MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: istock not accepting new contributors ???  (Read 27410 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: February 27, 2018, 22:24 »
+4
Sounds like it might just be a temporary thing.  Surprisingly, January was my best month ever on Getty.  Actually more than double my best month ever.  I can't hate on that.

Except if buyers had spent that money on your work anywhere else you would have made more.


Tyson Anderson

  • www.openrangestudios.com
« Reply #26 on: February 27, 2018, 22:35 »
+6
Sounds like it might just be a temporary thing.  Surprisingly, January was my best month ever on Getty.  Actually more than double my best month ever.  I can't hate on that.

Except if buyers had spent that money on your work anywhere else you would have made more.

True. But I don't buy into the theory that if you pull your portfolio from Getty, the same buyers would go to other agencies to buy your clips.  I believe they'll just buy similar clips from someone else on Getty.  I'd rather have my clips on both to get farther reach.  If a customer is searching Getty, that most likely means they have an account with Getty and having your clips  on other sites won't be seen by them.

« Reply #27 on: February 28, 2018, 09:38 »
+3
Sounds like it might just be a temporary thing.  Surprisingly, January was my best month ever on Getty.  Actually more than double my best month ever.  I can't hate on that.

Except if buyers had spent that money on your work anywhere else you would have made more.

True. But I don't buy into the theory that if you pull your portfolio from Getty, the same buyers would go to other agencies to buy your clips.  I believe they'll just buy similar clips from someone else on Getty.  I'd rather have my clips on both to get farther reach.  If a customer is searching Getty, that most likely means they have an account with Getty and having your clips  on other sites won't be seen by them.

True, but you must still "hate on that", because you only get 15%, instead of 30% (or more) from other agencies. Even on regular subs you lose 35%, when your customers buy from IS instead of SS, let alone on those insulting $0.19 (or much less).

Isn't it something to "hate on"?

If only we could find ways to incentivize IS customers to migrate to better paying agencies (e.g. see the email I posted above)!
« Last Edit: February 28, 2018, 10:14 by Zero Talent »

Tyson Anderson

  • www.openrangestudios.com
« Reply #28 on: February 28, 2018, 10:15 »
0
Sounds like it might just be a temporary thing.  Surprisingly, January was my best month ever on Getty.  Actually more than double my best month ever.  I can't hate on that.

Except if buyers had spent that money on your work anywhere else you would have made more.

True. But I don't buy into the theory that if you pull your portfolio from Getty, the same buyers would go to other agencies to buy your clips.  I believe they'll just buy similar clips from someone else on Getty.  I'd rather have my clips on both to get farther reach.  If a customer is searching Getty, that most likely means they have an account with Getty and having your clips  on other sites won't be seen by them.

True, but you must still "hate on that", because you only get 15%, instead of 30% (or more) from other agencies. Even on regular subs you lose 35% if your customers buy from IS instead of SS, let alone on those insulting $0.19 (or much less).

Isn't it something to "hate on"?

If only we could find ways to incentivize IS customers to migrate to better paying agencies (e.g. see the email I posted above)!

 I guess there's plenty of stuff one could find to hate on in this industry.  I love Videoblocks, but I earned twice as much with iStock/Getty in January.  When it really comes down to it, why care about the other details.  And customers aren't buying on IS instead of SS, they're buying on IS as well as SS.  Completely different customers.

« Reply #29 on: February 28, 2018, 10:34 »
+1
Sounds like it might just be a temporary thing.  Surprisingly, January was my best month ever on Getty.  Actually more than double my best month ever.  I can't hate on that.

Except if buyers had spent that money on your work anywhere else you would have made more.

True. But I don't buy into the theory that if you pull your portfolio from Getty, the same buyers would go to other agencies to buy your clips.  I believe they'll just buy similar clips from someone else on Getty.  I'd rather have my clips on both to get farther reach.  If a customer is searching Getty, that most likely means they have an account with Getty and having your clips  on other sites won't be seen by them.

True, but you must still "hate on that", because you only get 15%, instead of 30% (or more) from other agencies. Even on regular subs you lose 35% if your customers buy from IS instead of SS, let alone on those insulting $0.19 (or much less).

Isn't it something to "hate on"?

If only we could find ways to incentivize IS customers to migrate to better paying agencies (e.g. see the email I posted above)!

 I guess there's plenty of stuff one could find to hate on in this industry.  I love Videoblocks, but I earned twice as much with iStock/Getty in January.  When it really comes down to it, why care about the other details.  And customers aren't buying on IS instead of SS, they're buying on IS as well as SS.  Completely different customers.

Completely different, indeed.

This is exactly why you will still be significantly better off, if only enough IS customers will migrate to agencies offering better deals to suppliers.

Unfortunately, there is not enough money in this game and not enough unity, to start a campaign targeting such IS customers (most of them oblivious to the disregard IS has for their suppliers)

Instead, please seize all opportunities available to do just that. See the email I posted above  ;)
« Last Edit: February 28, 2018, 10:43 by Zero Talent »

namussi

« Reply #30 on: February 28, 2018, 20:26 »
+1
I just got this email from an iStock customer:

Message:
We enjoy your shot of xxxx, and downloaded it a while back from iStock.  We are featuring it as our photo-of-the-day if you'd like to see it.  It will also be available for six more days by clicking on the left arrow button.

Good job on the beautiful photo.

Sincerely,

Paul yyy, zz


And my answer:

I am honored to be featured on the website, Paul! I am happy you liked my work!

Please allow me to make a small observation: iStock is notorious for mistreating its contributors. Their commision rate is a meager 15% (or less).
You could do our contributor's community a favor, if you could choose to buy your preferred photos from other agencies, like Shutterstock or Adobe Stock/Fotolia.

Best Regards,

Me


Did Paul email back and ask you whether you were still an iStock contributor?

« Reply #31 on: February 28, 2018, 21:38 »
0
I just got this email from an iStock customer:

Message:
We enjoy your shot of xxxx, and downloaded it a while back from iStock.  We are featuring it as our photo-of-the-day if you'd like to see it.  It will also be available for six more days by clicking on the left arrow button.

Good job on the beautiful photo.

Sincerely,

Paul yyy, zz


And my answer:

I am honored to be featured on the website, Paul! I am happy you liked my work!

Please allow me to make a small observation: iStock is notorious for mistreating its contributors. Their commision rate is a meager 15% (or less).
You could do our contributor's community a favor, if you could choose to buy your preferred photos from other agencies, like Shutterstock or Adobe Stock/Fotolia.

Best Regards,

Me


Did Paul email back and ask you whether you were still an iStock contributor?

You are welcome!

namussi

« Reply #32 on: March 01, 2018, 02:47 »
0
Zerotalent

What would be your response if iStock's defamation lawyers send you a cease-and-desist letter?

namussi

« Reply #33 on: March 01, 2018, 03:17 »
0
Sounds like it might just be a temporary thing.  Surprisingly, January was my best month ever on Getty.  Actually more than double my best month ever.  I can't hate on that.

Except if buyers had spent that money on your work anywhere else you would have made more.

And if he hadn't put those pictures on iStock, he would have made nothing at all.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #34 on: March 01, 2018, 03:43 »
+4
Sounds like it might just be a temporary thing.  Surprisingly, January was my best month ever on Getty.  Actually more than double my best month ever.  I can't hate on that.

Except if buyers had spent that money on your work anywhere else you would have made more.

And if he hadn't put those pictures on iStock, he would have made nothing at all.
Maybe, maybe not, depending on whether the buyers only buy from iS, how unique the work is and whether the buyers would satisfice with something else.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #35 on: March 01, 2018, 03:47 »
+5
I just got this email from an iStock customer:

Message:
We enjoy your shot of xxxx, and downloaded it a while back from iStock.  We are featuring it as our photo-of-the-day if you'd like to see it.  It will also be available for six more days by clicking on the left arrow button.

Good job on the beautiful photo.

Sincerely,

Paul yyy, zz


And my answer:

I am honored to be featured on the website, Paul! I am happy you liked my work!

Please allow me to make a small observation: iStock is notorious for mistreating its contributors. Their commision rate is a meager 15% (or less).
You could do our contributor's community a favor, if you could choose to buy your preferred photos from other agencies, like Shutterstock or Adobe Stock/Fotolia.

Best Regards,

Me


They must have wondered why you sell at iS when you are slagging them off to their customers.
And it wasn't fully true to say that contributers there get "15% or less", (which implies 'all contributors) as some get up to 45% (less on PA and the 45% is probably only one person) which is more than the other Micros.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2018, 19:53 by ShadySue »

« Reply #36 on: March 01, 2018, 03:56 »
+4
I just got this email from an iStock customer:

Message:
We enjoy your shot of xxxx, and downloaded it a while back from iStock.  We are featuring it as our photo-of-the-day if you'd like to see it.  It will also be available for six more days by clicking on the left arrow button.

Good job on the beautiful photo.

Sincerely,

Paul yyy, zz


And my answer:

I am honored to be featured on the website, Paul! I am happy you liked my work!

Please allow me to make a small observation: iStock is notorious for mistreating its contributors. Their commision rate is a meager 15% (or less).
You could do our contributor's community a favor, if you could choose to buy your preferred photos from other agencies, like Shutterstock or Adobe Stock/Fotolia.

Best Regards,

Me


They must have wondered why you sell at iS when you are snagging them off to their customers.
And it wasn't fully true to say that contributers there get "15% or less", (which implies 'all contributors) as some get up to 45% (less on PA and the 45% is probably only one person) which is more than the other Micros.
Exactly why would they occupy the moral "high ground" when you don't yourself?

namussi

« Reply #37 on: March 01, 2018, 04:37 »
0
Sounds like it might just be a temporary thing.  Surprisingly, January was my best month ever on Getty.  Actually more than double my best month ever.  I can't hate on that.

Except if buyers had spent that money on your work anywhere else you would have made more.

And if he hadn't put those pictures on iStock, he would have made nothing at all.
Maybe, maybe not, depending on whether the buyers only buy from iS, how unique the work is and whether the buyers would satisfice with something else.

I know he wouldn't have sold any to my employer, as it only has an account with Getty/iStock.

« Reply #38 on: March 01, 2018, 07:13 »
0
Sounds like it might just be a temporary thing.  Surprisingly, January was my best month ever on Getty.  Actually more than double my best month ever.  I can't hate on that.

Except if buyers had spent that money on your work anywhere else you would have made more.

And if he hadn't put those pictures on iStock, he would have made nothing at all.
Maybe, maybe not, depending on whether the buyers only buy from iS, how unique the work is and whether the buyers would satisfice with something else.

I know he wouldn't have sold any to my employer, as it only has an account with Getty/iStock.

I'm not claiming I'm occupying a moral ground.
I would love to stop selling through iStock.
But they have too many clients I don't want to lose and they account for a large chunk of my revenue. A large chunk that would be larger if only these customers would choose to buy the same photo from elsewhere.
Zerotalent

What would be your response if iStock's defamation lawyers send you a cease-and-desist letter?
I'll cross that bridge when time comes, or never.
Chances for this to happen are close to zero.

And it wasn't fully true to say that contributers there get "15% or less", (which implies 'all contributors) as some get up to 45% (less on PA and the 45% is probably only one person) which is more than the other Micros.

45% is only valid for exclusives. Paul would not have been able to get his favorite photo from elsewhere, if 45% would have been applicable.
His favorite photo was available elsewhere, therefore, when customers have the choice to get it elsewhere, "15% or less" is correct.

As far as I remember none of you is exclusive with IS.
If more customers are determined to move away from IS, it will be better for the 3 of you, not just for me, you know?

You're welcome!


« Last Edit: March 01, 2018, 07:40 by Zero Talent »

namussi

« Reply #39 on: March 01, 2018, 07:18 »
0
Sounds like it might just be a temporary thing.  Surprisingly, January was my best month ever on Getty.  Actually more than double my best month ever.  I can't hate on that.

Except if buyers had spent that money on your work anywhere else you would have made more.

And if he hadn't put those pictures on iStock, he would have made nothing at all.
Maybe, maybe not, depending on whether the buyers only buy from iS, how unique the work is and whether the buyers would satisfice with something else.

I know he wouldn't have sold any to my employer, as it only has an account with Getty/iStock.

I'm not claiming I'm occupying a moral ground.
I would love to stop selling through iStock.
But they have to many clients I don't want to lose and they account for a large chunk of my revenue. A large chunk that would be larger if only these customers would choose to buy the same photo from elsewhere.
Zerotalent

What would be your response if iStock's defamation lawyers send you a cease-and-desist letter?
I'll cross that bridge when time comes, or never.
Chances for this to happen are close to zero.

You certainly sound like you're taking a moral stance.

« Reply #40 on: March 01, 2018, 07:29 »
0
Sounds like it might just be a temporary thing.  Surprisingly, January was my best month ever on Getty.  Actually more than double my best month ever.  I can't hate on that.

Except if buyers had spent that money on your work anywhere else you would have made more.

And if he hadn't put those pictures on iStock, he would have made nothing at all.
Maybe, maybe not, depending on whether the buyers only buy from iS, how unique the work is and whether the buyers would satisfice with something else.

I know he wouldn't have sold any to my employer, as it only has an account with Getty/iStock.

I'm not claiming I'm occupying a moral ground.
I would love to stop selling through iStock.
But they have to many clients I don't want to lose and they account for a large chunk of my revenue. A large chunk that would be larger if only these customers would choose to buy the same photo from elsewhere.
Zerotalent

What would be your response if iStock's defamation lawyers send you a cease-and-desist letter?
I'll cross that bridge when time comes, or never.
Chances for this to happen are close to zero.

You certainly sound like you're taking a moral stance.

It's called pragmatism, not "moral stance"

You're welcome!

namussi

« Reply #41 on: March 01, 2018, 07:59 »
0
Sounds like it might just be a temporary thing.  Surprisingly, January was my best month ever on Getty.  Actually more than double my best month ever.  I can't hate on that.

Except if buyers had spent that money on your work anywhere else you would have made more.

And if he hadn't put those pictures on iStock, he would have made nothing at all.
Maybe, maybe not, depending on whether the buyers only buy from iS, how unique the work is and whether the buyers would satisfice with something else.

I know he wouldn't have sold any to my employer, as it only has an account with Getty/iStock.

I'm not claiming I'm occupying a moral ground.
I would love to stop selling through iStock.
But they have to many clients I don't want to lose and they account for a large chunk of my revenue. A large chunk that would be larger if only these customers would choose to buy the same photo from elsewhere.
Zerotalent

What would be your response if iStock's defamation lawyers send you a cease-and-desist letter?
I'll cross that bridge when time comes, or never.
Chances for this to happen are close to zero.

You certainly sound like you're taking a moral stance.

It's called pragmatism, not "moral stance"

You're welcome!

You sound idealistic rather than pragmatic. The chances of your email being successful are, I think, low.

And this bit sounds particularly like you are appealing to the morals of the recipient by complaining about the ethics of iStock

iStock is notorious for mistreating its contributors. Their commision rate is a meager 15% (or less).
You could do our contributor's community a favor, if you could choose to buy your preferred photos from other agencies

Clair Voyant

« Reply #42 on: March 01, 2018, 08:00 »
+1
I just got this email from an iStock customer:

Message:
We enjoy your shot of xxxx, and downloaded it a while back from iStock.  We are featuring it as our photo-of-the-day if you'd like to see it.  It will also be available for six more days by clicking on the left arrow button.

Good job on the beautiful photo.

Sincerely,

Paul yyy, zz


And my answer:

I am honored to be featured on the website, Paul! I am happy you liked my work!

Please allow me to make a small observation: iStock is notorious for mistreating its contributors. Their commision rate is a meager 15% (or less).
You could do our contributor's community a favor, if you could choose to buy your preferred photos from other agencies, like Shutterstock or Adobe Stock/Fotolia.

Best Regards,

Me


This reminds me of the Amatuer Night In Dixie

« Reply #43 on: March 01, 2018, 08:07 »
0
tbh I would be a lot less relaxed about Istocks reaction if they found you were approaching one and possibly more  of their customers and encouraging them to buy somewhere else.

« Reply #44 on: March 01, 2018, 08:21 »
0
Sounds like it might just be a temporary thing.  Surprisingly, January was my best month ever on Getty.  Actually more than double my best month ever.  I can't hate on that.

Except if buyers had spent that money on your work anywhere else you would have made more.

And if he hadn't put those pictures on iStock, he would have made nothing at all.
Maybe, maybe not, depending on whether the buyers only buy from iS, how unique the work is and whether the buyers would satisfice with something else.

I know he wouldn't have sold any to my employer, as it only has an account with Getty/iStock.

I'm not claiming I'm occupying a moral ground.
I would love to stop selling through iStock.
But they have to many clients I don't want to lose and they account for a large chunk of my revenue. A large chunk that would be larger if only these customers would choose to buy the same photo from elsewhere.
Zerotalent

What would be your response if iStock's defamation lawyers send you a cease-and-desist letter?
I'll cross that bridge when time comes, or never.
Chances for this to happen are close to zero.

You certainly sound like you're taking a moral stance.

It's called pragmatism, not "moral stance"

You're welcome!

You sound idealistic rather than pragmatic. The chances of your email being successful are, I think, low.

And this bit sounds particularly like you are appealing to the morals of the recipient by complaining about the ethics of iStock

iStock is notorious for mistreating its contributors. Their commision rate is a meager 15% (or less).
You could do our contributor's community a favor, if you could choose to buy your preferred photos from other agencies


Sure, I don't expect to change iStock's policy with 1 (one) email.
On the other hand, posting it here, costs nothing and might inspire others.
There is power in numbers.

I am indeed appealing to the buyer's moral ground. Nothing wrong with that.
But that is very different than what you said earlier, when you stated that I (ZeroTalent) am taking a "moral stance".
Taken a moral stance would mean not selling through iStock and giving away a large chunck of my revenue. THAT would be idealistic, indeed.

Isn't it exactly what the "fair trade" label is meant for, when put on coffee? Appealing to buyer's "moral ground"?
I bet that, given the choice, for the same quality and price, you will choose the "fair trade" label. You might even be ready to pay more, to help the farmer.
(I'll leave the discussion about how much fairness is in "fair trade" for later.)
« Last Edit: March 01, 2018, 10:07 by Zero Talent »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #45 on: March 01, 2018, 08:37 »
+2
FI, I'm exclusive for RF with iS. I was never with any other micro: I wouldn't have chosen in advance to accept 25c for a sale. These agencies not raising their prices when iS did have made things worse for me. Not that I'm an apologist for iS.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2018, 08:55 by ShadySue »

namussi

« Reply #46 on: March 01, 2018, 08:45 »
0
Sounds like it might just be a temporary thing.  Surprisingly, January was my best month ever on Getty.  Actually more than double my best month ever.  I can't hate on that.

Except if buyers had spent that money on your work anywhere else you would have made more.

And if he hadn't put those pictures on iStock, he would have made nothing at all.
Maybe, maybe not, depending on whether the buyers only buy from iS, how unique the work is and whether the buyers would satisfice with something else.

I know he wouldn't have sold any to my employer, as it only has an account with Getty/iStock.

I'm not claiming I'm occupying a moral ground.
I would love to stop selling through iStock.
But they have to many clients I don't want to lose and they account for a large chunk of my revenue. A large chunk that would be larger if only these customers would choose to buy the same photo from elsewhere.
Zerotalent

What would be your response if iStock's defamation lawyers send you a cease-and-desist letter?
I'll cross that bridge when time comes, or never.
Chances for this to happen are close to zero.

You certainly sound like you're taking a moral stance.

It's called pragmatism, not "moral stance"

You're welcome!

You sound idealistic rather than pragmatic. The chances of your email being successful are, I think, low.

And this bit sounds particularly like you are appealing to the morals of the recipient by complaining about the ethics of iStock

iStock is notorious for mistreating its contributors. Their commision rate is a meager 15% (or less).
You could do our contributor's community a favor, if you could choose to buy your preferred photos from other agencies


Sure, I don't expect to change iStock's policy with 1 (one) email.
On the other hand, posting it here, costs nothing and might inspire others.
There is power in numbers.

I am indeed appealing to the buyer's moral ground. Nothing wrong with that.
But that is very different than what you said earlier, when you stated that I (ZeroTalent) am taking a "moral stance".
Taken a moral stance would mean not selling through iStock and giving away a large chunck of my revenue. THAT would be idealistic, indeed.

Isn't it exactly what the "fair trade" label is meant for, when put on coffee? Appealing to buyer's moral ground?
I bet that, given the choice, for the same quality and price you will choose the "fair trade" label. You might even be ready to pay more, to help the farmer.
(I'll leave the discussion about how much fairness is in "fair trade" for later.)

Perhaps the word is "sanctimonious"?

« Reply #47 on: March 01, 2018, 09:46 »
0
Perhaps the word is "sanctimonious"?

Check your dictionary: sanctimonious is no different than what you said earlier about me "taking a moral stance". Repeating it doesn't make it true. I'm pragmatic, because I still sell through iStock, despite disliking them. This is the opposite of "sanctimonious". Even more, some idealist might say that I have no scruples!

FI, I'm exclusive for RF with iS. I was never with any other micro: I wouldn't have chosen in advance to accept 25c for a sale. These agencies not raising their prices when iS did have made things worse for me. Not that I'm an apologist for iS.

Ok, I confused you with someone else, my apologies. I understand why you want to defend your sole provider. It is not up to me to convince you that you can be safer and better off, by spreading your eggs in multiple baskets.

tbh I would be a lot less relaxed about Istocks reaction if they found you were approaching one and possibly more  of their customers and encouraging them to buy somewhere else.

Then play safe, by all means. Don't go beyond your comfort zone. You should only do the same if you trust/have a good relation with the buyer.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2018, 10:14 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #48 on: March 01, 2018, 09:50 »
+1
I might say it over a drink but I wouldn't put it in writing.

« Reply #49 on: March 01, 2018, 10:11 »
0
I might say it over a drink but I wouldn't put it in writing.

Yes, be creative!  :D
Maybe we should have an anonymous poll and grant to the qualified agencies the right to use a "fair trade" label.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2018, 10:48 by Zero Talent »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
4546 Views
Last post March 20, 2013, 02:42
by Yure
44 Replies
33768 Views
Last post March 06, 2015, 11:13
by EmberMike
15 Replies
4150 Views
Last post January 14, 2016, 04:17
by Stockmaan
1 Replies
3501 Views
Last post February 25, 2018, 10:49
by Sean Locke Photography
32 Replies
15560 Views
Last post Yesterday at 13:51
by aphasia

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle