Author Topic: iStock simplifying collections (Read 33365 times)

Poncke v2 · « **Reply #150 on:** May 16, 2013, 12:45 »

On the IS forum I saw people posting they wanted it to be more clear which files are exclusive as it wasnt clear enough to buyers what the the crown meant.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #151 on:** May 16, 2013, 12:51 »

Quote from: tickstock on May 16, 2013, 12:16

Quote from: KB on May 16, 2013, 11:54
Quote from: ShadySue on May 16, 2013, 11:29
Have they said yet what they're going to do with the price slider? Could it be that most exclusive content will not be visible if the bottom slider is chosen/default?
Obviously, they could keep it at the four points as now, so the above will be the case; they could get rid of the slider altogether, but buyers asked for it; or they'll could change it in some way if they wanted and were able to.

Good questions. If they keep it at 4 points as it is now, then will buyers notice the "simplification"? Then again, it really isn't much of a simplification, is it? They've eliminated P+ and TAC, that's it. Ignoring the Value Collection (the old DB), they've gone from 6 price points to 4. Yes, it's a bit of a simplification, but is it enough that buyers will notice / care? Color me skeptical.
That's not the simplification. The simplification comes from each level costing the same amount so you know what you're getting with each level.

Quote from: tickstock on May 16, 2013, 12:45

Quote from: sjlocke on May 16, 2013, 12:43
You're talking about the price slider. Not collections.
Right, isn't that what is meant by levels?

Things are getting mixed up here. The "simplification" was never said to be done because it related to the price slider. It's two different things. There is the "simplification" and then "how the price slider will be implemented".

I guess with 4 points and 4 collections, you could now expect that each would hold one price point. Of course, you can get an XS Vetta for the price of a XXXL main, so it's still confusing. They should lose the slider and just have buttons for each collection. Like Getty. The place with more than 3 dozen collections.

tickstock · « **Reply #152 on:** May 16, 2013, 12:54 »

ShadySue · « **Reply #153 on:** May 16, 2013, 13:05 »

Quote from: tickstock on May 16, 2013, 12:45

Quote from: sjlocke on May 16, 2013, 12:43
You're talking about the price slider. Not collections.
Right, isn't that what is meant by levels?

They say they're simplifying collections. They have made no comment about the price slider levels, unless I missed it.
Anyway, broadbanding of prices within website price bands isn't uncommon. It's made more fudgy by the overlay of the credit system for most iS buyers.

fotoVoyager · « **Reply #154 on:** May 16, 2013, 14:08 »

I'm guessing they're not mentioning the price slider because most Exclusives haven't realised that the most commonly used setting - the cheapest - will now exclude most Exclusive content since that's going into the 'Signature' collection by default, apart from junk that doesn't sell.

I'm sure the fact that this new system will result in a huge reduction in RC's earned and thus royalty rates achieved by Exclusives is just a happy coincidence.

tickstock · « **Reply #155 on:** May 16, 2013, 14:13 »

fotoVoyager · « **Reply #156 on:** May 16, 2013, 14:44 »

Sorry, when I said 'they' I meant the people discussing it in the forum.

cobalt · « **Reply #157 on:** May 16, 2013, 18:05 »

Quote from: fotoVoyager on May 16, 2013, 14:08

I'm guessing they're not mentioning the price slider because most Exclusives haven't realised that the most commonly used setting - the cheapest - will now exclude most Exclusive content since that's going into the 'Signature' collection by default, apart from junk that doesn't sell.

I'm sure the fact that this new system will result in a huge reduction in RC's earned and thus royalty rates achieved by Exclusives is just a happy coincidence.

Well when they "accidentally" rolled out similar changes in January there was a storm of uproar and obviously many people´s earnings dropped.

And looking at the current best match thread there is also the question - what type of content is getty talking about when they say they want to promote "exclusive" content? Is it the content of istock exclusive contributors? Or is it Getty wholly owned content where they pay no royalty and the files are highly visible in every search although their keywords are spammy?

I sometimes think the term "exclusive" has a completely different meaning for the decision makers at getty than for the people from istock.

And they have definitely succeeded in scaring people away from discussing istock on the istock forums. Just look at how short the thread is for such dramatic changes. 330 comments in the main forum for such a drastic announcement? Or less than 100 comments in the sales thread with over 30 000 contributors? People are scared...

Most of the very bitter and negative discussions I am seeing are being done in private groups on google, facebook or email circles. Loss of agency income is definetly a concern. But obviously you need to know people who have enough agency content to be affected.

But these people feed their families from their (often falling) istock incomes. They cannot afford to become the "next Sean". Not unless they have secured other income streams.

It is a difficult position for exclusives right now, especially those who have made istock their majority income stream.

And like I said before, I sincerly, very sincerly hope the new price system brings in new customers and creates visible growth. My friends deserve it.

Xanox · « **Reply #158 on:** May 17, 2013, 02:33 »

and this is what they call simplification ?

to me it still looks confusing, and they should finally accept that buyers dont give a sh-it if a photo is exclusive or not, we're talking about cheap RF microstock not some expensive boutique stock agency ! it's Istock, not Magnum or VII.

and yes, their sales must be going down the drain if suddenly they're making a lot of changes, first removing the uploads cap and now mixing up the collections.

too little too late.

Xanox · « **Reply #159 on:** May 17, 2013, 02:38 »

Quote from: fotoVoyager on May 16, 2013, 14:08

I'm guessing they're not mentioning the price slider because most Exclusives haven't realised that the most commonly used setting - the cheapest - will now exclude most Exclusive content since that's going into the 'Signature' collection by default, apart from junk that doesn't sell.

I'm sure the fact that this new system will result in a huge reduction in RC's earned and thus royalty rates achieved by Exclusives is just a happy coincidence.

for each one of the exclusive images i can easily find dozens of similar at cheaper price or even in the dollar bin.

there's no point for exclusivity in micros, we're not talking about obscure subjects like in RM, any possible subject in micros has been done to death.

if they really want to simplify i want to see the same fees for all, say 30%, no exclusivity, and just 2 collections : Cheap as Chips and Premium.

ffNixx · « **Reply #160 on:** May 17, 2013, 06:05 »

Those of you claiming that iStock exclusivity is about to end, how do you think iStock will survive without it? How will they justify their higher prices?

Xanox · « **Reply #161 on:** May 17, 2013, 07:36 »

Quote from: ffNixx on May 17, 2013, 06:05

Those of you claiming that iStock exclusivity is about to end, how do you think iStock will survive without it? How will they justify their higher prices?

they dont need to justify anything.

they're in the business of selling stock images, their task is to convince buyers IS is an added value compared to the competition, no matter if because of exclusive content or other marketing BS.

for instance bulk buyers are more interested in subscriptions rather than exclusivity or premium collections.

dingles · « **Reply #162 on:** May 17, 2013, 09:02 »

I agree...do buyers give a crap about collections?

The only thing as buyer that gets me is how one site can sell the same content as another site at different price points. Knowing that I always look for the best price for that image...I could care less who the agency is as long as the licensing fits my needs. I'm not sure iStock may be going about this the right way as I think exclusivity is the only way to justify a higher price....or else you can get the same content cheaper elsewhere. I think their efforts would be better spent promoting and encouraging exclusivity instead of hacking away at every benefit. Now they will have a collection full of the same content every site has. And in today's market with Google image search and a generation of folks who grew up with Google at their fingertips entering the career world mixed with the financial stress on most businesses today I would say it is naive to think people aren't searching for the best price, especially when an image is available everywhere(we do it when we are shopping for anything else online, why wouldn't we do it for stock also?)...seems like iStock is positioning themselves on a fast track to bottom with most everyone else in the industry. I like the idea of performance driving price, but it sure seems to be a moot point if that same image is available next door for a fraction of the price. I think exclusivity can bring value back to our work and to agencies by stopping the ability for you to undercut your own work...which is happening everywhere now.

It is short sighted when contributors spread their portfolio everywhere for the same reasons...your only helping to kill the market and further devalue your own work for only pennies in return.

falstafff · « **Reply #163 on:** May 17, 2013, 09:39 »

Whatever they are doing there or perhaps not doing. They must have done at least something right. Last two weeks have showed an almost 80% increase in income and my portfolio there is by no means a biggie, some 2600 images. I am not complaining.

Pinocchio · « **Reply #164 on:** May 17, 2013, 09:48 »

Quote from: dingles on May 17, 2013, 09:02

I agree...do buyers give a crap about collections?

The only thing as buyer that gets me is how one site can sell the same content as another site at different price points. Knowing that I always look for the best price for that image...I could care less who the agency is as long as the licensing fits my needs. I'm not sure iStock may be going about this the right way as I think exclusivity is the only way to justify a higher price....or else you can get the same content cheaper elsewhere. I think their efforts would be better spent promoting and encouraging exclusivity instead of hacking away at every benefit. Now they will have a collection full of the same content every site has. And in today's market with Google image search and a generation of folks who grew up with Google at their fingertips entering the career world mixed with the financial stress on most businesses today I would say it is naive to think people aren't searching for the best price, especially when an image is available everywhere(we do it when we are shopping for anything else online, why wouldn't we do it for stock also?)...seems like iStock is positioning themselves on a fast track to bottom with most everyone else in the industry. I like the idea of performance driving price, but it sure seems to be a moot point if that same image is available next door for a fraction of the price. I think exclusivity can bring value back to our work and to agencies by stopping the ability for you to undercut your own work...which is happening everywhere now.

It is short sighted when contributors spread their portfolio everywhere for the same reasons...your only helping to kill the market and further devalue your own work for only pennies in return.

Some interesting stuff here; I may be at risk of going a little off-topic - just let me know.

I understand that price variations across sites can be irritating, and I absolutely expect all buyers to look for the best combination of price and licensing terms. I also acknowledge that contributing to every site out there means they all carry the same product, so the only way they can differentiate is pricing, licensing, etc...

Exclusivity is a partial solution for buyers because some it places buyers at the mercy of the agency's pricing, licensing and other policies.

On the other hand, exclusivity has risks for content creators. Exclusivity at the contributor level puts your fate in someone else's hands. If you ~~choose~~ can find an ethical agency, it may work, but many of the agencies have demonstrated just how real the perils are; iStock is perhaps the most extreme example. Exclusivity at the image level is perhaps a little less risky, depending on how long you are committed to an agency for any given image.

I know I'm being very forthright, so I going to add that there was a time when I aspired to be an iStock exclusive, but no more. It will take a prolonged and sustained effort to persuade me I can trust them - assuming I have content they want. I don't care what any agency puts in their ASA; the only thing that matters is the spirit in which they interpret the ASA when that becomes necessary.

I don't see an easy solution, but I do think these questions are very important to this industry. I agree fully with your observations about Google; love them or hate them, the fact that talk like "go google it" has become ubiquitous is a miracle - they've taught almost everyone everywhere they can get an answer by googling. (Imagine if our education systems had that level of effectiveness - and reliable answers too.)

Regards

dingles · « **Reply #165 on:** May 17, 2013, 09:59 »

Good points, maybe the industry needs to pull together and develop standardized pricing before images have 0 value...I guess you can argue we are already at the point. Just seems like the industry is dooming itself by lowering prices and undercutting the competition...it's the WalMart mentality...in the end they will cut prices so low they can't offer anything else of value. I'm not saying exclusivity is the only way to battle this, but to me if you offer unique content of quality and keep yourself out of the bargain bin. Outside of providing unique content, you have to up the buyer experience...make it easy to search and quick to buy. Kill all the confusing jargon and language...simplifying is good...not sure iStock has nailed the approach.

tickstock · « **Reply #166 on:** May 17, 2013, 10:02 »

Pinocchio · « **Reply #167 on:** May 17, 2013, 10:19 »

Quote from: dingles on May 17, 2013, 09:59

Good points, maybe the industry needs to pull together and develop standardized pricing before images have 0 value...I guess you can argue we are already at the point. Just seems like the industry is dooming itself by lowering prices and undercutting the competition...it's the WalMart mentality...in the end they will cut prices so low they can't offer anything else of value. I'm not saying exclusivity is the only way to battle this, but to me if you offer unique content of quality and keep yourself out of the bargain bin. Outside of providing unique content, you have to up the buyer experience...make it easy to search and quick to buy. Kill all the confusing jargon and language...simplifying is good...not sure iStock has nailed the approach.

I don't know where you're based, but in the US at least, and many other countries, "standardized pricing" = monopoly = trouble with the authorities.

Yes - high quality differentiated content will always be king! Now I have to go figure out how to make some...

Regards

ShadySue · « **Reply #168 on:** May 17, 2013, 10:19 »

Quote from: Pinocchio on May 17, 2013, 09:48

I agree fully with your observations about Google; love them or hate them, the fact that talk like "go google it" has become ubiquitous is a miracle - they've taught almost everyone everywhere they can get an answer by googling. (Imagine if our education systems had that level of effectiveness - and reliable answers too.)

[Totally off-topic] Whereas the reality is that in education we have to tell them (as they often don't believe it) how inaccurate Google can be, and to check, double-check and cross check their results, especially in images, where what you look for is seldom what you get.

dirkr · « **Reply #169 on:** May 17, 2013, 10:46 »

Quote from: dingles on May 17, 2013, 09:59

Just seems like the industry is dooming itself by lowering prices and undercutting the competition

I might be wrong, but I am not aware of examples of (established) microstock companies lowering prices. Quite the opposite, looking at what has happened at e.g. Istock, Fotolia, Dreamstime over the last five or six years. When I remember correctly, the prices have been quite a bit lower when I started with microstock in 2007.

Multiple agencies have lowered their royalties during that time, but that's a different issue.

dingles · « **Reply #170 on:** May 17, 2013, 10:52 »

Quote from: Pinocchio on May 17, 2013, 10:19

Quote from: dingles on May 17, 2013, 09:59
Good points, maybe the industry needs to pull together and develop standardized pricing before images have 0 value...I guess you can argue we are already at the point. Just seems like the industry is dooming itself by lowering prices and undercutting the competition...it's the WalMart mentality...in the end they will cut prices so low they can't offer anything else of value. I'm not saying exclusivity is the only way to battle this, but to me if you offer unique content of quality and keep yourself out of the bargain bin. Outside of providing unique content, you have to up the buyer experience...make it easy to search and quick to buy. Kill all the confusing jargon and language...simplifying is good...not sure iStock has nailed the approach.

I don't know where you're based, but in the US at least, and many other countries, "standardized pricing" = monopoly = trouble with the authorities.

Yes - high quality differentiated content will always be king! Now I have to go figure out how to make some...

Regards

Not true. Standardized pricing may not be favorable, but it doesn't mean a monopoly. There are ways to compete without having to lower price. Either way, it was just a thought....all in all the industry seems to be going down quick.

Pinocchio · « **Reply #171 on:** May 17, 2013, 10:54 »

Quote from: ShadySue on May 17, 2013, 10:19

Quote from: Pinocchio on May 17, 2013, 09:48
I agree fully with your observations about Google; love them or hate them, the fact that talk like "go google it" has become ubiquitous is a miracle - they've taught almost everyone everywhere they can get an answer by googling. (Imagine if our education systems had that level of effectiveness - and reliable answers too.)
[Totally off-topic] Whereas the reality is that in education we have to tell them (as they often don't believe it) how inaccurate Google can be, and to check, double-check and cross check their results, especially in images, where what you look for is seldom what you get.

Too true....

Regards

dingles · « **Reply #172 on:** May 17, 2013, 10:55 »

Quote from: dirkr on May 17, 2013, 10:46

Quote from: dingles on May 17, 2013, 09:59
Just seems like the industry is dooming itself by lowering prices and undercutting the competition

I might be wrong, but I am not aware of examples of (established) microstock companies lowering prices. Quite the opposite, looking at what has happened at e.g. Istock, Fotolia, Dreamstime over the last five or six years. When I remember correctly, the prices have been quite a bit lower when I started with microstock in 2007.

Multiple agencies have lowered their royalties during that time, but that's a different issue.

You are not considering subscriptions.

gostwyck · « **Reply #173 on:** May 17, 2013, 10:56 »

Quote from: dirkr on May 17, 2013, 10:46

Quote from: dingles on May 17, 2013, 09:59
Just seems like the industry is dooming itself by lowering prices and undercutting the competition

I might be wrong, but I am not aware of examples of (established) microstock companies lowering prices. Quite the opposite, looking at what has happened at e.g. Istock, Fotolia, Dreamstime over the last five or six years. When I remember correctly, the prices have been quite a bit lower when I started with microstock in 2007.

Multiple agencies have lowered their royalties during that time, but that's a different issue.

FT have lowered prices in the past by reducing how much higher-ranking contributors can set prices to and then also lowering individual images to the base rate again if they don't sell quickly enough. Even IS has actually reduced the prices of some sizes of images ... whilst usually increasing them elsewhere at the same time.

dingles · « **Reply #174 on:** May 17, 2013, 10:57 »

This seems like a good discussion...maybe we should dedicate a thread to it

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: iStock simplifying collections (Read 33365 times)

Poncke v2

Sean Locke Photography

tickstock

ShadySue

fotoVoyager

tickstock

fotoVoyager

cobalt

Xanox

Xanox

ffNixx

Xanox

dingles

falstafff

Pinocchio

dingles

tickstock

Pinocchio

ShadySue

dirkr

dingles

Pinocchio

dingles

gostwyck

dingles

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors