You can remove files from the IS site, even from P+ at any time. What you're locked into is your choice of collection for 6 months (to stop you chopping and changing too much). People would like to pull photos back into the main collection if they stop selling in P+. At the beginning of Exclusive+ when it was clear that the promised search placement boost wasn't happening, a number of exclusives felt that had been grossly misleading and asked to be able to remove the files - weren't allowed to until their 6 months was up.

Would someone please try (again) to make this feeble old brain understand this Plus thingy ... what is the benefit?  Do images sell for more?  Do we get a bigger cut?  How do we know when a Plus Image sells?  Do buyers search specifically for Plus Images?

The prices are higher, in credits - until the most recent price hike, it put an independent Photo+ image at the same price as an exclusive image - 2 credits for XS, 5 for S and so on. Your royalty doesn't change. You have columns that show collection and you can't see for an old sale whether it was plus or not at the time - you just have to guess from the royalty (which can be hard given the huge variation in credit prices).

Buyer's can't search for Photo+ (or Exclusive+) specifically.

I think it's good because buyers are already OK with exclusive prices (if they're still at IS that is) and so when they pick an indie file they like, they probably won't pass it by because it isn't cheaper than a similar exclusive one. So I don't think you make any more sales, but I do think it increases the amount you make on the sales you get.

I don't think Exclusive+ is anywhere near as clear a win because the prices are so high. For some people it seems to have worked, for others not at all. I do hope they don't get stupid with Photo+ pricing and jack it up above the regular exclusive file price as I think that'd take away a lot of the appeal (for me anyway).

I don't know why they don't increase the Photo+ allowance for people who (a) have close to their full current allowance used and (b) have a reasonable sales record. I have kept a few slots open so that if a file suddenly takes off (as they do sometimes) I have the ability to put it into Photos+

Sean's right that the interface for this is pathetic, but it's manageable for a portfolio my size and I'd definitely up the images in Photo+ if they gave me more slots.

Total BS about better serving contributors without phone support - they're just cutting costs. Logos - no surprise. PNG - why say on hold indefinitely vs. cancelled?

I see people asking in the IS forums about the broken partner program connection - I guess the brief blip of hope that they might have fixed it when a big chunk of images made it over a month ago was just that, a brief blip. Just over 1,000 files have made it over but it's been stuck there for weeks now.

I'm guessing this newsletter was the one they were going to send out at the end of March? So only 3 weeks after they said...

Sunday was one of the worst sales days for met at DT in a long time.  Almost entirely sub sales and a very small amount of them.  If this is a result of the pricing changes, making my pics too expensive for the typical buyer, than count me in the apparent minority as someone who sees the new price model as a very bad thing.  Anyone else see an alarming number of subs on Sunday?

Sunday was an "all subs" day - although two of them were at 70 cents on images mysteriously bumped to level 3 (one had 6 sales and the other 12). I know others have commented on it, but I find it beyond bizarre that there are days at DT with all subs - often during the week - every now and then.

If price increases on credit sales drive buyers to subs, that's a bad thing for contributors. I don't have a problem with a higher take at the end of the month from my portfolio, but based on the last week or two, plus DT's already very complicated pricing (if I were a buyer, I'd find that a turnoff), I'm not at all confident that it will increase for me.  Cheering over a price increase until you see what it does to your volume seems naive to me.

Funny video. And truly hysterical that a relentless self promoter gets all bent out of shape at someone else doing a bit of promotion.

The comment about stopping uploading was related not to the drop in sales but to the notion that as bestsellers are getting great placement in the search results, I'll hold off uploading until new files have some sort of chance. Otherwise it's like tossing them in the wood chipper.

And my RPD is higher at PhotoDune this month than at DT (just over $1 versus 95 cents) so this pricing wonderfulness is diong nothing for me (too many cheap subs) so that my income is about 2/3 less so far this month than I'd expect based on prior DT performance.

And if you're trying to make the argument that my sales have dropped at DT because I contributor to PhotoDune, that's just bollocks.

Just for one more stat, at IS this month my RPD is $2.25 (if I exclude the EL I got) and my total is 7.8 times my DT total so far. If you look at the chart on the left, a more typical ratio is about 3 times. DT's having a crappy month for those who are relative newcomers...

Welcome - are you selling stock via the micros or traditional agencies? If nothing else, working with the agencies in an ever-shifting environment will keep you on your toes - I think new things are part of the landscape, so perhaps it'll keep you young

You can edit your profile so that links to your portfolios show up, if you wish - it can be a way for people to get to know your work.

To quote a lovely movie "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means"

I'd buy the idea if you substitute hard or difficult for impossible.

If you can't get your files accepted at the micro agencies (or you can get them accepted but they don't sell), I don't think you'll be doing any harm to those of us who sell images by giving yours away. There are already many sites that do that - give away photos - and by and large the people who use those sites aren't customers for stock images anyway. For those who are, the differences between the free and the paid are sufficient that they pay.

Now they've dragged iStock's name deep into the mud, flooded the site with a bunch of overpriced Getty dreck, abandoned most of the promised developments of new products/features,  and alienated contributors, I wonder who's Getty going to buy next? Chew 'em up and spit 'em out...

At this point they've left iStock a sad shell of what it once was. There was a thread elsewhere about a number of contributors calling contributor relations - can't ever get through and the voice mailbox is full so they can't leave a message. One person decided to call client relations (i.e. for customers) got through, and the person transferred him to the client relations folks (who are sitting near them and were around).  Veer closed their Calgary office and brought everyone into Seattle HQ; I wonder why Getty has left iStock's office open this long - perhaps there's a lease involved? If I worked there, I think I'd want to know when the lease term was up so I could make my plans

I don't have any partner program (Thinkstock and Photos.com) income posted for March yet. Are you talking about income via StockXpert versus iStock partner program? Which month?

And it's not impossible, just extremely unlikely

Another contributor who contacted support already was told by Veer that this was credit card fraud. They're sorry, but when the sale is cancelled the royalties must be taken back. That contributor was hit a whole lot harder than my measly $7 refund.

I know we went through all this when iStock snatched back a bunch of cash, but I still feel the same way - the agency allowed the fraud to happen; our files were delivered to the customer; the agency can't/won't get the files back but they want to take away contributor royalties anyway. The agency takes the lions share of the gross and part of their expense should be dealing with fraud.

I think the agencies are just trying to boost their profits at contributors' expense when they can't grow the top line (revenues). It's not right, but short of taking our content and walking away, I don't know how (at the moment) we can get the agencies to behave fairly and decently. My only thought is that at some point they'll need something from us and that will be the point at which we can try to undo some of these "more cash for the agency" policies. At this point, I think the only agency that hasn't ever hit me with a refund is SS.