MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStocks lack of inspection standards spell more doom.  (Read 20258 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: August 06, 2014, 04:18 »
+27
iStocks lack of inspection standards spell more doom.

We all know IS accepts anything. Reviewers only seem to be looking for trademark and property release issues.

To see how bad it was, I uploaded a test photo. It was slightly out of focus and I was hand-holding at 1/40 so there was blur. The exposure was off so I opened up the shadows and exposed the noise. A total reject of an image.

The photo was accepted!

The ramifications of this run deep. As critical buyers download this kind of approved garbage they will stop buying from istock in greater numbers than they already have. The reputation will further spread that IS is an overpriced (and confusing priced) wasteland of too many technically unacceptable, low quality images.

Getty management appears to be sailing istock harder and faster into the reef even as it continues to sink. I feel, even after all the research last year, they still dont understand their buyers or the microstock marketplace. Corporate greed created a mid-tier price category that at first appeared promising, but eventually sent market share seeking cheaper images at Shutterstock. Constantly in damage control they make shady deals with online content providers and offer subscription pricing. Then open the upload limits and kill inspection standards all while crushing the morale of contributors with a toxic forum/communication environment

Somehow I think these narcissistic idiots think they are brilliantly adjusting to ever-changing market conditions by exploring new business models. And again, they will be wrong.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2014, 09:41 by Holmes »


dpimborough

« Reply #1 on: August 06, 2014, 04:21 »
+4
The pile em high sell em cheap attitude  :'(

Quantity over quality what a short sighted view they have.


BoBoBolinski

« Reply #2 on: August 06, 2014, 04:55 »
+2
 :-\
« Last Edit: August 06, 2014, 07:59 by BoBoBolinski »

« Reply #3 on: August 06, 2014, 05:12 »
+3
When I was starting micro in february I did a test myself with a handful of ancient pictures with a P&S from the early 2000's - just to see where would be the acceptable standards. Really bad quality images, nice composition but rasterized, with noise, and not that much in focus. They were all approved. And sold quite a few times, hopefully in small size. Needless to say, all the other agencies rejected them.

There is absolutely NO quality inspection, zero. At first I thought it was better than SS with their subjective reviews but now I realize IS went waaay too far. And they do reject quite a lot of my images due to potencial copyright and missing releases, normal stuff that other agencies would take. So it's all backwards, I don't know how TS is my top seller. With the given time, customers will migrate to SS and FT.

« Reply #4 on: August 06, 2014, 07:28 »
0
Lets hope the initial inspection keeps out most of the garbage and most of the pep that get in know what they're doing.

It seems we want rejections lol. I know I do when I'm tired and submit something which needs more work.

I often submit to ss as a quality test. If they're happy, then I think the quality is good enough for other agencies.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #5 on: August 06, 2014, 09:06 »
+1
And total lack of inspection of keywords.
Try a Best Match search on 'animals in the wild', which is a DA of 'wild', to be used only for wild animals taken in the wild. Not horses or other domestic animals, not animals in zoos,  not women with long hair, not berries in a bowl, flowers, plates of prepared meat or fish, etc.
What on earth would a buyer looking for "animals in the wild" make of that alleged 'best' match?

« Reply #6 on: August 06, 2014, 09:18 »
-1
They still inspect keywords, but this whole keywording system is a big waste of time.
But as far as I know, no other agency inspect keywords so I'll give them credit for that.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2014, 09:25 by Nikovsk »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #7 on: August 06, 2014, 09:38 »
+2
They still inspect keywords
Keywordzilla is still there, rejecting correct keywords at random, but other than that I see no evidence of keyword inspection. Just about any search is horrible, certainly by newest; also best match QED above for at least some searches. Most Popular for 'animals in the wild' throws up a lot of 'isolated' animals, which are also not supposed to be tagged 'animals in the wild'. (Wild animals in zoos or isolated can get the tag 'wildlife'.)

« Reply #8 on: August 06, 2014, 09:53 »
+1
They still inspect keywords
Keywordzilla is still there, rejecting correct keywords at random, but other than that I see no evidence of keyword inspection. Just about any search is horrible, certainly by newest; also best match QED above for at least some searches. Most Popular for 'animals in the wild' throws up a lot of 'isolated' animals, which are also not supposed to be tagged 'animals in the wild'. (Wild animals in zoos or isolated can get the tag 'wildlife'.)
Although it's wrong to keyword a lot of the images there as "animals in the wild", you can sort of understand it in some cases, getting mixed up with "wild animals" for instance, unless people happen to have read what a term is supposed to be used for they are going to get it wrong, and there is no manual AFAIK.
Sorting by newest you get stuff that is just wrong. Images of "wild" places, and cultivated fields.
Really though it doesn't matter what search you do, bad keywording varies from "I can see how they did that but it's not right" to "How could anyone ever think that is right?"
I thought that correct keywording was more important in some ways than image quality. Very little point in having images of any quality that can't be found in a search, or that are incorrectly keyworded and  in such quantity to push legitimate results off the results. 
 

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #9 on: August 06, 2014, 10:28 »
0
They still inspect keywords
Keywordzilla is still there, rejecting correct keywords at random, but other than that I see no evidence of keyword inspection. Just about any search is horrible, certainly by newest; also best match QED above for at least some searches. Most Popular for 'animals in the wild' throws up a lot of 'isolated' animals, which are also not supposed to be tagged 'animals in the wild'. (Wild animals in zoos or isolated can get the tag 'wildlife'.)
Although it's wrong to keyword a lot of the images there as "animals in the wild", you can sort of understand it in some cases, getting mixed up with "wild animals" for instance, unless people happen to have read what a term is supposed to be used for they are going to get it wrong, and there is no manual AFAIK.
I was going to point out that there are several articles on the site specifically about correct keywording, but if they're there, I couldn't find them under keywording, tags or K is for tags, which IIRC was one of the titles. I wonder how significant their removal (apparently) is?
Quote
Sorting by newest you get stuff that is just wrong. Images of "wild" places, and cultivated fields.
Quote
Generally bad DAing.
Quote
Really though it doesn't matter what search you do, bad keywording varies from "I can see how they did that but it's not right" to "How could anyone ever think that is right?"
I thought that correct keywording was more important in some ways than image quality. Very little point in having images of any quality that can't be found in a search, or that are incorrectly keyworded and in such quantity to push legitimate results off the results.
Indeed.
It's one of the things iStock could have got very right. Why they veered off that road is a mystery.

« Reply #10 on: August 06, 2014, 10:59 »
0
When I first got into this micro thing years back I tried on a couple of occasions to get in without any luck.My work didn't stand up. Now that everyone wants a piece of the pie,I decided to try again a couple of weeks ago.BANG! They wanted my work. Still the same work never change much same style whatever. Anyway I think it ALL ABOUT
EATING A PIECE OF HUMBLE PIE DROPPED EVERYTHING  AND JUMPED IN WITH THE OTHERS WHO KNOWS WHERE IT WILL GO FROM HERE

« Reply #11 on: August 06, 2014, 11:12 »
+2
I was going to point out that there are several articles on the site specifically about correct keywording, but if they're there, I couldn't find them under keywording, tags or K is for tags, which IIRC was one of the titles. I wonder how significant their removal (apparently) is?


???

K is for tags

Keywording Guide

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #12 on: August 06, 2014, 11:15 »
0
I was going to point out that there are several articles on the site specifically about correct keywording, but if they're there, I couldn't find them under keywording, tags or K is for tags, which IIRC was one of the titles. I wonder how significant their removal (apparently) is?


???

K is for tags

Keywording Guide


Thanks.
Wonder why I couldn't find them.  ???

« Reply #13 on: August 06, 2014, 11:21 »
0
Thanks.
Wonder why I couldn't find them.  ???

I expect you tried using the site search. As we know since years it does not work. FWIW Google is best for text searching this site too - and every other site I ever text search at. It isn't just an iStock issue - most native site searches are inferior to Google. Finding those articles using Google took the time it took me to type. They were the first two results.

keyword article site:istockphoto.com

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #14 on: August 06, 2014, 11:31 »
0
Thanks.
Wonder why I couldn't find them.  ???
I expect you tried using the site search. As we know since years it does not work.
I did - I thought the action search wasn't as bad as the forum search, but clearly it is every bit as bad! Tx again.

stock-will-eat-itself

« Reply #15 on: August 06, 2014, 15:59 »
+7
Part of the problem I think is demoralised inspectors not knowing what the vision of iStock is anymore, management not looking and not caring and just passing any old [email protected] just to pick up their paycheck.

Goofy

« Reply #16 on: August 06, 2014, 17:51 »
+1
Part of the problem I think is demoralised inspectors not knowing what the vision of iStock is anymore, management not looking and not caring and just passing any old [email protected] just to pick up their paycheck.

Did realize that they are now government employees... 8)



« Reply #17 on: August 07, 2014, 04:00 »
+1
With luck (from my point of view, anyway) this will persuade buyers to go to old-established portfolios from people who have a record of being able to meet the standards iS used to apply in its better days.

« Reply #18 on: August 07, 2014, 18:18 »
0
With luck (from my point of view, anyway) this will persuade buyers to go to old-established portfolios from people who have a record of being able to meet the standards iS used to apply in its better days.

Hope your right.  Not showing in my sales but maybe soon.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #19 on: August 07, 2014, 19:15 »
+1
From what I read, I'm not sure buyers would want that extra step or two of hassle.

BoBoBolinski

« Reply #20 on: August 08, 2014, 03:58 »
+6
" With the unfortunate lowering of quality standards, Inspectors are pretty much solely on the lookout for legal issues and are very much held accountable for approving things they shouldn't have.".

 Donald Gruener,  IS forum moderator


It's bad when even people who work there admit standards have gone down the pan. This was Donald responding to a request in the critique forums.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #21 on: August 08, 2014, 04:47 »
+1
It was officially announced that technical standards were going to be relaxed before it actually started.

BoBoBolinski

« Reply #22 on: August 08, 2014, 05:08 »
+1
It was officially announced that technical standards were going to be relaxed before it actually started.

I didn't realise that. At least he admitted it was unfortunate.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2014, 05:33 by BoBoBolinski »

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #23 on: August 08, 2014, 06:10 »
+1
i'm not convinced this is a bad thing, i think they realized buyers are more interested in fresh images than in a stale creative collection, besides they must find a way to clearly diversify IS from the main Getty site but it doesn't mean the quality has to go down the drain as their search algo is still providing the best results on top and leaving the cr-ap sandboxed.

it's just a different approach, that's all, of course it will lose some sales to exclusives but they couldn't care less.


« Reply #24 on: August 08, 2014, 07:38 »
+2
Well, inspectors might be giddy about the "let anything in" guidelines. They can plow through more images and, thus, make more money. And I don't suspect any inspectors were let go because the pipeline went from a squirt bottle to a fire hose.

« Reply #25 on: August 08, 2014, 08:03 »
+1
Well, inspectors might be giddy about the "let anything in" guidelines. They can plow through more images and, thus, make more money. And I don't suspect any inspectors were let go because the pipeline went from a squirt bottle to a fire hose.

But they still have to hunt for the 2x2 logo that is hidden somewhere in the photo - and that is a lot more work than to decide whether the duck is overfiltered or not in focus  ;D

« Reply #26 on: August 08, 2014, 16:43 »
+2
In response to the thread title, all I can say is "DUH!"


I preferred them when they had the same attitude to my stuff as FT has to landscapes...

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #27 on: August 08, 2014, 17:08 »
+4
^^@hobostocker: I realise the search algorithm is different for different searches, but when many searches are over populated with spammed files which don't even match the search term, the buyers arw getting a worse expedience.
Also the reported experience of most people is that new files - going back to Sept 2012 aren't selling as well as older files. That can be backed up by looking at most recent uploads tbrough a wide range of contributors. Be sure to check upload dates too - I found two BD ports where the recent uploads page seemed to be selling well - but neither had uploaded much in two years. New files sell from time to time - but not enough to encourage people to keep uploading.

« Reply #28 on: August 08, 2014, 19:02 »
+1
In response to the thread title, all I can say is "DUH!"


I preferred them when they had the same attitude to my stuff as FT has to landscapes...

That recently changed, Fotolia accepts pretty much everything now.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #29 on: August 09, 2014, 02:45 »
+7
^^@hobostocker: I realise the search algorithm is different for different searches, but when many searches are over populated with spammed files which don't even match the search term, the buyers arw getting a worse expedience.
Also the reported experience of most people is that new files - going back to Sept 2012 aren't selling as well as older files. That can be backed up by looking at most recent uploads tbrough a wide range of contributors. Be sure to check upload dates too - I found two BD ports where the recent uploads page seemed to be selling well - but neither had uploaded much in two years. New files sell from time to time - but not enough to encourage people to keep uploading.

agencies are in the business of selling photos, not in the business of providing a steady income to their suppliers, that's not their problem and never was and never will.

of course this is true as long as there are still suppliers willing to upload new images in order to earn a pittance.

but so far so good, i haven't heard a single agency taking action on this matter, as far as they're concerned they're all making fat profits so why should they bother ?

photographers earning nothing is not a bug, it's a feature of the actual stock industry.
either we move to greener pastures or we'll soon be unable to break-in with production costs.

but this will take time, maybe years to be finally acknowledged by agencies, if ever.
considering the millions of images on sales they could pretty much stop uploading new stuff for a long time and only a few buyers would ever notice or complain.

we're well over the saturation point in my opinion, and they don't need us anymore.

« Reply #30 on: August 09, 2014, 05:14 »
+5
^^@hobostocker: I realise the search algorithm is different for different searches, but when many searches are over populated with spammed files which don't even match the search term, the buyers arw getting a worse expedience.
Also the reported experience of most people is that new files - going back to Sept 2012 aren't selling as well as older files. That can be backed up by looking at most recent uploads tbrough a wide range of contributors. Be sure to check upload dates too - I found two BD ports where the recent uploads page seemed to be selling well - but neither had uploaded much in two years. New files sell from time to time - but not enough to encourage people to keep uploading.

agencies are in the business of selling photos, not in the business of providing a steady income to their suppliers, that's not their problem and never was and never will.

of course this is true as long as there are still suppliers willing to upload new images in order to earn a pittance.

but so far so good, i haven't heard a single agency taking action on this matter, as far as they're concerned they're all making fat profits so why should they bother ?

photographers earning nothing is not a bug, it's a feature of the actual stock industry.
either we move to greener pastures or we'll soon be unable to break-in with production costs.

but this will take time, maybe years to be finally acknowledged by agencies, if ever.
considering the millions of images on sales they could pretty much stop uploading new stuff for a long time and only a few buyers would ever notice or complain.

we're well over the saturation point in my opinion, and they don't need us anymore.

While I agree that the market is pretty well saturated, and will continue to get more so, I still don't see the logic in dropping standards to the extent they have been at iStock.
If you have plenty to pick from, why pick anything but the best?
It seems to me to be a classic example of "Skinning a gnat for a farthing, and spoiling a penny knife doing it"

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #31 on: August 09, 2014, 05:46 »
+2
While I agree that the market is pretty well saturated, and will continue to get more so, I still don't see the logic in dropping standards to the extent they have been at iStock.
If you have plenty to pick from, why pick anything but the best?
It seems to me to be a classic example of "Skinning a gnat for a farthing, and spoiling a penny knife doing it"

i think they finally looked at the numbers and cold data and reached the conclusion they were too hard in the selection process and that buyers are more than happy with "good enough" images.

and probably it was too expensive to hire and maintain all those inspectors, lowering the bar means lower costs and a few less employees to feed.


« Reply #32 on: August 09, 2014, 06:51 »
+1

 In response to the thread title, all I can say is "DUH!"
 
 
 I preferred them when they had the same attitude to my stuff as FT has to landscapes...
 

 That recently changed, Fotolia accepts pretty much everything now.
 
They always did as far as Im concerned (dont do landscapes) but interesting to see that a blind spot is taken away.


 i think they finally looked at the numbers and cold data and reached the conclusion they were too hard in the selection process and that buyers are more than happy with "good enough" images.

 
 and probably it was too expensive to hire and maintain all those inspectors, lowering the bar means lower costs and a few less employees to feed.
 
I have never seen any evidence of analysing cold data there, decisions over the last few seem to have been taken on the basis that it seemed like a good idea at the time.  They probably were a little hard but only on technical aspects and you could train monkeys to look for technical flaws @ 200%.  Setting a different bar is one thing, throwing all standards out the window is another thing altogether.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #33 on: August 09, 2014, 07:28 »
+1
I have never seen any evidence of analysing cold data there, decisions over the last few seem to have been taken on the basis that it seemed like a good idea at the time.  They probably were a little hard but only on technical aspects and you could train monkeys to look for technical flaws @ 200%.  Setting a different bar is one thing, throwing all standards out the window is another thing altogether.

if we look back, IS haven't done any disastrous single move to tank their business, their management was bad overall but that's the norm in most companies everywhere.

what's killing them is the competition from SS.
SS did everything right from the start, they had a good business model and an agile team and they sticked to it.

from this scenario, there's little IS could do and there's little they can do now.
it would smell of desperation and it wouldn't work anyway, the market now is saturated and the pie has been sliced, game over for IS !

if we wonder why they haven't hired a good CEO, well maybe that's because the ones they interviewed for the job quickly realized the situation was hopeless and refused the offer.

lowering the bar on quality is probably yet another desperate move to see what sticks on the wall ?
they know their dominance is finished and in the best scenario IS will just be one of the top-4 agencies.

in a nutshell, they don't have a corporate culture compatible with the industry they're in now.
they were ok when there was no competition but SS totally changed the game.

bye bye IS, we'll not miss you.

BoBoBolinski

« Reply #34 on: August 09, 2014, 13:05 »
0
I have never seen any evidence of analysing cold data there, decisions over the last few seem to have been taken on the basis that it seemed like a good idea at the time.  They probably were a little hard but only on technical aspects and you could train monkeys to look for technical flaws @ 200%.  Setting a different bar is one thing, throwing all standards out the window is another thing altogether.

if we look back, IS haven't done any disastrous single move to tank their business, their management was bad overall but that's the norm in most companies everywhere.

what's killing them is the competition from SS.
SS did everything right from the start, they had a good business model and an agile team and they sticked to it.

from this scenario, there's little IS could do and there's little they can do now.
it would smell of desperation and it wouldn't work anyway, the market now is saturated and the pie has been sliced, game over for IS !

if we wonder why they haven't hired a good CEO, well maybe that's because the ones they interviewed for the job quickly realized the situation was hopeless and refused the offer.

lowering the bar on quality is probably yet another desperate move to see what sticks on the wall ?
they know their dominance is finished and in the best scenario IS will just be one of the top-4 agencies.

in a nutshell, they don't have a corporate culture compatible with the industry they're in now.
they were ok when there was no competition but SS totally changed the game.

bye bye IS, we'll not miss you.

I hate to say it, but this all sounds horribly accurate

« Reply #35 on: August 09, 2014, 13:46 »
+1
i think they wanted to raise pricing in the micro stock world when they bought IS and create the mid-tier pricing model since the getty main collection had been successful for many years. it almost worked until they tweaked it too for and SS got traction  with the subscription model. OOPS!

« Reply #36 on: August 09, 2014, 18:21 »
+1
A 2005-6 istock article explaining Getty partnership.   The scary thing is,  it sounds nearly identical to SS going public.

http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=159


If you want things to stay as they are, things will have to change.

A smarter man than I said that a long time ago, but in the five years weve been at this whole iStockphoto thing, Ive certainly come to appreciate the truth of it. 2005 was a banner year for iStockphoto, with growth of truly unimaginable proportions. Indeed, the stock photography industry itself was an amazing and exciting thing to observe in the past year. Artists of every visual content discipline now have more opportunities than ever before, and were certainly proud of the hand weve had in the continuing evolution of the digital media landscape.
 
Since our humble beginnings whispering iStockphoto from a make-shift server room in 2000, weve enjoyed the open dialogue weve shared with you, our community. This five year old exchange of ideas has led us to great things, and has helped swell our family from a handful of wide-eyed contributors to an impressive army of leading-edge talent. Our commitment to forge new opportunities and pioneer new ideas through the unique partnership we have with our members has changed the industry and captivated the world. iStockphoto is the little secret nobody seems to have been able to keep.
 
As we enter year six, the question is not how to expand, its how to improve; how do we do this better? I want iStockphoto to rise above the volatility of mere competition and cement our rightful place in the world of digital imagery as global leaders in innovation and quality. With the kind of creative success weve enjoyed so far, we begin to aim higher. As we ascend, so too do our ideas, our philosophy and our members expectations of us.
 
Early in 2005, it became clear to me that we needed help financing our future, and we needed experienced guidance to help take us to the next level. I considered various sources of partnership and funding, exploring possible relationships with hi-tech venture capital firms, making great friends along the way. However, in making a decision for our future, it was important that it not be based on purely financial considerations our passionate culture and independence were crucial, and from my perspective, non-negotiable. I also had to make the right choice for the continued development of our community, with a powerful partner that would nurture our evolution, respect our philosophy and provide leveragable resources.
 
Recently, in a rainy, sleepy suburb in Seattle, I met someone that shared my passion for iStockphoto and my drive to see it succeed. Over a greasy breakfast, he talked excitedly about how our community has created a new market, a culture of participation serving a vast audience. Our talk developed into a wide-ranging collaborative discussion about industry trends, size, consolidation and personal values. We dished a fair amount of gossip, too. After three hours passed in a blink, it was clear how naturally and sincerely our relationship was forming. We continued our dialogue as I detailed our community philosophy for site and feature enrichment, development of artist portfolios, international expansion, localized content and continuous improvement of our technology and methods. "This community is the most important development in the picture business this decade", he declared. Yes, Jonathan Klein understood us. He "gets it.
 
In Getty Images, we have found our perfect partner. On February 9, in the early hours of the morning, iStockphoto agreed to join the Getty Images family, functioning independently with the benefits of Getty Images, yet, very importantly for them and us, autonomy. They will nurture and encourage our pioneering spirit so that our entrepreneurial culture will continue to thrive.
 
Through this union, iStockphoto will have the opportunity to leverage critical industry expertise and resources, expand internationally through the Getty Images presence worldwide, and offer localized support and content. Were thrilled by the new possibilities this collaboration represents, and proud to add luster to the best-known image brand in the world. I know youll have questions, thoughts and concerns, and as always, Ill be here to listen and respond.
 
Nothings going to change, and nothings ever going to be the same. We cant wait to show you how.



The truth is, and always has been,  they say whatever it takes to keep pushing the train down the tracks.  It does not have to be the truth, it's all about money.  This Steam train has made it farther than they had ever hoped, every inch further is pure profit, why have a CEO when they would simply be another expense.  I believe the company has served it's purpose and is expendable. There is no more wood for the furnace so it is time to burn the seats.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2014, 18:37 by old crow »

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #37 on: August 09, 2014, 23:55 »
+1
There is no more wood for the furnace so it is time to burn the seats.

One thing is sure, buyers will still need stock photos so in one way or another the whole industry is here to stay.

I don't see any disrupting new technology or market change at the horizon, this is a mature and saturated industry, all the players know where they belong in terms of market share, prices aren't going to change much, demand is stable, and costs have been already cut to the bone.

There's little they can do at this point to change the game as long as they all sell the same sh-it.

I think Getty is just accepting the situation as it is, why should they be hellbent on getting back their leadership ? it would cost dozens or hundreds of millions in marketing and advertising and i'm sure they realized it's too risky and not worthy, and maybe they also hope SS will crash and burn for whatever reason due to their new status as public company ?

In fact SS is forced by their new shareholders to aggressively grow over time while IS can pretty much lose money for a long time and nobody at Getty will give a sh-it.

As for us, we should never ever expect anything positive regarding our fees, if i look at other cut-throat industries like textile or raw food all i can see is suppliers in the third world being treated like slaves and paid less than a pittance and kept by the bal-ls by greedy employers and foreign multinationals and with their local government more than happy to get bribes and billions in exchange for closing an eye on their abysmal living standards.

Matter of fact, nobody cares about our fees and nevel will, we're alone and our products are de facto dime a dozen and sold in bulk, photography has never been as devalued as today.

While i'm reading in this very moment the imminent announcement of new cameras being launched at Photokina costing an arm and a leg the guys at stock agencies are busy discussing how to further cut our fees or squeeze our bal-ls a bit more, strictly speaking they don't need us anymore, at least not the single niche photographer, while they're more than happy with photo factories and bulkers, i'm sure they'll be even more happy welcoming stockers from third world countries who are ok with a 100$/month wage and honestly i'm surprised they haven't already flooded the market considering their only disadvantage is the cost of the gear compared to their cheap salaries and their problems with proper keywording in english.

« Reply #38 on: August 10, 2014, 04:02 »
+2
Here's an idea: Getty and SS are frenemies. Like this:

I do not believe that SS is necessarily such a threat to iStock-Getty at all. In terms of how they are seen by analysts and commentators they compliment each other in many ways. Granted they compete for actual sales - but the story of their relative value as investments is much more nuanced.

For example - the more valuable SS, the greater the potential valuation of Getty when the time comes for it to be valued. And that future valuation is also obviously going to affect their current corporate funding. Whilst SS has risen on the promise of being a new Getty. And SS has been very lucky with the long stock market run.

But here is the downside. Both iStock and SS belong to a previous era - the old microstock era of the early - mid 2000s is over. The epoch of amateur blogging and DTP has mostly passed (think church newsletters and blogs nobody reads). Largely replaced by Facebook and Twitter - even many businesses have realised that they no longer need to actively maintain a website (there is little value for most businesses - having a website can be a costly waste of time). There has been a decline in the demand for cheap content - replaced by an expectation of free content. Even pro bloggers increasingly use free content. And pro blogging is replacing journalism in many areas (also because it is much more industry friendly - this is the era of native-advertising designed to look like content - and no need to worry about those old conventions and professional standards).

The upshot is that the stock agencies are going to have to find ways to make much more money out of free content. Also that there will be an ever greater emphasis and valuation placed on the total number of accounts. IMO the market for higher quality, high price content is under less threat than the market for cheap content. The market for cheap content is threatened by free. On that analysis SS needs to diversify - because all of their content is in the same shop (apart from Offset which they appear to running as a hobby, so far).
« Last Edit: August 10, 2014, 06:00 by bunhill »

« Reply #39 on: August 10, 2014, 06:14 »
+2
Relaxing the quality standards is just so puzzling.  Such an ill concieved stab in the dark at.....what, why ?  It's like the istock controls have been placed in the breakroom and as people walk by with their coffee they are asked if they want to take a shot at making an istock decision.  I know I have asked this before, but I am floored as to why they would ingest so many bad images unless the show was coming to an end and the guy with the donut in his mouth in the breakroom said, "hey why not just accept every image".  How many employees were no longer needed when standards were relaxed ? Need a new CEO ?

I ask myself what assets istock has.  The images are owned by the contributors, at any moment all of a contributors images can be uploaded elsewhere. That leaves istock with a room full of servers.  Could istock be offered for sale, could it be offered for sale now that the collection has been destroyed ?  I think it will continue on in skeleton crew mode, maybe even Lobo will say goodbye as his position is cut. 

« Reply #40 on: August 10, 2014, 06:41 »
0
Relaxing the quality standards is just so puzzling.

Not puzzling.

1. Customers probably don't care how image digestion works provided that the Best Match and Most Popular searches serve good content.

2. iStock is the default upload portal for the most new content arriving at Getty in general. From their perspective, why not accept everything and let buys and clicks make some of the determination with respect to how the content is sorted ? On the one hand the ideal would probably be a completely automated site with perfect processes - on the other hand this potentially gives them a greater stream of content from which to hand pick higher quality content.

3. More content and more active contributors = growth by some measures. Active engagement is one of the factors by which companies are being valued today.

Don't forget that iStock is only one of Getty's brands.

« Reply #41 on: August 10, 2014, 07:37 »
+1
I wonder if the sheer amount of content hasn't somewhat overwhelmed the "automatic sorting" of content by best match etc.

« Reply #42 on: September 07, 2014, 09:10 »
0
what about the files accepted to yuri_arcurs ?
http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/this-baby-goes-46740702?st=ca94cb9
this is pretty the same Maserati Ghibli 2013  ?  http://www.automobilesreview.com/pictures/shanghai/maserati-ghibli-2013/wallpaper-02.html
i'm disconcerted

he must have bought the entire Maserati brand!!  :o

Valo

« Reply #43 on: September 07, 2014, 09:16 »
+2
I see Yuri is guilty of keyword spam as well.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #44 on: September 07, 2014, 09:52 »
0
I see Yuri is guilty of keyword spam as well.

Oh yes, but he's looking for a career keyworder, inter alia:
http://peopleimages.com/more/jobs

Sheriff

« Reply #45 on: September 07, 2014, 09:58 »
-6
Either you get on the iStock Wagon or just watch it pass on by -but sitting around the campfire complaining does no good at all.  Time to put this discussion out to the pasture...

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #46 on: September 07, 2014, 10:00 »
+5
Either you get on the iStock Wagon or just watch it pass on by -but sitting around the campfire complaining does no good at all.  Time to put this discussion out to the pasture...
Who made you God?

« Reply #47 on: September 07, 2014, 10:02 »
+5
Either you get on the iStock Wagon or just watch it pass on by -but sitting around the campfire complaining does no good at all.  Time to put this discussion out to the pasture...

How do you even know what people are doing? This is a forum where we can vent but you really have no clue what we are doing with our businesses outside of the is forum. Stop trying to tell us what to do, or I'll meet you at dawn in front of the saloon with my pea shooter for a shootout.

Sheriff

« Reply #48 on: September 07, 2014, 10:06 »
-2
Either you get on the iStock Wagon or just watch it pass on by -but sitting around the campfire complaining does no good at all.  Time to put this discussion out to the pasture...

How do you even know what people are doing? This is a forum where we can vent but you really have no clue what we are doing with our businesses outside of the is forum. Stop trying to tell us what to do, or I'll meet you at dawn in front of the saloon with my pea shooter for a shootout.

Bring that peashooter cowboy! I will be ready with my double barrel shotgun  8)


Sheriff

« Reply #49 on: September 07, 2014, 10:08 »
-4
Either you get on the iStock Wagon or just watch it pass on by -but sitting around the campfire complaining does no good at all.  Time to put this discussion out to the pasture...
Who made you God?

Just the Sheriff Mam. But it's time for me to head on over to church to pray for more sales  :)

« Reply #50 on: September 07, 2014, 10:18 »
+1
why church,He tells us to pray in our closets. ;)

« Reply #51 on: September 07, 2014, 10:22 »
+3
I reckon this here cowboy has been eating too many beans. . . :)

« Reply #52 on: September 07, 2014, 10:24 »
0
I see Yuri is guilty of keyword spam as well.

Oh yes, but he's looking for a career keyworder, inter alia:
http://peopleimages.com/more/jobs

That'll be as a replacement for the one who thinks that every sports car has a blonde then? :)

« Reply #53 on: September 07, 2014, 10:27 »
+2
what about the files accepted to yuri_arcurs ?
http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/this-baby-goes-46740702?st=ca94cb9
this is pretty the same Maserati Ghibli 2013  ?  http://www.automobilesreview.com/pictures/shanghai/maserati-ghibli-2013/wallpaper-02.html
i'm disconcerted

he must have bought the entire Maserati brand!!  :o


Gosh, that's embarrassing for IS.  Incorrect acceptance of vehicles and enough spam to feed a Hawaiian football team.  No wonder contributors are fed up.



"Speed, Stationary, Racecar, Sports Car, Transportation, Mode of Transport, Expense, Summer, Day, People, Horizontal, Outdoors, Rural Scene, Lifestyles, Nature, Finance, Empty, Smooth, New, Contemporary, Horizon, Sky, Roadster, Style, Windshield, Land Vehicle, Personal Land Vehicle, Car, Convertible, Symbol, Parking Lot, Road, Street, Shiny, Red, Concepts, Single Object, Copy Space, Midday, Parking, Looking At View, No People, Non-Urban Scene, Upper Class, People Traveling, Travel, Motor Vehicle, Road Trip, Beautiful, Horizon Over Land, Roadside, High Society, Elegance, Luxury, Journey, Success, Wealth, Wheel, One Person, Caucasian, Scenics, Driving, Prosperity, Bonnet, Drive"

I think you can tell he's completely checked out of the game with the dozens of swimsuit images, dogs with leis, people with animal heads, etc.  Probably on a Jamaican beach somewhere :)
« Last Edit: September 07, 2014, 10:39 by Sean Locke Photography »

« Reply #54 on: September 07, 2014, 10:52 »
+2
Remember, "he's SPECIALLLLLLLLLL" We are but mere mortals.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #55 on: September 07, 2014, 11:01 »
+5
Remember, "he's SPECIALLLLLLLLLL" We are but mere mortals.
So special, he's teflon-coated. The last time I pointed out his spam here, he was defended, indefensively, then the posts were deleted.

Sheriff

« Reply #56 on: September 07, 2014, 12:10 »
0
I reckon this here cowboy has been eating too many beans. . . :)

lol! I've been known to hit the 'Sauce' a little bit here and there...

dpimborough

« Reply #57 on: September 07, 2014, 15:56 »
-1
Sorry, no editing of keywords is allowed because the status of this file is NeedsReview Lalalalalala :D


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #58 on: September 07, 2014, 16:07 »
+2
Sorry, no editing of keywords is allowed because the status of this file is NeedsReview Lalalalalala :D
That means someone previously wikied it, maybe yesterday, maybe years ago, but it hasn't been seen by a member of the keywords team.
There doesn't seem to be any rush to review wikied files. But even back in the day, it could take well over a year - though some were done very quickly.

Worse still is when no editing is allowed because the status is 'cleared'. That means it was wikied and reviewed, so either the keywords reviewer didn't notice all the problems or, more likely, the perp just stuck the spam back in again.

But seeing as how iS now let all the spam of the day in, it seems like they just don't care any more. Some naive newbie posted on iS earlier in the week, "don't you know that no matter how hard you shake, real cream will always rise to the top?" - clearly s/he had forgotten about homogenisation.

dpimborough

« Reply #59 on: September 07, 2014, 16:30 »
+2
Sorry, no editing of keywords is allowed because the status of this file is NeedsReview Lalalalalala :D
That means someone previously wikied it, maybe yesterday, maybe years ago, but it hasn't been seen by a member of the keywords team.
There doesn't seem to be any rush to review wikied files. But even back in the day, it could take well over a year - though some were done very quickly.

Worse still is when no editing is allowed because the status is 'cleared'. That means it was wikied and reviewed, so either the keywords reviewer didn't notice all the problems or, more likely, the perp just stuck the spam back in again.

But seeing as how iS now let all the spam of the day in, it seems like they just don't care any more. Some naive newbie posted on iS earlier in the week, "don't you know that no matter how hard you shake, real cream will always rise to the top?" - clearly s/he had forgotten about homogenisation.

I  can think of other things that float but I'm too polite to mention it. There seems to be a lot of naivety in the microstock world :D

« Reply #60 on: September 14, 2014, 16:05 »
+1
I got a rejection today for keywords. It wasn't the only thing and I admit I inadvertently uploaded it before I was done with it. I  was going to  add an editorial caption and instead it went in as commercial without a model release. The image was of a person using a wind powered skateboard. the hybrid board  has various names but most have the word skateboard in them.  It is after all a homemade skateboard with a hole for a windsurfer sail. I am told I that the word "skateboard" and 'skateboarding" are not relevant. It's a skateboard. With a sail. Its clearly visible what it is. I even explained the names in use in the description. I am dumbfounded. I am going to sleep on this and decide how to proceed.

ETA: Here's the first line of the description "A man rides a sail powered skateboard on the beach. "
« Last Edit: September 14, 2014, 16:14 by landbysea »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
27 Replies
10600 Views
Last post April 21, 2007, 02:47
by Dr Bouz
35 Replies
14003 Views
Last post November 23, 2008, 12:11
by hali
13 Replies
4603 Views
Last post April 29, 2012, 18:06
by santosa laksana
57 Replies
13570 Views
Last post November 15, 2015, 12:09
by etudiante_rapide
2 Replies
2468 Views
Last post December 23, 2015, 19:39
by Hildegarde

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle