Author Topic: iStock's Agency Collection Pricing (Read 32958 times)

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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: iStock's Agency Collection Pricing (Read 32958 times)

lisafx

Jo Ann Snover

Digital66

jamirae

jamirae

cathyslife

lisafx

Jo Ann Snover

Sadstock

jamirae

Jo Ann Snover

molka

RT

gostwyck

Jo Ann Snover

Freedom

RT

djpadavona

donding

Amanda_K

lisafx

Freedom

gostwyck

Freedom

gostwyck

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors