MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: B8 on April 22, 2015, 01:06
-
It’s hard to believe that 15 years ago, a small team with an idea about changing the world of royalty-free imagery, would evolve into what we know as iStock by Getty Images today.
This April marks a significant milestone in iStock’s history, a history that has been largely based on an insatiable love of imagery, an appetite for disruption, and an irreverent affinity for change.
Even with our long history of evolution, the past year has brought more change to iStock than the previous decade and a half combined. Over the past 12 months, we have we have completely repictured the business, updating and simplifying the search and purchase process, removing barriers at every step.
The biggest change is our launch of a full subscription product. This has significantly shifted the business economics, but has also given iStock access to a new customer base that was simply unaccessible before with our singular credit model. Make no mistake, this shift in our core business has not been without challenges, but it is vital to the long-term growth of the business and will pay dividends in the future. High volume customers who have long wanted access to our premium quality, exclusive content, but have been limited by our credit model, are now free to leverage our content for their creative projects.
On the topic of content… In an industry where our competitors continue to push quantity over quality, one fundamental ideology that has not and will not change, is iStock’s a philosophy of Exclusive Artists providing premium content that you can’t get from anyone else. We are proud to represent your content, and defy the race-to-the-bottom trend in pricing by rewarding talent, investing in our artists and paying higher rates for our Signature tier product. We continue to share the passion and creativity each that each and every exclusive artist puts into their work. It is these shared ideologies that separates us from the competitors, and has made iStock by Getty Images the leader in the market.
As one of the original founders of iStock, I have enjoyed many exciting experiences and challenges in the past 15 years, yet I have never been more excited for the future of the business.
From myself and the entire iStock and Getty Images team we thank you for 15 amazing years, and look forward to the next 15 as we work together to maintain our position as the leaders in the industry.
I invite you to watch this short business update video from Derek Snyder, Sr. Director of Product and E-Commerce for iStock by Getty Images, as he details the strategies and impacts of the RePicture project, and frames the business for the years to come.
Sincerely,
Brad Ralph
Senior Director, Content Development / Co-Founder iStockphoto
PS. If you are having problems viewing the video please ensure you've recieved your log in credientials for the Getty Contributor Portal. If you haven't recieved your credientals please send a quick email to the Content Manager.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1326465657/hip1_400x400.jpg)
What a bunch of bullocks Brad. Another unknown name pops out of the woodwork with the usual Woo-Yay rubbish. Who was it last time that sent one of these emails? I can hardly keep track of the list of one-hit wonders.
On the topic of content… In an industry where our competitors continue to push quantity over quality...
- Now that's a complete oxymoron.
I think I will stop my rant here or this could go on for hours...
-
I think I just threw up a little in my mouth...
-
What a bunch of nonsense. Lol. They really have a distorted self image. Anyhoo lets us all take comfort in the fact they won't last another 15.
-
I'm not sure if I understand it - is it some scam or iS really sends that email to people? ???
-
"....we work together to maintain our position as the leaders in the industry....".
This cant be real. They are not able to acknowledge they are no longer in that position and thus, they will never recover. This is just sad :(
-
They really are deluded if they think they are still at the top. I find it quite sad. I loved Istock as it was my first and best selling stock site and had a great community spirit. I rarely go to the site now and never to the forums.
-
...defy the race-to-the-bottom trend in pricing by rewarding talent...
what really? Do they really think this when they pay the lowest rates in the industry? Is there no one on staff who can figure that if you pay half the commission of the competition people will happily sell their work for half the price elsewhere and make twice the volume of sales for the same RPD?
Arghhhhhh I think my head is going to explode.
-
I have to add, I dont wish anyone losing their income, it would be better for all of us if IS got their head out of their rear end and turned it around. I just meant that at some point its better to rip off the band aid quickly than slowly try to pull it off. It hurts more and longer. I just wish for anyone on IS, that the misery ends sooner rather then later.
-
Where is this announcement from by the way? Is it on the forum or a Getty blog somewhere?
-
It was sent as an email to Exclusives and links to a video on the Getty forum. I get the impression it wasn't for general consumption.
-
"...On the topic of content… In an industry where our competitors continue to push quantity over quality...."
Is he for real?? When iStock have been accepting everything including the kitchen sink for over a year now!!
Stack it high sell it cheap should be their new motto! >:(
-
I wish I'd had the nuggets to set up an agency back then - I might have been in the Bahamas quaffing boat drinks with Beyonce by now.
-
It was sent as an email to Exclusives and links to a video on the Getty forum. I get the impression it wasn't for general consumption.
Makes a lot more sense now. Must just be for the consumption of the diminishing number of exclusives that don't have an overview of the market. They wouldn't have the gall to send that out to contributors in general.
-
IS had the gall to pull off a lot of re.tarded stuff. This is no different. Maybe they finally understand to expect a backlash when they talk cra.p. I don't think exclusives are gullible either.
-
While they blew a little to much smoke I do see things improving at iStock. I feel that a lot of these changes are needed and will help. Interesting times ahead and now back to stick my head in the sand :-)
-
While they blew a little to much smoke I do see things improving at iStock. I feel that a lot of these changes are needed and will help. Interesting times ahead and now back to stick my head in the sand :-)
Like what and for whom?
-
Video sales are good this month and Getty was very strong. The new ADP is good and search is getting better, my subs are up month after month and my regular Dl's have not gone down much. My new content is selling now and I am spending my time focusing on content.
-
iStock used to be a nice place ago when an owner....
-
"This has significantly shifted the business economics" You bet it has........man do I hate this corporate talk. Just say how it is " This has destroyed many photographers -business economics-"...... :P
-
I'm not seeing any improvement, other than rising subs which will have to multiply by 10 times to make up for falling credit sales.
I'm going to make less from credit sales this month than I used to make in a week.
-
I'm not seeing any improvement, other than rising subs which will have to multiply by 10 times to make up for falling credit sales.
I'm going to make less from credit sales this month than I used to make in a week.
That's my experience too, but maybe video is going better. Fair enough, but by the time I'd bought the equipment and acquired the skills, that market will be oversaturated too, so I'll pass. I'm certainly not going to 'speculate to accumulate' the way things are now, anywhere.
Still, if jjneff is doing well, good for him, he can only post as he finds.
I found the new ADP to be pretty bad, and hate that the descriptions have gone, but all my browsers show me the old one ATM, logged in or out. Maybe it's changed for the better since I posted my screenshots, but my issue was reported yesterday: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=366249&messageid=7098097 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=366249&messageid=7098097), except that I see a totally random order of keywords in the old ADP on new, unviewed files also (and that has been the case for many months, maybe over a year). I find this to be of great concern, as allegedly the iStock reordering of keywords is very important for search.
-
I'm not seeing any improvement, other than rising subs which will have to multiply by 10 times to make up for falling credit sales.
I'm going to make less from credit sales this month than I used to make in a week.
Yes, more or less the same here. I'm afraid that as far as I'm concerned it's a business arrangement, and the Dollars in my pocket speak far louder than any words can.
-
On a more positive note my video sales were horrible last month! The value I find in iStock is the Getty connection, I do not have to do any extra work for my files to go over to Getty. Yes they are slow getting there but they make it eventually. My iStock/Getty income is paying the bills so I see no need to jump out of the boat yet.
-
I'm going to make less from credit sales this month than I used to make in a week.
TRUE THAT!
-
Sonds like the Exclusives are getting featured not exterminated. Dropping cash sales might be less fraud sales and clawbacks. He shows as co-founder of IS. Video aimed at Exclusive. Give it time.
-
We are proud to represent your content, and defy the race-to-the-bottom trend in pricing...
So if they aren't part of the race to the bottom then why am I earning $2 or less on a XXXL download when I used to earn as much as $30 for the same download? I don't know where his maths are coming from but my math explains why I am now earning less than 20% of what I was earning as an exclusive in 2011 and yet with double the portfolio size now.
-
Aye and they don't even have a sliding scale of sub commissions like the others, you just get 28 cents whether you sell one or a frakking million subs
Frak you ! >:(
Where's my angry stick!? >:(
-
Frak you ! >:(
Love it! :D
Where's my angry stick!? >:(
Looking for this one? (http://emotikona.pl/emotikony/pic/2patyk.gif) (http://emotikona.pl/emotikony/)
-
Frak you ! >:(
Love it! :D
Where's my angry stick!? >:(
Looking for this one? ([url]http://emotikona.pl/emotikony/pic/2patyk.gif[/url]) ([url]http://emotikona.pl/emotikony/[/url])
Dayum right gimme that angry stick someones gonna get a whuppin (http://emotikona.pl/emotikony/pic/niegrzeczny.gif) (http://emotikona.pl/emotikony/)
(http://emotikona.pl/emotikony/pic/0shoot.gif) (http://emotikona.pl/emotikony/) (http://emotikona.pl/emotikony/pic/2dziura.gif) (http://emotikona.pl/emotikony/)
-
(http://i647.photobucket.com/albums/uu194/CliffyB/lynchmob.gif)
-
([url]http://i647.photobucket.com/albums/uu194/CliffyB/lynchmob.gif[/url])
More like "more stock images slaves" (http://emotikona.pl/emotikony/pic/0bicz.gif) (http://emotikona.pl/emotikony/) hehehehe
-
"more stock images slaves"
That was my first thought when I saw this thread... and this is NOT funny :-\
-
"more stock images slaves"
That was my first thought when I saw this thread... and this is NOT funny :-\
Well you have to laugh otherwise you'd cry :'(
-
I have to say the their payout scheme really has me p#@#$!ed off. They get to owe us money and we won't have any clue unless we harass them about it.
-
It looks like something written for the CEO to read and be happy about. It's hardly likely to fool the suppliers.
-
Istock shame on you!
-
I couldn't even finish reading it. What a bunch of outright lies and bull...
Unreal. Is this what it's come to for them now? Just flat-out lying about how great they are and how they're so much better than the competition? And people actually believe this stuff? It doesn't take much of a Google search to find out what iStock pays and what other companies pay. Who buys into this insanity?
-
I couldn't even finish reading it. What a bunch of outright lies and bull...
Unreal. Is this what it's come to for them now? Just flat-out lying about how great they are and how they're so much better than the competition? And people actually believe this stuff? It doesn't take much of a Google search to find out what iStock pays and what other companies pay. Who buys into this insanity?
It was written for exclusives. Most of us get a higher royalty rate than we would at the other guys. Nothing about this email and video was meant to be for or about nonexclusive contributors, in case that wasn't clear.
-
I couldn't even finish reading it. What a bunch of outright lies and bull...
Unreal. Is this what it's come to for them now? Just flat-out lying about how great they are and how they're so much better than the competition? And people actually believe this stuff? It doesn't take much of a Google search to find out what iStock pays and what other companies pay. Who buys into this insanity?
It was written for exclusives. Most of us get a higher royalty rate than we would at the other guys. Nothing about this email and video was meant to be for or about nonexclusive contributors, in case that wasn't clear.
It was clear, and it's still a bunch of lies. Unless iStock recently changed exclusive rates to 50%+ and I didn't hear about it.
-
I couldn't even finish reading it. What a bunch of outright lies and bull...
Unreal. Is this what it's come to for them now? Just flat-out lying about how great they are and how they're so much better than the competition? And people actually believe this stuff? It doesn't take much of a Google search to find out what iStock pays and what other companies pay. Who buys into this insanity?
It was written for exclusives. Most of us get a higher royalty rate than we would at the other guys. Nothing about this email and video was meant to be for or about nonexclusive contributors, in case that wasn't clear.
A select group of exclusives, presumably.
I wouldn't have known about the email if it hadn't been for the OP here.
-
I couldn't even finish reading it. What a bunch of outright lies and bull...
Unreal. Is this what it's come to for them now? Just flat-out lying about how great they are and how they're so much better than the competition? And people actually believe this stuff? It doesn't take much of a Google search to find out what iStock pays and what other companies pay. Who buys into this insanity?
It was written for exclusives. Most of us get a higher royalty rate than we would at the other guys. Nothing about this email and video was meant to be for or about nonexclusive contributors, in case that wasn't clear.
It was clear, and it's still a bunch of lies. Unless iStock recently changed exclusive rates to 50%+ and I didn't hear about it.
Which sites are paying 50% or more? Fotolia, Shutterstock, Dreamstime, 123rf?
-
Which sites are paying 50% or more? Fotolia, Shutterstock, Dreamstime, 123rf?
Stockfresh, Creative Market, Pond5, GL, Alamy, couple of others I'd rather not mention yet but showing potential.
Does it matter who pays more than 50%? They're competitors, and they pay better. A lot better in some cases, and not just by percentages. iStock lags behind a few of these companies in earnings for me lately. Way behind CM.
The point is, it's a total lie to say that they pay better than the competition and treat contributors better. It's just pure B.S.
-
Some sites pay more than 50% for exclusive contributors. Fotolia 64%
-
Which sites are paying 50% or more? Fotolia, Shutterstock, Dreamstime, 123rf?
Stockfresh, Creative Market, Pond5, GL, Alamy, couple of others I'd rather not mention yet but showing potential.
Does it matter who pays more than 50%? They're competitors, and they pay better. A lot better in some cases, and not just by percentages. iStock lags behind a few of these companies in earnings for me lately. Way behind CM.
The point is, it's a total lie to say that they pay better than the competition and treat contributors better. It's just pure B.S.
I think any exclusive would have a hard time replacing their income by just submitting to those sites. I'm sure you realize who they are talking about when they say competitors, none of those sites are on the list. Besides I don't think they said they pay higher than all the other sites all I see about pay is this quote "defy the race-to-the-bottom trend in pricing by rewarding talent, investing in our artists and paying higher rates for our Signature tier product." To me it could easily just mean they pay higher rates for Signature content than nonexclusive content and aren't lowering the prices for that to the levels of say SS.
-
So the video talks about (among other things): new subs program introduced, simplified the site, better customer pricing, pricing lowered to directly compete with Shutterstock, lowered price points. Later in the video (at -1:53) is presented text "We have the content you can get anywhere else, for less money". Next (at -1:45) is the text "iStock is the only place where you can get our exclusive, Signature content". Which is directly followed by the voice (at -1:36) "put simply, this is not a race to the bottom".
So this is a WooYay buzz word sales pitch to the exclusive contributors that also contains contradictions within. It's very heartening to note that iStock seems very concerned and is working on the site operation to make it more competitive. I may or may not agree with their methods and changes but at least they are trying. That is the good news to me.
The bad news is that the WooYay and efforts do not seem to be hitting my monthly payout bottom line at this point. The increasing subs are not making up for the decreasing regular sales. Contributors have complained for years about the non-working connector that is supposed to move files to Getty and other sites to provide more exposure and hence more income. The forums are long dead and contributors cannot help each other promote iStock. The RC system killed morale and doesn't work. We all know the many more issues where we think iS has gone way off the path.
In the end it boils down to my monthly payout. It's a very long way back to my monthly payout levels of 2010 and iS enthusiasm (sales pitch) has not yet translated to a turn-around in my account charts. Show me the money. My account is becoming unsustainable!
-
iStock is leading the race to the bottom between top competitors. For indies they have lower prices than SS and lower royalties.
-
iStock is leading the race to the bottom between top competitors. For indies they have lower prices than SS and lower royalties.
They're just winning for today (well Fotolia's DPC is probably winning), tomorrow it will be someone else, that's what makes it a race. I've been saying it for a long time, expect it to continue as long as you support sites that are caught up in the race.
-
So you think I should stop supporting iStock?
-
I think any exclusive would have a hard time replacing their income by just submitting to those sites. I'm sure you realize who they are talking about when they say competitors, none of those sites are on the list. Besides I don't think they said they pay higher than all the other sites all I see about pay is this quote "defy the race-to-the-bottom trend in pricing by rewarding talent, investing in our artists and paying higher rates for our Signature tier product." To me it could easily just mean they pay higher rates for Signature content than nonexclusive content and aren't lowering the prices for that to the levels of say SS.
In the rest of that paragraph you quoted from they go on to say, "It is these shared ideologies that separates us from the competitors." They're talking about them vs. competitors, not Signature vs. non-exclusive content. And they're not doing better than the competition in the rates that they pay, exclusive and non-exclusive rates alike.
Just because you don't see the companies I mentioned as real competition doesn't mean that they're not. Like I said, Creative Market is my #2 earner, way out ahead of iStock the last several months. That's very real competition if you ask me. Talk around it any way you like, the fact is that it's still an absolute lie to say in any way relating to royalties that iStock does better by their contributors than the competition. It's just simply not true.
-
So you think I should stop supporting iStock?
That's your decision. I'm just saying what is going to happen when people continue the way they have been.
-
It’s hard to believe that 15 years ago, ... <snip>
Sincerely,
Brad Ralph
Senior Director, Content Development / Co-Founder iStockphoto
What a bunch of bullocks. Another unknown name pops out of the woodwork with the usual Woo-Yay rubbish. Who was it last time that sent one of these emails? I can hardly keep track of the list of one-hit wonders.
I don't disagree with your overall sentiments, but he's not an unknown name:
http://www.istockphoto.com/profile/braddy?id=97 (http://www.istockphoto.com/profile/braddy?id=97)
-
If iStock's exclusive content were really better than what's out there at other agencies, having exclusive content might matter. Unfortunately for them, they backed up the Getty dump truck and loaded the site with masses of bog standard images priced as if they were gems. Some of the Getty rubbish might sell OK if it were priced lower, but it completely undermined the appeal of exclusive content, IMO
Once upon a time things were different, and there are some talented iStock exclusives - real exclusives not the Getty factories - who got undermined by the private equity owners who I'm guessing directed this strategy of unloading anything and everything on iStock.
I know we've harped on the lemon and lime slices that are underexposed with a black border, but when you shove that high priced dreck in front of buyers as the reason they should shop with you versus the competition, you won't be taken seriously.
-
Tickstock, you are right, it will likely be hard to replace our exclusive income if we drop our status today.
However, please keep in mind that Getty has consistently been shifting our sales to GI, PP and Subs in order to pay us 20%, instead of the level we earned at iStock. That is why a lot of people in the higher earning percentages are seeing big deduction of income.
If Getty is taking real pride of having exclusive contributors, I would like to see it acting with transparency and decency.
So you think I should stop supporting iStock?
That's your decision. I'm just saying what is going to happen when people continue the way they have been.
-
the biggest difference between istock and the other agencies is that if you add more files to shutterstock,fotolia,stocksy,pond5, etc...you will see a growth in earnings. While in istock you read that people add 6000 files in one year and are losing income.
The text must have been written for ceo or investors. The contributors will be put off by all the "exciting" language anyway. it is not written to motivate them.
Maybe it helps them to get a project approved or something like that.
I would love to see istock improve, but getting out of denial talk and genuinly reaching out to people would have to come first. If they don't understand their own contributors,how will they understand the customer?
Anyway, Getty has a new CEO coming in, maybe he or she can bring some Vision.
-
Someone get Brad Ralph a working spell checker please. If he is going to be trying to impress investors and the board members with his letters then he could at least spell properly. Here are 2 of the blatant spelling errors I noticed in his email:
recieved
credientials
-
Someone get Brad Ralph a working spell checker please. If he is going to be trying to impress investors and the board members with his letters then he could at least spell properly. Here are 2 of the blatant spelling errors I noticed in his email:
recieved
credientials
they'll probably sack his assistant for it
-
Derek Snyder of Getty Images Speaking About iStock Photo On 22 April 2015 - For The iStock Photo 15 Year Anniversary - A video published on the Getty Images Contributor Community site on 22 April 2015 titled "Looking Ahead: An Update For Our Exclusive Contributors". Presented by Derek Snyder Sr. Director, Product and Ecommerce. Produced by Jacleen Boland Sr. Manager, Corporate Communications at Getty Images.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R12s2Acv_IQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R12s2Acv_IQ)
-
Try this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R12s2Acv_IQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R12s2Acv_IQ)
-
They need a tourniquet, so they apply a band-aid.
-
It’s hard to believe that 15 years ago, a small team with an idea about changing the world of royalty-free imagery, would evolve into what we know as iStock by Getty Images today.
It is indeed hard to believe how iStock has evolved into a big failure.
an appetite for disruption, and an irreverent affinity for change.
Again, very true.
Over the past 12 months, we have we have completely repictured the business, updating and simplifying the search and purchase process, removing barriers at every step.
Yeah, such as those annoying sales, away with them!
In an industry where our competitors continue to push quantity over quality
....I'm glad iStock has never, ever mass-ingested a library full of old, outdated vector images to push out any new, freshly produced work.
and has made iStock by Getty Images the leader in the market.
Shutterstock would like his quote back.
-
In an industry where our competitors continue to push quantity over quality
[/quote]
Are they still accepting absolutely everything that is uploaded to them as long as it passes the copyright/model release check?
-
In an industry where our competitors continue to push quantity over quality
Are they still accepting absolutely everything that is uploaded to them as long as it passes the copyright/model release check?
[/quote]
This is the kind of claim they make to investors, even though it's not true. Where it is true is in exclusive content but they stretch that truth to broad brush their entire collection, which includes a porous filter to accept anything. And point two is that exclusive content is really also represented very well by cheap seat content (non-exclusive) and as exclusives keep bailing that fabricated truth erodes further.
-
In an industry where our competitors continue to push quantity over quality
Are they still accepting absolutely everything that is uploaded to them as long as it passes the copyright/model release check?
This is the kind of claim they make to investors, even though it's not true. Where it is true is in exclusive content but they stretch that truth to broad brush their entire collection, which includes a porous filter to accept anything. And point two is that exclusive content is really also represented very well by cheap seat content (non-exclusive) and as exclusives keep bailing that fabricated truth erodes further.
[/quote]
And, presumably, the imported Getty dross is still hanging around in the exclusive section where it pollutes the search.
-
A really bad corporate business decision, and in poor taste to talk about their competitors directly by name in the video. A sign of weakness, not strength.
-
A really bad corporate business decision, and in poor taste to talk about their competitors directly by name in the video. A sign of weakness, not strength.
The first step to recovery is acknowledging the problem, no reason to beat around the bush. If you look at SS ads they are clearly talking about iStock and have been for some time.
-
The bad news is that the WooYay and efforts do not seem to be hitting my monthly payout bottom line at this point.
They've definitely been hitting my monthly payout bottom line. (I rec'd your post; I assume you meant they weren't having a positive effect. I just wanted to emphasize that their changes have been having a massive, negative effect.)
-
Some sites pay more than 50% for exclusive contributors. Fotolia 64%
...for Credits. Subscriptions at FT are 25% for everyone, so the average is much lower me thinks... even for exclusives.
-
the biggest difference between istock and the other agencies is that if you add more files to shutterstock,fotolia,stocksy,pond5, etc...you will see a growth in earnings. While in istock you read that people add 6000 files in one year and are losing income.
The text must have been written for ceo or investors. The contributors will be put off by all the "exciting" language anyway. it is not written to motivate them.
Maybe it helps them to get a project approved or something like that.
I would love to see istock improve, but getting out of denial talk and genuinly reaching out to people would have to come first. If they don't understand their own contributors,how will they understand the customer?
Anyway, Getty has a new CEO coming in, maybe he or she can bring some Vision.
I understand you are a relatively new independent and your experience will differ from contributors who have been at other independent sites for some time. However you might want to talk to a few long term independent contributors. Increased uploads do not = increased sales and have not for some time.
So you think you have any control over your earnings....
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/post-2845933.html (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/post-2845933.html)
It is a mistake to underestimate the impact of the new contributor bump in terms of sales.
-
If iStock's exclusive content were really better than what's out there at other agencies, having exclusive content might matter. Unfortunately for them, they backed up the Getty dump truck and loaded the site with masses of bog standard images priced as if they were gems. Some of the Getty rubbish might sell OK if it were priced lower, but it completely undermined the appeal of exclusive content, IMO
Once upon a time things were different, and there are some talented iStock exclusives - real exclusives not the Getty factories - who got undermined by the private equity owners who I'm guessing directed this strategy of unloading anything and everything on iStock.
I know we've harped on the lemon and lime slices that are underexposed with a black border, but when you shove that high priced dreck in front of buyers as the reason they should shop with you versus the competition, you won't be taken seriously.
I completely agree, it was the beginning of the end. And when they screwed their contributors who were also buyers and in addition attempted to offload the afore mentioned crap. It made it easy for buyers to jump to lower priced competitor sites.
-
what i see is $, and when i take a look on total $ - for me, it does not look promising at the moment.
just an illustration (GI downloads for one of my files from s+ collection):
Date (DD/MM/YYYY) Site Royalty
01/07/2014 12:00 AM MDT Getty Images $0.01 USD
01/08/2014 12:00 AM MDT Getty Images $0.01 USD
01/09/2014 12:00 AM MDT Getty Images $0.01 USD
01/10/2014 12:00 AM MDT Getty Images $0.01 USD
01/11/2014 12:00 AM MDT Getty Images $0.01 USD
01/12/2014 12:00 AM MST Getty Images $0.01 USD
01/01/2015 12:00 AM MST Getty Images $0.01 USD
-
I would love to see istock improve, but getting out of denial talk and genuinly reaching out to people would have to come first.
Why do you think they haven't been talking to contributors?
-
what i see is $, and when i take a look on total $ - for me, it does not look promising at the moment.
just an illustration (GI downloads for one of my files from s+ collection):
Date (DD/MM/YYYY) Site Royalty
01/07/2014 12:00 AM MDT Getty Images $0.01 USD
01/08/2014 12:00 AM MDT Getty Images $0.01 USD
01/09/2014 12:00 AM MDT Getty Images $0.01 USD
01/10/2014 12:00 AM MDT Getty Images $0.01 USD
01/11/2014 12:00 AM MDT Getty Images $0.01 USD
01/12/2014 12:00 AM MST Getty Images $0.01 USD
01/01/2015 12:00 AM MST Getty Images $0.01 USD
I wonder if that is from the embedded viewer thing... Or just some other way to screw the artists.
-
I would love to see istock improve, but getting out of denial talk and genuinly reaching out to people would have to come first.
Why do you think they haven't been talking to contributors?
Have they talked to you?
-
I would love to see istock improve, but getting out of denial talk and genuinly reaching out to people would have to come first.
Why do you think they haven't been talking to contributors?
Because they have nothing positive-for-contributors to say, no doubt.
-
Well, I would not go as far as to say that I have nothing positive to say about Getty/IS. At least for me, the sales seem to have been stable after January 2015. I almost feel the worst is over. After all, comparing to Alamy, GI provides me with a monthly income (used to be weekly). That being said, I still feel disappointed because I don't see much growth.
-
what i see is $, and when i take a look on total $ - for me, it does not look promising at the moment.
just an illustration (GI downloads for one of my files from s+ collection):
Date (DD/MM/YYYY) Site Royalty
01/07/2014 12:00 AM MDT Getty Images $0.01 USD
01/08/2014 12:00 AM MDT Getty Images $0.01 USD
01/09/2014 12:00 AM MDT Getty Images $0.01 USD
01/10/2014 12:00 AM MDT Getty Images $0.01 USD
01/11/2014 12:00 AM MDT Getty Images $0.01 USD
01/12/2014 12:00 AM MST Getty Images $0.01 USD
01/01/2015 12:00 AM MST Getty Images $0.01 USD
I wonder if that is from the embedded viewer thing... Or just some other way to screw the artists.
Aren't these sales likely to be the Getty Connect thing (which I don't pretend to understand)? http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=1407 (http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=1407)
-
i just watched the video. Unreal.
-
iStock may no longer the leader in the stock business, but I wish them to be back to leading ways again, to go head to head with Shutterstock.
If they become profitable again, the Contributors also earn, and everyone is happy and blessed. :)
-
Why do you think they haven't been talking to contributors?
contributor is not = contributors
-
If they become profitable again, the Contributors also earn, and everyone is happy and blessed. :)
Sadly, it doesn't always work like that. They can always give you a pay cut if they feel things are going too well for you. Remember the time things were getting better and better for everyone, so they proclaimed that it was unsustainable for them to pay more and more just because they were doing well so they gave us a pay cut?
And things just got worse from then on.
-
If they become profitable again, the Contributors also earn, and everyone is happy and blessed. :)
Sadly, it doesn't always work like that. They can always give you a pay cut if they feel things are going too well for you. Remember the time things were getting better and better for everyone, so they proclaimed that it was unsustainable for them to pay more and more just because they were doing well so they gave us a pay cut?
And things just got worse from then on.
Did they say that? Wow. Some nerve. Do they think photographers are less gifted in the brain department?
-
iStock may no longer the leader in the stock business, but I wish them to be back to leading ways again, to go head to head with Shutterstock.
If they become profitable again, the Contributors also earn, and everyone is happy and blessed. :)
I don't think I could trust them ever again... Not after what I experienced here. And it's not only me.
-
If they become profitable again, the Contributors also earn, and everyone is happy and blessed. :)
Sadly, it doesn't always work like that. They can always give you a pay cut if they feel things are going too well for you. Remember the time things were getting better and better for everyone, so they proclaimed that it was unsustainable for them to pay more and more just because they were doing well so they gave us a pay cut?
And things just got worse from then on.
Did they say that? Wow. Some nerve. Do they think photographers are less gifted in the brain department?
How soon you forget!
"Since roughly 2005 we've been aware of a basic problem with how our business works. As the company grows, the overall percentage we pay out to contributing artists increases. In the most basic terms that means that iStock becomes less profitable with increased success. As a business model, it’s simply unsustainable: businesses should get more profitable as they grow. This is a long-term problem that needs to be addressed."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=251812&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=251812&page=1)
(But that wasn't long after he told us that Getty had told him to increase profits 50%.)
-
I think about everything they did starting since September 2012 and everything, and I mean every single change they have "made for the better", has resulted in a pure and measurable additional net loss of income for me.
Nothing I have done to try and fight the declining curve (optimizing keywords, linking light boxes, adding new content, etc) has made one bit of difference to thwart my steadily falling income on a monthly basis.
Nothing will get better I'm certain at this point. The only thing that has gone up has been subscription sales, but that is a red herring because for the small increase in income from subs I have lost volumes of credit sales, and the net result of that has been a net decline in additional income as well.
I think it is ironic they even implemented the phrase "race to the bottom" because everything they have done in the last 2.5 years has been nothing but a race to the bottom on my income.
The only time I will take one word from them seriously about how they cherish their exclusive contributors is when I see my income start to steadily rise again as it did from 2010 to early 2012. But I think the chance of that happening is between slim and none and it appears slim just left town.
-
I think about everything they did starting since September 2012 and everything, and I mean every single change they have "made for the better", has resulted in a pure and measurable additional net loss of income for me.
N
Agree on that. I finally jumped off the boat because I think 2+ years was more than enough to change direction of the cruise lines. But those changes got worse and worse for contributor. Now looking back I think the biggest mistakes were:
1- the MOST important one was ever increasing prices. Subscriptions are a bad deal for photographers in whatever light you look at it.If Istock would have remained in the 1-7 credit range clients would have not moved away to other cheaper options mostly subscription services. Once Getty was in the hands of private equity firm Hellman Friedman it was not more about long term success....it was about * the last drop of blood from the company......and prepare about the sell out. They killed the goose of the golden eggs.
2- Lots of Measures to demoralize many Istock contributors. The Redeemed Credits system being the worst but there were others.....Punctum day disappearance, driving traffic to Thinkstock and photos.com, goggle fiasco,......
3- At a later stage they made another huge mistake when they automated the E+ selection. So they though if a photo was selling a lot it should cost more. This IS a big mistake. Bread sugar or water don't cost more because they sell a lo. It's about scarcity if you want to raise prices......in every industry......such a stupid move could only respond to the greed of inflate artificially the numbers but the consequence was logic....client pissed abandoning the ship in droves.
4- Get rid of the quality control. Again if you want to ask for a premium and before subscription Istock was the highest priced micro, still is for credits. But clients are no fools.
5- Finally when the new manager saw the disaster they saw that it was they didn't have anymore quality advantage so or it was subscriptions or goodbye. But the subscription clients are already in other agencies....again it would have been wiser to slash a lot credit prices and I think both Istock and contributor would have won with this move
It is really amazing that a company that was in total leadership 5 years ago has done so many wrong moves. No wonder that nobody wants to consider exclusivity as the latest poll here in microstock group. And the exclusives that stay do so because it is hard to establish a portfolio at this stage at other agencies (I am experimenting this now), are inspectors or moved to other fields beyond micro and leave those RF images there.
I really had a great time as an exclusive till 2012 too. At that time I had a monthly rpi of 4$/image. Before leaving exclusivity I was at 0.5$/image/month. All said.......
-
I really had a great time as an exclusive till 2012 too. At that time I had a monthly rpi of 4$/image. Before leaving exclusivity I was at 0.5$/image/month. All said.......
How is your recovery from exclusivity going?
-
When they talk about growth, how much of that is just thinkstock customers moving over to istock subs? That is what they did with thinkstock to grow it, they targeted the istockcustomers to bring them over to thinkstock. Doing the reverse now it might look like growth but it would just be shifting their own base from agency a to b.
If all the new customers are new or coming from fotolia and shutterstock, that would be good for the istock exclusives.
Of course merging thinkstock back into istock would be a sensible move anyway.
But to be able to judge the success of the new layout and prices, you need to take out internal conversion of customers.
-
How is your recovery from exclusivity going?
[/quote]
Still to early as I only have a very small fraction of my Istock portfolio on other sites but I can already see it is going to be tough. I hope to have more reliable data in 6 moths and a clearer picture in 12. If I can mantain my 0.5 $/month/image I will be glad. It is a little more work to submitt to the other sites but the risk is really spread out. If it goes more than 0.5$/image/month would be excellent at this stage.
-
If they become profitable again, the Contributors also earn, and everyone is happy and blessed. :)
Sadly, it doesn't always work like that. They can always give you a pay cut if they feel things are going too well for you. Remember the time things were getting better and better for everyone, so they proclaimed that it was unsustainable for them to pay more and more just because they were doing well so they gave us a pay cut?
And things just got worse from then on.
Did they say that? Wow. Some nerve. Do they think photographers are less gifted in the brain department?
Didn't you know that? How long have you been in this business?
-
If they become profitable again, the Contributors also earn, and everyone is happy and blessed. :)
Sadly, it doesn't always work like that. They can always give you a pay cut if they feel things are going too well for you. Remember the time things were getting better and better for everyone, so they proclaimed that it was unsustainable for them to pay more and more just because they were doing well so they gave us a pay cut?
And things just got worse from then on.
Did they say that? Wow. Some nerve. Do they think photographers are less gifted in the brain department?
Didn't you know that? How long have you been in this business?
3 years
-
I look at my over-all income for the year not what a file cost. 2013 was my worst year and the only year I went down in earnings on the year. 2014 was my best year to date and 2015 has started kinda slow but at least steady. There are positive changes taking place at iStock so I plan to stay exclusive unless my income goes way down. I always do what is best for my family and business, I don't expect iStock to hold my hand or even care about me! The fact is they don't and I accept that. No other stock company cares about you either and it foolish to think they do. I am in this as a business so I take my feelings out of my business decisions.
-
Wasn't there another guy (not Brad Ralph) who sent out some sort of rah-rah corporate communication to contributors a while back (within the last year), who also had claimed to be another mysterious co-founder, and then we never heard from him again?
-
It’s hard to believe that 15 years ago, ... <snip>
Sincerely,
Brad Ralph
Senior Director, Content Development / Co-Founder iStockphoto
What a bunch of bullocks. Another unknown name pops out of the woodwork with the usual Woo-Yay rubbish. Who was it last time that sent one of these emails? I can hardly keep track of the list of one-hit wonders.
I don't disagree with your overall sentiments, but he's not an unknown name:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/profile/braddy?id=97[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/profile/braddy?id=97[/url])
He's the guy who told us the great changes they were making at iStock were beyond our understanding. ::)
-
Well carlyle will be posting the total Getty Revenue again, so it will be easy to see if they have any real growth or if they are just moving customers around.
And of course we'll get an update on the debt situation.
With a good new ceo there might be hope. But only if he or she plans to stay longterm and not just to improve the "story " for investors.
-
Perhaps all this shuffling of administrators all the time within iStock and Getty isn't because the individuals don't want to stick around. I assume they are offered positions with big salaries and big expectations to go along with the positions. Performance expectations and goals that often probably aren't attainable or realistic. Then heads roll, hire a replacement, and start all over. But people accept these tall order jobs because they are waving a lot of money in your face. So people roll the dice, ultimately fail, and then are forced to move on after they have only had a chance to send out one wooyay email to contributors.
-
It’s hard to believe that 15 years ago, ... <snip>
Sincerely,
Brad Ralph
Senior Director, Content Development / Co-Founder iStockphoto
What a bunch of bullocks. Another unknown name pops out of the woodwork with the usual Woo-Yay rubbish. Who was it last time that sent one of these emails? I can hardly keep track of the list of one-hit wonders.
I don't disagree with your overall sentiments, but he's not an unknown name:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/profile/braddy?id=97[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/profile/braddy?id=97[/url])
He's the guy who told us the great changes they were making at iStock were beyond our understanding. ::)
Well, at last someone posting at least a part truth. GettyConnect is way beyond my understanding. Some other changes I'd probably understand, but I certainly haven't understood the reasons behind them, and when questioned, they've declined to explain.
-
iStock may no longer the leader in the stock business, but I wish them to be back to leading ways again, to go head to head with Shutterstock.
If they become profitable again, the Contributors also earn, and everyone is happy and blessed. :)
I don't think I could trust them ever again... Not after what I experienced here. And it's not only me.
It is a mistake to trust any of them. We need to step up and hold ourselves accountable for protecting our assets! If we continue to give the micros rope to hang us, they will.
-
I just got an email with a summary of coming changes, including the closing down of the istock public forums. Instead there will be a new closed, contributor area.
The whole history of istock and the original community is in those forums. I wonder if they really plan to delete it all?
Will the waybackmachine preserve a copy of istocks history? Or does someone have a forum archive before it disappears?
http://app.e.gettyimages.com/e/es?s=2768&e=932750&elq=78960d9cac004b7e9c28abf09e705865 (http://app.e.gettyimages.com/e/es?s=2768&e=932750&elq=78960d9cac004b7e9c28abf09e705865)
-
I just got an email with a summary of coming changes, including the closing down of the istock public forums. Instead there will be a new closed, contributor area.
The whole history of istock and the original community is in those forums. I wonder if they really plan to delete it all?
Will the waybackmachine preserve a copy of istocks history? Or does someone have a forum archive before it disappears?
[url]http://app.e.gettyimages.com/e/es?s=2768&e=932750&elq=78960d9cac004b7e9c28abf09e705865[/url] ([url]http://app.e.gettyimages.com/e/es?s=2768&e=932750&elq=78960d9cac004b7e9c28abf09e705865[/url])
Weren't the forums always closed minded or was that just all the locked threads from Lobo. Closed to public contributor area a way to hide the truth from the public.
January 2011 rc added but pp and other don't count. Cannistser on sales totals ended.
Royalty rates will no longer be associated to your lifetime download totals, represented by the canister icons. Canisters will now be separate from royalty rates and continue to reflect total lifetime downloads (but they will no longer indicate royalty rates).
-
including the closing down of the istock public forums
That was #2 on my 2015 predictions :)
http://www.microstockgroup.com/24028/24028/msg402864/#msg402864 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/24028/24028/msg402864/#msg402864)
The whole history of istock and the original community is in those forums. I wonder if they really plan to delete it all?
This post from KelvinJ on Sept 13 2010 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&messageid=4697092) was my favourite ever. Goodness knows how it ever survived being posted. I guess Lobo found it as funny as everyone else did. I think he showed a good sense of humour leaving it up :)
You don't seem to be taking the hint. They've F'd us in the A, rolled over, farted and are reaching for their cigarettes. They don't want some cosy post coital chat. They're just hoping you will realise how embarrassing the whole situation is, take the couple of dollars they've left on the bedside table, get dressed and do the walk of shame.
The whole history of istock and the original community is in those forums. I wonder if they really plan to delete it all?
I never liked the forum back in in the days of woo-yay. It reached its worst around the time of F5 IMO. They spent far too much time listening to the contributors and far too little time actually getting stuff fixed. And they were running a very weak team. The idea that it was a community always seemed very bogus to me.
-
This post from KelvinJ on Sept 13 2010 ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=253522&messageid=4697092[/url]) was my favourite ever. Goodness knows how it ever survived being posted. I guess Lobo found it as funny as everyone else did. I think he showed a good sense of humour leaving it up :)
You don't seem to be taking the hint. They've F'd us in the A, rolled over, farted and are reaching for their cigarettes. They don't want some cosy post coital chat. They're just hoping you will realise how embarrassing the whole situation is, take the couple of dollars they've left on the bedside table, get dressed and do the walk of shame.
They found another way of shutting him up ;)
-
Just when you thought it was safe to stop throwing up in your mouth, KelvinJ posts this about an hour ago:
I only joined in 2005, but it's hard to explain just what a profound and positive influence this place has been on my life and work over the last 10 years. The people I've met and the places I've been have been amazing. I can't wait to see what the future holds for all of us. Happy 15th Birthday iStock!
-
You don't seem to be taking the hint. They've F'd us in the A, rolled over, farted and are reaching for their cigarettes. They don't want some cosy post coital chat. They're just hoping you will realise how embarrassing the whole situation is, take the couple of dollars they've left on the bedside table, get dressed and do the walk of shame.
I only joined in 2005, but it's hard to explain just what a profound and positive influence this place has been on my life and work over the last 10 years. The people I've met and the places I've been have been amazing. I can't wait to see what the future holds for all of us. Happy 15th Birthday iStock!
What happened there ?? :o
-
You don't seem to be taking the hint. They've F'd us in the A, rolled over, farted and are reaching for their cigarettes. They don't want some cosy post coital chat. They're just hoping you will realise how embarrassing the whole situation is, take the couple of dollars they've left on the bedside table, get dressed and do the walk of shame.
I only joined in 2005, but it's hard to explain just what a profound and positive influence this place has been on my life and work over the last 10 years. The people I've met and the places I've been have been amazing. I can't wait to see what the future holds for all of us. Happy 15th Birthday iStock!
What happened there ?? :o
"They found another way of shutting him up"
-
You don't seem to be taking the hint. They've F'd us in the A, rolled over, farted and are reaching for their cigarettes. They don't want some cosy post coital chat. They're just hoping you will realise how embarrassing the whole situation is, take the couple of dollars they've left on the bedside table, get dressed and do the walk of shame.
I only joined in 2005, but it's hard to explain just what a profound and positive influence this place has been on my life and work over the last 10 years. The people I've met and the places I've been have been amazing. I can't wait to see what the future holds for all of us. Happy 15th Birthday iStock!
What happened there ?? :o
I think it's obvious he's just feeling the love. Aren't you?
-
I left IS long ago, just before the famous claw back
-
Alas, let's not forget this one hit wonder: http://www.istockphoto.com/profile/rrockafellar?id=592029
-
Alas, let's not forget this one hit wonder: [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/profile/rrockafellar?id=592029[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/profile/rrockafellar?id=592029[/url])
I think she meant well. I think she is one of the people that figured she could change it up, but got called back by the board. I remember she quit IS and went on a sabbatical.
-
Does anyone have a link to the video, or is it a private exclusive video for exclusives' eyes only?
-
Does anyone have a link to the video, or is it a private exclusive video for exclusives' eyes only?
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=366573&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=366573&page=1)
-
Does anyone have a link to the video, or is it a private exclusive video for exclusives' eyes only?
Someone put it here for public consumption on YouTube: http://youtu.be/R12s2Acv_IQ
I posted this link in this thread once already. Guess it wasn't so obvious the first time.
-
If iStock's exclusive content were really better than what's out there at other agencies, having exclusive content might matter. Unfortunately for them, they backed up the Getty dump truck and loaded the site with masses of bog standard images priced as if they were gems. Some of the Getty rubbish might sell OK if it were priced lower, but it completely undermined the appeal of exclusive content, IMO
Once upon a time things were different, and there are some talented iStock exclusives - real exclusives not the Getty factories - who got undermined by the private equity owners who I'm guessing directed this strategy of unloading anything and everything on iStock.
I know we've harped on the lemon and lime slices that are underexposed with a black border, but when you shove that high priced dreck in front of buyers as the reason they should shop with you versus the competition, you won't be taken seriously.
PRICED AS IF THEY WERE GEMS???? At about 2 dollars the sub download, any size?? I see that some people has internalized the fact that stock photos shouldn't cost more than the 0.30 that SS clients pay. Great. Well, not great: rather sad. Let's talk about Stockholm syndrome. Let's talk about slaves.
On the other hand, the point about exclusive content is the fact that it can't be found elsewhere. Period. There's a lot of great exclusive content, and also no-so-great exclusive content (the same applies for non-ex), but that's not the point. As an example: I know of an hotels searching page that have hotels that doesn't appear in almost all the others (booking, etc). I use the others often, but I never forget to look at the one that has what the others don't, and I've booked often there.
-
Omg, I had to stop after about a minute. 'Customers loved Vetta imagery, but it was out of their reach".
Tough! Suck it up! Boo hoo. Mercedes didn't price down because it was 'out of my reach'.
What a terribly scripted piece.
-
Alas, let's not forget this one hit wonder: [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/profile/rrockafellar?id=592029[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/profile/rrockafellar?id=592029[/url])
I think she meant well. I think she is one of the people that figured she could change it up, but got called back by the board. I remember she quit IS and went on a sabbatical.
She heard much more from the forum community than somebody wanted her to hear.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349591&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349591&page=1)
-
Does anyone have a link to the video, or is it a private exclusive video for exclusives' eyes only?
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=366573&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=366573&page=1[/url])
Thanks!
Does anyone have a link to the video, or is it a private exclusive video for exclusives' eyes only?
Someone put it here for public consumption on YouTube: [url]http://youtu.be/R12s2Acv_IQ[/url] ([url]http://youtu.be/R12s2Acv_IQ[/url])
I posted this link in this thread once already. Guess it wasn't so obvious the first time.
I must have missed it, but thank you too.
-
Re: That video...
At a complete loss for words IS/GI. As Sean noted above, horribly scripted. I could only make it to just a minute and a half. One would think that "the" provider of "the" best imagery and totally understanding creative people in general from contributors through the buyers you would have made this much much more interesting both in scripting and visuals - goodness knows your our assets could have been used to spice things up a bit.
Instead I felt like I was being held in high school detention in circa grade 10 science class getting a lecture in a monotonous monologue about the physics of boiling water.
FAIL
-
Omg, I had to stop after about a minute. 'Customers loved Vetta imagery, but it was out of their reach".
Tough! Suck it up! Boo hoo. Mercedes didn't price down because it was 'out of my reach'.
What a terribly scripted piece.
This is a perfect example of something that needs to be tested before being rolled out. Sometimes a lower price will result in so many more sales that you'll make more money. Sometimes a higher price results in fewer sales but still, at the end of the day, makes more money. Sometimes a higher price makes something seem more valuable and results in more sales AND more money. But I get the distinct impression iStock flies by the seat of their pants and test nothing. They just think lowering prices or any of the other things they've tried will mean more money, and go with it. And we've seen how well THAT works out.
-
Omg, I had to stop after about a minute. 'Customers loved Vetta imagery, but it was out of their reach".
Tough! Suck it up! Boo hoo. Mercedes didn't price down because it was 'out of my reach'.
What a terribly scripted piece.
This is a perfect example of something that needs to be tested before being rolled out. Sometimes a lower price will result in so many more sales that you'll make more money. Sometimes a higher price results in fewer sales but still, at the end of the day, makes more money. Sometimes a higher price makes something seem more valuable and results in more sales AND more money. But I get the distinct impression iStock flies by the seat of their pants and test nothing. They just think lowering prices or any of the other things they've tried will mean more money, and go with it. And we've seen how well THAT works out.
Totally agree, I think they just keep throwing the pasta to the teflon-coated wall.
Worse, they told us customers loved Vetta and Sig+ and urged us to max out our allocation of slots to the higher collections.
Then hardly any time later, they flattened all the layers into Exc and Indie, and put most files into cheap subs, losing (most of) us more and more money.
-
I have a lot of great memories of istock and am grateful for the old community, all the wonderful people I met and everything I learned there. Which is why I am so sad that they are not keeping up with the rest of the industry and have lost the trust of the contributor community.
Of course it is difficult to replace professionals like Rob Sylvan or rogermexico, but it is hard to believe that they are so far out, they can´t remember how to connect.
I hope they keep the old forums as an online archive somewhere and don´t begin the next 15 years by destroying their own history.
Fotolia and SS are doing a much better job at community building these days and it shows in their commercial success as well. These things go hand in hand. Understanding people goes all around, from customers to suppliers and the contributors are both.
I would love for istock to remain in the game, at least as one of the big three agencies. But of course adobe and SS have a lot more money to spend on everything, so it will be a difficult challenge even if they improve their systems.
We will live and work in a multi agency world for many years. And maybe for the artists it is safer this way. Exclusive images yes, but I will never go back to being exclusive with one place only. There are too many opportunities and now you can offer everything as long as you find the right agency to place it with.
-
I hope they keep the old forums as an online archive somewhere and don´t begin the next 15 years by destroying their own history.
Would there be a business case for that ? Surely it just contains out-of-date information + lots of spilled-milk ?
I think that there is always danger of romanticising the past. The f5/Vetta-club era iStock was, with hindsight, a low point which sowed the seeds of the decline. I miss the easy money from that time but I think that was mostly down to the economic boom and iStock at that time being so well known in the tech community which existed back in that era - it certainly wasn't down to the business being well run. iStock needed completely re-booting.
By comparison I think that during that same era Shutterstock were much more focused on strategy, work etc.
-
The business case is simple: wall street places hundreds of millions of dollars of valuation on companies with communities even if they have no profit. and real live online communities are not places with shiny happy people, instead they usually have long discussions and go back and forth forever.
starting from scratch means there is no history to look at, and thus no valuation to be placed on it. Even if less people are active now than before, the forums look huge with thousands of threads and hundreds of posts. Much bigger than most agencies out there.
It should also be easy to grow if they bring backt thetraffic they moved to Facebook. Why would you encourage the valuation of Facebook to grow instead of your own site? i don't mean closing the groups just redirecting traffic to the forums to help improve the value of the site.
Anyway, it is up to them, but the valutation factor should be a simple one. All they have to do is keep an archive around somewhere to show off their 15 year history of online community.
-
The business case is simple: wall street places hundreds of millions of dollars of valuation on companies with communities even if they have no profit.
A forum archive is not going to be a measure of active participation in this context.
-
That just depends how visible the Archive is alongside any new forums. You just Need a sensible Visual Integration.
Their Money people should be able to come up with a presentation that makes the archive useful as a resource for newbies and visually attractive for the "story" of istock.
If they want the valutation and the money, they can make it look nice. even keeping them online and visible as is, would bring more value then deleting their whole online history.
Nothing wrong with building a new community centre. but I don't see why they need to lose valutation while doing it.
-
Their Money people should be able to come up with a presentation that makes the archive useful as a resource for newbies and visually attractive for the "story" of istock.
Oh, I'm sure they could hire someone to write a highly edited and homogenised 'story' of iStock if they wanted to.
I'm sure they don't want a 'warts and all' history.
-
I have been exclusive for 7 years and didn't even get the email.
-
If they want the valutation and the money, they can make it look nice. even keeping them online and visible as is, would bring more value then deleting their whole online history.
Nothing wrong with building a new community centre. but I don't see why they need to lose valutation while doing it.
No value would be lost by them dumping a load of cliquey old forum posts. Nobody is buying old forum posts.
-
There are many companies online that don't sell anything but are valued at millions of dollars. All they have is people posting and discussing issues,nothing else.
I wouldn't be surprised, if they ignore the value of their own history and again hand over the advantage to fotolia and shutterstock. shutterstock is aggressively building their community, trying to be more public. it will be good for them if istock starts fresh and keeps everything closed and invisible.
but who knows, maybe they are working on an intelligent integration of their history. We will see what comes in may.
-
There are many companies online that don't sell anything but are valued at millions of dollars. All they have is people posting and discussing issues,nothing else.
Yes. But you need to understand some of the reasons why those companies achieve the values which they do. It certainly isn't based on the same relatively few people and their legacy forum posts. iStock is not that sort of business.
iStock's legacy forum is never going to be an analytical measure of the value of the company. For example, unlike the few companies you might be thinking of, iStock is not about the forum. The forum is not what defines iStock. The forum is not the thing.
A very few people have ever contributed to the forum. iStock is not a communications medium or a community forum which millions of people belong to.
-
I hope they keep the old forums as an online archive somewhere and don´t begin the next 15 years by destroying their own history.
Fotolia and SS are doing a much better job at community building these days and it shows in their commercial success as well. These things go hand in hand. Understanding people goes all around, from customers to suppliers and the contributors are both.
I would say the majority of the microstock community has become immune to Microstock Kool-Aid. The sites do appreciate wooo yay comments, which facilitate attracting new contributors to the table.
However wooo yay's are few are far between on any of the site forums these days and forums are losing their luster in regard to owners.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-2OKCOZ4BmNA/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/XUaS0wxo3ZE/photo.jpg)
-
I think everyone is reading the Getty message wrongly. The point is they don't want community anymore. Never did in fact. Those were left over warm fuzzy Brucie remnants. They were never Getty's thang. They were just slow to start tearing down the walls.
They have been dismantling it bit by bit, piece by piece for the last few years though. Haven't we all noticed?
No more about/blog pages on profiles, no more light box linking, no more iStock contributor friend following, no more descriptions, etc.
I think it's clear what they want. No visible human element to the buyer experience. No more old rants that buyers can pick through in forums posts dating back through 15 years. They want to shove all their sorry, dirty laundry under the bed and out of sight now for good.
What they want to be selling simply is the notion that a picture is worth a thousand words and that's it. See it, you like it, buy it, goodbye, but come back when you want another picture please.
Forums? Of course they don't want those or to preserve 15 years of contributor chatter history. Meaningless to someone who wants to buy a photo, no? And I'm not saying it's good or bad, but that's just how it is and will be.
Frankly, I can live without all of it though and I do. I never post anything on the iStock forums and hardly read them. It's as censored and full of fake high fives as reading a North Korean propaganda newspaper anyway.
So just show me the money Getty. That's all I want. But you can't even do that anymore.
-
What they want to be selling simply is the notion that a picture is worth a thousand words
Certainly, they don't want an image that takes more than ten words to explain, and even the ten had better be short, as the buyer might never realise the ellipsis is a link
So just show me the money Getty. That's all I want. But they can't even do that anymore.
Sad, but true.
-
It's as censored and full of fake high fives as reading a North Korean propaganda newspaper anyway.
I think that's a bit unfair to the People's Republic of North Korea....
-
Maybe it's a loss for some that the forum will be gone but let's put in a prayer that they will get rid of that ubermuppet Lobo in the process.
-
Nah, keep him. I just skip over his posts, so it's just 5-10% less posts I would have to read when going through a thread. Good, forgettable filler.
-
Nah, keep him. I just skip over his posts, so it's just 5-10% less posts I would have to read when going through a thread. Good, forgettable filler.
You seem not to be the only one. Several people post here questions he has already answered over there. Whether true/accurate or not, that's what he's been told to post, so is as much as an 'official' line as we're going to get.
-
Maybe it's a loss for some that the forum will be gone but let's put in a prayer that they will get rid of that ubermuppet Lobo in the process.
I personally have never understood why they keep him. Even when he is attempting to be helpful he is still a snark. As far as I am concerned he does more damage than good.
-
Maybe it's a loss for some that the forum will be gone but let's put in a prayer that they will get rid of that ubermuppet Lobo in the process.
I personally have never understood why they keep him. Even when he is attempting to be helpful he is still a snark. As far as I am concerned he does more damage than good.
I totally agree. I never understood his attitude and the whole unappealing "hammer-time" de moniker he exudes. Who needs it really? It's not cute or funny at all to me.
If iStock is going to have someone act as the face of iStock to interact with its thousands of contributors then you would think they would choose someone with the right interpersonal skills to be a positive representation of the company.
Well, I guess I need not wonder why iStock has hired the wrong guy for the job. Every corporate decision they have made since early 2012 has done nothing but damage the individual contributor on one level or another. So he just falls into a long line of bad corporate decision making. But hey, at least their consistent in their bad decisions because consistency seems to at least count for something.
I am glad I am not him though. It would bother me to know I am generally disliked by over 30,000 people. But I guess it pays the bills so...
-
Maybe it's a loss for some that the forum will be gone but let's put in a prayer that they will get rid of that ubermuppet Lobo in the process.
I personally have never understood why they keep him. Even when he is attempting to be helpful he is still a snark. As far as I am concerned he does more damage than good.
It is called Trickle-down management. The fact that management condones Lobo's actions and attitudes toward contributors tells you a great deal about the mindset of uppermanagment.
The contempt for contributors has been thick on many sites for years. The business actions they take or don't take, the bugs they do not fix etc etc tell you everything we need to know about who they are.
-
Maybe it's a loss for some that the forum will be gone but let's put in a prayer that they will get rid of that ubermuppet Lobo in the process.
I personally have never understood why they keep him. Even when he is attempting to be helpful he is still a snark. As far as I am concerned he does more damage than good.
It is called Trickle-down management. The fact that management condones Lobo's actions and attitudes toward contributors tells you a great deal about the mindset of uppermanagment.
The contempt for contributors has been thick on many sites for years. The business actions they take or don't take, the bugs they do not fix etc etc tell you everything we need to know about who they are.
True. I think all the contempt towards contributors stems from the fact that our assets and the royalties we make on our copyright is their liability and if they could actually stuff more in our corn holes they would.
-
I like the stats in the video. A lot of "sold X times more in the fourth quarter". Utterly meaningless dribble. Sold more than when, the third quarter, well duh, the fourth quarter is always far and away the strongest overall in stock. Or do they mean over last years fourth quarter? who . knows. Clearly this piece of propaganda is not meant to help contributors get a better handle on what's happening at IS is all I can gleam from it.
-
Maybe it's a loss for some that the forum will be gone but let's put in a prayer that they will get rid of that ubermuppet Lobo in the process.
I personally have never understood why they keep him. Even when he is attempting to be helpful he is still a snark. As far as I am concerned he does more damage than good.
It is called Trickle-down management. The fact that management condones Lobo's actions and attitudes toward contributors tells you a great deal about the mindset of uppermanagment.
The contempt for contributors has been thick on many sites for years. The business actions they take or don't take, the bugs they do not fix etc etc tell you everything we need to know about who they are.
Completely agree with this. I wanted to post a similar thought. Customer service is your business card. Its how your customers will see you as a company. The fact they let this Ogre run amok in the forum says everything about Getty as a company and the people managing it.
I have been contacted on 3 occasions by a recruiter if I wanted to work for Getty in Ireland as Dutch speaking sales executive. Seems they have some trouble filling that position (!). I declined three times as I simply cant work for them. It would have been hilarious though to be Lobo's colleague and send him a nice Whatsup? email ;D. And they pay they offered was simply a reflection of the greedy company they are.
-
I am glad I am not him though. It would bother me to know I am generally disliked by over 30,000 people.
That wouldn't bother me half as much as being forced to peddle the lies, half-truths, puffery, smoke and mirrors that he seems to get from TPTB to convey, often with "excitement", to the masses.
But I guess it pays the bills so...
-
Maybe it's a loss for some that the forum will be gone but let's put in a prayer that they will get rid of that ubermuppet Lobo in the process.
And kelvinjay as well.
-
The video only has 97 views so far, just shows that few people care about istock now. They have successfully alienated buyers and contributors and I don't see any way back from that. If the video contained the word "sorry" about 100 times, it might indicate that they understand what has happened to ruin their reputation over the past many years.
-
Most iStock contributors may not be aware of the YouTube link to the video.
Exclusive contributors were originally told to log into the Getty Images Contributor Community site to watch it in a secure area. Non exclusive contributors didn't have access to it.
Shortly after that, iStock decided to provide a public link to the video within the iStock public forum. That link is here and I believe where most iStock contributors went to watch it:
http://video.vzaar.com/vzaar/vz9/657/target/vz96577e3841f5425182340470bc14a455-http-streaming/vz96577e3841f5425182340470bc14a455.m3u8?response-content-disposition=inline&AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ74MFWNVAFH6P7FQ&Expires=1430147464&Signature=UQxb1jo4qXu1jM8is0SJnw6Lo8g%3D
Unfortunately the above link doesn't allow any place to leave comments on the video though.
-
istock have died , they (lobo, kelvinjay) are not allowed to talk about the real opinions sad