pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStock | 15 Year Anniversary  (Read 39178 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #50 on: April 22, 2015, 19:03 »
+2
Quote

Its 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


« Reply #51 on: April 22, 2015, 19:40 »
+15
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.

« Reply #52 on: April 22, 2015, 22:41 »
+11
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.

« Reply #53 on: April 23, 2015, 00:17 »
+8
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.


B8

« Reply #54 on: April 23, 2015, 02:48 »
+3
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
 
 

Semmick Photo

« Reply #55 on: April 23, 2015, 03:06 »
+3
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

« Reply #56 on: April 23, 2015, 06:38 »
0
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
« Last Edit: April 23, 2015, 07:04 by iFlop »

B8

« Reply #57 on: April 23, 2015, 06:49 »
0

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #58 on: April 23, 2015, 06:50 »
+2
They need a tourniquet, so they apply a band-aid.

« Reply #59 on: April 23, 2015, 07:36 »
+4
Quote
Its 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.

Quote
an appetite for disruption, and an irreverent affinity for change.

Again, very true.

Quote
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!

Quote
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.

Quote
and has made iStock by Getty Images the leader in the market.

Shutterstock would like his quote back.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2015, 07:41 by Noedelhap »

« Reply #60 on: April 23, 2015, 08:01 »
+6
Quote
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?

« Reply #61 on: April 23, 2015, 08:08 »
0
Quote
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. 

« Reply #62 on: April 23, 2015, 08:15 »
+3
Quote
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.

« Reply #63 on: April 23, 2015, 08:49 »
+9
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.

« Reply #64 on: April 23, 2015, 09:32 »
-1
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.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2015, 09:34 by tickstock »

KB

« Reply #65 on: April 23, 2015, 09:49 »
+5
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.)

« Reply #66 on: April 23, 2015, 10:50 »
-1
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.

« Reply #67 on: April 23, 2015, 11:01 »
+2
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

It is a mistake to underestimate the impact of the new contributor bump in terms of sales.

« Reply #68 on: April 23, 2015, 11:12 »
+4
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.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2015, 14:11 by gbalex »

« Reply #69 on: April 23, 2015, 12:27 »
+2
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

« Reply #70 on: April 23, 2015, 12:44 »
+1
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?

« Reply #71 on: April 23, 2015, 12:45 »
+2
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.

« Reply #72 on: April 23, 2015, 12:57 »
+3
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?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #73 on: April 23, 2015, 13:22 »
+7
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.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2015, 16:02 by ShadySue »

« Reply #74 on: April 23, 2015, 15:57 »
+1
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.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
30 Replies
24805 Views
Last post April 03, 2008, 03:12
by Freezingpictures
3 Replies
14310 Views
Last post August 18, 2009, 22:00
by Jonathan Ross
276 Replies
68626 Views
Last post January 09, 2010, 10:19
by Beach Bum
28 Replies
15855 Views
Last post June 15, 2011, 15:30
by pancaketom
2 Replies
3028 Views
Last post April 17, 2012, 15:41
by RacePhoto

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors