MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Poll

How do you feel about IStock as a company?

Strongly dislike
86 (42.4%)
Somewhat dislike
58 (28.6%)
Neutral
30 (14.8%)
Somewhat like
17 (8.4%)
Strongly like
12 (5.9%)

Total Members Voted: 182

Author Topic: How do you feel about IStock?  (Read 47711 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #200 on: December 15, 2011, 16:46 »
0
And they're not always who you'd think. Much as I respect sodafish's work, I have no worries about him ever going independent because he mostly does icons and icons are very very rarely being accepted at SS anymore.

If things should go really bad at iStock, I will only be interested to upload my vectors to SS if they take my whole portfolio at once, not through the regular process. Otherwise there's no change I will drop the vector crown in the near distance, so you're right on that one. btw, Shutterstock is mainly subscription and that's something I don't want my vectors on for sale. Photo is different since JPG is not an open source format. But vectors are too easy (read: cheap) to copy and reproduce in their subscription model. That, in combination with the fact I still love iStock are the main reasons I won't upload a single vector. But hey, who knows what tomorrow brings ...    :)


traveler1116

« Reply #201 on: December 15, 2011, 23:08 »
0
Did iStock just raise prices?  It says get credits for as low as 1.04 on the homepage when last week I'm pretty sure it was .95?

« Reply #202 on: December 15, 2011, 23:29 »
0
Not sure exactly when it happened, but if you look here, you can see it used to say 95 cents. As I've seen sales where the credit price was in the high 40 cents range, I don't know what, if anything, the prices on the front page actually mean in practice.

Great time to raise prices, when your site is busted and you can't even give contributors a list of what you sold...

« Reply #203 on: December 15, 2011, 23:37 »
0
Did iStock just raise prices?  It says get credits for as low as 1.04 on the homepage when last week I'm pretty sure it was .95?

maybe it is to go with the 10 and 15% discounts they were throwing about like election year candy.

helix7

« Reply #204 on: December 16, 2011, 07:48 »
0
ridiculous. if iStock were to disappear, the focus would simply move to the next agency. and iStock is the only agency charging decent prices for images in microstock. be careful what you wish for or every one of your images will be sold for a penny before you know it.

istock is overcharging, which I suspect is really the root of their problems. They left the microstock arena a long time ago.

People have been saying for years that the low-end suppliers would ruin the market. It hasn't happened. SS is surging despite still selling images for around $10 a piece (through on-demand) and selling subscriptions for several hundred dollars. The low end of the pricing spectrum hasn't disrupted their business. Same with DT. As far as I know, they're still doing well. My earnings there haven't suffered from cheaper operations. For us vector folks, everyone thought VectorStock would ruin things with their low-priced $1 vectors. It hasn't happened, and they've been receptive to actually raising prices lately.

If the fear tactic is what works to keep people exclusive, obviously it's working well. As I said earlier in this thread, istock is not the microstock market. They are not the glue that keeps things together. You can keep istock up on that pedestal, but I'm not drinking the kool-aid. And I have no doubt whatsoever that the rest of the microstock industry would grow and prosper in an istock-less world. Giving credit where it's due, istock kickstarted this whole thing and Bruce was a pioneer. No doubt about it. But today that company is a shell of it's former self and HQ has lost touch with the business, the people, and the customers. Other companies are doing it far better with far less. They're profitable, "sustainable", in many cases growing, and even some of those smaller underdogs are rising in the ranks and are positioned to give istock some serious trouble.

Times they are a-changing, and I would welcome the day that istock isn't a noticeable player in this business anymore. Personally, looking at my own books, it looks like that day may right around the corner.

helix7

« Reply #205 on: December 16, 2011, 07:51 »
0
If things should go really bad at iStock, I will only be interested to upload my vectors to SS if they take my whole portfolio at once, not through the regular process. Otherwise there's no change I will drop the vector crown in the near distance, so you're right on that one. btw, Shutterstock is mainly subscription and that's something I don't want my vectors on for sale. Photo is different since JPG is not an open source format. But vectors are too easy (read: cheap) to copy and reproduce in their subscription model. That, in combination with the fact I still love iStock are the main reasons I won't upload a single vector. But hey, who knows what tomorrow brings ...    :)

It would be worth a shot. It's helpful to have a foot in the door with photos already, and you could probably contact them and discuss terms for accepting the whole portfolio. You'd be bringing some exceptional work to the table, so I think they'd be receptive to at least discussing a non-standard arrangement.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #206 on: December 16, 2011, 11:58 »
0
let me get this right, if iStock makes special arrangements for individual contributors (as is often insinuated here)....they're slimy, corrupt b*st*rds...but making special arrangements on a contributor basis with SS is a welcome means of getting iStock exclusives to become indie....gotta love how that works.....hypoCRITTERS abound here

« Reply #207 on: December 16, 2011, 12:01 »
0
ridiculous. if iStock were to disappear, the focus would simply move to the next agency. and iStock is the only agency charging decent prices for images in microstock. be careful what you wish for or every one of your images will be sold for a penny before you know it.

aint 7 cents a few pennies?

helix7

« Reply #208 on: December 16, 2011, 12:10 »
0
let me get this right, if iStock makes special arrangements for individual contributors (as is often insinuated here)....they're slimy, corrupt b*st*rds...but making special arrangements on a contributor basis with SS is a welcome means of getting iStock exclusives to become indie....gotta love how that works.....hypoCRITTERS abound here

Excuse me? Care to find a quote where I've ever said I was against contributors contacting ANY agency to discuss terms? Disagree with me all you want, but don't put words in my mouth that I never spoke.

rubyroo

« Reply #209 on: December 16, 2011, 12:12 »
0
Agreeing with Luis here.

Surely iStock's 7c commission is the lowest in the industry.  Correct me if I'm wrong here.  I haven't seen anything as low as that from any other agency.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #210 on: December 16, 2011, 12:56 »
0
let me get this right, if iStock makes special arrangements for individual contributors (as is often insinuated here)....they're slimy, corrupt b*st*rds...but making special arrangements on a contributor basis with SS is a welcome means of getting iStock exclusives to become indie....gotta love how that works.....hypoCRITTERS abound here

Excuse me? Care to find a quote where I've ever said I was against contributors contacting ANY agency to discuss terms? Disagree with me all you want, but don't put words in my mouth that I never spoke.

my comment wasn't a personal accusation...it was about the general tone of dissent over a practice like this in regards to favoritism a la iStock. and yet here we have it being encouraged...

traveler1116

« Reply #211 on: December 16, 2011, 13:05 »
0
Agreeing with Luis here.

Surely iStock's 7c commission is the lowest in the industry.  Correct me if I'm wrong here.  I haven't seen anything as low as that from any other agency.
Nah Dreamstime has 300,000 images for free, that's the lowest.  I was just glancing at some of them, one guy has a free file there that got 1,700 DLs (which is 200 more than his entire portfolio sold) and the very similar one in his port has 5 downloads.  I would imagine he's given away a few sales for $0.00.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2011, 13:10 by traveler1116 »

« Reply #212 on: December 16, 2011, 13:10 »
0
Agreeing with Luis here.

Surely iStock's 7c commission is the lowest in the industry.  Correct me if I'm wrong here.  I haven't seen anything as low as that from any other agency.
Nah Dreamstime has 300,000 images for free, that's the lowest.  I was just glancing at some of them, one guy has a free file there that got 1,700 DLs (which is 200 more than his entire portfolio sold) and the very similar one in his port has 5 downloads.  I would imagine he's given away a few sales for $0.00.

helix7

« Reply #213 on: December 16, 2011, 13:14 »
0
my comment wasn't a personal accusation...it was about the general tone of dissent over a practice like this in regards to favoritism a la iStock. and yet here we have it being encouraged...

Sorry if I took it that way. Your comment followed my post on the same subject, so I thought you were responding directly to me.

I've never been against unique deals, special arrangements, negotiations, etc., when it comes to dealings with stock agencies, at istock or anywhere else. And really I'm not familiar with any of the discussions here about folks being upset with istock for making special arrangements with anyone. If that's taking place, I'm all for it and good for anyone who has been able to negotiate a better deal for themselves.

There's no Independent Artist Handbook, you know. Not every indy contributor is of the same opinion on everything. :)

« Reply #214 on: December 16, 2011, 13:15 »
0
Agreeing with Luis here.

Surely iStock's 7c commission is the lowest in the industry.  Correct me if I'm wrong here.  I haven't seen anything as low as that from any other agency.
Nah Dreamstime has 300,000 images for free, that's the lowest.  I was just glancing at some of them, one guy has a free file there that got 1,700 DLs (which is 200 more than his entire portfolio sold) and the very similar one in his port has 5 downloads.  I would imagine he's given away a few sales for $0.00.

Or how about the millions on flickr?

Or the potentially billions that can be found through Google Image Search?

Anyone care to guess how many bloggers or small-time website builders / brochure designers simply do Google searches on what they need, find something large enough and without a watermark, and just "borrow it"?   And in many cases, they're lifting something that someone else has already lifted, so the trail back to the original piece of art that was stolen is too twisted to follow.

Given this perspective, free collections on places like Dreamstime are pretty smart.  They pull in people just looking for free stuff, with the hope of hooking them into paying a buck or two down the road.  

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #215 on: December 16, 2011, 13:16 »
0
my comment wasn't a personal accusation...it was about the general tone of dissent over a practice like this in regards to favoritism a la iStock. and yet here we have it being encouraged...

Sorry if I took it that way. Your comment followed my post on the same subject, so I thought you were responding directly to me.

I've never been against unique deals, special arrangements, negotiations, etc., when it comes to dealings with stock agencies, at istock or anywhere else. And really I'm not familiar with any of the discussions here about folks being upset with istock for making special arrangements with anyone. If that's taking place, I'm all for it and good for anyone who has been able to negotiate a better deal for themselves.

There's no Independent Artist Handbook, you know. Not every indy contributor is of the same opinion on everything. :)

point taken. sorry for stereotyping you

traveler1116

« Reply #216 on: December 16, 2011, 13:19 »
0
Or how about the millions on flickr?

Or the potentially billions that can be found through Google Image Search?

Anyone care to guess how many bloggers or small-time website builders / brochure designers simply do Google searches on what they need, find something large enough and without a watermark, and just "borrow it"?   And in many cases, they're lifting something that someone else has already lifted, so the trail back to the original piece of art that was stolen is too twisted to follow.

Given this perspective, free collections on places like Dreamstime are pretty smart.  They pull in people just looking for free stuff, with the hope of hooking them into paying a buck or two down the road.  
Stealing an image from someone is different than what dreamstime is offering:     
"The high resolution images downloaded from the free section may be used under the terms mentioned for the regular Royalty Free license".
In my example 1700 free dls and 5 sales, why would you pay for something you can get for free (stealing doesn't get you the license to use it).

« Reply #217 on: December 16, 2011, 13:27 »
0
Or how about the millions on flickr?

Or the potentially billions that can be found through Google Image Search?

Anyone care to guess how many bloggers or small-time website builders / brochure designers simply do Google searches on what they need, find something large enough and without a watermark, and just "borrow it"?   And in many cases, they're lifting something that someone else has already lifted, so the trail back to the original piece of art that was stolen is too twisted to follow.

Given this perspective, free collections on places like Dreamstime are pretty smart.  They pull in people just looking for free stuff, with the hope of hooking them into paying a buck or two down the road.  
Stealing an image from someone is different than what dreamstime is offering:     
"The high resolution images downloaded from the free section may be used under the terms mentioned for the regular Royalty Free license".
In my example 1700 free dls and 5 sales, why would you pay for something you can get for free (stealing doesn't get you the license to use it).

Of course it's different.  My point is that from the perspective of a person looking for an image, he/she can go to a high price agency, low price agency, or find something for free.  These options all compete with one another.  The images you're trying to sell are in direct competition with many similar images that are easily obtained for free.   It looked like this conversation was turning into a complaint against low-cost selling or even free collections, and I was pointing out that there's a competitive need for approaches like this.  If microstock is going to survive, it has to wake up to this reality and do things like offer sets of images very cheap or even free as hooks to lure in people who would otherwise just steal.

traveler1116

« Reply #218 on: December 16, 2011, 13:35 »
0
If microstock is going to survive, it has to wake up to this reality and do things like offer sets of images very cheap or even free as hooks to lure in people who would otherwise just steal.

I guess it's true that if we give all our images away for free it will stop people from stealing them. 

« Reply #219 on: December 16, 2011, 13:37 »
0
I've never been against unique deals, special arrangements, negotiations, etc., when it comes to dealings with stock agencies, at istock or anywhere else. And really I'm not familiar with any of the discussions here about folks being upset with istock for making special arrangements with anyone. If that's taking place, I'm all for it and good for anyone who has been able to negotiate a better deal for themselves.

+1.

If any agency wants to give me a better deal than others get, you bet I'll take it.  Of course, that cuts both ways.  If I hear that someone else whom I consider a peer is getting a good deal, I may press for one myself.  It's a free market, and everyone should be able to go for what they deserve.  I've never been too keen on the union idea for this reason.  I want to sink or swim by my own merits, not be lumped in with a collective and commoditize myself.

« Reply #220 on: December 16, 2011, 13:55 »
0
Did iStock just raise prices?  It says get credits for as low as 1.04 on the homepage when last week I'm pretty sure it was .95?

I'm pretty sure it was after the fraud 6 months ago when they started making you call in for the big discounts.

lisafx

« Reply #221 on: December 16, 2011, 20:15 »
0

I've never been against unique deals, special arrangements, negotiations, etc., when it comes to dealings with stock agencies, at istock or anywhere else. And really I'm not familiar with any of the discussions here about folks being upset with istock for making special arrangements with anyone. If that's taking place, I'm all for it and good for anyone who has been able to negotiate a better deal for themselves.

Same here. I have never heard of Istock offering special deals to contributors, although I do vaguely remember some contributors asking for special deals and getting shot down. 

The only discussions I have read that remotely touch on special treatment are people (exclusives among them) upset by the double standards for Agency and Edstock content.  But that's more a special deal for Getty content itself, not individual contributors. 

lisafx

« Reply #222 on: December 16, 2011, 20:21 »
0

Of course it's different.  My point is that from the perspective of a person looking for an image, he/she can go to a high price agency, low price agency, or find something for free.  These options all compete with one another.  The images you're trying to sell are in direct competition with many similar images that are easily obtained for free.   It looked like this conversation was turning into a complaint against low-cost selling or even free collections, and I was pointing out that there's a competitive need for approaches like this.  If microstock is going to survive, it has to wake up to this reality and do things like offer sets of images very cheap or even free as hooks to lure in people who would otherwise just steal.

Perhaps I am missing something, but I don't think there is any contradiction in offering a few select free images on DT and complaining about .07 or .09 royalties on Istock. 

I have a few freebies on DT.  They are very old images that have not sold anywhere, and each of them links to much better content in my active portfolio, which gives me exposure.   

The pitiful <.10 royalties on Istock are for the main collection of images, including best sellers, new content, etc.  And unlike donating free images, we have no choice at all, short of removing our entire portfolios.  It's insulting. 

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #223 on: December 16, 2011, 20:43 »
0

I've never been against unique deals, special arrangements, negotiations, etc., when it comes to dealings with stock agencies, at istock or anywhere else. And really I'm not familiar with any of the discussions here about folks being upset with istock for making special arrangements with anyone. If that's taking place, I'm all for it and good for anyone who has been able to negotiate a better deal for themselves.

Same here. I have never heard of Istock offering special deals to contributors, although I do vaguely remember some contributors asking for special deals and getting shot down.  

The only discussions I have read that remotely touch on special treatment are people (exclusives among them) upset by the double standards for Agency and Edstock content.  But that's more a special deal for Getty content itself, not individual contributors.  

There must, presumably, have been special iStock deals, such as the pseudo-exclusives, and the fairly new contributors who have all their files initially placed at Vetta and bumped in best match (e.g. CSA_Images) or at Agency (e.g.  Clerkenwell_Images, Rubberball)

Adeed: Ooops, sorry, I should have read your third paragraph before replying to your second.

« Reply #224 on: December 16, 2011, 21:59 »
0

I've never been against unique deals, special arrangements, negotiations, etc., when it comes to dealings with stock agencies, at istock or anywhere else. And really I'm not familiar with any of the discussions here about folks being upset with istock for making special arrangements with anyone. If that's taking place, I'm all for it and good for anyone who has been able to negotiate a better deal for themselves.

Same here. I have never heard of Istock offering special deals to contributors, although I do vaguely remember some contributors asking for special deals and getting shot down. 

The only discussions I have read that remotely touch on special treatment are people (exclusives among them) upset by the double standards for Agency and Edstock content.  But that's more a special deal for Getty content itself, not individual contributors. 
That and the fact some peeps there can inspect their own files without having to wait in the queue,  and there's this elite group of contributors who get their files moved into vetta, into istock lightboxes, in front of the searches etc (im not talking about those pseudo-exclusives here, but about 'regular' contributors who seem to be the favourite sweethearts). THAT's favouritism, not peeps trying to negotiate a deal...


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
2515 Views
Last post February 09, 2013, 01:09
by Pixart
10 Replies
3840 Views
Last post April 09, 2013, 13:02
by wordplanet
6 Replies
2328 Views
Last post April 25, 2014, 10:35
by nicolebranan
7 Replies
4258 Views
Last post January 05, 2016, 16:55
by Red Dove
32 Replies
10886 Views
Last post January 10, 2017, 11:01
by Kokkoros

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors