Author Topic: Another Massive Best Match Shift (Read 249068 times)

ShadySue · « **Reply #450 on:** December 29, 2011, 17:18 »

Quote from: stockastic on December 29, 2011, 17:00

Quote from: jamirae on December 29, 2011, 16:00
totally agree. happened to me just the other day. My boss was looking for an image for a new "portal" page on our website. he turned to me and said "what is that site you use for images? istock..?" As he turned to his keyboard to pull up the site I responded "Just go to shutterstock.com or dreamstime.com " Because I knew he would freak out when all the crazy agency and vetta images showed up in the search.

I think this post says it all. And notice the impact of the "slider". Zero.

Indeed. It's difficult to use a slider on one site when you're on a totally different site.

loop · « **Reply #451 on:** December 29, 2011, 18:28 »

Great, now your boss now that a stock photo is worth 0.35 cents and not a cent more than that.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #452 on:** December 29, 2011, 18:54 »

Quote from: loop on December 29, 2011, 18:28

Great, now your boss now that a stock photo is worth 0.35 cents and not a cent more than that.

Better than iStock, where he would know it was worth 8c and not a cent more than that

(assuming, that is, that your logic makes any sense)

KB · « **Reply #453 on:** December 29, 2011, 19:29 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 29, 2011, 18:54

Quote from: loop on December 29, 2011, 18:28
Great, now your boss now that a stock photo is worth 0.35 cents and not a cent more than that.

Better than iStock, where he would know it was worth 8c and not a cent more than that

(assuming, that is, that your logic makes any sense)

Oh! So no matter what size a buyer purchases, independents now get only 8c per sale? Yikes! Suddenly I'm almost glad I'm exclusive. But in that case, I don't understand why any independent would remain on iStock. Huh.

lisafx · « **Reply #454 on:** December 29, 2011, 19:37 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 29, 2011, 02:49

Oh God, has it really come to this? People demanding an "apology to the forum" because they don't like a word and don't actually know what it means? Get a decent dictionary and look up "rape" since you obviously don't comprehend the scope of the word. Then can we get back to the topic (which is nothing to do with "hating").

Carver, the amount of energy expended probably reflects the significance of the threat to our income, our desire to know what is going on, what it means and where it might go from here. It's quite normal for people to want to understand how the decisions of those they are engaged with will affect them.

And for whoever suggested that exclusivity was iStock's way of dealing with dilution, that's just not the case. There has never been any doubt that it was introduced to try to undermine rival micro agencies that were setting up from mid-2004 in response to iStock's success. At that time, the number of microstock files available across all sites was fewer than 250,000.

One thing nobody has picked up on is the repeated reports from exclusives that despite the best match their sales are only normal. Is that because new projects aren't being started at the moment and people are only tying up the loose ends of jobs, or is it something else?

Lisa, if they wipe out our sales on the main site and then dilute PP sales to nothing there will be no point in continuing with the tedious upload process. My "who boycotted PP" thread indicates something like 55% of posters did, which suggests roughly a halving of PP income if they ever manage to transfer those files.

Really excellent post Balderick! Agree 100% with all of it.

As for the reports of exclusives having "normal" sales for this time of year. These reports are coming from very reliable sources, so I definitely believe them. However, in light of the extreme dominance of exclusive files in the search, this probably means site sales on the whole are way, way down. Otherwise, shouldn't we be reading more reports of booming sales from the exclusives who are benefiting from this best match?

Good info from your poll thread. I hadn't thought of applying that to the upcoming dilution of PP sales, but it is as good a measure as any. Very clever

I would hate to see my PP income halved, considering it is already inadequate consolation for seeing my Istock income reduced to a small fraction of what it used to be.

mlwinphoto · « **Reply #455 on:** December 29, 2011, 19:46 »

Quote from: jamirae on December 29, 2011, 16:00

Quote from: gbalex on December 29, 2011, 14:10
Quote from: jamirae on December 29, 2011, 13:42
I think a big consideration is being overlooked here. You're all assuming that buyers have all this time to shop around to find the best price. I tend to believe that buyers may do some price shopping but once they find a place they are comfortable with they tend to stick with it. Why? because it's convenient and it's a place they understand and know. that's what kept a lot of buyers at istock - once they found it they didn't have a lot of reason to look elsewhere. Now they do. Buyers have been pissed at the many price increases and the addition of confusing price collections. the site bugs have only added to the upset. Thus, they've started looking elsewhere - they find a site that works, has decent enough pricing for them and they move to it.

I really don't think buyers are constantly out there comparing one site to another. they just don't have time for all that. yes, they'll do it once in awhile when they need to, but in the end they tend to stick with the places they trust will get them the final product they are looking for.
For the most part I agree with you, IS also made the big mistake of overlooking the fact that many of its buyers are also contributors who also talk to other buyers. It is not so hard to change a supervisors position on the vendor you use when prices are also being raised in conjunction with best match changes that slow down the process of finding the images you need for projects. After all those supervisor think of man hours as more costly than a few extra dollars for an image.

totally agree. happened to me just the other day. My boss was looking for an image for a new "portal" page on our website. he turned to me and said "what is that site you use for images? istock..?" As he turned to his keyboard to pull up the site I responded "Just go to shutterstock.com or dreamstime.com " Because I knew he would freak out when all the crazy agency and vetta images showed up in the search. Plus we have buyer accounts at all three (SS, DT and IS) of those agencies anyway. He found some images at SS quickly which we sent to our graphics guy as examples of what he was looking for.

In the past I would have gladly steered him straight to iStock, now I recommend different options.

Well done!

SNP · « **Reply #456 on:** December 29, 2011, 20:05 »

I think we have to wait and see what the best match looks like as the new year business ramps up again. you can't really judge anything this week. for me this is pretty much the worst week of the year for sales. let's see what happens when buyers come back to work after the holidays and where the best match is then.

lisafx · « **Reply #457 on:** December 29, 2011, 20:10 »

Quote from: SNP on December 29, 2011, 20:05

I think we have to wait and see what the best match looks like as the new year business ramps up again. you can't really judge anything this week. for me this is pretty much the worst week of the year for sales. let's see what happens when buyers come back to work after the holidays and where the best match is then.

Yeah, you're right. I posted without really considering that the last two weeks of December are historically always dead.

FWIW, I am (optimistically) pretty sure this complete burying of indy files will not last more than a week or two into January. I seem to recall in past years that the end of the year had a big boost for exclusives. Although I find this one pretty alarming, I am still hopeful it may turn out to be just some sort of exclusive bonus.

gbalex · « **Reply #458 on:** December 29, 2011, 20:22 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 29, 2011, 18:54

Quote from: loop on December 29, 2011, 18:28
Great, now your boss now that a stock photo is worth 0.35 cents and not a cent more than that.

Better than iStock, where he would know it was worth 8c and not a cent more than that

(assuming, that is, that your logic makes any sense)

Loop does have a point, it makes no sense for us to steer buyers to a site that pays us .38 and I do not steer anyone to SS or other low paying sites. Thou, your point is equally relevant .38 is preferable to .8

loop · « **Reply #459 on:** December 29, 2011, 20:46 »

Quote from: gbalex on December 29, 2011, 20:22

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 29, 2011, 18:54
Quote from: loop on December 29, 2011, 18:28
Great, now your boss now that a stock photo is worth 0.35 cents and not a cent more than that.

Better than iStock, where he would know it was worth 8c and not a cent more than that

(assuming, that is, that your logic makes any sense)

Loop does have a point, it makes no sense for us to steer buyers to a site that pays us .38 and I do not steer anyone to SS or other low paying sites. Thou, your point is equally relevant .38 is preferable to .8

What about reading carefully before writing? I wasn't talking about comissions, but price payed by customers. What they are being told it's woth a file, xs or xxxxl. Try again. Read slowly if necessary.

Suljo · « **Reply #460 on:** December 29, 2011, 21:01 »

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.

"Exclusive" content in RF world has no sense at all. It is just delusion for buyers and exclusive contributors...

stockastic · « **Reply #461 on:** December 29, 2011, 21:03 »

Quote from: gbalex on December 29, 2011, 20:22

Loop does have a point, it makes no sense for us to steer buyers to a site that pays us .38 and I do not steer anyone to SS or other low paying sites.

It makes sense to steer buyers to sites where they might actually see your photos. And if you're an indendent, it no longer matters what IS's prices are, because they've buried all your photos.

lisafx · « **Reply #462 on:** December 29, 2011, 21:15 »

Quote from: loop on December 29, 2011, 20:46

What about reading carefully before writing? I wasn't talking about comissions, but price payed by customers. What they are being told it's woth a file, xs or xxxxl. Try again. Read slowly if necessary.

Frankly, the price paid by the customer is much less important to me than what I make on the sale. If I only get .09 on a particular sale, their paying industry high prices doesn't make me feel any better about it.

asiseeit · « **Reply #463 on:** December 30, 2011, 01:40 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 29, 2011, 18:54

Quote from: loop on December 29, 2011, 18:28
Great, now your boss now that a stock photo is worth 0.35 cents and not a cent more than that.

Better than iStock, where he would know it was worth 8c and not a cent more than that
(assuming, that is, that your logic makes any sense)

Not sure where you're getting the 8 cent number from. If a buyer buys a credit for $1.50 per credit (120 credit package), an XS payout would be 25 cents at the 17% level, Medium size $1.53,... (for example). How could anyone be averaging 8 cents per sale on iStock?

traveler1116 · « **Reply #464 on:** December 30, 2011, 01:53 »

Quote from: asiseeit on December 30, 2011, 01:40

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 29, 2011, 18:54
Quote from: loop on December 29, 2011, 18:28
Great, now your boss now that a stock photo is worth 0.35 cents and not a cent more than that.

Better than iStock, where he would know it was worth 8c and not a cent more than that
(assuming, that is, that your logic makes any sense)

Not sure where you're getting the 8 cent number from. If a buyer buys a credit for $1.50 per credit (120 credit package), an XS payout would be 25 cents at the 17% level, Medium size $1.53,... (for example). How could anyone be averaging 8 cents per sale on iStock?

15% is the lowest rate, credits are sold as low as $.48 (maybe .46). Sorry I didn't see you said averaging. No one would be averaging that.

lagereek · « **Reply #465 on:** December 30, 2011, 01:54 »

BIG DEAL! so lets say they change this best match a few weeks after new year and lets say its mildly kinder to independants, so what, they throw us a bone and expect us to bark? no thanks!
Ofcourse then they change it back and forth again and we end up in sheit-street, yet again. No thanks. Im not a begger, happy with the crumbs from the rich table, rather the opposite.

For me to even consider, leaving the rest of my port at IS, I will have to see it get back to at least 50% of the normal intake or else considering the ancient upload-process and everything? just isnt worth the time.

CarlssonInc · « **Reply #466 on:** December 30, 2011, 02:11 »

Quote from: lagereek on December 30, 2011, 01:54

For me to even consider, leaving the rest of my port at IS, I will have to see it get back to at least 50% of the normal intake or else considering the ancient upload-process and everything? just isnt worth the time.

Christian - you are familiar with DeepMeta right? Makes it a doodle to upload, organising releases, update keywords and lots of other tasks.

CarlssonInc · « **Reply #467 on:** December 30, 2011, 03:24 »

If my eyes are not playing tricks on me and I haven't kept meticulous notes of file placement, it looks like the search is slightly less skewed towards only new files and a few better performers have started to rise? Anyone else seeing the same thing?

Could the current search with it's heavy tilt towards new files be a countermeasure to the new files not being shown properly in Nov/Dec? To give them a chance to be seen before resuming "normality" in regards to the best match search?

Unfortunately independent files are nowhere to be seen.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #468 on:** December 30, 2011, 03:34 »

Quote from: CarlssonInc. Stock Imagery Production on December 30, 2011, 03:24

If my eyes are not playing tricks on me and I haven't kept meticulous notes of file placement, it looks like the search is slightly less skewed towards only new files and a few better performers have started to rise? Anyone else seeing the same thing?

Could the current search with it's heavy tilt towards new files be a countermeasure to the new files not being shown properly in Nov/Dec? To give them a chance to be seen before resuming "normality" in regards to the best match search?

Unfortunately independent files are nowhere to be seen.

Reminds me that one post someone says Exclusives get a boost and a page before someone else says Exclusives are buried because Indys are paid a lower commission. Odd isn't it that both are claimed and have been for years.

Best Match SHift goes on minute by minute, based on what you looked at before, where you are and for all I know, the phase of the Moon.

I think people trying to understand it are spinning their wheels and wasting time, because it isn't "Another Massive Best Match Shift" there's a never ending Best Match Shift. Kind of like how to make people superstitious and insane. Make random changes all day every day.

Someone please clear this up... do Exclusives get better placement or are they being pushed to the back. Which is it. Seems exclusives complain they are getting lower rank, and Indys are complaining that Exclusive get ahead of them? Now it's new files vs old files, which seems to be changing by the minute.

CarlssonInc · « **Reply #469 on:** December 30, 2011, 03:40 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on December 30, 2011, 03:34

Quote from: CarlssonInc. Stock Imagery Production on December 30, 2011, 03:24
If my eyes are not playing tricks on me and I haven't kept meticulous notes of file placement, it looks like the search is slightly less skewed towards only new files and a few better performers have started to rise? Anyone else seeing the same thing?

Could the current search with it's heavy tilt towards new files be a countermeasure to the new files not being shown properly in Nov/Dec? To give them a chance to be seen before resuming "normality" in regards to the best match search?

Unfortunately independent files are nowhere to be seen.

Reminds me that one post someone says Exclusives get a boost and a page before someone else says Exclusives are buried because Indys are paid a lower commission. Odd isn't it that both are claimed and have been for years.

Best Match SHift goes on minute by minute, based on what you looked at before, where you are and for all I know, the phase of the Moon.

I think people trying to understand it are spinning their wheels and wasting time, because it isn't "Another Massive Best Match Shift" there's a never ending Best Match Shift. Kind of like how to make people superstitious and insane. Make random changes all day every day.

Someone please clear this up... do Exclusives get better placement or are they being pushed to the back. Which is it. Seems exclusives complain they are getting lower rank, and Indys are complaining that Exclusive get ahead of them? Now it's new files vs old files, which seems to be changing by the minute.

Hahaha I guess you are absolutely right about it not being "another massive best match shift" but a continuous one. I guess the best thing is to just get on with things and try and worry less about it.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #470 on:** December 30, 2011, 03:43 »

Quote from: loop on December 29, 2011, 20:46

Quote from: gbalex on December 29, 2011, 20:22
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 29, 2011, 18:54
Quote from: loop on December 29, 2011, 18:28
Great, now your boss now that a stock photo is worth 0.35 cents and not a cent more than that.

Better than iStock, where he would know it was worth 8c and not a cent more than that

(assuming, that is, that your logic makes any sense)

Loop does have a point, it makes no sense for us to steer buyers to a site that pays us .38 and I do not steer anyone to SS or other low paying sites. Thou, your point is equally relevant .38 is preferable to .8

What about reading carefully before writing? I wasn't talking about comissions, but price payed by customers. What they are being told it's woth a file, xs or xxxxl. Try again. Read slowly if necessary.

Oh. What site charges 35c for a download? As I recall, it costs about $200 to be allowed to dl from SS.

lagereek · « **Reply #471 on:** December 30, 2011, 03:43 »

Quote from: CarlssonInc. Stock Imagery Production on December 30, 2011, 03:24

If my eyes are not playing tricks on me and I haven't kept meticulous notes of file placement, it looks like the search is slightly less skewed towards only new files and a few better performers have started to rise? Anyone else seeing the same thing?

Could the current search with it's heavy tilt towards new files be a countermeasure to the new files not being shown properly in Nov/Dec? To give them a chance to be seen before resuming "normality" in regards to the best match search?

Unfortunately independent files are nowhere to be seen.

Hi Martin!

Looks the same to me really. They dont have to show any indy files since they are being mirrored at TS. They are counting on that independants will just sit quietly and watch their files being transfered.
This is where they are doing the mistake. Many will deactivate their most commercial files and ports, before the move. I have deactivated 90, of my most sold files, blue and red flames, etc. Reason being, I dont want that kind of stuff to end up in what is widely regarded as the ultimate dumping-ground. It gives a bad name, bad image, etc.
I personally know several creatives within ad-agencies, design-groups, ADs, etc, who will ONLY consult Getty for RM and RF and maybe the original IS but they certainly would not shop at TS! mind you, having said that, the majority, Im sure go to SS, today that is.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #472 on:** December 30, 2011, 03:51 »

Quote from: asiseeit on December 30, 2011, 01:40

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 29, 2011, 18:54
Quote from: loop on December 29, 2011, 18:28
Great, now your boss now that a stock photo is worth 0.35 cents and not a cent more than that.

Better than iStock, where he would know it was worth 8c and not a cent more than that
(assuming, that is, that your logic makes any sense)

Not sure where you're getting the 8 cent number from. If a buyer buys a credit for $1.50 per credit (120 credit package), an XS payout would be 25 cents at the 17% level, Medium size $1.53,... (for example). How could anyone be averaging 8 cents per sale on iStock?

I never said averaging. Loop is spinning things to make them look as bad as possible for sites that are not iStock, I was just doing the same thing back. I have had at least one 8c commission from iStock and a couple of 10c commissions during the last year. 8/17x100 = 47c per credit. Probably one of their special discounts. In any case, even taking his "what the buyers pay" argument, there's not much difference between iStock pricing files at less than 50c and whatever the price would be if you download every single possible file you can from an SS subscription (and, of course, iStock's got TS, too, and has been actively pushing people away from iS towards TS, which completely blows his argument out of the water).

CarlssonInc · « **Reply #473 on:** December 30, 2011, 04:08 »

Quote from: lagereek on December 30, 2011, 03:43

Quote from: CarlssonInc. Stock Imagery Production on December 30, 2011, 03:24
If my eyes are not playing tricks on me and I haven't kept meticulous notes of file placement, it looks like the search is slightly less skewed towards only new files and a few better performers have started to rise? Anyone else seeing the same thing?

Could the current search with it's heavy tilt towards new files be a countermeasure to the new files not being shown properly in Nov/Dec? To give them a chance to be seen before resuming "normality" in regards to the best match search?

Unfortunately independent files are nowhere to be seen.

Hi Martin!

Looks the same to me really. They dont have to show any indy files since they are being mirrored at TS. They are counting on that independants will just sit quietly and watch their files being transfered.
This is where they are doing the mistake. Many will deactivate their most commercial files and ports, before the move. I have deactivated 90, of my most sold files, blue and red flames, etc. Reason being, I dont want that kind of stuff to end up in what is widely regarded as the ultimate dumping-ground. It gives a bad name, bad image, etc.
I personally know several creatives within ad-agencies, design-groups, ADs, etc, who will ONLY consult Getty for RM and RF and maybe the original IS but they certainly would not shop at TS! mind you, having said that, the majority, Im sure go to SS, today that is.

I understand what you are saying. However, from an exclusive point-of-view TS is on par with what Shutterstock is for an independent (in terms of royalties, model etc.).

aeonf · « **Reply #474 on:** December 30, 2011, 05:06 »

Quote from: CarlssonInc. Stock Imagery Production on December 30, 2011, 04:08

Quote from: lagereek on December 30, 2011, 03:43
Quote from: CarlssonInc. Stock Imagery Production on December 30, 2011, 03:24
If my eyes are not playing tricks on me and I haven't kept meticulous notes of file placement, it looks like the search is slightly less skewed towards only new files and a few better performers have started to rise? Anyone else seeing the same thing?

Could the current search with it's heavy tilt towards new files be a countermeasure to the new files not being shown properly in Nov/Dec? To give them a chance to be seen before resuming "normality" in regards to the best match search?

Unfortunately independent files are nowhere to be seen.

Hi Martin!

Looks the same to me really. They dont have to show any indy files since they are being mirrored at TS. They are counting on that independants will just sit quietly and watch their files being transfered.
This is where they are doing the mistake. Many will deactivate their most commercial files and ports, before the move. I have deactivated 90, of my most sold files, blue and red flames, etc. Reason being, I dont want that kind of stuff to end up in what is widely regarded as the ultimate dumping-ground. It gives a bad name, bad image, etc.
I personally know several creatives within ad-agencies, design-groups, ADs, etc, who will ONLY consult Getty for RM and RF and maybe the original IS but they certainly would not shop at TS! mind you, having said that, the majority, Im sure go to SS, today that is.

I understand what you are saying. However, from an exclusive point-of-view TS is on par with what Shutterstock is for an independent (in terms of royalties, model etc.).

Why on par ?
I make 42c vs 36c on SS as an exclusive.
That is 16% more!

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Another Massive Best Match Shift (Read 249068 times)

ShadySue

loop

BaldricksTrousers

KB

lisafx

mlwinphoto

SNP

lisafx

gbalex

loop

Suljo

stockastic

lisafx

asiseeit

traveler1116

lagereek

CarlssonInc

CarlssonInc

RacePhoto

CarlssonInc

BaldricksTrousers

lagereek

BaldricksTrousers

CarlssonInc

aeonf

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors