I've been away, but just to check - this time there hasn't yet been any official mention of forcing paying 'lypse attendees to make their work available via the PP, has there?

[disclaimer - I'm very willing to accept this may just be a coincidence!]

Just wondering, has anybody else seen a trend at weekends, with a higher than usual proportion of downloads being first time sales?  I've not properly gone through my stats or anything, but it does seem that although I get way fewer downloads at weekends, of the sales I do get, a much higher ratio are first ever downloads for a file.

Anyone else seeing the same?

Quote from: shank_ali_reborn on July 09, 2011, 15:37
No mention of editorial on the Milan Lypse.Looking like a combination of photos and videos.
I can see the content generated from the Milan Lypse going to the Partner Program.If you dont understand the reason that happens now i doubt you will ever understand the connection between Istockphoto/Getty.

Shank will you allow us to understand the reason why it happens, but still not agree with it? 

I think it would be a great move this time if they don't insist that people attending contribute their images to the partner program. 

Let people make their own decisions about how to distribute their work.

Four dots good, two dots better!

I'd put money on a 'Woo-Nay' thread attracting a lot more posts these days, except that it'd probably soon get locked / disappear.

Re. positivity/negativity:

I'm an iStock exclusive (probably until January, maybe not beyond), and I think it's great for contributors and buyers that iStock are increasingly being challenged by other sites.  For me the ongoing move away from iStock dominance towards a more open and competative market is a good thing, even if it could be painful for exclusives in the short term.

iStock's ongoing 'how to lose friends and alienate people' campaign - though sometimes excrutiatingly annoying when you're involved - could eventually be good for everyone.  Everyone except iStockphoto of course, who seem to be setting themselves up to be the biggest losers.

Hmm, so far every one of Edstock's uploads would have failed editorial inspection immediately: they are missing the year in the caption date.  As we know, for iStock photographers the location/date has to strictly meet the published standards to the letter.

2. What is the price point of these images?
These images will all be priced at Exclusive+.

Would it be safe to assume that the long promised, but not yet implemented best match boost for E+ files will quickly become a priority?

Quote from: holgs on June 08, 2011, 18:25

Quote from: jsnover on June 08, 2011, 17:39

Quote from: Artemis on June 08, 2011, 16:50
Is there any word on how these files will be priced yet...? Very curious about that one...

I asked earlier in the thread, but as with other questions, so far no admin responses.

A premium editorial collection was on the cards from day one - I'm pretty sure it was acknowledged as such by IS but put on hold to await some volume in the collection first. My guess is that this move will hasten the introduction of a premium editorial collection.

I agree - the potential to make more money will have been seen, and almost certainly won't be resisted.

But surely, no matter how trusting of iStock people choose to be, not many artists will sign up for a new premium collection at the derisory "three for us, one for you" royalty rates of 22%-28% that Vetta for photos gets.  Not while the new Vetta for Video and Vectors collections are getting 10% more.

Still don't quite understand why photographic contributors should be paid so much less for their best work, and are now looking at a 25% hike in RC targets, while targets for other media are unchanged. 

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on June 08, 2011, 14:47

Quote from: ShadySue on June 08, 2011, 13:59

Interesting how the Username thing goes. Does that mean they'll be able to shoot up the RC rankings super fast, whereas we are not supposed to be in groups or pairs (we are often told) but there are several couples/groups allowed.
I'm sure they wouldn't like it if we formed alliances with others (with a legal agreement) to zoom up the RCs.

I doubt if the RC rankings will matter to them. There will be some fixed arrangement.

That's true.  But there will probably be a best match advantage to that single user from having a lot of files, with plenty downloads and a 100% acceptance rate.

Anyway, that's probably academic because the files will enjoy a strong best match boost.  Otherwise known as 'files scattered in with every search'.  Remember what we were told when Agency was introduced:

In search and Best Match the images will be weighted fairly and will not have a heavier weight than any other file. In other words, you won't find the entire agency collection at the front of every search. You will find some agency collection files scattered in with every search, just the same as you see now for Vetta and exclusive plus files.

Looking at the London 'lypse images, it's clear that people spend a lot of time, effort and money shooting 'iconic' locations such as the London Eye, British Museum, Parliament, the Gherkin building and famous underground stations for the editorial collection.

Wonder how they'll feel when - tomorrow - images of these same locations start flooding into the collection.

Guess this will be one of those rare occasions at iStockphoto when things are done bang on time, rather than being delayed by months and months with zero communication.

^^^^ Superb - at first I misinterpreted it and assumed that us artists were the hassled boy, and iStock was the boss.

But then I realised that we're the goose, the boy is Kelly.  Presumably the 'Squeeze Harder...' boss is Jonathan Klein / Mark "Intellectual Property is the oil of the 21st century" Getty, or H&F

Quote from: Black Sheep on June 06, 2011, 11:23
what i really fail to understand is why all these buyers complain but don't move a finger to find other alternatives.

I'm not sure I get why you think they all stay at iStock

Quote from: cobalt on June 06, 2011, 09:56
With V/A I feel that I used to work as a supplier for a coffe shop and was one of many, many producers of special types of coffee. Then the owners realized some of us offer high quality wine and added a special section in the store for that. We all applauded, because this will draw in new customers, who will hopefully also buy coffee for their daily needs and we agree that high production and rare wine, deserves a higher price than our coffee. But suddenly we enter the store and we see that most of the shelves have been stacked with expensive wine and the coffee has been pushed to the back of the store.

And although there may be customers who love wine so much that they keep coming back to it, most of us feel we are losing our target market, the daily coffee buyers who spent a quick dollar and then went back to work.

Interesting analogy

To continue with it, the problem is that iStock get around six times the commission per sale for Vetta 'wine', and around ten times or more for Agency 'wine'.  Check it out if you don't believe me.  For them, peddling the wine is way more attractive than peddling our 'coffee'.

And - inexplicably - they've turned a blind eye to external Agency contributors who have decided to water down their wine by massively upsizing their images.  I've officially raised that several times with iStock and got absolutely nowhere.

I think their problem with providing a Vetta & Agency filter is that it could prompt a lot of contributors to move much of their Vetta work into E+, since the royalites are only slightly different.  I'd certainly be one of them.

I doubt many people believe that they've been spending all this time 'testing' a filter, as is occasionally claimed.  But there's no doubt that they've been testing the patience of a lot of customers.

Quote from: ShadySue on June 04, 2011, 09:40
I noticed that several posts have been deleted without trace over the past couple of days. You only know if you catch a forum saying that Lobo made the last post, but when you go into the forum, there's no Lobo post there within the stated time span ...

.. including this post, deleted last night from the RC Credits thread:

-------------
Kelly Thompson on 8th September 2010 - http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252322&page=1
But, we expect to see our total royalty payout increase by more than 30% next year, from $1.7-million per week to well over $2-million per week. Make no mistake, the total amount of money iStock contributors are making is going up.

Kelly on 5th May 2011 - http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=328488&page=4
The fraction of a percent was definitely about the total change in royalties paid out, not the number of people it affected.
--

Would it be fair to say that a mistake was made?

Maybe Steve Shankland was closer to the truth when he wrote the following in September 2010 - http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20015830-264.html

Cultivating or exploiting the community?
Thompson bristles when questioned whether iStockphoto's size and market power might mean it's turning from cultivating its community of contributors to strip-mining it.
-------------

After Lobo deleted it, I sitemailed him saying that I felt it was relevant to that thread to note that Kelly made a projection in September that royalty payouts would rise by 30%, then conceded last month that payouts have changed by 'a fraction of a percent'.

He was decent enough to reply with a civil message explaining why the post had to be deleted.

For me there is a positive side to this greed from iStock:
- The introduction of P+ has made dropping exclusivity even more attractive
- Shutterstock seem to be going from strength to strength

I have a hunch (for no solid reason) that the announcement, when it comes, will be about more than 2011 RC targets.

Hmm 

I wonder how many customers have asked iStock for a 20% price reduction for larger file sizes versus the number of customers that have asked to be able to filter out unwanted Vetta and Agency results.

If customers are walking away from iStock, maybe the company would be best advised to give customers what they keep asking for.

Quote from: bunhill on May 10, 2011, 13:41

Quote from: gclk on May 10, 2011, 10:46
A few months ago I saw an image of mine used in a TV advert - the photo hadn't been downloaded in an appropriate size for 18 months.

What would be an appropriate size for a TV advert given the relatively low resolution of even, so called, HD TV images and taking into account typical viewing distances.

M? S ?

I might be wrong but I'd have thought medium size or above would be needed.  It had been downloaded as small, which was 837 x 573 pixels for this image.

I saw on a large Sony HD TV (not mine), I think at a resolution of 1920 x 1080.  Even paused using Sky+ HD, the photo did not looked like it had been upsized anything like that much.

But I'd totally accept this is not a definite case like the others mentioned above, it just seems a little odd.

And the $1.90 royalty seemed a little harsh for a nationally broadcast TV advert, but that's a totally separate issue 

Quote from: caspixel on May 10, 2011, 03:54
Looks like there has been another download/no payment issue!

I just found one of mine as well in a flyer insert for well known childrens cd's.  I found the link because they credit istock (and me) but i have zero downloads on the file. I sent a ticket to support.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=310482&page=5

And who wants to start placing bets now that the admins will never give an answer as to what has happened?

Ouch, that one is worrying - iStock can't pull the 'It's probably a Getty issue' card, and let it just fall between two companies who don't want to do any follow-up.

The cases were an artist happens to spot their work in use, where they know they can't have been paid for it (because it has zero registered downloads) must be just the tip of the iceberg.   And then the artists who publicly raise the issue in the forums must be the tip of that iceberg   

A few months ago I saw an image of mine used in a TV advert - the photo hadn't been downloaded in an appropriate size for 18 months.  Nothing I could do but presume that the company/designer must have purchased it that long ago & I did get paid for it.

Quote from: jsnover on May 08, 2011, 17:35
I haven't left yet but I haven't and don't expect to hear anything from iStock about terminating my exclusivity.

When they didn't contact me to ask about the fraud conference call even though I think there were many more "votes" for me than for some of the people who participated it was clear to me that I must have p*(#@d off a lot of people at HQ.

I think as long as they keep the visible exclusives - Lise, Sean, et al. - they'll not sweat loosing the rest of us.

They really should be doing their best to look into the reasons behind each and every termination of exclusivity since they take more commissions from exclusives, and benefit from having work that can't be found elsewhere.  Just watching contributors dropping exclusivity without doing their best to determine their motivations seems incrediby short sighted.

Like so many others, I voted for you and would have valued your opinion on what was said.  But I suppose when they asked for our votes they didn't go so far as saying they'd take notice of them.

Quote from: madelaide on May 08, 2011, 03:36

Quote from: lisafx on May 07, 2011, 19:10

Quote from: gostwyck on May 07, 2011, 16:44

On the positive side I've P+'d the top selling 10% of my portfolio and have been got plenty of immediate sales at the new higher prices. I think this could easily add 20% or more to monthly earnings if sales remain stable.

Same experience here.  Spent yesterday P+ing about 10% of my port - mostly best sellers or things I considered outstanding but undiscovered.  Have already sold more than a dozen or so just Friday afternoon and Saturday morning.  The higher prices make a big difference.  $3.45 for a large and $2.70 for medium is very welcome

So this is a good thing after all?

I think so too... good for non-exclusives because their income should go up; good for exclusives because it makes dropping exclusivity even more attractive 

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 08, 2011, 07:16
The only way the payment to contributors could be essentially the same is if iStock's income has risen enormously. That could only happen if buyers are spending more. Since there is general acceptance that sales are well down, the extra money must be going into V/A file sales. Which means people with Vetta should be seeing a huge boost to their income - though I'm not seeing reports of that.

The other possibility is that we've not been told the truth.

Completely agree - given the huge shift of balance from artist royalties --> iStock commissions since September, if Kelly's statement is true the conclusion must be that iStockphoto's commissions have soared.

Which would mean that iStock have 99 problems, but profitability ain't one.

And that iStock's artists have 100 problems, with falling profitability right at the top 

Kelly's method of judging 'falling profitability' was not about actual profits, but about the percentages paid out:

From the Royalty Change Follow-up thread (www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252322&page=1)...
Since roughly 2005 we've been aware of a basic problem with how our business works. As the company grows, the overall percentage we pay out to contributing artists increases. In the most basic terms that means that iStock becomes less profitable with increased success. As a business model, it's simply unsustainable: businesses should get more profitable as they grow. This is a long-term problem that needs to be addressed.

Well now that's fixed 

But on that same basis, even artists who are seeing their income rising should know that their profitability is falling.  In Kelly's words, "as a business model it's simply unsustainable".  Is that a long-term problem that needs to be addressed?  Maybe Kelly just forgot to tell us the 'Artists businesses should get less profitable as iStockphoto grows' bit.

Quote from: pancaketom on May 07, 2011, 17:36
and we all pretty much settled down too.

If the payouts have barely changed (less than .1%), that means that for most people their RC count should be higher (lower %, same payouts). Maybe that is so, but it doesn't seem that way for me. Look forward to higher RC #s for this year if this is true.

It would be interesting to see their real books.

Having conceded that payouts have fallen slightly, I think any rise in RC targets would not be met kindly, to put it very mildly.  But hey, that never put them off before.  But they certainly might need to lock a lot more threads and ban a lot more users from the forums to give that illusion of a site where everyone has "sort of settled down".

Seems to me all they really care about is finding the balance where they can profit the most from our work.

Gear things too high and they risk artists leaving in significant numbers.  Gear things too low and they risk paying money to artists which they could have taken for themselves.

Way back in 2007, iStock's average payout was 29% (as revealed by Bruce Livingstone and discussed by Lee Torrens here: http://www.microstockdiaries.com/peek-inside-the-financials-of-istockphoto.html).

That was back in the days when iStock was on an unsustainable trajectory, supposedly without the rising profitability that 'all businesses should have'.  Hmm, wonder how many iStock artists have been watching their profitability rising of late 

Not sure if I'd say that iStock have managed to claw the overall percentage back to 80% commission, but I'd definitely guess that the average payout is now a lot lower than 29%.

For me, a huge surge in commission must have come from Vetta and Agency sales, which have been pushed relentlessly with apparently very little or no concern for the consequences.

At some sizes the prices are more than eight times higher than files in the exclusive collection.  Add a massive price increase to a big royalty reduction, and the increased commission take must be staggering.