Author Topic: REDEEMED CREDIT SYSTEM BROKEN (Read 30302 times)

gostwyck · « **Reply #50 on:** November 19, 2011, 21:54 »

Quote from: SNP on November 19, 2011, 21:16

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.

SNP · « **Reply #51 on:** November 19, 2011, 22:03 »

@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.

Noedelhap · « **Reply #52 on:** November 19, 2011, 22:05 »

What a bunch of mongs. Hands down the most unprofessional, dumbest, glitch-ridden stock site of all time.

qwerty · « **Reply #53 on:** November 20, 2011, 01:18 »

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)

RapidEye · « **Reply #54 on:** November 20, 2011, 01:39 »

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

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

Since you ask:

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

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

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

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

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

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

lagereek · « **Reply #55 on:** November 20, 2011, 01:56 »

Quote from: RapidEye on November 20, 2011, 01:39

Quote from: gostwyck on November 19, 2011, 21:08
What I find far more bizarre is why anyone remains exclusive, placing their trust and entire microstock income in Istock, whilst simultaneously being shafted and treated like dog-dirt by them.

Since you ask:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

RapidEye · « **Reply #56 on:** November 20, 2011, 02:11 »

Quote from: lagereek on November 20, 2011, 01:56

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.

lagereek · « **Reply #57 on:** November 20, 2011, 02:47 »

Quote from: RapidEye on November 20, 2011, 02:11

Quote from: lagereek on November 20, 2011, 01:56
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.

lirch · « **Reply #58 on:** November 20, 2011, 03:12 »

Quote from: raw_milk on November 19, 2011, 13:41

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.

CarlssonInc · « **Reply #59 on:** November 20, 2011, 03:50 »

@ 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.

cobalt · « **Reply #60 on:** November 20, 2011, 04:27 »

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.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #61 on:** November 20, 2011, 04:42 »

Quote from: CarlssonInc. Stock Imagery Production on November 20, 2011, 03:50

@ 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 · « **Reply #62 on:** November 20, 2011, 05:14 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on November 20, 2011, 04:42

Quote from: CarlssonInc. Stock Imagery Production on November 20, 2011, 03:50
@ 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?

wut · « **Reply #63 on:** November 20, 2011, 06:06 »

Quote from: SNP on November 19, 2011, 20:21

Quote from: wut on November 19, 2011, 14:52
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

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #64 on:** November 20, 2011, 06:30 »

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.

wut · « **Reply #65 on:** November 20, 2011, 06:32 »

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

bunhill · « **Reply #66 on:** November 20, 2011, 07:01 »

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.

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #67 on:** November 20, 2011, 07:32 »

Quote from: wut on November 20, 2011, 06:32

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.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #68 on:** November 20, 2011, 08:53 »

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.

cathyslife · « **Reply #69 on:** November 20, 2011, 08:53 »

Quote from: bhr on November 20, 2011, 07:01

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?

Beach Bum · « **Reply #70 on:** November 20, 2011, 10:36 »

"Fixing" this bug will probably create 3 more.

bunhill · « **Reply #71 on:** November 20, 2011, 10:57 »

Quote from: cclapper on November 20, 2011, 08:53

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 !

RapidEye · « **Reply #72 on:** November 20, 2011, 11:09 »

Quote from: bhr on November 20, 2011, 10:57

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.

cobalt · « **Reply #73 on:** November 20, 2011, 11:21 »

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.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #74 on:** November 20, 2011, 12:00 »

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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: REDEEMED CREDIT SYSTEM BROKEN (Read 30302 times)

gostwyck

SNP

Noedelhap

qwerty

RapidEye

lagereek

RapidEye

lagereek

lirch

CarlssonInc

cobalt

BaldricksTrousers

lagereek

wut

BaldricksTrousers

wut

bunhill

microstockphoto.co.uk

luissantos84

cathyslife

Beach Bum

bunhill

RapidEye

cobalt

Jo Ann Snover

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors