MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStock | 15 Year Anniversary  (Read 39180 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #75 on: April 23, 2015, 16:04 »
+1
what i see is $, and when i take a look on total $ - for me, it does not look promising at the moment.

just an illustration (GI downloads for one of my files from s+ collection):


Date (DD/MM/YYYY) Site Royalty
01/07/2014 12:00 AM MDT Getty Images $0.01 USD
01/08/2014 12:00 AM MDT Getty Images $0.01 USD
01/09/2014 12:00 AM MDT Getty Images $0.01 USD
01/10/2014 12:00 AM MDT Getty Images $0.01 USD
01/11/2014 12:00 AM MDT Getty Images $0.01 USD
01/12/2014 12:00 AM MST Getty Images $0.01 USD
01/01/2015 12:00 AM MST Getty Images $0.01 USD


I wonder if that is from the embedded viewer thing... Or just some other way to screw the artists.

Aren't these sales likely to be the Getty Connect thing (which I don't pretend to understand)?  http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=1407


« Reply #76 on: April 23, 2015, 18:16 »
+1
i just watched the video. Unreal.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2015, 18:45 by cobalt »

« Reply #77 on: April 23, 2015, 23:50 »
-3
iStock may no longer the leader in the stock business, but I wish them to be back to leading ways again, to go head to head with Shutterstock.

If they become profitable again, the Contributors also earn, and everyone is happy and blessed.  :)

« Reply #78 on: April 24, 2015, 01:16 »
+1
Why do you think they haven't been talking to contributors?

 contributor is not = contributors

« Reply #79 on: April 24, 2015, 01:59 »
+12
If they become profitable again, the Contributors also earn, and everyone is happy and blessed.  :)

Sadly, it doesn't always work like that. They can always give you a pay cut if they feel things are going too well for you. Remember the time things were getting better and better for everyone, so they proclaimed that it was unsustainable for them to pay more and more just because they were doing well so they gave us a pay cut?
And things just got worse from then on.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2015, 02:02 by BaldricksTrousers »

Semmick Photo

« Reply #80 on: April 24, 2015, 02:08 »
+3
If they become profitable again, the Contributors also earn, and everyone is happy and blessed.  :)

Sadly, it doesn't always work like that. They can always give you a pay cut if they feel things are going too well for you. Remember the time things were getting better and better for everyone, so they proclaimed that it was unsustainable for them to pay more and more just because they were doing well so they gave us a pay cut?
And things just got worse from then on.
Did they say that? Wow. Some nerve. Do they think photographers are less gifted in the brain department?

« Reply #81 on: April 24, 2015, 03:00 »
+11
iStock may no longer the leader in the stock business, but I wish them to be back to leading ways again, to go head to head with Shutterstock.

If they become profitable again, the Contributors also earn, and everyone is happy and blessed.  :)

I don't think I could trust them ever again... Not after what I experienced here. And it's not only me.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #82 on: April 24, 2015, 03:53 »
+7
If they become profitable again, the Contributors also earn, and everyone is happy and blessed.  :)


Sadly, it doesn't always work like that. They can always give you a pay cut if they feel things are going too well for you. Remember the time things were getting better and better for everyone, so they proclaimed that it was unsustainable for them to pay more and more just because they were doing well so they gave us a pay cut?
And things just got worse from then on.
Did they say that? Wow. Some nerve. Do they think photographers are less gifted in the brain department?


How soon you forget!
"Since roughly 2005 we've been aware of a basic problem with how our business works. As the company grows, the overall percentage we pay out to contributing artists increases. In the most basic terms that means that iStock becomes less profitable with increased success. As a business model, its simply unsustainable: businesses should get more profitable as they grow. This is a long-term problem that needs to be addressed."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=251812&page=1

(But that wasn't long after he told us that Getty had told him to increase profits 50%.)
« Last Edit: April 24, 2015, 11:42 by ShadySue »

« Reply #83 on: April 24, 2015, 05:01 »
+18
I think about everything they did starting since September 2012 and everything, and I mean every single change they have "made for the better",  has resulted in a pure and measurable additional net loss of income for me.

Nothing I have done to try and fight the declining curve (optimizing keywords, linking light boxes, adding new content, etc) has made one bit of difference to thwart my steadily falling income on a monthly basis.

Nothing will get better I'm certain at this point. The only thing that has gone up has been subscription sales, but that is a red herring because for the small increase in income from subs I have lost volumes of credit sales, and the net result of that has been a net decline in additional income as well.

I think it is ironic they even implemented the phrase "race to the bottom" because everything they have done in the last 2.5 years has been nothing but a race to the bottom on my income.

The only time I will take one word from them seriously about how they cherish their exclusive contributors is when I see my income start to steadily rise again as it did from 2010 to early 2012.   But I think the chance of that happening is between slim and none and it appears slim just left town.

« Reply #84 on: April 24, 2015, 05:45 »
+15
I think about everything they did starting since September 2012 and everything, and I mean every single change they have "made for the better",  has resulted in a pure and measurable additional net loss of income for me.

N

Agree on that. I finally jumped off the boat because I think 2+ years was more than enough to change direction of the cruise lines. But those changes got worse and worse for contributor. Now looking back I think the biggest mistakes were:

1- the MOST important one was ever increasing prices. Subscriptions are a bad deal for photographers in whatever light you look at it.If Istock would have remained in the 1-7 credit range clients would have not moved away to other cheaper options mostly subscription services. Once Getty was in the hands of private equity firm Hellman Friedman it was not more about long term success....it was about * the last drop of blood from the company......and prepare about the sell out. They killed the goose of the golden eggs.

2- Lots of Measures to demoralize many Istock contributors. The Redeemed Credits system being the worst but there were others.....Punctum day disappearance, driving traffic to Thinkstock and photos.com, goggle fiasco,......

3- At a later stage they made another huge mistake when they automated the E+ selection. So they though if a photo was selling a lot it should cost more. This IS a big mistake. Bread sugar or water don't cost more because they sell a lo. It's about scarcity if you want to raise prices......in every industry......such a stupid move could only respond to the greed of inflate artificially the numbers but the consequence was logic....client pissed abandoning the ship in droves.

4- Get rid of the quality control. Again if you want to ask for a premium and before subscription Istock was the highest priced micro, still is for credits. But clients are no fools.

5- Finally when the new manager saw the disaster they saw that it was they didn't have anymore quality advantage so or it was subscriptions or goodbye. But the subscription clients are already in other agencies....again it would have been wiser to slash a lot credit prices and I think both Istock and contributor would have won with this move

It is really amazing that a company that was in total leadership 5 years ago has done so many wrong moves. No wonder that nobody wants to consider exclusivity as the latest poll here in microstock group. And the exclusives that stay do so because it is hard to establish a portfolio at this stage at other agencies (I am experimenting this now), are inspectors or moved to other fields beyond micro and leave those RF images there.

I really had a great time as an exclusive till 2012 too. At that time I had a monthly rpi of 4$/image. Before leaving exclusivity I was at 0.5$/image/month. All said.......
« Last Edit: April 24, 2015, 12:50 by everest »

« Reply #85 on: April 24, 2015, 05:55 »
0
I really had a great time as an exclusive till 2012 too. At that time I had a monthly rpi of 4$/image. Before leaving exclusivity I was at 0.5$/image/month. All said.......

How is your recovery from exclusivity going?

« Reply #86 on: April 24, 2015, 06:00 »
+1
When they talk about growth, how much of that is just thinkstock customers moving over to istock subs? That is what they did with thinkstock to grow it, they targeted the istockcustomers to bring them over to thinkstock. Doing the reverse now it might  look like growth but it would just be shifting their own base from agency a to b.

If all the new customers are new or coming from fotolia and shutterstock, that would be good for the istock exclusives.

Of course merging thinkstock back into istock would be a sensible move anyway.

But to be able to judge the success of the new layout and prices, you need to take out internal conversion of customers.

« Reply #87 on: April 24, 2015, 06:18 »
+1


How is your recovery from exclusivity going?
[/quote]

Still to early as I only have a very small fraction of my Istock portfolio on other sites but I can already see it is going to be tough. I hope to have more reliable data in 6 moths and a clearer picture in 12. If I can mantain my 0.5 $/month/image I will be glad. It is a little more work to submitt to the other sites but the risk is really spread out. If it goes more than 0.5$/image/month would be excellent at this stage.

« Reply #88 on: April 24, 2015, 06:33 »
0
If they become profitable again, the Contributors also earn, and everyone is happy and blessed.  :)

Sadly, it doesn't always work like that. They can always give you a pay cut if they feel things are going too well for you. Remember the time things were getting better and better for everyone, so they proclaimed that it was unsustainable for them to pay more and more just because they were doing well so they gave us a pay cut?
And things just got worse from then on.
Did they say that? Wow. Some nerve. Do they think photographers are less gifted in the brain department?
Didn't you know that?  How long have you been in this business?

Semmick Photo

« Reply #89 on: April 24, 2015, 06:40 »
+2
If they become profitable again, the Contributors also earn, and everyone is happy and blessed.  :)

Sadly, it doesn't always work like that. They can always give you a pay cut if they feel things are going too well for you. Remember the time things were getting better and better for everyone, so they proclaimed that it was unsustainable for them to pay more and more just because they were doing well so they gave us a pay cut?
And things just got worse from then on.
Did they say that? Wow. Some nerve. Do they think photographers are less gifted in the brain department?
Didn't you know that?  How long have you been in this business?
3 years

« Reply #90 on: April 24, 2015, 06:57 »
+1
I look at my over-all income for the year not what a file cost. 2013 was my worst year and the only year I went down in earnings on the year. 2014 was my best year to date and 2015 has started kinda slow but at least steady. There are positive changes taking place at iStock so I plan to stay exclusive unless my income goes way down. I always do what is best for my family and business, I don't expect iStock to hold my hand or even care about me! The fact is they don't and I accept that. No other stock company cares about you either and it foolish to think they do. I am in this as a business so I take my feelings out of my business decisions. 

« Reply #91 on: April 24, 2015, 07:30 »
+2
Wasn't there another guy (not Brad Ralph) who sent out some sort of rah-rah corporate communication to contributors a while back (within the last year), who also had claimed to be another mysterious co-founder, and then we never heard from him again?

« Reply #92 on: April 24, 2015, 09:21 »
+3
Quote

Its hard to believe that 15 years ago, ... <snip>
Sincerely,
Brad Ralph
Senior Director, Content Development / Co-Founder iStockphoto
 

What a bunch of bullocks. Another unknown name pops out of the woodwork with the usual Woo-Yay rubbish. Who was it last time that sent one of these emails? I can hardly keep track of the list of one-hit wonders.

I don't disagree with your overall sentiments, but he's not an unknown name:
http://www.istockphoto.com/profile/braddy?id=97

He's the guy who told us the great changes they were making at iStock were beyond our understanding.     ::)

« Reply #93 on: April 24, 2015, 10:39 »
+2
Well carlyle will be posting the total Getty Revenue again, so it will be easy to see if they have any real growth or if they are just moving customers around.

And of course we'll get an update on the debt situation.

With a good new ceo there might be hope. But only if he or she plans to stay longterm and not just to improve the "story " for investors.

« Reply #94 on: April 24, 2015, 11:34 »
+5
Perhaps all this shuffling of administrators all the time within iStock and Getty isn't because the individuals don't want to stick around. I assume they are offered positions with big salaries and big expectations to go along with the positions. Performance expectations and goals that often probably aren't attainable or realistic. Then heads roll, hire a replacement, and start all over. But people accept these tall order jobs because they are waving a lot of money in your face. So people roll the dice, ultimately fail, and then are forced to move on after they have only had a chance to send out one wooyay email to contributors.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #95 on: April 24, 2015, 11:44 »
0
Quote

Its hard to believe that 15 years ago, ... <snip>
Sincerely,
Brad Ralph
Senior Director, Content Development / Co-Founder iStockphoto
 

What a bunch of bullocks. Another unknown name pops out of the woodwork with the usual Woo-Yay rubbish. Who was it last time that sent one of these emails? I can hardly keep track of the list of one-hit wonders.

I don't disagree with your overall sentiments, but he's not an unknown name:
http://www.istockphoto.com/profile/braddy?id=97

He's the guy who told us the great changes they were making at iStock were beyond our understanding.     ::)

Well, at last someone posting at least a part truth. GettyConnect is way beyond my understanding. Some other changes I'd probably understand, but I certainly haven't understood the reasons behind them, and when questioned, they've declined to explain.

« Reply #96 on: April 24, 2015, 12:32 »
+6
iStock may no longer the leader in the stock business, but I wish them to be back to leading ways again, to go head to head with Shutterstock.

If they become profitable again, the Contributors also earn, and everyone is happy and blessed.  :)

I don't think I could trust them ever again... Not after what I experienced here. And it's not only me.

It is a mistake to trust any of them. We need to step up and hold ourselves accountable for protecting our assets! If we continue to give the micros rope to hang us, they will.

« Last Edit: April 24, 2015, 12:42 by gbalex »

« Reply #97 on: April 24, 2015, 12:35 »
+1
I just got an email with a summary of coming changes, including the closing down of the istock public forums. Instead there will be a new closed, contributor area.

The whole history of istock and the original community is in those forums. I wonder if they really plan to delete it all?

Will the waybackmachine preserve a copy of istocks history? Or does someone have a forum archive before it disappears?

http://app.e.gettyimages.com/e/es?s=2768&e=932750&elq=78960d9cac004b7e9c28abf09e705865
« Last Edit: April 24, 2015, 12:39 by cobalt »

« Reply #98 on: April 24, 2015, 12:53 »
0
I just got an email with a summary of coming changes, including the closing down of the istock public forums. Instead there will be a new closed, contributor area.

The whole history of istock and the original community is in those forums. I wonder if they really plan to delete it all?

Will the waybackmachine preserve a copy of istocks history? Or does someone have a forum archive before it disappears?

http://app.e.gettyimages.com/e/es?s=2768&e=932750&elq=78960d9cac004b7e9c28abf09e705865


Weren't the forums always closed minded or was that just all the locked threads from Lobo. Closed to public contributor area a way to hide the truth from the public.

January 2011 rc added but pp and other don't count. Cannistser on sales totals ended.

Royalty rates will no longer be associated to your lifetime download totals, represented by the canister icons. Canisters will now be separate from royalty rates and continue to reflect total lifetime downloads (but they will no longer indicate royalty rates).
« Last Edit: April 24, 2015, 12:55 by YadaYadaYada »

« Reply #99 on: April 24, 2015, 12:57 »
+5
including the closing down of the istock public forums


That was #2 on my 2015 predictions :)

http://www.microstockgroup.com/24028/24028/msg402864/#msg402864

The whole history of istock and the original community is in those forums. I wonder if they really plan to delete it all?


This post from KelvinJ on Sept 13 2010 was my favourite ever. Goodness knows how it ever survived being posted. I guess Lobo found it as funny as everyone else did. I think he showed a good sense of humour leaving it up :)

Quote
You don't seem to be taking the hint. They've F'd us in the A, rolled over, farted and are reaching for their cigarettes. They don't want some cosy post coital chat. They're just hoping you will realise how embarrassing the whole situation is, take the couple of dollars they've left on the bedside table, get dressed and do the walk of shame.


The whole history of istock and the original community is in those forums. I wonder if they really plan to delete it all?


I never liked the forum back in in the days of woo-yay. It reached its worst around the time of F5 IMO. They spent far too much time listening to the contributors and far too little time actually getting stuff fixed. And they were running a very weak team. The idea that it was a community always seemed very bogus to me.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2015, 13:19 by bunhill »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
30 Replies
24807 Views
Last post April 03, 2008, 03:12
by Freezingpictures
3 Replies
14311 Views
Last post August 18, 2009, 22:00
by Jonathan Ross
276 Replies
68626 Views
Last post January 09, 2010, 10:19
by Beach Bum
28 Replies
15856 Views
Last post June 15, 2011, 15:30
by pancaketom
2 Replies
3028 Views
Last post April 17, 2012, 15:41
by RacePhoto

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors