MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Another Massive Best Match Shift  (Read 246871 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

« Reply #375 on: December 28, 2011, 18:40 »
0
^Definitely coherent, nice post.


lisafx

« Reply #376 on: December 28, 2011, 18:41 »
0
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

Agree with your points, but would like to add that those $200 - $300 for current participating members of TS are going to drop a lot when/if Istock ever manages to get its act together and transfer all those millions of non-exclusive files over to TS.  We will all most likely be getting pennies out of them after that.

xst

« Reply #377 on: December 28, 2011, 18:45 »
0
We need to think about strategies to mitigate this.
I personally now upload new content to IS with 6-9 months delay.
There maybe other ideas.
After holidays I'll probably open new thread in hope people will share some other ideas.


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

Agree with your points, but would like to add that those $200 - $300 for current participating members of TS are going to drop a lot when/if Istock ever manages to get its act together and transfer all those millions of non-exclusive files over to TS.  We will all most likely be getting pennies out of them after that.

« Reply #378 on: December 28, 2011, 18:50 »
0
In my opinion, main reason from losing some buyers is price. Yes, there was a difference in price years ago, but the one we have now exceed the limits of microstock and goes to midstock (almost macro for agency, just seeing this prices can scare budget buyers, true), while other stay where they were (ALL AT 35 cents!!!) or have gone up a couple of cents.  But at least istock sell our files at a decent price.
Most of the people talking of other reasons at the thread Lisa quotes, are contributors and buyers, mostly small buyers. They are disgruntled as contributors: it's undersatable. But as buyers they are just a tiny fraction. If you look at IS threads most buyers complaining are complaining about prices, and almost nothing more.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2011, 18:52 by loop »

lisafx

« Reply #379 on: December 28, 2011, 19:04 »
0
In my opinion, main reason from losing some buyers is price. Yes, there was a difference in price years ago, but the one we have now exceed the limits of microstock and goes to midstock (almost macro for agency, just seeing this prices can scare budget buyers, true), while other stay where they were (ALL AT 35 cents!!!) or have gone up a couple of cents.  

I don't doubt you are right about the midstock prices being a reason for some departures, but that is on Vetta and TAC files.  Pro@stock(etc.) was saying that it was the difference in cost between indy files at Istock and other sites that was the reason for buyers going elsewhere.  The difference in indy files is not so much - in fact some of my best selling files actually cost more at DT and FT - and istock has not significantly raised the price of our files in several years.  

Any perceived massive price increase at Istock is not on indy files, but is more a result of frontloading the search with midstock files, which I referenced in my above post.  
« Last Edit: December 28, 2011, 19:10 by lisafx »

lisafx

« Reply #380 on: December 28, 2011, 19:05 »
0
^Definitely coherent, nice post.

Thanks :D.  Glad to know someone's following my reasoning...

« Reply #381 on: December 28, 2011, 19:07 »
0

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?  


I'd say that's about as succinct, elegant and accurate as your points could possibly be made. Your 'language skills' are just fine!

« Reply #382 on: December 28, 2011, 19:21 »
0
You may be right that price isn't the only factor, but I expect it is still a major factor.  Istock had a big head start and a large customer base, so the response to the high price would likely be somewhat gradual rather than sudden, and the worsening economic conditions have also made buyers more price sensitive than they were in the past.

Istock has the largest profit margin in the microstock industry, charging the highest to buyers and paying lowest to photographers.  The service they provide just isn't superior enough to justify that profit margin.  They are increasingly uncompetitive, and their business will keep sinking.   This latest irrational move to abuse non-exclusives even further will backfire on them.   Most non-exclusives will stop uploading  (and even remove the files they already have there), leading to an inferior selection that will drive buyers away.

« Reply #383 on: December 28, 2011, 19:27 »
0
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

Agree with your points, but would like to add that those $200 - $300 for current participating members of TS are going to drop a lot when/if Istock ever manages to get its act together and transfer all those millions of non-exclusive files over to TS.  We will all most likely be getting pennies out of them after that.

Totally agree.  Dilution is the business challenge with ms.  I think thats what IS is trying to overcome with their exclusivity. 

xst

« Reply #384 on: December 28, 2011, 19:34 »
0
Do you really think that selection is that important now?
10 million or 12 million images?
Most of the buyers can find what they need on any collection of 5-10 millions files.
(Very rarely you need something that specific...)

When I buy my main criteria are:
1. if I can buy small credit package of the just right size. (If I have small project today I don't want to pay for 10000 credits - especially in case of IS where they expire after 12 months (And I hate this expiration)
2. How easy and flexible search is



You may be right that price isn't the only factor, but I expect it is still a major factor.  Istock had a big head start and a large customer base, so the response to the high price would likely be somewhat gradual rather than sudden, and the worsening economic conditions have also made buyers more price sensitive than they were in the past.

Istock has the largest profit margin in the microstock industry, charging the highest to buyers and paying lowest to photographers.  The service they provide just isn't superior enough to justify that profit margin.  They are increasingly uncompetitive, and their business will keep sinking.   This latest irrational move to abuse non-exclusives even further will backfire on them.   Most non-exclusives will stop uploading  (and even remove the files they already have there), leading to an inferior selection that will drive buyers away.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #385 on: December 28, 2011, 19:37 »
0
When I buy my main criteria are:
1. if I can buy small credit package of the just right size. (If I have small project today I don't want to pay for 10000 credits - especially in case of IS where they expire after 12 months (And I hate this expiration)
Apparently if you write to customer support they'll extend the expiry date.

KB

« Reply #386 on: December 28, 2011, 19:52 »
0
When I buy my main criteria are:
1. if I can buy small credit package of the just right size. (If I have small project today I don't want to pay for 10000 credits - especially in case of IS where they expire after 12 months (And I hate this expiration)
Apparently if you write to customer support they'll extend the expiry date.
Yippee!  ;D

Subscription plans should expire, credits should not.

Do the credits on any other stock photo site expire? Or is this another way that iStock tries to differentiate itself from the competition?

« Reply #387 on: December 28, 2011, 19:53 »
0
When I buy my main criteria are:
1. if I can buy small credit package of the just right size. (If I have small project today I don't want to pay for 10000 credits - especially in case of IS where they expire after 12 months (And I hate this expiration)
Apparently if you write to customer support they'll extend the expiry date.

Why not make it a policy as opposed to buyers having to beg?

« Reply #388 on: December 28, 2011, 20:31 »
0
I believe in exclusivity within RM, yes, and for protection, copys, etc. I do not believe in exclusivity in Micro, internet based agencies with billions of images floating around, pseudos, people with differant accounts and what nots. Its bound to be trouble and it is. Thats why only 15% of all contributors at IS, are exclusive, not much to hang in a x-mas tree, is it?
Exclusivity at IS, works for a chosen few and thats the people that were there when it all started with Bruce, etc, the so called backbone of the company, all the rest are just fill-outs and expendible.

...and 80%+ of the top contributors are exclusive. That's a pretty full x-mas tree :)

« Reply #389 on: December 28, 2011, 20:49 »
0
"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."

Yep only half the delusion quote belonged to you. I did not say it belonged to. IS has a queue of people that thank them for being gentle when they raped them. It is a shame to have people lack the foresight to see the real issue. People saying thanks because IS gave them back some of the royalty they took off them??? Thanking them for the exclusive bias at the best match (whilst knowing it is not helping the customer). Realistic now , why would IS grow next year? You have kept commission by increasing prices with falling volume and placed exclusives ahead of independents in searches to try to win them over (and maybe get more per sale). The only problems IS has had have been self inflicted. What are you hoping for a management change?? Hmm thought it made it worse. How long before they lose an accelerating rate of customers. When the sales get very low it does not matter what the percentages are, best match is or price. I t will mean severely diminished revenue even for exclusives. Exit strategies for exclusives are getting harder all the time. New files aunder different names at different agencies? That one has been done.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #390 on: December 28, 2011, 21:09 »
0
Lots of Hating going on here ... from both points of view.  I guess opinions are like birthdays ... everybody has one.
Is that how that goes?   ??? ??? ;D

« Reply #391 on: December 28, 2011, 21:21 »
0
...and 80%+ of the top contributors are exclusive.

Maybe ... but for how much longer ... if sales continue to fall ... as they probably will ... hmm? The later exclusives leave it to jump ship the harder it will be for them to do so and the more money they will likely lose in the process. Poor bast*rds; not looking rosy for them is it? Just grateful that I'm not one of them.

I predict that May/June 2012 will be the start of the mass-exodus from exclusivity.

I'm looking forward to the day that Istock, having lost virtually everything, comes crawling back to us on their festering belly, apologising for past mistakes and promising the world in return for our support. I reckon that's going to happen by end-of-play 2013. All the power will swing the other way. Istock probably have two years maximum to turn it around or die.

« Reply #392 on: December 28, 2011, 21:39 »
0
Lots of Hating going on here ... from both points of view. 

I see a frank exchange of different views and information (which is kind of the point of a forum). Can you point out the 'Hating' bit, as you call it, because it's a struggle for some of us to spot it?

I get the impression that some Americans use this 'Hating' or 'Hater' word to lightly dismiss everything that they don't personally agree with. In the UK 'hating' is an extreme word with almost neo-Nazi scale implications. I don't see how that applies to this discussion.

« Reply #393 on: December 28, 2011, 21:59 »
0
In my opinion, main reason from losing some buyers is price. Yes, there was a difference in price years ago, but the one we have now exceed the limits of microstock and goes to midstock (almost macro for agency, just seeing this prices can scare budget buyers, true), while other stay where they were (ALL AT 35 cents!!!) or have gone up a couple of cents.  But at least istock sell our files at a decent price.

There are some stellar files at iStock in the exclusive collection. There's also a lot of very ordinary dreck. There's also some utter rubbish from Getty that would be hard to sell at regular exclusive prices, let alone Vetta & Agency (there are some great images in there too, but Vetta/Agency has gone from being a tightly edited collection of images, carefully chosen on merit by editors to a tip heap of stuff Getty wants to sell).

iStock could have a try to be a midstock agency with high prices but it isn't going to do that with all the content it has now, and it isn't clear why it would be any more successful with that then when Getty tried it (and iStock stole their thunder). Perhaps they have the stomach to toss not only independents (with some really excellent content) but lots of their "meh" exclusive content to end up with a collection that's worth premium prices. That'd be a very tough sell to iStock exclusives, IMO, but might make more sense to buyers than the current jumble of content quality and jumble of pricing levels.

Also, you can't buy a single image for 35 cents anywhere. The only way to get those prices is to sign up for a monthly or longer subscription.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #394 on: December 28, 2011, 22:03 »
0
Lots of Hating going on here ... from both points of view. 

I see a frank exchange of different views and information (which is kind of the point of a forum). Can you point out the 'Hating' bit, as you call it, because it's a struggle for some of us to spot it?

I get the impression that some Americans use this 'Hating' or 'Hater' word to lightly dismiss everything that they don't personally agree with. In the UK 'hating' is an extreme word with almost neo-Nazi scale implications. I don't see how that applies to this discussion.

I could but what would be the point?  Are you really sharing information?

« Reply #395 on: December 28, 2011, 22:38 »
0
...and 80%+ of the top contributors are exclusive.

99.999% of contributors are top contributors.  There's only one in the bottom !!!

« Reply #396 on: December 28, 2011, 22:41 »
0
I could but what would be the point?  Are you really sharing information?

I am __ lots, always, probably too much. Are you sharing any information? Do you actually have any information to share? Or are you just dumbly spouting 'Haters' as an alternative to having a view on the issues involved?

"I could but what would be the point". Yeah right. Pathetic. If you've got something to say then say it instead of feebly dismissing others' views as 'Haters' and then not being able to back it up or add anything to the discussion. Ploink.

« Reply #397 on: December 28, 2011, 22:58 »
0
...Istock has the largest profit margin in the microstock industry, charging the highest to buyers and paying lowest to photographers.  The service they provide just isn't superior enough to justify that profit margin...
Good points. Finally, microstock is a business and the realities of business will apply. If iStock had barriers to entry or other unique advantages, they could possibly get away with what they are doing, but as it is, the marketplace is too open to allow them to make as many mistakes as they have made and be as cavalier as they have been, and get away with it. It seems that Getty bought the pooch and then scr*wed it.

« Reply #398 on: December 28, 2011, 23:02 »
0
I'm very surprise that people that are so openly against istockphoto just expend so much energy (negative) writing and commenting continuously about it, even the ones that are not uploading or the ones that are so fervently planning not to do it.

« Reply #399 on: December 28, 2011, 23:07 »
0
I'm very surprise that people that are so openly against istockphoto just expend so much energy (negative) writing and commenting continuously about it, even the ones that are not uploading or the ones that are so fervently planning not to do it.

So you're new with no portfolio link to give us a clue as to what skin, if any, you have in the game. Random spit balls from anonymous new members is more heat than light IMO.

If you don't like the vibe in these forums, feel free not to participate. If you have something concrete to add to the discussion, I'm missing it in the above post.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
25 Replies
20997 Views
Last post February 26, 2011, 04:42
by ShadySue
120 Replies
39272 Views
Last post May 11, 2011, 16:22
by Jo Ann Snover
240 Replies
58308 Views
Last post September 24, 2011, 10:24
by nataq
69 Replies
28513 Views
Last post November 15, 2011, 08:17
by ShadySue
Best Match shift 27 Jan 12

Started by michealo « 1 2  All » iStockPhoto.com

48 Replies
32127 Views
Last post February 02, 2012, 16:03
by StanRohrer

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors