MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: oxman on May 17, 2012, 20:22
-
Just did a quick scan of the newest 500 images in the Agency Collection with the oldest of that set ULed 9/17/2010.
Of 500 images at the higher pricing Agency Collection, only FOUR have sold.
I wonder if Getty will get the message buyers are sending?
-
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-15931558-philipino-woman-in-apron-with-arms-crossed-outside-of-shop.php?st=82120b5 (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-15931558-philipino-woman-in-apron-with-arms-crossed-outside-of-shop.php?st=82120b5)
This one from March 2011 sold over 50 times. I think you didn't do your search right.
-
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-15931558-philipino-woman-in-apron-with-arms-crossed-outside-of-shop.php?st=82120b5[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-15931558-philipino-woman-in-apron-with-arms-crossed-outside-of-shop.php?st=82120b5[/url])
This one from March 2011 sold over 50 times. I think you didn't do your search right.
Do a search by FILE AGE in Agency Collection. Lemme know what you see :)
-
Oh I see what you are saying, I can't tell how old they are because most of them are from outside collections not iStock contributors so the dates are all wrong. They could be only a few days old.
-
Oh I see what you are saying, I can't tell how old they are because most of them are from outside collections not iStock contributors so the dates are all wrong. They could be only a few days old.
Boy, look at all that crap from "PlushStudios". That's PP level, not Agency.
-
Most of the agency files look like standard stock images you could find in the main collection, what makes them worth 6 times the price?
-
Oh I see what you are saying, I can't tell how old they are because most of them are from outside collections not iStock contributors so the dates are all wrong. They could be only a few days old.
Boy, look at all that crap from "PlushStudios". That's PP level, not Agency.
well said....and look this http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14624082-large-crowd-smiling.php?st=dd2f202 (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14624082-large-crowd-smiling.php?st=dd2f202) all the people have close eyes
-
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-15931558-philipino-woman-in-apron-with-arms-crossed-outside-of-shop.php?st=82120b5[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-15931558-philipino-woman-in-apron-with-arms-crossed-outside-of-shop.php?st=82120b5[/url])
This one from March 2011 sold over 50 times. I think you didn't do your search right.
That guy alone sold almost 9k of them from sep 2010. He'll turn gold before he'd been selling photo as at IS for 2 years. And 10k translates to something like 50-80k regular exclusive sales (depends on the royalty percentage you're getting). And there's quite a few of those guys, not to mention they're selling stuff on Getty for a while and that that's not their whole port that you see at IS (meaning there's more on Getty)
-
Oh I see what you are saying, I can't tell how old they are because most of them are from outside collections not iStock contributors so the dates are all wrong. They could be only a few days old.
Boy, look at all that crap from "PlushStudios". That's PP level, not Agency.
well said....and look this [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14624082-large-crowd-smiling.php?st=dd2f202[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14624082-large-crowd-smiling.php?st=dd2f202[/url]) all the people have close eyes
Look at a lot of the comments under these agency shots. They are not kind and they say a lot about what customers think of these old (most of these shots were taken 5 + years ago), bad quality and extremely expensive. I do believe getty is driving customers away with this business model. I don't think they care because they dominate news, sports, macro and entertainment. They after all say they don't want "too stocky" shots. Do they also say not too sportsy, too newsy, or too entertainy? With all the "old macro" dump buyers are stupid if they buy this crap. There are better regular files all over istock.
-
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-15931558-philipino-woman-in-apron-with-arms-crossed-outside-of-shop.php?st=82120b5[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-15931558-philipino-woman-in-apron-with-arms-crossed-outside-of-shop.php?st=82120b5[/url])
This one from March 2011 sold over 50 times. I think you didn't do your search right.
And that's despite deserving a white-balance rejection!
-
What are you whining about? If the more expensive images are crappy, isn't that a GOOD THING for us regular contributors?
-
Look at a lot of the comments under these agency shots. They are not kind and they say a lot about what customers think of these old (most of these shots were taken 5 + years ago), bad quality and extremely expensive. I do believe getty is driving customers away with this business model.
[/quote]
I doubt very much if 'they'ever look at feedback given on files. I hope the buyer also contacted Support.
They've probably got an auto-button saying, "This is correct. Half of the models were told to shut their eyes."
Ironically, I usually bin editorial crowd scenes if an 'obvious' person has their eyes closed. Of course, it's difficult to avoid.
If I'd have shot something like that (non-editorial) I'd have taken several shots in rapid succession and cloned the eyes where necessary. That's just shoddy workpersonship.
-
What are you whining about? If the more expensive images are crappy, isn't that a GOOD THING for us regular contributors?
For other agencies, no doubt it is a very good thing.
-
Look at a lot of the comments under these agency shots. They are not kind and they say a lot about what customers think of these old (most of these shots were taken 5 + years ago), bad quality and extremely expensive. I do believe getty is driving customers away with this business model.
I doubt very much if 'they'ever look at feedback given on files. I hope the buyer also contacted Support.
They've probably got an auto-button saying, "This is correct. Half of the models were told to shut their eyes."
Ironically, I usually bin editorial crowd scenes if an 'obvious' person has their eyes closed. Of course, it's difficult to avoid.
If I'd have shot something like that (non-editorial) I'd have taken several shots in rapid succession and cloned the eyes where necessary. That's just shoddy workpersonship.
[/quote]
I couldn't agree more. The market is saturated. There is TONS of competition. Buyers who come to microstock sites don't give a crap about exclusivity (at least the ones I've talked to don't). Getty is really kidding itself if it thinks it can continue to charge these amounts for Agency files and Vetta files when cheaper alternatives can be had elsewhere. No wonder sales of Vetta, GI and Agency files are slipping. It's amazing to me that Getty hasn't stuck to the original iStock model that made iStock such a success. It's clear they're just in it for a quick buck. They're gonna lose in the end if they continue down this path.