Author Topic: Another Massive Best Match Shift (Read 249008 times)

Eco · « **Reply #525 on:** December 30, 2011, 12:15 »

Stimulating discussion, especially the comparison between IS and SS.

What I find interesting is that some of the IS exclusives based their defense of IS on their experience of IS in the PAST or TODAY without asking themselves objectively what about the FUTURE. What will it be like this time next year or two, three, five years from now? I get the impression that many diehard IS exclusives is suffering from denial. To survive in this volatile microstock market it is critical to keep an ear on the ground and make TIMELY decisions to counter disasters and to exploit opportunities. If it is not clear by now that the glory days of IS is likely over I don't know what will convince you.

Everybody for himself, but for me to be exclusive to IS today is comparable to sitting on the deck of the titanic sipping sundowners totally oblivious to the fact that the ship is taking on water fast - that mighty ship believed to be unsinkable. The rest is history. Maybe you can also be a star in a movie one day.

I am not against IS, but I am objective. For me personally IS it the titanic, but I am already on my live boat. Despite the lowest income from IS this December since March 2006 when I started I still manage to increase my overall microstock income on a monthly basis. This is very encouraging and frankly I cannot give a * what IS do with their best match. If I sell something there I will take the money - if don’t sell anything (like the last 5 days) I can survive quite handsomely without them.

lagereek · « **Reply #526 on:** December 30, 2011, 12:16 »

Quote from: TheDman on December 30, 2011, 12:03

Quote from: lisafx on December 28, 2011, 18:32
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.

Ofcourse! we have all been saying that for ages but they dont care, or should I say, dont get it. Intelligence has its limitations.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #527 on:** December 30, 2011, 14:10 »

Christian, after you were talking about devaluing images by having them at different price points on different agencies (and I disagreed) it did occur to me that the bigger problem would be having them at different price points WITHIN an agency, and iStock's price-points are all over the place.
Pricing by collection/status rather than by quality is probably their worst error in that regard.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #528 on:** December 30, 2011, 14:22 »

Quote from: Eco on December 30, 2011, 12:15

For me personally IS it the titanic,

I recently got pulled up for "Titanic" comparisons. Apparently they are Soooooo 2010. I switched to Hindenberg to try to inject some novelty into it. I haven't decided whether 2012 should be dedicated to comparing iStock to the R101, Bluebird on Coniston Water or the Kursk in the Barents Sea. Time will tell.

lagereek · « **Reply #529 on:** December 30, 2011, 14:46 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 30, 2011, 14:10

Christian, after you were talking about devaluing images by having them at different price points on different agencies (and I disagreed) it did occur to me that the bigger problem would be having them at different price points WITHIN an agency, and iStock's price-points are all over the place.
Pricing by collection/status rather than by quality is probably their worst error in that regard.

Absoloutely! correct! good thinking. I dont think many have thought along those lines and yes, Istocks prices are all over the place which is completely detrimental.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #530 on:** December 30, 2011, 16:39 »

I think we might be more au courrant to compare iStock to Netflix, someone once in a commanding position with enviable growth and customer satisfaction scores, but which amazingly quickly eroded most of those with breathtakingly moronic decisions and even worse PR defending them with the Kelly-clone CEO. Read here, here, here, and here for those outside the US who might have missed this little gem of a corporate pratfall.

lisafx · « **Reply #531 on:** December 30, 2011, 17:00 »

Quote from: jbarber873 on December 30, 2011, 11:08

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.

Excellent post. I hadn't thought about it in those terms, but you are probably right. Whichever side of that proverbial fence we are on at this point, we are pretty much stuck with it.

lisafx · « **Reply #532 on:** December 30, 2011, 17:06 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 30, 2011, 14:22

Quote from: Eco on December 30, 2011, 12:15
For me personally IS it the titanic,

I recently got pulled up for "Titanic" comparisons. Apparently they are Soooooo 2010. I switched to Hindenberg to try to inject some novelty into it. I haven't decided whether 2012 should be dedicated to comparing iStock to the R101, Bluebird on Coniston Water or the Kursk in the Barents Sea. Time will tell.

LOL! Sorry, but for me, Titanic comparisons will never go out of fashion. Not if they are appropriate.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #533 on:** December 30, 2011, 17:16 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 30, 2011, 17:06

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 30, 2011, 14:22
Quote from: Eco on December 30, 2011, 12:15
For me personally IS it the titanic,

I recently got pulled up for "Titanic" comparisons. Apparently they are Soooooo 2010. I switched to Hindenberg to try to inject some novelty into it. I haven't decided whether 2012 should be dedicated to comparing iStock to the R101, Bluebird on Coniston Water or the Kursk in the Barents Sea. Time will tell.

LOL! Sorry, but for me, Titanic comparisons will never go out of fashion. Not if they are appropriate.

Well, the R101 did seem to be sailing serenely on through the stormy skies before, unexpectedly and without warning, going into a nose-dive, crashing and burning, destroying most of its most sincere believers and architects in the process.

TheDman · « **Reply #534 on:** December 30, 2011, 17:22 »

Quote from: jbarber873 on December 30, 2011, 11:08

Quote from: aeonf on December 30, 2011, 10:40
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.

Nah. Depends on your situation. With istock's continued plummet the risk/reward scenario for exclusives is constantly changing. I'm exclusive, and last year at this time there was no way I would have considered dropping the crown. But after seeing my steep sales decline this year I'm simply not risking as much anymore, and what little I do risk I could easily see making back and then some at the other sites. Before the RC targets were lowered I was almost certainly going to drop the crown on Jan 1, considering I was going to miss the 30% cutoff by a hundred or so. Now that they've lowered I'm reconsidering just a bit... might hang around until March or April just to see if the decline continues, since those months were my best of 2011. And I'm sure more than "a small percentage at most" of my port would get into SS, at least among the sellers. Call me confident. ;-)

lagereek · « **Reply #535 on:** December 30, 2011, 17:36 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 30, 2011, 17:00

Quote from: jbarber873 on December 30, 2011, 11:08

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.

Excellent post. I hadn't thought about it in those terms, but you are probably right. Whichever side of that proverbial fence we are on at this point, we are pretty much stuck with it.

Yup, we are stuck with it and thats that. Well thats why, during 2012, I am definetly going to concentrate lots more on RM and RF, its been extremly good to me over the years and all this palava has kind of side-tracked me for a few years.
If you have good RM and RF outlets, by the look of things in the micro industry, well, its well worth looking after them. They have been sustainable for over 40 years and will still be around when micro is gone.

lisafx · « **Reply #536 on:** December 30, 2011, 17:39 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 30, 2011, 17:16

Well, the R101 did seem to be sailing serenely on through the stormy skies before, unexpectedly and without warning, going into a nose-dive, crashing and burning, destroying most of its most sincere believers and architects in the process.

True, but when she caught fire I bet there were far fewer passengers denying there was a problem

ShadySue · « **Reply #537 on:** December 30, 2011, 17:55 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 30, 2011, 17:00

Quote from: jbarber873 on December 30, 2011, 11:08

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.

Excellent post. I hadn't thought about it in those terms, but you are probably right. Whichever side of that proverbial fence we are on at this point, we are pretty much stuck with it.

If you're indie or newishbie, you can't become exclusive even if you should want to:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=338589&page=1

jbarber873 · « **Reply #538 on:** December 30, 2011, 20:18 »

Quote from: TheDman on December 30, 2011, 17:22

Quote from: jbarber873 on December 30, 2011, 11:08
Quote from: aeonf on December 30, 2011, 10:40
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.

Nah. Depends on your situation. With istock's continued plummet the risk/reward scenario for exclusives is constantly changing. I'm exclusive, and last year at this time there was no way I would have considered dropping the crown. But after seeing my steep sales decline this year I'm simply not risking as much anymore, and what little I do risk I could easily see making back and then some at the other sites. Before the RC targets were lowered I was almost certainly going to drop the crown on Jan 1, considering I was going to miss the 30% cutoff by a hundred or so. Now that they've lowered I'm reconsidering just a bit... might hang around until March or April just to see if the decline continues, since those months were my best of 2011. And I'm sure more than "a small percentage at most" of my port would get into SS, at least among the sellers. Call me confident. ;-)

Confidence is a big part of success. Good luck and welcome to the indie club!

ShadySue · « **Reply #539 on:** December 31, 2011, 07:04 »

I guess my previous theory about inspectors not checking keywords nowadays is valid.
I have a vested interest in the search for "commercial kitchen" nobody.
"Commercial kitchen" has always been a particularly badly keyworded search, but the current best match on "Commercial kitchen" nobody shows that spamming has reached epidemic proportions.
They are just heaping ruin upon themselves. I'd say 24/the top 200 are 'commercial kitchens', with maybe another 6 at a generous stretch.
http://www.istockphoto.com/search/text/%22Commercial%20kitchen%22%20nobody/source/basic#18ad467c

gostwyck · « **Reply #540 on:** December 31, 2011, 07:21 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 31, 2011, 07:04

"Commercial kitchen" has always been a particularly badly keyworded search, but the current best match on "Commercial kitchen" nobody shows that spamming has reached epidemic proportions.
They are just heaping ruin upon themselves. I'd say 24/the top 200 are 'commercial kitchens', with maybe another 6 at a generous stretch.
http://www.istockphoto.com/search/text/%22Commercial%20kitchen%22%20nobody/source/basic#18ad467c

Wow __ that's awful. If you swap between 'Best Match' and 'File Age' not only do the results not get any better but most of the same files appear in both searches (apart from the missing independent images in the best match results obviously!).

Here's the equivalent search at SS, using the default 'Most Popular' sort order. Almost all the SS images are of ... er ... commercial kitchens;

http://tinyurl.com/SS-commercialkitchen

Eyedesign · « **Reply #541 on:** December 31, 2011, 09:09 »

The search Sue is running is "commercial kitchen" Nobody. Here is the same search on SS: http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&searchterm=commercial+kitchen+Nobody&search_group=&orient=&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&commercial_ok=&color=&show_color_wheel=1

Also I'm guessing that SS's popular is like IS's downloads: http://www.istockphoto.com/search/text/commercial%20kitchen/source/basic#e93a9c3 .

wut · « **Reply #542 on:** December 31, 2011, 09:28 »

Quote from: Eyedesign on December 31, 2011, 09:09

Also I'm guessing that SS's popular is like IS's downloads: http://www.istockphoto.com/search/text/commercial%20kitchen/source/basic#e93a9c3 .

It's not, it's more of a best match, which actually shows best results

. I've had many on the first page with not that many DLs.

gostwyck · « **Reply #543 on:** December 31, 2011, 10:06 »

Quote from: Eyedesign on December 31, 2011, 09:09

The search Sue is running is "commercial kitchen" Nobody.

Istock's best match still provides an astonishingly poor selection though __ mainly newish images from series from just a few contributors. I think quite a few more customers will be taking their custom elsewhere if Istock stick with it.

I doubt that significant numbers of buyers actually use the keyword "nobody". Because it was recommended on IS I have included it in the keywords of my images but not a single buyer has ever been recorded using it on either DT or SS (where they show you the keywords used).

SS's 'Popular' corresponds most closely to Downloads/Month with a bit of a boost for new images (they usually start around one third up the Popular order).

Karimala · « **Reply #544 on:** December 31, 2011, 12:50 »

No matter how hard I try, I cannot keep up with this thread, so sorry I'm late with this post.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rape

The definition of "rape":

1. the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.
3. statutory rape.
4. an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside.
5. Archaic . the act of seizing and carrying off by force.

The way IS keeps walking away with more and more of our money definitely fits the definition IMO.

ShadySue · « **Reply #545 on:** December 31, 2011, 12:54 »

Quote from: gostwyck on December 31, 2011, 10:06

I doubt that significant numbers of buyers actually use the keyword "nobody". Because it was recommended on IS I have included it in the keywords of my images but not a single buyer has ever been recorded using it on either DT or SS (where they show you the keywords used).

I guess you're right, though the people choice is easy to find on SS [1]. It's hidden in iStock and DT.
Hey, DT has a price slider, and here we've had people complaining about iStock's price slider as though it was the only one on the whole Internet. Dreamstime commercial kitchen with no people selected in the advanced search is pretty clean, only a very few shouldn't be there.

[1] On SS, how you you exclude pictures which have people in them?

Back onto the slider thing, I'm booking a trip at the moment, and the site which will probably get my custom has tick boxes and two sliders (price and customer recommendation) to whittle down results. Very convenient and easy, IMO.

ShadySue · « **Reply #546 on:** December 31, 2011, 12:56 »

Quote from: Karimala on December 31, 2011, 12:50

No matter how hard I try, I cannot keep up with this thread, so sorry I'm late with this post.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rape

The definition of "rape":

1. the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.
3. statutory rape.
4. an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside.
5. Archaic . the act of seizing and carrying off by force.

Absolutely, like the Rape of the Sabine Women, which I might as well pimp:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-18355877-giambologna-s-rape-of-the-sabine-women-florence-italy.php?st=892c71f

Quote

The way IS keeps walking away with more and more of our money definitely fits the definition IMO.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #547 on:** December 31, 2011, 13:41 »

Oh, well, I'm glad someone found a proper definition. I couldn't dig one out since apparently the word is now used in American slang to mean being victorious which has raised a storm of online objections.

cathyslife · « **Reply #548 on:** December 31, 2011, 15:02 »

Quote from: jsnover on December 30, 2011, 16:39

I think we might be more au courrant to compare iStock to Netflix, someone once in a commanding position with enviable growth and customer satisfaction scores, but which amazingly quickly eroded most of those with breathtakingly moronic decisions and even worse PR defending them with the Kelly-clone CEO. Read here, here, here, and here for those outside the US who might have missed this little gem of a corporate pratfall.

And as of two days ago, likening istock to Verizon is also apropos. Verizon has since rescinded the intent to charge, but how greedy can a corporation get.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/verizon-add-2-bill-pay-005857918.html

lisafx · « **Reply #549 on:** December 31, 2011, 18:28 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 31, 2011, 13:41

Oh, well, I'm glad someone found a proper definition. I couldn't dig one out since apparently the word is now used in American slang to mean being victorious which has raised a storm of online objections.

Interesting. I have never heard it used that way. Must be pretty new/niche slang.

Thanks to Karimala for posting the definitions

This "rape" discussion has come up before and gotten pretty incendiary. It seems that some of those who are not native English speakers fail to fully understand all common usages of the word, and therefore take deep offense. May I humbly suggest that people refrain from correcting the grammar of others who are speaking their own native tongue, and are more apt to fully understand its correct usage?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Another Massive Best Match Shift (Read 249008 times)

Eco

lagereek

BaldricksTrousers

BaldricksTrousers

lagereek

Jo Ann Snover

lisafx

lisafx

BaldricksTrousers

TheDman

lagereek

lisafx

ShadySue

jbarber873

ShadySue

gostwyck

Eyedesign

wut

gostwyck

Karimala

ShadySue

ShadySue

BaldricksTrousers

cathyslife

lisafx

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors