pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: ISTOCK - HALF OF IMAGES FOR HALF PRICE!!!  (Read 12440 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: August 20, 2013, 17:10 »
-3

Advertising on Facebook.

Forever!!!!

I'm glad that I'm not an exclusive iStock contributor. I'm not sure if bringing down prices this way (forever) is the best solution. At least for us contributors.

Even facing microstock as a commodity perhaps it would be better to increase the palette of customers, making the general public know better about our product. At least let the general public be aware of our existence.

99% of people have no idea of what stock imagery is. Even fewer what is a microstock photographer. If nobody knows the product and its producers, what is the point in slashing prices?

 







« Last Edit: August 20, 2013, 17:13 by olaialalala »


Ron

« Reply #1 on: August 20, 2013, 17:15 »
-1
Seriously, you are a month late to the party. And completely ignorant of the threads covering that subject being discussed to death.

« Reply #2 on: August 20, 2013, 17:17 »
-4
/
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 11:12 by Audi 5000 »

Ron

« Reply #3 on: August 20, 2013, 17:25 »
+3
Old news but here's my take.
 
Lots of people, even on this site, said Istock's prices were too high and for nonexclusive work they probably were.  Look at the biggest competitor, Shutterstock, they sell the average image (full size) for about $2.50.  How can Istock license the same exact content for 10 or 20 times that price and expect to compete? It seems simple to me, they had to lower prices.
I love it how you keep forgetting the 70-200 dollar X-SODs and 28 dollar ELs. Plus regular medium SODs of 5-25 dollar.

« Reply #4 on: August 20, 2013, 17:28 »
-1
/
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 11:12 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #5 on: August 20, 2013, 17:40 »
+2
Old news but here's my take.
 
Lots of people, even on this site, said Istock's prices were too high and for nonexclusive work they probably were.  Look at the biggest competitor, Shutterstock, they sell the average image (full size) for about $2.50.  How can Istock license the same exact content for 10 or 20 times that price and expect to compete? It seems simple to me, they had to lower prices.

I love it how you think that the majority of exclusive content is really worth 10x more than the 'Main' collection. Take a reality pill __ fast.

NB: That's for a Medium image, which happens to be the average size downloaded.

« Reply #6 on: August 20, 2013, 17:43 »
+2
/
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 11:12 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #7 on: August 20, 2013, 17:47 »
0
ooooooooold  ;D

EmberMike

« Reply #8 on: August 20, 2013, 19:10 »
0
Old news but here's my take.
 
Lots of people, even on this site, said Istock's prices were too high and for nonexclusive work they probably were.  Look at the biggest competitor, Shutterstock, they sell the average image (full size) for about $2.50.  How can Istock license the same exact content for 10 or 20 times that price and expect to compete? It seems simple to me, they had to lower prices.

For once, we agree. I believe istock had to lower prices to stay in the microstock game. Or to get back into it, anyway, after seemingly trying to price themselves out of it and into some sort of midstock model.

I think you're grossly misrepresenting those averages, (they don't really license a single image for $2.50 and if you're going to factor subscription royalties into it you should do the same for istock/thinkstock) but aside from that, +1 on the point of your post.

« Reply #9 on: August 20, 2013, 19:53 »
0
Old news but here's my take.
 
Lots of people, even on this site, said Istock's prices were too high and for nonexclusive work they probably were.  Look at the biggest competitor, Shutterstock, they sell the average image (full size) for about $2.50.  How can Istock license the same exact content for 10 or 20 times that price and expect to compete? It seems simple to me, they had to lower prices.

I love it how you think that the majority of exclusive content is really worth 10x more than the 'Main' collection. Take a reality pill __ fast.

NB: That's for a Medium image, which happens to be the average size downloaded.
You are the one always talking about letting the market decide right?  As far as I'm concerned I have my answer.

Personally I think all images are worth exclusive prices but companies like Shutterstock have tried their hardest to devalue them.

What you think is irrelevant. What's important is what the customer thinks __ and that's the bit that Istock has always got wrong in recent times.

SS have stayed reasonably true to the original concept of 'microstock', whereas Istock have not ... and thus have suffered accordingly. Istock used to give away images for free so if any agency is guilty of devaluing images then it has to be Istock themselves.

Truth is that IS are now utterly * and no matter how much you try to talk them up will change that. The die is cast. Good luck in choosing at what point you will give up your crown ... because that is pretty much as certain as 'death and taxes'.

« Reply #10 on: August 20, 2013, 20:07 »
+12
/
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 11:11 by Audi 5000 »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #11 on: August 20, 2013, 20:16 »
0
Istock used to give away images for free so if any agency is guilty of devaluing images then it has to be Istock themselves.
They still have a free image of the week or month or something, but AFAIK, it's still opt-in.

AIUI, in the old days it wasn't a giveaway, but an exchange between artists. Was somewhere there at the beginning who can confirm or refute? Didn't you have to upload so many for each download? Then, again AIUI some people wanted to submit but didn't want to download much, so the pay model came in.
Or did I get that all wrong? (Before my time).

gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #12 on: August 20, 2013, 20:44 »
0

I love it how you think that the majority of exclusive content is really worth 10x more than the 'Main' collection.


that part is true! there are plenty of steaming piles of sh goodness in the exclusive section.

« Reply #13 on: August 20, 2013, 20:53 »
+1
/
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 11:11 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #14 on: August 20, 2013, 23:10 »
+1
istock is in full retreat mode, slashing prices, unlimited uploads, what's next ?

more and more signs of desperation.

it's the last stage of the microstock rat-race to the bottom before giving away everything for free and monetize the collection with advertising and print services.

Leo Blanchette

« Reply #15 on: August 20, 2013, 23:16 »
+3
Thats cute. I thought the change to accept 999 images at lesser standards was going to amount to something... this was it.

I guess I was "late for the party" too so its good to see whats really happening.

Its like watching a star go nova just before it's collapse.

« Reply #16 on: August 21, 2013, 00:37 »
+1
it would be more logic to launch a whole new collection with low priced images rather than polluting the main collection with promotional deals.

i mean, they finally recognized that 50% of their images never sold once, so what ? are they sure price is THE root cause ?

by the way, they can only blame themselves for this, no one forced them to price every image at the same level, they do that because it would be confusing and expensive to manually stick a different pricing but they could allow authors to do it just as it happens in many other digital stores.

they're losing a sh-itload of money using flat prices, it's great for buyers but a ripoff for contributors and agencies too.


Ron

« Reply #17 on: August 21, 2013, 01:11 »
-2
Old news but here's my take.
 
Lots of people, even on this site, said Istock's prices were too high and for nonexclusive work they probably were.  Look at the biggest competitor, Shutterstock, they sell the average image (full size) for about $2.50.  How can Istock license the same exact content for 10 or 20 times that price and expect to compete? It seems simple to me, they had to lower prices.
I love it how you keep forgetting the 70-200 dollar X-SODs and 28 dollar ELs. Plus regular medium SODs of 5-25 dollar.
I didn't forget those, I said the average, those sales are included in the average.  I like how you are forgetting the 99% of all licenses though.
I must have misunderstood when you said the average image, instead of the average price...

BoBoBolinski

« Reply #18 on: August 21, 2013, 01:23 »
-5
"I'm glad that I'm not an exclusive iStock contributor."

Take a look at the earnings ratings, there are plenty of people happy to still be exclusive and earning considerably more than the 25 cents a pop that SS pay.

Ron

« Reply #19 on: August 21, 2013, 01:28 »
+2
"I'm glad that I'm not an exclusive iStock contributor."

Take a look at the earnings ratings, there are plenty of people happy to still be exclusive and earning considerably more than the 25 cents a pop that SS pay.
There is no one I know on SS who has an RPD of 25 cent... so I dont know where you got that from.

BoBoBolinski

« Reply #20 on: August 21, 2013, 02:48 »
-3
I'm not talking about RPD, I'm talking about what people can receive for the sale of a file.

Ron

« Reply #21 on: August 21, 2013, 02:55 »
0
I'm not talking about RPD, I'm talking about what people can receive for the sale of a file.
People can receive over 150 dollar for the sale of an image, in fact, someone reported a sale of 231 dollar the other day on SS.

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=131653&highlight=sod

shudderstok

« Reply #22 on: August 21, 2013, 03:46 »
-3
"I'm glad that I'm not an exclusive iStock contributor."

Take a look at the earnings ratings, there are plenty of people happy to still be exclusive and earning considerably more than the 25 cents a pop that SS pay.
There is no one I know on SS who has an RPD of 25 cent... so I dont know where you got that from.


Ron, you are so in denial. Here is the 'Shutterstock Earnings Schedule' for you...
http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml

and also notice how you can get paid 'up to $120' so that makes me wonder how it is common to get $150 as per your other post let alone $231.


« Reply #23 on: August 21, 2013, 04:41 »
+3
istock is in full retreat mode, slashing prices, unlimited uploads, what's next ?

more and more signs of desperation.

it's the last stage of the microstock rat-race to the bottom before giving away everything for free and monetize the collection with advertising and print services.
People have been predicting that for years but since I started, prices are still generally higher than they used to be.  Istock have swung from one extreme to the other but who knows what they'll think of next?  They've had no long term strategy and its costing them now.  Printing services have never worked for microstock.  I don't see any of the sites using free images for advertising making much?  If that was a lucrative market, Google AdSense would be all over it.  If microstock was on the way out, the Shutterstock share price would of collapsed.  It could happen but after years of these predictions of doom, it isn't happening yet.  I think the real fact is that microstock is still a huge market with good growth potential.  The problem for contributors is getting a fair share of the profits but that's the same for content providers in lots of online industries.  I'd be more concerned about the traditional sites.  I don't understand the Getty finances, how much are the hedge funds taking out of them?  If they're being run by the same people that are wrecking istock, what's their future prospects?  Will alamy carry on cutting commissions and lowering prices?

« Reply #24 on: August 21, 2013, 04:45 »
0
"I'm glad that I'm not an exclusive iStock contributor."

Take a look at the earnings ratings, there are plenty of people happy to still be exclusive and earning considerably more than the 25 cents a pop that SS pay.
There is no one I know on SS who has an RPD of 25 cent... so I dont know where you got that from.


Ron, you are so in denial. Here is the 'Shutterstock Earnings Schedule' for you...
http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml

and also notice how you can get paid 'up to $120' so that makes me wonder how it is common to get $150 as per your other post let alone $231.

Looks like SOD prices are rising so fast, they can't keep up with it on the earnings schedule page :)

« Reply #25 on: August 21, 2013, 05:01 »
+1

and also notice how you can get paid 'up to $120' so that makes me wonder how it is common to get $150 as per your other post let alone $231.

... that is because you miss the footnote which says "* Or more, based on sale price received."

BoBoBolinski

« Reply #26 on: August 21, 2013, 05:16 »
-4
It's a bit like the 'Save as much as 70% off' you see in shop sales, 'up to', 'as much as' usually mean it's possible but unlikely.


« Reply #27 on: August 21, 2013, 05:28 »
+3
Take a look at the earnings ratings, there are plenty of people happy to still be exclusive and earning considerably more than the 25 cents a pop that SS pay.

The lowest royalty I've ever received at SS was 20c and that was back in 2004/5.

In contrast the lowest royalty that I've had on Istock (that I'm aware of) was just 6c and that was just a couple of years ago. Even if I had been exclusive on 40% it would only have been about 13c. I still regularly have 'sales' on IS for much less than 25c.

So far this week on SS I've had 2 SOD's each paying $114.92 and an EL for $28.

BoBoBolinski

« Reply #28 on: August 21, 2013, 05:50 »
-1
That's considerably less than I've earned on IS this week.

« Reply #29 on: August 21, 2013, 06:07 »
0
That's considerably less than I've earned on IS this week.

What? The 25c you mentioned?

« Reply #30 on: August 21, 2013, 06:23 »
+1
"I'm glad that I'm not an exclusive iStock contributor."

Take a look at the earnings ratings, there are plenty of people happy to still be exclusive and earning considerably more than the 25 cents a pop that SS pay.
There is no one I know on SS who has an RPD of 25 cent... so I dont know where you got that from.


Ron, you are so in denial. Here is the 'Shutterstock Earnings Schedule' for you...
http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml

and also notice how you can get paid 'up to $120' so that makes me wonder how it is common to get $150 as per your other post let alone $231.


I see some people have this naive 6yearold's concept of business, thinking if they sell something for twice as much, they will earn double. In reality of course they usually can hardly sell anything at all :) To turn this around for better understanding by the mentally impaired: in a digital economy it doesn't matter how low the price is as long as it pumps up the volume. SS has low prices and large volume. IS is converging towards low prices WITH decreasing volume = that is destructive for the business... and threy top it all off by giving the lowest of low commission anywhere - 8 - 9 cents (!!!). They suck and should be wiped into the trash as soon as possible.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #31 on: August 21, 2013, 06:32 »
0
"I'm glad that I'm not an exclusive iStock contributor."

Take a look at the earnings ratings, there are plenty of people happy to still be exclusive and earning considerably more than the 25 cents a pop that SS pay.
There is no one I know on SS who has an RPD of 25 cent... so I dont know where you got that from.
I do. But they're not on msg (I know them personally).

« Reply #32 on: August 21, 2013, 06:38 »
0
"I'm glad that I'm not an exclusive iStock contributor."

Take a look at the earnings ratings, there are plenty of people happy to still be exclusive and earning considerably more than the 25 cents a pop that SS pay.
There is no one I know on SS who has an RPD of 25 cent... so I dont know where you got that from.
I do. But they're not on msg (I know them personally).
They must have a tiny portfolio, to not get any PPD's, EL's and SOD's

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #33 on: August 21, 2013, 06:40 »
0
"I'm glad that I'm not an exclusive iStock contributor."

Take a look at the earnings ratings, there are plenty of people happy to still be exclusive and earning considerably more than the 25 cents a pop that SS pay.
There is no one I know on SS who has an RPD of 25 cent... so I dont know where you got that from.
I do. But they're not on msg (I know them personally).
They must have a tiny portfolio, to not get any PPD's, EL's and SOD's
One has over a thousand, the others high hundreds.
But in each case they are 70%+ UK natural history, very high quality. It just seems that doesn't sell there.

Ron

« Reply #34 on: August 21, 2013, 06:49 »
0
"I'm glad that I'm not an exclusive iStock contributor."

Take a look at the earnings ratings, there are plenty of people happy to still be exclusive and earning considerably more than the 25 cents a pop that SS pay.
There is no one I know on SS who has an RPD of 25 cent... so I dont know where you got that from.


Ron, you are so in denial. Here is the 'Shutterstock Earnings Schedule' for you...
http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml

and also notice how you can get paid 'up to $120' so that makes me wonder how it is common to get $150 as per your other post let alone $231.
Read the link your provided,

Quote
30% of sale price received (up to $120)*
   * Or more, based on sale price received.

« Reply #35 on: August 21, 2013, 07:52 »
+3
It's amazing to me that people will sell the same image in every market and then complain about commodity pricing. As an exclusive I don't have to worry as much about commodity pricing and I don't care if half my images hardly sell as long as my best selling images are Vetta and S+. Non-exclusives also tend to discount the additional earnings exclusives get on Getty., which is quite substantial.  The fact is that there are many buyers that will pay a lot for the right image and not all images will sell much better at dirt cheap prices.

« Reply #36 on: August 21, 2013, 08:23 »
+2
This made me laugh
   

Hey iStock (whoever might listen),


I really shouldn't care, but you are paying the marketing out of the 70% you keep from the revenue of my images.


Today I stumbled upon a new ad on a German website:
istock_ad


I am really confused now. It says in bad or at least ambiguous German that "1/2 of the files do cost 1/2 times more (!) forever" which I understand as "we have raised the prices for 50% of our images by 50%" (at least that is my understanding as a native German speaker).


I don't think that this is intended


BoBoBolinski

« Reply #37 on: August 21, 2013, 08:23 »
-1
"What? The 25c you mentioned?"

Yep ;)

« Reply #38 on: August 21, 2013, 08:26 »
+1
The problem for contributors is getting a fair share of the profits but that's the same for content providers in lots of online industries.  I'd be more concerned about the traditional sites.  I don't understand the Getty finances, how much are the hedge funds taking out of them?  If they're being run by the same people that are wrecking istock, what's their future prospects?  Will alamy carry on cutting commissions and lowering prices?

with the actual trend it's gotta be more and more difficult for suppliers to stay afloat, how will small stockers with a few 1000s images in portfolio compete with all the image factories and the global oversupply ?

traditional RM agencies are not in the same business, they're not selling the same image 100 times or even just twice, you shoot a large set and you're lucky to sell once but the payout will justify the production costs, you can also upload in other agencies including micros and see what sticks on the wall, i'm all for giving micros a chance and a few leftovers of course, many times it's quite hard to know what will sell or not.


BoBoBolinski

« Reply #39 on: August 21, 2013, 08:28 »
-1
In reality of course they usually can hardly sell anything at all

Why is it that when I read ranting posts like this that I wouldn't mind betting the writer has very few sales anywhere?

« Reply #40 on: August 21, 2013, 08:44 »
0
Case for exclusivity. Today I made 4 sales so far. First one a small out of the S collection. This was a decent image of the full moon with a black background. I made $3.25. They would have had to stumble over a lot of M images to get to this one, so maybe it is worth more, I don't know.  I also got 3 ELs today. One on a Vetta, which netted close to $200. The other 2 were on S+. Best day ever, yes.  Hard to convince me to drop exclusivity.

« Reply #41 on: August 21, 2013, 08:51 »
0
Latest IS FB post:
'The ability to curate content with affordable, quality images, opens the door to possibilities. "

I don't even know what that means.  How did "create" become "curate"?

« Reply #42 on: August 21, 2013, 09:35 »
0
It's amazing to me that people will sell the same image in every market and then complain about commodity pricing. As an exclusive I don't have to worry as much about commodity pricing and I don't care if half my images hardly sell as long as my best selling images are Vetta and S+. Non-exclusives also tend to discount the additional earnings exclusives get on Getty., which is quite substantial.  The fact is that there are many buyers that will pay a lot for the right image and not all images will sell much better at dirt cheap prices.

Are you a well known highly regarded artist? If not ( : > ), your images are commodity. The rest is only a matter of time.

EmberMike

« Reply #43 on: August 21, 2013, 12:16 »
0
I'm not talking about RPD, I'm talking about what people can receive for the sale of a file.

I've gotten far less at istock.

EmberMike

« Reply #44 on: August 21, 2013, 12:25 »
+2
istock is in full retreat mode, slashing prices, unlimited uploads, what's next?...

They should restaff. Really, I hate to make the suggestion knowing that if it ever happens it will mean a lot of people lose their jobs, but let's face it, the current istock staff aren't capable of keeping the company competitive. They react to things long after they should, following other companies and trends instead of innovating and trying to stay ahead of the curve. Their IT staff is purely reactionary at this point, not improving anything and just sluggishly responding to problems as they arise.

The istock staff has been this way for years. They said for so long that they'd never allow EPS10 files, or they'd never allow text in files. Meanwhile other companies expanded into these areas and beat istock to the punch. Then years later, istock finally gets on board with these things that buyers clearly want (the top-selling image at SS last year was a vector file that contained lots of text, something that istock would have rejected).

They need new people, folks who are forward-thinkers and can get ahead of their problems, and not just react to them. They need people who can predict what new product buyers will want and delivering those products before (or at least along with) the rest of the market.

They can start on the vector side of things by mandating that files with text include an editable version (no outlined text). Buyers want this. SS doesn't allow it, even though I just got another email Monday from an annoyed buyer who wanted an easily editable file with the fonts/text intact. istock could get ahead of SS with a policy about these files, but they don't have people at HQ right now who can think of this stuff.

That tip is free, istock. Want more, you can hire me as a consultant. ;)

cuppacoffee

« Reply #45 on: August 21, 2013, 12:32 »
0
What about the copyright issue with fonts?

... in the USA: Typefaces are not copyrightable; bitmapped fonts are not copyrightable, but scalable fonts are copyrightable.

EmberMike

« Reply #46 on: August 21, 2013, 12:37 »
0
What about the copyright issue with fonts?

... in the USA: Typefaces are not copyrightable; bitmapped fonts are not copyrightable, but scalable fonts are copyrightable.

The font is copyrightable, not what you make with it. How would anyone trademark a logo if they had to worry about a font copyright? The intellectual property is in the font file itself and the ability to use it to create letters and words. We're not embedding fonts in stock images, so there's no issue.


cuppacoffee

« Reply #47 on: August 21, 2013, 12:46 »
0
This helps explain the "murky" areas, I think. http://blog.crowdspring.com/2011/03/font-law-licensing/

"...In contrast, Germany recognized in 1981 that typeface designs can be protected by copyright as original works. England also allows typeface designs to be protected by copyright (since 1989)."

shudderstok

« Reply #48 on: August 21, 2013, 12:46 »
-4
istock is in full retreat mode, slashing prices, unlimited uploads, what's next?...

They should restaff. Really, I hate to make the suggestion knowing that if it ever happens it will mean a lot of people lose their jobs, but let's face it, the current istock staff aren't capable of keeping the company competitive. They react to things long after they should, following other companies and trends instead of innovating and trying to stay ahead of the curve. Their IT staff is purely reactionary at this point, not improving anything and just sluggishly responding to problems as they arise.

The istock staff has been this way for years. They said for so long that they'd never allow EPS10 files, or they'd never allow text in files. Meanwhile other companies expanded into these areas and beat istock to the punch. Then years later, istock finally gets on board with these things that buyers clearly want (the top-selling image at SS last year was a vector file that contained lots of text, something that istock would have rejected).

They need new people, folks who are forward-thinkers and can get ahead of their problems, and not just react to them. They need people who can predict what new product buyers will want and delivering those products before (or at least along with) the rest of the market.

They can start on the vector side of things by mandating that files with text include an editable version (no outlined text). Buyers want this. SS doesn't allow it, even though I just got another email Monday from an annoyed buyer who wanted an easily editable file with the fonts/text intact. istock could get ahead of SS with a policy about these files, but they don't have people at HQ right now who can think of this stuff.

That tip is free, istock. Want more, you can hire me as a consultant. ;)

me thinks that if IS hired you as a consultant they'd be here moaning too instead of making millions of dollars selling our images. just sayin.



« Reply #49 on: August 21, 2013, 13:12 »
0
The font is copyrightable, not what you make with it.

Fonts are redistributed under masses of different licences. As I am sure you know. Some permit commercial use of content produced using the font, others do not. Some specifically prohibit stock use of content produced using the font. Some require accreditation. Etc.

I am not sure how it works with vectors - but I suspect that, as with PDFs and 3d models, editable text using specific fonts means effectively embedding, and therefore redistributing, the font.

« Reply #50 on: August 21, 2013, 13:21 »
+3
istock is in full retreat mode, slashing prices, unlimited uploads, what's next?...

They should restaff. Really, I hate to make the suggestion knowing that if it ever happens it will mean a lot of people lose their jobs, but let's face it, the current istock staff aren't capable of keeping the company competitive. They react to things long after they should, following other companies and trends instead of innovating and trying to stay ahead of the curve. Their IT staff is purely reactionary at this point, not improving anything and just sluggishly responding to problems as they arise.

The istock staff has been this way for years. They said for so long that they'd never allow EPS10 files, or they'd never allow text in files. Meanwhile other companies expanded into these areas and beat istock to the punch. Then years later, istock finally gets on board with these things that buyers clearly want (the top-selling image at SS last year was a vector file that contained lots of text, something that istock would have rejected).

They need new people, folks who are forward-thinkers and can get ahead of their problems, and not just react to them. They need people who can predict what new product buyers will want and delivering those products before (or at least along with) the rest of the market.

They can start on the vector side of things by mandating that files with text include an editable version (no outlined text). Buyers want this. SS doesn't allow it, even though I just got another email Monday from an annoyed buyer who wanted an easily editable file with the fonts/text intact. istock could get ahead of SS with a policy about these files, but they don't have people at HQ right now who can think of this stuff.

That tip is free, istock. Want more, you can hire me as a consultant. ;)

In most cases those decisions are made by management.  I have been a site developer, I can't tell you how many times our team recommended needed upgrades and improvements only to have management shoot those down.

You can have a company full of innovators and forward thinkers but if management will not act on their suggestions those resources are wasted. If that is the case should developers and employees lose their jobs because management is too greedy and short sighted to implement their suggestions?

Bruce said in a interview not long ago that the IS site needed to be rebuilt long ago, that it was never meant to handle so many images. IS management does not rebuild the infrastructure because they do not want to spend the money.

We have constant site bugs at SS for the same reason. They are willing to spend money on a ranking algorithms that will bring in $$,$$$,$$$, but they are not willing to spend money to make the site scalable and stable for submitters.  That is why we have images that go missing day after day year after year and more.

lisafx

« Reply #51 on: August 21, 2013, 13:24 »
0
I'm not talking about RPD, I'm talking about what people can receive for the sale of a file.

If you are talking lowest individual royalty for an image sold, Istock wins that hands down too.  I've had many sales there where I have gotten under 10 cents, and as low as 7 cents for the sale of an Istock image.   :(

lisafx

« Reply #52 on: August 21, 2013, 13:36 »
+11

They should restaff. Really, I hate to make the suggestion knowing that if it ever happens it will mean a lot of people lose their jobs, but let's face it, the current istock staff aren't capable of keeping the company competitive. They react to things long after they should, following other companies and trends instead of innovating and trying to stay ahead of the curve. Their IT staff is purely reactionary at this point, not improving anything and just sluggishly responding to problems as they arise.


I really don't think their staff are the problem.  Staff can only carry out whatever plans the folks at the top tell them to.  I don't know how much of the original (preGetty) staff are still around, but those that were certainly proved they could be innovative back when they had the autonomy to do so. 

I lay the blame for the current state of affairs squarely on the shoulders of upper management.  They keep changing course every couple of months and don't seem to have an idea where they want to steer the company. 

Uncle Pete

« Reply #53 on: August 21, 2013, 14:27 »
+3

I really don't think their staff are the problem.  Staff can only carry out whatever plans the folks at the top tell them to.  I don't know how much of the original (preGetty) staff are still around, but those that were certainly proved they could be innovative back when they had the autonomy to do so. 

I lay the blame for the current state of affairs squarely on the shoulders of upper management.  They keep changing course every couple of months and don't seem to have an idea where they want to steer the company.

Aren't enough +'s that I can send for your comment.  :) True and typical corporate top down, detached management, where the people who do the work, can't say anything for fear of losing their job, some suit, sits at a desk and gets new ideas. Nothing changes, except when we get cut some more.

« Reply #54 on: August 21, 2013, 14:53 »
+3
Totally agree on the staffing thing - it's not their fault that the muppets have taken over. 

If revenue = price * volume it's acceptable to have lower volumes with higher prices.  Non-exclusive content was not exorbitant so they cut prices along with some of the overpriced stuff.  Is anyone seeing a compensating increase in volumes cos I sure ain't?  I'm seeing similar or lower volumes for less $$ and for every buck I'm down, IS is down 7.  Extrapolate this to thousands of contributors who are actually making money and they must be down a fortune.

« Reply #55 on: August 21, 2013, 22:14 »
+2
That tip is free, istock. Want more, you can hire me as a consultant. ;)

excellent analysis.

but when i was a corporate drone i quickly realized how detached from reality is the management chain in most of the cases.

for starters, we can't expect bad managers and executives to realize or even to accept and admit they're not good enough for their task, never gonna happen, ever !

besides, the root cause is the upper management, the ones who hired these bad apples in the first place.

i could make a long list of formerly successful IT companies that went down the drain because of bad management and lack of innovation or all of these things together.

and even now, so many investors are skeptic about Apple being run by Tim Cook for instance, and apple shares went from 600$ to 4-500$ in a couple years with everyone pointing fingers at Cook claiming he's unfit for the job and he's not a creative or a visionary and the new products are boring and bla bla bla.

fact is, Cook is delivering, but iStock is falling and they seem to have no emergency plan to recover.
maybe they're panicking or maybe it was their plan from the start ? we don't know but to me it seems obvious they're clueless and have no idea how to compete with SS and regain market share.

they just milked the cow while they could and now the party is over, you can bet their executive are now blaming each others and already seeking greener pastures, it will be tough for the new management to replace the old one and make a sudden U-turn, too little too late .. see what happened to nokia and blackberry.

Microstock Man

  • microstockman.com

« Reply #56 on: August 22, 2013, 00:35 »
+1
These price changes at iStock also affect how many RC credits we get per sale right? So not only are we getting paid WAY less per download, but we have WAY less chance at reaching the next (huge) 1% bracket. Am I getting that right?


« Reply #57 on: August 22, 2013, 02:36 »
0
These price changes at iStock also affect how many RC credits we get per sale right? So not only are we getting paid WAY less per download, but we have WAY less chance at reaching the next (huge) 1% bracket. Am I getting that right?

Yes

Microstock Man

  • microstockman.com

« Reply #58 on: August 22, 2013, 02:42 »
0
These price changes at iStock also affect how many RC credits we get per sale right? So not only are we getting paid WAY less per download, but we have WAY less chance at reaching the next (huge) 1% bracket. Am I getting that right?

Yes

Yikes. This deal just keeps getting better...  >:(

« Reply #59 on: August 22, 2013, 03:05 »
+2
These price changes at iStock also affect how many RC credits we get per sale right? So not only are we getting paid WAY less per download, but we have WAY less chance at reaching the next (huge) 1% bracket. Am I getting that right?

Yes

Yikes. This deal just keeps getting better...  >:(

don't worry give it another 3-6 months and you be able to experience the next chapter

« Reply #60 on: August 22, 2013, 08:20 »
+8
I see some people have this naive 6yearold's concept of business, thinking if they sell something for twice as much, they will earn double. In reality of course they usually can hardly sell anything at all :) To turn this around for better understanding by the mentally impaired: in a digital economy it doesn't matter how low the price is as long as it pumps up the volume. SS has low prices and large volume. IS is converging towards low prices WITH decreasing volume = that is destructive for the business... and threy top it all off by giving the lowest of low commission anywhere - 8 - 9 cents (!!!). They suck and should be wiped into the trash as soon as possible.

Is it absolutely necessary in the year 2013 to deride someone's opinion in a public forum by using descriptors such as "naive" and "mentally impaired"?

« Reply #61 on: August 22, 2013, 10:14 »
-9
I see some people have this naive 6yearold's concept of business, thinking if they sell something for twice as much, they will earn double. In reality of course they usually can hardly sell anything at all :) To turn this around for better understanding by the mentally impaired: in a digital economy it doesn't matter how low the price is as long as it pumps up the volume. SS has low prices and large volume. IS is converging towards low prices WITH decreasing volume = that is destructive for the business... and threy top it all off by giving the lowest of low commission anywhere - 8 - 9 cents (!!!). They suck and should be wiped into the trash as soon as possible.

Is it absolutely necessary in the year 2013 to deride someone's opinion in a public forum by using descriptors such as "naive" and "mentally impaired"?

More than ever. That's what society is heading for.

« Reply #62 on: August 22, 2013, 10:32 »
+4
Wow.  I'm starting to remember why I usually steer clear of MSG these days.

« Reply #63 on: August 22, 2013, 10:37 »
-1
/
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 11:10 by Audi 5000 »

EmberMike

« Reply #64 on: August 22, 2013, 10:46 »
+4

They should restaff. Really, I hate to make the suggestion knowing that if it ever happens it will mean a lot of people lose their jobs, but let's face it, the current istock staff aren't capable of keeping the company competitive. They react to things long after they should, following other companies and trends instead of innovating and trying to stay ahead of the curve. Their IT staff is purely reactionary at this point, not improving anything and just sluggishly responding to problems as they arise.


I really don't think their staff are the problem.  Staff can only carry out whatever plans the folks at the top tell them to...

Then they should replace management. If the top folks in Calgary can't get the job done, can't innovate, can't adequately compete with other companies that are getting way ahead of the former #1 microstock company, Getty should be bringing in folks who can.

Even CEOs can be replaced. If they don't perform, in most companies they're out. Seems like repeated failures and missteps at istock aren't fireable offenses.

« Reply #65 on: August 22, 2013, 10:49 »
-1
/
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 11:10 by Audi 5000 »

Ron

« Reply #66 on: August 22, 2013, 12:30 »
+6

They should restaff. Really, I hate to make the suggestion knowing that if it ever happens it will mean a lot of people lose their jobs, but let's face it, the current istock staff aren't capable of keeping the company competitive. They react to things long after they should, following other companies and trends instead of innovating and trying to stay ahead of the curve. Their IT staff is purely reactionary at this point, not improving anything and just sluggishly responding to problems as they arise.


I really don't think their staff are the problem.  Staff can only carry out whatever plans the folks at the top tell them to...

Then they should replace management. If the top folks in Calgary can't get the job done, can't innovate, can't adequately compete with other companies that are getting way ahead of the former #1 microstock company, Getty should be bringing in folks who can.

Even CEOs can be replaced. If they don't perform, in most companies they're out. Seems like repeated failures and missteps at istock aren't fireable offenses.
I thought Istock's biggest problem for buyers was that their prices were too high, innovation doesn't seem like the solution to that, lowered prices is what buyers wanted and what they've got in this change.
They got lower prices, but its the way it is handled, the placement of image, the changing of collections, moving images to different price categories, pushing certain contributors up the search and accepting utter crapstock, that gets in the way of the lower pricing to be successful.


« Reply #67 on: August 22, 2013, 12:40 »
+2

They should restaff. Really, I hate to make the suggestion knowing that if it ever happens it will mean a lot of people lose their jobs, but let's face it, the current istock staff aren't capable of keeping the company competitive. They react to things long after they should, following other companies and trends instead of innovating and trying to stay ahead of the curve. Their IT staff is purely reactionary at this point, not improving anything and just sluggishly responding to problems as they arise.


I really don't think their staff are the problem.  Staff can only carry out whatever plans the folks at the top tell them to...

Then they should replace management. If the top folks in Calgary can't get the job done, can't innovate, can't adequately compete with other companies that are getting way ahead of the former #1 microstock company, Getty should be bringing in folks who can.

Even CEOs can be replaced. If they don't perform, in most companies they're out. Seems like repeated failures and missteps at istock aren't fireable offenses.
I thought Istock's biggest problem for buyers was that their prices were too high, innovation doesn't seem like the solution to that, lowered prices is what buyers wanted and what they've got in this change.
They got lower prices, but its the way it is handled, the placement of image, the changing of collections, moving images to different price categories, pushing certain contributors up the search and accepting utter crapstock, that gets in the way of the lower pricing to be successful.

Contributors who are also buyers are infinitely aware of the above and do not forget how the company has stuck it to them over time. That goes for any company.

« Reply #68 on: August 22, 2013, 12:58 »
+4
There is a lot more to the success of SS than just the fact that they have lower prices than istock. istock had higher prices than many agencies for a long time and was growing well.

If the current managers,whoever they are, dont even understand these simple things, how will they ever catch up?

I know istock has many hard working people, but without leadership their work will be in vain. I really dont see anything that has been implemented this year that would give me confidence that the company will grow again. And the lack of personal involvement from the invisible managers is a major factor. If you are not personally involved and try to run everything from a distance, how will you be able to survive in an environment when all your competitors have people who encourage a hands on approach?

I mean, it is amazing that finally some attention is being placed on istock after years of promoting thinkstock, but it all looks very half hearted and the attention to detail is missing. Or they really are horribly understaffed.

Reliability and trust is important for a brand and SS has been very good at building that over the years. istock keeps flip flopping from one extreme to the next and takes very drastic, over emotional decisions.

It would be great if they brought in leadership that rebuilds something as powerful as the old istock. But if the current changes is all the ideas they have, SS has nothing to worry about. And I think that is unfortunate, I would welcome more competition, but there doesnt seem to be anyone out there who has their level of experience.

EmberMike

« Reply #69 on: August 22, 2013, 14:28 »
+1
I thought Istock's biggest problem for buyers was that their prices were too high, innovation doesn't seem like the solution to that, lowered prices is what buyers wanted and what they've got in this change.

Biggest problem? Yes. Only problem? Heck no.

« Reply #70 on: August 22, 2013, 18:21 »
0
Take a look at the earnings ratings, there are plenty of people happy to still be exclusive and earning considerably more than the 25 cents a pop that SS pay.

The lowest royalty I've ever received at SS was 20c and that was back in 2004/5.

In contrast the lowest royalty that I've had on Istock (that I'm aware of) was just 6c and that was just a couple of years ago. Even if I had been exclusive on 40% it would only have been about 13c. I still regularly have 'sales' on IS for much less than 25c.

So far this week on SS I've had 2 SOD's each paying $114.92 and an EL for $28.

That's awesome.  Congrats.

« Reply #71 on: August 22, 2013, 18:44 »
+1
Two of the main problems iStock has is the percentage they pay contributors in combination with the inexpensive prices. They overly corrected prices and the price division between the collections is too large. These need to be brought closer together.

They also need to increase the minimum rate they pay both exclusives and non exclusives to something which will make people start submitting to them again. I'd say start non-exclusives at 30% and exclusives at 40% both with the ability to go up 10% with some realistic target numbers, not the 1,200,000 sky high figure. Even the 125,000 is ludicrous.

Finally we all agree their uploading requirements is at best byzantine.

lisafx

« Reply #72 on: August 22, 2013, 20:09 »
+1

Then they should replace management. If the top folks in Calgary can't get the job done, can't innovate, can't adequately compete with other companies that are getting way ahead of the former #1 microstock company, Getty should be bringing in folks who can.

Even CEOs can be replaced. If they don't perform, in most companies they're out. Seems like repeated failures and missteps at istock aren't fireable offenses.

No argument from me.  Getty seems to be trying out your theory of changing COO of Istock every year or so.  Kelly, then Rebecca and now somebody else (can't be bothered to remember who). 

They all seem to be operating under the same short term, scorched earth policies though.  Unless somebody starts thinking long term and big picture, this slow march to obscurity will continue, I fear....


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
1532 Views
Last post May 31, 2007, 18:09
by dbvirago
0 Replies
1266 Views
Last post June 01, 2007, 11:28
by Istock News
1 Replies
1987 Views
Last post June 25, 2008, 07:44
by fotografer
5 Replies
2184 Views
Last post February 02, 2010, 21:29
by ap
4 Replies
1839 Views
Last post February 03, 2010, 03:41
by sharpshot

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle