pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStock changing royalty structure  (Read 229251 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #1250 on: October 19, 2010, 14:49 »
0
I can't speak for anyone else, but it's not in my business plan to lose money. I spend alot of time, money and effort on my photo shoots. I expect a decent return and a fair chance for them to be seen by buyers. Instead of ranting in the forums I've been deleting images from the site, roughly 160 so far. I only hope that as more people realize that IS has become nothing more than a machine that is looking for slave labor, that they are also deleting their images and that this tedious one at a time process is keeping them to busy to rant in the forums.

+1


traveler1116

« Reply #1251 on: October 20, 2010, 02:37 »
0
New mail from IS.  Learn all about collections.  They say "Agency Collection photos cost from 55 to 200 credits. "  XXXL images cost 250 credits but I guess that's not meant to mislead anyone, just a typo.  They also say vetta "cost between 30 and 125 credits. "  XXXL Vetta is 150, another typo?  They also say "Exclusive photos can cost between 2 and 25 credits"  not exactly an E+ XXXL costs 35 credits, maybe it's a typo too?
« Last Edit: October 20, 2010, 02:41 by traveler1116 »

« Reply #1252 on: October 20, 2010, 06:28 »
0
New mail from IS.  Learn all about collections.  They say "Agency Collection photos cost from 55 to 200 credits. "  XXXL images cost 250 credits but I guess that's not meant to mislead anyone, just a typo.  They also say vetta "cost between 30 and 125 credits. "  XXXL Vetta is 150, another typo?  They also say "Exclusive photos can cost between 2 and 25 credits"  not exactly an E+ XXXL costs 35 credits, maybe it's a typo too?

The whole thing is so convoluted, even IS is confused.

« Reply #1253 on: October 20, 2010, 09:55 »
0
New mail from IS.  Learn all about collections.  They say "Agency Collection photos cost from 55 to 200 credits. "  XXXL images cost 250 credits but I guess that's not meant to mislead anyone, just a typo.  They also say vetta "cost between 30 and 125 credits. "  XXXL Vetta is 150, another typo?  They also say "Exclusive photos can cost between 2 and 25 credits"  not exactly an E+ XXXL costs 35 credits, maybe it's a typo too?

Aren't their laws against deliberate false advertising?

« Reply #1254 on: October 20, 2010, 10:12 »
0
Can someone explain to me why so many of the mug shots of people's heads are Vetta? Shots like this: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-7922437-young-boy-smiling.php.

vonkara

« Reply #1255 on: October 20, 2010, 10:24 »
0
Wow wrong thread... many tabs, sorry
« Last Edit: October 20, 2010, 10:31 by Vonkara »

« Reply #1256 on: October 20, 2010, 10:29 »
0
New mail from IS.  Learn all about collections.  They say "Agency Collection photos cost from 55 to 200 credits. "  XXXL images cost 250 credits but I guess that's not meant to mislead anyone, just a typo.  They also say vetta "cost between 30 and 125 credits. "  XXXL Vetta is 150, another typo?  They also say "Exclusive photos can cost between 2 and 25 credits"  not exactly an E+ XXXL costs 35 credits, maybe it's a typo too?


We'll see if anything (other than the thread getting locked) comes of it, but I posted something about the errors in the prices here. You have to wonder if anyone acts as an editor on these things or if they just write them and ship them out.

« Reply #1257 on: October 20, 2010, 10:37 »
0
New mail from IS.  Learn all about collections.  They say "Agency Collection photos cost from 55 to 200 credits. "  XXXL images cost 250 credits but I guess that's not meant to mislead anyone, just a typo.  They also say vetta "cost between 30 and 125 credits. "  XXXL Vetta is 150, another typo?  They also say "Exclusive photos can cost between 2 and 25 credits"  not exactly an E+ XXXL costs 35 credits, maybe it's a typo too?

The whole thing is so convoluted, even IS is confused.

Sounds too consistent to be a result of error and confusion to me.  But what do I know?

I will say this - in my life in non-photography and non-graphic arts business, I've heard lots of tales of financial skullduggery.  Especially when a company is desperate to present themselves as being in more robust financial health than they really are.  Once they become convinced that impressing their shareholders NOW is more important than maintaining good, long-term business relationships with their customers and their suppliers, there is practically no dodge which won't be employed.  Mostly these are bookkeeping scams involving the recognition of revenue, hiding returned products, chiseling suppliers, etc. (especially the small suppliers who have no leverage to complain or cut them off).

Another thing which is apparently common in business (see Conrad Black) is executives with conflicts of interest.  I have seen the founder and chairman of a multi-billion-dollar company spend most of his time and energy on "side" businesses, which he used to offer services, etc. to the main company.  For example he had developed or purchased some product as a personal side business, then used his power over the main company to convince it to purchase the products or the entire business from him, and then promoted the new product to the skies in order to convince the shareholders of the main company that he had sold them a "winner".  Ultimately, while the main company's revenues, earnings and share price were stagnating, it turned out he was literally making 100s of million$$ off the side businesses, almost entirely due to the leverage available to him from controlling the main company.  It takes really committed, vigilant shareholders to keep this kind of scamming under control, but at times the economy is such that everyone just wants to make a quick buck off their investments and can't see any point in trying to nurture or diligently supervise them.  Just saying!

ShadySue

« Reply #1258 on: October 20, 2010, 10:37 »
0
How are people's sales going at iStock this month?
Mine were rising in the last couple of weeks in September and since Oct 1st have been dire: July-like. Two sales yesterday, one so far today. Without a big rush, I doubt if I'll make half the $$$  I made in October 2008.  It doesn't seem to be Best Match.
I know, Ebb and Ebb, but I just wondered how others are doing, specifically in October.

« Reply #1259 on: October 20, 2010, 10:42 »
0
Can someone explain to me why so many of the mug shots of people's heads are Vetta? Shots like this: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-7922437-young-boy-smiling.php.


Something about this shot is creeps me out.  He's 8 or 9, where are his clothes????  Why is he shirtless in a studio shot?

« Reply #1260 on: October 20, 2010, 10:43 »
0
So many oversights make it seem intentional.

lisafx

« Reply #1261 on: October 20, 2010, 11:06 »
0

Sounds too consistent to be a result of error and confusion to me.  But what do I know?

I will say this - in my life in non-photography and non-graphic arts business, I've heard lots of tales of financial skullduggery.  Especially when a company is desperate to present themselves as being in more robust financial health than they really are.  Once they become convinced that impressing their shareholders NOW is more important than maintaining good, long-term business relationships with their customers and their suppliers, there is practically no dodge which won't be employed.  Mostly these are bookkeeping scams involving the recognition of revenue, hiding returned products, chiseling suppliers, etc. (especially the small suppliers who have no leverage to complain or cut them off).

.....

Really interesting comments Chia.  Makes a lot of sense to me. 

« Reply #1262 on: October 20, 2010, 11:25 »
0
How are people's sales going at iStock this month?
Mine were rising in the last couple of weeks in September and since Oct 1st have been dire: July-like. Two sales yesterday, one so far today. Without a big rush, I doubt if I'll make half the $$$  I made in October 2008.  It doesn't seem to be Best Match.
I know, Ebb and Ebb, but I just wondered how others are doing, specifically in October.

October is generally very good for me and this one is no exception.  I expect it will slow down now that my exclusivity with istock is done (effective yesterday) - however sales don't seem too bad at the moment.  Nov/Dec usually suck big time for me - I have very few seasonal images for that time of year.

« Reply #1263 on: October 20, 2010, 11:29 »
0
New mail from IS.  Learn all about collections.  They say "Agency Collection photos cost from 55 to 200 credits. "  XXXL images cost 250 credits but I guess that's not meant to mislead anyone, just a typo.  They also say vetta "cost between 30 and 125 credits. "  XXXL Vetta is 150, another typo?  They also say "Exclusive photos can cost between 2 and 25 credits"  not exactly an E+ XXXL costs 35 credits, maybe it's a typo too?


We'll see if anything (other than the thread getting locked) comes of it, but I posted something about the errors in the prices here. You have to wonder if anyone acts as an editor on these things or if they just write them and ship them out.


journalism and copy editing are lost arts it seems.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #1264 on: October 20, 2010, 11:50 »
0
Can someone explain to me why so many of the mug shots of people's heads are Vetta? Shots like this: http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-7922437-young-boy-smiling.php.


Something about this shot is creeps me out.  He's 8 or 9, where are his clothes????  Why is he shirtless in a studio shot?


It looks like a kid's mug shot in juvenile detention with this grin on his face saying"Heh they can't try me as adult...I'm to young...."... :D

lisafx

« Reply #1265 on: October 20, 2010, 12:10 »
0

It looks like a kid's mug shot in juvenile detention with this grin on his face saying"Heh they can't try me as adult...I'm to young...."... :D


ROFL!  All he needs is a piece of hair sticking up and he could be Alfalfa.


« Reply #1266 on: October 20, 2010, 15:14 »
0

It looks like a kid's mug shot in juvenile detention with this grin on his face saying"Heh they can't try me as adult...I'm to young...."... :D


ROFL!  All he needs is a piece of hair sticking up and he could be Alfalfa.




hahahah!  I was thinking the exact same thing!

« Reply #1267 on: October 20, 2010, 17:22 »
0
New mail from IS.  Learn all about collections.  They say "Agency Collection photos cost from 55 to 200 credits. "  XXXL images cost 250 credits but I guess that's not meant to mislead anyone, just a typo.  They also say vetta "cost between 30 and 125 credits. "  XXXL Vetta is 150, another typo?  They also say "Exclusive photos can cost between 2 and 25 credits"  not exactly an E+ XXXL costs 35 credits, maybe it's a typo too?


We'll see if anything (other than the thread getting locked) comes of it, but I posted something about the errors in the prices here. You have to wonder if anyone acts as an editor on these things or if they just write them and ship them out.


journalism and copy editing are lost arts it seems.



Well, following last year's patterns. Not so many downloads like last year, but more money. Having increments of 50 and 75 for Vettas compesates smaller lost downloads.

« Reply #1268 on: October 20, 2010, 22:11 »
0

It looks like a kid's mug shot in juvenile detention with this grin on his face saying"Heh they can't try me as adult...I'm to young...."... :D


ROFL!  All he needs is a piece of hair sticking up and he could be Alfalfa.




TOO funny! But at least Alfalfa has clothes on.

« Reply #1269 on: October 25, 2010, 15:26 »
0

« Reply #1270 on: October 25, 2010, 16:00 »
0
So I guess the orders finally came from above that all protest threads must now be locked. At least you still have MSG!  :D

lisafx

« Reply #1271 on: October 25, 2010, 18:32 »
0
In case anyone was still holding out hope for a change, it seems Lobo is feeling lock happy today.  


[url=http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&page=346#post5067981]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&page=346#post5067981
[/url]


OMG, feels like the end of an era.... ;)

« Reply #1272 on: October 25, 2010, 18:51 »
0

OMG, feels like the end of an era.... ;)

Actually, I felt like the era ended when Getty bought iStock. I guess now it's the end of a different era. :D

« Reply #1273 on: October 25, 2010, 19:05 »
0
Lobo is a dick. Suffice to say if i met him in person I would censor him from the public or at least make it very hard for him to type.

Hey, I'm a working Man. We're allowed to get this way sometimes.

« Reply #1274 on: October 25, 2010, 19:17 »
0
Lobo is a dick. Suffice to say if i met him in person I would censor him from the public or at least make it very hard for him to type.


I don't like what's going on one little bit, but he isn't ... what you said :)

Doesn't change how uncomfortable what he's doing is, but just couldn't let that pass without someone standing up for the guy.

And yes, it is the start of a new corporate IS where "it's just business" and they clearly don't give a flying fig what contributors think.

The queue's slow; there are a boatload of bugs from F5 that haven't been fixed; there's a pile of Getty dreck getting dumped on the site; none of the promised contributor features have materialized, the odd price increases for illustrations never got explained or announced, lots of HQ folks are MIA as they've gone to Tokyo...

Woo - yay!!!


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
2849 Views
Last post February 17, 2007, 07:20
by GeoPappas
17 Replies
6889 Views
Last post September 09, 2010, 19:38
by madelaide
2 Replies
2887 Views
Last post July 15, 2010, 10:47
by HughStoneIan
2 Replies
2443 Views
Last post September 09, 2010, 17:42
by loop
22 Replies
6867 Views
Last post January 31, 2014, 09:15
by JPSDK

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results