MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStock changing royalty structure  (Read 348547 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ap

« Reply #575 on: September 09, 2010, 18:14 »
0
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.

i think you're on the right track. for the maximum impact, we should set up D-day, a day where contributors deactivate their most popular files. this could be for a day or a week or longer, but it isn't permanent and you don't even have to pull your entire port. it sends a clear message to the management that the contributors can turn off the spigot anytime we choose. it will impact your bottom line, but collectively, it will impact is bottom line tremendously, perhaps to the tune of $.5 million a day. will someone listen then?


« Reply #576 on: September 09, 2010, 18:20 »
0
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  :-\

The files at DT keep their level and number of sales. The only drawback in reactivating a file, is that the lock in periode of 6 months starts from fresh. If it has been a while since you went exclusive, you might even find that the levels have increased, DT did some reductions in the number of sales it took for a pic to reach a certain level.

With the buyers fleeing Istock, there might even be some sales at DT. Who knows.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #577 on: September 09, 2010, 18:52 »
0
Lobo eats tacos while contributors burn.
LOL! Sadly.

« Reply #578 on: September 09, 2010, 19:07 »
0
...for the maximum impact, we should set up D-day, a day where contributors deactivate their most popular files. this could be for a day or a week or longer, but it isn't permanent and you don't even have to pull your entire port. it sends a clear message to the management that the contributors can turn off the spigot anytime we choose. it will impact your bottom line, but collectively, it will impact is bottom line tremendously, perhaps to the tune of $.5 million a day. will someone listen then?

Can deactivated images be re-activated?  Is that possible?

If so, I don't think that is as easy to do at IS as it is at SS.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2010, 19:11 by Digital66 »

« Reply #579 on: September 09, 2010, 19:47 »
0
I think it has been mentioned that an e-mail went out with this news.  I have not received an e-mail.  I would like to forward it to a few designers I know.  Anyone?

ap

« Reply #580 on: September 09, 2010, 19:52 »
0

Can deactivated images be re-activated?  Is that possible?

If so, I don't think that is as easy to do at IS as it is at SS.
[/quote]

you're right, you'll need to go through support to reactivate. it will be awkward.  ::)

« Reply #581 on: September 09, 2010, 22:11 »
0
In all fairness I think Lobo and his taco have no power whatsoever to get an answer. ;) And he has been pretty fair with leaving posts alone (as long as there are no personal attacks, though some border on that and have been left alone.)  I have never ever seen such a lack of iStock cheerleaders in an announcement thread like this.

I've been buying from iStock since 2003, contributing since 2004 and exclusive since it was an option.  I have referred 100+ (paid/tracked referrals) buyers and fellow artists over the years and told countless others great things about iStock for years. This was the last straw for me.

I canceled my exclusivity yesterday based on Kelly's "response" to our concerns.  Today I opened accounts at Dreamstime, Fotolia and Shutterstock.  29 days to go.  I'm going to go deactivate some more images from iStock now.  I'm done waiting for a reasonable answer to any of this from iStock HQ.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2010, 22:14 by 9lives »

« Reply #582 on: September 09, 2010, 22:30 »
0
Lobo and Sylvan are good apples.  Don't blame them for what is happening there.  Hell, I think Rob mentioned he was dropping not 1, but 2 canister levels based on this decision.  I'm sure he's "thrilled."

« Reply #583 on: September 09, 2010, 23:07 »
0
Yeah, the admins in general have been getting a raw deal from a lot of people.  People like Rob really can't do much other than commiserate, and even that would probably be frowned upon by some.

« Reply #584 on: September 09, 2010, 23:12 »
0
I'd say Lobo is the only admin actually reading any of our comments. And he probably doesn't have any authority over anything other than the forums. He should be promoted to CEO and the rest can get . out.  8)

« Reply #585 on: September 10, 2010, 00:12 »
0
^ agree
« Last Edit: September 10, 2010, 00:22 by Danicek »

« Reply #586 on: September 10, 2010, 01:16 »
0

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

Go and read the responses to the pay rate announcement made at the beginning of the year.

Do you think it's an accident that the COO made a special point in his last post of saying that he was shafting non-exclusives really hard? He was expecting it to get the usual WooYay from the in-crowd.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2010, 01:18 by BaldricksTrousers »

« Reply #587 on: September 10, 2010, 01:33 »
0
Just a note to myself somewhere I can find it in the morning.  That thread is up to page 138 now.

« Reply #588 on: September 10, 2010, 01:42 »
0

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

Go and read the responses to the pay rate announcement made at the beginning of the year.

Do you think it's an accident that the COO made a special point in his last post of saying that he was shafting non-exclusives really hard? He was expecting it to get the usual WooYay from the in-crowd.

Just did it. Nothing at all of what you mean. Zero examples. Sorry, I fear you could be a little paranoid, or personally interested in a comfromtation between exclusives and independents that just can weaken  the contributors strength in these decisive moments.

« Reply #589 on: September 10, 2010, 01:52 »
0

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

Go and read the responses to the pay rate announcement made at the beginning of the year.

Just did it. Nothing at all of what you mean. Zero examples. Sorry, I fear you could be a little paranoid, or personally interested in a comfromtation between exclusives and independents that just can weaken  the contributors strength in these decisive moments.

No you didn't, you haven't had time to go through that lot. So you're just saying whatever comes into your head.

More interestingly, Shank Ali has turned negative on iStock and accused them of destroying trust and stealing contributors money... I never thought I would see the day

« Reply #590 on: September 10, 2010, 01:59 »
0

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

Go and read the responses to the pay rate announcement made at the beginning of the year.

Just did it. Nothing at all of what you mean. Zero examples. Sorry, I fear you could be a little paranoid, or personally interested in a comfromtation between exclusives and independents that just can weaken  the contributors strength in these decisive moments.

No you didn't, you haven't had time to go through that lot. So you're just saying whatever comes into your head.

More interestingly, Shank Ali has turned negative on iStock and accused them of destroying trust and stealing contributors money... I never thought I would see the day

Not everybody is so slow.

« Reply #591 on: September 10, 2010, 02:09 »
0
Not everybody is so slow.

Sixty-nine thread pages read in full and digested in less than 26 minutes. I'm impressed. You should be a forum moderator.

« Reply #592 on: September 10, 2010, 02:16 »
0
I'm still evaluating, but right now I'm leaning strongly toward dropping my exclusive status at iStock come the first of the year.
That's what we are afraid of. So many top talents exclusives on IS and if they decide to flood the other sites with their work, we regulars at those other sites will suffer.  :P (it's a compliment).

vlad_the_imp

« Reply #593 on: September 10, 2010, 02:31 »
0
Quote
I'm still evaluating, but right now I'm leaning strongly toward dropping my exclusive status at iStock come the first of the year.

Yeah, well I'd evaluate very carefully. I know of two reasonably high selling exclusives who dropped exclusivity last year, they're now back on IS with their tails between their legs, back as exclusives. Your income will plummet, I kid you not, I've seen one of the figures. If you have a few years to spare to crawl back up the rankings elsewhere ( an increasingly hard task) and your IS income is just pocket money it may be worth a punt, if you have more to lose than pocket money I'd be very careful. Most of the people here pulling their work are very small fishes making a huge amount of noise completely out of all proportion to their sales. They will miss the loss in income more than IS will miss them.

« Reply #594 on: September 10, 2010, 02:52 »
0
Vlad's right. It will be even worse than last year, too, as the iStock contribution to the total will drop from 20% commission to probably 16% or 17% and you need to remember that the sale price of your images will be much lower, so your income will immediately fall by something like 75%. The slow initial sales from other sites while you start to build search engine position are likely to leave you 50% down for quite some time, I would think. 

« Reply #595 on: September 10, 2010, 03:16 »
0
Could the scale of these cuts have been brought on by the failure of the changes to pricing this year? For a few months now people have been complaining about falling income, maybe istock's income has also declined because of buyer resistance.

If the COO screwed up in January and found himself faced with a deteriorating balance sheet, he may have been under pressure to redeem himself by getting money from somewhere else. Cutting Vetta and subscription prices suggests things aren't going according to plan  - ESPECIALLY as Vetta was meant to be fixed for 2010 and they are rushing in to cut the price in the third quarter.

If more money can't be got from buyers and if buyers are drifting off to cheaper places faster than iStock can recruit new ones, then the only way of clawing back the losses would be by raiding the contributors' piggy banks.

Note that this drastic change was NOT in the works in January or they wouldn't have planned to mess with the canister levels. Even when they put those changes on hold it was only meant to be temporary. So this plan was hatched in the spring or later, or pulled out of the rejected ideas bin then, by which time credit package renewal data and buyer feedback would have been available.

But if this was triggered by an earlier mistake - well, airline pilots know that crashes usually happen because of an initial non-fatal error leading to a cascade of mistakes caused by increasing pilot stress.

 

« Reply #596 on: September 10, 2010, 03:26 »
0
I feel really sorry for the exclusives and am so glad that I was never in a position where it would have been benificial for me to become exclusive.  They are in a horrible position of having to take a huge cut in earnings whatever they decide.
I will probaly end up with 18% next year which is only a 10% drop of 22% of my earnings so I haven't been hit nearly as badly as an exclusive.   Their problem if they go independent is that they have to work their way up through the ranks of the other sites which unless they are the best will be extremely difficult. I do really well at the 4 big sites as I got in early but just can't seem to make it with 123rf and Bigstock that I joined a couple of years later. 

« Reply #597 on: September 10, 2010, 03:31 »
0
Not everybody is so slow.

Sixty-nine thread pages read in full and digested in less than 26 minutes. I'm impressed. You should be a forum moderator.

Who I am it's not your business. And if you think that I would spend more than fifteen minutes browsing in a thread when you have been not able to cut and paste one single example (in so many pages!) in a full day to support your campaign to confront exclusives and independents, you are very wrong.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2010, 03:34 by loop »

« Reply #598 on: September 10, 2010, 04:39 »
0
Not everybody is so slow.

Sixty-nine thread pages read in full and digested in less than 26 minutes. I'm impressed. You should be a forum moderator.

Who I am it's not your business. And if you think that I would spend more than fifteen minutes browsing in a thread when you have been not able to cut and paste one single example (in so many pages!) in a full day to support your campaign to confront exclusives and independents, you are very wrong.

Oh, so you didn't read it. So your post saying you had and there was nothing to support what I said was, indeed, made up, which makes your opinions very reliable. I didn't ask you who you were and I don't want to know. You won't waste time trawling through hundreds of posts to find out what I am saying, but you demand that I should waste time trawling through them to provide evidence that you can't be bothered to look for yourself. Well, you asked for examples and I pointed you in the right direction, I don't care whether you go further or not - just don't claim that you have make accusations against me and then admit that you haven't.

People here who've been around for a long time know whether or not there is any truth in what I said, it doesn't need proving. It's certainly not a majority of exclusives either, but it only takes a few to leave an unpleasant taste in the mouth. And it isn't me who has campaigned to cause confrontation between exclusives and independents, it is iStock and Getty.

RT


« Reply #599 on: September 10, 2010, 05:11 »
0
You won't waste time trawling through hundreds of posts to find out what I am saying, but you demand that I should waste time trawling through them to provide evidence that you can't be bothered to look for yourself.

In all fairness you raised the issue, it would be far easier if you just cut and pasted the comment in question rather than expect him or anybody else to read through 69 pages of a thread just to see if you're correct, then you could sit back and be satisfied that you won your point.

Personally I'm bored of the 'them vs us' thing, some exclusives don't like non-exclusives and vice versa, it's human nature.


 

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