Author Topic: Kelly announces slightly downsized RC targets (Read 54314 times)

ShadySue · « **on:** January 07, 2011, 17:04 »

Just up.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=289922&page=1

"As 2010 wound down, our data gave us a more and more complete picture of how the year went. We've now been able to crunch everything down and examine how performance matched up against our predictions.

And I must say, thank you to everyone for helping iStock with an exceptional year. With your hard work, we continue to meet and exceed our goals. We were almost exactly right on our credit burn targets, but the distribution was a little different from what we expected. We’ve adjusted the credit targets to better reflect that. Some targets have stayed the same, some down--none up. So good news."

So.
We "contiune to met and exceed our goals", but we're still unsustainable.
What's wrong with these people?
At least he knows who's doing the hard work. And shafting us anyway.

leaf · « **Reply #1 on:** January 07, 2011, 17:10 »

Thanks for the link.

Looks like I'll be going down to 17%, a 15% drop in earnings

Yeah, and I do find it awfully curious that when talking about the company they always comment how goals are reached and exceeded and business is going crazy good, but when talking about their relationship to contributers, things are getting tough and we have to tighten our belts to stay alive.

ShadySue · « **Reply #2 on:** January 07, 2011, 17:14 »

Quote from: leaf on January 07, 2011, 17:10

Thanks for the link.
Looks like I'll be going down to 17%, a 15% drop in earnings

But Kelly says that's "good news".

Sadstock · « **Reply #3 on:** January 07, 2011, 17:18 »

credit targets = hampster wheel

$:-\$

luissantos84 · « **Reply #4 on:** January 07, 2011, 17:28 »

SWEET!

I had 1403 RC in 2011

(if PP entered on RC I would be at 16% for sure, got almost more sales there than in regular) lol maybe in 2012

please be sustainable, I feel bad for IS

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #5 on:** January 07, 2011, 17:29 »

Vomit inducing.

But not as vomit inducing as the grovelling tone of the replies.

ShadySue · « **Reply #6 on:** January 07, 2011, 17:30 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on January 07, 2011, 17:29

Vomit inducing.
But not as vomit inducing as the grovelling tone of the replies.

I couldn't believe my eyes. That's exactly why they do it. People just bend over further.

qwerty · « **Reply #7 on:** January 07, 2011, 17:31 »

still dropping to 16%

Allsa · « **Reply #8 on:** January 07, 2011, 17:40 »

Nothing changes for me, still a 15% drop. Woo Yay

pancaketom · « **Reply #9 on:** January 07, 2011, 17:42 »

"Also: for anyone who had downloads as part of the fraud we experienced right at the end of 2010. We will not be removing those redeemed credits. You get to keep them. Royalties may be a different story but the redeemed credits will stay."

As I predicted when the fraud was first reported.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #10 on:** January 07, 2011, 17:44 »

Roger said:
"Please remember that we still haven't added the bonus redeemed credits from the holiday Vetta sale. That's going to happen next week.

Also: for anyone who had downloads as part of the fraud we experienced right at the end of 2010. We will not be removing those redeemed credits. You get to keep them. Royalties may be a different story but the redeemed credits will stay.

(Edited on 2011-01-07 15:39:46 by rogermexico)"

Now, isn't that exactly the impossible scenario that some sceptics painted when they suggested the credit card fraud was just a scam to push up the credits of favoured individuals?

cthoman · « **Reply #11 on:** January 07, 2011, 17:46 »

[Loud Fart Noise] I mean Woo Yay! They moved the impossibly high bar down slightly. Now, it is only mostly impossible.

ShadySue · « **Reply #12 on:** January 07, 2011, 17:53 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on January 07, 2011, 17:44

Roger said:
"Please remember that we still haven't added the bonus redeemed credits from the holiday Vetta sale. That's going to happen next week.

Also: for anyone who had downloads as part of the fraud we experienced right at the end of 2010. We will not be removing those redeemed credits. You get to keep them. Royalties may be a different story but the redeemed credits will stay.

(Edited on 2011-01-07 15:39:46 by rogermexico)"

Now, isn't that exactly the impossible scenario that some sceptics painted when they suggested the credit card fraud was just a scam to push up the credits of favoured individuals?

It's impossible for that possiblity not to raise its ugly head.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #13 on:** January 07, 2011, 17:57 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 07, 2011, 17:53

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on January 07, 2011, 17:44
Roger said:
"Please remember that we still haven't added the bonus redeemed credits from the holiday Vetta sale. That's going to happen next week.

Also: for anyone who had downloads as part of the fraud we experienced right at the end of 2010. We will not be removing those redeemed credits. You get to keep them. Royalties may be a different story but the redeemed credits will stay.

(Edited on 2011-01-07 15:39:46 by rogermexico)"

Now, isn't that exactly the impossible scenario that some sceptics painted when they suggested the credit card fraud was just a scam to push up the credits of favoured individuals?
It's impossible for that possiblity not to raise it's ugly head.

It would be quite possible for it not to have been raised if they had done the obvious thing and cancelled the transactions wholesale, including the credits.

Now, apparently, frausters who steal photos and resell them also dictate to istock who is to get a pay rise and who wont. And the fraudsters are in charge because iStock wants them to be. Genius.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #14 on:** January 07, 2011, 17:58 »

Quote from: pancaketom on January 07, 2011, 17:42

"Also: for anyone who had downloads as part of the fraud we experienced right at the end of 2010. We will not be removing those redeemed credits. You get to keep them. Royalties may be a different story but the redeemed credits will stay."

As I predicted when the fraud was first reported.

And I thought you were spouting paranoid rubbish. Sorry. You were right. The loonies are running the asylum (or worse).

gostwyck · « **Reply #15 on:** January 07, 2011, 17:59 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on January 07, 2011, 17:29

Vomit inducing.

But not as vomit inducing as the grovelling tone of the replies.

^^^ They certainly induced my vomit.

This 'adjustment' basically tells me that Istockphoto's projections were way off the mark and they simply sold far fewer images in the latter part of the year than they were expecting to. That's exactly what my statistics show too. My downloads at IS for December were 23% down on 2009. Funny how they've managed to turn that into 'good news' and the woo-yayers are now s**king it up.

Btw, at FT my sales were the same and SS well up, so whatever is happening is unique to IS as far as I'm concerned. For me the slide in their 'share' of my earnings began seriously in August and IS has been in steady decline ever since. So far this month they've fallen off a cliff. I'm praying it won't be this bad but at the moment I'm over 40% down on Jan 2010 __ and that's before the commission cut.

RT · « **Reply #16 on:** January 07, 2011, 18:06 »

I don't often read the iStock forums but having read the initial statement and then some of the replies I have to remind myself I'm not reading a revised script for Dumb and Dumber.

"As 2010 wound down, our data gave us a more and more complete picture of how the year went." - I can't wait until he finds out they landed on the moon

cthoman · « **Reply #17 on:** January 07, 2011, 18:07 »

Quote from: gostwyck on January 07, 2011, 17:59

Btw, at FT my sales were the same and SS well up, so whatever is happening is unique to IS as far as I'm concerned. For me the slide in their 'share' of my earnings began seriously in August and IS has been in steady decline ever since. So far this month they've fallen off a cliff. I'm praying it won't be this bad but at the moment I'm over 40% down on Jan 2010 __ and that's before the commission cut.

My second half of the year was worse at FT, SS & IS. DT was the only one in the big 4 that had a better second half.

I probably should thank IS though. I find all their announcements very motivating, but probably not in the way they would like.

rubyroo · « **Reply #18 on:** January 07, 2011, 18:13 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on January 07, 2011, 17:57

Now, apparently, frausters who steal photos and resell them also dictate to istock who is to get a pay rise and who wont. And the fraudsters are in charge because iStock wants them to be. Genius.

That's pretty much how it struck me too - but you expressed it better than I could have.

I'm also dismayed that this has prompted another 'woo-yay' day. Truly weird.

leaf · « **Reply #19 on:** January 07, 2011, 18:14 »

This is no doubt a tough cut for some people. For non-exclusives it is only 1% step per level (5% of your income) but for exclusives it is a whole 5% step (12% of your income)

If someone just misses their target, say, sells 115,500 credits, their commissions next year is 35% instead of 40% like the person who sold 120,000 credits. So their income next year is around $5,000 less. iStock said they might put people over if they are close to the target... which is fine, maybe the 115,500 photographer gets pushed over... that means the 'real' level was 115,500 .. what about the photographer who sold 115,000 credits and doesn't get pushed over. He is stuck with 35% commissions.

In regards to the stolen files and Royalty Credits, I think SeanL made a great analogy - that RC have become like candy which iStock can dispense at will.

KB · « **Reply #20 on:** January 07, 2011, 18:17 »

Quote from: leaf on January 07, 2011, 18:14

This is no doubt a tough cut for some people. For non-exclusives it is only 1% per level but for exclusives it is a whole 5%.

If someone just misses their target, say, sells 115,500 credits, their commissions next year is 35% instead of 40% like the person who sold 120,000 credits. So their income next year is around $5,000 less. iStock said they might put people over if they are close to the target... which is fine, maybe the 115,500 photographer gets pushed over... that means the 'real' level was 115,500 .. what about the photographer who sold 115,000 credits and doesn't get pushed over. He is stuck with 35% commissions.

Exactly. Using large 5% steps is simply an IDIOTIC way of doing things.

So I suppose it shouldn't come as any surprise that that's the way iStock is doing it.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #21 on:** January 07, 2011, 18:24 »

Quote from: leaf on January 07, 2011, 18:14

This is no doubt a tough cut for some people. For non-exclusives it is only 1% per level but for exclusives it is a whole 5%.

No, for independents it is 5% per level, for exclusives it is around 12%.

KB · « **Reply #22 on:** January 07, 2011, 18:27 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on January 07, 2011, 18:24

Quote from: leaf on January 07, 2011, 18:14
This is no doubt a tough cut for some people. For non-exclusives it is only 1% per level but for exclusives it is a whole 5%.

No, for independents it is 5% per level, for exclusives it is around 12%.

My "5%" pay cut is 16.67%.

leaf · « **Reply #23 on:** January 07, 2011, 18:28 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on January 07, 2011, 18:24

Quote from: leaf on January 07, 2011, 18:14
This is no doubt a tough cut for some people. For non-exclusives it is only 1% per level but for exclusives it is a whole 5%.

No, for independents it is 5% per level, for exclusives it is around 12%.

Yeah, that's right. I should have been clearer - I was referring to the percentage steps as apposed to the actual % cut. I edited my original post.

ShadySue · « **Reply #24 on:** January 07, 2011, 18:28 »

Even the veneer of 'community' has been shown to be micro-thin. It's all "I'm all right, Jack" from the relieved, and even a few, I'm still down, but I'm happy for those who are up.
Isn't that a prime definition of masochism?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Kelly announces slightly downsized RC targets (Read 54314 times)

ShadySue

leaf

ShadySue

Sadstock

luissantos84

BaldricksTrousers

ShadySue

qwerty

Allsa

pancaketom

BaldricksTrousers

cthoman

ShadySue

BaldricksTrousers

BaldricksTrousers

gostwyck

RT

cthoman

rubyroo

leaf

KB

BaldricksTrousers

KB

leaf

ShadySue

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors