I haven't had a sale since I got to within $5 of a payout. That was in early Nov.

I don't see your portfolio on FT at all - could be why no sales   I tried searching for your user name when the link from the forum didn't work, but that said 0 files found.

Some of the other links in your forum bar no longer go to active portfolios - perhaps it needs an update to remove those no longer applicable?

...
He reckons he can't produce images for less than $20 a pop but also reveals that his return per image topped $9 in 2009 and is predicted to be under $6 in 2011. That suggests a 4-year payback for his current work at today's prices __ which have already tumbled more than 30% in the last couple of years. If returns continue to dwindle at that pace then his outlay for today's shoots might actually take 6-7 years to pay back. By 2012 the payback could be more like 10 years per image. I'd say that's plenty to be concerned about.

The exception is Vetta  and Agency pricing at IS and Getty. That would, I think, be very appealing to Yuri given his cost structure. Which might explain his interest in IS exclusivity.

Thanks for posting that. I note that the plagiarism example noted in the interview has resulted in the offending copy being removed from SS. AFAIK they don't insist on a photo reference to which you hold the copyright which makes that sort of thing easy to do for someone with no scruples.

Interesting to see that he thinks agencies without exclusivity are missing the boat - must make you feel a ton better about your choice Sean

Jo-Ann, although not a Vector artist, I'd like to applaud you for the persistent but polite manner in which you pursued that independent vector issue and forced them to come up with a joined-up policy.
Why it took them so long, I can't imagine.
Well done!

Thanks. I don't like the answer I got, but it's at least clear

haha ohhhhboy

I once would have said that you absolutely should add IS to your list of sites to upload to (and I'm sure the bugs with new applications will get fixed in a week or two if you decide to go ahead). Even at the 20% royalty rate, their volume of sales is high and the experience of getting your files up to snuff so you can get them accepted is worthwhile. At 15% starting commission (what it is now) its a much less clear picture unless you (a) plan to go exclusive there (which doesn't make much sense unless you are Daniel Laflor V2.0, in which case you probably should) or (b) want to do it for the learning experience.

Things are in turmoil of late - royalty cuts, many bugs and just about zero trust because of a pile of broken promises.

I'm exclusive at IS now, but was independent for nearly 4 years before that, so I can see both sides of the  coin (so to speak).

Good luck

There is so much that goes into a "fair" commission beyond the percentage.

So an agency with $1 prices for all sizes, an anything goes license and 60% going to the photographer might look more "fair" than one with different prices for different sizes, a tighter basic license with extended licenses for more money and a 40% royalty for the photographer. But it probably would not make anything like as much money for the photographer.

And then there's SS which is so regularly the #1 or #2 earner and we have no idea what the percentage they pay to photographers is.

Then I'd want to look at agencies that might take a slightly higher cut, but spent it on aggressive promotion of the business which is more fair to photographers in the long run than those who just suck cash out of the business to pay back their investors or corporate parents.

I like the idea of a fair trade label for stock agencies, but I think it has to encompass much more than just the percentage.

If you're above base level there you might consider just deleting your portfolio instead of closing your account. (i did it that way, in the highly unlikely case they ever come to their senses no bridges are burnt forever...)

I think that's a fine approach - and it also keeps your user name from being used by anyone else. However, when I did that (in August 2008 when I went exclusive at IS), a few months later FT deleted my account. I don't know if that was automatic or if they weren't happy at something I said here.

I'd say it was unbelievable, but unfortunately, I believe it

If anything will keep me as an IS exclusive - and my finger keeps wobbling over the big red button to push to start the 30 day clock on canceling exclusivity - perhaps it's the scummy tactics of other agencies. Of which this change is the latest shining example.

Congrats to those who get to keep their commissions, but for heavens sakes keep a weather eye out as the saying goes. They'll be looking to cut your take too as soon as they figure out how to do it without you walking.

And Payoneer payments are delayed this week, possibly until Friday.

This is so wrong on so many levels.

Perhaps the biggest is that they spend even a nanosecond on implementing a price increase when search is limping along in a damaged state.

The second is that they raised one size of non-exclusive file - medium (5 to 7 credits). They raised one level of exclusive illustration from 14 to 15 credits. Why piss buyers off with price increases when the benefit to contributors can't really be all that great?

The third is that they jacked up all but XS and S of E+ files hugely and those files have a 6 month lock. So contributors who are supposed to have a choice in putting files in there find they're stuck with the new prices whether they like them or not. No warning, no get-out opportunity (although I posted that they should allow that through the end of January as a courtesy).

I added a post yesterday (promptly locked) that I now had a partner program tab (in my file_downloads.php page) where I had not had one before. I have never been in the partner program. I don't want to be forced into it. I sent a screen capture as requested by Lobo and am awaiting word as to why that's there. I'm concerned there's going to be some change in allowing an opt out for the partner program. They've just assigned someone (Echodelta) to manage all the Getty-iStock file movements, including the partner program, Agency & Vetta on Getty, etc. Perhaps there isn't another shoe waiting to drop, but given this price stuff, I think they're just trying to scrape up whatever cash they can, wherever they think they can...

Have we listed the Delayed Royalties Bug? I've got three.
It seems that there are all sorts of payments due to us disappearing into bugs and only being discovered by wary, watchful contributors. Worrying.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=289372&page=1

I have 5 and Sean has over 100 I think.

We're promised a fix "soon". But we've been nagging for a week in the forums to even get an acknowledgment that there is a problem. It's truly pathetic.

Quote from: jsnover on January 11, 2011, 15:49

I wasn't in the partner program and don't intend to start. Given that Thinkstock and photos.com are going after SS's business, I'd think that independents would do best supporting SS and leaving these two Getty offshoots alone.

I'd agree 100% and have said in humor for years, if SS offered an exclusive program of any sort, I'd be in.

I'm not convinced that all the sub companies from Getty are going after SS, (I think they are warehouse sales of old stock) but if they are, I'd be in favor of SS and drop the Getty branches.

JSNOVER - can you explain this for me? I see references and I searched but I can't seen to grasp what you are getting at?

"the RubberBall story really removes any sympathy I might otherwise have had for IS in this situation."

What is the Rubberball story? I'm lost.

This post here explains the RubberBall story (or at least the part of it that I was referring to - these folks produce great images and I'm only talking about how Getty's handling their collection, not about the business itself)

A couple of years ago photos.com was owned by Jupiter Images and Thinkstock didn't exist.

When Jupiter purchased StockXpert they decided to solve a problem at photos.com and Jupiter Images Unlimited with stagnant content in their subscription programs (lots of unhappy buyers) by using the StockXpert collection. SS had tons of new content each week and subscription buyers weren't happy with the Jupiter properties because they didn't. I was independent at the time and was involved with a group of contributors trying to improve the terms and conditions under which StockXpert content was being sold via the Jupiter properties. There were a bucketload of technical glitches and it wasn't long after that that Getty purchased Jupiter.

All the micro sites who didn't have subscription programs (and at the beginning none of them did, except SS) were adding them, hoping to see some of SS's money coming their way. None of them have managed to knock SS off its perch as the top micro subscription site - and in terms of earnings as the top earner for many microstock contributors. IS launched its own subscription program, but while it was very fair to contributors, it was really just a bulk credit purchase program and too expensive, so it never really took off.

For reasons I can't fathom, instead of doing something with one of the best URLs for photos ever - photos.com - Getty launched Thinkstock first as its micro subscription offering. Its price was SS's price and I have to view it as their attempt to try and knock SS off their perch and pull some of those subscriptions over to Getty. Based on reports from independents of SS income growing nicely in the time since Thinkstock launched, I have to believe Getty's not doing so well there.

Now Jupiter Images has a subscription link on its pages, but it goes to Thinkstock (Jupiter Images Unlimited is no more AFAIK). Photos.com is relaunched, but it's clearly the cheapo site with the smallest collection of stuff.

So, no one at Getty told me they were trying to take away SS's title of the #1 subscription microstock agency, but I can't see any other explanation for the various actions they've taken.

I don't know what to say - I'd donate my extra credits if IS permitted such a thing, which of course they don't.

And as far as pledges being honored, ask those people who went exclusive as a result of the promises a year ago about grandfathering the canisters. They were royally hosed too. Not much consolation for you, I know, but you're dealing with an organization whose word is completely worthless. They've gone back on so many commitments - and not just to contributors; remember no Vetta price increases in 2010?.

I'm seriously rethinking my exclusivity - partly because their IT department appears to be trying to demolish the business and partly because I think more crap (specifically removing the opt out from the partner program) is likely to be coming. I really don't want to be doing that, but IS's recent behavior just leaves little hope for good things there in the future for contributors like me. YMMV.