MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStock changing royalty structure  (Read 228154 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #200 on: September 08, 2010, 01:54 »
0
Um, except any increased traffic is offset by exclusives images dropping in the best match results due to a flood of new 'high quality' images.

Crap!!  what new high quality images??  you mean the same old isolations on whites or the young business man?

No, I mean the Getty collections they are dumping into iStock search pool.  You know, older, middle aged business guys who actually look like managers, isolated images that actually contain clipping paths, released crowd scenes, etc.


« Reply #201 on: September 08, 2010, 02:09 »
0
All of this reminds me of why I love Shutterstock. 
All this reminds me of why I have always loved Dreamstime too. Achilles makes a conscious effort to create a level playing field for contributors new and old, the opposite of what IS has always done.

Agree (while there could have been some weaker spots).

However far more importantly - this moves make it very difficult for the fairer sites to survive and compete. Their fairer (to contributors) strategy means they have less (and probably far less) money to use to grab market share.

« Reply #202 on: September 08, 2010, 02:17 »
0
It's all about the designers, and if you guys really want to make a statement, it's going to have to be with buyers. Frankly, istock probably doesn't care if a few people delete their portfolios or stop uploading. If they are going to feel any impact from this, it'll have to come from buyers. If you're a designer and purchase stock images, look elsewhere from now on. If you know people who buy from istock, let them know what's going on and that they could actually save money AND support artists by taking their business elsewhere.

Already done! I'm not just a contributor but as of this year a rather large subscription buyer (240 credits/day!) and I'm sure I'll look elsewhere now to make my next large purchases.

« Reply #203 on: September 08, 2010, 02:20 »
0
I don't believe anyone threatening to drop exclusivity will do it. the cost would be far greater to the contributor.

You are not considering the option that other major players could offer the big (diamond) exclusive special deals. FT openly talked about this months ago and is actively promoting their willingness to "take care of" people now.

So if such a big player with worthwhile portfolio calls them, it is quite possible they will just put their portfolio up in one step, give them reasonable level and ensure their images are properly ranked.

« Reply #204 on: September 08, 2010, 02:29 »
0
people are still in there explaining CURRENT royalty structures to one another. how can you get mad about something you don't even understand?

LOL stil trying to work out my loss, but one thing for sure it will be significant as my numbers thus far are almost 40% down on last year

Once upon a time like many Independents IS was my biggest earner but it has been going backwards for some time now despite what, when and how often I upload. Take only this month so far as an example,  SS is triple in $ the amount at IS with Dreamstime and Fotolia not far behind that is a huge dip. Very convenient also dont you think that many are seeing a loss in numbers then this ridiculous insult comes along to rub salt into the wound.

The writing was always on the wall since the Getty takeover, but this is simply to Brutal!

I for one will be taking action in my own small way as it would seem the words and the well being of its Contributers now count for very little and this sort of unacceptable treatment of those who have made IS what it is today will continue as long as they feel they can get away with it. I really do feel that they have gone to far this time

Of course if the past is anything to go by now that this Bombshell has been dropped they will come along with a little sweetener  ;)

All I can say it better be a huge Candy Store!

Microbius

« Reply #205 on: September 08, 2010, 03:00 »
0
Someone needs to set up a site that's run along the lines of John Lewis in the UK. Contributors would get a percentage but also be the shareholders. Profits would be split at the end of each year as a bonus for each contributor proportional to how much they have made for the site over that year

"owned in trust for the benefit of its members, who are Partners from the day they join"

rubyroo

« Reply #206 on: September 08, 2010, 03:08 »
0
Yes, the John Lewis idea would be fab.  Not sure how the Co-Op (shop chain) works - is it along the same lines?  I was surprised when the Co-Op recently bought up the well-established Somerfield chain, which presumably had the more traditional business set-up.   I hadn't realised before then that a co-operative style of business could overtake a (for want of a better term) purely capitalist enterprise.  Presumably they outbid a few traditional rivals in the process too.

« Reply #207 on: September 08, 2010, 03:20 »
0


Already done! I'm not just a contributor but as of this year a rather large subscription buyer (240 credits/day!) and I'm sure I'll look elsewhere now to make my next large purchases.

Make sure you let IS sales people know about that move and why you are doing it...

« Reply #208 on: September 08, 2010, 03:31 »
0


Of course if the past is anything to go by now that this Bombshell has been dropped they will come along with a little sweetener  ;)

All I can say it better be a huge Candy Store!

maybe yes, but what about 2012? and 2013?  ??? How will the redeemed credit structure be changed in the years to come?

I wonder why we (and I mean all people here, big players included) don't seriously consider to stop uploading and let istock know it really well!
I know that it has been suggested dozens of times but I'm with istock since late 2005 and I never saw an announcement worst than this one!
What else we should tolerate then?
« Last Edit: September 08, 2010, 03:35 by diego_cervo »

« Reply #209 on: September 08, 2010, 03:33 »
0


Already done! I'm not just a contributor but as of this year a rather large subscription buyer (240 credits/day!) and I'm sure I'll look elsewhere now to make my next large purchases.

Make sure you let IS sales people know about that move and why you are doing it...


thank you!  ;D

I just wish the industry could be regulated by a governing body or something to stop all this unfairness to contributors.

« Reply #210 on: September 08, 2010, 03:36 »
0
I will not accept 15% royalty rate. I will stop uploading to Istock and probably delete all my images.
This is too much..


I got a couple of more dollars to go to hit payout then Im out of there too stuff them!

« Reply #211 on: September 08, 2010, 03:56 »
0
I don't like unions, never used one but I do think we could get behind the sites that pay a decent commission and have reasonable prices for the buyers.  If the vast majority of contributors and buyers abandoned sites that pay low commissions, we would all be better off.  Why is that so difficult?  I really find it hard to understand why we can't get together contributors and buyers to improve microstock for all of us.

This isn't like some other industries where the contributors have no power and have to put up with being treated unfairly, it's easy to buy and sell images and I don't see why it should cost more now than a few years ago when the costs of running a site and marketing were higher.

All we need to do is select the sites that are fair to contributors and buyers and only use them.  If the other sites want our business, they can make changes.

rubyroo

« Reply #212 on: September 08, 2010, 04:00 »
0
I think there would be real poetic justice if contributors went all out to support Stockfresh and enabled them to triumph after what Getty did to the remains of StockXpert.  I believe they're paying 50% commission.

« Reply #213 on: September 08, 2010, 04:05 »
0
I think there would be real poetic justice if contributors went all out to support Stockfresh and enabled them to triumph after what Getty did to the remains of StockXpert.  I believe they're paying 50% commission.

I'd love to do that. But I'm waiting for my application to be approved since several months now... :-[

« Reply #214 on: September 08, 2010, 04:07 »
0
Its very easy to me!

I'll see what will happen till end of this year...

Then I will decide... 85% of price is too much for any brokerage commission of agency type of work ...
So, there is a lot of other like Alamy where I  can get 60%, they deserve our intention...

macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #215 on: September 08, 2010, 04:26 »
0
hahahaha ! hohohoho !! bwahahahahaha !!

i'm reading the +80 pages rants in the IS forum ... i think it will take a few hours but it's so funny i can't stop....

but what keeps surprising me is how many deluded contributors are out there, talking of BS and buzzwords
like "comunity" and yadda yadda ...

IS is a company, and worst of all it's owned by Getty ... their task is only one : making profits, and lot of them,
no matter if this means squeezing the balls of their photographers, they've so many of them they're probably glad
to see some of them leaving in droves for greener pastures.

community, canisters, gold, diamond, etc ... it's all rubbbish ... go to Flickr if you want this stuff.

the only thing a serious agency must do is provide the CLIENTS and make sales !

it's not facebook or myspace, it's a focking agency ... why crying and venting and ranting over and over ?

15% of a sale .. good deal ... at least for Getty :)

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #216 on: September 08, 2010, 04:28 »
0
I think there would be real poetic justice if contributors went all out to support Stockfresh and enabled them to triumph after what Getty did to the remains of StockXpert.  I believe they're paying 50% commission.

If they only allowed me inside... I'm still waiting after three months. This would be a very good time to start uploading there, with a lot of motivation.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2010, 04:30 by microstockphoto.co.uk »

rubyroo

« Reply #217 on: September 08, 2010, 04:32 »
0
Ah yes... fair point.  Perhaps this event will speed them up once they realise this is their golden opportunity for a bit of karma.

« Reply #218 on: September 08, 2010, 04:39 »
0
I don't like unions, never used one but I do think we could get behind the sites that pay a decent commission and have reasonable prices for the buyers.  If the vast majority of contributors and buyers abandoned sites that pay low commissions, we would all be better off.  Why is that so difficult?  I really find it hard to understand why we can't get together contributors and buyers to improve microstock for all of us.

This isn't like some other industries where the contributors have no power and have to put up with being treated unfairly, it's easy to buy and sell images and I don't see why it should cost more now than a few years ago when the costs of running a site and marketing were higher.

All we need to do is select the sites that are fair to contributors and buyers and only use them.  If the other sites want our business, they can make changes.

I don't like unions too and you are right when you say that contributors have power, but I think that abandoning istock should be the last move.
Most of us (if not all) will be damaged by this new istock's policy and I think it will be easier to convince a large number of people to stop uploading this time. Can it be worthy to try to negotiate something better before saying goodbye to istock and go elsewhere?

« Reply #219 on: September 08, 2010, 04:40 »
0
this definitely screws non-exclusives, and to those of you I have great respect for, it's a raw deal. but if I remove the emotion, you have not taken the risk exclusives have taken. I think assuming iStock is nose-diving is far from accurate. they will continue to lead and jumping ship just makes it better for those of us who don't.
Actually this hits most exclusives far harder than independents. If like me and many others you are at diamond level and say comfortably between the 40-150K redeemed credits here's how the numbers work out;

Exclusive drops from 40% to 35% __ a reduction of 12.5% of total income.

Independent drops from 20% to 18% or 10% of Istock income. However being as Istock is probably only about 35% of total income the actual reduction in total income will be about 3.5%.

« Reply #220 on: September 08, 2010, 04:51 »
0

Actually this hits most exclusives far harder than independents. If like me and many others you are at diamond level and say comfortably between the 40-150K redeemed credits here's how the numbers work out;

Exclusive drops from 40% to 35% __ a reduction of 12.5% of total income.

Independent drops from 20% to 18% or 10% of Istock income. However being as Istock is probably only about 35% of total income the actual reduction in total income will be about 3.5%.

Right. If they are squeezing us even though their business is going well, what would they do if they loose market share?? Ask for a blood donation from us??
We allowed FT to cut royalties a few months ago, now istock is doing the same.

« Reply #221 on: September 08, 2010, 04:52 »
0
hahahaha ! hohohoho !! bwahahahahaha !!

i'm reading the +80 pages rants in the IS forum ... i think it will take a few hours but it's so funny i can't stop....

but what keeps surprising me is how many deluded contributors are out there, talking of BS and buzzwords
like "comunity" and yadda yadda ...

IS is a company, and worst of all it's owned by Getty ... their task is only one : making profits, and lot of them,
no matter if this means squeezing the balls of their photographers, they've so many of them they're probably glad
to see some of them leaving in droves for greener pastures.

community, canisters, gold, diamond, etc ... it's all rubbbish ... go to Flickr if you want this stuff.

the only thing a serious agency must do is provide the CLIENTS and make sales !

it's not facebook or myspace, it's a focking agency ... why crying and venting and ranting over and over ?

15% of a sale .. good deal ... at least for Getty :)

One of the reasons why IS is actually successfull is because it has a community that supports it. In the crowd-sourcing game its still one of the key ingredients for success. Up until now, IS has been the best at playing the community game. The big question will be whether this move is enough to break the model and drive away contributors and traffic, or whether it will just annoy a lot of people but ultimately not change anything, except getty's bottom line.

Unlike similar moves from other sites, there don't seem to me any winners out of this one, and its the biggest contributors that have the most to loose. Some diamonds would drop from 40% commissions to 30%. That's a pretty bitter pill to swallow and I'm sure will remove a fair bit of goodwill.

Either way today is a day for a lot of "I told you so"s. Unfortunately I'm on the wrong side of those at the moment.  

« Reply #222 on: September 08, 2010, 04:54 »
0
I've stopped up loading to Istock unless they fix this mess.

alias

« Reply #223 on: September 08, 2010, 04:58 »
0
Exclusives and non exclusives are equally independent. The best way of maintaining a portable portfolio is to manage your collection right. Especially keywords. Keyword generically & in detail ahead of specifically keywording for any particular site. You want to be able to quickly upload to a new site or destination if you choose to. And you want the keywords, descriptions etc to be in the IPTC data. Even exclusives.

I am 100% certain that dissatisfaction with the latest Getty announcement brings closer viable new investment which will ultimately undermine the value of IS as a business. Irrespective of the royalty numbers, the manner of the announcement undermines trust. Nearly everyone who contributes to IS would quickly move somewhere else immediately given a better offer. Getty bought a community. That was what crowd-sourcing was all about. That was why IS was such a thing. That is still where the next opportunity lies.

rubyroo

« Reply #224 on: September 08, 2010, 05:01 »
0
Yes, me too.  No more uploads.

Although I've always thought exclusivity with any agency was a bad idea... unlike Macrasaur I feel a huge empathy for these people who have worked so hard for so long, only to have the rug pulled from under them.  I think most of us know to expect such things in business, but I don't think it warrants all that gloating and laughing.  Just because the world is as it is, it doesn't mean people are wrong to hope for something better.  If no-one had ever had a bit of faith in a dream, history would tell a very different story in terms of human progress.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2010, 05:03 by rubyroo »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
2833 Views
Last post February 17, 2007, 07:20
by GeoPappas
17 Replies
6833 Views
Last post September 09, 2010, 19:38
by madelaide
2 Replies
2854 Views
Last post July 15, 2010, 10:47
by HughStoneIan
2 Replies
2421 Views
Last post September 09, 2010, 17:42
by loop
22 Replies
6830 Views
Last post January 31, 2014, 09:15
by JPSDK

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results