...how much do you reckon commissions have gone up by?

In Kelly's note on the iStock forums (www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=328488&page=4) to correct the recent CNET article, he said that 'The fraction of a percent was definitely about the total change in royalties paid out, not the number of people it affected'.  The fraction given in the article was 0.1% (though looks like it's now been edited out of the article).  Presumably the change was downwards, but I don't think that was actually specified.

Given that since September...
- Non-exclusive royalties dropped from 20% to 15-20%
- Royalty rates for many exclusive contributors dropped down one or more levels.  Some contributors saw their royalty percentages go up.
- Vetta royalties dropped for all participating contributors, from 25-40% to 22-30%, while the Vetta price went up significantly.
- Agency sales were introduced at the same royalty level as Vetta but at a significantly higher price.
- There was an influx of external Agency content.  Don't know what iStock's commission for those is, but it's thought by many to be 80%.
- 100% royalty day was dropped
- The extra 10% royalty on Extended Licenses for exclusives was dropped
- Exclusive+ prices have gone up significanly, and the proportion of E+ files has gone up.
- Minimum subscription payouts went down significantly

Those are off the top of my head, I probably missed out a few important ones there.

Obviously we'll never know, but given that royalties paid out have changed by 0.1%, how much would you guesstimate that iStock's takings increased by?

Not good here either.

So much seems to be still going badly at iStock.  If they keep going like this it won't be so much 'Your future is bright'. More 'Your future is sh*te'

With due respect but this is the wrong way to go about anything. Sorry.

Do you mean writing to H&F is the wrong way to go about it, or you don't agree with what was said in the letter itself?

For me, I agree with Sean - although it stinks, the issue of the fraud money already returned is not something they're going to do anything about. 

But I don't think that writing to H&F to outline concerns is a bad idea, and I don't think it's out of order to do so.  Many of us could legitimately say that we've done our best to raise concerns directly to iStockphoto, and had no success: forum threads have been locked or deleted; support messages have had no response, and sitemails/emails to management have been ignored.  Back in September/October when I got zero response from Support or KKT, I considered writing a letter to iStock & GI CEO Jonathan Klein and Getty Images Chairman Mark Getty, but decided against it at that time.

It's perfectly possible that management at H&F have little or no idea about the level of misgivings among iStock contributors.  Presumably there's some kind of reporting system for iStock to feed high level information up the reporting structure.  Perhaps if it's a weekly update, maybe they'd say:
- Sales turnover this week: $X.XX million
- Commission taken this week: $X.XX million
- Cumulative commission taken this financial year: $XX.XX million
- XXX new customers signed up
- Customers have purchased $X.XX million worth of credits
- $XXXX worth of expired credits
- XX referrals from iStock subscriptions to Thinkstock resulting in new Thinkstock accounts
- Staffing update: X resignations this week, X new starts; Currently advertising for 9 positions in Calgary, 5 in Europe, 2 in Brazil
- Press articles: no significant news
- etc...

But I doubt if iStock management would include:
- Contributor complaints at a very high level, approaching Sept 2010's record level.  Support received XXX messages of concern or complaint.
- Most issues raised have been about iStock management failing to honour commitments posted on the site
- XX contributor threads were locked because they contained complaints that we don't want anybody to discuss
- X contributors threads were deleted because they contained complaints that we don't want anybody to see
- X contributors have removed their portfolios entirely from iStockphoto
- XX exclusive contributors have requested to drop their exclusivity and will be uploading their content to competitor sites in approximately 30 days.
- We had a conference call with concerned vector artists and had them sign a NDA.  They won't be discussing any details until we release an update at a time of our choosing.
- etc

Regarding the identity of those writing to H&F - imho not wanting to reveal identities here is fine, but if organising a campaign to write to H&F in numbers, real identities need to be used for those letters to be taken seriously.  For many reasons, but one of them being that if twenty anonymous iStock contributors write to H&F to raise concerns, how would know that all the letters didn't all come from one person?

I think the suggestion about a price-oriented client-specific search result is interesting. but it would actually be the reverse of what we want. the search, AFAIK, is meant to produce regional results. I think that's a good move and provides a value-added service to customers. but to take that and apply it regarding price (based on previous spending associated with that account), doesn't really make sense. the purpose of marketing is to turn customers into the type of buyers we need them to be, hence the buckshot approach to filling every industry hole. "don't like things here (iStock), well too bad, but why don't you shop here instead (TS)?" it's destabilizing and you don't have to be a brilliant economist to see that the longterm effect is the erosion of iStock's brand and business (which I think is well underway).

I hope that iStock isn't aiming for a long term effect that is the erosion of iStock's brand and business.  If they truly wanted to force self-destruct, that would be very achievable, but I don't believe that's the aim.

A (possibly dubious) analogy for a price-sensitive best match search could be a well run jewellery shop that pays attention to what its customers buy.  A person walks into the shop looking for a new watch, and the owner knows that person has bought four Swatches and two Timex watches in the past.  So the owner leads that customer towards the budget end of the shop, but also points out some medium-priced brands which the customer may appreciate.  What the owner doesn't do is lead the customer through a lengthy presentation of Rolex watches, then move on to Longines and dozens of other premium brands.

And conversely, when a high rolling customer who's only ever bought jewellery with the finest quality gems and precious metals walks in, he/she would be shown the best and most expensive stuff that the shop has to offer.

I'm sure I'm teaching my gran how to suck eggs here, but imho that would be a better way to convert buyer visits into purchases than a one-size-fits-all, highest-priced-products-for-everybody policy.

<snip> They could have offered a V/A-free search months ago if they wanted to. They don't need to screw about with the best match to do it.

They had not the slightest problem offering a "no editorial" option, did they? That tells you everything.

And you're right about price sorting. When it was a matter of a few dollars difference it wouldn't have been right. When it is probably the difference between affordable and unaffordable for a large part of the customer base then it should be sortable, anything else is suicidal.

The full impact of this best match will be seen when the current batch of credit bundles run out (which might be quite soon if buyers don't work out how to avoid V/A) and I bet the result won't be pretty.

Don't understand why they haven't provided customers with a search which takes their purchase history into account.  That way, customers who buy lots of Vetta/Agency would get an emphasis on content at that price point in their search results, while (for example) a customer who's never purchased anything more expensive than a medium size file from the main collection would see an extremely light spreading of V/A files.

Simples, no?  Give customers what they want.  As customers make more purchases, iStock get a more accurate picture of what they want, and tailor their search results accordingly rather than ignoring such important information.

Surely that's not beyond the abilities of a tech team who were able to implement a dynamic-relevancy-slider, or location weighted results?

Quote from: dhanford on April 12, 2011, 05:50

Oh snap! Dave's reply is gone!  The way I read his comment was that he alluded to an initial percentage increase for the start up of Vetta Vectors in order to lure in contributors, but the percentage bump would be short lived. Please note this is my take on what I read.

That was my interpretation as well.

Mine too.  I'm not an illustrator but have been following the thread closely because decisions made about vector Vetta could affect a wider net of contributors.

By giving illustrators some kind of 'non permanent %ge boost', iStock will presumably be trying to get the critical mass of illustrators to sign up to Vetta, while avoiding pressure to give any concessions to photographers.

On a side note, I got a Vetta EL today.  Received $61.60 for an EL which cost the customer 150 credits, or $220 in this case.  Hope iStock finds their $158.40 (72% share) from the EL to be sustainable.  At the old rate of 40% + 10% bonus, I would have been paid $110 for the EL sale at the same price.

The amount of extra income that iStock is be taking from Vetta photo sales alone, since they slashed royalties last September must be mind boggling.

Firstly, sadly it seems this is a taboo subject for discussion on iStock.  This thread http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=322302&page=1 - "Is it new Best Match or my wrong Keywording?" in the help forum was locked, and a follow-up thread was not only locked, but also deleted from the site.

The concern is that files with a larger number of keywords are getting unusually poor placing in best match searches.  If this is true it would mean that official iStock guidance on keywords is no longer relevant (no pun intended  ).  We've been actively encouraged to provide lots of of useful information in our keywords, since terms like 'photography', 'horizontal', 'nobody', 'indoors' or whatever can improve search terms for buyers.  And the official position was that best match placing was not disadvantaged by having a high number of relevant keywords.

I'm not saying that I'm sure that lots of keywords = poor best match position (if an image picks up some early downloads it's often not the case), but it is looking like maybe it's a factor, whether on purpose or by mistake.

Certainly I've found that a lot of my own uploads over the past 6 months or so can be found right at the back of searches.  I usually invest a fair bit of time in tagging files with as many relevant, potentially useful keywords as possible.

These results below could have moved around for other reasons - another best match shift or whatever.  Also, these aren't brand new files, so it's not possible to know how things would have gone if they'd only had a few keywords from the start.

Anyway, for a couple of recent-ish files of mine that were at the back of tens of thousands of results, this is what happened...


Macro raspberry photo - uploaded 3rd February 2011

Best match position searching for 'raspberry' yesterday was approx #12980 (page 65 of 67, 200 results per page)

Removed keywords:
berry fruit, colour, food, macro, photography, ripe, selective focus, simple, sweet food, small, healthy eating, local produce, many, nobody, vibrant colour, saturated colour, ...

Keywords now:
raspberry, close-up, freshness, red, fruit, berry

Best match position now is approx #9705 (page 49 of 67)


Cherry photo - in the exclusive+ collection - uploaded 22nd November 2010

Best match position searching for 'cherry' yesterday was roughly #18035 (near the bottom of page 92 of 92, 200 results per page)

Removed keywords:
berry fruit, close-up, colour, directly above, food, fruit, gingham, group of objects, nobody, photography, raw, red, ripe, saturated colour, bunch, clean, healthy eating, indoors, local produce, macro, pattern, simple, stalk, summer, sweet food, three objects, white, wet, droplet, fabric, cotton, seasonal food, ...

Keywords now:
cherry, traditional, freshness, fruit, tablecloth

Best match position now is approx #11070 (page 55 of 91)

And an example with fewer results:

Fern koru uploaded 17th March 2011

Best match postion searching for 'Koru' was #65 out of 67 files

Removed keywords:
flora, beginnings, brown, close-up, fragile, green, growth, life cycle, origins, photography, small, spiral, vertical, bracken, circle, curled up, foliage, forest, frond, nobody, outdoors, shape, softness, tree fern, detail, radial symmetry, countryside, pure, selective focus, spring

Keywords now:
fern, freshness, new zealand, nature, koru

Best match position searching for 'Koru' is now #11 out of 67.

Please note, this is not an attempt to figure out how to 'game' the best match.  I'm trying to work out if - by doing what iStock officially advise on keywords - I'm spending time and effort on sending my work to the far back of search results.

Any suggestions?  And thanks if you managed to read all the way down to here 

Quote from: cobalt on April 03, 2011, 20:55

Looks like someone "restarted" best match and it probably needs some activity to get going. At least, I hope this is what�s happening. I just don�t understand why they don�t let contributors now "Hey guys, we are pushing some software buttons this week-end". Just so that we know what is going on.

For many here istock is a considerable income and with all the issues people are jittery enough already. A little understanding can go a long way.

They've always been poor at communicating things and managing the firestorms that erupt in the forums. After 10 years you think they would've gotten a clear communication strategy hammered out. I guess not.

Yep.  I'd think the same about a testing strategy.  Or a working change management system.  But as usual they seem very sure that they know better... and hey apparently they might do some more 'tinkering' with the best match at some point in the week - oh brilliant!  No need for anybody to have a clue what they're doing when they can just 'tinker' around with the live search.  What fun!

I know iStock have made some awful decisions of late, but I don't think even they are stupid enough to have done this one on purpose.

Probably another example of a person/some people in Calgary making changes to a complex system, which they don't understand.  And yet again, it's obvious that basic change management procedures which would include documented testing evidence - standard practise elsewhere - are not bothered with at iStock.  They're probably not fun enough.

So I reckon it's yet another pathetically preventable SNAFU.

Either that, or it was some some bright spark responding to a need to quickly increase company profits.  "Hay duder, I know what we should do to get extra dough - we've got those collections where the pictures are really really expensive, but the royalties we pay out are really really low, right?... lets just put them at the very top of all the searches, then sit back and watch the money roll in!  Sweet!  What could possibly go wrong!"

Quote from: gclk on March 30, 2011, 15:11

If they go up by 20% then I'll have to devote every minute of my work time this year to iStock and nothing else, and hope that I can prevent a major drop in earnings.  

Is the additional percentage really worth every minute of your life for the coming year? Couldn't you make the increment in some less arduous way?

That's really the point - I want iStock to stick to their own commitments on this, so that we have a better chance of knowing which way our future royalties are going.

If by 'make the increment in some less arduous way', you mean doing other photography work to bridge the gap caused by a royalty drop, then yes - I want to have an idea now (actually in January as originally promised would have been better) if I need to try to build up assignment work that will stand a chance of making up that significant earnings gap by the start of 2012.

iStockphoto is now expecting our work to be at a professional level.  They reject anything that is not at that standard.  In turn, we should be able to expect iStock to be run professionally, not by a club of amateurs who seem to get it wrong far more than they get anything right.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=319332&page=3#post6201852

"I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." Douglas Adams

At least Douglas Adams produced work of excellent quality when it did arrive.

To quote Kelly from September last year:
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.

Since roughly September 2010, I haven't been worried about whether my business can get more and more profitable (as Kelly claims that businesses should), I've been trying to work out if my business here going forward can be profitable at all.

How can it be that with iStock fully aware that this issue is very important to contributors, they have chosen to leave it right until the end of Q1 to pass along the fact that their second commitment on this is not going to be met?  Can they really still be so utterly inept at management and communication?  Also, great to see the thread locked to prevent any discussion of their continuing ineptitude.

So now no date has been given for when we can expect this information, which will have a huge influence over contributors' future incomes.  Of course chances are that there'll be nothing before the jolly in London, so probably some time in May at the absolute earliest.

Quote from: retrorocket on March 11, 2011, 13:30

This guy worked as a senior designer at HQ. I don't know if he quit recently or a long time ago. I don't want to imply that his leaving had anything to do with recent changes.
http://www.istockphoto.com/So-CoAddict

He also has a lightbox called "Istock staff" that has a number of people in there without badges.
http://www.istockphoto.com/search/lightbox/1443933/#1ab99d82

I think he/she had a badge yesterday!

In a tweet he mentioned that his last day at iStock was 25th Feb.

24th Feb - SoCoAddict
Tomorrow is my last day as a senior designer at @iStock. Talk about an incredible five years. #startingtofeelstrange

Yet another talented, interesting and long standing iStocker exiting the company.

What is going on here?  Are Getty slashing iStock costs while they ramp up expenditure on Thinkstock and Photos.com, or are people simply walking away in disgust (and in significant numbers).