MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: Sean Locke Photography on August 04, 2011, 15:54
-
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=332782&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=332782&page=1)
From kkthompson:
I'm excited to share that starting in September, I'll be taking the next step in my journey--but I'm not going too far. I will be moving to New York to take on a new role as Senior Vice President, Product Development for Getty Images. I will be relocating to Manhattan to lead a talented team of Product Managers at iStock and Getty Images to help drive the on-going evolution of the packaging and positioning of iStockphoto.com, Thinkstock.com, Photos.com and Clipart.com.
-
Oh, you beat me by six minutes!
For us, however, the interesting,exciting/or scary bit is probably the as-ever ambiguous:
"Jonathan Klein wisely told us some time ago that as we hit the 5 million images mark, there would be many great images that simply would not be seen--and it's especially true as we near 10 million. We're looking at ways to resurface those images to get them selling again--even if it means moving them between sites. I'll be looking for your support as we roll out these exciting new options."
-
As long as they are "options" for us, and not "options" for the customer. I'd hate to find I'm being forced to put stuff where I don't want it. I get sales from old images without them being put on the buffet.
-
I'd hate to find I'm being forced to put stuff where I don't want it.
That's what I took it as meaning. :-(
-
As long as they are "options" for us, and not "options" for the customer. I'd hate to find I'm being forced to put stuff where I don't want it. I get sales from old images without them being put on the buffet.
Given that Getty photographers didn't get a choice, I'm not sure I see a long term future in iStock photographers having one.
Now I'm independent again, I'll probably tolerate them moving my content around as long as they don't screw us too badly on the royalties. If they move anything of mine to clipart.com I'm deactivating it! That site is an insult and the mention of it in the e-mail made me shudder.
I don't have a single warm thought about KKT, and I've never heard of this person who is taking his place. Now IS is just one more pin on a map to some Getty suit. Not seeing much good for contributors in that. OTOH, if they can get the sales volume back up (there were a few bright spots in the July stats thread, but not many) I don't have to like them. At this point it's just business.
-
The numbers are just amazing!
I really wish Kelly all the best. He can now focus completely on product development and doesnīt have to worry about how to charm the crowd...:-) I wouldnīt be surprised if the rest of the announcement means that istock will provide even more content for Getty, not just V/A.
This is the first really exciting piece of news in a long time.
I do hope we will at least maintain control over our istock portfolio. I am fully enrolled in the partner program and they can move my files around the way they like, especially those that havenīt sold, but please let me develop my webshop for my customers with what they need. Even if it is a boring, very generic, not superedgy artistic file. Iīll find a buyer for it...
-
aarrrhhhhh, they've put him higher up the tree to screw us over more, I wish they'd just shown him the door.
I notice that they didn't put a part in the table where it showed % royalties over time.
-
Bye Bye KK. I don't miss you. And please, before you go, bring back my royalties.
-
Fools to the left, jokers to the right, here I am stuck in the middle with..............................................
-
Clipart.com, you can buy up to 13,000 images during the year for $160? That's like 1 cent an image what percentage would we get?
-
anybody from 2004 or before can talk about the progression of the royalties payed to contributors? this not an attack or sarcasm or other, just want to know about it, looked around and havenīt found much.. thanks guys
-
I am very concerned that images may be moved around without consultation.
-
Adieu, Kelly. Though sounds like you'll still have plenty of say in the future of IS.
-
Clipart.com, you can buy up to 13,000 images during the year for $160? That's like 1 cent an image what percentage would we get?
Just about any percentage of 1 cent - even 100% - is too small :)
-
Wow, he got a promotion. I wonder if he gets a nice fat salary increase too. It looks like the assimilation is complete. He's 100% Borg company suit now. I think I'll got take a shower. I feel dirty after reading that.
-
Fools to the left, jokers to the right, here I am stuck in the middle with..............................................
Absolutely fabulous!
-
Adieu, Kelly. Though sounds like you'll still have plenty of say in the future of IS.
Yeah. That's the bad news... :-\
-
Do you think this is a prelude to forcing the reluctants to put part of their port on Thinkstock.
(Similar to the way governments work, as in "We tried voluntary compliance, and it hasn't worked, so now we must legislate").
-
Do you think this is a prelude to forcing the reluctants to put part of their port on Thinkstock.
(Similar to the way governments work, as in "We tried voluntary compliance, and it hasn't worked, so now we must legislate").
IMO it's only a matter of time.
-
Do you think this is a prelude to forcing the reluctants to put part of their port on Thinkstock.
(Similar to the way governments work, as in "We tried voluntary compliance, and it hasn't worked, so now we must legislate").
IMO it's only a matter of time.
Indeed. Resistance is futile.
-
I'll just leave this here...
(http://houseofshane.com/posters/istock-cart2.jpg)
-
"You - our contributors, inspectors, staff and customers - turned iStock into one of the most amazing success stories of all time."
In the list he puts the contributors first. Seems like an incredibly considerate chap. ;D
-
aarrrhhhhh, they've put him higher up the tree to screw us over more, I wish they'd just shown him the door.
I notice that they didn't put a part in the table where it showed % royalties over time.
On the shop floor they have a saying 'F__k up and move up' There is a ring of truth about this saying.
-
Well, lets give the guy credit. He got through a whole announcement without saying anything boneheaded ;D
Looks like we can look forward to quite a bit of juggling of images between collections and sites.
-
Interesting use of "look forward to" ;)
-
"Our goal, and part of my new mandate, will be to make sure we optimize your earnings from your content. "
Fixed this part here:
Our goal, and part of my new mandate, will be to make sure we optimize our earnings from your content.
-
Well, lets give the guy credit. He got through a whole announcement without saying anything boneheaded ;D
Haha.....exactly what I thought, clearly he didn't write it. Let's just be thankful that they're finally moving this (insert whichever term you feel suits him best) into some made up position in Manhattan where he can take charge of the 'packaging' of the brand ( I'm guessing they're putting him in charge of filling the goody bags for the lypses)
-
From the istock forum:
Huge Thanx Kelly for all things what you've done for us...
...more than the money and downloads stats, his achievement is the many lives he changed. I am very thankful.
Rock on Kelly! I hope this means less travel time for you. And more delicious restaurants...
Kelly you truly are a rockstar...
Can't wait to see what happens next :)
Are we that quick to forget that this is the same guy who delivered that whole "unsustainable" speech last fall?
What a horrible message this sends. The guy hands down a nearly across-the-board royalty cut and less than a year later we're singing his praises. The execs at Getty must read this stuff and think, "Look, we screwed them over and they love us for it!"
I have no doubt that ThinkStock and some of the other collections will not remain optional forever. It's no wonder Getty/istock feel inclined to always act in their own interests before those of the contributors. We pretty much give them license to do it. All the woo-yaying at every turn sends a dangerous message.
-
From the istock forum:
Huge Thanx Kelly for all things what you've done for us...
...more than the money and downloads stats, his achievement is the many lives he changed. I am very thankful.
Rock on Kelly! I hope this means less travel time for you. And more delicious restaurants...
Kelly you truly are a rockstar...
Can't wait to see what happens next :)
Are we that quick to forget that this is the same guy who delivered that whole "unsustainable" speech last fall?
What a horrible message this sends. The guy hands down a nearly across-the-board royalty cut and less than a year later we're singing his praises. The execs at Getty must read this stuff and think, "Look, we screwed them over and they love us for it!"
I have no doubt that ThinkStock and some of the other collections will not remain optional forever. It's no wonder Getty/istock feel inclined to always act in their own interests before those of the contributors. We pretty much give them license to do it. All the woo-yaying at every turn sends a dangerous message.
I'm so glad someone pointed all that out. Almost four and counting pages of that brown-nosing. "Thank you sir, may I have another!!!! Woo-yay!!"
-
I think anyone with a different viewpoint has either been banned or has given up hope with istock. I wont forget the commission cut and I'm not celebrating this promotion on the back of cutting my earnings.
-
the woo-yaying
it is mainly from top exclusive contributors and staff, there arenīt many guys with a few sales saying that sort of "things", how long will they be exclusive? perhaps "forever", they have given up on other agencies so or they accept their actions or they have a lot of work, actually same stuff with non-exclusives
I am perplex how the "discussion" is still holding without incidents..
-
Good to see him go. Sadly I expect Rebecca Rockafellar to be more of Getty corporate hack, (though with better communication skills).
However, the comments about
* "packaging" of various brands
* "make sure we optimize your earnings from your content"
* "we want the right pictures on the right sites at the right prices",
* "Were looking at ways to resurface those images to get them selling againeven if it means moving them between sites."
are all ominous.
The "Ill be looking for your support as we roll out these exciting new options" comment is terrifying. He's setting the table for something really bad that will involve dismembering big parts of Istock.
Certainly suggests forced transfer to Thinkstock is one likely option, but I'm sure there is worse that we have not yet imagined...
-
Manhattan will eat him alive.
-
From the istock forum:
Huge Thanx Kelly for all things what you've done for us...
...more than the money and downloads stats, his achievement is the many lives he changed. I am very thankful.
Rock on Kelly! I hope this means less travel time for you. And more delicious restaurants...
Kelly you truly are a rockstar...
Can't wait to see what happens next :)
Are we that quick to forget that this is the same guy who delivered that whole "unsustainable" speech last fall?
What a horrible message this sends. The guy hands down a nearly across-the-board royalty cut and less than a year later we're singing his praises. The execs at Getty must read this stuff and think, "Look, we screwed them over and they love us for it!"
I have no doubt that ThinkStock and some of the other collections will not remain optional forever. It's no wonder Getty/istock feel inclined to always act in their own interests before those of the contributors. We pretty much give them license to do it. All the woo-yaying at every turn sends a dangerous message.
I agree. I see nothing in his statement that excites me. What I see is contributors getting fkd more. I mean, he did such a fine job last fall that they promoted him to do more of it....with the incentive to pay for his, perhaps, fluffy salary now.
-
Another mind-boggling post from the IS forum: "Congrats Kelly and thanks for doing such a great job." I think they forgot this though: "of screwing contributors and buyers alike."
-
If they feel there are too many files at Istock, that suggests content is going to get separated pushed to different sites.
That's old news I guess because Getty is already being purged. This will just be a further shuffling of Getty macro, Istock midstock, and TS micro subscription.
The unknown is whose files will end up where and what the end result will be.
-
anybody from 2004 or before can talk about the progression of the royalties payed to contributors? this not an attack or sarcasm or other, just want to know about it, looked around and havenīt found much.. thanks guys
I don't recall royalty percentages ever changing (at least from Nov '04 when I joined) until the beginning of this year. However, prices went up pretty steadily every year, which for me was always enough to offset the sales drop until this year. I believe customers paid $0.50 for a small and $1.50 for a large in Nov '04.
-
anybody from 2004 or before can talk about the progression of the royalties payed to contributors? this not an attack or sarcasm or other, just want to know about it, looked around and havenīt found much.. thanks guys
I don't recall royalty percentages ever changing (at least from Nov '04 when I joined) until the beginning of this year. However, prices went up pretty steadily every year, which for me was always enough to offset the sales drop until this year. I believe customers paid $0.50 for a small and $1.50 for a large in Nov '04.
thanks :)
-
If they feel there are too many files at Istock, that suggests content is going to get separated pushed to different sites.
That's old news I guess because Getty is already being purged. This will just be a further shuffling of Getty macro, Istock midstock, and TS micro subscription.
The unknown is whose files will end up where and what the end result will be.
this fall?
-
Wow, he got a promotion ...
... is the wrong answer. He's basically been sacked. He's been moved sideways and downwards both in the corporate sense and also geographically.
He was the boss of a $1B-worth company with full responsibility for P&L ... until he screwed up and probably halved it's value (at best). Two years ago IS were comfortably the #1 microstock site. Nowadays that's just history. KT's going to be the VP, note VP, of a department without any responsibility for P&L. They've finally realised he can't be trusted with P&L and that will be the ultimate humiliation for him.
-
Wow, he got a promotion ...
... is the wrong answer. He's basically been sacked. He's been moved sideways and downwards both in the corporate sense and also geographically.
He was the boss of a $1B-worth company with full responsibility for P&L ... until he screwed up and probably halved it's value (at best). Two years ago IS were comfortably the #1 microstock site. Nowadays that's just history. KT's going to be the VP, note VP, of a department without any responsibility for P&L. They've finally realised he can't be trusted with P&L and that will be the ultimate humiliation for him.
This was just explained to me by someone else. Clearly a demotion! As the unnamed source said to me, "VPs are a dime a dozen." And someone else noted, "It's like being a manager at McDonald's."
I get it now. And WooYay! Glad they've shuffled him along, but I don't think it will matter a lick in terms of the way wind is blowing at HQ in terms of policy, sales, etc.
-
these big shifts are very unsettling to say the least and I'd prefer it was just done without these tidbits of impending announcements about what I think will be a major paradigm restructure in which they're going to separate out files into collections. I think as Paulie said above, we're looking at a splitting out of content into tiers...and I suspect it won't be optional anymore where files go. I'm not happy about that.
if I play devil's advocate - I do welcome a restructure that includes divvying out content wisely into collections if it means that content will get more and broader visibility. however, if any content starts being mirrored in a greedy attempt to get paid at all levels, then I'd feel as negatively as I do about the current incarnation of the partner program.
in regards to Kelly - I'm fortunate to have met him in person before this shift happened. Kelly is an accessible, kind, genuine and truly nice person. He's intelligent and accomplished, but incredibly humble and unfortunately I think that has worked against him in terms of communicating with the community. we're a very tough crowd. I don't know what his new position entails, so I have little to say about it. but I wish him the very best in Manhattan.
-
I think it's almost worse than being sacked for KT __ at least then he'd probably have been due a handsome payout. Instead they offered him a lowly position 3000k miles from his home, presumably anticipating that he would resign in disgust. Unfortunately for them he's actually accepted it! Just shows how much he thought of his own likely worth in today's employment market.
-
Wow, he got a promotion ...
... is the wrong answer. He's basically been sacked. He's been moved sideways and downwards both in the corporate sense and also geographically.
He was the boss of a $1B-worth company with full responsibility for P&L ... until he screwed up and probably halved it's value (at best). Two years ago IS were comfortably the #1 microstock site. Nowadays that's just history. KT's going to be the VP, note VP, of a department without any responsibility for P&L. They've finally realised he can't be trusted with P&L and that will be the ultimate humiliation for him.
It sounds like they sold the deal to him just like they sold the deal to Bruce when they offered to "improve" iStock, LOL. Thing is, I don't think any of what happened at iStock came from him. I think it all came from Getty. So now they've no use for their whipping boy and who even knows what they are going to do with the company now. I wonder what new title and position they are going to come up with for member JJRD. iStock slowly is being assimilated. Will Getty ultimately replace all the iStockers who were there pre-Getty with their own corporate shills. Boy am I glad I'm not a contributor there. Scary times for you all.
-
Wow, he got a promotion ...
... is the wrong answer. He's basically been sacked. He's been moved sideways and downwards both in the corporate sense and also geographically.
He was the boss of a $1B-worth company with full responsibility for P&L ... until he screwed up and probably halved it's value (at best). Two years ago IS were comfortably the #1 microstock site. Nowadays that's just history. KT's going to be the VP, note VP, of a department without any responsibility for P&L. They've finally realised he can't be trusted with P&L and that will be the ultimate humiliation for him.
Going from COO to VP kinda sounds that way. Maybe he didn't hit his growth targets and they found a role that's a better fit for him.
They're sending a business schooled corporate person (http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1466156&authType=name&authToken=ilen&locale=en_US&pvs=pp&trk=ppro_viewmore) to run Istock. From what it sounds like, Kelly was a programmer that ended up doing marketing stuff and moved up the ranks. Those people almost always get ousted by a corporate lifer.
It'll be interesting to see if Rebecca tries to rebuild the destroyed contributor trust or do more of the same hacking away at contributors to boost profits. It's amazing how much has changed in a year.
-
It'll be interesting to see if Rebecca tries to rebuild the destroyed contributor trust or do more of the same hacking away at contributors to boost profits. It's amazing how much has changed in a year.
Boy, has she got a job on her hands! The fact that they sacked the boss indicates just how far south of 'projections' the business was heading. How . they turn the ship around is a good option for a new thread. They've spent the last two years doing everything they could to piss off both their customers and their contributors and it is really difficult to see where they go from here ... except further south. IS have been totally out-manoeuvred by SS on every front and it looks game-over from my stat's. Once the exclusives wake up to that fact then IS could virtually be history.
-
The time is ripe for the dumping of Getty's standard array of collections into iStock. Look for more content and not just at AC price points.
-
It'll be interesting to see if Rebecca tries to rebuild the destroyed contributor trust or do more of the same hacking away at contributors to boost profits. It's amazing how much has changed in a year.
This doesn't bode well: In December 2005, Ms. Rockafellar served as Senior Director Of Business Development where she was responsible for various mergers and acquisitions, strategic partnerships and management of company-wide business initiatives. She served as the vice president of platform and product management, leading teams to leverage technology to Getty Images.
-
The time is ripe for the dumping of Getty's standard array of collections into iStock. Look for more content and not just at AC price points.
I'd say this is a good bet. I think Getty will continue purging itself of stuff that isn't selling at macro prices and dump it or send it to Istock. A mix of moderately valued to low value stuff will get pushed from IS to TS. TS needs to have a mix of lower value stuff plus some decent stuff to attract buyers. Stuff that isn't selling at IS or TS will probably get deactivated.
I had a beer with a friend of mine that's in marketing at a large company. He goes back and forth between buying at Getty and IS. He said he finds a few gems at IS but fairly often goes back to Getty because the collection is tighter and he can more quickly find keepers. I think this will be a goal for Getty for all sites. Shuffle for more keepers and push everything else down the ranks to see where it fits.
Get ready for some pushing and shoving.
-
"in regards to Kelly - I'm fortunate to have met him in person before this shift happened. Kelly is an accessible, kind, genuine and truly nice person. He's intelligent and accomplished, but incredibly humble and unfortunately I think that has worked against him in terms of communicating with the community. we're a very tough crowd. I don't know what his new position entails, so I have little to say about it. but I wish him the very best in Manhattan."
I'd agree with this. People may still be hurting and nursing bruises, but sometimes it's ok to talk to the person and not necessarily the position. I will say I'm in a much better place then I was when Bruce left, and while I'd like to attribute all that to my awesome ability ... ;)
-
... and yes, between the lines, it seems to say Stinkstock.
-
in regards to Kelly - I'm fortunate to have met him in person before this shift happened. Kelly is ...
I was at the HQ 'lypse and so I did sort-of meet Kelly. There was a Q&A and I found his attitude and response to my question about ongoing site problems (which he dismissively said were fixed as if I were a moron, but which weren't fixed as someone else at the table told him) pretty unfriendly. At the end of 'lypse party he just swept right past me. Perhaps he's just painfully shy and not a communicator, but I was truly underwhelmed back then. I didn't see a leader or someone you'd want to rally behind.
I found everyone else incredibly welcoming and fun to be around, so I came away with very good feelings about the folks in Calgary, with that one exception. I'm just offering this to go along with the more upbeat assessments - some liked him, some not so much.
And as far as how iStock grew after Bruce left, you'll never be able to tease apart what things happened in spite of Kelly's leadership and what happened because of it. There's often quite a lot of lead and lag time on the effects of corporate decisions and it's in my mind much more likely that the massive leadership position that iStock had carried them a long way before the effects of a number of decisions were felt.
However, for the moment, iStock is still my number one earner, so it's in my interests that the new Getty suit doesn't totally eff it up, so I am keeping my fingers crossed although I don't have much optimism.
-
Oh, you beat me by six minutes!
For us, however, the interesting,exciting/or scary bit is probably the as-ever ambiguous:
"Jonathan Klein wisely told us some time ago that as we hit the 5 million images mark, there would be many great images that simply would not be seen--and it's especially true as we near 10 million. We're looking at ways to resurface those images to get them selling again--even if it means moving them between sites. I'll be looking for your support as we roll out these exciting new options."
If it means that our things get moved to other sites involuntarily he will absolutely NOT have my support nor will he have the support of many other contributors I know.
-
Oh, you beat me by six minutes!
For us, however, the interesting,exciting/or scary bit is probably the as-ever ambiguous:
"Jonathan Klein wisely told us some time ago that as we hit the 5 million images mark, there would be many great images that simply would not be seen--and it's especially true as we near 10 million. We're looking at ways to resurface those images to get them selling again--even if it means moving them between sites. I'll be looking for your support as we roll out these exciting new options."
If it means that our things get moved to other sites involuntarily he will absolutely NOT have my support nor will he have the support of many other contributors I know.
If you're producing stuff they want, you probably have nothing to worry about. If you have stuff they don't feel is a fit they may move it and not care about your support.
-
If they feel there are too many files at Istock, that suggests content is going to get separated pushed to different sites.
That's old news I guess because Getty is already being purged. This will just be a further shuffling of Getty macro, Istock midstock, and TS micro subscription.
The unknown is whose files will end up where and what the end result will be.
28581 people or 77% of the contributors have 200 or less files on IS.
5% of the contributors have over 1000 files.
Just to place the people here who are serious and worked hard to get 1000 files up for sale. Top 5% of MicroStock
Who will get moved where will be interesting, but 10 million files, it's obvious that being lost in the search is nothing personal. :)
-
I predict a new dark horse riding into town and taking over the microstock market ;)
-
Oh, you beat me by six minutes!
For us, however, the interesting,exciting/or scary bit is probably the as-ever ambiguous:
"Jonathan Klein wisely told us some time ago that as we hit the 5 million images mark, there would be many great images that simply would not be seen--and it's especially true as we near 10 million. We're looking at ways to resurface those images to get them selling again--even if it means moving them between sites. I'll be looking for your support as we roll out these exciting new options."
If it means that our things get moved to other sites involuntarily he will absolutely NOT have my support nor will he have the support of many other contributors I know.
If you're producing stuff they want, you probably have nothing to worry about. If you have stuff they don't feel is a fit they may move it and not care about your support.
That's how I see it as well.
-
" Our goal, and part of my new mandate, will be to make sure we optimize your earnings from your content. "
I can tell them an easy way to do this, and it starts with upping our commission percent.
Unfortunately I think the accurate translation as posted earlier was "...optimise our earnings from your content."
sigh.
-
I predict a new dark horse riding into town and taking over the microstock market ;)
Yes!! and he found Excalibur, pulled it from the stone and they will ride to Manhattan for serious round-table discussions. The Holy Grail, is within reach.
-
"in regards to Kelly - I'm fortunate to have met him in person before this shift happened. Kelly is an accessible, kind, genuine and truly nice person. He's intelligent and accomplished, but incredibly humble and unfortunately I think that has worked against him in terms of communicating with the community. we're a very tough crowd. I don't know what his new position entails, so I have little to say about it. but I wish him the very best in Manhattan."
I'd agree with this. People may still be hurting and nursing bruises, but sometimes it's ok to talk to the person and not necessarily the position. I will say I'm in a much better place then I was when Bruce left, and while I'd like to attribute all that to my awesome ability ... ;)
I don't think it was intelligent to tell us that our commissions were being cut because istock's profits were unsustainable and that we aren't really doing this for the money. There's really no going back after making that statement, it just showed how greedy and out of touch with its independent contributors istock has become. He might not of had a choice about the commission cuts but the way it was announced was appalling.
This is probably going to be another exclusive v independent thing. I doubt there's an independent around that thinks istock has be run well the past few years. Perhaps just looking after their best exclusives is a good business decision but looking at how shutterstock has prospered, I doubt it.
-
I am glad to see that Rebecca comes from a classic business background. I think the company badly needs someone who understands the whole economics of the site.
istock was the top No1 site and when I look at the traffic rank, we are about to be overtaken by dreamstime. Not funny.
But with a new management I think I can look forward to good sales this autumn. They will want to raise the numbers, so there will be lots and lots of advertising on all fronts to drive traffic back to the site.
Like many here have said, I met Kelly very briefly and came away with a good impression. Very hardworking, very humble, totally dedicated to istock and the contributors.
But he was clearly in the wrong position, so it is good he found a place in NY where he focus more on what he loves best.
My biggest hope is that the new management recognizes that the successful artists are good because they are good business people.
The top 5% have all understood how to identify a market niche for them, they know how to shoot with the customers in mind. From this I hope they allow us to add to our webshop the images we want to add and only remove them from our portfolio if they donīt sell.
I donīt mind if they add my content to the partner sites as well. I would be happy if all my content went immediately to the partner sites, even without the 18month delay for exclusives.
But in return, I would like to see all the money that I bring in be counted towrds my RC target. Wether I bring in money via photo, film, the partner program or by bringing in well paying buyers - what does it matter??? A dollar earned is a dollar earned.
It would also be great if the management would use all the talents of the community and not just see us as "happy carefree fun loving artists".
The site was built by creating a b2b plattform that benefitted everyone, a very unique marketplace. I hope they recognize that and change gears to allow the plattform to flourish like before.
In the end, they just have to follow the money. And cutting contributor royalties is a trick that only works once. Otherwise the competition will be happy to take care of us.
-
.
-
I can hear the bells of Thinkstock loud and clear (and it doesn't matter if you are an exclusive or an independent).
-
Going from COO to VP kinda sounds that way. Maybe he didn't hit his growth targets and they found a role that's a better fit for him.
...
In other words, he didn't screw us as hard as he needed to to make these targets (?)
It'll be interesting to see if Rebecca tries to rebuild the destroyed contributor trust or do more of the same hacking away at contributors to boost profits. It's amazing how much has changed in a year.
If my above guess is right, she'll obviously need to screw us tighter or she'll be papped too.
Hard times for all. :-(
-
From the istock forum:
Huge Thanx Kelly for all things what you've done for us...
...more than the money and downloads stats, his achievement is the many lives he changed. I am very thankful.
Rock on Kelly! I hope this means less travel time for you. And more delicious restaurants...
Kelly you truly are a rockstar...
Can't wait to see what happens next :)
This is way beyond sycophancy, these ppl are sick. Not joking, I mean it dead serious...
-
Going from COO to VP kinda sounds that way. Maybe he didn't hit his growth targets and they found a role that's a better fit for him.
...
In other words, he didn't screw us as hard as he needed to to make these targets (?)
It'll be interesting to see if Rebecca tries to rebuild the destroyed contributor trust or do more of the same hacking away at contributors to boost profits. It's amazing how much has changed in a year.
If my above guess is right, she'll obviously need to screw us tighter or she'll be papped too.
Hard times for all. :-(
Cutting commission led to an exodus of non-exclusives and lots of us that stayed, because we need the money, haven't uploaded much in the last year. I really don't see how that boosts istock's profits. Governments that tax too much see their revenues fall, those that cut taxes give people an incentive to work harder and their revenues increase.
So if istock want to increase their profits, they should give us all a big commission raise. I wonder how long Rebecca would last if she suggested that idea :) It seems crazy but all they have done is push contributors and buyers to their rival sites.
-
From the istock forum:
Huge Thanx Kelly for all things what you've done for us...
...more than the money and downloads stats, his achievement is the many lives he changed. I am very thankful.
Rock on Kelly! I hope this means less travel time for you. And more delicious restaurants...
Kelly you truly are a rockstar...
Can't wait to see what happens next :)
This is way beyond sycophancy, these ppl are sick. Not joking, I mean it dead serious...
This is why I stopped visiting the istock forums years ago. Really sick making.
-
I thought he got a promotion, but some of you have deduced that he basically was demoted, so this could just be a 'saving face' thing. Not a fact of course but a likely theory.
When he joined iStock in 2004, he certainly couldnt have imagined how loathed iStock would be today. Or maybe he doesn't even know.
-
When he joined iStock in 2004, he certainly couldnt have imagined how loathed iStock would be today. Or maybe he doesn't even know.
He thinks "everyone just calmed down".
-
I thought he got a promotion, but some of you have deduced that he basically was demoted, so this could just be a 'saving face' thing.
Yeah same here after getting some background from people with more business knowledge I think the same - so no bad words from me about him (but none good words either).
-
Oh, you beat me by six minutes!
For us, however, the interesting,exciting/or scary bit is probably the as-ever ambiguous:
"Jonathan Klein wisely told us some time ago that as we hit the 5 million images mark, there would be many great images that simply would not be seen--and it's especially true as we near 10 million. We're looking at ways to resurface those images to get them selling again--even if it means moving them between sites. I'll be looking for your support as we roll out these exciting new options."
If it means that our things get moved to other sites involuntarily he will absolutely NOT have my support nor will he have the support of many other contributors I know.
If you're producing stuff they want, you probably have nothing to worry about. If you have stuff they don't feel is a fit they may move it and not care about your support.
I think that's true for exclusives... there's no way i see them going through the non-exclusive collection to manually sort out files for this or that site. It just screams mass migration to TS for us....
imho this 'moving content over to other sites' will probably take the nepotism thats already going on to a new level; i think i know which contributors will be taken very good care of.
It'll be a dark september :(
-
I thought he got a promotion, but some of you have deduced that he basically was demoted, so this could just be a 'saving face' thing.
Yeah same here after getting some background from people with more business knowledge I think the same - so no bad words from me about him (but none good words either).
He went from being the head of black sheep IS to one of the executives at mother ship Getty. Who knows if it was a promotion or demotion...
-
When he joined iStock in 2004, he certainly couldnt have imagined how loathed iStock would be today. Or maybe he doesn't even know.
A handful of people here and a few old-timers are the only people who loath iStockphoto.
Most active contributors are probably earning more from (and via) iStockphoto than they were in 2004. And every buyer I have ever talked too thinks that iStockphoto is a fantastic resource.
-
Well said. But the success of istock is not just due to Kelly. We all worked on that.
I think it is entirely possible to be grateful how istock changed my life but to also point out that the dramatic loss in contributor trust and sales traffic isnīt good for istock.
Kelly moved into a position where he will probably do a lot more good for us than before and he doesnīt have to deal with a lot of day to day stuff.
-
A handful of people here and a few old-timers are the only people who loath iStockphoto.
Most active contributors are probably earning more from (and via) iStockphoto than they were in 2004. And every buyer I have ever talked too thinks that iStockphoto is a fantastic resource.
No doubt most of its users do still think reasonably well of iStockphoto, but what has been squandered is the once-fanatical loyalty of both halves of its constituency. Designers are now rather more businesslike because images are no longer cheap as chips; and many contributors are at least wary of a company that could promise to grandfather people's canisters and then do an about-face a few months later, cutting royalties instead.
As I've said, I think the cumulative canister system had to have been doomed as soon as Getty's MBAs looked into the company, so I sort of understand, but a broken promise is hard to forget. Not that companies can be expected to behave morally, but consistency is generally good business.
As for the buyers, I wonder whether the policy of cranking up prices to maximise revenues is going to prove ill-judged in the long term. I'm among those making a lot more money than I was years ago, but iStock has achieved this by sacrificing growth in unit sales in favour of growth in revenue. That's all very well, but revenue isn't the only metric that matters when it comes to assessing your position in a market. I've been worrying for a while that iStock may have lost its market leadership without even realising it.
-
With regards to prices: I keep thinking of the software apps in the apple store. Sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars are poured into developing them, but they get sold for 2.99 USD. And you keep reading that people get their investment back in months.
Getty is a high price company. How much growth are they getting? How many buyers are they attracting?
It is always good to test price limits, but to actively drive customes to the competition isnīt a clever strategy.
For me that is the main problem with "spreading customers over thinkstock, istock, photos.com...". This plan only sounds good on paper and if you are in a vacuum without competitors. Once you drive the customer away, they will flock to the next company with highest market penetration.
Building up new brands takes a lot of time and costs money. Iīm not saying they shouldnīt do it, but I would prefer if they did it by grabbing customers from our competitors or bringing in entirely new buyers, for instance from emerging markets.
The buyers already on istock - please keep them there!!
-
really good post Don - any chance you want to move to Seattle? I think you have summarized fears perfectly...certainly the conversation in my iStock circles the past year is around whether we're giving up unit sales for increased revenue....I'd like to see dl numbers increasing along with revenue. not at the same rate maybe, but in the same direction consistently.
-
what has been squandered is the once-fanatical loyalty of both halves of its constituency.
I doubt that fanatical loyalty is ever a sustainable position. Fans are weird.
From the buyer perspective I believe that iStock is now a well established and respected brand with a solid professional profile. That's smart.
-
what has been squandered is the once-fanatical loyalty of both halves of its constituency.
I doubt that fanatical loyalty is ever a sustainable position. Fans are weird.
I have to disagree. People wait all night outside Apple stores to get the new Iphone but how many people wait outside all night for the new Blackberry?
Fanatical loyalty is what CEO's dream about and very few can achieve it.
Istock had it but since its an intangible asset and doesn't show up in the financial documents the accountants threw it away in favor of higher margins for the company.
To boost profits, I suspect Istock will keep the higher margins and make it mandatory with a new agreement that our non-selling work go to the PP. There we can get 20% of something instead of 100% of nothing. This of course at the cost of eroding the main collection at IS. Just like Getty RM, I think it will be a take or leave it offer.
edit: fixed your quotes so it displays properly
-
:o :o there must be something else that comes with an exclusive contract - grass, pills, some mystic rays coming out of your computer - whatever it is it works pretty well ::)
-
I don't know how many times we'll have to learn this harsh lesson before people finally get it. You can't constantly praise a company and then be surprised when that company does things that hurt you. Look at it from Getty/istock's perspective. We so quickly forget how they screwed us over, they announce a vague series of changes that will likely include some things we won't like (possibly alluding to mandatory collection inclusion), and yet the istock forum is still filled with compliments and praise. The corporate execs are licking their lips thinking, "Wow, these guys will go for anything we throw at them! How much more money can we take from them?"
It's a lost cause with istock. There are too many lemmings who will gladly take every cut and thank them for it. I'm more concerned with other companies that are still worth working with, particularly SS. A few certain individuals (one in particular) starts forum threads just to praise SS and everything they do. I worry that we're headed down the same road there, and SS execs might someday start thinking along the same lines. Maybe they already are. They already realized that they're under no obligation to continue the annual pay raises. Those quietly went away and yet the praises kept coming in. What's next? A pay cut? Probably, as long as people continue to say they're treating this like a business while refusing to act accordingly, kissing up to these companies and then being shocked when those companies act like businesses and make changes to improve their bottom line.
-
^ I don't think the execs are making decisions based on brown noser comments in the forums. The problem for all contributors is the ever increasing supply and that is making our individual value become less everyday. If a few of us revolt it doesn't matter because plenty will come to replace us.
-
The whole problem lies with the imbalance of power. Times and again the agencies were free to change the terms of agreement with the contributors and cannot be held accountable.
On the other hand, the agencies are holding the contributors to the strict performance of the agreement.
It is sickening.
-
:o :o there must be something else that comes with an exclusive contract - grass, pills, some mystic rays coming out of your computer - whatever it is it works pretty well ::)
The old royalty system worked once you made it to 40%. As it is now, I will have to magically double my sales in one year to make it to 40% now. If I drop exclusivity, I will have to start at the bottom royalty everywhere else and I will likely suffer a large drop in income in the short-term in the hopes that I can swim against the ever increasing tide of supply to move up the royalty ranks in the long-term.
Every exclusive that depends on their microstock income was checkmated last September whether they view it that way or not.
-
There is truth in that. I'm not happy about the flexible exclusivity given to some members, when I work hard to honour my exclusivity agreement, which forces difficult limitations on selling my work. I hope the new management realizes the significant longterm value of prioritizing suppliers. Otherwise quality work will become less and less available to agencies. All it takes is one very prominent disgruntled contributor to lead by example.
There's only so much business you can do selling P&S crap files on flickr
-
Every exclusive that depends on their microstock income was checkmated last September whether they view it that way or not.
good point.
-
Certainly no cheering from me. I wonder what the catch will be in the next round of news when we get it.
Retrorocket that is a good point about us being checkmated.
-
Certainly no cheering from me. I wonder what the catch will be in the next round of news when we get it.
Retrorocket that is a good point about us being checkmated.
Becky will slash our percentage ;)
-
So perhaps someone should start a poll about what sort of royalty cut would have you deleting your IS portfolio rather than putting up with it :)
-
So perhaps someone should start a poll about what sort of royalty cut would have you deleting your IS portfolio rather than putting up with it :)
:D
-
I don't know about deleting my pf. I'm exclusive so that really would leave me up wotsit creek with no means of propulsion. It's getting harder and harder not to get pushed off this exclusive spot on the fence I'm sitting on right now though. :-)
-
I have never (from the time that StockXpert was still alive and owned by Jupiter Images) understood why clipart dot com even exists any more. Given the incredible quality of content available at pretty modest prices at microstock sites, the utter dregs of clipart dot com seem to be a relic of another era (when you couldn't get any decent content inexpensively).
Seeing that site mentioned in KKT's e-mail inspired me to take another look to see if it had changed since I last looked in 2008. I was totally blown away by the garbage they're offering. I think this is all wholly owned garbage, so I'm going to post links to gems like these coins (http://www.clipart.com/en/close-up?o=346675&memlevel=C&a=p&q=&k_mode=all&s=1&e=36&show=&c=&cid=2d&findincat=&g=&cc=&page=&k_exc=&pubid=), this supposed night scene (http://www.clipart.com/en/close-up?o=351243&memlevel=C&a=p&q=&k_mode=all&s=1&e=36&show=&c=&cid=2d&findincat=&g=&cc=&page=&k_exc=&pubid=) - look at the shadows, or the lovely composition of this shot of a banjo (http://www.clipart.com/en/close-up?o=776072&memlevel=A&a=p&q=&k_mode=all&s=37&e=72&show=&c=&cid=2d&findincat=&g=&cc=&page=2&k_exc=&pubid=). Whoever shot these remains anonymous :)
The illustrations are just as bad - boy with puppy (http://www.clipart.com/en/close-up?o=3988546&memlevel=A&a=c&q=&k_mode=all&s=1&e=36&show=&c=&cid=5a&findincat=&g=&cc=&page=&k_exc=&pubid=), stick insect (http://www.clipart.com/en/close-up?o=3980687&memlevel=A&a=c&q=&k_mode=all&s=73&e=108&show=&c=&cid=5a&findincat=&g=&cc=&page=3&k_exc=&pubid=), Christmas wreath (http://www.clipart.com/en/close-up?o=3963103&memlevel=A&a=a&q=christmas&k_mode=all&s=1&e=36&show=&c=&cid=&findincat=&g=&cc=&page=&k_exc=&pubid=). Then there's a 32x32 GIF of a palette (http://www.clipart.com/en/close-up?o=616861&a=w&q=&k_mode=all&s=145&e=180&show=&c=&cid=4d&findincat=&g=&cc=&page=5&k_exc=&pubid=&color=&b=k&date=).
Browse around and you'll see tons more like these. I truly and sincerely hope that nothing from iStock is placed on this site. OTOH if they're looking for content to own outright, I'd sell the rights to some of my 2004 rejects which would fit right in. Given the prices, perhaps they can't afford to put anything there on which royalties have to be paid.
But it really makes me nervous that iStock's name is in a list with Getty's bargain basement brands.
-
It must be hard for exclusives that don't want to take the risk of giving up the crown and losing earnings while establishing their portfolios on the other sites. If I was in that position, I would probably forget RF and try to build up a big RM portfolio on sites like Corbis and alamy. There's nothing worse than feeling like you have to stick with a company that is just going to make life harder in years to come. There's always a way to avoid checkmate, if you don't play by their rules.
-
[clipart.com]
Seeing that site mentioned in KKT's e-mail inspired me to take another look to see if it had changed since I last looked in 2008. I was totally blown away by the garbage they're offering. I think this is all wholly owned garbage, so I'm going to post links to gems like these coins ([url]http://www.clipart.com/en/close-up?o=346675&memlevel=C&a=p&q=&k_mode=all&s=1&e=36&show=&c=&cid=2d&findincat=&g=&cc=&page=&k_exc=&pubid=[/url]), this supposed night scene ([url]http://www.clipart.com/en/close-up?o=351243&memlevel=C&a=p&q=&k_mode=all&s=1&e=36&show=&c=&cid=2d&findincat=&g=&cc=&page=&k_exc=&pubid=[/url]) - look at the shadows, or the lovely composition of this shot of a banjo ([url]http://www.clipart.com/en/close-up?o=776072&memlevel=A&a=p&q=&k_mode=all&s=37&e=72&show=&c=&cid=2d&findincat=&g=&cc=&page=2&k_exc=&pubid=[/url]). Whoever shot these remains anonymous :)
There are at least four very similar to one of those you linked to above doing well at iStock.
The illustrations are just as bad - boy with puppy ([url]http://www.clipart.com/en/close-up?o=3988546&memlevel=A&a=c&q=&k_mode=all&s=1&e=36&show=&c=&cid=5a&findincat=&g=&cc=&page=&k_exc=&pubid=[/url]), stick insect ([url]http://www.clipart.com/en/close-up?o=3980687&memlevel=A&a=c&q=&k_mode=all&s=73&e=108&show=&c=&cid=5a&findincat=&g=&cc=&page=3&k_exc=&pubid=[/url]), Christmas wreath ([url]http://www.clipart.com/en/close-up?o=3963103&memlevel=A&a=a&q=christmas&k_mode=all&s=1&e=36&show=&c=&cid=&findincat=&g=&cc=&page=&k_exc=&pubid=[/url]). Then there's a 32x32 GIF of a palette ([url]http://www.clipart.com/en/close-up?o=616861&a=w&q=&k_mode=all&s=145&e=180&show=&c=&cid=4d&findincat=&g=&cc=&page=5&k_exc=&pubid=&color=&b=k&date=[/url]).
A lot of these illos look very similar to the sort of clipart you could get free with computer magazine discs back in the day.
-
They probably think that by putting better quality stuff on there they can save the site. I wonder where they'll get that better quality stuff from?
The very name "Clipart dot com" sounds very 90s to me.
-
They probably think that by putting better quality stuff on there they can save the site. I wonder where they'll get that better quality stuff from?
The very name "Clipart dot com" sounds very 90s to me.
I know but....
-
They probably think that by putting better quality stuff on there they can save the site. I wonder where they'll get that better quality stuff from?
The very name "Clipart dot com" sounds very 90s to me.
I know but....
Pete, where have u been?
-
They probably think that by putting better quality stuff on there they can save the site. I wonder where they'll get that better quality stuff from?
The very name "Clipart dot com" sounds very 90s to me.
I know but....
Pete, where have u been?
LOL this forum is all about that these days :)
-
I thought he got a promotion, but some of you have deduced that he basically was demoted, so this could just be a 'saving face' thing.
Yeah same here after getting some background from people with more business knowledge I think the same - so no bad words from me about him (but none good words either).
He went from being the head of black sheep IS to one of the executives at mother ship Getty. Who knows if it was a promotion or demotion...
Kelly moves to a newly created VP-position at Getty, another VP is promoted to do CEO at iStock as a side job without loosing her VP-position at Getty so which looks like that iStock is the only one that is getting a demotion ;D
-
Kelly moves to a newly created VP-position at Getty, another VP is promoted to do CEO at iStock without loosing her VP-position at Getty so which looks like that iStock is the only one that is getting a demotion ;D
And iStock gets a part-time CEO.
-
Say goodbye to KK :'(
-
Kelly moves to a newly created VP-position at Getty, another VP is promoted to do CEO at iStock without loosing her VP-position at Getty so which looks like that iStock is the only one that is getting a demotion ;D
And iStock gets a part-time CEO.
Exactly! "Oh iStock that's not important Rebecca can do it in her spare-time we have to concentrate on Thinkstock that is our Shutterstock-Killer" 8)
-
Kelly moves to a newly created VP-position at Getty, another VP is promoted to do CEO at iStock without loosing her VP-position at Getty so which looks like that iStock is the only one that is getting a demotion ;D
And iStock gets a part-time CEO.
Exactly! "Oh iStock that's not important Rebecca can do it in her spare-time we have to concentrate on Thinkstock that is our Shutterstock-Killer" 8)
The BBC buys from TS. I try not to look at the pictures anymore on the website. ;)
-
Kelly moves to a newly created VP-position at Getty, another VP is promoted to do CEO at iStock without loosing her VP-position at Getty so which looks like that iStock is the only one that is getting a demotion ;D
And iStock gets a part-time CEO.
Exactly! "Oh iStock that's not important Rebecca can do it in her spare-time we have to concentrate on Thinkstock that is our Shutterstock-Killer" 8)
The BBC buys from TS. I try not to look at the pictures anymore on the website. ;)
Yes and many more it is very obvious that Thinkstock is very important for Getty and they want it to succeed, I guess you can't say the same about iStock it lives in the shadows.
-
The BBC buys from TS. I try not to look at the pictures anymore on the website. ;)
As an iStocker, I'm as mad as Getty togs are when they see iStock photos being used.
As a licence payer, I guess it's OK. ???
-
So perhaps someone should start a poll about what sort of royalty cut would have you deleting your IS portfolio rather than putting up with it :)
Perhaps it is naive, but I don't think another royalty cut is in the works. They already have that covered with an RC system they can change every year.
Wondering if the inclusion of Clipart.com in their plans will mean that perhaps non-selling illustrations will go there, while non-selling photos go to TS?
I am also wondering what they plan to do about redundancy across multiple sites - for example images that are on both IS and TS. They recently gave non-exclusives the "opportunity" to self-select out best stuff and put it in P+. Maybe that stays at IS and all the rest goes to TS?
-
When he joined iStock in 2004, he certainly couldnt have imagined how loathed iStock would be today. Or maybe he doesn't even know.
A handful of people here and a few old-timers are the only people who loath iStockphoto.
Most active contributors are probably earning more from (and via) iStockphoto than they were in 2004. And every buyer I have ever talked too thinks that iStockphoto is a fantastic resource.
You just go right on telling yourself that. ;)
-
so, I didn't get any warm and fuzzies from her first post in the thread. not so much as a kind introduction....seems this is a biz as usual...bottomline kinda deal. I'm keeping my eye on our iStock advocates...the minute they start running for the hills, we all better get plan B going....hoping it doesn't go that way.
the dichotomy I see is that Getty wants to use iStock's traffic and success, however, they don't seem to take iStock seriously, nor iStock contributors seriously. I got the same impression in London, that they don't really know what to make of us at Getty, which certainly doesn't bode well as far as being 'listened' to.
anyways, too early to tell anything. decisions need to be based on facts and not speculation. right now we can only speculate so I'm once again, very very cautiously optimistic.
-
Her "about me" post (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=332784&messageid=6450550) was very much one from a corporate manager not any sort of inspirational leader.
I completely and utterly support the notion of making the site better for buyers - easier to navigate and to find the images they want at the price they want to pay. However I think it might have been wise to say something about contributors if in fact you had any thoughts at all about them as part of your management of Getty's crowdsourcing division (the site formerly known as iStockphoto)
-
Her "about me" post ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=332784&messageid=6450550[/url]) was very much one from a corporate manager not any sort of inspirational leader.
I completely and utterly support the notion of making the site better for buyers - easier to navigate and to find the images they want at the price they want to pay. However I think it might have been wise to say something about contributors if in fact you had any thoughts at all about them as part of your management of Getty's crowdsourcing division (the site formerly known as iStockphoto)
I agree
-
+1 on both Stacey and JoAnn.
Wow. Not warm and fuzzy at all. Could have been spewed out by a computer.
It looks like contributors will be pushed down another few rungs on the ladder of importance to Getty. Rebecca's post, and Kelly's announcement both gave the impression that they regard OUR content as Getty's content, almost as though the people who create it don't exist or have any claim over it.
-
almost as though the people who create it don't exist or have any claim over it.
Yes. That's just how it feels to me too. Well said.
-
Kelly moves to a newly created VP-position at Getty, another VP is promoted to do CEO at iStock without loosing her VP-position at Getty so which looks like that iStock is the only one that is getting a demotion ;D
And iStock gets a part-time CEO.
Exactly! "Oh iStock that's not important Rebecca can do it in her spare-time we have to concentrate on Thinkstock that is our Shutterstock-Killer" 8)
The BBC buys from TS. I try not to look at the pictures anymore on the website. ;)
Yes and many more it is very obvious that Thinkstock is very important for Getty and they want it to succeed, I guess you can't say the same about iStock it lives in the shadows.
Yes, while my earnings at istock are going down every month, earnings at thinkstock are pretty much stable and not so bad. I see a brighter future for thinkstock than istock. Unfortunately prices are lower than shutterstock; otherwise - once I accepted subs - I have no problems with them
-
I wish them both well in there new jobs and relocations.
It will not effect me in the slightest as i will just keep contributing my photographs and hopely make a decent second income from an enjoyable hobby.
-
And every buyer I have ever talked too thinks that iStockphoto is a fantastic resource.
Just because a buyer thinks it's a fantastic resource doesn't mean they are still buying from there. ;)
-
I wish them both well in there new jobs and relocations.
It will not effect me in the slightest as i will just keep contributing my photographs and hopely make a decent second income from an enjoyable hobby.
nice cover Shank....
-
Well, I like the no nonsense letīs focus on getting more customers and sales approach. Just follow the money.
I think if she really sticks to the economics of it all, she will quickly understand the value of a strong crowd sourcing community. People are ready to work for free, whatīs not to like?
If she doesnīt, the competitors will. Anyone remember Myspace?
-
Her "about me" post ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=332784&messageid=6450550[/url]) was very much one from a corporate manager not any sort of inspirational leader.
I completely and utterly support the notion of making the site better for buyers - easier to navigate and to find the images they want at the price they want to pay. However I think it might have been wise to say something about contributors if in fact you had any thoughts at all about them as part of your management of Getty's crowdsourcing division (the site formerly known as iStockphoto)
She is a hired gun, she has bosses above her. Of course she cannot be a leader. She is just a lieutenant, more so than Kelly.
The only hope we can place on her is to get all the technical glitch fixed. That's what she proposes to do and let's hope her success at least in that.
-
She is a hired gun, she has bosses above her. Of course she cannot be a leader. She is just a lieutenant, more so than Kelly.
Yep. Just another grey-suited Getty robot. Don't hold your breath on positive news anytime soon. Even if she actually understood the issues, which I very much doubt, it's unlikely she'd have either the balls or the authority to do what it will take to turn the ship around.
I doubt she's even there for the long haul anyway. Most probably Kelly missed his targets (by a country mile) and Rebecca has just been flown in to assess the situation whilst they work out what to do or find someone else. If we needed further proof that Istock is losing sales and market-share then we just got it.
-
Another possibility is, Kelly does not want to deliver more bad news in September, so Getty brings in its own people who can handle the old timers' pleadings without emotional ties.
She is a hired gun, she has bosses above her. Of course she cannot be a leader. She is just a lieutenant, more so than Kelly.
Yep. Just another grey-suited Getty robot. Don't hold your breath on positive news anytime soon. Even if she actually understood the issues, which I very much doubt, it's unlikely she'd have either the balls or the authority to do what it will take to turn the ship around.
I doubt she's even there for the long haul anyway. Most probably Kelly missed his targets (by a country mile) and Rebecca has just been flown in to assess the situation whilst they work out what to do or find someone else. If we needed further proof that Istock is losing sales and market-share then we just got it.
-
Thats right! both are thinking Getty, not IS. KK, is going and Rebecca is only there to take the heat when their inspectors start deciding if files should go to IS or straight down to PP, thats it. Most files will go to PP ofcourse! this is the slow, slow, amalgamtion of IS, into TS. The ultimate horror scenario. Juanmonino, of IS, in their forum was the only one that touched the truth.
-
she will quickly understand the value of a strong crowd sourcing community. People are ready to work for free, whatīs not to like?
Getty's crowd sourcing resource is Flickr, please don't get naive!
-
And actually I'm pretty sure it is the community thing they wanna get rid off. And I do understand this it's just a pain in the ass for them costs them money, time etc. On TS they can make business as usual. The silence from Getty officials in the newly created Getty contributor forum speaks for itself people ask valid questions over there and many of them don't get answered and if they got answered it takes days. They don't wanna any community they wanna crowdsource therefore Flickr.
-
pretty calculating on her part not to mention contributors in her intro speech. It seems like an ominous sign for things to come for the contributors and she is smart not to make friends with contributors with warm and fuzzys like you guys say if her future actions clearly hurt contributors further. shes not going to get quoted saying this and such...
-
When he joined iStock in 2004, he certainly couldnt have imagined how loathed iStock would be today. Or maybe he doesn't even know.
A handful of people here and a few old-timers are the only people who loath iStockphoto.
Most active contributors are probably earning more from (and via) iStockphoto than they were in 2004. And every buyer I have ever talked too thinks that iStockphoto is a fantastic resource.
I wasn't even there in 2004. I think the 2004 to 2011 comparison is meaningless. What counts is what has happened over the last 2 years. And I think most active contributors have had a hard time with istock over the last 2 years, especially non-exclusives. And there must be hundreds, if not thousands that lost a lot from them closing Stockxpert. So I think you're also way out on the number of people that loathe Getty/istock.
-
she will quickly understand the value of a strong crowd sourcing community. People are ready to work for free, whatīs not to like?
Getty's crowd sourcing resource is Flickr, please don't get naive!
I don't see a huge flickr getty community. just getty picking images from a site with pictures.
The flickr photographers are not doing stock full time. And you are right, on getty they just have a forum, they are not using it as a tool to create a community of well networked artists totally dedicated to working with each other to create great content. Maybe they will in time. After all Bruce always pointed out how much cheaper istockers were producing high quality images by working together.
We don't need creative briefs. We reserach markets and niches before we shoot, we network with each other to keep production costs down.
We just need more simple things - statistic tools to help us optimize our portfolio etc...and obviously - make all the money count towards RC so that making money is the top focus.
If I consider doing video alongside photography, nothing should hold me back. If I plan a shoot and only do photos, because RC does not encourage me to do more than one media, then those videos will simply not be taken. But the customer would greatly benefit from having both photo and video from a set scene.
I am not looking for warm fuzzies, just good economics.
-
she will quickly understand the value of a strong crowd sourcing community. People are ready to work for free, whatīs not to like?
Getty's crowd sourcing resource is Flickr, please don't get naive!
I don't see a huge flickr getty community. just getty picking images from a site with pictures.
...
And they're picking a lot. The flickr collection on Getty now holds more than 120,000 files. That's about twice as many files as the Vetta collection on Getty.
-
she will quickly understand the value of a strong crowd sourcing community. People are ready to work for free, whatīs not to like?
Getty's crowd sourcing resource is Flickr, please don't get naive!
I don't see a huge flickr getty community. just getty picking images from a site with pictures.
...
And they're picking a lot. The flickr collection on Getty now holds more than 120,000 files. That's about twice as many files as the Vetta collection on Getty.
It's not a lot considering the billions and billions files on Flickr, but compared to Vetta yes.
-
What I am trying to say - flickr is nīt istock. the photographers there donīt get together to shoot images with stock in mind. But microstockers want to produce commercial images.
Itīs no use trying to foster a "stock culture on flickr".
I love the Flickr collection. They just created a "best of flickr".
http://www.gettyimages.com/search/search.aspx/1/creative?brands=fks&isource=FlickrSelectCollectionViewer#1 (http://www.gettyimages.com/search/search.aspx/1/creative?brands=fks&isource=FlickrSelectCollectionViewer#1)
-
The title of this thread is 'Big Change'.Nothing big will stop the profits pouring into the Istock coffers.I have already made Istockphoto around $60,000 in my short time as a contributor.That will rise to around $100,000 in the next few years.
The company Mr Livingston developed continues to make easy money from showcasing peoples content.
-
The title of this thread is 'Big Change'.Nothing big will stop the profits pouring into the Istock coffers.I have already made Istockphoto around $60,000 in my short time as a contributor.That will rise to around $100,000 in the next few years.
The company Mr Livingston developed continues to make easy money from showcasing peoples content.
Mr Livingstone, I presume ;D
-
Every exclusive that depends on their microstock income was checkmated last September whether they view it that way or not.
True, but this is a tournament with a series of games. You can win one game and lose a lot of others.
-
pretty calculating on her part not to mention contributors in her intro speech. It seems like an ominous sign for things to come for the contributors and she is smart not to make friends with contributors with warm and fuzzys like you guys say if her future actions clearly hurt contributors further. shes not going to get quoted saying this and such...
Excellent post. Reminds me of how jurors who voted to convict won't look the prisoner in the eye.
-
Well, here's a very telling comment, posted in response to jtyler, who was expressing widely held concerns. I think it nicely sums up how we should feel about this change, and how Getty feels about us:
Posted By jtyler: I've been an IS yea-sayer for 6 of my almost 8 years here. I no longer am. Convice me why I should be excited by this.
Posted by lobo: So don't be excited. No one is forcing you to hold a parade.
I am not pointing this out as an example of a snarky response. I think it is more than that. It is an acknowledgment that there is no good news for contributors coming, so no reason to be excited (or optimistic). They aren't even paying lip-service to pacifying us now.
The last vestiges of the velvet glove is being replaced with an iron fist :(
-
I am not looking for warm fuzzies, just good economics.
You're probably not going to get either.
-
The new appointment has presumably not been employed to be the best friend of 7 million members. I am relieved that we did not get something in the style of an inaugural address. We just want her to quietly get on with the job. Beyond that it would be dotty to try to divine potentially negative nuances from a brief understated introductory 'hello'. She said something about working towards better serving the clients. Good. That's what matters.
I wonder what people expect today - other than to hope that the business as a whole will be run to be successful including iStockphoto as a part of that. It's their business. iStockphoto is mature. It is a still a fantastically democratic entry point - nothing like that existed all those many years ago when it was first developed. But that was a very different time and a very different economy. We might as well be remembering the 60s. Times are very different now.
Look today through the work which is coming online via iStockphoto and flickr. Much of it is amazingly high end top notch and creative stuff. From people who never post anything in any of the forums. Or look at 500px, tumblr or your favorite Flipboard feeds etc. Whilst we are posting our opinions on the forums there is a whole new (and old) generation of amazing photographers and designers who come without this sense of pre entitlement. The challenge and inspiration should surely be to try to make better work rather than moaning all the time ?
-
Whilst we are posting our opinions on the forums there is a whole new (and old) generation of amazing photographers and designers who come without this sense of pre entitlement. The challenge and inspiration should surely be to try to make better work rather than moaning all the time ?
"Sense of entitlement"?? That's rich. You mean a sense of entitlement to be reasonably compensated for our hard work, creativity, and considerable financial investment?
Some of us, who are meeting the challenge and inspiration to create better work, are moaning because that better work is not bringing sufficient money to enable us to keep our businesses going and continuing to produce it.
This isn't just Istock's business. Istock piggybacks on the backs of its contributors, many of whom are running small businesses of their own, and have very good reasons to be concerned about our bottom lines.
How dismissive and condescending of you to characterize people's business concerns and priorities as "moaning all the time". It is this sort of sycophantic, apologist attitude that has provided cover for Istock's greedy and deplorable actions the last couple of years.
-
I wanted to give your post a heart, Lisa, but MSG is telling me that I give you too much love. LOL
Great post!
-
The new appointment has presumably not been employed to be the best friend of 7 million members. I am relieved that we did not get something in the style of an inaugural address. We just want her to quietly get on with the job. Beyond that it would be dotty to try to divine potentially negative nuances from a brief understated introductory 'hello'. She said something about working towards better serving the clients. Good. That's what matters.
I wonder what people expect today - other than to hope that the business as a whole will be run to be successful including iStockphoto as a part of that. It's their business. iStockphoto is mature. It is a still a fantastically democratic entry point - nothing like that existed all those many years ago when it was first developed. But that was a very different time and a very different economy. We might as well be remembering the 60s. Times are very different now.
Look today through the work which is coming online via iStockphoto and flickr. Much of it is amazingly high end top notch and creative stuff. From people who never post anything in any of the forums. Or look at 500px, tumblr or your favorite Flipboard feeds etc. Whilst we are posting our opinions on the forums there is a whole new (and old) generation of amazing photographers and designers who come without this sense of pre entitlement. The challenge and inspiration should surely be to try to make better work rather than moaning all the time ?
I usually agree with your posts....but I'm afraid I disagree about the new and old generation of amazing photogs & designers WITHOUT a sense of entitlement. I think the sense of entitlement is at an all time high. new contributors (in general) seem to think this is easy money. thankfully most of them get bored after the novelty wears off and they see how much work it truly is.
-
Whilst we are posting our opinions on the forums there is a whole new (and old) generation of amazing photographers and designers who come without this sense of pre entitlement. The challenge and inspiration should surely be to try to make better work rather than moaning all the time ?
"Sense of entitlement"?? That's rich. You mean a sense of entitlement to be reasonably compensated for our hard work, creativity, and considerable financial investment?
Some of us, who are meeting the challenge and inspiration to create better work, are moaning because that better work is not bringing sufficient money to enable us to keep our businesses going and continuing to produce it.
This isn't just Istock's business. Istock piggybacks on the backs of its contributors, many of whom are running small businesses of their own, and have very good reasons to be concerned about our bottom lines.
How dismissive and condescending of you to characterize people's business concerns and priorities as "moaning all the time". It is this sort of sycophantic, apologist attitude that has provided cover for Istock's greedy and deplorable actions the last couple of years.
FWIW Lisa, I don't think bunhill meant that comment the way you've interpreted it. I understood the comment in regards to clueless noobs who think it's cool to sell a few shots from flickr etc.
-
... Look today through the work which is coming online via iStockphoto and flickr. Much of it is amazingly high end top notch and creative stuff. ...
This sounds somewhat contradicting to:
... The challenge and inspiration should surely be to try to make better work rather than moaning all the time ?
So you're saying that we should provide even better work than "Much of it is amazingly high end top notch and creative stuff" while not moaning about getting less and less for our work?
This does not make any sense whatsoever.
-
So maybe I might clarify what I mean by "sense of entitlement" (since I am certainly not being dismissive, condescending or sycophantic. I am only being realistic.) Look at some of the amazingly creative and technically excellent portfolios of work which are being produced by people who never post anything. Many of those portfolios post date the era when iStockphoto and the others were first evolving. So those people are not wedded to pre existing expectations. They take things for how they are now.
The moans (okay .. concerns) here are exactly analogous to the concerns (moans) which were expressed by a previous generation of stock photographers when microstock first came along. It is the same thing which always happens which is that the people established at one point in a cycle often look back to that point in the cycle as a better time. Or else adapt.
-
...Whilst we are posting our opinions on the forums there is a whole new (and old) generation of amazing photographers and designers who come without this sense of pre entitlement. The challenge and inspiration should surely be to try to make better work rather than moaning all the time ?
So is the worker moaning and demonstrating a sense of "pre entitlement" when they want to get paid for their 40 hours? Seems to me that getting irate (moaning?) when what you were led to expect is removed is a pretty rational response and not at all derived from a sense of "pre entitlement"
There is in UK law a notion of equitable estoppel. (http://www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/equitable-estoppel.htm) It prevents one party from obtaining legal relief against the other when the party has mislead - lied to - the other. I realize this doesn't directly apply here in that iStock hasn't sued contributors for anything. But the notion that iStock has lied to its contributors (remember that grandfathering scheme for those who became exclusive) and then once they'd done that abandoned the whole system of royalties seems pretty close. I wasn't caught by the grandfathering scheme, but I did become exclusive to get the 40% royalty. I got it and then they moved the effing goal posts.
I think the best thing any of us "moaners" can do is to tell the iStock story loudly to anyone who will listen so that others are not conned into expecting that anything iStock says will actually come to pass. It may or may not, but you cannot rely on them to keep to what they say.
-
The new appointment has presumably not been employed to be the best friend of 7 million members. I am relieved that we did not get something in the style of an inaugural address. We just want her to quietly get on with the job. Beyond that it would be dotty to try to divine potentially negative nuances from a brief understated introductory 'hello'. She said something about working towards better serving the clients. Good. That's what matters.
I wonder what people expect today - other than to hope that the business as a whole will be run to be successful including iStockphoto as a part of that. It's their business. iStockphoto is mature. It is a still a fantastically democratic entry point - nothing like that existed all those many years ago when it was first developed. But that was a very different time and a very different economy. We might as well be remembering the 60s. Times are very different now.
Look today through the work which is coming online via iStockphoto and flickr. Much of it is amazingly high end top notch and creative stuff. From people who never post anything in any of the forums. Or look at 500px, tumblr or your favorite Flipboard feeds etc. Whilst we are posting our opinions on the forums there is a whole new (and old) generation of amazing photographers and designers who come without this sense of pre entitlement. The challenge and inspiration should surely be to try to make better work rather than moaning all the time ?
What uttter drivel. You need to extract your head from Istock's arse and take a reality pill or three. What about Istock's sense of 'pre-entitlement' to grab up to 85% of the purchase price? The truth is that Istock's sense of 'pre-entitlement', otherwise known as absolute greed, has screwed their business and now they are going down __ fast. They can change the name at the top as many times as they like but unless they change their attitude they will continue to fail.
-
Well, 7 year comparison numbers look impressive. For iStock. Great corporate report. Most of us experienced growth as well, but we are sliding back in a hurry. Less sales by volume and less dollars than year ago, and even two years ago. Inviting new contributors 'en masse' is not working for old timers. Favoring Agency/Vetta collections is killing most of 'ordinary' contributors. This week sales are worse I've seen in years.
-
the contributors are paying the agency to bring in the customers. Very obviously istock has failed grow in the last months. Many top contributors are producing fantsatic content in high volume and see no growth. or even decline in sales.
The independents are reporting excellent growth at the competition and looking at webtraffic istock seems to have fallen to a the level of dreamstime. But 2 years ago it was the undisputable no 1 microstock site.
obviously everyone has to make their own business decisions, but in the future who will want to go exclusive with istock if it is notthe no 1?
so i hope that rebecca brings the customers back. after all that is the service that the contributors are paying for.
i also hope she encourages mixed media contributors to stay exclusive, because in my environment I already see what used to be die hard istock photogrPhers signing up with pond5 for video. the rc system discourages them from keeping all content with istock getty. a photographer will never have enough time to produce enough video to rise up in the system.
I think it is a big mistake to encourage people to leave and spread their content to other sites. Just like it was a mistake to encourage the buyers to leave by refusing to install a price filter for many months.
-
You need to extract your head from Istock's arse
Now that's pretty offensive actually. It is perfectly reasonable to try to express a contradictory opinion. Or are we all supposed to march in your line here ?
FWIW I am not clear what even makes you believe that iStockphoto is not doing well as a business. Especially given that it is not a business in isolation but part of Getty as a whole. It's margins that matter, no ?
-
The challenge and inspiration should surely be to try to make better work rather than moaning all the time ?
I'm still producing the work, but iStock just isn't getting any of it. I'm willing to come back to the table if they want to, but they'll have to ask nicely. Until then, the only thing I'll be doing at IS is commenting. ;D
-
FWIW I am not clear what even makes you believe that iStockphoto is not doing well as a business.
My own statistics, the reports of many others, the revised (downwards) RC targets ... and the fact that they just sacked the man at the helm. I guess he wasn't able to match Getty's sense of 'pre-entitlement' as you would put it.
-
My own statistics, the reports of many others
I have not seen your research data (is it published somewhere ?) but I would be surprised if many exclusives are not actually telling you that their earnings including Getty Vetta sales etc are holding up despite the collapsing global economy - and despite the 45,000 files being added to iStockphoto every week.
How many of the 110,000 contributors have you polled roughly ?
-
@bunhill
Do you do this full time? There is a big difference in having your fun money cut and having the money you pay bills with cut.
My stock money pays bills. It's not fun money. If your stock money pays bills, I'm amazed at your carefree attitude that we shouldn't feel entitled to receiving fair payment for our work. Also, don't fool yourself into thinking that silence in the forums translates into acceptance of the new changes from the big contributors.
-
You just have to look at the webtraffic on compete.com and compare it with the competition. Plus talk to other diamonds or black diamonds. You saw the last sales thread on istock, it is pitiful.
The USA may be having a recession but world economy hasnīt stopped advertising. Here in Germany hardly any business uses stock sites as a resource, with the exception of webdesigners. So there is no reason for a web based company selling universal digital products to stop growing. 9 million members? Even if they just focussed on webdesigners, there must be a lot more in the world. Plus all small to medium businesses, plus the consumer market/blogs/greeting cards etc...
Donīt get me wrong, theyīve done a great job, but the competition isnīt sleeping and they all have full time managers to build the brand.
If you hire a salesman and he tells you he couldnīt grow the business because "everyone is down" but you can clearly see many other internet based business and the competition growing - would you pay him a bonus or look for a new salesman? And why is the growth on Shutterstock so strong? Wasnīt Thinkstock supposed to replace it?
Think of the growth of other digitally sold content - software, videos, music, think of the sales of smart phones, ipads...is the world market slowing down?
I love istock and I hope it bounces back to the No 1 spot. But in the meantime pretending that everything is fine doesnīt help IMO.
Rebecca says she wants to focus on sales. Would she mention that as her first agenda if growth was fantastic and exploding like mushrooms?
For many artists istock is their main income. Obviously they will be concerned about what their agent does.
-
cynicism.. it rules our lifes daily and watching IS thread and this one here says it all, it is sick the difference between both, some talk there one way other here (the same person) it is depressing to watch that, some think will take advantage somehow, other are just lunatic.. how can someone think that they still have a "great" business and contributors are happy?
other agencies might have a lot of problems but nobody is talking about them.. IS is just day after day, contributors fighting and struggling
-
bunhill, we are entitled to have our end of agreement honored, no?
-
@bunhill
Do you do this full time?
Broadly yes. But I have not got all of my eggs in stock. I respect iStockphoto as a brand and the exclusive arrangement suits me well enough for the moment. I have learned a huge amount from being involved there and I should put more into it sooner or later. I am broadly sanguine.
If your stock money pays bills, I'm amazed at your carefree attitude that we shouldn't feel entitled to receiving fair payment for our work.
I worked as an assistant in the 90s these same arguments existed around people who sold RF. One of the guys I worked for hated people who sold RF. RF has always been an evolving story. I hope I am being realistic rather than carefree. If I did not feel that I was receiving a fair payment I would not be involved. The money I get is about right I reckon - which is not to say that more money would not be lovely.
So anyhow I am not here to defend iStockphoto against overwhelming negative opinion. The people I listen to see it as a great brand. I do not believe that the anti iStockphoto attitudes often expressed here are especially indicative or typical. I certainly do not feel locked in. Digital assets are portable. I certainly very much admire and like some of the other sites. I'm not one of those "woo yayers" either despite "gostwyck"'s caustic post. For example I much prefer the toned down quieter way the forum is at iStock today.
-
bunhill, like you, I am also an exclusive.
iStock is no longer what it was. The driving force for its success was due to an innovative and enterprising leadership, an artistic and supportive environment and hope for better compensation as we work hard to build up our digital assets.
From Rebecca's appointment and her intro, I suspect that her mandate may not be providing innovative leadership but pure management. I hope it is not going to be true but am afraid that her task is to squeeze more milk out of the cow without feeding her much.
Under normal circumstances, she deserves our open mind and support. But the anxiety is not directed at her, it is a result of iStock's past broken promises and our concerns for the future, or whether or not we have a bright future under Getty's management.
@bunhill
Do you do this full time?
Broadly yes. But I have not got all of my eggs in stock. I respect iStockphoto as a brand and the exclusive arrangement suits me well enough for the moment. I have learned a huge amount from being involved there and I should put more into it sooner or later. I am broadly sanguine.
If your stock money pays bills, I'm amazed at your carefree attitude that we shouldn't feel entitled to receiving fair payment for our work.
I worked as an assistant in the 90s these same arguments existed around people who sold RF. One of the guys I worked for hated people who sold RF. RF has always been an evolving story. I hope I am being realistic rather than carefree. If I did not feel that I was receiving a fair payment I would not be involved. The money I get is about right I reckon - which is not to say that more money would not be lovely.
So anyhow I am not here to defend iStockphoto against overwhelming negative opinion. The people I listen to see it as a great brand. I do not believe that the anti iStockphoto attitudes often expressed here are especially indicative or typical. I certainly do not feel locked in. Digital assets are portable. I certainly very much admire and like some of the other sites. I'm not one of those "woo yayers" either despite "gostwyck"'s caustic post. For example I much prefer the toned down quieter way the forum is at iStock today.
-
Bunhill, in response to Retrorocket's question about whether you rely on IS income to pay your bills, I see that you started uploading a couple of months after I did in 2005 (I joined in Jan, but didn't start uploading until March). In that time, you have had accepted 734 (admittedly good and useful) images to my 6500+. With 16k sales in over 6 years, it is clear that IS is not a big part of your monthly income.
I am not saying you are not entitled to your opinion. You certainly are and I respect that we have a difference of opinion. But it is insulting to me and the many other people who rely on their microstock income to pay all, or a significant portion of their living expenses, to hear our very real grievances belittled out of hand.
It is sort of the difference between saying "I think Istock is doing a good job" and "If you don't think Istock is doing a good job then you are a moaner with an unjustified sense of entitlement". You see what I mean? One is a statement of support for Istock. The other is a put-down of fellow contributors who have concerns about the direction Istock is going.
Just like to add that my husband and I are putting in an offer on a house today. Two years ago I would have no doubt that I could afford the mortgage for the long term. Now, I am worried that because of Istock's and other agencies' actions, I may find my income drying up in a couple of years and not be able to pay the mortgage. I can't help but feel resentful that my hard earned income might be in jeopardy just when I need to rely on it more than ever.
-
The people I listen to see it as a great brand.
Are you saying you aren't listening to us? ;D
Seriously though, I think there are still many positive things about IS, and it is all still salvageable. But, my gut and my numbers tell me things are just going to get worse.
-
I wanted to give your post a heart, Lisa, but MSG is telling me that I give you too much love. LOL
Great post!
Thanks Carolyn, and backatcha! I love to be loved :D
-
@bunhill
I agree that Istock is a great brand (I'm exclusive) and putting aside the entitlement comments I think that I better see your point of view. The RM photographers fought hard against RF and lost and now the RF people are fighting another losing battle against agencies and market forces.
If that is the case, or something like it, then the ability to individually adapt to market changes is the smartest course going forward. If that's the case then I have to further question the logic of being exclusive. It made sense for me in 2008 but it's a different market now and in 3 years will likely be very different from today.
-
Just like to add that my husband and I are putting in an offer on a house today. Two years ago I would have no doubt that I could afford the mortgage for the long term. Now, I am worried that because of Istock's and other agencies' actions, I may find my income drying up in a couple of years and not be able to pay the mortgage. I can't help but feel resentful that my hard earned income might be in jeopardy just when I need to rely on it more than ever.
This is why, instead of moving to a larger home in our area, we are finishing the basement instead. I'm not getting locked into double the payments, and I'm upping the value of my current investment.
-
Just like to add that my husband and I are putting in an offer on a house today. Two years ago I would have no doubt that I could afford the mortgage for the long term. Now, I am worried that because of Istock's and other agencies' actions, I may find my income drying up in a couple of years and not be able to pay the mortgage. I can't help but feel resentful that my hard earned income might be in jeopardy just when I need to rely on it more than ever.
This is why, instead of moving to a larger home in our area, we are finishing the basement instead. I'm not getting locked into double the payments, and I'm upping the value of my current investment.
number 4 and 30 having issues, bunhill help them out, giving some of your FAIR royalties
-
a put-down of fellow contributors who have concerns about the direction Istock is going.
No you are mistakenly reading it like that. I do feel I also did a reasonable job of attempting to clarify the point with respect to what I meant by "entitlement". I believe it was a dispassionate point of view I was trying to express. I am not your bad guy. Like everyone else, I think you are great.
Bunhill, in response to Retrorocket's question about whether you rely on IS income to pay your bills, I see that you started uploading a couple of months after I did in 2005 (I joined in Jan, but didn't start uploading until March). In that time, you have had accepted 734 (admittedly good and useful) images to my 6500+. With 16k sales in over 6 years, it is clear that IS is not a big part of your monthly income.
Yes I am incredibly lazy and should upload more but you are making some rather weak assumptions about how much money I need to live on at this point. iStock is certainly a very important part of my yearly income however and the whole thing works well enough for me thanks. I do not believe this makes any difference to any of the points I have tried to make - which I believe are about being realistic.
I have no idea how much other people's portfolios gross for them when all of the different outlets are taken into account - or how they choose to use that revenue. It is none of my business.
-
No you are mistakenly reading it like that. I do feel I also did a reasonable job of attempting to clarify the point with respect to what I meant by "entitlement". I believe it was a dispassionate point of view I was trying to express. I am not your bad guy.
Guess I am just overly sensitive after taking so many big hits to the income in the past year. Apologies if it sounded like I am making you the boogey man. Just so frustrated with Istock, especially considering the aforementioned housing dilemma...
@Sean - smart move finishing the basement instead. We don't have basements in Florida :(. With only 1200 sq. feet, and a house built in 1970, there is just no way to use this place for lifestyle shots. If I want a house to double as a studio I have to upgrade. Keeping this one to rent out, though, in case microstock comes down around us in a couple of years.
-
..The moans (okay .. concerns) here are exactly analogous to the concerns (moans) which were expressed by a previous generation of stock photographers when microstock first came along. It is the same thing which always happens which is that the people established at one point in a cycle often look back to that point in the cycle as a better time. Or else adapt.
I do not the the situation is analogous to the traditional versus micro arguments at all. The key differences are that in the former case, prices were propped up by a closed shop which limited supply - sort of like DeBeers and diamonds. When microstock started, it wasn't the existing agencies who reneged on their contracts with their suppliers. New suppliers came in to the market and at first were pooh-poohed as a bunch of no-talent amateurs by the trads and then, when it appeared that (a) existing customers found the prices appealing and the quality good enough and (b) new customers flocked to the affordable prices and the market for stock photography expanded, the newcomers were hollered at for destroying photographer's livelihoods.
I could have summarized a bit too briefly, but the basics are close.
Our current situation is that when microstock became successful, the agencies got greedy and decided that they could keep more of the total for themselves. They tossed a few crumbs from the table to try and keep photographers from getting too restive (we're cutting your Vetta percentage but we're hosing the buyers by putting the prices up so you'll get more dollars than before). As the download volumes declined, they offered big discounts to larger customers who were unhappy (further cutting the take for contributors) - Vetta sale at year end, etc. Then they figured they'd try to re-jigger the royalty rates so that overall they paid out 20% instead of 20-40% (50% if you count ELs, which was woefully low at 50% IMO once an EL cost them nothing to administer beyond what a regular sale did; remember when ELs were custom?)
This is much closer, IMO, to the first wife who puts her husband through university and med school and who is then dumped for a younger trophy wife once the loans are paid off and the money's rolling in. If you're saying that adapting means accepting that lots of businesses are massively lacking in ethics (the way of thinking that says if it's not illegal, quit complaining adapt), I'll grant you that there's plenty more examples of Enron like companies than there are good corporate citizens.
I have adapted - I dropped exclusivity. I don't agree with your glib statement that digital assets are portable - that's fine in theory, but there's a cost to switching from exclusivity to non (which I can itemize in detail if you doubt that I know what I'm talking about). Portable with barriers to exit and entry that mean it isn't a trivial thing to switch.
I will deal with whatever iStock dishes out, but I've read and re-read what you originally wrote and it's pretty clear to me that you could have chosen other words if you wanted to make your point with neutral language. You can disagree with people's point of view without marking it as invalid by using words like moan and entitlement. Claiming you were misinterpreted is trying to duck responsibility for what you wrote, IMO.
-
There is a group of istockers who like to belittle MSG as a place for the whining "beermoney crowd" and obviously they think that only people on istock are "real photographers". I find it so sad every time I hear it. I love istock and will remain exclusive, but IMO a little humbleness is a sign of professionalism in doing business. After all, you never know who you might be making the next deal with.
However, if istock wanted to work on their reputation over here, they could easily appoint a staff member to be helpful and answer questions, just like other agencies do. My colleague MichaelJay used to do this very patiently and bravely on an outside German forum. I think he was quite successful at reaching out to those who were genuinely interested in istock.
But the best thing is to have the reputation of being the site that brings in the most money.
Preferably double or triple to any competitor.
-
That's the one thing I'm missing here - an appointed istock official! :D
-
The people I listen to see it as a great brand. I do not believe that the anti iStockphoto attitudes often expressed here are especially indicative or typical. I
I don't think it's a great brand. But obviously you are not listening to people who say things contrary to what you believe. There's also a thread on here of about 50 pages or so of others who don't think it's a great brand. You might have seen it, "Buyers bailing on iStock". Might want to check it out for an educational read.
-
There is a group of istockers who like to belittle MSG as a place for the whining "beermoney crowd" and obviously they think that only people on istock are "real photographers". I find it so sad every time I hear it. I love istock and will remain exclusive, but IMO a little humbleness is a sign of professionalism in doing business. After all, you never know who you might be making the next deal with.
However, if istock wanted to work on their reputation over here, they could easily appoint a staff member to be helpful and answer questions, just like other agencies do. My colleague MichaelJay used to do this very patiently and bravely on an outside German forum. I think he was quite successful at reaching out to those who were genuinely interested in istock.
But the best thing is to have the reputation of being the site that brings in the most money.
Preferably double or triple to any competitor.
Those group's you speak of are here, have been here and will always be here:)
-
@jsnover - I am not going to argue with you. You are finding negative nuances where none are intended. Really I was being about being positive about the often amazing work from a whole new influx of photographers who never post on any of the forums.
FWIW I regret bothering to express my honest opinion.
-
"That's the one thing I'm missing here - an appointed istock official! "
LOL! I can see what you mean, but I believe a friendly and patient contributor relations admin (who respectfully stays out of the istock bashing threads) could be useful. Someone service oriented.
-
But the best thing is to have the reputation of being the site that brings in the most money.
Preferably double or triple to any competitor.
The best thing to who? Certainly not to the contributors, exclusive or independents. In fact, its clearly the reason why such hatred exist on this forum for istock since its a clear indication of corporate greed.
-
so i hope that rebecca brings the customers back. after all that is the service that the contributors are paying for.
At what cost to you though? What if they say they need to cut commissions again in order to advertise more or fix the site and need more money from the contributors to do it?
-
so i hope that rebecca brings the customers back. after all that is the service that the contributors are paying for.
At what cost to you though? What if they say they need to cut commissions again in order to advertise more or fix the site and need more money from the contributors to do it?
/or
There will never be a reversal of "value" ..giving back to the contributor. That would only happen if contributors either slowed or stopped uploading and nobody else signed up. New supply drying up.
-
However, if istock wanted to work on their reputation over here, they could easily appoint a staff member to be helpful and answer questions, just like other agencies do.
That's a great point. There are an awful lot of sensible questions which either don't get answered, get answered with 'contact CR', which can take months and then it depends who you get what answer you get, or get an answer from an admin which isn't borne out by the facts (e.g. [frequently] on whether a subject is or is not acceptable. Just recently, as I've posted a few times already, I've been astonished at things which were categorically said by an admin could not be accepted, and there are loads on the site. Of course, they would just say, "case by case".
-
"That's the one thing I'm missing here - an appointed istock official! "
LOL! I can see what you mean, but I believe a friendly and patient contributor relations admin (who respectfully stays out of the istock bashing threads) could be useful. Someone service oriented.
To me MichaelJay never had that role on the German site you mentioned, he was one of us, he was active there before he became an admin at istock. And I have a lot of respect for him for not staying out of the heated istock thread last automn. It would somewhat disappoint me to learn he was "sent" there by istock to do contributor relations, I must admit. But it's a different story over there - istock doesn't play much of a part in the discussions, I can't even think of an active member that is istock exclusive, and a lot of independents seem to have pulled their ports. Most of the German contributors concentrate on Fotolia and Shutterstock as their strongest agencies.
-
Michael wasn't "sent". When he became an admin he suggested to become an official liason/representaion whatever you want to call it. It was his idea and a good one.
Being an admin doesn't mean giving up your identity.
-
deleted
-
FWIW I regret bothering to express my honest opinion.
I hope you will continue to post here. this forum is a schoolyard much of the time. but embedded in the insults and sophomoric reactivity is a lot of good info. I find your posts valuable and intelligent. it's extremely frustrating to watch posters like you getting bashed while other serial posters here do little but state nonsense and hurtle insults and receive standing ovations for it. keep posting please. it brings at least a little balance to this forum.
-
In the 23 years Ive been shooting stock, I have NEVER relied upon any stock-agencies or any photographer- sole agent, to pay for anything. They can be here today and gone tomorrow, seen it so many times. Any commission based business is pure speculation and its not a matter of IF they crash? but rather WHEN, they crash?
Easy for me to say perhaps ( sitting on a nice horse-farm, bought and paid for ) but with this stock-photography climate, I would NOT go house hunting, increasing costs and morgages, etc.
best.
-
Michael wasn't "sent". When he became an admin he suggested to become an official liason/representaion whatever you want to call it. It was his idea and a good one.
Being an admin doesn't mean giving up your identity.
Thanks for that bit of information (I mean the first part of your post, the second I am aware of ;) ).
-
In the 23 years Ive been shooting stock, I have NEVER relied upon any stock-agencies or any photographer- sole agent, to pay for anything. They can be here today and gone tomorrow, seen it so many times. Any commission based business is pure speculation and its not a matter of IF they crash? but rather WHEN, they crash?
Easy for me to say perhaps ( sitting on a nice horse-farm, bought and paid for ) but with this stock-photography climate, I would NOT go house hunting, increasing costs and morgages, etc.
best.
You're right. We didn't end up making the offer. Missing out on a great house, selling at 1/3 off market value. But even that is too rich an investment right now. Especially with "Black Monday" potentially looming when the markets open tomorrow. :(
Maybe follow Sean's lead and do some remodeling instead...
-
In the 23 years Ive been shooting stock, I have NEVER relied upon any stock-agencies or any photographer- sole agent, to pay for anything. They can be here today and gone tomorrow, seen it so many times. Any commission based business is pure speculation and its not a matter of IF they crash? but rather WHEN, they crash?
Easy for me to say perhaps ( sitting on a nice horse-farm, bought and paid for ) but with this stock-photography climate, I would NOT go house hunting, increasing costs and morgages, etc.
best.
You're right. We didn't end up making the offer. Missing out on a great house, selling at 1/3 off market value. But even that is too rich an investment right now. Especially with "Black Monday" potentially looming when the markets open tomorrow. :(
Maybe follow Sean's lead and do some remodeling instead...
Phew thank goodness for that.Perhaps next week we can discuss how often you do your laundry :)
-
In the 23 years Ive been shooting stock, I have NEVER relied upon any stock-agencies or any photographer- sole agent, to pay for anything. They can be here today and gone tomorrow, seen it so many times. Any commission based business is pure speculation and its not a matter of IF they crash? but rather WHEN, they crash?
Easy for me to say perhaps ( sitting on a nice horse-farm, bought and paid for ) but with this stock-photography climate, I would NOT go house hunting, increasing costs and morgages, etc.
best.
You're right. We didn't end up making the offer. Missing out on a great house, selling at 1/3 off market value. But even that is too rich an investment right now. Especially with "Black Monday" potentially looming when the markets open tomorrow. :(
Maybe follow Sean's lead and do some remodeling instead...
Phew thank goodness for that.Perhaps next week we can discuss how often you do your laundry :)
shanks attacks ehehe this guy is a blast!!!!
-
In the 23 years Ive been shooting stock, I have NEVER relied upon any stock-agencies or any photographer- sole agent, to pay for anything. They can be here today and gone tomorrow, seen it so many times. Any commission based business is pure speculation and its not a matter of IF they crash? but rather WHEN, they crash?
Easy for me to say perhaps ( sitting on a nice horse-farm, bought and paid for ) but with this stock-photography climate, I would NOT go house hunting, increasing costs and morgages, etc.
best.
You're right. We didn't end up making the offer. Missing out on a great house, selling at 1/3 off market value. But even that is too rich an investment right now. Especially with "Black Monday" potentially looming when the markets open tomorrow. :(
Maybe follow Sean's lead and do some remodeling instead...
Right! thank God for that!! banks are totally scrupless in getting their money back and here in Sweden, they actually almost wish you miss payments so they can take the house/building, you get plenty of more chances.
all the best.
-
In the 23 years Ive been shooting stock, I have NEVER relied upon any stock-agencies or any photographer- sole agent, to pay for anything. They can be here today and gone tomorrow, seen it so many times. Any commission based business is pure speculation and its not a matter of IF they crash? but rather WHEN, they crash?
Easy for me to say perhaps ( sitting on a nice horse-farm, bought and paid for ) but with this stock-photography climate, I would NOT go house hunting, increasing costs and morgages, etc.
best.
You're right. We didn't end up making the offer. Missing out on a great house, selling at 1/3 off market value. But even that is too rich an investment right now. Especially with "Black Monday" potentially looming when the markets open tomorrow. :(
Maybe follow Sean's lead and do some remodeling instead...
Phew thank goodness for that.Perhaps next week we can discuss how often you do your laundry :)
shanks attacks ehehe this guy is a blast!!!!
No. He's just an attention-seeking nonentity. Not worth the time or effort to read.
-
... We didn't end up making the offer. Missing out on a great house, selling at 1/3 off market value. But even that is too rich an investment right now. Especially with "Black Monday" potentially looming when the markets open tomorrow. :(
Maybe follow Sean's lead and do some remodeling instead...
There could be a silver lining in that if you're going to put money into remodeling/redecorating (a) you can have stock pictures of the remodel, always a popular subject, (b) you can put your hunky chameleon husband to work two ways - modeling and doing at the same time, and (c) you get to design things with your lifestyle shots in mind.
:)
-
Exactly...lol. You can shoot as you remodel as Joann suggested. Sorry you didn't get the house though ;)
-
... We didn't end up making the offer. Missing out on a great house, selling at 1/3 off market value. But even that is too rich an investment right now. Especially with "Black Monday" potentially looming when the markets open tomorrow. :(
Maybe follow Sean's lead and do some remodeling instead...
There could be a silver lining in that if you're going to put money into remodeling/redecorating (a) you can have stock pictures of the remodel, always a popular subject, (b) you can put your hunky chameleon husband to work two ways - modeling and doing at the same time, and (c) you get to design things with your lifestyle shots in mind.
:)
Haha! She can do more plumber's crack photos. LOLOLOL
-
While I don't wish bad things on anyone and I certainly wish Kelly and Rebecca the best in their new roles, I can't help but get depressed when I see the graphic at the top of his announcement post. I, too, started in 2004. And it feels like I am still wiping off the footprints and healing from the bruises from being stepped on last September. At this point I feel like my contribution to iStock was more as a step-stool than as an artist.
maybe I'm just having a negative day.
on the positive side, being independent has begun to open my eyes to the many other possibilities out there.
-
...But the best thing is to have the reputation of being the site that brings in the most money.
Preferably double or triple to any competitor.
That's a great reputation to have. Sadly for istock they don't have that reputation anymore. SS is the company that tends to blow away the competition in terms of bringing in the most money these days.
-
...But the best thing is to have the reputation of being the site that brings in the most money.
Preferably double or triple to any competitor.
That's a great reputation to have. Sadly for istock they don't have that reputation anymore. SS is the company that tends to blow away the competition in terms of bringing in the most money these days.
Woo Yay!
-
...But the best thing is to have the reputation of being the site that brings in the most money.
Preferably double or triple to any competitor.
That's a great reputation to have. Sadly for istock they don't have that reputation anymore. SS is the company that tends to blow away the competition in terms of bringing in the most money these days.
SS may have had some increase in traffic, but everything I know demonstrates that iStock isn't even in the same ballpark anymore as the other agencies. well beyond in terms of business....sorry, but these 'stats' are just wishful thinking. iStock is for the most part blowing the competition out of the water. don't misconstrue that as support for their policies currently. I'm certainly not happy about the pulling away from the welfare of contributors as long as the bottom line looks good. I agree that is happening.
-
... SS may have had some increase in traffic, but everything I know demonstrates that iStock isn't even in the same ballpark anymore as the other agencies. well beyond in terms of business....sorry, but these 'stats' are just wishful thinking. iStock is for the most part blowing the competition out of the water...
Huh? Have you been drinking or experimenting with exotic substances Stacey? You need to send me some of that stuff as I want to visit that place in your head. Sounds great.
-
Istock does well for some exclusives but they make about half my SS earnings now. I'm not the only one, as the earnings poll here has SS ahead. So I really struggle to see how istock is blowing the competition out of the water? Can you explain what you know that the rest of us don't?
-
from my low sales there, around 60/70 pictures per month lately, I can tell that they have the highest RPD since I started at 1.30$ from around 750 sales total.. which may means thats exclusive could be at 3, 5 or like someone said on IS forum 8.5$
-
Phew thank goodness for that.Perhaps next week we can discuss how often you do your laundry :)
Once a week. Mondays. 5 loads. Anything else you want to know? ;D
Back ON topic, I would have to disagree that Istock is still the dominant MS agency it once was. Like others, I have seen steadily increasing sales at SS, including lots of on-demand, and even increasing sales at DT, while Istock sales have plummeted to the levels they were years ago when I had less than half the portfolio I do now.
That's not to say that Rebecca or some other enterprising person or groups of people can't turn things around, but I think it may be an uphill battle regaining most of those lost customers now that they have seen they can get the quality they need for much lower prices elsewhere. Not to mention hassle free.
-
... SS may have had some increase in traffic, but everything I know demonstrates that iStock isn't even in the same ballpark anymore as the other agencies. well beyond in terms of business....sorry, but these 'stats' are just wishful thinking. iStock is for the most part blowing the competition out of the water...
Huh? Have you been drinking or experimenting with exotic substances Stacey? You need to send me some of that stuff as I want to visit that place in your head. Sounds great.
I'm talking about overall iStockphoto numbers (not necessarily Getty on the whole)...and not wealth of individual contributors. iStock by all accounts from major contributors and other discussions kills other sites in terms of traffic, new business and sales. no I can't quote numbers, but sources I've spoken to know far more about any of this than me or anyone here AFAIK. they work from real numbers.
-
Why would anyone be rejoicing at iStock's overall figures while their individual sales are going down the toilet?
-
Who said anything about rejoicing? I care about my numbers and as I said, money up but dls decreasing makes me very nervous, regardless of how well the mothership is doing. My point is simply that contributors suggesting istock is doing poorly are mistaken. I hope the new management understands the importance of taking care of suppliers.
-
You can't be the best when your not attracting the best talent. Although to be fair, I don't really feel like the others in the top four are any more enticing. I think the field is wide open for whoever wants to take the crown. Maybe, somebody will finally wine and dine me. ;D
-
You can't be the best when your not attracting the best talent. Although to be fair, I don't really feel like the others in the top four are any more enticing. I think the field is wide open for whoever wants to take the crown. Maybe, somebody will finally wine and dine me. ;D
You didn't have a massive uptick in sales at SS like the other established independents? I've been taking an exclusive beating lately so I'm curious to see how the independent illustrators are doing as opposed to photographers. I saw that Helix7 was happy with SS.
-
Phew thank goodness for that.Perhaps next week we can discuss how often you do your laundry :)
Once a week. Mondays. 5 loads. Anything else you want to know? ;D
Back ON topic, I would have to disagree that Istock is still the dominant MS agency it once was. Like others, I have seen steadily increasing sales at SS, including lots of on-demand, and even increasing sales at DT, while Istock sales have plummeted to the levels they were years ago when I had less than half the portfolio I do now.
That's not to say that Rebecca or some other enterprising person or groups of people can't turn things around, but I think it may be an uphill battle regaining most of those lost customers now that they have seen they can get the quality they need for much lower prices elsewhere. Not to mention hassle free.
Lisa- this is important. I read somewhere that you should never do more than 2 loads of laundry at a time- it puts too much stress on your washing machine. :)
-
^ lol, I have to disagree. in an effort to conserve energy, we only do laundry on weekends and we either don't use the dryer or if we do use it, we do loads back to back. cost of energy and burden on the grid is far less.
-
You didn't have a massive uptick in sales at SS like the other established independents? I've been taking an exclusive beating lately so I'm curious to see how the independent illustrators are doing as opposed to photographers. I saw that Helix7 was happy with SS.
Hopefully, this isn't too much of a hijacking post. After the deal with IS, I reexamined my deals with all the agencies, and I thought most of them were pretty crumby especially with the top 4. So, I ditched FT and stopped uploading to IS, DT and SS. I opened my own site and have been concentrating on that, Clipartof and GL. I can't say this decision has really lead to growth, but my income has been pretty stable.
As far as earnings, I think I reached critical mass at SS last year and didn't grow at all despite uploading 1000 images. They aren't shrinking this year though despite not uploading. IS is though. They've dropped 40-50% from last year. DT growth was solid last year. I had to recover from some of their royalty adjustments 2 years ago though. I just felt like I grew too fast there and wanted to sit back and get better levels for my images. Personally, I'm impressed with the results. My income is stable and my RPD is increasing. FT, I just got sick of them. 3 years in a row of lowering royalty rates. The crap they pulled with vector tiers. They don't deserve to... umm... I guess it's water under the bridge. ;D
-
on iStock JJRD said:
With that said : talented & hard working individuals have nothing to fear - quite the contrary.
Does anyone else find this a perplexing comment? The July thread is full of people who are having their worst month in 2/3/4/5 years both in terms of DLs and $$ and JJRD comes out with a comment like that. It is either implying that these people who are tanking have nothing to fear (despite they are tanking) or it's implying they aren't "talented and hard working individuals" because they are tanking ... way to encourage people! And the response from contributors is "Thanks for allaying our fears JJRD!". It's like people live in a reality distortion field. Mystifying ...
-
on iStock JJRD said:
And the response from contributors is "Thanks for allaying our fears JJRD!". It's like people live in a reality distortion field. Mystifying ...
They don't think. At all. It's like a programmed response. He could say "We're cutting your commissions to 5%, but never fear, members, big things are in the works at this sexxxxy webste!" and people would be chasing after him to lick his butt. It's a sickness, I think.
-
Stacey!! Its a hoax! started few months back and I happen to know this, straight from the horses mouth. There are about 150 of the absoloute top contributors doing fine, the rest, from average to terrible. Its a hoax. Read the July stats thread, its pure suicide.
Anyway who cares rerally? who is doing best or who is the biggest. All I know is that my earnings have almost doubled, 70% increase at SS and DT and thats during the last 3 to four months, every month. Both these agencies have well and truly and more, made up for the losses at IS.
IS, exclusives have a much more daunting question to ask themselves?; do they wish to be part of the Getty/TS umbrella? thats where its all heading and once there, well, you can imagine yourself, total chaos and mayhem and on top of that, having battles with all the old Getty RM guys whos just signed away their shots to Micro.
Me? no thanks, I can think of an easier way to earn money from pictures.
-
JJRD really believes in iStock - I don't agree with his assessments of where things are a lot of the time, but I don't doubt his sincerity.
And as for those who are thanking him, they want to believe he's right - as long as they continue as exclusives, they want to believe that things will turn out OK. Sometimes blind optimism is a great way to overcome obstacles and get things going that otherwise might seem overwhelming. Sometimes it means you just refuse to accept information that contradicts your belief system.
Having recently made the decision to cancel exclusivity I can attest to the wrench it is - a bit like deciding to end a relationship that isn't working. And it would be much harder for anyone who had always been exclusive with iStock (I was independent for almost 4 years before I was an exclusive). Sort of akin to divorcing your high school sweetheart.
My take is that JJRD is being overly naive and hasn't understood just how hardnosed Getty will be - many past forum posts from him have tried to emphasize that "Getty is not the enemy (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=175321&messageid=3022141)". I'm not buying it. I'm also not too thrilled that there's some none-too-subtle blame the victim stuff going on with the idea that hardworking talented people won't have to worry - were all those people reporting on plummeting downloads in the July thread untalented slackers? I think that's part of how you make yourself continue to feel comfortable - marginalize those who no longer believe.
So no, I don't find the comment perplexing given my view of JJRD and the current situation at iStock :)
-
Youre right! many top exclusives will fall for this trap, being put in promised land, etc, its the old story " as long as you throw the dog a bone" syndrome.
Getty has done away with FAR more important people, photographers then the very tops of IS. It means nothing to them. In the eyes of Getty, IS, is no more then an itch, that needs scratching now and then.
-
JJRD really believes in iStock - I don't agree with his assessments of where things are a lot of the time, but I don't doubt his sincerity.
.
-
JJRD really believes in iStock - I don't agree with his assessments of where things are a lot of the time, but I don't doubt his sincerity.
Don't you? I do. All that teary-eyed "putting my ass on the line" waffle (takes out onion) and other such nonsense.
I think that JJRD really believes in himself and his continued employment and will say whatever he thinks might secure his own considerable ass.
Well Gots! you certainly have a way with words! like it! ;D ;D
-
...but sources I've spoken to know far more about any of this than me or anyone here AFAIK. they work from real numbers.
There's a lot of information about how much people earn per download and how many downloads they have with istock. That's not easy to calculate with SS because our downloads are hidden. I know some people see big gains when they go exclusive but others have had the opposite experience and have gone back to being independent. Unless your sources have lots of financial information about SS, they're really just guessing.
-
on iStock JJRD said:
With that said : talented & hard working individuals have nothing to fear - quite the contrary.
Does anyone else find this a perplexing comment? The July thread is full of people who are having their worst month in 2/3/4/5 years both in terms of DLs and $$ and JJRD comes out with a comment like that. It is either implying that these people who are tanking have nothing to fear (despite they are tanking) or it's implying they aren't "talented and hard working individuals" because they are tanking ... way to encourage people! And the response from contributors is "Thanks for allaying our fears JJRD!". It's like people live in a reality distortion field. Mystifying ...
Yep, I found it perplexing, and all the replies (except yours - good on you for posting it) even more odd. Easy to read it as a vague threat, along the lines of if we decide that you are not talented and you're not working hard enough, you have everything to fear
I'd say that if he didn't already know that there is to be a new round of shafting contributors coming along, he wouldn't have put it as he did.
If that's the most reassuring thing that can be said
-
There's a lot of information about how much people earn per download and how many downloads they have with istock. That's not easy to calculate with SS because our downloads are hidden.
Downloads and income of people uploading via iStockphoto are hidden too, despite the 3rd party stat site. Because from the photographers' perspectives these stats also need to include PP (#s) and Getty ($$) sales. Which are significant numbers. As content is syndicated across the brands the picture is much less clear.
The official monthly stats thread, for example, is normally as much as a month old by the time the stats for that month are actually collated.
-
on iStock JJRD said:
With that said : talented & hard working individuals have nothing to fear - quite the contrary.
Does anyone else find this a perplexing comment? The July thread is full of people who are having their worst month in 2/3/4/5 years both in terms of DLs and $$ and JJRD comes out with a comment like that. It is either implying that these people who are tanking have nothing to fear (despite they are tanking) or it's implying they aren't "talented and hard working individuals" because they are tanking ... way to encourage people! And the response from contributors is "Thanks for allaying our fears JJRD!". It's like people live in a reality distortion field. Mystifying ...
I took from that the the top selling contributors are going to be well looked after under the future plans; and the rest of us, well, who knows, but it won't be good.
-
on iStock JJRD said:
With that said : talented & hard working individuals have nothing to fear - quite the contrary.
Does anyone else find this a perplexing comment? The July thread is full of people who are having their worst month in 2/3/4/5 years both in terms of DLs and $$ and JJRD comes out with a comment like that. It is either implying that these people who are tanking have nothing to fear (despite they are tanking) or it's implying they aren't "talented and hard working individuals" because they are tanking ... way to encourage people! And the response from contributors is "Thanks for allaying our fears JJRD!". It's like people live in a reality distortion field. Mystifying ...
I took from that the the top selling contributors are going to be well looked after under the future plans; and the rest of us, well, who knows, but it won't be good.
Yeah they will be looked after for about a year, then they are as usual, dumped in the ditch. This is what Getty have done since 1993. Beat that if you can.
-
on iStock JJRD said:
With that said : talented & hard working individuals have nothing to fear - quite the contrary.
Does anyone else find this a perplexing comment? The July thread is full of people who are having their worst month in 2/3/4/5 years both in terms of DLs and $$ and JJRD comes out with a comment like that. It is either implying that these people who are tanking have nothing to fear (despite they are tanking) or it's implying they aren't "talented and hard working individuals" because they are tanking ... way to encourage people! And the response from contributors is "Thanks for allaying our fears JJRD!". It's like people live in a reality distortion field. Mystifying ...
I find a lot of the comments from iStock perplexing. It sometimes seems like trying to decipher a particularly oblique prediction from some sort of oracle. If they have some news I wish they'd just come out with it, instead of this all this wait-and-see mystery business. Why did KKT have to say anything about what the plans are for the future in his leaving statement? If he knows something, as I'm sure he does, then either say what is actually happening, or leave the new holder of his position (or whatever) to make a proper statement at the appropriate time. This "something is going to happen" thing they seem so fond of wore thin a long time ago. Going on past experience any changes are hardly likely to be of benefit to the vast majority of contributors, so they really are unlikely to be anything to get excited over.
As far as the "Talented and hard working" statement is concerned perhaps they are people who's work iStock finds good enough to act as agent for.
-
SS may have had some increase in traffic, but everything I know demonstrates that iStock isn't even in the same ballpark anymore as the other agencies. well beyond in terms of business....sorry, but these 'stats' are just wishful thinking. iStock is for the most part blowing the competition out of the water. don't misconstrue that as support for their policies currently. I'm certainly not happy about the pulling away from the welfare of contributors as long as the bottom line looks good. I agree that is happening.
Well you're right about one thing. istock certainly isn't even in the same ballpark as the other agencies anymore. Although I think we'll disagree about whether that's said as a positive or a negative. You can guess where I stand on that. ;)
I'm not even convinced that istock is really all that healthy of a company. If anything management has said is to be believed, the company has financial difficulties. That's why they cut pay (so they say). To survive, to be "sustainable", they needed to cut back on spending.
Meanwhile companies like SS are paying out more to contributors than ever before, and remaining perfectly sustainable and profitable along the way. If earnings are to be considered a factor in this, from my perspective SS is far healthier a company. I make 5x my istock earnings at SS every month now, and that's growing. It won't be long before my istock earnings are 1/10th of my monthly SS earnings.
So as far as I can tell, in terms of business vitality, istock is lagging way behind many of the other agencies. Completely different ballpark indeed.
-
I am far from a hard working and talented contributor to IS, in fact I stopped uploading to them when they announced their intention to screw me. Not surprisingly my sales and $ have fallen somewhat since then.
I would love to see the actual financials for all the stock sites, but that is highly unlikely. I am guessing IS still brings in a heap of $ though, and if my sales are any indication SS is doing fine too. I am guessing that IS just didn't feel that their unrealistic profit expectations were sustainable and they went for the short term fix. I don't know how that will effect them in the long term, but I'd love to see the sales go somewhere that I get a better %. Unfortunately they are still a large part of the market.
Don't even get me started on FT and all the things they have done.
-
Lisa- this is important. I read somewhere that you should never do more than 2 loads of laundry at a time- it puts too much stress on your washing machine. :)
Aw darn! I was trying so hard to stay on topic, since it is apparently an issue for Cogent marketing. Oh, I see cogent marketing is Shank Ali. That explains it.
FWIW, I am using the same Maytag/Admiral washing machine and dryer that I've had since 1995, and they are still going like champs, so apparently my habits haven't yet destroyed my appliances. ;)
-
I took from that the the top selling contributors are going to be well looked after under the future plans; and the rest of us, well, who knows, but it won't be good.
That's what I take from it too, but in the interest of honesty (if there still is any interest in honesty from IS HQ) the comment should have read "talented & hard working individuals exclusives have nothing to fear", because as a BD non-exclusive, I have been getting bent over by Istock for quite some time.
-
.
-
The answer: put your clothes in the dryer on hot for just 8 minutes and then hang them out to dry. Drying them for 8 minutes will iron out the creases without using too much energy and you save on both ironing and energy from ironing.
+1 This is exactly what I do, and I haven't had to iron anything in years. Works great!
And LOL, Pseudonymous, @ your comment about the laundry discussion being the only interesting thing in the thread. We all have Shank Ali to thank for suggesting such a useful and interesting side topic ;D
-
we don't even own an iron....problem solved...even if I had the motivation to be a fashionista (which i don't), when you spend 80% of your time climbing things, crawling on the ground taking pictures....what's the point of having clothes without wrinkles? lol
-
.
-
Don't worry. The laundry tip is the most useful thing I've heard all year.
-
my sweet mother takes care of that on the weekends ;D
-
.
-
my sweet mother takes care of that on the weekends ;D
Ah, the joys of being young...
I do my daughter's laundry too. At least for another year until she goes off to college and realizes how totally unprepared for the world I have left her! :o
-
I love to iron. I find it relaxing. I do it while watching TV.
How weird does that make me?
-
Well, lets give the guy credit. He got through a whole announcement without saying anything boneheaded ;D
Looks like we can look forward to quite a bit of juggling of images between collections and sites.
Yep... that was a first... and last :D
-
I love to iron. I find it relaxing. I do it while watching TV.
How weird does that make me?
It's only weird if you are doing it naked too. :D
-
Here in Germany hardly any business uses stock sites as a resource, with the exception of webdesigners.
Sorry to snip, but are you kidding? There's stock images in use everywhere in Germany, and I'm sure someone can correct me but its the biggest market outside the US for stock images. Mostly buyers are using Fotolia, but stock images are everywhere.
-
@Laundry Chit Chatters. This thread's been taken to the cleaners.
-
my sweet mother takes care of that on the weekends ;D
Ah, the joys of being young...
I do my daughter's laundry too. At least for another year until she goes off to college and realizes how totally unprepared for the world I have left her! :o
I learned everything i know about laundry from college. Unfortunately i had to drop out of college to work, so my laundry skills are only at the associates level. But one of these days...
-
"Sorry to snip, but are you kidding? There's stock images in use everywhere in Germany, and I'm sure someone can correct me but its the biggest market outside the US for stock images. Mostly buyers are using Fotolia, but stock images are everywhere."
Stock images are in use everywhere when designers do the job. And obviously all the large advertising campaigns that you see are done by designers.
I am talking about small to medium businesses that make the backbone of the German economy. Again many of them will hire a designer, for instance when they do a website or have a large project.
But they rarely use a stock site directly - for instance when they do their routine power point presentations, small newsletter etc...I used to work on up to 12 trade shows a year that had mostly small businesses. All the small electricians, restaurants, pubs, clothes shops, doctors. All these people can use images. And of course all the machine and engineering related companies that noone has ever heard of but that are essentiel to German success in export.
But they are usually too stingy to hire a photographer so either they take their own pictures or just use text.
Small - medium businesses carry 70% of our economy, so that is a huge market to approach.
Like you say the designers seem to favor fotolia, at least that is the most common name I encounter if the webdesigners lists the image credits.
So over here istock can grow two ways: reach out direct to the smaller businesses and take away fotolias market share.
Germans are "do it yourself" people, paying for a designers work hour is considered expensive by many. So will enjoy working with a stock site if someone shows them how to use it.
Iīve been showing people how to use istock for years. Unfortuantely when best match was dominated by V/A without a price filter, even my own friends opened accounts on fotolia.
On some searches V/A was 70% of the first 200 images, especially for people who donīt use stock every day it appeared like istock had dramatically increased their prices.
So whatever market share istock has now, they can still grow for many years to come.
-
my sweet mother takes care of that on the weekends ;D
Ah, the joys of being young...
I do my daughter's laundry too. At least for another year until she goes off to college and realizes how totally unprepared for the world I have left her! :o
when I need I know how to do it, cold water and never mixing colors :)
-
Sorry for disturbing the discussion by talking about stock :-)
Iīll definetly try the 8 minute dryer tip if it ever stops raining this summer..
-
Iīll definetly try the 8 minute dryer tip if it ever stops raining this summer..
You can hang them up inside. I put them on hangars and hang those on the shower curtain bar with a few inches between each. They are dry in 24 hrs.
I am sure this thread will get back to Istock whenever there is additional news. Or speculation. Or complaining. ;)
-
Hello everyone,
I'm new to this forum and I just noticed this thread about a "Big Change at IS". Is iStock opening up a laundry service?
;D
-
I don't iron, I steam!
-
Hello everyone,
I'm new to this forum and I just noticed this thread about a "Big Change at IS". Is iStock opening up a laundry service?
;D
They've been taking their contributors to the cleaners for a couple of years now ;)
-
I love to iron. I find it relaxing. I do it while watching TV.
How weird does that make me?
It's only weird if you are doing it naked too. :D
LOL. Gawd, I would never iron naked, that would not be relaxing for anyone. ;D
-
.
-
this is quickly turning into the most useful thread ever. :)
gotta try the 8 minute laundry tip (I do wonder what happens if you leave them in for 9 minutes?)
by the way.. I also use "Downy Wrinkle Releaser" which works amazing well for quick touch-ups when you don't have time to iron.
-
I also use "Downy Wrinkle Releaser" .
...are we still talking about the ironing, or does this stuff apply to the naked people?
-
;D
-
I also use "Downy Wrinkle Releaser" .
...are we still talking about the ironing, or does this stuff apply to the naked people?
If the latter, I could use a 50 gallon drum :)
-
.
-
Funny stuff! (the laundry tips, not the istock part) I am an 8 minute dryer too. I think I've used my iron maybe twice in the past 3 years.
JoAnne, I need some of that Downy Wrinkle Releaser, too. :)
-
Just for the record, I don't have a washing machine or a tumble dryer. I have a maid who hand washes my clothes and then hangs them out to dry. Although I'd love to upload my dirty washing to iStock and let them do it, but I imagine they would reject them saying these clothes have artifacts when viewed at full size.
-
Just for the record, I don't have a washing machine or a tumble dryer. I have a maid who hand washes my clothes and then hangs them out to dry. Although I'd love to upload my dirty washing to iStock and let them do it, but I imagine they would reject them saying these clothes have artifacts when viewed at full size.
Yes, lots of guys have those. I believe the correct term for her is "wife". :)
-
Just for the record, I don't have a washing machine or a tumble dryer. I have a maid who hand washes my clothes and then hangs them out to dry. Although I'd love to upload my dirty washing to iStock and let them do it, but I imagine they would reject them saying these clothes have artifacts when viewed at full size.
Yes, lots of guys have those. I believe the correct term for her is "wife". :)
no comment :D
-
Or Mommy ;)
-
LOVE Downy Wrinkle Releaser! It's hard to find around here so if I get the chance, I'll buy it out!
= mild hoarding tendencies... :D
-
I just wanted to get back on topic (and thanks for the laundry tips...) ;)
Big Change at IS: Nickles and Dimes
(http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/11407239/2/11407239-11407239-nickels-and-dimes.jpg)
-
Perhaps laundry is a more interesting topic. ;)
-
I heard about this really dirty thread going on here at MSG and found out it was about laundry.
-
LOVE Downy Wrinkle Releaser! It's hard to find around here so if I get the chance, I'll buy it out!
= mild hoarding tendencies... :D
tip for you.. I dilute mine up to 50/50 (water/downy) and it still works great!
-
LOVE Downy Wrinkle Releaser! It's hard to find around here so if I get the chance, I'll buy it out!
= mild hoarding tendencies... :D
tip for you.. I dilute mine up to 50/50 (water/downy) and it still works great!
Thanks so much, I will try this! ;D
-
LOVE Downy Wrinkle Releaser! It's hard to find around here so if I get the chance, I'll buy it out!
= mild hoarding tendencies... :D
tip for you.. I dilute mine up to 50/50 (water/downy) and it still works great!
I must try this, thanks for the tip.
-
Is there any laundry tip How to wash out smack office parasites from IS HQ?
-
...I'm also not too thrilled that there's some none-too-subtle blame the victim stuff going on with the idea that hardworking talented people won't have to worry - were all those people reporting on plummeting downloads in the July thread untalented slackers? I think that's part of how you make yourself continue to feel comfortable - marginalize those who no longer believe...
That seems to be the istock company line these days, increasingly so since the royalty cut. There have been quite a few comments made along these lines, that the hard workers won't see their earnings suffer, the talented folks will be fine, etc. I think the intention has been to shift the focus more towards the istock pros and away from the hobbyists, which isn't a bad thing necessarily. Microstock is growing, maturing, and it's not so crazy to think that these companies need to mature, as do the contributors who wish to continue earning decent money in this business.
Where I think istock may have gone wrong is in how extreme a dividing line they drew between pros and hobbyists. The rate cut only left a fraction of a percent of contributors unharmed, despite claims from HQ that most people wouldn't be hurt by the change. Many "pros" were obviously caught in the lazy slacker category on that move. I'm sure the same effect will be seen in these upcoming changes as well. JJRD can say that if you're working hard and you've got some talent, you'll be fine. But really what that will likely mean is that if you're super talented, super productive, and your images are in the highest tier of quality and usability, you might be ok.
-
That seems to be the istock company line these days, increasingly so since the royalty cut. There have been quite a few comments made along these lines, that the hard workers won't see their earnings suffer, the talented folks will be fine, etc. I think the intention has been to shift the focus more towards the istock pros and away from the hobbyists, which isn't a bad thing necessarily. Microstock is growing, maturing, and it's not so crazy to think that these companies need to mature, as do the contributors who wish to continue earning decent money in this business.
Where I think istock may have gone wrong is in how extreme a dividing line they drew between pros and hobbyists. The rate cut only left a fraction of a percent of contributors unharmed, despite claims from HQ that most people wouldn't be hurt by the change. Many "pros" were obviously caught in the lazy slacker category on that move. I'm sure the same effect will be seen in these upcoming changes as well. JJRD can say that if you're working hard and you've got some talent, you'll be fine. But really what that will likely mean is that if you're super talented, super productive, and your images are in the highest tier of quality and usability, you might be ok.
It's not some great philosophical strategy. It's just basic business for Istock. They want to pay contributors as little as they think they can get away with but they also need to keep their best exclusive contributors happy enough not to ditch their crowns. It's nothing more than that. The trap you and many others are falling into is the shift of blame onto yourselves (i.e. if you're not 'being taken care of' then it must be because you are not talented or hard working enough to deserve the special treatment that others get).
-
...The trap you and many others are falling into is the shift of blame onto yourselves (i.e. if you're not 'being taken care of' then it must be because you are not talented or hard working enough to deserve the special treatment that others get).
Trust me, I'm as far away from that trap as anyone can be. I know exactly where the blame should be placed.
-
I 'm certainly in the trap but over-supply is the real problem and independents won't be able to escape it either. There is a finite number of buyers that are or will leave Istock to go to other agencies. If / when exclusivity crumbles that's just more competition along with all of the newbies coming each month. The question is how will shutterstock protect it's established contributors when it goes from adding 68,000+ images a week to 200,000+ images a week? How many of your images will be found in a 50+ million database?
Istock is trying to hold on to their top talent with V/A, but there are so many good independent photographers I'm not sure it will work. Then add the high prices, hard feelings ,etc.
I think the subscription model is the future for the agencies but I have trouble seeing how contributors will find it sustainable as full-time work.
BTW: thinkstockphotos.com has a 4,262 US traffic rank today on alexa and based on the positive sales threads by independents, I don't think its taking sales from Shutterstock.
-
^^^ I think the over-supply affects mainly mediocre/poor images. Whilst once they attracted enough sales to keep those who produced them motivated to upload more I think that is happening much less nowadays.
The volume of 'new images added this week' at SS has almost halved in the last year. It certainly isn't going to 200K anytime soon. It is getting harder and less rewarding for many contributors and so they are either giving up or uploading fewer images.
-
...The trap you and many others are falling into is the shift of blame onto yourselves (i.e. if you're not 'being taken care of' then it must be because you are not talented or hard working enough to deserve the special treatment that others get).
Trust me, I'm as far away from that trap as anyone can be. I know exactly where the blame should be placed.
+1
It shouldn't matter whether a contributor is a pro or a hobbyist...what matters is whether the image sells. If it doesn't, it's going to the bottom of the barrel anyway. If it's a best-seller, then the hobbyist deserves the same respect as the pro. NOT the company line, for sure.