pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA  (Read 26265 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

lagereek

« Reply #75 on: November 16, 2010, 10:12 »
0
Probably for a different thread Lagereek but it would be great to see a list of some of your favorite photographers from those days and people who you remember as being particularly successful. Go on and start it :) That said I think there is some amazing work being done these days.

Yep Why not, nothing else to do anyway and rabbiting about Vetta isnt all that. Ill call it " great names of tha past"

best.


« Reply #76 on: November 16, 2010, 11:03 »
0

That how I would read those stats, what are you seeing Lisa?

Yes, the total number of exclusives has gone up, but the percentage of exclusive contributors has dropped from 18.04% to 16.68%. 

On a site as big as Istock, you would expect to see the numbers continue to rise.  But if the rate of growth has slowed, that is still a negative.

Ask the bean counters at Istock.  They used rate of growth as the reason to hose us out of our royalty percentages, so obviously it is an important statistic to them...

like I have said it is impossible that 4k new contributors went exclusives with just 2 months.. so the % is not accurate, it might be but like in 6 months or so

lisafx

« Reply #77 on: November 16, 2010, 11:33 »
0

like I have said it is impossible that 4k new contributors went exclusives with just 2 months.. so the % is not accurate, it might be but like in 6 months or so

Yes, Luis, but more current members reach exclusive eligibility every day, and fewer (percentage) of them are choosing to go exclusive than 2 months ago.  

ETA:  Who knows, this may be Getty's plan.  To discourage newer, lower canister people from ever going exclusive.  That way Istock gets their images and only pays out 15-19%...
« Last Edit: November 16, 2010, 11:59 by lisafx »

« Reply #78 on: November 16, 2010, 12:02 »
0

like I have said it is impossible that 4k new contributors went exclusives with just 2 months.. so the % is not accurate, it might be but like in 6 months or so

Yes, Luis, but more current members reach exclusive eligibility every day, and fewer (percentage) of them are choosing to go exclusive than 2 months ago.  

ETA:  Who knows, this may be Getty's plan.  To discourage newer, lower canister people from ever going exclusive.  That way Istock gets their images and only pays out 15-19%...

lol didn't thought of that.. :)

« Reply #79 on: November 16, 2010, 12:14 »
0
For reasons I can guess at, there appear to be a lot of the newbies who qualify at 250 downloads who are becoming exclusive - even after the September bombshell. Initially, I'd have expected that no one would become exclusive who wasn't already. However...

If you look at it from their perspective though (especially if they haven't been uploading elsewhere) it's a way to get a guaranteed 25% next year regardless of sales this year. They're looking at a raise and thus aren't p#$sed off.

The number of such exclusives are relatively much higher than their portfolio or sales (with respect to total collection or total sales). I think this is where the bulk of the additions comes from.

Also, the sense of broken promises is much less acute with contributors in the above group - it's those who (like me) have been working towards diamond for a while and now won't get the anticipated 40% (for a few weeks, but that's largely meaningless) who are incandescently angry at the changes. The only angrier group would be those who did the deal to become exclusive by August 31st to get the grandfathered canister levels - they were royally led down the garden path with shameful deceit.

If there are some superstars in the group of new exclusives who can produce quality and in volume, they might actually be better off than under the old system - they can have a really good year and get a big royalty boost as a result.

I see a lot of complaining in the Vetta forum about sales having dropped after the price increases in September (double the price, half the sales - who'd have guessed??). For whatever reason the Vetta on Getty and IS Agency contributors moving to Getty's Agency collection didn't happen as planned (it's now "by the end of the year"). If new exclusives are being enticed by the prospect of getting files into those collections, the waters seem a tad muddy to me.

The only thing that's clear IMO is the relentless march by Getty towards 20% (max) for everyone. The current mess of rates is only a waystation while they break the old exclusive system up.

lisafx

« Reply #80 on: November 16, 2010, 12:37 »
0
Very insightful, JoAnn.  I am betting you are right on all counts. 

Hadn't thought about the benefits of exclusivity to newbies, but that makes a lot of sense.  If I hadn't uploaded to any other sites, and I saw the opportunity to jump from 15% to 25% overnight that might be an appealing prospect.  Shortsighted though, IMO. 

« Reply #81 on: November 16, 2010, 13:29 »
0
Very insightful, JoAnn.  I am betting you are right on all counts. 

Hadn't thought about the benefits of exclusivity to newbies, but that makes a lot of sense.  If I hadn't uploaded to any other sites, and I saw the opportunity to jump from 15% to 25% overnight that might be an appealing prospect.  Shortsighted though, IMO. 

Maybe this is their strategy - get rid of the old, expensive exclusives, and replace them with new exclusives who start out with lower expectations. Could be that there are so many of us, that contributors are being regarded as a nearly unlimited resource, making it easy to adopt an 'out with the old, in with the new' policy. Sort of a new twist on the Age Discrimination theme.

« Reply #82 on: November 16, 2010, 13:55 »
0
Maybe this is their strategy - get rid of the old, expensive exclusives, and replace them with new exclusives who start out with lower expectations. Could be that there are so many of us, that contributors are being regarded as a nearly unlimited resource, making it easy to adopt an 'out with the old, in with the new' policy. Sort of a new twist on the Age Discrimination theme.


The only ones they really don't want to get rid of are the very top tier of earners, at least not until they have a tier of newbies that are selling really well to replace them with.

I'd pick an analogy of the airlines with the different salary levels for pilots on their main fleet and the regional jets. Although the union fought most of the moves, the airlines wanted to push more and more larger and longer-haul jets out to the "regional" pilots - who were paid less and had lower benefits.

In time, we're all replaceable. The trick will be if they can find enough talented, hardworking newbies who want to bust their but for 20% max. If the only group chortling about how much money they made are the executives, they may be out of luck - tales from happy contributors of how much money you can make in this great business will be what draws in new players. Happy contributors are a bit thin on the ground these days.

vonkara

« Reply #83 on: November 16, 2010, 14:04 »
0
To be honest if the announcement had come before I went exclusive I'm not sure if I'd have done it either - but staying independent wouldn't have been the best business decision, even with the changes.

Considering the % of subscription sales everywhere else, being exclusive at Istock is nothing bad, even with the changes... for now lol

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #84 on: November 18, 2010, 00:53 »
0
Maybe this is their strategy - get rid of the old, expensive exclusives, and replace them with new exclusives who start out with lower expectations. Could be that there are so many of us, that contributors are being regarded as a nearly unlimited resource, making it easy to adopt an 'out with the old, in with the new' policy. Sort of a new twist on the Age Discrimination theme.


In time, we're all replaceable. The trick will be if they can find enough talented, hardworking newbies who want to bust their but for 20% max. If the only group chortling about how much money they made are the executives, they may be out of luck - tales from happy contributors of how much money you can make in this great business will be what draws in new players. Happy contributors are a bit thin on the ground these days.

I don't think this is a real-world scenario. I'd guess the percentage of new contributors in microstock with staying power--let alone staying and evolving power--is very low. We already know that the serious contributors make up just about 1-2K contributors on iStock. The rest are one or two images here and there contributors. To suggest they're trying to replace the old expensive guns with all the new recruits who don't know any better, I don't think that's realistic.

lagereek

« Reply #85 on: November 18, 2010, 01:55 »
0
Getty will within the coming year try to get rid of the "riff-raff" , exclusive or not. This move I can understand since IS has been far to leanant in their acceptance of files.
They will then start a clean-up operation, removing tens of thousands of irrelevant material, you know like isolations, business people, lots of generic stuff. They certainly dont want much more of these "ordinary" exclusives, thats for sure. They will also increase prices a lot more.

My hunch is that within a year and half, we wont even remember IS as it once was. Then comes the big question: is it worth it?
« Last Edit: November 18, 2010, 01:57 by lagereek »

« Reply #86 on: November 19, 2010, 06:35 »
0
For reasons I can guess at, there appear to be a lot of the newbies who qualify at 250 downloads who are becoming exclusive - even after the September bombshell. Initially, I'd have expected that no one would become exclusive who wasn't already. However...

If you look at it from their perspective though (especially if they haven't been uploading elsewhere) it's a way to get a guaranteed 25% next year regardless of sales this year. They're looking at a raise and thus aren't p#$sed off.

The number of such exclusives are relatively much higher than their portfolio or sales (with respect to total collection or total sales). I think this is where the bulk of the additions comes from.
......

I totally agree with this. I am a relative newbie, started uploading in january this year and turned exclusive in past october. For me 25% instead of 15% is very good since I can not upload in other sites, because I don't have the time. I am not a full-time photographer. I like photography and financing this hobby of mind through stock is a huge opportunity for me. I can further invest in gear and try different things which would be Vetta-like shots. So I guess there are other people like me who thinks similar and turning exclusive.

On the other hand I totally understand the frustration on higher levels, gold and diamond canisters. IS/Getty has literally deceived these people IMHO.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #87 on: November 19, 2010, 07:56 »
0
Very insightful, JoAnn.  I am betting you are right on all counts. 

Hadn't thought about the benefits of exclusivity to newbies, but that makes a lot of sense.  If I hadn't uploaded to any other sites, and I saw the opportunity to jump from 15% to 25% overnight that might be an appealing prospect.  Shortsighted though, IMO. 

Maybe this is their strategy - get rid of the old, expensive exclusives, and replace them with new exclusives who start out with lower expectations. Could be that there are so many of us, that contributors are being regarded as a nearly unlimited resource, making it easy to adopt an 'out with the old, in with the new' policy. Sort of a new twist on the Age Discrimination theme.

I don't think they want to get rid of any exclusives. I just think they don't want to keep paying 30% to 40% to exclusives who joined way back in the beginning and are coasting on high commissions while either not producing anything new or sellable.

So someone who joined in 2002, has 5,000 files, and 25,000 downloads is a Diamond. But they will suffer severly under the new model because their sales performance (RPI, DRI, Redeemed Credits) would probably be considered way below average.

I also don't think this is about new or old. It's about profits. More profitable contributors end up in the same or better position. Less profitable contributors end up in a worse position.

Caz

« Reply #88 on: November 19, 2010, 12:39 »
0

I don't think they want to get rid of any exclusives. I just think they don't want to keep paying 30% to 40% to exclusives who joined way back in the beginning and are coasting on high commissions while either not producing anything new or sellable.

So someone who joined in 2002, has 5,000 files, and 25,000 downloads is a Diamond. But they will suffer severly under the new model because their sales performance (RPI, DRI, Redeemed Credits) would probably be considered way below average.

I also don't think this is about new or old. It's about profits. More profitable contributors end up in the same or better position. Less profitable contributors end up in a worse position.

I agree with Paulie. As much as it pains me, because I'm one of those who'll be losing out big time, I do see how inequitable the old system is. If I'm honest with myself, I don't see why I should have a higher commission *just* because I've been there for years & years and so have built up sales over time.  There are some hugely talented new contributors producing much better stock than me who aren't getting my commission levels simply because I got there first. And, in the cold light of day, I think they're more talented than me. And if that's true, then they'll sell more each year than me and their talent will earn them higher commision than me. It sucks, because that's a big change to what I signed up for, and it will be a big change to my income. But when I look at it clinically, it makes perfect business sense to reward your best performers. At the rist of laboring the point, here's another analogy. My first job was for the government. Pay was structured in years of service. I was outraged that "the old guard" who'd been there for 30 years and did far less than me got paid more than me, simply because they'd been there longer.

That said, I do hope the cut off levels will be tweaked before January because I don't think they're in the right place (unless Kelly's predction for sales galore in the next 2 months magically comes true). But, in principle, I think the system is fairer (even though I'll be losing out)

« Reply #89 on: November 19, 2010, 12:42 »
0
I don't buy from Istock anymore for my company, and this exact problem is one of the reasons why.. it's immoral to take 60 credits for an image, and then sell an almost identical one at 5-10 credits, as a buyer it doesn't make me feel that I can trust the pricing, or trust the supplying web site, and I would abslutely hate to be a customer that bought that image at 60 credits, and then down the line spotted an identical image for much cheaper on the SAME web site.. there's something a bit criminal about it..

Blah blah blah, It's immoral? Give me a break. For this small moment in time I will side on iS. There is nothing immoral about it. GO to a department store and look at the price reduced bin of underwear. Same stuff as is on the shelf just way less money. Besides the Vetta image as posted in the OPs thread is better than the non Vetta image. BTW good luck with your shopping elsewhere.

Good grief, I just noticed I sided with SJlocke above. What next?

LOL, I feel I have to side with IS in this instance too.

« Reply #90 on: November 19, 2010, 13:32 »
0
... I do see how inequitable the old system is. If I'm honest with myself, I don't see why I should have a higher commission *just* because I've been there for years & years and so have built up sales over time. 


All compensation and bonus systems are "unfair" in one way or another - they all contain incentives to reward certain things. This effectively ignores or discourages other things - whatever you don't want more of. The problems come because of unintended consequences.

A guy who worked for me told a story about a previous employer whose incentive system was based on the gross margins of his business unit. An opportunity for an acquisition came up which would have been good for the company - good fit with the business, long term advantage, good sales and the acquisition was profitable. Problem was that its gross margins were lower and would have ruined his bonus for the year. So a competitor got the prize instead. I can't blame the guy who turned down the acquisition - businesses who don't think about their reward systems have only themselves to blame when employees respond to them.

The old system at IS rewarded those who had brought in a lot of business to IS - didn't matter in which calendar year. Now the system will reward people who brought in a lot of business - but only in one medium - last calendar year.

What have you done for me lately is the new target.  I hope they get what they wanted out of it.

And that they don't care about the things they've lost.

« Reply #91 on: November 19, 2010, 14:01 »
0
If I'm honest with myself, I don't see why I should have a higher commission *just* because I've been there for years & years and so have built up sales over time. 

Because you helped to successfully grow the company to where it is today?

lisafx

« Reply #92 on: November 19, 2010, 14:52 »
0
If I'm honest with myself, I don't see why I should have a higher commission *just* because I've been there for years & years and so have built up sales over time.

Because you helped to successfully grow the company to where it is today?

Yes!  Exactly!! ^^

Anybody can come along after a business is hugely successful and jump on the bandwagon.  There should be some recognition of the people who signed on early, before it was particularly lucrative, and worked to make the business a success in the first place.  

Kind of reminds me of my brother-in-law.  He worked to put his wife through college for 8 years, and helped raise her son, while she earned a degree as a psychologist.  As soon as she was poised to start making good money, she dumped him.  He invested all that time in her, but wasn't entitled to any money because she only started making it after the split.  

If you invest in a business' (or person's) success when times are lean, it's only fair you share in the benefits when times are good.  

RT


« Reply #93 on: November 19, 2010, 17:27 »
0
Because you helped to successfully grow the company to where it is today?

Depending which way you look at that statement it could be deemed to be praise or insult.

"Because you helped to successfully grow the company" (Praise - From a small community of photographers into a major stock agency ) "to where it is today?" (Insult - Profit orientated manipulative corporate greed with no fundamental concern for those that built the success)

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #94 on: November 19, 2010, 17:32 »
0

I don't think they want to get rid of any exclusives. I just think they don't want to keep paying 30% to 40% to exclusives who joined way back in the beginning and are coasting on high commissions while either not producing anything new or sellable.

So someone who joined in 2002, has 5,000 files, and 25,000 downloads is a Diamond. But they will suffer severly under the new model because their sales performance (RPI, DRI, Redeemed Credits) would probably be considered way below average.

I also don't think this is about new or old. It's about profits. More profitable contributors end up in the same or better position. Less profitable contributors end up in a worse position.

I agree with Paulie. As much as it pains me, because I'm one of those who'll be losing out big time, I do see how inequitable the old system is. If I'm honest with myself, I don't see why I should have a higher commission *just* because I've been there for years & years and so have built up sales over time.  There are some hugely talented new contributors producing much better stock than me who aren't getting my commission levels simply because I got there first. And, in the cold light of day, I think they're more talented than me. And if that's true, then they'll sell more each year than me and their talent will earn them higher commision than me. It sucks, because that's a big change to what I signed up for, and it will be a big change to my income. But when I look at it clinically, it makes perfect business sense to reward your best performers. At the rist of laboring the point, here's another analogy. My first job was for the government. Pay was structured in years of service. I was outraged that "the old guard" who'd been there for 30 years and did far less than me got paid more than me, simply because they'd been there longer.

That said, I do hope the cut off levels will be tweaked before January because I don't think they're in the right place (unless Kelly's predction for sales galore in the next 2 months magically comes true). But, in principle, I think the system is fairer (even though I'll be losing out)

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying I agree with the new model. I understand it, and why they would change it, but don't totally agree with all parts of it.

I don't think the long termers should be kicked to the curb. A lot of them helped make IS successful even if they don't have rockstar performance.

« Reply #95 on: November 19, 2010, 17:47 »
0
I look at it like anyone with 9644 files in their port (sjlocke) or 6000+ files (lisafx) and all the others who have been around awhile, not only have helped grow the company and deserve rewards, but should be allowed to slack off just a little if they wanted to without being punished.

@ RT... :)

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #96 on: November 19, 2010, 20:12 »
0
I look at it like anyone with 9644 files in their port (sjlocke) or 6000+ files (lisafx) and all the others who have been around awhile, not only have helped grow the company and deserve rewards, but should be allowed to slack off just a little if they wanted to without being punished.

@ RT... :)

Strong performers like Sean and Lisa probably represent a small percentage of all contributors.

What about someone who has 6,000+ files and only a couple thousand downloads since 2002? Did they really help grow the company? Probably not. I'd guess they're unprofitable which is why this new model is going to hit them hard. It's intended to. IS doesn't need to do the dirty work of getting rid of them. They'll most likely stop submitting or maybe even leave. Should IS reward someone who is costing them more money than they're bringing in?

Vetta and Agency are high profit margin. Strong perfomers and/or people who can create sellable Vetta/Agency stuff are what they want.

« Reply #97 on: November 19, 2010, 21:35 »
0
Because you helped to successfully grow the company to where it is today?

Depending which way you look at that statement it could be deemed to be praise or insult.

"Because you helped to successfully grow the company" (Praise - From a small community of photographers into a major stock agency ) "to where it is today?" (Insult - Profit orientated manipulative corporate greed with no fundamental concern for those that built the success)

Ha ha!  Yes, I meant it in the good way...

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #98 on: November 20, 2010, 00:56 »
0
@ Caz: I agree with most of what you said, though I think Sean's point is an improvement on yours. don't undersell the importance of having been part of the growth and success of the company.

@Lisa: jumping on the bandwagon is easy. staying on the bandwagon, producing despite an ever-growing pool of competitor's images, and rolling with some fairly large punches takes more than a little bit of effort. I think it's a fair system to attempt to reward contributors working hard and producing sales. new or old contributors and those of us in the middle.

I think the royalty levels are unfair. but unless my royalties are 100%, I think I'll always find them less than what I'd like to be receiving...I'm already past my RC requirement to stay at my current royalty. but I won't get my raise when I hit diamond soon.

« Reply #99 on: November 22, 2010, 15:18 »
0
Tried following the iStock examples and it looks like they may have pulled one of each of pairs. I guess that is an improvement.

The idea of Vetta is just a group of images that someone liked. You pay extra for having them sort through the mass, not because the images are 5x better...


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
13 Replies
3441 Views
Last post October 23, 2008, 22:54
by helix7
3 Replies
1770 Views
Last post July 26, 2009, 14:38
by madelaide
12 Replies
3923 Views
Last post July 05, 2011, 14:45
by Shank_ali
9 Replies
3004 Views
Last post January 25, 2017, 11:34
by izzikiorage
2 Replies
1779 Views
Last post May 02, 2017, 09:21
by Noedelhap

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results