Author Topic: Friday's RC target announcement and iStock's strategy behind it (Read 64012 times)

ShadySue · « **Reply #200 on:** June 06, 2011, 04:07 »

Quote from: cobalt on June 06, 2011, 03:56

And of course if Kelly was able to inspire the community when he communicates online instead of demoralizing them...well at least they are aware of that and "better communication" has become a focus of attention.

What sort of 'manager' would say in an interview that contritubors are our 'biggest liability' without also pointing out that contributors are their biggest and most essential asset, without whom the company would not even exist.
But to be honest, I'd still rather know what he really thinks rather than having the Thoughts of Chairman Kelly sanitised by some PR wallah.

cobalt · « **Reply #201 on:** June 06, 2011, 04:28 »

Wasn´t it Paul Klein that said that and wasn´t it technically correct as a financial term during a shareholder meeting? In the sense of "artists are our greatest financial responsibility"? I think Paul Cowan had info on that.

The Kelly Thompson I met, albeit briefly, is a very decent person. Also the rest of the HQ team are highly dedicated to the community. They don´t run around in crocodile leather outfits and I didn´t see them lighting cigars with 100 dollar bills.

But crowd sourcing communication is obviously not Kellys forte and it is obvious that istock is under pressure to lower royalties to artists from Getty. They only pay 20% and they have photographers begging them to join, so why shouldn´t they think this is an acceptable standard??

We will see how it plays out, every player in this business has to do his or her calculations to see what fits best for them.

I will remain exclusive, but will probably devote more time to other income streams or finally get into video, because I don´t see how I can reach 150 000 credits with my "coffee production" studio. I could try to make high quality wine, but I have invested over 30 000 dollars in what I have here and want to make the most of my investment.

FWIW, my new files sell, have views and get lightboxed so V/A doesn´t seem to be too much of a problem in my niche. Sales in general are of course very, very slow, but I don´t know if this is due to my lack of uploads in the last 18 months or general slowness because the site is losing buyers/dilution/etc...

Black Sheep · « **Reply #202 on:** June 06, 2011, 04:32 »

why should they bother ? after all they will never meet in person all these angry photographers, only the fanboys flock around them at photo fairs and other public events.

ShadySue · « **Reply #203 on:** June 06, 2011, 04:48 »

Quote from: cobalt on June 06, 2011, 04:28

Wasn´t it Paul Klein that said that and wasn´t it technically correct as a financial term during a shareholder meeting? In the sense of "artists are our greatest financial responsibility"? I think Paul Cowan had info on that.

The Kelly Thompson I met, albeit briefly, is a very decent person. Also the rest of the HQ team are highly dedicated to the community. They don´t run around in crocodile leather outfits and I didn´t see them lighting cigars with 100 dollar bills.

But crowd sourcing communication is obviously not Kellys forte and it is obvious that istock is under pressure to lower royalties to artists from Getty. They only pay 20% and they have photographers begging them to join, so why shouldn´t they think this is an acceptable standard??

We will see how it plays out, every player in this business has to do his or her calculations to see what fits best for them.

I will remain exclusive, but will probably devote more time to other income streams or finally get into video, because I don´t see how I can reach 150 000 credits with my "coffee production" studio. I could try to make high quality wine, but I have invested over 30 000 dollars in what I have here and want to make the most of my investment.

FWIW, my new files sell, have views and get lightboxed so V/A doesn´t seem to be too much of a problem in my niche. Sales in general are of course very, very slow, but I don´t know if this is due to my lack of uploads in the last 18 months or general slowness because the site is losing buyers/dilution/etc...

I understood that 'liability' was a financial term, but so is 'asset'. And without his greatest 'liability' he'd have no 'assets' at all: the greatest programmers and marketers on the planet (!), and even the best masseuse are no use without content providers.
I'm guessing people queued up to get into Getty when the payments were so high that even 20% was a good income. Micro and dilution has eroded that, and I see that several (haven't a clue how many overall, but a fairly high number of those whose work I've admired) Getty togs have left Getty altogether, so work with smaller specialist agencies or to sell on their own sites. Of course, these are artists whose work is actively sought out by buyers.
Like you, my recent stuff is selling (unlike this time last year), but it's mostly not in areas where there are (m)any V/A files. If I were a horse photographer (for instance), I'd be dead in the water.

gclk · « **Reply #204 on:** June 06, 2011, 04:50 »

Quote from: cobalt on June 06, 2011, 03:56

With V/A I feel that I used to work as a supplier for a coffe shop and was one of many, many producers of special types of coffee. Then the owners realized some of us offer high quality wine and added a special section in the store for that. We all applauded, because this will draw in new customers, who will hopefully also buy coffee for their daily needs and we agree that high production and rare wine, deserves a higher price than our coffee. But suddenly we enter the store and we see that most of the shelves have been stacked with expensive wine and the coffee has been pushed to the back of the store.

And although there may be customers who love wine so much that they keep coming back to it, most of us feel we are losing our target market, the daily coffee buyers who spent a quick dollar and then went back to work.

Interesting analogy

To continue with it, the problem is that iStock get around six times the commission per sale for Vetta 'wine', and around ten times or more for Agency 'wine'. Check it out if you don't believe me. For them, peddling the wine is way more attractive than peddling our 'coffee'.

And - inexplicably - they've turned a blind eye to external Agency contributors who have decided to water down their wine by massively upsizing their images. I've officially raised that several times with iStock and got absolutely nowhere.

I think their problem with providing a Vetta & Agency filter is that it could prompt a lot of contributors to move much of their Vetta work into E+, since the royalites are only slightly different. I'd certainly be one of them.

I doubt many people believe that they've been spending all this time 'testing' a filter, as is occasionally claimed. But there's no doubt that they've been testing the patience of a lot of customers.

Black Sheep · « **Reply #205 on:** June 06, 2011, 05:23 »

what i really fail to understand is why all these buyers complain but don't move a finger to find other alternatives.

how come most of them never ever heard of shutterstock or fotolia or ... ?
i mean google "stock image" and they're all on the top 5 results.

jesus, if you spend a lot of money buying images it would be obvious and lggical to make a quick market
research before wasting time and money but no, they stick with istock no matter if istock is throwing s-hit in
their faces and then they go in istock forum complaining 10$ is too expensive.

gclk · « **Reply #206 on:** June 06, 2011, 05:50 »

Quote from: Black Sheep on June 06, 2011, 05:23

what i really fail to understand is why all these buyers complain but don't move a finger to find other alternatives.

I'm not sure I get why you think they all stay at iStock

jamirae · « **Reply #207 on:** June 06, 2011, 08:47 »

Quote from: gclk on June 06, 2011, 05:50

Quote from: Black Sheep on June 06, 2011, 05:23
what i really fail to understand is why all these buyers complain but don't move a finger to find other alternatives.

I'm not sure I get why you think they all stay at iStock

Right. I think the evidence points to buyers leaving. Sales are dropping, views on images are down. Several brave (or maybe lost) buyers even posting their goodbye notes on the forum.

lisafx · « **Reply #208 on:** June 06, 2011, 09:34 »

Quote from: cobalt on June 06, 2011, 03:56

If it was possible to carry over excess credits into the next year, there was a filter for V/A and the targets were announced on time in January with levels that were clearly reasonably reachable for a pro stock artist I don´t think the spirit in the community would be so negative.

I completely agree with this. It isn't necessarily the concept of RC targets that is getting people so upset, it is the unreasonably high levels. Particularly for independents. The bar just to keep our pathetic 20% was set literally IMPOSSIBLY high. Even if one were to bring in as many RCs as Sean or Lise (which would be pretty much impossible without V/A and E+) we could only hope to earn 19%.

It's pretty clear that if Istock's real motives were sustainability, as they claimed, a fairer gradation of royalties and rc targets could have been designed. The fact that they have made these targets all but impossible to achieve is a good indicator that it is REALLY about lowering payouts to artists across the board. That is what has people so ticked off, I believe.

cthoman · « **Reply #209 on:** June 06, 2011, 09:35 »

Quote from: jamirae on June 06, 2011, 08:47

Right. I think the evidence points to buyers leaving. Sales are dropping, views on images are down. Several brave (or maybe lost) buyers even posting their goodbye notes on the forum.

I agree. There are definitely falling sales which seems to insinuate buyers have left. IS was only about 16% of my earnings last month. It has steadily fallen from a high of 30-40%. Before it was too hard to leave because of the money, but if it continues to fall what will be the reason to stay? With the possibility of a severe summer slump, I could see their house of cards collapsing in the next few months.

Black Sheep · « **Reply #210 on:** June 06, 2011, 10:48 »

Quote from: cthoman on June 06, 2011, 09:35

Quote from: jamirae on June 06, 2011, 08:47
Right. I think the evidence points to buyers leaving. Sales are dropping, views on images are down. Several brave (or maybe lost) buyers even posting their goodbye notes on the forum.

I agree. There are definitely falling sales which seems to insinuate buyers have left. IS was only about 16% of my earnings last month. It has steadily fallen from a high of 30-40%. Before it was too hard to leave because of the money, but if it continues to fall what will be the reason to stay? With the possibility of a severe summer slump, I could see their house of cards collapsing in the next few months.

all the indicators are pointing in that direction as many are saying they're having increased sales at SS etc
so it can't be just oversupply to blame.

ARTPUPPY · « **Reply #211 on:** June 06, 2011, 11:18 »

Since I guess Lobo didn't find it funny, I'll just leave this here....

jamirae · « **Reply #212 on:** June 06, 2011, 11:21 »

^Priceless!

Artemis · « **Reply #213 on:** June 06, 2011, 11:36 »

Quote from: cthoman on June 06, 2011, 09:35

Quote from: jamirae on June 06, 2011, 08:47
Right. I think the evidence points to buyers leaving. Sales are dropping, views on images are down. Several brave (or maybe lost) buyers even posting their goodbye notes on the forum.

I agree. There are definitely falling sales which seems to insinuate buyers have left. IS was only about 16% of my earnings last month. It has steadily fallen from a high of 30-40%. Before it was too hard to leave because of the money, but if it continues to fall what will be the reason to stay? With the possibility of a severe summer slump, I could see their house of cards collapsing in the next few months.

I agree buyers are leaving, but im not so sure istock is getting less profit and that their card house is dwindling down...
They probably have foreseen buyers on a somewhat tight budget would leave, but i can imagine the succes of Agency (DEFINITELY the wholly owned collections which are pure profit if i'm not mistaken) and Vetta on which they take a larger cut, make more than up for the smaller buyers leaving. For each A/V buyer they probably can afford to lose many smaller buyers and still make more in the end.
It's us that are fighting unfair competition with outside photographers/collections without upload margins, lower to no inspection standards etc., having to fight over a smaller part of the pie while istock profits keep growing with different very high priced collections on which they even pay less (to none?) royalties.
I'm not sure the future looks bleak for istock... for us on the other hand $:-\$

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #214 on:** June 06, 2011, 11:37 »

Well I liked it too. Thanks for resurrecting it here.

Did you get a note as to why this wasn't acceptable for the forums or did your post just get "disappeared"?

gclk · « **Reply #215 on:** June 06, 2011, 11:39 »

^^^^ Superb - at first I misinterpreted it and assumed that us artists were the hassled boy, and iStock was the boss.

But then I realised that we're the goose, the boy is Kelly. Presumably the 'Squeeze Harder...' boss is Jonathan Klein / Mark "Intellectual Property is the oil of the 21st century" Getty, or H&F

cthoman · « **Reply #216 on:** June 06, 2011, 12:40 »

Quote from: Artemis on June 06, 2011, 11:36

I agree buyers are leaving, but im not so sure istock is getting less profit and that their card house is dwindling down...
They probably have foreseen buyers on a somewhat tight budget would leave, but i can imagine the succes of Agency (DEFINITELY the wholly owned collections which are pure profit if i'm not mistaken) and Vetta on which they take a larger cut, make more than up for the smaller buyers leaving. For each A/V buyer they probably can afford to lose many smaller buyers and still make more in the end.
It's us that are fighting unfair competition with outside photographers/collections without upload margins, lower to no inspection standards etc., having to fight over a smaller part of the pie while istock profits keep growing with different very high priced collections on which they even pay less (to none?) royalties.
I'm not sure the future looks bleak for istock... for us on the other hand $:-\$

I was just really surprised after last months numbers. IS was barely outperforming DT, and it was a pretty average month at DT. DT runs neck and neck with 3 or 4 agencies, so if they slip past DT, they could fall pretty far pretty fast.

My main point though, was that their relevance of being a top agency seems to be slipping which makes it easier to pull your portfolio and rely on other agencies. It's just a theory based on the last 6 months downward trend. I'm just one contributor, but it looks like others are reporting the same trends of sales being half or a third of what they were.

lagereek · « **Reply #217 on:** June 06, 2011, 12:56 »

With IS, everything is just leading up to one thing only. When our RM shots according to the new contract by Getty finally start arriving at TS, there will later be an incorporation of IS, into TS.
Its got to be this way. Pretty pointless and down out stupid to run two gigantic micro-outfits with pretty much the same exclusives, alongside each other, spending a fortune on advertising for TS and not a penny on IS.

The competition will be murderous, especially with all the RM stuff turned into micro and many IS exclusives will be totally outmanouvered. Not a nice situation at all.

ShadySue · « **Reply #218 on:** June 06, 2011, 12:58 »

Quote from: jsnover on June 06, 2011, 11:37

Well I liked it too. Thanks for resurrecting it here.

Did you get a note as to why this wasn't acceptable for the forums or did your post just get "disappeared"?

Lobo wan't brought up on the premise of "Tell the Truth, Shame the Devil"

loop · « **Reply #219 on:** June 06, 2011, 13:07 »

Quote from: lagereek on June 06, 2011, 12:56

With IS, everything is just leading up to one thing only. When our RM shots according to the new contract by Getty finally start arriving at TS, there will later be an incorporation of IS, into TS.
Its got to be this way. Pretty pointless and down out stupid to run two gigantic micro-outfits with pretty much the same exclusives, alongside each other, spending a fortune on advertising for TS and not a penny on IS.

The competition will be murderous, especially with all the RM stuff turned into micro and many IS exclusives will be totally outmanouvered. Not a nice situation at all.

It doesn't make sense. Having two brands in a saturated market is far better than having one. Specially if one of them has been the reference brand for years, and has been able to raise prices and go on selling. TS is there to compete with SS and other subs sites: the concept is totally different; simplicity (like SS), low maintenance cost and low prices that produce low benefits with each sale. Beggining with simplicity, all the rest is different at Istock.

Slovenian · « **Reply #220 on:** June 06, 2011, 13:08 »

Quote from: lagereek on June 06, 2011, 12:56

With IS, everything is just leading up to one thing only. When our RM shots according to the new contract by Getty finally start arriving at TS, there will later be an incorporation of IS, into TS.
Its got to be this way. Pretty pointless and down out stupid to run two gigantic micro-outfits with pretty much the same exclusives, alongside each other, spending a fortune on advertising for TS and not a penny on IS.

The competition will be murderous, especially with all the RM stuff turned into micro and many IS exclusives will be totally outmanouvered. Not a nice situation at all.

RM shots will be sold for pennies?

Allsa · « **Reply #221 on:** June 06, 2011, 13:27 »

Quote from: lagereek on June 06, 2011, 12:56

With IS, everything is just leading up to one thing only. When our RM shots according to the new contract by Getty finally start arriving at TS, there will later be an incorporation of IS, into TS.
Its got to be this way. Pretty pointless and down out stupid to run two gigantic micro-outfits with pretty much the same exclusives, alongside each other, spending a fortune on advertising for TS and not a penny on IS.

The competition will be murderous, especially with all the RM stuff turned into micro and many IS exclusives will be totally outmanouvered. Not a nice situation at all.

Why so negative? Getty makes one idiotic decision after another, they've turned iStock into a sinking ship - and you're assuming they've already won? I see a deluded dinosaur trying to use outmoded 20th century tactics in a 21st century world. Sure the dinosaurs were big & scary, but they're also extinct. It's not so hard to imagine a similar fate for Getty. I still have hope.

helix7 · « **Reply #222 on:** June 06, 2011, 13:39 »

Quote from: Allsa on June 06, 2011, 13:27

Why so negative? Getty makes one idiotic decision after another, they've turned iStock into a sinking ship - and you're assuming they've already won? I see a deluded dinosaur trying to use outmoded 20th century tactics in a 21st century world. Sure the dinosaurs were big & scary, but they're also extinct. It's not so hard to imagine a similar fate for Getty. I still have hope.

The trouble is no one else is doing a good enough job of taking their place. The door is wide open for some new blood at the top of the list, but I don't see anyone jumping in to take the crown, even just on the microstock level. StockFresh looks good, but not great. There are some things I'd like to see them do better, and growth is very slow there. Shutterstock is the current microstock frontrunner, but they're not likely to do much to become a real innovator in the industry. And they're already dealing with their own growth issues, trying to raise their standards after being overly lenient with acceptances for years.

Getty may be a dinosaur, but no real progress is coming from anywhere else. And Getty is so dominant in the image business that it's hard to imagine them going away. istock might fade out, if things keep declining at this rate. But if that happen Getty will just cut them loose eventually. Sell them to another investor or something.

lagereek · « **Reply #223 on:** June 06, 2011, 14:03 »

Quote from: loop on June 06, 2011, 13:07

Quote from: lagereek on June 06, 2011, 12:56
With IS, everything is just leading up to one thing only. When our RM shots according to the new contract by Getty finally start arriving at TS, there will later be an incorporation of IS, into TS.
Its got to be this way. Pretty pointless and down out stupid to run two gigantic micro-outfits with pretty much the same exclusives, alongside each other, spending a fortune on advertising for TS and not a penny on IS.

The competition will be murderous, especially with all the RM stuff turned into micro and many IS exclusives will be totally outmanouvered. Not a nice situation at all.

It doesn't make sense. Having two brands in a saturated market is far better than having one. Specially if one of them has been the reference brand for years, and has been able to raise prices and go on selling. TS is there to compete with Shutterstock and other subs sites: the concept is totally different; simplicity (like Shutterstock), low maintenance cost and low prices that produce low benefits with each sale. Beggining with simplicity, all the rest is different at Istock.

No, IS, will cease to exist, its been a thorn in the side of Getty, since the very start. Competition is healthy, yes, but in this scenario, How does Getty eventually sell a business with two compeeting micros, same shots, same people, same exclusives??

The RM side needs looking after, its far, far more valuable then micros for pennies. As far as they are concerned.

The above scenario is what Getty have done ever since 93. Nothing new.

most unfortuantely.

Artemis · « **Reply #224 on:** June 06, 2011, 14:34 »

Quote from: cthoman on June 06, 2011, 12:40

*snip*
My main point though, was that their relevance of being a top agency seems to be slipping which makes it easier to pull your portfolio and rely on other agencies. It's just a theory based on the last 6 months downward trend. I'm just one contributor, but it looks like others are reporting the same trends of sales being half or a third of what they were.

Absolutely agree. (only one year ago iS represented 60% of my overall stock income, it slipped away to barely 25% now) When the day comes its participating in TS or nothing i wont doubt for a second, its not ideal, but i can now 'sustain' myself without istock

i was just pointing out i dont think iStock as company is a sinking ship in terms of profit it generates, even with buyers leaving.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Friday's RC target announcement and iStock's strategy behind it (Read 64012 times)

ShadySue

cobalt

Black Sheep

ShadySue

gclk

Black Sheep

gclk

jamirae

lisafx

cthoman

Black Sheep

ARTPUPPY

jamirae

Artemis

Jo Ann Snover

gclk

cthoman

lagereek

ShadySue

loop

Slovenian

Allsa

helix7

lagereek

Artemis

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors