pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: "Istock Collections" what ??  (Read 27424 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #75 on: August 25, 2010, 22:13 »
0
I think paranoia can be ascribed to all of us at times, depending on the issue. microstock is precarious. let me tell you, being exclusive can breed paranoia too. when you have everything riding on one agency, conspiracy theories reproduce exponentially. if I could change one thing about this forum, it would be less accusation and more discussion. the accusations are so boring.

the bottom line is, independents do have cause for concern, since iStock's policies and algorithms do seem to be slowly, but surely whittling away at independent sales. despite that, it doesn't make sense to say they will ever disregard independents, since their margin on independent sales is so large. they probably need a mix of independent and exclusive images to maintain their business model.
the perks of exclusivity are there. Vetta is an exclusive privilege, exclusive + files, and when it comes to %, yes, sales have been good. with Vetta and e+, it isn't a surprise to see independents taking a hit on sales. your files are certainly pushed back a bit.


« Reply #76 on: August 25, 2010, 23:03 »
0

sales are excellent since the launch of f5. no complaints there, so if buyers are happy, I'm happy.

I am glad to see somebody getting sales there.  I think JoAnn has also said she's doing pretty well.  Maybe the sales falloff hasn't been as bad as my stats would indicate, just shuffled around by best match?

You guys are probably right that these lightboxes aren't going to be hugely popular, limited as they are in scope.  It's more of a nagging irritant, I guess. 

I've been away and am trying to catch up with things. Yes, I had said that things were going well - and still are, especially given that August usually isn't a great month.

I'm not in any lightboxes or part of that in-crowd stuff. I have a very small number of Vetta images. I don't do E+

My take on the very selective lightboxes is that it's really about drawing buyer's attention and getting them into the store. The set of images is so small that no matter how lovely they are that's unlikely to be the set of things searched - it's more like the displays in the store window to get you to come in. In that context, I think that smaller sets of images work better than larger ones, and really eye-catching ones better than those more likely to sell in the end.

It seems that the bigger issue is for those (exclusive and independent) who have seen sales drop, which I would think is unrelated to the lightboxes. I don't have a clue what's going on there, but I do know (from the best match changes in 2008 prior to best match 2.0 that did horrible things to my sales) that when sales suck you try to figure out what changed.

lagereek

« Reply #77 on: August 26, 2010, 01:01 »
0
So Getty doesn't want to go the Vetta - Exclusive Plus way?
This is nothing but independents' paranoia?

Ok, let's check it out, shall we?
Click on any of the suggested links / collections and lightboxes on IStock's home page or IStock's Photos tab.
Tell me what do you see?
A myriad of golden icons and not much else?
If you can't see them, it means that indeed, I've got a bad case of Independent Paranoia and I need to have it fixed ASAP.

But of course, you were only joking ...

Whats this?  the mouse that roared??  a little neewbie cannister or what?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #78 on: August 26, 2010, 02:05 »
0

My take on the very selective lightboxes is that it's really about drawing buyer's attention and getting them into the store. The set of images is so small that no matter how lovely they are that's unlikely to be the set of things searched - it's more like the displays in the store window to get you to come in. In that context, I think that smaller sets of images work better than larger ones, and really eye-catching ones better than those more likely to sell in the end.

I guess I'm pretty weird in my buying habits, but if I don't see, in a shop window, the sort of thing I'd be likely to buy, I don't go in. If I were looking to buy images and it said that a lightbox was the 'best' we have in our collection, and none of it was in the style/genre I wanted (very very few of the 'critters' are wild, for example), why would I imagine I'd get 'better' than 'the best' in the complete collection?

« Reply #79 on: August 26, 2010, 02:59 »
0


I guess this is the way Getty wants to go. Vetta, Ecxlusive Plus and Exclusive, all higher prices.
There's not much room left for independents.
I'm not sure whether this is good or bad news for IStock in general.
I'll have to wait and see.

This notion has been kicking around for years, and there's never been any evidence to suggest it's anything other than independents paranoia :)

If you ignore such things as the pay cut this January (that was when they reduced prices for independents to try to lure buyers in so they could promote Vetta and Exclusive+ content to them, remember?) and the CEO's statement that his sole aim was to boost the earnings of exclusives. Doesn't a statement from the CEO count as "evidence"?

I'm not surprised if all the attention goes to the same small circle, there has always been an "in-crowd" there. There's at least one exclusive who they have somehow managed to push way, way up the diamond list whose files would almost all get rejected if you or I submitted them. So maybe stuff like these light boxes really does make a difference.

abimages

« Reply #80 on: August 26, 2010, 03:31 »
0


I guess this is the way Getty wants to go. Vetta, Ecxlusive Plus and Exclusive, all higher prices.
There's not much room left for independents.
I'm not sure whether this is good or bad news for IStock in general.
I'll have to wait and see.

This notion has been kicking around for years, and there's never been any evidence to suggest it's anything other than independents paranoia :)


If you ignore such things as the pay cut this January (that was when they reduced prices for independents to try to lure buyers in so they could promote Vetta and Exclusive+ content to them, remember?) and the CEO's statement that his sole aim was to boost the earnings of exclusives. Doesn't a statement from the CEO count as "evidence"?

I'm not surprised if all the attention goes to the same small circle, there has always been an "in-crowd" there. There's at least one exclusive who they have somehow managed to push way, way up the diamond list whose files would almost all get rejected if you or I submitted them. So maybe stuff like these light boxes really does make a difference.

I don't dispute that IS is maybe less profitable these days for independents. I went exclusive (I was independent for four years) earlier this year when prices changed, so I only know that from reading here.
Maybe I misunderstood what the post was saying, but I was referring to the long standing (years!) rumour that IS would one day close the door to non-exclusives. :)

« Reply #81 on: August 26, 2010, 05:13 »
0
I think paranoia can be ascribed to all of us at times, depending on the issue. microstock is precarious. let me tell you, being exclusive can breed paranoia too. when you have everything riding on one agency, conspiracy theories reproduce exponentially. if I could change one thing about this forum, it would be less accusation and more discussion. the accusations are so boring.

the bottom line is, independents do have cause for concern, since iStock's policies and algorithms do seem to be slowly, but surely whittling away at independent sales. despite that, it doesn't make sense to say they will ever disregard independents, since their margin on independent sales is so large. they probably need a mix of independent and exclusive images to maintain their business model.
the perks of exclusivity are there. Vetta is an exclusive privilege, exclusive + files, and when it comes to %, yes, sales have been good. with Vetta and e+, it isn't a surprise to see independents taking a hit on sales. your files are certainly pushed back a bit.

As I think was mentioned elsewhere, since iStock's price rises in January their margin on independent sales, per image, is now less than on exclusive sales in all cases except very large sizes at high canister levels, so from their point of view one would think it would make perfect sense to encourage exclusive sales at the expense of independents - on the the other hand, I'd agree that they are never likely to disregard the non-exclusive contributors.

After all, very few people are likely to go straight into exclusivity at start up, and iStock also have to keep up their supply of contributors.  They may make it increasingly more difficult to become exclusive (though in the past they've actually made it easier) but they'll not want to push contributors into spending too long as independents - as has also been mentioned elsewhere, it's quite a gamble to give up independence once you're well established at other sites.

lagereek

« Reply #82 on: August 26, 2010, 05:27 »
0
I think paranoia can be ascribed to all of us at times, depending on the issue. microstock is precarious. let me tell you, being exclusive can breed paranoia too. when you have everything riding on one agency, conspiracy theories reproduce exponentially. if I could change one thing about this forum, it would be less accusation and more discussion. the accusations are so boring.

the bottom line is, independents do have cause for concern, since iStock's policies and algorithms do seem to be slowly, but surely whittling away at independent sales. despite that, it doesn't make sense to say they will ever disregard independents, since their margin on independent sales is so large. they probably need a mix of independent and exclusive images to maintain their business model.
the perks of exclusivity are there. Vetta is an exclusive privilege, exclusive + files, and when it comes to %, yes, sales have been good. with Vetta and e+, it isn't a surprise to see independents taking a hit on sales. your files are certainly pushed back a bit.

As I think was mentioned elsewhere, since iStock's price rises in January their margin on independent sales, per image, is now less than on exclusive sales in all cases except very large sizes at high canister levels, so from their point of view one would think it would make perfect sense to encourage exclusive sales at the expense of independents - on the the other hand, I'd agree that they are never likely to disregard the non-exclusive contributors.

After all, very few people are likely to go straight into exclusivity at start up, and iStock also have to keep up their supply of contributors.  They may make it increasingly more difficult to become exclusive (though in the past they've actually made it easier) but they'll not want to push contributors into spending too long as independents - as has also been mentioned elsewhere, it's quite a gamble to give up independence once you're well established at other sites.

Funny how things are going!  before and especially with Getty, etc, you could ONLY become exclusive on merit, i.e. your photography was that good and inspiring. In fact you could only become a member (without paying as in Photographers-choice) if you were good enough.

Nowdays?  well it seems any old fart with a p/s can be exclusive and to top it all the poor sods are led to believe its an "honor" .

No I dont think IS will close any doors on independants,  why?  well simply because there would be an increased stream of suppliers to the competition. It would be a disatrous move.

In all fairness though maybe we should not knock this too much,  IS,  is still mosts number one earner and in bad times which this is Im sure theyre taking a lot of stick even from their exclusives, I dont think theyre getting too fat.

best
« Last Edit: August 26, 2010, 05:33 by lagereek »

youralleffingnuts

    This user is banned.
« Reply #83 on: August 26, 2010, 07:16 »
0
I don't like IS, I think they're nuts!  What I don't understand however is why independents kick and scream over agencies favouring exclusives.  Isn't that the perk of being exclusive?  If an agency looks after an independent the same way it does an exclusive how would that be fair to exclusives when they cannot sell their images elsewhere?  If exclusives were so much better off than independents everyone would become exclusive.

So your images didn't appear in some lightbox because you're not an exclusive member, big deal!  Must you whine about everything?

Jesus!

youralleffingnuts

    This user is banned.
« Reply #84 on: August 26, 2010, 07:25 »
0


As for starting my own site to drive traffic to my micro portfolio.... here's a thought - I pay Istock 80% of what my images make on their site.  It's not too much to ask that they 1) give everyone a fair shot at inclusion in sitewide lightboxes; or 2) don't claim that those lightboxes are the best of the collection when clearly they aren't; or 3) let their search engine be the arbiter of what gets put in front of buyers; or 4) Make it clear to buyers that the intended purpose of those lightboxes is to highlight Vetta, E+, and/or exclusive content.     


Here's another thought....  instead of bitching about the 80% you pay istock, why not thank them for paying you 20% and earning a living doing something you love instead of having to do weddings which you said you hate.  You take the photo, you upload it, keyword it, you don't advertise or promote it in any way.  You let IS do the rest of the work for you for the rest of your life.  That's worth 80% isn't it? 

« Reply #85 on: August 26, 2010, 08:09 »
0
Lagereek,
what's the story?
You don't want me to post here? In this thread? Or any other thread?
And that's because I only have 400 images and I 'only' started doing this one year ago, (instead of the sixties)?
Is that it?
Perhaps you wish to discuss my portfolio? Does it look good enough to you? All OK?
Or is it because of my opinions?
I guess that's the real answer...
It has nothing to do with my sales, or my portfolio. It has everything to do with my opinions. You don't agree with me and you're incapable of finding a more convincing argument than my portfolio.

Well, in any case, why don't you take it up with Leaf?
Change the rules guys, make it clear for everyone to see!
Set up a sticky and take the forum over!
Good luck!
« Last Edit: August 26, 2010, 08:24 by Eireann »

« Reply #86 on: August 26, 2010, 08:21 »
0
Sunnymars,
All right then.
You go ahead and thank Getty for taking 80 per cent of your earnings. Nobody's stopping you.
I wonder what are you going to do with the other sites? The sites that pay you a better commission?
Send them flowers every weekend? Write poems?

Lisa is someone who's willing and capable of changing things for the better. Not many people have the guts to do it.
You should support her voice, it's in your own interest.

youralleffingnuts

    This user is banned.
« Reply #87 on: August 26, 2010, 08:41 »
0
Getty doesn't take 80%.  If I don't like an agent, I don't join them and whinge about them.  You want a voice? have the guts to speak up and leave.  You people don't leave because it's worth you staying... well it was but the bubble's burst.

As for the sites that pay me a better commission, every time a get a decent payment I say "woooohooo" under my breath.  Every time I sell a subscription I say "urgh!" under my breath.  I don't go to a forum and write post after post whinging about it. 

As for IS and lisa, come off it, she's got 200,000 downloads from them and she's whinging?  They've obviously looked after her all these years.  She would have been snapping wedding pics (which she hates) if it wasn't for them.  As for her voice, I find it irritating as I'm sure many others do as well including the micros.  I definitely don't want some constant whinger representing me. 



Sunnymars,
All right then.
You go ahead and thank Getty for taking 80 per cent of your earnings. Nobody's stopping you.
I wonder what are you going to do with the other sites? The sites that pay you a better commission?
Send them flowers every weekend? Write poems?

Lisa is someone who's willing and capable of changing things for the better. Not many people have the guts to do it.
You should support her voice, it's in your own interest.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #88 on: August 26, 2010, 09:43 »
0
the bottom line is, independents do have cause for concern, since iStock's policies and algorithms do seem to be slowly, but surely whittling away at independent sales. despite that, it doesn't make sense to say they will ever disregard independents, since their margin on independent sales is so large. they probably need a mix of independent and exclusive images to maintain their business model.
the perks of exclusivity are there. Vetta is an exclusive privilege, exclusive + files, and when it comes to %, yes, sales have been good. with Vetta and e+, it isn't a surprise to see independents taking a hit on sales. your files are certainly pushed back a bit.

As I think was mentioned elsewhere, since iStock's price rises in January their margin on independent sales, per image, is now less than on exclusive sales in all cases except very large sizes at high canister levels, so from their point of view one would think it would make perfect sense to encourage exclusive sales at the expense of independents - on the the other hand, I'd agree that they are never likely to disregard the non-exclusive contributors.


good point...I forgot about that. being exclusive is like having golden handcuffs...but I guess it is the same for a well-established independent too.

lagereek

« Reply #89 on: August 26, 2010, 09:52 »
0
I don't like IS, I think they're nuts!  What I don't understand however is why independents kick and scream over agencies favouring exclusives.  Isn't that the perk of being exclusive?  If an agency looks after an independent the same way it does an exclusive how would that be fair to exclusives when they cannot sell their images elsewhere?  If exclusives were so much better off than independents everyone would become exclusive.

So your images didn't appear in some lightbox because you're not an exclusive member, big deal!  Must you whine about everything?

Jesus!

Lightbox??  I dont care about some bloody lightbox !  Ive never even mentioned the word lightbox, besides 90% of all the AD-agency creatives I know in Europe dont even know what . a lightbox is all about.
You seem to know though.

best.

lagereek

« Reply #90 on: August 26, 2010, 10:25 »
0
Lagereek,
what's the story?
You don't want me to post here? In this thread? Or any other thread?
And that's because I only have 400 images and I 'only' started doing this one year ago, (instead of the sixties)?
Is that it?
Perhaps you wish to discuss my portfolio? Does it look good enough to you? All OK?
Or is it because of my opinions?
I guess that's the real answer...
It has nothing to do with my sales, or my portfolio. It has everything to do with my opinions. You don't agree with me and you're incapable of finding a more convincing argument than my portfolio.

Well, in any case, why don't you take it up with Leaf?
Change the rules guys, make it clear for everyone to see!
Set up a sticky and take the forum over!
Good luck!

Sure!  nice port!!  pitty about youre inferiority complexed attitude,  belongs at school, not here.   Nice port though.

all the best wishes.

youralleffingnuts

    This user is banned.
« Reply #91 on: August 26, 2010, 10:28 »
0
Lagereek, my post was obviously directed at the OP, not you.

urgh, BEST!

I don't like IS, I think they're nuts!  What I don't understand however is why independents kick and scream over agencies favouring exclusives.  Isn't that the perk of being exclusive?  If an agency looks after an independent the same way it does an exclusive how would that be fair to exclusives when they cannot sell their images elsewhere?  If exclusives were so much better off than independents everyone would become exclusive.

So your images didn't appear in some lightbox because you're not an exclusive member, big deal!  Must you whine about everything?

Jesus!

Lightbox??  I dont care about some bloody lightbox !  Ive never even mentioned the word lightbox, besides 90% of all the AD-agency creatives I know in Europe dont even know what . a lightbox is all about.
You seem to know though.

best.

youralleffingnuts

    This user is banned.
« Reply #92 on: August 26, 2010, 10:32 »
0
LOL, I've come to the conclusion that about 80% of the people here lack basic communication skills and are completely effing useless.  It's a good thing you all can bloody operate a camera, I tell you!

BEST!

« Reply #93 on: August 26, 2010, 10:45 »
0
LOL, I've come to the conclusion that about 80% of the people here lack basic communication skills and are completely effing useless.  It's a good thing you all can bloody operate a camera, I tell you!

Sounds like little Miss Sunnymars has taken their toys and gone home.

lagereek

« Reply #94 on: August 26, 2010, 11:08 »
0
Lagereek, my post was obviously directed at the OP, not you.

urgh, BEST!

I don't like IS, I think they're nuts!  What I don't understand however is why independents kick and scream over agencies favouring exclusives.  Isn't that the perk of being exclusive?  If an agency looks after an independent the same way it does an exclusive how would that be fair to exclusives when they cannot sell their images elsewhere?  If exclusives were so much better off than independents everyone would become exclusive.

So your images didn't appear in some lightbox because you're not an exclusive member, big deal!  Must you whine about everything?

Jesus!

Lightbox??  I dont care about some bloody lightbox !  Ive never even mentioned the word lightbox, besides 90% of all the AD-agency creatives I know in Europe dont even know what . a lightbox is all about.
You seem to know though.

best.


Sorry!  my post was directed towards sunnymars!!  not you. Hey!  must be a glitch or something here, I can swear Im seeing the posts changing.

anyhow all the best.

« Reply #95 on: August 26, 2010, 11:08 »
0
Sounds like little Miss Sunnymars has taken their toys and gone home.

No point in acknowledging (let alone feeding) the trolls. The Ignore button was invented for such cases.

lagereek

« Reply #96 on: August 26, 2010, 11:09 »
0
LOL, I've come to the conclusion that about 80% of the people here lack basic communication skills and are completely effing useless.  It's a good thing you all can bloody operate a camera, I tell you!

Sounds like little Miss Sunnymars has taken their toys and gone home.

I sincerely hope youre right.

best.

youralleffingnuts

    This user is banned.
« Reply #97 on: August 26, 2010, 11:12 »
0
LOL, I've come to the conclusion that about 80% of the people here lack basic communication skills and are completely effing useless.  It's a good thing you all can bloody operate a camera, I tell you!

Sounds like little Miss Sunnymars has taken their toys and gone home.

She'll be back toots  ;D

youralleffingnuts

    This user is banned.
« Reply #98 on: August 26, 2010, 11:14 »
0
Sounds like little Miss Sunnymars has taken their toys and gone home.

No point in acknowledging (let alone feeding) the trolls. The Ignore button was invented for such cases.

gostwyck must be pissed off because his post where he agreeing with me in the other thread, was the only post i didn't acknowledge.  you must have felt completely insignificant, awwww :(

till next time dorks.

« Reply #99 on: August 26, 2010, 12:14 »
0
Lagereek,
I believe you confused me (my post) with someone else.
Never mind, it's OK :)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
30 Replies
14647 Views
Last post September 30, 2008, 01:03
by RacePhoto
0 Replies
1982 Views
Last post April 08, 2009, 07:26
by vii-studio
1 Replies
8547 Views
Last post March 14, 2011, 05:33
by fotorob
90 Replies
25765 Views
Last post March 22, 2010, 11:28
by stockastic
27 Replies
9386 Views
Last post September 05, 2012, 08:24
by robhainer

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle