Author Topic: Rates again (Read 9016 times)

rene · « **on:** August 22, 2013, 09:48 »

I almost forgot an old typo: rates at the official iStock page (http://www.istockphoto.com/help/sell-stock/rate-schedule) are wrong. To fix it probably 1 min will be enough as we are talking about not more than 100 characters. This problem is known for at least 2 months. Not very professional.
But what is really incredible for me is this statement, from iStock admin Kevinjay:
"As noted, the info on the Royalty Rate page is incorrect in places. It's a known issue and will be remedied at some point but thus far has not been a priority. If you have any queries about the royalty rates, please contact Contributor Relations." (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=355808&page=1)
Is my understanding of English wrong or is this guy saying that official website is full of crap but they don't care?

ShadySue · « **Reply #1 on:** August 22, 2013, 09:57 »

Quote from: rene on August 22, 2013, 09:48

Is my understanding of English wrong or is this guy saying that official website is full of crap but they don't care?

More or less, yes.
It's a very suspicious issue. At first, they said it was a cut and paste typo (cut and pasted from what?), now they say it's a 'bug'.
Hmmmm.

cobalt · « **Reply #2 on:** August 22, 2013, 10:00 »

It is very easy to change those numbers and put them right.

That they don´t want to do it, either really means they just don´t care about the accuracy on their website or they are delaying it deliberately to see how many people will go exclusive when these are the visible terms. Getty only pays 20% to their own house contributors. I am sure they are not happy about payouts that might reach 45%. If the standard is lower, they can still offer individual contracts with higher rates for those they deem worthy.

Or...they want to change the system completely and adjust royalties up...but even then, it would be simple to update the page and show the correct rate until they have figured out what they want to do.

Anything to do with money should be as accurate as possible. Everyone understands that if the rates are wrong on the website, people will wonder if the accounting in general is correct.

Monkeyman · « **Reply #3 on:** August 22, 2013, 10:08 »

My guess is that those figures are fetched from a database and just shows up in the wrong place because of a layout change. Which would mean that the programmers have to change a little code somewhere. But it's still a tiny problem, though... probably just a few minutes work.

Just like you I'm also surprised by how slow many of the issues are fixed at iStock. They must be very understaffed or have a very messy and inefficient organisation at the moment.

I still haven't quit exlusivity though... I have a tiny little bit of hope left...

tickstock · « **Reply #4 on:** August 22, 2013, 10:20 »

ShadySue · « **Reply #5 on:** August 22, 2013, 10:41 »

Quote from: tickstock on August 22, 2013, 10:20

Quote from: ShadySue on August 22, 2013, 09:57
Quote from: rene on August 22, 2013, 09:48
Is my understanding of English wrong or is this guy saying that official website is full of crap but they don't care?
More or less, yes.
It's a very suspicious issue. At first, they said it was a cut and paste typo (cut and pasted from what?), now they say it's a 'bug'.
Hmmmm.
It's the Vetta rates posted in two columns.

How difficult would it be for them to fix this apparently very simple typo, if they wanted to? What price accuracy?

Semi-unrelated, having lowered the Vetta rate, are they gauging how many exclusives still submit to Vetta, thereby indicating that they will accept the lower rate, to help them decide how soon they can lower that critical %age rate for all, aided by best match and collections, apparently designed to make sure that fewer people will maintain their current rate.

gbalex · « **Reply #6 on:** August 22, 2013, 10:41 »

Quote from: Monkeyman on August 22, 2013, 10:08

My guess is that those figures are fetched from a database and just shows up in the wrong place because of a layout change. Which would mean that the programmers have to change a little code somewhere. But it's still a tiny problem, though... probably just a few minutes work.

Just like you I'm also surprised by how slow many of the issues are fixed at iStock. They must be very understaffed or have a very messy and inefficient organisation at the moment.

I still haven't quit exlusivity though... I have a tiny little bit of hope left...

Those numbers would come out of a database field. It would take seconds to change them. I agree with Cobalt and Shady Sue. There must be a reason they are not changing them.

landbysea · « **Reply #7 on:** August 22, 2013, 11:08 »

I somehow linked into that page last week and freaked out. Then I remembered this was something old that was never fixed. I find it amazing that they have not fixed it even though it was brought to their attention. Well Rebekah was right, we do think they are incompetent, but if you point this out as an example of it they will suspend you from the forums.

DonLand · « **Reply #8 on:** August 22, 2013, 12:15 »

Even though I'm not exclusive (not even qualified yet) I have stopped uploading to IS simply because of this "bug" or whatever you want to call it.

I have left open the possibility to go exclusive in the future, but with those rates currently being shown there is no way I would ever go exclusive. There are also a number of other reasons I prefer not being exclusive with them.

In reality I sincerely wonder if they are testing the waters to see if they can lower rates once again! I would not leave it past them.

dingles · « **Reply #9 on:** August 22, 2013, 12:25 »

It's such an easy correction and they can't even manage that. Do they only have one web guy dealing with all the issues?

tickstock · « **Reply #10 on:** August 22, 2013, 13:10 »

ShadySue · « **Reply #11 on:** August 22, 2013, 14:02 »

Quote from: tickstock on August 22, 2013, 13:10

They may just replace the whole thing so why fix these little issues?

Why wouldn't they?
H*ll, I fix a typo on any website I've been involved in as soon as I've seen it or had it pointed out, and I wasn't paid a penny for any of them.

Seems they introduced an odd problem this morning, or overnight iS time:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=355814&page=1
They can introduce problems with monotonous regularity, but they can't fix a 'typo'.
Hmmmm.

dingles · « **Reply #12 on:** August 22, 2013, 14:42 »

Quote from: tickstock on August 22, 2013, 13:10

Quote from: dingles on August 22, 2013, 12:25
It's such an easy correction and they can't even manage that. Do they only have one web guy dealing with all the issues?
My guess is they are going to revamp the site soon. They may just replace the whole thing so why fix these little issues? Just a guess.

Because it's live and misinformation

cobalt · « **Reply #13 on:** August 22, 2013, 16:45 »

Because it screams "This management doesn´t care". Even the smallest typo does that, which is why most businesses remove them immediatly, when they are notified.

To advertise wrong financial information to the whole world for over 2 months...it is obvious someone doesn´t really identify with the business they run.

Imagine this was your personal website or your profile page on linkedIn - would you leave wrong data up there for everyone to see?

bunhill · « **Reply #14 on:** August 22, 2013, 16:57 »

Quote from: tickstock on August 22, 2013, 13:10

Quote from: dingles on August 22, 2013, 12:25
It's such an easy correction and they can't even manage that. Do they only have one web guy dealing with all the issues?
My guess is they are going to revamp the site soon. They may just replace the whole thing so why fix these little issues? Just a guess.

I think they have bigger issues to deal with currently. Like the fact that the site remains unstable, is extremely slow and clearly has on going database issues. Stuff which affects the customers should definitely take priority. Especially as September draws closer.

tickstock · « **Reply #15 on:** August 22, 2013, 17:06 »

DonLand · « **Reply #16 on:** August 22, 2013, 17:16 »

I know what the are... it's just what if this is what they will be. I find it hard to believe this is an accident, just my pessimistic side showing as it relates to moves GI has been doing for the past 15 or more years. Until its "fixed" I'll put on hold any uploading to the site as a precaution, that is all. Hope it is just a mistake and will be taken care of but until then I'll remain in a holding pattern there.

tickstock · « **Reply #17 on:** August 22, 2013, 17:27 »

Ron · « **Reply #18 on:** August 22, 2013, 17:41 »

Quote from: tickstock on August 22, 2013, 17:27

Quote from: DonLand on August 22, 2013, 17:16
I know what the are... it's just what if this is what they will be. I find it hard to believe this is an accident, just my pessimistic side showing as it relates to moves GI has been doing for the past 15 or more years. Until its "fixed" I'll put on hold any uploading to the site as a precaution, that is all. Hope it is just a mistake and will be taken care of but until then I'll remain in a holding pattern there.
You aren't exclusive so are what are you worried about? The rates are only wrong for exclusive photos.

You arent even submitting to Shutterstock, yet you constantly try to turn everything they do to a negative. What are you worried about?

tickstock · « **Reply #19 on:** August 22, 2013, 17:44 »

Ron · « **Reply #20 on:** August 22, 2013, 17:55 »

Quote from: tickstock on August 22, 2013, 17:44

What's this about Shutterstock? I feel like you always need a lot of explaining. He said because the exclusive royalty rates are wrongly showing lower than they should he, as a nonexclusive, wasn't going to contribute. I don't see what the relation is.

I feel you always seem to be ignorant of your own comments. I am not the one who needs an explanation. I am just pointing out the irony that you do the same when it comes to Shutterstock. You dont even contribute there, but you always seem to worry about what they are doing. At least he is a contributor at IS.

tickstock · « **Reply #21 on:** August 22, 2013, 18:01 »

Ron · « **Reply #22 on:** August 22, 2013, 18:03 »

You should change your name to Thickstock

DonLand · « **Reply #23 on:** August 22, 2013, 18:21 »

Simply, I was looking towards to future. If the future is actually the current incorrect values I don't see it as being worth uploading to. In the meantime I'll just leave my current small portfolio there and wait until we see where they are actually heading.

Quote from: tickstock on August 22, 2013, 17:27

Quote from: DonLand on August 22, 2013, 17:16
I know what the are... it's just what if this is what they will be. I find it hard to believe this is an accident, just my pessimistic side showing as it relates to moves GI has been doing for the past 15 or more years. Until its "fixed" I'll put on hold any uploading to the site as a precaution, that is all. Hope it is just a mistake and will be taken care of but until then I'll remain in a holding pattern there.
You aren't exclusive so are what are you worried about? The rates are only wrong for exclusive photos.

tickstock · « **Reply #24 on:** August 22, 2013, 19:06 »

DonLand · « **Reply #25 on:** August 22, 2013, 19:55 »

Like I said... I am looking towards the future, so yes it does affect me.

lisafx · « **Reply #26 on:** August 22, 2013, 20:17 »

Quote from: gbalex on August 22, 2013, 10:41

Those numbers would come out of a database field. It would take seconds to change them. I agree with Cobalt and Shady Sue. There must be a reason they are not changing them.

Add me to the list. I think these are a preview of coming attractions.

My vet told me I need to start brushing my dog's teeth. She said it will probably upset the dog if I start right away sticking a toothbrush and doggie toothpaste in her mouth. She suggested that I start out by placing the toothbrush beside the dog's bowl when she eats. Not to call attention to it, just put it there so she gets used to it.

Once the dog is used to seeing the toothbrush, try to get her to take a little of the poultry flavored toothpaste on my finger. Once she's used to the toothpaste and toothbrush, eventually I can start brushing her teeth and she'll be okay with it.

I think this rate schedule is the toothbrush placed unobtrusively beside our dinner bowls.

tickstock · « **Reply #27 on:** August 22, 2013, 20:35 »

mlwinphoto · « **Reply #28 on:** August 22, 2013, 20:38 »

Quote from: tickstock on August 22, 2013, 17:27

Quote from: DonLand on August 22, 2013, 17:16
I know what the are... it's just what if this is what they will be. I find it hard to believe this is an accident, just my pessimistic side showing as it relates to moves GI has been doing for the past 15 or more years. Until its "fixed" I'll put on hold any uploading to the site as a precaution, that is all. Hope it is just a mistake and will be taken care of but until then I'll remain in a holding pattern there.
You aren't exclusive so are what are you worried about? The rates are only wrong for exclusive photos.

He also said in a earlier post that he was considering going exclusive but wouldn't until seeing if this 'mistake' becomes reality; among other things.
Keep up Tick.

tickstock · « **Reply #29 on:** August 22, 2013, 20:49 »

DonLand · « **Reply #30 on:** August 22, 2013, 21:44 »

Why stop?
1- The possible future exclusive earnings.
2- 1/2 the commissions now because of the new price restructuring.

Neither of the above were in action when I started submitting in April.
I signed up with IS because I was just starting in MS and wanted to get an idea of the income level possible so I could extrapolate it to see what the income could be by being exclusive.

tickstock · « **Reply #31 on:** August 22, 2013, 21:50 »

Pilens · « **Reply #32 on:** August 22, 2013, 22:06 »

There are lots of issues with IS

dingles · « **Reply #33 on:** August 22, 2013, 22:28 »

It worries me most because it is an easy change that shouldn't need their seasoned developers to handle...it could easily be done by whomever handles site content and not by backend developers. There is a complete lack of quality control at iStock...it seems to me most issues are discovered by users and a lot of this should never of made it to the published live stage. The worst is they are aware of it and haven't fixed it. They lack any sense of pride in their work or product.

So yeah there are. Lot of issues there, but they aren't all of the same nature and the resolution to these issues aren't the responsibility of just one person...or maybe it is...which would explain a lot

ShadySue · « **Reply #34 on:** August 23, 2013, 20:31 »

Conversely, I noticed this locked thread just now:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=355810&page=1
I don't submit video, but they have published the default exclusive video percentage as 32%, (the same as video Vetta) which from the post seems to be a lot more than exclusive Videographers actually get.
http://www.istockphoto.com/help/sell-stock/rate-schedule (click the video tab)

Is that legal in Canada?
Can they say exclusive videographers get a minimum of 32% and it's a ~~lie~~ 'typo'? For months on end?

tickstock · « **Reply #35 on:** August 23, 2013, 21:18 »

tickstock · « **Reply #36 on:** August 24, 2013, 11:55 »

ShadySue · « **Reply #37 on:** August 24, 2013, 13:03 »

Quote from: tickstock on August 24, 2013, 11:55

There's a fix in place for Monday. I guess the rates will be lowered and raised then, right?

I guess so, video lowered, photos raised, and I haven't even looked at the rest.

DonLand · « **Reply #38 on:** August 24, 2013, 19:53 »

Well at least that is good news (relatively speaking!!!) for exclusives.
Maybe they got tired of reading this thread?!

So now the question is how are exclusives doing with the new prices?

For non-exclusives 15% is still a slap in the face.

DonLand · « **Reply #39 on:** August 26, 2013, 20:32 »

"There's a fix in place for Monday."- IS

Tick-tock

9:30 EST...
6:30 WST...

Still some time left, but not much...

Should we start a poll to see if they will make it or not?

Hope they do, but... this is IS after all!

Betting against them is like shooting fish in a barrel!

lisafx · « **Reply #40 on:** August 26, 2013, 21:05 »

Did the fix ever show up? I'm guessing no since Tickstock isn't in here crowing about it.

Oh, and BTW, conspiracy theories are speculative, not printed in black and white in the TOS.

KarenH · « **Reply #41 on:** August 26, 2013, 22:02 »

Quote from: lisafx on August 26, 2013, 21:05

Did the fix ever show up? I'm guessing no since Tickstock isn't in here crowing about it.

Oh, and BTW, conspiracy theories are speculative, not printed in black and white in the TOS.

Nope, fix hasn't happened yet.

ShadySue · « **Reply #42 on:** August 27, 2013, 03:17 »

And still no change, and it's now officially iStock Tuesday. No surprise there.
I don't understand why the Contributor Comminications Manger constantly allows them to make him a liar.
Mind you, the promised 'late July' newsletter which was postponed to 'early August' is now coming out 'next week'. Allegedly.

Ron · « **Reply #43 on:** August 27, 2013, 03:47 »

Quote from: ShadySue on August 27, 2013, 03:17

And still no change, and it's now officially iStock Tuesday. No surprise there.
I don't understand why the Contributor Comminications Manger constantly allows them to make him a liar.
Mind you, the promised 'late July' newsletter which was postponed to 'early August' is now coming out 'next week'. Allegedly.

Because they ALL are liars. Its BAU for them. Seriously, why even be surprised.

rene · « **Reply #44 on:** August 27, 2013, 11:02 »

It seems they 'fixed' videos rate. Default was 32% and now is only 25%.
But they didn't touch exclusive rates for photos. Still start at 22% and end at 30%.
I think Lisa's story with the dog and toothpaste makes sens.

gclk · « **Reply #45 on:** August 27, 2013, 11:21 »

This isn't the first time there have been problems with changes to that page - I'm always amazed at how little iStock seem to be bothered, given that the page is an official appendix to the Artist Supply Agreements, and we're supposed to have an agreement that specific notice must be given regarding any changes.

tickstock · « **Reply #46 on:** August 29, 2013, 17:44 »

DonLand · « **Reply #47 on:** August 30, 2013, 10:59 »

Yep they finally fixed the photo one also.
What I don't quite understand (other than them skewing the percentages to maximize their profit with the loss of profit to the artists) is the redeemed credits of photo compared to illustrators.
Why do RC's start at higher levels for illustrators and continue that until the highest level where the photo level is just out of this world? The only thing I guess is they must have a number of photographers that are under the 1,200,000 and they do not want to pay the extra 5% to those photographers.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Rates again (Read 9016 times)

Ron

Ron

Ron

lisafx

mlwinphoto

lisafx

Ron

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors