Sales have been strong this month so far. I hope the momentum keeps up

And we wonder why they have a lack of transparency 

   
We've established that there were some irregularities with Oct(Sept) and Nov(Oct) Partner Program royalties. We've been investigating these irregularities and hope to have additional information some time next week. What this means is the royalty payments for September and October are being reviewed at this time.

We will have an update on this issue next week.

UPDATE: January 9, 2014.

We�ve had the Finance team go back over the royalty payments for September and October and have discovered some issues with a portion of the Partner Program participants payments. This issue impacts approximately 25,000 contributor accounts. We will be sending the affected contributors email notifications of the total amount over paid as well as a recoupment schedule in the very near future.

Has the issue that caused this over payment been addressed?
- Yes, we discovered it in December 2013 prior to the delivery of the November Partner Program royalties.

Why wasn�t the contributor base notified earlier?
- We weren�t able to identify the extent of the issue until early January 2014.

How will the affected contributors be contacted?
- We will be sending email notifications to the impacted contributors in the next week. We will notify this thread as soon as the emails start going out. Please note, if you don�t receive an email then your account isn�t affected.

* ;(

I thought, for the percentage they make when they sell one of my images, I mean that 85% they could hire some qualified people to manage the shop!
With Istock being one of the lowest paying sites in the business and all these problens they have on the site I wonder how many of us will actually stay there.
The PP sales were OK and the amount we received in november was a nice surprise.
December sales were poor, compared to other sites and till today there isn't much happening in january too!

This is a great point. They take such a large slice that it isn't unreasonable for us to expect near perfection. Another good point is made is that we either take it or leave it, they really have the upper hand unfortunantly

I think it's more that he deals with the stuff they don't want to be bothered with...they probably don't give it much thought...as long as they don't have to deal with it. It is clear they don't value the contributors on various levels. I mean they don't even care if we have their trust.

To them we are all lemmings. In their minds, if we don't supply the content someone else would. They have become more about bean counting then providing quality content and service. It's nothing but a numbers game only now. I believe the contributors are the only ones who really care about the content. The buyers in general are too naive (generalizing of course) to be able to differentiate quality content versus run of the mill.

I

I guess a specific type of portfolio does better there. Actually I think most of my sales there were vector, which I don't do too much of.

I guess I'm in the minority here but DP has been good to me and grows in earnings the more I contribute. No one ever includes their specialty when complaining about an agency's lackluster performance making it difficult to understand why you're doing poorly and I'm finding success. My portfolio is a potpourri of subject matter - from landscape to industry and everything inbetween. What I like most about DP is that they sell images that stagnate untouched by others. About 5% of my portfolio sells daily with SS while the rest rarely sell. SS is my best earner but that would change if I didn't have that 5%  buyers gravitate to. DP meanwhile sells daily and always something different that hasn't sold before. I have about 2000 images with DP. About 500 with SS.

I sell a mix of mostly 3D renders. They do very well on Shutterstock, iStock, and they do okay on Dreamstime...but on DepositPhotos they only sold initially and not have been dormant. I stopped adding content there as it seemed to be a waste of resources.

I've had no issue with Lobo. He is as straight forward as he can be. If he was nice and sugar coated everything, I bet we'd all have issues with that. I guess because HD is the closest thing to a liaison between us and the powers that be, he gets pinned with all our frustrations.

Transparency would be nice...all I Can Say is....crap!

When I had a portfolio there, they were very odd with what they accepted. I find they accepted a lot that the others guy wouldn't and rejected quite a bit of what the other agencies accepted. They are by far the hardest to gauge. I dropped my portfolio as sales were just too few and far between.

Thanks. I guess I don't understand their logic with it being grandfathered in...I mean if it violates it then all should be removed and if it doesn't then it should be allowed. I am guessing they are following their own set rules based on their understanding and not that the image actually violates copyright. I also don't understand why my content with coins never had an issue, but bills seem to. I guess it's just another quirk of iStock.

Since this is all CG, I just added a money wrapper around each bill and duplicated to make each bill a stack instead...still has the same idea and now, hopefully it will be accepted.

Anyways, thank you all for the responses.

Here is the kicker...these are all on istock and non-editorial...

Thanks, does anyone know the specifics, especially for iStock?

Not the claw, not only did I make it from scratch and sent proof of this in the release, they accepted other images using the claw.