Author Topic: Vetta Sale at iStock (Read 71193 times)

molka · « **Reply #25 on:** December 07, 2010, 10:42 »

Istock hates you! (c)

I mean this really is just hatred, even being a 'business machine' doesn't require any of this derogatory stuff.

SNP · « **Reply #26 on:** December 07, 2010, 12:18 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 07, 2010, 09:50

Quote from: lisafx on December 06, 2010, 18:46
Gotta hand it to Istock, they have now figured out a way to "compensate" their contributors without giving them money. First paid in cash, now in RCs. Maybe next, instead of RCs, we can expect to be paid in lollipops?

Perhaps the Vetta price is being cut because they have pushed it too high and they are trying to find a level which customers will accept. There is plenty of proof that the expected sales boom at the year end has failed to materialise which must mean that sales have fallen way below the projected level on their charts - unless they were just lying to us about how many of the sales they expected to get in the last quarter.

I think this is the most plausible explanation so far. otherwise it doesn't make sense from any perspective. they upset Vetta file performance with the price hike and now they're testing the waters about lowering them. that makes a ton of sense.

Graffoto · « **Reply #27 on:** December 07, 2010, 12:34 »

^ "Testing the waters about lowering them".
What is there to test? We know they sold well at a lower price point & we know they are not moving nearly as well at the higher price. IS should just admit the error and return them to the previous
price and while they are at it, put back the original commission %....

Oh that's right I forgot, TPTB (Getty) don't want us have fair cut on the sale of our own work.

ShadySue · « **Reply #28 on:** December 07, 2010, 12:37 »

@ Stacey:
on the iStock forum, on which I can't reply, you posted:
"does this pave the way that all sales will result in lowered royalties garnered by contributors? I hate to use the publishing industry as a positive example, because for the most part it isn't a fun industry, but at least when an author gets royalties....their royalties aren't reduced if a book is sold at a discount."
We have always had lowered royalties from all iStock sales and discounts. At least, always since I've been a member there (four years).

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #29 on:** December 07, 2010, 12:53 »

Quote from: SNP on December 07, 2010, 12:18

.. they upset Vetta file performance with the price hike and now they're testing the waters about lowering them. that makes a ton of sense.

It's possible that they are trying the new prices to see if it makes a difference, but the drop is so small, I just don't see how it can. Small used to be 20, then it went to 30 and now it drops to 28? You can see the old-new comparison on Sean's blog. For an XL image, it went from 50 to 100 - double - and now it drops to 80. That's still over 60% higher than the price at which things were selling well.

We used to be paid a percentage of a nominal $1 per credit price, but I can't seem to find the date when that changed to us being paid a percentage of what the buyer actually paid per credit. Sales in the past have typically been discounts on credits. We take a pay cut on those, but if you're targeting existing buyers with credits to spend, that sale won't appeal.

If there are to be sales where the credits for a given size are reduced, I don't think anyone would have objected to the RC figures being the original 30 to 150 rather than the 28 to 120. It's the doubling that is so unjustified and unjustifiable.

pet_chia · « **Reply #30 on:** December 07, 2010, 12:58 »

Quote from: nosaya on December 06, 2010, 19:16

Um, Woo------- yay?

"The Woo-Yays have turned into Noo-Ways" LOL

Other than that I have no opinion. I have not enough confidence yet to even nominate one of my files for Vetta. If you take one of your bestsellers and put it into Vetta, is that not a way of telling your customers, "Thanks for your support in buying my image. The price is now going up 10 times." (or whatever the price is)

This is perhaps why there are images in Vetta which have non-Vetta lookalikes - the contributors are hedging their bets by allowing customers to still find (more or less) the same content, if sufficiently diligent, in the sale bin at the back of the store. Such as that example posted last week, of "anonymous businessmen's legs under a table" available in both sepia and blue-light versions.

SNP · « **Reply #31 on:** December 07, 2010, 13:03 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 07, 2010, 12:37

@ Stacey:
on the iStock forum, on which I can't reply, you posted:
"does this pave the way that all sales will result in lowered royalties garnered by contributors? I hate to use the publishing industry as a positive example, because for the most part it isn't a fun industry, but at least when an author gets royalties....their royalties aren't reduced if a book is sold at a discount."
We have always had lowered royalties from all iStock sales and discounts. At least, always since I've been a member there (four years).

yes, I know that's true and of course I see it in my daily stats when someone purchases a file with older credits. I take the hit as does iStock. but somehow, maybe just semantically, it seems different to expect us to be happy about it by dangling an RC carrot that doesn't benefit most of us. anyways. I said over there and I'll say here that it truly doesn't affect me one way or the other except by maybe a few dollars. so I feel a bit bad kicking up any sort of major fuss. it just feels wrong with the pay cuts we're already headed for in a few weeks on Vettas and ELs. but c'est la vie in microstock. I don't want my income whittled away at any more than it has been. each little chip, no matter how small, makes the hole bigger and bigger.

Risamay · « **Reply #32 on:** December 07, 2010, 13:39 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 07, 2010, 09:50

In any case, they have already announced that some people who get near the target but are a bit short will be grandfathered into the next level and your payment percentage will be secret henceforth unless you (or Wikileaks) release it, so if the company is willing to let them favour their friends they can grandfather them all into any level they like.

So the targets aren't targets at all and being tipped into the next level with a few hundred extra credits will simply do what grandfathering might have done anyway.

With all due respect Mr. Trousers, where/when was this announcement made? I know you to pull only sound, reliable info from your trousers, so I give you the benefit of the doubt. Though I do hope you're mistaken about this tidbit.

lisafx · « **Reply #33 on:** December 07, 2010, 14:23 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 07, 2010, 09:50

In any case, they have already announced that some people who get near the target but are a bit short will be grandfathered into the next level and your payment percentage will be secret henceforth unless you (or Wikileaks) release it, so if the company is willing to let them favour their friends they can grandfather them all into any level they like.

So the targets aren't targets at all and being tipped into the next level with a few hundred extra credits will simply do what grandfathering might have done anyway.

I hadn't heard this either, but then I hardly spend any time on the IS forums anymore. I am willing to take Mr. Trousers' word though. He is very reliable.

Not to mention that the above theory seems quite plausible. If we can't tell what pay level individual contributors are on, anything could be happening behind the scenes.

It's quite a sad state of affairs that Istock has sunk so low in most contributors' estimation that theories like this are now considered likely.

ShadySue · « **Reply #34 on:** December 07, 2010, 14:24 »

I see that RM has posted, "If more people than we anticipate are going to miss the targets... then we'll adjust the targets. These bonus RCs aren't connected to that."
So ~ What on Earth is the point of the bonus RCs, then?

Eyedesign · « **Reply #35 on:** December 07, 2010, 14:48 »

From rogermexico "What we said was that we would re-examine the targets and soften them if it looks like more people than we anticipated are going to miss them, and this is still the case."

The other statement is just sillyness from Mr. BaldricksTrousers

cathyslife · « **Reply #36 on:** December 07, 2010, 14:57 »

Quote from: Eyedesign on December 07, 2010, 14:48

From rogermexico "What we said was that we would re-examine the targets and soften them if it looks like more people than we anticipated are going to miss them, and this is still the case."

The other statement is just sillyness from Mr. BaldricksTrousers

Have you found the exact quote from way back when? Because if not, I am not willing to believe what rogermexico says over what baldricks trousers says. When somebody can come up with the exact words that were said way back when and we can all see them in print, then we all can decide who is being silly and who isn't.

Right now, I would lean way more towards baldricks statement being somewhere near the truth as opposed to the company line of rogermexico. However nice a person he is in real life, Andrew still is a company spokesperson and will say what they want him to say...or not say.

disorderly · « **Reply #37 on:** December 07, 2010, 14:59 »

Quote from: Eyedesign on December 07, 2010, 14:48

From rogermexico "What we said was that we would re-examine the targets and soften them if it looks like more people than we anticipated are going to miss them, and this is still the case."

More evidence that this new scheme is a classic zero sum game. It's all based on quotas: this percentage gets the best royalty percentage, this next percentage gets less, the next group gets even less and so on. If too many people do too well, we'll adjust the quotas up to bring it back in line. And if they do too badly, we may have to adjust them down. It's pure combat: for every person who does well, someone else must do badly.

To quote War Games, "The only way to win is not to play."

pancaketom · « **Reply #38 on:** December 07, 2010, 15:01 »

It seems to me that the doubling of RC vetta credits is just another way of boosting the RC total for people with vetta images - or conversely hurting everyone else. That way more people who have vetta images will hit the target so that they won't have to adjust them.... or something. While they are at it maybe they could multiply vector RC by .75 to screw them even more.

Who knows, they could just change it all again next week.

jamirae · « **Reply #39 on:** December 07, 2010, 15:06 »

Quote from: cclapper on December 07, 2010, 14:57

Quote from: Eyedesign on December 07, 2010, 14:48
From rogermexico "What we said was that we would re-examine the targets and soften them if it looks like more people than we anticipated are going to miss them, and this is still the case."

The other statement is just sillyness from Mr. BaldricksTrousers

Have you found the exact quote from way back when? Because if not, I am not willing to believe what rogermexico says over what baldricks trousers says. When somebody can come up with the exact words that were said way back when and we can all see them in print, then we all can decide who is being silly and who isn't.

Right now, I would lean way more towards baldricks statement being somewhere near the truth as opposed to the company line of rogermexico. However nice a person he is in real life, Andrew still is a company spokesperson and will say what they want him to say...or not say.

wait.. you first say you believe rogermexico over baldricks then you reverse it. am I reading you wrongly?

fwiw.. Sean Locke posted in the iS thread that he recalled this statement as well. that adds a little more credibility to baldricks' statement/quote, in my opinion.

Eyedesign · « **Reply #40 on:** December 07, 2010, 15:08 »

Quote from: cclapper on December 07, 2010, 14:57

Quote from: Eyedesign on December 07, 2010, 14:48
From rogermexico "What we said was that we would re-examine the targets and soften them if it looks like more people than we anticipated are going to miss them, and this is still the case."

The other statement is just sillyness from Mr. BaldricksTrousers

Have you found the exact quote from way back when? Because if not, I am not willing to believe what rogermexico says over what baldricks trousers says. When somebody can come up with the exact words that were said way back when and we can all see them in print, then we all can decide who is being silly and who isn't.

Right now, I would lean way more towards baldricks statement being somewhere near the truth as opposed to the company line of rogermexico. However nice a person he is in real life, Andrew still is a company spokesperson and will say what they want him to say...or not say.

Okay I'll play, can you find the exact quote showing that Mr BaldricksTrousers statement is true?

lisafx · « **Reply #41 on:** December 07, 2010, 15:14 »

Quote from: Eyedesign on December 07, 2010, 15:08

Okay I'll play, can you find the exact quote showing that Mr BaldricksTrousers statement is true?

Sorry, Thomas, if you are going to imply someone is lying, I believe the obligation is on YOU to disprove what he said.

Isn't that how it works?

Eyedesign · « **Reply #42 on:** December 07, 2010, 15:18 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 07, 2010, 15:14

Quote from: Eyedesign on December 07, 2010, 15:08

Okay I'll play, can you find the exact quote showing that Mr BaldricksTrousers statement is true?

Sorry, Thomas, if you are going to imply someone is lying, I believe the obligation is on YOU to disprove what he said.

Isn't that how it works?

From rogermexico "What we said was that we would re-examine the targets and soften them if it looks like more people than we anticipated are going to miss them, and this is still the case."

nothing other then the above statement was said/written

caspixel · « **Reply #43 on:** December 07, 2010, 15:18 »

Even if someone were to go looking for it, it's probably loooong gone now.

Eyedesign · « **Reply #44 on:** December 07, 2010, 15:35 »

Quote from: jamirae on December 07, 2010, 15:06

Quote from: cclapper on December 07, 2010, 14:57
Quote from: Eyedesign on December 07, 2010, 14:48
From rogermexico "What we said was that we would re-examine the targets and soften them if it looks like more people than we anticipated are going to miss them, and this is still the case."

The other statement is just sillyness from Mr. BaldricksTrousers

Have you found the exact quote from way back when? Because if not, I am not willing to believe what rogermexico says over what baldricks trousers says. When somebody can come up with the exact words that were said way back when and we can all see them in print, then we all can decide who is being silly and who isn't.

Right now, I would lean way more towards baldricks statement being somewhere near the truth as opposed to the company line of rogermexico. However nice a person he is in real life, Andrew still is a company spokesperson and will say what they want him to say...or not say.

wait.. you first say you believe rogermexico over baldricks then you reverse it. am I reading you wrongly?
I don't have to believe anything I just need to read the statement.

fwiw.. Sean Locke posted in the iS thread that he recalled this statement as well. that adds a little more credibility to baldricks' statement/quote, in my opinion.

Sean right only about 98 percent of the time. Anything more than that and he would be God!

Blufish · « **Reply #45 on:** December 07, 2010, 15:35 »

I remember that quote as well. Something about advancing a few RCs from the following years goal for people who are just shy. It was in the IS forum, I believe in the original thread posted over there. Maybe in the Q&A...

lisafx · « **Reply #46 on:** December 07, 2010, 15:36 »

I'm slogging my way through the Istock thread on this subject, and one post caught my eye because I hadn't thought of this before:

this fake boost of RC in the last month of this year will tweak RC totals for the year and, if a revision of RC targets was going to be made for 2011 based on 2010 sales, it will set the bar higher than before this change.

I certainly hope that RC targets for next year do not include these "bonus" (bone us?) credits. That would harm the community as a whole if RC targets are artificially raised in 2011 for 2012.

jamirae · « **Reply #47 on:** December 07, 2010, 15:38 »

I would guess that the post/quote in question was in the Exclusive forum somewhere, not the public one as it would seem more of a statement that would be made to exclusive contributors and not everyone.

Artemis · « **Reply #48 on:** December 07, 2010, 15:44 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 07, 2010, 14:24

I see that RM has posted, "If more people than we anticipate are going to miss the targets... then we'll adjust the targets. These bonus RCs aren't connected to that."
So ~ What on Earth is the point of the bonus RCs, then?

Making the select little favourite pet club happy of course!
You know, the ones that always dominate the best match, the istock lightboxes and *OTW's.

Artemis · « **Reply #49 on:** December 07, 2010, 15:44 »

Double post.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Vetta Sale at iStock (Read 71193 times)

molka

SNP

Graffoto

ShadySue

Jo Ann Snover

pet_chia

SNP

Risamay

lisafx

ShadySue

Eyedesign

cathyslife

disorderly

pancaketom

jamirae

Eyedesign

lisafx

Eyedesign

caspixel

Eyedesign

Blufish

lisafx

jamirae

Artemis

Artemis

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors