Author Topic: Istock raises payouts to partner program (Read 41674 times)

lisafx · « **Reply #50 on:** February 24, 2011, 18:11 »

Quote from: Phil on February 24, 2011, 18:03

I cant get past the thinking that this is offered now, people say yay! add 2 million images and next year we have, oh its not sustainable / need more money for marketing and it will get cut back down.

Yep. You don't have to be psychic to see that one coming...

cathyslife · « **Reply #51 on:** February 24, 2011, 18:15 »

And I can't get over how many contributors are grateful for this mere pittance, after all that has been taken away in the past few months! They take away dollars, give back pennies and everyone is happy! Stockholm syndrome indeed.

gostwyck · « **Reply #52 on:** February 24, 2011, 18:30 »

Quote from: lisafx on February 24, 2011, 17:14

Well, most of my opinions on this have been well covered, but I will add to the chorus in case anyone's counting up who feels how...

My first reaction is happiness that, apparently, the boycott of TS by many of us has been successful in starving it for content. It is rewarding to have this tangible confirmation that if enough of us band together, we can affect the conditions we work under.

Of course, .28 is ridiculous. I've seen the figure of an 8 cent raise mentioned several times, but for independents it's just a 3 cent raise. And still 2 cents under what we were making through StockXpert two years ago. Not tempting. Sorry.

Funny thing is, if they had simply kept us at the .30 we were making when they bought StockXpert, I would have stayed opted in. But now, seeing how Getty wants to undermine the fairer agencies, how they have been directing Istock buyers to Thinkstock, and their insatiable greed and ruthlessness toward contributors and buyers alike, I can't imagine myself supporting them, even if the .30 was offered.

Because of the income I have built up on Istock, I can't afford to quit them right now. But I don't have any TS income, so I can definitely afford not to start up with them in the first place. I object to helping Getty further undermine the industry where I make my living. And fortunately, the lowball offer of .28 makes the decision that much easier

And to everyone who has been opted in to the partner program and is getting a raise as a result of those who have stood firm against it: You're welcome.

Beautifully put Lisa, my thoughts entirely.

cathyslife · « **Reply #53 on:** February 24, 2011, 18:51 »

Quote from: lisafx on February 24, 2011, 18:11

Quote from: Phil on February 24, 2011, 18:03
I cant get past the thinking that this is offered now, people say yay! add 2 million images and next year we have, oh its not sustainable / need more money for marketing and it will get cut back down.

Yep. You don't have to be psychic to see that one coming...

And I think that they will take away the opt out right before the unsustainable announcement.

ShadySue · « **Reply #54 on:** February 24, 2011, 18:56 »

Quote from: lisafx on February 24, 2011, 17:14

And to everyone who has been opted in to the partner program and is getting a raise as a result of those who have stood firm against it: You're welcome.

And don't forget to thank us for fighting so hard for your raise.

gostwyck · « **Reply #55 on:** February 24, 2011, 21:09 »

Quote from: ShadySue on February 24, 2011, 18:56

Quote from: lisafx on February 24, 2011, 17:14
And to everyone who has been opted in to the partner program and is getting a raise as a result of those who have stood firm against it: You're welcome.
And don't forget to thank us for fighting so hard for your raise.

Of course the best way to thank us is to actually follow our lead and opt-out now. You'll be doing yourself and your future business prospects (and that of many others) a big favour at the same time. It's obvious what the right thing to do is.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #56 on:** February 24, 2011, 21:15 »

I too will add my opinion. Thppppppppppppppp.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #57 on:** February 24, 2011, 22:05 »

Not sure what happens when Opted In? I'm not even sure how to find that option. My StockXpert images were transferred to Thinkstock. How can I tell if iStock is continuing to add images?

Does being opted in mean that ALL my iStock images are available at Thinkstock ... for 28 cents?

Not really as dumb as I seem. Just that I started with iStock using DeepMeta to Fetch Data. Seldom login to the site itself.

Kone · « **Reply #58 on:** February 24, 2011, 22:26 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on February 24, 2011, 22:05

Not sure what happens when Opted In? I'm not even sure how to find that option. My StockXpert images were transferred to Thinkstock. How can I tell if iStock is continuing to add images?

Does being opted in mean that ALL my iStock images are available at Thinkstock ... for 28 cents?

Not really as dumb as I seem. Just that I started with iStock using DeepMeta to Fetch Data. Seldom login to the site itself.

Hey Warren,

Just go there and search for: "firstname lastname", if this is what you looking for

Kone

helix7 · « **Reply #59 on:** February 24, 2011, 22:46 »

Quote from: lisafx on February 24, 2011, 17:14

...Funny thing is, if they had simply kept us at the .30 we were making when they bought StockXpert, I would have stayed opted in. But now, seeing how Getty wants to undermine the fairer agencies, how they have been directing Istock buyers to Thinkstock, and their insatiable greed and ruthlessness toward contributors and buyers alike, I can't imagine myself supporting them, even if the .30 was offered...

I never understood how Getty figured they would have a chance with TS up against Shutterstock, when Shutterstock has so many advantages. Instead of coming out with a real competitor, they did the typical istock thing and launched a buggy site with industry-low pay rates. Getty being the greedy ego-maniacs that they are figured they'd blast out of the gate with a real winner and get away with paying low and turning over high profits. What they failed to realize was that they weren't cutting rates for people already on board. They were asking everyone to join up with TS brand-new, so it was much easier for everyone to just say 'no thanks.'

This pay increase just looks like a desperation move after what is likely a disappointing start all around for TS. Most folks are opted out, so there's no chance that buyers at other subscription sites will be tempted to take their business to TS while the collection is sub-par. Getty has no choice now but to raise rates and hope they get the collection growing.

But, again in a typical istock-like fashion, the increased rate for independents is what I'd like to call "unsustainable" for the contributors, and even if they manage to get people opted in it won't have much inpact right now while the site is backlogged with opt-ins that haven't even been migrated yet.

I think TS has one possible move to survive and realistically compete: Raise independent rates to 35 cents. Short of that, TS will never gain enough support from independents and have a chance to pull buyers in from other sites.

klsbear · « **Reply #60 on:** February 24, 2011, 23:43 »

Quote from: gostwyck on February 24, 2011, 21:09

Quote from: ShadySue on February 24, 2011, 18:56
Quote from: lisafx on February 24, 2011, 17:14
And to everyone who has been opted in to the partner program and is getting a raise as a result of those who have stood firm against it: You're welcome.
And don't forget to thank us for fighting so hard for your raise.

Of course the best way to thank us is to actually follow our lead and opt-out now. You'll be doing yourself and your future business prospects (and that of many others) a big favour at the same time. It's obvious what the right thing to do is.

Done! I had opted in when I started uploading last year, but stopped including recent uploads a few months ago. Today I opted out on every image.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #61 on:** February 25, 2011, 02:19 »

While I understand the exclusives' position on this, particularly as iS has tried to redirect buyers to TS, I think the independents commenting on it have trapped themselves in some slightly hysterical group-think.

TS is not seeking to wipe out SS. If it was, it would not be charging more for access to an inferior collection. I suspect TS has actually increased its prices because last time I looked they were the same as SS, making it less competitive. It obviously thinks it can access a market that is not already aware of what SS offers.

If everyone is so hot about not undermining higher-paying agencies, how come nobody among the independents was impressed by this argument when SS and DT and CS and Fot were undermining IS's pricing a couple of years back, when everything at IS seemed rosy for exclusives?

Initially, I was very worried by the implications of TS but when I saw some black diamonds climbing aboard I reached the conclusion that this was going to be a significant part of the market and the rational thing to do was to accept it and treat it the same way I treat the other significant micro agencies, none of which I am boycotting.

Finally, it's interesting to see how quickly people grab onto KK's words as the fountain of truth when he says something they want to hear. His track record hardly encourages faith in the accuracy of his announcements. Very often he seems to say something as a smokescreen for something else and "puts his foot in it" in the process. Telling boycotters "hey, you won, we can't get enough TS content" strikes me as another classic Kelly foot-in-mouth comment; I have trouble believing he would reveal that if it really was something they were worried about. So maybe they are trying to cheer up disconsolate exclusives after the commission cut, or maybe they increased the TS prices and this is keeping commission payouts at the corporate level. If lack of content was really the problem, wouldn't they reduced the exclusive lock-out to a year or six months, and then announce it was a special bonus for exclusives?

Anyway, carry on. If you want to boycott the thing that's fine with me.

gostwyck · « **Reply #62 on:** February 25, 2011, 04:47 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 25, 2011, 02:19

While I understand the exclusives' position on this, particularly as iS has tried to redirect buyers to TS, I think the independents commenting on it have trapped themselves in some slightly hysterical group-think.

TS is not seeking to wipe out Shutterstock. If it was, it would not be charging more for access to an inferior collection. I suspect TS has actually increased its prices because last time I looked they were the same as Shutterstock, making it less competitive. It obviously thinks it can access a market that is not already aware of what Shutterstock offers.

If everyone is so hot about not undermining higher-paying agencies, how come nobody among the independents was impressed by this argument when Shutterstock and Dreamstime and CS and Fot were undermining IS's pricing a couple of years back, when everything at IS seemed rosy for exclusives?

Initially, I was very worried by the implications of TS but when I saw some black diamonds climbing aboard I reached the conclusion that this was going to be a significant part of the market and the rational thing to do was to accept it and treat it the same way I treat the other significant micro agencies, none of which I am boycotting.

Finally, it's interesting to see how quickly people grab onto KK's words as the fountain of truth when he says something they want to hear. His track record hardly encourages faith in the accuracy of his announcements. Very often he seems to say something as a smokescreen for something else and "puts his foot in it" in the process. Telling boycotters "hey, you won, we can't get enough TS content" strikes me as another classic Kelly foot-in-mouth comment; I have trouble believing he would reveal that if it really was something they were worried about. So maybe they are trying to cheer up disconsolate exclusives after the commission cut, or maybe they increased the TS prices and this is keeping commission payouts at the corporate level. If lack of content was really the problem, wouldn't they reduced the exclusive lock-out to a year or six months, and then announce it was a special bonus for exclusives?

Anyway, carry on. If you want to boycott the thing that's fine with me.

Ugh __ you seem desperate to twist reality to justify selling yourself short with TS. It won't wash.

There are 39 BD's. How many of them have actually climbed aboard TS in any significant way? I can only see files from 3 of them, all independent, who have only got a relatively small proportion of their images at TS. Certainly not their entire port like you have done. Can you find any images from Lise, DNA, SJL, Hidesy, etc, etc. Of course not.

SS, DT, FT have always been cheaper than IS __ they had to be to gain a foothold in the market. That didn't matter to independent contributors because they all paid a much higher commission than IS. When was this curious time "a couple of years back" that you speak of when they suddenly "undermined IS" on price? As I remember it IS have continued to hike prices and the others have followed suite.

What about transparency and diligence of reporting too? Not only are you accepting piss-poor commissions that undermine much better agencies but you seem happy to accept whatever numbers they tell you happened ... a couple of months previously ... maybe ... if they feel like it ... whenever they can actually be bothered to do so. You don't even get credited as the author of your own images. It's an absolute disgrace. Contributors to TS are being treated by Getty as worthless cretins who will accept whatever pennies they choose to throw at them at the time of Getty's own choosing. For a contributor to accept such conditions is essentially to agree with Getty just how worthless they consider themselves and their work. Do you touch your forelock in gratitude when Mr Getty throws a few coins at your feet? That's how it appears to me. Pathetic.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #63 on:** February 25, 2011, 05:11 »

I really don't need a lecture from the Captain of the good ship "Boycott iStock uploads", thank you, Gostwyck.

You may think that nobody noticed that you jumped ship and were in the upload lifeboat 21 days after saying this:

"I've stopped uploading to Istock too. There will probably be some minor retraction from this announcement, maybe an adjustment to the redeemed credit levels, but it won't be enough. I may never upload another image to Istock again."

http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/istock-changing-royalty-structure/msg158888/#msg158888

and this (in direct reference to me):
It'll be the same limp-wristed f*ck-wits who joined Thinkstock because "Ooh __ there's nothing we can do about the big juggernaut". You can pretty much guarantee that they'll wimp out of this fight too.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/istock-changing-royalty-structure/msg159171/#msg159171

and even this:
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on September 08, 2010, 17:22
Do you really think anything as feeble as an upload boycott is going to work, when 90% of submitters are probably still in blissful ignorance about this?

Gostwyck: Yes, given enough months, I think it has a very good chance. It's not as feeble an idea as doing nothing at all which seems to be your main suggestion.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/istock-changing-royalty-structure/msg159178/#msg159178

But you couldn't even manage ONE month.

So it seems you are very good at shouting and badmouthing everyone, playing the cheerleader and guardian of "the right thing to do", but when it comes to standing by your words you are found wanting.

When you were complaining about pathetically low commissions at TS I asked if you would support a new agency offering 50% and you said no, because it wasn't delivering a worthwhile return (very true). So you are not even consistent about whether you want decent percentages or cash-in-hand regardless of the percentage.

You often have good points that are worthy of consideration but I hope the hectoring way you shout down anyone who disagrees with you doesn't push people into doing things that you won't really do - like boycotting Istock uploads, for example.

BTW, congratulations on the several hundred extremely fine images you have uploaded there since you began your "maybe never again" boycott. They really are excellent.

ShadySue · « **Reply #64 on:** February 25, 2011, 06:47 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on February 24, 2011, 22:05

Not sure what happens when Opted In? I'm not even sure how to find that option. My StockXpert images were transferred to Thinkstock. How can I tell if iStock is continuing to add images?

Does being opted in mean that ALL my iStock images are available at Thinkstock ... for 28 cents?

Not really as dumb as I seem. Just that I started with iStock using DeepMeta to Fetch Data. Seldom login to the site itself.

I think if you're opted in you can still choose for each image. (certainly the option is there or exclusives, though that's iStock OR TS)
Not that I'm encouraging such an action.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #65 on:** February 25, 2011, 06:49 »

If you go to partner program in the options available for "view portfolio" there is a box beside each image which you can tick to opt in or untick to opt out.

sharpshot · « **Reply #66 on:** February 25, 2011, 07:12 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 25, 2011, 05:11

I really don't need a lecture from the Captain of the good ship "Boycott iStock uploads", thank you, Gostwyck.

You may think that nobody noticed that you jumped ship and were in the upload lifeboat 21 days after saying this:

"I've stopped uploading to Istock too. There will probably be some minor retraction from this announcement, maybe an adjustment to the redeemed credit levels, but it won't be enough. I may never upload another image to Istock again."

http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/istock-changing-royalty-structure/msg158888/#msg158888

I feel like one of my fellow hunger strikers has been caught with a hamburger

fotografer · « **Reply #67 on:** February 25, 2011, 07:17 »

Quote from: gostwyck on February 24, 2011, 18:30

Quote from: lisafx on February 24, 2011, 17:14
Well, most of my opinions on this have been well covered, but I will add to the chorus in case anyone's counting up who feels how...

My first reaction is happiness that, apparently, the boycott of TS by many of us has been successful in starving it for content. It is rewarding to have this tangible confirmation that if enough of us band together, we can affect the conditions we work under.

Of course, .28 is ridiculous. I've seen the figure of an 8 cent raise mentioned several times, but for independents it's just a 3 cent raise. And still 2 cents under what we were making through StockXpert two years ago. Not tempting. Sorry.

Funny thing is, if they had simply kept us at the .30 we were making when they bought StockXpert, I would have stayed opted in. But now, seeing how Getty wants to undermine the fairer agencies, how they have been directing Istock buyers to Thinkstock, and their insatiable greed and ruthlessness toward contributors and buyers alike, I can't imagine myself supporting them, even if the .30 was offered.

Because of the income I have built up on Istock, I can't afford to quit them right now. But I don't have any TS income, so I can definitely afford not to start up with them in the first place. I object to helping Getty further undermine the industry where I make my living. And fortunately, the lowball offer of .28 makes the decision that much easier

And to everyone who has been opted in to the partner program and is getting a raise as a result of those who have stood firm against it: You're welcome.

Beautifully put Lisa, my thoughts entirely.

Lisa and Jsnover always manages to say everything that I want to say and in a much better way than I ever could

BooKitty · « **Reply #68 on:** February 25, 2011, 08:53 »

Quote from: gostwyck on February 23, 2011, 20:50

Quote from: BooKitty on February 23, 2011, 20:37
Call me what you will but I am opted into the PP and I am happy about the increase.

You've got fewer than 200 sales at IS in nearly 3 years. It may only be a bit of pin money and fun to you but to those of us who earn our living through microstock the PP would potentially be very damaging if it were to become successful. That's why anyone with any sense or hope for the future doesn't support it.

Fortunately that possibility seems remote right now. The fact that Getty are actually increasing commissions (shock, horror) indicates just how poorly the PP is being supported with new content and gaining customers. Good.

It's not enough for me. They'll have to match the commission structures at Shutterstock, Dreamstime and Fotolia if they want my content.

Actually I did not become a contributor till July 2009, so it's less than 2 years. I stopped uploading in April 2010 because I got a full time job after being unemployed for two years. Yes I am a low earning part timer and no competition for anyone. If the small TS royalties are too small and insulting for you then don't opt in. I am OK with it. if I want to give my stuff away for free that is my business. Say what you will about how this will destroy the micro model at IS, I don't buy it.

I am not going to try and convince anyone to opt in and I would certainly never call anyone foolish if they don't. I want to opt in, that is my prerogative. I get that it's not for everyone but quit bashing those that are in it. I suspect that there are a lot more people opted in, they just aren't going to mention here, seeing the reception they receive.

Peace out.

jamirae · « **Reply #69 on:** February 25, 2011, 10:39 »

is there still an issue with getting files on or off the PP? last I remember if you opted out, after having previously been in, your files remained there for sale due to some feature.. er.. I mean bug in the system. is that still the case or has that bug been squashed?

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #70 on:** February 25, 2011, 10:48 »

It's apparently been offline since Jan 29th after a brief period working before that - see here for more.

BooKitty · « **Reply #71 on:** February 25, 2011, 11:32 »

Quote from: jsnover on February 24, 2011, 11:01

Quote from: caspixel on February 24, 2011, 10:21
What boggles my mind is that people are thanking iStock for an 8 cent raise. Is my memory faulty, or didn't they recently CUT PP royalties? And now they are giving it back and people are woo-yaying? Classic iStockholm Syndrome.

I don't think they changed PP royalties recently. There was the huge fuss when it was first announced and they changed the percentage system to the flat rate, but after that, I think it has stayed the same.

If I were independent and opted in already I'd be happy to take the extra few cents, although I'd be more concerned to have the portal to get new content to the site actually working. If I were one of the exclusives who chose to opt in earlier, the extra money would be a plus, but not a big one. They didn't touch the 20% on "image pack" sales, I notice.

With subscription sites the big thing is volume - Shutterstock has it and almost everywhere else doesn't. I watch the monthly threads where those in the PP report earnings, and it still seems pretty low numbers to me.

I understand where you are coming from. However, the extra $10-20 dollars per month I make at TS (and that is with only 52 files out of my 96 opted in showing) it allows me to buy a sandwich for lunch one day a week or get the name brand peanut butter instead of the store brand. I don't want to sound pathetic, but this is just the way it is for me and I suspect many other folks as well.

SNP · « **Reply #72 on:** February 25, 2011, 12:22 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 25, 2011, 02:19

While I understand the exclusives' position on this, particularly as iS has tried to redirect buyers to TS, I think the independents commenting on it have trapped themselves in some slightly hysterical group-think.

TS is not seeking to wipe out Shutterstock. If it was, it would not be charging more for access to an inferior collection. I suspect TS has actually increased its prices because last time I looked they were the same as Shutterstock, making it less competitive. It obviously thinks it can access a market that is not already aware of what Shutterstock offers.

If everyone is so hot about not undermining higher-paying agencies, how come nobody among the independents was impressed by this argument when Shutterstock and Dreamstime and CS and Fot were undermining IS's pricing a couple of years back, when everything at IS seemed rosy for exclusives?

Initially, I was very worried by the implications of TS but when I saw some black diamonds climbing aboard I reached the conclusion that this was going to be a significant part of the market and the rational thing to do was to accept it and treat it the same way I treat the other significant micro agencies, none of which I am boycotting.

Finally, it's interesting to see how quickly people grab onto KK's words as the fountain of truth when he says something they want to hear. His track record hardly encourages faith in the accuracy of his announcements. Very often he seems to say something as a smokescreen for something else and "puts his foot in it" in the process. Telling boycotters "hey, you won, we can't get enough TS content" strikes me as another classic Kelly foot-in-mouth comment; I have trouble believing he would reveal that if it really was something they were worried about. So maybe they are trying to cheer up disconsolate exclusives after the commission cut, or maybe they increased the TS prices and this is keeping commission payouts at the corporate level. If lack of content was really the problem, wouldn't they reduced the exclusive lock-out to a year or six months, and then announce it was a special bonus for exclusives?

Anyway, carry on. If you want to boycott the thing that's fine with me.

I'm remaining opted out for now. but I think this post is excellent. well said. the latest PP discussion had me thinking a lot about it. the biggest obstacle standing between me and opting in is this : if I extrapolate on the current situation and consider all exclusive main collection content mirrored on TS....the most obvious outcome is that buyers start migrating to TS instead of Stock. I just can't shake that because it seems the inevitable consequence. what makes exclusive content valuable on iStock is it's relative unavailability elsewhere. as an exclusive, it's a different decision than the decision faced by non-exclusives.

ShadySue · « **Reply #73 on:** February 25, 2011, 12:47 »

I just did a search on TS which returned 0 results, and a suggestion that I should try Getty, as there were 607 matching images.
Not a bleat about iStock, where there happen to be over 7,000 matching files.
So, not directing customers to the widest choice, which would probably be best for them. Directing them to where the profit is 80%.

Risamay · « **Reply #74 on:** February 25, 2011, 13:04 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 25, 2011, 02:19

Initially, I was very worried by the implications of TS but when I saw some black diamonds climbing aboard I reached the conclusion that this was going to be a significant part of the market and the rational thing to do was to accept it and treat it the same way I treat the other significant micro agencies, none of which I am boycotting.

Finally, it's interesting to see how quickly people grab onto KK's words as the fountain of truth when he says something they want to hear. His track record hardly encourages faith in the accuracy of his announcements. Very often he seems to say something as a smokescreen for something else and "puts his foot in it" in the process. Telling boycotters "hey, you won, we can't get enough TS content" strikes me as another classic Kelly foot-in-mouth comment; I have trouble believing he would reveal that if it really was something they were worried about. So maybe they are trying to cheer up disconsolate exclusives after the commission cut, or maybe they increased the TS prices and this is keeping commission payouts at the corporate level. If lack of content was really the problem, wouldn't they reduced the exclusive lock-out to a year or six months, and then announce it was a special bonus for exclusives?

+1

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Istock raises payouts to partner program (Read 41674 times)

lisafx

cathyslife

gostwyck

cathyslife

ShadySue

gostwyck

PaulieWalnuts

WarrenPrice

Kone

helix7

klsbear

BaldricksTrousers

gostwyck

BaldricksTrousers

ShadySue

BaldricksTrousers

sharpshot

fotografer

BooKitty

jamirae

Jo Ann Snover

BooKitty

SNP

ShadySue

Risamay

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors