MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: lisafx on August 22, 2010, 18:33
-
Looks like Istock has started to create and promote special lightboxes of themed images hand picked by their editors.
Guess what, if you aren't exclusive or a major image factory your pictures aren't in there, regardless of whether your images on the subject are top sellers with blue or red flames.
Here's the School Daze lightbox they are pimping this month:
http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&lightboxID=8580721 (ftp://http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&lightboxID=8580721)
Guess the rest of us with education images, regardless of how popular, are SOL on Istock.
Fortunately, if buyers want to see a variety of education (or other topical) images by more than a tiny handful of artists, they can go to the other micros.
-
All I can say is I hope they have a bunch of freakin geniuses working in their marketing department, because to me (just a regular person) it sure seems like they are shooting themselves in the foot.
-
Yippee. Freakin'. Skippy.
-
Maybe it's called "Istock Collections", because it has only images that can be found only on Istock...I mean exclusive images.
-
But not all of the images in there are exclusive. And I think they are all from July and August, so it must be about fresh rather than about exclusive images. Maybe not that bad, as everyone is complaining about new images not picking up.
-
Fixed the hyperlink http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&lightboxID=8580721 (http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&lightboxID=8580721)
They're saying, "sorry our search engine kind of sucks, but here are the 100 or so images that we think you should be purchasing anyways."
Seems kind of macro-stocky, no?
-
There may be a few token non-exclusive images, but it seems to me the clear majority of images are Vettas. Some are new, but many are not that new.
-
...
-
Sigh!! never seems to stop, does it?
-
It seems they are trying to push vettas on the buyers in every way they can. I doubt if that will help either iS or their exclusives - it will just create the impression that if you want bargain price images you need to go elsewhere.
Are they trying to turn iStock into midstock and Thinkstock into Getty's micro? There's never been a successful midstock agency, has there?
-
Well, at least there seem to be a few exceptions to the rules.
They included one of my pics (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-11375965-long-eared-owl-asio-otus.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-11375965-long-eared-owl-asio-otus.php)) in their "compelling critters" lightbox.
I'm not exclusive, the file isn't brand new (uploaded Dec 2009) - and honestly, I don't understand why they chose it. It's a nice enough shot, but to include it into a lightbox featuring "The very best animal portraits on iStock as selected by our team of editors." with a total of 164 files - I certainly feel flattered...
Though I have to say it hasn't resulted in any sales yet..
-
Looks like Istock has also started to sell Getty owned images?
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-3767160-lady-of-the-lamp.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-3767160-lady-of-the-lamp.php)
(photo description - Photo by General Photographic Agency/Getty Images)
-
Looks like Istock has also started to sell Getty owned images?
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-3767160-lady-of-the-lamp.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-3767160-lady-of-the-lamp.php[/url])
(photo description - Photo by General Photographic Agency/Getty Images)
Yes they just started, about three years ago.
-
If you think that photo lightbox is heavily weighted towards exclusive images, check out the featured back-to-school illustration lightbox. Maybe a half-dozen non-exclusive images total in 10 pages of results.
Can't say I blame istock for trying to capitalize on their one trump card in the game. Exclusive is a selling point. I just think they can take it too far. Not sure I can say how far is too far for the general buying audience, but for me they've gone too far already. istosk is just not worth it to me anymore. I always immediately filter out Vetta in searches. No way I'm paying that much for an image. Among the regular collections, exclusive images (and plus images) are still much more expensive than what the competition offers. Non-exclusive images are priced more appropriately, but good luck finding any of them after pages and pages of exclusive content in search results.
The draw of istock for a long time was that although they might cost a bit more, they were convenient and had a higher-quality collection. But the quality level is starting to equal out among competitors, so quality is a harder sell when so many sites have more and more great content.
Where I think istock can really start to slip is in cost. I'm looking at the latest copy of HOW Magazine right now, and there's a full-page ad for photoxpress (http://www.photoxpress.com) (the Fotolia affiliate) boasting monthly subscriptions for $9.99. So for the cost of 1 large photo at istock, you can get 30 large "premium" level images at photoxpress, plus 15,000 non-premium image downloads per month. All the buyer needs to do is purchase more than 1 premium image per month under that subscription and they're already saving money over istock. As a buyer, it's extremely tempting. When I go to buy my next photo at istock, I'd be extremely tempted to just buy a 1-month subscription at photoxpress instead, knowing that the 29 images I download after that would basically be free. Sure the collection might not be as great as istock, but it's pretty good. I don't mind digging through a couple more pages of search results to find a suitable alternative to an istock image. I'm already going through extra steps in every search at istock to filter out Vetta and try to find cheaper non-exclusive images.
It's a slippery slope, and I think istock is playing a dangerous game as they continually push more expensive content while good, cheap alternatives are becoming more available and at very tempting price points.
-
I can see why they would emphasize exclusive images for something like this.
A lot of buyers will probably see an image they like and then go cross-shop it at other sites to see if they can find it cheaper somewhere else. Why would istock promote images that most likely could be found on a dozen other sites? And cheaper.
-
Didn't iStock always promote holiday and seasonal themed lightboxes? I always assumed they picked a lot of them by specific keywords or categories. The back to school one doesn't look that much different.
-
... So for the cost of 1 large photo at istock, you can get 30 large "premium" level images at photoxpress, plus 15,000 non-premium image downloads per month.
wow...
-
If you think that photo lightbox is heavily weighted towards exclusive images, check out the featured back-to-school illustration lightbox. Maybe a half-dozen non-exclusive images total in 10 pages of results. Can't say I blame istock for trying to capitalize on their one trump card in the game. Exclusive is a selling point. I just think they can take it too far. Not sure I can say how far is too far for the general buying audience, but for me they've gone too far already. istosk is just not worth it to me anymore. I always immediately filter out Vetta in searches. No way I'm paying that much for an image. Among the regular collections, exclusive images (and plus images) are still much more expensive than what the competition offers. Non-exclusive images are priced more appropriately, but good luck finding any of them after pages and pages of exclusive content in search results. The draw of istock for a long time was that although they might cost a bit more, they were convenient and had a higher-quality collection. But the quality level is starting to equal out among competitors, so quality is a harder sell when so many sites have more and more great content. Where I think istock can really start to slip is in cost. I'm looking at the latest copy of HOW Magazine right now, and there's a full-page ad for photoxpress ([url]http://www.photoxpress.com[/url]) (the Fotolia affiliate) boasting monthly subscriptions for $9.99. So for the cost of 1 large photo at istock, you can get 30 large "premium" level images at photoxpress, plus 15,000 non-premium image downloads per month. All the buyer needs to do is purchase more than 1 premium image per month under that subscription and they're already saving money over istock. As a buyer, it's extremely tempting. When I go to buy my next photo at istock, I'd be extremely tempted to just buy a 1-month subscription at photoxpress instead, knowing that the 29 images I download after that would basically be free. Sure the collection might not be as great as istock, but it's pretty good. I don't mind digging through a couple more pages of search results to find a suitable alternative to an istock image. I'm already going through extra steps in every search at istock to filter out Vetta and try to find cheaper non-exclusive images. It's a slippery slope, and I think istock is playing a dangerous game as they continually push more expensive content while good, cheap alternatives are becoming more available and at very tempting price points.
Your point, from a buyer's perspective, is exactly why all of these free and ultra cheap sites like Photoxpress need to be gotten rid of and not supported by contributors.
Buyers are now not only fleeing IS, they're skipping over all the rest of the main sites and going to the bottom. All of us lose.
How much do contributors earn from the bottom at places like Photoxpress and other micro-microstock affiliate sites? Nothing? Pennies?
Like I said in some other posts, a lot of buyers are now just looking for "good enough" and here's proof. Agencies claim these freebie sites are to attract customers. Yes, they do a great job of attracting freebie/cheap hunters and luring them away from places where contributors have a slight chance of being compensated reasonably.
Thank you for confirming this.
-
I'm pretty sure there isn't an opt out of Photoxpress since they are owned by Fotolia. Kind of makes you wonder how far they are willing to go, Ouch!!
-
If you think that photo lightbox is heavily weighted towards exclusive images, check out the featured back-to-school illustration lightbox. Maybe a half-dozen non-exclusive images total in 10 pages of results. Can't say I blame istock for trying to capitalize on their one trump card in the game. Exclusive is a selling point. I just think they can take it too far. Not sure I can say how far is too far for the general buying audience, but for me they've gone too far already. istosk is just not worth it to me anymore. I always immediately filter out Vetta in searches. No way I'm paying that much for an image. Among the regular collections, exclusive images (and plus images) are still much more expensive than what the competition offers. Non-exclusive images are priced more appropriately, but good luck finding any of them after pages and pages of exclusive content in search results. The draw of istock for a long time was that although they might cost a bit more, they were convenient and had a higher-quality collection. But the quality level is starting to equal out among competitors, so quality is a harder sell when so many sites have more and more great content. Where I think istock can really start to slip is in cost. I'm looking at the latest copy of HOW Magazine right now, and there's a full-page ad for photoxpress ([url]http://www.photoxpress.com[/url]) (the Fotolia affiliate) boasting monthly subscriptions for $9.99. So for the cost of 1 large photo at istock, you can get 30 large "premium" level images at photoxpress, plus 15,000 non-premium image downloads per month. All the buyer needs to do is purchase more than 1 premium image per month under that subscription and they're already saving money over istock. As a buyer, it's extremely tempting. When I go to buy my next photo at istock, I'd be extremely tempted to just buy a 1-month subscription at photoxpress instead, knowing that the 29 images I download after that would basically be free. Sure the collection might not be as great as istock, but it's pretty good. I don't mind digging through a couple more pages of search results to find a suitable alternative to an istock image. I'm already going through extra steps in every search at istock to filter out Vetta and try to find cheaper non-exclusive images. It's a slippery slope, and I think istock is playing a dangerous game as they continually push more expensive content while good, cheap alternatives are becoming more available and at very tempting price points.
Your point, from a buyer's perspective, is exactly why all of these free and ultra cheap sites like Photoxpress need to be gotten rid of and not supported by contributors.
Buyers are now not only fleeing IS, they're skipping over all the rest of the main sites and going to the bottom. All of us lose.
How much do contributors earn from the bottom at places like Photoxpress and other micro-microstock affiliate sites? Nothing? Pennies?
Like I said in some other posts, a lot of buyers are now just looking for "good enough" and here's proof. Agencies claim these freebie sites are to attract customers. Yes, they do a great job of attracting freebie/cheap hunters and luring them away from places where contributors have a slight chance of being compensated reasonably.
Thank you for confirming this.
Talk about an industry cutting its own throat so effectivly. Seen nothing like it? if this is the perspective of one buyer, what about all the rest?
-
There may be a few token non-exclusive images, but it seems to me the clear majority of images are Vettas. Some are new, but many are not that new.
Yeah, you're right. I went through the whole thing by contributor (only 7 pages) and there are about 8 or 9 from monkeybusiness and 1 from Yuri and THAT'S IT. All others from exclusives.
It is certainly istock's right to market whatever images they want, but if it is almost entirely exclusive, and Vetta or E+ at that, they should make it clear to the buyers. To try and say (paraphrasing here) "this is the best education imagery we have, bar none" is just dishonest and kinda slimey.
-
Your point, from a buyer's perspective, is exactly why all of these free and ultra cheap sites like Photoxpress need to be gotten rid of and not supported by contributors...
There's no chance of that happening. Sure it would benefit contributors immensely to see sites like photoxpress and thinkstock go away. But they have enough content and enough marketing firepower to easily compete with the bigger agencies, and they're here to stay. Thinkstock was heavily boycotted by contributors, and yet they're still here and still pushing hard with the ad campaigns, and buyers are attracted.
Sure I'm probably a scumbag contributor by going to photoxpress instead of dreamstime or fotolia or even SS for a subscription. But I certainly don't feel bad about dodging istock. In this particular discussion, we're talking about istock and their push to get higher-priced content in front of the buyers first and foremost. And in that regard, I think they're are making a mistake. The whole argument about which alternative sites people should be flocking to is probably best suited for a separate thread. In this discussion, I'll just add that I have no problem leaving istock as a buyer while they continue to make it harder for me to find appropriately priced images. And in my opinion, in the context of what cheaper options are out there, the istock policy of pushing the most expensive content is pushing me towards those other options.
-
Didn't iStock always promote holiday and seasonal themed lightboxes? I always assumed they picked a lot of them by specific keywords or categories. The back to school one doesn't look that much different.
No, this is fairly new. In the past they had "seasonal searches" which were just a link to a best match search on a seasonal topic. Everybody's images showed up.
Also, they have always promoted a "lightbox of the month" but those were user created and included any images the (contributor) lightbox admin had chosen.
-
There are a lot of Exclusives as well as Non-exclusives who have great school images that were ignored or overloooked. I don't think it's IStock catering to Exclusive's as much as IStock pushing Vetta, catering to a few select photographers and not wanting to be bothered taking the time to do it right.
-
Excellent point! I was really shocked that none of Nano's or Bonniej's top selling education images were included.
-
The news just keeps getting better and better! Happy monday! ;D
-
Didn't iStock always promote holiday and seasonal themed lightboxes? I always assumed they picked a lot of them by specific keywords or categories. The back to school one doesn't look that much different.
No, this is fairly new. In the past they had "seasonal searches" which were just a link to a best match search on a seasonal topic. Everybody's images showed up.
Also, they have always promoted a "lightbox of the month" but those were user created and included any images the (contributor) lightbox admin had chosen.
I think with the new site design, this is something they decided to feature in that space. At least these are lightboxes and not the debatable searches like the seasonal ones.
-
Your point, from a buyer's perspective, is exactly why all of these free and ultra cheap sites like Photoxpress need to be gotten rid of and not supported by contributors...
There's no chance of that happening. Sure it would benefit contributors immensely to see sites like photoxpress and thinkstock go away. But they have enough content and enough marketing firepower to easily compete with the bigger agencies, and they're here to stay. Thinkstock was heavily boycotted by contributors, and yet they're still here and still pushing hard with the ad campaigns, and buyers are attracted. Sure I'm probably a scumbag contributor by going to photoxpress instead of dreamstime or fotolia or even SS for a subscription. But I certainly don't feel bad about dodging istock. In this particular discussion, we're talking about istock and their push to get higher-priced content in front of the buyers first and foremost. And in that regard, I think they're are making a mistake. The whole argument about which alternative sites people should be flocking to is probably best suited for a separate thread. In this discussion, I'll just add that I have no problem leaving istock as a buyer while they continue to make it harder for me to find appropriately priced images. And in my opinion, in the context of what cheaper options are out there, the istock policy of pushing the most expensive content is pushing me towards those other options.
No chance? If the trend is that buyers in masse are heading to free/ultra-cheap sites that don't compensate contributors well, what do you think will happen? Contributor's earnings will decline, they will evaluate their micro finances, and will determine it's a waste of time. I believe this is already happening to some extent. If/when this happens on a large enough scale, supply will drop, and so will the weaker outdated sites. The fact that Istock actually increased upload limits could indicate this is already happening. Maybe mostly newbie applicants are submitting stuff they don't want and they're seeing a big drop in pro/advanced applicants (?)
I don't think you're a scumbag. You're doing what anybody with common sense would do. You're buying the right product at the cheapest cost. The problem comes with the people who are supplying images to those sites.
Sorry Lisa for highjacking your post. We'll pick this topic up in a different one.
-
There are a lot of Exclusives as well as Non-exclusives who have great school images that were ignored or overloooked. I don't think it's IStock catering to Exclusive's as much as IStock pushing Vetta, catering to a few select photographers and not wanting to be bothered taking the time to do it right.
It does seem odd that in the rather small animals lightbox there are a couple of pictures of the same dog looking in slightly different directions and what appear to be three black and white images of the same elephant. I'm sure they're all great photos but near duplication and multiple images from one supplier in such a small box covering such a huge subject suggests a hurried cobbling together. I wonder why there are so many animal "head and shoulders" shots, too. Is that the vogue?
-
Nothing stops people from getting together and curating their own lightboxes either at IS or elsewhere and building third party sites to market these as cool collections. It's only marketing.
A group of photographers might create a joint site to drive traffic to their work at one or more other agencies. Almost like an super agency. You could even build in search.
Don't make it a free 4 all. You want a good quality handpicked collection. Ideally hand picked Vetta quality but perhaps lower priced. Give yourselves a name, build a great site - maybe like a collective of photographers. Do some marketing. Put out press releases and use the social media.
-
That's fair enough, Alias, but aren't these lightboxes promoted by iS itself? And doesn't that give them the seal of official approval, as being the best of the best for each subject? There's nothing wrong with iStock doing that but it does reflect badly on them if they don't then make the effort to pull out the most stunning pictures in their collection ...or maybe it is just so large that they can't find stuff, either.
Or, then again, maybe it is just like any corporation: someone got lumbered with the job of catering to the boss's latest whim, couldn't be bothered to make much effort and just shoved in enough content to keep the powers that be happy. "Look, boss, I used lots of Vetta, it's the cream of our creative prowess!". It's hard to argue with your own slogans.
-
Sorry Lisa for highjacking your post. We'll pick this topic up in a different one.
No worries Paulie! I don't mind side trips. What you posted about decrease in demand was very interesting :)
-
Or, then again, maybe it is just like any corporation: someone got lumbered with the job of catering to the boss's latest whim, couldn't be bothered to make much effort and just shoved in enough content to keep the powers that be happy. "Look, boss, I used lots of Vetta, it's the cream of our creative prowess!". It's hard to argue with your own slogans.
This makes the most sense IMO. Would certainly explain why there are so few images, and also some near duplicates of pretty mediocre stuff. Like the dogs Baldrick noticed in the Animals lightbox, or the two images of the goofy guy sitting in front of a green blackboard with an apple on his head in the education lightbox. Seriously, both of those had to be included because there was just NOTHING better?!
As for starting my own site to drive traffic to my micro portfolio.... here's a thought - I pay Istock 80% of what my images make on their site. It's not too much to ask that they 1) give everyone a fair shot at inclusion in sitewide lightboxes; or 2) don't claim that those lightboxes are the best of the collection when clearly they aren't; or 3) let their search engine be the arbiter of what gets put in front of buyers; or 4) Make it clear to buyers that the intended purpose of those lightboxes is to highlight Vetta, E+, and/or exclusive content.
If I wanted to devote the vast amount of time and expense necessary to start my own stock site to drive traffic to my micro portfolio, WtheF would I need Istock for??
As for curating lightboxes on Istock, I have done that for years and so have many others. The difference is that most of us don't have the lightboxes we curate promoted by istock, unlike these "hand selected" lightboxes with "the best imagery" on the site.
-
It does seem odd that in the rather small animals lightbox there are a couple of pictures of the same dog looking in slightly different directions and what appear to be three black and white images of the same elephant. I'm sure they're all great photos but near duplication and multiple images from one supplier in such a small box covering such a huge subject suggests a hurried cobbling together. I wonder why there are so many animal "head and shoulders" shots, too. Is that the vogue?
No kidding.
That's fair enough, Alias, but aren't these lightboxes promoted by iS itself? And doesn't that give them the seal of official approval, as being the best of the best for each subject? There's nothing wrong with iStock doing that but it does reflect badly on them if they don't then make the effort to pull out the most stunning pictures in their collection ...or maybe it is just so large that they can't find stuff, either.
Or, then again, maybe it is just like any corporation: someone got lumbered with the job of catering to the boss's latest whim, couldn't be bothered to make much effort and just shoved in enough content to keep the powers that be happy. "Look, boss, I used lots of Vetta, it's the cream of our creative prowess!". It's hard to argue with your own slogans.
You said it man
-
As for starting my own site to drive traffic to my micro portfolio.... here's a thought -
---- If I wanted to devote the vast amount of time and expense necessary to start my own stock site to drive traffic to my micro portfolio, WtheF would I need Istock for??
Suggesting that a group of you could get together and create your own additional buzz - as a way of using marketing to jointly promote your works. Your own Vetta or collections. Create a site and drive traffic to it because it offers a selection of very good results at the right price. And you market the site as almost as a collective of photographers defined by your quality.
You still need the agencies to complete the sales. A bunch of diamond invites maybe but the images have to be chosen. And you market yourselves as a selected group.
Not a crazy idea. Half way towards setting up an agency. But you still need the actual agencies.
-
Just noticed that I was talking about a different lightbox: I was assuming it was the "Top of the Class" one on the front page full of new images (many near duplicates as well). The lightbox "School Daze" is completly different of course. I understand your point now, Lisa. Sorry, took me ages! :D
-
Not a crazy idea. Half way towards setting up an agency. But you still need the actual agencies for now at least.
Perhaps not a crazy idea, but completely beside the point.
We are all free to take whatever additional marketing steps we wish. That doesn't absolve our agents from providing some assurance that the deck won't be stacked against us for reasons having nothing to do with image quality.
As for completing the sale, there are dozens if not hundreds of sites that will do that for you - smugmug and the like.
Let me be clear: The main reason I am on the micros is their ability to market to a larger audience than I could reach by myself. However if they are directing that large audience AWAY from my work once they reach the site, then I have an issue with that. And apparently so do the majority of others posting in this thread.
-
Not a crazy idea. Half way towards setting up an agency. But you still need the actual agencies for now at least.
Perhaps not a crazy idea, but completely beside the point.
We are all free to take whatever additional marketing steps we wish. That doesn't absolve our agents from providing some assurance that the deck won't be stacked against us for reasons having nothing to do with image quality.
Things are where they are and you might be wasting time if you get cross about anything. You'll get cross but not make any progress. The numbers are against it. Or you have the chance to push your own sales how only smaller groups can. It is not going to get better.
If you do it on your own you would be wasting your time. A group of you could generate your own buzz.
It's "not besides the point". You need react to how the market is and see how you can best manipulate it to your advantage.
Sorry about my sloppy writing, my brain is not fully connected.
EDIT: you are missing the point. You do not want to be an agent. You want to give yourself an edge help your SEO etc. Marketing. If you put out a press release on your own and promote your own links nobody will listen. If you call yourself a group you could have more impact. Issue releases and links every week. Use the social media etc.
-
It's "not besides the point". You need react to how the market is and see how you can best manipulate it to your advantage.
I'm sorry, perhaps I failed to be crystal clear. I didn't know your brain wasn't fully connected. ;)
I meant that the outside marketing issue was beside the point of this thread, about istock's new lightboxes.
Seriously, your marketing advice could be quite valuable to a lot of people who are interested in it. Why leave it buried in an unrelated thread? What's stopping you starting a new thread about it? :)
-
Wow, Lisa you must have taken some customer service training.
That was the nicest and most encouraging way I've ever heard someone be asked take their OT stuff elsewhere.
-
... Or, then again, maybe it is just like any corporation: someone got lumbered with the job of catering to the boss's latest whim, couldn't be bothered to make much effort and just shoved in enough content to keep the powers that be happy. "Look, boss, I used lots of Vetta, it's the cream of our creative prowess!". It's hard to argue with your own slogans.
Yeah that could be true. There might be an internal battle ... someone committed to Vetta big time, others don't like the idea for the reasons discussed here - too high priced for what you get. Maybe the Vetta person (or faction) came up with the "seal of approval" lightboxes in an effort to spark Vetta sales and save their reputation. If some of the "anti Vetta" people are tasked with creating the lightboxes they could sabotage them by doing a half@zzed job. I speculate.
Since this company cannot (I assume) afford to mess around too much with their revenue stream, what with all the competition and buyers becoming more price sensitive, they'll probably fix it and get back to something like their previous winning formula.
Or maybe they think that micro is now too crowded and unprofitable, and they want to evolve toward midstock by cashing in on their reputation and Getty connection, and start highlighting what they consider to be "better content" and to heck with the rest.
-
Wow, Lisa you must have taken some customer service training.
That was the nicest and most encouraging way I've ever heard someone be asked take their OT stuff elsewhere.
It's not OT because it is about ways of dealing with twhat exists by taking some of the same ideas and doing them yourselves.
It's pointless getting cross about something you cannot change. Better to study it and see what you can learn and adapt.
-
Or, then again, maybe it is just like any corporation: someone got lumbered with the job of catering to the boss's latest whim, couldn't be bothered to make much effort and just shoved in enough content to keep the powers that be happy. "Look, boss, I used lots of Vetta, it's the cream of our creative prowess!". It's hard to argue with your own slogans.
This makes the most sense IMO. Would certainly explain why there are so few images, and also some near duplicates of pretty mediocre stuff. Like the dogs Baldrick noticed in the Animals lightbox, or the two images of the goofy guy sitting in front of a green blackboard with an apple on his head in the education lightbox. Seriously, both of those had to be included because there was just NOTHING better?!
As for starting my own site to drive traffic to my micro portfolio.... here's a thought - I pay Istock 80% of what my images make on their site. It's not too much to ask that they 1) give everyone a fair shot at inclusion in sitewide lightboxes; or 2) don't claim that those lightboxes are the best of the collection when clearly they aren't; or 3) let their search engine be the arbiter of what gets put in front of buyers; or 4) Make it clear to buyers that the intended purpose of those lightboxes is to highlight Vetta, E+, and/or exclusive content.
If I wanted to devote the vast amount of time and expense necessary to start my own stock site to drive traffic to my micro portfolio, WtheF would I need Istock for??
As for curating lightboxes on Istock, I have done that for years and so have many others. The difference is that most of us don't have the lightboxes we curate promoted by istock, unlike these "hand selected" lightboxes with "the best imagery" on the site.
Lisafx, if in deed "near duplicates of pretty mediocre stuff; dogs Baldrick noticed in the Animals lightbox; two images of the goofy guy sitting in front of a green blackboard with an apple on his head in the education lightbox; etc is all IStock best can present for as the best of Vetta , E+.
Surely the buyers are not dumb enough to not know the un-level play field. Or is buyers used to be insulted of their intelligence ?
-
Wow, Lisa you must have taken some customer service training. That was the nicest and most encouraging way I've ever heard someone be asked take their OT stuff elsewhere.
It's not OT because it is about ways of dealing with twhat exists by taking some of the same ideas and doing them yourselves.It's pointless getting cross about something you cannot change. Better to study it and see what you can learn and adapt.
Ooooookay. The topic is Istock Collections lightboxes and you feel that adding a part about starting/promoting the OP's own site is on-topic. Riiiiiiiiiiight.
-
"I pay Istock 80% of what my images make on their site. It's not too much to ask that they
1) give everyone a fair shot at inclusion in sitewide lightboxes; or
2) don't claim that those lightboxes are the best of the collection when clearly they aren't; or
3) let their search engine be the arbiter of what gets put in front of buyers; or
4) Make it clear to buyers that the intended purpose of those lightboxes is to highlight Vetta, E+, and/or exclusive content."
Pretty well covers it, except that we all pay any agency to market to a large group and make more sales and give us exposure that we could NEVER get running our own sites. We can have personal lightboxes, websites, Smugmug or Mostphoto, and never get the views and exposure we get from the agencies.
And about #3, all the agencies seem to have their own ways of ranking, rating or having the search evaluate the "quality" of the images. They don't want a bunch of crap showing up randomly on the first page. ;D We don't know that reviews don't give images a 1-100 value, which is involved in the search? SOme agencies make it clear that the reviewers do give some rank to new uploads.
-
Ooooookay. The topic is Istock Collections lightboxes and you feel that adding a part about starting/promoting the OP's own site is on-topic. Riiiiiiiiiiight.
I have not suggested that anyone promotes their own site alone.
If this thread is only about complaining then I suppose I am OT. But the complaining will not achieve anything. You need to come up with posititve ideas and strategies which independents can use to create for themselves some of the same marketing advantages which non independents enjoy at IS? The front page collections are about marketing.
My suggestion is that a group of independent diamonds could work together to promote an always timely selection of their best images from their own portfolios. Market yourselves as special few and use the social media to propagate the idea that you are some of the best, working together. Use your own marketing to boost your numbers together and to make your work easy to identify. The collections at IS and on other stock sites are new alternatives to search.
You might want to dress yourselves up rather like an agency or a team but really it would be about creating a credible showcase for your work. Award yourselves a logo of distinction. Perhaps they'll put your collection on the front page one day if it is good enough. You want to sell more pictures and so do they. Do something new.
-
Ooooookay. The topic is Istock Collections lightboxes and you feel that adding a part about starting/promoting the OP's own site is on-topic. Riiiiiiiiiiight.
I have not suggested that anyone promotes their own site alone.
Alone, in a group, whatever. Like I said, you're still suggesting to create a site.
Create a site and drive traffic to it because it offers a selection of very good results at the right price. And you market the site as almost as a collective of photographers defined by your quality.
You seem absolutely adamant about your idea. Seems like a good idea. Start a new post where you can extol the virtues of it and gain supporters, which you don't seem to be getting here.
-
Start a new post where you can extol the virtues of it and gain supporters, which you don't seem to be getting here.
~ I am not looking for supporters or to build a movement. But what I am saying is about collections. I believe that various different competing groups or collectives with their own collections will evolve. Not in competition with IS or any other agencies but in competition with each other and the factories. Recommendations will be more important than search. I would bet that many buyers would be happy to use sites which filtered out fewer better choices at the same price.
It believe that some of the offsite collections will probably be for profit ultimately. Suppose for example that you could pay a fee each month to cover the costs and profitability of a respected additional layer which gave you significant additional useful exposure.
Crazy OT nonsense you probably think :)
-
If this thread is only about complaining then I suppose I am OT. But the complaining will not achieve anything. You need to come up with posititve ideas and strategies which independents can use to create for themselves some of the same marketing advantages which non independents enjoy at IS? The front page collections are about marketing.
Personally, I'd rather see ideas than complaining, so I appreciated your post (even thought it was on topic). Even if I'm not necessarily going to go out and start a site, it jump started my brain to think about marketing again.
-
Personally, yes, I can see many buyers being interested in a site, collection or whatever where they dont have to spend time wading through a jungle of irrelevant material.
In fact I know many buyers, here and in London who would welcome this and give its support.
-
I think it's an excellent idea Alias. The resultant collection would be very impressive.
FWIW if I worked with Lisa and Flemish, we could call ourselves LanFX Dreams. ;D
-
Personally, (Cthoman) I think that without criticism, complaining or enquiring there will be far less ideas.
On the road to the next, higher step, sharp minds and criticism are vital.
We owe them everything we've ever achieved.
The backbone of progress.
I also think that Alias's suggestions are great. Thank you very much for taking the time to share!
However, they're off topic. Definitely are.
A short reminder - the topic of this particular thread is 'IStock Collections'.
Easy. That's all there is to it.
IStock refreshed the images on their home page. Click on the links and you're presented with a beautiful collection of images. Truly stunning imagery. For the most part, they're all exclusive.
I guess this is the way Getty wants to go. Vetta, Ecxlusive Plus and Exclusive, all higher prices.
There's not much room left for independents.
I'm not sure whether this is good or bad news for IStock in general.
I'll have to wait and see.
-
If Alias would be willing to reveal which of the Istock admins he/she is then maybe we could get a straight answer as to why these "collections" lightboxes have such a narrow scope and exclude so many people?
It reminds me of people who start "public lightboxes" and then include only their own images and ONE image from someone else so they can make it public. There has been plenty of "complaining" about that both here and in istock's forums. It is misleading and a misuse of public lightboxes, just as starting a "hand picked" collection of "the best images" but excluding all independents except one or two is misleading.
As it is Alias has effectively derailed this thread, which I suspect was the point of his/her posting in the first place. Well done undercover Istock administrator. I expect we will see you employ similar tactics in other threads critical of IS much as you have done in the past. :P
-
If Alias would be willing to reveal which of the Istock admins he/she is then maybe we could get a straight answer as to why these "collections" lightboxes have such a narrow scope and exclude so many people?
---
As it is Alias has effectively derailed this thread, which I suspect was the point of his/her posting in the first place. Well done undercover Istock administrator. I expect we will see you employ similar tactics in other threads critical of IS much as you have done in the past. :P
Lisa - I am not an IS administrator or anything to do with the company. Not channelling them. Not a fanboy or pretending to speak for them (or pretending to not). Nothing.
I am only a very occasional contributor there since I am involved in something else. I am very impressed with what they have built. My limited experience of IS and the people there is that they are not the sort of people who would play games or tactics as you are suggesting. And you know they have no reason to.
I posted in good faith here for no other reason than to share part of an idea which has been forming in my mind for some while as a result of watching the market evolve, the trends. It seemed relevant to what you had written. As I have written I believe that collections and peer recommendations (the social media networks and our extended peer groups in particular) are going to be a big part of what partially replaces traditional search. I think that we all need to think about that. What I am saying is already happening. I am applying that to the world of stock.
I am genuinely sorry that I have upset you but fully understand that these are sensitive subjectives and our meanings are sometimes misunderstood or confused in translation.
You are not going to get the answer to your question here. But what I have been writing about is definitely a part of the what would be the background to the question you are asking. Look at the trends.
-
Obviously iStock see some value in creating these lightboxes, but I can't help but wonder if such things as these lightboxes and the currently languishing latest images feed are looked at by proportionally more contributors than buyers.
-
I see Alias' point. Truthfully iStock stands to gain more by selling indie pictures than by selling exclusives, since they keep 80% of the commission. And of course they gain the most by selling Vetta, which seems to be the predominant theme in these boxes.
There are a lot of excellent exclusive pictures which I thought should be headlining the School Daze collection, and they aren't even in there. Probably because they aren't Vetta? Maybe I missed them in the light box, but how could they not include some of Sean's pictures at the bus stop and with his daughter in class? Those were classic back to school shots. Much more useful than a strange looking guy with an apple on his head.
-
Since there is a lot of interest in alternative marketing strategies, I started a thread about it here:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/strategies-for-self-marketing-in-microstock/msg157134/?topicseen#new (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/strategies-for-self-marketing-in-microstock/msg157134/?topicseen#new)
Borrowed Alias' excellent suggestions. Since he is eager to share them and many are eager to hear them, I assumed that would be okay :)
-
Actually, for the sake of clarity :
Istock makes more money with exclusive images. All and any of the exclusive images.
That's because of the latest price rise.
Independent images are the least profitable.
This might explain some of their actions.
-
Ooooookay. The topic is Istock Collections lightboxes and you feel that adding a part about starting/promoting the OP's own site is on-topic. Riiiiiiiiiiight.
I have not suggested that anyone promotes their own site alone.
If this thread is only about complaining then I suppose I am OT. But the complaining will not achieve anything. You need to come up with posititve ideas and strategies which independents can use to create for themselves some of the same marketing advantages which non independents enjoy at IS? The front page collections are about marketing.
My suggestion is that a group of independent diamonds could work together to promote an always timely selection of their best images from their own portfolios. Market yourselves as special few and use the social media to propagate the idea that you are some of the best, working together. Use your own marketing to boost your numbers together and to make your work easy to identify. The collections at IS and on other stock sites are new alternatives to search.
You might want to dress yourselves up rather like an agency or a team but really it would be about creating a credible showcase for your work. Award yourselves a logo of distinction. Perhaps they'll put your collection on the front page one day if it is good enough. You want to sell more pictures and so do they. Do something new.
I think suggestion is viable idea only for the top sellers like lisafx pauliewalnut sjlocke etc.
But I remember reading one man already do some collaborative form like this already. Sorry do not remember name but I think he very known here .
Interesting to know if success was occured for this idea he started. If so, obviously top sellers like aforemention
lisafax, pauliewalnut, sjlocke and other I do not recognized (sorry not implication of insult but I not consistent
informed of top sellers, only what people say here of them).
But I repeat, if so you alias say working solution of propagation with alliance, then for sure the man
already win many here and there would not be complaint like now .
Just my thinking.
-
Actually, for the sake of clarity :
Istock makes more money with exclusive images. All and any of the exclusive images.
That's because of the latest price rise.
Independent images are the least profitable.
This might explain some of their actions.
This is only true if you compare the same number of sold images.
But that only works under the assumption, that buyers are not working on a fixed / limited budget, but buy a fixed number of files whatever the cost is. I am pretty certain that for the vast majority of buyers this assumption is wrong.
So in the end, assuming a given budget to be spent on imagery, Istock will make more money if that budget is spent on the files of independent contributors.
-
it isn't just non-exclusives being ignored in these lightboxes. there are multiple images by contributors in these lightboxes. and after noting all the names of contributors included in the lightboxes, I was also very irritated to find that basically the same contributors, more or less, are included in all the special collections as a whole.
I don't like to see rumors and conspiracy theories running rampant. but the special collections are clearly preferred contributor collections...and that just isn't right. it looks like favoritism, it looks like an admin club and it doesn't fairly represent the talent available on iStock.
the content management seems to be more and more specialized these days...disappointing.
-
it isn't just non-exclusives being ignored in these lightboxes. there are multiple images by contributors in these lightboxes. and after noting all the names of contributors included in the lightboxes, I was also very irritated to find that basically the same contributors, more or less, are included in all the special collections as a whole.
I don't like to see rumors and conspiracy theories running rampant. but the special collections are clearly preferred contributor collections...and that just isn't right. it looks like favoritism, it looks like an admin club and it doesn't fairly represent the talent available on iStock.
Oh yes, the same buddies that seem to get favoured Vetta slots, some of whom seem permanently to get off with really awful keywording. It's pretty depressing, actually. (To make it clear: I'm not bitter that I'm not in these lightboxes; I am angry that some truly fantastic shots were left out when some have been, shall we way 'surprisingly' included. That's no way to serve customers.)
-
Oh yes, the same buddies that seem to get favoured Vetta slots, some of whom seem permanently to get off with really awful keywording. It's pretty depressing, actually. (To make it clear: I'm not bitter that I'm not in these lightboxes; I am angry that some truly fantastic shots were left out when some have been, shall we way 'surprisingly' included. That's no way to serve customers.)
If this is true, I can't imagine that it is going to be successful. To me, it feels like it's going to backfire at some point, and cost Getty/istockphoto a lot of money and reputation.
-
I don't like to see rumors and conspiracy theories running rampant. but the special collections are clearly preferred contributor collections...and that just isn't right. it looks like favoritism, it looks like an admin club and it doesn't fairly represent the talent available on iStock.
I hadn't noticed that the other "collections" were limited to images from the same few contributors. That really is a shame. Not to mention pretty sloppy and haphazard work on the part of whoever put them together.
I am irritated to be left out, sure, but if I was an exclusive who had popular, relevant images and was still left out, I would be well and truly pi$$ed.
I tend to agree with Cathy that this will backfire in the end.
-
The question is how important or effective are these lightboxes in generating sales? I have images of mine included in the "Compelling Critters" lightbox and I don't see any increase in sales of those images or my portfolio as a whole. In fact this month is dismal for me of IS.
-
The question is how important or effective are these lightboxes in generating sales? I have images of mine included in the "Compelling Critters" lightbox and I don't see any increase in sales of those images or my portfolio as a whole. In fact this month is dismal for me of IS.
I agree I should think most buyers don't use these lightboxes unless they're really pressed for time.
-
The question is how important or effective are these lightboxes in generating sales? I have images of mine included in the "Compelling Critters" lightbox and I don't see any increase in sales of those images or my portfolio as a whole. In fact this month is dismal for me of IS.
Do you ever look at the number of views for some of your images, and how fast they go up? I don't try to keep any formal stats for mine, but I have the impression that approximately since the first week of August, the number of views per image per day has also dropped. If my impression is correct buyers are not buying, and they're not even kicking tires.
No big surprise, I suppose. The headline on today's business newspaper where I live admitted that the latest house sale stats from the US were "dismal". In past 2 years the media tried hard to put a happy face on things for example by saying, "the rate growth in the number of new home foreclosures and distressed mortgages slowed somewhat in April", but now they're just saying, "Awwwwww CRAP!" (OT, to show that they're not learning anything, the subheading said something like, "the utter failure of all these ridiculous bailout and stimulus programs to keep people with inadequate income in their McMansions only proves how important it is to continue and expand those failed programs" ... or words to that effect ... bitter LOL)
-
I don't think there will be any 'consequence' to these lightboxes other than a 'crying wolf' outcome over time. buyers will surely get tired of seeing the same club in there, if they pay much attention at all to the lightboxes. I think the lightboxes are window dressing, and as such, I have decided not to worry about them too much. the irritation pops up whenever I log in, but that's about it now.
sales are excellent since the launch of f5. no complaints there, so if buyers are happy, I'm happy. but I'm also one of those who likes the new website, despite the specialized content management when it comes to showcased images. that isn't a new thing anyways, that has been happening for close to a year now.
-
The question is how important or effective are these lightboxes in generating sales? I have images of mine included in the "Compelling Critters" lightbox and I don't see any increase in sales of those images or my portfolio as a whole. In fact this month is dismal for me of IS.
I agree I should think most buyers don't use these lightboxes unless they're really pressed for time.
Maybe they would if the ligtboxes would represent a well rounded collection with something for each; instead of 90% vetta's which arent included in most buyers wallets anyways. In that aspect its probably backfiring already... buyers wont even look at them anymore (as opposed to SS where you usually can find one of your images in a lightbox when it suddenly starts selling suspiciously well)
-
sales are excellent since the launch of f5. no complaints there, so if buyers are happy, I'm happy.
I am glad to see somebody getting sales there. I think JoAnn has also said she's doing pretty well. Maybe the sales falloff hasn't been as bad as my stats would indicate, just shuffled around by best match?
You guys are probably right that these lightboxes aren't going to be hugely popular, limited as they are in scope. It's more of a nagging irritant, I guess.
-
I guess this is the way Getty wants to go. Vetta, Ecxlusive Plus and Exclusive, all higher prices.
There's not much room left for independents.
I'm not sure whether this is good or bad news for IStock in general.
I'll have to wait and see.
This notion has been kicking around for years, and there's never been any evidence to suggest it's anything other than independents paranoia :)
-
I guess this is the way Getty wants to go. Vetta, Ecxlusive Plus and Exclusive, all higher prices.
There's not much room left for independents.
I'm not sure whether this is good or bad news for IStock in general.
I'll have to wait and see.
This notion has been kicking around for years, and there's never been any evidence to suggest it's anything other than independents paranoia :)
Yeah, if you discount the myriad promotional gimmicks, price decreases for independent images, and the search engine bias there's no evidence at all ;)
-
So Getty doesn't want to go the Vetta - Exclusive Plus way?
This is nothing but independents' paranoia?
Ok, let's check it out, shall we?
Click on any of the suggested links / collections and lightboxes on IStock's home page or IStock's Photos tab.
Tell me what do you see?
A myriad of golden icons and not much else?
If you can't see them, it means that indeed, I've got a bad case of Independent Paranoia and I need to have it fixed ASAP.
But of course, you were only joking ...
-
I guess this is the way Getty wants to go. Vetta, Ecxlusive Plus and Exclusive, all higher prices.
There's not much room left for independents.
I'm not sure whether this is good or bad news for IStock in general.
I'll have to wait and see.
This notion has been kicking around for years, and there's never been any evidence to suggest it's anything other than independents paranoia :)
Let me guess...you're exclusive at IS. Difficult to tell, since you haven't bothered to share anything about yourself in your profile. Funny how that works.
-
sorry, wrong button, see next post
-
I think paranoia can be ascribed to all of us at times, depending on the issue. microstock is precarious. let me tell you, being exclusive can breed paranoia too. when you have everything riding on one agency, conspiracy theories reproduce exponentially. if I could change one thing about this forum, it would be less accusation and more discussion. the accusations are so boring.
the bottom line is, independents do have cause for concern, since iStock's policies and algorithms do seem to be slowly, but surely whittling away at independent sales. despite that, it doesn't make sense to say they will ever disregard independents, since their margin on independent sales is so large. they probably need a mix of independent and exclusive images to maintain their business model.
the perks of exclusivity are there. Vetta is an exclusive privilege, exclusive + files, and when it comes to %, yes, sales have been good. with Vetta and e+, it isn't a surprise to see independents taking a hit on sales. your files are certainly pushed back a bit.
-
sales are excellent since the launch of f5. no complaints there, so if buyers are happy, I'm happy.
I am glad to see somebody getting sales there. I think JoAnn has also said she's doing pretty well. Maybe the sales falloff hasn't been as bad as my stats would indicate, just shuffled around by best match?
You guys are probably right that these lightboxes aren't going to be hugely popular, limited as they are in scope. It's more of a nagging irritant, I guess.
I've been away and am trying to catch up with things. Yes, I had said that things were going well - and still are, especially given that August usually isn't a great month.
I'm not in any lightboxes or part of that in-crowd stuff. I have a very small number of Vetta images. I don't do E+
My take on the very selective lightboxes is that it's really about drawing buyer's attention and getting them into the store. The set of images is so small that no matter how lovely they are that's unlikely to be the set of things searched - it's more like the displays in the store window to get you to come in. In that context, I think that smaller sets of images work better than larger ones, and really eye-catching ones better than those more likely to sell in the end.
It seems that the bigger issue is for those (exclusive and independent) who have seen sales drop, which I would think is unrelated to the lightboxes. I don't have a clue what's going on there, but I do know (from the best match changes in 2008 prior to best match 2.0 that did horrible things to my sales) that when sales suck you try to figure out what changed.
-
So Getty doesn't want to go the Vetta - Exclusive Plus way?
This is nothing but independents' paranoia?
Ok, let's check it out, shall we?
Click on any of the suggested links / collections and lightboxes on IStock's home page or IStock's Photos tab.
Tell me what do you see?
A myriad of golden icons and not much else?
If you can't see them, it means that indeed, I've got a bad case of Independent Paranoia and I need to have it fixed ASAP.
But of course, you were only joking ...
Whats this? the mouse that roared?? a little neewbie cannister or what?
-
My take on the very selective lightboxes is that it's really about drawing buyer's attention and getting them into the store. The set of images is so small that no matter how lovely they are that's unlikely to be the set of things searched - it's more like the displays in the store window to get you to come in. In that context, I think that smaller sets of images work better than larger ones, and really eye-catching ones better than those more likely to sell in the end.
I guess I'm pretty weird in my buying habits, but if I don't see, in a shop window, the sort of thing I'd be likely to buy, I don't go in. If I were looking to buy images and it said that a lightbox was the 'best' we have in our collection, and none of it was in the style/genre I wanted (very very few of the 'critters' are wild, for example), why would I imagine I'd get 'better' than 'the best' in the complete collection?
-
I guess this is the way Getty wants to go. Vetta, Ecxlusive Plus and Exclusive, all higher prices.
There's not much room left for independents.
I'm not sure whether this is good or bad news for IStock in general.
I'll have to wait and see.
This notion has been kicking around for years, and there's never been any evidence to suggest it's anything other than independents paranoia :)
If you ignore such things as the pay cut this January (that was when they reduced prices for independents to try to lure buyers in so they could promote Vetta and Exclusive+ content to them, remember?) and the CEO's statement that his sole aim was to boost the earnings of exclusives. Doesn't a statement from the CEO count as "evidence"?
I'm not surprised if all the attention goes to the same small circle, there has always been an "in-crowd" there. There's at least one exclusive who they have somehow managed to push way, way up the diamond list whose files would almost all get rejected if you or I submitted them. So maybe stuff like these light boxes really does make a difference.
-
I guess this is the way Getty wants to go. Vetta, Ecxlusive Plus and Exclusive, all higher prices.
There's not much room left for independents.
I'm not sure whether this is good or bad news for IStock in general.
I'll have to wait and see.
This notion has been kicking around for years, and there's never been any evidence to suggest it's anything other than independents paranoia :)
If you ignore such things as the pay cut this January (that was when they reduced prices for independents to try to lure buyers in so they could promote Vetta and Exclusive+ content to them, remember?) and the CEO's statement that his sole aim was to boost the earnings of exclusives. Doesn't a statement from the CEO count as "evidence"?
I'm not surprised if all the attention goes to the same small circle, there has always been an "in-crowd" there. There's at least one exclusive who they have somehow managed to push way, way up the diamond list whose files would almost all get rejected if you or I submitted them. So maybe stuff like these light boxes really does make a difference.
I don't dispute that IS is maybe less profitable these days for independents. I went exclusive (I was independent for four years) earlier this year when prices changed, so I only know that from reading here.
Maybe I misunderstood what the post was saying, but I was referring to the long standing (years!) rumour that IS would one day close the door to non-exclusives. :)
-
I think paranoia can be ascribed to all of us at times, depending on the issue. microstock is precarious. let me tell you, being exclusive can breed paranoia too. when you have everything riding on one agency, conspiracy theories reproduce exponentially. if I could change one thing about this forum, it would be less accusation and more discussion. the accusations are so boring.
the bottom line is, independents do have cause for concern, since iStock's policies and algorithms do seem to be slowly, but surely whittling away at independent sales. despite that, it doesn't make sense to say they will ever disregard independents, since their margin on independent sales is so large. they probably need a mix of independent and exclusive images to maintain their business model.
the perks of exclusivity are there. Vetta is an exclusive privilege, exclusive + files, and when it comes to %, yes, sales have been good. with Vetta and e+, it isn't a surprise to see independents taking a hit on sales. your files are certainly pushed back a bit.
As I think was mentioned elsewhere, since iStock's price rises in January their margin on independent sales, per image, is now less than on exclusive sales in all cases except very large sizes at high canister levels, so from their point of view one would think it would make perfect sense to encourage exclusive sales at the expense of independents - on the the other hand, I'd agree that they are never likely to disregard the non-exclusive contributors.
After all, very few people are likely to go straight into exclusivity at start up, and iStock also have to keep up their supply of contributors. They may make it increasingly more difficult to become exclusive (though in the past they've actually made it easier) but they'll not want to push contributors into spending too long as independents - as has also been mentioned elsewhere, it's quite a gamble to give up independence once you're well established at other sites.
-
I think paranoia can be ascribed to all of us at times, depending on the issue. microstock is precarious. let me tell you, being exclusive can breed paranoia too. when you have everything riding on one agency, conspiracy theories reproduce exponentially. if I could change one thing about this forum, it would be less accusation and more discussion. the accusations are so boring.
the bottom line is, independents do have cause for concern, since iStock's policies and algorithms do seem to be slowly, but surely whittling away at independent sales. despite that, it doesn't make sense to say they will ever disregard independents, since their margin on independent sales is so large. they probably need a mix of independent and exclusive images to maintain their business model.
the perks of exclusivity are there. Vetta is an exclusive privilege, exclusive + files, and when it comes to %, yes, sales have been good. with Vetta and e+, it isn't a surprise to see independents taking a hit on sales. your files are certainly pushed back a bit.
As I think was mentioned elsewhere, since iStock's price rises in January their margin on independent sales, per image, is now less than on exclusive sales in all cases except very large sizes at high canister levels, so from their point of view one would think it would make perfect sense to encourage exclusive sales at the expense of independents - on the the other hand, I'd agree that they are never likely to disregard the non-exclusive contributors.
After all, very few people are likely to go straight into exclusivity at start up, and iStock also have to keep up their supply of contributors. They may make it increasingly more difficult to become exclusive (though in the past they've actually made it easier) but they'll not want to push contributors into spending too long as independents - as has also been mentioned elsewhere, it's quite a gamble to give up independence once you're well established at other sites.
Funny how things are going! before and especially with Getty, etc, you could ONLY become exclusive on merit, i.e. your photography was that good and inspiring. In fact you could only become a member (without paying as in Photographers-choice) if you were good enough.
Nowdays? well it seems any old fart with a p/s can be exclusive and to top it all the poor sods are led to believe its an "honor" .
No I dont think IS will close any doors on independants, why? well simply because there would be an increased stream of suppliers to the competition. It would be a disatrous move.
In all fairness though maybe we should not knock this too much, IS, is still mosts number one earner and in bad times which this is Im sure theyre taking a lot of stick even from their exclusives, I dont think theyre getting too fat.
best
-
I don't like IS, I think they're nuts! What I don't understand however is why independents kick and scream over agencies favouring exclusives. Isn't that the perk of being exclusive? If an agency looks after an independent the same way it does an exclusive how would that be fair to exclusives when they cannot sell their images elsewhere? If exclusives were so much better off than independents everyone would become exclusive.
So your images didn't appear in some lightbox because you're not an exclusive member, big deal! Must you whine about everything?
Jesus!
-
As for starting my own site to drive traffic to my micro portfolio.... here's a thought - I pay Istock 80% of what my images make on their site. It's not too much to ask that they 1) give everyone a fair shot at inclusion in sitewide lightboxes; or 2) don't claim that those lightboxes are the best of the collection when clearly they aren't; or 3) let their search engine be the arbiter of what gets put in front of buyers; or 4) Make it clear to buyers that the intended purpose of those lightboxes is to highlight Vetta, E+, and/or exclusive content.
Here's another thought.... instead of bitching about the 80% you pay istock, why not thank them for paying you 20% and earning a living doing something you love instead of having to do weddings which you said you hate. You take the photo, you upload it, keyword it, you don't advertise or promote it in any way. You let IS do the rest of the work for you for the rest of your life. That's worth 80% isn't it?
-
Lagereek,
what's the story?
You don't want me to post here? In this thread? Or any other thread?
And that's because I only have 400 images and I 'only' started doing this one year ago, (instead of the sixties)?
Is that it?
Perhaps you wish to discuss my portfolio? Does it look good enough to you? All OK?
Or is it because of my opinions?
I guess that's the real answer...
It has nothing to do with my sales, or my portfolio. It has everything to do with my opinions. You don't agree with me and you're incapable of finding a more convincing argument than my portfolio.
Well, in any case, why don't you take it up with Leaf?
Change the rules guys, make it clear for everyone to see!
Set up a sticky and take the forum over!
Good luck!
-
Sunnymars,
All right then.
You go ahead and thank Getty for taking 80 per cent of your earnings. Nobody's stopping you.
I wonder what are you going to do with the other sites? The sites that pay you a better commission?
Send them flowers every weekend? Write poems?
Lisa is someone who's willing and capable of changing things for the better. Not many people have the guts to do it.
You should support her voice, it's in your own interest.
-
Getty doesn't take 80%. If I don't like an agent, I don't join them and whinge about them. You want a voice? have the guts to speak up and leave. You people don't leave because it's worth you staying... well it was but the bubble's burst.
As for the sites that pay me a better commission, every time a get a decent payment I say "woooohooo" under my breath. Every time I sell a subscription I say "urgh!" under my breath. I don't go to a forum and write post after post whinging about it.
As for IS and lisa, come off it, she's got 200,000 downloads from them and she's whinging? They've obviously looked after her all these years. She would have been snapping wedding pics (which she hates) if it wasn't for them. As for her voice, I find it irritating as I'm sure many others do as well including the micros. I definitely don't want some constant whinger representing me.
Sunnymars,
All right then.
You go ahead and thank Getty for taking 80 per cent of your earnings. Nobody's stopping you.
I wonder what are you going to do with the other sites? The sites that pay you a better commission?
Send them flowers every weekend? Write poems?
Lisa is someone who's willing and capable of changing things for the better. Not many people have the guts to do it.
You should support her voice, it's in your own interest.
-
the bottom line is, independents do have cause for concern, since iStock's policies and algorithms do seem to be slowly, but surely whittling away at independent sales. despite that, it doesn't make sense to say they will ever disregard independents, since their margin on independent sales is so large. they probably need a mix of independent and exclusive images to maintain their business model.
the perks of exclusivity are there. Vetta is an exclusive privilege, exclusive + files, and when it comes to %, yes, sales have been good. with Vetta and e+, it isn't a surprise to see independents taking a hit on sales. your files are certainly pushed back a bit.
As I think was mentioned elsewhere, since iStock's price rises in January their margin on independent sales, per image, is now less than on exclusive sales in all cases except very large sizes at high canister levels, so from their point of view one would think it would make perfect sense to encourage exclusive sales at the expense of independents - on the the other hand, I'd agree that they are never likely to disregard the non-exclusive contributors.
good point...I forgot about that. being exclusive is like having golden handcuffs...but I guess it is the same for a well-established independent too.
-
I don't like IS, I think they're nuts! What I don't understand however is why independents kick and scream over agencies favouring exclusives. Isn't that the perk of being exclusive? If an agency looks after an independent the same way it does an exclusive how would that be fair to exclusives when they cannot sell their images elsewhere? If exclusives were so much better off than independents everyone would become exclusive.
So your images didn't appear in some lightbox because you're not an exclusive member, big deal! Must you whine about everything?
Jesus!
Lightbox?? I dont care about some bloody lightbox ! Ive never even mentioned the word lightbox, besides 90% of all the AD-agency creatives I know in Europe dont even know what . a lightbox is all about.
You seem to know though.
best.
-
Lagereek,
what's the story?
You don't want me to post here? In this thread? Or any other thread?
And that's because I only have 400 images and I 'only' started doing this one year ago, (instead of the sixties)?
Is that it?
Perhaps you wish to discuss my portfolio? Does it look good enough to you? All OK?
Or is it because of my opinions?
I guess that's the real answer...
It has nothing to do with my sales, or my portfolio. It has everything to do with my opinions. You don't agree with me and you're incapable of finding a more convincing argument than my portfolio.
Well, in any case, why don't you take it up with Leaf?
Change the rules guys, make it clear for everyone to see!
Set up a sticky and take the forum over!
Good luck!
Sure! nice port!! pitty about youre inferiority complexed attitude, belongs at school, not here. Nice port though.
all the best wishes.
-
Lagereek, my post was obviously directed at the OP, not you.
urgh, BEST!
I don't like IS, I think they're nuts! What I don't understand however is why independents kick and scream over agencies favouring exclusives. Isn't that the perk of being exclusive? If an agency looks after an independent the same way it does an exclusive how would that be fair to exclusives when they cannot sell their images elsewhere? If exclusives were so much better off than independents everyone would become exclusive.
So your images didn't appear in some lightbox because you're not an exclusive member, big deal! Must you whine about everything?
Jesus!
Lightbox?? I dont care about some bloody lightbox ! Ive never even mentioned the word lightbox, besides 90% of all the AD-agency creatives I know in Europe dont even know what . a lightbox is all about.
You seem to know though.
best.
-
LOL, I've come to the conclusion that about 80% of the people here lack basic communication skills and are completely effing useless. It's a good thing you all can bloody operate a camera, I tell you!
BEST!
-
LOL, I've come to the conclusion that about 80% of the people here lack basic communication skills and are completely effing useless. It's a good thing you all can bloody operate a camera, I tell you!
Sounds like little Miss Sunnymars has taken their toys and gone home.
-
Lagereek, my post was obviously directed at the OP, not you.
urgh, BEST!
I don't like IS, I think they're nuts! What I don't understand however is why independents kick and scream over agencies favouring exclusives. Isn't that the perk of being exclusive? If an agency looks after an independent the same way it does an exclusive how would that be fair to exclusives when they cannot sell their images elsewhere? If exclusives were so much better off than independents everyone would become exclusive.
So your images didn't appear in some lightbox because you're not an exclusive member, big deal! Must you whine about everything?
Jesus!
Lightbox?? I dont care about some bloody lightbox ! Ive never even mentioned the word lightbox, besides 90% of all the AD-agency creatives I know in Europe dont even know what . a lightbox is all about.
You seem to know though.
best.
Sorry! my post was directed towards sunnymars!! not you. Hey! must be a glitch or something here, I can swear Im seeing the posts changing.
anyhow all the best.
-
Sounds like little Miss Sunnymars has taken their toys and gone home.
No point in acknowledging (let alone feeding) the trolls. The Ignore button was invented for such cases.
-
LOL, I've come to the conclusion that about 80% of the people here lack basic communication skills and are completely effing useless. It's a good thing you all can bloody operate a camera, I tell you!
Sounds like little Miss Sunnymars has taken their toys and gone home.
I sincerely hope youre right.
best.
-
LOL, I've come to the conclusion that about 80% of the people here lack basic communication skills and are completely effing useless. It's a good thing you all can bloody operate a camera, I tell you!
Sounds like little Miss Sunnymars has taken their toys and gone home.
She'll be back toots ;D
-
Sounds like little Miss Sunnymars has taken their toys and gone home.
No point in acknowledging (let alone feeding) the trolls. The Ignore button was invented for such cases.
gostwyck must be pissed off because his post where he agreeing with me in the other thread, was the only post i didn't acknowledge. you must have felt completely insignificant, awwww :(
till next time dorks.
-
Lagereek,
I believe you confused me (my post) with someone else.
Never mind, it's OK :)
-
Sunnymars,
All right then.
You go ahead and thank Getty for taking 80 per cent of your earnings. Nobody's stopping you.
I wonder what are you going to do with the other sites? The sites that pay you a better commission?
Send them flowers every weekend? Write poems?
I can see why Sunnymars (who seems to have undergone a recent name change) doesn't mind getty taking 80% of her istock earnings. In almost five months on the site she hasn't managed to get a single solitary image approved there. So 80% of nothing is still nothing. Quite a bargain if you think about it! ;D
-
Sounds like little Miss Sunnymars has taken their toys and gone home.
No point in acknowledging (let alone feeding) the trolls. The Ignore button was invented for such cases.
Normally I would agree with you about ignoring trolls, but there is something oddly compelling and entertaining about watching someone have a complete psychotic break in the forums. Which appears to be what we are witnessing here. :o
-
Sounds like little Miss Sunnymars has taken their toys and gone home.
No point in acknowledging (let alone feeding) the trolls. The Ignore button was invented for such cases.
Normally I would agree with you about ignoring trolls, but there is something oddly compelling and entertaining about watching someone have a complete psychotic break in the forums. Which appears to be what we are witnessing here. :o
LOL...... I was thinking the same thing
-
Sounds like little Miss Sunnymars has taken their toys and gone home.
No point in acknowledging (let alone feeding) the trolls. The Ignore button was invented for such cases.
Normally I would agree with you about ignoring trolls, but there is something oddly compelling and entertaining about watching someone have a complete psychotic break in the forums. Which appears to be what we are witnessing here. :o
LOL...... I was thinking the same thing
LOL!
-
Lagereek,
I believe you confused me (my post) with someone else.
Never mind, it's OK :)
Yeah sorry thats what I did.
best.
-
Sounds like little Miss Sunnymars has taken their toys and gone home.
No point in acknowledging (let alone feeding) the trolls. The Ignore button was invented for such cases.
Normally I would agree with you about ignoring trolls, but there is something oddly compelling and entertaining about watching someone have a complete psychotic break in the forums. Which appears to be what we are witnessing here. :o
LOL...... I was thinking the same thing
LOL!
The bit about people here lacking communication skills, coming from someone who types insults, that was great. I wonder what this person is like when you meet them in real life? Some people like insulting others online but I doubt they would do it face to face.
-
came back after a long day and had a great laugh. some people really seem to strive for greater idiocy. I think we have a winner. anyways, has anyone gone to the trouble of actually charting the margins for exclusives and non-exclusives, for comparative purposes? I'm curious since the post further back. how are the independents doing overall these days? curious if iStock is managing to incent independents to convert or not?
-
I think the best way for istock to give non-exclusives an incentive to go exclusive would be to increase their earnings so that istock was by far their highest earning site. That isn't happening to me, so I have no reason to even think about it. And it doesn't help that they are owned by the people that closed StockXpert and are paying the lowest subs commissions with thinkstock.
-
^ I am not opted into the partner program, so I tend to forget about it. but yeah, that's true. I'm sure we all wish we could forget about it.