Very cool feature. Thanks for posting this.

That seems a bit harsh.  Who, exactly, are the two of you addressing your sweeping, all-inclusive insults to?

Anybody who is sitting in a pumpkin patch with Linus? Seriously, it really wasn't directed at anybody in particular. And I know there are a lot of people that went out and started there own site and explored other options. There's also a lot of people that are perfectly content as iStock exclusives. I can't really knock them either. I was just encouraging people (with a kick in the pants) to go out and find what works for them and not wait around.

You guys crack me up. Waiting around for the "Great Pumpkin" to appear to save you. I feel sorry for Ktools, Clustershot, Photodeck and others that created these perfectly acceptable systems, but you're all too lazy to use them. It's OK. Don't worry the "Great Pumpkin" is coming soon to save you from yourself... I mean the evil corporations. 

I know about Fotolia, but when did Dreamstime cut commissions? (I tried to google it too before asking)

They cut their royalties in the summer of 2009 from I think 50% to their level system. Fotolia has cut royalty rates the last 3 years.

I have to agree with Helix. There really isn't much to say or do at this point and there never was a negotiating table. I've done the only thing I could by voicing my displeasure and limiting my images there. The last step would be to leave. There's still many things that I like about iStock, but I don't see much chance of a resolution. For the most part, I've moved on. I have to do what is best for me.

I agree buyers are leaving, but im not so sure istock is getting less profit and that their card house is dwindling down...
They probably have foreseen buyers on a somewhat tight budget would leave, but i can imagine the succes of Agency (DEFINITELY the wholly owned collections which are pure profit if i'm not mistaken) and Vetta on which they take a larger cut, make more than up for the smaller buyers leaving. For each A/V buyer they probably can afford to lose many smaller buyers and still make more in the end.
It's us that are fighting unfair competition with outside photographers/collections without upload margins, lower to no inspection standards etc., having to fight over a smaller part of the pie while istock profits keep growing with different very high priced collections on which they even pay less (to none?) royalties.
I'm not sure the future looks bleak for istock... for us on the other hand  

I was just really surprised after last months numbers. IS was barely outperforming DT, and it was a pretty average month at DT. DT runs neck and neck with 3 or 4 agencies, so if they slip past DT, they could fall pretty far pretty fast.

My main point though, was that their relevance of being a top agency seems to be slipping which makes it easier to pull your portfolio and rely on other agencies. It's just a theory based on the last 6 months downward trend. I'm just one contributor, but it looks like others are reporting the same trends of sales being half or a third of what they were.

It really ticks me off when contributors defend Getty's greed, incompetence, and mismanagement as some sort of business strategy.  Even more so when they blame the contributors.  Like this is all our fault.  As in this post:  
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=330116&messageid=6399846

I don't think he was off the mark. I do blame the contributors as well as myself, but I also blame IS for being greedy too. Nobody wants to walk away from the money except for the few that did. I don't think anybody gets a pass on this thing.

When I think of iStock's "flair", I think of this:

LOL. I was happy to see they opened a new restaurant where they filmed the Chotchkie's scenes for Office Space after they closed the Cajun place.

Well, since you have been around since the "good old days", I guess you actually know what might be good for me and my business. NOT! I don't appreciate your calling me stupid or trivializing my decision down to "personal" or "emotional" or whatever other belittling word you choose to use.

Fact is, istock took money away from me. Sales are ever dwindling, not just for me, but for MOST everyone. I chose not to participate there anymore and decided to focus my efforts in other areas. And in fact it has proven to have been a good choice because other sites have more than taken up the slack for my loss of sales, not to mention other photography jobs I have taken. Not to mention getting rid of the whole istock drama out of my life.

One week you are slamming istock too. The next week, your sales take a turn for the better, and suddenly everyone else is stupid. 

I tend to agree. You have to go out and try to shape the market to what you want it to be. That's been more of my goal this year. It's a longer road, but I'm starting to see signs as well that it might be worth the sacrifice and effort.

I have a question for all of you who think the new system is bad:
Lets say all of the RC targets where now slashed in half. so for example to hit the 40% mark you would need 60K credits instead of 120K, 5.25K for 30% etc' etc'
and for the sake of the arguement all non-exclusives had a fixed 20% income, or a ladder of 20%-25% instead of 15%-20%.
Would you STILL think the new system is not fair and/or bad ?

And JS: Great so you found 2 top dogs which are not old-timers, how does that make my statment not true ?!?
"Quite silly realy, most if not all of the top dogs are old timers! I don't"

Fine, so I take the "all" back. Still, the VAST majority of MS head-honchos are old-timers.

Interesting postulation. I would have been happy if they announced 20-25% to begin with. Now that the box of discontent is open though, 20-25% wouldn't be a great offer. I'd like to see a flat 30% for independents would be a good start (50% would be ideal). I don't really see how that isn't possible. If you want to attract the best talent, then you need to pay like it. A poor royalty rate with falling sales doesn't seem like a recipe for growth.

Are people really buying $350 worth of credits at once? The sales at BS don't seem to suggest that, but I suppose it's possible that most people buy large credit packs. Really with the old system the royalties were between 17%-55%.

5 credits - 17% royalty rate
12 credits - 20% royalty rate
25 credits - 25% royalty rate
60 credits - 30% royalty rate
140 credits - 37% royalty rate
350 credits - 50% royalty rate
700 credits - 55% royalty rate

Yeah, it would nice to get paid 50%, but I don't really feel cheated because I wasn't necessarily getting 50% before.

This actually looks like a good thing. The prices in the video show $3 for a small image, so you'll get $.90 instead of $.50 for a one credit file. If that is the real pricing this looks like a huge boost. The old credit system looks like you could get as low as 16% and as good as 50%.

The previous royalty system was idiotic and indeed unsustainable!

Yes, paying 20% to contributors was totally unsustainable. It all makes sense now.