Author Topic: death of istock postponed? (Read 41891 times)

ShadySue · « **Reply #175 on:** April 15, 2013, 08:37 »

Quote from: dingles on April 15, 2013, 07:40

They stated that only logged in views are counted. Which has been argued by contributors that should not be the intended way to track views. My newer uploads are light on views when compared to the past. They first claimed there was no change to views and later stated there was a change because contributors were raising their own view counts to raise their best match placement...if best match accounted for view/sales ratio then that wouldn't be an issue. They only acknowledge such issues after contributors have to bring it up over and over and then they quickly dismiss it. So now you can have a higher download number than views because files can be purchased without logging in. Makes little sense. I'd buy their excuse if my sales backed it up...they don't.

Also, even if only logged in views counted, that wouldn't explain why in the old days my files got lightboxed pretty regularly, and now they don't. I'm 99.9% certain you can't lightbox unless you're logged in. Given that most people lightbox a file either because it's on a 'short list' for a particular job, or because it 'might come in useful one day', the relative paucity nowadays of files being lightboxed must speak to the dwinding buyers, at least relative to the collection size.
Collection size isn't such a relevant factor down in the low-supply, low-demand end, as my 'competition' isn't growing at such a rate (even proportionately) as if I were supplying 'adorable babies' or 'sexy businesswomen'. And it's easier for me to see that my competition isn't picking up the sales nowadays: the sales just aren't there; whereas in the past the sales were chugging along, even if not in the high numbers of the popular genres.

cobalt · « **Reply #176 on:** April 15, 2013, 08:43 »

I sell my videos everywhere - including istock. 20% is more than 15%.

Most sales come from Pond5 and Shutterstock, but istock is number 3 for me, way ahead of fotolia or any other video site. So it makes a difference for my income.

I would only receive 25% if I was video exclusive and I would never be able to rise up in their video RC system. So for me this is a positive change.

Maybe at a later stage I can afford to not send videos to istock, but right now it is still useful, so I upload. But the customers seem to have migrated to other sites anyway, so it probably doesn´t matter.

dingles · « **Reply #177 on:** April 15, 2013, 09:16 »

Quote from: dirkr on April 15, 2013, 08:22

Quote from: cobalt on April 15, 2013, 07:42
For me as an indie this would even be good, they said the Getty360 program will include all content and that indies will be paid 20% for what gets sold there, i.e. I will get a higher video royalty than on istock.

So there is something for me to look forward to.

You're looking forward to 20% commission.
Looks like Getty's strategy is working...

Well when you look at Getty's prices, 20% can earn more than 50% on other sites...and people buy videos off Getty for the higher price points...I don't fully understand the reasoning for the higher prices, but I believe it has to do with the licensing you get through Getty versus iStock.

tickstock · « **Reply #178 on:** April 15, 2013, 10:21 »

Pinocchio · « **Reply #179 on:** April 15, 2013, 10:28 »

Quote from: dingles on April 15, 2013, 09:16

.....

Well when you look at Getty's prices, 20% can earn more than 50% on other sites...and people buy videos off Getty for the higher price points...I don't fully understand the reasoning for the higher prices, but I believe it has to do with the licensing you get through Getty versus iStock.

The notion that (my bold) "20% can earn more than 50%" is based on the assumption that Getty actually sells at the publicly stated prices, at least most of the time. I would bet that Getty is discounting significantly (like many other sellers) under pressure from buyers, so the actual outcome could well be that 20% earns less than 50%.

Regards

dirkr · « **Reply #180 on:** April 15, 2013, 10:30 »

Quote from: dingles on April 15, 2013, 09:16

Quote from: dirkr on April 15, 2013, 08:22
Quote from: cobalt on April 15, 2013, 07:42
For me as an indie this would even be good, they said the Getty360 program will include all content and that indies will be paid 20% for what gets sold there, i.e. I will get a higher video royalty than on istock.

So there is something for me to look forward to.

You're looking forward to 20% commission.
Looks like Getty's strategy is working...

Well when you look at Getty's prices, 20% can earn more than 50% on other sites...and people buy videos off Getty for the higher price points...I don't fully understand the reasoning for the higher prices, but I believe it has to do with the licensing you get through Getty versus iStock.

I don't sell any videos, but from what I read Pond5 seems to be one of the better selling sites. There you can set your own prices and recieve 50%.

And another point: when 20% of the end price on site A is the same as 50% on site B, then customers on site A need to have 2,5 times the budget than on site B to provide the same overall payout to contributors.

Just assuming that sales numbers stay the same irrespective of the customer's end price is not realistic.

dingles · « **Reply #181 on:** April 15, 2013, 10:32 »

Quote from: Pinocchio on April 15, 2013, 10:28

Quote from: dingles on April 15, 2013, 09:16

.....

Well when you look at Getty's prices, 20% can earn more than 50% on other sites...and people buy videos off Getty for the higher price points...I don't fully understand the reasoning for the higher prices, but I believe it has to do with the licensing you get through Getty versus iStock.

The notion that (my bold) "20% can earn more than 50%" is based on the assumption that Getty actually sells at the publicly stated prices, at least most of the time. I would bet that Getty is discounting significantly (like many other sellers) under pressure from buyers, so the actual outcome could well be that 20% earns less than 50%.

Regards

All assumptions either way of course.

dirkr · « **Reply #182 on:** April 15, 2013, 10:36 »

Quote from: cobalt on April 15, 2013, 08:43

I sell my videos everywhere - including istock. 20% is more than 15%.

Most sales come from Pond5 and Shutterstock, but istock is number 3 for me, way ahead of fotolia or any other video site. So it makes a difference for my income.

I would only receive 25% if I was video exclusive and I would never be able to rise up in their video RC system. So for me this is a positive change.

Maybe at a later stage I can afford to not send videos to istock, but right now it is still useful, so I upload. But the customers seem to have migrated to other sites anyway, so it probably doesn´t matter.

My comment wasn't meant to critisize you for selling on Istock. And I understand your argument, 20% is a lot better than 15%.

It just doesn't sound right to me to accept 20% as reasonable to start with (don't get me wrong, I did accept that also and only quit Istock after they decided that 20% for me is too much to pay).

And now they have got us so far (by making 20% for independents the unachievable maximum) that those measly 20% are beginning to look like something good...

dingles · « **Reply #183 on:** April 15, 2013, 10:41 »

Quote from: dingles on April 15, 2013, 10:32

Quote from: Pinocchio on April 15, 2013, 10:28
Quote from: dingles on April 15, 2013, 09:16

.....

Well when you look at Getty's prices, 20% can earn more than 50% on other sites...and people buy videos off Getty for the higher price points...I don't fully understand the reasoning for the higher prices, but I believe it has to do with the licensing you get through Getty versus iStock.

The notion that (my bold) "20% can earn more than 50%" is based on the assumption that Getty actually sells at the publicly stated prices, at least most of the time. I would bet that Getty is discounting significantly (like many other sellers) under pressure from buyers, so the actual outcome could well be that 20% earns less than 50%.

Regards

All assumptions either way of course.

The problem with POND5 for me is that sales are low there (for me at least)...so 50% of 0...well you do the math. I also don't like the idea that someone can create a similar video and undersell me...so I don't particularly support POND5.

And Getty does in fact sell iStock videos on the Getty site at inflated prices...contributors have even stated that they often make more with Getty sales than iStock. And I agree it seems absurd to have the higher prices of the same content. And also seems to undermine iStock as a whole...but they are able to get those sales and make us the $...

So, yes 20% can earn more than 50%. Getty still has a customer base that pays money. This is reality. Would I rather get 50% on my stuff that sells...of course ;P

cobalt · « **Reply #184 on:** April 15, 2013, 11:02 »

@dirkr

Pond5 and Shutterstock seem to be leading video right now. Maybe that is why they have marginally upgraded what they are paying out, so at least some of the higher end indie content.

I am really curious about getty360. What do you think about it?

@tickstock

The istock exclusive community is about working together to create high quality content.

We share models, locations and stylists, we teach each other tips and tricks, there are facebook groups were great artists demonstrate step by step processing, we lend each other gear, some who teach workshops or organize classes give other exclusives big discounts and wherever you travel you will always find another exclusive to team up with to create great content.

We are all highly networked internationally. We don't hide behind masks or from each other in any way.

The istock community is also open to indies, there are many we network with to shoot together.

istock used to support all that with great workshop and Lypses.

It is a fantastic mix of free spirited people who often make loads of money while having fun.

The supportive community has always been one of the most important "selling points" when people make the decision to go exclusive. Especially when you do stock full time you want to know if your peers and the agency will work together with you.

Which is why it has been so sad to watch how Getty is actively destrying the community. They probably really think it is like flickr and never bothered to understand the business economics of how the great content these artists produce is being created in the first place.

If you have ever spent time on istock and really have a portfolio and income from actually selling files, you would know all that.

You said you want to go from 35% to 40%....how can you afford to pay for all your shooting if you do it alone??

The community also drives a lot of customers, many are buyers/designers anyway. Another reason why it is so bizzarre that Getty brings down the community.

If you want to be a believable anonymous istock exclusive, maybe check back and learn a bit more to understand what it is you are trying to sell.

Or maybe what you describe is indeed the new getty community. Which is why so many of my peers are moving on to spread their risk. But we still all work together, if anything recent events have made the community stronger.

ETA: Ok, I shouldn´t write "we" as I am now fully "indie"... but it has only been four weeks and I am organizing my next shootings with the same people anyway. Some are still exclusive but they are all preparing to sail. If istock sales came back and the company went from "overpromise, underdeliver" to "we announce it - we do it, we impress you with great business logic", people would stay.

tickstock · « **Reply #185 on:** April 15, 2013, 11:42 »

ShadySue · « **Reply #186 on:** April 15, 2013, 11:45 »

Quote from: Pinocchio on April 15, 2013, 10:28

I would bet that Getty is discounting significantly (like many other sellers) under pressure from buyers, so the actual outcome could well be that 20% earns less than 50%.

Absolutely. There have been sales from Getty which equate to sales prices much lower than shown on that site.

cobalt · « **Reply #187 on:** April 15, 2013, 11:45 »

You said that if you were looking for community you would go to flickr. This implies that you see no community benefit on istock. It is also a very strange thing to say as an istock exclusive.

Why don´t you tell us how you see the istock community, if it is different to other places and if it affects on your image production?

You are producing high quality files right? You said you want to go from 35% to 40% royalty. Or did I misread that as well?

Any tips to share (with istock spirit) for people who have the same goals as you (40%)? And, like you, are investing a lot of time, energy and also money in image production??

You are shooting actively, right? Or is that again a misunderstanding on my part?

tickstock · « **Reply #188 on:** April 15, 2013, 11:54 »

ShadySue · « **Reply #189 on:** April 15, 2013, 11:56 »

Quote from: cobalt on April 15, 2013, 11:45

You said that if you were looking for community you would go to flickr. This implies that you see no community benefit on istock. It is also a very strange thing to say as an istock exclusive.

Not at all. I'm exclusive and I have no community over there at all: I've been banned for well over two years now. It's just business.

cobalt · « **Reply #190 on:** April 15, 2013, 11:59 »

I´m sorry to hear that Sue. But when you shoot, don´t you network with people? Over here we have a very strong group of people who work together to save costs and to learn from each other.

And most of us networked via the istock community, it is a fantastic experience to pool resources.

ShadySue · « **Reply #191 on:** April 15, 2013, 12:07 »

Quote from: cobalt on April 15, 2013, 11:59

I´m sorry to hear that Sue. But when you shoot, don´t you network with people?

No, there are very few stock shooters that I even know of in Scotland. When Warwick organised an iScotalypse, a lot of those attending were English. Far too far away to make collaboration economically viable.
It wouldn't make any financial sense for me to share shoots with people; we'd just be splitting the few available sales.

tickstock · « **Reply #192 on:** April 15, 2013, 12:07 »

cobalt · « **Reply #193 on:** April 15, 2013, 12:10 »

So you don´t shoot with other istockers to save costs?

Community is about the money, also fun, but about money like all business. Like the communities of kickstarter or other entrepreneur sites.

Of course you can do it all on your own, but istock offers many ways to save money by sharing resources.

If I can save money I do it.

ETA:

May I ask - why do you find it beneficial to spend so much time on msg? If "community" is not part of the way you do business , why are you here?

I hope that is sensible question to what you write?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #194 on:** April 15, 2013, 12:20 »

Quote from: ShadySue on April 15, 2013, 11:45

Quote from: Pinocchio on April 15, 2013, 10:28
I would bet that Getty is discounting significantly (like many other sellers) under pressure from buyers, so the actual outcome could well be that 20% earns less than 50%.
Absolutely. There have been sales from Getty which equate to sales prices much lower than shown on that site.

Which is why the whole Getty 360 "Don't worry, they'll be priced higher than IS" means nothing except you'll likely get even less than normal.

tickstock · « **Reply #195 on:** April 15, 2013, 12:24 »

tickstock · « **Reply #196 on:** April 15, 2013, 12:30 »

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #197 on:** April 15, 2013, 12:38 »

Quote from: tickstock on April 15, 2013, 12:30

For independents I think they'll get much higher sales, the royalty rate is about the same and the prices should be a good deal higher.

Ah yes, the old "well, you weren't making anything this way before, so something is better than nothing" ethic.

cobalt · « **Reply #198 on:** April 15, 2013, 12:40 »

I haven't been uploading a lot of the content I have, I have over 2000 files to go through and process and in the last few months I haven't felt comfortable with istock. But I have at least one shoot a month with people from the community here. I also teach photography, so I shoot with the students (although some of that is too extreme for stock).

My portfolio is not as spectacular or as impressive as others, but everyone can see it.

Unlike yours.

tickstock · « **Reply #199 on:** April 15, 2013, 12:42 »

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: death of istock postponed? (Read 41891 times)

ShadySue

cobalt

dingles

tickstock

Pinocchio

dirkr

dingles

dirkr

dingles

cobalt

tickstock

ShadySue

cobalt

tickstock

ShadySue

cobalt

ShadySue

tickstock

cobalt

Sean Locke Photography

tickstock

tickstock

Sean Locke Photography

cobalt

tickstock

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors