MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStock changing royalty structure  (Read 348545 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #450 on: September 09, 2010, 04:07 »
0
Actually the more I think about it the more I am convinced that Istock/Getty/Hellerman know exactly what they are doing and they have structured this change to create exactly the result they want. The people who are talking about leaving are exactly they people they want gone. They are changing the structure of who they are and the vast majority of people contributing to the site they no longer want or feel they need. Thinkstock is the old istock - the new istock is going to be something different.


« Reply #451 on: September 09, 2010, 04:31 »
0
1 - Ask for leaf's help on this site!
2.  State an intention to run a poll for anyone interested in representing the wishes of Micro photographers against IS specifically. Post here, on Microstockdiaries, IS, plus all other micro sites (they might like that!) Interested parties to contact Leaf by say Monday 9am.
3. Poll runs for 48 hours. You can choose as many candidates as you like, then everyone with over 75% is in the negotiating group. If too many people have over 75%, then it will be the 6 most popular.
4. The group then privately discuss options for reaching agreement with IS. Total refusal, acceptance on condition your current level remains the same, etc, etc..
5. They canvas our opinion on their ideas by another poll, again advertised in advance.
6. They approach IS on our behalf, in private, and communicate back the best deal they can. Needs a 75% approval to pass.
7. Bargaining power! We need to operate from strength. so the group has to co-ordinate a list of all photographers supporting them with image numbers etc.
8. What happens if IS refuse to move. Then everyone on the list starts removing image every hour until negotiations begin again from a set date after negotiations break down. Press are contacted with a release.

As my old teacher would say, needs work, but we have to start concerted action to succeed.

Oldhand

lagereek

« Reply #452 on: September 09, 2010, 04:32 »
0
Must say Ive been curious as to why my FT and SS  revenues have doubled and rising during the last six months. Buyers are without doubt leaving IS, theyve had it with all the excuses of price increases and hassle.
Buyers reading the ongoing threads at IS, will feel even more inclined to get out. Its very bad publicity indeed.

lagereek

« Reply #453 on: September 09, 2010, 04:39 »
0
1 - Ask for leaf's help on this site!
2.  State an intention to run a poll for anyone interested in representing the wishes of Micro photographers against IS specifically. Post here, on Microstockdiaries, IS, plus all other micro sites (they might like that!) Interested parties to contact Leaf by say Monday 9am.
3. Poll runs for 48 hours. You can choose as many candidates as you like, then everyone with over 75% is in the negotiating group. If too many people have over 75%, then it will be the 6 most popular.
4. The group then privately discuss options for reaching agreement with IS. Total refusal, acceptance on condition your current level remains the same, etc, etc..
5. They canvas our opinion on their ideas by another poll, again advertised in advance.
6. They approach IS on our behalf, in private, and communicate back the best deal they can. Needs a 75% approval to pass.
7. Bargaining power! We need to operate from strength. so the group has to co-ordinate a list of all photographers supporting them with image numbers etc.
8. What happens if IS refuse to move. Then everyone on the list starts removing image every hour until negotiations begin again from a set date after negotiations break down. Press are contacted with a release.

As my old teacher would say, needs work, but we have to start concerted action to succeed.

Oldhand


Its a waste!!  do you really think they care?   IS same as the others are Agents, our agents,  no contributor is fully employed with rights, etc,  they merely represent us in selling our pics and we recieve a percentage, etc.  They dont care! and if anybody wants to get out,  so what? its thanks for the coffee and bye bye.

« Reply #454 on: September 09, 2010, 04:48 »
0
Click on the file.  Click on Administration.  Type something in the box.  Click the big blue Deactivate button.  It's a PITA.

No wonder I couldn't find it.  Thanks; I figure I can deactivate a few every day as my little protest.

type something in the box yeah, like up yours greedy b*******s lol

« Reply #455 on: September 09, 2010, 05:00 »
0


Its a waste!!  do you really think they care?   IS same as the others are Agents, our agents,  no contributor is fully employed with rights, etc,  they merely represent us in selling our pics and we recieve a percentage, etc.  They dont care! and if anybody wants to get out,  so what? its thanks for the coffee and bye bye.
[/quote]

It's that fine line beween what a company can get away with and what the masses will accept. No, they don't care for us a individuals, and I respect they are a capitalist business designed to make a profit. They will cut magins where they can, they are not a charity. But. accepting that, we have a unique bargaining power in our ability to act collectivley.  Individual action in meaningless. If a majority of people are unhappy and are willing to ultimately disable or remove images, then that is a serious threat to IS. They won't backtrack 100%, but they may make important concessions.

In the words of the Great Irish man Jim Larkin. " Le grandes ne sans grandes que parce'que nous sommes a' genoux. Levons nous". Apologies to the French, but it's inscribed on his statue in Dublin.

The great only appear great because we are on our knees. Let us rise.

Oldhand

« Reply #456 on: September 09, 2010, 05:08 »
0
Of course they'll change their mind once they begin seriously losing their buyers and contributors. Though the new royalty rates might make up for some of the loss, they'll now have a bad reputation and ultimately they will do what it takes to get back their buyer and contributor base.

lagereek

« Reply #457 on: September 09, 2010, 05:11 »
0


Its a waste!!  do you really think they care?   IS same as the others are Agents, our agents,  no contributor is fully employed with rights, etc,  they merely represent us in selling our pics and we recieve a percentage, etc.  They dont care! and if anybody wants to get out,  so what? its thanks for the coffee and bye bye.

It's that fine line beween what a company can get away with and what the masses will accept. No, they don't care for us a individuals, and I respect they are a capitalist business designed to make a profit. They will cut magins where they can, they are not a charity. But. accepting that, we have a unique bargaining power in our ability to act collectivley.  Individual action in meaningless. If a majority of people are unhappy and are willing to ultimately disable or remove images, then that is a serious threat to IS. They won't backtrack 100%, but they may make important concessions.

In the words of the Great Irish man Jim Larkin. " Le grandes ne sans grandes que parce'que nous sommes a' genoux. Levons nous". Apologies to the French, but it's inscribed on his statue in Dublin.

The great only appear great because we are on our knees. Let us rise.

Oldhand
[/quote]

Love that saying. btw.  However,  if a thousand guys pulled out this minute,  they could be replaced within 24 hours.  Its a numbers game and thats the downfall of it all.

« Reply #458 on: September 09, 2010, 05:20 »
0
For independent contributors there is one way of both mitigating the lost income from Istock and also giving them a little less opportunity to profit from us __ make some images exclusive on FT.

Identify images that sell better on FT than most other places, make them exclusive (removing them from all other sites first!) and increase the price up to the maximum allowed for your Ranking. As a Gold contributor for example you can multiply the price by 4x. I've been doing this very occasionally for some while and am pretty sure that it more than compensates for the lost sales elsewhere. Obviously the images themselves need to already enjoy a high placement in the FT sort order and be unique enough to justify the higher price __ it's unlikely to work if it's just another 'girl wearing headset' shot.

It is a small step but they will all add up in the end. I suspect this may need to be a slow long-term war of attrition against Istock using a multiple of tactics. Istock, in their truly staggering greed, have chosen to do incredible damage to both their brand and their relationship with their suppliers and ultimately it is going to cost them far more than they seek to gain. Of that I am certain.

« Reply #459 on: September 09, 2010, 05:52 »
0
If you choose to stop uploading to Istock, in protest against the reduction in commissions, how much will it actually cost you in lost income?

I've just checked my numbers to try and find out. Over the last 3.5 months I've uploaded just under 200 new images. Those images have so far generated 80 sales on Istock, probably fairly average for me nowadays. The actual revenue they have contributed however works out at just over 0.5% to my total over the last 3 months from all agencies.

Those 80 sales represent about 2% of my total sales on Istock over the same period so, if I were exclusive instead, it would have cost me roughly the same 2% in earnings.

It's not a costly exercise to undertake for either independents or exclusives and, if the majority of contributors stopped uploading for 3 months, it would send a very powerful message of protest to Istock.

Check out your own new uploads/earnings over the last few months. Your new images may sell better or worse than mine but I suspect the impact will be similar although it also depends on the size of your portfolio relative to the number of new images. Don't forget you'll still have the images ready to upload later if we get a satisfactory outcome from this mess.

« Reply #460 on: September 09, 2010, 05:55 »
0
^ Agree. I'm done uploading  for now (every bit counts). I still have some stuff in the queue and that's all they will get for now.

EDIT - I think they used to have the size of their queue some place on the site. Is this now gone?

lagereek

« Reply #461 on: September 09, 2010, 06:03 »
0
I agree!  crap DOES sometimes happen but from a business point, its no use to stop uploading, what for? I remember back in the mid-90s in the RM sector when Getty cut us down from 50/50 to 60/40, even in some cases 70/30.

All this and the ongoing IS threads are really very bad publicity and because we havent had a kind of warning or hint but just dumped in our lap,  well it certainly gives the wrong vibes, such as:  is the company in trouble? financial mismanagement? or severe internal politics?  because there isnt any inside info about the running of the company, it all basically smells fishy.

« Reply #462 on: September 09, 2010, 06:05 »
0
I believe istock is encouraging big producers at the expense of smaller producers. Only the biggest producers will be able to access the best royalties. The long term effect of this will be a lack of diversity, with a huge number of similar images in the library. Short term profits but long term death.

« Reply #463 on: September 09, 2010, 06:12 »
0
I agree!  crap DOES sometimes happen but from a business point, its no use to stop uploading, what for? I remember back in the mid-90s in the RM sector when Getty cut us down from 50/50 to 60/40, even in some cases 70/30.

What do you mean "it's no use to stop uploading"? Of course it is. Maybe if you and others had taken a stand against Getty "back in the mid-90s", as you keep going on about, then you wouldn't have lost out as much as you did. Doing nothing will only ensure that history repeats itself.

Quite frankly, considering the PITA that the Istock upload systen is, I simply can't be bothered to upload there for a poxy 18%. At 20% it is bad enough already __ at some point you simply have to draw a line in the sand and say "No more".

« Reply #464 on: September 09, 2010, 06:23 »
0

I was not aware of this option in the Istock profile:

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252322&messageid=4613922#post4613922

I opted-out. Please check

lagereek

« Reply #465 on: September 09, 2010, 06:35 »
0
I agree!  crap DOES sometimes happen but from a business point, its no use to stop uploading, what for? I remember back in the mid-90s in the RM sector when Getty cut us down from 50/50 to 60/40, even in some cases 70/30.

What do you mean "it's no use to stop uploading"? Of course it is. Maybe if you and others had taken a stand against Getty "back in the mid-90s", as you keep going on about, then you wouldn't have lost out as much as you did. Doing nothing will only ensure that history repeats itself.

Quite frankly, considering the PITA that the Istock upload systen is, I simply can't be bothered to upload there for a poxy 18%. At 20% it is bad enough already __ at some point you simply have to draw a line in the sand and say "No more".

Hey wait a minute!  I do agree with you BUT!  the horrible truth is:  longterm youre the looser!  stopping uploading will only render in less revenues and WHY?  give them that free of charge?

Also, have you stopped to consider:  this is perhaps the reaction they actually want.

« Reply #466 on: September 09, 2010, 06:43 »
0
I believe istock is encouraging big producers at the expense of smaller producers. Only the biggest producers will be able to access the best royalties. The long term effect of this will be a lack of diversity, with a huge number of similar images in the library. Short term profits but long term death.
+1

« Reply #467 on: September 09, 2010, 06:47 »
0
I believe istock is encouraging big producers at the expense of smaller producers. Only the biggest producers will be able to access the best royalties. The long term effect of this will be a lack of diversity, with a huge number of similar images in the library. Short term profits but long term death.

Big producers may be being hit less than others but almost all of them will be taking a hit somewhere. Don't forget that Vetta commissions have been slashed, so have EL commissions for exclusives and Vector artists' sales are worth barely half the redeemed credits of photographers for the purposes of calculating future earnings.

If this wasn't enough already then don't forget this is just for starters. It's virtually guaranteed that the goalposts will be moved to Istocks further advantage in following years too. The scale and breadth of this hit is breathtaking in it's audacity.

Istock have quite deliberately chosen to exploit their contributors until the pips squeak __ nothing more, nothing less.

« Reply #468 on: September 09, 2010, 06:55 »
0
"That means people will have to give iStock 1.4 million Euros before you will earn your 20%."

http://blog.photocase.com/en/2010/09/08/1-4-million-euros/

How can IS say that is having to a difficult time and that the success of contributors makes them less profitable?? Come on.. who are they fooling?? money is never enough!

« Reply #469 on: September 09, 2010, 07:01 »
0
I believe istock is encouraging big producers at the expense of smaller producers. Only the biggest producers will be able to access the best royalties. The long term effect of this will be a lack of diversity, with a huge number of similar images in the library. Short term profits but long term death.
+1

Hmm, I see very many diamond and even black diamond contributors voicing the fact that they will see huge cut in the IS forum. Or are these not considered big enough to be big producers. If not, then there is only handful of big producers, two or three?

« Reply #470 on: September 09, 2010, 07:07 »
0
I agree!  crap DOES sometimes happen but from a business point, its no use to stop uploading, what for? I remember back in the mid-90s in the RM sector when Getty cut us down from 50/50 to 60/40, even in some cases 70/30.

What do you mean "it's no use to stop uploading"? Of course it is. Maybe if you and others had taken a stand against Getty "back in the mid-90s", as you keep going on about, then you wouldn't have lost out as much as you did. Doing nothing will only ensure that history repeats itself.

Quite frankly, considering the PITA that the Istock upload systen is, I simply can't be bothered to upload there for a poxy 18%. At 20% it is bad enough already __ at some point you simply have to draw a line in the sand and say "No more".

I am not going to be uploading to this site anymore, and it has little to do with how it's going to affect IS's bottom line. Sure, it's going to affect my bottom line, but I am done with their games. They have wanted to get rid of independents since Getty bought the place, and that's exactly what's going to happen. I don't give a rat's a*s about what they think any more...this is about how I expect to be treated as a human being, and their way just isn't cutting it.

This is just one more big corporation using the whole bad economy thing to ream people and get them down to third world country wages. Look around, Getty isn't the only one. It's pretty sad that people with college degrees and years of experience in their field are having to accept minimum wage jobs just to make some kind of money, and the people who are lucky enough to still have jobs are having their wages lowered, all because of the "bad economy." Meanwhile, top management still drives around their Benz's and have 3 homes and vacation in Europe 4 times a year.

It's about self-respect. Something that doesn't seem to mean much anymore.

I am just waiting for the RM folks to jump in here with their "you didn't have any self respect when you started uploading to microstock. You get what you deserve."  ::)
« Last Edit: September 09, 2010, 07:10 by cclapper »

« Reply #471 on: September 09, 2010, 07:09 »
0
I don't care if not uploading will lose me money and I don't care if that's what they want.  There is just no way I will accept less than 20% and the way istock/getty have behaved in the last year is too much for me.  I don't want to work with them long term and will be doing all I can to work with their rivals.

« Reply #472 on: September 09, 2010, 07:12 »
0
One thing must be said in favor of IS: they are showing and almost incredible tolerance with the people's opinions in the thread, just deleting an absolute minority coming from people really out of their minds. They are tolerating insults, calls for deleting portfolios, calls for delintg buyyers accounts, calls for buying at another sites  etc etc.
Yes, that doesn't solve the problem, I agree. But I don't know if that would be possible elsewhere.

« Reply #473 on: September 09, 2010, 07:16 »
0
I believe istock is encouraging big producers at the expense of smaller producers. Only the biggest producers will be able to access the best royalties. The long term effect of this will be a lack of diversity, with a huge number of similar images in the library. Short term profits but long term death.
+1

Hmm, I see very many diamond and even black diamond contributors voicing the fact that they will see huge cut in the IS forum. Or are these not considered big enough to be big producers. If not, then there is only handful of big producers, two or three?

I have yet to hear of anyone who is selling at the 1.4 million credit rate needed to maintain their status as diamond. Reports are that even Yuri isn't doing that.

« Reply #474 on: September 09, 2010, 07:16 »
0
One thing must be said in favor of IS: they are showing and almost incredible tolerance with the people's opinions in the thread, just deleting an absolute minority coming from people really out of their minds. They are tolerating insults, calls for deleting portfolios, calls for delintg buyyers accounts, calls for buying at another sites  etc etc.
Yes, that doesn't solve the problem, I agree. But I don't know if that would be possible elsewhere.

Because they know that in the end only a small percentage of them will actually do what they say they going to do. They're going to let people blow off steam. Once that is done, things will still stand, or maybe they will concede a small bit, and people will settle back down to take it in the a*s, just like always. How do you think Jim Jones got all those people to drink the Kool-Aid?


 

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
10703 Views
Last post January 31, 2014, 09:15
by JPSDK

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors