pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: is IS a totalitarian state?  (Read 19408 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

vonkara

« Reply #25 on: January 27, 2009, 21:39 »
0
I may be wrong but isn't iStock based in Calgary, Canada? That is hardly the place to be totalitarian. Perharps if they are based in what once was Berlin,or in Beijing, or Singapore, where the politics are more like you say they are, that may have influenced iStock to be like the government of the day.
Noooo, iStock is the most liberal entity of the Big 6.  8)
Haha liberal. Good question. Maybe I'm not sure because of the massive conservative votes out there. Or dirty petrochemical industry, a sign of their believes. No joke though I saw others agencies sometimes way more "totalitarian"


Microbius

« Reply #26 on: January 28, 2009, 11:36 »
0

That's well observed! The SS forum regulars do appear to be a bunch of sad social-inadequates with way too much time on their hands. If I pop in for a look around I invariably leave quickly shuddering with disgust at the inane comments, fawning and ego-massaging which is pretty much all that goes on there.

LMAO- it's funny 'cos it's true!

Tuilay

« Reply #27 on: January 28, 2009, 12:23 »
0
vonkara, methinks hali is being cynical  ;)
The secret to living well in the land of "iStock" to be like the 3 monkeys:
see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil  8)

shank_ali

« Reply #28 on: January 28, 2009, 13:52 »
0
You enter the istock forum as a guest of istockphoto and as such you have an obligation not to swear or scratch your privates  while your logged into the site!

« Reply #29 on: January 28, 2009, 14:59 »
0
You enter the istock forum as a guest of istockphoto and as such you have an obligation not to swear or scratch your privates  while your logged into the site!

LOL

« Reply #30 on: February 02, 2009, 16:19 »
0
"good morning" ....

« Reply #31 on: February 02, 2009, 18:42 »
0
Hey Stacey,

As strictly a buyer, I have to tell you that it is more than just the best match changes that have affected your sales. Not all buyers use the best match option for searching (I have never used the best match option). So few seem to want to believe it, but it is the constant price increases that have turned so many of us buyers off. Slowly, as our credits packages have been spent, many have gone off  and spent their money on sites where $1 still = 1 credit and large images are still under $5. You can't say this anymore over on the iStock forums anymore without getting accused of being a whiner or otherwise attacked. And people can attack and deny all they want, but it won't change the fact that iStock, by their constant increases, has shut out so many of the small designers, among others, who made the place what it was. I haven't bought a large image from iStock in I don't even know how long. Probably in a year. And I've drastically cut my spending there. And I have talked with other designers who share the same sentiments.

I think it was the worst possible move for iStock to hike the prices up like they did this past January, considering the economic climate. And the fact that other sites are still offering photos for less. Dreamstime has over 600 images for FREE. It's sad really. It's the pink elephant in the room over at iStock.

yecatsdoherty

« Reply #32 on: February 02, 2009, 19:07 »
0
Hey Stacey,

As strictly a buyer, I have to tell you that it is more than just the best match changes that have affected your sales. Not all buyers use the best match option for searching (I have never used the best match option). So few seem to want to believe it, but it is the constant price increases that have turned so many of us buyers off. Slowly, as our credits packages have been spent, many have gone off  and spent their money on sites where $1 still = 1 credit and large images are still under $5. You can't say this anymore over on the iStock forums anymore without getting accused of being a whiner or otherwise attacked. And people can attack and deny all they want, but it won't change the fact that iStock, by their constant increases, has shut out so many of the small designers, among others, who made the place what it was. I haven't bought a large image from iStock in I don't even know how long. Probably in a year. And I've drastically cut my spending there. And I have talked with other designers who share the same sentiments.

I think it was the worst possible move for iStock to hike the prices up like they did this past January, considering the economic climate. And the fact that other sites are still offering photos for less. Dreamstime has over 600 images for FREE. It's sad really. It's the pink elephant in the room over at iStock.

hi Carolynne - thanks for this information. I have been quieted so to speak too....and I am feeling not only discouraged now, but also pretty frustrated about the double standards in the forums. it seems questions are very very unwelcome. I am considering my own options because frankly I am panicking a bit. I realize this might be a blip, but I can't continue with exclusivity if I am getting only a few sales a day. I was consistently getting 20 - 40 sales a day. I have had four sales in the last two days.

I really don't know what to do. I know I am not alone, but as many have said to me in private emails, they know better to than to speak up in the forum. apparently I was not as bright about keeping quiet.

I am a very hard worker, I don't feel intimidated at the idea of having to manage multiple sites. but I don't want to make any hasty decision either. I started questioning the wisdom of exclusivity about 8 months ago, but for obvious reasons I am reconsidering again.

man, tough call. not at all how I thought 2009 would start. big kiss for Pixel!

« Reply #33 on: February 02, 2009, 19:45 »
0
Hey Stacey,

As strictly a buyer, I have to tell you that it is more than just the best match changes that have affected your sales. Not all buyers use the best match option for searching (I have never used the best match option). So few seem to want to believe it, but it is the constant price increases that have turned so many of us buyers off. Slowly, as our credits packages have been spent, many have gone off  and spent their money on sites where $1 still = 1 credit and large images are still under $5. You can't say this anymore over on the iStock forums anymore without getting accused of being a whiner or otherwise attacked. And people can attack and deny all they want, but it won't change the fact that iStock, by their constant increases, has shut out so many of the small designers, among others, who made the place what it was. I haven't bought a large image from iStock in I don't even know how long. Probably in a year. And I've drastically cut my spending there. And I have talked with other designers who share the same sentiments.

I think it was the worst possible move for iStock to hike the prices up like they did this past January, considering the economic climate. And the fact that other sites are still offering photos for less. Dreamstime has over 600 images for FREE. It's sad really. It's the pink elephant in the room over at iStock.

The business of giving away images for free it's not a business, it's the reverse. Call it want you want but is not the point of microstock.

The idea that IS is making less money because of "price hikes" doesn't seem accurate. Look at the published data last year, look at the more than one million $ in royalties payed weekly to contributors. Calculate what that means. Sales doesn't seem to have plummeted at all (even if it's true that everyday are distributed among more contributors, it's almost impossible to upload quality at a rate that avoids your portfolio being diluted). Revenue for many contributors (maybe with the exception that those who have been hit but the best match changes) grows, and grows at a pleasant rate (that's mi case). Prices are more than reasonable. You always will be able to buy for less at any aspects of life, from a house, to a car to a meal, but often you get (in quality or choice) what you pay for. 

Having read scores of your posts on this theme at the IS forums I can avoid the feeling that you prefer to forget that some of us,contributors, have expenses in the order of 8.000 dollarsjust in gear (better camera,better lenses, new computer to support the new's camera's files, software etc), to be able to offer better quality to customers. Or that one session alone --not a special one, of course-- can go over 400. And the shooting hours and the  endless hours of editing etc. Would you really prefer to get the product of that for free or for a dime's price that never would met the expenses??? For what I read, I infer that your answer would be yes.

The really sad part is that at Istock or at any other site,the prices at what images are sold are almost always just an almost invisible part of the cost of the printing price for this file, not to talk of the ad space bougth in magazines or the web in the case of advertisements.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2009, 19:48 by loop »

« Reply #34 on: February 02, 2009, 19:57 »
0
as such you have an obligation not to swear or scratch your privates  while your logged into the site!

Right. Now we know why got banned at the iStock forum  ;D

yecatsdoherty

« Reply #35 on: February 02, 2009, 20:13 »
0

QUOTE LOOP:
The business of giving away images for free it's not a business, it's the reverse. Call it want you want but is not the point of microstock.

The idea that IS is making less money because of "price hikes" doesn't seem accurate. Look at the published data last year, look at the more than one million $ in royalties payed weekly to contributors. Calculate what that means. Sales doesn't seem to have plummeted at all (even if it's true that everyday are distributed among more contributors, it's almost impossible to upload quality at a rate that avoids your portfolio being diluted). Revenue for many contributors (maybe with the exception that those who have been hit but the best match changes) grows, and grows at a pleasant rate (that's mi case). Prices are more than reasonable. You always will be able to buy for less at any aspects of life, from a house, to a car to a meal, but often you get (in quality or choice) what you pay for. 

Having read scores of your posts on this theme at the IS forums I can avoid the feeling that you prefer to forget that some of us,contributors, have expenses in the order of 8.000 dollarsjust in gear (better camera,better lenses, new computer to support the new's camera's files, software etc), to be able to offer better quality to customers. Or that one session alone --not a special one, of course-- can go over 400. And the shooting hours and the  endless hours of editing etc. Would you really prefer to get the product of that for free or for a dime's price that never would met the expenses??? For what I read, I infer that your answer would be yes.

The really sad part is that at Istock or at any other site,the prices at what images are sold are almost always just an almost invisible part of the cost of the printing price for this file, not to talk of the ad space bougth in magazines or the web in the case of advertisements.
END QUOTE

I agree with a number of your points in this too. as a writer also, when I started out I had to give much of my work away for free just to build my portfolio. I now look on free anything with much suspicion. from many of these posts I glean as much as I can to learn from them, and leave the extremes behind. extreme thinking rarely leads to anything positive.

having said that, something iStock is doing very poorly in my opinion is communicating with their contributors. I personally feel like how I feel and how hard I work really doesn't matter. now, I would argue such is how it should be, afterall, iStock is a business. I don't have any idyllic version of how it should be in mind, but when I went exclusive...I didn't believe for a moment that when my sales suddenly, VERY suddenly, dropped...I would have little to no support, few responses to my questions and I did not believe that when I spoke out, I would be contacted by admins and warned.  again, I can see this from their point of view....why should they allow someone to stir things up in their forum. and it is a proprietary forum. I'm not sure I would allow it in their shoes.

then, why have forums though? I am reading as much as I can about microstock, so that I make an informed decision about exclusivity. whether it is pricing, the economy, or best match....the way I feel about IS has drastically changed and I partly fault myself for not being more realistic from the get go, as well as them for the expectation they create. what if all exclusives felt like me? would it matter more then?
« Last Edit: February 02, 2009, 20:17 by yecatsdoherty »

« Reply #36 on: February 02, 2009, 20:31 »
0
Hey Stacey,

As strictly a buyer, I have to tell you that it is more than just the best match changes that have affected your sales. Not all buyers use the best match option for searching (I have never used the best match option). So few seem to want to believe it, but it is the constant price increases that have turned so many of us buyers off. Slowly, as our credits packages have been spent, many have gone off  and spent their money on sites where $1 still = 1 credit and large images are still under $5. You can't say this anymore over on the iStock forums anymore without getting accused of being a whiner or otherwise attacked. And people can attack and deny all they want, but it won't change the fact that iStock, by their constant increases, has shut out so many of the small designers, among others, who made the place what it was. I haven't bought a large image from iStock in I don't even know how long. Probably in a year. And I've drastically cut my spending there. And I have talked with other designers who share the same sentiments.

I think it was the worst possible move for iStock to hike the prices up like they did this past January, considering the economic climate. And the fact that other sites are still offering photos for less. Dreamstime has over 600 images for FREE. It's sad really. It's the pink elephant in the room over at iStock.

The market is developing and segmenting Carolynne. IS aren't going balls-out to attract every buyer __ they're targetting the high-spending, less price-concious corporate buyer (or the designers who are lucky enough to have them as clients). With all their exclusive images they know they have a premium product and are entitled to charge for it. Think of it as flying 'Business Class'. There's lots of other sites doing 'Cattle Class' for the price-concious masses __ which sounds like it might include you and me!

As an independent contributor I'm delighted that IS are taking the lead in this regard. I don't sell anymore images each month/year at IS but they do consistently make me more money. Most importantly IS keep raising the price-bar which enables other agencies to follow suit later. By default that has enabled contributors like me and many others to make enough money to work full-time producing (hopefully) the sort of images you require for your job.

It is still the case that the cost of microstock images remain a tiny fraction of the total cost of any project in which they are actually used __ especially in relation to most designer's hourly rate.

« Reply #37 on: February 02, 2009, 20:33 »
0

The business of giving away images for free it's not a business, it's the reverse. Call it want you want but is not the point of microstock.


Oh, really? That WAS the original point of microstock. And that is still the point at many of the microstock sites. From what I can see, Dreamstime and many of the others have not raised their prices at the rate that iStock has. IStock really isn't microstock anymore. It's moving more towards mid-stock...kind of like iStock Pro...oh, wait... that's not around anymore.

As far as how much equipment, etc costs, from what I understand from so many contributors, when they first started at microstock, is that they already had the gear and many of them were hobbyists who were thrilled to sell some of their photos. From there they turned it into a business. I could understand the argument about how costly things are getting and how difficult it is for contributors if so many were still not submitting and selling at the other microstock sites that have not raised their prices 600% in just a few short years. Take for example Dreamstime. They may offer free images, but they do, of course still sell them. And they must still be doing fine since they are still in business. I bet they've gotten a lot of iStock defectors in the past year.

And no, I don't necessarily want something for free, but I rarely need a photo which  requires a $400 session. I use a lot of textures for backgrounds. Why should I pay close to $20 for something like that?

This is as I expected though. You can accuse me of whatever you want and deny it as much as you want, but I don't just speak for myself when I tell you that buyers ARE disgruntled and HAVE left the site because the prices have gone up so drastically. Too bad if you don't like hearing it. It's the way it is.

IStock WILL eventually reach the limit of declining income as buyers look for more affordable imagery. That's the very reason iStock became such a success in the first place. It's imagery was affordable to EVERYONE. They are shutting out their bread and butter clients with these constant increases.

« Reply #38 on: February 02, 2009, 20:43 »
0
I use a lot of textures for backgrounds. Why should I pay close to $20 for something like that?

Because you need it?

Because you can charge it on to your client (with an almighty uplift)?

Because it is actually chicken-feed in relation to the cost of the overall project?

Because it used to cost you $100's just a few years ago?

Because you now have a fantastically wide choice of textures available to you because of the thousands of contributors working at their own risk and cost on your behalf?

Because you don't have to buy it. You can just go back to doing things the way you were before IS and the rest ever existed.

Etc, etc, etc.

« Reply #39 on: February 02, 2009, 21:03 »
0
This is as I expected though. You can accuse me of whatever you want and deny it as much as you want, but I don't just speak for myself when I tell you that buyers ARE disgruntled and HAVE left the site because the prices have gone up so drastically. Too bad if you don't like hearing it. It's the way it is.

[/quote]

I'm not accussing you of anything. I'm expressing my opinion, you're expressing yours, and that's all and it should be easy to understand. The fact that we don't agree doesn't mean that we are insulting each other.

Regarding the comment about the inexpensive begginings of microstock, with contributers armed with point-and-shots and lighting with a 100 watts bulb, well... there are still some hobbyists sites that offer this kind of work for free in internet open to everybody. At the end, all I can say that as a contributor and as now and then customer I'm more than satisfied with Istock.

yecatsdoherty

« Reply #40 on: February 02, 2009, 21:26 »
0
loop - this is important information that I will add to my consideration...I am not a hobbyist, I am a professional and wish to be seen as such. however, when treated as though my commodity is expendable and when the business relationship I have with my only distributor is tested...I am left wondering where I should peddle my goods as it were.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2009, 22:27 by yecatsdoherty »

« Reply #41 on: February 02, 2009, 22:07 »
0
I'm not here to argue about the cost of the images, why they should be priced more (or less), or why I should buy the same image this year at a higher price than last. I'm just giving input (to Stacey) on what I and other buyers have discussed. I don't speak only for myself. All I offer is a buyers' perspective as to another reason besides best match changes on why people might be experiencing fewer sales. Take it or leave it. I don't really care.

And I totally agree with you about the forum atmosphere. It's much different than it used to be. The minute iStock was purchased by Getty, things began to change. I do feel there is a much more adversarial atmosphere when you speak out against things. That's fine. It's their business. But the iStock forums do have a bad reputation. I've read it on more than one site.

I'm done here. Bye.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2009, 22:13 by caspixel »

« Reply #42 on: February 02, 2009, 22:23 »
0
It is still the case that the cost of microstock images remain a tiny fraction of the total cost of any project in which they are actually used __ especially in relation to most designer's hourly rate.

Great point (convenience has its price), also your point on exclusive content. But the fact that iS is so forbidding for non-exclusives, especially as to upload limits, makes that new great independent contributors will have most of their stuff on other sites. So in the limit, iS will end up with mostly exclusive content but much less (of equal quality) volume (= choice for buyers) on other sites.

I like iS for their reviewers, they are very dedicated. If I postprocess for iS (no pop-up), I get 80% acceptance personally. But with a 15/week limit and all the keywording fuzz involved, I mostly forget about them. The last 2 months, my production was much higher than 15/week. I can't catch up. I imagine it's like that for many small humble contributors like me. The second day of February my apartment rent (in the Philippines = way low) was paid already on SS by extended licenses (or whatever they call it) on shots I never managed to upload to iS.

My point is that iS is great but they could be much greater by giving more breathing room to independents.

« Reply #43 on: February 02, 2009, 22:38 »
0
And I totally agree with you about the forum atmosphere. It's much different than it used to be. The minute iStock was purchased by Getty, things began to change. I do feel there is a much more adversarial atmosphere when you speak out against things. That's fine. It's their business. But the iStock forums do have a bad reputation. I've read it on more than one site.

I started in microstock August 2005. iStock was great then, they were my best earner. The athmosphere was cool and friendly. Sales were going up as my (crap then) port grew. It all changed half of 2006 when Getty bought them and they introduced their weird categories and disambiguation. I made some remarks on the forum about disambiguation and linguistic taxonomy, and guess what, all my post were removed without any notice or apology.

I never posted at their forums again, I never read them even since 2006. I had a look a while ago and all I read is "hail iStock", "iStocku akhbar", "thou shalt not worship any god than iStock". Made me puke. As in p-u-k-e. Wouldn't be surprised if an iStock suicide bomber walked into the offices of DT or SS one day and blew himself up believing he would get 72 extended virgin licenses in iStock heaven. i-Stock means like i-slam submission:-X

No steelcages, blogs, badges, artistic network, profile info. I all removed that back in 2006. I just upload now and then and I limit our conversation to Paypal for the rest. They still pay my alimentary but the love is gone  ::) ;D
« Last Edit: February 02, 2009, 22:47 by FlemishDreams »

yecatsdoherty

« Reply #44 on: February 02, 2009, 23:19 »
0
^ lose the racist, fairly offensive example........and you have it just about right

« Reply #45 on: February 02, 2009, 23:32 »
0
^ lose the racist, fairly offensive example....

Offensive and racist? Sorry buddy I live in Mindanao, Southern Phils. Want to see my shots of what the MILF (Moro Islamic Liberation Front) did on August 6 in the city of Kauswagan with the houses of my friends? Apart of being taken with a cellphone, they are unsuitable for stock. I will never be a dhimmi. Never.

« Reply #46 on: February 03, 2009, 05:35 »
0

The business of giving away images for free it's not a business, it's the reverse. Call it want you want but is not the point of microstock.


Oh, really? That WAS the original point of microstock......

interesting "point"
if i understood correctly - the point was -me to buy some 15K$ photo gear (little more, but let's stick to this 15 000$ that my gear is worth) - to educate myself, hard working to produce high quality images, and to give these images for free to designers - who wil sell designs, that sometimes have my photo as an essential part of it (photo, with no corrections + some text).
and you now are boo-hoo-hooing here that some 20-30$ is expensive for the image that fits your needs.
 you can always buy a cheep point'n'shot camera, (avialable from some 100$), and to make free designs?

from the other side - maybe you should look onto istock policy through the getty images policy? (getty has some other microstock sites too i believe)?

 on example i am banned from the DT forum for writing trouth on the forum.  from the other side these people are hipocrites - so my images are not going to be "banned" from the database. reason? - these people are not so stupid - they make money on my images, i am also not so stupid to give up - i make also money on my images.
 *what i am trying to say is that it is very good thing not to mix up emotions and busine$$.

« Reply #47 on: February 03, 2009, 07:04 »
0
Let me have a smile over these comments about "at the beginning it was different, stock atmosphere has changed". Back in 2005 and 2004, you could read exactly the same type of comments on IS at several forums. "Dictatorship" (because some rejection, or the fact that you couldn't talk about other competing microsites in the forum etc), "unfriendly" (because of Peebert) etc. One rise from 10 cents to 20 cents was seen as unbearable ans as the herald of coming disaster for some people, Actually, nothing at all has changed at this respect. Anybody whose memory isn't' playing tricks at him should agree with that.

« Reply #48 on: February 03, 2009, 08:20 »
0
^exactly.

« Reply #49 on: February 03, 2009, 10:07 »
0

The business of giving away images for free it's not a business, it's the reverse. Call it want you want but is not the point of microstock.


Oh, really? That WAS the original point of microstock......

interesting "point"
if i understood correctly - the point was -me to buy some 15K$ photo gear (little more, but let's stick to this 15 000$ that my gear is worth) - to educate myself, hard working to produce high quality images, and to give these images for free to designers - who wil sell designs, that sometimes have my photo as an essential part of it (photo, with no corrections + some text).
and you now are boo-hoo-hooing here that some 20-30$ is expensive for the image that fits your needs.
 you can always buy a cheep point'n'shot camera, (avialable from some 100$), and to make free designs?

from the other side - maybe you should look onto istock policy through the getty images policy? (getty has some other microstock sites too i believe)?

 on example i am banned from the DT forum for writing trouth on the forum.  from the other side these people are hipocrites - so my images are not going to be "banned" from the database. reason? - these people are not so stupid - they make money on my images, i am also not so stupid to give up - i make also money on my images.
 *what i am trying to say is that it is very good thing not to mix up emotions and busine$$.
You can complain all you want about how expensive your gear is, but the fact remains, iStock started out as a free photo sharing site and started the revolution of cheap photos (microstock). If the model bothers you so much because your gear is so expensive, stop. No designers are forcing you to sell your photos at that rate. But you can't blame designers for being pissed at having to pay 600% more for photos that were originally much much cheaper. Some of the SAME photos are on iStock as were there back when they were available for $1. What makes them more valuable now than they were back in 2004?

And I still don't get why people are blaming the buyers for being disgruntled about the price increases. We didn't create the business model or set the original low prices. If you aren't making enough money for your effort, maybe you should talk to your agent and see if you can't get more than a 20% commission. Or not sell your photos in the microstock model at all.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2009, 10:09 by caspixel »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
13 Replies
13882 Views
Last post May 08, 2012, 03:43
by CarlssonInc
76 Replies
17402 Views
Last post November 03, 2013, 07:55
by luissantos84
7 Replies
3019 Views
Last post December 09, 2013, 09:38
by ShadySue
3 Replies
3013 Views
Last post August 30, 2014, 03:44
by Beppe Grillo
2 Replies
2994 Views
Last post March 17, 2015, 06:37
by sunflowerstock

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors