MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: Pauws99 on April 05, 2013, 12:30
-
Looking at the March stats Istock seems to be picking up and Sstock dropping like a stone - statistical aberation or trend? Methinks its just variability but if the boot was on the other foot we would be hearing that Istock would be dead in days!!!!
-
.
-
Was it millions or a few thousand?? - I suppose it depends on buyers - if they stay then income per image may well go up?
-
I'm surprised at the poll too. After the millions of files taken off Istock for D-Day how is anyone making money anymore?
Millions seems to be an overwhelming number.
-
After the millions of files taken off Istock for D-Day
Is this a joke?
-
.
-
I had a BME with SS and my istock earnings are abysmal. Perhaps the poll has been affected by so many people leaving istock entirely and not posting any vote for them now? The vast majority of big earners wont leave but lots of people that didn't earn much there after seeing their earnings decline will of found it much easier to dump them.
-
Looking at the March stats Istock seems to be picking up and Sstock dropping like a stone - statistical aberation or trend? Methinks its just variability but if the boot was on the other foot we would be hearing that Istock would be dead in days!!!!
I actually mentioned that already, in another thread somewhere. But it was waved away.
-
.
-
I had a BME with SS and my istock earnings are abysmal. Perhaps the poll has been affected by so many people leaving istock entirely and not posting any vote for them now? The vast majority of big earners wont leave but lots of people that didn't earn much there after seeing their earnings decline will of found it much easier to dump them.
Is that how the poll works? I thought it was an average of all contributors who answered the poll, so not putting any amount for a site lowers the poll number for that site.
No, but absent votes of low amounts will. Stop trying to prove everybody wrong just for the sake of it.
-
For me IS is still#1 earner with 250$ more with 600 files less than than SS. If the question is the poll works? Yes!
-
.
-
Looking at the March stats Istock seems to be picking up and Sstock dropping like a stone - statistical aberation or trend? Methinks its just variability but if the boot was on the other foot we would be hearing that Istock would be dead in days!!!!
Have you looked at the March Sales thread at iStock? It is barely 6 pages long right now; I believe that's way shorter than it has been at the same stage in the past. There are very few positive reports - about 4 or 5 would be my guess - and a great many negative/irritated reports, many names that seem to be new. There's a very different tone to the posts. I don't think they'll "be dead in days", but it does not look like a recovery to me.
Regards
-
Looking at the March stats Istock seems to be picking up and Sstock dropping like a stone - statistical aberation or trend? Methinks its just variability but if the boot was on the other foot we would be hearing that Istock would be dead in days!!!!
Have you looked at the March Sales thread at iStock? It is barely 6 pages long right now; I believe that's way shorter than it has been at the same stage in the past. There are very few positive reports - about 4 or 5 would be my guess - and a great many negative/irritated reports, many names that seem to be new. There's a very different tone to the posts. I don't think they'll "be dead in days", but it does not look like a recovery to me.
Regards
I noticed the shorter March sales thread also. However, I think it indicates that there are more contributors doing better now. It's usually the ones that aren't doing so well, like myself, that tend to post in the sales threads....a place to vent. Those doing well probably don't want to rub it in and therefore tend not to post.
-
I think it indicates people are hesitant to post anything unless couched in platitudes.
-
I think it indicates people are hesitant to post anything unless couched in platitudes.
or maybe it was just a great month over there at IS. sure was for me :)
-
I think it indicates people are hesitant to post anything unless couched in platitudes.
or maybe it was just a great month over there at IS. sure was for me :)
Sure wasn't for me; almost 50% down on dls; around 40% down on $$ compared to last March. Jetlagged, so haven't worked it out exactly yet. April has started equally dismally.
(Nevertheless, I see no reason why someone has minused your post.)
-
I had a dreadful month at iS. I didn't post there because I don't see the point anymore and I've come to expect continual decline at iS as the new normal.
Is there a way to know how many people participated in the poll here?
-
You bet, things are definitely trending to the upside at Istock.
http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=istockphoto.com&gprop=images&cmpt=q (http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=istockphoto.com&gprop=images&cmpt=q)
-
.
-
humm I got another graph for SS http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=shutterstock.com&gprop=images&cmpt=q (http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=shutterstock.com&gprop=images&cmpt=q)
I think you were only using US data
-
.
-
I don't know what that is supposed to show, who searches for "istockphoto.com" most people would look up "istock" or "istock photo" or "istockphoto" wouldn't they?
Here's the "shutterstock.com" search results for the US too, I don't think it sheds much light on anything. [url]http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=shutterstock.com&gprop=images&cmpt=q&geo=US[/url] ([url]http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=shutterstock.com&gprop=images&cmpt=q&geo=US[/url])
March had a 0 for Shutterstock.
Similar results for istockphoto
http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=istockphoto&gprop=images&cmpt=q (http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=istockphoto&gprop=images&cmpt=q)
-
You bet, things are definitely trending to the upside at Istock.
[url]http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=istockphoto.com&gprop=images&cmpt=q[/url] ([url]http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=istockphoto.com&gprop=images&cmpt=q[/url])
How can it be that all non-US countries have exactly the same shading?
-
I think it indicates people are hesitant to post anything unless couched in platitudes.
or maybe it was just a great month over there at IS. sure was for me :)
Sure wasn't for me; almost 50% down on dls; around 40% down on $$ compared to last March. Jetlagged, so haven't worked it out exactly yet. April has started equally dismally.
(Nevertheless, I see no reason why someone has minused your post.)
My posts get minused because i don't think the same as most posters here. so the flock mentality tends to get upset. it's supposed to be a bad thing to have success at IS and Getty. i should be a "Stock Groupie" and deify certain people and take everything they say as gospel, and then have an emotional outburst and drop the crown. -1 -1 -1 LOL.
-
^^^ You do what's best for you.
What I can tell you is that the People who "have success at IS and Getty" are becoming a minority.
-
.
-
I have been an indy for 3 days now, I think some patience will help before jumping to any conclusions.
-
.
-
^^^ You do what's best for you.
What I can tell you is that the People who "have success at IS and Getty" are becoming a minority.
With all due respect, what I can tell you is that the photographers who have success with stock photography are the minority. There are not that many that are fortunate enough to make a full time living shooting stock only. My guess would be less than 10% of the stock shooters could rely on stock photography alone - regardless of where they market their work. If you are one of them, count your blessings ;)
-
Oh ok I thought it had a been at least a month by now.
I wouldn't make anything from figures from going indie for at least six months to a year, though some report improvement inside that time (depends entirely on the nature of their portfolio - in particular, whether it matches SS's buyer profile, AFAICS).
Clarification: by "I wouldn't make anything from figures ...", I meant, "I wouldn't draw any conclusions from figures ...".
-
^^^ You do what's best for you.
What I can tell you is that the People who "have success at IS and Getty" are becoming a minority.
With all due respect, what I can tell you is that the photographers who have success with stock photography are the minority. There are not that many that are fortunate enough to make a full time living shooting stock only. My guess would be less than 10% of the stock shooters could rely on stock photography alone - regardless of where they market their work. If you are one of them, count your blessings ;)
% might be slightly higher here but, based on FT rank achieved with very low numbers, I suspect that <5% overall make a living from stock
-
"To make a living from stock" is just related to the amount of work you put into it. You do it for 50 hours a week, create solid and sellable content and you can live from it. Loads of people do.
Like any other business.
But of course there is a huge number of people who do stock as a hobby, or who mix stock with other jobs, wether it is IT or assigment work.
All the people I know who want to make stock a full time income have succeeded in doing so. Obviously you need to have your pulse on the market, but that is required with any business.
-
.
-
I think it indicates people are hesitant to post anything unless couched in platitudes.
or maybe it was just a great month over there at IS. sure was for me :)
Sure wasn't for me; almost 50% down on dls; around 40% down on $$ compared to last March. Jetlagged, so haven't worked it out exactly yet. April has started equally dismally.
(Nevertheless, I see no reason why someone has minused your post.)
My posts get minused because i don't think the same as most posters here. so the flock mentality tends to get upset. it's supposed to be a bad thing to have success at IS and Getty. i should be a "Stock Groupie" and deify certain people and take everything they say as gospel, and then have an emotional outburst and drop the crown. -1 -1 -1 LOL.
No, you get the minuses because of posts like that one. And I don't see a flock mentality here...most everyone (excluding the obvious trolls), I think, are very intelligent and think the same as I do. You call it flock mentality. I call it great minds thinking parallel. :D
-
Oh ok I thought it had a been at least a month by now.
I wouldn't make anything from figures from going indie for at least six months to a year, though some report improvement inside that time (depends entirely on the nature of their portfolio - in particular, whether it matches SS's buyer profile, AFAICS).
I live off of the income I get so every single month is important. If you lose $10,000 before getting back to the same amount you were making that is a huge consideration.
But if your iS income is sinking by a large amount per month, that is also a huge consideration.
Remember that aeonf was one of the great iS cheerleaders who for a while was reporting great months when others were already sinking (before his tog/s hit the wall and/or iS mucked up just too much even for their port).
-
"shudderstock"
if you want people to take you seriously, you just have to provide links to your portfolios on istock or getty. You claim to be a successful istock exclusive artist and supposedly make a full time living from getty...welll....show us...donīt hide...what are you so scared off???
If we see an impressive port with over 200 000 downloads, you will notice that what you write will be taken with a lot more appreciation.
Without a portfolio and proven success you will remain hot air. Anybody can make claims about their millions on mars, if it is not possible to verify the story.
Also you are doing Getty and istock a great disservice by being anonymous. It makes the company look totally desperate that they need to send in "anonymous posters" to msg to "sway the stupid masses".
If you think we are such idiots, why bother to come "down here" to enlighten us?
That is, if you are indeed a successful photographer making a full time living on istock and getty. There are only so many black diamonds out there and I have never heard of anyone of them needing to hide.
-
.
-
Well, he is making it sound like he is one, doesnīt he? Did you read the way he writes about Sean? Makes it sound like he sells more and makes more money than he used to do.
Any portfolio link would help to raise the credibility.
I think it would be great if people who are doing well at istock and Getty post here. I just donīt see them do it. Not even on the istock forums, where you would expect them to be highly active in their "natural habitat". If only to support Lobo and the moderators who are doing all they can to raise morale over there.
So if he is not ready to support the istock team on istock, why bother to "enlighten us"??
Again, if shudderstck is doing a full time living from istock that is fantastic. Even better if his income is increasing. I just think it is bizarre he doesnīt post his success on istock and instead comes here to brag about his invisible portfolio.
-
Why would someone need to be a black diamond to make a living as an Istock exclusive? At $9 RPD you would only need to sell 4,000 images to be making an above average income in the US and to do that you don't even have to be a gold level contributor.
I'm Gold and my RPD is lower than that. ($5.52 in March, one of my better RPD months due to low sales.) I accept if you have a lot of Vetta/Agency files you could easily have $9 RPD, but then your shooting expenses would be much higher than mine.)
In fact March 2013 was my equal highest month for RPD, but my lowest month for dls since July 2007, the month before I became exclusive and seven months after I started.
-
I don't think it's time to start drafting iStock's obituary, but I do think that (almost entirely due to their own actions and inactions) iStock position within the market is firmly on the slide. Not quite in freefall just now though.
As an exclusive there I'm still hoping they have the ability and will to turn things around, but having said that, I'm very glad to see iStock being forced to compete for customers and contributors within a lively and strong marketplace, because I think we all know how things would go if Getty&co really did have the market all sewn up.
-
istock is doing a lot of great things lately. They have speed up the exclusive queue, there is a new lypse coming, new creative briefs, more support from getty art directors (for exclusives), the weekly showcase thread will finally get great visibilty etc...
The only thing missing are more sales and people need to feel comfortable posting on istock without fear of repercussions. Getting banned from the forums with a time out is one thing, getting completly kicked out for pointing out the obvious is just incredible.
I sincerly hope istock gets back on track. It used to be such a fun place to work and spend your time. We all miss it.
-
Why would someone need to be a black diamond to make a living as an Istock exclusive? At $9 RPD you would only need to sell 4,000 images to be making an above average income in the US and to do that you don't even have to be a gold level contributor.
Seriously??
a) Equates to < 28,000 - not great money
b) 4,000 images annually - doubt many make that year 1 so would pretty much have to be gold at least
-
The only thing missing are more sales and people need to feel comfortable posting on istock without fear of repercussions.
Yes to those, plus the things you mentioned previously:
Forewarning of new deals and the possibility to opt out.
-
"shudderstock"
if you want people to take you seriously, you just have to provide links to your portfolios on istock or getty. You claim to be a successful istock exclusive artist and supposedly make a full time living from getty...welll....show us...donīt hide...what are you so scared off???
If we see an impressive port with over 200 000 downloads, you will notice that what you write will be taken with a lot more appreciation.
Without a portfolio and proven success you will remain hot air. Anybody can make claims about their millions on mars, if it is not possible to verify the story.
Also you are doing Getty and istock a great disservice by being anonymous. It makes the company look totally desperate that they need to send in "anonymous posters" to msg to "sway the stupid masses".
If you think we are such idiots, why bother to come "down here" to enlighten us?
That is, if you are indeed a successful photographer making a full time living on istock and getty. There are only so many black diamonds out there and I have never heard of anyone of them needing to hide.
Do you want to see my Profit and Loss statement as well? My tax returns, just to double check I am making a living? NOT.
Some of us don't need to post everything about our PRIVATE businesses online or on forums. I trust you understand.
I am also entitled to have my own views, and apologies if they differ from yours or others. I trust you understand.
I don't care if you or anyone else takes me "seriously", this is forum land and has very little to do with "real life". I trust you understand.
Take a deep breath honey, don't be so serious about yourself.
Oh, and FYI I am not a Black Diamond, but I do still make a very good living from stock, and I don't have to prove a * thing to you. I trust you understand.
-
Why would someone need to be a black diamond to make a living as an Istock exclusive? At $9 RPD you would only need to sell 4,000 images to be making an above average income in the US and to do that you don't even have to be a gold level contributor.
Seriously??
a) Equates to < 28,000 - not great money
b) 4,000 images annually - doubt many make that year 1 so would pretty much have to be gold at least
Indeed.
$36,000, minus expenses (studio equipment, models etc, probably essential to get consistent agency images) with no benefits (e.g. healthcare insurance) would be a low salary in the US.
http://www.mybudget360.com/how-much-do-americans-earn-what-is-the-average-us-income (http://www.mybudget360.com/how-much-do-americans-earn-what-is-the-average-us-income)
-
I do understand. So does everyone else in "forumland". Thank you very much.
Have a great day!
:)
-
Why would someone need to be a black diamond to make a living as an Istock exclusive? At $9 RPD you would only need to sell 4,000 images to be making an above average income in the US and to do that you don't even have to be a gold level contributor.
Apparently you have to be Black Diamond to make a living on IS. And you now apparently have to disclose your income on the forums and show your portfolio to prove it, otherwise you won't gain any respect and credibility.
But then again, if you think like a normal person that is not prone to emotional outbursts and think clearly, yes your math ShadySue is bang on, and you would not even need to be a Gold level contributor. Or you could also make 8,000 downloads at $4.50 RPD, and still make a living.
-
I think it indicates people are hesitant to post anything unless couched in platitudes.
or maybe it was just a great month over there at IS. sure was for me :)
Sure wasn't for me; almost 50% down on dls; around 40% down on $$ compared to last March. Jetlagged, so haven't worked it out exactly yet. April has started equally dismally.
(Nevertheless, I see no reason why someone has minused your post.)
My posts get minused because i don't think the same as most posters here. so the flock mentality tends to get upset. it's supposed to be a bad thing to have success at IS and Getty. i should be a "Stock Groupie" and deify certain people and take everything they say as gospel, and then have an emotional outburst and drop the crown. -1 -1 -1 LOL.
No, you get the minuses because of posts like that one. And I don't see a flock mentality here...most everyone (excluding the obvious trolls), I think, are very intelligent and think the same as I do. You call it flock mentality. I call it great minds thinking parallel. :D
i think the post was about this comment
or maybe it was just a great month over there at IS. sure was for me :)
which was up to -6 at one point.
i am not so sure why there is such a hate on for any success at IS and anything positive about it is instantly ranked as a minus.
i agree with you that most people here are intelligent and think like you do, but what gets me is why is it such a bad thing to say you had a good month at IS?
-
28k euro is what an project executive makes at Xerox in Dublin. Its underpaid for the role, but you can live a normal life with that money in Ireland. If I could make 28k a year with photography I would consider quiting my day job.
-
Or you could also make 8,000 downloads at $4.50 RPD, and still make a living.
and I was thinking that downloads were going down ;D
-
shudderstok:
not bad at all, the only problem is you are a minority, "we are the 99%" .
I can give you me as a good example.
A loyal (ex) gold IS exclusive for years.
portfolio grew the last year by over 40% (over 5.5K images in total)
earnings dropped over 40%
RPI from a peak of 67c to 25c
If exclusivity works for you then great, if and when it wont well then I guess you are always welcome and join the indy club.
You will also get a free bonus of people liking you much more around here :)
-
I think it indicates people are hesitant to post anything unless couched in platitudes.
or maybe it was just a great month over there at IS. sure was for me :)
Sure wasn't for me; almost 50% down on dls; around 40% down on $$ compared to last March. Jetlagged, so haven't worked it out exactly yet. April has started equally dismally.
(Nevertheless, I see no reason why someone has minused your post.)
My posts get minused because i don't think the same as most posters here. so the flock mentality tends to get upset. it's supposed to be a bad thing to have success at IS and Getty. i should be a "Stock Groupie" and deify certain people and take everything they say as gospel, and then have an emotional outburst and drop the crown. -1 -1 -1 LOL.
No, you get the minuses because of posts like that one. And I don't see a flock mentality here...most everyone (excluding the obvious trolls), I think, are very intelligent and think the same as I do. You call it flock mentality. I call it great minds thinking parallel. :D
i think the post was about this comment
or maybe it was just a great month over there at IS. sure was for me :)
which was up to -6 at one point.
i am not so sure why there is such a hate on for any success at IS and anything positive about it is instantly ranked as a minus.
i agree with you that most people here are intelligent and think like you do, but what gets me is why is it such a bad thing to say you had a good month at IS?
This seems to be true whenever anyone makes a positive remark about IS. I get there are some folks here left with a bad taste in their mouths from IS... And I get why. I wish they would be more open that there are some folks still doing fine with IS. And watch out for respectfully disagreeing with any of the regulars here as they will group together and treat you as a troll. Still plenty of helpful folks here too though. This place is way more open and helpful than Istocks forums
-
^^^ Thanks Dingles;
There sure is a lot of angst on this forum if you are not one of the members in the club who hate IS. I have been called a troll, getty apologist,that i hate sean (oh boo hoo), and in the post above yours i am told i will be liked more if i am indie, and even had one member speak on behalf of "everyone" and their understanding - i had no clue there was an official spokesperson. my bad.
only a while back most of these forum posters would have lynched me if i said anything bad about IS. These same people were indie haters (unless you are yuri, then they deify you) and boldly pontificating and endorsing their crowns.
this whole nonsense reminds me of the PC versus Mac and/or Canon versus Nikon argument.
Anyway nobody likes me everybody hates me, so gotta run and go eat some worms. :'(
-
Shudderstock I haven't been closely following things around here long enough to know what all the fuss is about, but I think the range of views and opinions allowed here is good for this forum against the iStock one. But allowing people to remain anonymous can lead to problems, you only need to look at the comment sections of online newspapers to see that.
Anyway, what are your views about the current level of success and the direction things are going at iStock? Colbalt mentioned some positive recent changes such as an upcoming lapse and the weekly showcase policy.
For me it's good to see these things, and they look like the work of iStock staff doing what they can to improve things.
But IMO it's going to take some effort from the people running iStock from higher up to reverse the damaging trend they've set in motion. It seems iStock don't even have their own people to keep the search running and optimised, and we've seen (and are still seeing) what damage that does.
iStock have lost or got rid of a lot of staff, contributors and customers. And the policy from the top continues to be monetize harder! For me, iStock's future looks bleak if their #1 policy continues to be to find ways to increase their commission at the contributors cost.
I don't know if you're exclusive or indy, but are you concerned about how iStock is being run, or do you think they're getting things right?
-
From my point of view, the death came quicker than I expected. In 8 months last year, I managed to get from nothing to regular monthly payouts at iStock... meaning I started earning over $100/month. It lasted for half year, then... Feb was weak, March was disastrous and now it is 9 of April and I have a whopping $2.22 earnings on iStock...so that'll be something like $7 at the end of the month. Quick death that was :o
-
i am exclusive if you need to know...
do i like getty? NO do i like IS? sort of
i guess there are two answers to your question.
as far as a company goes, they are only concerned about one thing, and one thing only... positive cash flow and returns for the company, which is fair enough as that is how a company is run. do i like how they screw us over with crappy royalties? NO. Do I see any other stock company as being any different? NO, with the exception of what Stocksy is trying to accomplish, but do remember, the former owner was no different than Getty is in terms of being a business, and rightly so, he busted his ass to do that and deserves every cent he made by selling out. SS will be on the same train soon enough, they are a publicly traded company, and the reality is they only give a hoot about one thing, making money, making shareholders happy, paying dividends etc. but the answer to you question strictly from a business perspective is yes, I think Getty has their act together in a big way, and don't see them crashing any time soon.
as far as being a contributor is concerned i think Getty is not fair at all to us to pay only 20% on RF images. The rates for RM are a bit better at %30 - 40% depending on where the images were sold. I think IS should be ashamed to pay non - exclusives only 15%, that is sick in my opinion, but also a lot better than 0.25c SS is paying. I think the RC system is complete crap. i think the IS contract is complete crap in terms of not being able to submit to any other RF site, even rejects. There are a lot of things I don't like about IS. I think they should fire Lobo, i don't think there is any need to have a sarcastic, condescending, moderator as such. and yes, i did mention all of this on the survey they recently sent out. I don't know the direction of the company as i am only a contributor, but i do have confidence they will do what they do best, and that is sell images.
so i guess my answer to your question is yes, i think Getty/IS has their act together in terms of market share, future vision, profitability, etc etc. They are an incredibly successful company, they know their market well. As for being a contributor, well... i don't like them for pretty much all of the reasons many other shooters don't, but they have the upper hand, or the ace up their sleeve, we are disposable, and we need them, they don't need us. A case in point would be Sean.
That all said, I really don't see any difference between agency abc and agency xyz. They are all into it to make money, and that is the bottom line. i have seen a lot of changes in this industry, and i can say it has slowly been on the decline in terms of profitability from a photographers perspective, yet the agencies keep making more and more money. i am not for or against any agency, but i do know that i will not jeopardize my income based on emotions and following the herd. if those that have dropped the crown are happy doing so, power to them, but i am not prepared to give up 50% of my income to try and get it back elsewhere in addition creating more work uploading to other agencies. No thanks.
i still make a good living shooting stock, but have seen that slowly go down over the years, mostly in the last 10 years since the advent of microstock, digital, and the web, and more notably in the last few years. i predict this downward trend will continue, yet the profits of these agencies will grow. there are simply too many photographs available from too many sources, and mostly for too cheap.
I am not a getty apologist at all as one person called me, but i really don't see where else to go and place my images. There are lot's of options for sure, but they don't work for me, so for now i will just tough it out as and IS exclusive and a Getty house contributor, and bloody cross my fingers I sell some photos.
i choose to be anonymous for a few reasons, mostly being that i don't like to attach my real name or my IS psuedonym name to public forums. in fact i am very surprised some people say the things they do on these forums in regards to companies that can and will cancel their contracts. not too smart in my opinion.
-
...... also a lot better than 0.25c SS is paying......
A lot of the vitriol back and forth is because of statements like this. Points that have been addressed over and over keep getting drudged up again.
Thinkstock pays me a lot less than SS as an independent for sub downloads, and as an independent on IStock I have to sell through Thinkstock too, so no not a lot better, in fact a lot worse.
So why keep bringing up the same misinformation?
-
Re. Shudderstock's post...
I agree that there's nothing unusual or wrong with a company being concerned about positive cash flow and returns.
But then you go on to describe the rates they are paying and the ways they are treating contributors as 'crap'.
My opinion is that in the long term, especially with the way the industry continues to open up beyond the reach of Getty group, iStock/Getty will have to realise that those two things above are mutually incompatible. Over the past few years right up to recent weeks, we've already seen plenty of damage done to iStock's credibility and bottom line as a result of the way they've treated contributors. Is this likely to get better or worse if they maintain their current approach?
Increasing cash flow more and more by screwing contributors more and more is totally and utterly unsustainable, and I think they've already pushed it too far. To their own loss.
Customers and contributors are able to move between sites relatively easy, and if one group leaves in significant numbers, the other won't be far behind.
-
... I do have confidence they will do what they do best, and that is sell images.
I see no evidence that they are still capable of doing even that. :(
-
Re. Shudderstock's post...
I agree that there's nothing unusual or wrong with a company being concerned about positive cash flow and returns.
But then you go on to describe the rates they are paying and the ways they are treating contributors as 'crap'.
My opinion is that in the long term, especially with the way the industry continues to open up beyond the reach of Getty group, iStock/Getty will have to realise that those two things above are mutually incompatible. Over the past few years right up to recent weeks, we've already seen plenty of damage done to iStock's credibility and bottom line as a result of the way they've treated contributors. Is this likely to get better or worse if they maintain their current approach?
Increasing cash flow more and more by screwing contributors more and more is totally and utterly unsustainable, and I think they've already pushed it too far. To their own loss.
Customers and contributors are able to move between sites relatively easy, and if one group leaves in significant numbers, the other won't be far behind.
Perhaps so, or perhaps not, only time will tell on this one.
Walmart pays the lowest rates on wages they possibly can, and they pay the lowest rates to suppliers as they can often purchasing from third world countries to "maximize" profits for shareholders, but they do keep getting bigger and bigger, they keep churning those profits and guess what, the masses still shop there not really giving a crap how much they are supporting this, even if it screws over the local businesses. The same could be said for Getty and photo buyers. I don't think photo buyers care too much about our petty concerns, even if it affects our livelihoods.
I don't know if they have pushed it too far to their loss, as it is a privately held company and we will never know. to give you an idea H&F bought and sold the company in a very few short years and doubled their money, so yes they are making money, sadly to our detriment.
this will be my last reply on this topic. i think we can all agree we are fed up with the way we are being treated by getty and IS, but i think if we actually open our eyes and man up on this, the whole industry is treating us like crap. i think this usury goes far beyond the getty group of companies.
gclk- thanks for replying with though provoking questions, it's more challenging than being slagged or chastised at every twist and turn.
may we all make money doing what we love doing, taking photos.
peace out.
-
Walmart pays the lowest rates on wages they possibly can, and they pay the lowest rates to suppliers as they can often purchasing from third world countries to "maximize" profits for shareholders, but they do keep getting bigger and bigger, they keep churning those profits and guess what, the masses still shop there not really giving a crap how much they are supporting this, even if it screws over the local businesses. The same could be said for Getty and photo buyers. I don't think photo buyers care too much about our petty concerns, even if it affects our livelihoods.
I don't know if they have pushed it too far to their loss, as it is a privately held company and we will never know. to give you an idea H&F bought and sold the company in a very few short years and doubled their money, so yes they are making money, sadly to our detriment.
this will be my last reply on this topic. i think we can all agree we are fed up with the way we are being treated by getty and IS, but i think if we actually open our eyes and man up on this, the whole industry is treating us like crap. i think this usury goes far beyond the getty group of companies.
gclk- thanks for replying with though provoking questions, it's more challenging than being slagged or chastised at every twist and turn.
may we all make money doing what we love doing, taking photos.
peace out.
Walmart is not a good comparison. Yes, they aggressively drive down their costs, but they do so in order to deliver cheaper prices for their customers. Istock has been doing the opposite of that with innumerous price increases over several years.
I think the trend for Istock and their exclusive contributors is extremely worrying. The fall in actual downloads, as reported in the monthly sales threads, over the last couple of years is truly staggering. The full effect on incomes has been somewhat disguised by price increases and the additional of higher-priced 'collections' but those can only accelerate the decline in customers in the long term. I believe that Istock will reduce to being a minor player within the microstock industry, in less than two years from now, with very few exclusive contributors.
-
I believe that Istock will reduce to being a minor player within the microstock industry, in less than two years from now, with very few exclusive contributors.
Unless things change, make that 'by the end of 2013'.
-
I think the trend for Istock and their exclusive contributors is extremely worrying.
Microsock in general: Whilst SS has done well hoovering up low paying customers from other sites, the market for cheap images is in relative decline vs the market for free images. The market for free images will continue to grow much faster and will continue to eat into the market for cheap images. The hobbyist bloggers, church groups, scrap bookers etc, even many businesses - many of the people who have been using microstock for the past decade are often now no longer maintaining websites and have moved to the social media where images are mostly free or your virtual friend shot it on their iPhone. Even many official bodies make their home on FB first.
I believe that microstock is mostly going to pay less and less (especially as there is more and more of it). The future is with higher priced and niche images IMO. Low paying customers are expensive to service. So are thousands of contributors.
-
istock is already dead. The best match is still broken but my files are pretty well placed in the best match.... no sales thought. no more buyers.
-
^^ I agree, iStock's strategy seems to be to move towards lower volumes of higher value sales.
But that doesn't mean they can't make money from lower prices. No doubt there are costs in dealing with thousands of contributors. But the web is good for keeping such costs low, as the success of eBay et al show. Facebook and twitter have quite a few contributors too.
iStock have changed things so they never even have to speak to their contributors. And support often just ignore messages that are sent in. The company keeps more than 85% of sale proceeds from some contributors.
If they can't make a very healthy profit in microstock at that rate, they have many competitors who can and will.
If they are starting to struggle, I don't think it's got so much to do with the costs of customers and contributors. It's more to do with customers and contributors being turned off by them not understanding where to stop with their policy of raising prices, lowering royalties and cutting staff and budgets.
-
I agree with Gostwyck.
-
.
-
I'm not fond of IS (understatement) however I see SS becoming much less contributor friendly of late. This position toward new content (massive rejections) from SS and the new rates on BS just allows IS the breathing room it needs to recover. Sadly IS/GI is clever..... very clever and SS mistakes will allow a recovery for IS/GI. New content is king and who gets the most wins no matter how these companies want to spin the facts making it seem we don't matter......we do in fact we control the content and its flow. This is only my opinion.
-
I'm not fond of IS (understatement) however I see SS becoming much less contributor friendly of late. This position toward new content (massive rejections) from SS and the new rates on BS just allows IS the breathing room it needs to recover. Sadly IS/GI is clever..... very clever and SS mistakes will allow a recovery for IS/GI. New content is king and who gets the most wins no matter how these companies want to spin the facts making it seem we don't matter......we do in fact we control the content and its flow. This is only my opinion.
I completely agree with your first and last comment's and I think the sites also vastly underestimate the percentage of submitters who buy a significant portion of "our" content. When you treat submitters poorly you also alienate buyers who also submit and they in turn tell their friends. I will not be going back to buy at IS and I am not at all happy about the choices SS is making these days. Starting with their lack of response to major site bugs over a very long period of time, site slanted search changes and the moves at BS. The review process is a joke and they fully expect us to put up with it. Tell me why should we respect or support sites that clearly show no respect or support for us?
-
I'm not fond of IS (understatement) however I see SS becoming much less contributor friendly of late. This position toward new content (massive rejections) from SS and the new rates on BS just allows IS the breathing room it needs to recover. Sadly IS/GI is clever..... very clever and SS mistakes will allow a recovery for IS/GI. New content is king and who gets the most wins no matter how these companies want to spin the facts making it seem we don't matter......we do in fact we control the content and its flow. This is only my opinion.
Massive rejections? I don't see that. They've always had some bad reviewers, like most of the sites. I occasionally get more rejections than usual but it's always been temporary and most of the time they've had a very high acceptance rate.
I agree with you about the new rates with BS. That's such a huge error and I'm still in shock that Jon Oringer didn't step in and fix that. I'm sure a large part of the success of SS is because they haven't cut commissions like the other big sites in recent years. They've shattered that by allowing a site they own to pay us less commission for subs.
But I don't think IS/GI are clever. It would of been easy to crush the other microstock sites at one point, by paying us a bit more. Then when there was little competition, they could of got away with cutting commissions. Instead, they ruined their reputation with the majority of contributors and built up their competition. Why would clever people make such a dumb mistake? It might not of killed istock but it's so damaged now that I can't see it ever dominating the microstock business again. They missed their chance and they wont get another one.
-
I also haven't noticed there being more rejections on SS
-
I also haven't noticed there being more rejections on SS
Nor have I. If anything the opposite. When I do a search and then click on 'Newest' I'm often appalled by what they have accepted, both in quality, quantity and also in keyword spamming. Fortunately the SS search facility is sophisticated enough to make most of those images 'disappear' fairly quickly.
-
I think it indicates people are hesitant to post anything unless couched in platitudes.
I Agree.
-
I'm not fond of IS (understatement) however I see SS becoming much less contributor friendly of late. This position toward new content (massive rejections) from SS and the new rates on BS just allows IS the breathing room it needs to recover. Sadly IS/GI is clever..... very clever and SS mistakes will allow a recovery for IS/GI. New content is king and who gets the most wins no matter how these companies want to spin the facts making it seem we don't matter......we do in fact we control the content and its flow. This is only my opinion.
Massive rejections? I don't see that. They've always had some bad reviewers, like most of the sites. I occasionally get more rejections than usual but it's always been temporary and most of the time they've had a very high acceptance rate.
I agree with you about the new rates with BS. That's such a huge error and I'm still in shock that Jon Oringer didn't step in and fix that. I'm sure a large part of the success of SS is because they haven't cut commissions like the other big sites in recent years. They've shattered that by allowing a site they own to pay us less commission for subs.
But I don't think IS/GI are clever. It would of been easy to crush the other microstock sites at one point, by paying us a bit more. Then when there was little competition, they could of got away with cutting commissions. Instead, they ruined their reputation with the majority of contributors and built up their competition. Why would clever people make such a dumb mistake? It might not of killed istock but it's so damaged now that I can't see it ever dominating the microstock business again. They missed their chance and they wont get another one.
I think we judge sites bases on our experiences. A year and a half ago I started getting mass rejections at SS after 7 years of almost 100% acceptance. I am fine with rejections when they make sense, however these were completely off and the entire batch was always rejected. At one point I quit uploading because every batch was rejected and I was hearing the same thing from some very high end shooters. This went on for about 6 month and I took a long break from uploading to SS because of it. I started uploading again after a long break and found that once again that 99% of my images are being accepted. While everything is back to normal for me, I am not surprised to hear that other submitters are experiencing the former.
If I had not experienced the bizarre run of rejections I would tend to agree with you. However my experience has coloured my view of the SS review process.
I agree with your IS summary. As for BS, I suspect that Jon was involved with the entire decision and it is part of his long term business plan to improve cost per sale.
-
I'm not fond of IS (understatement) however I see SS becoming much less contributor friendly of late. This position toward new content (massive rejections) from SS and the new rates on BS just allows IS the breathing room it needs to recover. Sadly IS/GI is clever..... very clever and SS mistakes will allow a recovery for IS/GI. New content is king and who gets the most wins no matter how these companies want to spin the facts making it seem we don't matter......we do in fact we control the content and its flow. This is only my opinion.
Massive rejections? I don't see that. They've always had some bad reviewers, like most of the sites. I occasionally get more rejections than usual but it's always been temporary and most of the time they've had a very high acceptance rate.
I agree with you about the new rates with BS. That's such a huge error and I'm still in shock that Jon Oringer didn't step in and fix that. I'm sure a large part of the success of SS is because they haven't cut commissions like the other big sites in recent years. They've shattered that by allowing a site they own to pay us less commission for subs.
But I don't think IS/GI are clever. It would of been easy to crush the other microstock sites at one point, by paying us a bit more. Then when there was little competition, they could of got away with cutting commissions. Instead, they ruined their reputation with the majority of contributors and built up their competition. Why would clever people make such a dumb mistake? It might not of killed istock but it's so damaged now that I can't see it ever dominating the microstock business again. They missed their chance and they wont get another one.
I think we judge sites bases on our experiences. A year and a half ago I started getting mass rejections at SS after 7 years of almost 100% acceptance. I am fine with rejections when they make sense, however these were completely off and the entire batch was always rejected. At one point I quit uploading because every batch was rejected and I was hearing the same thing from some very high end shooters. This went on for about 6 month and I took a long break from uploading to SS because of it. I started uploading again after a long break and found that once again that 99% of my images are being accepted. While everything is back to normal for me, I am not surprised to hear that other submitters are experiencing the former.
If I had not experienced the bizarre run of rejections I would tend to agree with you. However my experience has coloured my view of the SS review process.
I agree with your IS summary. As for BS, I suspect that Jon was involved with the entire decision and it is part of his long term business plan to improve cost per sale.
It is happening to me now :( ......what is sad is I must now upload new content on IS again so my microstock income does not suffer during my time off from SS. This then just aides in a IS recovery but being a full time stock artist I have little choose. Thanks for your post
-
I also haven't noticed there being more rejections on SS
Nor have I. If anything the opposite. When I do a search and then click on 'Newest' I'm often appalled by what they have accepted, both in quality, quantity and also in keyword spamming. Fortunately the SS search facility is sophisticated enough to make most of those images 'disappear' fairly quickly.
It is not fair to mention names, but you would be equally appalled by the excellent images from very high end shoots that are being rejected while they accept blurry, underexposed snap shots with tilted horizons of the same subjects in numerous identical renditions.
-
I'm not fond of IS (understatement) however I see SS becoming much less contributor friendly of late. This position toward new content (massive rejections) from SS and the new rates on BS just allows IS the breathing room it needs to recover. Sadly IS/GI is clever..... very clever and SS mistakes will allow a recovery for IS/GI. New content is king and who gets the most wins no matter how these companies want to spin the facts making it seem we don't matter......we do in fact we control the content and its flow. This is only my opinion.
Massive rejections? I don't see that. They've always had some bad reviewers, like most of the sites. I occasionally get more rejections than usual but it's always been temporary and most of the time they've had a very high acceptance rate.
I agree with you about the new rates with BS. That's such a huge error and I'm still in shock that Jon Oringer didn't step in and fix that. I'm sure a large part of the success of SS is because they haven't cut commissions like the other big sites in recent years. They've shattered that by allowing a site they own to pay us less commission for subs.
But I don't think IS/GI are clever. It would of been easy to crush the other microstock sites at one point, by paying us a bit more. Then when there was little competition, they could of got away with cutting commissions. Instead, they ruined their reputation with the majority of contributors and built up their competition. Why would clever people make such a dumb mistake? It might not of killed istock but it's so damaged now that I can't see it ever dominating the microstock business again. They missed their chance and they wont get another one.
I think we judge sites bases on our experiences. A year and a half ago I started getting mass rejections at SS after 7 years of almost 100% acceptance. I am fine with rejections when they make sense, however these were completely off and the entire batch was always rejected. At one point I quit uploading because every batch was rejected and I was hearing the same thing from some very high end shooters. This went on for about 6 month and I took a long break from uploading to SS because of it. I started uploading again after a long break and found that once again that 99% of my images are being accepted. While everything is back to normal for me, I am not surprised to hear that other submitters are experiencing the former.
If I had not experienced the bizarre run of rejections I would tend to agree with you. However my experience has coloured my view of the SS review process.
I agree with your IS summary. As for BS, I suspect that Jon was involved with the entire decision and it is part of his long term business plan to improve cost per sale.
It is happening to me now :( ......what is sad is I must now upload new content on IS again so my microstock income does not suffer during my time off from SS. This then just aides in a IS recovery but being a full time stock artist I have little choose. Thanks for your post
Your welcome, I wish some more of the higher end shooters would speak out, however it is understandable why they do not.
Yes it is sad in regard to IS. That said as you mentioned we do have more power over our income than we have been led to believe. If we buy into that and become fatalist the long slide will continue. Find some new sites instead of IS.
-
As an exclusive on ISP I have rarely posted in the monthly sales thread. The wooyays and the doom and glooms are purely anecdotal. Contributor sales trends I'm sure are being measured at Getty, just not being shared. With the recent goings-on I am even less inclined to be involved in any way in the forums. It's now time for distance and careful consideration. I'm weighing my indie options carefully. If earnings continue to slide as they have since 09/12 I'll realign my business at the end of this year. IMHO 2013 will be a make or break for ISP regarding contributor relations and the sustainability of exclusivity. The Getty group, properly structured and run, should be our Holy Grail, so it does sadden me no end to see the gradual decline of so many contributors.
Hopefully new entrants will help rejuvenate the marketplace and spawn competing agencies structured on a more cooperative artist approach! Though I honestly don't see a real alternative yet. Agencies that are 'art clubs' don't usually sell much product, we need a large, egalitarian, meritocracy run on a cooperative basis.
If someone could attract 1,000 photographers willing to invest $10,000 each such an agency could launch.
-
I joined ISP in 2007. I worked hard at it and was able to phase out of wedding photography and shoot only stock. I became exclusive as soon as I was qualified. Life was good! I've never gone a month without uploading, and still continue to do so. I now have over 4 thousand files in my port. My highest year for income was in 2011, and it's been sliding downhill ever since. I can no longer justify spending money on shoots, and I have to consider my plan B options.
I keep my head down in the forums, because I know it's possible that IS can punish people in the best match. I've never posted in the end of the month sales threads, but always read them.
I'm certain there is some sort of limit or quota on IS as to how much I'm allowed to earn in a week. It's obvious from my stats. Kind of like the door to my port just gets slammed shut when downloads had just been going well. I've been at 35% royalty for years now, but with my "quota" or whatever limit that's been imposed keeps getting lowered, I'm not sure I'll be able to keep that 35% after this year finishes.
I'm still making enough income that I can't afford to jump ship yet, but I must be realistic and accept that I may have to leave exclusivity in the not too distant future. I have a faint glimmer of hope that the latest survey will actually be the one to prompt positive changes. By June, something should be in the works I would think/hope. By the end of this year, my RC tally (that I have no control over) may pave the way for a necessary exit.
-
And they're back to the server error when attempting to upload again. >:(
-
I keep my head down in the forums, because I know it's possible that IS can punish people in the best match.
Is this speculation? I know they technically could, but do you know this is the case?
-
Dreamer:
I was in exactly the same situation as you. I like you didn't post on IS forums just to keep my head down as you say.
have no fear! there is life after exclusivity and IS isn't the only player in the market. Once I have more experience and data I will share my findings with the community since I know there are many in the same position as you and me.
-
Thanks aeonf, I hope so! I would love to see your results. And dingles, it is only speculation. They most certainly can technically. I've noticed that those who vent in the forums oft times appear to be falling at a faster rate than I have according to their postings in the sales threads. Which is why I generally rant and rave in private. "Us" against "them" is pretty useless for affecting change anyway.
-
Yeah, I tried the forums, but I was passive aggressively asked by an admin to pretty much not post anymore. My posts were as mild as they come as far as I am concerned. I did ask a few questions...apparently I must have hit a nerve, but they weren't anything crazy. Most of my posts were feedback on questions they were asking. They don't seem to want new blood over there and are weeding out the old whether it be on purpose or not. I'd like to think all the recent threads asking for contributor input are more than fluff, but I rarely see any action.
-
I'd like to think all the recent threads asking for contributor input are more than fluff, but I rarely see any action.
Indeed. We got a questionnaire last year, but did anything good come of it? Other than an exclusive questionnaire this year which they must have hoped would give them different feedback.
There was a thread a while back asking specifically about editorial, http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=351249&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=351249&page=1), but the recent Creative briefing had nothing about editorial. (Previously we were told that there would be editorial comment in briefings and previous briefings had them.)
-
There is a thread on iStock "What motivates you?" could someone please type "Stocksy" just wanna see how long it last :-)
-
Grief, I'm getting loads of rejections, having had a really high acceptance rate for years, other than some issues with certain inspectors not having read the editorial guidelines when editorials were introduced.
-
There is a thread on iStock "What motivates you?" could someone please type "Stocksy" just wanna see how long it last :-)
Man, that is really tempting.
-
I have to say there are some high issues that just aren't getting any resolve...I understand there are priorities and things can take time, but there has been zero progress over a half of a year from my point of view. I wish they'd have a little more transparency. All this generating feedback is gonna hurt them more in the long run if they don't produce some results. I think they fail to understand that contributors are also buyers and have influence over buyers. It bothers me that it seems more time is spent moderatating the forums then actually making their product better.
-
I am really shocked by the numbers crossbrain66 posted in the best match thread. If these are the results for the black diamonds, how will the normal people pay for studio and shooting costs:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=352023&messageid=6873457 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=352023&messageid=6873457)
I have so many files from the Lenklypse that I would love to upload, but this just scares me completly. No use uploading files that die an instant death. I will continue to upload videos, but I hope they sort out the photo best match soon.
I hope he doesnīt mind that I quote part of his numbers:
"To further verify this 'assumption' of chancelessness for new files to become hot sellers i examined the performance of files uploaded the last six months by a selection of the most successful exclusive istock contributors (mostly black diamonds). Those files should have the best possibility to succeed because of increased visibility through crosslinking with very successful old files by these contributors and the 'name - brand' reputation. Here are my depressing and thesis confirming results:
Average portfoliosize: 7.313
Average uploads past 6 months: 937
of those uploaded past 6 months:
files with over 100 downloads: 0,01 %
files with over 10 downloads: 0,38 %
files with over 5 downloads: 1,19 %
files with over 2 downloads: 5,03 %
files with over 1 downloads: 6,00 %
files with zero downloads: 87,39 %
Considering the advantages these new files had (and the throughout highest quality), their performance is disappointing to say the least."
-
I am really shocked by the numbers crossbrain66 posted in the best match thread. If these are the results for the black diamonds, how will the normal people pay for studio and shooting costs:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=352023&messageid=6873457[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=352023&messageid=6873457[/url])
I have so many files from the Lenklypse that I would love to upload, but this just scares me completly. No use uploading files that die an instant death. I will continue to upload videos, but I hope they sort out the photo best match soon.
I hope he doesnīt mind that I quote part of his numbers:
"To further verify this 'assumption' of chancelessness for new files to become hot sellers i examined the performance of files uploaded the last six months by a selection of the most successful exclusive istock contributors (mostly black diamonds). Those files should have the best possibility to succeed because of increased visibility through crosslinking with very successful old files by these contributors and the 'name - brand' reputation. Here are my depressing and thesis confirming results:
Average portfoliosize: 7.313
Average uploads past 6 months: 937
of those uploaded past 6 months:
files with over 100 downloads: 0,01 %
files with over 10 downloads: 0,38 %
files with over 5 downloads: 1,19 %
files with over 2 downloads: 5,03 %
files with over 1 downloads: 6,00 %
files with zero downloads: 87,39 %
Considering the advantages these new files had (and the throughout highest quality), their performance is disappointing to say the least."
That's the main reason I ditched the crown, new work just got vaporised in the best match. They lost a lot of essential tech knowledge when they shrunk the IT department.
-
im so glad i ditched my crown last december... my blood pressure would be shooting straight up if i was still exclusive after reading the posts on istock forums...
-
The amount of inaction is quite unbelievable
-
Despite having dropped my exclusivity in February, I haven't felt the surge of concern I thought I would. In fact, I've felt the opposite. I'm inspired by new beginnings. I'm experiencing the initial drop in income, which I prepared for and which I expect to be a factor for about 6 months to a year. It was a huge letdown to watch TPTB erode and decimate everything that was so unique about iStock.
Going through my portfolio of almost 8K images has reminded me how many great files were best match casualties with hardly any views. I'm working very hard to get established on the other sites, and I will keep my files non-exclusively on iStock. But ventures like Stocksy, and GL can be truly sustainable marketplaces for artists and the companies that run them; companies created by fellow artists and ethically run with a focus on long-term success. I haven't looked back since ditching the crown. iStock and Getty are simply building a new breed of exclusives who have much lower expectations than our 'generation'. I was once so genuinely proud of being an iStock exclusive. iStock is no longer a community, nor is it an agency in which artists are motivated to strive for growth or to excel in their art. It isn't even an agency anymmore. It is now a Walmart, looking to sell to the highest bidder, with the smallest royalties possible going to suppliers. There is no opportunity left there. I don't know that change could even occur today. The window for change, for wooing unhappy contributors back into the fold has passed.
-
Agree with you Stacey!! Dropped my crown recently. Appreciating fresh motivation for shooting, energetic about diversifying, and experiencing a breath of fresh air each day by no longer being highly dependent on one company that's rudderless and unable to make positive moves for it's suppliers.
I cannot fathom what GettyCarlyle's long term plan is for the iStock brand; unless it's the seemingly obvious of squeezing every ounce of profit from the former iStock business unit and it's contributors for short term gains. That may be profitable for Getty and Carlyle, and they can sell off or write down the empty husk, but it's not sustainable for iStock employees, it's buyers, or it's contributors. iStock tweets daily now, welcoming new exclusives, but conspicuously absent is any appreciation for veteran exclusives -- whether they are staying exclusive or departing after bringing in hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue.
After the buyouts, there is little hope for a sustainable career path as an iStock exclusive, unless you can land a spot on the inspection team. The supplier cycle becomes: welcome hobbyists and newbies, grow them a bit, but with RC based royalty growth suppression, income peaks and levels out prematurely, professionals must nab a subcontractor job or find other venues for growth. Generally, it's up, then out. Over the long haul in this pattern, the average level of experience of iStock contributors falls. (And by extension the overall quality of the library.) If they were still aiming squarely at microstock price points, it might work. But selling at close to mid stock prices, with a contributor base trending toward more inexperienced, and one that increasingly cannot earn enough to hire good locations and models... it just doesn't add up.
-
Agree with you Stacey!! Dropped my crown recently. Appreciating fresh motivation for shooting, energetic about diversifying, and experiencing a breath of fresh air each day by no longer being highly dependent on one company that's rudderless and unable to make positive moves for it's suppliers.
I cannot fathom what GettyCarlyle's long term plan is for the iStock brand; unless it's the seemingly obvious of squeezing every ounce of profit from the former iStock business unit and it's contributors for short term gains. That may be profitable for Getty and Carlyle, and they can sell off or write down the empty husk, but it's not sustainable for iStock employees, it's buyers, or it's contributors. iStock tweets daily now, welcoming new exclusives, but conspicuously absent is any appreciation for veteran exclusives -- whether they are staying exclusive or departing after bringing in hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue.
After the buyouts, there is little hope for a sustainable career path as an iStock exclusive, unless you can land a spot on the inspection team. The supplier cycle becomes: welcome hobbyists and newbies, grow them a bit, but with RC based royalty growth suppression, income peaks and levels out prematurely, professionals must nab a subcontractor job or find other venues for growth. Generally, it's up, then out. Over the long haul in this pattern, the average level of experience of iStock contributors falls. (And by extension the overall quality of the library.) If they were still aiming squarely at microstock price points, it might work. But selling at close to mid stock prices, with a contributor base trending toward more inexperienced, and one that increasingly cannot earn enough to hire good locations and models... it just doesn't add up.
Very good post and I am afraid SS is headed in the same direction. They have very little regard for the base which made them successful in the first place.
Stacey made some good points in regard to agencies.
-
Let's hope other agencies watch what iStock has done and use it as a cautionary tale. Losing some of your longest term contributors by squeezing them relentlessly is not the stuff that business legends are made of.
I'll say for SS, Jon Oringer and his execs are photographers first. They're artists and actively participate on the frontlines. So I give them more leeway than the upper echelon suits running iStock. having said that, I'm not loving piddly amounts for dls on SS thus far. but these are early days and I don't have enough files up yet. Offset has me intrigued too, which tells me they're thinking in the right direction.
-
.
-
^ while having the freedom and opportunity to do lots of other stuff without being at the mercy of one company being run in a manner I thoroughly disagree with. I won't argue with the royalty comparisons...but you have cherry picked to make your point. there are way more fires in which to place the irons.
-
Despite having dropped my exclusivity in February, I haven't felt the surge of concern I thought I would. In fact, I've felt the opposite. I'm inspired by new beginnings. I'm experiencing the initial drop in income, which I prepared for and which I expect to be a factor for about 6 months to a year. It was a huge letdown to watch TPTB erode and decimate everything that was so unique about iStock.
Going through my portfolio of almost 8K images has reminded me how many great files were best match casualties with hardly any views. I'm working very hard to get established on the other sites, and I will keep my files non-exclusively on iStock. But ventures like Stocksy, and GL can be truly sustainable marketplaces for artists and the companies that run them; companies created by fellow artists and ethically run with a focus on long-term success. I haven't looked back since ditching the crown. iStock and Getty are simply building a new breed of exclusives who have much lower expectations than our 'generation'. I was once so genuinely proud of being an iStock exclusive. iStock is no longer a community, nor is it an agency in which artists are motivated to strive for growth or to excel in their art. It isn't even an agency anymmore. It is now a Walmart, looking to sell to the highest bidder, with the smallest royalties possible going to suppliers. There is no opportunity left there. I don't know that change could even occur today. The window for change, for wooing unhappy contributors back into the fold has passed.
Glad you are doing well. I'm actually on pace for a BME although it's still early in the month. I'm also seeing a lot of older files with no downloads getting sales, half of the last 20 had 0 or 1 sale previously and many are from more than 2 years ago. If you were worried about the smallest royalties possible going to the contributor I don't see why you contribute to Istock as a nonexclusive, Shutterstock, and Fotolia you'll surely make most of your money on those sites and get a smaller royalty than you were getting.
Tickstock, why do you think you are still doing so well when so many others are going down?
Superior portfolio?
More creative?
Luck?
Other?
Thanks in advance, will be interested to hear what you think.
-
Let's hope other agencies watch what iStock has done and use it as a cautionary tale. Losing some of your longest term contributors by squeezing them relentlessly is not the stuff that business legends are made of.
I'll say for SS, Jon Oringer and his execs are photographers first. They're artists and actively participate on the frontlines. So I give them more leeway than the upper echelon suits running iStock. having said that, I'm not loving piddly amounts for dls on SS thus far. but these are early days and I don't have enough files up yet. Offset has me intrigued too, which tells me they're thinking in the right direction.
Guess you believe the marketing hype.
Jons Port. Dont know what happened to 30,000 Images.
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-ushutterstock.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-ushutterstock.html)
-
Tickstock, I am curious too. You seem to be doing a lot better than the black diamonds of istock. Do you have such an extra special niche that is highly sought after that sets you apart from the whole contributor base? You donītīhave to tell us what it it is, but it seems really strange that if the black diamonds are struggling to sell their content and pay for the expensive shootings, how do you do it???
I think it is obvious from the numbers posted that the money invested in new shootings cannot be recovered in the current situation of istock.
Or are you a total newbie who is doubling his port every two months?
Again my congratulations for doing so extremly well, but I think we would all love to know at least a part of your secret? Any tips you can share with those of us who struggle?
And what do you recommend should I do with my Lenklypse files? I have helicopter pilots in flight, rescue teams in the mountains, organic farmers etc...all of it beautiful "lovelocal" content from a great event. I also have several videos and I think I was the only one doing video. If I should decide to upload, what I can I do to make my files sell as well as yours?
-
Jasmin, lol, I think tickstock has that special superpower that only anonymity can generate
@gbalex: it's the new agencies, the fair trade agencies and those that genuinely follow suit that are going to affect change in the stock industry. I don't think we can cleanly differentiate between macro/micro/traditional anymore; pricing tiers are all so varied, as is licensing today. royalties have been crunched in traditional as much as in microstock. in some ways, we've hit close to rock bottom and it is the new models that prioritize keeping artists comfy and cozy that will probably lead us into the next evolution in the stock industry. there will be bugs, issues, hurdles no doubt but we're all primed for change.
-
Jasmin, lol, I think tickstock has that special superpower that only anonymity can generate
@gbalex: it's the new agencies, the fair trade agencies and those that genuinely follow suit that are going to affect change in the stock industry. I don't think we can cleanly differentiate between macro/micro/traditional anymore; pricing tiers are all so varied, as is licensing today. royalties have been crunched in traditional as much as in microstock. in some ways, we've hit close to rock bottom and it is the new models that prioritize keeping artists comfy and cozy that will probably lead us into the next evolution in the stock industry. there will be bugs, issues, hurdles no doubt but we're all primed for change.
I agree
-
.
-
You keep saying you are doing extremly well on istock, when everyone else seems to be struggling. The data on the black diamonds is what we "normal people" use to compare our results against someone who we know is better.
You keep posting how unbelievably successful you are, I think it is normal to be curious how are you doing it?
And my question is genuine - what do you recommend should I do? Should I upload in the current environment to istock, or not? And if I upload, what can I do to be as enthusiastic and successful as you are? Assuming the enthusiasm comes from fantastic sales.
You seem to have a unique insight into how to be successful at istock that many people would love to have. It would certainly help those who want to remain exclusive if they knew what they can do to increase their sales. And also for those of us who are independent it would be good to know what we can do to get better results. istock is part of the overall stock scene and I intend to keep uploading, just like all the other independents.
-
.
-
I have a lot of bills to pay as a photographer, so yes I am genuinly interested in how sales can be improved, including of course sales on istock.
I really think it is great you have a BME and I sincerly hope you posted it in that monthly sales thread on istock. Morale is very low in the contributor community, I am sure you have noticed that. I think it would help many people to see that someone is doing well, even if you were a newbie for instance. There is nothing wrong with being successful. Quite the contrary. Success always comes from hard work and good thinking.
Why do you think that i should not upload to istock as an independent? I have a large portfolio there and I intend to keep growing my port.
I am only holding my files back because of best match (and concerns of getty/google etc..., but they said they are not moving more stuff over)
Otherwise I see no reason not to upload to istock.
Why should I not upload?
-
I have to admit that after a couple of months of being on the verge of giving up exclusivity, I'm slightly more positive about iStock over the past couple of weeks. Well, positive in the short term, anyway.
Although my sales have definitely dropped from the hayday of around 2010, I'm finding that sales have picked up a bit over the past month or so. Last month topped March 2012 by about 20% and as of today I'm already at 50% of the total amount I earned last month, and about 70% of what I took last April.
I only have a small portfolio, 372 images, mostly uploaded years ago. I haven't uploaded at all since October 2011. I think my portfolio is probably profiting from the shift in the best match to older files, but other than that, I have no great explanation. I'm happy to share my figures privately with anyone who is interested in pm'ing me, either here or on istock.
As I said, I was ready to give up exclusivity and was just trying to work out the best strategy as to where to put my stuff. That's still my aim but, for the moment, I'm a little happier to leave them there a while longer whilst I look into other options.
-
I am happy to hear that. If you do go indie it would be better if you do it because you have sincerly thought about it and not because you are just unhappy with istock. It is a complex decision that I would not recommend to do without a good plan. And if istock recovers that would be even better, wether you are exclusive or not.
It will be interesting to watch customer traffic to the site in the coming months. Is really best match the problem or falling customer traffic?
-
Don't forget that from axing me, there are now many thousands of dollars in the pot being spent on others now, which may cause a false growth indicator.
-
.
-
Don't forget that from axing me, there are now many thousands of dollars in the pot being spent on others now, which may cause a false growth indicator.
Well, I did half consider that, but I can't see that my portfolio would pick up any sales from your missing images. Of course, it may be true of others.
-
Tickstock, I am curious too. You seem to be doing a lot better than the black diamonds of istock. Do you have such an extra special niche that is highly sought after that sets you apart from the whole contributor base? You donītīhave to tell us what it it is, but it seems really strange that if the black diamonds are struggling to sell their content and pay for the expensive shootings, how do you do it???
I think it is obvious from the numbers posted that the money invested in new shootings cannot be recovered in the current situation of istock.
Or are you a total newbie who is doubling his port every two months?
Again my congratulations for doing so extremly well, but I think we would all love to know at least a part of your secret? Any tips you can share with those who struggle?
I was guessing I'd get this kind of ridiculous response. I'd love for you to point to one thing I've said that would lead anyone to think I'm doing better than a black diamond. I'd love for you to find one thing I've said that would lead anyone to think I have an awesome wonderful niche portfolio that is better than anyone else, I don't think you'll find that. Is it any wonder that the monthly sales thread is full of people saying how bad they are doing?
Tickstock: give it up man. you are not allowed to say you are doing well at IS. I have been through this one as well, the angst in replies you will receive is frckng creepy. You will also find they twist your words a lot and quote you on something you did not say, or even imply for that matter. There are some people who just wake up nasty and need to share it. Black Diamond this and Black Diamond that - all that coming form a person who is not even Black Diamond. It has nothing to do with being a Black Diamond. What a sense of entitlement. And yes, we are all having a better few months because The Saint is no longer there, even if like you, my portfolio has nothing similar to his. What a bold statement if I have ever seen one.
And congrats for getting on your way to a BME, not happening for me, but the last few months have been great and appear to be getting back to normal.
-
It's not a 'bold' statement. It's a true statement. I imagine the people who were spending the five figures a month on my work there will continue to spend around that much, and it doesn't have to be on similar work.
Oh, and IS gets to keep more of the sales price, yeah!
-
Welcome back Shudderstock! You are bringing a lot to this place. I really mean that, without any cynism.
It will help people who are watching and sitting on a fence decide what they want to do. Your input is more valuable than you might want to believe.
Aren't you lucky that we are not anonymous? I am sure it's a lot more fun this way. (maybe now I am being sarcastic...)
-
.
-
Oh, and IS gets to keep more of the sales price, yeah!
I'll work extra hard to get up to 40% by the end of the year so that doesn't happen.
Better work harder than that. I'm pretty sure Sean was one of number of people you could literally count on one hand that were making 45%.
-
I thought everybody knew that. Itīs an amazing achievement for a single artist which is why nobody understood why Getty sent that portfolio to the competition.
But 40% is a great goal and certainly can provide a living wage if you make it. Good luck! Although if you make it it will be because of your very hard work. But luck favors those who put the effort into their goals.
Might be worth attending the Lypse events. You will get great feedback from Peers and Getty editors and meet some wonderful people.
-
It's not a 'bold' statement. It's a true statement. I imagine the people who were spending the five figures a month on my work there will continue to spend around that much, and it doesn't have to be on similar work.
Oh, and IS gets to keep more of the sales price, yeah!
nah, if they searched "smiling kid on school bus" they were not looking for "bowl of oranges" or "waterfall with red leaves". buyers tend to know what they want and stick to the search they are looking for. i would imagine the photographers who shoot the same subject matter of work you do would benefit, but that is about it.
-
Don't forget that from axing me, there are now many thousands of dollars in the pot being spent on others now, which may cause a false growth indicator.
Known as the Locke Effect. ;D
-
Welcome back Shudderstock! You are bringing a lot to this place. I really mean that, without any cynism.
It will help people who are watching and sitting on a fence decide what they want to do. Your input is more valuable than you might want to believe.
Aren't you lucky that we are not anonymous? I am sure it's a lot more fun this way. (maybe now I am being sarcastic...)
we should all do what works best for our own needs ie: indie, exclusive, RF, or RM. in a perfect world, we'd all be back in the past when images were worth something, buyers paid the value of a photo as it was cheaper than hiring a local photographer to do a shoot, and we'd actually be getting paid a 50% royalty as per the industry standard. much better than this subscription BS that pays 0.25c per download. How can anyone survive on that? IS is not much better, but at least you have a glimmer of hope to make a bit more. so who do we blame? the agencies that are screwing us over? ourselves for allowing it to happen? or is it simply a case of codependency? i know for certain i would never place my images with certain agencies based solely on the royalties they offer.
-
.
-
Well if you look at return per download only then you should probably put all your files on coverpicture, apparently their RPD is over 40 euros (60 dollars?):
http://www.alltageinesfotoproduzenten.de/2013/02/21/durchschnittliche-verkaufserloese-rpd-bei-bildagenturen-2012/ (http://www.alltageinesfotoproduzenten.de/2013/02/21/durchschnittliche-verkaufserloese-rpd-bei-bildagenturen-2012/)
But of course the only relevant number is the actual money you make. Although Gettyīs 12 dollars for 425 million people must be the lowest ever. Letīs hope they donīt ever do it again.
Itīs the same with software - you can write great software and sell it for 300 or 3000 or 30 000 dollars a license or sell it as a 99 cent app and become an internet millionaire.
Like you said, everyone needs to look at their own portfolio and their own financial goals. So it is good to have choices as an artist.
@tickstock you will only make the 80 000 if best match allows to find your new files. Which since September seems to be a big problem. So for your sake and all the other ambitious exclusives, I hope they fix it soon.
You probably know this thread:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=352023&page=20#post6873761 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=352023&page=20#post6873761)
You also have to invest a lot of money (models, stylist, gear, studio) to make the 80 000. Revenue is not income.
-
I'm not so sure Sean was at that level I seem to remember him saying it was unattainable even for him.
I'm sure he can answer for himself, but if he wasn't, he was one of many victims of their bait-and-switch scheme [1] whereby they encouraged people to supply multiple media then split the media when calculating RC-based royalty rates.
[1] In Pollyanna mode, I concede that I have no actual proof that it was malice aforethought.
-
It bothers me that it seems more time is spent moderatating the forums then actually making their product better.
Talking of which, I see Pink_cotton_candy is no longer a mod, but Rob Mattingley is.
(Maybe that was old news and I missed it when I was away.)
-
Oh, we will miss her! PCC was great!! Really, really good!
Rob is a very nice guy from the interactions I've had with him. Good choice. I hope he enjoys it, community building is a thrilling job but also stressful.
I wonder whatever became of the two Getty admins that wanted to engage the community last year. Krikringle, Kingcash - anybody remember them? (did I get the names right?)
I think stronger interaction directly between community and getty would be helpful to move istock out of the crisis.
-
^ Better communication from above would help at iS. But realistically, unless the sales slide is reversed things won't improve.
-
Rob is a very nice guy from the interactions I've had with him. Good choice. I hope he enjoys it, community building is a thrilling job but also stressful.
Grief, are the mods supposed to be for community building? I thought it was to keep the Great Unwashed tugging their forelocks, or kick them out.
-
It bothers me that it seems more time is spent moderatating the forums then actually making their product better.
Talking of which, I see Pink_cotton_candy is no longer a mod, but Rob Mattingley is.
(Maybe that was old news and I missed it when I was away.)
Pink-cotton-candy... hmmmm... so familiar. If it is the same one, we're acquainted. She's the one who got me banned at DT.
Could it be the same one? That will be 2 years ago in June. >:(
-
It bothers me that it seems more time is spent moderatating the forums then actually making their product better.
Talking of which, I see Pink_cotton_candy is no longer a mod, but Rob Mattingley is.
(Maybe that was old news and I missed it when I was away.)
Pink-cotton-candy... hmmmm... so familiar. If it is the same one, we're acquainted. She's the one who got me banned at DT.
Could it be the same one? That will be 2 years ago in June. >:(
I doubt it. This one has been exclusive on iS for at least that long.
-
It bothers me that it seems more time is spent moderatating the forums then actually making their product better.
Talking of which, I see Pink_cotton_candy is no longer a mod, but Rob Mattingley is.
(Maybe that was old news and I missed it when I was away.)
Pink-cotton-candy... hmmmm... so familiar. If it is the same one, we're acquainted. She's the one who got me banned at DT.
Could it be the same one? That will be 2 years ago in June. >:(
I doubt it. This one has been exclusive on iS for at least that long.
My Bad ... it was "Pinkcandy" ...
-
Maybe if iStock just killed the forums they'd eliminate half their current PR issues ;P
-
Maybe if iStock just killed the forums they'd eliminate half their current PR issues ;P
I don't know. I held back a lot more there than I do here.
-
that sounds like a snarky byte from an iS gatekeeper
-
Maybe if iStock just killed the forums they'd eliminate half their current PR issues ;P
Actually, if they fixed the upload issue, the royalty and RC issues, the connector issues, the best match issues, etc., etc.....those things would help with PR/contributor relations more than anything else. Frickin' train wreck; looking for an alternative.
-
If they fixed anything I'd be happy at this point. There is just a huge list piling up...the forum mods are collecting and collecting issues and suggestions...but I have yet to see action...I would expect action on at least the major issues that affect sales, but nothing. It's beyond frustrating and reaching comical at this point.
-
If they fixed anything I'd be happy at this point. There is just a huge list piling up...the forum mods are collecting and collecting issues and suggestions...but I have yet to see action...I would expect action on at least the major issues that affect sales, but nothing. It's beyond frustrating and reaching comical at this point.
It's almost as if iStock is an afterthought as far as Getty is concerned. Yes, very frustrating but it's gone beyond comical and is now sad.
-
.
-
[deleted]
-
Maybe if iStock just killed the forums they'd eliminate half their current PR issues ;P
Actually, if they fixed the upload issue, the royalty and RC issues, the connector issues, the best match issues, etc., etc.....those things would help with PR/contributor relations more than anything else. Frickin' train wreck; looking for an alternative.
The uploads are working now. I know you don't want to hear this but you have uploaded about 2 files a week since you became a contributor, is this really an issue for you? I've uploaded around 100 since the upload problems started so I doubt it's holding you back. The royalty and RC issue is fixed and it was handled much better than it has been in the past with a faster response and more transparency. The connector seems to me to be working very well, I've even had some go over on the same day but all my recent E+ has been transferred in at most 2 days. The same is true for the Partner Program. I don't know about the Best Match but my sales have been much better the last month or so, from my perspective it's not perfect but it's pretty good.
If you are really that concerned about my stats how many files have I uploaded since I became exclusive last July? Good for you uploading so many files since the upload process 'broke'....most of the time when I try to do so I get an error message. The total number of files I have is irrelevant as, last I heard, my #'s don't influence the inner workings of iStock.
The connector is not working for older E+ files and hasn't for several months. Same holds true for the PP.
And, unless I'm missing something, the royalty/RC issue isn't resolved yet and won't be until next week.
Glad to hear your sales have been better the last month or so...good for you, or wooyay as they say at iStock. What was happening prior to that time? How are your new uploads doing? Any with more than 3 DL's?
To each his own.
-
.
-
Glad to hear they have streamlined the retro pay. As often as it occurs, it was probably time develop a process. ;)
-
.
-
They haven't streamlined the retro pay. They've acknowledged there's an issue then put back the timetable for repayment after an initial response. Business as usual.
-
@tickstock,
congrats on becoming a senior member on msg! :)
You made over 400 posts in 9 weeks. Thats half of what I have been posting in several years. I think it shows how everyone can benefit from being active here. Most exclusives I know only post on istock and lately posted a lot less or stopped because they are demoralized.
Although I still hope the istock forums pick up again. The forums can be great fun over there and I think the istock team is trying very hard to reach out to contributors, especially exclusives.
Are you this active over on istock as well? (and no, I am not trying to find your portfolio)
Why didn't you come here sooner?
-
.
-
Well you seem to enjoy being here and that is good, no?
istock is in a very difficult phase and you are posting as an anonymous exclusive. That will make a lot of people wonder what is going on, that is only normal.
Some people say they are anonymous because they are scared istock reads what they write and will punish them if they are too critical. I think this is terrible and it certainly is a new fear.
There have been all kinds of dramas on istock over the years but only now are people scared to post.
And people are leaving, which is sad. I think if they work hard enough they can bring the community back if they make contributors feel safe.
What do you think about the istock forums? Is that really such an unusual question to ask?
-
I've been uploading personal pics to Flickr on and off all day; about 15 mins ago there was an error message, and uploads were timing out.
But they fixed it ... within 15 mins. At 01:18 BST on a weekend.
I know one other site that almost certainly could or would not have been able to do that, and it's allegedly a 24/7 commercial site.
-
Did someone post that IS reduced their IT drpartment? I guess that could explain the issues forever being unresolved. With so many issues its hard to trust that their system can accurately track sales.
-
@tickstock,
congrats on becoming a senior member on msg! :)
You made over 400 posts in 9 weeks. Thats half of what I have been posting in several years. I think it shows how everyone can benefit from being active here. Most exclusives I know only post on istock and lately posted a lot less or stopped because they are demoralized.
Although I still hope the istock forums pick up again. The forums can be great fun over there and I think the istock team is trying very hard to reach out to contributors, especially exclusives.
Are you this active over on istock as well? (and no, I am not trying to find your portfolio)
Why didn't you come here sooner?
i don't think people are scared to post in the IS forums. rather i think we are all sick and tired of that idiot LOBO. he constantly deletes great posts, threatens to ban you if you have your own opinion, and always needs to add some superior sarcastic comment. i personally gave up on posting there just because of him. i really don't know why IS keeps him around,he does more damage than good. can you imagine if you posted on the IS forums with his attitude? he'd delete it or warn you or can you.
-
I don't think the guy is an idiot, but he tends to think that most of the contributors just want to discredit IS and troll the boards. Realistically the contributors just want a working site...this is iStocks responsibility as we provide content of value and we expect the same quality from IS as our content...the contributors are delivering their fair share while iStock has not been. And when we post about this on their forums we get shuffled, deleted, and told we are not being constructive.
-
istock is still a paradise compared to the private board of a large company that-can-not-be-named that has a HUGE legal disclaimer to seen before you enter. So you are not allowed to write what is written in the forum, not even sure if you can mention the forum anywhere.
I guess they want the istock forums to be populated only by "the new exclusive". People who are so scared that they appear like children on the board and cheer all things Getty even if any changes are bad for them. Maybe that is why there is an increasing number of anonymous exclusive istock posters here.
I had the impression that Lobo was genuinly trying to improve things for a while, new structure for the forums, he opened good threads himself etc...but the last 10 days things seem to be different.
He also sent me a nasty sitemail accusing me of stirring things up and specifically mentioned he doesn't like what I write on msg.
I was pretty shocked because I think I am one of the few people who keep defending Lobo and his work. I think if Getty just leaves him alone he can be a very positive community builder if he wants to.
Later that day I heard that other people got nasty sitemails as well.
So I wonder if Lobo was given a list of people from someone higher up who write on msg and that they don't like.
I've been here for years, really don't think I have changed my style at all. I am just as positive or critical as I always am, but I guess some people have no clue how people write on open business boards.
I haven't posted on istock since and will stay away from there until I feel the place is safer. But I will upload, they will not convince me to delete my portfolio.
And I will proably be taking screenshots if I do post with a question. I want backup before my post gets zapped and misrepresented.
It was the day when Thomas Hawke posted his famous "Dear Getty, I quit", maybe they just needed to kick the dog and lash out at everyone with a voice.
But it certainly doesn't make me feel welcome.
-
istock is still a paradise compared to the private board of a large company that-can-not-be-named that has a HUGE legal disclaimer to seen before you enter. So you are not allowed to write what is written in the forum, not even sure if you can mention the forum anywhere.
I guess they want the istock forums to be populated only by "the new exclusive". People who are so scared that they appear like children on the board and cheer all things Getty even if any changes are bad for them. Maybe that is why there is an increasing number of anonymous exclusive istock posters here.
I had the impression that Lobo was genuinly trying to improve things for a while, new structure for the forums, he opened good threads himself etc...but the last 10 days things seem to be different.
He also sent me a nasty sitemail accusing me of stirring things up and specifically mentioned he doesn't like what I write on msg.
I was pretty shocked because I think I am one of the few people who keep defending Lobo and his work. I think if Getty just leaves him alone he can be a very positive community builder if he wants to.
Later that day I heard that other people got nasty sitemails as well.
So I wonder if Lobo was given a list of people from someone higher up who write on msg and that they don't like.
I've been here for years, really don't think I have changed my style at all. I am just as positive or critical as I always am, but I guess some people have no clue how people write on open business boards.
I haven't posted on istock since and will stay away from there until I feel the place is safer. But I will upload, they will not convince me to delete my portfolio.
And I will proably be taking screenshots if I do post with a question. I want backup before my post gets zapped and misrepresented.
It was the day when Thomas Hawke posted his famous "Dear Getty, I quit", maybe they just needed to kick the dog and lash out at everyone with a voice.
But it certainly doesn't make me feel welcome.
Why do you keep banging on about Istock? Saying how wonderful they were, they are or they could be ... if only. It's old news. Let it go.
-
istock changed my life. But I guess you are right.
But it is very depressing to see how Getty is bringing a once strong community and business down. It will definetly be a textbook case for years to come.
-
@tickstock,
congrats on becoming a senior member on msg! :)
You made over 400 posts in 9 weeks. Thats half of what I have been posting in several years. I think it shows how everyone can benefit from being active here. Most exclusives I know only post on istock and lately posted a lot less or stopped because they are demoralized.
Although I still hope the istock forums pick up again. The forums can be great fun over there and I think the istock team is trying very hard to reach out to contributors, especially exclusives.
Are you this active over on istock as well? (and no, I am not trying to find your portfolio)
Why didn't you come here sooner?
i don't think people are scared to post in the IS forums. rather i think we are all sick and tired of that idiot LOBO. he constantly deletes great posts, threatens to ban you if you have your own opinion, and always needs to add some superior sarcastic comment. i personally gave up on posting there just because of him. i really don't know why IS keeps him around,he does more damage than good. can you imagine if you posted on the IS forums with his attitude? he'd delete it or warn you or can you.
If you have been posting on istock with the same cheery and constructive attitude you have demonstrated here, I would have zapped your posts too.
But you are right with one thing, just like Getty kicked out Sean to externalize the disaster of the Getty/Google deal, I wouldnīt be surprised if they kicked out Lobo without warning instead of facing the mistakes of their own team.
Theyīll probably even reference your post when they do it.
-
I have been out of there, for a couple of months, and it has been a great releaf.
Only rarely I take a look at something istockish, like this thread.
Nice to be without all the frustrations and anger. And nice to see them loose 1/3 of their income every month.
-
istock changed my life. But I guess you are right.
But it is very depressing to see how Getty is bringing a once strong community and business down. It will definetly be a textbook case for years to come.
I know how you feel, I felt the same way. You just have to realize that a lot of us felt this way, and then got over it a long time ago. We went through the same "mourning period"...it's just that it ws so long ago, and people just going through it now, well, seems monotonous to some of us now. :)
-
istock changed my life. But I guess you are right.
But it is very depressing to see how Getty is bringing a once strong community and business down. It will definetly be a textbook case for years to come.
I know how you feel, I felt the same way. You just have to realize that a lot of us felt this way, and then got over it a long time ago. We went through the same "mourning period"...it's just that it ws so long ago, and people just going through it now, well, seems monotonous to some of us now. :)
How strange.
Do people who have been literally bereaved a long time ago feel that recently-bereaved people are monotonous?
If people 'got over it' a long time ago, why are they still haunting iS forums/threads?
No-one is forced to read or even see any threads or forums they don't want to see.
-
I guess they speak for everyone. Some of us are newer to iStock. I'm there still because it makes me the most $$$. The lower sales haven't been drastic for me and are the least of my issues with iStock. I'm more frustrated with the lack of action on site issues and the overall lack of transparency. The heavily moderated forums is just annoying and has only brought their contributors here to discuss the issues. The overall perception from a contributor stand point is that they just don't care...maybe that is from the top down. I'm sure this is perceived by buyers as well..and some contributors are also buyers and influence buyers...I don't think iStock is naive enough to not know this...so that just adds to the perception that they don't care anymore. It seems to me the folks still employed there are there for the paycheck...the fun and spirit of iStock is long gone, and I am sure iStock is just a small sliver on the pie chart for Getty. As of now the minute I feel I can start making more money without iStock I will surely jump ship. They always tease change for the better, but it never comes.
-
They always tease change for the better, but it never comes.
Yeah, what's that all about.
If what they'd promised had come to pass, I'd be a lotus eater by now.
-
.
-
I think it's a rule that every thread has to have Istock brought into the discussion at some point.
"I stubbed my toe "
"That's because of Istock! I can't wait for them to fail."
BINGO!!!
Which reminds me, my mommy is better than your mommy because she is exclusive!!! ;D
-
I guess they speak for everyone. Some of us are newer to iStock. I'm there still because it makes me the most $$$. The lower sales haven't been drastic for me and are the least of my issues with iStock. I'm more frustrated with the lack of action on site issues and the overall lack of transparency. The heavily moderated forums is just annoying and has only brought their contributors here to discuss the issues. The overall perception from a contributor stand point is that they just don't care...maybe that is from the top down. I'm sure this is perceived by buyers as well..and some contributors are also buyers and influence buyers...I don't think iStock is naive enough to not know this...so that just adds to the perception that they don't care anymore. It seems to me the folks still employed there are there for the paycheck...the fun and spirit of iStock is long gone, and I am sure iStock is just a small sliver on the pie chart for Getty. As of now the minute I feel I can start making more money without iStock I will surely jump ship. They always tease change for the better, but it never comes.
+1 from me to all your points, except re. iStock being a small sliver on the pie chart for Getty. Obviously I don't know anything concrete about the figures, but my guess would be that in terms of profit, iStock make up a decent chunk of Getty group's numbers, which they're very keen to grow rather than lose.
iStock, Getty and Carlyle are three very different organisations, with contrasting histories and cultures. And all of Getty must be a sliver on Carlyle's pie chart. But even still, a sliver that cost them real money, and they'll want to grow it, because that's what they're in business to do.
But IMHO, with the desire to make more profits filtering down from Carlyle to Getty, then Getty using their own methods to get push iStock to be more and more profitable, there's a risk that they're gradually getting rid of what was making iStock so buoyant and successful, and turning away their best people too.
Even if they recognise the damage they're doing to iStock and want to turn it around, reversing the trend that's set in would be difficult. When Rebecca suddenly stepped into the forums in December to admit some errors and talk about positive changes, it did briefly seem that an effort was being made to turn things around. And very briefly it even translated into some action. But now here we are just a few months later, and it's hard to feel optimistic about iStock.
-
I think it's a rule that every thread has to have Istock brought into the discussion at some point.
"I stubbed my toe "
"That's because of Istock! I can't wait for them to fail."
BINGO!!!
Which reminds me, my mommy is better than your mommy because she is exclusive!!! ;D
Beautiful comments!
All the people reading here, considering wether they should go exclusive or not will love to see the community style of the "new exclusives".
You guys are the best advocates for istock exclusivity on msg!!
Letīs hope that more anonymous exclusives sign up here to entertain the crowd! :)
When you meet up to shoot together, do you wear masks?? Or are there secret initiation rites to become part of the new club?
-
I'm more frustrated with the lack of action on site issues and the overall lack of transparency. The heavily moderated forums is just annoying and has only brought their contributors here to discuss the issues.
Dont invest your time and money to area that gets you frustrated and annoyed. If you feed bad feelings, they will only grow. Feed good ones, and you will be happy and rich.
-
To be honest, if I was doing well just now on iS, I either wouldn't be shouting about it or I'd change my pseudo here to become anonymous. If you've found a niche the buyers want, why let everyone else into it? (Even though I'm very curious to know what is selling over there, just out of interest.)
I started uploading again over this past week, and have had only one 'real' view, i.e. the other was a friend, not a possible buyer.
OK, so not in a big selling subject area, so I cross-checked some traditional high selling subjects, and looking at the last 200 or 400 uploaded, they're not getting views or sales either.
In the Good Old Days, even with my highly uncommercial port, I'd get views within a couple of days, lightboxed within a week and sales starting on at least a few of a batch in the month after that. (Not for all pics of course, I've got my fair share of old non-sellers.)
-
They stated that only logged in views are counted. Which has been argued by contributors that should not be the intended way to track views. My newer uploads are light on views when compared to the past. They first claimed there was no change to views and later stated there was a change because contributors were raising their own view counts to raise their best match placement...if best match accounted for view/sales ratio then that wouldn't be an issue. They only acknowledge such issues after contributors have to bring it up over and over and then they quickly dismiss it. So now you can have a higher download number than views because files can be purchased without logging in. Makes little sense. I'd buy their excuse if my sales backed it up...they don't.
-
@Dingles
I agree completly.
If they would just fix the issues, increase transparency and focus on selling files to get back into the Market leader position, they wouldnīt have to worry about what people write on istock or msg. The community shares all their sales numbers freely, so if the sales are great people will go back to being istock exclusive. Micromanaging our "attitude" while sales are falling is just silly and counterproductive.
I think video is a good indicator for how much getty is ready to push istock over their other agencies. 2 years ago, maybe even last year, istock was the market leader for video. They have a great team at istock HQ who are very helpful and nice people. I went to the Videolypse in Berlin and learnt so much, (thank you istock/getty video team!). Unfortunately, at the time the inspection times even for exclusives were over 3 months. Because I am a video newbie I went independent to get faster feedback, but i was absolutely determined to return once I felt, that I had learnt enough and reached a good quality level.
However, in the coming months, the exclusives kept reporting slower and slower sales and in the last 6 months that trend seems to have accelerated even more:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=352825&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=352825&page=1)
In January I had the free video of the month, i.e. front page exposure, although I was indie. I didnīt sell a single video on istock. The same thing happened to the guy who had the the free video of the month in February: front page exposure - no sales.
But my files are selling well on all the other sites.
Video is a new market and it is a much smaller market than photography. With the amount of money Getty has, it should be easy for them to dominate the market. Why they decided to give up their market leadership, I donīt know.
But if they are not even ready to invest enough to stay dominant in a new and emerging market, how much will they invest in the photo market? How much will they invest in istock, compared to getty, thinkstock or punch stock?
And if the video people report better sales on getty than on istock - I guess this will mean that Getty itself is where the money for marketing is going. Maybe it even makes sense for them. Instead of marketing two agencies, just market one. And of course you get a lower percentage as an artist there.
For me as an indie this would even be good, they said the Getty360 program will include all content and that indies will be paid 20% for what gets sold there, i.e. I will get a higher video royalty than on istock.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=352445&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=352445&page=1)
So there is something for me to look forward to.
-
@dingles: Ah - I knew they were denying that only logged in views counted, although it was by far the most logical explanation for what was happening. I didn't realise that they had conceded.
@cobalt - It's not only iS and Getty, it's TS too, and the latter was, for a while at least, getting an inordinate amount of the marketing spend.
Also, I've noticed that the photo of the week on iS usually gets very few sales nowadays, even none. In the GODs, getting POTW was almost a guaranteed flame.
-
istock changed my life. But I guess you are right.
But it is very depressing to see how Getty is bringing a once strong community and business down. It will definetly be a textbook case for years to come.
I know how you feel, I felt the same way. You just have to realize that a lot of us felt this way, and then got over it a long time ago. We went through the same "mourning period"...it's just that it ws so long ago, and people just going through it now, well, seems monotonous to some of us now. :)
How strange.
Do people who have been literally bereaved a long time ago feel that recently-bereaved people are monotonous?
If people 'got over it' a long time ago, why are they still haunting iS forums/threads?
No-one is forced to read or even see any threads or forums they don't want to see.
Well, you have kind of twisted my post, which was done in a good- hearted manner, into a post that sounds critical, and thats not how i meant it, but whatever. As far as "haunting" istock forums, i remain interested in everything going on with microstock in general, and since its an open forum, i feel that i can, and will, post in any thread i want. And no, no one is forcing me. :-)
-
I'm still trying to decide whether the old Kool-Aid cult was preferable to the present corporate cold shoulder: yes, it was, but you must admit it had its icky side too.
Like others here, I don't post on iStock any longer. I've lapsed a couple of times in the past year or two but I usually feel it was a mistake. I don't post here much either, mostly because I prefer to keep my head down for reasons others have mentioned.
On the bright side, my iStock sales slide seems to have stopped. Still way down from last September but at least the graph has been flattish for a while. There's been an uptick in the past few weeks as well, but that's probably because the best match has turned to older files.
-
@ cathy, I thought your post was well meant too. Peace everyone, we donīt need to bring each other down. :) Stick together and get rich...I like that!
-
For me as an indie this would even be good, they said the Getty360 program will include all content and that indies will be paid 20% for what gets sold there, i.e. I will get a higher video royalty than on istock.
So there is something for me to look forward to.
You're looking forward to 20% commission.
Looks like Getty's strategy is working...
-
They stated that only logged in views are counted. Which has been argued by contributors that should not be the intended way to track views. My newer uploads are light on views when compared to the past. They first claimed there was no change to views and later stated there was a change because contributors were raising their own view counts to raise their best match placement...if best match accounted for view/sales ratio then that wouldn't be an issue. They only acknowledge such issues after contributors have to bring it up over and over and then they quickly dismiss it. So now you can have a higher download number than views because files can be purchased without logging in. Makes little sense. I'd buy their excuse if my sales backed it up...they don't.
Also, even if only logged in views counted, that wouldn't explain why in the old days my files got lightboxed pretty regularly, and now they don't. I'm 99.9% certain you can't lightbox unless you're logged in. Given that most people lightbox a file either because it's on a 'short list' for a particular job, or because it 'might come in useful one day', the relative paucity nowadays of files being lightboxed must speak to the dwinding buyers, at least relative to the collection size.
Collection size isn't such a relevant factor down in the low-supply, low-demand end, as my 'competition' isn't growing at such a rate (even proportionately) as if I were supplying 'adorable babies' or 'sexy businesswomen'. And it's easier for me to see that my competition isn't picking up the sales nowadays: the sales just aren't there; whereas in the past the sales were chugging along, even if not in the high numbers of the popular genres.
-
I sell my videos everywhere - including istock. 20% is more than 15%.
Most sales come from Pond5 and Shutterstock, but istock is number 3 for me, way ahead of fotolia or any other video site. So it makes a difference for my income.
I would only receive 25% if I was video exclusive and I would never be able to rise up in their video RC system. So for me this is a positive change.
Maybe at a later stage I can afford to not send videos to istock, but right now it is still useful, so I upload. But the customers seem to have migrated to other sites anyway, so it probably doesnīt matter.
-
For me as an indie this would even be good, they said the Getty360 program will include all content and that indies will be paid 20% for what gets sold there, i.e. I will get a higher video royalty than on istock.
So there is something for me to look forward to.
You're looking forward to 20% commission.
Looks like Getty's strategy is working...
Well when you look at Getty's prices, 20% can earn more than 50% on other sites...and people buy videos off Getty for the higher price points...I don't fully understand the reasoning for the higher prices, but I believe it has to do with the licensing you get through Getty versus iStock.
-
.
-
.....
Well when you look at Getty's prices, 20% can earn more than 50% on other sites...and people buy videos off Getty for the higher price points...I don't fully understand the reasoning for the higher prices, but I believe it has to do with the licensing you get through Getty versus iStock.
The notion that (my bold) "20% can earn more than 50%" is based on the assumption that Getty actually sells at the publicly stated prices, at least most of the time. I would bet that Getty is discounting significantly (like many other sellers) under pressure from buyers, so the actual outcome could well be that 20% earns less than 50%.
Regards
-
For me as an indie this would even be good, they said the Getty360 program will include all content and that indies will be paid 20% for what gets sold there, i.e. I will get a higher video royalty than on istock.
So there is something for me to look forward to.
You're looking forward to 20% commission.
Looks like Getty's strategy is working...
Well when you look at Getty's prices, 20% can earn more than 50% on other sites...and people buy videos off Getty for the higher price points...I don't fully understand the reasoning for the higher prices, but I believe it has to do with the licensing you get through Getty versus iStock.
I don't sell any videos, but from what I read Pond5 seems to be one of the better selling sites. There you can set your own prices and recieve 50%.
And another point: when 20% of the end price on site A is the same as 50% on site B, then customers on site A need to have 2,5 times the budget than on site B to provide the same overall payout to contributors.
Just assuming that sales numbers stay the same irrespective of the customer's end price is not realistic.
-
.....
Well when you look at Getty's prices, 20% can earn more than 50% on other sites...and people buy videos off Getty for the higher price points...I don't fully understand the reasoning for the higher prices, but I believe it has to do with the licensing you get through Getty versus iStock.
The notion that (my bold) "20% can earn more than 50%" is based on the assumption that Getty actually sells at the publicly stated prices, at least most of the time. I would bet that Getty is discounting significantly (like many other sellers) under pressure from buyers, so the actual outcome could well be that 20% earns less than 50%.
Regards
All assumptions either way of course.
-
I sell my videos everywhere - including istock. 20% is more than 15%.
Most sales come from Pond5 and Shutterstock, but istock is number 3 for me, way ahead of fotolia or any other video site. So it makes a difference for my income.
I would only receive 25% if I was video exclusive and I would never be able to rise up in their video RC system. So for me this is a positive change.
Maybe at a later stage I can afford to not send videos to istock, but right now it is still useful, so I upload. But the customers seem to have migrated to other sites anyway, so it probably doesnīt matter.
My comment wasn't meant to critisize you for selling on Istock. And I understand your argument, 20% is a lot better than 15%.
It just doesn't sound right to me to accept 20% as reasonable to start with (don't get me wrong, I did accept that also and only quit Istock after they decided that 20% for me is too much to pay).
And now they have got us so far (by making 20% for independents the unachievable maximum) that those measly 20% are beginning to look like something good...
-
.....
Well when you look at Getty's prices, 20% can earn more than 50% on other sites...and people buy videos off Getty for the higher price points...I don't fully understand the reasoning for the higher prices, but I believe it has to do with the licensing you get through Getty versus iStock.
The notion that (my bold) "20% can earn more than 50%" is based on the assumption that Getty actually sells at the publicly stated prices, at least most of the time. I would bet that Getty is discounting significantly (like many other sellers) under pressure from buyers, so the actual outcome could well be that 20% earns less than 50%.
Regards
All assumptions either way of course.
The problem with POND5 for me is that sales are low there (for me at least)...so 50% of 0...well you do the math. I also don't like the idea that someone can create a similar video and undersell me...so I don't particularly support POND5.
And Getty does in fact sell iStock videos on the Getty site at inflated prices...contributors have even stated that they often make more with Getty sales than iStock. And I agree it seems absurd to have the higher prices of the same content. And also seems to undermine iStock as a whole...but they are able to get those sales and make us the $...
So, yes 20% can earn more than 50%. Getty still has a customer base that pays money. This is reality. Would I rather get 50% on my stuff that sells...of course ;P
-
@dirkr
Pond5 and Shutterstock seem to be leading video right now. Maybe that is why they have marginally upgraded what they are paying out, so at least some of the higher end indie content.
I am really curious about getty360. What do you think about it?
@tickstock
The istock exclusive community is about working together to create high quality content.
We share models, locations and stylists, we teach each other tips and tricks, there are facebook groups were great artists demonstrate step by step processing, we lend each other gear, some who teach workshops or organize classes give other exclusives big discounts and wherever you travel you will always find another exclusive to team up with to create great content.
We are all highly networked internationally. We don't hide behind masks or from each other in any way.
The istock community is also open to indies, there are many we network with to shoot together.
istock used to support all that with great workshop and Lypses.
It is a fantastic mix of free spirited people who often make loads of money while having fun.
The supportive community has always been one of the most important "selling points" when people make the decision to go exclusive. Especially when you do stock full time you want to know if your peers and the agency will work together with you.
Which is why it has been so sad to watch how Getty is actively destrying the community. They probably really think it is like flickr and never bothered to understand the business economics of how the great content these artists produce is being created in the first place.
If you have ever spent time on istock and really have a portfolio and income from actually selling files, you would know all that.
You said you want to go from 35% to 40%....how can you afford to pay for all your shooting if you do it alone??
The community also drives a lot of customers, many are buyers/designers anyway. Another reason why it is so bizzarre that Getty brings down the community.
If you want to be a believable anonymous istock exclusive, maybe check back and learn a bit more to understand what it is you are trying to sell.
Or maybe what you describe is indeed the new getty community. Which is why so many of my peers are moving on to spread their risk. But we still all work together, if anything recent events have made the community stronger.
ETA: Ok, I shouldnīt write "we" as I am now fully "indie"... but it has only been four weeks and I am organizing my next shootings with the same people anyway. Some are still exclusive but they are all preparing to sail. If istock sales came back and the company went from "overpromise, underdeliver" to "we announce it - we do it, we impress you with great business logic", people would stay.
-
.
-
I would bet that Getty is discounting significantly (like many other sellers) under pressure from buyers, so the actual outcome could well be that 20% earns less than 50%.
Absolutely. There have been sales from Getty which equate to sales prices much lower than shown on that site.
-
You said that if you were looking for community you would go to flickr. This implies that you see no community benefit on istock. It is also a very strange thing to say as an istock exclusive.
Why donīt you tell us how you see the istock community, if it is different to other places and if it affects on your image production?
You are producing high quality files right? You said you want to go from 35% to 40% royalty. Or did I misread that as well?
Any tips to share (with istock spirit) for people who have the same goals as you (40%)? And, like you, are investing a lot of time, energy and also money in image production??
You are shooting actively, right? Or is that again a misunderstanding on my part?
-
.
-
You said that if you were looking for community you would go to flickr. This implies that you see no community benefit on istock. It is also a very strange thing to say as an istock exclusive.
Not at all. I'm exclusive and I have no community over there at all: I've been banned for well over two years now. It's just business.
-
Iīm sorry to hear that Sue. But when you shoot, donīt you network with people? Over here we have a very strong group of people who work together to save costs and to learn from each other.
And most of us networked via the istock community, it is a fantastic experience to pool resources.
-
Iīm sorry to hear that Sue. But when you shoot, donīt you network with people?
No, there are very few stock shooters that I even know of in Scotland. When Warwick organised an iScotalypse, a lot of those attending were English. Far too far away to make collaboration economically viable.
It wouldn't make any financial sense for me to share shoots with people; we'd just be splitting the few available sales.
-
.
-
So you donīt shoot with other istockers to save costs?
Community is about the money, also fun, but about money like all business. Like the communities of kickstarter or other entrepreneur sites.
Of course you can do it all on your own, but istock offers many ways to save money by sharing resources.
If I can save money I do it.
ETA:
May I ask - why do you find it beneficial to spend so much time on msg? If "community" is not part of the way you do business , why are you here?
I hope that is sensible question to what you write?
-
I would bet that Getty is discounting significantly (like many other sellers) under pressure from buyers, so the actual outcome could well be that 20% earns less than 50%.
Absolutely. There have been sales from Getty which equate to sales prices much lower than shown on that site.
Which is why the whole Getty 360 "Don't worry, they'll be priced higher than IS" means nothing except you'll likely get even less than normal.
-
.
-
.
-
For independents I think they'll get much higher sales, the royalty rate is about the same and the prices should be a good deal higher.
Ah yes, the old "well, you weren't making anything this way before, so something is better than nothing" ethic.
-
I haven't been uploading a lot of the content I have, I have over 2000 files to go through and process and in the last few months I haven't felt comfortable with istock. But I have at least one shoot a month with people from the community here. I also teach photography, so I shoot with the students (although some of that is too extreme for stock).
My portfolio is not as spectacular or as impressive as others, but everyone can see it.
Unlike yours.
-
.
-
.
-
@tickstock
I share my studio with other istockers and also a lot of the still life is being done with two people, also the very simple videos that I do. My friends will then have other still life, they shoot in my orbiculight.
But I can understand that my portfolio looks self made. In the beggining it was, but now I am a lot more efficient because I work with others.
My work background is in business, so I learnt a lot from the peopel I met in the community.
-
.
-
I am really curious about getty360. What do you think about it?
I have to admit I did not spend much thought about it as it does not affect me, not having an active portfolio on Istock any more.
But from what I read it sounds like another step in absorbing Istock completely into Getty ("resistance is futile..." ;) ).
The goal seems to be complete freedom of Getty to licence our content in each and every way they want, for any price they seem fit, with any licence terms they want to, and all of that at a flat 20% for everyone.
That's how it looks for me. Doesn't make me want to re-upload my portfolio there...
-
"The goal seems to be complete freedom of Getty to licence our content in each and every way they want, for any price they seem fit, with any licence terms they want to, and all of that at a flat 20% for everyone."
Don't get hung up on that silly 20%. Don't forget Connect pays less than 10%.
-
The goal seems to be complete freedom of Getty to licence our content in each and every way they want, for any price they seem fit, with any licence terms they want to, and all of that at a flat 20% for everyone.
That's how it looks for me. Doesn't make me want to re-upload my portfolio there...
I agree except for the "flat 20%". In addition to Sean's observations about Connect, indies don't get 20% in any Getty program.
-
Hi Cobalt,
I admire your not hiding your work or identity it is so helpful to see what people are truly talking about and the level of their talent and comments. I think your work looks great but more than that by identifying yourself on this site other agencies and buyers cruising this site ( and trust me they do ) that are interested in your work can contact you to see if you wold like to be represented or hired you for a job.
Everyone here has their choice to be a hidden or present themselves openly and their work clearly here, I believe sharing your work in as many locations as possible opens you up to buyers and agencies that are interested in your style and portfolio. Far more precious than being able to speak your mind and not worry about upsetting one of your distributors. Just that much more exposure, my two cents from talking to buyers and agency owners. :)
Cheers,
Jonathan
-
I agree except for the "flat 20%". In addition to Sean's observations about Connect, indies don't get 20% in any Getty program.
Of course you (and Sean) are right. So maybe their goal is better described with "not more than 20%"...
-
Hi Jonathan,
thank you for the kind words! Iīve been in business for a very long time and worked in many different fields and industries. Stock is certainly more fun than others.
I always treat any industry board the same way I treat a trade show or convention - Iīll be wearing my name tag and keep my cards ready when I meet people.
The internet makes marketing so much easier and cheaper, why lose out on prospective contacts?
That said, there are many reasons why people might want to be private. Perhaps someone has hit a "golden" niche in stock that is selling well but can still be copied, so he/she doesnīt want to attract attention. Some people also live in countries with overzealous governments that keep snooping after what their people do. Those of us who live in stable countries with legal rights, often forget that many places in the world are not safe when you say or write what you want.
A very sad reason is what we sometimes find here: people who say they are anonymous because they are scared of the agency they are working with.
But yes, from a business perspective, I would have my name, cards and website ready on any industry platform wether it is online or offline. You will meet most of the relevant players in person over the years anyway. Iīve also done a lot of business with people that one might consider "enemies" or "competitors". But business is never black or white, situations, companies and people change and there will always be an opportunity where you will make more money when you work together. So it is good to be flexible.
-
istock changed my life. But I guess you are right.
But it is very depressing to see how Getty is bringing a once strong community and business down. It will definetly be a textbook case for years to come.
jasmin you changed your life non istock :-)
-
True, all of you, and 20% would be an increase for me from 15%. So I think the "not more than 20%" is a good way to view it.
I agree except for the "flat 20%". In addition to Sean's observations about Connect, indies don't get 20% in any Getty program.
Of course you (and Sean) are right. So maybe their goal is better described with "not more than 20%"...
-
Hi All,
Not sure if I understand the post but just to clarify Getty does offer 20% to their individual photographers in some of their deals. I make 20% on all my sales at Getty and 30% on some, just wanted to make sure that was clear. I am speaking about direct with Getty not one of their new models or stock just the plain old Getty license and they do still offer them I know a few new contributors.
Thanks,
Jonathan
-
Hi All,
Not sure if I understand the post but just to clarify Getty does offer 20% to their individual photographers in some of their deals. I make 20% on all my sales at Getty and 30% on some, just wanted to make sure that was clear. I am speaking about direct with Getty not one of their new models or stock just the plain old Getty license and they do still offer them I know a few new contributors.
Thanks,
Jonathan
Getty pays me 20% on all RF, and 30%-40% on all RM images.
-
Getty pays me 20% on all RF, and 30%-40% on all RM images.
Yes, I'm pretty sure that's the norm.
-
Getty pays me 20% on all RF, and 30%-40% on all RM images.
Yes, I'm pretty sure that's the norm.
Not sure what the norm is, but my contract with Getty states these are the rates, and most Getty shooters I know get the same, so yeah maybe it is the norm. 20% for RF, 30% for out of territory RM, and 40% in territory RM (USA). This is a Getty direct contract, not a IS in the backdoor to Getty contract. Judging from my monthly statements from Getty, I'd say it's fairly accurate.
-
Not gonna start a new thread, just a bit of anecdotal evidence that speaks to me. Had my first zero download day on IS for what must be over five years. So for me personally, the death of IStock certainly has not been postponed.