MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Buyers Bailing on Istock  (Read 387859 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #325 on: October 21, 2010, 08:35 »
0
snip
Wax on, wax off!

OK, THAT I understand. He should have said that in the first place!  :)


« Reply #326 on: October 21, 2010, 08:40 »
0
Hi Crazy,

 There are several companies I am affiliated with that have been asked to place images in the Agency collection and yes I have been asked for my company to produce content for the collection. They have added several agencies not just Getty. As to weather I am going that route I will have to let you know in a couple weeks after Photo East.

Best,
Jonathan

jbarber873

« Reply #327 on: October 21, 2010, 08:47 »
0
Hi CClapper,

 Nope! Have to do that homework on your own for this one. This might make a couple people happy on this site but I don't share everything till I put it to use myself. I am very sure that things are not what they seem. Sorry to be so mysterious but the writing is all over the wall if you spend hours on the internet tracking info or hear it from a very reliable source. Isn't this career awesome ;D

Good Luck,
Jonathan

Nope, not planning to do any homework of my own here. Your post is so cryptic, I don't even know who or what you are referring to. I will go back and re-read because I obviously missed something. for instance, who is Danielsan? So when you say things are not what they seem, are you talking about things at IS are not what they seem? Things that Lobo says are not what they seem? things on the IS forums are not what they seem?

I don't spend hours on the internet tracking info and I don't have reliable sources, so I guess I will remain in the dark.  ::)

Maybe after you put all that secret knowledge that you gained from surfing and speaking to reliable sources to your special use, you could come back and tell us what you mean. Or not would be my guess.

« Reply #328 on: October 21, 2010, 08:51 »
0
CC,

 What Lisa said makes the most sense on this entire subject. Lisa is the closest of anyone here to seeing the big picture as to what what the powers are planning but Lisa has always been one of the people here that does here homework and can read between the lines. I respect the people that have been quoted about not buying from Istock anymore but have you checked out how many buyers they have. Think twice, this is a Getty owned company and they have been top dogs for the past 12 years or so for one simple reason, they know the market very well. I don't think that they will lose the lions share of sales because of this change. Just my opinion of coarse. I have been expecting this price change for sometime but so has everyone that knows this market just look to the past. We used to get a 50/50 split years ago. It was not till Macro RF came into the picture that the 20% share was introduced, Getty's sales took off during that period.

Best,
Jonathan
« Last Edit: October 21, 2010, 11:24 by Jonathan Ross »

« Reply #329 on: October 21, 2010, 08:53 »
0
Yea jbarber873,

 I am not someone to share much info am I  ;D

Jonathan

lisafx

« Reply #330 on: October 21, 2010, 17:55 »
0
CC,

 What Lisa said makes the most sense on this entire subject. Lisa is the closest of anyone here to seeing the big picture as to what what the powers are planning but Lisa has always been one of the people here that does here homework and can read between the lines. I respect the people that have been quoted about not buying from Istock anymore but have you checked out how many buyers they have. Think twice, this is a Getty owned company and they have been top dogs for the past 12 years or so for one simple reason, they know the market very well. I don't think that they will lose the lions share of sales because of this change. Just my opinion of coarse. I have been expecting this price change for sometime but so has everyone that knows this market just look to the past. We used to get a 50/50 split years ago. It was not till Macro RF came into the picture that the 20% share was introduced, Getty's sales took off during that period.

Best,
Jonathan

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Jonathan.  :)  But I have to admit the reference was totally lost on me too...  

I think I get your point though - it was inevitable that Getty would try and reduce Istock commissions to 20% across the board.  At least a lot of the long timers in the business speculated about it, and it made a certain amount of sense.   But you know, hope springs eternal.  Many of us wanted to believe that Istock was still in control and would protect their exclusives.  At least I certainly did.

And what has really come out of left field, AFAIK, is the reducing of non-exclusive commissions to as low as 15-19%.  I didn't hear anyone predicting that.  Could you or one of the other long time stock folks like Christian weigh in on whether there was a precedent for that one?  

Probably those of us who are non-exclusive and want to fare better on IS would be smart to do as you are doing and look for other avenues into the Agency Collection via one of the stock collections featured there.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #331 on: October 21, 2010, 17:59 »
0
Yea jbarber873,

 I am not someone to share much info am I  ;D

Jonathan

The new and improved sarcastic Jonathon. I like it.

« Reply #332 on: October 21, 2010, 23:23 »
0
 Hi Paulie,

 Oh you know me to well ;D If you are good at reading between the lines I am  still the same old guy just trying to keep the peace and spread some info. Play me in any sport, you will see the true me, I will play till one of us drops. Besides I have been way to friendly lately >:(

Best,
Jonathan

« Reply #333 on: October 21, 2010, 23:41 »
0
 Hi Lisa,

 No I can't say I have seen percentage drop below 20% before but there was a time when no one would believe 20% and we all got use to it and made a lot of money. I don't agree with the agencies choice but if I don't like it I have the choice to go somewhere else. We live in a Capitalist society not a Socialist one so we are stuck behind the 8 ball. I learned many years ago that we have very little power.
 If I was trying to sell someone something I would start high and end up coming down once the buyer put up enough struggle. The buyer would have thought they were empowered and I would walk away with just what I was hoping for. Maybe businesses do the same thing, pad their drops and then give everyone a chance to bitch then they change it to make you feel empowered when in the long run they ended up with happy contributors and the price they already were after. If not enough noise is made they leave it and make even more money than they had hoped for. I can't say that agencies do this but it is an old trick that still works very well.
 Once again excuse me on my number information this last week. My wife is recovering from surgery, I have been on the road and raising the family at the same time limping in a leg brace from a torn LCL this last weekend playing soccer, so the sleep has been missing and I am obviously off my game. Not trying to make excuses but until this week my numbers have not been off so I hope people can understand that my answers have been hindered by unexpected circumstance. Gostywk was kind enough to point out my latest error. That is two in one week, not good of me. I will pay closer attention as this is the last trip of the year.
 I will say that it is important for people to point out my mistakes this week, I wish some could find a bit of grace in their presentation but that is what you get when you try to share information. However, any one that points out my mistakes is helping me in a big way.
 Still one more trip to go to PhotoPlus next week so if anyone is there come over and say hi to the guy limping around in the brace :)

Best,
Jonathan

lisafx

« Reply #334 on: October 22, 2010, 12:40 »
0

 No I can't say I have seen percentage drop below 20% before but there was a time when no one would believe 20% and we all got use to it and made a lot of money. I don't agree with the agencies choice but if I don't like it I have the choice to go somewhere else.

Thanks for answering my question.  I hadn't thought anyone went below 20%, but wasn't too sure since I don't know the macro market. 

Hope you and your wife both heal up fast :)

jbarber873

« Reply #335 on: October 22, 2010, 18:36 »
0
Yea jbarber873,

 I am not someone to share much info am I  ;D

Jonathan

Well I agree with you that Lisa writes the most intelligent and cogent posts I have seen in my limited time here. I'm still not sure what you meant by your original post, but that's okay. I don't think more typing will make it clearer to me- I'm a little slow that way.

« Reply #336 on: October 23, 2010, 09:37 »
0
Here's another: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=267191&page=1

Thread locked of course. iStock really knows how to make a customer feel wanted. :/

lisafx

« Reply #337 on: October 23, 2010, 10:30 »
0
Very interesting thread, Carolyn.  Seems like the "guarantee" may have had unintended consequences.  Here's the post from Chris3fer:

I work for a good size agency and its come up in a meeting today (for the second time in a year) that we shouldn't be using istock to make purchases. Quote from the meeting from pretty important purchasing people:


"They (istock) don't have proper licensing, and now they even have an additional legal guarantee you can purchase for another $100, because apparently their standard legal guarantee is meaningless. They also use a points system that doesn't make any sense. We should avoid them whenever possible."


It seems like charging extra for additional legal guarantees is making people think you have no real system for licenses and releases.


Like I said, this is the second time this has come up. a couple years ago everyone was using istock, now mangement is saying to stop. I just think this seems to be getting more common. Just sayin.


And his later post, which I think really speaks volumes about what Istock is losing:  In response to the question "Are you in a position to explain these licenses?"  He replies (emphasis added by me):

I am, but I didn't. I decided to cut back on my defending istock from 40% to 35% and I am currently over that percentage.. After all, money won't bring istock happiness.

« Reply #338 on: October 23, 2010, 12:28 »
0
Very interesting thread, Carolyn.  Seems like the "guarantee" may have had unintended consequences.  Here's the post from Chris3fer:

I work for a good size agency and its come up in a meeting today (for the second time in a year) that we shouldn't be using istock to make purchases. Quote from the meeting from pretty important purchasing people:


"They (istock) don't have proper licensing, and now they even have an additional legal guarantee you can purchase for another $100, because apparently their standard legal guarantee is meaningless. They also use a points system that doesn't make any sense. We should avoid them whenever possible."


It seems like charging extra for additional legal guarantees is making people think you have no real system for licenses and releases.


Like I said, this is the second time this has come up. a couple years ago everyone was using istock, now mangement is saying to stop. I just think this seems to be getting more common. Just sayin.


And his later post, which I think really speaks volumes about what Istock is losing:  In response to the question "Are you in a position to explain these licenses?"  He replies (emphasis added by me):

I am, but I didn't. I decided to cut back on my defending istock from 40% to 35% and I am currently over that percentage.. After all, money won't bring istock happiness.

Priceless!!  ;D

« Reply #339 on: October 23, 2010, 12:36 »
0
And I also love how Lobo dismisses any contributor/buyer. As if being a contributor negates any buying that you do. But then I've heard that before, even from people on this forum.

« Reply #340 on: October 23, 2010, 12:43 »
0
Very interesting thread, Carolyn.  Seems like the "guarantee" may have had unintended consequences.  Here's the post from Chris3fer:

I work for a good size agency and its come up in a meeting today (for the second time in a year) that we shouldn't be using istock to make purchases. Quote from the meeting from pretty important purchasing people:


"They (istock) don't have proper licensing, and now they even have an additional legal guarantee you can purchase for another $100, because apparently their standard legal guarantee is meaningless. They also use a points system that doesn't make any sense. We should avoid them whenever possible."


It seems like charging extra for additional legal guarantees is making people think you have no real system for licenses and releases.


Like I said, this is the second time this has come up. a couple years ago everyone was using istock, now mangement is saying to stop. I just think this seems to be getting more common. Just sayin.


And his later post, which I think really speaks volumes about what Istock is losing:  In response to the question "Are you in a position to explain these licenses?"  He replies (emphasis added by me):

I am, but I didn't. I decided to cut back on my defending istock from 40% to 35% and I am currently over that percentage.. After all, money won't bring istock happiness.

So where are the buyers who aren't happy with IS's guarantee going to go? Certainly not to one of the smaller microstock agencies that don't have a guarantee at all.

I'd say Getty wouldn't be unhappy if these buyers continue to use rights managed licensing or their premium RF offerings.

lisafx

« Reply #341 on: October 23, 2010, 13:46 »
0


So where are the buyers who aren't happy with IS's guarantee going to go? Certainly not to one of the smaller microstock agencies that don't have a guarantee at all.

That's a very good question.  I wonder that myself.  With the bargains to be had at Alamy these days, or with the variety of pricing on the Veer site, those would probably be good choices.  Interesting that the Getty name/reputation backing up Istock doesn't inspire more confidence in these buyers...

What's unfortunate is that Istock cast it's own practices into doubt unnecessarily by starting up those "guarantees".  Istock, and the other micros, have all been pretty diligent from the beginning (or at least the nearly 6 years I've been involved) about rejecting anything which might be copyrighted, and also ensuring that proper releases are uploaded.  

The irony is that the trad agencies appear to have been much less diligent about keeping copyrighted material out.  Looking at all the violations in the Agency collection is evidence of that, and until this year Alamy (and I assume many others) were willing to take contributors word that there was a model release.  
« Last Edit: October 23, 2010, 13:50 by lisafx »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #342 on: October 23, 2010, 14:00 »
0
What's unfortunate is that Istock cast it's own practices into doubt unnecessarily by starting up those "guarantees".  
It's just an income generating scheme. As I've said before, the buyers don't really understand what they are about. Two stick out on extended guarantees I've had (and I've mentioned them before): one was a flower and one was a bare landscape. No possible 'issues', and by looking at the amount paid for the base file, both by small bundle buyers, presumably newbies. I bet they never came back (Probable scenario: lured in by the promised low prices, scared into buying an extended guarantee). But iStock got its quick bucks - for nothing.

« Reply #343 on: October 23, 2010, 14:09 »
0

And his later post, which I think really speaks volumes about what Istock is losing:  In response to the question "Are you in a position to explain these licenses?"  He replies (emphasis added by me):

I am, but I didn't. I decided to cut back on my defending istock from 40% to 35% and I am currently over that percentage.. After all, money won't bring istock happiness.

That was awesome. :D

lisafx

« Reply #344 on: October 23, 2010, 14:25 »
0
What's unfortunate is that Istock cast it's own practices into doubt unnecessarily by starting up those "guarantees".  


It's just an income generating scheme.

Totally agree Sue.  Looks like it backfired bigtime.  
« Last Edit: October 23, 2010, 14:32 by lisafx »

« Reply #345 on: October 23, 2010, 16:04 »
0
This is quite interesting: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=267401&page=1#post5056901

Client not needing files, finding files cheaper elsewhere, or not wanting to do business with a company with less than stellar business practices?
« Last Edit: October 23, 2010, 16:33 by caspixel »

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #346 on: October 23, 2010, 16:12 »
0
Sounds like Lobo is trigger happy these days....LOCK...LOCK...LOCK....just like the inspectors that go....REJECT....REJECT.....REJECT.... ;)

jbarber873

« Reply #347 on: October 23, 2010, 19:13 »
0
Sounds like Lobo is trigger happy these days....LOCK...LOCK...LOCK....just like the inspectors that go....REJECT....REJECT.....REJECT.... ;)

I think Lobo is playing Whack a Mole at istock these days. It's kind of sad to see the guy getting all these negative threads. He must really wish for the good old days, when only happy talk prevailed. I almost feel bad for him---- almost.

« Reply #348 on: October 23, 2010, 21:37 »
0
 Hi All,

  I think that there are a lot of buyers that worry about the security of Micro model and property releases in general. It can really hurt and has many times since Micro has been strong that there are legal problems. The agencies keep this pretty tight lipped for good reason but this isn't based on just opinion. There have been several cases of improper releases in Micro. I think it has to do with the wide open market that anyone can join and start shooting with little business knowledge. In some smaller non English speaking countries I am sure there are beginners that sign there own releases without witnesses, even here in the good old U.S. Just my understanding from speaking with several people on the topic but it seems Istock has the same concern and is going to cover there butt. Look into E and O insurance if in doubt, you need other insurance first but it is the last wall of coverage to keep you as a photographer safe from strange slip ups.

Best,
Jonathan

« Reply #349 on: October 23, 2010, 22:05 »
0
There really is no need for property releases, legally.  I'm sure you know that from all the unreleased spaces in ... Spaces, right?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
30 Replies
17295 Views
Last post October 23, 2010, 14:12
by gbalex
18 Replies
5817 Views
Last post November 24, 2011, 15:34
by lagereek
162 Replies
33334 Views
Last post May 14, 2012, 10:27
by jbryson
20 Replies
7323 Views
Last post February 14, 2013, 17:41
by Poncke
9 Replies
4678 Views
Last post January 15, 2014, 19:56
by djpadavona

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors