I've been away, but just to check - this time there hasn't yet been any official mention of forcing paying 'lypse attendees to make their work available via the PP, has there?

No mention of editorial on the Milan Lypse.Looking like a combination of photos and videos.
I can see the content generated from the Milan Lypse going to the Partner Program.If you dont understand the reason that happens now i doubt you will ever understand the connection between Istockphoto/Getty.

Shank will you allow us to understand the reason why it happens, but still not agree with it? 

Four dots good, two dots better!

Re. positivity/negativity:

I'm an iStock exclusive (probably until January, maybe not beyond), and I think it's great for contributors and buyers that iStock are increasingly being challenged by other sites.  For me the ongoing move away from iStock dominance towards a more open and competative market is a good thing, even if it could be painful for exclusives in the short term.

iStock's ongoing 'how to lose friends and alienate people' campaign - though sometimes excrutiatingly annoying when you're involved - could eventually be good for everyone.  Everyone except iStockphoto of course, who seem to be setting themselves up to be the biggest losers.

2. What is the price point of these images?
These images will all be priced at Exclusive+.

Would it be safe to assume that the long promised, but not yet implemented best match boost for E+ files will quickly become a priority?

Quote from: ShadySue on June 08, 2011, 07:59

Interesting how the Username thing goes. Does that mean they'll be able to shoot up the RC rankings super fast, whereas we are not supposed to be in groups or pairs (we are often told) but there are several couples/groups allowed.
I'm sure they wouldn't like it if we formed alliances with others (with a legal agreement) to zoom up the RCs.

I doubt if the RC rankings will matter to them. There will be some fixed arrangement.

That's true.  But there will probably be a best match advantage to that single user from having a lot of files, with plenty downloads and a 100% acceptance rate.

Anyway, that's probably academic because the files will enjoy a strong best match boost.  Otherwise known as 'files scattered in with every search'.  Remember what we were told when Agency was introduced:

In search and Best Match the images will be weighted fairly and will not have a heavier weight than any other file. In other words, you won't find the entire agency collection at the front of every search. You will find some agency collection files scattered in with every search, just the same as you see now for Vetta and exclusive plus files.

^^^^ Superb - at first I misinterpreted it and assumed that us artists were the hassled boy, and iStock was the boss.

But then I realised that we're the goose, the boy is Kelly.  Presumably the 'Squeeze Harder...' boss is Jonathan Klein / Mark "Intellectual Property is the oil of the 21st century" Getty, or H&F

With V/A I feel that I used to work as a supplier for a coffe shop and was one of many, many producers of special types of coffee. Then the owners realized some of us offer high quality wine and added a special section in the store for that. We all applauded, because this will draw in new customers, who will hopefully also buy coffee for their daily needs and we agree that high production and rare wine, deserves a higher price than our coffee. But suddenly we enter the store and we see that most of the shelves have been stacked with expensive wine and the coffee has been pushed to the back of the store.

And although there may be customers who love wine so much that they keep coming back to it, most of us feel we are losing our target market, the daily coffee buyers who spent a quick dollar and then went back to work.

Interesting analogy

To continue with it, the problem is that iStock get around six times the commission per sale for Vetta 'wine', and around ten times or more for Agency 'wine'.  Check it out if you don't believe me.  For them, peddling the wine is way more attractive than peddling our 'coffee'.

And - inexplicably - they've turned a blind eye to external Agency contributors who have decided to water down their wine by massively upsizing their images.  I've officially raised that several times with iStock and got absolutely nowhere.

I think their problem with providing a Vetta & Agency filter is that it could prompt a lot of contributors to move much of their Vetta work into E+, since the royalites are only slightly different.  I'd certainly be one of them.

I doubt many people believe that they've been spending all this time 'testing' a filter, as is occasionally claimed.  But there's no doubt that they've been testing the patience of a lot of customers.

I have a hunch (for no solid reason) that the announcement, when it comes, will be about more than 2011 RC targets.

Quote from: gclk on May 10, 2011, 04:46

A few months ago I saw an image of mine used in a TV advert - the photo hadn't been downloaded in an appropriate size for 18 months.

What would be an appropriate size for a TV advert given the relatively low resolution of even, so called, HD TV images and taking into account typical viewing distances.

M? S ?

I might be wrong but I'd have thought medium size or above would be needed.  It had been downloaded as small, which was 837 x 573 pixels for this image.

I saw on a large Sony HD TV (not mine), I think at a resolution of 1920 x 1080.  Even paused using Sky+ HD, the photo did not looked like it had been upsized anything like that much.

But I'd totally accept this is not a definite case like the others mentioned above, it just seems a little odd.

And the $1.90 royalty seemed a little harsh for a nationally broadcast TV advert, but that's a totally separate issue 

I haven't left yet but I haven't and don't expect to hear anything from iStock about terminating my exclusivity.

When they didn't contact me to ask about the fraud conference call even though I think there were many more "votes" for me than for some of the people who participated it was clear to me that I must have p*(#@d off a lot of people at HQ.

I think as long as they keep the visible exclusives - Lise, Sean, et al. - they'll not sweat loosing the rest of us.

They really should be doing their best to look into the reasons behind each and every termination of exclusivity since they take more commissions from exclusives, and benefit from having work that can't be found elsewhere.  Just watching contributors dropping exclusivity without doing their best to determine their motivations seems incrediby short sighted.

Like so many others, I voted for you and would have valued your opinion on what was said.  But I suppose when they asked for our votes they didn't go so far as saying they'd take notice of them.

The only way the payment to contributors could be essentially the same is if iStock's income has risen enormously. That could only happen if buyers are spending more. Since there is general acceptance that sales are well down, the extra money must be going into V/A file sales. Which means people with Vetta should be seeing a huge boost to their income - though I'm not seeing reports of that.

The other possibility is that we've not been told the truth.

Completely agree - given the huge shift of balance from artist royalties --> iStock commissions since September, if Kelly's statement is true the conclusion must be that iStockphoto's commissions have soared.

Which would mean that iStock have 99 problems, but profitability ain't one.

And that iStock's artists have 100 problems, with falling profitability right at the top 

Kelly's method of judging 'falling profitability' was not about actual profits, but about the percentages paid out:

From the Royalty Change Follow-up thread (www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=252322&page=1)...
Since roughly 2005 we've been aware of a basic problem with how our business works. As the company grows, the overall percentage we pay out to contributing artists increases. In the most basic terms that means that iStock becomes less profitable with increased success. As a business model, it�s simply unsustainable: businesses should get more profitable as they grow. This is a long-term problem that needs to be addressed.

Well now that's fixed 

But on that same basis, even artists who are seeing their income rising should know that their profitability is falling.  In Kelly's words, "as a business model it's simply unsustainable".  Is that a long-term problem that needs to be addressed?  Maybe Kelly just forgot to tell us the 'Artists businesses should get less profitable as iStockphoto grows' bit.

Way back in 2007, iStock's average payout was 29% (as revealed by Bruce Livingstone and discussed by Lee Torrens here: http://www.microstockdiaries.com/peek-inside-the-financials-of-istockphoto.html).

That was back in the days when iStock was on an unsustainable trajectory, supposedly without the rising profitability that 'all businesses should have'.  Hmm, wonder how many iStock artists have been watching their profitability rising of late 

Not sure if I'd say that iStock have managed to claw the overall percentage back to 80% commission, but I'd definitely guess that the average payout is now a lot lower than 29%.

For me, a huge surge in commission must have come from Vetta and Agency sales, which have been pushed relentlessly with apparently very little or no concern for the consequences.

At some sizes the prices are more than eight times higher than files in the exclusive collection.  Add a massive price increase to a big royalty reduction, and the increased commission take must be staggering.