MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: lisafx on September 27, 2010, 16:32
-
Per Rogermexico in Istockphoto's forums:
Vetta photographs are now priced:
Size Price
Small 30 credits
Medium 50 credits
Large 70 credits
XLarge 100 credits
XXLarge 125 credits
XXXLarge 150 credits
The new royalty rates are
Bronze: 22%
Silver: 24%
Gold: 26%
Diamond: 28%
Black Diamond: 30%
That royalty is based on your current canister level and will stay the same until the further royalty changes go into effect in January.
Here's the whole post buried in the marathon thread:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&messageid=4859201 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&messageid=4859201)
I guess I am confused why this had to be implemented now instead of waiting until January? Particularly the lower royalty percentages for exclusives contributing to Vetta. Seems like they should have been given their contracted canister rate through the end of the year... ???
-
Because they can.
-
They need to make a friggin announcement already. The complete lack of communication from management is shady and obnoxious.
-
I also just noticed a post in the istockphoto thread mentioning that buyers had been promised Vetta prices would not be raised this year. (maybe you are the same Jen that posted that? )
I hadn't remembered that. Guess I didn't pay much attention because as a non-exclusive I don't qualify for Vetta.
Does anyone have a link to that promise?
Seems like a way to lose faith with even more buyers.
-
I also just noticed a post in the istockphoto thread mentioning that buyers had been promised Vetta prices would not be raised this year. (maybe you are the same Jen that posted that? )
I am the same Jen!
Here is the link: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=151691&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=151691&page=1)
Vetta collection
We've been really happy so far with Vetta, our premium collection of unique, hand-picked files that meet our strict standards of exquisite art direction, intelligent concepts and rarity. We plan to keep growing Vetta and have it represent about 1% of the overall library. Vetta prices are staying the same in 2010.
-
Thanks a lot for posting the link and quote Jen, and good for you for bringing it up in the first place :)
-
Sounds like another act of deceit and unkept promises by a forked tongued serpent with the name of iStock.!
-
Does this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Corporation) seem familiar?
-
I guess I am confused why this had to be implemented now instead of waiting until January? Particularly the lower royalty percentages for exclusives contributing to Vetta. Seems like they should have been given their contracted canister rate through the end of the year... ???
Because they're untrustworthy, greedy, exploitive *insult removed*.
-
Dawn (pink_cotton_candy) just made an angry post (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_permalink_popup.php?threadid=253522&messageid=4860741) about the complete lack of communication with buyers about the Vetta price increases. Given the enormous fuss over the price changes in existing files when Vetta was introduced, you'd think the basics of communicating with your customers would have been digested by now. But no.
Even if you hadn't stated that prices wouldn't go up (which is bad enough), failing to give buyers notice about what you're doing is just poor business practice.
I've sent a ticket to contributor relations to get my Vetta files back into the main collection - I was going to do it before they got shipped off to Greedy Getty anyway, but I just couldn't stomach doubling the prices for no (defensible) reason. I want to make money, but I want to have buyers of my work feel that they have been treated fairly. Don't know how long it'll take to get that accomplished - it's pretty obnoxious that you can no longer do this yourself.
And any exclusives should look at the new text that says you're committing to Vetta for 6 months (like exclusive plus) - that used not to be there.
-
Looks like another istock mistake. Saying prices will stay fixed then raising them. How many is that in the past few weeks? They need to make some changes to stop this happening all the time or their reputation is going to keep sinking.
-
Snip
Even if you hadn't stated that prices wouldn't go up (which is bad enough), failing to give buyers notice about what you're doing is just poor business practice.
Snip
And any exclusives should look at the new text that says you're committing to Vetta for 6 months (like exclusive plus) - that used not to be there.
It would seem fair to have given buyers advanced notice so they could buy any Vetta images they had lightboxed. Between that and raising the prices after stating they wouldn't, it seems like they no longer care about alienating Istockphoto buyers. Perhaps they are hoping to make it up with Getty buyers? Seems very short term thinking.
On this 6 month hold on Vetta and E+ images, would that prevent exclusives from dropping the crown for 6 months, instead of the current 30 day wait?
-
..snip...
On this 6 month hold on Vetta and E+ images, would that prevent exclusives from dropping the crown for 6 months, instead of the current 30 day wait?
I am pretty sure this has been asked a few times already and not answered. but would be good to know. My guess is that if you drop exclusivity then all those "locked files" just automatically drop out of exclusiveness. but they could leave your files there and let you and the rest of your unlocked files drop out.
you know this latest communication faux-pas from iStock really makes me have second thoughts on dropping exclusivity --- I should have done SOONER! 21 days and counting...
-
And any exclusives should look at the new text that says you're committing to Vetta for 6 months (like exclusive plus) - that used not to be there.
...On this 6 month hold on Vetta and E+ images, would that prevent exclusives from dropping the crown for 6 months, instead of the current 30 day wait?
No, I don't think either have any effect on dropping exclusivity.
What it does mean is that you can't move it out of Vetta into the main collection for that period of time. If it didn't sell at the new stratospheric prices, for example, and you'd rather try and sell it at a lower price point. There had been many complaints from exclusives for whom E+ wasn't working well that they were stuck with their files in the new collection for months and they weren't happy (for some, they put best sellers in there and they slowed down or stopped). I'd expect something similar if the new higher prices slow down Vetta sales.
-
Looks like another istock mistake. Saying prices will stay fixed then raising them.
That's kind.
In my book, it's a blatant lie.
More trust broken.
-
Jawdroppingly bad management. The saga never seems to end over there. And for PCC to be pissed, well, that says something.
-
Looks like another istock mistake. Saying prices will stay fixed then raising them.
That's kind.
In my book, it's a blatant lie.
More trust broken.
Sounds kind of like a bad relationship about to break-up.
-
OT - Loved your guest starring gig on The Medium, Paulie ;D
-
OT - Loved your guest starring gig on The Medium, Paulie ;D
I know, that was hilarious.
Back on topic,
Between that and raising the prices after stating they wouldn't, it seems like they no longer care about alienating Istockphoto buyers.
Yeah, I sure don't get it.
-
Jentakespictures asked a question over at iStock: "IMO Vetta needs to be explained more clearly in general. Does the average buyer even know what Vetta is?" and since I can't post there to answer it, I'll answer it here. And that answer would be "no". In fact, I was just talking to someone who I had recommended the site to pre-Vetta and she was commenting on how the prices were so expensive. "A small for 20 credits?!" I explained to her about Vetta and then told her about some of the other sites.
-
Personally if I wasn't familiar with iStock and I was a new buyer looking for images....I wouldn't know anything about Vetta or what all those crowns and canisters below the pictures were for...I would probably look at the prices and move on. I don't think a lot of people understand what Vetta is and therefore are put off by the higher prices..
-
Just sent a request in to have mine removed too, Didn't have too many in there, but it's time for them to be put back into the main collection.
-
And they've started uploading Agency stuff again - Dorling_Kindersley (http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=6549593) illustrations.
Here were the two I noticed browsing recent uploads - one (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14246324-illustration-of-man-driving-train-as-another-stokes-the-engine.php) two (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14244813-three-jockeys-fighting-to-come-in-first-front-view.php)
Nice illustrations, but not worth the stratospheric price, IMO.
-
those are a lot better than the rejected images uploads. I have found my E+ files sell well, and I put bestsellers in E+ too. Vetta sales have increased too, so probably more visibility. I have done a bazillion searches throughout the day because the posts today have made it sound like the best match returns are Vetta saturated...not so at all. all I can say is thank goodness the 'statisticians' here are not scientists. every search I've returned using random keywords, including big ones like 'business', 'family' and so many others I can't remember them all. the returns are a balanced mix of Vettas, flames, newer uploads and files that seem to be newer well-selling files etc.
nothing much different from the search returns before the new Vetta pricing took effect today.
-
Changes to the search engine take 24-48 to show up fully, or some such.
-
that is true, however from a number of posts here today, you'd think Vetta was filling the slots in every search. so I'm just posting my observations. I've literally done not much else today except performing searches when I am not processing images.
-
How do you ignore someone? I can't seem to find it, probably super obvious I know. oops found it!
Jen's post and finding of the original announcement speaks volumes to me. One more call out that will go unanswered to I'm sure. I think it's been mentioned many times over by the same folks pointing out the Vetta saturation problem that this occurs in certain specific searches. I have not seen anyone claim that it's the case for every search. Also some great examples have been provided that undeniably showcase a bias toward Vetta.
As for my 30 Vetta files, because they are vector (another area where photographers were given one deal and vector artists another, with a promise of "we'll announce changes coming soon for vectors!" which never happened,) there is no current price change and in 12 days when my exclusivity is up it won't matter anyway.
-
of course there's a bias towards Vetta. that isn't new, nor is it the point. you know what, you guys have your little club for the disgruntled over here. enjoy throwing sand in each others' faces and peeing in the pool.
-
You think buyers are going to tolerate this much longer? How long do you think it will be before they figure out that istock’s isn’t what it’s cracked up to be? It’s insulting to buyers and it won’t be long before they finally say “screw you” and move elsewhere.
I mean look at this example of two images that are almost identical from the same shoot that come up on the same page for a search for “family”. One is vetta and one is not.
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-8092663-young-family.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-8092663-young-family.php)
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-11923130-family.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-11923130-family.php)
Both of these images are nice, one is worth 15 credits and the vetta is worth 70. Buyers aren't stupid. They will eventually go to an agent such as DT and search for “family” and find a large image that’s just as nice for 15 credits max (for a level 5 image). If they choose a newer image with less downloads they’ll get it for even less.
Sorry but I can’t help but laugh at all of this. It’s not funny really, not to the buyer, not to the contributor and certainly not to istock, but I can’t help laughing at istock. Watching them make one misake after another and then desperately trying to dig themselves out of a hole is amusing to me. I’ve never seen such a huge display of unprofessionalism in my entire life. I’m not surprised at all that istock didn’t wait till January to bump up the Vetta prices. It shouldn’t surprise anyone else either. For them to break their promise now, while they’re already labelled “greedy *insult removed*” and without communicating the rise to anyone means one thing and one thing only... they cannot meet their high targets.
Istock have put themselves in a rut that they cannot get out of. I said it months ago and I’ll keep saying it... they’re going down the pan! You have upper management who don’t want to lose their jobs by missing their targets so they’re doing whatever they can to raise revenue to increase their profits... but by doing so they will no longer be competitive and will fall on their ass anyway.
The ball’s been rolled and it’s picking up speed... they’re not coming out of it this time.
-
that is true, however from a number of posts here today, you'd think Vetta was filling the slots in every search. so I'm just posting my observations. I've literally done not much else today except performing searches when I am not processing images.
I suspect you're probably right that it's not that dramatic of a saturation as some may suggest. what will be interesting is when the Agency collection starts filling in as well, then there will be an additional collection, along with Vetta, getting some bump in the best match and causing others to shift. Of course, buyers can always sort by other methods. Best Match is not the be-all-end-all of searches. When I'm buying I sort by 'age', 'downloads' and 'best match' - all three of those pretty much exclusively when I'm trying to find an image.
-
of course there's a bias towards Vetta. that isn't new, nor is it the point. you know what, you guys have your little club for the disgruntled over here. enjoy throwing sand in each others' faces and peeing in the pool.
It's not a little club, it's just that the balance of power and logic is shifting. Prior to all of this you had a bunch of arrogant istock exclusives who were so loyal to istock that no matter what they did, who they effected, this group would defend their decisions... and their opinions domanited this forum. istock always got by because of this loyalty but their contributors, even a lot of the exclusives have seen them for what they really are. You and a few others are just slow waking up, that's all.
-
You think buyers are going to tolerate this much longer? How long do you think it will be before they figure out that istock’s isn’t what it’s cracked up to be? It’s insulting to buyers and it won’t be long before they finally say “screw you” and move elsewhere.
I mean look at this example of two images that are almost identical from the same shoot that come up on the same page for a search for “family”. One is vetta and one is not.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-8092663-young-family.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-8092663-young-family.php[/url])
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-11923130-family.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-11923130-family.php[/url])
Both of these images are nice, one is worth 15 credits and the vetta is worth 70. Buyers aren't stupid.
This gets back to the policy on series that was one of my initial beefs with the Vetta selection process - if you hadn't told me which is which I don't think I'd have been able to say which was Vetta. Both great stock as you say, but no obvious difference between them.
The higher the price difference between them, the more problems this causes, IMO - i.e. this just got twice as bad today when Vetta prices doubled.
Interesting thought about the price increases now being about trying to make their 2010 targets before the end of the year - plausible explanation for what otherwise seems like insanity.
-
I have done a bazillion searches throughout the day because the posts today have made it sound like the best match returns are Vetta saturated...not so at all. all I can say is thank goodness the 'statisticians' here are not scientists. every search I've returned using random keywords, including big ones like 'business', 'family' and so many others I can't remember them all. the returns are a balanced mix of Vettas, flames, newer uploads and files that seem to be newer well-selling files etc.
Apparently, your "bazillion" searches missed the following:
love
new york
wildlife
berlin
train
airplane
luxury
beauty
portrait
autumn
vacation
christmas
architecture
food
cooking
drink
spring
summer
winter
Let me know if you need more examples. This was a mere 10 minute effort with 100 results per page, filtered for photos only. In the case of "business" and "family", I suspect these aren't as saturated with Vetta files due to the large number of high-flaming regular images in those categories.
Taking "new york" as an example: there are about 25,000 photos in database, only 470 of which are Vetta. Yet there are 80 Vetta images on page 1.
-
if we're both going to cherry pick examples, we'll be here all night. both our examples are heavily used keywords, that are most often then drilled into including other search phrases...I chose 'business' and 'family' because I believe they are still within the top 5 MOST searched terms. you completely dismissed my example and provided a number of other precisely similar types of search terms.
using your logic, buyers will see the first returns and stop searching. your insinuation is that greedy Getty doesn't care which files line their pockets as long as their pockets stay nicely padded. that's bunk, simplistic and short-sighted bunk. using this logic, our sales would have all nose-dived with the introduction of Vetta files in the best match. instead both Vetta and regular sales have continued to occur. in fact my sales have increased since the introduction of Vetta, and I only have a handful of Vettas.
-
picking cherries, search on:
dog
woman
car
environment
communication
computer network
computer
all as per usual search returns....
-
Another iStock c*ck-up...What is this craziness with vectors now losing their Vetta icons while the pricing stays the same. Way to confuse the buyers even more.
This is certainly one of the more amazing corporate train wrecks to watch.
-
picking cherries, search on:
dog
woman
car
environment
communication
computer network
computer
all as per usual search returns....
All you really need to do is check the individual portfolios of some of the top exclusives sorted by best match to get an idea how heavily Vettas are weighed. How do you think all their Vettas end up on top?
-
I don't know why so many people have to make a new account to say what they really think... Are they afraid that someone will punish them because they say something bad about Istock or what??
So many new members and "new members" here.
-
^^^ I think many new people are coming as result of the IS stuff.
-
So many new members and "new members" here.
Sorry for signing up here.
-
And another new member
-
And another new member
how dare you :)
-
^^^ I think many new people are coming as result of the IS stuff.
I hope so. Although, I could swear I recognize some people behind their new nick names.
-
I have nothing against real new members tho..
-
And we don't need new members like this: http://www.microstockgroup.com/profile/?u=4817 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/profile/?u=4817)
Because of this:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/paid-established-microstock-services/make-money-from-home/ (http://www.microstockgroup.com/paid-established-microstock-services/make-money-from-home/)
-
picking cherries, search on:
dog
woman
car
environment
communication
computer network
computer
all as per usual search returns....
edited sorry I read incorrectly
-
Sorry but I can’t help but laugh at all of this. It’s not funny really, not to the buyer, not to the contributor and certainly not to istock, but I can’t help laughing at istock. Watching them make one misake after another and then desperately trying to dig themselves out of a hole is amusing to me. I’ve never seen such a huge display of unprofessionalism in my entire life. I’m not surprised at all that istock didn’t wait till January to bump up the Vetta prices. It shouldn’t surprise anyone else either. For them to break their promise now, while they’re already labelled “greedy *insult removed*” and without communicating the rise to anyone means one thing and one thing only... they cannot meet their high targets.
Istock have put themselves in a rut that they cannot get out of. I said it months ago and I’ll keep saying it... they’re going down the pan! You have upper management who don’t want to lose their jobs by missing their targets so they’re doing whatever they can to raise revenue to increase their profits... but by doing so they will no longer be competitive and will fall on their ass anyway.
The ball’s been rolled and it’s picking up speed... they’re not coming out of it this time.
The Vetta price increase now, when they're actually on record saying that they wouldn't, does smack of desperation or panic. Why couldn't Istockphoto have waited until January and slipped this one in amongst all the other price 'adjustments' that they'll no doubt be implementing? That's only 3 months from now. Makes me wonder what is coming later if they are prepared to do this. It would seem that Getty are determined to milk this cash cow dry in the shortest possible time. The time horizon that they are working to cannot be too far away.
-
of course there's a bias towards Vetta. that isn't new, nor is it the point. you know what, you guys have your little club for the disgruntled over here. enjoy throwing sand in each others' faces and peeing in the pool.
It's not a little club, it's just that the balance of power and logic is shifting. Prior to all of this you had a bunch of arrogant istock exclusives who were so loyal to istock that no matter what they did, who they effected, this group would defend their decisions... and their opinions domanited this forum. istock always got by because of this loyalty but their contributors, even a lot of the exclusives have seen them for what they really are. You and a few others are just slow waking up, that's all.
Arrogant? ... that's clearly subjective, probably more in your mind than in reality. Loyal? Yes, why not, but nor without reason. Until Photos.com and TS, all what did istock was good for contributors, exclusive or not, and for the business... particularly rescuing the infra microstock prices and making them more logical and fair. And, even now, they have the fairest suscription system everywhere.
Yes, things have changed (not much for me, to be true), but I will concede a 100 days proof period from January to see how the new situation works.
I've read and this forum that some exlusives "feel trapped". And maybe it's true, but not for the reasons stated. If I feel trapped is just because there's nowhere to go without having to swallow the miser 30-35 cents-every- size subscriptions. That makes any alternative less atractive.
-
Sorry but I can’t help but laugh at all of this. It’s not funny really, not to the buyer, not to the contributor and certainly not to istock, but I can’t help laughing at istock. Watching them make one misake after another and then desperately trying to dig themselves out of a hole is amusing to me. I’ve never seen such a huge display of unprofessionalism in my entire life. I’m not surprised at all that istock didn’t wait till January to bump up the Vetta prices. It shouldn’t surprise anyone else either. For them to break their promise now, while they’re already labelled “greedy *insult removed*” and without communicating the rise to anyone means one thing and one thing only... they cannot meet their high targets.
Istock have put themselves in a rut that they cannot get out of. I said it months ago and I’ll keep saying it... they’re going down the pan! You have upper management who don’t want to lose their jobs by missing their targets so they’re doing whatever they can to raise revenue to increase their profits... but by doing so they will no longer be competitive and will fall on their ass anyway.
The ball’s been rolled and it’s picking up speed... they’re not coming out of it this time.
The Vetta price increase now, when they're actually on record saying that they wouldn't, does smack of desperation or panic. Why couldn't Istockphoto have waited until January and slipped this one in amongst all the other price 'adjustments' that they'll no doubt be implementing? That's only 3 months from now. Makes me wonder what is coming later if they are prepared to do this. It would seem that Getty are determined to milk this cash cow dry in the shortest possible time. The time horizon that they are working to cannot be too far away.
As I mentioned above, they didn't wait because they're probably not going to hit their targets... I meant their year end targets. As I've said in a few threads, with all the changes and projects they've had on lately, they've probably blown their budgets and now they're probably getting pressure from the top to do whatever it takes to get back on plan or as close to it as possible.
-
As I mentioned above, they didn't wait because they're probably not going to hit their targets... I meant their year end targets.
I agree with you but, in the greater scheme of things, this probably isn't going to make that much difference to the bottom-line. I suppose it will have a magnifying effect on the % profitability though.
-
As I mentioned above, they didn't wait because they're probably not going to hit their targets... I meant their year end targets.
I agree with you but, in the greater scheme of things, this probably isn't going to make that much difference to the bottom-line. I suppose it will have a magnifying effect on the % profitability though.
Yes, I'm just saying why I believe they did it. You're right about it probably not making much difference and in fact, it could back fire and have the opposite effect on their bottom line if more buyers are turned off by the increase... and I suspect they will be turned off if they're not turned off already. If I were a buyer and was in two minds about leaving the site after the last announcement, this price increase would be the final nail in the coffin and I would definitely walk.
I'm amazed how badly istock is being run. It's as if they're purposely trying to self destruct. The company is burning bridges on all sides and come next year, I expect even their most loyal exclusives and buyers will be telling them where to stick it.
-
They need to make a friggin announcement already. The complete lack of communication from management is shady and obnoxious.
Communication or not!
Does it change anything?
-
I'm amazed how badly istock is being run. It's as if they're purposely trying to self destruct. The company is burning bridges on all sides and come next year, I expect even their most loyal exclusives and buyers will be telling them where to stick it.
It is truly bizarre. It is difficult to conceive of any other outcome other than a negative one for Istockphoto. The wanton destruction of their greatest assets, the goodwill and exclusive status of so many of their best contributors, is almost beyond belief. Heigh-ho.
-
of course there's a bias towards Vetta. that isn't new, nor is it the point. you know what, you guys have your little club for the disgruntled over here. enjoy throwing sand in each others' faces and peeing in the pool.
peeing on your pom poms ;)
-
They need to make a friggin announcement already. The complete lack of communication from management is shady and obnoxious.
Communication or not!
Does it change anything?
Maybe not, but after several years as Istock contributor and buyer, i've never seen this total lack of communication. Even F5 trhead about bugs have no answers and errors remain there after long time. Sometimes i think that Istock people closed office doors and went to the beach.
Very sad to witness the destruction of a wonderful company as Istock was one day.
-
Here's my thought on why they didn't wait. RC's are based on cost of the image. Each credit is an RC. If they raise the Vetta pricing now then they have a better chance of proving their point about the contributors making "1/2" of their credits in the last 3 months of the year. If they can prove they were right, and exclusives manage to get back to their canister percentages, then exclusives may choose to stick around after January rather than leave or drop the crown, which many are stating they have/will.
-
This isn't a move to help people make up the difference. The vetta price increase came with a pretty severe cut in royalty percentage. In the end the exclusives only end up making *slightly* more than they would have under the old price/royalty. iStock rakes in the cash though.
-
This isn't a move to help people make up the difference. The vetta price increase came with a pretty severe cut in royalty percentage. In the end the exclusives only end up making *slightly* more than they would have under the old price/royalty. iStock rakes in the cash though.
They are probably no wear near the 50% increase in revenues that Kelly was tasked with at the beginning of the year. Hence this desperate Hail Mary pass.
-
Here's my thought on why they didn't wait. RC's are based on cost of the image. Each credit is an RC. If they raise the Vetta pricing now then they have a better chance of proving their point about the contributors making "1/2" of their credits in the last 3 months of the year. If they can prove they were right, and exclusives manage to get back to their canister percentages, then exclusives may choose to stick around after January rather than leave or drop the crown, which many are stating they have/will.
If that's what they wanted to achieve then there are much easier and more direct ways of doing it. The hurdles have been set specifically to exclude a certain number of contributors from the higher commission levels. In the event of too many contributors getting there ... then they'll just move the hurdles up a bit. These changes almost appear designed to ensure that the lower-earning exclusives will give up their crowns. Istockphoto don't want them __ they're not valuable enough to justify paying out the higher commissions.
-
It was a thought.
-
I don't know why so many people have to make a new account to say what they really think... Are they afraid that someone will punish them because they say something bad about Istock or what??
So many new members and "new members" here.
actually, people make new accounts here, not because of fear of iStock retribution--but because their fellow contributors are so abusive at times that they get tired of being bashed. Tyler needs to be more diligent about personal atatcks here. I'm not talking about disagreements or arguments or two way heated discussions. I'm talking about blatantly abusive comments telling people to suck c*cks etc. that stuff is offside, unprofessional and completely abusive.
-
The Vetta price increase now, when they're actually on record saying that they wouldn't, does smack of desperation or panic. Why couldn't Istockphoto have waited until January and slipped this one in amongst all the other price 'adjustments' that they'll no doubt be implementing? That's only 3 months from now. Makes me wonder what is coming later if they are prepared to do this. It would seem that Getty are determined to milk this cash cow dry in the shortest possible time. The time horizon that they are working to cannot be too far away.
My husband and I were discussing the same thing last night. Seems clear they are fattening up the balance sheets for the 4th quarter and the 1st quarter of next year - at the expense of the long term health of the company - in preparation for a sale early in the year. I am certain that Getty will be on the auction block by June 2011 at the very latest.
-
does it matter if we are owned by one VC versus another? as long as operations continue. it's not like Getty Images is going anywhere...
-
does it matter if we are owned by one VC versus another? as long as operations continue. it's not like Getty Images is going anywhere...
Yes it does, very much so. PE outfits are only interested in short timescales of 2-4 years whereas contributor's 'investment' horizons are much longer. Being pumped and squeezed for short-term greed will eventually kill Istockphoto.
-
does it matter if we are owned by one VC versus another? as long as operations continue. it's not like Getty Images is going anywhere...
I think it does matter. Operations aren't continuing as usual. Getty's interests have diverged from both the contributors interests, and the buyers interests. Who knows where Getty Images is going ITLR? What's painfully obvious is that Istockphoto in its current form is certainly going somewhere.
The Istockphoto we know is already gone, much like a chicken's head on the chopping block, and all this activity in the forums is just it's noisy death throes.
-
it won't surprise anyone, but frankly, I'm a fairly established exclusive so whether you agree with me or not, this is till information. I think the GENERAL direction we've headed towards has been pretty lucrative, for exclusives. again, I truly appreciate how bad the new structure is for independents. so to suggest that iStock is going down the sh*tter is either something some people here wish to see happen, or simply denial.
to suggest an established brand that is continually being grown to fill more market pockets is being fattened for the slaughter is illogical. I also think that the loudest, most 'convincing' opinions here (Lisa, not including you in this) are from independents, therefore without any experience with Vetta, E+ etc.
-
My husband and I were discussing the same thing last night. Seems clear they are fattening up the balance sheets for the 4th quarter and the 1st quarter of next year - at the expense of the long term health of the company - in preparation for a sale early in the year. I am certain that Getty will be on the auction block by June 2011 at the very latest.
This idea has come up several times in multiple threads over the last weeks: That the changes made are only done to boost short term profits to increase a sale price - at the cost of long term profitability or even survival of Istock.
But there is one thing that strikes me as strange when looking closer at this scenario:
Any investor who would be willing to pay a substantial amount of money for Getty / Istock will certainly perform a very thorough due diligence. And they will certainly find out about what changes to their business model Istock has done in the recent past. And then they will make their assessment on what these changes mean for the future of the business (that's how the process works, you don't simply extrapolate past numbers into the future, as a potential buyer you actively search for risk factors that allow you to discount from that extrapolation and therefore your bid).
So there are two possibilities:
Either a potential buyer comes to a different conclusion about Istock's future than those people here on MSG that predict a negative outcome for Istock.
And they will have all the information at hand that we don't have, they will be able to look into Istock's books. And then they will buy.
Or they come to the same conclusion as some of us here - then they will not buy.
It's just hard for me to believe that the Getty / Istock management - if they are trying to sell - would knowingly make changes that maybe boost profits short term but carry too high risks for the longer term, because then they would be achieving exactly the opposite of what we are assuming - driving the price up.
So either we are missing some facts and are mis-interpreting the impact of these changes on Istock's future business or their management must have completely underestimated the impact these changes will have.
-
Or, in typical iStock fashion, they completely goofed the announcements, and did not fully understand what the reaction would be.
-
Definitely I fall into the category of not having been exclusive. But I do believe you that Istock's gold and diamond exclusives have been making out really well in 2010, due to those Vetta and E+ files, higher prices of the exclusive collection, etc. Talking to exclusives who are at or even below my sales level would support that.
I am sure looking through the prism of the excellent money that has been coming into exclusive pockets for the past year it seems like it can go on forever. I hope it will. Believe me - Istock's failure is not something I root for at all. It is something I dread. But the things I am seeing happening there just look very ominous to me. Judging from the IS forum thread, many exclusives, including gold and diamonds, are quit worried too.
The really unfortunate thing is that we can all debate this forever - pro and con - but none of us will know for sure how this turns out until next year around March or so. It is just nerve-racking waiting for that other shoe to drop.
So there are two possibilities:
Either a potential buyer comes to a different conclusion about Istock's future than those people here on MSG that predict a negative outcome for Istock.
And they will have all the information at hand that we don't have, they will be able to look into Istock's books. And then they will buy.
Or they come to the same conclusion as some of us here - then they will not buy.
Or the rather obvious third possiblity that prospective buyers won't be all that diligent, will take the massive 4th and 1st quarter profits reflected in the books as indication of continuing growth and good management, and fork over a bundle, then be stuck dealing with the wreckage.
-
actually, people make new accounts here, not because of fear of iStock retribution--but because their fellow contributors are so abusive at times that they get tired of being bashed. Tyler needs to be more diligent about personal atatcks here. I'm not talking about disagreements or arguments or two way heated discussions. I'm talking about blatantly abusive comments telling people to suck c*cks etc. that stuff is offside, unprofessional and completely abusive.
If you're going to go to the trouble to create new accounts here because you don't like being bashed, you'll have to do more than simply don a different burka to escape the mob.
As a writer/editor, I should think you'd be acutely more adept at the development and perfection of more than one voice :)
But do keep donning new burkas to say the same thing in the same tone/voice. It's endlessly entertaining.
As were your recent posts on that iStock thread which you'd deemed dead, uninteresting, unproductive, etc. and called for it (numerous times) to be shut down. The one you were no longer looking in on or posting to? Funny thing, that. Because you were quite busy over yonder there last night - and today too, I see. How curious!
-
Here's my thought on why they didn't wait. RC's are based on cost of the image. Each credit is an RC. If they raise the Vetta pricing now then they have a better chance of proving their point about the contributors making "1/2" of their credits in the last 3 months of the year. If they can prove they were right, and exclusives manage to get back to their canister percentages, then exclusives may choose to stick around after January rather than leave or drop the crown, which many are stating they have/will.
Hm. You have a strong point there, I think.
-
My husband and I were discussing the same thing last night. Seems clear they are fattening up the balance sheets for the 4th quarter and the 1st quarter of next year - at the expense of the long term health of the company - in preparation for a sale early in the year. I am certain that Getty will be on the auction block by June 2011 at the very latest.
This idea has come up several times in multiple threads over the last weeks: That the changes made are only done to boost short term profits to increase a sale price - at the cost of long term profitability or even survival of Istock....
So there are two possibilities:
Either a potential buyer comes to a different conclusion about Istock's future than those people here on MSG that predict a negative outcome for Istock.
And they will have all the information at hand that we don't have, they will be able to look into Istock's books. And then they will buy.
Or they come to the same conclusion as some of us here - then they will not buy.
It's just hard for me to believe that the Getty / Istock management - if they are trying to sell - would knowingly make changes that maybe boost profits short term but carry too high risks for the longer term, because then they would be achieving exactly the opposite of what we are assuming - driving the price up.
I think what you say is logical, but past events with other acquisitions suggest that buyers don't always see the full picture before they purchase, due diligence notwithstanding. It's easiest when the buyer really doesn't know much about the business they're purchasing (i.e. they're money people, and know nothing about photography, stock, etc.). They don't know enough to see the writing on the wall for what it is.
I certainly think that the containment strategy in the IS forums - one huge thread and lock anything else that talks about the current debacle - could be to avoid there being too much stink about contributor unrest.
And remember, it's H&F that wants to sell Getty. H&F tells Getty what they want and Getty turns the screws on IS management. We used to call that dump truck management at a company I used to work for.
I want iStock to succeed long term too. In addition to liking it as a business partner (in the past), the recent GD survey (http://www.stockphototalk.com/the_stock_photo_industry_/2010/09/gdusa-reader-survey-reveals-value-and-usage-of-stock-imagery-among-designers.html) confirmed their market leadership position. Excerpting from the summary:
When further queried about their choice preferences if visiting multiple sites, iStockphoto emerged as the favorite/go-to microstock agency
* 70% of designers who have a preference use iStock
* 13% list no favorite
* No other microstock agency was favored by more than 7%
And as far as major business entities making stupid decisions while riding high on a short term success that was masking long term disaster, we have to look no further than the recent economic meltdown among major US financial firms. It can happen that a business screws the pooch and takes down a previously successful, viable business. I'm not sure whether the current crap at IS is in that category, but when I see that the number one factor for designers (on that same GD survey) was affordable pricing it makes me worry about IS jacking up prices the way they are.
The Graphic Design website has a preview of their survey (http://www.gdusa.com/eblasts/2010/100831-istoc/msg2.html) - sponsored by iStockphoto. I don't know what this means in terms of independence of the data, but Graphic Design has been around for decades, and so I'm assuming this is a legit survey.
-
I want iStock to succeed long term too. In addition to liking it as a business partner (in the past), the recent GD survey ([url]http://www.stockphototalk.com/the_stock_photo_industry_/2010/09/gdusa-reader-survey-reveals-value-and-usage-of-stock-imagery-among-designers.html[/url]) confirmed their market leadership position.
Absolutely. I wish iStock only success.
Though I, like many exclusives, am frustrated and disappointed by recent developments and changes, I would like nothing more than to be won back over and return to an exclusive contract at some point down the line - when/if I can be (more) sure that it is the most beneficial business move for me/my work.
It is for that reason that I intend to leave my portfolio on iStock as I build up new ports with other agencies as a non-exclusive. That way, if something changes, I don't have to start from scratch again with IS. Although, at present, I do not intend to upload new work to IS. I want to focus on other agencies as my time for port-building is so limited at present.
If my non-exclusive sales at a paltry 15% are notable, I will reconsider my decision not to load new work on IS.
Really hoping the company pulls through and gets its act together. It would be a godsend to, again, work with just a single agent, exclusively.
-
My husband and I were discussing the same thing last night. Seems clear they are fattening up the balance sheets for the 4th quarter and the 1st quarter of next year - at the expense of the long term health of the company - in preparation for a sale early in the year. I am certain that Getty will be on the auction block by June 2011 at the very latest.
This idea has come up several times in multiple threads over the last weeks: That the changes made are only done to boost short term profits to increase a sale price - at the cost of long term profitability or even survival of Istock....
So there are two possibilities:
Either a potential buyer comes to a different conclusion about Istock's future than those people here on MSG that predict a negative outcome for Istock.
And they will have all the information at hand that we don't have, they will be able to look into Istock's books. And then they will buy.
Or they come to the same conclusion as some of us here - then they will not buy.
It's just hard for me to believe that the Getty / Istock management - if they are trying to sell - would knowingly make changes that maybe boost profits short term but carry too high risks for the longer term, because then they would be achieving exactly the opposite of what we are assuming - driving the price up.
I think what you say is logical, but past events with other acquisitions suggest that buyers don't always see the full picture before they purchase, due diligence notwithstanding. It's easiest when the buyer really doesn't know much about the business they're purchasing (i.e. they're money people, and know nothing about photography, stock, etc.). They don't know enough to see the writing on the wall for what it is.
I certainly think that the containment strategy in the IS forums - one huge thread and lock anything else that talks about the current debacle - could be to avoid there being too much stink about contributor unrest.
And remember, it's H&F that wants to sell Getty. H&F tells Getty what they want and Getty turns the screws on IS management. We used to call that dump truck management at a company I used to work for.
I want iStock to succeed long term too. In addition to liking it as a business partner (in the past), the recent GD survey ([url]http://www.stockphototalk.com/the_stock_photo_industry_/2010/09/gdusa-reader-survey-reveals-value-and-usage-of-stock-imagery-among-designers.html[/url]) confirmed their market leadership position. Excerpting from the summary:
When further queried about their choice preferences if visiting multiple sites, iStockphoto emerged as the favorite/go-to microstock agency
* 70% of designers who have a preference use iStock
* 13% list no favorite
* No other microstock agency was favored by more than 7%
And as far as major business entities making stupid decisions while riding high on a short term success that was masking long term disaster, we have to look no further than the recent economic meltdown among major US financial firms. It can happen that a business screws the pooch and takes down a previously successful, viable business. I'm not sure whether the current crap at IS is in that category, but when I see that the number one factor for designers (on that same GD survey) was affordable pricing it makes me worry about IS jacking up prices the way they are.
The Graphic Design website has a preview of their survey ([url]http://www.gdusa.com/eblasts/2010/100831-istoc/msg2.html[/url]) - sponsored by iStockphoto. I don't know what this means in terms of independence of the data, but Graphic Design has been around for decades, and so I'm assuming this is a legit survey.
Did anyone else notice that this is a landing page. It is essentially a istock marketing page. Shutterstock has one as well. They each highlight and exclude information which will make their product look attractive.
-
They need to make a friggin announcement already. The complete lack of communication from management is shady and obnoxious.
Communication or not!
Does it change anything?
Yes. Faith in the company and its management is worth a lot.
-
those are a lot better than the rejected images uploads. I have found my E+ files sell well, and I put bestsellers in E+ too. Vetta sales have increased too, so probably more visibility. I have done a bazillion searches throughout the day because the posts today have made it sound like the best match returns are Vetta saturated...not so at all. all I can say is thank goodness the 'statisticians' here are not scientists. every search I've returned using random keywords, including big ones like 'business', 'family' and so many others I can't remember them all. the returns are a balanced mix of Vettas, flames, newer uploads and files that seem to be newer well-selling files etc.
nothing much different from the search returns before the new Vetta pricing took effect today.
best match is so weird.
'horse' seems to be very Vetta dominated.
Others seem to be very 'one member' dominated, e.g. 'Murchison Falls' (disclosure: I have a vested interest in this one!)
-
I want iStock to succeed long term too. In addition to liking it as a business partner (in the past), the recent GD survey ([url]http://www.stockphototalk.com/the_stock_photo_industry_/2010/09/gdusa-reader-survey-reveals-value-and-usage-of-stock-imagery-among-designers.html[/url]) confirmed their market leadership position.
Absolutely. I wish iStock only success.
Though I, like many exclusives, am frustrated and disappointed by recent developments and changes, I would like nothing more than to be won back over and return to an exclusive contract at some point down the line - when/if I can be (more) sure that it is the most beneficial business move for me/my work.
It is for that reason that I intend to leave my portfolio on iStock as I build up new ports with other agencies as a non-exclusive. That way, if something changes, I don't have to start from scratch again with IS. Although, at present, I do not intend to upload new work to IS. I want to focus on other agencies as my time for port-building is so limited at present.
If my non-exclusive sales at a paltry 15% are notable, I will reconsider my decision not to load new work on IS.
Really hoping the company pulls through and gets its act together. It would be a godsend to, again, work with just a single agent, exclusively.
I couldn't agree with you more.
-
I've just done a search on a subject which I have a few best sellers to see how I fair amongst the vetta images and was surprised that out of 6000 results I have got 3 in the first 100. There were 8 more non exclusive images, 13 exclusive plus and 15 vetta.
-
I think what you say is logical, but past events with other acquisitions suggest that buyers don't always see the full picture before they purchase, due diligence notwithstanding. It's easiest when the buyer really doesn't know much about the business they're purchasing (i.e. they're money people, and know nothing about photography, stock, etc.). They don't know enough to see the writing on the wall for what it is.
Of course this is possible, but to overlook the coincidence of a profit boost and a significant change in the supplier contracts at the same time (or to not overlook it but failing to ask for the future consequences) would be a more than just a small mistake.
But yes, past history shows that mistakes are made although all information is available.
-
...Others seem to be very 'one member' dominated, e.g. 'Murchison Falls' (disclosure: I have a vested interest in this one!)
I know as much as anyone else (i.e. nothing) about best match, but I think it's the fact that the other (dominant) photos are from Feb 2010 that is giving them the edge. Yours are from 2007 (based on the ones I looked at). I think there's still quite a push for newer files unless the older ones have very large numbers of downloads
-
My husband and I were discussing the same thing last night. Seems clear they are fattening up the balance sheets for the 4th quarter and the 1st quarter of next year - at the expense of the long term health of the company - in preparation for a sale early in the year. I am certain that Getty will be on the auction block by June 2011 at the very latest.
This idea has come up several times in multiple threads over the last weeks: That the changes made are only done to boost short term profits to increase a sale price - at the cost of long term profitability or even survival of Istock.
But there is one thing that strikes me as strange when looking closer at this scenario:
Any investor who would be willing to pay a substantial amount of money for Getty / Istock will certainly perform a very thorough due diligence. And they will certainly find out about what changes to their business model Istock has done in the recent past. And then they will make their assessment on what these changes mean for the future of the business (that's how the process works, you don't simply extrapolate past numbers into the future, as a potential buyer you actively search for risk factors that allow you to discount from that extrapolation and therefore your bid).
So there are two possibilities:
Either a potential buyer comes to a different conclusion about Istock's future than those people here on MSG that predict a negative outcome for Istock.
And they will have all the information at hand that we don't have, they will be able to look into Istock's books. And then they will buy.
Or they come to the same conclusion as some of us here - then they will not buy.
It's just hard for me to believe that the Getty / Istock management - if they are trying to sell - would knowingly make changes that maybe boost profits short term but carry too high risks for the longer term, because then they would be achieving exactly the opposite of what we are assuming - driving the price up.
So either we are missing some facts and are mis-interpreting the impact of these changes on Istock's future business or their management must have completely underestimated the impact these changes will have.
I don't believe at all that they're doing all this to sell up... well not this early anyway. Their balance sheet wouldn't be looking too good at the moment and their P&L even worse. I think they're doing this to differentiate themselves from the rest of the market... you know, be the Rolls Royce of the microstock industry. Their business model isn't a bad one but they've gone about it the wrong way during a bad time and it's backfiring.
If the economy was stronger the model could work if they tackled it differently. Vetta and these collections should be completely separate from the rest of the stock and these collections should be filled with images that are spectacular and nothing like any other images found in their database or anywhere else. At the moment, they're adding images that are from a series and making them five times more expensive than other similar images. This only highlights to the buyer that Vetta is overpriced and that istock is a ripoff.
-
Anyone remember iStock Pro?
-
Anyone remember iStock Pro?
but of course. I'm sure it was just too ahead of its time. Now we have the Agency Collection, The Retro Files, Vetta Collection, the Hulton Archive, the Exclusive Plus collection, the Exclusive Collection, and the General Collection. it's the new Getty family of iStockCollections :)
-
Anyone remember iStock Pro?
but of course. I'm sure it was just too ahead of its time. Now we have the Agency Collection, The Retro Files, Vetta Collection, the Hulton Archive, the Exclusive Plus collection, the Exclusive Collection, and the General Collection. it's the new Getty family of iStockCollections :)
You forgot the Dollar Collection. :D
I think if iStock does go in the direction of iStock Pro, well, it will go in the same direction. ;)
-
Anyone remember iStock Pro?
I think I sold one photo at 'Pro. Other than that, there's not much to remember....
-
Anyone remember iStock Pro?
I think I sold one photo at 'Pro. Other than that, there's not much to remember....
in all honesty, aside from "ahead of its time" I don't think istockPro was marketed all that well. the current iStockphoto site has a huge following and huge buyer base. it's a shrewd business move to start bringing in all these high priced collections. but it will be interesting in these economic times to see if the buyers will stay or go. I guess only time will tell.
-
Anyone remember iStock Pro?
I think I sold one photo at 'Pro. Other than that, there's not much to remember....
in all honesty, aside from "ahead of its time" I don't think istockPro was marketed all that well. the current iStockphoto site has a huge following and huge buyer base. it's a shrewd business move to start bringing in all these high priced collections. but it will be interesting in these economic times to see if the buyers will stay or go. I guess only time will tell.
I dunno. This midstock thing has been tried again and again and failed. Designers don't want to pay a premium for stock that could also appear in their competitor's ads. If they are going to pay more, they are going to want image exclusivity (to themselves) and hence go RM. And if they don't care about exclusivity, they aren't going to want to pay a premium for something that could also appear in their competitor's ads.
-
Anyone remember iStock Pro?
I think I sold one photo at 'Pro. Other than that, there's not much to remember....
in all honesty, aside from "ahead of its time" I don't think istockPro was marketed all that well. the current iStockphoto site has a huge following and huge buyer base. it's a shrewd business move to start bringing in all these high priced collections. but it will be interesting in these economic times to see if the buyers will stay or go. I guess only time will tell.
I dunno. This midstock thing has been tried again and again and failed. Designers don't want to pay a premium for stock that could also appear in their competitor's ads. If they are going to pay more, they are going to want image exclusivity (to themselves) and hence go RM. And if they don't care about exclusivity, they aren't going to want to pay a premium for something that could also appear in their competitor's ads.
oh.. good point! I wasn't thinking from the designer's perspective with regard to a unique image for ads and such.
-
Strange I had 3 vetta sales in the last 24hours and I only have 2 vetta images.