MicrostockGroup

Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: nruboc on November 13, 2010, 01:41

Title: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: nruboc on November 13, 2010, 01:41
VETTA

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2369762-silhouette-of-businessmen-and-women-s-legs.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2369762-silhouette-of-businessmen-and-women-s-legs.php)

NON-VETTA

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2420884-i-m-interested.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2420884-i-m-interested.php)

Do you see it, the VETTA is clearly better saturated...or wait...no, its because the mans legs are open wider in the non-vetta...what a joke
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: caspixel on November 13, 2010, 02:30
ROFL
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: RacePhoto on November 13, 2010, 03:42
It's probably worth 55 more credits because of the extra work it took to add the fake sepia tone?  :D
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: bunhill on November 13, 2010, 06:54
Both are great images.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: travelstock on November 13, 2010, 06:58
VETTA

[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2369762-silhouette-of-businessmen-and-women-s-legs.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2369762-silhouette-of-businessmen-and-women-s-legs.php[/url])

NON-VETTA

[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2420884-i-m-interested.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2420884-i-m-interested.php[/url])

Do you see it, the VETTA is clearly better saturated...or wait...no, its because the mans legs are open wider in the non-vetta...what a joke


Or it could be the same reason why this little ducky is free: http://www.dreamstime.com/duck-imagefree1307291 (http://www.dreamstime.com/duck-imagefree1307291) While this little ducky can be bought "for as low as $0.20" and as much as $13.75: http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photography-santa-claus-duck-image3082977 (http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photography-santa-claus-duck-image3082977)
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on November 13, 2010, 07:30
VETTA

[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2369762-silhouette-of-businessmen-and-women-s-legs.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2369762-silhouette-of-businessmen-and-women-s-legs.php[/url])

NON-VETTA

[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2420884-i-m-interested.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2420884-i-m-interested.php[/url])

Do you see it, the VETTA is clearly better saturated...or wait...no, its because the mans legs are open wider in the non-vetta...what a joke


Obviously, something like that would either not be a smart move on behalf of the contributor, or not a smart move on behalf of the editors for not taking both (or rejecting both).
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: nruboc on November 13, 2010, 14:11
VETTA

[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2369762-silhouette-of-businessmen-and-women-s-legs.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2369762-silhouette-of-businessmen-and-women-s-legs.php[/url])

NON-VETTA

[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2420884-i-m-interested.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2420884-i-m-interested.php[/url])

Do you see it, the VETTA is clearly better saturated...or wait...no, its because the mans legs are open wider in the non-vetta...what a joke


Or it could be the same reason why this little ducky is free: [url]http://www.dreamstime.com/duck-imagefree1307291[/url] ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/duck-imagefree1307291[/url]) While this little ducky can be bought "for as low as $0.20" and as much as $13.75: [url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photography-santa-claus-duck-image3082977[/url] ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photography-santa-claus-duck-image3082977[/url])





Go get some glasses if you can't see the differences my images. And while your at it, please explain the
difference in some of yours, maybe you can tell us the secret of sneaking similars past IStock inspectors:

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14097885-beach-in-mozambique-africa.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14097885-beach-in-mozambique-africa.php)
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-11743297-beach-in-mozambique-africa.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-11743297-beach-in-mozambique-africa.php)

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-3480626-berlin-hauptbahnhof.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-3480626-berlin-hauptbahnhof.php)
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-3759352-berlin-hauptbahnhof.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-3759352-berlin-hauptbahnhof.php)

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-3655002-fraser-island-lake-boomanjin.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-3655002-fraser-island-lake-boomanjin.php)
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-3409911-fraser-island-lake-boomanjin.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-3409911-fraser-island-lake-boomanjin.php)

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-11743302-beach-in-mozambique-africa.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-11743302-beach-in-mozambique-africa.php)
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14097887-beach-in-mozambique-africa.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14097887-beach-in-mozambique-africa.php)

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-3480582-abel-tasman-kayaking.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-3480582-abel-tasman-kayaking.php)
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-4195239-abel-tasman-kayaking.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-4195239-abel-tasman-kayaking.php)

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-9775590-aleppo-citadel.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-9775590-aleppo-citadel.php)
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14579017-aleppo-citadel.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14579017-aleppo-citadel.php)

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-6243079-coconut-growth.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-6243079-coconut-growth.php)
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-3878118-coconut-growth.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-3878118-coconut-growth.php)
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on November 13, 2010, 14:38
Sneaking suggests someone did something on purpose in an underhanded way. Not sure you have any basis for saying that.

Some of those photos appear identical (versus similar) and were uploaded in different months. That just suggests a mistake in uploading the same image twice. We all make mistakes sometimes - it's always nice if someone points those out gently and privately.

I don't like the policies over similars with Vettas/Agency but no reason to turn this into some slug-fest over something that wasn't even your original issue.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: nruboc on November 13, 2010, 15:04
Sneaking suggests someone did something on purpose in an underhanded way. Not sure you have any basis for saying that.

Some of those photos appear identical (versus similar) and were uploaded in different months. That just suggests a mistake in uploading the same image twice. We all make mistakes sometimes - it's always nice if someone points those out gently and privately.

I don't like the policies over similars with Vettas/Agency but no reason to turn this into some slug-fest over something that wasn't even your original issue.

Hardly a slug fest, he was implying my images are similar, I think they are not. I think it's fair to point out several from his portfolio that are similar.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: Amanda_K on November 13, 2010, 16:43
I think it's been proven several times over that the new Vetta prices in some cases create a very large price difference between very similar images.  I do not think there is a need to be calling people out and linking to specific examples.  Sorry, but I can't see how someone having similars that are Vetta/non Vetta in their portfolio affects you personally to the point that you feel justified in picking them apart on a public forum.

I understand venting about policies you don't agree with and that we are lucky to have a place here to do just that.  But I still think it's very bad form to make it personal and link to people's images  this way.  If you feel that strongly about it and actually wonder what the photographer's thoughts are on this why don't you contact them privately and ask? (Realizing of course that they have absolutely no obligation to explain themselves to anyone.)
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: nruboc on November 13, 2010, 17:21
I think it's been proven several times over that the new Vetta prices in some cases create a very large price difference between very similar images.  I do not think there is a need to be calling people out and linking to specific examples.  Sorry, but I can't see how someone having similars that are Vetta/non Vetta in their portfolio affects you personally to the point that you feel justified in picking them apart on a public forum.

I understand venting about policies you don't agree with and that we are lucky to have a place here to do just that.  But I still think it's very bad form to make it personal and link to people's images  this way.  If you feel that strongly about it and actually wonder what the photographer's thoughts are on this why don't you contact them privately and ask? (Realizing of course that they have absolutely no obligation to explain themselves to anyone.)

Sorry, but I think it's perfectly acceptable to link to someone elses images to illustrate an example. I didn't make a judgement about the quality of said images, in fact a client sent me the link to it, so they must have thought it was good. Thus, I will continue to do so to illustrate a point I'm trying to make, especially since, yes, it affected me personally.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: bittersweet on November 13, 2010, 18:05
The themes of the original two examples are totally different. There is more difference than the masterful sepia tone. ;)
Can you really not see that?

And no, they are not my images.  :D  

I also am not a big fan of calling out people's work like this, but that hasn't stopped anyone so far from doing it, so I'm sure it will continue to be accepted practice around here.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: michaeldb on November 13, 2010, 20:06
Do you see it, the VETTA is clearly better saturated...or wait...no, its because the mans legs are open wider in the non-vetta...what a joke
Yes, so many jokes from iStock. iStock has become iLaughingstock.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: Eireann on November 13, 2010, 21:10
Calling people out?
Sorry, I don't believe that's what NRuboc did.

He never questioned the quality of the work. Great images, and he never said differently.
He never called the photographer.

What's questionable is the criteria.
And judging by the other examples, I'm sorry to say that it is not only the Vetta inspection team that comes under questioning.
It seems the problem is a bit more general than that.

Somehow I'm not surprised.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: bittersweet on November 13, 2010, 21:40
Calling people out?
Sorry, I don't believe that's what NRuboc did.

He never questioned the quality of the work. Great images, and he never said differently.
He never called the photographer.

What's questionable is the criteria.
And judging by the other examples, I'm sorry to say that it is not only the Vetta inspection team that comes under questioning.
It seems the problem is a bit more general than that.

Somehow I'm not surprised.

Oh okay, I am admittedly not up on how the Vetta process works.... I thought the photographers selected/suggested their own photos for Vetta consideration.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: travelstock on November 14, 2010, 00:05
Sneaking suggests someone did something on purpose in an underhanded way. Not sure you have any basis for saying that.

Some of those photos appear identical (versus similar) and were uploaded in different months. That just suggests a mistake in uploading the same image twice. We all make mistakes sometimes - it's always nice if someone points those out gently and privately.

I don't like the policies over similars with Vettas/Agency but no reason to turn this into some slug-fest over something that wasn't even your original issue.

Hardly a slug fest, he was implying my images are similar, I think they are not. I think it's fair to point out several from his portfolio that are similar.

My point was that you have images with no apparent difference in quality with similar concepts at different price points: free vs paid. I didn't say that they were the same. Nor are the images you link - they're different concepts. 

Yes I have some images that are similars - up until recently I've been uploading mainly from slow connections on a laptop and on a variety of agencies. The upload restrictions on iStock meant you need to keep track of what's been uploaded, and usually can't upload a full batch at once. Guess what - I occasionally make mistakes. FWIW I think similars often actually hurt you in the search on iStock because your images end up competing against each other.   
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: Amanda_K on November 14, 2010, 03:24
Hmmm...maybe we have a different definition of "calling out" but I really feel this thread is a little discourteous.

Put yourself in the shoes of the photographer who's images were linked ... if you were to read the sarcastic thread title, and click on the thread only to find it's about your images and the relative pricing of one of your Vetta's being "a joke" while some people join in to have a good chuckle over it, how would you feel?

If by any chance the photographer does think that image is worth the Vetta price then you've flat out insulted her judgment. On the other hand, the Vetta approval process seems to be just as subjective as normal iStock approvals and there has been frustration expressed on the contributor end too when trying to figure out how some of their similar images made the cut or didn't.   You can't really know how this particular file ended up at Vetta pricing.

I know my opinion probably means about as much as threads like these mean to iStock management ;) I just don't like seeing the frustration that should be aimed at the company itself being taken out on individuals who aren't here to have their say. 
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: hqimages on November 14, 2010, 04:50
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..
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: hqimages on November 14, 2010, 04:55
And I don't think it's wrong to link to specific images to illustrate this point, I did the exact same thing when Vetta was first released in my shock that they could dare charge a customer 60 credits for an image, when there is another one, by the same photographer/same set/same models at 5-10 credits.. the only difference might be that the models head is angled more slightly in a different direction, how they can take money for the more expensive image from people is just wrong..
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: ShadySue on November 14, 2010, 05:22
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..
[/quote
Happens all the time in department stores. There is only very seldom a good, articulatable reason why this pair of jeans/fleece jacket/plain white T costs five times as much as that one. (OK, some at the very bottom of the market won't be wearable after a few washes, but we'll discount them. But even the FairTrade products (an 'artuculatable reason') are now often price-compatible with the rest.)
Anyway, not Vetta, but here's a contributer's view about Exc+. I have series of similars. Like other series, sometimes one from a series sells much better than others. I've made the better sellers Exc+. The customer has a choice - if they can't see any difference, they can buy a cheaper one; if they prefer the more popular one, they can pay a bit more. i have to find some way of making up the money I'll be losing when I turn Gold in a few weeks, but won't bet getting the expected percentage rise.
Anyway, what do you think a buyer would prefer: I used up my maximum Esc+ slots (at the moment, I've used up about 1/4 of my 'allocation') over series, or that they have a choice?
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: hqimages on November 14, 2010, 08:08
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..
Happens all the time in department stores. There is only very seldom a good, articulatable reason why this pair of jeans/fleece jacket/plain white T costs five times as much as that one. (OK, some at the very bottom of the market won't be wearable after a few washes, but we'll discount them. But even the FairTrade products (an 'artuculatable reason') are now often price-compatible with the rest.)
Anyway, not Vetta, but here's a contributer's view about Exc+. I have series of similars. Like other series, sometimes one from a series sells much better than others. I've made the better sellers Exc+. The customer has a choice - if they can't see any difference, they can buy a cheaper one; if they prefer the more popular one, they can pay a bit more. i have to find some way of making up the money I'll be losing when I turn Gold in a few weeks, but won't bet getting the expected percentage rise.
Anyway, what do you think a buyer would prefer: I used up my maximum Esc+ slots (at the moment, I've used up about 1/4 of my 'allocation') over series, or that they have a choice?

Even department stores wouldn't price a t-shirt from the same manufacturer, using the same material, that they bought at the same price, from the same person, with maybe.. a zig-zag instead of a straight stich in the arm, at 60 dollars vs 10 dollars, ON THE SAME RACK.. you have to remember this is the same shop..
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: caspixel on November 14, 2010, 09:57
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.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on November 14, 2010, 11:03
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..

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.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: PeterChigmaroff on November 14, 2010, 11:06
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?
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on November 14, 2010, 11:10
This just in, flying pork spotted in the skies overhead!
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: vonkara on November 14, 2010, 11:11

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
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: RacePhoto on November 14, 2010, 11:12
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) :)
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: cathyslife on November 14, 2010, 12:28
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.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: PeterChigmaroff on November 14, 2010, 12:41


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.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: bittersweet on November 14, 2010, 12:49
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.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: gostwyck on November 14, 2010, 12:59
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.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: cathyslife on November 14, 2010, 14:28
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?
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: crazychristina on November 14, 2010, 14:54
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?
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: VB inc on November 14, 2010, 15:12
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.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: molka on November 14, 2010, 15:38
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?
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: hqimages on November 14, 2010, 19:09
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!
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: lisafx on November 15, 2010, 09:54
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. 
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: madelaide on November 15, 2010, 10:48
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.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: ShadySue on November 15, 2010, 10:53
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.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: caspixel on November 15, 2010, 11:02

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
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: lagereek on November 15, 2010, 12:11
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.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: click_click on November 15, 2010, 12:20
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?
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: jen on November 15, 2010, 13:14
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.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: madelaide on November 15, 2010, 13:16
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.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: travelstock on November 15, 2010, 13:35
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.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: travelstock on November 15, 2010, 14:19

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 (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.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: lisafx on November 15, 2010, 14:46

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.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on November 15, 2010, 15:52
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.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: rubyroo on November 15, 2010, 17:15
I completely agree with jsnover on this one.  Very well said.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: travelstock on November 15, 2010, 17:54

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.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: lisafx on November 15, 2010, 18:41

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"...?
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: luissantos84 on November 15, 2010, 19:08
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_1oKZEeeNgSk/TOHK8AnE3yI/AAAAAAAAAdk/XL0ejx5OyKg/s1600/set.jpg)

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_1oKZEeeNgSk/TOHLDM9ERDI/AAAAAAAAAds/Vnm_jNfsAkw/s1600/nov.jpg)
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: lisafx on November 15, 2010, 19:57
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 :)
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: luissantos84 on November 15, 2010, 20:08
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 couldn´t 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/ (http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/not-another-istock-topic-aka-response-from-the-bosses/)
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: FD on November 15, 2010, 20:10
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.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: FD on November 15, 2010, 20:18
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.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: Eyedesign on November 15, 2010, 20:25
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?
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: KB on November 15, 2010, 20:31
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.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: luissantos84 on November 15, 2010, 20:42
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
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: travelstock on November 16, 2010, 01:53

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.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: lagereek on November 16, 2010, 02:14
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.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: ShadySue on November 16, 2010, 04:28
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.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: lagereek on November 16, 2010, 05:33
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?
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: ShadySue on November 16, 2010, 06:12
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.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: lagereek on November 16, 2010, 06:45
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? 
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: ShadySue on November 16, 2010, 07:17

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.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: cathyslife on November 16, 2010, 07:18
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.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: bunhill on November 16, 2010, 07:20
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.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: cathyslife on November 16, 2010, 07:45
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!
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: lagereek on November 16, 2010, 08:00
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?
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on November 16, 2010, 08:33
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.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: ShadySue on November 16, 2010, 08:36
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.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: bunhill on November 16, 2010, 08:40
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.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: RT on November 16, 2010, 09:31
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.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: lisafx on November 16, 2010, 09:53

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...
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: lagereek on November 16, 2010, 10:12
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.

Yep Why not, nothing else to do anyway and rabbiting about Vetta isnt all that. Ill call it " great names of tha past"

best.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: luissantos84 on November 16, 2010, 11:03

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...

like I have said it is impossible that 4k new contributors went exclusives with just 2 months.. so the % is not accurate, it might be but like in 6 months or so
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: lisafx on November 16, 2010, 11:33

like I have said it is impossible that 4k new contributors went exclusives with just 2 months.. so the % is not accurate, it might be but like in 6 months or so

Yes, Luis, but more current members reach exclusive eligibility every day, and fewer (percentage) of them are choosing to go exclusive than 2 months ago.  

ETA:  Who knows, this may be Getty's plan.  To discourage newer, lower canister people from ever going exclusive.  That way Istock gets their images and only pays out 15-19%...
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: luissantos84 on November 16, 2010, 12:02

like I have said it is impossible that 4k new contributors went exclusives with just 2 months.. so the % is not accurate, it might be but like in 6 months or so

Yes, Luis, but more current members reach exclusive eligibility every day, and fewer (percentage) of them are choosing to go exclusive than 2 months ago.  

ETA:  Who knows, this may be Getty's plan.  To discourage newer, lower canister people from ever going exclusive.  That way Istock gets their images and only pays out 15-19%...

lol didn't thought of that.. :)
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on November 16, 2010, 12:14
For reasons I can guess at, there appear to be a lot of the newbies who qualify at 250 downloads who are becoming exclusive - even after the September bombshell. Initially, I'd have expected that no one would become exclusive who wasn't already. However...

If you look at it from their perspective though (especially if they haven't been uploading elsewhere) it's a way to get a guaranteed 25% next year regardless of sales this year. They're looking at a raise and thus aren't p#$sed off.

The number of such exclusives are relatively much higher than their portfolio or sales (with respect to total collection or total sales). I think this is where the bulk of the additions comes from.

Also, the sense of broken promises is much less acute with contributors in the above group - it's those who (like me) have been working towards diamond for a while and now won't get the anticipated 40% (for a few weeks, but that's largely meaningless) who are incandescently angry at the changes. The only angrier group would be those who did the deal to become exclusive by August 31st to get the grandfathered canister levels - they were royally led down the garden path with shameful deceit.

If there are some superstars in the group of new exclusives who can produce quality and in volume, they might actually be better off than under the old system - they can have a really good year and get a big royalty boost as a result.

I see a lot of complaining in the Vetta forum about sales having dropped after the price increases in September (double the price, half the sales - who'd have guessed??). For whatever reason the Vetta on Getty and IS Agency contributors moving to Getty's Agency collection didn't happen as planned (it's now "by the end of the year"). If new exclusives are being enticed by the prospect of getting files into those collections, the waters seem a tad muddy to me.

The only thing that's clear IMO is the relentless march by Getty towards 20% (max) for everyone. The current mess of rates is only a waystation while they break the old exclusive system up.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: lisafx on November 16, 2010, 12:37
Very insightful, JoAnn.  I am betting you are right on all counts. 

Hadn't thought about the benefits of exclusivity to newbies, but that makes a lot of sense.  If I hadn't uploaded to any other sites, and I saw the opportunity to jump from 15% to 25% overnight that might be an appealing prospect.  Shortsighted though, IMO. 
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: Allsa on November 16, 2010, 13:29
Very insightful, JoAnn.  I am betting you are right on all counts. 

Hadn't thought about the benefits of exclusivity to newbies, but that makes a lot of sense.  If I hadn't uploaded to any other sites, and I saw the opportunity to jump from 15% to 25% overnight that might be an appealing prospect.  Shortsighted though, IMO. 

Maybe this is their strategy - get rid of the old, expensive exclusives, and replace them with new exclusives who start out with lower expectations. Could be that there are so many of us, that contributors are being regarded as a nearly unlimited resource, making it easy to adopt an 'out with the old, in with the new' policy. Sort of a new twist on the Age Discrimination theme.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on November 16, 2010, 13:55
Maybe this is their strategy - get rid of the old, expensive exclusives, and replace them with new exclusives who start out with lower expectations. Could be that there are so many of us, that contributors are being regarded as a nearly unlimited resource, making it easy to adopt an 'out with the old, in with the new' policy. Sort of a new twist on the Age Discrimination theme.


The only ones they really don't want to get rid of are the very top tier of earners, at least not until they have a tier of newbies that are selling really well to replace them with.

I'd pick an analogy of the airlines with the different salary levels for pilots on their main fleet and the regional jets. Although the union fought most of the moves, the airlines wanted to push more and more larger and longer-haul jets out to the "regional" pilots - who were paid less and had lower benefits.

In time, we're all replaceable. The trick will be if they can find enough talented, hardworking newbies who want to bust their but for 20% max. If the only group chortling about how much money they made are the executives, they may be out of luck - tales from happy contributors of how much money you can make in this great business will be what draws in new players. Happy contributors are a bit thin on the ground these days.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: vonkara on November 16, 2010, 14:04
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.

Considering the % of subscription sales everywhere else, being exclusive at Istock is nothing bad, even with the changes... for now lol
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: SNP on November 18, 2010, 00:53
Maybe this is their strategy - get rid of the old, expensive exclusives, and replace them with new exclusives who start out with lower expectations. Could be that there are so many of us, that contributors are being regarded as a nearly unlimited resource, making it easy to adopt an 'out with the old, in with the new' policy. Sort of a new twist on the Age Discrimination theme.


In time, we're all replaceable. The trick will be if they can find enough talented, hardworking newbies who want to bust their but for 20% max. If the only group chortling about how much money they made are the executives, they may be out of luck - tales from happy contributors of how much money you can make in this great business will be what draws in new players. Happy contributors are a bit thin on the ground these days.

I don't think this is a real-world scenario. I'd guess the percentage of new contributors in microstock with staying power--let alone staying and evolving power--is very low. We already know that the serious contributors make up just about 1-2K contributors on iStock. The rest are one or two images here and there contributors. To suggest they're trying to replace the old expensive guns with all the new recruits who don't know any better, I don't think that's realistic.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: lagereek on November 18, 2010, 01:55
Getty will within the coming year try to get rid of the "riff-raff" , exclusive or not. This move I can understand since IS has been far to leanant in their acceptance of files.
They will then start a clean-up operation, removing tens of thousands of irrelevant material, you know like isolations, business people, lots of generic stuff. They certainly dont want much more of these "ordinary" exclusives, thats for sure. They will also increase prices a lot more.

My hunch is that within a year and half, we wont even remember IS as it once was. Then comes the big question: is it worth it?
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: Zerkalo on November 19, 2010, 06:35
For reasons I can guess at, there appear to be a lot of the newbies who qualify at 250 downloads who are becoming exclusive - even after the September bombshell. Initially, I'd have expected that no one would become exclusive who wasn't already. However...

If you look at it from their perspective though (especially if they haven't been uploading elsewhere) it's a way to get a guaranteed 25% next year regardless of sales this year. They're looking at a raise and thus aren't p#$sed off.

The number of such exclusives are relatively much higher than their portfolio or sales (with respect to total collection or total sales). I think this is where the bulk of the additions comes from.
......

I totally agree with this. I am a relative newbie, started uploading in january this year and turned exclusive in past october. For me 25% instead of 15% is very good since I can not upload in other sites, because I don't have the time. I am not a full-time photographer. I like photography and financing this hobby of mind through stock is a huge opportunity for me. I can further invest in gear and try different things which would be Vetta-like shots. So I guess there are other people like me who thinks similar and turning exclusive.

On the other hand I totally understand the frustration on higher levels, gold and diamond canisters. IS/Getty has literally deceived these people IMHO.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: PaulieWalnuts on November 19, 2010, 07:56
Very insightful, JoAnn.  I am betting you are right on all counts. 

Hadn't thought about the benefits of exclusivity to newbies, but that makes a lot of sense.  If I hadn't uploaded to any other sites, and I saw the opportunity to jump from 15% to 25% overnight that might be an appealing prospect.  Shortsighted though, IMO. 

Maybe this is their strategy - get rid of the old, expensive exclusives, and replace them with new exclusives who start out with lower expectations. Could be that there are so many of us, that contributors are being regarded as a nearly unlimited resource, making it easy to adopt an 'out with the old, in with the new' policy. Sort of a new twist on the Age Discrimination theme.

I don't think they want to get rid of any exclusives. I just think they don't want to keep paying 30% to 40% to exclusives who joined way back in the beginning and are coasting on high commissions while either not producing anything new or sellable.

So someone who joined in 2002, has 5,000 files, and 25,000 downloads is a Diamond. But they will suffer severly under the new model because their sales performance (RPI, DRI, Redeemed Credits) would probably be considered way below average.

I also don't think this is about new or old. It's about profits. More profitable contributors end up in the same or better position. Less profitable contributors end up in a worse position.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: Caz on November 19, 2010, 12:39

I don't think they want to get rid of any exclusives. I just think they don't want to keep paying 30% to 40% to exclusives who joined way back in the beginning and are coasting on high commissions while either not producing anything new or sellable.

So someone who joined in 2002, has 5,000 files, and 25,000 downloads is a Diamond. But they will suffer severly under the new model because their sales performance (RPI, DRI, Redeemed Credits) would probably be considered way below average.

I also don't think this is about new or old. It's about profits. More profitable contributors end up in the same or better position. Less profitable contributors end up in a worse position.

I agree with Paulie. As much as it pains me, because I'm one of those who'll be losing out big time, I do see how inequitable the old system is. If I'm honest with myself, I don't see why I should have a higher commission *just* because I've been there for years & years and so have built up sales over time.  There are some hugely talented new contributors producing much better stock than me who aren't getting my commission levels simply because I got there first. And, in the cold light of day, I think they're more talented than me. And if that's true, then they'll sell more each year than me and their talent will earn them higher commision than me. It sucks, because that's a big change to what I signed up for, and it will be a big change to my income. But when I look at it clinically, it makes perfect business sense to reward your best performers. At the rist of laboring the point, here's another analogy. My first job was for the government. Pay was structured in years of service. I was outraged that "the old guard" who'd been there for 30 years and did far less than me got paid more than me, simply because they'd been there longer.

That said, I do hope the cut off levels will be tweaked before January because I don't think they're in the right place (unless Kelly's predction for sales galore in the next 2 months magically comes true). But, in principle, I think the system is fairer (even though I'll be losing out)
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: Freedom on November 19, 2010, 12:42
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?

LOL, I feel I have to side with IS in this instance too.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on November 19, 2010, 13:32
... I do see how inequitable the old system is. If I'm honest with myself, I don't see why I should have a higher commission *just* because I've been there for years & years and so have built up sales over time. 


All compensation and bonus systems are "unfair" in one way or another - they all contain incentives to reward certain things. This effectively ignores or discourages other things - whatever you don't want more of. The problems come because of unintended consequences.

A guy who worked for me told a story about a previous employer whose incentive system was based on the gross margins of his business unit. An opportunity for an acquisition came up which would have been good for the company - good fit with the business, long term advantage, good sales and the acquisition was profitable. Problem was that its gross margins were lower and would have ruined his bonus for the year. So a competitor got the prize instead. I can't blame the guy who turned down the acquisition - businesses who don't think about their reward systems have only themselves to blame when employees respond to them.

The old system at IS rewarded those who had brought in a lot of business to IS - didn't matter in which calendar year. Now the system will reward people who brought in a lot of business - but only in one medium - last calendar year.

What have you done for me lately is the new target.  I hope they get what they wanted out of it.

And that they don't care about the things they've lost.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on November 19, 2010, 14:01
If I'm honest with myself, I don't see why I should have a higher commission *just* because I've been there for years & years and so have built up sales over time. 

Because you helped to successfully grow the company to where it is today?
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: lisafx on November 19, 2010, 14:52
If I'm honest with myself, I don't see why I should have a higher commission *just* because I've been there for years & years and so have built up sales over time.

Because you helped to successfully grow the company to where it is today?

Yes!  Exactly!! ^^

Anybody can come along after a business is hugely successful and jump on the bandwagon.  There should be some recognition of the people who signed on early, before it was particularly lucrative, and worked to make the business a success in the first place.  

Kind of reminds me of my brother-in-law.  He worked to put his wife through college for 8 years, and helped raise her son, while she earned a degree as a psychologist.  As soon as she was poised to start making good money, she dumped him.  He invested all that time in her, but wasn't entitled to any money because she only started making it after the split.  

If you invest in a business' (or person's) success when times are lean, it's only fair you share in the benefits when times are good.  
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: RT on November 19, 2010, 17:27
Because you helped to successfully grow the company to where it is today?

Depending which way you look at that statement it could be deemed to be praise or insult.

"Because you helped to successfully grow the company" (Praise - From a small community of photographers into a major stock agency ) "to where it is today?" (Insult - Profit orientated manipulative corporate greed with no fundamental concern for those that built the success)
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: PaulieWalnuts on November 19, 2010, 17:32

I don't think they want to get rid of any exclusives. I just think they don't want to keep paying 30% to 40% to exclusives who joined way back in the beginning and are coasting on high commissions while either not producing anything new or sellable.

So someone who joined in 2002, has 5,000 files, and 25,000 downloads is a Diamond. But they will suffer severly under the new model because their sales performance (RPI, DRI, Redeemed Credits) would probably be considered way below average.

I also don't think this is about new or old. It's about profits. More profitable contributors end up in the same or better position. Less profitable contributors end up in a worse position.

I agree with Paulie. As much as it pains me, because I'm one of those who'll be losing out big time, I do see how inequitable the old system is. If I'm honest with myself, I don't see why I should have a higher commission *just* because I've been there for years & years and so have built up sales over time.  There are some hugely talented new contributors producing much better stock than me who aren't getting my commission levels simply because I got there first. And, in the cold light of day, I think they're more talented than me. And if that's true, then they'll sell more each year than me and their talent will earn them higher commision than me. It sucks, because that's a big change to what I signed up for, and it will be a big change to my income. But when I look at it clinically, it makes perfect business sense to reward your best performers. At the rist of laboring the point, here's another analogy. My first job was for the government. Pay was structured in years of service. I was outraged that "the old guard" who'd been there for 30 years and did far less than me got paid more than me, simply because they'd been there longer.

That said, I do hope the cut off levels will be tweaked before January because I don't think they're in the right place (unless Kelly's predction for sales galore in the next 2 months magically comes true). But, in principle, I think the system is fairer (even though I'll be losing out)

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying I agree with the new model. I understand it, and why they would change it, but don't totally agree with all parts of it.

I don't think the long termers should be kicked to the curb. A lot of them helped make IS successful even if they don't have rockstar performance.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: cathyslife on November 19, 2010, 17:47
I look at it like anyone with 9644 files in their port (sjlocke) or 6000+ files (lisafx) and all the others who have been around awhile, not only have helped grow the company and deserve rewards, but should be allowed to slack off just a little if they wanted to without being punished.

@ RT... :)
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: PaulieWalnuts on November 19, 2010, 20:12
I look at it like anyone with 9644 files in their port (sjlocke) or 6000+ files (lisafx) and all the others who have been around awhile, not only have helped grow the company and deserve rewards, but should be allowed to slack off just a little if they wanted to without being punished.

@ RT... :)

Strong performers like Sean and Lisa probably represent a small percentage of all contributors.

What about someone who has 6,000+ files and only a couple thousand downloads since 2002? Did they really help grow the company? Probably not. I'd guess they're unprofitable which is why this new model is going to hit them hard. It's intended to. IS doesn't need to do the dirty work of getting rid of them. They'll most likely stop submitting or maybe even leave. Should IS reward someone who is costing them more money than they're bringing in?

Vetta and Agency are high profit margin. Strong perfomers and/or people who can create sellable Vetta/Agency stuff are what they want.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on November 19, 2010, 21:35
Because you helped to successfully grow the company to where it is today?

Depending which way you look at that statement it could be deemed to be praise or insult.

"Because you helped to successfully grow the company" (Praise - From a small community of photographers into a major stock agency ) "to where it is today?" (Insult - Profit orientated manipulative corporate greed with no fundamental concern for those that built the success)

Ha ha!  Yes, I meant it in the good way...
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: SNP on November 20, 2010, 00:56
@ Caz: I agree with most of what you said, though I think Sean's point is an improvement on yours. don't undersell the importance of having been part of the growth and success of the company.

@Lisa: jumping on the bandwagon is easy. staying on the bandwagon, producing despite an ever-growing pool of competitor's images, and rolling with some fairly large punches takes more than a little bit of effort. I think it's a fair system to attempt to reward contributors working hard and producing sales. new or old contributors and those of us in the middle.

I think the royalty levels are unfair. but unless my royalties are 100%, I think I'll always find them less than what I'd like to be receiving...I'm already past my RC requirement to stay at my current royalty. but I won't get my raise when I hit diamond soon.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: adamknox on November 22, 2010, 15:18
Tried following the iStock examples and it looks like they may have pulled one of each of pairs. I guess that is an improvement.

The idea of Vetta is just a group of images that someone liked. You pay extra for having them sort through the mass, not because the images are 5x better...
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: lisafx on November 22, 2010, 15:54

@Lisa: jumping on the bandwagon is easy. staying on the bandwagon, producing despite an ever-growing pool of competitor's images, and rolling with some fairly large punches takes more than a little bit of effort.


Ah.  Thanks for explaining that to me.  Personally, I wouldn't know.  ;)

Quote
I think it's a fair system to attempt to reward contributors working hard and producing sales. new or old contributors and those of us in the middle.

And just so we're clear - if you are not exclusive at IS, you will NOT be rewarded at all.  You WILL be having your commissions lowered, in spite of how much work you are putting in or how many sales you generate.  The target of over 1.4 million RC's is pretty much impossible to hit in a year, even for top sellers. 
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: Zerkalo on November 22, 2010, 15:59
Tried following the iStock examples and it looks like they may have pulled one of each of pairs. I guess that is an improvement.

The idea of Vetta is just a group of images that someone liked. You pay extra for having them sort through the mass, not because the images are 5x better...


I just wonder who liked this image so much that it became Vetta
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14723753-corporate-helicopter-in-hangar.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14723753-corporate-helicopter-in-hangar.php)
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: ShadySue on November 22, 2010, 16:05
I just wonder who liked this image so much that it became Vetta
[snip]
It was uploaded on 1st Nov so can't have been up for more than a couple of weeks and has sold three times. Seems pretty good.
It probably needed a PR, which could be hard to get, so Vetta for rarity value(?)
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: Zerkalo on November 22, 2010, 16:20
I just wonder who liked this image so much that it became Vetta
[snip]
It was uploaded on 1st Nov so can't have been up for more than a couple of weeks and has sold three times. Seems pretty good.
It probably needed a PR, which could be hard to get, so Vetta for rarity value(?)

I was more thinking about cutting the blade edges and lamp on the ceiling. So it's not the best composition and lighting is also not very good. And I don't think it's a rare image on the other hand.

I am a bit frustrated with Vetta selections lately. Trying some soft light, artistic shots but none of them has been accepted to Vetta :(
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: SNP on November 22, 2010, 17:46

@Lisa: jumping on the bandwagon is easy. staying on the bandwagon, producing despite an ever-growing pool of competitor's images, and rolling with some fairly large punches takes more than a little bit of effort.


Ah.  Thanks for explaining that to me.  Personally, I wouldn't know.  ;)

Quote
I think it's a fair system to attempt to reward contributors working hard and producing sales. new or old contributors and those of us in the middle.

And just so we're clear - if you are not exclusive at IS, you will NOT be rewarded at all.  You WILL be having your commissions lowered, in spite of how much work you are putting in or how many sales you generate.  The target of over 1.4 million RC's is pretty much impossible to hit in a year, even for top sellers. 

I know you don't need it pointed out to you. it's more for the benefit of people in here who don't know. a few points in this thread suggest that iStock is intentionally railroading exclusives by * in newbies. they are certainly railroading non-exclusives...no argument. I don't think anyone would ever accuse you of not working hard, I think you know that wasn't my point ;-)
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: lisafx on November 22, 2010, 17:49


I know you don't need it pointed out to you. it's more for the benefit of people in here who don't know. a few points in this thread suggest that iStock is intentionally railroading exclusives by  in newbies. they are certainly railroading non-exclusives...no argument. I don't think anyone would ever accuse you of not working hard, I think you know that wasn't my point ;-)

I understand now :).  Since your comment was directed "@ Lisa", yes, I assumed you meant me...
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: molka on November 22, 2010, 18:04
I look at it like anyone with 9644 files in their port (sjlocke) or 6000+ files (lisafx) and all the others who have been around awhile, not only have helped grow the company and deserve rewards, but should be allowed to slack off just a little if they wanted to without being punished.

@ RT... :)

...
What about someone who has 6,000+ files and only a couple thousand downloads since 2002? Did they really help grow the company?
....

Absolutely yes. 2000 DL's is a nice profit on those files. what's that, like 20-30 gigs? probably less. storage is cheap, that's why this business is hugely profitable, most of you have no idea how hugely. you people really do fall for that 'unsustainable' crap? why do you think getty bothered with buying them? Jesus... plz THINK. They would have large profits with third of the sales, thats why they can get away with running it so stupidly.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: PaulieWalnuts on November 22, 2010, 18:28
I look at it like anyone with 9644 files in their port (sjlocke) or 6000+ files (lisafx) and all the others who have been around awhile, not only have helped grow the company and deserve rewards, but should be allowed to slack off just a little if they wanted to without being punished.

@ RT... :)

...
What about someone who has 6,000+ files and only a couple thousand downloads since 2002? Did they really help grow the company?
....

Absolutely yes. 2000 DL's is a nice profit on those files. what's that, like 20-30 gigs? probably less. storage is cheap, that's why this business is hugely profitable, most of you have no idea how hugely. you people really do fall for that 'unsustainable' crap? why do you think getty bothered with buying them? Jesus... plz THINK. They would have large profits with third of the sales, thats why they can get away with running it so stupidly.

While I don't disagree that the business is probably hugely profitable, do you think the only cost of running the business is storage?

I don't know what IS's breakeven is per contributor. Do you?
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: luissantos84 on November 22, 2010, 18:45
I look at it like anyone with 9644 files in their port (sjlocke) or 6000+ files (lisafx) and all the others who have been around awhile, not only have helped grow the company and deserve rewards, but should be allowed to slack off just a little if they wanted to without being punished.

@ RT... :)

...
What about someone who has 6,000+ files and only a couple thousand downloads since 2002? Did they really help grow the company?
....

Absolutely yes. 2000 DL's is a nice profit on those files. what's that, like 20-30 gigs? probably less. storage is cheap, that's why this business is hugely profitable, most of you have no idea how hugely. you people really do fall for that 'unsustainable' crap? why do you think getty bothered with buying them? Jesus... plz THINK. They would have large profits with third of the sales, thats why they can get away with running it so stupidly.

While I don't disagree that the business is probably hugely profitable, do you think the only cost of running the business is storage?

I don't know what IS's breakeven is per contributor. Do you?

I remember a topic while ago regarding Google, they have a profitable business right? IS doesn't have for sure or something is wrong.. The cut is on every contributor not just the smaller one, exclusive or not, people making 40k a year isn't good to IS?
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: PaulieWalnuts on November 22, 2010, 19:44
I look at it like anyone with 9644 files in their port (sjlocke) or 6000+ files (lisafx) and all the others who have been around awhile, not only have helped grow the company and deserve rewards, but should be allowed to slack off just a little if they wanted to without being punished.

@ RT... :)

...
What about someone who has 6,000+ files and only a couple thousand downloads since 2002? Did they really help grow the company?
....

Absolutely yes. 2000 DL's is a nice profit on those files. what's that, like 20-30 gigs? probably less. storage is cheap, that's why this business is hugely profitable, most of you have no idea how hugely. you people really do fall for that 'unsustainable' crap? why do you think getty bothered with buying them? Jesus... plz THINK. They would have large profits with third of the sales, thats why they can get away with running it so stupidly.

While I don't disagree that the business is probably hugely profitable, do you think the only cost of running the business is storage?

I don't know what IS's breakeven is per contributor. Do you?

I remember a topic while ago regarding Google, they have a profitable business right? IS doesn't have for sure or something is wrong.. The cut is on every contributor not just the smaller one, exclusive or not, people making 40k a year isn't good to IS?

40K a year? You didn't read my post.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: luissantos84 on November 22, 2010, 20:09
I did, my point is that IS isn't worried if they have low performance contributors they are just looking into fill even more their pockets, it is ridiculous to think how much they need to breakeven, they earn enough and nobody should waste time thinking why they cut, increase, breakeven, etc... the lower contributors (myself) have given enough already to pay the reviewers work, ads or storage..
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: PaulieWalnuts on November 22, 2010, 20:16
I did, my point is that IS isn't worried if they have low performance contributors they are just looking into fill even more their pockets, it is ridiculous to think how much they need to breakeven, they earn enough and nobody should waste time thinking why they cut, increase, breakeven, etc... the lower contributors (myself) have given enough already to pay the reviewers work, ads or storage..

You're right. I'm going to go quit wasting time on posts like this and go make more money.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: luissantos84 on November 22, 2010, 20:18
I did, my point is that IS isn't worried if they have low performance contributors they are just looking into fill even more their pockets, it is ridiculous to think how much they need to breakeven, they earn enough and nobody should waste time thinking why they cut, increase, breakeven, etc... the lower contributors (myself) have given enough already to pay the reviewers work, ads or storage..

You're right. I'm going to go quit wasting time on posts like this and go make more money.

I do the same when everybody complains that stock is dead, sure it is :)
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: molka on November 23, 2010, 08:14
I look at it like anyone with 9644 files in their port (sjlocke) or 6000+ files (lisafx) and all the others who have been around awhile, not only have helped grow the company and deserve rewards, but should be allowed to slack off just a little if they wanted to without being punished.

@ RT... :)

...
What about someone who has 6,000+ files and only a couple thousand downloads since 2002? Did they really help grow the company?
....

Absolutely yes. 2000 DL's is a nice profit on those files. what's that, like 20-30 gigs? probably less. storage is cheap, that's why this business is hugely profitable, most of you have no idea how hugely. you people really do fall for that 'unsustainable' crap? why do you think getty bothered with buying them? Jesus... plz THINK. They would have large profits with third of the sales, thats why they can get away with running it so stupidly.

While I don't disagree that the business is probably hugely profitable, do you think the only cost of running the business is storage?

I don't know what IS's breakeven is per contributor. Do you?

No I don't, but that's what you can measure up when it comes to sales / # of pics. I have a friend who works pretty high rank at big net company so I have decent picture of the stuff that goes on in places like that. That's why I don't fall for 'unsustainable for the site owners' crap and the like... I can't beleive anyone was dumb enough to take that seriuosly even for splitsecond. 
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: PaulieWalnuts on November 23, 2010, 22:18
Yes I also have a friend who has an uncle who knows... absolutely nothing about running a microstock site.

You don't need to buy the unsustainable crap. It's pretty simple. The more the site grows over time the less the profit margin. Could they have gone on for 50 years with the old model. Probably. But if I owned a business, ran the numbers, and saw my profit margin dropping year over year, I'd make some changes. They wanted to make changes, and they did. It sucks for a lot of people being on the receiving end of the changes, but hey, that's business.

As far as them making a nice profit on people with poor performance, I doubt it. There's a breakeven level and the people who are taking severe commission cuts are probably close to it or below it.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: SNP on December 01, 2010, 01:22
Yes I also have a friend who has an uncle who knows... absolutely nothing about running a microstock site.

You don't need to buy the unsustainable crap. It's pretty simple. The more the site grows over time the less the profit margin. Could they have gone on for 50 years with the old model. Probably. But if I owned a business, ran the numbers, and saw my profit margin dropping year over year, I'd make some changes. They wanted to make changes, and they did. It sucks for a lot of people being on the receiving end of the changes, but hey, that's business.

As far as them making a nice profit on people with poor performance, I doubt it. There's a breakeven level and the people who are taking severe commission cuts are probably close to it or below it.

again, bang on. I'm pretty sure I've disagreed with you in the past on some things, but this week you're full of the wisdom Paulie ;-)
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: molka on December 01, 2010, 07:30
Yes I also have a friend who has an uncle who knows... absolutely nothing about running a microstock site.

You don't need to buy the unsustainable crap. It's pretty simple. The more the site grows over time the less the profit margin. Could they have gone on for 50 years with the old model. Probably. But if I owned a business, ran the numbers, and saw my profit margin dropping year over year, I'd make some changes. They wanted to make changes, and they did. It sucks for a lot of people being on the receiving end of the changes, but hey, that's business.

As far as them making a nice profit on people with poor performance, I doubt it. There's a breakeven level and the people who are taking severe commission cuts are probably close to it or below it.

well he's not an uncle, but someone I talk to almost everyday and he is a high level mathematician, BI expert at a large net company. Direct insight into payment systems, operational costs, storage cost, HR, coding, you name it. He runs them basically. There you go.

"But if I owned a business, ran the numbers, and saw my profit margin dropping year over year, I'd make some changes."

That in itself sounds ok, but given the context, it's the old greed scheme that it has to grow, and grow rapidly if possible. To this extent, it doesn't work. They do make money even on seemingly poor performers, this is a low cost business unless you advertise like crazy and they don't.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: SNP on December 01, 2010, 12:43
the argument that there is still any separation between higher class shooters and microstock contributors is a lame duck. iStock is full of pro shooters these days (as I'm sure some of the other agencies are). my husband is a mathematician. so what.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: molka on December 01, 2010, 13:58
my husband is a mathematician. so what.

Is he running BI at large net business? I guess your definitosn of a pro shooter is someone who learned to get a good histogram or smthng like that : )
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: SNP on December 01, 2010, 14:13
you win, your mathematician is better than mine. like I said, who cares?

if only I had a penny for every too-good-for-microstock 'pro' I've heard complain about not being able to get their images accepted on iStock--and then decided they are just too good and too 'pro' for microstock. it's a silly, and old argument based on dated ideas.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: molka on December 01, 2010, 14:28
you win, your mathematician is better than mine. like I said, who cares?

if only I had a penny for every too-good-for-microstock 'pro' I've heard complain about not being able to get their images accepted on iStock--and then decided they are just too good and too 'pro' for microstock. it's a silly, and old argument based on dated ideas.

Try reading back to at least have a vague idea of what we were talking about... thx : )
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: SNP on December 01, 2010, 15:03
got to love irony
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: donding on December 01, 2010, 15:14
I think a lot of the "old pro" photographer's have trouble with your basic stock photography. They might be photo journalist or wedding and portrait photographers and are great at what they do, but most of the time those wedding shots or portrait shots don't sell as stock. The more creative artsy "old pros" have a better chance of doing stock. Also I've heard many of the "Old Pros" say the technical requirements of microstock is much greater than they expected, which is another reason they can't get in. A lot of what they shoot are printed, whereas the noise ect doesn't matter.
Title: Re: I TOTALLY see why this is VETTA
Post by: SNP on December 01, 2010, 15:22
^ yes. on the other hand, as someone has posted in another thread, microstock technical requirements have the potential to change the way we shoot. sometimes I worry about missing a great shot, a beautiful photograph, simply because I know it wouldn't meet iStock tech requirements.

Vetta is a whole other entity. now that they're placing 'perfect' stock images in Agency and no longer in Vetta, I have less interest in Vetta and more interest in contributing to Agency. Vetta is a 'look what I can do' art gallery. I want to have files in the art gallery, but I'm more interested in producing highly usable images.