pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Kelly announces slightly downsized RC targets  (Read 53394 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: January 09, 2011, 12:56 »
0
Thanks for nothing.....

Gold Cannister here still dropping from 20% to a ridiculous 16% and yes I will be working harder this year but I can assure you it will not be at IS to much nonsense going on there ;)

 
« Last Edit: January 09, 2011, 13:01 by iclick »


« Reply #76 on: January 10, 2011, 19:05 »
0

« Reply #77 on: January 10, 2011, 19:06 »
0
LOL

I would submit it, no text on it of course..

« Reply #78 on: January 10, 2011, 19:17 »
0
Funny. Too bad mine and the majority of people's screw didn't get any smaller.

lisafx

« Reply #79 on: January 10, 2011, 19:40 »
0



Absolutely hilarious!!  But I'm with Cthoman - still getting the big screw!

rubyroo

« Reply #80 on: January 10, 2011, 20:01 »
0
Me too (big screw).  :'(

Funny image though  :D

« Reply #81 on: January 10, 2011, 20:41 »
0
hahahaah.. that's classic! 

yeah, I am still getting the big screw, too. 

« Reply #82 on: January 10, 2011, 21:04 »
0
ROFLMAO! Oh, that is hilarious! I love the Woo-yay face!

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #83 on: January 10, 2011, 23:51 »
0
They should because they want to keep me as an exclusive...obviously they don't have to. 

How do you know they want to keep you as exclusive? They show no sign of giving a  about the dropped crowns.

I'm tending to agree with this these days...sadly. I think of istock as a gallery/storefront. I pay for space on the walls and for marketing, and they take a chunk of my income. these days I feel like the chunk they get is being shoved into a dirty hole in the floorboards before I know what's happening, and there's two marketing departments--one for those of who don't matter much, and the real marketing department for the superstars.

so any chance of istock ever going exclusive only? I can't see that would ever work, but I'm curious what responses are to the question.

« Reply #84 on: January 11, 2011, 03:43 »
0
LOL

I would submit it, no text on it of course..

Yeah, go on, do it ... then tell us what po-faced rejection reason they come up with.

RacePhoto

« Reply #85 on: January 11, 2011, 04:10 »
0
hahahaah.. that's classic! 

yeah, I am still getting the big screw, too. 

Independent at 15% for life, I could have it tattooed on my sorry WhooYay where the screw is sticking out. ;)

« Reply #86 on: January 11, 2011, 07:02 »
0
very funny cartoon, chico, and right on the money (or lack of, I should say)  :)

I, too, still get the big screw.

« Reply #87 on: January 11, 2011, 07:52 »
0
very funny cartoon, chico, and right on the money (or lack of, I should say)  :)

I, too, still get the big screw.

Was made by "artpuppy" Istock vector artist. Great job.

lisafx

« Reply #88 on: January 11, 2011, 12:32 »
0

so any chance of istock ever going exclusive only? I can't see that would ever work, but I'm curious what responses are to the question.

At one time we were promised that would never happen, but current ownership has failed to honor lots of promises.  I think that Istock as an exclusive only site could be a possibility in the future.  If that were to happen, probably non-exclusives would be shoved off on the partner program sites. 

The problem, for exclusives, with the site going all-exclusive, is that there would still need to be haves and have-nots.  That just seems to be the way Istock operates.  Once independents are gone, that leaves the lower selling exclusives as the have-nots.   To some extent, we can already see that happening. 

« Reply #89 on: January 11, 2011, 12:46 »
0
At one time we were promised that would never happen, but current ownership has failed to honor lots of promises.  I think that Istock as an exclusive only site could be a possibility in the future.  If that were to happen, probably non-exclusives would be shoved off on the partner program sites. 
I don't see it as a realistic possibility for IS to insist on exclusivity. For starters they risk losing up to 80% of their library.

The only time they had a realistic opportunity of making IS an 'exclusive only' agency  was when they first introduced exclusivity itself. Had they been a little more generous at the time then exclusivity would have been a no-brainer for most of us anyway. Such was their domination back then they could probably have prevented realistic competition from taking off. That horse has well and truly bolted now.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #90 on: January 11, 2011, 13:07 »
0
At one time we were promised that would never happen, but current ownership has failed to honor lots of promises.  I think that Istock as an exclusive only site could be a possibility in the future.  If that were to happen, probably non-exclusives would be shoved off on the partner program sites. 
I don't see it as a realistic possibility for IS to insist on exclusivity. For starters they risk losing up to 80% of their library.

The only time they had a realistic opportunity of making IS an 'exclusive only' agency  was when they first introduced exclusivity itself. Had they been a little more generous at the time then exclusivity would have been a no-brainer for most of us anyway. Such was their domination back then they could probably have prevented realistic competition from taking off. That horse has well and truly bolted now.

What if that 80% only counts for a small percentage of their revenue? What if they kept only the small percentage of contributors that make up 80-90%+ of their revenue? They would have a much smaller, but exclusive, library.

Getty Images is image-exclusive. And Getty owns...

lisafx

« Reply #91 on: January 11, 2011, 13:15 »
0
At one time we were promised that would never happen, but current ownership has failed to honor lots of promises.  I think that Istock as an exclusive only site could be a possibility in the future.  If that were to happen, probably non-exclusives would be shoved off on the partner program sites. 
I don't see it as a realistic possibility for IS to insist on exclusivity. For starters they risk losing up to 80% of their library.


I hope you're right.  Just seems like lately Istock has been shooting themselves in the foot so much that nothing would surprise me anymore. 

« Reply #92 on: January 11, 2011, 13:23 »
0
What if that 80% only counts for a small percentage of their revenue? What if they kept only the small percentage of contributors that make up 80-90%+ of their revenue? They would have a much smaller, but exclusive, library.

Getty Images is image-exclusive. And Getty owns...
Fair point but it's a reasonable assumption that if 80% of the library is non-exclusive then 80% of the revenue will be generated by it too. It'll be an even higher percentage of the profitability.

Other agencies would react to keep their contributors too. They would have to.

A move towards mandatory exclusivity would be virtual suicide IMHO ... but then again they seem to be getting good at self-harming lately.

« Reply #93 on: January 11, 2011, 13:36 »
0
At one time we were promised that would never happen, but current ownership has failed to honor lots of promises.  I think that Istock as an exclusive only site could be a possibility in the future.  If that were to happen, probably non-exclusives would be shoved off on the partner program sites.  

The problem, for exclusives, with the site going all-exclusive, is that there would still need to be haves and have-nots.  That just seems to be the way Istock operates.  Once independents are gone, that leaves the lower selling exclusives as the have-nots.   To some extent, we can already see that happening.  

I totally agree. Now, the exclusives (and really, still the non-exclusives) "who didn't work hard enough" last year are the have-nots. In time, I think most all contributors will end up being have-nots at IS. Only the top echelon of producers will remain. IMHO.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2011, 13:41 by cclapper »

« Reply #94 on: January 11, 2011, 13:43 »
0
What if that 80% only counts for a small percentage of their revenue? What if they kept only the small percentage of contributors that make up 80-90%+ of their revenue? They would have a much smaller, but exclusive, library.

Even if that's true, it changes the equation in ways that would hurt iStock even more than their failures are doing now.  That nonexclusive content allows them to be a one stop shop for image buyers; chances are good that a buyer will find something they want in iStock's collection.  Take away all those images and iStock becomes a niche player, albeit a profitable one.  Buyers will have to find other sources for a lot of their needs.  And once they've discovered those other (cheaper, easier, friendlier, less incompetent) markets, how likely are they to return to iStock?

Buyer inertia is one of iStock's advantages.  Take it away and what do they have?

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #95 on: January 11, 2011, 14:03 »
0
What if that 80% only counts for a small percentage of their revenue? What if they kept only the small percentage of contributors that make up 80-90%+ of their revenue? They would have a much smaller, but exclusive, library.

Even if that's true, it changes the equation in ways that would hurt iStock even more than their failures are doing now.  That nonexclusive content allows them to be a one stop shop for image buyers; chances are good that a buyer will find something they want in iStock's collection.  Take away all those images and iStock becomes a niche player, albeit a profitable one.  Buyers will have to find other sources for a lot of their needs.  And once they've discovered those other (cheaper, easier, friendlier, less incompetent) markets, how likely are they to return to iStock?

Buyer inertia is one of iStock's advantages.  Take it away and what do they have?

But what images comprise that 80%? Is it stuff that sells? Or a lot of non-selling junk?

Buyers want convenience. If keeping a small percentage of images represented a good high value collection minus the junk, even better.

Now if Istock could have that exclusive collection and fix all the bugs...

« Reply #96 on: January 11, 2011, 14:23 »
0
But what images comprise that 80%? Is it stuff that sells? Or a lot of non-selling junk?

It includes a lot of stuff that sells.  It's every independent on iStock.  Every dime I've made on iStock has come from that 80%.  So yeah, buyers do find value there.  And not every independent can be wheedled or threatened into taking the crown.  I would never have moved to exclusivity, and I can't be the only one.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #97 on: January 11, 2011, 14:44 »
0
thanks for the replies. I remember they said it wouldn't happen. but they have gone back on other promises and statements--so logically I'm just not going to put a lot of stock in statements and promises anymore. as was already said, I feel like the opportunity to go all--exclusive has come and gone. but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they did that. despite being exclusive, I think it would be a huge mistake. and I agree Lisa, that it would simply shift the divide across exclusive lines instead of the obvious line between exclusivity and independence.

I really wish iStock would go the way of image exclusivity like other agents rather than artist exclusivity. it used to seem that exclusivity would maintain demand for files not available elsewhere. but now that they're slinging our wares haphazardly across multiple sites and markets, and seeing some of the Agency contributors with flexible exclusivity--it's like there's a big piece of sand under my crown. the more I rub it, the worse it feels. it really bothers me that some artists have flexible exclusivity. makes me wonder where we're headed. seems they want to bring everything exclusively under the Getty umbrella. they don't seem to realize the umbrella's inside out right now.

« Reply #98 on: January 11, 2011, 14:57 »
0
I really wish iStock would go the way of image exclusivity like other agents rather than artist exclusivity.

That could work well in their favour although again, maybe it's now too late even for that. I've got a feeling that many contributors, especially independents, have lost all faith in iStockphoto and their constantly moving goalposts. It still staggers me that they even dream of paying contributors as little as 15%. If I were a new contributor I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to stomach signing up for that.

RT


« Reply #99 on: January 11, 2011, 15:12 »
0
I really wish iStock would go the way of image exclusivity like other agents rather than artist exclusivity.

There aren't many agencies that have complete image exclusivity anymore, some like Getty and Corbis still insist on image exclusivity from individual contributors but their collection as a whole hasn't been exclusive for a long time, therefore I can't see iStock ever doing it, up until last year I would have submitted images to iStock on an exclusive basis but obviously I wouldn't consider that now.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
6047 Views
Last post February 19, 2007, 09:38
by Greg Boiarsky
1 Replies
3845 Views
Last post May 27, 2008, 17:08
by snurder
44 Replies
16059 Views
Last post October 25, 2012, 17:55
by fritz
15 Replies
5418 Views
Last post November 16, 2012, 21:36
by noodle
8 Replies
4787 Views
Last post November 29, 2015, 07:29
by logeeker

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors