Author Topic: So istock is declining.. Are you doing your part? (Read 16174 times)

cidepix · « **on:** December 21, 2012, 13:21 »

surely screwing contributors' royalty rates must have consequences..

there are currently 31867 members on MSG and most of these members have their web pages and blogs or some other sort of web presence with a lot of good, natural backlinks to istockphoto..

I am starting by removing all istock backlinks from my blogs and pages..

Just imagine how much it would hurt them losing all the possible backlinks from 31867 members..

I will also remove backlinks to fotolia, the company that started it first..

I think these agencies don't deserve our backlinks..

Edit: I understand that most contributors can not afford to delete their portfolios, so this is the least we can all do to save our future..

This initiative will definitely not hurt contributors in the long run..

aspp · « **Reply #1 on:** December 21, 2012, 13:25 »

Are you going to delete your portfolio there ?

gostwyck · « **Reply #2 on:** December 21, 2012, 13:40 »

I really don't think that Istock needs any help from us. They appear to be contributing to their own demise just fine. We'd just get in the way __ they're the experts.

lisafx · « **Reply #3 on:** December 21, 2012, 13:40 »

Quote from: cidepix on December 21, 2012, 13:21

there are currently 31867 members on MSG and most of these members have their web pages and blogs or some other sort of web presence with a lot of good, natural backlinks to istockphoto..

I am starting by removing all istock backlinks from my blogs and pages..

You are just now starting this? I was under the impression most independents here stopped backlinking and referring to Istock in Sept 2010 when the RC Credit scheme was first introduced.

Secondly, I was hesitant to post in this thread because of the title. Istock is well on its way to demise, IMO, but very little of it was due to efforts by contributors. It is their own policies that are bringing them down.

ETA: Gostwyck said it better above

cidepix · « **Reply #4 on:** December 21, 2012, 13:41 »

Quote from: aspp on December 21, 2012, 13:25

Are you going to delete your portfolio there ?

your question is not relevant to this thread..

steps I took so far:

1- stop uploading
2- tell all designer friends to shop elsewhere
3- remove all the backlinks

and no, I won't delete my portfolio because it will not hurt them while you keep your portfolio there.. there is no point in trying to be a hero.. the idea in this thread will hurt them more than anybody removing their ports..

once they go down, they will be irrelevant and removing our portfolios won't matter anyway, because all the customers will continue to buy from us, using other agencies..

cidepix · « **Reply #5 on:** December 21, 2012, 13:44 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 21, 2012, 13:40

You are just now starting this? I was under the impression most independents here stopped backlinking and referring to Istock in Sept 2010 when the RC Credit scheme was first introduced.

well no I stopped backlinking to them long time ago, but just noticed a link that I didn't delete in an article I wrote years ago and that gave me the idea for this thread..

fotografer · « **Reply #6 on:** December 21, 2012, 13:54 »

I'm not so sure that I want it's demise as I would then have to compete with people like Sean on all sites!!!!

cidepix · « **Reply #7 on:** December 21, 2012, 13:57 »

Quote from: fotografer on December 21, 2012, 13:54

I'm not so sure that I want it's demise as I would then have to compete with people like Sean on all sites!!!!

I think we are in for a bigger trouble if they succeed.. many more agencies will follow the suit thinking lowering royalties is the magic formula for success!

traveler1116 · « **Reply #8 on:** December 21, 2012, 14:00 »

Quote from: cidepix on December 21, 2012, 13:57

Quote from: fotografer on December 21, 2012, 13:54
I'm not so sure that I want it's demise as I would then have to compete with people like Sean on all sites!!!!

I think we are in for a bigger trouble if they succeed.. many more agencies will follow the suit thinking lowering royalties is the magic formula for success!

When iStock sees how many backlinks they've lost I'm sure they'll reconsider their policies.

cidepix · « **Reply #9 on:** December 21, 2012, 14:01 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 21, 2012, 13:40

Secondly, I was hesitant to post in this thread because of the title.

You are right Lisa, I changed the title as the previous one wasn't that great

mlwinphoto · « **Reply #10 on:** December 21, 2012, 14:04 »

Well, I make alot more $ there as an exclusive than I did anywhere else as an independent. I'd much rather see $70 for an EL at iStock than 25 cents from a sub sale at SS.

By keeping your port on iStock you are, in essence, supporting them. Any sale you make benefits them in some very small way. So, trying to speed their demise while supporting them at the same time doesn't make much sense, IMO.

ClaridgeJ · « **Reply #11 on:** December 21, 2012, 14:04 »

This is a stupid, naive, banal, unintelligent thread. Havent ppl here got more important things to do then starting one bollocks thread after another.
Go and do some work instead, you can always supply the freebie agencies.

abimages · « **Reply #12 on:** December 21, 2012, 14:12 »

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on December 21, 2012, 14:04

This is a stupid, naive, banal, unintelligent thread. Havent ppl here got more important things to do then starting one bollocks thread after another.
Go and do some work instead, you can always supply the freebie agencies.

+1

cidepix · « **Reply #13 on:** December 21, 2012, 14:16 »

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on December 21, 2012, 14:04

This is a stupid, naive, banal, unintelligent thread. Havent ppl here got more important things to do then starting one bollocks thread after another.
Go and do some work instead, you can always supply the freebie agencies.

while I agree that this thread is not the most intelligent move I have made in my life

I just had to do it because it's my "hate istock hour" of the day..

luissantos84 · « **Reply #14 on:** December 21, 2012, 14:17 »

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on December 21, 2012, 14:04

This is a stupid, naive, banal, unintelligent thread. Havent ppl here got more important things to do then starting one bollocks thread after another.
Go and do some work instead, you can always supply the freebie agencies.

name me a few of those

traveler1116 · « **Reply #15 on:** December 21, 2012, 15:01 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on December 21, 2012, 14:17

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on December 21, 2012, 14:04
This is a stupid, naive, banal, unintelligent thread. Havent ppl here got more important things to do then starting one bollocks thread after another.
Go and do some work instead, you can always supply the freebie agencies.

name me a few of those

123rf has over 42,000 free images
DT has thousands of free images (they changed their search now so I can't see how many, I think it was much more than 123rf though)
FT don't they ask to put your photos into a free section if they are rejected

luissantos84 · « **Reply #16 on:** December 21, 2012, 15:04 »

Quote from: traveler1116 on December 21, 2012, 15:01

Quote from: luissantos84 on December 21, 2012, 14:17
Quote from: ClaridgeJ on December 21, 2012, 14:04
This is a stupid, naive, banal, unintelligent thread. Havent ppl here got more important things to do then starting one bollocks thread after another.
Go and do some work instead, you can always supply the freebie agencies.

name me a few of those
123rf has over 42,000 free images
DT has thousands of free images (they changed their search now so I can't see how many, I think it was much more than 123rf though)
FT don't they ask to put your photos into a free section if they are rejected

yep I know about them, anyway who is contributing to that? its not cidepix for sure...

velocicarpo · « **Reply #17 on:** December 21, 2012, 15:05 »

Yes, I`m doing my best

lisafx · « **Reply #18 on:** December 21, 2012, 15:17 »

Quote from: cidepix on December 21, 2012, 14:01

Quote from: lisafx on December 21, 2012, 13:40

Secondly, I was hesitant to post in this thread because of the title.

You are right Lisa, I changed the title as the previous one wasn't that great

New title definitely makes more sense

Am I the only independent who has mixed feelings about Istock's demise?

I can definitely understand the sense of schadenfreude at seeing a site that has behaved with such hubris suffer as a result of their actions.

But at the same time, I would much prefer for them to roll back the bad changes, begin rewarding contributors with more respect (and more MONEY), and pull out of this nosedive.

It may be naive, but I see the recent improvements in site functionality, communication, and freezing the RC rates for next year as steps in the right direction. It gives me some hope that the new owners are more far sighted than the prior ones.

Of course it may be way too little way too late. I don't know.

ShadySue · « **Reply #19 on:** December 21, 2012, 15:23 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 21, 2012, 15:17

I can definitely understand the sense of schadenfreude at seeing a site that has behaved with such hubris suffer as a result of their actions.

But at the same time, I would much prefer for them to roll back the bad changes, begin rewarding contributors with more respect (and more MONEY), and pull out of this nosedive.

+1 on both counts.

fotografer · « **Reply #20 on:** December 21, 2012, 15:42 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 21, 2012, 15:17

Quote from: cidepix on December 21, 2012, 14:01
Quote from: lisafx on December 21, 2012, 13:40

Secondly, I was hesitant to post in this thread because of the title.

You are right Lisa, I changed the title as the previous one wasn't that great

New title definitely makes more sense

Am I the only independent who has mixed feelings about Istock's demise?

I can definitely understand the sense of schadenfreude at seeing a site that has behaved with such hubris suffer as a result of their actions.

But at the same time, I would much prefer for them to roll back the bad changes, begin rewarding contributors with more respect (and more MONEY), and pull out of this nosedive.

It may be naive, but I see the recent improvements in site functionality, communication, and freezing the RC rates for next year as steps in the right direction. It gives me some hope that the new owners are more far sighted than the prior ones.

Of course it may be way too little way too late. I don't know.

Totally agree for more than one reason. It would be very hard for exclusives to have to upload large ports to multiple sites especially if they haven't already got the keywords etc in the metadata. Also as I said above I don't want to have to compete with all the exclusives at all the other sites. I would much rather IS start to treat contributors properly but unfortunately that seems unlikely to last.

ClaridgeJ · « **Reply #21 on:** December 21, 2012, 16:52 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 21, 2012, 15:17

Quote from: cidepix on December 21, 2012, 14:01
Quote from: lisafx on December 21, 2012, 13:40

Secondly, I was hesitant to post in this thread because of the title.

You are right Lisa, I changed the title as the previous one wasn't that great

New title definitely makes more sense

Am I the only independent who has mixed feelings about Istock's demise?

I can definitely understand the sense of schadenfreude at seeing a site that has behaved with such hubris suffer as a result of their actions.

But at the same time, I would much prefer for them to roll back the bad changes, begin rewarding contributors with more respect (and more MONEY), and pull out of this nosedive.

It may be naive, but I see the recent improvements in site functionality, communication, and freezing the RC rates for next year as steps in the right direction. It gives me some hope that the new owners are more far sighted than the prior ones.

Of course it may be way too little way too late. I don't know.

Yes there is an improvement! and a clear one. Its rather stupid asking for anybodys demise. Could backfire on them as well.

oxman · « **Reply #22 on:** December 21, 2012, 17:59 »

Geezz can we give this topic a rest!!?? I mean how many "I HATE ISTOCK" threads do we need. I am doing very well at iStock because I work hard at making images that sell and not whining on forums about how unfair life is.

If you hate iStock, please leave it. It means more money for me. And if you do leave don't announce it because half of us don't care and the other half are glad to see you go.

OX
...now back to the studio

loop · « **Reply #23 on:** December 21, 2012, 18:19 »

Quote from: traveler1116 on December 21, 2012, 15:01

Quote from: luissantos84 on December 21, 2012, 14:17
Quote from: ClaridgeJ on December 21, 2012, 14:04
This is a stupid, naive, banal, unintelligent thread. Havent ppl here got more important things to do then starting one bollocks thread after another.
Go and do some work instead, you can always supply the freebie agencies.

name me a few of those
123rf has over 42,000 free images
DT has thousands of free images (they changed their search now so I can't see how many, I think it was much more than 123rf though)
FT don't they ask to put your photos into a free section if they are rejected

Very true.

... and 0,30 (more or less) one "sub" is the norm almost everywhere. Getting downloads it's not exactly the same that getting money. If it is just an reassuring ego question, ok. I left behind this phase long ago. Subs are just next thing to freebies. If something good has done Istock is daring to put up prices, to value our work (and yes, I know of other many not-so-good things as TS, comission cuts etc). In the end, maybe the diference in royalties (15-45% at Isock, about 26% at other sites) has a lesser impact in earnings than difference in price. In any case, should Istock finally feel the heat, they would lower prices, and next day many other sites would decrease even more their prices to be able to compete. What about 0,10 the sub?

gostwyck · « **Reply #24 on:** December 21, 2012, 18:47 »

Quote from: oxman on December 21, 2012, 17:59

Geezz can we give this topic a rest!!?? I mean how many "I HATE ISTOCK" threads do we need. I am doing very well at iStock because I work hard at making images that sell and not whining on forums about how unfair life is.

If you hate iStock, please leave it. It means more money for me. And if you do leave don't announce it because half of us don't care and the other half are glad to see you go.

OX
...now back to the studio

Have they got you on intravenous Kool-Aid nowadays or what?

If you cared to open your eyes you'll find that the "I HATE ISTOCK" campaign HQ ... is actually the Istock forums themselves ... with most of the vitriol being spewed by exclusives threatening to ditch their crowns. It's positively mild at MSG.

Why don't you pop over to the Istock forums and tell them to suck it up because actually everything's great?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: So istock is declining.. Are you doing your part? (Read 16174 times)

cidepix

aspp

gostwyck

lisafx

cidepix

cidepix

fotografer

cidepix

traveler1116

cidepix

mlwinphoto

ClaridgeJ

abimages

cidepix

luissantos84

traveler1116

luissantos84

velocicarpo

lisafx

ShadySue

fotografer

ClaridgeJ

oxman

loop

gostwyck

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors