I have just noticed in my commission page at BigStock a field called "Adjustments:" subtracting US$1 from my balance.

Is it their way for saying "we took a fake credit card"?

Quote from: donding on September 22, 2010, 14:50

That's not uncommon. A lot of sites take the money back out of your account for a returned sale.

Shouldn't credit cards have an insurance against unauthorised use?
I wonder if they are charging twice: once from the credit card insurance and once by not paying us.

Quote from: donding on September 22, 2010, 15:32

I agree with FD....those portraits are beautiful!!

I added her as fav on Dreamstime. Hopefully she will be back. Portraiture is still the max, imho. I started doing it when I was 14 and my mom was my main subject. I had a lot of encouragement from her when she slapped me in the face since I over-emphasized her eye-bags it seems. 
Since then I took the advice of a famous French portraiture painter: picture the women 20 kgs slimmer and 20 years younger and their jewelry 20x fatter. 

We are doing most of what you have described but guess what? It's still not enough... There's just an insane amount of images coming in. We are now at 300,000! Had to order a ton of hard disks the other day. We obviously don't want to disappoint anyone, but it's not realistic to expect us to have the capacity of the biggest agencies so soon after the launch.

I understand the argument that everyone has the right to complain about changes and everyone deserves a fair commission, etc.  Which I 100% agree with.  There's a faction here that says downloads don't matter, and there's a faction that says that past performance does matter in judging the validity of the argument.  I do believe that DLs and tenure do matter because the statistical reference point that a person that has 38 downloads over 1 year or 500 downloads over 5 years carries much less weight than someone who is at 12000 dls over 3 years or something like that.  Experience is a huge player in almost any job and this is obviously no different.  

I'm not saying that people with crappy ports or low dls do not have valid arguments, and in a lot of cases they do, what I'm saying is that when people who are predicting the future from a such a small reference sample its hard to take that prediction seriously given the lack of data/experience to back up claims.

Then there's always those that just go off the deep end anyways....whatever it is...this off topic reply is just to try to incorporate the idea that dls and experience and portfolio exposure do matter a bit more than many peopel here are willing to admit.

Oh they�ll pay for sure.  I�d be betting they�re already starting to feel the effects slightly but come January next year, it�ll hit them like a tonne of bricks.  Perhaps a few �mainly low selling contributors� with smaller portfolios have already left or are currently pulling their ports but the rest of the independents are doing the smart thing and hanging off till next year.  There is no point them leaving in a hurry when the change doesn�t happen till later.  I�d say most of them are hanging out for stockfresh to take off, and it will.  I seriously doubt any self-respecting non-exclusives will stay for 15%.  20% is already degrading, 15% is just criminal.  So independents will leave next year, no new contributors will sign up after this and it�ll be too risky for anyone to go exclusive.  Buyers have already had word that istock isn�t as spectacular as it says it is and they can find quality images for much less at other agencies where the contributor is paid a fair amount.  It�s inevitable... higher prices, lower commissions, and a smaller database to top it off, buyers will be forced to leave.  Exclusives will then be left there with their big dilemma... �but I�ve invested too much time to leave and start from scratch elsewhere� versus �but I�m losing money staying here�.  It�s going to be tough for exclusives and they�re going to have to be prepared with one foot already out the door.  They would be naive not prepare themselves.  I seriously feel for them... even you.

let me remind you that i didn't bitch about 20% or whatever.  and instead of bitching i kept working at it

Quote from: donding on September 20, 2010, 15:50

Would it be possible that those who contributed money in the funding of the coop as well as those who join the funding in the future, receive a set amount according to the amount they contributed. Some contributors could not afford $1000. Some can afford more like $100. The amount of money you put it would determine the amount you would receive in bonuses at the year end. Just like stocks...the more stocks you own the more you make..the less you own the less you make. If any given contributor wants to contribute more money annually then they would receive a higher percentage based on the amount of capital they invest. As for the % they would receive per sale....I think that should be a set percentage straight across the board. I even think that it should be open to other contributors that don't have to pay. Those who don't pay get their regular commission, but wouldn't get bonuses at the year end. The option should be left open annually to contribute more for a higher rate of return or if they have not contributed, have the option to do so. A lot of math needs to be done to project the cost of advertising and marketing because that is where the expense needs to be. Don't know if it would work but that's my thoughts.

The it has nothing to do with a coop. The coop everybody is equal. You could put in more money, but it would not give you any extra money out or any more influence. A coop is a "one man" - "one vote" system.
The coop is selvfunding through the money that comes from the submitter when they buy in, and through witholding a percentage of the commision for for instance 12 months.

I also see only Mercedes Benz add.