Author Topic: Grass is NOT greener at the others!! (Read 30278 times)

lagereek · « **on:** January 01, 2011, 02:45 »

Theres a thread over at the IS forum, must admit I never thought so many would throw in their crown though. Its all pretty sad reading actually, many staunch defenders of IS, throughout the years and now they have swung the opposite way, sad.

This is however the present hallmark of the entire industry and it certainly wont stop with IS, more will follow, etc. Its a grim reminder of the whole Trad-agency business decline in the early 90s.

many of these people terminating their exclusivity are now beginning to upload at other places and frankly, I wonder if its worth it really? I mean the grass certainly isnt greener at other places, sure places like FT, SS, are moving forward but it takes at least a couple of years before seeing any significant revenues.

New ones have sprung up, places like Veer, etc and one would have thought that with the backing of Corbis, this place would flourish but NO, it takes them 6 months just to review uploads.

Oh well, just some thoughts.

sharpshot · « **Reply #1 on:** January 01, 2011, 03:02 »

Some of the old exclusives should be able to do well with SS quite quickly but they have tightened up their reviews, so it wont be easy. Not sure if this is good or bad for non-exclusives. There's going to be more competition on the other sites but hopefully istock wont dominate the market now and that looks like a good thing.

It's going to be interesting to see if istock cutting commissions to such low levels and increasing prices will lose them a lot of business and if they are capable of changing their strategy. It looks like they are determined to push this through, even if it damages their reputation. Hopefully they will be sold and the new owners will have a better long term strategy. I'm sure there's still more ways to increase profits other than cutting commissions and raising prices.

fotografer · « **Reply #2 on:** January 01, 2011, 04:05 »

I agree that they will do well at SS but it will be very difficult for most of them to get a foot in the door at DT or Fot and years to build up to decent rankings to start making the sort of money that they made as exclusives. I feel more sorry for them than I do the non exclusives as we don't have any difficult decisions to make. The one thing that I am really thankful about is that I didn't go exclusive a few years back when I was seriously toying with the idea.

lagereek · « **Reply #3 on:** January 01, 2011, 05:30 »

Quote from: fotografer on January 01, 2011, 04:05

I agree that they will do well at SS but it will be very difficult for most of them to get a foot in the door at DT or Fot and years to build up to decent rankings to start making the sort of money that they made as exclusives. I feel more sorry for them than I do the non exclusives as we don't have any difficult decisions to make. The one thing that I am really thankful about is that I didn't go exclusive a few years back when I was seriously toying with the idea.

I agree, the exclusives have got a bad blow here but so have the independants. Is there nothing in between?? ha, ha.

NitorPhoto · « **Reply #4 on:** January 01, 2011, 06:08 »

There is a short term effect and a long term effect in that.
If many ex are leaving IS while they leave their images there Getty will have to pay less commission for the same images - I am sure they love it.
But there is a long term effect and it can hit back to IS. Non-exs are having very tight upload limits compared to other places so the content on the other sites are growing more and becoming more fresh and unique. IS could compensate it with the exclusive imagery but they need a lot of top exclusives for that.
There are two factors where IS can beat the competition: lot of exclusive images and notoriety. The second one is slightly melting away so they really shouldn't lose form the fist one. I all other factors (prize, better site, more images... etc) the competition is already more attractive for the buyers.

ShadySue · « **Reply #5 on:** January 01, 2011, 06:14 »

Quote from: sharpshot on January 01, 2011, 03:02

. Hopefully they will be sold and the new owners will have a better long term strategy.

Or even a long-term strategy full stop. At the moment, they seem to pick on one employee a week and give them ten seconds to think of what we can do next week, and that includes the office junior, the tea lady and the masseuse. Then the programmers get half an hour to roll it out.

cathyslife · « **Reply #6 on:** January 01, 2011, 09:11 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 01, 2011, 06:14

Or even a long-term strategy full stop. At the moment, they seem to pick on one employee a week and give them ten seconds to think of what we can do next week, and that includes the office junior, the tea lady and the masseuse. Then the programmers get half an hour to roll it out.

LOL! Perfect description.

leaf · « **Reply #7 on:** January 01, 2011, 09:58 »

Quote from: NitorPhoto on January 01, 2011, 06:08

There is a short term effect and a long term effect in that.
If many ex are leaving IS while they leave their images there Getty will have to pay less commission for the same images - I am sure they love it.

They pay less commissions but they are also grossing less money on the sale. Since the price change last year, non-exclusive images sell for less than exclusive images do. iStock makes more money from exclusive sales even though they are taking less commission. I'm guessing they would prefer everyone to be exclusive.

KarenH · « **Reply #8 on:** January 01, 2011, 10:44 »

Quote from: sharpshot on January 01, 2011, 03:02

Some of the old exclusives should be able to do well with SS quite quickly but they have tightened up their reviews, so it wont be easy. Not sure if this is good or bad for non-exclusives. There's going to be more competition on the other sites but hopefully istock wont dominate the market now and that looks like a good thing.

It's going to be interesting to see if istock cutting commissions to such low levels and increasing prices will lose them a lot of business and if they are capable of changing their strategy. It looks like they are determined to push this through, even if it damages their reputation. Hopefully they will be sold and the new owners will have a better long term strategy. I'm sure there's still more ways to increase profits other than cutting commissions and raising prices.

It's not just the commission-cutting that is damaging their reputation. It's the site itself, which is getting worse and worse for contributors and buyers to use, the search engine flakiness, the upload process, the constant never-ending bugs. When buyers are posting all over twitter trying to get help because they can't buy, that hurts their reputation terribly. And the alarming part is the attitude that seems to be taking over and the growing lack of communication. When it finally gets bad enough the answer seems to be to throw them a few discounts (at the contributors expense).

I haven't tried the other sites, although I'm looking at them. Besides commissions, I'll be interested to find out if the grass is a little greener from the standpoint of searches, uploading, and general site functionality that helps both buyers and contributors.

Konstantin Sutyagin · « **Reply #9 on:** January 01, 2011, 10:47 »

Quote from: leaf on January 01, 2011, 09:58

They pay less commissions but they are also grossing less money on the sale. Since the price change last year, non-exclusive images sell for less than exclusive images do. iStock makes more money from exclusive sales even though they are taking less commission. I'm guessing they would prefer everyone to be exclusive.

But they still need independents to produce "value" images to attract customers to the site. Then they upsell them to vetta etc.

NitorPhoto · « **Reply #10 on:** January 01, 2011, 11:15 »

Quote from: leaf on January 01, 2011, 09:58

Quote from: NitorPhoto on January 01, 2011, 06:08
There is a short term effect and a long term effect in that.
If many ex are leaving IS while they leave their images there Getty will have to pay less commission for the same images - I am sure they love it.

They pay less commissions but they are also grossing less money on the sale. Since the price change last year, non-exclusive images sell for less than exclusive images do. iStock makes more money from exclusive sales even though they are taking less commission. I'm guessing they would prefer everyone to be exclusive.

You got the point. Since I am a non-ex I completely forgot that. Anyway, you have eliminated the only reason what made their decision reasonable in my eyes.

madelaide · « **Reply #11 on:** January 01, 2011, 11:28 »

Wasn't FT or DT giving advantages to former IS exclusives to join them?

gostwyck · « **Reply #12 on:** January 01, 2011, 12:14 »

Quote from: lagereek on January 01, 2011, 02:45

Theres a thread over at the IS forum, must admit I never thought so many would throw in their crown though. Its all pretty sad reading actually, many staunch defenders of IS, throughout the years and now they have swung the opposite way, sad.

I really don't think you've seen the half of it so far. Trust me, come January and February, when exclusives start to actually see the fewer $'s in their pocket and then compare with what they were getting the previous year the mutiny will rumble on and on ... and on ... daily, weekly and monthly.

Throughout this year exclusives were feeling relatively cuddly towards IS, because of the massive increase they received a year ago. That effect will have disappeared by the end of January.

Add to that the potential for more and more customers to seek pastures new amid all the price increases, the search problems, etc, etc, etc.

There's every chance of a firestorm to build here and Istockphoto appear to be sleepwalking right into it.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #13 on:** January 01, 2011, 12:19 »

There isn't much green grass anywhere to be had, never mind the other side. It's taken on the characteristic long hot summer look. Parched, brown and unappealing. At some point, you feel wronged and even if it's going to cost you, you don't care.

jamirae · « **Reply #14 on:** January 01, 2011, 12:52 »

Quote from: madelaide on January 01, 2011, 11:28

Wasn't FT or DT giving advantages to former IS exclusives to join them?

DT was but it ended in November. Unless they added something new, I've not kept up with that.

SNP · « **Reply #15 on:** January 01, 2011, 13:18 »

Quote from: leaf on January 01, 2011, 09:58

Quote from: NitorPhoto on January 01, 2011, 06:08
There is a short term effect and a long term effect in that.
If many ex are leaving IS while they leave their images there Getty will have to pay less commission for the same images - I am sure they love it.

They pay less commissions but they are also grossing less money on the sale. Since the price change last year, non-exclusive images sell for less than exclusive images do. iStock makes more money from exclusive sales even though they are taking less commission. I'm guessing they would prefer everyone to be exclusive.

I think this is precisely the case. What iStock has done over the last two years has been designed to encourage exclusivity. I wrestled with exclusivity two years ago. it took me a year to decide whether or not to stay exclusive. I dropped the crown once but after a week or so mulling it over, I contacted CR and asked if I could reinstate my crown. it wasn't panic at dropping the crown. to be honest, it was refreshing and exciting to get ready to upload to other sites. in particular SS, where I thought I would do well. what changed things for me was canvassing independents and contributors who had gone independent. there is freedom and stability in one sense, because everything isn't riding on one agency.

on the other hand, the workload and the management of multiple portfolios. not to mention the time it takes on FT and DT to rank--the difference in potential income didn't justify it. I don't regret staying exclusive. from what I continue to hear, as much as people love to hate iS...the grass isn't greener at all on the other side, with the exception of not being tied down.

gostwyck · « **Reply #16 on:** January 01, 2011, 13:23 »

Quote from: SNP on January 01, 2011, 13:18

I don't regret staying exclusive. from what I continue to hear, as much as people love to hate iS...the grass isn't greener at all on the other side, with the exception of not being tied down.

I'll bet you won't be wearing a crown within 13 months from now. Istock's grass is getting drier & browner whilst it is lusher and growing strongly elsewhere. You'll see. Eventually.

SNP · « **Reply #17 on:** January 01, 2011, 13:25 »

I think you made that same bet about me two years ago. the crown holds no emotional value to me. but until there's a good reason to blow it off, I won't be losing it. if there is a good reason, I would drop it without regret.

helix7 · « **Reply #18 on:** January 01, 2011, 13:30 »

I make 90% of my microstock income at sites other than istock, with basically the same portfolio across most of those sites and istock. So in my opinion, the grass is a hell of a lot greener elsewhere.

SNP · « **Reply #19 on:** January 01, 2011, 13:38 »

that's good. I don't begrudge anyone their success. without seeing your numbers, it doesn't really mean anything. your vectors are amazing, so I'm sure you know what you're doing. but I have no idea how large your portfolio is or how you manage it.

vlad_the_imp · « **Reply #20 on:** January 01, 2011, 14:34 »

Quote

There's every chance of a firestorm to build here and Istockphoto appear to be sleepwalking right into it.

Come on, let's not get carried away. There are a few small sellers, gossiping away here, egging each other on and over inflating their own importance and relevance.

gostwyck · « **Reply #21 on:** January 01, 2011, 15:09 »

Quote from: vlad_the_imp on January 01, 2011, 14:34

Come on, let's not get carried away. There are a few small sellers, gossiping away here, egging each other on and over inflating their own importance and relevance.

Spoken like a true exclusive! I suppose having no data on the greater market enables you to keep your head firmly in the sand.

I just counted OVER 70 DIAMOND EXCLUSIVES (plus one Black Diamond) all motivated enough to state that they are losing out on this thread and that's just within the last 24 hours;

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=287302

When even Rob S., having left his admin post, is now musing over leaving IS altogether then you know that the problems go right to the core of Istock.

As you say ... "just a few small sellers, gossiping away here, egging each other on and over inflating their own importance and relevance".

An alternative view might be that the situation is serious with the potential to go critical.

Risamay · « **Reply #22 on:** January 01, 2011, 16:17 »

Quote from: SNP on January 01, 2011, 13:25

the crown holds no emotional value to me. until there's a good reason to blow it off, I won't be losing it. if there is a good reason, I would drop it without regret.

There are good reasons a-plenty, of late. Take your pick! Why else are we now seeing once dedicated iStock evangelists closing out their exclusive contracts (or taking it into serious consideration)?

vlad_the_imp · « **Reply #23 on:** January 01, 2011, 16:19 »

Quote

When even Rob S., having left his admin post, is now musing over leaving IS altogether then you know that the problems go right to the core of Istock.

Rob is a great guy but he has moved on into writing books, he's one guy in 75,000 or however many contributors there are. People come, people go, it's the way of the world, not the apocalyptic event you would assume from the forums. Someone even compared the news with the Kennedy killing. Oh dear.

Most people will lose to some degree, mine is a small loss as I've managed to keep my level. I sympathise with the unhappiness, IS are a walking disaster at the moment BUt that doesn't mean they are in any danger of imploding. Don't kid yourself how important a few contributors are, there are many waiting to replace them.

Blufish · « **Reply #24 on:** January 01, 2011, 16:22 »

Quote from: gostwyck on January 01, 2011, 15:09

Spoken like a true exclusive! I suppose having no data on the greater market enables you to keep your head firmly in the sand.

I just counted OVER 70 DIAMOND EXCLUSIVES (plus one Black Diamond) all motivated enough to state that they are losing out on this thread and that's just within the last 24 hours;

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=287302

When even Rob S., having left his admin post, is now musing over leaving IS altogether then you know that the problems go right to the core of Istock.

As you say ... "just a few small sellers, gossiping away here, egging each other on and over inflating their own importance and relevance".

An alternative view might be that the situation is serious with the potential to go critical.

Wow. I just read all 15 pages of that thread at iS. That was really depressing. When the news came down in September, I decided to not try to submit to iStock. I am even more sure now that I made the correct decision of not getting involved with such a disreputable company. Thanks gostwick for posting the link.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Grass is NOT greener at the others!! (Read 30278 times)

lagereek

sharpshot

fotografer

lagereek

NitorPhoto

ShadySue

cathyslife

leaf

KarenH

Konstantin Sutyagin

NitorPhoto

madelaide

gostwyck

PeterChigmaroff

jamirae

SNP

gostwyck

SNP

helix7

SNP

vlad_the_imp

gostwyck

Risamay

vlad_the_imp

Blufish

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors