MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: ShadySue on December 06, 2010, 18:34
-
Wouldn't you hate to be a spin doctor at iStock.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=279912&page=1#post5318352 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=279912&page=1#post5318352)
Basically, iStock is offering a sale of Vetta files until the end of December, but 'sweetening the blow' by doubling RCs on Vetta sales during the Sale.
So I guess that's Good News for the Buyers, and for those Exclusives who are near to their next RC target and who have a lot of good-selling Vettas.
No news for non-exclusives and exclusives with no Vettas, or none which sell within that time.
Bad news for exclusives who sell Vettas during the Sale, but aren't near their next target, as they're getting less $$$ and the extra RCs won't make a scrap of difference.
As I'm nowhere near the Gold Target (but over 9,500 dls), I'm definitely a Boo-hoo not a woo-way on this one.
Added: they can work out the code for this, but not to pay us our missing 10%, for several weeks. Ha!
-
Nice for a few I guess. But let me understand this correctly - they are doubling RC credits, but not commissions? So the contributors that sell during this period are getting reduced royalties, on top of the recent cuts in Vetta commissions? And this is being spun as a good thing?
Gotta hand it to Istock, they have now figured out a way to "compensate" their contributors without giving them money. First paid in cash, now in RCs. Maybe next, instead of RCs, we can expect to be paid in lollipops? :P
-
Um, Woo------- yay? ::)
-
If you see the replies in the IS thread, there's a lot of very negative reaction to this nonsense.
My guess is there are many in the "in crowd" who aren't making their targets and this is a way to smooth the way for them.
The sale prices are silly - 6% off on a small size? Who will be motivated by that who wouldn't otherwise have purchased the Vetta image? There's a 20% discount on XXXL sizes, but again, if you wouldn't spend 150 credits I doubt you'd spend 120.
Nothing for illustrators, audio or video artists in terms of an RC bonus. Reminds me of some of those EU rules that member countries have to meet with their economies - when the big economies break the rules they're given a waiver, but nothing like that for the little guys.
This is a total crock (and I've nothing personal in it as I've no Vetta images any more and met my 40K redeemed credit target already).
-
My guess is there are many in the "in crowd" who aren't making their targets and this is a way to smooth the way for them.
I think so too. It irritates me that I'm being asked to believe it's just marketing.
-
It's *marketing* people!!
Ahahahaha
Ahahahaha
Ahahahaha
Lame. Lame. Lame. Burn baby burn.
I love it that that the woo-yays have now become woo-nays. They suck more than I ever possibly could have anticipated.
-
My guess is there are many in the "in crowd" who aren't making their targets and this is a way to smooth the way for them.
I think so too. It irritates me that I'm being asked to believe it's just marketing.
That seem reasonable until you add in the vector "in crowd". I guess they are on the outside looking in too. C'mon iStock, tell us how you really feel!
-
Gotta love the explanation...same ol same ol
"This is not about muted cheers.
This is marketing, people... and we believe it will benefit everyone, contributors included."
I think it should have said "top 1% of exclusive contributors that don't even need it included"
-
It's just incredible how stupid they think contributors are.
-
I don't think even those it helps to get to targets should be wooyaying this one. it's a pay cut - no matter what it's called. three weeks before Christmas. sigh. this is a crap play. go ahead and market, I'll buy marketing. but give me the same royalties, please.
Caspixel - just a question. if you hate iS so much, why is it you're one of the most active contributors to iStock threads? do you get paid to commiserate or something? anyways, whatever.
-
It's not like they are cutting the prices and lowering commission like they did last time. They are taking a hit because of it too. Plus it's just temporary.
Not anything to get all worked up over.
-
I am not worked up, just fed up. Below is what I just posted on that thread. I have never posted anything negative or snarky on an IS forum before, but I am over being polite. Over it.
"This so-called "marketing" benefits only those at the "cool kids table". Yeah, I am a small-time, non-exclusive vector artist. Exclusives should get some perks for putting all their eggs in the IS basket, but not all exclusives have vetta files. This pervasive clique mentality has always bugged the crap out of me. Geez give bonuses to your "special" people if you want to but do it quietly, don't make some half-baked announcement like your doing a great thing for all buyers and contributors when it will only benefit 1% of contributors, and even they don't seem too happy about it.
This is probably the snarkiest thing I have ever posted at IS, but really, I am fed up. I am taking my insignificant, part-time, low-earner opinions and checking out. I am sure I will be missed."
-
It's not like they are cutting the prices and lowering commission like they did last time. They are taking a hit because of it too. Plus it's just temporary.
Not anything to get all worked up over.
So how many Vettas do you have? I don't see how giving special benefits to one group of contributors and not others (be it this program, or the "relaxation" of rules for exclusivity that was given to Agency contributors, or differing targets for different media) can ever be something to not "get all worked up over."
-
It's not like they are cutting the prices and lowering commission like they did last time. They are taking a hit because of it too. Plus it's just temporary.
Not anything to get all worked up over.
It is a blatantly unfair thing to stack the dice (double the RC for Vetta sales until the end of the year) to benefit a small clique of favored admins get to their end of year targets. It's a banana republic mentality where those in power make all the rules to favor themselves and their cronies. There's a public "system" and then there's the private reality.
It's nauseating hypocrisy to present this steaming pile as marketing. Add that to the Getty folks who get to be "exclusives" at iStock while selling the same agency files with RF licenses from their own web sites - something that would get us kicked out - and the many other lies and cash grabs and I'm so worked up I can't get over it.
-
Right-on. You tell em!!!!
-
It is a blatantly unfair thing to stack the dice (double the RC for Vetta sales until the end of the year) to benefit a small clique of favored admins get to their end of year targets.
You're arguing that the admins only select vetta files from their friends and coworkers? How . did any of mine get accepted then? The only time I ever post on their forums is to rant about all their idiotic changes. Exclusive illustrators have a right to be upset because they can't get into Vetta but that isn't a new issue. Nothing about this holiday deal is any less fair than whats been going on for months.
I've been very disappointed with IS lately but compared to their usual shenanigans this is nothing.
-
It is a blatantly unfair thing to stack the dice (double the RC for Vetta sales until the end of the year) to benefit a small clique of favored admins get to their end of year targets.
You're arguing that the admins only select vetta files from their friends and coworkers?
I didn't say that and that's not what I mean. You getting extra RCs for your Vetta files is collateral damage - that's not why they're doing it, but you get the benefit of extra RCs anyway. The problem is that Vetta isn't selling the way it did before the prices went up. Next year's royalties for diamonds will be cut if they don't make 150K RCs before year end. This move (doubling the RCs) is trying to help them make it, IMO.
-
Way to go IStockphoto, I'm sure your Content Administrator with all the face shot Vetta files will be very happy.
What a joke.
-
I am not worked up, just fed up. Below is what I just posted on that thread. I have never posted anything negative or snarky on an IS forum before, but I am over being polite. Over it.
"This so-called "marketing" benefits only those at the "cool kids table". Yeah, I am a small-time, non-exclusive vector artist. Exclusives should get some perks for putting all their eggs in the IS basket, but not all exclusives have vetta files. This pervasive clique mentality has always bugged the crap out of me. Geez give bonuses to your "special" people if you want to but do it quietly, don't make some half-baked announcement like your doing a great thing for all buyers and contributors when it will only benefit 1% of contributors, and even they don't seem too happy about it.
This is probably the snarkiest thing I have ever posted at IS, but really, I am fed up. I am taking my insignificant, part-time, low-earner opinions and checking out. I am sure I will be missed."
Excellent post, exactly the way I feel.
None of this whole announcement affects me in any way, as I am not exclusive or have Vetta files and never will be or will have. It affects my bottom line in no way, unless all of the millions of buyers that come in to IS to buy because of this huge "marketing effort" actually stop and buy some of my images in addition to the tons of discounted Vetta images they are going to buy. (read sarcasm). What did affect my bottom line was the announcement in September, and I haven't forgotten. For me, that was the last straw. This just piles on to the stinkin heap.
It is so perfectly clear what is going on over at Getty/IS, and I am happy to see that the numbers of people who have actually woken up is increasing. As the cliché goes and has been said many times since September, the only way to hit Getty/IS where it hurts is with your feet. Both buyers and contributors. Did I wish that things were going to go this way? NO! I wish I would have gotten a commission increase in Sept., however small, and that a real marketing effort was put forth to bring in more buyers so that we all could have made money. And that the site was improved for the better!
This is ALL, 100%, totally Getty/IS's doing. I love how it keeps getting deflected back to us "negative" contributors, as though WE are the ones making the bad decisions. As though OUR negativeness (?) was what started this whole cascade to the bottom.
I particularly love how those sitting at the TOP of the crap pile are constantly scolding the rest of us "regular" contributors about how we are acting like schoolchildren and this isn't a schoolyard, this is a business. As if the reason they are at the top of the heap just happened by accident and none of the other tens or hundreds of thousands of smaller contributors had anything to do with the success of Getty/IS. Of course they got there because they are good. Partially. Let's not forget the partially part.
-
You're arguing that the admins only select vetta files from their friends and coworkers?
Not 'only'. But they are pretty shameless, given that you can zoom in on shots at istock.
I've been very disappointed with IS lately but compared to their usual shenanigans this is nothing.
Oh, great attitude. They started pimping kids at projects years ago, so when they got your daughter, it's not worth a mention, really. Congratulations. : )
-
Caspixel - just a question. if you hate iS so much, why is it you're one of the most active contributors to iStock threads? do you get paid to commiserate or something? anyways, whatever.
Most active? Really? You're delusional (but we already knew that). I've been a member here for 2 years and I have a little over 200 posts. Anyway, I don't owe you any kind of explanation for why I do or don't post.
-
Gotta hand it to Istock, they have now figured out a way to "compensate" their contributors without giving them money. First paid in cash, now in RCs. Maybe next, instead of RCs, we can expect to be paid in lollipops? :P
That's not gonna happen, Lisa: lollipops cost money and don't vanish magically at midnight on December 31st.
I find it hard to believe that Vetta sales are so common that the "beneficiaries" of this scheme are going to get hundreds of Vetta sales between now and the year end to propel them over the barrier. I think it was Sean Locke who said that maybe half-a-dozen people would go up a level as a result of this, for the rest the credits are worthless.
In any case, they have already announced that some people who get near the target but are a bit short will be grandfathered into the next level and your payment percentage will be secret henceforth unless you (or Wikileaks) release it, so if the company is willing to let them favour their friends they can grandfather them all into any level they like.
So the targets aren't targets at all and being tipped into the next level with a few hundred extra credits will simply do what grandfathering might have done anyway.
Perhaps the Vetta price is being cut because they have pushed it too high and they are trying to find a level which customers will accept. There is plenty of proof that the expected sales boom at the year end has failed to materialise which must mean that sales have fallen way below the projected level on their charts - unless they were just lying to us about how many of the sales they expected to get in the last quarter.
-
okay. so let me see if I understand this... can someone help me out here?
1) have they fixed the 10% thing and made back payments yet? (I am not affected by this, but just wondering)
2) This "sale" results in small savings for buyers which means reduced commission to the contributors. But hopefully offset by more sales.
3) double RC is only on the Vetta images, yes? and, they don't show up right away, they'll add them later.
"I'll gladly you pay you tomorrow for a cheeseburger today (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Wellington_Wimpy)"
-
okay. so let me see if I understand this... can someone help me out here?
1) have they fixed the 10% thing and made back payments yet? (I am not affected by this, but just wondering)
2) This "sale" results in small savings for buyers which means reduced commission to the contributors. But hopefully offset by more sales.
3) double RC is only on the Vetta images, yes? and, they don't show up right away, they'll add them later.
"I'll gladly you pay you tomorrow for a cheeseburger today ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Wellington_Wimpy[/url])"
1. No; 2 Yes and in theory, yes; 3. Yes and yes.
-
Well, it's ridiculous but thankfully doesn't affect me personally in a negative way. More like "business as usual" and hopefully brings in more buyers who spend their credits on something other than vetta when they see what else is on available on the site.
The whole fact that it only benefits a select group of contributors - only exclusive photographers with vetta images (no illustrators, video or audio, as far as I can tell) - is ridiculous. just sort of continues to rub salt in the wound.
-
Istock hates you! (c)
I mean this really is just hatred, even being a 'business machine' doesn't require any of this derogatory stuff.
-
Gotta hand it to Istock, they have now figured out a way to "compensate" their contributors without giving them money. First paid in cash, now in RCs. Maybe next, instead of RCs, we can expect to be paid in lollipops? :P
Perhaps the Vetta price is being cut because they have pushed it too high and they are trying to find a level which customers will accept. There is plenty of proof that the expected sales boom at the year end has failed to materialise which must mean that sales have fallen way below the projected level on their charts - unless they were just lying to us about how many of the sales they expected to get in the last quarter.
I think this is the most plausible explanation so far. otherwise it doesn't make sense from any perspective. they upset Vetta file performance with the price hike and now they're testing the waters about lowering them. that makes a ton of sense.
-
^ "Testing the waters about lowering them".
What is there to test? We know they sold well at a lower price point & we know they are not moving nearly as well at the higher price. IS should just admit the error and return them to the previous
price and while they are at it, put back the original commission %....
Oh that's right I forgot, TPTB (Getty) don't want us have fair cut on the sale of our own work.
-
@ Stacey:
on the iStock forum, on which I can't reply, you posted:
"does this pave the way that all sales will result in lowered royalties garnered by contributors? I hate to use the publishing industry as a positive example, because for the most part it isn't a fun industry, but at least when an author gets royalties....their royalties aren't reduced if a book is sold at a discount."
We have always had lowered royalties from all iStock sales and discounts. At least, always since I've been a member there (four years).
-
.. they upset Vetta file performance with the price hike and now they're testing the waters about lowering them. that makes a ton of sense.
It's possible that they are trying the new prices to see if it makes a difference, but the drop is so small, I just don't see how it can. Small used to be 20, then it went to 30 and now it drops to 28? You can see the old-new comparison on Sean's blog (http://seanlockedigitalimagery.wordpress.com/2010/09/16/new-vetta-and-agency-collection-pricing/). For an XL image, it went from 50 to 100 - double - and now it drops to 80. That's still over 60% higher than the price at which things were selling well.
We used to be paid a percentage of a nominal $1 per credit price, but I can't seem to find the date when that changed to us being paid a percentage of what the buyer actually paid per credit. Sales in the past have typically been discounts on credits. We take a pay cut on those, but if you're targeting existing buyers with credits to spend, that sale won't appeal.
If there are to be sales where the credits for a given size are reduced, I don't think anyone would have objected to the RC figures being the original 30 to 150 rather than the 28 to 120. It's the doubling that is so unjustified and unjustifiable.
-
Um, Woo------- yay? ::)
:D
"The Woo-Yays have turned into Noo-Ways" LOL
Other than that I have no opinion. I have not enough confidence yet to even nominate one of my files for Vetta. If you take one of your bestsellers and put it into Vetta, is that not a way of telling your customers, "Thanks for your support in buying my image. The price is now going up 10 times." (or whatever the price is)
This is perhaps why there are images in Vetta which have non-Vetta lookalikes - the contributors are hedging their bets by allowing customers to still find (more or less) the same content, if sufficiently diligent, in the sale bin at the back of the store. Such as that example posted last week, of "anonymous businessmen's legs under a table" available in both sepia and blue-light versions.
-
@ Stacey:
on the iStock forum, on which I can't reply, you posted:
"does this pave the way that all sales will result in lowered royalties garnered by contributors? I hate to use the publishing industry as a positive example, because for the most part it isn't a fun industry, but at least when an author gets royalties....their royalties aren't reduced if a book is sold at a discount."
We have always had lowered royalties from all iStock sales and discounts. At least, always since I've been a member there (four years).
yes, I know that's true and of course I see it in my daily stats when someone purchases a file with older credits. I take the hit as does iStock. but somehow, maybe just semantically, it seems different to expect us to be happy about it by dangling an RC carrot that doesn't benefit most of us. anyways. I said over there and I'll say here that it truly doesn't affect me one way or the other except by maybe a few dollars. so I feel a bit bad kicking up any sort of major fuss. it just feels wrong with the pay cuts we're already headed for in a few weeks on Vettas and ELs. but c'est la vie in microstock. I don't want my income whittled away at any more than it has been. each little chip, no matter how small, makes the hole bigger and bigger.
-
In any case, they have already announced that some people who get near the target but are a bit short will be grandfathered into the next level and your payment percentage will be secret henceforth unless you (or Wikileaks) release it, so if the company is willing to let them favour their friends they can grandfather them all into any level they like.
So the targets aren't targets at all and being tipped into the next level with a few hundred extra credits will simply do what grandfathering might have done anyway.
With all due respect Mr. Trousers, where/when was this announcement made? I know you to pull only sound, reliable info from your trousers, so I give you the benefit of the doubt. Though I do hope you're mistaken about this tidbit.
-
In any case, they have already announced that some people who get near the target but are a bit short will be grandfathered into the next level and your payment percentage will be secret henceforth unless you (or Wikileaks) release it, so if the company is willing to let them favour their friends they can grandfather them all into any level they like.
So the targets aren't targets at all and being tipped into the next level with a few hundred extra credits will simply do what grandfathering might have done anyway.
I hadn't heard this either, but then I hardly spend any time on the IS forums anymore. I am willing to take Mr. Trousers' word though. He is very reliable.
Not to mention that the above theory seems quite plausible. If we can't tell what pay level individual contributors are on, anything could be happening behind the scenes.
It's quite a sad state of affairs that Istock has sunk so low in most contributors' estimation that theories like this are now considered likely.
-
I see that RM has posted, "If more people than we anticipate are going to miss the targets... then we'll adjust the targets. These bonus RCs aren't connected to that."
So ~ What on Earth is the point of the bonus RCs, then?
-
From rogermexico "What we said was that we would re-examine the targets and soften them if it looks like more people than we anticipated are going to miss them, and this is still the case."
The other statement is just sillyness from Mr. BaldricksTrousers
-
From rogermexico "What we said was that we would re-examine the targets and soften them if it looks like more people than we anticipated are going to miss them, and this is still the case."
The other statement is just sillyness from Mr. BaldricksTrousers
Have you found the exact quote from way back when? Because if not, I am not willing to believe what rogermexico says over what baldricks trousers says. When somebody can come up with the exact words that were said way back when and we can all see them in print, then we all can decide who is being silly and who isn't.
Right now, I would lean way more towards baldricks statement being somewhere near the truth as opposed to the company line of rogermexico. However nice a person he is in real life, Andrew still is a company spokesperson and will say what they want him to say...or not say.
-
From rogermexico "What we said was that we would re-examine the targets and soften them if it looks like more people than we anticipated are going to miss them, and this is still the case."
More evidence that this new scheme is a classic zero sum game. It's all based on quotas: this percentage gets the best royalty percentage, this next percentage gets less, the next group gets even less and so on. If too many people do too well, we'll adjust the quotas up to bring it back in line. And if they do too badly, we may have to adjust them down. It's pure combat: for every person who does well, someone else must do badly.
To quote War Games, "The only way to win is not to play."
-
It seems to me that the doubling of RC vetta credits is just another way of boosting the RC total for people with vetta images - or conversely hurting everyone else. That way more people who have vetta images will hit the target so that they won't have to adjust them.... or something. While they are at it maybe they could multiply vector RC by .75 to screw them even more.
Who knows, they could just change it all again next week.
-
From rogermexico "What we said was that we would re-examine the targets and soften them if it looks like more people than we anticipated are going to miss them, and this is still the case."
The other statement is just sillyness from Mr. BaldricksTrousers
Have you found the exact quote from way back when? Because if not, I am not willing to believe what rogermexico says over what baldricks trousers says. When somebody can come up with the exact words that were said way back when and we can all see them in print, then we all can decide who is being silly and who isn't.
Right now, I would lean way more towards baldricks statement being somewhere near the truth as opposed to the company line of rogermexico. However nice a person he is in real life, Andrew still is a company spokesperson and will say what they want him to say...or not say.
wait.. you first say you believe rogermexico over baldricks then you reverse it. am I reading you wrongly?
fwiw.. Sean Locke posted in the iS thread that he recalled this statement as well. that adds a little more credibility to baldricks' statement/quote, in my opinion.
-
From rogermexico "What we said was that we would re-examine the targets and soften them if it looks like more people than we anticipated are going to miss them, and this is still the case."
The other statement is just sillyness from Mr. BaldricksTrousers
Have you found the exact quote from way back when? Because if not, I am not willing to believe what rogermexico says over what baldricks trousers says. When somebody can come up with the exact words that were said way back when and we can all see them in print, then we all can decide who is being silly and who isn't.
Right now, I would lean way more towards baldricks statement being somewhere near the truth as opposed to the company line of rogermexico. However nice a person he is in real life, Andrew still is a company spokesperson and will say what they want him to say...or not say.
Okay I'll play, can you find the exact quote showing that Mr BaldricksTrousers statement is true?
-
Okay I'll play, can you find the exact quote showing that Mr BaldricksTrousers statement is true?
Sorry, Thomas, if you are going to imply someone is lying, I believe the obligation is on YOU to disprove what he said.
Isn't that how it works?
-
Okay I'll play, can you find the exact quote showing that Mr BaldricksTrousers statement is true?
Sorry, Thomas, if you are going to imply someone is lying, I believe the obligation is on YOU to disprove what he said.
Isn't that how it works?
From rogermexico "What we said was that we would re-examine the targets and soften them if it looks like more people than we anticipated are going to miss them, and this is still the case."
nothing other then the above statement was said/written
-
Even if someone were to go looking for it, it's probably loooong gone now. ;)
-
From rogermexico "What we said was that we would re-examine the targets and soften them if it looks like more people than we anticipated are going to miss them, and this is still the case."
The other statement is just sillyness from Mr. BaldricksTrousers
Have you found the exact quote from way back when? Because if not, I am not willing to believe what rogermexico says over what baldricks trousers says. When somebody can come up with the exact words that were said way back when and we can all see them in print, then we all can decide who is being silly and who isn't.
Right now, I would lean way more towards baldricks statement being somewhere near the truth as opposed to the company line of rogermexico. However nice a person he is in real life, Andrew still is a company spokesperson and will say what they want him to say...or not say.
wait.. you first say you believe rogermexico over baldricks then you reverse it. am I reading you wrongly?
I don't have to believe anything I just need to read the statement.
fwiw.. Sean Locke posted in the iS thread that he recalled this statement as well. that adds a little more credibility to baldricks' statement/quote, in my opinion.
Sean right only about 98 percent of the time. Anything more than that and he would be God!
-
I remember that quote as well. Something about advancing a few RCs from the following years goal for people who are just shy. It was in the IS forum, I believe in the original thread posted over there. Maybe in the Q&A...
-
I'm slogging my way through the Istock thread on this subject, and one post caught my eye because I hadn't thought of this before:
this fake boost of RC in the last month of this year will tweak RC totals for the year and, if a revision of RC targets was going to be made for 2011 based on 2010 sales, it will set the bar higher than before this change.
I certainly hope that RC targets for next year do not include these "bonus" (bone us?) credits. That would harm the community as a whole if RC targets are artificially raised in 2011 for 2012. :o
-
I would guess that the post/quote in question was in the Exclusive forum somewhere, not the public one as it would seem more of a statement that would be made to exclusive contributors and not everyone.
-
I see that RM has posted, "If more people than we anticipate are going to miss the targets... then we'll adjust the targets. These bonus RCs aren't connected to that."
So ~ What on Earth is the point of the bonus RCs, then?
Making the select little favourite pet club happy of course!
You know, the ones that always dominate the best match, the istock lightboxes and *OTW's.
;)
-
Double post.
-
Again, nothing for Illustrators. Just some obscure "benefits" because possible extra traffic of buyers.
ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzZZzzZZZz......
-
wait.. you first say you believe rogermexico over baldricks then you reverse it. am I reading you wrongly?
I think you read it incorrectly. ??
Here is what I said:
Have you found the exact quote from way back when? Because if not, I am not willing to believe what rogermexico says over what baldricks trousers says. When somebody can come up with the exact words that were said way back when and we can all see them in print, then we all can decide who is being silly and who isn't.
Right now, I would lean way more towards baldricks statement being somewhere near the truth as opposed to the company line of rogermexico. However nice a person he is in real life, Andrew still is a company spokesperson and will say what they want him to say...or not say.
-
Okay I'll play, can you find the exact quote showing that Mr BaldricksTrousers statement is true?
Sorry, Thomas, if you are going to imply someone is lying, I believe the obligation is on YOU to disprove what he said.
Isn't that how it works?
Guess I should've tried that on my university professors for essay assignments. "Sorry, the obligation is on you to find sources disproving what I said!" :)
-
wait.. you first say you believe rogermexico over baldricks then you reverse it. am I reading you wrongly?
I think you read it incorrectly. ??
Here is what I said:
Have you found the exact quote from way back when? Because if not, I am not willing to believe what rogermexico says over what baldricks trousers says. When somebody can come up with the exact words that were said way back when and we can all see them in print, then we all can decide who is being silly and who isn't.
Right now, I would lean way more towards baldricks statement being somewhere near the truth as opposed to the company line of rogermexico. However nice a person he is in real life, Andrew still is a company spokesperson and will say what they want him to say...or not say.
okay.. I reread it again.. for like the 18th time.. and I apparently missed the "NOT" in the first part where you said "I am NOT willing to believe what rogermexico says...." duh. makes sense now. I thought that was your position but my misreading had me all confused. I guess my ADD was hampering my reading ability. :)
-
Okay I'll play, can you find the exact quote showing that Mr BaldricksTrousers statement is true?
Sorry, Thomas, if you are going to imply someone is lying, I believe the obligation is on YOU to disprove what he said.
Isn't that how it works?
Guess I should've tried that on my university professors for essay assignments. "Sorry, the obligation is on you to find sources disproving what I said!" :)
Mr BaldricksTrousers put out mis-information and has no obigation to link to it. I quote RM statement and you're still asking me for a source?
-
okay.. I reread it again.. for like the 18th time.. and I apparently missed the "NOT" in the first part where you said "I am NOT willing to believe what rogermexico says...." duh. makes sense now. I thought that was your position but my misreading had me all confused. I guess my ADD was hampering my reading ability. :)
No problem, I thought that's what might have happened. Or that you thought the other quote and my quote were all one big quote. No, I'm pretty sure you and I are on the same wavelength on all of this!
-
Okay I'll play, can you find the exact quote showing that Mr BaldricksTrousers statement is true?
Sorry, Thomas, if you are going to imply someone is lying, I believe the obligation is on YOU to disprove what he said.
Isn't that how it works?
Guess I should've tried that on my university professors for essay assignments. "Sorry, the obligation is on you to find sources disproving what I said!" :)
Mr BaldricksTrousers put out mis-information and has no obigation to link to it. I quote RM statement and you're still asking me for a source?
So far, it hasn't been determined that Mr. Baldricks Trousers DID put out misinformation, hence people asking ANYONE to find a link to the original source, so we ALL can reread and understand what exactly was said.
-
Okay I'll play, can you find the exact quote showing that Mr BaldricksTrousers statement is true?
Sorry, Thomas, if you are going to imply someone is lying, I believe the obligation is on YOU to disprove what he said.
Isn't that how it works?
Guess I should've tried that on my university professors for essay assignments. "Sorry, the obligation is on you to find sources disproving what I said!" :)
Mr BaldricksTrousers put out mis-information and has no obigation to link to it. I quote RM statement and you're still asking me for a source?
So far, it hasn't been determined that Mr. Baldricks Trousers DID put out misinformation, hence people asking ANYONE to find a link to the original source, so we ALL can reread and understand what exactly was said.
Here you go it took all of about 2 mins to find it http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522)
Kelly's statement from Fri Sep 10
"As I've said, we will re-examine targets once the year-end numbers are in, especially if our projections prove wrong. In the meantime, we are going to have to wait and see, and we ask you to do the same, if not with understanding, then at least with patience."
Now can someone link to an announcement stating "some people who get near the target but are a bit short will be grandfathered into the next level and your payment" The talk about grandfathering was the plan before the Sep announcement. It has nothing to do with what we'll be dealing with come Jan 2011.
-
Thanks for the additional clarification Thomas.
You know what, this could just be a few people mis-remembering, or even some wild conspiracy theory. But with all the screw-ups, screw-overs, flagrant inconsistencies, and poor communication at Istock the past several months, it's no wonder that people are so willing to believe conspiracy theories about them.
-
^^^ the comment has been explained, adequately. let it go.
@ Will.....+1 on all your posts
-
In any case, they have already announced that some people who get near the target but are a bit short will be grandfathered into the next level and your payment percentage will be secret henceforth unless you (or Wikileaks) release it, so if the company is willing to let them favour their friends they can grandfather them all into any level they like.
Actually, this is different from Kelly's statement about moving the levels. As I remember, there was a post about considering people who were close, separate from "we don't have enough people in X category".
-
^^^ the comment has been explained, adequately. let it go.
Sorry, but HUH? Was that directed at me? Let what go?
Snarky comment edited out with apologies :-[
-
I remember that quote as well. Something about advancing a few RCs from the following years goal for people who are just shy. It was in the IS forum, I believe in the original thread posted over there. Maybe in the Q&A...
I remember that as well. I think Lobo said that they wouldn't screw contributors who were very very close to the next level or something like that.
-
There is no way these extra RC's for the final 3 weeks of the year, will compensate for the losses of many Vetta contributors since the September price increase. Vetta sales have been way, way down. Quite a few people will miss their target, I'm sure, due to that price increase. The extra RC's will not make up the difference.
-
Reading the thread in the IS forum, it appears that the posted targets for our 2011 royalty levels are not firm? They can still be adjusted up or down if too few or too many people hit the required RCs?
This was news to me. Am I the only one who didn't understand this?
This information makes it even more insidious to give credit bonuses to those with Vettas, if it means knocking less favored contributors off a level they have earned.
Surely I am misunderstanding this? Forgive my naivety but would they really knock us off posted targets we had already achieved in 2010?
-
If you're not within 2000-4000 RC of making the zone I'd bet you won't make it. And the number of Vetta anyone will sell within the 11-14 days won't be making up the those types of numbers.
-
^^^ the comment has been explained, adequately. let it go.
Sorry, but HUH? Was that directed at me? Let what go?
Have you been elected forum moderator and I missed the announcement? ::)
No, you didn't miss any new forum moderator announcement, Lisa. As far as I know, Leaf is the man...
As far as I'm concerned, NO, it hasn't been explained. So far, we have various people, that are well-known and respected people, remembering something that backs up somewhat about what BTrousers said. Until and when someone can find where that was quoted, I don't really need anyone to tell me what has been adequately explained.
-
^^^ the comment has been explained, adequately. let it go.
Sorry, but HUH? Was that directed at me? Let what go?
Have you been elected forum moderator and I missed the announcement? ::)
no, it wasn't posted at you. you happened to post while I was typing. that's why I edited it to include three ^^^
-
""As I've said, we will re-examine targets once the year-end numbers are in, especially if our projections prove wrong..."
they wil re-examine it to make sure they screw everyone : > so you can't say you'r not all treated equally. : >
-
Lisa - in reply to your other question...adjusting the RC targets downward is good...isn't it? Andrew's just said they won't be adjusted up. meaning, if anything, if people aren't reaching targets en masse, they'll adjust the targets to be more reasonable.
translation, they want to see contributors producing. that's my take anyways.
-
Okay, Andrew just came on and clarified. RC targets for 2010 will not be raised. If you got to a level, you get to keep it, regardless of how many others get the same level.
From Rogermexico:
Whatever target you make by the end of 2010, you will be guaranteed for the duration of 2011.
and
They won't be revised up but they may be revised down. We will be really conservative when we set them to make sure that this is the case.
So that's a big relief!
-
In any case, they have already announced that some people who get near the target but are a bit short will be grandfathered into the next level and your payment percentage will be secret henceforth unless you (or Wikileaks) release it, so if the company is willing to let them favour their friends they can grandfather them all into any level they like.
Actually, this is different from Kelly's statement about moving the levels. As I remember, there was a post about considering people who were close, separate from "we don't have enough people in X category".
I thought that had something to do with the canister level announcement not the redeemed credits. perhaps the two are being confused? Although I don't recall anything about "secret payment percentage levels."
-
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=268662&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=268662&page=1)
From Lobo:
I can assure you I will keep up the pressure on my end for the folks at HQ to provide some kind of wiggle room for the folks who are just coming up short.
-
no, it wasn't posted at you. you happened to post while I was typing. that's why I edited it to include three ^^^
Apologies. I misunderstood. Not the first thing I seem to have misunderstood today. Emotions running high over all this stuff. :-[
What I really could use is a stiff belt of (spiked) eggnog ;)
-
Lisa - in reply to your other question...adjusting the RC targets downward is good...isn't it? Andrew's just said they won't be adjusted up. meaning, if anything, if people aren't reaching targets en masse, they'll adjust the targets to be more reasonable.
translation, they want to see contributors producing. that's my take anyways.
Yeah, I had that backwards. I am relieved that we can count on keeping the levels we've reached. :)
-
Lisa - in reply to your other question...adjusting the RC targets downward is good...isn't it? Andrew's just said they won't be adjusted up. meaning, if anything, if people aren't reaching targets en masse, they'll adjust the targets to be more reasonable.
translation, they want to see contributors producing. that's my take anyways.
I don't think they will raise targets for this year, unless they're trying to get rid of loads of contributers; and if they wanted to do that, they'd just do it.
What they do in the future, who can tell.
As Susan says, we can't take their 'word' at face value. Even if they genuinely mean it at the time, tomorrow, next week, next month, who knows?
The RC targets are very demotivational. I've no chance of reaching the 35% target, and my uploads of the past 18 months aren't selling, so it doesn't seem worth the effort, so if they want to see the humble minions producing, they've gone a funny way about it.
-
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=268662&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=268662&page=1[/url])
From Lobo:
I can assure you I will keep up the pressure on my end for the folks at HQ to provide some kind of wiggle room for the folks who are just coming up short.
Ah. Perhaps that's it. Good find!
-
no, it wasn't posted at you. you happened to post while I was typing. that's why I edited it to include three ^^^
Apologies. I misunderstood. Not the first thing I seem to have misunderstood today. Emotions running high over all this stuff. :-[
What I really could use is a stiff belt of (spiked) eggnog ;)
ditto that!!!!
-
So here is ShadySue's original post:
Wouldn't you hate to be a spin doctor at iStock.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=279912&page=1#post5318352[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=279912&page=1#post5318352[/url])
Basically, iStock is offering a sale of Vetta files until the end of December, but 'sweetening the blow' by doubling RCs on Vetta sales during the Sale.
So I guess that's Good News for the Buyers, and for those Exclusives who are near to their next RC target and who have a lot of good-selling Vettas.
No news for non-exclusives and exclusives with no Vettas, or none which sell within that time.
Bad news for exclusives who sell Vettas during the Sale, but aren't near their next target, as they're getting less $$$ and the extra RCs won't make a scrap of difference.
As I'm nowhere near the Gold Target (but over 9,500 dls), I'm definitely a Boo-hoo not a woo-way on this one.
Added: they can work out the code for this, but not to pay us our missing 10%, for several weeks. Ha!
A whole day has gone by, the issue of moving goalposts has been clarified, but the Vetta sale is still only helping those exclusives who have Vetta images and are close to their target, which apparently is not many people.
Attention was successfully diverted from the main issue, wasn't it? Nothing has changed regarding the Vetta sale...still is favoring a small group of people, while leaving out illustrations and non-exclusives and those exclusives with no Vetta files. Exclusives with Vetta files but not near the goal anyway still get hosed on their commissions. Correct?
Too funny.
-
Okay, Andrew just came on and clarified. RC targets for 2010 will not be raised. If you got to a level, you get to keep it, regardless of how many others get the same level.
From Rogermexico:
Whatever target you make by the end of 2010, you will be guaranteed for the duration of 2011.
and
They won't be revised up but they may be revised down. We will be really conservative when we set them to make sure that this is the case.
So that's a big relief!
I'm sorry, but, you actually believe them?
-
Lisa - in reply to your other question...adjusting the RC targets downward is good...isn't it? Andrew's just said they won't be adjusted up. meaning, if anything, if people aren't reaching targets en masse, they'll adjust the targets to be more reasonable.
translation, they want to see contributors producing. that's my take anyways.
I don't think they will raise targets for this year, unless they're trying to get rid of loads of contributers; and if they wanted to do that, they'd just do it.
What they do in the future, who can tell.
As Susan says, we can't take their 'word' at face value. Even if they genuinely mean it at the time, tomorrow, next week, next month, who knows?
The RC targets are very demotivational. I've no chance of reaching the 35% target, and my uploads of the past 18 months aren't selling, so it doesn't seem worth the effort, so if they want to see the humble minions producing, they've gone a funny way about it.
I guess it depends on how you look at. I upload my butt off. I work at producing better content everyday. I'm serious about my business. I guess that comment will ruffle feathers, but it's not meant to. my point is that contributors who mean to produce and improve and supply will reach their targets. if contributors on the whole don't meet targets, or just miss them....it seems they'll revisit the targets to the benefit of contributors.
seems reasonable to me. I'm not happy about losing anything on Vetta sales, since I've only got <20 Vettas anyways.....but that's my only beef about this initiative. I don't think we should be hit with the cost of marketing in addition to what is already taken in their royalty chunk.
-
Okay, Andrew just came on and clarified. RC targets for 2010 will not be raised. If you got to a level, you get to keep it, regardless of how many others get the same level.
From Rogermexico:
Whatever target you make by the end of 2010, you will be guaranteed for the duration of 2011.
and
They won't be revised up but they may be revised down. We will be really conservative when we set them to make sure that this is the case.
So that's a big relief!
I'm sorry, but, you actually believe them?
As I implied in my post in the thread on istock, this guarantee isn't worth the paper it isn't written on, given recent performance. I suspect they will stick to it though - the fact they are desparate enough to cut Vetta prices indicates to me an overall sales slump, so there would be no need to raise targets for this year, and there's going to be enough fuss and bother come January 1st without trying to do that on top of the rest of the proverbial hitting the fan that will occur.
Come 1st January the Istock forums are going to get really interesting, given the delay in reporting and impenetrability of interpreting and lack of confidence in the RC numbers. I'd hate to be on the borderline of going up a level. The only benefit of being sure to go down in royalty rates is that I don't face any uncertainty!
-
should we start placing bets on what the target levels will be for next year. Presumably they will have to post them at the start of 2011 since they said that if you reach them during the year your % will be adjusted up accordingly. I bet it won't be lower than this year.
-
my point is that contributors who mean to produce and improve and supply will reach their targets.
There is no guarantee of that. By design. Which is part and parcel why so many are unhappy with the new system.
-
they are desparate enough to cut Vetta prices indicates to me an overall sales slump
Do you even consider that a cut? Two credits? A 2-5 credit savings at the most downloaded sizes seems almost insulting to buyers, IMO.
-
I guess it depends on how you look at. I upload my butt off. I work at producing better content everyday. I'm serious about my business. I guess that comment will ruffle feathers, but it's not meant to...
I don't have as large a portfolio as you do, but I work hard at producing high quality work. I became exclusive with a set of royalty schedules in place that made financial sense. Within weeks of making the 40% royalty rate I've been working towards I lose it because they've changed the rules.
I worked my effing butt off, made it, and had it taken away. I'm pi@#ed, demotivated and deeply, deeply distrustful of just about anything that HQ says.
It was last December I was overjoyed that they grandfathered the next cannister level only to have them play weasel word games with that promise. They did keep the canister level, but they uncoupled the royalty rate that had always been tied to it (and which they knew no one would ever think would be uncoupled when contributors parsed the sentence promising grandfathering). The joy then makes the anger now even more profound.
The fact that there's some utter hogwash about earning back our trust in the September announcements and then KT goes into hiding around IS just pours fuel on the fire. Yes, he'd get yelled at if he came to the forums, but he just chickened out and abandoned contributors to lick their wounds.
We have recent evidence that just because they say something doesn't mean it'll still be true a short time later. That's not being conspiratorial, it's just being sentient given all the data in front of us.
The whole situation is just so ugly and grasping and greedy. And to think that when they said they were given the target of growing the business by 50% this year, I naively thought they'd actually grow the business, vs. grow their profits by squeezing contributors.
So I really don't appreciate comments about how you work your butt off and it'll all be all right. I did, and it isn't.
-
I guess it depends on how you look at. I upload my butt off. I work at producing better content everyday. I'm serious about my business. I guess that comment will ruffle feathers, but it's not meant to...
I don't have as large a portfolio as you do, but I work hard at producing high quality work. I became exclusive with a set of royalty schedules in place that made financial sense. Within weeks of making the 40% royalty rate I've been working towards I lose it because they've changed the rules.
I worked my effing butt off, made it, and had it taken away. I'm pi@#ed, demotivated and deeply, deeply distrustful of just about anything that HQ says.
It was last December I was overjoyed that they grandfathered the next cannister level only to have them play weasel word games with that promise. They did keep the canister level, but they uncoupled the royalty rate that had always been tied to it (and which they knew no one would ever think would be uncoupled when contributors parsed the sentence promising grandfathering). The joy then makes the anger now even more profound.
The fact that there's some utter hogwash about earning back our trust in the September announcements and then KT goes into hiding around IS just pours fuel on the fire. Yes, he'd get yelled at if he came to the forums, but he just chickened out and abandoned contributors to lick their wounds.
We have recent evidence that just because they say something doesn't mean it'll still be true a short time later. That's not being conspiratorial, it's just being sentient given all the data in front of us.
The whole situation is just so ugly and grasping and greedy. And to think that when they said they were given the target of growing the business by 50% this year, I naively thought they'd actually grow the business, vs. grow their profits by squeezing contributors.
So I really don't appreciate comments about how you work your butt off and it'll all be all right. I did, and it isn't.
I couldn't have said that better myself. I agree with you 100%. No matter how hard I work, I cannot possibly reach the targets being that my port is split between photos and vectors. I got royally screwed in this deal. of course.. now that I'm independent I may find that it was a 'blessing in disguise' if/when sales at other agencies start taking off for me.
-
They don't need to make next year's targets higher than the current ones, because the continual dilution of sales will gradually reduce the number of people achieving these levels over time.
The promise to be "really conservative" in setting them so they "may be revised down" is pure poison. It means "we're going to shaft you harder than you ever imagined" and yet they are trying to sell that as being good for us because they may, very kindly, decide at the end that we don't need to be shafted that hard after all?
It's like the old "bad guy - good guy" interrogation technique, except that they are both the same person.
I don't really expect them to fiddle getting their chums to a higher level since the owners would be outraged (it would cost them money). They will have to stick to the time-honoured method of approving each other's photos when they deserve to be rejected or promoting each other's pictures into high-priced collections, both of which involve subjective judgements that are hard to question and only need collusion between a couple of old pals, rather than half the HQ staff.
-
I guess it depends on how you look at. I upload my butt off. I work at producing better content everyday. I'm serious about my business. I guess that comment will ruffle feathers, but it's not meant to...
I don't have as large a portfolio as you do, but I work hard at producing high quality work. I became exclusive with a set of royalty schedules in place that made financial sense. Within weeks of making the 40% royalty rate I've been working towards I lose it because they've changed the rules.
I worked my effing butt off, made it, and had it taken away. I'm pi@#ed, demotivated and deeply, deeply distrustful of just about anything that HQ says.
It was last December I was overjoyed that they grandfathered the next cannister level only to have them play weasel word games with that promise. They did keep the canister level, but they uncoupled the royalty rate that had always been tied to it (and which they knew no one would ever think would be uncoupled when contributors parsed the sentence promising grandfathering). The joy then makes the anger now even more profound.
The fact that there's some utter hogwash about earning back our trust in the September announcements and then KT goes into hiding around IS just pours fuel on the fire. Yes, he'd get yelled at if he came to the forums, but he just chickened out and abandoned contributors to lick their wounds.
We have recent evidence that just because they say something doesn't mean it'll still be true a short time later. That's not being conspiratorial, it's just being sentient given all the data in front of us.
The whole situation is just so ugly and grasping and greedy. And to think that when they said they were given the target of growing the business by 50% this year, I naively thought they'd actually grow the business, vs. grow their profits by squeezing contributors.
So I really don't appreciate comments about how you work your butt off and it'll all be all right. I did, and it isn't.
+1
These are my sentiments exactly.
-
I guess it depends on how you look at. I upload my butt off. I work at producing better content everyday. I'm serious about my business. I guess that comment will ruffle feathers, but it's not meant to...
I don't have as large a portfolio as you do, but I work hard at producing high quality work. I became exclusive with a set of royalty schedules in place that made financial sense. Within weeks of making the 40% royalty rate I've been working towards I lose it because they've changed the rules.
I worked my effing butt off, made it, and had it taken away. I'm pi@#ed, demotivated and deeply, deeply distrustful of just about anything that HQ says.
It was last December I was overjoyed that they grandfathered the next cannister level only to have them play weasel word games with that promise. They did keep the canister level, but they uncoupled the royalty rate that had always been tied to it (and which they knew no one would ever think would be uncoupled when contributors parsed the sentence promising grandfathering). The joy then makes the anger now even more profound.
The fact that there's some utter hogwash about earning back our trust in the September announcements and then KT goes into hiding around IS just pours fuel on the fire. Yes, he'd get yelled at if he came to the forums, but he just chickened out and abandoned contributors to lick their wounds.
We have recent evidence that just because they say something doesn't mean it'll still be true a short time later. That's not being conspiratorial, it's just being sentient given all the data in front of us.
The whole situation is just so ugly and grasping and greedy. And to think that when they said they were given the target of growing the business by 50% this year, I naively thought they'd actually grow the business, vs. grow their profits by squeezing contributors.
So I really don't appreciate comments about how you work your butt off and it'll all be all right. I did, and it isn't.
Bravo, Jo Ann. Well said.
-
They don't need to make next year's targets higher than the current ones, because the continual dilution of sales will gradually reduce the number of people achieving these levels over time.
True.
It's like the old "bad guy - good guy" interrogation technique, except that they are both the same person.
LOL. Also true!
I don't really expect them to fiddle getting their chums to a higher level since the owners would be outraged (it would cost them money). They will have to stick to the time-honoured method of approving each other's photos when they deserve to be rejected or promoting each other's pictures into high-priced collections, both of which involve subjective judgements that are hard to question and only need collusion between a couple of old pals, rather than half the HQ staff.
And again. Though I don't have hard evidence, I've seen many a club photo that should have been rejected or that has no place in one or the other high-priced collection, and yet ... there they are. So I suspect that this is only too true, too. And to that I say boo!
-
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.
-
Well, I got the email from iStock. Too bad my account is "inactive" and I'm banned from the forums and sitemail, because otherwise, I'd be rushing to buy some 2 credit discounted Vetta files.
(No, not really. :D)
-
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).
They wouldn't have the same income. If someone has a tiny number of super selling files (I've seen at least one diamond with fewer than 50 files) they're hardly 'working their butt off', but they are garnering loads of money for iStock.
If someone isn't producing the quality/quantity ratio, they're already getting less money because they have fewer sales. Someone with a higher quantity/quality ratio earns more because they have more sales.
This artificial 'bell curve' whereby only a certain number of people can reach each percentage point is totally demotivational. If it's 'motivating' it's only making people produce more and more, which benefits the site at a lower percentage, but only a set percentage of people can get the higher percentages. The bell curve is such an outdated model (we learned it in teacher training college in the 70s; I never heard about it since). Nowadays it's all about co-operation, at least within a business.
Bear in mind, that once a file has been inspected and is added to the collection, its overhead is tiny. This isn't like a traditional business. A few years ago (before they banned chocolate in schools) I ran a fair trade snack stall at interval in school. The profit was essentially a flat 10%. I mentioned that to a class, and one of the pupils came back a few days later and said her father wanted to know how on earth I could get as much profit as that, as he was running a (small, independent) shop on a lower profit margin. (my stall was raising money for school children in Malawi and had no overheads apart from buying the stock.) Watch my lips: lower than 10%. Of course, the family wasn't living in a luxury Manhattan apartment, but the three children were well dressed and well cared for. On less than 10%.
-
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.
Which can only be in terms of the 'bell curve' they have set for each cannister level.
I wish someone would explain in very simple terms, for one mathematically challenged, why 'profitablity' is better than 'profit'. I've seen it explained here, but I'm afraid it didn't make sense, probably because I worked all my life in the public sector.
Here's my problem, which shows how challenged I am.
If I were looking at two companies,
One has a profit margin of 20% and has a profit of £100,000 per annum
The other has a profit margin of 50% and has a profit of £80,000 per annum.
Why isn't the first company the better off?
-
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.
Sorry, but that is complete nonsense. Ten superb files a week are worth more than 1,000 average ones.
95% of the images that are produced are no better or worse than a dozen others of identical subjects that are already in the collection and all the frenzied image production activity is doing is allowing submitters to jostle with each other for search engine position.
Istock's business would probably be better and more sustainable with 10,000 absolutely superb files entering the collection each month and no dross than it is with the avalanche it has at the moment that sometimes buries the occasional gem so deep, so fast that it vanishes forever.
-
And it's also pretty demotivational when an image is at best match position 83 less than 24 hours after being accepted into the collection. Even though best match changes FTTT, that file is effectively DOA.
On the other scale, when Vetta was introduced, there was a rule that files had to have under 100 sales to qualify. I had one particular file which had gone to about 109 (can't remember exactly), so I didn't submit it for consideration. That file is now buried in best match below many other Vetta files uploaded since then, many of which I don't see as being 'better' than mine.
-
Bear in mind, that once a file has been inspected and is added to the collection, its overhead is tiny. This isn't like a traditional business. A few years ago (before they banned chocolate in schools) I ran a fair trade snack stall at interval in school. The profit was essentially a flat 10%. I mentioned that to a class, and one of the pupils came back a few days later and said her father wanted to know how on earth I could get as much profit as that, as he was running a (small, independent) shop on a lower profit margin. (my stall was raising money for school children in Malawi and had no overheads apart from buying the stock.) Watch my lips: lower than 10%. Of course, the family wasn't living in a luxury Manhattan apartment, but the three children were well dressed and well cared for. On less than 10%.
Bit OT but there was a programme on TV the other night about the food production industry, it mentioned that one of the biggest growth products within that industry reached a profit margin of 17% which apparently is astronomically high within the industry, on average food producers aim to reach a 15% profit.
-
Bit OT but there was a programme on TV the other night about the food production industry, it mentioned that one of the biggest growth products within that industry reached a profit margin of 17% which apparently is astronomically high within the industry, on average food producers aim to reach a 15% profit.
Yes, that series has been very interesting, and while I've been watching this, I've been thinking about the iStock shenanigans.
The bit I found most interesting is all the lies they told about 'scientifically proven benefits', and when that was investigated and found to be untrue, and they had to take it off their advertising, it didn't matter, as it had burned into the public subconscious anyway.
I'm glad I seldom see adverts!
-
I'm curious to know what programme this was? Sounds interesting... I may try to catch it online.
I record what few programmes I want to watch... so I always whizz through the ads. I only stop to watch one if there's something fleetingly interesting regarding an idea for an image...
-
I'm curious to know what programme this was? Sounds interesting... I may try to catch it online.
I record what few programmes I want to watch... so I always whizz through the ads. I only stop to watch one if there's something fleetingly interesting regarding an idea for an image...
The Food that made Billions, "Series which tells the story of how big business feeds us by transforming simple commodities into everyday necessities and highly profitable brands" http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00wdf5t (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00wdf5t).
Three programmes, bottled water, breakfast cereals and yogurt.
Ha! I still remember when our French teacher told us that French people bought water in bottles and we didn't believe her! And I remember years later going to France, finding it was true, and thinking it was insane!
It's easy to avoid ads if you always watch the Beeb!
-
Brilliant :) Thanks Sue, I'll have a look at those.
Bottled water - yes, I remember thinking the same thing!
Ads - agree there too - I mostly use the Beeb, but I can't stop myself from recording re-runs of Frasier on Channel 4. I've a soft spot for it ;)
-
Brilliant :) Thanks Sue, I'll have a look at those.
Bottled water - yes, I remember thinking the same thing!
Ads - agree there too - I mostly use the Beeb, but I can't stop myself from recording re-runs of Frasier on Channel 4. I've a soft spot for it ;)
Oh, I love Frasier - didn't know they were rerunning it.
-
Brilliant :) Thanks Sue, I'll have a look at those.
Bottled water - yes, I remember thinking the same thing!
Ads - agree there too - I mostly use the Beeb, but I can't stop myself from recording re-runs of Frasier on Channel 4. I've a soft spot for it ;)
Oh, I love Frasier - didn't know they were rerunning it.
Over here in the US, we're tired of Fraiser re-runs, but we watch Top Gear re-runs endlessly ;D
-
Brilliant :) Thanks Sue, I'll have a look at those.
Bottled water - yes, I remember thinking the same thing!
Ads - agree there too - I mostly use the Beeb, but I can't stop myself from recording re-runs of Frasier on Channel 4. I've a soft spot for it ;)
Oh, I love Frasier - didn't know they were rerunning it.
Over here in the US, we're tired of Fraiser re-runs, but we watch Top Gear re-runs endlessly ;D
Seinfeld here. :D
-
I guess it depends on how you look at. I upload my butt off. I work at producing better content everyday. I'm serious about my business. I guess that comment will ruffle feathers, but it's not meant to...
I don't have as large a portfolio as you do, but I work hard at producing high quality work. I became exclusive with a set of royalty schedules in place that made financial sense. Within weeks of making the 40% royalty rate I've been working towards I lose it because they've changed the rules.
I worked my effing butt off, made it, and had it taken away. I'm pi@#ed, demotivated and deeply, deeply distrustful of just about anything that HQ says.
It was last December I was overjoyed that they grandfathered the next cannister level only to have them play weasel word games with that promise. They did keep the canister level, but they uncoupled the royalty rate that had always been tied to it (and which they knew no one would ever think would be uncoupled when contributors parsed the sentence promising grandfathering). The joy then makes the anger now even more profound.
The fact that there's some utter hogwash about earning back our trust in the September announcements and then KT goes into hiding around IS just pours fuel on the fire. Yes, he'd get yelled at if he came to the forums, but he just chickened out and abandoned contributors to lick their wounds.
We have recent evidence that just because they say something doesn't mean it'll still be true a short time later. That's not being conspiratorial, it's just being sentient given all the data in front of us.
The whole situation is just so ugly and grasping and greedy. And to think that when they said they were given the target of growing the business by 50% this year, I naively thought they'd actually grow the business, vs. grow their profits by squeezing contributors.
So I really don't appreciate comments about how you work your butt off and it'll all be all right. I did, and it isn't.
As usual, +1 on jsnover's comments.
From SNP: I guess it depends on how you look at. I upload my butt off. I work at producing better content everyday. I'm serious about my business. I guess that comment will ruffle feathers, but it's not meant to. my point is that contributors who mean to produce and improve and supply will reach their targets. if contributors on the whole don't meet targets, or just miss them....it seems they'll revisit the targets to the benefit of contributors.
I don't appreciate the comment about "being serious about your business" either. Just because a person isn't an uploading factory doesn't mean they aren't serious about their business. The statement and the whole situation reminds me of that of a wife-abuser. He beats the crap out of her then tells her it's her fault because she shouldn't have said or done something. Getty/IS takes away our commissions, changes the goalposts, "borrows" EL money, breaks the search engine, breaks the reporting of sales, and then some people have the gall to say it's our fault because we didn't work hard enough or we're not good businesspeople.
-
Over here in the US, we're tired of Fraiser re-runs, but we watch Top Gear re-runs endlessly ;D
Seinfeld here. :D
[/quote]
Ooooh, I loved Seinfeld, but in the UK they changed its place in the scheduling constantly, and as I don't watch Channel 4 as a rule, I only saw a very few episodes.
-
I guess it depends on how you look at. I upload my butt off. I work at producing better content everyday. I'm serious about my business. I guess that comment will ruffle feathers, but it's not meant to...
I don't have as large a portfolio as you do, but I work hard at producing high quality work. I became exclusive with a set of royalty schedules in place that made financial sense. Within weeks of making the 40% royalty rate I've been working towards I lose it because they've changed the rules.
I worked my effing butt off, made it, and had it taken away. I'm pi@#ed, demotivated and deeply, deeply distrustful of just about anything that HQ says.
It was last December I was overjoyed that they grandfathered the next cannister level only to have them play weasel word games with that promise. They did keep the canister level, but they uncoupled the royalty rate that had always been tied to it (and which they knew no one would ever think would be uncoupled when contributors parsed the sentence promising grandfathering). The joy then makes the anger now even more profound.
The fact that there's some utter hogwash about earning back our trust in the September announcements and then KT goes into hiding around IS just pours fuel on the fire. Yes, he'd get yelled at if he came to the forums, but he just chickened out and abandoned contributors to lick their wounds.
We have recent evidence that just because they say something doesn't mean it'll still be true a short time later. That's not being conspiratorial, it's just being sentient given all the data in front of us.
The whole situation is just so ugly and grasping and greedy. And to think that when they said they were given the target of growing the business by 50% this year, I naively thought they'd actually grow the business, vs. grow their profits by squeezing contributors.
So I really don't appreciate comments about how you work your butt off and it'll all be all right. I did, and it isn't.
As usual, +1 on jsnover's comments.
I don't appreciate the comment about "being serious about your business" either. Just because a person isn't an uploading factory doesn't mean they aren't serious about their business. The statement and the whole situation reminds me of that of a wife-abuser. He beats the crap out of her then tells her it's her fault because she shouldn't have said or done something. Getty/IS takes away our commissions, changes the goalposts, "borrows" EL money, breaks the search engine, breaks the reporting of sales, and then some people have the gall to say it's our fault because we didn't work hard enough or we're not good businesspeople.
+1 on both JoAnn and Cathy
-
If someone has a tiny number of super selling files (I've seen at least one diamond with fewer than 50 files) they're hardly 'working their butt off', but they are garnering loads of money for iStock.
You'd almost think that would be preferable...less storage space than thousands of files and less bandwidth usage because such people are not uploading tons of new photos every week, also less time spent by inspectors. So basically, iStock has to do almost nothing for such people but are still reaping the greater portion of the rewards.
-
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.
You're forgetting that I was independent for nearly 4 years before becoming exclusive. Many of my best sellers elsewhere were composites and raster illustrations that iStock either refused or which I didn't upload there - after a while I just stopped. I also deactivated a bunch of so-so sellers during the horrors of disambiguation. It took a ton of time to disambiguate my files and for some of them it didn't seem worth it.
I started uploading at iStock in September 2004. How does that get to be "not quite at 7 years."?
At any rate, I acknowledge your opinion that I'm not a hard enough worker. I would point out that around 2 to 3 percent of iStock contributors are diamond and I'm one of them. Not quite sure if I'm such crap what that makes everyone else who isn't diamond. Lump of coal in our stockings for all of us who just aren't pulling our weight, eh?
-
first off, I think we both know that wasn't what I said. I clearly acknowledge your contribution to the community Jo Ann, and it's too bad generosity towards your peers doesn't garner royalties. I know you were independent and I used 2004 as your start year. we're heading into 2011 = almost 7 years. but I rounded down when calculating the number of files you have uploaded per month to be fair.
my only point is that the new system fits contributors according to their rate of production, rather than a blanket level that doesn't differentiate between a contributor that uploads 1200/yr & one who uploads just 100 files per year. the levels are what they are and hopefully they are adjusted to be fair.
-
...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).
gimme a break. this is your theory? that if I work my ass off and produce hundreds of files a month that I should be paid more than someone like myself who works their ass off for their photography business in every spare moment of their life yet doesn't produce hundreds of files per month because I still have to put food on the table and raise my children alone? This is the most ridiculous thing I've heard. Don't you think it should have something to do with the quality of images or the sale-ability of a file and not just who can work like photo-factory? That's like asking why should a guy who's been at his job for 25 years be at the top of the payscale when a guy that just got out of college starts at the bottom. Your theory is ridiculous. i don't think iStock really cares about the individual contributor's incomes. it's all about the bottom line for them - the total. They are looking at it in total and seeing where they can skim off the most money for themselves. If some of their contributors get screwed in the process, well, they don't really seem to care.
-
first off, I think we both know that wasn't what I said. I clearly acknowledge your contribution to the community Jo Ann, and it's too bad generosity towards your peers doesn't garner royalties. I know you were independent and I used 2004 as your start year. we're heading into 2011 = almost 7 years. but I rounded down when calculating the number of files you have uploaded per month to be fair.
my only point is that the new system fits contributors according to their rate of production, rather than a blanket level that doesn't differentiate between a contributor that uploads 1200/yr & one who uploads just 100 files per year. the levels are what they are and hopefully they are adjusted to be fair.
okay.. so when I was typing you replied to Jo Ann here. so you were just stating what you see is how the new system is designed, yes? that was not your philosophy or theory on how we should be compensated, right?
-
my only point is that the new system fits contributors according to their rate of production, rather than a blanket level that doesn't differentiate between a contributor that uploads 1200/yr & one who uploads just 100 files per year. the levels are what they are and hopefully they are adjusted to be fair.
Nope, it has nothing to do with contributer's rate of production, but their rate of sales, which isn't necessarilty the same thing.
The figures aren't going to be adjusted to be 'fair', they're going to be adjusted to fit a bell chart which meets their desired profitability rate.
If they can make us all work like drones while our profitability goes down, they're laughing all the way to the bank.
-
my only point is that the new system fits contributors according to their rate of production, rather than a blanket level that doesn't differentiate between a contributor that uploads 1200/yr & one who uploads just 100 files per year. the levels are what they are and hopefully they are adjusted to be fair.
Nope, it has nothing to do with contributer's rate of production, but their rate of sales, which isn't necessarilty the same thing.
The figures aren't going to be adjusted to be 'fair', they're going to be adjusted to fit a bell chart which meets their desired profitability rate.
bingo! (on the part I bolded) :)
-
Sick and tired, fed-up, bored-stiff and vomiting over Seinfeld!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! how can you yanks like that total moronic crettin???????????????????
-
Sick and tired, fed-up, bored-stiff and vomiting over Seinfeld!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! how can you yanks like that total moronic crettin???????????????????
I'm not a Yank.
But at least you didn't tag me as English! ;) :P
-
@jamirae and shadysue
I was just about to 'bingo' that myself. So... err... double-bingo!
-
it's not nonsense at all. and you'll notice in my post that I acknowledged that the quality obviously has to be there. chances are someone who isn't that *good* wouldn't be uploading 1,000 average images regularly anyways. I'm constantly surprised how often buyers choose *average* files. often designers want a foundation image without anything done to it so they can design its use themselves etc. you're effectively making my point even more clear. bad files move back. I'd agree that poor files are most of the time moved back as they go without being purchased (and sometimes good files get buried due to circumstance and eventually pop up in best match again and start to sell). so if someone with close to a decade of experience is continually improving and growing their portfolio, their files will not be amongst the files being pushed back because they'll be selling and they'll more easily reach their RC targets.
sorry, but serious contributors are uploading more than 10 files per week because we all know of each ten uploaded, MAYBE 1 will take off and that's being optimistic. usually not all 10. contributors who are looking to see growth upload. period. I'll use my own portfolio to be fair. I know someone with the same sized portfolio as me and he garners 10x the number of sales that I do. his performance is astronomical. but I've been on iStock for four years and my port is almost at 6K. I reached my RC target three months ago. I'm no sjlocke....but I upload a lot. I often fill my upload slots and I have a busy life too. I have to put food on my table too. I have a family, I have responsibilities and I also have writing obligations. I write three hours per day. so what? who you are as a person doesn't get factored into your RC.
and yes, OF COURSE your sales numbers have to move up with your portfolio growth. that's stating the obvious.
-
...my only point is that the new system fits contributors according to their rate of production, rather than a blanket level that doesn't differentiate between a contributor that uploads 1200/yr & one who uploads just 100 files per year. the levels are what they are and hopefully they are adjusted to be fair.
I don't think that's istock's intention, to encourage increased production. If anything they've made it pretty clear that these days they favor quality over quantity.
I think this system is designed simply to increase profitability. Whether or not istock actually needs to be more profitable is certainly a point of debate. But the system is nothing more than a means of cutting royalty rates while making contributors think that they still have a chance to maintain their current earnngs. And they'll use this RC boost for the top 1% to say, "Look, these people reached their goals. So can you!" Meanwhile, most of us will not reach those goals.
Just the fact that istock has to give this RC boost during the Vetta sale seems to suggest that even fewer people are on pace to reach their RC goals than they previously expected. They need to get a bunch more people over the hump and they're going to try and do it with the sale. So come January they have more people at goal levels and they can sell the rest of us on the new rates and RC targets as being "sustainable."
-
^ I somewhat agree. I'm simply using the example I used as where we're starting from with the new system and why some canisters aren't reaching their RC targets. however, I'd say iStock is looking for quality and quantity. in fact, wasn't there recently an article or thread where they asked us to upload more? I'll look for it.
-
Just the fact that istock has to give this RC boost during the Vetta sale seems to suggest that even fewer people are on pace to reach their RC goals than they previously expected. They need to get a bunch more people over the hump and they're going to try and do it with the sale. So come January they have more people at goal levels and they can sell the rest of us on the new rates and RC targets as being "sustainable."
They don't need to do that. All they need to do is look at their bell chart and revise the targets downwards if necessary.
Besides, RogerMexico said, "No, that isn't what the sale is about. If more people than we anticipate are going to miss the targets... then we'll adjust the targets. These bonus RCs aren't connected to that."
which must, obviously, be true.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=279912&page=9 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=279912&page=9) (very bottom of that page)
-
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.
Sorry, but that is complete nonsense. Ten superb files a week are worth more than 1,000 average ones.
95% of the images that are produced are no better or worse than a dozen others of identical subjects that are already in the collection and all the frenzied image production activity is doing is allowing submitters to jostle with each other for search engine position.
Istock's business would probably be better and more sustainable with 10,000 absolutely superb files entering the collection each month and no dross than it is with the avalanche it has at the moment that sometimes buries the occasional gem so deep, so fast that it vanishes forever.
Thank you for stating the obvious. Sad that it needs to be stated at all, but bravo for trying to help those who just don't seem to get it.
-
Seinfeld here. :D
Seinfeld here, too :D
-
From SNP: I guess it depends on how you look at. I upload my butt off. I work at producing better content everyday. I'm serious about my business. I guess that comment will ruffle feathers, but it's not meant to. my point is that contributors who mean to produce and improve and supply will reach their targets. if contributors on the whole don't meet targets, or just miss them....it seems they'll revisit the targets to the benefit of contributors.
I don't appreciate the comment about "being serious about your business" either. Just because a person isn't an uploading factory doesn't mean they aren't serious about their business. The statement and the whole situation reminds me of that of a wife-abuser. He beats the crap out of her then tells her it's her fault because she shouldn't have said or done something. Getty/IS takes away our commissions, changes the goalposts, "borrows" EL money, breaks the search engine, breaks the reporting of sales, and then some people have the gall to say it's our fault because we didn't work hard enough or we're not good businesspeople.
Yeah, I took offense to that haughty bit as well.
-
You know the way I look at it....If you spend 8 hours making sure that photo shoot is right on and only upload the best of the best...I don't think it matters if you have 1000 or 10000 pictures online. Those 1000 photos can net you the same revenues as someone who has 10000. It all boils down to quality and having some knowledge about what sells.
I'm not taking sides here, it's just the way I look at it.
-
@jamirae and shadysue
I was just about to 'bingo' that myself. So... err... double-bingo!
Make it a triple :)
-
Over here in the US, we're tired of Fraiser re-runs, but we watch Top Gear re-runs endlessly ;D
So true! And Dr. Who :D
-
If they can make us all work like drones while our profitability goes down, they're laughing all the way to the bank.
^^This really sums it up perfectly, IMO.
With such an inequitable royalty distribution, we are all just working our butts off to put money in Getty's coffers. The harder we work, the more money we make for them. Much less so for ourselves.
-
Thread is now locked.
-
95% of the images that are produced are no better or worse than a dozen others of identical subjects that are already in the collection and all the frenzied image production activity is doing is allowing submitters to jostle with each other for search engine position.
Istock's business would probably be better and more sustainable with 10,000 absolutely superb files entering the collection each month and no dross than it is with the avalanche it has at the moment that sometimes buries the occasional gem so deep, so fast that it vanishes forever.
But that's the nature of microstock, so what you gonna do? I hope for gods sake it doesn't need explanation why the micro model outlaws uniqeness and originality... you never know tho: I do see dumbos in site's forums going around giving advice to newcomers like "be original and unique" over and over again, while one thread away someone asking about 'how to get more sales' is told that pictures have to be as generic as possible to get a lot of dls. Are people really that stupid that they don't se the oximoron there?? Unbeleivable. : > It's not hard to see how that makes this unsustainable for contributors on a longer term. And for the 100th time: microstock's death is the inspection / acceptance system. There's nothing else they can do with clueless, art-uneducated 'inspectors' than set up a technical quality barrier and nothing else.
-
and yes, OF COURSE your sales numbers have to move up with your portfolio growth. that's stating the obvious.
I'm sorry, but this is just untrue. By any of the standards you have laid out I should be keeping my 20% royalty rate at Istock. I upload an average of 100 images per month, I have a portfolio over 6k high-production-value shots, I am one of only a handful of black diamonds (only a couple of us are non-exclusive), and yet in spite of growing my portfolio by over 1100 in 2010, my sales at Istockphoto have dropped 16% in the past year.
So no matter how hard you work, how much you grow your portfolio, how high quality your work is, how long you have been on the site, etc., Istock is still quite willing to screw you over. This new system is rigged. They control the best match, so they control how well you sell, and can turn sales off or on certain groups of contributors like a faucet. This is not a meritocracy anymore. It's not even a lottery. It's a rigged game of chance.
-
95% of the images that are produced are no better or worse than a dozen others of identical subjects that are already in the collection and all the frenzied image production activity is doing is allowing submitters to jostle with each other for search engine position.
Istock's business would probably be better and more sustainable with 10,000 absolutely superb files entering the collection each month and no dross than it is with the avalanche it has at the moment that sometimes buries the occasional gem so deep, so fast that it vanishes forever.
But that's the nature of microstock, so what you gonna do? I hope for gods sake it doesn't need explanation why the micro model outlaws uniqeness and originality... you never know tho: I do see dumbos in site's forums going around giving advice to newcomers like "be original and unique" over and over again, while one thread away someone asking about 'how to get more sales' is told that pictures have to be as generic as possible to get a lot of dls. Are people really that stupid that they don't se the oximoron there?? Unbeleivable. : > It's not hard to see how that makes this unsustainable for contributors on a longer term. And for the 100th time: microstock's death is the inspection / acceptance system. There's nothing else they can do with clueless, art-uneducated 'inspectors' than set up a technical quality barrier and nothing else.
You misquoted. That was BaldricksTrousers. Not me.
-
and yes, OF COURSE your sales numbers have to move up with your portfolio growth. that's stating the obvious.
I'm sorry, but this is just untrue. By any of the standards you have laid out I should be keeping my 20% royalty rate at Istock. I upload an average of 100 images per month, I have a portfolio over 6k high-production-value shots, I am one of only a handful of black diamonds (only a couple of us are non-exclusive), and yet in spite of growing my portfolio by over 1100 in 2010, my sales at Istockphoto have dropped 16% in the past year.
So no matter how hard you work, how much you grow your portfolio, how high quality your work is, how long you have been on the site, etc., Istock is still quite willing to screw you over. This new system is rigged. They control the best match, so they control how well you sell, and can turn sales off or on certain groups of contributors like a faucet. This is not a meritocracy anymore. It's not even a lottery. It's a rigged game of chance.
I'm mystified that despite these plain and unsavory facts, people still think otherwise.
-
...growing my portfolio by over 1100 in 2010...
" 71731 new stock photos added this week"
and it's almost all generic. Are the chinese getting in on buying stock? If not, It's juts thinner and thinner slices of the same pie for the crowd that's 'sourced'
-
95% of the images that are produced are no better or worse than a dozen others of identical subjects that are already in the collection and all the frenzied image production activity is doing is allowing submitters to jostle with each other for search engine position.
Istock's business would probably be better and more sustainable with 10,000 absolutely superb files entering the collection each month and no dross than it is with the avalanche it has at the moment that sometimes buries the occasional gem so deep, so fast that it vanishes forever.
But that's the nature of microstock, so what you gonna do? I hope for gods sake it doesn't need explanation why the micro model outlaws uniqeness and originality... you never know tho: I do see dumbos in site's forums going around giving advice to newcomers like "be original and unique" over and over again, while one thread away someone asking about 'how to get more sales' is told that pictures have to be as generic as possible to get a lot of dls. Are people really that stupid that they don't se the oximoron there?? Unbeleivable. : > It's not hard to see how that makes this unsustainable for contributors on a longer term. And for the 100th time: microstock's death is the inspection / acceptance system. There's nothing else they can do with clueless, art-uneducated 'inspectors' than set up a technical quality barrier and nothing else.
You misquoted. That was BaldricksTrousers. Not me.
sry, I corrected
-
...So no matter how hard you work, how much you grow your portfolio, how high quality your work is, how long you have been on the site, etc., Istock is still quite willing to screw you over. This new system is rigged. They control the best match, so they control how well you sell, and can turn sales off or on certain groups of contributors like a faucet. This is not a meritocracy anymore. It's not even a lottery. It's a rigged game of chance.
Couldn't have said it better.
-
Off thread, but I just got my EL bonus on three ELs. It's really scary to see how much we'll be losing post Jan 1st. >:(
-
Off thread, but I just got my EL bonus on three ELs. It's really scary to see how much we'll be losing post Jan 1st. >:(
that's great! I was really worried that they were going to come in and say "the 10% is unsustainable. so we're just going to hang on to that. we'll reevaluate it in 2011."
seriously, I honestly don't think they would do that, but it wouldn't have really surprised me. I hope everyone else got their bonus cash as well and that little "fiasco" can now be checked off as finally being resolved.
-
Off thread, but I just got my EL bonus on three ELs. It's really scary to see how much we'll be losing post Jan 1st. >:(
that's great! I was really worried that they were going to come in and say "the 10% is unsustainable. so we're just going to hang on to that. we'll reevaluate it in 2011."
seriously, I honestly don't think they would do that, but it wouldn't have really surprised me. I hope everyone else got their bonus cash as well and that little "fiasco" can now be checked off as finally being resolved.
I was under the impression it WAS going away Jan. 1.
From rogermexico:
On September 27 we made a mistake here at iStock with a code release. We accidentally included a change that removed the 10% bonus we pay Exclusives for Extended Licenses. This change was not supposed to happen until January 2011.
We are about to run a script that will pay the missing bonus for all Exclusive Extended Licenses between September 27 and November 28. We will then continue to run the script every week, until the date in January when the bonus goes away. So if you have an extended license download between now and then, it won't have the bonus initially, but the bonus will be added when the weekly script runs.
Everyone affected will have the money added to their account immediately. You will also get an email detailing each of the licenses in question.
We apologize for the error and the delay in getting this addressed. Thank you everybody. I will make another post here when the script actually runs: it should be within the next hour or so.
First post in this thread
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=280472&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=280472&page=1)
Or am I misunderstanding what you meant, jamirae?
-
oh yeah, you are right. sorry, i did not make myself clear. I was referring to the 10% that is OWED. I know that they are doing away with it in January, but was only referring to the part that should have been paid all this time that has not and is currently owed to contributors who earned it.
-
oh yeah, you are right. sorry, i did not make myself clear. I was referring to the 10% that is OWED. I know that they are doing away with it in January, but was only referring to the part that should have been paid all this time that has not and is currently owed to contributors who earned it.
OK. I see what you mean. I just misunderstood. Sorry. :)
-
oh yeah, you are right. sorry, i did not make myself clear. I was referring to the 10% that is OWED. I know that they are doing away with it in January, but was only referring to the part that should have been paid all this time that has not and is currently owed to contributors who earned it.
OK. I see what you mean. I just misunderstood. Sorry. :)
no harm, no foul. :)
-
Thread is now locked at IS.
-
From SNP: I guess it depends on how you look at. I upload my butt off. I work at producing better content everyday. I'm serious about my business. I guess that comment will ruffle feathers, but it's not meant to. my point is that contributors who mean to produce and improve and supply will reach their targets. if contributors on the whole don't meet targets, or just miss them....it seems they'll revisit the targets to the benefit of contributors.
I don't appreciate the comment about "being serious about your business" either. Just because a person isn't an uploading factory doesn't mean they aren't serious about their business. The statement and the whole situation reminds me of that of a wife-abuser. He beats the crap out of her then tells her it's her fault because she shouldn't have said or done something. Getty/IS takes away our commissions, changes the goalposts, "borrows" EL money, breaks the search engine, breaks the reporting of sales, and then some people have the gall to say it's our fault because we didn't work hard enough or we're not good businesspeople.
Yeah, I took offense to that haughty bit as well.
I'm sorry this offended you. it wasn't meant to be haughty. it's just realistic. anyways, it seems the reality isn't what you want. you want to gripe and you clearly just want to be pissed off. it's funny Marisa, when I first started on iStock, I read your blog regularly. I really love your photography and have always respected you, even when we've disagreed. guess that doesn't go both ways. anyways.
-
From SNP: I guess it depends on how you look at. I upload my butt off. I work at producing better content everyday. I'm serious about my business. I guess that comment will ruffle feathers, but it's not meant to. my point is that contributors who mean to produce and improve and supply will reach their targets. if contributors on the whole don't meet targets, or just miss them....it seems they'll revisit the targets to the benefit of contributors.
I don't appreciate the comment about "being serious about your business" either. Just because a person isn't an uploading factory doesn't mean they aren't serious about their business. The statement and the whole situation reminds me of that of a wife-abuser. He beats the crap out of her then tells her it's her fault because she shouldn't have said or done something. Getty/IS takes away our commissions, changes the goalposts, "borrows" EL money, breaks the search engine, breaks the reporting of sales, and then some people have the gall to say it's our fault because we didn't work hard enough or we're not good businesspeople.
Yeah, I took offense to that haughty bit as well.
I'm sorry this offended you. it wasn't meant to be haughty. it's just realistic. anyways, it seems the reality isn't what you want. you want to gripe and you clearly just want to be pissed off. it's funny Marisa, when I first started on iStock, I read your blog regularly. I really love your photography and have always respected you, even when we've disagreed. guess that doesn't go both ways. anyways.
It's just "realistic"? That those of us who don't work the way that you do aren't serious about our/the business (did you even read cclapper's response to you, as quoted above, or any of the responses to your comment, for that matter)?
How or why it seems to you that reality isn't what I want, that I only want to gripe and - clearly, even - just want to be pissed off is beyond me.
You know what really pisses me off? You. You say some really off the wall, haughty, and generally offensive stuff and - apparently - you don't understand how/why you come off as such.
I've tried, as have many others, to help you understand, but - clearly - we've/I've failed.
-
I think my comments about the RC targets are in the least worthy of discussion, even if you disagree. I know that discussion is certainly happening around many iStock round tables in my own region anyways, so why it causes you SUCH offense is beyond me. I think it's just that it comes from me.
we're all talking very openly in my iStock circle about why we are, or aren't making targets. why we are or aren't making Agency. why we have or don't have files in Vetta. I think it's a reasonable discussion to work out why RC targets aren't being met. anyways, as I said earlier, I hope for the sake of fairness that the levels are adjusted to reflect more attainable goals. or bell curved as Sue has been saying. no one is arguing about that. but some of the people suggesting favoritism/conspiracy/Getty greed/iStock greed/iStock intentionally screwing us....well some of those people (and in this case I'm NOT referring to Jo Ann) are people who have barely produced uploads over many years. why exactly is that taboo to discuss?
-
and I didn't see Cathy's post. but as I see it quoted in yours. I would never compare this to any abuse situation. I've volunteered kids who have been abused. it's not an issue I would trivialize by comparing it to our situation at iStock. it's nothing like that type of a situation. and I think the insinuation that it resembles wife abuse at all is offensive, especially when you connect it to my comment about RC targets.
-
I think Stacey's "seriously" may refer to people who are spending full time hours creating a lot of usable stock, spending money on models and such, as opposed to other peoples' "seriously" which may mean a more part time approach, but no less serious about trying to create content the best they can, in their means and trying to follow the rules.
-
^ it was meant in that vein. but it quickly was spun into something else. secondly, I do think there's seriously part-time Sean. there are people doing this part-time working full-time hours who have met their targets. in fact a contributor we both know was working full-time until a few months ago on top of being one of iStock's top sellers. anyways...and for the record, as for being haughty....I'm very open about my own non-successes. like Agency...I'm all but unwanted in there and I don't have much Vetta either. I'm not at all holding myself up as an example, except to say that it's not impossible to reach the RC targets, even if you're not a major contributor. and I'm certainly not. never said I was nor do I think of myself as one.
-
I think my comments about the RC targets are in the least worthy of discussion, even if you disagree. I know that discussion is certainly happening around many iStock round tables in my own region anyways, so why it causes you SUCH offense is beyond me. I think it's just that it comes from me.
we're all talking very openly in my iStock circle about why we are, or aren't making targets. why we are or aren't making Agency. why we have or don't have files in Vetta. I think it's a reasonable discussion to work out why RC targets aren't being met. anyways, as I said earlier, I hope for the sake of fairness that the levels are adjusted to reflect more attainable goals. or bell curved as Sue has been saying. no one is arguing about that. but some of the people suggesting favoritism/conspiracy/Getty greed/iStock greed/iStock intentionally screwing us....well some of those people (and in this case I'm NOT referring to Jo Ann) are people who have barely produced uploads over many years. why exactly is that taboo to discuss?
As usual, whether intentionally or otherwise, you miss the point.
I took offense to that one comment, as did others. What offended me about your comment is no different from what/why others took offense. Had someone else made the same comment, I would have been equally put off.
The people who are making those suggestions are a mixed bag of Black Diamonds on down. So why you choose to highlight those of us making such comments who "have barely produced uploads over many years" is ... odd. Is the connection tied to your work ethic comment and being "serious about your business" (insinuating that others of us are not serious or as serious)?
What exactly is your point here if it's not that those producing less or with less regularity are somehow not as serious about the/ir business?
It's not that this subject matter is taboo, it's that it's nonsense. Just because someone doesn't upload a glut of files regularly does not mean that s/he is any less serious about the/ir business than you. To suggest or assume as much comes off as arrogant, haughty, offensive.
I'd suggest you go back and reread all the comments in response to yours. I think folks have done a good and clear job of highlighting why/what is offensive/incorrect.
-
@ Stacey:
The issue isn't personal, not is it about who uploads what.
It's a matter of how iStock have changed the goalposts, and so often and in so many ways over the past year.
It's about the lies they've told us, and the weasel words, and the backtracking, then attacking us from a different angle.
It's about total disrespect for the people who provide them with a living.
It's about the persuading independents to become exclusive earlier in the year, then shafting them. It's they I feel most sorry for in this whole debacle.
It's about whether we'll ever be able to trust 'them' again, and how else they'll screw us in future.
It's about in-clubs who get shoe-in to Vetta while equally good or better images are rejected and it's purely subjective - in one case by an inspector who has even fewer downloads than me, and in another case by an inspector who has only just learned how to keyword to iStock standards.
It's about how BM2, which was designed to reward good keywording, has been totally gazumped by Vetta and Agency.
It's about how, when I posted on the Vetta thread asking for Vetta images to be doubly checked over for keyword accuracy, JJRD posted within a very short time to say that that would NOT be happening. However, wiki-ing has helped.
And ultimately, given all of the above, whether it's sensible of anyone to 'work their butt off' to supply exclusively to istock, whether their option is to become independent and/or supply RM.
Oh, and off-thread, they have now changed the goalposts* with regards submitting to Getty, but as far as I can see, it's only been talked about in the Getty forum, not even in the exclusive one.
*to be honest, I never understood what the goalposts were, and was one of the 2/3 of people who apparently were accepted to submit to Getty, then didn't do it. I was astonished by that figure to be honest. You'd have thought they might have done some contributer market research to find out the reasons. And I see that at least one iStock/Getty contributer via the iStock deal first found out about it when he found his portal closed.
So many promises. So many pie-crusts.
-
I think Stacey's "seriously" may refer to people who are spending full time hours creating a lot of usable stock, spending money on models and such, as opposed to other peoples' "seriously" which may mean a more part time approach, but no less serious about trying to create content the best they can, in their means and trying to follow the rules.
Well, if that's what was meant then that's what should have been said. For a professional writer, Stacey's posts are too easily and too often misunderstood or misconstrued.
Say what you mean and mean what you say, I always say.
^ it was meant in that vein. but it quickly was spun into something else. secondly, I do think there's seriously part-time Sean. there are people doing this part-time working full-time hours who have met their targets. in fact a contributor we both know was working full-time until a few months ago on top of being one of iStock's top sellers. anyways...and for the record, as for being haughty....I'm very open about my own non-successes. like Agency...I'm all but unwanted in there and I don't have much Vetta either. I'm not at all holding myself up as an example, except to say that it's not impossible to reach the RC targets, even if you're not a major contributor. and I'm certainly not. never said I was nor do I think of myself as one.
It was spun into something else because that's how it came off to more than one person. In your reply to me you still sounded the same as my initial read (see my reply previous to this comment). Why is it that you need Sean to clarify what you mean? And even if what Sean thinks you meant is what you indeed intended, I still take issue. One can be serious about the work they produce for stock and have only an hour to work on a project or shoot vs. many hours plural. It's about approaching your work professionally and passionately within the time allowed by your schedule. Some of us are part-time, some of us are full-time, some of us have barely any time at all for photography. And yet, we can all be serious, passionate, and professional about our craft and the work we produce. Your comment makes it sound like "seriousness" is a factor of how much work one produces, how regularly one produces work, and/or how much time one spends producing work.
This is just pure BS.
-
ok, so taking a step backwards...serious was obviously the wrong adjective. so I do apologize for the offense caused. absolutely not the intention. the discussion is about going forward and 2011 targets. whether any of us likes it or not, and this includes me because when I hit diamond next year only half-way through the year, my RC target will likely be beyond my reach....I believe that how much you upload and consequently sell is now clearly going to be a factor. it's already a factor and we all know it. but now our annual performance versus career-wide performance sets our royalties for the following year. so that being the case, I'm certainly going to be making even more effort to produce in terms of quality and quantity. I think it's the nature of what we do in microstock and if we don't do it, other contributors will. with the new system, we're very much pitted against one another in terms of the curve. saying that doesn't mean agreeing with it, but it's there and it's what we have to deal with.
-
ok, so taking a step backwards...serious was obviously the wrong adjective. so I do apologize for the offense caused. absolutely not the intention. the discussion is about going forward and 2011 targets. whether any of us likes it or not, and this includes me because when I hit diamond next year only half-way through the year, my RC target will likely be beyond my reach....I believe that how much you upload and consequently sell is now clearly going to be a factor. it's already a factor and we all know it. but now our annual performance versus career-wide performance sets our royalties for the following year. so that being the case, I'm certainly going to be making even more effort to produce in terms of quality and quantity. I think it's the nature of what we do in microstock and if we don't do it, other contributors will. with the new system, we're very much pitted against one another in terms of the curve. saying that doesn't mean agreeing with it, but it's there and it's what we have to deal with.
you do realize that diamond has nothing to do with RC targets? unless you are simply equating what the current royalty system where a diamond level is 40% royalty to the RC targets. I suppose you could do that, but if you want to reach for that level in the RC system, then go for it, the color of your canister will allow you more uploads.
-
SNP... Please give up on this already. Every post you write just makes it worse.
-
ok, so taking a step backwards...serious was obviously the wrong adjective. so I do apologize for the offense caused. absolutely not the intention. the discussion is about going forward and 2011 targets. whether any of us likes it or not, and this includes me because when I hit diamond next year only half-way through the year, my RC target will likely be beyond my reach....I believe that how much you upload and consequently sell is now clearly going to be a factor. it's already a factor and we all know it. but now our annual performance versus career-wide performance sets our royalties for the following year. so that being the case, I'm certainly going to be making even more effort to produce in terms of quality and quantity. I think it's the nature of what we do in microstock and if we don't do it, other contributors will. with the new system, we're very much pitted against one another in terms of the curve. saying that doesn't mean agreeing with it, but it's there and it's what we have to deal with.
you do realize that diamond has nothing to do with RC targets? unless you are simply equating what the current royalty system where a diamond level is 40% royalty to the RC targets. I suppose you could do that, but if you want to reach for that level in the RC system, then go for it, the color of your canister will allow you more uploads.
I am equating it to the royalty system. I won't get the raise, that is what I was referring to, so I'll be stuck at my current royalty level. sorry for confusing the issue.
-
SNP... Please give up on this already. Every post you write just makes it worse.
...you have what, 100 files? thanks for the advice.... ::)
-
SNP... Please give up on this already. Every post you write just makes it worse.
The fact that she's ignored by 21 members says it all, really
-
Oh, I am sorry. I did not realize I needed to have a huge number of files to be entitled to an opinion on how each post you make digs you deeper and that you only hear yourself and don't listen to others. And not to mention your "apologies" for sounding offensive ring quite hollow IMO (and yes, I am entitled to it whether I have 100 illustrations or 1000000000).
Now I am positive you are a just a snob with an inflated sense of self.
If you feel in order for me to speak I need to be at your level of "seriousness", this is probably why you have 21 people ignoring you. umm, make that 22.
-
SNP... Please give up on this already. Every post you write just makes it worse.
...you have what, 100 files? thanks for the advice.... ::)
Translation: "I upload my butt off. [And you don't.] I work at producing better content everyday. [And you don't.] I'm serious about my business. [And you're not.]"
-
On the other hand it looks like Getty/Istock don't think that some people are hard working enough either.
For those of you not able to follow on the closed forum, istock Getty contributors have just received emails either saying
You can continue to contribute to getty and our editors will decide where your images best fit:
or : you can pay 50$ an image and submit through photograher's choice.
JRRD categorised the recipients of the last email thusly: "Not for people who truely worked hard and made sure to succeed at Getty Images."
Glad I never took up the offer of a contract.
-
JRRD categorised the recipients of the last email thusly: "Not for people who truely worked hard and made sure to succeed at Getty Images."
Nice.
-
I guess letting people submit to Getty without paying $50 a file was unsustainable ;)
-
On the other hand it looks like Getty/Istock don't think that some people are hard working enough either.
For those of you not able to follow on the closed forum, istock Getty contributors have just received emails either saying
You can continue to contribute to getty and our editors will decide where your images best fit:
or : you can pay 50$ an image and submit through photograher's choice.
JRRD categorised the recipients of the last email thusly: "Not for people who truely worked hard and made sure to succeed at Getty Images."
Glad I never took up the offer of a contract.
for the record. what I said has been completed twisted around. but there's zero point in defending my original words.
@Susan: as for this Getty email issue, indeed we've received notes about Getty submissions and indeed many of us have been *re-routed*....which to me is simply a demotion. I'm in just about total agreement with your post. FYI the Photographer's Choice option starts with 10 free files. each FIRST downloaded results in a new file slot for free according to our understanding of the agreement.
-
$50 route is open to everyone same as the flickr.
-
On the other hand it looks like Getty/Istock don't think that some people are hard working enough either.
For those of you not able to follow on the closed forum, istock Getty contributors have just received emails either saying
You can continue to contribute to getty and our editors will decide where your images best fit:
or : you can pay 50$ an image and submit through photograher's choice.
JRRD categorised the recipients of the last email thusly: "Not for people who truely worked hard and made sure to succeed at Getty Images."
Glad I never took up the offer of a contract.
Just to clarify, if I understand it correctly, the easy backdoor for iStockers of the Diamond, Gold and sometimes Silver level is going away, due to the fact that Vetta and Agency images are being ported up automatically (we'll see) to Getty and properties. So, if people are creating work of that level anyways, they can submit to those two collections to get onto Getty. However, additionally, each person (afaik) was looked at and offered either an 'outside' house contract at Getty that covers all collections, or just the basic photographer's choice option. I would assume that in this decision, they evaluated the work of the person, how much they contribute, ie., their 'value' to Getty, and offered based on that.
JJ's somewhat unfortunate comment notwithstanding.
-
On the other hand it looks like Getty/Istock don't think that some people are hard working enough either.
For those of you not able to follow on the closed forum, istock Getty contributors have just received emails either saying
You can continue to contribute to getty and our editors will decide where your images best fit:
or : you can pay 50$ an image and submit through photograher's choice.
JRRD categorised the recipients of the last email thusly: "Not for people who truely worked hard and made sure to succeed at Getty Images."
Glad I never took up the offer of a contract.
Just to clarify, if I understand it correctly, the easy backdoor for iStockers of the Diamond, Gold and sometimes Silver level is going away, due to the fact that Vetta and Agency images are being ported up automatically (we'll see) to Getty and properties. So, if people are creating work of that level anyways, they can submit to those two collections to get onto Getty. However, additionally, each person (afaik) was looked at and offered either an 'outside' house contract at Getty that covers all collections, or just the basic photographer's choice option. I would assume that in this decision, they evaluated the work of the person, how much they contribute, ie., their 'value' to Getty, and offered based on that.
JJ's somewhat unfortunate comment notwithstanding.
Yep that how I understand it. Works for me reduces the amount of work I need to do, upload to Vetta stuff gets ported over to Getty (we'll see).
-
Stacey: "according to our understanding of the agreement"
Sean: "If I understand it correctly"
Eyedesign "That's how I understand it"
Says it all.
Why oh why oh why don't they employ someone who can write these things in clear English? So many of istock/Getty's contracts and agreements are unclear and open to interpretation. Or even get the Clear English Society to look their stuff over and write it better?
Remember, if we, whose first language is more-or-less English (with a Scottish/American/Canadian/woteva) spin have difficulty making it out, how much more difficult must it be for people for whom English is a second or third language.
It would be interesting to know whether the translations in to the 'community' languages are equally unclear.
H*ck, I'm unclear even who should be getting the emails - is it only those who are already submitting in good numbers and successful with sales? Do the others have to be reading the forums to get the news? I certainly haven't got an email (accepted but never submitted, partly because of the tax thing, partly because the e-paperwork was so very confusing, partly because of the very broad range of what they consider sister/similars in natural history.)
-
I'm certainly not trying to come across as an expert on the details of the change. However, the first post in the thread is pretty clear on the changes.
This is slightly further down: "E-mails have been sent directly to those who will continue to be able to upload unique content to Getty Images."
-
I'm certainly not trying to come across as an expert on the details of the change. However, the first post in the thread is pretty clear on the changes.
This is slightly further down: "E-mails have been sent directly to those who will continue to be able to upload unique content to Getty Images."
That's certainly what I read. So why wouldn't they email everyone else to tell them about the changes? Not everybody hangs about the forums. It's pretty bad when someone, who has been submitting to Getty for a while, only finds out when he finds his portal closed when he goes to upload. Even a "we don't want you any more" email would be more respectful than that.
-
I'm certainly not trying to come across as an expert on the details of the change. However, the first post in the thread is pretty clear on the changes.
This is slightly further down: "E-mails have been sent directly to those who will continue to be able to upload unique content to Getty Images."
That's certainly what I read. So why wouldn't they email everyone else to tell them about the changes? Not everybody hangs about the forums. It's pretty bad when someone, who has been submitting to Getty for a while, only finds out when he finds his portal closed when he goes to upload. Even a "we don't want you any more" email would be more respectful than that.
Because they have never been that respectful or businesslike.
-
haha.. that's a riot. So yeah, I just logged into my Getty account, or attempted to, and just a small box popped up saying "user account disabled." wow. thanks for the notice, folks.
I didn't really have anything there and have been trying to figure out how to get my dozen or so images off of Getty since I dropped my exclusivity at iStock. I guess my images still stay but now I have to contact someone to get them removed. kind of silly the whole thing. no instructions, no notice -- unless I had happened to wander into the Getty forum on istock, which I only did because I saw this. Business Communications 101: step one=communicate!
-
Wait. Am I understanding this right? Some select contributors might now have to PAY to submit to Getty?
-
Wait. Am I understanding this right? Some select contributors might now have to PAY to submit to Getty?
If I'm not mistaken, this is nothing new. I seem to remember other threads talking about this, but never paid too much attention because it didn't apply to me.
The whole Getty/IS model is changing. It will now be closer to a trad agency, rather than a microstock agency. Either you're in, or you're out. They aren't going to get rid of contributors in an above-board, businesslike way. They will continue with their chickensh*t games until those who aren't interested in their new model leaves of their own accord. That way, they aren't responsible. They aren't breaking any agreements or contracts. You make your own choice.
-
So not only are they taking 80%, but people actually pay for that honor? Who falls for that?
-
Anyone can sign up for Photographer's Choice, you don't have to be on iSTock or Flickr to do it. You just have to think your investment of $50 per image will deliver a return on whatever percentage they are paying out for that (which might be more than 20% or might not, I don't know).
-
Anyone can sign up for Photographer's Choice, you don't have to be on iSTock or Flickr to do it. You just have to think your investment of $50 per image will deliver a return on whatever percentage they are paying out for that (which might be more than 20% or might not, I don't know).
right. the option is that if you want to be with Getty, you can now simply apply through their other/regular channels. one of these options is the Photographer's Choice program where you pay $50 per image to sell it through that program. So you're not being forced to do anything, they are just canceling the original Getty "Quit Your Day Job" program with iStock and replacing it with the Vetta/Agency link. If you want to continue to contribute to Getty and were not selected as an active, participating photographer to stay in the existing program, your choice is to use the new Vetta/Agency exchange program or sign up to become a Getty contributor using one of the Getty programs.
-
Anyone can sign up for Photographer's Choice, you don't have to be on iSTock or Flickr to do it. You just have to think your investment of $50 per image will deliver a return on whatever percentage they are paying out for that (which might be more than 20% or might not, I don't know).
You can pick RM for your PC uploads, which pays 30/40% (US/outside) (or other way 'round).
-
one of these options is the Photographer's Choice program where you pay $50 per image to sell it through that program.
OMG, what a scam. The only reason they can get away with this is because they are "ooooo" Getty.
-
Or you could look at it that they are making people self-moderate their uploads. Yes, the price is a bit high, but if you upload just the best, instead of another tree, you might show success.
-
Or you could look at it that they are making people self-moderate their uploads. Yes, the price is a bit high, but if you upload just the best, instead of another tree, you might show success.
Keyword - MIGHT.
If some smaller, less well-known agency tried to do such a thing everyone would be screaming "SCAM", but because it's Getty...well...
-
Likely because smaller agencies don't get any sales to make it worthwhile, so you'd assume they are trying to make their money off photographer fees (witness the useless shutterpoint).
-
Or you could look at it that they are making people self-moderate their uploads. Yes, the price is a bit high, but if you upload just the best, instead of another tree, you might show success.
Keyword - MIGHT.
If some smaller, less well-known agency tried to do such a thing everyone would be screaming "SCAM", but because it's Getty...well...
not that I'm sticking up for this program, nor do I plan on joining it, but if you pay to place your product there it seems to me that you are paying for the buyer market that Getty has and promotion of your product. albeit, $50 per image is a bit steep - I'd think taking a portion of the sales price would be sufficient enough. but eh. whatever.
In the beginning I had high hopes for Getty. They opened up the program to Golds right after I became one. I applied right away and was accepted. I was going to start planning Getty-specific shoots but then they raised the size limit and I was going to have to up-size all my images just to get them accepted. (yeah, I shoot with a Canon 5D - still produces too small of an image for what they required). I'm busy enough that I didn't get around to adding that extra step into my image processing so I never uploaded again to Getty. (well, there was that and the 67 cent royalties which was completely demotivational to me. "Quit my day job" --- bah!)
I'm not losing sleep over the whole Getty thing. It was a nice thought and I would have liked to make it work, but there comes a time when I have to balance the work with the returns, and that just didn't seem to cut it for me personally.
-
I'm certainly not trying to come across as an expert on the details of the change. However, the first post in the thread is pretty clear on the changes.
This is slightly further down: "E-mails have been sent directly to those who will continue to be able to upload unique content to Getty Images."
That's certainly what I read. So why wouldn't they email everyone else to tell them about the changes? Not everybody hangs about the forums. It's pretty bad when someone, who has been submitting to Getty for a while, only finds out when he finds his portal closed when he goes to upload. Even a "we don't want you any more" email would be more respectful than that.
Because they have never been that respectful or businesslike.
And like I posted on the SS thread, I see that the email which was sent out to the 'chosen sample' had to be replied to within a week. Are they so lacking in imagination that they can't foresee people being away from the internet for a week or more? (e.g. travelling, in hospital, too busy...)
-
Maybe a little off topic but I don't know where else to post this. I thought of Istock and their expectations for growth when I saw a little 60 second mentor spot on a news program. The mentor was Tom Stemberg who founded staples (a supermarket guy who couldn't find ribbons for his printer decides there needs to be a supermarket for office supplies). He is now a financial advisor. Anyhow, these guys have an Internet printing biz. They make 50K/month or $600K/year. They grew 100% last year. Stemberg tells them that 100% growth or more per year is totally attainable UNTIL they hit about $10M - then 40% growth would be exceptional. Once you hit these higher marks, overall growth slows.
Isn't that exactly the state Istock is in? They have grown like a garden of weeds and now there is only so much room left in the patch for more growth?
-
I am one of the demoted to Photographer's Choice even though I have uploaded almost 50 images to the Photodisc collection.....JJ's comment was very unfortunate. that's the best word for it. thank you Getty for reducing my workload. just to keep things clear, FYI 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.
-
...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'm guessing it applies to those of who were actively submitting. but I don't know.
-
I'm guessing it applies to those of who were actively submitting. but I don't know.
That's what I assumed, but it certainly isn't clear. As always.
-
JJ's comment was very unfortunate. that's the best word for it.
Yippers!
-
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.
-
(well, there was that and the 67 cent royalties which was completely demotivational to me. "Quit my day job" --- bah!)
Wait. So you pay $50 for the slim chance of getting 67 cents in return? Man, those guys are good with the marketing after all. :D
Frankly, I can't see why ANYONE would defend this BS. You are PAYING a multi-million (billion?) dollar company just to have your photos on their website, and THEY STILL TAKE A LARGER PORTION OF THE ROYALTIES!! To even find this acceptable is ludicrous to me.
-
I see that the email which was sent out to the 'chosen sample' had to be replied to within a week. Are they so lacking in imagination that they can't foresee people being away from the internet for a week or more? (e.g. travelling, in hospital, too busy...)
That's just bonkers.
I am *so* glad I never got tangled up in the Getty offering to iStockers. Based on the experience of others from the outset, it seemed a senseless headache.
-
(well, there was that and the 67 cent royalties which was completely demotivational to me. "Quit my day job" --- bah!)
Wait. So you pay $50 for the slim chance of getting 67 cents in return? Man, those guys are good with the marketing after all. :D
Frankly, I can't see why ANYONE would defend this BS. You are PAYING a multi-million (billion?) dollar company just to have your photos on their website, and THEY STILL TAKE A LARGER PORTION OF THE ROYALTIES!! To even find this acceptable is ludicrous to me.
I can't really say. I dont know if the $50 Photographer's Choice program has a different royalty/payment structure. I would guess that it does. the 67cent royalties I got were through the iStock Photodisc program. I did, however, occasionally get some larger $20 to $60 royalties. But, again, I did not actively work at the Getty program. I only have 12 photos up there. By the way, the deactivated my account, but my portfolio is still live. I guess I can still get sales but I cannot add anymore to it. Of course, I guess I'll have to contact them to find out since they are obviously not going to be actively offering this information.
-
I can't really say. I dont know if the $50 Photographer's Choice program has a different royalty/payment structure. I would guess that it does. the 67cent royalties I got were through the iStock Photodisc program. I did, however, occasionally get some larger $20 to $60 royalties. But, again, I did not actively work at the Getty program. I only have 12 photos up there. By the way, the deactivated my account, but my portfolio is still live. I guess I can still get sales but I cannot add anymore to it. Of course, I guess I'll have to contact them to find out since they are obviously not going to be actively offering this information.
I wouldn't put it past them to deactivate your account, keep your photos there for sale and not pay you the royalties. I mean, how can you really keep track? And if you ever found out, well, it would be a "glitch", right?
-
SNP... Please give up on this already. Every post you write just makes it worse.
...you have what, 100 files? thanks for the advice.... ::)
This post makes it seem as though you feel superior because of the number of files you have up on Istock.
Quantity does not always equate to quality., as your many posts in this thread prove. I know you have a point of view that you are trying to uphold, but other people are entitled to their opinion as well. As for istock, everyone has the right to use them as a sales channel in whatever way they deem the best. I don't choose to run in the rabbit wheel for them, because the return is not there, whereas "feeding the beast" at SS is a proven way to maximize return. That's my choice, and I am entitled to run my business any way I feel is best. I have been in business over 30 years, provided for my family and sent 3 kids to college as a photographer. The biggest lesson to be learned is to remember there is something to be learned from everyone. And that does include you, along with everyone else.
-
I don't want to reopen this, but fwiw jbarber, I completely agree and I'm constantly aware of how much I have to learn. That's one of the reasons I read here. You quoted my post but didn't quote bookitty's initial post to me, which is unfair. But there's no point in derailing the thread.
As for this latest Getty move, I'm as unhappy as others so you won't get any argument.
-
SNP... Please give up on this already. Every post you write just makes it worse.
Wasn't this the initial post in question? It was quoted. I see it plainly, above.
-
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, seems so. Though my theory, which I'm literally sitting here discussing
-
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...
-
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...
-
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.
-
...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.
-
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....
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
^ 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.
-
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!?!?!
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ;D that was a joke before you jump on me. by the way, thanks for the cup of coffee ;-)
-
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, 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 ;D 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.
-
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?
-
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'.
-
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.
-
@ 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...)
-
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.
-
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.
Lisa,
I sympathize with your situation. iStock makes me only a couple of hundred dollars a month, so I can walk away without feeling any particular pain. And yet I'm taking my time about it, deleting just a few non-performers a day. Partly it's the money they still make, and partly it's the hope that a new owner will undo the disastrous policies of the current regime. Okay, it's mostly the money. I doubt anything will change for the better. Lucky for me I have a day job again and can go back to treating this as a hobby.
-
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.
I think most importantly, rather than re-evaluate your relationship is to stop thinking of it as a relationship. and think of it as business. keep your files there, not out of loyalty but because they bring you income. in my opinion, loyalty, courtesy and friendship are all two way streets. I've never viewed iStock as my friend. I never view companies I work for with as friends. Business comes first, no matter how much you love being somewhere. I have great respect and a certain amount of trust invested. And as I've said, some wonderful friendships with fellow contributors that I hope will last well beyond iStock. But the income and future prospects are the big carrots and that's where you should focus, removing the emotional stuff like loyalty and even anger. do what's best for you because leaving there out of anger most likely hurts you way more than them.
-
Lisa,
I sympathize with your situation. iStock makes me only a couple of hundred dollars a month, so I can walk away without feeling any particular pain. And yet I'm taking my time about it, deleting just a few non-performers a day. Partly it's the money they still make, and partly it's the hope that a new owner will undo the disastrous policies of the current regime. Okay, it's mostly the money. I doubt anything will change for the better. Lucky for me I have a day job again and can go back to treating this as a hobby.
Ditto.
-
I think most importantly, rather than re-evaluate your relationship is to stop thinking of it as a relationship. and think of it as business. keep your files there, not out of loyalty but because they bring you income. in my opinion, loyalty, courtesy and friendship are all two way streets. I've never viewed iStock as my friend. I never view companies I work for with as friends. Business comes first, no matter how much you love being somewhere. I have great respect and a certain amount of trust in invested. And as I've said, some wonderful friendships with fellow contributors that I hope will last well beyond iStock. But the income and future prospects are the big carrots and that's where you should focus, removing the emotional stuff like loyalty and even anger. do what's best for you because leaving there out of anger most likely hurts you way more than them.
Umm.... I think you interpreted my use of the word "relationship" to be personal. I meant "relationship" in the business sense, as in "business relationship". Sorry I didn't clarify. I assumed it was obvious, particularly in light of the rest of my post.
Nowhere did I mention expecting Istock to tuck me in at night or anything. Certainly nothing I have ever posted about Istock has caused anyone to think I was a "fangirl", a "cheerleader", a "koolaid drinker", or anything of the sort. So no, I don't think anyone could reasonably mistake me for someone who thinks of Istock as anything but a business.
Although, I am certainly relieved to learn that you realize your relationship with Istock is just business and not personal. Considering your baffling and seemingly unconditional support for them, I would have thought quite the opposite.
-
Lisa - my support has never been unconditional. it's just been gossiped about in that vein. if you were to actually go back and read my posts over the years, you'd see many issues I have with iStock, and you know about them because of our personal discussions. I was pegged a cheerleader the day I expressed anger at the opt-out campaign badges. period. and the clique that created that character out of me just likes to toss it around for laughs. so go for it. it's of no consequence. to be honest, I've gotten as many calls from admin as the rest of you. I just stay out of the heavy discussions now on the iStock forums for the most part.
I certainly wouldn't have pegged you a cheerleader or koolaid drinker though. not sure why you read my post that way. I would hate to see you dump your istock income out of spite, that's all. for your sake, not theirs.
-
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?
Totally. They've transformed a great company and something that was a lot of fun for pros and amateurs all into a run-of-the-mill factory or sweatshop. They'll get a lot of hot new shots out of it, to be sure, but more than that they'll get a glut of average files that will pass inspection but just clog up and bog down the collection, and search. Not to mention piss off and (at worst) lose once loyal (exclusive) contributors and buyers both, in the process.
-
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.
Ditto. Plus I put in too much time over the years in building a portfolio on iStock to deactivate it out of anger. Why not leave it there while I build portfolios elsewhere, and continue adding to it, even? Every penny is appreciated, so for that reason alone (money makes me happy or affords me things that do) it's worth keeping my iStock account open. Add to that the possibility of WooYay-able changes in the future under new ownership and I think it's worth sticking around.
-
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?
Totally. They've transformed a great company and something that was a lot of fun for pros and amateurs all into a run-of-the-mill factory or sweatshop. They'll get a lot of hot new shots out of it, to be sure, but more than that they'll get a glut of average files that will pass inspection but just clog up and bog down the collection, and search. Not to mention piss off and (at worst) lose once loyal (exclusive) contributors and buyers both, in the process.
I agree with some of this. I don't think it's a sweatshop YET...but it seems to be heading that way, sadly. the analogy I used while chatting with my husband last night about this was that I feel like a Walmart supplier. They brought me in, made me feel important, I decided to sell exclusively through them and jump enthusiastically into all their programs, and now I am bound by my income, I'm over a barrel and they keep modifying the playing field more and more to my (our) detriment. the perks of being exclusive are being whittled away. I guess the income is the main thing holding me on board. the income is good and has doubled for me every year. golden handcuffs.
-
Lisa - my support has never been unconditional. it's just been gossiped about in that vein.
Lisa said seemingly unconditional. And I would agree. Because despite your beefs with iStock over the years, overall, your support for iStock is baffling and seemingly unconditional. The instances to support this general perception are plentiful, which is why Lisa and so many others [may have] perceive[d] you as such.
-
well, it's not unconditional. I don't think there's any point in arguing with someone's perception. I can see why that perception exists. I'm just as up and down as everyone else. in fact an admin accused me once of going back and forth. the thing is, every issue is different and I tend to approach each issue individually. I don't think it's black and white. that makes it seem in a forum like I'm in love with iStock. so be it. I'm in love with how iStock has changed my life. but I'm not an ostrich by any means. I see the writing on the wall too and question it as much as you do. I am a bit of a Pollyanna admittedly. I like to see happy endings. so I can't argue that one ;-)
-
I agree with some of this. I don't think it's a sweatshop YET...but it seems to be heading that way, sadly. the analogy I used while chatting with my husband last night about this was that I feel like a Walmart supplier. They brought me in, made me feel important, I decided to sell exclusively through them and jump enthusiastically into all their programs, and now I am bound by my income, I'm over a barrel and they keep modifying the playing field more and more to my (our) detriment.
Funny, I have used the same WalMart analogy (minus the exclusivity part) when talking to my hubby about this. :)
I think we are all bound by those golden handcuffs, to one degree or another. Right now it sounds like you are still making enough money to justify your exclusivity. But if that ever changes, the reports from people dropping the crown are that they are doing better than expected as independants.
We are in scary times in microstock, but we are probably not as helpless as we may feel. (okay, that's me giving myself a pep-talk, but it's kinda working ;) )
-
I'd love to see concrete numbers to support that, not just anecdotes. my husband is so worried I'm going to decide to go independent. my income is fairly good on iStock. not bragging, just relevant to what we're talking about. but the perks are so few and far between now, I sometimes think about how nice it would be to sell anywhere I want. unfortunately many people I've talked to say not to go non-exlcusive. that's why real examples would be great.
-
well, it's not unconditional. I don't think there's any point in arguing with someone's perception. I can see why that perception exists. I'm just as up and down as everyone else. in fact an admin accused me once of going back and forth. the thing is, every issue is different and I tend to approach each issue individually. I don't think it's black and white. that makes it seem in a forum like I'm in love with iStock. so be it. I'm in love with how iStock has changed my life. but I'm not an ostrich by any means. I see the writing on the wall too and question it as much as you do. I am a bit of a Pollyanna admittedly. I like to see happy endings. so I can't argue that one ;-)
That's good to read - I think the 'Polyanna' aspect might be what creates that perception. I'm also wondering if maybe it takes a while to shift gear from the iStock forum atmosphere and culture to this one - maybe you're acclimatising (all-weather gear here - sunhats and shades over there perhaps?) ;)
-
four years! you'd think I would have acclimated.... ;D
-
four years! you'd think I would have acclimated.... ;D
:D
Sorry, I didn't realise - I just see you participating occasionaly, then getting fed up with it here. Hadn't seen you (apparently) acclimatise before in the way you seem to have this time. I'm just happy to see that. I always worry for people when they get stressed and (again, apparently) leave MSG.
-
I recoil for a while after a good smackdown. I'm opinionated but non-confrontational. figure that out!!! I just read until something pops up that I have an opinion about.
-
I'm opinionated but non-confrontational. figure that out!!!
A difficult mix for sure! Perhaps the trick is to see where another's response comes because they feel confronted by something you said (not just you, obviously). It may be that they are taking a snap before recoiling themselves. It's always difficult for us to understand how another person hears our voice and emphasis when we write in forums.
-
agreed. I tend to be very blunt. I figure it's understood that I don't mean anything personal. in forums you don't have the benefit of seeing how something you've said makes someone feel. and tone is often misconstrued. I'm sure we're all quite different than who we are in forums. anyhow, for now my income justifies exclusivity. too bad you can't do an accurate projection on how you would do if you were to go independent, without any risk. but then again, where's the adventure in that?
-
I'm sure we're all quite different than who we are in forums.
Nah, just ask AJ.
-
I'd love to see concrete numbers to support that, not just anecdotes. [snip] I sometimes think about how nice it would be to sell anywhere I want. unfortunately many people I've talked to say not to go non-exlcusive. that's why real examples would be great.
Make some new friends. Some folks are happy to share concrete numbers.
Bridget's blog might be a good place to start.
http://stockcube-stockcube.blogspot.com/ (http://stockcube-stockcube.blogspot.com/)
-
^ yes, I actually read her blog already. there are some others too, but I'm sure you know them already.
Sean: I almost used you as an example. but decided against it. you're a quiet and super nice guy by all accounts. despite your staunch forum 'persona'...;-)
-
I'm sure we're all quite different than who we are in forums.
Who I am online is who I am offline. Though offline (or online but off-forum) the language is a lot more colorful and "unladylike". Shocker.
-
Though offline (or online but off-forum) the language is a lot more colorful and "unladylike". Shocker.
I can vouch for that ;)
-
I'm sure we're all quite different than who we are in forums.
Who I am online is who I am offline. Though offline (or online but off-forum) the language is a lot more colorful and "unladylike". Shocker.
I guess what I mean is it's impossible to come across the way you do in person online. without visual cues and facial expressions etc. and tone is misconstrued all the time. I know whenever I meet istockers in person, we always laugh about how different we are in person. it's hard to be who you are on one forum that is censored and another that has close to no rules. too extreme in either case to just "be" who you are.
-
I'm sure we're all quite different than who we are in forums.
Who I am online is who I am offline. Though offline (or online but off-forum) the language is a lot more colorful and "unladylike". Shocker.
I guess what I mean is it's impossible to come across the way you do in person online. without visual cues and facial expressions etc. and tone is misconstrued all the time. I know whenever I meet istockers in person, we always laugh about how different we are in person. it's hard to be who you are on one forum that is censored and another that has close to no rules. too extreme in either case to just "be" who you are.
Trust me (or don't). I've mastered the art :)
It's all in saying what you mean and meaning what you say, and saying it clearly, as close to the way you'd say it in person. Or, in other words, taking care in what and how you write. You're a writer, right? Being yourself online should be easy-peasy for you.
-
Sexy!
-
Sexy!
:D
-
I'm sure we're all quite different than who we are in forums.
Who I am online is who I am offline. Though offline (or online but off-forum) the language is a lot more colorful and "unladylike". Shocker.
I guess what I mean is it's impossible to come across the way you do in person online. without visual cues and facial expressions etc. and tone is misconstrued all the time. I know whenever I meet istockers in person, we always laugh about how different we are in person. it's hard to be who you are on one forum that is censored and another that has close to no rules. too extreme in either case to just "be" who you are.
Trust me (or don't). I've mastered the art :)
It's all in saying what you mean and meaning what you say, and saying it clearly, as close to the way you'd say it in person. Or, in other words, taking care in what and how you write. You're a writer, right? Being yourself online should be easy-peasy for you.
I am who I am. you'll just have to meet me in person or not :-) forums/email aren't good media when it comes to emotion no matter how careful you are or aren't. have a nice weekend all...peace
-
. in fact an admin accused me once of going back and forth. the thing is, every issue is different and I tend to approach each issue individually. I don't think it's black and white.
That's perfectly logical. I'm exactly the same, some things I love about iStock (the CV, though it's not perfect yet, but it would be better if everyone used it correctly) and some things I'm not so keen on.
Glad I don't get phone calls from admins. Emails are quite enough. I guess they know they'd never understand my accent, especially when stroppy.
;-)
-
Well well, they're announcing they'll announce a big thing on monday (here (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=280752&page=11)...)
Another 'good news' anouncement, im worried now ;)
-
I agree with some of this. I don't think it's a sweatshop YET...but it seems to be heading that way, sadly. the analogy I used while chatting with my husband last night about this was that I feel like a Walmart supplier. They brought me in, made me feel important, I decided to sell exclusively through them and jump enthusiastically into all their programs, and now I am bound by my income, I'm over a barrel and they keep modifying the playing field more and more to my (our) detriment. the perks of being exclusive are being whittled away. I guess the income is the main thing holding me on board. the income is good and has doubled for me every year. golden handcuffs.
In Ontario Canada now (since March 2010):
minimum wage for unskilled labour (like say a Walmart ;) portrait photographer) is $10.25 / hr
the typical week is 37.5 hrs of pay
the numbers of hours for the year is 1950
1950 x $10.25/hr = Gross annual income of $19,987.50
Loosly calculating (considering the minimum was approx 18% less prior to March 2010) 4 years would equate to roughly $69,000.00
Is the exclusive pay of the same 4 years, putting in serious effor and time for 20,000 sales really rivalling the unskilled minimum wage?
Golden handcuffs?
There is no need for perception, when real factual data is available.
-
Yes, it is.
-
Yes, it is.
For 20,000 sales? What is the average $ per sale for exclusives not at diamond?
-
For 20,000 sales? What is the average $ per sale for exclusives not at diamond?
Something like $3 per sale __ maybe $3.50 tops with a few Vetta sales.
-
Yes, it is.
For 20,000 sales? What is the average $ per sale for exclusives not at diamond?
Over that four years the $ per download has gone up a lot. This year I got over 4$ per download as a silver exclusive (that's about 25% illustrations,the rest photos) - and I only have one selling Vetta and very few E+ files which increase earnings per sale dramatically. But about 25 per cent of my sales come from vectors which pay better. (That figure will fall come January as I'm not an active contributor). But in the first couple of years the prices were much lower so over the last four years I'd average around $2.
-
I'm imagining the Walmart portrait photograpers smirking right about now :o
-
I'm imagining the Walmart portrait photograpers smirking right about now :o
But I don't have to deal with screaming kids... (or worse still their parents) I've done a little kid portrait photography and you really don't want to do that!
Given I uploaded most of my portfolio in 2006 and 2007, and most of my illustrations in 2008, and done stuff-all since, I find that in terms of reward for effort istock exclusivity has been pretty good over time. Not likely to be true in future though!
-
I'm imagining the Walmart portrait photograpers smirking right about now :o
But I don't have to deal with screaming kids... (or worse still their parents) I've done a little kid portrait photography and you really don't want to do that!
Given I uploaded most of my portfolio in 2006 and 2007, and most of my illustrations in 2008, and done stuff-all since, I find that in terms of reward for effort istock exclusivity has been pretty good over time. Not likely to be true in future though!
I totally agree with you! I did my modest work on my small folio in the first year and since then I've had modest royalties while literally doing nothing. I'm happy with that arrangement - it allows me to pursue other stuff. I like the passive income. IS is trying to get us to solve a probem that doesn't exist. Their greed needs to be justified. There is really no good reason to change things to be based on annual 'performance', except that people like SNP will help them justify it by claiming a problem exists where one does not. SNP was holding themselves up as the poster child of the rewards for full effort. I'm just trying to illustrate (since that's my strong suit, apparently ;) that they are only fooling themselves. I prefer to work smarter, not harder.
-
I like the passive income. IS is trying to get us to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Their greed needs to be justified. There is really no good reason to change things to be based on annual 'performance'. I prefer to work smarter, not harder.
Word.
-
I'd love to see concrete numbers to support that, not just anecdotes. [snip] I sometimes think about how nice it would be to sell anywhere I want. unfortunately many people I've talked to say not to go non-exlcusive. that's why real examples would be great.
Make some new friends. Some folks are happy to share concrete numbers.
Bridget's blog might be a good place to start.
[url]http://stockcube-stockcube.blogspot.com/[/url] ([url]http://stockcube-stockcube.blogspot.com/[/url])
I hope I remember to watch this as she uploads the rest of the 661 IS images to the rest of the sites. It would be unfair to say, income has dropped to half, without waiting until they have all be reviewed or at least all she tried to submit have been processed. It may be half a year until anything reliable will show the effect of going "non". Also the SS honeymoon will be over by then and things will be getting into a stable situation.
Should be a good indicator.
-
Yes, it is.
For 20,000 sales? What is the average $ per sale for exclusives not at diamond?
Well, I was tinking about my sales.
And well, even with yours, you'll be able to go on getting income of your photos in years to come. Even if you don't add more.
-
minimum wage for unskilled labour (like say a Walmart ;) portrait photographer) is $10.25 / hr
Really?
Any such deal over here is that the 'tog pays the store a fee (I presume in the above example the tog is a Walmart employee?) than has to drum up all the business for themselves, having paid for all their equipment also. And I often see them chirpily trying to Shanghai every family which comes in with no success all the time I'm in. Must be pretty soul destroying. They seldom last more than a couple of weeks, then there is no photographer for weeks or months, then some other optimistic soul has a go. It seems to be a franchise sort of deal with some photography company which 'trains' you and provides you (for a fee) with the 'boards'. I'm guessing from the rapid turnover that it's a money-losing deal.
I'm guessing that if Walmart actually hires togs at an hourly rate, they're setting them sales targets?
Is it broadly accepted that if you want a photo of your weans you take them to Walmart?
-
minimum wage for unskilled labour (like say a Walmart ;) portrait photographer) is $10.25 / hr
Really?
Any such deal over here is that the 'tog pays the store a fee (I presume in the above example the tog is a Walmart employee?) than has to drum up all the business for themselves, having paid for all their equipment also. And I often see them chirpily trying to Shanghai every family which comes in with no success all the time I'm in. Must be pretty soul destroying. They seldom last more than a couple of weeks, then there is no photographer for weeks or months, then some other optimistic soul has a go. It seems to be a franchise sort of deal with some photography company which 'trains' you and provides you (for a fee) with the 'boards'. I'm guessing from the rapid turnover that it's a money-losing deal.
I'm guessing that if Walmart actually hires togs at an hourly rate, they're setting them sales targets?
Is it broadly accepted that if you want a photo of your weans you take them to Walmart?
Large market in the U.S. for this type of run and gun family photos. Income levels for people using this service is between 20,000-30,000 US. Yep photographer is a Walmart/ Sears employee with little to no photo skills other then 1-2 hours of training on how the company does business. I've seen in some places where the camera was bolted to the floor!! Sit the Kid down, turn him to the left, say cheeses, hit the shutter, sell them a package for 29,95US, done next!
-
...Is it broadly accepted that if you want a photo of your weans you take them to Walmart?
The US is huge and diverse. I wouldn't say that Walmart photos are universal. There are chain photo studios - some national like Olan Mills (I think that was big a decade or two ago); in our area there's a local chain, Yuen Lui. They do an OK job at the basic studio stuff.
Walmart is probably cheaper. There are some areas of the country - like the Seattle area - where there are very few Walmarts (fights to keep them out in lots of places.
Then there's people like me who just loathe the canned look of studio shots and won't take their kids even though their in-laws keep dropping hints :)
-
Large market in the U.S. for this type of run and gun family photos. Income levels for people using this service is between 20,000-30,000 US. Yep photographer is a Walmart/ Sears employee with little to no photo skills other then 1-2 hours of training on how the company does business. I've seen in some places where the camera was bolted to the floor!! Sit the Kid down, turn him to the left, say cheeses, hit the shutter, sell them a package for 29,95US, done next!
OK, fair enough, your area is totally different from mine. My camera club decided that they were going to try to sell photos of that nature (studio already set up, quick hair comb and primp, shoot and out - one pic £5) at a craft fair a couple of weeks ago. Not a great success - the only people who 'bought' were friends/family of club members, who sort-of 'couldn't say no'. We probably needed some 'hard sellers' pulling in the punters. The general response was along the lines of, "I've got a camera, why would I pay £5?", which is what I'd have expected. Generally there is almost no market for family photographers around here except for weddings and graduations; I hear the latter is falling too, as people just photograph each other at the graduation ceremony.
-
I really didn't think they were required to even be photographers at Sears/Walmart/etc. I've never actually gone to one of those portrait studios but I know someone who worked at one and they were just a regular cashier that was pulled into the photo studio.
-
Interesting. Here in Florida pretty much everyone I know gets their family portraits done at one of those cheapo in-store-studio places. Either WalMart, Sears, JCPenney, etc. They also use Olan Mills, but if they do, they think they are splurging ;).
When I was trying to get my portrait business off the ground around 2002 - 2004, the rejection reason I got most often was "why should I pay you a couple of hundred dollars when I can get 100 portraits (prints) at WalMart for $12?" ::)
-
Lisa... A tad off topic, but where in Florida are you?
I live in Miami and the moms I know with youngsters always go to JC Penny or Sears for their kids photos. They have coupons all the time, especially around the holidays.
And even more OT... I enjoy reading your posts (here and at IS). Straightforward, direct and often informative with a dash of humbleness and a strong sense of reality. Very refreshing.
-
When I was trying to get my portrait business off the ground around 2002 - 2004, the rejection reason I got most often was "why should I pay you a couple of hundred dollars when I can get 100 portraits (prints) at WalMart for $12?" ::)
Yep, I call this group the "I buy pictures by the pound".
-
Hey, back on topic for a minute:
Has anyone noticed an increase in Vetta sales this week?
-
^^^^
Not me.
-
Walmart can sell photos for $12.95 because they overbook and run 1 - 3 hours behind. Part of me thinks this is goes with working with kids, my cynical side thinks it is intentional so you fill up a shopping cart while you are waiting.
-
Hey, back on topic for a minute:
Has anyone noticed an increase in Vetta sales this week?
None for me...not exclusive.
-
Walmart can sell photos for $12.95 because they overbook and run 1 - 3 hours behind. Part of me thinks this is goes with working with kids, my cynical side thinks it is intentional so you fill up a shopping cart while you are waiting.
They actually run behind because the camera room is booked in 10 minute increments. I used to work for a big box studio. You have 2 minutes to figure out what the client wants, set up the background and get the props. 10 minutes to get the kid to smile/sit still, whatever, and 30 minutes to show them the images and sell the packages. If one client shows up 5 minutes late or the kid doesn't cooperate then your screwed.
Photography experience is not a requirement. You just need a high school diploma. They will teach you how to use the camera - lights are rigged to automatic settings, so the photographer doesn't have to deal with them directly. Put kid on dot - point and shoot. Your not allowed to change the settings.
Back on Topic:
Vetta sales are on sale now. IS is offering a discount for Vetta purchases and giving Vetta contributors double RC's to help them make their end of year goals. Nothing is available for non-Vetta although there is supposed to be some big F5 announcement soon.