MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: Slovenian on June 01, 2011, 10:04
-
Probably everybody who's reading this now knows everything about the 2 delays, so I'll just focus on my observations, thoughts and conclusions as to why they chose this date:
1. They introduced P+ in May, so they could make indies happy, boosting their earnings and have a reason to set the bar even higher and make independents believe that P+ will help then reach their goals. I doubt P+ sales from the first weeks will continue indefinitely, so this is a great maneuver by IS. They're going to face less resistance by blinding some of the in dependants, manipulating them with this strategy.
2. The 27.5. best match change. They stopped favouring contributors with heavy AC/V ports. They prepared most of us for the announcement bringing bad news with a bit of good news in the last week. People tend to forget some of the bad things from the past if they get good news, especially multiple good news.
3. They waited for contributors to start the May stats thread, which they knew that it's going to be relatively more positive (at least a lot more than the April thread), because of the measures they took and were mentioned above.
What do you think? They're not that bad at psychology, right? Yes, they angered a lot of people last September, but it was well worth it for them and also calculated to still bring (big) profits at least in short term.
-
I'm not sure any of that matters. When I look at my bottom line, it's about half of last year. Considering my royalty reduction was a wash with a price increase, that can only mean my sales have tanked. So neither me or IS are making more or benefited from the changes. I'm just one contributor though.
-
I think there's a 50/50 chance they'll actually announce this year's RC targets on Friday (per Joyze's promise 3 weeks ago on May 13th).
I think there's a good chance they'll be the same as last year because even though sales have nosedived for some people, they'll hope they can pocket some extra cash without too much fuss from the contributors they care about.
Argument will be that they could have raised the targets but were being nice guys and kept them the same.
-
I share the same opinion as Jsnover.
Anxiously waiting!
-
I wonder where are you getting your optimism from? ??? Because from Sep-May, everything was totally * up, they made a couple of welcoming changes for the reasons that I mentioned before. And best match is the same today as it was for the last 2,5 months, A/C heavily favoured. Yet another reason to be less optimistic.
In reality they should of course lower the targets or even better, get back to the same canister level that already payed the lowest royalties in the industry anyway (to indies at least)
-
The previous royalty system was idiotic and indeed unsustainable!
It will never return. (And that's a good thing!)
If the targets and percentages are reasonably set (what is "reasonable" is, is open for debate) it is a perfect system.
The only flaw I see in it is that different media types have different targets instead of only one.
-
I agree with OP and has the same concerns. However, I hope iStock realizes that they cannot afford to allienate the contributors anymore and will not raise the RC target. Just my wishful thinking.
-
The previous royalty system was idiotic and indeed unsustainable!
No royalty system is unsustainable for an agency, if they take 70% of the money that buyers pay for our work.
I know u're really ambitious, growing fast (port, earnings etc), but think about what will happen in a couple of years when you hit the wall (most people hit it after 3-4 years, also those that started in 03). It's just stupid capitalistic mentality to expect indefinite growth. It's impossible, we all got this message 3 years ago, when the recession hit;)
-
The previous royalty system was idiotic and indeed unsustainable!
Yes, paying 20% to contributors was totally unsustainable. It all makes sense now. ;D
-
The previous royalty system was idiotic and indeed unsustainable!
It will never return. (And that's a good thing!)
If the targets and percentages are reasonably set (what is "reasonable" is, is open for debate) it is a perfect system.
The only flaw I see in it is that different media types have different targets instead of only one.
The old system was completely sustainable. iStock had a guarantee that it would get no less than 60% of the gross. In reality, given what a small portion of the large pool of contributors ever really get serious about building a saleable portfolio, their take wouldn't ever get that low.
The new system is clearly much more profitable for them - a grading on a curve scheme where they can guarantee no more than a certain number of people get each percentage. The assumption was that they want the overall payout to be 20% to contributors and 80% to them.
What you should be alert to is that (a) any system they put in place today they can change completely tomorrow and (b) the clear indication of intent to minimize payouts to contributors wherever possible makes for a challenging business relationship. Look at what they've just done to Getty contributors, forcing their content onto Thinkstock whether they like it or not (they can drop selling via Getty if they don't like it).
If you find more and more of the sales of your content uploaded at iStock is sold through other outlets that don't give you RCs to maintain your royalty percentage, how fair will you feel that is? without opting out of Vetta/Agency completely, you can't control where they sell your Vetta/Agency content which is increasingly going to be a major avenue for iStock contributors to keep their earnings up in an era of decreasing downloads.
Look at Sean Locke's last two monthly reports. Downloads down about 20% over the prior year in spite of an increase of about 2K images in his portfolio. You can dismiss the rest of us as lazy idiots if you wish, but Sean is the model microstocker.
It's easy to be very optimistic when you're benefitting from the current system, but for heavens' sake, keep your eyes and ears open.
-
Really, who cares, really?
-
The previous royalty system was idiotic and indeed unsustainable!
It will never return. (And that's a good thing!)
If the targets and percentages are reasonably set (what is "reasonable" is, is open for debate) it is a perfect system.
The only flaw I see in it is that different media types have different targets instead of only one.
The old system was completely sustainable. iStock had a guarantee that it would get no less than 60% of the gross. In reality, given what a small portion of the large pool of contributors ever really get serious about building a saleable portfolio, their take wouldn't ever get that low.
The new system is clearly much more profitable for them - a grading on a curve scheme where they can guarantee no more than a certain number of people get each percentage. The assumption was that they want the overall payout to be 20% to contributors and 80% to them.
What you should be alert to is that (a) any system they put in place today they can change completely tomorrow and (b) the clear indication of intent to minimize payouts to contributors wherever possible makes for a challenging business relationship. Look at what they've just done to Getty contributors, forcing their content onto Thinkstock whether they like it or not (they can drop selling via Getty if they don't like it).
If you find more and more of the sales of your content uploaded at iStock is sold through other outlets that don't give you RCs to maintain your royalty percentage, how fair will you feel that is? without opting out of Vetta/Agency completely, you can't control where they sell your Vetta/Agency content which is increasingly going to be a major avenue for iStock contributors to keep their earnings up in an era of decreasing downloads.
Look at Sean Locke's last two monthly reports. Downloads down about 20% over the prior year in spite of an increase of about 2K images in his portfolio. You can dismiss the rest of us as lazy idiots if you wish, but Sean is the model microstocker.
It's easy to be very optimistic when you're benefitting from the current system, but for heavens' sake, keep your eyes and ears open.
No it was not. It essentially meant the longer they wait, the less percentage IS gets, Which means IS's keep paying out an ever growing percentage of their income as time goes bye. That is what is unsustainable with it. It was a stupid system to begin with and it is a good thing it has been fixed.
The second biggest problem with the previous system is that it does not award those who deserve it. If for instance I am the next SJLOCKE, I have a good and growing portfolio it will still take me a whole lot of time to reach 25K d/l's in order to get to the 40% mark, it will take me much less to get to the 120K RC's mark.
The 3rd problem is motivation.
1. I know if I will work harder and give IS my best work it will greatly reduce the time it will take me to reach the higher RC levels. In the older system, it was more of how long you have been a member of IS.
2. If (for example) I am a professional photographer with high-end gear decide to contribute to IS, start building my portfolio and sell a few hundreds of files a month. You OTOH (again just for example) are an amateur weekend snap shooter but who was lucky enough to know of IS 5 or 6 years ago and now have over 25K downloads, but today, well you are way out of your league, you still sale here and there maybe a few dozens a month but you still earn your 40% just because you are an old timer .
Please explain to me why on earth shoud the Pro make 25% or 30 % and the amateur deservers 40% ???
Sean is actually doing great! He should be great full! Why ? easy:
IS's total portfolio grew MUCH more then 20% over this year, right? (Correct me if I am wrong!)
But Sean's portfolio grew by "only" 20% ! that means his total portfolio market share went DOWN and but his earning remained the same… lucky guy!
Regarding your comments on Getty and the partner program, I completely agree.
Don't get me wrong, I ain't no IS fanboy, I promise you I curse them every day, but I also don't think everything is doom and gloom nor do I think everything is one great conspiracy to suck up more $$$ for contributors.
Please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't call anyone lazy or any other name calling, I am just giving out my honest opinion, even though I know it will not win the popularity vote.
I apologize for my (many) spelling mistakes, and am well out of energy after this long post.
-
The previous royalty system was idiotic and indeed unsustainable!
It will never return. (And that's a good thing!)
If the targets and percentages are reasonably set (what is "reasonable" is, is open for debate) it is a perfect system.
The only flaw I see in it is that different media types have different targets instead of only one.
The old system was completely sustainable. iStock had a guarantee that it would get no less than 60% of the gross. In reality, given what a small portion of the large pool of contributors ever really get serious about building a saleable portfolio, their take wouldn't ever get that low.
The new system is clearly much more profitable for them - a grading on a curve scheme where they can guarantee no more than a certain number of people get each percentage. The assumption was that they want the overall payout to be 20% to contributors and 80% to them.
What you should be alert to is that (a) any system they put in place today they can change completely tomorrow and (b) the clear indication of intent to minimize payouts to contributors wherever possible makes for a challenging business relationship. Look at what they've just done to Getty contributors, forcing their content onto Thinkstock whether they like it or not (they can drop selling via Getty if they don't like it).
If you find more and more of the sales of your content uploaded at iStock is sold through other outlets that don't give you RCs to maintain your royalty percentage, how fair will you feel that is? without opting out of Vetta/Agency completely, you can't control where they sell your Vetta/Agency content which is increasingly going to be a major avenue for iStock contributors to keep their earnings up in an era of decreasing downloads.
Look at Sean Locke's last two monthly reports. Downloads down about 20% over the prior year in spite of an increase of about 2K images in his portfolio. You can dismiss the rest of us as lazy idiots if you wish, but Sean is the model microstocker.
It's easy to be very optimistic when you're benefitting from the current system, but for heavens' sake, keep your eyes and ears open.
You couldn't put it better. Great read!
-
Please explain to me why on earth shoud the Pro make 25% or 30 % and the amateur deservers 40% ???
I actually can't figure out why everyone doesn't get 40%.
-
The previous royalty system was idiotic and indeed unsustainable...
Please tell me this is a joke. You couldn't possibly really believe that "unsustainable" line they were feeding us.
70% (average) going back to the house is unsustainable? Come on.
-
Nor agreeing at all with this aeonf idea that, althoungh no expressed in this way, seem to suggest: "old timers are bad, amateur and lazy, new ones are great and professional". Nothing more wrong, it can be easily seen looking at the different portfolios.
-
The previous royalty system was idiotic and indeed unsustainable...
Please tell me this is a joke. You couldn't possibly really believe that "unsustainable" line they were feeding us.
70% (average) going back to the house is unsustainable? Come on.
Once again to make myself clear, I am NOT talking about the percentages themselves. I was ONLY talking about how you can achieve a higher one / better canister. That indeed was unsustatinable!
Loop: that is NOT what I said and NOT what I am thinking. Pleae don't put words in my mouth or thoughts in my head!
Quite silly realy, most if not all of the top dogs are old timers! I don't think anyone could say anthing bad about them!
All I am sating is JUST because you are an old timer DOESN'T mean you should earn more then a talented new comer.
-
Quite silly realy, most if not all of the top dogs are old timers! I don't think anyone could say anthing bad about them!
All I am sating is JUST because you are an old timer DOESN'T mean you should earn more then a talented new comer.
The real old-timers, well before my time, supported the site when they were exchanging files for free (2 for 1 or something like that?) then for 10c. It could be argued that they deserve to be paid more than the johnny come latelys who just jumped in when the model was more viable for them.
-
No, you dind't say it and I didn't say you said it. But it was almost suggested in the tone.
Old timers were there opening the way while other "professionals" were making fun of them. Being the first (on buying google shares, or on opening a RF site) always will have some advantges, in this and in any other field.
Added, while editing the spelling: Rigth, ShadySue.
-
Quite silly realy, most if not all of the top dogs are old timers! I don't think anyone could say anthing bad about them!
This just isn't true. As but one example, see CEFutcher (http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=3296437) who joined in April 2008 was diamond just over 2 years later. Or see laflor (http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=922921) who started in early 2009 and became diamond a year later in 2010. There are many other examples of recent successes.
There are many (largely invisible) old timers who are stuck at bronze or silver and are unlikely to live long enough to reach diamond. The difference between those folks and those who did reach diamond was the quality and quantity of their uploads. The idea that the iStock ship was sinking under the weight of masses of old timer diamonds collecting large percentages without contributing actively is, I think, just a myth. I don't have any way to gather the statistics to back that up, but I think you probably don't either.
You keep repeating that the old system meant an ever-decreasing profit for iStock and that isn't true. No one under the old system could earn more than 40% royalty no matter how long they hung around.
60% of the gross should have been very sustainable for iStock - it just wasn't enough to feed Getty whose other businesses were in decline or H&Fs need for a return on their investment in buying Getty.
The one thing that was missing from the old system was some notion of compensation levels being based on the income you brought in - with multiple collections at varying prices, it would have been wrong to count a 150 credit download as the same as a 1 credit download. So they could have blended the models to use credits not downloads and made something sustainable and fair.
There's no arguing with you that the old system is gone, but it's gone because of greed, not because of a lack of sustainability.
-
Please explain to me why on earth shoud the Pro make 25% or 30 % and the amateur deservers 40% ???
I actually can't figure out why everyone doesn't get 40%.
yep, why should it matter, when you are pro or amateur? or how long on the site? an image is image, IS accepted so obviously think it has worth.
the flaw in the motivation argument is I don't think you will reach the top RC ranks. It looks to me (and I haven't gone into it heavily - so maybe mistaken) the best match is skewed towards those on lower commission, so as your commission increases you will get worse best match placement, less sales and drop back down.
-
the flaw in the motivation argument is I don't think you will reach the top RC ranks. It looks to me (and I haven't gone into it heavily - so maybe mistaken) the best match is skewed towards those on lower commission, so as your commission increases you will get worse best match placement, less sales and drop back down.
Huh? The best match is heavily skewed towards vetta and agency files, which are limited to exclusives, so higher commissions.
-
the flaw in the motivation argument is I don't think you will reach the top RC ranks. It looks to me (and I haven't gone into it heavily - so maybe mistaken) the best match is skewed towards those on lower commission, so as your commission increases you will get worse best match placement, less sales and drop back down.
Huh? The best match is heavily skewed towards vetta and agency files, which are limited to exclusives, so higher commissions.
I think you mean lower commission %, agency and vetta get less than regular files.
-
the flaw in the motivation argument is I don't think you will reach the top RC ranks. It looks to me (and I haven't gone into it heavily - so maybe mistaken) the best match is skewed towards those on lower commission, so as your commission increases you will get worse best match placement, less sales and drop back down.
Huh? The best match is heavily skewed towards vetta and agency files, which are limited to exclusives, so higher commissions.
ok sorry I totally ignored vetta and agency.
It seems though diamond and black diamond people have taken drops (or perhaps it is only a few us being vocal :)), while bronze etc are saying it's now great. Searches based around the stuff that I do seem to be bigger port people have their best sellers at the back, with low selling images at the front, while it is reverse for people with smaller ports / bronze etc. (like I said though I haven't gone into it heavily - just impressions)
-
I have a question for all of you who think the new system is bad:
Lets say all of the RC targets where now slashed in half. so for example to hit the 40% mark you would need 60K credits instead of 120K, 5.25K for 30% etc' etc'
and for the sake of the arguement all non-exclusives had a fixed 20% income, or a ladder of 20%-25% instead of 15%-20%.
Would you STILL think the new system is not fair and/or bad ?
And JS: Great so you found 2 top dogs which are not old-timers, how does that make my statment not true ?!?
"Quite silly realy, most if not all of the top dogs are old timers! I don't"
Fine, so I take the "all" back. Still, the VAST majority of MS head-honchos are old-timers.
-
I have a question for all of you who think the new system is bad:
Lets say all of the RC targets where now slashed in half. so for example to hit the 40% mark you would need 60K credits instead of 120K, 5.25K for 30% etc' etc'
and for the sake of the arguement all non-exclusives had a fixed 20% income, or a ladder of 20%-25% instead of 15%-20%.
Would you STILL think the new system is not fair and/or bad ?
And JS: Great so you found 2 top dogs which are not old-timers, how does that make my statment not true ?!?
"Quite silly realy, most if not all of the top dogs are old timers! I don't"
Fine, so I take the "all" back. Still, the VAST majority of MS head-honchos are old-timers.
New system would be fair and better indeed, giving a Chance to indies to earn more, but in the worse case scenario, stay at the same level. I'd support it, of course. Stay where you are, of if you're ambitious, climb all the way up to 25%. It would be great, fair and motivational. However when it comes to splitting the targets in half for exclusives it could become a bit less sustainable, but NEVER, unsustainable, in the worst case scenario (for them) they'd still get 55%.
I think it'll be just the same in the future, the vast majority of people earning highest commissions will be top dawgz, just because best match favours old (also crappy or even mostly crappy according to the reports) files. So you'll have to wait at least 5 years or so to enjoy 40+% if this won't change;)
-
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
-
I think it'll be just the same in the future, the vast majority of people earning highest commissions will be top dawgz, just because best match favours old (also crappy or even mostly crappy according to the reports) files. So you'll have to wait at least 5 years or so to enjoy 40+% if this won't change;)
so the images that sell well are the crap ones???
-
It seems though diamond and black diamond people have taken drops (or perhaps it is only a few us being vocal :)), while bronze etc are saying it's now great. Searches based around the stuff that I do seem to be bigger port people have their best sellers at the back, with low selling images at the front, while it is reverse for people with smaller ports / bronze etc. (like I said though I haven't gone into it heavily - just impressions)
It's always the case that for the most part, keen newbies will see a lot of BMEs at the beginning, as they can grow their ports so much faster (percentage-wise), and because for example, 20 dls in a month is statistically much better than 16 dls last month. A couple of the "BME!!!" cheerers have a total ul/dl ratio of c1:1, so it's all relative.
-
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
I'm sure you know the counter-arguments: to keep people motivated and uploading to try to get to a higher percentage.
Also, if they want exclusivity, they need to pay for it - I'm sure if their bean-counters decided that exclusivity wasn't sustainable, they'd dump the programme in a micro-moment. (This applies even if the shift was to exclusive images only, though that's less of a straightjacket).
Personally, I think there should be a %age bonus for best-selling files: they can already attach coloured flames to such images, it would be dead easy (for programmers who could easily slash commission rates right on time) to have commission increases attached to the flames.
-
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).
-
I have a question for all of you who think the new system is bad:
Lets say all of the RC targets where now slashed in half. so for example to hit the 40% mark you would need 60K credits instead of 120K, 5.25K for 30% etc' etc'
and for the sake of the arguement all non-exclusives had a fixed 20% income, or a ladder of 20%-25% instead of 15%-20%.
Would you STILL think the new system is not fair and/or bad ?
Well, it appears we are both "Silver" contributors but I'm an illustrator. Your RC target for 2010 was 12,500. Mine was 20,000. Illustrations have a set prices, mine are mostly 15 credits. Typically, I'm asking for a bigger sale and by doing this, I earn more for IStock. I guess you should be happy with the system, you're already living the dream.
-
Yes, the new system is bad. First, it reduced royalty rates for every independent; what was once the baseline rate is now achievable only by a small handful (if anyone at all). That's a rate cut, in my own case 20% this year and, I suspect, another 5% next year to the lowest rate. And second, it's a zero sum game; for every supplier who does better, it means others do worse. iStock sets the RC numbers to have percentage quotas at each tier, so for one person to go up, another has to drop back. It puts us all into competition, and even worse, we're in competition to get paid at a rate that was standard not that long ago. It's a David Mamet play, if Mamet were to write about microstock.
-
I think it'll be just the same in the future, the vast majority of people earning highest commissions will be top dawgz, just because best match favours old (also crappy or even mostly crappy according to the reports) files. So you'll have to wait at least 5 years or so to enjoy 40+% if this won't change;)
so the images that sell well are the crap ones???
So I read on IS forums in the best match change thread or stats threads. That they're mostly selling old files, hardly any new ones (SjLocke among them in the May thread). They mentioned this often in the best match thread, that they're selling photos that didn't sell for years or even have never been sold and they never expected them to sell. So it looks like you can still sell the same ol' crap you could back in the days and have no chance of selling if you upload them now. They'd probably get rejected anyway in the first place.
-
I think it'll be just the same in the future, the vast majority of people earning highest commissions will be top dawgz, just because best match favours old (also crappy or even mostly crappy according to the reports) files. So you'll have to wait at least 5 years or so to enjoy 40+% if this won't change;)
so the images that sell well are the crap ones???
So I read on IS forums in the best match change thread or stats threads. That they're mostly selling old files, hardly any new ones (SjLocke among them in the May thread). They mentioned this often in the best match thread, that they're selling photos that didn't sell for years or even have never been sold and they never expected them to sell. So it looks like you can still sell the same ol' crap you could back in the days and have no chance of selling if you upload them now. They'd probably get rejected anyway in the first place.
That seems to be a bizarre side effect of the ridiculously skewed best match search. It's not that old files are selling well (at least, not in my case) it's that they are selling from time to time - presumably as people do their best to avoid V/A. In many cases they are perfectly good files that just got buried under the deluge.
-
^ I think you're right. my sales are older to old files the past week. barely any new sales and at 60% of my usual dl number. if this stays the new best match, I'm at a huge loss despite all the investments I've made in new equipment/travel etc., over the last year to shoot for iStock/Getty. so I'm really hoping this is not a static thing.
-
^^If that's the case, then there's no point in uploading if you're just a year or even less at IS...My DLs are constant during the last 3 months (they should be rising, since I'm new and upload tens of files every month).
-
^^If that's the case, then there's no point in uploading if you're just a year or even less at IS...My DLs are constant during the last 3 months (they should be rising, since I'm new and upload tens of files every month).
I don't think that's true. besides, it is just one week's worth of sales. as bad as it has been, it was a US holiday weekend, it's beginning of summer, there were apparently a couple of best match tweaks and ebb and flow....so I'm going to take the advice I often give friends and not worry over a few bad days--as hard as that is.
-
^^If that's the case, then there's no point in uploading if you're just a year or even less at IS...My DLs are constant during the last 3 months (they should be rising, since I'm new and upload tens of files every month).
I don't think that's true. besides, it is just one week's worth of sales. as bad as it has been, it was a US holiday weekend, it's beginning of summer, there were apparently a couple of best match tweaks and ebb and flow....so I'm going to take the advice I often give friends and not worry over a few bad days--as hard as that is.
Yes, but I am on of those that started a year ago and should be having BMEs constantly. I contribute to SS as well (only to those 2 agencies) and I had 3 consecutive BMEs, the last month and the one before that was better then the last in every single aspects: subs, ODs and ELs. Of course the total was also a lot higher than the previous month.
Al those "excuses" that you wrote should be affecting SS sales as well. But guess what, it didn't;). That's just the reality of it. Like the reports from indies earning more and more on SS compared to IS, polls are showing the same trend;)
-
I have a question for all of you who think the new system is bad:
Lets say all of the RC targets where now slashed in half. so for example to hit the 40% mark you would need 60K credits instead of 120K, 5.25K for 30% etc' etc'
and for the sake of the arguement all non-exclusives had a fixed 20% income, or a ladder of 20%-25% instead of 15%-20%.
Would you STILL think the new system is not fair and/or bad ?
And JS: Great so you found 2 top dogs which are not old-timers, how does that make my statment not true ?!?
"Quite silly realy, most if not all of the top dogs are old timers! I don't"
Fine, so I take the "all" back. Still, the VAST majority of MS head-honchos are old-timers.
Interesting postulation. I would have been happy if they announced 20-25% to begin with. Now that the box of discontent is open though, 20-25% wouldn't be a great offer. I'd like to see a flat 30% for independents would be a good start (50% would be ideal). I don't really see how that isn't possible. If you want to attract the best talent, then you need to pay like it. A poor royalty rate with falling sales doesn't seem like a recipe for growth.
-
The 3rd problem is motivation.
Yuri Arcurs
Monkeybusinessimages
Adresr
Lisafx
Need I go on?
(all black diamonds, that made it there on flat 20% royalties)
-
I have a question for all of you who think the new system is bad:
Lets say all of the RC targets where now slashed in half. so for example to hit the 40% mark you would need 60K credits instead of 120K, 5.25K for 30% etc' etc'
and for the sake of the arguement all non-exclusives had a fixed 20% income, or a ladder of 20%-25% instead of 15%-20%.
The money is easily there to pay 40% to everyone and higher to others.
-
I have a question for all of you who think the new system is bad:
Lets say all of the RC targets where now slashed in half. so for example to hit the 40% mark you would need 60K credits instead of 120K, 5.25K for 30% etc' etc'
and for the sake of the arguement all non-exclusives had a fixed 20% income, or a ladder of 20%-25% instead of 15%-20%.
The money is easily there to pay 40% to everyone and higher to others.
Flat 50% to everyone, exclusives get to keep their perks (A/C,e+, higher UL limits, faster inspections, better search placement...). Or at least 40% to indies, 60% to exclusives for non A/C files (for those they could get the standard 40%)
-
I have a question for all of you who think the new system is bad:
Lets say all of the RC targets where now slashed in half. so for example to hit the 40% mark you would need 60K credits instead of 120K, 5.25K for 30% etc' etc'
and for the sake of the arguement all non-exclusives had a fixed 20% income, or a ladder of 20%-25% instead of 15%-20%.
Would you STILL think the new system is not fair and/or bad ?
And JS: Great so you found 2 top dogs which are not old-timers, how does that make my statment not true ?!?
"Quite silly realy, most if not all of the top dogs are old timers! I don't"
Fine, so I take the "all" back. Still, the VAST majority of MS head-honchos are old-timers.
I've never had a problem with the system itself. It's the unachievable targets that are the problem.
-
Probably everybody who's reading this now knows everything about the 2 delays, so I'll just focus on my observations, thoughts and conclusions as to why they chose this date:
1. They introduced P+ in May, so they could make indies happy, boosting their earnings and have a reason to set the bar even higher and make independents believe that P+ will help then reach their goals. I doubt P+ sales from the first weeks will continue indefinitely, so this is a great maneuver by IS. They're going to face less resistance by blinding some of the in dependants, manipulating them with this strategy.
2. The 27.5. best match change. They stopped favouring contributors with heavy AC/V ports. They prepared most of us for the announcement bringing bad news with a bit of good news in the last week. People tend to forget some of the bad things from the past if they get good news, especially multiple good news.
3. They waited for contributors to start the May stats thread, which they knew that it's going to be relatively more positive (at least a lot more than the April thread), because of the measures they took and were mentioned above.
What do you think? They're not that bad at psychology, right? Yes, they angered a lot of people last September, but it was well worth it for them and also calculated to still bring (big) profits at least in short term.
I forgot about this, the most obvious one:
4. Sale that's been on for the last 10 days and will be until the 7th.
Tic, tac, anybody anxious yet? It's almost 10 o' clock in Slovenia, so it's already Friday Calgary time as well. Just a matter of hours now, although I bet they're gonna wait 'till the last minute :)
-
One interesting/concerning figure I've noticed is that when I do my daily DeepMeta statistics 'fetch', I seem to be getting only about 1/3 of files 'viewed' in the past couple of weeks as I was getting for a couple of years previously. It's difficult to interpret that, of course, as there's no way of knowing how many times each file was viewed, and of course there's no way of knowing how many of the 'viewers' were potential buyers.
-
I hope that with this morning in Canada will be publicate the new rc target....i'm at the end of my patience...maybe because today (europe morning) seem like a saturday or sunday for my sales ! :-[
very very sad...
-
I hope that with this morning in Canada will be publicate the new rc target....i'm at the end of my patience...maybe because today (europe morning) seem like a saturday or sunday for my sales ! :-[
very very sad...
what is going on. I only had 2 sales yesterday and none for the past 30+ hours. Is today a holiday in the rest of Europe?
-
I have a question for all of you who think the new system is bad:
Lets say all of the RC targets where now slashed in half. so for example to hit the 40% mark you would need 60K credits instead of 120K, 5.25K for 30% etc' etc'
and for the sake of the arguement all non-exclusives had a fixed 20% income, or a ladder of 20%-25% instead of 15%-20%.
Would you STILL think the new system is not fair and/or bad ?
And JS: Great so you found 2 top dogs which are not old-timers, how does that make my statment not true ?!?
"Quite silly realy, most if not all of the top dogs are old timers! I don't"
Fine, so I take the "all" back. Still, the VAST majority of MS head-honchos are old-timers.
people will keep complaining but getty is holding them by the balls and in one way or another they will have to accept
the new pricing scheme and even the next ones iStock has in store, or do you think they aren't already studying new evil
ways to further screw their contributors ?
it's a business, and their executive are paid to make profits grow, not stagnate.
they already raised the prices, launched new midstock collections, and made sure they pay
the lowest royalties in the industry, so what's next ? i'm scared.
-
Yesterday was a national holiday in Italy .... but in the rest of Europe is not is a holiday today ....
I think many in States have long holiday weekend these days ... but we'll see ... however last year wasn't a so bad start of month !
-
I hope that with this morning in Canada will be publicate the new rc target....i'm at the end of my patience...maybe because today (europe morning) seem like a saturday or sunday for my sales ! :-[
very very sad...
what is going on. I only had 2 sales yesterday and none for the past 30+ hours. Is today a holiday in the rest of Europe?
What? Yesterday has been great for me, 8 sales. For a pathetic bronze, that's quite an achievement, especially with quite a few P+ files :)
-
I hope that with this morning in Canada will be publicate the new rc target....i'm at the end of my patience...maybe because today (europe morning) seem like a saturday or sunday for my sales ! :-[
very very sad...
what is going on. I only had 2 sales yesterday and none for the past 30+ hours. Is today a holiday in the rest of Europe?
What? Yesterday has been great for me, 8 sales. For a pathetic bronze, that's quite an achievement, especially with quite a few P+ files :)
Ho hum, ebb and flow then. I seem to be mired in the valley of ebb these days. :'(
-
Oooh, at last a download, but it was a Vetta Large. :D
-
I hope that with this morning in Canada will be publicate the new rc target....i'm at the end of my patience...maybe because today (europe morning) seem like a saturday or sunday for my sales ! :-[
very very sad...
what is going on. I only had 2 sales yesterday and none for the past 30+ hours. Is today a holiday in the rest of Europe?
What? Yesterday has been great for me, 8 sales. For a pathetic bronze, that's quite an achievement, especially with quite a few P+ files :)
Ho hum, ebb and flow then. I seem to be mired in the valley of ebb these days. :'(
Today looks promising as well, 3 DLs already :) . Someone in the stats thread on IS mentioned a fall due to best match change, so I guess that must be it. I hope it stays this way forever :)
-
Oooh, at last a download, but it was a Vetta Large. :D
You see, that's more in terms of $ than dozens of DLs that I had in last week :)
-
Finally someone opened a threat regarding the new RC targets. I really wanted to write something along this lines, but this guy did an adequate job as well :P :
"The strategy on delivery of bad news is late-day on a Friday. People get distracted by the weekend, and tempers cool by the time business opens again on Monday.
Same reason why people get fired on Fridays.
Not saying that this is the case here, just implying. "
Do you think all hell will break loose in a few hours?
-
Finally someone opened a threat regarding the new RC targets. I really wanted to write something along this lines, but this guy did an adequate job as well :P :
"The strategy on delivery of bad news is late-day on a Friday. People get distracted by the weekend, and tempers cool by the time business opens again on Monday.
Same reason why people get fired on Fridays.
Not saying that this is the case here, just implying. "
Do you think all hell will break loose in a few hours?
Hmmmm. Lobo's locked the thread. Could go either way!
-
Finally someone opened a threat regarding the new RC targets. I really wanted to write something along this lines, but this guy did an adequate job as well :P :
"The strategy on delivery of bad news is late-day on a Friday. People get distracted by the weekend, and tempers cool by the time business opens again on Monday.
Same reason why people get fired on Fridays.
Not saying that this is the case here, just implying. "
Do you think all hell will break loose in a few hours?
Hmmmm. Lobo's locked the thread. Could go either way!
If the targets remain the same there's probably going to be quite a few imbecils, happy, even thanking IS. If they're gonna raise them, all hell will indeed break loose. I don't think anyone really expects them to follow Istock's DL/revenue falling trends ;)
-
Hmmmm. Lobo's locked the thread. Could go either way!
They seem so very, very reluctant to post the 2011 RC targets. Not only are they months late but now apparently leaving it as late as they possibly can on a Friday. That doesn't spell good news.
-
I have a hunch (for no solid reason) that the announcement, when it comes, will be about more than 2011 RC targets.
-
I have a hunch (for no solid reason) that the announcement, when it comes, will be about more than 2011 RC targets.
Interesting. You could be right. The suspense is building...
-
I have a hunch (for no solid reason) that the announcement, when it comes, will be about more than 2011 RC targets.
I suspect you are right, I would say a total revamp as variable targets you can't publish til mid year aren't something you want to build a business around.
Lowering them will be seen as a sign of weakness
Raising them as a sign of desperation
-
My speculations is, recent frequent treaks in best match may be related to the new RC targets. iStock was experimenting a way to predict RC goals through best match. When it didn't achieve whatever goals they had in mind, they tweak best match again and delay the annoucement.
-
$5 bet that the RC targets will be lowered ;D
they will spin the message into them being the nice guys and want to give back more money to the contributors without having to admit the blatant fact that the company is selling less files due to less buyers this year than previous.
If they dont lower RC targets, they would be acting like the istock we all come to know as of late.
-
I say they are staying the same
-
When they delay the annoucement, it tells me one thing for sure, the management could not agree on the targets and they are debating.
-
My bet is they won't announce anything today or they will announce they are not going to announce it today :]]
-
"Redeemed Credit Targets: I know that we promised these awhile ago and we have not lived up to that promise. This time, we will. Redeemed credit targets will be announced in three weeks. "
Well, they said they would...:-)
I hope they lower them, at least a little and then everyone can just spend the next months working. It would be nice to have a little peace and quiet without drama. They kept the levels for video and illustration, so why not for us?
Or maybe they surprise us - like adding RC for income earned through Partnerprograms or Getty.
-
guys there is no rush :) we all have hoods already!!
-
My bet is they won't announce anything today or they will announce they are not going to announce it today :]]
That's my expectation too.
They are in too much of a dire stait:
Raise them: many more contributors are going to go down, me among them. Very demotivating.
Keep them level: lets the world know you're not doing that well.
Lower them: keeps contributors happy, lets everyone know just how badly you're doing.
-
They can't afford to not announce it today, because they know, that would be way beyond pathetic, even for them
-
PTOTW - Silence (iStock management) VS Noise (contributors).
;D
-
I say they are staying the same
+1. This is the most face-saving compromise.
-
I say they are staying the same
+1. This is the most face-saving compromise.
I agree, but i really dread and think they'll be going up at least for us 'couldn't-care-less-about' independents, definitely with the adding of P+...(and maybe stay the same for exclusives or come up with some other incentive for them)..
I also think they'll shamelessly wont publish them today...(maybe monday so its not within 3 weeks but aaaaalmost ;))
-
Looks like their social media plans haven't been that successful (maybe the office cleaner's turn to have an idea). They announced it a couple of weeks ago, to a bit of a damp squib, and an attempt by an admin to revive it today has led to no more posts.
It was totally beyond me why valuable resources were wasted on this, but I'm a different generation.
-
The suspense is building...
Well, as I write it is about 4pm in Calgary and still no word. It must be very bad news if it has to be left this late to announce it. Assuming it happens at all of course.
-
I could say exclusives lives are on the line. I'm so happy for not putting all the eggs in one basket
-
Whenever they have a controversial announcement, my DLs drop for a few days. Do you have the same experience?
-
They will definitely come out today. Joyze said that this time they will live up to that promise.
sadly, their history doesn't exactly give me faith in this statement.
From the May 13 post by Joyze: ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=288642&messageid=6377982[/url])
Redeemed Credit Targets: I know that we promised these awhile ago and we have not lived up to that promise. This time, we will. Redeemed credit targets will be announced in three weeks.
-
I am wondering why have they announced a date if they weren´t prepared to it.. what a great way to run a business!
-
I am wondering why have they announced a date if they weren´t prepared to it.. what a great way to run a business!
You forgot to mention that this is happening for the 3rd time in a row ;)
-
I say they are staying the same
+1. This is the most face-saving compromise.
I agree, but i really dread and think they'll be going up at least for us 'couldn't-care-less-about' independents, definitely with the adding of P+...(and maybe stay the same for exclusives or come up with some other incentive for them)..
I also think they'll shamelessly wont publish them today...(maybe monday so its not within 3 weeks but aaaaalmost ;))
Good point, I agree with you. Will probably go up for independents and stay the same for ex
-
They're here:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=330116&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=330116&page=1)
-
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=330116&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=330116&page=1)
At least for me they stayed the same....NOT!
^^^ Lisa beat me to it!! :P
-
Like I said, they're gonna raise it and screw us even further. What else could we expect?
-
It took them six months to decide to keep them the same??
-
It took them six months to decide to keep them the same??
sweet! :)
will them lower them a little in a few weeks?
-
It took them six months to decide to keep them the same??
Not the same for me...1,000 credit raise...as in the bar was raised. Fk me. 11,500 to 12,500.
-
It will never stop. The sponge we call Istock has a plan... :D ;D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D
-
It took them six months to decide to keep them the same??
'The same' ... but with falling sales. Things just got even tougher for exclusives.
-
Well congrats to those who speculated they would have the gall to actually raise them. The rest of us owe you a beer.
Looks like they are back up to the original targets announced last year (and later revised down) for photos, audio, and flash. Video and illustration stay the same. Considering how bad they were shafted last time, that's not much of a bone they're being thrown.
As absolutely pitiful as this year's sales are turning out to be, this is likely to be worrying news for a lot of people.
I am not halfway to the new announced RC level for my royalty %, despite being halfway through the calendar year. Last year I would have been able to get there handily with plenty of room to spare. Looks like I have a good chance of dropping a level next year. >:(
-
the target are out :
(http://www.istockphoto.com/generic_image_view/153460/153460)
-
I am not halfway to the new announced RC level for my royalty %, despite being halfway through the calendar year. Last year I would have been able to get there handily with plenty of room to spare. Looks like I have a good chance of dropping to 18% next year. >:(
You should be OK Lisa. There's still 7 months left to go and now you also have the benefit of P+ sales to boost your RC total.
-
It took them six months to decide to keep them the same??
Not the same for me...1,000 credit raise...as in the bar was raised. Fk me. 11,500 to 12,500.
Ah, wasn't 12,500 the original target to photographers, then they lowered it to 11,500?
Anyway, I guess I've the slightest of chances to avoid going down to 25%. I had over 12,500 last year, but this year is much worse.
I guess aeonf will be along to gloat soon.
-
way to go istock, sales are down, put stuff on sale move customers to thinkstock and increase the targets. (As I expected and predicted)
I know it will be hard for most of you to buy me a beer, I'll accept vouchers at Dan Murphy's liquor outlets.
-
I am not halfway to the new announced RC level for my royalty %, despite being halfway through the calendar year. Last year I would have been able to get there handily with plenty of room to spare. Looks like I have a good chance of dropping to 18% next year. >:(
You should be OK Lisa. There's still 7 months left to go and now you also have the benefit of P+ sales to boost your RC total.
Oh. You're right. I guess June 30 is halfway through the year. I am pretty far off the halfway mark though. Whether I make it or not, it will be close. And it shouldn't have to be. They are running their customers off through incompetence and mismanagement, then we contributors are paying the price. Sigh.....
-
I assume that they'll 'generously' lower them a bit at the end of the year if their sales projections turn out to be over-optimistic.
-
Aeonf is here but no gloating. And why would I ? lower targets are in my best interest just like anybody elses, I don't own IS stock you know...
Sorry to hear you will proly be dropping to 25%, don't you think its worth putting in some more effort in order to keep your 30% ?
I would also consider dropping exclusivity if I where you...
For us we got to the 30% mark about 3 weeks ago, we might get to the 35% mark in December, but its a very close call.
I am willing to bet they will lower the targets again at the end of this year, just like they did last year.
-
Looking at all those * idiots thanking IS for raising the bar really put a smile on my face and made my day. Because I just realised I kept my brains from being washed and realized just how many stupid people there are in the world. It's like whistling and singing along when you're forced to dig your own grave
-
They probably raised the targets to offset the deal they gave to Illustrators.
-
I guess the RC targets staying the same pretty much proves that overall sales haven't risen at all since they first announced this scheme last September.
-
Looking at all those * idiots thanking IS for raising the bar really put a smile on my face and made my day. Because I just realised I kept my brains from being washed and realized just how many stupid people there are in the world. It's like whistling and singing along when you're forced to dig your own grave
Have to agree. The look on my husband's face when I read those comments to him was just priceless. Hilarious!
-
Aeonf is here but no gloating. And why would I ? lower targets are in my best interest just like anybody elses, I don't own IS stock you know...
Sorry to hear you will proly be dropping to 25%, don't you think its worth putting in some more effort in order to keep your 30% ?
I would also consider dropping exclusivity if I where you...
For us we got to the 30% mark about 3 weeks ago, we might get to the 35% mark in December, but its a very close call.
I am willing to bet they will lower the targets again at the end of this year, just like they did last year.
don´t know if I laugh or cry at your post
-
Aeonf is here but no gloating. And why would I ? lower targets are in my best interest just like anybody elses, I don't own IS stock you know...
Sorry to hear you will proly be dropping to 25%, don't you think its worth putting in some more effort in order to keep your 30% ?
I would also consider dropping exclusivity if I where you...
For us we got to the 30% mark about 3 weeks ago, we might get to the 35% mark in December, but its a very close call.
I am willing to bet they will lower the targets again at the end of this year, just like they did last year.
don´t know if I laugh or cry at your post
Maybe a bit of both ?
-
Oh. You're right. I guess June 30 is halfway through the year. I am pretty far off the halfway mark though. Whether I make it or not, it will be close. And it shouldn't have to be. They are running their customers off through incompetence and mismanagement, then we contributors are paying the price. Sigh.....
Well, it sure as h*ck isn't the management paying the price (still knocked out at their extravagance staying at that (relatively) expensive hotel in London during the lypse at our expense).
Of course, we've got the three month summer slump coming up, and I can't remember about you, Lisa, but last year, my sales didn't bounce way up in September - Dec as it had in previous years. As I remember it, many people had the same experience, which was why they lowered the expected RCs after they'd announced tham last year.
@Lisa: hope you're recovering well. I guess this stress isn't helping. :(
-
Looking at all those * idiots thanking IS for raising the bar really put a smile on my face and made my day. Because I just realised I kept my brains from being washed and realized just how many stupid people there are in the world. It's like whistling and singing along when you're forced to dig your own grave
Yeah. I was amazed by that too. Unbelievable.
-
^^Sue, like IS said, you're gonna earn 50% in the last 4 month. I wonder why don't they give us money back guarantee on that or to be even more plain and str8 to the point, put their money where their (loud) mouth is
-
Looking at all those * idiots thanking IS for raising the bar really put a smile on my face and made my day. Because I just realised I kept my brains from being washed and realized just how many stupid people there are in the world. It's like whistling and singing along when you're forced to dig your own grave
It's always been like this at istock. When the royalty cut was first announced in the forum, the first page of responses included many "thank-you"s and praise. For some reason it takes some people over there a while to figure out when they're being screwed.
Illustration numbers aren't changing, but even at the current targets I'm not likely to ever get to 18%. It's amazing to think that there was a time when I made $2,000 in a month at istock. Now my istock earnings are barely enough to put gas in the car each week. Fortunately the other sites have picked up the slack, but man it's crazy to see how far things have fallen over there.
istock used to be the reason I stuck to EPS8 vectors, so I could get my images onto that site even though most other big sites support EPS10. I'm not seeing much motivation to keep trying to make my stuff EPS8 compatible just for istock. It's a waste of time.
-
Looking at all those * idiots thanking IS for raising the bar really put a smile on my face and made my day. Because I just realised I kept my brains from being washed and realized just how many stupid people there are in the world. It's like whistling and singing along when you're forced to dig your own grave
Have to agree. The look on my husband's face when I read those comments to him was just priceless. Hilarious!
Most people are sheep. The iStock forum comments definitely support or reflect that sad fact :)
-
I'm 'trending' to not even make half the 40000 rc that I made last year, so the new 'fair' system Istock have 'worked hard' and cut advertising to the site, pushed the customers away to thinkstock and other sites and pushed my images further back and so get themselves an extra 5% payrise on my images ;)
-
I'm 'trending' to not even make half the 40000 rc that I made last year, so the new 'fair' system Istock have 'worked hard' and cut advertising to the site, pushed the customers away to thinkstock and other sites and pushed my images further back and so get themselves an extra 5% payrise on my images ;)
That's about the sum of it. >:(
Like I said in another thread, why are iStock not advertising any more? When their adverts were everywhere, I was getting plenty of downloads.
-
I am reading IS forum and beside the "thanks" ones, I am thinking of the ones that might have near 12500 RC but not there will get the same 25%, that must be a joy!
-
I'm 'trending' to not even make half the 40000 rc that I made last year, so the new 'fair' system Istock have 'worked hard' and cut advertising to the site, pushed the customers away to thinkstock and other sites and pushed my images further back and so get themselves an extra 5% payrise on my images ;)
That's about the sum of it. >:(
Like I said in another thread, why are iStock not advertising any more? When their adverts were everywhere, I was getting plenty of downloads.
Someone asked this in an Istock forum not too long ago the thread got locked instantly. Another observation I made was a flight I took last week on US Airways. I was looking through their in-flight magazine and it had a couple of advert images from Thinkstock. I also saw a magazine in the architectural industry using Thinkstock images today. Someone made a whole 28 cents for these >:(
-
Well congrats to those who speculated they would have the gall to actually raise them. The rest of us owe you a beer.
Hahaha you owe me a beer. ;)
p.s.
I'm surprised they didn't raised the bar a bit more, as my theory is that soon the non exclusives will
only get 10% cut.
-
I also saw a magazine in the architectural industry using Thinkstock images today. Someone made a whole 28 cents for these >:(
Yeah but their professional designer will still complain that paying 5 or 10 bucks for that photo was too expensive.
We've come to this.
-
I'm surprised they didn't raised the bar a bit more, as my theory is that soon the non exclusives will
only get 10% cut.
it will stay at 15% but we will pay 5% to have pictures there ;D
-
I'm surprised they didn't raised the bar a bit more, as my theory is that soon the non exclusives will
only get 10% cut.
I'm surprised they didn't raise it more as well. I think a lot of people were expecting it.
-
I wrote a polite message in their forum about istock having the lowest royalty scheme in the industry and Lobo deleted it sending me also an email where he threats to ban me from the forum if i dare try again .. what ?
-
I wrote a polite message in their forum about istock having the lowest royalty scheme in the industry and Lobo deleted it sending me also an email where he threats to ban me from the forum if i dare try again .. what ?
Lobo (Wolf) vs Sheep
when is the next round?
-
I wrote a polite message in their forum about istock having the lowest royalty scheme in the industry and Lobo deleted it sending me also an email where he threats to ban me from the forum if i dare try again .. what ?
Wow. Their banning policy seems to have become much more aggressive.
-
If sales (what sales??) keep going the same way as they were for this year, I won't be able to make the same bracket that I have this year and drop to 15%.
Remind me again - why, for 15% of commission, should I resume uploading to istock? Still do not see an incentive. Got enough stuff to do elsewhere.
-
I've pointed out that they have the lowest royalty lots of times and I have never had a message from Lobo or a ban threat. I must try harder :)
-
And you can see what kind of people we are dealing with; the kind that wait till the last minute of friday's work hours to announce it, so they can cowardly dissapear for 2 days. In the mean time Lobo terrorizes everyone who's disagreeing (like Black sheep reported). Even criminals and common thieves (which they are just not common, but relatively sophisticated) stick to "higher standards".
-
I've pointed out that they have the lowest royalty lots of times and I have never had a message from Lobo or a ban threat. I must try harder :)
i guess he didn't liked me saying istock is "screwing us" ... ;D
-
Sorry to hear you will proly be dropping to 25%, don't you think its worth putting in some more effort in order to keep your 30% ?
I would also consider dropping exclusivity if I where you...
Thank you for your concern.
For the past 3-4 weeks it's been constant rain or heavy overcast (we had twice the average May rainfall), so I'm back to the usual 'flat light' rejections. Yesterday was glorious blue sky, but harsh harsh light, and back to heavy overcast today.
Then there were the 40+ files I had to resubmit because of the false 'caption' rejections: all were accepted with exactly the same captions as were originally rejected, but still the waste of time, patience and goodwill - I did get an apology for these in the end, but didn't make up for the lost time.
Not jumping to submit exclusivity (but keeping a watching eye [1]). I'm hearing that people who do non-studio work (like me) have poor acceptance rates on the other micros, and two 'new independents' (non model, non studio) I'm following are thinking about going back to independence.
My tutor suggested a particular agency for the sort of non-stock editorial-type work I've been doing recently, and I'll look into it, but you need a huge portfolio of all new, all different work to even be considered, so that would take a lot of time.
[1] I suspect the medium-term plan (perhaps it's too kind to imagine they actually have a plan) is to have iStock as only Vetta and Agency, and the rest will be dumped into Thinkstock.
-
I noticed that several posts have been deleted without trace over the past couple of days. You only know if you catch a forum saying that Lobo made the last post, but when you go into the forum, there's no Lobo post there within the stated time span ...
Like some people on the discussion group, I've never managed to 'catch' the stupidly-named 'LiveChat' actually being live, even during iStock working hours. Around the time the new targets were announced, the LiveChat icon disappeared completely for a short time, not even greyed-out. Maybe there's only one live-chatter, so when she's on a call or on a break or at the loo, it's unavailable.
-
[1] I suspect the medium-term plan (perhaps it's too kind to imagine they actually have a plan) is to have iStock as only Vetta and Agency, and the rest will be dumped into Thinkstock.
I'd go along with that if they introduced non-exclusive Vetta and Agency. Which really wouldn't be a problem if they dumped everything else on thinkstock. I'd really love shooting the Vetta stuff and of course get mid/macro stock payments for doing it (I presume they'd raise the exclusive prices and non-e would be at the current level of A/V)
-
now i have the 25% but in march i reached the 30% , so someone know when will be the updates of the rate of earning...
in my schedule tab continue to appear 25% and the update still missing...
-
now i have the 25% but in march i reached the 30% , so someone know when will be the updates of the rate of earning...
in my schedule tab continue to appear 25% and the update still missing...
If I were you, I'd email support. Since RC is a new thing, I doubt anyone knows the answer here. Please let us know.
-
I noticed that several posts have been deleted without trace over the past couple of days. You only know if you catch a forum saying that Lobo made the last post, but when you go into the forum, there's no Lobo post there within the stated time span ...
.. including this post, deleted last night from the RC Credits thread:
-------------
Kelly Thompson on 8th September 2010 - http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252322&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252322&page=1)
But, we expect to see our total royalty payout increase by more than 30% next year, from $1.7-million per week to well over $2-million per week. Make no mistake, the total amount of money iStock contributors are making is going up.
Kelly on 5th May 2011 - http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=328488&page=4 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=328488&page=4)
The fraction of a percent was definitely about the total change in royalties paid out, not the number of people it affected.
--
Would it be fair to say that a mistake was made?
Maybe Steve Shankland was closer to the truth when he wrote the following in September 2010 - http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20015830-264.html (http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20015830-264.html)
Cultivating or exploiting the community?
Thompson bristles when questioned whether iStockphoto's size and market power might mean it's turning from cultivating its community of contributors to strip-mining it.
-------------
After Lobo deleted it, I sitemailed him saying that I felt it was relevant to that thread to note that Kelly made a projection in September that royalty payouts would rise by 30%, then conceded last month that payouts have changed by 'a fraction of a percent'.
He was decent enough to reply with a civil message explaining why the post had to be deleted.
For me there is a positive side to this greed from iStock:
- The introduction of P+ has made dropping exclusivity even more attractive
- Shutterstock seem to be going from strength to strength
-
now i have the 25% but in march i reached the 30% , so someone know when will be the updates of the rate of earning...
in my schedule tab continue to appear 25% and the update still missing...
If I were you, I'd email support. Since RC is a new thing, I doubt anyone knows the answer here. Please let us know.
I wrote on the istock forum soon after the announcement of joize, but I had no answer ... I tried to rewrite this morning, before it was the 24 in Canada, but ( L O B O ) canceled me the request 2 times threatened to ban access to the forum because he thinks no one at that (it was only 23.30) have been able to answer me ....
I wonder, at least the question could leave, instead of deleting it.
-
Maybe Steve Shankland was closer to the truth when he wrote the following in September 2010 - [url]http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20015830-264.html[/url] ([url]http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20015830-264.html[/url])
Huh, I don't remember seeing that article...
-
now i have the 25% but in march i reached the 30% , so someone know when will be the updates of the rate of earning...
in my schedule tab continue to appear 25% and the update still missing...
If I were you, I'd email support. Since RC is a new thing, I doubt anyone knows the answer here. Please let us know.
I wrote on the istock forum soon after the announcement of joize, but I had no answer ... I tried to rewrite this morning, before it was the 24 in Canada, but ( L O B O ) canceled me the request 2 times threatened to ban access to the forum because he thinks no one at that (it was only 23.30) have been able to answer me ....
I wonder, at least the question could leave, instead of deleting it.
Patience, poppet: I've got an outstanding Support ticket from February, and it's only asking why I don't get the official emails despite being opted in. It's disappeared from my open Tickets list, but we've been assured :P that doesn't mean they've been deleted. (My earliest visible open tickets are two Scout tickets raised on 13th March).
In any case, they've promised to back date any increases.
The second post from Joyze in that thread says:
"What happens if I’ve already reached the next level in these new targets? – We’ll be retro paying the royalties. Next week we’ll announce the schedule of when you can expect the retro pay and we’ll also announce when all of the information will be changed on the website."
-
Frank: I must complement, your growth is simply incredible! reaching the 30% mark less then 3 months is very very fast.
Sue: I think you can quite easily get that target and more! First of all you have a great starting point, you already have a well established portfolio, the subject matter isnt very cummon (AKA not smiling blonds or isolated apples), you are at the gold canister level which means you have VERY high uploading limits (use them!)
As I recall you are from Scotland, right ? do you have all of the national landmarks on your portfolio ? This is your house! no reason you shouldn't have the best photos of Scotland on IS !
What about all the famous things scotland is famous for ? Why try and shoot a distillery (or a few ?)
Regarding the caption thing, we get wrongfull rejections ALL the time. a scout ticket or direct ticket to contirubutor relations will fix this, just give them a list of all the wrongfull rejections, so no need to waste more time (just have some patience).
Everybody gets the stupid flat/dull colors rejection! What we do is play with the contrast/brightness a bit, write a polite note to the inspector stating what we have done to correct the image and ask him to please be more specific if he thinks there is still a problem with the image. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.
-
Regarding the caption thing, we get wrongfull rejections ALL the time. a scout ticket or direct ticket to contirubutor relations will fix this, just give them a list of all the wrongfull rejections, so no need to waste more time (just have some patience).
You get three Scout tickets a month, so that would have taken >16 months to get through the caption rejections alone. And as mentioned above, I have outstanding Scout tickets from 13th March, so it would be more than 'some' patience. As above, I have an even older support ticket still waiting for a reply (third sending).
As for distilleries etc, I never get replies from anyone (snail mail, email, phone, turning up in person) for my requests for property releases, or even just simple 'releases' for editorial. Funnily enough, I had no bother getting permission to get in to do shootings for the course I'm doing, except one place which has a flat 'no photography' rule, but none of these places would give permission for the pics to be stock editorial shots. So rather limited to places and angles you can shoot from the street, which everyone else has done. A lot of that stuff I put on Alamy anyway (1500+ shots and growing). And there's still the problem with the constant rain!
-
Sue, I ment a direct email to contributor relations, this is much quicker then a scout ticket, if you do use your regular scout ticket, don't open 1 for each photo but 1 scout ticket for the whole batch (even though they ask no to).
-
Here's how the targets are demotivational:
I'm almost halfway to the 30% target at the moment (that's not good because we have three slump months coming up). So I guess I could push a bit more to try to ensure I stay on 30%. But I'm realistic enough to know I'll never reach 40,000, so I'd be far better to focus my energy on Alamy or on getting into that other agency (huge time investment on producing work that wouldn't 'fit' onto iStock - and possibly not Alamy - if rejected, and totally dependent on getting at least 'decent' natural light).
Obviously iStock couldn't GAFF: I could delete all my files and they'd barely notice. But if everyone did that, they'd notice. Of course, that's not likely to happen: what's more likely to happen is that more people drop exclusivity, and they'd gain even more (unless that person had a lot of V/A.)
It may be that they're going to introduce non-exclusive V/A soon (we know that Agency is already not totally exclusive), following P+. They'd rather pay out the lower non-exclusive commissions, because of that thing I still don't understand about how profitability (%age) is more important than profit (bottom line).
-
Sue, I ment a direct email to contributor relations, this is much quicker then a scout ticket, if you do use your regular scout ticket, don't open 1 for each photo but 1 scout ticket for the whole batch (even though they ask no to).
It is a direct email to contributor relations which is outstanding since February. I did have a reply to a later email asking if it was lost, telling me it wasn't lost and would be replied to in due course. Note that it was only asking why I don't get the mass emails though opted in, not some great issue that needs tons of research. Previous replies on the same subject said it was something to do with my email address, but I have given them two valid email addys, both of which get emails in when I request payment (split between the two, don't know why!).
As my Scout tickets are outstanding since mid-March, resubmitting was actually faster, even at the c10 days for editorial inspections. It's all relative.
-
-------------
Kelly Thompson on 8th September 2010 - [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252322&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252322&page=1[/url])
But, we expect to see our total royalty payout increase by more than 30% next year, from $1.7-million per week to well over $2-million per week. Make no mistake, the total amount of money iStock contributors are making is going up.
I wonder if he would provide independently audited figures at the end of the year to see if his speculation worked out.
Still, even if so, it wouldn't hide the fact that they were making even more off the back of our efforts.
-
Oh, h*ck double post again. Need a nice cup of tea! Sorry.
-
Sorry, hit quote instead of modify.
-
I can't really find the targets motivating in any way. I'm already at 17% this year (I have about 13,000 redeemed credits), and I don't think I could make it to 18% even if I uploaded like h*ll (I would need 27,000 redeemed credits more, the would mean doubling my income for the rest of the year - not going to happen). The gap between 12,500 and 40,000 is just HUGE.
-
I think an experiment should be made:
1. Black diamonds should join like video diamonds did for Vetta video and demand, not to only keep last year's RC targets, but due to noticeably lower sales, to lower them. They should give them a short time frame to correct them and publish them, a week would be just right IMO.
2. Threaten to deactivate 10% of their files every day after the set date. Or just all of them at once, to see the impact it really made.
We should then only lay back and enjoy the show and see them humbly apologize (I'd love nothing more than to to smack all that arrogance out of them and meet their (our really demands). Why only black diamonds? Because unity could never be achieved through the community and they're the foundation of IS. Imagine just Yuri, Lise and SJlocke doing that. It's not just the dropping sales, but also all the negative publicity that would force them to oblige. And they would profit long term, at least till the end of 2012 (for those asking why they would sacrifice their earning for a week or so)
-
but also all the negative publicity that would force them to oblige.
Sorry to dissappoint you, but I don't think IS cares for negative publicity.
-
istock's forum is simply a joke, THIS is the only decent stock forum (micro and not) around.
-
but also all the negative publicity that would force them to oblige.
Sorry to dissappoint you, but I don't think IS cares for negative publicity.
If media reported about ALL of the major players boycotting them, buyers not being to able to find their content (I imagine many go straight to someone's port and search within it), if Yuri gave a couple of really negative interviews and ask people on youtube to boycott IS, explaining why (he's great at that, he's not only smart, but has a degree in psychology), they would oblige, because it would cause massive drops in sales as well;)
-
Slovenian: The problem is BD's ARE meeting the RC target. Why would they rebel ??
Yuri is also getting his 20% so he isn't hurt in any way, why would he do anything against IS ??
-
Slovenian: The problem is BD's ARE meeting the RC target. Why would they rebel ??
Yuri is also getting his 20% so he isn't hurt in any way, why would he do anything against IS ??
Are they, did they confirm it? OK, those three might have, but what about the rest. Lisafx and some others surely didn't. They have a lot of muscle even without the top 3 and if some top diamonds joined "the cause" it would surely be enough. That would mean 100k+ files, many of them selling almost hourly.
-
but also all the negative publicity that would force them to oblige.
Sorry to dissappoint you, but I don't think IS cares for negative publicity.
If media reported about ALL of the major players boycotting them, buyers not being to able to find their content (I imagine many go straight to someone's port and search within it), if Yuri gave a couple of really negative interviews and ask people on youtube to boycott IS, explaining why (he's great at that, he's not only smart, but has a degree in psychology), they would oblige, because it would cause massive drops in sales as well;)
The only way Yuri could hurt iStock would be by totally withdrawing his port. If he just asked people not to buy from iStock it would be a bit silly if he were still selling files there. I guess he's 'happy enough' with 20%, since he has apparently never made moves to be exclusive (except in Vectors IIRC) ior even a non-exclusive 'exclusive' like Rubberball. Of course, like anyone else, I'm, guessing (again) he'd be happier with a fairer cut. Unless he's the one that 'money isn't what makes him happy'.
-
istock's forum is simply a joke, THIS is the only decent stock forum (micro and not) around.
I couldn't agree more. I've stopped participating altogether at Istock six months ago. Tired of my threads getting locked instantly each and every time I ask a question that is relevant to my future (and happens to be a question about Istock)....such as something along the lines of "where is Istock advertising these days"?
Not to hijack this thread but Shutterstock's forum is a joke as well. I mean you have mr. know it all there, you have that guy with 10,000 crappy images who claims to be the king of stock....when he is in fact a laughing stock (he can't get anything accepted anywhere else)....people get pissed off and amazed how he gets his files accepted when legitimate stock images that FAR EXCEED the value and quality of his get rejected.....and contributors are very open about this over there. The on-going political threads rule over there and there's very little discussion about "the industry" and stock in general. The stupid "show me how great you are" threads and "show me your latest download" add absolutely no value other than boosting ones ego.
I got fed up with both forums and joined MSG. I like it here, I don't agree with everyone all the time but I also learn different perspectives..... and my mind does get changed with good posts from a lot of you. I've not put anyone on ignore (when we could) because I still want to see what they have to say on other topics. That's what a forum is all about, sprinkled in with some socializing discussions as well.
One more thing. I like the tutorials and blogs this site offers and I have used a few in my work (so close my account because I used this guys action :). I am about a 3,000 image contributor so I have a good deal of experience but I am certainly open to improve and these blogs and tutorials help me a lot. The other forums really don't offer this...Istock does have some stuff, to be fair.
-
but also all the negative publicity that would force them to oblige.
Sorry to dissappoint you, but I don't think IS cares for negative publicity.
If media reported about ALL of the major players boycotting them, buyers not being to able to find their content (I imagine many go straight to someone's port and search within it), if Yuri gave a couple of really negative interviews and ask people on youtube to boycott IS, explaining why (he's great at that, he's not only smart, but has a degree in psychology), they would oblige, because it would cause massive drops in sales as well;)
The only way Yuri could hurt iStock would be by totally withdrawing his port. If he just asked people not to buy from iStock it would be a bit silly if he were still selling files there. I guess he's 'happy enough' with 20%, since he has apparently never made moves to be exclusive (except in Vectors IIRC) ior even a non-exclusive 'exclusive' like Rubberball. Of course, like anyone else, I'm, guessing (again) he'd be happier with a fairer cut. Unless he's the one that 'money isn't what makes him happy'.
That's what I said, boycott+media pressure;)
-
It's not just IS and SS forums, also Alamy promptly deletes any critical debate or anything touching the wrong buttons that means for instance why alamy sales are sluggish, why alamy is not advertising anywhere, why nobody outisde UK ever heard of alamy, etc etc they simply delete everything and leave no explanation.
That's why i said many times fuck it, just close these idiotic forums where only fanboys can post and let us have serious discussions outside the agencies here on MSG.
Typical corporate double-speak .. the only feedback allowed is good feedback, well * off there's plenty of people who has enough of their BS.
-
I have to say I really didn't care about the announcement, although I am teetering on losing a royalty level. That said, I did take the time to read through the announcement thread. It was interesting to read. I'm really starting to seriously wonder if iStock is starting to become a house of cards. With exclusives talking about or actually jumping ship, falling sales and the summer coming up, it all looks like the perfect storm. Normally, I make fun of the doomsayers, but this just looks like it could get ugly quick. I wonder if they'll be scrambling to "fix" things again in the fall.
-
Slovenian: The problem is BD's ARE meeting the RC target. Why would they rebel ??
Yuri is also getting his 20% so he isn't hurt in any way, why would he do anything against IS ??
Are they, did they confirm it? OK, those three might have, but what about the rest. Lisafx and some others surely didn't. They have a lot of muscle even without the top 3 and if some top diamonds joined "the cause" it would surely be enough. That would mean 100k+ files, many of them selling almost hourly.
I don't think there are a lot of independent BDs, and with the higher cost of exclusive images, plus V/A and E+, I think the exclusive BDs are well able to keep diamond level royalties. For nonexclusive BDs, most seem to not be bothering all that much with istock, if their upload rates are any indication.
-
Slovenian: The problem is BD's ARE meeting the RC target. Why would they rebel ??
Yuri is also getting his 20% so he isn't hurt in any way, why would he do anything against IS ??
Are they, did they confirm it? OK, those three might have, but what about the rest. Lisafx and some others surely didn't. They have a lot of muscle even without the top 3 and if some top diamonds joined "the cause" it would surely be enough. That would mean 100k+ files, many of them selling almost hourly.
I don't think there are a lot of independent BDs, and with the higher cost of exclusive images, plus V/A and E+, I think the exclusive BDs are well able to keep diamond level royalties. For nonexclusive BDs, most seem to not be bothering all that much with istock, if their upload rates are any indication.
It's a shame you could save all of us and become real (ms) heroes;)
-
I looked at my June iStock stats graph and decided it summed up pretty well how I feel about the whole thing :)
-
I looked at my June iStock stats graph and decided it summed up pretty well how I feel about the whole thing :)
LOL! ;D
-
Slovenian: The problem is BD's ARE meeting the RC target. Why would they rebel ??
Yuri is also getting his 20% so he isn't hurt in any way, why would he do anything against IS ??
Are they, did they confirm it? OK, those three might have, but what about the rest. Lisafx and some others surely didn't. They have a lot of muscle even without the top 3 and if some top diamonds joined "the cause" it would surely be enough. That would mean 100k+ files, many of them selling almost hourly.
I don't think there are a lot of independent BDs, and with the higher cost of exclusive images, plus V/A and E+, I think the exclusive BDs are well able to keep diamond level royalties. For nonexclusive BDs, most seem to not be bothering all that much with istock, if their upload rates are any indication.
It's a shame you could save all of us and become real (ms) heroes;)
What an insulting and idiotic post. Funny how you want Lisa to pull her portfolio just to satisfy some fantasy you have about making Istock knuckle under to your demands. If you don't like the way things are done at istock- then leave. YOU, not anyone else. YOU. The idea that would try to tell others what to do is absurd.
-
Slovenian: The problem is BD's ARE meeting the RC target. Why would they rebel ??
Yuri is also getting his 20% so he isn't hurt in any way, why would he do anything against IS ??
Are they, did they confirm it? OK, those three might have, but what about the rest. Lisafx and some others surely didn't. They have a lot of muscle even without the top 3 and if some top diamonds joined "the cause" it would surely be enough. That would mean 100k+ files, many of them selling almost hourly.
I don't think there are a lot of independent BDs, and with the higher cost of exclusive images, plus V/A and E+, I think the exclusive BDs are well able to keep diamond level royalties. For nonexclusive BDs, most seem to not be bothering all that much with istock, if their upload rates are any indication.
It's a shame you could save all of us and become real (ms) heroes;)
What an insulting and idiotic post. Funny how you want Lisa to pull her portfolio just to satisfy some fantasy you have about making Istock knuckle under to your demands. If you don't like the way things are done at istock- then leave. YOU, not anyone else. YOU. The idea that would try to tell others what to do is absurd.
Don't get so upset, you'll just become old and bitter, you just can't see the forrest for the trees.
-
PLUS remember not to forget that if everyone worked hard to raise their RCs, they would just raise the targets. It's a bell graph, only a set percentage of contributors get each percentage commission. Insane and dated, and makes insane any attempt to help each other to raise our game.
-
I looked at my June iStock stats graph and decided it summed up pretty well how I feel about the whole thing :)
LOL, we all seem to be getting them. Mine's a double;)
(http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/1336/screenhunter01jun042234.th.gif) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/8/screenhunter01jun042234.gif/)
-
Is it just me, or has the thumbs down been removed from the Istock 2012 rc targets thread? I know I saw it earlier today.
Why have the thumbs up/down functionality if you are not going to allow people to use it to express their dissatisfaction?
-
Is it just me, or has the thumbs down been removed from the Istock 2012 rc targets thread? I know I saw it earlier today.
Why have the thumbs up/down functionality if you are not going to allow people to use it to express their dissatisfaction?
I saw it earlier too. I guess only thumbs up is allowed now.
-
And I got no sales today, I should have known better than to thumb it down :o :D
-
Is it just me, or has the thumbs down been removed from the Istock 2012 rc targets thread? I know I saw it earlier today.
Why have the thumbs up/down functionality if you are not going to allow people to use it to express their dissatisfaction?
It's probably because some peeps have given it thumbs up; ive noticed before it sort of balances it out, thumbs down can be neutralized by enough thumbs up, and gets top thumbs up by even more thumb's up; if that makes sense :D... if we kept clicking thumbs down on posts the thread most likely would show a thumbs down again; IF it isnt rigged.
-
Is it just me, or has the thumbs down been removed from the Istock 2012 rc targets thread? I know I saw it earlier today.
Why have the thumbs up/down functionality if you are not going to allow people to use it to express their dissatisfaction?
It's back now __ thumbs down. Maybe Admins or inspectors keep giving it the thumbs up? They always appear out of the blue to woo-yay announcements.
-
I'm almost too embarrased to admit this :-[, but I have no idea how to thumbs up/down threads there. :-[
-
I'm almost too embarrased to admit this :-[, but I have no idea how to thumbs up/down threads there. :-[
umm, I'll go one step further I didnt know you could ;D
I still really cant get over their annoucements on friday afternoons (and just quietly in the forum), pretty spineless for people running a multimillion dollar company.
-
I'm almost too embarrased to admit this :-[, but I have no idea how to thumbs up/down threads there. :-[
Dont be embarrased, its useless knowledge anyways ;)
On the right hand side of each post next to 'permalink' there's a thumbs up and down symbol you can click.
-
I'm almost too embarrased to admit this :-[, but I have no idea how to thumbs up/down threads there. :-[
Dont be embarrased, its useless knowledge anyways ;)
On the right hand side of each post next to 'permalink' there's a thumbs up and down symbol you can click.
Oh, I remember seeing permalink before. It must be removed, with the thumbs, if you're Lobotomised: I did a 'Find:permalink' to be sure.
;D
-
I'm almost too embarrased to admit this :-[, but I have no idea how to thumbs up/down threads there. :-[
Dont be embarrased, its useless knowledge anyways ;)
On the right hand side of each post next to 'permalink' there's a thumbs up and down symbol you can click.
Oh, I remember seeing permalink before. It must be removed, with the thumbs, if you're Lobotomised: I did a 'Find:permalink' to be sure.
;D
Yup, it's removed when your posting privileges are removed.
-
I checked the first 10 pages of the discussion forum and saw no "thumbs down" threads, only "thumbs up." I guess everything's rosy at IS. Who knew?
-
I looked at my June iStock stats graph and decided it summed up pretty well how I feel about the whole thing :)
LOL! ;D
+1
-
I checked the first 10 pages of the discussion forum and saw no "thumbs down" threads, only "thumbs up." I guess everything's rosy at IS. Who knew?
Yup, even that targets post has been neutralised again.
-
Is it just me, or has the thumbs down been removed from the Istock 2012 rc targets thread? I know I saw it earlier today.
Why have the thumbs up/down functionality if you are not going to allow people to use it to express their dissatisfaction?
Definately gone - I saw it earlier today too and got a chuckle from the fact that it was getting the thumbs down.
-
It's back down again. Will it be gone again quicker than a thread to Lobo's padlock?
-
thumbs up, thumbs down, +1, digg, bury, like, share, follow me, blablablabla i've really enough of all this web 2.0 "new-speak" .... why can't we just communicate in proper english ? many people will end up speaking in "sms" language in the future.
-
It will all be web 3.0 soon, 2.0 is so yesterday :) Hopefully there will be a nice web 3.0 site for us to sell our images without having to pay an enormous fee to greedy sites. I wonder how much more productive we could all be if we weren't spending so much time debating the latest ways sites are grabbing more money from us?
-
LOL. Lobo must have taken the night off. It's "thumbs down" again.
-
Everyone, exclusive or independants, have more chance of selling a fridge to an eskimoe, then reaching their targets. Its a confidance-trick just to make you more productive.
-
Everyone, exclusive or independants, have more chance of selling a fridge to an eskimoe, then reaching their targets. Its a confidance-trick just to make you more productive.
If we became more productive, our targets would be raised pdq. That's the real con-trick.
LifeLesson 001: never exceed your targets - the b*stards will think they're too low.
So from the firm's point of view, totally counter productive.
The old levels were far more likely to make us more productive, and co-operative.
-
Its a confidance-trick just to make you more productive.
Then it has completely backfired! :P
-
Its a confidance-trick just to make you more productive.
Then it has completely backfired! :P
that's just the tip of the iceberg.
we're talking about an "agency" who doesn't make any keywording in-house, who doesn't allow more than a bunch of uploads a week, who does absolutely nothing to promote its own photographers, who has been hacked by credit card thieves, who ban every critic in its forum, who pays the most rock bottom royalties in the whole stock industry, and the list goes on.
and i disagree with those who think istock invented microstock, as selling digital products online for 1$ began in the music industry a long time before istock, see Beatport and many others who now have a kind of monopoly in their slice of the music business.
-
software is following suit very quickly, thousands and thousands of "apps" sold in the Apple and Android stores for 1$ or even less ... and last week microsoft shown a preview of Windows 8 with the hint they're also bundling a sort of microsoft store to get cheap apps for tablet, mobiles, and windows itself !
now, all these business models are well tested at this point since more than 10 yrs.
where are we heading ? judging from the situation i don't see any improving in the pricing, quite the opposite
if we look at the Apps market the prices are going down due to cut-throat competition !!
-
As Istock contributors, we are a bit lazy.
I'm sure, with all the contributors, we would find all the expertise we need to start a new collective microstock site. Owned by contributors only...
-
It really ticks me off when contributors defend Getty's greed, incompetence, and mismanagement as some sort of business strategy. Even more so when they blame the contributors. Like this is all our fault. As in this post:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=330116&messageid=6399846 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=330116&messageid=6399846)
Because I am concerned it will be deleted, I am cross posting my response here:
Sorry, James. I think the "blame the victim" mentality is getting pretty old. It is not the contributors' fault that the company has (IMHO) overreached. The whole notion that business entities are not obligated to behave ethically is a relatively new conceit.
FWIW, it seems apparent to many of us that this recent squeezing of contributors and buyers through various means, in order to gin up short term profits, is in fact poor business. It has demotivated a large number of top and mid level producers, and made it less worthwhile to invest in high production value shoots, thereby affecting the future quality of the collection.
Even more concerning, it has chased away a vast number of buyers. There are a number of measures that will support the idea that buyers are leaving in droves. There have been a growing and alarming number of buyers publicly expressing their displeasure and announcing plans to leave Istock. While those are just anecdotal accounts, they are supported by a number of other measurements. Among them are the universallly declining downloads reported in the monthly stats threads; the drop in traffic reported on sites (Alexa, etc.) that monitor such things; and the increase in sales at partner sites and the other micros.
I believe what is happening at Istock is not good business. And it is not contributors' fault. Most of us are helpless to do anything about it, although quite a few have tried.
-
Thanks for posting that Lisa. I couldn't believe I was reading what JB said. I guess he's all right, Jack.
Glad Lobo didn't delete your post. He deleted a previous one from another well-respected and very helpful in the forums contributor. I SMd her to check: she's hacked off with the forums (by which I inferred she meant Lobo) and pretty much finished with iStock. :-(
-
Glad Lobo didn't delete your post. He deleted a previous one from another well-respected and very helpful in the forums contributor. I SMd her to check: she's hacked off with the forums (by which I inferred she meant Lobo) and pretty much finished with iStock. :-(
I am relieved too. I know it isn't the popular opinion around here lately, but putting aside his acerbic style, I've always found Chris to be fair with me.
-
Glad Lobo didn't delete your post. He deleted a previous one from another well-respected and very helpful in the forums contributor. I SMd her to check: she's hacked off with the forums (by which I inferred she meant Lobo) and pretty much finished with iStock. :-(
I am relieved too. I know it isn't the popular opinion around here lately, but putting aside his acerbic style, I've always found Chris to be fair with me.
No point in him upsetting someone who's bringing in so much 'profitability' to the company. ::)
-
Oh, grief. I've just done my weekly stats. Worst week for downloads since week ending 2nd January and only one more dl than that week. Less than 50% of dls since the corresponding week last year, and I've increased my port by 20% since January alone. Probably only the big business buyers are left, wanting the commercial stuff.
-
It really ticks me off when contributors defend Getty's greed, incompetence, and mismanagement as some sort of business strategy. Even more so when they blame the contributors. Like this is all our fault. As in this post:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=330116&messageid=6399846[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=330116&messageid=6399846[/url])
I don't think he was off the mark. I do blame the contributors as well as myself, but I also blame IS for being greedy too. Nobody wants to walk away from the money except for the few that did. I don't think anybody gets a pass on this thing.
-
excellent link, Lisa, thanks.
i'm surprised it hasn't been locked or deleted already.
-
but that guy on istock makes a bit too rosy picture of the music industry as 20-25% of a music income can be true if you're Lady Gaga not certainly if you're an average indipendent producer.
a friend of mine who's under contract for an indie recording studio is selling and distributing his dance music by himself, he produce the whole product, contact his web distributors, announce the release on a dozen social networks, upload low-fi short versions on another dozen music websites, reply to hundreds of messages and comments, and at the end of all this he's lucky to make 500 downloads on Beatport and 2-300 downloads in all the rest of his network of social sites and niche distributors.
then he has to pay taxes and all his bills, a wife and two babies to be fed, etc
suffice to say he makes more money working full time in his music shop than producing dozens of new dance tracks a year.
-
It really ticks me off when contributors defend Getty's greed, incompetence, and mismanagement as some sort of business strategy. Even more so when they blame the contributors. Like this is all our fault...
...I believe what is happening at Istock is not good business. And it is not contributors' fault. Most of us are helpless to do anything about it, although quite a few have tried.
While I whole-heartedly agree that we're helpless to do anything to improve the situation, I'd have to disagree with the idea that some contributors aren't at fault. I'd fault the woo-yayers with contributing to the perception that enough people will go along with any greedy action by istock or any other microstock company. They're the minority of the contributor base these days, but there are still more than enough folks around who will praise these companies for anything and everything they do, even when those things are done strictly in the company's best interest and counter to contributor welfare. It's given these companies the wrong idea, that we're happy to just make a few pennies for each sale and we'll happily go along with any pricing scheme or poor royalty rate.
Look at the royalty cut thread (if it's even still available) in the istock forum. On the first page of that thread there were actually posts thanking istock and praising the rate change! Of course the tone quickly changed when they realized they were praising a pay cut. But it's the case with every change istock has ever made. There are always enough people who not only happily go along with the changes, but they actually thank the company for making those changes.
In addition to those people, there are the woo-yayers who preemptively woo-yay in the forums for no reason. And this phenomenon is not unique to istock. There's the 10,000 image idiot over at SS who starts threads just to say how wonderful SS is and how he's making so much money. And then we wonder why SS stopped giving contributors pay raises. Why should they? Looking at their forum you'd think that we're all just oh-so-happy with our current pay that we'd never want for anything more.
There are a lot of contributors around the forums who want to be paid like professionals but act like children when it comes to how they openly discuss their microstock business. They proudly confess their love for one microstock company or another, and then wonder why those companies suddenly take advantage of that loyalty and use it to further their own interests and profits. While I'd agree with Lisa that, on the whole, this mess is not the fault of contributors, I'd have to conditionally say that along with my opinion that there are some contributors who used their voices in the forums to give microstock companies the wrong idea about how we're doing collectively and how satisfied we are with current or previous levels of pay. While maybe not directly responsible, the woo-yayers do have a hand in giving too much power to these companies and leading them to some false impressions about how loyal we'd all be to any particular company.
-
there's no solution until you "own" your business relationship with your clients that means until you sell directly and keep 100% of the sale price (and you decide what price for every photo).
after all it's the same problem in every industry dealing with middlemen eating up most of the revenues.
see farmers angry about milk prices for instance, supermarkets sell for 1$/liter and farmers get 0.10$ or 0.05$ for that !
solution ? none so far.
-
While I whole-heartedly agree that we're helpless to do anything to improve the situation, I'd have to disagree with the idea that some contributors aren't at fault. I'd fault the woo-yayers with contributing to the perception that enough people will go along with any greedy action by istock or any other microstock company. They're the minority of the contributor base these days, but there are still more than enough folks around who will praise these companies for anything and everything they do...
(Snip)
Fair enough. You're right - there are some idiots who will gladly swallow anything Istock or the other micros spew out, and that probably has emboldened them.
Guess I just don't like to see all contributors in general lumped in together that way. And I don't think that absolves Getty of any obligation to run their business responsibly or treat their contributors fairly.
-
Fair enough. You're right - there are some idiots who will gladly swallow anything Istock or the other micros spew out, and that probably has emboldened them.
Guess I just don't like to see all contributors in general lumped in together that way. And I don't think that absolves Getty of any obligation to run their business responsibly or treat their contributors fairly.
You're right, contributors shouldn't be lumped together in that way. Unfortunately, though, we are, especially when it comes to how these companies look at us. And it certainly doesn't let Getty off the hook with running their business properly. Regardless of how a few people behave and how they conduct themselves within view of these companies, the companies ultimately are still responsible for their own actions and operating their businesses in a way that properly recognizes the people who helped them to get where they are.
-
Good post Lisa! and they all know its true! that James Bennet guy has always been a bit edgy, I dont know what he is trying to achieve exept trying to suck up to somebody.
-
I agree with some of what James was saying but it's not all down to us. Sites like alamy have shown that you can respect your contributors. Perhaps the real problem is human nature? We seem to be designed to go along with having our earnings cut until we can no longer continue doing this job. How hard would it really be for contributors and buyers to get together and make our own site? I'm sure that's the best solution but it looks like an impossible task. Even if istock buckled, they would only go back to paying independents 20% and exclusives less than 50%. I think that's well below what we should receive when you consider that IT and advertising costs have come down a lot over the years.
What's to stop us using only the sites that pay 50% or over commission? We could take control of this situation but as we have seen in other industries, it's much easier to complain about the businesses we work with than to all get together and do something positive about it.
Now some of us are starting to complain about us, rather than do something positive about it :)
-
From what I read here, there are many independents who are trying to sell stock from their own site but discovering that dealing with customers, running after payments etc...is very time consuming and driving traffic to your site quite expensive. I mean, why doesn´t yuri arcurs create his own site? He has so much content it should be very easy for him to do so (and he has the staff to handle the details).
That is the only thing that will shift the balance towards the artists - if it becomes obvious that selling by yourself is so successful that you don´t have to work with an agency. Then agencies will have to offer better rates to attract the talent.
By the way, I am still in favor of the concept of the RC targets, it is just the height of levels and the dominance of V/A that bug me. The old system made it nearly impossible to reach diamond for a newbie and why should a file that brings in 100 dollars have the same value as a sale for 1 dollar?
If it was possible to carry over excess credits into the next year, there was a filter for V/A and the targets were announced on time in January with levels that were clearly reasonably reachable for a pro stock artist I don´t think the spirit in the community would be so negative.
And of course if Kelly was able to inspire the community when he communicates online instead of demoralizing them...well at least they are aware of that and "better communication" has become a focus of attention.
With V/A I feel that I used to work as a supplier for a coffe shop and was one of many, many producers of special types of coffee. Then the owners realized some of us offer high quality wine and added a special section in the store for that. We all applauded, because this will draw in new customers, who will hopefully also buy coffee for their daily needs and we agree that high production and rare wine, deserves a higher price than our coffee. But suddenly we enter the store and we see that most of the shelves have been stacked with expensive wine and the coffee has been pushed to the back of the store.
And although there may be customers who love wine so much that they keep coming back to it, most of us feel we are losing our target market, the daily coffee buyers who spent a quick dollar and then went back to work.
Hopefully istock soon offers a filter option for price or collections. Or that the shop owner decides to just stack the top row with wine and fills up the rest with coffee again because he realizes that having reliable volume sales is better than highly shifting daily results from the small community of wine lovers.
I also don´t see how istock can expand into upcoming new markets like eastern Europe, India, China, Russia if buyers do a search and find most images they see start at 30 dollars. They have Gettyimages for that.
just my take on the situation
-
And of course if Kelly was able to inspire the community when he communicates online instead of demoralizing them...well at least they are aware of that and "better communication" has become a focus of attention.
What sort of 'manager' would say in an interview that contritubors are our 'biggest liability' without also pointing out that contributors are their biggest and most essential asset, without whom the company would not even exist.
But to be honest, I'd still rather know what he really thinks rather than having the Thoughts of Chairman Kelly sanitised by some PR wallah.
-
Wasn´t it Paul Klein that said that and wasn´t it technically correct as a financial term during a shareholder meeting? In the sense of "artists are our greatest financial responsibility"? I think Paul Cowan had info on that.
The Kelly Thompson I met, albeit briefly, is a very decent person. Also the rest of the HQ team are highly dedicated to the community. They don´t run around in crocodile leather outfits and I didn´t see them lighting cigars with 100 dollar bills.
But crowd sourcing communication is obviously not Kellys forte and it is obvious that istock is under pressure to lower royalties to artists from Getty. They only pay 20% and they have photographers begging them to join, so why shouldn´t they think this is an acceptable standard??
We will see how it plays out, every player in this business has to do his or her calculations to see what fits best for them.
I will remain exclusive, but will probably devote more time to other income streams or finally get into video, because I don´t see how I can reach 150 000 credits with my "coffee production" studio. I could try to make high quality wine, but I have invested over 30 000 dollars in what I have here and want to make the most of my investment.
FWIW, my new files sell, have views and get lightboxed so V/A doesn´t seem to be too much of a problem in my niche. Sales in general are of course very, very slow, but I don´t know if this is due to my lack of uploads in the last 18 months or general slowness because the site is losing buyers/dilution/etc...
-
why should they bother ? after all they will never meet in person all these angry photographers, only the fanboys flock around them at photo fairs and other public events.
-
Wasn´t it Paul Klein that said that and wasn´t it technically correct as a financial term during a shareholder meeting? In the sense of "artists are our greatest financial responsibility"? I think Paul Cowan had info on that.
The Kelly Thompson I met, albeit briefly, is a very decent person. Also the rest of the HQ team are highly dedicated to the community. They don´t run around in crocodile leather outfits and I didn´t see them lighting cigars with 100 dollar bills.
But crowd sourcing communication is obviously not Kellys forte and it is obvious that istock is under pressure to lower royalties to artists from Getty. They only pay 20% and they have photographers begging them to join, so why shouldn´t they think this is an acceptable standard??
We will see how it plays out, every player in this business has to do his or her calculations to see what fits best for them.
I will remain exclusive, but will probably devote more time to other income streams or finally get into video, because I don´t see how I can reach 150 000 credits with my "coffee production" studio. I could try to make high quality wine, but I have invested over 30 000 dollars in what I have here and want to make the most of my investment.
FWIW, my new files sell, have views and get lightboxed so V/A doesn´t seem to be too much of a problem in my niche. Sales in general are of course very, very slow, but I don´t know if this is due to my lack of uploads in the last 18 months or general slowness because the site is losing buyers/dilution/etc...
I understood that 'liability' was a financial term, but so is 'asset'. And without his greatest 'liability' he'd have no 'assets' at all: the greatest programmers and marketers on the planet (!), and even the best masseuse are no use without content providers.
I'm guessing people queued up to get into Getty when the payments were so high that even 20% was a good income. Micro and dilution has eroded that, and I see that several (haven't a clue how many overall, but a fairly high number of those whose work I've admired) Getty togs have left Getty altogether, so work with smaller specialist agencies or to sell on their own sites. Of course, these are artists whose work is actively sought out by buyers.
Like you, my recent stuff is selling (unlike this time last year), but it's mostly not in areas where there are (m)any V/A files. If I were a horse photographer (for instance), I'd be dead in the water.
-
With V/A I feel that I used to work as a supplier for a coffe shop and was one of many, many producers of special types of coffee. Then the owners realized some of us offer high quality wine and added a special section in the store for that. We all applauded, because this will draw in new customers, who will hopefully also buy coffee for their daily needs and we agree that high production and rare wine, deserves a higher price than our coffee. But suddenly we enter the store and we see that most of the shelves have been stacked with expensive wine and the coffee has been pushed to the back of the store.
And although there may be customers who love wine so much that they keep coming back to it, most of us feel we are losing our target market, the daily coffee buyers who spent a quick dollar and then went back to work.
Interesting analogy :)
To continue with it, the problem is that iStock get around six times the commission per sale for Vetta 'wine', and around ten times or more for Agency 'wine'. Check it out if you don't believe me. For them, peddling the wine is way more attractive than peddling our 'coffee'.
And - inexplicably - they've turned a blind eye to external Agency contributors who have decided to water down their wine by massively upsizing their images. I've officially raised that several times with iStock and got absolutely nowhere.
I think their problem with providing a Vetta & Agency filter is that it could prompt a lot of contributors to move much of their Vetta work into E+, since the royalites are only slightly different. I'd certainly be one of them.
I doubt many people believe that they've been spending all this time 'testing' a filter, as is occasionally claimed. But there's no doubt that they've been testing the patience of a lot of customers.
-
what i really fail to understand is why all these buyers complain but don't move a finger to find other alternatives.
how come most of them never ever heard of shutterstock or fotolia or ... ?
i mean google "stock image" and they're all on the top 5 results.
jesus, if you spend a lot of money buying images it would be obvious and lggical to make a quick market
research before wasting time and money but no, they stick with istock no matter if istock is throwing s-hit in
their faces and then they go in istock forum complaining 10$ is too expensive.
-
what i really fail to understand is why all these buyers complain but don't move a finger to find other alternatives.
I'm not sure I get why you think they all stay at iStock
-
what i really fail to understand is why all these buyers complain but don't move a finger to find other alternatives.
I'm not sure I get why you think they all stay at iStock
Right. I think the evidence points to buyers leaving. Sales are dropping, views on images are down. Several brave (or maybe lost) buyers even posting their goodbye notes on the forum.
-
If it was possible to carry over excess credits into the next year, there was a filter for V/A and the targets were announced on time in January with levels that were clearly reasonably reachable for a pro stock artist I don´t think the spirit in the community would be so negative.
I completely agree with this. It isn't necessarily the concept of RC targets that is getting people so upset, it is the unreasonably high levels. Particularly for independents. The bar just to keep our pathetic 20% was set literally IMPOSSIBLY high. Even if one were to bring in as many RCs as Sean or Lise (which would be pretty much impossible without V/A and E+) we could only hope to earn 19%.
It's pretty clear that if Istock's real motives were sustainability, as they claimed, a fairer gradation of royalties and rc targets could have been designed. The fact that they have made these targets all but impossible to achieve is a good indicator that it is REALLY about lowering payouts to artists across the board. That is what has people so ticked off, I believe.
-
Right. I think the evidence points to buyers leaving. Sales are dropping, views on images are down. Several brave (or maybe lost) buyers even posting their goodbye notes on the forum.
I agree. There are definitely falling sales which seems to insinuate buyers have left. IS was only about 16% of my earnings last month. It has steadily fallen from a high of 30-40%. Before it was too hard to leave because of the money, but if it continues to fall what will be the reason to stay? With the possibility of a severe summer slump, I could see their house of cards collapsing in the next few months.
-
Right. I think the evidence points to buyers leaving. Sales are dropping, views on images are down. Several brave (or maybe lost) buyers even posting their goodbye notes on the forum.
I agree. There are definitely falling sales which seems to insinuate buyers have left. IS was only about 16% of my earnings last month. It has steadily fallen from a high of 30-40%. Before it was too hard to leave because of the money, but if it continues to fall what will be the reason to stay? With the possibility of a severe summer slump, I could see their house of cards collapsing in the next few months.
all the indicators are pointing in that direction as many are saying they're having increased sales at SS etc
so it can't be just oversupply to blame.
-
Since I guess Lobo didn't find it funny, I'll just leave this here....
(http://www.houseofshane.com/posters/istock-cart3.jpg)
-
^Priceless!
-
Right. I think the evidence points to buyers leaving. Sales are dropping, views on images are down. Several brave (or maybe lost) buyers even posting their goodbye notes on the forum.
I agree. There are definitely falling sales which seems to insinuate buyers have left. IS was only about 16% of my earnings last month. It has steadily fallen from a high of 30-40%. Before it was too hard to leave because of the money, but if it continues to fall what will be the reason to stay? With the possibility of a severe summer slump, I could see their house of cards collapsing in the next few months.
I agree buyers are leaving, but im not so sure istock is getting less profit and that their card house is dwindling down...
They probably have foreseen buyers on a somewhat tight budget would leave, but i can imagine the succes of Agency (DEFINITELY the wholly owned collections which are pure profit if i'm not mistaken) and Vetta on which they take a larger cut, make more than up for the smaller buyers leaving. For each A/V buyer they probably can afford to lose many smaller buyers and still make more in the end.
It's us that are fighting unfair competition with outside photographers/collections without upload margins, lower to no inspection standards etc., having to fight over a smaller part of the pie while istock profits keep growing with different very high priced collections on which they even pay less (to none?) royalties.
I'm not sure the future looks bleak for istock... for us on the other hand :-\
-
Well I liked it too. Thanks for resurrecting it here.
Did you get a note as to why this wasn't acceptable for the forums or did your post just get "disappeared"?
-
^^^^ Superb - at first I misinterpreted it and assumed that us artists were the hassled boy, and iStock was the boss.
But then I realised that we're the goose, the boy is Kelly. Presumably the 'Squeeze Harder...' boss is Jonathan Klein / Mark "Intellectual Property is the oil of the 21st century" Getty, or H&F
-
I agree buyers are leaving, but im not so sure istock is getting less profit and that their card house is dwindling down...
They probably have foreseen buyers on a somewhat tight budget would leave, but i can imagine the succes of Agency (DEFINITELY the wholly owned collections which are pure profit if i'm not mistaken) and Vetta on which they take a larger cut, make more than up for the smaller buyers leaving. For each A/V buyer they probably can afford to lose many smaller buyers and still make more in the end.
It's us that are fighting unfair competition with outside photographers/collections without upload margins, lower to no inspection standards etc., having to fight over a smaller part of the pie while istock profits keep growing with different very high priced collections on which they even pay less (to none?) royalties.
I'm not sure the future looks bleak for istock... for us on the other hand :-\
I was just really surprised after last months numbers. IS was barely outperforming DT, and it was a pretty average month at DT. DT runs neck and neck with 3 or 4 agencies, so if they slip past DT, they could fall pretty far pretty fast.
My main point though, was that their relevance of being a top agency seems to be slipping which makes it easier to pull your portfolio and rely on other agencies. It's just a theory based on the last 6 months downward trend. I'm just one contributor, but it looks like others are reporting the same trends of sales being half or a third of what they were.
-
With IS, everything is just leading up to one thing only. When our RM shots according to the new contract by Getty finally start arriving at TS, there will later be an incorporation of IS, into TS.
Its got to be this way. Pretty pointless and down out stupid to run two gigantic micro-outfits with pretty much the same exclusives, alongside each other, spending a fortune on advertising for TS and not a penny on IS.
The competition will be murderous, especially with all the RM stuff turned into micro and many IS exclusives will be totally outmanouvered. Not a nice situation at all.
-
Well I liked it too. Thanks for resurrecting it here.
Did you get a note as to why this wasn't acceptable for the forums or did your post just get "disappeared"?
Lobo wan't brought up on the premise of "Tell the Truth, Shame the Devil"
-
With IS, everything is just leading up to one thing only. When our RM shots according to the new contract by Getty finally start arriving at TS, there will later be an incorporation of IS, into TS.
Its got to be this way. Pretty pointless and down out stupid to run two gigantic micro-outfits with pretty much the same exclusives, alongside each other, spending a fortune on advertising for TS and not a penny on IS.
The competition will be murderous, especially with all the RM stuff turned into micro and many IS exclusives will be totally outmanouvered. Not a nice situation at all.
It doesn't make sense. Having two brands in a saturated market is far better than having one. Specially if one of them has been the reference brand for years, and has been able to raise prices and go on selling. TS is there to compete with SS and other subs sites: the concept is totally different; simplicity (like SS), low maintenance cost and low prices that produce low benefits with each sale. Beggining with simplicity, all the rest is different at Istock.
-
With IS, everything is just leading up to one thing only. When our RM shots according to the new contract by Getty finally start arriving at TS, there will later be an incorporation of IS, into TS.
Its got to be this way. Pretty pointless and down out stupid to run two gigantic micro-outfits with pretty much the same exclusives, alongside each other, spending a fortune on advertising for TS and not a penny on IS.
The competition will be murderous, especially with all the RM stuff turned into micro and many IS exclusives will be totally outmanouvered. Not a nice situation at all.
RM shots will be sold for pennies? :o
-
With IS, everything is just leading up to one thing only. When our RM shots according to the new contract by Getty finally start arriving at TS, there will later be an incorporation of IS, into TS.
Its got to be this way. Pretty pointless and down out stupid to run two gigantic micro-outfits with pretty much the same exclusives, alongside each other, spending a fortune on advertising for TS and not a penny on IS.
The competition will be murderous, especially with all the RM stuff turned into micro and many IS exclusives will be totally outmanouvered. Not a nice situation at all.
Why so negative? Getty makes one idiotic decision after another, they've turned iStock into a sinking ship - and you're assuming they've already won? I see a deluded dinosaur trying to use outmoded 20th century tactics in a 21st century world. Sure the dinosaurs were big & scary, but they're also extinct. It's not so hard to imagine a similar fate for Getty. I still have hope.
-
Why so negative? Getty makes one idiotic decision after another, they've turned iStock into a sinking ship - and you're assuming they've already won? I see a deluded dinosaur trying to use outmoded 20th century tactics in a 21st century world. Sure the dinosaurs were big & scary, but they're also extinct. It's not so hard to imagine a similar fate for Getty. I still have hope.
The trouble is no one else is doing a good enough job of taking their place. The door is wide open for some new blood at the top of the list, but I don't see anyone jumping in to take the crown, even just on the microstock level. StockFresh looks good, but not great. There are some things I'd like to see them do better, and growth is very slow there. Shutterstock is the current microstock frontrunner, but they're not likely to do much to become a real innovator in the industry. And they're already dealing with their own growth issues, trying to raise their standards after being overly lenient with acceptances for years.
Getty may be a dinosaur, but no real progress is coming from anywhere else. And Getty is so dominant in the image business that it's hard to imagine them going away. istock might fade out, if things keep declining at this rate. But if that happen Getty will just cut them loose eventually. Sell them to another investor or something.
-
With IS, everything is just leading up to one thing only. When our RM shots according to the new contract by Getty finally start arriving at TS, there will later be an incorporation of IS, into TS.
Its got to be this way. Pretty pointless and down out stupid to run two gigantic micro-outfits with pretty much the same exclusives, alongside each other, spending a fortune on advertising for TS and not a penny on IS.
The competition will be murderous, especially with all the RM stuff turned into micro and many IS exclusives will be totally outmanouvered. Not a nice situation at all.
It doesn't make sense. Having two brands in a saturated market is far better than having one. Specially if one of them has been the reference brand for years, and has been able to raise prices and go on selling. TS is there to compete with Shutterstock and other subs sites: the concept is totally different; simplicity (like Shutterstock), low maintenance cost and low prices that produce low benefits with each sale. Beggining with simplicity, all the rest is different at Istock.
No, IS, will cease to exist, its been a thorn in the side of Getty, since the very start. Competition is healthy, yes, but in this scenario, How does Getty eventually sell a business with two compeeting micros, same shots, same people, same exclusives??
The RM side needs looking after, its far, far more valuable then micros for pennies. As far as they are concerned.
The above scenario is what Getty have done ever since 93. Nothing new.
most unfortuantely.
-
*snip*
My main point though, was that their relevance of being a top agency seems to be slipping which makes it easier to pull your portfolio and rely on other agencies. It's just a theory based on the last 6 months downward trend. I'm just one contributor, but it looks like others are reporting the same trends of sales being half or a third of what they were.
Absolutely agree. (only one year ago iS represented 60% of my overall stock income, it slipped away to barely 25% now) When the day comes its participating in TS or nothing i wont doubt for a second, its not ideal, but i can now 'sustain' myself without istock ;)
i was just pointing out i dont think iStock as company is a sinking ship in terms of profit it generates, even with buyers leaving.
-
I can't believe people on that thread are asking that iStock share the information on how the levels are set. I'm quite sure they actually wouldn't want to know. Then there would be a real row. And if you look at the level, *clearly* what they would like is to keep most people between 17-18% for independent or 30-35% for exclusive. Why else would there be such a huge leap to the next levels? And obviously, iStock does not care about incremental levels. I don't know why people are even suggesting that.
-
With IS, everything is just leading up to one thing only. When our RM shots according to the new contract by Getty finally start arriving at TS, there will later be an incorporation of IS, into TS.
Its got to be this way. Pretty pointless and down out stupid to run two gigantic micro-outfits with pretty much the same exclusives, alongside each other, spending a fortune on advertising for TS and not a penny on IS.
The competition will be murderous, especially with all the RM stuff turned into micro and many IS exclusives will be totally outmanouvered. Not a nice situation at all.
It doesn't make sense. Having two brands in a saturated market is far better than having one. Specially if one of them has been the reference brand for years, and has been able to raise prices and go on selling. TS is there to compete with Shutterstock and other subs sites: the concept is totally different; simplicity (like Shutterstock), low maintenance cost and low prices that produce low benefits with each sale. Beggining with simplicity, all the rest is different at Istock.
No, IS, will cease to exist, its been a thorn in the side of Getty, since the very start. Competition is healthy, yes, but in this scenario, How does Getty eventually sell a business with two compeeting micros, same shots, same people, same exclusives??
The RM side needs looking after, its far, far more valuable then micros for pennies. As far as they are concerned.
The above scenario is what Getty have done ever since 93. Nothing new.
most unfortuantely.
Content between TS and IS barely overlaps at about 10%. And Getty owns another microsite,, photos.com. And finally, good or bad, RM is every day more marginal, dying an slow death.
-
I can't believe people on that thread are asking that iStock share the information on how the levels are set. I'm quite sure they actually wouldn't want to know. Then there would be a real row. And if you look at the level, *clearly* what they would like is to keep most people between 17-18% for independent or 30-35% for exclusive. Why else would there be such a huge leap to the next levels? And obviously, iStock does not care about incremental levels. I don't know why people are even suggesting that.
more like 25%-30% .
The 40K RC's target is a quite difficult one to reach.
BTW: Am I the only one having a crappy month so far ?
-
BTW: Am I the only one having a crappy month so far ?
You're not alone I'm having pathetic sales, especially on IS
-
I can't believe people on that thread are asking that iStock share the information on how the levels are set...
I tried to respond to those comments over there but eventually gave up and deleted what I wrote because I couldn't say it nicely. :)
I don't know what they're thinking, or why they feel that istock should explain anything to them about how the levels are determined. Some people still don't get it, that istock is in it to make as much money as possible, period. Maybe I've got a different contributor agreement than everyone else, but I'm pretty sure that nowhere in my agreement does it say that istock will explain everything they do, so that I can feel better about how they're trying to squeeze every last penny out of my work. It's like some people just want to hear istock tell them that they still love them and care about them, and that would make everything better. It's ridiculous.
-
Wow interesting. I just had my post deleted what I said was "Remember they can always go up." in response to Juanmonio saying that the targets aren't as bad as he was expecting. Lobo had said just that so I'm not sure why the post was deleted?
Here is what lobo said: "The likeliness that RC targets will be raised is infinitesimal."
To me that sounds like they can go up. Guess I'll have to stick to posting here before I get banned again for comments like this.
-
Wow interesting. I just had my post deleted what I said was "Remember they can always go up." in response to Juanmonio saying that the targets aren't as bad as he was expecting. Lobo had said just that so I'm not sure why the post was deleted?
Here is what lobo said: "The likeliness that RC targets will be raised is infinitesimal."
To me that sounds like they can go up. Guess I'll have to stick to posting here before I get banned again for comments like this.
thats just insane.. because of that? that´s not acceptable, are we back to the "1800", I know they are a private company and all that jazz but that´s too much..
-
Remember what Kelly said:
"Expansion has been tough for the company, though, because of a contributor payment system that the company judged financially unsustainable. A switch last year to a performance-based compensation scheme was painful, but the company thinks it's through the difficulties now.
"It didn't really affect most people," Thompson said. "Everyone sort of settled down."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20059972-264.html#ixzz1LUkpWgur (http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20059972-264.html#ixzz1LUkpWgur)
I guess Lobo's got to make sure 'everyone sort of settles down' again.
-
I believe it is better to not think of IS.. it is depressing looking at this interview, they are just like politicians
-
hahaha excellent cartoon.
-
i'm convinced these RC targets are just BS and their real goal is a flat 15% fee for everybody in the near future, and if you complain they will tell you the usual mantra "better 15% of something than 30% of nothing" and bla bla bla.
-
Wow interesting. I just had my post deleted what I said was "Remember they can always go up." in response to Juanmonio saying that the targets aren't as bad as he was expecting. Lobo had said just that so I'm not sure why the post was deleted?
Here is what lobo said: "The likeliness that RC targets will be raised is infinitesimal."
To me that sounds like they can go up. Guess I'll have to stick to posting here before I get banned again for comments like this.
Hmmmm. Wonder if Lobo knows that the chance that sales on the site will improve are infinitessimal. :-X
-
i've been in so many forums in the last 10 yrs but this guy Lobo wins the award of the most idiot dumb moderator i ever dealt with.
oh and yesterday i posted a mex in the alamy forum, checked 1 hour later and it's disappeared ? what is wrong with these guys ?
-
oh and yesterday i posted a mex in the alamy forum, checked 1 hour later and it's disappeared ? what is wrong with these guys ?
sorry but I cannot stop SMILING, not laughing! you are truly the black sheep :P
-
Lobo ?? his actions and reactions, is that of someone who wants to keep his job, if he allowed all negative postings on the IS forum, boy! there would be no end to it.
yes I agree with Luis, the best thing is to forget this IS business, its been dominating every micro forum to the point where it becomes ridiclulous and frankly its not worth it, its all negatives anyway. When you go into the IS forum and you see how they manipulate these poor neewbies, etc, its just sad.
I know this much and from experience. Just wait and see when the entire RM brigade comes into micro!!! believe me, there will be many a big-mouthed IS-exclusive who wont be so cocky and happy go lucky.
Then they will come over here, seeking refuge and understanding.
-
Lobo ?? his actions and reactions, is that of someone who wants to keep his job, if he allowed all negative postings on the IS forum, boy! there would be no end to it.
yes I agree with Luis, the best thing is to forget this IS business, its been dominating every micro forum to the point where it becomes ridiclulous and frankly its not worth it, its all negatives anyway. When you go into the IS forum and you see how they manipulate these poor neewbies, etc, its just sad.
I know this much and from experience. Just wait and see when the entire RM brigade comes into micro!!! believe me, there will be many a big-mouthed IS-exclusive who wont be so cocky and happy go lucky.
Then they will come over here, seeking refuge and understanding.
the RM brigade is already switching to micro, or doing it 50/50 like me, but not for the reasons you may think.
the reality of RM is that prices are falling and if 2 yrs ago it was ok to get 100 or 200$ for an editorial photo
nowadays it's not unusual to get 50$ and as low as 5$, and yes this even with Getty RM, Alamy, and Corbis.
yes, 5$ for a web-sized RM image, we've come to this.
-
Well, Ive been in the main-core of the Getty-RM, since 93, both private and studio-name, your pricing is a bit off, the avarage RM shot, sell for around 200 bucks in fact. Not the point though.
My point is, there are plenty of freaking BIG names within Image-Bank and Stones, names that in fact can out-shoot the lot at IS and then the competition will be neck-breaking.
Yes, some RM shooters are already there but the whole heap of the ones Im reffering to, have not yet made their images available for micro, not yet.
-
My point is, there are plenty of freaking BIG names within Image-Bank and Stones, names that in fact can out-shoot the lot at IS and then the competition will be neck-breaking.
Yes, some RM shooters are already there but the whole heap of the ones Im reffering to, have not yet made their images available for micro, not yet.
But why in the world would they want to jump on a sinking ship, that according to most people here (reporting dropping sales lately), MS is? So does this mean RM is in even more trouble, so much, that high end photogs are willing to sell photos for 1% of their current price?
-
Well, Ive been in the main-core of the Getty-RM, since 93, both private and studio-name, your pricing is a bit off, the avarage RM shot, sell for around 200 bucks in fact. Not the point though.
My point is, there are plenty of freaking BIG names within Image-Bank and Stones, names that in fact can out-shoot the lot at IS and then the competition will be neck-breaking.
Yes, some RM shooters are already there but the whole heap of the ones Im reffering to, have not yet made their images available for micro, not yet.
Stock is not about names. It's about photos.
-
Getty RM is still somewhat ok but what about the rest ?
read this from the Alamy forum for instance ...
http://www.alamy.com/forums/default.aspx?g=posts&t=10592 (http://www.alamy.com/forums/default.aspx?g=posts&t=10592)
there's one guy in that discussion, i won't mention his name, he's got 10.000+ images and earned less than 1000$
last month and it's gross earning, so the net might be around 5-600$.
ok that's an extreme but the average 1 sale every 1000 images is going down to 1 sale every 1500 or 2000 ...
one of their biggest stockers with 70.000+ photos on sale makes around 6-7000$ per month gross.
in comparison a friend of mine has a portfolio of 5000 images on IS, he's exclusive and makes 2-3000 euro/month
NET, that's almost 4000$.
now make your math, ok alamy is not representative but i can tell it's much better than AGE, LPI, and other specialist agencies.
what if getty sink suddenly in a couple years ?
if it was for me microstock should die tomorrow but now it's too late, as much as i hate the idea of selling for volume and as alow as 1$ per photo thsi is where the industry is heading fast, RM or RF no matter.
-
....ok that's an extreme but the average 1 sale every 1000 images is going down to 1 sale every 1500 or 2000 ...
I thought that thread was quite positive, considering that I don't think most people with good sales bother reporting it in a forum. Didn't you see this? Doesn't seem to tally with what you're saying but I should be used to your pessimism by now.
Based on earlier postings we see "strike" ratios for May of
2 sales from 657 images - 1 in 328
2 sales from 3800 images - 1 in 1900
3 sales from 1050 images - 1 in 350
4 sales from 4000 images - 1 in 1000
5 sales from 3200 images - 1 in 640
15 sales from 7000 images - 1 in 466
I've never had 1,000 images on alamy but I'm getting a few sales a month now.
I think comparing it to microstock is a bit pointless, as I could put 10,000 images on alamy that would all be rejected by the micros.
-
but how much are those sales ? last one i had was for a distributor in russia, a whopping RM licence of 35$ that means a net profit of barely 10 euro for me.
of course there's the odd 500$ sale but it's no more the norm at alamy at least.
-
Anyone just get a reminder email about the targets that links to a page you can't access?
-
I can access it now:
http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=1090 (http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=1090)
-
Anyone just get a reminder email about the targets that links to a page you can't access?
whoa.. and a lot more contributors posting on the forum thread that are pissed off. not sure if those posts will get to stay or go, but they are all upset. one ends their post with "shame on istock" .. I couldn't agree more.
-
Anyone just get a reminder email about the targets that links to a page you can't access?
whoa.. and a lot more contributors posting on the forum thread that are pissed off. not sure if those posts will get to stay or go, but they are all upset. one ends their post with "shame on istock" .. I couldn't agree more.
weird! haven´t contributors settle down like Kelly said last month?
-
Hi all,
It seems I struck a nerve at some point with my post in the main RC thread.
I have no agenda but that of fairness and as many of you know I was part of the Vetta Video opt out process.
I have lost around 33% of my income due to the RC system and while I have worked many many extra hours off and on stock to pay the bills it looks like I might never attain the higher level that I enjoyed by being close to triple diamond.
I have good friendships with many inside and out of iStock and while I respect their positions I have always said what i really believed inside.
I believe iStock as a company had slower growth than projected hence why the RC system was concocted. It is a way of strengthening the core of the company while avoiding raising prices heavily to an already high system of offerings.
Now what did I mean by the contributors are at fault?
Well I believe we are responsible indirectly for the current state of affairs. If we don't fight for our rights it is of no consequence that they will be stripped away one at a time.
This is no master evil plan at work its business at its best. A business will try to extend its profit arm as far and wide as the market and suppliers will let it go. We in our small but vocal pulpits did not generate enough force to redirect the flow of the grab to make it a fair and stable system.
I am actually in awe of how far it has swung towards the company and its owners. It makes it for a more stable and strong company to weather opposition, competition and economic storms. It is their job after all to make the company stronger at any cost but it is our job to defend what take we finally get and we have failed dearly at it in what respects to RC.
RC levels is just one implementation of the system and it could be tweaked further to balance it out over time. I want a strong iStock, I want happy management but I also want a contributor base that is proud and doesn't distrust or vilify the company at every turn.
Corporations are not evil, they don't have feelings or empathy, they just see balance sheets that they can better tweak as time moves on. The staff is there and they do have feelings, empathy, love for the craft and good real feelings for contributors, buyers and friends.
I strongly believe that as far as iStock goes; the company people are good and strong minded people which get the bad reputation of being the button pushers and tweakers of our destiny in stock. They are doing their job with the tools they were handed but that doesn't include the key to the contributor happiness toolbox.
That key can be brought to them by a well organized, respectful and unified voice that starts a dialogue process into getting a fairer system implemented. It is of prime importance not to create animosity or damage the company but to make our points firm and in a true majority standing behind them. Its our work and our livelihoods at stake and we can only fight it like good ladies and gents.
The scattered voices that populate the forums wont create that homogenous and clear message but will surely help in creating a voice when the time calls for it in a group creating a whole.
In the end we would desire to get a strong company attached to strong contributor values of compensation and clarity. Their strength is an asset to us the same as our continued support and artwork is the main resource that runs their engines. Only dialogue can get there and only a clear voice will have a chance to be heard and listened too.
No side should feel punished or damaged in the end, we are a single shining entity with different systems but with third rate communications system. Our mutual benefit will make the whole stronger.
Sincerely,
James Benet
-
Snip
I believe iStock as a company had slower growth than projected hence why the RC system was concocted. It is a way of strengthening the core of the company while avoiding raising prices heavily to an already high system of offerings.
Snip
I am actually in awe of how far it has swung towards the company and its owners. It makes it for a more stable and strong company to weather opposition, competition and economic storms. It is their job after all to make the company stronger at any cost but it is our job to defend what take we finally get and we have failed dearly at it in what respects to RC.
Welcome and thanks for posting!
I do disagree with your conclusion however on the motivation for the RC system. Don't know if you've seen this, but H&F basically sold/mortgaged Getty last fall. They could not find a buyer or pull off an IPO so "Hellman & Friedman is paying itself $500 million after borrowing $1.3 billion for portfolio company Getty Images."
http://blogs.reuters.com/columns/2010/11/03/short-memories-finance-private-equity-payouts-2 (http://blogs.reuters.com/columns/2010/11/03/short-memories-finance-private-equity-payouts-2)
If Getty fails to pay it off, the creditors get the company while H&F get to keep their $500 million. To prevent a default Getty needs to generate lots of cash and I believe the RC system was imposed to boost that cash flow. The RC system will not make Istock stronger/better, in fact I would say that the debt load has made it less likely that Getty and Istock can weather opposition, competition and economic storms.
-
...That key can be brought to them by a well organized, respectful and unified voice that starts a dialogue process into getting a fairer system implemented. It is of prime importance not to create animosity or damage the company but to make our points firm and in a true majority standing behind them. Its our work and our livelihoods at stake and we can only fight it like good ladies and gents...
Hi James, thanks for posting this long and well-thought-out reply.
I wish I could share your optimism, but unfortunately I think we are past the point of being able to affect any positive change at istock. To get a more fair system implemented, we'd basically be asking Getty and the investors to start hating money. I'm sure it stung a bit when the folks at HQ had to push the RC system into place and cut the pay of the majority of istock artists. No one would want to do that. But now that it's done, reversing it or changing it to tip the scales back in our favor even in the smallest amount would be a very tough thing for HQ to sell to the bosses at Getty. Maybe I'm just a bit too pessimistic, but in my opinion the RC system is here to stay, and there's nothing that anyone can do about it. And my opinion seems even more plausible after the recent RC target announcement and the increase in targets for photographers. They'll never go back, and if anything the future holds more pay cuts due to increasingly difficult to reach RC goals.
...No side should feel punished or damaged in the end, we are a single shining entity with different systems but with third rate communications system. Our mutual benefit will make the whole stronger...
I don't believe that a stronger istock is good for anyone at this point. In fact, I'd suggest that a stronger independent spirit in microstock is more mutually beneficial to the majority. istock is not the best company in the business any more, and they certainly do not represent the best interests of buyers or artists these days. Prices are extending too high, royalties too low, and in general the company operating with far too much self-interest in mind. There are companies that are better earners for contributors, pay fair royalty rates, and offer a better buying experience to customers. I think that rather than wasting time trying to open a dialogue with istock, we're better off throwing our support behind companies that get it.
Of course I know that's not what exclusives want to hear, and if any exclusive artists intend to remain exclusively with istock then they have little choice other than to try and improve their situation there and hope that they can get a conversation going. But I'm not exclusive, I don't rely on istock for my income, and frankly I don't care about istock becoming a stronger company or creating a dialogue with a company that doesn't care about me and has no interest in talking to me. My istock earnings will probably drop into the single-digit percentages in the coming months in terms of how much of my total microstock income they represent. And while I hate to see my income drop at any of the companies I work with, I can't invest any more time or energy into being concerned about istock and where things are headed there.
I think that my personal benefit as well as the mutual benefit of the microstock industry is rooted in the growth of companies other than istock. I'm not interested in fighting for anything at istock. I'll share my thoughts in the forums on changes they make and the direction the company is headed in, since i still do have a small stake in the success or failure of the company. But I don't see any reason to join in with any community voice and try to affect any positive change at istock.
-
Istock wont get stronger by crushing its suppliers. Just look how well their main rival, SS, is doing now. It might of worked if istock was the only place to sell images but it isn't. There's also the fact that a lot of suppliers don't rely on their income from istock. All the changes they have made are going to lose them their dominant position in the market and there's really no way to stop the slide when the momentum starts.
I wish we had made a stand and not put up with the commission cuts but it looks like istock is on the slide anyway and they are continuing to make bad decisions that are just going to send more people to the other sites.
-
I have to agree with Helix. There really isn't much to say or do at this point and there never was a negotiating table. I've done the only thing I could by voicing my displeasure and limiting my images there. The last step would be to leave. There's still many things that I like about iStock, but I don't see much chance of a resolution. For the most part, I've moved on. I have to do what is best for me.
-
@James Benet. It's clear that you strongly believe what you write, and I don't see any animosity in it. However I think you're wrong in both the analysis of why the changes at iStock have been made and also what, if anything, could change them.
You can read more about dividend recapitalization in the links in this post (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/photos-from-gettyimages-direct-to-thinkstock-ouch/msg194494/#msg194494).
Beyond H&F's need for cash, you can look at Getty's recent track record with Pump Audio - cutting royalties from 50% to 35% with a letter saying that they needed the money for marketing - as well as the contract changes earlier this year telling contributors they could leave if they didn't like it. Folks who've been around longer than I have tell tales of similar actions with all the other Getty acquisitions along the way.
The people in Calgary can't really do anything about Getty directives except follow them or quit. Has nothing to do with whether they're nice guys or not. The fact that there is a trail of broken promises - including inducing people to become exclusive with a promise of grandfathered cannisters which they then abandoned last September - doesn't help anyone's credibility, whoever was behind things.
And as far as single minded predatory behavior being an inherent part of modern business, it's a big topic, but suffice it to say that I don't agree that it (a) inevitable or (b) long term sustainable, but I will grant you that it's very common at the moment and can look like success in the short term.
I've made my choice to resume being independent and let iStock sink or swim - obviously I hope it stays afloat long enough for me to re-establish myself elsewhere. If it swims, then that's great as it's another source of sales.
I really believe that iStock could have grown and thrived in a different fashion from the way Getty/H&F have chosen - I wouldn't have become exclusive otherwise. My take on all the recent changes is that they're not about long term anything - growth or sustainability. It's all about cash now, and if the business isn't growing fast enough then you take it from contributors.
-
So true its almost unbelieavable.
-
it's the obvious conclusion of digital photography, internet uploads, adsl, and oversupply combined, we all knew we would have reached the rock bottom before or later.
-
@jamesbenet - I'd agree to some extent with what you're saying. It's a business.
This is about leverage. Any smart business that has leverage to maximize revenue and profits will do so. Contributors today have very little leverage over agencies. Oversupply, lack of options, etc. Currently Istock can push contributor changes it whatever direction it wants.
Companies that don't have leverage provide incentives. Like Thinkstock where they increased commissions due to widespread contributor pushback and lack of interest in submitting images.
So until the balance shifts, the leverage will continue to be in the hands of the agencies.
Our main options are to navigate the changes, complain, or quit.
-
it's the obvious conclusion of digital photography, internet uploads, adsl, and oversupply combined, we all knew we would have reached the rock bottom before or later.
I don't think that's what's going on, someone is making a ton of money off our images. There is enough demand to support better pay, maybe your conclusion will come true in the next ten years but we aren't there yet.
-
Thanks for posting James. I misinterpreted your initial post as being yet another of the "blame the victim" ones we see on Istock. Knowing you as a thoughtful and intelligent person, I should have realized my mistake.
Thanks for coming in and clarifying, and apologies from me for having missed the point initially.
As I told you via e-mail, I am 100% onboard with any workable idea for contributors addressing this situation, although I agree with Mike that it may be futile.
The type of association I have always wanted to see in microstock would be one that was not specific to one agency. Something like the Stock Artists Alliance tried to be for macro stock. I still do not think it is a coincidence that Getty rm artists being forced to sell microstock at TS came within a week or so of SAA closing its doors.
-
I love the depth of the responses and have learned a lot more from them.
I still believe change is possible, it may come in small steps but clearly if nothing is done things will continue to deteriorate without any real solutions for the future.
There will probably be consolidation of many stock sites as time goes on, the plethora of sites, most offering close to the same thing can only create synergy in the end or disappear in ashes as oversupply cant feed the demand.
SAA, "Thanks Lisa" is a sad case of too little and obtuse thinking which alienated a huge chunk of an evolving industry. They had good values but applied them to a very limited scope of artists.
If a new "Alliance" is formed it should be one that unites all micro and macro stock with no boundaries of amateur and professionalism. It should also be based on crowd-sourcing and the power of the artists.
I would love to hear your ideas and what can be done to create something that creates a voice while at the same time try to preserve the strength and solidity of the companies themselves and our relationship with them. It should be a symbiotic mutually beneficial relationship and not a war of constant fear, empty promises and weak retaliation. Unity will help us move forward.
-
Hi James! are you the same JB, that like myself came from Stones into Getty, in 93?
Anyway, what you are saying is probably right now everyones wish, exclusive or independant, working together in some sort of harmony instead of this constant battle and uphill struggle in limbo and uncertainty.
I would be more then glad to join in some sort of friendly "voice", trying to make a better industry, this "shot-gun" tactics are totally derrogative and doesnt lead anywhere.
Getty is a mighty foe! would be a lot healthier to have them with us, working alongside with them. All of us, agency and contributor would benefit far more and all it would take is a simple mutual understanding.
-
We have been talking about some sort of "Alliance" for years now. The problem is, nothing ever happens. I can understand that we are all too busy to set this up but we really do need someone to do it or all this talk is a waste of time.
-
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.
-
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.
You can deactivate files
-
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.
You can deactivate files
I'm only deactivating files the day I quit IS. So, that's not any sort of reasonable short term protest thing.
-
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.
You can deactivate files
I'm only deactivating files the day I quit IS. So, that's not any sort of reasonable short term protest thing.
Why not ? That is the only weapon one has. If you your self do it, it wont have much of an effect (well in your case maybe a little) if hundreds do, it will.
-
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
-
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 ;)
-
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... :)
-
you are going a little OT eheh
so do you believe if the top 25 stop uploading they would increase our royalties? do you really think IS need more pictures? I don´t believe an agency need more pictures but they keep on approving and we keep on doing them, some pretty like they are already online, some quite different but overall I don´t believe it is changing the "collection" that agencies have already, it is actually just taking money from other contributors and perhaps we are collecting a little more entering slowwwwwly their "pictures".. stock is a weird business that seems that will need be "full", it is like a woman that is never satisfied but in the end keep on screwing us
-
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.
-
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.
yes that might be the solution.. on top agencies which aren´t fair? IS, Fotolia? Dreamstime maybe not because of their levels system (but I do have tons of subs..)
top contributors are the most important guys in this industry.. if they don´t do anything there is no need of "us" to do or it will only help their income..
Fotolia wasn´t as greedy as IS.. at least from emerald and up royalties weren´t cut.. how many are there?
Fotolia went from 30% to 20% in two years, can´t wait for 2012
-
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.
-
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 (?!?!?!?!?)
-
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.
-
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.
once again that talk, nobody was interested and it was needed like 1 Million, not gotta happen
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ;) .
-
No, you actually have to contact support to have it reactivated, and I doubt they'd like a thousand requests.
-
What I mean is a better and more active contributor then you (for example) should make more %% then you and obviously more $$ as well.
Only MHO.
Why should a better or more active contributor make a bigger percentage. They will make more money by virtue of making more sales. If everyone got the same percentage then the more successful contributors would make more money in real terms anyway.
I'm not sure why all these complex pay structures are necessary at all.
Just pay everyone a fixed percentage (more for exclusives obviously) and the cream will rise to the top.
-
What I mean is a better and more active contributor then you (for example) should make more %% then you and obviously more $$ 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.
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)
-
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.
-
If all the top contributors started their own site and removed their images from the current sites, they would just have to inform the buyers where they have moved to. I think they could do that without having to spend anything. Just imagine the publicity it would create. Every design magazine would be talking about it and all the social networks, forums and blogs.
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.
-
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.
-
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. ;D
-
...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.
-
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.
I have to challenge this assertion. Shutterstock's annual pay raises always followed annual price increases for their subscriptions. They'd perform a pricing analysis, decide if the market would bear higher prices without cutting revenues, implement the pricing change, wait to see if their analysis of price vs. cost (royalties to suppliers) played out as they expected, and then they'd announce a royalty increase. The last raise included multiple royalty tiers, so many of us got additional raises as we reached specific sales thresholds.
So what changed? The economy tanked, and maybe Shutterstock decided it wasn't a good time to raise prices on its customers. No price increase means no royalty increase. Or does anyone have data to show that Shutterstock has been raising its prices in the interim without compensating its suppliers?
In a depressed economy, I'd be surprised to see a vendor increase prices unless their costs took off. That iStock has done so suggests that their approach to their business isn't about stability or sustainability.
-
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$, terrorizing them to upload more (psychological pressure, not really rewarding as they'd like to show it to be)
Absolutely! This RC business was never about motivating or rewarding better, harder working contributors. It has always been a cash grab for the company. That's all it is. Can't believe there's anyone who still doubts that.
-
So that some can feel better about themselves, above others (that's why aeonf is defending it all the time), but what's it really all about is of course for the agency to get a bigger cut and try to have their contributors by the ball$, 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.
exactly.
-
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. :D
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. ::)
-
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.
-
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." :D
-
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.
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. ::)
That seems a bit harsh. Who, exactly, are the two of you addressing your sweeping, all-inclusive insults to?
Quite a large number of members of this forum seem to have started their own sites, joined a coop, or both. Not to mention, suspending uploading, pulling portfolios, going non-exclusive, redirecting buyers, and raising he11 on the various sites until they were banned. Most of us here have probably done one or several of the above.
I can appreciate the frustration with the people who did absolutely nothing, or worse yet, continue to woo yay every destructive change. But how many of those people are among the participants in these forums, or this conversation?
I am sure the sites that are screwing us are just delighted to see how we have very obligingly turned on each other, rather than directing our anger where it justifiably belongs. Divide and conquer.
-
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. ;)
-
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.
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. ::)
That seems a bit harsh. Who, exactly, are the two of you addressing your sweeping, all-inclusive insults to?
Quite a large number of members of this forum seem to have started their own sites, joined a coop, or both. Not to mention, suspending uploading, pulling portfolios, going non-exclusive, redirecting buyers, and raising he11 on the various sites until they were banned. Most of us here have probably done one or several of the above.
I can appreciate the frustration with the people who did absolutely nothing, or worse yet, continue to woo yay every destructive change. But how many of those people are among the participants in these forums, or this conversation?
I am sure the sites that are screwing us are just delighted to see how we have very obligingly turned on each other, rather than directing our anger where it justifiably belongs. Divide and conquer.
There is your answer. Also, see the thread "Resuming Uploads to istock" which is now locked because it turned into a free-for-all.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/resuming-uploads-to-istock/msg204479/?topicseen#new (http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/resuming-uploads-to-istock/msg204479/?topicseen#new)
And by the way, I haven't "turned" on anyone, and I don't see any "division". The only conquering I see going on is by the agencies over the contributors, exactly as it has been for the past few months. I actually thought you and I were in the same camp. Has that changed?
What word would you use when someone can do something positive but doesn't because it's easier to sit back, keep things as they are, and just go with the flow, even when it means they are on a downhill slide? If lazy is too harsh, maybe another word fits?
-
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? ;D 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.
-
I am sure the sites that are screwing us are just delighted to see how we have very obligingly turned on each other, rather than directing our anger where it justifiably belongs. Divide and conquer.
Exactly!
-
And by the way, I haven't "turned" on anyone, and I don't see any "division". The only conquering I see going on is by the agencies over the contributors, exactly as it has been for the past few months. I actually thought you and I were in the same camp. Has that changed?
What word would you use when someone can do something positive but doesn't because it's easier to sit back, keep things as they are, and just go with the flow, even when it means they are on a downhill slide? If lazy is too harsh, maybe another word fits?
Absolutely we are still in the same camp. Most of us in this forum are. Which is exactly my point. The "lazy" label doesn't apply to most people here.
I hate to see us starting to fight amongst ourselves. Sorry if my post came off as too critical or aggressive. You and Cory are two people who definitely ARE doing something about it and I have a lot of respect for you both :)
-
And by the way, I haven't "turned" on anyone, and I don't see any "division". The only conquering I see going on is by the agencies over the contributors, exactly as it has been for the past few months. I actually thought you and I were in the same camp. Has that changed?
What word would you use when someone can do something positive but doesn't because it's easier to sit back, keep things as they are, and just go with the flow, even when it means they are on a downhill slide? If lazy is too harsh, maybe another word fits?
Of course we are still in the same camp. Most of us in this forum are. Which is exactly my point. The "lazy" label doesn't apply to most people here.
Most of us, yes. All of us? No.
And for what it is worth...I fall into the lazy category myself sometimes. There's plenty more I could be doing, that's for sure.
-
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.
I think it's now possible...
-
Well the lazy label does apply to one person I know and it's me. Or maybe it's I give up and don't give a darn anymore? Not just IS, but BigStock and the rest, I just lost interest.
I don't have a clue what the RC target means, or what the P+ program is all about. I get a minimal 15% for being and independent who has just under 300 images on IS. Every month they flip a switch or change something, and make it more difficult to understand all the pricing, commissions, programs and new rules.
Last time I wrote to Scout because my latest images were refused for No EXIF no one replied. Unless of course it takes three weeks for them to figure out a scan never has EXIF data? :)
What's the use?
And by the way, I haven't "turned" on anyone, and I don't see any "division". The only conquering I see going on is by the agencies over the contributors, exactly as it has been for the past few months. I actually thought you and I were in the same camp. Has that changed?
What word would you use when someone can do something positive but doesn't because it's easier to sit back, keep things as they are, and just go with the flow, even when it means they are on a downhill slide? If lazy is too harsh, maybe another word fits?
Absolutely we are still in the same camp. Most of us in this forum are. Which is exactly my point. The "lazy" label doesn't apply to most people here.
I hate to see us starting to fight amongst ourselves. Sorry if my post came off as too critical or aggressive. You and Cory are two people who definitely ARE doing something about it and I have a lot of respect for you both :)
-
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.
So true! It's not a reward system at all. If a majority of contributors showed an increase in their RC levels for a particular year, how would they be rewarded? With a higher target for the following year!
-
Last time I wrote to Scout because my latest images were refused for No EXIF no one replied. Unless of course it takes three weeks for them to figure out a scan never has EXIF data? :)
How long did you wait? I've got an open Scout ticket since Mid-February.
-
Last time I wrote to Scout because my latest images were refused for No EXIF no one replied. Unless of course it takes three weeks for them to figure out a scan never has EXIF data? :)
How long did you wait? I've got an open Scout ticket since Mid-February.
Got me beat mine is only from March.
-
<snip>Contributors just keep getting shlt on...
There is a simple solution for those who don't like being shlt on. Move out of the way.
Just a bunch of sheeple. ::)
Bah-ah-ah-ah-ah-ah
-
Last time I wrote to Scout because my latest images were refused for No EXIF no one replied. Unless of course it takes three weeks for them to figure out a scan never has EXIF data? :)
How long did you wait? I've got an open Scout ticket since Mid-February.
Got me beat mine is only from March.
I've got two from 13th March still showing in open tickets; the Feb one has fallen off the cliff. At the beginning I was getting editorial rejections that didn't make sense to me. Now I'm not even bothering to Scout them (in three years I doubt if I Scouted ten files; since Editorial, I've got well over 10 I'd like to Scout). They win again. >:(
-
Another bute from LOBO http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=330440&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=330440&page=1)
-
Another bute from LOBO [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=330440&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=330440&page=1[/url])
Totally insensitive from someone whose salary derives from the contributors he enjoys putting down, but which presumably doesn't fluctuate with the whims of the best match, or reduce because of the policies of the company which is supposed to be representing his interests
-
Another bute from LOBO [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=330440&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=330440&page=1[/url])
Totally insensitive from someone whose salary derives from the contributors he enjoys putting down, but which presumably doesn't fluctuate with the whims of the best match, or reduce because of the policies of the company which is supposed to be representing his interests
I'm a pretty fair and decent person but if he worked for me I would have him in my office for a short discussion, and his response in retrospect would have been quite different. He needs to represent the qualities of the Istock brand, regardless of who touches the process...and he dilutes, in my opinion, brand equity (not that they have much left).
-
Another bute from LOBO [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=330440&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=330440&page=1[/url])
Totally insensitive from someone whose salary derives from the contributors he enjoys putting down, but which presumably doesn't fluctuate with the whims of the best match, or reduce because of the policies of the company which is supposed to be representing his interests
I'm a pretty fair and decent person but if he worked for me I would have him in my office for a short discussion, and his response in retrospect would have been quite different. He needs to represent the qualities of the Istock brand, regardless of who touches the process...and he dilutes, in my opinion, brand equity (not that they have much left).
I suspect that he does represent very well the iStock brand of 2010/11. For better or worse.
-
Another bute from LOBO [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=330440&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=330440&page=1[/url])
Totally insensitive from someone whose salary derives from the contributors he enjoys putting down, but which presumably doesn't fluctuate with the whims of the best match, or reduce because of the policies of the company which is supposed to be representing his interests
I'm a pretty fair and decent person but if he worked for me I would have him in my office for a short discussion, and his response in retrospect would have been quite different. He needs to represent the qualities of the Istock brand, regardless of who touches the process...and he dilutes, in my opinion, brand equity (not that they have much left).
I suspect that he does represent very well the iStock brand of 2010/11. For better or worse.
Okay, true. You got me there.
-
Wow. I used to think that Lobo was a vast improvement over Peebert. Not anymore.
-
I suspect he's been bullied his whole life, he was out of lunch money every day in school, he probably was a lonely nerd nobody cared about, the laughing stock of the class, getting wedgies from the yard tree every day and now he's going all out since he's "in power". But in real life he's probably as pathetic as he ever was, perhaps money bought him a girlfriend and staff at IS pretends they're his friends.