MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: gostwyck on February 04, 2010, 07:50
-
Following the sad demise of Stockxpert and in particular the extraordinary way Fotolia is treating it's contributors you may well now be considering the option of exclusivity with Istock.
Skim down to the bottom of this post now if you if you prefer to avoid the number-crunching and just want to see the final figures.
Before January's changes at IS working out how much you might expect to earn was easy enough by simply adding the exclusivity bonus, appropriate to your canister level, to your existing earnings. However since the Exclusive collection has been introduced, where images are sold at higher prices, it is not so easy to work out the likely effect.
Firstly you need to know the sizes/quantities in which your images are sold and then work out how many credits it would have cost to buy them using both sets of prices. The ratio between the two sums can then be applied to existing earnings and the exclusivity bonus added to reach a total earnings figure.
I've done this twice now firstly with a sample of 120 recent sales and then again with a further sample of 200 sales __ 320 sales in total. On both occasions the ratio of credits between the two price sets was 61%.
Of course there may be some buyers who on occasions will choose to buy a cheaper non-exclusive image over an exclusive image so we need to try and factor that into our calculations although it is always going to be a guess. For the sake of this exercise I've assumed that total sales will reduce by 7% giving a handy final ratio figure of 50%.
The increase in earnings offered by exclusivity, at the different canister levels, is therefore likely to be approximately as follows;
Diamond - Multiply existing earnings by 3X
Gold - Multiply by 2.6X
Silver - Multiply by 2.25X
Bronze - Multiply by 1.9X
Obviously your mileage may vary but at least it is something to go on. As we all know sales vary on a daily/monthly/seasonal basis so trying to project future earnings can never be an exact science.
Of course I should also have mentioned that if you become exclusive you will also be eligible to submit files to the Vetta collection and, later in the year, the Exclusive Plus collection both of which should increase earnings further.
-
A big factor that is hard to predict is the influence of best match. Better placement of your images could have quite a big impact on earnings.
-
A big factor that is hard to predict is the influence of best match. Better placement of your images could have quite a big impact on earnings.
Very true but I keep an extremely close eye on the best match, by monitoring where my images appear in a number of my niche subjects, and I've seen no obvious changes for months __ other than the introduction of the Vetta collection of course.
I'd like to think that Istock has learned from the mistakes of the past when it introduced crude changes to the best match with all sorts of unintended consequences. Supposedly the dominant factor nowadays is the keywords actually used when an image is purchased, the sort-order effectively being controlled primarily by the buyers __ which is how it should be.
-
Nice analysis.
Another variable for some people is the increased upload limits that exclusives get.
-
Yeah it has become more stable, however, I still believe it preferes exclusives. Also the time factor plays a role. Getting images online faster (due to faster review times) can also help an image. An image can shoot to the front if it gets a few downloads fast. Not to mention how Vetta was pushed infront (first page for popular searches is often filled with Vetta images).
-
If it was 4x I would be there like a shot but at 3x I will have to give it a lot of thought.
I also have a lot of loyalty to Dreamstime so I will wait and see how Fotolia pan out as they are stll consistently my best earner and I really hope that they come up with a better offer for us.
Thanks for spending the time to do the numbers for us.
Diamond - Multiply existing earnings by 3X
-
Thanks for that info, Gostwyck. It is very helpful.
-
I wonder if too many people go exclusive, there will be a dilution of earnings? Istock might attract more buyers but the other sites already have more images being accepted each week, so buyers might not be so keen to move. The higher prices for exclusives might also put them off and most of the big selling images on istock are being replicated by copycats.
I am still going to base my decisions on the amount I am earning, as long as that goes up every year, I will stick with using as many sites as I can. If things change, I can reconsider.
-
Informative post, thanks.
Supposedly the dominant factor nowadays is the keywords actually used when an image is purchased, the sort-order effectively being controlled primarily by the buyers __ which is how it should be.
Can you elaborate on this please?
-
My decision will also ultimately be based on earnings and I will only move when I'm sure that I can make as much money as an IS exclusive as I do as an independent. The gap between the 2 is getting smaller and smaller.
-
If it was 4x I would be there like a shot but at 3x I will have to give it a lot of thought.
I also have a lot of loyalty to Dreamstime so I will wait and see how Fotolia pan out as they are stll consistently my best earner and I really hope that they come up with a better offer for us.
My best guess, when eventually the Plus collection is introduced and perhaps with a few Vetta sales, is that a Diamond contributor will end up with roughly 4x non-exclusive earnings. All we know about Plus so far is that it will be introduced 'later', will be self-edited by the contributor, be up to 20% of a portfolio and be priced 'somewhere between Exclusive and Vetta'. Assuming you can select plenty of your best-selling images it should be quite a boost.
I too have loyalty to DT and SS as well but I am losing some confidence in their ability to grow our earnings.
Fotolia are by far my fastest growing agency for earnings but those earnings would been growing a lot faster if they hadn't pulled my next Ranking level 3 years out of reach when I was weeks away from it, then reduced my commission % and then, just to add insult to injury, increased prices to customers by up to 33% and passed none of it on to me. Not only that but they do it all usually without the courtesy of an announcement and follow it up with rude outbursts if anyone dares to query them. For the sake of my health and sanity I just don't think it is worth the cost of doing business with them. This isn't the end of the shenanigans at Fotolia either, this is just the start __ but more on that later.
-
Great information Gostwyck. According to that calculation I would have made around 17% more for the month if I had been exclusive.
-
Stop counting the numbers... Istock XL= 7.50$ XXL= 9.25$ XXXL= 11.20$ And that's only for a bronze canister
What you get elsewhere... 0.35$
The chances that Istock exclusivity give you what all other agencies give you are great. I know it does with me :)
-
Stop counting the numbers... Istock XL= 7.50$ XXL= 9.25$ XXXL= 11.20$ And that's only for a bronze canister
What you get elsewhere... 0.35$
The chances that Istock exclusivity give you what all other agencies give you are great. I know it does with me :)
I get a lot more than $11.20 with some of the sites I use :)
-
Informative post, thanks.
Supposedly the dominant factor nowadays is the keywords actually used when an image is purchased, the sort-order effectively being controlled primarily by the buyers __ which is how it should be.
Can you elaborate on this please?
Remember that the best match is made up of a number of factors and is subject to change. However, the implementation of BM2 had a factor built in which would auto-rerank keywords according to buyer popularity. So, say you had a bowl of apples. You keyword, bowl, apple, fruit. Someone buys it on a search for apple. Apple sort of 'gets a point' for buyer popularity. If the next time someone buys it on a search for bowl, apple, both of these words 'get a point'. If someone buys it on 'bowl fruit', these get a point. So now your first keyword is bowl, as that's been searched for twice.
Note that it's not as crude or as simple as that. Some think that there would be a negative rating for keywords not searched on, but they've never replied to my questions as to why they think that, and I don't think that's true, but WDIK?
It has the good side effect of pushing spam further down. For instance, if you had spammed 'pear' - as I used to see a lot when I started on iStock - the word 'pear' should quickly get moved to the bottom and out of harm's way on buyer searches.
It's possible also that it would have an unfortunate bad side effect of buyer behaviour perhaps pushing a relevant search term down, for example if your first set of buyers bought on 'bowl' or 'fruit' or 'bowl fruit', your keyword 'apple', which is very relevant, would be pushed down and maybe wouldn't appear on the first page on a search for apples after a while.
-
Stop counting the numbers... Istock XL= 7.50$ XXL= 9.25$ XXXL= 11.20$ And that's only for a bronze canister
What you get elsewhere... 0.35$
The chances that Istock exclusivity give you what all other agencies give you are great. I know it does with me :)
I sell very few at XL or above, but L at $6+ (Silver) is very nice.
-
This is all calculated on the NOW. I'm wondering what will happen at iStock/Getty once they have the leverage to make changes without a concern for pissing off a bunch of exclusives.
Once they have the majority of BigNames in their exclusive ranks ... what happens when they change the requirements for the next level, or cut the commission, or change the meaning of "credits.?"
I think the only way to keep the agencies honest is diversity. Why do you think DT is pushing so hard for exclusivity? Or, why is iStock making it so much more lucrative?
All rules and calculations are subject to change.
-
What if they kill all competition? Only 3 more left... Corbis should buy one of them long time ago instead of homebrewing it's own variants that never catch up.
-
Stop counting the numbers... Istock XL= 7.50$ XXL= 9.25$ XXXL= 11.20$ And that's only for a bronze canister
What you get elsewhere... 0.35$
The chances that Istock exclusivity give you what all other agencies give you are great. I know it does with me :)
I sell very few at XL or above, but L at $6+ (Silver) is very nice.
I sell a lot of XL and even some XXL and once a while XXXL. That only started to happen since my portfolio is not available through subscription downloads. It may be only a coincidence, I don't know, but it feel GREAT to not see any 30-33-35 cents anywhere. Even for a XS I get 75 cents 8)
-
I sell very few at XL or above, but L at $6+ (Silver) is very nice.
I sell a lot of XL and even some XXL and once a while XXXL. That only started to happen since my portfolio is not available through subscription downloads. It may be only a coincidence, I don't know, but it feel GREAT to not see any 30-33-35 cents anywhere. Even for a XS I get 75 cents 8)
[/quote]
This is good to know, Vonkara. Especially for those of us interested in going exclusive.
-
What you get elsewhere... 0.35$
I get quite some 0.19$ at iStock, and the least I have at DT is 0.35$. But OK, as an exclusive that would be 0.40$. I almost never get L or above at IS. Thanks GW by the way for the analysis.
There is a point I never saw mentioned here, and that goes for all exclusivity. I couldn't live with the idea that part of my images, after all the work, would be buried forever. You can't even offer your rejects for free, and that excludes Flickr. Although lately I have 100% acceptance on my overwhite model shots on IS, there are some more deviant images that get rejected, not for technical reasons, but for concept.
An example that was rejected for concept on IS just today is here (http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/50227/50227,1263615554,1/stock-photo-airport-terminal-departure-gate-interior-with-head-sign-reminding-of-the-carbon-footstep-of-travel-44575945.jpg). Now this kind of image might sink into oblivion, or sell well, you'll never know in advance. But at least give it a chance. The SS buyers kindof liked it, the week that it has been online.
More important, some of my travel/landscape shots are part of myself and I couldn't bear that they would be darkened forever. This is not purely emotional, since some cities/places are amongst my best sellers both on DT and on SS. But I don't think those were accepted on IS for "distortion" (it was an OLY 300 cam). Of course, I could sell them as RM Editorial not cloning some distant faces out, but still.
I don't care if my studio shots are rejected. I can easily reshoot the concept with another model. I'm not emotionally connected with those shots. They feel more like "work".
-
what happens when they change the requirements for the next level, or cut the commission, or change the meaning of "credits.?"
I think the only way to keep the agencies honest is diversity. Why do you think DT is pushing so hard for exclusivity? Or, why is iStock making it so much more lucrative?
All rules and calculations are subject to change.
The way I have started to look at it all is that it's all a crapshoot. There are pitfalls if you do go exclusive and there are pitfalls if you don't. You just have to pick one and go with it and hope for the best.
-
There is a point I never saw mentioned here, and that goes for all exclusivity. I couldn't live with the idea that part of my images, after all the work, would be buried forever. You can't even offer your rejects for free, and that excludes Flickr. Although lately I have 100% acceptance on my overwhite model shots on IS, there are some more deviant images that get rejected, not for technical reasons, but for concept.
I don't care if my studio shots are rejected. I can easily reshoot the concept with another model. I'm not emotionally connected with those shots. They feel more like "work".
I also does a lot of concept myself. It still hurt me that Istock don't approve them. My vintage car all got rejected many times for bad isolation. Still they were approved at all other agencies I was submitting to. I know what the problem is. I didn't took those pics in studio but in the street. It was the longest photoshop job I ever done to isolate those vintage cars. Something like 2 hours each cars, plus some hard cloning job.
It's just harder and longer to do than what I can achieve. Lately I thought about paying a designer who is used to work with Istock images, to do the isolation job at least. But designers are busy people lol. Those pictures have been removed from SS 2 months ago when they removed most of the cars images. That was also a reason to go with IS, because they were in my best sellers on SS.
I didn't given up on those images yet, but yes I wish that Istock accept the collage/concept images. I have done a couple that goes through, but they never sold more than 10 times. Istock buyers really like untouched images I think.
-
What you get elsewhere... 0.35$
I get quite some 0.19$ at iStock, and the least I have at DT is 0.35$. But OK, as an exclusive that would be 0.40$.
XSmall Regular 0.62
I just had this one today. That's the lowest I have received as a bronze exclusive yet. Other XS are mostly 0.70$ - 0.75$
-
thanks for this. very seriously crucnhing numbers and considering options. unfortunately just been told it is too late to ask to be 'grandfathered' for next cannister to be held, so diamond just became a long way off :(
-
It's just harder and longer to do than what I can achieve. Lately I thought about paying a designer who is used to work with Istock images, to do the isolation job at least. But designers are busy people lol. Those pictures have been removed from SS 2 months ago when they removed most of the cars images. That was also a reason to go with IS, because they were in my best sellers on SS.
I didn't given up on those images yet, but yes I wish that Istock accept the collage/concept images. I have done a couple that goes through, but they never sold more than 10 times. Istock buyers really like untouched images I think.
I would save your time and money Vonkara. I'm pretty sure Istock has been rejecting and removing all shots where cars are the main focus for awhile now.
-
I would save your time and money Vonkara. I'm pretty sure Istock has been rejecting and removing all shots where cars are the main focus for awhile now.
Dammit :'( Let's isolate cats and wheel chairs now
-
what happens when they change the requirements for the next level, or cut the commission, or change the meaning of "credits.?"
I think the only way to keep the agencies honest is diversity. Why do you think DT is pushing so hard for exclusivity? Or, why is iStock making it so much more lucrative?
All rules and calculations are subject to change.
The way I have started to look at it all is that it's all a crapshoot. There are pitfalls if you do go exclusive and there are pitfalls if you don't. You just have to pick one and go with it and hope for the best.
How much time it takes to feed 6 or 7 agencies ?
I would go exclusive and spend time shooting more photos.
As for the putting all eggs in one basket : this is the last thing to worry
as istock is owned by Getty ... if Getty goes bankrupt than the whole
stock industry will follow, so with istock you're pretty safe and you
know they pay on time.
-
The concern isn't so much about what happens if Getty goes bankrupt, the concern is what happens when the current owners sell Getty and the new owners realise that its quite feasible to increase profits further at the expense of contributors. Canisters will have been moved once without any hitch - whats to stop them from changing the % that's attached to them?
Unfortunately similar moves by the competition mean that there's nothing stopping IS now anyway.
Personally I think its time that contributors had a good discussion about developing more contributor friendly alternatives - not just another discussion thread on here, but something face to face.
-
The concern isn't so much about what happens if Getty goes bankrupt, the concern is what happens when the current owners sell Getty and the new owners realise that its quite feasible to increase profits further at the expense of contributors. Canisters will have been moved once without any hitch - whats to stop them from changing the % that's attached to them?
Unfortunately similar moves by the competition mean that there's nothing stopping IS now anyway.
Personally I think its time that contributors had a good discussion about developing more contributor friendly alternatives - not just another discussion thread on here, but something face to face.
And who's stopping iStock from paying new contributors just 5% of a sale ?
Nobody, and i'm sure contributors will still apply anyway as 5% of a 1$ sale
is still better than 5% of zero sales.
It's an endless rat race to the bottom.
People will stop contributing once they spend more than what they earn,
but there's still an infinite supply of amateurs and Flickrs willing to join
micros at ANY price.
-
The concern at the moment is that iStock appears to have gone mad and to be attempting hara-kiri by urging its customers to go away and save money by joining a cheaper sister site. Look at the long Thinkstock thread over there (too long, too many irrelevant posts, but it is important).
Just as exclusivity starts to look alluring, IS shoots itself in the .... head.
-
The concern at the moment is that iStock appears to have gone mad and to be attempting hara-kiri by urging its customers to go away and save money by joining a cheaper sister site. Look at the long Thinkstock thread over there (too long, too many irrelevant posts, but it is important).
Just as exclusivity starts to look alluring, IS shoots itself in the .... head.
What did you expect ?
Only small specialized agencies respect and care about their photographers.
But the golden days of stock are gone forever and small agencies are
closing the doors one after the other.
Now it's all about producing industrial quantities of images and hope they sell
well.
RM agencies are doing the same but at least they let you decide if you
want to join or not their special deals, discounts, and distribution sales.
For instance the very same image can sell for 500$ in USA and for 5$ in China or Bolivia,
up to you to opt-in or opt-out.
Alamy has deals with UK newspapers paying peanuts, it's not unusual to get paid less than 10$
when making a sale this way and we're talking about national newspapers selling millions of copies.
-
What did you expect ? Only small specialized agencies respect and care about their photographers.
But the golden days of stock are gone forever and small agencies are
closing the doors one after the other.
This is totally what I expected from istock/Getty. That's why I have been independent up until this point. Which is proving to be a smart decision on my part.
I'm not convinced that the golden days of stock are gone forever...people still need to buy images for print and web. What's gone is respect from big business for the person who is generating the income for them...they are trying to starve us and push us down so that we will be grateful when we are offered $.25 for an image. After all, we're in a recession, we should consider ourselves lucky we even have a job/micro sales at all!
The only thing that will close the doors of the smaller-than-Getty agencies is for people to keep falling for the crap the Getty's are dishing out.
-
What did you expect ? Only small specialized agencies respect and care about their photographers.
But the golden days of stock are gone forever and small agencies are
closing the doors one after the other.
This is totally what I expected from istock/Getty. That's why I have been independent up until this point. Which is proving to be a smart decision on my part.
I'm not convinced that the golden days of stock are gone forever...people still need to buy images for print and web. What's gone is respect from big business for the person who is generating the income for them...they are trying to starve us and push us down so that we will be grateful when we are offered $.25 for an image. After all, we're in a recession, we should consider ourselves lucky we even have a job/micro sales at all!
The only thing that will close the doors of the smaller-than-Getty agencies is for people to keep falling for the crap the Getty's are dishing out.
Getty has the long-term vision we often lack.
They know their job and they know there's nowadays an infinite supply of
cheap images and new contributors willing to get back only 20% of a 1$ sale.
Who can blame them ?
Photographers are to be blamed, not Getty.
It's insulting selling at 0.25$ but what should i say when i make a 5$ sale for
an image printed on The Guardian sold as RM ?
RM prices will soon become "mid-stock" if this trend keeps going.
And microstock will reach the bottom of the barrel and start digging...
-
RM prices will soon become "mid-stock" if this trend keeps going.
And microstock will reach the bottom of the barrel and start digging...
Only if people keep believing that "the inevitable is going to happen and we can't do anything about it" and keep taking less and less for their work, while the agency takes more and more.
-
RM prices will soon become "mid-stock" if this trend keeps going.
And microstock will reach the bottom of the barrel and start digging...
Only if people keep believing that "the inevitable is going to happen and we can't do anything about it" and keep taking less and less for their work, while the agency takes more and more.
They've the buyers, we don't.
That's why we are getting screwed.
There's no way i can invest millions in marketing to find the buyers myself.
What do you suggest ?
A photographers' strike ? A boycott ?
-
They've the buyers, we don't.
That's why we are getting screwed.
There's no way i can invest millions in marketing to find the buyers myself.
What do you suggest ?
A photographers' strike ? A boycott ?
Surely exclusivity with IS (forget the Thinkstock thing for now) is at least one way of ensuring a reasonably fair price and 40% commission? Almost all the microstock agencies, with the exception of SS, have been walking image prices up for several years now.
Btw, those newpapers 'selling millions' are mainly losing money nowadays. I used to work in the industry and it was well known then that over 80% of revenue was generated from advertising which, with falling circulation, the internet, etc has been plummetting for years.
-
"It's insulting selling at 0.25$ but what should i say when i make a 5$ sale for
an image printed on The Guardian sold as RM ?"
Hello there Macrosaur!
I'd be a bit annoyed, their minimum rates is around £70 for a small head shot. Then, having got over my annoyance I'd have realised I'm small fry, my picture wasn't exclusive, and their budget for pics is shot to pieces.
I can't blame them, however as yet I don't believe the Uk newspapers have taken to using lots of Macro - deals with Alamy, yes, but not large volume macro. Why not?
Rgds Oldhand
-
"It's insulting selling at 0.25$ but what should i say when i make a 5$ sale for
an image printed on The Guardian sold as RM ?"
Hello there Macrosaur!
I'd be a bit annoyed, their minimum rates is around £70 for a small head shot. Then, having got over my annoyance I'd have realised I'm small fry, my picture wasn't exclusive, and their budget for pics is shot to pieces.
I can't blame them, however as yet I don't believe the Uk newspapers have taken to using lots of Macro - deals with Alamy, yes, but not large volume macro. Why not?
Rgds Oldhand
It's quite random at the moment : sometimes they pay 50, 70, or 100$, and sometimes as low as 5$.
Your only option is opting out but when you opt-in you're locked in the newspaper deal for 12 months.
I'm unsure about what to do.
-
The concern at the moment is that iStock appears to have gone mad and to be attempting hara-kiri by urging its customers to go away and save money by joining a cheaper sister site. Look at the long Thinkstock thread over there (too long, too many irrelevant posts, but it is important).
Just as exclusivity starts to look alluring, IS shoots itself in the .... head.
What did you expect ?
Only small specialized agencies respect and care about their photographers.
What I didn't expect is that Getty would go out one morning and shoot its prize milch cow. It's nothing to do with respecting photographers, it's about taking a valuable ultra-successful business and adopting a policy that seems designed to wreck it and reduce the parent company's income. It seems irrational, which is not what I expect from Getty.
Your suggestion that Getty wants to flood the micro market with a pile of point and shoot subscription trash gives me some hope that a better-quality midstock market will emerge for those who want something better than rubbish. Of course, if Getty has wiped out istock in the meantime, it won't be them.
-
The concern at the moment is that iStock appears to have gone mad and to be attempting hara-kiri by urging its customers to go away and save money by joining a cheaper sister site. Look at the long Thinkstock thread over there (too long, too many irrelevant posts, but it is important).
Just as exclusivity starts to look alluring, IS shoots itself in the .... head.
What did you expect ?
Only small specialized agencies respect and care about their photographers.
What I didn't expect is that Getty would go out one morning and shoot its prize milch cow. It's nothing to do with respecting photographers, it's about taking a valuable ultra-successful business and adopting a policy that seems designed to wreck it and reduce the parent company's income. It seems irrational, which is not what I expect from Getty.
Your suggestion that Getty wants to flood the micro market with a pile of point and shoot subscription trash gives me some hope that a better-quality midstock market will emerge for those who want something better than rubbish. Of course, if Getty has wiped out istock in the meantime, it won't be them.
I think some of you should stick to shooting photos and stop speculating over what the largest photo industry company is going to do because it seems you guys are all about conspiracy theories ...
Jon Klein has more of a grasp on the industry and it shows since he's taken iStock from a small company to a force with over $200 million (? can't remember what they were saying) in sales in 5 years. iStock knows what they are doing, and they are the ones pushing midstock pricing on their site. But hey, I don't expect you to do anything but hate on what they are doing anyways ... its just easier to complain
-
I think some of you should stick to shooting photos and stop speculating over what the largest photo industry company is going to do because it seems you guys are all about conspiracy theories ...
Jon Klein has more of a grasp on the industry and it shows ... ... its just easier to complain
Did you actually bother to find out what they did to themselves on Friday?
-
Jon Klein has more of a grasp on the industry and it shows since he's taken iStock from a small company to a force with over $200 million (? can't remember what they were saying) in sales in 5 years. iStock knows what they are doing, and they are the ones pushing midstock pricing on their site. But hey, I don't expect you to do anything but hate on what they are doing anyways ... its just easier to complain
Do you work for Getty ?
What do you buy with 0.25$ ?
A half cup of instant coffee ?
-
In case you don't know, Istock sent a "contact sheet" to all its customers on Friday advising them that it might save money if they stopped using iStock and started using Thinkstock instead.
How does that fit in with the "Istock knows what its doing" theory? And why do you, ichiro17, think I would hate everything Istock does?
-
The concern at the moment is that iStock appears to have gone mad and to be attempting hara-kiri by urging its customers to go away and save money by joining a cheaper sister site. Look at the long Thinkstock thread over there (too long, too many irrelevant posts, but it is important).
Just as exclusivity starts to look alluring, IS shoots itself in the .... head.
What did you expect ?
Only small specialized agencies respect and care about their photographers.
What I didn't expect is that Getty would go out one morning and shoot its prize milch cow. It's nothing to do with respecting photographers, it's about taking a valuable ultra-successful business and adopting a policy that seems designed to wreck it and reduce the parent company's income. It seems irrational, which is not what I expect from Getty.
Your suggestion that Getty wants to flood the micro market with a pile of point and shoot subscription trash gives me some hope that a better-quality midstock market will emerge for those who want something better than rubbish. Of course, if Getty has wiped out istock in the meantime, it won't be them.
Microstock would be great as just a place selling cheap "leftovers" for graphic designers.
That's actually how iStocker started.
Problem is they're now asking high cost pictures that need to be technically perfect to pass their QC
costing time and energy not to mention 1000s of $ in gear.
Who can really sustain such a business model apart the few top sellers and the ones who
own Getty ?
Costs go up, profits go down.
And here's people calling us crybabies for pointing this out.... ???
-
Jon Klein has more of a grasp on the industry and it shows ...
Was that the same bloke who was in charge of Getty when their share price went from over $90 to about $25 in just over 2 years and ended up with them being sold on the cheap to H & F?
Actually I largely agree with you but I do believe that a cock-up is being made in the way Thinkstock, etc is being handled __ to say the least. They already had a worthy, established and profitable 'sub site' in StockXpert, complete with over 4.5M images. Surely it would have been easier and quicker to have modified StockXpert to the business model they wanted than start over again?
My own impression is that there are different camps with different responsibilities within Getty and that one side, in pursuit of their own ambitions, is not concerned with 'unintended consequences' on other parts of the business. I think the extraordinary silence from TPTB at IS on the subject of Thinkstock speaks volumes. I suspect they despise it every much as we do.
-
Isn't it possible that Istock might have grown to what it is despite Klein and thanks to Bruce Livingstone, who is now no longer there to protect his baby?
-
The concern at the moment is that iStock appears to have gone mad and to be attempting hara-kiri by urging its customers to go away and save money by joining a cheaper sister site. Look at the long Thinkstock thread over there (too long, too many irrelevant posts, but it is important).
Just as exclusivity starts to look alluring, IS shoots itself in the .... head.
What did you expect ?
Only small specialized agencies respect and care about their photographers.
What I didn't expect is that Getty would go out one morning and shoot its prize milch cow. It's nothing to do with respecting photographers, it's about taking a valuable ultra-successful business and adopting a policy that seems designed to wreck it and reduce the parent company's income. It seems irrational, which is not what I expect from Getty.
Your suggestion that Getty wants to flood the micro market with a pile of point and shoot subscription trash gives me some hope that a better-quality midstock market will emerge for those who want something better than rubbish. Of course, if Getty has wiped out istock in the meantime, it won't be them.
I think some of you should stick to shooting photos and stop speculating over what the largest photo industry company is going to do because it seems you guys are all about conspiracy theories ...
Thinkstock is not a theory
Denis
-
My own impression is that there are different camps with different responsibilities within Getty and that one side, in pursuit of their own ambitions, is not concerned with 'unintended consequences' on other parts of the business. I think the extraordinary silence from TPTB at IS on the subject of Thinkstock speaks volumes. I suspect they despise it every much as we do.
To be fair, I think that's the sorry truth. >:(
-
F&H just want to pump up the balance sheet ready for a profitable sale, why would they care about contributors?
-
And after they make a profitable sale, the new owners will want to make more profit. It is a shame we can't get together and buy them, I would put in $5 :)
-
F&H just want to pump up the balance sheet ready for a profitable sale, why would they care about contributors?
Who can blame them ?
Their choice is about either screwing new contributors getting 80% of their sales or
screwing their exclusives getting 60% of their sales but also selling their high res files
at 0.25$ via ThinkStock.
However we turn the cards on the table it's a win-win scenario... for Getty.
-
With the introduction of E+ the crown looks more and more tempting, even though SS has always been my number 1. I did a similar calculation (March + April earnings) and the increase for me would be 50% for the increased prices, 50% for the cannister (I think I'll be able to reach silver before the change) which totals in a 2.25x increase (just what gostwyks number is for silver cannisters). That gets me to about 70% of my current earnings. The factors that are not taken into account are: Vetta, E+, higher upload limits, position of my images in the best match, more time for producing images. Close call I think.
-
Stop counting the numbers... Istock XL= 7.50$ XXL= 9.25$ XXXL= 11.20$ And that's only for a bronze canister
What you get elsewhere... 0.35$
The chances that Istock exclusivity give you what all other agencies give you are great. I know it does with me :)
Depending on whether it's a normal sale or an Infinite Collection Sale, my commission is $21.60 or $50 respectively as an exclusive at Fotolia.
-Mat
-
.nevermind.
-
.nevermind.
Yep, save your breath. :)
-
fact is,
you're all less than 10 $ / photo.
-
Any exclusives out there who can report the effects of the raised prices on exlusive files? Do you sell as much as you did before the raise or has the number of sales gone down?
-
Numbers have gone up for me :)
-
Sales down, income up.
-
Any exclusives out there who can report the effects of the raised prices on exlusive files? Do you sell as much as you did before the raise or has the number of sales gone down?
Remember the decreasing sales can just be a result of the ever-increasing number of files in the collection, so most of us get a smaller slice of the pie. It's just about impossible to attribute reasons to falling downfalls. My downfalls were in freefall before the price increases. In fact, my Vetta files sell above my expectations, even with non-Vetta similars, and I've had 3 Exc+ sales with only about 1/4 of my allocation used, and among very few sales since Exc+ was rolled out.
-
Ive sent dozens and dozens of buyers to IS over the years ofcourse with a selfish interest but also IS has gained a lot and its a great place. However, the site is now getting messy, its too much of special this and special that with all differant pricing, etc.
Some 95% of buyers just want an ordinary pic, they dont want to get involved in all this structuring, one guy said to me: I dont even know how to buy there anymore.
If Gettys ambition is to slowly turn IS into Macro, etc then they should just go ahead and do it! all this creeping around the bush is just confusing buyers and contributors for that matter. Besides, they cant survive on a 18% exclusivity out of total contributors? so why doesnt Getty just turn the whole site into a giant RF agency, its going towards that anyway.
best.
-
It's just about impossible to attribute reasons to falling downfalls.
I agree, although I see a definite correlation between price increase and fall offs in downloads. Fortunately I have so far always seen a greater income increase compared with my sales decrease so I'm fine with that. I believe IS has tried to position itself at the higher end of the market and so far succeeds IMHO, you only need to look at the vector quality on IS and see it's far better than many other sites. Designers with bigger budgets who appreciate quality , and to whom a dollar or two increase is of no concern, will always pick IS first. The Mom and Pop buyers can shop at less professional sites.
-
It's just about impossible to attribute reasons to falling downfalls.
I agree, although I see a definite correlation between price increase and fall offs in downloads. Fortunately I have so far always seen a greater income increase compared with my sales decrease so I'm fine with that. I believe IS has tried to position itself at the higher end of the market and so far succeeds IMHO, you only need to look at the vector quality on IS and see it's far better than many other sites. Designers with bigger budgets who appreciate quality , and to whom a dollar or two increase is of no concern, will always pick IS first. The Mom and Pop buyers can shop at less professional sites.
True! but youre talking about a meager 5% of buyers ( according to all stats) how are 20 micros going to cash in on that? in this Micro world, its the little ordinary guy thats need looking after, hes the one putting food on your table.
-
The Mom and Pop buyers can shop at less professional sites.
This would be comforting if it were true, but the fact is that the top four sites are all very professional and have a lot to offer buyers, both in choice and service.
And the other three besides Istock have the added benefit to buyers of being stable and not so confusing with changes to structure and pricing several times a year.
Istock doesn't even have necessarily the most extensive collection. I just noticed yet another top seller, with extremely professional desirable images (Kurhan) who has over 12k images on DT and less than 1k on Istock. This is clearly not down to just upload limits because I have managed to get 5k on Istock in the same period of time she's been there. It is very telling that some of the top producers in the industry no longer find Istock worth bothering with.
-
The Mom and Pop buyers can shop at less professional sites.
Istock doesn't even have necessarily the most extensive collection. I just noticed yet another top seller, with extremely professional desirable images (Kurhan) who has over 12k images on DT and less than 1k on Istock. This is clearly not down to just upload limits because I have managed to get 5k on Istock in the same period of time she's been there. It is very telling that some of the top producers in the industry no longer find Istock worth bothering with.
I think Kurhan is an exception. Yuri Arcurs, Belleimages, Iofoto, Phildate, Redbaron, Monkeybusiness and many other stopped uploading to Dreamstime.
I'm from few weeks exclusive at IS and my last weekends' numbers are better than entirely months at DT. Some do better on one site, some on other. Microstock has strange rules.
-
The Mom and Pop buyers can shop at less professional sites.
Istock doesn't even have necessarily the most extensive collection. I just noticed yet another top seller, with extremely professional desirable images (Kurhan) who has over 12k images on DT and less than 1k on Istock. This is clearly not down to just upload limits because I have managed to get 5k on Istock in the same period of time she's been there. It is very telling that some of the top producers in the industry no longer find Istock worth bothering with.
I think Kurhan is an exception. Yuri Arcurs, Belleimages, Iofoto, Phildate, Redbaron, Monkeybusiness and many other stopped uploading to Dreamstime.
I'm from few weeks exclusive at IS and my last weekends' numbers are better than entirely months at DT. Some do better on one site, some on other. Microstock has strange rules.
Lisa is absoloutly right! equal quality is to be found in all the major, 3 or 4 agencies, no doubt what so ever and ofcourse in the long run the cheapest will win, human nature isnt it?
If we go on thinking were better at IS, we are seriously deluding ourselves. The Vetta stands out a bit but not much.
Remember, were talking nickle/dime prices here, a buyer whos gonna spend 100 bucks plus isnt visiting these places at all. I think we have to be very careful indeed the next couple of months, all this is too much alike what the Image-Bank went through in 93 and sure enough, look what happend! only differance is, today its digital, no big deal.
-
True! but youre talking about a meager 5% of buyers ( according to all stats) how are 20 micros going to cash in on that? in this Micro world, its the little ordinary guy thats need looking after, hes the one putting food on your table.
Excuse my ignorance but what stats are you referring to? I'm exclusive at istock so i cant say much for the other agencies and their buyers habits. I feel that a good chunk of the macro market has gone into the micro market (at least in istock) so they are used to seeing much higher prices and dont mind these higher prices especially with the E+ prices. With this price hike, i believe Getty is trying to herd the mom and pop shoppers to thinkstock which is troublesome.
-
Will the mom and pop shoppers buy a subscription? I still don't understand what they are doing with thinkstock. Making istock prices higher and then expecting us to accept the lowest subs commissions doesn't make any sense to me. If they want thinkstock to work, they should offer non-exclusives at least the same commissions as shutterstock. I also didn't understand why they closed StockXpert, it looks to me that a lot of the buyers there went to their rival sites.
-
Will the mom and pop shoppers buy a subscription?
I am going to say no. But it depends on your definition of a mom and pop shopper. I consider myself a mom and pop shopper. I freelance work or work full-time as a graphic designer. I have to buy stock photos for projects. I am not like an ad agency, where I buy tons of images a year and charge outrageous prices for my work. The businesses I work for are small to medium-sized.
I would not invest in a subscription because I just don't buy/use that kind of volume. I want to be able to get exactly the photo I need and I will shop at any of the sites to get it. If a couple of sites have the same image, I buy it from the lowest-cost on-demand site. For the majority of my projects, I can't use the "artsy" stuff. I buy more "real people, real life, everyday" type of photos, that depict the same. Now and again I get a juicy job and get to run free with it and might look for some "out of the norm" type of image, but not typically.
I think that I am fairly typical amongst the "mom and pop shopper" category.
-
a buyer whos gonna spend 100 bucks plus isnt visiting these places at all
You're wrong there. I've been contacted by some big buyers, one in particular, via iStock. Lots of people shop there.
-
True! but youre talking about a meager 5% of buyers ( according to all stats) how are 20 micros going to cash in on that? in this Micro world, its the little ordinary guy thats need looking after, hes the one putting food on your table.
Excuse my ignorance but what stats are you referring to? I'm exclusive at istock so i cant say much for the other agencies and their buyers habits. I feel that a good chunk of the macro market has gone into the micro market (at least in istock) so they are used to seeing much higher prices and dont mind these higher prices especially with the E+ prices. With this price hike, i believe Getty is trying to herd the mom and pop shoppers to thinkstock which is troublesome.
Yes indeed, that is troublesome thoughts! Getty isnt exactly doing anything from the godness of their heart. Ive been in their RM since 1993 ( came from Stones and Image-Bank), theyve done some great, great things but the way theyre enforcing things, structures on IS, lately. are very questionable and I cant help wondering where its all gonna end?
-
At least I am not wondering. In 1993 the market was so closed i could not get in. Thanks to internet and Istock I am stock photographer now.
-
At least I am not wondering. In 1993 the market was so closed i could not get in. Thanks to internet and Istock I am stock photographer now.
well mate that was very-------enlighting, Im gonna sleep well at nights knowing you finally got in 15 years later and blooming hell youre a stock photographer.
-
... Besides, they cant survive on a 18% exclusivity out of total contributors? so why doesnt Getty just turn the whole site into a giant RF agency, its going towards that anyway.
best.
80% of the top 200 artists/photographers on IS are exclusive. That counts more than the somewhat irrelevant bottom half of the list making the figure 18% exclusive. No typo 80% of the top contributors (can't account for the ????? people) are Exclusive! Look at the percentage of total downloads that are exclusive, not exclusive contributors percentage and it's a different story.
Top 200 #200 has 65,000 downloads. If you add up all the downloads of the bottom half of IS, or the bottom 15,000 members, they don't have 65,000 total download between them!
Yes they can survive on 80% exclusive contributors, providing the majority of the sales on iStock.
-
Istock doesn't even have necessarily the most extensive collection. I just noticed yet another top seller, with extremely professional desirable images (Kurhan) who has over 12k images on DT and less than 1k on Istock. This is clearly not down to just upload limits because I have managed to get 5k on Istock in the same period of time she's been there. It is very telling that some of the top producers in the industry no longer find Istock worth bothering with.
I think Kurhan is an exception. Yuri Arcurs, Belleimages, Iofoto, Phildate, Redbaron, Monkeybusiness and many other stopped uploading to Dreamstime.
I'm from few weeks exclusive at IS and my last weekends' numbers are better than entirely months at DT. Some do better on one site, some on other. Microstock has strange rules.
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was not making the point specifically about DT and people uploading there. That was just an example.
The point I am making (again) is that all the top people you mentioned have WAY LESS IMAGES on Istock than they do on other top sites.
Even accounting for IS upload limits they should all have larger portfolios on IS than they do unless the highest selling independents just aren't bothering with Istock anymore.
And the above, to repeat myself for the sake of clarity, is to support my opinion that IS doesn't necessarily have all the best of the best images anymore and shouldn't be considered the ONLY professional quality site.
-
Well, as it is known, being exclusivisty anecdotal at other sites, Istock is the only one site were the buyer has access to lots different images, not the same that are everywhere else, a commodity. On a personal note, I would add my opinion about quality: I think that's superior --as a whole-- at IS, because, besides the conventional work, they favor a more artsy trend --Vetta and Vetta-like. I concede that this trend isn't very "stock stuff", but also has its public. it's different from the endless (and generally excellent) variations on the same themes from "big producers" and, anyway, as I said, it's just a personal opinion.
-
Stop counting the numbers... Istock XL= 7.50$ XXL= 9.25$ XXXL= 11.20$ And that's only for a bronze canister
What you get elsewhere... 0.35$
The chances that Istock exclusivity give you what all other agencies give you are great. I know it does with me :)
Like that's a good comparison... The largest image size rates compared to one of the lowest commissions in the business.
We all know that there are so many factors involved, that to simply say istock has the highest commissions is only telling a small part of the story.
-
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was not making the point specifically about DT and people uploading there. That was just an example.
The point I am making (again) is that all the top people you mentioned have WAY LESS IMAGES on Istock than they do on other top sites.
Even accounting for IS upload limits they should all have larger portfolios on IS than they do unless the highest selling independents just aren't bothering with Istock anymore.
And the above, to repeat myself for the sake of clarity, is to support my opinion that IS doesn't necessarily have all the best of the best images anymore and shouldn't be considered the ONLY professional quality site.
Maybe the top independants upload more to other sites because they have less competition at those other sites and thus sell more and make more money. At istock, you have many exclusives with similiar content with a more favorable best match position that is as good as the top independants.
On another note, I would be worried in the coming months if i were an independant at istock with the inclusion E+. I would say that besides the few spectacular selling images, all other images will take another hit and go further down the pages.
-
a buyer whos gonna spend 100 bucks plus isnt visiting these places at all
You're wrong there. I've been contacted by some big buyers, one in particular, via iStock. Lots of people shop there.
Definitely true. I've done plenty of freelance jobs through micros. Some people scoff at higher prices, but many buyers completely understand why freelance projects cost more.
As far as IS having the best vector collection, that's tough to say. They definitely have a lot of great exclusive vector artists and a lot less garbage than others. But, they are also missing a ton of files from good contributors with larger portfolios. Also, they reject a lot of styles from illustrators that are more designer like or use text. Some of those illustrators are really good and just give up in frustration with IS.
-
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was not making the point specifically about DT and people uploading there. That was just an example.
The point I am making (again) is that all the top people you mentioned have WAY LESS IMAGES on Istock than they do on other top sites.
Even accounting for IS upload limits they should all have larger portfolios on IS than they do unless the highest selling independents just aren't bothering with Istock anymore.
And the above, to repeat myself for the sake of clarity, is to support my opinion that IS doesn't necessarily have all the best of the best images anymore and shouldn't be considered the ONLY professional quality site.
Maybe the top independants upload more to other sites because they have less competition at those other sites and thus sell more and make more money. At istock, you have many exclusives with similiar content with a more favorable best match position that is as good as the top independants.
On another note, I would be worried in the coming months if i were an independant at istock with the inclusion E+. I would say that besides the few spectacular selling images, all other images will take another hit and go further down the pages.
No need to worry at all, There are close to 100 Non-excl. Diamond contributors at IS, myself being one of them, Lisa, a double Diamond. That would be a BIG! chunk of serious contributors to slam down.
Dont forget, in the end of day, theyre all accountable to Getty, unfortunately.
Anyhow, all this is speculations, nobody knows where this is going to end and I still trust IS to come up with a reasonable solution, fair to everybody and if they cant well then be it, over and done with and then we know its time to move on. simple as that really.
-
No need to worry at all, There are close to 100 Non-excl. Diamond contributors at IS, myself being one of them, Lisa, a double Diamond. That would be a BIG! chunk of serious contributors to slam down.
Dont forget, in the end of day, theyre all accountable to Getty, unfortunately.
Anyhow, all this is speculations, nobody knows where this is going to end and I still trust IS to come up with a reasonable solution, fair to everybody and if they cant well then be it, over and done with and then we know its time to move on. simple as that really.
I was really talking about the rest of independants that arent at the top. You and the many others at the top need not worry too much since obviously you have the technical skills and know the market.
-
Sales have remained steady this year with istock but if they ever did move my images so far down the ranking that my sales slumped, I would stop uploading. I can live without my earnings from istock and I only accept 20% commission there because sales are so good. If they don't keep that balance, independents will lose motivation to upload and their rival sites will get even more images that aren't available on istock. They wont force me to go exclusive, it has to be my own decision and they would have to pay higher commissions to make me interested. I just can't see that happening.
-
I only accept 20% commission there because sales are so good.
Of course if you were an exclusive with decent sales you'd be getting twice that.
-
I only accept 20% commission there because sales are so good.
Of course if you were an exclusive with decent sales you'd be getting twice that.
But istock make around 25% of my earnings at the moment, so at best it looks like I would be making half what I am now with all the sites I use. Going exclusive there might be right for some people but it obviously wouldn't be a good option for me at the moment, especially now it would take me years to get to the diamond level.
-
I know someone who gave up her exclusivity last year, believing she would make more money spread across multiple sites. Once non exclusive her sales slumped and the additional income from other sites came nowhere near her previous IS income and she's now applied for exclusivity again.
-
I only accept 20% commission there because sales are so good.
Of course if you were an exclusive with decent sales you'd be getting twice that.
But istock make around 25% of my earnings at the moment, so at best it looks like I would be making half what I am now with all the sites I use. Going exclusive there might be right for some people but it obviously wouldn't be a good option for me at the moment, especially now it would take me years to get to the diamond level.
Its a pity really, I and many of my friends would have gone exclusive ages ago if it wasnt for this shakey, unstable best match changes. They tend to hit anybody, doesnt matter if youre Diamond, newbie, exclusive or not.
Just feel its not business like to take that chance. However, that aside, Istock is beyond doubt the most rewarding outfit.
-
IStock has provided me with only 22% of my microstock earnings this year so even though I am at diamond level it wouldn't make sense to go exclusive. Even with Vetta, exclusive + etc it would be impossible to make up the lost 78%
But istock make around 25% of my earnings at the moment, so at best it looks like I would be making half what I am now with all the sites I use. Going exclusive there might be right for some people but it obviously wouldn't be a good option for me at the moment, especially now it would take me years to get to the diamond level.
-
I made nearly 50% more than IS at Fotolia last month and even made over 100 euros more at DT.
However, that aside, Istock is beyond doubt the most rewarding outfit.
-
I know someone who gave up her exclusivity last year, believing she would make more money spread across multiple sites. Once non exclusive her sales slumped and the additional income from other sites came nowhere near her previous IS income and she's now applied for exclusivity again.
I am sure it is difficult starting from scratch on the independent sites, as it would be for anyone starting with istock now. I hope there is a balance maintained and we can all do what works best for us.
-
Stop counting the numbers... Istock XL= 7.50$ XXL= 9.25$ XXXL= 11.20$ And that's only for a bronze canister
What you get elsewhere... 0.35$
The chances that Istock exclusivity give you what all other agencies give you are great. I know it does with me :)
Like that's a good comparison... The largest image size rates compared to one of the lowest commissions in the business.
We all know that there are so many factors involved, that to simply say istock has the highest commissions is only telling a small part of the story.
This was not intended to be a comparison, but my own reaction at this thread from my experience as independant. When I was independant, I was receiving between 50% to 70% of subs at SS, DT, FT, 123RF and StockXpert. It was intend to say how I feel better now at IS as exclusive, nothing more serious than that
-
I and many of my friends would have gone exclusive ages ago if it wasnt for this shakey, unstable best match changes. They tend to hit anybody, doesnt matter if youre Diamond, newbie, exclusive or not.
I do not think that the best match is "shakey, unstable" and a large varied portfolio tends to be good insurance against best match shifts in my experience.
My guess is that best match changes are essential in order to prevent search feedback from producing results in which front page images continue to be front page images because they are front page images. Even with keyword relevance as a factor the search is going to need a regular refresh in order for it not to become basically self referencing.
You see these posts from people complaining that their special picture has lost ground in the search results.
The site seems to be very "shakey, unstable" again lately. That's definitely a concern. I hope they can get it all working properly again sometime soon.
-
At least I am not wondering. In 1993 the market was so closed i could not get in. Thanks to internet and Istock I am stock photographer now.
well mate that was very-------enlighting, Im gonna sleep well at nights knowing you finally got in 15 years later and blooming hell youre a stock photographer.
I just want to apologize to everyone I insulted last night (maybe there were other threads I replied to, I can't remember), because I was, well, you know...drunk. I'm not hiding this, because I find this forum great and I find you guys to be my friends, I know you by name, most of you. So, it's not nice thing to do, it is better to go straight to bed.
(I feel better now!)
-
At least I am not wondering. In 1993 the market was so closed i could not get in. Thanks to internet and Istock I am stock photographer now.
well mate that was very-------enlighting, Im gonna sleep well at nights knowing you finally got in 15 years later and blooming hell youre a stock photographer.
I just want to apologize to everyone I insulted last night (maybe there were other threads I replied to, I can't remember), because I was, well, you know...drunk. I'm not hiding this, because I find this forum great and I find you guys to be my friends, I know you by name, most of you. So, it's not nice thing to do, it is better to go straight to bed.
(I feel better now!)
no problem, we have all been pissed from time to time, no hard feelings.
got a hangover then?
best.
-
I know someone who gave up her exclusivity last year, believing she would make more money spread across multiple sites. Once non exclusive her sales slumped and the additional income from other sites came nowhere near her previous IS income and she's now applied for exclusivity again.
This doesn't surprise me at all. I have known others with the same experience.
That isn't a fair comparison to what it's like for long time independents though. Just like at Istock, it takes time to gain a following at the other sites, it takes a time for images to work their way up to better search positions, and it takes a long time to build enough sales to reach the highest paying levels at FT,SS, and DT.
You really can't compare the experience or earnings of someone just leaving IS exclusivity and starting as a novice at the other sites with the experience or earnings of someone who has been independent for years.
-
No need to worry at all, There are close to 100 Non-excl. Diamond contributors at IS, myself being one of them, Lisa, a double Diamond. That would be a BIG! chunk of serious contributors to slam down.
Reading the other way, 85% are exclusive!
90% of the top 200 are exclusive.
15-20% is not a "big chunk". When people get a 20% commission, I don't see anyone calling it a "big chunk"! ???
No I'm not exclusive because I make more on SS and Alamy, but some people find that one agency is easier to manage and get along just fine. In fact about 85% of the top contributors to IS feel that way. ;D
Could it be that the reason why many have less images is that the upload limits come into play? Or maybe similar images and rejections keep the volume down. The same thing that people complain about in a different thread, is now some sort of evidence for the other viewpoint in this thread? IS has higher standards, it's more difficult to dump large volumes of files and the review process is more restrictive in terms of time. Someone who wants to optimize earnings from IS wouldn't want to upload duplicates instead of adding new and different images with their allotment and time.
None-the-less, for some it's a good plan and works out well, with better earnings. For others it's better to be independent and spread the effort to make more money. The answer isn't a one size fits all, because the materials that individuals create are varied. I don't understand why this same question comes up over and over as some sort of Independents vs Exclusive, Us vs Them debate. It's a personal decision that seems to work out for the best in either case. ;D
Still 84% are happy independents and 14% are happy exclusives, which would seem to be pretty good that almost everyone is happy? (except the 2% who are undecided and one person in Canada...) ;)
-
Its a pity really, I and many of my friends would have gone exclusive ages ago if it wasnt for this shakey, unstable best match changes. They tend to hit anybody, doesnt matter if youre Diamond, newbie, exclusive or not.
Just feel its not business like to take that chance. However, that aside, Istock is beyond doubt the most rewarding outfit.
Yep, struggling with that a bit myself at the moment. This new best match change plus E+ weird backwards rankings appear to have hurt my portfolio. I'm going to give it awhile to settle out and see if things improve, but I have concerns that going forward I won't be making much more than I did as an independent. In which case I have to reconsider the risks of dealing through only one agency.
-
I dont know too much about this E+ business, havent had the time to follow it, well, it doesnt concern me really. Somebody here also said its going to get pushed up in the best match or whatever, well if its a good commercial image, it would creep up anyway.
If an E+ image with more commercial value, more DLs jumps ahead in search, well thats only fair, isnt it? its done it on merit.
Should it jump ahead just for the sake of an E+, i.e. less DLs, less commercial value, well then its against all business thinking. Somehow I dont think the IS crew would let that happen, it would cost money.
-
Perhaps now they have E+ and Vetta, they will look at ways for non-exclusives to charge more for their images? Perhaps exclusive image uploads will be next? Not going to hold my breath on this one but if they really want to increase their profits and pull away from the other sites, it would make sense.
-
Perhaps now they have E+ and Vetta, they will look at ways for non-exclusives to charge more for their images? Perhaps exclusive image uploads will be next? Not going to hold my breath on this one but if they really want to increase their profits and pull away from the other sites, it would make sense.
Exactly!! image-exclusivity! not person-exclusivity. Thats the way it should have been years ago. Hard to poilce? not at all. Had IS done this some years back, by God they would flourish twice as much. They would have had 5-times more of exclusive files in their collections.
-
Perhaps now they have E+ and Vetta, they will look at ways for non-exclusives to charge more for their images? Perhaps exclusive image uploads will be next? Not going to hold my breath on this one but if they really want to increase their profits and pull away from the other sites, it would make sense.
Yeah I am sure they would greatly increase their exclusive content if they allowed exclusive uploads from non-exclusive photographers. Perhaps they would allow 20 non-exclusive uploads/week and 20 exclusive uploads/week
-
And then you'd have 20 images of a girl on a couch with a laptop with her head this way, and 20 with her head that way. :)
-
And then you'd have 20 images of a girl on a couch with a laptop with her head this way, and 20 with her head that way. :)
Obviously there would need to be some strict rules to stop this happening. So how do Getty do it? They have exclusive images and let their contributors use other sites. Surely if they can do it, so can istock. Aren't they connected in some way nowadays :)
-
Getty is not dealing with 50,000 contributors though.
-
And then you'd have 20 images of a girl on a couch with a laptop with her head this way, and 20 with her head that way. :)
Obviously there would need to be some strict rules to stop this happening. So how do Getty do it? They have exclusive images and let their contributors use other sites. Surely if they can do it, so can istock. Aren't they connected in some way nowadays :)
I'd guess that for most Getty contributors Getty represents a significant portion of their income. If they tried skirting the rules and got blacklisted they'd be screwing themselves royally. Even if Getty is a quarter or third of their income could you imagine losing that much?
For most micro people they probably make enough to buy dinner out a couple times a month so they have less to risk by gaming the policy and submitting an exclusive image at one place and another slightly different one from the same series elsehwere.
-
I would love to be proven wrong, but it seems to me that allowing "image exclusivity" would completely destroy the collection of "artist exclusive" images at istock.
Their collection of exclusive artists is the only thing differentiating Istock from the other sites IMO. It's the only leverage they have to keep raising prices like they do.
Don't they stand to lose a lot more than they gain if they allow image exclusivity?
Current exclusive artists would be able to cherry pick their top sellers to remain exclusive and upload all the rest to the other sites, effectively destroying istock's competitive edge.
-
And then you'd have 20 images of a girl on a couch with a laptop with her head this way, and 20 with her head that way. :)
'
Hi mate!
well actually its not far from what we have got at the moment. Just take a look at business-man or business-woman.
-
Some of the artists I know that would upload to IS, if there were Image-exclusivity, jeez! within their fields they would make the exclusive collection look like a photo-school.
They are missing out a lot, lots and lots insisting on person exclusivity but time will however tell that.
-
Some of the artists I know that would upload to IS, if there were Image-exclusivity, jeez! within their fields they would make the exclusive collection look like a photo-school.
They are missing out a lot, lots and lots insisting on person exclusivity but time will however tell that.
They have the images in the collection anyway so how are they missing out?
-
Some of the artists I know that would upload to IS, if there were Image-exclusivity, jeez! within their fields they would make the exclusive collection look like a photo-school....
Meaning the "real" talent's all elsewhere and the micros are all just amateurs earning pocket money from their snapshots for the fun of it??
If not that, what exactly does "look like a photo-school" mean?
-
Some of the artists I know that would upload to IS, if there were Image-exclusivity, jeez! within their fields they would make the exclusive collection look like a photo-school....
Meaning the "real" talent's all elsewhere and the micros are all just amateurs earning pocket money from their snapshots for the fun of it??
If not that, what exactly does "look like a photo-school" mean?
Nah, jokes apart! ofcourse not, theres some great talent within IS but you know theres a whole heap of dayrate photographers out there in fashion, Advertising, industry, etc, etc,
and quite frankly, many of them are extremly good.
Issue here though is Image-exclusivity, I can understand why its frightening for many because it would open a giant door with much stiffer competition then already.
Might interest you to know that within the Getty-RM where its supposed to be rock-hard exclusivity, the majority of members including myself supply to others. Nobody mind as long as pics never clash and they havent done that in the past 16 years.
best.
-
Some of the artists I know that would upload to IS, if there were Image-exclusivity, jeez! within their fields they would make the exclusive collection look like a photo-school.
They are missing out a lot, lots and lots insisting on person exclusivity but time will however tell that.
Another good argument for artist exclusivity. :) Less competition from the "pros".
-
Nah, jokes apart! ofcourse not, theres some great talent within IS but you know theres a whole heap of dayrate photographers out there in fashion, Advertising, industry, etc, etc,
and quite frankly, many of them are extremly good.
Issue here though is Image-exclusivity, I can understand why its frightening for many because it would open a giant door with much stiffer competition then already.
Might interest you to know that within the Getty-RM where its supposed to be rock-hard exclusivity, the majority of members including myself supply to others. Nobody mind as long as pics never clash and they havent done that in the past 16 years.
"Image exclusivity" isn't stopping anyone from joining IS or any of the few remaining IS copycats. There isn't a great wave of photographers out there waiting to come on board. IMHO.
There is a new generation of stock photographers who began with IS and the IS copycats. Many of them are producing work which is both technically and conceptually hugely more significant than anything which was available as stock 10 or 15 years ago. Oh and many of them are already also working as significant "dayrate" photographers.
So called "image exclusivity" is utterly a non issue IMO. The IS exclusivity arrangement is still much more about building loyalty and community than anything else. Out of loyalty and community comes a better crowd sourced business model. Crowd sourcing depends on community and it is community and crowd sourcing which makes the model economically viable. And IS remains in the first instance a business built on a crowd sourced model. If they had to pay for even a fraction of what community gives them for free the model would not work.
-
alias !
This is business, not a friendly social game where you rub shoulders all day long.
-
alias !
This is business, not a friendly social game where you rubb shoulders all day long.
-
alias !
This is business, not a friendly social game where you rubb shoulders all day long. Its the old misconception yet again. Exclusivity is not there for youre benefit or kindness, exclusivity fill one function only: its to stop members supplying other agencies or outfits, thats all. Its a business concept originating from the old Magnum days that a photographer can-not and will-not supply any of the competition, only in them days it was often news and war-photography on spot documentaries, etc, not commercial-stock as it is today.
So we are applying a 1940s idea to todays digital world with billions of images floating around almost everywhere, where you can take just about any given shot and manipulate it beyond recognition and then put a copy-stamp on it. Pretty dodgy, if you ask me.
-
The IS exclusivity arrangement is still much more about building loyalty and community than anything else. Out of loyalty and community comes a better crowd sourced business model. Crowd sourcing depends on community and it is community and crowd sourcing which makes the model economically viable.
^^ If this is true, then Istock has lost a LOT of ground over the past couple of years thanks to Getty's disregard for the "community". At least that is what I gather from a number of recent marathon threads.
The partner program and Thinkstock have just about put the last coffin nail in the "community spirit" over there. At least if the many disgruntled postings from most of Istock's former biggest cheerleaders are to be believed.
-
Community is still alive and well on istock. I'm a member of the Push for Gold (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=65435&page=1) group, that started as Push for Bronze a couple of years ago, morphed into Push for Silver, and is now Push for gold. About 70 contributors trying to achieve milestones. Nearly everyone in that group (a few full time professional photographers now dabbling in stock, a few former amateurs now full time microstockers, and mostly 'amateurs' with another life) has mentioned how important the race thread is for maintaining motivation, setting goals and giving advice. Two member have just reached silver, and their two-person race to that milestone generated about three pages of posts in the thread in the past 24 hours. We keep track of stats through Google charts. The maintainer estimates that as a group we have generated nearly a million dollars for istock. A few members will without a doubt be high-flyers in the not-too-distant future. Most are exclusive but a few are not.
-
The IS exclusivity arrangement is still much more about building loyalty and community than anything else. Out of loyalty and community comes a better crowd sourced business model. Crowd sourcing depends on community and it is community and crowd sourcing which makes the model economically viable.
^^ If this is true, then Istock has lost a LOT of ground over the past couple of years thanks to Getty's disregard for the "community". At least that is what I gather from a number of recent marathon threads.
The partner program and Thinkstock have just about put the last coffin nail in the "community spirit" over there. At least if the many disgruntled postings from most of Istock's former biggest cheerleaders are to be believed.
To be honest, I'm not sure "community" matters that much anymore, at least as far as successful production goes. The forums are like my watercooler, and it's a good place to vent, but you could get that on any forum. The part that matters is the interaction with the staff, so at least you feel like you might have some idea what's going on, or who to contact if weird things happen. This "motivation" and "goals" thing makes me think people see this as a big friendly game, instead of a worldwide competition.
-
Apart from the forums istock organises events such as the recent 'lypse in Cannes. Once again, more experienced members helping less experienced. Perhaps you (Sean) don't see any value in these, as it's not in the spirit of competition and business, unless the organisers are being paid a huge amount to run them.
-
Apart from the forums istock organises events such as the recent 'lypse in Cannes. Once again, more experienced members helping less experienced. Perhaps you (Sean) don't see any value in these, as it's not in the spirit of competition and business, unless the organisers are being paid a huge amount to run them.
iStock lypses are organized to get them big influxes of imagery and to jazz and train up the new members. I've never figured out why people waste their best shooting ideas on self-organized lypses, aside from being able to just get together with a bunch of people to have fun. Well, I guess that's community, but it's not like it's sensible from a business end of things.
Let me restate this - the community aspect of things is in direct opposition to the business side of things, at this point, imo.
-
Let me restate this - the community aspect of things is in direct opposition to the business side of things, at this point, imo.
Well stated, and as my shrink tells me this is the fundamental quandary of the human condition - our needs are individual but our means of attaining them are social. Without an adequate number of competent competitors there would be no istock.
-
Let me restate this - the community aspect of things is in direct opposition to the business side of things, at this point, imo.
Well stated, and as my shrink tells me this is the fundamental quandary of the human condition - our needs are individual but our means of attaining them are social. Without an adequate number of competent competitors there would be no istock.
That was a good one! I might have to steal that line from you (your shrink)!
Mat
-
This "motivation" and "goals" thing makes me think people see this as a big friendly game, instead of a worldwide competition.
I think people who don't really depend on money from microstock mostly see it as a big friendly game, and those who depend on it mostly see it as a worldwide competition.
-
This "motivation" and "goals" thing makes me think people see this as a big friendly game, instead of a worldwide competition.
I think people who don't really depend on money from microstock mostly see it as a big friendly game, and those who depend on it mostly see it as a worldwide competition.
Yup, I'm sure that's the bottom line.
-
I think people who don't really depend on money from microstock mostly see it as a big friendly game, and those who depend on it mostly see it as a worldwide competition.
Right, that's pretty much it.
-
It doesnt just mean fulltime Microstock, its in everything, neckbraking competition, no matter how "friendly and fair" in the end of day its the balance sheeth that counts and all love flies out the window.
Averil makes another point though about community, etc. possibly the entire Micro concept is more suitable and geared towards the Amateur and part-timer and with a safe, cushy job on the side. Im sure the Agencies themselves just wants peace and quiet, not a bunch of screaming Pros, as soon as anything goes wrong.
I also think that the days are gone where you have to be a professional photographer, I mean you can see little Neewbie and Bronze cannisters within IS, producing work which is clearly good enough for customers to buy and they do.
I keep seeing more and more signs and especially within the Micro, that the small guys are getting looked after more and far better then the minority of people depending on it and ofcourse! there in the tens of thousands and tomorrows artists.
Most of us fulltime photographers I presume are involved in commisioned work and stock, RM, RF, Micro, etc, but I will say this much though, couple of years back it was OK but today? I would be dead-scared having to rely on Micro as a sole income, it could change to disaster just over a night, regardless of agencies.
-
I keep seeing more and more signs and especially within the Micro, that the small guys are getting looked after more and far better then the minority of people depending on it and ofcourse! there in the tens of thousands and tomorrows artists.
Hmm, I'm only in iStock, but I'm interested in why you think the small guys are getting looked after "more and far better". I can't see but that everyone is treated the same, and with the same chance. Sure on iStock, exclusives have a few more opportunities, like best match in some iterations, Vetta, Exc+, but that option is open to almost everyone from the newest Bronze who took seven years to get there to the fastest-reaching full-time Black Diamond.
I'm interested to hear your perspective on this.
-
I keep seeing more and more signs and especially within the Micro, that the small guys are getting looked after more and far better then the minority of people depending on it and ofcourse! there in the tens of thousands and tomorrows artists.
Hmm, I'm only in iStock, but I'm interested in why you think the small guys are getting looked after "more and far better". I can't see but that everyone is treated the same, and with the same chance. Sure on iStock, exclusives have a few more opportunities, like best match in some iterations, Vetta, Exc+, but that option is open to almost everyone from the newest Bronze who took seven years to get there to the fastest-reaching full-time Black Diamond.
I'm interested to hear your perspective on this.
Well I dont mean they are treated better as such, what I mean is that enforced changes, structuring within an agency, for better or worse? obviously has much less effect on a part-timer then say somebody who is dependant entirely as a sole income.
You cant compare exclusive vs non-excl, etc, thats beside the point, If an agecy, any agency was forced out of business tomorrow for example, the casualties would ofcourse be the Exclusive and especially the ones depending on the income.
It strikes me however that the entire Micro concept is very well suited for part-time photographers who is not dependant on ebb and flow, who can take it in their stride, relaxing, not being forced to produce top-notch all the time and often in order to stay ahead or at leat on par.
best.
-
I think there is one thing that everyone avoids to see (probably on purpose). As we stated many times already, amateur took a big part in microstock industry, and this won't change soon (if ever). So, pro photographer have to wake up already, and to stop living in utopia, cause they will probably never be able to afford to live only out of microstock earnings. The fact that only few (very few) photographers can live only out of microstock earnings. Other ones (vast majority), no matter how professional they are will never come to the point to depend only on microstock earnings. So, they should start thinking about going back to what most photographers do, which is weddings, and other celebrations.... I know that many pro's hate doing that, but that's how things are now.
Photography business, like many other businesses, is much older than internet. Only jobs born with, and after internet can survive only on internet. Other jobs have base in real world, and depend on it.
How many doctors you know that provide only online medical help? Almost no one.
-
I think there is one thing that everyone avoids to see (probably on purpose). As we stated many times already, amateur took a big part in microstock industry, and this won't change soon (if ever). So, pro photographer have to wake up already, and to stop living in utopia, cause they will probably never be able to afford to live only out of microstock earnings. The fact that only few (very few) photographers can live only out of microstock earnings. Other ones (vast majority), no matter how professional they are will never come to the point to depend only on microstock earnings. So, they should start thinking about going back to what most photographers do, which is weddings, and other celebrations.... I know that many pro's hate doing that, but that's how things are now.
Photography business, like many other businesses, is much older than internet. Only jobs born with, and after internet can survive only on internet. Other jobs have base in real world, and depend on it.
How many doctors you know that provide only online medical help? Almost no one.
well here in Sweden, many doctors provide on-line help and advice, ofcourse for a fee but its there.
Its not a Pro vs Amateur issue, thats been argued since the 70s, its the entire concept of Micro which is almost hand-tailored to the amateur and part-timer and yes, as you say, because of the Internet, ofcourse. Selling shot for peanuts is not exactly the dream of the Pro.
Right now I know of two highly prolific Micro shooters with really great incomes from Micros who after summer will terminate all their Micros and stick it all into RM instead, not because of the monies but because of the preassure of always having to produce, add to that the constant changes within agencies in whatever direction.
With the RM being pretty dead at the moment, they dont care, at least they can wake up in the morning and the place is still there.
With Micro, at least at present, everything is too fragile, places come and go, shut-down or owned at geared by others, etc.
Its to put it mildly: very, very unstable.
best.
-
The community side remains important because the microstock economic model is very solidly based on a crowd sourced model. It is the economics of microstock which has so fundamentally shifted the stock image market in general.
It is not only that the images are crowd sourced. Also, for example, image inspection and the structures built around that. Community based.
I guess I'm arguing that community is an important part of the crowd sourced model. That community has economic value. No actually I'm not arguing with anyone just raising the point.
-
The community side remains important because the microstock economic model is very solidly based on a crowd sourced model. It is the economics of microstock which has so fundamentally shifted the stock image market in general.
It is not only that the images are crowd sourced. Also, for example, image inspection and the structures built around that. Community based.
I guess I'm arguing that community is an important part of the crowd sourced model. That community has economic value. No actually I'm not arguing with anyone just raising the point.
As Sean says, sure the community is important, but its a business and a fierce one as well. Thats the bottom line.
-
I agree with you lagereek. What I was trying to say is, there is a flood of amateurs, semi-pro, and pro photographer from poor countries who submit thousands of images every week. That flood cannot be stopped, at least not very soon. So, I think the only solution for every pro photographer who lives in a country with high standard is to find something more, besides microstock photography, to make living. Microstock can be always done part time.
-
I agree with you lagereek. What I was trying to say is, there is a flood of amateurs, semi-pro, and pro photographer from poor countries who submit thousands of images every week. That flood cannot be stopped, at least not very soon. So, I think the only solution for every pro photographer who lives in a country with high standard is to find something more, besides microstock photography, to make living. Microstock can be always done part time.
A flood of useless images just requires higher wading boots to find the right image for your project. That's why having a good search engine is one of the most important features of any stock site.
Now before people scream, I said useless, not worthless. I'm not talking about the quality of the photography simple the availability of correct subject matter, locations and accessories for those photographers.
Clothing styles, architecture, furniture, etc. all vary from country to country and designers do care about those details.
-
I'm not talking about the quality of the photography simple the availability of correct subject matter, locations and accessories for those photographers.
Clothing styles, architecture, furniture, etc. all vary from country to country and designers do care about those details.
I'm guessing that markets in other countries will be targetted as time goes on. Any time I've looked actually to buy (very seldom, to be honest) I haven't found what I wanted because the 'look' is too American. That's understandable as it's the main market. But the style doesn't translate, even to the UK a lot of the time, far less other cultures.
-
I'm not talking about the quality of the photography simple the availability of correct subject matter, locations and accessories for those photographers.
Clothing styles, architecture, furniture, etc. all vary from country to country and designers do care about those details.
I'm guessing that markets in other countries will be targetted as time goes on. Any time I've looked actually to buy (very seldom, to be honest) I haven't found what I wanted because the 'look' is too American. That's understandable as it's the main market. But the style doesn't translate, even to the UK a lot of the time, far less other cultures.
True. And you prove my point. There may be openings for more microstock photographers around the world but a single low cost source "flooding the market" isn't going to happen.
-
I agree with you lagereek. What I was trying to say is, there is a flood of amateurs, semi-pro, and pro photographer from poor countries who submit thousands of images every week. That flood cannot be stopped, at least not very soon. So, I think the only solution for every pro photographer who lives in a country with high standard is to find something more, besides microstock photography, to make living. Microstock can be always done part time.
A flood of useless images just requires higher wading boots to find the right image for your project. That's why having a good search engine is one of the most important features of any stock site.
Now before people scream, I said useless, not worthless. I'm not talking about the quality of the photography simple the availability of correct subject matter, locations and accessories for those photographers.
Clothing styles, architecture, furniture, etc. all vary from country to country and designers do care about those details.
As it is now, every agency is playing it fair shoving in everybodys pics on first 5 pages. Business and fairness does not go all that well together Im afraid.
Thats it! search-engine, the making or breaking of any agency, you can have the greatest pics in the world, taken by the most famous photographers in the world, if buyers cant find them, quickly, easy and without having to wade through irrelevant material, its dead.
The art of a serch-engine is to start strong, calm down in the middle and then end strong, never mind if the premiere pages are the ones that sell, the fact they are selling is good enough.