Quote from: & then... on September 29, 2010, 10:02

the friendly neighbourhood naysayers

You seem to be missing the fact that *you* are the naysayer in this neighborhood.

lol, actually, that's true....:-D I had to laugh...

FWIW, iStock and I have had a number of disagreements. I usually take them straight to contributor relations, and they deal with it or they don't.if you really 'know' me...and you were to actually take the time to go back and review my history with iStock...you'd see there are plenty of issues I'm not on board with. but I do respect iStock staff immensely, and I think they know their sh*t.

I think a lot of people over here feel otherwise because they've had bad experiences getting work accepted, or because you're independents, and you have a legitimate gripe with iStock, especially with the latest royalty drop for independents. I think you are being screwed, which I've said since it was announced. I'm not opted into the partner program, I think TS etc., is a joke. since the announcement about Agency and Vetta results being tied together...I'm very worried that at some point the partner program will not be optional.

they've gone back on their word about Vetta price increases, not much can be said about that. it's done. I take those concerns straight to admin/contributor relations. when I post here, it's simply because so much of what is reported is inaccurate. that has been perverted into I'm a cheerleader for iStock. whatever, I'm not going to fight that....it will just make me look defensive. but it's not accurate. as for the corporate shill BS....David, keep justifying your position....I would be too if I'd made the error in judgment I believe you have. and now you're acting like some martyr/hippie for photographer's rights. give me a break.

Quote from: Risamay on September 29, 2010, 08:23

GREAT points. Cas is right. They should have hired you as a consultant. They'd be untouchable in the market and it would be a veritable IS lovefest at the contributor level.

And having caught everybody who was anybody in the iStock exclusive net .... they would have cut the commission rates, because in the absence of competition why would they need to pay so much?

That's a little detail that gets overlooked: it was the existence of competition that let to "exclusivity" being invented in the first place, and props up the commission rates to this day.

Eh, dammit Trousers. You are absolutely right, too. How conveniently I/we forget the value of competition in this, or any, market.

Quote from: dgilder on September 29, 2010, 10:12

Quote from: & then... on September 29, 2010, 10:02

the friendly neighbourhood naysayers

You seem to be missing the fact that *you* are the naysayer in this neighborhood.

lol, actually, that's true....:-D I had to laugh...

FWIW, iStock and I have had a number of disagreements. I usually take them straight to contributor relations, and they deal with it or they don't.if you really 'know' me...and you were to actually take the time to go back and review my history with iStock...you'd see there are plenty of issues I'm not on board with. but I do respect iStock staff immensely, and I think they know their sh*t.

I think a lot of people over here feel otherwise because they've had bad experiences getting work accepted, or because you're independents, and you have a legitimate gripe with iStock, especially with the latest royalty drop for independents. I think you are being screwed, which I've said since it was announced. I'm not opted into the partner program, I think TS etc., is a joke. since the announcement about Agency and Vetta results being tied together...I'm very worried that at some point the partner program will not be optional.

they've gone back on their word about Vetta price increases, not much can be said about that. it's done. I take those concerns straight to admin/contributor relations. when I post here, it's simply because so much of what is reported is inaccurate. that has been perverted into I'm a cheerleader for iStock. whatever, I'm not going to fight that....it will just make me look defensive. but it's not accurate.

People are getting pissy with you because you�re not allowing them to tell their piece without you jumping in and smacking them in the face.

From what I can see, those that have had negative experiences with Istock (which is the majority) are voicing their beefs and you�re knocking them down because you haven�t had the same experiences as they have.  Your good experience and confidence in istock doesn�t erase their bad experiences and mistrust in them.  

If you have concerns you take them to contributor relations... why?  You don�t want the negative press affecting your sales in the long run, am I right?  I can understand your position.  You�ve had it easy on istock and you�re worried that these people are going to screw things up for you in the future but it�s istock that has screwed things up and that�s what you�re failing to recognise.  

Only 17% of contributors are exclusive and next year, how many independents do you think will stick around getting paid peanuts for their efforts?  You can argue all you like but if you think this announcement won�t have a negative effect on you in the long run, you�re deluded.  If the company can�t sustain itself now, how will it survive when a good majority of independents walk out or at best stop uploading and upload elsewhere?  Istock will have to make their money up for their losses somehow and the only ones left to screw will be the exclusives.  

Also, to say that istock�s content is better than those at any other agent is just arrogant.  There are many talented exclusives at istock, but there are just as many, if not more independents at both istock and the other agents that are equally talented.  Without being able to differentiate their products with superior content, istock�s model is going to fall on it�s arse.  It doesn�t matter how you look at it or from which angle, istock �s future is looking grim.  Contributors have lost confidence and trust in them, buyers are starting to see the light and their exclusives (even you) are having doubts about them... even if they fail to admit to it.

So if independents have had it as rough as you say, why not allow them to speak their minds here, freely.  Your increase in sales have not made their losses easier to stomach.  Let them vent, they have a right.

Quote from: pet_chia on September 29, 2010, 09:32

...
This is all just speculation of course ... now if you'll excuse me I have some images to send to scout 

I agreed with your earlier post, I thought it was a concise and balanced perspective. but this one.....you've gone down the same road as the friendly neighbourhood naysayers--. your 'facts' aren't facts at all and your comments are skewed to kowtow to the point of view of the majority here. you seem to have quite a bit of business sense, so it's disappointing to see your latest post.

I could not have stated more clearly, "THIS IS ALL JUST SPECULATION".  Where do you get this, "your 'facts' aren't facts at all",  LOL.

My two previous, long posts are not contradictory.  Istock are trying to evolve in a rational and positive way,  AND they may screw it up because they have become part of a large corporation who dominate the market and therefore are in danger of being deaf and dumb to the needs of their customers and suppliers.

Jeez, I take one HALF day off from keeping up with this ongoing train wreck and I feel like I am completely in the dark. 

Apparently Joyze posted some updates?  Would anyone be willing to break down the changes (if any) for me?   

Yes, you would all be well within your rights to tell me to ferret it out for myself, in that massive forum thread, or elsewhere.  But I hope someone will take pity on me and at least post a link to where I can find out any new, relevant information. 

Thanks in advance

Quote from: & then... on September 29, 2010, 10:45

Quote from: dgilder on September 29, 2010, 10:12

Quote from: & then... on September 29, 2010, 10:02

the friendly neighbourhood naysayers

You seem to be missing the fact that *you* are the naysayer in this neighborhood.

lol, actually, that's true....:-D I had to laugh...

FWIW, iStock and I have had a number of disagreements. I usually take them straight to contributor relations, and they deal with it or they don't.if you really 'know' me...and you were to actually take the time to go back and review my history with iStock...you'd see there are plenty of issues I'm not on board with. but I do respect iStock staff immensely, and I think they know their sh*t.

I think a lot of people over here feel otherwise because they've had bad experiences getting work accepted, or because you're independents, and you have a legitimate gripe with iStock, especially with the latest royalty drop for independents. I think you are being screwed, which I've said since it was announced. I'm not opted into the partner program, I think TS etc., is a joke. since the announcement about Agency and Vetta results being tied together...I'm very worried that at some point the partner program will not be optional.

they've gone back on their word about Vetta price increases, not much can be said about that. it's done. I take those concerns straight to admin/contributor relations. when I post here, it's simply because so much of what is reported is inaccurate. that has been perverted into I'm a cheerleader for iStock. whatever, I'm not going to fight that....it will just make me look defensive. but it's not accurate.

People are getting pissy with you because you�re not allowing them to tell their piece without you jumping in and smacking them in the face.

From what I can see, those that have had negative experiences with Istock (which is the majority) are voicing their beefs and you�re knocking them down because you haven�t had the same experiences as they have.  Your good experience and confidence in istock doesn�t erase their bad experiences and mistrust in them.  

If you have concerns you take them to contributor relations... why?  You don�t want the negative press affecting your sales in the long run, am I right?  I can understand your position.  You�ve had it easy on istock and you�re worried that these people are going to screw things up for you in the future but it�s istock that has screwed things up and that�s what you�re failing to recognise.  

Only 17% of contributors are exclusive and next year, how many independents do you think will stick around getting paid peanuts for their efforts?  You can argue all you like but if you think this announcement won�t have a negative effect on you in the long run, you�re deluded.  If the company can�t sustain itself now, how will it survive when a good majority of independents walk out or at best stop uploading and upload elsewhere?  Istock will have to make their money up for their losses somehow and the only ones left to screw will be the exclusives.  

Also, to say that istock�s content is better than those at any other agent is just arrogant.  There are many talented exclusives at istock, but there are just as many, if not more independents at both istock and the other agents that are equally talented.  Without being able to differentiate their products with superior content, istock�s model is going to fall on it�s arse.  It doesn�t matter how you look at it or from which angle, istock �s future is looking grim.  Contributors have lost confidence and trust in them, buyers are starting to see the light and their exclusives (even you) are having doubts about them... even if they fail to admit to it.

So if independents have had it as rough as you say, why not allow them to speak their minds here, freely.  Your increase in sales have not made their losses easier to stomach.  Let them vent, they have a right.

RE:

From what I can see, those that have had negative experiences with Istock (which is the majority) are voicing their beefs and you�re knocking them down because you haven�t had the same experiences as they have.

There is a good chance our hammer wielding friend is only interested in how these changes affect her own life and business

RE:

If you have concerns you take them to contributor relations... why?  You don�t want the negative press affecting your sales in the long run, am I right?  I can understand your position.  You�ve had it easy on istock and you�re worried that these people are going to screw things up for you in the future but it�s istock that has screwed things up and that�s what you�re failing to recognise.

I think the main reason she is taking on people in this forum is that she believes the changes at istock will be beneficial to her brand.  She believes that high producing exclusives will be rewarded by the changes istock has made and she is choosing to believe the parts of the propaganda machine which she feels will be benificial to her own business; she will be part of the club who will benifit from inclusion into the "elite superchared istock brand" whos financial benifits are avaliable only to high producing exclusives, the elite club will recieve a significant boost in sales an the changes will mean less competition from independents and low producing exclusives who can no longer compete because they will have diminishing shooting/production budgets, etc.  There are a few istock exclusives participating more often on the msg boards; in hopes of detering the shut out and departing competition from generating and spreading negative istock press which will derail their new found boost in percieved income and prestige  

RE:

Only 17% of contributors are exclusive and next year, how many independents do you think will stick around getting paid peanuts for their efforts?  You can argue all you like but if you think this announcement won�t have a negative effect on you in the long run, you�re deluded.  If the company can�t sustain itself now, how will it survive when a good majority of independents walk out or at best stop uploading and upload elsewhere?  Istock will have to make their money up for their losses somehow and the only ones left to screw will be the exclusives.  

You have only to look at Getty's history to see that this will be the case. Denial, selfishness and arrogance can be costly.

RE:

Also, to say that istock�s content is better than those at any other agent is just arrogant.  

There are many talented exclusives at istock, but there are just as many, if not more independents at both istock and the other agents that are equally talented.  Without being able to differentiate their products with superior content, istock�s model is going to fall on it�s arse.  It doesn�t matter how you look at it or from which angle, istock �s future is looking grim.  Contributors have lost confidence and trust in them, buyers are starting to see the light and their exclusives (even you) are having doubts about them... even if they fail to admit to it.

I think this has already happend in the eyes of buyers.  I came to the conclusion that image quality was not superior at istock a few years ago and these days you do not have any trouble finding images of equal quality and content on other agencies for a much better price. I have discused this with a number of buyers, design firms and agencies and we all agree.  

I think many of the latest moves are an attempt by istock to change those perceptions, however they are more likely to make the problem worse by killing the buyer and contributor geese that lay the golden eggs.

I see.  Thanks for the links guys.  JoAnn, you are right - I didn't see anything particularly new.  More a clarification of what's already been said. 

Hopes risen and then dashed again...

When talking of exclusives"  and "elite" it should be reminded that this status is not an istock election, but a free choice for anyone with 250 or 500 downloads. Have we exclusive some privileges? Yes, but  in exchange of not selling at 10 other sites. It's no a matter of "elite", it's a simple matter of choice.

So, oh great business guru , the majority have had negative experiences? Link please?

http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=861

This is a good one. 

Quote from: caspixel on September 29, 2010, 15:00

Wow. It certainly is a seachange at iStock, with the contributors now saying the prices are too expensive. Fascinating.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=255972

Remember tnat 1-2-3 credits was unbearable for you, and that you asked scores (if not hundreds) of times that these prices were reduced (an so, potographer's earnings)

Wrong all around again. And quite an exaggeration. You have a vivid imagination, I see. Of course, you won't back up anything you say so, as usual, you lack any kind of credibility.

So, oh great business guru , the majority have had negative experiences? Link please?

I was going to ignore your idiocy like everyone else has judging from your profile but I felt sorry for you.

I refuse to believe you're that thick that you require a link to substantiate what is obvious to everyone.  Since you seem to be lacking both reason and logic, I will spell it out for you.  82% of contributors at istock are independents.  Istock's new structure has screwed independents (which you're fully aware of), making them the majority with negative experiences. 

I don't need to hit the ignore button, I can skip over most of your frantic posts without any assistance from this site... but I can understand why so many others have chosen to ignore you.  A link wasn't required here.  You knew I was right, you were just being a brat as usual.  You seem to argue just for sake of arguing and it makes you look like a goose.

What are the royalties?
For dowloads here at iStockphoto, the royalties will range from 22, 24, 26, 28 & 30%.

What's that... wasn't 25-30-35-40-45% for exclusive downloads

The first numbers are the new Vetta royalty percentages. They put Vetta prices up on Monday and changed Vetta percentages the same day. Other royalties are unchanged until January 2011