Author Topic: iStock's Agency Collection Pricing (Read 29320 times)

zzz · « **on:** September 27, 2010, 21:43 »

I don't think this has been posted anywhere yet, so here goes. From what jsnover posted in another thread, I can see from this file that the prices are as follows:

small: 55 credits
medium: 75 credits
large: 100 credits
xl: 150 credits
xxl: 200 credits

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #1 on:** September 27, 2010, 21:53 »

I just posted on the iStock mega-thread that I think the two contributors whose content is currently coming through the queue have fine stuff - for the main collection. There's nothing there that's even Vetta IMO, let alone agency.

Look at some of the photos from SAKIstyle - nothing shows up yet in the portfolio, but give it 24-48 hours and it will:

There's nothing wrong with these, but they belong in the main collection, not commanding a premium price.

If buyers come and see piles of standard stuff at stratospheric prices, some may just go elsewhere, assuming the whole site has repriced. That's what happened when Vetta was introduced - they thought everything started at 20 credits just because the first things they saw did.

This has the potential to hurt all of us by turning buyers off. I could live with some really special content getting added to the site - that might pull buyers in - although they really need to deal with the issues of exclusivity (Hulton Archive is sold on non-Getty sites, not just "family" sites, and is marked as "exclusive"). Flooding the site with ordinary content at high prices is just damaging, IMO.

zzz · « **Reply #2 on:** September 27, 2010, 22:01 »

Honestly, do you really think there are stock images produced with finer content than Vetta? Yes, there are outstanding photos that we can see in our weekly Hot Shot emails, but I think Vetta is pretty close to perfect. So what I'm trying to say is that I don't really see a tier above Vetta.

SNP · « **Reply #3 on:** September 28, 2010, 00:12 »

if these files are substandard in relation to Agency pricing...then what's the worry? a buyer might find them, and then find something similar in the regular collection and purchase that. it's not like these files are coming in, being priced lower than ours and given preferential treatment. they are priced well above reg and Vetta collections....so what's the big deal? assuming they are given any best match boost, which I suspect they will be, they will fall back like any other non-performing file does, which we know happens even with Vetta.

I think you're looking for reasons to be pissed off.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #4 on:** September 28, 2010, 00:35 »

Quote from: & then... on September 28, 2010, 00:12

if these files are substandard in relation to Agency pricing...then what's the worry? a buyer might find them, and then find something similar in the regular collection and purchase that. it's not like these files are coming in, being priced lower than ours and given preferential treatment. they are priced well above reg and Vetta collections....so what's the big deal? assuming they are given any best match boost, which I suspect they will be, they will fall back like any other non-performing file does, which we know happens even with Vetta.

I think you're looking for reasons to be pissed off.

Are they at the front of the search? Will they give the impression that the cheap stuff has to be miles worse than this? Will it affect buyers' interest in the site as a whole?

zzz · « **Reply #5 on:** September 28, 2010, 00:42 »

Quote from: & then... on September 28, 2010, 00:12

I think you're looking for reasons to be pissed off.

Huh???

caspixel · « **Reply #6 on:** September 28, 2010, 00:45 »

I see the pom poms are back. LOL

SNP · « **Reply #7 on:** September 28, 2010, 00:46 »

@ Baldrick:
did vetta? since day one, contributors (me at times too) have griped that Vetta files were getting in without a consistent standard. it would be impossible to apply a measurable standard to an entire collection of artistic commodities. IMPOSSIBLE. but you are suggesting that all files will be substandard. in JoAnn's example...those two files are clearly aimed at an Asian market (more specifically Japan, China, Korea etc.). I believe they are simply trying to globalize with regionally specific images in some cases. in other cases like the illustrations accepted, there's nothing wrong with those being imported and priced at a higher price point

obviously some of the Agency collection files will leave us scratching our heads, same as vetta. but overall, I think we'll see a similar outcome as we've seen with Vetta, without any eutrophication of the regular collection.

SNP · « **Reply #8 on:** September 28, 2010, 00:46 »

Quote from: caspixel on September 28, 2010, 00:45

I see the pom poms are back. LOL

no one wants to read stupid posts like this. you're not contributing anything but sophomoric comments to a legitimate discussion

caspixel · « **Reply #9 on:** September 28, 2010, 00:54 »

Quote from: & then... on September 28, 2010, 00:46

Quote from: caspixel on September 28, 2010, 00:45
I see the pom poms are back. LOL

no one wants to read stupid posts like this. you're not contributing anything but sophomoric comments to a legitimate discussion

Coming from the queen of sophomoric posts. And what makes you think anyone wants to read stupid posts like yours.

SNP · « **Reply #10 on:** September 28, 2010, 01:03 »

. again, not bothering, who cares

lagereek · « **Reply #11 on:** September 28, 2010, 01:10 »

Quote from: zzz on September 27, 2010, 22:01

Honestly, do you really think there are stock images produced with finer content than Vetta? Yes, there are outstanding photos that we can see in our weekly Hot Shot emails, but I think Vetta is pretty close to perfect. So what I'm trying to say is that I don't really see a tier above Vetta.

Well I hate to say it but if you think Vetta is the ultimate in picture creativity, man! you should start to look outside the stock-world and see some of the stuff created for commisions by dayrate photographers.
Only then will you realize that this Vetta business is really just middle of the road.

SNP · « **Reply #12 on:** September 28, 2010, 01:17 »

caspixel · « **Reply #13 on:** September 28, 2010, 01:17 »

Quote from: & then... on September 28, 2010, 01:03

. again, not bothering, who cares

And yet, you still can't stop yourself.

SNP · « **Reply #14 on:** September 28, 2010, 01:19 »

FWIW, the files in JoAnn's example do not, however, even have any references to any Asian cultures in their keywording. that's a pretty silly oversight if they are aiming these at a regional market...

helix7 · « **Reply #15 on:** September 28, 2010, 07:32 »

Seems to me like the Agency collection is just adding yet another layer of complexity to iStock pricing. At least with Vetta you could sort of see why an image cost so much more. But as mentioned with the Agency images posted so far, the value isn't obvious. These images are middle-of-the-road general collection at best, not Vetta and certainly not worthy of a higher tier than Vetta.

All I see this doing to buyers is leaving them more frustrated in searches, finding these over-priced images among regular results and wondering why they cost so much, and then just filtering out Agency and Vetta.

click_click · « **Reply #16 on:** September 28, 2010, 08:08 »

So, iStock decides to put images like these into the highest pricing category.

Let's have a look at the keywords for the "adult woman" with laptop:

People
Enjoyment
Cushion
Horizontal
Book
Window
Laughing
One Person
Color Image
One Woman Only
Adults Only
Setting The Table

While a couple of keywords probably slipped through inspection I was surprised to look at an adult woman.

I thought this is an 8 year old girl reading a book.

Wouldn't it enhance sales by using keywords like "female" or "young adult" instead of "one woman only" and "adults only"?

One would think that iStock would pour more effort into this project rather than just dumping Vetta files into this overpriced collection.

anonymous · « **Reply #17 on:** September 28, 2010, 09:08 »

Quote from: & then... on September 28, 2010, 01:03

. again, not bothering, who cares

apparently the 16 folks who have blocked you

SNP · « **Reply #18 on:** September 28, 2010, 10:57 »

Quote from: click_click on September 28, 2010, 08:08

So, iStock decides to put images like these into the highest pricing category.

Let's have a look at the keywords for the "adult woman" with laptop:

People
Enjoyment
Cushion
Horizontal
Book
Window
Laughing
One Person
Color Image
One Woman Only
Adults Only
Setting The Table

While a couple of keywords probably slipped through inspection I was surprised to look at an adult woman.

I thought this is an 8 year old girl reading a book.

Wouldn't it enhance sales by using keywords like "female" or "young adult" instead of "one woman only" and "adults only"?

One would think that iStock would pour more effort into this project rather than just dumping Vetta files into this overpriced collection.

the keywording on these images is terrible. it strikes me as an oversight, since so many useful keywords are missing. I just attempted to wiki the file, and its status is listed as 'needs review' and I was unable to wiki it. so clearly they were brought in with existing keywords or something, and will be wikiied

lisafx · « **Reply #19 on:** September 28, 2010, 11:14 »

Is anyone besides me bothered by the amount of time and attention it will take to get these Agency images ready-for-prime-time, and how little time that will leave for administrators and reviewers to run the other aspects of the site?

Is it any coincidence that image inspections for contributors have ground to a snail's pace, people are reporting support tickets going unanswered, F5 site bugs still haven't been fixed, and hardly a peep from admins in the forums?

gostwyck · « **Reply #20 on:** September 28, 2010, 11:19 »

^^^ I strongly suspect that many Admins and inspectors at Istockphoto are expressing their own dissatisfaction at events with a go-slow or worse (some have walked out apparently).

sharpshot · « **Reply #21 on:** September 28, 2010, 11:23 »

^^^Doesn't bother me, I have nothing in the queue. Anything that makes more buyers want to look elsewhere has to be good. Istock keep adding to their own problems and I wonder how bad it will get if all these changes don't get them to their profit target? That seems to be their only objective and if they miss that, what will happen?

cthoman · « **Reply #22 on:** September 28, 2010, 11:25 »

Quote from: & then... on September 28, 2010, 00:12

if these files are substandard in relation to Agency pricing...then what's the worry? a buyer might find them, and then find something similar in the regular collection and purchase that. it's not like these files are coming in, being priced lower than ours and given preferential treatment. they are priced well above reg and Vetta collections....so what's the big deal? assuming they are given any best match boost, which I suspect they will be, they will fall back like any other non-performing file does, which we know happens even with Vetta.

I think you're looking for reasons to be pissed off.

In a way, I agree. I don't think anyone really knows how this will play out in the long run. And some us won't be sticking around to see it play out anyway.

jane · « **Reply #23 on:** September 28, 2010, 11:57 »

Quote from: gostwyck on September 28, 2010, 11:19

^^^ I strongly suspect that many Admins and inspectors at Istockphoto are expressing their own dissatisfaction at events with a go-slow or worse (some have walked out apparently).

Do we know that any admins or inspectors have actually left (besides Rob, of course)? Just wondering as I haven't heard much from them.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #24 on:** October 14, 2010, 20:12 »

So they've started moving existing exclusive content into the Agency collection today.

As far as I know there has been no announcement to buyers at all that these price increases will occur (small jumps from 5 to 55 credits; large from 15 to 100 and so on). Smaller jumps for those files moving from Vetta to Agency.

The buyer reaction at Vetta launch when files in their lightboxes suddenly increased in price was predictably angry. For any of you who purchase from IS, have you received anything that warned you about this?

For anyone who wants to take a look at what's in the Agency collection as a whole, you can search like this.

IMO the IS exclusive content is in general vastly better than the Getty derived stuff, but comments about that have been greeted by admins with admonishment to focus on what we can control

So has anyone seen any sort of buyer communication on this?

Freedom · « **Reply #25 on:** October 14, 2010, 21:07 »

Agency Collection are also sold at Getty and Jupiter, etc., the buyers are comfortable with the marcro prices there, I assume. If some IS buyers won't buy, someone else will.

Some non IS exclusives also sell the same images in macro and micro sites. If so, why does IS have to maintain the micro prices forever? I don't get it.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #26 on:** October 14, 2010, 21:31 »

This isn't about the pricing of the Agency Collection on the existing Getty sites.

This is about existing (exclusive) content on istockphoto.com that cost one price yesterday and a very different price today and whether buyers have been notified about that. When buyers put files into a lightbox and later go to purchase and the price is 10X (or 5X higher), the Vetta experience tells us many of them get very upset.

Regardless of whether the files are worth the new price, the buyers IMO deserve to be notified about this rather than just find out when they get sticker shock.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #27 on:** October 14, 2010, 21:40 »

Quote from: jsnover on October 14, 2010, 21:31

This isn't about the pricing of the Agency Collection on the existing Getty sites.

This is about existing (exclusive) content on istockphoto.com that cost one price yesterday and a very different price today and whether buyers have been notified about that. When buyers put files into a lightbox and later go to purchase and the price is 10X (or 5X higher), the Vetta experience tells us many of them get very upset.

Regardless of whether the files are worth the new price, the buyers IMO deserve to be notified about this rather than just find out when they get sticker shock.

This could be enough to make me want to go exclusive. Good pay and prices for exclusive images. It would be sad to lose SS, BigStock, ThinkStock and StockXpert. (well SS yes, the rest not at all)

Freedom · « **Reply #28 on:** October 14, 2010, 22:33 »

When you shop elsewhere, be it Walmart or Saks Fifth Avenue, if you decided that you wanted to buy something last week and didn't buy, then the price is different this week, do you get upset at the store for not notifying you? You likely just regret that you didn't buy when the price was better or change your mind about buying, right?

Quote from: jsnover on October 14, 2010, 21:31

This isn't about the pricing of the Agency Collection on the existing Getty sites.

This is about existing (exclusive) content on istockphoto.com that cost one price yesterday and a very different price today and whether buyers have been notified about that. When buyers put files into a lightbox and later go to purchase and the price is 10X (or 5X higher), the Vetta experience tells us many of them get very upset.

Regardless of whether the files are worth the new price, the buyers IMO deserve to be notified about this rather than just find out when they get sticker shock.

Danicek · « **Reply #29 on:** October 15, 2010, 01:01 »

Quote from: Freedom on October 14, 2010, 22:33

When you shop elsewhere, be it Walmart or Saks Fifth Avenue, if you decided that you wanted to buy something last week and didn't buy, then the price is different this week, do you get upset at the store for not notifying you? You likely just regret that you didn't buy when the price was better or change your mind about buying, right?

Quote from: jsnover on October 14, 2010, 21:31
This isn't about the pricing of the Agency Collection on the existing Getty sites.

This is about existing (exclusive) content on istockphoto.com that cost one price yesterday and a very different price today and whether buyers have been notified about that. When buyers put files into a lightbox and later go to purchase and the price is 10X (or 5X higher), the Vetta experience tells us many of them get very upset.

Regardless of whether the files are worth the new price, the buyers IMO deserve to be notified about this rather than just find out when they get sticker shock.

Yes, I would be upset. Probably not because the store did not notify me but because something I chose to buy for $5 now costs $50. I would leave the store without buying the thing (obviously) and would promise myself to never enter the store again.

qwerty · « **Reply #30 on:** October 15, 2010, 01:46 »

and didn't istock say they were raising the prices for vetta at like the end of the year (or something like that) then they brought it forward with no warning.

Like saying come in and buy this widget for $1 till the end of the year and when you get there oh sorry we changed our minds and did it now.

Freedom · « **Reply #31 on:** October 15, 2010, 01:51 »

Fair enough, Danicek. You and the store are entitled to make each's own decision and live with the consequence.

C'est la vie.

Quote from: Danicek on October 15, 2010, 01:01

Quote from: Freedom on October 14, 2010, 22:33
When you shop elsewhere, be it Walmart or Saks Fifth Avenue, if you decided that you wanted to buy something last week and didn't buy, then the price is different this week, do you get upset at the store for not notifying you? You likely just regret that you didn't buy when the price was better or change your mind about buying, right?

Quote from: jsnover on October 14, 2010, 21:31
This isn't about the pricing of the Agency Collection on the existing Getty sites.

This is about existing (exclusive) content on istockphoto.com that cost one price yesterday and a very different price today and whether buyers have been notified about that. When buyers put files into a lightbox and later go to purchase and the price is 10X (or 5X higher), the Vetta experience tells us many of them get very upset.

Regardless of whether the files are worth the new price, the buyers IMO deserve to be notified about this rather than just find out when they get sticker shock.

Yes, I would be upset. Probably not because the store did not notify me but because something I chose to buy for $5 now costs $50. I would leave the store without buying the thing (obviously) and would promise myself to never enter the store again.

thesentinel · « **Reply #32 on:** October 15, 2010, 03:27 »

Quote from: Freedom on October 14, 2010, 22:33

When you shop elsewhere, be it Walmart or Saks Fifth Avenue, if you decided that you wanted to buy something last week and didn't buy, then the price is different this week, do you get upset at the store for not notifying you? You likely just regret that you didn't buy when the price was better or change your mind about buying, right?

This is not the same kind of situation, a designer will most likely be using comps to show their client a variety of proposals for their project, be it a flier, brochure, advert etc etc.

In doing so the images chosen will be have selected to meet an agreed price point. Come client approval the designer then returns to buy the approved images and finds the image has increased in price by a matter of magnitudes if it had been placed, without prior warning, in Vetta or Agency.

This has happened where I work. Not everyone this happens to will seek out some redress - they'll make a mental note to buy elsewhere.

molka · « **Reply #33 on:** October 15, 2010, 07:14 »

I don't see why these images are any worse then wetta, which is childish garbage mostly. These are at least kinda nice, but nothing really special either.

hroe · « **Reply #34 on:** October 15, 2010, 08:14 »

Not only the girl images have wrong keywords, the man image too (it's a great image, but some keywords are wrong): table (irrelevant here), failure (the file doesn't show that), my favorite: wristwatch (that's my winner): we don't see any wristwatch, frowning, complaining.

I just don't get how in the world these keywords have been accepted, it doesn't happen like that in my world. And the funny thing: among all these keywords, a relevant one "glasses" is not there, I guess the contributor has confused table with glasses................. Oh well............

BImages · « **Reply #35 on:** October 15, 2010, 11:30 »

All that is happening on Istock is actually the beginning of a big merger. (Istock and Getty).

Price on Istock are rising to get closer to those of Getty...
Percentage to are lowering to get closer to those of Getty...
Files from Getty are starting to sell on Istock...(Agency)
Files from Istock are already selling on Getty...(Vetta)

Both companies must have tremendous pressure from the owners to simplify things, and merging into one entity, is the best way to improve efficiency and profitability...

Graffoto · « **Reply #36 on:** October 15, 2010, 11:49 »

You may be correct. I have come to pretty much the same conclusion.
However I feel that it would be a grave error for Getty and iStock to lose their separate identities.

gostwyck · « **Reply #37 on:** October 15, 2010, 11:54 »

Obviously there's some cross-over but it will never be a full-on 'merger'. Both Getty and the Istock brands are too valuable. You've also got IS content on Thinkstock too. It's moving more into the three tiers of micro-sub/micro-mid/macro.

Freedom · « **Reply #38 on:** October 15, 2010, 13:16 »

It makes sense.

Istock's current technical standard has perhaps been at par with Getty already, now they are boosting the creative and artistic values of the images and sell each other's images.... Looks like it is happening.

Quote from: Buzbuzzer on October 15, 2010, 11:30

All that is happening on Istock is actually the beginning of a big merger. (Istock and Getty).

Price on Istock are rising to get closer to those of Getty...
Percentage to are lowering to get closer to those of Getty...
Files from Getty are starting to sell on Istock...(Agency)
Files from Istock are already selling on Getty...(Vetta)

Both companies must have tremendous pressure from the owners to simplify things, and merging into one entity, is the best way to improve efficiency and profitability...

caspixel · « **Reply #39 on:** October 17, 2010, 09:15 »

So it looks like iStock exclusive photos are being added to the Agency collection now. I don't know if they were regular collection or Vetta photos, but I don't expect that to go over well with buyers who have lightboxed these photos for projects with a budget. Not only that, but, as with Vetta, we see similar photos from the same series in the regular collection. So, as with Vetta, what makes those particular photos worth more? I'd love to hear iStock's reasoning some photos costs 1000% more than others in the same series.

And it looks like they are also adding files irrespective of how many downloads they have...unlike Vetta, where they supposedly weren't adding anything with flames.

Really scratching my head. It will be interesting to see what happens with the downloads to those files.

Hmm...those with images in a series in both Agency and regular collections might want to take their links to "More in this series" off their Agency photos so the scam is less obvious.

cathyslife · « **Reply #40 on:** October 17, 2010, 11:12 »

Quote from: caspixel on October 17, 2010, 09:15

snip
Hmm...those with images in a series in both Agency and regular collections might want to take their links to "More in this series" off their Agency photos so the scam is less obvious.

I don't think IS/Getty cares one way or another if contributors think this is a scam or if buyers think this is a scam. Their attitude is, if you don't like it, go somewhere else. That's what happens when one company is allowed to get big and powerful. They know that contributors aren't going to go anywhere and they know that most buyers aren't going anywhere. In fact their basic marketing plan is to deceive this way. There will be a certain percentage of buyers who stumble on the IS/Getty agency collection, find the image they are looking for, and purchase it at $300, instead of looking around for the same image for $3. They are banking on the fact that some consumers are just too busy/lazy to do the searching.

I, for one, am hoping that their plan backfires.

gostwyck · « **Reply #41 on:** October 17, 2010, 11:13 »

Quote from: caspixel on October 17, 2010, 09:15

I'd love to hear iStock's reasoning some photos costs 1000% more than others in the same series.

They are tested with Getty's patent 'Greed-ometer'. If the flickering needle indicates that they should get away with it then up goes the price.

vonkara · « **Reply #42 on:** October 17, 2010, 11:38 »

Quote from: Buzbuzzer on October 15, 2010, 11:30

Both companies must have tremendous pressure from the owners to simplify things, and merging into one entity, is the best way to improve efficiency and profitability...

That's a refreshing post about Istock. I hope you are right because I am on the boat, with my life belt on.

caspixel · « **Reply #43 on:** October 17, 2010, 15:47 »

Quote from: cclapper on October 17, 2010, 11:12

I don't think IS/Getty cares one way or another if contributors think this is a scam or if buyers think this is a scam. Their attitude is, if you don't like it, go somewhere else. That's what happens when one company is allowed to get big and powerful. They know that contributors aren't going to go anywhere and they know that most buyers aren't going anywhere. In fact their basic marketing plan is to deceive this way. There will be a certain percentage of buyers who stumble on the IS/Getty agency collection, find the image they are looking for, and purchase it at $300, instead of looking around for the same image for $3. They are banking on the fact that some consumers are just too busy/lazy to do the searching.

I, for one, am hoping that their plan backfires.

I hope it backfires too. I hate that attitude and it's far too prevalent in big business these days.

pdx · « **Reply #44 on:** October 17, 2010, 15:57 »

how does stuff like this make it through the queue?
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14262833-businessman-sleeping-on-sofa.php

ShadySue · « **Reply #45 on:** October 17, 2010, 17:35 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on October 14, 2010, 21:40

This could be enough to make me want to go exclusive. Good pay and prices for exclusive images. It would be sad to lose SS, BigStock, ThinkStock and StockXpert. (well SS yes, the rest not at all)

It's not really 'good pay and prices for exclusive images'. They have to be 'lifestyle' images and apparently have to be shot in that 'stock-y' way. But, as is seen by the two examples on this thread, they don't need to be exclusive, and a lot of 'exclusive' images won't be considered (not stock-y/cheesy lifestyle)

pet_chia · « **Reply #46 on:** October 17, 2010, 19:15 »

Quote from: pdx on October 17, 2010, 15:57

how does stuff like this make it through the queue?
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14262833-businessman-sleeping-on-sofa.php

Whoops, that's just a little keyword/description glitch that occurred when the image was added to the database.

Should be titled, "Agency Collection contributor waiting for earnings to pile up"

LOL

travelstock · « **Reply #47 on:** October 18, 2010, 09:30 »

Quote from: ShadySue on October 17, 2010, 17:35

It's not really 'good pay and prices for exclusive images'. They have to be 'lifestyle' images and apparently have to be shot in that 'stock-y' way. But, as is seen by the two examples on this thread, they don't need to be exclusive, and a lot of 'exclusive' images won't be considered (not stock-y/cheesy lifestyle)

I think the criteria is more that they're after unique, quality and underrepresented images. Its a much more polished look than vetta, but that's not to say that they're stocky or cheesy. I suspect (one of) the official criteria is that they're not meant to accept "stocky" images.

I really can't understand why people are complaining that the content is going to be coming from regular IS contributors rather than just from outside. Its not that different from what fotolia is doing, except that their stuff sourced from outside is twice the price and they otherwise limit entry to emerald and above contributors.

Maui · « **Reply #48 on:** October 18, 2010, 09:38 »

Quote from: pet_chia on October 17, 2010, 19:15

Quote from: pdx on October 17, 2010, 15:57
how does stuff like this make it through the queue?
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14262833-businessman-sleeping-on-sofa.php

Whoops, that's just a little keyword/description glitch that occurred when the image was added to the database.

Should be titled, "Agency Collection contributor waiting for earnings to pile up"

LOL

Some images from this particular contributor have already been bought:

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&userID=6549584&perPage=200&showContributor=true&showDownload=true&order=7&within=1

scorb · « **Reply #49 on:** October 18, 2010, 10:39 »

Quote from: pet_chia on October 17, 2010, 19:15

Quote from: pdx on October 17, 2010, 15:57
how does stuff like this make it through the queue?
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14262833-businessman-sleeping-on-sofa.php

Whoops, that's just a little keyword/description glitch that occurred when the image was added to the database.

Should be titled, "Agency Collection contributor waiting for earnings to pile up"

LOL

Wow that image is complete with several publisher logos as well as author names etc, all clear to see.

"Every photograph in the Agency Collection will go through our regular inspection process." Sure. Just like: "In search and Best Match the images will be weighted fairly and will not have a heavier weight than any other file." Utter rubbish.

lisafx · « **Reply #50 on:** October 18, 2010, 14:27 »

Quote from: scorb on October 18, 2010, 10:39

Wow that image is complete with several publisher logos as well as author names etc, all clear to see.

"Every photograph in the Agency Collection will go through our regular inspection process." Sure. Just like: "In search and Best Match the images will be weighted fairly and will not have a heavier weight than any other file." Utter rubbish.

Yikes!! I didn't see that until you pointed it out.

But now that I zoom in to check out the book titles, I also notice the clock. That clock reminds me of the one my parents had by their bed in the mid 1970s. Really takes me back...

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #51 on:** October 18, 2010, 15:14 »

Quote from: scorb on October 18, 2010, 10:39

Quote from: pet_chia on October 17, 2010, 19:15
Quote from: pdx on October 17, 2010, 15:57
how does stuff like this make it through the queue?
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14262833-businessman-sleeping-on-sofa.php

Whoops, that's just a little keyword/description glitch that occurred when the image was added to the database.

Should be titled, "Agency Collection contributor waiting for earnings to pile up"

LOL

Wow that image is complete with several publisher logos as well as author names etc, all clear to see.

"Every photograph in the Agency Collection will go through our regular inspection process." Sure. Just like: "In search and Best Match the images will be weighted fairly and will not have a heavier weight than any other file." Utter rubbish.

They apparently are removing these images after the fact - in the IS agency forum last week I pointed out the logos, names, phone numbers and other content in this image:

No admin said anything in response the forum, but this morning I notice it's no longer available.

I'm sure all the examples will get fixed in the end, but it is galling to have to read this nonsense about going through the same inspection process when it's just not true.

Digital66 · « **Reply #52 on:** October 18, 2010, 15:48 »

I agree with Freedom. It has happened to me many times with products in my wish list at Amazon. And still love shopping at Amazon.

Quote from: Freedom on October 14, 2010, 22:33

When you shop elsewhere, be it Walmart or Saks Fifth Avenue, if you decided that you wanted to buy something last week and didn't buy, then the price is different this week, do you get upset at the store for not notifying you? You likely just regret that you didn't buy when the price was better or change your mind about buying, right?

Quote from: jsnover on October 14, 2010, 21:31
This isn't about the pricing of the Agency Collection on the existing Getty sites.

This is about existing (exclusive) content on istockphoto.com that cost one price yesterday and a very different price today and whether buyers have been notified about that. When buyers put files into a lightbox and later go to purchase and the price is 10X (or 5X higher), the Vetta experience tells us many of them get very upset.

Regardless of whether the files are worth the new price, the buyers IMO deserve to be notified about this rather than just find out when they get sticker shock.

jamirae · « **Reply #53 on:** October 18, 2010, 17:26 »

Quote from: Digital66 on October 18, 2010, 15:48

I agree with Freedom. It has happened to me many times with products in my wish list at Amazon. And still love shopping at Amazon.

yes, but at least Amazon warns you when you go to your shopping cart that they have either gone up or down. iStock just slaps on the higher price tag and doesn't think twice about buyers. (except for how to get more of their money perhaps).

jamirae · « **Reply #54 on:** October 18, 2010, 17:29 »

Quote from: jsnover on October 18, 2010, 15:14

Quote from: scorb on October 18, 2010, 10:39
Quote from: pet_chia on October 17, 2010, 19:15
Quote from: pdx on October 17, 2010, 15:57
how does stuff like this make it through the queue?
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14262833-businessman-sleeping-on-sofa.php

Whoops, that's just a little keyword/description glitch that occurred when the image was added to the database.

Should be titled, "Agency Collection contributor waiting for earnings to pile up"

LOL

Wow that image is complete with several publisher logos as well as author names etc, all clear to see.

"Every photograph in the Agency Collection will go through our regular inspection process." Sure. Just like: "In search and Best Match the images will be weighted fairly and will not have a heavier weight than any other file." Utter rubbish.

They apparently are removing these images after the fact - in the IS agency forum last week I pointed out the logos, names, phone numbers and other content in this image:

No admin said anything in response the forum, but this morning I notice it's no longer available.

I'm sure all the examples will get fixed in the end, but it is galling to have to read this nonsense about going through the same inspection process when it's just not true.

I'm sorry but this is just un-F'ING-believable. the lies just keep revealing themselves.

oh.. and just if any besides me cares,

- today is my last day as an iStock exclusive. My 30 days are up today - so tomorrow my other ports start going live! I'm going to document this new excursion in case anyone cares to see how this new journey/chapter from exclusive to independent is faring for me. working on setting up a blog but for now just have it documented in a private journal.

cathyslife · « **Reply #55 on:** October 18, 2010, 17:52 »

Quote from: jamirae on October 18, 2010, 17:29

I'm sorry but this is just un-F'ING-believable. the lies just keep revealing themselves.

oh.. and just if any besides me cares, - today is my last day as an iStock exclusive. My 30 days are up today - so tomorrow my other ports start going live! I'm going to document this new excursion in case anyone cares to see how this new journey/chapter from exclusive to independent is faring for me. working on setting up a blog but for now just have it documented in a private journal.

Congratulations, I hope all goes well for you and I would definitely like to follow your progress as an independent. It probably won't be easy for you at the start, but I think in the long run things will even themselves out for you. I admire you for standing up for yourself, even if you will lose money. That takes real character.

lisafx · « **Reply #56 on:** October 18, 2010, 18:26 »

Quote from: jamirae on October 18, 2010, 17:29

oh.. and just if any besides me cares, - today is my last day as an iStock exclusive. My 30 days are up today - so tomorrow my other ports start going live! I'm going to document this new excursion in case anyone cares to see how this new journey/chapter from exclusive to independent is faring for me. working on setting up a blog but for now just have it documented in a private journal.

Boy, that 30 days went fast! Congrats on being untethered Jami. Hope your income rebounds quickly.

Documenting your experience in a blog is a great idea! Should be interesting reading, particularly for istock exclusives unsure whether or not to follow suit. Hope you will post a link here so we can check it out.

Wishing you the best of luck! Write any time if you have questions

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #57 on:** October 18, 2010, 18:59 »

Quote from: jamirae on October 18, 2010, 17:29

oh.. and just if any besides me cares, - today is my last day as an iStock exclusive. My 30 days are up today - so tomorrow my other ports start going live! I'm going to document this new excursion in case anyone cares to see how this new journey/chapter from exclusive to independent is faring for me. working on setting up a blog but for now just have it documented in a private journal.

Wishing you a smooth transition. It's been a couple of years (i.e. my experience is now a bit dated) but being independent has a ton of benefits and once you get through the learning curve for each of the sites it won't be half as much work as you might have worried it would be.

One of the really nice things is that even if one site rejects an image, most of the rest will accept it (and if all reject it then it was a stinker anyway). Takes most of the sting out of an occasional rejection

Sadstock · « **Reply #58 on:** October 18, 2010, 19:22 »

Quote from: jamirae on October 18, 2010, 17:29

oh.. and just if any besides me cares, - today is my last day as an iStock exclusive. My 30 days are up today - so tomorrow my other ports start going live! I'm going to document this new excursion in case anyone cares to see how this new journey/chapter from exclusive to independent is faring for me. working on setting up a blog but for now just have it documented in a private journal.

---------------------
Hope it goes well! I'll be following you soon, so I'm very interested in your experience. Let us know when the blog is live.

jamirae · « **Reply #59 on:** October 18, 2010, 21:16 »

thanks everyone. Didn't mean to drag this off topic.

I'll let you all know when it goes live. and yes, the 30days did go by fast!

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #60 on:** October 25, 2010, 09:42 »

I happened upon this newly uploaded gem this morning. Not a horrible stock image, but nothing more than ordinary (and there is a lot more ordinary stuff in this contributor's portfolio).

Dumping this overpriced, run-of-the-mill content onto the site is just a horrible strategy. Even with some really great images from existing IS contributors going into Agency, the collection as a whole is just not worth what they're charging.

Until there's some simple way for buyers to just exclude this (without having to know to put &agencyCollection=0 at the end of their search string), they're going to get really p#*ed off. Right now there's no way to save preferences to exclude Agency or Vetta; and you can't do an advanced search until you have done a regular one.

molka · « **Reply #61 on:** October 25, 2010, 10:01 »

Quote from: jsnover on October 25, 2010, 09:42

I happened upon this newly uploaded gem this morning. Not a horrible stock image, but nothing more than ordinary (and there is a lot more ordinary stuff in this contributor's portfolio).

Dumping this overpriced, run-of-the-mill content onto the site is just a horrible strategy. Even with some really great images from existing IS contributors going into Agency, the collection as a whole is just not worth what they're charging.

Until there's some simple way for buyers to just exclude this (without having to know to put &agencyCollection=0 at the end of their search string), they're going to get really p#*ed off. Right now there's no way to save preferences to exclude Agency or Vetta; and you can't do an advanced search until you have done a regular one.

I thin it's a pretty good guess that getty didn't just hand over these images with the order "put them up on istock" but rahter "sell them". You can figure aout the rest.

RT · « **Reply #62 on:** October 25, 2010, 10:10 »

Quote from: jsnover on October 25, 2010, 09:42

I happened upon this newly uploaded gem this morning. Not a horrible stock image, but nothing more than ordinary (and there is a lot more ordinary stuff in this contributor's portfolio).

Dumping this overpriced, run-of-the-mill content onto the site is just a horrible strategy. Even with some really great images from existing IS contributors going into Agency, the collection as a whole is just not worth what they're charging.

Until there's some simple way for buyers to just exclude this (without having to know to put &agencyCollection=0 at the end of their search string), they're going to get really p#*ed off. Right now there's no way to save preferences to exclude Agency or Vetta; and you can't do an advanced search until you have done a regular one.

Ignoring the fact that I don't think it's ethical to paste another persons photo and then criticise it.

I have to disagree with you on this one, the photo you've highlighted is a very useful stock photo the sort that sells in droves on macro, IMO it's a well executed lifestyle shot, as are the rest of this persons portfolio, and no I don't have any clue who they are other than to say they're clearly not new at this.

gostwyck · « **Reply #63 on:** October 25, 2010, 10:29 »

Quote from: cclapper on October 18, 2010, 17:52

Congratulations, I hope all goes well for you and I would definitely like to follow your progress as an independent. It probably won't be easy for you at the start, but I think in the long run things will even themselves out for you. I admire you for standing up for yourself, even if you will lose money. That takes real character.

+1. Good luck Jami. It might take a few months for your images to work their way up the sort-order at the various agencies but I'm sure it will work out for the best in the long term.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #64 on:** October 25, 2010, 10:51 »

I don't dispute that it's a fine ordinary stock image - I just dispute that it in any way merits the high prices of the Agency collection. It's not exceptional in production values IMO.

As far as the ethics of posting someone else's work, I'm not sure how we have any sort of discussion about what Getty's doing in dumping its content on IS without having examples.

Freedom · « **Reply #65 on:** October 25, 2010, 11:18 »

As much as I have my own reservations about Getty/Istock's recent changes, it is not fai r and in poor judgement to single out other people's work due to your frustration with your own agency. Whether or not it is worthy to be in the agency collection, lthe buyers will be the judge.

Quote from: jsnover on October 25, 2010, 10:51

I don't dispute that it's a fine ordinary stock image - I just dispute that it in any way merits the high prices of the Agency collection. It's not exceptional in production values IMO.

As far as the ethics of posting someone else's work, I'm not sure how we have any sort of discussion about what Getty's doing in dumping its content on IS without having examples.

RT · « **Reply #66 on:** October 25, 2010, 12:15 »

Quote from: jsnover on October 25, 2010, 10:51

I don't dispute that it's a fine ordinary stock image - I just dispute that it in any way merits the high prices of the Agency collection. It's not exceptional in production values IMO.

As far as the ethics of posting someone else's work, I'm not sure how we have any sort of discussion about what Getty's doing in dumping its content on IS without having examples.

Maybe you should read the iStockphoto definition of the agency collection, here's a snippet that might help.

How is the Agency Collection different from Vetta?
The Vetta Collection features risky, artistic imagery, and rewards contributors who invest more into the production and execution of unique concepts. The Agency Collection is focused on more traditional life-style imagery, with an emphasis on specialized regional content.

As for ethics, the person has uploaded a perfectly acceptable stock photo to a stock agency, just because you don't like the way the agency you're exclusive at has priced that persons work doesn't ( IMO ) make it justifiable to be singled out for criticism on an independent site. Did you make the same post on the iStock forum?

djpadavona · « **Reply #67 on:** October 25, 2010, 15:56 »

Quote from: jamirae on October 18, 2010, 17:29

oh.. and just if any besides me cares, - today is my last day as an iStock exclusive. My 30 days are up today - so tomorrow my other ports start going live! I'm going to document this new excursion in case anyone cares to see how this new journey/chapter from exclusive to independent is faring for me. working on setting up a blog but for now just have it documented in a private journal.

I care.

Usually when a microstock'er announces they are setting up a blog, I groan. But when someone with an excellent portfolio like yours goes from iStock exclusivity into the wide world of independence, I'm darn interested to read how it goes. My exclusivity ran out almost the same day as yours did. My strategy has been to upload my best work to the other agencies, and I'll get to the portfolio dregs when I feel motivated. So far, so good.

donding · « **Reply #68 on:** October 25, 2010, 16:57 »

I'm not being critical here, but I've noticed all the agencies...other than iStock...quit uploading there....have been taking forever to inspect. Even more so than when the sh*t hit the fan at iStock. It makes sense now that I'm hearing about the exclusives who's 30 days is up and are uploading elsewhere.

Anyone else notice this??

Amanda_K · « **Reply #69 on:** October 25, 2010, 17:59 »

Quote from: jamirae on October 18, 2010, 17:29

oh.. and just if any besides me cares, - today is my last day as an iStock exclusive. My 30 days are up today - so tomorrow my other ports start going live! I'm going to document this new excursion in case anyone cares to see how this new journey/chapter from exclusive to independent is faring for me. working on setting up a blog but for now just have it documented in a private journal.

Mine expired just a couple of weeks ago too. I was considering doing a few of articles on my adventures with learning new sites especially as the vector process is different for each. It's been quite the learning experience! lol Congrats on the big decision and good luck!

lisafx · « **Reply #70 on:** October 25, 2010, 18:31 »

Generally I agree about posting another microstocker's work for criticism. However the Agency Collection, as I understand it, isn't really individual photographers, as such, but collections from other agencies which are being moved en masse into Istock's library. In that context I think it's legitimate to post examples.

We posted examples from Fotolia's Infinite Collection, and a few weeks ago when the first Agency pictures showed up examples were posted. Nobody complained either of those times.

As I understood JoAnn's post, she wasn't directly critiquing the image anyway. Just using it as an example to critique the Agency Collection. Which is perfectly fair IMO.

Freedom · « **Reply #71 on:** October 25, 2010, 21:25 »

It is not about whether or not it is legitimate and it has nothing to do with whatever agency the image belongs, it is simply very poor taste and not fair to the photographer who is not a part of the agency's decision and who is not even a part of this debate. I am totally in agreement with Istock's practice to disallow this kind of messages.

Jo Ann has always been a very helpful person at Istock, I don't think she meant malice.

Similiarly, in my opinion, it is equally poor taste to snitch other people's keywords. If you do have an issue with the keyword, why not send a note to the photographer and offer your sincere help.

Quote from: lisafx on October 25, 2010, 18:31

Generally I agree about posting another microstocker's work for criticism. However the Agency Collection, as I understand it, isn't really individual photographers, as such, but collections from other agencies which are being moved en masse into Istock's library. In that context I think it's legitimate to post examples.

We posted examples from Fotolia's Infinite Collection, and a few weeks ago when the first Agency pictures showed up examples were posted. Nobody complained either of those times.

As I understood JoAnn's post, she wasn't directly critiquing the image anyway. Just using it as an example to critique the Agency Collection. Which is perfectly fair IMO.

gostwyck · « **Reply #72 on:** October 25, 2010, 22:08 »

Quote from: Freedom on October 25, 2010, 21:25

Similiar, in my opinion, it is equally poor taste to snitch other people's keywords.

What? 'Snitch'? Are you 8 years old or thereabouts? Has your Mom given you permission to be here? Go to your bedroom immediately.

Freedom · « **Reply #73 on:** October 25, 2010, 22:18 »

As much as you hate Jonathan's way of talking like he knows more than other people (maybe he does or he doesn't, at least he has got the manner), you'd better look at yourself in the mirror and learn some civil ways of communication.

Quote from: gostwyck on October 25, 2010, 22:08

Quote from: Freedom on October 25, 2010, 21:25
Similiar, in my opinion, it is equally poor taste to snitch other people's keywords.

What? 'Snitch'? Are you 8 years old or thereabouts? Has your Mom given you permission to be here? Go to your bedroom immediately.

gostwyck · « **Reply #74 on:** October 25, 2010, 22:46 »

Quote from: Freedom on October 25, 2010, 22:18

As much as you hate Jonathan's way of talking like he knows more than other people (maybe he does or he doesn't, at least he has got the manner), you'd better look at yourself in the mirror and learn some civil ways of communication.

Making 'facts' up as you go along and generally inventing yourself as an 'expert' is far less civil IMHO than calling someone out for doing so. I really don't know why you encourage him. So many microstockers with genuine expertise have all called him out on several occasions. Refuting Jonathon's bizzare proclamations is becoming tiresome for all of us.

Freedom · « **Reply #75 on:** October 25, 2010, 22:50 »

Thanks for getting out of your childhood memory, lol.

I simply believe that each person is entitled to his opinion, no matter it's yours or Janathan's. You have shared your fair share of wisdow in this forum, however, a bit tolerance will make you a much persuasive person.

caspixel · « **Reply #76 on:** November 09, 2010, 10:41 »

Interesting. I am starting to notice a shift in tone since some iStock members have been "ingested" into the Agency collection. We're back to the old "If you don't like it, don't buy it" mantra towards customers complaining about the increased prices for photos that were previously in the Vetta (and/or the regular collection). I still want to know how it was okay to take those photos before the prices were raised and it was perfectly sustainable then, and then suddenly, once prices are raised they justify the higher price by saying it's not sustainable to take those kinds of photos at the lower price. EXCEPT THEY WERE TAKEN WHEN THE PRICE WAS LOWER.

If anyone wonders what I'm referring to: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=268782&page=3

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #77 on:** November 09, 2010, 10:55 »

Sustainable was in quotes

.

Look, there's a big enough collection of regular images at lower prices, that I don't feel too terrible about having an offering at a higher price. If you really want it, there it is. If not, then buy a cheaper one.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #78 on:** November 09, 2010, 12:30 »

Sean, you're a terrific fit for the Agency collection. After all the difficulties getting into the Vetta club - and how you were repeatedly shut down with all attempts to discuss that - I can imagine it's great to have a place to highlight your work.

If search and advanced search were fully functional - which they aren't since F5; if Getty hadn't dumped a bunch of so-so files into the Agency collection; if Vetta and Agency were the same prices (and hadn't gone up so much in September in the case of Vetta); and if the best match lurching around trying to avoid having 100% Agency and Vetta in the first few pages; then I think your argument would make sense.

Right now buyers have to really work to avoid Agency and Vetta content. Even worse, if they click on the browse Agency image from the photos landing page, they're stuck in this bizarre Agency only world for all searches unless they can edit a search string, log out or browse Vetta.

I get that Vetta and Agency is the ticket out of the mire for those exclusives who participate. Doesn't alter the fact that IS has effed up the site with F5 bugs and badly crafted introduction of Agency to the mix. Once they straighten the site behavior out, buyers will actually have some choices they can easily exercise (prime among them the option to exclude the high price collections and make that a permanent preference).

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #79 on:** November 09, 2010, 14:19 »

Quote from: jsnover on November 09, 2010, 12:30

Even worse, if they click on the browse Agency image from the photos landing page, they're stuck in this bizarre Agency only world for all searches unless they can edit a search string, log out or browse Vetta.

See if this helps:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=266911&messageid=5167352

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #80 on:** November 09, 2010, 16:27 »

And it does - you're making a valiant effort. I've installed it - much easier than the other workarounds.

However...

...how much better it might be if your efforts could be devoted to enhancements of the user experience vs. papering over the failings of IS's development team?

I don't know if I'm happy or sad that the promised re-vamp of the search engine hasn't yet come about during the busy season - I think on balance I'm glad. We have enough issues with the site running as if it's wading through molasses with the hardware upgrade.

Similar mixed feelings about your wonderful greasemonkey scripts - it seems a bit like enabling. There's a risk that it'll slow IS down even further in doing what they need to to get the site running well. "Oh, not to worry about breaking ........(fill in the blank)......... Sean'll write a script to work around the problem."

cathyslife · « **Reply #81 on:** November 09, 2010, 16:44 »

Quote from: jsnover on November 09, 2010, 16:27

And it does - you're making a valiant effort. I've installed it - much easier than the other workarounds.

However...

...how much better it might be if your efforts could be devoted to enhancements of the user experience vs. papering over the failings of IS's development team?

I don't know if I'm happy or sad that the promised re-vamp of the search engine hasn't yet come about during the busy season - I think on balance I'm glad. We have enough issues with the site running as if it's wading through molasses with the hardware upgrade.

Similar mixed feelings about your wonderful greasemonkey scripts - it seems a bit like enabling. There's a risk that it'll slow IS down even further in doing what they need to to get the site running well. "Oh, not to worry about breaking ........(fill in the blank)......... Sean'll write a script to work around the problem."

It's along the same lines as DeepMeta. The ability to do those things on upload to IS should have been included in the IS site. Why did it take a third party to come up with a decent uploading fix for IS? (Rhetorical question, no answer required.)

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #82 on:** November 09, 2010, 16:54 »

Quote from: jsnover on November 09, 2010, 16:27

Similar mixed feelings about your wonderful greasemonkey scripts - it seems a bit like enabling. There's a risk that it'll slow IS down even further in doing what they need to to get the site running well. "Oh, not to worry about breaking ........(fill in the blank)......... Sean'll write a script to work around the problem."

Yeah, I know. I'm sure I'll get bored with this new toy soon

.

Sadstock · « **Reply #83 on:** November 09, 2010, 20:13 »

Quote from: sjlocke on November 09, 2010, 16:54

Quote from: jsnover on November 09, 2010, 16:27
Similar mixed feelings about your wonderful greasemonkey scripts - it seems a bit like enabling. There's a risk that it'll slow IS down even further in doing what they need to to get the site running well. "Oh, not to worry about breaking ........(fill in the blank)......... Sean'll write a script to work around the problem."

Yeah, I know. I'm sure I'll get bored with this new toy soon .

----------------------------
Maybe this could be a new income stream? Every time somebody installs one of your scripts Istock gives you a nickle?

anonymous · « **Reply #84 on:** November 09, 2010, 20:24 »

Quote from: Sadstock on November 09, 2010, 20:13

Quote from: sjlocke on November 09, 2010, 16:54
Quote from: jsnover on November 09, 2010, 16:27
Similar mixed feelings about your wonderful greasemonkey scripts - it seems a bit like enabling. There's a risk that it'll slow IS down even further in doing what they need to to get the site running well. "Oh, not to worry about breaking ........(fill in the blank)......... Sean'll write a script to work around the problem."

Yeah, I know. I'm sure I'll get bored with this new toy soon .

----------------------------
Maybe this could be a new income stream? Every time somebody installs one of your scripts Istock gives you a nickle?

completely unsustainable

Chico · « **Reply #85 on:** November 09, 2010, 20:54 »

Quote from: anonymous on November 09, 2010, 20:24

Quote from: Sadstock on November 09, 2010, 20:13
Quote from: sjlocke on November 09, 2010, 16:54
Quote from: jsnover on November 09, 2010, 16:27
Similar mixed feelings about your wonderful greasemonkey scripts - it seems a bit like enabling. There's a risk that it'll slow IS down even further in doing what they need to to get the site running well. "Oh, not to worry about breaking ........(fill in the blank)......... Sean'll write a script to work around the problem."

Yeah, I know. I'm sure I'll get bored with this new toy soon .

----------------------------
Maybe this could be a new income stream? Every time somebody installs one of your scripts Istock gives you a nickle?
completely unsustainable

Run to enjoy the last amazing four mounths

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: iStock's Agency Collection Pricing (Read 29320 times)

zzz

zzz

zzz

lagereek

helix7

lisafx

RacePhoto

vonkara

lisafx

lisafx

lisafx

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors