Author Topic: iStock: No Compromise (Read 6687 times)

dgilder · « **on:** September 15, 2010, 16:26 »

iStock updates their FAQ, no compromises:

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253532&messageid=4731592

anonymous · « **Reply #1 on:** September 15, 2010, 16:28 »

Quote from: dgilder on September 15, 2010, 16:26

iStock updates their FAQ, no compromises:

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253532&messageid=4731592

complete tools...

Blufish · « **Reply #2 on:** September 15, 2010, 16:33 »

Anon, I was trying to come up with the correct description. You did it for me. Rolling my eyes at you, iSuck.

dirkr · « **Reply #3 on:** September 15, 2010, 16:40 »

Did anybody expect any changes?

But they clearly describe why it is in the interest of every independent contributor to remove his / her portfolio from Istock:
They cut our share to have more money. They want to use this money for more marketing. To lure buyers away from sites that pay us higher commissions. So in the end we are financing the marketing campaign that will cost us twice - once by buyers leaving higher paying sites and second by accepting lower commissions from the place where they end up.
Not a good plan.

lisafx · « **Reply #4 on:** September 15, 2010, 16:43 »

this really isn't about marketing. That's just another excuse. Gostwyck hit the nail on the head in another thread when he asked:

Quote from: gostwyck on September 15, 2010, 16:36

Is Istockphoto being fattened up for sale so H&F get to walk away with sh1tloads of cash?

anonymous · « **Reply #5 on:** September 15, 2010, 16:49 »

Quote from: lisafx on September 15, 2010, 16:43

this really isn't about marketing. That's just another excuse. Gostwyck hit the nail on the head in another thread when he asked:

Quote from: gostwyck on September 15, 2010, 16:36
Is Istockphoto being fattened up for sale so H&F get to walk away with sh1tloads of cash?

you think slaving for pennies at Getty is bad...wait until the sale.
EDIT: pennies will cease to be plural

dgilder · « **Reply #6 on:** September 15, 2010, 17:04 »

Probably most offensive to me is the bit about grandfathering and how the new structure is a 'fresh start and a level playing field',

announced a week after the deadline iStock gave non-exclusives to become exclusive in order to lock in their next royalty level.

Shameful, rude, and downright dishonest.

Norebbo · « **Reply #7 on:** September 15, 2010, 17:07 »

Quote from: dgilder on September 15, 2010, 17:04

Probably most offensive to me is the bit about grandfathering and how the new structure is a 'fresh start and a level playing field',

announced a week after the deadline iStock gave non-exclusives to become exclusive in order to lock in their next royalty level.

Shameful, rude, and downright dishonest.

Which is why all exclusives who wish to give up their crown should start uploading to other sites now, and tell iStock to pound sand about the 30-day notice in the contract.

Freezingpictures · « **Reply #8 on:** September 15, 2010, 17:10 »

Quote from: Norebbo on September 15, 2010, 17:07

Which is why all exclusives who wish to give up their crown should start uploading to other sites now, and tell iStock to pound sand about the 30-day notice in the contract.

Actually you already can upload to Dreamstime within the 30 day notice. Dreamstime will review the images and you already get the money for the uploading. After the 30 days they will publish your images.

anonymous · « **Reply #9 on:** September 15, 2010, 17:12 »

Quote from: Freezingpictures on September 15, 2010, 17:10

Quote from: Norebbo on September 15, 2010, 17:07
Which is why all exclusives who wish to give up their crown should start uploading to other sites now, and tell iStock to pound sand about the 30-day notice in the contract.

Actually you already can upload to Dreamstime within the 30 day notice. Dreamstime will review the images and you already get the money for the uploading. After the 30 days they will publish your images.

they "get it"

madelaide · « **Reply #10 on:** September 15, 2010, 17:14 »

Quote

Please be assured that we have not taken any decisions or made any changes lightly. And while we know that they may be painful in the short term for some of you, our motivation in making them is the long-term continued success of the company and the community.
The changes have been decided on the basis of very thorough analysis and projections that indicate if we were to maintain the status quo, it may ultimately impede both the business and our community from prospering.

Blah, blah, blah...

Whose status quo are they trying to maintain?

corepics · « **Reply #11 on:** September 15, 2010, 17:15 »

Agreed. After reading Joyze's FAQ, I don't see anything "reassuring", nor anything that comes even remotely close an attempt by istock to gain their contributors trust back. Even stronger, this confirms my fears that iStock just strengthened their own "playing field", in which they can change their royalty structure and policy and modus operandi as at will, whenever they deem fit. A complete disregard and disrespect of all contributors' interests.

rubyroo · « **Reply #12 on:** September 15, 2010, 17:32 »

Check out Fotovoyager's post on page 118 of that thread.

gostwyck · « **Reply #13 on:** September 15, 2010, 17:34 »

^^^ I saw it __ it's excellent!

rubyroo · « **Reply #14 on:** September 15, 2010, 17:38 »

I think he said it all!

corepics · « **Reply #15 on:** September 15, 2010, 17:47 »

That does sum it up nicely. I like short thoughts.

Blufish · « **Reply #16 on:** September 15, 2010, 18:02 »

Hilarious

HughStoneIan · « **Reply #17 on:** September 15, 2010, 18:15 »

Cheer up guys---they've assured us that the changes will only be "painful in the short term" for some of us. This will only hurt for a second....

click_click · « **Reply #18 on:** September 15, 2010, 19:00 »

Quote from: HughStoneIan on September 15, 2010, 18:15

Cheer up guys---they've assured us that the changes will only be "painful in the short term" for some of us. This will only hurt for a second....

Danged, that's one long second, I can tell you.

Quote from: gostwyck on September 15, 2010, 16:36

Is Istockphoto being fattened up for sale so H&F get to walk away with sh1tloads of cash?

Hold that thought: IS is being fattened up to be sold, again, to who? An even greedier investment company? Or some super social photographer dudes that want to make IS what it used to be? Who's gonna pay for that since IS won't be sold for anything less than 300 to 400 Million Dollars.

And you believe then they will raise commissions?

This ship has sunk, rotten and dissolved on the bottom of the ocean - we're just watching it in slow motion.

cthoman · « **Reply #19 on:** September 15, 2010, 20:26 »

I have to hand it to them for staying on point with their message. Every answer I've heard is almost exactly like every other answer I've heard from them. I guess they handed out cue cards or something. Especially that paragraph about the vector credit levels. Vectors cost more, so their value is less. I think somewhere a robot just exploded after reading that circular logic.

disorderly · « **Reply #20 on:** September 15, 2010, 20:29 »

Having looked at the Agency Collections in another thread, I'm laughing at the ironic title of this one. No Compromise? They've compromised their integrity, both creatively and as a business. What's left to compromise now?

dgilder · « **Reply #21 on:** September 15, 2010, 21:25 »

Same inspection process regular contributors are held to:

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14242109-combs-and-brushes-in-a-drawer.php

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14241739-view-of-manhattan-skyline-from-central-park-new-york-city.php

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14241973-a-young-boy-playing-with-a-toy-truck-on-a-neighborhood-sidewalk.php

sharpshot · « **Reply #22 on:** September 16, 2010, 01:47 »

Quote from: HughStoneIan on September 15, 2010, 18:15

Cheer up guys---they've assured us that the changes will only be "painful in the short term" for some of us. This will only hurt for a second....

DT said that our earnings wouldn't drop when they lowered commissions and raised prices but mine are much lower than last year. Istock is much worse because they will be pushing exclusive images and all those collections to the front of the search. It has already been a painful year with them for me and I have had enough.

Perry · « **Reply #23 on:** September 16, 2010, 03:31 »

That's an interesting thread, because it's a FAQ and still they don't answer to many of the questions, for example:

Quote

2. Why are you not grandfathering anyone in?

The new system is a fresh start and a level playing field. With that as the objective, it wouldn’t make sense to ‘grandfather’ anyone in.

So if you make a stupid objective, and follow that, nothing really needs to be explained?

LostOne · « **Reply #24 on:** September 16, 2010, 03:57 »

Quote from: gostwyck on September 15, 2010, 17:34

^^^ I saw it __ it's excellent!

I can't stop laughing, thanks for pointing it out

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: iStock: No Compromise (Read 6687 times)

dgilder

anonymous

Blufish

dirkr

lisafx

anonymous

dgilder

Norebbo

Freezingpictures

anonymous

madelaide

corepics

rubyroo

gostwyck

rubyroo

corepics

Blufish

HughStoneIan

click_click

cthoman

disorderly

dgilder

sharpshot

Perry

LostOne

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors