pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: They REALLY hate exclusives  (Read 7881 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ShadySue

« on: March 14, 2014, 17:57 »
+12
First of all, they put exclusive prices up and Main prices down so that there is no level playing field.
And then (omitting subs and Getty cr*p) today we have a new best match which promotes Main files.
I have been sure for a long time that they positively want exclusives to leave voluntarily.

The best match doesn't help new files, but new files can't possibly be promoted when the keywording of so many of them is so dreadful.

Again gives the lie to Lobo's promise that exclusive files would "ALWAYS. PERIOD" have priority in best match.
Some people have said all of the top line files in best match searches were main. In my test searches, #1, #3 and #5 or 6 (and often #7 or v8 ) are all Main, but it's such a hassle nowadays to check (I'm sure they did that deliberately too) that I only looked at the top row in each of my searches.
More findings from this post down in this thread:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=353233&messageid=6993882

« Last Edit: March 14, 2014, 18:54 by ShadySue »


EmberMike

« Reply #1 on: March 14, 2014, 21:25 »
+17
If they really wanted to get rid of the exclusive program, wouldn't they just do it? Why waste time with the passive aggressive search changes? How much easier and less costly would it be to simply say that tomorrow (or whenever) they're shutting down the exclusive program and all files are merged into one main collection. Simple.

Quite honestly, this is all getting very tiresome. Some folks kew that exclusivity sucked years ago. Some came to that conclusion more recently. Few people still rally around the program. It's your choice to stick with it, but the writing has been on the wall for a long time. Seems like everyone just comes around to the reality of it at their own pace.

I'm sure dropping exclusivity will also suck for a while, but ultimately I think you all know that's where this is headed. Either you pull the trigger soon or they'll do it for you eventually.

If it were me, I'd rather just get it over with now. I think they did Sean a huge favor in the long run.

« Reply #2 on: March 14, 2014, 22:14 »
+8
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:04 by tickstock »

« Reply #3 on: March 14, 2014, 22:59 »
+6
They just seem not to know what to do with exclusives. I agree if they didn't want them they would just pull the plug in exclusivity. I also think maybe the pressures from Getty have pigeon held them into overpopulating and pushing indie content. So exclusive benefits have diminished. I'm exclusive with videos, but for convenience factor as videos are a pain to upload and too much work goes into them to have the commission a be any lower.




« Reply #4 on: March 15, 2014, 00:59 »
+4
First of all, they put exclusive prices up and Main prices down so that there is no level playing field.
And then (omitting subs and Getty cr*p) today we have a new best match which promotes Main files.
I have been sure for a long time that they positively want exclusives to leave voluntarily.

The best match doesn't help new files, but new files can't possibly be promoted when the keywording of so many of them is so dreadful.

Again gives the lie to Lobo's promise that exclusive files would "ALWAYS. PERIOD" have priority in best match.
Some people have said all of the top line files in best match searches were main. In my test searches, #1, #3 and #5 or 6 (and often #7 or v8 ) are all Main, but it's such a hassle nowadays to check (I'm sure they did that deliberately too) that I only looked at the top row in each of my searches.
More findings from this post down in this thread:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=353233&messageid=6993882


I am sure you have a reason to say what you had said. Just you know, yesterday was one of my better days this year, all my sales are s and s+ from 2010 to December, 2013. Am I celebrating? Not at all. I just want to say best match is changing all the time.

ShadySue

« Reply #5 on: March 15, 2014, 04:36 »
+1
If they really wanted to get rid of the exclusive program, wouldn't they just do it? Why waste time with the passive aggressive search changes? How much easier and less costly would it be to simply say that tomorrow (or whenever) they're shutting down the exclusive program and all files are merged into one main collection. Simple.
That's the mystery.

ShadySue

« Reply #6 on: March 15, 2014, 04:39 »
+4
I have been sure for a long time that they positively want exclusives to leave voluntarily.
Are you holding out until they kick you out?  What's keeping you there?  Frankly I'm surprised you're still exclusive, it doesn't seem to be working for you at all.
My post wasn't about me, but about broken promises.

However, since you ask, I'm in the lucky position of knowing for sure that my port wouldn't sell on PP; so I don't need to wonder for even one moment, "I wonder if ...", and there's nothing remotely attractive about any of the others, from what I read here.
My long-term plan is unchanged.

« Reply #7 on: March 15, 2014, 05:24 »
+10
Well, you always were far too stuck in your "right/wrong" world and discussing about perfectionism on tiny tasks that you have missed the real world and how it works: Getty kept losing ground for a long time. iStockphoto has joined them in losing customers since Getty took over more control. They were just stuck in a world from a past. They keep spreading ideas like "we've got the best content because most of the top guys are exclusive with us".

The reality shows in the numbers: Customers are not so much interested in "the best content", they want "suitable content within our budget". The more prices were raised, the less customers could find that on iStock. Giving them more of the cheap stuff is the only way to keep them.

Losing more customers is not in the best interest of exclusives. With the technology disadvantages they have "not losing more customers" is the best bet right now. Showing clients more of the cheap stuff and reduce their average cost for them is the best iStock can do right now.

PS: They have already announced they will move lots of exclusive content down to Main soon, before the subs program starts. And guess what: That again will make lots of exclusives unhappy. Because exclusives tend not to see the world outside of iStock/Getty. But the best thing you guys can hope for is that Getty can make the loss of customers stop. Quickly. If they don't do that, the non-exclusives will profit because on other places we get a higher share...
« Last Edit: March 15, 2014, 05:27 by MichaelJayFoto »

« Reply #8 on: March 15, 2014, 06:12 »
+6
I followed the discussion on the official forum.
Most likely this change is also due to the responses received as a result of the survey sent in recent days. In our office we have received about 10 surveys in 10 different workstations throughout the day on Thursday and Friday.

To see what searches are now showing many cheap files, although this may seem like a boon for the customers ... at the same time means that on istock is it possible to find the same files that can be found on many other agencies (but at a price higher). We choose how often the istock's image database because we can often find quality images that can be found elsewhere only in RM.

Lately, the quality is very poor in istock. Uniqueness and authenticity very often is a prerogative for many agencies.
Just my two cents.

« Reply #9 on: March 16, 2014, 12:00 »
+1
... Customers are not so much interested in "the best content", they want "suitable content within our budget"...

Good definition of "fit for purpose"

ShadySue

« Reply #10 on: March 16, 2014, 12:08 »
0
... Customers are not so much interested in "the best content", they want "suitable content within our budget"...

Good definition of "fit for purpose"
or 'satisficing"
« Last Edit: March 16, 2014, 20:42 by ShadySue »

« Reply #11 on: March 16, 2014, 12:27 »
+2
Well, it would be  a strange angler who went fishing without any bait on his hook.
Exclusives have to understand that the "main" collection is there to suck in the punters on the promise of cheap files. If buyers arrive and everything is more expensive than they expect then they will feel aggrieved. So iStock needs to live the lie a bit otherwise all the customers will go away.
It's a paradox, really. How can you sell at midstock prices while telling buyers that you are selling at microstock prices, without having them notice the difference?

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #12 on: March 16, 2014, 20:00 »
+1
I understand it from Istocks point of view, if they'd actually screw their exclusives. Exclusivity doesn't really mean anything anymore, in today's microstock industry. The supply of images is overwhelming, so what extra value does exclusive images really have from a buyers perspective? Given the fact that Istock has to pay more commission to its exclusives, they could encourage independent contributers and discourage exclusives.

Of course, if one hates the way he or she is treated as an exclusive, the option would be to leave the sinking ship and spread your wings to other agencies. From what I understand, sales were declining for exclusives anyway, but correct me if I'm wrong.

Goofy

« Reply #13 on: March 16, 2014, 20:23 »
+1
The Titanic (iStock) is sinking and the lifeboat (Shutter) is floating by- JUMP in before it's too late...

« Reply #14 on: March 16, 2014, 23:14 »
+12
The various factions of the Getty contributor spectrum all say the same thing, "they hate me".  This is not true; they are very considerate and even handed; they hate everyone equally.

« Reply #15 on: March 17, 2014, 00:10 »
+5
they hate everyone equally.

And vice versa, it seems.

« Reply #16 on: March 17, 2014, 04:16 »
+5
The various factions of the Getty contributor spectrum all say the same thing, "they hate me".  This is not true; they are very considerate and even handed; they hate everyone equally.

Nope. Hate would require them to feel. It's a corporation, they don't feel. They just count. We are just numbers.

Probably people get even more upset with them because of that. Hate would mean they consider us as humans at least. Being treated as an entity in a spreadsheet hurts even more. ;)

« Reply #17 on: March 17, 2014, 04:57 »
+15
The various factions of the Getty contributor spectrum all say the same thing, "they hate me".  This is not true; they are very considerate and even handed; they hate everyone equally.

Nope. Hate would require them to feel. It's a corporation, they don't feel. They just count. We are just numbers.

Probably people get even more upset with them because of that. Hate would mean they consider us as humans at least. Being treated as an entity in a spreadsheet hurts even more. ;)

I'm not buying this modern idea that corporations are somehow separate entities from the rest of human existence, unfeeling and objective.

They're a collection of people controlled by one or two decision makers who use the mask of corporation to hide their greedy and antisocial actions.

Everyone in a decision making capacity in a corporation bears personal responsibility for their actions and should consider what effect they have on others, otherwise it's just a bunch of psychopaths chasing dollars. And who wants to live in a world like that?

« Reply #18 on: March 17, 2014, 08:24 »
+5
But why would iStock create a new landing page saying
"Explore millions of stock photos, vectors, videos and music clips you cant get from the other guys"
if they wanted or expected exclusives to leave?
Exclusive files are the main thing differentiating iStock from the other main sites, without that iStock has nothing special to offer.
Having said that, they're doing a good job of encouraging exclusives to drop their crown. We'll have to wait and see. Six months from now the subscription and embedded image changes will result in either exclusives making loads more money (I doubt it) or our royalties plummet resulting in a mass exodus.

« Reply #19 on: March 17, 2014, 09:04 »
+6
But why would iStock create a new landing page saying
"Explore millions of stock photos, vectors, videos and music clips you cant get from the other guys"
if they wanted or expected exclusives to leave?

It's like when drinks state "contains natural flavors," even if that amount is tiny. It's a selling point. iStock wants to have their cake and eat it too.

« Reply #20 on: March 17, 2014, 10:34 »
+3
There are probably two types of exclusives as far as iStock is concerned...those with huge ports that they make $$$ and then there are the little guys with smaller ports that they make only $ from...they probably could take or leave the little guys...they just have to keep the big dogs happy as they supply a decent amount of revenue...and we are aware of backdoor deals with 'special' exclusives.

Shelma1

« Reply #21 on: March 17, 2014, 10:38 »
+9
I could see why they'd be passive-aggressive about it...if they drop exclusivity there could be mass outrage, but if they just "nudge" people out gradually they'll make them think it was their idea. Kind of like a boyfriend who starts purposely acting like a jerk so you'll break up with him...that way he doesn't have to do it or deal with the fallout.

Not that I'm sure that's what they're doing...just a thought.

« Reply #22 on: March 17, 2014, 11:11 »
+2
But why would iStock create a new landing page saying
"Explore millions of stock photos, vectors, videos and music clips you cant get from the other guys"
if they wanted or expected exclusives to leave?

Because they are talking about "exclusive content from getty".

The exclusive content does not have to come from the istockphoto exclusives. For the advertising they can just use content from getty , either their house collections or people they have "deals" with like the exclusive content from yuri.

When you see anywhere something written about "exclusive" content, it doest mean they are talking about the istock artists.

Like others have said, they just need to keep the top contributors happy, maybe 100 people? everyone else is just supplying content they also have in their own exclusive getty collections. they only pay out 20% for that, so why should they favour artist from istock with a higher royalty?

I also doubt they will just cancel the exclusive program, but by not paying RCs on subscriptions, they will certainly be moving many artist to a lower royalty level (unless they grandfather them again). But a significant part of the sales will be coming from subs, if it doesnt, they are not competing successfully with SS.

I would expect them to market the subscriptions heavily, and not just to compete with SS but because whatever royalty is being paid on subs will have a royalty they are comfortable with.

Of course we will never know how much that is, because at the moment Getty is not publishing this data.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
I hate winter.

Started by ianhlnd « 1 2  All » Off Topic

28 Replies
8160 Views
Last post February 17, 2007, 10:55
by Greg Boiarsky
18 Replies
5354 Views
Last post May 27, 2008, 15:01
by jsolie
2 Replies
2341 Views
Last post August 14, 2008, 22:50
by DanP68
14 Replies
1731 Views
Last post July 18, 2018, 18:32
by namussi
Stop The Hate - VOTE!

Started by RAW « 1 2  All » Off Topic

46 Replies
5603 Views
Last post November 11, 2018, 09:37
by alan b traehern

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results