MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStock changing royalty structure  (Read 348611 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

« Reply #825 on: September 22, 2010, 22:17 »
0
Hi Marisa :)
Hey chica :)

I'd successfully avoided reading or posting in these forums for years, but as I approach un-exclusivity, it has been recommended to me by several friendly iStockers that I follow along here. But my god, without a Lobo, it's like the Wild West over here! It's the very model of mayhem :)


It is indeed a bit rowdy at times, but these forums have been enormously helpful in dealing with all sorts of issues when they come up. Although there is no Lobo riding shotgun, be aware (if you do start submitting to other sites) that there are one or two who will (and have) retaliated against contributors for things said in this forum. That's why there are a number of independents here who don't use their regular name so they don't face their account getting terminated if they speak out about things that need to be addressed.

Just try to stay out of the bar fights and you should be fine :)


« Reply #826 on: September 22, 2010, 23:52 »
0
...
Just try to stay out of the bar fights and you should be fine :)

Yeah, no kidding.

That's a pretty good introductory blurb, too, jsnover.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #827 on: September 23, 2010, 02:13 »
0
I guess i have to take 'their word' that in the end the amount will be correct? "Their word", ha! (hahaha!)
With all stock sites, you have to 'take their word' that their reporting figures are correct.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #828 on: September 23, 2010, 02:17 »
0
So far, mine are consistently updating the day after the sales.

Really?! Hmm.... strange, mine have updated 3 or 4 times after 'the announcement', every time for a fraction of the amount i sold. Maybe time to shoot a mail to support.

This issue has been brought up a few times in the 'where do we go to from here?' thread, but there is a main thread on the help forum:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253622&page=1
However, I can't explain why Lobo couldn't get a straight answer way back when the thread was started.
His current posting, that he'd rather give an accurate answer is creditable, but rather disingenuous. It's surely a simple enough question, and you'd think he could get a simple enough answer. (even if it's only, "Your reported RCs are not currently accurate, but they're working on it"). Seems very odd that he can't.

« Reply #829 on: September 23, 2010, 04:00 »
0
Well if you thought this is a one time reduction here's something for you (quote from IS forums):
Quote
Gross Margin and Real Profit
By Jim Pickerell 9/21/2010
iStockphoto COO Kelly Thompson says the company cannot keep growing profit at the old royalty rates, so they have to reduce what they are paying suppliers. The problem is not that the company does not have substantial profits. Rather, it is Getty Images arbitrary standard for what the gross profit margin in the stock photo industry should be that causes the problem. "

How is this unsustainable? Just another lie.

So we can expect (yearly?) commission drops until we get to Gettys standards. When too many photographers will jump to a higher canister they will have to change it again. I also don't think that current change will get us to Gettys 20% standard. There is no way that the nonexclusives  can produce enough money to balance the commission of the exclusives so that the overall commission would be 20%.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2010, 04:02 by LostOne »

« Reply #830 on: September 23, 2010, 04:31 »
0
^^^And if enough non-exclusives leave or stop uploading, they will have to take the money from exclusives.  And when they sell istock, the new owners are probably going to want more.  This could get interesting.

rubyroo

« Reply #831 on: September 23, 2010, 04:45 »
0
Lost One and Sharpshot - you've both articulated my own thoughts here.  I can't see any other way that this can go.  If the non-exclusives' 15% is the bottom end counterweight to balance the 'whole' at 20%... and that counterweight departs... they can only cut the remaining exclusive commissions.  

I just wish the management would engage in the promised 'back and forth' discussion, rather than leaving everyone to speculate endlessly.  I can only imagine they're having back room crisis meetings.  I don't blame the iStock management at all - I think their hands are tied, and I hope they'll come through it OK enough to have that much-needed discussion.  
« Last Edit: September 23, 2010, 04:50 by rubyroo »

« Reply #832 on: September 23, 2010, 12:44 »
0
It is indeed a bit rowdy at times, but these forums have been enormously helpful in dealing with all sorts of issues when they come up. Although there is no Lobo riding shotgun, be aware (if you do start submitting to other sites) that there are one or two who will (and have) retaliated against contributors for things said in this forum. That's why there are a number of independents here who don't use their regular name so they don't face their account getting terminated if they speak out about things that need to be addressed.

Just try to stay out of the bar fights and you should be fine :)
All good to know. Much appreciated! Thank you :)

ETA: I see from my profile that I've already been "ignored" by 1 member. How exciting!
« Last Edit: September 23, 2010, 12:47 by Risamay »

« Reply #833 on: September 23, 2010, 12:53 »
0

By Jim Pickerell 9/21/2010
iStockphoto COO Kelly Thompson says the company cannot keep growing profit at the old royalty rates, so they have to reduce what they are paying suppliers. The problem is not that the company does not have substantial profits. Rather, it is Getty Images arbitrary standard for what the gross profit margin in the stock photo industry should be that causes the problem. "

How is this unsustainable? Just another lie.

I presume it is 'unsustainable' because Kelly Thompson and others' annual bonuses are directly linked to the gross profit margin.

« Reply #834 on: September 23, 2010, 13:25 »
0
It is indeed a bit rowdy at times, but these forums have been enormously helpful in dealing with all sorts of issues when they come up. Although there is no Lobo riding shotgun, be aware (if you do start submitting to other sites) that there are one or two who will (and have) retaliated against contributors for things said in this forum. That's why there are a number of independents here who don't use their regular name so they don't face their account getting terminated if they speak out about things that need to be addressed.

Just try to stay out of the bar fights and you should be fine :)
All good to know. Much appreciated! Thank you :)

ETA: I see from my profile that I've already been "ignored" by 1 member. How exciting!

great info!

what does that mean to be "ignored"?  they can't see anything you post or you just can't sitemail them?

« Reply #835 on: September 23, 2010, 13:37 »
0

what does that mean to be "ignored"?  they can't see anything you post or you just can't sitemail them?


When an ignored user posts in a thread, you'll see "This user is currently ignored" instead of what they wrote. If someone else (whom you don't ignore) quotes the ignored post, you will be subjected to the undesired drivel, but it does help keep the discussion readable.

I've no idea how personal messages work with ignored members - I've never wanted to PM someone I ignore :)

lisafx

« Reply #836 on: September 23, 2010, 13:41 »
0
Welcome to the club Jami!

If you aren't ignored by at least on person, you aren't doing it right ;)

« Reply #837 on: September 23, 2010, 15:58 »
0
Welcome to the club Jami!

If you aren't ignored by at least on person, you aren't doing it right ;)

hahaha!  well I don't have anyone ignoring me at this point.  I just haven't posted much.  Note that this is not a request to be ignored, of course. 

I think all the posts that would get me ignored never made it past the "Post" button.  I tend to read, respond, then re-read and think about it before I hit the "Post" button.  I have abandoned many 'knee-jerk' snipey replies that way.  :)

« Reply #838 on: September 23, 2010, 16:03 »
0
I think all the posts that would get me ignored never made it past the "Post" button.  I tend to read, respond, then re-read and think about it before I hit the "Post" button.  I have abandoned many 'knee-jerk' snipey replies that way.  :)

Don't supress those feelings __ let's hear them loud and clear! It is only an internet forum, not the United Nations or something.

« Reply #839 on: September 23, 2010, 16:11 »
0
I think all the posts that would get me ignored never made it past the "Post" button.  I tend to read, respond, then re-read and think about it before I hit the "Post" button.  I have abandoned many 'knee-jerk' snipey replies that way.  :)

Don't supress those feelings __ let's hear them loud and clear! It is only an internet forum, not the United Nations or something.

okay, tho actually if I can find a better way to respond to something then I do post it if I feel it will contribute to the conversation.  :)

« Reply #840 on: September 23, 2010, 16:29 »
0
So far, mine are consistently updating the day after the sales.

Really?! Hmm.... strange, mine have updated 3 or 4 times after 'the announcement', every time for a fraction of the amount i sold. Maybe time to shoot a mail to support.

This issue has been brought up a few times in the 'where do we go to from here?' thread, but there is a main thread on the help forum:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253622&page=1
However, I can't explain why Lobo couldn't get a straight answer way back when the thread was started.
His current posting, that he'd rather give an accurate answer is creditable, but rather disingenuous. It's surely a simple enough question, and you'd think he could get a simple enough answer. (even if it's only, "Your reported RCs are not currently accurate, but they're working on it"). Seems very odd that he can't.

Thanks for pointing me to that post Sue :)
The reply is there now and the bottomline seems to be: for some contributors there seem to be irregularities, if you suspect you're one of them, contact support.
*sigh* My payout rate for the entire next year depends on this, i cant afford it to be "wonky" (definitely not because i'll make it just, or just not).

« Reply #841 on: September 23, 2010, 17:03 »
0
I think all the posts that would get me ignored never made it past the "Post" button.  I tend to read, respond, then re-read and think about it before I hit the "Post" button.  I have abandoned many 'knee-jerk' snipey replies that way.  :)
Good on you for censoring editing your posts. I'm used to doing that on iStock (though it may not always seem like it), but only so that I can get the snipes in and past the taco. By which, of course, I mean the Lobo.

Snipes are the spice of life. Even over at the U.N. (politicians are the snipey-est) ;)

« Reply #842 on: September 23, 2010, 17:20 »
0
If you ignore someone their posts do have a small Show button you can use to remind yourself why you ignored them in the first place. Sometimes though people who are arrogant and obnoxious lack social skills do actually have somethin positive to contribute on some subjects. If you decide that you overreacted by ignoring someone go to your profile->Ignore options and remove them from the list of ignored members.

« Reply #843 on: September 23, 2010, 17:37 »
0
If you ignore someone their posts do have a small Show button you can use to remind yourself why you ignored them in the first place.
...

Yeah, I do that sometimes (press the 'Show' button), but 99% of the time it just serves to remind me why I pressed the 'Ignore' button in the first place. As they say, a tiger can't change it's stripes ...

lisafx

« Reply #844 on: September 23, 2010, 17:53 »
0


Yeah, I do that sometimes (press the 'Show' button), but 99% of the time it just serves to remind me why I pressed the 'Ignore' button in the first place. As they say, a tiger can't change it's stripes ...

+1

And good for you, Jami, trying to not get down in the mud.  Sometimes you get splashed anyway, though.  And the folks with the more, shall we say "abrasive" style sometimes make for interesting reading  ;)

« Reply #845 on: September 24, 2010, 06:29 »
0
Another move by a competitor to flush out some new blood :)
http://submit.shutterstock.com/newsletter/259/article1.html

« Reply #846 on: September 24, 2010, 06:52 »
0
Another move by a competitor to flush out some new blood :)
http://submit.shutterstock.com/newsletter/259/article1.html


I'll give you 85% of the 3 cents per download referal.

Apparently 15% is enough

« Reply #847 on: September 24, 2010, 07:09 »
0
Another move by a competitor to flush out some new blood :)
http://submit.shutterstock.com/newsletter/259/article1.html


"We're growing. We're aggressively signing up new customers, our download counts are very high"

And yet while they have raised prices for buyers they have not given a contributor royalty increase in two years.

« Reply #848 on: September 24, 2010, 07:22 »
0
Another move by a competitor to flush out some new blood :)
http://submit.shutterstock.com/newsletter/259/article1.html


"We're growing. We're aggressively signing up new customers, our download counts are very high"

And yet while they have raised prices for buyers they have not given a contributor royalty increase in two years.

And they probably wont raise commissions while so many people accept $0.25 from thinkstock and crestock.  Sad isn't it?  And if istock get away with cutting commissions, I can see the other sites trying it.

« Reply #849 on: September 24, 2010, 08:13 »
0
Absolutely, Sharpshot.
Why would they?
Contributors upload for a fixed 0.25 - no raise, to sites like ThinkStock and Crestock, why would Shutterstock give us a raise? They already pay us more.
And indeed, Shutterstock is doing very well. That is true :)
I hope they keep on growing.
They deserve to be successful.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
4457 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
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
10703 Views
Last post January 31, 2014, 09:15
by JPSDK

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors