pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Poll

How do you feel about IStock as a company?

Strongly dislike
86 (42.4%)
Somewhat dislike
58 (28.6%)
Neutral
30 (14.8%)
Somewhat like
17 (8.4%)
Strongly like
12 (5.9%)

Total Members Voted: 182

Author Topic: How do you feel about IStock?  (Read 38773 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #225 on: December 17, 2011, 01:31 »
0

Of course it's different.  My point is that from the perspective of a person looking for an image, he/she can go to a high price agency, low price agency, or find something for free.  These options all compete with one another.  The images you're trying to sell are in direct competition with many similar images that are easily obtained for free.   It looked like this conversation was turning into a complaint against low-cost selling or even free collections, and I was pointing out that there's a competitive need for approaches like this.  If microstock is going to survive, it has to wake up to this reality and do things like offer sets of images very cheap or even free as hooks to lure in people who would otherwise just steal.

Perhaps I am missing something, but I don't think there is any contradiction in offering a few select free images on DT and complaining about .07 or .09 royalties on Istock. 

I have a few freebies on DT.  They are very old images that have not sold anywhere, and each of them links to much better content in my active portfolio, which gives me exposure.   

The pitiful <.10 royalties on Istock are for the main collection of images, including best sellers, new content, etc.  And unlike donating free images, we have no choice at all, short of removing our entire portfolios.  It's insulting. 

What are you talking about?  I've never gotten a royalty as low as that, the lowest has been in Thinkstock (about $0.38)


rubyroo

« Reply #226 on: December 17, 2011, 04:28 »
0
The pitiful <.10 royalties on Istock are for the main collection of images, including best sellers, new content, etc.  And unlike donating free images, we have no choice at all, short of removing our entire portfolios.  It's insulting. 

Exactly!

That's the point.  I don't offer free images anywhere, because I have a choice.  But when it comes to <.10c royalties at iStock, as you say, the only option is to pull the port.

So I return to my original point and ask again... at that level, isn't iStock's return the lowest in the industry?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #227 on: December 17, 2011, 05:38 »
0
The pitiful <.10 royalties on Istock are for the main collection of images, including best sellers, new content, etc.  And unlike donating free images, we have no choice at all, short of removing our entire portfolios.  It's insulting. 
What are you talking about?  I've never gotten a royalty as low as that, the lowest has been in Thinkstock (about $0.38)
Who said that you had a <10c royalty? It's not all about you.
There have been a few posts with really tiny royalties reported, under half of my first sale (Sm) in 2006.

« Reply #228 on: December 17, 2011, 09:00 »
0
That and the fact some peeps there can inspect their own files without having to wait in the queue,  and there's this elite group of contributors who get their files moved into vetta, into istock lightboxes, in front of the searches etc (im not talking about those pseudo-exclusives here, but about 'regular' contributors who seem to be the favourite sweethearts). THAT's favouritism, not peeps trying to negotiate a deal...

Actually, I call that corruption, not favouritism, because I suspect it is people doing things that have not been approved by the company. It's a bit like insider trading, where by abusing a trusted position you can take money out of other peoples' pockets and put it in your own.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #229 on: December 17, 2011, 09:40 »
0
That and the fact some peeps there can inspect their own files without having to wait in the queue,  and there's this elite group of contributors who get their files moved into vetta, into istock lightboxes, in front of the searches etc (im not talking about those pseudo-exclusives here, but about 'regular' contributors who seem to be the favourite sweethearts). THAT's favouritism, not peeps trying to negotiate a deal...

Actually, I call that corruption, not favouritism, because I suspect it is people doing things that have not been approved by the company. It's a bit like insider trading, where by abusing a trusted position you can take money out of other peoples' pockets and put it in your own.

The first, inspecting their own files, was certainly OKd by JJRD officially on the forums. One of them (I'm only guessing, but the evidence points to it) was a nightmare keyworder for a while, but seems to have improved.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
2160 Views
Last post February 09, 2013, 01:09
by Pixart
10 Replies
3228 Views
Last post April 09, 2013, 13:02
by wordplanet
6 Replies
1947 Views
Last post April 25, 2014, 10:35
by nicolebranan
7 Replies
3578 Views
Last post January 05, 2016, 16:55
by Red Dove
32 Replies
8603 Views
Last post January 10, 2017, 11:01
by Kokkoros

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle