0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Thinking back, I stepped into this game knowing it was like any other retail business, that it was going to get tougher, more market saturated, more competitive and potentially less economical to pursue as time went on - what surprises me (genuinely) is that so many others seem to have thought otherwise.
Quote from: jjneff on June 28, 2013, 18:11You can shoot me for this but I think this is a good move! They are looking out for their exclusives first and giving the customer what they need! I hope buyers come running back to iStock, heck it stills pays more then SS most of the time! This is a customer centric change so lets see what happens! You can always become exclusive if buyers come running back!I honestly can't see how on Earth this is beneficial to exclusives. They have seen huge drops in downloads, and more recently earnings. How is giving away indie content for practically nothing going to reverse that trend??
You can shoot me for this but I think this is a good move! They are looking out for their exclusives first and giving the customer what they need! I hope buyers come running back to iStock, heck it stills pays more then SS most of the time! This is a customer centric change so lets see what happens! You can always become exclusive if buyers come running back!
Quote from: snipershot on June 29, 2013, 02:49Hi all... I am both, buyer and contributor, trying to look at new iStock policies in realistic way from both angles. I'm writing this post because this thread looks is a bit away from reality and sounds like bitter chanting of angry ex-iStockers. My apologies.Anyways, to me it looks like things are moving in good direction there for a simple reason. Client needs ONE LOCATION to find good content. He hates to waste time visiting 10 websites and buying credits heaps here and there. IStock now offers globally present content at really low prices but also great exclusive content at higher prices. That is a great value for clients and hardly any other site has something similar to offer.But as a buyer, don't you also notice that it offers great independent content at low prices and a good supply of poor exclusive content at high prices? You've got no exclusive rights from going to the higher price point, so why not just stay cheap? Or does the "exclusive" tag create a subconscious impression that your client won't find the same image being used by a rival?I do appreciate your explanation of how buyers might view the change. It's also interesting that several people have hinted that the perception of getting something better if you pay more will support the higher levels. Perhaps that's why Getty keeps polluting them with some absolute rubbish from its archives.
Hi all... I am both, buyer and contributor, trying to look at new iStock policies in realistic way from both angles. I'm writing this post because this thread looks is a bit away from reality and sounds like bitter chanting of angry ex-iStockers. My apologies.Anyways, to me it looks like things are moving in good direction there for a simple reason. Client needs ONE LOCATION to find good content. He hates to waste time visiting 10 websites and buying credits heaps here and there. IStock now offers globally present content at really low prices but also great exclusive content at higher prices. That is a great value for clients and hardly any other site has something similar to offer.
You are right that there is great independent content now at lowest prices, but if I understood Lobo well, they are still moving it to higher priced collections. Plan is to complete in it few weeks. If it goes well, independent artists will have their good selling files priced higher, but not as high as exclusive files. Seems fair to me. It is also true that poor new exclusive content is there in S collection, but if it performs bad, after few months it will be sinking to low value collection. This new system sounds right. Maybe contributor commissions are low, but most importantly system is now client oriented and that should generate more sales.
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on June 28, 2013, 17:11In that case, why are they piling rubbish into the main collection with the 999 files a day allowance and ridiculously lax inspections?PP fodder?
In that case, why are they piling rubbish into the main collection with the 999 files a day allowance and ridiculously lax inspections?
Quote from: lisafx on June 28, 2013, 18:24Quote from: jjneff on June 28, 2013, 18:11You can shoot me for this but I think this is a good move! They are looking out for their exclusives first and giving the customer what they need! I hope buyers come running back to iStock, heck it stills pays more then SS most of the time! This is a customer centric change so lets see what happens! You can always become exclusive if buyers come running back!I honestly can't see how on Earth this is beneficial to exclusives. They have seen huge drops in downloads, and more recently earnings. How is giving away indie content for practically nothing going to reverse that trend??Maybe they want to force exclusives to migrate their portfolios to Getty images...
Apparently not considering that we now can't have any file moved to Getty unless there are accepted as Vetta
Quote from: JFP on June 29, 2013, 05:32Apparently not considering that we now can't have any file moved to Getty unless there are accepted as VettaFWIW:"What will get mirrored to Getty under the new collections scheme?The Vetta and Signature Plus collections will be mirrored on Getty."http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=354345&messageid=6899067
Quote from: ShadySue on June 29, 2013, 14:39Quote from: JFP on June 29, 2013, 05:32Apparently not considering that we now can't have any file moved to Getty unless there are accepted as VettaFWIW:"What will get mirrored to Getty under the new collections scheme?The Vetta and Signature Plus collections will be mirrored on Getty."http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=354345&messageid=6899067Signature plus is in game ha? So it begins! As I told you...
I thought Getty was 20% regardless of exclusivity... Getty sells the content at higher rates...I earn more when stuff sells on Getty
Quote from: Xanox on June 29, 2013, 01:11it's finally becoming a rat race to the bottom.on the other side i've met a guy working for NGOs who made around 20K with his latest exhibitions, prints in A3 format of street photography stuff of asian cities, and this on top of his well paid full time job at NGOs, he's also planning about doing expensive workshops to teach newbies.another guy works for a local newspaper, they're so cheap they dont even provide him the gear, he's using his own 5DmkII with a few lenses, if he get robbed he 's F-ed.We'll have to see if istock is successful with lowering some of their prices. They've not got a good track record over the past 5 years, every change seems to of sent buyers away. Buyers might not be bothered with lower prices, there's already sites out there that have failed by thinking cheap prices are all the buyers want. Buyers might not like having such a big range of prices, they might prefer all images at the same price. Hopefully they will be aware that a lot of us have removed all our best images from istock and no longer supply them with new images. Low prices and 15-20% commission is unsustainable for most of us and will kill off microstock, do buyers really want that?
it's finally becoming a rat race to the bottom.on the other side i've met a guy working for NGOs who made around 20K with his latest exhibitions, prints in A3 format of street photography stuff of asian cities, and this on top of his well paid full time job at NGOs, he's also planning about doing expensive workshops to teach newbies.another guy works for a local newspaper, they're so cheap they dont even provide him the gear, he's using his own 5DmkII with a few lenses, if he get robbed he 's F-ed.