Quote from: SNP on December 08, 2010, 10:42

my only point is that the new system fits contributors according to their rate of production, rather than a blanket level that doesn't differentiate between a contributor that uploads 1200/yr & one who uploads just 100 files per year. the levels are what they are and hopefully they are adjusted to be fair.

Nope, it has nothing to do with contributer's rate of production, but their rate of sales, which isn't necessarilty the same thing.
The figures aren't going to be adjusted to be 'fair', they're going to be adjusted to fit a bell chart which meets their desired profitability rate.

bingo!  (on the part I bolded)

...there are many higher canister levels who reached diamond--the second to highest canister level--simply by whittling away at it for a few years. that's okay, but why should they get the same income as a contributor producing hundreds of files per month, and therefore generating income with more downloads (assuming the quality is there).

gimme a break.  this is your theory?  that if I work my ass off and produce hundreds of files a month that I should be paid more than someone like myself who works their ass off for their photography business in every spare moment of their life yet doesn't produce hundreds of files per month because I still have to put food on the table and raise my children alone?  This is the most ridiculous thing I've heard.  Don't you think it should have something to do with the quality of images or the sale-ability of a file and not just who can work like photo-factory?  That's like asking why should a guy who's been at his job for 25 years be at the top of the payscale when a guy that just got out of college starts at the bottom.  Your theory is ridiculous.  i don't think iStock really cares about the individual contributor's incomes.  it's all about the bottom line for them - the total.  They are looking at it in total and seeing where they can skim off the most money for themselves.  If some of their contributors get screwed in the process, well, they don't really seem to care.  

Quote from: SNP on December 07, 2010, 22:25

I guess it depends on how you look at. I upload my butt off. I work at producing better content everyday. I'm serious about my business. I guess that comment will ruffle feathers, but it's not meant to...

I don't have as large a portfolio as you do, but I work hard at producing high quality work. I became exclusive with a set of royalty schedules in place that made financial sense. Within weeks of making the 40% royalty rate I've been working towards I lose it because they've changed the rules.

I worked my effing butt off, made it, and had it taken away. I'm pi@#ed, demotivated and deeply, deeply distrustful of just about anything that HQ says.

 It was last December I was overjoyed that they grandfathered the next cannister level only to have them play weasel word games with that promise. They did keep the canister level, but they uncoupled the royalty rate that had always been tied to it (and which they knew no one would ever think would be uncoupled when contributors parsed the sentence promising grandfathering). The joy then makes the anger now even more profound.

The fact that there's some utter hogwash about earning back our trust in the September announcements and then KT goes into hiding around IS just pours fuel on the fire. Yes, he'd get yelled at if he came to the forums, but he just chickened out and abandoned contributors to lick their wounds.

We have recent evidence that just because they say something doesn't mean it'll still be true a short time later. That's not being conspiratorial, it's just being sentient given all the data in front of us.

The whole situation is just so ugly and grasping and greedy. And to think that when they said they were given the target of growing the business by 50% this year, I naively thought they'd actually grow the business, vs. grow their profits by squeezing contributors.

So I really don't appreciate comments about how you work your butt off and it'll all be all right. I did, and it isn't.

I couldn't have said that better myself.  I agree with you 100%.   No matter how hard I work, I cannot possibly reach the targets being that my port is split between photos and vectors.  I got royally screwed in this deal.  of course.. now that I'm independent I may find that it was a 'blessing in disguise' if/when sales at other agencies start taking off for me.

Quote from: jamirae on December 07, 2010, 15:06

wait.. you first say you believe rogermexico over baldricks then you reverse it.  am I reading you wrongly?

I think you read it incorrectly.  ??

Here is what I said:

Quote

Have you found the exact quote from way back when? Because if not, I am not willing to believe what rogermexico says over what baldricks trousers says. When somebody can come up with the exact words that were said way back when and we can all see them in print, then we all can decide who is being silly and who isn't.

Right now, I would lean way more towards baldricks statement being somewhere near the truth as opposed to the company line of rogermexico. However nice a person he is in real life, Andrew still is a company spokesperson and will say what they want him to say...or not say.

okay.. I reread it again.. for like the 18th time.. and I apparently missed the "NOT" in the first part where you said "I am NOT willing to believe what rogermexico says...."  duh.  makes sense now.  I thought that was your position but my misreading had me all confused.   I guess my ADD was hampering my reading ability.

Quote from: Eyedesign on December 07, 2010, 14:48

From rogermexico "What we said was that we would re-examine the targets and soften them if it looks like more people than we anticipated are going to miss them, and this is still the case."

The other statement is just sillyness from Mr. BaldricksTrousers

Have you found the exact quote from way back when? Because if not, I am not willing to believe what rogermexico says over what baldricks trousers says. When somebody can come up with the exact words that were said way back when and we can all see them in print, then we all can decide who is being silly and who isn't.

Right now, I would lean way more towards baldricks statement being somewhere near the truth as opposed to the company line of rogermexico. However nice a person he is in real life, Andrew still is a company spokesperson and will say what they want him to say...or not say.

wait.. you first say you believe rogermexico over baldricks then you reverse it.  am I reading you wrongly?

fwiw.. Sean Locke posted in the iS thread that he recalled this statement as well.  that adds a little more credibility to baldricks' statement/quote, in my opinion.

okay. so let me see if I understand this... can someone help me out here?

1) have they fixed the 10% thing and made back payments yet? (I am not affected by this, but just wondering)

2) This "sale" results in small savings for buyers which means reduced commission to the contributors.  But hopefully offset by more sales.

3) double RC is only on the Vetta images, yes?  and, they don't show up right away, they'll add them later. 
"I'll gladly you pay you tomorrow for a cheeseburger today"

Jami, I agree with you, FWIW.  The changes happening at Istock are going to reap long term consequences.  Some of them are evident in the increased buyer complaints, and the vastly increased number of contributor gripes.  But that growing unhappiness among the IS members (of both types) has the potential to slowly erode its #1 status among the micros.  

It's not going to happen overnight, and thank goodness for that.  Although Istock has dropped from 40% to 34% of my income over the course of the last couple of months (a drop unprecedented in 6 years), they are still my primary income source.  I am not rooting for them to fail.  Let me repeat that, because it doesn't seem to have been clear - I am not rooting for Istock to fail!  

If they straighten out the site problems, and manage to retain their buyers; if sales pick back up and the site is succeeding; I will be pleased as punch.  And financially well off too.  So I'm rooting for them, but like any friend, I am going to tell them when there's spinach in their teeth.  

I totally agree.  I am also NOT rooting for iStock to fail at all.  And no, I don't even think that for spite.  I'm sad and disappointed for my personal perspective but it's not my nature to wish ill-will.  I've made changes to my personal photography business based on my personal position at iStock with regard to the changes.  I have not stopped uploading there nor do I plan to.  I have an established portfolio there and very much want for it to continue to succeed.  In the meantime I'm also branching out now to other avenues for my work.  I want buyers to find my work where they feel most comfortable shopping. 

I also believe that there is a lot of strong feelings on both sides here and emotions are still very high and will probably continue to be until the new policies take effect at iStock and contributors/buyers see how it will effect them personally. 

I dropped my crown last month.  My comments come from what I see and what I hear from other contributors at istock. I've been there for almost seven years and I've seen a lot of changes in those seven years.  There have always been things going on that people complain about.  In my opinion, this is the most dramatic change I've seen since I've been there.  Friends of mine who are exclusive at diamond level - top contributors and one that (until recently) was an inspector have expressed their concern.  They are being 'cautiously optimistic' at this point. 

that's what I "see" .. I guess it's more of a feeling based on my tenure at iStock. 

So the new customer relations policy is to call people liars and frauds? Good luck with that. 

seems they are just alienating both buyers and contributors.  all that will be left is the clique or "in crowd" and some bright-eyed newbies who will take the slapping around with glee until the kool-aid wears off and they see that loyalty and contributing to the "community" does nothing unless you are accepted into the 'clique.'    (yeah, I'm still a little bitter)

Quote from: Perry on December 01, 2010, 11:24

Quote from: jamirae on December 01, 2010, 10:33

I canceled my exclusive contract at IS I went ahead and applied at 3 other agencies that I wanted to start with.  During the 30 day waiting period, at SS you simply opt-out of everything from your profile page.  Then upload away and start filling your portfolio.  Once your 30day waiting is up and your exclusivity canceled, you can opt-in at SS. 

I wonder if this will reduce "the new-image-boost" ?

I was thinking the same, it might be better to get accepted, turn off downloads and when your 30 days are up upload the rest of your portfolio to get the best of the mega boost new images/contributors get.

oh.. I didn't realize that SS had a "new image boost" feature.  so that is for new uploads?  anyhow, I still have a ton to upload as I didn't get much of my port uploaded during the 30 days anyhow.   

I don't think they are all that bad, I just don't think they are worth the astronomical prices being charged. They definitely look like standard stock fare that can be found at any site so I dont see the compelling reason for them to be so highly priced.  I think it's just a way for Getty to move all their images to their cash-cow, iStock.  they want to take advantage of the huge buyer-base there.  Sadly, I feel they will just begin to alienate all those buyers that made iStock what it is today (or perhaps I should say "what it was yesterday").

actually I think it will take a bit of time before the true effects are really known.  I don't believe that buyers are all leaving in droves at the same time, but I do think that they are slowly but surely looking around at the competition.  What happened with the big agencies (i.e Getty, Corbis) when istock (and other microstock agencies) started popping up was a steady loss of buyers as they began to migrate away to these low-price/high-quality outlets.  Now we see Getty, who we all know has seen a significant drop in customers over the recent years, trying to take over iStock and move their high-price collections there.  Buyers aren't stupid.  they are starting to see the changes and paying attention.  They are starting to look elsewhere for good images at better prices. 

that's how I see it anyway. 

Another disappointed buyer -
from the forums http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=276322&page=1