pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStock changing royalty structure  (Read 348523 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

lisafx

« Reply #425 on: September 08, 2010, 19:12 »
0

KB, do I detect a little sarcasm in your remark? Or is my general pissiness from this whole debacle spilling over into your innocent post?  ;)

FWIW, I didn't read it as sarcastic.  But I can TOTALLY relate to general pissiness spilling over.  I am so aggravated over this my family is afraid to get near me  :o


« Reply #426 on: September 08, 2010, 19:14 »
0
I just wonder in what drugs are iStock and Greedy???
Welcome. We have been expecting you.  :P

« Reply #427 on: September 08, 2010, 19:45 »
0
I just wonder in what drugs are iStock and Greedy???
Welcome. We have been expecting you.  :P


See the new line in they history  ;D
In September 2010, Getty Images iStock Photo Brand announced plans to cut payments to contributors by as much as 25% starting in 2011, while claiming that it furthered the interest of those same contributors. Getty's motivation was greeted with skepticism by the iStock community.[4]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getty_Images
« Last Edit: September 08, 2010, 19:58 by Suljo »

« Reply #428 on: September 08, 2010, 20:09 »
0

KB, do I detect a little sarcasm in your remark? Or is my general pissiness from this whole debacle spilling over into your innocent post?  ;)

FWIW, I didn't read it as sarcastic.  But I can TOTALLY relate to general pissiness spilling over.  I am so aggravated over this my family is afraid to get near me  :o

I'm sure you're right Lisa.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #429 on: September 08, 2010, 20:10 »
0
Almighty Angry Parokeet, guide us through this iStock mess.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2010, 20:12 by PaulieWalnuts »

« Reply #430 on: September 08, 2010, 20:22 »
0
I doubt the majority of buyers care how much we earn. They just want the right image and at bargain price.

Do you stop buying cheap things because they are made by cheap labor?

So buyers do care, as well as some people only buy mahogany furniture with certified origin, or gives preference to local producers, or avoids buying imported stuff even if paying more for national, etc. You know, sustainability is a poweful word these days. Of course, not all buyers will care, maybe just a minority will care, but those of us who have access to buyers, this is a valid strategy. They can find good images elsewhere for basically the same price or cheaper.

« Reply #431 on: September 08, 2010, 20:40 »
0
These changes will come back to haunt them. Kinda like this:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEfb-I1oy40[/youtube]

« Reply #432 on: September 08, 2010, 20:45 »
0
Almighty Angry Parokeet, guide us through this iStock mess.

I just like way how somebody who wrote this on Wiki legally try to ruin they reputation just little bit.
I dont looked if same is added on iStock wiki too...

« Reply #433 on: September 08, 2010, 20:48 »
0
I doubt the majority of buyers care how much we earn. They just want the right image and at bargain price.

Do you stop buying cheap things because they are made by cheap labor?

So buyers do care, as well as some people only buy mahogany furniture with certified origin, or gives preference to local producers, or avoids buying imported stuff even if paying more for national, etc. You know, sustainability is a poweful word these days. Of course, not all buyers will care, maybe just a minority will care, but those of us who have access to buyers, this is a valid strategy. They can find good images elsewhere for basically the same price or cheaper.

Well, according to iStock's figures, if you get one buyer in ten to go elsewhere, it will knock something like $38 million off their turnover. I really, really do think they would notice that. In fact it might be about the same as the sum they are trying to grab from commissions and could even cost the CEO his job.

One in a hundred will still cost them something like $4 million, which is probably noticable even at Getty greed levels.

« Reply #434 on: September 08, 2010, 20:53 »
0

KB, do I detect a little sarcasm in your remark? Or is my general pissiness from this whole debacle spilling over into your innocent post?  ;)

FWIW, I didn't read it as sarcastic.  But I can TOTALLY relate to general pissiness spilling over.  I am so aggravated over this my family is afraid to get near me  :o


Sounds like a photo shoot is in order.  Psycho mom going ballistic, isolated over white, with clipping path.

KB

« Reply #435 on: September 08, 2010, 20:57 »
0
KB, do I detect a little sarcasm in your remark? Or is my general pissiness from this whole debacle spilling over into your innocent post?  ;)
I'm afraid it's the latter. I genuinely believe that most iStockers, exclusive & independent, no longer trust management. How could they after this?

Or maybe it's my own pissiness showing. Having dropped independence after 4 years only 2 months ago, I've now received a big slap in the face (kinder than the analogy I am actually envisioning). My gold grandfathering is meaningless, and my silver commission level will be cut to bronze. I AM NOT HAPPY!  >:(

ETA: I suppose I should admit that if I had been exclusive the entire year, I likely would not have seen a commission cut (except for the lowering that would result from the cut in ELs & subs). But I still would be very unhappy about the whole thing (just not quite as angry as I am now).
« Last Edit: September 08, 2010, 21:59 by KB »

« Reply #436 on: September 08, 2010, 21:32 »
0
We should all discuss it here rather than in the forum over there, because hits on their site might add to the site's value. I don't feel like helping them at the moment.

sc

« Reply #437 on: September 08, 2010, 21:36 »
0
If you wanna mess with their google ranking remove all your links to their site even the links to your portfolios in this forum.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2010, 21:38 by sc »

« Reply #438 on: September 08, 2010, 21:43 »
0
In September 2010, Getty Images iStock Photo Brand announced plans to cut payments to contributors by as much as 25% starting in 2011, while claiming that it furthered the interest of those same contributors. Getty's motivation was greeted with skepticism by the iStock community.[4]
It's quite clear that the corporate nitwits of Getty are jealous at the bonuses in the financial world, even if those screwed up an entire economy. They need their fat payout at the end of the year. Looking at the couple of thousand I made on IS, that means 8000$ for them. I'd rather send my stuff for free on Flickr in the future.

I saw it coming, and I removed my Deepmeta link end of June. I'm just a bit worried many of their great photographers would dump exclusivity and find out the sites where we make our real money.  I'm for a pay rise of the exclusives! ;)

Fotonaut

« Reply #439 on: September 08, 2010, 21:50 »
0
As I entered the world i iStock in 2005 as a buyer, only contributing a tiny bit since the start of 2010, my perspective as a buyer is that the only ones with the key to actually do something are the iStock exclusives. What indepedents do will not matter, their work is already all over the place.

As a buyer I already know I can get the independent's work cheaper elsewhere, and often I do. But all in all iStock has the best stuff, so as a buyer often it makes sense to go there (search time/quality ratio definately favour iStock). Most of the time thats where I find what I need.

If exclusives were to make a combined move to another site, where I then could get the most good stuff, that's where i would turn to buy. If that is Bigstock or CanStock, great. Cheaper for me as a buyer. If it is Yay or any other site that both gives a good commission and comparable prices to iStock, that's fine too. I'll go where I find what I need.

But the clue is that it would have to be a collective move by enough exclusives.

Of course, then there is the issue that within some years that site would lower commissions, or Getty would buy the site and start their dance again.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2010, 22:33 by Fotonaut »

« Reply #440 on: September 08, 2010, 22:29 »
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.

I used the form this time... we'll see what happens.  I am curious as to why it takes months to approve applications.

macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #441 on: September 09, 2010, 00:39 »
0
you guys are all wrong :

we're selling a DIGITAL product !

if we look at the royalties paid in most of the Internet Marketing business i've never seen anyone getting more than 20% of the sale price for selling or re-selling or promoting someone else product on the web, and this is even more true for the biggest affiliate companies like Commission Junction, TradeDoubler, and Zanox who make millions of sales every day worldwide !

Getty pretending an 85% cut of the sale is just ... hahaha ... unbelievable and unthinkable even in their weirdest dreams, nowhere in the past history of stock an agency ever paid so low !

the real problem of microstock is that it started cheap and it started as a joke, and so it remained for the years to come, you can't expect a business like that goes up to premium prices and therefore premium payouts in a snap.

as a matter of fact the opposite happened, and i'm not the least surprised.

you're treated like monkeys now because YOU accepted these crazy low-payouts in the first place !

there's plenty of IT companies a lot bigger than istock who can pay all the operational costs and live just on advertising and that's advertising converting very bad by the way so we're talking of the bottom of the barrel and yet they make profits and they're in business, don't believe the getty hype ... Alamy pays 40% and no questions asked ... same for many other macros, all in the 30-40% range, only getty pays 20% but sales are going down.

rod

« Reply #442 on: September 09, 2010, 01:59 »
0
Drop their royalty from 20% to 1x%, IS make a  severe precedent,maybe some other agencies will follow later.

« Reply #443 on: September 09, 2010, 02:51 »
0
Do you stop buying cheap things because they are made by cheap labor?

I do, sometimes. What makes this situation special, is that the options where photographers get more are also cheaper. And the creative people buying the images also symphatize with other creatives i. e. photographers.

« Reply #444 on: September 09, 2010, 02:58 »
0

« Reply #445 on: September 09, 2010, 03:07 »
0

Upload boycotts have worked to improve things with other sites that lowered royalties.  I don't know if one will work at IS.   I don't even know if doing what we can to drive buyers to the more reasonable sites will work.  But I do know that doing nothing will guarantee we all go down the tubes.  There is no doubt about that.  

At some point it isn't just about how much you think you can change.  I am not certain we can get them to change anything.  For me it is an issue of deciding whether I want to to stand up for myself or just accept whatever crumbs Istock wants to toss my way without protest.  

Either way, my income is going to be affected.  Not only will I lose probably 10% of my IS income (which is 4-5% of my overall income), but I expect I will also lose income on the other sites when brilliant photographers who have been exclusive begin competing with me on the other sites.  We are all in for some pain.  The question is should we try to salvage the industry or just let it go down.  I'm gonna try and salvage what I can because that's what I believe in.  

For the moment, I am going to contact every buyer I know, let them know what's happening to image producers at Istock, and offer them better choices of where to shop.  I have also suspended uploading for the time being.  I am leaving it open when I will resume uploading - don't want to box myself into a corner.  Others are free to do what their consciences dictate.  


100% agree!
Like many others I stopped uploading to istock as well and I hope that all people here will do the same. Besides, thanks to all the buyers who have decided to shop elsewhere!

Please this time don't let the protest end soon and accept everything they do.... This new istock policy will have lots of implications on big players and factories too, so I'm crossing the fingers and hoping they will join us in any form of protest.

p.s. Thank God I never opted in for exclusivity!!

« Reply #446 on: September 09, 2010, 03:36 »
0
IS have planned for this reaction. They held off an already preplanned reply for 24 hours, and will have another up their sleeve if the response remains at the same level. They have appeased the top contributors with the tiered system, so they won't cause a problem.

Maybe 100-1000 people will delete their potfolio - again anticipated. Maybe the amount of uploads will be 50% of the usual amount next week - again anticipated.

IS's end goal is to weather the protest and get their way. Bit by bit uploading will resume and the comments on the forum get less.

What we need is concerted, directed action. A small group of respected contributors should canvas popular opinion, and then with a mandate from us approach IS. Is are quite happy for us to moan for weeks, what they do not want is actual action. Direct emails to buyers, articles in newspapers, facebook campaigns etc etc. Neither do they want us to have a focal point. They see the community approach as a weakness, when in fact it is our strength.

I "Mr and Mrs X" represent the wishes of the following 10,000 contributors with a total portfolio size of 5 Million. We need to open constructive dialogue with IS, or on such a day at 12am MST everyone will begin deleting their portfolios at the rate of 1 picture per hour until an announcement is fothcoming on your site. A press release will also be issued etc, etc.

Candidates please step forward.

Oldhand'

CofkoCof

« Reply #447 on: September 09, 2010, 03:45 »
0
See the new line in they history  ;D
In September 2010, Getty Images iStock Photo Brand announced plans to cut payments to contributors by as much as 25% starting in 2011, while claiming that it furthered the interest of those same contributors. Getty's motivation was greeted with skepticism by the iStock community.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getty_Images

Nice one :D

« Reply #448 on: September 09, 2010, 03:49 »
0
IS have planned for this reaction. They held off an already preplanned reply for 24 hours, and will have another up their sleeve if the response remains at the same level. They have appeased the top contributors with the tiered system, so they won't cause a problem.

Maybe 100-1000 people will delete their potfolio - again anticipated. Maybe the amount of uploads will be 50% of the usual amount next week - again anticipated.

IS's end goal is to weather the protest and get their way. Bit by bit uploading will resume and the comments on the forum get less.

What we need is concerted, directed action. A small group of respected contributors should canvas popular opinion, and then with a mandate from us approach IS. Is are quite happy for us to moan for weeks, what they do not want is actual action. Direct emails to buyers, articles in newspapers, facebook campaigns etc etc. Neither do they want us to have a focal point. They see the community approach as a weakness, when in fact it is our strength.

I "Mr and Mrs X" represent the wishes of the following 10,000 contributors with a total portfolio size of 5 Million. We need to open constructive dialogue with IS, or on such a day at 12am MST everyone will begin deleting their portfolios at the rate of 1 picture per hour until an announcement is fothcoming on your site. A press release will also be issued etc, etc.

Candidates please step forward.

Oldhand'

Exactly right - but you will need to have a central coordination point - this forum makes sense ... but how do you do it? See this is exactly what they are counting on - the inability of so many individuals in cyberspace to coordinate a concerted, unfied approach. And a transparent one as well where tasks are delegated and everyone knows what is happening - it is a huge mean feat. I cannot begin to imagine how to accomplish this effectively - which is why I fear they will always win.

« Reply #449 on: September 09, 2010, 03:51 »
0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getty_Images


I think the text don't fit there, it should be on iStock's page, for example here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IStockphoto#Controversies

Check under Contributors. There is one sentence about it, but doesn't say much about lowering royalties. Maybe someone can edit it:
"In September 2010 iStock announced plans to restructure it's royalty system for contributors.[7]"


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
4456 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
4652 Views
Last post July 15, 2010, 10:47
by HughStoneIan
2 Replies
4092 Views
Last post September 09, 2010, 17:42
by loop
22 Replies
10701 Views
Last post January 31, 2014, 09:15
by JPSDK

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors