pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA  (Read 26257 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

vonkara

« Reply #25 on: November 14, 2010, 11:11 »
0

I don't buy from Istock anymore for my company, and this exact problem is one of the reasons why.. it's immoral to take 60 credits for an image, and then sell an almost identical one at 5-10 credits, as a buyer it doesn't make me feel that I can trust the pricing, or trust the supplying web site, and I would abslutely hate to be a customer that bought that image at 60 credits, and then down the line spotted an identical image for much cheaper on the SAME web site.. there's something a bit criminal about it..


You was buying at Istock while you could find the same image at Shutterstock, for like 100$ for 25 images a day ?? What's the difference... Also why not just buying the 5-10 credits version then. It's the photographer mistake to have made a Vetta that is similar to a normal image
« Last Edit: November 14, 2010, 11:20 by Vonkara »


RacePhoto

« Reply #26 on: November 14, 2010, 11:12 »
0
I don't buy from Istock anymore for my company, and this exact problem is one of the reasons why.. it's immoral to take 60 credits for an image, and then sell an almost identical one at 5-10 credits, as a buyer it doesn't make me feel that I can trust the pricing, or trust the supplying web site, and I would abslutely hate to be a customer that bought that image at 60 credits, and then down the line spotted an identical image for much cheaper on the SAME web site.. there's something a bit criminal about it..

And now some of those similars are in Agency. So you have some in the regular collection, some in the Vetta collection, and some in the Agency collection. And the Agency collection ones are 1000% more expensive than their similar counterparts.

If I was a buyer I'd be concerned. As a seller (and I'm not exclusive so this is hypothetical) I'd love the Agency and Vetta placement for more money. It's IS doing this not the artists.

These aren't the same because they are different licenses. The agency doesn't sell photos, they sell licenses...   ::)   (I know I'm asking for it with that one) :)

« Reply #27 on: November 14, 2010, 12:28 »
0
I don't buy from Istock anymore for my company, and this exact problem is one of the reasons why.. it's immoral to take 60 credits for an image, and then sell an almost identical one at 5-10 credits, as a buyer it doesn't make me feel that I can trust the pricing, or trust the supplying web site, and I would abslutely hate to be a customer that bought that image at 60 credits, and then down the line spotted an identical image for much cheaper on the SAME web site.. there's something a bit criminal about it..

Blah blah blah, It's immoral? Give me a break. For this small moment in time I will side on iS. There is nothing immoral about it. GO to a department store and look at the price reduced bin of underwear. Same stuff as is on the shelf just way less money. Besides the Vetta image as posted in the OPs thread is better than the non Vetta image. BTW good luck with your shopping elsewhere.

Good grief, I just noticed I sided with SJlocke above. What next?

The word I would use is deceitful. Contributors are just taking advantage of all the commotion and confusion IS has introduced with their different pricing levels and different collections.

I am in no way siding with sjlocke, zeus OR istock. I think it's all a bunch of smoke and mirrors and if that's the game contributors want to play right along with IS, it's their decision. That being said, with all that the internet offers, I do have to agree that there are PLENTY of opportunities for shoppers nowadays to find bargains. By now, hopefully many buyers and contributors know what's happening over at IS and will use their feet to convey their opinion on whether it is or isn't immoral, deceitful or smoke and mirrors.

« Reply #28 on: November 14, 2010, 12:41 »
0


The word I would use is deceitful. Contributors are just taking advantage of all the commotion and confusion IS has introduced with their different pricing levels and different collections.

I am in no way siding with sjlocke, zeus OR istock. I think it's all a bunch of smoke and mirrors and if that's the game contributors want to play right along with IS, it's their decision. That being said, with all that the internet offers, I do have to agree that there are PLENTY of opportunities for shoppers nowadays to find bargains. By now, hopefully many buyers and contributors know what's happening over at IS and will use their feet to convey their opinion on whether it is or isn't immoral, deceitful or smoke and mirrors.

Cathy,  well put. I get "ruffled" with this buyer's attitude that they are getting burned somehow if they have to pay more the 20 cents for infinite usage.

bittersweet

« Reply #29 on: November 14, 2010, 12:49 »
0
It certainly isn't immoral, and there's nothing to do with "trust" as the price is right there on the page.  What you should absolutely hate, is that you may not have taken the time to look a little further.  Nothing at all criminal about it.  If you don't want it at the price offered, don't buy it.

I agree. I don't there is any difference than the same photos being offered at Shutterstock and at other sites for many many times the price. It's ultimately the customer's choice whether to purchase an image. The price is there, posted clearly. If it is outside their budget, the customer is free to search for cheaper alternatives.

As a customer, I have been annoyed that a lightboxed image has suddenly jumped in price when I've gone back to purchase it after getting client approval. Istock is offering moving images to higher prices as an option; it's the photographer's choice to participate; and I have the option to shop elsewhere, which I now do. It is too risky as a small business owner to try to quote jobs when estimating stock imagery pricing at istock has become like hitting a moving target.

« Reply #30 on: November 14, 2010, 12:59 »
0
The word I would use is deceitful. Contributors are just taking advantage of all the commotion and confusion IS has introduced with their different pricing levels and different collections.

I am in no way siding with sjlocke, zeus OR istock. I think it's all a bunch of smoke and mirrors and if that's the game contributors want to play right along with IS, it's their decision. That being said, with all that the internet offers, I do have to agree that there are PLENTY of opportunities for shoppers nowadays to find bargains. By now, hopefully many buyers and contributors know what's happening over at IS and will use their feet to convey their opinion on whether it is or isn't immoral, deceitful or smoke and mirrors.
Microstock is still a relatively new market and IS would be failing in their duty to us, as our agency, if they were not exploring and testing what prices the market finds acceptable, in what volumes and for what products. It's just basic business. It's also basic business to pump the profits as much as you can if your intention is to sell the business in the near future.

Do you think that Istock should never have gone above selling Large images for $1 then, other than perhaps adjustments for inflation? Was it 'immoral' or 'deceitful' for them to have done so? After all they were making plenty of profit even at that price.

« Reply #31 on: November 14, 2010, 14:28 »
0
Do you think that Istock should never have gone above selling Large images for $1 then, other than perhaps adjustments for inflation? Was it 'immoral' or 'deceitful' for them to have done so? After all they were making plenty of profit even at that price.

To me, you are comparing apples to oranges. Of course I think all of the sites should try to move the prices up, both for their own sake and for contributor's sake. But having so many different prices points on the same site (IS), to me, is smoke and mirrors. Companies that produce a product often times market it in Walmart or Target for one price, but if they market it at Neiman Marcus, they can mark it up hundreds of percent more, because of the clientele. I get that. But IS is doing it all under one roof, and the result is just confusion and the appearance of deceitful practices. Just IMHO.

But hey, it's all about getting away with whatever one can, right?

« Reply #32 on: November 14, 2010, 14:54 »
0
In my opinion the Vetta image is a better image. It expresses a different concept, has had more thought put into it, and is somewhat more stylish. I think the issue is how much more is one willing to pay for a 'slightly better' image. Sure, it's not twice as good, or ten times as good, these things are very subjective. But it is better, and some people want the best, and are willing to pay for that, even if the difference is not great. For some people 1% better is worth ten times the price. How much faster is the worlds fastest athlete than the worlds second fastest?

« Reply #33 on: November 14, 2010, 15:12 »
0
Do you think that Istock should never have gone above selling Large images for $1 then, other than perhaps adjustments for inflation? Was it 'immoral' or 'deceitful' for them to have done so? After all they were making plenty of profit even at that price.

To me, you are comparing apples to oranges. Of course I think all of the sites should try to move the prices up, both for their own sake and for contributor's sake. But having so many different prices points on the same site (IS), to me, is smoke and mirrors. Companies that produce a product often times market it in Walmart or Target for one price, but if they market it at Neiman Marcus, they can mark it up hundreds of percent more, because of the clientele. I get that. But IS is doing it all under one roof, and the result is just confusion and the appearance of deceitful practices. Just IMHO.

But hey, it's all about getting away with whatever one can, right?

I think istock is trying to capitalise on the major corporate buyers they now have with deep pockets. Placing  Agency and Vetta files in front of the searches probably annoys buyers with smaller budgets. Istock has to do it all under one roof since the traffic and money is there. istock created the microstock market. i think getty is trying to kill it.

molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #34 on: November 14, 2010, 15:38 »
0
Do you think that Istock should never have gone above selling Large images for $1 then, other than perhaps adjustments for inflation? Was it 'immoral' or 'deceitful' for them to have done so? After all they were making plenty of profit even at that price.

To me, you are comparing apples to oranges. Of course I think all of the sites should try to move the prices up, both for their own sake and for contributor's sake. But having so many different prices points on the same site (IS), to me, is smoke and mirrors. Companies that produce a product often times market it in Walmart or Target for one price, but if they market it at Neiman Marcus, they can mark it up hundreds of percent more, because of the clientele. I get that. But IS is doing it all under one roof, and the result is just confusion and the appearance of deceitful practices. Just IMHO.

But hey, it's all about getting away with whatever one can, right?

I think istock is trying to capitalise on the major corporate buyers they now have with deep pockets. Placing  Agency and Vetta files in front of the searches probably annoys buyers with smaller budgets. Istock has to do it all under one roof since the traffic and money is there. istock created the microstock market. i think getty is trying to kill it.

if deep pockets is their prominent feature, why do they hang around istock?

hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #35 on: November 14, 2010, 19:09 »
0
I don't buy from Istock anymore for my company, and this exact problem is one of the reasons why.. it's immoral to take 60 credits for an image, and then sell an almost identical one at 5-10 credits, as a buyer it doesn't make me feel that I can trust the pricing, or trust the supplying web site, and I would abslutely hate to be a customer that bought that image at 60 credits, and then down the line spotted an identical image for much cheaper on the SAME web site.. there's something a bit criminal about it..

Blah blah blah, It's immoral? Give me a break. For this small moment in time I will side on iS. There is nothing immoral about it. GO to a department store and look at the price reduced bin of underwear. Same stuff as is on the shelf just way less money. Besides the Vetta image as posted in the OPs thread is better than the non Vetta image. BTW good luck with your shopping elsewhere.

Good grief, I just noticed I sided with SJlocke above. What next?

Yeah, I will shop elsewhere.. and it's also more commission to the photographer on it!

lisafx

« Reply #36 on: November 15, 2010, 09:54 »
0
I agree. I don't there is any difference than the same photos being offered at Shutterstock and at other sites for many many times the price. It's ultimately the customer's choice whether to purchase an image. The price is there, posted clearly. If it is outside their budget, the customer is free to search for cheaper alternatives.

As a customer, I have been annoyed that a lightboxed image has suddenly jumped in price when I've gone back to purchase it after getting client approval. Istock is offering moving images to higher prices as an option; it's the photographer's choice to participate; and I have the option to shop elsewhere, which I now do. It is too risky as a small business owner to try to quote jobs when estimating stock imagery pricing at istock has become like hitting a moving target.

Very well summed up Whatalife.  I think this is the real problem with Istock's multi-tiered and confusing price structure.  Not that it is somehow morally wrong but that offering such similar images at wildly different price points under one roof - and raising the price of existing (possibly lightboxed images) a hundred fold overnight - is a really good way to pi$$ off buyers!  And those buyers are going to do what you, Carolyn, and all the buyers in the Buyers Bail thread did and shop elsewhere.  

So ultimately my issue with the morass Istock has created with it's pricing is not whether it is moral or not, but rather that it is suicidal!

ETA - Cathy's right - it appears deceitful, kind of like a bait-and-switch scam. 
« Last Edit: November 15, 2010, 09:57 by lisafx »

« Reply #37 on: November 15, 2010, 10:48 »
0
It would make more sense to me if Vetta images were exclusive. If you have something nobody else has, you can more easily put a higher price on it.

ShadySue

« Reply #38 on: November 15, 2010, 10:53 »
0
It would make more sense to me if Vetta images were exclusive. If you have something nobody else has, you can more easily put a higher price on it.
Unless you know something I don't, they are exclusive at the moment, though 'towards the end of the year' they are being rolled out to some of the 'Getty family'.
If you do know otherwise, please tell.

« Reply #39 on: November 15, 2010, 11:02 »
0

ETA - Cathy's right - it appears deceitful, kind of like a bait-and-switch scam. 

Advertise your images as 1, 3, 6, 10, and 15 credits (with credit prices as low as $.95 - but only if you shell out a whopping $9500), but then stack the searches with images that cost 55+ AND move all the ones with flames to the top of the search so it looks like Agency is a hot selling collection (even though they all earned their flames at a lower price point).

No, no deception or bait-and-switch there. LOL

lagereek

« Reply #40 on: November 15, 2010, 12:11 »
0
In my opinion the Vetta image is a better image. It expresses a different concept, has had more thought put into it, and is somewhat more stylish. I think the issue is how much more is one willing to pay for a 'slightly better' image. Sure, it's not twice as good, or ten times as good, these things are very subjective. But it is better, and some people want the best, and are willing to pay for that, even if the difference is not great. For some people 1% better is worth ten times the price. How much faster is the worlds fastest athlete than the worlds second fastest?

Remember! Vetta was only for the Exclusive contributors. Now most independants I know including myself could easily produce this quality BUT we were not allowed to, since this was the Excl. perks really. It kind of gave the impression that exclusives were better then independants, hence the price differance. This is the big mistake, it pretended to be something which it isnt.

« Reply #41 on: November 15, 2010, 12:20 »
0
If image "A" is available at:
Veer for $30 in its largest size and at
Alamy for $365 that's one thing.

The buyers choose where to buy the image.

But I can see an issue at iStock when an image from the same shoot (same location, same models, same lighting, pretty much totally the same everything), one image should cost:

15 credits in L and
70 credits in Vetta (L)

No question that the buyer can take his/her business elsewhere if they believe this is unjust, immoral, unjustified etc. but as a contributor of iStock, especially as an exclusive contributor I would feel a bit uneasy knowing that the price points of those various collections might confuse the customers.

Everything is still sold under iStock's roof, so why come up with 3 or more different pricing schemes?

jen

« Reply #42 on: November 15, 2010, 13:14 »
0
In my opinion the Vetta image is a better image. It expresses a different concept, has had more thought put into it, and is somewhat more stylish. I think the issue is how much more is one willing to pay for a 'slightly better' image. Sure, it's not twice as good, or ten times as good, these things are very subjective. But it is better, and some people want the best, and are willing to pay for that, even if the difference is not great. For some people 1% better is worth ten times the price. How much faster is the worlds fastest athlete than the worlds second fastest?

Remember! Vetta was only for the Exclusive contributors. Now most independants I know including myself could easily produce this quality BUT we were not allowed to, since this was the Excl. perks really. It kind of gave the impression that exclusives were better then independants, hence the price differance. This is the big mistake, it pretended to be something which it isnt.

You can produce that quality... you just don't get to charge Vetta prices for it.  I might have someone download my image for 70 credits, but you can take your image and sell it all over the internet wherever you want.  It's a trade off.

« Reply #43 on: November 15, 2010, 13:16 »
0
It would make more sense to me if Vetta images were exclusive. If you have something nobody else has, you can more easily put a higher price on it.
Unless you know something I don't, they are exclusive at the moment, though 'towards the end of the year' they are being rolled out to some of the 'Getty family'.
If you do know otherwise, please tell.
Oh, I didn't know holgs was exclusive. Sorry for the confusion.

« Reply #44 on: November 15, 2010, 13:35 »
0
It would make more sense to me if Vetta images were exclusive. If you have something nobody else has, you can more easily put a higher price on it.
Unless you know something I don't, they are exclusive at the moment, though 'towards the end of the year' they are being rolled out to some of the 'Getty family'.
If you do know otherwise, please tell.
Oh, I didn't know holgs was exclusive. Sorry for the confusion.

I haven't been exclusive for very long! Just to confuse things even more, none of the images of mine that were linked earlier in the thread were differently priced from one another.

« Reply #45 on: November 15, 2010, 14:19 »
0

Remember! Vetta was only for the Exclusive contributors. Now most independants I know including myself could easily produce this quality BUT we were not allowed to, since this was the Excl. perks really. It kind of gave the impression that exclusives were better then independants, hence the price differance. This is the big mistake, it pretended to be something which it isnt.


Most independents is a bit of a stretch - there are certainly some that can, probably several. Often though its those who wouldn't do particularly well with the normal microstock model. The problem is its hard to justify selling a product at a premium price if its available for much less somewhere else.

Vetta and Agency are in a way acknowledgement that microstockers can produce content that is up there with the best. If you're aiming to produce outstanding content that isn't going to sell thousands of times, then its a good place to do that. A good example is the current featured photo http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup.php?id=13619836 - its a great photo that's part of (I think) a cracking series. These types of images just aren't worth producing under the regular microstock model, but are flourishing with Vetta.

lisafx

« Reply #46 on: November 15, 2010, 14:46 »
0

Most independents is a bit of a stretch - there are certainly some that can, probably several. Often though its those who wouldn't do particularly well with the normal microstock model.

Maybe I am misreading you, but it seems you are saying that only a few (several does not imply a large number) of independents are as good as the Istock exclusives who have images in Vetta.  Do you believe Istock exclusives are somehow inherently better photographers than independents? 

I have browsed the Vetta collection a number of times and, while there is some stunning and unique imagery there, it also has a lot of just plain good stock.  Quite a few of the images there are the one or two outstanding contributions from otherwise very mediocre exclusive contributors. 

I have to agree with Christian - many independents could and do produce similar quality of images on a regular basis.  They just aren't getting found on Istock because they aren't pushed to the front of the best match.

« Reply #47 on: November 15, 2010, 15:52 »
0
Image exclusivity would be the sane route to allow independent content into Vetta & Agency. They'd have to change their policy on similars (and make it more like Getty's policy WRT submissions from iStock contributors to Getty - you can't have similars to Getty content on non-Getty sites)

I doubt that IS will open Vetta & Agency up in the short run, but I think they set a precedent when things now sold on IS as Agency came originally from various outside (non Getty) agencies - by way of Getty's Agency Collection.

In some saner future, why wouldn't they permit image exclusivity in the IS premium collections only? The old notion of exclusive at IS has been shot so full of holes it's really meaningless any more. That way those independents who wished to could put appropriate content there.

rubyroo

« Reply #48 on: November 15, 2010, 17:15 »
0
I completely agree with jsnover on this one.  Very well said.

« Reply #49 on: November 15, 2010, 17:54 »
0

Maybe I am misreading you, but it seems you are saying that only a few (several does not imply a large number) of independents are as good as the Istock exclusives who have images in Vetta.  Do you believe Istock exclusives are somehow inherently better photographers than independents? 

I have browsed the Vetta collection a number of times and, while there is some stunning and unique imagery there, it also has a lot of just plain good stock.  Quite a few of the images there are the one or two outstanding contributions from otherwise very mediocre exclusive contributors. 

I have to agree with Christian - many independents could and do produce similar quality of images on a regular basis.  They just aren't getting found on Istock because they aren't pushed to the front of the best match.

I was more referring to the "producing" part of it than getting a few images in. I wouldn't consider the number of exclusives who are regularly producing vetta images accepted in the many category either. Look at the total number of files in the collection - its an average of less than 10 vetta files per exclusive - as with all these numbers its an average that's weighted very strongly to the top.  

Looking at the breakdown of exclusives to non-exclusives, I just have the feeling that despite what's been announced, the flow of independents to take up exclusivity still exceeds that going the other way, and that this is particularly so amongst those who are capable of producing vetta-quality images.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
13 Replies
3440 Views
Last post October 23, 2008, 22:54
by helix7
3 Replies
1770 Views
Last post July 26, 2009, 14:38
by madelaide
12 Replies
3923 Views
Last post July 05, 2011, 14:45
by Shank_ali
9 Replies
3003 Views
Last post January 25, 2017, 11:34
by izzikiorage
2 Replies
1777 Views
Last post May 02, 2017, 09:21
by Noedelhap

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results