Author Topic: Stop Feeding the Beast! (Read 19441 times)

SNP · « **Reply #25 on:** April 13, 2011, 13:15 »

Quote from: cobalt on April 13, 2011, 10:52

I would like to see his istockportfolio as well. There are loads of 1 image trolls with opinions...

ain't that the truth!!!

disorderly · « **Reply #26 on:** April 13, 2011, 13:24 »

Is this really about the original poster's credibility as a microstock contributor? I don't believe it is. My first reaction was to tell the OP to piss off. Walking into a room and telling us our business is a poor way to make friends or convince anyone of much of anything. We know what the OP has to say; after all, we've been saying it to each other for months. He comes off as loud, smug and, worst of all, unwilling to learn the culture before schooling us.

Put more simply, it's bad manners we're reacting to and not the message.

Olga · « **Reply #27 on:** April 13, 2011, 13:29 »

Quote from: disorderly on April 13, 2011, 13:24

... My first reaction was to tell the OP to piss off. ...it's bad manners we're reacting to and not the message.

Bad manners? Could you be please more explicit, could you give me a single example from my first post of bad manner?

cobalt · « **Reply #28 on:** April 13, 2011, 13:33 »

Thank you for showing us your portfolio, at least we now see that you do have an active income from stock.

The 15% argument is so old and lame, it doesn´t get truer by repeating it. But here goes.

There are agencies that pay 70%. But what is the problem? They have no sales.

Last year I was making 40% on istock and 20% on getty. I have 3000 images on istock and just around a 100 on Getty. My Getty results have wild swings because Getty sells at many different price points but in the end, at least for me, getty was giving nearly 2-3 times better results than istock. It made me think.

It is the money in my bank account that I am interested in, not a percentage of nothing.

It would be different, if we had true profit sharing, like in the writing industry where you get 50% of the profits of your book. Unfortunately, that might only be 2% of the book retail price, everything else goes to publishing and distribution costs.

So what exactly is "fair"? Unfortunately unless we see the inner cost of marketing and distribution we will never know.

This doesn´t mean the non exclusives should accept 15% without protest. Or prefer to upload their better images to other sites.

It also doesn´t mean I appreciate that under the new Rc system I am getting 35% (although I can probably work myself back up - haven´t been uploading in nearly a year).

But the reality of stock sales is more than just "royalty percentage"

The real question is: where are the buyers? Which agency is expanding most across the globe? How can I put my images in front of as many buyers as possible. How can I convince the buyer to buy MY picture and not the copycat...etc..etc...

I think we have a lot of intelligent people here and this community is good at sharing information.

But a lot of energy is wasted on moaning instead of doing something productive.

Olga · « **Reply #29 on:** April 13, 2011, 13:37 »

Quote from: Tom on April 13, 2011, 13:13

Argumentum ad hominem - a classic logical fallacy, quite common here unfortunately

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Unfortunately that is true - both online and in everyday life.

brm1949 · « **Reply #30 on:** April 13, 2011, 13:43 »

Well, as long as we can get that new lens cap, since money can't make us happy, probably should keep our thoughts to ourselves.

Olga · « **Reply #31 on:** April 13, 2011, 13:44 »

Quote from: cobalt on April 13, 2011, 13:33

Thank you for ... something productive.

Sorry for not quoting your entire post, but I do not want to upset our fellow posters.

It is not only about 15%. It is about all the points in that list, it is about the fact that iStock has a very wrong attitude towards submitters, it is about the fact that iStock has a too large market share and is ABUSING its position.

stockastic · « **Reply #32 on:** April 13, 2011, 13:45 »

Who would be foolish enough to identify their IS account here, unless they only want to say nice things about IS?

cthoman · « **Reply #33 on:** April 13, 2011, 13:50 »

Quote from: cobalt on April 13, 2011, 13:33

The 15% argument is so old and lame, it doesn´t get truer by repeating it. But here goes.

What is the 15% argument? That getting paid below 20% is insulting, degrading and bad for the industry. I don't see how that can be debated.

Quote from: cobalt on April 13, 2011, 13:33

But a lot of energy is wasted on moaning instead of doing something productive.

I agree, but isn't stopping uploading, telling customers to shop elsewhere and focusing on other sites DOING something.

cathyslife · « **Reply #34 on:** April 13, 2011, 13:52 »

Quote from: stockastic on April 13, 2011, 13:45

Who would be foolish enough to identify their IS account here, unless they only want to say nice things about IS?

Exactly.

Everything the OP said in the first post is a fact. Unfortunately.

jsmithzz · « **Reply #35 on:** April 13, 2011, 18:59 »

Quote from: stockastic on April 13, 2011, 13:45

Who would be foolish enough to identify their IS account here, unless they only want to say nice things about IS?

I would completely agree.

wiser · « **Reply #36 on:** April 13, 2011, 20:30 »

Quote from: SNP on April 13, 2011, 13:15

Quote from: cobalt on April 13, 2011, 10:52
I would like to see his istockportfolio as well. There are loads of 1 image trolls with opinions...

ain't that the truth!!!

Not as many as 1000+ image trolls with opinions.

cobalt · « **Reply #37 on:** April 14, 2011, 00:02 »

"I agree, but isn't stopping uploading, telling customers to shop elsewhere and focusing on other sites DOING something."

It is doing something yes. And if you feel better about it emotionally then again yes, maybe for some contributors this alone is good reason to do it. And if enough contributors or the right contributors stop uploading maybe you can negotiate a higher rate.

But if you just stop uploading, is it a good financial move? What will the buyers do when you leave? Will they follow you? Will they even notice?? Some contributors may have such a unique style that buyers will follow them. But in most cases all your sales will just go to your competitors on istock.

To the copycats.

They will take over your best match positions (even if they fluctuate), replace your images in the lightboxes of buyers, and really enjoy some good money if you introduced a new image concept.

You can´t stop them, there are to many artists out there.

Now, let´s assume you have stopped uploading to istock, have "broken the chain" and are now feading the beasts of other agencies. I am exclusive, so I haven´t been follwoing all the news here, but from what I read, the other sites aren´t perfect are they? Their managements also make decisions that enrage contributors. They mess up, they can be greedy, you feel betrayed, probably with good reason.

Imagine that this summer there is a hypothetical crisis at Dreamstime or Bigstock or...agency XYZ- what will you do? You also stop uploading to say - XYZ. Again slowly delete your portfolio.

Now you are avoiding two agencies.

Then the next agency messes up...

...

So this is why I don´t believe these boycotts make financial sense longterm.

The only thing that would make sense is to sell from your own site. You get 100% Royalty, that is unbeatable.

But you have to do a lot to attract traffic, just like any other internet business or webshop. Just like setting up a webstore to sell kitchenware. You´ll make it if you work hard. maybe team up with artists that have a complementing portfolio, not direct competition, but not unrelated content either.

The other thing is what people are doing already - balance stock with assignment work.

Perhaps there are other solutions or business concepts, I don´t know.

But if you want your horse to run, you have to feed it.

sharpshot · « **Reply #38 on:** April 14, 2011, 01:33 »

^^^I don't think it makes any financial sense whatsoever to accept a commission cut from the site that pays by far the lowest commission already. All the other big sites can see that istock can get away with tiny commissions, they will all slash their own commissions. Then istock will just cut commissions again next year or make it even harder to reach the next level.

Tolerating this is going to kill microstock for me. It isn't easy to make money doing this and there's no way I'm going to work harder to make less money each year. If all the sites keep cutting commissions, I will find something else to do.

It's a real shame that we can't all work together to change things, it looks like istock are having real problems and buyers are getting frustrated. I really can't understand why so many non-exclusive contributors are so determined to ruin their future earnings by tolerating the commission cuts and all the other problems we have with the site.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #39 on:** April 14, 2011, 01:57 »

Quote from: sharpshot on April 14, 2011, 01:33

^^^I don't think it makes any financial sense whatsoever to accept a commission cut from the site that pays by far the lowest commission already. All the other big sites can see that istock can get away with tiny commissions, they will all slash their own commissions. Then istock will just cut commissions again next year or make it even harder to reach the next level.

It isn't about the percentage, it's about the bottom line, which is what microstock has always been about.

As of last month, it would make more financial sense for me to dump Fotolia, Alamy, 123, Bigstock and Canstock - the whole lot of them together - than it would to dump just iStock by itself. If any of those five agencies increases its sales tenfold, then it would have the leverage to start acting like iStock. Right now, I'm still more inclined to dump Fotolia for its outrageous behaviour (it was actually the agency that started all this shafting, if you remember, it seems to get away with it because of iStock's cock-ups) than I am to dump iS. If things keep going as they are this week, that might change.

Microstock Posts · « **Reply #40 on:** April 14, 2011, 03:20 »

Quote from: sharpshot on April 14, 2011, 01:33

^^^I don't think it makes any financial sense whatsoever to accept a commission cut from the site that pays by far the lowest commission already. All the other big sites can see that istock can get away with tiny commissions, they will all slash their own commissions. Then istock will just cut commissions again next year or make it even harder to reach the next level.

Tolerating this is going to kill microstock for me. It isn't easy to make money doing this and there's no way I'm going to work harder to make less money each year. If all the sites keep cutting commissions, I will find something else to do.

It's a real shame that we can't all work together to change things, it looks like istock are having real problems and buyers are getting frustrated. I really can't understand why so many non-exclusive contributors are so determined to ruin their future earnings by tolerating the commission cuts and all the other problems we have with the site.

True if they accept 15% from one site they must be prepared to accept it from the others. The other agencies will follow suit in time.

Microbius · « **Reply #41 on:** April 14, 2011, 03:36 »

Quote from: Tom on April 13, 2011, 13:13

Argumentum ad hominem - a classic logical fallacy, quite common here unfortunately

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Not too get too anal (much) but the fallacy is the "Genetic Fallacy". Ad Hominem arguments are not necessary logical fallacies.

sharpshot · « **Reply #42 on:** April 14, 2011, 03:54 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on April 14, 2011, 01:57

Quote from: sharpshot on April 14, 2011, 01:33
^^^I don't think it makes any financial sense whatsoever to accept a commission cut from the site that pays by far the lowest commission already. All the other big sites can see that istock can get away with tiny commissions, they will all slash their own commissions. Then istock will just cut commissions again next year or make it even harder to reach the next level.

It isn't about the percentage, it's about the bottom line, which is what microstock has always been about.

As of last month, it would make more financial sense for me to dump Fotolia, Alamy, 123, Bigstock and Canstock - the whole lot of them together - than it would to dump just iStock by itself. If any of those five agencies increases its sales tenfold, then it would have the leverage to start acting like iStock. Right now, I'm still more inclined to dump Fotolia for its outrageous behaviour (it was actually the agency that started all this shafting, if you remember, it seems to get away with it because of iStock's cock-ups) than I am to dump iS. If things keep going as they are this week, that might change.

I agree about fotolia, I can't get motivated to upload there at the moment but at least there is still a chance that I will reach higher commission levels in the future. I know they could move the goal posts again and I don't trust them but when they saw istock paying 20% commission, it was easy for them to justify their cuts. It will be easy for them to do it again when they see people accepting less than 20% with istock.

Miscrostock is about the bottom line but istock cutting their already small commission hits our bottom line. If my sales and earnings there were increasing a lot, I might be able to stomach it but all I see is them cutting down on expenses, not fixing problems with the site, reducing marketing and annoying buyers.

Shutterstock has always made more for me than istock and they haven't cut commissions yet but I'm sure they will if they see the other sites can do it. I still think the only way to protect our long term earnings is to do something about the istock cut. Accepting it just because they make more money than the other sites is just going to lead to lots more commission cuts from all the big sites.

I know I'm not likely to win this argument and that's why I no longer see my future in microstock.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #43 on:** April 14, 2011, 03:59 »

Isn't Fotolia already paying about 13% or something like that? They are utterly deceitful about what their commission levels mean. I'm sure Leaf had a chart somewhere.

sharpshot · « **Reply #44 on:** April 14, 2011, 04:39 »

^^^
I get paid in pounds and I think that makes it better for me. Not really sure what my average commission is with fotolia but its got to be well above the 17% istock pay me for stills and the 15% for video. I don't see me supplying fotolia in the long term though but I still think they would think twice about cutting commissions if istock didn't get away with overall lower commissions.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #45 on:** April 14, 2011, 05:34 »

Of course you are not sure what your average commission is. They keep it a tightly-guarded secret. Only Fotolia knows.

Michael Lancaster · « **Reply #46 on:** April 14, 2011, 05:38 »

To the all people that says: stop uploading!

This is bad for the business. Bad for YOUR business. The one who lose in the end is the one who stop uploading.
I am not agreeing with a lot of thinks on istock. But I am uploading. And if you don't uploading you make my sales grow. There are so many that register to istock, so many new people and more are coming. Wait until people in China will start to register. A lot of people there would be OK with 100$ per month for their living.

I am not showing my account on istock as well, but I like istock and istock made me grow actually. Fotolia, shutterstock or dreamstime are not better. Just another agencies. That probably sooner or later will face same difficulties.

Just my 2 cents.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #47 on:** April 14, 2011, 05:48 »

Quote from: zanzi on April 14, 2011, 05:38

This is bad for the business. Bad for YOUR business. The one who lose in the end is the one who stop uploading.
I am not agreeing with a lot of thinks on istock. But I am uploading. And if you don't uploading you make my sales grow. There are so many that register to istock, so many new people and more are coming. Wait until people in China will start to register. A lot of people there would be OK with 100$ per month for their living.

Not the Chinese! Lol...

You're the type these sites love.

jbarber873 · « **Reply #48 on:** April 14, 2011, 06:10 »

Quote from: sjlocke on April 14, 2011, 05:48

Quote from: zanzi on April 14, 2011, 05:38
This is bad for the business. Bad for YOUR business. The one who lose in the end is the one who stop uploading.
I am not agreeing with a lot of thinks on istock. But I am uploading. And if you don't uploading you make my sales grow. There are so many that register to istock, so many new people and more are coming. Wait until people in China will start to register. A lot of people there would be OK with 100$ per month for their living.

Not the Chinese! Lol...

You're the type these sites love.

Which type? Which sites? Do you mean that the poster is the type that Istock loves? Have you stopped submitting to Istock? Or do you mean the type that MSG loves? As for the Chinese, I think we've all learned that it's long past the time when you can just sneer at the concept of competition from China. Until you've been there, it's hard to imagine the energy and sophistication of the emerging generation in China. I do consider China as a new source of images to be competing with the old guard.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #49 on:** April 14, 2011, 06:18 »

Quote from: jbarber873 on April 14, 2011, 06:10

Which type? Which sites? Do you mean that the poster is the type that Istock loves? Have you stopped submitting to Istock? Or do you mean the type that MSG loves? As for the Chinese, I think we've all learned that it's long past the time when you can just sneer at the concept of competition from China. Until you've been there, it's hard to imagine the energy and sophistication of the emerging generation in China. I do consider China as a new source of images to be competing with the old guard.

The type that will take whatever they are given, happily.

China can compete with people on shooting apples and pencils. And Chinese people. That's not my thing.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Stop Feeding the Beast! (Read 19441 times)

SNP

disorderly

Olga

cobalt

Olga

brm1949

Olga

stockastic

cthoman

cathyslife

jsmithzz

wiser

cobalt

sharpshot

BaldricksTrousers

Microstock Posts

Microbius

sharpshot

BaldricksTrousers

sharpshot

BaldricksTrousers

Michael Lancaster

Sean Locke Photography

jbarber873

Sean Locke Photography

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors