Since iStock started sending out their survey today, I was curious what it would take to make you happy with iStock again. By happy, I'm referring to money (more precisely royalty percentages).

Since iStock started sending out their survey today, I was curious what it would take to make you happy with iStock again. By happy, I'm referring to money (more precisely royalty percentages).

I'd be 'happy' if I was getting 50%, but I'd be 'satisfied' if I was getting the 35% I would have been getting had I been grandfathered in, as promised, and getting an extra 10% for ELs, as previously.

I said 30%, although I'd be happy with more.  I always thought of my bargain with iStock as taking a lower royalty in exchange for a greater marketing and advertising budget, something the other agencies are unable or unwilling to match.  They get more sales, and I make more money despite a lower percentage.  A pity they couldn't be satisfied with the lion's share, and had to go after the hyena's cut as well.

Quote from: disorderly on August 18, 2011, 16:01

I always thought of my bargain with iStock as taking a lower royalty in exchange for a greater marketing and advertising budget, something the other agencies are unable or unwilling to match.

I have to wonder about the actual validity of this. The best way to get traffic to your site is to rank high on Google. The best way to get high rankings on Google is to have lots of sites link to your site. Happy contributors are a great way to get those links. Sure a big fancy ad in a design magazine is prestigious, but does it really bring in more customers than thousands of contributors blogging about what a great company you are or telling their clients to shop for their stock at your site. I'd love to have all those people talking about me and giving me free advertisements and links.

Color me unimpressed and unconvinced.  Do you really believe that businesses looking for a product really care about how many satisfied suppliers it has?  My guess is that one AdWords ad on Google gets more attention from potential customers than a thousand links.  Heck, now iStock is advertising on NPR shows and podcasts.  Somebody there believes they'll get more business that way and is willing to spend their/our money to prove it.

Google makes its money from advertisers.  Those advertisers have to believe they're getting attention they wouldn't get without it, or they wouldn't spend all that cash.

is this poll for independents only? it wouldnt make sense otherwise

Why ever not?
It's for everone.

Subscriptions are what's killing it, everywhere.  With a subscription sale, we don't know what the buyer "paid" because the money is in the up front subscription fees.  Any link between sale and commission is gone - the payment to the photographer becomes a mere token.   

Color me unimpressed and unconvinced.  Do you really believe that businesses looking for a product really care about how many satisfied suppliers it has?  My guess is that one AdWords ad on Google gets more attention from potential customers than a thousand links.

I think you missed my point. I was saying that some of their best advertising is free advertising. You can get to the top of Google's search rankings for many terms and phrases without spending a cent. Having a group of dedicated fans (contributors) helps with that goal by link building. Paid advertising helps too, but good old fashioned and entirely free SEO and link building is probably the best thing to get traffic to your site. So, I question the need to have over 50% of the royalties for any reason. Besides, I've never seen an increase in traffic from any of these companies claiming they need a bigger share for advertising. Make me happy, and I'll promote your site for free.

Subscriptions are what's killing it, everywhere.  With a subscription sale, we don't know what the buyer "paid" because the money is in the up front subscription fees.  Any link between sale and commission is gone - the payment to the photographer becomes a mere token.   

In a different approach, subscription is a certain revenue. Regardless of what offers a given agency for a per-photo-sale, subscription revenue can be considered stable.
If we took the example of SS, this idea really works. Playing with different factors, like buyers don't download all available images per day, extended licenses, not-so-extended licenses, etc., our revenue can be extremely stable and predictable. Another example is Depositphotos, - with the latest photo gathering offer - it seems to me that they are focused on more and more images to offer better subscription base.
With the amount of today's flow of high quality stock images, I may say, the future is subscription-based. With constantly rising prices, quality needs, etc. we may reach even $1 revenue per subscription sale. (This will mean the $1/image sale what they talked about in the dawn of microstock).

To be frank...

I just want the 40% I earned while I wasted my fingers, wrist, eyesight, back family time and free time... that I invested in getting there at almost triple diamond.

We had a contract and a set of rules which were changed mid-race in order to simply wipe the slate clean and post higher revenues.  It is simply the ugliest thing any company or boss has done to me personally and why I simply have lost what made me love iStock in the first place, trust.

They can still backtrack and make it all back from today forward but I can't fathom that fairness is something they put in the equation now or in the future.   

If iStock does 40% to us diamonds as we were privy before, we still have the lowering of revenues due to large competition.    It does however only punish from a predictable side and not from the part of the equation that should be your agent and look after your revenue/work.

I know that many at iStock had no clue or wanted to do this so I am not generalizing on the good people there. They were handed a rotten egg basket and they had to color them nicely as much as they could to make the poison pill easier to swallow.   They can still turn back the clock and re-earn their place of trust.

To be frank...

I just want the 40% I earned while I wasted my fingers, wrist, eyesight, back family time and free time... that I invested in getting there at almost triple diamond.

We had a contract and a set of rules which were changed mid-race in order to simply wipe the slate clean and post higher revenues.  It is simply the ugliest thing any company or boss has done to me personally and why I simply have lost what made me love iStock in the first place, trust.

They can still backtrack and make it all back from today forward but I can't fathom that fairness is something they put in the equation now or in the future.   

If iStock does 40% to us diamonds as we were privy before, we still have the lowering of revenues due to large competition.    It does however only punish from a predictable side and not from the part of the equation that should be your agent and look after your revenue/work.

I know that many at iStock had no clue or wanted to do this so I am not generalizing on the good people there. They were handed a rotten egg basket and they had to color them nicely as much as they could to make the poison pill easier to swallow.   They can still turn back the clock and re-earn their place of trust.

Very well put. Exactly the same here. I want the 40% I was promised to be "grandfathered" in to. Separating "canister" from "royalty level" was never part of the deal as far as I was concerned.

Not only would it take at least 50% commission to get me to even think about uploading again, it would take a revamp of their Contributor Agreement to ensure that I receive that commission for a specified period of time. Without all the legal bullsh*t added in to provide loopholes for them.

I no longer believe or trust anything that comes out of their mouth. Do you actually think that because they shifted KK around with a new person that their bottom-line goal is any different? I seriously doubt it. If they had any integrity, they wouldn't have done what they did in the first place, all in the name of profits.

Are they willing to make a change and put it in writing? I doubt it. If they do, then I might reconsider. But this is all based on whether I even measure up to their new standards. Which I don't believe I do. But it was fun playing! 

I expect change ... more royalty cuts.

Even though I was upset with this round of cuts, I didn't anticipate how much the drop would ruin my motivation.  I used to enjoy contributing but now it takes a tonne of willpower just to be bothered to submit a few images.  I hoped that Vetta would stimulate my desire to do some higher quality stuff but no dice.  I worked for years to get that 40% and having it taken away was a pretty hard hit.  And with the possibility of further cuts .... well, what's the point?

I've channeled my energy into taking on more freelance work again and I'm happy doing that.

I expect change ... more royalty cuts.

Even though I was upset with this round of cuts, I didn't anticipate how much the drop would ruin my motivation.  I used to enjoy contributing but now it takes a tonne of willpower just to be bothered to submit a few images.  I hoped that Vetta would stimulate my desire to do some higher quality stuff but no dice.  I worked for years to get that 40% and having it taken away was a pretty hard hit.  And with the possibility of further cuts .... well, what's the point?

I've channeled my energy into taking on more freelance work again and I'm happy doing that.

I feel very much the same way. I still upload weekly but its only because I haven't found a consistent income outside of stock. I miss being excited to upload new images.