Author Topic: iStock simplifying collections (Read 33555 times)

aspp · « **Reply #125 on:** May 15, 2013, 11:29 »

Quote from: ShadySue on May 15, 2013, 11:06

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

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.

gostwyck · « **Reply #126 on:** May 15, 2013, 12:21 »

Quote from: ShadySue on May 15, 2013, 11:06

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

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.

sharpshot · « **Reply #127 on:** May 15, 2013, 12:29 »

I can't remember the last time I looked in his/their forum.

cobalt · « **Reply #128 on:** May 15, 2013, 12:43 »

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.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #129 on:** May 15, 2013, 13:52 »

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.

MichaelJayFoto · « **Reply #130 on:** May 16, 2013, 04:20 »

Quote from: tickstock on May 15, 2013, 07:53

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)

gillian vann · « **Reply #131 on:** May 16, 2013, 05:21 »

Quote from: aspp on May 15, 2013, 09:19

Quote from: wds on May 15, 2013, 08:10
I think the risk to exclusives include:
-removal of the ability to put files directly into Sig+
-the "thresholds" for booting content down into the "main" lower priced collection

Quote from: gillian on May 15, 2013, 03:41
seriously, can we please start some bets on "what kooky thing will iStock do next"

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

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

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

true, I agree that consolidating the collections is a good thing.

tickstock · « **Reply #132 on:** May 16, 2013, 06:45 »

aspp · « **Reply #133 on:** May 16, 2013, 08:02 »

Quote from: tickstock on May 16, 2013, 06:45

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.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #134 on:** May 16, 2013, 08:05 »

Quote from: tickstock on May 16, 2013, 06:45

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.

tickstock · « **Reply #135 on:** May 16, 2013, 09:18 »

tickstock · « **Reply #136 on:** May 16, 2013, 09:24 »

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #137 on:** May 16, 2013, 09:27 »

Quote from: tickstock on May 16, 2013, 09:24

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.

tickstock · « **Reply #138 on:** May 16, 2013, 09:28 »

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #139 on:** May 16, 2013, 10:03 »

Quote from: tickstock on May 16, 2013, 09:28

Quote from: sjlocke on May 16, 2013, 09:27
Quote from: tickstock on May 16, 2013, 09:24
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.

Poncke v2 · « **Reply #140 on:** May 16, 2013, 10:03 »

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.

tickstock · « **Reply #141 on:** May 16, 2013, 10:07 »

ShadySue · « **Reply #142 on:** May 16, 2013, 11:29 »

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.

KB · « **Reply #143 on:** May 16, 2013, 11:54 »

Quote from: ShadySue on May 16, 2013, 11:29

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.

tickstock · « **Reply #144 on:** May 16, 2013, 12:16 »

gostwyck · « **Reply #145 on:** May 16, 2013, 12:26 »

Quote from: KB on May 16, 2013, 11:54

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.

ShadySue · « **Reply #146 on:** May 16, 2013, 12:34 »

Quote from: tickstock on May 16, 2013, 12:16

Quote from: KB on May 16, 2013, 11:54
Quote from: ShadySue on May 16, 2013, 11:29
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!

tickstock · « **Reply #147 on:** May 16, 2013, 12:39 »

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #148 on:** May 16, 2013, 12:43 »

You're talking about the price slider. Not collections.

tickstock · « **Reply #149 on:** May 16, 2013, 12:45 »

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: iStock simplifying collections (Read 33555 times)

aspp

gostwyck

sharpshot

cobalt

Jo Ann Snover

MichaelJayFoto

gillian vann

tickstock

aspp

Sean Locke Photography

tickstock

tickstock

Sean Locke Photography

tickstock

Sean Locke Photography

Poncke v2

tickstock

ShadySue

KB

tickstock

gostwyck

ShadySue

tickstock

Sean Locke Photography

tickstock

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors