MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStock changing royalty structure  (Read 348636 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #250 on: September 08, 2010, 07:20 »
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".
so true   :-[

Yes!

First shock and then "goodwill"...
And all will say "thanks ", for "new iStock social programs"

Please can someone put this fact on their forum... I am not so good in English.


« Reply #251 on: September 08, 2010, 07:50 »
0
If there is diamond contributor, currently taking 40% and if you sold 39,999 credits worth of images in 2010.
That means for your sales in 2011, your rate would drop from 40% to 30%.
That is a 25% pay decrease from what you were earning! not to be confused with a 10 percent rate decrease!
Is there any reason why to reduce 25% pay for this contributor???

« Reply #252 on: September 08, 2010, 07:52 »
0
If there is diamond contributor, currently taking 40% and if you sold 39,999 credits worth of images in 2010.
That means for your sales in 2011, your rate would drop from 40% to 30%.
That is a 25% pay decrease from what you were earning! not to be confused with a 10 percent rate decrease!
Is there any reason why to reduce 25% pay for this contributor???

Pure unadulterated greed perhaps?

« Reply #253 on: September 08, 2010, 08:05 »
0
Would you guys come to istocky.com? I will open it if you will

« Reply #254 on: September 08, 2010, 08:15 »
0
Would you guys come to istocky.com? I will open it if you will

I think something that wouldn't be in breach of an existing trademark might be a little bit better...

« Reply #255 on: September 08, 2010, 08:21 »
0
If there is diamond contributor, currently taking 40% and if you sold 39,999 credits worth of images in 2010.
That means for your sales in 2011, your rate would drop from 40% to 30%.
That is a 25% pay decrease from what you were earning! not to be confused with a 10 percent rate decrease!
Is there any reason why to reduce 25% pay for this contributor???

And it can be even worse for contributors who upload different media types, as the redeemed credits are split btw media types.
To keep your exclusive diamond contributor example, currently getting 40% :
If he/she sells 30,000 credits worth of photos only, it means a drop from 40% to 30% (25% pay cut)
If he/she sells 30,000 credits, split btw 10,000 from photos and 20,000 from illustrations, it means a drop from 40% to 25%
That's a 37.5% pay cut.

« Reply #256 on: September 08, 2010, 08:28 »
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.

I disagree.  With an expected flood of artists dropping exclusivity, they'll pick up thousands upon thousands of new images (new to them) and with their already lower price-point they'll be MUCH MORE attractive to buyers.  iStock survives on its exclusives, it's what gives them their power.  Which is why upsetting the exclusives this way makes so little sense.

« Reply #257 on: September 08, 2010, 08:30 »
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... :-[

Ditto...  The folks at Stockfresh don't answer emails... I'm not impressed so far.

« Reply #258 on: September 08, 2010, 08:30 »
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!

We hear this comment over and over, however it really resembles something you might hear from a battered woman.  

IS has firmly and openly shown us that they can NOT be trusted!  Even if you get your candy, you have to know that sooner or later you will have a nice black eye and maybe a few broken bones to go along with those sweets!

IS has been the site I use to buy images and after this stunt that will no longer be the case, as Lisa pointed out to continue to buy from them would set a dangerous president!

I will no longer be contributing to IS, if we as a collective group accept such pathetic returns for our work it will not be long before the other sites follow suit!

To those who are extolling the virtues of SS remember they have not given a raise in two years and they have not put any effort into making sure their site is scalable and functioning without constant bugs which cost submitters sales!!!

« Reply #259 on: September 08, 2010, 08:38 »
0
1st January: delete all photos

I would never delete my photos from IS. I have too much time invested in uploading and keywording etc.

It would be much better to inform the clients about other sites where photographers are treated more fairly.

It is stupid to completely remove a revenue source until/unless other sites can take up the slack.  You are MUCH better off just stopping uploading to iStock and continuing to collect revenue from your existing work.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #260 on: September 08, 2010, 08:43 »
0
I agree with some of the others who said this is a tactic. It's indirect negotiation. If it's not, and they really are trying to shove this model down our throats with no negotiation, it's a pretty ominus sign.

The tactic is to present a really bad deal that angers almost everybody. They will then come back with something that is still pretty bad, but just not as bad. This will then get "Woo-Yays", "Thank-you Istocks", and "we still love you's". So they will still get more money, we will happily get a pay cut, and everything is back to normal.

What I think they'll come back with is a slightly more attainable plan. They probably already have 2-3 alternate plans ready to drop in place. They'll lower the goals a bit, or grandfather in some people for a year, etc. More people will get to keep their current commission % but very few will ever get a raise. Mission accomplished. They will have lowered the average commission percentage accross the board. Probably by 5-7% which would instantly put millions back in their pocket.

So when, or if, they come back with a slightly revised bad model, is everybody going to be happy with something that is still bad? Maybe it's time to start discussing that if this current model isn't acceptable, what would be acceptable to us? They're not going back to the old model. So what would be acceptable for performance goals?

« Reply #261 on: September 08, 2010, 08:59 »
0
Quiet honestly, I have to remember that in the last 5 years iStockphoto has changed my life. In better. It allowed me to transform a simple hobby into a rewarding and important job. I want to thank for that iStockphoto and especially its founder, Bruce Livingstone.
Point.
 
Quiet honestly the date 09/07 will be remembered as the end of "Peace, Love and Photography" era. End of the joyful community of photographers and designers, Steel Cage Battles, iStockalypse... good bye. Getty is just another f****n corporation and we are in it only for the money.
Point.
 
Quiet honestly this turning-point is another proof that to be exclusive contributors is a big mistake because it is a big risk. Personally I am not an exclusive photos contributors, but I'm for video. For photos will mean an overall reduction of 5% of my income (not a drama). For video of 20-30%. I think that in 2011 you'll probably can buy my videos also on F*****A and S******S***K.
Point.
 
We are lucky because this event will give us the strength and courage to look around, explore new distribution channels, to seek new technologies and new tools to find the next big thing, the microstockbusiness of 2015.

Good luck guys and God bless you.

Roby

« Reply #262 on: September 08, 2010, 09:00 »
0
1st January: delete all photos

I would never delete my photos from IS. I have too much time invested in uploading and keywording etc.

It would be much better to inform the clients about other sites where photographers are treated more fairly.

It is stupid to completely remove a revenue source until/unless other sites can take up the slack.  You are MUCH better off just stopping uploading to iStock and continuing to collect revenue from your existing work.

Another topic here suggests that anti-marketing campaign is better way... To redirect buyers to agencies with better deal for contributors....

« Reply #263 on: September 08, 2010, 09:02 »
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".
so true   :-[

Yes!

First shock and then "goodwill"...
And all will say "thanks ", for "new iStock social programs"

Please can someone put this fact on their forum... I am not so good in English.

I did it, but th thread develops so quickly no one actually saw it. :)

Plus, I got a sitemail from admin to stop posting, because I said that this would be handled in in other way if their headquarters were somewhere in Eastern Europe.
They are just being lucky to be based in civilized country like Canada. :)
Borg, I'm not sure if you know what happened to our national TV and it's CEO back in nineties?

« Reply #264 on: September 08, 2010, 09:03 »
0
I just saw this in the iStock forum.  Someone was frustrated that questions weren't being answered in the forum so posted direct contact details for contributors.

Email: Contributor Relations: [email protected]


Phone from North America toll free: 1-866-478-6251 (7:00 to 18:00 MT)


International Toll Free 00-800-6664-6664


Fax 1-403-398-6815

jbarber873

« Reply #265 on: September 08, 2010, 09:04 »
0
Would you guys come to istocky.com? I will open it if you will

as long as you have money for a good law firm to fight the trademark infringement suits.
Oh, and how about an unlimited google adwords account to drive traffic- the last time i looked, "stock photo" was selling for about $1.23 per click.
and who gets to be on the first page?

« Reply #266 on: September 08, 2010, 09:10 »
0
Like Sean said at IS forum, 99.9% contributors don't like the new structure. But what are the alternatives?

It's easier for the independents to stop uploading, at least they can upload somewhere else. What about exclusives? We have already been hit harder by the reduction of the percentage.

Think about the possible rivals. Did FT and DT also change the pay structure and reduce the percentage for the contributors? Did they do that with any notice? Had we not become disillusioned by FT and DT, would we have become IS exclusive at the first place? When FT and DT changes their pay structure, did they even allow the contributors to discuss the issues in their forums?

Alamy pays a good percentage, but how long does it take to get the payment to a contributor? Have you had refunds from Alamy buyers? How often do you sell at Alamy?

If we urge all the buyers leave IS, again who are we hurting the most?

Whenever a site causes a big controversial, the first thing I notice is the decrease of DLs. I hope I am wrong.

« Reply #267 on: September 08, 2010, 09:11 »
0
1st January: delete all photos

I would never delete my photos from IS. I have too much time invested in uploading and keywording etc.

It would be much better to inform the clients about other sites where photographers are treated more fairly.

And what will you do once you have destroyed IS's credibility and the buyers who used to purchase your images have moved to sites which have better compensation for their photographers?

Your strategy will only work if you and many others move your portfolio's to a site which is offering fair compensation and your buyers are willing to follow you there.

As a buyer I have already moved my purchases to such a site and I no longer plan on buying from IS!  We were warned about Getty from some credible photographers and it is clear that they understood the beast perfectly!  

You can not make good choices if you are not willing to see who you are doing business with and no amount of wishing or manipulation is going to change how Getty does business.  It is something akin to sticking your hand in front of a rattle snake and hoping that it will give you kisses!

« Reply #268 on: September 08, 2010, 09:14 »
0
And what will you do once you have destroyed IS's credibility and the buyers who used to purchase your images have moved to sites which have better compensation for their photographers?

Your strategy will only work if you and many others move your portfolio's to a site which is offering fair compensation and your buyers are willing to follow you there.

I already have my portfolios uploaded to several sites... I just say "Welcome, shop your asses off!" :)
« Last Edit: September 08, 2010, 09:16 by Perry »

« Reply #269 on: September 08, 2010, 09:18 »
0

I did it, but th thread develops so quickly no one actually saw it. :)

Plus, I got a sitemail from admin to stop posting, because I said that this would be handled in in other way if their headquarters were somewhere in Eastern Europe.
They are just being lucky to be based in civilized country like Canada. :)
Borg, I'm not sure if you know what happened to our national TV and it's CEO back in nineties?

Come on! :D :D
What they would think about ...
90-ties are behind us, we are now part of civilized world... ;) ;) 15% in enough to live in Eastern Europe... ;D ;D :P

« Reply #270 on: September 08, 2010, 09:21 »
0

I did it, but th thread develops so quickly no one actually saw it. :)

Plus, I got a sitemail from admin to stop posting, because I said that this would be handled in in other way if their headquarters were somewhere in Eastern Europe.
They are just being lucky to be based in civilized country like Canada. :)
Borg, I'm not sure if you know what happened to our national TV and it's CEO back in nineties?

Come on! :D :D
What they would think about ...
90-ties are behind us, we are now part of civilized world... ;) ;) 15% in enough to live in Eastern Europe... ;D ;D :P

Let them think what they want. I think they are just very lucky not being closer. :)

« Reply #271 on: September 08, 2010, 09:25 »
0
Ditto...  The folks at Stockfresh don't answer emails... I'm not impressed so far.

Not sure where you wrote, but we haven't received any e-mails from the address in your account. If you use the online form, we will definitely get it.

jbarber873

« Reply #272 on: September 08, 2010, 09:26 »
0

I did it, but th thread develops so quickly no one actually saw it. :)

Plus, I got a sitemail from admin to stop posting, because I said that this would be handled in in other way if their headquarters were somewhere in Eastern Europe.
They are just being lucky to be based in civilized country like Canada. :)
Borg, I'm not sure if you know what happened to our national TV and it's CEO back in nineties?

Come on! :D :D
What they would think about ...
90-ties are behind us, we are now part of civilized world... ;) ;) 15% in enough to live in Eastern Europe... ;D ;D :P

I'll be right there!

ayzek

« Reply #273 on: September 08, 2010, 09:27 »
0
I agree with some of the others who said this is a tactic. It's indirect negotiation. If it's not, and they really are trying to shove this model down our throats with no negotiation, it's a pretty ominus sign.

The tactic is to present a really bad deal that angers almost everybody. They will then come back with something that is still pretty bad, but just not as bad. This will then get "Woo-Yays", "Thank-you Istocks", and "we still love you's". So they will still get more money, we will happily get a pay cut, and everything is back to normal.

What I think they'll come back with is a slightly more attainable plan. They probably already have 2-3 alternate plans ready to drop in place. They'll lower the goals a bit, or grandfather in some people for a year, etc. More people will get to keep their current commission % but very few will ever get a raise. Mission accomplished. They will have lowered the average commission percentage accross the board. Probably by 5-7% which would instantly put millions back in their pocket.

So when, or if, they come back with a slightly revised bad model, is everybody going to be happy with something that is still bad? Maybe it's time to start discussing that if this current model isn't acceptable, what would be acceptable to us? They're not going back to the old model. So what would be acceptable for performance goals?
+1

« Reply #274 on: September 08, 2010, 09:46 »
0
I wish Tyler would open shop here. :)
-Good name
-Good boss
-Already well known, well liked and high in search placement


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
4457 Views
Last post February 17, 2007, 07:20
by GeoPappas
17 Replies
9606 Views
Last post September 09, 2010, 19:38
by madelaide
2 Replies
4653 Views
Last post July 15, 2010, 10:47
by HughStoneIan
2 Replies
4093 Views
Last post September 09, 2010, 17:42
by loop
22 Replies
10704 Views
Last post January 31, 2014, 09:15
by JPSDK

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors