pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Getty says "Don't buy at istock"  (Read 17806 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: March 21, 2010, 14:50 »
0
well, yes, yes, and yes..
starting back to front..

sjlocke..
-agree, we need some form of QA. although i can't say much for bias reviewers who would approve dogshit and then reject a studio shot for poor composition. literally.
-not sure what you mean by "keep idiots from driving pricing to a penny", Mr Locke.
the microsites are already doing that . is it ok for agencies to drive prices down to a penny but not ok for individuals?  maybe i misread your thoughts.

nosaya..
- agree. even now, amongst sites, there is some form of bias in driving buyers to insider's portfolio.
you know it's happening. how else would there be such disparity in a new image where one gets an instant sale while another much better image gets shafted on page 110 of the same keyword search placement. or when in a site's blog by an official, a poorly underexposed image is given credit as "stock sellable " example.
so, of course, Getty will find a way to own the search to still get first ten pages. in failing that, all Getty will need to do is buy over the search engine. and then kill it too.lol.

stockastic..
= i am not advocating to do away with agencies. they do their job and they earn their commissions.
i just don't like the way some of them are controlling contributors, be it not allowing them to opt out, or just plain showing no concern of the bottom line .

good thread. this is the kind of forum i enjoy, where there is some form of unity amongst contributors. after all, if we let agencies shaft us, no one particular contributor is immuned.
that is, unless, you start your own agency. .. and we know how successful that is, lol.


« Reply #76 on: March 21, 2010, 15:03 »
0
IS has raised my RPI 50 times what is was from when I started.  Left to a collection of image factory contributors and hobbyists, they'd surely slit their own throats trying to cut under each other down to a penny or so asap once rpi starts to drop. 

« Reply #77 on: March 21, 2010, 15:39 »
0
IS has raised my RPI 50 times what is was from when I started.  Left to a collection of image factory contributors and hobbyists, they'd surely slit their own throats trying to cut under each other down to a penny or so asap once rpi starts to drop. 

sure, Mr Locke. anyone can slit their own throat(s) by undercutting you. but in order to get a buyer to move to these cutthroats, they have to make images like yours.
if you make images that is easy to copy, or clone, i can see that reducing your lifelihood to a penny.
somehow i don't think that is just that easy. if so, IS wouldn't give you that preferential treatment either, would they?

what i see with other sites, not IS, though... is that they are trying to get total amateurs to move in on your "territory"  but being lenient to them initially.  this is why we see so much crap in microstock. some quite laughable.   i suspect this is to maintain the volume.

it seems many sites are now doing a fantastic job with the smoke screen... ie. wow, we now have xxx millions images ... and wow too, you can get these xxx millions at prices AS LOW AS (fill in the blanks here, as this amount keeps getting lower and lower each time you check).

 

« Reply #78 on: March 21, 2010, 16:07 »
0
No, the Internet thing wouldn't work.  Most buyers need releases checked, quality high or at least usable, etc.  You need some kind of oversight, also to keep idiots from driving pricing to a penny.

There are several ways it can work.  Credible 3rd party reviewing services, paid by sellers, could be part of it.  Many of the review criteria - like noise, "artifacts", white balance, sharpness - today seem to require skilled reviewers but in reality could be evaluated by software.  A new standard file format could embed a digital signature and a bit of code that allows the image to be rendered (viewed) only a fixed number of times - sufficient for the buyer's own review.  A downloadable application and encrypted JPGs could do the same thing today - giving the buyer a right of inspection and return.  

The internet has shown a strong long-term ability to get buyers and sellers in touch, one way or another.   Look at Ebay/Paypal for example - who predicted that?

« Reply #79 on: March 21, 2010, 16:31 »
0
IS is the eBay/paypal of this business.  All 3 are middlemen between the two people, all 3 raise rates as they like and all 3 annoy their users :).

« Reply #80 on: March 21, 2010, 16:53 »
0
IS is the eBay/paypal of this business.  All 3 are middlemen between the two people, all 3 raise rates as they like and all 3 annoy their users :).

... and all of them spend a lot of money on marketing too. The primary reason that IS, SS and FT have been so successful (and why others have not been so) is the amount of money they have spent on getting customers.

« Reply #81 on: March 21, 2010, 19:01 »
0
Very regular users need cheap content.
I need a Cessna since I'm tired of all this local transport here at 25km/h over mud roads. I really honestly do need it. And I need it very cheaply, let's say for 8 DT credits. Got the point? A regular user can ask what he wants, but nobody is forced to offer or to produce it for the price that user wants to or can spend. If the images are too expensive, he can always go out and shoot them himself.

A difference would be that nobody is going to give you that but plenty of people are already offering free content. And plenty of others are already offering cheap subscriptions. It's always going to be down to whether you want some of that business which will inevitably grow whether or not you are in it. Then it is about volume. These are roughly equivalent to the arguments which already took place around microstock in general.

I'm not advocating any of this but rather noting that it is an inevitable tide or trend since if someone does not serve a market at a particular price then someone else will. And in some ways I think it is possibly more interesting to see how any shifts affect prices, volumes and percentages at the other end of any market.

Free content is legally hazardous, hardly searchable and with an average poor quality.  Even if you were determined to do do it, producing free content with acceptable standarts would cost you a lot of money, and because of that, if not the hobby of a bored billionarie, free content never will be able to replace paid content. An the same will happen, in the near future ,with too-,much-cheap content (basically subs)... in the point when producers discover that they spent  more than what they get.

« Reply #82 on: March 21, 2010, 20:23 »
0
Free content is legally hazardous, hardly searchable and with an average poor quality.  Even if you were determined to do do it, producing free content with acceptable standarts would cost you a lot of money, and because of that, if not the hobby of a bored billionarie, free content never will be able to replace paid content. An the same will happen, in the near future ,with too-,much-cheap content (basically subs)... in the point when producers discover that they spent  more than what they get.

i think it also depends on your upbringing too. if you're a buyer who shops at the dollar store or thrift, and prefers to buy lots of nothing for a buck each, you will find subs to make sense.
then you have the other buyer who would never dream of buying something from the thrift stores or flea mart. this would be the buyer who sees quality as opposed to quantity, and will think subs is really another way of getting them to spend on something they really don't need, and in many cases, pay for more and get far less.

the mentality of those running the agencies who think subs is the way to make money is really a lot of bull. after all , wasn't part of the demise of StockXpert due to some wise idea of introducing subs?

thus, going back to the constant promotion of subs sites stressing on quantity vs quality. so you keep hearing the brass cheer each time they reach another million in images.  you know, all the ballyhoo about having the most images in microstock and the lowest price .  such crap!!!

« Reply #83 on: March 22, 2010, 00:10 »
0
There are several ways it can work.  Credible 3rd party reviewing services, paid by sellers, could be part of it.  Many of the review criteria - like noise, "artifacts", white balance, sharpness - today seem to require skilled reviewers but in reality could be evaluated by software.  A new standard file format could embed a digital signature and a bit of code that allows the image to be rendered (viewed) only a fixed number of times - sufficient for the buyer's own review.  A downloadable application and encrypted JPGs could do the same thing today - giving the buyer a right of inspection and return.
Correct. A clearance house for rights and releases, a warranty, a technical evaluation, payment, controlled downloads....
What you are talking about is a... stock agency.  ;D

« Reply #84 on: March 22, 2010, 08:31 »
0
I havent read this entire thread....  just bits and pieces...

I do however, sit and watch with wonder and amusement in the Great Microstock Wars.

Is it just my thinking or...  is SS the only stable micro force left on the planet?  Since day one, I have had no problem with SS.  Maybe they should consider an exclusive program.  The way everything is in such turmoil... I might actually seriously consider it for the  first time in my micro-life. 8)=tom

... or maybe I'm wrong....

« Reply #85 on: March 22, 2010, 09:51 »
0
i think many of us have hijacked this thread. so let's pull it back into topic.

to reconsider why Getty would want to divert attention from IS.
well, maybe they are not as stupid or insensitive to IS contributors (esp exclusivies) as i initially thought.

we see the other top 4 sites literally going for the mass volume cheap subs marketing. so Getty gets StockXpert and shaft them into Thinkstock. also shaft a lot more of non selling IS images there.
this creates competition for SS, DT , FT,et.. who seem to favor subs , even though we know contributors hate sub with a passion.  but Getty has to fill that need or lose market hold .

now, a buyer can choose between "premium" micro stock that you can find at IS,
or Thinkstock. you probably will find everything from horseshit to one thousand and one golden people same old same old for the next 100 pages in Thinkstock as you would with SS, DT, FT,etc..
this way, Getty buyers are happily served via Thinkstock without having to go outside the Getty fold.

then, when the buyer gets tired of seeing all those same old same old at Thinkstock,
they can come back to IS and pay for something better.

this pleases both contributors of IS, and buyers.
not as dumb as they look... this Getty.

« Reply #86 on: March 22, 2010, 09:58 »
0
There are several ways it can work.  Credible 3rd party reviewing services, paid by sellers, could be part of it.  Many of the review criteria - like noise, "artifacts", white balance, sharpness - today seem to require skilled reviewers but in reality could be evaluated by software.  A new standard file format could embed a digital signature and a bit of code that allows the image to be rendered (viewed) only a fixed number of times - sufficient for the buyer's own review.  A downloadable application and encrypted JPGs could do the same thing today - giving the buyer a right of inspection and return.
Correct. A clearance house for rights and releases, a warranty, a technical evaluation, payment, controlled downloads....
What you are talking about is a... stock agency.  ;D

Except for a few minor details - Google provides the search functionality, we display the images however we want, we arrange our own transaction processing,  we set our own prices, we do our own marketing (if any) and we get all the money.

alias

« Reply #87 on: March 22, 2010, 10:49 »
0
Except for a few minor details - Google provides the search functionality, we display the images however we want, we arrange our own transaction processing,  we set our own prices, we do our own marketing (if any) and we get all the money.

How can a buyer be guaranteed that you own the image which you are selling the rights to use ?

How can a buyer be certain that the image is rights cleared ? Who checks the paperwork ?

What are you going to offer as a trader which is better than what an agency can offer ?

Who checks that you are not spamming your keywords or uploading inferior shots ?

The best photographers in the world need someone else to make editorial decisions for them. Same as all other creatives ultimately.

« Reply #88 on: March 22, 2010, 11:07 »
0
Except for a few minor details - Google provides the search functionality, we display the images however we want, we arrange our own transaction processing,  we set our own prices, we do our own marketing (if any) and we get all the money.

How can a buyer be guaranteed that you own the image which you are selling the rights to use ?

How can a buyer be certain that the image is rights cleared ? Who checks the paperwork ?

What are you going to offer as a trader which is better than what an agency can offer ?

Who checks that you are not spamming your keywords or uploading inferior shots ?

The best photographers in the world need someone else to make editorial decisions for them. Same as all other creatives ultimately.


So how does anyone ever buy a car on Ebay Motors?  I'm sure the dealers all laughed and said that would never happen.

It can be hard to imagine a life outside of an abusive relationship.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2010, 11:09 by stockastic »

alias

« Reply #89 on: March 22, 2010, 11:15 »
0
You need to look at things from the clients' perspectives.

« Reply #90 on: March 22, 2010, 11:28 »
0
 All the potential problems you list are real, but in time new solutions will be worked out. 


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
3020 Views
Last post September 24, 2010, 12:44
by MatHayward
24 Replies
4452 Views
Last post May 03, 2011, 20:05
by caspixel
5 Replies
1426 Views
Last post June 19, 2015, 06:31
by chrisdorney
301 Replies
31686 Views
Last post August 21, 2016, 07:09
by ShadySue
0 Replies
400 Views
Last post July 02, 2017, 00:34
by Chichikov

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors