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

...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.

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.

So true its almost unbelieavable.

@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.

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. 

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, fun...

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.