MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStock changing royalty structure  (Read 348662 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

« Reply #650 on: September 10, 2010, 13:44 »
0
@Loop,
right.
It's Voodoo :)


Microbius

« Reply #651 on: September 10, 2010, 14:18 »
0

Another news article about us:

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

just when you think you can't get any more pissed off they go and write some crap like that. There's so much BS and misinformation in that release it's untrue arrrghhhhhhhhhh

« Reply #652 on: September 10, 2010, 14:28 »
0
That is IS management "fighting" back, with the weapons they know - press releases via well paid contacts in the press officies and newspapers.

We rule the internet invironment - they the old media.

« Reply #653 on: September 10, 2010, 14:34 »
0
just when you think you can't get any more pissed off they go and write some crap like that. There's so much BS and misinformation in that release it's untrue arrrghhhhhhhhhh

That article may calm some clients, but makes me (contributor) even more pissed of! I don't think Getty/IS understands that they can't fight the truth with lies.

« Reply #654 on: September 10, 2010, 14:34 »
0

Another news article about us:

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

just when you think you can't get any more pissed off they go and write some crap like that. There's so much BS and misinformation in that release it's untrue arrrghhhhhhhhhh


That release is total BS.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #655 on: September 10, 2010, 14:36 »
0
Some one earlier was asking about where to find this. I don't know if anyone posted it yet or not, but if they didn't here it is.  Its the contributor charts at iStock. It will tell you how many of what canister level there is.
http://istockcharts.multimedia.de/

« Reply #656 on: September 10, 2010, 14:40 »
0
just when you think you can't get any more pissed off they go and write some crap like that. There's so much BS and misinformation in that release it's untrue arrrghhhhhhhhhh

That article may calm some clients, but makes me (contributor) even more pissed of! I don't think Getty/IS understands that they can't fight the truth with lies.

Unfortunately you can. Look at governments and other big corps that get themselves in trouble. Spinning is a science.

« Reply #657 on: September 10, 2010, 14:44 »
0
Unfortunately you can. Look at governments and other big corps that get themselves in trouble. Spinning is a science.

A Government isn't as easy to change as a business. And even big corps fall... Enron, anyone?

« Reply #658 on: September 10, 2010, 15:06 »
0
Expect update announcement  from IS later today:

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


What a bunch of drama. And I am willing to bet there are a lot of people anxiously awaiting to hear what the news will be. It doesn't even matter to me what they announce. Trust is gone, their words mean NOTH-ING!

« Reply #659 on: September 10, 2010, 15:15 »
0
Interesting announcement from DT - referrel bonus's for exclusives elsewhere! It's on their home page.

Quick thinking!

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #660 on: September 10, 2010, 15:23 »
0
Expect update announcement  from IS later today:

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


What a bunch of drama. And I am willing to bet there are a lot of people anxiously awaiting to hear what the news will be. It doesn't even matter to me what they announce. Trust is gone, their words mean NOTH-ING!


They probably just said that to quiet down the masses, which it looks like it did a little bit, while they plot their next move!!

Microbius

« Reply #661 on: September 10, 2010, 15:31 »
0
I get the feeling that there isn't going to be any movement on their side at all.
The second statement didn't have any give in it, and I doubt the next one will.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #662 on: September 10, 2010, 15:36 »
0
I get the feeling that there isn't going to be any movement on their side at all.
The second statement didn't have any give in it, and I doubt the next one will.
It would be nice if they would just say something rather than leaving everyone blowing in the wind. I'm with you, I doubt what they have to say is going to be any better.

« Reply #663 on: September 10, 2010, 15:40 »
0
So if it is really true that they can't sustain these levels of commissions, why bother to keep their exclusive program? Isn't it easier to tick off 20% of their contributors rather than 80-100%? Then just raise the prices on all the better selling files or higher canister contributors to exclusive level. And maybe keep an exclusive image program for Vetta. That would allow them to have more higher priced content and everybody would only get 20%. Hell, at that point you could probably bump it up to 1 or 2 percent and still come out ahead.

Maybe not the best solution, but it just seems there could have been so many other solutions that wouldn't make everyone mad.

Microbius

« Reply #664 on: September 10, 2010, 15:49 »
0
So if it is really true that they can't sustain these levels of commissions, why bother to keep their exclusive program? Isn't it easier to tick off 20% of their contributors rather than 80-100%? Then just raise the prices on all the better selling files or higher canister contributors to exclusive level. And maybe keep an exclusive image program for Vetta. That would allow them to have more higher priced content and everybody would only get 20%. Hell, at that point you could probably bump it up to 1 or 2 percent and still come out ahead.

Maybe not the best solution, but it just seems there could have been so many other solutions that wouldn't make everyone mad.
[/quote
I don't believe for a minute it was not sustainable. Imagine how many sales it would take for everyone to make it to platinum. It's just greed plain and simple, they aren't happy with higher profits, they want higher profits in proportion to revenue. It's all total BS that stems from Getty buying the site and wanting a good return on the investment, even if it means squeezing IStock till the pips squeak.

« Reply #665 on: September 10, 2010, 15:55 »
0
I don't believe for a minute it was not sustainable. Imagine how many sales it would take for everyone to make it to platinum. It's just greed plain and simple, they aren't happy with higher profits, they want higher profits in proportion to revenue. It's all total BS that stems from Getty buying the site and wanting a good return on the investment, even if it means squeezing IStock till the pips squeak.

I'm not sure I believe it either that it is unsustainable. My point was more of why come up with a solution that makes everyone mad? There had to have been a way to do it that would make more or most people happy to drown out all the negatives.

« Reply #666 on: September 10, 2010, 15:56 »
0
I still think that they're moving to a different model. Kelly's release (http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/61173/20100910/istockphoto-gets-ire-of-contributors-over-new-payment-scheme.htm) might be true, but he's not really talking about the present contributors and collection... He's talking about Getty moving in their shots and photographers which will sell for a lot more and in turn create a larger royalty total. If the Istock brand is strong and has a larger buyer base why not use that to sell the great quality photographs that have a hard time selling at the old banner?

« Reply #667 on: September 10, 2010, 15:58 »
0
Quote
I'm not sure I believe it either that it is unsustainable. My point was more of why come up with a solution that makes everyone mad? There had to have been a way to do it that would make more or most people happy to drown out all the negatives.
Well if they want to keep the brand but change the content, that's one hell of a good way to do it.

« Reply #668 on: September 10, 2010, 16:30 »
0
Some one earlier was asking about where to find this. I don't know if anyone posted it yet or not, but if they didn't here it is.  Its the contributor charts at iStock. It will tell you how many of what canister level there is.
http://istockcharts.multimedia.de/


One problem there is that they do not list the split out between cannister level's for the exclusives.  I wrote to the person who runs that site and they sent me the exclusive split out below.  I also confirmed that this is all inclusive.  If someone asks them to remove them from the list, they only make the entry anonymous by removing the name.  So the numbers here are accurate:

Quote
We've got 5531 exclusive contributors in our contributor charts:

base contributors          105 ( 1.9%)
bronze contributors       2417 (43.7%)
silver contributors       1647 (29.8%)
gold contributors          760 (13.7%)
diamond contributors       574 (10.4%)
blackdiamond contributors   28 ( 0.5%)

KB

« Reply #669 on: September 10, 2010, 16:33 »
0
So the numbers here are accurate:

Quote
We've got 5531 exclusive contributors in our contributor charts:

base contributors          105 ( 1.9%)
bronze contributors       2417 (43.7%)
silver contributors       1647 (29.8%)
gold contributors          760 (13.7%)
diamond contributors       574 (10.4%)
blackdiamond contributors   28 ( 0.5%)
But I ask again -- how can we trust the accuracy when it shows 105 base level exclusive contributors?

« Reply #670 on: September 10, 2010, 16:49 »
0
But I ask again -- how can we trust the accuracy when it shows 105 base level exclusive contributors?

Just a wild guess, but it seems the canisters shown on iStockCharts are determined after the # of downloads. But the # of DL are given by the API in ranges, not exact numbers. Contributors with >200 downloads seem to be at base canister, while contributors with >300 are bronze. Maybe the API doesn't deliver the canister info ?
« Last Edit: September 10, 2010, 16:51 by ErickN »

« Reply #671 on: September 10, 2010, 16:49 »
0
LOL, if professional athletes can't manage their money - why would we expect mere mortals at Getty to manage theirs???

http://www.daveramsey.com/article/the-million-dollar-mystery/lifeandmoney_budgeting?ectid=bitlyified091020100919

« Reply #672 on: September 10, 2010, 16:51 »
0
Not sure if this already was posted...

The end of iStockphoto at Ember Studio: :(
http://www.emberstudio.com/blog/?p=193

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #673 on: September 10, 2010, 16:57 »
0
Hmmmm I wonder when they get to quit and go home???   Hasn't it  been about 6 hours since they said they would post a response. 

KB

« Reply #674 on: September 10, 2010, 16:58 »
0
But I ask again -- how can we trust the accuracy when it shows 105 base level exclusive contributors?

Just a wild guess, but it seems the canisters shown on iStockCharts are determined after the # of downloads. But the # of DL are given by the API in ranges, not exact numbers. Contributors with >200 downloads seem to be at base canister, while contributors with >300 are bronze. Maybe the API doesn't deliver the canister info ?
Thanks! That wild guess sounds exactly correct to me.


 

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