I quit Istock some time ago, but I agree it's a good time for IS exclusives. I am happy for them that at last their fidelity with one site is being rewarded. Even after the rough time they had with Getty's subscription curve ball. The exclusives displeasure paid off and it's good to see Getty doing a changeover to the exclusives benefit.
This tier system can be a good sign for the rest of us who are independent. It can turn the road for the other Big 6 to take notice and start doing something good for those who stick with them as well. That, or risk an exodus to any site who has their ears to the grapevine and conscious that pleasing the contributors mean a win win situation for all.
I wish the exclusives at IStock good results.

I'm not that much upset with ShutterStock, which was the first and original subs microstock. You knew what you entered into the moment you signed up. They make me 3 digits per month, more than 0.35$/sub sale, and I upload only the reduced size to them. Fair after all, I don't want my maximums up for grabs.

What irritates me more are PPDL microstocks turning into a subs-too site after sign-up. You start uploading maximum sizes, and then you suddenly see this: (my last 7 DLs on DT).



The latest addition to this club is FeaturePics, although they will limit sub sales to a whopping low size of 8MP.

hmm, good point cevapcici. you know, i  never really thought of that until now why ppl at SS were not getting pissed off with accepting sub prices. ie. SS sells lots for them to make up for it, and also,
the agreement and expectation of sub commission are understood when you join.
unlike, as you say, the other PPDL micro sites that get you interested and then turn into subs too AFTER sign up.
i suppose you can start not giving them the XXL sizes after they spring subs on you, but you cannot just pull out the old XXL sizes . maybe the only honorable thing for these sites would be give us the option to disallow max sizes for subs, IF we don't like that surprise sprung to us.

but then again, i guess it's too far gone for us to now go retroactive and demand this option.
why didn't the oldtimers think of that? oh well, too late !

Well... If you are not content with what you recieve on microstock - just go trady... I am sure there you will earn 4 figures a year - I do!

There is just one catch: Trady image is not the same as microstock image!

4 figures?    1000-9999  that�s kind of wide...

Trady images. That�s a new thing for me. what is it?         worse quality? since microstock can be everything, and need to be perfect.

Please don't get sucked in to traditional vs microstock vs Subscriptions, all have a place in the market with a different core customer base, some assets are on different models at different price points, so you cannot use content and quality as a true argument, only personal choice.

The type of customers more than the content and quality of assets keeps all models active as some customers would just not use the other model, this is often due to volume requirements and account tie-in.

Remember Istock was first created to provide 'Free' images for designers and hurt the traditional model, here we are a few years later and they have a new collection that has closed the gap in pricing again microstock to macrostock, some day there may be little or no difference between these two models.

As elements of the microstock model move closer to macrostock, there is still the subscriptions which may hurt both, it would be better if this model was seperated from the label microstock then we can have another set of debates.

Which is the best model for artist and buyer is a simple personal choice, not a right or wrong one, and one persons hell could be another person heaven!

David      

Quote from: Magnum on July 04, 2009, 04:24

Quote from: Milinz on July 04, 2009, 04:04

Well... If you are not content with what you recieve on microstock - just go trady... I am sure there you will earn 4 figures a year - I do!

There is just one catch: Trady image is not the same as microstock image!

4 figures?    1000-9999  that�s kind of wide...

Trady images. That�s a new thing for me. what is it?         worse quality? since microstock can be everything, and need to be perfect.

Well...

It depends on what buyers consider 'perfect' ;-)

P.S. To figure that out you should know at least dozen designers and dozen magazine editors ;-)

P.P.S. It is obvious that some buyers find 'perfect' maximum resolution sold for 35 cents on one place as well $100 or more single sale on other place...

By perfect I mean quality.   sharp without filter, no noise but still details etc.    So what is trady images?

Remember Istock was first created to provide 'Free' images for designers and hurt the traditional model, here we are a few years later and they have a new collection that has closed the gap in pricing again microstock to macrostock, some day there may be little or no difference between these two models.

As elements of the microstock model move closer to macrostock, there is still the subscriptions which may hurt both, it would be better if this model was seperated from the label microstock then we can have another set of debates.

david, seems like i am stalking you lol, but in essence, your insightful comments pique my own responses.

yes, IS makes a change of face and now gives their exclusive something that closes the gap between micro and macro.  and we should ask why is this so . so soon after their horrible curveball with StockXpert / IS subs situation.

IS is no stranger to the marketplace (  ahem pun pun ),  which includes Veer as well, and also the micro entry of Veer marketplace.  this is a faceoff of the titans once again (Corbis and Getty).
the dual point strategy (high earning Vetta and  peanut vendor subs)  must indicate that Getty knows
the buyer base have now changed. less disposable funds mean more critical selection of images.
also outstanding images at premium cost.
we are no longer in a spendtrift environment with haphazard quantity buying from bottomless budget.
the buyers may even be consolidated into one person, like we used to see with the previous crash
where a whole dept is laid off and replaced by one secretary that handles all.

the scenery changes, and Getty which is no gremlin to the business sense the need to close the disparity. play safe at both ends, keep subs alive while introducing a premium supply that caters to buyers of the older style with cash to spare on quality, not quantity. they keep subs on for now,
and probably will kill it, after Vetta takes off.
why not? with Vetta's success, they kill two birds with one stone:  happier contributors keeping their
exclusivity and earning more money at last again, and an injection of a buyer base that spend more but buy less.

personally, i wish Vetta succeeds. this may be what all contributors are waiting for. even anyone who doesn't like Istock must surely applaud this move by Getty with Vetta.

Hi puravida,
I am a little more cynical about the reasons the microsites are having midstock / macrostock collections, I see from posts in the traditional forums many more good artists that would not have looked at microstock a year ago, are now feeling the crunch, and are looking at what the microsites are offering as an option, so these moves are good for the agencies, new buyers and the existing contributors, but also other traditional artists looking for new outlets with a better price point, so the slice of 'revenue pie' may be cut thinner again.

The big two have massive resources, and would have done the risk assesments and research for these collections, will these collections encourage some of the good traditional photographers currently sitting on the fence, also the stocksites would be aware of the increasing quality and quantity of work out there that has no real home, they will know the number of photographers that have been trying to join the big two traditional agencies, who may be close but not quite there, being to arty for microstock and not quite up to C & G quality, and now they have a 'midstock' model that can later be opened up to these photograhers.

I work in IT mid range accounting packages, Microsoft had the high end and low end markets, there were three contenders in the mid range, Microsoft just brought out all three offerings to get the market share.

With stock images the big two have the top and lower tiers well covered and now they are after the vacant middle tier.

Jonathan Ross has today posted on the three tiers on the MicroStockDiaries blog :
http://www.microstockdiaries.com/photographers-working-together-in-a-three-tiered-stock-photo-market.html

David  

they will know the number of photographers that have been trying to join the big two traditional agencies, who may be close but not quite there, being to arty for microstock and not quite up to C & G quality, and now they have a 'midstock' model that can later be opened up to these photograhers.

David, myself and a handful of my network welcome this middle tier with open arms. we had long discussed our displeasure of making generic images and sure approval clones to pacify the editors of micro . With Vetta, and hopefully Veer Marketplace, we can now disregard the need to feed the beast with non-artsy images and concentrate on either going exclusive for Vetta, or making the most out of Veer Marketplace 's which has times mentioned that they are not interested in our "top sellers of SS, DT, FT,etc" but something more. It's a breath of fresh air to see something with the clout of Corbis that is not going to settle for leftovers or flavours of the day from the Big 6.
I was impressed the moment I read how many rejections Veer made from the regular sellers of the Big 6. Now the proof of the pudding is to see V M sell and sell well. Also Vetta for the IS exclusives.
Both for the common good of this sorry state of micro and subs.

Hi Adeptris,

 Thanks for posting the Link to lee's site and my article on the three tiered system. It is just my vision of the concept and I think the more artists talk about this option the closer we can come to having a strong voice across the entire industry. You all have really good ideas and I learn from so many people here. Thanks for your input and everyone's help in educating the photographers participating in stock.

Best,
Jonathan

Hear hear Jonathan. Echo needed 4 sure !!!..." the more artists talk about this option the closer we can come to having a strong voice across the entire industry. "

Please don't get sucked in to traditional vs microstock vs Subscriptions, all have a place in the market with a different core customer base, some assets are on different models at different price points, so you cannot use content and quality as a true argument, only personal choice.

I only wanted that sites let me choose not to sell to the customers that want buy subs.  This should be our choice, not the site's.

Quote from: madelaide on July 04, 2009, 13:35

Quote from: Adeptris on July 04, 2009, 05:17

Please don't get sucked in to traditional vs microstock vs Subscriptions, all have a place in the market with a different core customer base, some assets are on different models at different price points, so you cannot use content and quality as a true argument, only personal choice.

I only wanted that sites let me choose not to sell to the customers that want buy subs.  This should be our choice, not the site's.

Totally agree.... !

Patrick H.

Absolutely

Hi Pixelbytes,

 You are absolutely right about my opportunity or any other macro RF shooter that has older work tied up in 5-7 year contracts ( standard duration ) in the Macro RF market. We are not eligible for the Exclusive contract at Istock for licensing images. I think they want to support their base of photographers that put them on the map and bring in new talent as they become more seasoned. I totally understand that and I am glad to see a company support their photographers. That has not always been the case in stock history.
 I think this helps control the mass of pro's that might jump on the Istock exclusive wagon if given the chance and flood their market with content. I totally get it. The only possible down side is these old timers are shooting Micro now. They are just uploading to Istock at a slower rate than all the other Micro agencies. Giving the other agencies access for their buyers to a great deal more of the old Macro stock shooters work, whatever that is worth .
 I don't know if that is good or bad yet for Istock, we'll have to wait and see. They benefit on the other end by having exclusive content that no buyer can find anywhere else. They also have the highest RPI compared to any other Micro agency in the business making them appealing to new shooters. At least from my short experience. in Micro.

Best,
Jonathan
 

Hi Pixelbytes,

 You are absolutely right about my opportunity or any other macro RF shooter that has older work tied up in 5-7 year contracts ( standard duration ) in the Macro RF market. We are not eligible for the Exclusive contract at Istock for licensing images. I think they want to support their base of photographers that put them on the map and bring in new talent as they become more seasoned. I totally understand that and I am glad to see a company support their photographers. That has not always been the case in stock history.
 I think this helps control the mass of pro's that might jump on the Istock exclusive wagon if given the chance and flood their market with content. I totally get it. The only possible down side is these old timers are shooting Micro now. They are just uploading to Istock at a slower rate than all the other Micro agencies. Giving the other agencies access for their buyers to a great deal more of the old Macro stock shooters work, whatever that is worth .
 I don't know if that is good or bad yet for Istock, we'll have to wait and see. They benefit on the other end by having exclusive content that no buyer can find anywhere else. They also have the highest RPI compared to any other Micro agency in the business making them appealing to new shooters. At least from my short experience. in Micro.

Best,
Jonathan
 

Jonathan, your understanding of what istock's goals are makes total sense.  Although after seeing the impressive quality of your work I can't help but wonder if they are making the wrong decision to limit your ability and that of other similarly experienced individuals to get your portfolios on the site.  

BTW, slightly OT, but I watched your video that David recommended about the various stock tiers and it was amazing.  Your work at all levels is positively outstanding, and you are extremely generous to share your thoughts and skills with others.  You also had a very pleasant voice and narrating style.  

Thanks a lot for sharing!

  Quote from phildate:

I was thinking more seriously about shooting some stuff just for Fotolia Infinite, probably on-location lifestyle shots and submit the studio stuff to the usual micro sites.

Hope if you do that you will share your impressions of the experience?  Nobody who has been accepted into infinite has mentioned anything about it in a long time.

With so many of us locked out of Vetta, Fotolia will probably experience an upsurge in interest in Infinite.   Hopefully they will recognize what a great opportunity this could be for them to compete with Istock in the mid-stock arena, and make submitting to Infinite available to more of their contributors.