MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: Sean Locke Photography on December 09, 2008, 14:31
-
On pricing, anyways. Introducing a three tiered collection system of imagery. Plus more announcements:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=80935
-
Saw your post on the other thread and was asking me who would start this. Thanks for starting it :)
XXXL size... I have a couple who fit this size, but we have to wait for January. Isn't it?
-
You'll be able to get XXXL on the existing files also, they will reprocess the images(might take a while to go trough all the images though).
Will be interesting to see how many buyers will buy from the "expensive collection". Many are already going to other agencies, since the prices are pretty high on IS. Will it be worth it for photographers to put their images in the collection? Would you get more by selling the images in the normal way? Let's wait and see.
-
There will be some exclusive contributors wanting their WHOLE portfolio's in the premier collection ! like it's a god given divine right as" we have been here years and made istock alot of money and blah blah blah "
-
At least Istock actually try to increase the prices. Today I got again those 0.30$ on each sites I submit to excepting Istock. Let's hope they have made the good choice and this will not freak out the buyers!!!
-
My main concern is finding out how things will get put into the "Value" collection. If I find out my whole porfolio is "value" priced, then that's a large cut in income. If newly uploaded content goes predominantly into the "value" collection, I'd be even more bummed.
I don't see this as good news at all for contributors like me. I think for Sean, Lise, Yuri, et all, it's probably great news. For buyers, seeing a lot of stuff in the value collection is probably great news, but not for contributors whose content is effectively "on sale".
-
I know some people have been asking for "collections". I'm not sure what to think yet. If my stuff gets put in the "premiere" collection, I feel buyers may just buy similar independent stuff in the "regular" collection at a much cheaper rate. I'm not sure if the benefit is there for a buyer for such a higher price. I may not even be "premiere" collection material, so I may not even have to worry about it.
-
Well, they are talking about 200.000 high priced files in 2009 first quarter. That's about 5% of the collection, and exclusive files are about (I think) 35-45%. I don't think any exclusive will have all of their files there, and, anyway, it has already been suggested that exlusives will have a say in the tagging.
-
nice news. I am glad istock is pricing for the future and creating a database with some more expensive images. Hopefully the other sites follow suite.
-
Interesting news ! And more to come. Aparently there will be also an announcement about the best match soon.
-
The premier collection will only have files by exclusive contributors so start deactiving all your photos from your other micro sites immediately and apply for exclusivity in 6 months.You no it makes sence in the long run.....
This was a public service announcement for the k. thompson fan club ::)
-
I can't remember when a change on istock was good news for anyone but exclusives in the last couple of years. As an independent I am extremely wary.
I share JoAnn's concerns about how and what images will be placed in the Value Collection. For those of us who sell on other sites it would not be good to discover many of our images being relocated to istock's bargain basement.
OTOH if I can choose which images to submit there, as currently only exclusives can do, I would be perfectly happy to put some of my older or less popular work in on a trial basis.
I am also wondering how the search engine will be modified to offer selections of all the available imagery. Will buyers select which collection to search or will they be shown a mixture from all the collections?
Finally, I think the move to raise credit prices along with the regular image prices is not a good idea in the current financial climate.
I will repeat what I said in the istock thread - the Devil's in the details....
-
I know some people have been asking for "collections". I'm not sure what to think yet. If my stuff gets put in the "premiere" collection, I feel buyers may just buy similar independent stuff in the "regular" collection at a much cheaper rate. I'm not sure if the benefit is there for a buyer for such a higher price. I may not even be "premiere" collection material, so I may not even have to worry about it.
I could have missed some discussions, but I thought that the prior collections discussions had been around themes, not low vs. high prices. Putting 3D renders into a collection; allow more raster illustrations and overfiltering into the mix, but in its own collection, etc.
Theme based collections I find very interesting. This caste system of high price collections and sale-priced stuff doesn't do much for me.
-
Interesting concepts, but more information is required to make a judgement.
The dollar bin gets more expensive, I don't understand that part. If they are images never sold, it doesn't seem they will succeed at less bargain price. Possibly the idea is to purge them, not give them a second chance.
And yes, raising prices at the moment should be done in a small step.
Regards,
Adelaide
-
It would be interesting to know how the infinite collection is popular on FT vs the normal collection. Could be a good comparison to do in the next year, if we have enough infos
-
If they are images never sold, it doesn't seem they will succeed at less bargain price. Possibly the idea is to purge them, not give them a second chance.
And yes, raising prices at the moment should be done in a small step.
Regards,
Adelaide
Adelaide
I just "contributed" 10 of my most overlooked files (0 DL) but in my humble opinion useful pictures to the dollar bin and within 1 week 3 pictures were DLed 1 time and 1 picture twice. They are all files from my Rebel XT days but completely ignored for 1 year at IS. So essentially I got $1.75 that I would not have gotten before. If IS charges lower prices but still size dependent - I think that is a good idea. I would not contribute my 5D files to the dollar bin.
-
I would not contribute my 5D files to the dollar bin.
According to my understanding of the announcements, istock admins are going to be more actively choosing what files go in.
I don't think whether images were taken with your rebel or 5D will be a big part of the criteria they use....
-
There will be some exclusive contributors wanting their WHOLE portfolio's in the premier collection ! like it's a god given divine right as" we have been here years and made istock alot of money and blah blah blah "
I got the impression that they will be the more unique images, with higher production costs, etc. I'm sure there will be some egos at work (as always) but I don't think there are any entire portfolios that will be put into this program.
-
If they are images never sold, it doesn't seem they will succeed at less bargain price. Possibly the idea is to purge them, not give them a second chance.
I've had more than one file hit flames in the dollar bin. Sometimes it is merely a file being buried in the search that is suddenly able to be found; sometimes it is a over-exuberant vector inspector inflating the price of a file too much.
There are potential cons to all this, depending on how things are being implemented. I hope that they will have a completely integrated search.
-
I would not contribute my 5D files to the dollar bin.
According to my understanding of the announcements, istock admins are going to be more actively choosing what files go in.
I don't think whether images were taken with your rebel or 5D will be a big part of the criteria they use....
I was just stating it from my perspective - not theirs. If they "confiscate" one of my 5D images to the Dollar bin then I shall oblige - maybe ;)
-
I would not contribute my 5D files to the dollar bin.
According to my understanding of the announcements, istock admins are going to be more actively choosing what files go in.
I don't think whether images were taken with your rebel or 5D will be a big part of the criteria they use....
Interesting that Yuri said in that session Rob blogged about that the camera isn't as important as many people think - one should spend the money on location, models, studio equipment.
-
I just "contributed" 10 of my most overlooked files (0 DL) but in my humble opinion useful pictures to the dollar bin and within 1 week 3 pictures were DLed 1 time and 1 picture twice. They are all files from my Rebel XT days but completely ignored for 1 year at IS. So essentially I got $1.75 that I would not have gotten before. If IS charges lower prices but still size dependent - I think that is a good idea. I would not contribute my 5D files to the dollar bin.
That's the point, prices in the former dollar bin will now be priced by size. Still cheaper than the regular images, but less bargain. And they plan to go from 5,000 images to 200,000 images in this whatever bin, so it seems selection criteria are going to change. Possibly the time online without selling will count a lot, even if quality is good.
Now, what about XXXL images? They will have a price range of 18-28 credits. Have criterias been discussed? Not that I have any in that range, unless they would accept rasters of my vector images.
Regards,
Adelaide
-
It would be interesting to know how the infinite collection is popular on FT vs the normal collection. Could be a good comparison to do in the next year, if we have enough infos
I don't think it's relevant as the "infinite" collection is in large part the dumping ground for old content from macro agencies - the stuff isn't fresh or even particularly good. Does anyone remember the threads here with images (which FT then pulled) from the then-new "infinite" collection that were laughably awful?
122rf had the EVO collection which just didn't seem that different from the regular collection.
I think the big thing will be for buyers to be able to see the difference between the content - Saks Fifth Avenue or Target? If they look the same, it's a problem.
-
Hi All,
I just wrote a post here the other day talking about the future of Micro and I mentioned that this could eventually happen just didn't expect it a week latter. Check the history books to see how it went in the past.
Best,
AVAVA
Post: Food for Thought
I imagine we will see the price point for Micro continue to increase to offset the slowing in growth. I also see the possibility that Micro might begin to be separated into divisions of pricing and quality very much like Macro RF has done over it's history.
Lots of changes to come. Make sure you diversify and don't spend money this year unless you make money from it.
-
Wow, your words were certainly prophetic Jonathan :)
It just goes to show, IMHO, that macro stock models are being repeated somewhat in the micros.
It pays to listen to you, Christian (lagereek), and others who have been in the stock business a long time. You guys have seen the industry evolve and are in a good position to predict its future directions
-
Hi Lisafx,
Thanks for the kind words but unfortunately no prophecies just been around the block a couple of times. ;) I do think we can all help each other in steering our boats through changing waters. Lets keep up the chatter and share what we experience in this industry.
Best,
AVAVA
-
It's no surprise. Istock has churned up pricing every New Year, and besides, we've all been saying there's nowhere to go but up. Free just doesn't work these days.
-
I still say they should introduce a 'Premier collection' that features exclusive images from both exclusive and non-exclusive contributors, that way they would have a real scoop amongst the microstock world.
The way they've announced this leaves me thinking that some exclusives are going to lose out if they have their images in the top tier, by that I mean that a buyer may select an image from a non-exclusive at a regular price of which the quality of the shot would render it legible for the premier collection if the contributor was exclusive.
If I were an exclusive I would also be wondering, if an image is worthy of the new premier collection why not just put it on Getty anyway.
Although it would appear to be too late, but I would advise anyone to put their 'woooohoooing' on hold until the scheme's been in place a while.
-
The new dollor bin is being developed to attract the buyers from other micro sites.We know shutterstock offers lower prices to buyers.
The library is expanding too fast and the inspectors have lost touch with what is microstock imagery.To many landscapes and holiday snaps have been allowed into the library and albeit technically sound they won't attract sales so end up in the dollor bin.Now we are going to have 200,000 non stock images in the new DUSTY BIN <<< my new name for it .
-
I wish they would give nonexclusive a way to earn more, like 2% increase per level.
-
This is great and exciting news. Now I can put my film equipment to work. I have a 4x5" monorail camera that gives about 200MP when scanned at 3200 DPI... :P
-
Hi All,
Always exciting to see someone come in and kick it up a bit just when everyone was a bit sleepy. New stuff to share info and different perspectives of what the future might hold in Stock. Have some of you noticed since you started Micro that you think more about the future than you did when you started. Kind of interesting how our brains process information.
I can share from info I have on my Mid and Micro stock that you will see less downloads in Mid but the cost is offset and actually more money is being produced at my Midstock images right now of the exact same product or style ( separate shoots ) than from Micro. Same quality images like my regular Micro just higher pricing at Midstock. The data is to early for me to be confident but after two months that is what I have for you.
To early to know what to make of this yet but still fun to try and strategize. One concern I see comes from the Micro competition more than within just IS buyers. This is a tough year to raise prices anywhere. As much as I think Micro is undervalued I feel that images available on competitors that keep their price down and there content strong could benefit from this decision at IS.
The new Istock sales numbers I believe if not affected by the economy, will show promise after a while. I would expect a wave of new photographers wanting to be exclusive after the buzz gets around and the sales improvement spin sets in. If Istock can pull it off and become the Getty of Micro ( hasn't happened yet due to existing competition as a whole ) that those that get in early will do the best. That is always going to be a roll of the dice.
This is such an interesting business. The more time I am in it the more time I spend looking further down the road.
I always like to see changes like this because they produce all kinds of new data and it gets things stirred up a bit. I often ask myself why from the position of the company or person for that matter. What is their motivation. What do you think made them make this change. I can think of a few ideas.
I don't think many saw this coming. Breaking up the collection into pricing tiers through quality of imagery. Can anyone show me where we have been talking about this elsewhere on another post. This is not like every winters price raising this is another animal completely.
Best,
AVAVA
-
123rf has something like this, I think they call it EVO
-
Hmm,
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.
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.
They are maturing the MS market in the same way RF did in the early years of the 21st century.
Or maybe not.... like AVAVA says who knows what's coming down the road!
Cheers
NS
-
"Can anyone show me where we have been talking about this elsewhere on another post."
No, no one here guessed this tiered setup specifically. No one. However, raising pricing to reflect quality is a common topic.
-
well lots of sites do have a 'premium' area, EVO for 123RF, Fotolia's infinite collection (+ emerald and above photographs raising their prices), Lucky Oliver (one of the first sites to have this) had the sideshow (with price it yourself pricing), Other sites like snapvillage, cutcaster and feature pics, who let your price your own work also create a sort of tiered system of image ranking, and lastly dreamstime raises prices on popular images quite a lot from the first to the top tier - so essentially it is not really a new idea at all - they are in a way one of the last companies to finally get on board, but they are going about it in perhaps a different way.
-
well lots of sites do have a 'premium' area, EVO for 123RF, Fotolia's infinite collection (+ emerald and above photographs raising their prices), Lucky Oliver (one of the first sites to have this) had the sideshow (with price it yourself pricing), Other sites like snapvillage, cutcaster and feature pics, who let your price your own work also create a sort of tiered system of image ranking, and lastly dreamstime raises prices on popular images quite a lot from the first to the top tier - so essentially it is not really a new idea at all - they are in a way one of the last companies to finally get on board, but they are going about it in perhaps a different way.
I'm not familiar with the EVO and Infinite collections, but I thought someone mentioned in another post that they were basically outdated images that didn't sell at macro prices? Maybe I'm confusing it with something else though. There is a LOT of information flying around right now. :)
-
Hi SJ,
Back from vacation yet. Remember to drop me a line when you get back.
Best,
AVAVA
-
Sounds alot like "Istock Pro", of the past, just being billed on the same site soon. It will be interesting to see if it does any better this time around.
The pre(mature)-announcement appears to be intended to give the opportunity to Idependants considering exclusivity almost the roughly 6mths that they might need to be in the clear for exclusivity for when the new pricing takes affect.
The pre-announcement also could be great for those who plan to remain Independant and for the rival sites.
The next 6 months would be a good time for the rival sites to be doing some data queries in regard to upload trends of their contributors and increasing the upload limit for the contributors who continue to upload January through May 2009 - in an effort to head off any potential dip in their file count over the next half year and any potential mass exodus of files come mid 2009 so as not to be toppled 'overnight' by Getty.
-
This only works if IS is the only microsite carrying images that buyers perceive they must have - today that is not the case - most of the top micro photographers are not exclusive to IS and hence IS cannot control the price market anymore .... there is too much choice for buyers among the different sites - why would a buyer spend $25 (for example) on a "top tier" level image when they can buy it for $5 at another site?
IS must be well aware of this fact .... despite some strange strategic decisions I still believe they are savvy and not idiots -
so the only way this new pricing structure makes sense at all is if IS changes their exclusivity program and introduces image exclusivity .... then this works - but only then .... and I for one believe they are about to do this as their present exclusivity system has come back to bit them in the b-tt ...
-
That depends on how you define "top micro shooters". I certainly don't agree at all. I mean, with the "most" part.
And saying that IS can't control the price market when it uses to stablish the trend (in the past, other micros have always raised prices after IS has done it) and when IS is generating more than one million weekly on photographer's payouts, is, in my view, a little daring.
-
Hi Hoi Ha,
I guarantee these guys are anything but idiots. Smart guys for sure.
Best,
AVAVA
-
- why would a buyer spend $25 (for example) on a "top tier" level image when they can buy it for $5 at another site?
This happens all the time. $25 is nothing for so many image uses. It would take someone longer to find it elsewhere then sign on and buy some credits etc etc. It's easier just to buy the thing. Do you think people who put their micro images up on Alamy make zero sales? I agree on one thing and that is its time for micro image prices to go, a lot. There is a lot of room for price increase.
Peter
-
They won't be able to buy it (the same image) at another site. The higher prices apply to the Exclusive only collection. However they could buy an equivalent image. I guess it depends on how much better istock exclusives are than anyone else. And whether buyers want more exclusive content.
-
That depends on how you define "top micro shooters". I certainly don't agree at all. I mean, with the "most" part.
And saying that IS can't control the price market when it uses to stablish the trend (in the past, other micros have always raised prices after IS has done it) and when IS is generating more than one million weekly on photographer's payouts, is, in my view, a little daring.
Not very daring in such heavily biased company. I'm sure plenty here would agree. I don't happen to be one of them, but I'm sure that's not important.
Overall I think the price increase is modest. I was kinda hoping there wouldn't be one, but at least it is not extreme. The Premiere collection will be a relatively small percentage of the collection, and I get the impression it will not be containing a lot of images which can be found elsewhere in similar incarnations. The "1234567" collection also gives them much more to offer the bargain shopper. Not everything in the dollar bin is complete crap. ;) (I would prefer however, that when sorted by best match, it didn't look like iPenthouse.)
-
Hi Jonathan - I agree with you they are not idiots - I also say we are witnessing the birth of "mid-stock" here as well .... do I think it will work? I am not so sure - have the buyers become too dependent on bargain basement images? Or are there enough buyers from the trads that see mid-stock as a bargain especially given the huge jump in quality these last 2 years...? Will there be room for that middle level? I really don't know .... fun to watch it play out though no?
-
I'm not pro IS, but this move could work for all of us. In the past we had micro and macrostock, meaning low priced and higher priced images. The gap between the two was/is to large. So agencies start to close this gap with multiple price schedules.
In the future we will have base prices starting from $1, just like now. Up till XX $, just like in macrostock and everything in between. There will be images for every buyer.
Of course images of Yuri will be more expensive, but some buyers will not / can not pay the price and will pick an image of someone else at a lower price.
So I'm not sad about the move. We'll see how it works out.
-
Of course images of Yuri will be more expensive, but some buyers will not / can not pay the price and will pick an image of someone else at a lower price.
You mean like the price of $250 for 750 images?
-
Of course images of Yuri will be more expensive, but some buyers will not / can not pay the price and will pick an image of someone else at a lower price.
You mean like the price of $250 for 750 images?
Exactly SJ - which is why this will not work if Yuri's image XY costs $25 in the istock "collection" and $5 or even less elsewhere - if only excluslive photographers get their images into the "collection" then it's same old same old .... just IS's ordinary (and probably ill advised at this point in the economy) twice yearly price increase .... with nothing new being brought to the table ...
-
An istock admin has confirmed that the Premier Collection is for istock exclusive contributors only.
-
An istock admin has confirmed that the Premier Collection is for istock exclusive contributors only.
Thanks for the information averil ... then this is just a price increase wrapped up in fancy wrapping paper .... if there is nothing being offered for the independents then they are going to continue to lose market share as they have this year .... I am surprised at that ... or maybe not ...
-
Why do you say they are losing market share?
-
if there is nothing being offered for the independents ...
Do they not benefit from all of the other announcements except the Premier collection??
-
Why do you say they are losing market share?
Alexa, google trends, etc .... I know most/many exclusives quibble with the methodology used but at some point they cannot all be wrong, can they? I mean they all show the same thing .... I am not saying IS does not have the majority of the market (it still clearly does) - I am simply saying that IS's growth has slowed (in fact it may have peaked) whereas the other sites continue on an upward trend - hence it is losing market share ...
-
if there is nothing being offered for the independents ...
Do they not benefit from all of the other announcements except the Premier collection??
Yeah, i would think so. Prices are increased across the board, so in that regard everyone benefits.
-
if there is nothing being offered for the independents ...
Do they not benefit from all of the other announcements except the Premier collection??
Yeah, i would think so. Prices are increased across the board, so in that regard everyone benefits.
I meant offering nothing to entice independents to at a minimum upload exclusive content to IS (of course price increases will provide higher royalties) - if Istock's best content is way more expensive than equally good content that is available on other microsites then their not offering anything that a buyer cannot get elsewhere ...
-
“Whether you think you can or whether you think you can’t, you’re right.” — Henry Ford
-
Theme based collections I find very interesting. This caste system of high price collections and sale-priced stuff doesn't do much for me.
I agree JoAnn. More importantly it puts the onus on iStock to determine the caste system, when logically it should be the buyers who determine this. Provided 200,000 exclusive files will be placed into the "upper caste" in Q1 2009, I see no reason why Sean won't get a fair number of files selected based on his talent. I would think some of your photos would be eligible too, though I don't know how they will treat your vector work (which I like, but iStock in general seems to want to push back).
Good luck. One thing I can say with certainty is that independent contributors will likely see another earnings drop no matter what iStock ultimately does.
-
Does anyone remember the threads here with images (which FT then pulled) from the then-new "infinite" collection that were laughably awful?
Oh my goodness, yes. I still chuckle every time I think about those example pictures you kept posting. Especially that "ticket" picture. The Infinite Collection, indeed! :D As usual, Fotolia hit one out of the park.
-
An istock admin has confirmed that the Premier Collection is for istock exclusive contributors only.
Good. Let them charge 10x as much for exclusive content, that would improve our sales. I doubt buyers care if an image is exclusive or not especially when there is no difference in quality between the two.
-
Why do you say they are losing market share?
First, look at the unbiased earnings rankings. Did anyone expect 1 year ago that iStockphoto would be ranked 4th as of December 10, 2008?
Now let's confirm it with hard, unbiased data from Compete.com:
Yearly traffic increase/decrease
Fotolia +98%
Shutterstock +44%
Dreamstime +25%
iStockphoto -32%
It looks like clear evidence to me that iStockphoto has lost considerable market share. Personally iS has dropped as a percentage earner for my portfolio from 28% one year ago to 12% today. Almost every company I contribute to has significantly outpaced them. Just browsing the boards, it appears almost every non-exclusive contributor says the same thing.
-
No, come on fellas!
Give credits when due! if IS can pull this off and the new best match etc its a stroke of genious and as Jonathan says, these guys cant afford to be anything else.
I love Mid-stock, it can be very strong indeed.
Although Im a bit baffled why we non-exclusives were used as fall-guys in between. Never mind, sounds like past history.
-
No, come on fellas!
Give credits when due! if IS can pull this off and the new best match etc its a stroke of genious and as Jonathan says, these guys cant afford to be anything else.
I love Mid-stock, it can be very strong indeed.
Although Im a bit baffled why we non-exclusives were used as fall-guys in between. Never mind, sounds like past history.
Fair enough my good sir - but do explain how they are going to manage to pull this off if the higher priced images are not open to independents at least on an exclusive image basis? What makes this any different to istockpro that failed so miserably? Why would we buy that higher priced image at istock if we can get the same quality elsewhere? All this is is a badly disguised price increase that will continue to drive buyers to other micro sites .... come on ... convince me as a buyer otherwise !!
-
One more point that comes to my mind: What to do with files they move into the new "value" collection?
I understand they want to establish a collection with low prices (compared to their competitors) to lure buyers into the shop. But as a (non-exclusive) contributor, this means they combine low prices with the lowest comission in the industry.
Do I want to sell that way? And possibly support buyers to move from other sites (that pay higher percentage) to Istock, so that I receive less? Or would I rather delete those files?
Until now Istock could get away with paying such a low comission due to (slightly) higher prices and high volume.
The second point has changed drastically - according to all I read here, but also in my own small, humble portfolio - in the recent months, if they now take away the first point as well (for some images), what to do?
-
No, come on fellas!
Give credits when due! if IS can pull this off and the new best match etc its a stroke of genious and as Jonathan says, these guys cant afford to be anything else.
I love Mid-stock, it can be very strong indeed.
Although Im a bit baffled why we non-exclusives were used as fall-guys in between. Never mind, sounds like past history.
I'm only bearish on iStock's market share. I have no idea how this will play out, and I am excited at the possibility of images being valued higher tomorrow than they are today. However I fail to see how the mid-stock aspect applies to anyone but exclusives. What am I missing lagereek? I usually defer to your expertise in these situations. :)
-
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.
-
An istock admin has confirmed that the Premier Collection is for istock exclusive contributors only.
Good. Let them charge 10x as much for exclusive content, that would improve our sales. I doubt buyers care if an image is exclusive or not especially when there is no difference in quality between the two.
exactly !! Like I already said, micro content is easily to reproduce in most cases. If many exclusive images cost X times more than non-exclusives, ... I think they are putting the rope around their neck themselves ... ...
The only thing they hang on is to their 'exclusives content' which in fact there isn't one. If SS is smart, they expand their 'on demand' .. then I would like to see what happens
-
One more point that comes to my mind: What to do with files they move into the new "value" collection?
I understand they want to establish a collection with low prices (compared to their competitors) to lure buyers into the shop. But as a (non-exclusive) contributor, this means they combine low prices with the lowest comission in the industry.
Do I want to sell that way? And possibly support buyers to move from other sites (that pay higher percentage) to Istock, so that I receive less? Or would I rather delete those files?
Until now Istock could get away with paying such a low comission due to (slightly) higher prices and high volume.
The second point has changed drastically - according to all I read here, but also in my own small, humble portfolio - in the recent months, if they now take away the first point as well (for some images), what to do?
Exactly i'm not going to support them!
-
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?
-
Why do you say they are losing market share?
First, look at the unbiased earnings rankings. Did anyone expect 1 year ago that iStockphoto would be ranked 4th as of December 10, 2008?
Now let's confirm it with hard, unbiased data from Compete.com:
Yearly traffic increase/decrease
Fotolia +98%
Shutterstock +44%
Dreamstime +25%
iStockphoto -32%
It looks like clear evidence to me that iStockphoto has lost considerable market share. Personally iS has dropped as a percentage earner for my portfolio from 28% one year ago to 12% today. Almost every company I contribute to has significantly outpaced them. Just browsing the boards, it appears almost every non-exclusive contributor says the same thing.
You're looking at it as a group of independent individuals. You can say that for independents, market share is dropping, but you don't know that overall, market share is dropping. Exclusives could be more than making up the difference.
-
The announcement about exclusive content didn't change. I made a post on my blog as soon as I saw the announcements, and quoted a line from it, which I haven't changed:
In May we will release a premiere collection of our best, exclusive content.
-
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.
-
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.
Oh okay, it must have happened during the four minutes before I got there, and seven other pages of people didn't seem to notice it either.
Thanks for getting to the bottom of it!
-
Why do you say they are losing market share?
First, look at the unbiased earnings rankings. Did anyone expect 1 year ago that iStockphoto would be ranked 4th as of December 10, 2008?
Now let's confirm it with hard, unbiased data from Compete.com:
Yearly traffic increase/decrease
Fotolia +98%
Shutterstock +44%
Dreamstime +25%
iStockphoto -32%
It looks like clear evidence to me that iStockphoto has lost considerable market share. Personally iS has dropped as a percentage earner for my portfolio from 28% one year ago to 12% today. Almost every company I contribute to has significantly outpaced them. Just browsing the boards, it appears almost every non-exclusive contributor says the same thing.
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?
-
This really makes my day!
How professional is this?
Post an announcement, listen to all exclusives in chorus go 'Yay, The best, Awesome, I'm so happppy, Love you Istock! Kisses!!! ', while in the back, 10 minutes later, the geniuses at Istock were rushing to change the post.
Complete failures!
I haven't uploaded to Istock for the past 2 months. And I know I'm not the only one.
Their waiting file list is now less than half the one at DT.
I know they don't care, but they should, they should.
-
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.
-
...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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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?
-
Good Point Paulie.
AVAVA
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
You have a strong point there Neustock,
Thanks for sharing.
AVAVA
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Sorry folks but i am feeling rather smug about being an exclusive contributor to istockphoto and don't see me changing.
-
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 ;-)
-
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 ;)
-
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
-
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...
-
[/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) ...
-
Thanks for clearing that up Hoi Ha,
I learn something new ever day. Today's hat off is to you.
Best,
AVAVA
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ...
-
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.
-
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?
-
Maybe because the price increase is not that drastic..
-
Maybe because the price increase is not that drastic..
Could be I suppose ...
-
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.
-
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!
-
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 ;)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I have to say the same thing, I don't recommend IS to buyers because we get such a low % there. If IS would give nonexclusives a little more incentive, like maybe just an extra 2% per canister level and an even playing field in the best match, I would be much more likely to recommend them. As it stands now I think DT is probably the best place to buy individual images and SS is best for subscriptions. I like the search results on DT the best and how easy it is to report bad keywords, the other agencies could really help themselves out by fixing keywords.
-
The new dollor bin is being developed to attract the buyers from other micro sites.We know shutterstock offers lower prices to buyers.
The library is expanding too fast and the inspectors have lost touch with what is microstock imagery.To many landscapes and holiday snaps have been allowed into the library and albeit technically sound they won't attract sales so end up in the dollor bin.Now we are going to have 200,000 non stock images in the new DUSTY BIN <<< my new name for it .
Actually there probably aren't enough specific location shots. Its easy to deride travel photography as "holiday snaps" but when I talk to photo buyers they complain that they can't get images for specific travel locations. If you're writing about a place, although there might be 200K beach photos, you just can't substitute a beach shot from Hawaii and say its in Vanuatu.
-
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.
For a couple of reasons.
1) I don't want to have multiple accounts at multiple sites.
2) Familiarity and misplaced loyalty. ;)
3) Credits for designs uploaded to iStock's Designer Spotlight (this is the biggest reason for continuing to purchase at iStock)
Though I have also used other free sites this year to get images (vector flags and a map), and I also downloaded some stuff from morguefile.com. Something which I would never have done in the past. And I *rarely* ever download the L size file anymore at iStock. I make the S or M size work.
-
Oh, so they can still raise the price further without loosing you, someone should tell them ::)
No just joking :)
-
.never mind the rest
... if you look at one person who disagreed with you and the one admin who told them not to bother trying as an "immediate smackdown by the forum moderators and contributors", then it is clear that you will not be "taking into account" anything I have to say on the subject.
Perhaps you missed the part where I said I was a buyer since 2003 (actually 2004, just checked :) ). I've seen many a price increase, so trust me, it's been a lot more than ONE person or ONE admin who has disagreed with me. And it's also the experience of some of my fellow buyers too. You know, we do talk amongst ourselves sometimes.
What I will never understand on these forums is how people always seem to want to speculate about what buyers are thinking (and doing) and then when a buyer comes in and tells them and it's something they don't want to hear, they get all pissy and try to dispute what the buyers are saying, instead of taking into account and considering their feedback.
I actually find it funny that iStock says they asked the buyers and the buyers said they would be willing to pay more for images. I'm calling BS on that one. What buyer EVER says they want to pay more for something they have previously gotten for cheaper? Is there anyone out there who filled their car up with gas over the summer, when prices were going crazy who said "Wooyay!" and said how happy they were for the oil companies? Or were at the grocery store celebrating the increasing cost of food? LOL.
-
Oh, so they can still raise the price further without loosing you, someone should tell them ::)
No just joking :)
Truly, the only reason I stay at iStock is getting credits for DS submissions. If that goes away, or, for me, the credit is a negative to the cost, buh bye iStock. So, no, they can't raise the price further without losing me. And I can assure you, I won't be buying anything from the Premium Collection.
-
I did not know that you get cresids if you submit to the designer Spotlight. Thanx for showing up here, it REALLY is interesting to know what buyers think. I wish more buyers would participate in this forum..
-
Freezingpictures, I love your penguin shots. Back when images were cheaper I would download them just because I liked them and I purchased some of your penguin pics. One guy even lived on my desktop for a while. So cute. :)
-
.
-
I have seen all your posts Carolynne, and they play out pretty much the same every time. Just keep in mind that the contributors are also paying a lot higher prices for everything right now. It's not just you who is affected.
Just keep in mind that the buyers don't force the contributors to upload to any microstock site. That's your choice.
Anyway, I really don't want to have this discussion again. I know how it plays out. I only signed up here to offer a buyers perspective because people were speculating as to where they might be in light of the new price increases at iStock. Glad to see it was apprectiated by at least one person.
-
I'm glad you found a sympathetic audience.
Since my money doesn't count here, I'll be sure not to burden any of your portfolios with my worthless downloads.
-
I actually find it funny that iStock says they asked the buyers and the buyers said they would be willing to pay more for images. I'm calling BS on that one. What buyer EVER says they want to pay more for something they have previously gotten for cheaper? Is there anyone out there who filled their car up with gas over the summer, when prices were going crazy who said "Wooyay!" and said how happy they were for the oil companies? Or were at the grocery store celebrating the increasing cost of food? LOL.
I agree. The only way someone would be willing to pay more is when they get something more in return too.
Thanks for your postings showing us the "other side".
Regards,
Adelaide
-
In caspixel's defense I have seen her (?) on several threads at IS over the years voicing her displeasure with pricing. She's not just referring to the one thread that was referenced here.
To caspixel, welcome! :) Please continue to give us your perspective. Speaking for myself, I would love to hear more from the buyers side of things. I feel like you're getting a bit of a raw deal in some of the responses you've gotten here but your perspective is an important one for us. Without the buyers where would we be as contributors? A lot lighter in the pocket, that's for sure.
-
Hi Cas - I am really glad to see you here and to have someone else with a buyer's perspective ;D - I have followed your posts on the IS forums for a few years and you are correct, you (and really any buyer who complains) always get slapped down for trying to offer the buyers point of view there - I noticed this time around they simply dismissed you with - "oh that's just Cas - she always complains" ... as if your buyer's voice was meaningless ... that is why we dont even bother saying anything in those forums anymore - they treat the buyers like they are a nuisance rather than their bread and butter .... we complained in those forums during the last price increase and had tons of other buyers site mailing us saying they agreed with our position but were not comfortable sharing their views on the forums - anyway welcome and I for one value your opionion, especially as a fellow buyer, and hope you continue to contribute on these boards ...
And take a look around Cas at the other micros - buyers have more options than they have ever had - I think you will find that you might use your free credits on IS but will actually buy elsewhere ...
-
The new dollor bin is being developed to attract the buyers from other micro sites.We know shutterstock offers lower prices to buyers.
The library is expanding too fast and the inspectors have lost touch with what is microstock imagery.To many landscapes and holiday snaps have been allowed into the library and albeit technically sound they won't attract sales so end up in the dollor bin.Now we are going to have 200,000 non stock images in the new DUSTY BIN <<< my new name for it .
Actually there probably aren't enough specific location shots. Its easy to deride travel photography as "holiday snaps" but when I talk to photo buyers they complain that they can't get images for specific travel locations. If you're writing about a place, although there might be 200K beach photos, you just can't substitute a beach shot from Hawaii and say its in Vanuatu.
problem there is too, if it looks generic ie a beach you will often get refused for keywords if you put the location in, so you may be getting pics of where you want but the location isn't mentioned for that reason.
Also not enough people want images of 'local' attractions / features (places without huge tourism) so they sell very little (so better in macro library although I think with my limited knowledge there could be a good niche for midstock agency to focus on travel). anyway micro agencies dont want them cause they are not big sellers etc
Phil
the few times I have bought it has been from DT too.
-
.never mind the rest
... if you look at one person who disagreed with you and the one admin who told them not to bother trying as an "immediate smackdown by the forum moderators and contributors", then it is clear that you will not be "taking into account" anything I have to say on the subject.
Perhaps you missed the part where I said I was a buyer since 2003 (actually 2004, just checked :) ). I've seen many a price increase, so trust me, it's been a lot more than ONE person or ONE admin who has disagreed with me. And it's also the experience of some of my fellow buyers too. You know, we do talk amongst ourselves sometimes.
What I will never understand on these forums is how people always seem to want to speculate about what buyers are thinking (and doing) and then when a buyer comes in and tells them and it's something they don't want to hear, they get all pissy and try to dispute what the buyers are saying, instead of taking into account and considering their feedback.
I actually find it funny that iStock says they asked the buyers and the buyers said they would be willing to pay more for images. I'm calling BS on that one. What buyer EVER says they want to pay more for something they have previously gotten for cheaper? Is there anyone out there who filled their car up with gas over the summer, when prices were going crazy who said "Wooyay!" and said how happy they were for the oil companies? Or were at the grocery store celebrating the increasing cost of food? LOL.
LOL!
-
Hi Cas - I am really glad to see you here and to have someone else with a buyer's perspective ;D - I have followed your posts on the IS forums for a few years and you are correct, you (and really any buyer who complains) always get slapped down for trying to offer the buyers point of view there - I noticed this time around they simply dismissed you with - "oh that's just Cas - she always complains" ... as if your buyer's voice was meaningless ... that is why we dont even bother saying anything in those forums anymore - they treat the buyers like they are a nuisance rather than their bread and butter .... we complained in those forums during the last price increase and had tons of other buyers site mailing us saying they agreed with our position but were not comfortable sharing their views on the forums - anyway welcome and I for one value your opionion, especially as a fellow buyer, and hope you continue to contribute on these boards ...
And take a look around Cas at the other micros - buyers have more options than they have ever had - I think you will find that you might use your free credits on IS but will actually buy elsewhere ...
Thank you! You summed up it up perfectly.
And thanks to pixelbrat and madelaide too.
;D
I would just like to also add that I don't begrudge anyone for wanting to make more money, but iStock's price increases might ultimately have the opposite effect on the contributors...and judging from the anectdotal evidence over the past year it seems to be going in that direction.
-
Not on me, Cas. I've almost doubled last year income.
-
[/quote]
I would just like to also add that I don't begrudge anyone for wanting to make more money, but iStock's price increases might ultimately have the opposite effect on the contributors...and judging from the anectdotal evidence over the past year it seems to be going in that direction.
[/quote]
Don't you think that the sluggish world economy might be part of that equation as well?
-
Don't you think that the sluggish world economy might be part of that equation as well?
I dunno. If so, though, the results of that poll on the right side of the screen seem to indicate that iStock is the only one of the Big 6 suffering from a downturn due to the economy then.
-
Don't you think that the sluggish world economy might be part of that equation as well?
I dunno. If so, though, the results of that poll on the right side of the screen seem to indicate that iStock is the only one of the Big 6 suffering from a downturn due to the economy then.
And wouldn't one think too that the recession should be bringing more customers to the micros from the trad agencies? I mean even in bad economic times images are still needed ... one would think a bad economy should be a boon to the micros?
-
Thankyou Caspixel, I remember when people of this forum asked how to get in contact with buyers if there is a forum, designer forum etc.
I think it would be great to actually have a section on microstockgroup for buyers and designers with topics of interest to them. Like where to get good deals etc. I guess no one else knows better where one can get a good deal and where the photographer still gets a good share then the people on this forum. I think that this can be very benefitial for both sides, the designer/buyer and the photographer/illustrator.
-
Jeez they let anyone join this forum.Now we have Caz next it will be ritamay, all the witches from istock will be coming... ;D
-
Don't you think that the sluggish world economy might be part of that equation as well?
I dunno. If so, though, the results of that poll on the right side of the screen seem to indicate that iStock is the only one of the Big 6 suffering from a downturn due to the economy then.
And wouldn't one think too that the recession should be bringing more customers to the micros from the trad agencies? I mean even in bad economic times images are still needed ... one would think a bad economy should be a boon to the micros?
Indeed one would....and perhaps that is why the less expensive sites are seeing more volume in comparison. But my sales at IS are up since I went exclusive. Not up a lot mind you, but up. best match did kill me there this last change. I am hoping that the next change is more reasonable.
-
I am not a designer, although sometimes I design web sites and I do computer maintenance for graphic studios. Any time I can advice anyone to buy images, I send them to IS. They look as the most professional microstock site to me, even if I understand all microstock sites are run by kids. It's not that I am Ansel Adams either, you know...
-
Don't you think that the sluggish world economy might be part of that equation as well?
I dunno. If so, though, the results of that poll on the right side of the screen seem to indicate that iStock is the only one of the Big 6 suffering from a downturn due to the economy then.
And wouldn't one think too that the recession should be bringing more customers to the micros from the trad agencies? I mean even in bad economic times images are still needed ... one would think a bad economy should be a boon to the micros?
Maybe it is wishful thinking, but I believe this is what is going to happen. Some businesses are helped by economic downturns. Auto manufacturers lose out, but auto parts manufacturers prosper, because people get their cars repaired instead of buying new ones. The movie industry grew up and became a giant during the Depression when people couldn't afford big luxuries but they could still pay a nickel to see a movie. Maybe microstock will prosper this year.
-
^^ I am hoping the same thing, but I have to admit December's lackluster sales aren't very comforting....
-
And wouldn't one think too that the recession should be bringing more customers to the micros from the trad agencies? I mean even in bad economic times images are still needed ... one would think a bad economy should be a boon to the micros?
No, I don't think so. Pictures are usually a very small part of the overall advertising budget. The problem will worsen when companies die or stop advertising completely.
-
And wouldn't one think too that the recession should be bringing more customers to the micros from the trad agencies? I mean even in bad economic times images are still needed ... one would think a bad economy should be a boon to the micros?
No, I don't think so. Pictures are usually a very small part of the overall advertising budget. The problem will worsen when companies die or stop advertising completely.
"Pictures are usually a very small part of the overall advertising budget." I still think that companies will try to cut costs in that area; they will probably try to cut costs everywhere.
"The problem will worsen when companies die or stop advertising completely." Unfortunately that is no doubt true.
Maybe we had better just hope that the economic downturn doesn't last too long.
-
Istockphoto will of course survive this recession but it's contributors will see less sales or perhaps the same amout of sales of which the buyers will be down sizing.Surely contributors have been see-ing alot more x small and small sales in the last 3 months??
2009 will be a year of hardship for many.Our respective governments want us to spend our money on goods/cars/homes to stimulate the economy back on an even par but people are afraid of the future and their jobs.
Hold onto your gold and your loved ones and try not to worry to much....
-
Been in contact with some AD-agency creatives here over the hollidays, you know ADs, art-buyers etc, working in some of the biggest Agencies.
Not very good news Im afraid, most of their budgets for 2009 has been cut in half and many of the bigger agencies are notifying people about redundancies. Pugh!!
-
Been in contact with some AD-agency creatives here over the hollidays, you know ADs, art-buyers etc, working in some of the biggest Agencies.
Not very good news Im afraid, most of their budgets for 2009 has been cut in half and many of the bigger agencies are notifying people about redundancies. Pugh!!
that means that the big budgeds are also cut, meaning they need to find an other source for their images than the $100+ market. Maybe they turn to micro
(thought about this when I rad an article about wine where something similar has already happend)