pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Sales have tanked big time  (Read 180557 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #350 on: October 26, 2011, 07:01 »
0
That interview is hard to watch.  No questions about falling earnings, losing buyers to other sites and how they have lost the good will of lots of contributors...

Amos has an expo to run, he's not going to get on the bad side of a top istock exec. I wouldn't expect a guy in his position to ask the tough questions.
So, pretty pointless then.  ???


helix7

« Reply #351 on: October 26, 2011, 07:38 »
0
Amos has an expo to run, he's not going to get on the bad side of a top istock exec. I wouldn't expect a guy in his position to ask the tough questions.
So, pretty pointless then.  ???

No, pretty standard interview really. How many interviews have you seen where the interviewer asked scathing questions? Most business interviews go exactly this way, sticking to the basics and talking about what's going well at the company. what's new, what's coming up, etc.

I'd love to see a few tough questions thrown in there as much as anyone, but I also wouldn't call this a pointless interview or fault Amos for how he handled it. Not a bad interview, just sort of vanilla and average.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #352 on: October 26, 2011, 07:47 »
0
Amos has an expo to run, he's not going to get on the bad side of a top istock exec. I wouldn't expect a guy in his position to ask the tough questions.
So, pretty pointless then.  ???

No, pretty standard interview really. How many interviews have you seen where the interviewer asked scathing questions?
I'm a Paxman fan, and for me, vanilla and average = pointless. I'm not blaming Amos, Kelly might not have answered the scathing questions - the interview parameters were probably all hashed out in advance. For example re the question about cutting percentage rates - Kelly should not have been 'let off with' just saying, "we pay more to out photographers than any other agency". That's pretty irrelevant to individual photographers, who care about their own bottom line which is affected by their percentage rate.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2011, 07:53 by ShadySue »

« Reply #353 on: October 26, 2011, 08:48 »
0
Guys, did you even listen to what he is saying: we will get a new upload interface.

Something similar to Getty, which means you will upload all images from a shoot in one batch. No more uploading half the files now and the rest in six months if you see that a series sells well (and it is worth processing all the pics). The files then get distributed over all their agencies, depending on quality. Some might even go straight into Getty RM. Files that might normally be rejected by istock will get a life on their lower level agencies, because istock these days rejects a lot of stuff that could still make money, just not at istock prices.

If this is a good or a bad system will depend on how it is implemented. My acceptance rate for istock is over 90%, as long as the files that I want to send to istock find their way into my portfolio, I am happy and if they move some files from a batch up towards getty, I wouldnt mind either.

I must say, i like the Getty interface. But I think for many people, especially those who do stock on the side, this will be quite a change, because processing takes so much time, that usually you spread it out over several weeks.

Lets see what is coming and how much time they give us to prepare.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #354 on: October 26, 2011, 08:54 »
0
Guys, did you even listen to what he is saying: we will get a new upload interface.
JJ waffled about this a few weeks back

Quote
Something similar to Getty, which means you will upload all images from a shoot in one batch. No more uploading half the files now and the rest in six months if you see that a series sells well (and it is worth processing all the pics).
That's quite an inference from what Kelly said - but it may well be correct.

« Reply #355 on: October 26, 2011, 08:58 »
0
He says they want to distribute files over the different agencies and price points.They can only make that decision if they see all the files from a series. Which is the way it works on Getty.

I really like the getty interface, I find it very helpful to build a complete batch of files and see them all together. So if they implement this I would be quite happy.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2011, 09:00 by cobalt »

« Reply #356 on: October 26, 2011, 09:00 »
0
So is this going to be for non-exclusives as well?  I think I already know the answer to that one.  Non-exclusive stuff will get sold for next to nothing on Thinkstock.

There's no reason to go exclusive any more and there's nothing but bad news for non-exclusives.  Watching that video just made me feel even worse about istock.  If they had a collection for exclusive images from non-exclusives and they could be pushed over to Getty, that would be interesting but I just can't see that happening.

I don't really understand why Getty has a flickr collection but non-exclusive istock contributors have no way to get in to the higher priced collections.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2011, 09:02 by sharpshot »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #357 on: October 26, 2011, 09:14 »
0
So is this going to be for non-exclusives as well?  I think I already know the answer to that one.  Non-exclusive stuff will get sold for next to nothing on Thinkstock.
Non-exclusive stuff is already "sold for next to nothing on Thinkstock".
Looks like, as we suspected, (some?) exclusive stuff will soon be compulsorily headed there if they don't think it's good enough for iStock.

« Reply #358 on: October 26, 2011, 09:36 »
0
Guys, did you even listen to what he is saying: we will get a new upload interface.

Something similar to Getty, which means you will upload all images from a shoot in one batch. No more uploading half the files now and the rest in six months if you see that a series sells well (and it is worth processing all the pics). The files then get distributed over all their agencies, depending on quality. Some might even go straight into Getty RM. Files that might normally be rejected by istock will get a life on their lower level agencies, because istock these days rejects a lot of stuff that could still make money, just not at istock prices.

If this is a good or a bad system will depend on how it is implemented. My acceptance rate for istock is over 90%, as long as the files that I want to send to istock find their way into my portfolio, I am happy and if they move some files from a batch up towards getty, I wouldnt mind either.

I must say, i like the Getty interface. But I think for many people, especially those who do stock on the side, this will be quite a change, because processing takes so much time, that usually you spread it out over several weeks.

Lets see what is coming and how much time they give us to prepare.

have they said that? Or are you just guessing?

I wouldn't like that, specially the part where they decide where the pics go. Even if some went to Getty I woould prefer having a say on that.  Having to upload in batches wouldn't neither match my workflow routine.

« Reply #359 on: October 26, 2011, 09:42 »
0
This is what I get from the interview and my own experience on getty. This interview is a lot clearer than all the nebulous hints from jj. If you want to decide which files go where in the gettyverse, they have to see them all. I cannot think of any other way of doing it.

Imagine you upload a set of files, they take the best one for getty and then next week you upload an even better file from the series.

what he didnt mention was when they would ago forward with this. maybe it is something for next year? he said they have plans for many years to come.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2011, 09:45 by cobalt »

« Reply #360 on: October 26, 2011, 09:46 »
0
How would that work for illustrations and vectors, we don't usually produce smilar batches of work.

Oh i forgot illustrators are just an afterthought at Istock now, we are a bit of an embarrassment, you know a bit clipart, they don't really like us that much, that is why they treat us like Mushrooms, (you know kept in the dark and covered in sh*t) - actually that could apply to all the contributors at Istock.

Sorry, for ranting- exclusive vector contributor, feeling a bit bitter.

« Reply #361 on: October 26, 2011, 10:05 »
0
This is what I get from the interview and my own experience on getty. This interview is a lot clearer than all the nebulous hints from jj. If you want to decide which files go where in the gettyverse, they have to see them all. I cannot think of any other way of doing it.

Imagine you upload a set of files, they take the best one for getty and then next week you upload an even better file from the series.

what he didnt mention was when they would ago forward with this. maybe it is something for next year? he said they have plans for many years to come.

How about they'll get nothing and like it!

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #362 on: October 26, 2011, 10:11 »
0
Imagine you upload a set of files, they take the best one for getty and then next week you upload an even better file from the series.
One of the two main reasons for my not taking up my offer of Getty under the old iStock system was what they considered a series - in my case two photos taken over 100 miles and a week apart were considered 'too similar' for one to go to Getty and one for iStock. One of my CN had a photo rejected at Getty because he had a 'too similar' one already on istock - same species in a different place and IIRC taken over a year apart. These are natural history. So I can't upload a species today to iStock because I might get a better one some time in the future which they might deem Getty-worthy? That's a non-starter.
Easy for studio-wallahs, of course.

michealo

« Reply #363 on: October 26, 2011, 10:22 »
0
Imagine you upload a set of files, they take the best one for getty and then next week you upload an even better file from the series.
One of the two main reasons for my not taking up my offer of Getty under the old iStock system was what they considered a series - in my case two photos taken over 100 miles and a week apart were considered 'too similar' for one to go to Getty and one for iStock. One of my CN had a photo rejected at Getty because he had a 'too similar' one already on istock - same species in a different place and IIRC taken over a year apart. These are natural history. So I can't upload a species today to iStock because I might get a better one some time in the future which they might deem Getty-worthy? That's a non-starter.
Easy for studio-wallahs, of course.

the thought strikes me that if you uploaded a file every time you complained about IS here how large your portfolio would be ...

« Reply #364 on: October 26, 2011, 10:40 »
0
^^^Then perhaps you should keep your thoughts to yourself, instead of having a dig at another contributor that has made a valid point?

michealo

« Reply #365 on: October 26, 2011, 10:45 »
0
^^^Then perhaps you should keep your thoughts to yourself, instead of having a dig at another contributor that has made a valid point?

bear in mind we are discussing a yet unreleased ingestion program so any contributor is speculating rather than making a valid point, and even if it were a valid point a stopped clock is right twice a day

fujiko

« Reply #366 on: October 26, 2011, 10:54 »
0
As no announcement or survey has been made and it's all our imaginations flying, I think this whole concept of giving a new life to rejected files on TS would be a dirty trick.

In my opinion if a file is not worthy of IS, then to me IS is not worthy of deciding to send it somewhere else.
I think they should be able to send accepted images to Partner sites, but if they reject it, they should have no right over the file at all to send it anywhere.

If their plan is to send the images to different sites at different price points based on someone's opinion, keeping in mind that reviewers are competing contributors, it's a very dangerous thing. It may just be a way to minimize competitor's sales.

If IS wants to become a hub, will it also be the hub where you can disable uploaded files regardless of where it is?

« Reply #367 on: October 26, 2011, 10:55 »
0
Yes and a table has legs, and I have legs. Therefore, I am a table.  ;D

lisafx

« Reply #368 on: October 26, 2011, 11:02 »
0

Something similar to Getty, which means you will upload all images from a shoot in one batch. No more uploading half the files now and the rest in six months if you see that a series sells well (and it is worth processing all the pics).

This would be absolutely disastrous to my workflow.  I process a images from each shoot over a long period of time, and upload batches with images from several shoots at a time.  It keeps me from getting bored, and keeps the reviewers who look at my images from getting bored too.  It also allows more variety for people viewing my portfolio by age. 

Sometimes it can take up to 6 months to finish processing and uploading a particular series.  I have NO INTENTION of changing my workflow or adopting a separate workflow for Istock.  I'd like to see how they could enforce something like this on independent contributors anyway.

« Reply #369 on: October 26, 2011, 11:13 »
0
I loved the quote from KKT that iStock runs like a well-oiled machine - I realize things are more stable now, but they can't even get new content showing up reliably every 24 hours. Broken down jalopy might be too strong in the other direction, but well-oiled machine is just fantasy land.

There was also some blather about how accepting content that iStock formerly rejected and sending it to photos.com instead would make photographers better in the process. He also mentioned clipart.com several times, but the quality of the content there is so horrendously low that I can't see how that site can do well without a huge makeover.

No timetable for all of this, but as I've already decided that iStock won't get any new content content - not sure if I'll have them lag by 6 months or more; enough to give all the other sites first bite of the apple before Thinkstock gets it - I'm not in any hurry.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #370 on: October 26, 2011, 11:20 »
0
He also mentioned clipart.com several times, but the quality of the content there is so horrendously low that I can't see how that site can do well without a huge makeover.
I think he said something about photos.com and clipart.com being fantastic domain names, but they'd need work to get them where they want them to be.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #371 on: October 26, 2011, 11:23 »
0
Of course, the match itself will change as files age, some are bought and new ones arrive. It's bound to shuffle arround every time it is recalculated but that doesn't tell you whether the algorithm constructing the match has changed. It's algorithm changes that send everything haywire.

but I mean the default search itself changes from best match to file age...randomly (it seems)....I haven't noticed it default to anything but best match or FA....but it still presents buyers with file age as default search once in a while. so while they're telling us that best match isn't changing, they're neglecting to mention that the default search return is changing periodically--that is if this is by design. It could have been a bug, or a coincidence. but as I mentioned, I use Firefox and I don't save cookies between browser sessions.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #372 on: October 26, 2011, 11:24 »
0
As no announcement or survey has been made and it's all our imaginations flying, I think this whole concept of giving a new life to rejected files on TS would be a dirty trick.
Way back when they introduced the Partner Program, I specifically asked whether certain rejected files, e.g. rejected for flat light, could be considered for TS and was told categorically not. But they said categorially it was a 'different market', then tried to get their biggest buyers to switch to TS.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #373 on: October 26, 2011, 11:37 »
0
Yes and a table has legs, and I have legs. Therefore, I am a table.  ;D

 ;D ;D ;D

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #374 on: October 26, 2011, 11:44 »
0
In London someone asked about rejected files going to the partner program....we were told, fairly definitely, that this would not be happening. the reason given was that during many of the server renos etc., storage of data concerning reasons for a file's rejection was not maintained...therefore they couldn't just truck over rejected files (many of which may have been rejected due to copyright issues/lack of release etc.). I believe that they have zero plans for rejected content.

though it is a policy that drives me nuts, I think one main reason for maintaining exclusive rights over rejected content is that it's often part of a series or similar to other accepted files.

As for the new upload system, they talked about that in London vaguely too. my take away was that it will be a batch upload system, much like Getty's. I hate the idea of it and am not looking forward to it. especially since it seems it will hinder our ability to strategically upload in waves, which I do.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
16 Replies
6391 Views
Last post October 25, 2011, 01:02
by MicrostockExp
17 Replies
5993 Views
Last post September 18, 2012, 15:44
by tavi
2 Replies
5460 Views
Last post March 16, 2016, 06:25
by mirkic
17 Replies
5531 Views
Last post May 04, 2017, 16:38
by heywoody
28 Replies
13514 Views
Last post July 25, 2017, 01:34
by zorandim

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors