pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: New Collections launching this afternoon (iStock time)  (Read 16940 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: June 16, 2013, 15:56 »
0
You are completely missing the point - note use of the word "even".  I'm firmly in the average to low category so anyone whose exclusive content is selling less than that is no real loss to other sites.  It's also fairly obvious that, if you took the top half percent of anyone's port you would see decent numbers.



« Reply #76 on: June 16, 2013, 16:08 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 12:51 by Audi 5000 »

ShadySue

« Reply #77 on: June 16, 2013, 19:01 »
0
Have buyers been notified in any way so they at least have a clue what is going on when they perhaps pull up a light boxed image and find all the prices have changed?

Does anyone know if buyers were contacted in advance?
By sheer coincidence, my 3 (sic, it was my WWY after w/e 5 Jan) dls on Friday were all files that were promoted to S+ for no obvious reason. I hope that wasn't 3 p*ssed off buyers if they'd lightboxed them for a while.

OTOH, maybe they were delighted to find their other lightboxed images had somehow dropped a grade so it balances out.

« Reply #78 on: June 16, 2013, 19:08 »
+1
Judging from twitter post, buyers weren't notified.

« Reply #79 on: June 17, 2013, 06:53 »
+3
Here is a problem, I've had exclusive content that was suppose to mirror to Getty for months but has been held up do to tech issues with their system...now that content was deemed signature collection, so now it will not see Getty...another swift kick in the nuts

ShadySue

« Reply #80 on: June 17, 2013, 07:15 »
0
Here is a problem, I've had exclusive content that was suppose to mirror to Getty for months but has been held up do to tech issues with their system...now that content was deemed signature collection, so now it will not see Getty...another swift kick in the nuts

They have promised, whatever that means in the iStock lexicon of new definitions, that old E+ content that was supposed to be mirrored will be mirrored.

We shall see.

JFP

« Reply #81 on: June 17, 2013, 07:41 »
+4
 They have promised. They have also promised a lot of other things
« Last Edit: June 17, 2013, 07:52 by JFP »

wds

« Reply #82 on: June 17, 2013, 20:15 »
+3
I'm exclusive and so far with this change my sales have fallen through the floor!...so aggravating.

gillian

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #83 on: June 18, 2013, 00:46 »
0
am I wrong in thinking that a little indie like me will do ok from this? if buyers move that slider to the $ section and my files are there... isn't there less competition? (provided my work is good enough)





edit: spelling
« Last Edit: June 26, 2013, 04:15 by gillian »

« Reply #84 on: June 18, 2013, 02:38 »
+4
am I wrong in thinking that a little indie like me will do ok from this? if buyers move that sliders to the $ section and my files are there... isn't there less competition? (provided my work is good enough)
I don't think so, there used to be a chance of making some money with istock due to the low upload limits.  Now anyone can dump 999 low quality images per week on the site, I don't see how most independents are going to be able to make much.  Istock doesn't have the buyers for a bloated collection.  Shutterstock still manages to keep a lot of us happy with even more images in their collection but they must have increased their number of buyers a lot more than istock over the past few years and they have kept prices relatively low.

« Reply #85 on: June 18, 2013, 02:39 »
+4
Yes. It's an effective way to chop Exclusives out of the search and most commonly used category, whilst paying out the minimum royalty.

ShadySue

« Reply #86 on: June 18, 2013, 15:43 »
+1
True, the top 36 searches on 'busiessman' are exclusive or faux-exclusive, but he said 'always'.


Being given "preference" is not the same as a guarantee that every exclusive file will be above every non-exclusive file. It means they will get an undeserved few extra brownie points added to the search which may not (or may) be enough to put them ahead of a more deserving independent file.


So that will be why searching on children, photos only, with the price slider at $ - $$ has only 3 exclusive files in the top 200 by best match.
(Sorry, someone noticed this and pointed it out over there, but the forums are on their scheduled downtime so I can't credit them.)
http://www.istockphoto.com/search/text/children/filetype/photos/source/basic#174f5b06
"Always. Period" he said.  >:(

Added:
1. Source: Krakozawr
2. Exactly the same when searching Horse, photos only, -

Probably what's happening is:
All indie files are temporary demoted to Main, including those perviousoly P+ wth good sales.
Exclusive files in Main are those with 0 or 1 dl since August last year.
Exclusive files with lots of sales are generally in S+ (though there are some anomalies I can't work out).
Exclusive and indie files uploaded since September with fewer than ten dls are faring badly in many but not all searches, and children and 'horse' are two of the former.

Still: "Always. Period." was the faux-promise.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2013, 16:07 by ShadySue »

« Reply #87 on: June 18, 2013, 17:19 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 12:51 by Audi 5000 »

Microstock Man

  • microstockman.com

« Reply #88 on: June 18, 2013, 23:12 »
+1
am I wrong in thinking that a little indie like me will do ok from this? if buyers move that sliders to the $ section and my files are there... isn't there less competition? (provided my work is good enough)
I don't think so, there used to be a chance of making some money with istock due to the low upload limits.  Now anyone can dump 999 low quality images per week on the site, I don't see how most independents are going to be able to make much.  Istock doesn't have the buyers for a bloated collection.  Shutterstock still manages to keep a lot of us happy with even more images in their collection but they must have increased their number of buyers a lot more than istock over the past few years and they have kept prices relatively low.

Add to that us little indies no longer have photo+ (which files accounted for probably 90% of my sales), and that means quite a pay cut for us I would think.

Ron

« Reply #89 on: June 19, 2013, 06:11 »
0
3 February 2013 - Total files 12,691,392
19 June 2013 - Total files 14,150,876

1,459,484 images added in 136 days. 10,732 per day, or 332,677 per month.

« Reply #90 on: June 19, 2013, 09:19 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 12:51 by Audi 5000 »

Ron

« Reply #91 on: June 19, 2013, 09:36 »
+1
LOL, I am not sure why you are so hung up on comparing with Shutterstock. I just posted the number to add some numbers to the discussion that was going on about the many files being added. This discussion is about Istock. What is YOUR point?

« Reply #92 on: June 19, 2013, 09:50 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 12:51 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #93 on: June 19, 2013, 17:00 »
+4
I think the number of new images is relevant because istock don't have the buyers to generate enough sales from a much larger collection.  SS still maintains good earnings for a lot of us, despite having no upload limits.  The same policy wont work for istock, unless they somehow manage to get all the buyers they've lost back and that seems highly unlikely.  What I think will almost certainly happen is that istock contributors that had some protection from the upload limits will now have their earnings diluted.  The bigger collection might appeal to buyers but why would they move from sites that also have all those images?  One of the last remaining differences with istock, a smaller more edited collection has now gone and they are just a higher priced version of SS.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #94 on: June 19, 2013, 17:13 »
0
Where do you find information on total numbers of customers (buyers) at iS and SS?


JFP

« Reply #95 on: June 20, 2013, 08:40 »
+2
is it too early to call the change of collections "a disaster"? :P

ShadySue

« Reply #96 on: June 20, 2013, 08:41 »
+3
Has there been any indication of whether they intend to restore icons on searches so that buyers can see the price on the thums?
Otherwise any pretence that this change is 'for the buyers' is just that.

« Reply #97 on: June 20, 2013, 15:39 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 12:50 by Audi 5000 »

ShadySue

« Reply #98 on: June 20, 2013, 15:54 »
0
Still waiting for c29 old E+ files from many months ago to be mirrored, far less newly-hiked S+s.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2013, 15:58 by ShadySue »

ShadySue

« Reply #99 on: June 25, 2013, 08:49 »
+1
Having read some posts over on the iS forum, I tried some searches for myself moving the slider up to - and even alone, sorted by new, and as has been reported there, I can't see any rhyme nor reason why many of these files have been allocated to Sig+ or Vetta.
Not only the ingested material, but also files from existing iS contributors.
NB, I'm not complaining that my files aren't being promoted: far from it, I want to demote some; I just don't understand, and bet the customers won't understand, why many of these S+ and V files are there.  :o
And wasn't it all supposed to be for the benefit of the buyers? Allegedly.  :(


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
17 Replies
5184 Views
Last post July 06, 2007, 19:32
by leaf
3 Replies
1669 Views
Last post March 25, 2009, 21:15
by Pixart
15 Replies
4967 Views
Last post March 26, 2010, 06:11
by FD
iStock simplifying collections

Started by Poncke v2 « 1 2 ... 7 8 » iStockPhoto.com

192 Replies
18240 Views
Last post May 20, 2013, 20:00
by ShadySue
38 Replies
6623 Views
Last post April 14, 2017, 23:44
by izzikiorage

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors