Author Topic: iStock in the New Year (Read 77463 times)

gostwyck · « **Reply #25 on:** December 08, 2009, 18:04 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 08, 2009, 17:53

Hopefully we will make it up in volume as the more cost-conscious buyers choose the cheaper non-exclusive files over exclusive ones.

If I were exclusive I would want to option to choose which of my exclusive images were put in the various collections. I might want to keep my more commonplace ones in the "main collection".

I'm not sure that this is going to be significant __ is there much evidence of FT's customers avoiding the images of Emerald+ members which are higher priced? Also a very high % of IS's images are exclusive so a cheapskate buyer would be limiting themselves to a relatively small collection from which to choose. If they were that price-concious they wouldn't be at IS in the first place.

RT · « **Reply #26 on:** December 08, 2009, 18:07 »

Quote from: leaf on December 08, 2009, 17:51

Quote from: lisafx on December 08, 2009, 17:40
Quote from: RT on December 08, 2009, 17:35
... but one part of the statement I did find interesting was this:

"We're also hoping to encourage the strongest talents in stock today to consider bringing their best work to iStock exclusively."

Good catch Richard. I missed that. Definitely sounds like the door to image exclusivity may be opening a crack.

yeah, interesting take on that sentence. I would find it hard to believe that iStock would let non-exclusives upload exclusive images but i would be very interested in seeing it happen. iStock seems very protective of their exclusives and is their trump card in a way. If they let people upload as partial exclusives it could feel like they are loosening their grip a little. If they did so however, it might encourage photographers to test the water before jumping all in.

Why not Getty, Corbis etc have exclusive images and yet do not require photographer exclusivity, the buyer doesn't care whether the photographer is exclusive or not, but having exclusive images is a huge advantage to iStock and that is their trump card, I can understand they would be concerned that some contributors may be tempted to bend the rules which is why the term "strongest talents in stock today" would be very apt, many of us who do this for a living and have a proven sales record are not the kind that would breach the agreement.
Give wholly exclusive photographers 40%, non-exclusives get 20% on normal images and 30% on exclusive one's. Simple and everybody wins even the iStock exclusives because it will bring more buyers through the door.

gostwyck · « **Reply #27 on:** December 08, 2009, 18:13 »

Quote from: RT on December 08, 2009, 18:07

Why not Getty, Corbis etc have exclusive images and yet do not require photographer exclusivity, the buyer doesn't care whether the photographer is exclusive or not, but having exclusive images is a huge advantage to iStock and that is their trump card, I can understand they would be concerned that some contributors may be tempted to bend the rules which is why the term "strongest talents in stock today" would be very apt, many of us who do this for a living and have a proven sales record are not the kind that would breach the agreement.
Give wholly exclusive photographers 40%, non-exclusives get 20% on normal images and 30% on exclusive one's. Simple and everybody wins even the iStock exclusives because it will bring more buyers through the door.

Because they don't want you feeding their competitors, that's why. That is also why you can be exclusive but still sell RM anywhere else.

lisafx · « **Reply #28 on:** December 08, 2009, 18:15 »

Quote from: gostwyck on December 08, 2009, 18:04

Quote from: lisafx on December 08, 2009, 17:53
Hopefully we will make it up in volume as the more cost-conscious buyers choose the cheaper non-exclusive files over exclusive ones.

If I were exclusive I would want to option to choose which of my exclusive images were put in the various collections. I might want to keep my more commonplace ones in the "main collection".

I'm not sure that this is going to be significant __ is there much evidence of FT's customers avoiding the images of Emerald+ members which are higher priced? Also a very high % of IS's images are exclusive so a cheapskate buyer would be limiting themselves to a relatively small collection from which to choose. If they were that price-concious they wouldn't be at IS in the first place.

You may be right. When I turned Emerald I put my base price up to $2. I would say my sales dropped by maybe 25% or so. The loss was more than made up for by the higher royalties.

If the same happens on Istock then it would be a win/win for exclusives and independents alike. We would get those extra 25% or so of price conscious sales, and exclusives would not miss them because of their higher overall income.

The point was also made in the istock thread that perhaps the best match will be slanted even more to favor exclusive images. In which case us independents would be pretty well screwed there.

alias · « **Reply #29 on:** December 08, 2009, 18:30 »

"the average number of downloads per contributor has also risen significantly since 2006"

Wonder what that means.

ShadySue · « **Reply #30 on:** December 08, 2009, 18:37 »

Quote from: gostwyck on December 08, 2009, 17:46

Having said that IS's wailing that "the current canister levels are unsustainable" is patent nonsense as all it affects is how little commission they pay out (and only to some of their exclusive contributors) and much more profit they get to keep themselves. IS are already eye-wateringly profitable and still growing at a staggering rate. To say they can't continue to pay the same levels of commission is simply absurd and downright greedy.

Quite. It's an insult to our intelligence for them to suggest otherwise.

gostwyck · « **Reply #31 on:** December 08, 2009, 18:40 »

Quote from: alias on December 08, 2009, 18:30

"the average number of downloads per contributor has also risen significantly since 2006"

Wonder what that means.

I guess it can mean whatever they want it to mean. My own DL's this year will be about 25% higher than they were in 2006 (with about 1/3 of the portfolio size). Maybe 25% could be described as 'significant' ... but over a 3 year period?

sharpshot · « **Reply #32 on:** December 08, 2009, 18:56 »

I think one day istock might let non-exclusives contribute to an exclusive images collection. A lot of us would find it almost impossible to go exclusive now and lots of the people that are already with the traditional agencies can't go RF exclusive with istock. This is millions of images that are on their rivals sites, they could cut the competition and increase their profits by allowing us to upload images exclusively. As their current owners are renowned for buying and selling companies for a profit, they are likely to look at every way possible to make more money. As Getty already have exclusive images and not exclusive contributors, I don't see why istock wont do the same one day.

lisafx · « **Reply #33 on:** December 08, 2009, 19:08 »

Quote from: sharpshot on December 08, 2009, 18:56

I think one day istock might let non-exclusives contribute to an exclusive images collection. A lot of us would find it almost impossible to go exclusive now and lots of the people that are already with the traditional agencies can't go RF exclusive with istock. This is millions of images that are on their rivals sites, they could cut the competition and increase their profits by allowing us to upload images exclusively. As their current owners are renowned for buying and selling companies for a profit, they are likely to look at every way possible to make more money. As Getty already have exclusive images and not exclusive contributors, I don't see why istock wont do the same one day.

Originally I would have thought that would never happen. I have always believed it would dilute the exclusive brand too much.

But then I would never have foreseen a lot of what was announced today. Nor, for that matter, many of the changes that have occurred there over the past year or so. While the Vetta collection certainly strengthens the exclusive brand, Photos.com deal considerably weakens it.

I am beginning to wonder if Getty's goal is to divide Istock exclusives, not only by exclusivity status, but also by talent and/or sales potential. With the higher canister people encouraged to submit to Getty, low quality images siphoned off to Photos.com, and now multiple levels of "exclusive content", it appears a definite hierarchy is emerging within the ranks of Istock exclusives. Separating the wheat (Vetta, Getty) from the chafe (Photos.com & low end Istock collection).

If that is their goal, and they don't really care if they tick off low canister exclusives (which judging from the canister changes, they don't), then what is to prevent them from widening their quest for "top level content" to include some from the long-time trad pros and top microstock pros who are unable to be fully artist exclusive?

LostOne · « **Reply #34 on:** December 08, 2009, 19:21 »

From a certain point of view exclusivity looks better than ever and from another one it looks like a stupid deal. Let's see these two opposites:
- a pretty high ranked non-exclusive which would get a nice royalty increase (maybe even double earnings just on this one), add increased image prices, vetta collection, visibility in best match,... Sounds tempting.
- a newbie, just starting out. It's almost impossible for him to reach higher level ranks because of upload restrictions, increasing saturation of images, high standards, much higher download limits for canisters,... So a newbie would have to put all his eggs in one basket even though he may be years from reaching a higher royalty. There's almost nothing that would make him go exclusive.

Could all this be istocks plan? Get all the established players and make the newbies pay for them?

Another thing that got me thinking was admins saying "canister change had to be done,...". Is the whole model not sustainable or do they just want more money? I don't see what other reasons could trigger the change? I also don't know which of the two options sounds worse to me.

Suljo · « **Reply #35 on:** December 08, 2009, 19:43 »

I think that iStock continuously trying to play this brainstorming educative game with us.
http://www.flashgames247.com/play/2326.html

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #36 on:** December 08, 2009, 19:49 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 08, 2009, 19:08

I am beginning to wonder if Getty's goal is to divide Istock exclusives, not only by exclusivity status, but also by talent and/or sales potential. With the higher canister people encouraged to submit to Getty,

Getty returns have certainly been nothing to write home about.

lisafx · « **Reply #37 on:** December 08, 2009, 20:07 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 08, 2009, 19:49

Quote from: lisafx on December 08, 2009, 19:08
I am beginning to wonder if Getty's goal is to divide Istock exclusives, not only by exclusivity status, but also by talent and/or sales potential. With the higher canister people encouraged to submit to Getty,

Getty returns have certainly been nothing to write home about.

That is just so bizarre. Could it be the collection the IS contributors' images are in?

If they want to attract unique content from Istock's top contributors they really need to open up one of the more lucrative collections to them $:-\$

disorderly · « **Reply #38 on:** December 08, 2009, 20:50 »

Man, it's seriously hard not to take this personally. I'm at 9732 downloads, and at the rate I'm going, I might just squeak by with 10,000 by the deadline. If I don't, I can figure on another five years to get to gold, all so I can have five more uploads a week. Way to make a supplier feel appreciated.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #39 on:** December 08, 2009, 23:03 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 08, 2009, 19:08

Quote from: sharpshot on December 08, 2009, 18:56
I think one day istock might let non-exclusives contribute to an exclusive images collection. A lot of us would find it almost impossible to go exclusive now and lots of the people that are already with the traditional agencies can't go RF exclusive with istock. This is millions of images that are on their rivals sites, they could cut the competition and increase their profits by allowing us to upload images exclusively. As their current owners are renowned for buying and selling companies for a profit, they are likely to look at every way possible to make more money. As Getty already have exclusive images and not exclusive contributors, I don't see why istock wont do the same one day.

I am beginning to wonder if Getty's goal is to divide Istock exclusives, not only by exclusivity status, but also by talent and/or sales potential. With the higher canister people encouraged to submit to Getty, low quality images siphoned off to Photos.com, and now multiple levels of "exclusive content", it appears a definite hierarchy is emerging within the ranks of Istock exclusives. Separating the wheat (Vetta, Getty) from the chafe (Photos.com & low end Istock collection).

I suspect that Getty's goals are quite simple - they want to pay less in commissions.

Back in the summer they sent Pump Audio artists a letter saying that their 50% commission would now be 35%. For those who had enough sales, they offered them a deal to keep the 50% commission if they became exclusive.

The partner program was about trying to get content for Photos.com+/JIU unlimited at the lowest possible commission (cutting the 30cents to 25 cents for StockXpert contributors who now would have to go via iStock).

They want the benefits of an exclusive collection as a marketing weapon but don't want to pay for it.

Sucks.

Big time.

bittersweet · « **Reply #40 on:** December 08, 2009, 23:07 »

Quote from: cclapper on December 08, 2009, 17:11

Quote
Base: 1 - 499
Bronze: 500 - 4,999
Silver: 5,000 - 19,000
Gold: 20,000 - 49,000
Diamond: 50,000 - 399,000
Black Diamond: 400,000 +

Current contributors will be grandfathered in to their existing levels. So if you have 15,000 downloads when the change happens, you will remain at your gold canister for the purposes of upload limits and Exclusive royalties. No contributor will drop a level. We are aiming to make these changes on February 24, 2010.

I am currently at a gold canister with 13024 downloads. I don't understand what he means when he says "So if you have 15,000 downloads when the change happens, you will remain at your gold canister for the purposes of upload limits and Exclusive royalties".

What about non-exclusives? Gold used to start at 10,000 downloads. so when he says no contributor will drop a level, I will still be a gold, correct? Little confusing, to me anyway.

You will not drop a level. The only reason they say "exclusive royalties" is because they increase based on canister. Non-exclusive royalties are not affected by canister levels, only the upload limits are. If you are gold, you're still gonna be gold when the change hits. Nobody is going to go backwards.

FD · « **Reply #41 on:** December 08, 2009, 23:36 »

Quote from: RT on December 08, 2009, 17:35

"We're also hoping to encourage the strongest talents in stock today to consider bringing their best work to iStock exclusively."
You can read that two ways but I'm hoping they are going to (at long last and not before time) allow us independents to submit a selection of exclusive images (with perks) as appose to total exclusivity, if that were the case I would seriously consider making them the only 'microstock' agency I submit to.

That would make a lot of sense. I was planning to upload my very (salable) best exclusively to DT because of the high earnings (even as a sub) that level 3 and up images make there. It makes much more sense to attribute exclusivity and tiered pricing to images, rather than to contributors.

5.6% of my total income on DT comes from one single level 5 image and it never had an EL.
Apparently, buyers don't care about the higher price level as sub (1.26$) if it is the image they want.
Flamers on IS still make the same amount. A buyer, after all, isn't interested in a contributor, but in an (exclusive) image.

FD · « **Reply #42 on:** December 08, 2009, 23:42 »

Quote from: whatalife on December 08, 2009, 23:07

Non-exclusive royalties are not affected by canister levels, only the upload limits are.

Thanks for making that clear. Fifteen per week is large enough with some planning for a modest amateur. I use Deepmeta as a buffer for times of high production: you can do all tagging etc... there and forget, just like on other sites. You just have to set your clock every 8 days to drag 15 more from "waiting" to "uploading", a matter of seconds. Many thanks to Deepmeta.

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #43 on:** December 08, 2009, 23:45 »

Hi All,

Boy does this bring back memories, just my opinion after working with this company for 12 years but it has always rang true. This does not surprise me in the least. I was waiting for this and what else will be to follow. The idea is to bring in exclusives and stack the deck with their work. They want a corral of shooters that can only shoot for them but not for the quality of their work it is easy to get an exclusive with Istock. Far more about the control it will give them as they move forward with this corral.
At first they can take that work, load it to the front of the searches and everyone is happy. The new guys make more money they get tons of new shooters and they send their other work off to another of their Micro sites that sells for a smaller price range. Then after a while they can start changing up the contract even more. But just a little at a time so you don't really feel it is enough to leave them.
Will they remove the wall and let their Macro RF people have a chance to become exclusive. What comes next.... Stay tuned. Just my buck and a half.

Best,
Jonathan

crazychristina · « **Reply #44 on:** December 09, 2009, 00:55 »

I think it will be very hard for anyone who is not an experienced professional (or insanely talented amateur) to become an istock exclusive in future. Reaching 500 dls (the new limit for bronze/exclusivity) with few upload slots and bias against in search is a big barrier.

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #45 on:** December 09, 2009, 01:10 »

Old

Base: 1 - 249
Bronze: 250 - 2,499
Silver: 2,500 - 9,999
Gold: 10,000 - 24,999
Diamond: 25,000 - 199,999
Black Diamond: 200,000+

New all double

Base: 1 - 499
Bronze: 500 - 4,999
Silver: 5,000 - 19,999
Gold: 20,000 - 49,999
Diamond: 50,000 - 399,999
Black Diamond: 400,000 +

Good news for the 20 black diamonds the rest will take 5 more years to catch you. The look ahead could have said smile we're going to be screwing you all exclusives who don't make the next level in 90 days but during that double time we will be making the money that you would have earned. One the IS forum people are smiling and looking for the free jar of vasiline that comes for exclusives in 2010.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #46 on:** December 09, 2009, 01:35 »

If I've read this and the other recent discussions correctly and I'm a non-exclusive, it doesn't change anything for me, does it. That's assuming that I seldom have more than six new photos in a week, I don't run out of upload limits and whether I'm "dirt" or double-black-diamond, I still get the same commission.

crazychristina · « **Reply #47 on:** December 09, 2009, 01:37 »

Black Diamonds don't get extra commission. Diamond (40%) is the top.

travelstock · « **Reply #48 on:** December 09, 2009, 01:57 »

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on December 08, 2009, 23:45

Hi All,

Boy does this bring back memories, just my opinion after working with this company for 12 years but it has always rang true. This does not surprise me in the least. I was waiting for this and what else will be to follow. The idea is to bring in exclusives and stack the deck with their work. They want a corral of shooters that can only shoot for them but not for the quality of their work it is easy to get an exclusive with Istock. Far more about the control it will give them as they move forward with this corral.
At first they can take that work, load it to the front of the searches and everyone is happy. The new guys make more money they get tons of new shooters and they send their other work off to another of their Micro sites that sells for a smaller price range. Then after a while they can start changing up the contract even more. But just a little at a time so you don't really feel it is enough to leave them.
Will they remove the wall and let their Macro RF people have a chance to become exclusive. What comes next.... Stay tuned. Just my buck and a half.

Best,
Jonathan

Yep I can't understand all the excitement about this news. The shift in canister levels betrays what this move is all about - increasing profit margins at IS at the expense of contributors and buyers.

While exclusive contributors will benefit in the short term, this signals that conditions in the contributors' contact are up for grabs if Getty wants to increase its profit margins in the future.

Another factor driving the move is the pending sale of Getty - good time to make the growth part of the business look better than it is by pumping up short term profits.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #49 on:** December 09, 2009, 02:06 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on December 09, 2009, 01:35

If I've read this and the other recent discussions correctly and I'm a non-exclusive, it doesn't change anything for me, does it. That's assuming that I seldom have more than six new photos in a week, I don't run out of upload limits and whether I'm "dirt" or double-black-diamond, I still get the same commission.

You might end up with more in the way of sales given this shift of the "main" collection to the images of independents with exclusive images priced higher than yours and not automatically included in search results. Could be a big win for independents.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: iStock in the New Year (Read 77463 times)

gostwyck

RT

gostwyck

lisafx

alias

ShadySue

gostwyck

sharpshot

lisafx

LostOne

Suljo

Sean Locke Photography

lisafx

disorderly

Jo Ann Snover

bittersweet

FD

FD

Jonathan Ross

crazychristina

YadaYadaYada

RacePhoto

crazychristina

travelstock

Jo Ann Snover

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors