Author Topic: iStock in the New Year (Read 69182 times)

sharpshot · « **Reply #125 on:** December 10, 2009, 17:16 »

The great thing about being non-exclusive is that no individual site has a huge impact on my earnings. I have experienced big swings with istock before and I just concentrate more on the other sites when my sales are poor. None of us really know how these changes will impact us, I will wait and see but if they reduce my earnings too far, I wont waste my time uploading new images.

Fran · « **Reply #126 on:** December 10, 2009, 17:36 »

Quote from: leaf on December 10, 2009, 13:34

dont give up the street lamps. I hear they are going to be huge in 2010
I know I have a few I am hopping will finally pay off.

I won't promise. After all I love to shoot what I dont have to talk to

gostwyck · « **Reply #127 on:** December 10, 2009, 17:38 »

Quote from: averil on December 10, 2009, 17:10

October '08 I think it was that istock decided to encourage contributors who were 'sitting on the fence' (rogermexico's term I think) about exclusivity by favouring best match even more towards exclusives than usual. istock dropped to number 5 position on that poll over on the right, independents got totally hammered, and exclusives still remember those heady days when the dls never stopped. I think that's what's about to happen again.

If your sales plummet at Istock then surely it is going to make you less likely to go exclusive isn't it? You can only project future revenues based on historical earnings and that's difficult enough to assess reliably without assuming some unquantifiable best match 'boost factor' that you may or may not gain as an exclusive.

The huge swings of fortune that Istock created in the past with their crass modifications to the best match is probably the biggest factor in my remaining independent. I can cope with the seasonal swings to my income but I'm extremely reluctant to lay it all on the line whilst some unknown developer meddles and experiments with unknown outcomes.

lisafx · « **Reply #128 on:** December 10, 2009, 17:52 »

Quote from: jsnover on December 09, 2009, 15:22

Given the upending of long standing terms of the exclusivity deal with virtually no notice, you'd have to be really happy with high risk to go for exclusivity right now.

Quote from: epantha on December 09, 2009, 15:32

I wouldn't feel comfortable going exclusive with IS. They are one of the most volatile sites. How could you trust them?

I am a couple pages back trying to catch up with this thread, but Epantha and JSnover sum up my feelings on this exactly.

FD · « **Reply #129 on:** December 10, 2009, 17:55 »

Quote from: Fran on December 10, 2009, 12:54

I abandoned street lamps a year ago and am using myself as model... we'll see how it goes

I like your girls better.

lisafx · « **Reply #130 on:** December 10, 2009, 18:09 »

Quote from: KB on December 10, 2009, 11:30

They stated they knew they "had" to do this, but have been delaying it. Well, that's their huge mistake. What they needed to have done was, when they first figured out they had to do it, to do it , for new accounts. So anyone signing up after Mar 1, 2007, or whatever, would've been subjected to the new rules, and everyone already signed up would be grandfathered in.

This is so EXACTLY what Fotolia did that it seems obvious IS realized this "had" to be done when Fotolia did this (Nov. 2008) and got away with it.

lisafx · « **Reply #131 on:** December 10, 2009, 18:21 »

Quote from: averil on December 10, 2009, 17:10

October '08 I think it was that istock decided to encourage contributors who were 'sitting on the fence' (rogermexico's term I think) about exclusivity by favouring best match even more towards exclusives than usual. istock dropped to number 5 position on that poll over on the right, independents got totally hammered, and exclusives still remember those heady days when the dls never stopped. I think that's what's about to happen again.

I think Avril is right about this. My sales the last several days would seem to indicate the tap for non-exclusives has already been turned WAY down.

I do think Gostwyck is right, though, that this will backfire as a motivator to get independents to go exclusive. The lower my sales at IS, the less likely I would ever be to consider exclusivity. In fact the gutting of my sales in last year's best match was when I finally stopped torturing myself with the question of whether or not to go exclusive.

epantha · « **Reply #132 on:** December 10, 2009, 18:26 »

Quote

I think Avril is right about this. My sales the last several days would seem to indicate the tap for non-exclusives has already been turned WAY down.

Yep, I also noticed a significant drop in sales starting on Monday of this week. I hate it when they make these radical changes and expect us to just say nothing about it and the last thing I'd do is drop all my other sites and put all my work with IS. Just not sensible or practical.

madelaide · « **Reply #133 on:** December 10, 2009, 18:29 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 10, 2009, 16:28

Did you read it 2 seconds after the initial post? Cause it is anything but "well done" and "yiipie".

I read the first page. The first page has basically support for the changes - including "wows" and "well dones", a few mild complaints about the cannister level changes. Complaints when FT changed were far more incisive.

travelstock · « **Reply #134 on:** December 10, 2009, 18:34 »

I don't think this is really about exclusives vs non- exclusives. The more I look about it, the more I think its about increasing Istock (Getty's) margins in time for a sale.

Basically the increase in price of exclusives' images is to offset the cut in canister levels and try to keep them happy, while hiding the fact that they've actually increased prices massively for buyers. IS will be winning through higher file prices, and from lower royalty payments - exactly the way FT did.

Overall I think the move is bad for buyers and bad for contributors - exclusive and non-exclusive alike.

Eyedesign · « **Reply #135 on:** December 10, 2009, 18:39 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 10, 2009, 18:21

Quote from: averil on December 10, 2009, 17:10
October '08 I think it was that istock decided to encourage contributors who were 'sitting on the fence' (rogermexico's term I think) about exclusivity by favouring best match even more towards exclusives than usual. istock dropped to number 5 position on that poll over on the right, independents got totally hammered, and exclusives still remember those heady days when the dls never stopped. I think that's what's about to happen again.

I think Avril is right about this. My sales the last several days would seem to indicate the tap for non-exclusives has already been turned WAY down.

I do think Gostwyck is right, though, that this will backfire as a motivator to get independents to go exclusive. The lower my sales at IS, the less likely I would ever be to consider exclusivity. In fact the gutting of my sales in last year's best match was when I finally stopped torturing myself with the question of whether or not to go exclusive.

Stop it Lisa! You know we're coming to the end of the Christmas rush.

Eyedesign · « **Reply #136 on:** December 10, 2009, 18:45 »

Quote from: madelaide on December 10, 2009, 18:29

Quote from: sjlocke on December 10, 2009, 16:28
Did you read it 2 seconds after the initial post? Cause it is anything but "well done" and "yiipie".
I read the first page. The first page has basically support for the changes - including "wows" and "well dones", a few mild complaints about the cannister level changes. Complaints when FT changed were far more incisive.

Looks to me like it started to blowup around post 11, guess you didn't read that far down.

KB · « **Reply #137 on:** December 10, 2009, 18:49 »

Quote from: epantha on December 10, 2009, 18:26

Quote
I think Avril is right about this. My sales the last several days would seem to indicate the tap for non-exclusives has already been turned WAY down.

Yep, I also noticed a significant drop in sales starting on Monday of this week. I hate it when they make these radical changes and expect us to just say nothing about it and the last thing I'd do is drop all my other sites and put all my work with IS. Just not sensible or practical.

I've been having a very good week so far, so I'm not sure there's any conclusion we can draw. Probably just the normal ebb & flow.

sharpshot · « **Reply #138 on:** December 10, 2009, 19:19 »

Quote from: KB on December 10, 2009, 18:49

Quote from: epantha on December 10, 2009, 18:26
Quote
I think Avril is right about this. My sales the last several days would seem to indicate the tap for non-exclusives has already been turned WAY down.

Yep, I also noticed a significant drop in sales starting on Monday of this week. I hate it when they make these radical changes and expect us to just say nothing about it and the last thing I'd do is drop all my other sites and put all my work with IS. Just not sensible or practical.
I've been having a very good week so far, so I'm not sure there's any conclusion we can draw. Probably just the normal ebb & flow.

Same here, not noticed anything bad happening yet. I had a bit of a slow down this time last year on the run up to Christmas.

FD · « **Reply #139 on:** December 10, 2009, 19:49 »

Quote from: epantha on December 10, 2009, 18:26

Yep, I also noticed a significant drop in sales starting on Monday of this week.

Well this might be ebb and flow. I had an unusual good week at IS, when IS normally is far behind DT and especially IS. At the moment, my December $ count for IS is the same as DT, also because DT went dead for me the last 3 days. As I assumed, the best match changes that should favor exclusives at IS were announced, but not implemented yet. So maybe it's just the time of year.

dgilder · « **Reply #140 on:** December 10, 2009, 19:56 »

Mine are off 50% from last week and the previous months have been pretty steady. So lets see, three long term independent contributors are seeing significant drops, and two relatively low volume/newer contributors are seeing much improvement. I'd say that is pretty suggestive that something has been changed to encourage the newer independents to hop on the exclusivity bandwagon. Look how great IS is doing for you now! Pie. F5.

FD · « **Reply #141 on:** December 10, 2009, 20:02 »

Quote from: dgilder on December 10, 2009, 19:56

So lets see, three long term independent contributors are seeing significant drops, and two relatively low volume/newer contributors are seeing much improvement.

I'm low volume, but not new. I'm on iStock since 2005, although I neglected them after the CV mid-2006. As far as I know, only SS favors new contributors.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #142 on:** December 10, 2009, 20:07 »

Quote from: FD-amateur on December 10, 2009, 19:49

Quote from: epantha on December 10, 2009, 18:26
Yep, I also noticed a significant drop in sales starting on Monday of this week.

Well this might be ebb and flow. I had an unusual good week at IS, when IS normally is far behind DT and especially IS. At the moment, my December $ count for IS is the same as DT, also because DT went dead for me the last 3 days. As I assumed, the best match changes that should favor exclusives at IS were announced, but not implemented yet. So maybe it's just the time of year.

Not sure that adding one more annecdote makes data, but I haven't seen any huge spike in sales in the last week or two. It's been an exceedingly good November and December, but it's continuing to be great at the same level - no noticeable change in the last few days.

Freedom · « **Reply #143 on:** December 10, 2009, 20:13 »

The more I read it, the more I realize one thing: IS has to reduce the percentage from the exclusives in order to make more profit. For the independents, it doesn't matter if you are base or black diamond, you make the same amount. Yes independents can upload a few more as the level goes up, but the more they sell as independents, the bigger IS profit margin will become.

However, it willl not be a smart strategy for IS to admit this. Besides it wants to create the myth that the exclusive contents make IS very unique. The exclusives have few options because what can you do? Even if you dump your clown, you won't be able to boost your ports with other agencies in a short time to compensate the loss of the clown.

hiddenstock · « **Reply #144 on:** December 10, 2009, 20:15 »

iStock get a minimum of 60% gross profit and say it is unsustainable, what a joke. The worse thing is there is nothing contributors can do without hurting themselves more than iStock.

bittersweet · « **Reply #145 on:** December 10, 2009, 20:40 »

Quote from: Eyedesign on December 10, 2009, 18:45

Quote from: madelaide on December 10, 2009, 18:29
Quote from: sjlocke on December 10, 2009, 16:28
Did you read it 2 seconds after the initial post? Cause it is anything but "well done" and "yiipie".
I read the first page. The first page has basically support for the changes - including "wows" and "well dones", a few mild complaints about the cannister level changes. Complaints when FT changed were far more incisive.

Looks to me like it started to blowup around post 11, guess you didn't read that far down.

Yeah, the thread is well over 70 pages long now. I'd say you should read a little more before declaring it a woo yay thread. It's far from that.

pancaketom · « **Reply #146 on:** December 10, 2009, 21:30 »

If the buyers can't sort between the regular collection and the exclusive collection, then they are going to be seeing a mix of prices on the images, which I would think they would find very annoying, and if they can sort some way or even tell which is which without zooming, then it could greatly pump up independent sales. Maybe some of them will realize that the cheaper images are available even cheaper elsewhere... Somehow I doubt most IS buyers are that price concious though.

I fear they will tweak the best match even more against independents though, and my slow sales will crawl to a virtual standstill. I can't see how all this monkeying would make me want to become exclusive though, they are just showing how they are fickle and don't respect the contributors. What next, automatic opt in of all content to Jupiter Unlimited with 10c/ download payout?

Hopefully the price increases will trickle across to all the sites and overall income will go up.

I suppose we shall see what happens, but I get the impression that short term gains are what IS is looking for now.

lisafx · « **Reply #147 on:** December 10, 2009, 21:42 »

Quote from: pancaketom on December 10, 2009, 21:30

I suppose we shall see what happens, but I get the impression that short term gains are what IS is looking for now.

Short term gains. You may have hit the nail on the head there. I read some speculation in that monster thread that this could be Getty's effort to increase short term profits in preparation for a sale. Could just be another conspiracy theory, but it does sound plausible...

helix7 · « **Reply #148 on:** December 10, 2009, 23:47 »

To me this seems more and more like a big push in a campaign that istock has quietly pursued for years. They've always said that they want more exclusive content. They dropped the minimum threshold for exclusivity to get more people on board early on. They push exclusive images in the search results (and will even more now under this new plan). They shook up the best match last year to even more heavily favor exclusive images and the non-exclusive sales tanked. In a perfect istock world, they would only have exclusive artists.

The message to independents seems to be "Go exclusive or we'll keep murdering your sales." The problem is that the more they slam my sales, the less I'm inclined to even look at exclusivity. A couple of years ago, I gave it serious thought. Before the best match shake, I gave it some moderate consideration. After the shake, I dropped the idea. Now I can only think, "Are they insane? They must think I hate money. Why would I ever choose exclusivity now?"

And I'm sure I'm not alone in that thought. What the istock brass fail to realize is that despite this effort to entice independent artists to finally become exclusive to istock, this move only further pushes independents away.

I can only imagine the competing agencies breathing a collective sigh of relief and saying, "Oh thank you, istock, for guaranteeing that our top sellers stay independent." This new istock plan keeps the competitors in business for years to come. Heck, maybe I should be thanking istock. My sales there will surely suffer next year, but maybe this opens the door for new growth among the competition.

crazychristina · « **Reply #149 on:** December 11, 2009, 00:21 »

There may be some, though, who take the attitude if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Particularly if increased payouts close the gap financially.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: iStock in the New Year (Read 69182 times)

sharpshot

Fran

gostwyck

lisafx

FD

lisafx

lisafx

epantha

madelaide

travelstock

Eyedesign

Eyedesign

KB

sharpshot

FD

dgilder

FD

Jo Ann Snover

Freedom

hiddenstock

bittersweet

pancaketom

lisafx

helix7

crazychristina

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors