MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: kelby on December 17, 2011, 08:00
-
seems that there's a new contributor from Getty in the istock agency collection http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=8294224 (http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=8294224) how many agencies still will land on istock?
-
Same old, same old pics, just like gazillions of other stock images, but all at Agency prices.
But it works for Clerkenwell_Images, http://www.istockphoto.com/search/portfolio/6549563/?facets={%2225%22%3A%226%22}#1c12c74 (http://www.istockphoto.com/search/portfolio/6549563/?facets={%2225%22%3A%226%22}#1c12c74) so there must be some buyers who search with the slider right at the top.
-
seems that there's a new contributor from Getty in the istock agency collection [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=8294224[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=8294224[/url]) how many agencies still will land on istock?
As many as they can shove in and get their 80% from.
-
As many as they can shove in and get their 80% from.
Sadly true. Unfortunately they risk destroying their own business through shoving all these 'collections' in at high prices. Istock are essentially morphing into the Getty business model that they so despised prior to 2006. It might be justifiable if there was a clear distinction in the quality, scarecity or the production cost of the more expensive images __ but plainly there isn't.
I remember, when microstock first started to impact on the sales of the traditional agencies, Bill Gates (as the owner of Corbis) asking "How do we sell our picture of a cow for $200 when others are selling their picture of a cow for $1?".
I think Istock probably hit the sweet-spot for prices in about 2009/10 when they first introduced Vetta, for truly exceptional images, limited to 1% of the collection and also higher prices for exclusive images. That seemed to work well for customers, contributors and Istock alike. That was also the brief period when I think I might have made slightly more money per month as an exclusive __ but not enough to justify the risk in doing so.
-
seems that there's a new contributor from Getty in the istock agency collection [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=8294224[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=8294224[/url]) how many agencies still will land on istock?
As many as they can shove in and get their 80% from.
yup. brutal.
-
Hey, he's got my business man ;)
My pic
(http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/102/102,1265970998,1/stock-photo-a-portrait-of-a-happy-asian-looking-business-man-46611061.jpg)
His pic
(http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/18672195/2/stock-photo-18672195-portrait-of-mid-age-doctor-smiling.jpg)
-
I thought I recognized his senior woman from somewhere too.
-
Yep. same old pics, same old faces. How stimulating.
-
So if iStock ends up looking almost like Getty, why will existing buyers shop there?
And for those exclusives who see Agency/Vetta as their way to make the money side of it work for them, aren't they going to feel choked out by this huge pile of OK images competing with theirs?
The original idea of Vetta (and to some extent Agency as it pertained to real iStock contributors) had some value to buyers. Encourage the production of things that couldn't be done for existing microstock prices by having a tightly edited collection at a higher price. There was a hiccup at the beginning as existing files got more expensive overnight and buyers were ticked, but there was some great content being produced.
Now, the buyer gets nothing new - they could get all this stuff, if they wanted, at Getty Images. They're just smearing the content around as many places as they can hoping to pick up a few new sales.
So it seems to me like a huge lose-lose for buyers and contributors. In the long run possibly also for iStock (if not for Getty) if too many buyers for the moderately priced material don't go there as much or at all.
-
Now, the buyer gets nothing new - they could get all this stuff, if they wanted, at Getty Images.
Or indeed, they could get near identical stuff, at a fraction of the price, in the ports of some of the top independents. Only difference being the actual models, and not even always that (see above).
-
seems that there's a new contributor from Getty in the istock agency collection [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=8294224[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=8294224[/url]) how many agencies still will land on istock?
Someone help me. Exclusive, I see the the crown and 56 images. Are we going to be watching the same kind of flood as EdStock or what's going on? Do some people get made instant Exclusive?
-
Peter Keller, International Man of Mystery....
(http://cdn.thetechjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/HLIC/e88241d231106798e90781335b935dbc.jpg)
Is he from an Istockalypse Tyler? He does look the same, the shape of his front teeth esp. Or are you the mysterious new Istock contributor?
I always wondered why people don't set up businesses to be exclusive at Istock and go indie as an individual. ( I myself am not ambitious enough :) )
-
the moral of the story is always the same :
any decent photographer can produce saleable stock images nowadays.
too many agencies around, too many photographers, gazillions of new photos added every week ....
how long before the stock industry implodes ?
-
Same old, same old pics, just like gazillions of other stock images, but all at Agency prices.
But it works for Clerkenwell_Images, [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/search/portfolio/6549563/?facets={%2225%22%3A%226%22}#1c12c74[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/search/portfolio/6549563/?facets={%2225%22%3A%226%22}#1c12c74)[/url] so there must be some buyers who search with the slider right at the top.
Perhaps some designers use the filter as a way of getting files that are not likely to appear all over the place because most others will prefer something cheaper.
-
the moral of the story is always the same :
any decent photographer can produce saleable stock images nowadays.
too many agencies around, too many photographers, gazillions of new photos added every week ....
how long before the stock industry implodes ?
Yep! just about it really and ofcourse the fact that with the exeption of a few agencies, others accept just about any old sheit into their files.
-
seems that there's a new contributor from Getty in the istock agency collection [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=8294224[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=8294224[/url]) how many agencies still will land on istock?
Someone help me. Exclusive, I see the the crown and 56 images. Are we going to be watching the same kind of flood as EdStock or what's going on? Do some people get made instant Exclusive?
They're more quasi- or pseudo-Exclusive. There have been quite a few already.
-
Now, the buyer gets nothing new - they could get all this stuff, if they wanted, at Getty Images.
Or indeed, they could get near identical stuff, at a fraction of the price, in the ports of some of the top independents. Only difference being the actual models, and not even always that (see above).
Hey Monkeybussinessimages has been a uploading a collection she amassed from how many years back onto Istock and anyone else who will have her. The collection was taken with a 1ds mark II which came out in what year (2003). These images are being sold as new with no mention that they have been used in previous years for who knows what.
-
Hey Monkeybussinessimages has been a uploading a collection she amassed from how many years back onto Istock and anyone else who will have her. The collection was taken with a 1ds mark II which came out in what year (2003). These images are being sold as new with no mention that they have been used in previous years for who knows what.
What's wrong with that? I'm not aware of any guarantees of 'image newness' on microstock sites.
-
Hey Monkeybussinessimages has been a uploading a collection she amassed from how many years back onto Istock and anyone else who will have her. The collection was taken with a 1ds mark II which came out in what year (2003). These images are being sold as new with no mention that they have been used in previous years for who knows what.
I don't think I made myself clear. I was not talking about the goods in the store, but the store itself. Why would having two stores that looked essentially the same, had the same owner and the same prices do anything but confuse buyers? There are various reasons why buyers choose one site over another as the place to buy items - one is subscription, one allows instant cash purchases but others make you buy credits, and so on.
I also was not commenting on the generally old and generally "meh" quality of the images that Getty is smothering iStock with. It was simply a reflection on the futility of Getty making iStock look almost exactly like Getty - they've moved iStock Agency & Vetta to Getty and a pile of iStock content to Thinkstock & photos.com, and are in the process of moving lots of Getty RF stuff to iStock.
People came to iStock for a reason; they have always had Getty to shop at if they wished.
Just because iStock has/had lots of traffic, Greedy Getty thought they could cash in by putting their stuff there too. But when they're done and they have two Getty sites with much of the same imagery, what's the point?
-
Other customers.
Not all the people that buy from istock shop at Getty direct.
It is like all the getty content (including my own images) that I am finding on Corbis, Masterfile, some Russian website etc...etc...
Most of these agencies have more or less the same images, but the agencies have different owners and apparently know how to attract "their kind" of customers.
Itīs like a company that makes jeans trousers or Nike shoes that are being sold in all kinds of stores around the world. Somehow they all survive although they all offer more or less the same things.
Or all these online computer shops - they all have the same computers, the same accessories etc...but they still find customers from somewhere.
-
Now, the buyer gets nothing new - they could get all this stuff, if they wanted, at Getty Images.
Or indeed, they could get near identical stuff, at a fraction of the price, in the ports of some of the top independents. Only difference being the actual models, and not even always that (see above).
Hey Monkeybussinessimages has been a uploading a collection she amassed from how many years back onto Istock and anyone else who will have her. The collection was taken with a 1ds mark II which came out in what year (2003). These images are being sold as new with no mention that they have been used in previous years for who knows what.
That camera was announced at the end of 2005. I don't know if it was available before 2006. Get your facts right.
Robert Doiseneau's Paris kiss is being sold as new, with no mention that it was taken in 1950. So your point is?
-
Other customers.
Not all the people that buy from istock shop at Getty direct.
It is like all the getty content (including my own images) that I am finding on Corbis, Masterfile, some Russian website etc...etc...
Most of these agencies have more or less the same images, but the agencies have different owners and apparently know how to attract "their kind" of customers....
Seems to me that these layers of distributors are a holdover from the old days when stock meant slides and physically moving things around. I get being able to talk to support in my language, pay in my currency and have a site in my language so I can easily get things done. But why a Corbis web site is carrying Getty images - and Sean found some of his on a Corbis site that came via Getty I think - still puzzles me. Inmangine and some other aggregators do it too - collections of content from all over via many layers of distribution deals.
I know that this happens, but I can't see how this business model will continue in the future. Surely this way of doing things will be gone in 5 or 10 years? Which is why I can't understand why you would layer this old-style business model on the "new" business model - microstock; in Getty's case iStock. Instead of taking iStock's model into the rest of their business, they seem to be burdening iStock with all the holdovers from their old ways.
-
Seems to me that these layers of distributors are a holdover from the old days when stock meant slides and physically moving things around. I get being able to talk to support in my language, pay in my currency and have a site in my language so I can easily get things done. But why a Corbis web site is carrying Getty images - and Sean found some of his on a Corbis site that came via Getty I think - still puzzles me. Inmangine and some other aggregators do it too - collections of content from all over via many layers of distribution deals.
I know that this happens, but I can't see how this business model will continue in the future. Surely this way of doing things will be gone in 5 or 10 years? Which is why I can't understand why you would layer this old-style business model on the "new" business model - microstock; in Getty's case iStock. Instead of taking iStock's model into the rest of their business, they seem to be burdening iStock with all the holdovers from their old ways.
I'm not sure I see an issue with amalgamating images from different agencies together in principle. Isn't that in a way what Ebay does, providing a structure where buyers can go and choose products from a range of suppliers?
The danger for Istock in this is that it becomes 'just another stock agency' rather than a microstock agency with a distinct product for a particular market. Bit too late for that now though.
-
I agree that the business model is historic and personally I would not be pursuing it in this way for the future. Like you say I understand different language/country "stores", I also understand specialized agencies (medical, agriculture) but otherwise...it sounds to me like brand dilution and it must cost quite a bit of money to support marketing all these different agencies (if they are all owned by Getty)
On the other hand, we donīt have any numbers and Getty obviously has a wealth of experience in managing several sites.
So maybe this kind of sublicensing of files is more profitable than we imagine.
-
I also fear the situation (especially with something like Getty) where each layer skims off 50 to 85% after a few shuffles there won't be much left for the artist. If H&F owns all of the other layers they just get to skim more - it is a win win for them and a lose lose for the artists.
-
seems that there's a new contributor from Getty in the istock agency collection [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=8294224[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=8294224[/url]) how many agencies still will land on istock?
Someone help me. Exclusive, I see the the crown and 56 images. Are we going to be watching the same kind of flood as EdStock or what's going on? Do some people get made instant Exclusive?
They're more quasi- or pseudo-Exclusive. There have been quite a few already.
I don't know what a Quasi or Pseudo exclusive is. Either they are or aren't, but they didn't get their crown by having the history or any of the other requirements. Kind of like getting a honorary designation without earning a real one.
Just figured out something else. Exclusives don't have the photos dropped into ThinkStock. That makes sense. IS keeps those house images protected from subs, unlike everyone else who's independent. OK got that one. ;)
-
Istock/Getty will become a lesson for the industry.
Internet is about content. A site doesn't create content, a site is made by content and content is made by contributors.
Istock is an example of a site that has grown by content created by contributors. Getty is a site that lost against sites like Istock and its management seems to think that they can move content around to sell it and that it can only be good. It's not. Moving content from Getty to Istock may make the content sell for a short time but will kill Istock in the long run as it did with Getty. Getty brand, Istock brand, any brand means nothing without content on internet.
Meanwhile, other sites that treat contributors better will get the best content and they will gain an edge against sites that try to enforce their will to contributors.
Because in the end, it's all about content. Sites don't create content, contributors do.
-
Nothing to do with how contributors are treated. Buyers of content couldnt care one bit about treatments or anything, they just want to get in, quickly find the shot and get out, no messing around.
getty, was very late, coming into the digital and micro, so rather then go their own way and create, they bought-up.
Getty has never created anything of their own, never been innovators or anything, they have always somehow amalgamated, what has stood in their way,i.e. serious competitors, etc. I mean to be frank, I dont know who has been schooling who, Getty or Lord Hanson ?
Back in the early 90s, Getty, was nothing really and their only way out in the commercial world was through Stones and Image-Bank, thats what put them on the map. Plus the fact, the old Mark-Getty, had an awful lot of money.
Now, Mark Getty, no matter what one thinks, he was lightyears above todays "triers". Differant cup of tea.
-
Nothing to do with how contributors are treated. Buyers of content couldnt care one bit about treatments or anything, they just want to get in, quickly find the shot and get out, no messing around.
You paint it as if a buyer could find a shot on a site regardless of the fact that it has to be uploaded first by a contributor.
Unfairness to contributors only results in less or no uploads, no new content, buyer cannot find it, no sale, buyer goes elsewhere.
Didn't you remove some best sellers from IS? How many of those shots do you think a buyer can find on IS?
-
Hey, he's got my business man ;)
My pic
([url]http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/102/102,1265970998,1/stock-photo-a-portrait-of-a-happy-asian-looking-business-man-46611061.jpg[/url])
His pic
([url]http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/18672195/2/stock-photo-18672195-portrait-of-mid-age-doctor-smiling.jpg[/url])
Funny
-
Edstocks now at 77590 so only 77534 to go
-
Nothing to do with how contributors are treated. Buyers of content couldnt care one bit about treatments or anything, they just want to get in, quickly find the shot and get out, no messing around.
You paint it as if a buyer could find a shot on a site regardless of the fact that it has to be uploaded first by a contributor.
Unfairness to contributors only results in less or no uploads, no new content, buyer cannot find it, no sale, buyer goes elsewhere.
Didn't you remove some best sellers from IS? How many of those shots do you think a buyer can find on IS?
Sure! listen Im on your side here. Yes I removed in the region of 100, files, blue flames, red ones, the lot. I know what you mean but mainly because i did not want them mirrored at TS.
Here is a thing! I dont know if its coincidence or what? but a number of files that I removed are showing LOTS! of increased revenue at mainly two other sites and I mean lots.
Buyers are conservative, they might scream and haggle a bit and then its blown over, know what I mean. Much worse for IS, are all the bugs, glitches, useless interface, etc, now thats really something which angers buyers.
-
That camera was announced at the end of 2005. I don't know if it was available before 2006. Get your facts right.
Robert Doiseneau's Paris kiss is being sold as new, with no mention that it was taken in 1950. So your point is?
I suppose that if one believes quality = technical quality, then images made with older kit will be considered not as good. I like to think that the person behind the lens still has some bearing on the quality of an image.
-
Peter Keller, International Man of Mystery....
([url]http://cdn.thetechjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/HLIC/e88241d231106798e90781335b935dbc.jpg[/url])
Is he from an Istockalypse Tyler? He does look the same, the shape of his front teeth esp. Or are you the mysterious new Istock contributor?
I always wondered why people don't set up businesses to be exclusive at Istock and go indie as an individual. ( I myself am not ambitious enough :) )
No he wasn't an istockalypse model (that I know of). I just used him myself once in a shoot, and the model obviously was used by the other photographer as well.