Author Topic: Istockphoto Down For Maintenance or Hacked? (Read 70409 times)

Michael Lancaster · « **Reply #125 on:** November 29, 2011, 09:51 »

Quote from: jjneff on November 29, 2011, 09:05

I have been on the verge of dropping my exclusivity many times. I just can't afford the risk at this point in time.

Did you notice Tom's message about SS video?
What is not to afford? Those extra percent you get as exclusive you will earn on pond5 and SS in no time.

lagereek · « **Reply #126 on:** November 29, 2011, 09:56 »

Quote from: jjneff on November 29, 2011, 09:05

I have been on the verge of dropping my exclusivity many times. I just can't afford the risk at this point in time.

I dont want to push anybody in any direction, its a private decision. However, really, I cant for the life of me see what you have to lose, not now.

RapidEye · « **Reply #127 on:** November 29, 2011, 09:59 »

Quote from: StockCube on November 29, 2011, 08:04

Get ready now for when you need to hit the ground running. Get accounts opened in your name at all the agencies (you may already have done this to protect your name) and get all your keywords, descriptions etc into the metadata in the correct format for the other agencies. If you contact the agencies personally then they will approve your contributor application without putting your images live for sale to allow time for your exclusive contract notice period to pass. If you have your whole portfolio ready to go along with the bandwidth to support uploading it then that will minimise the inevitable blip in income. Inspection times in indie land are a lot less than at iStock so your portfolio should be live very quickly. A contributor of your standing with the quality and size of portfolio that you have won't have any difficulty in reaching payout thresholds quickly. A short blip versus standing by watching a steady decline whilst others stake their place with other agencies. One you can do something about, the other you can't. Whatever you do, I wish you the best of luck, you always seemed a sane voice on the iStock forums.

Thanks, Bridget. Sound advice.

jjneff · « **Reply #128 on:** November 29, 2011, 10:01 »

I have done the math and talked with many contributors on SS and Pond5, I have done this at least 5 times. With iStock I also have my files on Getty which in the end
still earns more over the long run. Considering I make over $40.00 per 720 -1080 file size on iStock its not hard to see where you will earn the most. Then you have to add in the time it takes to upload to many different sites and what your return on investment would be. I have been at this since 2006 and have watched the market evolve. If iStock can keep their site running smooth and get inspection times down "Some progress is being made there" then I do feel with the quality content they have they will be a market leader. Just to have SimonKR with 20,000 files of amazing quality brings a lot of buyers there. I average 5 to 6 sales a day not counting Getty.

RapidEye · « **Reply #129 on:** November 29, 2011, 10:02 »

Quote from: lagereek on November 29, 2011, 09:56

Quote from: jjneff on November 29, 2011, 09:05
I have been on the verge of dropping my exclusivity many times. I just can't afford the risk at this point in time.

I dont want to push anybody in any direction, its a private decision. However, really, I cant for the life of me see what you have to lose, not now.

What high-canister exclusives have to lose is an uncertain but precipitous immediate drop in income (royalty cut, loss of V/A and Getty, and of course best match placement) followed by an unknown rate of increase of earnings at other agencies, up to an unknown ceiling. That's pretty high-risk if you ask me.

If any former exclusive can and is willing to shed any light on these factors, I'd be deeply grateful.

stockpuppet · « **Reply #130 on:** November 29, 2011, 10:11 »

do people normally upload SRGB files to Shutterstock ? Do they convert ?

dhanford · « **Reply #131 on:** November 29, 2011, 10:13 »

Quote from: ShadySue on November 29, 2011, 04:26

So, I went to bed, I slept, I got up, dls still at 1st Nov.
Words fail me.

Agreed!
Actually two thoughts came into my mind. One was total frustration, which led me to the second, which is my abbreviated definition of the IS Artists Agreement: "Play or leave"...

StockCube · « **Reply #132 on:** November 29, 2011, 10:34 »

Quote from: RapidEye on November 29, 2011, 10:02

Quote from: lagereek on November 29, 2011, 09:56
Quote from: jjneff on November 29, 2011, 09:05
I have been on the verge of dropping my exclusivity many times. I just can't afford the risk at this point in time.

I dont want to push anybody in any direction, its a private decision. However, really, I cant for the life of me see what you have to lose, not now.

What high-canister exclusives have to lose is an uncertain but precipitous immediate drop in income (royalty cut, loss of V/A and Getty, and of course best match placement) followed by an unknown rate of increase of earnings at other agencies, up to an unknown ceiling. That's pretty high-risk if you ask me.

If any former exclusive can and is willing to shed any light on these factors, I'd be deeply grateful.

*clears throat* http://stockcube-stockcube.blogspot.com/
(some extrapolation may be required

)

gaja · « **Reply #133 on:** November 29, 2011, 10:35 »

Quote from: gostwyck on November 29, 2011, 09:30

Quote from: jjneff on November 29, 2011, 09:05
I have been on the verge of dropping my exclusivity many times. I just can't afford the risk at this point in time.

So you think there's less risk in remaining exclusive. Interesting.

Risk is usually defined mathematically as the product of 'Probability of Occurrence' and 'Consequence'. In my view the probability of Istock's failure seems to be increasing (as evidenced by the traffic stats, etc) and also the consequence of leaving exclusivity is becoming greater with every month that passes (the longer you leave it to join other sites the more difficult it will be for your images to achieve good sort order position).

Therefore the risk is actually increasing with time __ unless of course you believe that Istock can somehow compete effectively against the mighty threat that SS now presents and that the growth that they might achieve (theoretically) would also be enough to counteract the ever-increasing consquence of delay. That's not a wager I'd want to take with my income.

Well, there are several different functions used to define risk, depending on your area of expertice. Financial risk is not defined in the same way as geological risk etc. Most of the functions also includes uncertainty. Just to make it more interesting, there is also a distinction in some risk theories between uncertainty that you can calculate, and the uncertainty that is so little known that it is impossible to quantify.

Isn't math fun?

But I agree on the conclusion. This is not a good time to be exclusive. I wouldn't color it red yet, but definitely yellow with a relatively large uncertainty area.

StockCube · « **Reply #134 on:** November 29, 2011, 10:40 »

ps - Don, can I be the first to hit you up for an SS referral?

lagereek · « **Reply #135 on:** November 29, 2011, 10:43 »

Quote from: RapidEye on November 29, 2011, 10:02

Quote from: lagereek on November 29, 2011, 09:56
Quote from: jjneff on November 29, 2011, 09:05
I have been on the verge of dropping my exclusivity many times. I just can't afford the risk at this point in time.

I dont want to push anybody in any direction, its a private decision. However, really, I cant for the life of me see what you have to lose, not now.

What high-canister exclusives have to lose is an uncertain but precipitous immediate drop in income (royalty cut, loss of V/A and Getty, and of course best match placement) followed by an unknown rate of increase of earnings at other agencies, up to an unknown ceiling. That's pretty high-risk if you ask me.

If any former exclusive can and is willing to shed any light on these factors, I'd be deeply grateful.

I think its got way beyond just earnings, money, etc. I myself as an independant have earnt exeptionally good money at IS, during my 5 years, diamond status, etc. The present IS-problem goes much deeper.
Getty, have got IS, in a vice, so hard, the management will say, yes and OK, to everything, its obvious, isnt it. The merger with TS, is just the beginning, pretty soon exclusives will be forced to go the same way and if not? solong buddy.
This entire outfit is as reliable as a banana republic regime. People here tend to stare themselves blind at just revenues, forgetting the futures.

jjneff · « **Reply #136 on:** November 29, 2011, 10:51 »

Yes the issues run deep but I have a family to feed so its not something I can just guess at. I don't think Getty is going anywhere anytime soon.

gostwyck · « **Reply #137 on:** November 29, 2011, 10:56 »

Quote from: gaja on November 29, 2011, 10:35

Well, there are several different functions used to define risk, depending on your area of expertice. Financial risk is not defined in the same way as geological risk etc. Most of the functions also includes uncertainty. Just to make it more interesting, there is also a distinction in some risk theories between uncertainty that you can calculate, and the uncertainty that is so little known that it is impossible to quantify.

Isn't math fun?

But I agree on the conclusion. This is not a good time to be exclusive. I wouldn't color it red yet, but definitely yellow with a relatively large uncertainty area.

True however the 'probability' bit should include the uncertainty. My experience of risk is from the nuclear industry where uncertainy is not normally something to be welcomed. Mind you, pity the Japanese didn't factor in some minor 'uncertainties' when they built their reactors on the World's most active tectonic plateline, right next to the ocean and with the back-up generators on the same level. Oh no wait, they did build a nice little wall around it. Much better __ no 'uncertainty' now is there?

StockCube · « **Reply #138 on:** November 29, 2011, 11:01 »

For me saying goodbye to the stress of wondering what my exclusive agent would do next was a big plus. Worth taking a pay cut in the short term for even. I may be small-time, but iStock used to be quite a big part of my life, I was a bit of an iStock evangelist. I don't worry at all any more - I feel as though I have my bets pretty well spread out and it all just washes over me.

RapidEye · « **Reply #139 on:** November 29, 2011, 11:07 »

Quote from: StockCube on November 29, 2011, 10:34

Quote from: RapidEye on November 29, 2011, 10:02
Quote from: lagereek on November 29, 2011, 09:56
Quote from: jjneff on November 29, 2011, 09:05
I have been on the verge of dropping my exclusivity many times. I just can't afford the risk at this point in time.

I dont want to push anybody in any direction, its a private decision. However, really, I cant for the life of me see what you have to lose, not now.

What high-canister exclusives have to lose is an uncertain but precipitous immediate drop in income (royalty cut, loss of V/A and Getty, and of course best match placement) followed by an unknown rate of increase of earnings at other agencies, up to an unknown ceiling. That's pretty high-risk if you ask me.

If any former exclusive can and is willing to shed any light on these factors, I'd be deeply grateful.

*clears throat* http://stockcube-stockcube.blogspot.com/
(some extrapolation may be required )

Bridget, a million thanks. Very generous of you to show us all your underwear. Of course I made a beeline for your earnings spreadsheet, and it makes interesting reading. It seems to show, dispiritingly, that you're now earning less than half of what you did at your iStock exclusive peak. But you have very few images on the other agencies.

So I made a calculation of my own, to add columns that adjust your earnings on the other agencies in proportion to the number of images you have online there. This reveals that if you had all your images on the top five agencies -- and if all the images were created equal -- then you would be doing 43% better as an independent compared with your iStock peak.

I'm assuming, however, that you've only bothered to upload your known good sellers to the other agencies. Therefore a simple proportional calculation is not very meaningful. But it's interesting. Thanks again.

Since you've published your earnings, I'm sure you won't mind if I publish my slight reworking of your spreadsheet. It's here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AoJqxkTpE1lidDBPNEUya1FEWS00OGV4TmVqNnROWFE

RapidEye · « **Reply #140 on:** November 29, 2011, 11:08 »

Quote from: StockCube on November 29, 2011, 10:40

ps - Don, can I be the first to hit you up for an SS referral?

Ha ha. But of course.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #141 on:** November 29, 2011, 11:09 »

Quote from: RapidEye on November 29, 2011, 07:10

...
My real fear lies in the initial earnings crash that must follow dumping the bling. I have to support aged parents, young children, ex-wives, you name it. I have employees to pay. I lack the cash reserves to tide me over for more than a couple of months. What is someone in my position to do?

I think I'd be looking for a lawyer to help set up a company (possibly two) where you can start one company out on all the other sites - with new content for the moment. Leave your IS portfolio earning for a while so you can build up your earning power elsewhere (SS pays you more the more you earn them as I'm sure you know). When your IS income starts to fall, then you can switch to independence and do what you need to with copyright transfers and move your IS portfolio to all the other sites along with your new content.

Obviously it needs to be legally solid to avoid jeopardizing your IS status, but I think it could be done.

RapidEye · « **Reply #142 on:** November 29, 2011, 11:15 »

Quote from: jsnover on November 29, 2011, 11:09

Quote from: RapidEye on November 29, 2011, 07:10
...
My real fear lies in the initial earnings crash that must follow dumping the bling. I have to support aged parents, young children, ex-wives, you name it. I have employees to pay. I lack the cash reserves to tide me over for more than a couple of months. What is someone in my position to do?

I think I'd be looking for a lawyer to help set up a company (possibly two) where you can start one company out on all the other sites - with new content for the moment. Leave your IS portfolio earning for a while so you can build up your earning power elsewhere (SS pays you more the more you earn them as I'm sure you know). When your IS income starts to fall, then you can switch to independence and do what you need to with copyright transfers and move your IS portfolio to all the other sites along with your new content.

Obviously it needs to be legally solid to avoid jeopardizing your IS status, but I think it could be done.

That's a very interesting idea, Jo Ann, thanks. Unfortunately I think one would have to clear it with iStock because, as I think Baldrick posted in another thread, they don't need a reason to terminate their contract with you any more than you need a reason to dump them. And in this climate, do you think they'd agree?

michealo · « **Reply #143 on:** November 29, 2011, 11:34 »

Quote from: RapidEye on November 29, 2011, 11:15

Quote from: jsnover on November 29, 2011, 11:09
Quote from: RapidEye on November 29, 2011, 07:10
...
My real fear lies in the initial earnings crash that must follow dumping the bling. I have to support aged parents, young children, ex-wives, you name it. I have employees to pay. I lack the cash reserves to tide me over for more than a couple of months. What is someone in my position to do?

I think I'd be looking for a lawyer to help set up a company (possibly two) where you can start one company out on all the other sites - with new content for the moment. Leave your IS portfolio earning for a while so you can build up your earning power elsewhere (SS pays you more the more you earn them as I'm sure you know). When your IS income starts to fall, then you can switch to independence and do what you need to with copyright transfers and move your IS portfolio to all the other sites along with your new content.

Obviously it needs to be legally solid to avoid jeopardizing your IS status, but I think it could be done.

That's a very interesting idea, Jo Ann, thanks. Unfortunately I think one would have to clear it with iStock because, as I think Baldrick posted in another thread, they don't need a reason to terminate their contract with you any more than you need a reason to dump them. And in this climate, do you think they'd agree?

You could negotiate with one of the up and coming agencies

You could look for an equity stake
Guaranteed upfront income
Bulk uploading
Promotion
Higher % commission

what they get in return is legitimacy big name exclusive goes non exclusive preferentially with them
boost in their portfolio
maybe you upload first to them (a month - 3 months) before other sites

StockCube · « **Reply #144 on:** November 29, 2011, 11:58 »

Thanks for the analysis Don, that was very interesting to see. You are right that I am earning about half at the moment, but if you had slavishly read every word of my uber interesting blog,

then you would see that is because my life kind of went down the toilet at about the same time as I quit iStock. I'm not going to go into details, but it is probably an achievement worthy of some special sort of medal that I have managed to upload elsewhere at all. *takes discreet bow*

Prior to this month, I had uploaded just over 100 images and you are quite right that I of course chose my best images to upload first, so a direct extrapolation is maybe a bit flattering. I do think that if I got my finger out I could easily match my old exclusive income though.

I won't be uploading all my 650 iStock images elsewhere - quite a bit of it is dross from my early days that I am a bit embarrassed by, which iStock are welcome to. As brutal as the Shutterstock inspection process is, it has definitely taught me a great deal about stock and refined my eye as to what to submit/shoot. When I look at my teeny port on SS, I feel quite proud of it, less so with my iStock port. Coming out from behind iStocks skirts will be good for me in the long run, I am sure.

StockCube · « **Reply #145 on:** November 29, 2011, 12:30 »

and anyway, I don't need to bother uploading or even shooting ever again - once I get Don's referral I will be on easy street

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #146 on:** November 29, 2011, 12:37 »

Quote from: RapidEye on November 29, 2011, 11:15

... Unfortunately I think one would have to clear it with iStock because, as I think Baldrick posted in another thread, they don't need a reason to terminate their contract with you any more than you need a reason to dump them. And in this climate, do you think they'd agree?

I think several things:

(1) lots of people have turned to contributor relations for guidance and received utter rubbish for answers. The most recent was an exclusive who ended up turning in his crown when he asked about including his own images in an app he was submitting to the Apple app store; they told him to buy an exclusive license to his own images.

(2) Getty's current goal is to cut costs and is thus trying to get all royalties to a maximum of 20% for RF sales. If they thought they had a choice, they'd rather not pay you the higher royalty you're currently receiving.

(3) if they started dumping respected contributors for no reason at all - where the contributor had not legally violated their agreement with iStock - I think they'd be on seriously shaky ground with other exclusives. It'd be a very risky thing for them to do with relatively little upside.

(4) They didn't apparently have a problem with Daniel Laflor being exclusive and Yuri non even though Daniel apparently shared models, space, etc. I think there may be other examples of similar setups.

(5) It's always easier to ask forgiveness than ask permission, especially if the organization you'd be asking is in a state of disarray with its hair on fire

I wouldn't advocate doing anything underhanded or without legal advice, but I'm not sure I think it's necessary to ask iStock if it's OK with them if you do something advantageous to you.

stockastic · « **Reply #147 on:** November 29, 2011, 12:58 »

Like many of you, I've been on the inside at companies that made acquisitions which subsequently fell apart due to mismanagement. What I see now at IStock - conflicting or nonsensical responses to questions, constant churning of business models, rules and financial agreements, software and web site problems that drag on and don't get fixed - suggests a familiar pattern: key employees are leaving, and things are becoming chaotic. The remaining people don't know what to do, who's really in charge, how to fix things, or what to say to outsiders.

Has anyone actually heard anything concrete confirming that this is what's happening?

Cogent Marketing · « **Reply #148 on:** November 29, 2011, 13:00 »

Quote from: stockastic on November 29, 2011, 12:58

Like many of you, I've been on the inside at companies that made acquisitions which subsequently fell apart due to mismanagement. What I see now at IStock - conflicting or nonsensical responses to questions, constant churning of business models, rules and financial agreements, software and web site problems that drag on and don't get fixed - suggests a familiar pattern: key employees are leaving, and things are becoming chaotic. The remaining people don't know what to do, who's really in charge, how to fix things, or what to say to outsiders.

Has anyone actually heard anything concrete confirming that this is what's happening?

They just keep opening new threads....
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=337597&page=1
I doubt I'll get a response to my question, least still it'll get removed.

Cogent Marketing · « **Reply #149 on:** November 29, 2011, 13:14 »

Quote from: Cogent Marketing on November 29, 2011, 13:00

Quote from: stockastic on November 29, 2011, 12:58
Like many of you, I've been on the inside at companies that made acquisitions which subsequently fell apart due to mismanagement. What I see now at IStock - conflicting or nonsensical responses to questions, constant churning of business models, rules and financial agreements, software and web site problems that drag on and don't get fixed - suggests a familiar pattern: key employees are leaving, and things are becoming chaotic. The remaining people don't know what to do, who's really in charge, how to fix things, or what to say to outsiders.

Has anyone actually heard anything concrete confirming that this is what's happening?

They just keep opening new threads....
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=337597&page=1
I doubt I'll get a response to my question, least still it'll get removed.

Here is the inevitable response from the mendacious (He'll have to goggle the meaning) Lobo,

"Here is hoping the ban button works again. Please continue to gnash your teeth elsewhere. Your participation is the community is once again be revoked.

Have a super terrific day

"

Lobo

Say's it all really What a classy professional little outfit their not.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Istockphoto Down For Maintenance or Hacked? (Read 70409 times)

Michael Lancaster

lagereek

RapidEye

jjneff

RapidEye

stockpuppet

dhanford

StockCube

gaja

StockCube

lagereek

jjneff

gostwyck

StockCube

RapidEye

RapidEye

Jo Ann Snover

RapidEye

michealo

StockCube

StockCube

Jo Ann Snover

stockastic

Cogent Marketing

Cogent Marketing

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors