Author Topic: Grass is NOT greener at the others!! (Read 30276 times)

cthoman · « **Reply #75 on:** January 01, 2011, 23:17 »

Quote from: SNP on January 01, 2011, 22:58

@cthoman: if I were independent and had a small port at iStock, I'd agree....but what about a major independent who misses the RC cut? I think it would be madness to delete a chunk of income like that. I think the purpose was more to push non-exclusives to become exclusive. but good luck with that iStock. it just comes across as punitive and petty more than anything else, even to exclusives.

I'm definitely not saying it is the right decision, but I can understand why people would delete their images. I still don't even really know what I want to do. I've stopped uploading, but haven't decided about deleting anything. As far as pushing exclusivity, that doesn't really seem to be the plan. Letting mixed media people out of their exclsuivity is a real gift. I'm sure there will be a lot of great artists that will get the best of both worlds. Or at least, test the waters.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #76 on:** January 01, 2011, 23:24 »

Quote from: Risamay on January 01, 2011, 22:56

For myself, I have little faith in the company's future and while I would like (very much) for things to change in my favor and that of every contributor, I suppose I'd like instead to collect every last red cent iStock will pay me on my images sold (vs. deleting them all from iStock and getting zilch to make a statement). I put a lot of time and energy into building my portfolio there that I'd rather not flush down the toilet, if it'll make me a few more pennies.

Then I'm sure you'll love a 10% rate at some point

...

Risamay · « **Reply #77 on:** January 01, 2011, 23:41 »

Quote from: sjlocke on January 01, 2011, 23:24

Quote from: Risamay on January 01, 2011, 22:56
For myself, I have little faith in the company's future and while I would like (very much) for things to change in my favor and that of every contributor, I suppose I'd like instead to collect every last red cent iStock will pay me on my images sold (vs. deleting them all from iStock and getting zilch to make a statement). I put a lot of time and energy into building my portfolio there that I'd rather not flush down the toilet, if it'll make me a few more pennies.

Then I'm sure you'll love a 10% rate at some point ...

Love it? No. But would I take it (and bitch about it)? Likely.

I'll probably leave my portfolio up until the company folds. Whenever that day may be.

I vant all ma pennies! No matter how few they may be

gostwyck · « **Reply #78 on:** January 01, 2011, 23:55 »

Quote from: Risamay on January 01, 2011, 23:41

Love it? No. But would I take it (and bitch about it)? Likely.

I'll probably leave my portfolio up until the company folds. Whenever that day may be.

I vant all ma pennies! No matter how few they may be

But doesn't there come a point when you realise that by supporting a ridiculously low-paying agency you risk (as in 100% certainty) damaging your sales elsewhere? Anyone who supports Thinkstock being a case-in-point. Nobody in their right mind would provide TS with content if they also contributed to SS/FT/DT for example __ you'd have to be a complete idiot to do so. That's 'a stand' that's very easy and relatively cheap to make.

Risamay · « **Reply #79 on:** January 02, 2011, 00:03 »

Quote from: gostwyck on January 01, 2011, 23:55

Quote from: Risamay on January 01, 2011, 23:41
Love it? No. But would I take it (and bitch about it)? Likely.

I'll probably leave my portfolio up until the company folds. Whenever that day may be.

I vant all ma pennies! No matter how few they may be
But doesn't there come a point when you realise that by supporting a ridiculously low-paying agency you risk (as in 100% certainty) damaging your sales elsewhere? Anyone who supports Thinkstock being a case-in-point. Nobody in their right mind would provide TS with content if they also contributed to SS/FT/DT for example __ you'd have to be a complete idiot to do so. That's 'a stand' that's very easy and relatively cheap to make.

I do believe you just branded me an idiot, my friend. Which is fine, as it's likely spot on

Honestly, while I know it's all connected, I don't believe there are enough people willing or taking said stand(s) to garner a significant difference in the matter. Therefore, I've chosen money over principle and seek simply to collect as much as I can from wherever I can, while I can. An easy position to take when stock photography isn't your sole source of income.

This is my feeling or approach at the moment, anyway. Now, if a mass of us were able to organize (all levels of canisters from top to bottom) to shun TS or delete our IS portfolios entirely in protest, I would happily join the movement. But as that hasn't happened and isn't likely to, I'd rather make some money (even if it's a pittance). Because, at the end of the day, I think the whole business is ultimately going to be so massive and massively saturated (before too terribly long) that we'll be lucky to make a few bucks each month, any of us.

I'm a chronic (clinical, even) killjoy, I know.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #80 on:** January 02, 2011, 01:23 »

Quote from: sjlocke on January 01, 2011, 23:24

Then I'm sure you'll love a 10% rate at some point ...

When you're on 20%, you mean?

If istock cut my rate from last week's 20% down to 10% it would cost me about 15% of my earnings. Many famous diamond exclusives this week are reporting pay cuts of 12.5% to 25% already. It's the possibility of this sort of hit that kept many of us exclusive all along.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #81 on:** January 02, 2011, 01:27 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on January 02, 2011, 01:23

Quote from: sjlocke on January 01, 2011, 23:24

Then I'm sure you'll love a 10% rate at some point ...

When you're on 20%, you mean?

If istock cut my rate from last week's 20% down to 10% it would cost me about 15% of my earnings. Many famous diamond exclusives this week are reporting pay cuts of 12.5% to 25% already. It's the possibility of this sort of hit that kept many of us exclusive all along (I'm not saying that I foresaw what has actually happened, just that there is some merit in the general egga/basket diversification principle).

vlad_the_imp · « **Reply #82 on:** January 02, 2011, 03:33 »

Quote

you spend more time in iStock threads than anyone else.

That's very true. She's bitter about IS and spends most of her time here making bitchy comments and 'hoping IS will fail'. I remember when the Logo idea was launched at IS and she spent sooo much time in the IS forums endlessly complaining.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #83 on:** January 02, 2011, 03:37 »

As for 15% at IS? Well that's 15% more than nothing and 15% of something is far better than 100% of nothing.

Now for the bold question and asking for some help. I only sell on SS and IS and their partners now, so I wouldn't know from real experience, what's the truth.

How much do the top four (for a fair example) ACTUALLY pay? Not ELs or OD, or free images, or special cases, how much do you get for a sub sale on SS in percentages? That would be interesting. What does DT or FT pay in percentage for their standard sales? No dancing, just straight percentages for those credits.

How far is that away from IS and their new rates? I'm honestly wondering?

Myself, I still make more from IS than any other Microstock site, and was making more before I dropped the rest. Roughly figuring I get 50/50 between SS and IS and don't expect the new cuts to change that very much. Which always makes me ask, what's the whole uprising about when SS pays an average of 25 - 33 per download cents and what is that in percentage, since that's the big complaint? Hint: I still average $1.50 per download on IS!

What's the actual percentage at SS?

What's the actual percentage on FT or DT?

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #84 on:** January 02, 2011, 07:46 »

DT's terms and conditions state: "Non-exclusive contributors shall receive 30-50% of the sale price received by Dreamstime.com for the images they have contributed to the site which are subsequently sold by Dreamstime.com."

Fotolia's pricing is all over the place and payment levels vary according to what site you happened to join on (those who joined UK or EU sites get a lot more than those who didn't. I think Fotolias lowest payment is about 14% (which would be the same as iStock's under the new arrangement)

SS is giving 28% commission on EL sales, we don't know what their average earning per dl is so we can't work out the %.

Pheby · « **Reply #85 on:** January 02, 2011, 07:52 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on January 02, 2011, 07:46

Fotolia's pricing is all over the place and payment levels vary according to what site you happened to join on (those who joined UK or EU sites get a lot more than those who didn't. I think Fotolias lowest payment is about 14% (which would be the same as iStock's under the new arrangement)

The lowest rate is 25 % (non-exclusive files by base contributors).

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #86 on:** January 02, 2011, 08:22 »

Quote from: Pheby on January 02, 2011, 07:52

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on January 02, 2011, 07:46

Fotolia's pricing is all over the place and payment levels vary according to what site you happened to join on (those who joined UK or EU sites get a lot more than those who didn't. I think Fotolias lowest payment is about 14% (which would be the same as iStock's under the new arrangement)

The lowest rate is 25 % (non-exclusive files by base contributors).

No is isn't.

It is quarter of a Fotolia supplier credit. The only link in price between subscriber credits and purchaser credits is that the purchaser credits are almost always more expensive than subscriber ones.

If you get paid in dollar-based Fotolia credits and the buyer uses GB pound credits then you may well be being paid 25c for a credit that Fotolia received $1.58 for. That is not 25%, it is 16%.

This distortion is deliberate and systematic across the board at Fotolia and any claim they make to pay back 25% of the money they receive is a lie. However, if you read their stuff carefully you will probably find that they avoid saying that - they probably say that for every credit spent you get 25% of a credit payout, without mentioning that "a credit" is not a thing of fixed value.

aeonf · « **Reply #87 on:** January 02, 2011, 08:28 »

So from what I understand some of the other sites not only pay less then IS but also have no transparency what so ever...
Why does everybody flame IS night and day but not the others

Pheby · « **Reply #88 on:** January 02, 2011, 08:30 »

I guess my eurocentric view of things makes me not feel too underpaid. I'm paid in Euros, and Fotolia being strongest in Europe, especially in German speaking countries, the 31 percent I receive for a sale might actually be 31 cents of a Euro that a European costumer paid. Taking into account Fotolia's "flexibility" in credits and currency matters, you're right, of course.

NancyCWalker · « **Reply #89 on:** January 02, 2011, 08:42 »

SS is money based. 25 cents for a subscription download and $1.88 for an "on demand". Regardless of cost of credits.

DT is 30% - 50% based on image performance level. The more the image is downloaded the higher the commission you get per download.
FT has a system based on your color level (like IS canisters) and size of the image licensed. The percentages work out to 25% - 46% (non-exclusive) across 8 levels for regular downloads. Subscribtions are .30 cents to .46 cents depending on your color level.

NancyCWalker · « **Reply #90 on:** January 02, 2011, 08:46 »

Quote from: aeonf on January 02, 2011, 08:28

So from what I understand some of the other sites not only pay less then IS but also have no transparency what so ever...
Why does everybody flame IS night and day but not the others

FT and IS are both regularly mentioned for not having systems that can be verified by the contributors. SS and DT are almost never mentioned as having this issue because their process is simple and straightforward, allowing contributors to easily verify their numbers.

lagereek · « **Reply #91 on:** January 02, 2011, 09:16 »

Vlad, is in a way right here. Its pretty hard judging anything unless youve got a few years behind you and a somewhat large portfolio, I mean you dont even feel the effect of ebb and flow.

Point is, anyone of us earning good revenues, well youll be a fool to pack up and leave, wouldnt you? regardless of cut percentage or not, just accept it, yes sir, three bags full sir. Thats just about it.
'
best.

vlad_the_imp · « **Reply #92 on:** January 02, 2011, 10:12 »

Quote

Predictable comment from a person that has no links to any of their work. Amount of files sold has no meaning in this conversation. Yes, I have sold 2 files. Yay me. I started 6 months ago in photography, but I have been a graphic designer and buyer for 20 years. Bite me.

I have no links because I like the opportunity to be critical without comeback, if necessary, something not available to me in company controlled forums. I have also sold more than 2 images and have been intimately involved in microstock for 6 years. I have sold a lot of images. I make a good living from the industry and feel I may have a teeny bit more experience of it than you, and when you, with 2 sales in 6 months, makes highly critical judgements based on a pretty limited experience, then I may be a little critical of your lack of experience. Is that classed as 'biting you'? I have no idea.

cathyslife · « **Reply #93 on:** January 02, 2011, 10:17 »

Two things I just wanted to throw in here, after reading through Stacey's posts:

First, being independent and uploading to multiple sites, for me, doesn't take twice the work as being exclusive and uploading to one. IPTC data is entered in Photoshop and it's done for all the sites. As far as actual uploading, IS has always been, for me, the biggest pain in the a*s. I had to actually download extra software (deepMeta) in order to upload there, where as all the other sites have easy to use, on-site uploading capabilities. And if one has a lot to upload, they can easily use FileZilla, Fetch or some such other FTP to do it. I would say it takes me an extra 5 to 10 minutes to upload to the other sites. I don't consider that double the work. The work is the post-processing, which has to be done for ALL the sites.

Second, watching sales at IS drop over the past six months, the site imploding, and my drop in commission, it is getting to the point where uploading to IS is a waste of my time, compared to the return I am getting. To some people, the money is more important than the principles, and no matter what it dished out, they think pennies are ok. I have never been that type of person. I have enough self-respect to say that if I am going to do a job, I want to get paid what I deserve. Others don't get to use me. If that means I miss out on a few pennies, I'm ok with that. I will just find another way to make up those few pennies. And over my lifetime, I have found that that usually works out for me. I am fairly certain, that by working a little harder at one of the other sites, I can make up what I will lose from IS.

For me it's about the money AND the principle. There is more than one source for the money. IS is not the master of my domain, despite what they think.

disorderly · « **Reply #94 on:** January 02, 2011, 10:32 »

I'm with you, Cathy. It's about both money and respect. I expect to be treated with respect, and won't do business with those who treat me with contempt. It's only secondarily about compensation, which is why I may supply an agency that pays less but not one that jerks me around. And iStock has jerked me/us around for a long time.

This is only the latest and perhaps most extreme example, although it's the one that got me to act. It probably started with disambiguation, and all the time I spent reprocessing old images. It continued with all the changes to model release requirements, with new MR rejections coming almost weekly at one point. And of course there's the ongoing hassle of iStock's upload process, made somewhat better when the author of DeepMeta finally got a Mac version working reliably. But telling me to take a 20% royalty cut? And then insulting me (not personally, but still) in the process? Nope, I won't put up with that.

So I've been deleting. Figure my portfolio is 15% smaller than it was the day of the announcement, and getting a little smaller every day. I'll take whatever money I make while I continue to delete images, leaving the best sellers until last. But I'm done with this version of iStock. And maybe, maybe if a new owner or new management decides that respect is good business, I'll stop deleting. It'll take a lot more to get me to upload again, and I don't expect that. But as the old saying goes, a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do.

caspixel · « **Reply #95 on:** January 02, 2011, 10:33 »

Quote from: vlad_the_imp on January 02, 2011, 03:33

Quote
you spend more time in iStock threads than anyone else.

That's very true. She's bitter about IS and spends most of her time here making bitchy comments and 'hoping IS will fail'. I remember when the Logo idea was launched at IS and she spent sooo much time in the IS forums endlessly complaining.

Your memory is faulty. I challenge you to prove what you say by providing my "endless" complaints. You won't though. Because you can't.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #96 on:** January 02, 2011, 10:56 »

Quote from: azurelaroux on January 02, 2011, 08:42

(Fotolia) percentages work out to 25% - 46% (non-exclusive) across 8 levels for regular downloads. Subscribtions are .30 cents to .46 cents depending on your color level.

Neither of those statements is accurate. As I stated above, the percentages at Fotolia are not based on the purchase costs of credits, so they mean absolutely nothing.

Also, I have plenty of recent subscription sales there for 22c, so the minimum is not 30c.

vlad_the_imp · « **Reply #97 on:** January 02, 2011, 11:01 »

Quote

Your memory is faulty. I challenge you to prove what you say by providing my "endless" complaints. You won't though. Because you can't.

You are a serial moaner. Others have mentioned it. Negativity breeds negativity and I have better things to do than trawl endless forums to prove a point.

Quote

First, being independent and uploading to multiple sites, for me, doesn't take twice the work as being exclusive and uploading to one.

I have to accept your experience, but one thing a couple of ex IS exclusives have mentioned to me is what a chore it is uploading and managing multiple sites.

Quote

Second, watching sales at IS drop over the past six months, the site imploding, and my drop in commission, it is getting to the point where uploading to IS is a waste of my time, compared to the return I am getting. To some people, the money is more important than the principles, and no matter what it dished out, they think pennies are ok.

"Imploding' implies total meltdown and failure to me. My income has increased this year at IS, including the latter part of the year. As for the 'they think pennies are OK' part of the quote, these are the sort of comments usually made by people who are hobbyist contributors, usually making a contribution to their main income, not relying on their microstock incomes as their main source of money, in fact usually unable to make enough for it to be their main income stream, and are thus able to make what sound to others fairly glib statements.

lisafx · « **Reply #98 on:** January 02, 2011, 11:10 »

Quote from: aeonf on January 02, 2011, 08:28

So from what I understand some of the other sites not only pay less then IS but also have no transparency what so ever...
Why does everybody flame IS night and day but not the others

The others have been flamed in their time too, when they implemented policies that hurt contributors. You must have missed all those marathon threads because they didn't apply to you.

The reason Istock is getting so much heat at the moment is because they just keep piling on more and more bad decisions. Just as the previous disaster starts to lose steam, they introduce something else.

lagereek · « **Reply #99 on:** January 02, 2011, 11:14 »

Quote from: disorderly on January 02, 2011, 10:32

I'm with you, Cathy. It's about both money and respect. I expect to be treated with respect, and won't do business with those who treat me with contempt. It's only secondarily about compensation, which is why I may supply an agency that pays less but not one that jerks me around. And iStock has jerked me/us around for a long time.

This is only the latest and perhaps most extreme example, although it's the one that got me to act. It probably started with disambiguation, and all the time I spent reprocessing old images. It continued with all the changes to model release requirements, with new MR rejections coming almost weekly at one point. And of course there's the ongoing hassle of iStock's upload process, made somewhat better when the author of DeepMeta finally got a Mac version working reliably. But telling me to take a 20% royalty cut? And then insulting me (not personally, but still) in the process? Nope, I won't put up with that.

So I've been deleting. Figure my portfolio is 15% smaller than it was the day of the announcement, and getting a little smaller every day. I'll take whatever money I make while I continue to delete images, leaving the best sellers until last. But I'm done with this version of iStock. And maybe, maybe if a new owner or new management decides that respect is good business, I'll stop deleting. It'll take a lot more to get me to upload again, and I don't expect that. But as the old saying goes, a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do.

New owner??? yeah, that will be the day. The one and only time Getty/IS, or anyone for that matter will revert back to the "good old days" is if a creative buyer, type huge AD-agency, Publication-agency or another giant Photo-agency bought-up Getty/IS, and that will ofcourse never happen ( happend before though and with the Trad-agencies). Today they havent got the money, well somebody like Corbis would probably have the lolly but theyre not doing well at their own sites and agencies.

No, we will probably have to put up with yet another "suit corp, type bankers, investment, brokers, God knows? that is under the mega-bluff impression that Micro is a licence to print money.

The Getty/IS, situation is really quite absurd in the fact that IS, is the only company within the Getty sphere that shows a profit. Maybe thats just it?? it causes recentment.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Grass is NOT greener at the others!! (Read 30276 times)

cthoman

Sean Locke Photography

Risamay

gostwyck

Risamay

BaldricksTrousers

BaldricksTrousers

vlad_the_imp

RacePhoto

BaldricksTrousers

Pheby

BaldricksTrousers

aeonf

Pheby

NancyCWalker

NancyCWalker

lagereek

vlad_the_imp

cathyslife

disorderly

caspixel

BaldricksTrousers

vlad_the_imp

lisafx

lagereek

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors