Author Topic: iStock raises the bar (Read 40095 times)

madelaide · « **Reply #100 on:** December 10, 2008, 17:54 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 10, 2008, 13:02

Just my opinion, but I don't see istock ever doing image exclusivity. I would love it if they did, but wouldn't it undermine their current artist exclusivity program?

I don't know. Why does someone become exclusive to IS? One strong drive is having to manage just one site, others are the higher commission, easier upload and fasterinspection, plus - obviously - good returns. I don't think someone who is getting 20% of his earnings in IS (like me) would become exclusive.

I don't think an exclusive would change his opinion if a few non-exclusives had a few of their images exclusively at IS in the premium collection. But it would be interesting to know what the exclusived think about it.

Regards,
Adelaide

anaire · « **Reply #101 on:** December 10, 2008, 18:06 »

The sentinel,
I'm not questioning your knowledge about women in general.
About me, though, you don't know anything.
I may be part of a different species altogether.

I read that post twice. 2 min after it was posted.
It said - 'Non exclusives will be able to participate to the Premiere Collection based on invitations'.
That is what it said.
No two ways about it.
And since you don't trust me, best thing to do is to ask an Istock Admin. They're part of a different species too. Once in the open they can't lie, (they choke and become green, thus revealing their true nature of perplexed beings).
He'll tell you the truth.

Regarding my post and its reasons - read it again! I was answering to someone.
Something wrong with that?

Enough about Istock.
They've just made me 5 more dollars today. Unfortunatelly, not even that is enough to make me care.
See?
We're just different species...

hoi ha · « **Reply #102 on:** December 10, 2008, 20:20 »

[/quote]

Isn't market share usually determined by sales revenue? And is it possible for traffic to decrease while sales revenue increases? And even if some individuals' sales are decreasing does that mean Istock's revenue is decreasing?
[/quote]

No - market share is the percentage of the total market a company has .... it is not about profits - and yes, it is possible for sales revenue to increase but for market share (and traffic) to decrease .... as to whether IS's revenue is decreasing ... my guess is its profits are down this year over last year - or at a minimum its growth has slowed at any rate - but this does not mean it is not profitable - I would bet it is very profitable indeed (but this is all conjecture anyway) ...

AVAVA · « **Reply #103 on:** December 10, 2008, 20:22 »

Thanks for clearing that up Hoi Ha,

I learn something new ever day. Today's hat off is to you.

Best,
AVAVA

DanP68 · « **Reply #104 on:** December 10, 2008, 20:27 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on December 10, 2008, 08:57

Isn't market share usually determined by sales revenue? And is it possible for traffic to decrease while sales revenue increases? And even if some individuals' sales are decreasing does that mean Istock's revenue is decreasing?

Sure it's "possible." It would make a lot of sense that revenue would increase as web traffic decreases...in a bizarro world.

DanP68 · « **Reply #105 on:** December 10, 2008, 20:30 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 10, 2008, 12:39

Quote from: thesentinel on December 10, 2008, 12:28
Quote from: abimages on December 10, 2008, 12:12

I presume because she has an opinion, and she wanted to voice it.
Nothing wrong in that is there?

If someone couldn't care less it's odd that they bother to post, that would suggest that in fact they do care.
Nothing wrong with querying that is there?

Well, actually it comes off pretty antagonistic. It's one thing to disagree with her point, another entirely to challenge her motives for making it.

Couldn't have said it better myself. But pretty par for the course, whether you read the iStock forums, or some iStock posters on indie forums.

hoi ha · « **Reply #106 on:** December 10, 2008, 21:02 »

I have to admit that what I am finding really interesting too in all this is the lack of much negative feedback on the IS forums as compared to the past (for example see the forums this past May or a year ago) when they introduced higher prices or major changes .... I woke up this morning expecting to have to slog through pages and pages of forum comments ... and wow .... not there ... it is pretty well all positive comment coming from (overwhelmingly exclusive) submitters.

If I was IS I would be really really concerned about this .... the absence of a raging debate or even vocalised diagreement may indicate that people (namely the buyers) have really stopped caring about what IS does ... and that is not a positive thing .... that would worry me ...

crazychristina · « **Reply #107 on:** December 10, 2008, 21:11 »

In my experience very few members who are buyers only participate in istock forums. Generally the buyer view comes from members who are also contributors.

hoi ha · « **Reply #108 on:** December 10, 2008, 22:17 »

Quote from: averil on December 10, 2008, 21:11

In my experience very few members who are buyers only participate in istock forums. Generally the buyer view comes from members who are also contributors.

Agreed ... but still compare the forum participation at the last 2 price increases this past May and same time last year ... tons of buyers complaining - but not this time ...where are they?

Freezingpictures · « **Reply #109 on:** December 11, 2008, 04:01 »

Maybe because the price increase is not that drastic..

hoi ha · « **Reply #110 on:** December 11, 2008, 04:14 »

Quote from: Freezingpictures on December 11, 2008, 04:01

Maybe because the price increase is not that drastic..

Could be I suppose ...

lisafx · « **Reply #111 on:** December 11, 2008, 12:40 »

Quote from: hoi ha on December 10, 2008, 22:17

Quote from: averil on December 10, 2008, 21:11
In my experience very few members who are buyers only participate in istock forums. Generally the buyer view comes from members who are also contributors.

Agreed ... but still compare the forum participation at the last 2 price increases this past May and same time last year ... tons of buyers complaining - but not this time ...where are they?

I agree with hoi ha. This lack of any buyer input over a price change is unusual.

And there are far fewer independent contributors commenting.

lagereek · « **Reply #112 on:** December 11, 2008, 12:48 »

Lisa! the reason were not hearing from any buyers regarding the price change, is because at this moment theyre beeing treated for pulmonary occlusion in the upper lobes. i.e. STROKE!

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #113 on:** December 11, 2008, 13:10 »

The hospital down the street from me has touch screen internet in all the room on an arm over the bed. Give the buyers a day or two to recover

shank_ali · « **Reply #114 on:** December 11, 2008, 15:44 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 11, 2008, 13:10

The hospital down the street from me has touch screen internet in all the room on an arm over the bed. Give the buyers a day or two to recover

Your allowed to flippant as i am sure your great portfolio will always attract sales.Other contributors though feel that if istockphoto gets to greedy, buyers will just buy there images elsewhere.

bittersweet · « **Reply #115 on:** December 11, 2008, 16:42 »

Prices are going up for everything, and although I was really kinda hoping they would not implement a price increase this year, I think what they have proposed is relatively modest in scope. It sounds as if the over-valuing of vector files of the past six months or so is going to be examined and some adjustments made. I am very glad to hear this because I do not understand some of the reasoning behind the high prices some my files have been assigned, and because they look overpriced, they have not had very many sales. I am also okay with some additional files being moved to a value collection. JJ has stated that this is going to contain only images which have "had difficulty" in the main collection, so I don't understand the fear that there will be a mass dump of files merely on the grounds of being non-exclusive. There may be new buyers who come to check out this collection, so after having some of my files hit flames in the dollar bin, I won't be heartbroken if some of my files are moved there... especially if they retain close to their original prices.

I'm also not worried about the Premier collection. From the official descriptions, the files that will be contained there won't reflect on my personal portfolio, nor compete directly with it. I don't expect to have any files included there, and I don't know how the mere existence of it would discourage sales, as some have suggested.

I guess we all just get to wait and see. I remain hopeful that in the end it will be a positive change.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #116 on:** December 11, 2008, 16:47 »

Quote from: shank_ali on December 11, 2008, 15:44

Quote from: sjlocke on December 11, 2008, 13:10
The hospital down the street from me has touch screen internet in all the room on an arm over the bed. Give the buyers a day or two to recover
Your allowed to flippant as i am sure your great portfolio will always attract sales.Other contributors though feel that if istockphoto gets to greedy, buyers will just buy there images elsewhere.

Hopefully other vendors will see this as an opportunity to raise their prices. Although a price increase in the midst of one of biggest financial downturns in recent history is ballsy that's for sure.

Peter

bittersweet · « **Reply #117 on:** December 11, 2008, 17:21 »

Quote from: Zeus on December 11, 2008, 16:47

Hopefully other vendors will see this as an opportunity to raise their prices.

That's pretty much how it's gone every other year, isn't it?

jsnover · « **Reply #118 on:** December 11, 2008, 17:34 »

Quote from: whatalife on December 11, 2008, 16:42

I am also okay with some additional files being moved to a value collection. JJ has stated that this is going to contain only images which have "had difficulty" in the main collection, so I don't understand the fear that there will be a mass dump of files merely on the grounds of being non-exclusive.

I was one who expressed concern about mass movements of files into the value collection - I didn't expect them to do it for independents only. He did later make the remark about files which "had difficulty", although I don't really know what that means. If it means anything over a year or two old with less than 50 downloads, a lot of my portfolio would be dumped. I don't know any more than anyone else about the criteria, but I'm just concerned that the blockbuster contributors are going to be the main focus, and the little indie outfits like me will get left to one side.

If the images sell from the bargain collection, I guess that's OK, but it is still a pay cut rather than a pay raise in terms of credits per file (comparing new-dollar-bin to current versus new standard collection to current). There's also the blow to the ego.

I guess I'm just feeling squeezed and concerned there's no real place to grow at iStock if I don't want to follow in the Lise-Yuri-MonkeyBusiness-iofoto-sjlocke footstepts.

bittersweet · « **Reply #119 on:** December 11, 2008, 17:41 »

Quote from: jsnover on December 11, 2008, 17:34

I was one who expressed concern about mass movements of files into the value collection - I didn't expect them to do it for independents only. He did later make the remark about files which "had difficulty", although I don't really know what that means. If it means anything over a year or two old with less than 50 downloads, a lot of my portfolio would be dumped. I don't know any more than anyone else about the criteria, but I'm just concerned that the blockbuster contributors are going to be the main focus, and the little indie outfits like me will get left to one side.

I see what you mean. I guess I'm thinking the criteria will at least somewhat resemble the current criteria for dollar bin eligibility. If that doesn't turn out to be the case, then a lot of us will be in a worrisome situation. There is a HUGE leap from a criteria of no downloads for a year, to less than 50 downloads. I would bet that would include way more than 200,000 files too.

They are still going to need regular files for the regular collection, so I don't expect it will become a site where only a handful of contributors exist outside the "value" bin.

We shall see.

caspixel · « **Reply #120 on:** December 13, 2008, 11:34 »

Quote from: hoi ha on December 10, 2008, 22:17

Quote from: averil on December 10, 2008, 21:11
In my experience very few members who are buyers only participate in istock forums. Generally the buyer view comes from members who are also contributors.

Agreed ... but still compare the forum participation at the last 2 price increases this past May and same time last year ... tons of buyers complaining - but not this time ...where are they?

I'm (strictly) a buyer over at iStock and I've been purchasing since 2003. A couple things on why I think you haven't heard from many buyers yet about the price increases:

1) Many probably didn't see the announcement and will only find out when they go to purchase an image. Then you will hear from them.
2) Many are so used to it they don't care anymore or have already moved on.
3) Those buyers that have spoken out about the price increases are immediately smacked down by the contributors and forum moderators to the point that they don't even want to speak up anymore.

The last is my experience and that of other buyers that I've talked to. Most of the iStock community would rather insult its customers by criticizing their business practices, opinions, and concerns than listen to and take into account the thoughts of the very people that made it a million dollar entity and major player in the stock industry. The buying habits of many of us have changed drastically there due to the price increases and terrible customer service.

bittersweet · « **Reply #121 on:** December 13, 2008, 12:55 »

Freezingpictures · « **Reply #122 on:** December 13, 2008, 13:54 »

Quote from: caspixel on December 13, 2008, 11:34

Quote from: hoi ha on December 10, 2008, 22:17
Quote from: averil on December 10, 2008, 21:11
In my experience very few members who are buyers only participate in istock forums. Generally the buyer view comes from members who are also contributors.

Agreed ... but still compare the forum participation at the last 2 price increases this past May and same time last year ... tons of buyers complaining - but not this time ...where are they?

I'm (strictly) a buyer over at iStock and I've been purchasing since 2003. A couple things on why I think you haven't heard from many buyers yet about the price increases:

1) Many probably didn't see the announcement and will only find out when they go to purchase an image. Then you will hear from them.
2) Many are so used to it they don't care anymore or have already moved on.
3) Those buyers that have spoken out about the price increases are immediately smacked down by the contributors and forum moderators to the point that they don't even want to speak up anymore.

The last is my experience and that of other buyers that I've talked to. Most of the iStock community would rather insult its customers by criticizing their business practices, opinions, and concerns than listen to and take into account the thoughts of the very people that made it a million dollar entity and major player in the stock industry. The buying habits of many of us have changed drastically there due to the price increases and terrible customer service.

Just out of curiosity, why are you still buying at iStock? I know quality is good and for searching images I would prefer iStock, but there are cheaper places out there. I do not buy a lot of images, but occassionaly I do, but never at iStock, because they are so expensive (compared to other microstock agencies) and I feel better when I buy an image where the contributor gets a higher percentage. I do not want to bash iStock (in fact they are still my no. 1 earner), but I am interested why buyers choose iStock instead of other agencies which are not far behind in image quality and cheaper.

grp_photo · « **Reply #123 on:** December 13, 2008, 14:11 »

Same here i buy at dreamstime and on one ocassion i bought an exclusive file from Fotolia sometimes i even just look at sxc.hu. But in most cases i find all what i need at dreamstime and i actually prefer their search engine over the searches at istock.

lisafx · « **Reply #124 on:** December 13, 2008, 14:21 »

I don't buy often, but when I have needed to buy images I looked first at DT and got what I wanted from them, but I will admit that their selection at that time of Christmas borders wasn't as extensive as istock's.

I did end up having to buy some exclusive ones from istock too.

From what I can see the other micros have been catching up over the past year, though, because the collections are much more comparable now.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: iStock raises the bar (Read 40095 times)

madelaide

anaire

hoi ha

AVAVA

DanP68

DanP68

hoi ha

crazychristina

hoi ha

Freezingpictures

hoi ha

lisafx

lagereek

Sean Locke Photography

shank_ali

bittersweet

PeterChigmaroff

bittersweet

jsnover

bittersweet

caspixel

bittersweet

Freezingpictures

grp_photo

lisafx

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors