MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStock changing royalty structure  (Read 227318 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: September 07, 2010, 16:01 »
0
I had already stopped uploading to istock, lost all motivation but this is it, they wont get any more from me if this is implemented.

Unfortunately I can't afford to leave there at the moment but that's my new goal and this will get me working harder with the other sites.

I just hope the other sites don't try this, I will leave microstock if they all cut commissions.


« Reply #51 on: September 07, 2010, 16:02 »
0
Just wait for a few days for their old and verified tactics. They will offer something that is just slightly less awful than this and people will start saying "Thanks istock".

+1
That's what I suspect too. First announce a REALLY bad news, then  listen  to the masses by taking a step back to just a bad news. Reminds me our politicians...
« Last Edit: September 07, 2010, 16:05 by ErickN »

« Reply #52 on: September 07, 2010, 16:06 »
0
Just wait for a few days for their old and verified tactics. They will offer something that is just slightly less awful than this and people will start saying "Thanks istock".

I just wanted to say the same thing

« Reply #53 on: September 07, 2010, 16:07 »
0
I am BD on istock and I don't sell anything close to the 1,400,000 files per year

"credits per year", not files.

That's 56,000 XXXL files for non-exclusives...

Piece of cake.  >:(

« Reply #54 on: September 07, 2010, 16:08 »
0
oops!
« Last Edit: September 07, 2010, 16:12 by Fred »

« Reply #55 on: September 07, 2010, 16:11 »
0
So now canister levels are meaningless.  This is a real kick in the teeth to the exclusives who helped build the business, but maybe haven't had as much time to keep up their portfolios in the past year.

I am BD on istock and I don't sell anything close to the 1,400,000 files per year that would be necessary to keep the measly 20%.  ...

Actually they don't require 1,400,000 files.  They requirement is for "credits".  My account works out to about 3.34 credits for each sale so the 1,400,000 requires about 419,000 sales.    I certainly won't be looking at 20% but maybe you have a chance.

fred
Lisa sold 200.000 files altogether, even she won't be keeping the 20% royalty. Looks like Yuri will be the only one from the non-exclusives to be up at the 20%?

« Reply #56 on: September 07, 2010, 16:13 »
0
How do you figure out the number of credits you sold?

lisafx

« Reply #57 on: September 07, 2010, 16:14 »
0
I am BD on istock and I don't sell anything close to the 1,400,000 files per year

"credits per year", not files.

Yeah, sorry.  I actually understood that but wrote it wrong in my post.  Still * near impossible goal.

helix7

« Reply #58 on: September 07, 2010, 16:15 »
0
Personally, I think it would be a good idea for EVERYONE who doesn't like these changes to stop uploading to IS completely until our concerns are addressed...

More importantly, stop buying images from istock if you're a buyer as well. Not that designers needed another reason, with istock being the most expensive of the microstock options. But even more so now, it's important to let istock know that enough is enough.

lisafx

« Reply #59 on: September 07, 2010, 16:16 »
0
Just wait for a few days for their old and verified tactics. They will offer something that is just slightly less awful than this and people will start saying "Thanks istock".

+1
That's what I suspect too. First announce a REALLY bad news, then  listen  to the masses by taking a step back to just a bad news. Reminds me our politicians...

I hope you are both right, but I have my doubts.  Just talked to contributor relations and they said this is coming down from above and it's going to stick.

« Reply #60 on: September 07, 2010, 16:16 »
0
You find credits you have earnt in the stats on you own page

Microbius

« Reply #61 on: September 07, 2010, 16:16 »
0
How do you figure out the number of credits you sold?
It says under your stats page now.

This is absolutely disgusting, it's a devastating cut in income for non-exclusives, to think I was complaining about how low the 20% pay rate was a couple of days ago and now it has been chut to 15%!
Greedy scum bags is right, I'm stopping uploading as of now.

Edited to add: yeah and definately stopping buying anything from them. I would recommend anyone wanting vectors goes to Graphic Leftovers. They know how to treat their contributors.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2010, 16:18 by Microbius »

« Reply #62 on: September 07, 2010, 16:18 »
0
I just got an urge to upload some images to Alamy...

« Reply #63 on: September 07, 2010, 16:19 »
0
I was a full on iStock luvver that never whinged in the past (or posted rants on forums). People always envisioned doom and gloom and ended up earning more money

I'm on target to take about a 12% paycut and I earn a decent whack on iStock

I've just stopped loving iStock... I will be looking at alternatives seriously

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #64 on: September 07, 2010, 16:21 »
0
It's not based on files or downloads, it's based on number of credits/money used to buy each image.

So if someone paid 3 credits to download one image (small size?), the contributor is given 3 credits toward the performance measurement.  

If you sold 5,000 downloads in 2009, and all of them were sold at 3 credits each (Small size?) your redemed credit rate would be 15,000 credits.

« Reply #65 on: September 07, 2010, 16:24 »
0
Personally, I think it would be a good idea for EVERYONE who doesn't like these changes to stop uploading to IS completely until our concerns are addressed.  These numbers need to at least be attainable and not pulled from the realm of fantasy.  

We should stop uploading to IS completely !!  We need several leaders from the big players.   Maybe a union!!

« Reply #66 on: September 07, 2010, 16:24 »
0
That is why I allways talk friendly about my Greedy iStock Cattle *insult removed* geeks.
Cmon geeks Light my fire...

« Reply #67 on: September 07, 2010, 16:27 »
0
Any other agencies reading this - the time is now to annouce a kick ass exclusive deal. 

« Reply #68 on: September 07, 2010, 16:29 »
0
We will continue to pay out royalties based on the value of the credit purchased. In the case of royalties from Subscription credits we are adjusting the minimum value of the subscription credit from $0.95 to $0.65.

And for those opted into the sub plan it only gets worse.

Is that right?  So now a xs brings 9.7 cents.  Boy, that 25 cents from TS sure is looking Good. (irony)

grp_photo

« Reply #69 on: September 07, 2010, 16:32 »
0
Personally, I think it would be a good idea for EVERYONE who doesn't like these changes to stop uploading to IS completely until our concerns are addressed.  These numbers need to at least be attainable and not pulled from the realm of fantasy.  

We should stop uploading to IS completely !!  We need several leaders from the big players.   Maybe a union!!
Reminds me of Fotolia nothing will happen and they knew it. The leaders (Yuri,Andresr etc.) are already investing in macro. The rest will upload as usual new contributors will welcome these changes so were will no shortage in new material for istock. Also Agencies can post their pictures in a high-priced collection so even more supply.

« Reply #70 on: September 07, 2010, 16:36 »
0
Personally, I think it would be a good idea for EVERYONE who doesn't like these changes to stop uploading to IS completely until our concerns are addressed.  These numbers need to at least be attainable and not pulled from the realm of fantasy.  

Absolutely agree.

Could not agree more!

DO NOT get hot headed and delete your portfolio.  Don't mess with your current earnings.  Just stop giving them new content.

« Reply #71 on: September 07, 2010, 16:39 »
0
Stopping uploads is just step one (which I will do).
If they don't make significant changes, I'm thinking of withdrawing my portfolio at the end of the year.

Won't hurt them much, but I will feel better.

« Reply #72 on: September 07, 2010, 16:41 »
0
One has to try to understand the strategy here. So let's see. The only way the vast majority of contributors will make the same or more despite their royalty rate going down is if they raise the prices by more than that cut. Maybe that's coming.

What I see here though, in the now, and this is purely my musing, is an effort to get the large customers slowly used to the idea of paying more for more elaborate and expensive artwork, in other words getting them accustomed to buying from Getty directly or from their other macro collections. Of course lost Getty customers who saved by buying from IS will slowly be brought back to macro at the same time. The success of Vetta and the implementation of the agency proves that this is working.

At the same time, they are trying to convince their best selling photographers and exclusive farms to contribute to macro, while discouraging the rest from submitting, even to micro. They've got the numbers and it probably won't hurt them that much to have the small guys rant and leave IS, even if that small guys turns out to be most exclusives and non exclusives below diamond. In any case, by force of habit, most contributors will take the bullet and keep submitting... to preserve their lifestyle. It's all just a news cycle anyways, and people will stop their turmoil in a couple of weeks and settle back into their routines.

But hmm... moving good customers and best selling photogs to Getty... not caring about the rest at all... discouraging new and small contributors... Separating their collections in tiers according to production value...

Sounds to me like Getty slowly wants to move out of the micro business, and hurt it good on the move, taking away big names and big customers with it. Perhaps they didn't buy Istock to help it flourish? Perhaps they bought it to recuperate what they could and then slowly choke it to death... hoping to do it in a way that would prove how micro is inferior to all serious, sensible art buyers in the world. Perhaps in their view it would be great if eventually they all blushed in shame after someone recognized that they used some cheap stuff from micro in their prestigious publication...

After all, let's not forget that the brand that Getty is trying to polish and grow here is... Getty.

Huge gamble. I do hope that I'm completely wrong, here by the way. But we've all seen this happen over and over in other industries, so why not in this one?

« Reply #73 on: September 07, 2010, 16:42 »
0
I had never considered exclusivity; the numbers just didn't add up for me.  So I'm experiencing schadenfreude watching the exclusives gnashing their teeth over the news.  Experience the wisdom of Animal House:

  Otter: "Face it, Flounder.  You *removed coarse language* up.  You trusted us."

ShadySue

« Reply #74 on: September 07, 2010, 16:45 »
0
How do you figure out the number of credits you sold?
It's now at the top of your stats page. Just appeared with the announcement, so I guess they're serious about this one. Maybe no backtracking this time. Maybe Kelly's getting scared about achieving his target of 50% growth.
So what did all these promises about us being grandfathered in actually mean. We can get the next colour when we get the dls, but it doesn't necessarily affect our payments.
Trouble is, I bet the other agencies are watching this with great relish. :-(


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
2800 Views
Last post February 17, 2007, 07:20
by GeoPappas
17 Replies
6751 Views
Last post September 09, 2010, 19:38
by madelaide
2 Replies
2829 Views
Last post July 15, 2010, 10:47
by HughStoneIan
2 Replies
2388 Views
Last post September 09, 2010, 17:42
by loop
22 Replies
6758 Views
Last post January 31, 2014, 09:15
by JPSDK

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results