Very nice, I like Dramas

kkthompson
If you take a look at some previous announcements they were perfectly open about IStock being run by a Getty/ IStock team.
It's just damage control to try and distance them now the sh*t's hit the fan and Getty is seen as corporate satan by contributors.

My favorite line in the whole slippery solution was this, None of this is comfort to the 24% of Exclusives who will see a rate decrease � or to any of the non-Exclusives who are, quite frankly, bearing the brunt of these changes.

I just don't like the idea that taking from the poor to pay the rich, to adjust the "unsustainable" payouts based on increased canister levels, which they promised people to entice them into becoming exclusives.

Leave the non-exclusives alone, because they didn't cause the problem and they aren't part of the problem at an already low 20%

If enough non-exclusives leave or take down some of their portfolio, the exclusives are going to be in for another commission cut.  This is such a big gamble but unfortunately lots of people will put up with this.  I just hope enough wise up and realise that if we tolerate this, we will soon be lucky to get 5% commission.

Hey, but we wouldn't want someone of such importance to have to rough it out while under such unsustainable financial strain and have to suffer the indigity of economy class, would we?

http://twitter.com/kkthompson"Thank you travel gods for last minute upgrades to business class on oversees flights. Go #aircanada
9:05 PM Sep 25th via Twitter for iPhone "

Sheer arrogance, IMO.

Next he'll be tweeting about saving a few million on his new $10million condo. LOL

I really don't mind the exclusives getting some rewards for being loyal or making more because they contribute special images that aren't elsewhere. WhY i resent is that in order to hold up the payment plan for some people, the bottom paid group is getting a cut?

It's almost as if IS wants all exclusives unless someone is stupid enough to work for nothing. I mean micro is already small enough payment and commission, now they are reducing that to 15%? If their goal is to drive out the independents, this should do it, except for a small, very small percentage, of stock factories.

Hopefully the rest of the independents will recognize that selling for nothing and working for nearly nothing is stealing sales from their other agencies. They might as well get one sale for a fair pay, instead of three sales, for the same pay. It's not how many times you make a sale, it's the bottom line and what you can put in the bank.

First it was subs for 25 cents, now it's 15% commission. As some have mocked, soon they will charge us to sell our photos. Oh wait, doesn't Getty have that plan already?

Yes, I can't understand why they're so inflexible about the 20% 'across the board' thing.  If Getty artists have been happy with that to date, it has to be because the sale price was large enough to make a 20% commission a sustainable means of making a living.

Why can't they see that 20% (let alone 15%) of the pittance that is a micropayment is UNsustainable for the artist who is selling so cheaply?  Sustainability is a two-way street.
 
Their position is too fixed on this, and I feel they should flex their fixed model to suit the micropayment portion of their industry.  Sometimes a company has to step back and question whether 'doing it because it's always been done this way' is actually a realistic and sensible thing. 

Yes, I can't understand why they're so inflexible about the 20% 'across the board' thing.  If Getty artists have been happy with that to date, it has to be because the sale price was large enough to make a 20% commission a sustainable means of making a living.

Why can't they see that 20% (let alone 15%) of the pittance that is a micropayment is UNsustainable for the artist who is selling so cheaply?  Sustainability is a two-way street.
 
Their position is too fixed on this, and I feel they should flex their fixed model to suit the micropayment portion of their industry.  Sometimes a company has to step back and question whether 'doing it because it's always been done this way' is actually a realistic and sensible thing. 

I agree but they know that most people will buckle and will put up with below 20%.  That's why I no longer see a future for me in microstock, when all the other sites follow istock and cut commissions, it just wont be worth doing anymore.  Thinkstock has already ruined subs, ending the chances of higher commissions.  Perhaps the only slim chance for us is if enough buyers take pity and go to the sites that pay a more reasonable commissions?  I hope that happens but don't expect it to.  Look at all the people now happily buying from thinkstock when it's hitting contributors earnings.

I agree but they know that most people will buckle and will put up with below 20%.  That's why I no longer see a future for me in microstock, when all the other sites follow istock and cut commissions, it just wont be worth doing anymore. 

I completely agree Sharpshot.  The Greater Fool Theory is alive and well in microstock.  The agencies have nothing to fear because they know there always be someone foolish enough to sell their work for a 15% commission on a $2 sale.  I will be independent in less than 3 weeks, but I see that more as an opportunity to decrease my exposure to microstock rather than continue to support it.

This is what I don't understand. A 15-20% commission on a $2 sale is unsustainable for the contributor.
There is no money in it unless a particular file sells in the thousands.
Lets face it, those types of winners are very few and far between.

Why has no one instituted a sliding commission system.

Say something like this:
$2 sale 40% commission
$10 sale 35% commission
$20 sale 30% commission
etc, etc.

I don't get this. If you guys see that so clearly now, why didn't you see it years ago, and simply skip microstock? It would have been understandable if there were almost no other chioces but there were plenty! (Alamy for example... 75% comissions!) Total nonsense..... actually i have to say you can blame yourselves as much as the greedy companies, you made horrible, uneducated chioces with little to no foresight whatsoever.

Quote from: molka on October 08, 2010, 08:42

I don't get this. If you guys see that so clearly now, why didn't you see it years ago, and simply skip microstock?

Welcome back, Macrosaur. 

Hi microsour. Nice to see you. 8 )

Quote from: FD-regular on October 08, 2010, 08:49

Welcome back, Macrosaur. 

Hi microsour. Nice to see you. 8 )

That was just a little bit too fast Hippie, for credible deniability.  Bingo, I assume.

I'm not a fan of any stock, I'm a fan of photography.

Gosh, too bad there aren't any "photography" forums on the internet for you to hang out in and you are forced to spend your time digging up old threads on a microstock forum, when you so clearly hate the medium...