pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: My View on the future of IStock as a full-time non-exclusive microstocker  (Read 54706 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: December 03, 2008, 04:20 »
0
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.


« Reply #76 on: December 03, 2008, 04:32 »
0
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."

lagereek

« Reply #77 on: December 03, 2008, 04:40 »
0
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."



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?


« Reply #78 on: December 03, 2008, 05:21 »
0
Quote
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 ?? -> $$$$$$

« Reply #79 on: December 03, 2008, 10:20 »
0
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."



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.

« Reply #80 on: December 03, 2008, 10:31 »
0

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.

jon

« Reply #81 on: December 03, 2008, 10:32 »
0
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.

Tuilay

« Reply #82 on: December 03, 2008, 10:39 »
0
Quote
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!" ;)
« Last Edit: December 03, 2008, 10:42 by Tuilay »

lagereek

« Reply #83 on: December 03, 2008, 12:10 »
0
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.

« Reply #84 on: December 03, 2008, 12:11 »
0
Quote
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...


lagereek

« Reply #85 on: December 03, 2008, 12:20 »
0
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

« Reply #86 on: December 03, 2008, 12:33 »
0
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:)

fotomy

  • i'm not second class i'm non exclusive!
« Reply #87 on: December 04, 2008, 04:38 »
0
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!

« Reply #88 on: December 04, 2008, 07:17 »
0
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)
« Last Edit: December 04, 2008, 07:18 by borg »

hali

« Reply #89 on: December 04, 2008, 09:08 »
0
borg alert,  ;D
let me get my ray gun and zap you off the screen  ;D

« Reply #90 on: December 04, 2008, 09:56 »
0
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.

« Reply #91 on: December 04, 2008, 10:59 »
0
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,

« Reply #92 on: December 04, 2008, 11:01 »
0
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.

« Reply #93 on: December 04, 2008, 11:19 »
0
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

bittersweet

« Reply #94 on: December 04, 2008, 11:29 »
0
I think we should rename this thread "The Psychic Friends Network".  :D

« Reply #95 on: December 04, 2008, 11:33 »
0
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.

« Reply #96 on: December 04, 2008, 11:40 »
0
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...
« Last Edit: December 04, 2008, 11:45 by whitechild »

« Reply #97 on: December 04, 2008, 11:46 »
0
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...

« Reply #98 on: December 04, 2008, 11:52 »
0
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.

« Reply #99 on: December 04, 2008, 12:00 »
0
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
« Last Edit: December 04, 2008, 12:09 by whitechild »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
22 Replies
15110 Views
Last post March 05, 2007, 17:20
by madelaide
8 Replies
5793 Views
Last post August 30, 2007, 03:02
by leaf
4 Replies
3360 Views
Last post September 15, 2009, 21:49
by bad to the bone
16 Replies
7435 Views
Last post February 01, 2010, 10:17
by FD
4 Replies
3550 Views
Last post January 14, 2014, 14:06
by runeer

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors