Quote from: ClaridgeJ on December 12, 2012, 10:38

Youre right actually!  this best match tweak is just a playact. Makes it look as if they are doing something.

Thanks. Now my maths isn't so good cause I nevva finish skool so just bear wiff me ok?

But I can tell you one thing. Double the volume of pictures, times half the site traffic as before gives you 25% of the total downloads from a year ago equals a bunch of upset contributors shouting for answers. So whatever admins are left running the little store in Calgary they are trying like mad to window dress as best they can before all the contributors realize the best match isn't going to save them, they hand in their crowns, and then there is no longer a little shop for them to go to work in anymore.

Funny this! because whatever happens, good search or bad, whatever. It will never, ever, in 1000 years benefit an independant. Although we outnumber the excl. by 20-1. they still after all these blinding misstakes, errors, issues, whallops,...... that a crown will bring them revenues.

No I dont think that Getty, behind the scenes is masterminding this. I have known them since 93 and frankly they are a quite clever bunch.
I am sure its been left to the IS Admin, which is exactly what bothers me.

Anyone thinking of ditching their crown needs to consider the timing in order to minimise loss of income and give their images the best of starts at the other agencies, most especially at SS. Right now is probably the optimum time to give the 30-day notice or close to it . Sales accelerate sharply from mid-January until the end of March so that's when the demand for new images is at it's peak. Early sales are a huge help in getting images to the top of the sort-order at SS and, as an independent contributor, that's where 50% of your microstock earnings are most likely to be coming from.

Quote from: RapidEye on December 12, 2012, 15:43

Great advice, thanks. Is there a similar high-sales period at SS in Sep-Nov? I ask because my ark is not yet even half-built.

Yes. March was a BME for me this year followed by massive, and I do mean massive, BME's in both October and November.

SS have already projected revenues to rise to $160M+ for 2012 (up from $121M in 2011) and then to over $200M in 2013. Looking at my graph, which pretty much matches SS's growth, I'm anticipating a few more BME's next year. Oh yes.

Trust me, SS is a different game to what you're used to. The graph of sales is the same shape as the IS graphs that folk have been posting __ except that it's a mirror image.

The only way contributors are going to see their incomes increase again is if iStock's site traffic goes back up. So you have an oversupplied archive and an under supplied buyer pool.

That means iStock really has to roll up their sleeves, get out there, and push the market by investing in marketing and advertising.

But if they aren't even willing to reach into their fat pockets to hire the right developers to expeditiously fix site problems, then they are never going to spend money on marketing and brand development. ...

Quote from: gostwyck on December 12, 2012, 15:57

Quote from: RapidEye on December 12, 2012, 15:43

Great advice, thanks. Is there a similar high-sales period at SS in Sep-Nov? I ask because my ark is not yet even half-built.

Yes. March was a BME for me this year followed by massive, and I do mean massive, BME's in both October and November.

SS have already projected revenues to rise to $160M+ for 2012 (up from $121M in 2011) and then to over $200M in 2013. Looking at my graph, which pretty much matches SS's growth, I'm anticipating a few more BME's next year. Oh yes.

Trust me, SS is a different game to what you're used to. The graph of sales is the same shape as the IS graphs that folk have been posting __ except that it's a mirror image.

That doesn't seem to be the experience of many exclusives that have left, most or all had massive drops income and have slowly (after a year or more) worked their way up to near what they were at before.  I don't think the picture is as rosy as you paint it but if you have some examples to counter this I would love to see them.

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on December 12, 2012, 14:00

Funny this! because whatever happens, good search or bad, whatever. It will never, ever, in 1000 years benefit an independant. Although we outnumber the excl. by 20-1. they still after all these blinding misstakes, errors, issues, whallops,...... that a crown will bring them revenues.

No I dont think that Getty, behind the scenes is masterminding this. I have known them since 93 and frankly they are a quite clever bunch.
I am sure its been left to the IS Admin, which is exactly what bothers me.

And here I am thinking about dropping my crown (after only 5 months) and going back to being an independent.  My income may drop but so will my blood pressure.  Having my photography income solely in the hands of the train wreck that iStock is becoming is not a pleasant thought.

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on December 13, 2012, 02:41

Quote from: mlwinphoto on December 12, 2012, 14:13

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on December 12, 2012, 14:00

Funny this! because whatever happens, good search or bad, whatever. It will never, ever, in 1000 years benefit an independant. Although we outnumber the excl. by 20-1. they still after all these blinding misstakes, errors, issues, whallops,...... that a crown will bring them revenues.

No I dont think that Getty, behind the scenes is masterminding this. I have known them since 93 and frankly they are a quite clever bunch.
I am sure its been left to the IS Admin, which is exactly what bothers me.

And here I am thinking about dropping my crown (after only 5 months) and going back to being an independent.  My income may drop but so will my blood pressure.  Having my photography income solely in the hands of the train wreck that iStock is becoming is not a pleasant thought.

IMO and after 25 years of supplying in this bloody stock game, one is as good or bad as the other but let me tell you this. I know 4 of my old pals, yes we are old hands you know, some would even call us antiques. In the beginning of 2013, they will pull their ports from every sigle micro agency and I am not talking some neewbie ports here but ports with 5000+ images AND put them into macro-RF or whatever, as long as its not micro.
I myself will hang on a bit more since I want to see the outcome of all this with IS and SS, etc.

Best advice I can give with my humble experience is to start thinking beyond micro, start thinking about getting some value for your craft. Micro is a concept, its riding on its 13th year which really means that the golden halleluja days are over.

But what can you put on macro that already isn't in micro? Unless you have a specialization with access to stuff that few people can get, maybe like oil rigs , you're probably not going to do well.

Quote from: mlwinphoto on December 12, 2012, 14:13

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on December 12, 2012, 14:00

Funny this! because whatever happens, good search or bad, whatever. It will never, ever, in 1000 years benefit an independant. Although we outnumber the excl. by 20-1. they still after all these blinding misstakes, errors, issues, whallops,...... that a crown will bring them revenues.

No I dont think that Getty, behind the scenes is masterminding this. I have known them since 93 and frankly they are a quite clever bunch.
I am sure its been left to the IS Admin, which is exactly what bothers me.

And here I am thinking about dropping my crown (after only 5 months) and going back to being an independent.  My income may drop but so will my blood pressure.  Having my photography income solely in the hands of the train wreck that iStock is becoming is not a pleasant thought.

IMO and after 25 years of supplying in this bloody stock game, one is as good or bad as the other but let me tell you this. I know 4 of my old pals, yes we are old hands you know, some would even call us antiques. In the beginning of 2013, they will pull their ports from every sigle micro agency and I am not talking some neewbie ports here but ports with 5000+ images AND put them into macro-RF or whatever, as long as its not micro.
I myself will hang on a bit more since I want to see the outcome of all this with IS and SS, etc.

Best advice I can give with my humble experience is to start thinking beyond micro, start thinking about getting some value for your craft. Micro is a concept, its riding on its 13th year which really means that the golden halleluja days are over.

The thread started by a frustrated long term buyer has now been locked. His post from earlier today about the current state of best match results seems pretty accurate to me:

"I have just come back to have a look at the site after one of my colleagues mentioned that the Zoom function is back.  It does look good I must say and seems to load quicker than its previous incarnation.

however, I just wanted to say that there is a lot of talk about how dreadful Best Match is at the moment and how it got even worse.

Ive just taken a good look and searched for the sort of things I normally or typically look for.  I just cannot believe it. How can 18 images by the same photographer all in a row of the same subject possibly be part of a legitimate Best Match?

I am sorry, but until this changes for the good (it is truly dreadful at the moment) neither myself nor any of my colleagues are likely to be rushing back here for stock images. Just have a look how well Best Match type seaches work on other sites and perhaps it will be easy to understand why previously dedicated buyers like me (and others) prefer to buy elsewhere at the moment."

So SearchFairy twiddled a few dials and this is the outcome?

It seems to me as long as iStock is a dumping ground for Getty Agency/Vetta files which get a huge advantage in placement (and it was promised when these ingestions began that they'd fix best match so that they didn't all appear up front like new content typically would; so much for that), and on which Getty makes so much more money - paying 20% royalty on content they don't own vs. up to 28% on iStock contributors' content - they have no incentive to fix this even though the results are so awful when you do common searches.

On a separate but related note: I recall many forum discussions where someone would say they got terrible results searching for (some single term) and there'd be a chorus of self-righteous contributors saying that of course you got rubbish; you needed to refine the search with multiple terms. In the course of the discussion about best match results, Rebecca and SearchFairy said that buyers typically use a single search term so showing examples where multiple terms made for horrible results wasn't really pertienent.

If it wasn't so many people's livelihoods, it'd be funny...