Author Topic: Lots of rants about random stuff (was: More Getty content on iStock) (Read 62963 times)

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #25 on:** June 07, 2011, 21:28 »

Quote from: caspixel on June 07, 2011, 20:43

Jaw-dropping, really, some of the stuff that comes out of people's mouths over there.

Once Getty sees certain contributers standards, how good their work is and how well it sells, Istock admins will push those people in the right direction like they did with agency files. Neither Istock or Getty is going to give up the chance to make money on our skills and the people that excel will be noticed now.

Yeah, well...

helix7 · « **Reply #26 on:** June 07, 2011, 21:37 »

Quote from: raclro on June 07, 2011, 20:03

...it appears that more and more, iStock is simply being run as a subsidiary of Getty (duh). I truly doubt that iStock management has any more say in these decisions than we do. They are in my opinion middle management squeezed from above, and railed at from below...

As I understand it, istock was (and maybe still is) expected to be Getty's big earner in the years that followed the sale. Some Getty projections from a few years ago indicated that management expected istock to surpass the regular Getty collection in terms of revenue. Maybe all of this (Agency, Getty Editorial, etc) trickling down to istock is just Getty's way of putting more of their existing content in the most popular place for current buyers. If buyer activity is shifting to microstock, put more of your collections in your microstock properties.

Although eventually this makes your microstock products less "micro", but maybe that doesn't matter. And of course the major side-effect for contributors is that with all of this content being funneled into istock, it's a hell of a lot harder to make a buck there.

Black Sheep · « **Reply #27 on:** June 07, 2011, 23:21 »

businesswise it's a good but risky move for getty, we'll see how it develops.

unsurprisingly anyways, getty is owned and run by rich bankers, they couldn't give a s-hit about photography and photographers.

they're destroying the stock market and very few of us will survive on stock alone in the next 5 or 10 yrs.

caspixel · « **Reply #28 on:** June 07, 2011, 23:22 »

Quote from: sjlocke on June 07, 2011, 21:28

Quote from: caspixel on June 07, 2011, 20:43
Jaw-dropping, really, some of the stuff that comes out of people's mouths over there.

Once Getty sees certain contributers standards, how good their work is and how well it sells, Istock admins will push those people in the right direction like they did with agency files. Neither Istock or Getty is going to give up the chance to make money on our skills and the people that excel will be noticed now.

Yeah, well...

She just doesn't stop, does she? Wow. She's off in a different stratosphere or something.

lagereek · « **Reply #29 on:** June 08, 2011, 00:03 »

Makes me LAUGH!!!

In just about 20 posts Ive said this all along, the aim is to ultimatly push out IS and into TS, its BLOODY obvious. I said it as long back as 2 years ago, long before this happend.
Next move, the agency photographers and all their RM stuff, etc.

Sigh! but then comes some wiseguys here and says Oh no, they cant do that? but they can, they will and they did.

This is just for starters, wait and see what will happen when dinner is served.

Black Sheep · « **Reply #30 on:** June 08, 2011, 02:08 »

Quote from: lagereek on June 08, 2011, 00:03

Makes me LAUGH!!!

In just about 20 posts Ive said this all along, the aim is to ultimatly push out IS and into TS, its BLOODY obvious. I said it as long back as 2 years ago, long before this happend.
Next move, the agency photographers and all their RM stuff, etc.

Sigh! but then comes some wiseguys here and says Oh no, they cant do that? but they can, they will and they did.

This is just for starters, wait and see what will happen when dinner is served.

well you micro guys are responsible for all this, don't blame getty too much, i would do the same in their pants frankly speaking.

ShadySue · « **Reply #31 on:** June 08, 2011, 05:59 »

Quote from: Risamay on June 07, 2011, 19:31

This is total BS. The folks who are supporting it make me sick. Particularly a certain admin who used to be one of the strongest "voices of the people". I just can't get over how the badge and the paycheck has changed that tune. It's truly disappointing.

I'm sure he and another have been told to get out there and 'reassure the masses' aka "seem to calm us down", by any means possible.

aeonf · « **Reply #32 on:** June 08, 2011, 06:05 »

Quote from: danhowl on June 07, 2011, 18:44

and somehow the IS fanboys are silent...

None left!

ShadySue · « **Reply #33 on:** June 08, 2011, 06:07 »

Another point from the OP no-one has commented on:
"These new editorial files will all be in a single contributor portfolio called EdStock."
So the photographers are not being credited. Wonder if they'll be mad about that, or relieved that their names are not being 'outed' in Micro.
Will that mean the photo is listed as 'copyright EdStock'?

gclk · « **Reply #34 on:** June 08, 2011, 06:23 »

Looking at the London 'lypse images, it's clear that people spend a lot of time, effort and money shooting 'iconic' locations such as the London Eye, British Museum, Parliament, the Gherkin building and famous underground stations for the editorial collection.

Wonder how they'll feel when - tomorrow - images of these same locations start flooding into the collection.

Guess this will be one of those rare occasions at iStockphoto when things are done bang on time, rather than being delayed by months and months with zero communication.

Beach Bum · « **Reply #35 on:** June 08, 2011, 07:02 »

There seems to be an endless supply of bad news over there.

ShadySue · « **Reply #36 on:** June 08, 2011, 07:59 »

Quote from: ShadySue on June 08, 2011, 06:07

Another point from the OP no-one has commented on:
"These new editorial files will all be in a single contributor portfolio called EdStock."
So the photographers are not being credited. Wonder if they'll be mad about that, or relieved that their names are not being 'outed' in Micro.
Will that mean the photo is listed as 'copyright EdStock'?

(Intentionally meaning to quote myself this time!)
I see Sean has raised this very issue on the iStock thread.
I guess the Username could be EdStock, but the correct copyright could be assigned, just as at the moment you can have Username: SillySausage but copyright: Joe Bloggs.
Interesting how the Username thing goes. Does that mean they'll be able to shoot up the RC rankings super fast, whereas we are not supposed to be in groups or pairs (we are often told) but there are several couples/groups allowed.
I'm sure they wouldn't like it if we formed alliances with others (with a legal agreement) to zoom up the RCs.

ShadySue · « **Reply #37 on:** June 08, 2011, 08:06 »

Quote from: gclk on June 08, 2011, 06:23

Looking at the London 'lypse images, it's clear that people spend a lot of time, effort and money shooting 'iconic' locations such as the London Eye, British Museum, Parliament, the Gherkin building and famous underground stations for the editorial collection.
Wonder how they'll feel when - tomorrow - images of these same locations start flooding into the collection.

I'm so glad I didn't throw away that £1000. I can only hope the tuition and insights were worth it. It would have been well over £1000 for most attendees.
There was no way I'd agree to have 'all pics taken in London during the duration of the 'lypse' exclusive to iStock/partners. The set up model shoots, fair enough, but not anything else.

ShadySue · « **Reply #38 on:** June 08, 2011, 08:08 »

Quote from: gclk on June 08, 2011, 06:23

Guess this will be one of those rare occasions at iStockphoto when things are done bang on time, rather than being delayed by months and months with zero communication.

Oh, yes; this will have been stacked up for months just ready for the button to be pressed. Look how they jumped the gun with the %age cut for Vetta. Yet is seems they still can't transfer files over to TS for those who actually want that to happen, and there are delays in having Vetta files transferred to Getty, as promised.
Same old, same old.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #39 on:** June 08, 2011, 08:34 »

Quote from: ShadySue on June 08, 2011, 07:59

I see Sean has raised this very issue on the iStock thread.
I guess the Username could be EdStock, but the correct copyright could be assigned, just as at the moment you can have Username: SillySausage but copyright: Joe Bloggs.
Interesting how the Username thing goes. Does that mean they'll be able to shoot up the RC rankings super fast, whereas we are not supposed to be in groups or pairs (we are often told) but there are several couples/groups allowed.
I'm sure they wouldn't like it if we formed alliances with others (with a legal agreement) to zoom up the RCs.

Sorry for stealing - I thought it was a good point to raise.

ShadySue · « **Reply #40 on:** June 08, 2011, 08:42 »

Quote from: sjlocke on June 08, 2011, 08:34

Quote from: ShadySue on June 08, 2011, 07:59
I see Sean has raised this very issue on the iStock thread.
I guess the Username could be EdStock, but the correct copyright could be assigned, just as at the moment you can have Username: SillySausage but copyright: Joe Bloggs.
Interesting how the Username thing goes. Does that mean they'll be able to shoot up the RC rankings super fast, whereas we are not supposed to be in groups or pairs (we are often told) but there are several couples/groups allowed.
I'm sure they wouldn't like it if we formed alliances with others (with a legal agreement) to zoom up the RCs.

Sorry for stealing - I thought it was a good point to raise.

Not stealing: you can regard it as 'posting it there on my behalf' (but with a lot more clout

)

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #41 on:** June 08, 2011, 08:47 »

Quote from: ShadySue on June 08, 2011, 07:59

Interesting how the Username thing goes. Does that mean they'll be able to shoot up the RC rankings super fast, whereas we are not supposed to be in groups or pairs (we are often told) but there are several couples/groups allowed.
I'm sure they wouldn't like it if we formed alliances with others (with a legal agreement) to zoom up the RCs.

I doubt if the RC rankings will matter to them. There will be some fixed arrangement.

gclk · « **Reply #42 on:** June 08, 2011, 08:59 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on June 08, 2011, 08:47

Quote from: ShadySue on June 08, 2011, 07:59

Interesting how the Username thing goes. Does that mean they'll be able to shoot up the RC rankings super fast, whereas we are not supposed to be in groups or pairs (we are often told) but there are several couples/groups allowed.
I'm sure they wouldn't like it if we formed alliances with others (with a legal agreement) to zoom up the RCs.

I doubt if the RC rankings will matter to them. There will be some fixed arrangement.

That's true. But there will probably be a best match advantage to that single user from having a lot of files, with plenty downloads and a 100% acceptance rate.

Anyway, that's probably academic because the files will enjoy a strong best match boost. Otherwise known as 'files scattered in with every search'. Remember what we were told when Agency was introduced:

In search and Best Match the images will be weighted fairly and will not have a heavier weight than any other file. In other words, you won't find the entire agency collection at the front of every search. You will find some agency collection files scattered in with every search, just the same as you see now for Vetta and exclusive plus files.

jamirae · « **Reply #43 on:** June 08, 2011, 09:16 »

Quote from: gclk on June 08, 2011, 08:59

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on June 08, 2011, 08:47
Quote from: ShadySue on June 08, 2011, 07:59

Interesting how the Username thing goes. Does that mean they'll be able to shoot up the RC rankings super fast, whereas we are not supposed to be in groups or pairs (we are often told) but there are several couples/groups allowed.
I'm sure they wouldn't like it if we formed alliances with others (with a legal agreement) to zoom up the RCs.

I doubt if the RC rankings will matter to them. There will be some fixed arrangement.

That's true. But there will probably be a best match advantage to that single user from having a lot of files, with plenty downloads and a 100% acceptance rate.

Anyway, that's probably academic because the files will enjoy a strong best match boost. Otherwise known as 'files scattered in with every search'. Remember what we were told when Agency was introduced:

In search and Best Match the images will be weighted fairly and will not have a heavier weight than any other file. In other words, you won't find the entire agency collection at the front of every search. You will find some agency collection files scattered in with every search, just the same as you see now for Vetta and exclusive plus files.

hahahhaahah!! ah yes, I laugh out loud everytime I read that little joke of theirs. hahahahhaaha! "weighted fairly"! hahaha.. the joke's on us!

ThomasAmby · « **Reply #44 on:** June 08, 2011, 09:33 »

For a long time I've had the feeling they wanted to increase profits short term (by cutting commissions) to make the site look attractive to potential buyers ("look at this chart how our profits have skyrocketed over the past year") - But it seems more and more likely they want to kill the site (and microstock altogether) and get buyers back to Getty. I'm really confused and right now I've no idea how this is going to end. Aren't they aware of the alternatives, such as Shutterstock, Dreamstime and Fotolia ? Maybe they're only interested in buyers willing to pay macro-prices and the rest, the "poor" micro-buyers who switch to other sites, are "good riddance" anyway ?

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #45 on:** June 08, 2011, 09:40 »

Quote from: nico_blue on June 07, 2011, 17:55

Wow, this really sucks... another gazillion images to push back our files in the best match

You don't see the humour in this?

lisafx · « **Reply #46 on:** June 08, 2011, 09:54 »

Quote from: ShadySue on June 08, 2011, 06:07

Another point from the OP no-one has commented on:
"These new editorial files will all be in a single contributor portfolio called EdStock."
So the photographers are not being credited. Wonder if they'll be mad about that, or relieved that their names are not being 'outed' in Micro.
Will that mean the photo is listed as 'copyright EdStock'?

Well, who is this Ed Stock, and does he get to keep the royalties?

Black Sheep · « **Reply #47 on:** June 08, 2011, 10:05 »

Quote from: lisafx on June 08, 2011, 09:54

Well, who is this Ed Stock, and does he get to keep the royalties?

but to me the big question is : is editorial selling well on IS ? for instance travel editorial,
street shots, photos of villages, suburbs, people in rags, portraits, etc ?

i've plenty of editorial that never sold in RM, so i don't see istock move as a bad move
if they can make a business out of it, i never tried dreamstime or SS editorial because
i always felt it's a waste of time, if IS manages to make ED a viable income
i'm all for it but what if the average ED image only sells once or twice ?

ShadySue · « **Reply #48 on:** June 08, 2011, 10:26 »

Quote from: lisafx on June 08, 2011, 09:54

Quote from: ShadySue on June 08, 2011, 06:07
Another point from the OP no-one has commented on:
"These new editorial files will all be in a single contributor portfolio called EdStock."
So the photographers are not being credited. Wonder if they'll be mad about that, or relieved that their names are not being 'outed' in Micro.
Will that mean the photo is listed as 'copyright EdStock'?

Well, who is this Ed Stock, and does he get to keep the royalties?

Interesting someone has noticed that the EdStock membership was created back in April.
Well, I guess we shouldn't be surprised. Of course this was the intention all along, and I'm sure we're still only at the thin end of the wedge.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #49 on:** June 08, 2011, 10:31 »

Quote from: ThomasAmby on June 08, 2011, 09:33

For a long time I've had the feeling they wanted to increase profits short term (by cutting commissions) to make the site look attractive to potential buyers ("look at this chart how our profits have skyrocketed over the past year") - But it seems more and more likely they want to kill the site (and microstock altogether) and get buyers back to Getty. I'm really confused and right now I've no idea how this is going to end. Aren't they aware of the alternatives, such as Shutterstock, Dreamstime and Fotolia ? Maybe they're only interested in buyers willing to pay macro-prices and the rest, the "poor" micro-buyers who switch to other sites, are "good riddance" anyway ?

I don't think they're trying to kill Istock. I do think they're trying to shuffle pricing and define pricing tiers to prevent Getty buyers from defecting to Istock. Some micro contributors are now producing such high value imagery that it's eroding the value at Getty.

If Getty has a good selling image for $200 and on IS a somewhat similar one is $20, why would a buyer get it from Getty? So, increase the price on IS by adding it to Vetta/Agency.

A few years ago micro buyers were getting Buicks for the price of a Chevy. They're now able to get a Rolls Royce for the price of a Buick.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Lots of rants about random stuff (was: More Getty content on iStock) (Read 62963 times)

Sean Locke Photography

helix7

Black Sheep

caspixel

lagereek

Black Sheep

ShadySue

aeonf

ShadySue

gclk

Beach Bum

ShadySue

ShadySue

ShadySue

Sean Locke Photography

ShadySue

BaldricksTrousers

gclk

jamirae

ThomasAmby

PeterChigmaroff

lisafx

Black Sheep

ShadySue

PaulieWalnuts

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors