Quote from: hawk_eye on September 21, 2010, 11:39

much of the outrage is from people who stand to lose because they have not uploaded significantly to their portfolios, or they have reached a canister level slowly over many years...and therefore have not really built their portfolio up enough to compete.

the actually percentages aside, which I agree seem unfair in some cases.....people who work harder are going to reap higher percentages.

The real issue isn't the changes. I don't like them but that's beside the point. I've bolded the portion that I think bears looking at -- and it bears looking at because we've been told this is how things will operate. I will concede that iStock can change the rules all they like (I think it's crappy business, but to each his own), but three months' time to go from almost reaching gold to being knocked back down to bronze level? That's a tad harsh . . .  if this was coming down the pipe all along (as I suspect it was), then they should have broken the news last year and let everyone have time to ramp up.

okay, so first of all, I'm not trying to sell you or anyone else on the new royalty model. what makes you think I like it? I've never said I liked it. I simply disagree on the extrapolation that this (like other changes were predicted to do) spells doom for istock. it's a series of decisions, made with many variables and considerations in mind. I think that iStock are probably at least attempting to advocate on our behalf, but I also think that iStock HQ is interested in evolving, and that perhaps they are in agreement with the changes. the next move, like any move in business designed to generate an increase in revenue, is going to require some risk-taking, model changes etc., especially as contributors continue to grow their download numbers and portfolios. point = I don't believe the decisions have been made maliciously or without regard for the entire future of stock photography.

secondly, no one was promised anything after the last uproar about canister levels except that the issue was PUT ON HOLD, and for the TIME BEING all canisters would be delivered according to the original model. this was not something I remembered today myself, but instead something pointed out to me by one of the top 20 iStock diamonds with whom I spoke today at length about this issue.

to suggest that any one of us knows anything at all about the cost of doing business at iStock/Getty/H&F/SS/DT/FT etc.......is moot, because none of you know, I don't know. only those privy to that information know. we retain power insofar as we hire them to be our agent, or we don't. that's where your choices are. picketing, unions, co-ops....this isn't Norma Rae and we don't work in a canning factory or a meat plant circa 1929. don't contribute to iStock. there you go. to suggest that all other MS agencies will follow iStock's business model if you don't protest.....I don't see how anyone can say that with a straight face. it's such an absurd magnification. has anyone ever tallied how many of the dire predictions have been false? I would do that but I can't be bothered, because even if I did, someone would have a reason for it.

Quote from: Allsa on September 21, 2010, 12:27

It was always about the money, right from the beginning. I hope Bruce is enjoying his $50 million. Somehow I doubt he lies awake at night worrying about what's happening to the likes of us.

I have to step in here and defend Bruce.   He didn't get 50 million, he had to give most of the sale money to the creditors that were owed for bankrolling the iStock Startup who wanted a nice return to their investment. If he made 2-3million himself I would be surprised. I think he was never in there for the money and when the iStock baby grew up to be big bucks he was not connected to that. He was not a cash hog or a bean counter, he was a rebel that made the right moves at the right time to get something started that changed a bunch of lives for the better, while making a difference for his own life.  He had a decision to make, either take it public or sell it off to gather the funds for expansion and pay the creditor shares. In the end I believe he could have gotten even more for the company but he made the right decision. Going public could have been a much more stressing scenario with a pure for profit culture. He was assured control of 3 years and he got it; I bet that was a hard to negotiate position but he got it! 

I for one think he got the short end of the stick "money" in the deal, he probably deserved much more as well as some of the staff that started it all with him.  But as with any visionary/rebel, he is probably looking into building something cooler and different in the future rather than steer a ship that is already sailing. It would be boring and a spirit killer.

He entrusted the company to KK and I believe it was the best decision at the time.  He has done a great job of expanding this place, and I am willing to find out what 2011 brings.  It's a thankless job for the most part and I wouldn't want to be in his shoes but I respect the guy, because lets face it he is our horse and you don't change your bets mid race.

this a a great post. I see people at both ends of the spectrum, your middle ground perspective about Bruce seems bang on and more likely than any of the other bitter legends

FWIW, so you can accurately calculate my percentages....I'll be at 55K RC thereabouts by the end of the year. I won't be reduced, except in terms of the additional 5% I would have been raised once I hit diamond. I understand what that translates to in actual percentage, but that wasn't really my point.

if you have to try SO hard to invalidate my opinion, what does that say about your position?

so - how's everyone doing today? lol. look, insults aside blah blah blah....I think some important points have been made. to suggest past performance and tenure are not issues is silly. it has nothing to do with being nice. much of the outrage is from people who stand to lose because they have not uploaded significantly to their portfolios, or they have reached a canister level slowly over many years...and therefore have not really built their portfolio up enough to compete.

the actually percentages aside, which I agree seem unfair in some cases.....people who work harder are going to reap higher percentages. I produce work constantly, and I know many who are in a similar position remaining at their current percentage do the same. the 5% loss is theoretical for me on my next canister and frankly 5% is not something I'm going to sink my exclusivity over. to extrapolate and suggest iStock are going to whittle away at that every year to nothing is absurd.

independents are getting a raw deal, for sure. but perhaps this is an impetus to go exclusive, or perhaps it is a means to discourage independence, in order to maximize the value of the iStock collections as not being available anywhere but on Getty sites. You can magnify that to the absurd too and suggest Getty is trying to monopolize the industry, but contributors hold too much copyright power with their work.

don't underestimate the sense of ownership we all have over our work. those of us happy to be at iStock simply believe that reasonably speaking, it's where the most money is and the best representation of our work. that doesn't mean that we won't act if there is a LEGITIMATE reason to. so far though, all the furor has been the same people seemingly crying wolf and it's getting old. and it's too bad, because you've created such an uproar upon the announcement of every change, you can't expect people to keep listening.

well then, I apologize. it was an honest mistake.

ETA: I've modified my previous posts removing your first name. again, sorry about that.

so I deleted my first post, because frankly caspixel, you're simply correct. I've gotten into the habit of being reactive and condescending here. but in fairness, to me and anyone I might have been critical of here, I'm sure we all do a lot of nice things for other contributors too. I spend a lot of time helping other contributors where I can.

as for iStock, I guess ultimately we all do what's best for ourselves...including decisions we make that we feel will affect the entire industry, or won't...whatever.

thank you for making my point for me.

I'm glad someone bought model mayhem. for all its traffic, it is a terrible website. hopefully now they'll have some standards, rather than every model posing naked to prove they can be sexy. do we really still live in an era where young models think they have to represent themselves as sleazy to get ahead? I don't use MM anymore, found word of mouth was a better way to get dependable models. I pay my models too, which helps, modest hourly wage + prints.

referring to the +1,2 and +3 up there....with the exception of Lisa, who is usually respectful and kind in here....the others who high-fived over contributor bashing.....you are regularly some of the worst perpetrators in here! there is so much disrespect in these forums that it's no wonder the small contingent represented here are the same people being banned form other sites.

some big wigs come here to talk freely, and many like me, in the middle ground...come here to read all perspectives as part of an approach to better understanding the entire industry....but I so often get annoyed with the garbage, bullsh*t and complaining in here that it ceases to be helpful.

ichiro - I don't know why you are wasting your breath. it's a playground. the problem with the meanest kid on the playground, is that he'll/she'll stoop lower than someone reasonable, so in terms of arguing, they'll always seem to win with insults that shut people down. in reality, those people are either insecure or just plain jerks. either way, it doesn't really affect my bottom line.

David - you seem to need to satisfy your curiosity, but I don't really care. You can figure it out or I'm sure someone will tell you. As for being familiar with you, dude, who isn't thanks to all your posts lately?

what does it matter who I am? you can see my sales performance on iStock and you are breaching an unspoken rule here. we don't call each other out based on anonymity here no matter how much we hate one another...many of us are anonymous here for our own reasons, usually simply as a tool to keep things from showing up in google searches on our businesses. so I'll thank you to respect it.

another graph:

http://siteanalytics.compete.com/istockphoto.com+shutterstock.com+fotolia.com+dreamstime.com/?metric=uv&months=12