MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: kosmikkreeper on December 01, 2008, 08:59
-
For those of you who don't know me and just to put you into perspective, I'm a full-time photographer and 75% of my income comes from microstock earnings. I'm no Yuri Arcus or Lise Gagné, but I make more in microstock earnings than my previous full-time job as a school director.
OK. I've waited a complete month of new best match before commenting on IS's new best match search and how it has impacted my sales. I just wanted to make sure it wasn't a glitch. It's been roughly 6 weeks since the new best match search was implemented and even during the first week my sales dropped dramatically.
(http://image-y.com/Banners/graph.jpg)
As you can see from my graph, my November sales have, on average, been cut in half. For me, this represents sales that I was making back in 2005, 3 years ago. Before the October implementation of the best match my sales were steadily going up and October looked to be close to my September revenues. Then October became my worst month of the year.
What does this all mean for me (and possibly other high-ranking non-exclusives)? Let me give you my thoughts on the future of IS for non-exclusives.
I personally think that my sales will continue to slowly decline (from it's November low) even though I continue to upload regularly because:
1- My acceptance ratio has declined from 80% to 50% because of non logical, subjective image evaluations such as: chromatic aberrations, artifacting, and irrelevant keywords. I don't need to go into details here since all of these have been talked about ad nosium here in the forums. Less acceptance means less images, not to mention that we already have a small upload limit compared to exclusives (which is fine).
2- The new best match search sends my top selling images that used to show up in the top 3 pages into non-existence by placing them on pages 97 or farther still. This means declines in sales from those high earners which means they will also move back in pages from "download" search. In th long term those images will vanish from the eyes of buyers. To go even farther still, non-exclusives will become less known since their images won't be at the top anymore so even rare search by "contributor" will become obsolete. The only search that could help us is "age" for our newer images but that will be short lived because of high volume.
3- New non-exclusive images are pushed back just like top images so they'll never (or rarely) get the sales to take off. I already noticed this happening.
In 2008, IS went from #1 to #2 when I made Emerald at FT (no fault to IS). In November it dropped to #3 behind SS (where sales are stagnant but not declining) and barely beat DT by a few $$. I predict that it'll be #4 in December. It won't take long for it to fall to #5 behind StockXpert since my sales at StockXpert are healthy and keep on increasing. It might take a few years for IS to fall behind BS and 123RF but it will happen if best match stays at it is.
I predict that many non-exclusives who currently make at least $100/month at IS will stop uploading once they can't get a regular monthly income. They will focus on agencies that do. I know that if this happens to me in a few years, I'll stop uploading since it make perfect business sense.
What does that mean for IS? I don't know. There are 1000s of possible scenarios. And my thoughts are purely based on current events.
Just thought I would share my view..... what do you think?
Yanik
-
Yanik,
I enjoy your views and admire you as someone who has had solid success in microstock at numerous agencies.
Your chart looks very similar to mine, and I agree with your assessment that a percentage of non-exclusives will soon cease uploads to iStockphoto. However most will not. This is a strange game, microstock. So many are willing to contribute no matter how an agency treats them, if it means a few extra percentage points in monthly sales. With that in mind, I doubt there will be a mass exodus.
In my case, I have already ceased uploads to iStockphoto. It was an easy decision for me. iStockphoto has fallen as a percentage of earnings contributor for me for all of 2008. IStock now generates only 9.5% of my total earnings.
9.5% is not enough to motivate me to deal with the horrible uploading process, the disambiguation, the clunky category selections, and the inability to save model releases. When you add in the best match changes which push us further back, the 1 to 2 week (or more) review period, the bizarre rejections, the forum climate, and the arrogant 20%/80% commission split, it becomes an easy decision not to do future business with them.
But like I wrote, it is easy for me. I don't do this for a living. And 9.5% of earnings just isn't much to give up. I make 5 times as much at Shutterstock as I do at iStock. It's gotten to the point where I only check my earnings once a week or so at iStock, as they aren't my bread winner anymore and haven't been for a long time.
I have no intentions of pulling my portfolio at this time. But they have seen my last upload unless things change drastically. I don't have the time to waste on non-returning investments.
-
FYI. Having some of your best selling images pushed back to the back of your portfolio is not a non-exclusive phenomenon. It does not make sense what IS is doing. Diversity is helping me personally to fight back the tide of the BME screw job. 13% reduction in DLs from BME October that saw 2 $50 sales - so a larger drop in earnings. Having lots of weekend and holiday days in the month - could account for the -13%. Who knows whats going on - but it is not pretty.
-
I totally agree. I stopped uploading to istock since october. It just doesn't worth the effort... Shutterstock makes 5 times more and much easy to upload.
I think Istock wants only exclusive contributors in the long run.
-
I couldnt agree more.
This will be the firs time after I hit my first payout in a month about 2 years ago , that I wont , I was a buck short , and I used to have 4x better sales.
Things can only go worse , as I see it and last two weeks , were first ones that I didn't upload my batch there. I just didn't felt like doing it.
I feel we ( non exclusives ) will become numbers there , just so they can say they have 4 million images , and exclusives are going to reach for the apples
we are all picking there , cause we are just going to hold the ladders so they can stand high and hoping they will drop some on the ground for us.
There will always be some "high end" non exclusives that will do quite well , but there are not many of them out there.
I will still upload to them , probably will miss a week or two sometimes , but I wont think about rejections much , when things go much worse I will stop uploading like I did on some other slow sites , but I will freely do more processed , vivid and images "changed from their initial appearance" , not thinking what istock has to say about that. I will use keyword background on
my background images and I wont explain that the brushes I used are generated from my work 3 times at month.
-
Well I think most of us agree with this. I stopped uploading vectors to IS, might do the same with photos/renders. It may be worth it atm, but it looks that may not be the case in two months. Unless something changes.
The more interesting question is what is IS's (or should I say Getty's) goal? The only reasonable motives that come to my mind are:
- destroy competition by making most of the people exclusive with IS (however the current strategy is working against this)
- demotivate all of the newbies and hobbyist so that they stop uploading. This could calm the top producers and make IS a site with high quality images, though quantity might be the problem. The reason for this is that there are more and more contributors which makes our piece of the pie smaller. The contributor numbers are increasing far more rapidlly than the buyers numbers (though there is still a lot of room I think). This means that we will earn less and less if the current trend continues. When will we reach the point where most find it's not worth it anymore?
-
iStock went from rank 3 to 5 for me this month with a mere 7% of my income. I stoped uploading there for now too since it's not viable for me. The upload process takes far too much time for the income it brings. I will see if things change in the future but for the moment, it is simply not worth the time investment.
-
My graph looks a lot like the original poster. I too can't get very excited about uploading to iS anymore. Given the recent setback at FT with rankings and this I am rethinking my whole participation in the micros.
-
I completely agree with your assessment Yanik.
It's frustrating to have seen istock plummet so low in such a short time. I barely escaped my worst month of the year there (Feb) in spite of filling my upload quota every week and adding 1200 images in 2008 including lots of holiday images.
As a non-exclusive diamond with over 4,000 images, if my sales are down this badly on istock I can't imagine many independents are faring a lot better.
Istock now represents 28% of my income, down from almost half a year ago. Microstock represents my FT income and for the first time ever I could completely drop istock from my lineup and still support myself.
If something doesn't turn around there I am sure many more independents will join Dan, Talanis, and others who haven't yet posted to this thread in stopping uploading to istock.
There is just no way this benefits istock. An all exclusive roster would omit way too many talented independents, not to mention that many of the exclusive benefits (faster inspection, better search placement,portfolio promotion etc.) will be moot if there are no non-exclusives to be placed ahead of...
-
I agree totally with Yanik and Lisa!
Im a Gold, non-exclusive myself, 2-years plus with IS. At best they stood for about 15% of my total stock-earnings and thats quite a bit considering I work in RM,RF and micro. My day-rate photography business is kept totally separate.
My advice is: skip this exclusivity crap altogether, keep the ones already abooard happy and frankly start all over.
Get a decent and I mean a decent expensive computer-guru-team ( the best ) and get a decent search-engine!
Dont even think about using the term: best match anymore, its really got the most terrible ring to it.
-
I'm not worried about it all that much. I know that sounds a bit crazy, but really when you look at what istock represents for most non-exclusives, we're not talking about the end of the world. I mean, this is the company that represents about 20-30% of total microstock earnings for most people, right? So if sales get cut in half, we're talking about a 10-15% total income drop. Sure that's big, but not of the magnitude where anyone should start thinking about quitting the business.
My view is that while this best match shake-up is more damaging than previous ones, I'm still not going to sweat it too much. It might change for the better some day, it might not. All I know is that this just reinforces my commitment to stay independent, and will use that to my advantage and focus my efforts on the other 10 agencies I work with. I used to mostly work on images that I thought were best suited for istock, for that style and what I thought was most likely to pass with istock's reviewers. But that was when istock was my top earner. Since that's not the case anymore and won't be for the near future, I'll just work on stuff that sells best at SS.
SS is the new istock for me. Maybe StockXpert will become the new SS, and so on. For non-exclusives, really this is not that big of a deal. We can adapt, change strategies, focus on other sites, etc. It's far worse a situation for the istock exclusives, especially those who count on istock for most or all of their income and have taken the same hit we have experienced. My istock earnings can drop to half of what they were over the summer and I'm still ok. A full-time exclusive's earnings make the same drop and they really feel that pain much more than I could.
Bottom line for me is this: I used to regard istock as a much bigger part of my microstock picture. Now, the fact of the matter is that istock is a much smaller part of that picture, and I just need to move forward. istock may just become a smaller and smaller part of my microstock future, and that's not so bad really.
-
Everything you are saying makes total sense Mike. Istock has dropped themselves to just one of the pack, rather than the leader.
I guess it is harder to process for some of us that have been there a very long time and began our stock careers there. Istock's decline really seems to have begun in Feb 2006 with its sale to Getty, so anyone joining after that time may not quite understand the feelings of fondness and nostalgia that many of us old timers have.
-
The next best match change is going to be interesting. Are they going to continue with the current policy or will they try and keep more of us happy by moving our images back up the best match?
I think the policy of trying to make those sitting on the fence go exclusive has backfired spectacularly. The best way to make us think about going exclusive is to increase our sales, not reduce them. I feel they have made a mistake and they should correct it quickly. There must be a growing number of us who have decided to never go exclusive with them and are now sitting on the fence deciding if we want to continue uploading.
If our sales get a boost with a new best match, I think a lot of these negative feelings will fade away.
-
...I guess it is harder to process for some of us that have been there a very long time and began our stock careers there...
Good point. It's funny how where you start affects how you feel about a company. I guess that's why I have always been a fan of StockXpert. That's where I got my start.
-
The next best match change is going to be interesting. Are they going to continue with the current policy or will they try and keep more of us happy by moving our images back up the best match?...
I wish I could share your optimism, but I have serious doubts that the best match will help us out in any way. istock has loyalties to buyers much more than contributors, and for good reason. Unfortunately for us, if buyers are happy with the new best match, it'll stay in place even if it hurts us.
-
I think that this move for the IS will be Trojan horse ...
Because:
-microstok is no longer a business without serious competition (as in the beginning)...
-times are changing, and photographers also... Limiting on the "older photographer" mean loosing part of new things (every generation brings something new)...
-new contributor doesn't like exclusive (earlier, You could easily be exclusive because the "others" weren't such strong like now ...
That means a decline of offer in quantity of images, in comparison to the other agencies, customers will go where is greater choice)...
- also many good photographers will leave IS (It's a big risk to go on IS exclusive after SS,StockXpert,FT etc.) ,that also mean less images in IS portfolio compared to the competition...
Conclusion question:
What is better,to be original and to have all that the others have, or just be original?
-
Nothing more...
-
- destroy competition by making most of the people exclusive with IS (however the current strategy is working against this)
- demotivate all of the newbies and hobbyist so that they stop uploading. This could calm the top producers and make IS a site with high quality images
i am a newbie, thank goodness for that, as i am not suck into this IS vacuum.
but aren't some of you top performers NON-EXCLUSIVES playing into the hands of the Exclusive,
but planning to quit IS or reduce your UL?
isn't that what they want? less fierce competition from you all?
the other point is more directed to me and other newbies? although i am sure CofkoCof, from the way you regularly help newbies, i don't think you really meant to say that newbies do not submit high quality images. some of us newbies are not just dabblers of automatic digital cameras,
we are old school photographers who just happen to have more time now to get into stock photography. as a result, we are getting more acceptance in mid stock , so we are not all
shooting low quality images .
but yes, we are also watching you , the old timers, to see if we really want to invest our time with IS, or concentrate elsewhere where we are also beginning to get 90-100% acceptance in DST, StockXpert, ALAMY,etc..
I watch this forum with close interest, especially on IS, as I know they're quite a pain !!!
finally, if you old timers were doing well, I am surprised so few of you would opt in to become exclusive with IS. as they say, if you can't beat them, join them.
Why are so few of you who could be exclusive so unwilling.
Share your views on this with us newbies.
-
I do not contribute to either site so do not have a weighted opinion, but as suppliers you are thinking along the lines that a fall in your sales means that Istocks revenue is down as well.
Looking at Alexa statistics, visitors are down 4% is that a fall in customers or a fall in photographers checking thier statistics?
On the other hand we can see that Shutterstock visitors up 16%, is that again customers?
Then the unique page views per visitor tells another story, Istock is up 15%, and shutterstock down 7%, is that buyers at Istock using the new best match search finding what they searched for so loading more pages, then over at Shutterstock buyers loading pages seeing that the images do not really match the search or they have seen them before, and leaving the site?
I know it is hard to take another perspective when you have a lot at stake, but we do not know if the Istock revenue has fallen in line with yours, or it has just been moved about, if it is that latter then there will be no change in the best match, they would not change the best match for fun if it was working well before, it is not a game but a business, if thier revenue has been hit then there will be another change in the best match, that is the simple logic.
I know that the "Istock Community" ethos is used a lot, and a community soccer team will use all it's players to give them a level playing field, and not reall win anything, but there are ruthless teams that will collect the trophies, that do not go out in the first round, and they will play thier to thier strengths at the expense of the rest of the "team" (suppliers of skill)
Just another view!
David :-\
-
i am a newbie, thank goodness for that, as i am not suck into this IS vacuum.
but aren't some of you top performers NON-EXCLUSIVES playing into the hands of the Exclusive,
but planning to quit IS or reduce your UL?
isn't that what they want? less fierce competition from you all?
the other point is more directed to me and other newbies? although i am sure CofkoCof, from the way you regularly help newbies, i don't think you really meant to say that newbies do not submit high quality images. some of us newbies are not just dabblers of automatic digital cameras,
we are old school photographers who just happen to have more time now to get into stock photography. as a result, we are getting more acceptance in mid stock , so we are not all
shooting low quality images .
but yes, we are also watching you , the old timers, to see if we really want to invest our time with IS, or concentrate elsewhere where we are also beginning to get 90-100% acceptance in DST, StockXpert, ALAMY,etc..
I watch this forum with close interest, especially on IS, as I know they're quite a pain !!!
finally, if you old timers were doing well, I am surprised so few of you would opt in to become exclusive with IS. as they say, if you can't beat them, join them.
Why are so few of you who could be exclusive so unwilling.
Share your views on this with us newbies.
They probably wanted to force all of those non-exclusives to finally become exclusive. That would be a big gain for IS, however it backfired at them. It looks like less and less people will are interested in going exclusives atm.
The other point is directed to me also, since I consider myself a newbie :D Truth is: it takes some time before you start make good stock images. You might understand exposure, composition,... but that doesn't mean buyers will buy your images. With DSLR becoming so cheap there are more and more people who just put their camera on automatic and start shooting their backyard the whole day and at the end of the day they start uploading all the images they took. I'm not saying all of the people that are new to (micro)stock are like this. We can see many big producers coming to micro from traditional stock with very high quality images. They are highly the minority though. Most people don't even make it to their first payout. It's in sites best interest to attract good photographers. 10 images from top contributors make more money than a 1000 (or even more) from beginners. Well agency actually has to pay some money to have those 1000 images that don't bring profit on their sites (reviwers, servers,...) So I wanted to point out that maybe they are trying to shift their contributors from "everyone with a camera can earn money" to "you need to produce good stock images to stand a chance".
Why wouldn't I go exclusive? First of all I don't think my sales would increase 500% if I did it. And it would take 500% to make it financially worth it. The other very important reason is that I wouldn't want to put all of my eggs in one basket. Especially since I know that every site's overall sales come before my sales. They will do everything that's necessary to increase the sales. If they think a radical change in pricing/search/uploading,... is needed they will go trough it. And that's true for all the sites. Submitting to more sites makes you resilient for those kind of changes. You still feel them, however you don't hit rock bottom.
-
The next best match change is going to be interesting. Are they going to continue with the current policy or will they try and keep more of us happy by moving our images back up the best match?
I think the policy of trying to make those sitting on the fence go exclusive has backfired spectacularly. The best way to make us think about going exclusive is to increase our sales, not reduce them. I feel they have made a mistake and they should correct it quickly. There must be a growing number of us who have decided to never go exclusive with them and are now sitting on the fence deciding if we want to continue uploading.
If our sales get a boost with a new best match, I think a lot of these negative feelings will fade away.
I agree with sharphot. I think IS wants to dominate the marketplace, and an important part of their strategy is to have as many exclusive images as possible. Furthermore, I think that the 'powers that be' at IS are keeping an eye on the non-exclusive community by reading threads like this. Bottom line: It's not going to be too long (February/March/April ?) before the best match is revamped to increase the exposure of non-exclusives enough so they might consider going exclusive.
-
Buyers likes the new best match??? I wouldnt bank on that at all. I know of at least four pretty good buyers in London, one corporate AD-client I myself recommended him to use IS, just about a year ago.
" site is too slow", " doesnt deliver right shots on search", Too time consuming" and thats what their Art-buyer or picture-buyer said to me.
Even so, even if this best match on the whole should suit buyers, what does it matter anyway? the damage is done and on a global scale.
I mean lets be honest. Who in their right frame of mind, even if starving alive would trust this with a good Portfolio and then more or less forced to turn exclusive or else no sales?
No, no, this is a serious waste of time. Better we found out now then in a years time. Why? well lets say the Getty/IS somehow manages to "inherrit" some of the other leading sites and then start the same old ballgame with those. Leaving even less reason to trust it.
Sharpley done! consider going exclusive?? well then we are really taken for fools, arent we.
-
Hello everyone, just signed in. :)
As a non exclusive contributor to IS, I would like to confirm a few of the things you all said.
For example, I was considering exclusivity, especially given how good were August and September 2008 for me, relatively speaking. But then, given the recent slowdown, I have decided not to go exclusive, at least not for now. So, yes, somehow it backfired.
On the other hand, unlike many others, to me IS is about 45%, almost on par with SS. I did leave most of the others, including FT, over one year ago, though.
That's all I wanted to say.
- Giuseppe
-
...but aren't some of you top performers NON-EXCLUSIVES playing into the hands of the Exclusive,
but planning to quit IS or reduce your UL?
isn't that what they want? less fierce competition from you all?....
I agree with most of what you said Hali, but I did have to draw a distinction on this one point.
Perhaps exclusive members are happy with less competition from alienated independents, but I am fairly certain that istock as a company will not be happy about it for long.
ITLR it makes their image collection weaker and less competitive.
-
Similar findings....
More so with about 20-30% rejections on the same "overfiltred" and "artifacts" my upload limit is actually only about 20-25 files per week. I simply cannot maintain my income. :(
Even with files coming from probably the best camera in the world and that have never been compressed in any way, I still get files rejected for overfiltred and artifacts. Especially really sharp files get rejected. The files that get through the inspections easily are the ones that are slightly soft or out of focus... Too sharp (even with no sharping added anywhere) and the files get rejected for being "mysteriously sharp"....overfiltred...
Attached are my earnings.
-
I agree with sharphot. I think IS wants to dominate the marketplace, and an important part of their strategy is to have as many exclusive images as possible.
I agree that they want to dominate the market what site wouldn't, however I can't believe for one minute part of their strategy is to have exclusive images, because if it was they would offer an exclusive image upload process, I think they just want exclusive contributors. However I think this recent best match change has certainly buggered up that plan, a couple of months ago I was seriously considering going RF exclusive with them, I've just lost $1500 in a month due to this best match change, there is no way on Gods earth I would even consider going exclusive now, and I know for a fact I'm one of many who feel the same way.
I have a feeling (and nothing other than speculation to back this up) that the heads of Getty want iS to lose it's market share and have deliberately conjured up this recent best match change to do just that, within the past few months I've seen a lot of old time RM photographers start to make enquiries about iS and microstock in general with the view of testing the water and they had been getting good feedback, of course none of them would go exclusive and would try various agencies, what would happen if they started to see good returns? they'd reduce their uploading to Getty. Since this recent best match change and all the bad press it's got, most of these have now decided it's not worth bothering.
Like I say just my theory but I can't see any other reason why iS would have implemented this change.
-
It looks like the new best match favors old accounts. Being... The longer you have been with IS the better best match match. All the new exclusives I have talked to, including Cecilie my girlfriend, have dropped dramatically. One old member I talked enjoyed almost a 200 percent increase in income. I can understand Istock in their favoring of older members, but it will make it very hard for them to get NEW exclusive members on the wagon if they forever will be in the shadow of older members. I predict they will change the algorithm.
-
Very interesting theory Richard! Makes as much sense as anything I have read.
Yuri, that is shocking that you are getting those kinds of rejections. Especially in light of your recent success in becoming their second best selling artist of all time (and top selling artist in current rate of downloads).
Do you think there is a deliberate attempt to keep you and other high level non-exclusives from advancing any further up the ladder?
-
It looks like the new best match favors old accounts. Being... The longer you have been with IS the better best match match. All the new exclusives I have talked to, including Cecilie my girlfriend, have dropped dramatically. One old member I talked enjoyed almost a 200 percent increase in income. I can understand Istock in their favoring of older members, but it will make it very hard for them to get NEW exclusive members on the wagon if they forever will be in the shadow of older members. I predict they will change the algorithm.
I have noticed the same thing, reading the best match threads. Only older exclusive members are favored. If you are a newer member OR a non-exclusive you are pretty well devastated by this best match.
I hope you are right about them changing the algorithm. Can't happen soon enough IMHO. I am down over $1,000 due to this new best match.
-
"3- New non-exclusive images are pushed back just like top images so they'll never (or rarely) get the sales to take off. I already noticed this happening."
Interesting. I have noticed the same. My new images, even super groups, which there are virtually non of on Istock, won't sell. Very strange that this material suddenly sells about 500 percent less then the average sales for the same batches on other microstock sites with a lower demand for such images...
-
I can understand Istock in their favoring of older members, but it will make it very hard for them to get NEW exclusive members on the wagon if they forever will be in the shadow of older members.
If that's the case I'd imagine any of the newer exclusives would be looking to drop exclusivity.
-
Maybe they don't like the idea that there #1 seller is non-exclusive.
I almost went exclusive like others have mentioned. It made financial sense at the time but a lot can change while waiting to clear contract with dreamstime and bigstock.
-
Exclusivity is risky right now. I would wait a little. Exclusivity is for sure is good income, but I do not want to start on a fresh account with older members having five years of better best match standing then I would have on a new account.
The new best match open op for a competitive advantage for other agencies. The first agency to offer a real competitive exclusivity offer might even have a change to do so successfully right now. What if Fotolia did a "real" exclusive program. According to my estimates all they had to do to hit the same RPI as I have non-exclusively is:
1 to 2 better search rank for exclusive material.
starting price of at least 3 USD for all exclusive material.
60-70 percent commission.
This should roughly give an RPI of about the same as I have now non-exclusively. I will talk this over with Olec on Saturday. I am meeting with him and his wife in Berlin.
-
Exclusivity is risky right now. I would wait a little. Exclusivity is for sure is good income, but I do not want to start on a fresh account with older members having five years of better best match standing then I would have on a new account.
The new best match open op for a competitive advantage for other agencies. The first agency to offer a real competitive exclusivity offer might even have a change to do so successfully right now. What if Fotolia did a "real" exclusive program. According to my estimates all they had to do to hit the same RPI as I have non-exclusively is:
1 to 2 better search rank for exclusive material.
starting price of at least 3 USD for all exclusive material.
60-70 percent commission.
This should roughly give an RPI of about the same as I have now non-exclusively. I will talk this over with Olec on Saturday. I am meeting with him and his wife in Berlin.
Are you talking about being exclusive on per image basis or the istock model?
-
Exclusivity is risky right now. I would wait a little. Exclusivity is for sure is good income, but I do not want to start on a fresh account with older members having five years of better best match standing then I would have on a new account.
The new best match open op for a competitive advantage for other agencies. The first agency to offer a real competitive exclusivity offer might even have a change to do so successfully right now. What if Fotolia did a "real" exclusive program. According to my estimates all they had to do to hit the same RPI as I have non-exclusively is:
1 to 2 better search rank for exclusive material.
starting price of at least 3 USD for all exclusive material.
60-70 percent commission.
This should roughly give an RPI of about the same as I have now non-exclusively. I will talk this over with Olec on Saturday. I am meeting with him and his wife in Berlin.
You might also want to step up to the plate and talk to them about:
- Their lack of customer relations
- The sudden change in rankings
- The inability to opt out of subscriptions
- Their apparent lack of care for their contributors
- Their rude forum moderators
I'm sure that I missed a few things, but that's a good start.
-
Similar findings....
More so with about 20-30% rejections on the same "overfiltred" and "artifacts" my upload limit is actually only about 20-25 files per week. I simply cannot maintain my income. :(
Even with files coming from probably the best camera in the world and that have never been compressed in any way, I still get files rejected for overfiltred and artifacts. Especially really sharp files get rejected. The files that get through the inspections easily are the ones that are slightly soft or out of focus... Too sharp (even with no sharping added anywhere) and the files get rejected for being "mysteriously sharp"....overfiltred...
Yuri, so good to hear from you. Frankly, if IS is putting the squeeze on you, what chances do we newbies have?
I mentioned the same thing as you did here...even without post processing other than levels
i get overfiltered, for an especially sharp file. only because i went from a 7MP to 14 MP camera.
that's the mysteriously sharp ...that the reviewers rejected as over fliltered.
also the soft focus and lack of contrast, were actually high key lighting and actually steam off a glass, lol.
still, in hindsight, Yuri, if you get those rejections with your most expensive camera in the world,
hey ! i am going to forget IS for now. or maybe, just send cats and off focus files that are accepted.
i am a newbie, only 20 images. Why scream at IS some dude tells me. Well, you know what, the images they rejected are so much better. Even i won't buy the ones IS accepted over the ones IS rejected.
Anyway, once again, Lisafix, Yuri, Coco,etc...and all, thanks for the insight. I will leave my portfolio at 20 images and go elsewhere until i see you all get better results from IS.
-
...I still get files rejected for overfiltred and artifacts. ...
Pardon my language, but that is * nuts. With your skills and that camera, you should have 95% or higher acceptance rates.
Unbelievable.
???
-
...I still get files rejected for overfiltred and artifacts. ...
Pardon my language, but that is * nuts. With your skills and that camera, you should have 95% or higher acceptance rates.
Unbelievable.
Why are you surprised? It's the norm to get nonsensical "overfiltered" and "artifact" rejections from IS. There's no use getting upset about it - this is simply the way they've chosen to operate their agency.
-
I'm not surprised. We had a thread on the ridiculous acceptances of bad pictures from exclusives, so the other end would be to reject world-class photos from top-end guys.
Artifacts? Over-filtered? Seriously
I actually had a bunch of aerial photographs rejected because of noise reduction even though I never used any at all. And then I get the overfiltered from original quality when I use a technique that one of the iStock admins wrote a tutorial about on PhotoshopUser
I can't figure it out, and evidently, neither can anyone else
-
I can't figure it out, and evidently, neither can anyone else
The opposite end of the spectrum, for me, is Flickr, where it's not out of the ordinary to see people rave about an image that has been overfiltered and/or has artifacts visible at low resolution. The lesson to learn, I think, is that it's only photographers who care so much about quality - end users are far more interested in emotional impact than technical quality.
-
More so with about 20-30% rejections on the same "overfiltred" and "artifacts" my upload limit is actually only about 20-25 files per week. I simply cannot maintain my income. :(
Attached are my earnings.
I wonder why I haven't given up yet if pros got such problems :-) I was able to put whopping 90 files online in half a year period. No way to have income with such limits :-)
-
I have a totally ridiculous theory about what istock is doing - a golden handshake for it's loyal long-time exclusives before abandoning their exclusivity policy totally as being not tenable in the long term, given that every new site increases the amount that exclusives are missing out on.
-
I shall stay exclusive for another year.If by that time i have not matched Yuri 's sales on istock i shall jump ship and kick some ass on a few different stock sites !
-
RT! could be more right in his speculation then we ever know. Dont forget in the beginning of the 90s when they aquired Stones and Image-Bank it was differant.
Stones in Europe and Image-Bank in America was pretty much what gave Getty their prominent place, before these aquisitions they were really nothing.
Photodisc when launched was a big threat to the picture library world. Getty bought them, pretty much to be able to control them and hold them at bay. Today? Photodisc is just a sidekick, nothing else.
Could very well be that Getty sees the entire Micro industry as a giant threat to conventional RM and RF and that what we see here, the questionable best match changes, the " slow deterioration " of a leading Micro site, is an all purpose-like strategy to start putting the lid over the entire Micro industry. The worlds top Micro earners with lifestyles etc would still find it extremly hard to compete within the Getty-RM, its on a differant level.
Only, this time, the Micro has got a too strong foothold and unless they can somehow get control over sites like SS, FT, DT etc, theyll have no chance.
Besides I dont think it will take too long before the likes of Alamy presents their very own Micro or similar.
RT`s assumption could indeed be very close to truth.
-
Why scream at IS some dude tells me. Well, you know what, the images they rejected are so much better. Even i won't buy the ones IS accepted over the ones IS rejected.
That is true for me as well.
IS frequently rejects my best shots and takes worse ones which will probably never sell. My portfolio there is full of those sad shots that will never sell. My theory is that inspectors are also contributors and do that on purpose, to avoid competition. Not that I ever copied anyone's photos, at least not on purpose.
-
RT! could be more right in his speculation then we ever know. Dont forget in the beginning of the 90s when they aquired Stones and Image-Bank it was differant.
Stones in Europe and Image-Bank in America was pretty much what gave Getty their prominent place, before these aquisitions they were really nothing.
Photodisc when launched was a big threat to the picture library world. Getty bought them, pretty much to be able to control them and hold them at bay. Today? Photodisc is just a sidekick, nothing else.
Could very well be that Getty sees the entire Micro industry as a giant threat to conventional RM and RF and that what we see here, the questionable best match changes, the " slow deterioration " of a leading Micro site, is an all purpose-like strategy to start putting the lid over the entire Micro industry. The worlds top Micro earners with lifestyles etc would still find it extremly hard to compete within the Getty-RM, its on a differant level.
Only, this time, the Micro has got a too strong foothold and unless they can somehow get control over sites like SS, FT, DT etc, theyll have no chance.
Besides I dont think it will take too long before the likes of Alamy presents their very own Micro or similar.
RT`s assumption could indeed be very close to truth.
That was a much more elaborate perspective then mostly seen here. Who are you again?
-
For the first time on my ms adventure DT have passed IS and is now my 2nd earner, after SS.
My IS earnings have taken a deep dive since the beginning of the summer.
-
RT! could be more right in his speculation then we ever know. Dont forget in the beginning of the 90s when they aquired Stones and Image-Bank it was differant.
Stones in Europe and Image-Bank in America was pretty much what gave Getty their prominent place, before these aquisitions they were really nothing.
Photodisc when launched was a big threat to the picture library world. Getty bought them, pretty much to be able to control them and hold them at bay. Today? Photodisc is just a sidekick, nothing else.
Could very well be that Getty sees the entire Micro industry as a giant threat to conventional RM and RF and that what we see here, the questionable best match changes, the " slow deterioration " of a leading Micro site, is an all purpose-like strategy to start putting the lid over the entire Micro industry. The worlds top Micro earners with lifestyles etc would still find it extremly hard to compete within the Getty-RM, its on a differant level.
Only, this time, the Micro has got a too strong foothold and unless they can somehow get control over sites like SS, FT, DT etc, theyll have no chance.
Besides I dont think it will take too long before the likes of Alamy presents their very own Micro or similar.
RT`s assumption could indeed be very close to truth.
That was a much more elaborate perspective then mostly seen here. Who are you again?
Hi Yuri!
Just a photographer ( long time member of the Getty-RM, Image-Bank and Stones, since 91 ) My hunch might be elaborate but Im basing it on history, since early 90s.
all the best. Christian
-
Yuri,
it is so nice to see you here :)
If you ever consider going exclusive with IS, please think twice.
Forget about the money for a moment and think about us. Newbies, who believe in you. To us you are a symbol, no less than a hero.
The golden boy who against all odds, uploading limits, search engine positions, pressure, hate, envy, has made it to the very top of IStock.
Go on, Yuri!
Beat the crap out of them!
With their 15 files a week limit, painful uploading process, ridiculous keywording rejects, 3 weeks file queue, offensive forums and 'I'm an exclusive, you're not, therefore you suck!' attitude, they fully deserve it.
Best of luck Yuri, and thanks for all that you have given us!
-
...Could very well be that Getty sees the entire Micro industry as a giant threat to conventional RM and RF and that what we see here, the questionable best match changes, the " slow deterioration " of a leading Micro site, is an all purpose-like strategy to start putting the lid over the entire Micro industry...
In this market, I'd say anything is possible. But even if this turned out to be the strategy they are employing, I think it vastly underestimates the will of the people. Giving people a taste of more affordable stock imagery has left them wanting more, and if they ultimately can't get it from istock they will just find it elsewhere. istock isn't powerful enough to single-handedly stop the microstock industry.
-
I see it easier. I think istock simply is simply doing what most businees of any kind would do: Emphasizing what they have and competition don’t, in this case exclusive files. At the same time, this acts like another perk to get and keep exclusives. Yes, there are some posts of people that say “I was thinking of going exclusive, but now...”, but actually, less than one of every 100 contributors posts at the forums. I don’t know at what rate is increasing the number of exclusives; but if I do an exclusive-content-limited search with any keyword and repeat it two or three weeks later I discover that the number of results has increased really fast. I think that's a good strategy.
And maybe non-exclusive good shots are being rejected for keywords or whatever, I won’t discuss that because I really cant’ know, but saying that exclusive crap is being approved because it’s exclusive is false, unfair and mean. From time to time you see in the recent uploads page some dubious file that seems to have sneaked through the inspector’s net; some of them are exclusive, some non-exclusive.
-
today i am more convinced that the hewing and hawing of the exclusives is mostly sectional, as i am sure most of the exclusives are happy to share the level playing field with their peers, if anything to enjoy a little bit of fair competition .
i used to remember being a whippersnapper as a new graduate from NYI to compete in photojournalism in our capital , having some of the best photographers welcoming saying, "hey, if you're as good or better than us, take a share of our market!"; only a minority were out for my neck.
i say this, as i have added yet another exclusive to my network, who came into my portfolio to point out i was not letting my images be open to sub and was actually cutting my potential. thanks to that person, as i was never one to check too much of the little details.
so, who says all exclusives are out to disenfranchise the freeagent. i don't think so. just a small section of those too afraid to stay in the level playing field to compete. for those exclusives who have been so helpful, cheers!
and for those who are giving these good exclusives the bad name as a group,
shame on you . .. (the finger !). 8)
-
And maybe non-exclusive good shots are being rejected for keywords or whatever, ..because it’s exclusive is false, unfair and mean. From time to time you see in the recent uploads page some dubious file that seems to have sneaked through the inspector’s net; some of them are exclusive, some non-exclusive.
somehow, i don't think Yuri 's images would be rejected for keywords or whatever. but they are.
so this alone speaks volume to us all, exclusives or non.
-
Please, don't quote me out of context by deleting some of the middle tetxt. Thanks!
-
I see it easier. I think istock simply is simply doing what most businees of any kind would do: Emphasizing what they have and competition don’t, in this case exclusive files. At the same time, this acts like another perk to get and keep exclusives. Yes, there are some posts of people that say “I was thinking of going exclusive, but now...”, but actually, less than one of every 100 contributors posts at the forums. I don’t know at what rate is increasing the number of exclusives; but if I do an exclusive-content-limited search with any keyword and repeat it two or three weeks later I discover that the number of results has increased really fast. I think that's a good strategy.
And maybe non-exclusive good shots are being rejected for keywords or whatever, I won’t discuss that because I really cant’ know, but saying that exclusive crap is being approved because it’s exclusive is false, unfair and mean. From time to time you see in the recent uploads page some dubious file that seems to have sneaked through the inspector’s net; some of them are exclusive, some non-exclusive.
as per your request ;)
-
somehow, i don't think Yuri 's images would be rejected for keywords or whatever. but they are.
so this alone speaks volume to us all, exclusives or non.
It's really hard, once someone has convinced themselves of a certain belief, to undo that. When iStock inspectors make mistakes, and we all know they do, whether for keywords, copyright, or something else, if it happens to an exclusive, there's no chat about it here; if it happens to an independent, it's taken as more evidence of a two-tier set of standards that disadvantages independents.
I can't imagine that I could convince anyone that the inspection system is the same for almost everyone (apparently there are a handful who get some type of special deal, but it certainly isn't all exclusives), but it's important to consider that this type of data gathering is highly selective.
I also refuse to accept the notion that because he's extraordinarily successful, Yuri is incapable of making keyword mistakes now and then - even if it's just stretching conceptual keywords beyond what IS policy allows. We all screw up sometimes, even the most experienced of us. I have no idea what specific keyword rejections you're referring to, so perhaps he got hit by an erroneous rejection, in which case the keyword forum is the place to bring it up and get it fixed.
-
helix7!
Your right! today Getty is but a shadow of its glorious past and NO, they certainly havent got the power to stop the Micro, which we should be greatful for.
Loop!
If you really think Getty/IS will recruit more exclusives after this Globaly known charade against non-exclusives and even exclusives for that matter. Think again please.
Person exclusivity is an old, old model, dating back to the Magnum and Black-Star era. It never worked then and will never work now or in the future.
I personally know half a dozen "exclusives" even within the Getty-RM, successful, moneyspinning Pros, who are supplying totally diferant images to a whole bunch of other Agencies, been doing it for yaers.
Image exclusivity ( not hard to police ) is what they should introduce and opt for, saving face, money and further embarrasment. That way they would have the best of both worlds.
Micro is cheap pictures off the peg, no offence! but you know what I mean, theres nothing exclusive about it what so ever, so why pretend an exclusive Micro photographer could offer something extremely valuble and full of prestige.
Nonsense!
-
I have no idea what specific keyword rejections you're referring to, so perhaps he got hit by an erroneous rejection, in which case the keyword forum is the place to bring it up and get it fixed.
Why lose time on a forum for a single rejected shot? That's overkill in terms of productivity since it will sell elsewhere anyways and better even. The rationale of microstock is to cut production costs per picture. Time (spent arguing theology on forums) is money. If the inspectors have time to point out the "bad" keywords, they can as well delete those and approve the shot, instead of "fix keywords and resubmit".
-
somehow, i don't think Yuri 's images would be rejected for keywords or whatever. but they are.
so this alone speaks volume to us all, exclusives or non.
I also refuse to accept the notion that because he's extraordinarily successful, Yuri is incapable of making keyword mistakes now and then - even if it's just stretching conceptual keywords beyond what IS policy allows. We all screw up sometimes, even the most experienced of us. I have no idea what specific keyword rejections you're referring to, so perhaps he got hit by an erroneous rejection, in which case the keyword forum is the place to bring it up and get it fixed.
hey jsnover, nice to see you.
no, i was not implying that Yuri got rejected on a keyword issue, thus the "whatnot".
i was saying, if someone of Yuri's or also , someone of your status, being rejected ,
on similar issues of "off focus ", "over-processing", when it was really nothing of that sort.
how much does one need to processing using at 14 MP camera, other than levels, even if any?
and it's not rare to find a rejection of selective focus due to "off-focus".
that said, my point is that, there really seems to be very little consolation for us newbies in trying to augment our portfolio, if most of our better images are rejected.
it's even more disheartening, (discouraging, for lack of a better word), when we see
more "micro" experienced contributors facing the same dilemma.
best, as someone said, to go to where they want your images.
btw, how true is this... that some reviewers are also contributors. do you know?
isn't that conflict of interest? i think it is. in the business world, it is considered to be so.
(EDITED FOR BREVITY,, NOT TRYING TO MISQUOTE ANYONE)
-
Hi Lagereek,
Just to start off I want to say I really enjoy your posts. They are very informative and I feel show a great deal of depth to your understanding and knowledge of this industry. A true pleasure to read.
I know this industry isn't what it was even two years ago but Getty still controls the major portion of the stock market by a huge margin. That is still a pretty big shadow. I would like to see the market separated up as much as possible. I think that would give photographers a more secure future with greater options. Let's hope that occurs. I have the feeling it won't in the near future.
Best,
AVAVA
-
Person exclusivity is an old, old model, dating back to the Magnum and Black-Star era. It never worked then and will never work now or in the future.
I personally know half a dozen "exclusives" even within the Getty-RM, successful, moneyspinning Pros, who are supplying totally diferant images to a whole bunch of other Agencies, been doing it for yaers.
Christian, are these "exclusives" supplying images to other RF collections or RM? RM would not violate exclusivity, but RF definitely would.
btw, how true is this... that some reviewers are also contributors. do you know?
isn't that conflict of interest? i think it is. in the business world, it is considered to be so.
I think pretty nearly all the reviewers at istock are also contributors. I can see how it would seem to be a conflict of interest, but to be fair, I have never gotten a sense that it impacts their reviewing decisions.
Until very recently istock had the most consistent reviews in the industry. I imagine if the reviews have gotten wonky it is either the result of bringing on too many new inspectors without adequate training, or else a policy change from Getty.
-
i was saying, if someone of Yuri's or also , someone of your status, being rejected ,
on similar issues of "off focus ", "over-processing", when it was really nothing of that sort.
I completely understand the frustration when your assessment of your image (and mine of my images) doesn't match with the inspectors. I think it will drive me nuts as long as submit imgaes for stock. However an edited collection is always going to have some editor (inspector) making their judgement of our work. Even if they're a blind two-headed moron, they're still the editor and we're not :)
I've got a bucket load of examples from my independent days of IS rejecting something as over-filtered that won one of SS's monthly front page gallery slots or DT took as an Editor's choice or just sold like crazy. I don't think anyone has to lose hope because of such things, but it certainly is harder when your portfolio is small as each image is a greater percentage of your total.
For every IS frustration though, I can name some from DT (lack of composition for an image that at the time was my best seller at IS); try and get film scans through at SS; FT was always just random with its rejections; StockXpert didn't like cityscapes or nature; 123rf had nutso policies on too similar to others in a series. As an independent, if I'd have given up the agencies that frustrated me with rejections I didn't agree with, I'd have been down to ScanStockPhoto and CanStock pretty quickly and not selling anything.
As far as the issue of inspectors having a conflict of interest, I've never sensed that any of the sites have rejected images because the inspector was trying to keep out the competition. It seems to worry people when they start, but my experience has been that the system is even handed, for all its frustrations. I've never heard anyone actually come up with a case where that happened (although proving it would be hard without knowing who inspected your images, which you never do; that's why we have to trust the sites to police their inspection process). My only bad experience was in SS's early days where a forum discussion that got a bit heated (SS was resisting giving any reasons for rejection and contributors were asking for one). An inspector there said that I should watch my tongue when conversing with the person who inspected my images - I took that as an attempt to threaten, but as far as I know nothing came of it.
-
I completely understand the frustration when your assessment of your image (and mine of my images) doesn't match with the inspectors. I think it will drive me nuts as long as submit imgaes for stock. However an edited collection is always going to have some editor (inspector) making their judgement of our work. Even if they're a blind two-headed moron, they're still the editor and we're not :)
... (EDITED FOR BREVITY )...
As an independent, if I'd have given up the agencies that frustrated me with rejections I didn't agree with, I'd have been down to ScanStockPhoto and CanStock pretty quickly and not selling anything.
...
. My only bad experience was in SS's early days where a forum discussion that got a bit heated (SS was resisting giving any reasons for rejection and contributors were asking for one). An inspector there said that I should watch my tongue when conversing with the person who inspected my images - I took that as an attempt to threaten, but as far as I know nothing came of it.
(EDITED FOR BREVITY )...
thanks for the awesome insight. good to know . this response of yours jsnover
will certainly be helpful to many newbies like myself. cheers.
and you too lisafx !
-
I'm relatively new on IS (uploading since March), but I have the same results - October down a lot, and November is even worse - almost exactly 50% of September. Barely made the payout.
-
I don't get rejections for keywords. My keywords are checked two times before they go for inspection on Istock:
1. first keywording. outsourced, India
2.second keyword check by australian company.
3. third check when uploadad and finished on Istock.
I get rejections for all kinds of other reasons. I also especially get the "isolation" rejection, even when all my files are naturally complete whites on the RAW file. The rejections only make sense if you think of the non-exclusive inspectors as trainees, which they are. It is however irritating on a professional level, three years into microstock, to have to be judged daily by people making more mistakes in basic technical photography then my assistants.
Training inspectors is however very hard, and I do see it from Istocks point of view too.
-
I don't get rejections for keywords. My keywords are checked two times before they go for inspection on Istock: ... EDITED FOR BREVITY..
... I also especially get the "isolation" rejection, even when all my files are naturally complete whites on the RAW file... It is however irritating on a professional level, three years into microstock, to have to be judged daily by people making more mistakes in basic technical photography then my assistants. .
..EDITED FOR BREVITY...
Yuri, i think i can picture the type of images you got rejections on "poor isolation" or whatnot.
highkey shot , natural light, complete white surface, using a reflector to bounce light back onto the subjects/objects to soften shadows, or get it almost shadowless.
rejection by reviewers: POOR ISOLATION.
even my own first year students, not yet studio assistants, were able to tell the difference.
basic technical photography morons, ya ! ::)
-
I don't get rejections for keywords. My keywords are checked two times before they go for inspection on Istock:
1. first keywording. outsourced, India
2.second keyword check by australian company.
3. third check when uploadad and finished on Istock.
I get rejections for all kinds of other reasons. I also especially get the "isolation" rejection, even when all my files are naturally complete whites on the RAW file. The rejections only make sense if you think of the non-exclusive inspectors as trainees, which they are. It is however irritating on a professional level, three years into microstock, to have to be judged daily by people making more mistakes in basic technical photography then my assistants.
Training inspectors is however very hard, and I do see it from Istocks point of view too.
I am confused. If I had your calibre as a stock photographer.
I would not put up with all this crappola, and pull out every single one of my images from IStock.
That would be devastating to Istock, Getty or no Getty.
I am sure Getty would not bat an eyelid if they had 2million newbies or non-producing contributors pulling out their images. But this is Yuri.
I can only guess the reason why you did not do this, is that you're being a gentleman.
Lucky for Istock I am not Yuri, as I am no gentleman either. ;)
-
I am confused. If I had your calibre as a stock photographer.
I would not put up with all this crappola, and pull out every single one of my images from IStock.
That would be devastating to Istock, Getty or no Getty.
I am sure Getty would not bat an eyelid if they had 2million newbies or non-producing contributors pulling out their images. But this is Yuri.
I can only guess the reason why you did not do this, is that you're being a gentleman.
Lucky for Istock I am not Yuri, as I am no gentleman either. ;)
You have a unique point of view, to be sure.
-
Hi Lisa!
Well what I meant was that a lot of exclusive contracted RM photographers work under lots of differant business-names, making very sure they dont supply similar images to various Agencies, may it be RM or RF. Although being exclusive, no damage is done because no two similar images will ever clash.
So, you see? so much for exclusivity??
Having said this: no, you cant supply same RM image also as RF or vice-versa, that could be a bit dangerous and render heavy consequences.
An agency imposing exclusivity contracts, DONT do that in order to increase their turnover, it wont, never will, its there to prevent contributors from increasing other agencies turnover, thats all,
Exclusivity was working in the days of the Trad-RM agencies with around 10000 photographers, globaly.
Today with hundereds of thousands of suppliers you can imagine? exclusivity is just a pretty word. buyers, clients looking for campaign images and big-time ADs, etc, certainly dont rumage the pages of any Micro site. Thereby is exclusivity not even important.
all the best Christian
-
I am confused. If I had your calibre as a stock photographer.
I would not put up with all this crappola, and pull out every single one of my images from IStock.
That would be devastating to Istock, Getty or no Getty.
I am sure Getty would not bat an eyelid if they had 2million newbies or non-producing contributors pulling out their images. But this is Yuri.
I can only guess the reason why you did not do this, is that you're being a gentleman.
Lucky for Istock I am not Yuri, as I am no gentleman either. ;)
You have a unique point of view, to be sure.
sounds like Tuilay is mean , and don't put up with too much "crappola", as mentioned.
-
Hi Lisa!
Well what I meant was that a lot of exclusive contracted RM photographers work under lots of differant business-names, making very sure they dont supply similar images to various Agencies, may it be RM or RF. Although being exclusive, no damage is done because no two similar images will ever clash.
So, you see? so much for exclusivity??
Having said this: no, you cant supply same RM image also as RF or vice-versa, that could be a bit dangerous and render heavy consequences.
An agency imposing exclusivity contracts, DONT do that in order to increase their turnover, it wont, never will, its there to prevent contributors from increasing other agencies turnover, thats all,
Exclusivity was working in the days of the Trad-RM agencies with around 10000 photographers, globaly.
Today with hundereds of thousands of suppliers you can imagine? exclusivity is just a pretty word. buyers, clients looking for campaign images and big-time ADs, etc, certainly dont rumage the pages of any Micro site. Thereby is exclusivity not even important.
all the best Christian
Thanks for explaining Christian :)
I misunderstood and thought you were talking about istock exclusives selling RF elsewhere, which of course is a BIG NO NO.
But yes, the type of traditional exclusivity that allows contributors to sell different types of images in different collections sounds much better for the average contributor. If istock would offer that I would upload some exclusive images there, but I don't think its ever gonna happen.... :(
-
I misunderstood and thought you were talking about istock exclusives selling RF elsewhere, which of course is a BIG NO NO.
I know one iStock exclusive who needed a change of underwear when they heard Getty were buying Jupiter ;)
-
I get rejections for all kinds of other reasons. I also especially get the "isolation" rejection, even when all my files are naturally complete whites on the RAW file. The rejections only make sense if you think of the non-exclusive inspectors as trainees, which they are. It is however irritating on a professional level, three years into microstock, to have to be judged daily by people making more mistakes in basic technical photography then my assistants.
Training inspectors is however very hard, and I do see it from Istocks point of view too.
Perhaps you could post some of these rejections for critique so we can see them. I'm sure you'll be the first to admit you and your team are human. Remember the floating business team above the reflection. That happens a lot in those fake reflection shots and would probably trigger a rejection.
-
Hi Lagereek,
Just to start off I want to say I really enjoy your posts. They are very informative and I feel show a great deal of depth to your understanding and knowledge of this industry. A true pleasure to read.
I know this industry isn't what it was even two years ago but Getty still controls the major portion of the stock market by a huge margin. That is still a pretty big shadow. I would like to see the market separated up as much as possible. I think that would give photographers a more secure future with greater options. Let's hope that occurs. I have the feeling it won't in the near future.
Best,
AVAVA
I agree - I enjoy the posts of Lagereek as well. I suspect Getty is doing what Microsoft did in it's time - buy off the viable competitors and either incorporate them or quietly put the pillow over their faces. I used to work for IBM and they did the same thing. It's a common corporate strategy.
And yes AVAVA I agree with you as well - I don't see them (Getty) giving up their position any time soon. Didn't they just buy Jupiter? And Stockxpert as a part of it as well?
With Istock, it's either "let's kill it slowly" position, or (which is oh so common in corporate environment) just plain stupidity. Both are viable versions. It just might be that people who were put in charge of Istock have no clue whatsoever about micro's specifics and the way micros work. Looks like they are trying to apply their macro policies to Istock, which is totally ridiculous. Sad, but again - not unheard of in corporations. That's why I still can't bring myself to shooting "business corporate" stuff - I know that inside out, and it stinks!:)
Scarred for life,
Elena:)
-
Hi!
Well about the Getty and Jupiter deal? I got it from reliable sources that the deal included Jupiter and photos.com.
HAAP is still the owner of Stockxpert and was not included in this deal. This is the Info I got.
best. Christian
-
Hi!
Well about the Getty and Jupiter deal? I got it from reliable sources that the deal included Jupiter and photos.com.
HAAP is still the owner of Stockxpert and was not included in this deal. This is the Info I got.
best. Christian
I don't think your source is very reliable. From what I have read, Jupiter images bought a majority holding in StockXpert and when the company that own Getty bought Jupiter images, they took ownership of StockXpert. HAAP still have a minority holding in StockXpert but that isn't going to give them any control.
-
Hi!
Well about the Getty and Jupiter deal? I got it from reliable sources that the deal included Jupiter and photos.com.
HAAP is still the owner of Stockxpert and was not included in this deal. This is the Info I got.
best. Christian
I don't think your source is very reliable. From what I have read, Jupiter images bought a majority holding in StockXpert and when the company that own Getty bought Jupiter images, they took ownership of StockXpert. HAAP still have a minority holding in StockXpert but that isn't going to give them any control.
This is from an StockXpert admin on the StockXpert forums (@ http://www.stockxpert.com/forum/show_messages/18361/1):
"Jupitermedia owned 90% of HAAP which owns two sites, StockXpert and SXC. Getty only bought that 90% share, so the remaining 10% of StockXpert/SXC is still owned by HAAP."
-
Hi!
Well about the Getty and Jupiter deal? I got it from reliable sources that the deal included Jupiter and photos.com.
HAAP is still the owner of Stockxpert and was not included in this deal. This is the Info I got.
best. Christian
I don't think your source is very reliable. From what I have read, Jupiter images bought a majority holding in StockXpert and when the company that own Getty bought Jupiter images, they took ownership of StockXpert. HAAP still have a minority holding in StockXpert but that isn't going to give them any control.
This is from an StockXpert admin on the StockXpert forums (@ [url]http://www.stockxpert.com/forum/show_messages/18361/1[/url]):
"Jupitermedia owned 90% of HAAP which owns two sites, StockXpert and SXC. Getty only bought that 90% share, so the remaining 10% of StockXpert/SXC is still owned by HAAP."
Thanks! but Im still no wiser? so what are they saying? that were loosing StockXpert down the tubes with Getty? or does it stay independant? or is it in joint ownership?
-
I am confused. If I had your calibre as a stock photographer.
I would not put up with all this crappola, and pull out every single one of my images from IStock.
That would be devastating to Istock, Getty or no Getty.
600+ DL / day is what is preventing him to do so.
Actually we should all (non-exclusives) pull are entire portfolios. I'm sure IS wouldn't like that. But why aren't we doing that ?? -> $$$$$$
-
Hi!
Well about the Getty and Jupiter deal? I got it from reliable sources that the deal included Jupiter and photos.com.
HAAP is still the owner of Stockxpert and was not included in this deal. This is the Info I got.
best. Christian
I don't think your source is very reliable. From what I have read, Jupiter images bought a majority holding in StockXpert and when the company that own Getty bought Jupiter images, they took ownership of StockXpert. HAAP still have a minority holding in StockXpert but that isn't going to give them any control.
This is from an StockXpert admin on the StockXpert forums (@ [url]http://www.stockxpert.com/forum/show_messages/18361/1[/url]):
"Jupitermedia owned 90% of HAAP which owns two sites, StockXpert and SXC. Getty only bought that 90% share, so the remaining 10% of StockXpert/SXC is still owned by HAAP."
Thanks! but Im still no wiser? so what are they saying? that were loosing StockXpert down the tubes with Getty? or does it stay independant? or is it in joint ownership?
The simple way of putting it is that Getty can do whatever they want with StockXpert now. HAAP wont be able to stop them.
-
I am confused. If I had your calibre as a stock photographer.
I would not put up with all this crappola, and pull out every single one of my images from IStock.
That would be devastating to Istock, Getty or no Getty.
I disagree. Yuri is just one contributor (although a highly profitable one), but micro agencies depend on the masses of small portfolios to generate income. If he pulled out, there would be many others to come in and fill the void. I doubt getty or istock would even notice.
-
I am new, inexperienced, uploading only for a few months, less than 100 images on IS.
Rejections and search algorithm are the issues. I can deal with high level of rejections (currently ~60%) because I see income potential as I become more skilled. But the search algorithm change has decreased my earnings from a small trickle to a few drops, so unless they change things my long-term potential as a nonexclusive is substantially reduced. I'm also getting more rejections that seem arbitrary, and the PITA uploading process seems intended to throttle contributions. All of this makes me wonder whether their biz model is faulty and whether I am wasting my time.
I will keep uploading because I suspect IS will sooner or later change its search algorithm back to one that doesn't kill nonexclusives. But if they don't do this I may eventually give up on them. It's a hard call, because not uploading in the meantime means foregoing revenue if/when they fix the search model. Happily, there are other microstocks.
It's good to read the complaints of people who are infinitely more experienced and skilled than I am and realize that I am not alone in my frustrations.
-
I am confused. If I had your calibre as a stock photographer.
I would not put up with all this crappola, and pull out every single one of my images from IStock.
That would be devastating to Istock, Getty or no Getty.
600+ DL / day is what is preventing him to do so.
Actually we should all (non-exclusives) pull are entire portfolios. I'm sure IS wouldn't like that. But why aren't we doing that ?? -> $$$$$$
Perrush, thx. money talks ! loud and clear. toe the line and fawn. i guess that's it.
like the lyrics to a Jethro TUll song, "they've got you by the b#lls!" ;)
-
Sharpshot!
Thanks! with StockXpert, thats what I was afraid of!! Oh well! better start de-activating about 1000 shots before that turns into another IS frustration.
-
I am confused. If I had your calibre as a stock photographer.
I would not put up with all this crappola, and pull out every single one of my images from IStock.
That would be devastating to Istock, Getty or no Getty.
600+ DL / day is what is preventing him to do so.
Actually we should all (non-exclusives) pull are entire portfolios. I'm sure IS wouldn't like that. But why aren't we doing that ?? -> $$$$$$
Perrush, thx. money talks ! loud and clear. toe the line and fawn. i guess that's it.
like the lyrics to a Jethro TUll song, "they've got you by the b#lls!" ;)
Well with things going like they are I don't think any of us would be really affected money-wise if we pulled our portfolios from Istock. For me right now it's 10% of my income, and getting smaller! So if they really piss me off enough, I'll do it. It's not going to affect much my income at all. However, me pulling stuff off the site is not going to affect them too! Funny thing buyers don't buy the very best image the library has, but the one that pops on the first few pages of the search. I just had that with Fotolia - they f**k around with their search mechanism too, and I have this image of three red gift boxes that I hate - it was taken 3 years ago when I had Canon Powershot G2 and didn't know what I was doing. It keeps selling like crazy, although there are hundreds of much better pictures of the same subject. So i increased the price just for fun, to 2 credits for XS and 125 for EL. Guess what - after that it has sold 6 times a day PLUS EL.
So the point I am trying to make - Istock will be still fine without us (unfortunately) as long as they manage to bring sufficient number of customers to the site, and clients will be buying stuff that somehow correspond to their needs and easy to find. It would take a mass exodus of micro photographers from Istock to actually hurt them, but then again, with things going the way they are we may just see that...
-
Elenathewise!
Good thinking! leave the shots as they are and let them earn you a few bucks. Uploading is ofcourse a total waste of time ( dont think I have to mention that).
Acting in anger and temper is no solution here because for some weird reason, that might be exactly what Getty wants, in order to keep their exclusives at least somewhat happy.
There are Oceans, tons of buyers out there, IS is just one little outlet.
best Christian
-
Elenathewise!
Good thinking! leave the shots as they are and let them earn you a few bucks. Uploading is ofcourse a total waste of time ( dont think I have to mention that).
Acting in anger and temper is no solution here because for some weird reason, that might be exactly what Getty wants, in order to keep their exclusives at least somewhat happy.
There are Oceans, tons of buyers out there, IS is just one little outlet.
best Christian
Agreed:)
-
i don't like being treated like a second class citizen, istock have sold their soul to getty, i don't recommend istock to buyers anymore preferring to recommend micros that are growing the microstock industry, not trying to take it over and who care a little bit about their contributors.
in a small way being a non exclusive independent will help the industry to grow, it takes power away from the big corporate bullies that care about nothing except their bottom line.
getty is the Borg microtrekies beware!
-
We are Borg!
Resistance is futile. We wish to improve ourselves.Your culture will adapt to service ours. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own.Your culture will adapt to service us. 8)
-
borg alert, ;D
let me get my ray gun and zap you off the screen ;D
-
From my point of view exclusivity is not such big plus for any agency in long term. It is good untill difference between treatment of exclusives and nonexclusives becomes too much accented. If images of nonexclusives are burried below hundreds of pages with exclusive images, buyers will notice that on other agencies they can find different images they can't find on IS. But I guess it won't happen very soon. Meanwhile, my income on IS will slowly decrease because I am not exclusive. Also, I don't plan to be exclusive to anyone, first, because I never liked being dependent on one person, agency, company... I always have a choice, always have an alternative. It didn't happen just once that some gigantic company fell appart. If something like that happen I don't wanna be part of it. Life is too short to risk that way.
-
Maybe yes, but they will find the same "different" images at all the other agencies, no matter which one. Only istock will have really "diferent" images,
-
Looking at the standpoint from a site, exclusivity is a good thing. They can offer exclusive material.
Looking at it from the standpoint of the photographer... not so good.
Theoretically a site with only exclusive photographers would give no advantages in earnings, simply because the pie needs to be cut over all members evenly when there is no favoritism in ranking, however a site with only exclusives would lead to creating within the hierarchy a new level of exclusives, the high selling photogs versus the low selling photogs ending up with different search placements, creating bad feelings on the lower side.
And we're back to the old (current) system were not everyone gets treated equally.
Patrick H.
-
Maybe yes, but they will find the same "different" images at all the other agencies, no matter which one. Only istock will have really "diferent" images,
There is no agency that can afford that number of exclusives to beat other sites in number of contributors. There will always be much more nonexclusives. So buyers will be limited to much more different kind of images if they buy only from agency with exclusives. Other agencies will have bigger databases, especially if we remember that IS accept only 20-30 images per week. Also, how will IS treat their exclusives when they reach some large percent of all contributors? Agency will have to rank them again, so there will again be unsatisfied, this time exclusives
-
I think we should rename this thread "The Psychic Friends Network". :D
-
Number alone (btw, including countless repetions from different angles) never has guaranteed prestige, and in this and other business, it's a weekest argument than exclusive content. The upload limits allow IS to have what others don't have and a great percentage of the best of what the others have.
-
Number alone (btw, including countless repetions from different angles) never has guaranteed prestige, and in this and other business, it's a weekest argument than exclusive content. The upload limits allow IS to have what others don't have and a great percentage of the best of what the others have.
Why do you think IS exclusives are best of all others? :D There are lots of nonexclusive contributors who are better than IS exclusives :) I don't want to start mention Yuri and others .... Maybe IS will have exclusive images, but noone can't guarantee that IS will have better images.
Few thousands of exclusives can never cover the field of new ideas as hundreds of thousands nonexclusives can. People will get bored in time...
-
Number alone (btw, including countless repetions from different angles) never has guaranteed prestige, and in this and other business, it's a weekest argument than exclusive content. The upload limits allow IS to have what others don't have and a great percentage of the best of what the others have.
I think it is not essential upload limits, but reviewers and their decisions...
-
Number alone (btw, including countless repetions from different angles) never has guaranteed prestige, and in this and other business, it's a weekest argument than exclusive content. The upload limits allow IS to have what others don't have and a great percentage of the best of what the others have.
Why do you think IS exclusives are best of all others? :D There are lots of nonexclusive contributors who are better than IS exclusives :) I don't want to start mention Yuri and others .... Maybe IS will have exclusive images, but noone can't guarantee that IS will have better images.
Few thousands of exclusives can never cover the field of new ideas as hundreds of thousands nonexclusives can. People will get bored in time...
Read my post again. I didn't say that at all, no matter what I think. What I said is that uploads limits push many non-exclusives to select their best wor to upload to istock.
-
We are talking about exclusivity on IS. If it continues this way, IS will stay without non exclusives because they are underrated automatically because they are not exclusives. And don't get me wrong. I am still a beginner, but my september, october and november are very good in sales on IS, no matter I am not exclusive. I have 4 referrals since september, and one of them brought me 20$. I like IS, and I upload regulary there. I am just telling here that I think this kind of relation between agency and nonexclusive contributor can't bring good to agency itself. That is my opinion.
I can say I will stop upload my work to IS if my sales drop significantly for few months. I did it already with few other sites. If many of us stop upload there IS will not have what others have. Complicated keywording, slow review process, poor sales and bad treating doesnt stimulate me to upload. Great loss of time for nothing
-
...The upload limits allow IS to have what others don't have and a great percentage of the best of what the others have.
You've got to be kidding...To me it appears that Istock makes special effort to reject the best of my images.
-
I agree totally with Yanik and Lisa!
Im a Gold, non-exclusive myself, 2-years plus with IS. At best they stood for about 15% of my total stock-earnings and thats quite a bit considering I work in RM,RF and micro. My day-rate photography business is kept totally separate.
My advice is: skip this exclusivity crap altogether, keep the ones already abooard happy and frankly start all over.
Get a decent and I mean a decent expensive computer-guru-team ( the best ) and get a decent search-engine!
Dont even think about using the term: best match anymore, its really got the most terrible ring to it.
Well said!
-
Yes, the search engine is the main issue. If contributor exclusivity is heavily weighted in search results, as is the case, it means that image quality isn't IS mgmt's highest value. In that case IS is benefiting itself at the expense of its customers. That seems like an unsustainable biz model. Maybe they should take the energy they spend in trying to game the contributor hierarchy and put it into improving their search engine. That's where the value added is in the long run. Customers and contributors are free, and I doubt that attempts to lock either group into using one microstock provider will succeed.
-
Similar findings....
More so with about 20-30% rejections on the same "overfiltred" and "artifacts" my upload limit is actually only about 20-25 files per week. I simply cannot maintain my income. :(
Even with files coming from probably the best camera in the world and that have never been compressed in any way, I still get files rejected for overfiltred and artifacts. Especially really sharp files get rejected. The files that get through the inspections easily are the ones that are slightly soft or out of focus... Too sharp (even with no sharping added anywhere) and the files get rejected for being "mysteriously sharp"....overfiltred...
Attached are my earnings.
20-30% rejection of your images?!! I'm floored!
Back in the day (circa 2004) it might have been an OK idea for Istock to hand pick the popular people from the forums to train to inspect images - but I think in this day and age those jobs need to go to seasoned pros - and ones without a conflict of interest (who don't sell microstock anywhere, or have networks with contributors, or hang-out in the community forums) who can dedicate all of their working time to inspecting and educating. It would be nice to see some overhauls to the way things have always been done - because the times have changed.
-
Hi All,
This kind of work can be and is being outsourced to places like India already. Some big image retouching companies can handle very large amounts of work at a very reasonable per image price but I don't know if they can compete with the system IS already has in place. I don't know what they pay their inspectors now so it is hard to make a comparison. I imagine with the big agency leading the way they will make changes when it is cost efficient. I am sure they are looking at every angle to reduce cost over the coming years in every department. Most companies do during recessions.
Best,
AVAVA
-
Number alone (btw, including countless repetions from different angles) never has guaranteed prestige, and in this and other business, it's a weekest argument than exclusive content. The upload limits allow IS to have what others don't have and a great percentage of the best of what the others have.
I think this is where istock exclusives are wearing "blinkers" if you will .... the days when istock had the best images are done, over ... the other micros have as good if not better images available right now - go look and see .... the buyer couldn't give a rats a-s if the image is by an exclusive photographer or not - if an image has sold 100 times on istock versus 100 times on all the other sites, who cares ... exclusivity only works if the site is offering a database of images that are so unique that they cannot be found elsewhere ... that is no longer true with istock ... istock is not offering the buyer anything it cannot find at another micro site ... ironically the only exception to this is their vectors which are still the best collection available hands down ... the very same vectors that istock has chosen to "devalue" over the last 2 months in their best match changes ...
-
exclusivity gives istock marketing power. xxx images are exclusive and can only be found here. only the most successful (ie best) photogs are exclusive. therefore best images are exclusive and only here so dont go anywhere else
whether copies / ripoffs / image styles istock doesn't like / even better images can be found elsewhere is irrelevant as most people dont look and it is easy to believe (esp if you are not a photographer).
it is much like the mantra that designers dont want images that are all over the web. say it enough and people will believe because they wont to believe it. The fact that they then search by number of downloads and pick the image with the most downloads because it must be good if that many people have bought it is again irrelevant.
it's all marketing and promotion, you have always got to find a way to make yourself unique and your offerings better than your competition.
-
the days when istock had the best images are done, over
I can only speak as a vector contributor but I've been considering giving up exclusivity on iStock and have been looking around other sites and I'd say that IS has the best vector images without a doubt. The standards on DT and SS are poorer than IS in my opinion, and I have a lot of experience in the industry, I was surprised by the poor quality in some cases. I'm not saying IS is perfect, but it still beats the competition vector-wise.
-
exclusivity gives istock marketing power. xxx images are exclusive and can only be found here. only the most successful (ie best) photogs are exclusive. therefore best images are exclusive and only here so dont go anywhere else
whether copies / ripoffs / image styles istock doesn't like / even better images can be found elsewhere is irrelevant as most people dont look and it is easy to believe (esp if you are not a photographer).
it is much like the mantra that designers dont want images that are all over the web. say it enough and people will believe because they wont to believe it. The fact that they then search by number of downloads and pick the image with the most downloads because it must be good if that many people have bought it is again irrelevant.
it's all marketing and promotion, you have always got to find a way to make yourself unique and your offerings better than your competition.
Again I really disagree - buyers are not idiots and, even more so with the econmic downturn, have to justify budgets - istock can market itself any way it wants to but just as people don't buy a product based solely on the commercials, they will not buy at istock based solely on istock's marketing campaign ... buyers are shopping around, are looking at the alternatives - and I disagree with you that the best photographers are exclusive at istock ... are some of the exclusives really good? You bet they are ... are most of the really good ones exclusive? No way .... not anymore their not ... some really big names have entered the market as contributors this year and they cannot get their portfolios up and onto istock because they are subject to silly upload limits and the like ... so we can only buy them at DT or SS or FT etc .... and that's the irony - the exclusivity program at istock is really hurting them more than helping them at this point in time ...
how do you think I feel as buyer when I cannot find an image I want on istock because istock has decided to treat some photographers differently versus others and limit the number of uploads that photgrapher can have every week? If I want to buy one of Jonathan's images (AVAVA on thses boards) I really cannot do that on istock because his thousand plus portfolio of images took a couple of weeks to upload on the other sites and but best case scenario will take him months to upload onto istock ... as a buyer I find that ridiculous ... so I buy his work at the other sites ... can that be a good thing for istock?
As a buyer I do not care if you give exclusives higher commissions or whatever - istock can do whatever it wants to in terms of how it differentiates its exclusivity - but when that differentiation impacts the buyer in terms of limiting the buyers choice, then I really think that is just silly and I would argue bad business ....
On the issue of "available only here", if a buyer is truly concerned about how many times an image has sold then they are surely not going to be buying a micro image .....
-
if a buyer is truly concerned about how many times an image has sold then they are surely not going to be buying a micro image .....
Whats for the exclusive RM-Collections are, for a buyer exclusivity at iStock is no value at all!
-
exclusivity gives istock marketing power. xxx images are exclusive and can only be found here. only the most successful (ie best) photogs are exclusive. therefore best images are exclusive and only here so dont go anywhere else
whether copies / ripoffs / image styles istock doesn't like / even better images can be found elsewhere is irrelevant as most people dont look and it is easy to believe (esp if you are not a photographer).
it is much like the mantra that designers dont want images that are all over the web. say it enough and people will believe because they wont to believe it. The fact that they then search by number of downloads and pick the image with the most downloads because it must be good if that many people have bought it is again irrelevant.
it's all marketing and promotion, you have always got to find a way to make yourself unique and your offerings better than your competition.
Good point, now it's time for photographers doing campaign (blog, forum, etc) to disclaim the mantra.
-
[/quote]
Good point, now it's time for photographers doing campaign (blog, forum, etc) to disclaim the mantra.
[/quote]
Agreed as I think they are the only ones who have actually bought into it ...
-
the days when istock had the best images are done, over
I can only speak as a vector contributor but I've been considering giving up exclusivity on iStock and have been looking around other sites and I'd say that IS has the best vector images without a doubt. The standards on DT and SS are poorer than IS in my opinion, and I have a lot of experience in the industry, I was surprised by the poor quality in some cases. I'm not saying IS is perfect, but it still beats the competition vector-wise.
I think this is particularly true for vectors - and especially for SS, which has accepted some vectors that are so awful they belong on Jupiter's clipartconnection.com. The number of sites that are pirating SS vectors and offering them for free (and advertising them as SS vectors) has been a huge problem. Given how cheap vectors are with a 750 a month subscription, the temptation is clearly irresistable for some.
There is also the issue of vector pricing elsewhere which is, IMO, very unappealing for anyone who creates complex vectors. Except for IS's recent best match disaster with respect to vectors, the only way I could see anyone who does vectors considering dropping exclusivity would be if they had huge collections of simple vectors.
-
I agree with hoi ha. I have a friend who is a buyer. And he told me that he doesn't really care if image is IS exclusive or not. He doesn't think IS exclusivity is very important to buyers because he often looks at few other sites to find what he need. He said that he otfen can't find what he needs in IS. He is just a buyer and he is not very connected with world of microstock contributors. He just login into agencies and searches what he needs. When I asked him does he thinks that images on IS are best on the market, he told me what I think when I say "best images". He didn't notice any big difference in quallity. When I explained to him what I mean when I say "best" images, he told me that he thinks images are good enough technically if they pass inspection on any site, so technical quality doesn't bother him mush. He just looks if image looks "nice" to him. He has account on IS, SS, and FT.
In the end he told me that exclusivity on IS doesn't look like something special to him if he cannot find what he needs among exclusive images. He told me that exclusive images on IS are not something class better, or something so special because there are many very similar images on every single site. Simply searching on these 3 agencies he decides what to buy. He doesn't care about exclusivity. It means nothing to readers of his magazine
-
I can only speak as a vector contributor but I've been considering giving up exclusivity on iStock and have been looking around other sites and I'd say that IS has the best vector images without a doubt. I'm not saying IS is perfect, but it still beats the competition vector-wise.
[/quote]
As a buyer I agree with this statement (and have consistently done so in my other posts on this forum) - the one place where istock leads hands down is with its vectors - better quality and more choice ... but that is also why I found it strange that they would disadvantage vector artists in these last best match changes ...
-
Good point, now it's time for photographers doing campaign (blog, forum, etc) to disclaim the mantra.
[/quote]
Agreed as I think they are the only ones who have actually bought into it ...
[/quote]
fair enough, I may well be very wrong and not realise that buyers dont believe the hype.
personally I dont care whether people are exclusive or not, I'm still learning and got enough of my own problems without worrying about that sort of stuff :) the dont like images all over the web statement bugs me though, as far as I can it is only a minority of people think that.
What makes me laugh at the irony of the whole exclusive thing and promoting exclusive images (I dont know or care whether they get higher placement, it's their shop) is that it is the exclusive images that they make less money on due to higher commissions, so they are actually promoting their less profitable product :)
phil
-
I agree with hoi ha. I have a friend who is a buyer. And he told me that he doesn't really care if image is IS exclusive or not. He doesn't think IS exclusivity is very important to buyers because he often looks at few other sites to find what he need. He said that he otfen can't find what he needs in IS. He is just a buyer and he is not very connected with world of microstock contributors. He just login into agencies and searches what he needs. When I asked him does he thinks that images on IS are best on the market, he told me what I think when I say "best images". He didn't notice any big difference in quallity. When I explained to him what I mean when I say "best" images, he told me that he thinks images are good enough technically if they pass inspection on any site, so technical quality doesn't bother him mush. He just looks if image looks "nice" to him. He has account on IS, SS, and FT.
In the end he told me that exclusivity on IS doesn't look like something special to him if he cannot find what he needs among exclusive images. He told me that exclusive images on IS are not something class better, or something so special because there are many very similar images on every single site. Simply searching on these 3 agencies he decides what to buy. He doesn't care about exclusivity. It means nothing to readers of his magazine
Agree!
This will be trojan horse for IS,trust me!
-
but that is also why I found it strange that they would disadvantage vector artists in these last best match changes ...
I'd agree 100% with this. Makes you wonder how much experience IS's management actually have.
-
Hello Hoi Ha,
I am glad you are finding our work at some of the other sites, thank you for buying and please, Don't stop! :D It will actually take me 4-5 years to upload my content that is ready today for Micro at Istock at their limits. I wish they would take more than 15 a week but that was the agreement I was willing to sign. I believe it will change over time.
I am glad you are finding our work elsewhere. I see this as an opportunity at a shameless plug. ;) We are in the process of adding 2000 more images this month so keep checking back we are adding a lot more location to the mix now.
Best,
AVAVA
-
Buyers who cares about exclusivity should not even concern themselves with any Micro-site. They should simply fork out more money and go RM.
Cant really believe that any buyer would think they get prestige? for what? couple of quid?
-
Similar findings....
More so with about 20-30% rejections on the same "overfiltred" and "artifacts" my upload limit is actually only about 20-25 files per week. I simply cannot maintain my income. :(
Even with files coming from probably the best camera in the world and that have never been compressed in any way, I still get files rejected for overfiltred and artifacts. Especially really sharp files get rejected. The files that get through the inspections easily are the ones that are slightly soft or out of focus... Too sharp (even with no sharping added anywhere) and the files get rejected for being "mysteriously sharp"....overfiltred...
Yuri, so good to hear from you. Frankly, if IS is putting the squeeze on you, what chances do we newbies have?
I mentioned the same thing as you did here...even without post processing other than levels
i get overfiltered, for an especially sharp file. only because i went from a 7MP to 14 MP camera.
that's the mysteriously sharp ...that the reviewers rejected as over fliltered.
also the soft focus and lack of contrast, were actually high key lighting and actually steam off a glass, lol.
still, in hindsight, Yuri, if you get those rejections with your most expensive camera in the world,
hey ! i am going to forget IS for now. or maybe, just send cats and off focus files that are accepted.
i am a newbie, only 20 images. Why scream at IS some dude tells me. Well, you know what, the images they rejected are so much better. Even i won't buy the ones IS accepted over the ones IS rejected.
Anyway, once again, Lisafix, Yuri, Coco,etc...and all, thanks for the insight. I will leave my portfolio at 20 images and go elsewhere until i see you all get better results from IS.
Same on my side overfiltering what the h........ even straight out of the camera without processing overfilterd very strange I thought I was the only one.....also strange rejection about keywording picture of a beach and cant use the worth beach Hmmm makes you wonder........
-
Hi Lisa!
Well what I meant was that a lot of exclusive contracted RM photographers work under lots of differant business-names, making very sure they dont supply similar images to various Agencies, may it be RM or RF. Although being exclusive, no damage is done because no two similar images will ever clash.
So, you see? so much for exclusivity??
Having said this: no, you cant supply same RM image also as RF or vice-versa, that could be a bit dangerous and render heavy consequences.
An agency imposing exclusivity contracts, DONT do that in order to increase their turnover, it wont, never will, its there to prevent contributors from increasing other agencies turnover, thats all,
Exclusivity was working in the days of the Trad-RM agencies with around 10000 photographers, globaly.
Today with hundereds of thousands of suppliers you can imagine? exclusivity is just a pretty word. buyers, clients looking for campaign images and big-time ADs, etc, certainly dont rumage the pages of any Micro site. Thereby is exclusivity not even important.
all the best Christian
Thanks for explaining Christian :)
I misunderstood and thought you were talking about istock exclusives selling RF elsewhere, which of course is a BIG NO NO.
But yes, the type of traditional exclusivity that allows contributors to sell different types of images in different collections sounds much better for the average contributor. If istock would offer that I would upload some exclusive images there, but I don't think its ever gonna happen.... :(
I occassionally wonder if you operate through a company. your company "A" technically employs you to take photos, the company owns the copyright, it is exclusive to IS. Then images you take while not employed by this company are your personal copyright, so different owner, these are not exclusive to IS and can be put on all micros etc.
much the same as if you are exclusive and employ another photographer for a shoot, the images they take for you are your copyright and hence exclusive, but you cannot expect that photographer to be exclusive to istock.
so you get image exclusivity rather than person exclusivty because of a company being legal entity that can hold copyright / property etc.
or am I just being daft?
(not that I am about to do it, just idle musings)
(of course if you werent stupid with similars etc would anyone even know? (if you cant))
Phil
-
Hello Hoi Ha,
I am glad you are finding our work at some of the other sites, thank you for buying and please, Don't stop! :D It will actually take me 4-5 years to upload my content that is ready today for Micro at Istock at their limits. I wish they would take more than 15 a week but that was the agreement I was willing to sign. I believe it will change over time.
I am glad you are finding our work elsewhere. I see this as an opportunity at a shameless plug. ;) We are in the process of adding 2000 more images this month so keep checking back we are adding a lot more location to the mix now.
Best,
AVAVA
Hi Avava - thanks for the heads up .... looking forward to seeing your new images and for sure we will be buying!! All the best ...
-
Phil, trying to get around the istock terms by pulling that kind if thing will likely see you gone forever. If you can't commit to exclusivity, then don't. Don't try to have your cake and eat it too. Management isn't stupid.
-
Unless they sell more than enough exclusive images to make up the difference and then maybe they aren't as dumb as you think...
Good point, now it's time for photographers doing campaign (blog, forum, etc) to disclaim the mantra.
Agreed as I think they are the only ones who have actually bought into it ...
[/quote]
fair enough, I may well be very wrong and not realise that buyers dont believe the hype.
personally I dont care whether people are exclusive or not, I'm still learning and got enough of my own problems without worrying about that sort of stuff :) the dont like images all over the web statement bugs me though, as far as I can it is only a minority of people think that.
What makes me laugh at the irony of the whole exclusive thing and promoting exclusive images (I dont know or care whether they get higher placement, it's their shop) is that it is the exclusive images that they make less money on due to higher commissions, so they are actually promoting their less profitable product :)
phil
[/quote]
-
Hoi Ha and WhiteChild - Yes!
Before starting to upload to any micro agency I was a buyer. I still am. Been doing this for years and years.
Right now, on this computer's hard drive I've got anything between 7 to 10 thousand stock images. Bought from all over the place and from a lot of you guys!
I work for a small design and photography company in Dublin.
Never, not ever were we bothered to care about the 'status' of a photographer.
You've got to be jocking! There is no time for such things and honestly, who cares?
I want an image, that's all.
Who cares about the photographer's status?
This Istock idea that I, as a buyer, should somehow be happy with a mediocre image only because the photographer works micro exclusively with Istock is pure nonsense.
If I want one unique shot I either shoot it myself, or, when location is out of reach, I contact photographers from all over the world and comission/buy.
That is all there is to it!
The only way a business stays successful is by providing its customers with the right content.
Istock is simply not doing it and one day this will spell disaster.
Just have a look on those poll results.
Crestock and Istock.
La creme de la creme.
Indeed.
Anna
-
Phil, trying to get around the istock terms by pulling that kind if thing will likely see you gone forever. If you can't commit to exclusivity, then don't. Don't try to have your cake and eat it too. Management isn't stupid.
Hi, I am not about to :) (I have neither the quality or quantity to make it worthwhile :)) . Its just one I wonder about in a purely hypothetical sense, considering that I thought of it a longtime ago, I am sure some brighter spark in management, thought of it well before me I wonder how it is handled without causing other restrictions etc.
Rgds
Phil
-
Considering the fact that a former inspector and current exclusive still sells images RF at ImageZoo (though he changed the profile listing from his name to his business name) ... and I know that Bruce himself aware of this because I was privvy to an email exchange from when this person was first named exclusive and a member of my CN brought it to his attention ... I guess there are loopholes in the system. ??
-
I hope all this is not made by Getty. Maybe Getty wants to attract exclusives to it self and to practically destroy IS and to take their market
-
Sorry folks, didn't have time to read the whole thread, so maybe it is already mentioned!
But did somebody see the Zeitgeist lately?
http://www.istockphoto.com/most_popular.php ( click on zeitgeist)
Almost all Contributors On The Rise are NON-exclusive, while almost all contributors with Highest Average Downloads Per File are Exclusives!
This can't be a coincident is it?
-
Hi Gregor,
Although the numbers you are looking at do show who is on the rise and who is on the fall you must remember that the longer a photographer has a collection and the more images he adds the return per image is going to drop because the older work that has been up for a long time drops in returns and waters down the overall return unless you can continue to increase production to offset this change. ( the longer you produce the more you have to produce to offset per image return drops in that collection RPI ) But that is not important it is the return you make in relation to what you spend that counts in the end.
The people that are growing on that list are the people that are actually making some of the lowest returns because as you start out every single sale increases your company growth percentage by huge margins. This is the reason I like to talk dollars and cents as apposed to percentage in these conversations. Look at that list and click on the first guy growing by 233%. WOW! You would think this is some kind of portfolio and he must be making big money. Look again, this is based on the fact that he is so new and his sales are still small that it doesn't take many sales to make giant leaps in his companies growth. I am not picking on this individual on the list just making an example. It is the same for all of us when we start out.
Just want people to see that the info has to be broken down into what the return is in dollars compared to what you spent producing your product that is the only real measuring stick. If I spend $200 dollars on making an image for Micro I better have a great deal of sales for that image or I am going to lose money. Finding your expense to return ratio is very important if you want to grow in this business. You need to know how much to spend when and where to spend and especially when to stop spending. That is the dance that will keep you on the floor the longest in this ever changing marathon.
Best,
AVAVA
-
AVAVA how do calculate your return, do you give the image a year, 5 years, or guess way into the future?
-
Hi Traveler,
That is a great and important question in these changing times. I used to be an old school RPI guy and you just divided your collection by your returns annually and you had your per image return. RPI is still important to the agencies because that is how they track how much money they make off of your work and your value to their collection. They also watch your " Sell Through Rate " ( how many of your images actually sell in their life time ). This helps them analyze your value but in this changing market they don't mean quite as much to us photographers as they used to at least not the RPI. Boy when I think about it that is actually a mixed subject because as long as agencies use these tools to figure out our worth individually as photographers then we do still have to pay attention to these figures.
How I actually track sales from my point of view while intergrating what I just said above is to include these methods for consideration of my value through my agencies eyes while at the same time being very aware of what each actual shoot produces in returns. " Return Per Shoot " is how I am tracking my internal sales these days to see where my money is being best spent and how well it returns a profit. With shooting Micro at 200 images a day or doing 10 images for Stone RM in the same amount of time I can't use just a basic RPI anymore. I have to calculate what I spent on the shoot with what it will return my company, as well as how much fun I had doing it. ;D
If my images are making me a good return per shoot then I imagine they are also making a good return for my agency so my need to track RPI is not as important as my need to pay attention to " Sell Through Rate ". This is what my agencies are really paying attention to ( Micro will see more focus on this stat over time ), they do not want to waste space or workflow on an image that never sells. If you have a good " sell through rate " agencies take notice and will be more likely to support your growing relationship.
If I have completely confused you I am sorry, let me know and I will try to clarify. Numbers, it all comes down to numbers. What is going out and what is coming in. Don't forget to pay yourself when you are doing your estimates. I think many Micro shooters do this for fun so this doesn't apply as much to those people but for those who are trying to grow this into their business remember to pay yourself. You have to calculate all your costs to produce an image especially your time that was taken to produce your work. It is easy to forget about yourself.
Best,
AVAVA
-
Hi T,
Sorry all that and I didn't offer a shelf life.
RM Macro ( Getty / Corbis ) = 5-7 years returns
RF Macro = 3 years returns
RF Micro = 1 year return
The Micro is still young and these are very conservative estimates but I will say that I want all my shoots to pay for their production costs within the first year or I did something wrong. With the acception of Micro which I would like to see three times my money invested payed back in the first year as that is the shelf life we have put on this model. I am more and more conservative on my numbers in this industry because it is changing so fast. Testing the market is the first step for me, remember to invest in your R&D ( research and development ).
Best,
AVAVA
-
Hi Traveler,
That is a great and important question in these changing times. I used to be an old school RPI guy and you just divided your collection by your returns annually and you had your per image return. RPI is still important to the agencies because that is how they track how much money they make off of your work and your value to their collection. They also watch your " Sell Through Rate " ( how many of your images actually sell in their life time ). This helps them analyze your value but in this changing market they don't mean quite as much to us photographers as they used to at least not the RPI. Boy when I think about it that is actually a mixed subject because as long as agencies use these tools to figure out our worth individually as photographers then we do still have to pay attention to these figures.
How I actually track sales from my point of view while intergrating what I just said above is to include these methods for consideration of my value through my agencies eyes while at the same time being very aware of what each actual shoot produces in returns. " Return Per Shoot " is how I am tracking my internal sales these days to see where my money is being best spent and how well it returns a profit. With shooting Micro at 200 images a day or doing 10 images for Stone RM in the same amount of time I can't use just a basic RPI anymore. I have to calculate what I spent on the shoot with what it will return my company, as well as how much fun I had doing it. ;D
If my images are making me a good return per shoot then I imagine they are also making a good return for my agency so my need to track RPI is not as important as my need to pay attention to " Sell Through Rate ". This is what my agencies are really paying attention to ( Micro will see more focus on this stat over time ), they do not want to waste space or workflow on an image that never sells. If you have a good " sell through rate " agencies take notice and will be more likely to support your growing relationship.
If I have completely confused you I am sorry, let me know and I will try to clarify. Numbers, it all comes down to numbers. What is going out and what is coming in. Don't forget to pay yourself when you are doing your estimates. I think many Micro shooters do this for fun so this doesn't apply as much to those people but for those who are trying to grow this into their business remember to pay yourself. You have to calculate all your costs to produce an image especially your time that was taken to produce your work. It is easy to forget about yourself.
Best,
AVAVA
Basically I'm doing the same calculations. Not just the return per image versus images online. The end result determines the amount my models get payed. So actually i'm motivating them to be and perform at their best. Every 3 months I redo the calculation, based on that I setup my budget for models and props.
The fact I involve them in their own payout pushes them to be at their best...:-)
Patrick H.
-
Sorry folks, didn't have time to read the whole thread, so maybe it is already mentioned!
But did somebody see the Zeitgeist lately?
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/most_popular.php[/url] ( click on zeitgeist)
Almost all Contributors On The Rise are NON-exclusive, while almost all contributors with Highest Average Downloads Per File are Exclusives!
This can't be a coincident is it?
Tell me, what do they use to measure contributors on the rise? Is it downloads per file, total downloads this period, what method do they use to create this list? Here are the top five, which show nothing amazing. First is total DLs. Third column is DLs last 30 days. 10 downloads is On The Rise?
Except for Huebi these are well establish, long time members. 1.23 DLs per day, that's "On The Rise" and important?
But the question is, what is a contributor on the rise? How do they figure it?
(http://img123.imageshack.us/img123/5102/isupdl8.jpg)
Most Popular Downloads is still the stable list, and whatever On The Rise is, it's nothing compared to these people. ;D
rank-name-files- DLs 90 days for ONE FILE!
1X caracterdesign - 3383 - 12980
2 M-I-S-H-A- - 569 - 11925
3X nico_blue - 2930 - 10777
4X DrGrounds - 539 - 9462
5X dem10 - 2551 - 8555
6 Yuri_Arcurs - 3719 - 7845
7X nico_blue - 2930 - 7432
8X ggodby - 551 - 7284
9X popadic - 32 - 7022
10 solarseven - 613 - 6737
11X lisegagne - 6074 - 6599
12X sjlocke - 5820 - 6523
13X sandoclr - 633 - 6478
14X appleuzr - 587 - 6299
15X lisegagne - 6074 - 6047
Lets look at #1, 1X caracterdesign - 3383 - 12980, that's 144 DLs per day for one file, but 45 DLs in a month for a whole portfolio puts Huebi on top of the other list?
Zeitgeist appears to be meaningless. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
-
Considering the fact that a former inspector and current exclusive still sells images RF at ImageZoo (though he changed the profile listing from his name to his business name) ... and I know that Bruce himself aware of this because I was privvy to an email exchange from when this person was first named exclusive and a member of my CN brought it to his attention ... I guess there are loopholes in the system. ??
You mean there is an "exclusive" who sells RF elsewhere under a different business name and Bruce knows about it and that's okay?
If I were exclusive I would be REALLY pi$$ed about this.
-
Hi Patrick,
Good Idea! So much of your sales in lifestyle depends on how well you interact with the talent and what they can each deliver. To set a sliding scale can be very motivating once they see their efforts paying off. Thanks for the tip.
Best,
AVAVA
-
Ok I stand corrected! I forgot about portfolio sizes!
But if the Highest Average Downloads-list is accurate, there's a lot of exclusives!
-
Considering the fact that a former inspector and current exclusive still sells images RF at ImageZoo (though he changed the profile listing from his name to his business name) ... and I know that Bruce himself aware of this because I was privvy to an email exchange from when this person was first named exclusive and a member of my CN brought it to his attention ... I guess there are loopholes in the system. ??
You mean there is an "exclusive" who sells RF elsewhere under a different business name and Bruce knows about it and that's okay?
If I were exclusive I would be REALLY pi$$ed about this.
What I know is this: The person in question was appointed as a vector inspector. An email was sent to Bruce informing him that this person has a portfolio on ImageZoo. Bruce's reply was something to the effect of "thanks, we already knew about this, and have taken appropriate steps" (whatever that means). The inspector badge temporarily disappeared during this time and then reappeared. At some point in time that I didn't notice, he quit being an inspector. He is, however, still an exclusive crown-wearing contributor, and his work is still available RF at imagezoo.
The only logical explanation is that they transferred copyright ownership to a business partner or something. It is clearly his work though, as the styles in both portfolios are distinct from other artists, and are the same as each other.
As for the photographers on the rise issue, I didn't think the zeitgeist had been updated in weeks. ??
-
Only older exclusive members are favored.
How would you define an older member? I've been there nearly three years and my sales have dropped too.
-
Only older exclusive members are favored.
How would you define an older member? I've been there nearly three years and my sales have dropped too.
Welcome to microstockgroup! :)
-
Only older exclusive members are favored.
How would you define an older member? I've been there nearly three years and my sales have dropped too.
probably have to be over 3 years :)
-
If you check the graph of the top 25 contributors (http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=1537218) on MichaelJay's blog you'll see that they have been doing very well for the past 5 weeks.
-
As a non-exclusive my sales at IS have dropped about 60% since October. I never really worried much about their bizarre approval criteria or the fact that you have to pay $20 to use their FTP program to upload files, but with this sharp decline in sales and the long, long, long approval times it doesn't make sense to spend much time uploading to IS. My sales at StockXpert and Fotolia have increased dramatically in the last 3 months (coincidence?).
I don't know what the guys from IS are trying to do, or if that's their strategy to get rid of the non-exclusive members. Only they know what their doing.
-
As a non-exclusive my sales at IS have dropped about 60% since October. I never really worried much about their bizarre approval criteria or the fact that you have to pay $20 to use their FTP program to upload files, but with this sharp decline in sales and the long, long, long approval times it doesn't make sense to spend much time uploading to IS. My sales at StockXpert and Fotolia have increased dramatically in the last 3 months (coincidence?).
I don't know what the guys from IS are trying to do, or if that's their strategy to get rid of the non-exclusive members. Only they know what their doing.
I was getting pretty depressed about iS sales but mine have started moving back up in the last two months - but not to previous highest levels. I'm not sure what $20 FTP program you're referring to - maybe ImageManager but I wouldn't call it an FTP program, it's just a bulk upload method. However I would highly recommend DeepMeta which I think is currently still free. It's also currently only available for Windows platforms. You can find the latest version 1.2.6 at http://www.deepmeta.com/Downloads/ and a forum thread about it at http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=57564&page=1. It's been a really useful program for me - and I'm a Mac user but I keep a PC running alongside mostly for this program.
-
I don't get rejections for keywords. My keywords are checked two times before they go for inspection on Istock:
1. first keywording. outsourced, India
2.second keyword check by australian company.
You outsource keywording to a company in India and then you outsource the same thing to another company in Australia ... ummmm I just use common sense and do it while sitting on the couch while watching the sci-fi channel. LMAO
-
Things have changed in the last month or two. Where are the independents say how great it is now. Or is it still not great for independents?
-
I don't get rejections for keywords. My keywords are checked two times before they go for inspection on Istock:
1. first keywording. outsourced, India
2.second keyword check by australian company.
You outsource keywording to a company in India and then you outsource the same thing to another company in Australia ... ummmm I just use common sense and do it while sitting on the couch while watching the sci-fi channel. LMAO
I think maybe thats why Yuri is world number one in microstock and you aren't ....
-
I don't get rejections for keywords. My keywords are checked two times before they go for inspection on Istock:
1. first keywording. outsourced, India
2.second keyword check by australian company.
You outsource keywording to a company in India and then you outsource the same thing to another company in Australia ... ummmm I just use common sense and do it while sitting on the couch while watching the sci-fi channel. LMAO
I think maybe thats why Yuri is world number one in microstock and you aren't ....
Sales numbers does not necessarily equal success. My measure is gross-costs=profit . If it isn't cost effective to outsource twice, then it may not be a good move depending on one's situation. Sitting on the couch may pay off more and be a wiser move.
-
I don't get rejections for keywords. My keywords are checked two times before they go for inspection on Istock:
1. first keywording. outsourced, India
2.second keyword check by australian company.
You outsource keywording to a company in India and then you outsource the same thing to another company in Australia ... ummmm I just use common sense and do it while sitting on the couch while watching the sci-fi channel. LMAO
I think maybe thats why Yuri is world number one in microstock and you aren't ....
Sales numbers does not necessarily equal success. My measure is gross-costs=profit . If it isn't cost effective to outsource twice, then it may not be a good move depending on one's situation. Sitting on the couch may pay off more and be a wiser move.
Sean,
I'd admire your success on IS but just his sales alone on IS would cover his image production costs, and he submits to at least 15 other sites ....
And not being dependent on one outsourcing supplier is pretty savvy
-
... but just his sales alone on IS would cover his image production costs, and he submits to at least 15 other sites ....
And not being dependent on one outsourcing supplier is pretty savvy
How can you possibly know what "his image production costs" are unless you happen to be his accountant?
Yuri has stated previously that he has taken very little himself but ploughs almost all of it all back in as investment to the business. To his credit Yuri certainly thinks big __ very big __ but that's not always best when it comes to spending.
I'd buy shares in SJL Corporation in preference to Yuri Plc anyday. From his blogs, with regard to his spending on equipment & models, Sean's earnings to capital invested ratio must be truly eye-watering __ and that's good business.
You know what they say ... "Turnover is vanity, profit is sanity but cash is king". Yuri's preoccupation with being 'No1 Microstocker' comes to mind.
-
How can you possibly know what "his image production costs" are unless you happen to be his accountant?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He quoted them here previously
Yuri has stated previously that he has taken very little himself but ploughs almost all of it all back in as investment to the business.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reinvesting profits is not akin to not making them in the first place
To his credit Yuri certainly thinks big __ very big __ but that's not always best when it comes to spending.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think Yuri's sponsorship deal with Hasselblad is indicative of his ability to manage costs.
I'd buy shares in SJL Corporation in preference to Yuri Plc anyday. From his blogs, with regard to his spending on equipment & models, Sean's earnings to capital invested ratio must be truly eye-watering __ and that's good business.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Evaluating a business solely on ROCE is of little value, its one tool among many.
You know what they say ... "Turnover is vanity, profit is sanity but cash is king".
And equally apt is the when the tide goes out we will see who is swimming naked....
-
How can you possibly know what "his image production costs" are unless you happen to be his accountant?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He quoted them here previously
Where exactly?
Yuri has stated previously that he has taken very little himself but ploughs almost all of it all back in as investment to the business.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reinvesting profits is not akin to not making them in the first place
Yes it is. Profit is what you walk away with. Profit is not the wages you paid last year or a load of second-hand gear. What planet are you on? It is not understanding such a simple principle that has got the world into such a crisis. 'Paper profits' count for nothing at all until they are realised.
To his credit Yuri certainly thinks big __ very big __ but that's not always best when it comes to spending.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think Yuri's sponsorship deal with Hasselblad is indicative of his ability to manage costs.
Really? I thought Yuri later said they didn't actually give him the gear for free?
I'd buy shares in SJL Corporation in preference to Yuri Plc anyday. From his blogs, with regard to his spending on equipment & models, Sean's earnings to capital invested ratio must be truly eye-watering __ and that's good business.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Evaluating a business solely on ROCE is of little value, its one tool among many.
Yes but it is by far the most straight-forward and easily understood tool __ and, more to the point it tells the real story. Which other tools would you recommend and how would that change the equation in Yuri's favour?
You know what they say ... "Turnover is vanity, profit is sanity but cash is king".
And equally apt is the when the tide goes out we will see who is swimming naked....
With that well-worn cliche you've just emphasised how much stronger the low-cost, high-profit model is, particularly at times of financial uncertainty. Much better surely than the high-spending, hope-to bloody-hell-the-future-sales-can-keep up-with-us model?
-
How can you possibly know what "his image production costs" are unless you happen to be his accountant?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He quoted them here previously
Where exactly?
Try a forum search ....
Yuri has stated previously that he has taken very little himself but ploughs almost all of it all back in as investment to the business.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reinvesting profits is not akin to not making them in the first place
Yes it is. Profit is what you walk away with. Profit is not the wages you paid last year or a load of second-hand gear. What planet are you on? It is not understanding such a simple principle that has got the world into such a crisis. 'Paper profits' count for nothing at all until they are realised.
No it isn't, profits are merely an accounting concept. Even you yourself puts them behind cash in your quotation.
And the financial crisis is a result of monetary policy, negative real interest rates, the elimination of moral hazard and the inability financial institutions to understand or value derivatives of not the inability to understand the concept of a profit.
To his credit Yuri certainly thinks big __ very big __ but that's not always best when it comes to spending.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think Yuri's sponsorship deal with Hasselblad is indicative of his ability to manage costs.
Really? I thought Yuri later said they didn't actually give him the gear for free?
I'd buy shares in SJL Corporation in preference to Yuri Plc anyday. From his blogs, with regard to his spending on equipment & models, Sean's earnings to capital invested ratio must be truly eye-watering __ and that's good business.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Evaluating a business solely on ROCE is of little value, its one tool among many.
Yes but it is by far the most straight-forward and easily understood tool __ and, more to the point it tells the real story. Which other tools would you recommend and how would that change the equation in Yuri's favour?
I am not trying to change an equation in anyones favour, but if you must know increase in book value
You know what they say ... "Turnover is vanity, profit is sanity but cash is king".
And equally apt is the when the tide goes out we will see who is swimming naked....
With that well-worn cliche you've just emphasised how much stronger the low-cost, high-profit model is, particularly at times of financial uncertainty. Much better surely than the high-spending, hope-to bloody-hell-the-future-sales-can-keep up-with-us model?
Well having 16 distributers with different price points and strengths in different geographical regions would seem to be more resilient than depending on one agency.
And even if photographer Y has 3 times the cost per image created of photographer S, if it is sold through 16 channels I would wager that the more money is made.....
[/color]
-
How can you possibly know what "his image production costs" are unless you happen to be his accountant?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He quoted them here previously
Where exactly?
Try a forum search ....
In other words you're just making it up
Yuri has stated previously that he has taken very little himself but ploughs almost all of it all back in as investment to the business.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reinvesting profits is not akin to not making them in the first place
Yes it is. Profit is what you walk away with. Profit is not the wages you paid last year or a load of second-hand gear. What planet are you on? It is not understanding such a simple principle that has got the world into such a crisis. 'Paper profits' count for nothing at all until they are realised.
No it isn't, profits are merely an accounting concept.
That's possibly the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard. Profits are not a 'concept'. God is a concept. I can touch profits, stick them in my underpants and then go and spend them on shiny things. I can't do any of those things with 'concepts'.
To his credit Yuri certainly thinks big __ very big __ but that's not always best when it comes to spending.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think Yuri's sponsorship deal with Hasselblad is indicative of his ability to manage costs.
Really? I thought Yuri later said they didn't actually give him the gear for free?
I'd buy shares in SJL Corporation in preference to Yuri Plc anyday. From his blogs, with regard to his spending on equipment & models, Sean's earnings to capital invested ratio must be truly eye-watering __ and that's good business.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Evaluating a business solely on ROCE is of little value, its one tool among many.
Yes but it is by far the most straight-forward and easily understood tool __ and, more to the point it tells the real story. Which other tools would you recommend and how would that change the equation in Yuri's favour?
I am not trying to change an equation in anyones favour, but if you must know increase in book value
What? There you go on about unrealised, conceptual 'value' again.
You know what they say ... "Turnover is vanity, profit is sanity but cash is king".
And equally apt is the when the tide goes out we will see who is swimming naked....
With that well-worn cliche you've just emphasised how much stronger the low-cost, high-profit model is, particularly at times of financial uncertainty. Much better surely than the high-spending, hope-to bloody-hell-the-future-sales-can-keep up-with-us model?
Well having 16 distributers with different price points and strengths in different geographical regions would seem to be more resilient than depending on one agency.
And even if photographer Y has 3 times the cost per image created of photographer S, if it is sold through 16 channels I would wager that the more money is made.....
[/color]
At last we have something we can agree on. Being exclusive is a sure-fire way of maximising risk and minimising 'profit' __ the real stuff you can spend on wine, women and further investments.
-
Interesting way of posting , first it was red , than you added green then blue so it has to be something about RGB. ;D
-
michaelo...try to ignore the bait ;-) your answers were perfectly reasonable.
my two cents: I have looked at the "stars" of microstock pretty carefully these days in the context of my own research and, to quote from one of my favourite plays, sometimes it seems like there's something rotten in the state of Denmark ;-) the talent certainly is there, and the ability and the marketing genius.....but the saturation of the industry is not going to help anyone. I am pretty fabulous at coordinating too, even if I had the money, I'm not about to open a studio, hire a team of people, outsource my keywording and my uploading, and call myself a photographer. this is an issue I have only recently learned a whole lot about...and it was a big eye opener. jokes aside, nothing personal about anyone....but from a professional perspective, I could never put my name on anything unless I produced every little part of it.
imagine a world renowned author who named some characters, wrote out a plot outline and then handed over the skeleton to a team of authors, editors and artists to write and market the book? this happens, and the publishers make millions. but entirely at the expense of literature produced by hard working, talented and deserving authors who would never sell their souls in order to be #1. I mean My Life by Bill Clinton...come on, an utter piece of garbage...why not just call it The Cigar Chronicles. I'd like to think that for most of us the art of photography and putting our names on our art means that it is ours...unequivocally, entirely.
-
Sure but consider this: yuri fires all the people that help him, stops producing new images and alone starts to edit and keyword all those images sitting on his HDD that are probably better than 90% of the images on stock sites but just didn't get chosen because of his dedication to perfection. Who will have the biggest profits then?
PS: Ofc in the long run he would have to start producing new images, but who knows which approach is better in the long run?
-
Gostwyck
As you are unable to perform a simple forum search here is the link to Yuri's post where he details production costs
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/are-things-going-well-in-microstock/msg30034/#msg30034
Once again profit is merely an accounting concept, by revaluing an asset on their balance sheet a business can post a loss or profit on their profit and loss account, it doesn't change the fundamentals of the business
And book value is the value a business has if it is liquidated right now, it the least conceptual metric there is.
But accounting probably isn't your forte.
And I didn't agree with you on the last point.
-
Interesting way of posting , first it was red , than you added green then blue so it has to be something about RGB. ;D
now if only gostwyck and michaelo could continue in CMY , we will finally get to the bottom of thing...
using both the additive and subtractive colours ;D
seriously, good point michaelo ;)
-
I'd admire your success on IS but just his sales alone on IS would cover his image production costs, and he submits to at least 15 other sites ....
So, thanks to you pulling up your quote, I can tell you his production costs do not cover his image production costs. :) Well, eventually, they might.
-
$20 per image and 720 hours I can see the problem.
if your costs are that high and your getting 20% or 30 cents that's a lot of sales to get to start to break even.
It will be about 4 years before he can get them onto Istock along with the million he must have waiting in the que to get on there.
-
I'd admire your success on IS but just his sales alone on IS would cover his image production costs, and he submits to at least 15 other sites ....
So, thanks to you pulling up your quote, I can tell you his production costs do not cover his image production costs. :) Well, eventually, they might.
Sean,
Yuri has 3985 files on IS,
If each cost $20 to shoot thats $79,160,
He has 519139 dls
He would only have to make an average of 15c per download to cover the costs ...
-
15 cents per download would cover those thousand but you need to remember the 10,000 that he can't get on there need to be included as well
I'm sure he makes a profit but Just think he might have outgrown the pond and needs to expand into RM,Macro etc for the expensive shoots.
-
Yuri has 3985 files on IS,
If each cost $20 to shoot thats $79,160,
He has 519139 dls
He would only have to make an average of 15c per download to cover the costs ...
I'm not saying you won't make money eventually, just that I don't think those costs and overhead are necessarily the smartest way to do things. And from that post you can see the problems.
"Doing this kind of production for microstock is not worth it, and looking at it from an investment point of view, it is time to downscale or find new waters…with higher prices."
-
One thing I can say: sometimes I am editing images, and then I think "Oh hell, now comes the tedious process of keywording". So outsourcing it doesn't seem a very bad idea, especially when you have hundreds of images to keyword and someone doing that for you for little money.
Regards,
Adelaide
-
I'd admire your success on IS but just his sales alone on IS would cover his image production costs, and he submits to at least 15 other sites ....
So, thanks to you pulling up your quote, I can tell you his production costs do not cover his image production costs. :) Well, eventually, they might.
Sean,
Yuri has 3985 files on IS,
If each cost $20 to shoot thats $79,160,
He has 519139 dls
He would only have to make an average of 15c per download to cover the costs ...
That $40,000 was for just for 3 months shoot producing 2,000 images (likely not including amortized equipment costs), of which he has a max of 100 on iStock. Also read the part where he says his income hasn't increased even with his new uploads. He's spending $160,000 per year to SIMPLY MAINTAIN HIS EARNINGS (which are actually down 5% according to his post). I hope for his sake that it has more to do with the economic downturn, but I have a feeling he's hit diminishing marginal returns and then some. Your math appears to be way off because you can't use 40,000/2,000 to arrive at the actual cost per image on iStock. $160,000 per year for 3 1/2 years for a total of 3985 files on iStock does not equal $20 per photo, and even that can't be accurate because we don't know what his expenses were in previous years.
Yuri treats this as a business, and as a business person he is understandably worried about the negative ROI he is experiencing.
This thread wasn't meant to be an endless debate about Yuri was it? The thread was suppose to be about your views of your future right?
-
does anyone really believe they know Yuri's (or anyone else's) real numbers? the whole discussion seems a bit ridiculous to me. Yuri sppears to be an industry all on his own. and it wouldn't be a bad thing for microstockers if he moved homogenously toward RM and traditional stock. I doubt his approach or success can be compared to anything any of us do.
his example aside, any company under the guise of an individual photographer presents a real threat to the microstock industry. there are probably a number of companies out there generating tons of 3D and vectors too and saturating . out of microstock databases. I would hope iStock and other companies would advocate on our behalf to protect all of our interests. that would be the long-term, smart thing to do IMO.
viewing these types of industry approaches as a means to short-term gain is a big mistake because of the projected impact it would have on the industry, buyers namely becoming bored and frustrated with swamps full of similar images. someone tried to tell me this over a year ago and I didn't get it. I've learned a lot since then and now I see what they were saying.
this has a lot to do with the future of microstock...how iStock and other agencies handle this issue will determine how successful we can expect to be competing with 'group contributors'. I think microstock will ultimately replace traditional stock models. I think microstock will become the new convention. but I'm still fairly new with only a few years in the industry, I'm sure there's a whole lot that I am missing.
-
In terms of production cost. I plan for about 20% profit at the end of the year.
I wanted to do this big scale, even if that would make me get a smaller profit. I feel ok about that. People like Andres R and others might have a profit at the same level as mine or even higher because of choosing a less costly business model.
-
In terms of production cost. I plan for about 20% profit at the end of the year.
I wanted to do this big scale, even if that would make me get a smaller profit. I feel ok about that. People like Andres R and others might have a profit at the same level as mine or even higher because of choosing a less costly business model.
Yuri, I have to ask: Why do you continue to do it then? At some point wouldn't it be better to scale back the production, cut costs dramatically, and just produce a smaller number of images while continuing to bring in nice profits from all of the images you already have in the market? You already have the name recognition, the exposure, the notoriety of being the top microstock producer, not to mention the impressive daily income that your current image collection provides. Will there come a time when you decide to cut back the production side of the business to ramp up the profits? I have to imagine that you could even shut down production completely and live comfortably off the profits for many years to come.
-
In terms of production cost. I plan for about 20% profit at the end of the year.
I wanted to do this big scale, even if that would make me get a smaller profit. I feel ok about that. People like Andres R and others might have a profit at the same level as mine or even higher because of choosing a less costly business model.
When are we going to start your own microstock site?
-
The major contributors can't form their own site unless they accept they will never sell elsewhere again. Shutterstock isn't going to let Serban contribute anymore than iStock will welcome Jon Oringer's collection. As soon as Yuri, AndresR, or Iofoto start their own microstock agency (not the same as selling your own images on your own site obviously), they become a competitor and will no longer be welcome elsewhere.