Author Topic: Stats on Microstock (Read 15071 times)

traveler1116 · « **Reply #25 on:** January 05, 2012, 11:21 »

Quote from: bobbigmac on January 05, 2012, 11:12

I also 'discovered' that many of the biggest contributors to iStock already do collaborate with each-other, or negotiate better terms. I'm not important enough to know for a fact what those terms are, but preferential search-placement is certainly on their radar.

Care to expand on this? What does "collaborate with each-other" mean?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #26 on:** January 05, 2012, 11:22 »

Quote from: bobbigmac on January 05, 2012, 11:12

I also 'discovered' that many of the biggest contributors to iStock already do collaborate with each-other, or negotiate better terms. I'm not important enough to know for a fact what those terms are, but preferential search-placement is certainly on their radar. The iStock search-engine know who produces images which convert views-to-sales, and reward them.

I have never heard anything like this from anyone.

Also, I'm not a big fan of any of these services aggregating data for public consumption.

bobbigmac · « **Reply #27 on:** January 05, 2012, 11:28 »

Eavesdrop at a conference... People talk... be the wall with ears

j/k, mostly

It's most-often not a 'formal' collaboration, but negotiating with agencies is common-place and photographers know that distributing their work together (as a network) is a great way to demand higher prices. Monkey business run just such a network for at least a handful of the top-20.
Along with the top 100-or-so photographers clearly visible in iStock's search results (just look at page 1/2 of any search). Their results are clearly split between top contributors and partner/sponsor programmes at almost any agency (iStock is leading the way here of course, but the same can be seen at any agency with funds to spend on their search algorithm).

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #28 on:** January 05, 2012, 11:31 »

If MB or Yuri want to be the clearinghouse for X number of photographers and take their cut, that's "allowed", sure. But the payout levels at IS are what they are, and as far as placement, there are too many factors contributing to say "well, obviously, this person has a 'love' factor of 10" or something.

Eyedesign · « **Reply #29 on:** January 05, 2012, 11:36 »

Quote from: sjlocke on January 05, 2012, 11:31

If MB or Yuri want to be the clearinghouse for X number of photographers and take their cut, that's "allowed", sure. But the payout levels at IS are what they are, and as far as placement, there are too many factors contributing to say "well, obviously, this person has a 'love' factor of 10" or something.

I'll confirm what Bob is saying. Search placement would seems to be something thats on the table. That is if you have a big Port with good selling power.

gostwyck · « **Reply #30 on:** January 05, 2012, 11:39 »

Quote from: bobbigmac on January 05, 2012, 11:28

Along with the top 100-or-so photographers clearly visible in iStock's search results (just look at page 1/2 of any search). Their results are clearly split between top contributors and partner/sponsor programmes at almost any agency (iStock is leading the way here of course, but the same can be seen at any agency with funds to spend on their search algorithm).

You have a vivid imagination and it is leading to some bizarre conclusions. Can you define just one search on Istock and then illustrate how "the results are clearly split between top contributors and partner/sponsor programmes at almost any agency".

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #31 on:** January 05, 2012, 11:42 »

Quote from: Eyedesign on January 05, 2012, 11:36

I'll confirm what Bob is saying. Search placement would seems to be something thats on the table. That is if you have a big Port with good selling power.

Are you saying IS offered you something to not go independent?

gostwyck · « **Reply #32 on:** January 05, 2012, 11:45 »

Quote from: Eyedesign on January 05, 2012, 11:36

I'll confirm what Bob is saying. Search placement would seems to be something thats on the table. That is if you have a big Port with good selling power.

Does it occur to you that 'Top Contributors' might actually have earned their search placement through the excellence of their work rather than through secret deals? How do you think they became top contributors in the first place? Most contributors, big and small, perform similarly with respect to others on every agency that their work appears. Is that because of secret deals or is it because a natural meritocracy allows the cream to rise to the top?

bobbigmac · « **Reply #33 on:** January 05, 2012, 11:47 »

The search-placement issue has been discussed many times on microstockgroup and was demonstrated perfectly in Rahul's post on the Lookstat blog so I won't get into it (as it's a waste of everyone's time). It's a fact that if you produce images that convert views into sales, you will get more impressions... (this seems to be a universal truth of online-sales of pretty-much anything) the top contributors DO produce images which sell... ergo... top contributors get more impressions. Don't waste your own time or energy believing otherwise.

Edit: I don't refer specifically to iStock, all big agencies do this, some of the through negotiation, some through performance. In iStock's case, the only thing I know which they don't flex on is upload limits (even Yuri has the normal limit), afaik everything else would be up for discussion with the right portfolio (though with the current market-pressures you'd have to take them an awesome footage portfolio to get much give at the moment)

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #34 on:** January 05, 2012, 11:53 »

Quote from: bobbigmac on January 05, 2012, 11:47

It's a fact that if you produce images that convert views into sales, you will get more impressions... (this seems to be a universal truth of online-sales of pretty-much anything) the top contributors DO produce images which sell... ergo... top contributors get more impressions. Don't waste your own time or energy believing otherwise.

Well, that isn't what you said a few posts up. That's common sense.

Eyedesign · « **Reply #35 on:** January 05, 2012, 11:56 »

Quote from: sjlocke on January 05, 2012, 11:42

Quote from: Eyedesign on January 05, 2012, 11:36
I'll confirm what Bob is saying. Search placement would seems to be something thats on the table. That is if you have a big Port with good selling power.

Are you saying IS offered you something to not go independent?

No! What I'm saying is that after talking with some top producers search placement is indeed something that is negotiable.

wut · « **Reply #36 on:** January 05, 2012, 11:58 »

Quote from: Eyedesign on January 05, 2012, 11:56

Quote from: sjlocke on January 05, 2012, 11:42
Quote from: Eyedesign on January 05, 2012, 11:36
I'll confirm what Bob is saying. Search placement would seems to be something thats on the table. That is if you have a big Port with good selling power.

Are you saying IS offered you something to not go independent?

No! What I'm saying is that after talking with some top producers search placement is indeed something that is negotiable.

I can't believe Sean would be left out of that loop

luissantos84 · « **Reply #37 on:** January 05, 2012, 12:02 »

I don´t know nothing about IS but I do know (and everyone else can check) that DepositPhotos have made a few top contributors into their highest ranking without selling what is supposed to

dirkr · « **Reply #38 on:** January 05, 2012, 12:04 »

Quote from: wut on January 05, 2012, 11:58

I can't believe Sean would be left out of that loop

Maybe he did not ask

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #39 on:** January 05, 2012, 12:05 »

Quote from: dirkr on January 05, 2012, 12:04

Quote from: wut on January 05, 2012, 11:58
I can't believe Sean would be left out of that loop

Maybe he did not ask

Dammit!

cthoman · « **Reply #40 on:** January 05, 2012, 12:22 »

Quote from: sjlocke on January 05, 2012, 12:05

Quote from: dirkr on January 05, 2012, 12:04
Quote from: wut on January 05, 2012, 11:58
I can't believe Sean would be left out of that loop

Maybe he did not ask

Dammit!

Yeah, you have to ask for your preferential treatment icon.

cobalt · « **Reply #41 on:** January 05, 2012, 12:59 »

If search placement is "negotioable on istock" means deals along the lines of "We promise to put x% of your files into Vetta/agency" then yes, I will believe that, because this is already being done with all that content coming in from Getty. V/A gets preferential treatment in the search. So do the exclusive files and aren´t there a few Getty artists/groups that have exclusive crowns although they are not exclusive and also sell their files elsewhere?

But for the normal collections? I do a lot of searches, really a lot on istock and I have never seen anything that would make me believe that some contributors had "special deals" to push their content to the front.

Besides, we all know the joke how if it wasn´t programmed by Sean the code wouldn´t work and mess up the site...and there is truth to that.

Eyedesign · « **Reply #42 on:** January 05, 2012, 15:26 »

Quote from: cobalt on January 05, 2012, 12:59

If search placement is "negotioable on istock" means deals along the lines of "We promise to put x% of your files into Vetta/agency" then yes, I will believe that, because this is already being done with all that content coming in from Getty. V/A gets preferential treatment in the search. So do the exclusive files and aren´t there a few Getty artists/groups that have exclusive crowns although they are not exclusive and also sell their files elsewhere?

But for the normal collections? I do a lot of searches, really a lot on istock and I have never seen anything that would make me believe that some contributors had "special deals" to push their content to the front.

Besides, we all know the joke how if it wasn´t programmed by Sean the code wouldn´t work and mess up the site...and there is truth to that.

Outside of the Vetta/Agency files we see coming in from Getty not one of the people I talked with said anything about iStock playing that game, but I got the impression that for many of the Agencies smaller than iStock this way normal business.

graficallyminded · « **Reply #43 on:** January 05, 2012, 16:09 »

Let's not be naive. Every business arrangement is negotiable.

None of this should surprise anyone... we don't live in a fair world, so why would anyone expect anything other than preferential treatment and favoritism to exist? Favoritism goes to those that bring a lot to the table. I've seen it happen so many times; even intercepted a few emails I was CC-ed on by mistake, which give proof of it.

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #44 on:** January 06, 2012, 00:36 »

Hi photoplan,

I really like your icon, do you mind me asking how you did it?

Thanks,
Jonathan

RacePhoto · « **Reply #45 on:** January 06, 2012, 01:04 »

Quote from: wut on January 05, 2012, 11:58

Quote from: Eyedesign on January 05, 2012, 11:56
Quote from: sjlocke on January 05, 2012, 11:42
Quote from: Eyedesign on January 05, 2012, 11:36
I'll confirm what Bob is saying. Search placement would seems to be something thats on the table. That is if you have a big Port with good selling power.

Are you saying IS offered you something to not go independent?

No! What I'm saying is that after talking with some top producers search placement is indeed something that is negotiable.

I can't believe Sean would be left out of that loop

Yes I tend to think you are perfectly correct with that belief.

lagereek · « **Reply #46 on:** January 06, 2012, 02:14 »

SURPRISED? well Im surprised you are all surprised. What Bobbimac is saying, is nothing new, its been going on for 30 years in the photo-agency business. Its a way of life and goes on in all businesses.
Ofcourse if a top-notch contributor comes along, ofcourse he will get a better treatment and prefferences then some normal walley from the street. What do you expect?
I myself negotiated a deal, two weeks before X-mas, involving some 40 images, ( not with IS) and its just a natural thing to do. If you have the stuff, why not? In the early 90s, this is what the Image-Bank, went through, after it was found out, they were giving a little bit of favouritism to a bunch of NY based photographers. No big deal, it was expected.
Any agency would in fact be quite stupid, if they did not "look after", some high end suppliers with special material.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Stats on Microstock (Read 15071 times)

traveler1116

Sean Locke Photography

bobbigmac

Sean Locke Photography

Eyedesign

gostwyck

Sean Locke Photography

gostwyck

bobbigmac

Sean Locke Photography

Eyedesign

wut

luissantos84

dirkr

Sean Locke Photography

cthoman

cobalt

Eyedesign

graficallyminded

Jonathan Ross

RacePhoto

lagereek

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors