MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: jsmithzz on April 11, 2011, 19:37
-
Has the best match dust settled? I sure as hell hope not. Looks like everyone's sales are totally tanking. I know mine have. The only thing that has propped up my sales this month is an EL for $100 earlier this month.
What I don't understand is why iStock is continuing to alienate its customers that have made iStock what it is by pushing these high priced Vetta and Agency files. Don't get me wrong, I like getting a Vetta/Agency sale now and then, but the bulk of my income comes from non-Vetta and non-Agency files. Customers are clearly upset and are leaving. It almost seems like Getty purchased iStock and is now summarily killing off its former competitor at its own expense and has turned it into a mid-stock agency.
iStock scared the pants off of Getty at one time by offering low cost, quality imagery. Don't they learn? Prices for photos are being driven down by the glut of content on the internet. Most (not all), but most people aren't going to pony up tons of money for Vetta/Agency files after years of paying reasonable prices on iStock. They're just going to take their business elsewhere.
Getty has no idea who their customers are at iStock. And when they do figure it out, I'm afraid it'll be too late. The horse is already out of the barn. Just my 2 cents.
ETA: Looks like it's being discussed here... Very grim.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=323102&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=323102&page=1)
-
Getty has no idea who their customers are at iStock. And when they do figure it out, I'm afraid it'll be too late. The horse is already out of the barn. Just my 2 cents.
Talking about 'horse': the best match search for horse is back again to Vetty with agency sprinkled through.
However, a photos only search on 'young adult' is totally different, clearly favouring high-selling images (which is how 'horse' was at the weekend only).
I'm still not sure they would be doing all these best match things if the bottom line wasn't higher. They're bound to be able to judge that over a few hours of a normal workday.
-
Getty has no idea who their customers are at iStock. And when they do figure it out, I'm afraid it'll be too late. The horse is already out of the barn. Just my 2 cents.
Talking about 'horse': the best match search for horse is back again to Vetty with agency sprinkled through.
However, a photos only search on 'young adult' is totally different, clearly favouring high-selling images (which is how 'horse' was at the weekend only).
I'm still not sure they would be doing all these best match things if the bottom line wasn't higher. They're bound to be able to judge that over a few hours of a normal workday.
Shady, my concern is that the bottom line will be higher at the expense of all of us contributors who don't have a lot of these files and at the expense of customers who will leave for other agencies. They're putting greed before people for sure. In the short term their profits may be higher, but in the long run customers and contributors won't stand for it and will leave in droves and will kill any profits they've tried to gain.
-
Today is not a good day for me, after they changed the best match again.
However, I have come to the realization that a bad day for me may just be a BDE for someone else. Since January, every month has been a BME, even though the increase has not been a huge jump.
-
Today is not a good day for me, after they changed the best match again.
However, I have come to the realization that a bad day for me may just be a BDE for someone else. Since January, every month has been a BME, even though the increase has not been a huge jump.
Normally I would agree with what you said. But in this case buyers just think that iStock has jacked up prices and are leaving for other sites as some have mentioned in the forums.
I need to start thinking about my exit plan.
-
I have my own theory about why today was not a good day.
Have you noticed the "Buy iStock Credits" link at the lower right corner was not visible for a few hours?
It seems to me, whenever the the normal menu bars are not visible, it means that iStock is tweaking the system again. When it happens, I see very few DLs, if at all. Does it affect the buyers, of course. They just could not buy.
-
If they're trying to boost profits, it would make sense to demote the files of exclusive diamonds. The top couple of hundred contributors probably account for more than 50% of sales and most likely get 40% commission. If they can divert half those sales to people on 30% commission it would boost iStock's overall cash share by about 4%.
If 40% of the money they take gets spent keeping things running, a 4% increase in income would become a 10% increase in actual profits. That's an awful lot of extra cash to make for a tiny little search engine tweak. It's also something that can be done to keep profits on track (and guarantee management bonuses) if buyers are drifting away.
-
If they're trying to boost profits, it would make sense to demote the files of exclusive diamonds. The top couple of hundred contributors probably account for more than 50% of sales and most likely get 40% commission. If they can divert half those sales to people on 30% commission it would boost iStock's overall cash share by about 4%.
If 40% of the money they take gets spent keeping things running, a 4% increase in income would become a 10% increase in actual profits. That's an awful lot of extra cash to make for a tiny little search engine tweak. It's also something that can be done to keep profits on track (and guarantee management bonuses) if buyers are drifting away.
I've certainly given consideration to the idea that they're deliberately trying to favor select groups of content - Vetta/Agency because the price is high and the royalty lower and lower-royalty bearing exclusive content. Some of the Vetta contributors have been seeing huge drops in sales (although I did note one admin who has a lot of Vetta was happy about March being a BME) so I don't know if that fits that pattern.
I was wondering if that would mean a boost for independents, but although royalty rates are lower, so are prices, which means IS might still favor bronze exclusives to make the most. Take an XS file (1 credit independent, 2 exclusive). Assume a $1 credit price. For a 40% exclusive, IS makes $1.20, for a 25% exclusive $1.50 and an independent, 80 cents. If I weren't worried about driving away buyers and bigger contributors, I might make the search engine favor the 25% (bronze) exclusive content.
-
if you perform a best match search on any major keyword like 'business', 'family', 'Christmas', 'summer' etc., the best match returns are a mix of images with the first images predominantly from diamonds. also on the first page, early on in the results are plenty of images from black diamonds. so far I have not performed any search that corroborates a theory in which lower canisters seem to be favoured in best match to increase profits.
-
I'm wondering if this drop is related to next year's RC targets. Maybe they are just 'gaming' short term to get the RCs where they want them to fall for specific groups?
-
If they're trying to boost profits, it would make sense to demote the files of exclusive diamonds. The top couple of hundred contributors probably account for more than 50% of sales and most likely get 40% commission. If they can divert half those sales to people on 30% commission it would boost iStock's overall cash share by about 4%.
If 40% of the money they take gets spent keeping things running, a 4% increase in income would become a 10% increase in actual profits. That's an awful lot of extra cash to make for a tiny little search engine tweak. It's also something that can be done to keep profits on track (and guarantee management bonuses) if buyers are drifting away.
I've certainly given consideration to the idea that they're deliberately trying to favor select groups of content - Vetta/Agency because the price is high and the royalty lower and lower-royalty bearing exclusive content. Some of the Vetta contributors have been seeing huge drops in sales (although I did note one admin who has a lot of Vetta was happy about March being a BME) so I don't know if that fits t
I was wondering if that would mean a boost for independents, but although royalty rates are lower, so are prices, which means IS might still favor bronze exclusives to make the most. Take an XS file (1 credit independent, 2 exclusive). Assume a $1 credit price. For a 40% exclusive, IS makes $1.20, for a 25% exclusive $1.50 and an independent, 80 cents. If I weren't worried about driving away buyers and bigger contributors, I might make the search engine favor the 25% (bronze) exclusive content.
Traditional photo-agencies always wanted to work with pro-photographers, no jobs on the side, no side income or whatever. One of their reasonings were, only a pro would take it seriously, stay with the firm and invest heavily in the right equipment, etc, beginners , amateurs, etc would just treat it as a "getting-rich over-night" and when they didnt, they just tossed it in and thats ofcourse what happend in most cases.
Now if IS, think theyre gonna get rich and all fron thousands of wanna be bronze exclusives?? blimey! its never happend and will never happen.
-
if you perform a best match search on any major keyword like 'business', 'family', 'Christmas', 'summer' etc., the best match returns are a mix of images with the first images predominantly from diamonds. also on the first page, early on in the results are plenty of images from black diamonds. so far I have not performed any search that corroborates a theory in which lower canisters seem to be favoured in best match to increase profits.
Agreed. I honestly doubt they have the capability to perform such 'surgical strikes' when you consider the compounded errors everytime they do try to adjust something.
I find the number of reports claiming "I'm down 50-80%" surprising particularly as almost nobody is reporting the opposite, as you might expect if the same volume of sales were just being spread around differently.
Personally my sales are lower than expected but not hugely, just in the slow evaporation of volume that I've been experiencing for a couple of years now. Over that period Istock's contribution to my overall microstock earnings has slipped from around 40% to about 28% recently.
-
Have your sales at other sites made up for that ?
-
Surprisingly that thread hasn't been closed yet
-
Personally my sales are lower than expected but not hugely, just in the slow evaporation of volume that I've been experiencing for a couple of years now. Over that period Istock's contribution to my overall microstock earnings has slipped from around 40% to about 28% recently.
Yes, same with me. Yesterday wasn't good but was pretty much in line with what I am used to. It seems to be the diamond exclusives who are getting crucified. It's hard to believe that any of them could go two days without a sale, as one has reported. In the seven years since I joined iStock I've never had two successive days without a sale... yet.
-
^^^^ that is exactly what I came here to write. One of the days was Monday so can't even blame it on a bad weekend!!!
-
if you perform a best match search on any major keyword like 'business', 'family', 'Christmas', 'summer' etc., the best match returns are a mix of images with the first images predominantly from diamonds. also on the first page, early on in the results are plenty of images from black diamonds. so far I have not performed any search that corroborates a theory in which lower canisters seem to be favoured in best match to increase profits.
I haven't done a ton of searches, but I didn't see anything radically upended in the best match results on the few I did, so I'll grant you it weakens any argument that they're trying to push bronze/silver with Vetta/Agency. Another possible explanation is that buyers have taken to heart the suggestion (that I've seen over and over again in the forums from kelvinjay and pink_cotton_candy) to set your results to 200 per page and skip over the first page or two to get past Vetta and Agency. That would also skip over a lot of good sellers that do get mixed in with the premium collections.
When you look at the number of high performers who are seeing really large drops it's hard to see this as ebb and flow.
Perhaps tomorrow we'll all get e-mail saying that they were unfortunately not reporting sales correctly and we've all actually had successive best weeks ever :)
-
Actually its picking up! yesterday and today, so far, its brillant! hope it stays this way.
anybody else?
-
Actually its picking up! yesterday and today, so far, its brillant! hope it stays this way.
anybody else?
After months of downward trend - starting mid-2010 - sales for me are now slightly better since a few weeks, but still way below what they used to be
I am not sure if it's the best match or just a general economic trend in conjunction with traditionally good months of the year (March-April)
-
if you perform a best match search on any major keyword like 'business', 'family', 'Christmas', 'summer' etc., the best match returns are a mix of images with the first images predominantly from diamonds. also on the first page, early on in the results are plenty of images from black diamonds. so far I have not performed any search that corroborates a theory in which lower canisters seem to be favoured in best match to increase profits.
Perhaps tomorrow we'll all get e-mail saying that they were unfortunately not reporting sales correctly and we've all actually had successive best weeks ever :)
wouldn't that be nice! although I've been fortunate during this best match shake. not always the case but I'm riding this one out fairly well.
-
Actually its picking up! yesterday and today, so far, its brillant! hope it stays this way.
anybody else?
After months of downward trend - starting mid-2010 - sales for me are now slightly better since a few weeks, but still way below what they used to be
I am not sure if it's the best match or just a general economic trend in conjunction with traditionally good months of the year (March-April)
Out of curiousity, are you exclusive and if so, are the files that are selling for you vetta or agency files?
-
Actually its picking up! yesterday and today, so far, its brillant! hope it stays this way.
anybody else?
After months of downward trend - starting mid-2010 - sales for me are now slightly better since a few weeks, but still way below what they used to be
I am not sure if it's the best match or just a general economic trend in conjunction with traditionally good months of the year (March-April)
Out of curiousity, are you exclusive and if so, are the files that are selling for you vetta or agency files?
I know you weren't asking me, but FWIW I have almost NO Vetta or Agency and I'm doing okay in this best match shake--average to good dls this week and last. and unfortunately two good friends of mine who are quite Vetta/Agency heavy have seen significant drops near 30%. so I don't think it has much to do with V/A presence.
-
I had some good number of DLs this morning. But as soon as the side bar which contains Upload, Uploaded, Sitemail, etc., disappeared, my DLs stopped.
Does it happen to you? I wonder if we are on a rotation to get the image exposure.
-
Actually its picking up! yesterday and today, so far, its brillant! hope it stays this way.
anybody else?
After months of downward trend - starting mid-2010 - sales for me are now slightly better since a few weeks, but still way below what they used to be
I am not sure if it's the best match or just a general economic trend in conjunction with traditionally good months of the year (March-April)
Out of curiousity, are you exclusive and if so, are the files that are selling for you vetta or agency files?
No Im not exclusive, no vettas or agency files. BTW; Are you new here on the forum??
best.
-
No Im not exclusive, no vettas or agency files. BTW; Are you new here on the forum??
best.
[/quote]
I just joined back in January but have been on iStock for about 5 years.
-
I wonder if we are on a rotation to get the image exposure.
Thats my thinking of the meaning of "ebb and flow"
-
Actually its picking up! yesterday and today, so far, its brillant! hope it stays this way.
anybody else?
After months of downward trend - starting mid-2010 - sales for me are now slightly better since a few weeks, but still way below what they used to be
I am not sure if it's the best match or just a general economic trend in conjunction with traditionally good months of the year (March-April)
Out of curiousity, are you exclusive and if so, are the files that are selling for you vetta or agency files?
not esclusive, only selling agency files, no vetta
-
Whoa, daddy. Go Cam[rocker]!
"On the one hand I'm happy to see that its not just me that is suffering so greatly, on the other it makes me sick that so many people are suffering so greatly. I've been canceliing or turning down stock shooting opportunities consistantly for the past three weeks. I have serious doubts about the survival of this business and am now becoming embarrassed to admit I'm exclusive. I used to be a F*cking cheerleader for this place, and now I'm having to figure out what to do to keep providing for my family. I remember the language that iStock used to make us feel secure when signing up for exclusivity, something "trust us we'll take care of you". Maybe I'm paraphrasing but thats how I remember it. But from where I sit it looks as though you guys aren't taking care of crap. I can't even tell if your making any money for yourselves.
You need serious reinvention for your Contributor/Customer relations and Marketing, that is if you ever figure out how to keep the store front working. If I walked into an Apple store and I was forced to look at the Mac Pro before I could get my hands on an iTouch I would never enter that store again. From what I can tell that is exactly how you guys are playing this game, and the competition is laughing at all of us."
Source - http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=323102&page=2 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=323102&page=2)
-
just read that whole thread. how depressing. I am surprised it hasn't been deleted yet after all the other ones have been disappearing.
FWIW - my week hasn't been too bad, although today is starting out slowly. And the latest best match is certainly bringing old files in front of buyers' eyes, as I've seen many of my old and almost forgotten files from like 2004-2007 selling lately.
-
I am finding the same. old files dominating my sales today. dls average.
-
Well, KK's final response in that thread is pretty clear - there is not going to be a reversal of the latest best match shift, just minor nudges over a period of weeks to get it closer to whatever they want.
That's really, really bad news for all the people who have seen their sales collapse (and judging by today's sales, I'm now one of them).
-
What a fascinating and very telling response. All that talk of how *iStock* wants the best match and not a word on what the customers might want to see in the best match. I think they forgot who actually buys the images.
-
So this response tells us that:
A) Revenues must by OK or they would be willing to reverse the process.
Unless they are deliberately trying to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
B) Nothing at all really. IS will stop and turn on a dime if their Getty masters say so.
-
So this response tells us that:
A) Revenues must by OK or they would be willing to reverse the process.
Unless they are deliberately trying to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
It doesn't actually tell us that at all. It may be that the new best match is an attempt to reverse already declining sales. Don't forget that this change has immediately followed Istock's failure to post the new RC targets, most likely to avoid the embarrassment of admitting such. They've had to take some action.
-
Jesus! I just searched on "fish" (both boxes ticked) and the first 1,000 files in the best match are almost exclusively Vetta or Agency with no more than maybe a dozen ordinary files scattered through them. A bunch of the first page results are truly bizarre from a very low-selling artist.
No wonder sales are collapsing.
If this is the same in other searches then there is little doubt the objective is to put as much high-priced content at the front as possible.
-
FWIW sales seem back to "normal" for me. Normal-ish...
-
What a fascinating and very telling response. All that talk of how *iStock* wants the best match and not a word on what the customers might want to see in the best match. I think they forgot who actually buys the images.
Cas, just for the record - and I'm not for a moment wanting to defend iStock's antics with the best match - Andrew did mention the importance of the customers getting good results (my bold below).
I was just going to quote the relevant bit, but have pasted the whole text for completeness:
Let me give everyone a background of the last few weeks and the process going on with the search results sorting.
A few weeks ago we released a large change to the main search engine code. This covered a lot of different things, including best match.
Since that push we've been making adjustments to the best match algorithm - as everyone has been seeing. We started out making a lot of minor daily tweaks - minor enough that people weren't noticing they were happening. We then made a larger adjustment which would be the one people noticed last weekend.
Part of the big change a few weeks ago was working with the actual guts of the best match machine in order to make it more finely-controllable. That is a process which will take some time but down the road we're working on basically improving the dial - making it easier for us to make the kind of fine-tuning adjustments to the sort mix that we want. The release a few weeks ago was a big step towards getting us there.
We are still making changes to get to a best match sort that makes us happy. What makes us happy is our clients getting the most relevant possible results. Yesterday and today we've done more changes that we feel are getting us closer. We will continue doing those changes over the next few weeks.
So the short answer is - we're still working on getting the ideal best match.
As people have noted, this isn't the first time that we've had a best match shake. It won't be the last. Our sort results will change from time to time, and they are going to change without notice. Down the road the improvements that we're making are going to give us finer control so that changes and adjustments won't feel like shakes. In the meantime what you're going to see over the next few weeks are small adjustments with the cumulative effect of the sort results being as relevant as possible.
Of course if giving clients the most relevant possible results is the priority, then something will need to be done about the very highly placed premium files which have low or zero relevancy to the search terms. Seems that this is especially a problem with Agency files. As a very basic example, check out the Agency results for 'setting the table' - months and months on and it's clearly still a problem. [NB. Sean's Agency 'Setting the table' images are actually pictures of people setting a table, of course :)]
-
What makes us happy is our clients getting the most relevant possible results.
That's actually open to interpretation. What constitutes relevant? Relevant to whom? If it meant "most relevant to the clients' needs" then they wouldn't be happy packing the front of the search with files that people apparently don't want. But he now thinks that the major, necessary shake-up has taken place.
If the quote means "most relevant to our profit margins".... well... that may be different (though in the long-run its hard to see how iStock's best interests can be different from their clients' interests).
-
What makes us happy is our clients getting the most relevant possible results.
That's actually open to interpretation. What constitutes relevant? Relevant to whom? If it meant "most relevant to the clients' needs" then they wouldn't be happy packing the front of the search with files that people apparently don't want. But he now thinks that the major, necessary shake-up has taken place.
If the quote means "most relevant to our profit margins".... well... that may be different (though in the long-run its hard to see how iStock's best interests can be different from their clients' interests).
Exactly. I read that as What makes us happy is our clients getting the most relevant (to our profit margins) possible results. It's been pretty clear from their non-response to customers requesting a way to block A/V that they really don't care about what the customers want. iStock wants to push what *it* thinks is relevant to itself, not what the customers think is relevant.
This is iStock's NEW 'relevant', just like there is a NEW 'trust'.
-
What makes us happy is our clients getting the most relevant possible results.
That's actually open to interpretation. What constitutes relevant? Relevant to whom? If it meant "most relevant to the clients' needs" then they wouldn't be happy packing the front of the search with files that people apparently don't want. But he now thinks that the major, necessary shake-up has taken place.
If the quote means "most relevant to our profit margins".... well... that may be different (though in the long-run its hard to see how iStock's best interests can be different from their clients' interests).
By placing all the V's and A's in the front it's anything but relevant. iStock's customer base is sensitive to prices from what I've seen over the years, and placing the high priced files in the front tells me they don't know their customers. They're just alienating buyers at our expense in my opinion.
-
have any of you actually performed test searches? it doesn't sound like it. I've searched on all my test search terms. each search has returned a solid MIX of files. in fact 'business' under best match sort order has only three Agency files and one Vetta file on the whole first page with 200 results.
I've done the same type of search on a number of random terms, some big, some drilled down and I'm not seeing anything flooded with V or A with the excpetion of the 'fish' search....which was given as an earlier example. that returns a large number of Vetta and Agency....who knows why. some of the terms I searched on that returned 'normal' results so that you can try them yourselves are:
business
woman
man
family
child
urban
teamwork
team work
house
for sale
I'm not commenting on the validity of the new best match, but it doesn't seem as V/A heavy as is being 'reported'.
-
have any of you actually performed test searches? it doesn't sound like it. I've searched on all my test search terms. each search has returned a solid MIX of files. in fact 'business' under best match sort order has only three Agency files and one Vetta file on the whole first page with 200 results.
I've done the same type of search on a number of random terms, some big, some drilled down and I'm not seeing anything flooded with V or A with the excpetion of the 'fish' search....which was given as an earlier example. that returns a large number of Vetta and Agency....who knows why. some of the terms I searched on that returned 'normal' results so that you can try them yourselves are:
business
woman
man
family
child
urban
teamwork
team work
house
for sale
I'm not commenting on the validity of the new best match, but it doesn't seem as V/A heavy as is being 'reported'.
I have done a few searches. Try 'hotel room' and see what comes up. When I did it the first 50 images were all Vetta and Agency files with one file that was in the main collection but a best seller. Also, it seems that search results may be regional and I've heard that different users are getting different results depending on where they are.
-
have any of you actually performed test searches? it doesn't sound like it. I've searched on all my test search terms. each search has returned a solid MIX of files.
Yes, I have searched. Many of the terms have a huge disparity in the first one or two pages - masses of Vetta Agency, lots of it with few or zero sales.
Examples:
20 regular files in the first 400 for fish; 20 regular files out of 200 for senior couple; 31 regular of 200 for woman shopping; 12 of 200 for tropical beach; spa treatment 39 of 200; woman eating 21 of 200; woman laptop 30 of 200; man portrait 26 of 200; doctor 37 of 200; swimming pool 13 of 200; summer outdoors 29 of 200; child outdoors 36 of 200; sexy woman 9 of 200.
These aren't a mix, certainly not a solid one. When you consider the small proportion of the 8 million images that are Vetta/Agency, the disproportionate weight becomes overwhelming
-
'Hotel Room' was Agency and Vetta for me. I also did 'fashion' - nothing but V&A for over 20 pages. Pages 20-30 still V&A heavy, but regular collection files scattered throughout. Started to get fewer V&A round about page 33.
ETA: BTW My search was set for 200 files per page. That's a lot of V&A!
For family I see a lot of flames and Agency, not too many Vetta though.
-
Wow, this is depressing, it is amazing I am getting any sales at all. As a new IS contributor, I just keep submitting without expecting any sales, kinda like Yay, Featurepics, etc.
-
have any of you actually performed test searches? it doesn't sound like it.
I'm not commenting on the validity of the new best match, but it doesn't seem as V/A heavy as is being 'reported'.
'horse' photos only: 1 non V/Ain the top 200; 4 in the next 200. (give or take 1 or 2, maybe)
-
have any of you actually performed test searches? it doesn't sound like it.
I'm not commenting on the validity of the new best match, but it doesn't seem as V/A heavy as is being 'reported'.
'horse' photos only: 1 non V/Ain the top 200; 4 in the next 200. (give or take 1 or 2, maybe)
I just did that search too...I'm seeing zero non-V/A in the top 200. And two of the top 200 don't even have a horse in the photo.
One photo on page one has a drastic motion blur filter applied to it. I submitted a horse jumping photo with that same exact filter applied, and it was rejected for overfiltering. ::) No, no favoritism going on there.
-
Jesus! I just searched on "fish" (both boxes ticked) and the first 1,000 files in the best match are almost exclusively Vetta or Agency with no more than maybe a dozen ordinary files scattered through them. A bunch of the first page results are truly bizarre from a very low-selling artist.
No wonder sales are collapsing.
If this is the same in other searches then there is little doubt the objective is to put as much high-priced content at the front as possible.
Ugh.
-
'hotel room' is a fairly damning example for sure. in any case, I'm certainly not happy if there is a V/A bias in all best match returns, but FWIW I've spent the better part of tonight performing search after search on terms and phrases, and still very few produce results like 'fish', 'horse', and 'hotel room'.
overall I get a mix of results from all collections. Incidentally I noticed that editorial files seem pushed back right now in a lot of best match results. my guess is there are still many adjustments to be made.
I feel for those badly hit. I've been there
-
It makes me wonder if the status quo will continue for best match....i.e. Files found their way to the top of searches because they were a relevant to the search AND clicked on by the customer.
Will Vetta and Agency be always at the top of the searches, or will they filter down through the mass to the bottom, simply because they are more expensive and not due to irrelevancy.
Can somebody find a grossly irrelevant Vetta or Agency image ? If so then Vetta and Agency images have a "bubble" around them so as they will always be at the top.
Time will tell....meanwhile my downloads are non-existent......is the Crown worth its exclusivity....
One interesting fact is that iStock has not grown in membership since January 36,892, Today 36,895. (I keep a spreadsheet on the numbers from http://istockcharts.multimedia.de/ (http://istockcharts.multimedia.de/) ) When I look at the numbers, only the Base Level is decreasing, all other levels are increasing. Which says there has not been a new member this year.
The exclusive numbers have risen back up from Decembers Peak with December 5872, January 5399, Today 5479....Dec/Jan had a huge bailout due to the best match, I wonder what will happen in the next week or two.
Has the dust settled, no, its just the eye in the storm................
-
'hotel room' is a fairly damning example for sure. in sny case, I'm certainly not happy if there is a V/A bias in all best match returns, but FWIW I've spent the better part of tonight performing search after search on terms and phrases, and still very few produce results like 'fish', 'horse', and 'hotel room'.
overall I get a mix of results from all collections. Incidentally I noticed that editorial files seem pushed back right now in a lot of best match results. my guess is there are still many adjustments to be made.
That actually makes it even worse that the searches are showing such mixed results and so many people are reporting such drastic drops in downloads. If you can't blame it on the overwhelming presence of V&A, what can it be blamed on?
-
It makes me wonder if the status quo will continue for best match....i.e. Files found their way to the top of searches because they were a relevant to the search AND clicked on by the customer.
Will Vetta and Agency be always at the top of the searches, or will they filter down through the mass to the bottom, simply because they are more expensive and not due to irrelevancy.
Can somebody find a grossly irrelevant Vetta or Agency image ? If so then Vetta and Agency images have a "bubble" around them so as they will always be at the top.
Time will tell....meanwhile my downloads are non-existent......is the Crown worth its exclusivity....
One interesting fact is that iStock has not grown in membership since January 36,892, Today 36,895. (I keep a spreadsheet on the numbers from [url]http://istockcharts.multimedia.de/[/url] ([url]http://istockcharts.multimedia.de/[/url]) ) When I look at the numbers, only the Base Level is decreasing, all other levels are increasing. Which says there has not been a new member this year.
The exclusive numbers have risen back up from Decembers Peak with December 5872, January 5399, Today 5479....Dec/Jan had a huge bailout due to the best match, I wonder what will happen in the next week or two.
Has the dust settled, no, its just the eye in the storm................
the chart you've used to calculate the number of contributors since January is fairly irrelevant. that chart is great for measuring your performance against contributors near you, or for sorting data like number of files, dls etc. but it is useless in terms of counting contributors. in reality there's estimated to be close to 80K contributors. many of whom are barely active or completely inactive. the only contributors represented in the multimedia.de chart are those whose names have been added.
-
'hotel room' is a fairly damning example for sure. in sny case, I'm certainly not happy if there is a V/A bias in all best match returns, but FWIW I've spent the better part of tonight performing search after search on terms and phrases, and still very few produce results like 'fish', 'horse', and 'hotel room'.
overall I get a mix of results from all collections. Incidentally I noticed that editorial files seem pushed back right now in a lot of best match results. my guess is there are still many adjustments to be made.
That actually makes it even worse that the searches are showing such mixed results and so many people are reporting such drastic drops in downloads. If you can't blame it on the overwhelming presence of V&A, what can it be blamed on?
I think the answer is in the question. is blame even the word? every time they shift the best match significantly, some contributors get hurt. it has always been like that. my major hit took place in 2008 when I lost 70% of my income literally from one day to the next in a major best match shift. it almost completely discouraged me from continuing in microstock. this best match shift is no different, though it probably seems more malicious and devastating given the current climate.
-
One interesting fact is that iStock has not grown in membership since January 36,892, Today 36,895. (I keep a spreadsheet on the numbers from [url]http://istockcharts.multimedia.de/[/url] ([url]http://istockcharts.multimedia.de/[/url]) ) When I look at the numbers, only the Base Level is decreasing, all other levels are increasing. Which says there has not been a new member this year.
The exclusive numbers have risen back up from Decembers Peak with December 5872, January 5399, Today 5479....Dec/Jan had a huge bailout due to the best match, I wonder what will happen in the next week or two.
Has the dust settled, no, its just the eye in the storm................
"Just the eye of the storm"?? Oy vey. :(
As for iStockcharts, it was my understanding that all users were added manually by users and for a while it wasn't even possible to add new users so I'm not sure how reflective it truly is of how many new contributors have joined the site. I have a hard time believing that only 3 newbies have joined our ranks.
-
I think the answer is in the question. is blame even the word? every time they shift the best match significantly, some contributors get hurt.
This just seems like way more than some and way worse then has ever been experienced before. I don't think I've ever seen that many diamond contributors on one thread reporting bad sales with such significant drops. Bizarre. I guess time will tell.
-
I think the answer is in the question. is blame even the word? every time they shift the best match significantly, some contributors get hurt.
This just seems like way more than some and way worse then has ever been experienced before. I don't think I've ever seen that many diamond contributors on one thread reporting bad sales with such significant drops. Bizarre. I guess time will tell.
it may be true that is your impression, but there have been a number of threads around best match shifts and search changes that included complaints from diamonds--low level and high level diamonds--who have been negatively hit by shifts. in fact the 'diamond' argument was one of the big arguments in the best match shift that I was hit in. I spent a lot of time in the forums during that shift and it was largely populated by very angry diamonds. regardless, forum posts aren't exactly any sort of gauge for gathering relevant data.
-
have any of you actually performed test searches? it doesn't sound like it.
I'm not commenting on the validity of the new best match, but it doesn't seem as V/A heavy as is being 'reported'.
'horse' photos only: 1 non V/Ain the top 200; 4 in the next 200. (give or take 1 or 2, maybe)
The way the best match now works, in broad outline, is quite clear. Obviously, a computer sort has to apply a numerical value to each file to list them in order. Vetta and Agency get a huge number of points just for what they are, say 50 points each. Exclusive files get a few free points, say five or 10. Maybe a handful of points are added according to a contributor's personal rank (or badge, or something), maybe a few get deducted for age, and then most of the points are provided by the history of sales/month (or maybe earnings/month). So for an exclusive diamond's file to get on the front page inside the vetta zone, it would need its 15 exclusive/rank points plus at least another 35 from sales/month to get up to the magic 50. How many dls does that amount to? It may vary a bit depending on something like the overall number of downloads and files in that search, but it is a lot (and remember, V/A need no sales at all).
The result of this is that in the most popular searches - like business - where there are a good number of killer files that are long established with dozens of sales a month, the V/A are pushed down by superstar files and the mix looks good.
The "fish" search, on the other hand, is not a fast-selling subject so hardly any ordinary files can build up sufficient dl/month to challenge the inbuilt V/A points, but it happens to be a subject with a lot of vetta and agency files - so there is no room at the front for anything but them.
The result of this is that black diamond-type people will tend to be the ones who manage to push their way into the first couple of pages of popular searches with files that already sell two or three times a day (or more) and these files will become even more heavily favoured as buyers see them as the cheap option. Ordinary diamonds, with files that sell maybe a dozen times a month, will get displaced behind all the Vetta beyond the depth people are willing to search to.
The only money to be made will be in searches where there are too few V/A files for them to flood a search. Think of a subject that buyers don't have much interest in and you will probably find that it is not (yet) infected with V/A. Take a search for "spider", for example. This is a low interest subject so you would not expect any ordinary file to be able to challenge the V/A points boost - and, sure enough, the first 21 files in the search are V/A (and I think that is ALL the V/A files) so lots of ordinary files get on the first page. I just checked "snake" and the result is similar - the first 80+ files are ALL V/A and then come all the others.
You can forget travel photography, it sells too slowly to challenge the V/A boost and is too popular with the V/A crowd, so a search on Italy produces only four ordinary files in the first 300 matches - and two of those are actually food photos with an Italian theme.
The rule is that ONLY incredibly popular files are now allowed to challenge V/A dominance. If a subject is not popular enough with buyers to produce a handful of can't-be-ignored superstar files, then ALL the V/A files will be at the front of the search and NONE of the ordinary files will be.
This makes iStock happy (presumably because they know that money doesn't make US happy).
-
I think your theory/point about the business search versus the fish search is very plausible.
-
No!
We are looking too much, too hard to find answers here! this is no BIG science jazz or anything, just a plain and simple search mechanism. Any first year IT-student, even a primate from amazonas could do this.
Doesnt take any business plans from Gates or Jobs to do this.
The difficulty lies in the technique of F-king around with it to the very point of insanity whereby our pituarity glands and grey matter have become so stupid that should we by any chance put our trouses on back to front one morning we would be walking backwards for the rest of the day.
seriously! no joke!
-
Look at the search for "fashion" - I make it three non-V/A in the first 1,000 matches, 2,200 dls gets you on page one, alongside 20 V/A files that have sold more than 100 times, then someone with 1,800 sales managed to get in at around the 500 mark and someone who had only between 500 and 1,000 sales scraped through at around 900th place. One of the front page vetta files had eight sales, another had none (though admittedly it's a new upload - but non-vetta new uploads aren't allowed among the first 1,000).
I can't see the customer base surviving this.
-
^ I don't think 'fashion' is a good example. it is a search I would expect a high number of Vetta files from. but rather than breaking it down in examples....I think it's important to simply say that if V/A are pushed to the front of every search as a rule....customers will feel alienated. if this is an attempt to change buying patterns or attract different demographics, I think it will act only as a deterrent and PERHAPS attract bigger buyers entirely at at the expense of current customers.
customers need to have the option to omit V/A from results. originally I was against any type of price-based sorting, and I am still against price-based sorting generally....but I think sorts allowing the omission of collections are entirely reasonable.
is it possible there's a plan to allow buyers to omit V/A from the sort? which is why they're getting better initial placement in the best match?
-
No!
Sorry, are you saying it doesn't work the way I said?
Right now, I can pretty well predict how any search will look just by thinking about the sales potential of the search term. I bet if you look for Botswana or monkey - both of which are low sales potential searches - you will find that any V/A files in that search are right at the front. I bet if you look for "woman" you will find a mix of very popular high-selling files and V/A files on the first page, maybe even more ordinary files than V/A files (and not one ordinary file with less than 500 sales).
[PS: I just did those searches and - apart from a stray Vetta monkey or two - they are precisely as my theory predicted]
-
^ I don't think 'fashion' is a good example. it is a search I would expect a high number of Vetta files from.
It's an interesting one. I was expecting a mix of filles but as a result of the search I realise that just because fashion is all about a wide range of different styles a single file isn't likely to command the sort of sales necessary to oust the V/A grip.
And even though it has a high number of Vettas, is 997 out of the first 1,000 really a good match? It certainly isn't for buyers who want to be economical. Presumably they will either go away or go to a search by dl., which will further reinforce the files that already sell well, to the detriment of new material.
is it possible there's a plan to allow buyers to omit V/A from the sort? which is why they're getting better initial placement in the best match?
Wishful thinking. They could have offered a V/A-free search months ago if they wanted to. They don't need to screw about with the best match to do it.
They had not the slightest problem offering a "no editorial" option, did they? That tells you everything.
And you're right about price sorting. When it was a matter of a few dollars difference it wouldn't have been right. When it is probably the difference between affordable and unaffordable for a large part of the customer base then it should be sortable, anything else is suicidal.
The full impact of this best match will be seen when the current batch of credit bundles run out (which might be quite soon if buyers don't work out how to avoid V/A) and I bet the result won't be pretty.
-
What you have said makes perfect sense to me BaldricksTrousers. I am being kept afloat by 2 blue flames which are still on the front page of searches and another image with a very high dl/pm ratio but hasn't quite reached blue yet. Because of this my sales have stayed fairly steady compared to so many other peoples.
-
No!
Sorry, are you saying it doesn't work the way I said?
Right now, I can pretty well predict how any search will look just by thinking about the sales potential of the search term. I bet if you look for Botswana or monkey - both of which are low sales potential searches - you will find that any V/A files in that search are right at the front. I bet if you look for "woman" you will find a mix of very popular high-selling files and V/A files on the first page, maybe even more ordinary files than V/A files (and not one ordinary file with less than 500 sales).
[PS: I just did those searches and - apart from a stray Vetta monkey or two - they are precisely as my theory predicted]
No! I think youre right! I still cant explain it but When I do 3 major searches within my own field, there are Vetta, etc and Im an independant ordinary Diamond but I have got at least 3 files in the first row, first page.
Having said that, Im not too sure there are many Vettas within my own nieches.
best.
-
No! I think youre right! I still cant explain it but When I do 3 major searches within my own field, there are Vetta, etc and Im an independant ordinary Diamond but I have got at least 3 files in the first row, first page.
Having said that, Im not too sure there are many Vettas within my own nieches.
best.
An independent, ordinary diamond with several files that have sold more than 2,000 times. I guess they are the ones that led the search.
What hope is there for newbies, now? Doesn't this search slam the door in the face of anyone who isn't already at least well-established or more realistically part of the Vetta group? How will newbies pick up enough sales to become exclusive and be allowed into the club?
-
Incidentally I noticed that editorial files seem pushed back right now in a lot of best match results.
I'm curious as to the enormous differences in different searches. Generally I'm noticing that new files and editorials are very low, but on one low-demand, low-supply search (1310 files) with only one Vetta, new files and editorial files are sprinkled throughout.
I'm wondering if it's deliberate to place editorial files low, as IME at least, most editorial sales are XSm or Sm.
-
If it stays how it is, then I see the whole thing as being unsustainable. (A bit overused that term but true in this case)
Exclusivity only works / worked when there is / was some concern by the company for it's exclusives.
Once the company starts putting it's own profits in front of everything else, I don't see how exclusivity can work except for perhaps a few right at the top.
As already said by lots of people this could of course be the plan.
Looking at the best match as it is at the moment, I wonder when they will start to seriously lose buyers. Some of the "mainstream" searches may give some usable results, but some of the niche searches look dire. High price combined with a need to sort through tons of unwanted results may bring on a crisis.
What will they do then. Put up prices again?
-
<snip> They could have offered a V/A-free search months ago if they wanted to. They don't need to screw about with the best match to do it.
They had not the slightest problem offering a "no editorial" option, did they? That tells you everything.
And you're right about price sorting. When it was a matter of a few dollars difference it wouldn't have been right. When it is probably the difference between affordable and unaffordable for a large part of the customer base then it should be sortable, anything else is suicidal.
The full impact of this best match will be seen when the current batch of credit bundles run out (which might be quite soon if buyers don't work out how to avoid V/A) and I bet the result won't be pretty.
Don't understand why they haven't provided customers with a search which takes their purchase history into account. That way, customers who buy lots of Vetta/Agency would get an emphasis on content at that price point in their search results, while (for example) a customer who's never purchased anything more expensive than a medium size file from the main collection would see an extremely light spreading of V/A files.
Simples, no? Give customers what they want. As customers make more purchases, iStock get a more accurate picture of what they want, and tailor their search results accordingly rather than ignoring such important information.
Surely that's not beyond the abilities of a tech team who were able to implement a dynamic-relevancy-slider, or location weighted results?
-
Don't understand why they haven't provided customers with a search which takes their purchase history into account.
...
Simples, no? Give customers what they want. As customers make more purchases, iStock get a more accurate picture of what they want, and tailor their search results accordingly rather than ignoring such important information.
Surely that's not beyond the abilities of a tech team
Do we know that they are not doing that? Maybe I just see the non-buyers sort. How about buyers here, are they seeing the same thing?
-
Don't understand why they haven't provided customers with a search which takes their purchase history into account.
...
Simples, no? Give customers what they want. As customers make more purchases, iStock get a more accurate picture of what they want, and tailor their search results accordingly rather than ignoring such important information.
Surely that's not beyond the abilities of a tech team
Do we know that they are not doing that? Maybe I just see the non-buyers sort. How about buyers here, are they seeing the same thing?
I'm pretty sure they're not doing it already.
I've bought from iStock in the past, but not enough for this to work effectively so I don't have direct evidence. But from the indirect evidence based on abundant forum posts and tweets from buyers, along the lines of "I've never bought from Vetta and I never want to, so why are you pushing pages and pages of this stuff in my face?!" I think it's fair to guess that either such a feedback system hasn't been implemented at all, or if one has, it doesn't work.
-
If it stays how it is, then I see the whole thing as being unsustainable. (A bit overused that term but true in this case)
Exclusivity only works / worked when there is / was some concern by the company for it's exclusives.
Once the company starts putting it's own profits in front of everything else, I don't see how exclusivity can work except for perhaps a few right at the top.
As already said by lots of people this could of course be the plan.
Looking at the best match as it is at the moment, I wonder when they will start to seriously lose buyers. Some of the "mainstream" searches may give some usable results, but some of the niche searches look dire. High price combined with a need to sort through tons of unwanted results may bring on a crisis.
What will they do then. Put up prices again?
Hi Dave!
To be quite honest Dave, ever since the digital world took over and with billions of images, copycats, similarities, etc, I dont think Exclusivity has really ever worked the way it should
have worked or rather the way we would like it to work. Its a Getty value from the old days with a few million trannies, you know and in fact one of the reasons I never did go exclusive.
Sure! in the good old IS days, perhaps it was at least some benefits but nowdays, with everything going on? I dont know. Dangerous game actually.
Should the ship finally sink? theres no rescue and building up new ports with new agencies? Oh boy, takes ages and with 1K % more competition.
best.
-
I dont think Exclusivity has really ever worked the way it should
have worked or rather the way we would like it to work. Its a Getty value from the old days with a few million trannies,
iS exclusivity predated its marriage to Getty and was really just aimed at undermining the rival micros that were starting to pop up like mushrooms in the second half of 2004.
I don't know for sure but I suspect Getty exclusivity was about controlling image rights in RM collections.
-
I dont think Exclusivity has really ever worked the way it should
have worked or rather the way we would like it to work. Its a Getty value from the old days with a few million trannies,
iS exclusivity predated its marriage to Getty and was really just aimed at undermining the rival micros that were starting to pop up like mushrooms in the second half of 2004.
I don't know for sure but I suspect Getty exclusivity was about controlling image rights in RM collections.
Well yes! it was strictly meant for image control within the RM, copy issues, etc but to try and enforce it in RF and Micro, well thats total insanity and doesnt stop anybody, impossible to police on this magnitude, when all you need is separate accounts, pseudos.
Besides, I know dozens of photographers, RM and exclusivity bound within RM and they are under other pseudos supplying plenty to others and have done so for years.
-
Sure! in the good old IS days, perhaps it was at least some benefits but nowdays, with everything going on? I dont know. Dangerous game actually.
Should the ship finally sink? theres no rescue and building up new ports with new agencies? Oh boy, takes ages and with 1K % more competition.
best.
You're right of course Chris. We all made our own choices based on the info we had at the time, took any benefits there were (or at least we thought there were) and we have always had to live with the consequences of those choices both good and bad.
It looks to me though as if there could be some painful new decisions to be made soon though, as well as a lot of hard work, in an attempt at long term damage limitation. Certainly the idea of the ship completely sinking is very worrying. The "ship's boats" are in short supply and already pretty full, and the order of the day would seem to be "Newbies and non-exclusives first"
Having said that it's early days for this new sort yet, and with Easter looming on the horizon things might not actually be as bad as they look.
There seem to be more icebergs about than usual though since September!
-
I think the suggestion about a price-oriented client-specific search result is interesting. but it would actually be the reverse of what we want. the search, AFAIK, is meant to produce regional results. I think that's a good move and provides a value-added service to customers. but to take that and apply it regarding price (based on previous spending associated with that account), doesn't really make sense. the purpose of marketing is to turn customers into the type of buyers we need them to be, hence the buckshot approach to filling every industry hole. "don't like things here (iStock), well too bad, but why don't you shop here instead (TS)?" it's destabilizing and you don't have to be a brilliant economist to see that the longterm effect is the erosion of iStock's brand and business (which I think is well underway).
-
What you have said makes perfect sense to me BaldricksTrousers.
Ditto. FANTASTIC posts, Mr. Trousers.
-
Don't understand why they haven't provided customers with a search which takes their purchase history into account.
...
Simples, no? Give customers what they want. As customers make more purchases, iStock get a more accurate picture of what they want, and tailor their search results accordingly rather than ignoring such important information.
Surely that's not beyond the abilities of a tech team
Do we know that they are not doing that? Maybe I just see the non-buyers sort. How about buyers here, are they seeing the same thing?
Hm. Interesting (and annoying) issue.
If they are doing this, they're not taking into account people doing the searching who are not doing the buying.
For example, I search and collect images for the company where I work. I put everything into a lightbox that is then shared with my team - the people who are going to ultimately select what to buy, and buy it.
I did a lot of searches yesterday and have a day of search ahead again today. I feel like I'm looking for a needle in a haystack at times. Between the keyword spam and the heavy Vetta/Agency results, I am beyond annoyed.
We're a travel-related company in the luxury space, and so I'm searching on all sorts of things: luxury, hotel, bed, bedroom, beach, Paris, San Francisco, cityscape, etc.
ETA: The only reason we use IS at present is because we have outstanding credits there. I've told the higher ups that when the credits run out, it might be time to shop elsewhere. They've not been best pleased with IS since the rollout of the new site last year. And who can blame them.
-
snip.... The "ship's boats" are in short supply and already pretty full, and the order of the day would seem to be "Newbies and non-exclusives first"
....snip
do you really think that newbies and non-exclusives are being favored here? The non-exclusives have an advantage if IS continues imploding in that they are already elsewhere, but they sure aren't getting any favors from IS. The Newbies that are exclusive are getting screwed in all directions from IS unless they are producing large volumes of sellers.
IS needs to put price into the sort mix, but I can't see them doing that. It goes against what they have been trying to do.
Good analysis Mr Trousers, it looks like you hit how this search works. Too bad it isn't a very good way to run a search.
-
I think the suggestion about a price-oriented client-specific search result is interesting. but it would actually be the reverse of what we want. the search, AFAIK, is meant to produce regional results. I think that's a good move and provides a value-added service to customers. but to take that and apply it regarding price (based on previous spending associated with that account), doesn't really make sense. the purpose of marketing is to turn customers into the type of buyers we need them to be, hence the buckshot approach to filling every industry hole. "don't like things here (iStock), well too bad, but why don't you shop here instead (TS)?" it's destabilizing and you don't have to be a brilliant economist to see that the longterm effect is the erosion of iStock's brand and business (which I think is well underway).
I hope that iStock isn't aiming for a long term effect that is the erosion of iStock's brand and business. If they truly wanted to force self-destruct, that would be very achievable, but I don't believe that's the aim.
A (possibly dubious) analogy for a price-sensitive best match search could be a well run jewellery shop that pays attention to what its customers buy. A person walks into the shop looking for a new watch, and the owner knows that person has bought four Swatches and two Timex watches in the past. So the owner leads that customer towards the budget end of the shop, but also points out some medium-priced brands which the customer may appreciate. What the owner doesn't do is lead the customer through a lengthy presentation of Rolex watches, then move on to Longines and dozens of other premium brands.
And conversely, when a high rolling customer who's only ever bought jewellery with the finest quality gems and precious metals walks in, he/she would be shown the best and most expensive stuff that the shop has to offer.
I'm sure I'm teaching my gran how to suck eggs here, but imho that would be a better way to convert buyer visits into purchases than a one-size-fits-all, highest-priced-products-for-everybody policy.
-
I think the suggestion about a price-oriented client-specific search result is interesting. but it would actually be the reverse of what we want. the search, AFAIK, is meant to produce regional results.
I am very skeptical of regional search.
If I was king - there would be a more clearly delineated sense of identity attached to the different collections. And as well as the big search it would be possible to search and browse within the various collections. And there would be more collections. Perhaps we could even apply to start our own - like an extension of lightboxing.
And I would try to think about reinventing search a little too. There would be something like --- "show me more stuff which potentially has the same feel or style as this". That would be algorithmically tied to lightboxing, previous choices etc. In that way it would be possible not only to drill down --- but also to sort of go sideways too. A bit like how people browse ffffound. This would enable users to more easily find stuff by accident when they don't know what they are looking for.
I would also introduce some sort of system of 'liking' (buyers only) - so you could follow through all the stuff which different people had liked. Bringing in the social aspect of search. Which is pretty much the holy grail, many believe. And that might well also feed into the threaded idea.
IMO old fashioned search fails when there is too much stuff. Looking for images I think many people almost want to see stuff which is more mood based. Small selections even.
ETA: and I would launch a Flipboard content stream with pages and pages of images for people to browse on the iPad, magazine style.
-
snip.... The "ship's boats" are in short supply and already pretty full, and the order of the day would seem to be "Newbies and non-exclusives first"
....snip
do you really think that newbies and non-exclusives are being favored here? The non-exclusives have an advantage if IS continues imploding in that they are already elsewhere, but they sure aren't getting any favors from IS. The Newbies that are exclusive are getting screwed in all directions from IS unless they are producing large volumes of sellers.
IS needs to put price into the sort mix, but I can't see them doing that. It goes against what they have been trying to do.
Good analysis Mr Trousers, it looks like you hit how this search works. Too bad it isn't a very good way to run a search.
Me and my metaphors! I can't see any favours for anybody much at the moment in this lot. What I meant was that Newbies haven't got to the exclusive stage yet, and so can more easily join other agencies, and independents already have work at other agencies. The other agencies was all I meant by "lifeboats".
-
I think the suggestion about a price-oriented client-specific search result is interesting. but it would actually be the reverse of what we want. the search, AFAIK, is meant to produce regional results. I think that's a good move and provides a value-added service to customers. but to take that and apply it regarding price (based on previous spending associated with that account), doesn't really make sense. the purpose of marketing is to turn customers into the type of buyers we need them to be, hence the buckshot approach to filling every industry hole. "don't like things here (iStock), well too bad, but why don't you shop here instead (TS)?" it's destabilizing and you don't have to be a brilliant economist to see that the longterm effect is the erosion of iStock's brand and business (which I think is well underway).
I hope that iStock isn't aiming for a long term effect that is the erosion of iStock's brand and business. If they truly wanted to force self-destruct, that would be very achievable, but I don't believe that's the aim.
A (possibly dubious) analogy for a price-sensitive best match search could be a well run jewellery shop that pays attention to what its customers buy. A person walks into the shop looking for a new watch, and the owner knows that person has bought four Swatches and two Timex watches in the past. So the owner leads that customer towards the budget end of the shop, but also points out some medium-priced brands which the customer may appreciate. What the owner doesn't do is lead the customer through a lengthy presentation of Rolex watches, then move on to Longines and dozens of other premium brands.
And conversely, when a high rolling customer who's only ever bought jewellery with the finest quality gems and precious metals walks in, he/she would be shown the best and most expensive stuff that the shop has to offer.
I'm sure I'm teaching my gran how to suck eggs here, but imho that would be a better way to convert buyer visits into purchases than a one-size-fits-all, highest-priced-products-for-everybody policy.
I don't think it's what they are intentionally aiming for. I think they probably very legitimately believe the buckshot approach will work and bring us all lots of money. and frankly I hope it does turn out that way. but without having any insider knowledge of the goings ons, and with only what we are told to work with....it's hard to quell the anxiety about our future in this industry. in any case, I'm in it for the long haul as many of us are, and adapt or die seems to be the order of the day. the question is, how to adapt. how to manage my work to best exist in this industry as it changes. I guess the obvious decision that can affect some change at least individually is whether or not to remain exclusive. but I'm so tired of thinking about that.
-
I think that istock is trying to do what a lot of companies are trying to do now...control the buyers. They are trying to custom tailor every freakin search to every region, person, past history, past buying trends, etc. ad nauseum.
It gets to a point where it is just a big turnoff.
I totally agree with a Best Match...Best Match meaning if I put in the word horse, I'm going to get horse photos. Don't tailor it for me so that only horses in the US show, don't tailor it so I only see white horses, because last month I bought a white horse photo. istock has NO CLUE about what type of project I'm working on. They should concentrate their energy on just getting horses and not all the other crap you have to wade through to come from the search. Don't try to trick me into buying something I can't afford by shoving all the expensive stuff to the front.
-
I think that istock is trying to do what a lot of companies are trying to do now...control the buyers. They are trying to custom tailor every freakin search to every region, person, past history, past buying trends, etc. ad nauseum.
It's a particular case of a wider issue. They are forcing us to install software in local language (Try installing "Safari" in English on a non-English OS), they are changing flavour of foreign imported food and drink to our supposed taste, they are feeding us local news, and so on... it's really annoying.
-
Yeah, it's a bit like Amazon sending me loads of emails about vacuum cleaners because I bought one from them (only a year ago, so it's still working, why would I want another one) and Nikon lenses because I bought a Canon lens ... Mind you, sometimes Amazon gets it right!
-
I think that istock is trying to do what a lot of companies are trying to do now...control the buyers. They are trying to custom tailor every freakin search to every region, person, past history, past buying trends, etc. ad nauseum.
It gets to a point where it is just a big turnoff.
I totally agree with a Best Match...Best Match meaning if I put in the word horse, I'm going to get horse photos. Don't tailor it for me so that only horses in the US show, don't tailor it so I only see white horses, because last month I bought a white horse photo. istock has NO CLUE about what type of project I'm working on. They should concentrate their energy on just getting horses and not all the other crap you have to wade through to come from the search. Don't try to trick me into buying something I can't afford by shoving all the expensive stuff to the front.
Word.
Other things that are annoying me today as I search for photos for a project at work:
* Stop showing me images multiple times that you've already shown me on previous pages. This makes no effing sense. Particularly as I'm now sorting by file age. Cripes.
* Stop showing me renderings when I'm looking for photos and have the photos box ticked. It really ticks me off! The number of renderings in photo results when you're searching on various types of interiors is out of control. Seriously.
-
It's a shame we haven't heard from Sean yet, but maybe he's had to start shooting Vetta and is busy on an artistic series showing an exclusive photographer with his head in a gas oven.
-
It's a shame we haven't heard from Sean yet, but maybe he's had to start shooting Vetta and is busy on an artistic series showing an exclusive photographer with his head in a gas oven.
Sean Locke Plath? lol....
-
It's a shame we haven't heard from Sean yet, but maybe he's had to start shooting Vetta and is busy on an artistic series showing an exclusive photographer with his head in a gas oven.
Sean Locke Plath? lol....
Wow! That was erudite!
-
It's a shame we haven't heard from Sean yet, but maybe he's had to start shooting Vetta and is busy on an artistic series showing an exclusive photographer with his head in a gas oven.
Sean Locke Plath? lol....
Wow! That was erudite!
ooo, and you're being ironic. aren't we high brow around here today ;D
-
I think that istock is trying to do what a lot of companies are trying to do now...control the buyers. They are trying to custom tailor every freakin search to every region, person, past history, past buying trends, etc. ad nauseum.
The regional thing is really beyond stupid. With things being global like they are, why should they assume that designers don't have clients from all over the world. As for the rest of it, I couldn't agree more with the things that people are saying. How would iStock *possibly* know what projects people are working on? What arrogance.
-
It's a shame we haven't heard from Sean yet, but maybe he's had to start shooting Vetta and is busy on an artistic series showing an exclusive photographer with his head in a gas oven.
Sean Locke Plath? lol....
Wow! That was erudite!
ooo, and you're being ironic. aren't we high brow around here today ;D
It's so nice to see the level of conversation moving up a few levels from Monty Python. ;D And that was a very good reference...
-
I think that istock is trying to do what a lot of companies are trying to do now...control the buyers. They are trying to custom tailor every freakin search to every region, person, past history, past buying trends, etc. ad nauseum.
The regional thing is really beyond stupid. With things being global like they are, why should they assume that designers don't have clients from all over the world. As for the rest of it, I couldn't agree more with the things that people are saying. How would iStock *possibly* know what projects people are working on? What arrogance.
I'm not a fan of it either, but I definitely see the impact it's had already. I've noticed a very large shift in the time of day the bulk of DL's occur from American business hours to European business hours.
-
I think that istock is trying to do what a lot of companies are trying to do now...control the buyers. They are trying to custom tailor every freakin search to every region, person, past history, past buying trends, etc. ad nauseum.
The regional thing is really beyond stupid. With things being global like they are, why should they assume that designers don't have clients from all over the world. As for the rest of it, I couldn't agree more with the things that people are saying. How would iStock *possibly* know what projects people are working on? What arrogance.
I'm not a fan of it either, but I definitely see the impact it's had already. I've noticed a very large shift in the time of day the bulk of DL's occur from American business hours to European business hours.
Wouldn't you rather have both though? What if there are Americans who need your photos too?
-
Wouldn't you rather have both though? What if there are Americans who need your photos too?
It's really insane. Someone just wrote me of an in-action of my husband used in Italy. If they had looked for that image on Istock recently they wouldn't have seen it.
-
So not only are they manipulating buyers, but they are manipulating contributor's income. Makes me sick. Or mad. Or both. >:(
-
Wouldn't you rather have both though? What if there are Americans who need your photos too?
[/quote]
Yes. I wasn't disagreeing with you. Just pointing out the change in DL patterns. I think regional best match search results are lame too. I mean, what are they basing it on? Contributor's location? What if I'm based in the States and take a bunch of travel shots in Italy? Or heaven help me if I'm in some place no one's heard of like Kazakhstan.
-
Lisa - from my understanding, that's not how the regional results work. your comment makes a big ( and I believe incorrect) assumption about how the regional sort works. there was a thread in the iStock forum in which the way it will work was described in detail. I'm trying to find the thread for you where they discussed the regional sort and how it would work in theory, but it's not coming up in any searches. bizarre. anyone know if the regional search is actually live? or have they taken all mentions of regional search results back into the 'classified arena'.
-
Sooo, how does it work? Based on the buyer's location? What?
-
Lisa - from my understanding, that's not how the regional results work. your comment makes a big ( and I believe incorrect) assumption about how the regional sort works. there was a thread in the iStock forum in which the way it will work was described in detail.
I don't recall that - only some vague examples about showing the right nationality if "flag" was used as a search term. Do you have a link to the details?
-
I don't recall that - only some vague examples about showing the right nationality if "flag" was used as a search term. Do you have a link to the details?
Well, 'flag' certainly doesn't work. So the thread describing the wonders of this scheme is probably missing in the same way that people went missing from official Soviet photos in Stalin's day. You can always airbrush away your mistakes.
-
I haven't found any threads in my search in which regional sort was discussed. so, it may be my searching, or the comments are gone, or maybe it's not happening, or maybe it's returned to the best match algorithm vault. who knows, but I don't believe the regional sort could singlehandedly sink anyone's sales anyways unless all their images are of one national landmark somewhere.
-
Lisa - from my understanding, that's not how the regional results work. your comment makes a big ( and I believe incorrect) assumption about how the regional sort works. there was a thread in the iStock forum in which the way it will work was described in detail. I'm trying to find the thread for you where they discussed the regional sort and how it would work in theory, but it's not coming up in any searches. bizarre. anyone know if the regional search is actually live? or have they taken all mentions of regional search results back into the 'classified arena'.
Thanks for trying to find it for me. :) I haven't been in the Istock forums a lot lately.
I certainly hope I am wrong and my images aren't being kept out of searches outside North America, just because I am located here. I see my work "in action" from all over the world. I am sure most of us have the same experience.
-
Has the dust settled? My sales are down 25-30% this week. This coincides with a big jump in my local currency (Australian $) against the US$. So all in all, this latest best match change couldn't have come at a worse time. I certainly hope they haven't stopped dialling!!
Curious point: For a while last week, when I sorted my portfolio by best match, 18 out of the top 20 images were "Australian" - scenes, money, food, etc. This even though such images are only a small percentage of my total. Don't know what was going on there. Something to do with their "regional results" experiment??
-
Has the dust settled? My sales are down 25-30% this week.
Don't forget that the Easter vacation period has already started in much of Europe. I think we can expect a quiet couple of weeks on all agencies.
-
Don't forget that the Easter vacation period has already started in much of Europe. I think we can expect a quiet couple of weeks on all agencies.
In the last couple of years, Easter has not affected my sales until the week of Good Friday, i.e. next week. So I don't think that's the reason for the current decline.
-
Don't forget that the Easter vacation period has already started in much of Europe. I think we can expect a quiet couple of weeks on all agencies.
Thanks for the reminder. Easter/Spring Break was slow for me last year. Now at least I will be prepared.
-
Lisa - from my understanding, that's not how the regional results work. your comment makes a big ( and I believe incorrect) assumption about how the regional sort works. there was a thread in the iStock forum in which the way it will work was described in detail. I'm trying to find the thread for you where they discussed the regional sort and how it would work in theory, but it's not coming up in any searches. bizarre. anyone know if the regional search is actually live? or have they taken all mentions of regional search results back into the 'classified arena'.
Thanks for trying to find it for me. :) I haven't been in the Istock forums a lot lately.
I certainly hope I am wrong and my images aren't being kept out of searches outside North America, just because I am located here. I see my work "in action" from all over the world. I am sure most of us have the same experience.
look at the bright side...I think there was data suggesting the US is where a big chunk of iStock business comes from. so you're probably good! I think regional sorts might be quite damaging to contributors with smaller, region-specific ports that are not representative of US buyers' interests....
-
Don't forget that the Easter vacation period has already started in much of Europe. I think we can expect a quiet couple of weeks on all agencies.
Thanks for the reminder. Easter/Spring Break was slow for me last year. Now at least I will be prepared.
Well, it may appear to be Easter on iStock but it sure as hell isn't Easter on SS.
-
Thanks for the reminder. Easter/Spring Break was slow for me last year. Now at least I will be prepared.
Well, it may appear to be Easter on iStock but it sure as hell isn't Easter on Shutterstock.
Or Dreamstime. And actually my commission tally is moving upward (finally) for me on BigStock.
-
In the last three days I've had about 40% of my usual monthly earnings on 123 and CanStockPhoto has been producing several sales a day instead of one or two.
-
It may not stay this way, but as this week has progressed, sales have been returning to the land of the living at IS (for me). Nothing really great (i.e. no big spike over prior good days) but massively better than the prior week (which was grim). Obviously I hope this means that their "tweaks" are moving in the right direction
-
It may not stay this way, but as this week has progressed, sales have been returning to the land of the living at IS (for me). Nothing really great (i.e. no big spike over prior good days) but massively better than the prior week (which was grim). Obviously I hope this means that their "tweaks" are moving in the right direction
More or less the opposite for me. Wednesday was the best day Dls wise I've had for a while. Yesterday went dead after about 6pm here (UK). Today is like a Sunday! The funny thing is that on the previous Monday after the first big change I had a reasonable day.
To be honest, I can't see any rhyme or reason in it any longer. All I do know is that overall I'm looking well down this week, but even so only "really bad" not "totally disasterous"
-
More or less the opposite for me. Wednesday was the best day Dls wise I've had for a while. Yesterday went dead after about 6pm here (UK). Today is like a Sunday! The funny thing is that on the previous Monday after the first big change I had a reasonable day.
To be honest, I can't see any rhyme or reason in it any longer. All I do know is that overall I'm looking well down this week, but even so only "really bad" not "totally disasterous"
I think that's the key statement, and I think that's exactly the way istock wants it to be.
-
To answer my own question, here's the words straight from the horse's mouth (sort of - it's via that Canon article where KKT was interviewed), so we have to take it with a grain of salt, considering he thinks all the contributors only sell stock to buy a new lens cap:
"Thompson also clearly has an eye on the long-term benefits of the site's search engine – which has recently been overhauled. He describes it as “awesome” in delivering results based on a customer/client's location."
So it's supposed to be based on a client's location. So so stupid. Not all a designer's clients are local. Can they really be *that* dumb at iStock? (rhetorical question, of course)
-
To answer my own question, here's the words straight from the horse's mouth (sort of - it's via that Canon article where KKT was interviewed), so we have to take it with a grain of salt, considering he thinks all the contributors only sell stock to buy a new lens cap:
"Thompson also clearly has an eye on the long-term benefits of the site's search engine – which has recently been overhauled. He describes it as “awesome” in delivering results based on a customer/client's location."
So it's supposed to be based on a client's location. So so stupid. Not all a designer's clients are local. Can they really be *that* dumb at iStock? (rhetorical question, of course)
totally... especially if I have a web developer working in Thailand but contracted to work on a site based out of the U.S. Did they forget why the marketplace they sell in is called the WORLD WIDE Web?
-
To answer my own question, here's the words straight from the horse's mouth (sort of - it's via that Canon article where KKT was interviewed), so we have to take it with a grain of salt, considering he thinks all the contributors only sell stock to buy a new lens cap:
"Thompson also clearly has an eye on the long-term benefits of the site's search engine – which has recently been overhauled. He describes it as “awesome” in delivering results based on a customer/client's location."
So it's supposed to be based on a client's location. So so stupid. Not all a designer's clients are local. Can they really be *that* dumb at iStock? (rhetorical question, of course)
You know, I hadn't really thought of that -- haven't bought stock for a remote client in a while -- but yeah, imagine if you worked in the travel industry or did design work for a multi-national? Pain in the ass.
-
If I do certain Google searches - for restaurants, locksmiths, etc. - I get a lot of local content. That's good - it knows my location (via GPS on my iPhone and because I've told it when I'm on my desktop computer). But Google is smart enough to know that if I start searching for things that don't really have any local component - "What's malted barley?" - it just drops all the sections for my area and gives me information.
It may be that some bright spark decided that local information in search results is "the thing" (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2380080,00.asp) without fully thinking through how designers do what they do. There's a comment in that article about the difficulties of "...trying to figure out the foibles of human behavior from a mass of digital bits..." When you consider the team size and level of expertise that the big dogs (Google and Microsoft) have working on this sort of search engine behavior, it does make me wonder why a small subsidiary of a stock photo company would take this on.
-
... When you consider the team size and level of expertise that the big dogs (Google and Microsoft) have working on this sort of search engine behavior, it does make me wonder why a small subsidiary of a stock photo company would take this on.
Istock/Getty do have form in this regard. Uniquely they force users to seach for their products with their special Controlled Vocabulary. Google stayed well clear of that idea (as well as all the other stock agencies and every other business on the web).
-
... When you consider the team size and level of expertise that the big dogs (Google and Microsoft) have working on this sort of search engine behavior, it does make me wonder why a small subsidiary of a stock photo company would take this on.
Istock/Getty do have form in this regard. Uniquely they force users to seach for their products with their special Controlled Vocabulary. Google stayed well clear of that idea (as well as all the other stock agencies and every other business on the web).
I"ve never understood the impetus to invest so much time & energy in CV, when forum questions time and time again prove that its illogical -- why reinvent the wheel? It seems like a marketing tactic run amok: "Ooooh, look at our fancy CV thingamabob!! It'll get you precise results with every search! (But only if you use our special terms, don't use confusing symbols like '+', and burn special Calgary incense in your office."
-
To answer my own question, here's the words straight from the horse's mouth (sort of - it's via that Canon article where KKT was interviewed), so we have to take it with a grain of salt, considering he thinks all the contributors only sell stock to buy a new lens cap:
"Thompson also clearly has an eye on the long-term benefits of the site's search engine – which has recently been overhauled. He describes it as “awesome” in delivering results based on a customer/client's location."
So it's supposed to be based on a client's location. So so stupid. Not all a designer's clients are local. Can they really be *that* dumb at iStock? (rhetorical question, of course)
totally... especially if I have a web developer working in Thailand but contracted to work on a site based out of the U.S. Did they forget why the marketplace they sell in is called the WORLD WIDE Web?
Kelly needs to put the pipe down. Every time I'm tasked with shopping for photos, I see/feel the buyer's pain. Having spent all week now, several hours each day, searching for luxury travel-related images, I must say that iStock's search tool is the antithesis of awesome.
Why, for the love of god, for example, am I being shown THE SAME images every other page? Even when I dump best match sort in favor of sort by age? Not that it should matter how one is sorting. If you showed me an image once and I didn't buy it or add it to a lightbox, putting it in front of me two, three, five, fifteen times or more isn't going to do anything but piss me the eff off.
And the spam. By god the spam. It's so out of control. And it's not just random contributors. It's big names. Not cool. And clearly deliberate. And clearly they get away with it because of who they are. In speaking to another iStock contributor about this very issue, I was informed that when this person tried to fairly Wiki an inspector's file - someone who is just out of control with the spamming - the Wiki went away within hours. Nothing was done. Zap. Gone. File remains, spam and all. No favoritism, my arse. Spamming can seriously help . out of a file, as we all know.
There are others, but those would have to be my top two beefs with IS search. Those and I'd love to be able to nix all the Vetta and Agency files, of course. We don't have the budget for such lavish spending on photos, and coupled with the other two issues I mentioned, it's adding to a serious waste of my time. Which, for my company, is money.
-
march was a bme, sudden jump up about 25% on an 'average' month
april so far is looking to be about 35% below my 'average' month
did 2 searches that allow me to see my stuff well as they have narrow results (and no vetta or agency)
1st search (28 pages / 50 per page) - my first flame image is on page 8, my blue flame on page 18. I used to have about 3 flame images on page 1 and a couple on page 2 :(
my 2nd search only brings up 4 pages of results (50 per page) - so limiting in some ways but there is about half a dozen people with 6-10 images each so can be interesting
my first image is bottom of page 1, then scattered, another independant person is pretty much the same, the third independant got the 1st two spots and then scattered, so no real big deal
most stuff is pretty scattered but I did pick up that
1 person (silver exclusive 8 images) scored all 8 of his images in the first 4 lines of page 1 including 3 in the first line.
1 person (bronze exclusive 9 images) got 6 images on page 1 (two in first line) and then 3 in the first line of page 2
1 person (silver exclusive 6 images) got all 6 images in the very last 7 spots on page 4! ouch!
-
To answer my own question, here's the words straight from the horse's mouth (sort of - it's via that Canon article where KKT was interviewed), so we have to take it with a grain of salt, considering he thinks all the contributors only sell stock to buy a new lens cap:
"Thompson also clearly has an eye on the long-term benefits of the site's search engine – which has recently been overhauled. He describes it as “awesome” in delivering results based on a customer/client's location."
So it's supposed to be based on a client's location. So so stupid. Not all a designer's clients are local. Can they really be *that* dumb at iStock? (rhetorical question, of course)
totally... especially if I have a web developer working in Thailand but contracted to work on a site based out of the U.S. Did they forget why the marketplace they sell in is called the WORLD WIDE Web?
Kelly needs to put the pipe down. Every time I'm tasked with shopping for photos, I see/feel the buyer's pain. Having spent all week now, several hours each day, searching for luxury travel-related images, I must say that iStock's search tool is the antithesis of awesome.
Why, for the love of god, for example, am I being shown THE SAME images every other page? Even when I dump best match sort in favor of sort by age? Not that it should matter how one is sorting. If you showed me an image once and I didn't buy it or add it to a lightbox, putting it in front of me two, three, five, fifteen times or more isn't going to do anything but piss me the eff off.
And the spam. By god the spam. It's so out of control. And it's not just random contributors. It's big names. Not cool. And clearly deliberate. And clearly they get away with it because of who they are. In speaking to another iStock contributor about this very issue, I was informed that when this person tried to fairly Wiki an inspector's file - someone who is just out of control with the spamming - the Wiki went away within hours. Nothing was done. Zap. Gone. File remains, spam and all. No favoritism, my arse. Spamming can seriously help . out of a file, as we all know.
There are others, but those would have to be my top two beefs with IS search. Those and I'd love to be able to nix all the Vetta and Agency files, of course. We don't have the budget for such lavish spending on photos, and coupled with the other two issues I mentioned, it's adding to a serious waste of my time. Which, for my company, is money.
I don't know what you mean by seeing the SAME images every other page. identical images? how does that happen? I just did a search on "travel and luxury" and the best match results were good. a mix of V/A and main collections. I'm just trying to see what you're reporting.
-
To answer my own question, here's the words straight from the horse's mouth (sort of - it's via that Canon article where KKT was interviewed), so we have to take it with a grain of salt, considering he thinks all the contributors only sell stock to buy a new lens cap:
"Thompson also clearly has an eye on the long-term benefits of the site's search engine – which has recently been overhauled. He describes it as “awesome” in delivering results based on a customer/client's location."
So it's supposed to be based on a client's location. So so stupid. Not all a designer's clients are local. Can they really be *that* dumb at iStock? (rhetorical question, of course)
You know, I hadn't really thought of that -- haven't bought stock for a remote client in a while -- but yeah, imagine if you worked in the travel industry or did design work for a multi-national? Pain in the ass.
^ I am that company. We do design work in Orange County but for India, China, Columbia, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Russia, to name a few. We use Istock but now have a Shutterstock account and are transitioning away from IS due mostly to the pricing trickery they use and the many site problems. We may use them later if/when things are fixed but......sigh!