MicrostockGroup

Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: Gel-O Shooter on September 26, 2013, 19:56

Title: The "New" IS
Post by: Gel-O Shooter on September 26, 2013, 19:56
Dear IS,
I don't really care how many tweets you twitter, or new logos you roll out, or even how many matches you "freshen" up.  The fact remains that you have the stingiest royalty structure in the business and you will never get any more uploads from me until that changes.
Sincerely,
An X-Contributor

Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: mlwinphoto on September 26, 2013, 23:53
I went a couple of months without uploading then started with small numbers again a few weeks ago.  Complete waste of time.  I figured they wouldn't sell on iS with the way new files are being treated but was I hoping the new images would at least make it over to the PP sites.  However, my latest accepted are still squandering away on iStock and going nowhere.....along with the majority of my port.

'New' is getting old real fast.

Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Beppe Grillo on September 27, 2013, 00:41
I totally agree with the OP.
Cosmetic surgery can change your face, it can not change your soul…
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on September 27, 2013, 03:00
I uploaded 38 from May 19 to June 13. So far, they haven't made it to the PP. They've pulled in 30 views and four sales (total earnings: $2.20) since then. It seems to be a complete and utter waste of time uploading there now.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: sharpshot on September 27, 2013, 04:13
I haven't uploaded in months.  Now I only go there to withdraw money or delete images.  Deleting with the Greasemonkey script is fast and easy.  Much more fun than uploading and probably makes me about the same money :)
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Ariene on September 27, 2013, 04:45
Gel-O Shooter, I would give you over 500 votes - this is the number of images waiting to upload since May, but I won't upload. Why? Completly waste of time with iS. Not any more...
The other side, I believe they don't care our expectations. It's only our empty naive dreams...
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: jjneff on September 27, 2013, 05:35
It looks like my earnings for Sept. will be the same as Jan. of this year or lower! Now I am speaking of the video side. That is going over the cliff for me so I dropped my exclusivity! actually feel a sense of relief. SS keeps advertising and pushing into new markets as I hear them on the podcast I listen to a lot. iStock keeps messing with their site in hopes that will bring the buyers back. I have no respect for Getty management! they have proven that they have no respect for the artist. When they say if you are video exclusive that all your files go over to Getty that is not true! All of my files are not at Getty and just a handful from my latest submissions are there! For video iStock is now a graveyard. All these very talented artist have left. morganl, eyeidea, jamesb, RyanWalters, Multifocus ....and the list goes on. I never thought I would see this day with iStock but then again they are not the first company to wreck a good thing! I don't see a recovery in sight for them so if you are upset then look for new markets and ways to make money. While stock is the bulk of my income I do a lot of other photo/video work which is now making up more and more of my income. To stay alive as an artist you have to adapt, I am on plan B now and I have a plan C as well. Don't let a company suck the joy and life out of you! Your the artist and your work is worth more!
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: gostwyck on September 27, 2013, 08:05
I uploaded 38 from May 19 to June 13. So far, they haven't made it to the PP. They've pulled in 30 views and four sales (total earnings: $2.20) since then. It seems to be a complete and utter waste of time uploading there now.

I uploaded about 100 around the same time. As you say half of them haven't made it to the PP and sales over the 3 months wouldn't even have covered minimum wage for the time I spent uploading to their ridiculous system. Never again until a significant royalty increase and an end to the RC system.

Oh, and due to the price reduction it looks like this year I won't make the RC level to maintain my paltry 18% rate ... so now even less incentive to upload.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Copidosoma on September 27, 2013, 08:05
I finally figured out that as a non-exclusive I'm not wanted at IS. The recent pay-cuts and binning of all my images into the main collection were the final straw. Most sales there earned less than SS subs.

So, I've only gone back to remove my best sellers. No significant loss of income as I've had a great past few months at Shutterstock.

They would have to pull out some major changes (like image exclusivity or something) to make me even consider coming back.

Not that I'll be missed.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: jjneff on September 27, 2013, 08:15
I have been faithfully exclusive since 2007 for video and I was set to drop an RC level this year because of such low video sales.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: mlwinphoto on September 27, 2013, 09:23
I have been faithfully exclusive since 2007 for video and I was set to drop an RC level this year because of such low video sales.

Wow, you dropped your crown?  (Must have been very recently as the crown icon is still by your name.)  Good for you.  You'll sleep alot better at night.

Wake up iStock, you continue to lose more of your loyal exclusive base.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: tickstock on September 27, 2013, 09:28
I have been faithfully exclusive since 2007 for video and I was set to drop an RC level this year because of such low video sales.
I've been meaning to drop video exclusivity for a while now, just haven't spent much time focused on video this year.  Do you know if mirrored videos will stay up on Getty after going nonexclusive?
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on September 27, 2013, 09:35
Why does IS still list "trending" images by highest rating when no one but inspectors can rate anymore?

http://www.istockphoto.com/participate/contributor-lounge/trends (http://www.istockphoto.com/participate/contributor-lounge/trends)
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Xanox on September 27, 2013, 09:55
guys, the game is OVER at Istock !

what did you expected from a company eating up to 85% of any sales ?

and considering there are protests in places like Germany to set the minimum wage at 10 euro/day (13$) how is it even allowed to be legal to sell digital goods that require considerable production costs for as low as 0.15$ with the promise that somehow it will sell many times over time ?

because that is the problem, only a few of the new images you upload will sell many times, and one day you'll be lucky to sell once exactly as in RM.

and yet, this is not a problem for the agencies, it's our problem and we can only blame ourselves to stick with such a broken system and such greedy agencies that are only interested in monetizing huge volumes of images.

seriously, even if i was an amateur uploading on Flickr and Instagram what reason should i ever have to waste so much time in editing/keywording/uploading when the payout is such a joke ? at least on Flickr and Instagram you could be lucky and find the odd buyer requesting a Print or even an assignment, on istock you're buried and sandboxed.

at the same time Alamy is slashing prices once again, another BAD sign.
SS isn't showing any will to raise the fees, no matter if in most of the world the inflation is 10-15% in real terms, and if they can they will cut fees a bit more to show their shareholders they keep growing fast.

i would not recommend anybody to enter stock now.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Xanox on September 27, 2013, 09:56
Why does IS still list "trending" images by highest rating when no one but inspectors can rate anymore?

[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/participate/contributor-lounge/trends[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/participate/contributor-lounge/trends[/url])


they should remove the ranking, the forum, the profiles, everything, it doesnt make sense now to be half-agency and half social network.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: topol on September 27, 2013, 10:00
So what's new about it? They haven't even changed a thing not even the design, only the logo became even less memorable. It's the same dysfunctional junk site.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: luissantos84 on September 27, 2013, 10:00
i would not recommend anybody to enter stock now.

I agree, please guys remove portfolios ASAP ;D
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: jjneff on September 27, 2013, 10:04
I still have my crown :-) my Clapper will be gone on Oct.11 As far as I know video's that are at Getty will remain there even after you drop exclusivity. You will drop from 25% to 20% on Getty earnings. Of course I say this tongue in cheek as they can change and do to you whatever they want so nothing is guaranteed! I a still not thrilled with the sub prices at SS so I will keep my photos exclusive at IS for a while as photos are not my main focus. I am thrilled to be offering my full medical collection at SS and Pond5 in October, all of my clips are already loaded, keyworded and approved so all I have to do is flip the switch when my 30 days are up. 
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: cobalt on September 27, 2013, 10:04
In Germany the communists are demanding a minimum wage of 10 euros an hour...

It is your decision to sell files for 15 cents. Don't offer them for that price if you don't want to.

But many artists specialize in creating content for high volume sites and do very well with it.

The beauty of he internet is that you can sell wherever and however you want. Noone standing in the way of your success.

There are many more artists selling stock today then ever before and especially for people living in second/third world countries it is an amazing way to make money and be indepdent from their local job market.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: jbarber873 on September 27, 2013, 10:19
It looks like my earnings for Sept. will be the same as Jan. of this year or lower! Now I am speaking of the video side. That is going over the cliff for me so I dropped my exclusivity! actually feel a sense of relief. SS keeps advertising and pushing into new markets as I hear them on the podcast I listen to a lot. iStock keeps messing with their site in hopes that will bring the buyers back. I have no respect for Getty management! they have proven that they have no respect for the artist. When they say if you are video exclusive that all your files go over to Getty that is not true! All of my files are not at Getty and just a handful from my latest submissions are there! For video iStock is now a graveyard. All these very talented artist have left. morganl, eyeidea, jamesb, RyanWalters, Multifocus ....and the list goes on. I never thought I would see this day with iStock but then again they are not the first company to wreck a good thing! I don't see a recovery in sight for them so if you are upset then look for new markets and ways to make money. While stock is the bulk of my income I do a lot of other photo/video work which is now making up more and more of my income. To stay alive as an artist you have to adapt, I am on plan B now and I have a plan C as well. Don't let a company suck the joy and life out of you! Your the artist and your work is worth more!

This part is the heart of the matter. 2007 was a different world. Video is becoming a very important part of communication and the market is growing by leaps and bounds. It should have been easy for Istock to dominate the market, but as with everything else, they seem to revel in stupid management moves.
Things change, and unless you change with them, it's over.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: cobalt on September 28, 2013, 02:13
jjneff

Welcome in the world of indies!

Especially with video, I think you will soon recover lost income and it just feels great to see an increase in sales again in proportion to the work you put in.

It wasn't your fault that your income dropped on istock. And considering that video is a new and growing market it is incredible how they weren't able to grow their market share and kept fallin back.


Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Xanox on September 28, 2013, 02:16
There are many more artists selling stock today then ever before and especially for people living in second/third world countries it is an amazing way to make money and be indepdent from their local job market.

Actually i'm living in a third world country and i can tell you photographers here are not cheap and the cost of the gear is on par with china and japan with some lenses priced the same as Amazon US especially the good ones, the NGOs pay western rates and so do the wire agencies like AP/AFP/Reuters.

If you think you can come here and shoot marriages or studio/fashion stuff for a pittance you're wrong.
Prints, framing, and shipping are also on par with the rest of asia that means just a little cheaper than in the west, no big bargains unless you make big volumes.

Selling pics for 0.15$ can certainly help to survive if you live like the locals but the inflation is skyrocketing, with 0.15$ you can barely buy a few bananas at the market or a small bag of rice ... i mean 1kg of rice is 0.75$ for instance and same for a cheap meal on the street, that means 4-5 downloads at Thinkstock/PP !

If the agencies or the buyers are deluding themselves thinking some digital slave will shoot stock photos in poor countries for less than 1 dollar they're utterly wrong, 1$ is nothing even here and white collars earn easily 3-400$/month with managers earning up to 1000$, now who's going to buy 2-3000$ of gear and upload to SS/IS to starve with their miserable fees ? And how many in the third world have enough english skills to make a good keywording ? If they had all these skills they would work for photo studios, assignments, wire agencies, TVs, newspapers, not certainly microstock.

No glass ceiling in microstock ? wrong, think again, even in India they would refuse to work for such a pittance.


Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Xanox on September 28, 2013, 02:21
In Germany the communists are demanding a minimum wage of 10 euros an hour...

And rightly so, take a look at the cost of living in germany.

Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Ron on September 28, 2013, 02:40
In Germany the communists are demanding a minimum wage of 10 euros an hour...

And rightly so, take a look at the cost of living in germany.
Well, what is the cost of living in Germany? You seem to know.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: cobalt on September 28, 2013, 03:51
It varies greatly from region to region. Im some areas 700 euros net a month can be enough, because rent in some part of Germany is incredibly low and you receive around 184-214 euros government bonus per child irrespective of your personal income until the child is 18 (sometimes until 25). So assume two parents two children, one parent working part time (maybe in a 300 euro job) the family income with child allowance would still be 700+300+184+184 = 1368 euros. And this income includes 6 weeks of paid holidays a year (minimum is 25 work days, add a few public holidays - 6 weeks). Medical insurance is covered by the employer and will usually include the family.

In a place like Munich it would probably be difficult to survive on less than 1200 net a month. But in Munich you will also get much higher salaries. So in some parts of Germany even 5-7 euros an hour an hour can feed you, in some parts you will need more than 10 euros.

And obviously you can qualify yourself and move up to a different position where you will earn more. the educational infrastructure is superb and there is lots of government sponsored programs to qualify yourself. Education is usually free anyway, you just need to buy books etc...and if you are really poor and on government welfare they will even cover that.

If you have family and friends in parts of the world that are not as rich as Germany you can never understand how people who live her can complain anyway. School is free, University is nearly free or costs maybe 1200 euros a year. Loads of opportunities to get trained and educated and young people can always find a job.

There are some poorer regions where life is a little harder, but...you can move...which is what obviously many people do. In south Germany the cities are helping companies organize job events in Spain or eastern Europe to attract more workers, because they canīt find them anymore.

Obviously there will always be people who have difficult times. But I would rather fall on hard times in Germany and deal with governement bureaucracy than anywhere else, except maybe for Sweden or Norway or Holland.

So to "demand" a minimum of 10 euros a month for any job, anywhere in the country, if you consider everything the German governemnt offers for free and that other people living in other places have to toil and save for, especially the costs of educating their children, I think it is quite an arrogant thing to do.

I am not against setting minimum wages by the way. But I believe it should be done locally and be specific to a certain trade. And in some areas and for some jobs, the minimum wage can probably be higher than 10 euros.

But of course, anyone can keep asking for more and I am sure if we had a minimum wage of 10 euros, they would then demand 20...
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Beppe Grillo on September 28, 2013, 03:55
Cost of living is relatively low in Germany.

If you compare Berlin to Paris
http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=Germany&country2=France&city1=Berlin&city2=Paris (http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=Germany&country2=France&city1=Berlin&city2=Paris)

But even if you compare it to Moscow
http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=Germany&country2=Russia&city1=Berlin&city2=Moscow (http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=Germany&country2=Russia&city1=Berlin&city2=Moscow)

You can compare to Kiev, Ukraine, a town where the average income is no more than $300 a month…
(The national minimum salary should be around € 100)
http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=Germany&country2=Ukraine&city1=Berlin&city2=Kiev (http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=Germany&country2=Ukraine&city1=Berlin&city2=Kiev)


The neighbor's grass is always greener
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: cobalt on September 28, 2013, 04:23
Berlin is one of the cheapest cities to live in in Germany. My home town Cologne, the cost for renting is already around 30% higher, so is the cost of going out etc...

All the major cities in West Germany are a lot more expensive than Berlin. Which is why so many stock artists and creatives that make their money on the internet are moving to Berlin. I would do that too, if I didnīt have family obligations here.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: alberto on September 28, 2013, 04:29
Why does IS still list "trending" images by highest rating when no one but inspectors can rate anymore?

[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/participate/contributor-lounge/trends[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/participate/contributor-lounge/trends[/url])


I don't know how does it about rating. If the download section reflect what really happen is more interesting to me. There aren't professional files from the most downloaded professional artist, in last three months, last month and week section. Certainly special deal negotiated (exclusive files not really exclusive, his own site etc) can correct its number. Files are up to IS from a lot of months as "exclusive" without any great advantage... apparently. In the other hand maybe the income from RM is better.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Red Dove on September 28, 2013, 04:31
New schmoo - I preferred the vintage Istock of 2010/11 when my bestsellers were on page one of the best match and new work generated income. Bring it back please - but without the vintage site performance.

I don't know about Germany but living in England is damned expensive. My favourite Rich Tea biscuits have gone up 10% in Sainsburys.....10%!! Daylight robbery.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: jjneff on September 28, 2013, 18:37
Thanks Cobalt! Looking forward to spreading out in a brave new world  ;D
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: B8 on September 29, 2013, 02:40
Dear IS,
I don't really care how many tweets you twitter, or new logos you roll out, or even how many matches you "freshen" up.  The fact remains that you have the stingiest royalty structure in the business and you will never get any more uploads from me until that changes.
Sincerely,
An X-Contributor

Spot on. Great post. The bigger problem though is the fact that in the past contributors were able to tolerate all the hindrances and road blocks iStock would throw up because people were still making good money and could partially turn another cheek to all the blasphemy. Back then the mantra of "Shoot, Upload, Repeat" would often help one overcome short term drops in income from continuing site crashes, huge charge-backs on fraud, price increases, royalty decreases, bad search results, a mish mash of collections, the failure to mirror images on Getty, etc.

Nowadays, shoot, upload, repeat only means dashed expectations and a waste of time and money to create quality imagery that never sells or even gets looked at before it just disappears into the iStock abyss. As you said, they can tweak the heck out of the site now and introduce all these great new features they are touting but they have already thrown out the baby with the bathwater. And with so many buyers having gone for good it doesn't matter what you do to try and win them back. As the old saying goes, "you can't polish a tu*d". 
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Xanox on September 29, 2013, 04:00
Nowadays, shoot, upload, repeat only means dashed expectations and a waste of time and money to create quality imagery that never sells or even gets looked at before it just disappears into the iStock abyss. As you said, they can tweak the heck out of the site now and introduce all these great new features they are touting but they have already thrown out the baby with the bathwater. And with so many buyers having gone for good it doesn't matter what you do to try and win them back. As the old saying goes, "you can't polish a tu*d". 

of course.

the microstock model for photographers is BROKEN due to oversupply and we're telling this since many years already but nobody want to listen.

if that matters also RM is partially broke for the same reason, try selling images of the Tour Eiffel and good luck ...

same sh-it if you shoot news, at any event you see 100 photographers but only 4-5 of them will end up published on the major newspapers with the major wire agencies and earn some money, the others will go in stock archives, social networks, local newspapers, and quickly buried and forgotten.

what they did for sport events is limiting the number of photographers allowed to shoot on prime locations and it's working.

either they do the same for stock or nobody will be able to stay in business apart the agencies.

and agencies have no reason to change the current situation, this was their business plan from the start, "crowdsourcing", doesn't matter if made up of a few image factories and a ton of small contributors of if just by a sh-itload of amateurs and part timers.

if you price your images at 1$ that's exactly how buyers will value your work, as a 1$/image photographer !

micro is heading to become just an expensive hobby for most of the contributors and one day they will make 2+2 and realize how much it's such a waste of time and money.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Beppe Grillo on September 29, 2013, 04:00
^^^
you can't polish a tu*d

Are you sure?

http: // www. youtube.com/watch?v=yiJ9fy1qSFI
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Xanox on September 29, 2013, 04:07
as for Germany : it was just an example, what about places like Norway or Sweden then ? what can you buy there with 10 euro ? and yet they can buy a high-res professionally edited stock image for as low as 1$ !

how can this be sustainable for us ? soon even grilling burgers at mcdonalds will pay better than shooting/editing/keywording/uploading stock images.

look at the pricing for keywording for instance .. even in India the cheapest rates i see are 0.30-0.50$ per image and that's for bulk deals.

how can agencies have the guts to pay us 0.15$ for subs ? it's just crazy .. completely out of market and reality.
i'll rather sell prints on Flickr, 500px, FAA, RedBubble ...

Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: heywoody on September 29, 2013, 05:21
Breaking news - grilling burgers DOES pay better due to good old supply and demand.  The one (probably only) upside is that it's royalties not sales so work done in the past can continue to generate income.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: KimsCreativeHub on September 29, 2013, 07:57
It's true microstock is in danger of becoming microscopic, one reason is to be honest the global economy has taken a big hit the last 4-5 years.. Almost everyone in almost every industry, co., and family is feeling it.

Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: KimsCreativeHub on September 29, 2013, 07:59
I forgot to add that lowering already low prices is not the solution ... Saving designers "time" = more $$ for all
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: luissantos84 on September 29, 2013, 08:12
Nowadays, shoot, upload, repeat only means dashed expectations and a waste of time and money to create quality imagery that never sells or even gets looked at before it just disappears into the iStock abyss. As you said, they can tweak the heck out of the site now and introduce all these great new features they are touting but they have already thrown out the baby with the bathwater. And with so many buyers having gone for good it doesn't matter what you do to try and win them back. As the old saying goes, "you can't polish a tu*d". 

of course.

the microstock model for photographers is BROKEN due to oversupply and we're telling this since many years already but nobody want to listen.

if that matters also RM is partially broke for the same reason, try selling images of the Tour Eiffel and good luck ...

same sh-it if you shoot news, at any event you see 100 photographers but only 4-5 of them will end up published on the major newspapers with the major wire agencies and earn some money, the others will go in stock archives, social networks, local newspapers, and quickly buried and forgotten.

what they did for sport events is limiting the number of photographers allowed to shoot on prime locations and it's working.

either they do the same for stock or nobody will be able to stay in business apart the agencies.

and agencies have no reason to change the current situation, this was their business plan from the start, "crowdsourcing", doesn't matter if made up of a few image factories and a ton of small contributors of if just by a sh-itload of amateurs and part timers.

if you price your images at 1$ that's exactly how buyers will value your work, as a 1$/image photographer !

micro is heading to become just an expensive hobby for most of the contributors and one day they will make 2+2 and realize how much it's such a waste of time and money.

can we understand what are you working on? its not micro or macro right? why do you come here if you working outside the "internets"?
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: JPSDK on September 29, 2013, 08:21
Nowadays, shoot, upload, repeat only means dashed expectations and a waste of time and money to create quality imagery that never sells or even gets looked at before it just disappears into the iStock abyss. As you said, they can tweak the heck out of the site now and introduce all these great new features they are touting but they have already thrown out the baby with the bathwater. And with so many buyers having gone for good it doesn't matter what you do to try and win them back. As the old saying goes, "you can't polish a tu*d". 

of course.

the microstock model for photographers is BROKEN due to oversupply and we're telling this since many years already but nobody want to listen.

if that matters also RM is partially broke for the same reason, try selling images of the Tour Eiffel and good luck ...

same sh-it if you shoot news, at any event you see 100 photographers but only 4-5 of them will end up published on the major newspapers with the major wire agencies and earn some money, the others will go in stock archives, social networks, local newspapers, and quickly buried and forgotten.

what they did for sport events is limiting the number of photographers allowed to shoot on prime locations and it's working.

either they do the same for stock or nobody will be able to stay in business apart the agencies.

and agencies have no reason to change the current situation, this was their business plan from the start, "crowdsourcing", doesn't matter if made up of a few image factories and a ton of small contributors of if just by a sh-itload of amateurs and part timers.

if you price your images at 1$ that's exactly how buyers will value your work, as a 1$/image photographer !

micro is heading to become just an expensive hobby for most of the contributors and one day they will make 2+2 and realize how much it's such a waste of time and money.

this is true, and i agree.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: luissantos84 on September 29, 2013, 08:24
Nowadays, shoot, upload, repeat only means dashed expectations and a waste of time and money to create quality imagery that never sells or even gets looked at before it just disappears into the iStock abyss. As you said, they can tweak the heck out of the site now and introduce all these great new features they are touting but they have already thrown out the baby with the bathwater. And with so many buyers having gone for good it doesn't matter what you do to try and win them back. As the old saying goes, "you can't polish a tu*d". 

of course.

the microstock model for photographers is BROKEN due to oversupply and we're telling this since many years already but nobody want to listen.

if that matters also RM is partially broke for the same reason, try selling images of the Tour Eiffel and good luck ...

same sh-it if you shoot news, at any event you see 100 photographers but only 4-5 of them will end up published on the major newspapers with the major wire agencies and earn some money, the others will go in stock archives, social networks, local newspapers, and quickly buried and forgotten.

what they did for sport events is limiting the number of photographers allowed to shoot on prime locations and it's working.

either they do the same for stock or nobody will be able to stay in business apart the agencies.

and agencies have no reason to change the current situation, this was their business plan from the start, "crowdsourcing", doesn't matter if made up of a few image factories and a ton of small contributors of if just by a sh-itload of amateurs and part timers.

if you price your images at 1$ that's exactly how buyers will value your work, as a 1$/image photographer !

micro is heading to become just an expensive hobby for most of the contributors and one day they will make 2+2 and realize how much it's such a waste of time and money.

this is true, and i agree.

sure, what is the solution then? will we arrange a date and jump off all together? or will we continue to collect and most of these theories will fade away? if microstock/macrostock was doing so poorly we wouldn't be here... but yep its dead!
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: JPSDK on September 29, 2013, 08:41
Nowadays, shoot, upload, repeat only means dashed expectations and a waste of time and money to create quality imagery that never sells or even gets looked at before it just disappears into the iStock abyss. As you said, they can tweak the heck out of the site now and introduce all these great new features they are touting but they have already thrown out the baby with the bathwater. And with so many buyers having gone for good it doesn't matter what you do to try and win them back. As the old saying goes, "you can't polish a tu*d". 

of course.

the microstock model for photographers is BROKEN due to oversupply and we're telling this since many years already but nobody want to listen.

if that matters also RM is partially broke for the same reason, try selling images of the Tour Eiffel and good luck ...

same sh-it if you shoot news, at any event you see 100 photographers but only 4-5 of them will end up published on the major newspapers with the major wire agencies and earn some money, the others will go in stock archives, social networks, local newspapers, and quickly buried and forgotten.

what they did for sport events is limiting the number of photographers allowed to shoot on prime locations and it's working.

either they do the same for stock or nobody will be able to stay in business apart the agencies.

and agencies have no reason to change the current situation, this was their business plan from the start, "crowdsourcing", doesn't matter if made up of a few image factories and a ton of small contributors of if just by a sh-itload of amateurs and part timers.

if you price your images at 1$ that's exactly how buyers will value your work, as a 1$/image photographer !

micro is heading to become just an expensive hobby for most of the contributors and one day they will make 2+2 and realize how much it's such a waste of time and money.

this is true, and i agree.

sure, what is the solution then? will we arrange a date and jump off all together? or will we continue to collect and most of these theories will fade away? if microstock/macrostock was doing so poorly we wouldn't be here... but yep its dead!

we should, and we have done.
D-day had an impact on istock.
If we could unite in some way, our power would rise manifold, instead of us all competing against eachoter.

The way to do it is to align all contributors to a certain agency an demand that the agency negotiate with us.
Next step is to demand that only members of the union are allowed to contribute.
It works in real life, the system was introduced 100 years ago along with the coops. Society and everybody benifited much from it and the Nordic welfare states are founded on it.

I cannot see how it cannot be done in a global networking environment, I just dont know how.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: luissantos84 on September 29, 2013, 08:42
guess I will make lunch now!
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Xanox on September 29, 2013, 09:12
sure, what is the solution then? will we arrange a date and jump off all together? or will we continue to collect and most of these theories will fade away? if microstock/macrostock was doing so poorly we wouldn't be here... but yep its dead!

there's no realistic solutions.

for most of the photographers stock will just become a side business rather than their core business.
for all the others just an expensive hobby.

image factories will survive, eventually cutting costs even further.

i mean it's the same scenario we can see in other industries like ebooks, music, and more.
nobody is making a living with ebooks unless they're either very talented and with the right connections or can produce a new book every month.

publishers make good money with ebooks, but not writers, writers do it as a side hobby, or for vanity, or whatever.
of course there's the odd writer making a million with one single book, but that's the exception to the rule.

music, even worse, but they can get good money with gigs, anybody else play in a band for fun and beer money, others DJ for free at parties or birthdays.

nobody from outside the industry will notice that photographers can no longer make a living with stock alone and
 many RM stockers have already left the industry years ago, do you see anybody missing them ? i don't, and they moved to greener pastured or started a new career elsewhere, that's life.

of course in a perfect world the top tier stockers would start a big collective and force the agencies to pay decent fees but it never happened so far, especially for wire agencies, and neither for art galleries, magazines, weddings .. the only thing i can remember is some unions in big newspapers setting minimum prices for assignments but that's all.

because, the breadwinner is all these industries is the one who finding the buyers and getting paid by the buyers, anybody else comes later and is seen as a cost, we're a cost not a resource, our products are dime a dozen in the actual scenario, any decent amateur can produce a few decent saleable stock images and that's a fact and the root of all evils.

in conclusion, joining an image factory is maybe the best option nowadays.

but we should all think if begging for money to such greedy agencies is what we want to achieve because there's no reason for the situation to improve anytime soon.

selling prints on your own web site doesn't make sense if what you sell is the average stock imagery that could be bought anywhere else, you're simply not adding any value, even Yuri is not getting rich with his own agency despite having 100,000+ images on sale and having invested millions on it.




Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: JPSDK on September 29, 2013, 09:27
that is the sad truth.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: luissantos84 on September 29, 2013, 09:27
there isn't a solution like you have said and even image factories will have decreased returns in the future as well, pretty much we are in this alone and will leave alone, nobody will join forces and fight against the evil, even if the evil decide to pay 50% royalties it won't help because that will drive even more contributors and instead of 200k files a week we will have 400k ;D

I also don't think that iStock is doing poorly for the majority of indies and some exclusives because of the d-day, they still have fresh content entering their doors everyday, they just managed to lose buyers to competition perhaps due to their cool search or the super fast website
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Xanox on September 29, 2013, 10:21
i'm not saying stock is dead and tomorrow we should all leave in droves to grill burgers.

i'm saying in the long term there's no hope for any improvement for us so we must be aware that this industry for us is moribund and hopeless.

should we keep stock as a side business  ? YES !

but, we should focus on other venues too, and quickly.

however we may paint the situation, none of us can compete with the image factories nor can realistically bargain a better deal with agencies.

i've friends here doing exhibitions, fine-art, news assignments, documentaries, there's a whole world outside stock and they get decent money out of it, i see no reason to stick with stock for the years to come, including RM as RM is doomed too in my opinion, it will just take longer than for RF/micro but the fate of RM is being merely used for archival imagery and obscure subjects.

i feel stock is cr-ap from any perspective, it gives no freedom and it even lowers my skills, and only my skills can make the difference between a 1$ image and a 500$ fine-art print.

i want to be a true artist, selling prints and doing exhibitions, earning thousands a pop, i'm done with this 1$ BS market and while the odd 500$ RM sale is welcome i've absolutely no control about what agencies have in store for me tomorrow or after tomorrow.


 
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on September 29, 2013, 10:57
i want to be a true artist, selling prints and doing exhibitions, earning thousands a pop,

I thought true artists starved in garrets.

Seriously, though, I pretty much agree with you. Microstock has been a fabulous ride for those of us who got in early and made a significant effort - and it certainly taught me a hell of a lot about my hobby - I'll be pretty happy if it will continue to cover my living costs for the next four or five years but I have my doubts.

These days, I suppose that if a job keeps you going for 10 years or so before you have to move on then you can't complain too much - especially when it is pleasant and undemanding.

Good luck in fulfilling your ambitions.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: sharpshot on September 29, 2013, 13:11
It's true microstock is in danger of becoming microscopic, one reason is to be honest the global economy has taken a big hit the last 4-5 years.. Almost everyone in almost every industry, co., and family is feeling it.
Shouldn't that help microstock, as the prices are cheaper than Getty. Corbis, alamy and the other traditional sites?  I don't think the big microstock sites have had much trouble in the economic downturn.  Some of the small ones that started late and had to borrow too much money have gone but that was down to their poor business decisions.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: KimsCreativeHub on September 29, 2013, 17:45
You would think.. I could be getting the wrong pic but... "no pun :
;) " 8 out of 10 posts here about sales say their down (all agencies) that's where my info has come from and news and my own situation with my husbands 3yr pay freeze.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: sharpshot on September 29, 2013, 18:12
I think sales might be down for most people but as there are many more of us than a few years ago, that doesn't mean the sites aren't doing well or that buyers are buying less.  I think that microstock is still growing but with commission cuts and over supply, it isn't as easy for contributors to make money.  I also think that if you look back every year, there's always been more people complaining about their sales than those saying they're doing well.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: KimsCreativeHub on September 29, 2013, 19:13
Good points, less people brag :)
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: LesPalenik on September 29, 2013, 21:37
Quote
i've friends here doing exhibitions, fine-art, news assignments, documentaries, there's a whole world outside stock and they get decent money out of it

I don't think selling at exhibitions and art fairs is a viable solution. Maybe at special venues or for very talented artists.
At the fairs I've visited, I see every year new hopefuls in their booths and after trying it once or twice, they count their losses and never return. Even many established artists stopped going to fairs (except some proven moneymakers) or if they do, they use it to promote their workshops.

Saturation is everywhere. There is a need only for so many workshops and there is space on the walls only for so many pictures.

One buck is not so bad for an image, considering that many reported sales are subs at less than 20 cents. First step in addressing the problem is to stop submitting images to agencies who pay such low commissions.
 

Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Xanox on September 30, 2013, 04:30
I thought true artists starved in garrets.

hahaha yeah but in the real world to call yourself an artist you must make a living selling your art, if you beg for money in front of mcdonalds you're just a beggar, not a "pennyless artist" or a "temporarily unemployed creative guy".

actually i don't see myself as the typical crazy artist, i'm just "artsy", BIG difference.
i don't dream of becoming a billionaire shooting crazy sh-it or obscure conceptual stuff.

all i'm saying is many galleries are selling stuff that from any perspective is absolute dross, the difficult thing is getting the foot on the door, the price for that junk is 100% to who you are, who you know, etc ... the product comes later, if ever.

once your product is "conceptual" anything goes, an image of a toilet with a fresh poop on the floor could be worth millions as far as art galleries are concerned, as long as it's a "work" by a famous conceptualist artist.

art is a concept, it's not stock, there's no price attached, and concepts are very hard to value and quantify in relation to their "use".

the buyers are collectors and rich weirdos, they buy as an investment, they "bet" on your brand basically.
so the cr-ap you're shooting could be anything and could mean anything, nobody cares, it's your brand that matters.

as you see, very very difficult market and i still don't understand it.
there's crazy sh-it on sale for as low as 20$ and total junk sold for 500K$ .. where's the logic ? i don't know, and even many art gallerists have no idea, it seems it all depends on your first exhibitions, if the critics give a positive feedback especially, looks like a total mafia to me but we'll see, i've the feeling it's still a better option than selling subs on SS or begging for money at getty RM or alamy.

Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Xanox on September 30, 2013, 04:48
Quote
i've friends here doing exhibitions, fine-art, news assignments, documentaries, there's a whole world outside stock and they get decent money out of it

I don't think selling at exhibitions and art fairs is a viable solution. Maybe at special venues or for very talented artists.
At the fairs I've visited, I see every year new hopefuls in their booths and after trying it once or twice, they count their losses and never return. Even many established artists stopped going to fairs (except some proven moneymakers) or if they do, they use it to promote their workshops.

Saturation is everywhere. There is a need only for so many workshops and there is space on the walls only for so many pictures.

One buck is not so bad for an image, considering that many reported sales are subs at less than 20 cents. First step in addressing the problem is to stop submitting images to agencies who pay such low commissions.

well, the couple ones i know are very specialized in their niche, they only shoot LOCAL things and there's a demand for it from rich buyers and even a few tourists.

they're not getting rich but they're not starving.
technically their style is very "documentary", their gear is canon 1Ds and canon 5Dii, macbook or imac, lightroom, photoshop, and expensive prints in museum quality Giclee, with heavy framing and glass.

in their opinion, they would never make it shooting generic stuff, their niche works because it's focused on local things and local people.

so of course it can't be a biz for everyone and it's dependent on your location.

workshops : yes but honestly i'm of the idea that if you can only pay your bills with workshops you're no more a photographer, you're just a teacher and your field is education.

besides, teaching is not for everyone, i would be a terrible teacher probably, you need a completely different skillset to be a good teacher.

and what's the point anyway ? do you want to be a photographer or do you want to teach about iso/shutter/aperture etc ? i mean if that's the logic why not working in a print shop or a camera store ?

Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: ShadySue on September 30, 2013, 05:06
... it's dependent on your location.
That is so true, and true for other branches of photography direct services too.
I see people here and on e.g CreativeLIVE on pricing, and it's just silly money compared to what companies can charge here and still struggle. And contrary to what I've also read here and heard there, hereabouts having higher prices just means you'll go out of business quicker.
That said, having seen snippets of some pricing tuts on CL, I can see that those hereabout with low prices can't even be breaking even, which is why they inevitably fold after their two year start-up breaks and grants run out.

That is an advantage of the micros - it gives people from areas with few buyers a chance to connect with the world of buyers. Of course, the macros do that too, but historically they were very difficult to get into.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Xanox on September 30, 2013, 08:29
most of the top agencies and top photographers are in big cities like NYC, L.A., Paris, London, Berlin ...

it's obvious and unavoidable in many fields like fashion for instance.

but for lifestyle, street photography, landscape, travel, you can go anywhere you like, i don't think there's a clear rule for all.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on September 30, 2013, 08:41
as you see, very very difficult market and i still don't understand it.
there's crazy sh-it on sale for as low as 20$ and total junk sold for 500K$ .. where's the logic ?

If you don't understand it you're already boggered. It's basically about being part of the correct social group.  You make your name by networking and by being promoted by members of the art community. The moment you are accepted into that group you're made. You get the introductions, someone with an important gallery points your work out to an art critic who then, having been told that you are the bright new thing, will gush about you in a Sunday supplement.
So you need to up sticks and move to the most artsy part of the country (it's probably not the most expensive, it's the run-down area not far from the centre that the trendy up and coming artists have just start buying apartment in), then you need to drink in the right cocktail bars and bistros, make lots of friends and be sure always to gush over whatever cr@p people are turning out.
Alternatively, you could waste your life making websites and struggling with Search Engine Optimisation... but that won't really get you very far.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: ShadySue on September 30, 2013, 09:01
as you see, very very difficult market and i still don't understand it.
there's crazy sh-it on sale for as low as 20$ and total junk sold for 500K$ .. where's the logic ?

If you don't understand it you're already boggered. It's basically about being part of the correct social group.  You make your name be networking and by being promoted by members of the art community.
So, in a nutshell, it's about schmoozing skills rather than talent.
'Twere ever thus.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on September 30, 2013, 09:07
as you see, very very difficult market and i still don't understand it.
there's crazy sh-it on sale for as low as 20$ and total junk sold for 500K$ .. where's the logic ?

If you don't understand it you're already boggered. It's basically about being part of the correct social group.  You make your name be networking and by being promoted by members of the art community.
So, in a nutshell, it's about schmoozing skills rather than talent.
'Twere ever thus.
Yup. Sometimes I regret being an anti-social get.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Difydave on September 30, 2013, 10:33
Baldrickstrousers has it when he said it's being part of the right social group (and being boggered if you don't understand it!)

The members of the art community are extremely jealous of their position within that community. Which means they are jealous of any newcomer who might offer competition, making it incredibly difficult to get "in" As already said the only hope is to get noticed by a gallery (and it has to be one of the right galleries) who thinks that you might have something. While all the time trying to get "in" socially.

While mentioning being in the "right" galleries, don't be tempted to put your work just anywhere to get sales. One way to kill any hope of any sort of real success is to have your work seen in the wrong sort of place.

I'm another anti social get, and although I had some moderate, local success in the applied arts, (furniture in my case) even that's not easy, and it requires lots of attending exhibition openings etc. Whether you have work in that exhibition or not. 

 
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: sharpshot on September 30, 2013, 10:44
Somehow I just can't picture Xanox fitting in with the arty crowd :)  There are some that can sell art photos just on their merit but I think it's much easier if you can talk the BS.  I like listening to some talentless artists because they have convinced themselves that they are good and can convince others.  I think some of them would make even more money in business.  Sometimes I struggle to believe they aren't acting because how can anyone believe what they are saying is real?
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: JPSDK on September 30, 2013, 10:52
The world of artists and galleries, compares to that of thorougbread dogs.

Its utterly corrupt and filled with ladies who have time and money to spend and spikes on their elbows.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Xanox on September 30, 2013, 11:04
@baldricks : yes, that's precisely the impression i had so far, a total mafia, a closed circle, just like photojournalism in many ways.

we will see.


Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: bunhill on September 30, 2013, 11:26
You make your name be networking and by being promoted by members of the art community. The moment you are accepted into that group you're made. You get the introductions, someone with an important gallery points your work out to an art critic who then, having been told that you are the bright new thing, will gush about you in a Sunday supplement.
So you neet to up sticks and move to the most artsy part of the country (it's probably not the most expensive, it's the run-down area not far from the centre that the trendy up and coming artists have just start buying apartment in), then you need to drink in the right cocktail bars and bistros, make lots of friends and be sure always to gush over whatever cr@p people are turning out.

And then years later you realise that what they thought was trendy or stupid was actually bright, timely and interesting - it was just that you did not understand it from your reactionary perspective at the time. Like punk rock, post modernism, the nouvelle vague, color photography, pop art, abstraction and all those other isms and nuances which our grandparents could make no sense of. And then they kicked themselves for not buying a Rothko when you could get one for the price of a meal.

Personally I like art and am glad that every generation takes it in a different direction. Also - those transitional places where nobody else wanted to live are always the most interesting and exciting for a while. Who would want to be anywhere else when in a city?

Cocktails, bistros and color supplements ?? :)
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Xanox on September 30, 2013, 11:29
Somehow I just can't picture Xanox fitting in with the arty crowd :)  There are some that can sell art photos just on their merit but I think it's much easier if you can talk the BS.  I like listening to some talentless artists because they have convinced themselves that they are good and can convince others.  I think some of them would make even more money in business.  Sometimes I struggle to believe they aren't acting because how can anyone believe what they are saying is real?

If your logic is right try being hired by "closed doors" agencies like AP/AFP/Reuters or getting a proper contract to sell stock on Corbis, good luck, they only hire by word of mouth, photo editors are the ones creating or destroying the careers of young photographers.

all the news guys i know have been recommended by other news guys to photo editors and directors of photography, there's no other way at the moment, and yes they were obviously good enough but in news the image quality is not THE factor, it's about having the photos in demand before any other, if you come too late or if you upload too late you will just not sell .. all they do is shooting in JPG, aperture priority, fix the exposure in LR/PS/Photo-Mechanic, keyword, caption, and upload, they've no time for anything else.

Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on September 30, 2013, 11:37


Cocktails, bistros and color supplements ?? :)

Oh, dear! Did I reveal my age as well as my reactionary perspective? I'd better just slink off to the darkroom...
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Xanox on September 30, 2013, 11:41
Personally I like art and am glad that every generation takes it in a different direction. Also - those transitional places where nobody else wanted to live are always the most interesting and exciting for a while. Who would want to be anywhere else when in a city?

Cocktails, bistros and color supplements ?? :)

maybe i'm a misfit but i'm still of the idea that if nobody can understand a piece of art than maybe there's something wrong, art is supposed to be a mean to give a straight clear message, not to be a puzzle to be decyphered unless you're doing it on purpose.

when i was young i did paintings and illustrations, and yet i see CR-AP sold for big money that i could draw blindfolded when i was 14.

yes, some can say i'm just envious or arrogant but what the h-ell ... take a look at some art web sites and see by yourself.

Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: ShadySue on September 30, 2013, 12:14


Cocktails, bistros and color supplements ?? :)

Oh, dear! Did I reveal my age as well as my reactionary perspective? I'd better just slink off to the darkroom...
Or maybe you just know a scuddy Emperor when you see one.  ;)
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: bunhill on September 30, 2013, 12:22
maybe i'm a misfit but i'm still of the idea that if nobody can understand a piece of art than maybe there's something wrong, art is supposed to be a mean to give a straight clear message, not to be a puzzle to be decyphered unless you're doing it on purpose.

Contemporary art is for people who are interested in contemporary art. If you are not interested in the world of contemporary art then that should not be an issue for you. Nobody is forcing you to swim upstream.

Some people like to try out new ideas where as others prefer to feel at home with things which are established and which they think they understand. And there is definitely a place for pastiche.

It's weird how people get so twisted up about new creative trends and what other people are doing. The same with art, music, movies, fashion etc. Even in something as mainstream as stock photography - eg people here complaining for example that they do not understand, say, Stocksy and Offset
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Ron on September 30, 2013, 12:33
I do understand  the need for Stocksy and Offset and their type of images, I just want to get in, thats the part where I lack understanding. LOL  ;)
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on September 30, 2013, 13:50
An unmade bed, a rotting sheep and even Rhine II just don't do anything for me.  It's just the way I am. I can sort of understand the "plasticised" human corpses but while the structures may be fascinating, the commercial exploitation of corpses disgusts me.
I'm just not a modern guy.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: bunhill on September 30, 2013, 14:08
An unmade bed, a rotting sheep and even Rhine II just don't do anything for me.  It's just the way I am. I can sort of understand the "plasticised" human corpses but while the structures may be fascinating, the commercial exploitation of corpses disgusts me.
I'm just not a modern guy.

Presumably you are not dismissing all contemporary art on the basis of only 3 random pieces from the past 2 decades. That would be like dismissing all contemporary literature based on 3 books which made headlines or someone told you about.

It has nothing to do with being modern or not. You are not supposed to like everything. There is lots of contemporary music which I have no interest in. But I am interested in music, in general.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: heywoody on September 30, 2013, 14:47
I do understand  the need for Stocksy and Offset and their type of images, I just want to get in, thats the part where I lack understanding. LOL  ;)

Why?
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on September 30, 2013, 15:17
An unmade bed, a rotting sheep and even Rhine II just don't do anything for me.  It's just the way I am. I can sort of understand the "plasticised" human corpses but while the structures may be fascinating, the commercial exploitation of corpses disgusts me.
I'm just not a modern guy.

Presumably you are not dismissing all contemporary art on the basis of only 3 random pieces from the past 2 decades. That would be like dismissing all contemporary literature based on 3 books which made headlines or someone told you about.

It has nothing to do with being modern or not. You are not supposed to like everything. There is lots of contemporary music which I have no interest in. But I am interested in music, in general.

No, I'm not dismissing all contemporary art. I thought from your tone that if it was modern and acclaimed it was beyond reproach, regardless of what it was.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: bunhill on September 30, 2013, 16:20
No, I'm not dismissing all contemporary art. I thought from your tone that if it was modern and acclaimed it was beyond reproach, regardless of what it was.

Fair enough. I guess I need to adjust my tone then because I did not intend that.

For me the bed depended too much on its emotional backstory. It seemed like a soap opera. I liked the fact that it annoyed people but felt that it annoyed them for the wrong reasons. The sheep was also good for annoying people but to me it seemed too much like a stunt.

I really like Gursky's work and also find it interesting. Rhine II, however, still has me baffled. I don't get it. But I like the challenge of that. Perhaps it is a distillation of an idea - a thing taken right down. I don't know. I go back to it. I have only ever seen it reproduced.

ETA: I get that it is typical. I get that it is boringly typical and therefore interesting - that aspect I understand.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: cobalt on September 30, 2013, 17:14
I live in the area where the image was taken and I donīt get the excitement over it, i really donīt. he is however using a bit of an optical illusion with the angle he chose to take the picture which makes the rhine look as narrow as the strip of grass below it. The rhine is a huge river, you would never guess it from the picture. the grey weather,maybe even slight fog would be typical for late summer/early spring. this is a cold country.

but it is such a mundane image, why anyone would pay 4 million dollars for it...no, I donīt understand that.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: sharpshot on September 30, 2013, 17:24
I watched a programme about Damien Hirst.  He was doing yet another of his spot prints, just colour spots on white.  I really don't get why people pay for those?  I'm sure he said that he gets an assistant to paint some of them.  Funny looking at them all on a Google search
http://tinyurl.com/p8467t9 (http://tinyurl.com/p8467t9)
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: cobalt on September 30, 2013, 17:29
remember his "spin painting machine"?

http://www.damienhirst.com/texts1/series/spins (http://www.damienhirst.com/texts1/series/spins)

http://www.google.de/imgres?client=safari&sa=X&rls=en&biw=2245&bih=1236&tbm=isch&tbnid=J_RS9ddZ6_tIoM:&imgrefurl=http://pinchukfund.org/en/news/3524/&docid=B5dYYrCu4MUOnM&imgurl=http://pinchukfund.org/upload/medialibrary/f68/spinmachine.jpg&w=330&h=219&ei=CPtJUpDRO5HAswaRhIHoDA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=4&vpy=225&dur=85&hovh=175&hovw=264&tx=139&ty=59&page=1&tbnh=138&tbnw=204&start=0&ndsp=84&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0,i:82 (http://www.google.de/imgres?client=safari&sa=X&rls=en&biw=2245&bih=1236&tbm=isch&tbnid=J_RS9ddZ6_tIoM:&imgrefurl=http://pinchukfund.org/en/news/3524/&docid=B5dYYrCu4MUOnM&imgurl=http://pinchukfund.org/upload/medialibrary/f68/spinmachine.jpg&w=330&h=219&ei=CPtJUpDRO5HAswaRhIHoDA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=4&vpy=225&dur=85&hovh=175&hovw=264&tx=139&ty=59&page=1&tbnh=138&tbnw=204&start=0&ndsp=84&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0,i:82)

Just look at the text he writes to glorify what they do...definetly brilliant marketing man.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: ShadySue on September 30, 2013, 17:30
I watched a programme about Damien Hirst.  He was doing yet another of his spot prints, just colour spots on white.  I really don't get why people pay for those?  I'm sure he said that he gets an assistant to paint some of them. 
'Twere ever this, also.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: ShadySue on September 30, 2013, 17:31
remember his "spin painting machine"?

[url]http://www.google.de/imgres?client=safari&sa=X&rls=en&biw=2245&bih=1236&tbm=isch&tbnid=J_RS9ddZ6_tIoM:&imgrefurl=http://pinchukfund.org/en/news/3524/&docid=B5dYYrCu4MUOnM&imgurl=http://pinchukfund.org/upload/medialibrary/f68/spinmachine.jpg&w=330&h=219&ei=CPtJUpDRO5HAswaRhIHoDA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=4&vpy=225&dur=85&hovh=175&hovw=264&tx=139&ty=59&page=1&tbnh=138&tbnw=204&start=0&ndsp=84&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0,i:82[/url] ([url]http://www.google.de/imgres?client=safari&sa=X&rls=en&biw=2245&bih=1236&tbm=isch&tbnid=J_RS9ddZ6_tIoM:&imgrefurl=http://pinchukfund.org/en/news/3524/&docid=B5dYYrCu4MUOnM&imgurl=http://pinchukfund.org/upload/medialibrary/f68/spinmachine.jpg&w=330&h=219&ei=CPtJUpDRO5HAswaRhIHoDA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=4&vpy=225&dur=85&hovh=175&hovw=264&tx=139&ty=59&page=1&tbnh=138&tbnw=204&start=0&ndsp=84&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0,i:82[/url])

Just look at the text he writes to glorify what they do...definetly brilliant marketing man.


How is that different to what they've had for kids for at least 50 years?
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: cobalt on September 30, 2013, 17:43
donīt ask me...if I knew I would be rich...
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Sedge on September 30, 2013, 18:19
I'm enjoying this discussion, but perhaps it should have its own thread?
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Xanox on October 01, 2013, 03:29
I really like Gursky's work and also find it interesting. Rhine II, however, still has me baffled. I don't get it. But I like the challenge of that. Perhaps it is a distillation of an idea - a thing taken right down. I don't know. I go back to it. I have only ever seen it reproduced.


yeah so it's a "challenge", a crypto, a puzzled to be solved.

that's exactly what i was trying to say before.


Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Xanox on October 01, 2013, 03:35
Presumably you are not dismissing all contemporary art on the basis of only 3 random pieces from the past 2 decades. That would be like dismissing all contemporary literature based on 3 books which made headlines or someone told you about.

It has nothing to do with being modern or not. You are not supposed to like everything. There is lots of contemporary music which I have no interest in. But I am interested in music, in general.

if you think Gursky is bad, in music it's going a lot worse, there are DJs now making 10-15 millions of $ per year playing absolute sh-it on their sequencers, see people like Skrillex, i wouldn't listen that junk even under drugs.

is that art ? hell NO !
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: bunhill on October 01, 2013, 03:50
I really like Gursky's work and also find it interesting. Rhine II, however, still has me baffled. I don't get it. But I like the challenge of that. Perhaps it is a distillation of an idea - a thing taken right down. I don't know. I go back to it. I have only ever seen it reproduced.


yeah so it's a "challenge", a crypto, a puzzled to be solved.

that's exactly what i was trying to say before.

It's a thing which I do not necessarily understand. But I do not expect to understand everything immediately. My life has been full of art, books and music which have sometimes taken me a long time to fathom. Sometimes it is like how you come to appreciate a complicated or subtle flavor. And because Gursky's previous work has been so interesting I am interested enough not to dismiss a thing which I do not necessarily understand.

You seem to think that art should always some how be obvious or self explanatory. But art is always about ideas. Not all ideas are simple and not all ideas are best expressed simply. Ideas which are complicated or nuanced or subtle are things which often reveal themselves only over time. Art which gives itself up too easily is often rather stupid and obvious.

You always have to remember that 20 years later a work often seems obvious when once it seemed impossible. This has happenned so many times previously.

ETA: sometimes the appreciation of a thing comes from not quite understanding it. You half get it, maybe. And that feels weird. It is slightly unsettling or puts you in an unfamiliar place.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on October 01, 2013, 04:12
Well, here's something to think about: apparently vandalising art in museums for political purposes is a constructive and valuable contribution to society, according to the Tate Modern
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/art-reviews/10344483/Art-Under-Attack-Tate-Britain-review.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/art-reviews/10344483/Art-Under-Attack-Tate-Britain-review.html)

I get the idea that art can be designed to be thought provoking, but art as a puzzle to be solved seems a bit dubious given that - unlike a crossword or chess problem - there is no satisfactory self-proving solution. If you "solve" Rhein II you will come to a conclusion that is entirely satisfying to yourself, maybe you will be able to persuade others that it is right, but there is no independent confirmation of your conclusion so it is quite likely to say much more about your opinions and thought processes than it says about the photo.

To me, Rhein II is nothing more than a photographer messing about finding parallel bands of different colours in the natural world.

Take my "tribute" to Edward Weston: http://fineartamerica.com/featured/in-the-raw-paul-cowan.html (http://fineartamerica.com/featured/in-the-raw-paul-cowan.html) . I deliberately sought out a suggestive pepper but while people saw things in Weston's work he insisted that, whatever anybody liked to think, all he had done was photograph peppers. So there are obviously times when enthusiastic art-lovers discover meanings that the artist never had. (Oh, and my meaning was "this is a joke").
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: bunhill on October 01, 2013, 04:41
there is no satisfactory self-proving solution. If you "solve" Rhein II you will come to a conclusion that is entirely satisfying to yourself, maybe you will be able to persuade others that it is right, but there is no independent confirmation of your conclusion so it is quite likely to say much more about your opinions and thought processes than it says about the photo.

Art is most often nuanced. It often does not have a single clear meaning. Just like the best literature and movies are often unresolved or full of multiple meanings. A piece of music will mean something completely different to everyone who knows it.

Why would you want or expect "independent confirmation" of your subjective description of the meaning of a thing which is clearly intended to be experienced rather than explained ? It's just like you cannot empirically measure an atmosphere or perfectly describe a feeling.

I am almost certain of one thing about Rhiene IIRhein II: That the artist is presenting it as an example. That is what I meant about it being typical. That is where I start with it.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on October 01, 2013, 04:55
I guess I like independent confirmation because I studied science, not art.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Beppe Grillo on October 01, 2013, 05:00
I really don't get why people pay for those?


The most of their contemporaries were saying the same thing about Picasso, Braque, Van Gogh and Cézanne, and many others…

As I did, maybe a day you will get it… and it will change your perception of what Art is (or could be).

I was making similar considerations about Fontana (and most of the contemporary Art too).
I always found ridiculous that people could pay so much money for a simple cut in a piece of canvas…
http://www.afteranjelica.com/Fontana%20from%20Tate.JPG (http://www.afteranjelica.com/Fontana%20from%20Tate.JPG)

And a day I have seen some of these in an exhibition in Paris.
At this point all has changed… The sensation to see these masterworks "real", in front of me, was completely different than to see them printed on some books or Art magazines, and I understood that my approch to contemporary Art was completely distorted.
Materials, textures, dimensions, depth, thickness… sensations… all was completely different.

So I begun to ask myself some fundamental (for me) questions:
What is Art? (the most fundamental question I think - … and the answer is: "I still do't know exactly")
Do we all perceive Art in the same way?
Who are we to judge Art and artists?
Is it objective to judge Art and artists?


I reached to a conclusion that Art is not only a matter of aesthetic, but also a matter of intention, from the part of the author (artist), to produce Art.
I reached to another conclusion that Art is also a way you perceived it (someone will perceive something as Art someone else will not).

Non-figurative/abstract/contemporary Art borns from/through a process of elaboration of concepts, of ideas (concrete or abstract, tangible or intangible) leading to the representation of these concepts through the filter of mind of the artist.
You, I, can make a black point on a white background, with the only intention to make a black point on a white background – this is not Art
An artist can make a black point on a white background, after the elaboration of researches and reflections that led him to the conclusion that the result *is* a black point on a white background - this is Art (we could call this intellectual masturbation, but its does not mean that it is not Art)

The perception and acceptation of non-figurative Art will then depend a lot from the culture and the sensitivity of the spectator.
Spectators with a different level of understanding Art will perceive it in different ways, at different levels.
You cannot read if you don't learn to read…


___

I'm sure he said that he gets an assistant to paint some of them.


Yes, Buonarroti, Da Vinci, Caravaggio and other famous painters did that too… ;)
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: sharpshot on October 01, 2013, 05:18
I find it interesting that the best paid musicians create their art for the masses.  They rely on lots of people paying a relatively small fee for a reproduction of their art.  Totally different to the best paid artists and art photographers who are often producing work that means nothing to the masses and only appeals to a small group of extremely rich people.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Beppe Grillo on October 01, 2013, 05:23
work that means nothing
It is not because you or I don't understand the meaning of "something" that this "something" does not mean nothing…
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on October 01, 2013, 05:25
I'm afraid that to me, the art is the thing that is created; it is what matters, not the intention of the artist regardless of what comes out.  It is utterly impossible to determine what the artist's intention was so I am afraid that I can only regard people who use "artists intention" to judge the value of a work rather than the aesthetics of the work produced as being rather gullible.
I recently stuck a tiny letter O in the middle of a huge white space and submitted it to FAA. My intention was to test whether their loupe introduced distortion, as someone had claimed, but my "artwork" sparked a bit of interest. We joked around about it being "the circle of life" and representing the Buddhist "Om", while the huge white space indicated the infinite smallness of the individual life.  Once I've invented those fake explanations, there is no way (unless I have revealed something to the contrary) that  you can detemine whether my "O" is a trivial loupe test or whether it is high art. My true intention might have been as stated, or it might have been "some idiot will pay big bucks for this rubbish".  You cannot tell, therefore if you buy it you don't know if you are being played as a fool or if you are getting a fabulous artwork.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: ShadySue on October 01, 2013, 06:04
I guess I like independent confirmation because I studied science, not art.
You'll need to change your mindset. The two are incompatible.
That's why it's relatively easy to get 100% in a Maths or Physics exam, but relatively rare in e.g. English or practical Art or Music.
Besides, 'even' scientists can't agree about some things, and new discoveries overturn old scientific beliefs all the time.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Xanox on October 01, 2013, 07:30
It's a thing which I do not necessarily understand. But I do not expect to understand everything immediately. My life has been full of art, books and music which have sometimes taken me a long time to fathom. Sometimes it is like how you come to appreciate a complicated or subtle flavor. And because Gursky's previous work has been so interesting I am interested enough not to dismiss a thing which I do not necessarily understand.

You seem to think that art should always some how be obvious or self explanatory. But art is always about ideas. Not all ideas are simple and not all ideas are best expressed simply. Ideas which are complicated or nuanced or subtle are things which often reveal themselves only over time. Art which gives itself up too easily is often rather stupid and obvious.

You always have to remember that 20 years later a work often seems obvious when once it seemed impossible. This has happenned so many times previously.

ETA: sometimes the appreciation of a thing comes from not quite understanding it. You half get it, maybe. And that feels weird. It is slightly unsettling or puts you in an unfamiliar place.

well, we will see ... in the meantime i rest my case.

i started drawing when i was maybe 4, illustrations, cartoons, and oil paintings.
then i went into playing piano and music, worked in the music industry, now i'm into photography.

i don't claim to be an artist but i'm definitely "artsy", all i can say is i'm hardly impressed by Gursky & friends.
good luck for them having found the goose laying golden eggs.

if fools dont spend millions for his stuff they would do it for some equally cryptic artwork so who am i to judge ? people is free to throw money out of the window, and as they say, we only live once !
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Xanox on October 01, 2013, 07:39
I really don't get why people pay for those?

The most of their contemporaries were saying the same thing about Picasso, Braque, Van Gogh and Cézanne, and many others…

Maybe i'm an old fart but if it was for me Fontana's artworks should be burnt in a public square, as for Van Gogh and Picasso i still can't see what's the fuss is all about ... have you ever considered that they were seen as cr-ap in the past because they were indeed cr-ap ?

Have you also considered you've maybe fallen victim of the whole art-business mumbo jumbo ?
Talk to a few art galleries, they're the first ones having no clue about how to price an artwork, it all depends on the buyer, basically the more he's fool/rich and the more he will pay and that's exactly why they HATE the actual trend of selling online, as they must price the artwork or at least talk about money via email/phone and they're getting scared that soon galleries will become no more than a middleman and that many artists will start selling on their own skipping galleries altogether.

It's happening now, and i'll be the one to laugh when these crooks go bankrupt.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on October 01, 2013, 07:53
I guess I like independent confirmation because I studied science, not art.
You'll need to change your mindset. The two are incompatible.
That's why it's relatively easy to get 100% in a Maths or Physics exam, but relatively rare in e.g. English or practical Art or Music.
Besides, 'even' scientists can't agree about some things, and new discoveries overturn old scientific beliefs all the time.

Not only do I not "need" to change it, it's worked well for me so far, it is pretty much impossible to change it at my age.

You have a standard misunderstanding of what science is. It is not about having got the right answer because you know everything; it is about trying to find the best explanation for something in the current state of knowledge, it is always open to correction. That said, much of it is extremely robust and it is very rare indeed for a core theory to be upended. Einstein did it to Newtonian physics, but even though they are not absolutely comprehensive, Newton's laws remain perfectly good for everyday life.

The places where scientific interpretations are likely to change frequently is on the frontiers of science where researchers constantly turn up new data that has to be fitted into the overall picture.  One example would be dating the cataclysmic eruption of Santorini. I go for the 1624BC date, which appears to be supported by carbon dating, tree-ring data and deposits in the Greenland ice core. Archaeologists reject that because it completely screws up the hallowed dating of the Egyptian Pharoahs. It has been 10 years since I was following that, so maybe it has been settled one way or the other, but it is a nice example of how new facts might shake up an entire discipline.

And, completely off topic (even further) and just for entertainment value, there was a newly-qualified Egyptologist who was called up by the Royal Navy in WW2. At his interview they asked if he knew any languages and he said he was only familiar with hieroglyphics. "What's that? Never heard of it" said the Senior Service. "It's the language of the Pharoahs", he replied. As a result he ended on the North Atlantic convoys, where he might have a chance of bumping into some Faroe Islanders. Strange but true!
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: bunhill on October 01, 2013, 08:31
@Baldrick - I think your anecdote about posting your artwork to FAA speaks to the quality of the intellectual debate you experienced there rather then adding anything to our knowledge of art.

I am afraid that I can only regard people who use "artists intention" to judge the value of a work rather than the aesthetics of the work produced as being rather gullible.
I strongly suspect that you have misunderstood what aesthetics is. People often wrongly believe that aesthetics means "what things look like". Aesthetics is the study of the nature of art itself. Intent has always been a core component - eg what did the artist mean, what does the artists see etc - philosophical debates which go back at least to the ancient Greeks.

You talk about science. Think of contemporary art as being like experimental science. Sometimes people do things to see what they find out. Sometimes that changes or influences what is known. 19th and 20th Century European and American art has been especially experimental. Lots has been found out. For example - look at all of the mainstream TV advertising which owes something to surrealism (I would estimate at least 70%). ETA: or its use in governmental PR (and PR, as we know, was more or less invented by Freud's nephew - the term itself having more or less arrived as a euphamism for propaganda as that word fell out of fashion).
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: ShadySue on October 01, 2013, 08:36
I guess I like independent confirmation because I studied science, not art.
You'll need to change your mindset. The two are incompatible.
That's why it's relatively easy to get 100% in a Maths or Physics exam, but relatively rare in e.g. English or practical Art or Music.
Besides, 'even' scientists can't agree about some things, and new discoveries overturn old scientific beliefs all the time.

Not only do I not "need" to change it, it's worked well for me so far, it is pretty much impossible to change it at my age.
You have a standard misunderstanding of what science is.
Not at all. Philosopy of Science lesson 1: "Science does not tell us what is true. It tells us what, in our current state of knowledge, is not false." Which is more or less what you said.

But this can't be applied to Art, as art is subjective. Even the so called 'rules' we learn for photographic composition are culturally derived, just like the 'ideal' of female 'beauty' is different across history and across cultures.

I am no art connoisseur. I know what I like and why I like it, and what I don't like/understand and why. But I also know it's subjective and don't look for outside verification of my own taste. My husband, the art school graduate, often explains things to me that I'd never have known (whereupon I sometimes, think, "ooooh, clever", but doesn't affect my overall liking of the work, though I might have more respect for it).
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on October 01, 2013, 09:08
Sue, I agree that art is subjective and, like you, I like some things and not others. I like Banksy, for example. Don't ask me if he is regarded as contemporary high art, I haven't got a clue. But he's taken an artform that is on the close to vandalism, maybe it is vandalism, and turned it into something clever and meaningful.

I did think you were heading down the road towards the false syllogism that: science says it knows everything; scientists change their theories; therefore science is fraudulent.  I'm glad you're not on that particular bandwagon (which is best viewed on Daily Telegraph or Mail global warming forums).

I don't believe there are, or should be "scientific" laws governing art. The so-called "rules" of composition are really just handy hints about arrangements that seem to be pleasant to the human mind. I rarely use any "rules" but they do seem to crop up in my work, anyway, because that visual arrangements that please me also please other people.

BHR - I'm all for people playing with ideas. If they come up with something they like, that's great. If they come up with something you or Sue or I like, even better. But the fact that something came out of an experiment doesn't give it any automatic merit.

You can give me a lesson the the meaning of aesthetic if you like, but that doesn't alter the fact that you cannot determine the value of an artwork on the basis of information that you do not and cannot know, i.e. the artist's state of mind. Suggesting that you can indicates that you are submitting to the authority of the artist's reputation - i.e. you consider that because of Gursky's reputation, Rhein II must have merit, therefore you suppose that he applied brilliant artistic thought to it justifying its value. If I had produced an identical artwork, you would consider that because I have no reputation it is just a tedious and dull picture of a landscape that lacks a subject. But my thought processes might have been identical to Gursky's, you simply don't know, but you make a value judgement anyway.
The only criterion you have for deciding between the two is the pre-existing reputation of the respective artists, which means that instead of reaching your own conclusions, you are submitting yourself to the authority of the establishment that dictates that one artist is amazing but a similar one is a nonentity.
At best, you could claim that your judgement is from your personal prior assessment of the particular artist's work, but even then you are skewered on the hook of the fact that if I show you a canvas with a circle in the middle of it, you, because you are artistic, are completely unable to determine whether it is utter nonsense or complete genius unless someone tells you the name of the person who made it (and even then you might have to go away and research the name before you could decide whether you like it or not).


Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: bunhill on October 01, 2013, 09:52
If I had produced an identical artwork, you would consider that because I have no reputation it is just a tedious and dull picture of a landscape that lacks a subject. But my thought processes might have been identical to Gursky's, you simply don't know, but you make a value judgement anyway.

No. And your argument falls apart because it hinges around this assumption. It ultimately has nothing to do with who you are or your reputation. I could look at your picture and perceive it exactly the same as the Gursky - by imagining what it would mean if it were considered as a cultural artifact, or art object.

However, you reject the idea of intellectual art and therefore would not produce a piece with the same meaning or intent and which therefore existed in an art context. Because Gursky's picture exists within an art context and is therefore partly about that. Outside of that context it begins to be meaningless. The meaning of things changes depending upon their context.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: rodemund on October 01, 2013, 10:09
when no one but inspectors can rate anymore?

... this is true???
I’m speechless.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on October 01, 2013, 11:16
If I had produced an identical artwork, you would consider that because I have no reputation it is just a tedious and dull picture of a landscape that lacks a subject. But my thought processes might have been identical to Gursky's, you simply don't know, but you make a value judgement anyway.

No. And your argument falls apart because it hinges around this assumption. It ultimately has nothing to do with who you are or your reputation. I could look at your picture and perceive it exactly the same as the Gursky - by imagining what it would mean if it were considered as a cultural artifact, or art object.

However, you reject the idea of intellectual art and therefore would not produce a piece with the same meaning or intent and which therefore existed in an art context. Because Gursky's picture exists within an art context and is therefore partly about that. Outside of that context it begins to be meaningless. The meaning of things changes depending upon their context.

But you really couldn't tell the difference between mine and his. Which is why it is actually your argument that falls apart. (You haven't deleted the bit you wrote about a single dot on paper meaning one thing from one artist and another thing from an artistic genius, because of they way they thought, have you? I don't seem able to find it but maybe that's my error).
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Downtown Pearl on October 01, 2013, 11:18
My goodness, what's to complain about?  I made 34 cents yesterday!  LOL    Whoa!!

In three months i'll be able to get a burger at Ken's Broome St Cafe.  Of course by then i'll be too hungry to walk three blocks...  yada  yada  yada
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Xanox on October 01, 2013, 12:42
@BHR : please ... the whole cr-ap about modern art started in paris by a cartel of greedy art dealers, it was a mafia at the beginning and it's a mafia nowadays, i've seen better conceptual photos on DeviantArt done by students than the sh-it sold by Gursky & friends, and i won't even start ranting about Cattelan, Hirst, Duchamp ...

(http://www.iwanttobeabattaglia.com/storage/6_Giovanna_Battaglia_Favorite_artist_Marcel_Duchamp.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1314846019333)

(http://www.askart.com/AskART/images/glossary/Dada_Marcel_Duchamp.jpg)
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: bunhill on October 01, 2013, 13:09
But you really couldn't tell the difference between mine and his.

It really makes no difference. The meaning of a thing is determined by the context in which it exists or is presented.

(You haven't deleted the bit you wrote about a single dot on paper meaning one thing from one artist and another thing from an artistic genius, because of they way they thought, have you?

Beppe Grillo wrote that.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on October 01, 2013, 13:25

(You haven't deleted the bit you wrote about a single dot on paper meaning one thing from one artist and another thing from an artistic genius, because of they way they thought, have you?

Beppe Grillo wrote that.

OK, sorry, my confusion
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Shelma1 on October 01, 2013, 13:26
Back when I was working at Chiat/Day, Jay Chiat was a big collector of modern art, which was hung all over the agency. One piece everyone in the creative department hated was a chunk of driftwood with a hole drilled through it, and a length of knotted rope passed through the hole and dangling to the floor.

One morning I came in and discovered someone had mounted to the wall, just under the art installation, a #2 pencil with a piece of string tied to it. Funniest thing I ever saw. Everyone who walked by had a great laugh—for about a week, until someone in management took it down.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: bunhill on October 01, 2013, 14:24
One piece everyone in the creative department hated was a chunk of driftwood

Let's be honest: nearly everyone hates driftwood art. And quite right too. But it's the mainstay of crafty little waterfront galleries.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Xanox on October 02, 2013, 12:08
well, i've nothing to add to this discussion.

BHR, enjoy your fantasy world and good luck to you.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on October 03, 2013, 12:47
http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=1586 (http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=1586)

The whole "free the creative" thing makes me laugh.  "Warning, Will Robinson, Creativity Under Fire!!!"
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on October 03, 2013, 12:51
When they say creatives will be able to find files faster, does that mean it doesn't take a minute or two for each page to load if you are a buyer?
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: ShadySue on October 03, 2013, 12:55
When they say creatives will be able to find files faster, does that mean it doesn't take a minute or two for each page to load if you are a buyer?
Shhhh - Lobo's Academy of Semantic Gymnastics has rewritten the meaning of 'creative'. No-one has been found who qualifies, so no problem with Trades Description.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: luissantos84 on October 03, 2013, 12:55
When they say creatives will be able to find files faster, does that mean it doesn't take a minute or two for each page to load if you are a buyer?

I can only think that buyers are waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more patient than contributors or they would have left after experiment iStock website
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: alberto on October 03, 2013, 12:58
What is the free files section?
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: ShadySue on October 03, 2013, 13:04
What is the free files section?
I'm guessing it's the last four or so week's worth of Free Files of the Week.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Red Dove on October 03, 2013, 13:15
I can still make a cup of tea whilst I'm waiting for my stats page to load. On the plus side, watching the progress bar keeps Flash Harry* entertained.

* The Cat
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: alberto on October 03, 2013, 13:57
Thanks ShadySue
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Commenter273 on October 03, 2013, 15:18
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=1586[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=1586[/url])

The whole "free the creative" thing makes me laugh.  "Warning, Will Robinson, Creativity Under Fire!!!"


Me, too! There's also this.
"Study: Fish swim farther when removed from bowl."

?!? No, they don't. Obviously, they die.

Perhaps it's only a partial thought? "Fish swim farther when removed from bowl [and freed into open water]."

That creates a fairly decent analogy: Fish = exclusive artists, Bowl = Istock, Open water = non-exclusivity/self-hosting.

I have a tiny exclusive portfolio, Istock has not inspired me to bother trying the last three years, but I feel the creative itch once again and I am putting together a multi-faceted fine art/stock photography business plan. I see the open water from my little bowl and I'm about to jump out. I am determined to swim far away. =)

Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Shelma1 on October 03, 2013, 16:22
I guess the inspection team has been working on the "new" iStock., too, because I still have files sitting uninspected after a week.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: ARTPUPPY on October 03, 2013, 20:33
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=1586[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=1586[/url])

The whole "free the creative" thing makes me laugh.  "Warning, Will Robinson, Creativity Under Fire!!!"


Yeah, the whole "Creativity Under Threat!" is just weird. Like a Weekly World News Headline "Bat Boy Seen With Bill Clinton!" The whole campaign is just wrong. White lettering on a big black square... great idea for an IMAGE company. And I've never heard anyone in the business use the word "creative" anyway. It's like a group of old businessmen sat around and said "You know what we need to focus on? The Creatives! Those creatives are our market you know!" Cue old man in pinstripe suit - "Yes... What are the creatives doing?" And then he leans forward and says "And why are we are paying these people so much in royalties? We need to cut that back!"
It's like talking to someone from the animation world and saying "I love toons!" No, it's not toons, it's cartoons or animation. No one says "toons" in the industry. 
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Beppe Grillo on October 04, 2013, 00:43
Did something really change?
I have had more sales during the first 3 days of october than during the whole month of SeptemberŽ  :o
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: ShadySue on October 04, 2013, 05:23
Did something really change?
I have had more sales during the first 3 days of october than during the whole month of SeptemberŽ  :o

Ah, it was you who got my sales.
Please return them forthwith.

 ;) Felicitations.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: raclro on October 19, 2013, 22:16
Maybe it is an anomaly but both sales and $ have bumped up nearly double since the changes last month or whenever they happened.  The lower pricing is certainly working for me so far.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Mantis on October 20, 2013, 09:02
Maybe it is an anomaly but both sales and $ have bumped up nearly double since the changes last month or whenever they happened.  The lower pricing is certainly working for me so far.

Hope it keeps up for you.  At least someone is reporting better news.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: landbysea on October 24, 2013, 18:56
Everything just kind of went poof and gone this month.  My downloads for October are looking to be the lowest ever, and I started in 2007. I have been doing a big upload push these last few months too and it helps a bit. A very tiny bit. In October 2007 I had 3x the dls I have so far this month and I had a dozen images up. I got a decent amount from Getty last week but who knows what I sold this month. I have checked new uploads in my solid market niches and there is nothing new that has any significant downloads going back 6  months. It's not competition from other contributors.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Freedom on October 24, 2013, 19:20
Maybe it is an anomaly but both sales and $ have bumped up nearly double since the changes last month or whenever they happened.  The lower pricing is certainly working for me so far.

October has picked up substantially after a total disastrous September. In the first half of October, the revenue had already passed the total amount of the full month of September.  I hope it continues.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: ShadySue on October 24, 2013, 19:44
Just noticed: a file I uploaded around 24 hours ago was number 28782026, and one uploaded five minutes ago is 28881870, which is as near 100,000 in a day as d*mmit.
 :o
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on October 25, 2013, 02:17
Just noticed: a file I uploaded around 24 hours ago was number 28782026, and one uploaded five minutes ago is 28881870, which is as near 100,000 in a day as d*mmit.
 :o
That's odd. I was 28500654 a week ago, which 380,000 in a week or 50,000 a day. Yesterday it would obviously have been 280,000 in six days, or 45,000 a day. Perhaps they transferred a collection of 50k in overnight, on top of the usual uploads. 45k is still an awful lot, though. In the good old days, when I started, there were only 3,000 new files in a whole week.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Monkeyman on October 25, 2013, 06:30
No wonder we don't get any views or sales then...
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: lisafx on October 25, 2013, 13:12
I have Sean's Greasemonkey scripts installed to view the "my uploads" page, but since yesterday they are no longer working and I am seeing the wonky and unpleasant way Istock chooses to display them.  Just checked and Greasemonkey is turned on and the scripts are enabled. 

I guess this is part of the site design??
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: tickstock on October 25, 2013, 13:13
.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: lisafx on October 25, 2013, 13:16
I have Sean's Greasemonkey scripts installed to view the "my uploads" page, but since yesterday they are no longer working and I am seeing the wonky and unpleasant way Istock chooses to display them.  Just checked and Greasemonkey is turned on and the scripts are enabled. 

I guess this is part of the site design??
You need to get the new version, it's all on the forum.

Thanks.  I'll head on over and look for it. 
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: tickstock on October 25, 2013, 13:18
.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: lisafx on October 25, 2013, 13:25
Thanks for the link and instructions.  I was having trouble finding it - saw that thread, but didn't notice the first post had been updated today. 
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Freedom on October 25, 2013, 15:45
Lots of sales today and this month. I feel as if the good old days are back.  ;D
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: luissantos84 on October 25, 2013, 16:00
Lots of sales today and this month. I feel as if the good old days are back.  ;D

back on uploading ;D
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Freedom on October 25, 2013, 16:04
I didn't upload a single image today and not many this week.  :-[
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: luissantos84 on October 25, 2013, 16:06
I didn't upload a single image today and not many this week.  :-[

 ???
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: ShadySue on October 25, 2013, 16:37
I didn't upload a single image today and not many this week.  :-[
Did your upturn include recent-ish uploads?
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: mlwinphoto on October 25, 2013, 19:46
Lots of sales today and this month. I feel as if the good old days are back.  ;D

back on uploading ;D

I've uploaded 4 images in the last 2 months....and I had a hard time convincing myself that it was worthwhile doing.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: luissantos84 on October 25, 2013, 20:07
Lots of sales today and this month. I feel as if the good old days are back.  ;D

back on uploading ;D

I've uploaded 4 images in the last 2 months....and I had a hard time convincing myself that it was worthwhile doing.

4 more than I/me ;D
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Freedom on October 25, 2013, 23:10
I didn't upload a single image today and not many this week.  :-[
Did your upturn include recent-ish uploads?

Not really.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Beppe Grillo on October 26, 2013, 00:36
.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: mlwinphoto on October 26, 2013, 15:02
Lots of sales today and this month. I feel as if the good old days are back.  ;D

back on uploading ;D

I've uploaded 4 images in the last 2 months....and I had a hard time convincing myself that it was worthwhile doing.

4 more than I/me ;D

I'll follow your lead from now on..... :)

New stuff is going to Macrografiks.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: ShadySue on October 26, 2013, 15:32
Of my last 42 sales:
2007: 14
2008: 18
2009: 1
2010: 0
2011: 9 (8 editorial, which only started in lateish 2010)
2012: 0
2013: 0

Point in uploading new stuff? Questionable.
APU, a new file uploaded Thursday was down at 614/2415 as soon as it was showing in the database.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: mlwinphoto on October 26, 2013, 17:42
Of my last 42 sales:
2007: 14
2008: 18
2009: 1
2010: 0
2011: 9 (8 editorial, which only started in lateish 2010)
2012: 0
2013: 0

Point in uploading new stuff? Questionable.
APU, a new file uploaded Thursday was down at 614/2415 as soon as it was showing in the database.

Your results are pretty much in line with what I am reading in the forums.  The decision to upload new material isn't questionable in my mind.
I suppose buyers (are there any left?) can search by 'Newest' but I wonder how many do..?
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: ShadySue on October 26, 2013, 17:57
I suppose buyers (are there any left?) can search by 'Newest' but I wonder how many do..?
If they do, they'll get a search of at best 'dubious' relevance for many searches because keywording isn't being checked nowadays, other than by Keywordzilla.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: ShadySue on October 28, 2013, 06:59
Only just noticed (over the w/e, not sure when it started; files uploaded mid-last-week seem fine):
If you have to use a non-standard keyword, it's not 'sticking'. Don't know for how long, but certainly over the weekend.
Firstly, I noticed that locations I'd previously used, which aren't in the CV, were showing on upload  as blue, i.e. they weren't showing that it had been used by someone before (i.e. me) but aren't in the CV.
Then I noticed that after acceptance, these non-CV words aren't 'sticking', i.e. they're still blue and need to be clicked to 'add for your own use only'. So they don't show up on the file's keyword list on its homepage, and can't be searched.
I don't know if it's sortable. Every time I do or redo them, it 'seems' to be 'taking' OK, but after a day or two, they are 'unclicked' again.
Bl**dy nuisance if your keyword is not in the CV.
(And yeah, before anyone asks, these are files which are too small for Alamy, either files from an older camera or where 400mm isn't long enough and the image has to be heavily cropped.)
NB: I'm not sure if it's only happening with multiple-word keyword 'phrases', as that's what I've been using, either species names of location. I haven't needed a one-word keyword since I noticed this 'issue'.
And I have no idea if 'use DM' would solve this.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: ShadySue on October 29, 2013, 07:06
^^ More, with screenshots!
The problem is persistent. This is a screendump of a file AFTER I had ticked the 'available for your own use' box for the THIRD time (the non-CV keyword phrases not having stuck), last night, before I went to bed:
(http://www.lizworld.com/keywords.jpg)
NB that someone else had already added Savannah Sparrow to the CV, so it was already showing with a ! on my file.
This is how it is this morning, i.e. back to unadded for my own use, and unsearchable:
(http://www.lizworld.com/Keywords2.jpg)
(I realise this looks like spam, but the systematics of this species is being discussed right now, with different authorities being split, and most of the academic papers I read have no image to illustrate their arguments. (Whether they would think to look on a micro site for a photo is moot, of course.)
Anyway, it's not about this photo, it's about a problem with adding non-CV phrases, which make a file effectively unsearchable.
I don't see this reported on the bugs thread or the keywords / search, and obviously I can't report it there.
I will send MS a report, but in the past, they did not respond to a bug report I made, did not pass it on, and  it was weeks before someone else found it and reported it on the forums.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: topol on October 29, 2013, 11:08
Do they still have this dumb policy of requiring a new model release for each shoot?
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: luissantos84 on October 29, 2013, 11:11
Do they still have this dumb policy of requiring a new model release for each shoot?

no idea but I hope they do because it is the only thing they are doing right ;D
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: tickstock on October 29, 2013, 11:11
.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: topol on October 29, 2013, 12:21
Do they still have this dumb policy of requiring a new model release for each shoot?
You should have a model release for each shoot.

No, practice makes it trivially nonsense.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: topol on October 29, 2013, 12:21
Do they still have this dumb policy of requiring a new model release for each shoot?

no idea but I hope they do because it is the only thing they are doing right ;D

Same.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: dingles on October 29, 2013, 12:22
One plus is that a lot of the outdated features such as ratings seems to be gone. One downside is trends is gone too. I was hoping they actually updated that, but instead they just removed it. The funny thing is the older my files get the better they seem to be doing...new files still seem to get buried fast. Although not the improvements I feel are most important, it has been good to see some change...for a while it was all talk.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: tickstock on October 29, 2013, 12:23
.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: topol on October 29, 2013, 14:40
No, practice makes it trivially nonsense.
Is this some kind of riddle?

Not above IQ 80. Time (mine) wasting kiddie version: In practice, most agencies have been getting along with only a single model release without any problems for years and years. Which means more is unnecessary - actual practice is the ultima ratio.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: luissantos84 on October 29, 2013, 15:17
it's not and you know it, pretty much you are lazy, when you run into problems then you will change your workflow, having a MR for each session will cover you and your model as well
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: lisafx on October 29, 2013, 15:37
I do a release for each shoot, to cover my own a$s, but the ponderous process of having to upload them to Istock, is a different issue. 

I have some shoots with 8-10 people and you have to make a separate composite jpeg of releases for every possible combination you shot them in.  Massive PITA/time-suck. 
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: luissantos84 on October 29, 2013, 15:41
right... only at iSucks!
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: ShadySue on October 29, 2013, 16:23
it's not and you know it, pretty much you are lazy, when you run into problems then you will change your workflow, having a MR for each session will cover you and your model as well
Those people who would never abuse their agreement with a model could use one release in perpetuity, and someone more unscrupulous could add in extra information to the description after the model has signed if they plan it beforehand. So the model is no better protected.
I've read people saying they fill in these details after the model has signed, and there is nothing to say that the model has agreed to these details. There should be a requirement that the tog gives the model a completed version of what s/he agreed to when signing in case there's debate down the line.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: luissantos84 on October 29, 2013, 16:27
that is correct and I agree Sue!
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: topol on October 29, 2013, 18:46
it's not and you know it, pretty much you are lazy, when you run into problems then you will change your workflow, having a MR for each session will cover you and your model as well

yep, lets breed 6 and 8 legged dogs. Never mind that they have been getting along fine with with 4 legs for millions of years... more must be better! :)

As long as you people only  waste your own time, it's cool with me. But places like istock want to waste mine too. No way bayybee.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: luissantos84 on October 29, 2013, 19:42
you can play whatever you want, that is up to you ;D

BTW iStock is my top priority, got a problem with that? ;D
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: ShadySue on October 30, 2013, 05:55
Just checked a particular search with 98 'hits'
Position 21: mine, 0 dls, uploaded 12th April, 1 view
Postion 58: mine, 2 dls, uploaded 21st June, 2 views.

By Fresh Match, these are 29 and 53!!!

I have found this with other files uploaded since September last year, but this was easier to quantify, as it is a small search. The curse of the download on iS.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on October 30, 2013, 06:56
Some there are ready to boot y'all out: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=357138&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=357138&page=1)
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: luissantos84 on October 30, 2013, 07:07
Some there are ready to boot y'all out: [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=357138&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=357138&page=1[/url])


thanks for sharing Sean, these days I don't even open their forum

funny to see tons of "pleases" for image exclusivity, like iStock listens to anyone, quite pathetic to beg...
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Ron on October 30, 2013, 07:40
Some there are ready to boot y'all out: [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=357138&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=357138&page=1[/url])


Classic, a riot between contributors. The forum nazi wont close that thread, that thread is exactly what they need. A fight amongst contributors, who then lose focus on the crap IS is pulling.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on October 30, 2013, 08:11
I just chucked a cat in among the pigeons :)
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: ShadySue on October 30, 2013, 08:17
You're right, the watchword for all iS contributors, or any persuasion, should be "be careful what you wish for".
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on October 30, 2013, 08:46
You're right, the watchword for all iS contributors, or any persuasion, should be "be careful what you wish for".

It's a good motto for life, really.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: heywoody on October 30, 2013, 18:22
I just chucked a cat in among the pigeons :)
Chucked pretty much the same cat in there yesterday but when folks are immersed in their fantasies they are not likely to let reality get in the way.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: gostwyck on October 30, 2013, 19:12
I just chucked a cat in among the pigeons :)

Your thinking that 'no new contributors could ever gain the sales to become exclusive' doesn't work because IS could simply remove the requirement of 250 sales (or whatever it is nowadays).

There's no incentive for IS to do this anyway. They would lose the revenue from the non-exclusive sales (and thereby a significant sector of their customers) and would also lose new content for the PP. It isn't going to happen although all of IS's competitors would love it to happen..
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: sodafish on October 31, 2013, 03:55
Off course they can remove the 250 requirement. They can change just about everything they want, like royalty rates as well.
So why shouldn’t you be able to submit un-exclusive to TS while contributing only exclusive to IS? That’s done in a breeze. Why should they lose all un-exclusive content? You might be tempted by a lot of things if they do it right and give you time. And why shouldn’t they listen to valuable suggestions from the community? I admit it’s exceptional, but they sure did that in some earlier occasions.

No incentive for iStock? Well, if they don’t manage to give new work sales they will have their incentive very soon, it might be the only way to keep exclusive content. I wouldn’t underestimate some of the trouble the site has, a lot of things might be possible at the moment. Especially if it benefits istock and if they’re willing to think long-term. So, why should competitors be happy about that? They could as well lose valuable content by it.

True, I might be immersed in my fantasies, maybe it’s a result of too much thinking or personal business dev. But I have a feeling this discussion could use a bit more of that. In the end we all want decent marketplaces and revenue for our work. And a race to the bottom isn’t exactly what I’m looking for.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: cobalt on October 31, 2013, 04:11
The main problem is that istock is just one of many getty sites and no longer attempting to be the biggest marketplace. thus it can no longer be a site that will provide a fulltime income to a large number of exclusives from istock alone.

Even if it was exclusive content only, the only way contributors could gain a signifacnt income was if the number of contributors was limited, like on stocksy.

But even if the indie content was removed the site would still be flooded with getty exclusive content or content from their favored contributors.

Image exclusivity is a very sensible solution, probably the only one for those who want to do stock as a full time income.

If istock added that as a third option, a lot of the stress they have in working with contributors would go away immediatly.

Getty itself doesn't ask for artist exclusivity amd they know why.

So exclusive images as a third option would just bring istock back into what is a normal industry standard.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on October 31, 2013, 04:16
The reason they couldn't (or at least, won't) dump all the independent files is that it would immediately create a several hundred percent inflation of the lowest price points, which they use to try to lure buyers in. Faced with that, the buyers would desert in droves, so to keep the buyers they would have to cut the price of all the exclusive files in the main collection to the level of independent files, which would probably cut the average exclusives' earnings by more than half overnight, prompting a rush for the door by the remaining suppliers.

Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: sodafish on October 31, 2013, 04:35
The reason they couldn't (or at least, won't) dump all the independent files is that it would immediately create a several hundred percent inflation of the lowest price points, which they use to try to lure buyers in. Faced with that, the buyers would desert in droves, so to keep the buyers they would have to cut the price of all the exclusive files in the main collection to the level of independent files, which would probably cut the average exclusives' earnings by more than half overnight, prompting a rush for the door by the remaining suppliers.

Yes, but cutting the price in half isn't necessarily the same as half revenue. Remember that when prices where a fraction of what they are today, overall revenue was often higher. High prices and price discrepancy could be the main reason buyers have left. And image exclusivity as a third option, yes, that sounds good.

And why not raise royalties to 50/50, wait ... no ... I'm having fantasies again ...
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Ploink on October 31, 2013, 04:53
And why not raise royalties to 50/50, wait ... no ... I'm having fantasies again ...

You should get that looked at as soon as possible  ;)

50/50 royalties at a Getty outlet - oh, wait that pig over there seems to be sprouting wings  ;D
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: cobalt on October 31, 2013, 05:01
I would take it as a good sign, that the discussion was allowed to continue in the public forum. Maybe enough exclusives have left and not enough interesting people are going exclusive,so that finally someone is beginning to take the contributors seriously.

Maybe they were hoping to get a wave of people going exclusive after Yuri did it, who knows? Something like "Letīs bring in the King of microstock and then they will all follow..."

But I sincerly doubt his decision would influence a large number of people,especially the successful individual artist who knows their situation is completely different from Yuri. I can see a few newbies to the industry being convinced by him going exclusive though.

So if enough exclusives demand image exclusivity and otherwise people actually do quit their exclusive contract and whoever is coming in new is bringing less quality than what they lose with the people who are leaving, eventually they will introduce exclusive images.

A third option. The path in the middle.

In the end it also reflects that with a total oversupply of images everywhere the absolute value of exclusive images has gone down a lot. Successful content gets copied immediately both by exclusives and indies,so there is an endless stream of similar images,just coming from different contributors.

Longterm the agencies will be competing more on quality of search results and the overall buyer experience than content. Which is why SS is growing so fast, because they realized that years ago and didnīt even ask for exclusive content.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Ron on October 31, 2013, 05:47
Prior to February 2013 that thread would have had 10 pages by now. Its got 1.5 page at the moment, no one cares, no one is commenting any more. Its a sorry ass place these days. IS forum reminds me of the FT forum, its dead too. There is more talk on the CanStockPhoto forum then on FT and IS. Says it all really.


Someone here mentioned separating IS from TS and make TS a sub site with their own contributors. Thats what I suggested in another thread as well. That could work.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: bunhill on October 31, 2013, 05:48
Longterm the agencies will be competing more on quality of search results and the overall buyer experience than content. Which is why SS is growing so fast, because they realized that years ago and didnīt even ask for exclusive content.

I believe that in the subscription market companies will be competing on market share alone and on their ability to sustain the ever lower prices of subscriptions (and very cheap single image sales) - for the longest. That is how a price war works. IMO the micro-stock market is not growing and is almost certainly in decline - therefore they can only take customers from each other. It could end up being difficult for people supplying the subscription model since increased sales at one may be matched by declining sales at another. And yet both are too good currently for indies to abandon.

Whilst some companies have subscription as their business model, others probably see it as something which needs to be contained if possible. SS was never in any position to ask for exclusive content. But looking at this from a slightly different perspective - I do not find it coincidental that Offset is called that.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: cobalt on October 31, 2013, 06:28
SS was never in any position to ask for exclusive content. But looking at this from a slightly different perspective - I do not find it coincidental that Offset is called that.

SS has said from the start that it is their explicit policy not to accept exclusive content. there are plenty of agencies out there that take exclusive images, are a lot cheaper than anyone else,but have no growth.

Price is important of course, but I sincerly doubt it is everything. Prices are so extremly low on all agencies, including getty if you think of their large discounts for corporate accounts, I find it hard to believe you can attract a significant number of clients by being 2 cents cheaper an image.

The US market might have reached saturation, i.e. most web designers and regular customers are getting their stock from somewhere, but there is a huge, huge world out there, that can still be discovered, anything outside of the English language group and especially countries moving up.

Then there is still a huge number of people who prefer to steal than to buy, conversion of even a small group of thieves would significantly increase sales. this is a part where agencies could even work  together.

And then - there is innovation! Creating totally new markets for your products that didnīt exist before.

In the end it is a war of business talents and IT technology plus the most innovative leadership. Before it was a war of who "owns" the best content,i.e. like buying up all the mines of a precious rare metal that is badly needed in the industry. Control the supply,you control the price. (Until the industry switches to a different metal...)

Now it is a service war, who will be the amazon or ebay of the industry. The key component to "own" is people,.i.e. identify the top talent world wide in a given field and then find the best way to create the most successful team out of that pool of talent.

Business skills, IT skills, Team building skills,including online community skills,  trump content, because the content is similar over all sites because of endless duplication.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: bunhill on October 31, 2013, 11:51
“”SS has said from the start that it is their explicit policy not to accept exclusive content””

For most of their history they were not in a position to require exclusive images because they were the number 2 earner.

I believe that there is a sustainable future for small agencies and collectives which exist on their own terms offering exclusive content and which shun the idea of even bothering to try to compete in a world of subscription etc. Sustainability IMO is partly about only needing to earn enough to continue comfortably - without ever expecting to make millions or billions and without ever needing to satisfy the ever escalating expectations of investors or shareholders. In much the same way as there is a good future for independent coffee houses and the people who sell organic vegetables at the market.

But SS etc are something quite different. For them image is a commodity in a world of agencies which are ultimately run and owned by big finance. They care about satisfying the expectations of their investors - and trading the future earnings of the businesses is as important as selling images. That is not a criticism. It's one version of an inevitable way in which things seem to happen.

The US market might have reached saturation, i.e. most web designers and regular customers are getting their stock from somewhere, but there is a huge, huge world out there, that can still be discovered, anything outside of the English language group and especially countries moving up.

I do not believe that there is any reason to believe that the world outside of North America and europe is likely to adopt a web model which mimics the evolution of the online world of the early 2000s. I do not believe that there is another boom going to happen.

Today it is not only that the market is saturated. The web business boom of the 2000s was funded by credit which is no longer available. There is much less business today. Also - businesses and official organisations and voluntary groups are today far less likely to require paid web content. Partly because the social media has, for many, largely replaced the need to maintain an old fashioned website - and the content they do use today is now far more likely to have been shot on an iPhone and shared for free by their customers or employees. Nobody is going to pay for social media content.

Bloggers and news sites today are far more likely to be using free or syndicated content - often supplied by the companies they are writing about. Subscription, specifically, is also undermined by social sharing and the legitimization of Pinterest - which some agencies see as a marketing opportunity. Sites like Pinterest undermine subscription.

Then there is still a huge number of people who prefer to steal than to buy, conversion of even a small group of thieves would significantly increase sales. this is a part where agencies could even work  together.

I do not believe that there is much evidence that any significant number of would-be subscription customers are currently using stolen content ? I do not believe that thieves are, for the most part, potential customers. This is not the same as music or films.

Now it is a service war, who will be the amazon or ebay of the industry.

It is not an industry on those sorts of scales. The question is which will be the biggest and brightest site with the cheapest subscriptions or all-you-can-eat licensing deals with Facebook, Yahoo, MSN or whatever the next mass market thing is. Those new licensing models depend upon tracking technologies but also undermine subscription as it has existed during the part decade. I believe that these sorts of deals, and free, are going to eat into 2000s style subscription models.

What I think I am saying is that I believe that the market for more expensive content is much more likely to be sustainable than a market for cheap content.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: cobalt on October 31, 2013, 12:17
"What I think I am saying is that I believe that the market for more expensive content is much more likely to be sustainable than a market for cheap content."

If the content is specialised enough, I absolutely agree. Images of an open heart transplant will have a much longer shelf life at a high price than a rose on white background.

Which is again a reason why I believe that istock would benefit from a third option of exclusive images. They can get the best content exclusively and generic content sells cheaper.

Thank your for the very detailed response. We obviously see the market differently, but you are clearly thinking about it.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: heywoody on October 31, 2013, 16:00
Main collection exclusive or not + no quality control - TS
The rest possibly on an image exclusive basis to a re-branded IS like stocksy / offset
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: tickstock on October 31, 2013, 16:28
.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: heywoody on October 31, 2013, 16:54
OK, in the Queen's English..  IS is being run into the ground to the extent indies are delighted to be in the partner program and quite a few exclusives would like to have the option.  I am suggesting that the intention is migrate the main collection to the partner program and retain what they perceive as higher value images in a re-launched istock - possibly image rather than contributor exclusive to attract the better breed of indy.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: luissantos84 on October 31, 2013, 16:57
I heard that strategy from the mouth of an istock exclusive back in 2010
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: heywoody on October 31, 2013, 17:04
In 2010 the site was not a dysfunctional mess.  There are 2 possible explanations:

1. It is run by complete idiots who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground
2. There is a strategy to burn the thing to the ground and start something new or maybe just burn it to the ground and carry on with Getty and the partner program.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: tickstock on October 31, 2013, 17:05
.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: luissantos84 on October 31, 2013, 17:09
midstock with over half collection priced from 1 to 7 credits?
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: tickstock on October 31, 2013, 17:12
.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: lisafx on October 31, 2013, 17:24
The reason they couldn't (or at least, won't) dump all the independent files is that it would immediately create a several hundred percent inflation of the lowest price points, which they use to try to lure buyers in. Faced with that, the buyers would desert in droves, so to keep the buyers they would have to cut the price of all the exclusive files in the main collection to the level of independent files, which would probably cut the average exclusives' earnings by more than half overnight, prompting a rush for the door by the remaining suppliers.

Yes, but cutting the price in half isn't necessarily the same as half revenue. Remember that when prices where a fraction of what they are today, overall revenue was often higher. High prices and price discrepancy could be the main reason buyers have left. And image exclusivity as a third option, yes, that sounds good.

And why not raise royalties to 50/50, wait ... no ... I'm having fantasies again ...

That makes hypothetical sense.  However, for us indies, it is no longer a hypothetical situation.  We are experiencing it and so we know the answer.  Cutting prices in half did pretty much halve, or nearly halve, our istock incomes overnight. 

Keep telling yourself that Getty has a long term plan for Istock, and that they care about keeping Istock exclusives happy and solvent.  Better yet, put it on your Christmas list and mail it to Santa Claus at the North Pole. 
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: tickstock on October 31, 2013, 17:39
.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: lisafx on October 31, 2013, 17:44
Cutting prices in half did pretty much halve, or nearly halve, our istock incomes overnight. 
Is that true for all nonexclusives?  I thought most people had reported something like 30% down but that was a while ago, I can't remember too many reports about this recently.

The ones I have talked to, yes, royalties are halved, or as I said above "nearly halved".   Lucky me that I don't have to wrack my brain to "remember too many reports".  I can look at my own stats, which are stark and printed in black and white. 

But even assuming you are correct, and most people are down a mere 30% ( ::) ) and you think exclusives would jump at the chance to lose only 30% more of their income, then I guess you have proved your point... wait... what was your point again?
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: tickstock on October 31, 2013, 17:49
.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: heywoody on October 31, 2013, 17:52
OK, in the Queen's English..  IS is being run into the ground to the extent indies are delighted to be in the partner program and quite a few exclusives would like to have the option.  I am suggesting that the intention is migrate the main collection to the partner program and retain what they perceive as higher value images in a re-launched istock - possibly image rather than contributor exclusive to attract the better breed of indy.
A couple things.  iStock isn't being run into the ground, it's still the largest microstock (midstock now?) site in terms of revenue probably by about 50% (but at least by a wide margin) over SS.  I think that has been established as fact by now.  I do think the entire main collection will be mirrored to the Partner Program, exclusive content included.  They just relaunched the brand, I don't see any new relaunch happening anytime in the foreseeable future.  What 'better breed of indie' are they trying to attract that they don't have now?

I admire your (unrequited) loyalty.  Let's look at some of the evidence:

•   Quality control is gone.  It was pretty one dimensional but at least buyers could be confident of technical quality.  Big element of marketability gone;
•   Pricing is more than halved (they never learned their 2 times tables and  P+ used to be a nice extra) on a huge proportion of content with no increase in sales volumes.  A small number of contributors seem to be doing ok but virtually all indies and a fair chunk of high performing exclusives are down.  IS trousers the bulk of the revenue so multiply the total contributor losses by 2 or three and this is lost revenue to the agency;
•   The PP always generated more volume but now the prices are better and moving away from subs only - reason unknown but likely that credit buyers are moving over;
•   The re-branding really just sends the message that it's a little bit of Getty;
•   The better breed of indy is not currently putting any exclusive content up there
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on October 31, 2013, 18:07
For the record, my earnings are down about 40%, my sales are up about 33%.  To me, it looks like a double-whammy against istock: on one hand they are picking up 40% less in commissions from me than they used to, on the other hand, they have diverted sales from exclusives to me, depriving themselves of commission from high-priced sales. That makes the loss to them bigger than the loss I am experiencing.
If that isn't  a way of running a business into the ground I don't know what is.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: tickstock on October 31, 2013, 18:12
.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on October 31, 2013, 18:16
For the record, my earnings are down about 40%, my sales are up about 33%.  To me, it looks like a double-whammy against istock: on one hand they are picking up 40% less in commissions from me than they used to, on the other hand, they have diverted sales from exclusives to me, depriving themselves of commission from high-priced sales. That makes the loss to them bigger than the loss I am experiencing.
If that isn't  a way of running a business into the ground I don't know what is.
So you don't think they lowered prices to bring back or attract new buyers?

Of course I do. But I don't think the strategy is working, you only have to see the complaints from exclusives about falling sales - and the reports from indes about rising sales (but falling revenues) to see that the main effect of the policy has been to redirect sales from exclusives to independents, not to bring in new customers.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: gostwyck on October 31, 2013, 18:17
Cutting prices in half did pretty much halve, or nearly halve, our istock incomes overnight. 
Is that true for all nonexclusives?  I thought most people had reported something like 30% down but that was a while ago, I can't remember too many reports about this recently.

The ones I have talked to, yes, royalties are halved, or as I said above "nearly halved".   But even assuming you are correct, and people are down a mere 30% ( ::) ) and you think exclusives would jump at the chance to lose only 30% more of their income, then I guess you have proved your point... wait... what was your point again?
The point was to get an accurate number.  The difference between 30 and 50% is pretty large, not that it's a good thing to be down at all.  I was asking because it has been a long time since I saw many people posting how they are doing on iStock, almost no one posts percentages or posts anything in the monthly sales thread anymore.

As I have reported before my monthly income at IS is down around 43-45% since the price reductions. As Lisa said, 'nearly halved'.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: tickstock on October 31, 2013, 18:19
.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: ShadySue on October 31, 2013, 18:21
For the record, my earnings are down about 40%, my sales are up about 33%.  To me, it looks like a double-whammy against istock: on one hand they are picking up 40% less in commissions from me than they used to, on the other hand, they have diverted sales from exclusives to me, depriving themselves of commission from high-priced sales. That makes the loss to them bigger than the loss I am experiencing.
If that isn't  a way of running a business into the ground I don't know what is.
So you don't think they lowered prices to bring back or attract new buyers?

Of course I do. But I don't think the strategy is working, you only have to see the complaints from exclusives about falling sales - and the reports from indes about rising sales (but falling revenues) to see that the main effect of the policy has been to redirect sales from exclusives to independents, not to bring in new customers.
Not all exclusives are having falling sales.
Most (but not all) who report are reporting falling sales.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on October 31, 2013, 18:28
For the record, my earnings are down about 40%, my sales are up about 33%.  To me, it looks like a double-whammy against istock: on one hand they are picking up 40% less in commissions from me than they used to, on the other hand, they have diverted sales from exclusives to me, depriving themselves of commission from high-priced sales. That makes the loss to them bigger than the loss I am experiencing.
If that isn't  a way of running a business into the ground I don't know what is.
So you don't think they lowered prices to bring back or attract new buyers?

Of course I do. But I don't think the strategy is working, you only have to see the complaints from exclusives about falling sales - and the reports from indes about rising sales (but falling revenues) to see that the main effect of the policy has been to redirect sales from exclusives to independents, not to bring in new customers.
Not all exclusives are having falling sales.

The vast majority seem to, if the statements exclusives are making reflect the facts. In the September thread there seemed to be only one person in the first 40 who was doing well, many of the others were 50%+ down, year on year.

Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on October 31, 2013, 18:39

So you don't think they lowered prices to bring back or attract new buyers?  It sounds like you're saying they made this change with the goal of losing money.

Since you edited this late to add the second sentence, I would point out that your assumption is not what I said. Companies screw things up without any evil intentions being involved. When things are going wrong, people sometimes panic and come up with wild ideas rooted in wishful thinking. That might be what's happening here but I don't know.

By the way, why is it important to you for the figures for the fall in inde earnings to be more precise than 30-50%, whereas you find the incredibly vague statement that  "not all exclusives are having falling sales" worth making? That's true if there is just one in 10,000 doing well and 9,999 suffering falling sales. As evidence that I'm wrong it hardly has the sort of precision you demand from others.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: tickstock on October 31, 2013, 18:40
.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: tickstock on October 31, 2013, 18:43
.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on October 31, 2013, 18:46
For the record, my earnings are down about 40%, my sales are up about 33%.  To me, it looks like a double-whammy against istock: on one hand they are picking up 40% less in commissions from me than they used to, on the other hand, they have diverted sales from exclusives to me, depriving themselves of commission from high-priced sales. That makes the loss to them bigger than the loss I am experiencing.
If that isn't  a way of running a business into the ground I don't know what is.
So you don't think they lowered prices to bring back or attract new buyers?

Of course I do. But I don't think the strategy is working, you only have to see the complaints from exclusives about falling sales - and the reports from indes about rising sales (but falling revenues) to see that the main effect of the policy has been to redirect sales from exclusives to independents, not to bring in new customers.
Not all exclusives are having falling sales.

The vast majority seem to, if the statements exclusives are making reflect the facts. In the September thread there seemed to be only one person in the first 40 who was doing well, many of the others were 50%+ down, year on year.
There are actually 5 that say they are up year on year out of the first 40 replies and another 1 or 2 that could be up but you can't tell either way from what they've said.

Oh, OK, let's just say that only 82.5% of exclusives are having a terrible time (see, I'm being generous and allowing you the two "could be up" in the tally).  In what way does that contradict my argument?

If most exclusive are suffering from falling earnings of up to 80% in some cases, and if the indes are suffering from a 42% earnings drop, then it is inconceivable that iStock is not suffering badly as a result of its latest strategy.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on October 31, 2013, 18:49
Some people report only iStock downloads, some only iStock earnings, some count Getty and the PP too.  It's not always easy to tell what's being reported.

Of course there's no certainty in percentage terms and what is being reported is not entirely clear, but the general trend is crystal clear from the September thread. If you insist on ignoring facts that are staring you in the face, then there's not much anyone can do to make you see what is happening.

(PS: I doubt if many/any are reporting only iS downloads: people are more interested in money than in download numbers)
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: luissantos84 on October 31, 2013, 18:50
no Paul, all exclusives doing well don't talk ;D
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: tickstock on October 31, 2013, 18:50
.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Travelling-light on October 31, 2013, 18:54
The problem at IS is that they've ruined their reputation.
One way they could get it back would be to have hundreds of happy contributors talking all over the internet about how great they are, like we used to.
Now, how could they achieve that?
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: luissantos84 on October 31, 2013, 19:02
The problem at IS is that they've ruined their reputation.
One way they could get it back would be to have hundreds of happy contributors talking all over the internet about how great they are, like we used to.
Now, how could they achieve that?

3 years ago!

there is no hope that anything will change, I don't understand how contributors still believe in a turnover from/at iStock after such a long time screwing contributors and buyers, it will only get worst, nothing else guys, stop dreaming...
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on October 31, 2013, 19:04
You have a few more assumptions in there.  One is that people are equally likely to post whether they are up or down.  I think that is false if people are doing well they don't want to post because it can lead to copying.  I'm sure more people check out a portfolio of someone that says they had BME than the person that says they are having a terrible month.  Also the numbers in that thread for exclusives is probably 60-70% down and around 20% up with the rest somewhere in between.  There are a few repeat posts and indies posting.


That kinda boils down to arguing that we are incapable of knowing exactly what is going on, so we should ignore everything we do know and assume it's all all-right.

If you've been around long enough, you will know that in the past the monthly threads used to be happy-clappy sorts of places, with hordes of people reporting BMEs, so while there might be some resistance to letting people in on your success it was certainly not widespread. I don't see why the psychology of microstockers is supposed to have suddenly changed, turning them from joful open individuals into nervous, paranoid creatures who hide their light under a bushel.

IF you just go back to January's report http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=351109&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=351109&page=1) you get a much more mixed picture, lots of people doing well and lots not so well. I find it a bit hard to believe that people decided sometime between January and September that they would no longer share any good news they had.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: tickstock on October 31, 2013, 19:18
.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Digital66 on October 31, 2013, 20:14
I can't tell you for certain what % of people are up or down, I can just tell you for sure that not every exclusive is down.  Even reading the monthly earnings thread you'll see people report that sales fell 40% compared to last year but royalties are the best ever.  Some people report only iStock downloads, some only iStock earnings, some count Getty and the PP too.  It's not always easy to tell what's being reported.
I must agree with tickstock here.  Not every exclusive is down.   Most of those doing well don't participate in the monthly earnings threads.   My own personal reason for not participating in those threads is that in my experience,  reporting a positive month is an effective and fast way to attract more copycats.  Lesson learnt!
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: shudderstok on October 31, 2013, 21:55
I can't tell you for certain what % of people are up or down, I can just tell you for sure that not every exclusive is down.  Even reading the monthly earnings thread you'll see people report that sales fell 40% compared to last year but royalties are the best ever.  Some people report only iStock downloads, some only iStock earnings, some count Getty and the PP too.  It's not always easy to tell what's being reported.
I must agree with tickstock here.  Not every exclusive is down.   Most of those doing well don't participate in the monthly earnings threads.   My own personal reason for not participating in those threads is that in my experience,  reporting a positive month is an effective and fast way to attract more copycats.  Lesson learnt!

why would anyone want to share private information about their sales? it makes little sense if any at all. i have never commented on the sales thread, and never will. that all said, i am exclusive, happy to be so, and sales are up, up, up, and with the GI thing kicking in, WOW!

Food for thought... in the stock market, money is always made. some people lose money in a bull market while other make money, some people make money in a bear market while others lose money, and some people just invest wisely and make money slow and steady all along and reap huge rewards. is shooting stock any different?

Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: EmberMike on October 31, 2013, 21:58
Is that true for all nonexclusives?  I thought most people had reported something like 30% down but that was a while ago, I can't remember too many reports about this recently.

Oddly enough I'm only about 7% down since the price drop. Although that's 7% down on earnings that were already 90% down over the last couple of years, so it's not really saying much I guess. 7% of a small number isn't really anything to base any conclusions on.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: luissantos84 on October 31, 2013, 22:02
why would anyone want to share private information about their sales?

so you can read and enjoy! ::)
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on November 01, 2013, 02:40
I have no idea how many people don't report GI or PP sales but for me they make up around 30% of my income, if I stopped reporting those my numbers would look very different than what they actually are.  I could say that I've been down every month if I just left out 30% of my income.

So you are saying that your iS-only sales  have been declining steadily for a long time? Or are you saying that if you chose to change your method of assessing earnings from the total from GI/iS to iS only, then the second figure would be lower?
Of course, if you decide suddenly to change your method of reporting then you will get a different answer. So you choose to suggest that people reporting a fall in sales are inconsistent in the way they report - not only is that unlikely,  you don't have a shred of evidence to support it, so once again it is a red herring.
In the Jan sales thread you count 8 out of 40 saying they are up, compared with 5 out of 40 now,  and ask why I think that is a big difference - possibly because it is 60% more. Another of your red herrings - if your earnings went up 60% in a month, would that be a big difference? I rather think it might be. So, once again, you challenge what I said by producing evidence to support it and on that basis say my observation is wrong.
You suggest that people might have stopped reporting better sales because you have never reported sales. In other words, the fact you DIDN'T change your behaviour is evidence that other people DID change their behaviour - a major logic fail there, I think (but at least you have one person who says they did stop reporting for fear of copycats - not exactly overwhelming evidence of a general trend, though; and he didn't say that he reports bad months but not good ones, he's just excused himself entirely from the threads).
There seems to be an implication in your posts that people who do not report their earnings are all doing well and only those doing badly bother to report. There isn't a shred of evidence for that. Non-reporters may be suffering just as much as reporters but still stick strictly to a "no tell" policy, in which case the monthly report would still be an accurate reflection of where things have gone.
Throughout this discussion you haven't been able to refute a single thing I've said. Your responses agree with me when it comse to the facts that are available, your only argument is that there are facts we don't know and as the unknown counts for more than the known, my fact-based assessment must fall when tested against your assessment of what we don't know.
I bet you think global warming is a hoax, too!
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on November 01, 2013, 02:43
Is that true for all nonexclusives?  I thought most people had reported something like 30% down but that was a while ago, I can't remember too many reports about this recently.

Oddly enough I'm only about 7% down since the price drop. Although that's 7% down on earnings that were already 90% down over the last couple of years, so it's not really saying much I guess. 7% of a small number isn't really anything to base any conclusions on.

But are you creating graphics? The 40% is being stated by photographers. Did they changes the commission structure the same way for graphics as they did for photos? I'm not sure but I don't think they did.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: bunhill on November 01, 2013, 03:48
@Baldrick

The data is not available. There are only individual snippets of data and lots of extrapolation. I certainly agree with Tickstock that people are far more likely to post in those threads if their sales are down and they are expressing frustration. Most people in other businesses would never go to an internet forum to bray about how well they are doing - it's a curious thing. You also have to remember that most contributors never post anything anywhere.

And what are you trying to derive from these snippets of data ? If it is about money then it clearly makes sense to report total sales including GI and PP - since that is where the business has shifted. If it is about how well Getty is performing and how any shift might relate to their strategies then that could not be extrapolated from such partial data. Lots of people seem to be reporting significantly increased PP sales - perhaps that means that Getty are doing well selling subs. But we can only guess. And a strategy may play out over a few years. Certainly the equilibrium has changed now that indy content is offered at roughly the same prices as they (indies) offer it at elsewhere.

Given the economy and increased competition - anyone who was doing well at the peak of the boom could reasonably expect to be considerably down unless they have  been continually producing very large quantities of very high quality work which is in demand. A non stellar 'exclusive' who is still earning around about the same is doing quite well - all things considered.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on November 01, 2013, 04:28
bhr - I think you are under-estimating how meaningful the threads are.

Here are some assumptions for you to argue with:
1) The self-selection process produces a random sample of users, since the decision to post details is quite independent of the nature of the portfolio
2) People who decide to post details will post whether the month is good or bad, they will not selectively post bad months but not good ones.

If those assumptions are true, then if they were all reporting the same things we would have a really good proxy for the performance of the site. Unfortunately the figures are messed up by the inclusion/exclusion of GI and PP sales and by the fact some people do video, others illustrations and others photos, each of which will produce a different pattern of results.  Even so, there's still (in my view) enough information available to give a general sense of what is happening.

Also, you do not have to rely on the earnings stats alone. What they are saying is corroborated in other iStock threads, e.g the 100% exclusive thread, where exclusives talk openly of losing sales and blame the inde files in Main for taking sales.  Difydave, phototropic, JodiJacobson, AlbertoSimonetti, Banksphotos (four diamonds, one bronze) all complain on the first page of that thread about iStock (specifically) sales being down (interestingly, I think Difydave counted as one of those whose sales were up in September, according to shudderstock's analysis of that thread).

So there are different sources, not just the complicated earnings threads, confirming that exclusives are losing sales and indes have gained sales since the change. But there in NO evidence that the change has brought back any buyers.

Data are available if you care to look.

Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: bunhill on November 01, 2013, 05:00
there are different sources, not just the complicated earnings threads, confirming that exclusives are losing sales and indes have gained sales since the change. But there in NO evidence that the change has brought back any buyers.

Data are available if you care to look.

There is no complete or normalised data. There are only a few anecdotal personal posts - not data. Snippets of information at best. The rest is speculative interpolation.

But more than that - what are you trying to determine about the strategy in general ? How can you have any sense of whether or not it is working when you have no idea what the aim is or what kind of time frame is involved ? For all you know Getty may be expecting to sell fewer images via iStock. They may be expecting to sell fewer images in general. I am sure that what they are doing is also going to be about trying to shape the market - that may mean losing sales in some quarters.

Some people are reporting fewer sales but broadly equivalent incomes. We cannot call that data either. Though I know that I much prefer to sell fewer images for more money.

FWIW - I am completely neutral on this - it is all just interesting. If I thought that the sky was falling in I would say so. And I am a big fan of one or two of the other sites - because I love photography - I love looking at really great work. I also very much support the idea of there being alternatives. But my sense over the past 6 months is that Getty is playing a long game and that they know very well what they are doing. I believe it is a significantly different company than it was during the H&F era.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: cobalt on November 01, 2013, 05:09
People exchange sales information in many, many industries. The internet just makes it easier.

In my old business every year we filled out forms sent by either the city council, goverment agencies or our own interest groups to get results. Participation was voluntary, but the results were interesting to everyone, and participation has always been very high.

So this is not a new system. Wherever you have business and entrepreneurs you have a need for data.

stock is a tiny industry. Just a few thousand players. And on istock especially the exclusives (and indies) always had their total sales numbers visible.

It is a very small group of people, and the majority of the top 500 are all deeply networked.

If suddenly there were people at the top doing well, then we would know either through private communcation or from those who keep scraping sales data from top contributors and publish their results.

nobody is really anonymous, even if you are working under an alias here, over on istock all your results are public, so if you have reached a certain level on the success ladder your data is being included anyway.

@bhr

Getty has had the same manager for 20 years with Klein at the top. He won't change and Getty's corporate culture won't change just because the company is no longer owned by H&F.

I cannot detect any difference in how they are doing their business.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: bunhill on November 01, 2013, 05:47
over on istock all your results are public, so if you have reached a certain level on the success ladder your data is being included anyway.

Exclusives are probably averaging something over $10 per sale. A few sales today is equivalent to many sales how things once were. An exclusive selling 3 images per week day is making about $650 per month [EDIT: some] are very probably making that much again from GI. The numbers here would make more sense in $ than %

Getty has had the same manager for 20 years with Klein at the top. He won't change and Getty's corporate culture won't change just because the company is no longer owned by H&F. I cannot detect any difference in how they are doing their business.

How they do business and corporate culture is quite different from strategy. Corporate culture is a fairly nebulous idea and gradual thing. I would not expect any sudden changes there.

But strategy has clearly shifted. If nothing else a year of significant changes makes that obvious.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: cobalt on November 01, 2013, 05:56
I see a new web design, I do see more active advertising for istock and I see less choices for contributors.

I also see the 50% price drop on the indie files. Is that for you a change in strategy?

Maybe our understanding of business is just too different.

Corporate culture is very important because that is what holds business teams together and creates a higher net value from the team than from the individual talent.

As we know an agencies most important asset are their team of employees and their team of suppliers.

It would be different if they owned a gold mine. But they don't. Everything in their business is tied to people.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on November 01, 2013, 06:17
bhr
I think we use the word "data" differently. To me, data are pieces of raw information that can be interpreted to reach conclusions (that might be right or wrong, depending on how good the data are, among other things). I suspect you regard data as a complete and collated set of figures - but that's just my guess. Anyway, it doesn't mean the same to you as to me or you wouldn't say "snippets of data" are not "data".

I'd agree that the data we have are woefully incomplete and don't all reflect the same thing. It doesn't meen that there isn't enough information to derive at least a broad picture of the general direction things are going in (but you don't agree to that - which is fair enough).

All I am interested in from this is the direction that iStock is going in for exclusives and independents. The GI sales have no relevance to me.

Understanding direction helps me to know whether to expect more dramatic changes, or whether things are likely to stay as they are. Currently, I expect another dramatic change of some kind - don't know what, but it probably won't help me.

I do know that Getty's policy is to grow its revenues, of which "midstock" is an important part. They have predicted growth to their bondholders, but I gather the promised growth didn't appear so the promise has been booted across to next year and at the same time they have introduced changes that seem to me - and many others - to be certain to cause contraction in their "midstock" arena rather than growth - but, yeah, maybe wholly owned files or something else are filling the gap, though I don't understand how that would happen.

You know, all the figures in the survey on the right are just self-reported snippets of data but despite not being "the data" they still provide an awful lot of quite useful information.
 





 

@Baldrick

The data is not available. There are only individual snippets of data and lots of extrapolation. I certainly agree with Tickstock that people are far more likely to post in those threads if their sales are down and they are expressing frustration. Most people in other businesses would never go to an internet forum to bray about how well they are doing - it's a curious thing. You also have to remember that most contributors never post anything anywhere.

And what are you trying to derive from these snippets of data ? If it is about money then it clearly makes sense to report total sales including GI and PP - since that is where the business has shifted. If it is about how well Getty is performing and how any shift might relate to their strategies then that could not be extrapolated from such partial data. Lots of people seem to be reporting significantly increased PP sales - perhaps that means that Getty are doing well selling subs. But we can only guess. And a strategy may play out over a few years. Certainly the equilibrium has changed now that indy content is offered at roughly the same prices as they (indies) offer it at elsewhere.

Given the economy and increased competition - anyone who was doing well at the peak of the boom could reasonably expect to be considerably down unless they have  been continually producing very large quantities of very high quality work which is in demand. A non stellar 'exclusive' who is still earning around about the same is doing quite well - all things considered.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: bunhill on November 01, 2013, 06:24
I see a new web design, I do see more active advertising for istock and I see less choices for contributors.

I also see the 50% price drop on the indie files. Is that for you a change in strategy?

Well it is clearly connected to an evolving strategy. Corporate culture by contrast is something which evolves over time. Clearly it is not something that anyone can impose or invent artificially. There is clearly a great pool of talent across this industry in general.

Getting back to the numbers as expressed in $.  I am estimating above than an exclusive selling only 3 images per weekday at iStockphoto is making $650 per month on those very few sales. I am guessing that a person would have to sell many many more than that to make the same money at SS even accepting that not all sales are less than 50c subs. I chose a small number because I think it reflects the typical scale of things here. Though I was astonished recently here to read of someone struggling to even make a monthly payout at SS.
 
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Ron on November 01, 2013, 06:42
Though I was astonished recently here to read of someone struggling to even make a monthly payout at SS.

How many images, what kind of images, portfolio age? Blanket statements hold no value.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: ShadySue on November 01, 2013, 06:42
Exclusives are probably averaging something over $10 per sale.
I couoldn't possibly speculate on the 'average', but my average in Oct was <half that.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: ShadySue on November 01, 2013, 06:47
Though I was astonished recently here to read of someone struggling to even make a monthly payout at SS.

How many images, what kind of images, portfolio age? Blanket statements hold no value.

That's not a blanket statement, it's someone's experience.

A blanket statement is such as I've read often "Shutterstock is where we all (sic) make most of our $$". Some people with broadly similar ports at several places don't report SS as top, so the 'blanket statement' is disproved.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Ron on November 01, 2013, 06:51
I think we know by now I am not native English and dont always know the correct phrasing. I meant to say, without knowing that persons situation, the statement holds no value. If that person has 10 editorial images its not a surprise, if they have 10,000 HCV photos, then something is wrong. I hope thats clear enough for you.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on November 01, 2013, 06:51
Though I was astonished recently here to read of someone struggling to even make a monthly payout at SS.

How many images, what kind of images, portfolio age? Blanket statements hold no value.

I would be astonished if more than 10% of contributors at any site make a monthly payout. There are probably 150,000 contributors to iStock, if each of them made $50 a month the site would be paying out 7.5million a month and, iirc, they are only paying out about a quarter of that, ergo more than three quarters of contributors don't hit a monthly payout.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Ron on November 01, 2013, 06:58
Though I was astonished recently here to read of someone struggling to even make a monthly payout at SS.

How many images, what kind of images, portfolio age? Blanket statements hold no value.

I would be astonished if more than 10% of contributors at any site make a monthly payout. There are probably 150,000 contributors to iStock, if each of them made $50 a month the site would be paying out 7.5million a month and, iirc, they are only paying out about a quarter of that, ergo more than three quarters of contributors don't hit a monthly payout.
I thought payout was 100 dollar on IS.

Only 10%? SS has 35k contributors.

Still, it depends on what you sell, how many and for how long.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on November 01, 2013, 07:01
Though I was astonished recently here to read of someone struggling to even make a monthly payout at SS.

How many images, what kind of images, portfolio age? Blanket statements hold no value.

I would be astonished if more than 10% of contributors at any site make a monthly payout. There are probably 150,000 contributors to iStock, if each of them made $50 a month the site would be paying out 7.5million a month and, iirc, they are only paying out about a quarter of that, ergo more than three quarters of contributors don't hit a monthly payout.
I thought payout was 100 dollar on IS.

Only 10%? SS has 35k contributors.

Still, it depends on what you sell, how many and for how long.

Most contributors have tiny portfolios and lose interest fairly quickly. Your're still a contributor with three snapshots in your portfiolio.
I thought iS was doing $50, if it is $100 then the figure would be $15m a month, which would certainly mean less than 10% of contributors getting paid every month.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: gostwyck on November 01, 2013, 07:02
There is no complete or normalised data. There are only a few anecdotal personal posts - not data. Snippets of information at best. The rest is speculative interpolation.

But more than that - what are you trying to determine about the strategy in general ? How can you have any sense of whether or not it is working when you have no idea what the aim is or what kind of time frame is involved ? For all you know Getty may be expecting to sell fewer images via iStock. They may be expecting to sell fewer images in general. I am sure that what they are doing is also going to be about trying to shape the market - that may mean losing sales in some quarters.

Some people are reporting fewer sales but broadly equivalent incomes. We cannot call that data either. Though I know that I much prefer to sell fewer images for more money.

FWIW - I am completely neutral on this - it is all just interesting. If I thought that the sky was falling in I would say so. And I am a big fan of one or two of the other sites - because I love photography - I love looking at really great work. I also very much support the idea of there being alternatives. But my sense over the past 6 months is that Getty is playing a long game and that they know very well what they are doing. I believe it is a significantly different company than it was during the H&F era.


There is data or at least detailed factual information in places like this;

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-09-04/caryle-group-s-getty-images-ratings-on-review-for-cut-by-moody-s (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-09-04/caryle-group-s-getty-images-ratings-on-review-for-cut-by-moody-s)

That to me looks pretty grim. It doesn't yet include the fall in revenue from the Main collection price reductions either __ we should be getting that information in about a month from now. All I know is that since June my portfolio is earning 40%+ less for me and also for Istock.

Getty has $2.6B of debt. That's a lot. If all of that debt was accruing interest at the rate of 7% (as some of it is according to the article) then the interest alone would amount to over $180M per annum. That's about 20% of total annual sales for GI as they stand when last reported. If revenues fall further, as many of us consider likely from our own sales and that of others, then that proportion increases further. I would consider the situation to be extremely serious. Further falls in revenue (or the need to pay higher interest rates on future revolving loans) could easily spiral out of control.

So what happens next? What if Carlyle decide that they've been 'sold a pup' and just want to sell their 51% stake in GI to minimise their losses? Anyone know of an entrepreneur in the stock image business, who is sitting on a mountain of cash, and looking for a suitable acquisition with which to expand their empire? I do!
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: cobalt on November 01, 2013, 07:03
ges per weekday at iStockphoto is making $650 per month on those very few sales. I am guessing that a person would have to sell many many more than that to make the same money at SS even accepting that not all sales are less than 50c subs. I chose a small number because I think it reflects the typical scale of things here. Though I was astonished recently here to read of someone struggling to even make a monthly payout at SS.

Getting back to numbers: my average on istock as an exclusive at 35% was around 6 dollars not 10. My last data is from March 2013, so i doubt it would have changed very much until now. If you are getting 10 dollars on average for your photos, you are either in a higher royalty group than me, have a ton of Vetta files (Congrats!) or are selling many more files at larger sizes. My results from getty under the Getty House contract (i.e. directly on getty itself,not through the E+ program) was between 10-14 dollars with HUGE variations and trending downwards. Volume of sales much lower than on istock of course.

At the moment I only have data from around 500 files on the new sites and I am not supplying everyone. It is difficult to compare single image results because the volume of sales varies greatly and the sites also have quite a large number of extended licenses and other special single image deals. But even just with 500 files and still being at the lowest rank on most of the new agencies, i know I will be earning more once I have 5000 files online (and 5000 or more files on istock).

There is absolutely no financial incentive for me to go back to being fully artist exclusive. None at all. And this is my honest conclusion after just 6 months of independence. And with all the difficulties of sending files in an environment where there is a total oversupply of images

Obviously it will take me time to reach a full living wage again. But the basic question will I make more as an indie than as an exclusive? That question for me is decided in favour of independence.

However, as a means of overall portfolio strategy, I donīt believe in putting all files everywhere. There are high volume files that will do well on sites with low individual sales prices and I also have content that can demand a higher price but will rarely be needed. As a result I am very much in favour of sites that take exclusive images, especially if the agency has a clearly defined style or subject matter like stocksy does.

I will keep monitoring the market of course, if for some reason istock was suddenly growing again to a point where my analysis showed me real advantage to be exclusive again, I might consider it (if I saw an appropriate longterm future as well). But I sincerely doubt it will happen. It will take them at least 2 years to rebuild trust and change direction of their business. But in the meantime the other agencies will grow as well, so I think I will stay indie for life.

But exclusive images, if istocksy offered the Third path, I would send them files, like I send exclusive files to stocks,west end or fotolia.

Obviously everybody has to make their own decisions and being exclusive with one company is very comfortable, so if people want to go fully artist exclusive good luck to them.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: bunhill on November 01, 2013, 07:03
Though I was astonished recently here to read of someone struggling to even make a monthly payout at SS.

How many images, what kind of images, portfolio age? Blanket statements hold no value.

I would be astonished if more than 10% of contributors at any site make a monthly payout. There are probably 150,000 contributors to iStock, if each of them made $50 a month the site would be paying out 7.5million a month and, iirc, they are only paying out about a quarter of that, ergo more than three quarters of contributors don't hit a monthly payout.

I am guessing $10 per download for an exclusive. So 3 sales per weekday is $650. Sue says half that. So $325. Lets go with her number then (though I think it seems low).

How many downloads per day on average to earn $325 at SS ?
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on November 01, 2013, 07:05
Though I was astonished recently here to read of someone struggling to even make a monthly payout at SS.

How many images, what kind of images, portfolio age? Blanket statements hold no value.

I would be astonished if more than 10% of contributors at any site make a monthly payout. There are probably 150,000 contributors to iStock, if each of them made $50 a month the site would be paying out 7.5million a month and, iirc, they are only paying out about a quarter of that, ergo more than three quarters of contributors don't hit a monthly payout.

I am guessing $10 per download for an exclusive. So 3 sales per weekday is $650. Sue says half that. So $325. Lets go with her number then (though I think it seems low).

How many downloads per day on average to earn $325 at SS ?

People quote an average of about 70c per dl, so you would need somwhere just short of 500 (errr.... yeah, that's per month, not per day).
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: cobalt on November 01, 2013, 07:07

I am guessing $10 per download for an exclusive. So 3 sales per weekday is $650. Sue says half that. So $325. Lets go with her number then (though I think it seems low).

How many downloads per day on average to earn $325 at SS ?

But you never compare income from istock only to income from SS.

You compare income from istock with income from SS,Fotolia,Dreamstime,Alamy,Stocksy and self hosted sites like symbiostock.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Ron on November 01, 2013, 07:10
Though I was astonished recently here to read of someone struggling to even make a monthly payout at SS.


How many images, what kind of images, portfolio age? Blanket statements hold no value.


I would be astonished if more than 10% of contributors at any site make a monthly payout. There are probably 150,000 contributors to iStock, if each of them made $50 a month the site would be paying out 7.5million a month and, iirc, they are only paying out about a quarter of that, ergo more than three quarters of contributors don't hit a monthly payout.
I thought payout was 100 dollar on IS.

Only 10%? SS has 35k contributors.

Still, it depends on what you sell, how many and for how long.


Most contributors have tiny portfolios and lose interest fairly quickly. Your're still a contributor with three snapshots in your portfiolio.
I thought iS was doing $50, if it is $100 then the figure would be $15m a month, which would certainly mean less than 10% of contributors getting paid every month.


Just as an FYI http://istockfaq.gettyimages.com/how-do-i-request-a-payment-of-earnings/ (http://istockfaq.gettyimages.com/how-do-i-request-a-payment-of-earnings/)

By the way, I am not arguing you are wrong about hitting pay outs  :)
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on November 01, 2013, 07:12
I usually collect a few hundred bucks a time from iS, so the minimum payout hasn't been something I have paid attention to for a long time.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Ron on November 01, 2013, 07:16
Though I was astonished recently here to read of someone struggling to even make a monthly payout at SS.

How many images, what kind of images, portfolio age? Blanket statements hold no value.

I would be astonished if more than 10% of contributors at any site make a monthly payout. There are probably 150,000 contributors to iStock, if each of them made $50 a month the site would be paying out 7.5million a month and, iirc, they are only paying out about a quarter of that, ergo more than three quarters of contributors don't hit a monthly payout.

I am guessing $10 per download for an exclusive. So 3 sales per weekday is $650. Sue says half that. So $325. Lets go with her number then (though I think it seems low).

How many downloads per day on average to earn $325 at SS ?
  17 from experience
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: ShadySue on November 01, 2013, 08:49
I think we know by now I am not native English and dont always know the correct phrasing. I meant to say, without knowing that persons situation, the statement holds no value. If that person has 10 editorial images its not a surprise, if they have 10,000 HCV photos, then something is wrong. I hope thats clear enough for you.

Absolutely I knew what you meant. As I've explained already, from the experience of three very good-to-excellent wildlife togs I know personally, SS is not necessarily a good place to sell UK wildlife; clearly other subjects will be better or worse (isn't it SS who reject for lcv?).
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Ron on November 01, 2013, 09:38
I think we know by now I am not native English and dont always know the correct phrasing. I meant to say, without knowing that persons situation, the statement holds no value. If that person has 10 editorial images its not a surprise, if they have 10,000 HCV photos, then something is wrong. I hope thats clear enough for you.

Absolutely I knew what you meant. As I've explained already, from the experience of three very good-to-excellent wildlife togs I know personally, SS is not necessarily a good place to sell UK wildlife; clearly other subjects will be better or worse (isn't it SS who reject for lcv?).

SS no longer give the LCV rejection, Scott Braut mentioned that on MSG.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: ShadySue on November 01, 2013, 09:42
I think we know by now I am not native English and dont always know the correct phrasing. I meant to say, without knowing that persons situation, the statement holds no value. If that person has 10 editorial images its not a surprise, if they have 10,000 HCV photos, then something is wrong. I hope thats clear enough for you.

Absolutely I knew what you meant. As I've explained already, from the experience of three very good-to-excellent wildlife togs I know personally, SS is not necessarily a good place to sell UK wildlife; clearly other subjects will be better or worse (isn't it SS who reject for lcv?).

SS no longer give the LCV rejection, Scott Braut mentioned that on MSG.

OK, tx. :-)
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: luissantos84 on November 01, 2013, 09:43
so what do they give now? other reason even if not the proper "reason"?
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Ron on November 01, 2013, 09:43
so what do they give now? other reason even if not the proper "reason"?
No they accept the images.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: luissantos84 on November 01, 2013, 09:47
so what do they give now? other reason even if not the proper "reason"?
No they accept the images.

I like that :)
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Freedom on November 01, 2013, 10:17
Exclusives are probably averaging something over $10 per sale.
I couoldn't possibly speculate on the 'average', but my average in Oct was <half that.

My average in October was about $10 per sales, while September was half of that due to most sales in Main and S collections.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: tickstock on November 01, 2013, 10:31
.

Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: tickstock on November 01, 2013, 10:40
.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: ShadySue on November 01, 2013, 15:00
I report GI separately; but then I don't get many.
For people considering exclusivity (!), it might be best to see separate reports, as there doesn't seem to be much chance of plebs getting their pics into the Collections which (might, eventually) get mirrored on GI.
But they could change everything next week when it's the window cleaner's turn to suggest something for the IT team to implement within a day.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: tickstock on November 01, 2013, 15:00
.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Travelling-light on November 01, 2013, 16:14
Does your $9 RPD include Getty?
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: tickstock on November 01, 2013, 16:16
.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: shudderstok on November 01, 2013, 17:22
I just chucked a cat in among the pigeons :)

you seem incredibly smitten with yourself and your harangue is getting tiring. you seem to know it all. or is your favorite hobby pontificating?
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: luissantos84 on November 01, 2013, 17:27
I just chucked a cat in among the pigeons :)

you seem incredibly smitten with yourself and your harangue is getting tiring. you seem to know it all. or is your favorite hobby pontificating?

actually you are the one that knows everything but doesn't share a thing ;D
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on November 01, 2013, 17:35
I just chucked a cat in among the pigeons :)

you seem incredibly smitten with yourself and your harangue is getting tiring. you seem to know it all. or is your favorite hobby pontificating?

Are you upset that I didn't respond to your last post? Is that why you're raking up something from a couple of days ago and then saying it's getting tiring?
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: shudderstok on November 01, 2013, 17:42
I just chucked a cat in among the pigeons :)

you seem incredibly smitten with yourself and your harangue is getting tiring. you seem to know it all. or is your favorite hobby pontificating?

Are you upset that I didn't respond to your last post? Is that why you're raking up something from a couple of days ago and then saying it's getting tiring?

upset? try terribly upset! and days without sleep.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: gostwyck on November 01, 2013, 17:51
Does your $9 RPD include Getty?
No.  Getty RPD is about twice that.

I refer the Honourable Member to his previous beliefs, espoused on this forum today, that to not roll IS and GI earnings together, for the purpose of reporting, was both illogical and unreasonable. Indeed he criticised the Honourable Member for St Louis, Mr S J Locke (Independent), for doing just that. Now he does it himself when 'quoting RPD'.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: shudderstok on November 01, 2013, 17:52
I just chucked a cat in among the pigeons :)

you seem incredibly smitten with yourself and your harangue is getting tiring. you seem to know it all. or is your favorite hobby pontificating?

actually you are the one that knows everything but doesn't share a thing ;D

and what exactly am i supposed to share to make you feel all warm and cozy? or what am i to share that baldricks yappers won't start a whole new diatribe about? suggestions...

Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: luissantos84 on November 01, 2013, 17:57
make me brunch tomorrow ;D
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Mantis on November 01, 2013, 18:13
make me brunch tomorrow ;D

ROFLMFAO ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: tickstock on November 01, 2013, 18:27
.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: heywoody on November 01, 2013, 18:42
Tickstock, not in response to your latest just coincidental.

The thing is that rolling GI, PP into the equation does mitigate the losses but this reinforces the argument I was making yesterday.  Taking IS earnings in isolation now and comparing to even a year ago it is clear that it is going down the pan for the vast majority including IS itself and becoming less relevant compared to other Getty offerings.  On balance, the strategy theory seems more likely than the incompetence theory.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: tickstock on November 01, 2013, 19:07
.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Travelling-light on November 01, 2013, 19:13
Does your $9 RPD include Getty?
No.  Getty RPD is about twice that.

OK, as a % of your BME, how many DL did you get in October?
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: shudderstok on November 01, 2013, 19:18
make me brunch tomorrow ;D

breakfast in bed and a double latte as usual sir?
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: ShadySue on November 01, 2013, 19:22
This is forgetting that when iS files were mirrored on Getty, it was vaunted as a way for exclusives to earn even more, not a way of possibly mitigating falling iS earnings.
Hasn't worked out that way for most people.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: ShadySue on November 01, 2013, 19:34
New IS:
1. It seems like the display options are sticking.
2. Option of bigger thums in search.
3. best match is totally different than earlier today, and there was a markedly different pattern in each of the test searches I just did.

Hold onto your hats!
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: heywoody on November 01, 2013, 19:37
Tickstock, not in response to your latest just coincidental.

The thing is that rolling GI, PP into the equation does mitigate the losses but this reinforces the argument I was making yesterday.  Taking IS earnings in isolation now and comparing to even a year ago it is clear that it is going down the pan for the vast majority including IS itself and becoming less relevant compared to other Getty offerings.  On balance, the strategy theory seems more likely than the incompetence theory.
iStock is part of Getty.

Yes, big company buys smaller company, extracts what is useful and discards the dried up husk.  Can work out well for some of the people involved with the smaller company and badly for others.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: rene on November 01, 2013, 19:57
I still have my crown :-) my Clapper will be gone on Oct.11 As far as I know video's that are at Getty will remain there even after you drop exclusivity. You will drop from 25% to 20% on Getty earnings. Of course I say this tongue in cheek as they can change and do to you whatever they want so nothing is guaranteed! I a still not thrilled with the sub prices at SS so I will keep my photos exclusive at IS for a while as photos are not my main focus. I am thrilled to be offering my full medical collection at SS and Pond5 in October, all of my clips are already loaded, keyworded and approved so all I have to do is flip the switch when my 30 days are up.
On iStock you have written you didn't drop the crown and you are happy to be an exclusive artist. Are you the same Jjneff?
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: lisafx on November 01, 2013, 23:05
The point was to get an accurate number.  The difference between 30 and 50% is pretty large, not that it's a good thing to be down at all.  I was asking because it has been a long time since I saw many people posting how they are doing on iStock, almost no one posts percentages or posts anything in the monthly sales thread anymore.

Actually, no, the point was not to get an accurate number.  First off, that's impossible since the only ones who have evidence beyond anecdotal are Istock and they aren't sharing. 

Secondly, the point of Sodafish' post that I was replying to was that halving the prices might not be all bad because perhaps it could be made up in volume. 

The point, to reiterate, is that the drastic price cut is NOT MADE UP BY VOLUME.   Clear now? 

Feel free to set off on another side track to obscure the point though. 

You claim you aren't an Istock admin. Honestly, I don't believe you aren't on the Getty payroll in some fashion.  They should at least compensate you for wear and tear on the knees of your trousers. 
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on November 02, 2013, 02:34

and what exactly am i supposed to share to make you feel all warm and cozy? or what am i to share that baldricks yappers won't start a whole new diatribe about? suggestions...

I suggest you look up the definition of diatribe.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Ron on November 02, 2013, 05:19
@ Luis  ;D
@ Lisa  ;D
@ Paul  ;D

Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: shudderstok on November 02, 2013, 06:00

and what exactly am i supposed to share to make you feel all warm and cozy? or what am i to share that baldricks yappers won't start a whole new diatribe about? suggestions...

I suggest you look up the definition of diatribe.

diatribe: archaic :  a prolonged discourse
discourse: archaic :  the capacity of orderly thought or procedure
and/or formal and orderly and usually extended expression of thought on a subject.

thought you would have picked up on this as you do seem somewhat well versed with words. :)

my bad.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on November 02, 2013, 06:10

and what exactly am i supposed to share to make you feel all warm and cozy? or what am i to share that baldricks yappers won't start a whole new diatribe about? suggestions...

I suggest you look up the definition of diatribe.



diatribe: archaic :  a prolonged discourse
discourse: archaic :  the capacity of orderly thought or procedure
and/or formal and orderly and usually extended expression of thought on a subject.

thought you would have picked up on this as you do seem somewhat well versed with words. :)

my bad.

And there was me thinking you meant it in a negative way, as in: a forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something."a diatribe against the Roman Catholic Church"
synonyms:   tirade, harangue, onslaught, attack, polemic, denunciation, broadside, fulmination"

But if you mean it in terms of a well thought-out discourse on a subject then I can only thank you for the compliment.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Ron on November 02, 2013, 06:15
Popcorn doesnt do this just... this needs something much more sophisticated, like a Guinness.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: shudderstok on November 02, 2013, 06:16

and what exactly am i supposed to share to make you feel all warm and cozy? or what am i to share that baldricks yappers won't start a whole new diatribe about? suggestions...

I suggest you look up the definition of diatribe.



diatribe: archaic :  a prolonged discourse
discourse: archaic :  the capacity of orderly thought or procedure
and/or formal and orderly and usually extended expression of thought on a subject.

thought you would have picked up on this as you do seem somewhat well versed with words. :)

my bad.

And there was me thinking you meant it in a negative way, as in: a forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something."a diatribe against the Roman Catholic Church"
synonyms:   tirade, harangue, onslaught, attack, polemic, denunciation, broadside, fulmination"

But if you mean it in terms of a well thought-out discourse on a subject then I can only thank you for the compliment.

hell no man, i was just messing with you :)
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: shudderstok on November 02, 2013, 06:17
Popcorn doesnt do this just... this needs something much more sophisticated, like a Guinness.

or three :)
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on November 02, 2013, 06:25

and what exactly am i supposed to share to make you feel all warm and cozy? or what am i to share that baldricks yappers won't start a whole new diatribe about? suggestions...

I suggest you look up the definition of diatribe.



diatribe: archaic :  a prolonged discourse
discourse: archaic :  the capacity of orderly thought or procedure
and/or formal and orderly and usually extended expression of thought on a subject.

thought you would have picked up on this as you do seem somewhat well versed with words. :)

my bad.

And there was me thinking you meant it in a negative way, as in: a forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something."a diatribe against the Roman Catholic Church"
synonyms:   tirade, harangue, onslaught, attack, polemic, denunciation, broadside, fulmination"

But if you mean it in terms of a well thought-out discourse on a subject then I can only thank you for the compliment.

hell no man, i was just messing with you :)

I think you mean TRYING to mess with me ;)
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: shudderstok on November 02, 2013, 06:29

and what exactly am i supposed to share to make you feel all warm and cozy? or what am i to share that baldricks yappers won't start a whole new diatribe about? suggestions...

I suggest you look up the definition of diatribe.



diatribe: archaic :  a prolonged discourse
discourse: archaic :  the capacity of orderly thought or procedure
and/or formal and orderly and usually extended expression of thought on a subject.

thought you would have picked up on this as you do seem somewhat well versed with words. :)

my bad.

And there was me thinking you meant it in a negative way, as in: a forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something."a diatribe against the Roman Catholic Church"
synonyms:   tirade, harangue, onslaught, attack, polemic, denunciation, broadside, fulmination"

But if you mean it in terms of a well thought-out discourse on a subject then I can only thank you for the compliment.

hell no man, i was just messing with you :)

I think you mean TRYING to mess with me ;)

I was thinking in past terms: MESSED  :-*
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on November 02, 2013, 06:45
#
I was thinking in past terms: MESSED  :-*

I'm lost for words.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: luissantos84 on November 02, 2013, 06:48
after a kiss its kind of weird :o
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: shudderstok on November 02, 2013, 07:03
#
I was thinking in past terms: MESSED  :-*

I'm lost for words.

that's gotta be a first!!!  :o
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: shudderstok on November 02, 2013, 07:04
after a kiss its kind of weird :o

are you sure you still want brunch?  ;)
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: luissantos84 on November 02, 2013, 07:18
after a kiss its kind of weird :o

are you sure you still want brunch?  ;)

hope you have already started, don't spit on it because there are cameras recording ;)
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Ron on November 02, 2013, 07:30
I plussed you both, because thats funny  ;)
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Mantis on November 02, 2013, 07:35
I plussed you both, because thats funny  ;)

I agree.  Really, it lightens things up a bit. I "think" I know they are both kidding but if not, to each his (or her) own. Not that there's anything wrong with it ;D ;) ;)
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on November 02, 2013, 08:15
#
I was thinking in past terms: MESSED  :-*

I'm lost for words.

that's gotta be a first!!!  :o

Indubitably.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: mlwinphoto on November 02, 2013, 09:58
The point was to get an accurate number.  The difference between 30 and 50% is pretty large, not that it's a good thing to be down at all.  I was asking because it has been a long time since I saw many people posting how they are doing on iStock, almost no one posts percentages or posts anything in the monthly sales thread anymore.

 
You claim you aren't an Istock admin. Honestly, I don't believe you aren't on the Getty payroll in some fashion.  They should at least compensate you for wear and tear on the knees of your trousers.

I've suspected this for quite some time....someone to come in here and counter the negativity directed toward iStock....and paid for doing so.

For the record, I haven't seen any uptick in sales since the massive price cut.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: KB on November 02, 2013, 10:46
Exclusives are probably averaging something over $10 per sale.
I couoldn't possibly speculate on the 'average', but my average in Oct was <half that.

My average in October was about $10 per sales, while September was half of that due to most sales in Main and S collections.

My average sale for the year is about half of that, at just over $5. But since the collections change, it's increased to a bit over $6.50, though one month it was as high as almost $8.50 (but another month as low as < $6). Before the collections change, it was well under $5.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: KB on November 02, 2013, 10:54
I must apologize in advance for breaking the rule against posting a link to another contributor's image. I've never done it before, and I hope I won't do it again.

But I just can't help myself this time. Because this is definitely the best (worst) example I've seen of what the "New" IS has become:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-27857042-the-letter-v.php?st=d354b8c (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-27857042-the-letter-v.php?st=d354b8c)

And if the image itself weren't bad enough, be sure to look at the amazing, incredible, unbelievable list of keywords.

 :'(
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: luissantos84 on November 02, 2013, 11:00
the new iStock! ;D
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: StanRohrer on November 02, 2013, 11:05
Maybe it's a good thing new uploads are not showing in the searches!
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Monkeyman on November 02, 2013, 11:32
I must apologize in advance for breaking the rule against posting a link to another contributor's image. I've never done it before, and I hope I won't do it again.

But I just can't help myself this time. Because this is definitely the best (worst) example I've seen of what the "New" IS has become:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-27857042-the-letter-v.php?st=d354b8c[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-27857042-the-letter-v.php?st=d354b8c[/url])

And if the image itself weren't bad enough, be sure to look at the amazing, incredible, unbelievable list of keywords.


Amazing how that could be accepted with so many faulty keywords... makes you wonder what iStock's plan is.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Ron on November 02, 2013, 11:53
I only see 12 correct keywords, must have been changed.

However, he is selling graffiti as non editorial, is that allowed?
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: KB on November 02, 2013, 12:19
I only see 12 correct keywords, must have been changed.
Wow. Hey, seems I've discovered a great way to get irrelevant keywords removed from a file almost instantly!  ;D Thanks to whomever did it. But too bad they didn't remove the same spammy keywords from the other files in the same series (C, G, H, N ...).

Quote
However, he is selling graffiti as non editorial, is that allowed?
It didn't used to be; that is surprising. But I suppose nothing should surprise me any more.  :(
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: heywoody on November 02, 2013, 12:40
Keywords: unforgivable
Images: probably not a huge stretch to making the unacceptable acceptable from calling the ordinary / acceptable special
graffiti: very surprising as copyright seems the only thing that will cause a rejection at the moment, they see need for property / model releases where there is none so one would expect the blindingly obvious to be picked up
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Travelling-light on November 02, 2013, 14:26
Does your $9 RPD include Getty?
No.  Getty RPD is about twice that.

OK, as a % of your BME, how many DL did you get in October?

No reply from Tickstock? Pity, I could have used that information to work out out if I would be better off exclusive.
Just a % of your BME by DL, then I can apply that to our own BME and multiply by $9. (I'm assuming you are on 40%)
Any other exclusives interested? Send a site mail if you like. Thanks!
One person said he has gone from 150 DL per day to 20, which I make 13%. Is that similar for others?
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: StanRohrer on November 02, 2013, 19:02
Downloads:
93 - Sept 2013
1421 - Nov 2005
6.5% of my best download month.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: luissantos84 on November 02, 2013, 19:09
ooooooooohhh boy :o
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: shudderstok on November 02, 2013, 19:09
#
I was thinking in past terms: MESSED  :-*

I'm lost for words.

that's gotta be a first!!!  :o

Indubitably.

ba5tard!!! you made me look this one up in the dictionary!!! that is just pure mean. :)
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: tickstock on November 02, 2013, 19:31
.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on November 02, 2013, 19:48
#
I was thinking in past terms: MESSED  :-*

I'm lost for words.

that's gotta be a first!!!  :o

Indubitably.

ba5tard!!! you made me look this one up in the dictionary!!! that is just pure mean. :)

LOL! You fell for it!

(I'm giving you a thoroughly deserved +1 for your sporting admission that you fell into the trap).
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: shudderstok on November 02, 2013, 20:14
#
I was thinking in past terms: MESSED  :-*

I'm lost for words.

that's gotta be a first!!!  :o

Indubitably.

ba5tard!!! you made me look this one up in the dictionary!!! that is just pure mean. :)

LOL! You fell for it!

(I'm giving you a thoroughly deserved +1 for your sporting admission that you fell into the trap).

i fell so hard that i have a nose bleed.
thanks for the +1 not that it matters as we are both sporting -1 due to the peepeepoopookaka crowd.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Travelling-light on November 02, 2013, 20:36
Downloads:
93 - Sept 2013
1421 - Nov 2005
6.5% of my best download month.

Crikey Stan!!!! There seems to be a very wide variation, not an even %. We had our best DL month in 2009, and maybe the high numbers were already over by the time we went exclusive in late 2008.
When we quit 18 months ago, we had lost 40% from our DL BME.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Freedom on November 02, 2013, 23:04
#
I was thinking in past terms: MESSED  :-*

I'm lost for words.

that's gotta be a first!!!  :o

Indubitably.

ba5tard!!! you made me look this one up in the dictionary!!! that is just pure mean. :)

LOL! You fell for it!

(I'm giving you a thoroughly deserved +1 for your sporting admission that you fell into the trap).

Did you work for Reader's Digest??  ;D
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on November 03, 2013, 03:50
#
I was thinking in past terms: MESSED  :-*

I'm lost for words.

that's gotta be a first!!!  :o

Indubitably.

ba5tard!!! you made me look this one up in the dictionary!!! that is just pure mean. :)

LOL! You fell for it!

(I'm giving you a thoroughly deserved +1 for your sporting admission that you fell into the trap).

Did you work for Reader's Digest??  ;D
Nope. Just on a number of daily newspapers.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: kelby on November 08, 2013, 09:45
there is also a new entry ANDRESR on istock exclusives

exclusive http://www.istockphoto.com/andresrimaging (http://www.istockphoto.com/andresrimaging)
no exclusive  http://www.istockphoto.com/andresr (http://www.istockphoto.com/andresr)

Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: luissantos84 on November 08, 2013, 09:49
oh oh oh fun!
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: gbalex on November 08, 2013, 13:55
there is also a new entry ANDRESR on istock exclusives

exclusive [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/andresrimaging[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/andresrimaging[/url])
no exclusive  [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/andresr[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/andresr[/url])


Not surprised, good luck to Andres
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on November 08, 2013, 15:24
there is also a new entry ANDRESR on istock exclusives

exclusive [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/andresrimaging[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/andresrimaging[/url])
no exclusive  [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/andresr[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/andresr[/url])


Not surprised, good luck to Andres


Is that a real exclusive or the new kind of exclusive?  If he got the new kind of deal he'd be silly to turn it down.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: tickstock on November 08, 2013, 15:30
.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: leaf on November 08, 2013, 15:44

You have a few more assumptions in there.  One is that people are equally likely to post whether they are up or down.  I think that is false if people are doing well they don't want to post because it can lead to copying.

Interesting you use that argument.  People always say the yearly poll or other earnings threads are inaccurate because only the successful want to report their earnings.  The people aren't having a good time and experiencing poor earnings aren't going to care to report anything.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: cobalt on November 08, 2013, 15:56
You don't see names in the poll, nobody can copy you.

Congrats Andres! And It is good for indies as well. I hope more large volume producers go exclusive.

And they'll get their special contracts with preferred placement. For all the hard work well deserved. I just wonder what the normal istock exclusives think about it, but if they don't shoot the same genre, it won't affect them.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: tickstock on November 08, 2013, 15:56
.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: stock-will-eat-itself on November 08, 2013, 16:07

You have a few more assumptions in there.  One is that people are equally likely to post whether they are up or down.  I think that is false if people are doing well they don't want to post because it can lead to copying.

Interesting you use that argument.  People always say the yearly poll or other earnings threads are inaccurate because only the successful want to report their earnings.  The people aren't having a good time and experiencing poor earnings aren't going to care to report anything.
One is anonymous and one isn't.  Maybe this poll is biased towards people who feel good about their earnings?  I don't know, do we have any evidence of that?  You have the best stats, do you see anything that would lead you to believe that?  Maybe less people reporting during the slower summer months or something like that?  There is some evidence that people who are doing well don't post in the iStock thread because they are doing well, at least a few people said that on this forum.

That reasoning is starting to sound like 'schrodinger's cat'.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: tickstock on November 08, 2013, 16:11
.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: lisafx on November 08, 2013, 16:14
there is also a new entry ANDRESR on istock exclusives

exclusive [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/andresrimaging[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/andresrimaging[/url])
no exclusive  [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/andresr[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/andresr[/url])


Not surprised, good luck to Andres


Is that a real exclusive or the new kind of exclusive?  If he got the new kind of deal he'd be silly to turn it down.


I'm confused.  So far this new "exclusive" only has 1k images on Istock.  Didn't Andres have 10k or more already there?   What happened to the rest of his port?
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: luissantos84 on November 08, 2013, 16:17
there is also a new entry ANDRESR on istock exclusives

exclusive [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/andresrimaging[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/andresrimaging[/url])
no exclusive  [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/andresr[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/andresr[/url])


Not surprised, good luck to Andres


Is that a real exclusive or the new kind of exclusive?  If he got the new kind of deal he'd be silly to turn it down.

You will have to go to MEXPO and ask Yuri and Andres about it.


like they will answer anything ;D
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: luissantos84 on November 08, 2013, 16:18
there is also a new entry ANDRESR on istock exclusives

exclusive [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/andresrimaging[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/andresrimaging[/url])
no exclusive  [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/andresr[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/andresr[/url])


Not surprised, good luck to Andres


Is that a real exclusive or the new kind of exclusive?  If he got the new kind of deal he'd be silly to turn it down.


I'm confused.  So far this new "exclusive" only has 1k images on Istock.  Didn't Andres have 10k or more already there?   What happened to the rest of his port?


have you opened both links? one does have over 7k other 1k like you said
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: stock-will-eat-itself on November 08, 2013, 16:25
There is some evidence that people who are doing well don't post in the iStock thread because they are doing well, at least a few people said that on this forum.

You'll never know until you open the box :-)
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: gostwyck on November 08, 2013, 16:27
There is some evidence that people who are doing well don't post in the iStock thread because they are doing well, at least a few people said that on this forum.

You'll never know until you open the box :-)

Hello Xanox. Back again, eh?
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on November 08, 2013, 16:44
there is also a new entry ANDRESR on istock exclusives

exclusive [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/andresrimaging[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/andresrimaging[/url])
no exclusive  [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/andresr[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/andresr[/url])


Not surprised, good luck to Andres

Is that a real exclusive or the new kind of exclusive?  If he got the new kind of deal he'd be silly to turn it down.


Man, I wish we had been able to be image exclusive when I was there.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on November 08, 2013, 17:02
There is some evidence that people who are doing well don't post in the iStock thread because they are doing well, at least a few people said that on this forum.

You'll never know until you open the box :-)

You won't know then, either :)
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: mlwinphoto on November 08, 2013, 17:13
there is also a new entry ANDRESR on istock exclusives

exclusive [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/andresrimaging[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/andresrimaging[/url])
no exclusive  [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/andresr[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/andresr[/url])


Not surprised, good luck to Andres

Is that a real exclusive or the new kind of exclusive?  If he got the new kind of deal he'd be silly to turn it down.


Man, I wish we had been able to be image exclusive when I was there.


Me too, might have made it worth while.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on November 08, 2013, 17:15
Andres' portfolio is still up on Shutterstock

http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1294p1.html (http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1294p1.html)

If he got the deal that Yuri did, doesn't that mean the SS portfolio will have to go?
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Ron on November 08, 2013, 17:18
Its getting really messy, but I wonder how IS convinces these big players to jump ship, when IS is making a mess of things. There must be something going on we dont know.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: tickstock on November 08, 2013, 17:19
.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Ron on November 08, 2013, 17:23
Here we go again, people need to remember that this board if full of non English speakers. How do I say it then? How do I phrase myself correctly, Mr. Tickstock, so that you can approve of my comment. How do I say someone jumps from one agency to another without implying the other agency is doing bad?

In case you have missed it, Shutterstock aint sinking, they are catching up with IS .

http://www.shutterstock.com/releases/110713.mhtml (http://www.shutterstock.com/releases/110713.mhtml)
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: tickstock on November 08, 2013, 17:29
.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: ShadySue on November 08, 2013, 17:31
there is also a new entry ANDRESR on istock exclusives

exclusive [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/andresrimaging[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/andresrimaging[/url])
no exclusive  [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/andresr[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/andresr[/url])


Not surprised, good luck to Andres

Is that a real exclusive or the new kind of exclusive?  If he got the new kind of deal he'd be silly to turn it down.


Man, I wish we had been able to be image exclusive when I was there.

Are Yu-know-who's iS images exclusively there?
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: ShadySue on November 08, 2013, 17:32
<idle speculation>Maybe Yu-know-who engineered Andres' Golden Hello and special deal so he wouldn't be competing in the same genre on price.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on November 08, 2013, 17:39
Its getting really messy, but I wonder how IS convinces these big players to jump ship, when IS is making a mess of things. There must be something going on we dont know.

Surely the point is that they don't jump ship .... they stay aboard and get paid extra while still keeping most of their other income sources intact.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: luissantos84 on November 08, 2013, 17:42
Here we go again, people need to remember that this board if full of non English speakers. How do I say it then? How do I phrase myself correctly, Mr. Tickstock, so that you can approve of my comment. How do I say someone jumps from one agency to another without implying the other agency is doing bad?

In case you have missed it, Shutterstock aint sinking, they are catching up with IS very fast.

[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/releases/110713.mhtml[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/releases/110713.mhtml[/url])

I would say he decided to go exclusive, I'm sure he did his research (jump ship also means to make a quick decision). 

It is interesting that the top 2 best selling Shutterstock contributors (if Andresr is recognized as the #2) decided to go exclusive at a time when Shutterstock is bringing in record revenue and bigger profits.  I wonder what that means?


it means that iStock is paying a few millions up-front, maybe the ones they have been stealing from 2010 but aren't they in deep debt? I am sure that a few people/models oriented contributors must be quite happy having more competition ;D

anyway I find these changes quite amusing!
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: tickstock on November 08, 2013, 17:50
.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Ron on November 08, 2013, 17:53
Its getting really messy, but I wonder how IS convinces these big players to jump ship, when IS is making a mess of things. There must be something going on we dont know.

Surely the point is that they don't jump ship .... they stay aboard and get paid extra while still keeping most of their other income sources intact.
Well, Yuri did, We dont know about Andresr yet
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: gostwyck on November 08, 2013, 17:56
Here we go again, people need to remember that this board if full of non English speakers. How do I say it then? How do I phrase myself correctly, Mr. Tickstock, so that you can approve of my comment. How do I say someone jumps from one agency to another without implying the other agency is doing bad?

In case you have missed it, Shutterstock aint sinking, they are catching up with IS very fast.

[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/releases/110713.mhtml[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/releases/110713.mhtml[/url])

I would say he decided to go exclusive, I'm sure he did his research (jump ship also means to make a quick decision). 

It is interesting that the top 2 best selling Shutterstock contributors (if Andresr is recognized as the #2) decided to go exclusive at a time when Shutterstock is bringing in record revenue and bigger profits.  I wonder what that means?


Actually I'd say that the people 'jumping ship' are actually Istock themselves. It would seem that they've thrown out their own rule-book in a truly desperate attempt to turn things around. When a business takes such panic actions it is always bad news ... for them.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: luissantos84 on November 08, 2013, 17:57
I think you should hop on a train to MEXPO and ask these tough questions.  Get to the bottom of it!

why are you always trying to make me change the all microstock industry? aren't you doing so well yourself? go man, ah yep you don't enjoy cold places ;D

if they went exclusive without having a large bank deposit I think they must be nuts ;)
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on November 08, 2013, 18:24
Its getting really messy, but I wonder how IS convinces these big players to jump ship, when IS is making a mess of things. There must be something going on we dont know.

Surely the point is that they don't jump ship .... they stay aboard and get paid extra while still keeping most of their other income sources intact.

Exactly.  Gets exclusive royalties on the images you want them, be non-exclusive on everything else.  I mean, unless you're Yuri, then it's exclusive rates, lies to the buyers and distribution wherever you like.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: gbalex on November 08, 2013, 18:27
Its getting really messy, but I wonder how IS convinces these big players to jump ship, when IS is making a mess of things. There must be something going on we dont know.


Maybe IS has nothing to do with it.  SS could be making changes that make it less attractive for these HCV shooters to stay with SS.  Undercutting industry rates and royalties via BS and changing search results could make staying at SS less and less attractive.

Shutterstock Reports Third Quarter 2013 Financial Results
http://www.shutterstock.com/releases/110713.mhtml (http://www.shutterstock.com/releases/110713.mhtml)

Three Months Ended September 30 2012 & 2013       

29.7 Images in SS collection (end of period) 2013 divided by 25.4 Paid Downloads = an average of 1.1692 downloads per image in the SS collection and an increase of .0088 downloads per image from the same quarter in 2012
       
21.7 Images in SS collection (end of period) 2012 divided by 18.7 Paid Downloads = an average of 1.1604 download per image in the SS collection

Revenue for the quarter increased 41% from $42.3 million to $59.6 million for an increase from quarter to quarter of $17.3 million

Revenue per download increased from $2.26 in 2012 to $2.35 in 2013 or $0.09 per image.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Ron on November 08, 2013, 18:34
Thats a non argument, they signed a deal years ago when all they got was $0.25 cents. Now they get on average $2.35 and all of a sudden they are insulted and undersold. LOL. The problem is that they keep shooting the same old oversupplied people shots and their overhead is too much. How can you employ 100 people and keep shooting handshakes sustainable? Its their business model thats killing them, not Shutterstock.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: luissantos84 on November 08, 2013, 18:35
Maybe IS has nothing to do with it.  SS could be making changes that make it less attractive for these HCV shooters to stay with SS.  Undercutting industry rates and royalties via BS and changing search results could make staying at SS less and less attractive.

certainly not AndresR case, remember seeing a chart showing his monthly earnings and SS was doing 10x more than iStock (June 2013, https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/1001493_10151676941274349_2125481793_n.jpg)
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Ron on November 08, 2013, 18:46
Maybe IS has nothing to do with it.  SS could be making changes that make it less attractive for these HCV shooters to stay with SS.  Undercutting industry rates and royalties via BS and changing search results could make staying at SS less and less attractive.

certainly not AndresR case, remember seeing a chart showing his monthly earnings and SS was doing 10x more than iStock (June 2013, https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/1001493_10151676941274349_2125481793_n.jpg)
They should post their overhead as well, otherwise it tells us nothing.

Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: gbalex on November 08, 2013, 18:46
Maybe IS has nothing to do with it.  SS could be making changes that make it less attractive for these HCV shooters to stay with SS.  Undercutting industry rates and royalties via BS and changing search results could make staying at SS less and less attractive.

certainly not AndresR case, remember seeing a chart showing his monthly earnings and SS was doing 10x more than iStock (June 2013, https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/1001493_10151676941274349_2125481793_n.jpg)

I know quite a few contributors who have had massive drops since June 2013. Odd considering that overall; average downloads per image are up.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: luissantos84 on November 08, 2013, 18:48
Maybe IS has nothing to do with it.  SS could be making changes that make it less attractive for these HCV shooters to stay with SS.  Undercutting industry rates and royalties via BS and changing search results could make staying at SS less and less attractive.

certainly not AndresR case, remember seeing a chart showing his monthly earnings and SS was doing 10x more than iStock (June 2013, https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/1001493_10151676941274349_2125481793_n.jpg)
They should post their overhead as well, otherwise it tells us nothing.

sure but that is "not relevant" for this discussion, he does 10x more $$ at SS so why going exclusive?
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: luissantos84 on November 08, 2013, 18:51
Maybe IS has nothing to do with it.  SS could be making changes that make it less attractive for these HCV shooters to stay with SS.  Undercutting industry rates and royalties via BS and changing search results could make staying at SS less and less attractive.

certainly not AndresR case, remember seeing a chart showing his monthly earnings and SS was doing 10x more than iStock (June 2013, https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/1001493_10151676941274349_2125481793_n.jpg)

I know quite a few contributors who have had massive drops since June 2013. Odd considering that overall; average downloads per image are up.

the ones that don't post their numbers? come on, we can all make up stuff just to try and get more from agencies, I don't think they hear but some may say they are doing poorly just to get attention, numbers only matter when we are indeed looking at them not hearing
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Ron on November 08, 2013, 18:53
SS % at 10k level and above is 30%, so Exclusive is 45% plus higher pricing, it could be the carrot on the stick, I dont know. Maybe they all brokered a deal and get 70%? IS is desperate, they might get on board to help save IS, but they want security that if they go down, they dont go down with them, so they are allowed to keep their ports up elsewhere. IS is hoping with them aboard they can keep the ship floating, and in return they have nothing to worry about.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: gbalex on November 08, 2013, 18:55
Thats a non argument, they signed a deal years ago when all they got was $0.25 cents. Now they get on average $2.35 and all of a sudden they are insulted and undersold. LOL. The problem is that they keep shooting the same old oversupplied people shots and their overhead is too much.

How can you employ 100 people and keep shooting handshakes sustainable? Its their business model thats killing them, not Shutterstock.

Maybe you should go back an read a few of their early posts.  They had low end equipment, were not yet shooting HCV images and had virtually 0 overhead.  They did not employ one person let alone 100 and Andres still runs a very lean operation. Based on your insults you have a very limited understanding of their business.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: luissantos84 on November 08, 2013, 18:57
its impossible that there aren't high amounts involved here, I don't think they would be happy/secure with just promises
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Ron on November 08, 2013, 18:58
What insults are you talking about? If anyone has turned to insults lately its you.

Nice side stepping though...
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Ron on November 08, 2013, 18:58
its impossible that there aren't high amounts involved here, I don't think they would be happy/secure with just promises
Exactly
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: luissantos84 on November 08, 2013, 19:01
What insults are you talking about? If anyone has turned to insults lately its you.

Nice side stepping though...

Jack..... Daniel's!
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Ron on November 08, 2013, 19:05
Thats a non argument, they signed a deal years ago when all they got was $0.25 cents. Now they get on average $2.35 and all of a sudden they are insulted and undersold. LOL. The problem is that they keep shooting the same old oversupplied people shots and their overhead is too much.

How can you employ 100 people and keep shooting handshakes sustainable? Its their business model thats killing them, not Shutterstock.

Maybe you should go back an read a few of their early posts.  They had low end equipment, were not yet shooting HCV images and had virtually 0 overhead.  They did not employ one person let alone 100 and Andres still runs a very lean operation. Based on your insults you have a very limited understanding of their business.

By the way, isnt that what I said, their business model is no longer sustainable, who is to blame for that? SS? LOL. Should SS accommodate two contribuors because they let their business spiral out of control? Yuri himself said that his overhead couldnt be covered by the earnings from his portfolio. Thats because of his mismanagement, not the other way around.

Its all assumption anyways, because we dont know why Andresr made his move.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: lisafx on November 08, 2013, 23:57

have you opened both links? one does have over 7k other 1k like you said

No, I didn't.  I just clicked the top one, thinking it was all one link.  Makes sense.  Thanks for clearing that up. 

Still confusing though - how can he be exclusive and also non-exclusive?  This would seem to suggest they are gradually going in the direction of image exclusivity instead of artist exclusivity.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on November 09, 2013, 01:28
Regarding various posts in the last couple of pages, how can we need to wait and see whether he has a special deal when he simultaneously has an exclusive portfolio at iS and another portfolio at SS? Clearly, iS has broken the rules to let him do that, which is a special deal.
How could it be SS's failings, pushing him to become exclusive? SS doesn't dictate how iS applies (or doesn't apply) its rules.
Being able to collect exclusive-only benefits while operating as an independent is obviously a huge financial incentive, especially if they don't even insist on him leaving SS. Why would there need to be any hidden millions up front?  If you offer people more money for doing nothing then you don't generally have to throw in a golden hello.
They transferred Yuri's stuff into new accounts (while keeping its sales history from the old accounts, oddly enough, presumably for search ranking purposes) but he's not on image exclusivity.

Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Ron on November 09, 2013, 02:08
Regarding various posts in the last couple of pages, how can we need to wait and see whether he has a special deal when he simultaneously has an exclusive portfolio at iS and another portfolio at SS? Clearly, iS has broken the rules to let him do that, which is a special deal.
How could it be SS's failings, pushing him to become exclusive? SS doesn't dictate how iS applies (or doesn't apply) its rules.
Being able to collect exclusive-only benefits while operating as an independent is obviously a huge financial incentive, especially if they don't even insist on him leaving SS. Why would there need to be any hidden millions up front?  If you offer people more money for doing nothing then you don't generally have to throw in a golden hello.
They transferred Yuri's stuff into new accounts (while keeping its sales history from the old accounts, oddly enough, presumably for search ranking purposes) but he's not on image exclusivity.
That is a very good point and close to what I said. They have nothing to worry about in these kind of deals. IS is selling out, and they have a little more sustainability. If being professional means screwing over your own contributor base, then IS is very very professional.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: gostwyck on November 09, 2013, 06:35
Regarding various posts in the last couple of pages, how can we need to wait and see whether he has a special deal when he simultaneously has an exclusive portfolio at iS and another portfolio at SS? Clearly, iS has broken the rules to let him do that, which is a special deal.
How could it be SS's failings, pushing him to become exclusive? SS doesn't dictate how iS applies (or doesn't apply) its rules.
Being able to collect exclusive-only benefits while operating as an independent is obviously a huge financial incentive, especially if they don't even insist on him leaving SS. Why would there need to be any hidden millions up front?  If you offer people more money for doing nothing then you don't generally have to throw in a golden hello.
They transferred Yuri's stuff into new accounts (while keeping its sales history from the old accounts, oddly enough, presumably for search ranking purposes) but he's not on image exclusivity.

It appears to me that Andres stopped uploading to SS, DT and FT around the beginning of October and all his new stuff is going to his new 'exclusive' portfolio at IS.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: ShadySue on November 09, 2013, 06:45
It appears to me that Andres stopped uploading to SS, DT and FT around the beginning of October and all his new stuff is going to his new 'exclusive' portfolio at IS.
Similar deal to Yuri's in that respect. One of Yuri's portfolios ends on 21st May, when he seems to have stopped uploading elsewhere, and the other starts on 21st May.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: ShadySue on November 09, 2013, 06:48
I think you should hop on a train to MEXPO and ask these tough questions.  Get to the bottom of it!
Pay for my fares, accommodation and entry and I'll be there in a heartbeat, asking the questions.
But I bet they wouldn't give a 'full and frank account' of their Special Deals.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: ShadySue on November 09, 2013, 06:51
Andres' portfolio is still up on Shutterstock

[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1294p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1294p1.html[/url])

If he got the deal that Yuri did, doesn't that mean the SS portfolio will have to go?

Wasn't Yuri on SS for a while after his announced 'exclusivity' at iS? They just let his portfolio sit out its notice at SS afterwards, which they historically didn't allow.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: bunhill on November 09, 2013, 09:13
Actually I'd say that the people 'jumping ship' are actually Istock themselves. It would seem that they've thrown out their own rule-book in a truly desperate attempt to turn things around. When a business takes such panic actions it is always bad news ... for them.

That seems a rather OTT analysis. From a neutral and dispassionate perspective I think that many people would quietly agree that it would be stupid for any business to be arbitrarily or artificially constrained by a set of one-size-fits-all conditions put in place around a decade ago in a very different market.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Ron on November 09, 2013, 09:24
Actually I'd say that the people 'jumping ship' are actually Istock themselves. It would seem that they've thrown out their own rule-book in a truly desperate attempt to turn things around. When a business takes such panic actions it is always bad news ... for them.

That seems a rather OTT analysis. From a neutral and dispassionate perspective I think that many people would quietly agree that it would be stupid for any business to be arbitrarily or artificially constrained by a set of one-size-fits-all conditions put in place around a decade ago in a very different market.
Sure, but where in their TOS/Contract does it offer the new terms then? Its a VIP treatment, no where stated in the IS contract. Sean brokered a deal with DP as well though. HCV talks.  :)
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: bunhill on November 09, 2013, 09:39
HCV talks.  :)

Yes. It's valuable work and the arrangements are nobody else's business.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Ron on November 09, 2013, 09:52
HCV talks.  :)

Yes. It's valuable work and the arrangements are nobody else's business.
Of course it is. If you have been slaving away for years and see your income drop, and then all of a sudden  a few people get special deals, you have all the right in the world to revolt and ask questions. Sure IS can do what they want, doesnt make it right. Just shows how unethical they are and dont give a rats ass about the people that made them big.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: luissantos84 on November 09, 2013, 10:07
Andres' portfolio is still up on Shutterstock

[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1294p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1294p1.html[/url])

If he got the deal that Yuri did, doesn't that mean the SS portfolio will have to go?

Wasn't Yuri on SS for a while after his announced 'exclusivity' at iS? They just let his portfolio sit out its notice at SS afterwards, which they historically didn't allow.


it was the 1st one to go, guess we don't have data to say if it was straight ahead or after a while, AndresR still have portfolio at SS (stopped around October 10th) so something is different, he is exclusive for over 1 month (1st file October 7th)
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on November 09, 2013, 10:48
Andres' portfolio is still up on Shutterstock

[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1294p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1294p1.html[/url])

If he got the deal that Yuri did, doesn't that mean the SS portfolio will have to go?

Wasn't Yuri on SS for a while after his announced 'exclusivity' at iS? They just let his portfolio sit out its notice at SS afterwards, which they historically didn't allow.


it was the 1st one to go, guess we don't have data to say if it was straight ahead or after a while, AndresR still have portfolio at SS (stopped around October 10th) so something is different, he is exclusive for over 1 month (1st file October 7th)


When they are making ad hoc deals outside the normal terms there is no reason to expect there will be a standard set of conditions. Everything will be negotiable.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: luissantos84 on November 09, 2013, 10:54
Andres' portfolio is still up on Shutterstock

[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1294p1.html[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1294p1.html[/url])

If he got the deal that Yuri did, doesn't that mean the SS portfolio will have to go?

Wasn't Yuri on SS for a while after his announced 'exclusivity' at iS? They just let his portfolio sit out its notice at SS afterwards, which they historically didn't allow.


it was the 1st one to go, guess we don't have data to say if it was straight ahead or after a while, AndresR still have portfolio at SS (stopped around October 10th) so something is different, he is exclusive for over 1 month (1st file October 7th)


When they are making ad hoc deals outside the normal terms there is no reason to expect there will be a standard set of conditions. Everything will be negotiable.


yep! guess we need to get a deal ourselves ;D
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: gbalex on November 09, 2013, 12:16
Thats a non argument, they signed a deal years ago when all they got was $0.25 cents. Now they get on average $2.35 and all of a sudden they are insulted and undersold. LOL. The problem is that they keep shooting the same old oversupplied people shots and their overhead is too much.

How can you employ 100 people and keep shooting handshakes sustainable? Its their business model thats killing them, not Shutterstock.


Maybe you should go back an read a few of their early posts.  They had low end equipment, were not yet shooting HCV images and had virtually 0 overhead.  They did not employ one person let alone 100 and Andres still runs a very lean operation. Based on your insults you have a very limited understanding of their business.


By the way, isnt that what I said, their business model is no longer sustainable, who is to blame for that? SS? LOL. Should SS accommodate two contribuors because they let their business spiral out of control? Yuri himself said that his overhead couldnt be covered by the earnings from his portfolio. Thats because of his mismanagement, not the other way around.

Its all assumption anyways, because we dont know why Andresr made his move.


Check out Yuris post if you want to understand his perspective a bit. I have not asked Andres directly why he made these choices, to be fair it is none of my business, he busted his butt for years and deserves every penny he can secure during negotiations.

Since when are micros fair to contributors?

Ŧ Reply #638 on: August 12, 2013, 12:42 halfway down the page

http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/yuri-arcurs-first-public-statement/640/ (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/yuri-arcurs-first-public-statement/640/)
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Ron on November 09, 2013, 12:35
There is no explanation from Yuri, just a comment from you and he said nicely said. It confirms what I said though. He let his cost spiral out of control, blamed SS for not raising their pricing and then went with IS. Nothing wrong about that, but dont blame SS for his problems. They didnt force him to leave. He should have kept the cost down while producing images for his beloved mircostock. Why are you submitting to SS if their pricing is so evil? They have always been a subscription site. Its like buying shoes at Wallmart and then blame them for selling you cheap shoes.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: gbalex on November 09, 2013, 13:04
There is no explanation from Yuri, just a comment from you and he said nicely said. It confirms what I said though. He let his cost spiral out of control, blamed SS for not raising their pricing and then went with IS. Nothing wrong about that, but dont blame SS for his problems. They didnt force him to leave. He should have kept the cost down while producing images for his beloved mircostock. Why are you submitting to SS if their pricing is so evil? They have always been a subscription site. Its like buying shoes at Wallmart and then blame them for selling you cheap shoes.
You are warping my perspective and putting words in my mouth to promote your own agenda.

I have never said that Andres or Yuri let their cost's spiral out of control, that is your own perspective. I have said that SS has kept prices very low for years to gain market share.  Our cost's have risen via inflation, contributor quality has gone through the roof and image quality is light years better than it was in 2004.  SS has benefited from the competitive advantages its contributor base has given them and those gains have been fully funded by SS contributors.

To top it off senior SS management put BS bridge in place, implemented sub plans and undercut SS pricing to gain market share via BS, so that they can pay contributors less. If a few beers and some happy banter will blind you to reality, happy shooting, work your ass off and one day you will wake up and smell the coffee.

If you want a short cut to reality, ask yourself why BS financials are no longer transparent in the SEC filings.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Ron on November 09, 2013, 13:13
I am not doing anything, just repeating what I have said before. You are constantly side stepping and asking me questions I know nothing about. You ignore my questions as well though. Your link to your comment clears nothing up. Its pointless to keep going in circles about this.

You have a battle to fight with SS, and you are doing that anonymously. You have an agenda, I dont.

Last comment on this.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: gbalex on November 09, 2013, 13:16
I am not doing anything, just repeating what I have said before. You are constantly side stepping and asking me questions I know nothing about. You ignore my questions as well though. Your link to your comment clears nothing up. Its pointless to keep going in circles about this.

You have a battle to fight with SS, and you are doing that anonymously. You have an agenda, I dont.

Last comment on this.

I state my beliefs clearly and mince no words. It is quite clear where I stand on the issues I discuss.

Good luck on your attempt to become SS Ambassador, maybe it will give your port a boost.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Ron on November 09, 2013, 13:18
Why are you submitting to Shutterstock?
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: heywoody on November 09, 2013, 13:53
I'd guess for the same reasons many of continue to send stuff to IS / FT ...
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Ron on November 09, 2013, 14:03
There is no explanation from Yuri, just a comment from you and he said nicely said. It confirms what I said though. He let his cost spiral out of control, blamed SS for not raising their pricing and then went with IS. Nothing wrong about that, but dont blame SS for his problems. They didnt force him to leave. He should have kept the cost down while producing images for his beloved mircostock. Why are you submitting to SS if their pricing is so evil? They have always been a subscription site. Its like buying shoes at Wallmart and then blame them for selling you cheap shoes.
You are warping my perspective and putting words in my mouth to promote your own agenda.

I have never said that Andres or Yuri let their cost's spiral out of control, that is your own perspective. I have said that SS has kept prices very low for years to gain market share.  Our cost's have risen via inflation, contributor quality has gone through the roof and image quality is light years better than it was in 2004.  SS has benefited from the competitive advantages its contributor base has given them and those gains have been fully funded by SS contributors.

To top it off senior SS management put BS bridge in place, implemented sub plans and undercut SS pricing to gain market share via BS, so that they can pay contributors less. If a few beers and some happy banter will blind you to reality, happy shooting, work your ass off and one day you will wake up and smell the coffee.

If you want a short cut to reality, ask yourself why BS financials are no longer transparent in the SEC filings.
You edited your comment after I replied.

The bridge was put in place many years ago, and at the moment is no longer available. You are twisting chronological order for your convenience

As for the beers, sure, they bought me for 2 pints. Thats how cheap I am. Offer me 3 and I'll say something in your favour.  :)
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: loop on November 09, 2013, 14:19
I have said that SS has kept prices very low for years to gain market share.  Our cost's have risen via inflation, contributor quality has gone through the roof and image quality is light years better than it was in 2004.  SS has benefited from the competitive advantages its contributor base has given them and those gains have been fully funded by SS contributors.

Well put. That's the core of the matter.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: heywoody on November 09, 2013, 14:38
I have said that SS has kept prices very low for years to gain market share.  Our cost's have risen via inflation, contributor quality has gone through the roof and image quality is light years better than it was in 2004.  SS has benefited from the competitive advantages its contributor base has given them and those gains have been fully funded by SS contributors.

Well put. That's the core of the matter.

Doesn't SS have pretty much the same contributor base as everyone else?  I'd suggest success is more down to a degree of vision and then doing things properly.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: bunhill on November 09, 2013, 14:51
The bridge was put in place many years ago, and at the moment is no longer available. You are twisting chronological order for your convenience

The bridge was announced about two and a bit years ago, no ? Is that many ?

The cut price BS subs came much later ?

Chronology seems right.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Ron on November 09, 2013, 14:59
The bridge was put in place many years ago, and at the moment is no longer available. You are twisting chronological order for your convenience

The bridge was announced about two and a bit years ago, no ? Is that many ?

The cut price BS subs came much later ?

Chronology seems right.
The bridge was introduced 3 years ago. The bridge was never open to all contributors, and at the moment, no one can get the bridge anymore, the program was terminated well before the price change. Gbalex made it sound like SS offered the bridge and then lowered the pricing while they were still porting over images to BS. If you dont like the bridge, ask SS to remove you from it. No one is held hostage.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: luissantos84 on November 09, 2013, 15:34
I have said that SS has kept prices very low for years to gain market share.  Our cost's have risen via inflation, contributor quality has gone through the roof and image quality is light years better than it was in 2004.  SS has benefited from the competitive advantages its contributor base has given them and those gains have been fully funded by SS contributors.

Well put. That's the core of the matter.

sure I agree at some point with that BUT can you guys tell me which agencies have:
1 - paid your bills
2 - showed continuous growth
3 - no royalties cut

the hard truth is that SS is the only agency we can rely on and have continuous motivation to keep on working unless you have fallen on iStock lap and exclusivity is fitting you perfectly or got some special deal at iStock or other agency
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Ron on November 09, 2013, 16:07
I have said that SS has kept prices very low for years to gain market share.  Our cost's have risen via inflation, contributor quality has gone through the roof and image quality is light years better than it was in 2004.  SS has benefited from the competitive advantages its contributor base has given them and those gains have been fully funded by SS contributors.


Well put. That's the core of the matter.


Shutterstock Earnings:
2004 - $0.20
http://web.archive.org/web/20041103054525/http://submit.shutterstock.com/faq.mhtml#23 (http://web.archive.org/web/20041103054525/http://submit.shutterstock.com/faq.mhtml#23)

2008 April - $0.25 (25% raise) + introduction of $0.30 and $20 EL
http://web.archive.org/web/20080415045654/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml? (http://web.archive.org/web/20080415045654/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml?)

2008 July - $0.25 or $0.33 (10% raise) and $28 EL (40% raise) + Introduction of $0.36 and $0.38
http://web.archive.org/web/20080709054042/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml (http://web.archive.org/web/20080709054042/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml)

2008 September - $0.25 $0.33 $0.36 $0.38 and $28 EL + Introduction of ODDs $0.81 to $2.85
http://web.archive.org/web/20080901004029/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml (http://web.archive.org/web/20080901004029/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml)

2011 October  - $0.25 $0.33 $0.36 $0.38 and $28 EL and ODDs $0.81 to $2.85 + introduction of SODs 20% to 30% of sale price. People reporting royalties of over $150
http://web.archive.org/web/20111029071122/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml (http://web.archive.org/web/20111029071122/http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml)

USA Inflation:
$0.20 in 2004 should now be $0.25. Cumulative rate of inflation of 24%
http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ (http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/)

Shutterstock matches that exactly in the first tier to $500 in earnings. All the other royalties are extra earnings.
If I take the first $0.20 and now the $0.38, thats an increase of 90%.
Over the years different royalties have been introduced that have increased overall earnings

Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: heywoody on November 09, 2013, 16:15
How 'bout doing one for IS an FT for comparison purposes?
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Ron on November 09, 2013, 16:17
How 'bout doing one for IS an FT for comparison purposes?
I was thinking about that, but its a bit of work, so I will let someone else have fun with that  :)
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: luissantos84 on November 09, 2013, 16:22
How 'bout doing one for IS an FT for comparison purposes?

do you really think they are worth enough looking at all the crap they did for contributors? I am not willing to do even a drawing in Paint ;D
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: leaf on November 09, 2013, 16:29
there is also a new entry ANDRESR on istock exclusives

exclusive [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/andresrimaging[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/andresrimaging[/url])
no exclusive  [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/andresr[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/andresr[/url])




I don't know the answer, I guess I can ask Andres next week at the expo. but take note on the LTD of the new account.  One account looks to be a personal account and the other account is a separate entity, the LTD entity. 
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: gostwyck on November 09, 2013, 17:32
Actually I'd say that the people 'jumping ship' are actually Istock themselves. It would seem that they've thrown out their own rule-book in a truly desperate attempt to turn things around. When a business takes such panic actions it is always bad news ... for them.

That seems a rather OTT analysis. From a neutral and dispassionate perspective I think that many people would quietly agree that it would be stupid for any business to be arbitrarily or artificially constrained by a set of one-size-fits-all conditions put in place around a decade ago in a very different market.

No, I think these 'special deals' represent a massive shift in power. When Istock was at it's most successful it was one set of rules for all contributors. No concessions were given to anyone __ because they didn't need to. Now apparently they do.

It smacks of desperation when they herald Yuri's images as "Only from Istock" when actually many of them are available from multiple other outlets, at much cheaper prices, including Yuri's own platform. I'm not well-versed in Canadian law but I'd be surprised if that's even legal.

The concept of exclusivity is hardly a minor or 'artificial constraint'. It's supposed to be a statement of fact and it's supposed to protect Istock's own business interests by ensuring the artist's work is not available to competitors thereby allowing higher prices to be achieved.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: ShadySue on November 09, 2013, 18:16
It smacks of desperation when they herald Yuri's images as "Only from Istock" when actually many of them are available from multiple other outlets, at much cheaper prices, including Yuri's own platform. I'm not well-versed in Canadian law but I'd be surprised if that's even legal.

"(a) Advertisements must not contain inaccurate, deceptive or otherwise misleading claims, statements, illustrations or representations, either direct or implied, with regard to any identified or identifiable product(s) or service(s)."
http://www.adstandards.com/en/standards/canCodeOfAdStandards.aspx (http://www.adstandards.com/en/standards/canCodeOfAdStandards.aspx)

Yuri did post on here strongly implying that his site is officially a 'partner' of iStock. Does anyone know if any of his iS images are on any other site, not a 'partner',

On the icons page, it defines the crown  in terms of the imageexclusivity, not the contributor:
"Only available on iStock
These icons highlight files created by iStock exclusive artists. This means they can only be found on iStock and select Getty Images partner sites."
http://www.istockphoto.com/icons.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/icons.php)

Formerly,  the definition was all about the photographer.
e.g. from Wayback Machine:
"Images from this photographer are only available on iStockphoto! " 1 July 2005
http://web.archive.org/web/20050701011636/http://www.istockphoto.com/icons.php (http://web.archive.org/web/20050701011636/http://www.istockphoto.com/icons.php)
(was that true in 2005? By the time I joined, exclusives could sell RM elsewhere.)
Hmm, hard to tell. Text is the same in July 2006, but by the end of that year, something changed so that paticular text is no longer found on that page via the Wayback machine.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: luissantos84 on November 09, 2013, 18:35
Yuri did post on here strongly implying that his site is officially a 'partner' of iStock. Does anyone know if any of his iS images are on any other site, not a 'partner'


http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-11860969-colleagues-holding-question-mark-signs-in-front-of-their-faces.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-11860969-colleagues-holding-question-mark-signs-in-front-of-their-faces.php)

http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photography-business-people-question-mark-image8354022 (http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photography-business-people-question-mark-image8354022)
http://www.viscoimages.com/photo/171792-Business-people-with-question-mark-on-boards (http://www.viscoimages.com/photo/171792-Business-people-with-question-mark-on-boards)
http://www.mostphotos.com/854236/business-people-with-question-mark-on-boards (http://www.mostphotos.com/854236/business-people-with-question-mark-on-boards)
http://www.superstock.com/preview.asp?image=4197R-22064 (http://www.superstock.com/preview.asp?image=4197R-22064)
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: gostwyck on November 09, 2013, 19:44
Yuri did post on here strongly implying that his site is officially a 'partner' of iStock. Does anyone know if any of his iS images are on any other site, not a 'partner'


[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-11860969-colleagues-holding-question-mark-signs-in-front-of-their-faces.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-11860969-colleagues-holding-question-mark-signs-in-front-of-their-faces.php[/url])

[url]http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photography-business-people-question-mark-image8354022[/url] ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photography-business-people-question-mark-image8354022[/url])
[url]http://www.viscoimages.com/photo/171792-Business-people-with-question-mark-on-boards[/url] ([url]http://www.viscoimages.com/photo/171792-Business-people-with-question-mark-on-boards[/url])
[url]http://www.mostphotos.com/854236/business-people-with-question-mark-on-boards[/url] ([url]http://www.mostphotos.com/854236/business-people-with-question-mark-on-boards[/url])
[url]http://www.superstock.com/preview.asp?image=4197R-22064[/url] ([url]http://www.superstock.com/preview.asp?image=4197R-22064[/url])


Lightening-like response from our Portuguese 'super-sleuth' and internet expert. There's not much that escapes him!
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: luissantos84 on November 09, 2013, 20:12
needless to say I have loads of fun doing this ;D
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: heywoody on November 09, 2013, 20:39
Definition of a portugese man-of-war  ;D
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: luissantos84 on November 10, 2013, 09:27
Yuri did post on here strongly implying that his site is officially a 'partner' of iStock. Does anyone know if any of his iS images are on any other site, not a 'partner'


[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-11860969-colleagues-holding-question-mark-signs-in-front-of-their-faces.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-11860969-colleagues-holding-question-mark-signs-in-front-of-their-faces.php[/url])

[url]http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photography-business-people-question-mark-image8354022[/url] ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photography-business-people-question-mark-image8354022[/url])
[url]http://www.viscoimages.com/photo/171792-Business-people-with-question-mark-on-boards[/url] ([url]http://www.viscoimages.com/photo/171792-Business-people-with-question-mark-on-boards[/url])
[url]http://www.mostphotos.com/854236/business-people-with-question-mark-on-boards[/url] ([url]http://www.mostphotos.com/854236/business-people-with-question-mark-on-boards[/url])
[url]http://www.superstock.com/preview.asp?image=4197R-22064[/url] ([url]http://www.superstock.com/preview.asp?image=4197R-22064[/url])


http://www.signelements.com/imagedetails/32118823_extInt0/02C06094-Ingimage-Business-people-standing-with-question-mark-on-boa.html (http://www.signelements.com/imagedetails/32118823_extInt0/02C06094-Ingimage-Business-people-standing-with-question-mark-on-boa.html)
http://www.pocketstock.com/image/stock-photos-MYA26778-business-people-standing-with-question-mark-on-boards (http://www.pocketstock.com/image/stock-photos-MYA26778-business-people-standing-with-question-mark-on-boards)
http://www.agefotostock.com/253clwghjz/ingles/enim01.asp?foto=15680503&light=&foto_clave=ESY-000751454 (http://www.agefotostock.com/253clwghjz/ingles/enim01.asp?foto=15680503&light=&foto_clave=ESY-000751454)
http://www.the3dstudio.com/product_details.aspx?id_product=287694 (http://www.the3dstudio.com/product_details.aspx?id_product=287694)
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Mantis on November 10, 2013, 09:35
needless to say I have loads of fun doing this ;D

And we have loads of fun reading them.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: luissantos84 on November 10, 2013, 09:37
needless to say I have loads of fun doing this ;D

And we have loads of fun reading them.

I hope that exclusives too ;D
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: gbalex on November 10, 2013, 14:53
I have said that SS has kept prices very low for years to gain market share.  Our cost's have risen via inflation, contributor quality has gone through the roof and image quality is light years better than it was in 2004.  SS has benefited from the competitive advantages its contributor base has given them and those gains have been fully funded by SS contributors.

Well put. That's the core of the matter.

sure I agree at some point with that BUT can you guys tell me which agencies have:
1 - paid your bills
2 - showed continuous growth
3 - no royalties cut

the hard truth is that SS is the only agency we can rely on and have continuous motivation to keep on working unless you have fallen on iStock lap and exclusivity is fitting you perfectly or got some special deal at iStock or other agency

Perception is not reality.

SS planed well ahead to go public. They started putting key people on the board long before they went public and they implemented the bridge program soon after putting those people in place.

SS has cut royalties... they just used the bridge program and BigStock to do it.  They are hoping that the majority of small contributors will not notice them funneling buyers over to BS.  It only stands to reason that this income drain will have a greater impact on large HCV producers.

Why do you supposed the BS financial are not broken out in the SEC filings.  The first ones did have BS financials as required by law, now they have them hidden and they are able to do so because BS is now a division of SS and not a separate business entity.

Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Ron on November 10, 2013, 14:58
Ignore the fact that only a select group have the bridge and that no one can join these days as the program closed.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: bunhill on November 10, 2013, 15:05
Ignore the fact that only a select group have the bridge and that no one can join these days as the program closed.

Ignore the fact that a significant quantity of the content at SS is on BS anyhow irrespective of the "bridge" because people like to compete with themselves.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: gbalex on November 10, 2013, 15:12
Ignore the fact that only a select group have the bridge and that no one can join these days as the program closed.

SS implemented the bridge program so that they could funnel over files from SS that fit a long term BS target demographic.  I am sure that if you fit the demographic for the business's that SS hopes to develop business relationships with, you will still get an invitation. After all it has always been by invitation.

How long do you suppose the BS division of SS will be able to pay .38 at the subscription rates they are charging?

Enough of BS strategics, they are only one small piece of the overall picture.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Ron on November 10, 2013, 15:15
Ignore the fact that only a select group have the bridge and that no one can join these days as the program closed.

Ignore the fact that a significant quantity of the content at SS is on BS anyhow irrespective of the "bridge" because people like to compete with themselves.
I am not ignoring anything. But Yes, so that makes the whole argument of SS creating a bridge to cut royalties moot. People have a free choice as well, they can upload and they can leave.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: luissantos84 on November 10, 2013, 15:22
I am out of the bridge but I can tell you that I haven't upload there since that move (1 year ago) and I don't plan to resume
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: gbalex on November 10, 2013, 15:51
I am out of the bridge but I can tell you that I haven't upload there since that move (1 year ago) and I don't plan to resume

Smart, why devalue your assets
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on November 10, 2013, 22:25
There's actually no sign that they are pushing SS contributors over to BS, sales there have had no boost at all in my experience, in fact rather the reverse. Sending buyers to cheaper associated sites is a Getty/iS policy, not an SS one.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: sharpshot on November 11, 2013, 05:57
There's actually no sign that they are pushing SS contributors over to BS, sales there have had no boost at all in my experience, in fact rather the reverse. Sending buyers to cheaper associated sites is a Getty/iS policy, not an SS one.
I've seen a dip in SS subs sales and they have risen with BS because they used to not offer them at all.  I do think some SS subs buyers will move over to BigStock with their special offers.  As BigStock has impossible to reach levels for subs, I see this as being alarmingly similar to the Getty/IS policy.  I'm OK while the bridge $0.38 remains but how long will that last?

If they want to treat their contributors differently to Gett/istock, they should pay the same rates for subs with BigStock as they do with SS for everyone.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: sharpshot on November 11, 2013, 06:02
I wonder how many special deals Getty are going to do?  One or two contributors shouldn't hit SS that hard but if they plan to do this on a larger scale, I think SS will have to start doing something more to keep their highest earning contributors.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Michael Lancaster on November 12, 2013, 07:28
An intresting special deal with Getty you can see sorting the latest on Vetta images and check those from http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=10400019 (http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=10400019)
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: cobalt on November 12, 2013, 07:34
As long as their special deals involve contributors who have lots of competition I donīt think it makes a difference. There is such an oversupply of images, you know the saying about of the size of the hole in a glass of water, when you take out your finger…also the content they are bringing in is not new, it has been seen millions of times over all the sites everywhere.

Good luck to those who take the deals and more money for the indies everywhere...
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: ShadySue on November 12, 2013, 07:40
An intresting special deal with Getty you can see sorting the latest on Vetta images and check those from [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=10400019[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=10400019[/url])

It's an incredibly random subset of that port which has been made Vetta.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: cobalt on November 12, 2013, 08:01
Love the original Bondi Blue iMac ;)
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: heywoody on November 12, 2013, 08:27
>23,000 images < 100 sales - looks like they're making a fortune
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: luissantos84 on November 12, 2013, 09:21
>23,000 images < 100 sales - looks like they're making a fortune

indeed ;D

last file approved on August 8th, that is over 3 months with 23k files and 90 sales :o ;D
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: tickstock on November 12, 2013, 09:32
.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on November 12, 2013, 10:03
How do you arrive at 2000 sales in the last three weeks? The data don't exist for you to reach that conclusion, do they?
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: tickstock on November 12, 2013, 10:05
.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: luissantos84 on November 12, 2013, 10:53
thank god man, that would have been depressing ;D
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: tickstock on November 12, 2013, 10:55
.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: luissantos84 on November 12, 2013, 10:55
thank god man, that would have been depressing ;D
Yes it would have but $10,000+ per week doesn't sound too bad to me.

had worst weeks man
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on November 12, 2013, 15:41
This new Getty dump had been talked about elsewhere. My favorite of the hand-picked (Editor's choice) gems? This crumpled paper with black border.

(http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/29617148/2/stock-photo-29617148-crumpled-piece-of-paper.jpg) (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-29617148-crumpled-piece-of-paper.php)

One of the keywords is Natural Phenomenon - for some reason Paper isn't in there but that is? What sort of IQ test are you failing if you buy this for $270?
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: gostwyck on November 12, 2013, 15:59
Sorry to say but that is incorrect.  The first 50 files have well over 500dls, the stats stopped updating a couple weeks ago.  The files were uploaded months ago but probably approved just a few weeks ago judging by how many downloads they've had since the stats stopped working. 

With lots of Vetta images and about 2000 sales in the last 3 weeks, they probably made at least $10,000 per week.

^^^ Sorry to say but that is incorrect too. Some of that portfolio dates back to 2010 so the sales numbers have been gathered over a much longer period than you surmise. I would be absolutely amazed if that portfolio were generating more than a fraction of what you estimate.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: tickstock on November 12, 2013, 16:13
.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: cobalt on November 12, 2013, 17:17
There might indeed be a date problem, if only for the simple reason that if these stellar vetta images had been ingested in 2010 we would all have heard about it. Loads of designers/contributors scan the new vettas every day. you canīt hide this kind of "quality"
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: heywoody on November 12, 2013, 17:52

If you hover over some of those images it says  >10 but when you click on them they say >40.  My guess is that the images were actually uploaded in 2013 and wrongly say 2010 (or were from a Getty account and uploaded there in 2010).  I think some other Getty accounts had that issue before.  Maybe the hovered over number is since they were put up this time?  If you compare OJO_Images images from 2011 you'll see they have many times more downloads and views than that account.  Do you know for sure that they were on iStock since 2010?

So what you're saying is that, depending on where you click, you get different numbers and you are saying this in defense of IS??
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: tickstock on November 12, 2013, 17:58
.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: heywoody on November 12, 2013, 18:13
Seriously?  Would you be happy with a sales reporting system that was "as close as possible"?  If the numbers differ depending on where you look how can anyone have confidence in any of the reporting?
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: tickstock on November 12, 2013, 18:20
.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: ShadySue on November 12, 2013, 18:30
.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: mlwinphoto on November 12, 2013, 19:46
Seriously?  Would you be happy with a sales reporting system that was "as close as possible"?  If the numbers differ depending on where you look how can anyone have confidence in any of the reporting?
Why would anyone be happy about that?

Your comment "I don't care how the numbers turn out as long as they are as close as possible to the real ones" suggests that you would be happy about that....
As the saying goes "close only counts in horseshoes".  'As close as possible' is a little too ambiguous for my tastes particularly where iStock is concerned.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: tickstock on November 12, 2013, 19:55
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on November 13, 2013, 01:14
Guys, tickstock found a back-door method of seeing some sales stats approximations for another member. Suggesting that being satisfied with that information equates to being happy with the dodgy financial reporting shows a certain amount of negative bias towards him.  As I understand it, the aim of this site is to exchange information, not to try to browbeat everybody into having the same point of view or to try to drive away dissenters. Tickstock may tend to approach issues from an iStock-friendly perspective, which annoys some members, but he does present a useful interpretation of various facts and point out things that others tend to overlook.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: ShadySue on November 13, 2013, 06:37
Before the new incarnation of the hover function was introduced, the granualarity of the sales figures on the file page was finer than on the search page. E.g. on the search page it went from >10 to >100, but on the file page it was in steps of ten, so you would see e.g. >40.
This system of fuzzy totals was introduced a few years ago, as a compromise between those who wanted dl totals removed completely and those who wanted them kept.
Your own totals are most accurate on the 'My Uploads' page, because the file page, and your total on your own home page don't count ELs, which has been a bug for as long as I've been on iStock. (I think that's how it works/doesn't work.)

I report the above neutrally as a poi.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on November 13, 2013, 10:54
Just got an email where IS admits the collection is full of useless content...

"In this seminar, we'll show you some invaluable tips and tricks for getting beyond the clichés and finding the good stuff faster, so you have more time to create standout work (and get yourself another coffee)."
"Tools you need to get past the imagery that is over used in our visual landscape."

Oh, and you get to do the work for free!
"Basic filtering techniques, using the community for image requests"
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: AYA on November 13, 2013, 12:44
there is also a new entry ANDRESR on istock exclusives

exclusive [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/andresrimaging[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/andresrimaging[/url])
no exclusive  [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/andresr[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/andresr[/url])


Hey guys, I just saw a previous post. I think it's kinda crazy that someone who produces really good images would get so little download (a bit more than 30) in 2-3 months with a 1000 images portfolio.

Would you say it's typical of the stock scene form the last year?

tx
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: gostwyck on November 13, 2013, 13:12
there is also a new entry ANDRESR on istock exclusives

exclusive [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/andresrimaging[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/andresrimaging[/url])
no exclusive  [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/andresr[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/andresr[/url])


Hey guys, I just saw a previous post. I think it's kinda crazy that someone who produces really good images would get so little download (a bit more than 30) in 2-3 months with a 1000 images portfolio.

Would you say it's typical of the stock scene form the last year?

tx


Most of the images in the account you are referring to were uploaded very recently (mainly in October if I remember correctly) and, in case you haven't heard, ISTOCK STAT'S HAVEN'T BEEN UPDATED FOR OVER TWO WEEKS NOW.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: heywoody on November 13, 2013, 18:03
Guys, tickstock found a back-door method of seeing some sales stats approximations for another member. Suggesting that being satisfied with that information equates to being happy with the dodgy financial reporting shows a certain amount of negative bias towards him.  As I understand it, the aim of this site is to exchange information, not to try to browbeat everybody into having the same point of view or to try to drive away dissenters. Tickstock may tend to approach issues from an iStock-friendly perspective, which annoys some members, but he does present a useful interpretation of various facts and point out things that others tend to overlook.

I actually agree with this.  Possibly guilty of some misinterpretation of the original, unclarified post.  I do have a major distrust of any computer system that displays different values for the same thing depending on where you look and, if they can't even report basic sales stats, what else can't they report accurately.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: luissantos84 on January 24, 2014, 08:58
Yuri did post on here strongly implying that his site is officially a 'partner' of iStock. Does anyone know if any of his iS images are on any other site, not a 'partner'


[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-11860969-colleagues-holding-question-mark-signs-in-front-of-their-faces.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-11860969-colleagues-holding-question-mark-signs-in-front-of-their-faces.php[/url])

[url]http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photography-business-people-question-mark-image8354022[/url] ([url]http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photography-business-people-question-mark-image8354022[/url])
[url]http://www.viscoimages.com/photo/171792-Business-people-with-question-mark-on-boards[/url] ([url]http://www.viscoimages.com/photo/171792-Business-people-with-question-mark-on-boards[/url])
[url]http://www.mostphotos.com/854236/business-people-with-question-mark-on-boards[/url] ([url]http://www.mostphotos.com/854236/business-people-with-question-mark-on-boards[/url])
[url]http://www.superstock.com/preview.asp?image=4197R-22064[/url] ([url]http://www.superstock.com/preview.asp?image=4197R-22064[/url])


[url]http://www.signelements.com/imagedetails/32118823_extInt0/02C06094-Ingimage-Business-people-standing-with-question-mark-on-boa.html[/url] ([url]http://www.signelements.com/imagedetails/32118823_extInt0/02C06094-Ingimage-Business-people-standing-with-question-mark-on-boa.html[/url])
[url]http://www.pocketstock.com/image/stock-photos-MYA26778-business-people-standing-with-question-mark-on-boards[/url] ([url]http://www.pocketstock.com/image/stock-photos-MYA26778-business-people-standing-with-question-mark-on-boards[/url])
[url]http://www.agefotostock.com/253clwghjz/ingles/enim01.asp?foto=15680503&light=&foto_clave=ESY-000751454[/url] ([url]http://www.agefotostock.com/253clwghjz/ingles/enim01.asp?foto=15680503&light=&foto_clave=ESY-000751454[/url])
[url]http://www.the3dstudio.com/product_details.aspx?id_product=287694[/url] ([url]http://www.the3dstudio.com/product_details.aspx?id_product=287694[/url])


Yuri still has portfolio in 6 agencies outside IS (8 months after going exclusive)
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: luissantos84 on April 28, 2014, 07:02
1 year after going exclusive

74071 pictures (http://www.agefotostock.com/253clwghjz/en/Search.aspx?author=YURI+ARCURS (http://www.agefotostock.com/253clwghjz/en/Search.aspx?author=YURI+ARCURS))
52470 pictures (http://www.the3dstudio.com/product_search.aspx?id_category_0=290&id_author=543004&ipst=0&sort=rank (http://www.the3dstudio.com/product_search.aspx?id_category_0=290&id_author=543004&ipst=0&sort=rank))
45702 pictures (http://www.superstock.com/resultsframe.asp?tag=results&imgextra0=1&txtkeys1=PG_41979 (http://www.superstock.com/resultsframe.asp?tag=results&imgextra0=1&txtkeys1=PG_41979)
25763 pictures (http://www.viscoimages.com/list/advanced_search/?find=&photographer (http://www.viscoimages.com/list/advanced_search/?find=&photographer)[]=1289)
12115 pictures (http://pt.dreamstime.com/yuri_arcurs_info (http://pt.dreamstime.com/yuri_arcurs_info))
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: tickstock on April 28, 2014, 10:19
.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: luissantos84 on April 28, 2014, 10:27
1 year after going exclusive
12115 pictures ([url]http://pt.dreamstime.com/yuri_arcurs_info[/url] ([url]http://pt.dreamstime.com/yuri_arcurs_info[/url]))

Looks like he has taken down 23,000 images at Dreamstime since September.


YAY!
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Marta on April 28, 2014, 18:33
What about the Nokia 41 mpx camera-phone everyone should be using by now?
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: shudderstok on April 28, 2014, 20:42
1 year after going exclusive

74071 pictures ([url]http://www.agefotostock.com/253clwghjz/en/Search.aspx?author=YURI+ARCURS[/url] ([url]http://www.agefotostock.com/253clwghjz/en/Search.aspx?author=YURI+ARCURS[/url]))
52470 pictures ([url]http://www.the3dstudio.com/product_search.aspx?id_category_0=290&id_author=543004&ipst=0&sort=rank[/url] ([url]http://www.the3dstudio.com/product_search.aspx?id_category_0=290&id_author=543004&ipst=0&sort=rank[/url]))
45702 pictures ([url]http://www.superstock.com/resultsframe.asp?tag=results&imgextra0=1&txtkeys1=PG_41979[/url] ([url]http://www.superstock.com/resultsframe.asp?tag=results&imgextra0=1&txtkeys1=PG_41979[/url])
25763 pictures ([url]http://www.viscoimages.com/list/advanced_search/?find=&photographer[/url] ([url]http://www.viscoimages.com/list/advanced_search/?find=&photographer[/url])[]=1289)
12115 pictures ([url]http://pt.dreamstime.com/yuri_arcurs_info[/url] ([url]http://pt.dreamstime.com/yuri_arcurs_info[/url]))


somebody sure has a lot of time on their hands. and man talk about holding on to things. i find it saddening to see one is creeping yuri one year on and spending so much time creeping his every move on other agencies. and people wonder why i remain anonymous.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Juanmonino on April 28, 2014, 20:47
1 year after going exclusive

74071 pictures ([url]http://www.agefotostock.com/253clwghjz/en/Search.aspx?author=YURI+ARCURS[/url] ([url]http://www.agefotostock.com/253clwghjz/en/Search.aspx?author=YURI+ARCURS[/url]))
52470 pictures ([url]http://www.the3dstudio.com/product_search.aspx?id_category_0=290&id_author=543004&ipst=0&sort=rank[/url] ([url]http://www.the3dstudio.com/product_search.aspx?id_category_0=290&id_author=543004&ipst=0&sort=rank[/url]))
45702 pictures ([url]http://www.superstock.com/resultsframe.asp?tag=results&imgextra0=1&txtkeys1=PG_41979[/url] ([url]http://www.superstock.com/resultsframe.asp?tag=results&imgextra0=1&txtkeys1=PG_41979[/url])
25763 pictures ([url]http://www.viscoimages.com/list/advanced_search/?find=&photographer[/url] ([url]http://www.viscoimages.com/list/advanced_search/?find=&photographer[/url])[]=1289)
12115 pictures ([url]http://pt.dreamstime.com/yuri_arcurs_info[/url] ([url]http://pt.dreamstime.com/yuri_arcurs_info[/url]))


somebody sure has a lot of time on their hands. and man talk about holding on to things. i find it saddening to see one is creeping yuri one year on and spending so much time creeping his every move on other agencies. and people wonder why i remain anonymous.


yuri is the one who organized a conference overhere to inform us about him going exclusive with getty and his conversion to Nokia 41 mpx, looks like he also has a lot of time in his hands.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: shudderstok on April 28, 2014, 21:48
1 year after going exclusive

74071 pictures ([url]http://www.agefotostock.com/253clwghjz/en/Search.aspx?author=YURI+ARCURS[/url] ([url]http://www.agefotostock.com/253clwghjz/en/Search.aspx?author=YURI+ARCURS[/url]))
52470 pictures ([url]http://www.the3dstudio.com/product_search.aspx?id_category_0=290&id_author=543004&ipst=0&sort=rank[/url] ([url]http://www.the3dstudio.com/product_search.aspx?id_category_0=290&id_author=543004&ipst=0&sort=rank[/url]))
45702 pictures ([url]http://www.superstock.com/resultsframe.asp?tag=results&imgextra0=1&txtkeys1=PG_41979[/url] ([url]http://www.superstock.com/resultsframe.asp?tag=results&imgextra0=1&txtkeys1=PG_41979[/url])
25763 pictures ([url]http://www.viscoimages.com/list/advanced_search/?find=&photographer[/url] ([url]http://www.viscoimages.com/list/advanced_search/?find=&photographer[/url])[]=1289)
12115 pictures ([url]http://pt.dreamstime.com/yuri_arcurs_info[/url] ([url]http://pt.dreamstime.com/yuri_arcurs_info[/url]))


somebody sure has a lot of time on their hands. and man talk about holding on to things. i find it saddening to see one is creeping yuri one year on and spending so much time creeping his every move on other agencies. and people wonder why i remain anonymous.


yuri is the one who organized a conference overhere to inform us about him going exclusive with getty and his conversion to Nokia 41 mpx, looks like he also has a lot of time in his hands.


okay, then spend your days creeping him. i just find it odd.
i prefer the concept of "yuri who?" and not spend my time worrying about what he is doing.
surely there are more interesting things to do with ones time. but then again, Dog the Bounty Hunter lasted 8 seasons for a reason.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: lisafx on April 28, 2014, 22:35
1 year after going exclusive

74071 pictures ([url]http://www.agefotostock.com/253clwghjz/en/Search.aspx?author=YURI+ARCURS[/url] ([url]http://www.agefotostock.com/253clwghjz/en/Search.aspx?author=YURI+ARCURS[/url]))
52470 pictures ([url]http://www.the3dstudio.com/product_search.aspx?id_category_0=290&id_author=543004&ipst=0&sort=rank[/url] ([url]http://www.the3dstudio.com/product_search.aspx?id_category_0=290&id_author=543004&ipst=0&sort=rank[/url]))
45702 pictures ([url]http://www.superstock.com/resultsframe.asp?tag=results&imgextra0=1&txtkeys1=PG_41979[/url] ([url]http://www.superstock.com/resultsframe.asp?tag=results&imgextra0=1&txtkeys1=PG_41979[/url])
25763 pictures ([url]http://www.viscoimages.com/list/advanced_search/?find=&photographer[/url] ([url]http://www.viscoimages.com/list/advanced_search/?find=&photographer[/url])[]=1289)
12115 pictures ([url]http://pt.dreamstime.com/yuri_arcurs_info[/url] ([url]http://pt.dreamstime.com/yuri_arcurs_info[/url]))


somebody sure has a lot of time on their hands. and man talk about holding on to things. i find it saddening to see one is creeping yuri one year on and spending so much time creeping his every move on other agencies. and people wonder why i remain anonymous.


yuri is the one who organized a conference overhere to inform us about him going exclusive with getty and his conversion to Nokia 41 mpx, looks like he also has a lot of time in his hands.


okay, then spend your days creeping him. i just find it odd.
i prefer the concept of "yuri who?" and not spend my time worrying about what he is doing.
surely there are more interesting things to do with ones time. but then again, Dog the Bounty Hunter lasted 8 seasons for a reason.


Maybe it's just me, but I find it stranger that you keep track of exactly how many seasons Dog The Bounty Hunter was on than that a microstock contributer would be keeping track of what Yuri is up to.   ???
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: shudderstok on April 28, 2014, 22:42
1 year after going exclusive

74071 pictures ([url]http://www.agefotostock.com/253clwghjz/en/Search.aspx?author=YURI+ARCURS[/url] ([url]http://www.agefotostock.com/253clwghjz/en/Search.aspx?author=YURI+ARCURS[/url]))
52470 pictures ([url]http://www.the3dstudio.com/product_search.aspx?id_category_0=290&id_author=543004&ipst=0&sort=rank[/url] ([url]http://www.the3dstudio.com/product_search.aspx?id_category_0=290&id_author=543004&ipst=0&sort=rank[/url]))
45702 pictures ([url]http://www.superstock.com/resultsframe.asp?tag=results&imgextra0=1&txtkeys1=PG_41979[/url] ([url]http://www.superstock.com/resultsframe.asp?tag=results&imgextra0=1&txtkeys1=PG_41979[/url])
25763 pictures ([url]http://www.viscoimages.com/list/advanced_search/?find=&photographer[/url] ([url]http://www.viscoimages.com/list/advanced_search/?find=&photographer[/url])[]=1289)
12115 pictures ([url]http://pt.dreamstime.com/yuri_arcurs_info[/url] ([url]http://pt.dreamstime.com/yuri_arcurs_info[/url]))


somebody sure has a lot of time on their hands. and man talk about holding on to things. i find it saddening to see one is creeping yuri one year on and spending so much time creeping his every move on other agencies. and people wonder why i remain anonymous.


yuri is the one who organized a conference overhere to inform us about him going exclusive with getty and his conversion to Nokia 41 mpx, looks like he also has a lot of time in his hands.


okay, then spend your days creeping him. i just find it odd.
i prefer the concept of "yuri who?" and not spend my time worrying about what he is doing.
surely there are more interesting things to do with ones time. but then again, Dog the Bounty Hunter lasted 8 seasons for a reason.


Maybe it's just me, but I find it stranger that you keep track of exactly how many seasons Dog The Bounty Hunter was on than that a microstock contributer would be keeping track of what Yuri is up to.   ???


yes that would be strange perhaps even stranger by a lot, but it was splashed across some web page the other day when i went to check email and i thought it was really strange it lasted 8 whole years. it's one of those stats that freak me out, how . does a show like that last beyond one episode? my approach for both yuri and dog is who cares???
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: lisafx on April 28, 2014, 22:49
LOL.  Glad to hear it.  You would not have struck me as the target audience for that show. ;)
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: gillian vann on April 28, 2014, 23:12
happy to say I've never even heard of Dog The Bounty Hunter. Ignorance is bliss. :)
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on April 28, 2014, 23:31
1 year after going exclusive

74071 pictures ([url]http://www.agefotostock.com/253clwghjz/en/Search.aspx?author=YURI+ARCURS[/url] ([url]http://www.agefotostock.com/253clwghjz/en/Search.aspx?author=YURI+ARCURS[/url]))
52470 pictures ([url]http://www.the3dstudio.com/product_search.aspx?id_category_0=290&id_author=543004&ipst=0&sort=rank[/url] ([url]http://www.the3dstudio.com/product_search.aspx?id_category_0=290&id_author=543004&ipst=0&sort=rank[/url]))
45702 pictures ([url]http://www.superstock.com/resultsframe.asp?tag=results&imgextra0=1&txtkeys1=PG_41979[/url] ([url]http://www.superstock.com/resultsframe.asp?tag=results&imgextra0=1&txtkeys1=PG_41979[/url])
25763 pictures ([url]http://www.viscoimages.com/list/advanced_search/?find=&photographer[/url] ([url]http://www.viscoimages.com/list/advanced_search/?find=&photographer[/url])[]=1289)
12115 pictures ([url]http://pt.dreamstime.com/yuri_arcurs_info[/url] ([url]http://pt.dreamstime.com/yuri_arcurs_info[/url]))


somebody sure has a lot of time on their hands. and man talk about holding on to things. i find it saddening to see one is creeping yuri one year on and spending so much time creeping his every move on other agencies. and people wonder why i remain anonymous.


It seems a legitimate matter of public interest to me. I would expect real exclusives to be quite angry about iS and Yuri destroying the concept of exclusivity, because if it is as important a selling point as iStock have maintained then a loss of confidence by buyers in whether high-priced files really are exclusive is damaging to all the proper exclusives.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: shudderstok on April 29, 2014, 00:36
1 year after going exclusive

74071 pictures ([url]http://www.agefotostock.com/253clwghjz/en/Search.aspx?author=YURI+ARCURS[/url] ([url]http://www.agefotostock.com/253clwghjz/en/Search.aspx?author=YURI+ARCURS[/url]))
52470 pictures ([url]http://www.the3dstudio.com/product_search.aspx?id_category_0=290&id_author=543004&ipst=0&sort=rank[/url] ([url]http://www.the3dstudio.com/product_search.aspx?id_category_0=290&id_author=543004&ipst=0&sort=rank[/url]))
45702 pictures ([url]http://www.superstock.com/resultsframe.asp?tag=results&imgextra0=1&txtkeys1=PG_41979[/url] ([url]http://www.superstock.com/resultsframe.asp?tag=results&imgextra0=1&txtkeys1=PG_41979[/url])
25763 pictures ([url]http://www.viscoimages.com/list/advanced_search/?find=&photographer[/url] ([url]http://www.viscoimages.com/list/advanced_search/?find=&photographer[/url])[]=1289)
12115 pictures ([url]http://pt.dreamstime.com/yuri_arcurs_info[/url] ([url]http://pt.dreamstime.com/yuri_arcurs_info[/url]))


somebody sure has a lot of time on their hands. and man talk about holding on to things. i find it saddening to see one is creeping yuri one year on and spending so much time creeping his every move on other agencies. and people wonder why i remain anonymous.


It seems a legitimate matter of public interest to me. I would expect real exclusives to be quite angry about iS and Yuri destroying the concept of exclusivity, because if it is as important a selling point as iStock have maintained then a loss of confidence by buyers in whether high-priced files really are exclusive is damaging to all the proper exclusives.


Noted and valid point. Perhaps it might get more mileage bringing it up on the IS forum, and send a message to contributor relations. I think this would get more mileage as then you would get the real exclusives in conversation, including the one or two that replied to this.

Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: fotoVoyager on April 29, 2014, 01:52

It seems a legitimate matter of public interest to me. I would expect real exclusives to be quite angry about iS and Yuri destroying the concept of exclusivity, because if it is as important a selling point as iStock have maintained then a loss of confidence by buyers in whether high-priced files really are exclusive is damaging to all the proper exclusives.

Noted and valid point. Perhaps it might get more mileage bringing it up on the IS forum, and send a message to contributor relations. I think this would get more mileage as then you would get the real exclusives in conversation, including the one or two that replied to this.

There'd be no meaningful response from CR and a forum post would be locked quicker than you could say 'oneruleforaselectfewanotherforeveryoneelse'.

So this is the only place we can discuss these issues, even if it is pointless.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: shudderstok on April 29, 2014, 02:37

It seems a legitimate matter of public interest to me. I would expect real exclusives to be quite angry about iS and Yuri destroying the concept of exclusivity, because if it is as important a selling point as iStock have maintained then a loss of confidence by buyers in whether high-priced files really are exclusive is damaging to all the proper exclusives.

Noted and valid point. Perhaps it might get more mileage bringing it up on the IS forum, and send a message to contributor relations. I think this would get more mileage as then you would get the real exclusives in conversation, including the one or two that replied to this.

There'd be no meaningful response from CR and a forum post would be locked quicker than you could say 'oneruleforaselectfewanotherforeveryoneelse'.

So this is the only place we can discuss these issues, even if it is pointless.

take action to find out if your above comment is speculation. you never know, they might not lock it, and you never know CR might do something about it. if no action is taken, then the speculation will always continue. did you ever stop to think that GI and IS might not even know that yuri is double dipping without their knowledge? maybe yuri has requested to close the accounts and they did not close them. i actually think if they locked the thread or deleted it, that would be the kiss of death for them. it would really piss a lot of people off, including me. i am not a fan of the IS nonsense of all in or all out, especially when GI allows image exclusivity.

nobody will ever know till someone takes action and does the old copy and paste of what has been noted above.

it won't be me that posts it, but if it does get posted, then i will certainly get involved and ask why  'oneruleforaselectfewanotherforeveryoneelse'
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: cobalt on April 29, 2014, 03:10
did you ever stop to think that GI and IS might not even know that yuri is double dipping without their knowledge?

Yuri having his images allover while claiming to be exclusive has been discussed for many months now. They are certainly aware of it. Maybe the deal was only about not sending and removing content from SS, who knows?

There have also been many exclusives asking about how deals like these are possible and if they can have exclusive images as well. The answer I have seen is that it "shouldnīt concern them what Getty does". Exclusive images and some exclusives have also tried to negotiate their own "special deal". But from what I have heard they have not succeeded (yet). I suppose you need to be a large stock factory with many employees to be considered by Getty for "deals"


msg is the best place for open discussions.  Sometimes the facebook group has some information as well. These days the istock forums are unfortunately not a place where people feel welcome or heard.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Ploink on April 29, 2014, 03:27
take action to find out if your above comment is speculation. you never know, they might not lock it, and you never know CR might do something about it. if no action is taken, then the speculation will always continue. did you ever stop to think that GI and IS might not even know that yuri is double dipping without their knowledge? maybe yuri has requested to close the accounts and they did not close them. i actually think if they locked the thread or deleted it, that would be the kiss of death for them. it would really piss a lot of people off, including me. i am not a fan of the IS nonsense of all in or all out, especially when GI allows image exclusivity.

nobody will ever know till someone takes action and does the old copy and paste of what has been noted above.

it won't be me that posts it, but if it does get posted, then i will certainly get involved and ask why  'oneruleforaselectfewanotherforeveryoneelse'


Done!

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=360692&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=360692&page=1)

Here is the text I posted on the IS forum - just in case it gets lost  ;D

"My understanding of exclusivity so far was, that not only did you have to have at least 250 sales and an approval rating of > 50%, you are also not allowed to have royalty-free photos on sale anywhere. This is also what it says in the FAQs.

My  simple question is this: How can it be that literally tens of thousans of photos by a prominent Danish photographer, who went exclusive last summer, are still on sale on several RF-sites?

Are there two kinds of exclusivity and, if so, how does one apply for the second, not-quite-so-exclusive kind?"


I expect the following to happen:

-) The thread gets locked and then disappears

-) I get banned

-) Lobo writes me a nasty PM

-) Shudderstok takes action based on the points above
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: shudderstok on April 29, 2014, 03:29
did you ever stop to think that GI and IS might not even know that yuri is double dipping without their knowledge?

Yuri having his images allover while claiming to be exclusive has been discussed for many months now. They are certainly aware of it. Maybe the deal was only about not sending and removing content from SS, who knows?

There have also been many exclusives asking about how deals like these are possible and if they can have exclusive images as well. The answer I have seen is that it "shouldnīt concern them what Getty does". Exclusive images and some exclusives have also tried to negotiate their own "special deal". But from what I have heard they have not succeeded (yet). I suppose you need to be a large stock factory with many employees to be considered by Getty for "deals"


msg is the best place for open discussions.  Sometimes the facebook group has some information as well. These days the istock forums are unfortunately not a place where people feel welcome or heard.

so what you are saying is that for me to be "exclusive" they have a strangle hold on all my RF images - accepted or not - and they can legally market my work as "exclusive", but for yuri they can willfully market his work as "exclusive" knowing full well it is not "exclusive" as indicated, and that those same "exclusive" images are being sold elsewhere.
to me that sounds illegal from the part of IS and GI. how can one even possibly have a contract of a "special deal" and willfully market images as "exclusive" when in deed the images are not "exclusive" at all.
i'd love to see the lawyer speak on that one.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: shudderstok on April 29, 2014, 03:30
take action to find out if your above comment is speculation. you never know, they might not lock it, and you never know CR might do something about it. if no action is taken, then the speculation will always continue. did you ever stop to think that GI and IS might not even know that yuri is double dipping without their knowledge? maybe yuri has requested to close the accounts and they did not close them. i actually think if they locked the thread or deleted it, that would be the kiss of death for them. it would really piss a lot of people off, including me. i am not a fan of the IS nonsense of all in or all out, especially when GI allows image exclusivity.

nobody will ever know till someone takes action and does the old copy and paste of what has been noted above.

it won't be me that posts it, but if it does get posted, then i will certainly get involved and ask why  'oneruleforaselectfewanotherforeveryoneelse'


Done!

[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=360692&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=360692&page=1[/url])

Here is the text I posted on the IS forum - just in case it gets lost  ;D

"My understanding of exclusivity so far was, that not only did you have to have at least 250 sales and an approval rating of > 50%, you are also not allowed to have royalty-free photos on sale anywhere. This is also what it says in the FAQs.

My  simple question is this: How can it be that literally tens of thousans of photos by a prominent Danish photographer, who went exclusive last summer, are still on sale on several RF-sites?

Are there two kinds of exclusivity and, if so, how does one apply for the second, not-quite-so-exclusive kind?"


I expect the following to happen:

-) The thread gets locked and then disappears

-) I get banned

-) Lobo writes me a nasty PM

-) Shudderstok takes action based on the points above


Thank you!
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: ShadySue on April 29, 2014, 03:41
I still fail to understand why falsely claiming that a file is available 'only from iStock' isn't against the UK (and certain other) ASA(s).

Someone did question it on iS's forum a while back, and Lobo said, obscurely, that the wording was 'only from iStock', not 'only on iStock' as if that made it OK, but that doesn't work in UK English. Is the meaning/implication of these prepositions really that different in Canada? (Implication in advertising also counts for ASA.)
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: cobalt on April 29, 2014, 03:49

so what you are saying is that for me to be "exclusive" they have a strangle hold on all my RF images - accepted or not - and they can legally market my work as "exclusive", but for yuri they can willfully market his work as "exclusive" knowing full well it is not "exclusive" as indicated, and that those same "exclusive" images are being sold elsewhere.


Sue mentioned the difference between from and on. If that is enough legally, I have no idea.

But Getty has a lot of "exclusive" content that is also being sold on other sites. Blendimages and others sell from their own website directly and getty also sublicenses their exclusive content to other agencies. So "exclusive" Getty content can be found on corbis, masterfile etc...I saw this with my own images when they were in the Getty House program.

Getty has a completely different understanding of "exclusive" content than istock does.

But it looks like the "exclusive yet not exclusive" option is only available for independents who are negotiating a contract with Getty directly not for people who are already istock artist exclusive.

istock has said they have considered exclusive images because many people asked for it, but apparently decided against it. Fotolia and dreamstime do it successfully, especially Fotolia, for local content.

So if you want to have the "special deal" option, you need to be independent and join one of the smaller stock firms as a contributing artist. Then the content you send to them exclusively can be marketed via Getty and everyone else apparently and you can send your other content to the micros or wherever you want. But you only have the option to decide where your content goes when you are indie.

It is one of the main reasons I went independent. To be able to decide price points and have image exclusivity.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Ploink on April 29, 2014, 04:32
I expect the following to happen:

-) The thread gets locked and then disappears

-) I get banned

-) Lobo writes me a nasty PM

-) Shudderstok takes action based on the points above

And it's gone - the thread lasted all of 60 minutes  :o

Edit: And I get a (nice) e-mail from Kelvin, stating that exclusivity works exactly as I described, but should I find myself selling photos worth millions of dollars I may apply for a special deal at HQ...

Two(ish) out of four - I'm on a roll here  ;D
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on April 29, 2014, 05:34
Edit: And I get a (nice) e-mail from Kelvin, stating that exclusivity works exactly as I described, but should I find myself selling photos worth millions of dollars I may apply for a special deal at HQ...

Didn't work for me ... ;)
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: cobalt on April 29, 2014, 05:41
The irony is of course that the istock exclusives as a collective group are bringing in a lot more money than yuri ever did, but getty prefers to subdivide them and focus attention on those coming in from outside.

There is so much more they could do with their exclusive contributors. They have some fantastic people.

The more deals they do with indie artists the more exclusives will be forced to put their energy into plan B projects. They have no choice, their files are no longer getting into the higher price bands and new content is basically cut of from the double istock/getty exposure. And in all price bands they are being squeezed out by indie artists, while the "special deal" getty artists get favored and their content is placed into higher bands automatically.

I hope they at least get some more sales if thinkstock customers migrate back to istock. Other than that, they arenīt being offered much to look forward to.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Ploink on April 29, 2014, 05:43
Edit: And I get a (nice) e-mail from Kelvin, stating that exclusivity works exactly as I described, but should I find myself selling photos worth millions of dollars I may apply for a special deal at HQ...

Didn't work for me ... ;)

Maybe not Danish enough? Or maybe not enough millions? Or maybe alltogether too outspoken?

Wonder what it really was...  ;D
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: ShadySue on April 29, 2014, 05:51
Edit: And I get a (nice) e-mail from Kelvin, stating that exclusivity works exactly as I described, but should I find myself selling photos worth millions of dollars I may apply for a special deal at HQ...

Didn't work for me ... ;)

Maybe not Danish enough? Or maybe not enough millions? Or maybe alltogether too outspoken?

Wonder what it really was...  ;D

The Great Dane has his current location set to Canada.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: luissantos84 on April 29, 2014, 06:11
1357 pictures from Tetra at Alamy (http://www.alamy.com/search/imageresults.aspx?go=1&a=-1&archive=1&size=0xFF&qt=Yuri+Arcurs&submitsearch=&ct=#BHM=foo%3Dbar%26st%3D0%26pn%3D1%26ps%3D120%26sortby%3D3%26qt%3D%26qt_raw%3D%26qn%3DYuri%2520Arcurs%26lic%3D3%26mr%3D0%26pr%3D0%26aoa%3D1%26creative%3D%26videos%3D%26nu%3D%26ccc%3D%26bespoke%3D%26apalib%3D%26ag%3D0%26hc%3D0%26et%3D0x000000000000000000000%26vp%3D0%26loc%3D0%26ot%3D0%26imgt%3D0%26dtfr%3D%26dtto%3D%26size%3D0xFF%26archive%3D1%26name%3DYuri%252bArcurs%26groupid%3D%26pseudoid%3D%7BE964C825-67F2-4FF7-A650-C12355192E0F%7D%26userid%3D%26id%3D%26a%3D-1%26xstx%3D0%26cbstore%3D1%26lightbox%3D%26resultview%3DsortbyRelevant%26gname%3D%26gtype%3D%26saveQry%3D%26editorial%3D%26nasty%3D%26t%3D0%26edoptin%3D%26customgeoip%3D (http://www.alamy.com/search/imageresults.aspx?go=1&a=-1&archive=1&size=0xFF&qt=Yuri+Arcurs&submitsearch=&ct=#BHM=foo%3Dbar%26st%3D0%26pn%3D1%26ps%3D120%26sortby%3D3%26qt%3D%26qt_raw%3D%26qn%3DYuri%2520Arcurs%26lic%3D3%26mr%3D0%26pr%3D0%26aoa%3D1%26creative%3D%26videos%3D%26nu%3D%26ccc%3D%26bespoke%3D%26apalib%3D%26ag%3D0%26hc%3D0%26et%3D0x000000000000000000000%26vp%3D0%26loc%3D0%26ot%3D0%26imgt%3D0%26dtfr%3D%26dtto%3D%26size%3D0xFF%26archive%3D1%26name%3DYuri%252bArcurs%26groupid%3D%26pseudoid%3D%7BE964C825-67F2-4FF7-A650-C12355192E0F%7D%26userid%3D%26id%3D%26a%3D-1%26xstx%3D0%26cbstore%3D1%26lightbox%3D%26resultview%3DsortbyRelevant%26gname%3D%26gtype%3D%26saveQry%3D%26editorial%3D%26nasty%3D%26t%3D0%26edoptin%3D%26customgeoip%3D)
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: tickstock on April 29, 2014, 06:57
.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: luissantos84 on April 29, 2014, 09:30
1357 pictures from Tetra at Alamy ([url]http://www.alamy.com/search/imageresults.aspx?go=1&a=-1&archive=1&size=0xFF&qt=Yuri+Arcurs&submitsearch=&ct=#BHM=foo%3Dbar%26st%3D0%26pn%3D1%26ps%3D120%26sortby%3D3%26qt%3D%26qt_raw%3D%26qn%3DYuri%2520Arcurs%26lic%3D3%26mr%3D0%26pr%3D0%26aoa%3D1%26creative%3D%26videos%3D%26nu%3D%26ccc%3D%26bespoke%3D%26apalib%3D%26ag%3D0%26hc%3D0%26et%3D0x000000000000000000000%26vp%3D0%26loc%3D0%26ot%3D0%26imgt%3D0%26dtfr%3D%26dtto%3D%26size%3D0xFF%26archive%3D1%26name%3DYuri%252bArcurs%26groupid%3D%26pseudoid%3D%7BE964C825-67F2-4FF7-A650-C12355192E0F%7D%26userid%3D%26id%3D%26a%3D-1%26xstx%3D0%26cbstore%3D1%26lightbox%3D%26resultview%3DsortbyRelevant%26gname%3D%26gtype%3D%26saveQry%3D%26editorial%3D%26nasty%3D%26t%3D0%26edoptin%3D%26customgeoip%3D[/url] ([url]http://www.alamy.com/search/imageresults.aspx?go=1&a=-1&archive=1&size=0xFF&qt=Yuri+Arcurs&submitsearch=&ct=#BHM=foo%3Dbar%26st%3D0%26pn%3D1%26ps%3D120%26sortby%3D3%26qt%3D%26qt_raw%3D%26qn%3DYuri%2520Arcurs%26lic%3D3%26mr%3D0%26pr%3D0%26aoa%3D1%26creative%3D%26videos%3D%26nu%3D%26ccc%3D%26bespoke%3D%26apalib%3D%26ag%3D0%26hc%3D0%26et%3D0x000000000000000000000%26vp%3D0%26loc%3D0%26ot%3D0%26imgt%3D0%26dtfr%3D%26dtto%3D%26size%3D0xFF%26archive%3D1%26name%3DYuri%252bArcurs%26groupid%3D%26pseudoid%3D%7BE964C825-67F2-4FF7-A650-C12355192E0F%7D%26userid%3D%26id%3D%26a%3D-1%26xstx%3D0%26cbstore%3D1%26lightbox%3D%26resultview%3DsortbyRelevant%26gname%3D%26gtype%3D%26saveQry%3D%26editorial%3D%26nasty%3D%26t%3D0%26edoptin%3D%26customgeoip%3D[/url])

That's down from 61,000+ images.  [url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/what-is-happening-to-istock-is-it-the-end/msg348912/#msg348912[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/what-is-happening-to-istock-is-it-the-end/msg348912/#msg348912[/url])

Looks like he's also taken down all his 80,000+ images from mostphotos sinch Shadysue made that post.  [url]https://www.mostphotos.com/yuri[/url] ([url]https://www.mostphotos.com/yuri[/url])


why are you that surprised? shouldn't be the normal procedure after 1 year? he still has over 200k pictures around 7 agencies but that is fine!
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: tickstock on April 29, 2014, 09:44
.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Reckless on April 29, 2014, 09:55

It seems a legitimate matter of public interest to me. I would expect real exclusives to be quite angry about iS and Yuri destroying the concept of exclusivity, because if it is as important a selling point as iStock have maintained then a loss of confidence by buyers in whether high-priced files really are exclusive is damaging to all the proper exclusives.

Noted and valid point. Perhaps it might get more mileage bringing it up on the IS forum, and send a message to contributor relations. I think this would get more mileage as then you would get the real exclusives in conversation, including the one or two that replied to this.

There'd be no meaningful response from CR and a forum post would be locked quicker than you could say 'oneruleforaselectfewanotherforeveryoneelse'.

So this is the only place we can discuss these issues, even if it is pointless.

take action to find out if your above comment is speculation. you never know, they might not lock it, and you never know CR might do something about it. if no action is taken, then the speculation will always continue. did you ever stop to think that GI and IS might not even know that yuri is double dipping without their knowledge? maybe yuri has requested to close the accounts and they did not close them. i actually think if they locked the thread or deleted it, that would be the kiss of death for them. it would really piss a lot of people off, including me. i am not a fan of the IS nonsense of all in or all out, especially when GI allows image exclusivity.

nobody will ever know till someone takes action and does the old copy and paste of what has been noted above.

it won't be me that posts it, but if it does get posted, then i will certainly get involved and ask why  'oneruleforaselectfewanotherforeveryoneelse'

It appears someone took the required action, so we patiently await the results from your inquiries.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: lisafx on April 29, 2014, 13:39
Edit: And I get a (nice) e-mail from Kelvin, stating that exclusivity works exactly as I described, but should I find myself selling photos worth millions of dollars I may apply for a special deal at HQ...

Didn't work for me ... ;)

Maybe not Danish enough? Or maybe not enough millions? Or maybe alltogether too outspoken?

Wonder what it really was...  ;D

I've bolded my guess :)
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on April 29, 2014, 14:43
I've bolded my guess :)

That's gotta be it, since I'm 47.8 percent Danish.  Or I enjoy a good danish.  Can't remember which.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: shudderstok on April 29, 2014, 20:23
the results are pure bullsh!t and a disgrace from IS.
so what have we learned today? exclusive is not exclusive.
GI and IS should be ashamed of themselves to conceal this fact that they are marketing certain photographs as exclusive when in fact they are not exclusive at all.
not impressed at all.
honestly, i thought IS would show a little bit more integrity and allow the forum to stay up. man was i ever wrong.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: ShadySue on April 29, 2014, 20:42

honestly, i thought IS would show a little bit more integrity ...


Based on what past history???

But I make mistakes as much as anyone, so I'm not down on you; kudos for now seeing them for what they are.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: ShadySue on April 29, 2014, 21:01
But Getty has a lot of "exclusive" content that is also being sold on other sites. Blendimages and others sell from their own website directly and getty also sublicenses their exclusive content to other agencies. So "exclusive" Getty content can be found on corbis, masterfile etc...I saw this with my own images when they were in the Getty House program.
Getty has a completely different understanding of "exclusive" content than istock does.

Do Getty claim to buyers that a faux-exclusive image is exclusive, or 'only on Getty'?

Hmmm, trying to find that out for myself, I did a search on 'horse'.
Discovered that the whole first page of images I got were editorial, although I had creative and editorial (and RM and RF) ticked by default.
Unticked editorial, and clicked on the first file I came to, which was RM.
Interestingly, at the top of that RM file's page, I saw, "Check out iStock.com for millions of unique, affordable images, or continue searching on Getty Images below." [1] which must be relatively new. I hadn't seen it before, and it was often commented that iS searches had a Getty link, but not vice versa. Also I see at the bottom of the Getty search page, "Search "horse" on iStock.com.

[1]Which being the case, I'm surprised we ever get good GI sale values, in among the paltry ones.
It seems that if you land on a file on Getty, you get a link to an iS search, and once you choose an image there, you get a big blue box persuading you to buy Subs.  :'(

Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: shudderstok on April 29, 2014, 21:06

honestly, i thought IS would show a little bit more integrity ...


Based on what past history???

But I make mistakes as much as anyone, so I'm not down on you; kudos for now seeing them for what they are.

yes based on what??? i sometimes have to remind myself IS is GI and i really hate GI even though i remain with them. hate to say it but the alternatives are not much better and i still make coin with GI so i reluctantly stay with them as i really don't see any suitable alternative that will justify moving out and ruining years and years of momentum.
but to delete a post confronting the deception to buyers and also to it's own contributor's is down right slimy. and yes, for that i really did think IS/GI would have had a little more integrity.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: luissantos84 on April 30, 2014, 03:43
the results are pure bullsh!t and a disgrace from IS.
so what have we learned today? exclusive is not exclusive.
GI and IS should be ashamed of themselves to conceal this fact that they are marketing certain photographs as exclusive when in fact they are not exclusive at all.
not impressed at all.
honestly, i thought IS would show a little bit more integrity and allow the forum to stay up. man was i ever wrong.

finally you come to your senses!
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: cobalt on April 30, 2014, 04:00
But Getty has a lot of "exclusive" content that is also being sold on other sites. Blendimages and others sell from their own website directly and getty also sublicenses their exclusive content to other agencies. So "exclusive" Getty content can be found on corbis, masterfile etc...I saw this with my own images when they were in the Getty House program.
Getty has a completely different understanding of "exclusive" content than istock does.

Do Getty claim to buyers that a faux-exclusive image is exclusive, or 'only on Getty'?


I have no idea what they write on their website, but I remember once talking to a Getty rep when I had my business and they claimed all the images on their website where handpicked and exclusive to them. This was many years ago, I have no idea what they tell people now.

When I discovered my images on other websites, corbis or Masterfile for instance, they were without my artist copyright name. Instead my files were attributed to "ocean collection" or something similar. We were told at the time that Getty is working with  their partners to have individual copyright names added, but 3 years later it hadnīt happened. I have no idea if the names are being attributed now. They did copy titles,descriptions and other meta tags, so it shouldnīt have been a problem to display our names.

My impression was that they use "cover names" for a collection to hide that all these images come from Gettyimages. The macro world is very intransparent, but they all sublicense their exclusive content to each other. Getty has hundreds of license partners, so your images are spread around the globe at many different price points. In principal there is nothing wrong with that. Obviously a local agency in japan with an office can give better support than an agency from the US. But the artist name should always be present and I found the missing names very disrespectful.

And of course this is why they only pay the artists 15-20%, there might be several middlemen agencies involved until the file reaches a customer and everyone takes their share.

It is refreshing to hear that Getty is now promoting istock. This is very good news for the istock exclusives. What a pity they didnīt do that 6 years ago. If they had given istock full support, who knows how strong the agency would have become.

I guess they must be losing a huge number of customers to SS to finally acknowledge istock.

ETA: Welcome to our world shudderstock. This is why we appreciate msg.

It has become very difficult to discuss subjects the contributors are concerned about on istock. Since not talking about issues doesnīt make the problems or concerns go away, the discussions have been moved elsewhere. And after what happened to Sean, Rob, Ivar, Alex Hibbert and others, many exclusive artists are scared they will be kicked out if they think too loudly. Traditional artists from getty seem to be more familiar with "using private channels" to very discreetly get problems solved, but the people that grew up with the internet and forums are using normal forum communication. They then got very frustrated with the aggressive responses they got from the new getty management. So the real discussions take place elsewhere.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: bunhill on April 30, 2014, 04:56
people that grew up with the internet and forums are using normal forum communication.

It does not matter what business you are in: If you are working with a company then it is stupid to start aggressively slating that company in public. I have been continually amazed over the past year that people seem to find that difficult to grasp. I believe that most people away from this forum would agree.

Also - it is very bizarre to slag-off any company you have worked with in public. That amounts to burning your bridges. It is also something which is going to affect how future business partners might consider you - e.g. in terms of reliability etc. And one day you might be looking for a different contract or a distribution deal. Sounding off on public forums is just not the best way of trying to solve issues to do with business relationships etc.

I am also continually amazed that people think it is any of their business to speculate on a public forum about some else's contract or how much they earn.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: fotoVoyager on April 30, 2014, 05:09
I am also continually amazed that people think it is any of their business to speculate on a public forum about some else's contract or how much they earn.

Good job the feminists of the 20th Century didn't think that or they still wouldn't have equal pay.

Businesses would love to keep everything secret, a mature society realises that is no good for anyone.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: bunhill on April 30, 2014, 05:21
I am also continually amazed that people think it is any of their business to speculate on a public forum about some else's contract or how much they earn.

Good job the feminists of the 20th Century didn't think that or they still wouldn't have equal pay.

In this context, I feel that you are making a weak analogy since these are not comparable political or rights issues.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: fotoVoyager on April 30, 2014, 05:34
I am also continually amazed that people think it is any of their business to speculate on a public forum about some else's contract or how much they earn.

Good job the feminists of the 20th Century didn't think that or they still wouldn't have equal pay.

In this context, I feel that you are making a weak analogy since these are not comparable political or rights issues.

If forums like this didn't exist to freely discuss such issues the agencies would pay everyone the very least they could get away with, preferably nothing.

For example, Indian and Chinese photographers would be paid less than North Americans, any dissent could be ruthless crushed in private without consequence and we'd be back to digital sharecropping before we knew it.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: ShadySue on April 30, 2014, 06:06
It does not matter what business you are in: If you are working with a company then it is stupid to start aggressively slating that company in public. I have been continually amazed over the past year that people seem to find that difficult to grasp. I believe that most people away from this forum would agree.
Not here in Scotland, where calling companies out for dirty deals, illegalities or lies, even on TV, is considered normal; indeed we have a proud history of it. Sadly, that may be changing a bit now.

Whistleblowers have full legal protection in the UK:
https://www.gov.uk/whistleblowing/dismissals-and-whistleblowing (https://www.gov.uk/whistleblowing/dismissals-and-whistleblowing)
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Ron on April 30, 2014, 06:16
Bunhill is always acting as the Devils Advocate regardless of what the topic is. I have never seen him agree with the majority, ever. Which is his right to do so, its his opinion, I just read his comments with the bold in mind.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: cobalt on April 30, 2014, 06:38
I am indie, I am only interested in results and reliability. If there is something an agency does well, I will say so. If they do something I donīt like or seems silly I will say that as well.

Agencies are fluid entities, there is no black or white. They will all make mistakes, it is how they handle them that shows the strength of their management team.

There are many companies with a positive attitude towards working with communities and critique. They understand that engaging the community in a positive way saves them thousands of dollars for external "consultants". Investing in community work is also much cheaper than court cases with business partners.

I believe the company that is the most successful in engaging and building communities will be the strongest force and make the most money.

So I am very sad that istock has lost their active community involvement, even seems to drive their community actively away. The istock exclusive community was a great asset in my opinion. But maybe they make more money now and the getty management is happy with the results, who knows?

But it is nice to see that traffic is being directed towards istock, both from Getty and from thinkstock. That is a major improvement for all the exclusives. Probably makes no big difference to me, but it is good for my friends.

Obviously everyone has their own ideas how companies should run their business, and I am sure many believe that being hush hush and doing everything behind closed doors is the best strategy to run a company on the internet.

Itīs an open market, every business model will attract their own followers.

ETA: of course the reason everyone is speculating about Yuris exclusive contract is because he came here and actively announced he was going exclusive and suggested we should follow his example (professionals and all that). So of course everyone would like to know how they can have an exclusive contract that still allows you to sell from your own site and many other agencies.

That getty/istock admins are suggesting now that we should not be concerned with this or donīt want to have it discussed is bizzarre, after all they probably asked him to try and attract more exclusives.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: ShadySue on April 30, 2014, 06:40
but to delete a post confronting the deception to buyers and also to it's own contributor's is down right slimy. and yes, for that i really did think IS/GI would have had a little more integrity.
They've often done it before, on this and other serious issues.
Or else, we tell the truth and get banned sine die.

'iStock' and 'integrity' are not usually associated words.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: tickstock on April 30, 2014, 06:46
.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: bunhill on April 30, 2014, 07:05
Bunhill is always acting as the Devils Advocate regardless of what the topic is. I have never seen him agree with the majority, ever. Which is his right to do so, its his opinion, I just read his comments with the bold in mind.

The majority posting here is largely a self selecting group which over time has fairly aggressively silenced those who do not go along with the largely negative groupthink. There are many 1000s of people actively producing stock photos today. The majority is silent.

It is interesting and telling that what I wrote above has been interpreted as anything other than a straightforward statement of fact.  Here is the key point again, to be clear: "It does not matter what business you are in: If you are working with a company then it is stupid to start aggressively slating that company in public."
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Ron on April 30, 2014, 07:09
Going public is the only or little power we have. And you want to silence that as well.

Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: bunhill on April 30, 2014, 07:15
Going public is the only or little power we have. And you want to silence that as well.

 :'(
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: shudderstok on April 30, 2014, 07:19
Bunhill is always acting as the Devils Advocate regardless of what the topic is. I have never seen him agree with the majority, ever. Which is his right to do so, its his opinion, I just read his comments with the bold in mind.

The majority posting here is largely a self selecting group which over time has fairly aggressively silenced those who do not go along with the largely negative groupthink. There are many 1000s of people actively producing stock photos today. The majority is silent.

It is interesting and telling that what I wrote above has been interpreted as anything other than a straightforward statement of fact.  Here is the key point again, to be clear: "It does not matter what business you are in: If you are working with a company then it is stupid to start aggressively slating that company in public."

BINGO!!! and two thumbs way up.

Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: cobalt on April 30, 2014, 07:36

The majority posting here is largely a self selecting group which over time has fairly aggressively silenced those who do not go along with the largely negative groupthink.

Well the istock forums have certainly been cleaned up to stop people from posting negatively. But this hasnīt lead to an increase of a "positive groupthink majority" now being happily active on the istock forums. The top 1000 thousand istock exclusives, i.e. the people that are bringing in the money, are a closely knit group that all interact. But they have moved to closed circles.

I have read many times that there are people who assume, that if the majority is silent, this means they are all agreeing.

From my experience in community work, it is the opposite, there might be few voices active on the forums, but they tend to reflect the opinions of a huge group of people. A large number of the contributor community is also at a disadvantage because they cannot write well in English. But as we can see with the current discussions around Fotolia, this doesnīt stop people from coming to the logical conclusions when an agency does something that is negative about their income.

And only publicity will get agencies to change things that are not good for us. What other choices are there?

The internet is great for all kinds of customer/business relationships. Transparency is what helps you see the scale of a problem. wether it is patients who are conncecting via the net because their medication is giving problems their doctor didnīt know about or a company keeps denying that it happened, or stock artist who discover their files are being sold for 30 dollars and they only receive 30 cents.

Of course every company can choose to say "oh just a few people complaining letīs ignore them - or delete them...) Other companies look at the problem the community is complaining about and solve the problems.

Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: shudderstok on April 30, 2014, 07:59
"The top 1000 thousand istock exclusives, i.e. the people that are bringing in the money, are a closely knit group that all interact. But they have moved to closed circles."

pretty daft assumption if i have ever seen one. and why if you are so pro community are you in closed circles? one would think you would be open and share your so called love of community, not selectively discount those who are not up to your par.

i was in the top 100 (when the chart was available online from the outside source) and i have never been closely knit or in any closed circles. just sayin.

you should openly send an invite to these closed circles and practice what you preach in community and sharing.

closed circles only allows you to hear what you want to hear. not that much different from the utter bullsh!t IS is subjecting us to in deleting a valid post on their forums.


Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: cobalt on April 30, 2014, 08:10
They are not my facebook or google groups. Why donīt you just ask around to get an invite? I was invited, I didnīt even know the groups existed before.

I prefer open discussions on forums, but I read everywhere. And I certainly donīt see a huge positive groupthink majority that is intimidated by msg. Just people who donīt want to get banned like Sean for saying what they think.

On many istock events the admins would tell us that the istock exclusives where the ones bringing in the vast majority of the money. There are around 5500 exclusives? It wasnīt a secret at the time, is it now? So I would guess the top 1000, maybe 2000 would be most relevant. Not everyone does stock full time or has the eye for what really sells.

I am just quoting what they told us. Maybe now this has changed and the majority of istockīs income is from indie content?

If you are exclusive you can probably ask in the exclusive forum how many exclusives there are now and if the exclusive content is still brining in the majority of the money.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: bunhill on April 30, 2014, 08:13
I have read many times that there are people who assume, that if the majority is silent they are all agreeing.

I suppose that this is addressed to me because you quoted me. And yet I have neither suggested silent majority agreement or disagreement. And I am certainly not opposed to transparency in business. I think you are misunderstanding what I have written.

there might be few voices active on the forums, but they tend to reflect the opinions of a huge group of people.

This is not my experience of internet forums in general.

The old iStock forum was a very good example of community not working. It was often ruined by the same few people throwing their weight around - customers should never have been able to see that because it created a very poor impression which was, largely, not representative. I think that some very poor decisions and compromises were agreed during that era as a result of listening too much to the forum. You must remember those dreadful threads which went around and around in circles for hundreds of pointlessly angry pages. And it was an era which was much too clubby.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: ShadySue on April 30, 2014, 08:16
Closed group doesn't necessarily mean that others can't join. I'm in two closed iS Fb groups (no doubt there are plenty more). One I was invited to join, the other I just asked.
AFAICS, in both cases the groups are closed to non-iS contributors.
This forum would be a better place for non-iStockers considering submitting there.

Neither of these groups only says what they want to hear: all shades of opinion are posted.

What I really can't understand is why you didn't know iS deleted posts and banned contributors from their forums, just for telling the truth, before now. It's been going on at least since I started there in late 2006.

I also don't understand how you could have imagined that Yu-know-who was double dipping without iS's knowledge. True, posts about same were promptly removed from iS, but they have been rehearsed here several times since his trumpeting on here of exclusivity (where 'exclusive' seems to mean simply 'not on SS'), and his famous 'professionals deal with professionals' quote.



Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: ShadySue on April 30, 2014, 08:22

The old iStock forum was a very good example of community not working. It was often ruined by the same few people throwing their weight around - customers should never have been able to see that because it created a very poor impression which was, largely, not representative. I think that some very poor decisions and compromises were agreed during that era as a result of listening too much to the forum. You must remember those dreadful threads which went around and around in circles for hundreds of pointlessly angry pages. And it was an era which was much too clubby.

Why couldn't they find make certain sections of the forum contributor-only? Then internal matters could be discussed out of the view of customers.

Yes, there were hundreds of angry pages, justifiably so, which as they yielded no results, were ultimately pointless. But "that don't make them junk". Nothing wrong with pointing out errors, even if the pointee doesn't change.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: shudderstok on April 30, 2014, 08:24
They are not my facebook or google groups. Why donīt you just ask around to get an invite? I was invited, I didnīt even know the groups existed before.

I prefer open discussions on forums, but I read everywhere. And I certainly donīt see a huge positive groupthink majority that is intimidated by msg. Just people who donīt want to get banned like Sean for saying what they think.

On many istock events the admins would tell us that the istock exclusives where the ones bringing in the vast majority of the money. There are around 5500 exclusives? It wasnīt a secret at the time, is it now? So I would guess the top 1000, maybe 2000 would be most relevant. Not everyone does stock full time or has the eye for what really sells.

I am just quoting what they told us. Maybe now this has changed and the majority of istockīs income is from indie content?

If you are exclusive you can probably ask in the exclusive forum how many exclusives there are now and if the exclusive content is still brining in the majority of the money.

so now you are suggesting that i or for that matter anyone else should ask around to get invited to a closed circle?

that would appear to me to be desperate to gain acceptance in your so called closed circles. you can keep it. you guys can enjoy self applauding each other without me. from what it appears you are good at it.



Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: tickstock on April 30, 2014, 08:27
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: tickstock on April 30, 2014, 08:28
.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: cobalt on April 30, 2014, 08:29
Jim Pickerell keeps tracking 420 artists and their downloads from istock. Their download numbers are pretty huge, these people must be bringing in the majority of the money. I think all agencies have just a small group of people that create the really desired content, just because 200 000 artists are registered, it doesnīt mean that the quality of the work is evenly distributed among everyone.

http://www.selling-stock.com/Article/many-istock-seller-stop-producing-new-images (http://www.selling-stock.com/Article/many-istock-seller-stop-producing-new-images)

I think the active stock business community, or at least the number of regular stock producers with interesting content is quite small, even if the agencies accept 1 million new files a month. A lot of that are flowers, pets and duplicates of known best sellers.

So I assume it is probably important for agencies to keep the small group of regular producers happy and pay attention to their needs. The forums and groups is where these people connect and exchange information about which agency is worth our time.

I personally believe it is useful for an agency to make people comfortable to post in their forums. It is a lot easier to see immediatley what is going on and what people are worried about. But maybe for others this is uncomfortable and they prefer forums with lower activity or just activity around happy things. To each his or her own. Agencies are fluid, people change, priorities change.

istock is finally doing some positive things, the first real light for the exclusives after a long drought.

It will be interesting to see the sales results for subscriptions next month.

ETA: shudderstock, I am not exclusive. I didnīt create these closed groups. I donīt care.

I post everywhere as you can see.

I just think it is sad that so many exclusives are scared to post on istock, thatīs all.  You are the one who was suprised the thread with a valid question was deleted.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: ShadySue on April 30, 2014, 08:34
I think it's a stretch to say that people were banned for just telling the truth.  Respectful posts by and large don't get people banned even if they are critical.   Also Yuri didn't go exclusive with iStock AFAIK he worked out an agreement with Getty. 

I was banned from the forums for telling the truth, and that was confirmed in an email by the banner. Apparently I didn't shut up fast enough. Enough of us were banned or silenced then that KKT could make his famous, 'it all sort of died down' quote.

Yuri said he went exclusive, and his photos are tagged 'only from iStock' on the site, even those which are freely available elsewhere.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/yuri-arcurs-first-public-statement (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/yuri-arcurs-first-public-statement) In his blog post linked to on that OP, he said, "To sum up: In one day, microstock saw a public release confirming that Yuri Arcurs (me) and all our 20 photographers (7 of which are on the top 10 in the world) and our entire peopleimages.com production house, would leave and move all images to Istock/Getty. "
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: tickstock on April 30, 2014, 08:38
.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: ShadySue on April 30, 2014, 09:01
He said he was moving all his and his factory's images 'off microstock' and onto iStock/Getty", and later in his linked article that he had "... have removed our entire collection of images from microstock and subscription sites".

Which wasn't and isn't true, as his deal with iS/Getty didn't proclude his images being on TS, under his own name, e.g. http://www.thinkstockphotos.co.uk/image/stock-photo-young-executive-standing-with-team-mates/121198295/popup?sq=business/f=CPIHVX/s=DynamicRank (http://www.thinkstockphotos.co.uk/image/stock-photo-young-executive-standing-with-team-mates/121198295/popup?sq=business/f=CPIHVX/s=DynamicRank)

When questioned about PeopleImages, on msg, he said that it was a Getty Partner, so clearly that's a deal of some sort, though I can't easily find any reference to Getty on PI.

The other micros that he's on presumably aren't Getty Partners.

He can lie all he likes, the truth is out there for all to see.

What I hate is the 'only from iStock' lie.

Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: tickstock on April 30, 2014, 09:06
.   
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: ShadySue on April 30, 2014, 09:14
He said he was moving all his and his factory's images 'off microstock' and onto iStock/Getty", and later in his linked article that he had "... have removed our entire collection of images from microstock and subscription sites".

Which wasn't and isn't true, as his deal with iS/Getty didn't proclude his images being on TS, under his own name, e.g. [url]http://www.thinkstockphotos.co.uk/image/stock-photo-young-executive-standing-with-team-mates/121198295/popup?sq=business/f=CPIHVX/s=DynamicRank[/url] ([url]http://www.thinkstockphotos.co.uk/image/stock-photo-young-executive-standing-with-team-mates/121198295/popup?sq=business/f=CPIHVX/s=DynamicRank[/url])

When questioned about PeopleImages, on msg, he said that it was a Getty Partner, so clearly that's a deal of some sort, though I can't easily find any reference to Getty on PI.

The other micros that he's on presumably aren't Getty Partners.

He can lie all he likes, the truth is out there for all to see.

What I hate is the 'only from iStock' lie.

I can see you are angry at Yuri.  That doesn't mean he ever said he was going exclusive at iStock.


I could hardly care less about Yuri. Kudos for his boredom threshhold.

He lied when he wrote: "As of last month, our entire collection of images, now reaching 120’000, can only be found on our own site Peopleimages.com, GettyImages.com and Istockphoto.com." in the self-aggrandising article linked by the OP in his msg post.

I care about the 'only from iStock' lie.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: tickstock on April 30, 2014, 09:15
.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Ron on April 30, 2014, 09:17
Closed group doesn't necessarily mean that others can't join. I'm in two closed iS Fb groups (no doubt there are plenty more). One I was invited to join, the other I just asked.
AFAICS, in both cases the groups are closed to non-iS contributors.
This forum would be a better place for non-iStockers considering submitting there.

Neither of these groups only says what they want to hear: all shades of opinion are posted.

What I really can't understand is why you didn't know iS deleted posts and banned contributors from their forums, just for telling the truth, before now. It's been going on at least since I started there in late 2006.

I also don't understand how you could have imagined that Yu-know-who was double dipping without iS's knowledge. True, posts about same were promptly removed from iS, but they have been rehearsed here several times since his trumpeting on here of exclusivity (where 'exclusive' seems to mean simply 'not on SS'), and his famous 'professionals deal with professionals' quote.
He was too busy watching Dog the Bounty Hunter
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Shelma1 on April 30, 2014, 09:23
What's nasty about the "only from iStock" lie is that certain "exclusives" get the additional income from iStock that comes with being "exclusive" while continuing to generate income from those images elsewhere...while the rest of the exclusives are truly exclusive, and only make income from their images on iStock. I'm sure they'd love to continue making their exclusive income there while also being allowed to upload to other sites.

I'd love that deal myself. If I didn't have to be truly exclusive, I'd go "exclusive" on iStock today to get that additional income.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Ron on April 30, 2014, 09:24
Sue, give it up, you can shove it in his face and he will still deny it. Thats what agency employees tend to do these days. More examples over in the DCP thread. .
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: ShadySue on April 30, 2014, 09:29
He said he was moving all his and his factory's images 'off microstock' and onto iStock/Getty", and later in his linked article that he had "... have removed our entire collection of images from microstock and subscription sites".

Which wasn't and isn't true, as his deal with iS/Getty didn't proclude his images being on TS, under his own name, e.g. [url]http://www.thinkstockphotos.co.uk/image/stock-photo-young-executive-standing-with-team-mates/121198295/popup?sq=business/f=CPIHVX/s=DynamicRank[/url] ([url]http://www.thinkstockphotos.co.uk/image/stock-photo-young-executive-standing-with-team-mates/121198295/popup?sq=business/f=CPIHVX/s=DynamicRank[/url])

When questioned about PeopleImages, on msg, he said that it was a Getty Partner, so clearly that's a deal of some sort, though I can't easily find any reference to Getty on PI.

The other micros that he's on presumably aren't Getty Partners.

He can lie all he likes, the truth is out there for all to see.

What I hate is the 'only from iStock' lie.

I can see you are angry at Yuri.  That doesn't mean he ever said he was going exclusive at iStock.


I couldn't care less about Yuri. Kudos for his boredom threshhold.

I care about the 'only from iStock' lie.

Are you talking about what it says on the iStock site?  I don't think Yuri has control over that, do you?


Stop playing your stupid semantic games.

As I said above:
Yuri lied when he said "As of last month, our entire collection of images, now reaching 120’000, can only be found on our own site Peopleimages.com, GettyImages.com and Istockphoto.com." and many other lies in his article http://arcurs.com/2013/07/microstock-sees-its-first-major-setback-in-6-years-and-here-is-why (http://arcurs.com/2013/07/microstock-sees-its-first-major-setback-in-6-years-and-here-is-why).

iStock is lying when they claim to buyers that all of his images are 'only from iStock'.

No matter how much you might like to defend the indefensible, these are the facts.
And with that, I'm out of this discussion, but not necessarily of this thread.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: tickstock on April 30, 2014, 09:35
.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Ploink on April 30, 2014, 15:08
Stop playing your stupid semantic games.

As I said above:
Yuri lied when he said "As of last month, our entire collection of images, now reaching 120’000, can only be found on our own site Peopleimages.com, GettyImages.com and Istockphoto.com." and many other lies in his article [url]http://arcurs.com/2013/07/microstock-sees-its-first-major-setback-in-6-years-and-here-is-why[/url] ([url]http://arcurs.com/2013/07/microstock-sees-its-first-major-setback-in-6-years-and-here-is-why[/url]).

iStock is lying when they claim to buyers that all of his images are 'only from iStock'.

No matter how much you might like to defend the indefensible, these are the facts.
And with that, I'm out of this discussion, but not necessarily of this thread.

I never disagreed with any of that.  What I disagreed with was your statement that "Yuri said he went exclusive".  That's all.

I'll add that with the way you react to disagreement it's hardly surprising that you got banned.


"...can only be found on..." and "...exclusive on..." do not mean the same thing?
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Ron on April 30, 2014, 15:14
Stop playing your stupid semantic games.

As I said above:
Yuri lied when he said "As of last month, our entire collection of images, now reaching 120’000, can only be found on our own site Peopleimages.com, GettyImages.com and Istockphoto.com." and many other lies in his article [url]http://arcurs.com/2013/07/microstock-sees-its-first-major-setback-in-6-years-and-here-is-why[/url] ([url]http://arcurs.com/2013/07/microstock-sees-its-first-major-setback-in-6-years-and-here-is-why[/url]).



iStock is lying when they claim to buyers that all of his images are 'only from iStock'.

No matter how much you might like to defend the indefensible, these are the facts.
And with that, I'm out of this discussion, but not necessarily of this thread.

I never disagreed with any of that.  What I disagreed with was your statement that "Yuri said he went exclusive".  That's all.

I'll add that with the way you react to disagreement it's hardly surprising that you got banned.
You really went back 10 minutes later to add that dig at Sue? And its quite rich coming from you, arguing over semantics when you damņ well know that Yuri meant he was going exclusive. Arguing for the sake of arguing.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: tickstock on April 30, 2014, 15:28
.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on April 30, 2014, 15:36
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/istockphoto-announces-exclusive-deal-with-worlds-top-selling-stock-photographer----and-lowers-pricing-on-half-its-library-215622511.html (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/istockphoto-announces-exclusive-deal-with-worlds-top-selling-stock-photographer----and-lowers-pricing-on-half-its-library-215622511.html)

" iStockphoto, the web's original resource for royalty-free stock images, media and design elements, today announced its largest exclusive content partnership ever by signing a deal with prolific top-selling stock photographer Yuri Arcurs"
"iStockphoto is now the only site where the Arcurs Collection of photo, video, audio and vector elements can be found. "
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: tickstock on April 30, 2014, 15:38
.
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: StanRohrer on April 30, 2014, 15:39
Tickstock. Somebody is wrong on the Internet and you think it's your job to fix them? Take a break! (Or go fix people somewhere else). We are tired of your tirades.

[Going back to lurk mode.]
Title: Re: The "New" IS
Post by: tickstock on April 30, 2014, 15:41
.