MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStock changing royalty structure  (Read 229200 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #375 on: September 08, 2010, 16:36 »
0
Well done Anja - so Did I this morning. Let them fry in their own fat, when everybode starts to refer clients to other sites, they are going to take a massive hit in sales and overall traffic...

Also remeber to tell everyone you know - never to buy at Istock, as the photographer only gets 15%


grp_photo

« Reply #376 on: September 08, 2010, 16:40 »
0
they don't care it's a senseless action, also I find it strange that new members popping in just to announce that they have removed their portfolio from iStock   ::)

« Reply #377 on: September 08, 2010, 16:41 »
0
Okay, their current system is unsustainable. Then why . can't they for example freeze the current royalties? 20% for every independent and for the exclusives whatever percentage they are currently earning.

« Reply #378 on: September 08, 2010, 16:43 »
0
It looks like they want the majority contributors stay at bronze and silver level and never be able to move up unless you are hugely productive. It is very demoralizing, to say the least.

« Reply #379 on: September 08, 2010, 16:45 »
0
That would be worse than what is proposed. The new and up-coming talents should be rewarded, and should not be banned from advancement.

Okay, their current system is unsustainable. Then why . can't they for example freeze the current royalties? 20% for every independent and for the exclusives whatever percentage they are currently earning.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2010, 16:48 by Freedom »

« Reply #380 on: September 08, 2010, 16:47 »
0
Just some numbers to think about.

Unsustainable: 40%.

Assuming that everyone who qualifies for exclusivity became exclusive:

There are a total of 738 people who qualify for the 40% royalties. That is only 2.4% of all contributors. They are the only ones who can get the 40% commission.

There are 1056 people who qualify for 35% royalties, only 3.5% of contributors. Combined, there are only 5.9% of all iStock contributors who qualify for 35% and up. Many of these people have had accounts on iStock for over 6 years just to get to this level.

This is unsustainable? Lets say that triples in the next six years, so roughly 18% of iStock contributors qualify for more than 35% royalties. Unsustainable?

« Reply #381 on: September 08, 2010, 16:49 »
0
That would be worse than what is proposed. The new and up-coming talents should be rewarded, and should not be banned from advancement.

Well, they can * have it.

lisafx

« Reply #382 on: September 08, 2010, 16:52 »
0
they don't care it's a senseless action, also I find it strange that new members popping in just to announce that they have removed their portfolio from iStock   ::)

They are new members here, but they may have been at IS for a long time.  

This board has always had more independents than IS exclusives active because we need to keep abreast of developments across the whole industry, whereas they may have felt they only needed to follow Istock.  Now they are joining here to find out what their other options are.  Nothing wrong with that.  It's a smart move.

The people we should worry about are the defeatists who are always complaining that there's nothing we can do about anything and we should all just bend over and touch our toes.    :P

« Reply #383 on: September 08, 2010, 16:58 »
0
they don't care it's a senseless action, also I find it strange that new members popping in just to announce that they have removed their portfolio from iStock   ::)

They are new members here, but they may have been at IS for a long time.  

This board has always had more independents than IS exclusives active because we need to keep abreast of developments across the whole industry, whereas they may have felt they only needed to follow Istock.  Now they are joining here to find out what their other options are.  Nothing wrong with that.  It's a smart move.

The people we should worry about are the defeatists who are always complaining that there's nothing we can do about anything and we should all just bend over and touch our toes.    :P
Yep, iStock was my first agency years ago. I've never been a "big fish" over there, therefor most people may not know my (former) portfolio, but many illustrators over at Shutterstock do, since I'm pretty active in their (illustrators') forum. I'm just new to this board, because I was using different sources of information til now, but felt like joining this particular discussion.

« Reply #384 on: September 08, 2010, 16:59 »
0
they don't care it's a senseless action, also I find it strange that new members popping in just to announce that they have removed their portfolio from iStock   ::)


They are new members here, but they may have been at IS for a long time.  

This board has always had more independents than IS exclusives active because we need to keep abreast of developments across the whole industry, whereas they may have felt they only needed to follow Istock.  Now they are joining here to find out what their other options are.  Nothing wrong with that.  It's a smart move.

The people we should worry about are the defeatists who are always complaining that there's nothing we can do about anything and we should all just bend over and touch our toes.    :P


Your forum link was posted to my FB wall ;D

Has everyone signed the petition

newbielink:http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252382 [nonactive]

« Reply #385 on: September 08, 2010, 16:59 »
0
Yeah I always wondered why there were IS people here, who had IS forums to post in, and who loved IS so much, and who could only make money there. Now it looks like MSG will be getting a lot of new members.

they don't care it's a senseless action, also I find it strange that new members popping in just to announce that they have removed their portfolio from iStock   ::)

They are new members here, but they may have been at IS for a long time...

« Reply #386 on: September 08, 2010, 17:01 »
0
It looks like they want the majority contributors stay at bronze and silver level and never be able to move up unless you are hugely productive. It is very demoralizing, to say the least.

They could at least freeze the royalties of the 20% guys (like me), for every one of us this is a kick in the teeth. (And our steady 20% don't affect the sustainability of the business at all, because it stays the same all the time)
« Last Edit: September 08, 2010, 17:03 by Perry »

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #387 on: September 08, 2010, 17:06 »
0
This is a sad day indeed...time hasn't allowed me to work much on my portfolio for several months now, but after all this I ask myself the question.....is it even worth the hassle and aggravation any more? Microstock is getting cheaper and cheaper at the contributor end and those of you who are making a living at this will defiantly feel the effects more than most of us. I'm glad I don't rely on microstock for a living because if I did, I'd probably end up applying for food stamps in the near future with everything headed the way it is now, because frankly if your self employed you can't draw unemployment and good luck trying to find a job these days.

« Reply #388 on: September 08, 2010, 17:07 »
0
I posted a translation of iStock's reply. LOL  (Those of you who know me know what's coming.  For the rest of you, this ought to be a bit fun.)

http://bit.ly/istockchanges

« Reply #389 on: September 08, 2010, 17:08 »
0
Just some numbers to think about.

Unsustainable: 40%.

Assuming that everyone who qualifies for exclusivity became exclusive:

There are a total of 738 people who qualify for the 40% royalties. That is only 2.4% of all contributors. They are the only ones who can get the 40% commission.

There are 1056 people who qualify for 35% royalties, only 3.5% of contributors. Combined, there are only 5.9% of all iStock contributors who qualify for 35% and up. Many of these people have had accounts on iStock for over 6 years just to get to this level.

This is unsustainable? Lets say that triples in the next six years, so roughly 18% of iStock contributors qualify for more than 35% royalties. Unsustainable?

Thanks for that __ it certainly puts this issue into some perspective. The f*cking greedy *insult removed*.

« Reply #390 on: September 08, 2010, 17:12 »
0
The people we should worry about are the defeatists who are always complaining that there's nothing we can do about anything and we should all just bend over and touch our toes.    :P

Yeah. It'll be the same limp-wristed f*ck-wits who joined Thinkstock because "Ooh __ there's nothing we can do about the big juggernaut". You can pretty much guarantee that they'll wimp out of this fight too.

« Reply #391 on: September 08, 2010, 17:12 »
0

« Reply #392 on: September 08, 2010, 17:17 »
0
Someone said this at iStock forum and I like it.

Quote
why not to do this:

keep "canister level" payments for all of us who will lose with the new rules
use "redeemed credits" payments for those who will "move up" with them.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2010, 17:20 by Perry »

« Reply #393 on: September 08, 2010, 17:18 »
0
Like the 60 people who have posted to that in the past two hours will actually have an impact on any of iStock's business plans.

http://davidgilder.com/misc/iStockfulator/noindex.cgi?url=252382

« Reply #394 on: September 08, 2010, 17:19 »
0
I agree 20% should be the minimum for non-exclusives.

It looks like they want the majority contributors stay at bronze and silver level and never be able to move up unless you are hugely productive. It is very demoralizing, to say the least.

They could at least freeze the royalties of the 20% guys (like me), for every one of us this is a kick in the teeth. (And our steady 20% don't affect the sustainability of the business at all, because it stays the same all the time)

« Reply #395 on: September 08, 2010, 17:22 »
0

The people we should worry about are the defeatists who are always complaining that there's nothing we can do about anything and we should all just bend over and touch our toes.    :P

Sorry, Lisa, but where . are we going from here? The one thing that would really shake them is a mass defection of customers that would almost certainly lead to a mass defection of exclusives. All those images then end up on the other sites, diluting the sales there. And while the percentage commissions may be better, the cash returns are not going to be.

Maybe that would teach the other sites a lesson and be good for the longer term, or maybe everyone just loses out.

If there is a clear, workable plan of action with clear objectives then I'm all for it. But I suspect the only objective we can agree on is "scrap this and start again" and the only effective course of action is to attempt to destroy iStock by driving off buyers. They are definitely not going to abandon this without a major fight, but if we win we may just turn the drift of buyers going to cheaper places into an avalanche.

It probably wouldn't be difficult to break Istock because it is built on the myth that nothing anywhere near as good is available anywhere else. All you need to do is destroy that perception in the industry and iSTock's own pricing policies will do the rest. But that means that we are then driving microstock prices down - and we can't return the buyers if iS gives in.

Do you really think anything as feeble as an upload boycott is going to work, when 90% of submitters are probably still in blissful ignorance about this?

« Reply #396 on: September 08, 2010, 17:27 »
0
Do you really think anything as feeble as an upload boycott is going to work, when 90% of submitters are probably still in blissful ignorance about this?

Yes, given enough months, I think it has a very good chance. It's not as feeble an idea as doing nothing at all which seems to be your main suggestion. All submitters should be aware of the situation as they have had the email.

« Reply #397 on: September 08, 2010, 17:28 »
0
I think you can only deactivate one at a time, which would be a pain with a port as big as yours.

I can't even find a way to do that.  I figured I could start deleting a few at a time, starting with stuff that hasn't sold in a while.  But I can't see a delete or deactivate button anywhere.

lisafx

« Reply #398 on: September 08, 2010, 17:32 »
0
Today I opened an company account for our ad agency on dreamstime and advised the employees not to use istock anymore. Beyond that I changed the PW of istock to prevent that some of the guys are just following an routine and accidentially buy there.

Well done!  Applause from me.  Hope others follow suit

« Reply #399 on: September 08, 2010, 17:32 »
0
Check this out . .

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252382&page=1



Sorry but this is just a waste of time and effort.  Starting petitions, changing your avatar to a red ribbon, it's all pointless and Getty doesn't care.  If the people who started these "movements" spent the same amount of time contacting buyers to educate them on what is happening, we could solve this problem inside of a month.

It's like taking part in a community walk to fight a disease.  The disease doesn't care about your solidarity and your commitment to go for a walk.  You want to make a difference?  Put down your hard earned cash to give it to researchers who are capable of finding a cure.  It's the same with this situation.  Those of you with connections to buyers need to get on the horn if you want real changes.  That takes real work and commitment.  Signing a petition just points out to Getty exactly who needs to be eliminated first.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
2847 Views
Last post February 17, 2007, 07:20
by GeoPappas
17 Replies
6886 Views
Last post September 09, 2010, 19:38
by madelaide
2 Replies
2886 Views
Last post July 15, 2010, 10:47
by HughStoneIan
2 Replies
2442 Views
Last post September 09, 2010, 17:42
by loop
22 Replies
6866 Views
Last post January 31, 2014, 09:15
by JPSDK

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results