MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: New Royalty Rate Cut for Exclusives at Istock  (Read 12015 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: June 27, 2013, 03:51 »
+1
Looks like they finally did it. They Just gave us a huge pay cut at Istock and didn't even announce it in a newsletter

Redeemed credits    Non-Exclusive    Exclusive    Vetta
1,200,000                   20%      30%    30%
125,000                          19%      28%    28%
35,000                          18%      26%    26%
11,000                          17%            24%    24%
1,500                           16%            22%     22%
Default                           15%            22%    22%

newbielink:http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=354592&page=1 [nonactive]


« Reply #1 on: June 27, 2013, 03:54 »
+3
There is no end to it....
I mean, it first stops when numbers are at ZERO.

Disgusting.
Im glad Im out of there.

« Reply #2 on: June 27, 2013, 03:55 »
+2
I hope it is not true. This will just force people to leave istock. There is absolutely no way they can "spin" this into positive news. Together with the loss of E+ and control over prices, this will be a disaster for all those who do stock full time and feed their families from this income.

« Reply #3 on: June 27, 2013, 04:07 »
+2
lolzzz man...! and we were thinking what worse istock can further do.. now i seriously think that istock seriously thinking of ending exclusive program completely soon and before that they want to test everything possible they can do to get even an extra penny from photographers

gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #4 on: June 27, 2013, 04:43 »
+2
Quote
Good morning one and all,

This isn't something I've been briefed on, so I'll leave it to someone at HQ to explain why those particular figures are being shown, but it does strike me as rather odd that the Vetta rates and regular photo rates are exactly the same, which would incline me to think it's a simple copy & paste error, but I'm sure Lobo will be able to offer an official explanation shortly.


"shortly".... just like how the Google situation was explained and resolved?

let's face facts, there are more photographers on the planet than required, so we are reduced to "sweat shop" payrates. I know in the city I live in I face that every day. I lose jobs to newbies who undercut me (and end up working for $15/hour), I lose jobs to interns/students, I lose jobs to the owner's daughter who just got a "good" camera... I love what I do and that's why I tolerate being paid so poorly. dammit.

« Reply #5 on: June 27, 2013, 04:48 »
0
Hope it's a mistake. That would be the end of exclusivity.

« Reply #6 on: June 27, 2013, 04:49 »
0
And of course none of the moderators know or have been briefed on anything... Total B.S.

« Reply #7 on: June 27, 2013, 04:55 »
0
Quote
Good morning one and all,

This isn't something I've been briefed on, so I'll leave it to someone at HQ to explain why those particular figures are being shown, but it does strike me as rather odd that the Vetta rates and regular photo rates are exactly the same, which would incline me to think it's a simple copy & paste error, but I'm sure Lobo will be able to offer an official explanation shortly.


"shortly".... just like how the Google situation was explained and resolved?

let's face facts, there are more photographers on the planet than required, so we are reduced to "sweat shop" payrates. I know in the city I live in I face that every day. I lose jobs to newbies who undercut me (and end up working for $15/hour), I lose jobs to interns/students, I lose jobs to the owner's daughter who just got a "good" camera... I love what I do and that's why I tolerate being paid so poorly. dammit.

Did people get a different percentage from Vetta sales, compared with ordinary sales? Obviously, since vetta is a higher price point the return from it will be higher even if the percentage is the same.

I wonder if they are chopping 25% off Yuri's "exclusive" earnings.

« Reply #8 on: June 27, 2013, 04:56 »
0
This is no mistake, look at the video structure as well.

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #9 on: June 27, 2013, 04:57 »
0
There has been no official confirmation as of yet, so it could still be a (very, very bad) copypaste error.

ShadySue

« Reply #10 on: June 27, 2013, 04:59 »
0
There has been no official confirmation as of yet, so it could still be a (very, very bad) copypaste error.
Why did they need to change the chart? What was wrong with the one which was there already?

« Reply #11 on: June 27, 2013, 05:01 »
+2
Did people get a different percentage from Vetta sales, compared with ordinary sales? Obviously, since vetta is a higher price point the return from it will be higher even if the percentage is the same.

I wonder if they are chopping 25% off Yuri's "exclusive" earnings.

They cut the Vetta rate to 28% a few years ago when they massively raised its prices, arguing that you'd get the same amount.

Wouldn't surprise me if this is the kind of image exclusive rates they've struck with Yuri and his mini-me's and are looking to roll out to the remaining exclusives shortly.

Getty hates photographers.

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #12 on: June 27, 2013, 05:03 »
0
There has been no official confirmation as of yet, so it could still be a (very, very bad) copypaste error.
Why did they need to change the chart? What was wrong with the one which was there already?

Don't ask me, I don't work there ;)

ShadySue

« Reply #13 on: June 27, 2013, 05:07 »
+4
Did people get a different percentage from Vetta sales, compared with ordinary sales? Obviously, since vetta is a higher price point the return from it will be higher even if the percentage is the same.

I wonder if they are chopping 25% off Yuri's "exclusive" earnings.

They cut the Vetta rate to 28% a few years ago when they massively raised its prices, arguing that you'd get the same amount.

Wouldn't surprise me if this is the kind of image exclusive rates they've struck with Yuri and his mini-me's and are looking to roll out to the remaining exclusives shortly.

Getty hates photographers.

My conspiracy theory is that they had agreed a higher rate with Yuri, so they're cutting everyone else's rate to compensate.

« Reply #14 on: June 27, 2013, 05:08 »
+1
Did people get a different percentage from Vetta sales, compared with ordinary sales? Obviously, since vetta is a higher price point the return from it will be higher even if the percentage is the same.

I wonder if they are chopping 25% off Yuri's "exclusive" earnings.

They cut the Vetta rate to 28% a few years ago when they massively raised its prices, arguing that you'd get the same amount.

Wouldn't surprise me if this is the kind of image exclusive rates they've struck with Yuri and his mini-me's and are looking to roll out to the remaining exclusives shortly.

Getty hates photographers.

I doubt if it would be worth Yuri's while to dump all the other sites in return for 30% commission at iS instead of 20%.  Long ago he said he would go exclusive if they offered him 60%.

What they appear to have done is "normalise" the exclusive rate to the existing Vetta rate. I expect they will soon stop listing the two separately.

I'm sure Getty doesn't hate us. What farmer hates his milch cow?

« Reply #15 on: June 27, 2013, 05:12 »
+4
Getty dosen't hate us they just like beating their milk cow on a regular basis, it's called an abusive relationship

« Reply #16 on: June 27, 2013, 05:18 »
+1
For those who can't be bothered to do the sums, here are the percentage cuts for each RC level:
1.2m  -33.3%
124k  - 30%
35k  -24.7%
11K -20%
Below 11k -12%

ShadySue

« Reply #17 on: June 27, 2013, 05:20 »
+1
I'm sure Getty doesn't hate us. What farmer hates his milch cow?
Many (not all) farmers do everything they can to spend as little as possible on keeping his cow producing more and more, and kill them when their production decreases. It's just business.

« Reply #18 on: June 27, 2013, 05:26 »
+1
Getty dosen't hate us they just like beating their milk cow on a regular basis, it's called an abusive relationship

It's actually well known in farming circles that unhappy cows yield less milk.

I think that's why they used to pat us and give us an occasional tasty apple back in the early days.

gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #19 on: June 27, 2013, 05:56 »
0

It's actually well known in farming circles that unhappy cows yield less milk.

I think that's why they used to pat us and give us an occasional tasty apple back in the early days.
that is true, but we have pastures.

ShadySue

« Reply #20 on: June 27, 2013, 05:58 »
0

It's actually well known in farming circles that unhappy cows yield less milk.

I think that's why they used to pat us and give us an occasional tasty apple back in the early days.

that is true, but we have pastures.

And many don't http://www.ciwf.org.uk/cows_belong_in_fields/about_intensive_dairy_farming.aspx

« Reply #21 on: June 27, 2013, 06:36 »
+1
I really hope it is a mistake. And like Paul has said it is incredible that they cant wake somebody up to confirm this. 30 000 people are affected by these rates, it is not the kind of thing you let the intern post on the website. Cant believe those stats can be changed and published without top level approval and oversight.

It MUST be a mistake. Who would stay exclusive for a 7% difference?
« Last Edit: June 27, 2013, 06:53 by cobalt »

« Reply #22 on: June 27, 2013, 06:53 »
+2
And exclusive flash and audio get 0% now, lol.  Poor Yuri, after his whole sound/audio interview to be reduced to 0%, lol.

I'm calling incompetence.  I doubt they'd miss the opportunity to drop the Vetta rate at the same time.  And I can't imagine they'd do this without a real announcement.

« Reply #23 on: June 27, 2013, 07:02 »
+4
And exclusive flash and audio get 0% now, lol.  Poor Yuri, after his whole sound/audio interview to be reduced to 0%, lol.

No, we all learned (or do we just speculate?) that Yuri has a special contract and those rates are certainly not valid for him. Maybe it's the opposite: Because they have to pay him more now, the budget for the rest of the exclusives needs to be stretched, and for audio there is non left at all.  ;)

« Reply #24 on: June 27, 2013, 07:08 »
0
It's not a 7% difference, though, is it? All the non-exclusive material has been dropped into the "Main" collection, with prices of 1, 4, 7 and 10 credits, whereas the bottom end exclusive files seem to be priced at 5, 7, 12 and 17 for those sizes, so you have to multiply together the higher commission and the higher prices.

An independent medium file brings in 15% x 7 x credit price, an exclusive medium file brings in 22% x 12 x credit price.
So the ratio at the bottom end is 105: 264

Exclusivity provides a return 2.5x that of independence, even for a base-level contributor on 22%. And on top of that you have higher-priced collections that you might get into, or even Getty sales.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2013, 07:14 by BaldricksTrousers »

« Reply #25 on: June 27, 2013, 07:16 »
0
Only if the files are in the higher priced collections. But for files that get moved to main, you would be stuck with a 7% difference with no option to make up for it by sending the files elsewhere.

For S and above the difference will be more than the % makes it appear, I agree.

But those rates still wouldnt look attractive to me.

« Reply #26 on: June 27, 2013, 07:29 »
0
Only if the files are in the higher priced collections. But for files that get moved to main, you would be stuck with a 7% difference with no option to make up for it by sending the files elsewhere.

For S and above the difference will be more than the % makes it appear, I agree.

But those rates still wouldnt look attractive to me.

Are exclusive files going into "main"? I tried to find some and I couldn't, everything on the search I looked at seemed to be inde at the lowest price point.

Also, note that the difference between 15% and 22% is roughly 50%.

« Reply #27 on: June 27, 2013, 07:31 »
0
Only if the files are in the higher priced collections. But for files that get moved to main, you would be stuck with a 7% difference with no option to make up for it by sending the files elsewhere.

For S and above the difference will be more than the % makes it appear, I agree.

But those rates still wouldnt look attractive to me.

Are exclusive files going into "main"? I tried to find some and I couldn't, everything on the search I looked at seemed to be inde at the lowest price point.
I had 409 moved to the Main Collection and have sold a couple from there in the past week.

« Reply #28 on: June 27, 2013, 07:32 »
0
According to Lobo exclusive files are available at all price levels and will dominate the price band ;)

So wether they are there now or not, obviously they are planning to have them there as well. Maybe not on upload, but they can be moved there.

Again, I really believe those numbers are a mistake.

ETA: cmann was faster.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2013, 07:35 by cobalt »

ShadySue

« Reply #29 on: June 27, 2013, 07:36 »
+1
It's not a 7% difference, though, is it? All the non-exclusive material has been dropped into the "Main" collection, with prices of 1, 4, 7 and 10 credits, whereas the bottom end exclusive files seem to be priced at 5, 7, 12 and 17 for those sizes, so you have to multiply together the higher commission and the higher prices.
The exclusive files that were moved to Main are the same credit value as indies.

ShadySue

« Reply #30 on: June 27, 2013, 07:44 »
0
Are exclusive files going into "main"? I tried to find some and I couldn't, everything on the search I looked at seemed to be inde at the lowest price point.
Giving the lie to Lobo's "Always. Period."
Why does he even embarrass himself by posting that way?
Why doesn't he just say, "Word from TPTB is that ...", thus distancing himself from the message.
You'd think he's have learned by now.

« Reply #31 on: June 27, 2013, 07:48 »
0
In the istock facebook group Shaun just said the numbers are a mistake and that nothing is changing.

ShadySue

« Reply #32 on: June 27, 2013, 07:51 »
+2
In the istock facebook group Shaun just said the numbers are a mistake and that nothing is changing.
Why did he announce it there first, rather than on the appropriate iStock thread?

« Reply #33 on: June 27, 2013, 07:51 »
0
I hope it is not true. This will just force people to leave istock. There is absolutely no way they can "spin" this into positive news. Together with the loss of E+ and control over prices, this will be a disaster for all those who do stock full time and feed their families from this income.

On the other hand I don't see it as a disaster at all, quite opposite I would say. Sometimes a kick in the ass is a step forward
« Last Edit: June 27, 2013, 07:53 by Lizard »

« Reply #34 on: June 27, 2013, 10:35 »
+2
I really hope it is a mistake. And like Paul has said it is incredible that they cant wake somebody up to confirm this. 30 000 people are affected by these rates, it is not the kind of thing you let the intern post on the website. Cant believe those stats can be changed and published without top level approval and oversight.

It MUST be a mistake. Who would stay exclusive for a 7% difference?

Almost like they are pushing them to go independent. Now the question is, if it is a mistake where did those numbers come from.  At the very least they are thinking of making this move or they want us to think they are.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2013, 10:39 by gbalex »

« Reply #35 on: June 27, 2013, 10:45 »
0
Yes i also feel like.. sooner or later they will apply this or something similar.. who knows if they would offer just image exclusivity leaving artist exclusivity

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #36 on: June 27, 2013, 10:53 »
+3
In the istock facebook group Shaun just said the numbers are a mistake and that nothing is changing.
Why did he announce it there first, rather than on the appropriate iStock thread?

Because communication and Istock don't go together.

Also, the fact that the bug was discovered on TUESDAY, but Istock decided not to inform the contributors, shows they truly don't give a *. Yeah, I know, Calgary was flooded and all, but come ON.

« Reply #37 on: July 08, 2013, 15:32 »
+1
Glad I deactivated all of my files on IS earlier this year. What a joke.

« Reply #38 on: July 08, 2013, 15:35 »
0
'
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 12:21 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #39 on: July 11, 2013, 01:47 »
0
It just goes to show how pointless the forums have become at iStock I learned this info here right now. Thanks OP.

ShadySue

« Reply #40 on: July 11, 2013, 04:24 »
+1
It just goes to show how pointless the forums have become at iStock I learned this info here right now. Thanks OP.
Huh? The OP quoted a post on the iStock forum.
Note that it was later said to be a 'cut and paste error'.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2013, 16:46 by ShadySue »

« Reply #41 on: July 11, 2013, 08:08 »
+2
They are testing...

lisafx

« Reply #42 on: July 11, 2013, 16:08 »
+4
They are testing...

I completely agree.  The "accidental" rate chart is way too specific and detailed to have just been a "bug".  Let's assume it's a preview of coming attractions...  :P

Ron

« Reply #43 on: July 11, 2013, 16:37 »
+2
They are testing...

I completely agree.  The "accidental" rate chart is way too specific and detailed to have just been a "bug".  Let's assume it's a preview of coming attractions...  :P
Thats exactly what I said in another thread when that table came up. They said it was a copy and paste error. How something like that goes live to site, is only because they are implementing changes and accidentally the test site went live. Or something in that order.

ShadySue

« Reply #44 on: July 14, 2013, 06:09 »
+3
They are testing...

I completely agree.  The "accidental" rate chart is way too specific and detailed to have just been a "bug".  Let's assume it's a preview of coming attractions...  :P
Thats exactly what I said in another thread when that table came up. They said it was a copy and paste error. How something like that goes live to site, is only because they are implementing changes and accidentally the test site went live. Or something in that order.

H*ll - I didn't realise that page was still live until I read it in the Bugs thread.
That has to be about the easiest 'bug' to fix IF it was only a 'copy and paste' error. It's only 'type in the right amounts'.
So why haven't they detailled a junior IT wallah to fix it?
I know there are far more pressing issues, but this one is just so simple.

BTW: when did a 'copy and paste error' become a 'bug' rather than a 'typo'?

« Reply #45 on: July 14, 2013, 08:11 »
0
They are testing...

I completely agree.  The "accidental" rate chart is way too specific and detailed to have just been a "bug".  Let's assume it's a preview of coming attractions...  :P

Thanks Lisa!

Yes, as several  new models of Apple's iPhones, "accidentally" lost,  few months before the launch on the market, in some disco club...

« Reply #46 on: July 16, 2013, 06:19 »
+1
Mysterious royalty rate appearances. Emails saying "we got your royalties wrong for the past few weeks and we're on to it " with no explanation of how or why. Halfprice on everything with no announcement to the artists. Unannounced leadership changes. The end is nigh for western artists. The future of stock is for those who can live on $10 a day.

« Reply #47 on: July 22, 2013, 09:05 »
+1
I was leaving open the possibility of going exclusive with iStock if (big IF) they changed their relationship with contributors. If this new rate is real I already have my answer. Since seeing it I have stopped contributing to them and am just waiting to see if it is real or a mistake. If a mistake why can't they just correct it. 2 minutes tops. Go figure. My honest belief is they are testing the waters and looking to see how many new exclusives they get with these wonderful new rates.

ShadySue

« Reply #48 on: July 22, 2013, 09:51 »
+1
My honest belief is they are testing the waters and looking to see how many new exclusives they get with these wonderful new rates.
More likely, they're checking how many are leaving, though it's not an exact science given they claim it was just a 'copying over error', now known as a 'bug', but refuse to 'correct' it.

lisafx

« Reply #49 on: July 22, 2013, 11:26 »
0

More likely, they're checking how many are leaving, though it's not an exact science given they claim it was just a 'copying over error', now known as a 'bug', but refuse to 'correct' it.

STILL not corrected!!??  Yikes.  Queue ominous music...

« Reply #50 on: July 22, 2013, 13:52 »
+2

More likely, they're checking how many are leaving, though it's not an exact science given they claim it was just a 'copying over error', now known as a 'bug', but refuse to 'correct' it.

STILL not corrected!!??  Yikes.  Queue ominous music...

Yeah it did cross my mind that soon they could say "Right, well you've had your 30 days notice of the royalty rate change as required in the ASA.  The new rates are now in force".

But a little bit dastardly though they can sometimes be, I would't think iStock would be as Mr Burns-ish as that!


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
11 Replies
4100 Views
Last post August 17, 2011, 20:42
by velocicarpo
2 Replies
2486 Views
Last post August 26, 2012, 14:58
by fritz
76 Replies
10798 Views
Last post January 03, 2013, 02:12
by BaldricksTrousers
9 Replies
2552 Views
Last post April 10, 2013, 15:59
by microstockphoto.co.uk
56 Replies
12093 Views
Last post August 31, 2015, 22:48
by tickstock

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results