Author Topic: Embarrassing microstocking!! (Read 15593 times)

lagereek · « **on:** March 12, 2011, 03:49 »

Geez! all the RM only photographers are finally laughing their heads off. Only yesterday I spoke to the owner/friend of a Trad-agency in London and all I kept hearing was " see! told you so" and " theyre throwing crap on their own doorstep", etc, etc, etc.

Worse is that many buyers of Micro whom I personally know for many years, even recommended, are just shaking their heads.

All this crap that we are reading and writing in various forums and what nots, well it goes out to the public, magazines, papers, etc, its like an infection that cant even be stopped with antibiotics.
Rather have a toothache.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #1 on:** March 12, 2011, 03:55 »

The cure is contributor-oriented consideration, detail minded software development and dependable pricing and interface.

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #2 on:** March 12, 2011, 04:15 »

Quote from: lagereek on March 12, 2011, 03:49

All this crap that we are reading and writing in various forums and what nots, well it goes out to the public, magazines, papers, etc, its like an infection that cant even be stopped with antibiotics.
Rather have a toothache.

Maybe it will go out to the agencies as well, and they will learn to treat us better to differentiate from their competitors

lagereek · « **Reply #3 on:** March 12, 2011, 04:27 »

Yeah at this moment, bad PR is hitting the micro-world from just about everywhere and this latest thing about fraud, etc, well I wonder if buyers even start to watch their credit-cards? when you cant, in a safe way buy/contribute with pics anymore, its gone way too far.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #4 on:** March 12, 2011, 07:07 »

Maybe that's why macro seems to be making a comeback in sales for contributors.

bunhill · « **Reply #5 on:** March 12, 2011, 08:31 »

Quote from: lagereek on March 12, 2011, 03:49

All this crap that we are reading and writing in various forums and what nots, well it goes out to the public, magazines, papers, etc

Suppose there was some sort of public offering - something like an IPO or a flotation. On paper the year on year growth numbers probably look fantastic. And there would probably be a sense that there was room for further growth.

Anyone searching Twitter, Google etc for a recent snapshot of what people on the ground have been saying would mostly see a fairly positive picture.

Apart from this forum obviously

cathyslife · « **Reply #6 on:** March 12, 2011, 08:43 »

And maybe that's why I'm seeing a boost in sales at all the other microstock agencies.

Quote

Posted by: lagereek
Yeah at this moment, bad PR is hitting the micro-world from just about everywhere and this latest thing about fraud, etc, well I wonder if buyers even start to watch their credit-cards? when you cant, in a safe way buy/contribute with pics anymore, its gone way too far.

I sure hope all the bad PR is pointing out that the fraud is happening at Getty/IS. I hope they are also pointing out that there are several other microstock agencies who nipped the fraud in the bud immediately, who haven't totally reamed their contributors like Getty/IS has, and who are still offering good microstock images at good microstock prices.

Sounds like the spin-machine is cranking away.

lisafx · « **Reply #7 on:** March 12, 2011, 12:19 »

Quote from: cclapper on March 12, 2011, 08:43

And maybe that's why I'm seeing a boost in sales at all the other microstock agencies.

I'm seeing the same. I heard from an admin at one of the other agencies that they are getting signups from corporate clients who admit to having only shopped at Istock until recently.

Quote from: cclapper on March 12, 2011, 08:43

I sure hope all the bad PR is pointing out that the fraud is happening at Getty/IS. I hope they are also pointing out that there are several other microstock agencies who nipped the fraud in the bud immediately, who haven't totally reamed their contributors like Getty/IS has, and who are still offering good microstock images at good microstock prices.

I hope so too. Istockphoto is NOT synonymous with microstock. There is a diversity of agencies and none of the others are having the kinds of problems Istock/Getty have inflicted on themselves (and us, and the buyers).

click_click · « **Reply #8 on:** March 12, 2011, 12:36 »

Quote from: sjlocke on March 12, 2011, 03:55

The cure is contributor-oriented consideration, detail minded software development and dependable pricing and interface.

May I present the new owner of iStock. Good times are ahead

Why can't just everyone think like that.

cathyslife · « **Reply #9 on:** March 12, 2011, 12:44 »

Quote from: lisafx on March 12, 2011, 12:19

snip
I'm seeing the same. I heard from an admin at one of the other agencies that they are getting signups from corporate clients who admit to having only shopped at Istock until recently.

Good to hear, on both fronts.

bunhill · « **Reply #10 on:** March 12, 2011, 13:11 »

Quote from: cclapper on March 12, 2011, 08:43

Sounds like the spin-machine is cranking away.

That's cryptic. What do you mean ?

lagereek · « **Reply #11 on:** March 12, 2011, 14:39 »

True! Im already having the best first two weeks ever at SS and FT is going better then ever. RM sales have nearly doubled so its pretty good actually.

bunhill · « **Reply #12 on:** March 12, 2011, 15:01 »

do you have RM work at Alamy lagereek ?

lagereek · « **Reply #13 on:** March 12, 2011, 16:51 »

Quote from: bunhill on March 12, 2011, 15:01

do you have RM work at Alamy lagereek ?

No not at Alamy, only RF. Most of my online RM shots are with Getty/Stone/Image-bank. The rest, some 80K shots are in my own RM-collection. Its interesting though, I spoke to the Alamy folks and they explained its very, very little differance in sales percentage, RM or RF at Alamy.

On another note, I still havent figured out how their Pseudo mechanism works or benefits.

djpadavona · « **Reply #14 on:** March 12, 2011, 18:16 »

Quote from: lisafx on March 12, 2011, 12:19

Quote from: cclapper on March 12, 2011, 08:43
And maybe that's why I'm seeing a boost in sales at all the other microstock agencies.

I'm seeing the same. I heard from an admin at one of the other agencies that they are getting signups from corporate clients who admit to having only shopped at Istock until recently.

I may be seeing the same thing this month. I have Shutterstock and Dreamstime nearly dead even at #1 and #2, with iStock a distant #3. That's the first time iStock has dropped out of my top 2 in a long time.

Artemis · « **Reply #15 on:** March 12, 2011, 18:37 »

ditto!
istock always was #1 in royalties by far. Now it slipped down to #2 behind SS, and interestingly, what i lost on istock i gained on SS and DT, which is great! (for an independent...)

bunhill · « **Reply #16 on:** March 12, 2011, 19:14 »

Quote from: djpadavona on March 12, 2011, 18:16

Quote from: lisafx on March 12, 2011, 12:19
Quote from: cclapper on March 12, 2011, 08:43
And maybe that's why I'm seeing a boost in sales at all the other microstock agencies.

I'm seeing the same. I heard from an admin at one of the other agencies that they are getting signups from corporate clients who admit to having only shopped at Istock until recently.

I may be seeing the same thing this month. I have Shutterstock and Dreamstime nearly dead even at #1 and #2, with iStock a distant #3. That's the first time iStock has dropped out of my top 2 in a long time.

Search at iStockphoto has been broken since f5 and is now completely broken.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #17 on:** March 13, 2011, 02:11 »

Quote from: lagereek on March 12, 2011, 16:51

Quote from: bunhill on March 12, 2011, 15:01
do you have RM work at Alamy lagereek ?

No not at Alamy, only RF. Most of my online RM shots are with Getty/Stone/Image-bank. The rest, some 80K shots are in my own RM-collection. Its interesting though, I spoke to the Alamy folks and they explained its very, very little differance in sales percentage, RM or RF at Alamy.

On another note, I still havent figured out how their Pseudo mechanism works or benefits.

Here's the theory, short version. If you want to discuss it in the Alamy section please do, I'll be back tomorrow sometime.

You put your best sellers under one pseudonym, so you get a better page rank. You put the off images and less likely to sell under another, so your views/zooms/sales rank, isn't harmed. At the present time, Alamy rank is based on Pseudonym, not individual.

I have RF one pseudonym, RM Editorial another and, RM general under another. Just another way to break up images and it makes searching for links easier. My race photos collection shouldn't have bridges and cabooses in it.

HOWEVER! (always one of these isn't there?)

I haven't found my rank to be seriously harmed by a no sales Pseudo vs the one that has all the sames, when I did a "BHZ" game. The two pseudonyms appeared next to each other! That's not supposed to happen.

When I search for "Corvette racing" my name, which I've sold two different images, the first one that sold shows up 16th and I think the second one is 3rd. So 14 images that have never sold, are ahead, within my sold image? The second sale was twice the first, it makes sense that it would show first if the rank is based on $$$.

Part Two: Alamy just announced that they are working on rating by photo, not by contributor or pseudo. The whole question may be a moot point and a better way to rank images.

I like having three different versions of my name for sorting purposes. Keep in mind if someone buys an image and gives you credit, it gets done with the Pseudonym! So if I picked some off the wall name for my 4th collection, that name would show in the credits. One more reason why rank by photo would be a positive change.

Hope that helped. PM works too.

lagereek · « **Reply #18 on:** March 13, 2011, 02:26 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on March 13, 2011, 02:11

Quote from: lagereek on March 12, 2011, 16:51
Quote from: bunhill on March 12, 2011, 15:01
do you have RM work at Alamy lagereek ?

No not at Alamy, only RF. Most of my online RM shots are with Getty/Stone/Image-bank. The rest, some 80K shots are in my own RM-collection. Its interesting though, I spoke to the Alamy folks and they explained its very, very little differance in sales percentage, RM or RF at Alamy.

On another note, I still havent figured out how their Pseudo mechanism works or benefits.

Here's the theory, short version. If you want to discuss it in the Alamy section please do, I'll be back tomorrow sometime.

You put your best sellers under one pseudonym, so you get a better page rank. You put the off images and less likely to sell under another, so your views/zooms/sales rank, isn't harmed. At the present time, Alamy rank is based on Pseudonym, not individual.

I have RF one pseudonym, RM Editorial another and, RM general under another. Just another way to break up images and it makes searching for links easier. My race photos collection shouldn't have bridges and cabooses in it.

HOWEVER! (always one of these isn't there?)

I haven't found my rank to be seriously harmed by a no sales Pseudo vs the one that has all the sames, when I did a "BHZ" game. The two pseudonyms appeared next to each other! That's not supposed to happen.

When I search for "Corvette racing" my name, which I've sold two different images, the first one that sold shows up 16th and I think the second one is 3rd. So 14 images that have never sold, are ahead, within my sold image? The second sale was twice the first, it makes sense that it would show first if the rank is based on $$$.

Part Two: Alamy just announced that they are working on rating by photo, not by contributor or pseudo. The whole question may be a moot point and a better way to rank images.

I like having three different versions of my name for sorting purposes. Keep in mind if someone buys an image and gives you credit, it gets done with the Pseudonym! So if I picked some off the wall name for my 4th collection, that name would show in the credits. One more reason why rank by photo would be a positive change.

Hope that helped. PM works too.

Hi!

Many thanks for the explanation!!! as you said, we can continue this in the Alamy section. Theres a few things only that Im unsure of regarding these pseudos.

best. Christian

Elenathewise · « **Reply #19 on:** March 13, 2011, 19:47 »

I don't think public embarrassment of one - notorious - agency speaks badly of microstock in general. Plus, all this sh*t started happening on Istock after Getty bought it - so really, it's embarrassment not of microstock, but of one of the major "trads". Of course "trads" - especially ones that did not embrace new business model - would be jumping on news like this to discredit the "undersellers". As to customers, they are not going anywhere - the demand is out there, if they don't buy it on Istock, they'll buy on other micros. One thing for sure: someone who wants to buy an image for few bucks won't go to "trads" to spend hundreds...

leaf · « **Reply #20 on:** March 14, 2011, 04:54 »

another note on how the Pseudonym works.

The rank follows the pseudonym, so for example if you have Pseudo A and B and A is your 'good' portfolio - if you get a sale with an image under the pseudo B and you move that image over to pseudo A (because you now feel it is a 'good' image), the rank benefits from that sale will still stick with pseudo B.

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #21 on:** March 14, 2011, 12:47 »

Quote from: Elenathewise on March 13, 2011, 19:47

As to customers, they are not going anywhere - the demand is out there

Exactly. The company which is paying one of the worst commissions in industry is slowly fading away in favour of its competitors. Why are many of us so worried? Except for exclusives - for whom I feel sorry - it's actually a good deal for us in the long term.

cthoman · « **Reply #22 on:** March 14, 2011, 13:27 »

Quote from: microstockphoto.co.uk on March 14, 2011, 12:47

Exactly. The company which is paying one of the worst commissions in industry is slowly fading away in favour of its competitors. Why are many of us so worried? Except for exclusives - for whom I feel sorry - it's actually a good deal for us in the long term.

Actually, the royalty percent is low, but my commissions per sale are actually pretty good comparatively. Like most agencies, there are things IS is getting right and things they are getting wrong. It would be a shame to see them fade away just for the things that they got wrong.

lisafx · « **Reply #23 on:** March 14, 2011, 13:57 »

Quote from: microstockphoto.co.uk on March 14, 2011, 12:47

Exactly. The company which is paying one of the worst commissions in industry is slowly fading away in favour of its competitors. Why are many of us so worried? Except for exclusives - for whom I feel sorry - it's actually a good deal for us in the long term.

What, exactly, do you think it will do to your sales numbers at other sites when the majority of top selling exclusives get wise and drop the crown? Millions more top quality, formerly exclusive, images hitting the other sites will further dilute sales. This disaster isn't good for anyone, and ITLR it will hurt exclusives and independents both.

lagereek · « **Reply #24 on:** March 14, 2011, 14:19 »

Quote from: lisafx on March 14, 2011, 13:57

Quote from: microstockphoto.co.uk on March 14, 2011, 12:47

Exactly. The company which is paying one of the worst commissions in industry is slowly fading away in favour of its competitors. Why are many of us so worried? Except for exclusives - for whom I feel sorry - it's actually a good deal for us in the long term.

What, exactly, do you think it will do to your sales numbers at other sites when the majority of top selling exclusives get wise and drop the crown? Millions more top quality, formerly exclusive, images hitting the other sites will further dilute sales. This disaster isn't good for anyone, and ITLR it will hurt exclusives and independents both.

Exactly!!!!!!!!!!! as true as its said. There wont be room for anybody anymore.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Embarrassing microstocking!! (Read 15593 times)

lagereek

Sean Locke Photography

microstockphoto.co.uk

lagereek

PaulieWalnuts

bunhill

cathyslife

lisafx

click_click

cathyslife

bunhill

lagereek

bunhill

lagereek

djpadavona

Artemis

bunhill

RacePhoto

lagereek

Elenathewise

leaf

microstockphoto.co.uk

cthoman

lisafx

lagereek

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors