My guess is nothing will change, Race.  I expect new sign ups, and the vast majority of photographers will continue to upload new content.  Wouldn't be surprised to see a reduction in the amount of exclusives, but other than that I expect nothing will change.

Microstockers follow the money.  If buyers leave iStockphoto, then and only then will you see a tangible loss in photographers and new content.  It won't happen, but if IS fell to mid-tier status I think you might see people pull their images in droves.  Most content providers will accept the lowered commissions as long as the money continues to roll in.  But if Cutcaster told everyone their share would only be 15%, they wouldn't have a worthwhile image left within the year.

I imagine a lot of photographer who don't check the forums/messages often or at all have no clue about all the changes ...Neither would newbies!

All what changes? 

Mostly I posted the data so there would be something to look back at with the numbers and not have to calculate and type it in, all over again!. All my notes are by hand on scraps of paper over the years. Some are screen captures, useless now because I printed them, not archived. Somewhere in one of the threads about going exclusive, from this Summer, were the numbers and I added the current percentages and numbers. Can't find it now. But in six months, maybe I'll be able to find this one and compare.

I imagine a lot of photographer who don't check the forums/messages often or at all have no clue about all the changes ...Neither would newbies!

And in fact, as of this minute (10.58 GMT) the "We want you" page that spells out the benefits of exclusivity still claims that your royalty rate changes with canister. In fact, this seems to be the case at this very moment, but of course won't be in the near future, so it's either laziness, forgetfulness (they 'forgot' to change the inducement page), disingenuity(it's technically still true as of now) or deceit(still trying to lure in the innocent with a deal which we all expect to end RSN), depending you how you look at it.

Unbelievably pathetic.

Thankfully, some word finally on some of the pressing pending issues:

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=288642&page=1

I suppose it's better than silence.

But just barely.

I didn't see a link to a thread to ask questions.  Usually/sometimes they link back to a thread so people can ask questions then they (sort of) respond to them in the one sticky thread.  does anyone see that?

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=288642&page=1

Sad that the help forum is the place where all the important info is these days.

Well, at least there is some word.  Even if it isn't definitive answers to anything, it's nice to know folks at HQ are back at work. 

Pet_Chia - you are right about it being vague and many of the system changes should just have been automatic/automated updates at the first of the year. As you said, they had 4 months to plan for the switch over. Anyway, at least we know things are in the fix, which is most important and somewhat of a relief.

Yes, I noticed a post titled "When" has dissappeared since this morning. I think it was in that post that RM had put a link to the post I linked above to the update post he made. It was there that he also said this locked post he made was to keep us updated and not meant to be a discussion or allow comment posts to be added to it as it will be easier to follow that way.  

My guess is maybe all the new royalty changes etc were meant to happen automatically, but when the site started going haywire, and collapsing from all the SE changes, that they pulled the plug on the switch over until they get the problems sorted. That is a giving them a benefit of the doubt view on it all, but on the other hand none of the now faulty changes should have been rolled out anyway until they had all the bugs sorted. So either way I guess the approach was not done right. A lot of it seems like common sense though and sometimes you got to wonder how decisions are made and plans of action are decided upon back at HQ.

Quote from: KB on January 04, 2011, 12:37

I suppose it's better than silence.

But just barely.

Yeah, nothing new. They know about all the problems, they're working on them. They've been saying that for 2 months or more. Just because they are saying it in the New Year, doesn't mean it really means anything different than it did before.

Maybe we should send a support ticket with the definition of SOON:

SOON
�adverb, -er, -est. 
1. within a short period after this or that time, event, etc.
2. before long; in the near future; at an early date
3. promptly or quickly

They seem to define "soon" as some vague and distant point in time when they figure it out at which point the "fix" seems to be a gateway to more problems.

I was documenting the stats on IS at the start of the year 2011, nothing more. I knew that the haters would take off with this and turn it into the mud slinging as usual, but it was just a reference point. Next year, we can look back and see how the numbers have changed or not?

Somewhere back in June or July I had copied the exclusive numbers because we had a poll that someone started about "are you going exclusive" which was before the big blowout and commission changes. Should be interesting to follow.

The payout calendar schedule still shows 2010 dates as well and no payout dates yet for 2011.

The new payout schedule for 2011 is now available.

@RacePhoto

I see, thanks.  Your count is based on the member userid numbers.

My numbers came from the count as reported at the top of the multimedia.de site (as in your opening post) for the last day of each of the years.  As I said, I've been keeping a record.

Quote from: KB on January 04, 2011, 12:37

I suppose it's better than silence.

But just barely.

All you had to do was ask! http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286942&messageid=5525802
Seriously, I'm just glad for everyone, that the sticky is there now.

Quote from: jamirae on January 04, 2011, 12:50

I didn't see a link to a thread to ask questions.  Usually/sometimes they link back to a thread so people can ask questions then they (sort of) respond to them in the one sticky thread.  does anyone see that?

How about here: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=288862&page=1

thanks Sean!

Maybe microstock has hit it's peak and is leveling off. Less new entries into the market. If there was a way to see how many new people joined SS, FT and DT, that would be a good indication of the trend for new artists?

I'm sure it has. One good indicator is Shutterstock's "New images added this week" figure. It peaked at about 113K last year but has been dropping steadily for a few months now. We're down to 57K this week although I guess some people will be holding off new uploads until the silly season is over.

Maybe some folk who thought they'd "get rich by uploading the images from their hard drives" have since found it doesn't quite work like that.

....... no matter what you upload or how many, earnings will not increase nor decrease.

Do you offer a guarantee policy for $100 regarding this statement 

Like all other business, Micro will reach its peak and then remain just "steady". A sure sign is when you hit the wall, no matter what you upload or how many, earnings will not increase nor decrease.

I don't believe there is any such place.  Either you are growing your income or it is shrinking.  I don't think the standing still part lasts for very long. 

... They also need to spread the word about copyright issues and help to change the 'everything is free' mentality.  Furthermore, there are still a lot of buyers who think iStock is the only agency in the microstock business, and their competitors need to change that misconception.  

I wish they would also make it clearer that most of the photographers and artists are solo workers, earning or building towards a living at this.  I sometimes think (perhaps naively) that a lot of thieves think they're stealing from a big company that can absorb the loss easily, and may not realise that they have the potential to wreck the livelihoods of a lot of 'little guys'.

All good points.

Until my mom calls me up and tells me about some microstock site she heard of, I'm going to think they aren't doing enough marketing.  I'm not sure if a company like Google or Amazon would be a good thing to join the microstcock game, but you have to think they would market . out of it.

Quote from: rubyroo on January 05, 2011, 18:48

I wish they would also make it clearer that most of the photographers and artists are solo workers, earning or building towards a living at this.  I sometimes think (perhaps naively) that a lot of thieves think they're stealing from a big company that can absorb the loss easily, and may not realise that they have the potential to wreck the livelihoods of a lot of 'little guys'.

That is really irrelevant.  Buyers don't care where the images come from.

Mr. Locke, FWIW I could not agree more with this statement. The only people who care about the "starving artist" are other "starving artists".

Well... I was expecting someone would say that thieves have no scruples whatsoever.  Perhaps it's an old-fashioned practice for some thieves to hit only the large corps and retain some empathy for the 'little guy'. 

I don't agree that buyers don't care where images come from though (not sure if Sean was joking there... apparently equating buyers with thieves).  They may be few and far between, but when the iStock shenanigans started, I distinctly remember some buyers actively spreading the word on contributors' commission cuts and saying they would buy from agencies that gave us a better deal.   There are still highly principled in this world, IMO.  (Thankfully).

I wouldn't place any bets on buyers/designers buying elsewhere because they feel bad for contributor royalty cuts. That may be the case for a few small desingers who also have small image ports for sale and feel gauged and so they will be leaving. But for most buyers it is business only and they need to be supplying the best quality imagery to their design clients in design layouts. If the quality of the images they are starting to source drops becuase they are now buying from a new, lesser quality image source, then they will start losing clients. So bottom line is buyers will still buy from whoever has the best images and honestly iStock still has the best collection of high quality exclusive microstock imagery available. Buyers and designers still have to put their own business interests in first position. If the quality of istock imagery really were to change, then buyers might really buy elsewhere, but designers are not going to jepordize their own business viability to try and help out some exploited artists. It's a pipe dream I think.

I don't agree that buyers don't care where images come from though (not sure if Sean was joking there... apparently equating buyers with thieves).  They may be few and far between, but when the iStock shenanigans started, I distinctly remember some buyers actively spreading the word on contributors' commission cuts and saying they would buy from agencies that gave us a better deal.   There are still highly principled in this world, IMO.  (Thankfully).

A small percentage of buyers may be aware and care, but a lot of those people probably have dual roles are buyers and contributors. I'd say the majority of buyers care about one thing, their job. And whatever gives them the right image for the right price as quickly as possible to help them do, or keep, their job is priority number one.

Even if they do care, most will only make a move if it directly affects them. Like a price increase or they can't find the right image.

Would you leave an agency if buyers were being treated poorly? I doubt it. Not unless the buyers leaving totally killed your sales.

If the quality of the images they are starting to source drops becuase they are now buying from a new, lesser quality image source, then they will start losing clients.

The quality of images on iStock are no higher that many other sites. Most of the worlds highest selling professional stock photographers sell on many sites, plus iStock is just as full of images by low selling contributors as any of the others.

If what some people believe (i.e. exclusives get a bump up the search ranks) then from a buyers point of view shopping at an alternative site means they don't have to wade through all the stuff from exclusives that have had very few sales, on other sites quality shines through with no 'bump' up.

Hi All,

 I think the best thing I saw from the post of IS is that they will not make it retroactive from the 1st of January. I said I thought they would about a week ago but Mr. Mexico says no they will start it when it is in place. so that's one good thing.
 Interesting reading on this post. I will say that maturation takes place in every business. There are a finite number of buyers so to ask IS to hustle up some more buyers is good but there will be a point where the new buyers start to level off and the sales numbers will reflect that at some point of the game, unless they keep raising prices. It happened with RF Macro before Microstock had made a dent, at least in my sales at Macro RF.
 Also after Getty joined in the game Macro never had more than one player that held the lions share of sales that is not as true in Micro, there are strong companies like SS and a couple others that are serious players in the industry so this also effects the growth at IS and the outcome of the entire industries growth. Sales are more diversified than stock sales used to be which is good for us photographers. The more diversified the sales are the better the business is for us shooters. Just my opinion.

Best,
Jonathan

Gostwyck - In some ways I think it's hard to compare istock and ss. Two very different stock model sites in many ways. You can't quite rock up and just buy a one off picture on ss unles you have a monthly sub. ...

Actually, you can. You can buy a pack of 5 images for $49 - use within one year.

It's true that IS's subscriptions never took off, but all the other stock sites have tried to combine subscriptions and PPD. I don't think anyone has made the combo work particularly well, at least for contributors. In the time since I was active there, I've read SS contributors saying that their quantity of PPD sales has risen, but it's still a sauce not an entree as far as I can gather. The fact that Getty starting using IS to push Thinkstock subscriptions suggests that buyers are not quite so separate.

SS has just done the subscription thing so well that they remain king of the microstock subscription hill - the one to beat. I still think of them as Wal-Mart not Neiman Marcus, but Wal-Mart pulls in the customers pretty well too

Sorry, my mistake on ss. Thought it was all subs. And yes, they might be king of the hill on subs, but as you said because prices work out so low for buyers. To imagine though being paid 25 cents a download though. Eeks, it's a tough pill to swallow for contributors.

You are years out of date. The lowest payment I have had for several years on SS is 38c. Quite recently I had a 5c sale on IS (ancient credits apparently) and sub-30c sales are quite common there but nowhere else.

Quote from: 123XXX on January 07, 2011, 23:16

Sorry, my mistake on ss. Thought it was all subs. And yes, they might be king of the hill on subs, but as you said because prices work out so low for buyers. To imagine though being paid 25 cents a download though. Eeks, it's a tough pill to swallow for contributors.

You are years out of date. The lowest payment I have had for several years on SS is 38c. Quite recently I had a 5c sale on IS (ancient credits apparently) and sub-30c sales are quite common there but nowhere else.

We're not all as great and wonderful as you gostwyck and you always point out that most people don't make 25c. Well yes we do. Many people still make 25c a download and the next group makes 33c a download. Not all that many have $10,000 in sales or make the 38c.

Now about the question that people won't answer, but keep hedging around. With two quotes for background:

Actually, You can buy a pack of 5 images for $49 - use within one year.

Ah lets see if my math is right that's about $10 an image and we get 25 cents?

... and, if they go to Shutterstock for example, all 14M images are the same price and available in just two sizes. For example they've got access to Yuri's entire 38K portfolio, including all the best-sellers at maximum size, for just $9. On Istock those cost nearly $40. The site never goes down and the Search works too.

OK $9 an image on and we get what? 25c, 33c, 38c

I just want to know for all the people who are shouting that they won't work for 20% on IS or ThinkStock or in my case a crummy 15% on IS.

What's the percentage on SS?

Using the above numbers SS pays around 5% on those sales, if they give someone 38c for a $9 sale.

Please someone tell me, what percentage does SS pay? 

Actually RacePhoto, I think there might be one error in your calculation. I think contributors get about 15-20% per download on those $49 pay per download packs, but I could be wrong. I think the 25-38 cents is only on monthly sub downloads.

Either way though, I think probably 90% or more of SS downloads are monthly sub based and so you could still only be earning 25 cents on that XXXL shot used for an ad billboard.

I don't understand how you reach those figures, Racephoto. The pay per download credits at SS give $2.85 or $1.84 (I can't remember what the two pricing levels represent, I'm sure someone will enlighten me). $2.85 is similar to the return on a large sale on iStock, and if the packages are selling at $9.80 per download that is a 29% return for the artist.

Sure, they could print a billboard from a 25c image if you choose to upload files that big to Shutterstock - but that is your choice, you could upload very small sizes to SS which would pay even less than 25c commission on iS.

In reality, the return for billboard use at any micro is too little.

I make $1.87 or $2.70 on on-demand downloads on SS. And my subs mostly make $.36 each. And with occasional ELs, it pushes the overall average up a tiny bit more. Yes, beginners start out low, but at least a person has a chance of increasing those amounts. At Thinkstock, you make what you make. The end.

and sub-30c sales are quite common there but nowhere else.

I can swallow 20c for an XS image much easier than a 70c (like in DT lever 3-4) for an XXL one.

Sorry, Pete, you know I love you, but this .25/DL argument you keep making about sales at SS is really a straw man.  

Honestly, I don't know why you are still at .25.  Anyone who takes microstock even remotely seriously will move to the .33 level quickly.  It only takes $500 in sales to get there.  That's only 5.5 sales a day for a year if you only get sub sales. Not a difficult goal, surely?

And as has been pointed out, that ignores the PPD sales, which range from .81 (sm size, beginner) to 2.84 (lg. size, high rank).  Not to mention the ELs, which are pretty common and net $28 for everyone, regardless of rank.  

If you are still only making .25 per sale at SS, and aren't even close to moving up (?!) after several years, the fault is not with Shutterstock.  Sorry to say.

OK I've been outed at my own game. Poor attempt at a troll, I'll be forced to leave that to professionals.

On Demand is $1.88 which I'll assume is one of the $9 or $10 packs and that means 18.8% roughly. Still not 25 cents which would be about 4%. Subs we don't know, because we don't have a clue if the person pays $249 and downloads one file, or $249 and downloads 750 files. Only SS and the Taxman know the answer to that question.

As for the 25c part, I'm still there because I have 270 rather average and dull images up on SS and have nearly stopped uploading. (feed the beast is real) I have nothing with a model in it. (I consider that important also) When I was sending in at least one image a month, the sales did go up. After two months of nothing, they dropped down to under five dollars a month again. Funny aside, IS I did stop uploading in May and the sales there are even, month after month. Kind of strange?

Anyway, $500 would mean roughly 2000 sales! That may have been easier to achieve a couple of years ago, before there were ten million competing images and 50,000 competing photographers. Yes, one may expect an EL or OD now and then, which is also interesting because every year, I get less and less of those. I suspect others have found the same trend in sales on SS, that being more subs, less OD and even less EL. I'll reach $500 in 2013, maybe sooner with some more ELs, but those seem to be a thing of the past?

True ThinkStock is always gong to be 25c and it's also a sub site. People who don't like it don't have to sell there. A sub is a sub, no matter who is selling us out. ThinkStock or a site that pays 25c for uploads and then sells nothing for years. What's the difference?

I can hammer this point and I seem to be ignored. ThinkStock is not dependent on our photos or images and they don't really care if they get them or not. It is a site for a collection of old stale photos and all the defunct agencies that Getty has gobbled up. All the old photos in one place, one brand, under one easy subscription. It's a different market than micro. It's a warehouse sale of images, nothing more. The fact that they have my StockXpert leftovers and things that no other site would accept, might point to the level of quality that ThinkStock is offering. So if they can sell those images, that would otherwise be taking up space on my hard drive, and for sale nowhere else, better luck to them. ThinkStock gets nothing new from me.

Billboard or website, once someone pays me the crummy quarter, they can do what they want. The image is already out int the wild and RF for anyone, so size doesn't make the whole difference. EL does!

I know there isn't going to be an uprising of people admitting that they won't reach $500 in SS sales for two or three years, but we do exist. Moderately serious, don't even accuse me of that, I'm just having fun. Yes I'm very serious about the motorsport photos, I wish there was a place for them in Micro. I can do editorial on SS and get 25 cents (or whoopee 38c a shot) instead of what they are worth. It's not like everyone can go grab the shots from sports events? IS won't take them because their editorial doesn't include News and Sports. So part of the problem is that I'm not producing material that meets the demand of the market. My fault alone.

Say, what does SS get for an EL, I don't even know? All I know is I get $28.

ps I did get 5c for a CD backup in October. Lets hear it for that commission?

I couldn't agree more! When ss was doing a survey about improving submitter end, I tried to tell them - no one cares, it is good as it is, please focus more on advertising to more diverse audience. Alas! They spent the money on prettifying the submitter page. The key to micro stock is that indeed this is a product that everyone can afford. Your grade 6 child doing a school project. Your grandmother making a church poster. Your neighbor plumber putting his add into the local newspaper. But - every time we approach someone to ask permission to take pictures, they not only never heard of micro stock, most of them had no idea what stock photography was!
We are a Wallmart of photography business, and yet no one knows about us!

I'm glad I'm not the only one that sees the potential.

According to Rogermexico,
quote :
�New Royalty Structure

The new royalties will take effect his week. We posted the revised redeemed credit targets last friday�

So we will see the real effects of these cuts next week...

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=288642&page=1

Claude

So my point again, even though it seems a bit thick, is it can take almost 30,000 downloads to reach the level that some people claim is easy. I don't think that 10,000 a year is easy, let alone 10,000 a year for three years, with EL and OD, counted. That's three years to reach the 38c if someone gets 10,000 downloads a year.

EASY?

I think the point of it being easy is that it is relative to the other agencies. It is very easy to make the top tier at SS compared to the other agencies.

In reality there are ELs and ODs and they account for about a third of the earnings, so with hard work and reasonable ability it should be possible to get from newbie to top tier within two years. Of course, it's not "easy" but then $10,000 is a lot of money to most people. And at least length of service, effort and commitment gets rewarded with a pay rise, unlike at iStock where you get a pay cut for allegedly not being "productive" enough.

I love how all the people saying it's easy have their meters pinned on full ahead. Maybe easy for you Ladies and Gents, but for the common person, 30,000 downloads is a huge number for three years, even harder in two years? Considering the level of images now, competition, and somewhat leveling of the market, it's not as easy now as it was three years ago.

I'm not the one complaining about getting a quarter a download from SS or making extra money from leftovers on another site that pays me 25c. The argument has been that people are getting ripped off when they sell downloads, for 25 cents, and I say, many of us still do! But SS is OK, while the other site is horrible and greedy.

True there's no pay increase for ThinkStock in the long run. I don't care, because what they sell makes me nothing anywhere else.

wasn't the "easy" comments only about reaching the 33c level eg $500.

I agree that it's definitely easier reaching top level at SS compared to Istock.

At Istock for top level you required 1,250,000 credits last year.
If you average 10 credits per download (generous on my figures) and you'd need 125,000 downloads a year to stay at 20%. No that would be hard.  I doubt you could do it as an independent without a large team.

... top tier within two years. Of course, it's not "easy" but then $10,000 is a lot of money to most people....

10 000 in two years is a lot of money?? Not even in my country. That's less then minimal wage /month.

I don't think I ever said getting to .38 was easy at SS, but I said that getting to .33 wouldn't be too hard if you were serious.

Also TS took our material that was making .30/dl and then generously offered us .25/dl, to many of us that seemed insulting.

So true, and now Photos.com is offering the same photos for 90 cents and paying the same 25 cents commission. Jupiter and ThinkStock are in the same group, almost identical collections. For some reason Jupiter lists Photos.com collection, but when I search, all of them are not included. Could be another programming "feature.

The fact that someone is selling anything, even "crapstock" for 90c to a dollar or sub at potentially 19-24 cents, is terribly insulting.

Maybe that's why I find it difficult to get serious about making $500 so I can get 8 cents more for a sub download, competing with other sites that sell work for under a dollar and pay relatively the same pay. A crummy quarter for a download.

Once again I found some interesting material that I thought could be marketed and get downloads, no models, low production costs, my kind of ideas. I searched a little bit and found a site sell the same for $1 per download. Maybe not one of the major Micro sites, but the big sites don't sell this type of stuff because they are running scared about some Public Domain material.

My position all along has been that complaining about getting 25 cents, instead of 30 cents is hardly important. At that point people bring up that SS pays 38 cents, instead of sticking to the same argument. Then someone else will come back with the percentage is too low on ThinkStock or photos.com, when the percentage isn't the problem. It's just that the company doing this is Getty and they are cutting pay across all of their sites and pissing people off.

I'd be much happier to read people admitting that they are unhappy with Getty and finding fault with everything Getty does, while they give a pass to other places paying the same or lower commissions, and give a pass to places that bottom line, don't make nearly the same amount of income. Percentage doesn't put food on the table. Bottom line, sales and income count more than percentages.

If I make $4 a month at ThinkStock and $0 a month at BigStock, which one pays better?

So I'll get back to my point. 90 cent or $1 on demand downloads are too little. No matter how you slice the pie and count commissions. 25c or 38c pay per download isn't enough for the work people put into making the images. Quibbling over one site changing from 30c to 25c like it's a big issue, makes little sense when defending another site that's paying most people 33 cents? As if the 33 cents is some big milestone? None of it is enough or a fair and reasonable return.