MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: sharpshot on December 31, 2010, 04:24
-
As the istock commission cuts are happening 1st January 2011 and we have all had a few months to think about it, I thought it would be interesting to see what people are doing now. I have stopped uploading and started removing some of my portfolio. I will leave gradually and hope there are new owners soon that have a better long term strategy.
-
As the istock commission cuts are happening 1st January 2011 and we have all had a few months to think about it, I thought it would be interesting to see what people are doing now. I have stopped uploading and started removing some of my portfolio. I will leave gradually and hope there are new owners soon that have a better long term strategy.
It ain't a cut for everyone...
And a personal note: I think the new system is fair for all parties.
-
I started removing all my images today, only another 100 to go. Can't bear to see a single sale with 16 percent commission.
-
As the istock commission cuts are happening 1st January 2011 and we have all had a few months to think about it, I thought it would be interesting to see what people are doing now. I have stopped uploading and started removing some of my portfolio. I will leave gradually and hope there are new owners soon that have a better long term strategy.
It ain't a cut for everyone...
And a personal note: I think the new system is fair for all parties.
Fair for all parties? Yeppers. >:(
-
I'm already uploading much less, especially since my old files are vastly outselling my newer ones - even the ones which wouldn't pass inspection nowadays - go figure! On current showings, that won't change. I happened to catch a new file last month which had sunk to position 83 in a best match search less than 24 hours after appearing in my portfolio - and now people are reporting files not even getting into their ports.
Ethan and Duck will get a well-deserved rest when my canister turns gold but my royalties don't, as I'll almost stop wiki-ing, suggesting bulk wikis and bombarding their in-trays!
I'm guessing people won't help others so much on the forums, as everyone is now directly a rival, not just for sales but for percentage rates, as only a certain percentage will reach each level. Previously helping someone in a different genre had no adverse effect on your own progress; now it does.
But it's not just the cash grab: they just seem to be totally incompetent at everything they do. They don't seem to have any plan, far less a long-term one. They've heard of buyers, but want no truck with them.
My year started OK: dls down, $$$ up, but my end of year is bad: this month will be over 20% down on last Dec and much more compared to Dec 08 for $$.
I'll be keeping a watching brief on editorial, but to be honest, I can't imagine any local situations selling in numbers which would make micro prices worth it. Different for contributers in big cities, probably.
In Pollyanna mode, things can only get better, but realistically ... ???
So ... continuing to focus, optimistically, on RM/editorial at Alamy. May start looking at other RM agencies with a more local/specialist focus.
-
Aeonf knows how to become popular round here ;)
I will continue to supply while I continue to earn significant amounts of cash there. But I am trying to develop new revenue streams because of the doubts iS has created about the future earnings potential of microstock. That means more of my effort is going elsewhere so my overall output of stock shots is down. So everyone is likely to get less from me.
-
It ain't a cut for everyone...
Well, I guess an exclusive who keeps the same level and has no Vetta, Agency or extended licences won't get a cut.
And maybe a few Black Diamonds have reached the 45% level (but will still have the above cuts, so who knows where the balance will be, even for them)
-
Aeonf knows how to become popular round here ;)
If he talked about exclusives I think he is right the new system is much fairer to exclusives as the old canister-system, but for non-exclusives it was always ridiculous and now it is a slap in the face.
-
It ain't a cut for everyone...
And a personal note: I think the new system is fair for all parties.
It is a cut for nearly everyone ... except Istock of course. As an independent I doubt that even Yuri will maintain the 20% rate which would mean that 100% of independents are losing out (and that means about 80% of all contributors). The only contributors who won't lose are maybe 200-300 exclusives at the very top and, ironically enough, exclusives who have never got beyond Bronze as they can't drop any further (yet). There will be a few more relative newbies who having been growing fast and may even gain from this but that's probably no more than a handful. Upload limits at the lower canister levels make it difficult to grow quickly though.
If Istock were simply re-distributing the same commission pot to reward those who are currently working hard (to the cost of those who were sitting on their laurels) then I could see how that might be considered 'fair' by some. But that's not what's happening. Istock are simply choosing to grab more for themselves at the cost of most contributors.
-
I will put up niche shots. Others are killed in the best match searches. All non- exclusives take a cut (unless secret deals are being done?) . Putting up files is a pain there and the inspection is weird considering the over processed stuff put up as Vetta. It doesn't form a cohesive collection of uniform standard anymore and the bugs get worse.
-
I'm holding to the course I chose when all this was announced. No new uploads since the beginning of September, and five images deleted every day.
iStock has been a consistent #2 earner for me. Curious to see where they fall next month.
-
As the istock commission cuts are happening 1st January 2011
I will bet you a dollar that they won't be happening tomorrow. I would say the 17th at the earliest.
-
As the istock commission cuts are happening 1st January 2011
I will bet you a dollar that they won't be happening tomorrow. I would say the 17th at the earliest.
It would cost me too much to send you the dollar, but I'll be surprised if they haven't had the Big Red Button ready to press since early September, and it will be pressed at midnight Calgary time. Maybe Kelly will come into the office specially to hit it.
But I could be wrong, of course.
-
Seeing as how they cannot have a solid grasp on peoples' numbers for at least 3 days ( the usual RC calculations ), plus the fraud RC removal, plus the Vetta and audio RC additions ...
-
Seeing as how they cannot have a solid grasp on peoples' numbers for at least 3 days ( the usual RC calculations ), plus the fraud RC removal, plus the Vetta and audio RC additions ...
I think they'll hit it anyway, and say they'll adjust later, knowing it's almost impossible for us to know what's really due to us.
If I'm wrong, it's the first nod to consumer sensibilities we'll have had in months, though it will only affect the people 'on the cusp'.
-
I generally go by the adage, "Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity", but have always given iStock's greed the benefit of the doubt. Most of iStock's blunders end up costing someone else money. But failing to drop our royalties on the appointed day? That really would demonstrate that they're even more incompetent than they are greedy. Then again, how long will it take us to know, truly know that our royalties have been reduced?
-
Aeonf knows how to become popular round here ;)
I will continue to supply while I continue to earn significant amounts of cash there. But I am trying to develop new revenue streams because of the doubts iS has created about the future earnings potential of microstock. That means more of my effort is going elsewhere so my overall output of stock shots is down. So everyone is likely to get less from me.
Yeah I know I am not going to get the popularity vote...
Just stating my own opinion, which I am well aware is the minorityone here.
When I said fair, I ment for exclusives, for indys it is not, but IS cares much less about them, add to the fact that the vast majority of them won't really do anything in regards of the pay cut.
-
Having just started, I don't really have a portfolio -- about 80 images.
Not sure what to do. Maybe wait and see?
-
option G: stopped uploading when they made the announcement, their competitors get all the new stuff unless they make some changes in my favor for a change. I have no expectations of this happening.
I think it is completely wrong to say the new system is fair for all parties - especially not the indys. If they changed it so the total commission was just redistributed that would be maybe ok, but they just took a larger chunk of the pile for themselves. I'd have to look at their books to make a real judgement about what is fair, but I am pretty sure it isn't 80-20, especially not with the incompetence shown of late.
-
I'm carrying on as normal for now. I expect lots of confusion in January as they try to fix everything they broke and get a working system.
Given the lack of detailed reporting on sales (see my suggestion forum post (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=270162)about fixing that) and big variations in credit prices, it won't be easy to know when they change the rate.
I expect that when they do announce the new RC targets (to meet in 2011 for 2012 royalties) they'll be higher at the top levels than those for 2011 royalties. That will guide my planning for the future. I'll be most interested to see how this feudal model works out (royalty and peasants), especially if the royalty see more of their premium price sales coming from Getty, not iStock (where they don't earn RCs for next year's targets).
-
I stopped uploading when they announced the commission cut back in Sept, and I won't resume uploading for less than 20%. I hear a lot of complaining about iStock's greed, but think about it, would they be able to get away with the money grab if not for our greed? I can't understand how any self respecting indy would keep uploading after the commission cut! We have several other outlets for our new stuff. Imagine if all indys just stopped uploading right after the announcement...! It might make a difference. But most indys just kept right on uploading, not want to miss out on any additional $$$. We are becoming willing participants in the downfall of microstock.
-
I will bet you a dollar that they won't be happening tomorrow. I would say the 17th at the earliest.
Definitely agree. istock isn't capable of rolling out a widespread royalty change like this. Especially coming out of a long holiday and while dealing with all of the other current issues.
-
I'm kinda out of it because I haven't been following any pay cut news at IS. I doubt it will cause me to stop uploading my paltry 4-6 images per month. If the rates go down lots I guess I'll just consider IS a middle tier provider.
-
I have already stopped uploading and will not upload any more, until they decide to trat us fairly..
-
I will bet you a dollar that they won't be happening tomorrow. I would say the 17th at the earliest.
Definitely agree. istock isn't capable of rolling out a widespread royalty change like this. Especially coming out of a long holiday and while dealing with all of the other current issues.
Quite possibly, but my guess is reducing commissions will have priority among all current issues.
-
I will bet you a dollar that they won't be happening tomorrow. I would say the 17th at the earliest.
Definitely agree. istock isn't capable of rolling out a widespread royalty change like this. Especially coming out of a long holiday and while dealing with all of the other current issues.
Quite possibly, but my guess is reducing commissions will have priority among all current issues.
Yeah, I'd risk a dollar that they manage to cut our money dead on time.
-
As the istock commission cuts are happening 1st January 2011
I will bet you a dollar that they won't be happening tomorrow. I would say the 17th at the earliest.
It would cost me too much to send you the dollar, but I'll be surprised if they haven't had the Big Red Button ready to press since early September, and it will be pressed at midnight Calgary time. Maybe Kelly will come into the office specially to hit it.
But I could be wrong, of course.
I'm with Sue. This will be the ONE site change that gets done correctly and on time. :P
-
I stopped uploading when the announcement was made and they won't get any of my new stuff at their insulting royalty rates.
-
I stopped uploading when the announcement was made and then deleted all my non sellers. The rest are just sitting there still having sales every now and then. What kinda surprises me is how many are carrying on as usual.
-
I slowed down uploading to IS after disambiguation went into effect, and the new commission structure is the nail in the coffin. I'll leave everything online, but I'm not giving them anything new anymore. If I wasn't dependent on the income from IS and TS, my portfolios would have been gone by now. I just don't make a habit of supporting businesses that time and time again make crummy decisions and screw people over. I'd much rather have my work support the efforts of agencies like Alamy and Shutterstock that actually contribute towards making the world a better place.
-
Removed port shortly after announcement.
-
option G: stopped uploading when they made the announcement, their competitors get all the new stuff unless they make some changes in my favor for a change.
This.
-
I doubt it will happen tomorrow. Anyhow Ill be carrying on as normal. IS, is a very good earner for me.
-
Why did I think this would only start at the end of January?
I haven't started deleting yet, but I will.
-
I will bet you a dollar that they won't be happening tomorrow. I would say the 17th at the earliest.
I'm sure they'll probably get around to it on or about the 17th, but it wouldn't surprise me the slightest little bit if they went back and adjusted everyone's royalties to reflect it having started on the 1st.
-
As the istock commission cuts are happening 1st January 2011
I will bet you a dollar that they won't be happening tomorrow. I would say the 17th at the earliest.
It would cost me too much to send you the dollar, but I'll be surprised if they haven't had the Big Red Button ready to press since early September, and it will be pressed at midnight Calgary time. Maybe Kelly will come into the office specially to hit it.
But I could be wrong, of course.
I'm with Sue. This will be the ONE site change that gets done correctly and on time. :P
Sigh... I think you are both right about this (as usual).
I have a very small port but planned on growing it this year, but a full-time freelance graphic design gig came calling in March, and thank God it did (a girl's gotta eat). So I have only uploaded maybe four illustrations since then.
I wish all of you the best in twenty11. Happy New Year!!!!
-
I will continue along as usual at iStock. I already canceled my exclusivity in October, due to the unfair changes. To see this is fair to everyone is really not seeing the big picture. People like me with portfolios in multiple media types get really screwed. I have vectors and photos and drop to just about the bottom in both categories with this new system. I am a diamond level right now.
Independents are even more screwed because they are held at the same number of RCs yet their files are sold for a lot less and marketed even less. The only ones who will make up the best in this will be those with Agency and Vetta files provided they are good sellers.
the biggest change for me will be working harder to build my portfolio on the other sites I've joined since handing in the crown.
-
What kinda surprises me is how many are carrying on as usual.
I chose the "carry on as usual" option because there wasn't one that said "upload select images as allowed by the meager limitations and take a wait and see attitude before making a final decision". I just recently started uploading so I'm currently at the lowest level and have a small portfolio. My RPI has been better than what I'm getting on subs on other sites though the frequency is less. It's still coming in as my second highest earner after SS so I'm hesitant to stop yet, but I'll be watching with more than a little caution and may pull the plug if the chaos continues.
-
I stopped uploading quite a while ago (there really wasn't a poll choice for this). I'm leaving my images there, because they do sell now and then. But I concluded it wasn't worth doing new images for IStock, not just because the commissions are abysmally low, but more because there's no assurance they won't be cut again and again. It might take years for an image to repay the time I put into it, even if commissions held steady, and it just seems like there's no bottom. And the rejections were insane, and the keywording was too tedious, given the possible payoff.
-
From 112 votes so far, just 37.5% will be carrying on as usual. It seems that a fair few will be making a stand or have already done so.
-
From 112 votes so far, just 37.5% will be carrying on as usual. It seems that a fair few will be making a stand or have already done so.
I don't see how leaving will make a difference in how anyone is treated in this business. Supply and demand rules here as in any other non-government enterprise. So "making a stand" is akin to the local shoe store owner reducing his hours of operation when Walmart opens up down the street.
-
From 112 votes so far, just 37.5% will be carrying on as usual. It seems that a fair few will be making a stand or have already done so.
I don't see how leaving will make a difference in how anyone is treated in this business. Supply and demand rules here as in any other non-government enterprise. So "making a stand" is akin to the local shoe store owner reducing his hours of operation when Walmart opens up down the street.
The only people would be the really big hitters who are independent. If they pulled their images and uploaded elsewhere, iStock would feel it.
For the rest of us, while there might be some satisfaction, it won't matter to iStock one iota.
Added: I'm not sure what would happen to iStock if Yuri pulled his port totally. Interesting to speculate.
-
The only people would be the really big hitters who are independent. If they pulled their images and uploaded elsewhere, iStock would feel it.
For the rest of us, while there might be some satisfaction, it won't matter to iStock one iota.
Added: I'm not sure what would happen to iStock if Yuri pulled his port totally. Interesting to speculate.
I doubt very much that Istock would 'feel it' __ certainly nothing like as much as the individual contributor would. The 'Big Hitters' would feel the loss of their entire IS income the most and anyway they are actually the least affected by this.
By their choice, via the upload limits, Istock only have about 17% of the portfolio Yuri has elsewhere. That pretty much demonstrates how much they care about any individual contributor. In contrast other agencies positively fawn over Yuri.
-
Probably carrying on as usual. I'm as pissed as everyone else, but they got me right where they want me. I'm a full-time contributor and I rely on my IS income, as it's my top earning site. Any change in my uploading pattern would be a bad business move. They know it. And they know that I know it.
I would, however, be interested in participating in some kind of organized strike, but it would have to be on a mass scale. If Yuri took the lead on something like this, then contributors would follow and it would force changes in istock, or drive their buyers to other fairer-paying sites. But I think it would have to be Yuri - the importance of his portfolio to the site and his influence on the community can not be underestimated.
Meanwhile, I do what I can by telling as many buyers as I can that there are other sites out there with fairer prices and fairer payouts.
-
...I would, however, be interested in participating in some kind of organized strike, but it would have to be on a mass scale. If Yuri took the lead on something like this, then contributors would follow and it would force changes in istock, or drive their buyers to other fairer-paying sites. But I think it would have to be Yuri - the importance of his portfolio to the site and his influence on the community can not be underestimated....
And I think IS is well aware of that. Yuri may be the only independent to make the 1.4M RCs required to keep his 20% commission for 2011. My guess is that another posted who speculated that they set this target with him in mind, not wanting him to walk if his royalty were cut, is correct.
I don't see how, given that Yuri isn't in a different position vis-a-vis IS in 2011 from 2010, he'd have any interest in any sort of protest. And I'm sure that is just what IS wanted.
-
...Any change in my uploading pattern would be a bad business move. They know it. And they know that I know it...
I don't agree. Putting up with the lowest commission in the industry being cut seems like the bad business move to me. It will make all the other sites cut commissions, why should they pay more? It will also allow istock to continue cutting next year and as long as they can get away with it.
I think the best move for any of us that rely too much on microstock earnings is to find other ways to make money, so we don't have to put up with some of the greedy sites that are now taking far more than they should. If we just go along with this where does it end?
-
Hi All,
I think it might take some time to implement but I think Getty will make it retroactive as of today. So once they figure it out they will balance what is due them or you once things are dialed in. Best Guess...
Best,
Jonathan
-
Just noticed on the 'losers' thread on iStock Sean posted an extract from the ASA, which said, inter alia:
"The parties acknowledge that the Rate Schedule is subject to change in the sole discretion of iStockphoto in the ordinary course of its business without notice by posting such changes on the Site."
That last bit is totally ambiguous like so much more on the ASA. It is unpunctuated, (what fun, like a school English exercise :D) therefore there's no way of knowihg whether it is meant to be:
"The parties acknowledge that the Rate Schedule is subject to change in the sole discretion of iStockphoto in the ordinary course of its business comma without notice by posting such changes on the Site."
or
"The parties acknowledge that the Rate Schedule is subject to change in the sole discretion of iStockphoto in the ordinary course of its business without notice comma by posting such changes on the Site."
In fact, although these have totally opposite different meanings, the net result of either to the suppliers is the same. But it just shows how wide the holes they've made on their side of the ASA is, while making our side rigid and watertight.
(And strangely [not], whenever I've questioned an ambiguous clause, it's always interpreted to be in their favour)
-
Aeonf knows how to become popular round here ;)
I will continue to supply while I continue to earn significant amounts of cash there. But I am trying to develop new revenue streams because of the doubts iS has created about the future earnings potential of microstock. That means more of my effort is going elsewhere so my overall output of stock shots is down. So everyone is likely to get less from me.
Yeah I know I am not going to get the popularity vote...
Just stating my own opinion, which I am well aware is the minorityone here.
When I said fair, I ment for exclusives, for indys it is not, but IS cares much less about them, add to the fact that the vast majority of them won't really do anything in regards of the pay cut.
Seriously?? Many IS exclusives went exclusive because they were told the canisters would stay the same, check the forums and you see all kinds of people that made significant investments and changes based on a promise that things wouldn't change for the worse. This is not fair to anyone who is a member of IS, unless they signed up after the announcements were made.
-
Hi All,
Unfortunately agencies across the board have reduced commissions for years, it used to be a 50/50 split and the company that made that split in the beginning were the most respected and powerful agencies in the world.
I just hope it doesn't sink anyones boat. If some photographer was taken for a great loss it could cost them their careers. If you got a big fat check and went out and bought a new car then they take their money back what are you supposed to do, try to resell the car? I really hope they set a clear president and share all punitive damages, that would make them look pretty darn good in the eyes of the stock photographers of the world. In my opinion.
Best,
Jonathan
-
I don't see how, given that Yuri isn't in a different position vis-a-vis IS in 2011 from 2010, he'd have any interest in any sort of protest. And I'm sure that is just what IS wanted.
Well even though his commission may not change in 2011, I would think he'd be interested in a protest simply because his 2010 commission was trash. iStock has the lowest commission rates for all their non-exclusives - even Yuri (correct me if I'm wrong). Just like me, it's in his best interest to take iStock down and drive those buyers to other sites (or force their commissions rates to rise).
-
then what? let's magnify this to the absurd...iStock falls due to contributor protest. then what? other agencies have you in an even more vulnerable position. I don't know Yuri and am usually reluctant to use another contributor's numbers, but I doubt he would have any interest in protesting. I'd venture that most serious serious contributors are too busy working to get tangled up in this kind of stuff.
-
And to the other extreme: If everyone goes on like before after Istock's royalty cuts that sends a clear message to all the other agencies and they will follow. And soon we will see 10% royalties everywhere.
As an independent contributor the only logical reaction (when thinking about long term implications) would be to remove the complete portfolio and not sell for the lowered rates. But for those relying on the income this obviously is not an easy decision, in some cases probably not even an option.
But to answer the original question:
As the istock commission cuts are happening 1st January 2011 and we have all had a few months to think about it, I thought it would be interesting to see what people are doing now. I have stopped uploading and started removing some of my portfolio. I will leave gradually and hope there are new owners soon that have a better long term strategy.
Yesterday I finished removing my files, down from close to 700 to 1 (I'll keep that one just for fun, to have an active account. And if - what I doubt, at least for the near future - Istock returns to reasonable commission rates, I may re-activate my portfolio).
For me it is an easy decision, as Microstock is just a hobby for me and irrelevant in terms of income.
I have no illusions that anyone at Istock will even notice my few files missing and that this is any kind of relevant "statement" whatsoever. But I am not willing to sell at their new commission rates.
-
From 112 votes so far, just 37.5% will be carrying on as usual. It seems that a fair few will be making a stand or have already done so.
I don't see how leaving will make a difference in how anyone is treated in this business. Supply and demand rules here as in any other non-government enterprise. So "making a stand" is akin to the local shoe store owner reducing his hours of operation when Walmart opens up down the street.
The only people would be the really big hitters who are independent. If they pulled their images and uploaded elsewhere, iStock would feel it.
For the rest of us, while there might be some satisfaction, it won't matter to iStock one iota.
Added: I'm not sure what would happen to iStock if Yuri pulled his port totally. Interesting to speculate.
Nothing would happen. Yuri is not that important to this model. Its crowdsourcing, not Yuri-sourcing. There's hundreds of guys who can step up and make images like Yuri, and he's just another guy here. Whats Yuri's portfolio as a ratio of the entire site's total photos? Miniscule. WHat happens is other people get better search placements. And I'm all for that. Plus, he's not even exclusive so its not like people have to go to iStock to see his work.
-
I will bet you a dollar that they won't be happening tomorrow. I would say the 17th at the earliest.
I'm sure they'll probably get around to it on or about the 17th, but it wouldn't surprise me the slightest little bit if they went back and adjusted everyone's royalties to reflect it having started on the 1st.
Boy, they sure are organized over there at IS, got my first .18 sale this morning . . . . . . . . . . .
-
I will bet you a dollar that they won't be happening tomorrow. I would say the 17th at the earliest.
I'm sure they'll probably get around to it on or about the 17th, but it wouldn't surprise me the slightest little bit if they went back and adjusted everyone's royalties to reflect it having started on the 1st.
Boy, they sure are organized over there at IS, got my first .18 sale this morning . . . . . . . . . . .
Lol! Sure feels good to feel valued :-)
-
I am staying exclusive at Istockphoto for the foreseeable future because....I lose my crown and lose an instant 14% commission.I also lose best match placement on 1600+ photograpghs.So presume i take that hit and start uploading those 1600 files to another 4/6 microstock sites.How long would that exercise take and is there any real guarantee that my work would do as well with such a saturated microstock market.
"Better the devil you know...."
-
I am staying exclusive at Istockphoto for the foreseeable future because .... I also lose best match placement on 1600+ photograpghs.
That's not actually true and hasn't been so for at least a couple of years since they wheeled out 'best match 2.0'. It's yet another of those 'microstock myths' that will be trotted out a regular intervals for evermore.
There is no evidence whatsoever that exclusive/independent status influences best match position (obviously excluding Vetta/Agency files from the issue).
-
^ THAT'S not true either. no one knows what criteria affect the best match. secondly, unless you're exclusive...you have no access to E+/Vetta/Agency...all of which definitely get best match bumps...(with the exception of the
unfair/special exclusivity that seems to be allowed to some Agency contributors)
-
no one knows what criteria affect the best match.
Don't be so ridiculous. How can the code be written or the management's policy be enacted if "no one knows". Do you think it is 'magic' and somehow delivered by fairies?
A few searches and half a brain on how these things work (i.e. it's mathematics not magic) will comfortably flag the obvious primary influencing factors __ and exclusivity ain't one of them.
You need to get your head sorted out if that's what you believe.
-
do you think you're the only contributor who sits here calculating . out of every stat available to us? (edited snarky comment) no one as in CONTRIBUTORS really knows, including you despite all your posturing. to suggest that exclusives don't get some best match boost despite all evidence to the contrary is wishful thinking. add to that Vetta/E+ and Agency.....that's more visibility in the best match...
-
There is no evidence whatsoever that exclusive/independent status influences best match position (obviously excluding Vetta/Agency files from the issue).
The day before I became exclusive, I checked the best match placement of several score of my images.
A couple of days after I became exclusive, I re-checked the best match placement of those same images.
The result was that every image improved its best match placement, some considerably (several 100 positions), some barely (10 or 20 positions). Much depended on the age of the image, as well as the # of results in the search.
Not to mention before I became exclusive, I often noticed older, exclusive files with fewer sales ahead of my files.
So, in my experience, there is plenty of evidence that exclusivity does positively affect best match placement.
-
^^^ But when was that? I know exclusivity used to affect best match placement but all the research I've done of late indicates that it is no longer a factor.
Of course it's very recently become more difficult to tell because the downloads numbers are further disguised.
If anyone is in any doubt there is one very easy way to check on how much the best match is influenced by exclusivity __ although it does take a bit of work to do so.
Pick a search term preferably in a niche subject that will have few if any Vetta or Agency images as they confuse the issue and need to be ignored for the purpose of the exercise. Food subjects are often good in that respect. Sort the results by best match and count how many exclusive images are in the first 25 or 50 images (or whatever sample size you choose). Then sort them by Age, Downloads, Size and count again. If best match is indeed influenced by exclusivity then statistically you should see a strong pattern emerge in which, when sorted by best match a higher proportion of exclusive images should be evident. Age and Size are of course statistically random. Sorting by Downloads should also be random but obviously, if exclusive files have been improved by the best match, then they should dominate the results too and further support the theory that best match really does help exclusives.
Try it for yourself. Personally I can find no statistical supporting evidence whatsoever that the best match favours exclusives. You can either do the work and prove it mathematically to your own satisfaction __ or alternatively you can believe in SNP's 'magic fairies theory'.
-
^^^ But when was that?
Ok, you may be right about that. It was 6 months ago, so it could certainly have changed since then -- just about everything else about iStock has!
-
Keep seeing posts in the IS forum suggesting that the new royalty structure is in place. I can't tell from my numbers. Does anyone know?
-
it all seems to be anecdotal, but I think it might be in place...saying that, there's still no drop down for 2011 RC totals in my stats
-
Keep seeing posts in the IS forum suggesting that the new royalty structure is in place. I can't tell from my numbers. Does anyone know?
Because we don't know how much the credits were bought for the main way we will see the effect is when you have enough sales to generate a meaningful dollars/sales figure. My commission is going down by 10% so I assume I'll see my average sale drop from $1.24 to $1.12 but it will probably take a few days to get reliable figures.
-
Thanks for the responses. I figured it would be hard to tell, but became curious because some people are stating this as a certainty (guess there are always some folks who state everything as a certainty ;) ).
It really is a bit nerve-wracking waiting for the other shoe to drop over there at IS. Maybe, as Sean said, we will have to wait until mid month to hear something definitive.
What I do NOT want to see happen is, they take their time implementing the changes, but then make them retroactive and deduct money from our accounts.
-
Keep seeing posts in the IS forum suggesting that the new royalty structure is in place. I can't tell from my numbers. Does anyone know?
At least for me, royalties are the same until now.
-
Thanks for the responses. I figured it would be hard to tell, but became curious because some people are stating this as a certainty (guess there are always some folks who state everything as a certainty ;) ).
It really is a bit nerve-wracking waiting for the other shoe to drop over there at IS. Maybe, as Sean said, we will have to wait until mid month to hear something definitive.
What I do NOT want to see happen is, they take their time implementing the changes, but then make them retroactive and deduct money from our accounts.
I'm pretty sure it has NOT happened yet. My last sale was a Large file for which I got $3.00. Under the smallest credit package (at $1.54 per credit) the most I could earn from a Large sale at my new commission rate would be $2.77.
-
I'm pretty sure it has NOT happened yet. My last sale was a Large file for which I got $3.00. Under the smallest credit package (at $1.54 per credit) the most I could earn from a Large sale at my new commission rate would be $2.77.
Thanks Gostwyck. That seems definitive.
Sorry for relying on your math skills. I've made no secret of the fact that I am mathematically challenged... :-[
-
^^^ But when was that? I know exclusivity used to affect best match placement but all the research I've done of late indicates that it is no longer a factor.
I did the same test when I became exclusive and all of the files I checked moved up in best match placement. That was only in September.
-
I had a XS sale for .10 in December, so I think it will take a while or an announcement to tell for sure when things are changed, although Gostwyck's example looks like pretty good evidence that it hasn't happened yet.
That would be pretty slimy (and typical) to make it retro-active. I am guessing they need to sort out the RC mess before they can implement the drops though. I'd be pretty annoyed if I were one of the few that was supposed to benefit and I wasn't yet.
-
Hi Jen,
That is very interesting to hear. We can all try to calculate what the changes are here but it is like spitting into a fire. Their back end is so in depth that there is no real way of knowing what takes place behind closed doors. Anything else here is just conjecture or educated guessing. It helps to get together here and try to solve the puzzle but in the end I think we still will find a lot of pieces missing from the box. Just my opinion.
Best,
Jonathan
-
Hi Jen,
That is very interesting to hear. We can all try to calculate what the changes are here but it is like spitting into a fire. Their back end is so in depth that there is no real way of knowing what takes place behind closed doors. Anything else here is just conjecture or educated guessing. It helps to get together here and try to solve the puzzle but in the end I think we still will find a lot of pieces missing from the box. Just my opinion.
Best,
Jonathan
+1
-
I did the same test when I became exclusive and all of the files I checked moved up in best match placement. That was only in September.
Wishful thinking, or maybe you just happened to monitor mainly the images you knew were 'on the up' whilst subconciously ignoring your lesser files that were simultaneously on the way down.
Like I said earlier it's not a mystery and, whilst we might not be able to actually write the algorithm for the best match, we can certainly prove the effect (or otherwise) on exclusive images via a few sample searches. Anyone who has the ability to count from 1-50 can see for themselves. It's not Enigma code-breaking stuff.
Funny how exclusives all desperately want to believe they are being helped by the best match despite all the evidence against it.
-
I am staying exclusive at Istockphoto for the foreseeable future because....I lose my crown and lose an instant 14% commission.I also lose best match placement on 1600+ photograpghs.So presume i take that hit and start uploading those 1600 files to another 4/6 microstock sites.How long would that exercise take and is there any real guarantee that my work would do as well with such a saturated microstock market.
"Better the devil you know...."
+ONE
-
When was it that istock announced the changes? I find the traffic statistic for istockphoto compared to shutterstock of the last 12 month interesting.
http://siteanalytics.compete.com/shutterstock.com+istockphoto.com/?metric=uv&months=12 (http://siteanalytics.compete.com/shutterstock.com+istockphoto.com/?metric=uv&months=12)
It looks like that starting last June, that there is a movement from istockphoto to shutterstock. Well, maybe it is just a coincidence.
-
I am staying exclusive at Istockphoto for the foreseeable future because....I lose my crown and lose an instant 14% commission.I also lose best match placement on 1600+ photograpghs.So presume i take that hit and start uploading those 1600 files to another 4/6 microstock sites.How long would that exercise take and is there any real guarantee that my work would do as well with such a saturated microstock market.
"Better the devil you know...."
+ONE
+2
-
When was it that istock announced the changes? I find the traffic statistic for istockphoto compared to shutterstock of the last 12 month interesting.
[url]http://siteanalytics.compete.com/shutterstock.com+istockphoto.com/?metric=uv&months=12[/url] ([url]http://siteanalytics.compete.com/shutterstock.com+istockphoto.com/?metric=uv&months=12[/url])
It looks like that starting last June, that there is a movement from istockphoto to shutterstock. Well, maybe it is just a coincidence.
No, its just worthless data:
http://www.compete.com/resources/methodology/ (http://www.compete.com/resources/methodology/)
-
I did the same test when I became exclusive and all of the files I checked moved up in best match placement. That was only in September.
Wishful thinking, or maybe you just happened to monitor mainly the images you knew were 'on the up' whilst subconciously ignoring your lesser files that were simultaneously on the way down.
Like I said earlier it's not a mystery and, whilst we might not be able to actually write the algorithm for the best match, we can certainly prove the effect (or otherwise) on exclusive images via a few sample searches. Anyone who has the ability to count from 1-50 can see for themselves. It's not Enigma code-breaking stuff.
Funny how exclusives all desperately want to believe they are being helped by the best match despite all the evidence against it.
I'm not "desperate" to believe anything. I checked some of my random files out of curiosity and that is what I found. I do not care as long as I am making sales.
By the way, I did your test with a food item as suggested. Search for "quiche" (572 results):
Best Match - 36 exclusive (2 Vetta) / 14 non-exclusive
Age - 18 exclusive / 32 non-exclusive
Downloads - 29 exclusive (2 Vetta) / 21 non-exclusive
What does that prove? Probably nothing, there are too many factors involved in the best match so I don't see how any of us can make conclusive statements after doing a few searches.
-
Funny how exclusives all desperately want to believe they are being helped by the best match despite all the evidence against it.
If it is a delusion, I would not want to dispel it...
-
When was it that istock announced the changes? I find the traffic statistic for istockphoto compared to shutterstock of the last 12 month interesting.
[url]http://siteanalytics.compete.com/shutterstock.com+istockphoto.com/?metric=uv&months=12[/url] ([url]http://siteanalytics.compete.com/shutterstock.com+istockphoto.com/?metric=uv&months=12[/url])
It looks like that starting last June, that there is a movement from istockphoto to shutterstock. Well, maybe it is just a coincidence.
I have to agree with Aeonf on this. I don't think that data is reliable. If you add Dreamstime in the third slot you'll see what I mean. It shows Dreamstime starting off the year WAY ahead of Shutterstock for traffic. I seriously doubt that DT has ever had nearly 3x the traffic as SS.
-
I don't read to much into it either, just thought it was interesting that the start of the up/down movement was at the same time.
-
I don't read to much into it either, just thought it was interesting that the start of the up/down movement was at the same time.
It's probably just coincidence too but it also happens to be the point on my stats where IS started to gradually decline, SS started to grow fast and then eventually overtake IS in Oct.
In Dec my sales at SS were 28% higher than in June __ that's not supposed to happen. In contrast my sales at IS declined by over 22% from June to Dec.
-
I don't read to much into it either, just thought it was interesting that the start of the up/down movement was at the same time.
I do agree SS has seen a resurgence as Istock has been in decline, judging by my sales. Just that adding DT to those particular results seemed to throw a monkey wrench into the works...
-
It ain't a cut for everyone...
And a personal note: I think the new system is fair for all parties.
In other words you did not take a pay cut, so it is obviously fair for all parties. We've actually found the first exclusive who believes 15% for independents is a fair deal. May I sell you a bridge?
-
I am staying exclusive at Istockphoto for the foreseeable future because....I lose my crown and lose an instant 14% commission.I also lose best match placement on 1600+ photograpghs.So presume i take that hit and start uploading those 1600 files to another 4/6 microstock sites.How long would that exercise take and is there any real guarantee that my work would do as well with such a saturated microstock market.
"Better the devil you know...."
+ONE
Help me here, you just gave your own message a Plus One? :D
Let me take you all back to Nov 2008 where we had the same discussion about best match and the 80/20 theory. Good reading and some good points, but in the end, one of the best ones that I read was that the best match changes. I suspect that IS changes it to give different people the front page. Maybe one week (or hour?) it's exclusive, the next it's Vetta, then it's new files, then best sellers. This is a way to keep the content fresh and rotating in front of the buyers.
Too simple and logical I know, but something to consider. The best match is always changing!
Now please follow the link and read...
http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/the-new-best match-and-the-8020-rule/ (http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/the-new-best match-and-the-8020-rule/)
Here's one that made sense:
The best match search changes regularly. They do sometimes make it more favorable for new images. We will have to see if they change it back to give newer images from non-exclusives a better chance.
-
Let me take you all back to Nov 2008 where we had the same discussion about best match and the 80/20 theory. Good reading and some good points, but in the end, one of the best ones that I read was that the best match changes. I suspect that IS changes it to give different people the front page. Maybe one week (or hour?) it's exclusive, the next it's Vetta, then it's new files, then best sellers. This is a way to keep the content fresh and rotating in front of the buyers.
Too simple and logical I know, but something to consider. The best match is always changing!
Now please follow the link and read...
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/the-new-best[/url] match-and-the-8020-rule/ ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/the-new-best[/url] match-and-the-8020-rule/)
From my perspective it hasn't changed much since that 08 best match thread. They added Vetta and Agency weighting but for the rest of us it looks the same. I keep track of a handful of images and they seem to move up and down based on sales. If suddenly there's more than normal sales on a file it moves up a few places.
For the new stuff, from what I can tell it's still the old model. New images get placed about a third to half of the way back for the total amount of images. If buyers find them, they start selling and move up which they then sell more, etc.
That 08 thread has some pretty accurate predictions about performance. Like for people who don't upload much would get penalized. The new RC system does exactly that. I believe they've been tweaking the best match all along toward a performance model.
So this supports what I'm saying about the best match giving preference to top active performers. And maybe that's the 1,000 Golds, Diamonds, and Black Diamonds that probably generate 80-90% of their revenue. To do that they probably measure a combination of canister level, exclusivity, total images, total sales, rate of new images uploaded, image download performance, etc. So even if you're gold but haven't uploaded anything in a year you may start losing best match preference.
-
Shocked to see the poll showing 43% (at the time of this writing) saying that they are carrying on as normal.
:-\
iStock has you all by the you-know-what, and you're delusional if you think it won't get any worse than this. IMHO, iStock now knows that the majority of it's contributors will take whatever they will give them and it won't be long until they trim commissions yet again. I guarantee it.
It makes me wonder what the heads of the other agencies are thinking behind the scenes...
Have some pride in your work and take control of it. Build your own website. Do freelance work (which, by the way, pays a LOT better than microstock). Don't be so dependent on "the man" - because he sure as hell doesn't have your best interest in mind.
-
It ain't a cut for everyone...
And a personal note: I think the new system is fair for all parties.
In other words you did not take a pay cut, so it is obviously fair for all parties. We've actually found the first exclusive who believes 15% for independents is a fair deal. May I sell you a bridge?
From a bussiness point of view ? actually it is. IS goal is to give the minimum royalty possible, without decreasing there profits.
And since when life is fair? my GF father died of cancer 3 months ago (her mom did 10 years ago already), is that fair ? not really.
Everyone is way to emotional on this matter. IS is a bussiness and they made a bussiness decision, all you have left is to make yours.
if your boss in would decrease your salery by 25% would you go to a shrink ? no, you would either take the cut or getter another job. As simple as that.
I can bet 90% of contributors won't do a thing.
The solution BTW is simple, not that it will ever happend, but as suggested here before to create a union and organize a strike.
-
Funny how exclusives all desperately want to believe they are being helped by the best match despite all the evidence against it.
If it is a delusion, I would not want to dispel it...
Exactly what I was thinking!!!
-
Have stopped uploading and considering deleting my Flames by way of protest/disgust at all of this and more importantly (knowing that some customers shop around) in order not to undercut my royaltiues elsewhere, with the intention of supporting the more deserving competing Agencies.
Will be leaving my less popular lower quality files there tho, they get what they pay for which will not be allot from now on. IS have made it perfectly clear where they are going with this imo with things only getting worse in the future for the magority of Contributors. It is just down to the indervidual when to decide enough is enough as the more they can get away with......
;)
-
Funny how exclusives all desperately want to believe they are being helped by the best match despite all the evidence against it.
If it is a delusion, I would not want to dispel it...
Exactly what I was thinking!!!
Remember when it was only the Independants who constantly got the raw end of the stick with bad best match placement however these days IS have managed to create so many divisions within the Exclusive contributes many must be now also experiencing the lack of exposure frustrations
-
Shocked to see the poll showing 43% (at the time of this writing) saying that they are carrying on as normal.
:-\
iStock has you all by the you-know-what, and you're delusional if you think it won't get any worse than this. IMHO, iStock now knows that the majority of it's contributors will take whatever they will give them and it won't be long until they trim commissions yet again. I guarantee it.
It makes me wonder what the heads of the other agencies are thinking behind the scenes...
Have some pride in your work and take control of it. Build your own website. Do freelance work (which, by the way, pays a LOT better than microstock). Don't be so dependent on "the man" - because he sure as hell doesn't have your best interest in mind.
I'm actually quite pleased to see only 43% carrying on as normal. I'm sure some people would carry on with 1% commission but hopefully if enough of us do something about this, istock and the other sites will look for other ways to increase their profits. I just don't believe taking away the incentive of earnings for some of their most productive contributors will work when they have so many competitors and we also always have the option of starting our own site.
-
iStock has you all by the you-know-what, and you're delusional if you think it won't get any worse than this. IMHO, iStock now knows that the majority of it's contributors will take whatever they will give them and it won't be long until they trim commissions yet again. I guarantee it.
I don't see that question asked in this poll... I can't speak for other responders, but I absolutely do expect things to get worse.
Everyone's jumping off point is going to be different, but I'm certain that we all have a jumping off point, regardless of how we answered this poll.
-
From a bussiness point of view ? actually it is. IS goal is to give the minimum royalty possible, without decreasing there profits.
And since when life is fair? my GF father died of cancer 3 months ago (her mom did 10 years ago already), is that fair ? not really.
Wow, what a compelling argument. You went to Harvard, didn't you? BTW...just wanted to point out the difference between there, their, and they're. And "salery" is spelled "salary." I lost my father to cancer, and as far as I can tell, it had little to do with iStock.
-
From a bussiness point of view ? actually it is. IS goal is to give the minimum royalty possible, without decreasing there profits.
And since when life is fair? my GF father died of cancer 3 months ago (her mom did 10 years ago already), is that fair ? not really.
Wow, what a compelling argument. You went to Harvard, didn't you? BTW...just wanted to point out the difference between there, their, and they're. And "salery" is spelled "salary." I lost my father to cancer, and as far as I can tell, it had little to do with iStock.
Forgive me for my spelling mistakes, English is not my native language.
-
I did the same test when I became exclusive and all of the files I checked moved up in best match placement. That was only in September.
Wishful thinking, or maybe you just happened to monitor mainly the images you knew were 'on the up' whilst subconciously ignoring your lesser files that were simultaneously on the way down.
Like I said earlier it's not a mystery and, whilst we might not be able to actually write the algorithm for the best match, we can certainly prove the effect (or otherwise) on exclusive images via a few sample searches. Anyone who has the ability to count from 1-50 can see for themselves. It's not Enigma code-breaking stuff.
Funny how exclusives all desperately want to believe they are being helped by the best match despite all the evidence against it.
You should really do your test over again without the bias of the first (200 images) page on any given best match search. jump to page 3 or 4 for more accurate relevant results of how many are exclusive or not. A great stock image will sell no matter what whether its exclusive or not. I would like to think that more than 80% of peoples portfolio do not show up on the first page of best match search and if it does, well, they are super stars. Excluding the supersellers in your portfolio, more than 50% of your income would come from the other files which do get a significant bump if your exclusive. Why would anyone go exclusive if it wasnt for this increased exposure? Dont forget price plays into best match and non exclusive files are always cheaper than exclusive files moving them further back. Why do you think agency and vetta is all over the front page?
-
Shocked to see the poll showing 43% (at the time of this writing) saying that they are carrying on as normal.
I don't think it's that simple. This single little poll doesn't capture all the contributors who simply walked away, or brilliant photographers like myself ;) who've decided that submitting images into this chaotic mess would not be a good investment of time.
There are a lot of great stock images that IS isn't getting, and won't get in the future, from people who would read this forum and think - why would I spend time producing quality images for this crazy company that gives me no assurance that my commission a year from now won't be half of what it is today, or that my images won't be simply buried by new schemes to favor exclusives and high-margin images, or will even show up properly in searches based on keywords?
-
Hi aeonf,
There was a time in our countries history that employers were able to pay whatever they liked to their workers and people worked like crazy, from children to over age adults. We changed that with minimum wage, Unions and child labor laws, this helped create and support the middle class. The worker does and should have rights. I do agree 100%, if you don't want to shoot for Istock then don't but as far as being a smart motivating business plan that is another subject.
When Macro RF came on the scene they started at 20% ( a number literally pulled from the air ) when RM was at 40-50%. How were these companies able to make money by offering their photographers 50%? The did, as a matter of fact Tony Stone made their photographers very rich. To this day there are a few agencies still offering 50% to their photographers and they are still making a profit. I think if you keep your worker bees happy then they produce the best honey and work around the clock to support the hive. My two cents.
Best,
Jonathan
-
Shocked to see the poll showing 43% (at the time of this writing) saying that they are carrying on as normal.
I don't think it's that simple. This single little poll doesn't capture all the contributors who simply walked away, or brilliant photographers like myself ;) who've decided that submitting images into this chaotic mess would not be a good investment of time.
There are a lot of great stock images that IS isn't getting, and won't get in the future, from people who would read this forum and think - why would I spend time producing quality images for this crazy company that gives me no assurance that my commission a year from now won't be half of what it is today, or that my images won't be simply buried by new schemes to favor exclusives and high-margin images, or will even show up properly in searches based on keywords?
+1
-
Funny how exclusives all desperately want to believe they are being helped by the best match despite all the evidence against it.
Gostwyck nailed it.
This was absolutely the case with my portfolio. Before I went exclusive I tracked my best match positions, then when I got the crown I compared. Virtually no change at all. I may have moved up a spot or two, but that could have been ebb and flow. I certainly didn't see images jumping several pages in search.
Before I went back to independence in October, I did another comparison. Again no changes were apparent when I became independent.
In fact, my best match has been improving between October and January. Why? Because my files are being downloaded more frequently now that they are cheaper. Any exclusive who thinks iStock is truly giving them a meaningful best match advantage is playing their part in the Greater Fool Theory. The advantage of exclusivity is with commission percentage, the ability to sell for higher prices, and reduced work flow. That's it. Unless you really want business cards, which nobody ever seems to be able to get when they want them.
-
The only people would be the really big hitters who are independent. If they pulled their images and uploaded elsewhere, iStock would feel it.
For the rest of us, while there might be some satisfaction, it won't matter to iStock one iota.
Added: I'm not sure what would happen to iStock if Yuri pulled his port totally. Interesting to speculate.
I doubt very much that Istock would 'feel it' __ certainly nothing like as much as the individual contributor would. The 'Big Hitters' would feel the loss of their entire IS income the most and anyway they are actually the least affected by this.
By their choice, via the upload limits, Istock only have about 17% of the portfolio Yuri has elsewhere. That pretty much demonstrates how much they care about any individual contributor. In contrast other agencies positively fawn over Yuri.
They fawn because his sell through rate is through the roof. Yuri is limited to how many images he can upload at Istock. He has an 80%+ acceptance rate at Istock so it is just a matter of time till he will have his 38,000 images on Istock. It might take 20 years the way they control their uploading of non exclusives but that is the reason he has less on Istock than other sites.
It is the same for me, 80% acceptance 1500 images at Istock 3500 at Fotolia. I still have 2000 images to upload to Istock, at 30 a week I still have a years worth to upload. I agree Istock would not feel the pain from their top shooters leaving they would just replace them with others. But how does Istock benefit from keeping one of the highest selling photographers from uploading their work at a higher weekly percentage? It is definitely not an issue with to much saturation from the same photographer when they have millions of photos in their collection. I see it as only an incentive to try to get you to go exclusive, not to control the quality.
Best,
Jonathan
-
*snip* When Macro RF came on the scene they started at 20% ( a number literally pulled from the air ) when RM was at 40-50%. How were these companies able to make money by offering their photographers 50%? The did, as a matter of fact Tony Stone made their photographers very rich. To this day there are a few agencies still offering 50% to their photographers and they are still making a profit. I think if you keep your worker bees happy then they produce the best honey and work around the clock to support the hive. My two cents.
Exactly. The fact that a very similar new industry, phone app' development, pays 70% commission rather proves the point. They probably had nothing to reference against so just worked out the costs and what it would need to provide a healthy profit whilst leaving plenty of incentive for the developers. In fact Apple actually charge the developer 30% commission of the selling price, a subtle but important difference in which they are basically acknowledging the the app is the developer's work and they are simply taking a cut of sales to pay for the hosting and marketing. And oh boy, they certainly know how to do their marketing __ lots of 30 sec TV adverts and big spreads in national newspapers. Never seen Istock do anything like that.
-
Hi gostwyck,
Those are great examples of what a company can do to make a huge profit and keep their content providers happy. Not only that but their providers have more money to make their photos even stronger. We are always having to settle for second best model these days instead of the model that we think would sell because of the overhead issue and our diminishing returns.
I was trying to describe is the agencies were making tons of money at 50/50 when they changed it it was to increase their profit margin and it continues to grow to this day. Why not pay your people a reasonable share of the sales and still make a great company. Contributors would flock to Istock and they would reap the rewards of their followers with their strong business model.
Nordstroms stores started here in Seattle as only a shoe store and they used to let you return a pair of shoes whenever you wanted for a replacement, no charge. That model is why Nordstrom grew so fast and strong, they had customer support that followed them due to their ethics and customer service. Now they are everywhere and they still offer good service.
Why must a company try to pay the least amount possible to their workers, I think it will hurt them in the end. I know you get what you pay for and when I hire people to help me I try to offer them a good paycheck so they will bust their ass for me and return whenever I need them. Just my opinion.
Best,
Jonathan
-
Hi aeonf,
There was a time in our countries history that employers were able to pay whatever they liked to their workers and people worked like crazy, from children to over age adults. We changed that with minimum wage, Unions and child labor laws, this helped create and support the middle class. The worker does and should have rights. I do agree 100%, if you don't want to shoot for Istock then don't but as far as being a smart motivating business plan that is another subject.
When Macro RF came on the scene they started at 20% ( a number literally pulled from the air ) when RM was at 40-50%. How were these companies able to make money by offering their photographers 50%? The did, as a matter of fact Tony Stone made their photographers very rich. To this day there are a few agencies still offering 50% to their photographers and they are still making a profit. I think if you keep your worker bees happy then they produce the best honey and work around the clock to support the hive. My two cents.
Best,
Jonathan
I totaly agree. All I am saying is instead of a whole lot of people grunting and moaning all over the forums, they can make a bussiness decision just like IS has. no need to mix emotions here. IS put a fact in your face, you either take it or leave it.
I (we) are exclusives at IS. do you think I am happy on how things are going and managed there ? no. its a joke. this is not how multi million companies run. it quite pathetic, but so is bitching about it day and night in forums.
Does anybody here try and make a stand ? very very few.
Who deleted his/her port ? practicly no one (and I dont mean 10$ a month ports or non selling photos).
You gave a good history leasson here, its in our best collective intrest to create a union. 100 or even 1,000 people pulling their ports wont change a thing. 10,000 people just might! what are the chances of this happening ? I would say slim but it's more like none.
I know I would be happy to pay my yearly dues to such a union.
And sorry in advance for all spelling and grammer mistakes, I do try :)
-
Your example above is the very reason iStock can and do get away with the way they've behaved this past year, exclusives bitch and moan about changes one day and then the next the forums are full of the same folk 'wooyaying' them for some pathetic crumb that they hand out occasionally. I've never seen so much butt kissing anywhere like you see on the iStock forums, it's hardly surprising they treat contributors the way they do because they know the vast majority of exclusives that aren't important are too scared (or too stupid) to leave, for independents iStock is just an additional source of income where the decent ones will just reduce their uploading but leave the high yield images on the site and they care even less about the others.
Create and sell elsewhere is my advice.
-
Hi aeonf,
I totally get it, apathy is a killer. Easy to bitch but much harder to get off your butt and make a change. Like RT said, the smooching that goes on at their own site keeps me from ever really making a comment. I think I made a couple when I first started before I realized the depth of information that was being bounced around.
Yep, I think it comes down to agree or go home and find some other way to make the new models and agencies work for you or just go home. Where is Jimmy Hoffa when you need him :)
Best,
Jonathan
-
Agency model has no future. Same as IS model threatened Getty, a different model will evolve again. Microstock is not the last word. Then nobody will have loyalty to IS, Getty etc
-
Is it tomorrow yet? ;D
-
Is it tomorrow yet? ;D
"Tomorrow, tomorrow, I love ya, tomorrow.
You're always a day away...."
-
Is it tomorrow yet? ;D
"Tomorrow, tomorrow, I love ya, tomorrow.
You're always a day away...."
Hahaha, I'm finding it hard imagine you singing that song..
-
Hi gostwyck,
Those are great examples of what a company can do to make a huge profit and keep their content providers happy. Not only that but their providers have more money to make their photos even stronger. We are always having to settle for second best model these days instead of the model that we think would sell because of the overhead issue and our diminishing returns.
I was trying to describe is the agencies were making tons of money at 50/50 when they changed it it was to increase their profit margin and it continues to grow to this day. Why not pay your people a reasonable share of the sales and still make a great company. Contributors would flock to Istock and they would reap the rewards of their followers with their strong business model.
Nordstroms stores started here in Seattle as only a shoe store and they used to let you return a pair of shoes whenever you wanted for a replacement, no charge. That model is why Nordstrom grew so fast and strong, they had customer support that followed them due to their ethics and customer service. Now they are everywhere and they still offer good service.
Why must a company try to pay the least amount possible to their workers, I think it will hurt them in the end. I know you get what you pay for and when I hire people to help me I try to offer them a good paycheck so they will bust their ass for me and return whenever I need them. Just my opinion.
Best,
Jonathan
Capitalism is a wonderful thing, but it isn't if it's not monitored at least to a degree. "I was trying to describe is the agencies were making tons of money at 50/50 when they changed it it was to increase their profit margin and it continues to grow to this day." There will always be cases of companies just wanting it all and their greed doesn't differ a notch in comparison to the heads of authoritarian regimes, they too want it all, they too can get away with it, because there is nothing to stop them.
iStock was a company already at the top of its game, when it decided to cut commissions. Other much smaller microstock companies offer 50% and although they only have a fraction of the contributors that iStock have , they stay in business for years and years. Dreamstime, was already in the top 4, when it decided to reduce the 50% commission that it offered, but it hasn't become a bigger player since taking more of the profit. There is no reason to believe that a company offering decent commissions can not be successful. I simply don't believe that a company already taking 80%, needs to take 85% to keep its head above water. They just want more money, it is that simple.
"Why must a company try to pay the least amount possible to their workers, I think it will hurt them in the end. I know you get what you pay for and when I hire people to help me I try to offer them a good paycheck so they will bust their ass for me and return whenever I need them." It won't hurt them, most of us couldn't get our foot in the door when there were only traditional agencies, correct me if I'm wrong here, because I actually never tried. Microstock came along and we can all have our bit of fame as well as the opportunity to make some money from our images. You will always get the contributor though, who will be just happy to sell his stuff or get a thrill from seeing lines on a stat chart going up, no matter what he is paid or how much he is actually earning. In microstock you don't get what you pay for, you get a lot more, as a buyer anyway. The quality of work these days is astounding and buyers get a great deal for their dollars. Microstockers who are making some money from this have already bust their ass for a lot less than they would probably like, but if they decide that they don't want to do it anymore, there are plenty of others who will replace them. There are not too many reasons to think of why an agency would want to pay us well.
-
When you have a big successful business, you have to be careful of what decisions your're making.
Istock had a pill to pass, but they probably just choose the wrong way to do it.
Instead of making a huge cut of contributor %, they should have make smaller ones and ajust the following years.
Huge changes very often provoke huge reactions, people by nature don't like changes, and specially negative ones.
I just hope they will survive their decision. If too many people leaves, it will only benefit theirs competitors.
Since i'm exclusive there, I just hope the boat won't sink...
-
Wasn't KK given just one year to show a 50% profit? I feel sure that this is the reason for the speed of the
bulldozer changes.
-
Those are great examples of what a company can do to make a huge profit and keep their content providers happy. Not only that but their providers have more money to make their photos even stronger. We are always having to settle for second best model these days instead of the model that we think would sell because of the overhead issue and our diminishing returns.
I was trying to describe is the agencies were making tons of money at 50/50 when they changed it it was to increase their profit margin and it continues to grow to this day. Why not pay your people a reasonable share of the sales and still make a great company. Contributors would flock to Istock and they would reap the rewards of their followers with their strong business model.
Nordstroms stores started here in Seattle as only a shoe store and they used to let you return a pair of shoes whenever you wanted for a replacement, no charge. That model is why Nordstrom grew so fast and strong, they had customer support that followed them due to their ethics and customer service. Now they are everywhere and they still offer good service.
Why must a company try to pay the least amount possible to their workers, I think it will hurt them in the end. I know you get what you pay for and when I hire people to help me I try to offer them a good paycheck so they will bust their ass for me and return whenever I need them. Just my opinion.
I think the point that most of us are not recognising here is that the owners of almost all microstock agencies are not really trying to build a long-term business at all. They're just looking to maximise short-term profits in order to sell the business on for a vast sum. These 'agencies' are basically just 'get-rich-quick' schemes on behalf of their various owners.
Istockphoto has already been sold twice in less than 5 years and I have no doubt that H&F would sell again now if they could find a buyer willing to pay enough to ensure them a healthy profit.
StockXpert sold out to Jupiter and was then effectively sold on again before being closed down by Getty. The owners of BigStock sold out to SS and CanStockPhoto also sold to another agency.
The commission cuts at IS, DT and FT were nothing to do with 'sustainability', the need to invest or to remain competitive __ they are/were simply part of their respective exit strategies.
The only significant agency who has not cut commissions or unilaterally modified their contributors' terms at all ... is Shutterstock. Jon Oringer further demonstrated his long-term commitment to the industry when he bought BigStock. The contrast in behaviour of SS compared to all the other agencies is quite stark. And that's why Shutterstock will eventually win
-
Yeah! Good ol' Shutterstock. They're the greatest AFAIC. Don't go changin' Mr Oringer (except to give us a pay rise, obviously...) ;)
I didn't know CanStockPhoto sold to another agency... did I miss something?
-
What you say makes a lot of sense, gostwyck.
-
I didn't know CanStockPhoto sold to another agency... did I miss something?
Yep __ they sold out to Fotosearch in 2008. Read all about it;
http://www.microstockgroup.com/canstockphoto-com/press-release-canstock-photo-inc-acquired-now-an-affiliate-of-fotosearch/ (http://www.microstockgroup.com/canstockphoto-com/press-release-canstock-photo-inc-acquired-now-an-affiliate-of-fotosearch/)
-
Thanks Gostwyck! I didn't realise the relationship between the two was quite like that... that one pre-dates my discovery of MSG.
I thought that picture was of Hugh Laurie :D
-
Everyone has their price.
-
I thought that picture was of Hugh Laurie :D
That is Hugh Laurie (unless he has a twin).
-
Yep, that's Hugh Laurie. When you choose an avatar for this site, there are quite a few celebrities you can choose from if you want.
-
Oh! Sorry. :-[
It never occurred to me that someone would use a celeb's pic to represent themselves... That would have been a hell of a doppleganger!
-
Does anybody here try and make a stand ? very very few.
Who deleted his/her port ? practicly no one (and I dont mean 10$ a month ports or non selling photos).
You gave a good history leasson here, its in our best collective intrest to create a union. 100 or even 1,000 people pulling their ports wont change a thing. 10,000 people just might! what are the chances of this happening ? I would say slim but it's more like none.
I know I would be happy to pay my yearly dues to such a union.
And sorry in advance for all spelling and grammer mistakes, I do try :)
The way I read the poll above 40% actually took a stand. They said they were either going to stop uploading or delete files. They may be small steps, but they are still steps.
-
Hey gostwyck,
You and I agree more and more these days ;) I think there will be companies sold when they saturate their profit margin and can get the best price possible. We saw Getty hold on to it's company to long and they lost a huge portion of the value of their company when they sold. At least that is the way it was presented to the public, I am a big cynic to the end and I don't always believe what I read so I am not sure what really took place when Getty's stock plunged and they were purchased it might have been part of the plan to go private. Either way I would guess that all of these sites will change hands in the next 5 years. I don't think we are looking at Ford or Sears here.
Best,
Jonathan
-
Hey gostwyck,
You and I agree more and more these days ;) I think there will be companies sold when they saturate their profit margin and can get the best price possible. We saw Getty hold on to it's company to long and they lost a huge portion of the value of their company when they sold. At least that is the way it was presented to the public, I am a big cynic to the end and I don't always believe what I read so I am not sure what really took place when Getty's stock plunged and they were purchased it might have been part of the plan to go private. Either way I would guess that all of these sites will change hands in the next 5 years. I don't think we are looking at Ford or Sears here.
Yep, it'll maybe take another 5 years before microstock matures into a stable industry, assuming that it hasn't been replaced by a new business model ('nanostock'?) by then anyway. Trouble is, the way things are going, I'm not sure they'll be much left in it for us by the time we get there.
-
I'm new here and an exclusive illustrator at IS. I'm waiting to see how the first quarter breaks before I move anything. That being said, I have a full time job and also I have not sold stock anywhere else, but I'm starting to investigate the particulars of other stock sites. I cannot see these changes at IS being good for anyone. :(
-
Istockphoto has already been sold twice in less than 5 years and I have no doubt that H&F would sell again now if they could find a buyer willing to pay enough to ensure them a healthy profit.
Makes you wonder if the recent happenings there are a result of a failed 'closed doors' attempt at selling the company: they buy, create a few new changes to make the place look shiny and appealing (Vetta, Exclusive+ etc) and test the water for buyers, then they discover nobody is interested so they revert to the often seen procedure of installing a 'muppet' to head the public face of the management team and to consequently take the fall whilst the real management start about getting as much money out as possible anyway they can before the ship sinks.
-
Yep, that's Hugh Laurie. When you choose an avatar for this site, there are quite a few celebrities you can choose from if you want.
Thought it was. Handsome devil.
Think I'll go check out the celebrity avatars. I want to be somebody else for a little while. :D
edit: There we go! I'm b-e-a-utiful!
-
As the istock commission cuts are happening 1st January 2011
I will bet you a dollar that they won't be happening tomorrow. I would say the 17th at the earliest.
Is it tomorrow yet? :D
I'm wondering how the rumor that the company was sold has turned into, all of this is caused by the new owners. Rumor becomes reality, where's the basis in fact for all these messages saying it's the new owners, if there are no new owners. I swear that one person here has been saying IS will be sold soon for three years now, and all the things they are doing are just to pump up the earnings so they CAN sell the company.
There is a mix of answers based on already sold or soon to be sold as the premise for the conclusions. What I don't see are any supporting facts or evidence?
-
I am not sure what really took place when Getty's stock plunged and they were purchased it might have been part of the plan to go private
Getty was not meeting stock market expectations.
If Getty is sold or goes public investors will want to see profit growth. None of us knows whether the business is doing well now or not.
t'll maybe take another 5 years before microstock matures into a stable industry, assuming that it hasn't been replaced by a new business model ('nanostock'?) by then anyway.
Agency model will be challenged by marketplace model sooner or later.
-
Oh! Sorry. :-[
It never occurred to me that someone would use a celeb's pic to represent themselves... That would have been a hell of a doppleganger!
LOL. Several people on this board once remarked how much I look like Bruce Willis, so I decided not to use the picture of Bruce Willis for my avatar anymore.
-
Ah, but Dan you will always be Bruce Willis to those of us who have been here a while ;)
-
edit: There we go! I'm b-e-a-utiful!
Sorry, I prefer the real you :)
-
LOL. Several people on this board once remarked how much I look like Bruce Willis, so I decided not to use the picture of Bruce Willis for my avatar anymore.
:D :D :D
Now I think of it, I do recall that there are a couple of posters here who bear a remarkable resemblance to Freddie Mercury and Brad Pitt! There's a jolly handsome and charismatic bunch at MSG, for sure. ;)
-
It never occurred to me that someone would use a celeb's pic to represent themselves... That would have been a hell of a doppleganger!
There are people here who use celeb pics? What whackjobs. Crazy I tell ya.
-
It never occurred to me that someone would use a celeb's pic to represent themselves... That would have been a hell of a doppleganger!
There are people here who use celeb pics? What whackjobs. Crazy I tell ya.
Gwongetouttahere and fugettaboutit. ;D
-
Shocked to see the poll showing 43% (at the time of this writing) saying that they are carrying on as normal.
I don't think it's that simple. This single little poll doesn't capture all the contributors who simply walked away, or brilliant photographers like myself ;) who've decided that submitting images into this chaotic mess would not be a good investment of time.
There are a lot of great stock images that IS isn't getting, and won't get in the future, from people who would read this forum and think - why would I spend time producing quality images for this crazy company that gives me no assurance that my commission a year from now won't be half of what it is today, or that my images won't be simply buried by new schemes to favor exclusives and high-margin images, or will even show up properly in searches based on keywords?
I voted for Carrying on as Usual because there wasn't a "take a wait-and-see attitude for awhile". I'm a relatively new contributor with a small portfolio. While I've only had a handful of DL's, my return-per-image is the highest of all the sites I'm on. I'm seeing higher overall dollars on SS and am getting close to my first payout -still a long way off on IS but the higher RPI is encouraging. I've had .18 and .19 at FT and IS so it's not the only site that's offering small returns. IS isn't going to be a priority to upload to, but for now I'll keep it in the mix and will be watching the overall return on investment. It's never fun to get a pay cut (hey - we've had to do that at my "real" job for the past few years - no paid holidays, furlough days, etc) but for now as mentioned, I'm on "wait and see" mode before I just walk away.
-
I'm new here and an exclusive illustrator at IS. I'm waiting to see how the first quarter breaks before I move anything. That being said, I have a full time job and also I have not sold stock anywhere else, but I'm starting to investigate the particulars of other stock sites. I cannot see these changes at IS being good for anyone. :(
Good idea to take some time to look around and see how you feel your work might do on the other sites. Once upon a time I'd have said that anyone producing complex vectors (anything other than simple clipart type stuff and huge piles of icons crammed into a file) would do best at IS. But for whatever reason, IS has just shafted vectors over the last couple of years. If you're at all interested in raster illustrations, the market elsewhere is a ton better than at IS.
There are a number of independent illustrators who stop by here, so I expect you'll find plenty of good info.
-
Does anybody here try and make a stand ? very very few.
Who deleted his/her port ? practicly no one (and I dont mean 10$ a month ports or non selling photos).
You gave a good history leasson here, its in our best collective intrest to create a union. 100 or even 1,000 people pulling their ports wont change a thing. 10,000 people just might! what are the chances of this happening ? I would say slim but it's more like none.
I know I would be happy to pay my yearly dues to such a union.
And sorry in advance for all spelling and grammer mistakes, I do try :)
The way I read the poll above 40% actually took a stand. They said they were either going to stop uploading or delete files. They may be small steps, but they are still steps.
Funny isn't it that you should mention the 43% that are carrying on as usual as taking a stand. You did mention that didn't you? The majority of people who responded aren't going to change anything right now.
It's also kind of odd that the poll is very lopsided and leading?
-
Funny isn't it that you should mention the 43% that are carrying on as usual as taking a stand. You did mention that didn't you? The majority of people who responded aren't going to change anything right now.
It's also kind of odd that the poll is very lopsided and leading?
Actually, I was talking about the 40% not uploading, deleting files or have left IS (the top part of the poll). Those all add up to 40% on the poll. The other 43% is continuing as usual and I really didn't know how to categorize "I will upload less". That is a pretty vague response.
-
100 or even 1,000 people pulling their ports wont change a thing. 10,000 people just might! what are the chances of this happening ? I would say slim but it's more like none.
You're wrong on the first point. If the top 100 diamonds banded together to pull their portfolios iStock would go into complete panic mode. If the bottom 10,000 tried it, they would just laugh their heads off. However, the top 100 won't do it because it would risk sacrificing their entire income for most of them, even though iStock would almost certainly give in to their demands if it believed they were serious.
The first rule of trade unionism is that you can't hurt your paymaster without doing immeasurably more damage to yourself and your family. And if you aren't willing to do that, you have no bargaining power at all. It's in the paymaster's interests to screw you over as hard as they can but just stop short of the point where you turn yourself into an economic suicide bomb. I believe it's called living the American Dream.
-
^^^ But when was that? I know exclusivity used to affect best match placement but all the research I've done of late indicates that it is no longer a factor.
Of course it's very recently become more difficult to tell because the downloads numbers are further disguised.
If anyone is in any doubt there is one very easy way to check on how much the best match is influenced by exclusivity __ although it does take a bit of work to do so.
Pick a search term preferably in a niche subject that will have few if any Vetta or Agency images as they confuse the issue and need to be ignored for the purpose of the exercise. Food subjects are often good in that respect. Sort the results by best match and count how many exclusive images are in the first 25 or 50 images (or whatever sample size you choose). Then sort them by Age, Downloads, Size and count again. If best match is indeed influenced by exclusivity then statistically you should see a strong pattern emerge in which, when sorted by best match a higher proportion of exclusive images should be evident. Age and Size are of course statistically random. Sorting by Downloads should also be random but obviously, if exclusive files have been improved by the best match, then they should dominate the results too and further support the theory that best match really does help exclusives.
Try it for yourself. Personally I can find no statistical supporting evidence whatsoever that the best match favours exclusives. You can either do the work and prove it mathematically to your own satisfaction __ or alternatively you can believe in SNP's 'magic fairies theory'.
exclusive files could still be favored in the size, and age search. How many people are shooting with a 5DmarkII? All the images will be the same size, so they need another way to sort the images within those sames sized images. I would assume it isn't random - but rather sorted by the way iStock wants them to appear.
But of course that is all just guessing the best anyone can do
... except for the head of iStock Europe.. he should have a clue. When asked how to improve search rank, this is what he said
(at 8m26s)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=373Fgjwuk44#t=8m26s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=373Fgjwuk44#t=8m26s)
suffice it to say I think I side with the people saying exclusive photographers get a bump in the search.
-
Those are great examples of what a company can do to make a huge profit and keep their content providers happy. Not only that but their providers have more money to make their photos even stronger. We are always having to settle for second best model these days instead of the model that we think would sell because of the overhead issue and our diminishing returns.
I was trying to describe is the agencies were making tons of money at 50/50 when they changed it it was to increase their profit margin and it continues to grow to this day. Why not pay your people a reasonable share of the sales and still make a great company. Contributors would flock to Istock and they would reap the rewards of their followers with their strong business model.
Nordstroms stores started here in Seattle as only a shoe store and they used to let you return a pair of shoes whenever you wanted for a replacement, no charge. That model is why Nordstrom grew so fast and strong, they had customer support that followed them due to their ethics and customer service. Now they are everywhere and they still offer good service.
Why must a company try to pay the least amount possible to their workers, I think it will hurt them in the end. I know you get what you pay for and when I hire people to help me I try to offer them a good paycheck so they will bust their ass for me and return whenever I need them. Just my opinion.
I think the point that most of us are not recognising here is that the owners of almost all microstock agencies are not really trying to build a long-term business at all. They're just looking to maximise short-term profits in order to sell the business on for a vast sum. These 'agencies' are basically just 'get-rich-quick' schemes on behalf of their various owners.
Istockphoto has already been sold twice in less than 5 years and I have no doubt that H&F would sell again now if they could find a buyer willing to pay enough to ensure them a healthy profit.
StockXpert sold out to Jupiter and was then effectively sold on again before being closed down by Getty. The owners of BigStock sold out to SS and CanStockPhoto also sold to another agency.
The commission cuts at IS, DT and FT were nothing to do with 'sustainability', the need to invest or to remain competitive __ they are/were simply part of their respective exit strategies.
The only significant agency who has not cut commissions or unilaterally modified their contributors' terms at all ... is Shutterstock. Jon Oringer further demonstrated his long-term commitment to the industry when he bought BigStock. The contrast in behaviour of SS compared to all the other agencies is quite stark. And that's why Shutterstock will eventually win
Nice post Gostwyck and I agree building up a business to sell seems to be a clear strategy for most stock sites, perhaps most businesses (at least start-ups) in general. Which is why a microstock co-op idea would be great. The site wouldn't / couldn't be sold off to someone else as soon as it became profitable, the (hopefully) successful site would remain the property of the photographers. [/dreaming]
-
Does anybody here try and make a stand ? very very few.
Who deleted his/her port ? practicly no one (and I dont mean 10$ a month ports or non selling photos).
You gave a good history leasson here, its in our best collective intrest to create a union. 100 or even 1,000 people pulling their ports wont change a thing. 10,000 people just might! what are the chances of this happening ? I would say slim but it's more like none.
I know I would be happy to pay my yearly dues to such a union.
And sorry in advance for all spelling and grammer mistakes, I do try :)
The way I read the poll above 40% actually took a stand. They said they were either going to stop uploading or delete files. They may be small steps, but they are still steps.
Funny isn't it that you should mention the 43% that are carrying on as usual as taking a stand. You did mention that didn't you? The majority of people who responded aren't going to change anything right now.
It's also kind of odd that the poll is very lopsided and leading?
I was most interested in the people that have chosen the first 4 options, as they might make a difference to istock. I didn't really see much point in adding lots of extra options that aren't that significant. I don't think it's lopsided or leading, it was just to satisfy my curiosity.
Thanks to everyone who voted.
-
I'm part of a very small minority. The 10% or so.
But I'm used with it already. For some strange reason I always end up being part of the minority.
For the past 10 days I've been deleting my IStock port. I'm doing it as we speak.
I will not sell any of my images for anything less than 20%.
I do not believe in the concept 'well, this is how microstock works, there's nothing we can do about it, we just have to accept it'.
I, for one, don't have to accept it.
And there are very, very few photographers who truly can't afford to delete their IStock ports.
Most can. Quite easily.
But they won't do it. Because 'a sale is a sale', '0.50 cent is better than nothing', and the power of money. No matter how little.
Getty is not the only culprit here. We're involved as well.
And Getty made a mistake.
They should have pushed things further. 10% commission would have worked just as well for most contributors.
Ah well, there's still time ...
-
I'm part of a very small minority. The 10% or so.
But I'm used with it already. For some strange reason I always end up being part of the minority.
For the past 10 days I've been deleting my IStock port. I'm doing it as we speak.
I will not sell any of my images for anything less than 20%.
I do not believe in the concept 'well, this is how microstock works, there's nothing we can do about it, we just have to accept it'.
I, for one, don't have to accept it.
And there are very, very few photographers who truly can't afford to delete their IStock ports.
Most can. Quite easily.
But they won't do it. Because 'a sale is a sale', '0.50 cent is better than nothing', and the power of money. No matter how little.
Getty is not the only culprit here. We're involved as well.
And Getty made a mistake.
They should have pushed things further. 10% commission would have worked just as well for most contributors.
Ah well, there's still time ...
Excellent summation, exactly how I feel.
-
Hi alias,
Just to help Jonathan Klein said it himself when interviewed, so it isn't just based on guessing.
Leaf,
I have been lucky enough to be involved in two co-ops now that are both making good returns especially for the owner shooters because they get a larger slice than the contributors to their site. I will say I would love to be involved with something of the sort but from my experience it would take a very special group of people to pull it off.
They are out there but I don't know if they would opt in. It has to stay reasonably small in co-op form or the board has to absolutely be trusted and supported for a certain period of time to make it fly. Niche Micro collections could be a great way to start this. Baby Boomers are going to hit 65 here in about a week and senior images and footage I think are going to sell really well for the next twenty years. So who's in :)
Cheers,
Jonathan
-
Hi alias,
Just to help Jonathan Klein said it himself when interviewed, so it isn't just based on guessing.
Leaf,
I have been lucky enough to be involved in two co-ops now that are both making good returns especially for the owner shooters because they get a larger slice than the contributors to their site. I will say I would love to be involved with something of the sort but from my experience it would take a very special group of people to pull it off.
They are out there but I don't know if they would opt in. It has to stay reasonably small in co-op form or the board has to absolutely be trusted and supported for a certain period of time to make it fly. Niche Micro collections could be a great way to start this. Baby Boomers are going to hit 65 here in about a week and senior images and footage I think are going to sell really well for the next twenty years. So who's in :)
Cheers,
Jonathan
I am :)
-
Hi Elenathewise,
I think it is a great idea but to make it work takes a lot of trust and a lot of really hard work. There would have to be a board of a few people to represent the company and keep it's business in tact. If you should choose to make this fly I would help in every way possible but my time is so short at this point of my career I surely couldn't be a board member or really help build the company.
I am always welcome to share any information on the subject and help anyone get it off the ground with what knowledge I have and would be happy to shoot for such an effort but I am to swamped myself to give the time needed to make this kind of opportunity work at the moment. I know it can be done it is just the matter of gathering the right people that are willing to see their income effected for a few years as the company grows to a point of truly supporting it's creators. Just my two cents.
Best,
Jonathan
-
I am always welcome to share any information on the subject and help anyone get it off the ground with what knowledge I have and would be happy to shoot for such an effort but I am to swamped myself to give the time needed to make this kind of opportunity work at the moment.
I think this sums the reason it hasn't happened yet, in spite of being talked about for years. A number of us have expressed interest in joining a co-op site. The problem isn't finding members willing to join, but rather that nobody has stepped forward with both the expertise and the time to get it going.
-
I think we may be forced into the co-op option simply because, before too long, the only people making any real money in microstock (or any other sort of stock) will be the agencies themselves.
It won't be a question of having to put up with having our incomes 'affected for a few years' because for most of us it will already have been reduced to virtually nothing anyway.
That's when it will happen and IMHO such a scenario might not be as far away as you might imagine.
-
edit: There we go! I'm b-e-a-utiful!
Sorry, I prefer the real you :)
Thanks Lisa! I changed me back to me. :)
-
Thanks Lisa! I changed me back to me. :)
I like your new avatar - very clever! :)
-
Thanks Lisa! I changed me back to me. :)
I like your new avatar - very clever! :)
Thanks. It was my reflection in the silver logo on my old soccer ball imac.
-
Hi G,
I agree, it just takes the right person or people to grow tired enough of the control of the big agencies to start doing it themselves. I know that was the catalyst behind Blend Images was a bunch of us were tired of all our work being rejected at that point in stock so we did it ourselves. This could come sooner than we think, Monkey business is kind of the start of such growth only it is run by individuals instead of being a co-op.
There are several people I have read here on this site that could start this. Hey, I started an agency and I am just a regular joe, it just takes time, trust and the right people, oh and money, did I mention a lot of time :)
But I will say that many of the people that start it won't necessarily be friends in the end and that might be the best way to avoid any trouble from the start. Keep it strictly business that follows a tight business outline that keeps anyone from getting to much control or others that don't work but come along for the ride. The document that is written for this group needs to be thoroughly thought out and possibly by an outside source that is not vested in the company, there are good lawyers that will build a business outline for you. The right group of people can and will eventually do this in Microstock, this industry just keeps recycling itself every few years. My opinion.
Best,
J
-
Hi everyone,
The last time we talked about this issue, a few of us said that we are for a Co-op site and some of us are even willing to put some money into that project, if necessary. Talk is cheap. I don't think we are ready yet for such a business. At that time, I thought about Jonathan and I thought that he is the best person to set such a company up, but now I can see that he is very busy with his business. Also, why would he go against himself?
Gostwick and Lisa have some good points, but again who is going to step forward?
Regards
Kone
-
who is going to step forward?
No one. End of thread till next one starts up. ;)
-
No one. End of thread till next one starts up. ;)
For now. At the moment those of us who earn our livings from microstock cannot realistically proceed. But if and when that changes ... there may simply be nothing to lose.
-
For now. At the moment those of us who earn our livings from microstock cannot realistically proceed. But if and when that changes ... there may simply be nothing to lose.
Makes sense. I think there would be a risk to getting booted from some of the microstock sites for starting a site with multiple artists. I would think the natural progression would be more realistic for individual artist sites to promote each other or have a loose partnership. I could see doing something like that when my store grows a little more. I always think of the old webring concept.
-
For now. At the moment those of us who earn our livings from microstock cannot realistically proceed. But if and when that changes ... there may simply be nothing to lose.
Except at that point people will be too panicky, and will go off to find other jobs. They won't just be sitting around making 1/50th of what they were making saying, "hey, lets start something from scratch - I can eat cat food for a couple years".
-
Except at that point people will be too panicky, and will go off to find other jobs. They won't just be sitting around making 1/50th of what they were making saying, "hey, lets start something from scratch - I can eat cat food for a couple years".
Many of us that got to the position of earning our living through microstock did so by doing other work whilst we built our portfolios. I did it by driving a taxi as much or as little as I needed to for example. At no point did I eat cat food. Actually I eat rather well, all tax-deductible, being as I was mainly shooting food.
I've been thinking about this for some time. There is actually a way of accelerating "the plan" massively __ but you'll only find out about it when it happens. Suffice to say that the some of the various agencies will only be able to exploit and take the piss out of us for so long.
It is my contention that microstock as we know it, via the agencies, has already peaked. If so, the power of the agencies over us will gradually diminish and then, eventually, the game will start anew.
-
It is my contention that microstock as we know it, via the agencies, has already peaked. If so, the power of the agencies over us will gradually diminish and then, eventually, the game will start anew.
I don't think so, but I'll guess we'll see.
-
^^^ To be honest I hope you're right and not me. I much prefer playing golf than doing all that pesky 'working for a living' thing. Alas, my own data and most of what I read from others suggests otherwise.
As you say "We'll see".
-
Except at that point people will be too panicky, and will go off to find other jobs. They won't just be sitting around making 1/50th of what they were making saying, "hey, lets start something from scratch - I can eat cat food for a couple years".
Many of us that got to the position of earning our living through microstock did so by doing other work whilst we built our portfolios. I did it by driving a taxi as much or as little as I needed to for example. At no point did I eat cat food. Actually I eat rather well, all tax-deductible, being as I was mainly shooting food.
^^Agreed. I would really HATE to have to start over, but it wouldn't be impossible for me. We lived off my husband's salary for more than a decade when my daughter was little. I later supplemented our income by shooting some weddings and portraits Going back to that would mean a reduction in lifestyle at this point, but it would be doable. Lots of people have faced worse in the past couple of years.
But, as Gostwyck says, I hope you are right Sean. I would much prefer to continue to make my living through the microstock agencies. If the economy pics up, and if the greedier agencies reign themselves in a bit, it should continue to be possible to work with them for many years to come.
-
Judging by past history of the entire photo-agency business, yes, it should peak right about now. Ten years is normaly what you get and that involves the Trad-agencies, RM, RF, etc. With Micro Im not too sure, its pictures off the peg and dirt cheap really, it might just hang in there a few more years.
I can only see a new agency-type work if it offers something differant then the existing ones, Pretty pointless housing all the same stuff that is already available in billions, isnt it.
Theres got to be something new.