Author Topic: best match shake 13/07/11 (Read 21650 times)

SNP · « **Reply #100 on:** July 14, 2011, 21:21 »

thank you for the long and thoughtful response to my question Jasmin. maybe this would be better suited in its own thread, but to digress one more time about the PP...your comments--as a former admin--are interesting. I certainly acknowledge your insight and experience----but there are two problems that I see. One is that which Sean pointed out, that some contributors don't wish to contribute to the subs market. that's not me per se. I don't mind the idea of submitting some content to one market and DIFFERENT content to other markets.

saying that, what happens if content is mirrored across buyer groups so successfully that it irreversibly changes buying behaviour? I'm certainly not an economist, but it stands to reason that very successful/content rich PP sites would certainly cause buyer migration over time...how long would the PAYG model avoid being fatally eroded?

lagereek · « **Reply #101 on:** July 14, 2011, 23:38 »

Same here! I have had two good days, not only that but Im glad to see, lots of differant files are selling, old and newer ones. Oh well, Santa came early this year.

cobalt · « **Reply #102 on:** July 15, 2011, 00:18 »

Hi Stacey,

I may be a former inspector and moderator but I never had any insight into marketing plans, best match secrets etc...on that front I had to make my own educated guesses, just like all other members...however, because I see how hard people are working on the different admins teams, I maybe have more trust in their actions than the average contributor.

What happens when all content is duplicated on the PP, which is a different site than istock? Well what about the independents spreading their files over all the different stock sites?? If subscription and cheap files was all the buyers wanted, all pay as you go sites would have folded a long time ago. IMO.

I think the key lies in the istock marketing. If they promote pp sites more than istock and add an attractive pay as you go package, then pp becomes a threat. But why should they do that?? It is expensive to move traffic, if the buyers are on istock, why should they encourage them to leave?

The day I feel that pp is threatening my income, I will pull my files, that´s for sure. For now I don´t see it, also because different files are bestsellers there. Many files that never had a sale on istock or were slow on istock are selling on pp. Just like some files "awoke" in the dollar bin and now have flames.

I think having several sites and moving content around is a good way to deal with the oversupply of files. For instance I can think of some kind of time based program to move content. Something like: what doesn´t sell on getty as RM even once - goes to getty RF. What doesn´t sell on getty RF even once goes to istock (or jupiterimages or punchstock) . What doesn´t sell on istock in 3-5 years even once goes to pp...or the dollar bin.

Of course I would prefer if the contributor always had the choice in that. But when files don´t sell over a really long time, they might do better on a different site. How much time? That will depend on many things.

I already deleted many files from istock when I put them into PP and even when I upload new files I might decide to put some weaker images or outtakes straight into PP.

So for me it is a useful system. At least in principle.

I do see a risk that because the contributors get a lower percentage on pp than on istock, that there is a possibility that the agency may benefit more than the contributor if a customer signs up there instead of istock.

But the pp sites don´t have the V/A content. And I think these files are extremely valuable in boosting revenue.
So I think marketing will always try to bring customers to istock or Getty first (where the prices are even higher).

I am not against having "luxury collections" or different price points on istock. I just have a problem with the way they were dominating best match if they have no sales.

I thought it was very bad for business and if I look at what happened to the traffic, it looks like my nightmares came true. Especially because the low sales were predictable IMO (because of the style, not the price). Putting them all in front will of course boost their sales in general, but wine is not coffee, those coming in for coffee and finding 60% wine on the first three pages will obviously go elsewhere. Plus you frustrate the "coffee producing contributors" who have time and money invested in developing very generic files for high volume sales.

Again, all of the above is my own conjecture. No crystal ball involved.

SNP · « **Reply #103 on:** July 15, 2011, 00:51 »

^ like your coffee/wine analogy....very true. I had thought you to be an admin...my apologies. not that you were ONLY an inspector, lol. the partner program worries me a good deal. likely what makes me so uneasy is the way it's been implemented, rather than the fact that it exists at all. I really dislike the model and question its long-term viability and impact on buying. your sub sites to PAYG sites co-existing for years argument makes sense...but mirroring my own content in this manner just doesn't sit well with me. anyways, thanks for indulging my questions, much appreciated.

sorry to have stayed on this tangent for a few posts.

cobalt · « **Reply #104 on:** July 15, 2011, 00:59 »

Don´t feel sorry. There is a lot of confusion around the pp program and although they keep saying that best match is a secret, we at least need to know who the main target group of buyers is, so that we can adjust our image production.

Especially because we are now integrated into the Getty umbrella with many,many different sites and collections that members need more direction and clear communication in what to produce or what is the best way to spread content over the different sites.

Feels good to derail a thread without having to feel bad for taking it off topic :-) At least for a few posts...it is fun to be a normal contributor ;-)

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #105 on:** July 15, 2011, 02:06 »

Quote from: gostwyck on July 14, 2011, 13:42

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on July 14, 2011, 12:18
I think that as suppliers all we can do is try to ride the waves, not control them. The industry is driven by forces that are far beyond ability of anybody with just a few thousand images to control. I know some people say that is defeatist, I think it is realistic.

No, your thoughts are just defeatist. The fact that Getty actually increased commissions at TS, in a desperate attempt to attract more contributors and their content, is proof that we suppliers most definitely can influence issues if we make a stand.

Well, that's your interpretation. If you can provide anything other than wishful thinking to support your assertion, I'd be interested to see it.

Tell me this: If they were desperate to increase the IS content on TS, then why start by increasing the payout rather than fixing the thing that transfers content there? Why not just scrap or reduce the 18-month delay for exclusives? If the rate was boosted to try to pull in more suppliers, why not make a big fuss about it, so they actually know what is happening - was the announcement ever more than just a post in the forums? And if you are right, why did they make the increase retroactive?

Now, if you had chosen the Vetta vector strike as an example, then you would have had a point. But the thing they were protesting against was so obviously ridiculous that everybody would support that boycott and iStock could see immediately that they had screwed up. That's a special case.

cobalt · « **Reply #106 on:** July 15, 2011, 15:46 »

Hi Stacey,

just wanted to add one more thing about the PP Programm. Of course, It only makes sense if the pp Program focusses on subscriptions.

I just remembered that some people heard that the PP programm was a good place for the buyers who want cheap files to go and that by focussing istock on the high quality content V/A they knew they would have to sacrifice "cheap" buyers. If this means they are promoting PP sites for Pay as you go and hoping customers who don´t like the high prices on istock will go to PP - that makes no sense whatever. Why on earth would you want to lose traffic from istock??

When customers are not happy with istock - where will they go? The competition of course. Shutterstock, Dreamstime, Fotolia. These sites are well established and have a good market presence. PP sites are new, making them known internationally will take years and cost a lot of money. If this is the intent, then I am not suprised that the agency needs more money. Promoting and marketing many different sites and brands running parallel must be very expensive. At the same time the competition is not diluting their efforts and focus on mainly one (or two) sites.

http://siteanalytics.compete.com/istockphoto.com+shutterstock.com+dreamstime.com/

Looking at the stats customers left istock and proportionally and in the same time frame signed up with other well known sites.

Now that Shutterstock has overtaken istock, what is going to stop them from offering a V/A programm of their own?

Usually on the internet companies strive to become the total 800 pound gorilla (amazon, itunes, ebay). Amazon offers a lot more products than we have files on istock. There must be other things you can do with the user interface to manage the rising number of files. Moving low sellers to a subscription site makes sense, but encouraging pay as go customers to leave istock and split the traffic - this I don´t understand. Customers want a one stop shop. Two payment models, two sites. They could probably ad a "getty" area on istock showcasing selected high quality collections, like they have for video and vectors and it would work well. It would all be on the same site. Focussing on a small buyer group makes you very vulnerable.

if they want to get rid of the low sellers and unclog the search they could also just remove them from the general search but offer to keep them in the artists portfolio if the artist wants them there. The main collection could be more a showcase for the most successful work, the artists webshop however could have more files including outtakes from the series.

This would be an easy way to keep the main collection fresh, while giving the artist the control over his own portfolio and helping him to develop his own group of buyers who like his or her style.

I hope the price slider and best match changes bring our customers back. If Dreamstime and Fotolia overtake us...that would be sad.

But istock is a very dynamic company, they experiment and try things and learn. Over the years they´ve tried so many different strategies and they always corrected their mistakes. As an exclusive I hope they take their dominant position in the market back.

pancaketom · « **Reply #107 on:** July 15, 2011, 17:52 »

Quote from: cobalt on July 15, 2011, 15:46

...

Over the years they´ve tried so many different strategies and they always corrected their mistakes. ...

From my point of view that is not true, unless you are still giving them time to correct mistakes from years ago. Although the changes announced last fall really are the biggies.

lisafx · « **Reply #108 on:** July 15, 2011, 18:20 »

Quote from: cobalt on July 15, 2011, 15:46

http://siteanalytics.compete.com/istockphoto.com+shutterstock.com+dreamstime.com/

Looking at the stats customers left istock and proportionally and in the same time frame signed up with other well known sites.

Wow! That looks even more dire than the Alexa version. If I was exclusive at IS, that chart would scare the He11 out of me!

cobalt · « **Reply #109 on:** July 15, 2011, 18:30 »

It is scaring many people but at the same time I know a lot of people who are reporting excellent sales. There doesn´t seem to be a general drop, at least not among my friends. My own sales are very stable.

But the general loss in traffic is scary. Of course all sites are slowing down for the summer, so the graph goes down at the end.

lisafx · « **Reply #110 on:** July 15, 2011, 18:55 »

Quote from: cobalt on July 15, 2011, 18:30

It is scaring many people but at the same time I know a lot of people who are reporting excellent sales. There doesn´t seem to be a general drop, at least not among my friends. My own sales are very stable.

Thanks for sharing that info Jasmin. It makes sense to me. I assume you mean that revenues are holding steady, rather than actual download numbers? At least that's the impression I get reading the stats threads - downloads way down, but higher prices compensating for it.

If that is the case, it explains why exclusives would be seeing much more stable revenues than non-exclusives. For one thing, exclusive and collection images are favored in the best match, and for another, the high prices are propping up incomes. Non-exclusives are feeling the actual effects of the reduced traffic because we haven't had price rises on our images in a couple of years.

I guess the reason I would find this scary as an exclusive is that Istock isn't likely to be able to continue raising prices at the rates it has over the past couple of years. Once the price rises stop, exclusives will feel the hit from the departing buyers, and also from the RC targets that keep being raised to insulate Istock from their drop in traffic.

SNP · « **Reply #111 on:** July 15, 2011, 19:39 »

Jasmin - again, fantastic insights. thanks so much. I think you nailed it when you suggested that much of the fear (mine anyways) comes from the impression that any sales are welcome, even if it means sending buyers away from iStock to the partner program for 'cheaper' content. I hate the idea of it, and the implementation of it.

and what convinces me more of the direction is that Getty--and I do not mean to insinuate they're the bad guys, I don't feel that's correct--Getty is borrowing iStock's brand and buyers in order to push its underperforming assets. Its assets that garner greater royalty shares are being trucked into the iStock collections (particularly into higher placement/income colelctions too i.e. Agency). There is little sharing of the Getty brand in the other direction (for example, facilitating Gettyesque promotion for serious iStock editorial shooters)...

I think the breakdown I feel has/is happening can be attributed to prioritizing short-term bottom lines over protecting our brand in the long run. and that means protecting the viability of contribution to their site(s) for suppliers. As far as I'm concerned, despite the sincere and best efforts of a handful of truly caring, diligent people at both iStock and Getty...everyone is being squeezed by the penultimate bottom line. it's shortsighted IMHO. and the value of our work needs to be firmly maintained by contributors. that means not contributing to the partner program for me. but I doubt it will remain optional, and I'm curious how contributors will react to that. I know that I feel I should be unequivocally able to choose where my work is sold.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #112 on:** July 15, 2011, 21:38 »

Quote from: Freedom on July 14, 2011, 12:37

In the past 24-36 hours, best match has changed a few times again.

Thank You. That's what I've been trying to point out for a few years.

The BEst Match and search is always changing. Maybe by IP address, maybe by time of day, maybe based on the number of letters in the search, maybe a random number, but if someone is trying to figure it out or watching how they show and then move, it will make them crazy. There's no simple answer! But people keep thinking they have it solved. Then it changes again.

cobalt · « **Reply #113 on:** July 17, 2011, 10:57 »

"I assume you mean that revenues are holding steady, rather than actual download numbers?"

Yes, download numbers are down, but money is steady or even up, especially with V/A specialists.

"I think the breakdown I feel has/is happening can be attributed to prioritizing short-term bottom lines over protecting our brand in the long run."

maybe, i think they are genuinly trying to make all the different agencies under the Getty umbrella work together in a sensible way. But I do believe they have underestimated the power of the competition. You can´t just intentionally be ready to lose buyers - you have no control over where they sign up. many contributors have the impression that there is quite a bit of arrogance there - about "cheap buyers"and how much better it is to strive for the "honorable high paying clients".

However the only thing that counts is the commercial value of an image. istock is a business, not an art club. I remember reading an interview with someone from corbis a few years ago, where they admitted that the most successful image they had in that year was a close up shot of fresh green grass.

I love artistic images, I really do. And it is great that they present two specialized collections on the front page so those looking for cover art can find them easily. But the "sort by downloads" search tells you what style the buyers want. The more you deviate from that, the more established clients you lose.

Or in my model: looking at the stats tells us that if there is too much expensive wine in the search, the coffee buyers are flocking to the coffee shops - pretty fast.

Personally I am very sceptical if it is worth dividing up the buyer streams to so many different sites (with the exception of subscription). If istock is the biggest brand with the most traffic, why not find a way to integrate all the content there? You will still need the Getty site because it is an established brand for editorial and high end Rm/RF, but shouldn´t all other RF content be handled from istock??

I know they move content around a lot and sublicense to many different agencies. This seems like an old business model to me, from the catalogue days and when buyers couldn´t easily compare what is on offer worldwide with a mouse click.

Wouldn´t it make a lot more sense to very aggressively push one site? With the help of different collections, their sales teams can internally target specialized or regional markets. And for the regional markets, give more autonomy to the regional "stores" when they reach critical mass. Or language based stores.

But because it is all done under one brand you minimize internal rivalries and it becomes a lot easier to streamline it all from the top down. Especially the flow of communication has to be efficient. Communication problems are a very serious issue that costs tons of money because low morale lowers work effiency. Just look at how frustrated the contributors and obviously many buyers have become. It will also work the other way: if the contributors become positive and inspired, I am sure they are also good at handling the customer psychology well. You can´t separate the one from the other. Either you understand how people tick and can inspire them towards your goal, or you can´t.

Then of course there is the effect of social media, blogs, comments...the reputation of a company has a net effect on sales. That is why companies spend so much time and money carefully designing the reputation they want to have as a company and what they can do to achieve it.

So if they are pushing many different sites, the reputation of all these different brands have to be carefully controlled and balanced against each other. It sounds like a very expensive endeavour to me. Which makes it understandable why they would like more money from the artist (in addition to feeding their owners).

If it works - all hails to them. By the stats and the money we will judge...business is more transparent these days than ever before.

For me as a contributor the most important thing is that they keep bringing in many, many new buyers. Dilution is always a problem, but there are so many buyers out there that still don´t use stock, I am not worried about dilution for the next ten years.

But if they "sacrifice" buyers as a contributor I get squeezed from two end - more images on the site and less buyers to buy them.

Current best match looks good. I hope everyones salary at HQ is strongly tied into traffic, growth and buyer numbers, not just revenue. If Dreamstime and Fotolia overtake istock in the stats I will be really depressed.

SNP · « **Reply #114 on:** July 17, 2011, 11:02 »

Quote from: cobalt on July 17, 2011, 10:57

However the only thing that counts is the commercial value of an image. istock is a business, not an art club. I remember reading an interview with someone from corbis a few years ago, where they admitted that the most successful image they had in that year was a close up shot of fresh green grass.

I love artistic images, I really do. And it is great that they present two specialized collections on the front page so those looking for cover art can find them easily. But the "sort by downloads" search tells you what style the buyers want. The more you deviate from that, the more established clients you lose.

"not an art club".....I agree. and in many ways I feel it is being run like an art club over the past couple of years. a contributor I know fairly well makes literally ten times what I do and the best selling image for that contributor is-----grass on white background.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: best match shake 13/07/11 (Read 21650 times)

SNP

lagereek

cobalt

SNP

cobalt

BaldricksTrousers

cobalt

pancaketom

lisafx

cobalt

lisafx

SNP

RacePhoto

cobalt

SNP

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors