Author Topic: iStock simplifying collections (Read 33548 times)

ShadySue · « **Reply #100 on:** May 14, 2013, 20:24 »

Quote from: gillian on May 14, 2013, 19:30

aren't they busy enough just dealing with all the extra uploads? and now this? I hope they've hired more staff, or put in free coffee machines...

Yeah, they'll need to take a leaf out of Yu-know-who's book.

dingles · « **Reply #101 on:** May 14, 2013, 20:50 »

It may be too late,but I feel they have a team in place that recognizes it needs to adapt to the market. They have made mistakes and may do so again, but at least they are no longer stagnant and arrogant. Better they keep doing something than nothing.

cathyslife · « **Reply #102 on:** May 14, 2013, 21:01 »

Quote from: dingles on May 14, 2013, 20:50

It may be too late,but I feel they have a team in place that recognizes it needs to adapt to the market. They have made mistakes and may do so again, but at least they are no longer sagnant and arrogant. Better they keep doing something than nothing.

They are still taking most of the money from a sale. In fact, even more. This is just another round of the same old pattern. Roll out some stuff that sounds good. Of course, it never really works right, tho. Then announce on a Friday that _________ you fill in the blank with something that screws the contributor even more.

dingles · « **Reply #103 on:** May 14, 2013, 21:12 »

Agencies taking too much is a problem that surpasses iStock. I feel most agencies take too large a cut and don't deliver on their end.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #104 on:** May 14, 2013, 21:36 »

Wow, posts are disappearing faster than I can read them.

tickstock · « **Reply #105 on:** May 14, 2013, 22:16 »

sharpshot · « **Reply #106 on:** May 15, 2013, 02:21 »

Quote from: dingles on May 14, 2013, 20:50

It may be too late,but I feel they have a team in place that recognizes it needs to adapt to the market. They have made mistakes and may do so again, but at least they are no longer stagnant and arrogant. Better they keep doing something than nothing.

What have they done about the Google contract fiasco? Until they guarantee that they aren't going to virtually give away my images for $12 or less, they're just turd polishing. The other problem they've ignored is that they cut commissions to a level that many of can't tolerate in the long term.

If they really want to make istock a big site again, they need to motivate us and make it clear that they have stopped the commission cuts and giveaways. Go back to the flat 20% commission minimum and give us an opt out for deals like the Google one and I might think about uploading my best images again.

MichaelJayFoto · « **Reply #107 on:** May 15, 2013, 02:52 »

I have allowed myself to think about the changes in my blog, so I am not going to re-post the whole thing here.

But the main thought is: I am happy to be non-exclusive right now because as I see it the risks are lying with the exclusive contributors while the non-exclusives are more likely to profit (or at least not lose out).

Leo Blanchette · « **Reply #108 on:** May 15, 2013, 03:13 »

Julien: What ever happened to the separation of the classes?
Maurice: Don't worry, I'm sure this democracy thing is just a fad.


1st Class King Julian

Maybe my brain is tweaked, but I always think of this movie scene when I think of the exclusivity program.

dirkr · « **Reply #109 on:** May 15, 2013, 03:38 »

Quote from: dingles on May 14, 2013, 21:12

Agencies taking too much is a problem that surpasses iStock. I feel most agencies take too large a cut and don't deliver on their end.

Very true. But since Istock is the one taking the biggest cut (looking from a non-exclusive perspective) they deserve to be called out first about this issue.

gillian vann · « **Reply #110 on:** May 15, 2013, 03:41 »

seriously, can we please start some bets on "what kooky thing will iStock do next"

ShadySue · « **Reply #111 on:** May 15, 2013, 05:33 »

Quote from: tickstock on May 14, 2013, 22:16

Good to see we are getting a month or more heads up on this.
From Lobo: "We dont have a hard date set yet. I can comfortably predict mid to late June."

They must be going to import a huge amount of inspectors to curate the higher value collections in that time scale. The queue is currently 248576, although presumably once the factories have uploaded their back-catalogues, that will reduce considerably.

BTW, although Lobo claimed they'd been working on this for ages, doesn't "We will continue to clarify things as they get closer to the launch date" imply that it's being worked out on the fly?

ShadySue · « **Reply #112 on:** May 15, 2013, 05:34 »

Quote from: gillian on May 15, 2013, 03:41

seriously, can we please start some bets on "what kooky thing will iStock do next"

I do it regularly with another contributor, but we never get even close.

rubyroo · « **Reply #113 on:** May 15, 2013, 06:03 »

Quote from: ShadySue on May 15, 2013, 05:34

Quote from: gillian on May 15, 2013, 03:41
seriously, can we please start some bets on "what kooky thing will iStock do next"
I do it regularly with another contributor, but we never get even close.

LOL

Mantis · « **Reply #114 on:** May 15, 2013, 07:37 »

Quote from: sharpshot on May 15, 2013, 02:21

Quote from: dingles on May 14, 2013, 20:50
It may be too late,but I feel they have a team in place that recognizes it needs to adapt to the market. They have made mistakes and may do so again, but at least they are no longer stagnant and arrogant. Better they keep doing something than nothing.
What have they done about the Google contract fiasco? Until they guarantee that they aren't going to virtually give away my images for $12 or less, they're just turd polishing. The other problem they've ignored is that they cut commissions to a level that many of can't tolerate in the long term.

If they really want to make istock a big site again, they need to motivate us and make it clear that they have stopped the commission cuts and giveaways. Go back to the flat 20% commission minimum and give us an opt out for deals like the Google one and I might think about uploading my best images again.

LMAO

tickstock · « **Reply #115 on:** May 15, 2013, 07:38 »

tickstock · « **Reply #116 on:** May 15, 2013, 07:53 »

wds · « **Reply #117 on:** May 15, 2013, 08:10 »

I think the risk to exclusives include:
-removal of the ability to put files directly into Sig+
-the "thresholds" for booting content down into the "main" lower priced collection

ShadySue · « **Reply #118 on:** May 15, 2013, 08:31 »

Quote from: wds on May 15, 2013, 08:10

I think the risk to exclusives are:
-removal of the ability to put files directly into Sig+
-the "thresholds" for booting content down into the "main" lower priced collection

And not having the ability to choose for ourselves. No doubt I've got pics with more than 0 dls that I'd be more than happy to put into the main collection, but similarly I've got unique or near-unique (content) pics that have very few dls that I think should be priced higher because there is no contest (on iS, sometimes also on the other Big4, I don't check out the others). OTOH, I'm always ambivalent about pricing these higher because it's probably wildlife charities which use them. It's a pity we couldn't have the ability to nominate even a small percentage of our images to 'fix' where we want them. Even 10% could be an exclusive 'perk' to partially make up for those we have lost.
Lack of self-determination is always said to be a very demotivational factor for employees, and it's the same for suppliers. (Before anyone points it out, I realise we can self-determine out of exclusivity, or even out of supplying any particular agency/ies at all, but that's irrelevant to this specific discussion.)

ShadySue · « **Reply #119 on:** May 15, 2013, 08:38 »

And another point. The original article said:
"It’s not always easy for customers to see why one file is priced differently from another.
We want to make this connection clearer and easier to understand."

It won't always happen. I've often seen sister images from a shoot where one or two files get far more dls than the others without any 'quality' difference at all. Maybe they got a dl early in their career at a time when that got a big boost in best match, maybe the other files got shafted in best match for some peripheral reason, who knows? But the fact still remains that extremely similar images will still be sold at different price points, non-comprehensible to customers.

(I'll repeat: I clearly don't have a 'real buyer' mentality. If I were a buyer and two files were essentially similar, I'd always choose the one with fewer downloads, and could see an argument for a premium on files with 'fewer than X' dls in heavily supplied areas.)

Pinocchio · « **Reply #120 on:** May 15, 2013, 08:44 »

Quote from: sharpshot on May 15, 2013, 02:21

Quote from: dingles on May 14, 2013, 20:50
It may be too late,but I feel they have a team in place that recognizes it needs to adapt to the market. They have made mistakes and may do so again, but at least they are no longer stagnant and arrogant. Better they keep doing something than nothing.
What have they done about the Google contract fiasco? Until they guarantee that they aren't going to virtually give away my images for $12 or less, they're just turd polishing. The other problem they've ignored is that they cut commissions to a level that many of can't tolerate in the long term.

If they really want to make istock a big site again, they need to motivate us and make it clear that they have stopped the commission cuts and giveaways. Go back to the flat 20% commission minimum and give us an opt out for deals like the Google one and I might think about uploading my best images again.

You probably know this, but the last thread on Google Drive got locked April 20 and there hasn't been a whisper since. I'm beginning to believe that will be the last we hear of it.

The trouble with iStock is that they have done a lot to persuade contributors (and probably buyers as well) that they are neither trustworthy nor technically competent (hence the endless bugs). I very much doubt they care a hoot about me with my miniscule portfolio, but the trust issue is a major factor as far as I'm concerned, and I believe that's so for many others too. No-one with any sense does sustained business with a partner they can't trust - they go to plan B.

When I try to judge contributor mood based on that thread, I see a 1) lot of cynicism; 2) numerous exclusives who keep asking what the benefit of exclusivity is, and 3) lots of trepidation about files competing on their respective merits. Not good.

Perhaps they will use the change in collections to clear out a lot of non-performing images (I have a few in my portfolio, am inclined to remove them myself), and put a permanent end to the keyword spamming - if so that would be good. Most of all they need to deliver - at a royalty rate higher than 20%

Regards

aspp · « **Reply #121 on:** May 15, 2013, 09:19 »

Quote from: wds on May 15, 2013, 08:10

I think the risk to exclusives include:
-removal of the ability to put files directly into Sig+
-the "thresholds" for booting content down into the "main" lower priced collection

The main issue is that everyone will be increasingly up against very high quality professionally directed collections from studios with tens of thousands of saleable images now available at prices which compete with the old microstock model. Istock and Shutterstock are like Carrefour or Walmart. IMO that presents an opportunity for independent sites like Stocksy which have more organic and tailored exclusive content and much lower overheads (and which are not directed either by shareholders and creditors).

Quote from: gillian on May 15, 2013, 03:41

seriously, can we please start some bets on "what kooky thing will iStock do next"

These changes, as announced, seem quite sensible to me. Certainly not kooky. Any kookiness will be in the implementation. Or, if as so many times previously, things which have been signalled are later abandoned. But, to be fair, they seem to be gradually pulling things together.

I am impressed to see them effectively getting rid of the Vetta collection (only the name will remain). The best of Vetta was some great indy images but the collection quickly became over-dominated by weak and hammy content better suited to personal light boxes than the front page. Vetta was too poorly defined an idea to be a collection at its own price point.

And it seems right that they are narrowing the gap between exclusives and non exclusives. After these changes it would be a fairly simply next step for them to abandon that completely. I doubt that decision has been taken. The exclusive vs non exclusive thing is the legacy of another era. Even image exclusivity (which would be impossible to police) seems unlikely now given that GI itself already includes so much non exclusive syndicated content and given that the Istock collections at GI will now include non exclusive content.

Gel-O Shooter · « **Reply #122 on:** May 15, 2013, 10:31 »

Quote from: Pinocchio on May 14, 2013, 14:15

Well, iStock really got a conversation going with this announcement - it's already about twice the length of the April Sales Thread. And then we get this (see
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=353725&messageid=6887259 )

"Especially when on one hand you have photographers like Yuri Arcurs and Cathy Yeulet (who are non-exclusive), and on the other hand iStock has many “Exclusive” hobby photographers who specialize in extremely low quality photos of their pets . "

I bet that's going to get some riled up; wonder how long it will be there..

Regards

I noticed that some indie told them on page 5 exactly what they thought of that whopping 15% commission. The comment was ignored (of course), but it's still there. Lobo must be too busy with all the exclusive whining going to remove it.

Pinocchio · « **Reply #123 on:** May 15, 2013, 10:51 »

Lobo often uses the terms "we" and "I" as in this excerpt:

"We are aware newer content has taken a hit over the last several months.

We will reassess files after a period of time. At present we are looking at 6 months as target for reassessment. I hope to have more clarity on that in the future. So you can half quote me on that. "

Is he still an independent contractor?

I think iS would be better served by someone with a little more empathy and finesse - assuming those qualities actually reflected management's view of how they prefer to interact with both suppliers and buyers. And Lobo would need a new screen name...

Regards

ShadySue · « **Reply #124 on:** May 15, 2013, 11:06 »

He uses 'we' meaning iS, as in he's transmitting their official line as fed to him. He 'hopes to have more clarity' when 'they' give him the info.
And maybe he's aligning himself with 'we' as in 'them', because he's not a contributor, and can't align with 'us', which is where his lack of sympathy/empathy comes from. He has no stake in what 'they' do to 'us'.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: iStock simplifying collections (Read 33548 times)

ShadySue

dingles

cathyslife

dingles

Sean Locke Photography

tickstock

sharpshot

MichaelJayFoto

Leo Blanchette

dirkr

gillian vann

ShadySue

ShadySue

rubyroo

Mantis

tickstock

tickstock

wds

ShadySue

ShadySue

Pinocchio

aspp

Gel-O Shooter

Pinocchio

ShadySue

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors