Quote from: mtimber on September 19, 2010, 20:58
Would you say it is important to find a niche in the commercial marketplace?

Google my name.

Just know that commercial viability always trumps technical quality. If an image has technical flaws but is of superior commercial quality it just might be accepted, and if it's accepted it will sell. A technically superior image with minimal commercial value will likely be rejected - and even if it is accepted it probably won't sell. The whole point of submitting images to commercial agencies is to make money, and if you're not concerned with making money then you're missing the point, and will likely be wasting your time.

You are making a serious mistake by concentrating solely on the technical aspects of your image-making. If you choose to concentrate on only one aspect at a time, you'll be further ahead by adapting what and how you shoot to the commercial marketplace rather than jumping in to the technical "pixel-peeping" aspect of things.

Okay, here's some useful and friendly advice:

It's great that you want to 'up your game' in terms of technical quality - that should be everyone's goal whether they want to make money from their images or not. A big problem for you, as I see it, is that you're doing so by making imagery that has minimal commercial value and then trying to add it to the catalog of an agency that specializes in commercial imagery. See the problem here? You're currently heading down a long road where, at the end, your image-making skills will be much better than they are now, but you'll be really frustrated by your high rejection rate and low earnings - you'll undoubtedly be one of those who says "Microstock isn't worth it - too much effort, too little pay. There's no way anyone can make money doing this.", and that's not a place where you want to be.

Quote from: leaf on September 18, 2010, 20:30
I really hate to be the stick in the mud, but somewhere there is a grey line and I wonder if this thread is crossing it.
...
But I wonder if a thread like this, where it's only purpose is name calling; even if it is 'management' as a blanket statement, has crossed the line into the unnecessary or inappropriate.... or is it just me.

People need to vent their frustrations, and I think it's okay as long as they're not being defamatory/malicious/libelous.
Humour can go a long way in situations like this - maybe try looking at it in that light.

Quote from: holgs on September 16, 2010, 16:21
The challenge will be to have a royalty structure that maximises the payout to contributors, while still providing enough cashflow to sustain a professional agency. Maybe a fixed percentage in addition to a regular distribution of profits in proportion to income earned?

Whatever the case is would need to be written in black and white without a "we can change it at our discretion" type clause.

I would think the exact reverse to be better. Why not create a new breed of agency that is totally transparent to its investors, where commission rates vary on monthly/weekly/daily basis according to revenue and expenses? Saturday and Sunday are low-selling days, so you could have those as 0% commission days at startup or when you're saving for a special project (e.g. upcoming seasonal promotion). Need cash to upgrade systems? Uh oh, we have to reduce commissions. Want to reward the patience of contributors or celebrate a milestone? Wooyay, it's a 100% commission day!

This isn't going anywhere if people are balking at a $1000 investment - in terms of generating startup capital that's chicken feed. And getting 1000 semi-pro people to pony up that amount: you're already seeing the odds are long, so good luck with that. Personally, I wouldn't go anywhere near it unless you were asking for a $10k minimum investment and had a board of directors selected who together had decades of experience in dot-com startups, internet marketing, and stock photography.

Wow, those are are really bad - no way they're gonna command premium pricing.
I was expecting something to compete with Blend, or maybe even select images from Blend.

Early prediction: Agency will fail even worse than E+.

 .

Quote from: jamirae on September 15, 2010, 04:48

actually I calculated it out.  and with the lower credit costs for non-exculsive images at iStock, iStock will actually be making LESS off my images when I cancel exclusivity.
...

Yes, that's known by anyone who's taken the time to examine the ins-and-outs of iStock. I think it's even been mentioned a few times on this forum - guess not everyone was paying attention.

Quote from: dgilder on September 14, 2010, 23:00
Personally, I would hesitate before calling a carefully weighed decision, discussed with a wide variety of individuals, and ultimately decided on ethical grounds, an "overreaction".

Honestly, you two should be ecstatic, I just increased your chances of meeting your quotas for 2010 by some unfathomable amount.  Why come here to be boisterous over someone else's decision that ultimately benefits you?

Sorry if you thought I was being boisterous, I was just stating my opinion - which is also carefully weighed.

Quote from: hawk_eye on September 14, 2010, 21:39
Fwiw David, enjoy the pats on the back, because I think you've made a big error in judgment. Sorry to see you go.

Ditto.
You're actions aren't monumental, but your overreaction is.

Quote from: cthoman on September 13, 2010, 04:58
Interesting figures, although your numbers seem a little light on the top end. ...

These numbers are for photos only - I didn't incorporate credits/commissions for illustrations, flash, audio, or video.

I think the chart shows number ranges that are broader than they really are. The ranges shown are mathematical boundaries, and my gut feeling is that real world values are more tightly clustered - there aren't going to be many losing more than $10,000 here.

Quote from: click_click on September 12, 2010, 23:10
...
Here some comparisons:
- Approx. 4 out of 10 non-exclusives will lose 25% (a quarter) of their monthly earnings.
- The vast majority of non-exclusives, 9 out of 10 will at least lose 15% of their iStock income.
- According to the poll 1 out of 267 non-exclusives stays at 20%.

Throwing out percentages like this doesn't give as good a picture as you might think - it's akin to the monthly earnings percentages thread that circulates around this place: It may be interesting to scan, but it doesn't really tell you anything. Let's put some dollar amounts to this data. With reference to the chart in this thread, here's what the poll results look like now:

142 non exclusive contributors which split into: (omitting contributors who are staying even, for clarity)
New               Number of
Commission   Contributors   iStock Income           Income Lost
15%                39.4%             $0 to $398                  $0 to $99
16%                28.9%             $424 to $2,650            $85 to $530
17%                22.5%             $2,816 to $9,010         $422 to $1352
18%                5.6%               $9,540 to $35,775       $954 to $3,578
19%                2.8%               $37,763 to $352,450    $1888 to $17,623

Breaking it down like before, but a little differently:
- Approx. 4 out of 10 non-exclusives will lose less than $99 per year.
- Approx. 5 out of 10 non-exclusives will lose between $85 and $1352.

45 exclusive contributors which split into: (omitting contributors who are staying even, for clarity)
Old                 New                Number of
Commission   Commission   Contributors    Income                      Income Lost
30% to 40%    25%               28.9%               $0 to $4141                 $0 to $1,552
35% or 40%    30%               17.8%               $4,969 to $15,900       $621 to $3,975
40%                35%               6.7%                 $18,550 to $69,563     $2,319 to $8,695

Breaking it down:
- 47% of exclusive contributors will lose less than $3,975 per year.
- 7% of exclusive contributors will lose between $2,319 and $8,695.
- 53% of exclusive contributors will lose $0.


Although there are far more independents than exclusives, it's clear that exclusives stand to lose more from this than independents. Assuming the poll data is valid, it might be possible to make a broad statement: While 50% of independents will lose up to $1350 per year in this deal, 40% of independents will be minimally affected by it, losing less than $100. Nearly 50% of exclusives will lose up to $4000, almost 3 times the amount of independents in a similar income bracket.

Taking a step back, the majority of income losses shown here are in the chump change category - not even a few hundred dollars per year. While some lost income amounts to the same as losing a performance bonus in a white collar job, it's only the full-time independents earning $70k+ who are losing significant cash, and they make up less than 2% of the respondents. Full-time exclusives (earning $70k+) aren't going to lose anything. How's that for spin?

Quote from: Danicek on September 12, 2010, 19:03

I think that their later statement that 76% exclusives won't be dropping is technically correct. Most of bronze and silver will keep what they have. Add to that some gold and few diamond level contributors and you are at 76.

Bronze exclusives are already at the lowest commission rate (25%) and thus cannot drop further. This probably pays a significant part in iStock's 76% estimate.

As far as maintaining Silver and Gold commissions go, my calculations show the bar to be quite reasonable: Silvers only need $4,969 in royalties to maintain their 30%, and Golds need $18,550 to keep their 35%. Getting into Diamond is now strictly for dedicated full-timers: you'll need to earn $79,500 to keep your 40%. Being a 45% Black Diamond is only for the truly elite: you'll need to be bringing in $835,000 worth of bacon a year to be in that club.

I think there are a fair number of contributors who have reached Silver, Gold, or Diamond level due mainly from being at iStock for quite a long time, and for the most part it's these people who will see their commissions cut - hence the number of "I've been here since 2004 and now you're stabbing me in the back!" responses.

I'll take it one step further.
If we know the value of a redeemed credit at each level, you can work out the royalties needed in order to maintain your commission level. You can calculate what royalties you'll need to jump up a level, too. Here's another handy dandy chart:

Level          Commission   Redeemed    Royalties Needed    Royalties Needed
                                       Credits Req'd      to Maintain              to Promote
IndyBase                15%               -                       -                               $398
IndyBronze             16%           2,000                 $424                         $2,650
IndySilver               17%         12,500               $2,816                         $9,010
IndyGold                18%         40,000               $9,540                       $35,775
IndyDiamond          19%       150,000              $37,763                     $352,450
IndyBlackDiamond  20%     1,400,000            $371,000                             -

Bronze                   25%           2,000                    -                              $4,141
Silver                     30%         12,500                $4,969                       $15,900   
Gold                      35%         40,000              $18,550                        $69,563
Diamond                40%       150,000              $79,500                      $742,000         
Black Diamond        45%    1,400,000            $834,750                              -


So if you're currently at Gold level, you'll need to earn $18,550 per year to maintain that commission rate - if you earn $69,553 you'll jump up to Diamond level. If you're an independent and iStock comprises 40% of your total microstock revenue, then you'll have to be earning about $94k to "earn" a 19% commission, and about 928k to get 20%.

Here's a rough estimate: If I divide my redeemed credits by my royalties so far this year it works out to 1 redeemed credit = $0.53. I'm at diamond level, so you'll have to adjust this if you're not at that level. Here's a handy dandy chart:

Level   Commission   Redeemed Credit Value
Base           20%                    $0.27
Bronze        25%                    $0.33
Silver          30%                    $0.40
Gold           35%                    $0.46
Diamond     40%                    $0.53

So if you're at silver level and you earn $200 in a month, that works out to $200/0.40 = 500 redeemed credits.

This month is looking good for me, too - a little early on to say it, but September should be a BME. As far as buyers leaving iStock goes, that just ain't gonna happen.

I think it would have a detrimental effect - people would see that profit is increasing, and would thus question the decision to lower commission rates even more vehemently.

They're making a change not because of profit, but because of profit margin. I think TPTB want to see this increased, and the only way to do it is to reduce commissions. Reducing the commissions of "unserious" exclusives is acceptable, as is lowering the nonexclusive commission rate. To management's way of thinking, the "serious" exclusive contributor is not going to see a reduction in income (and might even see an increase), which makes them appear even better at what they do best: provide exclusive content to the microstock marketplace.

Completely unrelated, but I thought this would come about last year, and made the jump to exclusivity sooner than I originally planned - I was afraid that the commission bar would be raised, and by waiting too long I'd miss it. Good on me that I didn't.

I think you really need to ask yourself why it is there is nobody - and I mean nobody - who is a full-time stock photographer and exclusive at Fotolia. You can be fond of all the things you've mentioned, Matt, but when it comes down to the bottom line you are selling yourself short. More short than you think is possible.

Quote from: lisafx on September 09, 2010, 22:13

Quote from: Talanis on September 09, 2010, 17:33
Actually, I agree with some of the changes they propose. It's a good way for new talented peoples to get better earning faster. And I also think it's faire that the more you bring money, the higher your commission should be.

BUT! I can't agree with a commission lower than 20%. Even 20% was very low and I can't believe they want to go lower than that. IMO, they should have kept the independant at a fixed 20%. From a PR perspective, there would be a LOT less screaming.

As for the credit levels, the numbers are not realistic. They should tone that down to more fair levels. For someone to generate 2 million dollars in revenue to get to the highest level is ridiculous. I'm pretty sure they will readjust that to try to make peace with the exclusives but unfortunately, I think the damage is done. With the news expanding everywhere, iStock's reputation is going down the drain. That's sad! I miss Bruce!

You make good points Eric.  I think the points you enumerated - going below 20% for non-exclusives, and making the credit levels so unattainable - that are causing the most stir.  If they had been more reasonable on those two issues they could probably have gotten the changes in the way royalties are calculated past the majority of contributors. 

I think all but the very top exclusive credit levels aren't out of reach at all - I'll be maintaining my 40% commission without even breaking a sweat. The top exclusive credit level and non-exclusive credit levels need a rethink, though - cutting these in half would go a long way. It should be very interesting to see how this all plays out ...

Quote from: eppic on September 03, 2010, 15:59
I believe he received the highest number of votes in a recent across Canada poll as to who was the greatest Canadian.  I well remember the Marathon of Hope back in my early teenage years.  He's a true inspiration.

Nope, he came in second. Tommy Douglas - father of the publicly-funded universal health care system - came in first. But yeah, it's hard to find a Canadian who doesn't know who Terry Fox was.

Sorry, Nodixal, but those aren't commercial images, and you will not make any money from them through a microstock agency. If you intend to succeed in this marketplace, you'll first have to understand that your images must convey an immediately obvious message.

This marks the first and only time I've actually seen proof that a license was purchased for 25c.

Happy travels, RGebbie!

Quote from: nicolesy on June 08, 2010, 20:40
I didn't say ALL of the keywords the inspector said were wrong were in fact wrong, I'm just trying to point out that if a buyer wants a photo of an oil refinery then they'll search for "oil refinery", not "oil". In fact, one of your images of a worker standing by an oil refinery has "oil refinery" as its top keyword, and it's sold more than 400 times (#4485847). Seems to me like it's doing okay.
...

Quote from: sjlocke on June 08, 2010, 21:12
Well, it isn't really conceptual.  I mean there is a word for what is there, and that's 'oil refinery'.  Since that works, there's no need for words like 'oil' or 'gas'.

That's not quite true.
If a buyer enters the search words 'engineer oil refinery', iStock's engine translates it to 'Engineer AND Oil (Fossil Fuel) AND Refinery' - not having 'oil', 'gas', ... together with 'refinery' would mean that the image wouldn't be found. Sure, the image would be found if the buyer put quotes around "oil refinery" or just searched for 'oil refinery' on its own, but I don't think it's wise to assume make any assumptions about how buyers think - it's better to cover all the bases.