pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Poll

How do you feel about IStock as a company?

Strongly dislike
86 (42.4%)
Somewhat dislike
58 (28.6%)
Neutral
30 (14.8%)
Somewhat like
17 (8.4%)
Strongly like
12 (5.9%)

Total Members Voted: 182

Author Topic: How do you feel about IStock?  (Read 47700 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Cogent Marketing

« Reply #25 on: August 06, 2011, 06:45 »
0
I voted "Strongly dislike" but if "Despise" was an option, that would have been my choice.
+1 :)


« Reply #26 on: August 06, 2011, 07:24 »
0
^^^I have seen people try to work that out in the past and they have never quoted anything as low as 15%.  I would rather get a fixed percentage but I still think they pay significantly more than istock.  And my earnings with SS are almost double my istock earnings now, they also sell pay per download at higher commissions and EL's.  I get 30% commission for footage clips compared to 15% from istock.

I remember seeing quotes that go below this figure, but really nobody other than the sites themselves have the numbers.

For on demand sales SS pays between 16-19% for entry level contributors and 25-29% for those on the highest rates (based on Euro sales which the site automatically directs me to here, the percentages probably vary with other currencies). I'd find it strange if the subscription percentages were actually any higher than those values. Bottom line though with SS is that *nobody* gets more than 30%.

If you look at IS, probably the average percentages paid to contributors is higher than these numbers, especially if the claim that 50% of sales are on exclusive files is true.

Don't get me wrong - I'd like the percentages to be higher across the industry, but at the moment iStock is singled out while other sites are paying the same or less on much lower file prices and often lower overheads because they don't have the same inspection process, guarantees or marketing team.
I'm always going to prefer the 25-29% with SS to the 17% I get with istock and SS are making me around 100% more each month.  I agree that all the sites could pay more but istock cutting below 20% has put a stop to that.  It isn't just the fact that they cut their already low commission, they have given an excuse for other sites to do the same.  If sales were increasing a lot, it wouldn't be so bad but that hasn't happened.  They are also owned by the people that closed StockXpert, that used to pay me 50% commission and had really good sales.

I know sites can thrive paying 50% commission, as StockXpert did and sites like Pond5 still do.  And we really don't know if istock is happy with their current low commissions or if they will become "unsustainable" again.  I want a long term future in the microstock business but that doesn't look feasible with istock at the moment.

Other sites like Fotolia are almost as bad as istock, I think they would get similar results in a poll asking the OP's question.

FT and DT both cut their percentages long before IS did. SS doesn't need to because in overall terms they're already at the lowest level in the industry.

« Reply #27 on: August 06, 2011, 08:07 »
0
I wish "Google" had an application to mark disliked sites.. The more the site got those "dislikes" the deeper it would get buried to last pages of google search..

I am sure no company would then risk their good relations with visitors or members.. Contributors or buyers.. They would equally be important to the sites..


That would be great, but sadly also open to abuse ("hey dude I "disliked" all the search results above yours for ya!")

that can be sorted.. it shouldn't be as simple as a dude thing:) it should require something like 10 thousand individual dislikes or something to bury a site to digital hell which in istock's case we have 10 times more than 10 thousand dislikes  :D

« Reply #28 on: August 06, 2011, 08:08 »
0
I wish "Google" had an application to mark disliked sites.. The more the site got those "dislikes" the deeper it would get buried to last pages of google search..

I am sure no company would then risk their good relations with visitors or members.. Contributors or buyers.. They would equally be important to the sites..


That would be great, but sadly also open to abuse ("hey dude I "disliked" all the search results above yours for ya!")

That would turn agencies into little angels who want to be in great terms with everyone  ;D

« Reply #29 on: August 06, 2011, 09:29 »
0
..FT and DT both cut their percentages long before IS did. SS doesn't need to because in overall terms they're already at the lowest level in the industry.
SS pay their commission to non-exclusives, we're free to upload wherever else we want to.  So I don't think it's fair to compare their commission with the average for istock because they have to pay more for exclusives.  If you just compare non-exclusives, istock pay a lot less than SS.

And I like that SS pay less to those that don't sell much and have obtainable levels for those that work hard to get sales.  There's also no yearly download requirement, when you reach the top level, you stay there.

Like I said before, FT are almost as bad as istock and I have lost my motivation to upload there.  What I would like to see is a better way for all of us to sell our images.  There's only a few sites now that give us a fair deal and I hope that will change in the future.

« Reply #30 on: August 06, 2011, 09:39 »
0
..FT and DT both cut their percentages long before IS did. SS doesn't need to because in overall terms they're already at the lowest level in the industry.
SS pay their commission to non-exclusives, we're free to upload wherever else we want to.  So I don't think it's fair to compare their commission with the average for istock because they have to pay more for exclusives.  If you just compare non-exclusives, istock pay a lot less than SS.

And I like that SS pay less to those that don't sell much and have obtainable levels for those that work hard to get sales.  There's also no yearly download requirement, when you reach the top level, you stay there.

Like I said before, FT are almost as bad as istock and I have lost my motivation to upload there.  What I would like to see is a better way for all of us to sell our images.  There's only a few sites now that give us a fair deal and I hope that will change in the future.

there is nothing to compare honestly, we all know that, SS is going up and IS need a big fix which will never happen

even if we compare SS with ThinkStock, SS pays a lot more, everybody gets pretty quick to the 500$ which is 33 not 28cents

WarrenPrice

« Reply #31 on: August 06, 2011, 11:06 »
0
I do agree that iStock is despicable.  They got too big to fold ... sorta like AIG?  Not many people are will (or able) to quit them.  But, are they really that much worse than the others?  Arguing that one is better than the other seems rather temporary.

I see the top four threads are about hating iStock.  Wouldn't it be better to just ignore them?
« Last Edit: August 06, 2011, 11:08 by WarrenPrice »

« Reply #32 on: August 06, 2011, 11:21 »
0
I do agree that iStock is despicable.  They got too big to fold ... sorta like AIG?  Not many people are will (or able) to quit them.  But, are they really that much worse than the others?  Arguing that one is better than the other seems rather temporary.

I see the top four threads are about hating iStock.  Wouldn't it be better to just ignore them?

I cannot, they took me 2h per week during the last 130 weeks! :P

grp_photo

« Reply #33 on: August 06, 2011, 11:42 »
0
^^^I have seen people try to work that out in the past and they have never quoted anything as low as 15%.  I would rather get a fixed percentage but I still think they pay significantly more than istock.  And my earnings with SS are almost double my istock earnings now, they also sell pay per download at higher commissions and EL's.  I get 30% commission for footage clips compared to 15% from istock.

I remember seeing quotes that go below this figure, but really nobody other than the sites themselves have the numbers.

For on demand sales SS pays between 16-19% for entry level contributors and 25-29% for those on the highest rates (based on Euro sales which the site automatically directs me to here, the percentages probably vary with other currencies). I'd find it strange if the subscription percentages were actually any higher than those values. Bottom line though with SS is that *nobody* gets more than 30%.

If you look at IS, probably the average percentages paid to contributors is higher than these numbers, especially if the claim that 50% of sales are on exclusive files is true.

Don't get me wrong - I'd like the percentages to be higher across the industry, but at the moment iStock is singled out while other sites are paying the same or less on much lower file prices and often lower overheads because they don't have the same inspection process, guarantees or marketing team.
Spot on Holgs.
I've never liked iStock but this goes back to 2005 than most people had warm feelings towards them.
But subscription in general is the worst thing, it's a model that is ruining the industry most and is for individual photographers most harmful and it's a model that only will be profitable for the agencies in the very long run. There must be a reason that all agencies enforces the subscription model on this huge scale, I'm sure it is the most profitable thing for them and I'm sure the contributor percentage is way below 20%.
What makes SS better over IS is that they are never be that arrogant to their contributors on this huge scale as IS and they are a more reliable business partner but they don't offer a better deal.
The Woohayers are the people that makes it for the agencies so easy to treat us like crap. Therefore I hate them regardless if they are IS- SS- FT- DT- Woohayers. And a comment from jtyler:' I've been an IS yea-sayer for 6 of my almost 8 years here.  I no longer am.' is deeply satisfying for me, she digged her own grave!

Slovenian

« Reply #34 on: August 06, 2011, 13:34 »
0
Royalty percentages matter, but no matter how many times you turn it around, twist it, SS still makes more money than the rest for most contributors. And earnings are most important to everybody but IS (coz money doesn't make 'em happy) ;)

« Reply #35 on: December 06, 2011, 03:19 »
0
i have just close my istock account! there was no sale for 1 year  :(

« Reply #36 on: December 06, 2011, 03:48 »
0
I put "somewhat dislike" because of the cut in commission rates.
After dealing with Fotolia, it is difficult to actively dislike anyone else by comparison with the loathing they inspire.

« Reply #37 on: December 06, 2011, 03:52 »
0
Other sites like Fotolia are almost as bad as istock, I think they would get similar results in a poll asking the OP's question.

Fotolia is way, way worse. I've never had to write to iStock threatening to have the FBI on them for internet fraud in order to get paid and I'm pretty sure I never will.

lagereek

« Reply #38 on: December 06, 2011, 10:52 »
0
No, I dont have any hard feelings towards IS, what they are doing is history repeating itself, the Getty hallmark of doing things and after 18 years with Getty, nothing surprises me.
Being an independat diamond at IS, ( like so many others) I do regret all the hard work but not the money, Im in a position where I can quite happily live without their revenues.
I think the whole affair is a sad story, really, where the without dispute, most premiere micro-site, slowly just fades away into oblivion, well, thats my story.

About Fotolia!  I have always got on very well with them and they are selling very well for me. Thats me however, others have a differant story to tell.

« Reply #39 on: December 06, 2011, 10:56 »
0
The bottom line for me was: more and more hoop-jumping for less and less money.   And the strong feeling that would only continue. And the whole 'tone' of the company is plain creepy.  Like BaldricksTrousers said, they're not sleazeballs like Fotolia - yet...
« Last Edit: December 06, 2011, 11:07 by stockastic »

« Reply #40 on: December 06, 2011, 11:18 »
0
Istock can be better or worse, they can pay more, less or the same percentage than sub-sites, where percentages have to be guessed but, at less, it has the ability to sell our files for fair prices, both for buyers and sellers, that are not near to nothing.For me, that's the best part. One good exemple, today, my three last sales add up to 26 dollars, and they doesn't include any Vetta or Agency and just one E+.

« Reply #41 on: December 06, 2011, 11:31 »
0
Istock can be better or worse, they can pay more, less or the same percentage than sub-sites, where percentages have to be guessed but, at less, it has the ability to sell our files for fair prices, both for buyers and sellers, that are not near to nothing.For me, that's the best part. One good exemple, today, my three last sales add up to 26 dollars, and they doesn't include any Vetta or Agency and just one E+.
they may "sell our files for fair prices" but they sure as hell don't give independents a "fair" cut of the sale.

lagereek

« Reply #42 on: December 06, 2011, 12:09 »
0
Istock can be better or worse, they can pay more, less or the same percentage than sub-sites, where percentages have to be guessed but, at less, it has the ability to sell our files for fair prices, both for buyers and sellers, that are not near to nothing.For me, that's the best part. One good exemple, today, my three last sales add up to 26 dollars, and they doesn't include any Vetta or Agency and just one E+.
they may "sell our files for fair prices" but they sure as hell don't give independents a "fair" cut of the sale.

Thats why its better just leaving them instead of this never ending forum story. Im in the process of just that. Dont need the aggro anymore.

« Reply #43 on: December 06, 2011, 12:22 »
0
I would like to know if it's correct that "most of its users do still think reasonably well of iStockphoto" as stated on another thread. What better way to check if faith has been eroded in the brand than by a poll!

In that case, your poll has the wrong premise/options.

It should be something like, "Since last year, has your view of Istock changed for the worse?"
Very much
Somewhat
Marginally
Not at all

helix7

« Reply #44 on: December 06, 2011, 13:20 »
0

While I'd always love to be making more money in stock, it's not the financial troubles of istock that bother me most about the company. I work with lots of companies, some that are far worse performers than istock.

What really stinks about the company is the shady approach they take with contributor relations. The lies, the double-speak, the claw-backs, the conflicting information, etc. The latest is the vector format change to EPS10. istock has said for years that they don't need the EPS10 format, there's no reason to change, etc. They put out that customer poll and then a few weeks later they announce the new EPS10 format standard. Yesterday we get the Contact Sheet email saying "You contributors asked for it, so here it is!" Oh please.

We know there's more to the story. Buyers were a major factor. Probably based on some information from that poll, maybe general buyer feedback, requests, customer support conversations, etc. But don't patronize us and act like it's some magical gift that you're giving us just because we asked for it. We asked for it years ago, and since then on an almost monthly basis, and we were always promptly shot down.

I wish they could just be honest. No idea why that's so hard. If a decision is made for a specific reason, just tell us. We can handle it. Don't tell us that your 80% royalty cut is "unsustainable." We're not stupid. Even if the truth sucks, just tell it like it is. If you want to boost company profits, then just tell us that's what you're doing. We might not be all that thrilled about the real reason for the change, but at least then you're not caught between some bad news AND an unbelievable lie about the reason for the bad news.

« Reply #45 on: December 06, 2011, 13:55 »
0
I think that "unsustainable" translates as "fails to generate enough profit to satisfy the 2 levels of corporate ownership above us".

« Reply #46 on: December 06, 2011, 19:20 »
0
I accidently click strongly like, but what I meant to click was strongly dislike.  I don't know how to change my vote.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2011, 19:22 by LongHa2006 »

« Reply #47 on: December 06, 2011, 23:46 »
0
I wish "Google" had an application to mark disliked sites.. The more the site got those "dislikes" the deeper it would get buried to last pages of google search..

I am sure no company would then risk their good relations with visitors or members.. Contributors or buyers.. They would equally be important to the sites..

Just imagine 100.000 contributors voting "dislike" on istock sending it to the bottom of google search!

Perfect World!  :D

I think we should suggest google a change in this direction.. We would need nothing else to keep the sites in good standard!
:-) really a noble idea cidepix ! :-)
« Last Edit: December 07, 2011, 00:08 by dr_skn08 »

Microbius

« Reply #48 on: December 07, 2011, 02:25 »
0
I accidently click strongly like, but what I meant to click was strongly dislike.  I don't know how to change my vote.

I don't think I can change it, but frankly from the way it's stacking up I don't think it's going to skew the results too much!  ;)

eyeidea

  • visualize your brainstorm
« Reply #49 on: December 07, 2011, 14:54 »
0
I left photo exclusive in the fall of 2010. Now I have decided to leave video exclusive. That is how I feel. iStock has to do what it has to do, so do I.

more info here: http://www.eyeidea.com/2011/12/06/expanding-stock-video-distribution/


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
2515 Views
Last post February 09, 2013, 01:09
by Pixart
10 Replies
3839 Views
Last post April 09, 2013, 13:02
by wordplanet
6 Replies
2328 Views
Last post April 25, 2014, 10:35
by nicolebranan
7 Replies
4258 Views
Last post January 05, 2016, 16:55
by Red Dove
32 Replies
10882 Views
Last post January 10, 2017, 11:01
by Kokkoros

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors