pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: istock not accepting new contributors ???  (Read 27411 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 16, 2018, 14:25 »
0
Hello everyone,

i wanted to start selling my photos on istock but when i try to register it says that it is impossible now , every time i check it is the same thing , they dont give us more information

do you know what is happening ? when they will accept new contributors and open subscriptions ?


dpimborough

« Reply #1 on: February 16, 2018, 14:30 »
+31
Don't worry just count yourself lucky you aren't being ripped off for 1 cent royalties

« Reply #2 on: February 16, 2018, 14:53 »
+26
They're doing you a favor.   Just walk away.

« Reply #3 on: February 16, 2018, 18:23 »
+11
OP, you make me feel like I'm watching a movie where a beautiful young woman is pounding violently on the door of a serial rapist's house and screaming demanding to be let in.
Just walk away, Renee.

namussi

« Reply #4 on: February 17, 2018, 02:53 »
0
Don't worry just count yourself lucky you aren't being ripped off for 1 cent royalties

I've never had a one-cent royalty at iStock. How many have you had?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #5 on: February 17, 2018, 03:04 »
+9
Don't worry just count yourself lucky you aren't being ripped off for 1 cent royalties

I've never had a one-cent royalty at iStock. How many have you had?
We get less than that via Connect.

dpimborough

« Reply #6 on: February 17, 2018, 03:09 »
+7
Don't worry just count yourself lucky you aren't being ripped off for 1 cent royalties

I've never had a one-cent royalty at iStock. How many have you had?

I had dozens of 1 and 2 cent royalties plus the 15% royalties thats why I dropped them

« Reply #7 on: February 17, 2018, 03:27 »
+6
Then you are a lucky fellow. I have those through the Genny Connect program and although not 0.01 I get 0.06c through the stupid Premium Access program. I am exclusive at 40%. Unfortunatelly being non exclusive is really bad business now as you are basically giving air to an agency that is suffocating other outlets that pay much better for non exclusive contribution.

As exclusive you still get the credit pack sales that can be large sometimes and with a lot E+ content the subscriptions are reasonable. But with the quick advance of PA that gives only 20% to exclusives for really low amounts being exclusive is also loosing appeal month by month.

Don't worry just count yourself lucky you aren't being ripped off for 1 cent royalties

I've never had a one-cent royalty at iStock. How many have you had?

namussi

« Reply #8 on: February 17, 2018, 04:00 »
+1
Don't worry just count yourself lucky you aren't being ripped off for 1 cent royalties

I've never had a one-cent royalty at iStock. How many have you had?

I had dozens of 1 and 2 cent royalties plus the 15% royalties thats why I dropped them

Dozens. That's a lot. Your pain: I feel it.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #9 on: February 17, 2018, 04:48 »
+3
Don't worry just count yourself lucky you aren't being ripped off for 1 cent royalties

I've never had a one-cent royalty at iStock. How many have you had?

I had dozens of 1 and 2 cent royalties plus the 15% royalties thats why I dropped them

Dozens. That's a lot. Your pain: I feel it.
If you haven't seen any, either you aren't looking at your Connect sales (different report) or they haven't added up to enough to report yet.

« Reply #10 on: February 17, 2018, 07:00 »
+5
But have they actually closed iStock to new contributors? Nobody's answered the original question.

« Reply #11 on: February 17, 2018, 07:03 »
+6
"Thank you for visiting our Work With Us website. Were currently performing maintenance and our engineers are working hard to get Work With Us back online. Thank you for your patience and please check back soon.

If you have already submitted an application and have any questions please contact us at [email protected]. Please note that we are not accepting new applications at this time."

Sounds like a pause due to their incompetence rather than anything so planned  as a policy.

« Reply #12 on: February 17, 2018, 11:23 »
0
"Thank you for visiting our Work With Us website. Were currently performing maintenance and our engineers are working hard to get Work With Us back online. Thank you for your patience and please check back soon.

If you have already submitted an application and have any questions please contact us at [email protected]. Please note that we are not accepting new applications at this time."

Sounds like a pause due to their incompetence rather than anything so planned  as a policy.

Sounds like you're right.

« Reply #13 on: February 17, 2018, 11:39 »
0
Whow! If this is not temporary but a general pause, this is a very drastic change.

They wrote somewhere that istock accepted only 9.6 million files in all of 2017. Shutterstock gets 1.6 million files a week.

If they are closing applications for new contributors, they will lose even more uploads. And of course this effectively ends their exclusive program as well.

Interesting times.

What are they saying on the istock forums?

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #14 on: February 17, 2018, 11:42 »
+10
But have they actually closed iStock to new contributors? Nobody's answered the original question.

You know you're at MSG right?

« Reply #15 on: February 17, 2018, 12:24 »
+1
But have they actually closed iStock to new contributors? Nobody's answered the original question.

You know you're at MSG right?

Didn't know we needed a link to support a direct quote, but you are right.  :)

https://contributors.gettyimages.com/Article.aspx?article_id=5763


« Reply #16 on: February 18, 2018, 05:18 »
+1
Guess they will make one site for new contributors - istock and Getty.
We got the Getty upload procedure EPS, the "wonderful" Getty statistic, the "wonderful" Getty forum,
nest thing maybe will be a "wonderful" new contributor site  ::)

namussi

« Reply #17 on: February 18, 2018, 06:27 »
0
Whow! If this is not temporary but a general pause, this is a very drastic change.

They wrote somewhere that istock accepted only 9.6 million files in all of 2017. Shutterstock gets 1.6 million files a week.

If they are closing applications for new contributors, they will lose even more uploads. And of course this effectively ends their exclusive program as well.


Fewer new contributors and fewer fresh uploads could be better for existing contributors.

That might explain why (and I emphasise "might" as there are many possible influences), for me at least, the rate of downloading increased sharply throughout the second half of last year, and that January was my best month since ESP started.

(Sadly I lost my spreadsheets for before ESP.)


namussi

« Reply #18 on: February 18, 2018, 06:36 »
0
Don't worry just count yourself lucky you aren't being ripped off for 1 cent royalties

I've never had a one-cent royalty at iStock. How many have you had?

I had dozens of 1 and 2 cent royalties plus the 15% royalties thats why I dropped them

Dozens. That's a lot. Your pain: I feel it.
If you haven't seen any, either you aren't looking at your Connect sales (different report) or they haven't added up to enough to report yet.

Thanks. I didn't know about Connect. Apparently I had one 1.7c sale in the first half of last year, and none in the second.



« Reply #19 on: February 18, 2018, 07:04 »
+5
I have a bunch of Getty Connect "sales" with "Worldwide right to display and use the Metadata in connection with the Pinterest Platform and services."
License Fee USD 0.00502
Royalty Rate 0.15000
Gross Royalty in USD 0.00075.
 :(

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #20 on: February 18, 2018, 11:47 »
0
Don't worry just count yourself lucky you aren't being ripped off for 1 cent royalties

I've never had a one-cent royalty at iStock. How many have you had?

I had dozens of 1 and 2 cent royalties plus the 15% royalties thats why I dropped them

Dozens. That's a lot. Your pain: I feel it.
If you haven't seen any, either you aren't looking at your Connect sales (different report) or they haven't added up to enough to report yet.

Thanks. I didn't know about Connect. Apparently I had one 1.7c sale in the first half of last year, and none in the second.
That's *very* high for Connect!

« Reply #21 on: February 18, 2018, 12:14 »
+5
But have they actually closed iStock to new contributors? Nobody's answered the original question.

It's like if a drunk asks you to help him find his car keys.  You try to discourage and distract him.

« Reply #22 on: February 27, 2018, 17:25 »
+1
But have they actually closed iStock to new contributors? Nobody's answered the original question.

It's like if a drunk asks you to help him find his car keys.  You try to discourage and distract him.

LOL!! I left before connect was a thing, how crappy!



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

« Reply #23 on: February 27, 2018, 21:37 »
+11
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

Tyson Anderson

  • www.openrangestudios.com
« Reply #24 on: February 27, 2018, 22:13 »
+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.

« 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 »

namussi

« Reply #50 on: March 01, 2018, 19:43 »
+2
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!


Here are some other words that are synonyms.

self-righteous, holier-than-thou, churchy, pious, pietistic, moralizing, unctuous, smug, superior, priggish, mealy-mouthed, hypocritical, insincere, for form's sake, to keep up appearances;

« Reply #51 on: March 04, 2018, 11:53 »
0
Maybe we should have an anonymous poll and grant to the qualified agencies the right to use a "fair trade" label.

Exactly my thought after reading this topic. Would be even nicer if this could be done "officially" like setting some terms under which an agency can have this label and they could add this to their website.
I wonder if it is possible.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #52 on: March 04, 2018, 13:18 »
+5
Which of the Micros is anywhere near fair trade? Certainly none of the well known ones.
Then some may give contributors a decent percentage, but of hardly any sales - fair, but no trade.
PS, we've had this exact suggestion before.


Maybe we should have an anonymous poll and grant to the qualified agencies the right to use a "fair trade" label.

Exactly my thought after reading this topic. Would be even nicer if this could be done "officially" like setting some terms under which an agency can have this label and they could add this to their website.
I wonder if it is possible.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2018, 14:14 by ShadySue »

« Reply #53 on: March 05, 2018, 01:59 »
+1
Maybe we should have an anonymous poll and grant to the qualified agencies the right to use a "fair trade" label.

Exactly my thought after reading this topic. Would be even nicer if this could be done "officially" like setting some terms under which an agency can have this label and they could add this to their website.
I wonder if it is possible.

its posible. But we are to stupid to unite...
« Last Edit: March 05, 2018, 18:47 by r2d2 »

« Reply #54 on: March 05, 2018, 09:43 »
0
Which of the Micros is anywhere near fair trade? Certainly none of the well known ones.
Then some may give contributors a decent percentage, but of hardly any sales - fair, but no trade.
PS, we've had this exact suggestion before.


Maybe we should have an anonymous poll and grant to the qualified agencies the right to use a "fair trade" label.

Exactly my thought after reading this topic. Would be even nicer if this could be done "officially" like setting some terms under which an agency can have this label and they could add this to their website.
I wonder if it is possible.

Some are more than the others, not all are equally bad. Very few, if any, are as bad as iStock.

Give the best ones the "fair trade" label.
Maybe this will attract the activist customers.
Sales could go up for them and this could stimulate shameful iStock and other agencies to do better.
I'm aware this far fetched, but in relative terms, I believe it is more realistic, positive and without the financial impact of the boycott, so often called out when it comes to iStock.

« Reply #55 on: March 20, 2018, 14:03 »
+2
Today, I got contacted again by an IS customer, asking details about one of my photos.
After providing him all the information he was interested in, I ended up with this email:

No problem, Jo. I'm glad I could help.

On the other hand, if it doesn't make a difference to you, I would prefer if you could get the same photo from other agencies, like Shutterstock, since they have better rates for their contributors:

Here is my gallery:
[link to my SS port]

And here is the photo you liked:
[SS link for the photo he liked]

Cheers,

[Me].

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #56 on: March 20, 2018, 14:52 »
0
Today, I got contacted again by an IS customer, asking details about one of my photos.
...
On the other hand, if it doesn't make a difference to you, I would prefer if you could get the same photo from other agencies, like Shutterstock, since they have better rates for their contributors:
...
But that's just not always true. Although I'm complaining about an average $1.47 this month from iS (still photos only), I bet not many SS photo-only contributors get that much, and if so, it's only the top ones, not the middlings like me.

« Reply #57 on: March 20, 2018, 15:06 »
+1
Today, I got contacted again by an IS customer, asking details about one of my photos.
...
On the other hand, if it doesn't make a difference to you, I would prefer if you could get the same photo from other agencies, like Shutterstock, since they have better rates for their contributors:
...
But that's just not always true. Although I'm complaining about an average $1.47 this month from iS (still photos only), I bet not many SS photo-only contributors get that much, and if so, it's only the top ones, not the middlings like me.
Yes its not that simple.....if someone was to go to a site specifically for one image or just a few then  I would earn hugely more than a sub package. FWIW my Return per image is overall very similar for SS and IS. It rankles a bit that IS take a higher share....but in the end its cash in my wallet that counts....If IS can persuade someone to pay $200 for a pic and I get $30 thats better that SS selling it for $75 and me getting $25 ;-).

« Reply #58 on: March 20, 2018, 15:07 »
0
Today, I got contacted again by an IS customer, asking details about one of my photos.
...
On the other hand, if it doesn't make a difference to you, I would prefer if you could get the same photo from other agencies, like Shutterstock, since they have better rates for their contributors:
...
But that's just not always true. Although I'm complaining about an average $1.47 this month from iS (still photos only), I bet not many SS photo-only contributors get that much, and if so, it's only the top ones, not the middlings like me.

Well... it is very true for me, month after month, since many years.
In January, my RPD was a record $0,82 on IS and $1.35 on SS. This means that IS paid me 64% less than SS!

If by a miracle, all IS customers will migrate to SS and buy the same photos, I will be making many hundreds of dollars more, each month!

I'm fairly certain that this is the case for a large majority of non-exclusives.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2018, 15:15 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #59 on: March 20, 2018, 15:19 »
0
Today, I got contacted again by an IS customer, asking details about one of my photos.
...
On the other hand, if it doesn't make a difference to you, I would prefer if you could get the same photo from other agencies, like Shutterstock, since they have better rates for their contributors:
...
But that's just not always true. Although I'm complaining about an average $1.47 this month from iS (still photos only), I bet not many SS photo-only contributors get that much, and if so, it's only the top ones, not the middlings like me.
Yes its not that simple.....if someone was to go to a site specifically for one image or just a few then  I would earn hugely more than a sub package. FWIW my Return per image is overall very similar for SS and IS. It rankles a bit that IS take a higher share....but in the end its cash in my wallet that counts....If IS can persuade someone to pay $200 for a pic and I get $30 thats better that SS selling it for $75 and me getting $25 ;-).

I'm with you, I don't mind if IS is getting a larger share, if I also get more in absolute numbers. Good for them if they can do a better job in selling!
But, that's only in theory, because in practice, you will get less. See the RPD example I gave above. That's why I want IS customers to migrate to SS.

Do you get a better RPD from IS, than from SS, to justify your example?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #60 on: March 20, 2018, 15:40 »
+6
If by a miracle, all IS customers will migrate to SS and buy the same photos, I will be making many hundreds of dollars more, each month!
I'd prefer the miracle that all iS/SS/Ft customers would migrate to Alamy.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #61 on: March 20, 2018, 16:09 »
0
Today, I got contacted again by an IS customer, asking details about one of my photos.
...
On the other hand, if it doesn't make a difference to you, I would prefer if you could get the same photo from other agencies, like Shutterstock, since they have better rates for their contributors:
...
But that's just not always true. Although I'm complaining about an average $1.47 this month from iS (still photos only), I bet not many SS photo-only contributors get that much, and if so, it's only the top ones, not the middlings like me.

Well... it is very true for me, month after month, since many years.
In January, my RPD was a record $0,82 on IS and $1.35 on SS. This means that IS paid me 64% less than SS!

If by a miracle, all IS customers will migrate to SS and buy the same photos, I will be making many hundreds of dollars more, each month!

I'm fairly certain that this is the case for a large majority of non-exclusives.

The point your buyer was making was that s/he believed that SS gave better rates to contributors than iS. I was just saying that that isn't always true.
The discussion about whether one would prefer a better rate or a better total is different.

« Reply #62 on: March 20, 2018, 16:16 »
+1
Today, I got contacted again by an IS customer, asking details about one of my photos.
...
On the other hand, if it doesn't make a difference to you, I would prefer if you could get the same photo from other agencies, like Shutterstock, since they have better rates for their contributors:
...
But that's just not always true. Although I'm complaining about an average $1.47 this month from iS (still photos only), I bet not many SS photo-only contributors get that much, and if so, it's only the top ones, not the middlings like me.

Well... it is very true for me, month after month, since many years.
In January, my RPD was a record $0,82 on IS and $1.35 on SS. This means that IS paid me 64% less than SS!

If by a miracle, all IS customers will migrate to SS and buy the same photos, I will be making many hundreds of dollars more, each month!

I'm fairly certain that this is the case for a large majority of non-exclusives.

The point your buyer was making was that s/he believed that SS gave better rates to contributors than iS. I was just saying that that isn't always true.
The discussion about whether one would prefer a better rate or a better total is different.

I think there is a misunderstanding. The buyer only asked for some details for one of the photos he was planing to buy from IS.

I stated that SS has better rates (I know that for a fact, see above), asking him, as a favor, to check if he could get the same photo from SS instead.

« Reply #63 on: March 20, 2018, 16:36 »
0
Today, I got contacted again by an IS customer, asking details about one of my photos.
...
On the other hand, if it doesn't make a difference to you, I would prefer if you could get the same photo from other agencies, like Shutterstock, since they have better rates for their contributors:
...
But that's just not always true. Although I'm complaining about an average $1.47 this month from iS (still photos only), I bet not many SS photo-only contributors get that much, and if so, it's only the top ones, not the middlings like me.

Well... it is very true for me, month after month, since many years.
In January, my RPD was a record $0,82 on IS and $1.35 on SS. This means that IS paid me 64% less than SS!

If by a miracle, all IS customers will migrate to SS and buy the same photos, I will be making many hundreds of dollars more, each month!

I'm fairly certain that this is the case for a large majority of non-exclusives.

The point your buyer was making was that s/he believed that SS gave better rates to contributors than iS. I was just saying that that isn't always true.
The discussion about whether one would prefer a better rate or a better total is different.

I think there is a misunderstanding. The buyer only asked for some details for one of the photos he was planing to buy from IS.

I stated that SS has better rates (I know that for a fact, see above), asking him, as a favor, to check if he could get the same photo from SS instead.
Yes it is theoretical but if he already had a subs package with SS and was planning to buy a one off image from IS because the SS search engine didn't find it you could easily find yourself worse off ;-). Largely academic discussion really.....

« Reply #64 on: March 20, 2018, 17:09 »
0
Yes it is theoretical but if he already had a subs package with SS and was planning to buy a one off image from IS because the SS search engine didn't find it you could easily find yourself worse off ;-). Largely academic discussion really.....

Yes, this could happen, indeed. But it can only be a remote case. I would expect customers to first try to take advantage of their subscription, before they start googling for alternatives. Don't say that you "can't see the forest for the trees".

The fact is the I will be better off, in average, if my IS customers will migrate to SS.
And I'm fairly certain that I'm not alone. Even more, a large majority of non-exclusive IS contributors would benefit from such hypothetical migration.

I will definitely welcome academic discussions for a change  ;)!

« Last Edit: March 20, 2018, 17:36 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #65 on: March 21, 2018, 01:29 »
0
Yes it is theoretical but if he already had a subs package with SS and was planning to buy a one off image from IS because the SS search engine didn't find it you could easily find yourself worse off ;-). Largely academic discussion really.....

Yes, this could happen, indeed. But it can only be a remote case. I would expect customers to first try to take advantage of their subscription, before they start googling for alternatives. Don't say that you "can't see the forest for the trees".

The fact is the I will be better off, in average, if my IS customers will migrate to SS.
And I'm fairly certain that I'm not alone. Even more, a large majority of non-exclusive IS contributors would benefit from such hypothetical migration.

I will definitely welcome academic discussions for a change  ;)!
You are probably right and certainly you seem to have a strategy that works for you though I do recall seeing some people report what to me are very high RPDs at Istock last month mine was almost identical to SS.....I just believe RPD generally is a poor and often deceptive measure. I just look at total income.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2018, 01:35 by Pauws99 »

« Reply #66 on: March 21, 2018, 07:00 »
0
Quote from: Pauws99
I just believe RPD generally is a poor and often deceptive measure. I just look at total income.

Same with me. The total income matters.
That low IS RPD is only telling me that I could earn more, if more customers would migrate from IS to SS.
Or to FT.
Or to DT.
Or to 123.
Or to Alamy.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2018, 07:02 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #67 on: March 31, 2018, 08:47 »
0
So if I want to start video submissions should I start off with Shutterstock? Currently learning how to process videos.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #68 on: April 02, 2018, 10:12 »
0
You are probably right and certainly you seem to have a strategy that works for you though I do recall seeing some people report what to me are very high RPDs at Istock last month mine was almost identical to SS.....I just believe RPD generally is a poor and often deceptive measure. I just look at total income.

Just looked at a whole month of SS, keep in mind we get around 22% at SS, and 15% or less at IS. SS RPD $1.54 last month, IS according to DM .65 that's photo only. Most of the difference that I can see is ODs on SS.

Mostly I agree with your view, that RPD is a poor measure and total income is what makes sense = real income.

« Reply #69 on: May 07, 2018, 06:52 »
0
Could someone give me a directions how to check my stats/profile etc. Like where I even log in?

« Reply #70 on: May 07, 2018, 07:48 »
0
So if I want to start video submissions should I start off with Shutterstock? Currently learning how to process videos

ProArtWork

niktol

« Reply #71 on: May 07, 2018, 08:07 »
0
Could someone give me a directions how to check my stats/profile etc. Like where I even log in?
login
https://esp.gettyimages.com/sign-in?returnUrl=/
you can download last month's report from royalties->export->...

« Reply #72 on: May 07, 2018, 12:11 »
0
Could someone give me a directions how to check my stats/profile etc. Like where I even log in?
login
https://esp.gettyimages.com/sign-in?returnUrl=/
you can download last month's report from royalties->export->...

And install Deepmeta.

« Reply #73 on: May 08, 2018, 05:52 »
0
Could someone give me a directions how to check my stats/profile etc. Like where I even log in?
login
newbielink:https://esp.gettyimages.com/sign-in?returnUrl=/ [nonactive]
you can download last month's report from royalties->export->...

And install Deepmeta.

Thank you so much


 

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