Quote from: dingles link=topic=19329.msg317162#msg317162

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.

I tend to agree with you that Istock is making a mistake by tearing down the benefits of exclusivity, for all the reasons you outlined. 

However, I do think they have shown they no longer value exclusive artists much, for whatever reason.  If they still understood the value of exclusive content, there is NO WAY they would have tossed one of the very best exclusive portfolios, with some of the highest quality content to the curb.  Exclusives aren't complaining much because that one single act let everybody know exactly how much value is (or ISN'T) placed on exclusives these days.   

Good thoughts Lisa.

I don't think that Istock actually have a coherent strategy at the moment. I think that sales have plummeted, as a result of their previous greed, and we're now observing a series of knee-jerk reactions in a somewhat uncoordinated attempt to remedy the situation (or even just limit the immediate damage). They're being led by the nose by what they believe may stop their remaining customers from leaving. The fact that they needed to employ an outside agency to survey their own customers says a lot about their control and their lack of belief in their own tactics. Of course local IS management may have felt that they needed the back-up of the survey to justify their actions to Getty HQ.

I think exclusives are definitely an awkward issue for Istock though. Whilst they are undoubtedly a huge asset and USP over other microstock agencies it is not clear that customers are prepared to pay the premium for such content nowadays, especially with so many non-exclusive images available everywhere. Istock are having to charge too much for their exclusive content (apparently more than it is worth to many buyers anyway) and I'm sure that Getty resents paying anyone more than 20% royalty. The future does not look good for Istock IMHO.

Quote from: gostwyck on May 17, 2013, 11:59

I don't think that Istock actually have a coherent strategy at the moment.

I doubt if they've had any coherent strategy for years.
It's change after change, few/none of which (other than cutting %age according to RCs) has actually worked as announced, and none of which have been allowed to run for any time able to prove their worth.
It's like they're just trying anything and everything without any clue about what they're doing.
It could be that the actual iS staff who are left are having their strings pulled from people with a totally different vision than theirs, or no vision at all.
Where there is no vision the people perish, and I venture to suggest that also applies to those whose only vision is maximising profits at the cost of everthing else.

These observations are making sense, unfortunately.

.

Quote from: dirkr on May 17, 2013, 14:08

Quote from: dingles 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.

So did subscription prices decrease over the last years? Where was the price of a standard Shutterstock subs plan five years ago? I have no idea...

I think he's saying sites like Dreamstime, Fotolia, and Bigstock have added subs which have lower royalties than credit or single image sales.

That's right, and I don't disagree with the lowering of royalties.
But did they introduce subs that are significantly lower priced than those of the competition?
What I am asking is whether the statement I quoted is correct - about lowering prices and undercutting the competition.

Because I believe that is not the current problem of this industry.

Quote from: dingles link=topic=19329.msg317162#msg317162

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.

I tend to agree with you that Istock is making a mistake by tearing down the benefits of exclusivity, for all the reasons you outlined. 

However, I do think they have shown they no longer value exclusive artists much, for whatever reason.  If they still understood the value of exclusive content, there is NO WAY they would have tossed one of the very best exclusive portfolios, with some of the highest quality content to the curb.  Exclusives aren't complaining much because that one single act let everybody know exactly how much value is (or ISN'T) placed on exclusives these days.   

I dont think IS' understanding of exclusive content has anything to do with the deletion of the portfolio you are referring to.

I dont think IS' understanding of exclusive content has anything to do with the deletion of the portfolio you are referring to.

I think you misread me.  I was saying their LACK of understanding of the value of exclusive content was evident when they deleted Sean's portfolio, not that it was the motivator for that deletion.   

Quote from: lisafx on May 17, 2013, 15:36

Quote from: Poncke v2 on May 17, 2013, 14:42

I dont think IS' understanding of exclusive content has anything to do with the deletion of the portfolio you are referring to.

I think you misread me.  I was saying their LACK of understanding of the value of exclusive content was evident when they deleted Sean's portfolio, not that it was the motivator for that deletion.   

Yes, I dont think their lack of understanding is evident because of what they did.

They can fully understand the importance of exclusivity and still remove the portfolio because of the reasons that were given at that time. Its a saying in football that no footballer is bigger than the club. Thats what I mean.

They probably fully understand the consequences of removing such an exclusive portfolio.

well there's a new dimension now, if Yuri truly is exclusive. He possibly brokered this deal before Sean was booted.

Quote from: Poncke v2 on May 17, 2013, 15:44

Quote from: lisafx on May 17, 2013, 15:36

Quote from: Poncke v2 on May 17, 2013, 14:42

I dont think IS' understanding of exclusive content has anything to do with the deletion of the portfolio you are referring to.

I think you misread me.  I was saying their LACK of understanding of the value of exclusive content was evident when they deleted Sean's portfolio, not that it was the motivator for that deletion.   

Yes, I dont think their lack of understanding is evident because of what they did.

They can fully understand the importance of exclusivity and still remove the portfolio because of the reasons that were given at that time. Its a saying in football that no footballer is bigger than the club. Thats what I mean.

They probably fully understand the consequences of removing such an exclusive portfolio.

well there's a new dimension now, if Yuri truly is exclusive. He possibly brokered this deal before Sean was booted.

Isnt that backing what I said? If you imply they understood the importance of exclusive content, and brokered the deal with Yuri with sacking Sean in mind.

but *yawn* time to move on. don't think for a second anyone else will get this offer. it's taboo to discuss over at iS forums, much as Google is too.

Others have had special deals before. Some ingested pseudo-exclusives sell RF off their own sites already. Or at least 'did', I don't actually keep up.