pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Agency collection? oh! boy!  (Read 29829 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

lagereek

« on: November 30, 2010, 11:55 »
0
Not untill now have I had the time to sort of browse the Agency collection and I understand why the Admin and supplyers got so uptight. Man, this is such a piece of serious crap its unbelievable, its the same old plastic, dead-pale codswhallop people as we saw the first year in the Micro business, BAD photography as well.

How can anybody with any self-esteam even want to show they got this for sale?  its an insult, a mega insult to buyers, clients, even contributors.


nruboc

« Reply #1 on: November 30, 2010, 12:37 »
0
Not untill now have I had the time to sort of browse the Agency collection and I understand why the Admin and supplyers got so uptight. Man, this is such a piece of serious crap its unbelievable, its the same old plastic, dead-pale codswhallop people as we saw the first year in the Micro business, BAD photography as well.

How can anybody with any self-esteam even want to show they got this for sale?  its an insult, a mega insult to buyers, clients, even contributors.

I searched for "business" in Agency and Vetta, and I feel the agency ones are good shots, they remind me ALOT of Yuri's style, I wouldn't be able to distinguish between the two. So based on that, they are definitely not worth the price premium when Yuri's are so much cheaper. Granted I didn't zoom in on any to see quality and I didn't search on any other keywords. What did you browse for?

« Reply #2 on: November 30, 2010, 12:44 »
0
I don't think they are all that bad, I just don't think they are worth the astronomical prices being charged. They definitely look like standard stock fare that can be found at any site so I dont see the compelling reason for them to be so highly priced.  I think it's just a way for Getty to move all their images to their cash-cow, iStock.  they want to take advantage of the huge buyer-base there.  Sadly, I feel they will just begin to alienate all those buyers that made iStock what it is today (or perhaps I should say "what it was yesterday").

« Reply #3 on: November 30, 2010, 15:02 »
0
Not untill now have I had the time to sort of browse the Agency collection and I understand why the Admin and supplyers got so uptight. Man, this is such a piece of serious crap its unbelievable, its the same old plastic, dead-pale codswhallop people as we saw the first year in the Micro business, BAD photography as well.

How can anybody with any self-esteam even want to show they got this for sale?  its an insult, a mega insult to buyers, clients, even contributors.

So, trying to raise prices to a mid level is bad... Micro pricing is bad...  What's the answer?

RT


« Reply #4 on: November 30, 2010, 15:10 »
0

« Reply #5 on: November 30, 2010, 15:36 »
0
I hope this agency thing is the begining of a new model where prices grow for all of us in general microstock. Im not exclusive so the agency collection has no interest to me other than that.
Why would a photographer complain about the prices being too expensive?

« Reply #6 on: November 30, 2010, 15:42 »
0
I hope this agency thing is the begining of a new model where prices grow for all of us in general microstock. Im not exclusive so the agency collection has no interest to me other than that.
Why would a photographer complain about the prices being too expensive?
Because the number of downloads falls.  I don't mind different price levels but as a non-exclusive with istock, there isn't any incentive anymore.  They are scaring away buyers with higher prices and my images are stuck way down the search behind all these collections.  And to make me feel better, they cut my commission :)

lisafx

« Reply #7 on: November 30, 2010, 15:52 »
0

Why would a photographer complain about the prices being too expensive?

I suspect that few of us would be complaining if they were raising the price and giving us our originally contracted % of those raises.  The problem comes when they are raising the prices and lowering commissions.  Putting the squeeze on buyers and sellers both is....wait for it...."unsustainable".

Also agree with Sharpshot - scaring away buyers is not in anybody's interest.

« Reply #8 on: November 30, 2010, 16:38 »
0
I'd rather suggest to raise quality standards along with image prices (along with the original % commission iStock once gave us).

Drop all the colelctions and Vettas etc. Have an agency with one price point so buyers know what they are in for from the beginning.

Keep it simple, stupid.

« Reply #9 on: November 30, 2010, 16:52 »
0

« Reply #10 on: November 30, 2010, 17:03 »
0
Putting the squeeze on buyers and sellers both is....wait for it...."unsustainable".

Also agree with Sharpshot - scaring away buyers is not in anybody's interest.
We all now know that IS decided at some point that it could do whatever it wanted to squeeze its long time contributors. The cut in royalties, the Agency collection, take its favoritism for its pets to new highs (or lows), etc. IS would let us whine and 'vent' on the forums for a while and then everything would always go back to normal.

But I don't think anyone will forget that one word 'unsustainable'.

IS might as well rename itself 'unstustainableStock.com'.

« Reply #11 on: November 30, 2010, 17:14 »
0
SJLOCKE:

So, trying to raise prices to a mid level is bad... Micro pricing is bad...  What's the answer?


I think the answer is fair pricing for better images (Vetta), fair commission for the contributors AND a better licensing model.
A national magazine (Time) should not be able to get away with running a cover image and only paying a few pennies + extended license. Neither should a national or multi- national be able to put a model's image on a multi- million dollar product (Shampoo for instance) and only have to pay a few dollars + extended license. That is just highway robbery.

A cheap image for a blog is fine. A cheap image for a website that will be changed out in a few weeks, also fine.
We need to have a better license set up for the use of our imagery.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #12 on: November 30, 2010, 17:39 »
0
SJLOCKE:

So, trying to raise prices to a mid level is bad... Micro pricing is bad...  What's the answer?


I think the answer is fair pricing for better images (Vetta), fair commission for the contributors AND a better licensing model.
A national magazine (Time) should not be able to get away with running a cover image and only paying a few pennies + extended license. Neither should a national or multi- national be able to put a model's image on a multi- million dollar product (Shampoo for instance) and only have to pay a few dollars + extended license. That is just highway robbery.

A cheap image for a blog is fine. A cheap image for a website that will be changed out in a few weeks, also fine.
We need to have a better license set up for the use of our imagery.
The trouble is that even on the macros/midstocks (I know about Alamy, and understand some others are the same) the newspapers, who in the UK at least are seriously feeling the pinch, have negotiated rock bottom prices - and often don't pay for months.
Also, it would be almost impossible to police usage. I can just imagine companies getting their employees to download images onto their home pcs looking as if it was for personal use. Given that the worst that's likely to happen is that they'd be made to cough up the full price, it could be worth it, given they'd seldom be found out, especially if they used well-sold images.
Think that wouldn't happen? Remember, Time didn't pay the EL on both images until they were made to. The first time may be put down to carelessness, and serve as anecdotal evidence for my theory that lots of purchasers don't even know they're supposed to be buying ELs. But the second time?
Finally, on iStock (I haven't a clue about the others) the large companies get huge discounts for huge credit bundles, which we didn't know about until fairly recently: much lower than the "prices as low as" which are advertised on the site, whereas of course the private individual, charity or small business has to pay full whack. It's called 'business', and is the way of the world. For better or worse.

« Reply #13 on: November 30, 2010, 17:48 »
0
Not untill now have I had the time to sort of browse the Agency collection and I understand why the Admin and supplyers got so uptight. Man, this is such a piece of serious crap its unbelievable, its the same old plastic, dead-pale codswhallop people as we saw the first year in the Micro business, BAD photography as well.

How can anybody with any self-esteam even want to show they got this for sale?  its an insult, a mega insult to buyers, clients, even contributors.

So, trying to raise prices to a mid level is bad... Micro pricing is bad...  What's the answer?

I don't think raising prices is necessarily bad - depends on how much and what for.

I think most of the Agency material that came from iStock contributors is very good stock and having a Vetta-like collection for those premium items - at the same price as the old Vetta prices - would have made some sense. Light and dark; pure stock and offbeat/edgy; Agency & Vetta as two premium collections at the same price but with different editing criteria.

I cannot for one moment see anything sane in Agency being priced higher than Vetta. Some of the outside content brought from Getty just shouldn't be on iStock at all; some is fine, but only at the old Vetta pricing.

I think that it's theoretically possible to raise prices too high so that income actually falls. Once you've done that, dropping prices back and trying to persuade those who've left that you didn't really mean it is hard.

molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #14 on: November 30, 2010, 18:52 »
0
SJLOCKE:

So, trying to raise prices to a mid level is bad... Micro pricing is bad...  What's the answer?


I think the answer is fair pricing for better images (Vetta), fair commission for the contributors AND a better licensing model.
A national magazine (Time) should not be able to get away with running a cover image and only paying a few pennies + extended license. Neither should a national or multi- national be able to put a model's image on a multi- million dollar product (Shampoo for instance) and only have to pay a few dollars + extended license. That is just highway robbery.

A cheap image for a blog is fine. A cheap image for a website that will be changed out in a few weeks, also fine.
We need to have a better license set up for the use of our imagery.

What you are wishing for is RM. Interesting how microstockers -which is based on RF- dream about RM in the name of fairness, after they underminded that licencing scheme and pricing. What a facepalm. : ) I was amused to see that Istock, as * dumb as they always are, even have this designer spotlight thing, where ppl can see their images used in maybe even multi million dollar campaigns, and ponder upon how they got 5 bucks for 'getting involved' : ) Epic fail.

« Reply #15 on: November 30, 2010, 19:14 »
0
Not exactly RM. At least as I understand it RM specifies exactly how long an image may be used.
Also as I understand it RM often requires an image not be made available for anyone else to license during that use period.

Please feel free to correct me if I am mistaken about this.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #16 on: November 30, 2010, 19:17 »
0
Not exactly RM. At least as I understand it RM specifies exactly how long an image may be used.
Also as I understand it RM often requires an image not be made available for anyone else to license during that use period.
Please feel free to correct me if I am mistaken about this.
RM can require an image not to be made available to anyone else during that period. That is extremely expensive.
Or it can require particular usage, e.g. a calendar, a book cover, an advertisement for a particular industry for a particular period.
Or it can just be licensed for a particular use for a particular time, with no exclusivity clause.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #17 on: November 30, 2010, 19:46 »
0
SJLOCKE:

So, trying to raise prices to a mid level is bad... Micro pricing is bad...  What's the answer?


I think the answer is fair pricing for better images (Vetta), fair commission for the contributors AND a better licensing model.
A national magazine (Time) should not be able to get away with running a cover image and only paying a few pennies + extended license. Neither should a national or multi- national be able to put a model's image on a multi- million dollar product (Shampoo for instance) and only have to pay a few dollars + extended license. That is just highway robbery.

why not? my image was used on the cover of TIME. I got an extended license, my name credited inside the cover of TIME, TIME sent me 20 copies of the cover without being asked, I can include TIME Magazine cover in my portfolio, and--most importantly--I still get to sell the image they used and continue to make money on it. I don't feel jilted at all by TIME Magazine purchasing my image via iStock.

The Agency images are good images overall IMO. Like Vetta, there is some crap in there that I can't believe made it in. But overall it's a fairly good collection of purely great stock imagery. Kind of a sure thing collection. My concern is that iStock is looking through gold-coloured glasses after the success of Vetta. only time will tell if they're pushing the envelope right off the table. But as things stand, buyers are buying the higher priced files. Higher prices are good for us (exclusives). I've certainly enjoyed my income growth as an exclusive.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2010, 19:49 by SNP »

« Reply #18 on: November 30, 2010, 21:36 »
0
What you are wishing for is RM. Interesting how microstockers -which is based on RF- dream about RM in the name of fairness, after they underminded that licencing scheme and pricing. What a facepalm. : )


While it may be true that RF undermined RM, RF at trad agencies long predated microstock.

I think tightening up the licensing terms for a standard license (and reducing the print run limits a bit) makes sense, but you can't realistically do RM licensing on a mass-market scale. Extended licenses - as prepackaged RM rights - have worked well with microstock IMO.

« Reply #19 on: November 30, 2010, 21:47 »
0
@SNP

Why not?


Well, (takes deep breath) because while periodicals are not wiling to pay much of anything for editorial imagery (the stuff they use to illustrate the stories on the inside), the cover is a different story altogether. The cover is what moves magazines off the shelf at the newsstands and that is worth more than a measly cut of an anemic extended license.

I'm glad you are happy that you got twenty free issues of the magazine and have a tear sheet for your portfolio.
Sorry to say that the mention on the inside cover is practically next to worthless except for bragging rights.
It's highly doubtful that you will get further jobs from that.

Your attitude tells me that you don't yet make a living with your imagery and are probably very young.
I expect that your tune will change ten years or so down the road.

helix7

« Reply #20 on: November 30, 2010, 21:57 »
0
I hope this agency thing is the begining of a new model where prices grow for all of us in general microstock. Im not exclusive so the agency collection has no interest to me other than that.
Why would a photographer complain about the prices being too expensive?

Because many people don't believe in midstock as the wave of the future. I'm certainly one of those people. If istock plans to go midstock, that's fine and it's certainly their choice to do so. I just don't believe it's the right move, and I think buyers who have become accustomed to microstock prices will remain with microstock agencies.

So istock's move is counterproductive, at least in my humble opinion. Fortunately for me, I'm not exclusive. But if I were, and I shared in the opinion that midstock is a bad move, then as much as I'd appreciate the higher prices I'd be concerned about the long-term future of the company under a midstock pricing model.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #21 on: November 30, 2010, 23:07 »
0
Not untill now have I had the time to sort of browse the Agency collection and I understand why the Admin and supplyers got so uptight. Man, this is such a piece of serious crap its unbelievable, its the same old plastic, dead-pale codswhallop people as we saw the first year in the Micro business, BAD photography as well.

How can anybody with any self-esteam even want to show they got this for sale?  its an insult, a mega insult to buyers, clients, even contributors.

While they may not have gotten the collections right, they got the idea right. Prices need to go up overall and especially for premium content.

Why should a group of models shot with a $5K 24MP DSLR be the same price as a brick wall shot with a $100 2MP pocket camera?

A few years ago a buyer would have paid a few hundred or a few thousand dollars for a lot of those shots.

It's an insult to talented contributors to keep charging peanuts for their excellent work.

The problem is that I don't think IS knows where the line is between premium and average content. They'll continue experimenting until they find it.  At least somebody is trying.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #22 on: December 01, 2010, 01:18 »
0
@SNP

Why not?


Well, (takes deep breath) because while periodicals are not wiling to pay much of anything for editorial imagery (the stuff they use to illustrate the stories on the inside), the cover is a different story altogether. The cover is what moves magazines off the shelf at the newsstands and that is worth more than a measly cut of an anemic extended license.

I'm glad you are happy that you got twenty free issues of the magazine and have a tear sheet for your portfolio.
Sorry to say that the mention on the inside cover is practically next to worthless except for bragging rights.
It's highly doubtful that you will get further jobs from that.

Your attitude tells me that you don't yet make a living with your imagery and are probably very young.
I expect that your tune will change ten years or so down the road.

I do this full-time, I also work as an editorial photographer for 'real' money on images I neither own the rights to, nor have the ability to continue selling. Either way, one image sold on istock OR as a custom shoot typically garners me a few cents to up to a few thousand dollars.

the main point I made, which you didn't address and which makes a huge amount of difference, is that I keep the rights and continue to sell the image. it's not like once it was on TIME, it's off the market. they do not gain exclusive use of that image on their cover. as for thinking I'm young, thank you ;-) I am still young, though my niece and nephew think 36 is old.

ETA: despite disagreeing, I've had a look at your website nosaya...beautiful photographs.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2010, 02:05 by SNP »

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #23 on: December 01, 2010, 01:20 »
0
Not untill now have I had the time to sort of browse the Agency collection and I understand why the Admin and supplyers got so uptight. Man, this is such a piece of serious crap its unbelievable, its the same old plastic, dead-pale codswhallop people as we saw the first year in the Micro business, BAD photography as well.

How can anybody with any self-esteam even want to show they got this for sale?  its an insult, a mega insult to buyers, clients, even contributors.

While they may not have gotten the collections right, they got the idea right. Prices need to go up overall and especially for premium content.

Why should a group of models shot with a $5K 24MP DSLR be the same price as a brick wall shot with a $100 2MP pocket camera?

A few years ago a buyer would have paid a few hundred or a few thousand dollars for a lot of those shots.

It's an insult to talented contributors to keep charging peanuts for their excellent work.

The problem is that I don't think IS knows where the line is between premium and average content. They'll continue experimenting until they find it.  At least somebody is trying.

some great points Paulie

lagereek

« Reply #24 on: December 01, 2010, 01:30 »
0
Not untill now have I had the time to sort of browse the Agency collection and I understand why the Admin and supplyers got so uptight. Man, this is such a piece of serious crap its unbelievable, its the same old plastic, dead-pale codswhallop people as we saw the first year in the Micro business, BAD photography as well.

How can anybody with any self-esteam even want to show they got this for sale?  its an insult, a mega insult to buyers, clients, even contributors.

So, trying to raise prices to a mid level is bad... Micro pricing is bad...  What's the answer?

Hi there!

Well Im all for price increases actually but the material has to go with it, IMO, and Im afraid of what I saw in this collection, IS, have got far superior stuff, even the early stuff at IS was better.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
215 Replies
44077 Views
Last post September 20, 2010, 07:06
by Microbius
6 Replies
4876 Views
Last post September 17, 2010, 01:08
by leaf
85 Replies
25466 Views
Last post November 09, 2010, 20:54
by Chico
10 Replies
4189 Views
Last post October 28, 2010, 11:34
by WarrenPrice
6 Replies
3627 Views
Last post July 30, 2011, 13:19
by leaf

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle