Author Topic: Hold on to your wallets! "There are irregularities with October's PP royalties" (Read 98681 times)

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #475 on:** February 25, 2014, 15:23 »

Quote from: vilainecrevette on February 25, 2014, 14:43

Hard time for my finger this wk, after Depositphoto deactivation, I'm on with Istock.
Sean Locke's Greasemonkey script works very well, thank you for your work.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/18688/18688/msg305339/#msg305339
It was a hard decision but I will close my account.
It may seem stupid but i feel so much better and proud of that.

If you haven't already closed it, perhaps you want to leave an image or two to keep the accountt open (so you keep access to your stats)?

lionheart · « **Reply #476 on:** February 25, 2014, 15:29 »

Received my IS-mail today: They take away a considerable amount of money whereas they suggest to do it on a monthly basis:

"We discovered that there were some irregularities with September 2013 and October 2013 Partner Program royalties payments. There were a number of contributor accounts that were overpaid royalties over these two months. Unfortunately your account was one of the affected accounts.
We have calculated the over payment amount to be $xxx.xx. Rather than take this amount out of your royalty balance in one adjustment we have decided to schedule the removal of these funds over a 6 month period. Starting before the end of February 2014 we will begin removing $xx.xx. Once per month for the next six months we will recoup the balance of the over payment. You will receive a monthly notification as immediately after the funds are removed."

My sales within this period have been quite good but for sure not as good that they take away this sum of money. We don't have any means to control all the monetary scenarios arising from our microstock activity. It is kind of a "game of luck". Quite disappointing. Confidence and faith don't have no meaning. What a pity.

bunhill · « **Reply #477 on:** February 25, 2014, 15:29 »

Quote from: michey on February 25, 2014, 14:31

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on February 25, 2014, 10:55
Quote from: bunhill on February 25, 2014, 09:08
I think the thing to be constructively asking for is a better system of reporting from now on. That makes much more sense than people venting. A constructive conversation is better than an angry stand off.

Yeah, asking for better reporting and constructive conversations have worked so well in the past there.
Leeches can't speak, they need only to be smashed, microstockers need a labor union...

A workers' union comprising people across the whole planet will work when there is one world govt. Plans for a one world govt are on hold.

Photos are not in short supply and are mostly already free even in most typical semi-/commercial uses. Sean implies that better reporting and constructive conversation has not worked. I tend towards thinking that better reporting is almost certainly part of an inevitable road map - but likely depends upon other stuff being in place first. It makes sense from everyone's perspective - because it will be the most efficient and cost effective solution. (And I am guessing).

In terms of communications: Communications are better now (in a less is more way) than in the days when iStock communicated with itself via huge long angry and rather pointlessly repetitive forum threads (and ikon changing) from the same few people. Then the management would step in and implement a quick and often lousy fix backed up with a vague promise. But the issues would be left the fester. That style of management was transitional - it almost certainly works at a boutique, art or influential reportage agency with a few hundred or fewer contributors and everyone knows each other. It is surely the wrong solution at a site with thousands of contributors.

I doubt there is any particular business case for touchy-feely communications or promising anything. With many thousands of contributors it is impossible to please everyone and it may be better to keep things very formal.

I agree that the processes need to improve. But I think that will happen inevitably as part of the inevitable economics.

Pixart · « **Reply #478 on:** February 25, 2014, 15:32 »

Interesting way to boost their cashflow for the next 6 months. Are they for sale again?

Don't forget this affects your personal taxes also because you actually received the money in 2013 and are having it clawed back in 2014.

Have any Canadians received their T-5's yet? Poor Elena (You are from Quebec I believe?), she likely has to pay about $560 in taxes on that amount if she is in say a 36% tax bracket because she received it in 2013 - but say she has lower tax earning this year of clawback (like she drops Istock perchance

) she may be at a lower tax rate and get screwed again by the difference.

Pixart · « **Reply #479 on:** February 25, 2014, 15:33 »

Whoopie, I made $1.27 since I deactivated all but one. Nope, no clawback for me!!!

cobalt · « **Reply #480 on:** February 25, 2014, 15:48 »

Quote from: bunhill on February 25, 2014, 15:29

In terms of communications: Communications are better now (in a less is more way) than in the days when iStock communicated with itself via huge long angry and rather pointlessly repetitive forum threads (and ikon changing) from the same few people. Then the management would step in and implement a quick and often lousy fix backed up with a vague promise. But the issues would be left the fester. That style of management was transitional - it almost certainly works at a boutique, art or influential reportage agency with a few hundred or fewer contributors and everyone knows each other. It is surely the wrong solution at a site with thousands of contributors.

I doubt there is any particular business case for touchy-feely communications or promising anything. With many thousands of contributors it is impossible to please everyone and it may be better to keep things very formal.

I agree that the processes need to improve. But I think that will happen inevitably as part of the inevitable economics.

I am absolutely certain that what you are writing is probably the attitude of the getty management. And they will get their wish - they will evolve backwards to a much smaller reportage style agency.

Because that is all their managers understand. They have no top level management with high quality internet communication skills. Or when was the last time you saw the CEO personally communicate in a crisis? Take responsibility? Apologize?

Compare that with how Shutterstock is handling their online communication. And look at the success they have in growing their business.

I am sure you have noticed the valuation that is being placed by investors on companies with active and thriving communities.

Active, live, thriving online communities are worth billions of dollars.

Imagine what istock could be worth to an investor today, if they had encouraged their community to grow instead of killing it off?

The community alone could today be worth much more than all their images, news reports and licensing business.

It is not that difficult communicating online. It is HARD WORK. But if you are an online company,it is simply a requirement. It is normal to be good at online communication.

Well, in business there will always be someone to benefit from a company that decides to go down. In this case it is SS that is having it IMO too easy to grow. Well deserved success of course.

And on topic: yes, an apology would have been the minimum just as an itemised list and proper explanation. I can´t understand how the US or Canadian accounting laws even allow for clawbacks without proof.

Spreading it over 6 months is a good idea though. Thank you to whoever it was that thought one step ahead.

robynmac · « **Reply #481 on:** February 25, 2014, 15:58 »

Quote from: lisafx on February 25, 2014, 13:49

Personally, I am more skeptical than angry. The amount they are claiming as overpayment, in my case, is more that I expected, given usual pp performance. It would go a long way toward relieving my skepticism if there were an itemized dated list of the specific overpayment amount and an explanation as to why these were not legitimate sales.

One reason I did not initially think there was anything amiss with the high numbers in September and October was that there was a corresponding drop in sales at istock. It was reasonable to assume there might have been some targeted promotion to get istock buyers to try TS out.

Even with the 1571.00 "overpayment" my monthly totals for istock and PP combined were down from previous months.

Lisa, that was my thinking as well, when I saw the increase in PP sales, which appeared to be compensating somewhat for declining iStock sales. Now I have to pay back $1513, with no explanation of how this figure was worked out. So I'm skeptical, but also angry...

Cesar · « **Reply #482 on:** February 25, 2014, 16:04 »

We need to sue. Every contributor gives 10$ for lawyer. we do not need high skilled, im sure some lawyers in canada are also stock photographer. Anyone know someone?

bunhill · « **Reply #483 on:** February 25, 2014, 16:05 »

Quote from: cobalt on February 25, 2014, 15:48

I am absolutely certain that what you are writing is probably the attitude of the getty management. And they will get their wish - they will evolve backwards to a much smaller reportage style agency.

I could not be sure - but I strongly suspect that is not the future they see for themselves. More likely they see themselves as global content providers. At this time there are very few successful small agencies.

Quote from: cobalt on February 25, 2014, 15:48

Compare that with how Shutterstock is handling their online communication. And look at the success they have in growing their business.

I am sure you have noticed the valuation that is being placed by investors on companies with active and thriving communities.

Shutterstock has done very well so far but it is early days and everything they have achieved has been in a market which has more or less only been going in one direction. They are surely in a bubble.

Since their IPO, the market has risen beyond all reasonable expectations on the back of cheap govt money and zero rates. I am not one of those people who makes easy predictions - but IMO we are in a period surprisingly comparable with about 1996 when Alan Greenspan briefly said that there was something iffy about with the fundamentals, before quickly withdrawing his comments for political reasons. Sooner or later Shutterstock has to deal with a falling market.

ETA: it is a mistake to talk about communities. Stock agencies are not really communities. Unless they have only very few contributors who mostly know each other. It's an over-used term today and mostly out of context.

cobalt · « **Reply #484 on:** February 25, 2014, 16:12 »

Why didn´t getty grow their business at the same time? Why are they falling back?

They were the undisputed market leader...

Yes, we will see what happens. But what makes me so sad is that istock had it all - not just a fantastic community but also a great team of people who where eager to grow the business and the community in harmony. All the skills were available and ready.

Instead istock was taken apart and now...we have to deal with communication and accounting gettystyle..

Getty won´t disappear, the getty family can keep it floating forever.

But the most important asset in an online company are the people. I doubt they are even aware of who the important people are. maybe at getty, but at istock?

I am glad I have moved on and that istock is now just one part of my income. I will keep uploading, who knows,maybe one day...

michey · « **Reply #485 on:** February 25, 2014, 16:12 »

Quote from: Anyka on February 25, 2014, 15:14

Has any of the European Istockers received his/her e-mail yet? I haven't got mine yet, and I don't believe for a second they'll forget me (my October PP was more than double of September).

And me from Italy too.. We are the first when someone has to pay...

Beppe Grillo · « **Reply #486 on:** February 25, 2014, 16:21 »

Quote from: Anyka on February 25, 2014, 15:14

Has any of the European Istockers received his/her e-mail yet? I haven't got mine yet, and I don't believe for a second they'll forget me (my October PP was more than double of September).

Yes, it arrived in Ukraine, despite the revolution…

bunhill · « **Reply #487 on:** February 25, 2014, 16:25 »

Quote from: cobalt on February 25, 2014, 16:12

what makes me so sad is that istock had it all - not just a fantastic community but also a great team of people who where eager to grow the business and the community in harmony. All the skills were available and ready.

iStock was not a community and nor is Shutterstock. Not in any sort of normal sociological definition of community. They are just businesses.

IMO it's a very early 90s phenomena - the idea of online communities. TBH I think it had already been partially deconstructed by the time that people were switching from Compuserve to ISPs.

ETA: communities definitely exist within and between companies however . But most of the thousands of people making stock photos today do not know each other.

cobalt · « **Reply #488 on:** February 25, 2014, 16:30 »

I don´t know how sociologists define communities bunhill. But Facebook is a community, flickr is a community, msg is a community and yes, so are istock and SS.

They are online communities.

There are loads of these - religious online groups,hobby online communities,fan communities,music lovers,sports,mothers of the world,fathers of the world,tealovers,...etc...

That is the whole advantage of the internet - connect with an interest group worldwide.

I am not downvoting your posts by the way. I understand what you are saying, we just differ in opinion.

bunhill · « **Reply #489 on:** February 25, 2014, 16:34 »

Quote from: cobalt on February 25, 2014, 16:30

I am not downvoting your posts by the way. I understand what you are saying, we just differ in opinion.

That's okay. I did not think you were. I respect your perspective. I expect to get down voted for saying unpopular things.

Carmen Hermosillo who used to post as 'humdog' in the early 90s was one of the first people to write about the idea of online communities - a perspective she ultimately rejected.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #490 on:** February 25, 2014, 16:37 »

My guess is that the fallout from the publicity this will create is going to cost them more than they are able to claw back from suppliers.
I suspect they know that, and the reason they cut the number affected from 25k to 9k was to reduce the number of people who were going to be complaining noisily about their behaviour. They would probably have been wise to drop the whole thing, but with the state Getty's finances appear to be in that probably wasn't considered an option.

cobalt · « **Reply #491 on:** February 25, 2014, 16:44 »

Quote from: bunhill on February 25, 2014, 16:34

Carmen Hermosillo who used to post as 'humdog' in the early 90s was one of the first people to write about the idea of online communities - a perspective she ultimately rejected.

I might read up on that, thank you. However online communities today are very different from the nineties. Mostly because a lot more people actually meet in real life or at least have face to face interaction with various members as opposed to the mostly alias based,faceless communities of the nineties.

Sorry for the parallel discussion everyone, maybe we should start a new thread or carry on over site mail.

But then, these are the moments I appreciate,when suddenly you learn something.

gostwyck · « **Reply #492 on:** February 25, 2014, 16:51 »

Quote from: bunhill on February 25, 2014, 16:25

Quote from: cobalt on February 25, 2014, 16:12
what makes me so sad is that istock had it all - not just a fantastic community but also a great team of people who where eager to grow the business and the community in harmony. All the skills were available and ready.

iStock was not a community and nor is Shutterstock. Not in any sort of normal sociological definition of community. They are just businesses.

IMO it's a very early 90s phenomena - the idea of online communities. TBH I think it had already been partially deconstructed by the time that people were switching from Compuserve to ISPs.

ETA: communities definitely exist within and between companies however . But most of the thousands of people making stock photos today do not know each other.

There's no doubt that IS was 'a community'. A lot of people really weren't there just for the money but for the validation of their work, the interaction with other artists and admiration of many of the 'admin' including inspectors.

There was actually some truth in the COO's famously derided statement of "You don't come here for the money ...". Unfortunately it was a truth that he shouldn't have thrown in contributors faces ... whilst reducing their incomes.

You can't buy that 'community' stuff and they don't stock it on the shelves ... but it sure is valuable and it can be monetised. It enabled IS to grow an eye-wateringly profitable business, whilst paying peanuts to most contributors, in very few years. Livingstone sold IS for $50M in 2006 (unbelievably) but by the end of 2010 it would probably have been worth close to $1B as an independent business.

mayaartist · « **Reply #493 on:** February 25, 2014, 16:57 »

It's just horrible to read what they did. Do they think we are so stupid. I'm happy that I've deleted my port on IS and PP sites recently.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #494 on:** February 25, 2014, 17:11 »

I think its much simpler Shutterstock are slaughtering the opposition by being merely competent - yes far too easy for them which may cause problems down the road.

Cesar · « **Reply #495 on:** February 25, 2014, 17:18 »

i see you dont any legal actions, we are stupid they are smart and they know we are stupid.

they will do it again.

Quote from: mayaartist on February 25, 2014, 16:57

It's just horrible to read what they did. Do they think we are so stupid. I'm happy that I've deleted my port on IS and PP sites recently.

Fyletto · « **Reply #496 on:** February 25, 2014, 17:33 »

90 USD?

In translation to English: Dear contributor thank you for being already 7 years our loyal supplier. Now give us back the alms we gave to you... Thanks your Istockphoto

dirkr · « **Reply #497 on:** February 25, 2014, 17:40 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on February 25, 2014, 15:23

Quote from: vilainecrevette on February 25, 2014, 14:43
Hard time for my finger this wk, after Depositphoto deactivation, I'm on with Istock.
Sean Locke's Greasemonkey script works very well, thank you for your work.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/18688/18688/msg305339/#msg305339
It was a hard decision but I will close my account.
It may seem stupid but i feel so much better and proud of that.

If you haven't already closed it, perhaps you want to leave an image or two to keep the accountt open (so you keep access to your stats)?

No need to do that. My account is still open with full access to stats without any active image since 2011...

mayaartist · « **Reply #498 on:** February 25, 2014, 17:41 »

Quote

Cesar

« Reply #495 on: Today at 17:18 »
Quote #link0
i see you dont any legal actions, we are stupid they are smart and they know we are stupid.

they will do it again.

Quote from: mayaartist on Today at 16:57
It's just horrible to read what they did. Do they think we are so stupid. I'm happy that I've deleted my port on IS and PP sites recently.

You are right Cesar.
I was so stupid to believe them. But now they can't do it for me any more. PERIOD

''Greed is a bottomless pit which exhausts the person in an endless effort to satisfy the need without ever reaching satisfaction''.
--Erich Fromm

Tryingmybest · « **Reply #499 on:** February 25, 2014, 17:52 »

Pity indeed. Ironically, this cartoon I made recently sold on iStuck...

Quote from: lionheart on February 25, 2014, 15:29

Received my IS-mail today: They take away a considerable amount of money whereas they suggest to do it on a monthly basis:

"We discovered that there were some irregularities with September 2013 and October 2013 Partner Program royalties payments. There were a number of contributor accounts that were overpaid royalties over these two months. Unfortunately your account was one of the affected accounts.
We have calculated the over payment amount to be $xxx.xx. Rather than take this amount out of your royalty balance in one adjustment we have decided to schedule the removal of these funds over a 6 month period. Starting before the end of February 2014 we will begin removing $xx.xx. Once per month for the next six months we will recoup the balance of the over payment. You will receive a monthly notification as immediately after the funds are removed."

My sales within this period have been quite good but for sure not as good that they take away this sum of money. We don't have any means to control all the monetary scenarios arising from our microstock activity. It is kind of a "game of luck". Quite disappointing. Confidence and faith don't have no meaning. What a pity.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Hold on to your wallets! "There are irregularities with October's PP royalties" (Read 98681 times)

Jo Ann Snover

lionheart

bunhill

Pixart

Pixart

cobalt

robynmac

Cesar

bunhill

cobalt

michey

Beppe Grillo

bunhill

cobalt

bunhill

BaldricksTrousers

cobalt

gostwyck

mayaartist

Pauws99

Cesar

Fyletto

dirkr

mayaartist

Tryingmybest

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors