Author Topic: Interesting interview with Rebecca Swift at iStock/Getty (Read 6488 times)

Holmes · « **on:** May 09, 2015, 11:10 »

Interesting interview with Rebecca Swift, director of creative planning at iStock by Getty Images

https://www.marketingmag.com.au/hubs-c/evolution-of-stock-photography-in-marketing/

azyr · « **Reply #1 on:** May 11, 2015, 03:26 »

Weird. She wants to strive for better quality - but she also recognizes that there is incredible supply, hence lowering prices.

Considering the price tag on anything quality when it comes to photo tools, how does she think it's going to work out? People are getting pennies (from what I've gathered -) for their work, so they try and create thousands of images per year instead of well thought out and executed compositions. I don't blame them (as a designer), and I feel dishearted (as a contributor).

Unless she recognizes that low prices will just fill stock catalogues with junk upon junk, eventually driving the buyer (designers) out from stock as a trustworthy option and instead replace it with a "last resort" tool - then none of this is going to work out.

Wait and see I suppose, this stock contributor role is loads of patience :/

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #2 on:** May 11, 2015, 06:43 »

"iStock started as a file sharing site and found a need in the market for cheap, user-generated content and kind of exploded from there. So we as a business at Getty Images have the premium imagery on Getty and iStock is the crowd, it’s the community."

Still painful to read stuff like this. 'User generated'... 'Premium on getty'... Etc.

Mantis · « **Reply #3 on:** May 11, 2015, 07:21 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on May 11, 2015, 06:43

"iStock started as a file sharing site and found a need in the market for cheap, user-generated content and kind of exploded from there. So we as a business at Getty Images have the premium imagery on Getty and iStock is the crowd, it’s the community."

Still painful to read stuff like this. 'User generated'... 'Premium on getty'... Etc.

As the ~~spokesperson~~ spin-master for Getty/IS she sure hit the nail on the head.....unless one actually compares the content between the two brands. Then her whole argument goes to sh!t.

cobalt · « **Reply #4 on:** May 11, 2015, 07:45 »

That part is indeed painful to read. I´ll never forget how getty started dumping all their old crap into our site. Quality control on istock used to be very high and reliable. Now indeed it has become a place for "dump it all and see if it sells". Even I am sending "everything" up these days, but the better quality content goes elsewhere unfortunately.

I remember how one Getty admin kept mentioning at a lyspe that "we can´t have the istock product compete with the getty product" and all I was thinking...but which site is showing growth and has more modern content??? And why is the istock exclusive content on Getty selling so well?? If our files are so bad, why are the premium getty shooters not outselling us? Why are they always complaining, while our sales on getty were good?

But now they have created their own reality, istock is now visibly lower quality than getty, I agree.

Can´t go back, but it hurts to read. I really like Rebecca, but this whole macro is premium, while the crowd is low quality attitude is part of the problem why SS is going to overtake them.

MichaelJayFoto · « **Reply #5 on:** May 11, 2015, 08:38 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on May 11, 2015, 06:43

"iStock started as a file sharing site and found a need in the market for cheap, user-generated content and kind of exploded from there. So we as a business at Getty Images have the premium imagery on Getty and iStock is the crowd, it’s the community."

Ummm... sorry but the community has left in 2010.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #6 on:** May 11, 2015, 08:47 »

Quote from: MichaelJayFoto on May 11, 2015, 08:38

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on May 11, 2015, 06:43
"iStock started as a file sharing site and found a need in the market for cheap, user-generated content and kind of exploded from there. So we as a business at Getty Images have the premium imagery on Getty and iStock is the crowd, it’s the community."

Ummm... sorry but the community has left in 2010.

On top of that her statement doesn't even make sense. What would you call all of the EyeEm, Moment and other stuff on Getty that seems to be also dominating search placement? That's not user generated community crowd content?

wordplanet · « **Reply #7 on:** May 11, 2015, 14:50 »

From the article: "I can't control everything that comes into our collection"

Somebody should.

shudderstok · « **Reply #8 on:** May 11, 2015, 18:40 »

Quote from: wordplanet on May 11, 2015, 14:50

From the article: "I can't control everything that comes into our collection"

Somebody should.

Sadly that is the biggest pitfall of microstock in general - no quality control - and inspection does not even come close to an edit of which non of the microstock agencies advocate.
Sure there is some great work on microstock sites and some very good photographers, but man o man there is a lot of crap on all of them.

ShadySue · « **Reply #9 on:** May 11, 2015, 18:45 »

Quote from: shudderstok on May 11, 2015, 18:40

Quote from: wordplanet on May 11, 2015, 14:50
From the article: "I can't control everything that comes into our collection"

Somebody should.

Sadly that is the biggest pitfall of microstock in general - no quality control - and inspection does not even come close to an edit of which non of the microstock agencies advocate.
Sure there is some great work on microstock sites and some very good photographers, but man o man there is a lot of crap on all of them.

I was looking just last week at a long-standing and apparently 'doing well' Getty editorial tog's port and although it wasn't cr*p, I did think, "Why is that better than mine?" I often don't think that looking at the good stuff on iStock. (but I often do looking at the 'EdStock' ports, though I wouldn't really like to have to photograph celebs against these 'sponsor advertising board' things).

Hobostocker · « **Reply #10 on:** May 12, 2015, 02:57 »

photographers lowered the bar as a direct consequence of agencies lowering their fees, simple as that ... 2+2 = 4 !

on top of this they should remember the whole idea of Stock was born as a cheap alternative to assignments so they can't expect top quality on par with paid assignments unless they pay very well.

in fact the perimeter where Stock is operating now is getting smaller and smaller as all the odds are stacked against suppliers and the natural outcome is an ocean of "good enough" imagery that was never meant to stand out or to be as good as a top quality set shot by a top quality photographer.

but these agency drones have no idea what they're talking about and are not artists or creatives and not photographers of course, it makes no sense to ever read their BS, i mean find me another industry where the salesman keeps up to 90% of a sale for himself and while he's at it he will also complain the biz is "unsustainable" ...

i keep saying the only way to stay afloat is a big portfolio but if the trend keeps going on the party will be over sooner or later, the issue is not just the oversupply but the agencies allowing oversupply to exist and being more than happy to open the doors to any random guy with a portfolio of 50 images, today they have 50 millions micro images on sale, in 2-3 yrs from now they will have 200 millions, what's going to happen ? and what's the point considering only the top 20% images make steady sales while the 80% is never ever zoomed/clicked/sold ?

they ask for quality but giving nothing back, just like any other gold digger.

stock-will-eat-itself · « **Reply #11 on:** May 12, 2015, 07:24 »

Stock libraries are like countries who keep printing currency.

What we are all experiencing is a massive devaluation of our currency - our images. Shutterstock has 160,000 images of London which will more than likely double over the next couple of years. It's beyond ridiculous, a couple of thousand images would be more than anyone would ever need.

It's getting to the point now where it's difficult to justify uploading photo's I have already shot as the returns are becoming so low and unstable. I know quite a few stockers who have stopped uploading altogether in favour of spending time with their family. It won't be long before I throw the towel in myself, honestly there are better ways to enjoy your life.

It was fun while it lasted, I earned $100,000's in the heydays but now its a broken business model. We know it and the libraries know it, shareholders want short term gains so it'll keep running until the currency is completely worthless. It won't be long until there are 35 million images of sliced bread.

Hobostocker · « **Reply #12 on:** May 12, 2015, 12:46 »

Quote from: stock-will-eat-itself on May 12, 2015, 07:24

. It won't be long until there are 35 million images of sliced bread.

once every possible niche will be filled and oversupplied the only option left will be about buyers seeking "fresh content".

stock-will-eat-itself · « **Reply #13 on:** May 12, 2015, 12:52 »

Yep at which point it will be impossible to produce content fast enough to get any return on time at all. The problem is compounding itself at increasing speed, Yuri was no idiot when he sold to Getty. He had a large data set to spot the trends a while back.

gostwyck · « **Reply #14 on:** May 12, 2015, 13:15 »

Wow! I can hardly believe that I just read an entire interview/article on stock photography ... and the word "curated" wasn't used even once. That's amazing!

Hobostocker · « **Reply #15 on:** May 12, 2015, 15:11 »

Quote from: gostwyck on May 12, 2015, 13:15

Wow! I can hardly believe that I just read an entire interview/article on stock photography ... and the word "curated" wasn't used even once. That's amazing!

the pattern is very similar in pretty much any industry involved about selling or licencing digital contents.

if we look at the News industry their biz is all about Fresh Content, not about "archive" content, and same goes for music in particular.

Stock is basically "archive" and the agencies should find a way to monetize the Freshness factor somehow.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Interesting interview with Rebecca Swift at iStock/Getty (Read 6488 times)

Holmes

azyr

Sean Locke Photography

Mantis

cobalt

MichaelJayFoto

PaulieWalnuts

wordplanet

shudderstok

ShadySue

Hobostocker

stock-will-eat-itself

Hobostocker

stock-will-eat-itself

gostwyck

Hobostocker

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors