MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: BaldricksTrousers on November 18, 2011, 18:07
-
My redeemed credits for 2010 and 2011 have reset to zero, with my earnings level being cut to 15%. This is totally unacceptable. I have no way of knowing if they are paying me at the correct rate or at 15% per sale. Is everyone the same?
-
I see there is a thread on site. It seems we are now all being paid at the lowest rate. Wonderful.
-
My redeemed credits for 2010 and 2011 have reset to zero, with my earnings level being cut to 15%. This is totally unacceptable. I have no way of knowing if they are paying me at the correct rate or at 15% per sale. Is everyone the same?
Yeah, my royalty rate is at the base - 22% - now and no RCs. Hopefully they're fiddling with it and lowering the RC minimums. But - a glitch on iStock? Whodathunkit?!! :D
Edit: Saw the thread on iS - looks like it's normal for this to happen. ::) Dear God, our lives are in the hands of engineers. - Malcom, Jurassic Park
-
I wish I'd taken a screenshot once I'd passed my target.
Yesterday the Balance figures were all over the place, but seemed to get sorted OK, so hopefully this will too.
How do they manage to break the system so often?
Must have been trying some new tweak. But why should they be tweaking something that affects our balance, or our RCs?
SNAFU
-
Just when I worry that I'm overstating the case for iStock's software department being incompetent, we get another gem like this. Doesn't anyone test anything before they push it live? And if they do test it and didn't find that, then their testers aren't competent either.
-
Oh i'm sure we'll get payed our now at-a-too-low-rate royalties retrospectively; in a couple of months some small random sum will be dumped in our accounts without notification first and thats that. Whether that amount will be correct, we'll never know; that they made sure of. (there is the possibility you'd have to send a mail to support first so they can keep what they took from the ones that dont follow forums etc. It's really the same with the zero-amount dl's for those opted in in the PP).
Is that list of screwups still somewhere around here? There's plenty of things to add in the meantime (refferal links over 600 characters long that nobody gets to work, zero amount dl's on TS, this, .....)
-
Have they really just gone home for the weekend with no update?
There are a fair number of unhappy people in the Help forum thread on IS (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=336989&page=1)suggesting that this should be treated as an urgent issue. And given the complete lack of detail on every sale (once again I'll refer to my old suggestion (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=270162&page=1)about this, which seems like basic simple accounting for paying suppliers) knowing what we should have been paid is near impossible.
-
I notice a couple of posts in that thread on the point I brought up here a few months ago. That when you transition to a higher commission level, you don't "instantly" advance to that level as soon as you reach it. Instead, you have to wait 2-3 days until the system catches up with reality. Despite the fact that iStock's website claims you will immediately advance.
Maybe they were trying to fix that problem and broke everything? ;D
-
I was offline a lot today and didn't see this happening until I logged on from home tonight. this is a really brutal c*ck up. I'm adding sales manually in the meantime, what a nightmare...
-
What the. Bad enough they broke it. And then the clock-watchers just bugger off home for the weekend. Incredible. Truly incredible.
As JoAnn says, if this can happen, what other accounting messes occur behind the scenes? We need proper sales reports. But we'll never get them. Jeez I'm pissed off.
-
Did anybody? seriously ? expect this to work.
-
This is no bug. They are just testing a new future feature :D
-
Since my sales have been so crappy lately 22% of zero and 35% of zero is all the same to me. ;D
-
It's typical that there is absolutely nothing that can happen to contributors that merits spending one cent on overtime to the software engineers. They couldn't care less what level of service they supply to us - after all, we only give them 85% of our earnings (80% in Sean's case, if this ends up on the list of "bugs pending action") to keep their company going.
-
What the. Bad enough they broke it. And then the clock-watchers just bugger off home for the weekend. Incredible. Truly incredible.
This is a perfect illustration of how and why Istock are sleep-walking to their death. They neither think nor act as if they are operating in a competitive market place at all. Heigh-ho.
-
new base rate royalty. Much simpler for accounting.
-
To err is human but why the mistakes are always in their favor? Amazing :P
-
Chill ppl, they're just getting ready to implement the canister levels back again ;)
-
I just got through the IS thread. Lol it's absurd to see just for what a bunch of idiots they see us and treat us accordingly. They'll chill over the weekend and try to fix it over the next week. I suggest we all deactivate out ports for the time being ;)
-
Chill ppl, they're just getting ready to implement the canister levels back again ;)
For one brief, Pollyanna moment, I shared that fantasy.
-
What the. Bad enough they broke it. And then the clock-watchers just bugger off home for the weekend. Incredible. Truly incredible.
As JoAnn says, if this can happen, what other accounting messes occur behind the scenes? We need proper sales reports. But we'll never get them. Jeez I'm pissed off.
I never quite worked out how a big business like iStock which is open 24/7 every day of the year can get away with this 9 to 5 attitude. There are numerous times when things are broken on POETS day, and they just get left 'til Monday morning. It really is unbelievable.
The sales report thing REALLY needs addressing. As you say it won't happen though.
-
Chill ppl, they're just getting ready to implement the canister levels back again ;)
wouldn't that be nice. I would get a raise after all and not just some new bling. it looks like a bug. we'll see what happens to royalties earned during the 'outage', at least before sharpening pitchforks ;-)
-
Wow. This is really upsetting. I was at 149455 - less than 1/2% away from keeping my 19% royalty rate - and that hadn't updated in a couple of days. Now down to 0 RCs overnight and only 15% instead of 19%. And waiting until Monday to address this is really wrong.
At this point I have absolutely no confidence that we will get a full accounting of money owed to us.
Something else that bothers me is that up to now, the raising or dropping of our royalty rates based on RCs has not happened instantly. Now, all of a sudden there's a bug and our royalties are dropped immediately. This does NOT inspire confidence.
-
At this point I have absolutely no confidence that we will get a full accounting of money owed to us.
This really is absurd and sad in a way, but I'm actually happy I'm not getting any sales since last night :-\
-
After 100+ comments, You-Know-Who finally weighs in with his usual elementary school principal snarkiness and closes the topic and remind us it's the weekend. Wait til Monday. Right...Monday...beginning of a holiday week.
-
After 100+ comments, You-Know-Who finally weighs in with his usual elementary school principal snarkiness and closes the topic and remind us it's the weekend. Wait til Monday. Right...Monday...beginning of a holiday week.
Everyone on the IS forums should just move their comments over to Twitter - he can't ban them there.
Just occured to me to wonder if the credit levels to purchase images has reset too. Has anyone checked to see if the images of top contributors are still at the higher royalty or if the credits to purchase have reset too?
-
There was some serious 'lag time' in the update of the RCs starting last weekend, atleast for me. Then there was an RC update Wednesday, I think. Then for me, my RCs were frozen again until yesterday when they disappeared. Coincidentally, I just recovered the percentage that was taken from me in the changes late last year. I'm thinking there is some intentional fiddling with the site and the RC disappearance is a by product of that.
While I'm certainly no expert or conspiracy theorist, I had a nagging thought that when they were ingesting massive quantities of Edstock, this kind of coincided with the vector illustrations being "turned down", if not off during the bulk of the process. Okay, maybe it's just my paranoia talking... ;)
-
It would be a relief for most of us if buggy sites like IS broke down completely and got closed. Business would move to SS and other sites in (almost) perfect running condition and we wouldn't loose out nerves and time. My ms work would become a lot easier and simpler :)
-
After 100+ comments, You-Know-Who finally weighs in with his usual elementary school principal snarkiness and closes the topic and remind us it's the weekend. Wait til Monday. Right...Monday...beginning of a holiday week.
It sounds like he may be getting tired of working for such an accident-prone company. They do seem to just stumble from one self-induced crisis to the next.
I'm not surprised that they've all gone off for the weekend leaving the problem (that they caused) unresolved. The error is in Istock's financial favour (as always!), it's not going to affect the employees pay-packets and they can easily afford to treat the contributors with total disdain.
-
After 100+ comments, You-Know-Who finally weighs in with his usual elementary school principal snarkiness and closes the topic and remind us it's the weekend. Wait til Monday. Right...Monday...beginning of a holiday week.
It sounds like he may be getting tired of working for such an accident-prone company. They do seem to just stumble from one self-induced crisis to the next.
I'm not surprised that they've all gone off for the weekend leaving the problem (that they caused) unresolved. The error is in Istock's financial favour (as always!), it's not going to affect the employees pay-packets and they can easily afford to treat the contributors with total disdain.
That's exactly it. I wonder if HQ employees are subjected to glitches in their pay cheque accounting, and if so are they happy to 'relax 'til Monday'?
-
After 100+ comments, You-Know-Who finally weighs in with his usual elementary school principal snarkiness and closes the topic and remind us it's the weekend. Wait til Monday. Right...Monday...beginning of a holiday week.
It sounds like he may be getting tired of working for such an accident-prone company. They do seem to just stumble from one self-induced crisis to the next.
I'm not surprised that they've all gone off for the weekend leaving the problem (that they caused) unresolved. The error is in Istock's financial favour (as always!), it's not going to affect the employees pay-packets and they can easily afford to treat the contributors with total disdain.
Nobody can be this accident-prone, every day something goes wrong, every single day. I mean come on its beyond the joke and Im not too sure I am buying it anymore, its almost as if one glitch, bug, accident, etc, is done on purpose. Its almost as if they want everyone to dislike the company and wellcome something else?
I am finding this really hard to take seriously, especially when everyone is buggering off home, returning on Monday to face, what? some 60K contributors steaming like hell.
Nah, sorry, this is a load of cobblers.
-
It would be a relief for most of us if buggy sites like IS broke down completely and got closed. Business would move to SS and other sites in (almost) perfect running condition and we wouldn't loose out nerves and time. My ms work would become a lot easier and simpler :)
+1
-
Remember: money isn't going to be what makes you all happy
-
Maybe not.. but as someone once said "I've been rich and miserable and I've been poor and miserable. Rich and miserable is better".
-
I guess, on the other hand, that only the very biggest hitters are much affected by this over the weekend, but of course, they have to put requests for payout in on Monday like the rest of us and will be short.
Perhaps they could allow people to make a later request for payments, after the glitch is fixed.
The acid test will be how quickly it's dealt with on Monday morning.
Way back in the early 80s, I remember my authority had some problem with pay cheques, yup so long ago, we got physical cheques. Anyway we were supposed to get them in by 3.30 Thursday at the latest, but they didn't come in. They made them work on it overnight, we got our cheques the next morning almost first thing and those who needed to were allowed time out (almost never granted normally, save death or fire) to go to the bank and put it in.
Oh, I'm so old. I'm aware half of the people here won't have a clue what 'pay a cheque into the bank' even means!
-
I don't ever see this kind of absolute incompetence on any of the other sites. This can't be accidental all the time. Why is everyone else running without these problems? I'm just amazed they are considered a first class business.
-
I'm just amazed they are considered a first class business.
By whom ?!? :o To the most important crowd, the buyers, they're surely not, they're bailing out on a large scale and if it weren't for the old/unused credits, it would be even more obvious to us.
I just hope it's not that bad that they're hustling us at the moment, like some junkies, a few dollars here and there, just to get enough for the next fix :-\
-
It's a glitch. It should have been reparired asap no matter if Saturday or Christmas Day, true. That said, if Monday works again and what is due is payed, I don't see this big epic Drama that some prophetes see.
-
It's a glitch. It should have been reparired asap no matter if Saturday or Christmas Day, true. That said, if Monday works again and what is due is payed, I don't see this big epic Drama that some prophetes see.
It's a drama, because it's happened dozens of times in the last 18 months. Not once has it happened anywhere else, at least to me, save a few minor glitches lasting a day at most like new photos not showing up at SS. No actually that was the only glitch that I can remember on any of the top 5 sites. I don't care for loosing a few cents on the low earners, it's just not worth it. But IS...I'm just so fed up with it :-X
-
Of course, there's no customer support over weekends either, so if someone has a problem getting credits they've apparrently paid for successfully on a Saturday, they have to wait until Monday to get help.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=337075&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=337075&page=1)
-
It's a glitch. It should have been reparired asap no matter if Saturday or Christmas Day, true. That said, if Monday works again and what is due is payed, I don't see this big epic Drama that some prophetes see.
It's a drama, because it's happened dozens of times in the last 18 months. Not once has it happened anywhere else, at least to me, save a few minor glitches lasting a day at most like new photos not showing up at SS. No actually that was the only glitch that I can remember on any of the top 5 sites. I don't care for loosing a few cents on the low earners, it's just not worth it. But IS...I'm just so fed up with it :-X
Sorry, this particular glitch is first time ever. Don't add up things. Don't fantasize.
-
It's a glitch. It should have been reparired asap no matter if Saturday or Christmas Day, true. That said, if Monday works again and what is due is payed, I don't see this big epic Drama that some prophetes see.
It's a drama, because it's happened dozens of times in the last 18 months. Not once has it happened anywhere else, at least to me, save a few minor glitches lasting a day at most like new photos not showing up at SS. No actually that was the only glitch that I can remember on any of the top 5 sites. I don't care for loosing a few cents on the low earners, it's just not worth it. But IS...I'm just so fed up with it :-X
Sorry, this particular glitch is first time ever. Don't add up things. Don't fantasize.
Oh it counts only if it repeats. Lol!
-
It would be a relief for most of us if buggy sites like IS broke down completely and got closed. Business would move to SS and other sites in (almost) perfect running condition and we wouldn't loose out nerves and time. My ms work would become a lot easier and simpler :)
what an absurd statement. I'm not happy about the bug. I'm manually adding up my sales at the percentages they should be wherever possible, just in case. I'm doing it because I think it's prudent given the lack of communication once again. yeah, crap situation. but to see this thread going the way of all iStock threads the moment something happens...zzzzz,SO boring. why the overzealous hoopla about absolutely everything? in all likelihood it will be fixed, the end. no royalties intentionally siphoned by evil iStock gremlins.
-
They said it would be fixed Monday, but does anybody really believe that? They'll start working on it Monday, but their track record hasn't exactly instilled a lot of confidence that it will be fixed then. It really is unbelievable that they would just leave for the weekend without fixing this. They do seem to have a total disregard for contributors and a willingness to do whatever they're allowed to get away with.
-
I don't believe they will have it fixed by Monday. but you never know. but I don't think anyone is using this as an opportunity to steal royalties. nor do I think the techs are incompetent, quite the contrary. more likely overworked, underpaid and too few of them. but not incompetent.
-
yeah, crap situation. but to see this thread going the way of all iStock threads the moment something happens...zzzzz,SO boring. why the overzealous hoopla about absolutely everything? in all likelihood it will be fixed, the end. no royalties intentionally siphoned by evil iStock gremlins.
It's just a guess but I think it might have something to do with Istock's history of a broken site and broken promises. That's why. It's also why you won't be getting the 40% commissions you worked so hard for so many years to achieve when eventually you turn 'Diamond' __ which of course is now entirely meaningless unless you value the colour of your canister over money. But, as you say ... zzzzzz, SO boring.
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. Did you really think that Istock staff were likely to interupt their precious weekend just because contributors' incomes were being miscalculated by their own incompetence? Not a chance. As they walked out the door they said .... "zzzzz, SO boring."
-
No doubting 200 years ago, you lot would have been the ones to burn iStockphoto and all the witches in it. :o
-
yeah, crap situation. but to see this thread going the way of all iStock threads the moment something happens...zzzzz,SO boring. why the overzealous hoopla about absolutely everything? in all likelihood it will be fixed, the end. no royalties intentionally siphoned by evil iStock gremlins.
It's just a guess but I think it might have something to do with Istock's history of a broken site and broken promises. That's why. It's also why you won't be getting the 40% commissions you worked so hard for so many years to achieve when eventually you turn 'Diamond' __ which of course is now entirely meaningless unless you value the colour of your canister over money. But, as you say ... zzzzzz, SO boring.
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. Did you really think that Istock staff were likely to interupt their precious weekend just because contributors' incomes were being miscalculated by their own incompetence? Not a chance. As they walked out the door they said .... "zzzzz, SO boring."
when I read the forums here about the other agencies, I can't say that things look all that rosy elsewhere. this hasn't anything to do with exclusivity. but FWIW, my royalty percentages are wrong as far as I can tell from when this began. of course it's impossible to know exactly which credit packages were used to purchase my images. I can understand where you're coming from. but I think you well overestimate the benefits of being independent gostwyck. in any case, sure want to see royalties back to where they should be and I do think it is inexcusable that they haven't quelled concerns over this. update on Monday doesn't cut it when it comes to an issue involving money. it sure wouldn't cut it if it was an issue affecting their bottom line.
-
Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, three times is enemy action.
but people also say never attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence.
I must say that I am awfully glad I don't really have to worry about this much anymore and I'd be glad to see the buyers go to places that treat us better and keep things running better.
-
Amazing how they seemed to have worked feverishly to plug the hole that would prevent contributors from posting referral links on the site but something like this that affects contributor earnings has no urgency. I wonder how many higher volume contributors will be missing a sizable chunk of change before the early Monday morning Paypal cutoff.
-
update on Monday doesn't cut it when it comes to an issue involving money. it sure wouldn't cut it if it was an issue affecting their bottom line.
Nope, it doesn't. Frankly I'd be amazed if they actually fix what they've broken on Monday. They only ever fix things in a timely fashion when it affects their own bottom-line. Contributors don't matter to Istock, at least not so it shows. Of course when they say 'Monday' they haven't actually specified which Monday that might be. Isn't it the Thanksgiving weekend coming up? Hope they can be arsed to do something before then.
Personally I'd say things are generally much, much rosier on every other microstock agency. I'm not aware of any other site miscalculating their contributors royalties either now or historically for example. Then, having screwed everybody with their mistake, Istock shut down the office to have a nice weekend! Lovely-jubbley. That's quite an important distinction as far as I'm concerned.
Trouble is you apparently have no idea what it is like to be part of an agency that doesn't keep screwing things up. To you Istock's continual screw-ups are 'normal'. Anywhere else they're not.
-
@baldrick: would that matter? wouldn't they just cash out as per usual and wait for royalties to be added back on for the next payout?
@ gostwyck: you're right, I haven't been anywhere else in microstock. but I do have a good deal of experience outside iStock in other areas of my work, and mistakes aren't an iStock phenomenon. it's their handling of the mistakes that is the real issue. still think you're overstating the case for independence. at least according to friends and colleagues who have been independent, some of whom are still independent...who say the grass isn't any greener. have you ever been exclusive? I don't know your exclusivity history.
-
What a bunch of mongs. Hands down the most unprofessional, dumbest, glitch-ridden stock site of all time.
-
I remember filling out one of those surveys from Istock.
One of my points was that they need to ensure that the site works correctly and fix it immediately if there's something wrong.
Good to see they've taken that on board. (and flushed it down the toilet with our hopes and dreams)
-
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.
-
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.
Hi there! how goes?
I can see your points actually, 9K, files, well thats a hell of a job to put elsewhere. I would not encourage anybody to leave IS or any other agency for that matter, not with that kind of massive port.
I think some safety precaution is needed and especially for us with big ports. With IS now, its a rather scary situation and they dont seem to care anymore, exclusive or independant, on the whole we are treated just as bad and should the whole thingy collapse? well, the odds are that you would come a bit too late to other leading agencies and end up with one giant hassle.
If you see what I mean.
best.
-
I can see your points actually, 9K, files, well thats a hell of a job to put elsewhere. I would not encourage anybody to leave IS or any other agency for that matter, not with that kind of massive port.
I think some safety precaution is needed and especially for us with big ports. With IS now, its a rather scary situation and they dont seem to care anymore, exclusive or independant, on the whole we are treated just as bad and should the whole thingy collapse? well, the odds are that you would come a bit too late to other leading agencies and end up with one giant hassle.
If you see what I mean.
Hi Christian. What kind of safety precaution do you have in mind? I could use some ideas.
As for the 9K files, it's not as bad as it seems. Most of them, particularly the rubbishy early ones, don't earn very much at all. The 80:20 rule seems to be at work. So I could probably upload fewer than 2K images to the other sites in the short term without losing too much potential income.
-
I can see your points actually, 9K, files, well thats a hell of a job to put elsewhere. I would not encourage anybody to leave IS or any other agency for that matter, not with that kind of massive port.
I think some safety precaution is needed and especially for us with big ports. With IS now, its a rather scary situation and they dont seem to care anymore, exclusive or independant, on the whole we are treated just as bad and should the whole thingy collapse? well, the odds are that you would come a bit too late to other leading agencies and end up with one giant hassle.
If you see what I mean.
Hi Christian. What kind of safety precaution do you have in mind? I could use some ideas.
As for the 9K files, it's not as bad as it seems. Most of them, particularly the rubbishy early ones, don't earn very much at all. The 80:20 rule seems to be at work. So I could probably upload fewer than 2K images to the other sites in the short term without losing too much potential income.
Hi!
Well one of them as you say, "preparing them, to move them in a hurry" sounds very logic to me. I know what you mean, the 80:20, plenty of my own early stuff would never get in by todays standards and at IS, I think the rule is, we cant upload a file if its more then 18 months old or something like that.
best.
-
After 100+ comments, You-Know-Who finally weighs in with his usual elementary school principal snarkiness and closes the topic and remind us it's the weekend. Wait til Monday. Right...Monday...beginning of a holiday week.
:) Cat and mouse.
-
@ lagereek
"...and at IS, I think the rule is, we cant upload a file if its more then 18 months old or something like that."
That is news to me. Where did you hear/see that? I'm positive that I plenty of times have uploaded files that are older than 1 1/2 years. Only recollection of a 18 month hurdle I can recall is the prevention of exclusive material younger than 18 months being in the partner program and at iStock at the same time.
-
That is correct.
You can upload 100 year old files, but the istock exclusives cannot place their content with the partner programm for 18 months. Or otherwise send it straight to the partnerprogramm, then wait 18 months to put it o istock.
I sometimes send the outtakes directly there.
Independetns have their content placed with pp without a delay.
-
@ lagereek
"...and at IS, I think the rule is, we cant upload a file if its more then 18 months old or something like that."
That is news to me. Where did you hear/see that? I'm positive that I plenty of times have uploaded files that are older than 1 1/2 years. Only recollection of a 18 month hurdle I can recall is the prevention of exclusive material younger than 18 months being in the partner program and at iStock at the same time.
I'I think he is saying that the constantly rising requirements of microstock mean that files older than 18 months are unlikely to pass inspection at the best sites. That's true if you have been producing work at the borderline of acceptablity and struggling to keep up with rising standards. Also, anything created with older dSLRs, such as the Digital Rebel, would be likely to get noise rejections.
---- oh, yeah, and there is a rule that if you deactivate a file you can't reactivate it after 18 months. Not sure if that is 18 months from the deactivation date or 18 months from the shooting date. You have to resubmit it instead.
-
@ lagereek
"...and at IS, I think the rule is, we cant upload a file if its more then 18 months old or something like that."
That is news to me. Where did you hear/see that? I'm positive that I plenty of times have uploaded files that are older than 1 1/2 years. Only recollection of a 18 month hurdle I can recall is the prevention of exclusive material younger than 18 months being in the partner program and at iStock at the same time.
I'I think he is saying that the constantly rising requirements of microstock mean that files older than 18 months are unlikely to pass inspection at the best sites. That's true if you have been producing work at the borderline of acceptablity and struggling to keep up with rising standards. Also, anything created with older dSLRs, such as the Digital Rebel, would be likely to get noise rejections.
---- oh, yeah, and there is a rule that if you deactivate a file you can't reactivate it after 18 months. Not sure if that is 18 months from the deactivation date or 18 months from the shooting date. You have to resubmit it instead.
Yes! thats what I meant, you got it right. I remember deactivating two files about 6 months back, then I wanted to re-activate them a few month later and got a message saying files too old?
-
It would be a relief for most of us if buggy sites like IS broke down completely and got closed. Business would move to SS and other sites in (almost) perfect running condition and we wouldn't loose out nerves and time. My ms work would become a lot easier and simpler :)
what an absurd statement. I'm not happy about the bug. I'm manually adding up my sales at the percentages they should be wherever possible, just in case. I'm doing it because I think it's prudent given the lack of communication once again. yeah, crap situation. but to see this thread going the way of all iStock threads the moment something happens...zzzzz,SO boring. why the overzealous hoopla about absolutely everything? in all likelihood it will be fixed, the end. no royalties intentionally siphoned by evil iStock gremlins.
You said it. Absolutely everything. Everywhere else is absolutely nothing, or just a small bug fixed literally ASAP. I'm sure SS (or DT, FT, so that you won't say it's not fair to compare industry leader with IS) would have fixed that at least by yesterday. Oh wait a minute, they didn't make such a mess of their site in the first place, offering zillion products and on top of that the worst service/support to both buyers and contributors in the industry ;)
-
Why the hoopla, when in all likelihood it will soon be fixed? Well, your words in italics show that even you have an atom of doubt about how soon/whether it will all be properly fixed.
I have paid iStock something like $200,000 to provide me with a service which involves promoting my images for sale and reporting back to me accurately what my cut of the take is. I think I am entitled to expect good service for that money. What's more, I'm entitled to expect that problems with their accounting will be sorted out by them, not "in all likelihood" sorted out (probably), or sorted out only if I submit precise details of the file number and date of unpaid sales (as is the case with PP).
The quality of service they are providing is not commensurate with the commissions they take for providing it.
-
Man SS must have thrown a party over the weekend. Their most fierce rival, digging a hole for himself. Bringing them more and more disappointed IS contributors, some exclusive among them. They don't really have to do anything to see a decent, constant rise of their business, accept making sure the site works. I really wish they'd twist the knife in IS's back and offer exclusive images. If FT were to fall apart as well, we'd get rid of the evil agencies and I'm sure no one would make cuts since they'd see what happened to the agencies that incorporated them and screwed contributors over and over again. On the contrary, I think we could see a smallish raise here and there. But I guess this is a bit too optimistic
-
FYI: the partner program is paying out at the wrong rates now too.
Don't understand why they don't stop the payouts until the royalty bug is fixed first thing Monday as promised.
-
Man SS must have thrown a party over the weekend. Their most fierce rival, digging a hole for himself. Bringing them more and more disappointed IS contributors, some exclusive among them. They don't really have to do anything to see a decent, constant rise of their business, accept making sure the site works. I really wish they'd twist the knife in IS's back and offer exclusive images. If FT were to fall apart as well, we'd get rid of the evil agencies and I'm sure no one would make cuts since they'd see what happened to the agencies that incorporated them and screwed contributors over and over again. On the contrary, I think we could see a smallish raise here and there. But I guess this is a bit too optimistic
I agree with everything except "offer exclusive images": one of the reasons of SS success is its semplicity imo - all files and all contributors are treated equally (excluding tiered rates, which are anyway very realistic to reach and an incentive for contributors and totally ininfluent for buyers). So I don't long for exclusivity there.
-
What are you talking about? Maybe you need a weekend off.
Same thing goes for your KLSbear. Adding spiteful comments never seems to get this fixed quicker. Relax yourself.
As indicated Monday is when we are going to have resolution to this bug. I'm going to save people a bunch of typing and lock this thread up now. Again, for clarity: Monday.
;D ;D
-
FYI: the partner program is paying out at the wrong rates now too.
Don't understand why they don't stop the payouts until the royalty bug is fixed first thing Monday as promised.
In istock terms, a "bug" is actually a new "feature", designed to give them more profit. Let me guess, this "bug" is paying contributors less than they should get, not more? Wonder why the "bugs" only swing to the advantage of istock?
-
"Fixing" this bug will probably create 3 more.
-
In istock terms, a "bug" is actually a new "feature", designed to give them more profit. Let me guess, this "bug" is paying contributors less than they should get, not more? Wonder why the "bugs" only swing to the advantage of istock?
It's a bug. And they have said that they are going to fix it Monday.
Not ideal and the communication has been poor. But, equally, no big deal either !
-
It's a bug. And they have said that they are going to fix it Monday.
Not ideal and the communication has been poor. But, equally, no big deal either !
No, it's a fairly big deal. It's the message it sends. We mess up our accounting of your livelihood and, oh, we'll shrug and promise to get round to fixing it when we get a chance. At this stage in iStock's history an episode like this is unfortunately eloquent.
-
Anything to do with money is a very serious issue. Imagine the salaries to the staff in Calgary were paid out 3 days late or 10 % of the amount was held back due to a computer problem. How would the team react?
And then they see that the people who can do something about it go home on time on Friday and they are only told about it via twitter.
Just because the contributors are invisible faces around the globe, doesn't mean they can just be brushed aside like this.
I have every faith that they will pay us back the money owed, but unfortunately it doesn't increase faith in what is going on. And now we also get less money for pp. Probably because of the same bug.
Again I am sure I will eventually get the 4 cents missing but how about a simple email warning me about this beforehand?
Just a normal form of communication, I really don't think that is too much to expect? istock is a huge company with people who do contributor service as a full time job. All the management has to do is advise them to inform us. No big deal.
-
I think a few things are a very big deal.
1) There was no "oops" in the forums and/or via e-mail from iStock to announce that they'd messed up and were working diligently to fix this. As with the premature removal of the exclusive EL bonus last year, this was brought up by contributors and only after a while of complaining was there some admin response. That either means they didn't know about the problem or they have so little regard for contributor relations that they couldn't be bothered to try and manage the situation.
2) I have no confidence that the fix will be correct. When they made the EL bonus back payments they were wrong. When a number of contributors pointed that out to iStock, CR's response was that there was a problem with the script to calculate the back payments but that as it was slightly over, they weren't going to fix it. In my case I knew that to be true even though I didn't know what the exact amount should have been (because contributors aren't privvy to the size of image purchased with an EL so we can't do the math for them).
3) We have no choice - other than leaving iStock - but to accept whatever number they come up with. We don't know the details of each sale - royalty percentage, price paid per credit, credits per sale. We can't get a decent simple accounting of each transaction from our agent - and producing a downloadable csv file with the details is the sort of thing computers are well suited for doing. I don't think we have any regulatory agency that will require this accounting. 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.
As far as the partner program goes, I'm an unwilling about-to-be-participant in that, but I wish they'd sh*1 or get off the pot on the inclusion of independent content. Income from that might help offset some of the dips at IS, but the silver lining is perhaps they'll have the payments fixed before they figure out how to move the independent content over.
One or two mistakes every now and then is part and parcel of every operation. Multiple, serious relatively frequent sc*3w ups in just about every part of their site operation indicates something else to me.
-
The biggest problem is the lack of communication to the affected contributors, and the fact they can't even apologize to us. Secondly, waiting till monday to fix it, wth?
-
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.
-
The biggest problem is the lack of communication to the affected contributors, and the fact they can't even apologize to us. Secondly, waiting till monday to fix it, wth?
You can bet that if there was some sort of accounting bug that prevented everyone at HQ from getting paid their proper salary, no one would leave for the weekend until it was fixed.
-
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. ::)
-
It could just be an experiment about how many ppl would notice they (probably) didn't pay them according to their royalty percentage and credit prices (contributors can't know about the latter). If the number of ppl complaining and demanding price breakdowns etc for every single sale that was underpayed (so for the duration between Friday afternoon and probably the end of next week), they just might add a script, ripping us off to some degree (probably variable credit prices, paying us less than they are charging the buyers). Another reason SS works, they pay at fixed rates, for all types of sales. There's also no way for manipulation and taking money on the side. Poker sites are rigged, so why agencies couldn't be? It really wouldn't be that hard to do it, since they complicate everything so much. Just like banks (mostly in US) selling all their products that were so complicated no one could understand it and well you know the rest, recession is still here because of such policies. Except no one will bail out IS
I have absolutely no trust in IS. There's no transparency what so ever. So how can we trust them (brainwashed and dumb ppl excluded) ?
-
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?
-
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?
I actually sold two on Saturday, one today, which is a lot more than I've been selling on weekends these past few weeks.
-
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.
-
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.
It only took 12 hours to do the fix for one, (so I was unfair saying buyers couldn't get support over the weekend) but three other buyers have reported the same issue, and we can't know how many others have been affected.
-
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 (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.
-
What upsets me the most is the way this problem is handled. We can't talk about it in iStock forums and the only official response was to wait till Monday. Outrageous. Monday 9 am is a cut off day for paypal. They are not going to fix it by then, let alone reimburse everyone involved.
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. While http://istockcharts.multimedia.de/ (http://istockcharts.multimedia.de/) was in its infancy and before iStock realized what kind of damage it was causing them, I figured that top 50 sellers were generating one third of all sales while top 200 were generating two thirds of all sales. What if enough top contributors (let alone large number) calls Support and asks temporary lock of our respective portfolios? Who will blink first?
-
I'd lay odds they would say a temporary lock is not available, you have to disable your portfolio one at a time.
-
I'd lay odds they would say a temporary lock is not available, you have to disable your portfolio one at a time.
Which of course would be a lie because we know they have the capability to do that. However some top contributors would be losing over $1k per day, lots of others several $100, by disabling their portfolios. That's a big hit to take to express your dissatisfaction.
A mass resignation of exclusivity (by giving the 30 days notice) might be more effective and would give Istock the opportunity to make concessions before it happened. Then we'd see who blinks first.
-
A mass resignation of exclusivity (by giving the 30 days notice) might be more effective...
I have a feeling this isn't far off...
-
I'd lay odds they would say a temporary lock is not available, you have to disable your portfolio one at a time.
Which of course would be a lie because we know they have the capability to do that. However some top contributors would be losing over $1k per day, lots of others several $100, by disabling their portfolios. That's a big hit to take to express your dissatisfaction.
A mass resignation of exclusivity (by giving the 30 days notice) might be more effective and would give Istock the opportunity to make concessions before it happened. Then we'd see who blinks first.
That's a pretty high risk thing for an exclusive to do as the strict terms of the deal are that if you change your mind within the 30 days you get to spend 90 days as an independent before you can get your crown back. If iStock chose to be strict about it (and when I inquired of CR prior to pulling the trigger myself they made a reference to the September announcement having shocked some members but that now (Jan 2011) they would follow the contract; that suggests they might have bent the rules in September 2010) that means 3 months of reduced earnings with no real supplement from other sites.
-
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.
-
That's a pretty high risk thing for an exclusive to do as the strict terms of the deal are that if you change your mind within the 30 days you get to spend 90 days as an independent before you can get your crown back. If iStock chose to be strict about it (and when I inquired of CR prior to pulling the trigger myself they made a reference to the September announcement having shocked some members but that now (Jan 2011) they would follow the contract; that suggests they might have bent the rules in September 2010) that means 3 months of reduced earnings with no real supplement from other sites.
If you were Rebbecca ... that would be an extremely high risk strategy to take. She's been appointed to improve the numbers. Forcing high-selling contributors outside of the exclusive envelope (to basically 'punish' them for standing up for their rights) could be potentially catastrophic for both short-term profits and the future of the business.
I reckon a united band of exclusives would easily have the upper hand in any game of brinkmanship. Traffic statistics are heading south, market-share is falling off a cliff and Istock have lost the trust and confidence of many contributors. Exclusive contributors, if united, are actually in a very strong place. Without their support Istock really won't have much of a business left.
-
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. Doesnīt 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 - donīt 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. Theyīll sell whatever they can, they are very flexible.
The people that do quit the exclusive contract are probably those who donīt 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.
-
Locking the port would make us vanish in a thin air but would also allow us to reappear in a blink of an eye. As it stands, we, the contributors, do not have any say in what iStockphoto does. For what I know they may declare flat 20% royalties tomorrow. We don't know the price per credit spent on our images. We don't know why refunds are issued. Anyone that wants to do business outside of Mon-Fri 9-5 scheme is on his/her own. There is always something in a system that doesn't work. It may or may not be fixed. If it is going to be fixed it may be in an hour or in two months.
Not only that we, the contributors, are getting worse and worse treatment but so do buyers.
I would try to fix it first before abandoning the ship.
-
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?
-
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.....
-
imagine the newbie boost you'd get on downloads at shutterstock if you dumped 5000 in your first week.
-
Why would you want to trust the other agencies, that, if you read around here - donīt seem to have much of a good reputation? All I see is threads about complaints...
If you look a little deeper you will see that the complaints about DT and SS are mainly about image rejections or some user error - accidentally batch altering keywords or getting locked out after deliberately ignoring warnings are two examples - plus occasional site outages. Those aren't things that undermine an agency's reputation. Istock's reputational problems are over trust (will they bother to get round to correcting accounting errors in their favour if they aren't pushed), greed (cutting commissions), dictatorial behaviour (forcing people into PP) and poor service (cant be bothered about anything unless it can get done between 9 and 5, Monday to Friday). It's quite different.
The depth of their problem with trust is demonstrated by the fact that high-ranking exclusives are seriously discussing options for dealing with a cut in all their payment levels to 20% or 25%. That's on a par with friends planning how they will react if they catch their spouse cheating on them - what does it say about the state of the marriage?
-
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... :o . 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
-
imagine the newbie boost you'd get on downloads at shutterstock if you dumped 5000 in your first week.
What if they get a strict reviewer that rejects 4,500 of them? They can be very picky at times.
-
...if you have 5000+ portfolio. Why would you want to trust the other agencies, that, if you read around here - donīt seem to have much of a good reputation? All I see is threads about complaints...
That's a good point. I have a feeling that SS is going to get bigger and bigger but then I will end up relying too much on my income from them. Its much harder to get new images accepted and I don't like relying on one site for most of my income. The rest of the sites aren't doing as well as I would like and FT are almost as bad as istock, with all the commission cuts.
..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...
I can't see that happening, I think the only chance for istock is if the site is sold and the new owners understand that paying more to contributors motivates them and will increase their profits. It doesn't look like istock will be sold though, it seems that they are moving towards it being absorbed by Getty.
The options for exclusives don't look good but I don't think its any better for non-exclusives. I've gone from being optimistic about microstock a few years ago to being pessimistic. Things might improve but its hard to see that when commissions are getting lower and competition is getting harder each year.
-
imagine the newbie boost you'd get on downloads at shutterstock if you dumped 5000 in your first week.
It doesn't work that way for quite some time now. Sure, it doesn't take as long as on the other sites to get DLs, but getting a huge amount of DLs in the first days is not happening any more. IMO it's better this way, since the files that don't sell in the first week, still have a chance of seeing decent sales (and they often do)
-
It doesn't look like istock will be sold though, it seems that they are moving towards it being absorbed by Getty.
Istock was absorbed by Getty five or six years ago, they've just had trouble digesting it, particularly during the period when Bruce Livinstone was still there to fight for his vision. It's fairly clear that after he left iStock didn't have anyone strong enough to stand up to pressure from Getty, whose high-ups had quite a different concept of what istock should be. Without istock having a CEO, the executive function moved upstream and the iStock staff were just there to implement instructions (except, of course, for those who put their ass on the line every day for us and would be the first to quit if iS ever did anything that might hurt its contributors ;) )
-
Looks like the RC fix is in, starting around 4:40pm CST. Now it's cleanup time.
-
My RCs look to be accurate, as far as I can tell. Just passed the 150k mark to keep my 19%. Woo yay.
I did get a .09 sale today, so not sure if I am actually getting 19%. Frankly, .09 is the lowest commission I have EVER gotten in nearly 7 years of microstock. It makes the .12 I got a couple of days ago look positively princely! Don't know how royalties like these are possible.
-
Congrats on keeping your percentage Lisa (inadequate as it is). Commiserations on the 0.9c sale. Such an insult. Really incomprehensible.
-
RC might be fixed, but I still haven't had a single sale recorded since Thursday despite having sales every day since. The TS stats are being updated, but not my regular stats.
-
My RCs look to be accurate, as far as I can tell.
Lisa, glad to hear your updates seem correct. Mine do not, in fact the amount they updated by seems to be less than half of what it should be. A few other people on iStock have said the same, is anyone else seeing less of an increase than expected?
-
RCs are fixed (shown, not saying I'm being payed at the correct rate), but my DL stats are totally messed up. I can't see any sales past 31.10. :o . I got a couple of sales in the afternoon though. But those royalties were probably payed at 15%, since I only got $3.3 for a L P+ (I usually get 3.45+)
-
My RCs look to be accurate, as far as I can tell.
Lisa, glad to hear your updates seem correct. Mine do not, in fact the amount they updated by seems to be less than half of what it should be. A few other people on iStock have said the same, is anyone else seeing less of an increase than expected?
I think my number's low, but I have no records to be able to backtrack and see if it's my memory or a wrong RC total. I don't think it mattters (to me) because either way I'm going to miss my 40K total for the year. Now if they lower the RC targets, it might become more important
And congrats to Lisa for making 150K. Given the current environment, that's really great.
-
And congrats to Lisa for making 150K. Given the current environment, that's really great.
Thanks. Kind of a bummer to only be getting 19%, but it is what it is, and I am relieved to hang on to it.
Most of my RCs came from earlier in the year, though. If sales levels continue as they have been for the last month or so (you know "the busy season"), I won't come close to making the same target next year :(
-
My RCs look to be accurate, as far as I can tell. Just passed the 150k mark to keep my 19%. Woo yay.
I did get a .09 sale today, so not sure if I am actually getting 19%. Frankly, .09 is the lowest commission I have EVER gotten in nearly 7 years of microstock. It makes the .12 I got a couple of days ago look positively princely! Don't know how royalties like these are possible.
Your numbers are incredible. Much respect :)
I am sure you will meet your target next year for the simple reason that if you don't they who will ?!?
-
Congratulations Lisa.
So IS is going to make another famous retro-payment someday in a way that will hide even more what contributors get paid.
They act like thimbleriggers.
-
Congratulations Lisa.
So IS is going to make another famous retro-payment someday in a way that will hide even more what contributors get paid.
They act like thimbleriggers.
Joyze said they would send an e-mail for each sale showing the correction, so as long as you keep a list of what has sold over the last three days you should be able to tell if they are all paid up.
-
It looks like all this mess affected the payouts as well. I requested payment last Tuesday (MB cutoff day) and still haven't received the money. I would request another today, but I'm going to wait until they pay me the first. The only good thing is I'm not dependand on this payment, but imagine an exclusive who really depends on it not getting it (I can get it from other sites as well)
-
It looks like all this mess affected the payouts as well. I requested payment last Tuesday (MB cutoff day) and still haven't received the money. I would request another today, but I'm going to wait until they pay me the first. The only good thing is I'm not dependand on this payment, but imagine an exclusive who really depends on it not getting it (I can get it from other sites as well)
It is a bit early in the "day" to expect payment considering it is not even 4 AM in Calgary.... It should be paid out TODAY (Tue Moneybookers, Mon PayPal) during the course of iStock's business day.
-
It looks like all this mess affected the payouts as well. I requested payment last Tuesday (MB cutoff day) and still haven't received the money. I would request another today, but I'm going to wait until they pay me the first. The only good thing is I'm not dependand on this payment, but imagine an exclusive who really depends on it not getting it (I can get it from other sites as well)
It is a bit early in the "day" to expect payment considering it is not even 4 AM in Calgary.... It should be paid out TODAY (Tue Moneybookers, Mon PayPal) during the course of iStock's business day.
Huh, than I guess I misunderstand the cutoff and 5 business days. And wrongfully think it's the 6th business day in a row from the one that I requested payment and was the cutoff day. If I remember correctly I usually got the money by the end of the same week not in the next. But then again, I don't request payments every week at IS
-
It looks like all this mess affected the payouts as well. I requested payment last Tuesday (MB cutoff day) and still haven't received the money. I would request another today, but I'm going to wait until they pay me the first. The only good thing is I'm not dependand on this payment, but imagine an exclusive who really depends on it not getting it (I can get it from other sites as well)
It is a bit early in the "day" to expect payment considering it is not even 4 AM in Calgary.... It should be paid out TODAY (Tue Moneybookers, Mon PayPal) during the course of iStock's business day.
Huh, than I guess I misunderstand the cutoff and 5 business days. And wrongfully think it's the 6th business day in a row from the one that I requested payment and was the cutoff day. If I remember correctly I usually got the money by the end of the same week not in the next. But then again, I don't request payments every week at IS
If you go look at the payment schedule (the calendar provided with deadlines and payout dates for each month) you will see that USUALLY the cut-off for MB payouts is Tuesdays, which will then USUALLY be paid out on the following Tuesday. Usually is bar if there are any holidays affecting the schedule. Go look at the payout schedule and you'll understand.
-
It looks like all this mess affected the payouts as well. I requested payment last Tuesday (MB cutoff day) and still haven't received the money. I would request another today, but I'm going to wait until they pay me the first. The only good thing is I'm not dependand on this payment, but imagine an exclusive who really depends on it not getting it (I can get it from other sites as well)
It is a bit early in the "day" to expect payment considering it is not even 4 AM in Calgary.... It should be paid out TODAY (Tue Moneybookers, Mon PayPal) during the course of iStock's business day.
Huh, than I guess I misunderstand the cutoff and 5 business days. And wrongfully think it's the 6th business day in a row from the one that I requested payment and was the cutoff day. If I remember correctly I usually got the money by the end of the same week not in the next. But then again, I don't request payments every week at IS
If you go look at the payment schedule (the calendar provided with deadlines and payout dates for each month) you will see that USUALLY the cut-off for MB payouts is Tuesdays, which will then USUALLY be paid out on the following Tuesday. Usually is bar if there are any holidays affecting the schedule. Go look at the payout schedule and you'll understand.
I did look at it and the 5th business day from Tuesday is Monday (cutoff is in the morning, so Tuesday counts). That is if they're paying on the last day of the deadline that they set
-
It looks like all this mess affected the payouts as well. I requested payment last Tuesday (MB cutoff day) and still haven't received the money. I would request another today, but I'm going to wait until they pay me the first. The only good thing is I'm not dependand on this payment, but imagine an exclusive who really depends on it not getting it (I can get it from other sites as well)
It is a bit early in the "day" to expect payment considering it is not even 4 AM in Calgary.... It should be paid out TODAY (Tue Moneybookers, Mon PayPal) during the course of iStock's business day.
Huh, than I guess I misunderstand the cutoff and 5 business days. And wrongfully think it's the 6th business day in a row from the one that I requested payment and was the cutoff day. If I remember correctly I usually got the money by the end of the same week not in the next. But then again, I don't request payments every week at IS
If you go look at the payment schedule (the calendar provided with deadlines and payout dates for each month) you will see that USUALLY the cut-off for MB payouts is Tuesdays, which will then USUALLY be paid out on the following Tuesday. Usually is bar if there are any holidays affecting the schedule. Go look at the payout schedule and you'll understand.
I did look at it and the 5th business day from Tuesday is Monday (cutoff is in the morning, so Tuesday counts). That is if they're paying on the last day of the deadline that they set
Moneybookers are paid out on TUESDAY, doesn't matter how many business days that is after your request. TUESDAYS. Check the schedule, it clearly states which cut-off days and payout days there are for the different payment methods.
-
Congratulations Lisa.
So IS is going to make another famous retro-payment someday in a way that will hide even more what contributors get paid.
They act like thimbleriggers.
Joyze said they would send an e-mail for each sale showing the correction, so as long as you keep a list of what has sold over the last three days you should be able to tell if they are all paid up.
my RCs look fine today. royalties were low on the affected days though, so hopefully corrections are all accurately calculated too.
-
It looks like all this mess affected the payouts as well. I requested payment last Tuesday (MB cutoff day) and still haven't received the money. I would request another today, but I'm going to wait until they pay me the first. The only good thing is I'm not dependand on this payment, but imagine an exclusive who really depends on it not getting it (I can get it from other sites as well)
It is a bit early in the "day" to expect payment considering it is not even 4 AM in Calgary.... It should be paid out TODAY (Tue Moneybookers, Mon PayPal) during the course of iStock's business day.
Huh, than I guess I misunderstand the cutoff and 5 business days. And wrongfully think it's the 6th business day in a row from the one that I requested payment and was the cutoff day. If I remember correctly I usually got the money by the end of the same week not in the next. But then again, I don't request payments every week at IS
If you go look at the payment schedule (the calendar provided with deadlines and payout dates for each month) you will see that USUALLY the cut-off for MB payouts is Tuesdays, which will then USUALLY be paid out on the following Tuesday. Usually is bar if there are any holidays affecting the schedule. Go look at the payout schedule and you'll understand.
I did look at it and the 5th business day from Tuesday is Monday (cutoff is in the morning, so Tuesday counts). That is if they're paying on the last day of the deadline that they set
Moneybookers are paid out on TUESDAY, doesn't matter how many business days that is after your request. TUESDAYS. Check the schedule, it clearly states which cut-off days and payout days there are for the different payment methods.
I am hearing you out, but you're not hearing me out. If that were true I'd get payed last Tuesday (I requested it in the morning CET too). But it looks like you get payed SOME Tuesday :-\ . But yeah I get it, it's five days and it depends wether they make it before the first or second Tuesday, 5 working days until the first Tuesday. I guess I'm spoiled by some other sites making the pyments within hours
-
my RCs look fine today.
They may look fine, but that must be because you don't know what the number is supposed to be.
Several posts on iStock's forum backs up what I'm seeing: the current RC total is for Wed, 16 Nov -- and not even through the end of the day (i.e., about mid-day Wed).
-
Congratulations Lisa.
So IS is going to make another famous retro-payment someday in a way that will hide even more what contributors get paid.
They act like thimbleriggers.
Joyze said they would send an e-mail for each sale showing the correction, so as long as you keep a list of what has sold over the last three days you should be able to tell if they are all paid up.
my RCs look fine today. royalties were low on the affected days though, so hopefully corrections are all accurately calculated too.
What I don't like is the way they update and report it. They send a mail with the update and leave the error stick in the website numbers. They make it hard to track on purpose. They could update the downloads page on IS to reflect those corrections, be it a bug or a fraud purchase. Other sites provide much better information on corrections or deductions.
In the end, if you keep track of all the sales as reported on the site, it doesn't report the same total amount of money you earned. You have to keep track of modifications reported only by mail.
-
my RCs look fine today.
They may look fine, but that must be because you don't know what the number is supposed to be.
Several posts on iStock's forum backs up what I'm seeing: the current RC total is for Wed, 16 Nov -- and not even through the end of the day (i.e., about mid-day Wed).
what they've added up seems correct according to our estimations of where I should have been by that point. I'm more worried about royalties, which are not correct.
-
...In the end, if you keep track of all the sales as reported on the site, it doesn't report the same total amount of money you earned. You have to keep track of modifications reported only by mail.
It's far from adequate (i.e. I'm not trying to excuse IS's pitiful reporting of sales) but if you get the monthly CSV from your stats page there should be a column called Admin Adj or something like that and that's where those lump sums show up. As long as they pay in the year they effed things up, at least your totals in the CSV will be right even if you can't correctly total a day or week's sales
-
...In the end, if you keep track of all the sales as reported on the site, it doesn't report the same total amount of money you earned. You have to keep track of modifications reported only by mail.
It's far from adequate (i.e. I'm not trying to excuse IS's pitiful reporting of sales) but if you get the monthly CSV from your stats page there should be a column called Admin Adj or something like that and that's where those lump sums show up. As long as they pay in the year they effed things up, at least your totals in the CSV will be right even if you can't correctly total a day or week's sales
Didn't know about this CSV file, never downloaded it until now.
But after downloading it I see it's just another layer of obscurity because it's just a sum of numbers and doesn't have a detailed list of downloads, corrections, deductions or anything else. Everything at IS tries to hide what really happens or makes it difficult to accurately keep track of things.
All other agencies have much better pages to report downloads as a daily report or as a chronological list. IS instead has everything hidden behind clicks or sums.
-
*snip*
All other agencies have much better pages to report downloads as a daily report or as a chronological list. IS instead has everything hidden behind clicks or sums.
That's the way we know good ol' istock, not? :)
Needlessly complicated in literally everything; from the upload process (jump hoops!), to the MR system (jump through more hoops!), the reference program (designed to be complicated so the chance at referrals is very small), the search (anyone want to take a 2 day course?), the payout system (a "support" ticket?!), the RC system (no transparency whatsoever)...... chances were small the CSV would have been any better ;)
-
It looks like all this mess affected the payouts as well. I requested payment last Tuesday (MB cutoff day) and still haven't received the money. I would request another today, but I'm going to wait until they pay me the first. The only good thing is I'm not dependand on this payment, but imagine an exclusive who really depends on it not getting it (I can get it from other sites as well)
It is a bit early in the "day" to expect payment considering it is not even 4 AM in Calgary.... It should be paid out TODAY (Tue Moneybookers, Mon PayPal) during the course of iStock's business day.
Huh, than I guess I misunderstand the cutoff and 5 business days. And wrongfully think it's the 6th business day in a row from the one that I requested payment and was the cutoff day. If I remember correctly I usually got the money by the end of the same week not in the next. But then again, I don't request payments every week at IS
If you go look at the payment schedule (the calendar provided with deadlines and payout dates for each month) you will see that USUALLY the cut-off for MB payouts is Tuesdays, which will then USUALLY be paid out on the following Tuesday. Usually is bar if there are any holidays affecting the schedule. Go look at the payout schedule and you'll understand.
I did look at it and the 5th business day from Tuesday is Monday (cutoff is in the morning, so Tuesday counts). That is if they're paying on the last day of the deadline that they set
Moneybookers are paid out on TUESDAY, doesn't matter how many business days that is after your request. TUESDAYS. Check the schedule, it clearly states which cut-off days and payout days there are for the different payment methods.
I am hearing you out, but you're not hearing me out. If that were true I'd get payed last Tuesday (I requested it in the morning CET too). But it looks like you get payed SOME Tuesday :-\ . But yeah I get it, it's five days and it depends wether they make it before the first or second Tuesday, 5 working days until the first Tuesday. I guess I'm spoiled by some other sites making the pyments within hours
You request before the CUT-OFF time on Tuesday week 1 and get paid 7 days later on the FOLLOWING Tuesday (WEEK 2, ONE WEEK AFTER THE REQUEST). You CANNOT request and get paid on the same day, minimum of a week in between.
-
It doesn't look like istock will be sold though, it seems that they are moving towards it being absorbed by Getty.
Istock was absorbed by Getty five or six years ago, they've just had trouble digesting it, particularly during the period when Bruce Livinstone was still there to fight for his vision. It's fairly clear that after he left iStock didn't have anyone strong enough to stand up to pressure from Getty, whose high-ups had quite a different concept of what istock should be. Without istock having a CEO, the executive function moved upstream and the iStock staff were just there to implement instructions (except, of course, for those who put their ass on the line every day for us and would be the first to quit if iS ever did anything that might hurt its contributors ;) )
True! BUT! when Bruce sold out, Getty already had a tarnished reputation, almost like corporate-raiders, He couldnt have been that naive, not realizing that his "babys" days were numberd?
With 50,million quid on the horizon, I would have done the same, taken the money and run for cover.
Even so, Bruce, wouldnt have been able to do a thing against Getty, exept getting bad nerves and anxiety from all the rubbish.
So, I dont buy all this "Oh if only Bruce had been around lark" he knew exactly what he was doing AND the consequenses.
-
It doesn't look like istock will be sold though, it seems that they are moving towards it being absorbed by Getty.
Istock was absorbed by Getty five or six years ago, they've just had trouble digesting it, particularly during the period when Bruce Livinstone was still there to fight for his vision. It's fairly clear that after he left iStock didn't have anyone strong enough to stand up to pressure from Getty, whose high-ups had quite a different concept of what istock should be. Without istock having a CEO, the executive function moved upstream and the iStock staff were just there to implement instructions (except, of course, for those who put their ass on the line every day for us and would be the first to quit if iS ever did anything that might hurt its contributors ;) )
True! BUT! when Bruce sold out, Getty already had a tarnished reputation, almost like corporate-raiders, He couldnt have been that naive, not realizing that his "babys" days were numberd?
With 50,million quid on the horizon, I would have done the same, taken the money and run for cover.
Even so, Bruce, wouldnt have been able to do a thing against Getty, exept getting bad nerves and anxiety from all the rubbish.
So, I dont buy all this "Oh if only Bruce had been around lark" he knew exactly what he was doing AND the consequenses.
I never said "if only Bruce had been around", I said he as probably the last one with the authority to stand his ground against Getty. I don't have any doubt about the lure of $50m, or his slice of it. I suspect when he quit, at the end of his contractual lock-in, he was already on the ropes in trying to resist Getty's "ideas" otherwise he might have stayed. But his record does show that if he had been there there would have been less bungling and Getty might have been persuaded to drop some of their worst ideas. Can anybody recall a Kelly-type foot-in-mouth event from Bruce?
-
Bruce genuinly believed that selling to Getty was the best way to take the company global. Getty had the international offices, the international CV, experience and contacts with big budget clients. And he negotiated the famous "quit your day job" offer that brought House contracts to high ranking istock exclusives. I am one of the many grateful contributors who got one. The offer was independent of style of portfolio, you just had to be at the right level to get in.
He did lead the company for another 3 (?) years and then moved on, took a break, bought a nice house and certainly enjoys his money. But then he took on a similar job at Saatchionline and is now promoting a marketplace for non commercial art. Again he is so successful at online marketing, that when I google my name the first thing that shows is my Saatchiportfolio with 20 images and not my istock portfolio with 3000+
He genuinly loves interacting with artists and is an excellent communicator and leader.
Whatever is happening now, is not his fault. Getty owns the istock marketplace and it is their responsibility to grow the business. I keep hearing people who blame Bruce for "leaving them", but again, the current managers at istock or Getty are responsible for what is going on now.
And since we donīt have any numbers, it is entirely possible that with the focus on high end content that maybe istock is more profitable now than a year ago, who knows?
It just doesnīt seem to trickle down to the artist like it used to.
-
when I google my name the first thing that shows is my Saatchiportfolio with 20 images and not my istock portfolio with 3000+
Can I see your Saatchiportfolio?
Never mind, I found it!
-
The portfolio is just for fun, I never sold a print there. But I teach at an artistic school for photography and I include Saatchionline in my talk on internet self marketing. I think saatchionline has a very good interface for artists and it seems to have an extremly active community. I was contacted by more than one gallery and asked if I wanted to be part of a project.
Definetly a lot going on over there.
-
Bruce genuinly believed that selling to Getty was the best way to take the company global. Getty had the international offices, the international CV, experience and contacts with big budget clients. And he negotiated the famous "quit your day job" offer that brought House contracts to high ranking istock exclusives. I am one of the many grateful contributors who got one. The offer was independent of style of portfolio, you just had to be at the right level to get in.
He did lead the company for another 3 (?) years and then moved on, took a break, bought a nice house and certainly enjoys his money. But then he took on a similar job at Saatchionline and is now promoting a marketplace for non commercial art. Again he is so successful at online marketing, that when I google my name the first thing that shows is my Saatchiportfolio with 20 images and not my istock portfolio with 3000+
He genuinly loves interacting with artists and is an excellent communicator and leader.
Whatever is happening now, is not his fault. Getty owns the istock marketplace and it is their responsibility to grow the business. I keep hearing people who blame Bruce for "leaving them", but again, the current managers at istock or Getty are responsible for what is going on now.
And since we donīt have any numbers, it is entirely possible that with the focus on high end content that maybe istock is more profitable now than a year ago, who knows?
It just doesnīt seem to trickle down to the artist like it used to.
Yes but, taking the company global?, I dont see how much more global you can get then being or was, the leading internet based micro agency? Getty came late into RF and Micro, too late to start anything of their own so what better way then to buy-up something like IS, ride it for a few years and then slowly intermingle it into their own as what we are seeing now with TS and everything. Only in the process they are destroying it.
They did exactly the same with Photodisc many years back, did not buy it to expand but to hold it at bay, to controle it.
-
Internet marketing is extremely expensive, istock simply didnīt have enough resources, or the expansion would have taken much, much longer than doing it together with getty. Getty also has a huge legal department with international experience, they have unusual content that was added to istock etc...
And Getty sales reps apparently sell a lot of large volume istock credit packs (5000+) to customers who can afford higher prices. We have all benefitted from the much higher price level, since the takeover.
It is only in the last year that we are seeing such a serious drop, I think until 2010 most people I know were doing well.
So it is easy to blame Bruce now, but the reality is when he was in charge, his plan worked. At least from my perspective. Community morale and enthusiasm was also much higher.
-
Back to the topic (sorry) - there are more and more breakages being reported over the last couple of days.
Do they still never test anything before making it live?
Have they never heard of the testing sandbox? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandbox_%28software_development%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandbox_%28software_development%29)
-
Testing something first is one thing and testing something live with actual traffic is another; that's when the problems begin.
-
Testing something first is one thing and testing something live with actual traffic is another; that's when the problems begin.
Quite so, but it's notable that none of the other big sites I visit regularly - especially Amazon, of course - don't seem to have many problems at all, despite constantly adding new features.
-
Getty came late into RF and Micro, too late to start anything of their own so what better way then to buy-up something like IS,
Maybe that was a concern - that if iS didn't tie in with Getty they would buy up DT or SS and throw their resources behind that. We'll never know unless someone produces reliable memoirs (and with Kelly's account of his moment on the bridge at midnight, throwing snowballs at the moon, not every memory of that time is still accurate)
-
No wonder stuff is broken if they're wasting their time on crap like this Glenhairy Glen Ross an iStock Movember Parody (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNArFoAPGik#ws)
-
ROTF
Pat is hot :D
-
Bruce negotiated the famous "quit your day job" offer that brought House contracts to high ranking istock exclusives. I am one of the many grateful contributors who got one. The offer was independent of style of portfolio, you just had to be at the right level to get in.
What is the difference between "regular" and "house contract" exclusive?
Does it make any difference now with RC system?
-
The house contract is a contract with gettyimages directly. Apparently the "Holy Grail" in stock photography that thousands of photographers the world over would love to have.
Thanks to Bruce, now many istockers are "in".
The program was stopped, because for many it was enough to work with the Vetta collection. All V/A files are duplicated on Getty.
But a house contract gives you acces to Getty RM division and many other collections.
It is not a license to print money, but my own results are very good, better than on istock. Others are disappointed and after trying it went back to uploading to istock.
It is an opportunity that other agencies cannot offer you. Unfortunately, if you give up your photo exclusivity with istock, you also lose the Getty contract.
It has no effect on your RCīs with istock. It is just an opportunity to build a second portfolio on Getty itself.
-
The house contract is a contract with gettyimages directly. Apparently the "Holy Grail" in stock photography that thousands of photographers the world over would love to have.
Thanks to Bruce, now many istockers are "in".
The program was stopped, because for many it was enough to work with the Vetta collection. All V/A files are duplicated on Getty.
But a house contract gives you acces to Getty RM division and many other collections.
It is not a license to print money, but my own results are very good, better than on istock. Others are disappointed and after trying it went back to uploading to istock.
It is an opportunity that other agencies cannot offer you. Unfortunately, if you give up your photo exclusivity with istock, you also lose the Getty contract.
It has no effect on your RCīs with istock. It is just an opportunity to build a second portfolio on Getty itself.
if you are referring to the "quit your day job" Getty perk that Diamond and Gold exclusives had, then that did not have anything to do with RM. I was part of that and while we did get to upload images to Getty, they were still part of a Getty RF collection. Also there was no choice of what collection you uploaded to with Getty, it was all the same. So perhaps this is something different now? I know just as I was leaving the whole Vetta and Agency thing was getting pushed through to Getty, so perhaps there is something different now. I honestly haven't paid attention to it since dropping the crown.
Also, when I dropped exclusivity last year (at about this time) my Getty contract, even though I had been accepted via the iStock program, did not automatically cancel. I had to contact Getty directly to cancel. And, it took about 4 months just to get my images off of Getty -- this was after I received notification that they accepted my contract cancellation.
-
If you now send a file to the House editors and opt for RM and RF your images will also be inspected with RM in mind. I know photographers who had images taken for RM. But you have to select the RM option when you upload.
Personally I only used two PC RM slots and donīt submit for RM otherwise. Did that change at some point, or was it different in the beginning? I must be getting old, I canīt remember.
Did you want to cancel your getty contract? Did they offer to keep you after you contacted them?
4 months sounds reasonable, I thought it would be much longer, at least 6 months like many of the other agencies.
ETA: youīre right, originally we only had access to RF. When they stopped the program they divided us into house and PC contracts. I was lucky I got the house contract. Sorry about the confusion.
But without istock or Bruce I would never have gotten into Getty.
-
The house contract is a contract with gettyimages directly. Apparently the "Holy Grail" in stock photography that thousands of photographers the world over would love to have.
Thanks to Bruce, now many istockers are "in".
The program was stopped, because for many it was enough to work with the Vetta collection. All V/A files are duplicated on Getty.
But a house contract gives you acces to Getty RM division and many other collections.
It is not a license to print money, but my own results are very good, better than on istock. Others are disappointed and after trying it went back to uploading to istock.
It is an opportunity that other agencies cannot offer you. Unfortunately, if you give up your photo exclusivity with istock, you also lose the Getty contract.
It has no effect on your RCīs with istock. It is just an opportunity to build a second portfolio on Getty itself.
I'm just waiting for lagereek to come around and educate you about just what a shitey contract you're proud of ;D (he has stones, main core RM or whatever it is)
-
No doubt he will!
And tell me about the good old days when he and his buddies had to drag their cameras through snow and mud, defend themselves against werewolves and dragons to get their pics delivered to stone in time...
-
From bad to worse.
Now acceptance rate is set to 0.00%
Fckin idiots
>:(
-
I and many others appreciate your comments Jasmin. The more people know about Getty as well as the other agencies the better decisions we can all make. Unfortunately, the major downside to MSG is the anonymous high school kids who make stupid comments.
-
Thank you! But donīt worry, I am not intimidated by silly comments. :)
I only have 120 "real" house images on getty plus 20 Vettas. But I am impressed that such a small portfolio generates very reliable sales. There are huge differences in the sales results though, anything from 1 dollar to over 100 dollars is possible. But I didnīt see such a strong downturn on Getty as I see on istock.
However, I know many photographers who are not happy with their getty experience although they have uploaded fantastic content. It doesnīt work for everyone. Maybe for someone like Sean, who has such a very large customer base on istock, it is simply better to upload there where he already has a loyal buyer group.
But for 2012 my strategy will be: upload the best on Getty, regular, normal content for istock and a big focus on video to learn about the market. Because it will take me two years to become a good videographer, I wish I had started earlier.
And then we will see.
Of course, Iīll keep watching the site, are the bugs getting worse, what will the next RC levels be (and will they come out in early January) and will finally someone from the management start an open thread to discuss the falling traffic? Will Rebecca ever step out from under the invisibility cloak? ;)
But the traffic stats that everyone is watching together with the monthly sales threads here and on istock will be my main indicators of how istock is doing in the market place.
One thing I learned from the microstockexpo: istock is not alone, there is a huge industry out there and they have so many different projects and ideas, they donīt seem to be looking to istock for leadership. It canīt hurt to keep your eyes open and to look for industry trends.
-
Its true, the house-collection and its contract, is really the holy-grail in stock shooting but only for RM, I would say. Back in 1994, I took some shots on brokers dealing-rooms, they are still today selling for thousands, as RM, that is.
Everything is differant there, differant people, etc, I mean your reviewer is not some frustrated photographer, as often seems to be the case in micro and RF, they are proper picture-editors, even art-directors, who will actually consider the picture language, the creative aspects of your shots.
Differant all together.
However, its not all roses, revenues today are nowhere near what they were around 10 years back and will probably never be and I have a feeling that in 5-10 years time, the RM sectors will slowly die out.
-
That was a fantastic, coherent, informative post!
Who are you and what have you done to Christian? ;)
-
If you now send a file to the House editors and opt for RM and RF your images will also be inspected with RM in mind. I know photographers who had images taken for RM. But you have to select the RM option when you upload.
Personally I only used two PC RM slots and donīt submit for RM otherwise. Did that change at some point, or was it different in the beginning? I must be getting old, I canīt remember.
Did you want to cancel your getty contract? Did they offer to keep you after you contacted them?
4 months sounds reasonable, I thought it would be much longer, at least 6 months like many of the other agencies.
ETA: youīre right, originally we only had access to RF. When they stopped the program they divided us into house and PC contracts. I was lucky I got the house contract. Sorry about the confusion.
But without istock or Bruce I would never have gotten into Getty.
Actually I would have been able to stay with Getty and sign up for the photographer's choice as well - at least that is what I was told. Though the first round of the new contract was too sketchy for me so I decided to just close out of there and get my images back so that I could put them on other sites. My contract with Getty was exclusive so I was not able to put the files anywhere else at that time, not even on iStock.
I was told that my portfolio would be inactive and my files released once my contract was canceled. the cancelling of the contract happened within a few weeks, as I recall, but they failed to remove my images. I had to contact them regularly and keep checking until they were finally removed. I have many emails going back and forth where they assured me the files would be removed, but it took 4 months for it to happen. that was NOT reasonable at all, since according to the original email correspondence I had with them when I canceled, the files should have been removed at the time of my cancellation, not 4 months and many emails later.
needless to say, I never made much from my Getty portfolio, nor did I have a large portfolio there anyway. It just wasn't worth it for me, though I know several people have been successful there, just not me. "Quit your day job" was a great marketing campaign and I was ecstatic when I was able to join the Getty site, but the 60cent downloads were a huge letdown for me and so I quickly lost interest and didn't bother with uploading files there when I was making more with my files at iStock.
-
oh boy.. now RM is going down.. not a month ago you said you sold pics for over 4 figures.. you sold in the past some for 5 or 6?
I cannot hold myself sorry Sir
-
That was a fantastic, coherent, informative post!
Who are you and what have you done to Christian? ;)
It used to be the holy-grail, as another poster called it. Of course some shots will sell forever and for big sums but on the whole, RM sales have decreased over the years and ofcourse, much thanks to Micro and RF.
To be honest, I think you would have got into Getty and without IS or Bruce, I think your x-mas shots alone would have cut it. Besides, your a prolific stocketeer.
-
Bruce genuinly believed that selling to Getty was the best way to take the company global. Getty had the international offices, the international CV, experience and contacts with big budget clients. And he negotiated the famous "quit your day job" offer that brought House contracts to high ranking istock exclusives. I am one of the many grateful contributors who got one. The offer was independent of style of portfolio, you just had to be at the right level to get in.
He did lead the company for another 3 (?) years and then moved on, took a break, bought a nice house and certainly enjoys his money. But then he took on a similar job at Saatchionline and is now promoting a marketplace for non commercial art. Again he is so successful at online marketing, that when I google my name the first thing that shows is my Saatchiportfolio with 20 images and not my istock portfolio with 3000+
He genuinly loves interacting with artists and is an excellent communicator and leader.
Whatever is happening now, is not his fault. Getty owns the istock marketplace and it is their responsibility to grow the business. I keep hearing people who blame Bruce for "leaving them", but again, the current managers at istock or Getty are responsible for what is going on now.
And since we donīt have any numbers, it is entirely possible that with the focus on high end content that maybe istock is more profitable now than a year ago, who knows?
It just doesnīt seem to trickle down to the artist like it used to.
Why did Livingstone 'have' to sell out to Getty "to take the company global"? Gates didn't sell Microstock to IBM to take them global ... Jobs didn't sell Apple ... Dyson didn't sell out to Hoover ... etc, etc, etc.
Istock was on the f**king internet. It already was 'global'. They had customers all over the world __ that's what 'global' means.
Warren Buffett once observed "I try to buy stock in businesses that are so wonderful that an idiot can run them. Because sooner or later, one will." Istock in 2006 was just such a business. Almost anyone could have run it ... and continued to have taken it 'global'.
The 'global' bit was just a cheap excuse because Livingstone couldn't bring himself to tell the truth ... that he sold his company and also the futures of the contributors who helped to build it, for a tiny fraction of what they were worth.
Imagine a world how it could have been. A true visionary (or anyone with some balls), who really did care about the content providers, might have done things totally differently.
Imagine if Istock had offered 50% commission for exclusivity to any contributor, irrespective of canister level. If that had happened then DT, CanStockPhoto and SS would have been killed off almost before they had started. Istock could have enjoyed the same sort of total dominance of their industry that Microsoft have done for 20 years. It would have been almost impossible to unseat them from such a position provided they simply kept their contributors happy. What would have been the best way to do that? Allow them to invest in the business. I'm quite sure that hundreds if not thousands of contributors in those days would have been more than happy to have had their entire commissions converted into IS stock. Many (including myself) would have been very happy to have invested more money directly.
With no competition Istock by now would be huge. It could have raised prices even faster and higher than they did. It might well have had annual sales of $700M+ and be worth $2B. When the time was right it could have gone public making far more money for Bruce and millions for the contributors too.
When Microsoft went public more than 10,000 stock-owning employees became millionaires overnight. Something similar could have happened with Istock.
-
Bruce genuinly believed that selling to Getty was the best way to take the company global. Getty had the international offices, the international CV, experience and contacts with big budget clients. And he negotiated the famous "quit your day job" offer that brought House contracts to high ranking istock exclusives. I am one of the many grateful contributors who got one. The offer was independent of style of portfolio, you just had to be at the right level to get in.
He did lead the company for another 3 (?) years and then moved on, took a break, bought a nice house and certainly enjoys his money. But then he took on a similar job at Saatchionline and is now promoting a marketplace for non commercial art. Again he is so successful at online marketing, that when I google my name the first thing that shows is my Saatchiportfolio with 20 images and not my istock portfolio with 3000+
He genuinly loves interacting with artists and is an excellent communicator and leader.
Whatever is happening now, is not his fault. Getty owns the istock marketplace and it is their responsibility to grow the business. I keep hearing people who blame Bruce for "leaving them", but again, the current managers at istock or Getty are responsible for what is going on now.
And since we donīt have any numbers, it is entirely possible that with the focus on high end content that maybe istock is more profitable now than a year ago, who knows?
It just doesnīt seem to trickle down to the artist like it used to.
Why did Livingstone 'have' to sell out to Getty "to take the company global"? Gates didn't sell Microstock to IBM to take them global ... Jobs didn't sell Apple ... Dyson didn't sell out to Hoover ... etc, etc, etc.
Istock was on the f**king internet. It already was 'global'. They had customers all over the world __ that's what 'global' means.
Warren Buffett once observed "I try to buy stock in businesses that are so wonderful that an idiot can run them. Because sooner or later, one will." Istock in 2006 was just such a business. Almost anyone could have run it ... and continued to have taken it 'global'.
The 'global' bit was just a cheap excuse because Livingstone couldn't bring himself to tell the truth ... that he sold his company and also the futures of the contributors who helped to build it, for a tiny fraction of what they were worth.
Imagine a world how it could have been. A true visionary (or anyone with some balls), who really did care about the content providers, might have done things totally differently.
Imagine if Istock had offered 50% commission for exclusivity to any contributor, irrespective of canister level. If that had happened then DT, CanStockPhoto and SS would have been killed off almost before they had started. Istock could have enjoyed the same sort of total dominance of their industry that Microsoft have done for 20 years. It would have been almost impossible to unseat them from such a position provided they simply kept their contributors happy. What would have been the best way to do that? Allow them to invest in the business. I'm quite sure that hundreds if not thousands of contributors in those days would have been more than happy to have had their entire commissions converted into IS stock. Many (including myself) would have been very happy to have invested more money directly.
With no competition Istock by now would be huge. It could have raised prices even faster and higher than they did. It might well have had annual sales of $700+ and be worth $2B. When the time was right it could have gone public making far more money for Bruce and millions for the contributors too.
When Microsoft went public more than 10,000 stock-owning employees became millionaires overnight. Something similar could have happened with Istock.
I hate to think it! but you could actually be too bloody right on this one.
-
Bruce genuinly believed that selling to Getty was the best way to take the company global. Getty had the international offices, the international CV, experience and contacts with big budget clients. And he negotiated the famous "quit your day job" offer that brought House contracts to high ranking istock exclusives. I am one of the many grateful contributors who got one. The offer was independent of style of portfolio, you just had to be at the right level to get in.
He did lead the company for another 3 (?) years and then moved on, took a break, bought a nice house and certainly enjoys his money. But then he took on a similar job at Saatchionline and is now promoting a marketplace for non commercial art. Again he is so successful at online marketing, that when I google my name the first thing that shows is my Saatchiportfolio with 20 images and not my istock portfolio with 3000+
He genuinly loves interacting with artists and is an excellent communicator and leader.
Whatever is happening now, is not his fault. Getty owns the istock marketplace and it is their responsibility to grow the business. I keep hearing people who blame Bruce for "leaving them", but again, the current managers at istock or Getty are responsible for what is going on now.
And since we donīt have any numbers, it is entirely possible that with the focus on high end content that maybe istock is more profitable now than a year ago, who knows?
It just doesnīt seem to trickle down to the artist like it used to.
Why did Livingstone 'have' to sell out to Getty "to take the company global"? Gates didn't sell Microstock to IBM to take them global ... Jobs didn't sell Apple ... Dyson didn't sell out to Hoover ... etc, etc, etc.
Istock was on the f**king internet. It already was 'global'. They had customers all over the world __ that's what 'global' means.
Warren Buffett once observed "I try to buy stock in businesses that are so wonderful that an idiot can run them. Because sooner or later, one will." Istock in 2006 was just such a business. Almost anyone could have run it ... and continued to have taken it 'global'.
The 'global' bit was just a cheap excuse because Livingstone couldn't bring himself to tell the truth ... that he sold his company and also the futures of the contributors who helped to build it, for a tiny fraction of what they were worth.
Imagine a world how it could have been. A true visionary (or anyone with some balls), who really did care about the content providers, might have done things totally differently.
Imagine if Istock had offered 50% commission for exclusivity to any contributor, irrespective of canister level. If that had happened then DT, CanStockPhoto and SS would have been killed off almost before they had started. Istock could have enjoyed the same sort of total dominance of their industry that Microsoft have done for 20 years. It would have been almost impossible to unseat them from such a position provided they simply kept their contributors happy. What would have been the best way to do that? Allow them to invest in the business. I'm quite sure that hundreds if not thousands of contributors in those days would have been more than happy to have had their entire commissions converted into IS stock. Many (including myself) would have been very happy to have invested more money directly.
With no competition Istock by now would be huge. It could have raised prices even faster and higher than they did. It might well have had annual sales of $700+ and be worth $2B. When the time was right it could have gone public making far more money for Bruce and millions for the contributors too.
When Microsoft went public more than 10,000 stock-owning employees became millionaires overnight. Something similar could have happened with Istock.
I hate to think it! but you could actually be too bloody right on this one.
Indeed! Awesome post.
-
gostwyck,
it is always easy to play the armchair CEO. It is even easier if you do it with hindsight. By the way, you can always outdo him by building your own stocksite and doing a better job ;-)
I met Bruce shortly after the takeover and he genuinly believed it was a good decision for istock and to ensure the longterm success of the business. Unless he was a first class actor, I take his word for it. And as long as he was at the helm, the company was thriving, for all I can tell.
I think the question is - why did the current owners change the business model. What road are they taking the business? And is this in synch with our own business plans as photographers.
At least to me that is all that matters.
I am really curious to see what JJ and the team have been working on and hinting about. It must be a lot better than the "world changing referral program". I look forward to being impressed.
lagereek - thank you for the kind words! I am not a "traditionally trained photographer" and still amazed how far this career has taken me. And it is so much fun! Best job I ever had!