MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStock changing royalty structure  (Read 348580 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

lisafx

« Reply #525 on: September 09, 2010, 10:50 »
0


This time next year, I'd love to see StockFresh in the Big Four, with iStock in the Middle Tier.

Let's do whatever we can to make that happen.

This is a worthy goal Mike, and I agree with you completely.  I am on SF already and have very high hopes for its success.  Only problem is that SF is not ready for us yet, and most people here don't have their images there.  So redirecting buyers there is going to leave the vast majority of disaffected istockers out in the cold.

I suggest sending buyers to FT or DT, both of which give us a fair % and both of which are fully up and operational with a collection that's able to rival istock's for scope and quality.


« Reply #526 on: September 09, 2010, 11:27 »
0
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.

Well, that's better and more reasonable than trashing cars or burning buildings.

« Reply #527 on: September 09, 2010, 11:35 »
0


Awesome!  Many thanks to the three buyers represented here!  One of them isn't even a contributor.  Thanks Peresanz for posting the links.  Hop you don't mind if I repost them in the Buyers Bail thread? 

Absolutely, please do it!

« Reply #528 on: September 09, 2010, 11:41 »
0
Oh, if only Veer could get their act together and make their way through the Dash for Cash queue already... I'm loving my time there (and the royalties) so far, but this 3-4 months inspection time will kill any chance they'd have to get new talent at this crucial time.  :-[

Another thing that's pissing me off here, and not many people are talking about it, is that silly "Communication problem" with Thinkstock. The simple truth is that our photos are being held hostage there. There simply is no way at the moment to get them removed... Or am I missing something? Now it looks like a part of the plan all along to keep people locked in.

Getting suppliers locked in (isn't a bit part of artist exclusivity exactly that?) ... while weeding out the poor performers, low producers and new talent by beating them up until they can take no more and leave on their own free will... Looks like a big identity crisis is going on there. Or is this all meant to be a transition towards another format where they choose their suppliers? A kind of mix between RM and RF? Take the brand away from what has become micro into a new format?

Or they're just plain greedy and didn't expect any concerted effort from us dogs, to bite the hand that feeds us.

Meanwhile, we'll stop upoading at Istock and start uploading and promoting FT again which if I'm understanding well has pulled a similar nasty stunt not too long ago. Maybe when SS does something of the kind next we'll all go back to uploading and promoting IS in outrage over their abusive business sense decision.

I guess we shouldn't do that dance. Let's not go back to upload and promote FT. Let's look at others... Fresh, Veer, BS, SS, Alamy, 123...

« Reply #529 on: September 09, 2010, 11:58 »
0
While I'm against the proposed changes, I must confess that I'm beggining to feel uneasy at all this agressiveness against istock, in a good number of cases coming from people that, looking a their number of files/downloads through the years, only can have a limited interest in the matter.
I won't do anything in the spur of the moment; no boycotting, no, deleting portfolio, no stop uploading, no calling my designer sister-in-law to sent her to buy to another site. I've said before that this is a numbers matter. So, I will wait until February or March 2011 and see what happens with my numbers. If I feel that I'm losing money, and if I can get my protfolio accepted en masse elsewhere (I've already had some offer from some other site about that) I will become independent. That's all.
Until 2005/2006 (well, actually until the photos.com/thinkstock affair) Istockphoto was the fairer a better rewarding agency. But even then, it was regularly attacked for many people.

helix7

« Reply #530 on: September 09, 2010, 12:07 »
0
...Until 2005/2006 (well, actually until the photos.com/thinkstock affair) Istockphoto was the fairer a better rewarding agency. But even then, it was regularly attacked for many people.

istock has been on the low end of artist commissions for a lot longer than the photos.com/thinkstock days. They've been fairly attacked and criticized for doing exactly what they're pushing forward with today, keeping the bar low on royalties. In 2005 and 2006 I'm pretty sure StockXpert was already around, and they certainly offered a more fair rate than istock ever offered, even to exclusives.

istock has never been the more fair and rewarding agency.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #531 on: September 09, 2010, 12:09 »
0
Yeah, hey everybody, i think the idea here is to try and get better terms from Istock.

This angry mob stuff with pitchforks and torches stuff aint the best route. By driving off buyers you are burning the house down that some of your fellow contributors are still in. And what happens if istock decides to make adjustments that are more acceptable to contributors. Are those buyers coming back? Probably not.

Think before just doing stuff.

« Reply #532 on: September 09, 2010, 12:14 »
0
Yeah, hey everybody, i think the idea here is to try and get better terms from Istock.

This angry mob stuff with pitchforks and torches stuff aint the best route. By driving off buyers you are burning the house down that some of your fellow contributors are still in. And what happens if istock decides to make adjustments that are more acceptable to contributors. Are those buyers coming back? Probably not.

Think before just doing stuff.

sorry but that is non-sense.. someone reduce your paycheck and you just stay very quiet to earn something, that's another problem in microstock, everybody is accepting whatever the deal is (I am not saying I am not one of those) but there are limits.. 15% is ridiculous! 80% wasn't enough to run this business, always listening that they do 700k daily.. when is going to be enough???..

« Reply #533 on: September 09, 2010, 12:16 »
0
...Until 2005/2006 (well, actually until the photos.com/thinkstock affair) Istockphoto was the fairer a better rewarding agency. But even then, it was regularly attacked for many people.

istock has been on the low end of artist commissions for a lot longer than the photos.com/thinkstock days. They've been fairly attacked and criticized for doing exactly what they're pushing forward with today, keeping the bar low on royalties. In 2005 and 2006 I'm pretty sure StockXpert was already around, and they certainly offered a more fair rate than istock ever offered, even to exclusives.

istock has never been the more fair and rewarding agency.

I dind't say the agency that payed higher comissions, but the more rewarding, the one that generated most incoming for their contributors. Well I suppose you understood it, but maybe yoy felt better misinterpreting.
Don't agree neither in the second point. Even now, IS (Istock, not Getty Thinkstock) have the only fair subs systems.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2010, 12:17 by loop »

« Reply #534 on: September 09, 2010, 12:26 »
0

And what happens if istock decides to make adjustments that are more acceptable to contributors. Are those buyers coming back? Probably not.

Think before just doing stuff.

According to their second explanation it seems pretty unlikely that they are going to change their minds (I hope I'm wrong...)
The picture is more like that they will adjust canisters year after year to pay less royalties as possible in order to keep their business "sustainable"

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #535 on: September 09, 2010, 12:29 »
0
Yeah, hey everybody, i think the idea here is to try and get better terms from Istock. This angry mob stuff with pitchforks and torches stuff aint the best route. By driving off buyers you are burning the house down that some of your fellow contributors are still in. And what happens if istock decides to make adjustments that are more acceptable to contributors. Are those buyers coming back? Probably not. Think before just doing stuff.

sorry but that is non-sense.. someone reduce your paycheck and you just stay very quiet to earn something, that's another problem in microstock, everybody is accepting whatever the deal is (I am not saying I am not one of those) but there are limits.. 15% is ridiculous! 80% wasn't enough to run this business, always listening that they do 700k daily.. when is going to be enough???..

First of all, I'm not one of the people facing a reduction. If their numbers work out as the say they will, I may move up a canister around the same time as with the old model. I'm more worried about the future changes.

I am not saying anyone should keep their mouths shut. I'm not happy about this change. But I'm looking at options of how best to deal with this instead of aggressively doing the first thing that comes to mind and potentially hurting myself or others.

Also, they may not care about some of the buyers. There is such as thing as a bad buyer. Such as someone who spends $25 in credits and then eats up $100 in support calls because they need so much handholding. They are not profitable and businesses won't admit it but they are glad to let them go.

« Reply #536 on: September 09, 2010, 12:51 »
0
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.

Well, that's better and more reasonable than trashing cars or burning buildings.

But it doesn't produce the same satisfaction, lol. I still say, lucky them... :)

« Reply #537 on: September 09, 2010, 13:07 »
0
Think before just doing stuff.

I think that would be sound advice for iStock, not us.

Roadrunner

  • Roadrunner
« Reply #538 on: September 09, 2010, 13:23 »
0
Dang!  Just when I thought I was getting close to increasing my acceptance rate to 25%.  Well now I can just concentrate on four cites and not worry about 80% of my uploads being rejected for "OVETRFILTERED". ::)  This will be a real timesaver for me. ;D

« Reply #539 on: September 09, 2010, 13:29 »
0
Yeah, hey everybody, i think the idea here is to try and get better terms from Istock.
[...]
Think before just doing stuff.

I don't think you fully comprehend what just happened. You want to negotiate better terms with con artists? Because that's what these parasites are.
Luring so many people into exclusivity and then screwing everybody with no mercy - that must be one of the greatest cons in the history of stock photography.

I don't think you should even hope that it will stop here, their goal is to squeeze as much as possible, this monster is insatiable. Unless they lose some ground I expect in 3-4 years it will be 5-10% for non-exclusives and 20% for exclusives. The show has just begun.
What's even more dangerous, they have a history of acquisitions. I'm pretty convinced they are planning to buy other microstock agencies until they can shape the whole stock market the way they wish. That's why they need cash, loads of cash. If they succeed you will have to be happy with the crumbs they will throw you.

What can we do to protect our incomes? Basically it comes down to cause them to gradually lose their market share.

1. Short term goal: make a stink around them, kick and bite, draw the buyers away from them.
Sure, they are big but there are very many of us. So it is like the fight of Liliputians against Gulliver. It can get very, very unpleasant for them.

2. Mid-term goal: find a way to strenghten the market share of the weaker but fair agencies. We need 10-15 agencies that are more or less equally strong that would compete for contributors.
I don't know how to achieve this, but only 4 top agencies is a potentially dangerous situation. Getty can buy SS, DT, FT at any time and then it's Game Over for pretty much everyone.

3. Long-term goal: come up with a new, decentralised distribution model to replace or complement microstock. This has been discussed before. I believe this is possible but it it is a topic for another thread. There are very many clever people among contributors, I hope that we will invent something better.

I know it hurts if you're exclusive Paulie, but in 2012 you can consider yourself very lucky or succesful if you keep your current roaylty rate. The show has just begun. They have set up a hamster wheel for you and us, can't you see it?
I have always thought going exclusive was reckless and a bad business decision because I was afraid eventually something like this could happen. I hate to be right this time and I really don't like the idea of former exclusives flooding SS,DT etc. with their images...
« Last Edit: September 09, 2010, 13:32 by Tom »

« Reply #540 on: September 09, 2010, 13:34 »
0
Yeah, hey everybody, i think the idea here is to try and get better terms from Istock.

This angry mob stuff with pitchforks and torches stuff aint the best route. By driving off buyers you are burning the house down that some of your fellow contributors are still in. And what happens if istock decides to make adjustments that are more acceptable to contributors. Are those buyers coming back? Probably not.

Think before just doing stuff.

I am definitely thinking before doing stuff, but my idea is NOT AT ALL about getting better terms from istock. First of all, I don't believe they are coming. Second of all, even if they did backpedal today and change things for the better, I DON'T TRUST A FREAKIN WORD THEY SAY. They have been playing these bullsh*t games for too many years now and I'm done. I still have photos there. If taking them down helps prove a point, I am there. If not, then I will leave them up and take whatever meager income I can get and when I decide to take them down I will. If Getty forces me to take them down, I will. But as a non-exclusive, not a major player, I am hosed with IS anyway. Have been for a while now. So I don't really have too much to lose by deleting what is there. I am SOOOO glad I never took the leap to be exclusive there. For once, I made a good choice.

Quote
By driving off buyers you are burning the house down that some of your fellow contributors are still in.

Everybody will do what they feel is right for them. Personally, I am sick that any of this has happened. IS was my first stock site, they were a great place and were my biggest earner. I didn't come up with this crap yesterday. Getty/IS did. Don't be blaming the contributors who are angry and doing what they think is right...blame Getty.

« Reply #541 on: September 09, 2010, 13:45 »
0
Yeah, hey everybody, i think the idea here is to try and get better terms from Istock.

This angry mob stuff with pitchforks and torches stuff aint the best route. By driving off buyers you are burning the house down that some of your fellow contributors are still in. And what happens if istock decides to make adjustments that are more acceptable to contributors. Are those buyers coming back? Probably not.

Think before just doing stuff.

Exclusives have quite a lengthy record of dancing round the bonfire as istock torches the independents, if I remember rightly. If burning down the barn on istock's farm puts an end to micros trying to screw their contributors then it may turn out to be best for all of us.

What happens will happen. It's got a life of its own. Either the spark will catch or it will go out.

« Reply #542 on: September 09, 2010, 13:53 »
0
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.  

In fairness though, DNY59 disagreed with Sean on this issue and felt the 1.4m threshold was attainable.  It's buried somewhere in the first thread.  FWIW I agree with Sean that it is unattainable, but DNY59 is amazingly talented and if he thinks he can do it, then I am not going to doubt him.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #543 on: September 09, 2010, 14:04 »
0
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.  

In fairness though, DNY59 disagreed with Sean on this issue and felt the 1.4m threshold was attainable.  It's buried somewhere in the first thread.  FWIW I agree with Sean that it is unattainable, but DNY59 is amazingly talented and if he thinks he can do it, then I am not going to doubt him.

Well if they can do it that is great, but as far as the majority of iStockers that is not at all possible. I'm a small fry and maybe this won't effect me that much, but in the future this will go on and on if someone...rather it be a small fry or a big fish....doesn't stand up to them, then everyone loses in the end. If this mass exodus that everyone is threatening to do and the threat to run off all the buyers, actually happens....then those big fish more than likely won't get to that level.

« Reply #544 on: September 09, 2010, 14:05 »
0
In the future, this IS royalty thing is going to be printed in books as an example of a bad business decision and bad communications. It will be studied over and over in business schools etc.

jbarber873

« Reply #545 on: September 09, 2010, 14:08 »
0
Yeah, hey everybody, i think the idea here is to try and get better terms from Istock.

This angry mob stuff with pitchforks and torches stuff aint the best route. By driving off buyers you are burning the house down that some of your fellow contributors are still in. And what happens if istock decides to make adjustments that are more acceptable to contributors. Are those buyers coming back? Probably not.

Think before just doing stuff.

Exclusives have quite a lengthy record of dancing round the bonfire as istock torches the independents, if I remember rightly. If burning down the barn on istock's farm puts an end to micros trying to screw their contributors then it may turn out to be best for all of us.

What happens will happen. It's got a life of its own. Either the spark will catch or it will go out.

This brings up images from "Lord of the Flies" for me. If you step back from all the personal involvement and issues, it really has been an amazing 2 days. Only a couple of days ago, the first 500 posts to ANY Istock announcement would be " Great idea! We love you! Muffins for the istock team! " and on and on. At least in this case, the knee jerk kissing up to the admins has been kept to a minimum.
The peasants are out with the torches, roaming the countryside! I think I saw this movie, and as I recall, it doesn't end well.

« Reply #546 on: September 09, 2010, 14:17 »
0


This time next year, I'd love to see StockFresh in the Big Four, with iStock in the Middle Tier.

Let's do whatever we can to make that happen.

This is a worthy goal Mike, and I agree with you completely.  I am on SF already and have very high hopes for its success.  Only problem is that SF is not ready for us yet, and most people here don't have their images there.  So redirecting buyers there is going to leave the vast majority of disaffected istockers out in the cold.

I suggest sending buyers to FT or DT, both of which give us a fair % and both of which are fully up and operational with a collection that's able to rival istock's for scope and quality.

is FT Fotolia?  I'm researching my options - plan to go Independent the first of the year.  Might as well, I'm screwed if I stay exclusive at iStock.

« Reply #547 on: September 09, 2010, 14:21 »
0
is FT Fotolia?

Yes it is. And welcome to the independent camp!

« Reply #548 on: September 09, 2010, 14:24 »
0
Yeah, hey everybody, i think the idea here is to try and get better terms from Istock.

This angry mob stuff with pitchforks and torches stuff aint the best route. By driving off buyers you are burning the house down that some of your fellow contributors are still in. And what happens if istock decides to make adjustments that are more acceptable to contributors. Are those buyers coming back? Probably not.

Think before just doing stuff.

Exclusives have quite a lengthy record of dancing round the bonfire as istock torches the independents, if I remember rightly. If burning down the barn on istock's farm puts an end to micros trying to screw their contributors then it may turn out to be best for all of us.



I really can't remember that. Post some real example, please.

sc

« Reply #549 on: September 09, 2010, 14:26 »
0
Yeah, hey everybody, i think the idea here is to try and get better terms from Istock.

This angry mob stuff with pitchforks and torches stuff aint the best route. By driving off buyers you are burning the house down that some of your fellow contributors are still in. And what happens if istock decides to make adjustments that are more acceptable to contributors. Are those buyers coming back? Probably not.

Think before just doing stuff.

Exclusives have quite a lengthy record of dancing round the bonfire as istock torches the independents, if I remember rightly. If burning down the barn on istock's farm puts an end to micros trying to screw their contributors then it may turn out to be best for all of us.

What happens will happen. It's got a life of its own. Either the spark will catch or it will go out.

I totally agree. It's not personal, it's business.

They are doing what they think is right for their businesses, Istock and exclusives (and not just exclusives, there are a others who will buy into this latest scheme). If driving business to other sites that pay a fairer percentage hurts anyone at Istock - well that's just business. Istock and anyone on the bandwagon are only looking out for what is in their best interests. Accepting these terms may help some but it certainly isn't going to help me or the majority of contributors.
So again it isn't personal it's just business.
Every contributor needs to evaluate their own business and where they want it to go - if this current Istock plan isn't it then they need to take the steps to get it going in the right direction.
It's not personal, it's business. And the sooner the majority of contributors start treating this like a business and not a hobby the better off we all will be. And refusing to accept these terms is a good start.


 

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