I had already stopped uploading to istock, lost all motivation but this is it, they wont get any more from me if this is implemented.

Unfortunately I can't afford to leave there at the moment but that's my new goal and this will get me working harder with the other sites.

I just hope the other sites don't try this, I will leave microstock if they all cut commissions.

Just wait for a few days for their old and verified tactics. They will offer something that is just slightly less awful than this and people will start saying "Thanks istock".

I just wanted to say the same thing

oops!

How do you figure out the number of credits you sold?

Personally, I think it would be a good idea for EVERYONE who doesn't like these changes to stop uploading to IS completely until our concerns are addressed...

More importantly, stop buying images from istock if you're a buyer as well. Not that designers needed another reason, with istock being the most expensive of the microstock options. But even more so now, it's important to let istock know that enough is enough.

You find credits you have earnt in the stats on you own page

I just got an urge to upload some images to Alamy...

It's not based on files or downloads, it's based on number of credits/money used to buy each image.

So if someone paid 3 credits to download one image (small size?), the contributor is given 3 credits toward the performance measurement.  

If you sold 5,000 downloads in 2009, and all of them were sold at 3 credits each (Small size?) your redemed credit rate would be 15,000 credits.

That is why I allways talk friendly about my Greedy iStock Cattle *insult removed* geeks.
Cmon geeks Light my fire...

We will continue to pay out royalties based on the value of the credit purchased. In the case of royalties from Subscription credits we are adjusting the minimum value of the subscription credit from $0.95 to $0.65.

And for those opted into the sub plan it only gets worse.

Is that right?  So now a xs brings 9.7 cents.  Boy, that 25 cents from TS sure is looking Good. (irony)

Quote from: lisafx on September 07, 2010, 15:45

Personally, I think it would be a good idea for EVERYONE who doesn't like these changes to stop uploading to IS completely until our concerns are addressed.  These numbers need to at least be attainable and not pulled from the realm of fantasy.  

Absolutely agree.

Could not agree more!

DO NOT get hot headed and delete your portfolio.  Don't mess with your current earnings.  Just stop giving them new content.

One has to try to understand the strategy here. So let's see. The only way the vast majority of contributors will make the same or more despite their royalty rate going down is if they raise the prices by more than that cut. Maybe that's coming.

What I see here though, in the now, and this is purely my musing, is an effort to get the large customers slowly used to the idea of paying more for more elaborate and expensive artwork, in other words getting them accustomed to buying from Getty directly or from their other macro collections. Of course lost Getty customers who saved by buying from IS will slowly be brought back to macro at the same time. The success of Vetta and the implementation of the agency proves that this is working.

At the same time, they are trying to convince their best selling photographers and exclusive farms to contribute to macro, while discouraging the rest from submitting, even to micro. They've got the numbers and it probably won't hurt them that much to have the small guys rant and leave IS, even if that small guys turns out to be most exclusives and non exclusives below diamond. In any case, by force of habit, most contributors will take the bullet and keep submitting... to preserve their lifestyle. It's all just a news cycle anyways, and people will stop their turmoil in a couple of weeks and settle back into their routines.

But hmm... moving good customers and best selling photogs to Getty... not caring about the rest at all... discouraging new and small contributors... Separating their collections in tiers according to production value...

Sounds to me like Getty slowly wants to move out of the micro business, and hurt it good on the move, taking away big names and big customers with it. Perhaps they didn't buy Istock to help it flourish? Perhaps they bought it to recuperate what they could and then slowly choke it to death... hoping to do it in a way that would prove how micro is inferior to all serious, sensible art buyers in the world. Perhaps in their view it would be great if eventually they all blushed in shame after someone recognized that they used some cheap stuff from micro in their prestigious publication...

After all, let's not forget that the brand that Getty is trying to polish and grow here is... Getty.

Huge gamble. I do hope that I'm completely wrong, here by the way. But we've all seen this happen over and over in other industries, so why not in this one?

How do you figure out the number of credits you sold?

It's now at the top of your stats page. Just appeared with the announcement, so I guess they're serious about this one. Maybe no backtracking this time. Maybe Kelly's getting scared about achieving his target of 50% growth.
So what did all these promises about us being grandfathered in actually mean. We can get the next colour when we get the dls, but it doesn't necessarily affect our payments.
Trouble is, I bet the other agencies are watching this with great relish. :-(