MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: [  (Read 44292 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #200 on: June 30, 2013, 19:37 »
0
SS are still growing and still recruiting. IS will probably be letting more staff go as revenue is slashed due to the price reductions.
Your prediction may or may not come about, but on a POI, iS is also actively recruiting:
https://gettyimages-openhire.silkroad.com/epostings/index.cfm?fuseaction=app.allpositions&company_id=15531&version=1


« Reply #201 on: June 30, 2013, 19:39 »
+1
It was very interesting in the discussion between SS and financial institutions that it pointed to its small portion of overall market share, as well as to the potential for growing the market.

If it can grow market share in a growing market then it has a good many years of overall growth ahead.

« Reply #202 on: June 30, 2013, 20:07 »
0
It was very interesting in the discussion between SS and financial institutions that it pointed to its small portion of overall market share, as well as to the potential for growing the market.

If it can grow market share in a growing market then it has a good many years of overall growth ahead.

I would take the figures quoted by SS, on the assumed size of the potential stock image market, with an absolutely gigantic sack of salt.

If Getty, which obviously includes IS and all their relatively exclusive sports editorial revenue and all the exclusive historical collections that they own, can barely muster $900K in revenue ... where the heck is the other $4-5B that SS assume must exist?

There's Getty ... then there's Corbis ... or is it really SS next? Either way it is difficult to conceive that the total market for stock images and footage is worth much more than $2B, quite possibly less. Even then a sizable chunk of that market will be exclusive specialist niches (like the UK's National Trust for example) that SS can never hope to penetrate.

SS is expected to generate $200M in 2013. Personally I doubt that the market available to them is ever likely to allow them to exceed $500M, probably a lot less. My guess is that SS's growth will flatten out before they reach $300M.

« Reply #203 on: June 30, 2013, 20:10 »
+18
iStock is gonna rock you just wait and see :-) I like drinking Kool Aid so come an join me. I am exclusive so yes I want it to rock!

i wasn't sure if this was serious, but I'm not sure I believe it. I think their downfall was when they alienated contributors. There was nobody left to insulate them from disgruntled buyers or anybody else that was upset. It all kind of blew up in their face, and it will be tough to get those contributors back on board to put it all back together.

It's a shame too because their bungling messed up the balance of power in the micro world. Shutterstock doesn't really have a viable competitor, and that doesn't seem like a healthy situation.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2013, 20:13 by cthoman »

« Reply #204 on: June 30, 2013, 20:34 »
0

You can trace the root of this issue back to the introduction of the RC system in September 2010.
That's when I stopped uploading to iStock. I've since noticed my PP sales have been much better than iStock sales so I've started uploading again to take advantage of the relaxed upload limits and get some more files into the PP. However, that doesn't mean I have any confidence in them or trust their credibility.

sorry but is that dumbest thing I have read for a while, you are uploading thinking of PP? thank god you don't upload much...

Since they're 'lypse images they can only go to iStock. That's part of the agreement for participating. Also the 'lypse model release has been very carefully crafted so the photos cannot be used anywhere else.

« Reply #205 on: June 30, 2013, 20:43 »
-1

You can trace the root of this issue back to the introduction of the RC system in September 2010.
That's when I stopped uploading to iStock. I've since noticed my PP sales have been much better than iStock sales so I've started uploading again to take advantage of the relaxed upload limits and get some more files into the PP. However, that doesn't mean I have any confidence in them or trust their credibility.

sorry but is that dumbest thing I have read for a while, you are uploading thinking of PP? thank god you don't upload much...

Since they're 'lypse images they can only go to iStock. That's part of the agreement for participating. Also the 'lypse model release has been very carefully crafted so the photos cannot be used anywhere else.

aaaaaah of course, it was indeed a life changing, happy for you! :D

« Reply #206 on: June 30, 2013, 23:43 »
+2
...
7. Think what is other way to bring customers to fair deal for you and our community...

Symbiostock! - 100% royalty  ;)

I really don't know how to make this solution easy and profitable...

Just wait. It's the future... 8)

Ron

« Reply #207 on: July 01, 2013, 02:34 »
0
The only way this could work in favor of IS is that with the price cut people are going to miss their RC targets and the cost reduction on paying less royalties is greater than the loss of revenue due to the price cuts.

Mathematically impossible. They must be losing 40-50% on inde sales. They only pay a 15-20% in commission. The most they will claw back by cutting levels will be 2 or 3%.

The only thing that seems to make any sense at all is that they want to lure buyers back with promises of cheap material, then catapult them up into the Signature or Vetta collections by hiding all the cheaper stuff.  But I doubt if it will work since it depends on buyers being very stupid indeed.
But you dont know what % they might gain in sales from new customers or more DLs at that price. If their sales go up significantly, doesnt that work out in their benefit down the line?

You would need a massive induction of sales that wouldn't otherwise have happened, pushing up overall sales by several hundred percent. At that point, would there be any loss in "levels" for independents - don't know, can't be bothered to try to work out the maths.

Anyway, the scenario is unrealistic, in my opinion.
Fair enough, makes sense. Basically then the lowering of pricing makes no sense.

« Reply #208 on: July 01, 2013, 04:08 »
+2
Which file is worth 10x the other file?
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2493233-united-states-flag.php?st=c805381
or
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2388290-beautiflul-huge-us-flag.php?st=f2a69da

The idea of self-curating the collection to a degree (self-promoting to P+ / E+) was one of the few things that IS had done right the last several years. So naturally they remove that and replace it with an idiotic algorithm that can't tell an ordinary but lucky high-selling file from a higher quality and/or more unique file.

What they should have done instead was to continue to allow contributors to promote files to a higher level, but also allow them to demote* files to a lower level. Contributors know better than any algorithm ever could what is best for their files. If the concern was that files were changing price suddenly (laughable considering what's been going on the last few weeks), then limit the ability to change. But don't take away the one thing that was actually working and smart about IS.

* I guess that applies to exclusives only, allowing them to demote down to the Main collection.


I have a small port at iStock but seemed to get a chance to move pix to P+ pretty often and every time I moved one of my photos to P+ it sold MORE often rather than less often. The number of sales as well as what I made each time the photo was licensed would increase significantly.  All my P+ photos turned into my best-sellers, even if they hadn't sold much (or even at all) on iS before becoming P+. Now they are dumped into the Main collection and while still selling, my share is about 1/3rd less ( "Large" files are selling for less than "Medium" size files were in May).

My guess is that most buyers work for companies that already have plans with iS and these employees don't care if a photo costs them $5 or $10 more, but my loss of $1 or more on every sale will add up well before their $5 savings per photo becomes noticeable. Meantime, their bosses will start to care if they're spending $10 for two photos one week and $400 for two photos the next week. Making the Main collection cost less only serves to highlight the highest prices. Wouldn't it make more sense to raise all prices? In business, rule #1 is that if you're selling fewer items, you need to charge more per item.

So frustrating.

« Reply #209 on: July 01, 2013, 04:18 »
0
The market is a little different online so we will see if these changes are enough to bring iStock back to what it was in the neat future. Funny everyone wants their images moved up in the higher priced collections but everyone complains about how iStock is to expensive. RC's are another matter.

« Reply #210 on: July 01, 2013, 05:31 »
+5
The market is a little different online so we will see if these changes are enough to bring iStock back to what it was in the neat future. Funny everyone wants their images moved up in the higher priced collections but everyone complains about how iStock is to expensive. RC's are another matter.

You're confusing two things. The high price bands have been criticised for being too high and the low price band is being criticised for being too low. In effect, people are saying that the prices should have been optimised at the level which retained buyers and maximised the return to suppliers, rather than selling half the collection at very low prices and another part at way above what buyers are likely to view as a fair market price.

I wonder if the utter chaos which seems to have engulfed iStock is a tribute to just how efficiently Hellman and Friedman took a damaged business and then proceeded to scrape out every bit of juicy goodness, selling on the husk at a profit beforethe buyers realised how little goodness was left inside.

« Reply #211 on: July 01, 2013, 07:50 »
+1

You can trace the root of this issue back to the introduction of the RC system in September 2010.
That's when I stopped uploading to iStock. I've since noticed my PP sales have been much better than iStock sales so I've started uploading again to take advantage of the relaxed upload limits and get some more files into the PP. However, that doesn't mean I have any confidence in them or trust their credibility.
sorry but is that dumbest thing I have read for a while, you are uploading thinking of PP? thank god you don't upload much...

Louis, you are completely right!

Story about PP and RC in this moment is totally idiotic... iStock took me 60% or more in a one day from already miserable piece, so what I have to do?
Work more to reach their stupid RC and be happy from change from 16% to 17%... F.... of!

iStock want customers, so our obligation is to redirect customers to better deals for us! That hurts them, not removing our portfolios!

Someone gave you -1, so I feel obligation to fix it with my voice....  ;)


P.S.

People posting here some sayings of their grandmothers and parents...
So here is mine, I think completely usable for iStock crew...

My grandmother says: "You can do what you like, but not as long as you want..."

P.S./P.S.

Where is Lisafx?
She attacked me few days ago that I was not doing enough in last campaign against  IS... With no apologies even with my explanations after ...
So, I feel obligation to be sarcastic once more
Lisa, one advice, please remove 11% of your portfolio from IS, they will probably feel pain after... :-[


« Last Edit: July 01, 2013, 08:34 by borg »

« Reply #212 on: July 01, 2013, 13:17 »
0
Borg, I hope you're not suggesting that I gave Luis a -1 rating because I can assure you I did not. My grandmother also used to say "if you can't say something good about somebody, don't say anything at all".

« Reply #213 on: July 01, 2013, 16:20 »
+1
Borg, I hope you're not suggesting that I gave Luis a -1 rating because I can assure you I did not. My grandmother also used to say "if you can't say something good about somebody, don't say anything at all".

No, that is not my intention, for sure... Sorry if it is looks like...  We are old friends here, me and Louis...
This is some kind of internal joke or usual support for similar ideas...
I comment only thoughts here, never people, if they are not pointing their finger in my direction...
Regards!

« Reply #214 on: July 02, 2013, 09:43 »
+5

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #215 on: July 02, 2013, 10:11 »
0
A little something from Sean
http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2013/07/02/buyer-beware-the-bait-and-switch/

Oh, that's so funny. I noticed earlier that that file had sold and wondered why. I guess Sean licensed it, although he has had to use the actual iS page to illustrate his point.
Also 'by the way' highlighting the vast change in iS acceptance standards. I'm sure he chose the image carefully.

That said, I don't find this scheme so much a bait and switch as the old one. I can't remember exactly, but there was a genuine Free Images site which iS took over. When you googled Free Images, the site did offer one or two free images from the old site, (called something like sxchg.hu, but I can't remember) mixed in with a lot of iS images. When I said that was bait and switch, most people totally disagreed with me.
Just shows.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2013, 10:45 by ShadySue »

« Reply #216 on: July 02, 2013, 10:15 »
+14
A little something from Sean
http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2013/07/02/buyer-beware-the-bait-and-switch/


Excellent and well written.

I think Getty will soon realise it was much better to have Sean inside their tent and pissing out ...  rather than outside the tent and pissing in.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #217 on: July 02, 2013, 10:45 »
+6
Without reading that page I wouldn't have understood how the changes really effected anything. RC was a trick to pay less to artists, now they are they are diddling with it to reduce our returns and future returns. Never seems to stop, does it?

A little something from Sean
http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2013/07/02/buyer-beware-the-bait-and-switch/

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #218 on: July 02, 2013, 10:53 »
0
Without reading that page I wouldn't have understood how the changes really effected anything. RC was a trick to pay less to artists, now they are they are diddling with it to reduce our returns and future returns. Never seems to stop, does it?
Nothing new re diddling. They introduced RCs, then forced all indie files into the PP and mailblasted their biggest buyers encouraging them to switch from iS to TS, and don't pay RCs on PP sales. Given that some indies have reported that they make more $$ from the PP than they do on iS, that's a lot of lost RCs.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2013, 11:02 by ShadySue »

« Reply #219 on: July 02, 2013, 10:53 »
0
Haven't credits been around $1.5 for a while? I don't really see much of a bait and switch.

« Reply #220 on: July 02, 2013, 10:55 »
0
[
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 12:32 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #221 on: July 02, 2013, 11:02 »
+2
Good post Sean and that is how business works. The fact is that buyers are paying less for the main collection no matter how you slice the pie. Using credits for brand loyalty just makes sense. Most of my sales are from credits very few in % are from cash. iStock knows what that percentage is. SS makes you buy a credit package as well and can play the same game. These prices are still a lot more manageable then they were. All in all still a good move by iStock and the exclusive at this point. If you are non-exclusive that is another story!

Ron

« Reply #222 on: July 02, 2013, 11:13 »
+2
A little something from Sean
http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2013/07/02/buyer-beware-the-bait-and-switch/


Excellent and well written.

I think Getty will soon realise it was much better to have Sean inside their tent and pissing out ...  rather than outside the tent and pissing in.


Ok, just to be devils advocate I want to ask you this. Please note I am not trying to diss anyone here, not you, not Sean. Just devils advocate:

Would Getty care about Sean now, considering they let him go in the first place? Do you think Sean's blog will be mentioned in the Getty boardroom? They let Sean go, and brought in Yuri. Couldnt that be working out in Getty's advantage? Do you think Getty cares in which direction Sean is pissing? Or that it can or will harm them?

Dont take this comment the wrong way, its not meant like that.

« Reply #223 on: July 02, 2013, 11:21 »
+4
Haven't credits been around $1.5 for a while? I don't really see much of a bait and switch.

The bait is the "1 credit image" pricing.  The switch is the extended commitment or $5 per credit cash price.

« Reply #224 on: July 02, 2013, 11:23 »
+4
Would Getty care about Sean now, considering they let him go in the first place? Do you think Sean's blog will be mentioned in the Getty boardroom? They let Sean go, and brought in Yuri. Couldnt that be working out in Getty's advantage? Do you think Getty cares in which direction Sean is pissing? Or that it can or will harm them?

I'm not trying to influence Getty in the least.  I'm trying to edumacate buyers so they don't miss these little changes ;) .

If I was a buyer, I would certainly go request a refund of the difference for anything purchased in the last month.  Despite:
"You are constructing a conspiracy related to having Customers request refunds on files only to re-download the same files because the pricing has changed. We have measures in place to monitor this type of activity. We also monitor the number of refunds a Customer requests so we can ensure they aren't performing anything dodgy on the site. "

How is _that_ dodgy?  If pricing on something in the real world changes, you can go get the difference refunded within a reasonable amount of time.  I would think IS would be falling all over themselves trying to get good customer goodwill if a buyer came back disgruntled.  To castigate them for reasonable behavior is not good business.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2013, 11:27 by Sean Locke Photography »


 

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors