MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: No crisis du jour at istockphoto?  (Read 18930 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

jbarber873

« Reply #25 on: April 27, 2011, 14:52 »
0
  On the other hand, spring is here, (CT, USA) the trees are turning green and none of my kids have gotten into trouble for over a week!  ;D


« Reply #26 on: April 28, 2011, 01:05 »
0
I'm just grateful that Shutterstock appear to be taking up some of the slack.

Yes indeed.  Also true for me (I'm very happy to say).

Well, thats just the problem. Even if buyers are leaving iStock and others are taking up SOME of the slack, it takes money from the whole industry. Shutterstock mostly sells subscriptions and compared to the price per image on iStock thats way less.
On the other hand - we had a similar situation last year when a lot of people were complaining about a very bad April after a BME March (for almost all contributors) if I remember right.

« Reply #27 on: April 28, 2011, 02:11 »
0
^^^Shutterstock are one of the biggest pay per download sites now.  They don't have those tiny blog pay per download commissions that istock have.  My portfolio isn't behind a lot of exclusive content.  I really don't mind if buyers go there, as I also have a much bigger portfolio there with all my recent uploads.  I stopped uploading to istock over 6 months ago.

« Reply #28 on: April 28, 2011, 15:45 »
0
^^^Shutterstock are one of the biggest pay per download sites now.  They don't have those tiny blog pay per download commissions that istock have.  My portfolio isn't behind a lot of exclusive content.  I really don't mind if buyers go there, as I also have a much bigger portfolio there with all my recent uploads.  I stopped uploading to istock over 6 months ago.

All very good points. 

My only problem is some of my istock buyers seem to have gotten lost on the way to shutterstock and never made it there.  Maybe they are at thinkstock instead? 

« Reply #29 on: April 28, 2011, 16:40 »
0
...On the other hand - we had a similar situation last year when a lot of people were complaining about a very bad April after a BME March (for almost all contributors) if I remember right.

It's true that March 2010 was spectacular for a lot of people, but I can't see any similarity between 2010 and 2011 beyond the presence of complaints.

What we're complaining about this year is what appears to be a massive own goal on iStock's part as Getty/H&F try to soak every last penny out of the business regardless of any long term damage they inflict. Last year it was complaining that April wasn't anything like as good as the amazing March.

« Reply #30 on: April 28, 2011, 16:59 »
0

It's true that March 2010 was spectacular for a lot of people, but I can't see any similarity between 2010 and 2011 beyond the presence of complaints.

What we're complaining about this year is what appears to be a massive own goal on iStock's part as Getty/H&F try to soak every last penny out of the business regardless of any long term damage they inflict. Last year it was complaining that April wasn't anything like as good as the amazing March.

Sort of makes me nostalgic for the complaints about ebb and flow and summer slumps from yesteryear... 

Reminds me the old cliche where the dad tells the crying kid "I'll give you something to cry about".  Looks like Getty gave us something to cry about.

« Reply #31 on: April 29, 2011, 00:04 »
0
Some valid points. All in all I think beside iStock grabbing a bigger part of the cake, our biggest problem for now are all the bugs on that site. Id love to see their real numbers - I bet they went way down since the beginning of the year. But I still feel that money is taken from the whole industry.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #32 on: April 29, 2011, 05:58 »
0
^^^Shutterstock are one of the biggest pay per download sites now.  They don't have those tiny blog pay per download commissions that istock have.  My portfolio isn't behind a lot of exclusive content.  I really don't mind if buyers go there, as I also have a much bigger portfolio there with all my recent uploads.  I stopped uploading to istock over 6 months ago.

All very good points. 

My only problem is some of my istock buyers seem to have gotten lost on the way to shutterstock and never made it there.  Maybe they are at thinkstock instead? 

Some buyers have said that once they get fed up with a micro site they skip the rest and go right to free alternatives like Flickr.

« Reply #33 on: April 29, 2011, 10:33 »
0
^^^Shutterstock are one of the biggest pay per download sites now.  They don't have those tiny blog pay per download commissions that istock have.  My portfolio isn't behind a lot of exclusive content.  I really don't mind if buyers go there, as I also have a much bigger portfolio there with all my recent uploads.  I stopped uploading to istock over 6 months ago.

All very good points. 

My only problem is some of my istock buyers seem to have gotten lost on the way to shutterstock and never made it there.  Maybe they are at thinkstock instead? 

Some buyers have said that once they get fed up with a micro site they skip the rest and go right to free alternatives like Flickr.

seriously?  I've never heard that one before.

lisafx

« Reply #34 on: April 29, 2011, 12:18 »
0

Some buyers have said that once they get fed up with a micro site they skip the rest and go right to free alternatives like Flickr.

Is Flickr really a free alternative to the micros?  I had thought Flikr is a site to display photos.  They aren't offering royalty-free licenses, are they?   I know individuals who have been approached about licensing images on Flikr, but mostly they ask for money.  Especially now that Getty has dangled the "pro stock producer" carrot under the noses of Flikr submitters. 

I'd be very surprised if Flikr would be considered a viable option for most professional image buyers/users.  Is this really such a widespread phenomenon?

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #35 on: April 29, 2011, 13:42 »
0

Some buyers have said that once they get fed up with a micro site they skip the rest and go right to free alternatives like Flickr.


Is Flickr really a free alternative to the micros?  I had thought Flikr is a site to display photos.  They aren't offering royalty-free licenses, are they?   I know individuals who have been approached about licensing images on Flikr, but mostly they ask for money.  Especially now that Getty has dangled the "pro stock producer" carrot under the noses of Flikr submitters. 

I'd be very surprised if Flikr would be considered a viable option for most professional image buyers/users.  Is this really such a widespread phenomenon?


I'm just using Flickr as an example. But you don't sound familiar with Creative Commons
which is what Flickr uses. If the image owner chooses they can set the CC license to allow images to be licensed commercially for free.

But my point is there are dozens of free sites. A risk is that if a micro site(s), or even contributors, drive buyers away from a specific micro site that you can't assume they will always go to another micro site. They may be irked enough to spend a little extra time searching for that good-enough free image.

« Reply #36 on: April 29, 2011, 14:11 »
0

Some buyers have said that once they get fed up with a micro site they skip the rest and go right to free alternatives like Flickr.


Is Flickr really a free alternative to the micros?  I had thought Flikr is a site to display photos.  They aren't offering royalty-free licenses, are they?   I know individuals who have been approached about licensing images on Flikr, but mostly they ask for money.  Especially now that Getty has dangled the "pro stock producer" carrot under the noses of Flikr submitters. 

I'd be very surprised if Flikr would be considered a viable option for most professional image buyers/users.  Is this really such a widespread phenomenon?


I'm just using Flickr as an example. But you don't sound familiar with Creative Commons
which is what Flickr uses. If the image owner chooses they can set the CC license to allow images to be licensed commercially for free.

But my point is there are dozens of free sites. A risk is that if a micro site(s), or even contributors, drive buyers away from a specific micro site that you can't assume they will always go to another micro site. They may be irked enough to spend a little extra time searching for that good-enough free image.


well that may be all well and good but navigating through some of these 'free' sties is often more trouble than it's worth so I'm surprised that "buyers" have the patience for that.

On the other hand, I had to do a presentation this week and had no budget for photos but I really needed some to spice up the presentation (why use a bunch of text on a slide when a good photo can say so much more?)  Anyhow, I wandered over to the free image section of Dreamstime and was able to find all the images I needed right there in the free section.  I also noticed that when I searched, they include, at the bottom of the page, additional images that are not free, just in case I dont find what I really need.  also - when I downloaded images - on the download page they show other images, many times from the same photographer within the same series or similar images that I could purchase as well.  Of course, I only took the free ones for this project, but I think that Dreamstime has an excellent approach to the market in this respect.  heck, I may even donate an image or two to the freebie section there just to see if it will help get some traffic and sales to some of my other photos.

so.. my point is that if the buyers are looking for free stuff, Dreamstime could garner some new customers if they did a marketing campaign/push on their free stuff in hopes of getting some cross-over sales. 

lisafx

« Reply #37 on: April 29, 2011, 14:50 »
0

I'm just using Flickr as an example. But you don't sound familiar with Creative Commons
which is what Flickr uses. If the image owner chooses they can set the CC license to allow images to be licensed commercially for free.



Really?  You got from that exchange that I am unfamiliar with Creative Commons?  Interesting. 

Actually, it is the ins and outs of Flikr I am unfamiliar with.  I have never uploaded anything to Fliker, and my only experience with them is the numerous times I have had to send DMCA letters because someone uploaded my images as their own. 

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #38 on: April 29, 2011, 19:58 »
0

I'm just using Flickr as an example. But you don't sound familiar with Creative Commons
which is what Flickr uses. If the image owner chooses they can set the CC license to allow images to be licensed commercially for free.



Really?  You got from that exchange that I am unfamiliar with Creative Commons?  Interesting. 

Actually, it is the ins and outs of Flikr I am unfamiliar with.  I have never uploaded anything to Fliker, and my only experience with them is the numerous times I have had to send DMCA letters because someone uploaded my images as their own. 


Do people just come here to argue and split hairs anymore? Here's what you said

Quote
Is Flickr really a free alternative to the micros?  I had thought Flikr is a site to display photos.  They aren't offering royalty-free licenses, are they?


Maybe you're being sarcastic and I didn't pick up on it but it sounds to me like you're not familiar with it.

Regardless of what the license is called if a designer can find a suitable image on Flickr under a commercial license they can use it.

If Flickr was useless for stock I don't think Getty would be recruiting people and licensing images through it.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #39 on: April 29, 2011, 20:28 »
0
Regardless of what the license is called if a designer can find a suitable image on Flickr under a commercial license they can use it.
Clearly with a caveat emptor and caveat vendor if some MR or IP issue was in a photo which was used commercially.

lagereek

« Reply #40 on: April 30, 2011, 01:24 »
0
Look!  since IS, fell apart, I have had twice as many ELs and three times more "demand sales"  at Shutterstock and many report the same story, dont tell me thats coincidence, its not.

TS,  forget it!  Im dealing with buyers in two countries, Scandinavia and England, I get a small but reasonable view and I can tell you, Thinkstock, is regarded as the ultimate amateur place, the happy home of the weekend-snappers. Serious buyers dont even consult Thinkstock.

Fair enough I have a very nieched portfolio and I get private mails all the time, every single day from buyers wanting this and that within my nieche, they want special price for say 10 shots, a bit of this, a bit of that, etc. Ultimatly I can tell by the conversation that some have scouted around IS but not being able to find, since their best match nowdays only flaunt Vettas and agency files on first 5 pages and they are of very poor quality when it comes to industrial shots.

Some of these mails result in sales but others will mail me back saying, Oh its OK!  we found them on Shutterstock, Fotolia, Dreamstime or whatever. This is not coincidence!

See, dont underestimate buyers, part of their job is to stay tuned to the market and whats happening, etc.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2011, 02:53 by lagereek »

« Reply #41 on: April 30, 2011, 05:03 »
0
Although I'm not a fan of subscription sales --the demise of microstock--, including Thinkstock, the fact is that I'm seeing a lot of Thinkstock stuff at magazines that used to have other ms sites, especially Shutterstock.

lagereek

« Reply #42 on: April 30, 2011, 05:16 »
0
So do I but it means nothing,  its only the result of their recent PR-drives, etc. I would imagine the plan is to soon incorporate IS with Thinkstock and thats the greatest favour Getty can do us independants, once IS lose its identity, thats it.
Its a crying shame really, the IS we once knew stood for something much more valuable then money, namely security and stabillity but with this new management, its become quite the opposite.

sc

« Reply #43 on: April 30, 2011, 12:01 »
0
I'm sorta jumping in late on this conversation about Flickr and this story I'm about to relate is exactly 2 years old April 2009), but I thought I'd toss it out there for everyone.

I was at an event where the guest speaker was Keith Bellows - Editor in Chief of National Geographic Traveler Magazine.  A friend organized the event and seated myself and my wife at the same dinner table as Mr. Bellows. We got the conversation around to photography and how they commission and buy images. He surprised me by saying the first place they look is Flickr. They only send photographers out for specific images they can't find or know don't exist, such as a specific person at a specific location. He said if they needed an image of 'Joe's Winery' (his example) in Sonoma they could probably find it on Flickr. They would rather contact the photographer and negotiate directly with them. He continued on to say that with the millions of images on Flickr the they could surely find one good enough for the publication. They really didn't care who the photographer is, if the image suits their needs.

So if he's saying that two years ago I imagine there are other buyers out there doing the same thing.

Steve

« Reply #44 on: April 30, 2011, 13:36 »
0
Sure, flickr's great to find pictures from people who just walk around shooting and upload random things from their day.  If that's what they want...

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #45 on: April 30, 2011, 13:47 »
0
Two years ago many microstock sites were accepting pretty much everything, so the difference in quality between Flickr and commercial stock images was probably smaller than now.

That said, I think Flickr is still a good place to find special pictures that microstock sites don't want: the alternative, artistic kind.

lisafx

« Reply #46 on: April 30, 2011, 14:43 »
0
I'm sorta jumping in late on this conversation about Flickr and this story I'm about to relate is exactly 2 years old April 2009), but I thought I'd toss it out there for everyone.

I was at an event where the guest speaker was Keith Bellows - Editor in Chief of National Geographic Traveler Magazine.  A friend organized the event and seated myself and my wife at the same dinner table as Mr. Bellows. We got the conversation around to photography and how they commission and buy images. He surprised me by saying the first place they look is Flickr. They only send photographers out for specific images they can't find or know don't exist, such as a specific person at a specific location. He said if they needed an image of 'Joe's Winery' (his example) in Sonoma they could probably find it on Flickr. They would rather contact the photographer and negotiate directly with them. He continued on to say that with the millions of images on Flickr the they could surely find one good enough for the publication. They really didn't care who the photographer is, if the image suits their needs.

So if he's saying that two years ago I imagine there are other buyers out there doing the same thing.

Steve

Thanks for relating this story Steve.  It is certainly a revelation to me.  I guess with National Geographic being editorial, there's no need for releases, but with the prevalence of stolen images uploaded to Flikr, it seems risky to use them. 

I would hope that commercial buyers would be more careful, but who knows?

@ Paulie, yes, I know that Getty recruits photographers through Flikr, but I would hope there is some sort of vetting process - at least determining image ownership, and releases if the images are going to be sold for commercial purposes.  As I said, I have no personal experience uploading to Flikr, so I don't know for sure.

There was a thread here awhile back where micro submitters who also upload to Flikr were posting, and I recall that most of them got very few actual sales requests there, and most of those were lowball.  Perhaps that has changed?  I would love to hear from anyone with recent experience about this.   

« Reply #47 on: April 30, 2011, 15:32 »
0
Sure, flickr's great to find pictures from people who just walk around shooting and upload random things from their day.  If that's what they want...

... and often it is although there is much more than just that on Flickr.

That typically indy style is very hip and commercial. And it has been on and off right back into the 80s. And work done by people who are doing what they love without thinking initially about money is often some of the best. I spend hours looking at Flickr just because the work is often so interesting. And there are some very well known photographers with Flickr accounts too.

There is also lots of very stylish and cool work on Flickr. Much of it available to licence now via Getty RF or RM either directly or via the Getty request to licence (via Getty).

I wonder whether there is much cross-over between Creative Commons and paid content. IE people looking for CC content who end up paying to use work. My hunch from talking to people is that many buyers are not especially price sensitive within certain broad parameters.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2011, 15:34 by bunhill »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #48 on: April 30, 2011, 15:39 »
0
Sure, flickr's great to find pictures from people who just walk around shooting and upload random things from their day.  If that's what they want...
I'm guessing such as Nat Geog don't have much need for models in studios and setups. Horses for courses.
Years ago, a guy I met showed me a super photo he had which Nat Geog had sourced from his totally personal website, which looked as though the oft-mentioned "12 year old nephew" had done in FrontPage. No matter, it was the photo they needed, and they paid what I assume was the 'going rate'.

« Reply #49 on: April 30, 2011, 16:37 »
0

Thank you, but my sales at IS are a crisis in themselves  :'( ;D
Unfortunately my too :(


Me three.   Sales drop is the worst I have ever seen in six years.  Looks like I will finish the month with around half what I would normally expect at IS.   Other sites are doing a bit better, but unfortunately not enough to compensate for the free fall at Istock. 

me 4, sales are 50% of march and about 65% of most months, the last 2 weeks have been the worst I've had since 2007 (including previous christmas and easter.)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
4881 Views
Last post October 27, 2008, 13:04
by RacePhoto
74 Replies
23685 Views
Last post June 02, 2009, 01:27
by leaf
Capitalism is the crisis

Started by Tror « 1 2  All » Off Topic

46 Replies
38739 Views
Last post July 07, 2013, 08:22
by Fred
9 Replies
3475 Views
Last post October 07, 2015, 01:25
by john_woodcock
11 Replies
12459 Views
Last post April 09, 2020, 07:59
by Bauman

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors