Author Topic: My View on the future of IStock as a full-time non-exclusive microstocker (Read 54929 times)

RT · « **Reply #25 on:** December 01, 2008, 18:40 »

Quote from: sharply_done on December 01, 2008, 17:27

I agree with sharphot. I think IS wants to dominate the marketplace, and an important part of their strategy is to have as many exclusive images as possible.

I agree that they want to dominate the market what site wouldn't, however I can't believe for one minute part of their strategy is to have exclusive images, because if it was they would offer an exclusive image upload process, I think they just want exclusive contributors. However I think this recent best match change has certainly buggered up that plan, a couple of months ago I was seriously considering going RF exclusive with them, I've just lost $1500 in a month due to this best match change, there is no way on Gods earth I would even consider going exclusive now, and I know for a fact I'm one of many who feel the same way.

I have a feeling (and nothing other than speculation to back this up) that the heads of Getty want iS to lose it's market share and have deliberately conjured up this recent best match change to do just that, within the past few months I've seen a lot of old time RM photographers start to make enquiries about iS and microstock in general with the view of testing the water and they had been getting good feedback, of course none of them would go exclusive and would try various agencies, what would happen if they started to see good returns? they'd reduce their uploading to Getty. Since this recent best match change and all the bad press it's got, most of these have now decided it's not worth bothering.
Like I say just my theory but I can't see any other reason why iS would have implemented this change.

Yuri_Arcurs · « **Reply #26 on:** December 01, 2008, 18:53 »

It looks like the new best match favors old accounts. Being... The longer you have been with IS the better best match match. All the new exclusives I have talked to, including Cecilie my girlfriend, have dropped dramatically. One old member I talked enjoyed almost a 200 percent increase in income. I can understand Istock in their favoring of older members, but it will make it very hard for them to get NEW exclusive members on the wagon if they forever will be in the shadow of older members. I predict they will change the algorithm.

lisafx · « **Reply #27 on:** December 01, 2008, 18:55 »

Very interesting theory Richard! Makes as much sense as anything I have read.

Yuri, that is shocking that you are getting those kinds of rejections. Especially in light of your recent success in becoming their second best selling artist of all time (and top selling artist in current rate of downloads).

Do you think there is a deliberate attempt to keep you and other high level non-exclusives from advancing any further up the ladder?

lisafx · « **Reply #28 on:** December 01, 2008, 18:58 »

Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on December 01, 2008, 18:53

It looks like the new best match favors old accounts. Being... The longer you have been with IS the better best match match. All the new exclusives I have talked to, including Cecilie my girlfriend, have dropped dramatically. One old member I talked enjoyed almost a 200 percent increase in income. I can understand Istock in their favoring of older members, but it will make it very hard for them to get NEW exclusive members on the wagon if they forever will be in the shadow of older members. I predict they will change the algorithm.

I have noticed the same thing, reading the best match threads. Only older exclusive members are favored. If you are a newer member OR a non-exclusive you are pretty well devastated by this best match.

I hope you are right about them changing the algorithm. Can't happen soon enough IMHO. I am down over $1,000 due to this new best match.

Yuri_Arcurs · « **Reply #29 on:** December 01, 2008, 19:04 »

"3- New non-exclusive images are pushed back just like top images so they'll never (or rarely) get the sales to take off. I already noticed this happening."

Interesting. I have noticed the same. My new images, even super groups, which there are virtually non of on Istock, won't sell. Very strange that this material suddenly sells about 500 percent less then the average sales for the same batches on other microstock sites with a lower demand for such images...

RT · « **Reply #30 on:** December 01, 2008, 19:05 »

Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on December 01, 2008, 18:53

I can understand Istock in their favoring of older members, but it will make it very hard for them to get NEW exclusive members on the wagon if they forever will be in the shadow of older members.

If that's the case I'd imagine any of the newer exclusives would be looking to drop exclusivity.

cdwheatley · « **Reply #31 on:** December 01, 2008, 19:12 »

Maybe they don't like the idea that there #1 seller is non-exclusive.

I almost went exclusive like others have mentioned. It made financial sense at the time but a lot can change while waiting to clear contract with dreamstime and bigstock.

Yuri_Arcurs · « **Reply #32 on:** December 01, 2008, 19:23 »

Exclusivity is risky right now. I would wait a little. Exclusivity is for sure is good income, but I do not want to start on a fresh account with older members having five years of better best match standing then I would have on a new account.

The new best match open op for a competitive advantage for other agencies. The first agency to offer a real competitive exclusivity offer might even have a change to do so successfully right now. What if Fotolia did a "real" exclusive program. According to my estimates all they had to do to hit the same RPI as I have non-exclusively is:

1 to 2 better search rank for exclusive material.
starting price of at least 3 USD for all exclusive material.
60-70 percent commission.

This should roughly give an RPI of about the same as I have now non-exclusively. I will talk this over with Olec on Saturday. I am meeting with him and his wife in Berlin.

cdwheatley · « **Reply #33 on:** December 01, 2008, 19:37 »

Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on December 01, 2008, 19:23

Exclusivity is risky right now. I would wait a little. Exclusivity is for sure is good income, but I do not want to start on a fresh account with older members having five years of better best match standing then I would have on a new account.

The new best match open op for a competitive advantage for other agencies. The first agency to offer a real competitive exclusivity offer might even have a change to do so successfully right now. What if Fotolia did a "real" exclusive program. According to my estimates all they had to do to hit the same RPI as I have non-exclusively is:

1 to 2 better search rank for exclusive material.
starting price of at least 3 USD for all exclusive material.
60-70 percent commission.

This should roughly give an RPI of about the same as I have now non-exclusively. I will talk this over with Olec on Saturday. I am meeting with him and his wife in Berlin.

Are you talking about being exclusive on per image basis or the istock model?

StockManiac · « **Reply #34 on:** December 01, 2008, 19:46 »

Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on December 01, 2008, 19:23

Exclusivity is risky right now. I would wait a little. Exclusivity is for sure is good income, but I do not want to start on a fresh account with older members having five years of better best match standing then I would have on a new account.

The new best match open op for a competitive advantage for other agencies. The first agency to offer a real competitive exclusivity offer might even have a change to do so successfully right now. What if Fotolia did a "real" exclusive program. According to my estimates all they had to do to hit the same RPI as I have non-exclusively is:

1 to 2 better search rank for exclusive material.
starting price of at least 3 USD for all exclusive material.
60-70 percent commission.

This should roughly give an RPI of about the same as I have now non-exclusively. I will talk this over with Olec on Saturday. I am meeting with him and his wife in Berlin.

You might also want to step up to the plate and talk to them about:

- Their lack of customer relations
- The sudden change in rankings
- The inability to opt out of subscriptions
- Their apparent lack of care for their contributors
- Their rude forum moderators

I'm sure that I missed a few things, but that's a good start.

hali · « **Reply #35 on:** December 01, 2008, 20:02 »

Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on December 01, 2008, 18:40

Similar findings....
More so with about 20-30% rejections on the same "overfiltred" and "artifacts" my upload limit is actually only about 20-25 files per week. I simply cannot maintain my income.
Even with files coming from probably the best camera in the world and that have never been compressed in any way, I still get files rejected for overfiltred and artifacts. Especially really sharp files get rejected. The files that get through the inspections easily are the ones that are slightly soft or out of focus... Too sharp (even with no sharping added anywhere) and the files get rejected for being "mysteriously sharp"....overfiltred...

Yuri, so good to hear from you. Frankly, if IS is putting the squeeze on you, what chances do we newbies have?
I mentioned the same thing as you did here...even without post processing other than levels
i get overfiltered, for an especially sharp file. only because i went from a 7MP to 14 MP camera.
that's the mysteriously sharp ...that the reviewers rejected as over fliltered.
also the soft focus and lack of contrast, were actually high key lighting and actually steam off a glass, lol.

still, in hindsight, Yuri, if you get those rejections with your most expensive camera in the world,
hey ! i am going to forget IS for now. or maybe, just send cats and off focus files that are accepted.
i am a newbie, only 20 images. Why scream at IS some dude tells me. Well, you know what, the images they rejected are so much better. Even i won't buy the ones IS accepted over the ones IS rejected.

Anyway, once again, Lisafix, Yuri, Coco,etc...and all, thanks for the insight. I will leave my portfolio at 20 images and go elsewhere until i see you all get better results from IS.

helix7 · « **Reply #36 on:** December 01, 2008, 20:18 »

Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on December 01, 2008, 18:40

...I still get files rejected for overfiltred and artifacts. ...

Pardon my language, but that is * nuts. With your skills and that camera, you should have 95% or higher acceptance rates.

Unbelievable.

sharply_done · « **Reply #37 on:** December 01, 2008, 20:28 »

Quote from: helix7 on December 01, 2008, 20:18

Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on December 01, 2008, 18:40
...I still get files rejected for overfiltred and artifacts. ...
Pardon my language, but that is * nuts. With your skills and that camera, you should have 95% or higher acceptance rates.

Unbelievable.

Why are you surprised? It's the norm to get nonsensical "overfiltered" and "artifact" rejections from IS. There's no use getting upset about it - this is simply the way they've chosen to operate their agency.

ichiro17 · « **Reply #38 on:** December 01, 2008, 21:13 »

I'm not surprised. We had a thread on the ridiculous acceptances of bad pictures from exclusives, so the other end would be to reject world-class photos from top-end guys.

Artifacts? Over-filtered? Seriously

I actually had a bunch of aerial photographs rejected because of noise reduction even though I never used any at all. And then I get the overfiltered from original quality when I use a technique that one of the iStock admins wrote a tutorial about on PhotoshopUser

I can't figure it out, and evidently, neither can anyone else

sharply_done · « **Reply #39 on:** December 01, 2008, 22:35 »

Quote from: ichiro17 on December 01, 2008, 21:13

I can't figure it out, and evidently, neither can anyone else

The opposite end of the spectrum, for me, is Flickr, where it's not out of the ordinary to see people rave about an image that has been overfiltered and/or has artifacts visible at low resolution. The lesson to learn, I think, is that it's only photographers who care so much about quality - end users are far more interested in emotional impact than technical quality.

melastmohican · « **Reply #40 on:** December 01, 2008, 23:40 »

Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on December 01, 2008, 18:40

More so with about 20-30% rejections on the same "overfiltred" and "artifacts" my upload limit is actually only about 20-25 files per week. I simply cannot maintain my income.

Attached are my earnings.

I wonder why I haven't given up yet if pros got such problems :-) I was able to put whopping 90 files online in half a year period. No way to have income with such limits :-)

crazychristina · « **Reply #41 on:** December 02, 2008, 01:09 »

I have a totally ridiculous theory about what istock is doing - a golden handshake for it's loyal long-time exclusives before abandoning their exclusivity policy totally as being not tenable in the long term, given that every new site increases the amount that exclusives are missing out on.

shank_ali · « **Reply #42 on:** December 02, 2008, 03:00 »

I shall stay exclusive for another year.If by that time i have not matched Yuri 's sales on istock i shall jump ship and kick some ass on a few different stock sites !

lagereek · « **Reply #43 on:** December 02, 2008, 03:54 »

RT! could be more right in his speculation then we ever know. Dont forget in the beginning of the 90s when they aquired Stones and Image-Bank it was differant.
Stones in Europe and Image-Bank in America was pretty much what gave Getty their prominent place, before these aquisitions they were really nothing.
Photodisc when launched was a big threat to the picture library world. Getty bought them, pretty much to be able to control them and hold them at bay. Today? Photodisc is just a sidekick, nothing else.
Could very well be that Getty sees the entire Micro industry as a giant threat to conventional RM and RF and that what we see here, the questionable best match changes, the " slow deterioration " of a leading Micro site, is an all purpose-like strategy to start putting the lid over the entire Micro industry. The worlds top Micro earners with lifestyles etc would still find it extremly hard to compete within the Getty-RM, its on a differant level.
Only, this time, the Micro has got a too strong foothold and unless they can somehow get control over sites like SS, FT, DT etc, theyll have no chance.
Besides I dont think it will take too long before the likes of Alamy presents their very own Micro or similar.

RT`s assumption could indeed be very close to truth.

e-person · « **Reply #44 on:** December 02, 2008, 05:11 »

Quote from: hali on December 01, 2008, 20:02

Why scream at IS some dude tells me. Well, you know what, the images they rejected are so much better. Even i won't buy the ones IS accepted over the ones IS rejected.

That is true for me as well.

IS frequently rejects my best shots and takes worse ones which will probably never sell. My portfolio there is full of those sad shots that will never sell. My theory is that inspectors are also contributors and do that on purpose, to avoid competition. Not that I ever copied anyone's photos, at least not on purpose.

Yuri_Arcurs · « **Reply #45 on:** December 02, 2008, 07:36 »

Quote from: lagereek on December 02, 2008, 03:54

RT! could be more right in his speculation then we ever know. Dont forget in the beginning of the 90s when they aquired Stones and Image-Bank it was differant.
Stones in Europe and Image-Bank in America was pretty much what gave Getty their prominent place, before these aquisitions they were really nothing.
Photodisc when launched was a big threat to the picture library world. Getty bought them, pretty much to be able to control them and hold them at bay. Today? Photodisc is just a sidekick, nothing else.
Could very well be that Getty sees the entire Micro industry as a giant threat to conventional RM and RF and that what we see here, the questionable best match changes, the " slow deterioration " of a leading Micro site, is an all purpose-like strategy to start putting the lid over the entire Micro industry. The worlds top Micro earners with lifestyles etc would still find it extremly hard to compete within the Getty-RM, its on a differant level.
Only, this time, the Micro has got a too strong foothold and unless they can somehow get control over sites like SS, FT, DT etc, theyll have no chance.
Besides I dont think it will take too long before the likes of Alamy presents their very own Micro or similar.

RT`s assumption could indeed be very close to truth.

That was a much more elaborate perspective then mostly seen here. Who are you again?

DrC · « **Reply #46 on:** December 02, 2008, 07:48 »

For the first time on my ms adventure DT have passed IS and is now my 2nd earner, after SS.

My IS earnings have taken a deep dive since the beginning of the summer.

lagereek · « **Reply #47 on:** December 02, 2008, 08:09 »

Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on December 02, 2008, 07:36

Quote from: lagereek on December 02, 2008, 03:54
RT! could be more right in his speculation then we ever know. Dont forget in the beginning of the 90s when they aquired Stones and Image-Bank it was differant.
Stones in Europe and Image-Bank in America was pretty much what gave Getty their prominent place, before these aquisitions they were really nothing.
Photodisc when launched was a big threat to the picture library world. Getty bought them, pretty much to be able to control them and hold them at bay. Today? Photodisc is just a sidekick, nothing else.
Could very well be that Getty sees the entire Micro industry as a giant threat to conventional RM and RF and that what we see here, the questionable best match changes, the " slow deterioration " of a leading Micro site, is an all purpose-like strategy to start putting the lid over the entire Micro industry. The worlds top Micro earners with lifestyles etc would still find it extremly hard to compete within the Getty-RM, its on a differant level.
Only, this time, the Micro has got a too strong foothold and unless they can somehow get control over sites like SS, FT, DT etc, theyll have no chance.
Besides I dont think it will take too long before the likes of Alamy presents their very own Micro or similar.

RT`s assumption could indeed be very close to truth.

That was a much more elaborate perspective then mostly seen here. Who are you again?

Hi Yuri!

Just a photographer ( long time member of the Getty-RM, Image-Bank and Stones, since 91 ) My hunch might be elaborate but Im basing it on history, since early 90s.

all the best. Christian

anaire · « **Reply #48 on:** December 02, 2008, 08:15 »

Yuri,
it is so nice to see you here

If you ever consider going exclusive with IS, please think twice.
Forget about the money for a moment and think about us. Newbies, who believe in you. To us you are a symbol, no less than a hero.
The golden boy who against all odds, uploading limits, search engine positions, pressure, hate, envy, has made it to the very top of IStock.
Go on, Yuri!
Beat the crap out of them!
With their 15 files a week limit, painful uploading process, ridiculous keywording rejects, 3 weeks file queue, offensive forums and 'I'm an exclusive, you're not, therefore you suck!' attitude, they fully deserve it.
Best of luck Yuri, and thanks for all that you have given us!

helix7 · « **Reply #49 on:** December 02, 2008, 10:29 »

Quote from: lagereek on December 02, 2008, 03:54

...Could very well be that Getty sees the entire Micro industry as a giant threat to conventional RM and RF and that what we see here, the questionable best match changes, the " slow deterioration " of a leading Micro site, is an all purpose-like strategy to start putting the lid over the entire Micro industry...

In this market, I'd say anything is possible. But even if this turned out to be the strategy they are employing, I think it vastly underestimates the will of the people. Giving people a taste of more affordable stock imagery has left them wanting more, and if they ultimately can't get it from istock they will just find it elsewhere. istock isn't powerful enough to single-handedly stop the microstock industry.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: My View on the future of IStock as a full-time non-exclusive microstocker (Read 54929 times)

RT

Yuri_Arcurs

lisafx

lisafx

Yuri_Arcurs

RT

cdwheatley

Yuri_Arcurs

cdwheatley

StockManiac

hali

helix7

sharply_done

ichiro17

sharply_done

melastmohican

crazychristina

shank_ali

lagereek

e-person

Yuri_Arcurs

DrC

lagereek

anaire

helix7

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors