pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: "Istock Collections" what ??  (Read 23498 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: August 24, 2010, 10:28 »
0
I think it's an excellent idea Alias.  The resultant collection would be very impressive.

FWIW if I worked with Lisa and Flemish, we could call ourselves LanFX Dreams.   ;D


« Reply #51 on: August 24, 2010, 10:32 »
0
Personally, (Cthoman) I think that without criticism, complaining or enquiring there will be far less ideas.
On the road to the next, higher step, sharp minds and criticism are vital.
We owe them everything we've ever achieved.
The backbone of progress.

I also think that Alias's suggestions are great. Thank you very much for taking the time to share!
However, they're off topic. Definitely are.
A short reminder - the topic of this particular thread is 'IStock Collections'.
Easy. That's all there is to it.

IStock refreshed the images on their home page. Click on the links and you're presented with a beautiful collection of images. Truly stunning imagery. For the most part, they're all exclusive.
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.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2010, 10:36 by Eireann »

lisafx

« Reply #52 on: August 24, 2010, 10:39 »
0
If Alias would be willing to reveal which of the Istock admins he/she is then maybe we could get a straight answer as to why these "collections" lightboxes have such a narrow scope and exclude so many people?  

It reminds me of people who start "public lightboxes" and then include only their own images and ONE image from someone else so they can make it public.  There has been plenty of "complaining" about that both here and in istock's forums.  It is misleading and a misuse of public lightboxes, just as starting a "hand picked" collection of "the best images" but excluding all independents except one or two is misleading.  

As it is Alias has effectively derailed this thread, which I suspect was the point of his/her posting in the first place.  Well done undercover Istock administrator.  I expect we will see you employ similar tactics in other threads critical of IS much as you have done in the past.  :P
« Last Edit: August 24, 2010, 10:40 by lisafx »

alias

« Reply #53 on: August 24, 2010, 11:08 »
0
If Alias would be willing to reveal which of the Istock admins he/she is then maybe we could get a straight answer as to why these "collections" lightboxes have such a narrow scope and exclude so many people?  

---

As it is Alias has effectively derailed this thread, which I suspect was the point of his/her posting in the first place.  Well done undercover Istock administrator.  I expect we will see you employ similar tactics in other threads critical of IS much as you have done in the past.  :P

Lisa - I am not an IS administrator or anything to do with the company. Not channelling them. Not a fanboy or pretending to speak for them (or pretending to not). Nothing.

I am only a very occasional contributor there since I am involved in something else. I am very impressed with what they have built. My limited experience of IS and the people there is that they are not the sort of people who would play games or tactics as you are suggesting. And you know they have no reason to.

I posted in good faith here for no other reason than to share part of an idea which has been forming in my mind for some while as a result of watching the market evolve, the trends. It seemed relevant to what you had written. As I have written I believe that collections and peer recommendations (the social media networks and our extended peer groups in particular) are going to be a big part of what partially replaces traditional search. I think that we all need to think about that. What I am saying is already happening. I am applying that to the world of stock.

I am genuinely sorry that I have upset you but fully understand that these are sensitive subjectives and our meanings are sometimes misunderstood or confused in translation.

You are not going to get the answer to your question here. But what I have been writing about is definitely a part of the what would be the background to the question you are asking. Look at the trends.
« Last Edit: August 24, 2010, 11:09 by alias »

« Reply #54 on: August 24, 2010, 11:11 »
0
Obviously iStock see some value in creating these lightboxes, but I can't help but wonder if such things as these lightboxes and the currently languishing latest images feed are looked at by proportionally more contributors than buyers.

« Reply #55 on: August 24, 2010, 11:20 »
0
I see Alias' point.  Truthfully iStock stands to gain more by selling indie pictures than by selling exclusives, since they keep 80% of the commission.  And of course they gain the most by selling Vetta, which seems to be the predominant theme in these boxes.

There are a lot of excellent exclusive pictures which I thought should be headlining the School Daze collection, and they aren't even in there.  Probably because they aren't Vetta?  Maybe I missed them in the light box, but how could they not include some of Sean's pictures at the bus stop and with his daughter in class?  Those were classic back to school shots.  Much more useful than a strange looking guy with an apple on his head.

lisafx

« Reply #56 on: August 24, 2010, 11:27 »
0
Since there is a lot of interest in alternative marketing strategies, I started a thread about it here:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/strategies-for-self-marketing-in-microstock/msg157134/?topicseen#new

Borrowed Alias' excellent suggestions.  Since he is eager to share them and many are eager to hear them, I assumed that would be okay :)

« Reply #57 on: August 24, 2010, 13:00 »
0
Actually, for the sake of clarity :
Istock makes more money with exclusive images. All and any of the exclusive images.
That's because of the latest price rise.
Independent images are the least profitable.
This might explain some of their actions.

« Reply #58 on: August 24, 2010, 13:10 »
0
Ooooookay. The topic is Istock Collections lightboxes and you feel that adding a part about starting/promoting the OP's own site is on-topic. Riiiiiiiiiiight.

I have not suggested that anyone promotes their own site alone.

If this thread is only about complaining then I suppose I am OT. But the complaining will not achieve anything. You need to come up with posititve ideas and strategies which independents can use to create for themselves some of the same marketing advantages which non independents enjoy at IS? The front page collections are about marketing.

My suggestion is that a group of independent diamonds could work together to promote an always timely selection of their best images from their own portfolios. Market yourselves as special few and use the social media to propagate the idea that you are some of the best, working together. Use your own marketing to boost your numbers together and to make your work easy to identify. The collections at IS and on other stock sites are new alternatives to search.

You might want to dress yourselves up rather like an agency or a team but really it would be about creating a credible showcase for your work. Award yourselves a logo of distinction. Perhaps they'll put your collection on the front page one day if it is good enough. You want to sell more pictures and so do they. Do something new.

I think suggestion is viable idea only for the top sellers like lisafx pauliewalnut sjlocke etc.
But I remember reading one man  already do some collaborative form like this already. Sorry do not remember name but I think he very known here .
Interesting to know if success was occured for this idea he started. If so, obviously top sellers like aforemention
lisafax, pauliewalnut, sjlocke and other I do not recognized (sorry not implication of insult but I not consistent
informed of top sellers, only what people say here of them).
But I repeat, if so you alias say working solution of propagation with alliance, then for sure the man
already win many here and there would not be complaint like now .
Just my thinking.

« Reply #59 on: August 24, 2010, 15:38 »
0
Actually, for the sake of clarity :
Istock makes more money with exclusive images. All and any of the exclusive images.
That's because of the latest price rise.
Independent images are the least profitable.
This might explain some of their actions.

This is only true if you compare the same number of sold images.

But that only works under the assumption, that buyers are not working on a fixed / limited budget, but buy a fixed number of files whatever the cost is. I am pretty certain that for the vast majority of buyers this assumption is wrong.

So in the end, assuming a given budget to be spent on imagery, Istock will make more money if that budget is spent on the files of independent contributors.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #60 on: August 25, 2010, 01:28 »
0
it isn't just non-exclusives being ignored in these lightboxes. there are multiple images by contributors in these lightboxes. and after noting all the names of contributors included in the lightboxes, I was also very irritated to find that basically the same contributors, more or less, are included in all the special collections as a whole.

I don't like to see rumors and conspiracy theories running rampant. but the special collections are clearly preferred contributor collections...and that just isn't right. it looks like favoritism, it looks like an admin club and it doesn't fairly represent the talent available on iStock.

the content management seems to be more and more specialized these days...disappointing.

ShadySue

« Reply #61 on: August 25, 2010, 02:19 »
0
it isn't just non-exclusives being ignored in these lightboxes. there are multiple images by contributors in these lightboxes. and after noting all the names of contributors included in the lightboxes, I was also very irritated to find that basically the same contributors, more or less, are included in all the special collections as a whole.

I don't like to see rumors and conspiracy theories running rampant. but the special collections are clearly preferred contributor collections...and that just isn't right. it looks like favoritism, it looks like an admin club and it doesn't fairly represent the talent available on iStock.


Oh yes, the same buddies that seem to get favoured Vetta slots, some of whom seem permanently to get off with really awful keywording. It's pretty depressing, actually. (To make it clear: I'm not bitter that I'm not in these lightboxes; I am angry that some truly fantastic shots were left out when some have been, shall we way 'surprisingly' included. That's no way to serve customers.)

« Reply #62 on: August 25, 2010, 07:19 »
0
Oh yes, the same buddies that seem to get favoured Vetta slots, some of whom seem permanently to get off with really awful keywording. It's pretty depressing, actually. (To make it clear: I'm not bitter that I'm not in these lightboxes; I am angry that some truly fantastic shots were left out when some have been, shall we way 'surprisingly' included. That's no way to serve customers.)
If this is true, I can't imagine that it is going to be successful. To me, it feels like it's going to backfire at some point, and cost Getty/istockphoto a lot of money and reputation.

lisafx

« Reply #63 on: August 25, 2010, 10:24 »
0

I don't like to see rumors and conspiracy theories running rampant. but the special collections are clearly preferred contributor collections...and that just isn't right. it looks like favoritism, it looks like an admin club and it doesn't fairly represent the talent available on iStock.


I hadn't noticed that the other "collections" were limited to images from the same few contributors.  That really is a shame.  Not to mention pretty sloppy and haphazard work on the part of whoever put them together. 

I am irritated to be left out, sure, but if I was an exclusive who had popular, relevant images and was still left out, I would be well and truly pi$$ed. 

I tend to agree with Cathy that this will backfire in the end. 

« Reply #64 on: August 25, 2010, 11:17 »
0
The question is how important or effective are these lightboxes in generating sales? I have images of mine included in the "Compelling Critters" lightbox and I don't see any increase in sales of those images or my portfolio as a whole. In fact this month is dismal for me of IS. 

« Reply #65 on: August 25, 2010, 11:22 »
0
The question is how important or effective are these lightboxes in generating sales? I have images of mine included in the "Compelling Critters" lightbox and I don't see any increase in sales of those images or my portfolio as a whole. In fact this month is dismal for me of IS.  

I agree I should think most buyers don't use these lightboxes unless they're really pressed for time.

« Reply #66 on: August 25, 2010, 12:11 »
0
The question is how important or effective are these lightboxes in generating sales? I have images of mine included in the "Compelling Critters" lightbox and I don't see any increase in sales of those images or my portfolio as a whole. In fact this month is dismal for me of IS. 

Do you ever look at the number of views for some of your images, and how fast they go up?  I don't try to keep any formal stats for mine, but I have the impression that approximately since the first week of August, the number of views per image per day has also dropped.  If my impression is correct buyers are not buying, and they're not even kicking tires.

No big surprise, I suppose.  The headline on today's business newspaper where I live admitted that the latest house sale stats from the US were "dismal".  In past 2 years the media tried hard to put a happy face on things for example by saying, "the rate growth in the number of new home foreclosures and distressed mortgages slowed somewhat in April", but now they're just saying, "Awwwwww CRAP!"  (OT, to show that they're not learning anything, the subheading said something like, "the utter failure of all these ridiculous bailout and stimulus programs to keep people with inadequate income in their McMansions only proves how important it is to continue and expand those failed programs" ... or words to that effect ... bitter LOL)

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #67 on: August 25, 2010, 12:18 »
0
I don't think there will be any 'consequence' to these lightboxes other than a 'crying wolf' outcome over time. buyers will surely get tired of seeing the same club in there, if they pay much attention at all to the lightboxes. I think the lightboxes are window dressing, and as such, I have decided not to worry about them too much. the irritation pops up whenever I log in, but that's about it now.

sales are excellent since the launch of f5. no complaints there, so if buyers are happy, I'm happy. but I'm also one of those who likes the new website, despite the specialized content management when it comes to showcased images. that isn't a new thing anyways, that has been happening for close to a year now.

« Reply #68 on: August 25, 2010, 12:34 »
0
The question is how important or effective are these lightboxes in generating sales? I have images of mine included in the "Compelling Critters" lightbox and I don't see any increase in sales of those images or my portfolio as a whole. In fact this month is dismal for me of IS.  

I agree I should think most buyers don't use these lightboxes unless they're really pressed for time.
Maybe they would if the ligtboxes would represent a well rounded collection with something for each; instead of 90% vetta's which arent included in most buyers wallets anyways. In that aspect its probably backfiring already... buyers wont even look at them anymore (as opposed to SS where you usually can find one of your images in a lightbox when it suddenly starts selling suspiciously well)

lisafx

« Reply #69 on: August 25, 2010, 13:05 »
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. 

abimages

« Reply #70 on: August 25, 2010, 16:24 »
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 :)

lisafx

« Reply #71 on: August 25, 2010, 17:47 »
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 :)

Yeah, if you discount the myriad promotional gimmicks, price decreases for independent images,  and the search engine bias there's no evidence at all ;)

« Reply #72 on: August 25, 2010, 18:30 »
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 ...

« Reply #73 on: August 25, 2010, 20:20 »
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 :)

Let me guess...you're exclusive at IS. Difficult to tell, since you haven't bothered to share anything about yourself in your profile. Funny how that works.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #74 on: August 25, 2010, 22:12 »
0
sorry, wrong button, see next post
« Last Edit: August 25, 2010, 22:14 by hawk_eye »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
30 Replies
12423 Views
Last post September 30, 2008, 01:03
by RacePhoto
0 Replies
1448 Views
Last post April 08, 2009, 07:26
by vii-studio
1 Replies
7247 Views
Last post March 14, 2011, 05:33
by fotorob
90 Replies
20941 Views
Last post March 22, 2010, 11:28
by stockastic
27 Replies
5380 Views
Last post September 05, 2012, 08:24
by robhainer

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results