Quote from: Ron on October 21, 2013, 07:27

Clamouring? Its a normal discussion. Why are you so bitter about people wanting a bigger income? I am asking for a raise at work every year, sometimes I even get one without asking

Don't be ridiculous, I am not bitter about people wanting a bigger income.
I'm angry about the low-prices subs model undervaluing our work, and making it only worthwhile to produce mass-demand images.
And I'm very angry about the way iS is totally marginalising exclusives rather than just coming straight out and honestly admitting that they don't want to have to pay over 20%, and that as seldom as possible, and closing the exclusive programme.

I'm not bitter: the race to the bottom, once begun, had only one, inevitable conclusion.

From indies pov, another strategy would be for the SS lovers to stick there, hoping that they can take over the market enough to raise sub prices to a more reasonable level.

I believe that this is really the crux of contributor frustration.  It is a downward spiral for sure, volume dependent relative to success.

My background is the total opposite. I applied only to iS, and although I was shocked at getting 19c for my first sale, it was a Sm size, (now XS) and the next sales after that were larger. Ss was the only real 'opposition' at the time, and 25c for any size didn't work for me, and there were a lot fewer non-sub sales then.
Ha, those were the days on iStock! Even though it was well after the glory days I was doing sums on the back of envelopes that projected really nicely, but didn't take into account the very obvious: growth of opposition both within iS and rival undercutting companies, and the not-so-obvious shafting of iS by management. I should have known better: although Bruce was still in charge, he's already sold to Getty, who even back then had a dreadful reputation for contributor relations in UK photography circles.
So my own fault for having an uncharaceristically optimistic view on any iS future.

Well done, iStock.
You undercut your exclusives with indie content, you promote old formerly high-selling images to a higher price bracket which kills them dead and won't allow us to demote them, and now you make your low-cost subs so attractive to former refuseniks that now they're clamouring to get into TS.
Just (expletive deleted) fantastic. 

It's funny, because as a non-exclusive I'm convinced they really only want exclusives. They're cettainly oushing exclusive content big time intheir marketing. Maybe they don't want *any* contributors?

Seriously, though, it seems to me they're splitting the options available to exclusive and non-exclusive contributors with an eye towards one day having a curated collection that's exclusive only and a subscription site for the rest of us. That's my guess.

Maybe they don't want *any* contributors?

Ain't that the truth.

The only way to make sense of it is to see the inde files as bait designed to hook buyers into taking exclusive content. The fact that buyers would eat the bait and spit out the hook should have been obvious but it seems someone had a very distorted view of the difference in quality and value between inde and exclusive content.
So if exclusives are getting walloped, it is very likely that it is happening by accident.

If a buyer sets the price slider at �, the only exlcusive content they see is Main, so no chance of them buying anything more expensive. If you lure by price, that's the buyers you'll attract, for the main part.

It's still the old iStock malice or incompetence conundrum.

What size files will TS accept?  Maybe I will resize everything and start uploading again with the idea that they would never sell on IS anyway, but won't mind getting subs prices at TS for med/small files.

You have to upload via iStock, so their minimum is 1600x1200, or equivalent.

...From indies pov, another strategy would be for the SS lovers to stick there, hoping that they can take over the market enough to raise sub prices to a more reasonable level.

That will never happen. Probably the only conversation that happens around the SS office about raising subscription royalties is something along the lines of "Why did we ever do that?"

I should have added; despite the recent "improvements" you will have to put up with a tortuously slow site performance. Old geezers using walking frames can move at a brisk pace in comparison.

Back when the PP was optional, I opted out.  One of the main reasons for that was to support Shutterstock.  Fast forward a couple of years, and all indies are now in the PP, whether they like it or not.  Shutterstock has gone public, and is now answerable to shareholders. 

I no longer see the point of starving the PP in favor of supporting Shutterstock.  Don't get me wrong, I like SS, but my sales have been in the doldrums for over a year now, there and elsewhere. 

It occurs to me that none of these sites are making decisions based on what's in my best interest, and I am not obligated to make my decisions based on what's in theirs.

Surely the reason we supported SS over the PP was because SS paid 38c per download and, originally, the PP only 25c? Ok, the PP eventually upped that to 28c, because so many of us would not provide our content, so then IS made it mandatory for independent images.

Even now my RPD at the PP is still only 40c whereas at SS it is 80c. That's a very big difference and I have no wish for sales from SS to be transferred to the PP.

The financial differential is only part of the issue. Sales at SS are fully credited, buyers can 'follow' you and stat's are reported in real time ... so at least you can project how the month is doing. None of that is true with the PP. Personally I trust the reporting of SS way ahead of that of Getty, IS or the PP. It's a matter of perceived competence as much as the lack of transparency at the latter.

Ok, SS is now an IPO. That's still streets ahead of being owned by a hedge-fund. At least we get the full disclosure of the financial reports. The only reason we get any financial detail about Getty is because their last hedge-fund owner left them so deeply in debt, by awarding themselves massive (unearned) special dividends, that the debt itself is now openly traded on the market (at a loss).

SS's strategy is both clear and long-term. They want to grow the business and the way you do that is .... by growing the business. Sure, you can make a little short-term extra profit by hammering your suppliers, but mostly that will end up damaging the business in the long-term and will almost certainly improve the opportunities for your competitors. Oringer didn't get where he is today by making such foolhardy short-term decisions. If he had wanted to make a quick buck then he'd have sold out long ago. As a self-made billionaire it is now just a game to him. He won't make the same stupid mistakes as Getty and Istock.

All the reasons we originally had for 'starving the PP' still apply IMHO (in so far as we have control). We earn far more with SS per download, we get full credit or our work (that's important to me) and SS are far more transparent and trustworthy than Getty/IS.

Quote from: gostwyck on October 22, 2013, 20:15

Quote from: lisafx on October 22, 2013, 18:36

Back when the PP was optional, I opted out.  One of the main reasons for that was to support Shutterstock.  Fast forward a couple of years, and all indies are now in the PP, whether they like it or not.  Shutterstock has gone public, and is now answerable to shareholders. 

I no longer see the point of starving the PP in favor of supporting Shutterstock.  Don't get me wrong, I like SS, but my sales have been in the doldrums for over a year now, there and elsewhere. 

It occurs to me that none of these sites are making decisions based on what's in my best interest, and I am not obligated to make my decisions based on what's in theirs.

Surely the reason we supported SS over the PP was because SS paid 38c per download and, originally, the PP only 25c? Ok, the PP eventually upped that to 28c, because so many of us would not provide our content, so then IS made it mandatory for independent images.

Even now my RPD at the PP is still only 40c whereas at SS it is 80c. That's a very big difference and I have no wish for sales from SS to be transferred to the PP.

The financial differential is only part of the issue. Sales at SS are fully credited, buyers can 'follow' you and stat's are reported in real time ... so at least you can project how the month is doing. None of that is true with the PP. Personally I trust the reporting of SS way ahead of that of Getty, IS or the PP. It's a matter of perceived competence as much as the lack of transparency at the latter.

Ok, SS is now an IPO. That's still streets ahead of being owned by a hedge-fund. At least we get the full disclosure of the financial reports. The only reason we get any financial detail about Getty is because their last hedge-fund owner left them so deeply in debt, by awarding themselves massive (unearned) special dividends, that the debt itself is now openly traded on the market (at a loss).

SS's strategy is both clear and long-term. They want to grow the business and the way you do that is .... by growing the business. Sure, you can make a little short-term extra profit by hammering your suppliers, but mostly that will end up damaging the business in the long-term and will almost certainly improve the opportunities for your competitors. Oringer didn't get where he is today by making such foolhardy short-term decisions. If he had wanted to make a quick buck then he'd have sold out long ago. As a self-made billionaire it is now just a game to him. He won't make the same stupid mistakes as Getty and Istock.

All the reasons we originally had for 'starving the PP' still apply IMHO (in so far as we have control). We earn far more with SS per download, we get full credit or our work (that's important to me) and SS are far more transparent and trustworthy than Getty/IS.

Agreed, except I fear that the SS strategy is to move things over to BS where the pay is heading the way of the PP. Or move the BS RC system over to SS, which would be even worse.

I opted out of the PP when I could and I removed most of my files from IS when that was no longer an option. They need to pay at least level w/ SS to get me to consider sending them anything new, and even then I would suspect a bait and switch.

I believe not, despite the latest changes (RC's + promotions) I don't think that SS wants to drive clients to BigStock, they must be trying to get BigStock bigger but not by reducing SS revenue

Gostwyck, you aren't comparing like with like. Your 40c RPD is from the PP alone, your SS RPD includes ELs etc. You really need to calculate your IS/PP RPD over both IS itself and the PP.
Also, did you calculate over a full year, or just your latest month?

I've wondered for some time about how this overlap between agencies/collections etc. should be treated. If you separate the PP earnings out from the iStock earnings and treat it as two agencies, then iS and PP would probably both fall to just below "self-hosted" in the earnings ranking on the right. If you are going to treat iS/PP as a single agency, then shouldn't you do the same with SS and BS? It's very difficult from the contributor's perspective to determing what is a reasonable comparison.

But, in any case, if you take iS+PP and RPD you are probably still only coming in at about 60c, following the commission cuts.

Yes, old tales die hard, it doesn't matter "name" or 'Name' both work the same. But next month someone will post again, that the answer is use single quotes...

Here's one more. I have three. "Business Name" "Real Name" and "Realname" (no space) I don't know why but that's what comes up.

And if you still believe that it makes a difference use single quotes, throw salt over your left shoulder and chant "Where are my photos" three times. That works best. 

Quote from: VKir on October 19, 2013, 14:59

Quote from: ACS on October 19, 2013, 13:59

Could somebody please tell me how will I find my portfolio in TS?

I have 500 on IS but I wonder how much of them are on IS. I found one of mine on TS but there was no info/link about the artist.

Enter in search box  �Your Name�.   
Write �   �. Do not write �  �

You can do it either way, both work. If your name is Clint Eastwood, type in the search "clint eastwood", or you may also have to use your user name at Istock in the same way.  So if your user name is superman, type "superman".