Author Topic: Vetta Sale at iStock (Read 66069 times)

SNP · « **Reply #200 on:** December 09, 2010, 15:39 »

Sorry...on iPhone while out shooting. So we're literally discussing this now Sue in the car. Yes it seems hard working isn't enough. But I never held my port up as an example. The theory a bunch is us have been discussing is that those getting screwed by rc targets seem to be those who haven't uploaded 'seriously' enough. Seriously was turned into me accusing people of not working hard. Sigh.

I think uploading a lot is going to be the new necessity. That's the point. Of course quality matters...

rubyroo · « **Reply #201 on:** December 09, 2010, 15:58 »

Quote from: SNP on December 09, 2010, 15:39

those who haven't uploaded 'seriously' enough. Seriously was turned into me accusing people of not working hard. Sigh.

I honestly can't see any other way to interpret 'seriously' in the context you provided.

Unless you were referring to the expression one has on one's face at the point of upload...

SNP · « **Reply #202 on:** December 09, 2010, 16:09 »

Then I will quote is as the diamond I'm speaking to who is not meeting target says it...I wish I had kept seriously uploading. It would have been easier to meet my target. Henceforth he's also going to be uploading a lot more. It's obvious the files uploaded must then sell to help meet rc next year.

Nowhere in there is any implication about working hard. Another colleague, gold, recently asked my advice. His talent is supreme, he works his butt off. Just needs to upload more.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #203 on:** December 09, 2010, 16:10 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 09, 2010, 11:55

Quote from: SNP on December 09, 2010, 11:50
...I the first 10 files are free to Photographer's Choice. Each FIRST download thereafter gets you a new file slot. so there's no $50 fee unless you wish to upload more than that. again, as I understand the language used.
Does that apply to everyone, or just those who were already actively submitting?

I believe that is their standard offer, not anything special for iS. Some people have been able to make this collection work for them, it's not a complete scam, but by all accounts you need some * good stuff to make a go of it. You're also subject to a lot of very severe restrictions.

SNP · « **Reply #204 on:** December 09, 2010, 16:13 »

Yes, maybe. To be honest it's made me lose interest in supplying Getty so I haven't delved much further. And now we're waiting on another f5....

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #205 on:** December 09, 2010, 16:22 »

Quote from: SNP on December 09, 2010, 16:09

Then I will quote is as the diamond I'm speaking to who is not meeting target says it...I wish I had kept seriously uploading. It would have been easier to meet my target. Henceforth he's also going to be uploading a lot more. It's obvious the files uploaded must then sell to help meet rc next year.

Nowhere in there is any implication about working hard. Another colleague, gold, recently asked my advice. His talent is supreme, he works his butt off. Just needs to upload more.

Well, could you say what "seriously" means, then? Does it mean not in sufficient volume, or does it mean not shooting sufficiently commercial subjects or does it mean something else?

One of the things that is particularly galling about this new system is that those of us who chose to shoot more off-beat subjects, rather than copying the well-known best sellers are getting penalised, but iStock needs those required but less desirable subjects to keep its collection attractive. It's just not willing to value our work properly. If it had no travel shots at all in its library it would lose a lot of customers.

SNP · « **Reply #206 on:** December 09, 2010, 16:30 »

I think that's exactly it. I don't shoot a lot of typical stock. I wish I had now. I think the only thing that saved me is having a huge port and no niche. I have a bit of everything because I take my camera everywhere I go. That's all I meant in terms of volume. Of course increasing quality of images has been a major focus do I have been spending money on shoots. But that's only over the last year as my income has allowed.

alias · « **Reply #207 on:** December 09, 2010, 16:58 »

Quote from: SNP on December 09, 2010, 15:39

I think uploading a lot is going to be the new necessity.

Pictures which have not taken off may be better deleted or moved to subscription. Otherwise not selling images may impact your search placement on images with similar keywords.

SNP · « **Reply #208 on:** December 09, 2010, 18:12 »

^ hmm, I don't think so. I would be really careful about deactivating images these days. I did that once at the beginning of my second year. I deactivated tons of images. best match tweaks that favoured anything older killed me. I'm not saying that's concrete, but it was my experience. I don't see any reason to deactivate images. for example just yesterday I had some first time downloads from 2007. the new search seems to act like a revolving closet. everything keeps getting slightly shifted around and around and it's just a matter of whose looking at what when. I know customers might sort and see some of my earliest, not so great shots. but I doubt that happens frequently enough to worry about it.

I'd leave your images up. I think there's more disadvantage to taking them down. get seasonal images in there too, and portfolios are somewhat covered to weather best match storms here and there. that is my approach to building my portfolio. and constantly improving/evolving is key.

lisafx · « **Reply #209 on:** December 09, 2010, 19:54 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 09, 2010, 12:39

Quote from: SNP on December 09, 2010, 11:50
I am one of the demoted to Photographer's Choice even though I have uploaded almost 50 images to the Photodisc collection.
Work hard, and they'll still kick your a*se.

Yes! That is exactly the point a lot of us were trying to make about RC targets too.

How hard your a$$ gets kicked has very little to do with how hard you work at building your port, or how seriously (by any definition) you take this business.

If I was exclusive I would be keeping the diamond 40% royalty by a comfortable margin, but as a non-exclusive I am getting knocked down a level, because to keep my pathetic 20% I would have to have 1.4 MILLION RCs. Which is a deliberately and maliciously unattainable target that I seriously doubt anyone will get - even the top dogs.

Now even SNP, who by her own estimation works very hard (and I don't mean that sarcastically - you DO have a good port) and takes stock very seriously, has been dismissed out of hand by Getty. Not to mention being accused by JJRD, along with many others, of not being serious enough.

Does anyone at all still think that they are safe from being reamed by Getty/Istock at this point? Surely not!?!?!

SNP · « **Reply #210 on:** December 09, 2010, 20:04 »

Lisa - FYI, I didn't bother saying it before because you already know I think you've been royally kicked in the arse as an independent and I hope you already know how much I value your friendship. but you responded negatively to my first post, so...I wasn't saying anyone wasn't working hard enough, least of all you. I do feel quality and quantity of uploads are going to be even more important now though. as if it wasn't already. but more so now with performance evaluation adjusted every year with the RC system. THAT is the crux of my posts.

as for independents, I think that's a completely different scenario. I can't begin to comment on what indies are facings.

your post made me think of a question we were asking today, no one knew the answer. RC credits earned...are they the same for independents versus exclusives?

lisafx · « **Reply #211 on:** December 09, 2010, 20:17 »

Quote from: SNP on December 09, 2010, 20:04

I do feel quality and quantity of uploads are going to be even more important now though. as if it wasn't already. but more so now with performance evaluation adjusted every year with the RC system. THAT is the crux of my posts.

I agree, it is make or break time for quality and quantity.

I just worry that such a dog-eat-dog environment will harm a lot of people who are genuinely working hard. There is just no security or stability in having to hit a constantly moving target. And for me, that kind of pressure is totally demotivating, not to mention smothering to creativity. I don't know too many (any) creatives who are comfortable producing in such a high-pressure situation.

SNP · « **Reply #212 on:** December 09, 2010, 20:32 »

I don't know if there's anything you could do to boost sales at IS as an independent, except to go exclusive.

as an exclusive, the community is nice, but the motivating element for me is sales. a sale is better than reviews, than acknowledgment. a sale means someone put their money down on the table for my work. as long as the sales are happening, I'm motivated.

the illusion of community is being slowly disintegrated. some of you might say it's happened faster, or it happened a long time ago. but we all have different iStock timelines. I've watched the community change, and the distance between HQ and contributors growing for two years now and as much as I personally like so many of the istockers I have met or interacted with; contributors, some admins, inspectors etc. in the end it's about work and the individual friendships we've built. I value those friendships and the education I'm receiving. I'm not overwrought over the gap widening between us and HQ. iStock is where I want to be until it isn't and presently sales have been really good this year as an exclusive.

Lisa, in your shoes, I don't know what I would do. what's left for you at iStock? it's awful for independents.

Risamay · « **Reply #213 on:** December 09, 2010, 22:33 »

Quote from: SNP on December 09, 2010, 20:32

I don't know if there's anything you could do to boost sales at IS as an independent, except to go exclusive.

Just because one is IS exclusive does not mean that one will have more IS sales than if one were to be/remain independent. On the contrary, word on the street from those who've dropped their crowns has been ... a boost in sales. Less in IS royalties, of course, but more downloads.

Risamay · « **Reply #214 on:** December 09, 2010, 22:35 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 09, 2010, 20:17

There is just no security or stability in having to hit a constantly moving target. And for me, that kind of pressure is totally demotivating, not to mention smothering to creativity.

Precisely.

KB · « **Reply #215 on:** December 09, 2010, 22:46 »

Quote from: SNP on December 09, 2010, 20:04

your post made me think of a question we were asking today, no one knew the answer. RC credits earned...are they the same for independents versus exclusives?

I'm not sure I understand the question - are the credits the same? How could they be different? The only difference is price -- obviously an exclusive image at a given size costs more RCs than an independent image at the same size. But, an RC is an RC, it isn't affected by what kind of image it is applied to.

Pixel-Pizzazz · « **Reply #216 on:** December 09, 2010, 22:49 »

Quote from: SNP on December 08, 2010, 01:30

Jo Ann - I say this with respect, because I know you know the business. I would not highlight you as an example, but since you did in response to my post, I'd say you are precisely the type of diamond they want producing more. in close to 7 years, you have just 2,500 files. that's less than 40 uploaded per month over 6 years...to be conservative since you're not quite at 7 years. that is simply not enough to maintain sales or growth. in any business that growth per year would not be adequate in terms of supporting further growth.

that does not speak to quality of your work, which we all agree is great I'm sure. nor does it speak to your knowledge, which I'm the first to say you have a great deal of and which you share very generously. but if I forget it is you in the example...there are many higher canister levels who reached diamond--the second to highest canister level--simply by whittling away at it for a few years. that's okay, but why should they get the same income as a contributor producing hundreds of files per month, and therefore generating income with more downloads (assuming the quality is there).

I don't think the RC system is perfect or even great by any means...but I think it is slightly more fair in theory than canister levels. maybe not in terms of the levels they've set...and I'm hoping those will be modified if contributors aren't making their targets.

SNP - you have an extreemly low sale per file ratio, on your port - I think you need to pull that into your measure of success. Are your efforts really being rewarded? I can't imagine putting in all the hours you have for such little pay over so many years.

SNP · « **Reply #217 on:** December 10, 2010, 00:24 »

Pixel, your sales to file ratio is astronomical. 19K dls on just 173 files, which is incredible. just imagine, you could be black diamond by now if you had just worked harder

that was a joke before you jump on me. by the way, thanks for the cup of coffee ;-)

SNP · « **Reply #218 on:** December 10, 2010, 00:31 »

Quote from: KB on December 09, 2010, 22:46

Quote from: SNP on December 09, 2010, 20:04
your post made me think of a question we were asking today, no one knew the answer. RC credits earned...are they the same for independents versus exclusives?
I'm not sure I understand the question - are the credits the same? How could they be different? The only difference is price -- obviously an exclusive image at a given size costs more RCs than an independent image at the same size. But, an RC is an RC, it isn't affected by what kind of image it is applied to.

hmmm, reading this I'm trying to explain it better...the point we discussed was basically that non-exclusives will get less RCs per same sized sale as exclusives would receive, which you've stated well...thank you :-)

Pixel-Pizzazz · « **Reply #219 on:** December 10, 2010, 01:13 »

Quote from: SNP on December 10, 2010, 00:24

Pixel, your sales to file ratio is astronomical. 19K dls on just 173 files, which is incredible. just imagine, you could be black diamond by now if you had just worked harder that was a joke before you jump on me. by the way, thanks for the cup of coffee ;-)

NP SN, the chocolates were / are a treat. Thanks for clicking on 'show'

I'm not trying to be rude - just factual.

The new system does seem to promote the numbers game - I see that - but how good will that be when the collection has ballooned so much that a massive cull of non-sellers is needed. You'd lose about 40% of your upload number if that happened and that'd lump you with many who only seem to make a half-hearted (albeit more successful in terms of ratios) effort. All that additional effort for what? Chasing ones tale (pun intended), spinning ones wheels, getting nowhere fast.

IS is good at making contributors solve problems that don't / shouldn't exist.

cathyslife · « **Reply #220 on:** December 10, 2010, 08:13 »

Quote from: Risamay on December 09, 2010, 22:35

Quote from: lisafx on December 09, 2010, 20:17
There is just no security or stability in having to hit a constantly moving target. And for me, that kind of pressure is totally demotivating, not to mention smothering to creativity.

Precisely.

Not to mention the fact that I don't shoot for microstock because I want to work for someone else. In fact, quite the opposite. The agencies are supposed to be working for me! And in return, they take most of the money!

If I only want to shoot part-time, I accept the fact that I'm not going to make the same amount of money as someone shooting full-time. That's my choice. But to impose goals on me like I were an actual employee of Getty just goes a little too far for my taste. And if I don't meet those goals, my images get sent to the back of the best match, regardless of how successful they have been in the past?

ShadySue · « **Reply #221 on:** December 10, 2010, 10:20 »

Quote from: cclapper on December 10, 2010, 08:13

If I only want to shoot part-time, I accept the fact that I'm not going to make the same amount of money as someone shooting full-time. That's my choice. But to impose goals on me like I were an actual employee of Getty just goes a little too far for my taste. And if I don't meet those goals, my images get sent to the back of the best match, regardless of how successful they have been in the past?

this 'target' mentality is pervasive. A couple of years ago, a large UK organisation, mostly staffed, funded, and supported by volunteers started setting targets for their 'volunteers' and 'supporters groups' for increasing membership and raising money. That led to a rapid downshift in their position in 'who I will try to help'.

lisafx · « **Reply #222 on:** December 10, 2010, 10:26 »

Quote from: SNP on December 09, 2010, 20:32

I don't know if there's anything you could do to boost sales at IS as an independent, except to go exclusive.

(SNIP)

Lisa, in your shoes, I don't know what I would do. what's left for you at iStock? it's awful for independents.

Right on both counts - no way to boost sales as independent, and it is awful for independents these days.

I stopped uploading for awhile, which had no effect on TPTB apparently

I have been re-evaluating my relationship with Istock, and have had to be pragmatic about it. The fact is, I still make a significant amount of money there. Not being independently wealthy, I can't afford to just throw that out the window. I can't very well tell my daughter: Sorry Honey, no college for you because Istock are dicks and I am stubbornly adhering to principle...

OTOH, the fun and community aspects of the site are pretty much dead. So going forward I will have to regard it as just another site. No more or less important than the others. I will continue to make money there until/unless I don't.

Believing that a sale is imminent, there is still a chance that a new owner might try and rebuild relationships with suppliers. I want to still be on the site if/when that happens. And if it doesn't, then quitting is always an option. Just not something to do hastily in my situation.

rubyroo · « **Reply #223 on:** December 10, 2010, 10:30 »

@ ShadySue - yes indeed, every company I ever worked for turned to cr*p once they stopped seeing people as humans but as number generators. It just distorts, dehumanises and ultimately demoralises everyone, it seems.

'I am not a number, I am a free man!' - The Prisoner

(errr... woman, actually...)

ShadySue · « **Reply #224 on:** December 10, 2010, 11:19 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 10, 2010, 10:20

Quote from: cclapper on December 10, 2010, 08:13
If I only want to shoot part-time, I accept the fact that I'm not going to make the same amount of money as someone shooting full-time. That's my choice. But to impose goals on me like I were an actual employee of Getty just goes a little too far for my taste. And if I don't meet those goals, my images get sent to the back of the best match, regardless of how successful they have been in the past?
this 'target' mentality is pervasive. A couple of years ago, a large UK organisation, mostly staffed, funded, and supported by volunteers started setting targets for their 'volunteers' and 'supporters groups' for increasing membership and raising money. That led to a rapid downshift in their position in 'who I will try to help'.
Added: but our local support group just refused to accept the target! We don't even fill in their stats sheets now.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Vetta Sale at iStock (Read 66069 times)

SNP

rubyroo

SNP

BaldricksTrousers

SNP

BaldricksTrousers

SNP

alias

SNP

lisafx

SNP

lisafx

SNP

Risamay

Risamay

KB

Pixel-Pizzazz

SNP

SNP

Pixel-Pizzazz

cathyslife

ShadySue

lisafx

rubyroo

ShadySue

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors