MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: Ron on October 19, 2013, 02:14
-
Ok, I have a 32 files on IS to see how they would fare, to see if IS really was this big earner. I also wanted access to the forum, but I got banned there LOL.
Anyhoo, I uploaded 11 files in January, deactivated them in February, so they never got a chance. But in order to see what the fuzz was all about, and to get first hand experience, I reactivated them in May and uploaded a few more in June. Sales on IS have been insignificant, a nice RPD but thats it. However TS has been surprisingly good with 33 files only on IS. It performed better then PD (500), DP (800), CanStockPhoto(900), GL (400)
Because of the constant contributor unfriendly changes at IS I havent uploaded my portfolio and I am going to close my account at 100 dollar. However, this month I have seen several comments of people wanting to start uploading to IS again to get files on TS.
So, I am on the fence now as the others. I want to make money, and if TS is delivering, should I (we) take that opportunity?
What are your thoughts? Please keep it on the subject and dont make it personal. I just want to start a healthy debate on the matter.
-
Your call between making money or making a stand.
-
I think earnings with TS are likely to get severely diluted when they move all the new content from istock over. The upload limits and high QC standards kept the size of the collection down but now it will get swamped. I really can't be bothered with the tedious istock upload. Why can't we upload only to TS with FTP?
-
I think earnings with TS are likely to get severely diluted when they move all the new content from istock over. The upload limits and high QC standards kept the size of the collection down but now it will get swamped. I really can't be bothered with the tedious istock upload. Why can't we upload only to TS with FTP?
Good point about the tedious upload. I am on the fence about that as well, is it worth it.
I think if they opened up direct contribution to TS, no one would submit to IS anymore. LOL
-
I think sharpshot is wrong about collection size. TS is not just fed from iS, it has piles of other Getty stuff in it too, it is already huge, but it still delivers results.
After this month's poor performance on SS I finally uploaded stuff to iS again yesterday, primarily to get it through to TS. Also, if SS is going to go down the tubes I may even have to consider exclusivity one day, in which case I wouldn't want to have a huge gap in uploads there.
-
I'm new to this crazy Microstock game having become a contributor only earlier this year. I have no preformed opinion about any of the agencies, but do follow the boards here and elsewhere so am aware of the track record reputation of certain sites.
So far with iStock, I'm cautiously optimistic. Since changing their policies in the July time frame it has rapidly become my top earner, with the vast majority of it coming from PP sales. My portfolio on iStock is slightly larger than my portfolio on Shutterstock, but my TS representation is less than my SS port, so I think port size is largely a wash.
In September I had 50 downloads at IS with about 80% of them through PP. I had 49 downloads at SS in September, so in terms of DL, they were neck and neck. However, my IS revenue in September was double my SS revenue.
The other thing that I'm enjoying about iStock is the creative freedom. The below photo was my most downloaded photo in September but was rejected at all other agencies usually stating "White Balance" issues as the reason. This photo was taken with a 665nm Infrared converted camera so of course it has white balance "issues".
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-26753856-autumn-infrared-willow.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-26753856-autumn-infrared-willow.php)
My only real complaint is review times for non-exclusives (or me at least) are brutal - usually taking 2 weeks or more. I'm certain I missed a lot of content specific autumn/harvest related sales due to images just floating around in the queue.
-
I have not tried uploading directly to IS, but use Deep Meta. I find this is usually painless.
As for if you should be uploading there... My goal is to make money. iStock and PP are my number 2 in sales.
-
You can upload to iS but that's no guarantee the images will make it over to TS. Only a small percentage of my portfolio is showing up there and nothing has moved in several weeks. I opened a support ticket asking if there's a chance that more of my images will make the trip and no response.
So, if your only reason for uploading to iS is to get those images onto the PP, good luck.
-
I don't upload to IS because of TS - I upload because IS itself is making good money compared to all the low earners. TS comes on top of it, well actually making more money than IS itself these days. But the two are my #2 and #3 earners if you view at them seperately. Combined they come close to Shutterstock.
The backside of "uploading to IS to get onto TS" is the fact that the connector is still not working reliable. I got 300 files moved over in August and for some time almost all new images went to TS within days. However, from my latest batch of about 80 images, only 6 are visible on TS and that has been a few weeks with no progress since. So you can't rely on making money from TS because you just don't know when (or if) your files are going there.
-
IS itself is gone down the toilet but the PP seems to be doing better than SS (per image) so I reckon I'll upload everything to IS to get the PP sales.
-
I never thought I'd hear "getting onto TS" as a benefit of uploading to iStock.
-
Interesting thoughts. Keep em coming.
Sean, its the world upside down :)
-
I never thought I'd hear "getting onto TS" as a benefit of uploading to iStock.
"Strange days indeed" (Lennon)
-
My earnings at SS were slammed by the site maintenace in July and have yet to fully recover. On the other hand, earnings for me at iS are growing through both iS and PP sales. Just when I get disgusted with one, the other picks up. Funny.
-
At one point I would have said - sure if you want to support .28 per dl instead of .38 per dl, but since SS seems to want to do that themselves it might not really make of a difference if you are getting lowballed from SS/BS or IS/PP.
Of course you still have to deal with the IS submission process which is a PITA even with deepmeta - and who knows what new fiendish things Getty will come up with next.
I'll be staying out myself, but that is more for personal satisfaction than pure economic decisions. Curiously enough I do have some pride (although not much).
-
Looking at it from a cold-blooded business point of view you would benefit by uploading your port to IS. Despite all the shenanigans of recent years they are still in the top 4 for a reason. Also, I have seen a steady revenue increase since July to very nearly 2011 levels. I personally didn't think that would happen and no doubt said as much - but I've eaten my fair share of humble pie in life and it no longer chokes.
I know many on this forum don't like them very much, I don't like them very much - but I have to do business with people I don't like every day or I'd be on a street corner with a harmonica and a tin cup.
-
Uploading there you sell Getty the rope with which they will hang you.
The more people upload, the sooner you will go out of business.
-
Hi everybody,
I have only 60% of my Istock portfolio on TS and Photos.com but I keep getting PP sales for files which I cannot find on TS and Photos.
One of the file has even earned me $24 recently (one sale). Do you have any idea where those are coming from?
-
I stopped uploading to IS a while ago. I find my share of 16% too insulting and the uploading even using DeepMeta too time consuming to bother any longer. Since then my RPD dropped almost 60%. There is also some risk that Getty is deliberately sinking their IS ship. So why should I start uploading now?
-
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.
-
At one point I would have said - sure if you want to support .28 per dl instead of .38 per dl, but since SS seems to want to do that themselves it might not really make of a difference if you are getting lowballed from SS/BS
There is also the fact that a growing number of contributors internationally would be taxed at a whopping 30% because they come from countries which do not have a tax treaty with the USA.
$0.38 - 30% = $0.266 ---- and even less at Bigstock
-
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 “ “
-
At one point I would have said - sure if you want to support .28 per dl instead of .38 per dl, but since SS seems to want to do that themselves it might not really make of a difference if you are getting lowballed from SS/BS
There is also the fact that a growing number of contributors internationally would be taxed at a whopping 30% because they come from countries which do not have a tax treaty with the USA.
$0.38 - 30% = $0.266 ---- and even less at Bigstock
It's only charged on sales that are made to customers inside the US, so I actually get taxed on about 10% of sales.
-
and not unique to IS - all sites levy tax on US sales (fortunately @ 0% here)
-
and not unique to IS - all sites levy tax on US sales (fortunately @ 0% here)
I thought iS did not have that US tax thing because they are a Canadian company.
-
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 “ “
Thank you. (484 in TS out of 510)
-
and not unique to IS - all sites levy tax on US sales (fortunately @ 0% here)
I thought iS did not have that US tax thing because they are a Canadian company.
Actually, never had to fill in a form @ IS and could be wrong (was just referencing an earlier post)
Doing a bit of uploading & the unabashed dictionary doesn't recognise "toon" as cartoon but does have the newcastle reference ;D
-
and not unique to IS - all sites levy tax on US sales (fortunately @ 0% here)
I thought iS did not have that US tax thing because they are a Canadian company.
Actually, never had to fill in a form @ IS and could be wrong (was just referencing an earlier post)
Doing a bit of uploading & the unabashed dictionary doesn't recognise "toon" as cartoon but does have the newcastle reference ;D
iS, Alamy, Panthermedia, Scanstock .... any site that is not US-based does not charge the tax.
-
Doing a bit of uploading & the unabashed dictionary doesn't recognise "toon" as cartoon but does have the newcastle reference ;D
I'd never call a cartoon a 'toon', and I have no idea about Newcastle. Is Newcastle-upon-Tyne really called 'Toon'? 1 Here Toon means 'town', and my eastern relatives said 'going to the toon' meaning Edinburgh.
1 Oh, apparently it's a nickname for Newcastle United football team. Well, that's my something learned for the day, but it's not very useful. I bet for that very reason it will stick in my head, pushing out a hard-learned PS shortcut. ::)
-
There's often a disturbing view of a Newcastle supporter stripped to the waist in the middle of winter on Match of the Day. Don't click on this if you've got any sense :) http://atouchfarvetched.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/toon-crowd-shot.jpg (http://atouchfarvetched.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/toon-crowd-shot.jpg)
-
never had to fill in a form @ IS and could be wrong (was just referencing an earlier post)
Perhaps I was not clear enough:
The point is that contributors to sites like SS and BS which are only US based and do not have international offices are required to pay US taxes if they are from countries which do not have a tax treaty with the US.
-
Doing a bit of uploading & the unabashed dictionary doesn't recognise "toon" as cartoon but does have the newcastle reference ;D
I'd never call a cartoon a 'toon', and I have no idea about Newcastle. Is Newcastle-upon-Tyne really called 'Toon'? 1 Here Toon means 'town', and my eastern relatives said 'going to the toon' meaning Edinburgh.
1 Oh, apparently it's a nickname for Newcastle United football team. Well, that's my something learned for the day, but it's not very useful. I bet for that very reason it will stick in my head, pushing out a hard-learned PS shortcut. ::)
There is the story about some manager / pundit who had to make an apology having joked about beckham thinking the tsunami disaster damage was was caused by newcastle supporters (toon army) - on the toon thing - never saw roger rabbit?
@bhr - totally misinterpreted your post :-\
-
never had to fill in a form @ IS and could be wrong (was just referencing an earlier post)
Perhaps I was not clear enough:
The point is that contributors to sites like SS and BS which are only US based and do not have international offices are required to pay US taxes if they are from countries which do not have a tax treaty with the US.
But only for licenses which were sold to US customers, so your calculation was meaningless because it didn't take account of the proportion of sales that are non-US. In fact, the average amount of tax paid is closer to 3% than 30%,
The point about tax also only really makes sense on the assumption that US residents (and residents of countries with a tax treaty with the US) are not liable for any tax on their earnings, which certainly isn't the case for the UK. The 3% average from US-based sites is the only tax I have to pay on my earnings because I happen to live somewhere without income tax. A UK resident, despite not paying taxes to the US because of the double-taxation treaty, is probably paying 25% or so in the UK on ALL earnings. I presume US citizens pay something similar.
It makes no sense to treat tax as if it were part of the agency commission. If you want to do that, then you have to adjust all the commission levels for whatever income tax people become liable to because of the earnings (which varies, of course). In any case, arguing that 38c is less than 28c because there might be witholding tax on the 38%, while ignore the income tax that the 28c may be liable for is just false reasoning.
I'm one of the few cases where your argument might work - if the average tax on SS sales was the full 30% overall, but it's actually only about 3%, so my 38c sales average out at 36c, which is certainly more than 28c. QED.
-
@Baldrick
Your point about the taxes only being levied on a small proportion of sales is useful. I am surprised that only 10% of your SS sales are US and wonder whether that is typical. I think I have always assumed that the US market represented a much larger slice of SS's business.
With respect to what people would otherwise be required to pay in taxes, the picture is much more variable and layered depending on the how and where. For many people living in non treaty countries any US deduction will represent an additional take - since they would either not be taxed at all on this income or else, more likely, they will then be further taxed by their own authorities.
I agree that US tax should not be treated as if it were an agency commission. But it makes no difference: Many people are going to get a better deal on those sales if they can make them through an agency which is not based in the US.
But - to reiterate - I take your point about the take being actually only about 3% in your case. That is useful information. So thanks.
-
I think there is a strong cultural effect on the location of sales. For example, my travel images feature Europe and the Middle East. Advertisers in the US are more likely to want pictures of the Grand Canyon than of Crete, which only someone in the US can supply. My food images reflect a similar bias towards European tastes. So SS may be much stronger in the US than worldwide, but my subjects may not appeal to the American market.
Another point is that you say "many" people would benefit through having sales that did not go through a US agency - but I doubt that. The US has double-taxation treaties with about 70 countries, including China, India, Russia, Indonesia, all or nearly all of the EU. The places that don't seem to be covered are the Gulf States, parts of sub-Saharan Africa and a variety of small island states. I doubt if there are more than a handful of contributors from those parts of the world.
In any case, the assumption that you can "make those sales" through, say, iS if you choose not to be on SS to try to avoid the tax is wrong. I think Yuri has demonstrated that if people can't get his shots on SS, they will simply buy from one of his rivals.
-
I think sharpshot is wrong about collection size. TS is not just fed from iS, it has piles of other Getty stuff in it too, it is already huge, but it still delivers results.
After this month's poor performance on SS I finally uploaded stuff to iS again yesterday, primarily to get it through to TS. Also, if SS is going to go down the tubes I may even have to consider exclusivity one day, in which case I wouldn't want to have a huge gap in uploads there.
is SS doing so poorly and iStock so well so you can consider exclusivity? even after all they have done and continue doing? didn't see that coming Paul, sure its a future prediction of yours but still a wild decision!
-
The US has double-taxation treaties with about 70 countries, including China, India, Russia, Indonesia, all or nearly all of the EU.
You know that for contributors in some treaty countries the rate is not zero - ie taxes are still deducted by the USA.
All other things being equal, the ideal would be to deal with agencies based in countries which do not impose these taxes.
-
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".
-
I think sharpshot is wrong about collection size. TS is not just fed from iS, it has piles of other Getty stuff in it too, it is already huge, but it still delivers results.
After this month's poor performance on SS I finally uploaded stuff to iS again yesterday, primarily to get it through to TS. Also, if SS is going to go down the tubes I may even have to consider exclusivity one day, in which case I wouldn't want to have a huge gap in uploads there.
is SS doing so poorly and iStock so well so you can consider exclusivity? even after all they have done and continue doing? didn't see that coming Paul, sure its a future prediction of yours but still a wild decision!
It's certainly no more than a thought at the moment but it's best to keep doors open. It's not just Shutterstock's performance, it's how all the others are doing, too. SS is really the last pillar holding the roof up: DT is 30% to 50% off its maximum, Alamy seems to be down about 50% from last year, I dumped Fotolia some time ago and would never consider rejoining them, 123 is pretty flat but unimpressive, BS is down 60% from the BME and down 40% from the average around that time. Until this month, SS was holding steady with a slight decline in sales being compensated for by the ELs and SoDs but now it looks as if sales will be down 25% on normal months, though an exceptional SoD may just about keep the cash inside the long-term range.
If everywhere except iS had kept up its peak performance, then my iS/PP sales would only account for about 14% of my income. As it is, it looks as if this month it will be about 20-25%. If SS continues at the download level that I'm seeing this month, then I could easily see iStock producing 25-30% of the income. At that point, a fourfold increase in iStock earnings from going exclusive would look quite decent. My commission rate would double and I think the base sales price for exclusives is something like four times the inde rate (not sure about PP) so it would bear thinking about.
It's very much a last-ditch defensive strategy, though, for trying to scrape the last bit of value out of a dying portfolio/career.
-
It's very much a last-ditch defensive strategy, though, for trying to scrape the last bit of value out of a dying portfolio/career.
fair enough I guess!
-
It's very much a last-ditch defensive strategy, though, for trying to scrape the last bit of value out of a dying portfolio/career.
fair enough I guess!
Right before the Istock shenanigans started (I think about 2-3 years ago) I was thinking seriously about going exclusive. Then the poo hit the fan and I breathed a BIG SIGH OF RELIEF. Since that time a lot has happened to contributors, most of it, if not all, negatively impacted many IS contributors. That was a lesson learned by me without having to experience the actual transition to exclusivity then back to indy. I always keep my options open, even in the wake of Istock's actions, but exclusivity with them, or any agency for that matter, is a distant consideration. But if a company was strong enough, successful enough, fair enough to contributors, had a good (or better than the 'accept everything' mentality - something like IS used to have until the 999 per day move) curating methodology, I might consider it. But the bigger my port gets across 10 sites the harder that is to actually execute. :'(
-
Well Ron, I'm right there on the fence with you. After seeing my PP totals for September, and the fact that they are about 30% up from what they usually are, (and they are usually good) I am thinking I may upload some holiday stuff and see if it makes it into the PP in time for seasonal sales. Depending on the performance of those files, I will decide whether I want to lift my almost year long boycott of uploading to IS
-
Well Ron, I'm right there on the fence with you. After seeing my PP totals for September, and the fact that they are about 30% up from what they usually are, (and they are usually good) I am thinking I may upload some holiday stuff and see if it makes it into the PP in time for seasonal sales. Depending on the performance of those files, I will decide whether I want to lift my almost year long boycott of uploading to IS
Hey iStock, you listening (or reading)? Contributors, myself included, who have stopped uploading but will reconsider if you can get those images onto the partner sites.....time to get things moving again, perhaps....??
-
Well Ron, I'm right there on the fence with you. After seeing my PP totals for September, and the fact that they are about 30% up from what they usually are, (and they are usually good) I am thinking I may upload some holiday stuff and see if it makes it into the PP in time for seasonal sales. Depending on the performance of those files, I will decide whether I want to lift my almost year long boycott of uploading to IS
Hey iStock, you listening (or reading)? Contributors, myself included, who have stopped uploading but will reconsider if you can get those images onto the partner sites.....time to get things moving again, perhaps....??
How depressing is this whole concept. :(
-
Well IS - if you are listening, you will get even more content if you pay a decent percentage for IS sales and a decent amount for subs.
-
Hey iStock, you listening (or reading)? Contributors, myself included, who have stopped uploading but will reconsider if you can get those images onto the partner sites.....time to get things moving again, perhaps....??
I though the connector was broken and no new images from IS are transported over to Thinkstock for months now. Just today as mentioned by someone else in this thread I discover that all my new images are already on Thinkstock, but in a new account. When I search Thinkstock on my "real name" it shows the same number of images for months now. However, when I search on my "IS login name" I find all my new images, even those accepted less than a week ago. I just hope they keep track of my sales there with this duplicate account. With their track record I am always concerned that some sales may be lost in the reporting.
-
Such a shame that TS has so many buyers. I hope they know that it's hard for us to get our images on that site and we have to put up with whatever Getty decide to do with our images. I really don't want to have to upload to istock to get on to TS. Not sure if I'd rather give up on microstock than to have to do things like that to make money.
-
I think what they could do is activate contributing to TS only for IS contributors, and make an opt in to mirror content to IS. Make the contribution process as easy as SS, CanStockPhoto, GL or 123, and have at it.
-
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. >:(
-
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 :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
Ok, I must have misunderstood your comment then, Sue. Sorry.
As for submitting to sub sites, when I started to submit for stock, it was in March 2012. I came here and found the list on the right, and started submitting.
The only agency that failed me was IS, so I ended up submitting to SS, FT, 123, DP, CanStockPhoto, PM, DT, BS, and all of them are sub agencies. I didnt know any better other than that was normal. Only when you are in this for a while you get to find out what is what.
As for TS, I just started a thread to get some input, and from what I am read here, I am not the only one thinking what I am thinking.
-
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.
-
....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.
A nice idea but too many people are going to upload to istock to make it work. They don't care that there's no chance of getting to $0.38 or that Getty can do deals like the Google one whenever they want.
I think SS is losing interest in subs. It's turning in to more of a pay per download site. There's a lot of competition with subs sites now and none of them have the kahounas to raise prices and commissions. Pay per download is different, it looks like there's still a higher end market to fight over.
-
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.
-
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.
I'm by no means the only exclusive who's feeling marginalised. There is some talk on the exclusive forum, but here's one from the Discussion forum I can quote:
"September sales were very good for me yielding my BMY and my 2nd BME. By the end of the month my total sales for the year reached the same level as my total sales for 2012 so anything from here on out represents an increase in profit for me compared to previous years and an even bigger profit increase for Getty/istock, as sales through the Getty site only pay me 20% compared to the 30 % I earn on istock, so both parties should be happy right?
Well I can't say that I am entirely happy. Despite the rosy figures and the record breaking year for sales from my port, my commission level on istock will not be going up. It will not be staying the same either, in fact it looks very much like my commission will be going down to the base 25% level unless there is a big turn around.
Starting roughly September 20th and continuing forward, I, along with many other exclusive artists, have seen a big drop in sales on istock. Up untill then it looked like I would maintain my current royalty level, especially considering that we were heading into the winter which has always been my best time of year for sales. Kelly's (remember him?) famous assertion that 50% of sales occurred in the last four months of the year has been largely true for me in the past, but this year is shaping up differently.
It is true that I have not been uploading for a while, it seems a pointless excercise to throw good files into the void never to be seen again, so I know that I can't expect to keep increasing my sales, but the figures show that the profits from my portfolio havre risen dramatically this year. The fact that my reward will be to be demoted to a lower commission level is hard to take.
I feel victimised here, not personally, but as an istock exclusive. It feels like some computer somewhere is tweaking the sales patterns to maximise profits at the expense of the exclusive artists by skewing sales away from them and away from istock while promoting non exclusive files here on the home site, a sales trend that I find very disturbing. Reading the other posts in this thread shows plainly that I am not alone.
Some things don't change and the tradition of nasty surprises in September seems to carry on as usual in 2013.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=356616&messageid=6949710 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=356616&messageid=6949710)
-
Maybe they don't want *any* contributors? ;)
Ain't that the truth.
-
I don't think a computer would mess up this badly, certainly not if it was getting rational input.
Pushing sales from exclusives to independents cuts the return for iStock. Severely reducing the price of independent files cuts the return for iStock. Only a human could come to the conclusion that this would be good for Getty's bottom line.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Tx, I left my account open but just one photo remaining. When I said that I forgot for a moment that uploading is pure torture.
-
...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?"
-
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. >:(
IS has gone from SS volumes at DT royalties to DT volumes and 123 royalties with removal of P+ and the 50% (by IS arithmetic) price cuts. PP looks like producing SS type volumes at SS royalties and, since our return = volume x royalty, it is a much better earner than what it was and, now, miles better than IS itself.
-
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.
-
...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?"
Yeah, I have to agree.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
I think the unrealistic RC levels with BigStock is as bad a mistake as some of the ones made by istock. Until that happened, I thought SS had got most things right but that one mistake has changed my opinion. All they had to do was match the BigStock subs commissions to what we get with SS. Why not extend the bridge scheme to everyone? That would of stopped me ever considering uploading to istock to get in to the PP. Now, it feels like it's a waste of time boycotting istock because it looks like there really isn't a big microstock site that is going to do anything decent for their contributors. The only motivation to keep supplying microstock sites is if I can carry on earning at least as much as I am now but they're making it almost impossible.
-
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. ;)
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".
-
Yes, seems odd that some people are upset because they can't opt out of the flat rate 28c DLS. And for anyone who complains it's the same as SS, where are the ELs, ODD and other options, like SS?
All I have ever found is, once they opened TS my sales on IS dropped to almost nothing. So what it's doing is instead of an average DL return for me of $1.68 I'm now getting 28 cents, and the number of DLs remains unchanged.
In other words, if I had 50 sales before on IS now I have 40 on TS and 10 on IS.
Also: as a benefit to being exclusive, your images will no longer be moved to TS. Why would that be a perk for exclusives, if it was a "better deal" for artists? ??? But there are some exclusives who are upset because their images aren't being sold for cheap Subs. So I suppose, it's a personal mater.
For me making $1.40 less per DL is not a Benefit!
I never thought I'd hear "getting onto TS" as a benefit of uploading to iStock.
-
Yes, seems odd that some people are upset because they can't opt out of the flat rate 28c DLS. And for anyone who complains it's the same as SS, where are the ELs, ODD and other options, like SS?
Heaven forbid that I should sound like an ambassador for the PP (cheap subs are cheap subs), but there are image pack sales: http://www.thinkstockphotos.co.uk/subscribe?isource=viewplans_merch_home (http://www.thinkstockphotos.co.uk/subscribe?isource=viewplans_merch_home),
and also extended licences:
http://www.thinkstockphotos.co.uk/Legal/license-information?isource=pricing_viewlicensedetails (http://www.thinkstockphotos.co.uk/Legal/license-information?isource=pricing_viewlicensedetails)
though I have no idea what the contributor gets from these. But people were reporting more better than flat-rate sales from September here on msg.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/september-partner-program-started! (http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/september-partner-program-started!)
-
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.
I understand the points you are making, and they are certainly valid. However, any independent who has uploaded to Istock over the past several months is feeding the PP, whether that is their intention or not.
Starving the PP to help SS doesn't seem to have served any purpose that I can see. Perhaps if all indies hadn't been forced into the PP it might have been effective, but in the current situation, I don't think it makes any difference.
-
True if people are excited about getting 44c RPD instead of 28 cents.
Then the other side:
yep, that said you need to keep feeding the beast because my PP sales are now less than half comparing to 2012
But let me put it a different way.
People who were forced to have their images on TS, and the independents who have no choice, were unhappy that they didn't have the ability to Opt. out and their images were producing roughly $1.20 less per download.
On the other hand, Exclusives who now have their collections back in the higher paying area are unhappy because they can't make 28 cents a download selling subs. They feel left out of potential income.
The inevitable conclusion is this, no matter what IS does, someone will be unhappy! :)
I've already mentioned the benefit and reward for going audio exclusive, is that now, I'm getting 25 cent downloads marked GI instead of the $1.60 DLs for the same material on IS. Boy do I feel like a dope. The idea was I'd get a higher commission, not that I'd be sold out, and undercutting myself, on another site owned by the same agency. Kind of sneaky and creepy in an uncomfortable way. My payback for loyalty was a stab in the back.
Yes, seems odd that some people are upset because they can't opt out of the flat rate 28c DLS. And for anyone who complains it's the same as SS, where are the ELs, ODD and other options, like SS?
Heaven forbid that I should sound like an ambassador for the PP (cheap subs are cheap subs), but there are image pack sales: [url]http://www.thinkstockphotos.co.uk/subscribe?isource=viewplans_merch_home[/url] ([url]http://www.thinkstockphotos.co.uk/subscribe?isource=viewplans_merch_home[/url]),
and also extended licences:
[url]http://www.thinkstockphotos.co.uk/Legal/license-information?isource=pricing_viewlicensedetails[/url] ([url]http://www.thinkstockphotos.co.uk/Legal/license-information?isource=pricing_viewlicensedetails[/url])
though I have no idea what the contributor gets from these. But people were reporting more better than flat-rate sales from September here on msg.
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/september-partner-program-started[/url]! ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/september-partner-program-started[/url]!)
-
That svcks Pete
-
What I think I know:
1. No client will leave a site to find MY images elsewhere (this may not be true for other photographers)
2. The agencies supply chain is too diverse for collective action against them.
3. Prices will continue to decline because of oversupply.
Conclusion:
Get what you can from all sources, while you can.
-
People who were forced to have their images on TS, and the independents who have no choice, were unhappy that they didn't have the ability to Opt. out and their images were producing roughly $1.20 less per download.
On the other hand, Exclusives who now have their collections back in the higher paying area are unhappy because they can't make 28 cents a download selling subs. They feel left out of potential income.
The inevitable conclusion is this, no matter what IS does, someone will be unhappy! :)
Actually, Exclusives made a minimum of 38 cents a download in the PP, or more depending on their royalty level - but your conclusion is still valid!
-
People who were forced to have their images on TS, and the independents who have no choice, were unhappy that they didn't have the ability to Opt. out and their images were producing roughly $1.20 less per download.
On the other hand, Exclusives who now have their collections back in the higher paying area are unhappy because they can't make 28 cents a download selling subs. They feel left out of potential income.
The inevitable conclusion is this, no matter what IS does, someone will be unhappy! :)
I think your conclusion is not valid. IS could shut up a majority of critics by simply making all this opt in/opt out. But they choose not doing it. >:( >:( >:(
-
What I think I know:
1. No client will leave a site to find MY images elsewhere (this may not be true for other photographers)
2. The agencies supply chain is too diverse for collective action against them.
3. Prices will continue to decline because of oversupply.
Conclusion:
Get what you can from all sources, while you can.
Agree
-
Yes, if your plan is based on and directed at "All Sources" rather that profitable or higher paying sources.
People who advocate the all sources plan should then have their images on 50 or more sites and be true to the business plan.
If they are going to pick and choose, then someone who chooses two (which would really be four, because SS / BS and IS / TS) is pretty much play the same way, non-exclusive and picking targets by value. The only difference is debating whether the answer is two, ten, 25 or 50?
By the way, I made a mistake. I get 24 cents for exclusive audio file DLs on GI, not 25 cents.
And good point about Exclusives getting a better rate for TS. I also would agree 100% about Opt. in / Opt. Out as the real answer for all types of contributors. Every agency should be set up like that. Instead we often get railroaded into things with the only option be, do what they say, or go away. For IS I'm happy to be included with TS DLs at 28 cents, some people aren't.
When it comes to hidden partners and no disclosure I chose to Go Away. That's why I'm down to SS and IS Micro RF - Alamy for Editorial RM. (and testing on one other which I suspect I will drop when I cash out, unless things pick up.) So there's my personal All Sources. :)
What I think I know:
1. No client will leave a site to find MY images elsewhere (this may not be true for other photographers)
2. The agencies supply chain is too diverse for collective action against them.
3. Prices will continue to decline because of oversupply.
Conclusion:
Get what you can from all sources, while you can.
-
Yes, if your plan is based on and directed at "All Sources" rather that profitable or higher paying sources.
People who advocate the all sources plan should then have their images on 50 or more sites and be true to the business plan.
If they are going to pick and choose, then someone who chooses two (which would really be four, because SS / BS and IS / TS) is pretty much play the same way, non-exclusive and picking targets by value. The only difference is debating whether the answer is two, ten, 25 or 50?
By the way, I made a mistake. I get 24 cents for exclusive audio file DLs on GI, not 25 cents.
And good point about Exclusives getting a better rate for TS. I also would agree 100% about Opt. in / Opt. Out as the real answer for all types of contributors. Every agency should be set up like that. Instead we often get railroaded into things with the only option be, do what they say, or go away. For IS I'm happy to be included with TS DLs at 28 cents, some people aren't.
When it comes to hidden partners and no disclosure I chose to Go Away. That's why I'm down to SS and IS Micro RF - Alamy for Editorial RM. (and testing on one other which I suspect I will drop when I cash out, unless things pick up.) So there's my personal All Sources. :)
What I think I know:
1. No client will leave a site to find MY images elsewhere (this may not be true for other photographers)
2. The agencies supply chain is too diverse for collective action against them.
3. Prices will continue to decline because of oversupply.
Conclusion:
Get what you can from all sources, while you can.
For me, at least, there are only a few that is worth the electricity it takes to upload.
-
for me it is simple. I do not make trade with robber byrons.
-
;
-
Did you interpret that factually or just twist it to fit your personal opinion? Robber Byrons (or Robber Barons) Could be people who lower our commissions and raise prices and percentages? Or in my opinion the places that grant us some measly 20% and keep 80% for their own coffers.
Sub sites could be paying us higer commissions than many places that sell packages, single DLs and other ways. In fact the Sub sites, do pay us a higher commission! WHo's the robber in that?
for me it is simple. I do not make trade with robber byrons.
Agreed, cheap sub sites are what's wrecking this industry.
For me, at least, there are only a few that is worth the electricity it takes to upload.
Still variable on how much one pays for electricity? LOL
In my case, I'm not willing to upload to some places, if it means I have to open ftp and hit send. They just don't have any appeal to me personally. :)
I was trying to get to the fair point, that for one person exclusive makes sense, for others limited distribution, and yet for others, greater volume, more agencies and last, the shotgun method, shoot everything, everywhere, a big wide blast, and see what gets hit!
-
I have made up my mind. I am not going to continue using The Dot.
The site annoys me too much, its too slow, they are a bunch of w@nkers over at IS. Lobo is a complete tool. And submitting images to IS is just worse then a hot poker in the ballsack.
Its too much to get a few bucks extra, plus it would make me a hypocrite, I couldnt live with my beautiful self.
So, thanks all for your thoughts, I am done deciding :)
-
;
-
I have made up my mind. I am not going to continue using The Dot.
The site annoys me too much, its too slow, they are a bunch of w@nkers over at IS. Lobo is a complete tool. And submitting images to IS is just worse then a hot poker in the ballsack.
Its too much to get a few bucks extra, plus it would make me a hypocrite, I couldnt live with my beautiful self.
So, thanks all for your thoughts, I am done deciding :)
Good decision, congrats!
So you agree with all my reasons. Finally you come to your senses.
-
;
-
I have made up my mind. I am not going to continue using The Dot.
The site annoys me too much, its too slow, they are a bunch of w@nkers over at IS. Lobo is a complete tool. And submitting images to IS is just worse then a hot poker in the ballsack.
Its too much to get a few bucks extra, plus it would make me a hypocrite, I couldnt live with my beautiful self.
So, thanks all for your thoughts, I am done deciding :)
Good decision, congrats!
So you agree with all my reasons. Finally you come to your senses.
Not all your reasons, the ones you just put out are emotional and silly but I don't like the subscription sites so I do agree with the decision not to upload to iStock to get into the PP.
less competition? ;D
-
;
-
less competition? ;D
That's right, don't you want to close your account too Luis? ;)
looks like 5 days in a row without a sale, just unbelievable, that is iStock. guys! ;D
-
oh just had a L sale for 98 cents, iStock is kicking ass today ;D ;D ;D
-
;
-
oh just had a L sale for 98 cents, iStock is kicking ass today ;D ;D ;D
If you aren't happy with what you're getting paid why do you stay?
I am more than happy dude, anyway don't think it is your business what I do or not, believe I am still allowed to express my feelings ;)
-
;
-
oh just had a L sale for 98 cents, iStock is kicking ass today ;D ;D ;D
If you aren't happy with what you're getting paid why do you stay?
I am more than happy dude, anyway don't think it is your business what I do or not, believe I am still allowed to express my feelings ;)
If you wanted to keep your feelings private maybe you shouldn't post them on an internet forum.
who said I wanted to keep them private? can you please read again the last posts, you are twisting stuff as usually
-
;
-
http://youtu.be/QGJuMBdaqIw (http://youtu.be/QGJuMBdaqIw)