Author Topic: Money where my mouth is. (Read 25773 times)

sharpshot · « **Reply #50 on:** September 15, 2010, 04:08 »

I don't want to start deleting until they cut my commission. It has taken years to upload there and my earnings are already way down on 2009. I will pledge to delete at least 20% of my portfolio in January, if the cut goes through. If we all reduce the size of our portfolios, stop uploading and inform any buyers we know, I think it will make a difference. Eventually, I will leave istock but I don't know how long that will take. I have a few months now to work with the other sites and try and get more income outside of microstock.

gostwyck · « **Reply #51 on:** September 15, 2010, 05:41 »

Quote from: nruboc on September 14, 2010, 18:27

I'm not happy to hear about your decision (new competitor), but I respect . out of it, and wish you good luck. I'm following your decision on dumping IStock altogther, although I wasn't a big contributor anyways - never did agree with industry low 20%, not to mention 15%

I take my hat off to you too Steve. Like David you are most definitely one of the hardest working but principled microstockers in the business.

madelaide · « **Reply #52 on:** September 15, 2010, 05:44 »

I am also waiting for the changes to take place, or a synchronized action by members. But I won't stay with 15%, that is for sure.

gostwyck · « **Reply #53 on:** September 15, 2010, 05:55 »

Quote from: lisafx on September 14, 2010, 18:55

David's decision is admirable. However there are other ways to protest being discussed in various threads both on here and on IS, including:

1) Leaving exclusivity
2) Stopping uploading new images
3) Spreading the word to buyers

Certainly each of us can only do small things, but the cumulative effect could be large.

(my edit on the bold/colour)

I agree whole-heartedly. We simply have to draw a line in the sand somewhere and as far as I'm concerned 20% for non-exclusive images is it. Even that is only acceptable on the basis of large volumes of sales at relatively high prices.

It's worth noting that you can negate the lost income on Istock by making certain images exclusive on FT and increasing the prices to the maximum allowed for your ranking. This only works for images that already sell comparatively well on FT and have attained decent sort-order position. Under those circumstances it can work very well though.

iclick · « **Reply #54 on:** September 15, 2010, 06:01 »

Quote from: sharpshot on September 15, 2010, 04:08

I don't want to start deleting until they cut my commission. It has taken years to upload there and my earnings are already way down on 2009. I will pledge to delete at least 20% of my portfolio in January, if the cut goes through. If we all reduce the size of our portfolios, stop uploading and inform any buyers we know, I think it will make a difference. Eventually, I will leave istock but I don't know how long that will take. I have a few months now to work with the other sites and try and get more income outside of microstock.

Yeah you and me both Sharpshot

I will be deleting Flame Images when the reductions kick in and do not regard it at all as shooting myself in the foot or pointless as suggested in this thread

The new harsh targets about to be put in place make it impossable to expect any form of resonable payment or exposure with yet another Collection pushing Files even further back in the search for independants so we are going down anyway therefor the way I see it have very little to loose at iStock in the future but allot to gain by protecting my Portfolio elswhere ensureing my best sellers are not available at istock at a unacceptable % return

And David much repect to you for staying true to your Priciples!

perdix · « **Reply #55 on:** September 15, 2010, 06:52 »

Quote from: lagereek on September 15, 2010, 02:05

Wait a minute, hes a Gold member, right? wouldnt it have been wiser to stay and fight it out? I mean we can all jack it in but really what do we achieve? nothing really exept a financial loss plus the fact no one has heard the end of this.
Must say Im surprised so many are prepared to just give up, deleating pics, throwing the towell. Anybody can do this!!

Whats the matter with people? dont bother removing ports, youre achieving nothing, show a bit of guts and stay and fight!!

all the best.

I think what David is doing, would be the only way to fight it, to be honest. The fact that they deleted his post on IS forums seems to show that they (IS) would think so too.

Regardless, well done David, the right move. I would join you if my portfolio was significant enough to make a change, or if enough people did it. For now, I am ashamed to say, I am in the watch-and-see boat, while investigating options.

click_click · « **Reply #56 on:** September 15, 2010, 07:05 »

Quote from: sharply_done on September 14, 2010, 23:25

Quote from: jamirae on September 14, 2010, 22:48

actually I calculated it out. and with the lower credit costs for non-exculsive images at iStock, iStock will actually be making LESS off my images when I cancel exclusivity.
...

Yes, that's known by anyone who's taken the time to examine the ins-and-outs of iStock. I think it's even been mentioned a few times on this forum - guess not everyone was paying attention.

Looks like it. Sorry.

cathyslife · « **Reply #57 on:** September 15, 2010, 07:15 »

Quote from: Norebbo on September 14, 2010, 22:33

Bingo. Stopping all uploads and removing our portfolio's is the only way to make istock take notice. It's a shame. Last week we were all calling for blood, and now it seems that most are unwilling to follow through and do what is right to make a difference.

Istock (Getty) is going to come out a winner in all this. They know they have us by the you-know-what, and they are going to get what they want. The scary thing is that other microstock agencies are watching this unfold, and it's only a matter of time before they all start trimming royalties too. Why? Because this whole fiasco is proving that they could get away with it if they want to and 99% of the contributors are going to accept it.

If we accept this, we are sheep.

Just because all people aren't on here or on the IS forum saying what they are doing DOES NOT mean that they aren't doing something. Sometimes a player should not show all the cards in his hand too soon.

I have no doubt Getty/IS will come out the winner. There will be too many people afraid to leave. That's been proven in history over and over, both at Getty and in the world. Each person makes his own decision, and I am only responsible for what I do. I think I am doing the right thing, and I hope that helps the others who have had the courage to take action.

If the sheep decide to stay, that's their decision. What about you? What have you actually done?

I love how there are tons of newbies joining in here, criticizing people who DO take action, criticizing people who DON'T take action, yet have no links to their own port, never say what they themselves are actually doing, etc.

lisafx · « **Reply #58 on:** September 15, 2010, 07:45 »

Quote from: cclapper on September 15, 2010, 07:15

Just because all people aren't on here or on the IS forum saying what they are doing DOES NOT mean that they aren't doing something. Sometimes a player should not show all the cards in his hand too soon.

Really excellent point Cathy. It's foolish to box oneself into a corner right now. Other than David (who deserves heaps of respect!), most of the people who are already deleting their entire ports from Istock have few images there and only make a small amount of money.

Hardly anyone making all or a large portion of their living income from Istock is going to pull their entire portfolio less than two weeks after a major announcement.

Historically Istock has always gone back on at least a portion of what they initially announce. I don't know if they will this time or not, but I sure don't intend to delete six thousand images and lose 40% of my total income until I know for sure how this is going to play out.

ichiro17 · « **Reply #59 on:** September 15, 2010, 07:47 »

Quote from: Zeus on September 14, 2010, 18:15

Here's why nothing will change...

I only wish my own financial position...

Wish I could afford...

doing the same, if I could afford...

I can't afford to ...

There is nothing wrong with the above sentiments. It's just that you can't hope to enact change when you have no bargaining position.

Or they wish everyone else can take a stand so that they don't have to. Its easy to watch everyone else do it and applaud them. While I don't agree at all with dgilder's decision, he's doing what he thinks is right to him despite the money issue - so good on ya in that regard

anonymous · « **Reply #60 on:** September 15, 2010, 07:48 »

Quote from: hawk_eye on September 14, 2010, 19:42

I hope it is worth it. by your admission, seems you've made a bad business decision if all the emotion is removed and you're cutting corners on things like internet access in your studio. anyways, good luck, you're a nice guy...

I have no doubt iStock would welcome you back at any point, that much I have seen with others who went non-exclusive to make a statement over past changes. still trying to find the heroism in cutting off your nose to spite your face...

...he says while leaning over the table without a jar of Vasoline in sight

lagereek · « **Reply #61 on:** September 15, 2010, 08:10 »

next one down, some error happend.

lagereek · « **Reply #62 on:** September 15, 2010, 08:11 »

Quote from: lagereek on September 15, 2010, 08:10

Look fellas, you know me, Im a hot-head myself, known for flying off the handle for far less. This time I realize it will earn us nothing, we wont achieve anything by leaving or whatever and Im speaking from experience, AND! how do you know this isnt exactly the effect Getty wants? In the 4 years Ive been with IS, Ive learnt one thing, the Admin are on their contributors side, really and in the end theyve always come up with some sort of a compromize.
All the hard work and long hours by some here and youre prepared to throw it all in over a Getty decision? why give them the satisfaction? youre not hurting them youre in retro hurting IS and somehow I dont think you wanna do that.

lisafx · « **Reply #63 on:** September 15, 2010, 08:23 »

Quote from: lagereek on September 15, 2010, 08:11

In the 4 years Ive been with IS, Ive learnt one thing, the Admin are on their contributors side, really and in the end theyve always come up with some sort of a compromize.

I agree with you Christian, that the istock administrators have always been on contributors side. That is why I am absolutely certain that they are no longer making decisions for Istock. These changes are coming from the very top, and I sincerely doubt there's anything the Istock admins can do about them.

Would love to believe you are right and a compromise will be in the works, but I am afraid it may not be so this time. If there is a compromise, it will only be because of people who took some sort of stand against this.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #64 on:** September 15, 2010, 09:42 »

If large numbers of high profile independents left IS, and/or large numbers of high profile exclusives (i.e. gold and diamond; big portfolios, big sales) left, Getty would notice and might then try to make changes. Given the losses involved - i.e. I just don't see the other sites picking up the lost business to make contributor income essentially unchanged if that were to happen.

I really dislike my bank, my phone company, cable company, cell phone company, but I continue to do business with them. Why? Because the other choices are also close to equally bad. That's where I find myself with my decision as to what to do with IS.

I completely agree that each time one of the agencies pulls an anti-contributor stunt it just increases the likelihood of one of the others doing the same or worse. Unlike agencies with a large subscription component, stopping uploading at IS is only somewhat effective unless it's for a longer time.

As the business gets bigger it gets harder to apply pressure to bullying agencies without group action. Someone else pointed out (I think in the IS forums) that the SAA had essentially been unable to rein Getty in during their fight over squeezing contributors. It's a hard problem to solve.

Personally, I'm going to wait the rest of the year and see how things pan out. I am about 70 "redeemed credits" shy of 30K, so if I get that to 40K before year end I will get 35% in 2011. My illustrations will drop back to 25% (as I only have a few of those) and it'll be sad to have 40% royalty for a few weeks only to have it get snatched away again.

Depending on how 2011 goes, I can reevaluate at the end (or whenever Getty turns the screws tighter, which might be sooner).

I don't much like myself for doing business with greedy *insult removed*, but enlightened self interest is telling me that's what I think I should do. I really hope that things work out for David. High stakes move on his part.

sharpshot · « **Reply #65 on:** September 15, 2010, 09:57 »

Did I miss the compromise with thinkstock $0.25 subs? They have made some compromises for exclusives but it looks like they have been told to get the average commissions to 20% and it is hard to see how they will come back with a more acceptable deal for me.

It isn't just the cut in commissions that gets me, its the way they try to justify it. I would much rather they told us the real reasons, I presume they want more money to get a higher price when they sell istock.

gostwyck · « **Reply #66 on:** September 15, 2010, 10:00 »

Quote from: jsnover on September 15, 2010, 09:42

I don't much like myself for doing business with greedy *insult removed*, but enlightened self interest is telling me that's what I think I should do.

Good luck with your decision JoAnne. I just don't think that taking 'no action' is a realistic option in this case for anyone who is losing out. Acting together on many fronts I do think we stand a chance, however small, of getting Istock to think again. Taking no action gives us no chance whatsoever.

Having mulled it over further I remain convinced that if this changes do happen then Istock will lose out too;
a) Fewer new images will be uploaded
b) Some exclusives will hand back their crowns
c) Istock will lose out on those higher-priced exclusive sales
d) Some buyers will shop elsewhere
e) Some independents will leave
f) A staggering amount of goodwill has already been lost __ forever.

Not only that but Istock's competitors will be getting a massive boost of new images too.

All of that will add up to a greater loss than Istock stands to gain from the money-grab. I'm sure of it.

lisafx · « **Reply #67 on:** September 15, 2010, 10:06 »

Quote from: sharpshot on September 15, 2010, 09:57

Did I miss the compromise with thinkstock $0.25 subs?

I believe the compromises in the TS situation were adding the opt-out, and going to a flat rate graduated royalty for exclusives rather than a % of sale price (which could have been as low as .04), as was originally proposed. Lousy compromises, but more than has been shown in this situation.

nruboc · « **Reply #68 on:** September 15, 2010, 10:34 »

Quote from: gostwyck on September 15, 2010, 05:41

Quote from: nruboc on September 14, 2010, 18:27
I'm not happy to hear about your decision (new competitor), but I respect . out of it, and wish you good luck. I'm following your decision on dumping IStock altogther, although I wasn't a big contributor anyways - never did agree with industry low 20%, not to mention 15%

I take my hat off to you too Steve. Like David you are most definitely one of the hardest working but principled microstockers in the business.

Thanks, I appreciate that

loop · « **Reply #69 on:** September 15, 2010, 10:45 »

IS moves have always lead the way for other agencies. We have seen that, for example, in prices. If IS increases prices, they leave space to others doing it as well. If IS decreases contributor margins... here there's another space that maybe will be followed and filled. What would you do then?

iclick · « **Reply #70 on:** September 15, 2010, 10:48 »

Quote from: lisafx on September 15, 2010, 07:45

Quote from: cclapper on September 15, 2010, 07:15

Just because all people aren't on here or on the IS forum saying what they are doing DOES NOT mean that they aren't doing something. Sometimes a player should not show all the cards in his hand too soon.

Really excellent point Cathy. It's foolish to box oneself into a corner right now. Other than David (who deserves heaps of respect!), most of the people who are already deleting their entire ports from Istock have few images there and only make a small amount of money.

Hardly anyone making all or a large portion of their living income from Istock is going to pull their entire portfolio less than two weeks after a major announcement.

Historically Istock has always gone back on at least a portion of what they initially announce. I don't know if they will this time or not, but I sure don't intend to delete six thousand images and lose 40% of my total income until I know for sure how this is going to play out.

Good points both

As already said I will not act till the new % kicks in mainly because a small part of me still believes that there may be a miniscule chance of IS/Getty coming to their senses and trying to salvage some lost respect and support out of this with a compromise. They have done it in the past and BOY do they need to do it now!

Also as said not everyone tells the world what they are up to or are active in Forums but I suspect Portfolios ARE quietly being deleted or allegiances shifted

Not to mention those out there who are still oblivious as to what is going on

jamirae · « **Reply #71 on:** September 15, 2010, 10:52 »

Quote from: dirkr on September 15, 2010, 02:09

Quote from: sharply_done on September 14, 2010, 23:25
Quote from: jamirae on September 14, 2010, 22:48

actually I calculated it out. and with the lower credit costs for non-exculsive images at iStock, iStock will actually be making LESS off my images when I cancel exclusivity.
...

Yes, that's known by anyone who's taken the time to examine the ins-and-outs of iStock. I think it's even been mentioned a few times on this forum - guess not everyone was paying attention.

But what everybody leaves out of the equation: This is only true if you assume the same number of images is bought irrespective of price.
If, OTOH, image buyers are working on a fixed budget it looks different - they may buy more for cheaper prices.

As Istock has mentioned themselves in the announcements (or what I read out of it), their concern is the average commission paid out for the total sum of sales they are making. In that respect, cancelling exclusivity (but leaving the portfolio for sale on Istock) is 100% in line with Istock's goals.

yes, you could be right. at this point I dont know what iStock's goals are other than exactly what they write. We can conjecture to the end of time, but the only facts I have are what they have written. Add that to the past few years of raising prices, increases credits, the partner program, and whole canister change fiasco (which is now moot) and I have several factors that effect my decision. I'm making my decisions based on what is right for me, not on some vendetta to get back at iStock. maybe, in opting to leave my port on iStock and go independent, I'm being selfish and not altruistic but at this point there's really no incentive for me, personally, to stay as an iStock exclusive but there is still enough to leave my port there and let it continue to earn some money. altho it will be significantly less I think I stand a good chance of making it and even building it up through other avenues of distribution.

dirkr · « **Reply #72 on:** September 15, 2010, 11:01 »

Quote from: jamirae on September 15, 2010, 10:52

yes, you could be right. at this point I dont know what iStock's goals are other than exactly what they write. We can conjecture to the end of time, but the only facts I have are what they have written. Add that to the past few years of raising prices, increases credits, the partner program, and whole canister change fiasco (which is now moot) and I have several factors that effect my decision. I'm making my decisions based on what is right for me, not on some vendetta to get back at iStock. maybe, in opting to leave my port on iStock and go independent, I'm being selfish and not altruistic but at this point there's really no incentive for me, personally, to stay as an iStock exclusive but there is still enough to leave my port there and let it continue to earn some money. altho it will be significantly less I think I stand a good chance of making it and even building it up through other avenues of distribution.

I didn't mean to critize you. You absolutely have to decide your actions based on what you feel is best for you.

I only wanted to point out that for me it isn't clear at all whether Istock makes more on exclusive or on non-exclusive content - at least when you take into account that the different pricing may lead to different buyer behavior.
To sum it up in a different way: Would Istock make more money if all content would be available at non-exclusive prices and commissions or if all would be available at exclusive prices and commissions?
I think nobobdy can really answer that, but the outcome is not as clear as it has been argued for in this and several other threads...

So anybody who actually is (wholly or in part) basing his / her decision on the impact it has on Istock moneywise may want to keep that in mind...

KB · « **Reply #73 on:** September 15, 2010, 11:02 »

Quote from: iclick on September 15, 2010, 10:48

As already said I will not act till the new % kicks in mainly because a small part of me still believes that there may be a miniscule chance of IS/Getty coming to their senses and trying to salvage some lost respect and support out of this with a compromise. They have done it in the past and BOY do they need to do it now!

This is true, but as we now know, last year's compromise on the canister level change was actually a lie. Perhaps (MAYBE) it wasn't at the time, but at some point within a few months, they certainly decided they'd had enough of compromises, and were going to get what they wanted, consequences be damned.

A large jump in the UL queue size a few months ago. Coincidence? Perhaps, they've done it before in the Summer, only to turn it back (and sometimes tighten it further) a few months later. Bet that won't happen this time -- they know they need all the ULs they can get.

The virtual closing of Vetta within the last 6-9 months (except for a very select few) -- coincidence? Or related to the planned cross-site distribution of Vetta?

If one really wanted to talk about devious planning, could it be that all the changes made at the start of the year (threatened cannister level increases, exclusive price increases & some independent price drops, grandfathering) were made to entice as many independents to become exclusive as possible before the just-announced changes? Knowing that very, very few would chose to become exclusive once these changes were made public, while also knowing that some of those they were able to rope in would find it difficult to leave.

But maybe I'm giving them far too much credit. Maybe it's all a bunch of coincidences, and they really don't know what they're doing ahead of time. Just making it up as they go along.

dnavarrojr · « **Reply #74 on:** September 15, 2010, 12:10 »

Quote from: hawk_eye on September 14, 2010, 21:01

fair enough. but it's my guess you're all happy to watch David flounder while you wait it out to see what happens, so he truly is the only one putting his money where his mouth is and I think it will be to his detriment. I hate to see a valuable contributor do that to himself out of misguided loyalty (not because you don't deserve his loyalty, so don't nail me to that cross please, but simply because it is far too early to be jumping ship).

I think iStock has not been given nearly enough credit in this. that you feel a revolution is the only and best way to get them to listen...anyways, whatever. I'm beating my head against the wall. good luck David, sincerely. I do believe you've made an error and I truly am sad to see you go.

i would agree that removing your portfolio in September/October over something which doesn't take affect until January is acting a bit brashly. Particularly if iStock is a significant amount of your income. However, I would also agree that suspending uploading of new images and openly courting buyers to use other agencies is a fair tactic to use.

Nonetheless, he has listened to his conscious and he obviously knows the impact it will have on him. I applaud him his decision and courage. I only wish my iStock portfolio wasn't so minuscule so that my leaving iStock would have as much meaning as him leaving does.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Money where my mouth is. (Read 25773 times)

sharpshot

gostwyck

madelaide

gostwyck

iclick

perdix

click_click

cathyslife

lisafx

ichiro17

anonymous

lagereek

lagereek

lisafx

Jo Ann Snover

sharpshot

gostwyck

lisafx

nruboc

loop

iclick

jamirae

dirkr

KB

dnavarrojr

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors