pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Envato Elements

Author Topic: So what's the deal with Signeture collection on iStock?  (Read 2121 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: December 19, 2018, 09:41 »
0
Still can't figure it out.
All of my portfolio is presented in the "essential" collection.
none of my clips are in the "signeture" collection.
I'm trying to be as objective as I can here... some of the clips in the Signeture collection are indeed very good, at least as good as mine.
but some are, well, much much worse.

So -  What's the deal here?
Am I missing something?


ShadySue

« Reply #1 on: December 19, 2018, 09:46 »
+2
Signature files are provided by iStock exclusive artists.
No more, no less.

« Reply #2 on: December 19, 2018, 12:02 »
+3
Signature files are provided by iStock exclusive artists.
No more, no less.

OK - Thanks!
Seems kinda stupid to filter results according to the contributor agreement and not the content quality - but it is what it is...

ShadySue

« Reply #3 on: December 19, 2018, 12:08 »
+2
Signature files are provided by iStock exclusive artists.
No more, no less.

OK - Thanks!
Seems kinda stupid to filter results according to the contributor agreement and not the content quality - but it is what it is...
It means that should a customer wish, they can look first at files that aren't available elsewhere.

KB

« Reply #4 on: December 19, 2018, 23:39 »
+2
Signature files are provided by iStock exclusive artists.
No more, no less.

OK - Thanks!
Seems kinda stupid to filter results according to the contributor agreement and not the content quality - but it is what it is...
It means that should a customer wish, they can look first at files that aren't available elsewhere.
Which might make sense if their website stated it that way. But instead it's shown as 'Lowest price' vs 'Best quality'.  ::)

« Reply #5 on: December 20, 2018, 00:44 »
+1
Signature files are provided by iStock exclusive artists.
No more, no less.

OK - Thanks!
Seems kinda stupid to filter results according to the contributor agreement and not the content quality - but it is what it is...
It means that should a customer wish, they can look first at files that aren't available elsewhere.
Which might make sense if their website stated it that way. But instead it's shown as 'Lowest price' vs 'Best quality'.  ::)

Exactly my point :)

« Reply #6 on: December 20, 2018, 22:34 »
+1
Seems kinda stupid to filter results according to the contributor agreement and not the content quality - but it is what it is...

Not in the least.  Any agency wants to promote media that cannot be obtained anywhere else. This is one of the few edges they can have, other than chasing price down to the nonprofit levels.

If I ran an agency, you can be guaranteed I would put the content of those exclusive to me first, over those that can be gotten at a dozen other competitor locations too...

« Reply #7 on: December 21, 2018, 07:06 »
0
If I ran an agency, you can be guaranteed I would put the content of those exclusive to me first, over those that can be gotten at a dozen other competitor locations too...
But only if it made more profit.....

ShadySue

« Reply #8 on: December 21, 2018, 07:29 »
+1
Signature files are provided by iStock exclusive artists.
No more, no less.

OK - Thanks!
Seems kinda stupid to filter results according to the contributor agreement and not the content quality - but it is what it is...
It means that should a customer wish, they can look first at files that aren't available elsewhere.
Which might make sense if their website stated it that way. But instead it's shown as 'Lowest price' vs 'Best quality'.  ::)
Agreed.
This issue came up on their forum a while back (it may have been their old forum, I can't remember), and I said that all I attested was that my images are exclusive to iS, I don't claiming they're better than any others. To my surprise, that didn't spark off any replies.

Of course, 'best quality' is subjective - what's 'best' for a particular project isn't necessarily the one you or I would think was 'best' as a standalone file. And what any two people would think 'best' (for a project or standalone) wouldn't necessarily coincide.

« Reply #9 on: December 21, 2018, 10:01 »
0
Signature files are provided by iStock exclusive artists.
No more, no less.

OK - Thanks!
Seems kinda stupid to filter results according to the contributor agreement and not the content quality - but it is what it is...
It means that should a customer wish, they can look first at files that aren't available elsewhere.
Which might make sense if their website stated it that way. But instead it's shown as 'Lowest price' vs 'Best quality'.  ::)

Commodities / Exclusive Content would be appropiate.

« Reply #10 on: December 21, 2018, 10:43 »
0
Signature files are provided by iStock exclusive artists.
No more, no less.

OK - Thanks!
Seems kinda stupid to filter results according to the contributor agreement and not the content quality - but it is what it is...
It means that should a customer wish, they can look first at files that aren't available elsewhere.
Which might make sense if their website stated it that way. But instead it's shown as 'Lowest price' vs 'Best quality'.  ::)
Agreed.
This issue came up on their forum a while back (it may have been their old forum, I can't remember), and I said that all I attested was that my images are exclusive to iS, I don't claiming they're better than any others. To my surprise, that didn't spark off any replies.

Of course, 'best quality' is subjective - what's 'best' for a particular project isn't necessarily the one you or I would think was 'best' as a standalone file. And what any two people would think 'best' (for a project or standalone) wouldn't necessarily coincide.
I guess its not about the "best quality". It depends on "best sale able content". Meaning lifestyle would sell good at signature collection. The typical pets and dogs images are to expensive at signature collection.

ShadySue

« Reply #11 on: December 21, 2018, 11:01 »
0
Signature files are provided by iStock exclusive artists.
No more, no less.

OK - Thanks!
Seems kinda stupid to filter results according to the contributor agreement and not the content quality - but it is what it is...
It means that should a customer wish, they can look first at files that aren't available elsewhere.
Which might make sense if their website stated it that way. But instead it's shown as 'Lowest price' vs 'Best quality'.  ::)
Agreed.
This issue came up on their forum a while back (it may have been their old forum, I can't remember), and I said that all I attested was that my images are exclusive to iS, I don't claiming they're better than any others. To my surprise, that didn't spark off any replies.

Of course, 'best quality' is subjective - what's 'best' for a particular project isn't necessarily the one you or I would think was 'best' as a standalone file. And what any two people would think 'best' (for a project or standalone) wouldn't necessarily coincide.
I guess its not about the "best quality". It depends on "best sale able content". Meaning lifestyle would sell good at signature collection. The typical pets and dogs images are to expensive at signature collection.
Why does that matter? If my project needs a dog image, no matter how many wonderful lifestyle pics I see, they won't meet my needs.
In fact, in the old days, one of the things I liked about iS was that my files which were low-supply, low-demand could still make a decent sale price. Of course, that's all irrelevant now.

« Reply #12 on: December 22, 2018, 03:45 »
0
I guess its not about the "best quality". It depends on "best sale able content". Meaning lifestyle would sell good at signature collection. The typical pets and dogs images are to expensive at signature collection.

No. It's a marketing ploy designed to persuade people to spend more money at iStock in order to get the "best" rather than settling for "second best".
They're taking advantage of the fact that image quality is a subjective judgement, so while you and I might think image A is better than image B they can claim that their judging it by different criteria. But the bottom line is that they are telling purchasers that it is better for them to pay for the higher priced image.

« Reply #13 on: December 22, 2018, 07:40 »
+2
I guess its not about the "best quality". It depends on "best sale able content". Meaning lifestyle would sell good at signature collection. The typical pets and dogs images are to expensive at signature collection.

No. It's a marketing ploy designed to persuade people to spend more money at iStock in order to get the "best" rather than settling for "second best".
They're taking advantage of the fact that image quality is a subjective judgement, so while you and I might think image A is better than image B they can claim that their judging it by different criteria. But the bottom line is that they are telling purchasers that it is better for them to pay for the higher priced image.
Been some time exclusive at istock. My experience was that exclusive for most contributor doesn't make sense if you don't get enough images at Getty Collections. If you don't shoot lifestyle its hard do get enough images accepted at Getty Collections like Veta.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
3749 Views
Last post February 16, 2007, 06:23
by roman
1 Replies
2456 Views
Last post March 11, 2008, 13:53
by leaf
21 Replies
5601 Views
Last post April 06, 2008, 09:19
by bittersweet
6 Replies
4142 Views
Last post April 21, 2008, 12:06
by bittersweet
120 Replies
14039 Views
Last post July 31, 2013, 11:36
by Ron

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results