I would imagine it is a statement that it isn't ok to drop royalties to 15%.  Otherwise, if 15% is ok, why not 10?

I imagine that is the catch 22 with this. If you drop the crown, then you have to deal with the extremely low royalties for independents. I can see why some exclusives would cut their exclusivity and delete their portfolio too. I guess it is like ripping the band-aid off quickly. There is basically no good or ideal solution.

Money earned in given tax year or money paid in this period of time? Some money might never be paid because contributor will not reach payout limit. Is is counted as income?

Typically on the 1099's you receive, it is money paid out. So my payout for December that I will probably request on Jan 1st will be on next year's taxes and last year's December will be on this year's taxes.

I think what a lot of people alluded to. The numbers are just numbers. It is how you use them that can make them important. You can use RPI to try to set goals for the future and decide which agencies give you the biggest bang for your time. The numbers are always a moving target though. Many factors can change them, so there is never a sure bet for what will make you more. But, that is pretty much the nature of this business. I like to keep track of statistics to make plans for the future. I know others don't, so to each his/her own.

It's Bizarro iStock! 

Interesting read. I wasn't down this year, but it was definitely slow or no growth at some agencies. I had so much growth in 2009 though that it makes me wonder what happened in 2010.

Yup!  So?  hows the past year been, in the stock-world, that is? and any big plans for next year? such as opening up your own Micro or buying out Getty?

best.

No plans on buying Getty. I did open up a micro last month for my own work though, so I see a lot of promotion and SEO in my future. 2010 was a weird year in micro after a great 2009. I definitely need a new game plan for 2011. What that is, I'm not quite sure yet.

feed the beast!

 

Wow! It makes it look like they are trying to cheat the artists on purpose because they enjoy it. Why not write the contract the way you actually want to use it and find artists that will agree to that? I guess that would be too obvious.

...an agency representing you...

I'm thinking that might be pushing it. I'm going with they're just some people I do business with. You know like the guy you buy tickets from outside a concert.

Not really.  It would be more apt if the employee came back in with a mustache and beard and started yelling at the customer service desk that the place sucks and she can't find anything, so she is leaving.  Then she goes out and takes off the disguise and heads in to work.

It's more that everyone that is responding to the person doesn't know they are dealing with our good friend Bob the contributor, even though Bob thinks everyone might know.

Anyways, it sounds like the poster is part of a work group that uses the account, so it may be a ranting co-worker.  I don't know how they track all that stuff.

That's funny! I never thought about showing up to work in a disguise, so I can yell at my boss.

^^^ Followed by another swipe when Lobo locked the thread;
"So, we have another example of where the contributor base is duped into a discussion with a buyer who is also a contributor. Whereas it's appreciated that you are purchasing from the collection you are also EXCLUSIVE with I think it would be great if you could pick an account to communicate with and stick with it.

It just seems very disingenuous to attempt to use your buyer account as a leveraging tool when you participate as an exclusive contributor."

I don't understand why it is 'disingenuous' to complain as a buyer just because you are also a contributor (and an exclusive one at that). If the difficulties being experienced are in the search and purchase of images then what's wrong with speaking as the buyer in that regard? Istock makes money from Lizzielou in both  of her capacities so surely she should be treated with double respect not just ignored because of it.

That seems like the most loyal type of customer you could have. One that is an both an exclusive contributor and buyer.

Why? I don't see much benefit for us to have buyers remain at istock. We'd do better if they migrated to sites like StockFresh, GL, etc.

GL, definitely. SF, the jury is still out. My RPD is a lot higher at IS, than SF. So, technically I get paid more on each download, even if the percentage is much lower.

OK. I just tried one and had the same problem as the OP (my jpeg was too small). This is a shame. Veer had a great and simple system before. Why create something new? I was planning on uploading the rest of my back catalog there next year, but I can't imagine taking the time to create and tag new jpegs just for one agency.