Quote from: gostwyck on November 19, 2011, 21:08

What I find far more bizarre is why anyone remains exclusive, placing their trust and entire microstock income in Istock, whilst simultaneously being shafted and treated like dog-dirt by them.

Since you ask:

* I don't want to take the hit unless I really have to. I can have only a vague idea of how much my iStock earnings would plunge if I left (there are more factors than the simple royalty cut), or how long it would take to build up revenue on the other sites, or whether I could ever reach the same totals.

* They haven't shafted me very much at all -- only with the reduced Vetta percentage. The Getty/Vetta-Agency scheme hasn't fully compensated for that loss, but it has softened the blow.

* As ever, there's less admin overhead in dealing with just one site. Simpler also to shoot with only one set of criteria in mind.

* Being a non-US company, iStock doesn't withhold tax from foreigners the way US companies such as Getty are apparently obliged to unless you jump through a bunch of hoops. (As a matter of interest, how do sites such as SS handle that issue?)

Having said that, I'm all too aware of having my eggs in one basket. I consider iStock's incessant tinkering with the formula that made it successful to be a high-stakes game. As I've posted elsewhere, I can envisage scenarios in which iStock's market share and revenue collapse very quickly (although I see no sign of that yet).

I'm hedging against that risk by preparing my images to take them elsewhere in a hurry, if necessary, by paying a bright student to embed non-CV-style keywords in them. With 9,000 images that's a big job that'll cost me thousands and thousands in the end, but it needs to be done.

this is a good post Don. rationally distilled as you always do. I prepared three years ago when I first considered dropping exclusivity. I set up accounts everywhere else and got accepted etc. where required. Of course I've never uploaded, but I log in periodically, read forums and stay on top of changes at the other sites just in case I ever do decide to go independent. I still choose to be exclusive. The benefits still continue to well outweigh the risks for me personally. But, I too keep an eye on things, especially as I become more and more invested in this as a full-time venture. I don't want to follow them off a cliff depending on what happens with a sale of Getty at some point etc. but I'm in it for the long haul as long as it continues to work for me.

Quote from: SNP on November 19, 2011, 20:21

yeah, crap situation. but to see this thread going the way of all iStock threads the moment something happens...zzzzz,SO boring. why the overzealous hoopla about absolutely everything? in all likelihood it will be fixed, the end. no royalties intentionally siphoned by evil iStock gremlins.

It's just a guess but I think it might have something to do with Istock's history of a broken site and broken promises. That's why. It's also why you won't be getting the 40% commissions you worked so hard for so many years to achieve when eventually you turn 'Diamond' __ which of course is now entirely meaningless unless you value the colour of your canister over money. But, as you say ... zzzzzz, SO boring.

What I find far more bizarre is why anyone remains exclusive, placing their trust and entire microstock income in Istock, whilst simultaneously being shafted and treated like dog-dirt by them.  Did you really think that Istock staff were likely to interupt their precious weekend just because contributors' incomes were being miscalculated by their own incompetence? Not a chance. As they walked out the door they said .... "zzzzz, SO boring."

when I read the forums here about the other agencies, I can't say that things look all that rosy elsewhere. this hasn't anything to do with exclusivity. but FWIW, my royalty percentages are wrong as far as I can tell from when this began. of course it's impossible to know exactly which credit packages were used to purchase my images. I can understand where you're coming from. but I think you well overestimate the benefits of being independent gostwyck. in any case, sure want to see royalties back to where they should be and I do think it is inexcusable that they haven't quelled concerns over this. update on Monday doesn't cut it when it comes to an issue involving money. it sure wouldn't cut it if it was an issue affecting their bottom line.

It would be a relief for most of us if buggy sites like IS broke down completely and got closed. Business would move to SS and other sites in (almost) perfect running condition and we wouldn't loose out nerves and time. My ms work would become a lot easier and simpler

what an absurd statement. I'm not happy about the bug. I'm manually adding up my sales at the percentages they should be wherever possible, just in case. I'm doing it because I think it's prudent given the lack of communication once again. yeah, crap situation. but to see this thread going the way of all iStock threads the moment something happens...zzzzz,SO boring. why the overzealous hoopla about absolutely everything? in all likelihood it will be fixed, the end. no royalties intentionally siphoned by evil iStock gremlins.

Chill ppl, they're just getting ready to implement the canister levels back again

wouldn't that be nice. I would get a raise after all and not just some new bling. it looks like a bug. we'll see what happens to royalties earned during the 'outage', at least before sharpening pitchforks ;-)

wrong thread.

Quote from: SNP on November 17, 2011, 18:06

I think it is entirely fair and accurate to point out that a number of contributors complaining loudly are contributors with too few files to expect regular, steady sales. say what you will, but it is obviously a factor when someone uploads less than a few hundred files per year.

Why do you think a few hundred ultra high quality, super conceptual and edgy images wouldn't be enough? I think you can earn more by adding 400 stunning images than 2000, that are good, but not really special and standing out. And usually those that upload as much as 2k/year don't do creative stuff, mostly boring studio isolations etc. Or even if it's high quality and diverse like Sean's it looks like it's not enough. But it could be if a tog could make 400 awesome, mostly A/V files.

that may be true, and I know those accounts exist. I admire them myself. however, with so few files I doubt you're going to ride out best match changes over the years as well as you would if you produced more. anything I've said about size of portfolio obviously includes the caveat that the quality be there. my own portfolio as an example, my first two thousand uploads in general are utterly crap files. I learned 'live' in the sense that I uploaded everything I did in the beginning. I certainly don't upload like that anymore and those are not the files that garner me sales. so I'm not suggesting an oversimplified 'more is better' approach.

if in your example the contributor is talented enough to produce files that sell like hotcakes, the sales will only last so long, images seem to have a shelf-life, or as we've seen can be dropped overnight in the best match.

Hi Stacey!  how goes?

well, that might be true in other places or here perhaps but if you look at the IS, October thread,  my God!  every single high ranking Diamond and Gold contributor is complaining of fallen sales, the only ones there reporting an increase are the lower cannisters.

:-) I'm not disputing drops in sales, nor that buyers are leaving. that in itself is not meaningful. what would be meaningful would be a comparison of new buyers:buyers lost for every year. I think it's an inevitable state for some high ranking contributors to be seeing a decrease in dls, because portfolios are growing at slower rates than the collection as a whole. I think major contributors who began in the early days were used to an incredible rate of growth that had to eventually decrease. there's so much competition for contributors that didn't have much competition in the early days. I suspect that decrease will level out or fluctuate at some point. I don't think it is boiling down to nothing, which is often implied. either those contributors will get fed up and go independent, or sales will level out and increase again as new contributors get more and more weary about how much more difficult it is to establish a solid footing these days.

to your other point, it's fair to say that many of those reporting massive DROPS in income are also lower canisters whose entire downloads total 5-100 dls per month. a fluctuation of five or six dls per month has them reporting astronomical losses or major increases in percentages, which gives a skewed perception of what is happening on the whole. there are also a number of high ranking diamonds who are reporting good sales.

@ gostwyck: I agree that sales definitely seem to be affected for many contributors. I think it is entirely plausible that it is due to some buyers leaving. I wouldn't suggest everything is rosy at iStock. there are a number of issues facing contributors, without a doubt. whether or not the exodus of buyers is as epic as is being implied (or hoped for) by some here is not something any of us can really know. overall I don't know if sales are up or down for the site. one thing is for sure and that is the plight of the individual contributor is certainly of very little concern to TPTB versus the overall health of the business. that is an approach that is severely self-limiting.

@ Joann: you seem to feel you can pontificate as much as you wish, heaven forbid anyone might challenge your position. your comment about hard work--those are your words. you also continue to use Sean and Nico Blue as your examples. they can speak for themselves about why they fee they've lost sales. there's no blanket reason as I stated earlier, very clearly. IMO however, I think it is entirely fair and accurate to point out that a number of contributors complaining loudly are contributors with too few files to expect regular, steady sales. say what you will, but it is obviously a factor when someone uploads less than a few hundred files per year. I'm not attaching any sort of value judgment to that, it is just numbers. sorry if you feel someone is saying you're not working had enough.

^ of course you're going to see wild fluctuations in a case where we're talking under 100 dls per month. that isn't meant as an insult. I realize many people don't do this full time and any income is counted on. however, it's not indicative of any trend. you can't possibly expect to maintain predictable sales at that level. it's just common sense. since 2005 you have added just 415 files to your portfolio.

Quote from: SNP on November 14, 2011, 20:46

Quote from: TheDman on November 14, 2011, 11:10

This November on IS might be my worst month of the year, and the first time since I started selling here in 2005 that I went down in November instead of up. I have several Christmas/New Year's images that usually do well this time of year that are barely selling at all. Shots that usually sell multiple times per day are now lucky to get one sale a month. Looks like Nov 2011 will be at 33% of Nov 2010.

Istock's fall has been incredible. At the beginning of the year I thought it was going to be no problem to hit my royalty target to stay at my current level, but now it appears I'll miss it. I had been contemplating ditching my crown, and this may well be the last straw. It amazes me that a company can so shoot themselves in the foot, have thousands of people screaming at them that they are doing just that, yet ignore them all and continue their path of self-destruction.

you have just 550 files after seven years of being on iStock. I think contributors being hit particularly hard are those that have gotten used to making sales off best sellers, who began early when growth was truly exponential from year to year. the landscape has changed, the collection has grown and it's far too competitive today to be riding on the success of so few files. no matter how good they may be, there are a lot of very good files these days.

True, however the particular files I'm thinking of are only a year or two or three old. I'm not concerned with files from 2005. There just shouldn't be such a precipitous drop after one year. Plus, new files don't sell at all. I get the feeling that if I uploaded 1000 files in the next month, the old 500 would still outsell them by a wide margin.

sure, that may be true. there are probably a myriad of reasons why contributors experience poor sales, as well as good sales. but since we don't have concrete numbers in front of us to compare strategies...it stands to reason that many contributors who have not uploaded regularly will be hit, especially those who enjoyed early, fast success because there was far less competition. obviously there are exceptions to many rules, I do think that some contributors may also be cannibalizing their own sales. creating the same concepts over and over, with slightly different elements can't be great for sustained growth within a portfolio.

ETA: obviously talent is a major factor, I assume that goes without saying

This November on IS might be my worst month of the year, and the first time since I started selling here in 2005 that I went down in November instead of up. I have several Christmas/New Year's images that usually do well this time of year that are barely selling at all. Shots that usually sell multiple times per day are now lucky to get one sale a month. Looks like Nov 2011 will be at 33% of Nov 2010.

Istock's fall has been incredible. At the beginning of the year I thought it was going to be no problem to hit my royalty target to stay at my current level, but now it appears I'll miss it. I had been contemplating ditching my crown, and this may well be the last straw. It amazes me that a company can so shoot themselves in the foot, have thousands of people screaming at them that they are doing just that, yet ignore them all and continue their path of self-destruction.

you have just 550 files after seven years of being on iStock. I think contributors being hit particularly hard are those that have gotten used to making sales off best sellers, who began early when growth was truly exponential from year to year. the landscape has changed, the collection has grown and it's far too competitive today to be riding on the success of so few files. no matter how good they may be, there are a lot of very good files these days.

this is a hard question. I would have to say my 35mm f/2.8 prime is what I'd use all the time. I know it would be better to use a zoom, but I just love this lens too much to give it up if I could only have one.

ETA: hah, so I thought this thread was an oldie. sure enough I already answered last December. I said the same lens....still my fav