pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStock Content to Sell on Photos.com and JupiterUnlimited  (Read 64111 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: May 01, 2009, 18:14 »
0
I have a bunch of photos from Minilypses that I can "only" upload to iStock. (which is totally fair) So that means that these will be available through Photos.com and JI?

So whats the down side??

Oh... and I've got double the photos at StockXpert too.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2009, 18:16 by PenelopeB »


lisafx

« Reply #26 on: May 01, 2009, 18:29 »
0
I have a bunch of photos from Minilypses that I can "only" upload to iStock. (which is totally fair) So that means that these will be available through Photos.com and JI?

So whats the down side??

Well, so far it seems to be the commission structure.  20% of the actual sale price can go as low as .06 per image. 

The question now is whether they will leave the StockXpert commission structure alone or drop that down as well. 

WarrenPrice

« Reply #27 on: May 01, 2009, 18:35 »
0
Does this "gobbling up" not increase the importance of "startups?"


stacey_newman

« Reply #28 on: May 01, 2009, 18:40 »
0
Well, for me it doesn't really make any difference.  My images are already on JUI and Photos.com.  But as so many istock exclusives seem to be against subscriptions I can't imagine many of them are going to be happy about this.

And as pointed out above, this really does dilute the value of istock having an exclusive collection.  Add to that the fact that exclusives will only make 2.5% more than non-exclusives on these sales, regardless of cannister level, and it looks pretty discouraging.

One has to wonder if this is Getty's way of signaling that they are phasing out istock exclusivity altogether....



this is what I think also, but I don't always trust my gut when it comes to iStock. I am too emotional about it sometimes. for those of us on the fence about exclusivity, this certainly seems like a push to go non-exclusive. I have been hanging onto exclusivity believing that it would one day be required at iStock. now I think perhaps the opposite might be true.

this feels like a very big fish decision. from the top. I think the sale to Getty was the beginning of a prolonged end to iStock. it will eventually be absorbed IMHO. whether or not to be on the inside or the outside when/if that happens, that is the question.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2009, 18:42 by stacey_newman »

lisafx

« Reply #29 on: May 01, 2009, 19:21 »
0
Two questions I have about this.  I posted in the istock forums.  Hopefully someone knows the answer...

One thing that hasn't been pointed out is that often the non-selling images are similars from a series. Under Plan B, if those were to be available on Photos.com wouldn't it possibly undercut the better selling exclusive images here?


Also, since this will change the concept of "artist exclusivity" to more of an "image exclusivity" type agreement anyway, will image exclusivity on istock become an option for "non-exclusive" artists?

« Reply #30 on: May 01, 2009, 19:31 »
0
Well, for me it doesn't really make any difference.  My images are already on JUI and Photos.com.  But as so many istock exclusives seem to be against subscriptions I can't imagine many of them are going to be happy about this.

And as pointed out above, this really does dilute the value of istock having an exclusive collection.  Add to that the fact that exclusives will only make 2.5% more than non-exclusives on these sales, regardless of cannister level, and it looks pretty discouraging.

One has to wonder if this is Getty's way of signaling that they are phasing out istock exclusivity altogether....


this is what I think also, but I don't always trust my gut when it comes to iStock. I am too emotional about it sometimes. for those of us on the fence about exclusivity, this certainly seems like a push to go non-exclusive. I have been hanging onto exclusivity believing that it would one day be required at iStock. now I think perhaps the opposite might be true.

this feels like a very big fish decision. from the top. I think the sale to Getty was the beginning of a prolonged end to iStock. it will eventually be absorbed IMHO. whether or not to be on the inside or the outside when/if that happens, that is the question.

I think they are just looking for other ways to market Istock images, Just like the Getty collections. Exclusivity is the one thing they have that no else does, why would they give that up? Why the search upgrade, why collections, why audio? Doesn't look like a shop that wants to close its doors. I could also see the collections as easy cross platform for some of the struggling RF macro guys who might like to get into micro but not at low pricing. Look what just happened with pump audio. Just a thought  :)


« Reply #31 on: May 01, 2009, 19:32 »
0
this is what I think also, but I don't always trust my gut when it comes to iStock. I am too emotional about it sometimes. for those of us on the fence about exclusivity, this certainly seems like a push to go non-exclusive. I have been hanging onto exclusivity believing that it would one day be required at iStock. now I think perhaps the opposite might be true.

this feels like a very big fish decision. from the top. I think the sale to Getty was the beginning of a prolonged end to iStock. it will eventually be absorbed IMHO. whether or not to be on the inside or the outside when/if that happens, that is the question.

My thoughts exactly. Even if I opt out, other people opting in totally devalues the concept of exclusivity. I'll give it a chance to pan out first but it's certainly making me rethink exclusivity.

Exclusive artists being able to put totally separate files at getty makes sense and in a similar I would 100% back non-sellers at istock being moved to photos.com. What I object to is exclusive content being shared with sites selling it at a lower price. Makes exclusivity almost worthless!

« Reply #32 on: May 01, 2009, 19:36 »
0
I think they are just looking for other ways to market Istock images, Just like the Getty collections.

Difference there is the content is kept separate. Anything uploaded to istock by an exclusive can only be found at istock even though they may have totally separate files at Getty.

Now content is being shared elsewhere for a much lower price and a much worse deal for contributors.

stacey_newman

« Reply #33 on: May 01, 2009, 19:56 »
0
yes Craig, exactly. and the problem is that exclusivity demands so much of a photographer and if the returns are diminishing, then there is a huge problem.

one issue that I wish could just be talked about on iStock forums without being shut down, is their method of making these announcements. they get people so wound up by releasing such little info. as an exclusive, I would have simply appreciated a mailing to just exclusives telling me how this is going to affect me, with a clear business model demonstrating the projected affect on exclusive sales.


« Reply #34 on: May 01, 2009, 20:01 »
0
yes Craig, exactly. and the problem is that exclusivity demands so much of a photographer and if the returns are diminishing, then there is a huge problem.

one issue that I wish could just be talked about on iStock forums without being shut down, is their method of making these announcements. they get people so wound up by releasing such little info. as an exclusive, I would have simply appreciated a mailing to just exclusives telling me how this is going to affect me, with a clear business model demonstrating the projected affect on exclusive sales.

I did have my fingers crossed after the premiere collection e-mail that things were going that way but it looks like it was just a one off!

stacey_newman

« Reply #35 on: May 01, 2009, 20:44 »
0
rollercoaster....sigh. anyways, I don't want to be the whiner in the IS forum again, so for now I'm just going to let everyone else fight it out and once the dust settles, guess we'll see what happens.

« Reply #36 on: May 01, 2009, 20:58 »
0
I'm not exclusive, but I am getting a kick out of how IS is going about this...calling it an "opportunity" - which it could be considered for non-exclusives (although I will be opting out myself), but hey at least the non-exclusives aren't taking a royalty cut of nearly 50%.

Here's your opportunity Exclusives - its a doozy:

The opportunity to sell your 'exclusive' files on sites that Getty chooses and no where else making them no longer truely exclusive to IS.

The opportunity to devalue 'exclusivity'

The opportunity to sell subs that could actually provide you $0.06 or more of royalty

The opportunity to take a royalty cut of nearly 50% (22.5% vs 40% or so)


<insert sarcasm> Wow - it's overwhelming what a generous opportunity IS is providing <end sarcasm>

I hope no one opts into this deal...it stinks, but it's not surprising when even the admin's mentality is that 22.5% of something is better than 100% of nothing (the fact that the 22.5% is close to nothing does not seem to faze them...)  Maybe the $0.01 photos are their next plan..because heck, $0.01 is better than $0.00! Right?

stacey_newman

« Reply #37 on: May 01, 2009, 22:56 »
0
I deleted my post...I'm going to hold off on this one. too worried right now to be objective. everytime I think I have a firm footing in this industry, iStock makes another big announcement. arg, but wait and see I guess. that's like my IS mantra now. wait and see wait and see wait and see......there has to be some good reason they did this!? right?
« Last Edit: May 01, 2009, 23:25 by stacey_newman »

« Reply #38 on: May 01, 2009, 23:59 »
0
If its just non-sellers being added to jup/photos.com I wouldn't think it would have much of an affect either way. There are plenty of "good selling files" available there. As far as it taking away costumers from istock ,I doubt that as well and if it did, why on earth would they want to do that. Buyers don't always flock to the cheapest site, if they did Istock would be taking a backseat to many many sites.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2009, 00:02 by cdwheatley »

stacey_newman

« Reply #39 on: May 02, 2009, 00:22 »
0
with the new model, exclusive no longer means exclusive to iStock. and often no sellers are in series with great sellers. as a buyer, why pay IS prices for a file, when its almost identical sibling is for sale for next to nothing on photos.com?

I think they are counting on a whole lot of buyer love at IS right now. buyers aren't loyal, they're frugal.

but if I am the devil's advocate, this is just a fancied up dollar bin and new opportunity for sales. so, I will probably opt in and give it a spin. but it is from a very guarded perspective that I am opting in some files.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2009, 00:24 by stacey_newman »

« Reply #40 on: May 02, 2009, 00:28 »
0
I do not feel any sympathy for exclusives...

« Reply #41 on: May 02, 2009, 01:12 »
0
with the new model, exclusive no longer means exclusive to iStock. and often no sellers are in series with great sellers. as a buyer, why pay IS prices for a file, when its almost identical sibling is for sale for next to nothing on photos.com?

I think they are counting on a whole lot of buyer love at IS right now. buyers aren't loyal, they're frugal.

but if I am the devil's advocate, this is just a fancied up dollar bin and new opportunity for sales. so, I will probably opt in and give it a spin. but it is from a very guarded perspective that I am opting in some files.

If that were the case all of us non-exclusives would have very few sales on Istock. The problem is, who has the time to burn looking for that exact similar image on photos.com? There are similar on every site, why not just go to Fotolia, 123, bigstock, SS, Dreamstime, etc... If I were exclusive I would have no problem with them taking out my garbage and selling it elsewhere at a cheaper price as long as its not the "bread winners". I will also add, your going to need a pretty substantial size port of non-sellers to amount to anything more than 10-20 subs a day over at jup/photos.com.  :)

« Reply #42 on: May 02, 2009, 01:54 »
0
I wonder if this will force shutterstock to introduce exclusive image content?  It looks like they have already lost customers to the other subs sites and they will probably lose more if photos.com gets istock exclusive images and has a larger collection for the buyers.

« Reply #43 on: May 02, 2009, 02:04 »
0
Probably most exclusives won't opt in, there is not much to win anyway, with the amount of sales one has at JIU and Photos.com.

« Reply #44 on: May 02, 2009, 03:27 »
0
I just looked into my crystal ball and and I received an e-mail from the future  We regret to inform you that we cannot accept your submission into the Istock collection BUT you better say WooYay Istock you're amazing because against our better judgement we will slog your crappy photo at our other dirty little distribution network, if you are lucky we might even throw you a few bones at the end of the month when we tally up our receipts.

« Reply #45 on: May 02, 2009, 04:09 »
0
You know what's really annoying? The fact that admins keep dropping into the thread to talk about relatively irrelevant things like why the announcement was made on a Friday but won't answer any important questions like how exclusivity stands even if you opt out when some exclusive artists will have their entire portfolios on sale for less elsewhere, why do Getty now deserve a 77.5% cut for any reason other than pure greed and whether vectors will be included.

I'm finding it incredibly difficult not to click on the cancel exclusivity button at the minute! This just feels like the decision has been made to benefit the Getty group as a whole at the detriment of istock which makes it a pretty lame time to be exclusive!

« Reply #46 on: May 02, 2009, 04:36 »
0
I find the decision of iStock to sell its content on photos.com and JU very strange. Why risk the reputation of IS with something that can only be perceived as lowering the value of its exclusive contents?

As a non-exclusive I will definitely opt out of this deal. I am contributing to StockXpert and my images are already on photos.com and JU. The big difference is that I have downsized my images for sites that offer subscriptions, while IS have my highest resolution images. I will definitely not allow my high res images on $0.30 subscription sites.

If Getty would like to utilize the potential of the newly acquired photos.com and JU, why not develop StockXpert further for this exact purpose. Open StockXpert (and thus photos.com and JU) to IS exclusive photographers, but keep it separate from IS. I don't know how they are going to avoid duplicates from IS and StockXpert. I also don't know how they are going to incorporate the unconventional keywording of IS with the more conventional keywording of photos.com and JU.

   

« Reply #47 on: May 02, 2009, 05:42 »
0
I've written many times in these forums supporting istock decisions. The reason was that I felt these decisions were right. I can't support this one.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2009, 05:46 by loop »

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #48 on: May 02, 2009, 05:49 »
0
Anybody else notice the fact that it's only been a handful of months since Bruce left and suddenly there are a flood of changes? Cooincidence?

« Reply #49 on: May 02, 2009, 07:12 »
0
What about IS keywords on Photos.com and JUI? The system on IS is different than he system on Photos.com. Do you think this will affect search?

My images that are already at Photos.com have different keywords than the same images here. Which inages will be easier to find on Photos.com?
« Last Edit: May 02, 2009, 07:15 by Whitechild »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
14 Replies
4304 Views
Last post September 16, 2009, 16:03
by Sean Locke Photography
258 Replies
40568 Views
Last post June 15, 2011, 07:17
by bunhill
12 Replies
5602 Views
Last post November 16, 2014, 12:21
by etudiante_rapide
14 Replies
11117 Views
Last post March 23, 2016, 10:06
by Lukeruk
3 Replies
1606 Views
Last post May 28, 2015, 20:22
by WeatherENG

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results