MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStock raises the bar  (Read 33818 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

helix7

« Reply #75 on: December 10, 2008, 09:51 »
0
This is a real stroke of genius! IS can have their cake and eat it here. Keeping the exclusives happy and undercutting the competition by putting the non-exclusives images (that the compeditors have already) into the "new" dollar bin...

Undercutting the competition? With 200,000 images? Really?

...The question is will the big non exclusive ex macro players be tempted to go exclusive? I can see IS sweetening the pill by  removing upload restrictions for this expanding collection in the next 6 months so whole thousand+ collections can be put into it by a select group of premium content providers....

It has already been said that it is unlikely anyone could get an entire portfolio into the premium collection.

And the answer to your question is probably a resounding "no", since most of those big non exclusive ex macro people are doing much better elsewhere.




bittersweet

« Reply #76 on: December 10, 2008, 10:17 »
0
...while in the back, 10 minutes later, the geniuses at Istock were rushing to change the post.
Complete failures!

So you think they suddenly changed their minds? That really doesn't seem a likely possibility, so I think I'll stick with my own memory of what I read with my own eyes, rather than jumping on the "iStock Sux" bandwagon once again.

The fact is, we can speculate all we want. What's going to happen will happen. The only thing we can control is whether we choose to be a part of it, and whether we choose to let it make us become miserable and bitter, or whether we choose to bow out of something with which we do not agree.

« Reply #77 on: December 10, 2008, 10:33 »
0
Whatalife :)
I read it myself. Twice. Give you my word, it did say that independents will be allowed inside the Premiere Collection based on invitations.
Trust me :)
It did say so.
And you're right. I couldn't care less. Let them have it, the Premiere Collection I mean.
It is the best of what exclusives on Istock have on offer.
I wouldn't like them to call it 'The Best Stock Collection in the World', though.
Simply because that's not true.
Independents beat exclusives hands down. By far.
Still, let them have it! It is their business plan, let them live with it.
I couldn't care less...
All the best, 

Anna

« Reply #78 on: December 10, 2008, 11:15 »
0
Whatalife :)
I read it myself. Twice. Give you my word, it did say that independents will be allowed inside the Premiere Collection based on invitations.
Trust me :)
It did say so.
And you're right. I couldn't care less. Let them have it, the Premiere Collection I mean.
It is the best of what exclusives on Istock have on offer.
I wouldn't like them to call it 'The Best Stock Collection in the World', though.
Simply because that's not true.
Independents beat exclusives hands down. By far.
Still, let them have it! It is their business plan, let them live with it.
I couldn't care less...
All the best, 

Anna

You say you couldn't care less, if this is so why are you posting?

abimages

« Reply #79 on: December 10, 2008, 12:12 »
0
Whatalife :)
I read it myself. Twice. Give you my word, it did say that independents will be allowed inside the Premiere Collection based on invitations.
Trust me :)
It did say so.
And you're right. I couldn't care less. Let them have it, the Premiere Collection I mean.
It is the best of what exclusives on Istock have on offer.
I wouldn't like them to call it 'The Best Stock Collection in the World', though.
Simply because that's not true.
Independents beat exclusives hands down. By far.
Still, let them have it! It is their business plan, let them live with it.
I couldn't care less...
All the best, 

Anna

You say you couldn't care less, if this is so why are you posting?

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

AVAVA

« Reply #80 on: December 10, 2008, 12:24 »
0
Good Point Paulie.

AVAVA

« Reply #81 on: December 10, 2008, 12:28 »
0

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?


lisafx

« Reply #82 on: December 10, 2008, 12:39 »
0

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.

« Reply #83 on: December 10, 2008, 12:45 »
0
In May we will release a premiere collection of our best, exclusive content.

When I read it, I didn't understand "exclusive contributors", but content, so I thought they would invite some images from non-exclusives to be part of their collection - with the contributor deleting them from any other site.  Further in the same original post, if I am not mistaken, they said something like "exclusive members would be able to offer images for the collection", or something like this.

My understanding was:
- Exclusives will be able to choose images for the collection (maybe a % of their current online images)
- Non-exclusives may have images picked up by IS staff invited to the collection, provided these images become exclusive.

Maybe this was not what they meant from the start, but that was my comprehension, maybe due to not being a native English speaker.

Regards,
Adelaide

« Reply #84 on: December 10, 2008, 12:51 »
0
This is a real stroke of genius! IS can have their cake and eat it here. Keeping the exclusives happy and undercutting the competition by putting the non-exclusives images (that the compeditors have already) into the "new" dollar bin...

Undercutting the competition? With 200,000 images? Really?

Watch that initial 200,000 grow very rapidly.

...The question is will the big non exclusive ex macro players be tempted to go exclusive? I can see IS sweetening the pill by  removing upload restrictions for this expanding collection in the next 6 months so whole thousand+ collections can be put into it by a select group of premium content providers....

It has already been said that it is unlikely anyone could get an entire portfolio into the premium collection.


And the answer to your question is probably a resounding "no", since most of those big non exclusive ex macro people are doing much better elsewhere.




Hi Helix7,

Watch that initial 200,000 grow very rapidly.

We don't know that you couldn't get a whole collection in. Maybe yes, maybe no.

The main reason all those big ex macro shooters are doing better elsewhere is the upload limit on IS prevents them testing the full potential of there 10,000+ image portfolios. If that bar is removed and one or two more StockXpert type byouts happen this will once again make the IS proposal more attractive. Especially if IS does a "image exclusivity" deal with them.

Who knows for sure but its interesting to speculate

Interesting times.

Respect,

NS



AVAVA

« Reply #85 on: December 10, 2008, 12:58 »
0
You have a strong point there Neustock,

 Thanks for sharing.

AVAVA

lisafx

« Reply #86 on: December 10, 2008, 13:02 »
0
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?

If I was one of the top exclusives and had accepted the restriction of only uploading RF to istock, I would be really highly annoyed that independents could share in some of my exclusive benefits on a per image basis.

In that scenario, wouldn't exclusives be tempted to abandon artist exclusivity for image exclusivity themselves and begin uploading to other sites?

bittersweet

« Reply #87 on: December 10, 2008, 13:13 »
0
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?

If I was one of the top exclusives and had accepted the restriction of only uploading RF to istock, I would be really highly annoyed that independents could share in some of my exclusive benefits on a per image basis.

In that scenario, wouldn't exclusives be tempted to abandon artist exclusivity for image exclusivity themselves and begin uploading to other sites?

Yes, and yes.

AVAVA

« Reply #88 on: December 10, 2008, 13:18 »
0
 Hi Lisa,

 I think you are probably correct. They are the only ones that don't offer image exclusivity as apposed to agency exclusivity and my biggest fear is they will force an industry standard change and we will all eventually have to pick one agency to provide to. How limiting would that be for us producers. I would call that closer to an employee rather than a contractor. Once you take away the contractors ability to work for anyone else and give their agency the right to drop you whenever they want, reduce your returns further down the road, or burry you in the search engine under their new Holly owned content you are putting a great deal of your future in the hands of a fortune 500 company. I became a photographer to work for myself.

Just an opinion,
Best,
AVAVA

lagereek

« Reply #89 on: December 10, 2008, 13:24 »
0

Thats very true actually. If I were allowed say an upload limit of 100 at IS, boy! it would be very sweet indeed.
In all honesty, let IS do their business plan in peace. I mean if theyve come up with something that in the end of day will benefit both excl and nons, all the better and if not, well there you go.
Also if ones shots are highly in demand you could "cut" yourself a deal. Ive cut myself so many deals within the Trad-RM circle, Ive lost count. Big name photographers ( Getty has quite a few), dont think for one second guys of this caliber are interested in exclusivity. No sir. Theyre allowed so called specials.
As I said before, exclusivity is NOT there for anybody to actaually earn more, its there to prevent the other agencies from earning, stop the supply.
Little Georgie boy comes along with his serious Point and shoot and he joines a Micro and with his humble little PF full of scenics, birds, bees etc, weekend shooting ofcourse. Now George is offered an exclusivity contract! WHAT! me? all of a sudden hes as important as Newton, Avedon and Penn, this is the way he feels. Frankly any agency dont give a toss about weather George goes exclusive or not BUT potentially in years to come he might be somebody and ofcourse hes bound and cant supply anybody else.
Joking apart, how many tens of thousand times per year doesnt this happen?

Another thing we also have to keep in mind is the fact: This is not Bruce and the boys anymore ( wish it was) no this is on a more serious level, they have to produce, show results, held accountable etc, not a walk in the park exactly.
I for one am pretty sure theyre acting as far as tey can, trying to achieve the best result. Logic has it: no point in not.

lagereek

« Reply #90 on: December 10, 2008, 13:35 »
0
Hi Lisa,

 I think you are probably correct. They are the only ones that don't offer image exclusivity as apposed to agency exclusivity and my biggest fear is they will force an industry standard change and we will all eventually have to pick one agency to provide to. How limiting would that be for us producers. I would call that closer to an employee rather than a contractor. Once you take away the contractors ability to work for anyone else and give their agency the right to drop you whenever they want, reduce your returns further down the road, or burry you in the search engine under their new Holly owned content you are putting a great deal of your future in the hands of a fortune 500 company. I became a photographer to work for myself.

Just an opinion,
Best,
AVAVA


Bloody hell Jonathan there you go!! this is exactly what will happen. It has already happend, at least in modification. BUT! this is not Trad-industry. This is Micro and frankly Im not at all sure that Micro will be around for many more years. Sorry.

AVAVA

« Reply #91 on: December 10, 2008, 13:42 »
0
Hi Lagereek,

 I would be just fine with it not being around and you know it ;D You to I know for sure. ;) I think it will survive but it will reach maturation that starts to reduce returns per photographer. On the images created side and the new photographer joining side. It's like two cars racing towards each other. I try to never say never ::)

Best,
AVAVA

e-person

« Reply #92 on: December 10, 2008, 13:58 »
0
An istock admin has confirmed that the Premier Collection is for istock exclusive contributors only.

They keep changing the original text, Big Brother style.

If we go there next month, we'll find a completely different version of it.



Okay, I will concede the possibility that this is true. I can't prove otherwise because I do not have a copy saved of the original announcement. However, I read the original announcement within the first five minutes of it being posted, and my impression was that this collection would include exclusive content. In fact, until your post on page 8, I never considered otherwise (and it was being discussed by several people up to that point as being an exclusive collection). When I saw your post, I went back and re-read the original announcement, and it said what I thought it had said at the beginning.

Is there no possibility that you were the one who misinterpreted what you read?
e

They made at least three different announcements, the one I am referring to, is the thread by kkthompson that as of now, reads: "We'll start tagging content in January for inclusion into this collection. Exclusives will have the ability to nominate their files they'd like to see included. And again, we'll be looking to put about 200,000 images in the collection by the end of the second quarter."
 
When I read it, it was different. I have been a reporter for over 10 years, writing was my job, I don't drink, I don't do drugs, my IQ is 127, but of course I am human and sometimes I do make mistakes. I did not save a copy either, therefore I look like the fool on the hill.

e-person

« Reply #93 on: December 10, 2008, 14:02 »
0
This paragraph was changed.

We'll start tagging content in January for inclusion into this collection. Exclusives will have the ability to nominate their files they'd like to see included. And again, we'll be looking to put about 200,000 images in the collection by the end of the second quarter.

It used to state that Independants would have to be invited to have images in the premiere collection. Later it was clarified that the premiere status is only open to exclusives.

Thank you so much! I am glad someone did notice it too. As I said, writing was my job. I take it very seriously and I usually do not misunderstand, as I am also very much into law documents.

« Reply #94 on: December 10, 2008, 14:17 »
0
Whatalife :)
I read it myself. Twice. Give you my word, it did say that independents will be allowed inside the Premiere Collection based on invitations.
Trust me :)
It did say so.
And you're right. I couldn't care less. Let them have it, the Premiere Collection I mean.
It is the best of what exclusives on Istock have on offer.
I wouldn't like them to call it 'The Best Stock Collection in the World', though.
Simply because that's not true.
Independents beat exclusives hands down. By far.
Still, let them have it! It is their business plan, let them live with it.
I couldn't care less...
All the best, 

Anna
I cannot trust you because I saw it 2 minutes after posting and it did say what Mr. Locke quoted here - premiere collection will contain only exclusive content.
You might have got your impression from forum posts where some individuals missed that part and ASSUMED that everybody will be able to participate into collection.

« Reply #95 on: December 10, 2008, 14:21 »
0
In May we will release a premiere collection of our best, exclusive content.

When I read it, I didn't understand "exclusive contributors", but content, so I thought they would invite some images from non-exclusives to be part of their collection - with the contributor deleting them from any other site.  Further in the same original post, if I am not mistaken, they said something like "exclusive members would be able to offer images for the collection", or something like this.

My understanding was:
- Exclusives will be able to choose images for the collection (maybe a % of their current online images)
- Non-exclusives may have images picked up by IS staff invited to the collection, provided these images become exclusive.

Maybe this was not what they meant from the start, but that was my comprehension, maybe due to not being a native English speaker.

Regards,
Adelaide
Exactly. It was not put very clearly (hence the corrections), I agree, but it never said that anyone except exclusives would be able to participate.

lagereek

« Reply #96 on: December 10, 2008, 14:33 »
0
I wonder if the end result really will be a premier collection of just exclusives?  No, cant be. Jeez, Stones had that, Image-bank had that, Getty had it as well, a sort of creme de la creme collection, None were successful, why? well because no collection was all that much better then the other. Turned out to be pretty much the same stuff.
Even so, whats the point of even having a premiere collection unless it truly is the very best money can buy and it certainly isnt. Doesnt even come close to some RM collections. Lets not fool ourselves there is still a distinct differance between top quality RM and top quality Micro. The buyers will still only get what they pay for.

shank_ali

« Reply #97 on: December 10, 2008, 16:02 »
0
Sorry folks but i am feeling rather smug about being an exclusive contributor to istockphoto and don't see me changing.

« Reply #98 on: December 10, 2008, 16:06 »
0

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.


Oh, my apologies, I've just realised it's an instinctual female thing to say you don't care about the thing that bothers you most ;-)

lisafx

« Reply #99 on: December 10, 2008, 17:42 »
0


Oh, my apologies, I've just realised it's an instinctual female thing to say you don't care about the thing that bothers you most ;-)

And it is a very old and obvious debating tactic to get personal toward your opponent when you have no good argument to support your side of an issue ;)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
42 Replies
10923 Views
Last post August 26, 2009, 05:39
by Karimala
7 Replies
6640 Views
Last post December 21, 2009, 10:32
by cthoman
Istock raises upload limits

Started by lisafx « 1 2  All » iStockPhoto.com

42 Replies
15918 Views
Last post September 22, 2010, 11:21
by Pixel-Pizzazz
26 Replies
15248 Views
Last post November 16, 2011, 19:08
by Jo Ann Snover
39 Replies
12401 Views
Last post June 11, 2014, 18:41
by Jo Ann Snover

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle