pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStock changing royalty structure  (Read 348564 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

grp_photo

« Reply #550 on: September 09, 2010, 14:31 »
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.
Looking at your portfolio you better stay exclusive!


« Reply #551 on: September 09, 2010, 14:36 »
0
Helix 7,  CClapper
I agree. 100%. I'll do everything I possibly can to help make that happen.
Designers, printers, friends, everyone I know.
I too have had enough of IStock / Getty. Pompous nonsense.
By myself I don't matter. Standing by your side I might be able to help.

« Reply #552 on: September 09, 2010, 14:50 »
0
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...

Excellent. Very well said indeed Tom.

« Reply #553 on: September 09, 2010, 15:06 »
0
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.

He was talking with me in part of that, and he very specifically said he himself could NOT make that target.

« Reply #554 on: September 09, 2010, 15:10 »
0
DNY59 presents the top 1%, not the majority.

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.

He was talking with me in part of that, and he very specifically said he himself could NOT make that target.

« Reply #555 on: September 09, 2010, 15:18 »
0
I posted this over there, but I'm sure its lost by now:

Quote
27.1% of my 2,166 images in my port were uploaded this year. I also went exclusive in February of this year. I am a little over 3,000 downloads from hitting diamond, and if I double my credits redeemed by the end of the year, I will still not have enough to keep the 35% I now have as a gold exclusive, let alone hit the 40% I was promised (when I hit 25K) in exchange for my exclusivity at the start of the year.

I have already uploaded more than I uploaded during the entire last year, and last year I had almost doubled what I had uploaded in any of the 6 years I have been with iStock.

I have been producing more content, like iStock is hoping to encourage, and practically everything I have uploaded this year has been XXXL. I am not going to have enough redeemed credits to even keep the 35% I currently get, let alone the 40% iStock guaranteed I would be locked into when I agreed to remove my files from other sites.

So if I have more credits redeemed, better search rankings, etc as a fresh exclusive, AND increased the size of my portfolio by 37% in that same time period, yet still cannot reach even the minimum level to simply keep 35% royalties, what kind of contributors are they expecting to see maintain their current levels or increase?

« Reply #556 on: September 09, 2010, 15:21 »
0
He was talking with me in part of that, and he very specifically said he himself could NOT make that target.

I think you'll find that "he" (DNY59) is definitely female. It's the bit when she talks about her 'husband' that gives it away somewhat.

lisafx

« Reply #557 on: September 09, 2010, 15:26 »
0

So if I have more credits redeemed, better search rankings, etc as a fresh exclusive, AND increased the size of my portfolio by 37% in that same time period, yet still cannot reach even the minimum level to simply keep 35% royalties, what kind of contributors are they expecting to see maintain their current levels or increase?

This is so disgusting David.  You, Kyle, and others that just got persuaded to go exclusive this year with their promises of preserving canister levels.  

It is absolutely no coincidence that they used that deal to get everyone interested in exclusivity on board by August, and then the first week of September they drop this bomb.

I was sooo clooose to doing it myself.  I even signed the contract to preserve my canister, and when I did I got personal contacts from some high up admins promising they would "take very good care" of me.  It absolutely sickens me how they have breached their promises to you.  

« Reply #558 on: September 09, 2010, 15:26 »
0
He was talking with me in part of that, and he very specifically said he himself could NOT make that target.

I think you'll find that "he" (DNY59) is definitely female. It's the bit when she talks about her 'husband' that gives it away somewhat.

I thought he was a she, too, because I think her name is Diane.

lisafx

« Reply #559 on: September 09, 2010, 15:31 »
0
He was talking with me in part of that, and he very specifically said he himself could NOT make that target.

I think you'll find that "he" (DNY59) is definitely female. It's the bit when she talks about her 'husband' that gives it away somewhat.

I thought he was a she, too, because I think her name is Diane.

Dead giveaway :D

But I think even she might be kidding herself about meeting, and more importantly maintaining, that top level.  

Istock has several ways to make sure nobody gets into the top tier:

1.  They can keep moving the goal posts each year;

2.  They can tweak your search positions, as someone suggested (sorry, can't find who) so that your sales decrease as you get close to the goal; and

3.  They are introducing another huge collection, filled with outside artists and wholly owned content, that will get search engine priority, pushing images of even the most successful Istock contributors back in the search.  

« Reply #560 on: September 09, 2010, 15:32 »
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.

Yes _she_ did say that :) .  She does a little better than I, and trying to figure out if I would make the higher level, I didn't think she would either, but obviously she has a better handle on her own account.  Lise too.

However, if my historical figures pan out, I don't think I'll make it.  But it's nice they added a crazy new level, for whatever reason.

« Reply #561 on: September 09, 2010, 15:32 »
0
I've never had much contact with her before, so apologies for the gender misstatement  :)

« Reply #562 on: September 09, 2010, 15:53 »
0
I don't understand Kelly's statement:

"Since roughly 2005 we've been aware of a basic problem with how our business works. As the company grows, the overall percentage we pay out to contributing artists increases. In the most basic terms that means that iStock becomes less profitable with increased success. As a business model, its simply unsustainable: businesses should get more profitable as they grow. This is a long-term problem that needs to be addressed.

"Last year we proposed changes to canister levels designed to stave off, but ultimately not solve, this problem. In the end, we chose to scrap those. The royalty changes we released yesterday are not a band-aid solution, they are a permanent fix. They ensure a viable, long-term future for iStock and its community."

A couple weeks ago they said they were paying out $1.7 million a week in royalties. At the first of the year I believe it was $1.2 million. Let's assume $1.7 million for the whole 52 weeks. That's about $88 million paid out to contributors in a year. Is he saying it costs $212 million a year to operate that web site? What is the staff being paid? Sure money is spent on advertising, but really how much "profit" do they need?? They expected to grow revenue 50% in 2010. The payout to contributors sure hasn't grown by 50%. I don't see any way that he could argue that the business has "become less profitable with increased success."

« Reply #563 on: September 09, 2010, 15:54 »
0
This is interesting.  The poll stands at 37% leaving iStock completely at the moment.


http://www.micropoll.com/akira/mpresult/852926-275197

« Reply #564 on: September 09, 2010, 16:04 »
0
This is interesting.  The poll stands at 37% leaving iStock completely at the moment.


http://www.micropoll.com/akira/mpresult/852926-275197


Unfortunately it's a poor poll. What about options like "I will be giving up exclusivity" or "I will stop unploading to Istock"?

« Reply #565 on: September 09, 2010, 16:11 »
0
Doesn't matter much if they are really about to lose 37% of their contributors.  I think the cases you mention might fall under the "No I just have to take it" category.

« Reply #566 on: September 09, 2010, 16:14 »
0
Doesn't matter much if they are really about to lose 37% of their contributors. 

You do know, I hope, that this poll indicates nothing of the kind.  A small self-selected sample?  Statistically insignificant.

« Reply #567 on: September 09, 2010, 16:43 »
0
True, but if what you are implying, that only the really angry people were responding, then the rate would be skewed more to the "I'm leaving" than it already is.

vonkara

« Reply #568 on: September 09, 2010, 16:52 »
0

So if I have more credits redeemed, better search rankings, etc as a fresh exclusive, AND increased the size of my portfolio by 37% in that same time period, yet still cannot reach even the minimum level to simply keep 35% royalties, what kind of contributors are they expecting to see maintain their current levels or increase?

This is so disgusting David.  You, Kyle, and others that just got persuaded to go exclusive this year with their promises of preserving canister levels.  

It is absolutely no coincidence that they used that deal to get everyone interested in exclusivity on board by August, and then the first week of September they drop this bomb.

I was sooo clooose to doing it myself.  I even signed the contract to preserve my canister, and when I did I got personal contacts from some high up admins promising they would "take very good care" of me.  It absolutely sickens me how they have breached their promises to you.  

Exactly why I go exclusive and was happy until this. I'm still happy since I can reactivate my portfolio at Dreamstime and Shutterstock quite easily (couple of hours).

Still I don't know if my images will keep their search popularity they had before at SS, and neither If my images will stay level 2 and 3 at DT  :-\

« Reply #569 on: September 09, 2010, 17:43 »
0
The second iStock "back and forth discussion" thread seems to be winding down a bit now.  You can actually step away for awhile and have a reasonable hope of catching back up.  Its on page 128 now.

« Reply #570 on: September 09, 2010, 17:57 »
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.
Looking at your portfolio you better stay exclusive!

why do you say that?  I have both photo and vectors in my port.  I currently am "gold" level which means 35% royalty on each download.  The new structure will split my photo and vector work.  trying to best estimate my "redeemed credits" level I don't see myself making it to even 30% for the new structure in 2011 so I'll be dropped down to 25%.  which really sucks as I am just a few months away from hitting diamond or 40% if the current structure were to stay in place.  If I go independent I realize that I would drop even lower to 16% at istock, but I am hoping I can offset that by building portfolios at other agencies. 

I'm still evaluating, but right now I'm leaning strongly toward dropping my exclusive status at iStock come the first of the year.  I've been with iStock since 2004, when I first got into photography and microstock.  When they started the exclusive program, I jumped on board.  I've even hosted a minilypse event and helped coordinate and attended several others.  My heart has been there since the beginning.  But sadly, it's grown beyond what it used to be and now I see that I'm nothing special to them, although iStock was always special to me and I'll always be grateful for what I have learned from there.  I just know that it's time for me to re-evaluate my position and do what is right for me.  iStock is not doing what is right for me, they are a business and are doing what is right for their business - at least in their eyes.

« Reply #571 on: September 09, 2010, 18:03 »
0
I think the istock community will slowly die as a result of these changes. You're just working for the man now. Lobo eats tacos while contributors burn.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2010, 18:04 by averil »

bittersweet

« Reply #572 on: September 09, 2010, 18:03 »
0
nm
« Last Edit: September 09, 2010, 18:14 by whatalife »

« Reply #573 on: September 09, 2010, 18:10 »
0
I've never had much contact with her before, so apologies for the gender misstatement  :)

Same here.  She does excellent work. 

« Reply #574 on: September 09, 2010, 18:14 »
0

Looking at your portfolio you better stay exclusive!

why do you say that? 

I might be wrong, but I think it was a back-handed compliment in reference to the idea of your work being released onto other sites = stiff competition. :)

oh haha... could be! I'm a little slow today.  :)


 

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