MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: Poncke v2 on May 13, 2013, 13:21
-
Over the last several months we have been gathering feedback from both customers and our exclusive contributors to get a better understanding of what we can do to improve the iStock experience. Our buyers want simplicity and quality—but over time we’ve accumulated 7 collections at iStock. At this point, the differences and advantages between them are murky at best, especially from the customer’s vantage point. Bottom line – to be successful we need to help different customers with different needs find the content they are looking for at the price that reflects the quality of the image...
Contributors are looking for a better understanding of where their content will generate the most activity and sales; again, it is not clear without some data and a little first-hand image merchandising experience. There are other issues to resolve as well (thank you exclusives for your survey feedback). Clearly a measured and methodical collections reorganization effort is in order. We have been listening and working on a solution. Today we are happy to say, we are well into our planning stages for some significant changes. We are preparing now for implementation of measures we think will be major steps in the right direction for iStock’s next phase of growth and we’d like to share the highlights with you now.
What are we doing?:
A restructuring and simplification of the collections on iStockphoto
When is this all going to happen?:
The changes will be happening in phases over the next few weeks. It’ll be a combination of site changes, file migrations, and submission & inspection workflow changes. We'll inform you on the exact timing as we get closer to the launch date.
What file types will be impacted?:
Considering Photos has the most complexity, many of these changes impact that file type more than others, but we plan to apply as many of these ideas across as many file types as possible.
Why?:
To simplify the collections and have the flexibility to present customers with the right content at the right price point. Here are a few specifics:
o 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.
o The fact that exclusive content is generally priced higher than non-exclusive is not always justified by the image, and having 2 price levels (exclusive and non-exclusive) at each price tier can make pricing overly complicated for customers.
We want to simplify.
o 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.
We want Exclusive contributors to have access to customers at every price point.
o We also have some high quality non-exclusive content that can stand-up to a higher price-point than the current structure permits undermining the overall price to quality relationship for all contributors.
We need to have the flexibility to make all of our content available to customers at the optimum price-point for each file.
How will it work? In short, we will:
• reduce 7 collections down to 4 collections for photos.
• mix exclusive and non-exclusive files within some collections based on quality.
• move some files up and some down between collections based on quality and demonstrated performance history. If, after a reasonable amount of time a file is not selling at a given price, we’ll lower the price and see if that increases downloads. If a file is selling like crazy a given price, we’ll carefully move it up in price and see if it can perform even better there. All file moves will be made with care - no one wants to price a file out of the sweet spot – finding the sweet spot where a file performs best will always be the goal.
Getting to the new structure will take several steps including re-naming of collections, file migrations, and adding of new exclusivity types to certain collections. The following table shows how the structure of the collections will be evolving: SEE IMAGE
Moving content:
Over a period of 1-2 weeks images will shift from the old collection structure to the new. Some files will stay where they are, some will move up or down – only files that were submitted before September 2012 will be evaluated for movement, newer files with less history will stay in their current collection or new equivalent collection. Files eligible for movement will be evaluated on their performance history. There will also be a visual assessment by the inspection team – while it isn’t realistic to visually review every file before moving them, we’re looking at as many as we can, especially in situations where the creative/visual/content elements of a file may outweigh the performance history when establishing the ideal price (images moving into or out of the Vetta collections for example).
Will content be inspected differently?:
Yes. To align with the new simplified collection structure we’ll be making several adjustments in the submission and inspection processes. Some changes will go live immediately after the content is in place in the new structure and others will come a bit later. We’ll provide additional details about timing and any interim workflows as we get closer to launch.
Here are the key changes:
• Removal of E+ and P+ placement functionality - a different approach to placing files into higher price tier collections will be introduced (more on this below)
• Removal of Vetta/TAC opt in – the ASA (Exclusive) permits mirroring and movement of content to the Vetta collections on other sites without the opt-in feature, and the Agency collection is being eliminated. All Exclusive photo, video and illustration content will automatically be eligible for the new VETTA collection, and exclusives will continue to be able to nominate as well.
• All new non-exclusive files will be placed directly into the MAIN collection. Members of the inspection team will be reviewing new non-exclusive content on a regular basis and moving it to higher price tiers as appropriate (SIGNATURE or SIGNATURE+).
• The majority of new incoming exclusive content will go directly into the SIGNATURE collection, with the following exceptions:
o The exclusive contributor has nominated the file for VETTA, in which case the file would be reviewed for placement in this collection – exactly as in the current process with the exception of limits. All limits will be removed for Exclusive contributor nominations to VETTA
o Members of the inspection team who review VETTA nominations will also be on the lookout for other exclusive content in SIGNATURE that would be appropriate for SIGNATURE+ or VETTA.
o Members of the inspection team will also be on the lookout for new exclusive content that would be better placed in the MAIN collection.
Going forward:
Once this transition is complete and the revised processes are in place there will be periodic assessments of file performance. Using this information, along with visual reviews when needed, files will continue to move up or down in price until they find their sweet spot where they get the optimal combination of price and downloads.
We’re sure you will have additional questions but in the meantime we’ve put together a few that we’ve anticipated to start along with answers. We will build on this FAQ as needed based on the feedback and inquiries you provide.
The logistics of these changes may take a bit of time to absorb, but the premise of the collection restructure is logical and quite simple; better aligning image quality and price improves the customer experience and continues to make iStockphoto the place that recognizes premium and differentiated content and prices it accordingly.
FAQ:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=353725&sp_rid=&sp_mid=5470254 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=353725&sp_rid=&sp_mid=5470254)
-
First personal thought is that while certainly I have a lot of older low/non sellers that I wished I could price at base level, I'm not happy about all my recent files automatically going in at a low price point, since it's their fiddling with the best match which has failed new files.
Or maybe that's what they were planning all along, so that there would be new files available at base price.
I'm sure more will come to mind. They certainly needed to simplify the collections; this isn't the way I thought they would go, but apart from the new files issue, it seems not bad at first glance.
-
omgd, this is not good.
-
Seems like good news for non-exclusives. Maybe not so much for exclusives. I wonder why they didn't make it more voluntary rather than moving files where they think they'll perform best. I would think most contributors have a better feel for how their files should be priced than the agencies.
-
I'm shocked to learn that Istock's buyers are seeking simplicity. Who would ever have thought that? ::) Good thing we never had any discussions about ineffective price sliders (in 2011?) or any other way to simplify the customer search experience that resolved the problem. ::)
A quick glance shows potential upside for my popular + files. Kind of a DT structure. One question is how long will images stay in an elevated category if they don’t sell?
-
While it still mattered to me, Photo+ was a big part of keeping earnings up. That's gonzo in the new scheme - contributors have no control over the price point.
I wish I could say that IS will make wise decisions about which files go at which prices, but honestly I think they won't be able to manage that.
And is the dollar bin going away? Files there deleted or moved to the new main collection?
-
What are the current 7 collections?
1) Main
2) E+
3) P+
4) Vetta
5) Agency
6) Dollar Bin?
7) ?
-
'
-
As a naturally cynical person, I'll need to think about it a bit more, but at a first read through, it sounds interesting.
Now, if they would just allow exclusive images, as well as exclusive photographers, with a decent payout level - 50% would be very acceptable - it would become very interesting.
-
Exclusive and Nonexclusive regular instead of Main.
1) Exclusive
2) Non-exclusive
3) E+
4) P+
5) Vetta
6) Agency
7) Dollar Bin?
-
I'm shocked to learn that Istock's buyers are seeking simplicity. Who would ever have thought that? ::) Good thing we never had any discussions about ineffective price sliders (in 2011?) or any other way to simplify the customer search experience that resolved the problem. ::)
A quick glance shows potential upside for my popular + files. Kind of a DT structure. One question is how long will images stay in an elevated category if they don’t sell?
Hmm. Basically they are now trying to disentangle themselves from the deliberately over-complex, greed-driven (rather than customer-focused) mess ... that they have just spent several years constructing.
Sales numbers must be really bad for this to happen. Whatever next? Getting rid of the RC system and royalty increases for all? Don't laugh __ it would probably help them a lot if they had the balls to do it.
-
Exclusive and Nonexclusive regular instead of Main.
1) Exclusive
2) Non-exclusive
3) E+
4) P+
5) Vetta
6) Agency
7) Dollar Bin?
I guess the DB is no 7; I can't think of any other.
it's not clear what's going to happen to the DB. I have two images which have flamed in the DB which had no previous sales on iS. Wonder where they'll be placed?
Also noting that "Under-performing Vetta/TAC files with zero downloads" are going down to current E+ pricing. Wonder if they'll demote all these unsold ingested V/A images on 'deals' with pseudo-exclusives?
-
I guess the other thought I had was that this is basically what they do at Dreamstime. Then I thought does it work at DT and is that what you should be emulating?
-
Sorry, but I can't help thinking this is bad for all people with P+ and E+ files. If all my P+ files get back to their original price level, this will be another drop in IS income.
-
Not that I care that much, since none of my images will be moved anywhere as I left Istock.
But...
Veta - exclusivity type: exclusive only
content source:
Current Vetta/TAC collections
Extremely High performing Non-exclusive files (from Main/Plus)
Extremely high performing E/E+ files that also meet visual standards
Huh? how is it possible to have non-exclusive types in an exclusive only collection? Am probably missing a point there.
-
Can someone explain to me what it would mean to a new contributor with 30 files, uploaded in December and April?
-
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 Sep 2012 stays where it is.
These files will be evaluated according to their performance in the next few months.
-
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.
Gotcha, thanks.
-
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.
Thanks, I missed that too.
Wonder what the best match is going to do with new files.
-
What will be interesting, will be how IS evaluates non-exclusive files.
Will they put non-exclusive files to the front of the best match, to see how they perform?
If they don't, how will they know how well a file would have done?
-
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.
-
.
-
That email reminds me of a Bible verse I had to learn when I was little: Where words are many, sin is not absent. :P
I hope the best for them, but...
-
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
-
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 always asked to have that choice for myself.
Now rarer subjects which only sell a few times will have no benefit for the effort.
-
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.
-
I bet they f it up as usual.
-
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! ;D
-
'
-
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! ;D
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
-
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! ;D
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.
-
'
-
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.
-
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....
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=353725&messageid=6886547)
-
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.
-
Being non-exclusive, I couldn´t prevent a decent laughter and thinking i$tock should go into politics:
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
".......... 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?
-
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.
-
.
-
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.
-
.
-
".......... 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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
For me its another screwa retarda plana as debilegate introduce famous vista
Get a Mac - It´s the time to play Choose a Vista (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WP9tkpMRD9s#)
-
I don't mind it. I personally don't want to waste time moving my files around and waiting. For the most part, I'd probably keep them in the main çollection anyway. I guess it sucks that we are losing some more control, but not overly important to me.
I like the idea of exclusives having to keep quality up. Outside of video, I'm not sure how exclusivity holds any weight any more.
-
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.
I will add one thing to this. With the influx of Getty content into the Agency Collection and a lot of that does not sell, with this new system they can now move that content to other collections so it can earn them some money.
-
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.
I'm not sure that is true. IS was doing quite well until they started burning the place down. I think the fundamental model of IS is still sound. I know I modeled my own personal site off of parts of it. It's just that the royalty percentages were garbage, so it didn't seem like a stable place to be.
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.
I'm wondering if that is the real future. As contributors pull away, will these sites have to invite them back through side deals? If so, my phone is available for calls. ;D
-
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.
I'm not sure that is true. IS was doing quite well until they started burning the place down. I think the fundamental model of IS is still sound. I know I modeled my own personal site off of parts of it. It's just that the royalty percentages were garbage, so it didn't seem like a stable place to be.
I think Istock were able to ride the wave of being 'first to market' and having a much greater marketing budget than anyone else for quite some time.
Only a couple of weeks ago I popped into a client's office, with whom I have an excellent relationship, just as they happened to be searching for images on Istock, where they had always bought images. As they expressed frustration at the speed of the site I suggested they tried SS instead telling them not only how much faster and accurate the SS search was likely to be but also how IS paid me only 18% of sales. They were visibly shocked. I doubt that IS will be getting much more of their money in the future!
-
I think Istock were able to ride the wave of being 'first to market' and having a much greater marketing budget than anyone else for quite some time.
I actually think the same can be said for SS. Their subscription model got established a while ago, and nobody has really been able to cut into it much. I don't see that changing much either because contributors seem to rabidly protect it. I can't blame them though. They don't have much left after IS started rapidly shrinking. I see SS more as a security blanket in an unstable industry than a genius of the market.
-
I think Istock were able to ride the wave of being 'first to market' and having a much greater marketing budget than anyone else for quite some time.
I actually think the same can be said for SS. Their subscription model got established a while ago, and nobody has really been able to cut into it much. I don't see that changing much either because contributors seem to rabidly protect it. I can't blame them though. They don't have much left after IS started rapidly shrinking. I see SS more as a security blanket in an unstable industry than a genius of the market.
You're wrong on a couple of points there. Firstly SS's gain, over the last 2-3 years, has not been on subscription sales but mainly on OD's, EL's and SOD's. Sub sales have actually been relatively stable.
Secondly, SS are somewhat unique in that they haven't actually reduced royalties to contributors (barring the recent reduction to the absurdly over-generous historical referral scheme) since they started.
I don't think SS are a 'genius of the market' either. I'm just utterly gob-smacked how utterly stupid most of their competitors have behaved. SS quite literally didn't have do anything other than concentrate efforts on their customers' experience ... to win the game outright in an almost embarrassingly short amount of time. In a crowded, competitive market that should have been the obvious thing to do. Somehow all their competitors concentrated their efforts on maximising the bottom-line of the next quarter rather than the next 5 years. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
-
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.
And yet you think it is a fine idea for SS to be serving buyers content based on what is best for the agency's bottom line and its stock holders bank accounts.
Based on my experience as a buyer on IS, the content they served me was not in my best interest's and not what I needed for my projects. Consequently I spent more time trying to find what I needed and they lost me as a customer.
If SS persists in serving us content based on what is best for their bottom line they will also experience buyers departing.
-
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.
And yet you think it is a fine idea for SS to be serving buyers content based on what is best for the agency's bottom line and its stock holders bank accounts.
Based on my experience as a buyer on IS, the content they served me was not in my best interest's and not what I needed for my projects. Consequently I spent more time trying to find what I needed and they lost me as a customer.
If SS persists in serving us content based on what is best for their bottom line they will also experience buyers departing.
Huh? What are you talking about? That's exactly the opposite of what I've said. SS provides for the market by having all images priced the same and the sort-order position determined by popularity with buyers on specific keywords. Therefore the market alone determines an image's earnings ... i.e. not the agency or the artist.
-
You're wrong on a couple of points there. Firstly SS's gain, over the last 2-3 years, has not been on subscription sales but mainly on OD's, EL's and SOD's. Sub sales have actually been relatively stable.
It really depends on your perspective. SS really stopped growing for me several years ago. Sub sales were replaced with On Demand sales with a marginal net gain. Then things stalled out, and I backed away to explore other opportunities. Maybe that is an alien view on things, but they really weren't growing for me.
Secondly, SS are somewhat unique in that they haven't actually reduced royalties to contributors (barring the recent reduction to the absurdly over-generous historical referral scheme) since they started.
Despite all that, they were still 6 times less than my RPD on IS and even more on other sites. I know that is apples to oranges, but the bottom line wasn't that much more impressive either.
I don't think SS are a 'genius of the market' either. I'm just utterly gob-smacked how utterly stupid most of their competitors have behaved. SS quite literally didn't have do anything other than concentrate efforts on their customers' experience ... to win the game outright in an almost embarrassingly short amount of time. In a crowded, competitive market that should have been the obvious thing to do. Somehow all their competitors concentrated their efforts on maximising the bottom-line of the next quarter rather than the next 5 years. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
I think that is my issue. I'm not overly impressed with SS's domination of the competition. Especially on the vector side, SS is a wasteland of poor review standards and copyright free-for-all. I've also seen several small sites quickly rival my earnings with SS in a matter of years. Like I said, I'm sure my experience is rare, but it still exists.
-
It seems hard to really assess from every angle whether this latest set of proposed changes is going to end up being a good thing or a bad thing and for who.
But if history is any indication of future performance, then I can categorically state that every time iStock has made a change in the way they operate the site that it has ALWAYS ended up in most contributors earning less money and it has ALWAYS ended up in the site having additional functionality problems.
And if we trace the most recent major changes they made to the site back in September of last year, I can truthfully state that I have personally made less and less each and every month ever since those changes were made.
So based on the above, without even studying in detail the latest round of forthcoming changes, I think it is safe to assume that these changes will end up resulting in the same negative outcome of reduced income for almost all contributors.
What is so ironic in all this is that every time iStock comes up with a plan to implement site changes that are supposed to earn contributors more money, I ALWAYS end up earning less. Funny that isn't it?
-
To be fair, there have been a couple of times when artists have gained from iS changes, as well as iS benefitting (the arrival of P+ is one example).
This latest shake-up looks like a stunning repudiation of the entire strategy of iStock management over the last five or six years and a recognition that all the short-term squeezes over the last few years have been counter-productive in the middle- to long-term.
IS has finally abandoned the absurd fiction that exclusive's work is, de facto, better than independents'. They appear to be retreating from the idea of mangling the search in order to try to foist the most expensive collections on clients, regardless of quality. Overall, this is probably the best business move they have made for a long time. It could be a step to bringing customers back.
If I were exclusive I would be very worried. Not only does this mean that exclusive files will be financially the least attractive for iStock to market, by abandoning the mantra that exclusive files are special iStock has put itself one short step away from abandoning the entire idea of exclusivity, which I have argued for a long time really has no merit.
At the moment, independents effectively subsidise the exclusives by receiving less than Getty's standard 20% commission, in order to help drag down the overall average towards the desired figure. Hopefully, if they do scrap exclusivity they will put everyone at least on a flat 20% rate.
Wise exclusives should probably be positioning themselves for the bombshell.
-
I deleted all my best selling images after the Google deal fiasco. Not sure how this will work out but I think the horse bolted a long time ago and they've taken far too long to react. Are all the buyers they've lost going to return? I think that's very unlikely.
-
They'd have done better to invest in cleaning up keywords, especially of the pseudo-exclusive imported stuff which are spam-ridden, and improving the relevance of the search.
-
. As they expressed frustration at the speed of the site I suggested they tried SS instead telling them not only how much faster and accurate the SS search was likely to be but also how IS paid me only 18% of sales.
I honestly don't get the sense of sending clients to one of the sites with the lowest rpd. I would always send them to DT where my rpd is consistently 3 or 4 times more.
-
.
-
. As they expressed frustration at the speed of the site I suggested they tried SS instead telling them not only how much faster and accurate the SS search was likely to be but also how IS paid me only 18% of sales.
I honestly don't get the sense of sending clients to one of the sites with the lowest rpd. I would always send them to DT where my rpd is consistently 3 or 4 times more.
Agree (partly). If they say they need to buy X pictures, send them to the site with the highest RPD. If they say they have a budget of Y$ to spend on images, send them to the site with the highest royalty percentage. Ideally one site fits both accounts (Pond5 with the possibility to set prices comes to my mind...).
I would never send someone to Shutterstock just because they are bringing in the most money. Shutterstock is far from being at the top of either of these metrics (RPD or %).
-
But why would they if they earn less money this way?
When the price of exclusive files was higher, getty always earned more money on an exclusive file although they paid out a higher percentage to the artist. This way the interest of getty and the exclusive artist where aligned.
At the same price level the indie file will always earn them more money.
You really believe that out of the generosity of their hearts they will voluntarily pay more?
But the biggest loss is the ability to nominate files for E+ and Getty. You can now no longer invest in a shoot and decide the higher price point to make your money back.
And it also effects your RC. Before you could nominate 25% of your portfolio for E+. How much of a percentage will you get now?
-
They have also announced that this year they plan to do some lypses with the intent of getting more exclusive contributors who will supply images from markets that are underrepresented.
No stated intent of getting 'exclusives', but inviting non-iStockers from certain areas to participate in lypses to get them on board as contributors:
"Our 2013 plan is two-tiered:
Empower and nurture the photographers in regions where we have a solid base of artists. Pool our creative resources into helping these photographers tailor-make their own shoots and get them linked in to hot local content needs. We need events here that provide the tools to the artists and focus on education, feedback and connectivity.
Develop regions where we have low photographer participation (and hence content). Targeted at not only the existing photographers, but at the future iStockers. We need events here to sign up contributors and get them providing content, in a sustainable manner, from their corner of the world."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=352097&messageid=6857377 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=352097&messageid=6857377)
-
.
-
.
-
shutterstock and dreamstime have a system that only works with the success of the file or the money the portfolio earns. istock will use editors to move files up and down. that is an important difference. And the editors will bring in indepedent content to compete with exclusive files in price bands where they never had to compete before. I really don´t think this is fair to the exclusive contributors. They have decided to sell with one agency only, there should be a very clear emphasis on them.
If they open up the collection to accept exclusive images and then offer to "upgrade" a file to a higher price point if the photographer decides to make it exclusive - that would be a system that would make sense to me. They could gardually attract some of the best content by convincing indepdent artist that these files will be well promoted.
And again - how will the customer react, if suddenly indepedent files that were "cheap" are moved to a higher price point? Especially if they can get these files cheaper elsewhere?
I really don´t understand what they are doing. I think moving indie content "up" will confuse the customer even more. Unless they lower the prices overall to become more competitive.
Personally I prefer to make my own decisions, so I really like that pond5 gives me the ability to set my own price point. But no agency is perfect and at the moment i am glad i can spread the risk and also if I do a shoot I can decide which agency is most suitable for a series. I don´t send all my files everywhere, or all the files from a series. But this is the way I work.
I will see in 18 months how it works out.
ETA: I am too new to know if the best match on Shutterstock, dreamstime etc. are changed to disadvantage higher earning contributors. i have heard rumours, that fotolia does that. But I am still on the lowest ladder, will see what happens as time goes by.
-
.
-
On istock you can use the price slider to decide the price range of files you want to look at. Until now every price range had exclusive content and the higher price bands had only exclusive content.
So if a customer was ready to look at higher prices, he would see only exclusive files.
But with the coming changes, if I understand them correctly, indie content will go to main, exclusive content will default to signature, until a few months later they look at the files and decide if they should stay there.
This will mean that for the first time, the customer can look at the lowest price point and see mostly indie files. Only exclusive files with zero downloads, i.e. the less interesting content will be represented there. So you will have weaker exclusive content competing with all indie content on the lowest level.
The next higher levels that used to have ONLY exclusive content will now have a mix of exclusive and indie content. Just the highest level with Vetta, will be exclusive only.
So while before exclusive content was always visible over all price points, you will now see only teh weaker exclusive files in a sea of indie content at the lower price point. Then on higher levels there will be a mix of indie and exclsuive content whereas before it would only be exclusive content.
Maybe go back to the December thread by the Getty admins. they described that model quite clearly.
There is a lot of superb indie content out there. The volume alone would make me scared if there will be enough room left for exclusives in the higher price bands.
ETA: I forgot P+. So you had 15% of indie content in the next higher price band.
Anyway, it is no longer my problem. Might even be positive for me.
-
"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.
-
.
-
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.
-
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
-
"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.
-
"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.
-
"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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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'?
-
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.
-
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.
-
I wonder if this is related in any way to the upcoming SS Offset?
-
.
-
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.
-
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."
-
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."
-
... 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 ?
-
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...
-
.
-
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
-
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 (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 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. ;) ;)
-
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 (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 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350573&page=6)
-
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! ;D
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!!!)
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. ::)
-
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.
-
Wow, posts are disappearing faster than I can read them.
-
.
-
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.
-
I have allowed myself to think about the changes in my blog (http://www.michaeljayfoto.com/distribution-channels/istock-changing-collections-price-points-what-i-think-about-it/), 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).
-
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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUc9sXWRrV0#)
Maybe my brain is tweaked, but I always think of this movie scene when I think of the exclusivity program.
-
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.
-
seriously, can we please start some bets on "what kooky thing will iStock do next"
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
.
-
.
-
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
-
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.)
-
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.)
-
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
-
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).
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.
-
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
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=353725&messageid=6887259[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=353725&messageid=6887259[/url]) )
"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.
-
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
-
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'.
-
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'.
You're going to pick over his every nuance. Seriously ? FWIW I don't think he lacks sympathy or empathy. He's the helpdesk, not our nanny.
-
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'.
I'd suggest he does have a stake in what 'they' do to 'us' __ although he may not realise it.
If 'they' continue to screw 'us' then 'they' might not need the services of an independent contractor to moderate 'their' forums for too much longer.
-
I can't remember the last time I looked in his/their forum.
-
I really think to streamline price points will be good for the customer and might help istock to grow again.
But the lack of trust between agency and contributors remains a big problem. Taking away the ability to control which files go to E+ sends a clear message the agency doesn't trust the artist to make good commercial decisions.
It's a pity. If they gave the artist more control, this simplification would be very useful to attract exclusives. They could even just allow the exclusives to nominate their files up to E+ or down to the Main collection. Make it an exclusive benefit to draw more people in.
Like this it is obvious they don't believe the artists understand the market value of their webshops/portfolio, and this although they have years and years of experience in their given niche.
ETA: just reading about the 6 months to gather data for a file before it moves up or down - wouldn´t they need to have different lengths of time for exclusive and independent content? Exclusive content gets front page exposure, indie content is at the back of the search. So it would take longer to gather data for indie files.
-
I think this mirrors the changes Getty made a couple of Aprils ago on their main site - taking away from photographers the options to choose where their file was placed (forced moves to RF from RM and RF to subscriptions at Thinkstock)
None of those folks liked it - not sure how it ended up, but at first they were saying that you couldn't even remove the file you didn't want to be sent to a sales outlet you didn't like. If you objected, your only option was to walk away from Getty completely.
Getty has cornered a huge portion of the market and is using that power to bully everyone in an effort to keep their numbers where their owners want them to be. They pay lip service to cultivating their supplier relationships, but their actions so far belie that at every turn.
If, by chance, contributors benefit from one or more of the announced IS changes, I think that will be just serendipity, not part of the plan. They will manipulate prices and collections to maximize Getty profits.
-
I read your blog, what risk is there for exclusives? I don't see any that you have written about except for lower prices on Agency files (for most contributors that isn't much concern) and that nonselling files will cost less of which you say "it might have no big impact".
Correct: The Agency files will sell at a lower price points as I understand it. That is a fact. My assumption that those files will not sell more often at the lower price is probably not far fetched, so there is almost certainly a lower royalty expectation on those files.
The other collections are quite unclear how they are going to be divided. But I expect the Standard and Standard+ collection mostly to be sourced from the now Exclusive and Exclusive+ collections. With the main exception being that some non-exclusive files will be added to these collections, potentially diluting the exclusivity of these collections, so exclusive files might get a few sales less.
Thirdly, there will be a certain amount of images moved down in price from former Exclusive to the new Main collection. This will not have a negative impact on those with 0 download, of course, but the message wasn't too specific yet which and how many files might be moving down in price.
All of those are "risks" in my opinion while I can't see many potential "rewards" for exclusive members with the exception of the overall client experience to become much better for the future. Non-exclusive members are far more likely to profit because their files won't get cheaper but their best selling images are moving up in price. And my assumption is that they will not lose too many sales because the average iStock buyer is less price sensitive than on other sites (otherwise he wouldn't be buying at iStock anymore).
That's just my assessment which you might like or not, agree with or not but you can't prove it to be wrong (neither can I prove it to be right)
-
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
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.
true, I agree that consolidating the collections is a good thing.
-
.
-
The other collections weren't promoted by price they were promoted by exclusivity and that is not supposed to change, so exclusive files will still be first in the search but some nonexclusive images will be more expensive. I think that is good for exclusives, there is no longer the price advantage for nonexclusive images but the Best Match advantage will still be there for exclusives.
It's a much more complicated picture than you suggest.
Over time there will be more and more non exclusive content. There are no longer upload limits. There will also be ever more content imported from other Getty collections. Istock classes the imported content as 'exclusive'. Previously that imported content was definitely going to TAC. Now it has the potential to end up in any of the collections.
So people uploading content to Istock as exclusives are going to be increasingly squeezed. Both by ever more non exclusive content and by imported high quality content. Any advantage they have in search is going to have to be turned up over time in order for that advantage to be maintained.
But, of course, when they say that exclusive content will be given a boost they may be mostly thinking about the imported content. Since IstockGetty will be making the least per transaction on content from Istock exclusives, they will obviously want to sell that the least.
I see people asking Istock what are the remaining benefits to members of the exclusivity program. Really they should be asking Istock what is the benefit to Getty of the exclusive program.
-
Agency will be affected but what I said was that doesn't matter to most exclusives, very few have large amounts of Agency images.
You may be surprised. The type of people that create Agency images aren't the type likely to be posting in the forum all the time with their stats and vacation pictures. I had plenty of Agency that sold, and I'd be outraged at this cut in half of my income on those.
-
.
-
.
-
That maybe true, most diamond and black diamond contributors don't seem to have a lot of Agency files and I always thought Agency was really almost all Getty content. But again what would be the alternative it doesn't seem like leaving Istock would put you in a better position, maybe things are much better at Stocksy now?
Well, they're sure no one is going to complain too loudly, I'm guessing.
-
.
-
That maybe true, most diamond and black diamond contributors don't seem to have a lot of Agency files and I always thought Agency was really almost all Getty content. But again what would be the alternative it doesn't seem like leaving Istock would put you in a better position, maybe things are much better at Stocksy now?
Well, they're sure no one is going to complain too loudly, I'm guessing.
Maybe I've missed it but I haven't seen anyone complain about that yet. But like you said maybe those guys don't participate in the forums.
My point was we know complaining vehemently about any policy is frowned upon, so it's unlikely you'll see anything. Or maybe the simplification is so confusing, they don't realize it yet.
-
Well, if you complain you get banned or booted, I guess thats the point Sean is making. So you wont hear a lot of it.
-
.
-
Have they said yet what they're going to do with the price slider? Could it be that most exclusive content will not be visible if the bottom slider is chosen/default?
Obviously, they could keep it at the four points as now, so the above will be the case; they could get rid of the slider altogether, but buyers asked for it; or they'll could change it in some way if they wanted and were able to.
-
Have they said yet what they're going to do with the price slider? Could it be that most exclusive content will not be visible if the bottom slider is chosen/default?
Obviously, they could keep it at the four points as now, so the above will be the case; they could get rid of the slider altogether, but buyers asked for it; or they'll could change it in some way if they wanted and were able to.
Good questions. If they keep it at 4 points as it is now, then will buyers notice the "simplification"? Then again, it really isn't much of a simplification, is it? They've eliminated P+ and TAC, that's it. Ignoring the Value Collection (the old DB), they've gone from 6 price points to 4. Yes, it's a bit of a simplification, but is it enough that buyers will notice / care? Color me skeptical.
-
.
-
Good questions. If they keep it at 4 points as it is now, then will buyers notice the "simplification"? Then again, it really isn't much of a simplification, is it? They've eliminated P+ and TAC, that's it. Ignoring the Value Collection (the old DB), they've gone from 6 price points to 4. Yes, it's a bit of a simplification, but is it enough that buyers will notice / care? Color me skeptical.
True. It's way too little and way too late anyway. When they restore my royalties to the paltry 20% they paid before the RC system was introduced then I might start to believe they mean business.
-
Have they said yet what they're going to do with the price slider? Could it be that most exclusive content will not be visible if the bottom slider is chosen/default?
Obviously, they could keep it at the four points as now, so the above will be the case; they could get rid of the slider altogether, but buyers asked for it; or they'll could change it in some way if they wanted and were able to.
Good questions. If they keep it at 4 points as it is now, then will buyers notice the "simplification"? Then again, it really isn't much of a simplification, is it? They've eliminated P+ and TAC, that's it. Ignoring the Value Collection (the old DB), they've gone from 6 price points to 4. Yes, it's a bit of a simplification, but is it enough that buyers will notice / care? Color me skeptical.
That's not the simplification. The simplification comes from each level costing the same amount so you know what you're getting with each level.
I thought each level cost the same, within each level, under the current system, it's just that there are too many levels.
If I thought wrongly, it is too complicated!
-
.
-
You're talking about the price slider. Not collections.
-
.
-
On the IS forum I saw people posting they wanted it to be more clear which files are exclusive as it wasnt clear enough to buyers what the the crown meant.
-
Have they said yet what they're going to do with the price slider? Could it be that most exclusive content will not be visible if the bottom slider is chosen/default?
Obviously, they could keep it at the four points as now, so the above will be the case; they could get rid of the slider altogether, but buyers asked for it; or they'll could change it in some way if they wanted and were able to.
Good questions. If they keep it at 4 points as it is now, then will buyers notice the "simplification"? Then again, it really isn't much of a simplification, is it? They've eliminated P+ and TAC, that's it. Ignoring the Value Collection (the old DB), they've gone from 6 price points to 4. Yes, it's a bit of a simplification, but is it enough that buyers will notice / care? Color me skeptical.
That's not the simplification. The simplification comes from each level costing the same amount so you know what you're getting with each level.
You're talking about the price slider. Not collections.
Right, isn't that what is meant by levels?
Things are getting mixed up here. The "simplification" was never said to be done because it related to the price slider. It's two different things. There is the "simplification" and then "how the price slider will be implemented".
I guess with 4 points and 4 collections, you could now expect that each would hold one price point. Of course, you can get an XS Vetta for the price of a XXXL main, so it's still confusing. They should lose the slider and just have buttons for each collection. Like Getty. The place with more than 3 dozen collections.
-
.
-
You're talking about the price slider. Not collections.
Right, isn't that what is meant by levels?
They say they're simplifying collections. They have made no comment about the price slider levels, unless I missed it.
Anyway, broadbanding of prices within website price bands isn't uncommon. It's made more fudgy by the overlay of the credit system for most iS buyers.
-
I'm guessing they're not mentioning the price slider because most Exclusives haven't realised that the most commonly used setting - the cheapest - will now exclude most Exclusive content since that's going into the 'Signature' collection by default, apart from junk that doesn't sell.
I'm sure the fact that this new system will result in a huge reduction in RC's earned and thus royalty rates achieved by Exclusives is just a happy coincidence.
-
.
-
Sorry, when I said 'they' I meant the people discussing it in the forum.
-
I'm guessing they're not mentioning the price slider because most Exclusives haven't realised that the most commonly used setting - the cheapest - will now exclude most Exclusive content since that's going into the 'Signature' collection by default, apart from junk that doesn't sell.
I'm sure the fact that this new system will result in a huge reduction in RC's earned and thus royalty rates achieved by Exclusives is just a happy coincidence.
Well when they "accidentally" rolled out similar changes in January there was a storm of uproar and obviously many people´s earnings dropped.
And looking at the current best match thread there is also the question - what type of content is getty talking about when they say they want to promote "exclusive" content? Is it the content of istock exclusive contributors? Or is it Getty wholly owned content where they pay no royalty and the files are highly visible in every search although their keywords are spammy?
I sometimes think the term "exclusive" has a completely different meaning for the decision makers at getty than for the people from istock.
And they have definitely succeeded in scaring people away from discussing istock on the istock forums. Just look at how short the thread is for such dramatic changes. 330 comments in the main forum for such a drastic announcement? Or less than 100 comments in the sales thread with over 30 000 contributors? People are scared...
Most of the very bitter and negative discussions I am seeing are being done in private groups on google, facebook or email circles. Loss of agency income is definetly a concern. But obviously you need to know people who have enough agency content to be affected.
But these people feed their families from their (often falling) istock incomes. They cannot afford to become the "next Sean". Not unless they have secured other income streams.
It is a difficult position for exclusives right now, especially those who have made istock their majority income stream.
And like I said before, I sincerly, very sincerly hope the new price system brings in new customers and creates visible growth. My friends deserve it.
-
and this is what they call simplification ?
to me it still looks confusing, and they should finally accept that buyers dont give a sh-it if a photo is exclusive or not, we're talking about cheap RF microstock not some expensive boutique stock agency ! it's Istock, not Magnum or VII.
and yes, their sales must be going down the drain if suddenly they're making a lot of changes, first removing the uploads cap and now mixing up the collections.
too little too late.
-
I'm guessing they're not mentioning the price slider because most Exclusives haven't realised that the most commonly used setting - the cheapest - will now exclude most Exclusive content since that's going into the 'Signature' collection by default, apart from junk that doesn't sell.
I'm sure the fact that this new system will result in a huge reduction in RC's earned and thus royalty rates achieved by Exclusives is just a happy coincidence.
for each one of the exclusive images i can easily find dozens of similar at cheaper price or even in the dollar bin.
there's no point for exclusivity in micros, we're not talking about obscure subjects like in RM, any possible subject in micros has been done to death.
if they really want to simplify i want to see the same fees for all, say 30%, no exclusivity, and just 2 collections : Cheap as Chips and Premium.
-
Those of you claiming that iStock exclusivity is about to end, how do you think iStock will survive without it? How will they justify their higher prices?
-
Those of you claiming that iStock exclusivity is about to end, how do you think iStock will survive without it? How will they justify their higher prices?
they dont need to justify anything.
they're in the business of selling stock images, their task is to convince buyers IS is an added value compared to the competition, no matter if because of exclusive content or other marketing BS.
for instance bulk buyers are more interested in subscriptions rather than exclusivity or premium collections.
-
I agree...do buyers give a crap about collections?
The only thing as buyer that gets me is how one site can sell the same content as another site at different price points. Knowing that I always look for the best price for that image...I could care less who the agency is as long as the licensing fits my needs. I'm not sure iStock may be going about this the right way as I think exclusivity is the only way to justify a higher price....or else you can get the same content cheaper elsewhere. I think their efforts would be better spent promoting and encouraging exclusivity instead of hacking away at every benefit. Now they will have a collection full of the same content every site has. And in today's market with Google image search and a generation of folks who grew up with Google at their fingertips entering the career world mixed with the financial stress on most businesses today I would say it is naive to think people aren't searching for the best price, especially when an image is available everywhere(we do it when we are shopping for anything else online, why wouldn't we do it for stock also?)...seems like iStock is positioning themselves on a fast track to bottom with most everyone else in the industry. I like the idea of performance driving price, but it sure seems to be a moot point if that same image is available next door for a fraction of the price. I think exclusivity can bring value back to our work and to agencies by stopping the ability for you to undercut your own work...which is happening everywhere now.
It is short sighted when contributors spread their portfolio everywhere for the same reasons...your only helping to kill the market and further devalue your own work for only pennies in return.
-
Whatever they are doing there or perhaps not doing. They must have done at least something right. Last two weeks have showed an almost 80% increase in income and my portfolio there is by no means a biggie, some 2600 images. I am not complaining. :)
-
I agree...do buyers give a crap about collections?
The only thing as buyer that gets me is how one site can sell the same content as another site at different price points. Knowing that I always look for the best price for that image...I could care less who the agency is as long as the licensing fits my needs. I'm not sure iStock may be going about this the right way as I think exclusivity is the only way to justify a higher price....or else you can get the same content cheaper elsewhere. I think their efforts would be better spent promoting and encouraging exclusivity instead of hacking away at every benefit. Now they will have a collection full of the same content every site has. And in today's market with Google image search and a generation of folks who grew up with Google at their fingertips entering the career world mixed with the financial stress on most businesses today I would say it is naive to think people aren't searching for the best price, especially when an image is available everywhere(we do it when we are shopping for anything else online, why wouldn't we do it for stock also?)...seems like iStock is positioning themselves on a fast track to bottom with most everyone else in the industry. I like the idea of performance driving price, but it sure seems to be a moot point if that same image is available next door for a fraction of the price. I think exclusivity can bring value back to our work and to agencies by stopping the ability for you to undercut your own work...which is happening everywhere now.
It is short sighted when contributors spread their portfolio everywhere for the same reasons...your only helping to kill the market and further devalue your own work for only pennies in return.
Some interesting stuff here; I may be at risk of going a little off-topic - just let me know.
I understand that price variations across sites can be irritating, and I absolutely expect all buyers to look for the best combination of price and licensing terms. I also acknowledge that contributing to every site out there means they all carry the same product, so the only way they can differentiate is pricing, licensing, etc...
Exclusivity is a partial solution for buyers because some it places buyers at the mercy of the agency's pricing, licensing and other policies.
On the other hand, exclusivity has risks for content creators. Exclusivity at the contributor level puts your fate in someone else's hands. If you choose can find an ethical agency, it may work, but many of the agencies have demonstrated just how real the perils are; iStock is perhaps the most extreme example. Exclusivity at the image level is perhaps a little less risky, depending on how long you are committed to an agency for any given image.
I know I'm being very forthright, so I going to add that there was a time when I aspired to be an iStock exclusive, but no more. It will take a prolonged and sustained effort to persuade me I can trust them - assuming I have content they want. I don't care what any agency puts in their ASA; the only thing that matters is the spirit in which they interpret the ASA when that becomes necessary.
I don't see an easy solution, but I do think these questions are very important to this industry. I agree fully with your observations about Google; love them or hate them, the fact that talk like "go google it" has become ubiquitous is a miracle - they've taught almost everyone everywhere they can get an answer by googling. (Imagine if our education systems had that level of effectiveness - and reliable answers too.)
Regards
-
Good points, maybe the industry needs to pull together and develop standardized pricing before images have 0 value...I guess you can argue we are already at the point. Just seems like the industry is dooming itself by lowering prices and undercutting the competition...it's the WalMart mentality...in the end they will cut prices so low they can't offer anything else of value. I'm not saying exclusivity is the only way to battle this, but to me if you offer unique content of quality and keep yourself out of the bargain bin. Outside of providing unique content, you have to up the buyer experience...make it easy to search and quick to buy. Kill all the confusing jargon and language...simplifying is good...not sure iStock has nailed the approach.
-
.
-
Good points, maybe the industry needs to pull together and develop standardized pricing before images have 0 value...I guess you can argue we are already at the point. Just seems like the industry is dooming itself by lowering prices and undercutting the competition...it's the WalMart mentality...in the end they will cut prices so low they can't offer anything else of value. I'm not saying exclusivity is the only way to battle this, but to me if you offer unique content of quality and keep yourself out of the bargain bin. Outside of providing unique content, you have to up the buyer experience...make it easy to search and quick to buy. Kill all the confusing jargon and language...simplifying is good...not sure iStock has nailed the approach.
I don't know where you're based, but in the US at least, and many other countries, "standardized pricing" = monopoly = trouble with the authorities.
Yes - high quality differentiated content will always be king! Now I have to go figure out how to make some...
Regards
-
I agree fully with your observations about Google; love them or hate them, the fact that talk like "go google it" has become ubiquitous is a miracle - they've taught almost everyone everywhere they can get an answer by googling. (Imagine if our education systems had that level of effectiveness - and reliable answers too.)
[Totally off-topic] Whereas the reality is that in education we have to tell them (as they often don't believe it) how inaccurate Google can be, and to check, double-check and cross check their results, especially in images, where what you look for is seldom what you get.
-
Just seems like the industry is dooming itself by lowering prices and undercutting the competition
I might be wrong, but I am not aware of examples of (established) microstock companies lowering prices. Quite the opposite, looking at what has happened at e.g. Istock, Fotolia, Dreamstime over the last five or six years. When I remember correctly, the prices have been quite a bit lower when I started with microstock in 2007.
Multiple agencies have lowered their royalties during that time, but that's a different issue.
-
Good points, maybe the industry needs to pull together and develop standardized pricing before images have 0 value...I guess you can argue we are already at the point. Just seems like the industry is dooming itself by lowering prices and undercutting the competition...it's the WalMart mentality...in the end they will cut prices so low they can't offer anything else of value. I'm not saying exclusivity is the only way to battle this, but to me if you offer unique content of quality and keep yourself out of the bargain bin. Outside of providing unique content, you have to up the buyer experience...make it easy to search and quick to buy. Kill all the confusing jargon and language...simplifying is good...not sure iStock has nailed the approach.
I don't know where you're based, but in the US at least, and many other countries, "standardized pricing" = monopoly = trouble with the authorities.
Yes - high quality differentiated content will always be king! Now I have to go figure out how to make some...
Regards
Not true. Standardized pricing may not be favorable, but it doesn't mean a monopoly. There are ways to compete without having to lower price. Either way, it was just a thought....all in all the industry seems to be going down quick.
-
I agree fully with your observations about Google; love them or hate them, the fact that talk like "go google it" has become ubiquitous is a miracle - they've taught almost everyone everywhere they can get an answer by googling. (Imagine if our education systems had that level of effectiveness - and reliable answers too.)
[Totally off-topic] Whereas the reality is that in education we have to tell them (as they often don't believe it) how inaccurate Google can be, and to check, double-check and cross check their results, especially in images, where what you look for is seldom what you get.
Too true....
Regards
-
Just seems like the industry is dooming itself by lowering prices and undercutting the competition
I might be wrong, but I am not aware of examples of (established) microstock companies lowering prices. Quite the opposite, looking at what has happened at e.g. Istock, Fotolia, Dreamstime over the last five or six years. When I remember correctly, the prices have been quite a bit lower when I started with microstock in 2007.
Multiple agencies have lowered their royalties during that time, but that's a different issue.
You are not considering subscriptions.
-
Just seems like the industry is dooming itself by lowering prices and undercutting the competition
I might be wrong, but I am not aware of examples of (established) microstock companies lowering prices. Quite the opposite, looking at what has happened at e.g. Istock, Fotolia, Dreamstime over the last five or six years. When I remember correctly, the prices have been quite a bit lower when I started with microstock in 2007.
Multiple agencies have lowered their royalties during that time, but that's a different issue.
FT have lowered prices in the past by reducing how much higher-ranking contributors can set prices to and then also lowering individual images to the base rate again if they don't sell quickly enough. Even IS has actually reduced the prices of some sizes of images ... whilst usually increasing them elsewhere at the same time.
-
This seems like a good discussion...maybe we should dedicate a thread to it
-
I'm not sure iStock may be going about this the right way as I think exclusivity is the only way to justify a higher price....or else you can get the same content cheaper elsewhere. I think their efforts would be better spent promoting and encouraging exclusivity instead of hacking away at every benefit.
I tend to agree with you that Istock is making a mistake by tearing down the benefits of exclusivity, for all the reasons you outlined.
However, I do think they have shown they no longer value exclusive artists much, for whatever reason. If they still understood the value of exclusive content, there is NO WAY they would have tossed one of the very best exclusive portfolios, with some of the highest quality content to the curb. Exclusives aren't complaining much because that one single act let everybody know exactly how much value is (or ISN'T) placed on exclusives these days.
-
I'm not sure iStock may be going about this the right way as I think exclusivity is the only way to justify a higher price....or else you can get the same content cheaper elsewhere. I think their efforts would be better spent promoting and encouraging exclusivity instead of hacking away at every benefit.
I tend to agree with you that Istock is making a mistake by tearing down the benefits of exclusivity, for all the reasons you outlined.
However, I do think they have shown they no longer value exclusive artists much, for whatever reason. If they still understood the value of exclusive content, there is NO WAY they would have tossed one of the very best exclusive portfolios, with some of the highest quality content to the curb. Exclusives aren't complaining much because that one single act let everybody know exactly how much value is (or ISN'T) placed on exclusives these days.
Good thoughts Lisa.
I don't think that Istock actually have a coherent strategy at the moment. I think that sales have plummeted, as a result of their previous greed, and we're now observing a series of knee-jerk reactions in a somewhat uncoordinated attempt to remedy the situation (or even just limit the immediate damage). They're being led by the nose by what they believe may stop their remaining customers from leaving. The fact that they needed to employ an outside agency to survey their own customers says a lot about their control and their lack of belief in their own tactics. Of course local IS management may have felt that they needed the back-up of the survey to justify their actions to Getty HQ.
I think exclusives are definitely an awkward issue for Istock though. Whilst they are undoubtedly a huge asset and USP over other microstock agencies it is not clear that customers are prepared to pay the premium for such content nowadays, especially with so many non-exclusive images available everywhere. Istock are having to charge too much for their exclusive content (apparently more than it is worth to many buyers anyway) and I'm sure that Getty resents paying anyone more than 20% royalty. The future does not look good for Istock IMHO.
-
I don't think that Istock actually have a coherent strategy at the moment.
I doubt if they've had any coherent strategy for years.
It's change after change, few/none of which (other than cutting %age according to RCs) has actually worked as announced, and none of which have been allowed to run for any time able to prove their worth.
It's like they're just trying anything and everything without any clue about what they're doing.
It could be that the actual iS staff who are left are having their strings pulled from people with a totally different vision than theirs, or no vision at all.
Where there is no vision the people perish, and I venture to suggest that also applies to those whose only vision is maximising profits at the cost of everything else.
-
I don't think that Istock actually have a coherent strategy at the moment.
I doubt if they've had any coherent strategy for years.
It's change after change, few/none of which (other than cutting %age according to RCs) has actually worked as announced, and none of which have been allowed to run for any time able to prove their worth.
It's like they're just trying anything and everything without any clue about what they're doing.
It could be that the actual iS staff who are left are having their strings pulled from people with a totally different vision than theirs, or no vision at all.
Where there is no vision the people perish, and I venture to suggest that also applies to those whose only vision is maximising profits at the cost of everthing else.
These observations are making sense, unfortunately.
-
Just seems like the industry is dooming itself by lowering prices and undercutting the competition
I might be wrong, but I am not aware of examples of (established) microstock companies lowering prices. Quite the opposite, looking at what has happened at e.g. Istock, Fotolia, Dreamstime over the last five or six years. When I remember correctly, the prices have been quite a bit lower when I started with microstock in 2007.
Multiple agencies have lowered their royalties during that time, but that's a different issue.
You are not considering subscriptions.
So did subscription prices decrease over the last years? Where was the price of a standard Shutterstock subs plan five years ago? I have no idea...
-
.
-
Just seems like the industry is dooming itself by lowering prices and undercutting the competition
I might be wrong, but I am not aware of examples of (established) microstock companies lowering prices. Quite the opposite, looking at what has happened at e.g. Istock, Fotolia, Dreamstime over the last five or six years. When I remember correctly, the prices have been quite a bit lower when I started with microstock in 2007.
Multiple agencies have lowered their royalties during that time, but that's a different issue.
FT have lowered prices in the past by reducing how much higher-ranking contributors can set prices to and then also lowering individual images to the base rate again if they don't sell quickly enough. Even IS has actually reduced the prices of some sizes of images ... whilst usually increasing them elsewhere at the same time.
Right, I did not consider the ability to set prices higher (since I don't have that...).
But I remember when I started with FT they had three sizes (M, L, XL) for 1 - 3 credits. So when one of my images sold in full size, the customer paid 3 credits. The same image today in full size (8 MP) costs 8 credits (and if it's bigger the price is even higher).
So it looks to me in recent years at least the major microstocks have significantly increased prices (though there were single steps in the other direction as well).
-
Just seems like the industry is dooming itself by lowering prices and undercutting the competition
I might be wrong, but I am not aware of examples of (established) microstock companies lowering prices. Quite the opposite, looking at what has happened at e.g. Istock, Fotolia, Dreamstime over the last five or six years. When I remember correctly, the prices have been quite a bit lower when I started with microstock in 2007.
Multiple agencies have lowered their royalties during that time, but that's a different issue.
You are not considering subscriptions.
So did subscription prices decrease over the last years? Where was the price of a standard Shutterstock subs plan five years ago? I have no idea...
I think he's saying sites like Dreamstime, Fotolia, and Bigstock have added subs which have lower royalties than credit or single image sales.
That's right, and I don't disagree with the lowering of royalties.
But did they introduce subs that are significantly lower priced than those of the competition?
What I am asking is whether the statement I quoted is correct - about lowering prices and undercutting the competition.
Because I believe that is not the current problem of this industry.
-
.
-
I'm not sure iStock may be going about this the right way as I think exclusivity is the only way to justify a higher price....or else you can get the same content cheaper elsewhere. I think their efforts would be better spent promoting and encouraging exclusivity instead of hacking away at every benefit.
I tend to agree with you that Istock is making a mistake by tearing down the benefits of exclusivity, for all the reasons you outlined.
However, I do think they have shown they no longer value exclusive artists much, for whatever reason. If they still understood the value of exclusive content, there is NO WAY they would have tossed one of the very best exclusive portfolios, with some of the highest quality content to the curb. Exclusives aren't complaining much because that one single act let everybody know exactly how much value is (or ISN'T) placed on exclusives these days.
I dont think IS' understanding of exclusive content has anything to do with the deletion of the portfolio you are referring to.
-
Just seems like the industry is dooming itself by lowering prices and undercutting the competition
I might be wrong, but I am not aware of examples of (established) microstock companies lowering prices. Quite the opposite, looking at what has happened at e.g. Istock, Fotolia, Dreamstime over the last five or six years. When I remember correctly, the prices have been quite a bit lower when I started with microstock in 2007.
Multiple agencies have lowered their royalties during that time, but that's a different issue.
You are not considering subscriptions.
So did subscription prices decrease over the last years? Where was the price of a standard Shutterstock subs plan five years ago? I have no idea...
I think he's saying sites like Dreamstime, Fotolia, and Bigstock have added subs which have lower royalties than credit or single image sales.
That's right, and I don't disagree with the lowering of royalties.
But did they introduce subs that are significantly lower priced than those of the competition?
What I am asking is whether the statement I quoted is correct - about lowering prices and undercutting the competition.
Because I believe that is not the current problem of this industry.
I'm not sure if it is either, but I am sure that you can often find the image at a lower rate elsewhere. The mentality lately seem to be spread your portfolio everywhere...but I feel you hurt the industry and undercut your self by doing so.
-
I dont think IS' understanding of exclusive content has anything to do with the deletion of the portfolio you are referring to.
I think you misread me. I was saying their LACK of understanding of the value of exclusive content was evident when they deleted Sean's portfolio, not that it was the motivator for that deletion.
-
I dont think IS' understanding of exclusive content has anything to do with the deletion of the portfolio you are referring to.
I think you misread me. I was saying their LACK of understanding of the value of exclusive content was evident when they deleted Sean's portfolio, not that it was the motivator for that deletion.
Yes, I dont think their lack of understanding is evident because of what they did.
They can fully understand the importance of exclusivity and still remove the portfolio because of the reasons that were given at that time. Its a saying in football that no footballer is bigger than the club. Thats what I mean.
They probably fully understand the consequences of removing such an exclusive portfolio.
-
I dont think IS' understanding of exclusive content has anything to do with the deletion of the portfolio you are referring to.
I think you misread me. I was saying their LACK of understanding of the value of exclusive content was evident when they deleted Sean's portfolio, not that it was the motivator for that deletion.
Yes, I dont think their lack of understanding is evident because of what they did.
They can fully understand the importance of exclusivity and still remove the portfolio because of the reasons that were given at that time. Its a saying in football that no footballer is bigger than the club. Thats what I mean.
They probably fully understand the consequences of removing such an exclusive portfolio.
well there's a new dimension now, if Yuri truly is exclusive. He possibly brokered this deal before Sean was booted.
-
<deleted>
Wrong thread. Sorry. :(
-
I dont think IS' understanding of exclusive content has anything to do with the deletion of the portfolio you are referring to.
I think you misread me. I was saying their LACK of understanding of the value of exclusive content was evident when they deleted Sean's portfolio, not that it was the motivator for that deletion.
Yes, I dont think their lack of understanding is evident because of what they did.
They can fully understand the importance of exclusivity and still remove the portfolio because of the reasons that were given at that time. Its a saying in football that no footballer is bigger than the club. Thats what I mean.
They probably fully understand the consequences of removing such an exclusive portfolio.
well there's a new dimension now, if Yuri truly is exclusive. He possibly brokered this deal before Sean was booted.
Isnt that backing what I said? If you imply they understood the importance of exclusive content, and brokered the deal with Yuri with sacking Sean in mind.
-
well there's a new dimension now, if Yuri truly is exclusive. He possibly brokered this deal before Sean was booted.
Isnt that backing what I said? If you imply they understood the importance of exclusive content, and brokered the deal with Yuri with sacking Sean in mind.
[/quote]
Sorry, must I preface with : I agree on this point with Ponkev2.... :) thought including your quote alluded to that.
but *yawn* time to move on. don't think for a second anyone else will get this offer. it's taboo to discuss over at iS forums, much as Google is too.
On to a new thought and back on topic: it's a good time to fill up all those last Photo+ spots right? I have about 10 free that I was saving for when i resume uploading, so now I'll just go and allocate them.
-
but *yawn* time to move on. don't think for a second anyone else will get this offer. it's taboo to discuss over at iS forums, much as Google is too.
Others have had special deals before. Some ingested pseudo-exclusives sell RF off their own sites already. Or at least 'did', I don't actually keep up.