Author Topic: Another Massive Best Match Shift (Read 249224 times)

pro@stockphotos · « **Reply #350 on:** December 28, 2011, 14:30 »

Quote from: imageegami on December 28, 2011, 14:06

Best match at iStock no longer finds the most relevant image, rather it locates most relevant image from a very small subsection of the collection. This is not in any customer`s best interest so there is now yet another incentive for customers to move on to other sites. They are the authors of their own demise.

"Other sites" contain none of istock exclusive content, have the same images of the major independent produces and these sites are made more relevant by having what exactly?" It seems to me they have what would be called a national brand. Istock is currently the only site holding up the prices of microstock. Look what has happened to the cost of TV's. I saw where a 42" tv is on average cheaper than a ipad. How is that possible. without istock or a company who fills that roll prices will collapse just like they have done in TVs and PCs and any other product that has the same suppliers competing in a market place without major differing traits besides pricing.

lthn · « **Reply #351 on:** December 28, 2011, 14:47 »

Those people running that site (and many here) lack analytical thinking, therefore the ability to learn. The result is applying changes for the worse. F.e. istock and many of it's 'exclusives' seem to have a hard time grasping the concept that exclusivity doesn't make much sense in microstock especially in its current state. What is that all about? 'Hey look at my exclusive isolated strawberries?' "Hey look at my exclusive heavily vignetted shots of my neighbor making weird faces' or 'Look at my exclusive PS girlie montage, fairy wings, clouds an' all?'. Sure, you won't anything like that anywhere else... in 10000 versions : )

Mantis · « **Reply #352 on:** December 28, 2011, 14:48 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 28, 2011, 13:38

Under this best match it doesn't matter if we leave or not, we've been made irrelevant (though maybe some people will search by DLs). In any case, even if I earn almost nothing at iS next month, I will still want my $200 from TS.

It matters if we leave in that if all indys were to leave, meaning pull their ports, TS would cease to exist unless they open up a new "application process" specifically for that cheapo charter sites. And with this latest shift, and if it is any indication of what the future holds, IS will just try to make indys happy with a few hundred bucks a month to use as a carrot to keep uploading. For example my TS earnings in nov were close to $300, something like $270. Many indys will stay and upload for that few hundred bucks. They point I am making is that I have always summized that when RCA came out it was the end of indys making anything on IS, and that IS would try to make the IS collection exclusive and dump what they consider the afterbirth (indys work) into TS to keep that collection alive and competing with other sub sites. Seems to be happening now. Just for the record I have had 3 dls there in the last 10 days with a 1900 port and gold canister...pft

jbarber873 · « **Reply #353 on:** December 28, 2011, 14:52 »

Quote from: pro@stockphotos on December 28, 2011, 14:30

Quote from: imageegami on December 28, 2011, 14:06
Best match at iStock no longer finds the most relevant image, rather it locates most relevant image from a very small subsection of the collection. This is not in any customer`s best interest so there is now yet another incentive for customers to move on to other sites. They are the authors of their own demise.

"Other sites" contain none of istock exclusive content, have the same images of the major independent produces and these sites are made more relevant by having what exactly?" It seems to me they have what would be called a national brand. Istock is currently the only site holding up the prices of microstock. Look what has happened to the cost of TV's. I saw where a 42" tv is on average cheaper than a ipad. How is that possible. without istock or a company who fills that roll prices will collapse just like they have done in TVs and PCs and any other product that has the same suppliers competing in a market place without major differing traits besides pricing.

To carry that TV analogy along, at one time Sony was the undisputed leader of top quality televisions with their trinitron technology. They owned the market, just as IS owned the microstock market. What happened? The technology and ability to make a television that was just as good as a Sony became widespread- a commodity. Meanwhile, Sony continued to coast on it's past reputation without seeing that the world was changing. The same thing for portable music players. They owned that market with the walkman. Who owns it now? The lesson you want to take is to hold on to exclusivity as a "unique selling proposition" ( a rather discredited concept started by the defunct ad agency Ted Bates ). Having exclusive content may be valuable for IS, or it may be their own trinitron TV- the rest of the world may be happy without paying up for yesterday's hot product. Photography is a commodity. To make a profit going forward, you will have to create better images that can be profitable at a lower return. there is simply no other way to run it as a business, and not just a hobby.

pancaketom · « **Reply #354 on:** December 28, 2011, 14:54 »

I don't know about everyone else, but IS has WAY less of my images than most of the other sites. Up until the RC announcement that was mostly because of the painful upload process and the upload limits. Since then it is because I stopped uploading there and deactivated many of my images. I imagine that there are plenty of others who don't have all their images at IS for some of the above reasons.

I'd much rather someone buy 15 of my images somewhere else than one from IS - I'd get a lot more $ that way. I also prefer the 35% more I get from SS than the PP program. IS might lead the field in raising image prices, but they also lead the field in lowering commission percentages.

I agree that IS could have completely dominated microstock, but they didn't.

wut · « **Reply #355 on:** December 28, 2011, 15:08 »

Quote from: lagereek on December 28, 2011, 12:22

Me too and thank we didnt. Imagine having to wake up seven days a week, wondering if the site is still there or exploaded, or the entire interface reaching out, to grab you by the balls or what hairy creature is constructing a new best match while eating a banana.
We could be a lot worse off you know.

Wow mate, this is great stuff

. Ur half English, right? I can really appreciate good sense of humour

gostwyck · « **Reply #356 on:** December 28, 2011, 15:21 »

Quote from: pro@stockphotos on December 28, 2011, 14:30

"Other sites" contain none of istock exclusive content, have the same images of the major independent produces and these sites are made more relevant by having what exactly?" It seems to me they have what would be called a national brand. Istock is currently the only site holding up the prices of microstock. Look what has happened to the cost of TV's. I saw where a 42" tv is on average cheaper than a ipad. How is that possible. without istock or a company who fills that roll prices will collapse just like they have done in TVs and PCs and any other product that has the same suppliers competing in a market place without major differing traits besides pricing.

I've never known such dillusional and blinkered ramblings. TV's have remained at roughly the same actual price for about 30 years (in common with quite a few other appliances) whilst employing vastly better technology/design and whilst wages have increased in the Western world by a factor of 10. If that hadn't happened you'd now be paying about $6000 for a 28" model using 1980 technology. The story is much the same in the car industry. The world moves on and productivity is always increasing. Most things get better and cheaper every year (just like the digital technology you probably employ to produce your images). It's called 'progress'.

Why do you think that your images alone in the world have a right to command ever-increasing prices, despite the supply of such images considerably outstripping the demand for them?

Btw, this is why the ipad costs what it does and why Apple struggle to make a profit on them;

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-03-14/tech/30012225_1_ipad-apple-stores-pa-semi

xst · « **Reply #357 on:** December 28, 2011, 15:28 »

However you don’t see now company producing 3inch TV and selling them for 5 dollars. I bet you'd find market for this. Why? Because it’s not viable business model. You do see now WEB sized images for pennies.

Quote from: gostwyck on December 28, 2011, 15:21

Quote from: pro@stockphotos on December 28, 2011, 14:30
"Other sites" contain none of istock exclusive content, have the same images of the major independent produces and these sites are made more relevant by having what exactly?" It seems to me they have what would be called a national brand. Istock is currently the only site holding up the prices of microstock. Look what has happened to the cost of TV's. I saw where a 42" tv is on average cheaper than a ipad. How is that possible. without istock or a company who fills that roll prices will collapse just like they have done in TVs and PCs and any other product that has the same suppliers competing in a market place without major differing traits besides pricing.

I've never known such dillusional and blinkered ramblings. TV's have remained at roughly the same actual price for about 30 years (in common with quite a few other appliances) whilst employing vastly better technology/design and whilst wages have increased in the Western world by a factor of 10. If that hadn't happened you'd now be paying about $6000 for a 28" model using 1980 technology. The story is much the same in the car industry. The world moves on and productivity is always increasing. Most things get better and cheaper every year (just like the digital technology you probably employ to produce your images). It's called 'progress'.

Why do you think that your images alone in the world have a right to command ever-increasing prices, despite the supply of such images considerably outstripping the demand for them?

Btw, this is why the ipad costs what it does and why Apple struggle to make a profit on them;

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-03-14/tech/30012225_1_ipad-apple-stores-pa-semi

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #358 on:** December 28, 2011, 15:36 »

When looking at prices it is fairly important to recognise the difference between selling a manufactured object with a certain manufacturing cost and selling a usage right which has hardly any intrinsic cost.

jbarber873 · « **Reply #359 on:** December 28, 2011, 15:39 »

"However you don’t see now company producing 3inch TV and selling them for 5 dollars. I bet you'd find market for this. Why? Because it’s not viable business model. You do see now WEB sized images for pennies."

If you could make a copy of a tv with the click of a mouse you would see tv's selling for pennies. Once an image is created, selling a copy involves no cost of materials, just the administrative costs of running a stock agency. Selling a digital image can be a very profitable business, once the overhead is brought under control.

markrhiggins · « **Reply #360 on:** December 28, 2011, 15:53 »

"Hopefully next year, the issues that plagued all of us this year will be resolved, and we can return to the community based #1 place that we are meant to be.

Yes, that would be an absolutely fantastic development. Would love for iStock to be the preeminent micro/mid-stock library without issues and glitches. Hopefully 2012 will be off to a rocking start - onwards and upwards."

I love the IS forums! I also love Pollyanna and well behaved hard working teenagers.

gbalex · « **Reply #361 on:** December 28, 2011, 16:00 »

Quote from: imageegami on December 28, 2011, 14:06

Best match at iStock no longer finds the most relevant image, rather it locates most relevant image from a very small subsection of the collection. This is not in any customer`s best interest so there is now yet another incentive for customers to move on to other sites. They are the authors of their own demise.

Best match results have been less that positive for buyers for some time, this latest move just makes it more visible to those who do not buy often.

Don't forget to include in your list... the oh so cleaver section of arrogant exclusives that routinely call buyers stupid!

BImages · « **Reply #362 on:** December 28, 2011, 16:25 »

This best match was predictable...

Instead of moving every independant files from IS to TS, which I tought they would do. Instead, they simply copy them there and change the best match on IS.

It is basically the same thing.

loop · « **Reply #363 on:** December 28, 2011, 16:32 »

Quote from: gbalex on December 28, 2011, 16:00

Quote from: imageegami on December 28, 2011, 14:06
Best match at iStock no longer finds the most relevant image, rather it locates most relevant image from a very small subsection of the collection. This is not in any customer`s best interest so there is now yet another incentive for customers to move on to other sites. They are the authors of their own demise.

Don't forget to include in your list... the oh so cleaver section of arrogant exclusives that routinely call buyers stupid!

Obviously,nobody has called the buyers stupid, but your rant seems to point to some kind of deep frustration. Vent on, if that makes you feel better.

mlwinphoto · « **Reply #364 on:** December 28, 2011, 16:33 »

I'm wondering if the latest best match shift, some form of which I suspect will be in place for a long time, isn't meant to drive away the independent contributors with the smaller ports like myself. I can't imagine iStock would want to lose the Yuri's of the microstock world. But the smaller contributors don't make a dent in their bottom line yet do take up employee time/iStock wages with editing and accounting necessities, take up server space ,etc.....insignificant on an individual basis but significant on a collective one, I would guess.

Regardless, my sales have come to a complete halt and I'm outta there....complete waste of time for someone like myself. I'll focus all my energies on the Getty RM side of things and will, no doubt, be better off in the long run for doing so.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #365 on:** December 28, 2011, 16:36 »

Quote from: markrhiggins on December 28, 2011, 15:53

"Hopefully next year, the issues that plagued all of us this year will be resolved, and we can return to the community based #1 place that we are meant to be.

Yes, that would be an absolutely fantastic development. Would love for iStock to be the preeminent micro/mid-stock library without issues and glitches. Hopefully 2012 will be off to a rocking start - onwards and upwards."

I love the IS forums! I also love Pollyanna and well behaved hard working teenagers.

Sorry, Mark. #1, only the first paragraph is mine. You convienently left out the quotes separating them. #2 What is 'Pollyanna' about hoping for resolution of the problems and issues we've had over the last 12 months.

Try harder next time, Ace.

xst · « **Reply #366 on:** December 28, 2011, 16:41 »

Yes, duplication of images is almost free, however if you take into account the whole process of crating image

Don't forget that photographer has cost - equipment, props, models, insurance, gas, computer for retouching etc

On top of that if it's business you need to make profit to live.

How many images should you sell for pennies to make it viable?
Now market isn't infinite.
How many images can be sold?
Now divide those numbers and you get maximum number of photographers who can live from it.
It's obviously simplification, but
I bet we have many more photographers there.
And only very small fraction of them lives of this business.
For vast majority it's pocket money to pay for hobby. (Unlike TV business)

That's the only reason for prices being that low.

its' like software - there are freeware applications.
But if you want to develop software and live of it, you cannot charge .25c for MS Word

Quote from: jbarber873 on December 28, 2011, 15:39

"However you don’t see now company producing 3inch TV and selling them for 5 dollars. I bet you'd find market for this. Why? Because it’s not viable business model. You do see now WEB sized images for pennies."

If you could make a copy of a tv with the click of a mouse you would see tv's selling for pennies. Once an image is created, selling a copy involves no cost of materials, just the administrative costs of running a stock agency. Selling a digital image can be a very profitable business, once the overhead is brought under control.

gostwyck · « **Reply #367 on:** December 28, 2011, 17:00 »

Quote from: xst on December 28, 2011, 16:41

Yes, duplication of images is almost free, however if you take into account the whole process of crating image

Don't forget that photographer has cost - equipment, props, models, insurance, gas, computer for retouching etc

On top of that if it's business you need to make profit to live.

How many images should you sell for pennies to make it viable?
Now market isn't infinite.
How many images can be sold?
Now divide those numbers and you get maximum number of photographers who can live from it.
It's obviously simplification, but
I bet we have many more photographers there.
And only very small fraction of them lives of this business.
For vast majority it's pocket money to pay for hobby. (Unlike TV business)

That's the only reason for prices being that low.

its' like software - there are freeware applications.
But if you want to develop software and live of it, you cannot charge .25c for MS Word

Quote from: jbarber873 on December 28, 2011, 15:39
"However you don’t see now company producing 3inch TV and selling them for 5 dollars. I bet you'd find market for this. Why? Because it’s not viable business model. You do see now WEB sized images for pennies."

If you could make a copy of a tv with the click of a mouse you would see tv's selling for pennies. Once an image is created, selling a copy involves no cost of materials, just the administrative costs of running a stock agency. Selling a digital image can be a very profitable business, once the overhead is brought under control.

So what's your solution? Ignore the market and price your images according to what you think they're worth? Or do you work within the constraints of the market and adapt your costs to suit? If you can't then they'll always be someone who can.

It would be interesting if agencies just let us set our own prices for what we thought our work was worth (like most suppliers can or at least try to). Unfortunately that would probably be too unpredictable for the bean-counters to deal with.

jbarber873 · « **Reply #368 on:** December 28, 2011, 17:03 »

Quote from: xst on December 28, 2011, 16:41

Yes, duplication of images is almost free, however if you take into account the whole process of crating image

Don't forget that photographer has cost - equipment, props, models, insurance, gas, computer for retouching etc

On top of that if it's business you need to make profit to live.

How many images should you sell for pennies to make it viable?
Now market isn't infinite.
How many images can be sold?
Now divide those numbers and you get maximum number of photographers who can live from it.
It's obviously simplification, but
I bet we have many more photographers there.
And only very small fraction of them lives of this business.
For vast majority it's pocket money to pay for hobby. (Unlike TV business)

That's the only reason for prices being that low.

its' like software - there are freeware applications.
But if you want to develop software and live of it, you cannot charge .25c for MS Word

Quote from: jbarber873 on December 28, 2011, 15:39
"However you don’t see now company producing 3inch TV and selling them for 5 dollars. I bet you'd find market for this. Why? Because it’s not viable business model. You do see now WEB sized images for pennies."

If you could make a copy of a tv with the click of a mouse you would see tv's selling for pennies. Once an image is created, selling a copy involves no cost of materials, just the administrative costs of running a stock agency. Selling a digital image can be a very profitable business, once the overhead is brought under control.

That's all true. I don't however, see where the exclusive model as practiced by IS solves this issue. As i said before, photography is a commodity. You simply have to find a way to create images that generate a profit. The only reason that microstock interests me is that it's something i can do in my downtime. My assignment business makes the profit, but the microstock business pays for the studio, electric, equipment, etc. I don't use models, and I have an extensive prop collection paid for by clients, so anything I shoot for microstock is just gravy. I prefer the way it was before microstock, when RM generated amazing amounts of money, but you can't go back, only forward. All the points you make were made at the time by the RM photographers, and the microstock world just laughed, because they got to play at being a professional. Some actually have made it work, and they know what they have to do to make a profit. The rest are hobbyists, and a hobby that generates income and the satisfaction of approval by sales is a rare one, which explains it's allure.

gbalex · « **Reply #369 on:** December 28, 2011, 17:33 »

Quote from: loop on December 28, 2011, 16:32

Quote from: gbalex on December 28, 2011, 16:00
Quote from: imageegami on December 28, 2011, 14:06
Best match at iStock no longer finds the most relevant image, rather it locates most relevant image from a very small subsection of the collection. This is not in any customer`s best interest so there is now yet another incentive for customers to move on to other sites. They are the authors of their own demise.

Don't forget to include in your list... the oh so cleaver section of arrogant exclusives that routinely call buyers stupid!

Obviously,nobody has called the buyers stupid, but your rant seems to point to some kind of deep frustration. Vent on, if that makes you feel better.

No venting, just observations over time. Even in this thread you only have to go back a few pages to see comments regarding dumb customers, customers not smart enough to use the IS slider or customers who are not intelligent enough to notice what IS is serving us and why!

lagereek · « **Reply #370 on:** December 28, 2011, 17:42 »

Exodus of exclusives at IS! they never expected this walk-out and certainly not from any heavy-weights, etc. It also creates a very bad face for newcomers and lower cannisters to see big names just throw the crown and they start wondering what . is going on.
They simply had to do something, so they changed the best match, in 100% favour of exclusives. Fat help that did? many are still going independant.

So all in all, exclusives will ofcourse carry on dropping crowns, theyre not going to get fooled by this just temporary change, at the same time they have just made arch-enemies of all independants.
Well, what a lovely 2012 and future its going to be in that place. I must say, I do not envy them. Its without a shadow of a doubt, the silliest most banal move I have experienced in 27 years of photography.

loop · « **Reply #371 on:** December 28, 2011, 18:06 »

Quote from: gbalex on December 28, 2011, 17:33

Quote from: loop on December 28, 2011, 16:32
Quote from: gbalex on December 28, 2011, 16:00
Quote from: imageegami on December 28, 2011, 14:06
Best match at iStock no longer finds the most relevant image, rather it locates most relevant image from a very small subsection of the collection. This is not in any customer`s best interest so there is now yet another incentive for customers to move on to other sites. They are the authors of their own demise.

Don't forget to include in your list... the oh so cleaver section of arrogant exclusives that routinely call buyers stupid!

Obviously,nobody has called the buyers stupid, but your rant seems to point to some kind of deep frustration. Vent on, if that makes you feel better.

No venting, just observations over time. Even in this thread you only have to go back a few pages to see comments regarding dumb customers, customers not smart enough to use the IS slider or customers who are not intelligent enough to notice what IS is serving us and why!

Lie. What has been said is that it was dumb to suppose, as some, (btw, not-exclusives) had suggested in some or other way, that customers were too dumb to find the slider, etc. It's not what you say: it's exactly the contrary. And you know it.

michaeldb · « **Reply #372 on:** December 28, 2011, 18:08 »

Quote from: loop on December 28, 2011, 16:32

Obviously,nobody has called the buyers stupid, but your rant seems to point to some kind of deep frustration. Vent on, if that makes you feel better.

"Vent on, if that makes you feel better."
The official motto of the iStock Contributor Relations Department?

xst · « **Reply #373 on:** December 28, 2011, 18:21 »

My whole response started form explaining that analogy with TV manufacturing doesn't hold.
That's all.

Frankly - my solution - it's like in acting.
There are some few who can have this as main job.
Most of the people have to get another main job. (in you case - main job is assignments)
Yes, Johnny Depp may earn a lot.
But for extras expect to get real money from it? Be realistic... There is no enough business for everybody.

Quote from: gostwyck on December 28, 2011, 17:00

Quote from: xst on December 28, 2011, 16:41
Yes, duplication of images is almost free, however if you take into account the whole process of crating image

Don't forget that photographer has cost - equipment, props, models, insurance, gas, computer for retouching etc

On top of that if it's business you need to make profit to live.

How many images should you sell for pennies to make it viable?
Now market isn't infinite.
How many images can be sold?
Now divide those numbers and you get maximum number of photographers who can live from it.
It's obviously simplification, but
I bet we have many more photographers there.
And only very small fraction of them lives of this business.
For vast majority it's pocket money to pay for hobby. (Unlike TV business)

That's the only reason for prices being that low.

its' like software - there are freeware applications.
But if you want to develop software and live of it, you cannot charge .25c for MS Word

Quote from: jbarber873 on December 28, 2011, 15:39
"However you don’t see now company producing 3inch TV and selling them for 5 dollars. I bet you'd find market for this. Why? Because it’s not viable business model. You do see now WEB sized images for pennies."

If you could make a copy of a tv with the click of a mouse you would see tv's selling for pennies. Once an image is created, selling a copy involves no cost of materials, just the administrative costs of running a stock agency. Selling a digital image can be a very profitable business, once the overhead is brought under control.

So what's your solution? Ignore the market and price your images according to what you think they're worth? Or do you work within the constraints of the market and adapt your costs to suit? If you can't then they'll always be someone who can.

It would be interesting if agencies just let us set our own prices for what we thought our work was worth (like most suppliers can or at least try to). Unfortunately that would probably be too unpredictable for the bean-counters to deal with.

lisafx · « **Reply #374 on:** December 28, 2011, 18:32 »

Quote from: pro@stockphotos on December 28, 2011, 13:55

Have you looked at the prices of your images at istock vs other agencies. At one agency I could buy 15 of your images for the cost of one image at istock. They are the exact same image. No difference whatsoever. But price isn't the cause of the loss of sales to istock???

Sorry, perhaps I am failing to get my point across. I'll try one more time, and if you still don't get it, well maybe my language skills need some work.

I am not denying there is a price differential between independent files on Istock and other sites, nor that some buyers would be looking for the best price. What I am saying is that the price differential is not the reason for the RECENT (past year) exodus of buyers. How do I know this? There has been a price differential for several years, and Istock was selling very, very well for independents, and was the top or second place earner for pretty much every independent supplier until this year. If it was only price that was the issue, then sales would have shown it all along.

Sales have only become anemic in the past year since Istock went off the rails, so obviously PRICE of independent content is not the reason.

Here are some suggestions about why buyers may have gone elsewhere:
1. Too many broken promises to contributors, many of whom are buyers.
2. Wonky searches, site outages and other IT bugs
3. Front loading of Vetta/Agency files which serve only a limited market and cost dozens of times more
4. Non-responsive customer service
5. Snotty "don't let the door hit you in the a$$ on the way out" attitude expressed to any buyer who dares bring up issues in the forums

The list goes on and on. As does the Buyers Bail thread http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/buyers-bailing-on-istock/, which has 61 pages of departures and site issues, spanning more than a year.

Can someone let me know if I have explained this coherently enough or if there is something I am leaving out?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Another Massive Best Match Shift (Read 249224 times)

pro@stockphotos

lthn

Mantis

jbarber873

pancaketom

wut

gostwyck

xst

BaldricksTrousers

jbarber873

markrhiggins

gbalex

BImages

loop

mlwinphoto

Sean Locke Photography

xst

gostwyck

jbarber873

gbalex

lagereek

loop

michaeldb

xst

lisafx

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors