OK let's try to get 23 more votes for the poll. 200 iStock member votes would help getting a clearer image of what's happening.

Please email this to IS contributors, tweet about it or put it on your Facebook wall or myspace page.

Just 23 more votes!

I don't know about cutting my nose ...
One thing for sure - accepting ANY offer, no matter how low, how insulting, it's not doing any good to my nose, and, most importantly, my future.
I have a hard time believing that IStock can't survive unless they cut my commission to 15%.
The same holds true for microstock contributors.
I have a hard time believing some microstock contributors really can't afford to withdraw ports at IS. They can. In most cases there's no real danger. Some can.
It's not so much about bills, food on the table and growing families.
It's about personality, nose if you will, and more, but I'll leave it at that.
To each its own.

In my case, I'm still in shock and I need a few more days to think this over.
I'm faced with a task that right now seems impossible to me. I can't bring myself to upload to a site that offers 15% commission. It's so low, it's unreal. IStock of all places!

Have a look at those targets. They're funny. Contributors who diversified by producing more than one media type - in my case vectors and photos - are being hit twice as hard.
To diversify your port is not a good thing anymore. At least at IStock it isn't.

Well, by myself I don't matter.
Unfortuntately we seem to be incapable of organizing ourselves  - there's no group or union that I can join or try to help.
IStock will go ahead, targets will be yearly adjusted and no independent contributor will ever make it to 20%. That's for sure.

I also think if we accept things as they are, we are doomed. All big agencies will do the same.

I don't think it's a question of how much they are making, but where are they spending it all if they need more?

I'm in favour of the idea that's been canvassed in other threads to create a new agency that's owned by a collective of contributors, provided that its got broad support and the necessary start-up capital.

The problem with all existing agencies that are privately operated is that they have to
1. make profit for the owners
2.  pay for marketing and overheads
3. pay contributors for content

The priority list seems to be in that order too. If we had an agency that was broadly contributor owned which had attitude that the profit for owners part came through pay for images, we wouldn't have that problem.

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.

Here a quick poll status overview (considering 108 votes). I know that this is not very representative but I have to work with what I got. So far we have poll results from:

80 non exclusive contributors which split into:

32.5%   dropping down to 15%
31.25% dropping down to 16%
27.5%   dropping down to 17%
6.25%   dropping down to 18%
1.25%   dropping down to 19%
1.25%   maintaining 20%

These results mean that 98.75% of the non exclusives will suffer a commission decrease.
The number speaks for itself and I don't think I need to show any other calculations.
Anything below 20% commission is simply "unsustainable".


28 exclusive contributors which split into:

32.1%   dropping down to 25%
14.3%   dropping down to 30%
7.1%     dropping down to 35%
21.4%   maintaining 40%

10.7%   maintaining 25%
14.3%   maintaining 30%
0%   maintaining 35%

This shows that 54% of exclusives are dropping into a lower commission bracket while 46% of exclusives maintain their commission percentage.

Of course this poll does not include any information about exclusives rising into a higher commission bracket with the new system.

I would love to hear from the exclusives who will move into a higher commission bracket to get  more objective results.

Please keep voting. I'm more than happy to keep these numbers updated.

Quote from: lisafx on September 09, 2010, 16:13

Quote from: Talanis on September 09, 2010, 11:33

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 ...