Author Topic: Another Massive Best Match Shift (Read 287458 times)

gostwyck · « **Reply #125 on:** December 22, 2011, 16:03 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on December 22, 2011, 15:54

Wasn't Yuri recently complaining about sales in general?

If you call 2 years ago 'recent'. Bizarrely he seemed to assume that his return per image should remain static despite the millions of new images (including his own) being uploaded each year. No sensible person that I know ever believed that the growth in demand could keep up with the growth in supply ... forever. He's still making a good living though.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #126 on:** December 22, 2011, 16:09 »

Quote from: jsnover on December 22, 2011, 15:45

Quote from: pro@stockphotos on December 22, 2011, 15:31
...I just know that independents do not help istock in the long run. ...

I think exclusives will be much worse off in an iStock that has no independents, (1) because you can't be a one-stop shop for a huge number of buyers and (2) because you then have no group to offset your higher royalty rate with, which means the Getty 20% will be your commission across the board.

That's debatable. It would depend on how much revenue dropped from losing indies.

What percentage of IS is exclusive vs indie? 10% exclusive?

If the current revenue was divided up between 5,000 (?) people instead of 50,000 (?) would the remaining people, even with the 20% flat rate, make more or less? Hard to say.

Gettyimages is image/shoot exclusive so maybe this is where they're headed with IS.

Just sayin'

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #127 on:** December 22, 2011, 16:12 »

Quote from: gostwyck on December 22, 2011, 16:03

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on December 22, 2011, 15:54
Wasn't Yuri recently complaining about sales in general?

If you call 2 years ago 'recent'. Bizarrely he seemed to assume that his return per image should remain static despite the millions of new images (including his own) being uploaded each year. No sensible person that I know ever believed that the growth in demand could keep up with the growth in supply ... forever. He's still making a good living though.

2 years ago?

Maybe you need a new clock

gostwyck · « **Reply #128 on:** December 22, 2011, 16:14 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 22, 2011, 16:00

Which 'lastest bold move'?
A temporary best match shift for a few days at a quiet time of year?
(Even though I think this best match is irrational, I don't think on it's own it's the final nail in the coffin.)

Depends how 'temporary' it turns out to be. Right now it is not worth the time of independent contributors to upload new images to Istock. I'm really not sure that that will ever change in the future.

Maybe it will help Istock if exclusives now become too frightened to give up their crowns. Who knows?

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #129 on:** December 22, 2011, 16:17 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on December 22, 2011, 15:30

Quote from: jbarber873 on December 22, 2011, 15:22
^^ What's "best" or "inferior" is all perception. There are plenty of images that "pro" contributors would scoff at as inferior that sell like crazy. So as long as what's on the first couple of pages of search resuts is "good enough" it will probably sell.
---------->
That's true, and if they can find it cheaper somewhere else they will go there.

But that's the point.

It's exclusive content. It isn't anywhere else.

Sure - but that is no gauge of quality. And while good enough may do, if it costs more than stuff elsewhere that's sorted so that slightly better than good enough is at the front, where will people eventually go? To the expensive "just good enough, but, hey, you can't find it elsewhere" site, or to the "better than just good enough and much cheaper than iStock" site.

Which is the point I was making that Loop choked on. Maybe I phrased it slightly provocatively

but it is a serious point. Exclusivity is not a selling point unless something is not only not available elsewhere but is also better than what is elsewhere. And there's so much imitation that a lot of stuff that an exclusive has is no different from what is available elsewhere. There are travel shots I've taken where I've stood in the same spot as a Getty photographer at the same time of day and pointed my camera at the same thing, and the same goes for some "exclusive" material (I should point out that these are coincidences, not deliberate copying).

You can only market exclusive work as deserving premium prices if it is actually different from or superior to what is available elsewhere. "Just good enough" doesn't hack it at the higher price point.

BImages · « **Reply #130 on:** December 22, 2011, 16:27 »

Would you contribute to a site that has the same image quality as SS, but sell their picture at 1/10 of the price?
What would happen to SS is actually happening to Istock...

Do not be blind, every SS sale is a sale lost somewhere else...

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #131 on:** December 22, 2011, 16:28 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 22, 2011, 16:17

You can only market exclusive work as deserving premium prices if it is actually different from or superior to what is available elsewhere. "Just good enough" doesn't hack it at the higher price point.

"That's the image I have to have" means the image gets bought whatever the cost. If it is exclusive, then there's only one place to buy it, and one price for it.

jbarber873 · « **Reply #132 on:** December 22, 2011, 16:32 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 22, 2011, 16:28

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 22, 2011, 16:17
You can only market exclusive work as deserving premium prices if it is actually different from or superior to what is available elsewhere. "Just good enough" doesn't hack it at the higher price point.

"That's the image I have to have" means the image gets bought whatever the cost. If it is exclusive, then there's only one place to buy it, and one price for it.

That used to be the thinking at the RM sites. Sales for "got to have it regardless of the cost" is not what made IS work, and it won't save them in the future. There isn't enough volume.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #133 on:** December 22, 2011, 16:33 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 22, 2011, 16:17

Exclusivity is not a selling point unless something is not only not available elsewhere but is also better than what is elsewhere.

Exclusivity is not a selling point unless something is not only not available elsewhere but ~~is also better~~ also has higher perceived buyer value than what is elsewhere.

Buyers buy for a number of reasons including convenience, deadlines, most profitable, what their client feels is the best image, and on and on.

So "better" means a lot of things to a lot of different people and what it means to contributors really is probably the least important.

Trader Joes is a USA specialty grocery store that is wildly successful. They have their own brands and unique offerings that aren't really any better than any other product. But they charge more because they don't carry the same things as every other grocery store and make boatloads of money doing it.

gostwyck · « **Reply #134 on:** December 22, 2011, 16:34 »

Quote from: Buzbuzzer on December 22, 2011, 16:27

Would you contribute to a site that has the same image quality as SS, but sell their picture at 1/10 of the price?
What would happen to SS is actually happening to Istock...

Do not be blind, every SS sale is a sale lost somewhere else...

Well there was Thinkstock and most of us boycotted it whilst we had a choice ... so I'd say the answer for most of us is 'No'.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #135 on:** December 22, 2011, 16:38 »

Sean, yes, if it is an image someone has found and "must have" they will pay whatever is necessary. But very few sales are like that (at least, at the time of initial selection, once something has customer approval it's different). There are also many close similars all over the place.

If you see Alamy search data you'll notice that most people will find something to suit them on the first page or two of a search. That's a "most suitable without wasting too much time" seach pattern, not a "must find the one-and-only best, must-have image" behaviour.

I don't doubt that your own work justifies a higher price but you are exceptional and this search doesn't seem sophisticated enough to recognise that, so I suspect your older files are getting buried behind more recent exclusive material that is far below your own quality - and it shouldn't be like that if they are trying to promote exclusive work as the mark of excellence.

Quote from: Buzbuzzer on December 22, 2011, 16:27

Would you contribute to a site that has the same image quality as SS, but sell their picture at 1/10 of the price?

Not if the commission was 3c per sale. I don't really understand the point of the question, or who it was aimed at. (And thinkstock never was 1/10 of SS's price).

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #136 on:** December 22, 2011, 16:40 »

Quote from: jbarber873 on December 22, 2011, 16:32

Quote from: sjlocke on December 22, 2011, 16:28
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 22, 2011, 16:17
You can only market exclusive work as deserving premium prices if it is actually different from or superior to what is available elsewhere. "Just good enough" doesn't hack it at the higher price point.

"That's the image I have to have" means the image gets bought whatever the cost. If it is exclusive, then there's only one place to buy it, and one price for it.

That used to be the thinking at the RM sites. Sales for "got to have it regardless of the cost" is not what made IS work, and it won't save them in the future. There isn't enough volume.

2 credits vs. 1 credit is not the same as $5000 for RM vs. $1 for micro.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #137 on:** December 22, 2011, 16:41 »

Quote from: jbarber873 on December 22, 2011, 16:32

Quote from: sjlocke on December 22, 2011, 16:28
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 22, 2011, 16:17
You can only market exclusive work as deserving premium prices if it is actually different from or superior to what is available elsewhere. "Just good enough" doesn't hack it at the higher price point.

"That's the image I have to have" means the image gets bought whatever the cost. If it is exclusive, then there's only one place to buy it, and one price for it.

That used to be the thinking at the RM sites. Sales for "got to have it regardless of the cost" is not what made IS work, and it won't save them in the future. There isn't enough volume.

But the RM sites are potentially hundreds to thousands of dollars.

If a buyer sees a "got to have it exclusive" image on IS for $30 are they really going to waste time wading through other sites trying to find something comparable for maybe $20? I doubt it. Not unless they're billing their client hourly for research time. "Look dear client, I charged you $100 in research fees to save you $10".

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #138 on:** December 22, 2011, 16:50 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on December 22, 2011, 16:41

Quote from: jbarber873 on December 22, 2011, 16:32
Quote from: sjlocke on December 22, 2011, 16:28
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 22, 2011, 16:17
You can only market exclusive work as deserving premium prices if it is actually different from or superior to what is available elsewhere. "Just good enough" doesn't hack it at the higher price point.

"That's the image I have to have" means the image gets bought whatever the cost. If it is exclusive, then there's only one place to buy it, and one price for it.

That used to be the thinking at the RM sites. Sales for "got to have it regardless of the cost" is not what made IS work, and it won't save them in the future. There isn't enough volume.

If a buyer sees a "got to have it exclusive" image on IS for $30 are they really going to waste time wading through other sites trying to find something comparable for maybe $20? I doubt it. Not unless they're billing their client hourly for research time. "Look dear client, I charged you $100 in research fees to save you $10".

Are they going to spend time wading through a poor search result on iStock to find an exclusive "must have" file if they reckon they will probably find one on another site with a better search for a lower price?

If they never see the exclusive's file, they'll never want it.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #139 on:** December 22, 2011, 16:54 »

Wondering if there is really a point to this?

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #140 on:** December 22, 2011, 16:58 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on December 22, 2011, 16:54

Wondering if there is really a point to this?

I suppose that depends on whether iStock execs read the threads or not.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #141 on:** December 22, 2011, 16:59 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on December 22, 2011, 16:54

Wondering if there is really a point to this?

Yes, the winner gets bragging rights as the smartest person on MSG and a bowl of soup.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #142 on:** December 22, 2011, 17:00 »

^^

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #143 on:** December 22, 2011, 17:02 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 22, 2011, 16:58

Quote from: WarrenPrice on December 22, 2011, 16:54
Wondering if there is really a point to this?

I suppose that depends on whether iStock execs read the threads or not.

Of course they do. How do you think they introduce all of these new ways to reduce our benefits? They can come here and openly read contributor's battle plans and adjust accordingly.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #144 on:** December 22, 2011, 17:05 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on December 22, 2011, 17:02

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 22, 2011, 16:58
Quote from: WarrenPrice on December 22, 2011, 16:54
Wondering if there is really a point to this?

I suppose that depends on whether iStock execs read the threads or not.

Of course they do. How do you think they introduce all of these new ways to reduce our benefits? They can come here and openly read contributor's battle plans and adjust accordingly.

Yeah, I guess they'd be pretty bored by their own forums - I know they don't read those.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #145 on:** December 22, 2011, 17:09 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 22, 2011, 17:05

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on December 22, 2011, 17:02
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 22, 2011, 16:58
Quote from: WarrenPrice on December 22, 2011, 16:54
Wondering if there is really a point to this?

I suppose that depends on whether iStock execs read the threads or not.

Of course they do. How do you think they introduce all of these new ways to reduce our benefits? They can come here and openly read contributor's battle plans and adjust accordingly.

Yeah, I guess they'd be pretty bored by their own forums - I know they don't read those.

Nevermind. Just got the joke.

disorderly · « **Reply #146 on:** December 22, 2011, 17:11 »

Quote from: Buzbuzzer on December 22, 2011, 16:27

Do not be blind, every SS sale is a sale lost somewhere else...

Actually no, I don't believe it is. I've had way too many sales of images from series to believe that subscription buyers and individual image buyers behave in exactly the same way. Heck, just the fact that my Shutterstock subscription income exceeds that of every other site I submit to suggests that subscription buyers download a lot more, so many more that they more than make up for the lower per-image compensation I receive. I don't doubt that subscriptions encourage this kind of behavior. I've seen it at Shutterstock, and at CanStock and Deposit as well.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #147 on:** December 22, 2011, 17:14 »

Quote from: disorderly on December 22, 2011, 17:11

Quote from: Buzbuzzer on December 22, 2011, 16:27
Do not be blind, every SS sale is a sale lost somewhere else...

Actually no, I don't believe it is. I've had way too many sales of images from series to believe that subscription buyers and individual image buyers behave in exactly the same way. Heck, just the fact that my Shutterstock subscription income exceeds that of every other site I submit to suggests that subscription buyers download a lot more, so many more that they more than make up for the lower per-image compensation I receive. I don't doubt that subscriptions encourage this kind of behavior. I've seen it at Shutterstock, and at CanStock and Deposit as well.

So are you saying they're hoarding and downloading stuff they wouldn't buy or use?

disorderly · « **Reply #148 on:** December 22, 2011, 17:16 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on December 22, 2011, 17:14

Quote from: disorderly on December 22, 2011, 17:11
Quote from: Buzbuzzer on December 22, 2011, 16:27
Do not be blind, every SS sale is a sale lost somewhere else...

Actually no, I don't believe it is. I've had way too many sales of images from series to believe that subscription buyers and individual image buyers behave in exactly the same way. Heck, just the fact that my Shutterstock subscription income exceeds that of every other site I submit to suggests that subscription buyers download a lot more, so many more that they more than make up for the lower per-image compensation I receive. I don't doubt that subscriptions encourage this kind of behavior. I've seen it at Shutterstock, and at CanStock and Deposit as well.

So are you saying they're hoarding and downloading stuff they wouldn't buy or use?

I'm not saying that. Maybe they are, or maybe they're downloading multiple images so they can choose l'image juste later. Or maybe they're just using up some of their quota on stuff they want to use as desktop backgrounds. I don't know why, but I know I see multiple images downloaded from the same shoot about as often as I see single downloads.

gostwyck · « **Reply #149 on:** December 22, 2011, 17:25 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on December 22, 2011, 17:14

So are you saying they're hoarding and downloading stuff they wouldn't buy or use?

As Cuppacoffee explained some time ago, the company she works for essentially uses the SS library as if it was one of their own servers. When they have a need for images they search on that subject, download what might be suitable and then use what works best. They don't hoard images because it is just easier and quicker to use SS's search facility to find whatever they need at the time that they need it. Having instant access to a library of 17M images, with 4-5M new ones arriving every year, is a fantastic business resource for just $2500 or thereabouts.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Another Massive Best Match Shift (Read 287458 times)

gostwyck

PaulieWalnuts

PaulieWalnuts

gostwyck

BaldricksTrousers

BImages

Sean Locke Photography

jbarber873

PaulieWalnuts

gostwyck

BaldricksTrousers

Sean Locke Photography

PaulieWalnuts

BaldricksTrousers

WarrenPrice

BaldricksTrousers

PaulieWalnuts

WarrenPrice

PaulieWalnuts

BaldricksTrousers

PaulieWalnuts

disorderly

PaulieWalnuts

disorderly

gostwyck

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors