Author Topic: Revised targets (Read 16484 times)

ShadySue · « **on:** December 22, 2011, 17:45 »

Istock have revised their targets downwards.
Felicitations to those who will benefit.

fotografer · « **Reply #1 on:** December 22, 2011, 17:50 »

I will still be going from 18% to 17%, pathetic!!!!!! Even sites like 123rf and bigstock are starting to catch up

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #2 on:** December 22, 2011, 17:51 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 22, 2011, 17:45

Istock have revised their targets downwards.
Felicitations to those who will benefit.

Here, let me help you with the link

Perry · « **Reply #3 on:** December 22, 2011, 17:53 »

LOL they moved my next target from 40,000 to 35,000 (-12,5%) but in the meantime my sales are down -50% from previous year.

ShadySue · « **Reply #4 on:** December 22, 2011, 17:54 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on December 22, 2011, 17:51

Quote from: ShadySue on December 22, 2011, 17:45
Istock have revised their targets downwards.
Felicitations to those who will benefit.

Here, let me help you with the link

Whoops

Tx.

Freedom · « **Reply #5 on:** December 22, 2011, 18:16 »

Congrats to those who will benefit!

I have reached my target for this year, the revision still gives me a more realistic goal to work towards to next year. I am glad that iStock has listened.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #6 on:** December 22, 2011, 18:18 »

2009: 48 downloads
2010: 336 downloads (1403 credits)
2011: 629 downloads (3476 credits)

what will we have in 2012?

KB · « **Reply #7 on:** December 22, 2011, 18:35 »

Quote from: Freedom on December 22, 2011, 18:16

I have reached my target for this year, the revision still gives me a more realistic goal to work towards to next year. I am glad that iStock has listened.

How is that? These revisions don't imply a thing really about what next year's targets might be.

This year's targets were set the same as the initial targets for last year. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see the same targets once again being used for 2013's targets.

As for iStock listening; sorry, I don't buy that a bit. They have shown far too many times that they don't listen. Whatever reason they had for lowering the targets to these numbers, it had nothing to do with listening.

lthn · « **Reply #8 on:** December 22, 2011, 18:41 »

I heard the rumor that they soon gonna revise the independent percentage tiers too:

15%
15.1%
15.2%
15.3%
15.3% + a happy meal
15.3% + a happy meal + a krispy kreme donut

the inside source said that after some brainstorming they simply figured the current tiers weren't insultive enough

kelby · « **Reply #9 on:** December 22, 2011, 18:44 »

this mean that istock has sold less content than the previous year, in particular for photos !!???!!!???
nothing to be happy

ShadySue · « **Reply #10 on:** December 22, 2011, 18:45 »

Quote from: kelby on December 22, 2011, 18:44

this mean that istock has sold less content than the previous year, in particular for photos !!???!!!???

They revised downwards last year too.

KB · « **Reply #11 on:** December 22, 2011, 18:46 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 22, 2011, 18:45

Quote from: kelby on December 22, 2011, 18:44
this mean that istock has sold less content than the previous year, in particular for photos !!???!!!???

They revised downwards last year too.

But this year's downwards revisions are larger than last year (i.e., lower).

If they had lowered them to this level last year, I'd be a bit less pissed at them!

wolfman · « **Reply #12 on:** December 22, 2011, 18:52 »

wolfman · « **Reply #13 on:** December 22, 2011, 18:55 »

Quote from: Freedom on December 22, 2011, 18:16

Congrats to those who will benefit!

I have reached my target for this year, the revision still gives me a more realistic goal to work towards to next year. I am glad that iStock has listened.

Dude if you think they've listened you are dillusional.

A lot of people are experiencing 40% drops since last year and istock reduce some levels 12.5% - do the maths and tell me who's winning in this scenario.

Freedom · « **Reply #14 on:** December 22, 2011, 19:12 »

I interpret it differently. It means that iStock has had a bigger profit margin in 2011 (due to higher prices), so it can afford to let more contributors into higher RC levels and remain "sustainable". I see this as a good sign, and not a doom's day signal.

Quote from: kelby on December 22, 2011, 18:44

this mean that istock has sold less content than the previous year, in particular for photos !!???!!!???
nothing to be happy

gostwyck · « **Reply #15 on:** December 22, 2011, 19:32 »

Quote from: wolfman on December 22, 2011, 18:55

Quote from: Freedom on December 22, 2011, 18:16
Congrats to those who will benefit!

I have reached my target for this year, the revision still gives me a more realistic goal to work towards to next year. I am glad that iStock has listened.

Dude if you think they've listened you are dillusional.

A lot of people are experiencing 40% drops since last year and istock reduce some levels 12.5% - do the maths and tell me who's winning in this scenario.

Yes but they can't possibly admit to just how far sales have fallen can they? It's both commercially sensitive and extremely embarassing for Istock. Expect more of the same in future years. The dam has been breached. The only question now is at what point they'll be able to stem the flow.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #16 on:** December 22, 2011, 20:11 »

The change means nothing to me. Last year I had almost 45K RCs and this year it looks like I'll be just under 30K. The good news is that it's only from 18% to 17% and sales are so crappy, it matters less and less what happens there.

Why did the illustrators get royally shafted? I read masses of reports of people experiencing large drops in sales and yet all but one level of illustrator stays exactly the same. I know the issue of the real disparities between the media was worked over when this sorry system was introduced, but looking at what it takes to get to the highest level of illustration royalties versus for photos, it's reverse unfairness. You just about double the 40/19% level and you get 45/20 if you're an illustrator, but for a photographer you have to make almost 10x the 40/19% level to get 45/20.

Reminds me of gerrymandered congressional districts drawn in weird and whacky shapes to suit those in power.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #17 on:** December 22, 2011, 20:17 »

Quote from: jsnover on December 22, 2011, 20:11

The change means nothing to me. Last year I had almost 45K RCs and this year it looks like I'll be just under 30K. The good news is that it's only from 18% to 17% and sales are so crappy, it matters less and less what happens there.

Why did the illustrators get royally shafted? I read masses of reports of people experiencing large drops in sales and yet all but one level of illustrator stays exactly the same. I know the issue of the real disparities between the media was worked over when this sorry system was introduced, but looking at what it takes to get to the highest level of illustration royalties versus for photos, it's reverse unfairness. You just about double the 40/19% level and you get 45/20 if you're an illustrator, but for a photographer you have to make almost 10x the 40/19% level to get 45/20.

Reminds me of gerrymandered congressional districts drawn in weird and whacky shapes to suit those in power.

Are you from Texas?

gostwyck · « **Reply #18 on:** December 22, 2011, 20:21 »

Quote from: jsnover on December 22, 2011, 20:11

Reminds me of gerrymandered congressional districts drawn in weird and whacky shapes to suit those in power.

Well obviously it is 'gerrymandered' in that the system is precisely designed to produce the outcome that they want. If things change then they simply adjust the targets to suit __ or maybe not, but always in their favour anyway. Heads Istock wins, tails you lose.

Sadstock · « **Reply #19 on:** December 22, 2011, 20:36 »

Quote from: gostwyck on December 22, 2011, 20:21

Quote from: jsnover on December 22, 2011, 20:11
Reminds me of gerrymandered congressional districts drawn in weird and whacky shapes to suit those in power.

Well obviously it is 'gerrymandered' in that the system is precisely designed to produce the outcome that they want. If things change then they simply adjust the targets to suit __ or maybe not, but always in their favour anyway. Heads Istock wins, tails you lose.

-------------------------------------------------------

So true. Why else would they be adjusting the 40% targets for illustration and flash but not for the other percentages?

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #20 on:** December 22, 2011, 20:37 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on December 22, 2011, 20:17

Quote from: jsnover on December 22, 2011, 20:11
...
Reminds me of gerrymandered congressional districts drawn in weird and whacky shapes to suit those in power.

Are you from Texas?

No, but I lived in Austin for 3 years, so I do follow along. That skinny district snaking from Austin to San Antonio caught my attention...

Sadstock · « **Reply #21 on:** December 22, 2011, 20:45 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on December 22, 2011, 17:51

Quote from: ShadySue on December 22, 2011, 17:45
Istock have revised their targets downwards.
Felicitations to those who will benefit.

Here, let me help you with the link

-----------------------------------------

All the people in the thread thanking Istock for its generosity makes me ill. It was Istock's decisions that put these folks percentage at risk, so Istock does not deserve any praise for the change.

Note who announced this news? "iStockHQ"! Guess nobody there has the guts to put their name out there and take responsibility for the RC system and the grief they will get about it.

Freedom · « **Reply #22 on:** December 22, 2011, 21:17 »

They probably won't admit bad news, but they have to answer to their bosses and shareholders. If they have lost profits, they will definitely not be handing out candies.

Quote from: gostwyck on December 22, 2011, 19:32

Quote from: wolfman on December 22, 2011, 18:55
Quote from: Freedom on December 22, 2011, 18:16
Congrats to those who will benefit!

I have reached my target for this year, the revision still gives me a more realistic goal to work towards to next year. I am glad that iStock has listened.

Dude if you think they've listened you are dillusional.

A lot of people are experiencing 40% drops since last year and istock reduce some levels 12.5% - do the maths and tell me who's winning in this scenario.

Yes but they can't possibly admit to just how far sales have fallen can they? It's both commercially sensitive and extremely embarassing for Istock. Expect more of the same in future years. The dam has been breached. The only question now is at what point they'll be able to stem the flow.

jbarber873 · « **Reply #23 on:** December 22, 2011, 21:18 »

Big change downward in the video targets as well. One of the rarely commented on issues at Istock is their antiquated, soviet-era upload system for video, and the insanely long time for reviews. They get woo-yays and fawning thanks from the regulars when the queue gets down to 6 weeks. Non-exclusives can wait 2 months or more, usually more. Meanwhile the other outlets for video are selling better, reviewing in week or less, and make uploading much easier. Given that SS pays better than Istock for non-exclusive video sales, I have been submitting less and less of my content to Istock. But now, with that extra 1%- woo-yay!

pixdeluxe · « **Reply #24 on:** December 23, 2011, 01:12 »

After talking with iStock about the RC targets, their announcement was a lot more generous than I was hoping for. Overall, 2011 has been a steady year with steady growth. Downloads are down 8% but overall revenue up about 15% and there was some good momentum during the last few months, I hope that is carried into 2012 and beyond..
Biggest change for 2011 has been the introduction of exclusive vetta & agency content to Getty which adds 10% revenue monthly.

I think (and hope) the old dog has some life in her yet.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Revised targets (Read 16484 times)

ShadySue

fotografer

PaulieWalnuts

Perry

ShadySue

Freedom

luissantos84

KB

lthn

kelby

ShadySue

KB

wolfman

wolfman

Freedom

gostwyck

Jo Ann Snover

WarrenPrice

gostwyck

Sadstock

Jo Ann Snover

Sadstock

Freedom

jbarber873

pixdeluxe

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors