Quote from: Microstock Man on February 06, 2013, 06:46

Quote from: jsnover on February 06, 2013, 06:34
I see your $525 and raise you $260! Image source is at $785

http://www.pond5.com/photo/10944696/mother-and-son-with-shopping.html


I think $200 for a blog size is a bit of a stretch - it's a fine stock image, but not really anything special

Wow! You always gotta win jsnover..

I humbly withdraw my measly $525

Is this kind of revealing though do you think? Is there something in this? I mean, should we be making the most of sites like Pond5 and trying to turn them into midstock type markets, like these big guys are doing? I've noticed with video for instance on P5 that many sell for $50-ish, but then there are lots for $500 too. And they are making sales!

Where is the balance between not killing P5 by making things too high to get sales, but making the most of an opportunity such as a site that lets you set your own price and gives 50%? If I knew how to make a poll I think this would make for an interesting one... "What should be the price per size on P5?"

There are a few things you ccould try.

Put your new work only on Pond 5, and try some higher prices.
Put your niche subjects only on Pond 5, the kind of things people need to search around for, and charge higher prices.
Ex IS exclusives could remove their Vetta and Agency files from IS, put them only on Pond 5 at higher prices. Putting ex V & A files on sub sites isn't really appealing, when you know how much people have beem willing to pay.

I'm trying a few at $100 dollars, but that's just recent. They haven't sold at that price.

Submitting to Getty...

I've only just realised what a double entendre that is...

Quote from: anonymous on February 03, 2013, 20:07

Quote from: vlad_the_imp on January 14, 2013, 13:49

QuoteI still think having a day where we all start deleting together would send a strong message. 

Do you honestly believe that? I doubt it very much. I think personally the only person you will harm will be yourself, by dropping your income. If you're really p*** off, why not leave completely, surely that would be more positive. They must get thousands of uploads a day, many many thousands, a couple of thousand being deactivated, what will that do? I don't want to sound negative, but this is doomed to failure.

I agree with Vad_the_Limp...deactivation is the smartest way to put space btwn you and the idiots you wish to avoid...!

What do you plan to do?

If we want to encourage buyers to go to other sites, how about removing niche files next? If you have a file that is rare, it may sell only occasionally on IS, but if a buyer needs it they will have to go elsewhere.

In this way you would not lose much income from IS, but buyers who normally only buy at IS (if there are any left) could be gently encouraged to look at what else is out there.

Quote from: iStop on February 01, 2013, 20:32
Which one of the ninnies was it that once promised us about 2 years ago, I think around the time the RC system was introduced, that there would be no more chargebacks to contributors for fraud?

Of course that was just obviously another of the many broken and unfulfilled iStock promises.

And if they ever setup the Live Chat they promised, another failed iStock brain fart, then we could at least inform them of fraud when we see it happening in real time and possibly reduce the total amount of the fleecing.

I think I must have had a total of over 80 refunds throughout the year last year. So much for promises.

Never mind, as long as I have enough left over to buy a new lens cap I'm good.

I truly pity the OP and I feel your pain. Hang in there. Wait until your anger dies down, and you are thinking straight again, and then decide what you want to do to make it right.

What they said, if I remember rightly, was that they wouldn't be doing refunds in the same way in future. In other words, they took a lump sum then, whereas now they take individual amounts.

I was suspicious at the time. Always got to be carefully watch their wording 

Snufkin, that's fabulous. Brought tears to my eyes. Here is an oldie but goodie:-

An Englishman goes on holiday to Spain. He is a gourmet and plans to try all the local specialities in the best restaurants.

One day, he is visiting a small town and finds an unpretentious little restaurant near the bull ring. He looks at the menu, but then notices the person at the next table who has a plate of two large meatballs in some sort of sauce.

In the immortal words, he says to the waiter, "I'll have what she's having." The waiter nods, goes back to the kitchen, and soon he is enjoying the most delicious meatballs he has ever eaten. So impressed is he by this dish, he goes back to the same restaurant for the next three nights, always savouring the tasty meal.

On the fourth night, he asks for the meatballs, and is surprised when the waiter brings out a plate with two much smaller meatballs.

"But I wanted the same as I had last night," he says. "Where are the large meatballs I had before?"

The waiter shrugs, and says, "Senor, it is the way of the bullfight. Sometimes, the bull wins!"

Quote from: dhanford on January 29, 2013, 19:44
I have a small portfolio, mostly vectors (635).  I dropped my photo exclusivity crown and deactivated my photos with people in them.  Only 9, but that is a start.  I will deactivate the last 8 photographs on D-Day.

I stopped uploading in mid 2011.  I thought, when the last image I submitted had 250 views, I would start up again. But the image sank quickly and then the counter broke... Reading the forums and looking for a sensible time to start submitting again has been a frustrating task.  So many site issues over the last few years! 

Since the discovery of the Google Drive deal, I think contributors are being strung along in the forums.  The forums are filled with criticisms about how badly iStock is run. There are posts about legal actions stated to be taken by contributors over the Google deal.  There are long time contributors with announcements of dropping their crowns and questions by artists who want to deactivate photos from their portfolios.  Typically, these posts would be deleted, immediately.  I believe iStock is allowing this to happen to buy time to prepare a statement. Sure, there will eventually be some announcement, but I feel certain it will only dig further into it's artist's pockets and diminish our rights.

I am planning to drop illustration exclusivity soon and have no plans to upload any more work.  I'm just watching for the timeframe.  Since I have no other experience with any other micro-stock suppliers, I need to figure out what will be the most useful sites for illustrators.  - Best of luck to everyone and especially those that depend on the income.  I hope this bullsh@t precedent is stopped in it's tracks.

I agree. I'm amazed by the people saying they will give it "just another few months" or "until the end of the year".
If IS had wanted to fix all the problems, they would have done it long ago.
IS is over, for most contributors. They just don't want to accept it.

Quote from: ShadySue on January 25, 2013, 21:32

Quote from: Poncke on January 25, 2013, 21:19
How can you think that giving awat 67 images to a pool of over 12.000 images gives you a strengthened position with the biggest company in stock. Its like a grocer with a stand on a corner on the street supplying a crate of oranges to Kroger and thinking he is now in a partnership with them.

His company was given the choice of participating, and the chance to nominate some old low sellers. He said himself he wouldn't have been pleased if good sellers have been used.
Most people were not given the choice of participating, nor what files were taken, and that's a totally different scenario.

Plus, for IS contributors, it was a secret deal. They weren't even told afterwards.

Reading Lobo's posts, I actually feel my jaw drop. He really said that??? I think the plan must be to make us feel as though we're beating our heads against a brick wall. Eventually it'll hurt so much, we'll give up.

Quote from: heywoody on January 21, 2013, 15:29

Quote from: ShadySue on January 20, 2013, 22:15
Hmmm, in this case iStock had nothing similar or even on the same subject.

You're right of course, IS just seems to take a position on what they like / don't like even if there are no actual technical issues.  SS's attitude makes more business sense as they recognise that a rare selling not well covered image can be more valuable to them than a high selling common subject matter image.

Why would you put a rare low-selling image on the micros? They are doing you a favour if they reject it - put it somewhere it will make decent money for you, on the rare occasions it sells.

Quote from: Kenny on January 16, 2013, 05:45
In the past 2 days I have downloaded 7,000 digital files from Google Drive Stock to my computer FOR FREE! All of them are high resolution with a maximum width/height of 3200 pixels. You can browse and search through them at

http://kga.me/gds

Hover over a thumbnail to view additional image information: title, image number, image pixel size, contributor's name, Google search link, and a link to the high resolution file.

I am absolutely disgusted by these shady online tactics to sell more images at the artists expense. Please let me know if I can do anything more to help.

If anyone is thinking of downloading and using these files for anything other than their stated Google Drive uses, you should be aware that Getty is making a big deal of the fact that they own PicHunter. It's possible these files have been embedded with some sort of code that will enable Getty, through PicHunter, to track illegal uses, and sue you. Be very careful.

I guess we'll be seeing a lot more of this kind of thing then.
If he can do it, so can we all.

Quote from: vlad_the_imp on January 13, 2013, 20:45

QuoteDont think for one minute IS is your only chance in life to sell photos. Not saying its easy, but IS is holding no one against their will.

Nobody is saying or thinking that, everyone I know has exit plans in place. You, I believe, have been in the business for a few months and probably earn comparatively little. You don't support a family, pay a large mortgage, put your kids through university, all from your iStock earnings, so with all respect, it's pretty easy to suggest to people they leave exclusivity, take big drops in income, even bigger than they have had already, without really considering or understanding what that means in real terms.

If they've got you by the balls, you haven't got an exit strategy. You need to get yourself into a position where you can walk away, that's having an exit strategy.

They don't care about most of them, but there are some that shouldn't be in microstock. Every photographer has to make their mind up about which of their own work is which.
The idea is to make as much money as possible from a portfolio, is it not?
Did you read microdon's comments in the IS forum, before they were deleted? He believes he can make more money in Getty than in IS, therefore Getty makes more money.
Our own dear ClaridgeJ constantly tells us how much more he makes with his macro portfolio. He presumably makes that decision - micro or macro - for every one of his files.

Quote from: aspp on January 07, 2013, 17:31
Quickest sale for me was 4 months after the image was uploaded. The same RM image sold 5 times over about 8 weeks. I had about 150 images online there before a sale. Very pleased with the experience at Alamy so far and I plan to send them my next 1000 or so images over the next few months instead of IStock.

And that may be just what Getty is hoping for. Even though they are not going to the Getty family, they're being kept out of microstock.

Quote from: jsnover on January 05, 2013, 18:29
I thought I'd catch up with the iStock December +2012 sales thread this morning and though it worth noting Sean Locke's report:

"I don't even want to try and calculate this stuff anymore because it is too depressing.

Frankly, I'd prefer the December report and the yearly report split into two threads.

December 2012.
- Worst month of the year for $$ and DLs.
- 25% off $$ and 50% off downloads from December 2011.
- Worst month of the past 3 years for $$ and DLs.
- Have to go back to July 2009 for a worse month for $$$, September of 2005 for a worse month (barely) in DLs

2012
- $$$ drop 20% from 2011, DLs down 50%

Wow. "

I know this is only one contributor but he is (a) historically successful (b) actively contributing - I think he said about 2K in 2012 (c) has Vetta/Agency to prop up the $$ as DLs fall. I know he mentioned he was one of the ones who benefited from the royalty stasis move.

For me, the only question remaining is whether Getty/Carlyle wants to halt the slump at IS or if it's part of their transition plan to whatever future they see. The only reason I care at this point (other than empathy for those caught in the exclusivity trap) is that I make a fair bit at iStock in spite of their train wreck of a business and I'd like to go wherever those customers are migrating to

That's the million dollar question. I tend to think it must be part of their transition plan. I just can't believe that they really are as stupid as they seem.

I was joking, sorry it wasn't clear.

I would have expected them all (the composites) to be rejected for focus.

Do you mean,

1)  how is it possible that SS accepted them with so much out of focus, or

2) do you mean how did the photographer produce them?

Quote from: gostwyck on December 24, 2012, 03:20

Quote from: Equus on December 24, 2012, 02:52

Quote from: jsnover on December 24, 2012, 01:18
theprint is his iStock user name, in case you can't match real world name with member name. He is apparently not in any hurry to get his portfolio up on other sites.

He'd put be crazy to put that portfolio on the other micros. I'm sure he must have other ideas.

I think he'd be crazy not to having now given up his crown. He could always have selected some images for RM whilst remaining exclusive. He hasn't uploaded anything to IS for over two years but, on the other micros, his entire portfolio would become 'new' again. I think he'd do very well elsewhere.

I agree, he'd do very well elsewhere, but he'd be wasted on the sub sites. I don't want to say too much in a public forum.
I think Getty will be happy to see photographers of that quality handing in their crowns and uploading to macro sites, where they will compete on an equal basis, rather than undercutting Getty photographers.
Maybe this has always been their plan. Force the more creative people to leave IS and upload to the macros, the factories can sell subs.
Or then again, maybe they are just a bunch of idiots. Time will tell.

Quote from: jsnover on December 24, 2012, 01:18
theprint is his iStock user name, in case you can't match real world name with member name. He is apparently not in any hurry to get his portfolio up on other sites.

He'd put be crazy to put that portfolio on the other micros. I'm sure he must have other ideas.

Quote from: gostwyck on December 20, 2012, 20:38

Quote from: pro@stockphotos on December 20, 2012, 19:50
Look at alexa. SS and IS have switched.  Not that SS contributors income is on par with IS exclusives in 2010.  That money went to Jon  (400,000,000 dollars) 

Isn't 'that money' less than half what H&F paid themselves as a special 'dividend' earlier this year (except that the money hadn't actually been earned but was simply added to the GI debt instead)?

At least the money that Jon made was via his own enterprise, over the last 8 years, and the vast majority of it is still invested in SS.

Just out of interest, how do you know that?

The change won't show up immediately, you will have to wait for Alamy to do an update.

Haven't they told us several times that the best match we see is not the best match that their customers see?

Seems pointless checking the best match if that is the case, any big customers out there want to do a screen dump for us?

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 10, 2012, 17:12

Quote from: luissantos84 on December 10, 2012, 16:27

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 10, 2012, 16:15
In case anybody missed it, Sean Locke's sales chart is a devastating comment on what has been happening at iStock
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349591&messageid=6796145
(and, in case anybody doesn't know, Sean is one of the biggest half-dozen superstars that iStock has, with a volume of sales that is statistically meaningful)

thats why Rebecca is lying when saying iStock is doing well, its impossible, its Sean its Manuel its António its everybody, the overall cannot be higher

If you read what she said carefully I think you will find that a claim that it was doing well was stunningly absent. She said "any rumors of iStock's impending demise are incorrect.  We are still, by far, the number 1 microstock site revenue-wise".

It would be a surprise if that wasn't still true. Shutterstock had $120million in revenue last year whereas KT in 2010 was boasting about $1.7million a week being paid out to contributors = $85million a year and if that was 25% of the take, iStock would have been turning over about $350million a year = nearly three times what Shutterstock did last year.

If iStock revenues have fallen 50% over the last two years, it would probably have around $200million this year, which is still "number one, revenue-wise" even though it is an awful performance.

Next year might be a different story.

And you can see why they might be panicking.

IS may have overdone the price rises, but the other sites are leaving a lot of money on the table.

IS is OVER for most contributors.

It's time to stop looking back, and move on.