MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Poll

How does your Istock stats goes (Lately)

+
29 (15.8%)
-
147 (79.9%)
=
8 (4.3%)

Total Members Voted: 162

Author Topic: Istock sales (+) (-) (=) -Poll-  (Read 38504 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

AVAVA

« Reply #75 on: November 26, 2008, 21:26 »
0
Hi Tuilay,

 Until he replies I would go have a good stiff drink and let it go tonight. But let me know when the prize fight is scheduled I want a front row seat. ;D

AVAVA


hali

« Reply #76 on: November 26, 2008, 21:54 »
0
OH Tuilay,

Thems fightin words. Yu better step up SJ and flex those muscles before this goes to far. ;D

Fireworks,,
AVAVA


i'm not on IStock forum here, so i'm aiming to knock his teeth out for being such an arrogant sod  8)
AND NEITHER AM I CapturedNuance, so I am going to put this sob in his place, once and for all. ban me if it takes or not.


super  hero ! :o

« Reply #77 on: November 26, 2008, 22:10 »
0
I just went in to the forum to see where the blood letting is,
ironically, the main protagonist of this "conspiracy" you say, has a cynic named sjlocke.
maybe i read the wrong thread, but from what i could read , the thread by "CapturedNuance"
you (sjlocke) was mentioning persistently to "drive away competition "
rather than help the situation.

What ?  I was merely pointing out that "loyalty" was not what the OP was describing, but, as they offered "fondness" for iStock. 

"Help the situation" - What situation?  There is no conspiracy I can see to drive anyone from the site.  A best match tweak does not equal a conspiracy.

Tuilay

« Reply #78 on: November 26, 2008, 22:23 »
0
boo

AVAVA

« Reply #79 on: November 26, 2008, 22:25 »
0
 Will someone please post the Istock forum Post link in question I have some spare reading time. A little in the dark as to what is going on. Posting the link would help. Maybe even a bit of background would help to understand the situation more clearly. Anyone want to fill in the gaps.

Thx,
AVAVA

Tuilay

« Reply #80 on: November 26, 2008, 22:31 »
0
Will someone please post the Istock forum Post link in question I have some spare reading time. A little in the dark as to what is going on. Posting the link would help. Maybe even a bit of background would help to understand the situation more clearly. Anyone want to fill in the gaps.

Thx,
AVAVA
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqaqpjcZP-U[/youtube]

AVAVA

« Reply #81 on: November 26, 2008, 22:37 »
0
Thanks tuilay,

 That helped clear things up a great deal.

AVAVA

vonkara

« Reply #82 on: November 26, 2008, 22:56 »
0
The youtube video feature opened a whole new world of opportunity here on MSG

hali

« Reply #83 on: November 26, 2008, 23:00 »
0
holy smoke, this makes my day ! i'm going to bed smiling now...
ohaiyo gozamatsu, Tuilay.  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

hali

« Reply #84 on: November 26, 2008, 23:02 »
0
The youtube video feature opened a whole new world of opportunity here on MSG

ya, and that's no chicken either , vonkara  ;D ;D ;D :D :D

« Reply #85 on: November 26, 2008, 23:04 »
0
Here's the discussion in question

AVAVA

« Reply #86 on: November 26, 2008, 23:20 »
0
Thanks Aviril,

 It is big so I jus scimmed for now but I did love what LisaFX wrote. " Some of us can Bitch and Moan and Produce  " I love it. You go girlfriend.

Best,
AVAVA

lagereek

« Reply #87 on: November 27, 2008, 03:52 »
0
Ive seen this many, many times over the years and we have to resume to the facts that: IS is no longer the IS that Bruce once ruled. IS is Getty!  and Getty is not Getty anymore its an Investment called Hellman-Friedman: a far, far cry from our creative world and to Hellman-Friedman  the once so glamorous Getty/IS is just another puppet investment, no more no less. Hence, quality and creative know-how has begun its downhill race. This is so typical after a " takeover" in this business. Weve seen it many times before.

Theres no remedy to this! think about it? all of us here on the forum is but a fraction of people affected, all the rest will see the same damage and consequently the credibillity is blown away. Once thats gone its just a matter of time.
Other agencies are cashing in on this. Friend of mine_ Diamond-non-exclusive at IS has just been offerd a great deal if placing all his images with a particular agency and IMHO, he would be a fool not to go for it.
See, this is what its all about, you get your 8-10 good years, same as in any business and then its time to move over, only some can handle it better then others.
I personally think, Getty/IS, is more then aware of all this.
The Getty/IS  problems goes far, far beyond just some little chicken fight between Excl and nons.
Any consolation? some high ranking people within the Getty are not too happy either.

« Last Edit: November 27, 2008, 03:58 by lagereek »

« Reply #88 on: November 27, 2008, 05:03 »
0
Just throwing a few discussion points in here, mainly at Christian

If the 20/80 rule applies, it's quite often a very good guide, and 80% percent of the sales at istock come from 20% percent of the suppliers and moves are made to enhance the position of that 20% the noise generated by the the dis-benefitted 80% may seem overwhelming but really of little consequence.

If, as Christian states, his and Lisas images where given greater visibility at other sites as a direct result of being demoted at istock are those other sites just as guilty of intervention, and what of their other members who must have been demoted in order to promote them? What of their credibility?

Are not most if not all of these sites the investment instruments of others? In the current climate would the investors not be either looking for a better return or to withdraw their capital?

I'm sure the next few months will see many changes, for example if agencies feel that prices cannot rise much more in the current financial situation and their investors need their returns then decreased commissions may be on the horizon, in fact at Alamy and in a convoluted way at Fotolia they are already here.

For all the name calling and playground antics here it's big business we're engaged in and the climate has changed, probably for the long term.

abimages

« Reply #89 on: November 27, 2008, 05:17 »
0
Im looking right now at a pathetic Forum thread going on at IS where as usual all Exclusives are joining up at the nons, this and that, blaha, blahey etc, etc, etc, and now and then, up pops a Admin guy trying to calm things down. Same old codswhollop.


All I see is independents griping they aren't making as much as they'd like, and despite posts from exclusives and independents that sales are pretty up and down equally, blame it on some conspiracy theory that iStock is out to get them.

Sean, that may be the general feel you get from the thread. But it is not the view of ALL independants who have posted.

lagereek

« Reply #90 on: November 27, 2008, 05:37 »
0
thesentinel!

Valid points!  However I never said as a direct result, I mearly pointed out the incredible coincidences, of down there and skyrocketting elsewhere on, yes, within pretty much the same week?
Fair enough, both I and Lisa are producing images which are hard to get hold of and not run-of-the-mill. This will obviously help.
Demoted?? in a way but in another, no. Im just about 25-30% down, so what? its no big deal after what Ive heard, the majority are hit much worse, BUT! and you have to admit? pretty strange isnt it? that same month, all three of my other agencies are increasing, even without overestimating around 50%

but, you might be right, might be coincideance.

« Reply #91 on: November 27, 2008, 08:02 »
0
Im looking right now at a pathetic Forum thread going on at IS where as usual all Exclusives are joining up at the nons, this and that, blaha, blahey etc, etc, etc, and now and then, up pops a Admin guy trying to calm things down. Same old codswhollop.


All I see is independents griping they aren't making as much as they'd like, and despite posts from exclusives and independents that sales are pretty up and down equally, blame it on some conspiracy theory that iStock is out to get them.

Sean, that may be the general feel you get from the thread. But it is not the view of ALL independants who have posted.

Sorry for generalizing.  happy Thanksgiving!

Tuilay

« Reply #92 on: November 27, 2008, 09:29 »
0
the sentinel, good point, albeit to mention Alamy in the same breath as Istock , buf !
now that's like getting Bush to sit with Bin Laden.
we're talking about a site that listens and value their contributors,
and another who simply say , "if you don't like it, stick it".

lagereek , touche too, the door istock shows you opens and closes for both parties.
like any other corporate world, if you tell your associates to leave if they don't like it,
soon the world will learn of that attitude, and soon, even the most faithful friend will see a knife coming from even a once faithful friend:
as Caesar fallen at a forum cried out, "et tu , Brutus ? (you too, Brutus?)"
« Last Edit: November 27, 2008, 09:33 by Tuilay »

hali

« Reply #93 on: November 27, 2008, 09:57 »
0
if agencies feel that prices cannot rise much more in the current financial situation and their investors need their returns then decreased commissions may be on the horizon, in fact at Alamy and in a convoluted way at Fotolia they are already here.

For all the name calling and playground antics here it's big business we're engaged in and the climate has changed, probably for the long term.

First, I hate to agree with Tuilay's harsh attitude in pushing her/his point, but it is true, business is business - but a good business can ask for more money
and get it if it takes care of the people who works for them.
Alamy just wrote us to inform us about the increase and the smaller share for contributors. I am sure no one will object to it. It's the market reality.
The last thing we want is another PhotoShelter. A good company go defunct.

Istock? well, that is a different animal. (no pun intended). ;)

AVAVA

« Reply #94 on: November 27, 2008, 13:24 »
0

 Wholly owned content, it was built for Microstock. Look into the crystal ball.

 AVAVA

lagereek

« Reply #95 on: November 27, 2008, 13:29 »
0
Your right there Jonathan!

On the other hand when one really scrutenize the contents of micro, jeez! man, 80% would never ever see daylight inside the Trad-agencies.

shank_ali

« Reply #96 on: November 27, 2008, 14:26 »
0
Istockphoto changes the best match  search pattern for the good of the customers.It has worked well  for the company for many years and will continue to do so.
I am new to this forum and enjoy the debate and seeing so many artists contributing to a few different sites.
My photos are only available to download from istock.I am happy with that personnel choice i made.
Would i make more money if i uploaded my 400 files to several different sites.
No one really knows..The perks of being exclusive on istock are well known.If the latest best match switch favours exclusive contributors then that's fine by me.The best match will change again it might favour XL images again,it might favour new uploads,it might favour vectors/illustrations.
If you showcase your work on alot of different microstock sites for more money then that seems a wise and prudent thing to do but please don't ask istockphoto to treat you the same as me and a few more exclusive contributors.Thanks.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2008, 02:15 by shank_ali »

« Reply #97 on: November 27, 2008, 14:59 »
0

 Wholly owned content, it was built for Microstock. Look into the crystal ball.

 AVAVA

I doubt it.  Micro was built on having a big collection from a crowd of contributors.  You can't get that from a couple of pros shooting the same thing as each other.

« Reply #98 on: November 27, 2008, 15:11 »
0
I'm not big on business models, but how about this? Individual wholly owned portfolios, with buyers using a broker via web services. Then brokers would be offering their services competitively, and content producers more in control of their content. Wouldn't be just a 'couple of pros'. And many buyers buy from individual ports anyway. So, a shift from you maker contributes to big agency to broker distrubutes your content.

AVAVA

« Reply #99 on: November 27, 2008, 15:38 »
0
 Hi SJ,

 What made you think I was talking about a couple of pros I never said that or even implied it. I must say SJ you do need to read the posts more clearly. I am not talking about a couple of pros. I am talking about hundreds if not thousands of people that would be happy to sell their rights for the right price. Getty did it with hundreds of different photographers why do you not think they wouldn't do it in Micro. The quality was one part that hurt them when they did it in Macro but I bet they have learned a lot since then. Really good shooters are selling the rights to their images at this moment for as little as $60 a piece to Getty's Macro RF and they are pushing it to the top of the search, they have been for a couple years now.
 Just look at it from a profit perspective. If Istock is looking at making their biggest profit they are giving away half the farm to you right now as an exclusive. You believe they are going to keep that policy when they can go out and buy content for a smidgen of the money they pay you. Or for that matter they might move the people that only get 20% as non-exclusives right to the top since Getty makes a bigger piece off each sale. This is standard operations for Getty and most large corporations they know how to make their biggest profits. Also the only thing that is certain in life is change, that and death.
 Please if you can explain from a business stand point why it makes more sense for Getty to give you more of each sale then maybe their own content or the next wave of Exclusives that agree to a smaller percentage than you already have I would love to hear your explanation. I have also seen them take away percentages, they dropped them for exclusives in RM collections a long time ago. So much is possible that is why it is best to cover your own ass instead of expecting someone else to do it for you.
 Don't feel threatened there SJ I am sure you will always be one of the tip top shooters out there. Now try and get some turkey in you, it will help you sleep better. Full of tryptophan you know. ( Did I spell that right, check that for me will you please ).

All my best,
AVAVA
 


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
51 Replies
22773 Views
Last post October 02, 2007, 11:00
by KiwiRob
10 Replies
5517 Views
Last post March 18, 2008, 04:47
by nicemonkey
31 Replies
11349 Views
Last post September 26, 2010, 13:34
by pet_chia
16 Replies
6187 Views
Last post May 17, 2011, 07:12
by CD123
5 Replies
5101 Views
Last post January 20, 2012, 14:52
by microstockphoto.co.uk

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors