I would like to know if it's correct that "most of its users do still think reasonably well of iStockphoto" as stated on another thread. What better way to check if faith has been eroded in the brand than by a poll!

I voted "somewhat dislike", and then I looked at the results,  , it looks like I was kind.

I agree, trust is what we no longer have, in iStock.

It's really about how you feel towards the brand.
Whenever it comes up some people will say that it's a vocal minority that particularly dislikes IStock.
I thought a poll would be a good chance for those who think they might get jumped on for making positive comments to have their vote counted.

It's really about how you feel towards the brand.
Whenever it comes up some people will say that it's a vocal minority that particularly dislikes IStock.
I thought a poll would be a good chance for those who think they might get jumped on for making positive comments to have their vote counted.

Good poll idea and interesting results so far.

There's something happening to me.
It started last September (although I was never a big fan of IStock).
Every single time I login to that site, I have a strange feeling of discomfort and disappointment. A bitter taste in my mouth. I want to get out of there as fast as possible.
Hence my vote for 'strongly dislike'.
As a buyer and as a contributor, no, I don't like them at all.
But hope never dies and who knows, the newly appointed Rebbeca might be able to turn things around ...

I wonder what the results of the poll would have been if it had done 2 or 3 years ago?

iStock has lost more good will in a shorter time than any company I can think of in history. The greed, ineptitude, and supercilious attitude toward suppliers and customers has been an amazing thing to see.

I wish "Google" had an application to mark disliked sites.. The more the site got those "dislikes" the deeper it would get buried to last pages of google search..

I am sure no company would then risk their good relations with visitors or members.. Contributors or buyers.. They would equally be important to the sites..

That would be great, but sadly also open to abuse ("hey dude I "disliked" all the search results above yours for ya!")

I voted "Strongly dislike" but if "Despise" was an option, that would have been my choice.

 

It has to be "Strongly dislike" for me.  how can I have any better feelings for a site that cut the already lowest commission in the industry?  I think the only way my feeling for them will change is if the site is sold and they are purchased by a more contributor friendly company.  I know that's unlikely to happen.

^^^I have seen people try to work that out in the past and they have never quoted anything as low as 15%.  I would rather get a fixed percentage but I still think they pay significantly more than istock.  And my earnings with SS are almost double my istock earnings now, they also sell pay per download at higher commissions and EL's.  I get 30% commission for footage clips compared to 15% from istock.

^^^I have seen people try to work that out in the past and they have never quoted anything as low as 15%.  I would rather get a fixed percentage but I still think they pay significantly more than istock.  And my earnings with SS are almost double my istock earnings now, they also sell pay per download at higher commissions and EL's.  I get 30% commission for footage clips compared to 15% from istock.

I remember seeing quotes that go below this figure, but really nobody other than the sites themselves have the numbers.

For on demand sales SS pays between 16-19% for entry level contributors and 25-29% for those on the highest rates (based on Euro sales which the site automatically directs me to here, the percentages probably vary with other currencies). I'd find it strange if the subscription percentages were actually any higher than those values. Bottom line though with SS is that *nobody* gets more than 30%.

If you look at IS, probably the average percentages paid to contributors is higher than these numbers, especially if the claim that 50% of sales are on exclusive files is true.

Don't get me wrong - I'd like the percentages to be higher across the industry, but at the moment iStock is singled out while other sites are paying the same or less on much lower file prices and often lower overheads because they don't have the same inspection process, guarantees or marketing team.

Quote from: sharpshot on August 06, 2011, 03:41

^^^I have seen people try to work that out in the past and they have never quoted anything as low as 15%.  I would rather get a fixed percentage but I still think they pay significantly more than istock.  And my earnings with SS are almost double my istock earnings now, they also sell pay per download at higher commissions and EL's.  I get 30% commission for footage clips compared to 15% from istock.

I remember seeing quotes that go below this figure, but really nobody other than the sites themselves have the numbers.

For on demand sales SS pays between 16-19% for entry level contributors and 25-29% for those on the highest rates (based on Euro sales which the site automatically directs me to here, the percentages probably vary with other currencies). I'd find it strange if the subscription percentages were actually any higher than those values. Bottom line though with SS is that *nobody* gets more than 30%.

If you look at IS, probably the average percentages paid to contributors is higher than these numbers, especially if the claim that 50% of sales are on exclusive files is true.

Don't get me wrong - I'd like the percentages to be higher across the industry, but at the moment iStock is singled out while other sites are paying the same or less on much lower file prices and often lower overheads because they don't have the same inspection process, guarantees or marketing team.

I'm always going to prefer the 25-29% with SS to the 17% I get with istock and SS are making me around 100% more each month.  I agree that all the sites could pay more but istock cutting below 20% has put a stop to that.  It isn't just the fact that they cut their already low commission, they have given an excuse for other sites to do the same.  If sales were increasing a lot, it wouldn't be so bad but that hasn't happened.  They are also owned by the people that closed StockXpert, that used to pay me 50% commission and had really good sales.

I know sites can thrive paying 50% commission, as StockXpert did and sites like Pond5 still do.  And we really don't know if istock is happy with their current low commissions or if they will become "unsustainable" again.  I want a long term future in the microstock business but that doesn't look feasible with istock at the moment.

Other sites like Fotolia are almost as bad as istock, I think they would get similar results in a poll asking the OP's question.