|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - PixelBytes
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... 74
201
« on: December 03, 2016, 23:58 »
.....The agencies screwing over their contributors like this is a relatively recent phenomena. Past 3 years maybe. Before that some tried, but petitions and group actions did mostly work to stop them.
More like 6 years. It's all in this forum, istock sent us a "good news" email telling us they were cutting non-exclusives commission below 20%. Until then, we had some success improving things with a few sites but they ignored our deactivation day protest and all the big sites have given us "good news" since then.
I became active 8ish years ago, but I remember making 20% as nonexclusive until at least 2013, and the thread on the deactivation day subject seems to back that up. So isn't that more like 3+ years?
Not saying it doesn't suck, but explaining why some of us felt happy with stock til the past couple years.
They announced the cuts in 2010, so you must of been getting below 20%in 2011? Here's one thread about it http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/so-what-are-we-all-going-to-do/
Frosting and fabrications won't change the truth Pixel, Since TS around 2010 most independents have been getting 15% or less. IS has diverted sales from credit to subs and TS. They keep making exciting changes which only mean we get less. RC was another way to pay less to more people.
Exclusives do get what they work for and I've always said they deserve that for being loyal and exclusive. They should get better search placement.
Don't get me wrong. I agree they've been screwing us for a long time.. That's why I haven't uploaded there in almost 3 years. I wasn't counting the Thinkstock subs as part of the % drop, but it did drop overall earnings. Some of you guys started before I did and probably remember outrages I didn't go thru or else didn't notice as I was building my port. I do know that I make a couple % over the minimum on the few credit sales i get, at least til the 23rd of this month. Then it's Merry Christmas contributors - BEND OVER and all goes even farther down the tubes. If the money's gone, so am I.
Had such a good month on Adobe/FT I may not even miss IS.
Please accept my apologizes for thinking you were a happy iStock zombie drone.  I read the message and understood wrong.
Like the old old threads where people averaged 50c a download, not including any EL. Now we can include EL and after subs and ts, I don't think I average 50c a download anymore. Less downloads means less income while we get latest exciting news.
Most agencies are finding new ways to pay less peanuts to us chumps. Istock is just the master at pretending we don't see through them. How did they go from overwhelming top agency with happy contributors, to #3 with people who haven't left, still disgruntled? Maybe they just don't care? Otherwise how can they be that stupid?
I think you nailed it. They just don't care AND they are that stupid! And it seems likely they are bleeding money from their greedy, stupid policies. It blows my mind that some other sites seem to be going down the same road! FWIW, I was a happy drone when I first joined, before they started to poison the well. I just didn't remember how long ago that was. I missed the glory days by a couple years, but things still seemed okay in 2009. I never in my life would of predicted how bad things could get there. So glad I was never exclusive!
202
« on: December 03, 2016, 23:51 »
203
« on: December 03, 2016, 23:24 »
.....The agencies screwing over their contributors like this is a relatively recent phenomena. Past 3 years maybe. Before that some tried, but petitions and group actions did mostly work to stop them.
More like 6 years. It's all in this forum, istock sent us a "good news" email telling us they were cutting non-exclusives commission below 20%. Until then, we had some success improving things with a few sites but they ignored our deactivation day protest and all the big sites have given us "good news" since then.
I became active 8ish years ago, but I remember making 20% as nonexclusive until at least 2013, and the thread on the deactivation day subject seems to back that up. So isn't that more like 3+ years?
Not saying it doesn't suck, but explaining why some of us felt happy with stock til the past couple years.
They announced the cuts in 2010, so you must of been getting below 20%in 2011? Here's one thread about it http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/so-what-are-we-all-going-to-do/
Frosting and fabrications won't change the truth Pixel, Since TS around 2010 most independents have been getting 15% or less. IS has diverted sales from credit to subs and TS. They keep making exciting changes which only mean we get less. RC was another way to pay less to more people.
Exclusives do get what they work for and I've always said they deserve that for being loyal and exclusive. They should get better search placement.
Don't get me wrong. I agree they've been screwing us for a long time.. That's why I haven't uploaded there in almost 3 years. I wasn't counting the Thinkstock subs as part of the % drop, but it did drop overall earnings. Some of you guys started before I did and probably remember outrages I didn't go thru or else didn't notice as I was building my port. I do know that I make a couple % over the minimum on the few credit sales i get, at least til the 23rd of this month. Then it's Merry Christmas contributors - BEND OVER and all goes even farther down the tubes. If the money's gone, so am I. Had such a good month on Adobe/FT I may not even miss IS.
204
« on: December 02, 2016, 08:45 »
Amazingly good at FT. They have passed istock by and almost even with SS. Good news because it will make up some of the loss of income when I quit istock. 123, for me, took a dump. My normal sales there are around $400/month. This just over $100.
Overall bad trend tho. First Nov ever that was lower than October, and almost 20% down on last Nov.
205
« on: December 01, 2016, 01:10 »
worst november in years, earnings going down fast now. very unmotivating
Yep. Worst since first couple of years in the business. Since some are reporting great sales it is probably search engine related.
206
« on: November 29, 2016, 22:47 »
I'm just waiting for the first person to not get your reference to Tropic Thunder and give you he11 for being pilitically incorrect. 
207
« on: November 27, 2016, 22:37 »
.....The agencies screwing over their contributors like this is a relatively recent phenomena. Past 3 years maybe. Before that some tried, but petitions and group actions did mostly work to stop them.
More like 6 years. It's all in this forum, istock sent us a "good news" email telling us they were cutting non-exclusives commission below 20%. Until then, we had some success improving things with a few sites but they ignored our deactivation day protest and all the big sites have given us "good news" since then.
I became active 8ish years ago, but I remember making 20% as nonexclusive until at least 2013, and the thread on the deactivation day subject seems to back that up. So isn't that more like 3+ years? Not saying it doesn't suck, but explaining why some of us felt happy with stock til the past couple years.
208
« on: November 27, 2016, 12:15 »
So I have to disagree, Getty might not think it matters but they are wrong.
If the top 800 leave, Getty would really notice it. If the bottom 8000 leave they would just laugh about how much wasted server space was being recovered. And those most likely to leave are those with the least to lose. The top 800 would lose quite a lot. The bottom 8000 probably would never have made a payout, anyway. That's just how it is.
I'd agree except add that if everybody here and everybody who signed the petition left, they still wouldn't care. If one peanut producer leaves the maarket or 800 peanut growers leave the market, there are many more to fill in. This is a world market, and for some reason, just like Micro, there are more and more people willing to work for underpaying peanuts if anybody else leaves.
The agencies have come to the power point of, if you don't like it, you can leave. They have 1000 other stupid people that are willing to work for nearly nothing. This is the house that the early people built on happiness for 25c sales or 15% commissions at IS. The same people who flocked to sell out their soul for 25c to be a member on DP.
And every time one agency lowers returns, people scream, but we are unheard. A petition with 1000 names has no weight to Getty.
Istock paid 20% to those "early people" and currently pays 17-19% to some of us. Not to metion they paid up to 40% to exclusives from the inception of that program. SS paiid .38 to anyone willing to work moderately hard. With FAR less competition at most sites, they were not earning peanuts, but many earned solid 6k incomes. Thats why the early people were happy. It was a balance that seemed to work well. I didn't come along til a few years later, but even in 2009 there was still a good chance to make money. I am kicking myself for not getting in sooner because I am sure my hesitancy cost me couple hundred k. The agencies screwing over their contributors like this is a relatively recent phenomena. Past 3 years maybe. Before that some tried, but petitions and group actions did mostly work to stop them.
209
« on: November 26, 2016, 18:35 »
Unless they algorithmically do something to stop it from happening, whether on initial submission or on edit, it will continue to happen. Once a cheater, always a cheater.
Exactly. Or if they would severely penalize the spammed images in the search the problem would take care of itself.
210
« on: November 25, 2016, 15:38 »
So I have to disagree, Getty might not think it matters but they are wrong.
If the top 800 leave, Getty would really notice it. If the bottom 8000 leave they would just laugh about how much wasted server space was being recovered. And those most likely to leave are those with the least to lose. The top 800 would lose quite a lot. The bottom 8000 probably would never have made a payout, anyway. That's just how it is.
I'm in the top couple hundred and if my monthly income there drops any more I DONT stand to lose a lot. This year I make so little there that if I lose even one or two hundred $ /month it won't be worth staying.
211
« on: November 24, 2016, 14:21 »
so far i haven't seen any of this 0,02....even when people see a lot of 0,1 0,06 i never saw nothing less than 0,28....
now i'm ready for 0,15m as minimum...o will upload less....also stock review seems a lot slow with non exclusive.... and see.
if i begin 0,02 simply i will leave my image there and not upload nothing more. very simple.
petition and useless fight are time consuming and will not end to nothing.
i see fotolia increasing a lot their sale and shutter stock recovering in the last 2 months...strangely i have my best month in stock from a long time. i repeat till they grow my per month income i will upload if not bye bye.
in my opinion they are simply moving their effort to exclusive contributor.
Maybe because they aren't implementing the new royaltys until December 23. 
212
« on: November 23, 2016, 23:53 »
I just saw the email from them. Subscription licenses will have a minimum price per file will be 0.10c. Waww, a lot of money. I think the beggar how lives on the corner of my street feels better, now he knows I will not take his place. I will earn enough money with Istock, so I will not need to take his job 
So they raised it from 2 to 10? Am I understanding that correctly? If so, sorry....10 still doesn't cut it.
And now the new rates don't go into effect until December 23. More time to sign the (revised, if the 10 minimum is new) petition. 
I read the email and must have missed the "raise " to min. 10 cents. Not that it really makes a difference, but I would like to know how much of an insult I will be quitting ovet. So then it is still .02. Pricks. Here I was imagining the petition might have had an impact and maybe a slim possibility of improvements for us. Glad I stopped uploading there a long time ago.
213
« on: November 22, 2016, 16:33 »
For whatever reason momentum seems to be picking up. I just checked and it's well over 600 now, so a whole bunch of people must have signed it this morning.
I wasn't going to sign it, because I think its a waste of time but Rose Tinted Glasses persuaded me. He's done a great job getting more people to sign it
Looks like he's gone now but no doubt he will be back with another anonymous account trying to defend the indefensible.
Or maybe go back to posting under another pro Getty account that has been dormant for a year or so...? Seems like quite a coincidence, one leaves, the other pops up.
214
« on: November 20, 2016, 21:00 »
You say that almost gleefully
Don't try to tell me how I feel, I was giving you some facts. It says a lot about you that your instinct is to attack. I've been away from here for over a year which is the only reason I unblocked you. Now that I see you haven't changed one bit I'm going to ignore you again and hopefully this thread can get back on topic.
Nobody missed you. In fact this place and the general tenor of posts benefit from your absence. Maybe you should crawl back under your rock instead of attacking Shelma, who is an intelligent and productive poster here.
215
« on: November 20, 2016, 20:45 »
i am sure yuri and sjolocke,etc had many sales from the same buyer, many times.
it does not mean someone is out to steal your work. maybe so, but i would not worry too much
as this is microstock. lots of ppl see microstock as a cheap way to get images,
and for now, conisder yourself lucky you found someone who likes your style.
if you assume it is a thief, and if it is an admirer, you kill yourself but stopping to upload more work.
i see it this way,... if you can do sellable stuff, it can't be difficult for you to make more.
the thief can only steal what you create, and nothing more.
what if otoh, it is in fact as pixelbytes say, someone who likes your style.
they see you as a one trick pony, and stop checking in to see if you have more to buy.
it's your call, .. i would just like it so long as i see my earnings keep going up.
Are you attorney? Your replies always seem to be long winded in nature
Maybe he's just been around the biz longer than most and has more useful info to share.
216
« on: November 20, 2016, 13:11 »
Only 16 images isn't enough to conclude it's 100% fraud. Yes, its possible, but way too soon to go jumping to conclusions. Ive had more than that bought legitimately in a series many times.
First thing is contact the agency. They can verify if it is a known customer and if this fits that customers buying pattern. That is often the case and you can then relax and enjoy the income.
217
« on: November 20, 2016, 12:41 »
If you want to earn $50 per 6 or 8 months with 6k photos, then yes. Otherwise, don't bother. My only worse earner is GL, and that one is dead, dead, DEAD.
218
« on: November 16, 2016, 11:51 »
After getting rid of a lot of contributors by making the tax situation unclear, this will probably get rid of a lot of buyers. Just look how badly GLStockImages did when they stopped new submissions.
Yes. And they've never recovered. Once the buyers leave, they don't come back.
219
« on: November 11, 2016, 18:16 »
They've poisoned the well as far as I'm concerned. They've sown salt in the fields. Bottom line, they've devalued this sort of imagery in the market, to the point that it's no longer worth doing. And that can't be easily undone.
And sadly most agencies will have to follow suit just to survive. I am glad I never supported them and contributed imagery to them.
Congratulations! Your unwavering support for the fine example of competent management and contributor benefits that is Istock/Getty is something to be really proud of. I'm so jealous I'm not you!
I did not mention anything about IS/GI. There is no mention of unwavering support for IS/GI. I simply said most agencies will have to follow suit of SS and that I am glad I never supported them. The whole concept of subscription and 0.25c per download was a red flag 10 years ago, and yes, in my view SS and the subscription model work against contributors. You need to wake up and realize there is more to stock photography than only SS/IS/GI. I was merely agreeing with the post that I quoted in my reply, so please don't twist up my words to suit your fantasy of being jealous you are not me.
Your posting history of Istock praise and defending them when they do indefensible actions is well known, so your hypocrisy in congratulating yourself for never uploading to SS. Is laughable. Don't imagine that each post you make is in a vacuum and will not be weighed against your past comments.
220
« on: November 10, 2016, 23:39 »
They've poisoned the well as far as I'm concerned. They've sown salt in the fields. Bottom line, they've devalued this sort of imagery in the market, to the point that it's no longer worth doing. And that can't be easily undone.
And sadly most agencies will have to follow suit just to survive. I am glad I never supported them and contributed imagery to them.
Congratulations! Your unwavering support for the fine example of competent management and contributor benefits that is Istock/Getty is something to be really proud of. I'm so jealous I'm not you!
221
« on: November 08, 2016, 14:41 »
This forum has become a dangerous place. Ruled by very tough and nervous girls Shelma and Cathyslife. I'm afraid to post anything anymore
What a messed up comment. If you are so terrified of a couple of smart women speaking their mind, you should want a pay increase to cover costs of the therapy you need.
222
« on: November 07, 2016, 00:05 »
Just checked. For the whole first week of November I've made less than a typical day at 123. Must be one helluva search engine shakeup! Congrats to those seeing sales increases.
223
« on: November 07, 2016, 00:02 »
Very scary experience. Glad you caught on quickly. Will DP refund your $?
Thanks for the warning!
224
« on: November 06, 2016, 18:09 »
Seems like the agencies are moving towards turning microstock all back into high dollar images, with high returns for them (macrostock). Good for them and the elite contributors that are in the club, but the fact remains the market for microstock is still there. Someone will still need to supply that market. And 2 cents per download for the contributor isnt going to cut it.
One big problem for us rank and file microstock contributors is that when the money was good, a lot of us invested in expensive equipment and models to make high value images. These are images that can easily compete with high end collections, and should be included in them. But for some reason, if your pictures, even HCV ones, have been in micro, they are treated as tainted and inferior by SS when they choose Premier Select, or allow contributors to Offset. Adobe, so far, treats images as equal and doesn't turn up their nose just because they are microstock. In very early days micro may have been inferior quality, but for long time much micro can rival Macro and other top tier collections. If you don't want cheap micro images competing with your premier expensive images, don't hide them in the back of searches. Put the top quality micro images in the higher end collections.
225
« on: November 05, 2016, 13:16 »
For whomever wishes to submit a petition, I have created a possible draft. Correct it, pick it apart, make it say what needs to be said. Or ignore it and kill it. I submit this just as a starting place to get some petition wording.
-------
Petition served to __person__. Petition served to iStock/Getty.
Petition to establish royalties to Contributers which are in line with costs of creation of such contributed photographic and illustration content.
WHEREAS: The cost of contributors creating content is not insignificant. Costs include: computers, Internet access, travel, cameras, office space, pencils, desks, chairs, paper, scanners.
WHEREAS: The cost of contributors gaining education, training, and experience is not insignificant.
WHEREAS: iStock/Getty has announced changes to the Royalty payment structures to occur at or near the end of year 2016. Per these announcements, already poor royalty payment structures are, in some cases, getting lowered to the contributors. Per some calculations a low royalty of $0.02 USD is possible.
WHEREAS: iStock/Getty has the lowest paying Royalty structure in the Micrstock industry starting at a low 15% of the license sale price.
WHEREAS: iStock/Getty indeed has third party programs and collections that pay Royalties well under the iStock collection 15%.
WHEREAS: iStock/Getty uses Contributor content in situations where usage is not paid as related to the image. iStock Getty revenue is gained by viewed impressions or calculations outside of image licensing. Hence the contributor is not receiving a fair license royalty per image use.
WHEREAS: Volume licenses indeed create additional royalty payment to contributors. However, even dozens of license royalties at the iStock/Getty royalty structure do not adequately compensate for the contributor costs.
Content contributors, buyers, and interested parties, with signatures per this document, petition iStock/Getty to:
PETITION: To set a license royalty to contributors of no less than 25% of the license sale price.
PETITION: To set a license royalty to contributors of no less than $0.25 USD.
PETITION: To pay a contributor royalty of the higher amount of 25% or $0.25 USD for each license.
PETITION: To bring the third party image collections (Subscriptions, Getty, Partners, side usage calculations) into this minimum royalty structure.
We, the undersigned, support these minimum contributor royalty structures which should be implemented at iStock/Getty.
I would add lenses, professional lighting and light modifiers, studio space, props, model fees, and location fees, photo editing software, photo storage, etc. to the photographer expenses. I would be happy to sign the petition but sad to say I don't expect anything to come of it. The only thing that will ever get Gettys attention will be mass exodus of contributors so their store shelves are EMPTY.
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... 74
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
