Author Topic: istock update for non-exclusives (Read 38104 times)

luissantos84 · « **Reply #25 on:** March 21, 2013, 19:55 »

Quote from: cidepix on March 21, 2013, 18:53

raising illustrator upload limit to 999/168 (in their own words: lifting the limits)

HOW DESPERATE!

no more files for you istock..

indeed but can you explain me why? sure they (illustrations) must sell very well but why not photos or other?

jjneff · « **Reply #26 on:** March 21, 2013, 20:12 »

Glad you can post here Sean to help us sort this mess out. Now we know why they gave you the boot! they don't want people uncovering their plots. My guess is 360 will be rolled out more and more until all are at a glorious 20%. Now can I have another survey you bunch of screw balls.

gostwyck · « **Reply #27 on:** March 21, 2013, 20:25 »

Quote from: ann on March 21, 2013, 19:45

Each file bought from, or uploaded to, IS is a vote that their prices, commissions, terms... are acceptable. Period.

That's easy for you to say if you are not reliant on the income to feed your family and pay your bills.

It's kind of ironic how people who haven't actually got the talent or skills to earn significant sums from stock photography can thus afford a high-minded and principled view on the actions of those who do.

disorderly · « **Reply #28 on:** March 21, 2013, 20:30 »

Quote from: gostwyck on March 21, 2013, 20:25

Quote from: ann on March 21, 2013, 19:45
Each file bought from, or uploaded to, IS is a vote that their prices, commissions, terms... are acceptable. Period.

That's easy for you to say if you are not reliant on the income to feed your family and pay your bills.

It's kind of ironic how people who haven't actually got the talent or skills to earn significant sums from stock photography can thus afford a high-minded and principled view on the actions of those who do.

Aren't you overreacting just a little? I interpreted Ann's remark to say that what we put up with is a statement of what we are willing to accept. If it were truly unacceptable, we'd stop accepting it. We vote with our submissions, and with our deletions. Sad but true, at least in my view.

EmberMike · « **Reply #29 on:** March 21, 2013, 20:39 »

Quote from: ann on March 21, 2013, 19:45

Each file bought from, or uploaded to, IS is a vote that their prices, commissions, terms... are acceptable. Period.

Oh if only everything in life were just that darn simple.

Microstock is currently my sole source of income and my full-time job. I do what I have to do to make a living at this, and from time to time that means making choices that I'm not always proud of but are necessary. Sometimes that includes continuing to work with istock. I do so in a more limited capacity than ever before, but nevertheless I still do upload some stuff there.

And while I haven't bought anything at istock in years, I can understand the need of some folks to continue buying there. Not everyone is in the fortunate position to be able to dictate to their clients where they acquire stock images from for their projects. Some companies only work with istock, for whatever internal reasons.

Gotta love the whole "if you're not against them you're with them" mentality. As if everyone has the luxury of turning away income these days. I suppose you have never in your life had a job you didn't like or worked for someone you didn't like, but continued to do so because you needed the money.

Lucky you to have never been in that position.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #30 on:** March 21, 2013, 20:40 »

Quote from: disorderly on March 21, 2013, 20:30

...I interpreted Ann's remark to say that what we put up with is a statement of what we are willing to accept. If it were truly unacceptable, we'd stop accepting it. We vote with our submissions, and with our deletions. Sad but true, at least in my view.

I have the luxury of another income in the household that allowed me to refuse to put up with the lack of an opt out for dreadful deals such as the Google-Getty deal, done behind IS contributor backs and without their explicit consent. All but 140 or so of my images are gone from IS.

If I were full time and if my kids wouldn't eat if I didn't collect my weekly money from IS, I'd probably have put up with their rubbish, no matter how wrong their behavior was. I'd plot an escape route - something lots of folks have been doing - and get the heck away from these foul deals as soon as I could. I can't feel high and mighty about my choice because I'm acutely aware how easy it is for me to be able to afford my principles.

Travelling-light · « **Reply #31 on:** March 21, 2013, 20:41 »

After all that's happened, surely most of those dependent on IS have by now started to make a few changes?

EmberMike · « **Reply #32 on:** March 21, 2013, 20:43 »

I love how they opened the Contributor News email:

Quote

One of our highest priorities for 2013 is making improvements for iStock Exclusives.

Translation:

Please, if anyone out there is still exclusive, stay. We'll try to stop screwing up. Or at least make it look like we're trying...

gostwyck · « **Reply #33 on:** March 21, 2013, 20:44 »

Quote from: disorderly on March 21, 2013, 20:30

Quote from: gostwyck on March 21, 2013, 20:25
Quote from: ann on March 21, 2013, 19:45
Each file bought from, or uploaded to, IS is a vote that their prices, commissions, terms... are acceptable. Period.

That's easy for you to say if you are not reliant on the income to feed your family and pay your bills.

It's kind of ironic how people who haven't actually got the talent or skills to earn significant sums from stock photography can thus afford a high-minded and principled view on the actions of those who do.

Aren't you overreacting just a little? I interpreted Ann's remark to say that what we put up with is a statement of what we are willing to accept. If it were truly unacceptable, we'd stop accepting it. We vote with our submissions, and with our deletions. Sad but true, at least in my view.

No, I'm not 'overreacting' at all. I'm simply making an observation. Fortunately EmberMike has clarified and expanded on my point much better than I could have done.

stockmn · « **Reply #34 on:** March 21, 2013, 23:17 »

Sounds like this is in preparation to moving more content over to Getty. Independent video at a 15% royalty rate anyone?

shudderstok · « **Reply #35 on:** March 21, 2013, 23:39 »

why don't you IS and Getty haters, just close your accounts and be free of your perpetual whining? surely you have better things to do with your life than complain all the time, it really gets boring don't you think? CLOSE YOUR ACCOUNTS and stop complaining, PLEASE. i really don't understand how anyone can be so miserable about one company, yet stick around and gripe daily.

cobalt · « **Reply #36 on:** March 22, 2013, 01:29 »

Do you see anybody celebrating the news on istock's own forums? Not even the admins and employees have anything positive to say.

If you spent any time on istock itself you would know what is actually going on there.

ShadySue · « **Reply #37 on:** March 22, 2013, 02:21 »

The 360 thing is a double whammy for excusives too - a lower commission and no RCs. Plus these great buyers probably have the deepest commissions.j

cobalt · « **Reply #38 on:** March 22, 2013, 02:52 »

Yes, more and more sales seem to be moved to the 20% royalty with no RC´s. I don´t see anything to indicate that they want to sell more content via istock itself where the exclusives might get 35% or 40%.

There are quite a few high end contributors that don´t put a lot of files into e+ and try to sell via istock only. This decision means all their content will be available for getty customers at a very low royalty, lower than the lowest exclusive royalty on istock.

From Getty´s perspective moving content to an arena where they have to pay less, makes sense. They don´t need to close istock, they can keep the brand running while slowly transferring the main sales volume elsewhere.

suemack · « **Reply #39 on:** March 22, 2013, 03:09 »

Confirmation of what it means for Inde's from Lobo

On iStock forum
"Posted By cobalt:
Do I understand this correctly - on istock I will receive 18%, but on all other getty sites, including Thinkstock, photos.com, gettyimages itself, I will be getting 15% only starting end of April.

Yes, that is correct."

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=352445&page=1

sharpshot · « **Reply #40 on:** March 22, 2013, 03:23 »

I can't be bothered wasting time reading all the threads about istock any more. Will be interesting to see our 15% commissions from the nanostock scheme they implemented. Think I'll start deleting images again.

Harvepino · « **Reply #41 on:** March 22, 2013, 03:30 »

How long-term strategy at iStock looks like:

1) Annoy exclusives by giving out their work for free.

2) Annoy non-exclusives by publicly declaring iStock cares only about exclusives.

3) If number of contributors > 0, repeat.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #42 on:** March 22, 2013, 03:54 »

OK .... try again since this post originally had a misunderstanding in it

So the very rare one-off sales in the PP will have a price cut
But the PP stuff is being put into a high-priced "Getty 360" collection where the commission rate will be 15%
Have I got a grasp of it now?

Jogga0 · « **Reply #43 on:** March 22, 2013, 04:15 »

I think all IS content will be available on 360 and any non exclusive sales there get 15% so it's not just PP, is that right?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #44 on:** March 22, 2013, 04:22 »

Quote from: Jogga0 on March 22, 2013, 04:15

I think all IS content will be available on 360 and any non exclusive sales there get 15% so it's not just PP, is that right?

Yes. Somehow they've managed to incorporate the entire Getty, IS and TS database into one searchable collection for a tiny group of "hand selected" customers to shop in. Any promises of higher price points will not be guaranteed, because, as we all know, no matter what the price, they discount it as they see fit. And since "you" won't be able to even see the prices, you won't know how what you get relates to the price. And your reporting will be the terribly designed GI reporting page on IS.

You've got to love the old "well, 15% of something is more than the nothing you were making before", instead of using the opportunity to improve rates.

Anyways, for that amount of work, you can bet it won't be limited to this hand-selected group for too long.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #45 on:** March 22, 2013, 04:27 »

This could be a way of avoiding removing formerly-exclusive content from the Getty collection, couldn't it? If people have light-boxed an image and the creator dropped the crown then that image would no longer be available via Getty.... but this way, the ex-exclusive's image remains in one of the Getty collections.

So, just possibly, this is a response to a select group of buyers complaining about the disappearance of content they want.

cobalt · « **Reply #46 on:** March 22, 2013, 04:33 »

I don´t know Paul. It seems pretty reasonable that customers say they want to see all available Getty content in one place instead of their 10 000 seperate outlets. If I was a getty buyer I would be fed up too trying to hunt down files via their different companies.

So getty360 in principle is not a bad thing. They probably should have done that a long time ago.

The problem is the royalty rate, especially for the istock exclusives who will obviously lose high volume buyers who will no longer buy from istock at 35 or 40% royalty rate. And if 360 is successful, then obviously more customers will be asked to join. Which means the getty "macro" photographers will be seeing more and more sales at low prices and the big customers will get used to extremly low prices, even from Getty itself. This might prevent some of them from going to Shutterstock. Especially now that Shutterstock is also opening a high end collection, so getty can point out that for a high end buyer they can offer a cheap "all you can eat" buffet.

And for the indies it is another cut down to 15%.

So all contributors lose, but the exclusives will lose more than the indies in proportion.

fotografer · « **Reply #47 on:** March 22, 2013, 04:34 »

Quote from: shudderstok on March 21, 2013, 23:39

why don't you IS and Getty haters, just close your accounts and be free of your perpetual whining? surely you have better things to do with your life than complain all the time, it really gets boring don't you think? CLOSE YOUR ACCOUNTS and stop complaining, PLEASE. i really don't understand how anyone can be so miserable about one company, yet stick around and gripe daily.

Read this http://www.microstockgroup.com/18695/18695/msg305468/#msg305468
this
http://www.microstockgroup.com/18695/18695/msg305470/#msg305470
and this
http://www.microstockgroup.com/18695/18695/msg305471/#msg305471
to get an idea why it is not so easy for those of us with families to support to just delete our ports, as much as we would like to.

brm1949 · « **Reply #48 on:** March 22, 2013, 05:35 »

Quote from: fotografer on March 22, 2013, 04:34

Quote from: shudderstok on March 21, 2013, 23:39
why don't you IS and Getty haters, just close your accounts and be free of your perpetual whining? surely you have better things to do with your life than complain all the time, it really gets boring don't you think? CLOSE YOUR ACCOUNTS and stop complaining, PLEASE. i really don't understand how anyone can be so miserable about one company, yet stick around and gripe daily.

Read this http://www.microstockgroup.com/18695/18695/msg305468/#msg305468
this
http://www.microstockgroup.com/18695/18695/msg305470/#msg305470
and this
http://www.microstockgroup.com/18695/18695/msg305471/#msg305471
to get an idea why it is not so easy for those of us with families to support to just delete our ports as much as we would like to.

I'm one who deleted my whole port. But I can't afford to keep it that way. I am a senior with a spouse with parkinson's and lewy body dementia. I have begun to upload select images again because I am a 24/7 caregiver and am hurting for income. In hind site, for me anyway, this was very costly. istock was my number one site until they started screwing us a couple of years ago. Shutterstock has since taken that slot and am grateful for it.

Life is not always a bed of roses for most of us.

I don't complain a whole lot, but sometimes corporate decisions have major consequences on people.

It's clear that istock will do whatever it takes to feed it's bottom line.
This deal just affirms what Jesus said:

Let your yes be yes and your no be no, all else comes from evil.

It's all deception, its our work they are playing with.

shudderstok · « **Reply #49 on:** March 22, 2013, 06:18 »

Quote from: brm1949 on March 22, 2013, 05:35

Quote from: fotografer on March 22, 2013, 04:34
Quote from: shudderstok on March 21, 2013, 23:39
why don't you IS and Getty haters, just close your accounts and be free of your perpetual whining? surely you have better things to do with your life than complain all the time, it really gets boring don't you think? CLOSE YOUR ACCOUNTS and stop complaining, PLEASE. i really don't understand how anyone can be so miserable about one company, yet stick around and gripe daily.

Read this http://www.microstockgroup.com/18695/18695/msg305468/#msg305468
this
http://www.microstockgroup.com/18695/18695/msg305470/#msg305470
and this
http://www.microstockgroup.com/18695/18695/msg305471/#msg305471
to get an idea why it is not so easy for those of us with families to support to just delete our ports as much as we would like to.

I'm one who deleted my whole port. But I can't afford to keep it that way. I am a senior with a spouse with parkinson's and lewy body dementia. I have begun to upload select images again because I am a 24/7 caregiver and am hurting for income. In hind site, for me anyway, this was very costly. istock was my number one site until they started screwing us a couple of years ago. Shutterstock has since taken that slot and am grateful for it.

Life is not always a bed of roses for most of us.

I don't complain a whole lot, but sometimes corporate decisions have major consequences on people.

It's clear that istock will do whatever it takes to feed it's bottom line.
This deal just affirms what Jesus said:

Let your yes be yes and your no be no, all else comes from evil.

It's all deception, its our work they are playing with.

i was referring to the few people that constantly whine just to hear their own voices. if they are so pissed off for years with IS and Getty then move on, make your life better. these same people whine over on istock too, and it's really getting boring. they must be miserable having to post almost daily about this crap. it you are not happy, then move on, make your life better. i for one am tired of your constant whining - it is not productive and is rather negative.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: istock update for non-exclusives (Read 38104 times)

luissantos84

jjneff

gostwyck

disorderly

EmberMike

Jo Ann Snover

Travelling-light

EmberMike

gostwyck

stockmn

shudderstok

cobalt

ShadySue

cobalt

suemack

sharpshot

Harvepino

BaldricksTrousers

Jogga0

Sean Locke Photography

BaldricksTrousers

cobalt

fotografer

brm1949

shudderstok

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors