Author Topic: Revised targets (Read 17958 times)

qwerty · « **Reply #25 on:** December 23, 2011, 01:25 »

I love how 95% of posts thank Istock for their good work at lowering the RC levels.

What a bunch of muppets.

Oh thankyou Mr Bad Man for only stabbing me 5 times in the eye when you promised to stab me 6 times. Here would you like to borrow my rusty knife so you don't get yours dirty ?

Next year Istock could try setting the levels at 120,000,000 for 16% (other levels higher) then at the end of the year revise it down to 2,000. Nobody would be able to move up levels during the year making istock a lot more "sustainable" and everybody will give them massive woo yays for reducing the RC targets so generously.

Has there been any communications from the new Istock manager other than the initial I'm here. What happened with the results of the contributor survey ?

I'd like about another 30% of Istock customers to go to the middle tier sites.

hiddenstock · « **Reply #26 on:** December 23, 2011, 07:17 »

They dropped gold and silver more than last year but diamond was slightly higher. I think the increased diamond offsets the lower level for gold and silver.

You know it is not all doom and gloom over there. I am up 25% on dls from last year and 72.5% on $$s.

dhanford · « **Reply #27 on:** December 23, 2011, 09:34 »

I don't know. They're still boning us illustrators pretty good. $:-\$

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #28 on:** December 23, 2011, 18:12 »

Quote from: hiddenstock on December 23, 2011, 07:17

You know it is not all doom and gloom over there. I am up 25% on dls from last year and 72.5% on $$s.

That rather suggests that you have been contributing for about two years and have massively increased the size of your portfolio in percentage terms over the last 12 months. That seems to be the pattern for those who are reporting substantial dl growth. Tell me if I'm wrong.

My RCs are down about 10% on the year and I'm smack in the middle of a band, so no change for me.

I wonder if the 200,000 RC drop for the top level tells us anything about how certain contributors have done...

luissantos84 · « **Reply #29 on:** December 23, 2011, 21:17 »

if we are forced into the PP why not receiving a few "RCs" from there?

not that I would reach the 17% but it does make sense no?

markrhiggins · « **Reply #30 on:** December 23, 2011, 21:20 »

it is cents not sense that prevails

cidepix · « **Reply #31 on:** December 23, 2011, 22:16 »

How can you not hate istockphoto?

This is a serious question!

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #32 on:** December 24, 2011, 01:35 »

Quote from: cidepix on December 23, 2011, 22:16

How can you not hate istockphoto?

This is a serious question!

My best attempt at a serious answer. Those people who are selling well - it appears that exclusives with lots of recent uploads in 2011 would be in that group - are pleased with the results and can look the other way when it comes to the long string of broken promises. Triumph of hope over experience - they hope they won't get screwed the way others who came before them did. If/when the sales slow - they would then be making the higher royalties and then no longer Getty's ideal contributor - perhaps they'll get angry then.

I don't think I'll ever forget or forgive iStock for how they've behaved, but I try (sometimes successfully) not to think about hating them as it messes me up more than anything else and gets in the way of moving on to something healthier and more productive.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #33 on:** December 24, 2011, 04:35 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on December 23, 2011, 21:17

if we are forced into the PP why not receiving a few "RCs" from there?

not that I would reach the 17% but it does make sense no?

a) It's not iStock, it's a different site.
b) It's subscription sales not credit sales
c) If they did that they would have to increase the RC levels to get everything back to where they want it.

RC levels are not about sales, achievement, effort or "targets" they are about ensuring that a certain (unknown, but maybe 80%) percentage of the take is kept by iS. If everybody doubled their sales next year, then iS would just double the credit levels to restore the right percentage, keeping everyone at just the same level as they are today. The only way to go up a level is by knocking someone else down a level next time they reset the levels.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #34 on:** December 24, 2011, 07:31 »

again you are right

I was thinking of something like FT ranking system (4 subs = 1 sale)

I don´t remember a post/topic of you I don´t agree, you are a very wise person, wish you a great christmas and 2012!

thanks for your insight everyday

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #35 on:** December 24, 2011, 07:48 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on December 24, 2011, 07:31

again you are right I was thinking of something like FT ranking system (4 subs = 1 sale)

I don´t remember a post/topic of you I don´t agree, you are a very wise person, wish you a great christmas and 2012!

thanks for your insight everyday

Thanks, but I'm just a cynical old ba$tard. Have a great Christmas and New Year yourself.

Noedelhap · « **Reply #36 on:** December 25, 2011, 03:01 »

Clearly a case of iStockholm syndrome. Worship the monster that bites you. Come to think of it, it's much like North-Korea.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #37 on:** December 25, 2011, 09:33 »

Quote from: Noedelhap on December 25, 2011, 03:01

Clearly a case of iStockholm syndrome. Worship the monster that bites you. Come to think of it, it's much like North-Korea.

I believe you aren´t talking to me but wanna to make sure that don´t remember a bite from BT

lisafx · « **Reply #38 on:** December 27, 2011, 19:58 »

Quote from: jsnover on December 24, 2011, 01:35

Quote from: cidepix on December 23, 2011, 22:16
How can you not hate istockphoto?

This is a serious question!

My best attempt at a serious answer. Those people who are selling well - it appears that exclusives with lots of recent uploads in 2011 would be in that group - are pleased with the results and can look the other way when it comes to the long string of broken promises. Triumph of hope over experience - they hope they won't get screwed the way others who came before them did. If/when the sales slow - they would then be making the higher royalties and then no longer Getty's ideal contributor - perhaps they'll get angry then.

My daughter has been studying psychology and was explaining the concept of cognitive dissonance to me. Folks who still think things are rosy at Istock seem to offer a perfect example (from this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance):

"Dissonance is aroused when people are confronted with information that is inconsistent with their beliefs. If the dissonance is not reduced by changing one's belief, the dissonance can result in misperception or rejection or refutation of the information, seeking support from others who share the beliefs, and attempting to persuade others to restore consonance. "

I thought this discussion was worth a bump for people who, like me, were so swept up in the holidays that we missed the change in RC credits. I had no idea, and this thread had nearly fallen off the front page. Not worth wading through the woo-yays in the Istock forum to get the scoop, IMO.

pancaketom · « **Reply #39 on:** December 27, 2011, 20:22 »

I have thought about cognitive dissonance a number of times in the exclusive/independent arguments. I think it goes both ways however lately the number of people who continue to do well at IS seems to be dropping.

People (myself included) tend to look at the data that confirms their decisions no matter what their decision may have been.

StockCube · « **Reply #40 on:** December 30, 2011, 09:57 »

I only just found the announcement too. I read the thread on the iStock forum and it was a nauseating read. I find it astonishing that people I know to be intelligent individuals are actually thanking iStock for allowing them to earn the same commission rates as they were on before RCs came about, ie the commission rates that they rightfully earned, often over several years. iStockholm syndrome indeed, that is an excellent name for it.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #41 on:** December 30, 2011, 11:24 »

Quote from: pancaketom on December 27, 2011, 20:22

I have thought about cognitive dissonance a number of times in the exclusive/independent arguments. I think it goes both ways however lately the number of people who continue to do well at IS seems to be dropping.

People (myself included) tend to look at the data that confirms their decisions no matter what their decision may have been.

Yeah if it's not clear, I admire the Exclusives and wish them the best.

A year ago I was considering dropping all others and going exclusive to help make life easy. Then IS started changing things and playing us for dopes, pulling the rug out from under their promises, changing the rules, and changing them again. No thanks, I'm to the point of dropping IS except as Lisa pointed out (wise lady) why not just stop uploading and take the money? OK I'll be doing that.

Someone else said that at this point with the uncertainty in acceptance and risk, many exclusives would be better off staying exclusive. That makes good sense. For the bold, they can take the risk, drop the exclusive and see if they can make up the difference on the top ten other agencies.

Personally there are only two Microstock agencies. IS and SS. If an exclusive wants to drop the benefits and go make $10 a month someplace else, that's pretty risky business.

In the end it all depends on where people are headed. Long term, top ten is going to make more and have a better stability, but there will be loses for at least a year!

Indy's will be fine without going exclusive, IS killed that incentive to change.

And it's not us vs us, it's US vs THEM!

Independent or exclusive we are all pretty much in the same business and working towards the same goals. We aren't opposing each other except in philosophy or opinion of how to market our images.

HughStoneIan · « **Reply #42 on:** December 30, 2011, 13:16 »

The Diamond estimating he's lost $12,000 because of the RC shift is totally believable.
I would guess few if any IS salaries have also been equally reduced or jobs cut to allow them to remain sustainable, right?
However, at the rate they're going there will soon be nothing left to chop except to make drastic staff reductions in order to keep them at that mystical "sustainability" level.
It is highly advised NOT to apply for employment at Istock in the near future.

Beach Bum · « **Reply #43 on:** January 02, 2012, 11:02 »

Any idea when the revised targets will take effect? They reset the counters, but the old targets are still in effect. There were a couple of threads started over there inquiring about this, but they were immediately locked and referred to Contributor Relations. It didn't affect me last year so I don't remember how long it took. It does this year.

robynmac · « **Reply #44 on:** January 02, 2012, 14:42 »

I met the revised RC target to stay at 19% this year. But my royalty rate is now showing as 18% for 2012.

I contacted support to ask why.

Artemis · « **Reply #45 on:** January 02, 2012, 15:53 »

It really doesnt ever stop with that bunch of amateurs overthere eh?!

I kept my 17% but am getting payed at 16% right now; oh im sure they'll AGAIN dump a lump sum in my account to correct it... but seriously..........the camel's back is ready to break. Friggen, annoying incompetence.

gostwyck · « **Reply #46 on:** January 02, 2012, 15:59 »

Quote from: robynmac on January 02, 2012, 14:42

I met the revised RC target to stay at 19% this year. But my royalty rate is now showing as 18% for 2012. :'( I contacted support to ask why.

You're in good company;

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=339041&page=1

Beach Bum · « **Reply #47 on:** January 02, 2012, 16:44 »

Quote from: Artemis on January 02, 2012, 15:53

It really doesnt ever stop with that bunch of amateurs overthere eh?!
I kept my 17% but am getting payed at 16% right now; oh im sure they'll AGAIN dump a lump sum in my account to correct it... but seriously..........the camel's back is ready to break. Friggen, annoying incompetence.

They still haven't released the 2012 Payout Schedule. Why was this not prepared long ago? It's not like the calendar is an ever changing thing.

Tomboy2290 · « **Reply #48 on:** January 02, 2012, 22:37 »

I'm so disgusted at the unfairness of IS's system. I just missed out on staying at 17% but I guess I'm suppose to be feeling soothed that I'm getting cut to just 16% rather than the 15% I was expecting. Still trying to wrap my head around the fact that, by iStocks reasoning, my content is now worth less to me and more to them because they say so.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Revised targets (Read 17958 times)

qwerty

hiddenstock

dhanford

BaldricksTrousers

luissantos84

markrhiggins

cidepix

Jo Ann Snover

BaldricksTrousers

luissantos84

BaldricksTrousers

Noedelhap

luissantos84

lisafx

pancaketom

StockCube

RacePhoto

HughStoneIan

Beach Bum

robynmac

Artemis

gostwyck

Beach Bum

Tomboy2290

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors