Author Topic: iStock simplifying collections (Read 33557 times)

cobalt · « **Reply #76 on:** May 14, 2013, 08:28 »

I hope it works out for you. If I was still exclusive I wouldn´t like to have a large part of my work excluded from the lowest price level. Again, if they gave me the option to move files "down"stream it wouldn´t be a problem. Then I could look at my portfolio and spread it over different price points. The exclusives who are successful have a lot of experience in their niche markets. This experience is no longer being tapped.

But maybe it will work out. Looks like things will be easier for the customer.

michealo · « **Reply #77 on:** May 14, 2013, 08:30 »

Simple fact for me as a contributor is IS aren't delivering the dollars and no amount of simplifying the collection will fix that.

I'm also a bit dubious of them successfully moving files around within their own website

Though they seem to distribute them to the likes of Google well enough :-)

This is to help their bottom line and not mine and I think that telegraphs that exclusivity is on the way out

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #78 on:** May 14, 2013, 08:33 »

Quote from: loop on May 14, 2013, 08:14

"IS has finally abandoned the absurd fiction that exclusive's work is, de facto, better than independents'".

As selling items, they are. It is not a matter of quality: it's the fact that independent work can be found elsewhere for a fraction of the price. Whan I've had to buy a file from an independent contributor, alhougth found in IS, I always have ended buying it at the cheapest site.

Then, surely, if you find two near identical files, one from an exclusive and one from an independent, you will buy the independent one, either at iS, because it is cheaper than the exclusive's version, or on another site where it is cheaper.
I doubt that many designers find it cost-effective to trawl different sites to try to save money, especially when they are charging the dl to the client, anyway.

dirkr · « **Reply #79 on:** May 14, 2013, 08:38 »

Quote from: loop on May 14, 2013, 08:14

"IS has finally abandoned the absurd fiction that exclusive's work is, de facto, better than independents'".

As selling items, they are. It is not a matter of quality: it's the fact that independent work can be found elsewhere for a fraction of the price. Whan I've had to buy a file from an independent contributor, alhougth found in IS, I always have ended buying it at the cheapest site.

If most buyers would act this way, independent files would rarely be sold on Istock. As can be seen by the poll on the right, this seems to be not true (even if sales numbers seem to be declining, Istock is still the second best seller in the game for independents overall).

Therefore the price difference between Istock and the other sites does not seem to be the major decision point for buyers. It will be interesting to see if / how that changes if independent images are offered for higher prices and that price difference increases.

Overall (looking from the outside) the move to simplify their collections and pricing structure and to remove the artificial link between exclusivity status and price range (mostly) looks like a move in the right direction.

To make me want to re-upload my portfolio there they have to do something about their royalty percentage though.

loop · « **Reply #80 on:** May 14, 2013, 08:58 »

Quote from: dirkr on May 14, 2013, 08:38

Quote from: loop on May 14, 2013, 08:14
"IS has finally abandoned the absurd fiction that exclusive's work is, de facto, better than independents'".

As selling items, they are. It is not a matter of quality: it's the fact that independent work can be found elsewhere for a fraction of the price. Whan I've had to buy a file from an independent contributor, alhougth found in IS, I always have ended buying it at the cheapest site.

If most buyers would act this way, independent files would rarely be sold on Istock. As can be seen by the poll on the right, this seems to be not true (even if sales numbers seem to be declining, Istock is still the second best seller in the game for independents overall).

Therefore the price difference between Istock and the other sites does not seem to be the major decision point for buyers. It will be interesting to see if / how that changes if independent images are offered for higher prices and that price difference increases.

Overall (looking from the outside) the move to simplify their collections and pricing structure and to remove the artificial link between exclusivity status and price range (mostly) looks like a move in the right direction.

To make me want to re-upload my portfolio there they have to do something about their royalty percentage though.

Obviously, not all the buyers do that, but many do. I know many others. And the priice difference is definitely a factor: every time Istock has raised prices, a noticeable percentage of customers have gone elsewhere. I was selling about 10x number of files when prices were 1, 2, 3 etc.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #81 on:** May 14, 2013, 09:03 »

Doesn't that suggest that buyers either tend to stick to iS or to abandon it. If you've taken out a sub somewhere, it doesn't save money (or make sense) to keep going back and buying some stuff from IS.

wds · « **Reply #82 on:** May 14, 2013, 09:08 »

They are taking away control from contributors over their portfolios. Plain and simple, not a good thing from contributor's standpoint (esp. exclusives, at least there is some upside for indies with an opening into higher price points). Even if this is a long term positive for buyers. It will probably take a few years to reap that benefit.

ShadySue · « **Reply #83 on:** May 14, 2013, 09:19 »

I've been through the announcement and the whole discussion thread using FF's 'find' and can't see what they're going to do with the existing Value Collection (fka Dollar Bin). Anyone seen this info? In the absence of concrete info, presumably they're going to put all into the new 'main'?

ShadySue · « **Reply #84 on:** May 14, 2013, 09:31 »

And another wee thing.
Apparently they've "been working this out for a while".
But not too long ago, they were saying that buyers wanted "more higher priced content" (which made no sense to me), so we should max our our E+ allocation. In addition, although I haven't submitted anything to be considered for Vetta for years, and was down to 1 nomination for years, at some time very recently, my Vetta nomination slots were raised to 15 without me asking (I only noticed at the weekend).

So I wonder if this is just another "it's your turn to suggest a change" scenario, which get thrown at the IT team, who have to drop ongoing bug fixes for the change, and never get implemented properly, and then get abandoned, leaving carnage in their wake, when the next person gets their turn to suggest a change.

loop · « **Reply #85 on:** May 14, 2013, 09:44 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 14, 2013, 09:03

Doesn't that suggest that buyers either tend to stick to iS or to abandon it. If you've taken out a sub somewhere, it doesn't save money (or make sense) to keep going back and buying some stuff from IS.

Personally, I've almost never used subs (just one time, at CS). Even in the form of single dowloads, specially for print sizes, yoy can find easily much cheaper prices.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #86 on:** May 14, 2013, 09:46 »

I wonder if this is related in any way to the upcoming SS Offset?

tickstock · « **Reply #87 on:** May 14, 2013, 09:57 »

dirkr · « **Reply #88 on:** May 14, 2013, 10:05 »

Quote from: loop on May 14, 2013, 08:58

Obviously, not all the buyers do that, but many do. I know many others. And the priice difference is definitely a factor: every time Istock has raised prices, a noticeable percentage of customers have gone elsewhere. I was selling about 10x number of files when prices were 1, 2, 3 etc.

And that is why I think royalty percentage is so much more important (from a contributors point of view) then RPD - if you pay for a high RPD with lower percentages AND lower sales volume, you lose in the end.
And why the argument that cuts in royalty percentage aren't too bad if accompanied by higher prices (I remember at least FT doing that) is purely smoke and mirrors...

The interesting thing in pricing (and probably the hardest) is to find the sweet spot where total revenue is maximized.
I think IS is trying to do so with this move, this is why I think it goes in the right direction.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #89 on:** May 14, 2013, 10:18 »

There's some clear misunderstanding on how Agency will work here...

"I asked that question earlier on and Lobo said, unless there was a misunderstanding, that these files will be treated like regular files - they will start as main if not exclusive and signature if exclusive. The collection clean-up will clarify what goes where on quality and performance. Indeed, were the ingested content automatically put in Vetta, it would go against this principle."

ShadySue · « **Reply #90 on:** May 14, 2013, 10:51 »

Quote from: sjlocke on May 14, 2013, 10:18

There's some clear misunderstanding on how Agency will work here...

"I asked that question earlier on and Lobo said, unless there was a misunderstanding, that these files will be treated like regular files - they will start as main if not exclusive and signature if exclusive. The collection clean-up will clarify what goes where on quality and performance. Indeed, were the ingested content automatically put in Vetta, it would go against this principle."

To which Lobo has replied:
"I didn't indicate that at all. I stated that Agency files will not be treated any differently than the rest of the files in the collection. If they aren't performing they will also move into the lower tiers."

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #91 on:** May 14, 2013, 11:02 »

... and then "Sorry for the confusion. So, to be clear, ingested content coming from GI will start as Vetta?" and then "If it meets the criteria for the Vetta collection - yes. If it's not Vetta it will be placed in an appropriate lower tier."

So it sounds like a: the Agency collection on IS is indeed disappearing, and b: they think they are somehow going to be able to sort incoming macro work into 4 collections when they couldn't before. If I was still there, I would be very upset, as a majority of my daily royalties came from Agency sales. Now, they would be shucked into the almost half priced Vetta collection, which they might as well rename, as it sounds like Vetta is no longer any kind of elite, artistic collection, but just "Signature++".

Additionally, how thrilled will the macro producers be when told their macro work will now be available for as low as $1 ?

Poncke v2 · « **Reply #92 on:** May 14, 2013, 11:07 »

Quote from: tickstock on May 14, 2013, 09:57

Quote from: WarrenPrice on May 14, 2013, 09:46
I wonder if this is related in any way to the upcoming SS Offset?
This has been planned for a while.

Is what they say...

tickstock · « **Reply #93 on:** May 14, 2013, 11:07 »

JFP · « **Reply #94 on:** May 14, 2013, 11:09 »

I think in theory it could be a good change if done properly, but the facts are that:

- Vetta will now be made for Getty Agency files. Mr Lobo said there will not be preferences, but they also previously said that all Getty Agency files would go through same review process, which was a complete lie.
- They are going to screw up the site again so be prepared for a further drop of sales
- it's getting closer and closer to an end of the Exclusivity program but Getty/IS doesn't have the decency to tell it

Pinocchio · « **Reply #95 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

Tryingmybest · « **Reply #96 on:** May 14, 2013, 14:37 »

I suspect there would be less misunderstandings if they did a "few more minutes of extra cleanup" on the email before sending it. It's obviously "lacking visual impact and therefore not suitable" for us to take time out of the day to read it.

cobalt · « **Reply #97 on:** May 14, 2013, 17:33 »

This is part of the old thread on changes for price points. somewhere in there Kingcash announced what changes were coming.

I haven´t looked at the whole thread and anyway for me it is no longer relevant. But it might be worth comparing the original idea that Kris laid out in January to what is going to come now.

Like I said before, i hope it works out. istock is a major part of my income and will remain so for a long time because I am uploading my portfolio very slowly to other sites.

Also many of my friends are exclusive and I really wish them well. Their families depend on their income from istock.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?
threadid=350573&page=11

ETA:

This is the page I was looking for. Is this the same to what was just announced? I think the main difference is that exclusive files with zero (or few) downloads will be available in the lowest rank and indie content can rise up to the 3rd level, but not the fourth.

So this way exclusive content will be available on all levels.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350573&page=6

luissantos84 · « **Reply #98 on:** May 14, 2013, 19:23 »

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.

aaaah... right! (hope you understand this, please!!!)

gillian vann · « **Reply #99 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...

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: iStock simplifying collections (Read 33557 times)

tickstock

cobalt

michealo

BaldricksTrousers

dirkr

loop

BaldricksTrousers

wds

ShadySue

ShadySue

loop

WarrenPrice

tickstock

dirkr

Sean Locke Photography

ShadySue

Sean Locke Photography

Poncke v2

tickstock

JFP

Pinocchio

Tryingmybest

cobalt

luissantos84

gillian vann

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors