MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - dgilder

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12
201
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock changing royalty structure
« on: September 07, 2010, 23:41 »
iStock was 40-45% of my three agency income prior to going exclusive again.  I went exclusive again to lock in the diamond level royalties of 40%.  That made it justifiable in the long term.  They locked us into the cannisters, and gave people until August to switch and still keep their lock-in, now in September they say, 'Ha Ha, Fooled You.  Cannisters mean nothing now'.  So yeah, exclusives will drop.  In fact, as non-exclusive would mean only 16% or 17% royalties for a lot of people, some are discussing removing their portfolio entirely on ethical grounds.  After all, no images at iStock likely means more sales at the other, more-affordable-than-iStock sites.  I know several designers who were priced out of iStock at the start of the year and only shop other sites now.

202
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock changing royalty structure
« on: September 07, 2010, 22:53 »
Everyone was going to pull their ports or stop uploading. The question is how many actual did it??

I did, I dropped FT long before I went back exclusive with iStock.

203
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock changing royalty structure
« on: September 07, 2010, 22:17 »
So I was expecting to make it to diamond and 40% by the end of the year or early next year.  Now I will only receive 30% under this new plan.  That is a difference of 10 percentage points, but in terms of real money, 30 is 75% of 40.  So I will be making 25% less than I was expecting to make next year, and 14.3% less than I am actually making this year.

204
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock changing royalty structure
« on: September 07, 2010, 21:44 »
Posted this over there, thought I would share here as well:

So as to the 1.4 million credits, look at it from a money perspective. Lets say the average credit is between $0.75 and $1.50, this should be fairly reasonable and very generous if iStock was offering large corporations that low of a credit price compared to their standard prices.

If you aren't making iStock between $750,000 and $2,100,000 dollars per year, they aren't going to give you more than 40% ( $300K and $840K). How many exclusive contributors do you think are actually pulling in that kind of cash? How many non-exclusives?

If you want to make it back up to the 40% royalty level at 150,000 credits, you have to bring in between $112,500 and $225,000 of which you would get between $45K and $90K. How many contributors do you think can actually match that?



The average price per credit for my sales this year is $1.28 With that number, I would have to bring in $191,584.58 to meet 40% which would net me $76,663.83. If I was two or three credits shy, and only brought in $191,580 , I would only get $67,054.60 at 35%. That is an extra $9,609.23 in iStock's pocket if I miss the target by a few credits (assuming I manage to match the sales again the following year).

To even get to 35% for next year (where I am currently), I will have had to bring in $51,200 by the end of this year, of which I would get to keep $17,920

205
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock changing royalty structure
« on: September 07, 2010, 14:52 »
It depends on how many non-exculsive contributors they have, but yeah, this actually seems like less money for the vast majority of iStockers.  Even if they had said more money for vast majority of exclusive I would still think that would be incorrect.

206
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock changing royalty structure
« on: September 07, 2010, 14:44 »
Yep, they'd have to sell 1.4M credits worth just to get back to 20%.

207
iStockPhoto.com / Re: iStock changing royalty structure
« on: September 07, 2010, 14:38 »
Also, if you brought in more than $1,000,000 of business to iStock, they will throw you an extra 5%, so max is 45% now.

http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=861

Scroll down for royalty charts

208
iStockPhoto.com / iStock changing royalty structure
« on: September 07, 2010, 14:36 »
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=251812&page=1

Basically, you get x% royalties based on how many credits were used to download your files the past year.

As a gold exclusive, next year my royalty will drop 5% based on the new plan, even after I finally hit diamond.

209
Its a pity really, I and many of my friends would have gone exclusive ages ago if it wasnt for this shakey, unstable best match changes. They tend to hit anybody, doesnt matter if youre Diamond, newbie, exclusive or not.
Just feel its not business like to take that chance. However, that aside, Istock is beyond doubt the most rewarding outfit.

Yep, struggling with that a bit myself at the moment.  This new best match change plus E+ weird backwards rankings appear to have hurt my portfolio.  I'm going to give it awhile to settle out and see if things improve, but I have concerns that going forward I won't be making much more than I did as an independent.  In which case I have to reconsider the risks of dealing through only one agency.

210
Mine is my new photography portfolio.  I've also used it to read bedtime stories to the kids, watch Netflix, surf the web, control my media center (TV) computer remotely, listen to music, find nearby wifi, check the inclination of my monitor, work with the 4yo on tracing letters, play air hockey with the 4yo, used Star Walk to point out to my wife exactly which direction Pluto was through the floor/Earth, look up a definition, log into a server to move a file, tweet of course, and my wife used it to record a meeting she was going to transcribe.

Its a big iPhone, thats a good thing, and its stunningly fast.  I suppose I could have done all that with a netbook, but not as easily.  My poor iPhone must be feeling neglected, but having a bigger screen makes everything so much easier.

211
Well, the admin accused me of altering the dates on the release or generating a release in Photoshop, so I uploaded a new file with the release and closeups showing that the ink was soaked into the paper from the printing.  Whoever it was still wasn't convinced, which is when I had to get contributor relations more deeply involved.  By the way, I'd like to say again that the contributor relations folks were excellent in getting this all taken care of and resolved.

Maybe I should take it as a compliment that the admin thought my photoshopping skills were so bad ass that I was able to pull off faked ink soaking into the paper.

Anyways, I'm probably going to go back to my carbon copy forms that only have my info prefilled.  I've been shooting stock over six years and I've never had any troubles like this before.

212
Off Topic / Re: What is this stuff?
« on: March 02, 2010, 12:39 »
I would throw them out.   They appear to be batteries of some kind, with part of the internal anode exposed ;)

213
Nah, just a suggestion, apparently it caused some questions, and then a bunch of confusion ensued, and so things got more tangled that they should have been, so its easier just to skip the risk by filling in by hand, just saying.

I did get accused of fraud by one of the (anonymous) admins, but I'm trying to let that slide and be at peace since it has all been resolved now.

214
I'll throw in another for DeepMeta, it works well, and has a lot of features that can make life easier on you.  It is far better than manually uploading through the web pages on iStock, and less time consuming. 

215
So after a several day long headache, and multiple conversations by phone and email with iStock contributor relations (who were extremely helpful), a problem with one of my release files has been resolved.  It stemmed from having prefilled the date on the signature line of the model release.  I would suggest to everyone who submits to iStock that you have the model/witness/etc hand-write the date next to their signature rather than pre-filling this information when you print the form.

Just thought this might be helpful, so I thought I would share.

216
Newbie Discussion / Re: newbie and feeling despondent...
« on: February 15, 2010, 17:07 »
For white balance, use a white balance card or shoot RAW and adjust the balance in post.  For exposure, use your camera's exposure meters and histogram, and make tiny adjustments in post.  Examples would be very helpful, hard to help if we can't see what you are talking about.

It also sounds like you don't have a lot of experience with your camera gear (based on your rejection reasons and questions about white balance, exposure, etc).  Probably your best bet is to read the manual that came with your camera.

217
I am talented and gifted.  Unfortunately I am also lazy.

218
Trad agencies were very arrogant and repeling with new applicants.

Its the sole reason I am in the microstock world at all.  Relatives in the photography biz asked how I could stomach selling photos for so little.  Well, they were the only place that would take me.

219
Just FYI, the thread on iStock was just locked, pending some kind of official response sometime today.

220
General Stock Discussion / Re: So, is there are a consensus now ?
« on: February 07, 2010, 10:26 »
Back on topic, I still say everyone should opt in a single sunset photo, and make ThinkStock the worlds largest sunset photo collection.

221
123RF / Re: has anyone deleted their account at 13rf?
« on: February 04, 2010, 22:05 »
Look for a thread on here titled something like "Preparing for Exclusivity".  I'm pretty sure that was the one where someone listed a link that would let you edit all the photos in your portfolio instead of having to go through month by month.  There was some discussion about ways to make it easier.  Contacting support may work, but if I recall correctly they just ask you to manually remove the files yourself.

222
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Jan stats.
« on: February 02, 2010, 23:28 »
I am not in the exclusive program yet, but all of my images have been off the other sites the entire month (except Dreamstime, where most of my port was off and the stragglers have been removed slowly the whole month).

iStock Jan 2010 for me was +145% sales and +199% royalties compared to Jan 2009, and Jan '09 was fairly strong on its own.  In fact this Jan would have been #3 in earnings compared to 2009.

223
Off Topic / Re: Apple Tablet Announcement *TODAY*
« on: January 28, 2010, 11:38 »
Who doesn't want an iPhone with a bigger screen?  The main reason I don't read ebooks on my iPhone is the screen size.  And to the person who referred to 3G as WiFi, you have your terminology confused.  The lower models have your standard WiFi modems, the more expensive models have cellular 3G modems in them in addition to WiFi.

This thing will be great for watching movies on the go, or catching up on news, email, etc without having to drag a full computer around with you.  iPhones are good for that but you are locked into their carrier, iPads are unlocked, and have a bigger screen making it easier to use without hunching over your iPhone like Golem...my.....PREcious!

224
Canon / Re: What CF Card for a 5D Mark II?
« on: January 07, 2010, 14:54 »
I've been using Extreme III 4GB cards for the most part.  I like the smaller cards for most things so I don't risk losing everything with one faulty card.  Plus the older smaller cards can be pretty affordable.

225
Shutterstock.com / Re: Any SS EL's today?
« on: January 07, 2010, 00:24 »
As I said on the previous page, Shutterstock settled with one of their customers who agreed to pay for an EL for every image they had used over the circulation limits in the regular license.

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors