Author Topic: iStock changing royalty structure (Read 350434 times)

click_click · « **Reply #475 on:** September 09, 2010, 07:17 »

As much as I support boycotting further uploads for a few months we have to consider what the outcome (most likely) will be.

The 100+ inspectors will be out of work after approx. 7-10 days. That means that iStock starts saving money as they won't be paying any inspectors for the period of no images coming in.

Over 3 months I assume they would save around $0.5 million maybe more. That's actually not even bad for them considering that they keep running their business technically as if nothing happened, just without brand new images. I'm sure naive buyers don't care.

I can't see how this would dramatically affect IS.

The only way we, as contributors can take action, is removing our files. This way we make the decision for the buyers and they don't even have an option of buying our images at IS. Just by telling them might not even work as some are probably sitting on credit packages that they need to use anyway.

You think they would forget about tens or hundreds of $$$ just because some photographer they know is not getting paid enough - next year...?

It's like ripping my own heart out when thinking about pulling my port at IS due to the hard work I put in. I will take enough time necessary to think about that one.

LostOne · « **Reply #476 on:** September 09, 2010, 07:27 »

We could start filling out our queues with over/under exposed noisy images. Or images that have no potential to sell but are perfectly lit. Inspectors would have to work, server costs would still go up, but it wouldn't bring them any profit.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4PN7Xbexq4[/youtube]

click_click · « **Reply #477 on:** September 09, 2010, 07:30 »

Quote from: LostOne on September 09, 2010, 07:27

We could start filling out our queues with over/under exposed noisy images. Or images that have no potential to sell but are perfectly lit. Inspectors would have to work, server costs would still go up, but it wouldn't bring them any profit.

... and it will get your account suspended once they figure that you intentionally upload crap.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #478 on:** September 09, 2010, 07:30 »

is there a way to see how many files are on the queue these days??

iclick · « **Reply #479 on:** September 09, 2010, 07:33 »

Quote: Over 3 months I assume they would save around $0.5 million maybe more. That's actually not even bad for them considering that they keep running their business technically as if nothing happened, just without brand new images. I'm sure naive buyers don't care.

I can't see how this would dramatically affect IS.:

You could be surprised

I can tell you what will effect IS and that's what is happening right now if you read the Forum.

Customers are talking with their feet! perhaps they will listen now, what they seem to forget is that allot of their Custom comes from Family or Friends of or indeed the Contributers themselves I for one have friends there who have spent a pretty penny

Looking forward till next time we chat

gostwyck · « **Reply #480 on:** September 09, 2010, 07:33 »

Quote from: LostOne on September 09, 2010, 07:27

We could start filling out our queues with over/under exposed noisy images. Or images that have no potential to sell but are perfectly lit. Inspectors would have to work, server costs would still go up, but it wouldn't bring them any profit.

Use your time and energy more profitably by uploading your images to all the other agencies __ just not Istock.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #481 on:** September 09, 2010, 07:34 »

Quote from: hoi ha on September 09, 2010, 04:07

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.

I'd agree with this. They've had nine months to carefully craft this program. It's getting the exact response and results they expected. It's pretty clear they want people who constantly produce a high volume of fresh highly sellable exclusive images. In other words, the good performers. It's probably safe to say the people most negatively affected aren't what they now consider good perfomers so if they protest or complain it doesn't matter. They probably don't want those people anyway.

Another thing that just hit me is that this is just the beginning of the weeding-out process. They will probably continue weeding-out the poor or even average performers who decided to stay anyway. These people will see rejection rates will go higher from tougher inspections. Eventually, if not already, your Redeemed Credit performance will affect your search placement further pushing down poor performers. They will continue to discourage people they don't want.

lagereek · « **Reply #483 on:** September 09, 2010, 07:35 »

Quote from: cclapper on September 09, 2010, 07:07

Quote from: gostwyck on September 09, 2010, 06:12
Quote from: lagereek on September 09, 2010, 06:03
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."

Yeah well iots a bit differant you know, RM shots can and will bring you in thousands of bucks, differant league.

LostOne · « **Reply #484 on:** September 09, 2010, 07:37 »

Quote from: gostwyck on September 09, 2010, 07:33

Quote from: LostOne on September 09, 2010, 07:27
We could start filling out our queues with over/under exposed noisy images. Or images that have no potential to sell but are perfectly lit. Inspectors would have to work, server costs would still go up, but it wouldn't bring them any profit.

Use your time and energy more profitably by uploading your images to all the other agencies __ just not Istock.

I was joking.

About the upload limits. You can find them here:
http://www.istockphoto.com/xnet.php
Direct link to the topic:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=238102

NancyCWalker · « **Reply #485 on:** September 09, 2010, 07:44 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on September 09, 2010, 07:34

Quote from: hoi ha on September 09, 2010, 04:07
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.

I'd agree with this. They've had nine months to carefully craft this program. It's getting the exact response and results they expected. It's pretty clear they want people who constantly produce a high volume of fresh highly sellable exclusive images. In other words, the good performers. It's probably safe to say the people most negatively affected aren't what they now consider good perfomers so if they protest or complain it doesn't matter. They probably don't want those people anyway.

Another thing that just hit me is that this is just the beginning of the weeding-out process. They will probably continue weeding-out the poor or even average performers who decided to stay anyway. These people will see rejection rates will go higher from tougher inspections. Eventually, if not already, your Redeemed Credit performance will affect your search placement further pushing down poor performers. They will continue to discourage people they don't want.

This is most likely the case. At least one diamond as mentioned getting a personal phone call from an admin on the IS thread. I can only guess that they are soothing over the stock house contributors so that they will stay exclusive while not caring if the others leave.

lagereek · « **Reply #486 on:** September 09, 2010, 07:48 »

There isnt one single agency in the world that can show a profit based on exclusive photographers only. Its an ancient concept belonging to the 80s. and has never had any place what so ever in the digital era.

Dreamframer · « **Reply #487 on:** September 09, 2010, 07:50 »

I disabled all my audio files, and I am an exclusive audio artist. Images are much easier from me to produce, so I left them online.

I am not a professional photographer, but I am producing high quality audio files, and I can't allow my hard work to be sold for such a small amount of money.

I understand that Istock wants to change it's business model to bring them more money, and I hope Istock understands that I can't let my music to be sold for 20% of RF price forever. The story would probably be different if I didn't think that my talent for music is worth more than few bucks per sale. In that case I would probably leave my audios online. But unfortunatelly I couldn't swallow this one. I think my price is bigger.

Eireann · « **Reply #488 on:** September 09, 2010, 07:51 »

Crap does happen.
Sometimes there's nothing I can do about it.
Not this time though. This time I have full control.

I'm not going to sell a single file for less than 20%.

And then, there's this Exclusive Diamond with his 1000 files / 5 years.
The guy has made it clear that he doesn't care what happens to IStock Independents. He doesn't care, just like that. He only cares about Exclusives and their commission. Independent commission can go as low as 5% for all he cares.
Fair enough.
The thing is, let's take Anja Kaiser above. She has deactivated her entire IStock portfolio. She's an independent.
Every single IStock Exclusive, including Black Diamonds are at risk of taking a hit because of her actions.
She's not a regular. She's top stuff. Her illustrations are famous and sell by the thousands, all over the world. She outsells - by a long mile - most of the Exclusive portfolios.
Not a single Exclusive has expressed concern over her departure.
They don't care all right.
But they should.

I am not going to sell a single file for less than 20%.
If an organized protest takes form, I'm in.
If we can't make it happen, I'll deactivate my portfolio before the change takes place. And make sure to let them know why.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #489 on:** September 09, 2010, 07:58 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on September 09, 2010, 07:34

Quote from: hoi ha on September 09, 2010, 04:07
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.

I'd agree with this. They've had nine months to carefully craft this program. It's getting the exact response and results they expected. It's pretty clear they want people who constantly produce a high volume of fresh highly sellable exclusive images. In other words, the good performers. It's probably safe to say the people most negatively affected aren't what they now consider good perfomers so if they protest or complain it doesn't matter. They probably don't want those people anyway.

Another thing that just hit me is that this is just the beginning of the weeding-out process. They will probably continue weeding-out the poor or even average performers who decided to stay anyway. These people will see rejection rates will go higher from tougher inspections. Eventually, if not already, your Redeemed Credit performance will affect your search placement further pushing down poor performers. They will continue to discourage people they don't want.

This means that Yuri give 1.4millions euros to IS??.. If I read well in I guess IS forum he isn't making that.. So I dont get what you are saying..

cathyslife · « **Reply #490 on:** September 09, 2010, 08:02 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on September 09, 2010, 07:34

Quote from: hoi ha on September 09, 2010, 04:07
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.

I'd agree with this. They've had nine months to carefully craft this program. It's getting the exact response and results they expected. It's pretty clear they want people who constantly produce a high volume of fresh highly sellable exclusive images. In other words, the good performers. It's probably safe to say the people most negatively affected aren't what they now consider good perfomers so if they protest or complain it doesn't matter. They probably don't want those people anyway.

Another thing that just hit me is that this is just the beginning of the weeding-out process. They will probably continue weeding-out the poor or even average performers who decided to stay anyway. These people will see rejection rates will go higher from tougher inspections. Eventually, if not already, your Redeemed Credit performance will affect your search placement further pushing down poor performers. They will continue to discourage people they don't want.

I agree. First to go will be non-exclusives, then low-producing, low-earning exclusives.

gostwyck · « **Reply #491 on:** September 09, 2010, 08:04 »

Quote from: hoi ha on September 09, 2010, 04:07

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.

No, I wouldn't agree. If they didn't want certain contributors then there's lots of other things they could do about it.

This is about Istock reducing commissions for them to make even more eye-watering profits. That's why virtually EVERY contributors is losing out (if not in basic sales then from Vetta, EL's, vectors, etc), not just a select few. This is ONLY about PROFIT. It's purely about them exploiting contributors __ because they think they can.

grassr00tpower · « **Reply #492 on:** September 09, 2010, 08:26 »

...today my next step was deleting all the links from my Homepage and opting out of promotional use. I will do as much as I can to stop such behaviour.

I`m sick and tired of this corporate a****le behaviour, not only speaking of istock...
just look at the whole financial crisis, the food quality dilemma,...and we always hear the same crap: "NOT ENOUGH GROWTH"...just as istock statet!

People are not only angry becajuse of the recent changes. It is a lack of confidence: every now and then there had been a - usually unpleasant - surprise from istock. May it be best match, canister changes, contract changes, thinkstock etc. You simply CANNOT do reliable business with people like this.

Beyong that, look at the "exclusive" concept. It is a "slavery" concept of photographer exclusivity instead of material exclusivity. With this they built up a nice Trap for all esxclusives beeing unable to build a distributed Portfolio. I never understood how people could accept this type of contract.

Sure, we are talking about business, and you have to cool down in many ocassions in order to do professional business, but enough is enough.

Somebody who is a native english speaker and is located in the states please form a union. You have my (financially and timewise) support.

Thank you

Lizard · « **Reply #493 on:** September 09, 2010, 08:32 »

What about thing not so drastic as pulling portfolios , like reduce keywords on approved images to 1 or something , or we can all write something against this in description field. They cannot throw us all out for that.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #494 on:** September 09, 2010, 08:34 »

Quote from: gostwyck on September 09, 2010, 08:04

Quote from: hoi ha on September 09, 2010, 04:07
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.
No, I wouldn't agree. If they didn't want certain contributors then there's lots of other things they could do about it. This is about Istock reducing commissions for them to make even more eye-watering profits. That's why virtually EVERY contributors is losing out (if not in basic sales then from Vetta, EL's, vectors, etc), not just a select few. This is ONLY about PROFIT. It's purely about them exploiting contributors __ because they think they can.

I'd agree about the profits. But, if it was only about profits they wouldn't have set up a performance based model. A main goal of any performance model is that it automatically weeds out weak performers. They have effectively turned every contributor into a sales person that carries a quota. The more you miss your quota the less you make and eventually you leave because it's not worth it. The model makes you get rid of yourself rather than making them look bad by them getting rid of you. First prize is a Cadillac, second prize is a set of steak knives, third prize is you're fired.

It's also probably more profitable to not spend operatings costs on poor performers. So in the end, it's all about profit anyway.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #495 on:** September 09, 2010, 08:42 »

I agree with Walnuts but actually not even Yuri will get the 1.4Million, so who are the good performers??

cybernesco · « **Reply #496 on:** September 09, 2010, 08:44 »

Quote from: gostwyck on September 09, 2010, 08:04

Quote from: hoi ha on September 09, 2010, 04:07
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.
No, I wouldn't agree. If they didn't want certain contributors then there's lots of other things they could do about it.

This is about Istock reducing commissions for them to make even more eye-watering profits. That's why virtually EVERY contributors is losing out (if not in basic sales then from Vetta, EL's, vectors, etc), not just a select few. This is ONLY about PROFIT. It's purely about them exploiting contributors __ because they think they can.

That is right... the product are only digital files made by us. No warehouse, no packaging, no manufacturing, no transportation, no handling, no servicing...ect. Therefore the ratio of the cost of doing business versus revenue should go down as more and more files are sold not the other way around like iStock would like us to believe. As revenue is growing, there is no doubt in my mind that profit would grow exponentially keeping the same cannister system as before. In other words, the ratio of the cost of marketing, employees and offices ect... versus revenue should go down as more and more files are sold regardless of how big the business have growned. This is simple math.

What they are doing by taking a bigger piece of the pie is an act of greed nothing else. And they are doing it because they have a very good chance of getting away with it.

Denis

bittersweet · « **Reply #497 on:** September 09, 2010, 08:47 »

I've deactivated all dollar bin files, opted out the couple dozen images I had in the PP, and opted out of promotional use. I've also started uploading to Stockfresh, only the third agency I've chosen to participate with since dropping the crown a year ago.

I'm just a small fish and am certain that istock couldn't care less about my doing any of these things, but I'm really glad I didn't take the advice several gave at the time I left that I should wait for things to improve for exclusives. I would have been sorely disappointed at this latest development. Now it's just par for the course and not all that shocking. The writing has been on the wall for a while now.

lisafx · « **Reply #498 on:** September 09, 2010, 08:47 »

Quote from: gostwyck on September 09, 2010, 06:47

Quote from: averil on September 09, 2010, 06:05
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.

Well stated Gostwyck^^. This isn't about encouraging anyone.

Sean already stated that neither he, DNY59, nor even LISE can meet the 1.4 million credit threshold to be in the highest tier. That's NOBODY. Same for independents. It's a total red herring.

Dreamframer · « **Reply #499 on:** September 09, 2010, 09:01 »

If they want me out, they made it.

I am happy that I found another place to sell my talent for for music for more money and I'm already approved there. Since I disabled all my audio files today, the next step will be dropping exclusivity.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: iStock changing royalty structure (Read 350434 times)

click_click

LostOne

click_click

luissantos84

iclick

gostwyck

PaulieWalnuts

frank_photocase

lagereek

LostOne

NancyCWalker

lagereek

Dreamframer

Eireann

luissantos84

cathyslife

gostwyck

grassr00tpower

Lizard

PaulieWalnuts

luissantos84

cybernesco

bittersweet

lisafx

Dreamframer

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors