MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Poll

What are you going to do when istock cut commissions tomorrow?

I have allready left.
14 (6.7%)
I have allready been removing my portfolio.
16 (7.6%)
I will start deleting my portfolio now.
10 (4.8%)
I will just stop uploading.
42 (20%)
I will upload less.
33 (15.7%)
I'm carrying on as normal.
95 (45.2%)

Total Members Voted: 192

Voting closed: January 30, 2011, 04:24

Author Topic: What are you going to do when istock cut commissions tomorrow?  (Read 34969 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #100 on: January 04, 2011, 16:18 »
0
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


« Reply #101 on: January 04, 2011, 16:21 »
0
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

« Reply #102 on: January 04, 2011, 16:38 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2011, 16:40 by djpadavona »

« Reply #103 on: January 04, 2011, 16:54 »
0
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
« Last Edit: January 04, 2011, 16:56 by Jonathan Ross »

« Reply #104 on: January 04, 2011, 17:06 »
0
*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.

« Reply #105 on: January 04, 2011, 17:55 »
0
 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

« Reply #106 on: January 04, 2011, 18:34 »
0
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 :)

RT


« Reply #107 on: January 04, 2011, 18:46 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2011, 18:48 by RT »

« Reply #108 on: January 04, 2011, 18:54 »
0
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

alias

« Reply #109 on: January 04, 2011, 19:04 »
0
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

« Reply #110 on: January 04, 2011, 20:34 »
0
Is it tomorrow yet? ;D

« Reply #111 on: January 04, 2011, 20:51 »
0
Is it tomorrow yet? ;D

"Tomorrow, tomorrow, I love ya, tomorrow.
 You're always a day away...."

« Reply #112 on: January 04, 2011, 22:14 »
0
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..

« Reply #113 on: January 04, 2011, 23:57 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 00:07 by Komar »

« Reply #114 on: January 05, 2011, 00:28 »
0
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...

rubyroo

« Reply #115 on: January 05, 2011, 00:38 »
0
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.   

« Reply #116 on: January 05, 2011, 10:55 »
0
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
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 11:26 by gostwyck »

rubyroo

« Reply #117 on: January 05, 2011, 11:17 »
0
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?

« Reply #118 on: January 05, 2011, 11:19 »
0
What you say makes a lot of sense, gostwyck.

« Reply #119 on: January 05, 2011, 11:33 »
0
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/

rubyroo

« Reply #120 on: January 05, 2011, 11:55 »
0
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

« Reply #121 on: January 05, 2011, 11:58 »
0
Everyone has their price.

KB

« Reply #122 on: January 05, 2011, 12:38 »
0
I thought that picture was of Hugh Laurie  :D
That is Hugh Laurie (unless he has a twin).

lisafx

« Reply #123 on: January 05, 2011, 12:44 »
0
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. 

rubyroo

« Reply #124 on: January 05, 2011, 12:52 »
0
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!


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
16 Replies
8376 Views
Last post December 01, 2009, 21:48
by RacePhoto
6 Replies
3363 Views
Last post May 22, 2013, 05:26
by leaf
13 Replies
7480 Views
Last post November 13, 2013, 20:55
by Mantis
6 Replies
4128 Views
Last post April 30, 2015, 13:27
by Petr Toman
4 Replies
2566 Views
Last post January 29, 2017, 13:48
by YadaYadaYada

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors