Author Topic: iStock simplifying collections (Read 33382 times)

ShadySue · « **Reply #25 on:** May 13, 2013, 15:06 »

Quote from: Pinocchio on May 13, 2013, 15:05

Quote from: Travelling-light on May 13, 2013, 14:48
Quote from: Poncke v2 on May 13, 2013, 14:41
Can someone explain to me what it would mean to a new contributor with 30 files, uploaded in December and April?

Nothing at this stage, everything uploaded since Dec 2012 stays where it is.
These files will be evaluated according to their performance in the next few months.

I think this should read September 2012, not December 2012?

Regards

Couldn't agree more.

aspp · « **Reply #26 on:** May 13, 2013, 15:06 »

I bet they f it up as usual.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #27 on:** May 13, 2013, 15:06 »

Quote from: tickstock on May 13, 2013, 15:02

Quote from: ShadySue on May 13, 2013, 14:57
I wonder how currently high-selling indie files in the top price band will compete with the same files selling for peanuts at SS et al.
I think this is the part that will be good for exclusives, now nonexclusive content won't have a price advantage over exclusive content.

I agree! this time will work!

tickstock · « **Reply #28 on:** May 13, 2013, 15:11 »

Pinocchio · « **Reply #29 on:** May 13, 2013, 15:23 »

Quote from: tickstock on May 13, 2013, 15:11

Quote from: luissantos84 on May 13, 2013, 15:06
Quote from: tickstock on May 13, 2013, 15:02
Quote from: ShadySue on May 13, 2013, 14:57
I wonder how currently high-selling indie files in the top price band will compete with the same files selling for peanuts at SS et al.
I think this is the part that will be good for exclusives, now nonexclusive content won't have a price advantage over exclusive content.

I agree! this time will work!
I know I shouldn't reply to you because you never listen, read or respond with anything that makes sense but I'm going to do it anyway. A big complaint has been that some similar content was cheaper to buy from nonexclusives than exclusives and therefore exclusives lost sales. I would imagine an Agency image that is similar to a nonexclusive image but priced 10 times more loses out many times to the cheaper content.

That has been the subject of complaint, but I don't see anything that avoids that issue for exclusives. Seems to me exclusive files are going to have to compete on the basis of quality, with less advantage of being exclusive. As I read it now, many of the responses on the IS forum (and it's suddenly rather lively) are exclusives concerned for their diminishing advantages... Glad I don't have to worry about that..

Regards

pancaketom · « **Reply #30 on:** May 13, 2013, 15:25 »

Quote from: tickstock on May 13, 2013, 15:11

Quote from: luissantos84 on May 13, 2013, 15:06
Quote from: tickstock on May 13, 2013, 15:02
Quote from: ShadySue on May 13, 2013, 14:57
I wonder how currently high-selling indie files in the top price band will compete with the same files selling for peanuts at SS et al.
I think this is the part that will be good for exclusives, now nonexclusive content won't have a price advantage over exclusive content.

I agree! this time will work!
I know I shouldn't reply to you because you never listen, read or respond with anything that makes sense but I'm going to do it anyway. A big complaint has been that some similar content was cheaper to buy from nonexclusives than exclusives and therefore exclusives lost sales. I would imagine an Agency image that is similar to a nonexclusive image but priced 10 times more loses out many times to the cheaper content.

I think search placement is still more important.

Interesting that they are trying this - of course how they actually decide what goes where and when is what really matters. My guess is they will be dropping prices for lots of exclusive content and lifting a very few top sellers in the hopes of wringing more $ out of them. The last 5 or more years have taught me to be cynical of EVERYTHING istock and getty do.

tickstock · « **Reply #31 on:** May 13, 2013, 15:27 »

mlwinphoto · « **Reply #32 on:** May 13, 2013, 15:33 »

Quote from: tickstock on May 13, 2013, 15:02

Quote from: ShadySue on May 13, 2013, 14:57
I wonder how currently high-selling indie files in the top price band will compete with the same files selling for peanuts at SS et al.
I think this is the part that will be good for exclusives, now nonexclusive content won't have a price advantage over exclusive content.

I think this will also be good for non-exclusives. I'd (I'm soon to be indie again) like to have files in the higher priced collections if they merit being there based on performance.

Travelling-light · « **Reply #33 on:** May 13, 2013, 15:41 »

Quote from: Pinocchio on May 13, 2013, 15:05

Quote from: Travelling-light on May 13, 2013, 14:48
Quote from: Poncke v2 on May 13, 2013, 14:41
Can someone explain to me what it would mean to a new contributor with 30 files, uploaded in December and April?

Nothing at this stage, everything uploaded since Dec 2012 stays where it is.
These files will be evaluated according to their performance in the next few months.

I think this should read September 2012, not December 2012?

eta: see the original post, second sentence after "Moving Content"...

Regards

You are right, I thought Sept and wrote Dec. Have amended my post.
Old age is hell....

aspp · « **Reply #34 on:** May 13, 2013, 15:42 »

It is in their interest to sell more non-exclusive content at every price point since they pay an even smaller royalty on that. Therefore I would expect to see a best match advantage to non-exclusive content at every comparable price level.

Poncke v2 · « **Reply #35 on:** May 13, 2013, 15:42 »

Quote

Posted By Lobo:
Where are the Files Coming From?

Vetta Section

Extremely High performing Non-exclusive files (from Main/Plus)

This is a TYPO. The Extremely High performing Non-Exclusive files will not enter into the Vetta Collection. The highest Non-exclusive files will move is into the Signature + Collection

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=353725&messageid=6886547

The Mighty Jungle · « **Reply #36 on:** May 13, 2013, 15:43 »

I'm a bit unhappy that I'm loosing control over E+ .... I was able to boost my income by selectively moving specific images to E+ ... Choosing exactly the right images made a difference..... I know I will always pay way more attention to my images than istock editors ever will, and honestly think my choices would be better than theirs.... Hope I'm wrong.... they're the pros after all.

franky242 · « **Reply #37 on:** May 13, 2013, 15:52 »

Being non-exclusive, I couldn´t prevent a decent laughter and thinking i$tock should go into politics:

Quote

Excluding exclusive artists from the Main collection puts exclusive artists at a disadvantage by preventing them from selling relevant images to our more price-conscious customers.

- that´s just a very nice way of saying "Sorry Exclusives, your images will also be low-level priced now if we decide accordingly..."

I guess that´s indeed good news for non-exclusives and - most of all - agencies having good search algorithms and pricing structures like DT with their image levels based on downloads for quite some time now - not that I´d call them my best selling agency but definitely a fairer option than being dependent on reviewer´s moods and taste!

rubyroo · « **Reply #38 on:** May 13, 2013, 15:52 »

Sounds interesting - and could prove positive for non-exclusives. But I'm still waiting to hear some assurances that we'll have an opt-out on any future third party deals before I can trust them again after the Google Drive issues.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #39 on:** May 13, 2013, 16:05 »

So, now, there is no difference between exclusivity and independence except a higher level of performance required to be in a certain "collection", and the observation that with two similar files priced the same, why would Getty push the file they only get %60 for, when they could get %85?

It certainly doesn't sound like anything to do with judging quality. Just sales performance, with an initial boost to exclusive files.

The Mighty Jungle · « **Reply #40 on:** May 13, 2013, 16:09 »

".......... why would Getty push the file they only get %60 for, when they could get %85?"

Why are they even maintaining Exclusivity now .... what's in it for them?

cobalt · « **Reply #41 on:** May 13, 2013, 16:31 »

I´m confused - wasn´t the getty 360 program the big next thing coming up? What happened to that?

This looks like what Kris Kringle(?) or KingCash or whatever they called themselves announced last December. That there would be new price tiers and price bands that used to have only exclusive content would now also have independent content. So when a buyer chooses a higher price point, he will no longer see only exclusive files.

There is a lot more independent stock material than exclusive content in the stock world. And the upload limits have been removed so the floodgates are open for indie content to be placed in nearly all price levels.

It is very interesting news for independents and maybe people with very special content can now make deals with getty to have their content placed even higher than before.

But the exlusives lose control over the price point in their portfolio. They also lose the ability to decide which images will be mirrored on getty.

I also wonder like some have mentioned if the price point for some files is the same - why would getty promote the image where they only earn 60% instead of the ones were they earn 80-85%?

So at higher price points exclusives will no longer be shielded from the competition. Only Vetta is the level left to exclusive only content.

And what about the customer? Simplifying collections is a good idea in principle, but why move indie content to higher prices if the customer can find these files cheaper everywhere else?

I am sorry to see my exclusive friends so worried. Is there really nothing coming up that is good news for exclusives?

I guess I should be happy as this might be good for me, but my focus is anyway spread over all the agencies, it makes changes at just one agency less important.

But maybe this opens the path longterm for exclusive images. I would welcome that for all the Lypse files and certain subjects.

tickstock · « **Reply #42 on:** May 13, 2013, 16:38 »

cobalt · « **Reply #43 on:** May 13, 2013, 16:43 »

They could have just allowed the exclusives to nominate a percentage of their portfolio for the lower price point. This would put the artist in control. The market would have sorted that pretty quickly once people get an idea for what sells best where.

tickstock · « **Reply #44 on:** May 13, 2013, 16:45 »

wds · « **Reply #45 on:** May 13, 2013, 16:46 »

Quote from: aethelflaed on May 13, 2013, 16:09

".......... why would Getty push the file they only get %60 for, when they could get %85?"

Why are they even maintaining Exclusivity now .... what's in it for them?

The belief is that it brings in customers for the unique content. However, in the future if they find that non-ex content sells as well as exclusive content at the same price point, that may change the perception...

gostwyck · « **Reply #46 on:** May 13, 2013, 17:25 »

Quote from: cobalt on May 13, 2013, 16:43

They could have just allowed the exclusives to nominate a percentage of their portfolio for the lower price point. This would put the artist in control. The market would have sorted that pretty quickly once people get an idea for what sells best where.

Putting the agency or the artist 'in control' is actually the root cause of the problem that Istock has had. The customer and/or the market should really be 'in control'. By trying to be 'in control' of prices and especially sort-order placement, Istock have effectively lost control of their industry and now appear to be in free-fall.

The supposed 'value' that Istock placed on particular images, via their pricing architecture, bore absolutely no relation to how the customers (or indeed other agencies) valued those images. Now Istock have finally had to accept that.

SS understands the market and what they are really selling. IS, DT and FT simply don't __ and that's why they are being taken to the cleaners by SS. You may not like the implications of that but it is what's actually happening.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #47 on:** May 13, 2013, 18:06 »

I think the idea is right. Simplify collections. Base price on perceived value. Got it. Pretty much how it's done at Gettyimages.com.

But... this seems to further blur and dilute the benefits of exclusivity. Almost seems like the independents have the most to gain from this. No more upload limits. Access to Getty. And now GI is in complete control over our sales and in essence our Redeemed Credits. Not sure if that's good or bad.

Money makes my decisions for me. So I'll hang in there and see how it goes.

ShadySue · « **Reply #48 on:** May 13, 2013, 18:21 »

Way back in the day I didn't really agree on the importance of the best match, and probably it wasn't so very influential when there were so many files.
But now the best match can make or break a file. I hae a weird anecdote of my own, which I'm sure most people can match. I have one particular file which I uploaded in December 2007 then had 15 files in a reasonable period, for me, in 2008. Then not one download until 29th April this year then another on 10th May. Both large but quite different credit value, so probably two buyers. And guess what, the file is suddenly in best match position 5/869 for its most likely keyword phrase, by some freak of best match adjustments.
So, is it suddenly a better file than it was for the past nearly five years?

My point being that they can manipulate what files sell, or don't.

lisafx · « **Reply #49 on:** May 13, 2013, 18:58 »

I think this will be a good thing for high performing indies. I nominated my images for P+ based on sales criteria and uniqueness. If these continue to be the criteria then I don't expect too many of them will be dropped down. Access to higher priced collections, plus the prospect of getting files on Getty means that indies are likely to see an income rise.

I also don't see this as a negative for high performing exclusives. If the quality of their files merits it, they will continue to have better access to the higher priced collections, and will benefit from the higher percentages and visibility they get over indie files.

The people this will most likely hurt are the exclusives who have been coasting by, producing mainly mediocre work. Those are the ones that Istock doesn't really care if they drop the crown. Those are also the ones with the least option to go indie, as a lot of their back catalogue of work would not be accepted on other sites by today's higher standards. Those folks will have to up their game or they are pretty much screwed.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: iStock simplifying collections (Read 33382 times)

ShadySue

aspp

luissantos84

tickstock

Pinocchio

pancaketom

tickstock

mlwinphoto

Travelling-light

aspp

Poncke v2

The Mighty Jungle

franky242

rubyroo

Sean Locke Photography

The Mighty Jungle

cobalt

tickstock

cobalt

tickstock

wds

gostwyck

PaulieWalnuts

ShadySue

lisafx

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors