pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Poll

How does your Istock stats goes (Lately)

+
29 (15.8%)
-
147 (79.9%)
=
8 (4.3%)

Total Members Voted: 163

Author Topic: Istock sales (+) (-) (=) -Poll-  (Read 26923 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #100 on: November 27, 2008, 15:51 »
0
Eh, I'm tired of the latest wave of exclusive/independent yapping.  Get back to me later...


AVAVA

« Reply #101 on: November 27, 2008, 16:02 »
0
 Hey SJ,

 No, why don't you get back to me latter when you have a free moment. I already got back to you on your comment. No rush just looking for your opinion on this since you pointed out you felt this would not happen. If you need time to gather your thoughts you take as much time as you need I'll be around.

Best,
AVAVA

« Reply #102 on: November 27, 2008, 16:05 »
0
This whole deal will be a non-issue in a couple of years when all content is computer generated. Exclusive? Independent? Irrelevant.

AVAVA

« Reply #103 on: November 27, 2008, 16:18 »
0
Hi Avril,

 I have spoken to some people in the CGI world lately because of my own personal interest. From what everyone of them tell me lifestyle photography or motion ( anything with people in it ) will not be replaced for several years because it will still be much cheeper and faster to do it old school with real people than the time and cost it will take to do it in computer. I am told the first place we will see it is from major motion picture studios that can offset the cost with the high returns they make from a top films revenue. Eventually it will probably hit this market but I think we have more than two years left.

Best,
AVAVA

« Reply #104 on: November 27, 2008, 16:27 »
0
OK, maybe five!! Motion is hard, I know, but for still images... One area that I think will be important is parametric modelling programs. Dial in characteristics with a few sliders and presto. I'm most familiar with the open source version, MakeHuman, but there are commercial apps out there, no doubt more sophisticated. It won't be long before you can dial up a business team, do the office with arch viz, pose the figures, adjust lighting to meet current lighting styles, etc etc. Once the assets are developed they can be reused. Some of the top photographers on microstock have been using the same models for years.

AVAVA

« Reply #105 on: November 27, 2008, 16:40 »
0
 Five works much better for me :) Thanks for that bit of relief. I would love to pick your brain about CGI. I am not going into it as I am slowing down but I find it fascinating.

AVAVA

lagereek

« Reply #106 on: November 27, 2008, 17:03 »
0
Behind our backs while we are squibbling, there is another and IMO quite serious threat to all of us, may it be RM, RF or Micro.
Agencies are buying up entire Portfolios!  Yes this has been going on for ages, I know that, nothing new but this is something very differant. Corporate, Studio and people photographers are approached and offerd an all out paycheque for a certain amount of shots. The money is good enough to surrender all copyrights and data, leaving the buyer to pretty much do what they like with the shots and ofcourse, future sales are 100% revenue.
To what Jonathan just said, yes large Corporations will always find new ways to improve their own profits and sure, if Getty tomorrow would find a way to keep all revenue thay would ofcourse blow out the suppliers, just like that. Thats business.
Micro? well its had what some 7 or 8 years now, the idea is getting slightly old and worn, so what can we expect? another 2 or perhaps 3 years more and then some other superior idea will come along, as always does, and brush it aside. For the majority of todays micro-shooters there wont be any room in a new strategy.
Im a firm believer there are only two future ways here: either the fleemarket syndrome where thers not enough money for anybody or the reverse: where buyers are paying something in between RF and Micro, perhaps in the region of RR with rights. i.e. back to "quality"
One thing is for sure, the Micro as we know it today, wont last much longer, they will kill off each other and the remaining will fall on their own success.

« Reply #107 on: November 27, 2008, 17:18 »
0
In all these years, I've heard so many disastrous prophecies for microstock (one of them, but not the only one, that Gety had bougth IS just to close it), without any of them coming to reality that I tend to take your projections of future with a grain of salt. I any case, never let that what may (or not) happen in the future spoil your brigth present. If some disaster occurs, we'll worry when it happens, and many of us will find new ways to stay afloat.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2008, 17:21 by loop »

lagereek

« Reply #108 on: November 27, 2008, 17:46 »
0
Loop!

Its not a projection! common sense. Nothing lasts forever, does it?  10 years ago, who had heard of Micro? what do you think? that all business models and blueprints will stay the same for the next 10 years? just so that we can sit tight and rake in Micro money?

« Reply #109 on: November 27, 2008, 17:59 »
0
Yes, ten years ago nobody have hear of micro. But, curiously enough, these years I never read any prophecy saying "New agencies will come selling pics at 10 c and will dent on RF and MR stock". I read other prophecies about the future of stock that never went to reality. Future is unknown. Had I acted according with prophecies I've read from the wake of microstock (or from the beggining of my involvment in microstock) rigth now I woul have lost a lot of money and opportunities.

« Reply #110 on: November 27, 2008, 18:16 »
0
Check out this and this and the rest of Marks portfolio. He's istock's 3D guru. Not many people there - yet.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2008, 18:19 by averil »

« Reply #111 on: November 27, 2008, 18:37 »
0
Great 3D work by an exclusive istocker, but I don't understand how is that related with what we were talking, if you are talking to me. 3D substiuing photography? Please, come on. 3D has its place, as vectors, flash, photography, etc have theirs.

vonkara

« Reply #112 on: November 27, 2008, 21:44 »
0
Funny to see the results combined to the Istock result

+ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

- IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

= IIIIIIIIIIIIII

vonkara

« Reply #113 on: November 27, 2008, 21:46 »
0
This was the Istock results from the IS forum. (First page, first post)

+ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

- IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

= IIIIIII






« Reply #114 on: November 28, 2008, 02:01 »
0
Check out this and this and the rest of Marks portfolio. He's istock's 3D guru. Not many people there - yet.


Plain images done with great understanding of what sells. It is not the 3D medium that makes them popular.

vonkara

« Reply #115 on: November 28, 2008, 02:39 »
0
Great 3D work by an exclusive istocker, but I don't understand how is that related with what we were talking, if you are talking to me. 3D substiuing photography? Please, come on. 3D has its place, as vectors, flash, photography, etc have theirs.
3D make cleaner and all in focus images. It give jpg images at 50mpx dimension if you really want it and then the designers doesn't need more skills than the one they already have to edit the file. If I was able to make high quality ones I would only do 3D. No more nasty dust everywhere

lisafx

« Reply #116 on: November 29, 2008, 15:38 »
0
It is big so I jus scimmed for now but I did love what LisaFX wrote. " Some of us can Bitch and Moan and Produce  " I love it. You go girlfriend.


If my photography career ever starts to interfere with my ability to bitch and moan, it's time to hang up the camera ;)

« Reply #117 on: November 29, 2008, 16:07 »
0
Interesting comment from Lobo about this whole issue, before he locked the thread on istock.

Yep, we are done here folks. Clearly there are differing opinions on what Exclusivity/Non-exclusivity means to a contributor bottom line. For all the perks we provide our Exclusives we appreciate that some would feel we are trying to push out non-exclusives. The reality is we are trying to provide more incentive to the people on the fence.

« Reply #118 on: November 29, 2008, 17:34 »
0
Quote
Yep, we are done here folks. Clearly there are differing opinions on what Exclusivity/Non-exclusivity means to a contributor bottom line. For all the perks we provide our Exclusives we appreciate that some would feel we are trying to push out non-exclusives. The reality is we are trying to provide more incentive to the people on the fence.

How does decimating a person's search position and sales help one decide to go exclusive if you are on the fence? ???

Maybe if IS was the only site you were uploading to, you would go exclusive out of sheer desperation but if you upload to other sites and can compare your progress, you can clearly see the mind games going on there. Personally, I am extremely disappointed in the tactics being used by IS. Waaaaay to extreme to the point where I don't trust them anymore.

AVAVA

« Reply #119 on: November 29, 2008, 17:54 »
0
Hi there Ave,

 The Exclusivity model was changed by Istock. It is a brand new model that restricts you doing other work ( entirely different work ) for any other RF company unless affiliated with Istock. That is the big difference that Istock is implementing and it is a very limiting contract compared to Macro exclusive contracts and how the business has been run for years. Their model is far more limiting to their excusives than stock ever used to be, or even other Micro exclusives for that matter.

AVAVA
« Last Edit: November 29, 2008, 17:56 by AVAVA »

« Reply #120 on: November 29, 2008, 23:40 »
0
Interesting comment from Lobo about this whole issue, before he locked the thread on istock.

Yep, we are done here folks. Clearly there are differing opinions on what Exclusivity/Non-exclusivity means to a contributor bottom line. For all the perks we provide our Exclusives we appreciate that some would feel we are trying to push out non-exclusives. The reality is we are trying to provide more incentive to the people on the fence.

Ironically, this latest best match change does quite the opposite. Why in the world I would think of being exclusive to an agency that accounts for about 10% of my microstock income? On the other hand the better IS does for non-exclusives the more people would consider going exclusive.

shank_ali

« Reply #121 on: November 30, 2008, 01:38 »
0
I have not seen many exclusive contributors giving up their crown and trying to submit to a few more sites to earn extra income.
Why do you think that is.Has istock brainwashed the exclusives or indeed looked after us with better exposure of our portfolio's,ability to upload more work for inspection and pays more than other stock agencies for a sale.
You will never know how much money you will earn only being exclusive on istockphoto until your exclusive and neither will an exclusive ever know how much money is available to earn uploading to alot of different stock agencies.
Each artist decides where his/her work shall goes on sale and must live with the consequences  :-\

« Reply #122 on: November 30, 2008, 01:57 »
0
Interesting comment from Lobo about this whole issue, before he locked the thread on istock.

Yep, we are done here folks. Clearly there are differing opinions on what Exclusivity/Non-exclusivity means to a contributor bottom line. For all the perks we provide our Exclusives we appreciate that some would feel we are trying to push out non-exclusives. The reality is we are trying to provide more incentive to the people on the fence.

Ironically, this latest best match change does quite the opposite. Why in the world I would think of being exclusive to an agency that accounts for about 10% of my microstock income? On the other hand the better IS does for non-exclusives the more people would consider going exclusive.

Very well said!
BTW: Istock  has dropped to Nr. 3 in the stats to the right for the first time since I am here. Another month like that and they will be Nr.4. Im not at all happy about that and it might not be the most relevant statistic but perhaps they might want to have a look at it.

Many people are not only contributors but also designers - like me. As a designer I have collegues I recommend sites to and if a site doesnt treat me well, I wont recommend it.
Anyway - in the longrun customers AND contributors ("staff") of a company in the civilised world have to be satisfied otherwise it wont work in the longrun.

lagereek

« Reply #123 on: December 01, 2008, 07:38 »
0
Right now on the IS  Forum theres a thread about the November stats!  Well I knew it was bad but not that bad!
In a matter of no time at all, its gone from a "leader" to a very, very depressing site. All threads are just full of nothing really.

bittersweet

« Reply #124 on: December 01, 2008, 09:07 »
0
Right now on the IS  Forum theres a thread about the November stats!  Well I knew it was bad but not that bad!
In a matter of no time at all, its gone from a "leader" to a very, very depressing site. All threads are just full of nothing really.

I was surprised to see how many exclusives are reporting that their numbers are way down as well. I hang around here so much that I almost expected to see that clear-cut division that is often reported.

My November was slightly up (about 8%) from October, but October was way way up for me (+41%DL/+53%$$). With all the extra non-business days, I'm happy with that. It will be interesting to see how December shapes up.

One thing I do know is that I really hope they do NOT implement their yearly price increase! I think that would be suicide in this financial environment.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
51 Replies
15003 Views
Last post October 02, 2007, 11:00
by KiwiRob
10 Replies
3943 Views
Last post March 18, 2008, 04:47
by nicemonkey
31 Replies
6905 Views
Last post September 26, 2010, 13:34
by pet_chia
16 Replies
4032 Views
Last post May 17, 2011, 07:12
by CD123
5 Replies
2177 Views
Last post January 20, 2012, 14:52
by microstockphoto.co.uk

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors