Quote from: Elenathewise on September 09, 2010, 13:48

Why couldn't Istockphoto just leave their 20% as a base and added more to contributors with more yearly sales? I am sure that would have been fine with most people. And it wouldn't make them "less profitable". Simple as that. If you don't take greed into account.

I have to wonder the same thing. 20% isn't that much. This explanation doesn't really hold water for non-exclusives. They make more off of exclusives sales because of the price difference. Even at 45%. Why take even more from the contributors that can't increase their earnings? Also, they say 76% of exclusives won't lose. What percent of their contributors are exclusive?

My guess is that they put the screws to independents in hope that exclusives would feel better about what's happening to them.  It's a kind of "Don't Raise the Bridge; Lower The River" approach to supplier relations.  "You think you have it bad?  Hah!"  Didn't work, though.

As a non-exclusive, I think it's the other way around. Well, we're both getting screwed, but exclusives seem to take a bigger hit

Depends on how you look at it.  In an absolute dollar sense, you're probably right.  Exclusives make more there, so they have more to lose.  But that's not the only way to see this one.  Exclusives mostly lose potential income growth; everybody at lower canisters will keep the same percentage under the new plan, but will lose the change to ever move up.  By iStock's figures, � of them won't see a dime less.  But independents all lose; with maybe one or two exceptions, every single independent will be compensated at a significantly lower rate.  Mine drops by 20%; others go even further.  So in the comparison between those who don't make more and those who make significantly less, I know where my sympathies would lie.  If I were disinterested, which of course I'm not.

It surely cost the same to review a file whether it is from an independent or an exclusive and exclusivity does not place you higher in the search engine (other than Vetta). Independents also get paid a lot less commission so we only help Istock's desire for ever higher profitability.

It costs the same, but I wonder if that image has the same value over time.  If they were to determine that the average exclusive's image generates more revenue than the average independent's, then the review cost of that exclusive's image is a smaller expense at the front end.  So independents represent a greater cost due to the reduced benefit, and getting rid of a bunch of them improves profit even as it decreases revenue.

I wouldn't expect anyone who works for iStock to express an opinion on the forum.  I take that back; one inspector did comment, but it was a carefully worded message of support for management.  I doubt anyone who wanted to keep their job would say anything else in this situation.  Free speech may be free, but it's not free of consequences.

Click on the file.  Click on Administration.  Type something in the box.  Click the big blue Deactivate button.  It's a PITA.

No wonder I couldn't find it.  Thanks; I figure I can deactivate a few every day as my little protest.

OK so they made their "difficult decisions".  Now make yours.

I made my first one: I clicked that Pause Uploads button on DeepMeta.  No more new content for iStock.

But here's a problem.  I can't find any way to deactivate or delete existing images.  Am I missing something?

I use plain old FTP.  Once you have your images on an agency's server, the submission process goes from mildly cumbersome (Dreamstime, Fotolia, Deposit) to effortless (123RF, Zoonar, StockFresh).  That assumes of course that you're inserting title, description and keywords into the image files' IPTC data.

For new images, I upload to my web host and then use the FTP command to submit to the first agency.  Whatever is accepted there I then send on to the rest.  That way I use my web provider's much better bandwidth for the vast majority of the uploads.  Then I go to each site and complete the submission process.  I have the uploading scripted, so it's easy and relatively goofproof.

Some people make 100% from IS, you don't mind hurting them? I make 50% of my micro earnings from IS and 50% fro SS, I pretty much ignore the rest. You don't care about me. (OK fair enough, you don't need to ) But some people don't want to work with FT, DT, or others, but you think we all need to get revenge, without considering the extended effects and harm for the long term, including how it may harm the people, possibly friends, who are in the same position as you.

I'm not the one who attacked iStock exclusives; iStock did that themselves.  If exclusives don't take action to protect themselves, why should I worry about them?  Or maybe I do care, and I feel that they're in a self-destructive relationship and need to be pushed out of it for their own good.  Take it whichever way you like.

As for working with other agencies, I believe that's the only way to keep one (or two or three) from having too much power over suppliers.  iStock thinks they're invincible, and thinks they can increase revenues 50% in a struggling economy.  How?  By taking more money from its customers and from its suppliers.  Because it can, or thinks it can, and no one will stop it.  And if something doesn't change, it may be right.  So I agree with changing the equation.  Maybe it'll force iStock to reconsider.  Or maybe it'll reduce it to a second order player.  Or both.  But it'll demonstrate that customers and suppliers aren't sheep to be fleeced, that we're in this together and need to be treated with a modicum of respect.

Let's remember that it's not the protestors who threaten the status quo.  iStock did that, and anybody who lets it happen is complicit.

As an independent, I accepted a low percentage from iStock because they could deliver a significant amount of income.  They were my best earner for a while, dropping to 2nd place in large part because their low upload quota let me build much bigger portfolios elsewhere.  Last month they slipped to 3rd.  That may be a fluke or maybe the start of a trend.  But they don't exactly hold a lot of my loyalty, and they have a lot less today.  If I were exclusive I'd be pissed, and I'd have given my 30 days notice already.

I don't know what insults me more, the veiled attempt to hide what is an obvious commission cut or this statement:

''With that overriding objective, we wanted to produce a solution that:
- would not change most contributors' total compensation (except for the better)
- adjusts the model to better reward contributors of premium content"

Either the person who wrote that is incredibly naive or they're hoping that everyone who reads it is.

I'm guessing this will change over 95% of contributors commissions for the worse, and that not one single "premium content" contributor will be better rewarded.

I can see two explanations for this remark.  The first is that it's an outright lie and they think we're either stupid or sheep.  Or possibly both.

Okay, let's move on to the second explanation, that they really believe that total compensation for the majority of contributors won't go down.  Since it's clear that most contributor's royalty percentages will drop, that suggests they're planning to increase prices.  If they raise them enough, most contributors will earn a smaller percentage of a larger amount and will at least break even.  Of course, raising prices will likely decrease sales, so they have to find the sweet spot before they hit a point of diminishing returns.  The result is that Getty makes a lot more money, most contributors don't lose anything (except their anal virginity), and a few even make a little more.  But if they've calculated wrong, well, they may make a lot more but everybody else loses.

This is a giant fsck you to both independents and exclusives.  A 20% royalty was bad enough, but at my level of sales I'm looking at a 20% reduction from that!  Way to go, iStock.  You finally found a way to outdo Fotolia in the greedy *insult removed* competition.

Is Balderick right?  Do they no longer WANT new content in the PP?

I don't believe that's it.  Once again I fall back on, "Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity."  I think their processes are so hopelessly inept that they're overwhelmed by the volume of data they're trying to process.  They can't admit the royal incompetence behind this setup, both in their inability to populate their new library and integrate whatever sales they're seeing back.  Wouldn't be surprised to find somebody's idiot nephew in charge of this debacle.