Quote from: cobalt on January 12, 2012, 21:54
I would appreciate a bug free site, excellent communication  and a positive upbeat management with great progress and sales reports, that´s for sure

But all the agencies put a lot of work into their services, they are much more than just "middlemen"

So who said middle men don't work?  Agencies are an important part of the process of delivering images to customers.  I just said they don't produce a product.  And that was said in response to michaelo, who posted:

"As for what customers expect that is largely irrelevant they don't own companies, shareholders do. It's naive to imagine that companies exist for the benefit of their customers or employees, smart companies realise that they have to keep those stakeholders happy to prosper but that is a side issue."

Sorry if you don't like my terminology, but nothing I said is inaccurate.   Are you really agreeing with michaelo that responsiveness to customers and suppliers (we aren't employees) is "irrelevant" and "a side issue", and the only obligation an agency has is to their shareholders???

Absolutely not. Although the customers are usually not shareholders, they are the most important aspect of any business.

No customers, no business, no company.

There may be some companies that are being run as a "hobby" by the owners, or for tax purposes only, but I don´t think there is any stock agency out there that can survive without customers.

For me a "marketplace service" is a product, just like a picture, a translation service or an apartment you rent. I guess my definition of product is extremly broad. Just terminology, like you say.

It may well be that a company's only obligation is to its shareholders but keeping customers happy is invariably part of that obligation.  A manager shouldn't even think about the shareholders. As long as he keeps his section efficient and serves customers well, the profits the shareholders want will follow as night follows day.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on January 12, 2012, 22:22
It may well be that a company's only obligation is to its shareholders but keeping customers happy is invariably part of that obligation.  A manager shouldn't even think about the shareholders. As long as he keeps his section efficient and serves customers well, the profits the shareholders want will follow as night follows day.

Really well summed up Balderick.  You managed to make the point a lot more succinctly than I did

Lisa, I can't help myself (sorry!) but it's Baldrick, not Balderick

as you were

Quote from: jsnover on January 12, 2012, 23:32
Lisa, I can't help myself (sorry!) but it's Baldrick, not Balderick

as you were

Ooops.  Sorry. Not my genre

cobalt:  "Absolutely not. Although the customers are usually not shareholders"

Sorry they are stakeholders. Generally consider external stakeholders and rightly so. IS is more complex because many customers are also buyers and/ influensers in the industrial/consumer buying process.

IS will have great profits this year and prob for the next two. That is clearly their aim. Of course after that it will slide as market share falls and any price rise revenue grabs are offset (or exceeded)  by declining sales.

I used to love IS. It was a great place. I have now stopped uploading. Not to get even or whatever, only because there is no point. The files will not be seen. Where they are seen and sold is TS and why put up with the IS upoad process for that? Their searches give poor results for customers, very poor results for independents and even exclusive defenders of the faith have had huge declines in sales (partially offset by price increases).

Quote from: markrhiggins on January 13, 2012, 00:01
cobalt:  "Absolutely not. Although the customers are usually not shareholders"

Sorry they are stakeholders. Generally consider external stakeholders and rightly so. IS is more complex because many customers are also buyers and/ influensers in the industrial/consumer buying process.

Stakeholders and shareholders are completely different. If you are a customer or a contributor of Istock then you are a stakeholder but not a shareholder. It's not more or less 'complex' at IS at all.

Btw __ what on earth is an 'influenser' in your language? Someone who spreads flu viruses?

Quote from: lisafx on January 12, 2012, 23:37

Quote from: jsnover on January 12, 2012, 23:32
Lisa, I can't help myself (sorry!) but it's Baldrick, not Balderick

as you were

Ooops.  Sorry. Not my genre

Genre? A baldrick isn't a genre, it's a sword belt!

influenser is influencer splelt wrongly. It is used in consumer behavior studies. It means not the buyer but someone that helps make the decision. They may spread the flu,lol/.

Sorry I misread stakeholder for shareholder. It is worth noting that shareholders are looked after by this strategy and stakeholders are not.

"Stakeholder" is a stupid word, anyway; it's so vague as to be virtually meaningless, which is probably why it was injected into the British political vocabulary by Blair's "New Labour".

no "stakeholder" is a common word. Look at any Marketing Management or Strategic Mangement text. No doubt politicians would hve their own meanings and reasons for usage.

Quote from: markrhiggins on January 13, 2012, 06:58
no "stakeholder" is a common word. Look at any Marketing Management or Strategic Mangement text. No doubt politicians would hve their own meanings and reasons for usage.

Common use in management-speak doesn't mean that it isn't stupid (the reverse is often the case).

Look at how Wikipedia defines it:

"Stakeholder (corporate), a person, group, organization, or system who affects or can be affected by an organization's actions

    Consumer stakeholder, a person or group with an interest in a business or organization
    Project stakeholder, a person, group or organization with an interest in a project
    Stakeholder theory, a theory that identifies and models the groups which are stakeholders of a corporation or project
    Stakeholder analysis, the process of identifying those affected by a project or event"

Which means absolutely anybody with any contact whatsoever with an organisation. It covers shareholders, employees, suppliers, customers and the poor sod whose house is going to be demolished when the project goes ahead.

In other words, it's one of those "bullsh1t baffles brains" words that is frequently used for obfuscation by writers or speakers who want to sound clever but have little or nothing to say.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on January 13, 2012, 07:15

Quote from: markrhiggins on January 13, 2012, 06:58
no "stakeholder" is a common word. Look at any Marketing Management or Strategic Mangement text. No doubt politicians would hve their own meanings and reasons for usage.

Common use in management-speak doesn't mean that it isn't stupid (the reverse is often the case).

Look at how Wikipedia defines it:

"Stakeholder (corporate), a person, group, organization, or system who affects or can be affected by an organization's actions

    Consumer stakeholder, a person or group with an interest in a business or organization
    Project stakeholder, a person, group or organization with an interest in a project
    Stakeholder theory, a theory that identifies and models the groups which are stakeholders of a corporation or project
    Stakeholder analysis, the process of identifying those affected by a project or event"

Which means absolutely anybody with any contact whatsoever with an organisation. It covers shareholders, employees, suppliers, customers and the poor sod whose house is going to be demolished when the project goes ahead.

In other words, it's one of those "bullsh1t baffles brains" words that is frequently used for obfuscation by writers or speakers who want to sound clever but have little or nothing to say.

I respectfully disagree, it's quite simply a term for the non owners who are affected by a companies actions. Much in the same way that shareholders is a term for owners.

Stakeholders in German companies have a much greater say in the running of a business. And enlightened companies grant universal stock options for much the same reason.

My original point was the companies exist for their shareholders benefit but that smart companies need to look after their all stakeholders.....

Quote from: michealo on January 13, 2012, 10:13

My original point was the companies exist for their shareholders benefit but that smart companies need to look after their all stakeholders.....

We agree about that.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on January 12, 2012, 07:43
I've got a few things in niches with virtually no competition. There's not much demand for them but they sell from time to time and the buyer goes away satisfied that iStock had something to offer in the niche he searched for. I would have to pull my portfolio before the buyer would leave in frustration.

If I look at the 'more like this' for my last sale on IS I can see it's the only image returned for those specific search words, so if independents pull their ports (even small contributors like me) it would inevitably hurt IS - buyers looking for a specific image would be forced to go elsewhere.  That's the read danger of pushing indie content out of sight - that we start to leave and take unique images with us.

I doubt they'd flinch even if a million or 2 of photos were pulled, even if Yuri and other top contributors would do it. I don't think any agency would worry about loosing 10-20% of their content, because it would still be oversupplied. And they'd sure rather loose 10-20% of their content than raise royalty percentages to us.

Quote from: wut on January 13, 2012, 12:08
I doubt they'd flinch even if a million or 2 of photos were pulled, even if Yuri and other top contributors would do it. I don't think any agency would worry about loosing 10-20% of their content, because it would still be oversupplied. And they'd sure rather loose 10-20% of their content than raise royalty percentages to us.

I'm sure they wold be concerned if Yuri pulled his port. That's why they arranged the figures so that he was staying on 20%. At one point last year, he seemed to be thinking of setting up his own site for selling - which is what I would do if I were him. Surprised he hasn't done it before, except that he does seem to strike up promotional deals with new sites. Whether the putative site is going on in parallel with the boot camp and intern programme, I couldn't possibly say. He probably has the staff to do it all if he wants.

Quote from: ShadySue on January 13, 2012, 12:20

Quote from: wut on January 13, 2012, 12:08
I doubt they'd flinch even if a million or 2 of photos were pulled, even if Yuri and other top contributors would do it. I don't think any agency would worry about loosing 10-20% of their content, because it would still be oversupplied. And they'd sure rather loose 10-20% of their content than raise royalty percentages to us.

I'm sure they wold be concerned if Yuri pulled his port. That's why they arranged the figures so that he was staying on 20%. At one point last year, he seemed to be thinking of setting up his own site for selling - which is what I would do if I were him. Surprised he hasn't done it before, except that he does seem to strike up promotional deals with new sites. Whether the putative site is going on in parallel with the boot camp and intern programme, I couldn't possibly say. He probably has the staff to do it all if he wants.

No they wouldn't, in each case the next best image would sell in it's place, most likely from someone Yuri trained ...

Quote from: michealo on January 13, 2012, 12:27

Quote from: ShadySue on January 13, 2012, 12:20

Quote from: wut on January 13, 2012, 12:08
I doubt they'd flinch even if a million or 2 of photos were pulled, even if Yuri and other top contributors would do it. I don't think any agency would worry about loosing 10-20% of their content, because it would still be oversupplied. And they'd sure rather loose 10-20% of their content than raise royalty percentages to us.

I'm sure they wold be concerned if Yuri pulled his port. That's why they arranged the figures so that he was staying on 20%. At one point last year, he seemed to be thinking of setting up his own site for selling - which is what I would do if I were him. Surprised he hasn't done it before, except that he does seem to strike up promotional deals with new sites. Whether the putative site is going on in parallel with the boot camp and intern programme, I couldn't possibly say. He probably has the staff to do it all if he wants.

No they wouldn't, in each case the next best image would sell in it's place, most likely from someone Yuri trained ...

I'm sure like with hairdressers he has his personal buyers who would leave if he left. And he could maybe make an offer of a good deal, even 50%, to his proteges. But yes, there are similar pics in many of his areas.

Quote from: michealo on January 13, 2012, 12:27
No they wouldn't, in each case the next best image would sell in it's place, most likely from someone Yuri trained ...

Precisely. I'm harder to replace than Yuri is, even though his technique is way beyond mine. (And if Yuri's content was so important to me that I would leave if it wasn't available, then I would go to one of the sites that are cheaper and have two or three times as many of his pics as iStock does).

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on January 13, 2012, 14:40
And if Yuri's content was so important to me that I would leave if it wasn't available, then I would go to one of the sites that are cheaper and have two or three times as many of his pics as iStock does.

Hmmm. Istock have 8K of Yuri's images available to download at at cost of nearly $50 for the largest size or $15 for a medium.

SS have over 53K of Yuri's images available to download at a cost of $9 for any size.

Not only that but on SS you can actually find what you're looking for without having to change browsers, clear cache, learn a special language ... or anything really. Does anyone still wonder why SS are gaining customers and Istock are losing them?

Quote from: gostwyck on January 13, 2012, 15:52

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on January 13, 2012, 14:40
And if Yuri's content was so important to me that I would leave if it wasn't available, then I would go to one of the sites that are cheaper and have two or three times as many of his pics as iStock does.

Hmmm. Istock have 8K of Yuri's images available to download at at cost of nearly $50 for the largest size or $15 for a medium.

SS have over 53K of Yuri's images available to download at a cost of $9 for any size.

Not only that but on SS you can actually find what you're looking for without having to change browsers, clear cache, learn a special language ... or anything really. Does anyone still wonder why SS are gaining customers and Istock are losing them?

If you saw his early work, it was not nearly that advanced.  The interesting event was the "leap" to perfection was not exactly time consuming.  It was a near carbon copy to the top istock exclusive who went picked up a camera at 36 for the first time and became dominant with in months.  I guess if these two did it then they are replaceable just as far as it being possible.  When you look at some of the others in the top ten you see a more organic progression to advanced stock photos.  I guess its surprising that more "warp" speed progressions did not come out of nowhere considering the dollars to be made if all it takes is assembling a "team". 

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on January 13, 2012, 04:04

Quote from: lisafx on January 12, 2012, 23:37

Quote from: jsnover on January 12, 2012, 23:32
Lisa, I can't help myself (sorry!) but it's Baldrick, not Balderick

as you were

Ooops.  Sorry. Not my genre

Genre? A baldrick isn't a genre, it's a sword belt!

I thought you got it from Black Adder.  Which is not my genre of entertainment. 

Quote from: lisafx on January 13, 2012, 22:21

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on January 13, 2012, 04:04

Quote from: lisafx on January 12, 2012, 23:37

Quote from: jsnover on January 12, 2012, 23:32
Lisa, I can't help myself (sorry!) but it's Baldrick, not Balderick

as you were

Ooops.  Sorry. Not my genre

Genre? A baldrick isn't a genre, it's a sword belt!

I thought you got it from Black Adder.  Which is not my genre of entertainment. 

Yes I did (but it's Blackadder, actually, which is the name of a real Scottish clan, one of whose members was executed - probably as a scapegoat - for the murder of Mary, Queen of Scots' husband, Lord Darnley). Anyway it was just one of my little jokes, going back to the original word.