Quote from: aeonf on June 03, 2011, 17:58

Aeonf is here but no gloating. And why would I ? lower targets are in my best interest just like anybody elses, I don't own IS stock you know...
Sorry to hear you will proly be dropping to 25%, don't you think its worth putting in some more effort in order to keep your 30% ?
I would also consider dropping exclusivity if I where you...

For us we got to the 30% mark about 3 weeks ago, we might get to the 35% mark in December, but its a very close call.

I am willing to bet they will lower the targets again at the end of this year, just like they did last year.

don�t know if I laugh or cry at your post

Maybe a bit of both ?

^^^ I am actually wondering how do they accept an image with so much blank space ?

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.

Quote from: aeonf on June 01, 2011, 12:57

The previous royalty system was idiotic and indeed unsustainable!
It will never return. (And that's a good thing!)
If the targets and percentages are reasonably set (what is "reasonable" is, is open for debate) it is a perfect system.
The only flaw I see in it is that different media types have different targets instead of only one.

The old system was completely sustainable. iStock had a guarantee that it would get no less than 60% of the gross. In reality, given what a small portion of the large pool of contributors ever really get serious about building a saleable portfolio, their take wouldn't ever get that low.

The new system is clearly much more profitable for them - a grading on a curve scheme where they can guarantee no more than a certain number of people get each percentage. The assumption was that they want the overall payout to be 20% to contributors and 80% to them.

What you should be alert to is that (a) any system they put in place today they can change completely tomorrow and (b) the clear indication of intent to minimize payouts to contributors wherever possible makes for a challenging business relationship. Look at what they've just done to Getty contributors, forcing their content onto Thinkstock whether they like it or not (they can drop selling via Getty if they don't like it).

If you find more and more of the sales of your content uploaded at iStock is sold through other outlets that don't give you RCs to maintain your royalty percentage, how fair will you feel that is? without opting out of Vetta/Agency completely, you can't control where they sell your Vetta/Agency content which is increasingly going to be a major avenue for iStock contributors to keep their earnings up in an era of decreasing downloads.

Look at Sean Locke's last two monthly reports. Downloads down about 20% over the prior year in spite of an increase of about 2K images in his portfolio. You can dismiss the rest of us as lazy idiots if you wish, but Sean is the model microstocker.

It's easy to be very optimistic when you're benefitting from the current system, but for heavens' sake, keep your eyes and ears open.

No it was not. It essentially meant the longer they wait, the less percentage IS gets, Which means IS's keep paying out an ever growing percentage of their income as time goes bye. That is what is unsustainable with it. It was a stupid system to begin with and it is a good thing it has been fixed.
The second biggest problem with the previous system is that it does not award those who deserve it.  If for instance I am the next SJLOCKE, I have a good and growing portfolio it will still take me a whole lot of time to reach 25K d/l's in order to get to the 40% mark, it will take me much less to get to the 120K RC's mark.
The 3rd problem is motivation.
1. I know if I will work harder and give IS my best work it will greatly reduce the time it will take me to reach the higher RC levels. In the older system, it was more of how long you have been a member of IS.
2. If (for example) I am a professional photographer with high-end gear decide to contribute to IS, start building my portfolio and sell a few hundreds of files a month. You OTOH (again just for example) are an amateur weekend snap shooter but who was lucky enough to know of IS 5 or 6 years ago and now have over 25K downloads, but today, well you are way out of your league, you still sale here and there maybe a few dozens a month but you still earn your 40% just because you are an old timer .
Please explain to me why on earth shoud the Pro make 25% or 30 % and the amateur deservers 40%

Sean is actually doing great! He should be great full! Why ? easy:
IS's total portfolio grew MUCH more then 20% over this year, right? (Correct me if I am wrong!)
But Sean's portfolio grew by "only" 20% !  that means his total portfolio market share went DOWN and but his earning remained the same� lucky guy!

Regarding your comments on Getty and the partner program, I completely agree.
Don't get me wrong, I ain't no IS fanboy, I promise you I curse them every day, but I also don't think everything is doom and gloom nor do I think everything is one great conspiracy to suck up more $$$ for contributors.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't call anyone lazy or any other name calling, I am just giving out my honest opinion, even though I know it will not win the popularity vote.

I apologize for my (many) spelling mistakes, and am well out of energy after this long post.

The previous royalty system was idiotic and indeed unsustainable!
It will never return. (And that's a good thing!)
If the targets and percentages are reasonably set (what is "reasonable" is, is open for debate) it is a perfect system.
The only flaw I see in it is that different media types have different targets instead of only one.

Real numbers:

BME at IS (exclusives at 25%) 1,200$ - fifth BME in a row!
7% better then last month, 490% better then May 2010
1 EL download
415 downloads
Over 2,000 images

Ignoring the technical problems with your images, I think you should concentrate more on trying to impress them. Would you be impressed with your photos ??

It's a very good photo, it says something.  But 3 million? Come on people. 

The only thing it says to me is "look, I aint such a good photographer".
Then again I haven't sold any photos for over 700$ so what do I know...

Very Well put Lisa.
You should save this reply as a template.

^^^ don't forget its not only the MP's, its superior optics as well! (and the pride that you own a MF camera...)

Who on earth needs a 200 mega pixel camera ? (execpt NASA).
Sounds like a marketing thing to me.
A dollar better spend will get you the 80mp Leaf back without any stitching.

Does indeed seem usefull for independents.
How much does the full version cost ?