The new royalty structure is live, and in typical istock fashion, it's not working properly.

Way to go, istock.

 

Fingers crossed hoping for bank error in my favor. 

The new royalty structure is live, and in typical istock fashion, it's not working properly.

Way to go, istock.

 

hahahah, funny. Bug gives financial advantage to IS, obviously.

Never ends...

Mine says 17% when it should say 50%. Do you think they'll adjust it?

Seriously though, it's comically sad that it isn't working right. If I had a nickel for every time something broke at IS, I wouldn't have to create stock images anymore.  

If I had a nickel for every time something broke at IS, I wouldn't have to create stock images anymore.  

ROFLMAO!  Exactly right!!

So far my (pitiful) royalty amount is showing correctly.  Hope they don't screw it up in trying to fix the system...

How do you work this crap out???  RC, etc,?  am I stupido or have I missed something?  mine says 18%, is that supposed to be right?

So in my Stats it says Photo: 317 credits (yeah, the buyers are boycotting me too) and on the next line it says Vetta/Agency: 317 credits. I haven't have a Vetta sale since 19th December -essentially the price hike killed my Vettas and the sale doesn't help. So why is it saying Vetta/Agency: 317 credits?
It's obviously 'a bug'. Hope they're looking into this one too.
Can't they do anything right first time?

So in my Stats it says Photo: 317 credits (yeah, the buyers are boycotting me too) and on the next line it says Vetta/Agency: 317 credits. I haven't have a Vetta sale since 19th December -essentially the price hike killed my Vettas and the sale doesn't help. So why is it saying Vetta/Agency: 317 credits?
It's obviously 'a bug'. Hope they're looking into this one too.
Can't they do anything right first time?

Its not a bug.  Main and V/A royalty %s, while are separate, are determined by the combined total of all photos.

Just had my first $.16 XS download!  Where's the Woo Yay thread again? 

How do you work this crap out???  RC, etc,?  am I stupido or have I missed something?  mine says 18%, is that supposed to be right?

If you are not exclusive and made 37.000 RC or more, but less than 120.000, then 18% is correct.

oh how exciting.. cute new icons! 

(I have nothing else to be excited about).

If you are not exclusive and made 37.000 RC or more, but less than 120.000, then 18% is correct.

Unless, you're an illustrator, then it's 17%. Joy! 

oh how exciting.. cute new icons! 

(I have nothing else to be excited about).

Did you see how messed up they are too? Some people who don't have any Flash files have Flash icons and for some, their icon is incorrect to the number of downloads they have for that category. Man, what a bunch of TOTAL mess ups. LOLOL

The new royalty structure is live, and in typical istock fashion, it's not working properly.

Way to go, istock.

 

Perfect and thanks I needed a laugh to go with the Default 15% non level that I will be likely to be at for life.

I could work hard and get serious, like some have suggested and with a 1% increase, Whoopee make $3 more a year! Or not...

Image deactivation still works.  Seeing 17% commission motivates me to deactivate more.  I really hope this goes wrong for istock or I don't think it will be worth doing microstock soon.  I'm sure people will say whatever we do makes no difference but it feels really good not putting up with this.  I've had lots of career changes in the past and I'm not frightened of another one.

Quote from: Digital66 on January 11, 2011, 21:43

If you are not exclusive and made 37.000 RC or more, but less than 120.000, then 18% is correct.

Unless, you're an illustrator, then it's 17%. Joy! 

Unless you're a lazy, non-professional, non-businesslike, non-exclusive contributor like me, then it's 16%! 

I'm down to 11 images in my IStock port, it's not going to affect me, but I'm curious, where do you see those stats?
Since the introduction of Sexy F5 I've never even touched my contributor page. The scrolling drives me crazy, up the walls.
Where is that info? Where do you see your RC?
Can anyone help? I'm curious
Thank you,

UPDATE : Never mind, found it!

The 3 larges i sold today were $1,90 for each (used to be $2.80- 3.30).
Looks more like a 30-40% paycut than a 3% one but all we can do is hope its correct, right? If i keep seeing these pathetic numbers passing by it'll be easier indeed to ditch them altogether.

Looks like with the new system I will miss out on 35% level by 155 credits or less than one fraudulent Vetta sale.  I have 36,845 credits or 99.581% of what I need to get to the next level.  This is outrageous that I will miss out on 16% of sales by .4% or again less than one fraudulent Vetta sale.  

I would leave the crown that�s for sure.. IS, IS, IS shame on you, money is never enough! I had 1403 credits

I'm very maths impaired (and thus still dont get why i shouldnt receive $3,00 - 0,09 (=3% of 3) = $2,91; making i'd miss out 15-17% in annual royalties).
But even when i take a 17% cut;  17% of 3$ = 0,51, would still make $2,49 commission...(ive checked, the smallest large ive sold before the cuts was $2,30, minus 17% makes $1,91) I guess ('cuz gussing is all we can do) i just got hit with a discount account.
I cant help but feeling im get getting ripped off twice, once openly and once under the table with untrackable shennanigans. (and i admit: good chance its not true and my feeble mathbrain just cant handle it, but this shouldnt be rocket science in the first place.)

And that's the whole point...we shouldn't have to wonder about anything. Like jsnover (and the rest of us) have been saying, we should be getting an accounting of every single penny, every single sale, how much credits were sold for, the whole enchilada.

Quote from: jamirae on January 11, 2011, 22:02

oh how exciting.. cute new icons! 

(I have nothing else to be excited about).

Did you see how messed up they are too? Some people who don't have any Flash files have Flash icons and for some, their icon is incorrect to the number of downloads they have for that category. Man, what a bunch of TOTAL mess ups. LOLOL

I just went over there and noticed those! I have a Flash icon (no flash files) and I have sold over 10,000+ illustration files! Where is my money for that! I want the money for the sale of the 10,000+ illustration files!   I have one illustration in my port and I'm pretty sure it hasn't sold over 10,000 times. Sheesh.

I just have to repost this immortal quote from that gorgeous "contact sheet":

"And I must say, thank you to everyone for helping iStock with an exceptional year. With your hard work, we continue to meet and exceed our goals."

Hell will freeze, and thaw, and go through countless more climate cycles before these people get another photo from me based on the commission structure listed in that document. 

+ 1

ArtPuppy's latest Not sure if I've done the link right

Too funny! I can't believe that doesn't get deleted. Goes along with what lisafx suggested in another thread...nobody's minding the store.

Quote from: helix7 on January 11, 2011, 18:23

The new royalty structure is live, and in typical istock fashion, it's not working properly.
Way to go, istock.
 

There must be something going on behind the scenes that's placing a priority on deadlines over everything else. I'm guessing executives are under pressure, or incentive, to roll all of these updates out regardless if they're ready or not.

IT Dept: "We're still testing and fixing bugs. It's not ready"
Exec: "Deploy it and we'll deal with the issues later"

I don't think the massive shift of their treatment of contributors and all of these rushed buggy updates are a coincidence. Something big is brewing.

Agree 100%...been there, done that

ArtPuppy's latest Not sure if I've done the link right

Link was right and so was the cartoon.

copyright: ARTPUPPY http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=1654509

I just have to repost this immortal quote from that gorgeous "contact sheet":

"And I must say, thank you to everyone for helping iStock with an exceptional year. With your hard work, we continue to meet and exceed our goals."

If I recall correctly, the big goal that Kelly was tasked with was to increase profits by 50%. So based on this statement it sounds like they've been on track with that goal throughout 2010.

Just lends more credibility to the theory that this all has nothing to do with "sustainability" and more to do with a cash grab.

Quote from: stockastic on January 11, 2011, 21:35

"And I must say, thank you to everyone for helping iStock with an exceptional year. With your hard work, we continue to meet and exceed our goals."

Has iStock asked you what your goals are? They didn't ask me, but still they say they know my goals (and that I have met and exceeded my goals even if I disagree).

My dream is that iStock would just suddenly vanish from the surface of earth. *POOF*

You know that's my dream too, exactly, even though IS is where I make the most money.    All IS is doing now is grinding this business into dust.  Please die, IS, so we can start over.

Quote from: stockastic on January 14, 2011, 14:23

Quote from: Perry on January 14, 2011, 11:39

Quote from: stockastic on January 11, 2011, 21:35

"And I must say, thank you to everyone for helping iStock with an exceptional year. With your hard work, we continue to meet and exceed our goals."

Has iStock asked you what your goals are? They didn't ask me, but still they say they know my goals (and that I have met and exceeded my goals even if I disagree).

My dream is that iStock would just suddenly vanish from the surface of earth. *POOF*

You know that's my dream too, exactly, even though IS is where I make the most money.    All IS is doing now is grinding this business into dust.  Please die, IS, so we can start over.

+1 (sigh)

God PLS take them in advance

+2 (grin)

The only way to make them go "poof" is if contributors would stop complaining and just pull their portfolios.

True, I've still got my portfolio at IS, but I did stop uploading the day they announced the royalty cut. IS is still my #1 earner (not for much longer, I expect, since my earnings there are steadily declining) if I took everything off the site today, my monthly income would take a big hit. If I thought the majority of IS independents would pull their IS portfolios, then I would join them and pull mine as well. As it is I could take down my whole portfolio, and IS wouldn't even notice or care. I would suffer a big cut in income, and all for an empty gesture that changes nothing.

Perhaps forming a union would be our only hope, but how do you form a union when we have tens of thousands of contributors from all over the world? Is it even possible?

Can't we just put our money together and buy one of these to send to HQ when its CEO meeting? (we could even attack them  )  Would eliminate all the speculating and we'd know what to prepare for!

In this photo taken from computer animation video Friday, Nov. 21, 2008, and released by the U.S. Air Force, shows the next generation of drones, called Micro Aerial Vehicles, or MAVs. The MAVs could be as tiny as bumblebees and capable of flying undetected into buildings, where they could photograph, record, and even attack insurgents and terrorists.

Just lends more credibility to the theory that this all has nothing to do with "sustainability" and more to do with a cash grab.

Was there any doubt? The owners are in the business of buying and selling companies, for a profit. They don't buy them to own and operate long term.

Much like the corporate raiders who would buy, divide the profitable, dump the losers, sell the pieces and move on to the next. Hellman & Friedman are in year three now? So pump up profits (screw the contributors and long term) and dump the company for a profit.

Watch for 2012 when they have milked us for every red cent they can bleed from the heart of the site, the contributors.

There have been people here jumping ahead and every few months saying, Hellman & Friedman is going to sell. It's kind of like The End of The World is just around the corner, doom and gloom. Some day they will be right and say, see I told you so. In the case of IS, we'll be here to say, yeah but you said it every three months for four years... with the end of the world as we know it, no one will be able to say it or hear it.

Big buyers like Hellman & Friedman are not your friend, no matter how they try to pretend to care.

Back to the union, the only way a union works is if the workers have leverage or in some way can control the means of production. IS already has the product in stock and over supply.

Quote from: traveler1116 on January 12, 2011, 02:40

Looks like with the new system I will miss out on 35% level by 155 credits or less than one fraudulent Vetta sale.  I have 36,845 credits or 99.581% of what I need to get to the next level.  This is outrageous that I will miss out on 16% of sales by .4% or again less than one fraudulent Vetta sale.  

I don't know if it would be possible to bump you up, or not. but in your case, I'd definitely be contacting contributor relations.

It's cases like this that iStock's new system just doens't work.  I think traveler1116 should be bumped up too, but what about the guy who has 36,844 RC ... yeah he should probably be bumped up as well,... then what about 36,843 RC .. somewhere you have to draw a line and that line is going to be unfair.  Such a drastic change in income for a whole year because of a few measly missed sales.

Quote from: leaf on January 16, 2011, 09:02

Quote from: SNP on January 12, 2011, 22:13

Quote from: traveler1116 on January 12, 2011, 02:40

Looks like with the new system I will miss out on 35% level by 155 credits or less than one fraudulent Vetta sale.  I have 36,845 credits or 99.581% of what I need to get to the next level.  This is outrageous that I will miss out on 16% of sales by .4% or again less than one fraudulent Vetta sale.  

I don't know if it would be possible to bump you up, or not. but in your case, I'd definitely be contacting contributor relations.

It's cases like this that iStock's new system just doens't work.  I think traveler1116 should be bumped up too, but what about the guy who has 36,844 RC ... yeah he should probably be bumped up as well,... then what about 36,843 RC .. somewhere you have to draw a line and that line is going to be unfair.  Such a drastic change in income for a whole year because of a few measly missed sales.

Well once again I'm banned from IS forums.  Did I say something insulting, rude, incorrect, or offending?  Nope I simply asked Lobo about what he said last year (he said he would work hard to make sure nobody missed the next level by a very small margin) and posted the same as above here asking for a better response than the generic, canned answer support gives.   As to your point Leaf I think they should make it individually, they said they would reward people who work hard and I had nearly 2,000 images accepted last year so I think I fair well.  Others may have different reasons for why they should be moved up, but either way less than half a percent seems close enough.

So Lobo just banned you, you didn't get an answer as to whether it will even be considered? I agree you should be bumped up, good luck, I hope they do that. But then you realize, you won't be able to tell anybody, or you will start another uprising. 

Nope no answer. 3 support tickets all with generic response.  2 threads in the forum one locked immediately, the other deleted.  5-10 appeals in the related threads in the forum no answers and one deleted post.  Everything deleted was asking lobo what happened to his pledge to work hard and not even in an angry way.

I'm seriously rethinking my exclusivity - partly because their IT department appears to be trying to demolish the business and partly because I think more crap (specifically removing the opt out from the partner program) is likely to be coming. I really don't want to be doing that, but IS's recent behavior just leaves little hope for good things there in the future for contributors like me. YMMV.

The thing with the partner program worries me too.  We've not been able to save the option to "opt-out" for months now, and while they tell us it's cosmetic and not to worry about it, I have to wonder.  Since that issue was brought up, they have changed the page to opt in or out of agency collections and made other changes to the page -- but the opt-out issue remains, they haven't addressed that fix.  So call me paranoid, but I have to wonder if that is by design, because the ability to stay opted out will be going away.  As far as the IT department . . . I am totally out of possible explanations!  I've been in development and testing since 1997, and I swear, I've never seen anything like this.    I have to wonder if they lost a lot of staff, and have a bunch of new people trying to catch up on how it works.

I suspect they probably fired a lot of workers that they couldn't afford to lose, individuals they really needed to keep the site running properly. After all, if the intent is to rake in as much cash as quickly as possible, and then to dump the business after they've used it up and ruined it, wouldn't it make sense to save money by firing as many workers as possible? Or cut their workers' pay and benefits to the point where they quit in disgust, similar to how they're screwing us. These people are ruthless.

JoAnn - are you concerned about iStock becoming exclusive only? I feel as though things are heading towards a Getty-family only exclusivity requirement across the board. in which case, non-exclusives might be crap out completely unless they adopt exclusivity....

I don't think they can do that in the short term as they need the independents to be able to pay exclusives more than 20%. In the long run, I think they're weaning IS exclusives off higher than 20% royalties by moving more content to Getty family sites where the rates are 20% but the prices are higher. The soporific is that there's as much cash coming to the IS exclusive because the prices are higher on the other Getty family sites.

Right now they'd face revolt if they made the site exclusive only at 20%. Once they've moved enough business away to 20% sites that the big players are getting more of their income from the 20% sites than IS, then they might.

I want to be in a good place for the busiest part of the year in 2011. If that means being independent, I need to be uploading elsewhere well ahead of the fall to be able to take advantage of it. Right now, IS won't even give us the 2012 targets - which they had earlier said they would do. I don't trust them further than I can throw them at this point, so I don't want to be waiting until late in the year and then get another September curve ball.

I don't see a single optimistic sign anywhere (for me). Editorial sounds great if they ever do anything about it (see logos and Dexter), but that will be open to independents too. The nonsense with splitting illustrations and photos just made me think that all of this would be so much simpler - not to mention so much less angst on my part - if I stopped waiting for the other shoe to drop.

I have no illusions about the other agencies or the issues of a small-ish contributor in an aquarium filled with big predatory fish. Any way you look at it, I think 2011 will be a turbulent year in microstock.

Ran across this on a Russian blog, thought it needed posting.

    iStock to contributors, 01/04/2008:
    �That our revenue and payouts have eclipsed those of many traditional stock photography companies confirms that microstock is a viable and profitable business model for contributors and clients.�

    iStock to contributors, 08/09/2010:
    �Since roughly 2005 we�ve been aware of a basic problem with how our business works. As the company grows, the overall percentage we pay out to contributing artists increases. As a business model, it�s simply unsustainable.�

Well if this cut is live right now??  must say Im not seeing any differance at all. Maybe lots of people are worrying for nothing?

Well if this cut is live right now??  must say Im not seeing any differance at all. Maybe lots of people are worrying for nothing?

They did sneak a price increase in there too. My average sale used to be 20% of 10 credits. Now, it's 17% of 12 credits. Makes for kind of a wash. It's still a disturbing trend of squeezing from both sides (buyers and contributors).

Well if this cut is live right now??  must say Im not seeing any differance at all. Maybe lots of people are worrying for nothing?

Seriously, no difference? I used to get $3 to $3.30 for a large; since the cut $2,60 is the most i got, and usually less with a $1.60 low.
Xsmall used to be $0,30, now i get between $0,15 and $0,26. All in all i had a great january in n� of downloads, but royalties will be about 30% down if the trend goes on.
Maybe they forgot to switch the button on your account? 
I wished they had at least to decency (ha, haha!) to swallow their own discounts 

Could you elaborate?I don't see any price increase anywhere, except for Exclusive Plus files.Price for credits varied just in cents.

For me, it was detailed illustrations going from 10 credits to 12 credits. I can't say about the rest. Here's the price increase thread:

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=293832&page=1

Horrendously low credits reported here (bronze, inependent)
"OMG, same photo, same size, same method of payment.....is everything ok here???
Saturday January 22, 2011, 08:29 AM XSmallRegular 0.12
Saturday December 04, 2010, 02:45 PM XSmallRegular 0.29"
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=291242&page=13#post5688772
PLEASE let that be a mistake.