pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Something positive at IS, royalty rate stays the same next year  (Read 11314 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

traveler1116

« Reply #25 on: December 20, 2012, 01:30 »
0
Considering I was going to drop from 19 to 18%, this is some what of a relief.  Not a big improvement, but nice not to drop.  It is definitely an acknowledgment from the folks running things that contributors have been pushed to their limits.  I'm pleased for exclusives who might be favorably affected by this.

Yes, problems continue at Istock, but it is a positive sign that the new Getty owners seem to be expressing some interest in improving things for contributors.  Maybe this will be the beginning of more positive movement there.  I'm not holding my breath, but I am hopeful.

I am in the same boat as you!  so I am actually well pleased. Besides I can see sales here are increasing quite a bit, might be a before X-mas rush, dont know but its way better then before.
It doesn't affect me at all but I'm glad you guys will be making a little more next year.


aspp

« Reply #26 on: December 20, 2012, 04:30 »
+3
The over-complicated RC system which was always breaking down has effectively been suspended for the moment. Perhaps they will ditch it completely. For now somebody who made it to or remains at 35% will still earn 35% but someone who would have dropped to 35% will still get 40%. People with equivalent sales will be paid at different rates again. Just like under the canister system.

We can guess that there may have been either a significant group of people, or a group of significant people, who were about to drop by a margin which a slight adjustment would not have accommodated. This likely also demolishes the idea sometimes bullishly and sycophantically trolled out on the IS forum that there is a silent majority of people who are on the rise. This would have been be a slap in their face if they existed.

There is definitely encouraging language in this latest missive from Calgary. A definite business reason is not obvious. Clearly they are not doing this primarily because they want to be our friend. Something about the way they have been doing things has been hurting the business. It seems obvious until you try to pin it down. Rather like the early days of Glasnost and Perestroika, you can't be sure what it means or whether they even know themselves. They need to rebuild sales if they are going to prevent or reverse whatever trend the new approach is aimed at preventing.

« Reply #27 on: December 20, 2012, 05:20 »
0
I'd suspect that the group most affected by this would be the top contributors, who could have been struggling to reach their astronomically high targets and looking at dropping a royalty level (Sean included, by his own admission).

iStock will have seen that and may have been concerned at the prospect of losing some of their major exclusives - this could be seen as a good way to keep them on board, without having to make any major adjustments or concessions across the board at this time.

That said, it is a positive move;  it shows they are aware that there are issues with the RC system that need looking at, and will help to retain the status quo for a while until, hopefully, they can take a look and perhaps consider ways to improve it.

Well, we can only hope.

« Reply #28 on: December 20, 2012, 05:45 »
+1
It is not about you and you and you and me and me.
It is not about keeping a percentage and who kept and who lost it.

It is about that they were scared because of the sound of the peasants sharpening the pitchforks in the yard of the temple.

That is a very important lesson.
Forget you and me and percentages, -and see that we, when we are noisy enough, actually can make a difference.
 

« Reply #29 on: December 20, 2012, 06:01 »
0
Considering I was going to drop from 19 to 18%, this is some what of a relief.  Not a big improvement, but nice not to drop.  It is definitely an acknowledgment from the folks running things that contributors have been pushed to their limits.  I'm pleased for exclusives who might be favorably affected by this.

Yes, problems continue at Istock, but it is a positive sign that the new Getty owners seem to be expressing some interest in improving things for contributors.  Maybe this will be the beginning of more positive movement there.  I'm not holding my breath, but I am hopeful.

I am in the same boat as you!  so I am actually well pleased. Besides I can see sales here are increasing quite a bit, might be a before X-mas rush, dont know but its way better then before.
Reminds me of those Lennon and McCartney lyrics.
"I've got to admit it's getting better,
A little better all the time (can't get no worse)"

I still think having sent lots of their buyers to Thinkstock, they're going to struggle to keep istock going.  It might limp along but the good days seem over.

gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #30 on: December 20, 2012, 06:02 »
0
yes, I agree. thought the internet has changed the world it has also give the masses a voice. (ouch, not that I want to ever, ever, been part of the sheeple)

ShadySue

« Reply #31 on: December 20, 2012, 06:13 »
+1
This is not a positive nor a negative thing. It's a NEUTRAL thing.
It's not even neutral for those of us who haven't reached the level we would have expected to reach two years ago before the RC system, and remember that includes a lot of those who did what 'they' wanted and branched into different media.

« Reply #32 on: December 20, 2012, 06:24 »
0
It's  a tiny step in the right direction aimed at stopping top contributors from deleting their ports. I don't think it is anything to get excited about in the long run as if they didn't expect to benefit from it then they wouldn't have done it.

« Reply #33 on: December 20, 2012, 06:40 »
-1
Considering I was going to drop from 19 to 18%, this is some what of a relief.  Not a big improvement, but nice not to drop.  It is definitely an acknowledgment from the folks running things that contributors have been pushed to their limits.  I'm pleased for exclusives who might be favorably affected by this.

Yes, problems continue at Istock, but it is a positive sign that the new Getty owners seem to be expressing some interest in improving things for contributors.  Maybe this will be the beginning of more positive movement there.  I'm not holding my breath, but I am hopeful.

I am in the same boat as you!  so I am actually well pleased. Besides I can see sales here are increasing quite a bit, might be a before X-mas rush, dont know but its way better then before.
Reminds me of those Lennon and McCartney lyrics.
"I've got to admit it's getting better,
A little better all the time (can't get no worse)"

I still think having sent lots of their buyers to Thinkstock, they're going to struggle to keep istock going.  It might limp along but the good days seem over.

yes but its a step in the right direction. As I have always said. I am rather doing business with a Gordon Gecco who can sell then an honest Bible pusher who cant.

« Reply #34 on: December 20, 2012, 08:29 »
0
Sales at iStock have probably been pretty bad this year so RC stays the same. If the sales would have gone up, they would have raised the RC limits to push contributors back. That is of course the whole idea of the RC system.

And obviously they're not expecting any growth next year which means that they can set the levels for next year as well, and make it look like a good thing.

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #35 on: December 20, 2012, 09:23 »
0
Reminds me of those Lennon and McCartney lyrics.
"I've got to admit it's getting better,
A little better all the time (can't get no worse)"

No, the official IS song is "Money can't buy me love".

Anyway, I am and will stay at 16% with or without their "bonus". Glad for those who can benefit.

vlad_the_imp

« Reply #36 on: December 20, 2012, 10:15 »
+2
Quote
Normal "good news" from iStock.
First you take something away.
Then you give it back
And everyone thinks iStock is soooo generous.

From IS forum, pretty much sums it up.

Here's another one...
Quote
While I appreciate this move, the situation when people who sold less will get more is hardly fair in any way.
Yep.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2012, 17:41 by vlad_the_imp »

« Reply #37 on: January 01, 2013, 12:31 »
0
Did anyone else see a huge - completely out of line with December sales - jump in their 2012 RC totals?

Mine jumped about 8K since I last looked in early December and I now see they are 298 over the 35K threshold for 18% Don't want to look a gift horse in the mouth, but unless they were stuck for months and just caught up, I don't see how they can have gone up so much. Especially when Dls in 2012 were lower than in 2011 while the RC total was higher...

Anyone else see higher than expected numbers for 2012 RC totals?

ETA in talking with other contributors, it appears at least one other has seen a boost in RCs, but that was someone affected by the royalty rollover. That leads me to assume that their way of implementing the rollover was to apply some sort of artificial boost to some contributors' RC totals. Somehow I got "caught" in that and got my total boosted too. I wasn't scheduled to drop this year - that happened January 2012.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2013, 12:37 by jsnover »

lisafx

« Reply #38 on: January 01, 2013, 12:52 »
0
Did anyone else see a huge - completely out of line with December sales - jump in their 2012 RC totals?

Mine jumped about 8K since I last looked in early December and I now see they are 298 over the 35K threshold for 18% Don't want to look a gift horse in the mouth, but unless they were stuck for months and just caught up, I don't see how they can have gone up so much. Especially when Dls in 2012 were lower than in 2011 while the RC total was higher...

Anyone else see higher than expected numbers for 2012 RC totals?

ETA in talking with other contributors, it appears at least one other has seen a boost in RCs, but that was someone affected by the royalty rollover. That leads me to assume that their way of implementing the rollover was to apply some sort of artificial boost to some contributors' RC totals. Somehow I got "caught" in that and got my total boosted too. I wasn't scheduled to drop this year - that happened January 2012.

I'll check and let you know in a half hour or more when the stats page finishes updaing  ::)

Yep, I got a big boost in credits too.  Enough to keep my current royalty rate. This must have been the workaround they devised to keep people from dropping down. 
« Last Edit: January 01, 2013, 12:55 by lisafx »

« Reply #39 on: January 01, 2013, 13:27 »
0
Did anyone else see a huge - completely out of line with December sales - jump in their 2012 RC totals?

Mine jumped about 8K since I last looked in early December and I now see they are 298 over the 35K threshold for 18% Don't want to look a gift horse in the mouth, but unless they were stuck for months and just caught up, I don't see how they can have gone up so much. Especially when Dls in 2012 were lower than in 2011 while the RC total was higher...

Anyone else see higher than expected numbers for 2012 RC totals?

ETA in talking with other contributors, it appears at least one other has seen a boost in RCs, but that was someone affected by the royalty rollover. That leads me to assume that their way of implementing the rollover was to apply some sort of artificial boost to some contributors' RC totals. Somehow I got "caught" in that and got my total boosted too. I wasn't scheduled to drop this year - that happened January 2012.

Nope, no boost for me.

Btw, what do you mean "the 35K threshold for 18%"? According to the numbers on my page the 18% mark is at 40K RC's.

« Reply #40 on: January 01, 2013, 13:32 »
0
My RCs went up by about 1000 overnight. And here I was thinking it was real ;)

I only had 350 credits missing anway.

ShadySue

« Reply #41 on: January 01, 2013, 13:44 »
0
No, mine is showing the same number as it was showing on Sunday night, i.e. it hasn't added the 25 from yesterday. Not that it matters, as I can't carry the extras forward or sell them on eBay.  :(

« Reply #42 on: January 01, 2013, 14:38 »
0

Nope, no boost for me.

Btw, what do you mean "the 35K threshold for 18%"? According to the numbers on my page the 18% mark is at 40K RC's.


I see 18% as my rate and this is the page I found that says 35K

I think I got somehow into the group that got a boost - as a diamond? based on closeness to the target? because I'm kind to small animals?

I expect at some point they'll realize it's not right, but I'm going to let them figure that out on their own and take the money back if they can ever figure out how to run a script to do it :)

« Reply #43 on: January 01, 2013, 18:33 »
0
Did anyone else see a huge - completely out of line with December sales - jump in their 2012 RC totals?

Mine jumped about 8K since I last looked in early December and I now see they are 298 over the 35K threshold for 18% Don't want to look a gift horse in the mouth, but unless they were stuck for months and just caught up, I don't see how they can have gone up so much. Especially when Dls in 2012 were lower than in 2011 while the RC total was higher...

Anyone else see higher than expected numbers for 2012 RC totals?

ETA in talking with other contributors, it appears at least one other has seen a boost in RCs, but that was someone affected by the royalty rollover. That leads me to assume that their way of implementing the rollover was to apply some sort of artificial boost to some contributors' RC totals. Somehow I got "caught" in that and got my total boosted too. I wasn't scheduled to drop this year - that happened January 2012.
I'm seeing exactly the same as you.  My stats have also gone a couple of hundred over the threshold for 18%.  I don't remember the figures last time I looked but it seems to have gone up by 1000s.  If this is correct then I will actually go back up to 18% after going down last year.

« Reply #44 on: January 01, 2013, 18:41 »
0

Nope, no boost for me.

Btw, what do you mean "the 35K threshold for 18%"? According to the numbers on my page the 18% mark is at 40K RC's.


I see 18% as my rate and this is the page I found that says 35K

I think I got somehow into the group that got a boost - as a diamond? based on closeness to the target? because I'm kind to small animals?

I expect at some point they'll realize it's not right, but I'm going to let them figure that out on their own and take the money back if they can ever figure out how to run a script to do it :)


Hmm. I'd like to think that we're all kind to small animals but I doubt that IS has based it's royalty schedule on that.

Here's my "What do RC's mean" page;

http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=1090

« Reply #45 on: January 01, 2013, 19:07 »
0
Did anyone else see a huge - completely out of line with December sales - jump in their 2012 RC totals?

Mine jumped about 8K since I last looked in early December and I now see they are 298 over the 35K threshold for 18% Don't want to look a gift horse in the mouth, but unless they were stuck for months and just caught up, I don't see how they can have gone up so much. Especially when Dls in 2012 were lower than in 2011 while the RC total was higher...

Anyone else see higher than expected numbers for 2012 RC totals?

ETA in talking with other contributors, it appears at least one other has seen a boost in RCs, but that was someone affected by the royalty rollover. That leads me to assume that their way of implementing the rollover was to apply some sort of artificial boost to some contributors' RC totals. Somehow I got "caught" in that and got my total boosted too. I wasn't scheduled to drop this year - that happened January 2012.

Yup, mine jumped to 1 over the threshold to maintain the level I was at before (and was nowhere near getting). Too bad I can't transfer them to 123RF.

« Reply #46 on: January 01, 2013, 19:12 »
0
My stats don't look like they've changed, still well below the 17% level but they've kept me on 17%.

When I type it, it sinks in how low it is :(

« Reply #47 on: January 01, 2013, 19:40 »
0
Here's my "What do RC's mean" page;

http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=1090


That's a year old - it's the 2011 rates for determining 2012 royalties. They dropped those to 35K at the end of 2011

« Reply #48 on: January 01, 2013, 20:22 »
0
Here's my "What do RC's mean" page;

http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=1090


That's a year old - it's the 2011 rates for determining 2012 royalties. They dropped those to 35K at the end of 2011


Ah, thanks! I didn't realise that was a permanent change? What do you get when you click on your "What are RC's ...?" link at the top of your Stat's page?

« Reply #49 on: January 02, 2013, 01:52 »
+2

Ah, thanks! I didn't realise that was a permanent change? What do you get when you click on your "What are RC's ...?" link at the top of your Stat's page?

That same out of date page you referred to. I'd never even noticed that link before, but am not surprised that it's out of date and thus grossly misleading for anyone who does click on it :) If it weren't for Google search I could never find anything on iStock - they need a site search. For as long as I've been there I can never find the stuff I'm looking for easily...


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
11 Replies
4194 Views
Last post August 17, 2011, 20:42
by velocicarpo
2 Replies
2587 Views
Last post August 26, 2012, 14:58
by fritz
9 Replies
2655 Views
Last post April 10, 2013, 15:59
by microstockphoto.co.uk
50 Replies
12497 Views
Last post July 22, 2013, 13:52
by gclk
56 Replies
12991 Views
Last post August 31, 2015, 22:48
by tickstock

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results