Author Topic: Kelly announces slightly downsized RC targets (Read 49870 times)

gostwyck · « **Reply #125 on:** January 12, 2011, 11:48 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 12, 2011, 11:40

But it would take a lot of nerve/chutzpah for a BD or high Diamond exclusive to do that.

Not really. It'll just take falling sales and reducing income. Not to mention frustration from the endless further disruption to the site and it's functionality. I don't expect Istock's greed to stop anyway. They'll think up other ways to charge their customers more and pay us less __ it's what they do best.

caspixel · « **Reply #126 on:** January 12, 2011, 16:43 »

Quote from: gostwyck on January 12, 2011, 11:20

Sales are already falling, which is why the RC targets were 'revised', and it's going to get really embarrassing for them when they announce the 2011 RC if they make any attempt to be realistic about them. They won't of course. They'll probably announce 'no change' when they do and then revise them downwards again towards the end of the year or earlier if enough exclusives start to kick up a fuss.

And you can be sure it will be accompanied by how great the company did over the past year, meeting and exceeding all their targets!

Chico · « **Reply #127 on:** January 12, 2011, 17:06 »

ShadySue · « **Reply #128 on:** January 12, 2011, 17:07 »

Quote from: Chico on January 12, 2011, 17:06

Excellent!

lisafx · « **Reply #129 on:** January 12, 2011, 17:25 »

Quote from: Chico on January 12, 2011, 17:06

Wonderful! You are really talented Chico. You should go into political cartooning. If you haven't already

suemack · « **Reply #130 on:** January 12, 2011, 17:27 »

Would look great on a t-shirt

cathyslife · « **Reply #131 on:** January 12, 2011, 17:38 »

chico's only posting it...ARTPUPPY is the artist:

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=289922&page=24

gostwyck · « **Reply #132 on:** January 12, 2011, 17:48 »

Quote from: cclapper on January 12, 2011, 17:38

chico's only posting it...ARTPUPPY is the artist:

But have you ever seen Chico and Artpuppy in the same room together? I haven't. *knowing wink*

Chico · « **Reply #133 on:** January 12, 2011, 17:53 »

Quote from: gostwyck on January 12, 2011, 17:48

Quote from: cclapper on January 12, 2011, 17:38
chico's only posting it...ARTPUPPY is the artist:

But have you ever seen Chico and Artpuppy in the same room together? I haven't. *knowing wink*

hshshshshs... i'm a illustrator (IS big loser kind), but i'm not artpuppy

lisafx · « **Reply #134 on:** January 12, 2011, 17:56 »

Quote from: Chico on January 12, 2011, 17:53

hshshshshs... i'm a illustrator (IS big loser kind), but i'm not artpuppy

Ah. Some people have different names on the sites than they do here. Guess I shouldn't have assumed it was you.

Great cartoon! Artpuppy deserves his props

cathyslife · « **Reply #135 on:** January 12, 2011, 17:58 »

Quote from: Chico on January 12, 2011, 17:53

Quote from: gostwyck on January 12, 2011, 17:48
Quote from: cclapper on January 12, 2011, 17:38
chico's only posting it...ARTPUPPY is the artist:

But have you ever seen Chico and Artpuppy in the same room together? I haven't. *knowing wink*

hshshshshs... i'm a illustrator (IS big loser kind), but i'm not artpuppy

I know nothing, saw nothing, heard nothing.

The cartoons are great!

pet_chia · « **Reply #136 on:** January 12, 2011, 18:07 »

Nice cartoon! A really mean editorial cartoon would have the puppeteer dude's back pocket stuffed with $$$ though.

(just saying)

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #137 on:** January 12, 2011, 18:22 »

Quote from: gostwyck on January 12, 2011, 11:20

Quote from: lisafx on January 12, 2011, 10:48
Back in September, when Istock first announced these royalty cuts, I was worried the other sites might want to follow suit at some point. Now, after months of Istock falling deeper and deeper into the quicksand of their own greed and hubris, I think they serve more as a cautionary tale to the other sites, of what can happen if you lose sight of the importance of your contributors and buyers. I doubt any of the other sites are looking at this mess at Istock, and saying "Hey, lets try that!"

I'd agree 100% (and so does my data). Istock appear to be on course to prove how an eye-wateringly profitable business can be rapidly driven onto the rocks by unbelievable greed and short-term thinking. Things will never, ever be the same again for Istockphoto. They f*cked it up and they'll go into the history books of 'how not to do it'.

Sales are already falling, which is why the RC targets were 'revised', and it's going to get really embarrassing for them when they announce the 2011 RC if they make any attempt to be realistic about them. They won't of course. They'll probably announce 'no change' when they do and then revise them downwards again towards the end of the year or earlier if enough exclusives start to kick up a fuss.

I think both of you are lumping two separate issues together.

There's the contributor commission cut. What problems has this caused for Istock other than a lot of contributors complaining? There's less woo-yaying and trust but I'm not seeing how this is hurting their business. I doubt most buyers know or even care about how micro sites get images and where the money goes.

Then there's the technical issues. This seems to be what's mostly affecting buyers. A few buyers are complaining and some are leaving. I'm sure more are quietly leaving. But none of us have istock sales data so none of us know how their sales are doing. Sales are falling for you. That doesn't mean they're falling for Istock or even anybody else.

Now, what happens when one or more of the other big four cuts commissions without screwing up their sites? Life goes on as usual for buyers and contributors can do nothing but complain, draw funny screw pictures, quit, or move to a bottom tier site paying 50% where you make $5 per month from 5,000 images.

This is the problem everybody should be concerned with, and planning for now, because it's coming. Not if, when. You'll need a better plan than threatening to leave because there will be nowhere to go.

So what the other sites have learned from this is to not screw up their site while cutting commissions.

SNP · « **Reply #138 on:** January 12, 2011, 18:34 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on January 12, 2011, 18:22

Quote from: gostwyck on January 12, 2011, 11:20
Quote from: lisafx on January 12, 2011, 10:48
Back in September, when Istock first announced these royalty cuts, I was worried the other sites might want to follow suit at some point. Now, after months of Istock falling deeper and deeper into the quicksand of their own greed and hubris, I think they serve more as a cautionary tale to the other sites, of what can happen if you lose sight of the importance of your contributors and buyers. I doubt any of the other sites are looking at this mess at Istock, and saying "Hey, lets try that!"

I'd agree 100% (and so does my data). Istock appear to be on course to prove how an eye-wateringly profitable business can be rapidly driven onto the rocks by unbelievable greed and short-term thinking. Things will never, ever be the same again for Istockphoto. They f*cked it up and they'll go into the history books of 'how not to do it'.

Sales are already falling, which is why the RC targets were 'revised', and it's going to get really embarrassing for them when they announce the 2011 RC if they make any attempt to be realistic about them. They won't of course. They'll probably announce 'no change' when they do and then revise them downwards again towards the end of the year or earlier if enough exclusives start to kick up a fuss.

I think both of you are lumping two separate issues together.

There's the contributor commission cut. What problems has this caused for Istock other than a lot of contributors complaining? There's less woo-yaying and trust but I'm not seeing how this is hurting their business. I doubt most buyers know or even care about how micro sites get images and where the money goes.

Then there's the technical issues. This seems to be what's mostly affecting buyers. A few buyers are complaining and some are leaving. I'm sure more are quietly leaving. But none of us have istock sales data so none of us know how their sales are doing. Sales are falling for you. That doesn't mean they're falling for Istock or even anybody else.

Now, what happens when one or more of the other big four cuts commissions without screwing up their sites? Life goes on as usual for buyers and contributors can do nothing but complain, draw funny screw pictures, quit, or move to a bottom tier site paying 50% where you make $5 per month from 5,000 images.

This is the problem everybody should be concerned with, and planning for now, because it's coming. Not if, when. You'll need a better plan than threatening to leave because there will be nowhere to go.

So what the other sites have learned from this is to not screw up their site while cutting commissions.

+1

lisafx · « **Reply #139 on:** January 12, 2011, 19:04 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on January 12, 2011, 18:22

This is the problem everybody should be concerned with, and planning for now, because it's coming. Not if, when. You'll need a better plan than threatening to leave because there will be nowhere to go.

So what's your suggestion about how to "plan" for this? I am certainly interested in any solutions you might propose.

From where I sit, there is little danger of the other stock sites dropping royalties again. The ones that intended to did so already. Istock is playing catch up in this deparment. Most of their new "innovations", bad and good, (site redesign, royalty cuts, editorial images, etc.) were all done more successfully by other sites long ago.

Besides, if other sites were to shaft us down to 15-19% royalties like Istock, quitting would indeed become a likely option. There was life before microstock for all of us and there will be life after microstock.

The agencies need to be very careful. If they make it unprofitable for serious contributors to produce high production value stock, eventually they are going to be stuck with outdated libraries, supplemented by the pets, flowers, and found objects of the few newbies that trickle in willing to sell at those pitiful commissions.

You're free to disagree, of course

.

SNP · « **Reply #140 on:** January 12, 2011, 19:15 »

that's where I think it gets interesting...if agencies continue to drop royalties and continue to go back on agreements they make with contributors, eventually they will lose (whether slowly, or in the form of a mass exodus) the serious, profit-generating, productive contributors. microstock might change for a bit, but ultimately the power is in the images and the work made available (or unavailable) to agencies.

quality will demand some form of price always.

lisafx · « **Reply #141 on:** January 12, 2011, 19:28 »

Quote from: SNP on January 12, 2011, 19:15

if agencies continue to drop royalties and continue to go back on agreements they make with contributors, eventually they will lose (whether slowly, or in the form of a mass exodus) the serious, profit-generating, productive contributors.

Well said. You put it much more concisely than I did

rubyroo · « **Reply #142 on:** January 12, 2011, 19:29 »

Quote from: lisafx on January 12, 2011, 19:04

The agencies need to be very careful. If they make it unprofitable for serious contributors to produce high production value stock, eventually they are going to be stuck with outdated libraries, supplemented by the pets, flowers, and found objects of the few newbies that trickle in willing to sell at those pitiful commissions.

Well said. I totally agree with this.

IF the other agencies should follow suit (I don't think they will, but....) it's up to individual contributors to choose whether they accept being backed into a corner, or whether to just walk away, reignite their old skill set or adopt new ones. AFAIC, unless particular life circumstances have reduced a person's options, there's no reason for anyone to feel disempowered and at the mercy of the agencies.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #143 on:** January 12, 2011, 20:35 »

Quote from: lisafx on January 12, 2011, 19:04

You're free to disagree, of course .

Totally agree. All I'm trying to do is getting people talking about the other agencies are thinking about. If they knew contributors are at their breaking point, and it would negatively affect their sales, they may decide against making cuts.

Only suggestion is to start diversifying outside of micro. Weddings, portraits, or whatever.

pancaketom · « **Reply #144 on:** January 12, 2011, 21:01 »

the way I see it is that Fotolia dropped rates and despite some squawking, they got away with it, so then DT did it with about the same results and IS said hey, we want even more too, except they were already taking too much as it was. I think they found the tipping point (and they did so many things so poorly in the last few months). I hope the trend reverses and rates actually go up, but I don't think that will happen, I just hope they don't drop any more.

cthoman · « **Reply #145 on:** January 12, 2011, 21:11 »

Quote from: lisafx on January 12, 2011, 19:04

So what's your suggestion about how to "plan" for this? I am certainly interested in any solutions you might propose.

I'm starting to think that if you don't consider microstock a hobby, then you should probably have your own site or at least using one of the pre-made systems with your own URL like Clustershot. Otherwise, you really have no recourse if things get worse.

djpadavona · « **Reply #146 on:** January 12, 2011, 21:12 »

Quote from: lisafx on January 12, 2011, 17:56

Great cartoon! Artpuppy deserves his props

I'd like to crash a iStockalypse wearing that on a t-shirt.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #147 on:** January 12, 2011, 21:34 »

Quote from: cthoman on January 12, 2011, 21:11

Quote from: lisafx on January 12, 2011, 19:04

So what's your suggestion about how to "plan" for this? I am certainly interested in any solutions you might propose.

I'm starting to think that if you don't consider microstock a hobby, then you should probably have your own site or at least using one of the pre-made systems with your own URL like Clustershot. Otherwise, you really have no recourse if things get worse.

I keep hearing all of the analysts saying having your own site is the way to go. "The future". I'm not buying it unless some new innovative method is developed for connecting buyers with contributors. In my experience, all of the people who have contacted me directly want freebies. Buyers use stock agencies. Freebie hunters use Flickr and Google. There are exceptions of course but it's rare. Every once in a while you hear about someone on Flickr making a sale.

Why would anyone want to do stock as a hobby? Flickr is a hobby. Stock is a business. But it seems to be turning into a "supplemental income" business. Commission cuts, competition, oversupply, economy, and hitting the growth wall all seem to be slamming contributors pretty hard right now.

cthoman · « **Reply #148 on:** January 12, 2011, 22:10 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on January 12, 2011, 21:34

I keep hearing all of the analysts saying having your own site is the way to go. "The future". I'm not buying it unless some new innovative method is developed for connecting buyers with contributors. In my experience, all of the people who have contacted me directly want freebies. Buyers use stock agencies. Freebie hunters use Flickr and Google. There are exceptions of course but it's rare. Every once in a while you hear about someone on Flickr making a sale.

Why would anyone want to do stock as a hobby? Flickr is a hobby. Stock is a business. But it seems to be turning into a "supplemental income" business. Commission cuts, competition, oversupply, economy, and hitting the growth wall all seem to be slamming contributors pretty hard right now.

If you build it, they will come. Kidding (sort of). If you have a site that has content and is relatively search engine friendly, people will find it. My site has only been open a few months, and guess who is leading the pack this month? ME!

I can't say this will last or improve or that other people will have the same results, but who knows. Especially, if you don't even make an effort. Do some research about SEO, web design, marketing etc. You don't have to be an expert, just motivated. Most of us know more about selling our work than any other agency does. Why? Because it is our work and we are actually paying attention to what sells and what doesn't. If I think 100 images of parrots in tuxedos are what people want, then I don't need rejections for "too many" parrots in tuxedos. I also have sold at many different price points, so I have some idea of what buyers want to buy my files for.

My quest isn't to become a multi-million dollar corporation. I just want to make a living off the work I do. If I have to do a little extra hard work now to make that more viable in the future, then I'm going to suck it up and do it. If nothing else, I can strive to have better customer support than istock, lately.

SNP · « **Reply #149 on:** January 12, 2011, 22:17 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on January 12, 2011, 21:34

Quote from: cthoman on January 12, 2011, 21:11
Quote from: lisafx on January 12, 2011, 19:04

So what's your suggestion about how to "plan" for this? I am certainly interested in any solutions you might propose.

I'm starting to think that if you don't consider microstock a hobby, then you should probably have your own site or at least using one of the pre-made systems with your own URL like Clustershot. Otherwise, you really have no recourse if things get worse.

I keep hearing all of the analysts saying having your own site is the way to go. "The future". I'm not buying it unless some new innovative method is developed for connecting buyers with contributors. In my experience, all of the people who have contacted me directly want freebies. Buyers use stock agencies. Freebie hunters use Flickr and Google. There are exceptions of course but it's rare. Every once in a while you hear about someone on Flickr making a sale.

Why would anyone want to do stock as a hobby? Flickr is a hobby. Stock is a business. But it seems to be turning into a "supplemental income" business. Commission cuts, competition, oversupply, economy, and hitting the growth wall all seem to be slamming contributors pretty hard right now.

when I started in microstock, it was always with the intention to make a business of it. but for a lot of people it has remained a hobby, and that's better for those of us for whom it's the primary source of income. it's very important to have your own website, and it wouldn't be a huge stretch to enable your site for ecommerce. where I feel private sites will never be able to compete with agencies is differentiating between license types, image guarantees, and all the ugly legal stuff that agents cover for us. I would sell from my own site, but I don't want to HAVE to sell from my own site because there's no other option.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Kelly announces slightly downsized RC targets (Read 49870 times)

gostwyck

caspixel

Chico

ShadySue

lisafx

suemack

cathyslife

gostwyck

Chico

lisafx

cathyslife

pet_chia

PaulieWalnuts

SNP

lisafx

SNP

lisafx

rubyroo

PaulieWalnuts

pancaketom

cthoman

djpadavona

PaulieWalnuts

cthoman

SNP

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors