MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA  (Read 26279 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

lisafx

« Reply #50 on: November 15, 2010, 18:41 »
0

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.

Do you personally know of ANY experienced (silver or above) independents who have gone exclusive since September?  I don't.  OTOH I know a couple dozen or so exclusives who have given up the crown, and quite a few independents who had PLANNED to go exclusive but decided not to after the royalty drop (myself included).  

You may be right, but I would like to know if you have any basis for this conclusion other than your "feeling"...?


« Reply #51 on: November 15, 2010, 19:08 »
0



lisafx

« Reply #52 on: November 15, 2010, 19:57 »
0
Interesting stats Luis.  They have lost around 1.5% of exclusives already.  Will be interesting to see what those stats look like come mid January or so. 

Could you link to the thread you found that in?  Thanks :)

« Reply #53 on: November 15, 2010, 20:08 »
0
Interesting stats Luis.  They have lost around 1.5% of exclusives already.  Will be interesting to see what those stats look like come mid January or so. 

Could you link to the thread you found that in?  Thanks :)


that's not true Lisa.. there are 4k of new contributors, those couldnt never be exclusive.. So the percentage couldn't increase., obvious went down

link http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/not-another-istock-topic-aka-response-from-the-bosses/

« Reply #54 on: November 15, 2010, 20:10 »
0
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.
The same is true for a DT image that has jumped a level up.

« Reply #55 on: November 15, 2010, 20:18 »
0
stats
What I read from these stats is that the number of contributors (exclusives as well as non-exclusives), the number of files online and the sales have been growing.

« Reply #56 on: November 15, 2010, 20:25 »
0
stats
What I read from these stats is that the number of contributors (exclusives as well as non-exclusives), the number of files online and the sales have been growing.

That how I would read those stats, what are you seeing Lisa?

KB

« Reply #57 on: November 15, 2010, 20:31 »
0
stats
What I read from these stats is that the number of contributors (exclusives as well as non-exclusives), the number of files online and the sales have been growing.
I agree about the first two growing, but I don't know about the # of sales.

It's unlikely we'll ever see the total # of sales decrease (unless there are 1000s of refunds all of a sudden). So all we know is there were sales, but we do not know whether or not they have been growing.

We do know, however, that the # of files UL'd increased by 512,847 in that time, while there were 4,244,275 sales. We also know that the ratio of sales during that period to total files was 1.69. The ratio of sales up to Sep 7 to total files on Sep 7 was 13.38, but that's totally meaningless considering it includes years of sales when the collection was relatively small.

But I can tell by my own sales record that the # of sales per file has been dropping, not increasing.

« Reply #58 on: November 15, 2010, 20:42 »
0
stats
What I read from these stats is that the number of contributors (exclusives as well as non-exclusives), the number of files online and the sales have been growing.

read that also :) but the discussion was regarding the increase or decrease of exclusives

« Reply #59 on: November 16, 2010, 01:53 »
0

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.

Do you personally know of ANY experienced (silver or above) independents who have gone exclusive since September?  I don't.  OTOH I know a couple dozen or so exclusives who have given up the crown, and quite a few independents who had PLANNED to go exclusive but decided not to after the royalty drop (myself included).  

You may be right, but I would like to know if you have any basis for this conclusion other than your "feeling"...?

Yeah I do know of a few cases personally. Its not really the most popular headline at the moment: "woo-yay I went exclusive on iStock", but the total numbers of exclusives are still going up. Obviously there are some that are going the other way as well. To be honest if the announcement had come before I went exclusive I'm not sure if I'd have done it either - but staying independent wouldn't have been the best business decision, even with the changes.

lagereek

« Reply #60 on: November 16, 2010, 02:14 »
0
Most unfortunately,  when Bitter started IS, some 10 years back, he started with the old Trad-Agency formula of Exclusivity, still allowing independants to join. Well thi worked pretty well first few years with only a few million shots on-line but lets be reasonable hey: how . could it work with 10 million plus files going in all directions all over the place??

Lisa, is right when she says, whats the point of producing stunning quality, as an independant,  they end up so far down the best match, they will never see daylight. Ive tested it!  only a few months back I uploaded 4 shots,  each one with a fabulous track-record of earnings, each one ended up well beyond page 15. No point.
At two other agencies they are being DLd around 15-20 times per day and this is without even exagerating.

No this business has been handled the wrong way, they should have either put the lid-on or welcomed everybody and with the same chances and benefits, but ofcourse, its a matter of wanting the cake and eating it.
« Last Edit: November 16, 2010, 02:15 by lagereek »

ShadySue

« Reply #61 on: November 16, 2010, 04:28 »
0
Lisa, is right when she says, whats the point of producing stunning quality, as an independant,  they end up so far down the best match, they will never see daylight. Ive tested it!  only a few months back I uploaded 4 shots,  each one with a fabulous track-record of earnings, each one ended up well beyond page 15. No point.
This particular 'feature' isn't anti-independent. It's anti-new. Although even exclusive files are taking a week to inspect these days (though some have reported turnarounds of under 12 hours, I'm not in that A-team!) and around three days to appear in ports after accetance, I managed to catch some of my recent acceptances and noted that they'd sunk well below 100 on what I'd consider the most likely keyword within 24 hours of hitting the port - in every case below some non-selling exclusives. There were Vettas but no Agency on a couple of these keywords, and no Vettas or Agencies on the rest.
I don't know why the best match is so slanted against new files, but there you go.

lagereek

« Reply #62 on: November 16, 2010, 05:33 »
0
Slanted against new files???  well sometimes I get a real peculiar feeling that a new independant file must under no circumbstances be allowed to threaten an already existing VETTA- file, if they were very similar that is and heaven forbid if it turned out to be better. So its pushed back to end of the world.

Grotesque thinking isnt it?

ShadySue

« Reply #63 on: November 16, 2010, 06:12 »
0
Slanted against new files???  well sometimes I get a real peculiar feeling that a new independant file must under no circumbstances be allowed to threaten an already existing VETTA- file, if they were very similar that is and heaven forbid if it turned out to be better. So its pushed back to end of the world.
Grotesque thinking isnt it?
Well, I got banned from the forums on Sunday night and yesterday I got only 1 Sm and 1 Sm dl, coming to $2.98. Do you think that's connected? (I did, but apparently not, as DM reported that over 700 of my files were looked at over that 24 hour period.)
I have a Vetta file of an African Elephant. It has sold 19 times as a Vetta, which is good for me. In the best match for "African Elephant" it's at position 2071 (I have another which is on the top line, but I'm just pointing out that not all Vettas are shunted to the top of the best match search). Well below many of my non-Vettas with 0 downloads. Below several Asian Elephants wrongly keyworded. Below at least one of yours with either 0 or 1 dl (i was whizzing down the pages to find how low my file is now, so not paying full attention.)
Out of interest, I have a sister image taken at the same time which is not Vetta or Exc+ (give the customers a choice). It's several pages in the best match search above the Vetta one - yet it has only two downloads.

There does seem to be some sort of weighting given to certain people - I don't know if it goes by their cannister/exclusivity. There's one in particular who appears in several searches I have files in, and his generally appear above mine, even with no dls, and whether older or younger. It's especially noticeable in one particular keyword search where you and I have most downloads, but he has, in general, better positioning - though his files have, after several months, gone down a bit in the last month, leaving you and me some spaces in the top line at last.

lagereek

« Reply #64 on: November 16, 2010, 06:45 »
0
Slanted against new files???  well sometimes I get a real peculiar feeling that a new independant file must under no circumbstances be allowed to threaten an already existing VETTA- file, if they were very similar that is and heaven forbid if it turned out to be better. So its pushed back to end of the world.
Grotesque thinking isnt it?
Well, I got banned from the forums on Sunday night and yesterday I got only 1 Sm and 1 Sm dl, coming to $2.98. Do you think that's connected? (I did, but apparently not, as DM reported that over 700 of my files were looked at over that 24 hour period.)
I have a Vetta file of an African Elephant. It has sold 19 times as a Vetta, which is good for me. In the best match for "African Elephant" it's at position 2071 (I have another which is on the top line, but I'm just pointing out that not all Vettas are shunted to the top of the best match search). Well below many of my non-Vettas with 0 downloads. Below several Asian Elephants wrongly keyworded. Below at least one of yours with either 0 or 1 dl (i was whizzing down the pages to find how low my file is now, so not paying full attention.)
Out of interest, I have a sister image taken at the same time which is not Vetta or Exc+ (give the customers a choice). It's several pages in the best match search above the Vetta one - yet it has only two downloads.

There does seem to be some sort of weighting given to certain people - I don't know if it goes by their cannister/exclusivity. There's one in particular who appears in several searches I have files in, and his generally appear above mine, even with no dls, and whether older or younger. It's especially noticeable in one particular keyword search where you and I have most downloads, but he has, in general, better positioning - though his files have, after several months, gone down a bit in the last month, leaving you and me some spaces in the top line at last.

No I dont think so. Anyway its nothing new. The-Image-Bank in late 80s started to refuse too similar images, no matter how good they were, reason for that was, they didnt want to create any more competition between photographers, etc.

So you got banned?  what did you say or do for that? 

ShadySue

« Reply #65 on: November 16, 2010, 07:17 »
0

So you got banned?  what did you say or do for that?  
Lobo thinks I'm "too negative". The last straw was when someone posted about the overwide uploads/reporting page and asked if anyone else had noticed it. I posted that it was one of the 'improvements' introduced in the "almost flawless" (quote from KKT) F5 implementation and refered to the bugs link above. Anyway, my post was deleted.
Apparently Sean has written a script which obviates the problem. I don't go to that tools/apps page, as when I started, I ran some (not Sean's) stuff which gave me no end of grief, and I'm not techy enough to know what to do.
However, instead of deleting the post, shouldn't iStock be thinking about why a contributer, who is already giving iStock 60% of his earnings, should have to spend his own time writing a script to cancel out a problem which they wantonly introduced, apparently not having heard of the saying, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
It's not as if there weren't enough well-documented problems which needed fixed, without introducing more.

« Reply #66 on: November 16, 2010, 07:18 »
0
snip
Well, I got banned from the forums on Sunday night and yesterday I got only 1 Sm and 1 Sm dl, coming to $2.98. Do you think that's connected? (I did, but apparently not, as DM reported that over 700 of my files were looked at over that 24 hour period.)

I don't know if it is connected. But I requested a payout Sun. am which left $.17 in my account. This morning, Tuesday morning, I still have $.17. That means no downloads for two days. I can understand Sun., it usually is slow. But Sun. night and weekdays, it usually resumes. This, as far as I can remember, has NEVER happened before.

Maybe I stepped off the edge of the cliff into the abyss, because I have been deleting non-sellers and am down to 552 files in my account? I don't think that's the reason. I just checked and my best sellers are still high in the best match search. I haven't been buried there (yet). Up until Sunday I have been doing ok. I've only deleted a couple since then. Maybe it's slowing down for our Thanksgiving next week? Don't think so, too early for that. Maybe there are no buyers left at IS? Maybe the IT team accidentally disabled downloads during their last downtime?

You tell me.

« Reply #67 on: November 16, 2010, 07:20 »
0
The-Image-Bank in late 80s started to refuse too similar images, no matter how good they were, reason for that was, they didnt want to create any more competition between photographers, etc.

I wonder whether that was the only reason. I would guess that it was also to do with the practicalities of storing, duping, cataloguing and then picture-researching a physical collection.

In those days the picture researchers at an agency would, between them, know roughly where to look for a particular type of image. Between them they would pretty much know the collection. If a collection was too large then it would have been difficult to manage  - potentially more difficult to find the right (a good enough) image for a client. And the cataloguing systems were not keyword - based in those days - typically they were loosely based on stuff a bit like Dewey - the filing cabinets perhaps color coded. And sometimes also boxes of prints with subject areas written on the sides. It was quite haphazard.

You have to remember that finding a picture was ultimately about pulling out a bunch of potential stuff and sitting over a light box for hours deciding which potentials to bike round to the client. And sometimes there was also literally a physical (costly) catalogue which had to be printed and coded.

Nobody has to know in full the huge collections which exist now and the clients do their own picture research. In that sense the size of the collection is no longer a limitation. A big collection now just means more choice.

« Reply #68 on: November 16, 2010, 07:45 »
0
The-Image-Bank in late 80s started to refuse too similar images, no matter how good they were, reason for that was, they didnt want to create any more competition between photographers, etc.

snip
I wonder whether that was the only reason. I would guess that it was also to do with the practicalities of storing, duping, cataloguing and then picture-researching a physical collection.

I also think that then, as is now, the reasons are often political. Buddies get their buddies in, whether their images are similar or not, but if someone in the community is disliked, that person may as well forget about it. You know, the good old boys club? Oh, wait, we're not supposed to know about that. Shhh!

lagereek

« Reply #69 on: November 16, 2010, 08:00 »
0
Not exactly!  there was a whole string of globaly famous photographers there, I mean really big names. These guys pretty much had it their own way for quite some time.
These guys made Stan-Kanney ( CEO at that time) promise not to play out photographers against each other, bad for members, buyers and the library. Just take Pete-turner as example, there was a whole string of guys who played his nieche, same with Larry-Gordon and Leidemann.
I came in there around 86 and boy!! it was great times it was almost a licence to print money. We used to have sales-reports of 10-15K per month and that was in THEM DAYS!! and with what?  a couple of thousand shots, thats all.
The same went for Tony-Stone Worldwide.
Being a photographer in them days was very differant, it had an aura of glamour, star quality, fashion, beauty, etc. Today thats all gone ( exept in Fashion perhaps), todays we are just plodders hanging on with our teeth for dear life and around the corner are gazillions of photographers ready to beat the crap out of you with their little point/shoots.
My very own theory is:  majority of todays buyers are not quality concious, they dont demand quality because quality comes at a price and very few are prepared to pay that price.
Hence, stock photography and the Micro world and us. Still we make a living dont we?

« Reply #70 on: November 16, 2010, 08:33 »
0
Apparently Sean has written a script which obviates the problem. I don't go to that tools/apps page, as when I started, I ran some (not Sean's) stuff which gave me no end of grief, and I'm not techy enough to know what to do.

Sorry, they should work pretty simply.  Anyhoo, the uploads page fix script just changes the css width of the table.  That should work pretty simply.

ShadySue

« Reply #71 on: November 16, 2010, 08:36 »
0
Apparently Sean has written a script which obviates the problem. I don't go to that tools/apps page, as when I started, I ran some (not Sean's) stuff which gave me no end of grief, and I'm not techy enough to know what to do.

Sorry, they should work pretty simply.  Anyhoo, the uploads page fix script just changes the css width of the table.  That should work pretty simply.
Hey, no need to apologise - I said it wasn't your script which had caused me problems.

« Reply #72 on: November 16, 2010, 08:40 »
0
Probably for a different thread Lagereek but it would be great to see a list of some of your favorite photographers from those days and people who you remember as being particularly successful. Go on and start it :) That said I think there is some amazing work being done these days.

RT


« Reply #73 on: November 16, 2010, 09:31 »
0
IMO the problem with the Vetta collection is the lie they tell at the beginning:

'Hand picked by our top iStockphoto editors for exquisite art direction, intelligently executed concepts and rarity.'

And then amongst some images that do fit the description they cram it full of the usual stuff found on every single stock agency like: groups of business people, kids on beach/field, female models with shiny hair in front of plain background etc etc that don't match any of the criteria.

Then of course there's the agency collection:

'Niche images offering high production value, regional content and cultural diversity.'

Guess what, full of groups of business people, kids on beach/field, female models with shiny hair in front of plain background etc etc that don't match any of the criteria.

I think the Vetta collection was a great idea that was ruined by the desperate greed of both the management and some qualifying contributors.

lisafx

« Reply #74 on: November 16, 2010, 09:53 »
0

That how I would read those stats, what are you seeing Lisa?

Yes, the total number of exclusives has gone up, but the percentage of exclusive contributors has dropped from 18.04% to 16.68%. 

On a site as big as Istock, you would expect to see the numbers continue to rise.  But if the rate of growth has slowed, that is still a negative.

Ask the bean counters at Istock.  They used rate of growth as the reason to hose us out of our royalty percentages, so obviously it is an important statistic to them...


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
13 Replies
3444 Views
Last post October 23, 2008, 22:54
by helix7
3 Replies
1773 Views
Last post July 26, 2009, 14:38
by madelaide
12 Replies
3925 Views
Last post July 05, 2011, 14:45
by Shank_ali
9 Replies
3005 Views
Last post January 25, 2017, 11:34
by izzikiorage
2 Replies
1781 Views
Last post May 02, 2017, 09:21
by Noedelhap

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results