Author Topic: Sales have tanked big time (Read 208365 times)

gostwyck · « **Reply #375 on:** October 26, 2011, 12:14 »

Quote from: sharpshot on October 26, 2011, 05:40

That interview is hard to watch.

Ugh __ it's even harder to listen to. I see he's adopted the silly Australian end-of-sentence uplift which makes statements sound like questions. (Example 03.06 "... we're just trying to align that a little bit better ?"). It's fine when spoken in an Australian accent but otherwise it is extremely irritating. It makes a middle-age bloke sound like an anxious 14-year old girl. Total lightweight and was clearly out of his depth running Istock.

bunhill · « **Reply #376 on:** October 26, 2011, 12:15 »

Quote from: SNP on October 26, 2011, 11:44

In London someone asked about rejected files going to the partner program....we were told, fairly definitely, that this would not be happening. the reason given was that during many of the server renos etc., storage of data concerning reasons for a file's rejection was not maintained...therefore they couldn't just truck over rejected files (many of which may have been rejected due to copyright issues/lack of release etc.). I believe that they have zero plans for rejected content.

I suppose that would not exclude a system applicable to new content under which they could decide that particular images / batches would be most at home at the PP sites.

SNP · « **Reply #377 on:** October 26, 2011, 12:36 »

Quote from: bhr on October 26, 2011, 12:15

Quote from: SNP on October 26, 2011, 11:44
In London someone asked about rejected files going to the partner program....we were told, fairly definitely, that this would not be happening. the reason given was that during many of the server renos etc., storage of data concerning reasons for a file's rejection was not maintained...therefore they couldn't just truck over rejected files (many of which may have been rejected due to copyright issues/lack of release etc.). I believe that they have zero plans for rejected content.

I suppose that would not exclude a system applicable to new content under which they could decide that particular images / batches would be most at home at the PP sites.

I would agree that's a possibility. I think a new upload system will include designating files to collections right out of queue, much like it is now, but more tiers

RapidEye · « **Reply #378 on:** October 26, 2011, 12:36 »

Quote from: bhr on October 26, 2011, 12:15

I suppose that would not exclude a system applicable to new content under which they could decide that particular images / batches would be most at home at the PP sites.

The idea of some human deciding what stuff should be sold where makes my skin crawl. It would kill the genius of microstock -- the brilliant notion of accepting anything technically sound and then allowing the market to determine the fate of the file through the Best Match mechanism.

There are some pretty weird bestsellers in microstock, stuff that's so simple or so corny that no up-his-arse editor would ever have given it the nod. Only a pure market mechanism could ever have revealed that such images had enormous commercial value.

cthoman · « **Reply #379 on:** October 26, 2011, 12:37 »

It was interesting seeing the video. It really highlights the disparity between what I think is going on there and what they think is going on.

ShadySue · « **Reply #380 on:** October 26, 2011, 12:52 »

Quote from: SNP on October 26, 2011, 11:44

In London someone asked about rejected files going to the partner program....we were told, fairly definitely, that this would not be happening. the reason given was that during many of the server renos etc., storage of data concerning reasons for a file's rejection was not maintained...therefore they couldn't just truck over rejected files (many of which may have been rejected due to copyright issues/lack of release etc.). I believe that they have zero plans for rejected content.

Funny - I can see my rejection reasons right back to when I started.

SNP · « **Reply #381 on:** October 26, 2011, 12:53 »

Quote from: RapidEye on October 26, 2011, 12:36

Quote from: bhr on October 26, 2011, 12:15
I suppose that would not exclude a system applicable to new content under which they could decide that particular images / batches would be most at home at the PP sites.

The idea of some human deciding what stuff should be sold where makes my skin crawl. It would kill the genius of microstock -- the brilliant notion of accepting anything technically sound and then allowing the market to determine the fate of the file through the Best Match mechanism.

There are some pretty weird bestsellers in microstock, stuff that's so simple or so corny that no up-his-arse editor would ever have given it the nod. Only a pure market mechanism could ever have revealed that such images had enormous commercial value.

I agree with you in general. at the same time, there's an argument for files being designated to higher priced collections, where they do sell well, like Vetta. but I agree 100% that the simplest, corniest files sometimes end up being so commercially valuable, that it's like a kick in the pants to all the complex, artsy stuff we shoot.....

SNP · « **Reply #382 on:** October 26, 2011, 12:55 »

Quote from: ShadySue on October 26, 2011, 12:52

Quote from: SNP on October 26, 2011, 11:44
In London someone asked about rejected files going to the partner program....we were told, fairly definitely, that this would not be happening. the reason given was that during many of the server renos etc., storage of data concerning reasons for a file's rejection was not maintained...therefore they couldn't just truck over rejected files (many of which may have been rejected due to copyright issues/lack of release etc.). I believe that they have zero plans for rejected content.
Funny - I can see my rejection reasons right back to when I started.

me too...just relaying what we were told.

bunhill · « **Reply #383 on:** October 26, 2011, 13:03 »

Quote from: SNP on October 26, 2011, 12:55

me too...just relaying what we were told.

anything else that was said ? Tell us everything you know

SNP · « **Reply #384 on:** October 26, 2011, 13:08 »

Quote from: bhr on October 26, 2011, 13:03

Quote from: SNP on October 26, 2011, 12:55
me too...just relaying what we were told.

anything else that was said ? Tell us everything you know

I've shared what we were told already. most of it was general and somewhat vague. and for the record, I don't feel obligated to share anything. but if it's relevant, I don't have a problem discussing some of the plans, which they've already discussed publicly anyways. I know people think that some secret society happens at a Lypse, but it's really not like that.

michaeldb · « **Reply #385 on:** October 26, 2011, 13:14 »

Quote from: cthoman on October 26, 2011, 12:37

It was interesting seeing the video. It really highlights the disparity between what I think is going on there and what they think is going on.

"iStock runs like a well-oiled machine."
Interview with Kelly Thompson, iStockphoto / Getty Images October, 2011

Interesting to hear Kelly Thompson's job description, the details of his promotion. If his performance at IS was a success, what would be the definition of 'faillure'? No more traffifc on the site at all? Nico_blue's earnings dropping to 2004 levels? All Illustrators leaving the site? The worldview of Getty is a very different one than that of most microstockers, that much is certain.

bunhill · « **Reply #386 on:** October 26, 2011, 13:19 »

Quote from: SNP on October 26, 2011, 13:08

I know people think that some secret society happens at a Lypse, but it's really not like that.

I heard it was like the Bohemian Grove.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #387 on:** October 26, 2011, 13:20 »

Quote from: RapidEye on October 26, 2011, 12:36

Quote from: bhr on October 26, 2011, 12:15
I suppose that would not exclude a system applicable to new content under which they could decide that particular images / batches would be most at home at the PP sites.

The idea of some human deciding what stuff should be sold where makes my skin crawl. It would kill the genius of microstock -- the brilliant notion of accepting anything technically sound and then allowing the market to determine the fate of the file through the Best Match mechanism.

There are some pretty weird bestsellers in microstock, stuff that's so simple or so corny that no up-his-arse editor would ever have given it the nod. Only a pure market mechanism could ever have revealed that such images had enormous commercial value.

And I think that Getty's establishment of the Flickr collection was an acknowledgement that there was a market for some of the stuff that no editor would OK but that buyers find useful. Especially when there was a perception that collections were becoming too homogenous - smiling faces, perfect teeth - and wanting to find something "different".

Now that I'm not exclusive, I wouldn't mind as much having files placed in different sites IF I received RC credit for anywhere the file sold, and assuming I always had 100% control by being able to immediately disable a file if I didn't like the chosen destination.

So perhaps this whole universal submission system will go the way of logos and that neat new Mac-only interface (remember Dexter?) and never appear, or just be fashionably late like PNG. We're still waiting for anything from independents to show up on any of the partner sites (meaning the forced ingestion of all independent content not already voluntarily in the PP).

cobalt · « **Reply #388 on:** October 26, 2011, 13:40 »

We are just speculating based on Kellys interview. At the moment we are all waiting for the new referral system that "is better than the invention of microstock" and already they didn meet their own deadline. Who knows how long it would take them to add a gettylike system for istock.

I can see the logic of making istock the ingestion point for all the agencies they have though.

The Vetta collection looks pretty good, so their editors could certainly spot very artistic high quality content and move it up to getty. And for the getty contributors it would be great if the files getty rejects could find a life on istock.

cthoman · « **Reply #389 on:** October 26, 2011, 14:02 »

I guess the problem with the whole ingestion process is that I signed up to do business at iStock. I didn't sign up at Thinkstock, photos.com, clipart.com or even Getty. This whole "daddy knows best" is idiotic and patronizing.

Most of us know what plan is best for our bottom line, and it doesn't even remotely resemble what they are doing over there. Moving in a direction where you have less control over your images is not helping. If anything, we should have more control.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #390 on:** October 26, 2011, 14:28 »

Quote from: SNP on October 26, 2011, 12:53

I agree 100% that the simplest, corniest files sometimes end up being so commercially valuable, that it's like a kick in the pants to all the complex, artsy stuff we shoot.....

Simplicity is flexible. Being artistic is like adding filters (in fact, often it is adding filters) it limits the usage of the image.

SNP · « **Reply #391 on:** October 26, 2011, 14:37 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on October 26, 2011, 14:28

Quote from: SNP on October 26, 2011, 12:53
I agree 100% that the simplest, corniest files sometimes end up being so commercially valuable, that it's like a kick in the pants to all the complex, artsy stuff we shoot.....

Simplicity is flexible. Being artistic is like adding filters (in fact, often it is adding filters) it limits the usage of the image.

I think artistic is more than adding filters....but otherwise I agree completely with what you've said

cobalt · « **Reply #392 on:** October 26, 2011, 15:18 »

I don think aristic is "better" than generic. When I look at stock I just distinguish between high volume and low volume content and the related production costs. "Artistic" usually is the opposite of generic and therefore too specific to be sold in high volume. It does have the "whow factor", but stock sites are not an art gallery.

But to encourage "artistic" photographers to upload more "art" to stock, where they know it will sell a lot less than a brown envelope isolated on white, it has to be marketed in a different way and needs a higher price to be produced. That is all.

Doing "simple" well, is very, very, very hard work. I spend hours, sometimes more than a week until I get one still life right. But because it looks "simple" people think it is easy (and often don appreciate the amount of work I put into it).

Of course I get really mad when I see the copy cats stealing our compositions. Because arriving at this "simple" compositions that have a "flow", is such a challenge. Luckily the copycats often miss important details, so you can see it is a copy. But if B; serves it up first...anyway...different story.

I always think of the elegant design of the iPhone or the iPad. Once it is out - everyone say "this is easy" and tries to copy it.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #393 on:** October 26, 2011, 15:23 »

I guess that is what Vetta was invented for - to turn LCV "art" into HCV files. If so, it was an acknowlegement that microstock is not the proper place for it. It used to be that microstock provided the materials and designers created the art, but there were a lot of designers selling stock, anyway, and others who were too unskilled or too lazy to want to make their own artworks and preferred to have it ready-made.

Microstock Posts · « **Reply #394 on:** October 26, 2011, 15:54 »

I couldn't help noticing and obviously there's nothing in this apart from what could be regarded as a Freudian slip, but if you go to 4 minutes and 50 seconds he says, "The royalties don't matter as much as the total amount of money we can make....(extremely long pause)...for our photographers.."

I just found that amusing, have a look, it's funny.

SNP · « **Reply #395 on:** October 26, 2011, 19:00 »

^ I think you're pulling something out of the interview that isn't there. what is painful to watch is the interviewer. granted, language is obviously an issue, but I suspect he's terrible at interviewing in Italian too. I really can't understand the way people are characterized here. Kelly was exactly the way he was when I met him for the first time in London-- he was sincere and accessible. I agree that in writing he has come across in forums like he's detached from the community. in person he's not like that and I think he did well in this interview. I know that will be met with groans and goading...but so be it. in particular, he emphasized how well beyond the competition iStock is in terms of revenue. you can deny that all you want. doesn't make it untrue.

where they're really screwing up is NOT taking care to create a long-term growth situation for individual contributors. they've taken away so much incentive to produce, as well as placing goals well out of reach. they may be sitting pretty right now, but what happens when exclusive contributors, big ones, continue to express dissatisfaction? we keep seeing it reported over and over--major contributors losing sales...bad bad bad

cathyslife · « **Reply #396 on:** October 26, 2011, 19:31 »

Quote from: Microstock Posts on October 26, 2011, 15:54

I couldn't help noticing and obviously there's nothing in this apart from what could be regarded as a Freudian slip, but if you go to 4 minutes and 50 seconds he says, "The royalties don't matter as much as the total amount of money we can make....(extremely long pause)...for our photographers.."

I just found that amusing, have a look, it's funny.

Up to his old tricks, eh? Open mouth, insert foot. Too funny! But I'm sure he's a really nice person.

SNP · « **Reply #397 on:** October 26, 2011, 19:34 »

how many people commenting in here actually watched the interview?...never mind

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #398 on:** October 26, 2011, 19:40 »

Seems to be a lot of assumptions being made here.

The only nugget I got out of this whole thing is the single ingestion process which I'm assuming is a single page where all IS and Getty contributors will submit. I predicted they would eventually shuffle contributors between Getty and IS. So the Getty "pros" who are submitting low value stuff may end up with stuff at IS or even Photos.com.

This interview mentioned yet another prediction of mine

Getty = High Value
IS = Medium Value
TS/Photos.com = Low Value/Beginner

This may even get split up further with TS being subscription and Photos.com being beginner level

The ideal model for them would be one site that could be configured to control different collections and price levels for all contributors and content. It would reduce operational costs (one sales, marketing, service, and IT team) and also probably be more desirable to buyers as a one-stop-shop. The fact that IS no longer has a dedicated CEO and the new GM is an E-Commerce Project Manager in a part time leadership role would indicate this is the direction they're headed. Consolidation of all sites to one common technology platform.

Noodles · « **Reply #399 on:** October 26, 2011, 19:42 »

Quote from: SNP on October 26, 2011, 19:34

how many people commenting in here actually watched the interview?...never mind

I .................................................................................(extremely long pause).......................................................... agree

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Sales have tanked big time (Read 208365 times)

gostwyck

bunhill

SNP

RapidEye

cthoman

ShadySue

SNP

SNP

bunhill

SNP

michaeldb

bunhill

Jo Ann Snover

cobalt

cthoman

BaldricksTrousers

SNP

cobalt

BaldricksTrousers

Microstock Posts

SNP

cathyslife

SNP

PaulieWalnuts

Noodles

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors