Quote from: gostwyck on November 19, 2011, 21:08

What I find far more bizarre is why anyone remains exclusive, placing their trust and entire microstock income in Istock, whilst simultaneously being shafted and treated like dog-dirt by them.

Since you ask:

* I don't want to take the hit unless I really have to. I can have only a vague idea of how much my iStock earnings would plunge if I left (there are more factors than the simple royalty cut), or how long it would take to build up revenue on the other sites, or whether I could ever reach the same totals.

* They haven't shafted me very much at all -- only with the reduced Vetta percentage. The Getty/Vetta-Agency scheme hasn't fully compensated for that loss, but it has softened the blow.

* As ever, there's less admin overhead in dealing with just one site. Simpler also to shoot with only one set of criteria in mind.

* Being a non-US company, iStock doesn't withhold tax from foreigners the way US companies such as Getty are apparently obliged to unless you jump through a bunch of hoops. (As a matter of interest, how do sites such as SS handle that issue?)

Having said that, I'm all too aware of having my eggs in one basket. I consider iStock's incessant tinkering with the formula that made it successful to be a high-stakes game. As I've posted elsewhere, I can envisage scenarios in which iStock's market share and revenue collapse very quickly (although I see no sign of that yet).

I'm hedging against that risk by preparing my images to take them elsewhere in a hurry, if necessary, by paying a bright student to embed non-CV-style keywords in them. With 9,000 images that's a big job that'll cost me thousands and thousands in the end, but it needs to be done.

this is a good post Don. rationally distilled as you always do. I prepared three years ago when I first considered dropping exclusivity. I set up accounts everywhere else and got accepted etc. where required. Of course I've never uploaded, but I log in periodically, read forums and stay on top of changes at the other sites just in case I ever do decide to go independent. I still choose to be exclusive. The benefits still continue to well outweigh the risks for me personally. But, I too keep an eye on things, especially as I become more and more invested in this as a full-time venture. I don't want to follow them off a cliff depending on what happens with a sale of Getty at some point etc. but I'm in it for the long haul as long as it continues to work for me.

So when our agent makes repeated mistakes in accounting - that they eventually acknowledge - and the whole system is based on trust, it feels like a very big deal to some contributors.

I think when you boil this whole incident down this lack of trust is really why people are upset. It's yet another in a long string of negative occurrences that contributors have had to deal with, while iStock basically sits on their ass and says, "Trust us, we'll figure it out for you." Meanwhile we're trying to think of the last time they threw contributors a bone, and it's a looong time ago and a small-ass bone. They're treating us like we're still part of a friendly community, even though they've been shafting us fairly consistently. It's like a friend who is constantly taking things, borrowing money and using you for rides, and the second you ask for any small thing, well look out. Honestly I think they should just ditch the forum all together. They don't want discussion, and they don't want a cheery relationship with photographers. OK enough venting.

How was your sale in the weekend?

Whenever they make a Friday announcement or cause a glitch, my weekend sales virtually stop. Does it happen to anyone else?

Thanks, Tee. Looks like I am just unlucky.

Just read from IS forum that some buyers could not use their credits immediately after they sent money from PP.... But MJ has fixed it now.

Lobo is already setting us up for the delay in hitting the promised deadline that seem to be the status quo at IS.  Maybe they are working on it over the weekend and finding it's a bigger mess than expected.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=337113&page=1#post6532493

We will have more clarity provided early in next week. I'm hoping we can resolve things for Monday but you can never be sure.

Rest assured it will be resolved as quickly as possible.

Thanks.

I'd lay odds they would say a temporary lock is not available, you have to disable your portfolio one at a time.

A mass resignation of exclusivity (by giving the 30 days notice) might be more effective...

I have a feeling this isn't far off...

Quote from: gostwyck on November 20, 2011, 18:46

A mass resignation of exclusivity (by giving the 30 days notice) might be more effective...

I have a feeling this isn't far off...

The top contributers have a lot to lose, as they probably have loads of V/A images. Lower statue contributors have less to lose, but iStock would hardly blink if even 200 medium-ranking plebs totally pulled their ports.

gostwyck,

there are unhappy exclusives, yes. But to quit the exclusive contract, especially if that is the major part of your income? I doubt it. Doesn�t really make financial sense.

If they really want to lessen their dependency on istock, they will do more assignment work, add other projects, many are good with computers, so they write software, apps, or simply sell other digital products over the internet.

That brings a lot more stability then quitting exclusivity if you have 5000+ portfolio. Why would you want to trust the other agencies, that, if you read around here - don�t seem to have much of a good reputation? All I see is threads about complaints...

So if you want to lessen your dependence on stock, then adding other sources of revenue makes a lot more sense.

None of the other agencies is publishing any numbers how much they pay out to contributors. Traffic may have dropped two thirds, but istock is now paying out 1.9 Million a week, that is a 10% increase to last year when Kelly announced paying out 1.7 Million.

The only thing I can see happeneing is if they keep pushing those Rc demands up. If next year they release new targets with even higher levels and people foresee dropping another level, then yes, I can imagine people might want to look around.

But as you know most stock artists see themselves as digital entrepreneurs, they are usually not limited to stock. They�ll sell whatever they can, they are very flexible.

The people that do quit the exclusive contract are probably those who don�t just do stock but have another part time job, spouse etc... to keep them going.

So - my prediction: high ranking exclusives who are seriously considering to quit would first spend a year building up other sources of income while watching how istock develops. It is always possible that the management changes course and recognizes their artists as customers who pay a lot of money for the right to sell on the istock marketplace.

Good quality people are hard to replace. For all the talk of "crowd sourcing" - the crowd only serves as an open entry point, you then have to gradually discover the talent and nurture it up the ranks. And all the while make sure the competition does not steal your talent.

Maybe this is a chance to see it the RC level has any influence on the best match? In theory if it does, some contributors would see a big change in download levels if this were all equalised?

imagine the newbie boost you'd get on downloads at shutterstock if you dumped 5000 in your first week.

Quote from: slobo on November 20, 2011, 17:22

I feel that we are getting a preview of what's coming: flat 25% for exclusives, flat 15% for non exclusives. iStock/Getty is betting that we have more to loose than them.

to be honest, in my rumination over the RCs yesterday, I had a fleeting concern that this was the mistaken release of a soon-to-be-implemented new royalty level. take it or leave it. 25% exclusives, 15% indies. I don't want to be paranoid, so I'm going to operate on the assumption right now that it's an error. it looks like the system just set down to the defaults.....

This is cannot understand, going from no. 1 IS cheerleader, to "doom's day" believer... . Even I can't believe this is possible, at least not in one swing and the mess they're already in. They'd be committing suicide, loose 99% exclusives and totally demotivate everyone from ULing. But like I said, it would be best for all of us in the long run