Author Topic: Update on canisters. (Read 33345 times)

gostwyck · « **Reply #25 on:** December 19, 2009, 21:31 »

Quote from: helix7 on December 19, 2009, 18:45

As for me going exclusive, I'm still not sure. I'd have to basically contact HQ and commit to it by January 10th, which doesn't give me any time to really see what effect the new pricing will have on sales. It's a big gamble, for sure.

You don't have to commit to it by then __ you just have to contact them to express your interest. At that point you don't even know what they're going to offer regarding the 'wider window' whatever that means.

The biggest gamble is actually putting all your eggs in one basket when you have no idea how the customers are going to react to the huge price increases, etc, let alone how the next few years are going to pan out within the greater industry. With existing credits it might take a few weeks or even months to see what happens next with IS sales. I am quite interested to see if they'll get away with it or not. The 'How was your month' threads are likely to be a good read for the next few months.

Don't get too starry-eyed about canister colours and panic yourself into a decision that you could later spend a long time regretting and also cost you a lot of money.

Personally I'm confident that exclusivity would be costing me roughly $1K per month in lost income up to now and, even if this latest wheeze should push IS marginally ahead for the next few weeks/months, it probably won't be a lasting effect. The market has a habit of regulating itself back to the status-quo.

madelaide · « **Reply #26 on:** December 19, 2009, 22:19 »

Quote from: FD-amateur on December 19, 2009, 12:25

I followed your advice and I opted out of subs, both on IS and on StockXpert. My content will only be on SS (0.36$) and on DT (0.35$) as subs. I don't want Getty to undercut my best selling agents.

Hmm, do I need to opt-out from subs at IS not to be at Photos.com? Or do I need to opt-out from partner sales? I don't mind IS subs, but I don't want to be at Photos.com.

KB · « **Reply #27 on:** December 19, 2009, 22:41 »

Quote from: madelaide on December 19, 2009, 22:19

Quote from: FD-amateur on December 19, 2009, 12:25
I followed your advice and I opted out of subs, both on IS and on StockXpert. My content will only be on SS (0.36$) and on DT (0.35$) as subs. I don't want Getty to undercut my best selling agents.

Hmm, do I need to opt-out from subs at IS not to be at Photos.com? Or do I need to opt-out from partner sales? I don't mind IS subs, but I don't want to be at Photos.com.

Just go to Control Panel, click on the "+ Contributor" line to open it up, and uncheck "Opt-in to Partner Program". Though it is my understanding that even if you remain opted-in, no files will be sent to partner sites unless you explicitly check "Available on Partner sites" on the "Partner Program" tab of your portfolio ("My Uploads").

I actually am still opted-in on the IS side, and have given them 3 of my oldest files which have sold a grand total of less than 5 times together. I'll take $0.25 for those if anybody's willing to buy 'em.

Suljo · « **Reply #28 on:** December 19, 2009, 23:40 »

Quote from: madelaide on December 19, 2009, 22:19

Quote from: FD-amateur on December 19, 2009, 12:25
I followed your advice and I opted out of subs, both on IS and on StockXpert. My content will only be on SS (0.36$) and on DT (0.35$) as subs. I don't want Getty to undercut my best selling agents.

Hmm, do I need to opt-out from subs at IS not to be at Photos.com? Or do I need to opt-out from partner sales? I don't mind IS subs, but I don't want to be at Photos.com.

I think that you dont need to bother up your self with that. Its only for files older than 18 month as I understood. In they first anounce I check that I was in and after that pass thru my port by oldest files with adding new keywords and so on and leave this check box for photos konj for images which are on all sites total out and accepted by iStok. In this process I find about 80% of my vector images that they not have any category which I defined. This is whats really disturbing me, grrrr.

PLS check some of youre old vectors and tell me about you experience.
From my side its look very strange like they checked out categories from my old vector files so they are not visible for buyers in they experiment year ago with best match algorithm.
I dont want to bee paranoid about them but this is very very strange.
I my POW they just cut strings from my Portfolio from buyers and boast them selfs how they are protecting exclusive members.
If it is true I really dont want have any "business" with them and you all know how I called them...
PLS check and reply my, I really want to know if I am wrong...

Suljo · « **Reply #29 on:** December 20, 2009, 00:02 »

Quote from: Suljo on December 19, 2009, 23:40

Quote from: madelaide on December 19, 2009, 22:19
Quote from: FD-amateur on December 19, 2009, 12:25
I followed your advice and I opted out of subs, both on IS and on StockXpert. My content will only be on SS (0.36$) and on DT (0.35$) as subs. I don't want Getty to undercut my best selling agents.

Hmm, do I need to opt-out from subs at IS not to be at Photos.com? Or do I need to opt-out from partner sales? I don't mind IS subs, but I don't want to be at Photos.com.

I think that you dont need to bother up your self with that. Its only for files older than 18 month as I understood. In they first anounce I check that I was in and after that pass thru my port by oldest files with adding new keywords and so on and leave this check box for photos konj for images which are on all sites total out and accepted by iStok. In this process I find about 80% of my vector images that they not have any category which I defined. This is whats really disturbing me, grrrr.

PLS check some of youre old vectors and tell me about you experience.
From my side its look very strange like they checked out categories from my old vector files so they are not visible for buyers in they experiment year ago with best match algorithm.
I dont want to bee paranoid about them but this is very very strange.
I my POW they just cut strings from my Portfolio from buyers and boast them selfs how they are protecting exclusive members and announce them how are "deeply have hard and tough procedure bla bla..."
In shortcut of my opinion. They just disable branching of tree in they best match algorithm non exclusives?!
If it is true I really dont want have any "business" with them and you all know how I called them...
PLS check and reply my, I really want to know if I am wrong...

Ploink · « **Reply #30 on:** December 20, 2009, 09:57 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 18, 2009, 17:29

I seriously doubt that will happen. We will be gathering dust at the back of the best match.

I share your - rather bleak - view of the future of independents at IS. It will be interesting to see, though, if they can afford to let half of the collection "gather dust at the back of the best match"...

vonkara · « **Reply #31 on:** December 20, 2009, 11:24 »

Quote from: KB on December 19, 2009, 22:41

Quote from: madelaide on December 19, 2009, 22:19
Quote from: FD-amateur on December 19, 2009, 12:25
I followed your advice and I opted out of subs, both on IS and on StockXpert. My content will only be on SS (0.36$) and on DT (0.35$) as subs. I don't want Getty to undercut my best selling agents.

Hmm, do I need to opt-out from subs at IS not to be at Photos.com? Or do I need to opt-out from partner sales? I don't mind IS subs, but I don't want to be at Photos.com.
Just go to Control Panel, click on the "+ Contributor" line to open it up, and uncheck "Opt-in to Partner Program". Though it is my understanding that even if you remain opted-in, no files will be sent to partner sites unless you explicitly check "Available on Partner sites" on the "Partner Program" tab of your portfolio ("My Uploads").

I actually am still opted-in on the IS side, and have given them 3 of my oldest files which have sold a grand total of less than 5 times together. I'll take $0.25 for those if anybody's willing to buy 'em.

I can't believe they are continuing with this epic fail plan. If Istock had 3% of chance to close in the next 5 years, they are now at 25% by bringing further that plan. StockXpert sunk in less than one year with this photos.com plan. I think that there is a 666 on the front page of this plan folder located in Hungary headquarters. I suggest anyone to opt out again from this.

Gannet77 · « **Reply #32 on:** December 20, 2009, 12:34 »

Quote from: Ploink on December 20, 2009, 09:57

Quote from: lisafx on December 18, 2009, 17:29
I seriously doubt that will happen. We will be gathering dust at the back of the best match.

I share your - rather bleak - view of the future of independents at IS. It will be interesting to see, though, if they can afford to let half of the collection "gather dust at the back of the best match"...

Interesting. Here, the independents seem to feel they're going to suffer from IS changing the best match to favour Exclusives.

Over on the IS forums, the Exclusives are concerned that they'll lose out because, given that the non-exclusive images are just as good as the Exclusive ones, the buyers will always take the cheaper (non-exclusive) file over the Exclusive one, assuming it'll work just as well for them.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see...

cathyslife · « **Reply #33 on:** December 20, 2009, 13:09 »

Quote

Over on the IS forums, the Exclusives are concerned that they'll lose out because, given that the non-exclusive images are just as good as the Exclusive ones, the buyers will always take the cheaper (non-exclusive) file over the Exclusive one, assuming it'll work just as well for them.

I'm not sure why the Exclusives are worried about that...buyers will have to find the cheaper photos before they can buy them and I gotta believe they aren't going to be easy to find. Do you see a sort by price on IS?

I know I've read a lot on this whole business over the past week and can't recall...will non-exclusive photos be totally separated out from exclusives now? If so, then I see why they're worried. If we are all still in one hopper, then my first statement applies.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #34 on:** December 20, 2009, 13:47 »

I'm not sure why iStock says that current canister rates are not sustainable. They are increasing prices and have an ever increasing market share yet they can't sustain current canister levels? Has anyone done the math to see what the long term loss of income will be from this move? I imagine it is substantial. To increase prices and then take the income away with this sort of move is plainly unfair. But there hasn't been too much fair with this business for some time.

sharpshot · « **Reply #35 on:** December 20, 2009, 14:16 »

Quote from: cclapper on December 20, 2009, 13:09

Quote
Over on the IS forums, the Exclusives are concerned that they'll lose out because, given that the non-exclusive images are just as good as the Exclusive ones, the buyers will always take the cheaper (non-exclusive) file over the Exclusive one, assuming it'll work just as well for them.

I'm not sure why the Exclusives are worried about that...buyers will have to find the cheaper photos before they can buy them and I gotta believe they aren't going to be easy to find. Do you see a sort by price on IS?

I know I've read a lot on this whole business over the past week and can't recall...will non-exclusive photos be totally separated out from exclusives now? If so, then I see why they're worried. If we are all still in one hopper, then my first statement applies.

I think we will all be in the same hopper but buyers will be able to find the cheaper photos on lots of other sites that have the entire portfolios of some of the best microstock contributors. Perhaps that concerns exclusives? I have never understood why istock have upload limits for their highest earners, exclusive or non-exclusive.

Gannet77 · « **Reply #36 on:** December 20, 2009, 18:01 »

Quote from: cclapper on December 20, 2009, 13:09

Quote
Over on the IS forums, the Exclusives are concerned that they'll lose out because, given that the non-exclusive images are just as good as the Exclusive ones, the buyers will always take the cheaper (non-exclusive) file over the Exclusive one, assuming it'll work just as well for them.

I'm not sure why the Exclusives are worried about that...buyers will have to find the cheaper photos before they can buy them and I gotta believe they aren't going to be easy to find. Do you see a sort by price on IS?

I know I've read a lot on this whole business over the past week and can't recall...will non-exclusive photos be totally separated out from exclusives now? If so, then I see why they're worried. If we are all still in one hopper, then my first statement applies.

No, nobody knows exactly how it will be done yet - we've been told the Main collection will not provide a search option which excludes Exclusive content, that's about all. Everything else (including the suggestion made here that the best match will bury non-exclusives) is conjecture.

I was just intrigued by the fact that both camps seem to think it will be bad for them - clearly they can't both be right!

I would guess it depends how price conscious the buyers are. iStock say their surveys indicate that most buyers aren't that concerned about a few dollars here and there, but you can see that if a buyer has, say, selected maybe half a dozen possibles and they see one or two are cheaper and just as good, they'll most likely pick the cheaper.

Some buyers have said (in the IS forums) that they would do that, but others have indicated that they don't mind paying more for the right image. We can only wait and see.

cthoman · « **Reply #37 on:** December 20, 2009, 18:37 »

...And some buyers didn't fill out the survey.

Gannet77 · « **Reply #38 on:** December 20, 2009, 18:52 »

Quote from: cthoman on December 20, 2009, 18:37

...And some buyers didn't fill out the survey.

Quite so!

nruboc · « **Reply #39 on:** December 20, 2009, 19:20 »

From kkthompson on Istock forum:

"Our plans for next year had one goal: make more money for our exclusives."

I wouldn't be too worried if I were exclusive.

disorderly · « **Reply #40 on:** December 20, 2009, 19:30 »

Quote from: nruboc on December 20, 2009, 19:20

I wouldn't be too worried if I were exclusive.

I wouldn't be quite so sanguine. First, they could be lying; their goal may in fact be to make more money for themselves, and hope enough trickles down to the exclusives to keep them quiet. Alternatively, their goal may be as stated, but are they competent enough to achieve it? These are after all the same people who can't read IPTC data from images reliably after years of trying (or not trying). They find difficult what every other microstock agency has accomplished. Doesn't give me a lot of confidence in their ability to execute.

nruboc · « **Reply #41 on:** December 20, 2009, 19:51 »

Quote from: disorderly on December 20, 2009, 19:30

Quote from: nruboc on December 20, 2009, 19:20
I wouldn't be too worried if I were exclusive.

I wouldn't be quite so sanguine. First, they could be lying; their goal may in fact be to make more money for themselves, and hope enough trickles down to the exclusives to keep them quiet. Alternatively, their goal may be as stated, but are they competent enough to achieve it? These are after all the same people who can't read IPTC data from images reliably after years of trying (or not trying). They find difficult what every other microstock agency has accomplished. Doesn't give me a lot of confidence in their ability to execute.

After looking at IStock's supposed 6 millionth image, you may have a point on the truthfulness factor. But after moving the canister goalposts, and virtually guaranteeing that exclusives will make substantially more, I think they're confident they have enough information to deliver, and if projections don't go as planned, they always have the best match control to further tilt the scales to exclusives, and now the financial gain to do so.

sharpshot · « **Reply #42 on:** December 21, 2009, 03:13 »

I think they made some big mistakes with photos.com. Does that site have better content now than it did when StockXpert supplied it? I don't think so. If that is an example of their planning for the future, it could be a rocky ride for everyone there next year. There is also the potential sell off to think about. Anyone buying them will want to increase profits again. How will they do that? I expect to see them taking more money from the contributors.

Gannet77 · « **Reply #43 on:** December 21, 2009, 09:27 »

Quote from: nruboc on December 20, 2009, 19:20

From kkthompson on Istock forum:

"Our plans for next year had one goal: make more money for our exclusives."

I wouldn't be too worried if I were exclusive.

Well I certainly don't doubt either their honesty or their business competence, but plans don't always work out as expected.

On the other hand, no, I'm not worried, just interested to see what happens.

Leo Blanchette · « **Reply #44 on:** December 21, 2009, 18:03 »

Having done the Walmart Associate thing for three years in another lifetime, I have a deep distrust for large organization "who take care of their own". Unless you play golf with them and have a beer gut, you are not their own. General rule of thumb for all big business. It also amazes me how such incredible talent and intelligent people can be herded like sheep to the slaughter with a simple carrot we like to call a canister.

I'll be five hundred downloads away from my Daimond canister when the goalposts change, and instead of their desired effect of making me want to become an exclusive, my resolve to remain non-exclusive is strengthened due to the manipulative treatment. A simple fact is that money is money, downloads are downloads, and canisters are little icons. You can't argue those simple relationships. There is also becoming more competition within Istock than all around it, and artists are artists, money is money. Its

Now there is six different "cannisters" but after feb there will be twelve. The original one which became "the grandfather Icon" and its visually identical counterpart "the new levels" canister. Artists and the portfolio strength will determine their success...not a carrot. Sadly only after people have dumped their portfolio's on other sites and their hard earned ranking on them will people realize these simple matters.

If I didn't miss this goal by such a small amount (a mere 500 downloads) perhaps I wouldn't take it so hard. If I were 2000 away, I wouldn't give it a second thought, but here the finish line moves 30 miles away after coming within feet of it, its quite irritating. Is there anyone else who will be missing it by such a meager, meager amount?

Big business....gotta love it. After two years of keeping silent, I think this one is a gimme.

vonkara · « **Reply #45 on:** December 21, 2009, 18:11 »

I have been very lucky to had decided going exclusive in the last month. At the first announcement, I thought I won't be able to be silver in years. I started to wonder if was still a good choice. Now that it's back to normal for people going exclusive before february, I feel lucky to not having uploaded at DT 6 months ago.

Leo Blanchette · « **Reply #46 on:** December 21, 2009, 18:18 »

Congrats...I hope you find your decision to be a good one! I mean that too, nobody who works hard deserves to lose.

As for me, I'll keep uploading at Istock, but its just another site to me now. I think my "being part of the community" and happy go lucky forum days have come to an end. Thank goodness the internet is so huge.

vonkara · « **Reply #47 on:** December 21, 2009, 18:31 »

I still need to get approved. Even if I deleted/disabled my portfolios everywhere, I feel like there will be a couples of issues in the process... Will see on the 26th of this month.

I can't wait to disable my last 3 images at Dreamstime and I hope I won't unable one of them by mistake. Then I'll be lost lol

FD · « **Reply #48 on:** December 21, 2009, 23:18 »

Quote from: cclapper on December 20, 2009, 13:09

I'm not sure why the Exclusives are worried about that...buyers will have to find the cheaper photos before they can buy them and I gotta believe they aren't going to be easy to find. Do you see a sort by price on IS?

Off-topic for IS, but DT has an option for that: exclude/include the higher priced/level images. I don't see any diminishing of sales of my higher level images. It has been said often on this forum and elsewhere: buyers don't care that much about one or two credits more if it's the right image for their needs. Of course, they should find them.

helix7 · « **Reply #49 on:** December 22, 2009, 11:08 »

Quote from: KonaHawaii on December 21, 2009, 18:03

...A simple fact is that money is money, downloads are downloads, and canisters are little icons. You can't argue those simple relationships. There is also becoming more competition within Istock than all around it, and artists are artists, money is money...

Right, money is money. But what if following the money leads you to istock exclusivity? You make it sound as if those of us who considered this were swayed by the idea that we wouldn't have a shiny new icon next to our names as soon as we previously had thought. But really, I think most people who gave exclusivity another look did so because it might mean more money for then compared to staying independent.

Canisters aren't just little icons. They're 5% pay increases, and in some cases they add up to large sums of money. Exclusivity doesn't work out mathematically for some people. But for others, it does work out, and sometimes it equates to significantly more money than the alternatives. It's a personal decision, and it's different for everyone. One portfolio of 500 images will do better or worse at istock than another of the same quantity. It is definitely not as simple as your simple facts would suggest.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Update on canisters. (Read 33345 times)

gostwyck

madelaide

KB

Suljo

Suljo

Ploink

vonkara

Gannet77

cathyslife

PeterChigmaroff

sharpshot

Gannet77

cthoman

Gannet77

nruboc

disorderly

nruboc

sharpshot

Gannet77

Leo Blanchette

vonkara

Leo Blanchette

vonkara

FD

helix7

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors