MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Layoffs at istock  (Read 135942 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.



« Reply #251 on: January 19, 2012, 11:47 »
0
If my images aren't so precious why do they need to hang on to them for 6 months?

In fact it is only one third of your port, uploaded within the last 6 months, that you cannot delete. Just as Istock introduced exclusivity, to defend their position against the emerging competition, the 6 month lock-in was DT's response to that. It also ensures that having gone to the expense of reviewing images it has a reasonable chance of getting a return. Back in the day people were choosing exclusivity and deleting portfolios that had only just been reviewed. Anyway, if you don't like it then don't join DT __ simples.

mlwinphoto

« Reply #252 on: January 19, 2012, 12:02 »
0
iStock offers a brand, an exclusive product, and higher prices for a (generally) better standard of image. at least that is what they used to do, very well.

Exclusive to the agency but not the buyer.  I've never understood why an image being exclusive to iStock would matter to a buyer when that image may be found in use all over the globe by the many who purchased it before.  Would love to hear from a buyer as to why/if iStock image exclusivity really matters to them.

A (generally) better standard of image?.....not sure I agree with this statement.  Being independent I pay close attention to the quality of the images around me and why there is what I would consider "substandard" work everywhere there is also outstanding work everywhere....iStock is no exception.

Personally I hope iStock does well for you exclusives now and well into the future so you'll stay there and not flood the other agencies with your work.

« Reply #253 on: January 19, 2012, 12:15 »
0
iStock offers a brand, an exclusive product, and higher prices for a (generally) better standard of image. at least that is what they used to do, very well.

Exclusive to the agency but not the buyer.  I've never understood why an image being exclusive to iStock would matter to a buyer when that image may be found in use all over the globe by the many who purchased it before.  Would love to hear from a buyer as to why/if iStock image exclusivity really matters to them.

A (generally) better standard of image?.....not sure I agree with this statement.  Being independent I pay close attention to the quality of the images around me and why there is what I would consider "substandard" work everywhere there is also outstanding work everywhere....iStock is no exception.

Personally I hope iStock does well for you exclusives now and well into the future so you'll stay there and not flood the other agencies with your work.

You're missing the point. It's not supposed to be exclusive to the buyer, it's just exclusive to the site. So if a buyer wants that particular image the only place they can get it is at istockphoto. Having a different set of images is one way for agencies to differentiate themselves from one another.

« Reply #254 on: January 19, 2012, 12:36 »
0
iStock offers a brand, an exclusive product, and higher prices for a (generally) better standard of image. at least that is what they used to do, very well.

Exclusive to the agency but not the buyer.  I've never understood why an image being exclusive to iStock would matter to a buyer when that image may be found in use all over the globe by the many who purchased it before.  Would love to hear from a buyer as to why/if iStock image exclusivity really matters to them.

A (generally) better standard of image?.....not sure I agree with this statement.  Being independent I pay close attention to the quality of the images around me and why there is what I would consider "substandard" work everywhere there is also outstanding work everywhere....iStock is no exception.

Personally I hope iStock does well for you exclusives now and well into the future so you'll stay there and not flood the other agencies with your work.

You're missing the point. It's not supposed to be exclusive to the buyer, it's just exclusive to the site. So if a buyer wants that particular image the only place they can get it is at istockphoto. Having a different set of images is one way for agencies to differentiate themselves from one another.

for a buyer the advantage of an exclusive image on istock would also be that they can see if it has been downloaded a gazillion times and decide if they want the same thing every other buyer has downloaded or not.  If it has low downloads they may have a better position in having a unique image.  That's about it. 

mlwinphoto

« Reply #255 on: January 19, 2012, 12:38 »
0
iStock offers a brand, an exclusive product, and higher prices for a (generally) better standard of image. at least that is what they used to do, very well.

Exclusive to the agency but not the buyer.  I've never understood why an image being exclusive to iStock would matter to a buyer when that image may be found in use all over the globe by the many who purchased it before.  Would love to hear from a buyer as to why/if iStock image exclusivity really matters to them.

A (generally) better standard of image?.....not sure I agree with this statement.  Being independent I pay close attention to the quality of the images around me and why there is what I would consider "substandard" work everywhere there is also outstanding work everywhere....iStock is no exception.

Personally I hope iStock does well for you exclusives now and well into the future so you'll stay there and not flood the other agencies with your work.

You're missing the point. It's not supposed to be exclusive to the buyer, it's just exclusive to the site. So if a buyer wants that particular image the only place they can get it is at istockphoto. Having a different set of images is one way for agencies to differentiate themselves from one another.

Right.  Beneficial for the agency.  I don't see the benefit for the buyer....for one thing they can't "shop around" for the best price on that image if they are so inclined.  And, in all honesty, I'm not sure there is a long term benefit for the contributor.....in the short term they receive higher commissions for each sale but having that image in only one place also means less exposure to the buyer base which, in the long term, may mean fewer sales and ultimately less income on a per image basis...or not

wut

« Reply #256 on: January 19, 2012, 12:52 »
0
iStock offers a brand, an exclusive product, and higher prices for a (generally) better standard of image. at least that is what they used to do, very well.

Exclusive to the agency but not the buyer.  I've never understood why an image being exclusive to iStock would matter to a buyer when that image may be found in use all over the globe by the many who purchased it before.  Would love to hear from a buyer as to why/if iStock image exclusivity really matters to them.

A (generally) better standard of image?.....not sure I agree with this statement.  Being independent I pay close attention to the quality of the images around me and why there is what I would consider "substandard" work everywhere there is also outstanding work everywhere....iStock is no exception.

Personally I hope iStock does well for you exclusives now and well into the future so you'll stay there and not flood the other agencies with your work.

You're missing the point. It's not supposed to be exclusive to the buyer, it's just exclusive to the site. So if a buyer wants that particular image the only place they can get it is at istockphoto. Having a different set of images is one way for agencies to differentiate themselves from one another.

Right.  Beneficial for the agency.  I don't see the benefit for the buyer....for one thing they can't "shop around" for the best price on that image if they are so inclined.  And, in all honesty, I'm not sure there is a long term benefit for the contributor.....in the short term they receive higher commissions for each sale but having that image in only one place also means less exposure to the buyer base which, in the long term, may mean fewer sales and ultimately less income on a per image basis...or not

The best for both word's (togs&buyers), if we're talking about exclusivity, is RM. It's a shame it's dying.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #257 on: January 19, 2012, 12:53 »
0
There's an official thread on iStock now.
Seems to take a while for their spin machine to wind up
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=339821&page=1
Seems JJRD is leaving.

wds

« Reply #258 on: January 19, 2012, 12:53 »
0
JJRD is leaving iStock. We are in the midst of MAJOR changes!

« Reply #259 on: January 19, 2012, 12:55 »
0

......The best thing that could happen to istock now would be for H&F to decide they want out of their Getty deal, and then for Getty to cut istock loose to some new buyer. Hopefully someone with the vision and sense to see what needs to be done to fix the company and to do it.


Jon Oringer ?

That would surprise me. Judging by the way SS has stepped in and taken the business IS has lost, I assume they are quite profitable. Getty has had so many problems with finances over the years. Unless iStock's financials are considerably better than the parent, I can't see SS wanting to boat anchor their business.

« Reply #260 on: January 19, 2012, 13:05 »
0

« Reply #261 on: January 19, 2012, 13:05 »
0
JJRD is leaving iStock. We are in the midst of MAJOR changes!

and the walls come tumbling down...

« Reply #262 on: January 19, 2012, 13:16 »
0
JJRD's leaving!


I have to be honest. I really don't know who JJRD is. I guess I don't spend enough time in the IS forums.

« Reply #263 on: January 19, 2012, 13:20 »
0
iStock offers a brand, an exclusive product, and higher prices for a (generally) better standard of image. at least that is what they used to do, very well.

Exclusive to the agency but not the buyer.  I've never understood why an image being exclusive to iStock would matter to a buyer when that image may be found in use all over the globe by the many who purchased it before.  Would love to hear from a buyer as to why/if iStock image exclusivity really matters to them.

A (generally) better standard of image?.....not sure I agree with this statement.  Being independent I pay close attention to the quality of the images around me and why there is what I would consider "substandard" work everywhere there is also outstanding work everywhere....iStock is no exception.

Personally I hope iStock does well for you exclusives now and well into the future so you'll stay there and not flood the other agencies with your work.

You're missing the point. It's not supposed to be exclusive to the buyer, it's just exclusive to the site. So if a buyer wants that particular image the only place they can get it is at istockphoto. Having a different set of images is one way for agencies to differentiate themselves from one another.

for a buyer the advantage of an exclusive image on istock would also be that they can see if it has been downloaded a gazillion times and decide if they want the same thing every other buyer has downloaded or not.  If it has low downloads they may have a better position in having a unique image.  That's about it. 

You can view downloads whether an image is exclusive or not.

« Reply #264 on: January 19, 2012, 13:25 »
0
I don't see the benefit for the buyer....

It's not supposed to provide any 'benefit' to the buyer, it's just supposed to make the buyer shop at your store.


for one thing they can't "shop around" for the best price on that image if they are so inclined.

That's the idea! If you want the image, you have to come here. Macy's has their own exclusive brands like I.N.C. and Alfani. When you buy an Alfani shirt, that doesn't mean nobody else in the world owns that shirt. It just means you can only buy it at Macy's.

« Reply #265 on: January 19, 2012, 13:26 »
0
iStock offers a brand, an exclusive product, and higher prices for a (generally) better standard of image. at least that is what they used to do, very well.

Exclusive to the agency but not the buyer.  I've never understood why an image being exclusive to iStock would matter to a buyer when that image may be found in use all over the globe by the many who purchased it before.  Would love to hear from a buyer as to why/if iStock image exclusivity really matters to them.

A (generally) better standard of image?.....not sure I agree with this statement.  Being independent I pay close attention to the quality of the images around me and why there is what I would consider "substandard" work everywhere there is also outstanding work everywhere....iStock is no exception.

Personally I hope iStock does well for you exclusives now and well into the future so you'll stay there and not flood the other agencies with your work.

You're missing the point. It's not supposed to be exclusive to the buyer, it's just exclusive to the site. So if a buyer wants that particular image the only place they can get it is at istockphoto. Having a different set of images is one way for agencies to differentiate themselves from one another.

for a buyer the advantage of an exclusive image on istock would also be that they can see if it has been downloaded a gazillion times and decide if they want the same thing every other buyer has downloaded or not.  If it has low downloads they may have a better position in having a unique image.  That's about it. 

You can view downloads whether an image is exclusive or not.

I know that.  the deal is that if it is not an exclusive image then you really don't know how many times the image has been downloaded from all the other sites, so the download number then only becomes significant (for a buyer) on exclusive images.

« Reply #266 on: January 19, 2012, 13:26 »
0
JJRD is leaving iStock. We are in the midst of MAJOR changes!

and the walls come tumbling down...

Well it turns out JJRD's prediction of 'major changes ahead' was correct __ although perhaps not exactly in the way he expected.

These 'changes' don't strike me as being an attempt to expand or enhance the business of Istock. Quite the reverse. It looks like a full-on retreat in the face of falling revenues.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #267 on: January 19, 2012, 13:28 »
0

for a buyer the advantage of an exclusive image on istock would also be that they can see if it has been downloaded a gazillion times and decide if they want the same thing every other buyer has downloaded or not.  If it has low downloads they may have a better position in having a unique image.  That's about it. 

You can view downloads whether an image is exclusive or not.

But you have no idea how often it's been sold at other agencies.

Of course, for people who were formerly independent there's still no way of knowing how often a file sold before it was exclusive on iStock.

But in fact, to my incredulity, it seems that many buyers seem to prefer the reassurance of knowing that a file's already had many downloads.

« Reply #268 on: January 19, 2012, 13:29 »
0
In particular, it suggests to me that decisions about content - what's accepted, where it goes, etc. - are all moving to Getty. If I had to make a guess, I'd say that iStock will become an input portal for Getty Images "crowdsourced" content. Down to Thinkstock/photos.com or up to Getty (Vetta/Agency).

« Reply #269 on: January 19, 2012, 13:32 »
0
I know that.  the deal is that if it is not an exclusive image then you really don't know how many times the image has been downloaded from all the other sites, so the download number then only becomes significant (for a buyer) on exclusive images.

Ah, point taken.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #270 on: January 19, 2012, 13:35 »
0
Wow, now JJRD. Wasn't he the one that said something in the past year like... Things are good and I'll be one of the first ones gone if that changes

« Reply #271 on: January 19, 2012, 13:36 »
0
In particular, it suggests to me that decisions about content - what's accepted, where it goes, etc. - are all moving to Getty. If I had to make a guess, I'd say that iStock will become an input portal for Getty Images "crowdsourced" content. Down to Thinkstock/photos.com or up to Getty (Vetta/Agency).

Agreed. What amazes me about that is why they're pushing Thinkstock as the place for the crowdsourced content. When they bought that dog the istockphoto brand was about 10,000 times stronger than Thinkstock, yet it seems they want istockphoto to become Thinkstock. You don't kill off your best brands and replace them with lesser ones.

« Reply #272 on: January 19, 2012, 13:37 »
0
Wow, now JJRD. Wasn't he the one that said something in the past year like... Things are good and I'll be one of the first ones gone if that changes

right.. I was just trying to find that thread! 

« Reply #273 on: January 19, 2012, 13:38 »
0
In particular, it suggests to me that decisions about content - what's accepted, where it goes, etc. - are all moving to Getty. If I had to make a guess, I'd say that iStock will become an input portal for Getty Images "crowdsourced" content. Down to Thinkstock/photos.com or up to Getty (Vetta/Agency).

Agreed. What amazes me about that is why they're pushing Thinkstock as the place for the crowdsourced content. When they bought that dog the istockphoto brand was about 10,000 times stronger than Thinkstock, yet it seems they want istockphoto to become Thinkstock. You don't kill off your best brands and replace them with lesser ones.

and with the ingestion of all the Getty content to istock it looks like they want iStock to become Getty.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #274 on: January 19, 2012, 13:39 »
0
Wow, now JJRD. Wasn't he the one that said something in the past year like... Things are good and I'll be one of the first ones gone if that changes

right.. I was just trying to find that thread! 

It was around the time of the RC introduction.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
13719 Views
Last post August 22, 2006, 15:49
by amanda1863
5 Replies
5687 Views
Last post September 12, 2007, 13:08
by michaeldb
17 Replies
8319 Views
Last post February 10, 2008, 15:51
by sharply_done
Corbis layoffs

Started by jsnover « 1 2  All » SnapVillage.com

27 Replies
24486 Views
Last post September 24, 2008, 17:16
by louoates
0 Replies
1773 Views
Last post January 18, 2012, 17:21
by gaja

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors