pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStock changing royalty structure  (Read 229220 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #1300 on: October 31, 2010, 20:50 »
0


Just have a look at the last two or three pages of the "Where we go from here"-thread. It is obvious "where we go from here": Someone at Getty/Istock management made the decision that it would be more profitable to screw their contributors every which way, than to have a happy community.


I just can't beleive all you people talking about istock as comunity... that's beyond naivity, that's ridiculous. You guys are a community, but that has nothing to do with IS. It migth have been a community at the very start when people were exhancing files, but they have been conning you eversince. You can hiss at getty as much as you want, and they deserve it being overtly agressive business people, but the microstock bunch are a lot-lot worse, they are just frudulant bandits. I read back in in IS forums, Lobo and other admins -with some rare exceptions-, have been dictatorial hostile little pricks as long as I could read back, and they have been messing with file sizes, credits way before getty took action. They so much didn't give a crap about contributors that the best you got was single file upload buttons straight from the eighties, and upload and inspection system that creates enormous amount of eytra work without that having any pint at all (reauploading stuff because of bad keywording?? what?) and that has nothing to do with getty. I ran into some rare occasions when Yuri got involved in forums, and the admins trash talked him too, locked his threads.. doing that to the guy who single handidly made them millions! You call that a happy community site??? You are out your mind.

And then the worst part: subscritions (it's not just about istock of course) That's a huge paycut to start with, and everybody just blatantly accepts it because it was presented as s "new structure". I guess dumbos only new to be fed a buzzword, and they'll go with any crap : ((( The whole subscription thing is doorway to conning the s**t out of you. Imho it wouldn't be a huge surprsie if it turned out that you don't even get noted - and of course payed - for all the downloads you get in that system, they just hide it, and there you go. How . would you now? On SS f.e. there isn't even a download number, only a listing for 'popularity' which seems to be a combination of age and downloads, but it's obscure to say the least. Any of your files might have been downloaded more than you know, and you'll never know, bacause once a subscription has expired, they just can just erase all data of it except for it being payed for, and than reaching expiration by downloads or date. It's pretty much clear that almost none of the subscriions reach all the downloads possible, so the only way you could find out how things actually went is to cross reference clients downloads with your track record, which is practically impossible. I suspect you are F-ed BiG TimE all over the place with these sites... : (

The best comment I have read in a long time.


« Reply #1301 on: October 31, 2010, 21:19 »
0
It is very easy to know if they hide or "steal" downloads or subscriptions. I'm not going to tell you how. You should know it just thinking a little. Maybe it would help if you didn't have a conclusion you want/need to expose before you begin your thinking process.

lagereek

« Reply #1302 on: November 01, 2010, 01:46 »
0
Ever come across a straight, honest business???   bet not,  if they were, they wouldnt be in business.

« Reply #1303 on: November 01, 2010, 01:52 »
0
I just can't beleive all you people talking about istock as comunity... that's beyond naivity, that's ridiculous. You guys are a community, but that has nothing to do with IS. It migth have been a community at the very start when people were exhancing files, but they have been conning you eversince. I read back in in IS forums, Lobo and other admins -with some rare exceptions-, have been dictatorial hostile little pricks as long as I could read back, and they have been messing with file sizes, credits way before getty took action. They so much didn't give a crap about contributors

+2 - have never understood how people didn't realise that ... rightly or wrongly (and one can argue this till the cows come home) "conning" or "encouraging" people to think they were part of a "family" was a solid business strategy that allowed them far greater leeway to do what they needed to do to maximise their profits - to somehow think it was more than this is beyond naive.

« Reply #1304 on: November 01, 2010, 03:31 »
0
There is a community at istock. I'm part of a group of 60 odd contributors who encourage each other through friendly competition and support to achieve goals it would be very hard for most of us to reach working on our own. Perhaps  there isn't much in it for you pros, but I suspect quite a few successful istock contributors (and probably similar for other sites) have found community support invaluable. Now, for how much the management supports/is involved in/uses the community, that's another question, and the answer varies over time and from individual to individual within the business.

« Reply #1305 on: November 01, 2010, 04:06 »
0
There is a community at istock. I'm part of a group of 60 odd contributors who encourage each other through friendly competition and support to achieve goals it would be very hard for most of us to reach working on our own. Perhaps  there isn't much in it for you pros, but I suspect quite a few successful istock contributors (and probably similar for other sites) have found community support invaluable. Now, for how much the management supports/is involved in/uses the community, that's another question, and the answer varies over time and from individual to individual within the business.

I think you missed out on this part of his post.
You guys are a community, but that has nothing to do with IS. It migth have been a community at the very start when people were exhancing files, but they have been conning you eversince.

« Reply #1306 on: November 01, 2010, 08:30 »
0
Quote
There is a community at istock. I'm part of a group of 60 odd contributors who encourage each other through friendly competition and support to achieve goals it would be very hard for most of us to reach working on our own. Perhaps  there isn't much in it for you pros, but I suspect quite a few successful istock contributors (and probably similar for other sites) have found community support invaluable. Now, for how much the management supports/is involved in/uses the community, that's another question, and the answer varies over time and from individual to individual within the business.

I think the point Molka is trying to make is that while you are making a little money out of your photography, someone else is making a great deal more for doing a hell of a lot less, and you are more willing to accept this because you believe you're part of a community.

Getty, Klein, Evans-Lombe, Calvert, Catalane, Gurke, Heck, Lapham, Martin, Murrell, Peters, Rockafellar and Teaster are the biggest earners on iStock. None of them have had an image accepted or communicated with an iStock contributer. iStock is not a community.

« Reply #1307 on: November 01, 2010, 11:05 »
0
... with a little stab of a statement to finish it off (see "we are undersigned" thread lock)


Yes, I saw that little flourish and thought that was totally uncalled for - sort of kicking someone when they're already on the ground just 'cause you can.

You should call it as you see it. I wasn't trying to talk you out of it, just put another point of view.

Especially in the "what have you done for me lately" culture that Getty/IS is morphing into, anything nice or helpful someone did a while back isn't worth anything anyway. Or at least it's worth the same as the promise that Vetta prices wouldn't go up this year, or canisters would be grandfathered, or...

He deleted the last post, then posted himself and locked the thread. It would have made more sense if he had left it.

« Reply #1308 on: November 01, 2010, 12:17 »
0
It is very easy to know if they hide or "steal" downloads or subscriptions. I'm not going to tell you how. You should know it just thinking a little. Maybe it would help if you didn't have a conclusion you want/need to expose before you begin your thinking process.

I'm sorry, but it's impossible to discover if they steel downloads if they want to hide them, and it's very easy to do on their end.
It would be fair tho, if you could explain your theory about impossibility to hide downloads from contributors, because the only thing you can check is the number of downloads that you can see in your port, and you can never be sure if they hide 1-2% of downloads from you.

« Reply #1309 on: November 01, 2010, 12:43 »
0
It is very easy to know if they hide or "steal" downloads or subscriptions. I'm not going to tell you how. You should know it just thinking a little. Maybe it would help if you didn't have a conclusion you want/need to expose before you begin your thinking process.

I'm sorry, but it's impossible to discover if they steel downloads if they want to hide them, and it's very easy to do on their end.
It would be fair tho, if you could explain your theory about impossibility to hide downloads from contributors, because the only thing you can check is the number of downloads that you can see in your port, and you can never be sure if they hide 1-2% of downloads from you.

Think a little bit, please.

jen

« Reply #1310 on: November 01, 2010, 13:46 »
0
It is very easy to know if they hide or "steal" downloads or subscriptions. I'm not going to tell you how. You should know it just thinking a little. Maybe it would help if you didn't have a conclusion you want/need to expose before you begin your thinking process.

I'm sorry, but it's impossible to discover if they steel downloads if they want to hide them, and it's very easy to do on their end.
It would be fair tho, if you could explain your theory about impossibility to hide downloads from contributors, because the only thing you can check is the number of downloads that you can see in your port, and you can never be sure if they hide 1-2% of downloads from you.

Think a little bit, please.
Obviously you're smarter than everyone else here, so why don't you just share?  I am "thinking" and not coming up with a magical answer for an easy way to see downloads that are hidden.

« Reply #1311 on: November 01, 2010, 13:47 »
0
Either you know how it's impossible for them to hide downloads or you don't. Are you suggesting we get someone to download our own images occasionally so we can check that the appropriate royalties are accredited to us? If so, it's only a suggestion, not an admission, so why not share it with us?

Personally, I don't think downloads are being hidden, but that's just me.

« Reply #1312 on: November 01, 2010, 15:42 »
0
Quote
There is a community at istock. I'm part of a group of 60 odd contributors who encourage each other through friendly competition and support to achieve goals it would be very hard for most of us to reach working on our own. Perhaps  there isn't much in it for you pros, but I suspect quite a few successful istock contributors (and probably similar for other sites) have found community support invaluable. Now, for how much the management supports/is involved in/uses the community, that's another question, and the answer varies over time and from individual to individual within the business.

I think the point Molka is trying to make is that while you are making a little money out of your photography, someone else is making a great deal more for doing a hell of a lot less, and you are more willing to accept this because you believe you're part of a community.

Getty, Klein, Evans-Lombe, Calvert, Catalane, Gurke, Heck, Lapham, Martin, Murrell, Peters, Rockafellar and Teaster are the biggest earners on iStock. None of them have had an image accepted or communicated with an iStock contributer. iStock is not a community.
L'etat, c'est moi.

molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #1313 on: November 01, 2010, 15:56 »
0
Either you know how it's impossible for them to hide downloads or you don't. Are you suggesting we get someone to download our own images occasionally so we can check that the appropriate royalties are accredited to us? If so, it's only a suggestion, not an admission, so why not share it with us?

Personally, I don't think downloads are being hidden, but that's just me.

that's the obvious one, but let's hope he has a better answer than buying your own files coz that's dumb as hell : )

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #1314 on: November 01, 2010, 19:23 »
0
It is very easy to know if they hide or "steal" downloads or subscriptions. I'm not going to tell you how. You should know it just thinking a little. Maybe it would help if you didn't have a conclusion you want/need to expose before you begin your thinking process.

I'm sorry, but it's impossible to discover if they steel downloads if they want to hide them, and it's very easy to do on their end.
It would be fair tho, if you could explain your theory about impossibility to hide downloads from contributors, because the only thing you can check is the number of downloads that you can see in your port, and you can never be sure if they hide 1-2% of downloads from you.

Think a little bit, please.

I don't think they steel downloads, but I could see where they would miss crediting someone for the download and how you would know that would be nearly impossible in my opinion. You'd have to know how many downloads they had in a day and who downloaded them and from who they downloaded them from. You can't go under that other contributors account to know rather he was credited any more than you can your own without seeing the actual numbers. I doubt it's even possible even if we all think about it.

jbarber873

« Reply #1315 on: November 01, 2010, 20:49 »
0
It is very easy to know if they hide or "steal" downloads or subscriptions. I'm not going to tell you how. You should know it just thinking a little. Maybe it would help if you didn't have a conclusion you want/need to expose before you begin your thinking process.

I'm sorry, but it's impossible to discover if they steel downloads if they want to hide them, and it's very easy to do on their end.
It would be fair tho, if you could explain your theory about impossibility to hide downloads from contributors, because the only thing you can check is the number of downloads that you can see in your port, and you can never be sure if they hide 1-2% of downloads from you.

Think a little bit, please.


  I'm really stupid and can't think. My head hurts now. Please tell me your magic solution.

« Reply #1316 on: November 02, 2010, 04:55 »
0

He deleted the last post, then posted himself and locked the thread. It would have made more sense if he had left it.

Yes then it would have just been a personal attack rather than a collective b-slap. But meh, whatever. The man is strapped to a dead horse so this is to be expected.

(I read the post he deleted too btw - doesn't excuse the tude IMO in light of the circumstances)


On another note - How is the response to the Stockys.... Remember when they said that if they announced something and noone responded then they would be worried? Ha! As self destructive as the prospect is I can only laugh at the way things are going. So many parrallels to events around the world. Oh the irony. Creative foresight is definitely lacking at HQ.

 

helix7

« Reply #1317 on: November 02, 2010, 07:36 »
0
I think the point Molka is trying to make is that while you are making a little money out of your photography, someone else is making a great deal more for doing a hell of a lot less, and you are more willing to accept this because you believe you're part of a community.

Getty, Klein, Evans-Lombe, Calvert, Catalane, Gurke, Heck, Lapham, Martin, Murrell, Peters, Rockafellar and Teaster are the biggest earners on iStock. None of them have had an image accepted or communicated with an iStock contributer. iStock is not a community.

Some of the blame for this whole royalty cut debacle belongs at the feet of the community. Everyone who prayed at the altar of iStock gave too much power to this company. Even in a moment of revolt, when that petition came up on the forum, you guys still gave iStock so much credit. "From a company we had passion for, loved and cherished..." Really? You loved and cherished a company? No wonder the company is raking everyone over the coals now. You pledged your undying loyalty to a company, a business entity, one that would never make any such a pledge to you.

You gave iStock all the power by regarding the company as a member of the community, right alongside the contributors. In reality, the company was always very separate, and always acts in it's own best interests, not those of the community. Can you really blame HQ for doing all of this? They probably just looked at the forums over the years and thought, "These guys love us! We can get away with anything! Slash those royalty rates, the community won't mind!"

« Reply #1318 on: November 02, 2010, 07:48 »
0
Some of the blame for this whole royalty cut debacle belongs at the feet of the community. Everyone who prayed at the altar of iStock gave too much power to this company. Even in a moment of revolt, when that petition came up on the forum, you guys still gave iStock so much credit. "From a company we had passion for, loved and cherished..." Really? You loved and cherished a company? No wonder the company is raking everyone over the coals now. You pledged your undying loyalty to a company, a business entity, one that would never make any such a pledge to you.

You gave iStock all the power by regarding the company as a member of the community, right alongside the contributors. In reality, the company was always very separate, and always acts in it's own best interests, not those of the community. Can you really blame HQ for doing all of this? They probably just looked at the forums over the years and thought, "These guys love us! We can get away with anything! Slash those royalty rates, the community won't mind!"

Totally agree. For me though, it all disappeared the day Bruce signed the paperwork and Getty became owner.

But the undying loyalty continues. Exclusives just found out that "software was pushed early" to take away their 10% bonus on ELs, and when it got retracted by IS yesterday with that excuse, some of the comments were along the lines of "great, whew, okay, good, thank goodness, thanks istock."
« Last Edit: November 02, 2010, 08:13 by cclapper »

« Reply #1319 on: November 02, 2010, 07:59 »
0
I'd be willing to bet today's royalties that they refer to us as 'the sheep' during their board meetings.

rubyroo

« Reply #1320 on: November 02, 2010, 08:29 »
0
Yes... if we ever decide to unite and write a microstocker's declaration, it should begin "We, the sheeple..."

« Reply #1321 on: November 02, 2010, 09:33 »
0

On another note - How is the response to the Stockys.... Remember when they said that if they announced something and noone responded then they would be worried? Ha! As self destructive as the prospect is I can only laugh at the way things are going. So many parrallels to events around the world. Oh the irony. Creative foresight is definitely lacking at HQ.

Have you seen the response *lately* to the The Stockys? It's turning into a totally effed up fiasco. Just like everything else that they do. What a bunch of total incompetents. What has happened to that place? Something there is certainly unsustainable. :D

« Reply #1322 on: November 02, 2010, 13:54 »
0
Too right. If iStock was a dick you wouldn't want to take it with you on your honeymoon!  :D :D :D

« Reply #1323 on: November 02, 2010, 15:05 »
0
It has to be a worrying sign when I come here and there are so many threads about the latest fiascoes with istock.  It feels like the wheels are coming off.  I wonder if buyers are seeing this the same way as many contributors are?  They might get away with mayhem for the contributors but if buyers are experiencing this, they will have big problems.

« Reply #1324 on: November 02, 2010, 15:33 »
0


Just have a look at the last two or three pages of the "Where we go from here"-thread. It is obvious "where we go from here": Someone at Getty/Istock management made the decision that it would be more profitable to screw their contributors every which way, than to have a happy community.



I just can't beleive all you people talking about istock as comunity... that's beyond naivity, that's ridiculous. You guys are a community, but that has nothing to do with IS. It migth have been a community at the very start when people were exhancing files, but they have been conning you eversince. You can hiss at getty as much as you want, and they deserve it being overtly agressive business people, but the microstock bunch are a lot-lot worse, they are just frudulant bandits. I read back in in IS forums, Lobo and other admins -with some rare exceptions-, have been dictatorial hostile little pricks as long as I could read back, and they have been messing with file sizes, credits way before getty took action. They so much didn't give a crap about contributors that the best you got was single file upload buttons straight from the eighties, and upload and inspection system that creates enormous amount of eytra work without that having any pint at all (reauploading stuff because of bad keywording?? what?) and that has nothing to do with getty. I ran into some rare occasions when Yuri got involved in forums, and the admins trash talked him too, locked his threads.. doing that to the guy who single handidly made them millions! You call that a happy community site??? You are out your mind.

And then the worst part: subscritions (it's not just about istock of course) That's a huge paycut to start with, and everybody just blatantly accepts it because it was presented as s "new structure". I guess dumbos only new to be fed a buzzword, and they'll go with any crap : ((( The whole subscription thing is doorway to conning the s**t out of you. Imho it wouldn't be a huge surprsie if it turned out that you don't even get noted - and of course payed - for all the downloads you get in that system, they just hide it, and there you go. How . would you now? On SS f.e. there isn't even a download number, only a listing for 'popularity' which seems to be a combination of age and downloads, but it's obscure to say the least. Any of your files might have been downloaded more than you know, and you'll never know, bacause once a subscription has expired, they just can just erase all data of it except for it being payed for, and than reaching expiration by downloads or date. It's pretty much clear that almost none of the subscriions reach all the downloads possible, so the only way you could find out how things actually went is to cross reference clients downloads with your track record, which is practically impossible. I suspect you are F-ed BiG TimE all over the place with these sites... : (


I agree that referring to IS as a community is beyond naive... just take a look at a few of Bruce's old interviews, the manipulative mind set and agenda were there years ago.



Bruce's choice of favorite book is interesting

ATI): Favorite Book?

(BL): 33 Strategies of War by Robert Greene ([url=http://www.amazon.com/33-Strategies-War-Robert-Greene/dp/0670034576]http://www.amazon.com/33-Strategies-War-Robert-Greene/dp/0670034576


"Its lessons are presented self-help-book style in chapters titled "Maneuver Them into Weakness" and "Seem to Work for the Interests of Others While Furthering Your Own"... notably, the final section on "dirty" warfare is one of the book's longest"

I think Bruce did a great job promoting and finding Evangelists to promote his brand and the ones who have the most to gain are still vocal in various media including this site.

http://www.retireat21.com/interview/interview-with-bruce-livingstone-founder-of-istockphoto

"4) Since launching iStockphoto it has gone from strength to strength and has just been getting more popular everyday, what advice would you a young entrepreneur promoting their website? What has been the single biggest impact on your business with marketing?

Bruce: Communicate openly, honestly and quickly with key stakeholders, media and with internal staff. Find your audience and make it meaningful. Constant innovation and progress is crucial.

Find an evangelist. Get someone to help you promote your web site and get great press about it."

Since those interviews Bruce knowingly sold the company to Getty who is well know for shafting their contributors, it is pretty clear what his priorities have been and based on his actions he was not concered in the long term welfare of istock's buyer or contribuotor community.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2010, 15:37 by gbalex »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
2849 Views
Last post February 17, 2007, 07:20
by GeoPappas
17 Replies
6888 Views
Last post September 09, 2010, 19:38
by madelaide
2 Replies
2887 Views
Last post July 15, 2010, 10:47
by HughStoneIan
2 Replies
2443 Views
Last post September 09, 2010, 17:42
by loop
22 Replies
6866 Views
Last post January 31, 2014, 09:15
by JPSDK

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results