MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: Mantis on May 26, 2011, 07:47
-
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=329630&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=329630&page=1)
Sean Locke is working harder to help a buyer than lobo. The "good luck" comment really means fu...see ya.
-
And topic closed, no further discussion needed.
At least some buyers are giving them a chance to do something by taking their time and posting on the forum, not that it matters. I am certain many more buyers have wasted too much time already and have just moved on.
-
They really need someone other than Lobo handling buyers. "Sorry, good luck" is pretty bad. Treating customers poorly, or not caring, will always come back to bite you.
Maybe the buyer got their budget cut, today. What happens when they switch jobs and now have a huge budget? Or go from tiny independent to a buyer at a large company. Or move up the food chain from designer to VP?
Even if they don't give a crap, how about being diplomatic with "anything we can do to help?". Then the buyer may come back at some point. Kick them while they're headed out the door and they probably won't come back.
Price and selection only go so far. Relationships go much deeper.
-
They really need someone other than Lobo handling buyers. "Sorry, good luck" is pretty bad. Treating customers poorly, or not caring, will always come back to bite you.
Maybe the buyer got their budget cut, today. What happens when they switch jobs and now have a huge budget? Or go from tiny independent to a buyer at a large company. Or move up the food chain from designer to VP?
Even if they don't give a crap, how about being diplomatic with "anything we can do to help?". Then the buyer may come back at some point. Kick them while they're headed out the door and they probably won't come back.
Price and selection only go so far. Relationships go much deeper.
All the above, plus what that buyer tells his mates or maybe posts on a designer network/forum.
Plus the world and his dog can see how buyers are treated on the iStock forums.
-
They really need someone other than Lobo handling buyers. "Sorry, good luck" is pretty bad. Treating customers poorly, or not caring, will always come back to bite you.
Maybe the buyer got their budget cut, today. What happens when they switch jobs and now have a huge budget? Or go from tiny independent to a buyer at a large company. Or move up the food chain from designer to VP?
Even if they don't give a crap, how about being diplomatic with "anything we can do to help?". Then the buyer may come back at some point. Kick them while they're headed out the door and they probably won't come back.
Price and selection only go so far. Relationships go much deeper.
You've highlighted exactly what everyone in the world knows to be true, everyone except that is the iStock management. I wonder how much has been lost in potential sales revenue through the arrogance seen in the iStock forums by 'moderators', at a time when iStock is losing it's market share you'd think they'd be doing all they can to gain and keep the respect of their customers.
All I can say is thank god I'm not an exclusive there, every time that guy opens his mouth (literally speaking) he's losing exclusives money, the very people that pay his wages. Sean your approach was very diplomatic, you must cringe everytime you see something like this.
-
The buyer probably didn't want to hear my words either, that prices are up everywhere. They just want a way to complain a bit and aren't really looking for suggestions. "Sorry, good luck" is probably an ok way to leave the vent where it is and move on.
-
Saying prices have been rising steadily across all supply sites is not true, but I suppose people have to say that so that the price increases at iStock don't seem so bad (everyone else is doing it, right?). Someone should direct that buyer to 123RF or StockFresh. Has Shutterstock been raising their prices? I don't shop there so I wouldn't know.
And Lobo...forever clueless about customer relations.
-
The buyer probably didn't want to hear my words either, that prices are up everywhere. They just want a way to complain a bit and aren't really looking for suggestions. "Sorry, good luck" is probably an ok way to leave the vent where it is and move on.
The best sales and customer service people I've seen can take an angry customer, understand their frustration, provide a solution, and the buyer will most likely not only stay but may even buy more. Telling a frustrated customer "sorry, good luck" is about as bad as f-u.
Imagine going to the camera store you've been buying from for years. You tell them how frustrated you are with rising prices and you may need to go shop elsewhere and they say:
A. "Sorry, good luck" and you leave even more angry swearing never to go back there again
B. "Sorry, is there anything we can do to help?" and they give you a little discount or some incentive and you keep buying from them.
Even if the store doesn't want your business they could just nicely say goodbye without the f-u tone.
-
I don't think when people complain it is just for the sake of complaining. If someone is taking the time to find the forums and type a post it is a last ditch effort to say, "I really like shopping here and I have been very loyal, but there is a serious problem and I'm not going to be able to buy from here much longer. Is there anything you can do to keep my loyalty (and my money)?"
I'm just surprised Lobo stopped at "Good Luck" and didn't add "Good Riddance".
-
Saying prices have been rising steadily across all supply sites is not true, but I suppose people have to say that so that the price increases at iStock don't seem so bad (everyone else is doing it, right?). Someone should direct that buyer to 123RF or StockFresh. Has Shutterstock been raising their prices? I don't shop there so I wouldn't know.
And Lobo...forever clueless about customer relations.
I agree, and with your second post as well. As I said, most buyers aren't going to take the time to stop and post...they're just gone. Though it really is a waste of their time to post anything. Clearly.
-
The buyer probably didn't want to hear my words either, that prices are up everywhere. They just want a way to complain a bit and aren't really looking for suggestions. "Sorry, good luck" is probably an ok way to leave the vent where it is and move on.
Respectfully disagree.
I saw that yesterday and thought it was very rude.
Getting snarky with contributors is one thing. Being short with people who spend money in your store, even if they're ranting, is just utterly crappy customer service. I don't care how fed up he/they are with hearing that buyers don't want to have to wade through Agency/Vetta if they're looking for less expensive content, they can't "talk" to customers that way.
And leaving these locked threads around for everyone to read is like leaving heads on a pike outside medieval cities - you're warning others off by showing how you deal with dissenters.
As someone funnier than me said a few months back about delivering good customer support "I could tell everyone to eff off and still be doing better than iStock".
-
Wow there's one customer that won't be back. How many ways can you dance around the obvious fact that buyers want a 'sort by price' option?
-
What right does he have to behave like that, when EVERYTHING is * up over there. They're raping customers with A/C files, ignoring their requests for a search filter for a year (dunno really for how long, I've been over there for a year), making it even worse after the last best match change, while all along the site is full of errors and bugs. I haven't seen a buggier site ever (not talking about stock sites, but about ALL of the sites I've been on). On top of that they're raising prices and screwing contributors over and over, and some of the contributors are buyers as well, so buyers DO get to know about the community falling appart and contributors being robbed at broad daylight.
And I've heard that they know that site code is totally messed up, it was never made to withstand so much traffic, but they're too greedy to build a new one that would really work, RC, special collection and price raises that bring (or better said brought in) a ton of money aside.
-
How many ways can you dance around the obvious fact that buyers want a 'sort by price' option?
I guess Istock's sales data must be indicating that it is more profitable (at least in the short-term) to keep pushing the Vetta/Agency files the way they are. Personally I think they are making a huge mistake.
-
I completely agree this is a terrible way to speak to buyers. They really need to read fewer war-based business books and pick up a copy of 'How to Win Friends and Influence People'.
Treating customers in a combative or dismissive manner is incredibly ungracious in the short-term, and suicidal in the long term.
-
And I've heard that they know that site code is totally messed up, it was never made to withstand so much traffic, but they're too greedy to build a new one that would really work, RC, special collection and price raises that bring (or better said brought in) a ton of money aside.
Maybe *this* explains their systematic purging of their customer base? If not, then their behavior defies logic.
-
How many ways can you dance around the obvious fact that buyers want a 'sort by price' option?
I guess Istock's sales data must be indicating that it is more profitable (at least in the short-term) to keep pushing the Vetta/Agency files the way they are. Personally I think they are making a huge mistake.
And that way of thinking, on the very same continent, brought us global recession that's still lasting in most of the countries. Not to mention nobody is going to bail them out;). And the good thing is, they're not going to make waves. I'd just not be happy to loose my second best earner. Well I'd be left with only SS then, but then again, an agency would probably take their place and it would be business as usual, I'd just have to got through all that uploading again...
-
I'm convince that Getty is going to end up loosing all the new customers they gained with the IStock takeover.
The new customers attracted by the micro model over the years since IStock started will be driven to the other micro sites.
The most they will manage is to regain a few of those who moved from Getty to IStock and were used to paying Getty's inflated traditional prices.
What a wasted opportunity to break into a new market....
-
I'v seen self appointed teenage admins on fanboy vs. fanboy forums behind god's back act more responsibly an maturely than Istuck's very own village idiot, Lobo. Istuck's reputation is bad enough by now, why have a large hairy pent up kid ruin it further? Looks like they really just want to sink that ship : ))
-
The buyer probably didn't want to hear my words either, that prices are up everywhere. They just want a way to complain a bit and aren't really looking for suggestions. "Sorry, good luck" is probably an ok way to leave the vent where it is and move on.
They may well have just been looking for a way to vent, but now they've got a reason to never come back and to tell others not to use the site, "sorry, good luck" is an arrogant way of saying "tough and up yours", it's also a very stupid response to a customer complaint especially without knowing anything about that customer, there are a million ways that the guy could have been dealt with better which may have meant they used the site again in the future, I really don't understand what low form of satisfaction Lobo gets out of responding the way he does, it's quite sad really.
-
Even more sad is when I read Lobo is good compared to (some nickname I forget) that used to do what Lobo does now. So everything is just fine, righ? :)
-
I really don't understand what low form of satisfaction Lobo gets out of responding the way he does, it's quite sad really.
It's a strange 'job' for a grown man anyway isn't it? Hardly surprising he is curt and flippant sometimes.
-
Saying prices have been rising steadily across all supply sites is not true, but I suppose people have to say that so that the price increases at iStock don't seem so bad (everyone else is doing it, right?). Someone should direct that buyer to 123RF or StockFresh. Has Shutterstock been raising their prices?
Since the early days of MS, I'm pretty sure most places have raised prices in some way. Unfortunately, buyers still want everything for a buck.
-
Even more sad is when I read Lobo is good compared to (some nickname I forget) that used to do what Lobo does now. So everything is just fine, righ? :)
Peebert was his name.
He set the tone that Lobo seems to aspire to. How any client facing organisation would tolerate such behaviour has always been a mystery to me.
It is indeed a great shame that the only remaining vestage of 'the good old days' is the way that the forums are moderated. Oh that Rob Sylvan would have stayed.
-
Since the early days of MS, I'm pretty sure most places have raised prices in some way. Unfortunately, buyers still want everything for a buck.
True, but I think we can all agree that istock has taken it much further than most. And I'm not talking Vetta or Agency. Low-end credit packages cost around $1.50 per credit now, and a large image can easily run you over $20. Whereas many sites still price large images at around $10.
...And I've heard that they know that site code is totally messed up, it was never made to withstand so much traffic, but they're too greedy to build a new one that would really work, RC, special collection and price raises that bring (or better said brought in) a ton of money aside.
I think this is sort of the company line at istock these days. They have to know they're losing customers, and maybe that was part of the plan all along. Drop the dead weight that isn't willing to spend at least $20 per image, and just focus on the smaller customer base that is willing. They don't need all of the customers they have, and maybe just want to keep the ones with the bigger image budgets and ignore the rest.
It makes Lobo's comments more understandable. They're not interested in keeping all customers happy, just the ones that will grow with the company and pay the higher prices. To everyone else, "Sorry, good luck," seems like a reasonable response from a company that maybe doesn't care about serving customers in the microstock price range anymore.
-
It makes Lobo's comments more understandable. They're not interested in keeping all customers happy, just the ones that will grow with the company and pay the higher prices. To everyone else, "Sorry, good luck," seems like a reasonable response from a company that maybe doesn't care about serving customers in the microstock price range anymore.
If that's the case, then they should just be honest, say that, and stop with the microstock masquerade. At this point it just looks like a big bait and switch. And it they were actually honest about what they are trying to become, then they wouldn't be bothered with the complaints. If they do finally admit they are midstock, I see them fading away, however. I can't help but continue to point to the massive success that was iStockPro. Oh wait...
-
Even more sad is when I read Lobo is good compared to (some nickname I forget) that used to do what Lobo does now. So everything is just fine, righ? :)
You know what the difference was back then though? iStock was the rebel agency sticking it to "the man". There was a more rough and tumble, raw feeling to the forums back then. People used to post photos of dildos and say "boobies". A lot of the discussions were no hold barred. Once Getty took over, the company morphed and their image began to change. The juvenile, rude attitude in the forums is now out of step with the rest of the corporate branding.
-
Saying prices have been rising steadily across all supply sites is not true, but I suppose people have to say that so that the price increases at iStock don't seem so bad (everyone else is doing it, right?). Someone should direct that buyer to 123RF or StockFresh. Has Shutterstock been raising their prices?
Since the early days of MS, I'm pretty sure most places have raised prices in some way. Unfortunately, buyers still want everything for a buck.
But IS is by far the most expensive and that's the end of it;). Granted it has the best collection, but it also sucks at everything else (it's already been mentioned in this thread and millions of times in others). SS is the leader now and I hope it stays that way, they really deserve it.
-
If that's the case, then they should just be honest, say that, and stop with the microstock masquerade. At this point it just looks like a big bait and switch. And it they were actually honest about what they are trying to become, then they wouldn't be bothered with the complaints. If they do finally admit they are midstock, I see them fading away, however. I can't help but continue to point to the massive success that was iStockPro. Oh wait...
There's no incentive for them to do that. They can exist in both worlds. Act small and microstock-ish, while quietly jacking up prices and raising credit costs while cutting contributor rates.
It's brilliant marketing, really. They've built a reputation as being the cheap-yet-high-quality alternative to traditional RF, even though they're far from cheap in microstock terms these days. If they came out and said "we're not microstock anymore," buyers would really start to bail. As things are now, they can still work the microstock market while becoming a midstock company in terms of price. The buyers who notice the shift and aren't cool with it will leave. But I think it's the buyers who stick around despite the changes that istock really wants to focus on.
-
Even more sad is when I read Lobo is good compared to (some nickname I forget) that used to do what Lobo does now. So everything is just fine, righ? :)
You know what the difference was back then though? iStock was the rebel agency sticking it to "the man". There was a more rough and tumble, raw feeling to the forums back then. People used to post photos of dildos and say "boobies". A lot of the discussions were no hold barred. Once Getty took over, the company morphed and their image began to change. The juvenile, rude attitude in the forums is now out of step with the rest of the corporate branding.
It can't be any other way if an american company overtakes it. Puritanism and political correctness takes over and makes everything boring.
-
Even more sad is when I read Lobo is good compared to (some nickname I forget) that used to do what Lobo does now. So everything is just fine, righ? :)
Peebert was his name.
He set the tone that Lobo seems to aspire to. How any client facing organisation would tolerate such behaviour has always been a mystery to me.
It is indeed a great shame that the only remaining vestage of 'the good old days' is the way that the forums are moderated. Oh that Rob Sylvan would have stayed.
I'm sure Peebert's abrasiveness was somewhat tolerable back in the day. When files were a buck, creatives ran the company, contributors made hobby money, Istock made a few million a year, and buyers had nowhere else to go to get comparable files so they put up with it.
Today, it's probably a $100M+ a year company where buyers have plenty of choices of where to spend their money and a lot of contributors live off of IS money, or IS money is a significant portion of the income.
I wouldn't want Lobo's job. Dealing with the customer service misery every day and probably not able to change anything in the company. Some people are wired to be able to do that kind of work. Lobo isn't. And it Istock's fault for not finding a different role for him/her that's a better fit and getting somebody else who can put on the happy face for angry customers.
On the new Getty forum they have someone who is perfect for the role.
-
Maybe Lobo was in a toilet and some 'cheap substitute' did the final comment... Hopefully...
-
Even more sad is when I read Lobo is good compared to (some nickname I forget) that used to do what Lobo does now. So everything is just fine, righ? :)
You know what the difference was back then though? iStock was the rebel agency sticking it to "the man". There was a more rough and tumble, raw feeling to the forums back then. People used to post photos of dildos and say "boobies". A lot of the discussions were no hold barred. Once Getty took over, the company morphed and their image began to change. The juvenile, rude attitude in the forums is now out of step with the rest of the corporate branding.
It can't be any other way if an american company overtakes it. Puritanism and political correctness takes over and makes everything boring.
+1
-
It makes Lobo's comments more understandable. They're not interested in keeping all customers happy, just the ones that will grow with the company and pay the higher prices. To everyone else, "Sorry, good luck," seems like a reasonable response from a company that maybe doesn't care about serving customers in the microstock price range anymore.
If that's the case, then they should just be honest, say that, and stop with the microstock masquerade. At this point it just looks like a big bait and switch. And it they were actually honest about what they are trying to become, then they wouldn't be bothered with the complaints. If they do finally admit they are midstock, I see them fading away, however. I can't help but continue to point to the massive success that was iStockPro. Oh wait...
I don't think there's any way to be honest with where they're headed and not offend people.
Getty is shuffling images into different licensing. RM will be reduced to absolutely unique content and anything that isn't unique will be pushed to RF. Getty and IS RF seem to be converging into the Vetta/Agency tier. Any RF that is oversupplied or low value will stay in IS's lower tier and eventually be pushed to Thinkstock subscription.
-
... Unfortunately, buyers still want everything for a buck.
That's not what the problem is here - there may be some who don't like microstock prices having risen at all, but the current complaining is about the inability to avoid the 55 credits ($50-75 or so) for a small image.
If the expensive collections could be elminiated from searches when buyers wished to, I think 99.9% of the price complaints would go away.
-
It makes Lobo's comments more understandable. They're not interested in keeping all customers happy, just the ones that will grow with the company and pay the higher prices. To everyone else, "Sorry, good luck," seems like a reasonable response from a company that maybe doesn't care about serving customers in the microstock price range anymore.
If that's the case, then they should just be honest, say that, and stop with the microstock masquerade. At this point it just looks like a big bait and switch. And it they were actually honest about what they are trying to become, then they wouldn't be bothered with the complaints. If they do finally admit they are midstock, I see them fading away, however. I can't help but continue to point to the massive success that was iStockPro. Oh wait...
I don't think there's any way to be honest with where they're headed and not offend people.
Getty is shuffling images into different licensing. RM will be reduced to absolutely unique content and anything that isn't unique will be pushed to RF. Getty and IS RF seem to be converging into the Vetta/Agency tier. Any RF that is oversupplied or low value will stay in IS's lower tier and eventually be pushed to Thinkstock subscription.
Well put! or as was recently said elsewhere " Do not ignore the advice from PaulieWalnuts! "
-
It makes Lobo's comments more understandable. They're not interested in keeping all customers happy, just the ones that will grow with the company and pay the higher prices. To everyone else, "Sorry, good luck," seems like a reasonable response from a company that maybe doesn't care about serving customers in the microstock price range anymore.
If that's the case, then they should just be honest, say that, and stop with the microstock masquerade. At this point it just looks like a big bait and switch. And it they were actually honest about what they are trying to become, then they wouldn't be bothered with the complaints. If they do finally admit they are midstock, I see them fading away, however. I can't help but continue to point to the massive success that was iStockPro. Oh wait...
I don't think there's any way to be honest with where they're headed and not offend people.
Getty is shuffling images into different licensing. RM will be reduced to absolutely unique content and anything that isn't unique will be pushed to RF. Getty and IS RF seem to be converging into the Vetta/Agency tier. Any RF that is oversupplied or low value will stay in IS's lower tier and eventually be pushed to Thinkstock subscription.
In that case, then it doesn't really make sense for them to alienate the small budget buyers like they are. Because they would still need them to support the lower tier.
-
... Unfortunately, buyers still want everything for a buck.
That's not what the problem is here - there may be some who don't like microstock prices having risen at all, but the current complaining is about the inability to avoid the 55 credits ($50-75 or so) for a small image.
Maybe, but this specific buyer didn't say that. Which is why I tried to poke him a bit to see what his issue was.
-
Even more sad is when I read Lobo is good compared to (some nickname I forget) that used to do what Lobo does now. So everything is just fine, righ? :)
Peebert was his name.
He set the tone that Lobo seems to aspire to. How any client facing organisation would tolerate such behaviour has always been a mystery to me.
It is indeed a great shame that the only remaining vestage of 'the good old days' is the way that the forums are moderated. Oh that Rob Sylvan would have stayed.
Yeah, but Peebert was there when it was more like a club than a business. He was so off-the-wall I had trouble understanding what he meant half the time.
-
What happened to Peebert?
-
Sigh!!! its turning into a DPR forum. Boooooooooooooooooring.
-
Yeah, but Peebert was there when it was more like a club than a business. He was so off-the-wall I had trouble understanding what he meant half the time.
Glad you said that. I always thought that there was a party going on, everyone was drunk or high but me because I never got the joke or got what they were saying. :D
-
Yeah, but Peebert was there when it was more like a club than a business. He was so off-the-wall I had trouble understanding what he meant half the time.
Glad you said that. I always thought that there was a party going on, everyone was drunk or high but me because I never got the joke or got what they were saying. :D
+2 but what I could understand he was extremely offensive!!!
-
What happened to Peebert?
He left the building just before I entered it.
-
Frankly, I'm surprised Lobo didn't delete the thread completely after leaving his "good luck" message for couple of minutes.
-
It makes Lobo's comments more understandable. They're not interested in keeping all customers happy, just the ones that will grow with the company and pay the higher prices. To everyone else, "Sorry, good luck," seems like a reasonable response from a company that maybe doesn't care about serving customers in the microstock price range anymore.
If that's the case, then they should just be honest, say that, and stop with the microstock masquerade. At this point it just looks like a big bait and switch. And it they were actually honest about what they are trying to become, then they wouldn't be bothered with the complaints. If they do finally admit they are midstock, I see them fading away, however. I can't help but continue to point to the massive success that was iStockPro. Oh wait...
I don't think there's any way to be honest with where they're headed and not offend people.
Getty is shuffling images into different licensing. RM will be reduced to absolutely unique content and anything that isn't unique will be pushed to RF. Getty and IS RF seem to be converging into the Vetta/Agency tier. Any RF that is oversupplied or low value will stay in IS's lower tier and eventually be pushed to Thinkstock subscription.
Words of true wisdom, like all of your post in this thread (I haven't come across many since I'm relatively new here). I really admire your analytical capabilities, the way you're able to break things down and see things, patterns that 99.9% ppl don't.
-
It makes Lobo's comments more understandable. They're not interested in keeping all customers happy, just the ones that will grow with the company and pay the higher prices. To everyone else, "Sorry, good luck," seems like a reasonable response from a company that maybe doesn't care about serving customers in the microstock price range anymore.
If that's the case, then they should just be honest, say that, and stop with the microstock masquerade. At this point it just looks like a big bait and switch. And it they were actually honest about what they are trying to become, then they wouldn't be bothered with the complaints. If they do finally admit they are midstock, I see them fading away, however. I can't help but continue to point to the massive success that was iStockPro. Oh wait...
I don't think there's any way to be honest with where they're headed and not offend people.
Getty is shuffling images into different licensing. RM will be reduced to absolutely unique content and anything that isn't unique will be pushed to RF. Getty and IS RF seem to be converging into the Vetta/Agency tier. Any RF that is oversupplied or low value will stay in IS's lower tier and eventually be pushed to Thinkstock subscription.
Words of true wisdom, like all of your post in this thread (I haven't come across many since I'm relatively new here). I really admire your analytical capabilities, the way you're able to break things down and see things, patterns that 99.9% ppl don't.
he sure does know more than us.. maybe a few more know too..
-
The buyer probably didn't want to hear my words either, that prices are up everywhere. They just want a way to complain a bit and aren't really looking for suggestions. "Sorry, good luck" is probably an ok way to leave the vent where it is and move on.
I used to work in a specialized team in the Complains Department inside a major company, where I solved cases of major clients and even the stockholders, which were among the most important companies of my country.
One thing we knew (and it's proven) is that when you loose one costumer because of a complain you'll lose in average 20 others along time because the one that left will tell continuously his story aggravating the discontentment others may also feel, and prevent many new costumers to come to your company as they get afraid to experience the same.
Doing this in a "public" forum where other costumers get to see the conversation is impossible to classify!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It doesn't matter if it's a bad client, or he's just venting and won't listen to others anyway. Other people, and especially clients won't know that. The only thing they see is someone who may be an excellent costumer being "f*ck you" publicly.
There are a million ways to say goodbye to a client that will leave, but keep a good "personal" relation with the employee that is the face of the company to him, and in a public forum keep a good image of the company. If the company is polite and respectful it's even possible that other clients dismiss the critique made by the angry costumer. But not a chance with the way that brainless animal solved it!
But hey, if he's buying from other agencies where I have 3x my portfolio and pay much higher commissions, as a matter of fact I think I have to thank Lobo!!! ;D
-
Yeah, but Peebert was there when it was more like a club than a business. He was so off-the-wall I had trouble understanding what he meant half the time.
Glad you said that. I always thought that there was a party going on, everyone was drunk or high but me because I never got the joke or got what they were saying. :D
OK, now I've got some moral support and maybe won't look so stupid I'll come clean: I never had a bally clue what he was on about. I thought it was just me, being old and so unhip my legs are likely to fall off.
-
Is "Sorry, good luck" really that offensive? Customer service is really bad in the UK but I think we prefer a bit of honesty to words that mean nothing. I really don't like it when people are trying to be nice but they don't do anything to fix what I'm complaining about.
-
There is a difference between:
'sorry, good luck' - and f^&* you with all your money
or 'sorry, good luck' - that was our fault.
-
Is "Sorry, good luck" really that offensive? Customer service is really bad in the UK but I think we prefer a bit of honesty to words that mean nothing. I really don't like it when people are trying to be nice but they don't do anything to fix what I'm complaining about.
You don't have to be dishonest with a client! You can simply say something like:
"We're sorry that IS doesn't work for you anymore, but we still hope you'll be with us in the near future again. Thanks for your support and good luck." or something in this line.
Now, isn't this honest? Doesn't it tells something even if it's not what the costumer wants to hear? In this case you're not bending to the client pretensions, but at least show appreciation for the money he's spent with your company, express the feeling that he may come back - after all, his money pays salaries - and wish him luck.
And other clients get the feeling that they are appreciated as clients even when they leave.
It's a question of being polite with the ones that spend money, no matter how bad clients they are.
-
Is "Sorry, good luck" really that offensive? Customer service is really bad in the UK but I think we prefer a bit of honesty to words that mean nothing. I really don't like it when people are trying to be nice but they don't do anything to fix what I'm complaining about.
Good point, and there is nothing at all Lobo can do to get prices reduced. That particular complaint wasn't one about Agency/Vetta files being pushed to the top but about overall prices being too high. These points have been raised by several buyers, but iStock seems not to be about to reduce prices (but who knows what's round the next corner?). Given that these posts regularly appear, what else can Lobo do? I guess he could delete the thread, but there would be complaints about that too.
Perhaps the OP would have reposnded to Sean's pushing about whether the issue was really V/A or maybe, as in previous cases, the OP disappears, leaving contributors to continue the debate.
You would however think that if someone was indeed a big buyer in the past (and we have to assume they were, or Lobo would have outed them), they'd be up to all these tricks about buying credit bundles when they're 20% off etc, as many others do, as reported by the 'low credit prices' here and on iStock.
-
Is "Sorry, good luck" really that offensive? Customer service is really bad in the UK but I think we prefer a bit of honesty to words that mean nothing. I really don't like it when people are trying to be nice but they don't do anything to fix what I'm complaining about.
Obviously, it is not... unless you are determined to feel offended no matter what they tell you.
-
Is "Sorry, good luck" really that offensive? Customer service is really bad in the UK but I think we prefer a bit of honesty to words that mean nothing. I really don't like it when people are trying to be nice but they don't do anything to fix what I'm complaining about.
Yes it is, especially to a recently disillusioned buyer and especially from a person known for his useless snarky remarks.
-
Is "Sorry, good luck" really that offensive? Customer service is really bad in the UK but I think we prefer a bit of honesty to words that mean nothing. I really don't like it when people are trying to be nice but they don't do anything to fix what I'm complaining about.
You don't have to be dishonest with a client! You can simply say something like:
"We're sorry that IS doesn't work for you anymore, but we still hope you'll be with us in the near future again. Thanks for your support and good luck." or something in this line.
Yeah, that's m-o-l what Uncle Rob would have said.
-
Good point, and there is nothing at all Lobo can do to get prices reduced. That particular complaint wasn't one about Agency/Vetta files being pushed to the top but about overall prices being too high. These points have been raised by several buyers, but iStock seems not to be about to reduce prices (but who knows what's round the next corner?). Given that these posts regularly appear, what else can Lobo do? I guess he could delete the thread, but there would be complaints about that too.
Perhaps the OP would have reposnded to Sean's pushing about whether the issue was really V/A or maybe, as in previous cases, the OP disappears, leaving contributors to continue the debate.
You would however think that if someone was indeed a big buyer in the past, they'd be up to all these tricks about buying credit bundles when they're 20% off etc, as many others do, as reported by the 'low credit prices' here and on iStock.
But since the thread got locked, we will never know how the conversation would have continued. You make a good point, but customer service isn't about what the complainer is saying...it's about how customer service responds. I know Lobo can't do anything about prices, but he could have said what Sean said, seeing how HE GETS PAID TO DO THAT and Sean doesn't (that I know of). Even Sean came off as caring more than Lobo did.
And I agree with your last sentence...I think buyer's should save their time and breath with the complaints and just take their business elsewhere, because clearly NOTHING is going to be done to change anything at istock. Everyone should realize that by now.
-
Even Sean came off as caring more than Lobo did.
Oh, come on, Sean's a lamb in wolf's clothing.
Lobo's just a wannabe.
-
Is "Sorry, good luck" really that offensive? Customer service is really bad in the UK but I think we prefer a bit of honesty to words that mean nothing. I really don't like it when people are trying to be nice but they don't do anything to fix what I'm complaining about.
You don't have to be dishonest with a client! You can simply say something like:
"We're sorry that IS doesn't work for you anymore, but we still hope you'll be with us in the near future again. Thanks for your support and good luck." or something in this line.
Now, isn't this honest? Doesn't it tells something even if it's not what the costumer wants to hear? In this case you're not bending to the client pretensions, but at least show appreciation for the money he's spent with your company, express the feeling that he may come back - after all, his money pays salaries - and wish him luck.
And other clients get the feeling that they are appreciated as clients even when they leave.
It's a question of being polite with the ones that spend money, no matter how bad clients they are.
Well said
-
Is "Sorry, good luck" really that offensive? Customer service is really bad in the UK but I think we prefer a bit of honesty to words that mean nothing. I really don't like it when people are trying to be nice but they don't do anything to fix what I'm complaining about.
You don't have to be dishonest with a client! You can simply say something like:
"We're sorry that IS doesn't work for you anymore, but we still hope you'll be with us in the near future again. Thanks for your support and good luck." or something in this line.
Yeah, that's m-o-l what Uncle Rob would have said.
Sorry, I don't understand what "m-o-l" is or who's "Uncle Rob"... :-\
-
Is "Sorry, good luck" really that offensive? Customer service is really bad in the UK but I think we prefer a bit of honesty to words that mean nothing. I really don't like it when people are trying to be nice but they don't do anything to fix what I'm complaining about.
You don't have to be dishonest with a client! You can simply say something like:
"We're sorry that IS doesn't work for you anymore, but we still hope you'll be with us in the near future again. Thanks for your support and good luck." or something in this line.
Yeah, that's m-o-l what Uncle Rob would have said.
Sorry, I don't understand what "m-o-l" is or who's "Uncle Rob"... :-\
Uncle Rob I think is Rob Sylvan who is a nice guy (so I hear, don't know him personally) who used to be a mod there, I have no clue what m-o-l is either! :)
-
Is "Sorry, good luck" really that offensive? Customer service is really bad in the UK but I think we prefer a bit of honesty to words that mean nothing. I really don't like it when people are trying to be nice but they don't do anything to fix what I'm complaining about.
You don't have to be dishonest with a client! You can simply say something like:
"We're sorry that IS doesn't work for you anymore, but we still hope you'll be with us in the near future again. Thanks for your support and good luck." or something in this line.
Yeah, that's m-o-l what Uncle Rob would have said.
Sorry, I don't understand what "m-o-l" is or who's "Uncle Rob"... :-\
Uncle Rob I think is Rob Sylvan who is a nice guy (so I hear, don't know him personally) who used to be a mod there, I have no clue what m-o-l is either! :)
More or less.
-
Is "Sorry, good luck" really that offensive? Customer service is really bad in the UK but I think we prefer a bit of honesty to words that mean nothing. I really don't like it when people are trying to be nice but they don't do anything to fix what I'm complaining about.
You don't have to be dishonest with a client! You can simply say something like:
"We're sorry that IS doesn't work for you anymore, but we still hope you'll be with us in the near future again. Thanks for your support and good luck." or something in this line.
Yeah, that's m-o-l what Uncle Rob would have said.
Sorry, I don't understand what "m-o-l" is or who's "Uncle Rob"... :-\
Uncle Rob I think is Rob Sylvan who is a nice guy (so I hear, don't know him personally) who used to be a mod there, I have no clue what m-o-l is either! :)
More or less.
Thanks. I Googled what both terms are but couldn't find any logical info in the results... :)
-
Lobo is becoming "unprofessional"...
-
Lobo is becoming "unprofessional"...
Lobo is becoming unsustainable...
-
Lobo is becoming "unprofessional"...
Lobo is becoming unsustainable...
Istock's management actions are becoming unsustainable judging by my sales this month.
-
at least show appreciation for the money he's spent with your company, express the feeling that he may come back - after all, his money pays salaries - and wish him luck.
Yes. Exactly. He seems to forget that. Where does he think the money comes from to pay his salary?
-
I've never come across such censorship on a forum, as I do on IS. 20% of threads get locked or deleted and that is after years of such policy, when most ppl don't even bother opening a new thread that's not to their liking. I bet it's not as bad even in North Korea :)
-
I've never come across such censorship on a forum, as I do on IS. 20% of threads get locked or deleted and that is after years of such policy, when most ppl don't even bother opening a new thread that's not to their liking. I bet it's not as bad even in North Korea :)
I've often read here that it's worse on some of the rivals. I've even read more than once of a contributor having their portfolio removed from another site for saying something vaguely dissenting on the forum elsewhere. I have no direct experience, but it is widely written about.
-
I've never come across such censorship on a forum, as I do on IS. 20% of threads get locked or deleted and that is after years of such policy, when most ppl don't even bother opening a new thread that's not to their liking. I bet it's not as bad even in North Korea :)
I've often read here that it's worse on some of the rivals. I've even read more than once of a contributor having their portfolio removed from another site for saying something vaguely dissenting on the forum elsewhere. I have no direct experience, but it is widely written about.
Wow, haven't heard that before! I mean I've been a lot on various photo forums and general forums, mostly Slovenian, but also on dpreview's for instance. I guess it depends on the country and even more if it's money related or not (photo and general usually forums aren't)
-
I bet it's not as bad even in North Korea :)
Really? Try reading "Nothing to Envy" by Barbara Demick.
-
I bet it's not as bad even in North Korea :)
Really? Try reading "Nothing to Envy" by Barbara Demick.
She hasn't visited the IS forums :P
-
I bet it's not as bad even in North Korea :)
Really? Try reading "Nothing to Envy" by Barbara Demick.
She hasn't visited the IS forums :P
... and clearly you haven't visited North Korea!
-
Lobo is becoming "unprofessional"...
Lobo is becoming unsustainable...
Istock's management actions are becoming unsustainable judging by my sales this month.
Mr. Thompson's current position is unsustainable. Good luck!
-
I bet it's not as bad even in North Korea :)
Really? Try reading "Nothing to Envy" by Barbara Demick.
She hasn't visited the IS forums :P
... and clearly you haven't visited North Korea!
Pls try googling sarcasm up;)
-
Is "Sorry, good luck" really that offensive? Customer service is really bad in the UK but I think we prefer a bit of honesty to words that mean nothing. I really don't like it when people are trying to be nice but they don't do anything to fix what I'm complaining about.
The difference between Sean's response and Lobo's is like night and day. If I was that buyer, Sean's response would probably lead me to keeping the door open for future business with IS (once they corrected the pricing problems). At least he tried to have a dialogue. Lobo's response would make me shut the door forever. It doesn't pay to be rude.
-
I've never come across such censorship on a forum, as I do on IS. 20% of threads get locked or deleted and that is after years of such policy, when most ppl don't even bother opening a new thread that's not to their liking. I bet it's not as bad even in North Korea :)
I've often read here that it's worse on some of the rivals. I've even read more than once of a contributor having their portfolio removed from another site for saying something vaguely dissenting on the forum elsewhere. I have no direct experience, but it is widely written about.
From what I have read, there is NO site that is worse than istock. Even people who are asking legitimate questions at istock get banned, get their thread locked, and get ridiculed with some snarky comment from Lobo.
Sure it happens on other sites, but not nearly as frequently as at istock. So I respectfully disagree that it's worse at other places.
-
It makes Lobo's comments more understandable. They're not interested in keeping all customers happy, just the ones that will grow with the company and pay the higher prices. To everyone else, "Sorry, good luck," seems like a reasonable response from a company that maybe doesn't care about serving customers in the microstock price range anymore.
If that's the case, then they should just be honest, say that, and stop with the microstock masquerade. At this point it just looks like a big bait and switch. And it they were actually honest about what they are trying to become, then they wouldn't be bothered with the complaints. If they do finally admit they are midstock, I see them fading away, however. I can't help but continue to point to the massive success that was iStockPro. Oh wait...
I don't think there's any way to be honest with where they're headed and not offend people.
Getty is shuffling images into different licensing. RM will be reduced to absolutely unique content and anything that isn't unique will be pushed to RF. Getty and IS RF seem to be converging into the Vetta/Agency tier. Any RF that is oversupplied or low value will stay in IS's lower tier and eventually be pushed to Thinkstock subscription.
In that case, then it doesn't really make sense for them to alienate the small budget buyers like they are. Because they would still need them to support the lower tier.
They shouldn't be alienating any buyers at all.
Even if a buyer no longer fits Istock's target customer budget or profit goals they should let those customers go respectfully.
Those buyers could switch jobs where there's a big budget, may be well connected with other buyers, or maybe they just had a bad day and needed to vent.
-
They shouldn't be alienating any buyers at all.
That's it in a (wal)nutshell. You never blow off a single customer, no matter how big you are, no matter how small they are. You always try to offer at least something in response to a complaint. If you have nothing to offer, you at least say something hopeful about the future and tell them you appreciate their business.
-
Lobo is becoming "unprofessional"...
Lobo is becoming unsustainable...
Istock's management actions are becoming unsustainable judging by my sales this month.
+ 1 Istock is faaaaaaaaalling doooooooowwn for me....
-
Lobo is becoming "unprofessional"...
Lobo is becoming unsustainable...
Istock's management actions are becoming unsustainable judging by my sales this month.
Yep, me too. Positively grim. Even P+ is not propping up my $ numbers.
+ 1 Istock is faaaaaaaaalling doooooooowwn for me....
-
i've worked in sales for a large part of my life and if i'd given that response instead of trying to leverage something positive out of the situation for both the customer and the company, i would have been in deep claggy.
-
I've often read here that it's worse on some of the rivals. I've even read more than once of a contributor having their portfolio removed from another site for saying something vaguely dissenting on the forum elsewhere. I have no direct experience, but it is widely written about.
From what I have read, there is NO site that is worse than istock. Even people who are asking legitimate questions at istock get banned, get their thread locked, and get ridiculed with some snarky comment from Lobo.
Sure it happens on other sites, but not nearly as frequently as at istock. So I respectfully disagree that it's worse at other places.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it was another company that cut the entire portfolio of a well-known photographer who expressed an opinion in their forum about a policy change, while as far as I know istock hasn't cut anyone simply for expressing a dissenting opinion in the forum.
Censorship may be more frequent at istock, but I think another site takes the prize for the most harsh reaction to forum comments.
As for which one is "worse", I'd have to go with the site that will completely cut ties with someone for expressing an opinion, over the site that simply bans folks from the forum.
-
Now u really got me curious. :) Which site?
-
I think the response is being blown way out of proportion. an unhappy customer that feels the need to post in a company's public forum is clearly looking to vent or create some negative stir. customers have been starting price-complaint threads for as long as I have been on iStock (since 2007). and the response has always been the same--short and thread locked. I have no doubt some response happens behind the scenes by client relations in many cases. but I also think that at any given moment in time there will be a cross section of unhappy customers in any business. it's just typical that it continues to be posted here as 'proof' of iStock's 'lack of concern' for their buyers. that's simply untrue.
-
New thread today about the best match tweak. Mostly postive stuff.
Answered and locked by Lobo after 4 posts.
"Sorry. Daily best match discussion aren't happening. Have a nice Friday."
-
Yeah and he deleted all of the posts in the April PP stats thread that were contradicting official statments about healthy jumps in files moved to PP sites. All of them were just normal reports, not really complaints, much less venting.
-
But not a chance with the way that brainless animal solved it!
The more time I spend there, more often this sentence comes to my mind
-
The buyer probably didn't want to hear my words either, that prices are up everywhere. They just want a way to complain a bit and aren't really looking for suggestions. "Sorry, good luck" is probably an ok way to leave the vent where it is and move on.
Respectfully disagree.
I saw that yesterday and thought it was very rude.
Getting snarky with contributors is one thing. Being short with people who spend money in your store, even if they're ranting, is just utterly crappy customer service. I don't care how fed up he/they are with hearing that buyers don't want to have to wade through Agency/Vetta if they're looking for less expensive content, they can't "talk" to customers that way.
And leaving these locked threads around for everyone to read is like leaving heads on a pike outside medieval cities - you're warning others off by showing how you deal with dissenters.
As someone funnier than me said a few months back about delivering good customer support "I could tell everyone to eff off and still be doing better than iStock".
I couldn't agree more. This is basic Customer Service 101. If one of my employees had written an e-mail like this to a customer and continued on with that attitude, she'd be gone for quickly.
-
I've often read here that it's worse on some of the rivals. I've even read more than once of a contributor having their portfolio removed from another site for saying something vaguely dissenting on the forum elsewhere. I have no direct experience, but it is widely written about.
From what I have read, there is NO site that is worse than istock. Even people who are asking legitimate questions at istock get banned, get their thread locked, and get ridiculed with some snarky comment from Lobo.
Sure it happens on other sites, but not nearly as frequently as at istock. So I respectfully disagree that it's worse at other places.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it was another company that cut the entire portfolio of a well-known photographer who expressed an opinion in their forum about a policy change, while as far as I know istock hasn't cut anyone simply for expressing a dissenting opinion in the forum.
Censorship may be more frequent at istock, but I think another site takes the prize for the most harsh reaction to forum comments.
As for which one is "worse", I'd have to go with the site that will completely cut ties with someone for expressing an opinion, over the site that simply bans folks from the forum.
Remember, this thread is about the arrogance shown to a buyer by istock. Talking about contributors getting expelled from sites for posts on forums is a different matter. As far as rudeness and arrogance shown to buyers, istock takes the cake, hands down.
-
Yep, me too. Positively grim. Even P+ is not propping up my $ numbers.
P+ is helping my numbers considerably. Just as well. If I project this month's earnings at the average sale price before P+ then Istock would be down by 25% compared to May 2010. As it is they should end about the same.
Without P+ my earnings at Istock this month would likely have fallen to just 24.6% of total earnings, the lowest in over 6 years. The steady decline in earnings and thereby Istock's apparent market-share is truly extraordinary. I just wonder at what point the greater mass of exclusives will accept the inevitable and abandon their crowns?
-
I just wonder at what point the greater mass of exclusives will accept the inevitable and abandon their crowns?
Or abandon ship altogether. I doubt many of them would put up with halved percentage (at best!) and ever decreasing sales, not just due to worse search result placement, but also because of decreasing traffic on the site.
I guess we're either gonna see Paulie Walnut's version (going for midstock) or IS falling in Dreamstime's and Fotolia's league (which would mean they'd become totally pathetic)
-
Yep, me too. Positively grim. Even P+ is not propping up my $ numbers.
P+ is helping my numbers considerably. Just as well. If I project this month's earnings at the average sale price before P+ then Istock would be down by 25% compared to May 2010. As it is they should end about the same.
Without P+ my earnings at Istock this month would likely have fallen to just 24.6% of total earnings, the lowest in over 6 years. The steady decline in earnings and thereby Istock's apparent market-share is truly extraordinary. I just wonder at what point the greater mass of exclusives will accept the inevitable and abandon their crowns?
That will be a tough day for all of us. The dilution to the other collections of having a majority of IS collections infused into them at once will cut everyone's earnings. I only have to look at my Bigstock earnings since B2B started to see what an effect dilution is having on my earnings.
I suppose you are right about P+. Without it my numbers would be even worse. But looking at what I made the first week of May, before P+, and what I made last week, it is about the same. Only difference is it is off even fewer downloads.
The two weeks in the middle were pretty good - downloads held steady and P+ boosted earnings for those weeks. But for some reason sales really fell off a cliff this past week, so earnings are back to pre-P+ levels. If that makes sense...
-
Hi All,
Even if my Istock sales had not tanked three months ago I would still be shocked that a professional service of their magnitude would answer a customer with such a smug reply. This is very surprising. Yes, one more month that makes three where my Istock sales dropped to half what they were at the beginning of the year and I have been adding new work at the same rate as always.
I am quite sure why this is happening to the photographers I believe it has to do with the point system they put in place. Now they move us around the best match in relation to how many credits we are earning in order to keep us from making the same or even a higher percentage next year. This is just my opinion but I have felt this way since the set the new system in to place and why the set the system in place. Just my opinion based on nothing but pure guesstimation.
Best,
Jonathan
Best,
Jonathan
-
Hi All,
Even if my Istock sales had not tanked three months ago I would still be shocked that a professional service of their magnitude would answer a customer with such a smug reply. This is very surprising. Yes, one more month that makes three where my Istock sales dropped to half what they were at the beginning of the year and I have been adding new work at the same rate as always.
I am quite sure why this is happening to the photographers I believe it has to do with the point system they put in place. Now they move us around the best match in relation to how many credits we are earning in order to keep us from making the same or even a higher percentage next year. This is just my opinion but I have felt this way since the set the new system in to place and why the set the system in place. Just my opinion based on nothing but pure guesstimation.
Best,
Jonathan
Very interesting theory. Kind of hard to tell if this is true because Redeemed Credits are private and canisters don't really mean anything about sales performance. But that would absolutely allow them to control profit margins and could also explain why newer contributors are constantly having BME's.
-
Very interesting theory. Kind of hard to tell if this is true because Redeemed Credits are private and canisters don't really mean anything about sales performance. But that would absolutely allow them to control profit margins and could also explain why newer contributors are constantly having BME's.
Isn't that normal, that the newer contributors constantly have BMEs? Think of the time u started you probably had a few in a row for a few times. I know I did, it's just that this occurs more often on SS (just now 3 in a row and the same thing happened last year from Sep-Nov) than on IS. On if there weren't for the PP I'd have even less BMEs on IS. I started just over a year ago.
-
Hi All,
Even if my Istock sales had not tanked three months ago I would still be shocked that a professional service of their magnitude would answer a customer with such a smug reply. This is very surprising. Yes, one more month that makes three where my Istock sales dropped to half what they were at the beginning of the year and I have been adding new work at the same rate as always.
I am quite sure why this is happening to the photographers I believe it has to do with the point system they put in place. Now they move us around the best match in relation to how many credits we are earning in order to keep us from making the same or even a higher percentage next year. This is just my opinion but I have felt this way since the set the new system in to place and why the set the system in place. Just my opinion based on nothing but pure guesstimation.
Best,
Jonathan
Very interesting theory. Kind of hard to tell if this is true because Redeemed Credits are private and canisters don't really mean anything about sales performance. But that would absolutely allow them to control profit margins and could also explain why newer contributors are constantly having BME's.
Wouldn't this policy cause exclusives to leave istock in droves? High level exclusives are heavily represented among the top earners. If this really is their policy it would indicate that iStock no longer values the exclusives as they once did, since they offer so little incentive for people to hold onto the crown.
-
Paulie,
I think your first post on this topic was very enlightening.
Hi Alisa,
I am not an exclusive so I could not tell you if the same drop is taking place for them I was suggesting they will drop the non exclusives percentage with this system and keep their exclusives happier with higher sales, Getty is all about exclusive imagery these days that I know for sure.
I do know a lot of Macro people starting to shoot TAC and their are mixed feelings about the returns. I have heard $84 dollar RPI ( that is per year ) and I have also heard from an agency that they are no longer interested in being part of TAC because their results were miserable. It will be interesting to see where this is heading. I think what Paulie said is the closest logical reason.
Best,
Jonathan
Beat,
Jonathan
-
Wouldn't this policy cause exclusives to leave istock in droves? High level exclusives are heavily represented among the top earners. If this really is their policy it would indicate that iStock no longer values the exclusives as they once did, since they offer so little incentive for people to hold onto the crown.
I think you are speaking about two different animals. I think that low level exclusives, if they left in droves, would be collateral damage and they would be ok with that. I think their end game is to weed out the low-levellers, exclusive or not, cull the herd into top performers and move them over to mid-level stock. Anyone else who wants to stick around gets herded over to Thinkstock.
-
Wouldn't this policy cause exclusives to leave istock in droves? High level exclusives are heavily represented among the top earners. If this really is their policy it would indicate that iStock no longer values the exclusives as they once did, since they offer so little incentive for people to hold onto the crown.
I'm guessing they structured it to try to prevent high performing exclusives to leave in droves. They would probably stay at the same commission level but would have a more difficult time reaching the next level. Delaying increasing commission is essentially more money in Istocks pocket.
I would guess that Istock values exclusive images that have high performance and/or perceived value. Exclusive contributors who have below average sales performance probably took a big hit from the redeemed credits program. So my guess is that while Istock may like average performers to stay they're not overly concerned with them leaving.
I said a while back that based on their new model the ideal scenario for them would be to have mostly newer contributors that have small portfolios with high sales performance. This would give istock high sales volume while paying out the lowest commissions.
-
I do know a lot of Macro people starting to shoot TAC and their are mixed feelings about the returns. I have heard $84 dollar RPI ( that is per year ) and I have also heard from an agency that they are no longer interested in being part of TAC because their results were miserable.
What is TAC? A google search was not helpful.
-
Paulie,
I think your first post on this topic was very enlightening.
Hi Alisa,
I am not an exclusive so I could not tell you if the same drop is taking place for them I was suggesting they will drop the non exclusives percentage with this system and keep their exclusives happier with higher sales, Getty is all about exclusive imagery these days that I know for sure.
I do know a lot of Macro people starting to shoot TAC and their are mixed feelings about the returns. I have heard $84 dollar RPI ( that is per year ) and I have also heard from an agency that they are no longer interested in being part of TAC because their results were miserable. It will be interesting to see where this is heading. I think what Paulie said is the closest logical reason.
Best,
Jonathan
I think this SpiderPic (http://www.spiderpic.com/examples) example is a good reason why Getty is all about exclusive imagery.
If I was buying something and four different stores had way different prices, why not buy the cheapest? There would need to be differentiators. Better service, credit packages, license terms, etc. If all things are equal, lowest price wins.
Now if someone needs a very specific type of product and only one store carries that exact product they can charge a premium because the buyer has no other option. That SpiderPic example is probably how Istock views independent's images. As Istock is continues to slowly move pricing upward the less value independent images probably have to Istock because they can't continue to raise their prices and still be competitive.
-
Independancy sucks!
-
Independancy sucks!
Nice of you to imply that's what I said but it's not. Independence just doesn't seem to be well aligned with Istock's recent goals.
-
Hi Lisa,
It is short for "The Agency Collection " at both Getty and Istock. Getty's editing is take just about everything Istock is still doing the no more than 80%. One thing nice about adding to the TAC collection is you do not have to be exclusive as a photographer only the content has to be exclusive. I would guess in the future they might try to change this to fit the Istock photographer exclusivity but for now there are options to avoid being an Istock exclusive and still add your content into TAC through third party Macro agencies.
If anyone is interested in learning other ways of getting your content into TAC please feel welcome to drop me a PM.
Best,
Jonathan
-
Ah. Thanks for the explanation Jonathan.
Doesn't sound like TAC is all that lucrative from what your friends are reporting.
-
Hi Lisa,
It really has been a split on response so far. I am thinking of adding some work to TAC to see the results. It will take a while but if I get any decent data I will happily share.
Best,
Jonathan
-
And Lobo...forever clueless about customer relations.
WOW... I didn't notice till you pointed it out that this was a forum moderator. That sorry, Good Luck clearly means I don't give a f$?" about what you think, and about what you need. Piss off!
Crappy way to treat customer. I have to agree that myself as a client I will look for both price and quality. If the quality is unique... and my client want to pay the extra $ to buy the right to the image, then fine. But for most project, when I see a 50 credit priced XSmal image and 150 credits for XXLarge I just look elsewhere. Fotolia, Dreamstime, 123rf... Vectorstock for cheap (pricewise) Vectors.
As a designer you are always looking for way to get some creative content in your designs without going over the quote and budget of the client. Stock is great for that. But like the client there, I am finding myself going more often then not looking elsewhere. Either because their search does not quite give me the result I am looking for (after 2-3 words they stop giving results), or that the image I find is "overpriced" for the project.
I still buy from them, but if they start massively promoting Vetta and Agency files and give less results to other more fairly priced image then of course I will have to start looking elsewhere.
-
I am not an exclusive so I could not tell you if the same drop is taking place for them I was suggesting they will drop the non exclusives percentage with this system and keep their exclusives happier with higher sales, Getty is all about exclusive imagery these days that I know for sure.
I do know a lot of Macro people starting to shoot TAC and their are mixed feelings about the returns. I have heard $84 dollar RPI ( that is per year ) and I have also heard from an agency that they are no longer interested in being part of TAC because their results were miserable. It will be interesting to see where this is heading. I think what Paulie said is the closest logical reason.
Best,
Jonathan
Hi Jonathan, I don't mean to butt in here, but I think there are at least two very different and distinct groups of TAC photos. Those from exclusive iStock contributors and those from outside Agencies. Both have contributed some amazing content to make the collection top-notch. However, it seems as though the outside Agency submissions are not culled through carefully (if at all). It's as if outside agencies sent their entire collection straight through to TAC without any approval/rejection process at all. I'm not saying they're not good images, they just seem to be one's entire portfolio, excellent images with average images, and many similars,...etc, imho. iStock exclusive TAC nominations on the other hand are heavily scrutinized and most are rejected. And I do know that many iS exclusives are seeing TAC/V RPI returns much higher than what you've heard.
Have a great day,
Steve
-
Hi Steve,
That is interest news thanks for sharing. Can you tell me what kind of numbers some of the exclusives at TAC are making. One thing to measure is if they are being highly edited then the RPI would have to be much higher to make up for the difference in image acceptance rate. I am not trying to debate here just trying to get a handle on all the different replies I have been getting on TAC numbers. Some numbers would be great help, no need to share any names. I am very interested in any data related to the collection.
Thank you,
Jonathan
-
Jonathan, PM sent. Have a great weekend.
-
If I was buying something and four different stores had way different prices, why not buy the cheapest? There would need to be differentiators. Better service, credit packages, license terms, etc. If all things are equal, lowest price wins.
Now if someone needs a very specific type of product and only one store carries that exact product they can charge a premium because the buyer has no other option.
Well, that's the rationale. It's an idea that they only came up with very, very recently (about the time they Bruce left and they started doing everything wrong). It's questionable whether they even believe the rationale themselves, since they want to push exclusive material into Thinkstock/Photos.com (and maybe some of the same material into Getty?), so they apparently simultaneously believe that exclusivity adds value and diversifying to outlets at different price points adds value and that these two things are mutually compatible.
The comparison with goods in different stores is far from exact, because store customers are generally buying in a private capacity where they put zero value on the time it takes to go from shop to shop (heck, I even know women who actually LIKE browsing around different shops and do it for fun!!!???). Photo buyers need to factor in the additional cost of time spent hunting for the same photo in a different collection, not knowing whether or not it will be there, which may not be cost-effective.
It's more likely that people looking for cheap photos will sign up for a cheaper agency, rather than one with a large part of its collection at a price point that doesn't appeal to them. The creation of TS suggests that Getty thinks so, too, and wants to catch them in its safety-net as they drop off iStock.
I think it is worth remembering that nobody was arguing that exclusive photos had premium value to buyers until after iStock decided to split the collection into different price points. As soon as it did so, the rationalisation justifying it appeared like magic, as if it were self-evident. But it wasn't, otherwise it would have been called for long before in the forums. It happens that the rationalisation fits nicely with what people like to think - that their pictures are extra-special - making it a popular idea, even though Getty's other actions show they are far from convinced by it.
-
like watching a slow death, obviously IS is changing the model. I made 26.00 this month. Even with my mainly nature port, I used to get a payout every month. Sad, really sad. Here's another link with bailing buyers. It probably won't be there long.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=329654&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=329654&page=1)
-
like watching a slow death, obviously IS is changing the model. I made 26.00 this month. Even with my mainly nature port, I used to get a payout every month. Sad, really sad. Here's another link with bailing buyers. It probably won't be there long.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=329654&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=329654&page=1[/url])
This one sums it up in a nutshell:
jerryleeg
Posted 1 hour ago
I've been using istock extensively for years and when the last of my credits run out, I'm going to have to move on. With no way to sort by price and no improvements to the search functionality, trying to find a suitable image at a price I or my clients would be willing to pay has become such a time consuming and frustrating chore. Thankfully, not all of istock's competitors have chosen greed over usability.
-
If buyers complain rising prices are unsustainable for their business then how can it be sustainable for photographers considering IS is eating up to 85% of their sales ?
It's simply astounding to read professional designers complaining that 10$ is too much for a photo.
Clients like these should better head to Flickr instead of using microstock.
-
I'm of the opinion IS search functionalities are crippled this way exactly to push their agenda of giving more vibisility to Vetta and agencies images.
It's not a bug but simply a business plan and they've certainly no intention to "fix" it, they're rightfully trying to re-educate buyers into paying fair prices (while screwing photographers, but that's anotherpart of their master plan).
-
I'm of the opinion IS search functionalities are crippled this way exactly to push their agenda of giving more vibisility to Vetta and agencies images.
It's not a bug but simply a business plan and they've certainly no intention to "fix" it, they're rightfully trying to re-educate buyers into paying fair prices (while screwing photographers, but that's anotherpart of their master plan).
I think there are quite a few of us of the same opinion.
-
Professional designers, buyers, complaining about price increases with files that are already dirt cheap, no its a joke and like said above, they should really consult Flicr or something. What do they expect? freebies? yes thats probably it.
Their memories are short, only 8 years back before Micro took off, any shot would have set them back hundreds of dollars, so what did they do then?
I dont believe a word of this, buyers are buying anyway, they have no other option, they cant come back to the client saying " sorry didnt find anything, everything is too expensive" what kind of rubbish is that?
Its all guessworks and speculations anyway, yes you might find the odd buyer bailing out but the overwhelming majority have no option but to buy and old habbits die hard so they stick with IS anyway.
-
Professional designers, buyers, complaining about price increases with files that are already dirt cheap, no its a joke and like said above, they should really consult Flicr or something. What do they expect? freebies? yes thats probably it.
Their memories are short, only 8 years back before Micro took off, any shot would have set them back hundreds of dollars, so what did they do then?
I dont believe a word of this, buyers are buying anyway, they have no other option, they cant come back to the client saying " sorry didnt find anything, everything is too expensive" what kind of rubbish is that?
Its all guessworks and speculations anyway, yes you might find the odd buyer bailing out but the overwhelming majority have no option but to buy and old habbits die hard so they stick with IS anyway.
Totally agree. Professional Designers etc. are having a laugh. They have never had it so good when buying stock imagery. Its all Lovely Jubbly to them.
-
I'm just wondering about the people complaining about the designers complaining...I know a few photographers here were selling RM, but it's my understanding the club was closed to most of you, wasn't it? So microstock gave many people an outlet to sell their photos who didn't have one before.
And I can tell you what designers with small budgets were doing before microstock - they weren't buying photos. At all. Microstock filled a need. If prices go back up to RM levels, most people will find they will be SOL with sales as most small budget designers and businesses will have to find other options. And sorry, but no one is going to buy a photo of a piece of paper or an apple for RM prices. If it bothers you to sell your stuff at microstock prices, you have a choice. Don't do it. Sell only RM.
-
Their memories are short, only 8 years back before Micro took off, any shot would have set them back hundreds of dollars, so what did they do then?
A lot of them made do without or got their clients to supply the imagery, or had all their customers using the same cruddy images from Photodisc, or made their own illustrations - or simply weren't in the design business a decade ago.
Yuri Arcurs alone probably licenses half as many images in a year as the entire stock industry did in 2001. The point about microstock is that it tapped into a vast new market of people who couldn't afford the prices that were being asked. It also encouraged much more lavish use of illustrations in projects that might just have used a handful previously. It must also have fuelled the creation of an enormous number of small design companies.
That is iStock's customer base but it seems to be a customer base that the company now resents and wants to be rid off. Perhaps Getty's attitude towards iStock is being driven by this false belief (which seems to prevail among the old school shooters) that iStock's customers used to pay well, need to get back to paying up they way they did in the good old days, and have no reason to complain about things going back to "normal".
-
If it bothers you to sell your stuff at microstock prices, you have a choice. Don't do it. Sell only RM.
LOL! Nice one.
-
And sorry, but no one is going to buy a photo of a piece of paper or an apple for RM prices. If it bothers you to sell your stuff at microstock prices, you have a choice. Don't do it. Sell only RM.
Times are changing.
My last RM sale on Alamy was a wopping 15$ and i heard people having 5$ sales on Getty RM for web-sized images !
-
That is iStock's customer base but it seems to be a customer base that the company now resents and wants to be rid off. Perhaps Getty's attitude towards iStock is being driven by this false belief (which seems to prevail among the old school shooters) that iStock's customers used to pay well, need to get back to paying up they way they did in the good old days, and have no reason to complain about things going back to "normal".
The problem with microstock is they are selling too good material at too low prices and now they realize they're shooting themselves in the foot.
It's a good thing that IS is raising prices as that's the only way to get back on track and make IS a sort of "midstock" while moving the crap on ThinkStock.
-
The problem with microstock is they are selling too good material at too low prices and now they realize they're shooting themselves in the foot.
It's a good thing that IS is raising prices as that's the only way to get back on track and make IS a sort of "midstock" while moving the crap on ThinkStock.
Unfortunately (for us content suppliers) you are simply wrong. There is a huge and growing issue of over-supply and, as always in such cases, the market will determine the worth of the services/goods.
Istock is trying to swim against the tide of the market. They will eventually become just the latest casualty amongst those who seek the hallowed and mythical place known as 'Mid-Stock'. If such a market ever existed it is surely shrinking by the day.
It's is interesting to note that FT have twice reined back on prices, both by limiting the number of contributors reaching the higher ranks and also by reducing the prices they can charge. They did that after recognising customer resistance to the higher prices.
SS haven't increased prices significantly for over 3 years and whenever they did so previously they proceeded with extreme caution. Maybe SS understand their market and their customer base better than their competitors?
-
like watching a slow death, obviously IS is changing the model. I made 26.00 this month. Even with my mainly nature port, I used to get a payout every month. Sad, really sad. Here's another link with bailing buyers. It probably won't be there long.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=329654&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=329654&page=1[/url])
This one sums it up in a nutshell:
jerryleeg
Posted 1 hour ago
I've been using istock extensively for years and when the last of my credits run out, I'm going to have to move on. With no way to sort by price and no improvements to the search functionality, trying to find a suitable image at a price I or my clients would be willing to pay has become such a time consuming and frustrating chore. Thankfully, not all of istock's competitors have chosen greed over usability.
Hard to have sympathy with that one, given that it was posted after the latest best match shuffle, which puts non-esclusive, non P+ images in half of the top line of five of my usual searches.
On the other hand, that may be geographical bias in the searches: I saw someone yesterday complaining that there were only (a single figure number) of non V/A images in a search on 'landscape'. That certainly wasn't the result I found, unless, possibly, the 'first page' was only 20 images, where, admittedly, there are only 3 base priced images.
But I do notice that the 'landscape' best match search is heavily weighted to huge sellers as others have mentioned since the new best match.
Curious, because in other searches, I have found quite a lot of new images nearish the top of the search (contrary to an iS thread). Don't know if that relates to the partucular search or if there was a new best match shuffle sometime yesterday.
-
Really, what a laugh! Designers charge, dont they? ever come across a cheap designer? I havent and I know plenty. The going rate in London/Stockholm is 150-200 dollars per/hour. pretty much as an average dayrate photographer AND, we dont accept less then min, a days work, cheap hey?
The pics are very often the most important for the designer, so why should that be so stinking cheap? man one can sure tell in this forum whos been around and who hasnt.
Caspixels!!
Nobody really likes to sell Micro, we would ofcourse much rather sell plenty of RM, etc, thats bloody obvious, isnt it, but since Micro has had a big influence on the global photography market, we jolly well have to jump on it or we all end up piss-poor.
-
A lot of my microstock sales are to people like bloggers that probably don't have a big budget to spend. Then there's companies that used to have a policy of spending nothing on their website images but now they use microstock. The BBC used to ask me for free images for a regional site, then I noticed they started using istock. I'm sure there's a massive low budget microstock market that would be unwilling or unable to pay midstock prices.
-
I'm of the opinion IS search functionalities are crippled this way exactly to push their agenda of giving more vibisility to Vetta and agencies images.
It's not a bug but simply a business plan and they've certainly no intention to "fix" it, they're rightfully trying to re-educate buyers into paying fair prices (while screwing photographers, but that's anotherpart of their master plan).
Especially screwing with non exclusives, but we got used to the abuse over the years...
I've nothing against a push to midstock if it was successful. Oh wait a minute, I have, since only exclusive A/C's will really get there, the rest of the files will just stay higher priced microstock material. They should, within a few years price everything like e+ (yes, non-exclusive stuff as well) and leave A/C where it is. No more confusion about where they stand and about numerous collections. And then they should fix the search as well and add search by age etc, the way it's done on Alamy for instance (great way for buyers to look for fresh material, say uploaded within a year)
-
A lot of my microstock sales are to people like bloggers that probably don't have a big budget to spend. Then there's companies that used to have a policy of spending nothing on their website images but now they use microstock. The BBC used to ask me for free images for a regional site, then I noticed they started using istock. I'm sure there's a massive low budget microstock market that would be unwilling or unable to pay midstock prices.
Oh sure! but in this case we were on about designers and believe me they know how to charge, only the more they have to pay for a pic, ultimately the less in their pocket I suppose.
-
If it bothers you to sell your stuff at microstock prices, you have a choice. Don't do it. Sell only RM.
LOL! Nice one.
No its not, in fact its a rather naive statement. Anybody here exept you two who likes to get paid pennies for pics? no didnt think so. I think all of us would rather prefer to sell loads of RMs for big money but since Micro has had such a giant influence on the entire market, there is little choice but to be part of Micro, isnt it? the latest Getty contract speaks loud and clear for that.
Its become a matter of if you cant beat them, join them. Pretty much the same as anything else.
-
I think the idea of 1$/image should come to an end, it lasted way too long, it should last a year or two, to get people (designers) to start buying stuff from micros, but then agencies should increase pricing every year, until the prices become reasonable. And I'd say the e+ prices are about reasonable at the moment. IS is going in the right direction price wise, they shoudl just left royalties where they were (at 20% they were at Getty's level, which sells photos for 10x more).
-
Really, what a laugh! Designers charge, dont they? ever come across a cheap designer? I havent and I know plenty. The going rate in London/Stockholm is 150-200 dollars per/hour. pretty much as an average dayrate photographer AND, we dont accept less then min, a days work, cheap hey?
The pics are very often the most important for the designer, so why should that be so stinking cheap? man one can sure tell in this forum whos been around and who hasnt.
Caspixels!!
Nobody really likes to sell Micro, we would ofcourse much rather sell plenty of RM, etc, thats bloody obvious, isnt it, but since Micro has had a big influence on the global photography market, we jolly well have to jump on it or we all end up piss-poor.
You're using exactly the same rationale that has been used to produce false "evidence" that microstock didn't expand the market for photos: Treating the pre-existing design companies in London and Stockholm as if they are representative of a majority of microstock buyers. I'm pretty certain that they represent only a small segment of the microstock market.
Your sampling technique is a bit like asking shoppers in Harrods how much they would pay for a packet of tea and then going to a co-op in Tyneside and telling everybody that its ridiculous to sell tea for $1.50p a packet when your market research shows that people are used to paying $15 a packet.
Then you complain that by supplying your tea to the Co-op you are no longer being paid what Harrods used to pay you but say you have to supply the co-op because nobody shops at Harrods any longer. I mean, come on! How irrational is that?
If you think buyers will pay higher prices, don't undermine your value by selling too low. If you think buyers won't pay higher prices, then take what you can get. But for goodness sake stop arguing that buyers won't pay higher prices so what we need to do is put the prices up (which is what saying "I have to sell cheap or end up piss -poor" and "why should pictures be so stinking cheap" adds up to when you put them side-by-side).
-
If it bothers you to sell your stuff at microstock prices, you have a choice. Don't do it. Sell only RM.
LOL! Nice one.
No its not, in fact its a rather naive statement. Anybody here exept you two who likes to get paid pennies for pics? no didnt think so. I think all of us would rather prefer to sell loads of RMs for big money but since Micro has had such a giant influence on the entire market, there is little choice but to be part of Micro, isnt it? the latest Getty contract speaks loud and clear for that.
Its become a matter of if you cant beat them, join them. Pretty much the same as anything else.
It was a "nice one" because it showed how irrational your position is. Of course, I'd rather have the same sale figures and get $50 a sale and become a millionaire instead of $1 a sale and just pay the bills. But if the prices all went up fifty-fold, then 98% of the sales would dry up. There's only a certain amount of money chasing our pictures, not an infinitely expanding amount. It's not Caspixel who is being naive.
Just to add: The corollary to that is that the road to continued success for iStock lies in expanding the market to pull in new spending power, it doesn't lie in closing the gates to new customers (which is surely what the pricing/search order is doing) and trying to squeeze ever larger sums of cash out of an apparently diminishing number of buyers.
-
Baldrick!! with due respect and mutual understanding and without falling out. You are specualting and guessing. Who do you personally know high up in the hierarchy of Getty? to gain the info of closing doors and losing buyers? who? have you been up there to the accountancy dept and seen their balance? I think not.
All agencies are along the way losing and gaining buyers, nothing new at all.
I can tell you this much, without giving it away, Getty nor IS, are the slightest worried, not now nor for the future. This forum seams more worried??
As for the Micro, well I think we all have to agree on the fact that, ofcourse its had a massive influence on the market and especially for the professional photographer.
I think more and more of our agencies will slowly go towards mid-stock and I think thats a possitive sign.
As for arrogance towards buyers, well we havent got the inside or full story and even so, in business you cant satisfy everybody and the old adage "customer is always right" well that might apply in a shoe-shop.
as for TEA!! I rather go to Fortnum-Mason, then Harrods.
-
Talking about rock bottom prices, what can be more rock bottom than monthly "all you can eat" subscriptions ?
And about designers, the average commercial Fonts are sold for 50$, so what's the problem in paying
50$ for a photo instead of 0.5$ ?
Designers are scared of losing customers if the price is too high, photographers are scared of losing sales if the prices rise too much, clients have a wide choice of cheap designers working for peanuts and on top of this there's a ton of youngsters working for free or for "vanity", it's just a buyer's market nowadays, we're powerless.
-
Baldrick!! with due respect and mutual understanding and without falling out. You are specualting and guessing.
.
We are all speculating. Do you imagine that even if you know Getty high-ups they would tell you if they were worried about the way things are going? You yourself say that trying to make a living from RM is the road to starvation. The whole RM industry is down according to the analysts. Istock discovered a year ago that its position was financially "unsustainable" (OK, we probably both think they were lying at that time). Getty's profitable iS subsidiary is a mess, full of buggy problems and gazillions of price points - we have no idea if it is more profitable now than when it was unsustainable. Getty is forcing its established RM stars into the bottom level of microstock. Its owners have missed the original deadline to sell it - no doubt because they couldn't find anyone willing to pay the price they wanted - and have effectively mortgaged the business to recover cash from it.
So I have no idea if the Getty high-ups are truly sailing their leviathan along without a care in the world. Maybe they are. All I know is that I would be looking at the weather with concern if I was them. I'm sure Capt. Edward Smith was a happy, confident man on the evening of April 14, 2012, as he enjoyed his dinner on the RMS Titanic. But maybe Getty isn't the Titanic. I guess we'll all find out at the journey's end.
-
Photography is being devalued in any department nowadays, only fine-art sold in galleries is still making good money.
Getty RM might fail sooner or later, their prices are often unrealistic considering the fall in demand and the actual oversupply.
Their idea of moving RM pictures that haven't sold in 3 yrs into ThinkStock or IS is great, as that's the only way to clearly differentiate their collections.
-
I started shooting microstock and submitting to istock. I knew I would get pennies for my images, but as the first year passed, I was making some good extra money. I certainly expected that as the years went by, I would get a "raise", but I was still shooting microstock. I invested money in studio lighting and even upgraded my camera. But I am still shooting microstock. Microstock fulfilled a need for those companies who are NOT agencies that charge an arm and a leg for their work.
If five years ago, typical small to medium-sized companies were paying $1 for an image, and today they are being asked to pay $100 for that same image, I can certanly understand why they are complaining. I'm pretty sure most of these buyers tolerated a reasonable price increase. But istock isn't just increasing prices, they are trying to change the face of their company, and they only want the ad agency/high dollar buyer. Some buyers still only want to buy microstock.
istock has been the leader in raising the bar for images to be shot professionally and to moving images towards midstock. That's not what microstock is. Microstock's concept was to offer good, decent images for low prices and they recruited average Joe's to submit. Those are the types of images small to medium sized companies can afford to buy, and they shouldn't have to pay high prices for those images. The same market that was there 6 years ago is still there. In fact, the market has likely gotten bigger for cheap images because of the recession. istock is trying to change the market to suit their own financial woes. Doesn't work that way.
I'm with caspixel...
If it bothers you to sell your stuff at microstock prices, you have a choice. Don't do it. Sell only RM.
I'm not interested in investing even more money into equipment and studios and models and etc. I only ever wanted to sell microstock. I would love to see my take of the pie increase, for sure. But I'm still selling microstock.
-
If it bothers you to sell your stuff at microstock prices, you have a choice. Don't do it. Sell only RM.
So what happens when RM and Macro RF are being licensed at micro prices?
My Getty statement often makes me wonder why I jump through all of their requirements hoops to get a $1 commission on a sale. There are a few higher sales too but in the end the average Return Per Image Per Month and other measurements are becoming not much different than micro.
So now what?
-
And sorry, but no one is going to buy a photo of a piece of paper or an apple for RM prices.
And this is why Getty is shuffling images around. 10 years ago they probably could have sold an apple for RM prices. Not today.
With the new agreement they tried to take total control over moving images between RM and RF. Contributors went nuts. Problem is that some of those contributors probably still have RM apples and Getty understandably wants to cull RM to unique high value images.
Your apple comment is about supply/demand and perceived value. An apple image is simple so it should be cheap. The problem is when an image has a room full of expensive models shot at an expensive location. Should that be as cheap as the apple?
If macro is too expensive for buyers to justify paying, and micro is too cheap for contributors to justify creating, what's the solution?
-
And sorry, but no one is going to buy a photo of a piece of paper or an apple for RM prices.
And this is why Getty is shuffling images around. 10 years ago they probably could have sold an apple for RM prices. Not today.
With the new agreement they tried to take total control over moving images between RM and RF. Contributors went nuts. Problem is that some of those contributors probably still have RM apples and Getty understandably wants to cull RM to unique high value images.
Your apple comment is about supply/demand and perceived value. An apple image is simple so it should be cheap. The problem is when an image has a room full of expensive models shot at an expensive location. Should that be as cheap as the apple?
If macro is too expensive for buyers to justify paying, and micro is too cheap for contributors to justify creating, what's the solution?
I fully agree with Getty.
RM should be left dealing with images that are hard to or expensive to shoot.
Anything else should go microstock, especially apples on white background.
I mean it's 2011 and still life images are way oversupplied.
Sorry for people shooting apples on white background but the value of such images is rightfully next to zero nowadays.
There must a justification for RM commanding high prices otherwise Getty would shoot itself in the foot.
Contirbutors going nuts means nothing to Getty, they are kept by the balls anyway whether they stick to RM or they move
to micro RF.
We must accept at the moment only a small bunch of photographic subject can still be sold at high prices.
Too many micro photographers flooded the market copying famous RM shots and this almost killed RM
and it's killing RF as well.
-
[quote author=PaulieWalnuts link=topic=13437.msg202942#msg202942 date=1306757854
If macro is too expensive for buyers to justify paying, and micro is too cheap for contributors to justify creating, what's the solution?
[/quote]
As far as i'm concerned i'm running a business and therefore raising prices are only a welcome news to me.
As for the solution that's the million dollar question : my travel images are not selling good on micro RF but are
selling decently on macro RM, road signs and street shot sell fine on micro RF but never sold once on macro RM,
ethnic portraits never sold good neither as RM or RF but i have OK sales with calendars and merchandising,
bizarre photos taken around with my mobile photos in low res make some tea money on my blog with advertising,
i'm studying how to enter the fine-art market but so far haven't got any brilliant idea (never say never).
-
[quote author=PaulieWalnuts link=topic=13437.msg202942#msg202942 date=1306757854
If macro is too expensive for buyers to justify paying, and micro is too cheap for contributors to justify creating, what's the solution?
As far as i'm concerned i'm running a business and therefore raising prices are only a welcome news to me.
As for the solution that's the million dollar question : my travel images are not selling good on micro RF but are
selling decently on macro RM, road signs and street shot sell fine on micro RF but never sold once on macro RM,
ethnic portraits never sold good neither as RM or RF but i have OK sales with calendars and merchandising,
bizarre photos taken around with my mobile photos in low res make some tea money on my blog with advertising,
i'm studying how to enter the fine-art market but so far haven't got any brilliant idea (never say never).
[/quote]
Raising prices is welcome news to ALL contributors and agencies but it doesn't do much good if there aren't enough buyers around to pay that price.
I know MY solution but I can see where some contributors are in a pickle, especially the ones that quit their day jobs and decided to turn this into a full-time business. I foresaw the whole "market being flooded with images from average joes" the first year into microstock. Knew it wasn't "sustainable" for me. Taking what I can, as long as I can. When it runs out, I'll find something else.
-
There's no guarantee a photo will ever sell.
But if it does i prefer a single sale for a decent price rather than the hope of multiple sales for 1$.
Some failed designers complain 10$ is too much, well guess what i earn only 1.5$ from it on IS, now find me a job where they pay less than 5$/hour ... i can tell you the answer : microstock photography.
If getty raises the bar clients will be forced to pay more and shut the f.. up, as simple as that.
IS created microstock, and IS can kill it if they want.
-
There's no guarantee a photo will ever sell.
But if it does i prefer a single sale for a decent price rather than the hope of multiple sales for 1$.
Some failed designers complain 10$ is too much, well guess what i earn only 1.5$ from it on IS, now find me a job where they pay less than 5$/hour ... i can tell you the answer : microstock photography.
If getty raises the bar clients will be forced to pay more and shut the f.. up, as simple as that.
IS created microstock, and IS can kill it if they want.
I guess you're forgetting about all the other successful microstock sites. Getty/IS isn't the only game in town. Fortunately.
-
And sorry, but no one is going to buy a photo of a piece of paper or an apple for RM prices.
And this is why Getty is shuffling images around. 10 years ago they probably could have sold an apple for RM prices. Not today.
With the new agreement they tried to take total control over moving images between RM and RF. Contributors went nuts. Problem is that some of those contributors probably still have RM apples and Getty understandably wants to cull RM to unique high value images.
Your apple comment is about supply/demand and perceived value. An apple image is simple so it should be cheap. The problem is when an image has a room full of expensive models shot at an expensive location. Should that be as cheap as the apple?
If macro is too expensive for buyers to justify paying, and micro is too cheap for contributors to justify creating, what's the solution?
Your, and others', anger at buyers is displaced though. How is it the buyers' faults that Getty is doing all that stuff with RM and RF? They are making the decisions on what price point the photos are being sold at, not the buyers. All the buyers can do is take it or leave it. Clearly they don't care what the buyers (or contributors) think and they are just pushing ahead with whatever they think they need to do as a company.
And if you want to blame someone else, blame Bruce and blame John Oringer. The buyers bought microstock because it was suddenly available. Prior to that, as Baldrick says - they either weren't in the industry or didn't buy imagery.
The thing I find most ironic about those who are complaining (who weren't part of the RM club back in the day) is that you wouldn't be selling photos at all if it wasn't for microstock. (I've heard the talk about how hard it is to get to be a Getty photographer.) And many people made a great living when microstock first started, and still are, though I agree that the market is over-saturated. Something that should also be noted as well, is that many photogs were making the "high cost/production" value shots back when when microstock was just a buck (or less - Aldra at iStock comes to mind, and YuriArcurs as well). So, I'd say the devaluing came from other photographers, not buyers. No one was forcing people to make those shots at those prices. They took it upon themselves for their own reasons.
And I sure would like to meet some of these designers who are charging $200/hour! I see a lot of people doing stuff for $25/hour and I see jobs for even lower hourly rates than that.
-
If getty raises the bar clients will be forced to pay more and shut the f.. up, as simple as that.
IS created microstock, and IS can kill it if they want.
Like cclapper said, Getty is not the only game in town. If Getty raises the bar, the client will shut the f up and move onto another site. And Getty will be left wondering, again, what the heck happened.
I think most microstock buyers are okay with the $10 price point. It's the $50-$200 "microstock" price point that is the deal killer. Most iStockers report great earnings in 2007-2008. I think that was when iStock had the pricing structure that worked for everyone.
-
Hard to have sympathy with that one, given that it was posted after the latest best match shuffle, which puts non-esclusive, non P+ images in half of the top line of five of my usual searches.
This was not my experience when searching last night. I didn't see any difference in how heavily weighted the search was with Vetta/Agency.
-
As both a microstock only photographer and a small (read $30/hour) designer, I can't afford to pay more than $10-15 per image. My business model is to create a website for under $400 with a 2 hour photo-shoot included in the setup fee. My main income is derived from my (very affordable) monthly hosting & maintenance fee which I subsequently charge.
My clients are small businesses, many of which are start-ups. I have no desire to work with larger firms. The headache of committees, endless meetings, etc. just isn't worth it to me. My clients come to me because they can afford my price-point. They don't pay for the imagery separately. It's included in the setup fee, so if I can't produce what's needed, I buy from microstock. How much can I afford to spend on photos when it comes out of my pocket and still make a living?
These clients are the same folks that pay for wedding photos that are noisy with bad white balance and just plain crappy, so image quality isn't their top priority. It seems like many people look at things from their own perspective only. They think (and may be correct) that they produce quality images and should be compensated adequately. The problem is that there are a huge number of people that need photos that can't tell the difference between a good photo and a bad one. They simply want a photo that illustrates a concept or service. Microstock is perfect for those people and if it isn't available, they'll seek out alternatives. IMHO there's still a large market for shots that don't cost so much to produce.
As a photographer, I'm all for making decent money. However, the reality of microstock is that you sell the same photo multiple times for a small commission each time in order to realize your earnings from that particular photo. I got into creating microstock knowing this. If anyone else jumped on the wagon thinking otherwise, I feel bad for you.
It seems to me that the market is diverse enough for more price-points than just RM and Mid-stock.
-
Baldrick!! with due respect and mutual understanding and without falling out. You are specualting and guessing.
.
We are all speculating. Do you imagine that even if you know Getty high-ups they would tell you if they were worried about the way things are going? You yourself say that trying to make a living from RM is the road to starvation. The whole RM industry is down according to the analysts. Istock discovered a year ago that its position was financially "unsustainable" (OK, we probably both think they were lying at that time). Getty's profitable iS subsidiary is a mess, full of buggy problems and gazillions of price points - we have no idea if it is more profitable now than when it was unsustainable. Getty is forcing its established RM stars into the bottom level of microstock. Its owners have missed the original deadline to sell it - no doubt because they couldn't find anyone willing to pay the price they wanted - and have effectively mortgaged the business to recover cash from it.
So I have no idea if the Getty high-ups are truly sailing their leviathan along without a care in the world. Maybe they are. All I know is that I would be looking at the weather with concern if I was them. I'm sure Capt. Edward Smith was a happy, confident man on the evening of April 14, 2012, as he enjoyed his dinner on the RMS Titanic. But maybe Getty isn't the Titanic. I guess we'll all find out at the journey's end.
guess you have a point there, although "find out at the journeys end" well, then we are 7 foot under, I prefer before then end.
BTW, I changed my mind I rather go to a small tea-house down in Cornwall or the Cotswolds, whipped cream, tea and scones.
-
Hard to have sympathy with that one, given that it was posted after the latest best match shuffle, which puts non-esclusive, non P+ images in half of the top line of five of my usual searches.
This was not my experience when searching last night. I didn't see any difference in how heavily weighted the search was with Vetta/Agency.
Either way, it doesn't really matter. The statement clearly related to how things have been going over a period. It wasn't a snap decision based on whatever today's best match shuffle throws up.
-
I've seen the term thrown around a lot, but what exactly is considered mid-stock prices? Micros seem to already span a wide price range.
-
These clients are the same folks that pay for wedding photos that are noisy with bad white balance and just plain crappy, so image quality isn't their top priority. It seems like many people look at things from their own perspective only. They think (and may be correct) that they produce quality images and should be compensated adequately. The problem is that there are a huge number of people that need photos that can't tell the difference between a good photo and a bad one. They simply want a photo that illustrates a concept or service. Microstock is perfect for those people and if it isn't available, they'll seek out alternatives. IMHO there's still a large market for shots that don't cost so much to produce.
Good, so why don't you fish images on Flickr instead of paying IS ?
I'm of your same opinion that there's a huge potential market for bad noisy lowres awful photos but who's gonna take
the time to keyword properly and upload if the payout might be a miserable 0.30$ ?
I mean, microstock itself started as a place for crap free images, the natural selection began later,
but now the bar is as high as joining Getty RM and even the worst micro agencies will reject
images with noise or bad lighting.
-
^^^Your writing style is so familiar :)
-
At this moment I have two pics, iris printed, hanging in the Rondanini gallery in Rome, 90x70 cm. One is priced, in dollars, 1500, the other one 2500. I.E. one is Micro, the other one Macro. ;D
-
I think most microstock buyers are okay with the $10 price point. It's the $50-$200 "microstock" price point that is the deal killer. Most iStockers report great earnings in 2007-2008. I think that was when iStock had the pricing structure that worked for everyone.
I agree. The balance between price and commissions seemed to work well at that time.
I can see how some here are arguing that we should be paid more for our work. I wholeheartedly agree!
What appears to be overlookedm, though, is that royalties have NOT kept pace with higher prices. All the major PPD sites - Istock, Fotolia, & Dreamstime - have simultaneously cut commissions as they raised prices. So for those making the case that your work is undervalued - you're right! But for the most part it is the agencies and not the buyers who are undervaluing it. Higher prices are useless to me if my royalty % and over all income are dropping.
Honestly, I don't care what my images sell for. What matters to me is my bottom line. That's why I sell micro in the first place. And unfortunately the bottom line is going down as the prices are going up.
-
Good, so why don't you fish images on Flickr instead of paying IS ?
I'm of your same opinion that there's a huge potential market for bad noisy lowres awful photos but who's gonna take
the time to keyword properly and upload if the payout might be a miserable 0.30$ ?
Why . are some of you so intent on sending our microstock customers to Flikr? I prefer them to stay right where they are - on the micros buying my images.
It's bad enough for some Istock admins to be giving out the "don't let the door hit you in the back" attitude, but it's just insane for microstock contributors to be handing that out! Anyone trying to send customers to Flikr is, to put it as tactfully as possible, unlikely to be someone who is reliant on any microstock income.
-
What appears to be overlookedm, though, is that royalties have NOT kept pace with higher prices. All the major PPD sites - Istock, Fotolia, & Dreamstime - have simultaneously cut commissions as they raised prices. So for those making the case that your work is undervalued - you're right! But for the most part it is the agencies and not the buyers who are undervaluing it. Higher prices are useless to me if my royalty % and over all income are dropping.
Thank you for pointing that out. That is another reason why I think this anger at the buyers is misplaced.
-
It's bad enough for some Istock admins to be giving out the "don't let the door hit you in the back" attitude, but it's just insane for microstock contributors to be handing that out! Anyone trying to send customers to Flikr is, to put it as tactfully as possible, unlikely to be someone who is reliant on any microstock income.
Also a good point! The phrase cutting off your nose springs to mind.
-
And sorry, but no one is going to buy a photo of a piece of paper or an apple for RM prices.
And this is why Getty is shuffling images around. 10 years ago they probably could have sold an apple for RM prices. Not today.
With the new agreement they tried to take total control over moving images between RM and RF. Contributors went nuts. Problem is that some of those contributors probably still have RM apples and Getty understandably wants to cull RM to unique high value images.
Your apple comment is about supply/demand and perceived value. An apple image is simple so it should be cheap. The problem is when an image has a room full of expensive models shot at an expensive location. Should that be as cheap as the apple?
If macro is too expensive for buyers to justify paying, and micro is too cheap for contributors to justify creating, what's the solution?
Your, and others', anger at buyers is displaced though. How is it the buyers' faults that Getty is doing all that stuff with RM and RF? They are making the decisions on what price point the photos are being sold at, not the buyers. All the buyers can do is take it or leave it. Clearly they don't care what the buyers (or contributors) think and they are just pushing ahead with whatever they think they need to do as a company.
And if you want to blame someone else, blame Bruce and blame John Oringer. The buyers bought microstock because it was suddenly available. Prior to that, as Baldrick says - they either weren't in the industry or didn't buy imagery.
The thing I find most ironic about those who are complaining (who weren't part of the RM club back in the day) is that you wouldn't be selling photos at all if it wasn't for microstock. (I've heard the talk about how hard it is to get to be a Getty photographer.) And many people made a great living when microstock first started, and still are, though I agree that the market is over-saturated. Something that should also be noted as well, is that many photogs were making the "high cost/production" value shots back when when microstock was just a buck (or less - Aldra at iStock comes to mind, and YuriArcurs as well). So, I'd say the devaluing came from other photographers, not buyers. No one was forcing people to make those shots at those prices. They took it upon themselves for their own reasons.
And I sure would like to meet some of these designers who are charging $200/hour! I see a lot of people doing stuff for $25/hour and I see jobs for even lower hourly rates than that.
If anger is what you're seeing in my posts it's not my intent. I'm not angry at all and especially not at buyers. If I could buy something that cost $1,000 a few years for $10 today I'd be pretty happy and don't blame them a bit.
The licensing is the problem and my question was serious. What's the solution for contributors? Higher prices? New license model? Quit and let micro go back to amateurs with point and shoots?
-
Why . are some of you so intent on sending our microstock customers to Flikr? I prefer them to stay right where they are - on the micros buying my images.
It's bad enough for some Istock admins to be giving out the "don't let the door hit you in the back" attitude, but it's just insane for microstock contributors to be handing that out! Anyone trying to send customers to Flikr is, to put it as tactfully as possible, unlikely to be someone who is reliant on any microstock income.
It's simply a well known marketing technique, leaving the bad apple to the competition.
Do you really want to base your business on cheapskates complaining that 10$ or even 1$ is too expensive ?
-
The licensing is the problem and my question was serious. What's the solution for contributors? Higher prices? New license model? Quit and let micro go back to amateurs with point and shoots?
It's too late now for microstock to go back to its roots (point & shoot, awful quality, etc) but Getty seems to be excited in moving to new horizons : they're actually creating a sort of mid-stock and finally doing something against oversupply (moving low-sellers to thinkstock).
Talking about licences of course RM is the most photographer-friendly licence but how many buyers agree nowadays ?
Most of them are in a tight budget and on a tight deadline, they need a quick solution for their photo needs, they couldn't care
less about the RM mumbo jumbo and RF gives them complete freedom.
-
So for those making the case that your work is undervalued - you're right! But for the most part it is the agencies and not the buyers who are undervaluing it. Higher prices are useless to me if my royalty % and over all income are dropping.
There's too much oversupply at the moment, and it was predictable from the start since the bar to join IS has been low for a long time.
On the other side the earnings from micro RF cannot justify big investments in production, for instance nobody would sell aerial photography on micros.
The more they cut royalties the more the "perimeter" of microstock squeezes leaving us flooded by millions of similar photos about the same subjects over and over and it can only go worse unless Getty moves the low-earners in a different collection thus making space for new submissions.
If you look at search engines like Google they have the same issue and they're dealing with zillions of web pages all looking similar and apparently serving good content.
The solution is the same : the "sandbox", meaning the crap goes in page 100 or 1000 and therefore doesn't exist apart for a few obscure "long tail" keywords, so no matter if their database is so big they need a stack of data centers, the average user will just see the first 30-40 results and be happy with it, same should be done with stock.
The problem in this case is HOW a stock photo search engine can rank properly good photos from bad photos ? Will they implement users' ratings ? stars next to every images ? new popularity algorithms ?
I mean, i wouldn't be surprised if 20% of the images on sale at IS make up to 80% of the sales so who cares about the photos who never sold once in a few years ?
Less competition == Higher sales
-
There's too much oversupply at the moment, and it was predictable from the start since the bar to join IS has been low for a long time.
Since 2002, presumably?
The trad sector operated as a closed shop, setting barriers designed to keep all the cake for a small elite. By doing so, it locked out a lot of people who were more than capable of meeting the market's demand for quality. The artificial inflation in prices it was able to impose in this way created a barrier that prevented money flowing into the industry but ensured that the bit that did come in from stock was split between the select few allowed into the club.
OK, so presumably you were there and you liked it that way. But it's pretty clear that the system was inefficient, artificial and (how I hate to use the word in a normal context now!) unsustainable. Once digital shooters started hammering at the castle gate, undeterred by the only real barrier, of high running costs from having to buy and process film, there was no way the edifice could withstand the assault.
Now you want to rebuild the castle, disregarding the lessons of history?
If iStock sets high barriers to try to reduce the influx of new material and artificially boost prices, sellers will simply go elsewhere and the buyers will gradually migrate to cheaper options. That's how the free market works and it is the free market that has pumped such huge sums of money into photography as a result of breaking the old barriers.
And who is seeing the money? Well, the old-timers are seeing less because the cartel don't work no more. The micro agencies are seeing a lot and they didn't exist. A few thousand upstart photographers who would never have made anything in the 1990s are making a living and hundreds of thousands are getting some pocket money.
The biggest winner of all from this wall of cash is probably the electronics sector, with tens of thousands of newbies buying and upgrading high-end cameras, lenses, computers, programs and memory cards, with purchases being justified against future earnings from stock. The microstock industry has probably generated sales of billions of dollars worth of hardware and software (not to mention lens caps) and accelerated the introduction of high-end DSLRs.
It would be nice if the agencies weren't siphoning off so much of the cash and left more from us. But attempting to choke off the supply of images won't boost prices or earnings.
There are two "bars" that matter: quality and price. The quality bar can be set as high as you like, as long as the price bar is kept low enough not to encourage buyers to look elsewhere. If you raise the price to a level where where buyers will start looking for alternatives, you need to drop the quality bar so that you are not driving high-quality suppliers to other agents by rejecting perfectly good work (I wonder if that is why iStock now seems easier to get work into than Dreamstime or SS).
The only time the free market will let you succeed by setting very high prices and simultaneously insisting on very high quality is when what you are selling is sufficiently unique for low-priced alternatives not to be available. The cartel system allowed apples on white to sell for hundreds of dollars, the free market won't support that model.
-
I think most microstock buyers are okay with the $10 price point. It's the $50-$200 "microstock" price point that is the deal killer. Most iStockers report great earnings in 2007-2008. I think that was when iStock had the pricing structure that worked for everyone.
I agree. The balance between price and commissions seemed to work well at that time.
I can see how some here are arguing that we should be paid more for our work. I wholeheartedly agree!
What appears to be overlookedm, though, is that royalties have NOT kept pace with higher prices. All the major PPD sites - Istock, Fotolia, & Dreamstime - have simultaneously cut commissions as they raised prices. So for those making the case that your work is undervalued - you're right! But for the most part it is the agencies and not the buyers who are undervaluing it. Higher prices are useless to me if my royalty % and over all income are dropping.
Honestly, I don't care what my images sell for. What matters to me is my bottom line. That's why I sell micro in the first place. And unfortunately the bottom line is going down as the prices are going up.
I agree. I really don't see why sites have to take more than 50% commission from us. Alamy has thrived while paying 60% commission. The other sites might argue that they make more money and spend more on advertising but it doesn't justify 15 to 30% commissions. But it's our own fault for not getting together and doing something about it. We should at least of rejected istock cutting under 20%. I'm still surprised that so many people are complaining all the time but still uploading their weekly quota. We really do only have ourselves to blame for this.
-
Good, so why don't you fish images on Flickr instead of paying IS ?
I'm of your same opinion that there's a huge potential market for bad noisy lowres awful photos but who's gonna take
the time to keyword properly and upload if the payout might be a miserable 0.30$ ?
Why . are some of you so intent on sending our microstock customers to Flikr? I prefer them to stay right where they are - on the micros buying my images.
It's bad enough for some Istock admins to be giving out the "don't let the door hit you in the back" attitude, but it's just insane for microstock contributors to be handing that out! Anyone trying to send customers to Flikr is, to put it as tactfully as possible, unlikely to be someone who is reliant on any microstock income.
Do you remember Old Hippy? His mission seemed to be to make lots of provocative posts and then start insulting us before getting banned. I have a strong sense of déjà vu here.
-
There's too much oversupply at the moment, and it was predictable from the start since the bar to join IS has been low for a long time.
Since 2002, presumably?
The trad sector operated as a closed shop, setting barriers designed to keep all the cake for a small elite. By doing so, it locked out a lot of people who were more than capable of meeting the market's demand for quality. The artificial inflation in prices it was able to impose in this way created a barrier that prevented money flowing into the industry but ensured that the bit that did come in from stock was split between the select few allowed into the club.
OK, so presumably you were there and you liked it that way. But it's pretty clear that the system was inefficient, artificial and (how I hate to use the word in a normal context now!) unsustainable. Once digital shooters started hammering at the castle gate, undeterred by the only real barrier, of high running costs from having to buy and process film, there was no way the edifice could withstand the assault.
Now you want to rebuild the castle, disregarding the lessons of history?
If iStock sets high barriers to try to reduce the influx of new material and artificially boost prices, sellers will simply go elsewhere and the buyers will gradually migrate to cheaper options. That's how the free market works and it is the free market that has pumped such huge sums of money into photography as a result of breaking the old barriers.
And who is seeing the money? Well, the old-timers are seeing less because the cartel don't work no more. The micro agencies are seeing a lot and they didn't exist. A few thousand upstart photographers who would never have made anything in the 1990s are making a living and hundreds of thousands are getting some pocket money.
The biggest winner of all from this wall of cash is probably the electronics sector, with tens of thousands of newbies buying and upgrading high-end cameras, lenses, computers, programs and memory cards, with purchases being justified against future earnings from stock. The microstock industry has probably generated sales of billions of dollars worth of hardware and software (not to mention lens caps) and accelerated the introduction of high-end DSLRs.
It would be nice if the agencies weren't siphoning off so much of the cash and left more from us. But attempting to choke off the supply of images won't boost prices or earnings.
There are two "bars" that matter: quality and price. The quality bar can be set as high as you like, as long as the price bar is kept low enough not to encourage buyers to look elsewhere. If you raise the price to a level where where buyers will start looking for alternatives, you need to drop the quality bar so that you are not driving high-quality suppliers to other agents by rejecting perfectly good work (I wonder if that is why iStock now seems easier to get work into than Dreamstime or Shutterstock).
The only time the free market will let you succeed by setting very high prices and simultaneously insisting on very high quality is when what you are selling is sufficiently unique for low-priced alternatives not to be available. The cartel system allowed apples on white to sell for hundreds of dollars, the free market won't support that model.
give that man a heart!
-
give that man a heart!
???
-
give that man a heart!
???
I think he was referring to clicking on the little heart heart beside your post.. meaning he liked your post.
-
Sure it wasn't a cowardly lion reference? ;D
-
There's too much oversupply at the moment, and it was predictable from the start since the bar to join IS has been low for a long time.
Since 2002, presumably?
The trad sector operated as a closed shop, setting barriers designed to keep all the cake for a small elite. By doing so, it locked out a lot of people who were more than capable of meeting the market's demand for quality. The artificial inflation in prices it was able to impose in this way created a barrier that prevented money flowing into the industry but ensured that the bit that did come in from stock was split between the select few allowed into the club.
OK, so presumably you were there and you liked it that way. But it's pretty clear that the system was inefficient, artificial and (how I hate to use the word in a normal context now!) unsustainable. Once digital shooters started hammering at the castle gate, undeterred by the only real barrier, of high running costs from having to buy and process film, there was no way the edifice could withstand the assault.
Now you want to rebuild the castle, disregarding the lessons of history?
If iStock sets high barriers to try to reduce the influx of new material and artificially boost prices, sellers will simply go elsewhere and the buyers will gradually migrate to cheaper options. That's how the free market works and it is the free market that has pumped such huge sums of money into photography as a result of breaking the old barriers.
And who is seeing the money? Well, the old-timers are seeing less because the cartel don't work no more. The micro agencies are seeing a lot and they didn't exist. A few thousand upstart photographers who would never have made anything in the 1990s are making a living and hundreds of thousands are getting some pocket money.
The biggest winner of all from this wall of cash is probably the electronics sector, with tens of thousands of newbies buying and upgrading high-end cameras, lenses, computers, programs and memory cards, with purchases being justified against future earnings from stock. The microstock industry has probably generated sales of billions of dollars worth of hardware and software (not to mention lens caps) and accelerated the introduction of high-end DSLRs.
It would be nice if the agencies weren't siphoning off so much of the cash and left more from us. But attempting to choke off the supply of images won't boost prices or earnings.
There are two "bars" that matter: quality and price. The quality bar can be set as high as you like, as long as the price bar is kept low enough not to encourage buyers to look elsewhere. If you raise the price to a level where where buyers will start looking for alternatives, you need to drop the quality bar so that you are not driving high-quality suppliers to other agents by rejecting perfectly good work (I wonder if that is why iStock now seems easier to get work into than Dreamstime or Shutterstock).
The only time the free market will let you succeed by setting very high prices and simultaneously insisting on very high quality is when what you are selling is sufficiently unique for low-priced alternatives not to be available. The cartel system allowed apples on white to sell for hundreds of dollars, the free market won't support that model.
give that man a heart!
I did. Great post!
-
Do you really want to base your business on cheapskates complaining that 10$ or even 1$ is too expensive ?
Nobody - let me repeat - NOBODY is complaining about $1-$10 prices. They are complaining about $50-$200 prices on a website that until very recently only went up to $30 or so.
And to answer your question: Yes, I have based my business on those "cheapskates" and been quite happy with the results. The prices and royalties were working fine for everyone until one or two agencies started getting greedy and the others followed suit.
(edited because Agency prices were even HIGHER than I had thought) :o
-
If you do not want the agencies to sell your photos at high prices, you can always sell cheap from your own site. If you do sell from your own site, I'd be curious if you are successful in selling cheap.
-
If you do not want the agencies to sell your photos at high prices, you can always sell cheap from your own site. If you do sell from your own site, I'd be curious if you are successful in selling cheap.
I think you missed the point of my posts.
-
If you do not want the agencies to sell your photos at high prices, you can always sell cheap from your own site. If you do sell from your own site, I'd be curious if you are successful in selling cheap.
That's just silly. Of course private website sales can't compare with sales by a mega-corporation with a big advertising budget and an established reputation as a major image source.
In any case, everybody would like the agencies to sell their images at high prices. What's less popular is agencies putting up prices to the point where images don't sell. Some of us prefer making money to pricing ourselves out of the market.
-
Nobody - let me repeat - NOBODY is complaining about $1-$10 prices.
I've actually been complaining about the $1-$10 price point. ;D I'd actually like to see micro move into the $10-$50 price range.
-
Nobody - let me repeat - NOBODY is complaining about $1-$10 prices.
I've actually been complaining about the $1-$10 price point. ;D I'd actually like to see micro move into the $10-$50 price range.
+1 and P+ (or similar collections) into the 50-100 and that we'd, at the same time, start getting the deserved 60% of royalties. I'd settle for 50% if the traffic was crazy;)
Joking aside, I wish prices would go up, because currently they're absurd. Seeing high end photography getting sold for a handful of dollars is ridiculous, but at the same time, that's the contributors choice. We're reaping what we sow...
-
Nobody - let me repeat - NOBODY is complaining about $1-$10 prices.
I've actually been complaining about the $1-$10 price point. ;D I'd actually like to see micro move into the $10-$50 price range.
Ah yes. That's a different matter :)
I believe BS's comment was about buyers (or as he refers to them "cheapskates") complaining about $1 - $10 prices. Which they never have.
-
Ah yes. That's a different matter :)
I believe BS's comment was about buyers (or as he refers to them "cheapskates") complaining about $1 - $10 prices. Which they never have.
I did actually know that you were talking about buyers. I was just stirring things up. :D
-
i recently joined Photographer's Direct, take a look at their recent sale prices :
http://www.photographersdirect.com/sellers/buyerslist.asp (http://www.photographersdirect.com/sellers/buyerslist.asp)
no sales so far but it's an interesting alternative niche, we'll see how it goes.
-
Nobody - let me repeat - NOBODY is complaining about $1-$10 prices.
I've actually been complaining about the $1-$10 price point. ;D I'd actually like to see micro move into the $10-$50 price range.
Ah yes. That's a different matter :)
I believe BS's comment was about buyers (or as he refers to them "cheapskates") complaining about $1 - $10 prices. Which they never have.
Yes, i was referring to buyers.
Well, up to you, there's space for anyone in this business, micro, mid, macro, and anything in between.
At the moment i'm exploring other sources of income, merchandising, art galleries, assignments...
-
i recently joined Photographer's Direct...
http://www.photographersdirect.com/sellers/microstock_sites.asp (http://www.photographersdirect.com/sellers/microstock_sites.asp)
Just another antique, clinging to old ideas and misconceptions about microstock. Good luck with that one.
-
i recently joined Photographer's Direct...
[url]http://www.photographersdirect.com/sellers/microstock_sites.asp[/url] ([url]http://www.photographersdirect.com/sellers/microstock_sites.asp[/url])
Just another antique, clinging to old ideas and misconceptions about microstock. Good luck with that one.
i just received a request email from them, a client needs RM images of saudi arabia (taxi, public lights, road signs, people, etc ?) he pays 50 UK pounds/photo, unfortunately i've nothing about saudi arabia but i'm glad there are agencies like this offering a kind of alternative to automated stock.
as far as i understood their cut is just 10-20% of the sale in case the clients like your photos and judging from their recent sales quality is really of secondary importance...
-
+1, I would also like to see prices increase, I mean whats the point in pretending? its hardly micro anymore and the funny part is: people tend to buy anyway, in any branch.
-
i recently joined Photographer's Direct, take a look at their recent sale prices :
[url]http://www.photographersdirect.com/sellers/buyerslist.asp[/url] ([url]http://www.photographersdirect.com/sellers/buyerslist.asp[/url])
no sales so far but it's an interesting alternative niche, we'll see how it goes.
Then why are you wasting time here, since you have either violated photographersdirect's membership terms or you are not selling anything on microstock sites?
-
i recently joined Photographer's Direct, take a look at their recent sale prices :
[url]http://www.photographersdirect.com/sellers/buyerslist.asp[/url] ([url]http://www.photographersdirect.com/sellers/buyerslist.asp[/url])
no sales so far but it's an interesting alternative niche, we'll see how it goes.
32 posts in 2 days.
If you've joined photographers direct then not much point hanging here.
They want us all exterminated.
-
^^^Black Sheep/Old Hippy likes to poke fun at us here. Unfortunately he usually goes way to far at some point and gets banned. Then he reappears a few months later and we go through all this again. Someone did post his real identity here once and I remember that he does this on other forums too.
-
^^^Black Sheep/Old Hippy likes to poke fun at us here. Unfortunately he usually goes way to far at some point and gets banned. Then he reappears a few months later and we go through all this again. Someone did post his real identity here once and I remember that he does this on other forums too.
Macrosaur/old hippy/pesaus and alike
-
hahaha ! paranoia abunds here.
-
^^^Black Sheep/Old Hippy likes to poke fun at us here. Unfortunately he usually goes way to far at some point and gets banned. Then he reappears a few months later and we go through all this again. Someone did post his real identity here once and I remember that he does this on other forums too.
Macrosaur/old hippy/pesaus and alike
I was thinking Molka.
-
^^^And Batman? It's either all the same person or they're all travel photographers that detest microstock and end up with severe keyboard rage.
hahaha ! paranoia abunds here.
Just had a look at some old posts by Macrosaur and the way you both use a small "i" and your writing style is almost identical. Sorry, no paranoia here, your the Macrosaur in sheep's clothing :)
-
^^^And Batman? It's either all the same person or they're all travel photographers that detest microstock and end up with severe keyboard rage.
hahaha ! paranoia abunds here.
Just had a look at some old posts by Macrosaur and the way you both use a small "i" and your writing style is almost identical. Sorry, no paranoia here, you're the Macrosaur in sheep's clothing :)
I guess it's not paranoia if it is true, eh?
-
i recently joined Photographer's Direct, take a look at their recent sale prices :
[url]http://www.photographersdirect.com/sellers/buyerslist.asp[/url] ([url]http://www.photographersdirect.com/sellers/buyerslist.asp[/url])
no sales so far but it's an interesting alternative niche, we'll see how it goes.
You're joking right???
Don't you know one of their policy rules is that you don't do microstock!
-
Hi All,
I don't mind the pricing at all levels of stock what I would like to see is the percentage split change. When I see smaller third party agencies making a great return to the company while offering 50/50 splits, I know for a fact it is possible and years ago that was the standard when film was scanned and art directors went on location with their photographers. If anything running a online stock agency is lest costly for the agency than ever before. Taking 80+ % is just bad business and doesn't help the industry grow. Gotta feed the farmers if you want them to grow high yielding tasty crops.
Best,
Jonathan
-
i recently joined Photographer's Direct, take a look at their recent sale prices :
[url]http://www.photographersdirect.com/sellers/buyerslist.asp[/url] ([url]http://www.photographersdirect.com/sellers/buyerslist.asp[/url])
no sales so far but it's an interesting alternative niche, we'll see how it goes.
You're joking right???
Don't you know one of their policy rules is that you don't do microstock!
Their market is completely different. They only sell RM and receive weird requests from buyers, you will hardly
find the images they need on micro RF.
On the other side, i would never sell patterns and backgrounds on RM, never sold one so far but they sell
fine on micros so who can blame me and the production cost was very low, to each his own.
-
On the other side, i would never sell patterns and backgrounds on RM, never sold one so far
Well, clearly you can't have sold one RM if you don't offer them RM. QED.
-
On the other side, i would never sell patterns and backgrounds on RM, never sold one so far
Well, clearly you can't have sold one RM if you don't offer them RM. QED.
I've a few hundreds patterns on Alamy, they never made a sale nor a single zoom so far, wasted time, or maybe it's just Alamy.
-
Hi All,
I don't mind the pricing at all levels of stock what I would like to see is the percentage split change. When I see smaller third party agencies making a great return to the company while offering 50/50 splits, I know for a fact it is possible and years ago that was the standard when film was scanned and art directors went on location with their photographers. If anything running a online stock agency is lest costly for the agency than ever before. Taking 80+ % is just bad business and doesn't help the industry grow. Gotta feed the farmers if you want them to grow high yielding tasty crops.
Best,
Jonathan
Hi Jonathan!
Yep remember the days well, still doing it though.
Todays on-line sites are only in it for a quick buck, thats it. Thats the differance.
-
On the other side, i would never sell patterns and backgrounds on RM, never sold one so far
Well, clearly you can't have sold one RM if you don't offer them RM. QED.
I've a few hundreds patterns on Alamy, they never made a sale nor a single zoom so far, wasted time, or maybe it's just Alamy.
You've made two statements:
"I would never sell patterns and backgrounds on RM, never sold one"
and
"I've a few hundred patterns on Alamy, never made a sale."
So, are your Alamy patterns RF?
-
On the other side, i would never sell patterns and backgrounds on RM, never sold one so far
Well, clearly you can't have sold one RM if you don't offer them RM. QED.
I've a few hundreds patterns on Alamy, they never made a sale nor a single zoom so far, wasted time, or maybe it's just Alamy.
You've made two statements:
"I would never sell patterns and backgrounds on RM, never sold one"
and
"I've a few hundred patterns on Alamy, never made a sale."
So, are your Alamy patterns RF?
the old ones are all RM, the new ones are all RF, but so far no luck in both cases, buyers rightfully buy patterns for 1$ on microstock
nowadays and i don't blame them.
on IS and SS they all sell decently and i'm ok with it, in 99% of the cases they are patterns taken on the street, production cost
very very low, i should put more energy about patterns considering sometimes they're selling better than other more expensive subjects.
-
I'm pretty sure Photographers Direct wouldn't want anything to do with you if they knew you were also selling anything in microstock.
-
I'm pretty sure Photographers Direct wouldn't want anything to do with you if they knew you were also selling anything in microstock.
they mostly sell editorial, nothing to with patterns or backgrounds.
-
I'm pretty sure Photographers Direct wouldn't want anything to do with you if they knew you were also selling anything in microstock.
they mostly sell editorial, nothing to with patterns or backgrounds.
In their conditions for sellers, they say,
"Because you will always deal direct with clients when selling images through Photographers Direct, we are non-exclusive. This means we have no restrictions on photographers selling the same images through other agencies. The only exceptions are microstock sites such as istockphoto, canstockphoto, shutterstock, dreamstime, bigstockphoto, crestock - we cannot represent photographers who market any of their images on these sites." Their explanation is here:
http://www.photographersdirect.com/sellers/microstock_sites.asp (http://www.photographersdirect.com/sellers/microstock_sites.asp)
I actually agree with what they're saying.
"Why will Photographers Direct not represent photographers who have images on microstock / micropayment sites?
Because they are the antithesis of Fair Trade Photography. Microstock sites (which sell Royalty Free images for 1 to 50 dollars) prey on the lack of industry-experience of amateur photographers.
The only people who benefit from these sites are:
The site owners, because they make money from the images and do not care about the damage they are doing to professional photographers' livelihoods.
The buyers, who cannot believe their luck at being able to get images for a few dollars, and being able to use them as often as they like, for as long as they like, wherever they like."
Unfortunately, word is that sales there are even slower than on Alamy. I'd post a link, but direct links to the Alamy forum don't work. Try Googling "Photographers Direct" Alamy.
-
I'm pretty sure Photographers Direct wouldn't want anything to do with you if they knew you were also selling anything in microstock.
they mostly sell editorial, nothing to with patterns or backgrounds.
As Sue pointed out, they don't want anything to do with anyone who deals with microstock at all.
-
As Sue pointed out, they don't want anything to do with anyone who deals with microstock at all.
they're over reacting.
most of their sales would never pass istock's QC nor you can find any of those obscure subjects
their clients request every day, i just received a couple new emails from them today, look at this
for instance :
Date : 2nd June 2011
Deadline : 21st June 2011
Request No.10382
Request Title: CHRISTIAN PILGRIM MAN WITH PILGRIM COAT
Request:
For a page opener in our book by Grayson Perry (the artist) we are looking for a black and white image (before 1960's) of a Christian pilgrim man wearing a pilgrim coat and on his way to a sacred place (Compostela, Lourdes or any other). It can be a group shot or not.
- Black and White images ONLY
Format : either landscape (horizontal) or portrait (vertical)
Use : editorial
Budget
Other Usage : UK£50.00
Notes on Budget : £50 for 1/4 page £75 for half £100 for full page English Language 20,000 copies. Size TBC
Buyer Rating : (no rating)
Country : United Kingdom
-
so i repeat : would i become rich selling RM patterns on photographers direct ? never ever, and they never request patterns from what i see so what can i do ? throw my patterns away ? try with alamy getty etc ? been there done that and sorry they never sold once in years ... there's a place for anything in this world, RM in RM agencies, RF patterns in microstock, sorry.
-
so i repeat : would i become rich selling RM patterns on photographers direct ? never ever, and they never request patterns from what i see so what can i do ? throw my patterns away ? try with alamy getty etc ? been there done that and sorry they never sold once in years ... there's a place for anything in this world, RM in RM agencies, RF patterns in microstock, sorry.
I agree, there's a place for everything. I'm just saying that PD doesn't feel the same way, and if they know you're involved in microstock in any way they'll likely cut you loose.
-
so i repeat : would i become rich selling RM patterns on photographers direct ? never ever, and they never request patterns from what i see so what can i do ? throw my patterns away ? try with alamy getty etc ? been there done that and sorry they never sold once in years ... there's a place for anything in this world, RM in RM agencies, RF patterns in microstock, sorry.
I agree, there's a place for everything. I'm just saying that PD doesn't feel the same way, and if they know you're involved in microstock in any way they'll likely cut you loose.
well i don't give a sh-it what they say, but i certainlty like their business model :
20% cut for them, 80% for the photographer, exactly the opposite of istock !
-
well i don't give a sh-it what they say, but i certainlty like their business model :
20% cut for them, 80% for the photographer, exactly the opposite of istock !
mess splitting the profit fairly if there's no traffic. All that I care about is the sum I get from a certain agency, not the prices or royalty cut. Sure, generally I'm all for it, just like anybody else, also for raising the prices, but if I (still) get less money at the end, than there's no use for all of that.
-
well i don't give a sh-it what they say, but i certainlty like their business model :
20% cut for them, 80% for the photographer, exactly the opposite of istock !
mess splitting the profit fairly if there's no traffic. All that I care about is the sum I get from a certain agency, not the prices or royalty cut. Sure, generally I'm all for it, just like anybody else, also for raising the prices, but if I (still) get less money at the end, than there's no use for all of that.
wait until istock lowers your royalties to 10% for you and 90% for them...
-
I'm pretty sure Photographers Direct wouldn't want anything to do with you if they knew you were also selling anything in microstock.
they mostly sell editorial, nothing to with patterns or backgrounds.
As Sue pointed out, they don't want anything to do with anyone who deals with microstock at all.
I seem to recall someone on here talking about Photographers Direct and they ended up getting canned by PD and it wasn't me.
I use to do PD many years ago before microstock...as a matter of fact the first picture I ever sold was through them....BUT the requests you get...ALL members get...not just you. So you're not getting special treatment. You are competing against all of them and the ones who pay for the unlimited website membership gets first dibs on the requests. You can get 1000 e-mails and if you are lucky you might sell a photo to one of them. After 3 years with them submitting to request after request...I only sold three pictures.....for the total of $380.00 then you have to deal with the customers on top of that and hope they pay...which I had two more requests that the people never payed. I make more on microstock in a year than I did on there in 3 years. Just so you know....
-
I think this was the last thread here about PD:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/photographers-beat-microstock (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/photographers-beat-microstock)
-
I think this was the last thread here about PD:
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/photographers-beat-microstock[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/photographers-beat-microstock[/url])
This thread was from 2007. The OP got booted off
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-macrostock/photographers-direct-t1804/ (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-macrostock/photographers-direct-t1804/)