pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStock changing royalty structure  (Read 348663 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Microbius

« Reply #625 on: September 10, 2010, 09:50 »
0
^+1


« Reply #626 on: September 10, 2010, 10:18 »
0

helix7

« Reply #627 on: September 10, 2010, 10:19 »
0

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.

I didn't misinterpret it. I just still disagree. istock has never been the most rewarding (in your terms) agency for most people. Just because it might be for you, that's just you. Earnings polls have shown for years that for most people in microstock, istock is not the top earner. Between that and the industry-low royalty rates, I just can't figure out how you are coming to the conclusion that on the whole, istock has been the most rewarding agency.

As for subscriptions, sure the original istock sub plan was great. But they're not interested in pushing that plan anymore. It's all about Thinkstock now, which also happens to operate at industry-low levels.

« Reply #628 on: September 10, 2010, 10:35 »
0
welcome to the classic agency problem

« Reply #629 on: September 10, 2010, 10:36 »
0
@Loop,
Oh, please. Baldrick is right.
There are a lot of exclusives who don't give a  d*** about what happens to independents. Not only that, but deep down they harbour this lovely hope that independents get crushed further and further - commissions, best match - search position, exposure, collections access - , give nothing to independents, let them rot.
This is OUR site, We built it, We deserve every perk, it's US, the Exclusives who should get all the rewards. Independents are kindly invited to bear the blows and rot in hell.  
It's a common attitude and one of the main reasons I never wanted to be part of the 'crowned' group. Not cool. At all.
Of course Baldrick is right. And don't ask me to cut and paste, it's stupid, but I might well do it.
That doesn't mean that every exclusive is guilty.
And it's definitely not a subject we should be discussing right now.

What bothers me right now is this - how far is too far?
How many independents are willing to take the cut and submit their images for 15 % commission? Probably most of them.
I strongly belive that there's no such thing as 'going too far' in the world of microstock photographers.  10% commission is fine, and so is 5.
0.25 cents is better than nothing and the race is on.

that's pretty harsh.  I've always been with iStock and I'm an exclusive (at the moment) but I have NEVER had ill feelings towards anyone for being an independent.  I know many of my friends who are exclusive at istock have always felt the same way.  please don't lump "most of us" into this hateful category.  Sadly it seems the negative people who feel that way are usually the loudest ones that get heard or that post in the forums.  I'm sorry if you were treated poorly, and I hope that you don't hate me just because (at the moment) I am an iStock exclusive.   each stock agency is built by the artists who contribute their work, whether they choose to contribute solely to one agency or not.    

I can't blame an agency for offering perks to those who exclusively contribute to one agency over all others.  However, I totally agree that the tiny 15% commission that iStock is going to for Independents is obnoxious and a slap in the face.  personally, I'd think that while the exclusive images like Lise Gagne may define a site like iStock, it's the total contributor base, most of which are independents (for any site, I would guess) that really build the agency.  

« Reply #630 on: September 10, 2010, 10:40 »
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.

What a load of crap.  The potential is there for even MORE income by diversifying.  You cannot say definitively for every single exclusive that they're income will drop MORE by dropping exclusivity over staying and taking it up the rear.

« Reply #631 on: September 10, 2010, 10:42 »
0

Kelly says 76% of exclusives will not take a hit.   43.7% of them won't because they are bronze.   Another 29.8% are silver, and stand a fairly good chance of hitting that low 2000 credit target.  Add in the 1.9% base contributors that are guaranteed to go up.  That is 75.4% of exclusives.

iStock is gunning for your royalties golds and diamonds, I guess we now know why the silver target was set so comparatively low.  It makes it easier for them to say that 76% of people will not see a change.

Even if you maintain your current level, is it safe to say that any serious advancement is dead in the water for most people?

We can't forget here the introduction of those new collections.  Even if you are a top performer who should remain at your current level - those new collections could be in the millions, who knows?  And if it happens to be mostly wholly owned content - it's a no brainer what collection will be on the front of the search.  How could anyone expect not to see a hit when competing with that?

« Reply #632 on: September 10, 2010, 10:43 »
0

« Reply #633 on: September 10, 2010, 10:53 »
0
I am on the video side and will retain my current level in 2011. That being said sometimes I am jealous of Non-Exclusives. I started video there when video started at IS. I did a ton of research and the only people I could find on the web who were making any decent money was IS exclusives. So I closed my accounts everywhere and went exclusive. It has been good for me. My medical job was cut in April of this year so iStock is what is feeding my family. Now if you think that is easy street think again! I am not holding out for any change. I just need to focus on getting good content out there. If I dropped my exclusive in 2011 I would go from 35% to 18% ahh could you afford that? I just can't afford it and I can't find a Cat Scan job in my area at all. I can relocate as there are medical jobs out there if I have to. Wish me luck and I have been fighting for all you non-exclusives. I feel the bottom of the barrel should be 20%

« Reply #634 on: September 10, 2010, 10:55 »
0

Another news article about us:

http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/61173/20100910/istockphoto-gets-ire-of-contributors-over-new-payment-scheme.htm


Written by Getty, apparently.


It's even more of a whitewash than the CNET story.  I attempted to fill in the details in a comment, but couldn't get it to post.

abimages

« Reply #635 on: September 10, 2010, 10:56 »
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.

What a load of crap.  The potential is there for even MORE income by diversifying.  You cannot say definitively for every single exclusive that they're income will drop MORE by dropping exclusivity over staying and taking it up the rear.

I hope you're right! FWIW since going exclusive in Feb I've had less earnings this year than previous independent years :o

« Reply #636 on: September 10, 2010, 10:57 »
0
Has anyone else noticed a connection between istock's announcement and a rash of obnoxious spamming?
Yap, Sumos is one of those obnoxious iSyndica guys, spamming all over.

« Reply #637 on: September 10, 2010, 10:57 »
0
I am on the video side and will retain my current level in 2011. That being said sometimes I am jealous of Non-Exclusives. I started video there when video started at IS. I did a ton of research and the only people I could find on the web who were making any decent money was IS exclusives. So I closed my accounts everywhere and went exclusive. It has been good for me. My medical job was cut in April of this year so iStock is what is feeding my family. Now if you think that is easy street think again! I am not holding out for any change. I just need to focus on getting good content out there. If I dropped my exclusive in 2011 I would go from 35% to 18% ahh could you afford that? I just can't afford it and I can't find a Cat Scan job in my area at all. I can relocate as there are medical jobs out there if I have to. Wish me luck and I have been fighting for all you non-exclusives. I feel the bottom of the barrel should be 20%

You have to do what's right for you, that's true of everyone.  And trust me, I know of which you speak.  I got laid off for a second time a couple of years ago and have been living on unemployment, occasional consulting jobs and my stock sales.  Fortunately, I never got sucked into exclusivity anywhere.  So I've got stuff on numerous sites.  That was wonderful during the summer slump because when sales plummeted most places, a couple of places took up some of the slack with sales I wasn't getting last year.

I wish you sell and hope you can keep up your level the following year as well.

abimages

« Reply #638 on: September 10, 2010, 11:00 »
0
Expect update announcement  from IS later today:

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253252&page=1

« Reply #639 on: September 10, 2010, 11:09 »
0
iStock was about 45% of my income as a non-exclusive.  When I went exclusive in February, my income nearly quadrupled in March compared to January.  Its backed off now and has been pretty steady at tripple my average monthly income at iStock.  In terms of overall microstock, I'm still making nearly 30% more as an iStock exclusive than I was earning overall from all microstock combined.  Next year I will automatically be making 15% less than I am now, and 25% less than I should have been, as I'm nearly to diamond.

If I drop exclusivity, I will be removing my port entirely.  I will eat a significant loss, but I have ethical difficulties being in bed with a company as exploitative as it appears iStock is about to become.  I will probably have to shutter my studio for awhile and go back to on location stock shoots only while I build income back up.

Fortunately this is not my primary source of income.  I feel very sorry for those who need iStock to put food on their tables.

« Reply #640 on: September 10, 2010, 11:13 »
0
Expect update announcement  from IS later today:

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253252&page=1

Another announcement filled with lies? I think I've had enough of those.

« Reply #641 on: September 10, 2010, 11:28 »
0

Another announcement filled with lies?

At least we're guaranteed one thing with Istock.

« Reply #642 on: September 10, 2010, 11:41 »
0
 I feel very sorry for those who need iStock to put food on their tables.

As do we all, but people has to be carefull, as to whome they "go to bed with" - sometimes, you get home with somthing more than you expected in the first place...

« Reply #643 on: September 10, 2010, 12:13 »
0

Another news article about us:

http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/61173/20100910/istockphoto-gets-ire-of-contributors-over-new-payment-scheme.htm


Written by Getty, apparently.

Yes, this is not really an article, it is a Getty press release. The "IBTimes" may just be a site which prints press releases for a fee.

It shows that IS/Getty, while not openly responding to the outrage of their suppliers on their own forums, do feel it necessary to take PR steps outside their own site.

« Reply #644 on: September 10, 2010, 12:39 »
0

Another news article about us:

http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/61173/20100910/istockphoto-gets-ire-of-contributors-over-new-payment-scheme.htm


Written by Getty, apparently.

Yes, this is not really an article, it is a Getty press release. The "IBTimes" may just be a site which prints press releases for a fee.

It shows that IS/Getty, while not openly responding to the outrage of their suppliers on their own forums, do feel it necessary to take PR steps outside their own site.


Yup funny thing you can't even post a comment... I tried several times. And yes, how wonderful - all of us "miscalculating" our commission rates.... Ya it takes a lot of brainpower to multiply your current number of credits by 2! (Using their own recommendation! ...even if that holds which is most likely won't).

« Reply #645 on: September 10, 2010, 12:42 »
0
Ok, guys, if any of you wish to leave IS and join other agencies, here are my referral code at SS. It won't hurt you and will help me a lot      ;)

newbielink:http://submit.shutterstock.com/?ref=318328 [nonactive]

Best regards to all,
  Ariel

« Reply #646 on: September 10, 2010, 12:50 »
0
Not cool, Ariel.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #647 on: September 10, 2010, 12:55 »
0
Ariel and Sumo, enough of the spamming already.

« Reply #648 on: September 10, 2010, 13:03 »
0
@Jamirae,
I don't hate you. I like you actually :)
And I wish you best of luck. I mean it.

And if indeed there are many IStock Exclusives who think independents have been treated unfairly over the years, well, they should have been more vocal.
I'm not going to go into all that now; let's just wait for the announcement and hope for the best.
For all of us.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2010, 13:30 by Eireann »

« Reply #649 on: September 10, 2010, 13:38 »
0
@Jamirae,
I don't hate you. I like you actually :)
And I wish you best of luck. I mean it.

And if indeed there are many IStock Exclusives who think independents have been treated unfairly over the years, well, they should have been more vocal.
I'm not going to go into all that now; let's just wait for the announcement and hope for the best.
For all of us.

Just to say I'm amazed ad your powers that let you read minds and know what people thinks.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
4458 Views
Last post February 17, 2007, 07:20
by GeoPappas
17 Replies
9609 Views
Last post September 09, 2010, 19:38
by madelaide
2 Replies
4653 Views
Last post July 15, 2010, 10:47
by HughStoneIan
2 Replies
4093 Views
Last post September 09, 2010, 17:42
by loop
22 Replies
10704 Views
Last post January 31, 2014, 09:15
by JPSDK

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors