If you notice Tim DID NOT start this thread...a contributor did. Tim came on here to address the question's the contributors had.

Perhaps you failed to see where Tim openly admitted to sending "Mark" in to start this thread and then apologised for it when people jumped on him.

"You on the other hand read the agreement and accepted the terms because you compared them to microstock."

DO NOT put words in my mouth....I did not compare the them to microstock...I said

"I use old rejected microstock or just portions of those shots other wise they would just sit on my hard drive making nothing"


I DID NOT compare them to microstock.

You seem a little frantic, calm down.  I did not put words in your mouth, I'm stating the obvious.  Of course you signed up because you compared them to microstock, you sell microstock.  If you had compared them to any other fair-paying POD site you would have signed up with them and used your rejects and portions on those sites instead.

Another example how you don't read before you speak.

It did not cost you any thing to sign up...none of your design's sold...you had the opportunity to read the Artist Agreement after you signed up and had the opportunity to chose not to participate. Many of us are on Zazzle and it's great that you sell so much on there, but you have no right to come on here and call ABC a ripoff. They don't keep your money, you get paid. Everyone here has a choice to join and contribute. If you don't care then why in the world are you on here bashing them. They ARE NOT a microstock site and no one has compared them to one.

Look, not everything is about you.  Like I said, and I'll repeat this once more hoping it sinks in, I don't care if you stay there being ripped off or if you leave.  I wrote this thread to state my opinion because I signed up after reading this thread and don't want anyone else signing up just because most of you, who are obviously clueless about POD sites and their standards, rated this crappy site highly when really, it's the lowest paying POD site on the net.  There is arguement here, compared to other POD sites, they're a ripoff.  You cannot say that they are not, they are.  It's there in black and white and I have every right to say that here.  I am not just writing BS, I am comparing apples to apples and you, in you're own deluded head, are comparing apples to oranges because if you weren't you would not have accepted their terms.  

As for this rubbish about comparing them to microstock, it is Tim, the manager who does that.  In his email to me he wrote...

Well, that wasn't the response I was anticipating.

A huge ripoff? How do you figure?

What's a huge ripoff for you is when a customer goes to your microstock galleries at Dreamstime, CanStock, or 123rf, buys the image for $1, $2, $3, you get a fraction of that and we still print their business cards. That's a rip off for you. Of course, then they use that same image to go print their brochures, put it on their website and wherever else they choose - all for $1.

This is how he brainwashed you all into thinking he'll pay you fairly.  The point is, you'regetting paid by microstock standards, not POD standards.  

CONCLUSION, they are a ripoff... a HUGE ripoff.

Shhhh

Hi all,

Please don�t be sucked in by this company.  They lure you in by comparing their payouts to microstock payments but they�re not a microstock agent, they are a Print On Demand company and in terms of POD standards, they are ripping you people off, big time!!  

When I first read about them on this thread, I thought, hmm, $5 is a little on the cheap side but it�s not too bad so I signed up with them and proceeded to create my business card templates.  After creating 21 out of 25 (the minimum you need before your profile is created), I asked myself a question I should have asked from the beginning... how many cards is the customer receiving when I receive my $5?  I had just assumed it was 100 cards.  I then went into printbusinesscards.com, loaded a card as if to buy it and noticed that the minimum purchase was 500 cards for $65.  My jaw dropped when I realised I would only be receiving less than 8% �commission�.  I thought that�s pretty bad and it�s the lowest commission I�ve seen so far.  Even CafePress, who�s considered the iStock of the POD world pays 10% commission.  I then emailed Tim McWhorter to find out a bit more about their payment structure and he pointed me towards the �artist agreement� and things got worse from there on.  I realised that we don�t even receive a commission.  It�s a measly one-off payment of $5.  It doesn�t matter how many cards you sell to that customer, you still only receive $5. To make things worse if the customer is ordering for a company, he/she can order more cards for various people in that company and you still receive nothing more.  So after the first initial sale to a customer, printbusinesscards.com keeps selling your design and pocketing $65 each time and you get nothing.  That is disgusting!

Now I want to compare them to Zazzle and their business cards.  Over at Zazzle I get paid a commission of at least 10%.  I can set the commission to whatever I want and believe me, I get paid way more than 10%... way way more!  So I receive much more than $5 for 100 (not 500) and a lot of customers keep coming back for more.  I sold 15 lots of 100 cards the other day and made $85 on just one sale.  I make more (again much more) at Zazzle than I do at all the microstock agents combined.  Now get this.  Not only do you get paid your commission at Zazzle but you get paid 15% commission on product referrals.  You can promote your own and others products and receive 15% for it.  

So please don�t let yourselves be ripped off by this company.  It�s disgusting how they come here targeting artists and photographers who the majority are not designers and don�t know much about POD sites.  They justify themselves by comparing their company with Dreamstime but there�s no comparison.  You should be getting paid for your DESIGN, not just for an image.  You don�t just slap on an image on a white card and sell it, you design it and that takes time, thought and effort and you should be paid what you deserve to be paid.

Please don�t sell yourselves short, tell this company to go jump and join a proper POD site who pays you fair commissions.  Most of them do, not just Zazzle.

This is my store at Zazzle if you want to see who I am.  http://www.zazzle.com/sunnymars

I signed up in August and I�m doing fairly well already.  If you like have a look at what a couple of other designers said about PBC�s pricing system on my facebook page when I wrote a post about them...

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Sunny-Mars-Designs/150453311638512

You can take my advice and ditch these ripoff artists or you can ignore it. Personally I prefer less competition at Zazzle but I hate watching companies like this one take advantage of hard working artists and photographers.

I did my bit, take it easy!

iStockphoto.com:  browse the best stock library of royalty free content at prices anyone can afford. Except our contributors.

iStockphoto.com:  credits are our currency and they're easy to take steal buy.

When talking of exclusives"  and "elite" it should be reminded that this status is not an istock election, but a free choice for anyone with 250 or 500 downloads. Have we exclusive some privileges? Yes, but  in exchange of not selling at 10 other sites. It's no a matter of "elite", it's a simple matter of choice.

I don't believe anyone is suggesting that exclusives shouldn't be looked after more than independents because exclusives miss out on potential revenue elsewhere.  It�s only fair that exclusives get a better deal at any agent.  However it's the ever increasing gap between independents and exclusives that most people are protesting about.  Istock are pushing the boundaries to the limit and it�s gotten to the point where it�s no longer �sustainable� for independents to remain on board.  It�s bad enough that their crappy 20% commission is dropping further but to be pushed back in search results on top of that, means their revenue will fall even further.  By doing what Istock has done, it will drive independents away which will drive buyers away and in the long run, exclusives will start to take a hit as well.

I agree, not many look at Google ads.  I've never clicked on a google ad, ever and on Firefox I have ads disabled.  Since Firefox is the most popular browser these days, advertising with google seems pointless. As for microstock agents, I'd say a lot of their advertising dollars go to third parties.

Quote from: & then... on September 28, 2010, 21:42

I think our brand is being given some steroids....not necessarily a bad thing

Steroids cause brain cancer....

...and shrunken balls.  It's the second biggest reason why exclusives feel like they're locked in 

Quote from: lisafx on September 28, 2010, 10:50

My husband and I were discussing the same thing last night.  Seems clear they are fattening up the balance sheets for the 4th quarter and the 1st quarter of next year - at the expense of the long term health of the company - in preparation for a sale early in the year.  I am certain that Getty will be on the auction block by June 2011 at the very latest.

This idea has come up several times in multiple threads over the last weeks: That the changes made are only done to boost short term profits to increase a sale price - at the cost of long term profitability or even survival of Istock.

But there is one thing that strikes me as strange when looking closer at this scenario:
Any investor who would be willing to pay a substantial amount of money for Getty / Istock will certainly perform a very thorough due diligence. And they will certainly find out about what changes to their business model Istock has done in the recent past. And then they will make their assessment on what these changes mean for the future of the business (that's how the process works, you don't simply extrapolate past numbers into the future, as a potential buyer you actively search for risk factors that allow you to discount from that extrapolation and therefore your bid).

So there are two possibilities:
Either a potential buyer comes to a different conclusion about Istock's future than those people here on MSG that predict a negative outcome for Istock.
And they will have all the information at hand that we don't have, they will be able to look into Istock's books. And then they will buy.

Or they come to the same conclusion as some of us here - then they will not buy.

It's just hard for me to believe that the Getty / Istock management - if they are trying to sell - would knowingly make changes that maybe boost profits short term but carry too high risks for the longer term, because then they would be achieving exactly the opposite of what we are assuming - driving the price up.

So either we are missing some facts and are mis-interpreting the impact of these changes on Istock's future business or their management must have completely underestimated the impact these changes will have.

I don't believe at all that they're doing all this to sell up... well not this early anyway.  Their balance sheet wouldn't be looking too good at the moment and their P&L even worse.  I think they're doing this to differentiate themselves from the rest of the market... you know, be the Rolls Royce of the microstock industry.  Their business model isn't a bad one but they've gone about it the wrong way during a bad time and it's backfiring.

If the economy was stronger the model could work if they tackled it differently.  Vetta and these collections should be completely separate from the rest of the stock and these collections should be filled with images that are spectacular and nothing like any other images found in their database or anywhere else.  At the moment, they're adding images that are from a series and making them five times more expensive than other similar images.  This only highlights to the buyer that Vetta is overpriced and that istock is a ripoff.

Quote from: pseudonymous on September 27, 2010, 22:16

Sorry but I can�t help but laugh at all of this.  It�s not funny really, not to the buyer, not to the contributor and certainly not to istock, but I can�t help laughing at istock.  Watching them make one misake after another and then desperately trying to dig themselves out of a hole is amusing to me.  I�ve never seen such a huge display of unprofessionalism in my entire life.   I�m not surprised at all that istock didn�t wait till January to bump up the Vetta prices.  It shouldn�t surprise anyone else either.  For them to break their promise now, while they�re already labelled �greedy *insult removed*� and without communicating the rise to anyone means one thing and one thing only...  they cannot meet their high targets.  

Istock have put themselves in a rut that they cannot get out of.  I said it months ago and I�ll keep saying it... they�re going down the pan!  You have upper management who don�t want to lose their jobs by missing their targets so they�re doing whatever they can to raise revenue to increase their profits... but by doing so they will no longer be competitive and will fall on their ass anyway.  

The ball�s been rolled and it�s picking up speed... they�re not coming out of it this time.

The Vetta price increase now, when they're actually on record saying that they wouldn't, does smack of desperation or panic. Why couldn't Istockphoto have waited until January and slipped this one in amongst all the other price 'adjustments' that they'll no doubt be implementing? That's only 3 months from now. Makes me wonder what is coming later if they are prepared to do this. It would seem that Getty are determined to milk this cash cow dry in the shortest possible time. The time horizon that they are working to cannot be too far away.

As I mentioned above, they didn't wait because they're probably not going to hit their targets... I meant their year end targets.  As I've said in a few threads, with all the changes and projects they've had on lately, they've probably blown their budgets and now they're probably getting pressure from the top to do whatever it takes to get back on plan or as close to it as possible. 

You think buyers are going to tolerate this much longer?  How long do you think it will be before they figure out that istock�s isn�t what it�s cracked up to be?  It�s insulting to buyers and it won�t be long before they finally say �screw you� and move elsewhere.
I mean look at this example of two images that are almost identical from the same shoot that come up on the same page for a search for �family�.  One is vetta and one is not.

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-8092663-young-family.php
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-11923130-family.php

Both of these images are nice, one is worth 15 credits and the vetta is worth 70.  Buyers aren't stupid.  They will eventually go to an agent such as DT and search for �family� and find a large image that�s just as nice for 15 credits max (for a level 5 image).  If they choose a newer image with less downloads they�ll get it for even less.

Sorry but I can�t help but laugh at all of this.  It�s not funny really, not to the buyer, not to the contributor and certainly not to istock, but I can�t help laughing at istock.  Watching them make one misake after another and then desperately trying to dig themselves out of a hole is amusing to me.  I�ve never seen such a huge display of unprofessionalism in my entire life.   I�m not surprised at all that istock didn�t wait till January to bump up the Vetta prices.  It shouldn�t surprise anyone else either.  For them to break their promise now, while they�re already labelled �greedy *insult removed*� and without communicating the rise to anyone means one thing and one thing only...  they cannot meet their high targets.  

Istock have put themselves in a rut that they cannot get out of.  I said it months ago and I�ll keep saying it... they�re going down the pan!  You have upper management who don�t want to lose their jobs by missing their targets so they�re doing whatever they can to raise revenue to increase their profits... but by doing so they will no longer be competitive and will fall on their ass anyway.  

The ball�s been rolled and it�s picking up speed... they�re not coming out of it this time.

Hi guys,

If you're ever wondering if a site's down or whether you're the one the problem, you can check it here:

http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/

I use it all the time.

"I'm off work due to an injury and I'm dabbling in my creative side again because it keeps me still"

This pretty much sums it up.

I'm really trying hard to be insulted by some caveman holding a camera, but I just can't, sorry

Quote

I�ve worked across many industries for multicorporates as a management accountant and they paid me big bucks for my opinions which both increased their efficiency,

Now, I know a few high flying corporate types and to be honest none of them hang around microstock forums boasting of their business prowess.

Quote

You deserve to put in hours of work and be paid peanuts if you don't demand anything more

Quite a lot of us aren't paid peanuts. I have a well above average income from microstock. How about you? Oh no, sorry, you're a big buck management accountant, unaccountably hanging out with a bunch of loser artists.

lol mentioning my title is boasting of my "business prowess"?  I don't remember boasting.  Pissy pants asked the question about what I do and I answered.

As for hanging around with a bunch of loser artists I mentioned back in May what brought me to microstock.  I'm off work due to an injury and I'm dabbling in my creative side again because it keeps me still.   From memory, you were a bit of a turd back then and you apologised to me.

As for being paid peanuts, it doesn't matter how much you pocket, for the work you do and the hours you put in, you're paid peanuts per download and even worse per upload.  You're all deluded and have no clue how much you're worth.  You also have no idea how to best market yourselves and next year when your income (that YOU keep boasting about) falls, I'll be on my way back to doing what I normally do and you'll be left here in the forums taking even less from istock while continuing to defend them.  At the end of the day, you deserve the peanuts you're getting.