MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: lagereek on January 01, 2011, 02:45
-
Theres a thread over at the IS forum, must admit I never thought so many would throw in their crown though. Its all pretty sad reading actually, many staunch defenders of IS, throughout the years and now they have swung the opposite way, sad.
This is however the present hallmark of the entire industry and it certainly wont stop with IS, more will follow, etc. Its a grim reminder of the whole Trad-agency business decline in the early 90s.
many of these people terminating their exclusivity are now beginning to upload at other places and frankly, I wonder if its worth it really? I mean the grass certainly isnt greener at other places, sure places like FT, SS, are moving forward but it takes at least a couple of years before seeing any significant revenues.
New ones have sprung up, places like Veer, etc and one would have thought that with the backing of Corbis, this place would flourish but NO, it takes them 6 months just to review uploads.
Oh well, just some thoughts.
-
Some of the old exclusives should be able to do well with SS quite quickly but they have tightened up their reviews, so it wont be easy. Not sure if this is good or bad for non-exclusives. There's going to be more competition on the other sites but hopefully istock wont dominate the market now and that looks like a good thing.
It's going to be interesting to see if istock cutting commissions to such low levels and increasing prices will lose them a lot of business and if they are capable of changing their strategy. It looks like they are determined to push this through, even if it damages their reputation. Hopefully they will be sold and the new owners will have a better long term strategy. I'm sure there's still more ways to increase profits other than cutting commissions and raising prices.
-
I agree that they will do well at SS but it will be very difficult for most of them to get a foot in the door at DT or Fot and years to build up to decent rankings to start making the sort of money that they made as exclusives. I feel more sorry for them than I do the non exclusives as we don't have any difficult decisions to make. The one thing that I am really thankful about is that I didn't go exclusive a few years back when I was seriously toying with the idea.
-
I agree that they will do well at SS but it will be very difficult for most of them to get a foot in the door at DT or Fot and years to build up to decent rankings to start making the sort of money that they made as exclusives. I feel more sorry for them than I do the non exclusives as we don't have any difficult decisions to make. The one thing that I am really thankful about is that I didn't go exclusive a few years back when I was seriously toying with the idea.
I agree, the exclusives have got a bad blow here but so have the independants. Is there nothing in between?? ha, ha.
-
There is a short term effect and a long term effect in that.
If many ex are leaving IS while they leave their images there Getty will have to pay less commission for the same images - I am sure they love it.
But there is a long term effect and it can hit back to IS. Non-exs are having very tight upload limits compared to other places so the content on the other sites are growing more and becoming more fresh and unique. IS could compensate it with the exclusive imagery but they need a lot of top exclusives for that.
There are two factors where IS can beat the competition: lot of exclusive images and notoriety. The second one is slightly melting away so they really shouldn't lose form the fist one. I all other factors (prize, better site, more images... etc) the competition is already more attractive for the buyers.
-
. Hopefully they will be sold and the new owners will have a better long term strategy.
Or even a long-term strategy full stop. At the moment, they seem to pick on one employee a week and give them ten seconds to think of what we can do next week, and that includes the office junior, the tea lady and the masseuse. Then the programmers get half an hour to roll it out.
-
Or even a long-term strategy full stop. At the moment, they seem to pick on one employee a week and give them ten seconds to think of what we can do next week, and that includes the office junior, the tea lady and the masseuse. Then the programmers get half an hour to roll it out.
LOL! Perfect description.
-
There is a short term effect and a long term effect in that.
If many ex are leaving IS while they leave their images there Getty will have to pay less commission for the same images - I am sure they love it.
They pay less commissions but they are also grossing less money on the sale. Since the price change last year (http://blog.microstockgroup.com/istock-2010-changes/), non-exclusive images sell for less than exclusive images do. iStock makes more money from exclusive sales even though they are taking less commission. I'm guessing they would prefer everyone to be exclusive.
-
Some of the old exclusives should be able to do well with SS quite quickly but they have tightened up their reviews, so it wont be easy. Not sure if this is good or bad for non-exclusives. There's going to be more competition on the other sites but hopefully istock wont dominate the market now and that looks like a good thing.
It's going to be interesting to see if istock cutting commissions to such low levels and increasing prices will lose them a lot of business and if they are capable of changing their strategy. It looks like they are determined to push this through, even if it damages their reputation. Hopefully they will be sold and the new owners will have a better long term strategy. I'm sure there's still more ways to increase profits other than cutting commissions and raising prices.
It's not just the commission-cutting that is damaging their reputation. It's the site itself, which is getting worse and worse for contributors and buyers to use, the search engine flakiness, the upload process, the constant never-ending bugs. When buyers are posting all over twitter trying to get help because they can't buy, that hurts their reputation terribly. And the alarming part is the attitude that seems to be taking over and the growing lack of communication. When it finally gets bad enough the answer seems to be to throw them a few discounts (at the contributors expense).
I haven't tried the other sites, although I'm looking at them. Besides commissions, I'll be interested to find out if the grass is a little greener from the standpoint of searches, uploading, and general site functionality that helps both buyers and contributors.
-
They pay less commissions but they are also grossing less money on the sale. Since the price change last year ([url]http://blog.microstockgroup.com/istock-2010-changes/[/url]), non-exclusive images sell for less than exclusive images do. iStock makes more money from exclusive sales even though they are taking less commission. I'm guessing they would prefer everyone to be exclusive.
But they still need independents to produce "value" images to attract customers to the site. Then they upsell them to vetta etc.
-
There is a short term effect and a long term effect in that.
If many ex are leaving IS while they leave their images there Getty will have to pay less commission for the same images - I am sure they love it.
They pay less commissions but they are also grossing less money on the sale. Since the price change last year ([url]http://blog.microstockgroup.com/istock-2010-changes/[/url]), non-exclusive images sell for less than exclusive images do. iStock makes more money from exclusive sales even though they are taking less commission. I'm guessing they would prefer everyone to be exclusive.
You got the point. Since I am a non-ex I completely forgot that. Anyway, you have eliminated the only reason what made their decision reasonable in my eyes. :)
-
Wasn't FT or DT giving advantages to former IS exclusives to join them?
-
Theres a thread over at the IS forum, must admit I never thought so many would throw in their crown though. Its all pretty sad reading actually, many staunch defenders of IS, throughout the years and now they have swung the opposite way, sad.
I really don't think you've seen the half of it so far. Trust me, come January and February, when exclusives start to actually see the fewer $'s in their pocket and then compare with what they were getting the previous year the mutiny will rumble on and on ... and on ... daily, weekly and monthly.
Throughout this year exclusives were feeling relatively cuddly towards IS, because of the massive increase they received a year ago. That effect will have disappeared by the end of January.
Add to that the potential for more and more customers to seek pastures new amid all the price increases, the search problems, etc, etc, etc.
There's every chance of a firestorm to build here and Istockphoto appear to be sleepwalking right into it.
-
There isn't much green grass anywhere to be had, never mind the other side. It's taken on the characteristic long hot summer look. Parched, brown and unappealing. At some point, you feel wronged and even if it's going to cost you, you don't care.
-
Wasn't FT or DT giving advantages to former IS exclusives to join them?
DT was but it ended in November. Unless they added something new, I've not kept up with that.
-
There is a short term effect and a long term effect in that.
If many ex are leaving IS while they leave their images there Getty will have to pay less commission for the same images - I am sure they love it.
They pay less commissions but they are also grossing less money on the sale. Since the price change last year ([url]http://blog.microstockgroup.com/istock-2010-changes/[/url]), non-exclusive images sell for less than exclusive images do. iStock makes more money from exclusive sales even though they are taking less commission. I'm guessing they would prefer everyone to be exclusive.
I think this is precisely the case. What iStock has done over the last two years has been designed to encourage exclusivity. I wrestled with exclusivity two years ago. it took me a year to decide whether or not to stay exclusive. I dropped the crown once but after a week or so mulling it over, I contacted CR and asked if I could reinstate my crown. it wasn't panic at dropping the crown. to be honest, it was refreshing and exciting to get ready to upload to other sites. in particular SS, where I thought I would do well. what changed things for me was canvassing independents and contributors who had gone independent. there is freedom and stability in one sense, because everything isn't riding on one agency.
on the other hand, the workload and the management of multiple portfolios. not to mention the time it takes on FT and DT to rank--the difference in potential income didn't justify it. I don't regret staying exclusive. from what I continue to hear, as much as people love to hate iS...the grass isn't greener at all on the other side, with the exception of not being tied down.
-
I don't regret staying exclusive. from what I continue to hear, as much as people love to hate iS...the grass isn't greener at all on the other side, with the exception of not being tied down.
I'll bet you won't be wearing a crown within 13 months from now. Istock's grass is getting drier & browner whilst it is lusher and growing strongly elsewhere. You'll see. Eventually.
-
I think you made that same bet about me two years ago. the crown holds no emotional value to me. but until there's a good reason to blow it off, I won't be losing it. if there is a good reason, I would drop it without regret.
-
I make 90% of my microstock income at sites other than istock, with basically the same portfolio across most of those sites and istock. So in my opinion, the grass is a hell of a lot greener elsewhere.
-
that's good. I don't begrudge anyone their success. without seeing your numbers, it doesn't really mean anything. your vectors are amazing, so I'm sure you know what you're doing. but I have no idea how large your portfolio is or how you manage it.
-
There's every chance of a firestorm to build here and Istockphoto appear to be sleepwalking right into it.
Come on, let's not get carried away. There are a few small sellers, gossiping away here, egging each other on and over inflating their own importance and relevance.
-
Come on, let's not get carried away. There are a few small sellers, gossiping away here, egging each other on and over inflating their own importance and relevance.
Spoken like a true exclusive! I suppose having no data on the greater market enables you to keep your head firmly in the sand.
I just counted OVER 70 DIAMOND EXCLUSIVES (plus one Black Diamond) all motivated enough to state that they are losing out on this thread and that's just within the last 24 hours;
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=287302 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=287302)
When even Rob S., having left his admin post, is now musing over leaving IS altogether then you know that the problems go right to the core of Istock.
As you say ... "just a few small sellers, gossiping away here, egging each other on and over inflating their own importance and relevance".
An alternative view might be that the situation is serious with the potential to go critical.
-
the crown holds no emotional value to me. until there's a good reason to blow it off, I won't be losing it. if there is a good reason, I would drop it without regret.
There are good reasons a-plenty, of late. Take your pick! Why else are we now seeing once dedicated iStock evangelists closing out their exclusive contracts (or taking it into serious consideration)?
-
When even Rob S., having left his admin post, is now musing over leaving IS altogether then you know that the problems go right to the core of Istock.
Rob is a great guy but he has moved on into writing books, he's one guy in 75,000 or however many contributors there are. People come, people go, it's the way of the world, not the apocalyptic event you would assume from the forums. Someone even compared the news with the Kennedy killing. Oh dear.
Most people will lose to some degree, mine is a small loss as I've managed to keep my level. I sympathise with the unhappiness, IS are a walking disaster at the moment BUt that doesn't mean they are in any danger of imploding. Don't kid yourself how important a few contributors are, there are many waiting to replace them.
-
Spoken like a true exclusive! I suppose having no data on the greater market enables you to keep your head firmly in the sand.
I just counted OVER 70 DIAMOND EXCLUSIVES (plus one Black Diamond) all motivated enough to state that they are losing out on this thread and that's just within the last 24 hours;
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=287302[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=287302[/url])
When even Rob S., having left his admin post, is now musing over leaving IS altogether then you know that the problems go right to the core of Istock.
As you say ... "just a few small sellers, gossiping away here, egging each other on and over inflating their own importance and relevance".
An alternative view might be that the situation is serious with the potential to go critical.
Wow. I just read all 15 pages of that thread at iS. That was really depressing. When the news came down in September, I decided to not try to submit to iStock. I am even more sure now that I made the correct decision of not getting involved with such a disreputable company. Thanks gostwick for posting the link.
-
^ do you often make business decisions based on a few posts by one pathologically cranky guy? good luck with that...iStock is a mess, as Vlad said above, right now. disreputable....ha. listen, the more other contributors take off, the more of the pie there is for the rest of us.
-
Let me quote "Juanmonino" . he got it right:
Everybody here have to realize this is pure business, business and business. When Bruce sold IS, the community was over, there is no more community here. This is about money. We have to accept it.
They can take arbitrary measures, introduce new collections with files from people that used to despise Istock, put their files way in front of the ones that built this site, they can embrace "exciting" new projects, directed only and only to make more profits.
And they have the right to do that, they bought the company, they paid the price, they took the risk, this is not the red cross
Since we "crossed the river" things changed for ever here, maybe until the do the IPO, who knows... But they are not the ones that have to take the blame, they are doing what they supposed to do, make money for the ones that pay them...the stockholders. They are doing what they have to do. And we should do what we have to do... take it or leave it, or live with it (my case)
If you want to blame someone, blame Bruce... he sold the community for a price (and I dont personally blame him either, I would probably did the same)
-
listen, the more other contributors take off, the more of the pie there is for the rest of us.
...or not. The constantly declining downloads aren't just because there are too many contributors.
-
listen, the more other contributors take off, the more of the pie there is for the rest of us.
...or not. The constantly declining downloads aren't just because there are too many contributors.
How do you know that ?
-
Come on, let's not get carried away. There are a few small sellers, gossiping away here, egging each other on and over inflating their own importance and relevance.
Spoken like a true exclusive! I suppose having no data on the greater market enables you to keep your head firmly in the sand.
I just counted OVER 70 DIAMOND EXCLUSIVES (plus one Black Diamond) all motivated enough to state that they are losing out on this thread and that's just within the last 24 hours;
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=287302[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=287302[/url])
When even Rob S., having left his admin post, is now musing over leaving IS altogether then you know that the problems go right to the core of Istock.
As you say ... "just a few small sellers, gossiping away here, egging each other on and over inflating their own importance and relevance".
An alternative view might be that the situation is serious with the potential to go critical.
wow..... that thread speaks volumes, much louder than the anonymous cheerleaders on this thread
-
^ do you often make business decisions based on a few posts by one pathologically cranky guy? good luck with that...iStock is a mess, as Vlad said above, right now. disreputable....ha. listen, the more other contributors take off, the more of the pie there is for the rest of us.
Are you referring to me by any chance? Coming from someone whose 'Ignore' stat's outweigh those of their 'Useful Post' numbers by 5:1 then I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised. I guess the good folk of this forum have already made their own mind up on who is 'pathologically cranky'.
Good luck on getting 'more of the pie' as you hope. Not sure how big the pie's going to be though or indeed how much of it Istock will actually let you keep in the future.
-
^ do you often make business decisions based on a few posts by one pathologically cranky guy? good luck with that...iStock is a mess, as Vlad said above, right now. disreputable....ha. listen, the more other contributors take off, the more of the pie there is for the rest of us.
I stand by disreputable. The changes, cc fraud, F5 epic fail,etc, just check the ongoing list on another thread. This company is shameful.
-
disreputable....ha.
Exactly
This company is shameful.
You've sold 2 files when I looked at one of your links. I'm not sure you have the experience to meaningfully comment.
-
^ do you often make business decisions based on a few posts by one pathologically cranky guy? good luck with that...iStock is a mess, as Vlad said above, right now. disreputable....ha. listen, the more other contributors take off, the more of the pie there is for the rest of us.
well I would guess that many of them will not take off completely. Like me, I turned in my crown, but i have not quit istock. I still have a large portfolio there that continues to earn me money and downloads. In fact, I may see more downloads as buyers discover that they can find less costly stuff it they look for the files without a crown. I'm still uploading there and selling. I have no reason not to, it's business for me. I'm already seeing good download numbers at DT and SS, and just with a very small portion of my portfolio.
-
disreputable....ha.
Exactly
This company is shameful.
You've sold 2 files when I looked at one of your links. I'm not sure you have the experience to meaningfully comment.
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.
-
^ do you often make business decisions based on a few posts by one pathologically cranky guy? good luck with that...iStock is a mess, as Vlad said above, right now. disreputable....ha. listen, the more other contributors take off, the more of the pie there is for the rest of us.
Are you referring to me by any chance? Coming from someone whose 'Ignore' stat's outweigh those of their 'Useful Post' numbers by 5:1 then I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised. I guess the good folk of this forum have already made their own mind up on who is 'pathologically cranky'.
Good luck on getting 'more of the pie' as you hope. Not sure how big the pie's going to be though or indeed how much of it Istock will actually let you keep in the future.
ignore button, lol...who cares. it's a way to pique the people you 'dislike'. it should be called the cliqueometer. and I thought you might guess I was referring to you ;-)
@ jamirae: you're a really good contributor. I can understand your decision, though I personally think dropping the crown will hurt you financially. but as some people have stated, for many this is about more than just the money. so I hope your principles are worth the drop in income. I have no doubt those new indies experiencing drops in income will never say so here anyways.
-
^ do you often make business decisions based on a few posts by one pathologically cranky guy? good luck with that...iStock is a mess, as Vlad said above, right now. disreputable....ha. listen, the more other contributors take off, the more of the pie there is for the rest of us.
Are you referring to me by any chance? Coming from someone whose 'Ignore' stat's outweigh those of their 'Useful Post' numbers by 5:1 then I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised. I guess the good folk of this forum have already made their own mind up on who is 'pathologically cranky'.
Good luck on getting 'more of the pie' as you hope. Not sure how big the pie's going to be though or indeed how much of it Istock will actually let you keep in the future.
ignore button, lol...who cares. it's a way to pique the people you 'dislike'. it should be called the cliqueometer. and I thought you might guess I was referring to you ;-)
@ jamirae: you're a really good contributor. I can understand your decision, though I personally think dropping the crown will hurt you financially. but as some people have stated, for many this is about more than just the money. so I hope your principles are worth the drop in income. I have no doubt those new indies experiencing drops in income will never say so here anyways.
of course I will see a drop in income while I build my portfolio at other sites. this is about money for me, some principle, but mostly about the money. I'm giving it a year and I'll be the first to say if it doesn't work out as an Independent, though I doubt I will have any regrets at this time next year.
-
well, I certainly wish you luck and success. nothing to do with being right, but I suspect you might be kicking yourself or breaking even with double the work. but hey, if someone finds the golden key to independence other than Yuri and proves it to be more lucrative...good on them and that's an open door to the rest of us.
-
@ jamirae: you're a really good contributor. I can understand your decision, though I personally think dropping the crown will hurt you financially. but as some people have stated, for many this is about more than just the money. so I hope your principles are worth the drop in income. I have no doubt those new indies experiencing drops in income will never say so here anyways.
Sounds more like someone trying to convince themselves. Jamirae is already reporting good sales at other agencies, even with a small portfolio. Or did you ignore that part. iStock is actually not the be-all, end-all to the microstock world, though exclusives have convinced themselves of such.
-
well, I certainly wish you luck and success. nothing to do with being right, but I suspect you might be kicking yourself or breaking even with double the work. but hey, if someone finds the golden key to independence other than Yuri and proves it to be more lucrative...good on them and that's an open door to the rest of us.
And you might end up kicking yourself for staying on a sinking ship for too long. Things can go either way. But unless iStock cleans up its act, I'd put my money on jamirae's success.
-
of course you do...
-
of course you do...
I don't know how you can watch the train wreck that iStock has become and not think otherwise. Look at how many people are reporting how bad December is at iStock and how many customers have complained, and the on-going downloads decline, year after year. Seriously, unless iStock gets into the Way Back machine, you will be the loser. With all the evidence mounting, I don't know how you can continue to have such blind faith in them. Well, actually, I do. It's a desperate attempt to continue to convince yourself you have made the right decision.
-
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. you seem to be though. you spend more time in iStock threads than anyone else.
-
well, I certainly wish you luck and success. nothing to do with being right, but I suspect you might be kicking yourself or breaking even with double the work. but hey, if someone finds the golden key to independence other than Yuri and proves it to be more lucrative...good on them and that's an open door to the rest of us.
Golden key to independence other than Yuri? LOL... Experiencing your stats on IStockphoto alone, would be enough to drive me to independence....lol
-
another fabulous statistician. snappy... ::)
-
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. you seem to be though. you spend more time in iStock threads than anyone else.
So you keep saying, but that is patently false. Even though you keep trying to convince yourself of that. :D
Something interesting about you, SNP, you always try to discredit the person who disagrees with you by pointing out they are a) not a serious contributor b) don't have many downloads c) don't have many uploads or d) post more/less on X forum. And usually it's a strawman argument.
-
Cas, it's boring. just press that little ignore button and then you don't have to exert yourself jumping all over everything I say ;-)
-
Cas, it's boring. just press that little ignore button and then you don't have to exert yourself jumping all over everything I say ;-)
You have an ignore button as well, no?
-
I'm not going after you Cas. you specifically address me frequently and blow my points into things I haven't said. it frustrates me that I can't post without you paraphrasing what I've said, or anyone else for that matter who doesn't buy into your hatred for iStock. I can't believe the time you spend bashing iStock. to what end? are you evangelizing, or just vindictive?
-
another fabulous statistician. snappy... ::)
You have to admit though, it is kinda funny.... someone with your stats telling others how much they're going to lose by going independent... lol
-
^ do you often make business decisions based on a few posts by one pathologically cranky guy? good luck with that...iStock is a mess, as Vlad said above, right now. disreputable....ha. listen, the more other contributors take off, the more of the pie there is for the rest of us.
well I would guess that many of them will not take off completely. Like me, I turned in my crown, but i have not quit istock. I still have a large portfolio there that continues to earn me money and downloads. In fact, I may see more downloads as buyers discover that they can find less costly stuff it they look for the files without a crown. I'm still uploading there and selling. I have no reason not to, it's business for me. I'm already seeing good download numbers at DT and SS, and just with a very small portion of my portfolio.
Hello! My approach and feelings, exactly.
Like the "serious" misunderstanding, what Stacey probably *meant* was that as more exclusive contributors cancel their contract and go independent, the more pie there is for remaining iStock exclusives. If this is indeed what she *meant*, the proof will be in the pudding and I'm doubtful it will play out that way. Like you Jamie, I surmise that my (now) more affordable files will sell better (rather than worse) on IS as such.
-
Marisa - I don't need you to paraphrase for me. thank you though. I meant what I said. I don't wish any ill will on any contributor. despite disagreements, we all work for our sales and we're all different people with different frames of reference. so please don't speak for me when it's just a thinly veiled insinuation anyways. I'm not surprised your dropped your crown and all the best to you, sincerely.
@nrubroc: I'm not about to discuss the details of my income so make whatever determinations you want from my 'stats'....lol. I don't know who you think I am, but I'm not sure what you're talking about nor does it matter.
-
I can't believe the time you spend bashing iStock. to what end? are you evangelizing, or just vindictive?
Or alternatively ... are YOU just bizarrely delusional?
Few, if anyone else at all, has worked as hard as you over the last few months in building their 'exclusive' portfolio ... has been so embarrassingly fawning in their support of IS admin (to a such buttock-clenching degree that even they can't stand you) ... in waving their pom-poms and cheerleading for IS, etc, etc, etc.
Yet strangely, for all your gushing, unconditional-love of, er ... a business that couldn't actually care less about you .... you're getting f**ked over percentage-wise more than any of us independents for your trouble! Woo-yay Istock. At least they got something right.
-
Marisa - I don't need you to paraphrase for me. thank you though. I meant what I said. I don't wish any ill will on any contributor. despite disagreements, we all work for our sales and we're all different people with different frames of reference. so please don't speak for me when it's just a thinly veiled insinuation anyways. I'm not surprised your dropped your crown and all the best to you, sincerely.
Just trying to help you out (as your words are so often "misunderstood" or "twisted" by your own account, are they not). Because if you do sincerely mean what you said then, well - it makes no sense, as contributors are not "taking off". On the contrary, what we're seeing is exclusive contributors canceling said IS contract (taking off their crowns then, so to speak - but that's not what you said/meant, as I was trying to suggest, eh) in order that they can freely contribute to other agencies as independents. While a handful may in fact be closing out their iStock portfolios altogether or (more) no longer uploading, it seems (from reading the IS forums) that most are leaving their IS portfolios intact and fully intend (and hope) to continue to earn money there.
-
I'm not going after you Cas. you specifically address me frequently and blow my points into things I haven't said. it frustrates me that I can't post without you paraphrasing what I've said, or anyone else for that matter who doesn't buy into your hatred for iStock. I can't believe the time you spend bashing iStock. to what end? are you evangelizing, or just vindictive?
You're not going to post after me? LOL. You just did. Whatever iStock is doing, they are doing it to themselves. I'm not bashing, so much as pointing out facts. :D Oh, and the "time" I spend "bashing" iStock...really not much at all. A couple minutes here and there. Nothing near your exaggerations, to be sure. Nonetheless, I find the whole implosion utterly fascinating.
-
Nonetheless, I find the whole implosion utterly fascinating.
I think we all do. You couldn't make it up!
-
Nonetheless, I find the whole implosion utterly fascinating.
I think we all do. You couldn't make it up!
Senseless slow-mo train wrecks are often that way (riveting).
-
Marisa - I don't need you to paraphrase for me. thank you though. I meant what I said. I don't wish any ill will on any contributor. despite disagreements, we all work for our sales and we're all different people with different frames of reference. so please don't speak for me when it's just a thinly veiled insinuation anyways. I'm not surprised your dropped your crown and all the best to you, sincerely.
Just trying to help you out (as your words are so often "misunderstood" or "twisted" by your own account, are they not). Because if you do sincerely mean what you said then, well - it makes no sense, as contributors are not "taking off". On the contrary, what we're seeing is exclusive contributors canceling said IS contract (taking off their crowns then, so to speak - but that's not what you said/meant, as I was trying to suggest, eh) in order that they can freely contribute to other agencies as independents. While a handful may in fact be closing out their iStock portfolios altogether or (more) no longer uploading, it seems (from reading the IS forums) that most are leaving their IS portfolios intact and fully intend (and hope) to continue to earn money there.
I think keeping your port there is the smart thing to do. I don't know why anyone would delete their images altogether as a number of contributors are claiming to be doing. that makes no sense. anyways, in one way I envy the freedom you have. but the potential loss of income is too risky as far as I'm concerned. I've weighed that option heavily and since putting it to bed, I haven't considered dropping the crown again. doesn't mean I won't at some point.
@ gostwyck: what does it matter who 'likes' whom? couldn't care less. I've not met any iStock admins, but frankly I make as many snap judgments about who they are in the forums as they've (according to you) done about me. I hear all the gossip about admins and other contributors too. who cares? I like or dislike people for real when I meet them. not based on stupid forum comments and I'm certainly not going to spread that kind of BS about people I don't really know. hell, I'm sure there are lots of people who even like you in real life.
-
Marisa - I don't need you to paraphrase for me. thank you though. I meant what I said. I don't wish any ill will on any contributor. despite disagreements, we all work for our sales and we're all different people with different frames of reference. so please don't speak for me when it's just a thinly veiled insinuation anyways. I'm not surprised your dropped your crown and all the best to you, sincerely.
Just trying to help you out (as your words are so often "misunderstood" or "twisted" by your own account, are they not). Because if you do sincerely mean what you said then, well - it makes no sense, as contributors are not "taking off". On the contrary, what we're seeing is exclusive contributors canceling said IS contract (taking off their crowns then, so to speak - but that's not what you said/meant, as I was trying to suggest, eh) in order that they can freely contribute to other agencies as independents. While a handful may in fact be closing out their iStock portfolios altogether or (more) no longer uploading, it seems (from reading the IS forums) that most are leaving their IS portfolios intact and fully intend (and hope) to continue to earn money there.
I think keeping your port there is the smart thing to do. I don't know why anyone would delete their images altogether as a number of contributors are claiming to be doing. that makes no sense. anyways, in one way I envy the freedom you have. but the potential loss of income is too risky as far as I'm concerned. I've weighed that option heavily and since putting it to bed, I haven't considered dropping the crown again. doesn't mean I won't at some point.
So, your reading of the individual contributor announcements in the IS forums is that more exclusives are "taking off" - by which you mean they have chosen to "delete their images altogether". What makes no sense is your assertion that there are "a number of contributors [who] are claiming to be doing" this. Where are you seeing this "number" posting and what is (ballpark) said "number"? One? Two? Five? I've seen one or two, but five or (even less likely) more?
You aren't acknowledging the big picture - the potential loss of income that you refer to is largely at the outset and (hopefully) temporary (at the outset).
I won't speak for others, but in canceling my exclusive commitment to iStock I did so for financial reasons that were directly tied to what I view as pointedly poor and unfortunate (to say nothing of unfair) business decisions on iStock's part. I don't have illusions that I will immediately make as much or more than I was recently earning on my iStock portfolio, rather I am looking at the bigger, long-term picture. It will take time and a great deal of effort to succeed as an indie (I would expect); i.e., to do as well or better than I was doing (in terms of pure $) at iStock. That is fine by me. I'd rather begin that hard work now than wait for iStock to fail me further and be even more behind when it comes to embarking on the independent path. For me the time to leave was now. Do I regret that I didn't jump ship sooner? No. I needed to stay committed for as long as I did to be certain. Would I kick myself in the crotch if I stayed on longer? Likely so. The writing is on the wall, plain as day from where I sit. I've no regrets about the timing or wisdom of my "departure".
-
^ I'm not judging the timing of your exclusivity drop. it's a very individual decision. my comments were only about my own consideration when exclusivity was on the table for me. when is it ever off the table anyways? I'm not considering it right now, but I doubt any exclusive goes along without thinking what they're missing out on. just as successful independents I know do the same--asking themselves 'what if'. I believe you've made the decision wholeheartedly. I didn't question it a bit when you said you had dropped your crown. not that what I think matters.
-
SNP: And what about this bit then?
So, your reading of the individual contributor announcements in the IS forums is that more exclusives are "taking off" - by which you mean they have chosen to "delete their images altogether". What makes no sense is your assertion that there are "a number of contributors [who] are claiming to be doing" this. Where are you seeing this "number" posting and what is (ballpark) said "number"? One? Two? Five? I've seen one or two, but five or (even less likely) more?
-
IS are a walking disaster at the moment BUt that doesn't mean they are in any danger of imploding.
It doesn't mean that they WILL implode but it certainly means there is a danger of them doing so.
It is normal for a management to take the occasional unpopular or bad decision but so many in such a short time suggests that the company has lost its way. I've a feeling it is rapidly approaching the point where it will either wake up, regain direction and stabilize or else it will blunder on blindly over a cliff.
Three months ago, Thompson said it was time for them to start rebuilding trust but they have made no effort at all to do so. Instead, they seem to be caught in a mixture of lethargy - when it comes to dealing with things that need doing - interspersed with bouts of manic activity aimed at producing more and more complicated "solutions" to things that weren't a major problem to start with, thereby creating new problems. It's always F5 time at istock, as they rush to push out the next half-baked bit of geekery/policy change without bothering to fix the last one. But you can only get away with that for so long, then your store of accumulated goodwill gets used up and people move on to somewhere else.
-
Marisa - by taking off I meant dropping your crown. I'm sorry if you disagree with that statement and when you paraphrased me you changed what I said. I wasn't talking about just those who are removing images, I was actually referring to all exclusives dumping the crown.
I have no idea how many have dropped exclusivity and are deactivating images. I only know of three who are actively removing images, one of whom has deleted his entire port, which we all know because he started a thread here about his departure. there are a lot of exclusives 'taking off' or 'dropping the crown', however you want to word it. and as an exclusive, since as far as we know exclusive files are given some best match preference, remaining exclusive when a good number of people are leaving exclusivity presents a best match advantage if you agree that iStock is pushing exclusivity, which I believe they are. no comment on whether it's right or wrong, but just the way it is. it also doesn't mean that the hit I'm taking doesn't still hurt. I don't get a raise even though I was counting on it when I hit diamond. I lose out on Vetta and ELs. I'm not attaching any nobility to staying exclusive, nor do I buy into the notion of nobility on the part of those leaving the crown behind.
@Baldrick: KK never should have stated about rebuilding trust. it set the bar and now look where we are. they need to banish all that touchy feely crap from their communications.
-
@Baldrick: KK never should have stated about rebuilding trust. it set the bar and now look where we are. they need to banish all that touchy feely crap from their communications.
No, they need to try to make it look as if it means something. That's one thing Bitter was really good at and it helped to hold everything together regardless of problems. The first thing they should do is stop needlessly upsetting people with stupid, petty or demeaning comments, such as the famous "money won't make you happy" with the accompanying fictional "history" of exclusivity, or the latest "what you meant to say was 'thank you iStock' "
-
totally
-
Marisa - by taking off I meant dropping your crown. I'm sorry if you disagree with that statement and when you paraphrased me you changed what I said. I wasn't talking about just those who are removing images, I was actually referring to all exclusives dumping the crown.
I have no idea how many have dropped exclusivity and are deactivating images. I only know of three who are actively removing images, one of whom has deleted his entire port, which we all know because he started a thread here about his departure. there are a lot of exclusives 'taking off' or 'dropping the crown', however you want to word it. and as an exclusive, since as far as we know exclusive files are given some best match preference, remaining exclusive when a good number of people are leaving exclusivity presents a best match advantage if you agree that iStock is pushing exclusivity, which I believe they are. no comment on whether it's right or wrong, but just the way it is. it also doesn't mean that the hit I'm taking doesn't still hurt. I don't get a raise even though I was counting on it when I hit diamond. I lose out on Vetta and ELs. I'm not attaching any nobility to staying exclusive, nor do I buy into the notion of nobility on the part of those leaving the crown behind.
What I said I thought you meant by taking off, to refresh: "was that as more exclusive contributors cancel their contract and go independent, the more pie there is for remaining iStock exclusives."
So Jamie misunderstood your initial comment (as I suspected) and I clarified - correctly guessing at what you *really* meant. You're welcome :D
And thank you for quoting the number of contributors you know of who are actively removing their images. I *knew* it was less than five!
-
The first thing they should do is stop needlessly upsetting people with stupid, petty or demeaning comments, such as the famous "money won't make you happy" with the accompanying fictional "history" of exclusivity, or the latest "what you meant to say was 'thank you iStock' "
And avoid Kelly saying stuff like "I want my life back __ as soon as I get back from my extended Xmas and New Year break anyway". Come to think of it they probably need to stop Kelly saying anything at all. Ever, ever again.
-
I think keeping your port there is the smart thing to do. I don't know why anyone would delete their images altogether as a number of contributors are claiming to be doing.
I would imagine it is a statement that it isn't ok to drop royalties to 15%. Otherwise, if 15% is ok, why not 10?
-
Marisa - by taking off I meant dropping your crown. I'm sorry if you disagree with that statement and when you paraphrased me you changed what I said. I wasn't talking about just those who are removing images, I was actually referring to all exclusives dumping the crown.
I have no idea how many have dropped exclusivity and are deactivating images. I only know of three who are actively removing images, one of whom has deleted his entire port, which we all know because he started a thread here about his departure. there are a lot of exclusives 'taking off' or 'dropping the crown', however you want to word it. and as an exclusive, since as far as we know exclusive files are given some best match preference, remaining exclusive when a good number of people are leaving exclusivity presents a best match advantage if you agree that iStock is pushing exclusivity, which I believe they are. no comment on whether it's right or wrong, but just the way it is. it also doesn't mean that the hit I'm taking doesn't still hurt. I don't get a raise even though I was counting on it when I hit diamond. I lose out on Vetta and ELs. I'm not attaching any nobility to staying exclusive, nor do I buy into the notion of nobility on the part of those leaving the crown behind.
What I said I thought you meant by taking off, to refresh: "was that as more exclusive contributors cancel their contract and go independent, the more pie there is for remaining iStock exclusives."
So Jamie misunderstood your initial comment (as I suspected) and I clarified - correctly guessing at what you *really* meant. You're welcome :D
And thank you for quoting the number of contributors you know of who are actively removing their images. I *knew* it was less than five!
well, at least we can laugh....ironically I misread your rephrase of what you thought I was saying. I took it opposite to what I now see you were saying. I apologize.
-
Apology accepted.
-
I think keeping your port there is the smart thing to do. I don't know why anyone would delete their images altogether as a number of contributors are claiming to be doing.
I would imagine it is a statement that it isn't ok to drop royalties to 15%. Otherwise, if 15% is ok, why not 10?
of course it's a statement. but why? it only hurts them. as we've established, there are what, a handful of contributors that have done this? I just think they've shot themselves in the foot. and I'm certainly NOT suggesting they should be happy with 10% or 15% royalties. I've said from day one I thought independents were being completely screwed with the new system.
-
Marisa - by taking off I meant dropping your crown. I'm sorry if you disagree with that statement and when you paraphrased me you changed what I said. I wasn't talking about just those who are removing images, I was actually referring to all exclusives dumping the crown.
I have no idea how many have dropped exclusivity and are deactivating images. I only know of three who are actively removing images, one of whom has deleted his entire port, which we all know because he started a thread here about his departure. there are a lot of exclusives 'taking off' or 'dropping the crown', however you want to word it. and as an exclusive, since as far as we know exclusive files are given some best match preference, remaining exclusive when a good number of people are leaving exclusivity presents a best match advantage if you agree that iStock is pushing exclusivity, which I believe they are. no comment on whether it's right or wrong, but just the way it is. it also doesn't mean that the hit I'm taking doesn't still hurt. I don't get a raise even though I was counting on it when I hit diamond. I lose out on Vetta and ELs. I'm not attaching any nobility to staying exclusive, nor do I buy into the notion of nobility on the part of those leaving the crown behind.
What I said I thought you meant by taking off, to refresh: "was that as more exclusive contributors cancel their contract and go independent, the more pie there is for remaining iStock exclusives."
So Jami misunderstood your initial comment (as I suspected) and I clarified - correctly guessing at what you *really* meant. You're welcome :D
And thank you for quoting the number of contributors you know of who are actively removing their images. I *knew* it was less than five!
yep. I misunderstood. but I think we all have it figured out now. :)
-
I would imagine it is a statement that it isn't ok to drop royalties to 15%. Otherwise, if 15% is ok, why not 10?
I imagine that is the catch 22 with this. If you drop the crown, then you have to deal with the extremely low royalties for independents. I can see why some exclusives would cut their exclusivity and delete their portfolio too. I guess it is like ripping the band-aid off quickly. There is basically no good or ideal solution.
-
I think keeping your port there is the smart thing to do. I don't know why anyone would delete their images altogether as a number of contributors are claiming to be doing.
I would imagine it is a statement that it isn't ok to drop royalties to 15%. Otherwise, if 15% is ok, why not 10?
Considering it's only three people (or so) taking said action, it's not much of a statement, is it?
The bigger statement (at the moment) is the number of exclusives either giving up or voicing their current consideration over relinquishing their crown.
It would be quite the statement, of course, if droves of us did as the these three are doing. It might even have an impact toward making TPTB reconsider current policy. However, since a mass of us clearly isn't willing to take this drastic stance or measure, things will likely continue on as they are, far less likely to change in our favor.
Further, I think if people sincerely still cared (about iStock and its long-term viability) they would actually, en masse, take said stance. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm tired of the fight. Eff it. I don't really care anymore. 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. And if the company never gets its act together and ultimately fails at some point because of it, oh well. The number of evangelical, once loyal and dedicated exclusives who have left or are considering giving up their crowns should have been the cue to revise some of their unpopular policies.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
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 ;) ...
-
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 :D
-
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 :D
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.
-
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 :D
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 :D
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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?
-
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 %.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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 ???
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
(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.
-
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Haha. Knew it. You think I am a "serial moaner" because negativity is all YOU focus on. And funny that about the negativity thing, because you seem to attract quite a bit yourself. Pot meet kettle. :D
BTW, here is one of my "negative" comments about the logo program:
This is how I see it being used too. I think they should just ditch having text in the "logos" and just sell the illustrations. That would also make the inspecton process easier, too. And then there wouldn't have to be any revisions on the part of the contributor. I can see that getting messy. Like Buy Request.
Then many of us designers who struggle with illustration will have a library to shop through for our clients. And if iStock isn't selling complete "logos" but only logo elements, then there is still a place for the designer to work on and modify the logo for the client.
Everyone wins. :)
That was just one of the 11 posts I made when they announced the logo program. None of which complained about it. So get your facts straight, mmmkay?
-
(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.
Numbers are according to FT's stated chart of percentages in the contributors section. http://us.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors (http://us.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors) (scroll down for charts)
-
Numbers are according to FT's stated chart of percentages in the contributors section. [url]http://us.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors[/url] ([url]http://us.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors[/url]) (scroll down for charts)
Interesting.
-
(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.
Numbers are according to FT's stated chart of percentages in the contributors section. [url]http://us.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors[/url] ([url]http://us.fotolia.com/Info/Contributors[/url]) (scroll down for charts)
here is a link to the blog post again showing Fotolia's breakdown of photographers commissions (http://blog.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-credits-and-commissions-whats-all-the-fuss-about/). A white ranked photographer who is supposed to get 25% of a commission actually gets 16%-46% depending on which currency the buyer buys credits with, the exchange rate, how many credits they buy and which currency the photographer get's paid in.
-
even though it doesn't apply to me, that breakdown was helpful for comparison. I don't know that I would say any system is better than any of the others with all factors considered. at least on iStock we're (relatively) free to discuss our reactions to changes. but it seems there is more opportunity for large payout on a regular download with a system like Fotolia's....though it can work the other way too and garner you a much lower payout based on the package used to purchase. am I understanding that correctly?
-
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.
Excellent points, exactly my feelings as well
-
Marisa - I don't need you to paraphrase for me. thank you though. I meant what I said. I don't wish any ill will on any contributor. despite disagreements, we all work for our sales and we're all different people with different frames of reference. so please don't speak for me when it's just a thinly veiled insinuation anyways. I'm not surprised your dropped your crown and all the best to you, sincerely.
@nrubroc: I'm not about to discuss the details of my income so make whatever determinations you want from my 'stats'....lol. I don't know who you think I am, but I'm not sure what you're talking about nor does it matter.
My understanding was that you are Stacey Newman at IStockPhoto, >19,000 downloads, 6059 files, contribuing since Feb 2007? If that's you then, yes, I still find it funny you implying Yuri has some golden key, that he alone can benefit from independence, everyone else much depend on the catastrophe, that is IStockphoto to get by. lol.... If I am wrong on who you are, please correct me....
-
I still have no idea what you're talking about. you have a lot to say about a site you don't even contribute to as far as I can see. if you think it's insignificant that I make my full-time income via iStock, then you and I have very different ideas regarding income and success. Yuri is a great example of 'the' most successful independent. But I could have used Lisafx as a great example too of success in independence. they have both achieved levels as independence that frankly required way more work than many of those seeking independence will probably put in. I think in order to be really successful as an independent, you have to be willing to work even harder. Yuri and Lisa have clearly done that based on performance and numbers alone. no disrespect to other indies. they are just obvious examples.
-
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 ???
That is a good question with no answers what do SS pay people can't or won't answer but 25 cents must be under 15% for the sub donwloads
-
I still have no idea what you're talking about. you have a lot to say about a site you don't even contribute to as far as I can see. if you think it's insignificant that I make my full-time income via iStock, then you and I have very different ideas regarding income and success. Yuri is a great example of 'the' most successful independent. But I could have used Lisafx as a great example too of success in independence. they have both achieved levels as independence that frankly required way more work than many of those seeking independence will probably put in. I think in order to be really successful as an independent, you have to be willing to work even harder. Yuri and Lisa have clearly done that based on performance and numbers alone. no disrespect to other indies. they are just obvious examples.
So I can't comment on your ridiculousness if I don't submit to IStockphoto? I'm glad that you have such a low cost of living. Why use such extreme examples when making your comparisons? You take the most successful independents and then say others aren't going to put in as much work as they do. Maybe not, do you put in as much work as they do? If you do, then prospects at IStockphoto are even sadder than I thought.
If you're so happy with your income, why not use an independent that has similar results to yourself as an example, and see how much "work" they put in. My guess is it would only require a few hours a day as an independent to get the same income as you are getting from IStockphoto.
-
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 ???
That is a good question with no answers what do SS pay people can't or won't answer but 25 cents must be under 15% for the sub donwloads
I don't know what % SS pays its contributors (and it is a bit messy to determine with subs in any case), but it is more than Thinkstock pays, and anyone serious at SS will not stay at .25 for long, after $500 in earnings you go up to .33 . The next 2 jumps take longer.
-
I still have no idea what you're talking about. you have a lot to say about a site you don't even contribute to as far as I can see. if you think it's insignificant that I make my full-time income via iStock, then you and I have very different ideas regarding income and success. Yuri is a great example of 'the' most successful independent. But I could have used Lisafx as a great example too of success in independence. they have both achieved levels as independence that frankly required way more work than many of those seeking independence will probably put in. I think in order to be really successful as an independent, you have to be willing to work even harder. Yuri and Lisa have clearly done that based on performance and numbers alone. no disrespect to other indies. they are just obvious examples.
Thanks for comparing me to Yuri... Just wanted to say that although both of us make a full time living in microstock, I would estimate he makes between 20 and 50 times what I do. He's in some rarefied air up there, and I am down here slogging in the trenches ;)
But definitely, I agree with your point that it takes a lot of hard work to be successful FT in microstock, whether exclusive or non. In addition to working hard, though, it takes working smart. Managing to keep costs low in relation to what a shoot is likely to make you. And to be fair, I think SNP should be counted as one of the successful microstockers. Making it to a FT income in micro, as she has done, is a very small club.
-
At nruboc: but I never said I'm unhappy with my income (which you seem to be convinced is well below what it is, so I suspect you're extrapolating quite inaccurately on my dls:files ratio). I'm not comparing myself to Lisa or yuri-that wasn't remotely my point. I will never complain about my work. I get to make a living doing what I love. I don't know why you're suggesting I complained about my income. YOU complained about my income.
And dude, we live in a major urban centre in Canada. Cost of living isn't low.
-
At nruboc: but I never said I'm unhappy with my income (which you seem to be convinced is well below what it is, so I suspect you're extrapolating quite inaccurately on my dls:files ratio). I'm not comparing myself to Lisa or yuri-that wasn't remotely my point. I will never complain about my work. I get to make a living doing what I love. I don't know why you're suggesting I complained about my income. YOU complained about my income.
And dude, we live in a major urban centre in Canada. Cost of living isn't low.
Again, everything is relative.
Where I live 2 (1 bedroom) room appt would cost you over 1,200$ . cost of living in Canada IS low...
-
At nruboc: but I never said I'm unhappy with my income (which you seem to be convinced is well below what it is, so I suspect you're extrapolating quite inaccurately on my dls:files ratio). I'm not comparing myself to Lisa or yuri-that wasn't remotely my point. I will never complain about my work. I get to make a living doing what I love. I don't know why you're suggesting I complained about my income. YOU complained about my income.
And dude, we live in a major urban centre in Canada. Cost of living isn't low.
I'm not complaining about your income, I'm using it as a point of reference to illustrate the ridiculousness of your argument to others that they are going to have to work so much harder to maintain their income as an independent. Your stats bolster my contention that you have no clue what your talking about. Simple as that.
-
Ok...good sleuthing Sherlock ::) not
Thanks Lisa. Like your point, my success is certainly not comparable to the bigwigs...but I'm keeping my nose to the grindstone and i think the truest measure of success is happiness and satisfaction. Despite the uncertain times for all of us at istock, I love my work. I think we all do or we wouldn't care so much.
-
At nruboc: but I never said I'm unhappy with my income (which you seem to be convinced is well below what it is, so I suspect you're extrapolating quite inaccurately on my dls:files ratio). I'm not comparing myself to Lisa or yuri-that wasn't remotely my point. I will never complain about my work. I get to make a living doing what I love. I don't know why you're suggesting I complained about my income. YOU complained about my income.
And dude, we live in a major urban centre in Canada. Cost of living isn't low.
Again, everything is relative.
Where I live 2 (1 bedroom) room appt would cost you over 1,200$ . cost of living in Canada IS low...
Yes. Without specific numbers on income and location-specific cost of living, it's just poppytalk.
Further, are we talking singles or a two-income household? And do both people contribute the same or is one income really the main support and the other just the wife's fun money that got serious, but if she lost her job it wouldn't matter because hubby could/would still support her?
-
Marisa - what right do you and nruboc have to discuss my income openly? this is crossing a line guys and it has nothing to do with this thread. can we move on?
-
Marisa - what right do you and nruboc have to discuss my income openly? this is crossing a line guys and it has nothing to do with this thread. can we move on?
I thought it was you dismissing the idea that any independent other than Yuri could earn a living from microstock that brought the attention on you. You reap what you sow.
-
Marisa - what right do you and nruboc have to discuss my income openly? this is crossing a line guys and it has nothing to do with this thread. can we move on?
I wasn't discussing your income. I was providing further (general) instances as to why any discussion of income without the specifics is useless.
As to people here crossing a line and feeling like they have the right to discuss openly the income of folks by name, I think you were the initial violator of said line when you used Yuri (by name) in just such a discussion of income?
Therefore, it wouldn't be a stretch to see how other people might feel like they have a similar right to discuss your income openly. Again though, I wasn't discussing your income. Openly or otherwise. I was but highlighting the fact that without specific numbers and details of cost of living, marital status, etc. that such talk is pointless. So yes. By all means. Let's move on from such pointless prattle altogether. Shall we?
-
Working hard or not is pretty irrelevant really, I would say getting the right material is more important. I know a couple of fellas ( not Micro) who maybe produce no more then 300 pics/month, for the last 15 years and BOY! they earn far more then anybody else here, were talking almost a 7-figure amount and in dollars, per year. They hit the magic formula!
Skill, hard work, etc, is not enough, you gotta be lucky, right place right time and so on.
Lisa! is a tremendous example of where you DO get with plain hard-work and graft, combined with skill ofcourse. However she will probably agree with me that if we started off today in Micro, it would be a hell of a lot tougher. Everything is virtually covered plus the fact that agencies are beeing destroyed and ruined.
Ive said it before, you get your 10 years in any creative business, thats it! whats happening today with agencies is only a natural progression of bad/good/clever/greedy, business management, so we either put up with it or get out of it.
-
^ I'd agree with most of that. though I don't think it's luck. I know a contributor too who just seemed to upload the perfect material and wham...sales like crazy. that contributor's work is pure stock. something I've always had trouble mastering. I've had a tough time separating the art from the stock. some people research . out of what sells and know what to produce and attack it like marketing job. I guess I've always approached it more from an artistic perspective--shooting what I love and hoping it sells. my morph into stockier images has been gradual, and definitely slower than the 7-figure people. lol.
luck might put your files in a good best match position. but unless they're good files, they don't sell enough and fall back anyways.
-
^ I'd agree with most of that. though I don't think it's luck. I know a contributor too who just seemed to upload the perfect material and wham...sales like crazy. that contributor's work is pure stock. something I've always had trouble mastering. I've had a tough time separating the art from the stock. some people research . out of what sells and know what to produce and attack it like marketing job. I guess I've always approached it more from an artistic perspective--shooting what I love and hoping it sells. my morph into stockier images has been gradual, and definitely slower than the 7-figure people. lol.
luck might put your files in a good best match position. but unless they're good files, they don't sell enough and fall back anyways.
Luck, as when being at the right place, right time, luck as in best match position, yes! a mediocre picture on page 2, will constantly outsell a brillant picture on page 25, specially since the buyer wont bother to go any further then page 7 or 8.
-
...
Skill, hard work, etc, is not enough, you gotta be lucky, right place right time and so on.
Lisa! is a tremendous example of where you DO get with plain hard-work and graft, combined with skill ofcourse. However she will probably agree with me that if we started off today in Micro, it would be a hell of a lot tougher. Everything is virtually covered plus the fact that agencies are beeing destroyed and ruined.
...
I am guessing this was a typo - did you mean perhaps "craft"?
I think the graft these days is mostly on the agency side.
-
I am guessing this was a typo - did you mean perhaps "craft"?
I think the graft these days is mostly on the agency side.
I wondered about that too...
Or perhaps it was meant to be "draft". As in, some of the best pictures were taken when all involved were drinking beer ;D
-
I think the graft these days is mostly on the agency side.
Not how I see it. It seems to me that we do all the graft ... and then the agency walks off with almost all of the money.
-
I am guessing this was a typo - did you mean perhaps "craft"?
I think the graft these days is mostly on the agency side.
I wondered about that too...
Or perhaps it was meant to be "draft". As in, some of the best pictures were taken when all involved were drinking beer ;D
in Canada that's 'draught' ;D and speaking of which, I'd like some!
-
In England GRAFT, means "hard work in a clever way" but actually I did mean craft. Hows that?
-
In England GRAFT, means "hard work in a clever way" but actually I did mean craft. Hows that?
Well, either way, thanks :)
Here it means bribing politicians!
-
In England GRAFT, means "hard work in a clever way" but actually I did mean craft. Hows that?
Well, either way, thanks :)
Here it means bribing politicians!
Bloody hell! well maybe thats the answer?
-
this is the definition of graft I was thinking of...
"graft 2
n.
1. Unscrupulous use of one's position to derive profit or advantages; extortion.
2. Money or an advantage gained or yielded by unscrupulous means.
tr. & intr.v. graft·ed, graft·ing, grafts
To gain by or practice unscrupulous use of one's position."
Sounds like some of the sites lately...
-
this is the definition of graft I was thinking of...
"graft 2
n.
1. Unscrupulous use of one's position to derive profit or advantages; extortion.
2. Money or an advantage gained or yielded by unscrupulous means.
tr. & intr.v. graft·ed, graft·ing, grafts
To gain by or practice unscrupulous use of one's position."
Sounds like some of the sites lately...
It certainly does.
-
this is the definition of graft I was thinking of...
"graft 2
n.
1. Unscrupulous use of one's position to derive profit or advantages; extortion.
2. Money or an advantage gained or yielded by unscrupulous means.
tr. & intr.v. graft·ed, graft·ing, grafts
To gain by or practice unscrupulous use of one's position."
Sounds like some of the sites lately...
Interesting __ in the UK 'graft' is an informal expression meaning 'to work hard' (other than the surgical & botanical definitions).
-
this is the definition of graft I was thinking of...
"graft 2
n.
1. Unscrupulous use of one's position to derive profit or advantages; extortion.
2. Money or an advantage gained or yielded by unscrupulous means.
tr. & intr.v. graft·ed, graft·ing, grafts
To gain by or practice unscrupulous use of one's position."
Sounds like some of the sites lately...
Interesting __ in the UK 'graft' is an informal expression meaning 'to work hard' (other than the surgical & botanical definitions).
I know! still though, dangerous misconceptions between the British/American English language, isnt it? there are plenty more examples.
-
this is the definition of graft I was thinking of...
"graft 2
n.
1. Unscrupulous use of one's position to derive profit or advantages; extortion.
2. Money or an advantage gained or yielded by unscrupulous means.
tr. & intr.v. graft·ed, graft·ing, grafts
To gain by or practice unscrupulous use of one's position."
Sounds like some of the sites lately...
Interesting __ in the UK 'graft' is an informal expression meaning 'to work hard' (other than the surgical & botanical definitions).
I know! still though, dangerous misconceptions between the British/American English language, isnt it? there are plenty more examples.
and Australian/British/Amercan
take thong for example which in Australia is a type of footware
-
I know! still though, dangerous misconceptions between the British/American English language, isnt it? there are plenty more examples.
and Australian/British/Amercan
take thong for example which in Australia is a type of footware
I once poured tea (from a teapot, leaves and all, but it was tepid, you'll be glad to know) over an American (in a youth hostel in Luxembourg, when I was a student) who, upon meeting me, said, "Oh, you're Scottish, are you cheap?"
In the UK, calling a woman 'cheap' means she "bestows her sexual 'favours' indiscriminately" (those were gentler days, dear reader).
In the US, apparently it means what Brits call 'mean', which might have got an elbow in the ribs (because as everyone should know - we're not 'mean', we're 'canny'), but not the tea!
In the UK, calling a woman 'homely' means she creates a welcoming home, and probably that she prefers domesticity to business activity; in the US, it seems to mean 'ugly' (or at least what's we'd call 'plain', so that could get Brits into similar trouble in the US.
-
:D Loving these examples. :D
Way back in the early 90's during an early foray into a forum, I expressed my anger at a troll. An American woman who agreed with me wrote:
"You really have a way with words when your p*ssed".
...which led to some very confusing exchanges, as I tried to figure out why she thought I was drunk, and she wondered what on earth I was talking about!
-
...
Skill, hard work, etc, is not enough, you gotta be lucky, right place right time and so on.
Lisa! is a tremendous example of where you DO get with plain hard-work and graft, combined with skill ofcourse. However she will probably agree with me that if we started off today in Micro, it would be a hell of a lot tougher. Everything is virtually covered plus the fact that agencies are beeing destroyed and ruined.
...
I figured there was a discrepancy between the American and British use of the word graft. Too funny!
Getting back to lagereek's statement, I agree. It takes hard work, skill and a little luck. And whether a person is exclusive or non-exclusive, or whether they are full-time contributors or part-time contributors. Maintaining an individual's revenue goals on all the microstock sites nowadays is a task.
-
:D Loving these examples. :D
Way back in the early 90's during an early foray into a forum, I expressed my anger at a troll. An American woman who agreed with me wrote:
"You really have a way with words when your p*ssed".
...which led to some very confusing exchanges, as I tried to figure out why she thought I was drunk, and she wondered what on earth I was talking about!
That's hilarious.
-
some years back when I used DPR, I wrote, the guy is a real dope, dope, being an English expression for a nerd-guy or similar. This guy writes me back asking what kind of dope Im smoking?
Dope, dopey person or a hubblybubbly pipe.
-
some years back when I used DPR, I wrote, the guy is a real dope, dope, being an English expression for a nerd-guy or similar. This guy writes me back asking what kind of dope Im smoking?
Dope, dopey person or a hubblybubbly pipe.
LOL!
-
I think keeping your port there is the smart thing to do. I don't know why anyone would delete their images altogether as a number of contributors are claiming to be doing.
I would imagine it is a statement that it isn't ok to drop royalties to 15%. Otherwise, if 15% is ok, why not 10?
This.
Although I have no intentions of deleting my portfolio at the moment. Maybe I am a Polyanna but I still hold out hope that when the company is re-sold there will be a movement by ownership to rebuild contributor trust, perhaps even restore commission levels.
-
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.
Yes Vlad is absolutely correct. Everyone needs to consider their own data, and the implications of staying or leaving.
In my case, I took a 20% hit (approximately) when I went from independence to exclusivity in 2009. Independence was clearly more lucrative, but I enjoyed dealing with one company and simplifying my upload process. When I went back to independence in October, I took a 10% hit...but I only bothered to upload about 1/3 to 1/2 of my portfolio to the various sites. If I uploaded the whole port, I would obviously be enjoying a pay raise.
I know where I stand from personal experience in terms of revenue for exclusivity vs. independence. And I have a very good idea of where I would stand with or without iStockphoto with the projected 2011 commission schedule. Leaving my portfolio there (but not uploading additional material) is the right move for me now. It would not take much however to tip the scales toward leaving altogether (a further lowering of commission rates, a decline in sales, etc).
-
Very interesting, djpadavona. Your example suggests that once you are well established either as independent or as exclusive, changing horses is likely to lead to at least short-term loss.
Of course, the result would be different depending on the iStock earnings level you were moving into/out of, and the latest broad-based pay-cut at iStock will also change the balance.
Still, this is the first comment about earnings impact that I've seen from someone who has moved in both directions.
-
Yep! I sanction that. I think changing horses at this point would only lead to troubles, loss of earnings, etc. Theres so many concrete examples of successful photographers within the RM, they got fed-up with their agency, exclusivity and all, they swapped and sure enough, everything went bad. They expected the new agencies to roll out the carpets, special placement in Search, etc, and ofcourse they didnt get any of that and Im talking some pretty respected guys here, no dilletants.
-
.. two posts were removed from the thread that included nothing but a personal spat between two members. .. now moving on..
-
.. two posts were removed from the thread that included nothing but a personal spat between two members. .. now moving on..
what a pity, I love those personal spat posts! :-)