pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Another Massive Best Match Shift  (Read 246959 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

lagereek

« Reply #500 on: December 30, 2011, 09:33 »
0
Completely understand that the volume at SS is much greater at the moment. But I guess TS has to be viewed as an extension of IS and with Getty behind it the future may be that it will rival SS in volume at the same model?

With the above in mind I fail to see why TS would be so much worse than SS? It is the same model at the same price level, viewed together as a unit with IS and with Getty behind it it's prospects are perhaps not that bleak?

Just wait until they have enough content and make the cuts ;) . Then you'll see why it's so much worse than SS, even if they manage to get the same volume - which I don't know what you're basing on, since traffic to IS is falling at a dramatic level, so do earnings for most, save the select group and some really outstanding contributors

Don't think for a moment any cuts will be made before they have a firm grip around SS's neck...figuratively speaking and pure speculation only of course.

Well just have to sit back and wait for a while to see TS's progress. IMO, we won't live long enough to witness it (or MS will simply seize to exist before that), I don't think any (sub)site can endanger SS. They offer great prices, great site, that's always working, search results that mostly deliver good results and don't screw the contributors (which as we all know are often buyers as well or they're at least connected with them). They're top sub site from the start. Now they're smartly adding new ways of buying images, without complicating anything for the buyers.

All that being said, I'm not loving SS, being a SS cheerleader etc. They're just the best that an independent can deal with, for most anyway. If they'd still give raises every year, than I could easily even say that I care deeply about them ;D . But in the situation that MS is in, we really can't realistically expect to get much more.

Agreeing!  buy your right we wont live long enough to see the transfers, so far they have managed to mirror a staggering 5 files. pugh!  must be heavy work, hey?


« Reply #501 on: December 30, 2011, 09:44 »
0
No!  there is no reason for SS, to start messing around with their search, they have not got an exclusivity program!  everone is an independant ( thats where they went right from the start). i.e.  they dont have to construde a search, geared towards certain contributors or any other funny stuff. It wouldnt render anything.

Wut!  is right though, many IS exclusives ( not saying you in particular)  but they do not want to listen to all the SOD, EL, etc, etc, but want to think of it, just as a subs site. Yet, many times per week, my SOD sales, EL, etc, are by far outnumbering the subs.

Other good agencies as FT and DT, yes sometimes they do a change but within reason,  reason for everybody, not like IS, totally demolishing many portfolios. Nobody minds a constructive search-change. Not destructive changes.

Can TS introduce " SOD, EL, etc, etc," and did SS start with these higher price offerings when they first started out?  In other words TS may not be stuck at low subscription pricing in the future.

« Reply #502 on: December 30, 2011, 09:46 »
0
Had a quick look at the search at TS and it looks fine to me? Certainly doesn't return anything that looks highly irrelevant or particularly low quality. Most of the stuff I see are the same as on iStock from independents and exclusives, as well as SS.

Yes, the talk about it all being third-rate cr@p is nonsense. In niche markets, Istock files are well up the search but if you check "business" you find only about 10-20% of the files are from iS on the first page of the search (which is a good mix from different agencies). It's also worth noting there are 720,000 files on TS for business, compared with 550,000 on iStock, which may explain why some people don't do too well there: if you are concentrating on the top-selling subjects the competition is intense and iS content is getting limited exposure.

When it opened, it was third rate crap.  A search on business returned nothing but images from some Japanese dude.  Thanks to everyone saying "oh, it's a different market", and IS forcing stuff to TS, now it has more diversity.

« Reply #503 on: December 30, 2011, 09:56 »
0
But JJRD said it was a different market :)

« Reply #504 on: December 30, 2011, 09:59 »
0
I have plenty of "SOD's, EL's etc etc's" on IS. TS is for subscriptions.  When you combine the 2 since it is essentially the same agency the results are still better the SS as an exclusive.
I too fail to understand why TS/IS isn't comparable to SS. (it is)

CarlssonInc

« Reply #505 on: December 30, 2011, 10:02 »
0
I have plenty of "SOD's, EL's etc etc's" on IS. TS is for subscriptions.  When you combine the 2 since it is essentially the same agency the results are still better the SS as an exclusive.
I too fail to understand why TS/IS isn't comparable to SS. (it is)

That is exactly my point. Combined (IS/TS) is a more of a direct comparable to SS, especially for exclusives.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #506 on: December 30, 2011, 10:06 »
0
I have plenty of "SOD's, EL's etc etc's" on IS. TS is for subscriptions.  When you combine the 2 since it is essentially the same agency the results are still better the SS as an exclusive.
I too fail to understand why TS/IS isn't comparable to SS. (it is)

That is exactly my point. Combined (IS/TS) is a more of a direct comparable to SS, especially for exclusives.
For those exclusives who are involved, you'd have to count all of IS/TS and any Getty sales achieved via the iStock route.

« Reply #507 on: December 30, 2011, 10:08 »
0
I have plenty of "SOD's, EL's etc etc's" on IS. TS is for subscriptions.  When you combine the 2 since it is essentially the same agency the results are still better the SS as an exclusive.
I too fail to understand why TS/IS isn't comparable to SS. (it is)

That is exactly my point. Combined (IS/TS) is a more of a direct comparable to SS, especially for exclusives.
For those exclusives who are involved, you'd have to count all of IS/TS and any Getty sales achieved via the iStock route.

That's exactly what I do.

« Reply #508 on: December 30, 2011, 10:20 »
0
I have plenty of "SOD's, EL's etc etc's" on IS. TS is for subscriptions.  When you combine the 2 since it is essentially the same agency the results are still better the SS as an exclusive.
I too fail to understand why TS/IS isn't comparable to SS. (it is)

That is exactly my point. Combined (IS/TS) is a more of a direct comparable to SS, especially for exclusives.
For those exclusives who are involved, you'd have to count all of IS/TS and any Getty sales achieved via the iStock route.

And for most independent contributors you'd have to include BigStock earnings in with those of SS. I only upload to SS and then the 'Bridge to BigStock' takes care of the rest.

« Reply #509 on: December 30, 2011, 10:33 »
0
And what a lot of meaningless nonsense you'll end up with by the time you've finished adding, subtracting, multiplying, dividing and averaging all the possible combinations and permutations of income from the various sites and their subsidiaries!

I can't even figure out what anybody is trying to demonstrate with this any more.

« Reply #510 on: December 30, 2011, 10:40 »
0
The demostration is to show that IS is comparable to SS.

« Reply #511 on: December 30, 2011, 10:48 »
0
The demostration is to show that IS is comparable to SS.

Not just to demonstrate that you can prove anything with statistics, then?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #512 on: December 30, 2011, 10:55 »
0
And what a lot of meaningless nonsense you'll end up with by the time you've finished adding, subtracting, multiplying, dividing and averaging all the possible combinations and permutations of income from the various sites and their subsidiaries!

I can't even figure out what anybody is trying to demonstrate with this any more.

For istock, you would't have to do any sums. It all shows up in your stats charts.
Someone else can enlighten us about S/BS, which would be one simple addition if needed.
One person's figures have absolutely NO relation on anyone else's; but there might, or might not be an overall trend.

« Reply #513 on: December 30, 2011, 10:58 »
0
Had a quick look at the search at TS and it looks fine to me? Certainly doesn't return anything that looks highly irrelevant or particularly low quality. Most of the stuff I see are the same as on iStock from independents and exclusives, as well as SS.


Yes, the talk about it all being third-rate cr@p is nonsense. In niche markets, Istock files are well up the search but if you check "business" you find only about 10-20% of the files are from iS on the first page of the search (which is a good mix from different agencies). It's also worth noting there are 720,000 files on TS for business, compared with 550,000 on iStock, which may explain why some people don't do too well there: if you are concentrating on the top-selling subjects the competition is intense and iS content is getting limited exposure.


had a look at the TS search, first time really and I agree, not bad stuff at all, in fact I am surprised. However, its not only that, is it?  I mean before we know it, they start messing with their search and then what?  we are back to square one, same as with IS, and the wheel starts spinning yet again.
See what I mean, all this business with the IS, search for years and one becomes paranoid. :-\


Have the thought not crossed your mind that SS or any of the other significant "independent" agencies might get inspired by IS and start their own messing about with their searches....no-one is never safe...nothing will stay the same :)


Yes the thought has crossed my mind.  SS Job listings posted here a couple of months ago for a search engine programmer.

http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/do-you-think-ss-will-one-day-be-as-%27evil%27-as-isft/msg228086/?topicseen#msg228086

http://www.shutterstock.com/jobs.mhtml?nl=1&jvi=o46KVfwz,Job&jvs=Indeed&jvk=Job
"Among other great benefits, Shutterstock offers competitive salaries, health and dental plans, 401k, company equity, daily breakfasts, weekly massages, discounted gym memberships"

http://www.shutterstock.com/jobs.mhtml?nl=1&jvi=oIjWVfwC,Job&jvs=Indeed&jvk=Job
"Search Engineer

We have a lot of challenging problems ahead of us, including:

    Helping customers find the images theyre looking for as fast as possible.
    Providing recommendations based on a customers searches, social graph, and other factors.
    Developing a framework to support rapid development of dynamic ranking algorithms.
    Creating a massively parallelized and real-time indexing process.
    Tracking search analytics and automatically acting on the results.

Our search engine is built on Perl and Solr.  Ideally you will have previous experience working with Solr and programming in Java. Being a JVM or Perl guru is an added bonus.  All candidates should have experience working on search engines and solving problems with large datasets."
« Last Edit: December 30, 2011, 11:21 by gbalex »

wut

« Reply #514 on: December 30, 2011, 11:07 »
0
I have plenty of "SOD's, EL's etc etc's" on IS. TS is for subscriptions.  When you combine the 2 since it is essentially the same agency the results are still better the SS as an exclusive.
I too fail to understand why TS/IS isn't comparable to SS. (it is)

That is exactly my point. Combined (IS/TS) is a more of a direct comparable to SS, especially for exclusives.

You see, both of you're still not getting it! ;D SS, which you always mark as a sub (only) agency, not only has ODs, single sale purchase and ELs, but also sells them frequently and in huge volumes. TS has some kind of a higher priced option, I'm not sure what it is, I guess it's the EL option (which they pay at a pathetically low level), but they rarely happen. That's why my Nov PP average is just below 30c. So that higher priced product really adds nothing to the overall RPD. Now you've all over sudden added IS into equation, while so many of you have been talking all the time that TS is no worse than SS (some said it's actually better). Do you now see the disconnect between what you're saying and what things look like in the real world?

I really think things should be clear. It's not about exclusives vs indies, in fact I'm against it, it's contra productive. We should be fighting the beast, so they don't impose cuts and other things that are diminishing our earnings

jbarber873

« Reply #515 on: December 30, 2011, 11:08 »
0
The demostration is to show that IS is comparable to SS.

     It is comparable, except for the drama. But the whole comparison thing is pointless, because so many on both sides , independent and exclusive, have made decisions that they are now stuck with, so it's natural to defend your choice. I think the time when an exclusive could realistically become an independent is over. At most, a small percentage of files would be accepted at SS, given how stringent the reviewers are there now, so a portfolio at IS built up over years is pretty much the only game in town now for exclusives. So you better hope for that coming world domination of Thinkstock.

« Reply #516 on: December 30, 2011, 11:08 »
0
Had a quick look at the search at TS and it looks fine to me? Certainly doesn't return anything that looks highly irrelevant or particularly low quality. Most of the stuff I see are the same as on iStock from independents and exclusives, as well as SS.

Yes, the talk about it all being third-rate cr@p is nonsense. In niche markets, Istock files are well up the search but if you check "business" you find only about 10-20% of the files are from iS on the first page of the search (which is a good mix from different agencies). It's also worth noting there are 720,000 files on TS for business, compared with 550,000 on iStock, which may explain why some people don't do too well there: if you are concentrating on the top-selling subjects the competition is intense and iS content is getting limited exposure.

When it opened, it was third rate crap.  A search on business returned nothing but images from some Japanese dude.  Thanks to everyone saying "oh, it's a different market", and IS forcing stuff to TS, now it has more diversity.

If you look at the collection names in the "business" search, you'll see that only 15% of the top end of the search is allowed to be from iStock, so the diversity comes from the spread of collections that Getty have piled into it rather than from the actions or opinions of iSTock contributors.

The iStock content has given TS breadth, filling in the more off-beat niches, while the mainstream searches are well-supplied with 85% non-iS files on the leading pages.  

RacePhoto

« Reply #517 on: December 30, 2011, 11:11 »
0
The demostration is to show that IS is comparable to SS.

Not just to demonstrate that you can prove anything with statistics, then?

Ah I knew it, we were twins separated at birth when it comes to this answer.  :)

IS is not SS in so many ways. And ThinkStock was what I pointed out and others have too. It was a warehouse for dusty old photos from all the collections that Getty had sitting is some closet. But Ah Ha, someone woke up, took our images hostage and moved them all to ThinkStock. Now that story has changed. (it's still not SS!) ThinkStock we get 25c from StockXpert, and 28c from IS. That's the facts, not "maybe some day it will change" it's the way it is.

SS people get 25, 33 or 38 and the sales volume is much greater. I for one had all the same images (except a few that one took and the other rejected) on IS, SS, ThinkStock, StockXpert and BigStock. So let me point out, I dropped StockXpert/ThinkStock which made five or six sales a month at 25c. BigStock makes less sales, but I get either 50c or $1 a download, so BigStock beats StockXpert. (I dropped StockXpert in Nov.) IS sales through ThinkStock run more than all of the previous added together but, and here's the key, SS makes more sales and more money than all the the rest, including IS regular sales, added together. Most Months Now and then I get a EL on IS and it moves up above SS.

Point is, SS is consistent, sells day after day, month after month and doesn't keep changing the rules and moving the bar. I'm at 15% now, after 3-4 years, because why? Unsustainable financially is their claim. The problem is they made all kinds of primises and plans and now we are paying for that by cuts in commissions.

Where did SS cut commissions? They offer an incentive that's realistic. IS takes away incentives and offers some mysterious levels, which aren't even disclosed.

Yes I was wrong about ThinkStock. I thought it wasn't a problem. People could opt in or out, they had a bunch of junk leftovers. But Getty fixed that and took all the Indy files and forced us over there. Then put the ThinkStock files from IS at the head of the search, so they could get more 25 cent sub sales, and divert our sales from IS, and customers, over to ThinkStock. It's the camel with it's nose under the tent. Once that happens it's too late. Well fans, it's too late! IS lowers pay, diverts buyers, moves images to 25c sales instead of standard IS pricing and fools with the search. SS does none of that. They are nothing alike!

Hey yes, SS will bridge your photos to a site that pays more commission. How's that so much unlike IS and their shell game, and we're the peas.

« Reply #518 on: December 30, 2011, 11:16 »
0
No!  there is no reason for SS, to start messing around with their search, they have not got an exclusivity program! everone is an independant ( thats where they went right from the start). i.e.  they dont have to construde a search, geared towards certain contributors or any other funny stuff. It wouldnt render anything.

Wut!  is right though, many IS exclusives ( not saying you in particular)  but they do not want to listen to all the SOD, EL, etc, etc, but want to think of it, just as a subs site. Yet, many times per week, my SOD sales, EL, etc, are by far outnumbering the subs.

Other good agencies as FT and DT, yes sometimes they do a change but within reason,  reason for everybody, not like IS, totally demolishing many portfolios. Nobody minds a constructive search-change. Not destructive changes.

I doubt that there is a site out there who values the welfare of contributors ahead of maximizing profits for themselves.  As sites become flush with cash some of the search capabilities they develop will not be in our best interest, they will be made to enhance the sites bottom line.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2011, 11:22 by gbalex »

wut

« Reply #519 on: December 30, 2011, 11:21 »
0
As sites become flush with cash the search capabilities they develop will not be in our best interest, they will be made to enhance the sites bottom line.

This is exactly the reason, or better said one of them, that cause recessions. And I could never understand such greed, it's beyond my comprehension. But that the misconception of capitalism, constant growth, which is, as we experienced, not possible to be lasting forever.

« Reply #520 on: December 30, 2011, 11:24 »
0
I doubt that there is a site out there who values the welfare of contributors ahead of maximizing profits for themselves.  

But there might just be one or two that see long-term profitability and looking after contributors as being inextricably linked. What appears to be happening to iStock (and possibly Fotolia) surely sends a message to others. At least, we can hope so.

I must go to my PO Box to see if I got a Christmas card from SS.

« Reply #521 on: December 30, 2011, 11:35 »
0
I doubt that there is a site out there who values the welfare of contributors ahead of maximizing profits for themselves.  

But there might just be one or two that see long-term profitability and looking after contributors as being inextricably linked. What appears to be happening to iStock (and possibly Fotolia) surely sends a message to others. At least, we can hope so.

I must go to my PO Box to see if I got a Christmas card from SS.

I think it is up to us to send them that message loud and clear.

Good luck with that Christmas Card.  I have found that tokens handed out only to a chosen few, are often designed stroke our egos and cloud our vision.

« Reply #522 on: December 30, 2011, 11:43 »
0
The demostration is to show that IS is comparable to SS.

Not just to demonstrate that you can prove anything with statistics, then?

no! it aint comparable in any way.. actually TS doesnt have anything to compete with SS (volume of subs).. in the other way SS has a lot more to compare regarding SOD, OD, EL which everybody keep on having more and more.. IS doesnt look good in the long term, some can have faith..

« Reply #523 on: December 30, 2011, 11:48 »
0
^^^ I don't believe in faith.  I believe in numbers.  Mine are OK so far.

« Reply #524 on: December 30, 2011, 12:03 »
0
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.  

I frankly think it has a lot to do with the crazy price differences on istock's site alone. Where I work we develop and implement thousands of websites, and we very often send customers out to stock sites to select some stock they want to use. Istock used to be our go-to recommendation, but we're starting to shy away from recommending them because too many times the customers will come back wanting to use a Vetta/Agency image that will be out of the price range we led them to believe.

I'm sure there's a market for Vetta. However, it should have been broken off as a separate site entirely, or just simply added to Getty. The collections needed to be much more clearly delineated. And now with Agency, Exclusive+, etc there are just way too many price points, all heaped into the same search results. Buyers don't know what to expect. Many of them are infrequent buyers who don't keep up on the latest istock pricing craziness; all they know is they used to search for stuff and find low-priced photos, and now the same searching produces vastly higher priced stuff. So they look elsewhere.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
25 Replies
21005 Views
Last post February 26, 2011, 04:42
by ShadySue
120 Replies
39285 Views
Last post May 11, 2011, 16:22
by Jo Ann Snover
240 Replies
58331 Views
Last post September 24, 2011, 10:24
by nataq
69 Replies
28524 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
32135 Views
Last post February 02, 2012, 16:03
by StanRohrer

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors