MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Canon interview with Kelly Thompson > 31 million images sold per year  (Read 23706 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: March 31, 2011, 10:19 »
0
I am left wondering why IS pumps out something like this, which is basically a recruiting poster for new contributors, who will send  IS a ton of low quality images, which IS will spend time and  money reviewing and rejecting.  Is this what IS wants - more repititious stuff from newbies?  

What's the point, for IS, of encouraging people to buy DSLRs and get into this game at this time?  Canon's motivation is obvious so maybe they're the real source of this "interview".  All that's missing is "mention IStock when purchasing your new Canon, and receive a free lens cleaning cloth", which triggers a little kickback to IS for the camera sale.

Let's look at the context. This article was in the Canon Professional Network website. I don't think it would result in tons of low quality images nor free cleaning cloths.


michealo

« Reply #76 on: March 31, 2011, 10:23 »
0
I am left wondering why IS pumps out something like this, which is basically a recruiting poster for new contributors, who will send  IS a ton of low quality images, which IS will spend time and  money reviewing and rejecting.  Is this what IS wants - more repititious stuff from newbies?  

What's the point, for IS, of encouraging people to buy DSLRs and get into this game at this time?  Canon's motivation is obvious so maybe they're the real source of this "interview".  All that's missing is "mention IStock when purchasing your new Canon, and receive a free lens cleaning cloth", which triggers a little kickback to IS for the camera sale.

Simple economics, because a new recruit gets paid a commission of 15% ...

« Reply #77 on: March 31, 2011, 10:33 »
0
Simple economics, because a new recruit gets paid a commission of 15% ...

Yes, but only if the new recruit's material is accepted, and sells.  Does IS really win by driving out experienced producers and replacing them with newbies at lower commissions?  It's not making sense, unless you assume buyers really aren't sensitive to what we think of as "quality" and will continue to buy the same number of images from IS no matter what.   It costs IS money to review images.  If they don't sell, that money is lost.  

By 'churning' their pool of contributors like this, they're playing a pyramid game with themselves.  It ends when it's no longer possibly to lure in enough new contributors to replace the experienced ones that give up.
Do they believe that 1 out of 10 newbies will actually make IS money in the long run, and those gains will offset the loss of existing contributors as commissions are cut?
« Last Edit: March 31, 2011, 10:40 by stockastic »

« Reply #78 on: March 31, 2011, 10:47 »
0
I would guess that 90%-plus of buyers don't care about a bit of CA or noise but they probably care quite a lot about the composition and lighting. The latter are apparent at every size, the former only if you are printing huge posters for close-up viewing.

« Reply #79 on: March 31, 2011, 10:58 »
0
They've edited the Canon article to change the figures, so they now read 15% to 45%.

Oh, the power of MSG!  ;D ;D ;D

They haven't yet worked out why Sean objected to the line about editorial images not being sold RF but maybe that will get changed later since the article is, apparently, a work in progress.


someone pointed it out on their Facebook page:  http://www.facebook.com/#!/istock

the relevant posts:

Quote
#Lorraine Swanson Commissions from 20-45%? Why are you only paying me 16% Mr Thompson?

#iStockphoto There does seem to be some context missing from that quote regarding exclusive and non-exclusive royalty rates. That being said, I'm sure you're already familiar with the rate schedule.

RT


« Reply #80 on: March 31, 2011, 11:10 »
0
Hey, at least you didn't invoke Godwin's Law and compare him to Hitler ;D

Hitler was intelligent, everytime I read something that Kelly Thompson has said it makes me think the exact opposite and compare him to George W Bush.

« Reply #81 on: March 31, 2011, 11:40 »
0

someone pointed it out on their Facebook page:  http://www.facebook.com/#!/istock

the relevant posts:

Quote
#Lorraine Swanson Commissions from 20-45%? Why are you only paying me 16% Mr Thompson?

#iStockphoto There does seem to be some context missing from that quote regarding exclusive and non-exclusive royalty rates. That being said, I'm sure you're already familiar with the rate schedule.



Guilty.  I hear they had Canon correct the facts after I posted.  I love the "I'm sure youre already familiar with the rate schedule".  Snarky buggers. 

« Reply #82 on: March 31, 2011, 12:30 »
0

someone pointed it out on their Facebook page:  http://www.facebook.com/#!/istock

the relevant posts:

Quote
#Lorraine Swanson Commissions from 20-45%? Why are you only paying me 16% Mr Thompson?

#iStockphoto There does seem to be some context missing from that quote regarding exclusive and non-exclusive royalty rates. That being said, I'm sure you're already familiar with the rate schedule.



Guilty.  I hear they had Canon correct the facts after I posted.  I love the "I'm sure youre already familiar with the rate schedule".  Snarky buggers. 


haha.. well to be honest, I attempted to post almost the exact same thing as you but my iphone has been having connection issues so it didn't get posted.  I was happy to see you had posted. 

and yeah, I thought the same thing about the snarky tone on that lastremark.  One would think that even in the face of criticism a large company/presence like iStock could remain professional. 

digitalexpressionimages

« Reply #83 on: March 31, 2011, 13:38 »
0
Simple economics, because a new recruit gets paid a commission of 15% ...

Yes, but only if the new recruit's material is accepted, and sells.  Does IS really win by driving out experienced producers and replacing them with newbies at lower commissions?  It's not making sense, unless you assume buyers really aren't sensitive to what we think of as "quality" and will continue to buy the same number of images from IS no matter what.   It costs IS money to review images.  If they don't sell, that money is lost.  

By 'churning' their pool of contributors like this, they're playing a pyramid game with themselves.  It ends when it's no longer possibly to lure in enough new contributors to replace the experienced ones that give up.
Do they believe that 1 out of 10 newbies will actually make IS money in the long run, and those gains will offset the loss of existing contributors as commissions are cut?

Isn't istock owned by Getty? Maybe Getty is pushing an agenda. Keep the newbies on istock so istock can't compete with it's parent. It's hard to sell a rights managed image for $500 if you can get a royalty free of similar quality for $10.

« Reply #84 on: March 31, 2011, 13:56 »
0

and yeah, I thought the same thing about the snarky tone on that lastremark.  One would think that even in the face of criticism a large company/presence like iStock could remain professional. 

I think they've shown repeatedly that no matter how big they get, they can't seem so shake the high school mentality.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #85 on: March 31, 2011, 16:30 »
0
Isn't istock owned by Getty? Maybe Getty is pushing an agenda. Keep the newbies on istock so istock can't compete with it's parent. It's hard to sell a rights managed image for $500 if you can get a royalty free of similar quality for $10.

It's not about competing between IS and Getty. It's about shuffling the images, and contributors, into different price tiers.

The RM that is not unique will be moved to RF or micro. Premium micro that isn't sellable will be moved to low-priced micro. Low-end micro that isn't selling will eventually get rid of itself from contributors giving up.

« Reply #86 on: March 31, 2011, 17:41 »
0
the relevant posts:

Quote
#Lorraine Swanson Commissions from 20-45%? Why are you only paying me 16% Mr Thompson?

#iStockphoto There does seem to be some context missing from that quote regarding exclusive and non-exclusive royalty rates. That being said, I'm sure you're already familiar with the rate schedule.

The quote from iStockphoto was cut off somehow.  He meant to say "I'm sure you're already familiar with the rate schedule.  We were just hoping to mislead potential new contributors."
« Last Edit: March 31, 2011, 17:43 by stockastic »

« Reply #87 on: April 11, 2011, 16:46 »
0
And after 12 days, someone put link in foruns.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=323042&page=1

And just 3 people send happy birthday to KK... In other times, lots of community member sending your congrats to Kelly.

« Reply #88 on: April 11, 2011, 17:14 »
0
And after 12 days, someone put link in foruns.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=323042&page=1

And just 3 people send happy birthday to KK... In other times, lots of community member sending your congrats to Kelly.


yes, I noticed that - read it and reminded myself of what my mother used to tell me "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all"

« Reply #89 on: April 12, 2011, 06:02 »
0
Quote
Go from hobby to money-maker: For freelancers, Web makes fun pursuits pay
April 7, 2009 By Andrew Newman

At iStockphoto, contributors earn a percentage of the download price -- starting at a 20 percent base royalty rate. That means for photos, earnings can range from 30 cents to more than $8 per download on a pay-as-you-go plan. The amount earned depends on the size of the photo. The rest of the money goes to the site.

iStockphoto's subscription plans offer a chance for contributors to earn even more money per download."Go from hobby to money-maker: For freelancers, Web makes fun pursuits pay."

Contributors with enough downloads and positive feedback can enter the Exclusivity program; in essence, iStockphoto becomes their agent. Exclusive contributors get more money per download and other benefits like the opportunity to submit their work to stock photo giant Getty Images.

The site is free to join, but contributors have to apply and submit three samples of their work before approval -- so pictures from the family trip to Disney World probably won't cut it.

That doesn't mean the site is professionals only."It doesn't really matter if someone considers themselves a professional or not," said iStockphoto COO Kelly Thompson.

Doctors and policemen are among the 4,000-plus Exclusive contributors, and they aren't planning on quitting their day jobs _ even though top contributors can earn $150,000 a year.

"People aren't looking to make a whole lot of money, but they want to get that new lens cap," Thompson said.

« Last Edit: April 12, 2011, 06:05 by Worried Sick »

« Reply #90 on: April 12, 2011, 09:47 »
0

"People aren't looking to make a whole lot of money, but they want to get that new lens cap," Thompson said.


It's unbelieveable that this dweeb ended up in control of a huge segment of the stock photography business.   Now, can the business somehow find a way to route around him, or are we doomed to remain forever under the thumb of Dear Leader?   

« Reply #91 on: April 12, 2011, 09:49 »
0

"People aren't looking to make a whole lot of money, but they want to get that new lens cap," Thompson said.


It's unbelieveable that this dweeb ended up in control of a huge segment of the stock photography business.   Now, can the business somehow find a way to route around him, or are we doomed to remain forever under the thumb of Dear Leader?   

Maybe the one bright spot to the decline in sales (and eventually revenue) at iStock will be his termination?

rubyroo

« Reply #92 on: April 12, 2011, 09:56 »
0
That was a particularly peculiar thing to say wasn't it?   I've never had to replace a lens cap, and never had any desire for a different kind of lens cap.  If I did have such a desire, why would I go through an entrance test, spend money on equipment and software and go through all the hoops and process involved in microstock, just to buy something that would cost less then 10.00?

Truly strange.

Of course, if there's something I'm missing here, and there's a reason to work this hard for a lens cap, perhaps someone could enlighten me?

ShadySue

« Reply #93 on: April 12, 2011, 10:00 »
0
That was a particularly peculiar thing to say wasn't it?   I've never had to replace a lens cap, and never had any desire for a different kind of lens cap.  If I did have such a desire, why would I go through an entrance test, spend money on equipment and software and go through all the hoops and process involved in microstock, just to buy something that would cost less then 10.00?
Truly strange.
Of course, if there's something I'm missing here, and there's a reason to work this hard for a lens cap, perhaps someone could enlighten me?
If you don't have a supa dupa iStock lenscap all your photos get rejected as 'not suitable for stock'.  :P

rubyroo

« Reply #94 on: April 12, 2011, 10:02 »
0
 :D

« Reply #95 on: April 12, 2011, 10:03 »
0
Maybe Dear Leader will be marketing his own line of lens caps.

Seriously, I think this is just his way of saying "let them eat cake".
« Last Edit: April 12, 2011, 10:05 by stockastic »

rubyroo

« Reply #96 on: April 12, 2011, 10:15 »
0
Maybe Dear Leader will be marketing his own line of lens caps.

Seriously, I think this is just his way of saying "let them eat cake".

 :D

"When money won't make you happy... the revolutionary K-cap will!

OK I've done some sums.  To replace my lens cap would seem to cost 8.45.

So far it's cost me over 3,000 hours of work and about 3,000 in investment.  Yay me!  I must be really stupid!  ;D
« Last Edit: April 12, 2011, 10:26 by rubyroo »

« Reply #97 on: April 12, 2011, 10:40 »
0
Let's all start sending him old lens caps.

rubyroo

« Reply #98 on: April 12, 2011, 10:47 »
0
 :D

« Reply #99 on: April 12, 2011, 11:42 »
0
Let's all start sending him old lens caps.

That's a brilliant idea.
Let's flood IS HQ with old lens caps as a form of protest.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
2957 Views
Last post November 19, 2008, 22:43
by hali
22 Replies
6099 Views
Last post September 21, 2010, 11:24
by Case
70 Replies
15676 Views
Last post July 19, 2012, 00:08
by antistock
87 Replies
13010 Views
Last post November 27, 2015, 01:49
by shiyali
206 Replies
36646 Views
Last post September 01, 2017, 19:42
by Zero Talent

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results