Author Topic: Is iStock's exclusivity program it's Achilles heel? (Read 16085 times)

hoi ha · « **Reply #25 on:** September 15, 2008, 20:48 »

iStock does not really care about ifoto. He's one of a thousand contributors.

Do you honestly believe that? With a straight face you could say that istock would not be interested in an excellent top notch photographer that makes them hundreds of thousands of dollars a year?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #26 on:** September 15, 2008, 22:36 »

He doesn't make them hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Besides, he's way down a list of people with successful download histories.

hoi ha · « **Reply #27 on:** September 15, 2008, 22:52 »

He is making the other microsites that amount so i cannot imagine him not being able to replicate that on istock with its higher level of traffic ... he is not that far behind Yuri in terms of download numbers on the other sites so why would he not be as successful on istock?

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #28 on:** September 15, 2008, 23:21 »

Quote from: sjlocke on September 15, 2008, 22:36

He doesn't make them hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Besides, he's way down a list of people with successful download histories.

Because he doesn't get to upload his entire portfolio. I tracked the following activity in the past 45 days. You made 1.42 DLs per image. Yuri made 4.07 DLs per image and iofoto made 1.99 DLs per image. ALL very respectable numbers. I wish I could be so good. However I'd have to say iofoto is doing just fine when you look at the number of images that have been placed and the number of sales they have generated.

Again, it's iStocks choice, but if I were running the business I wouldn't treat everyone equally.

Aetherial · « **Reply #29 on:** September 16, 2008, 02:22 »

they don't. but they also don't know who should get better treatment. check newest exclusive uploads. some percentage of pictures there are...well, just crappy, while many non-exclusives have fantastic images and only get to upload 15 a week, and their images get punked in the best match search in favor of excl.

sharpshot · « **Reply #30 on:** September 17, 2008, 03:17 »

Having exclusive images is nice but how many of them are significantly different to what is available on the other sites? All those photos of smiling business people, handshakes and goldfish jumping out of their bowl look similar to me. Perhaps exclusive images are not as important as it might seem?

Thanks to the upload limits, their competitors probably have a million good images that istock don't have. Doesn't this negate any possible advantage of having exclusive images?

I don't see a great advantage in knowing how many times an image has been downloaded when it is being sold with an RF license. It could be used for all sorts of purposes. Most of my sales come from images that have already sold a lot of time on istock and the other sites.

hoi ha · « **Reply #31 on:** September 17, 2008, 04:23 »

Having exclusive images is nice but how many of them are significantly different to what is available on the other sites? All those photos of smiling business people, handshakes and goldfish jumping out of their bowl look similar to me. Perhaps exclusive images are not as important as it might seem?

That's a good point - the truth is we complain all the time when people "are inspired" by our more successful images - but in terms of exclusivity and IS it means that a successful image by one of their exclsuive contributors is quickly "copied" and made available on the other sites ...

the big exception is the vector illustrations - istock still has the best portfolio of vector artists with some great work without doubt ... the other sites' portfolios are not nearly as good ... but I would argue that the other sites are absolutely on par/equal with IS on the photgraphy side ...

lisafx · « **Reply #32 on:** September 17, 2008, 12:07 »

Quote from: hoi ha on September 17, 2008, 04:23

the big exception is the vector illustrations - istock still has the best portfolio of vector artists with some great work without doubt ... the other sites' portfolios are not nearly as good ... but I would argue that the other sites are absolutely on par/equal with IS on the photgraphy side ...

If Istock's current best match complaint thread is any indication, vectors have been moved way down in the search results. A number of top vector artists are upset and a few mentioned they are rethinking their exclusivity.

I know one long time micro contributor who just went exclusive with istock because of the superior vector pricing. Can't imagine she's real happy with this latest development.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #33 on:** September 17, 2008, 13:06 »

I can't imagine the "moving down" has anything to do with their sales. People don't go in looking for a photo of something, and suddenly decide they want a vector, or the other way around. If they can get the buttons at the top to stick, they search vectors, or photos.

I just can't see someone saying, "I'd like a vector of a cat. Hey, there's a photo of a cat. Let's use that!"

loop · « **Reply #34 on:** September 17, 2008, 14:15 »

Quote from: hoi ha on September 17, 2008, 04:23

Having exclusive images is nice but how many of them are significantly different to what is available on the other sites? All those photos of smiling business people, handshakes and goldfish jumping out of their bowl look similar to me. Perhaps exclusive images are not as important as it might seem?

That's a good point - the truth is we complain all the time when people "are inspired" by our more successful images - but in terms of exclusivity and IS it means that a successful image by one of their exclsuive contributors is quickly "copied" and made available on the other sites ...

the big exception is the vector illustrations - istock still has the best portfolio of vector artists with some great work without doubt ... the other sites' portfolios are not nearly as good ... but I would argue that the other sites are absolutely on par/equal with IS on the photgraphy side ...

DOn't agree. There are great photographers at other sites, but they lack the 300 or 400 thousand really great images that can be foung among the 1,5 milion exclusive files.

ludesal · « **Reply #35 on:** September 17, 2008, 21:18 »

Quote from: sjlocke on September 17, 2008, 13:06

I can't imagine the "moving down" has anything to do with their sales. People don't go in looking for a photo of something, and suddenly decide they want a vector, or the other way around. If they can get the buttons at the top to stick, they search vectors, or photos.

I just can't see someone saying, "I'd like a vector of a cat. Hey, there's a photo of a cat. Let's use that!"

I thought so too, but it's the only explanation. Moving back vectors on the best match was the only thing that happened on August and our sales drop suddenly on the same date. And now, with the new change, a new drop... I don't like what's happening. I never complain, but this is too much, I'm losing a lot!
I used to love being exclusive, now, not so much. $:-\$

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #36 on:** September 17, 2008, 21:35 »

I'm exclusive and was a bit leery about the best match change. It has only been a few days so only time will tell. So far my average daily downloads and earnings are up slightly.

hoi ha · « **Reply #37 on:** September 17, 2008, 21:51 »

DOn't agree. There are great photographers at other sites, but they lack the 300 or 400 thousand really great images that can be foung among the 1,5 milion exclusive files.

Well we can agree to disagree on that one ... my company does not purchase any IS photos anymore - we purchase all our photos from another microsite now. The only thing we use istock for is the odd vector a couple times a month. Sometimes, just out of curiosity, i will do a photo search on istock ... if I can remain patient enough with the slowness of the site and all the spam, I still never ever find anything we need that cannot be found elsewhere.

This is just my company though - I am sure there are other companies out there that remain loyal to IS and are willing to pay the prices because they find what they need there. Different firms have different needs.

hoi ha · « **Reply #38 on:** September 17, 2008, 22:28 »

I agree with SJLocke but only to an extent - by and large I think people go in looking for a vector and buy a vector (using the vector search). But oftentimes I imagine a designer does not know what she/he is looking for until they see it ... they have a theme in their head but look at images as a way of working that theme into a more complete product ... in that case they might not have a pre-conceived notion as to wehther they want/need a vector or a photo (or both for that matter). If vectors are pushed way back in the best match search results it's that sort of buyer who will be less inclined to purcahse a vector(s) because he/she does not see it toward the front of the search.

bittersweet · « **Reply #39 on:** September 18, 2008, 00:13 »

Quote from: latex on September 17, 2008, 21:18

Quote from: sjlocke on September 17, 2008, 13:06
I can't imagine the "moving down" has anything to do with their sales. People don't go in looking for a photo of something, and suddenly decide they want a vector, or the other way around. If they can get the buttons at the top to stick, they search vectors, or photos.

I just can't see someone saying, "I'd like a vector of a cat. Hey, there's a photo of a cat. Let's use that!"

I thought so too, but it's the only explanation. Moving back vectors on the best match was the only thing that happened on August and our sales drop suddenly on the same date. And now, with the new change, a new drop... I don't like what's happening. I never complain, but this is too much, I'm losing a lot!
I used to love being exclusive, now, not so much. $:-\$

You gotta believe that istock is also "losing a lot" because vectors are extremely profitable for them. They represent only a small percentage of the total files, but generate a vastly disproportionate share of the income. If there has been a conscious decision to handicap vector files, it would be a really dumb (and costly) thing to do.

loop · « **Reply #40 on:** September 18, 2008, 11:00 »

Quote from: hoi ha on September 17, 2008, 21:51

DOn't agree. There are great photographers at other sites, but they lack the 300 or 400 thousand really great images that can be foung among the 1,5 milion exclusive files.

Well we can agree to disagree on that one ... my company does not purchase any IS photos anymore - we purchase all our photos from another microsite now. The only thing we use istock for is the odd vector a couple times a month. Sometimes, just out of curiosity, i will do a photo search on istock ... if I can remain patient enough with the slowness of the site and all the spam, I still never ever find anything we need that cannot be found elsewhere.

This is just my company though - I am sure there are other companies out there that remain loyal to IS and are willing to pay the prices because they find what they need there. Different firms have different needs.

It's your company, no doubt.

ludesal · « **Reply #41 on:** September 18, 2008, 14:05 »

Quote from: bittersweet on September 18, 2008, 00:13

You gotta believe that istock is also "losing a lot" because vectors are extremely profitable for them. They represent only a small percentage of the total files, but generate a vastly disproportionate share of the income. If there has been a conscious decision to handicap vector files, it would be a really dumb (and costly) thing to do.

I don't think they are losing, the same people that were buying our vectors, now are buying photos or 3D renders. Check this: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=74187&messageid=1148256
I think that we have lost the undecided costumer that would buy a photo or a vector.

hoi ha · « **Reply #42 on:** September 18, 2008, 20:16 »

It's your company, no doubt.

I wish - actually I take that back - after the markets this week maybe that's a good thing !!

sharpshot · « **Reply #43 on:** September 19, 2008, 02:57 »

Quote from: loop on September 17, 2008, 14:15

DOn't agree. There are great photographers at other sites, but they lack the 300 or 400 thousand really great images that can be foung among the 1,5 milion exclusive files.

What about all the really great images that istock is missing? They are missing thousands from Yuri, iofoto andresr etc. and there are people who refuse to upload there as there is no FTP and only 20% commission for non-exclusives. Then there are all the non-vector illustrations that sell great on the other sites bet get 95% rejections from istock. Add that lot up and it is probably much more than 400 thousand.

loop · « **Reply #44 on:** September 19, 2008, 05:38 »

That's what a designer, a buyer for a great company told me: "I only look at two sites: Istock and another one, no matter what. Once I'checked the "another one" I know I will find the same stuff for my keywors at every microsite, and that only at Istock I will be able to find new and good stuff".

bittersweet · « **Reply #45 on:** September 19, 2008, 09:53 »

Quote from: latex on September 18, 2008, 14:05

Quote from: bittersweet on September 18, 2008, 00:13
You gotta believe that istock is also "losing a lot" because vectors are extremely profitable for them. They represent only a small percentage of the total files, but generate a vastly disproportionate share of the income. If there has been a conscious decision to handicap vector files, it would be a really dumb (and costly) thing to do.

I don't think they are losing, the same people that were buying our vectors, now are buying photos or 3D renders. Check this: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=74187&messageid=1148256
I think that we have lost the undecided costumer that would buy a photo or a vector.

I'm not sure what that link to a thread about slow server issues has to do with this topic, but what I meant was, if the person who before may have bought, for example, a 10 credit vector is now okay settling for a 3 credit photo or render (if size is not an issue), then the net profit is significantly less.

That being said, my sales are down some as well, but August also had some dips. At the end of the month I ended up where I wanted to be, and I'm hopeful (and fairly confident) that this month will settle out that way as well. However, if this trend continues into October, I will be really concerned.

ludesal · « **Reply #46 on:** September 19, 2008, 11:50 »

Quote from: bittersweet on September 19, 2008, 09:53

I'm not sure what that link to a thread about slow server issues has to do with this topic...

In this thread, kkthompson said this:
"We've had record days of downloads and accordingly the most we've ever paid out to contributors."

dnavarrojr · « **Reply #47 on:** September 19, 2008, 12:18 »

Indeed, there are a lot of times I have just a "concept" in my head and I go searching for photos and a lot of the times I end up with a vector. If IS screwed-the-pooch on vector placement, OUCH!

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Is iStock's exclusivity program it's Achilles heel? (Read 16085 times)

hoi ha

Sean Locke Photography

hoi ha

PeterChigmaroff

Aetherial

sharpshot

hoi ha

lisafx

Sean Locke Photography

loop

ludesal

PaulieWalnuts

hoi ha

hoi ha

bittersweet

loop

ludesal

hoi ha

sharpshot

loop

bittersweet

ludesal

dnavarrojr

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors