iStock seems hell-bent on their quest to become the Wal-Mart of the graphic design industry, by offering the cheapest quality at the cheapest price. They have recently turned their hungry, hungry eyes on logo design, and are seeking clientless, meaningless logo art to stock the shelves of their store in hell before launching it to an unsuspecting public. For your trouble, you will be paid $5.
Five. Dollars.
Last week I got bent all out of wack over two kids charging $200 for a logo, so I'm sure you know how I feel about this. Design, and the good that comes from it, is not a commodity. That is why Wal-Mart is not Target, why Microsoft and IBM are not Apple. You cannot prepackage design. Even in this uncertain economy, even with a crunched and desolate job market, $5 for a logo is beyond the pale. Even Hobos have standards.
To be fair, "designers" (I use that term loosely, because people doing this are commercial artists) will get more than $5 for logos. I believe iStock will charge a sliding scale of 100-750 credits, with the "designer" getting 50% of the profit. Much like Microsoft's stupid point system in their Xbox/Zune store, I have no idea what that equates to in actual U.S. Currency, but its more than $5. Probably a couple hundred bucks, meaning iStock is essentially co-opting the stategery of the Hobo Designers, without the actual design part.
That said, iStock = Wal-Mart is absolutely true. Totally agree with everything else you said. Also, for the record, I had used them sparingly in the past on small projects where budget did not allow a photographer to be used.
Well, I spent the last remaining credits from my account on a photo of a dude flipping his middle finger. Seemed rather appropriate, as I walked out the door never to return.
The $5 is simply an incentive bonus to upload early. It was not the price of the logo. Logos will be priced from 100 - 750 credits (roughly $138 - $800) depending on the price of the credits purchased).
You can read the details here:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=119481
So, it's $5 if the logo is accepted, and then a spec competition from there. 1PT.Rule already seems to have a stance on spec too.
You hit it in about 150 fewer words than me, Donovan. You will have to excuse my verbosity, I'm sort of in the clouds this morning.
It seems almost worse than regular spec work, doesn't it? As abhorrent as spec work is, the designer at least knows who the client is and can apply some actual design processes like research, etc. In this case, the "designer" has no idea who the client will be, and as such is merely making clip art intended for logo use. Yep, its worse alright.
Then again, I'm too artificially happy today to truly get upset. You bet.
I don't know all the in's and out's of istock's payment system; but credits range in price from 24 cents to 95 cents, and as stated the logos will be sold for between 100 and 750 credits with the designer getting 50%. That means that a 750 credit logo purchased with 95 cent credits will return to the design a payment of $356.25. On the opposite side of that scale... if a 100 credit logo is purchased with 24 cent credits, that will return to the design a WHOPPING PAYMENT OF (drum-roll please) $12!!!!!!!!
So while Nate's $5 was not completely accurate...it was close enough!
Once again, I don't claim to know istock's system... this is just the basic math of a simple designer :)
I was speaking specifically to the $5 incentive payment. Five dollars, by the way, is incentive for 12 year olds, not professional artists and designers.
The extra payments may not (and in my stock experience, probably will not) ever come. You are not even guaranteed the $5, as iStock has to approve the work first. And let's face it, it's not like they have very high standards, you'll probably get that in if you're the kind of designer who reads webcomics about designers.
But there is nothing redeeming about iStock commoditizing design. Nothing. iStock could pay out $1,000 or more and this process would still treat designers like sheep.
It doesn't buy enough soup, but it does by a foot-long from Subway if you have another 41+/- cents on hand to cover tax.
So, for my own amusement, I present the following:
Five.
Five dollar.
Five dollar loGOOOOOOOOO!!
The $5 is reference to what iStockPhoto will pay you to build their content initially. That said the other pricing structure is still at best craptacular.
The ceiling in terms of how high of a price YOU can set on any given logo submitted is a max of $750. And YOU actually don't get to set the price, iStock determines it's worth which in and of itself should be a problematic formula for designers, losing control of costing their own creative work that is.
So lets say you get one initially accepted. Your cash rich to the tune of $5. Lets say it makes it through all the various vetting criteria (out of your control) and you net another $5. You're now sitting pretty at with a ten spot.
A few months go by and iStock determines your mark is worth a whopping $385 max. You think it's worth more but you can just shut up and take it because you can't control that, you sold your design soul for a cool Hamilton remember.
A few more months go by and glory be somebody thinks your logo is perfect for their flea and tick bath business and they lay down the $385 to procure your logo. iStock now pays you your 50% cut of the total and you walk away with a grand total of $192.50. But wait, iStock actually pays you in credits so if you truly cash out for REAL money your total will then reduce to a real-world equivalent of about $175 minus the IRS grab of around $52.50 and you end net is now about $122.50.
Congratulations you are now a McDesigner. Want fries with that logo?
Hey Von, that is a really great break down of the actual financial side of this. Well done and well put. I feel this is the exact opposite of a free market situation as they are setting the value and there is no true competition between companies.