I contribute to iStock for fun. My real job is Art Director at a Canadian Magazine. I'm starting to feel like I'm supporting a big corporation instead of the artists. After I burn up my last batch of credits, I'll be taking my business elsewhere. 85% percent is just too much profit IMO.

Thanks a lot Mericsso!  Really appreciate your taking such a principled stand. 

I am sure you will find what you need elsewhere, and probably cheaper too

I contribute to iStock for fun. My real job is Art Director at a Canadian Magazine. I'm starting to feel like I'm supporting a big corporation instead of the artists. After I burn up my last batch of credits, I'll be taking my business elsewhere. 85% percent is just too much profit IMO.

Thanks Michael! Great to see you here and your support is really appreciated.

If that post's not worth a 'heart' I don't know what is!

Quote from: iclick on September 14, 2010, 13:16

Just been posted in 'That thread'  if you are gathering Quotes from Buyers

"Since 2006, i've spent over 7k with istock. Me and other art buyers are starting to realize this is like buying cloths made in China. I stock is like a third world county, where say Veer or Almay are thridworld too, but at least they are fair trade. I'm going to start buying photos from agencys that pay their continbutors more then 15%. Istock if you think this mess is just pissed off your contributors, think again. Art buyers have a conscience too"

Thanks a lot for posting Iclick.  How nice of you to actually post ON TOPIC

But here's the rub. Although we (including me) are all here complaining about being ripped off etc, and Iclick says it's like buying clothes made in China (so I trust you'll be moving to macro to buy your images), all of us (of course I'm including me) could be providing images which supply companies which source their goods from sweatshops, and there's nothing we can do about that other than don't upload anything (just about) anywhere.
A bit ironic, huh?

Quote from: mericsso on September 15, 2010, 12:57

I contribute to iStock for fun. My real job is Art Director at a Canadian Magazine. I'm starting to feel like I'm supporting a big corporation instead of the artists. After I burn up my last batch of credits, I'll be taking my business elsewhere. 85% percent is just too much profit IMO.

Thanks a lot Mericsso!  Really appreciate your taking such a principled stand. 

I am sure you will find what you need elsewhere, and probably cheaper too

+1

85% profit is not an accurate number. sigh. too bad, leaving takes away your support from many artists in fact.

The minority at iStock. And 85% is accurate for the majority.

Leaving supports more artists and in a greater way.

I know 85% isn't an accurate number, it's just the angry number to throw around. It's very complex to try and figure out what they are really making as an average percentage based on the whole. I like the previous post where the guy touched on fair trade and china. I don't think what he was getting at was moving to macro. For me I have a freelancer, micro and macro budget. As an art buyer I do love iStock for my micro needs. It's priced right, and the content is good. "made in china" doesn't mean its bad. I have an iPhone thats made in China and its awesome! Since I've dipped into the stock world, I have a soft spot for it. I know how hard it is to make a go of it.

If I have say $2000.00 per year, and I spend all that at istock, its a safe bet that about 20-35% will go to the artists. So if I'm trying to support the artists first, I'm better to spend that money at stockfresh of another place where the contributor gets paid more.

In the coffee world, the farmers yelled and screamed for more money, but it wasn't until people started to realized the benefits of fair trade that the farmers started to get paid fairly for there work. Art buyers are mostly socially conscience people, I think the industry should start a movement for fair trade royalties. Maybe that just crazy I don't know, just trying help and give a different perspective.

Quote

Is it just me, or this whole istock fiasco is starting to create frictions between exclusives and independents?

Of course it has the potential to do so. An independents best interests are to tempt buyers to a site where they get the best price for their photos, an exclusive wants all buyers at iStock. If you're trying to take my income away I'm not happy. This is devisive, can't be anything but.
Two things lessen the friction, firstly I've had a good week on IS (I'm an exclusive) so buyers are buying and the more people leave the more likely it is that my work will get bought.
Now to act as devil's advocate, I could say that buyers are using their last credits and the crash will come, but to be honest I can't see 99.9% of buyers caring, or even knowing, or caring if they did know. Again I could be  wrong and for the first time I am casting glimpses at other sites in case a dropping of exclusivity becomes finally necessary, but somehow I think it unlikely. The people i think will really suffer are those who give up IS exclusivity and try and achieve similar earning on other sites, starting from the bottom again.

Yes, that's why it is important for us independents to get the word out, it will be a prolonged effort, and is why it is so important for us to keep up the fight long term (unless IStock  reverses this decision). I disagree with you on the part about not caring if they did know. I'm sure many would care knowing the most expensive site is also the same site who shafts its contributors with the lowest commissions.

Quote

Is it just me, or this whole istock fiasco is starting to create frictions between exclusives and independents?

Of course it has the potential to do so. An independents best interests are to tempt buyers to a site where they get the best price for their photos, an exclusive wants all buyers at iStock. If you're trying to take my income away I'm not happy. This is devisive, can't be anything but.
Two things lessen the friction, firstly I've had a good week on IS (I'm an exclusive) so buyers are buying and the more people leave the more likely it is that my work will get bought.
Now to act as devil's advocate, I could say that buyers are using their last credits and the crash will come, but to be honest I can't see 99.9% of buyers caring, or even knowing, or caring if they did know. Again I could be  wrong and for the first time I am casting glimpses at other sites in case a dropping of exclusivity becomes finally necessary, but somehow I think it unlikely. The people i think will really suffer are those who give up IS exclusivity and try and achieve similar earning on other sites, starting from the bottom again.

I would think too, that dropping exclusivity for a long time contributor is not the way to go. Right now the market is oversaturated everywhere and also at all big 4 agencies long time contributors have a huge advantage in sales. Regardless portfolio quality, the guy who started in 2004 will make more than the guy who started in 2008. So that would mean dropping exclusivity is a no-go.

What I foresee when 2011 will come is a big drop in uploads by independents, and possibly many of their images removed.

Quote from: vlad_the_imp on September 15, 2010, 14:33

So you would like me to lose sales, you'd like to shaft me? You'd like to take food out of my children's mouths?

iStock is doing all of those things to you starting January 1

^^^ Perfect, that's all the response needed right there

What I foresee when 2011 will come is a big drop in uploads by independents, and possibly many of their images removed.

I believe it will not only be independants, with more and more divisions/collections being created within Exclusive Contributers there's a bigger pecking order there than Old Macdoanals Farm   and with the addition of the new outside collection many will make loose patience if they have not already

I am having trouble seeing why exclusives and independents should be working at cross purposes here.  This time around exclusives are taking their hits right along with independents.  

It is in the interest of BOTH groups of sellers to stop istock gauging contributors this way.  We may differ in how we want to address the problem, but it's really surprising to me that both sides are having trouble even agreeing there IS a problem

It's the same old "divide and conquer".

...Art buyers are mostly socially conscience people, I think the industry should start a movement for fair trade royalties. Maybe that just crazy I don't know, just trying help and give a different perspective.

That would be great.  If buyers and contributors got together, we would all be better off.  There are sites that pay us more and charge you less.  They also listen to us and don't have shareholders and hedge funds taking all their profits and demanding more each year.

Quote

It's the same old "divide and conquer".

Of course, and there's always someone who'll step in and take the place of someone who steps down. It's a hungry world out there. I know of one exclusive who gave up her exclusivity. She is now back in the IS fold, 9 months and considerably poorer later. Nobody who is a good seller on IS now is going to give up exclusivity unless they are completely mad.

I dont know if I'd be considered a "good seller" or not at iS, but I must be completely mad.  I'll be cancelling my exclusivity at istock this weekend and starting the 30 day countdown.  I think I can get a good start at a few other agencies with the port I have and port I'm building.  I'll let you know in 9 months how I'm doing as an independent.