SS stopped giving annual pay raises. Why should they? The worst that could happen is they get a few angry emails and forum posts. Big deal.

They know that very few people will ever be willing to delete a portfolio, deactivate files, or even pick up the phone to voice a complaint. And so they do whatever they want, and that's all there is to it. istock won't change the RC system, other than to raise targets and increase their own profitability. If they're willing to talk about it, it'll be an empty gesture. Just something to appease the masses with the illusion of open dialogue and concern for contributors. But it would be totally fake. Just like that conference call over the fraud refunds. Look how quickly everyone got over that after the call was finished.

It sucks, but the reality is we're just along for the ride here. These companies will change things as it suits their bottom line, and there's very little we can do about it.

So that some can feel better about themselves, above others (that's why aeonf is defending it all the time), but what's it really all about is of course for the agency to get a bigger cut and try to have their contributors by the ball$, terrorizing them to upload more (psychological pressure, not really rewarding as they'd like to show it to be)

Absolutely!  This RC business was never about motivating or rewarding better, harder working contributors.  It has always been a cash grab for the company.  That's all it is.  Can't believe there's anyone who still doubts that.

cthoman
You guys crack me up. Waiting around for the "Great Pumpkin" to appear to save you. I feel sorry for Ktools, Clustershot, Photodeck and others that created these perfectly acceptable systems, but you're all too lazy to use them. It's OK. Don't worry the "Great Pumpkin" is coming soon to save you from yourself... I mean the evil corporations.

LOL, the great pumpkin.  

snip
It's the same mentality that has permeated microstock for years. These companies learned a long time ago that they have no reason to bend to the demands of contributors. It's why Shutterstock stopped giving annual pay raises. Why should they? The worst that could happen is they get a few angry emails and forum posts. Big deal.

They know that very few people will ever be willing to delete a portfolio, deactivate files, or even pick up the phone to voice a complaint. And so they do whatever they want, and that's all there is to it. istock won't change the RC system, other than to raise targets and increase their own profitability. If they're willing to talk about it, it'll be an empty gesture. Just something to appease the masses with the illusion of open dialogue and concern for contributors. But it would be totally fake. Just like that conference call over the fraud refunds. Look how quickly everyone got over that after the call was finished.

It sucks, but the reality is we're just along for the ride here. These companies will change things as it suits their bottom line, and there's very little we can do about it.

I totally agree with everything you said except the bolded part.

Contributors just keep getting shlt on, they just keep complaining and demanding that a "group" be appointed to represent their interests, they just keep uploading, they just keep taking less and less money and they just can't figure out why istock treats them like shlt (or substitute any other agency name in there, if you think others fit the bill).

There most definitely is something to do about it, but no one wants to make the difficult choice. Like Cory said, you are all just too lazy. The tools are there and have been for quite awhile now. Just a bunch of sheeple.  

Quote from: cclapper on June 09, 2011, 13:12

There most definitely is something to do about it, but no one wants to make the difficult choice. Like Cory said, you are all just too lazy. The tools are there and have been for quite awhile now. Just a bunch of sheeple.  

I've got my own site (see sig), although not on any of the platforms Cory mentioned. Does that disqualify me from the lazy category?

There are personal things we can do about it. I was talking more about if there was anything we can do about affecting change at the agencies. I think they're on whatever path leads towards more profits regardless of what decisions we make personally about how and where to sell out images. The tools do exist to sell our images in different ways other than through these agencies, but the tools don't empower us to shift the balance and make the agencies take notice. Not on a scale that would get their attention.

I agree with you and no, the agencies aren't going to change a thing because of contributors.

One has to forget about the "I'm going to do this to spite them" and think "I'm doing this because it will free up my time that I spend complaining about istock to do more photography" and "in the long run, I'm going to end up making more money than if I stay here". Or there's always the "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore." 

I've got my own site (see sig), although not on any of the platforms Cory mentioned. Does that disqualify me from the lazy category?

Well, I probably shouldn't be calling anybody lazy.   I just think it's weird that a lot of people don't take advantage of the things that are out there. I wish Clustershot, Avid Images and Photodeck supported vectors because I'd probably open a portfolio there too. In addition to having my Ktools store.

I'm thinking Yuri doesn't have me on speed dial waiting to start a new agency, so I figure I'll have to do the work myself.  

That seems a bit harsh.  Who, exactly, are the two of you addressing your sweeping, all-inclusive insults to?

Anybody who is sitting in a pumpkin patch with Linus? Seriously, it really wasn't directed at anybody in particular. And I know there are a lot of people that went out and started there own site and explored other options. There's also a lot of people that are perfectly content as iStock exclusives. I can't really knock them either. I was just encouraging people (with a kick in the pants) to go out and find what works for them and not wait around.