Author Topic: Istock raises payouts to partner program (Read 38980 times)

Risamay · « **Reply #75 on:** February 25, 2011, 13:17 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 25, 2011, 06:49

If you go to partner program in the options available for "view portfolio" there is a box beside each image which you can tick to opt in or untick to opt out.

Didn't there used to be two boxes so you could see if an image was on both IS and PP sites? And somehow the PP box was grayed out if it was still too new a file to appear on both sites. Now I'm confused. How long is it before a file can be on both sites? 18 calendar months? Or is it that if you're an indie, you can have all files on both sites - new or not?

I'm getting sick of IS making changes to its site that make it more of a hassle to use than not.

Starbucks · « **Reply #76 on:** February 25, 2011, 13:20 »

Any iStock exclusive should, quite obviously, opt out of this; Not doing so is short sighted. I can't believe exclusives are even debating about this.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #77 on:** February 25, 2011, 13:22 »

Not only that, but they're paying thousands of dollars to go to an event to create content for it . ?...

Mantis · « **Reply #78 on:** February 25, 2011, 22:08 »

Quote from: lightscribe on February 23, 2011, 23:37

hmmm, so withholding images from an agency pp has for the first time been officially confirmed as a legit way to put enough pressure on an agency to get them to raise commissions! So it is also official that the 25cents was not what they could reasonably afford to pay to keep the program sustainable as they always claim with all the rates, but was the lowest price they thought they could get away with paying us. So we can also be certain that the new price structure was just pulled out of thin air as well. Well I must humbly apologize to those folks who held strong and opted out as I thought it would make no difference so I opted in way back, I wonder if holding out longer will increase it more?

Ha..good summary. We all know how difficult it's been to "PULL" ports from the partner program once they're in. So maybe the strategy is to lure in more contributors with a whopping 28 cents (for nons) and a tad more for exclusives. Then as soon as they have what they're looking for, VIOLA! A commission cut:)

caspixel · « **Reply #79 on:** February 25, 2011, 22:12 »

Quote from: sjlocke on February 25, 2011, 13:22

Not only that, but they're paying thousands of dollars to go to an event to create content for it . ?...

I'm not much of a business person, but even I can see the ROI for that is crap. LOL

RacePhoto · « **Reply #80 on:** February 25, 2011, 22:21 »

Quote from: caspixel on February 25, 2011, 22:12

Quote from: sjlocke on February 25, 2011, 13:22
Not only that, but they're paying thousands of dollars to go to an event to create content for it . ?...

I'm not much of a business person, but even I can see the ROI for that is crap. LOL

Actually this came up with the whole JUI, StockXpert, Photos.com issues back in 2008 and here's the quote that explains it all.

In February 2006, Getty Images, the largest agency by far with more than 30 percent of the global market, purchased iStockphoto for $50 million. “If someone’s going to cannibalize your business, better it be one of your other businesses,” says Getty CEO Jonathan Klein."

This is the same logic. If subs are stealing your customers and low price sites are draining your sales... create the same type of site and content and cannibalize your own sales.

Same as the conclusion that many people came to when confronted with the fact that they cannibalize their own sales by selling on all the cheap sub sites. They fear that someone else will make that sale if the image isn't on the cheap sites. The same photos on all the sites, which is the same thing that Getty is doing, but they are the evil dumb people and we're the smart marketing people.

Funny how the same act and philosophy of cannibalizing sales, with pricing and selling everything, everywhere, is OK for artists, but the subject of constant criticism for an agency.

I obviously don't see any difference.

michealo · « **Reply #81 on:** February 26, 2011, 06:40 »

Quote from: caspixel on February 25, 2011, 22:12

Quote from: sjlocke on February 25, 2011, 13:22
Not only that, but they're paying thousands of dollars to go to an event to create content for it . ?...

I'm not much of a business person, but even I can see the ROI for that is crap. LOL

Not having ever attended one how can you say that?

Some attendees at Tokyo have already covered all their costs from sales.

ShadySue · « **Reply #82 on:** February 26, 2011, 07:14 »

Quote from: michealo on February 26, 2011, 06:40

Some attendees at Tokyo have already covered all their costs from sales.

Must be from Getty sales then [1]. The top sale on iStock in the 'lypse lightbox has <40 sales. Of course, if a contributor lived in Tokyo, and already had the relevant gear, they would have had very little out-of-pocket expense for that 'lypse. Even if someone lives in central London, there's a $500 fee to participate.
[1] Or maybe Thinkstock.

caspixel · « **Reply #83 on:** February 26, 2011, 10:28 »

Quote from: michealo on February 26, 2011, 06:40

Quote from: caspixel on February 25, 2011, 22:12
Quote from: sjlocke on February 25, 2011, 13:22
Not only that, but they're paying thousands of dollars to go to an event to create content for it . ?...

I'm not much of a business person, but even I can see the ROI for that is crap. LOL

Not having ever attended one how can you say that?

Some attendees at Tokyo have already covered all their costs from sales.

From sales on TS? Really? Prove it.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #84 on:** February 26, 2011, 10:42 »

Yeah, sorry, no way.

michealo · « **Reply #85 on:** February 26, 2011, 11:46 »

Quote from: caspixel on February 26, 2011, 10:28

Quote from: michealo on February 26, 2011, 06:40
Quote from: caspixel on February 25, 2011, 22:12
Quote from: sjlocke on February 25, 2011, 13:22
Not only that, but they're paying thousands of dollars to go to an event to create content for it . ?...

I'm not much of a business person, but even I can see the ROI for that is crap. LOL

Not having ever attended one how can you say that?

Some attendees at Tokyo have already covered all their costs from sales.

From sales on TS? Really? Prove it.

I am talking about the ROI from events. Not from PP from IS.

@Sean I sure you made a return on your HQ lypse investment? No?

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #86 on:** February 26, 2011, 12:59 »

Quote from: michealo on February 26, 2011, 11:46

...I am talking about the ROI from events. Not from PP from IS.

@Sean I sure you made a return on your HQ lypse investment? No?

I don't know how Sean did, but I went to the HQ lypse and have not made in sales what it cost me to attend - airfare, hotel, taxis, meals, $500 ticket cost. That's absolutely fine as I figured the experience would be worth it for me - an opportunity learn that has real value IMO.

I've talked with others who attended that lypse and have attended others (this was my one and only). The common thread seems to be the experience, not the financial payback. So if someone somewhere once did make it pay I don't think that changes the general situation for most attendees.

Risamay · « **Reply #87 on:** February 26, 2011, 14:57 »

Quote from: jsnover on February 26, 2011, 12:59

I don't know how Sean did, but I went to the HQ lypse and have not made in sales what it cost me to attend - airfare, hotel, taxis, meals, $500 ticket cost. That's absolutely fine as I figured the experience would be worth it for me - an opportunity learn that has real value IMO.

I've talked with others who attended that lypse and have attended others (this was my one and only). The common thread seems to be the experience, not the financial payback. So if someone somewhere once did make it pay I don't think that changes the general situation for most attendees.

That makes sense. Big events with many multiple photographers all shooting the same or very similar subjects, from different angles ... It would be surprising if those were big money-making events for the attendees, right? Seems much more an opportunity to learn, meet your peers and iStock idols, hang out, and get pretty drunk (from what I can tell or have heard). Sounds like fun. Or, it used to.

nruboc · « **Reply #88 on:** February 26, 2011, 15:08 »

Istock's lucky, so much wholly owned content makes it simple to compensate for these increased commissions. One thing is certain, they aren't going to lose money with this move.

Sadstock · « **Reply #89 on:** February 26, 2011, 22:43 »

I agree its hard to cover 'lyspe expenses. But here is one contributor who certainly covered them. :-)
http://www.istockphoto.com/search/lightbox/2171221/#183a83b5

caspixel · « **Reply #90 on:** February 27, 2011, 01:55 »

Quote from: Sadstock on February 26, 2011, 22:43

I agree its hard to cover 'lyspe expenses. But here is one contributor who certainly covered them. :-)
http://www.istockphoto.com/search/lightbox/2171221/#183a83b5

But would he have from sales on TS instead? That was the whole joke about it.

michealo · « **Reply #91 on:** February 27, 2011, 09:13 »

Quote from: caspixel on February 27, 2011, 01:55

Quote from: Sadstock on February 26, 2011, 22:43
I agree its hard to cover 'lyspe expenses. But here is one contributor who certainly covered them. :-)
http://www.istockphoto.com/search/lightbox/2171221/#183a83b5

But would he have from sales on TS instead? That was the whole joke about it.

Your point was that there wasn't an ROI from lypses, there is for some contributers.
I'm not discussing the PP except in that it's a condition that lypse content is added to it. Personally I have no issue with that.

Sadstock · « **Reply #92 on:** February 27, 2011, 09:43 »

Quote from: caspixel on February 27, 2011, 01:55

Quote from: Sadstock on February 26, 2011, 22:43
I agree its hard to cover 'lyspe expenses. But here is one contributor who certainly covered them. :-)
http://www.istockphoto.com/search/lightbox/2171221/#183a83b5

But would he have from sales on TS instead? That was the whole joke about it.

I was more responding to jsnover's point that few 'lypse attendees cover their expenses through any kind of sales which I fully agree with. Just posting the link with the exception that proves the rule.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #93 on:** February 27, 2011, 10:24 »

Well, Austin was like 5 years ago.

Yes, there are exceptions to the rule, but most people won't make their money back from the 'lypses. It's up to you, of course, whether just having a fun weekend (although now they are like a week long!) is worth the money.

OhGoAway! · « **Reply #94 on:** February 27, 2011, 10:30 »

Quote from: Sadstock on February 27, 2011, 09:43

Quote from: caspixel on February 27, 2011, 01:55
Quote from: Sadstock on February 26, 2011, 22:43
I agree its hard to cover 'lyspe expenses. But here is one contributor who certainly covered them. :-)
http://www.istockphoto.com/search/lightbox/2171221/#183a83b5

But would he have from sales on TS instead? That was the whole joke about it.

I was more responding to jsnover's point that few 'lypse attendees cover their expenses through any kind of sales which I fully agree with. Just posting the link with the exception that proves the rule.

Even that example, I think, is iffy. There are locations from three different 'lypses in that lightbox -- Seattle, Nevada (whatever they called that one out there), and Austin. If you sort by downloads, the top downloaded file has more than 600 . . . by the bottom of the page, you're at around 30 downloads. I didn't check them all, but even if you give credit for 4000 downloads from that front page (which I think is more than generous), at an average return rate, I think it's STILL not guaranteed he's covered costs. $500 tickets, travel, hotels & food . . . that adds up fast.

ichiro17 · « **Reply #95 on:** February 27, 2011, 11:07 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 25, 2011, 05:11

I really don't need a lecture from the Captain of the good ship "Boycott iStock uploads", thank you, Gostwyck.

You may think that nobody noticed that you jumped ship and were in the upload lifeboat 21 days after saying this:

"I've stopped uploading to Istock too. There will probably be some minor retraction from this announcement, maybe an adjustment to the redeemed credit levels, but it won't be enough. I may never upload another image to Istock again."

http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/istock-changing-royalty-structure/msg158888/#msg158888

and this (in direct reference to me):
It'll be the same limp-wristed f*ck-wits who joined Thinkstock because "Ooh __ there's nothing we can do about the big juggernaut". You can pretty much guarantee that they'll wimp out of this fight too.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/istock-changing-royalty-structure/msg159171/#msg159171

and even this:
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on September 08, 2010, 17:22
Do you really think anything as feeble as an upload boycott is going to work, when 90% of submitters are probably still in blissful ignorance about this?

Gostwyck: Yes, given enough months, I think it has a very good chance. It's not as feeble an idea as doing nothing at all which seems to be your main suggestion.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/istock-changing-royalty-structure/msg159178/#msg159178

But you couldn't even manage ONE month.

So it seems you are very good at shouting and badmouthing everyone, playing the cheerleader and guardian of "the right thing to do", but when it comes to standing by your words you are found wanting.

When you were complaining about pathetically low commissions at TS I asked if you would support a new agency offering 50% and you said no, because it wasn't delivering a worthwhile return (very true). So you are not even consistent about whether you want decent percentages or cash-in-hand regardless of the percentage.

You often have good points that are worthy of consideration but I hope the hectoring way you shout down anyone who disagrees with you doesn't push people into doing things that you won't really do - like boycotting Istock uploads, for example.

BTW, congratulations on the several hundred extremely fine images you have uploaded there since you began your "maybe never again" boycott. They really are excellent.

finally someone says it!

Rob Sylvan · « **Reply #96 on:** February 27, 2011, 13:13 »

FWIW, I gave the PP a fair run when it first launched just to see how it went. I opted in all that was eligible of mine, but I think only about 150 or so ever made it over there. I opted out last October and it took until Jan of this year to get all the files finally off. Over the course of last year I earned less than $100 from the PP. My understanding of the sort on PP sites is that it favors newness, so my files, being the geezer that I am, were at a disadvantage. I won't be opting back in under the updated structure.

Sadstock · « **Reply #97 on:** February 27, 2011, 16:46 »

Quote from: Rob Sylvan on February 27, 2011, 13:13

FWIW, I gave the PP a fair run when it first launched just to see how it went. I opted in all that was eligible of mine, but I think only about 150 or so ever made it over there. I opted out last October and it took until Jan of this year to get all the files finally off. Over the course of last year I earned less than $100 from the PP. My understanding of the sort on PP sites is that it favors newness, so my files, being the geezer that I am, were at a disadvantage. I won't be opting back in under the updated structure.

----------------------------

Given that you've been in since it first launched, why did you decide to pull out in October? Point taken on favoring newness so likely few sales in the future. But as it seems you had little concerns about cannibalism at first launch, something must have changed your perspective. Was it the September announcement or something else?

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #98 on:** February 27, 2011, 17:44 »

Rob, you're not exclusive any more. Am I just spacing something I already knew or is this a recent change?

Will you be uploading elsewhere? And you can't be a geezer or that'd make me even more ancient

Sadstock · « **Reply #99 on:** February 27, 2011, 18:15 »

Quote from: jsnover on February 27, 2011, 17:44

Rob, you're not exclusive any more. Am I just spacing something I already knew or is this a recent change?

Will you be uploading elsewhere? And you can't be a geezer or that'd make me even more ancient

----------------------

Wow! Your right, no crown. I don't think you spaced it.

Rob welcome to the ~~dark~~, ~~light,~~ this side

Or maybe its just a new Istock bug?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Istock raises payouts to partner program (Read 38980 times)

Risamay

Starbucks

Sean Locke Photography

Mantis

caspixel

RacePhoto

michealo

ShadySue

caspixel

Sean Locke Photography

michealo

Jo Ann Snover

Risamay

nruboc

Sadstock

caspixel

michealo

Sadstock

Sean Locke Photography

OhGoAway!

ichiro17

Rob Sylvan

Sadstock

Jo Ann Snover

Sadstock

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors