Author Topic: Vetta (Read 31224 times)

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #25 on:** August 20, 2009, 16:09 »

Sure, the question is, in the end, are you grossing as much? I think I see them sell a bit less then they might have in the regular collection, but the higher price more than makes up for it. I had one image that didn't sell at all. Since in Vetta, it has more than paid for itself. Sure, it might be higher in the best match, boosting the rpi, but still...

Graffoto · « **Reply #26 on:** August 20, 2009, 18:31 »

Yes, Vetta is selling. I've sold six thus far myself. As Sean says the price of the sale makes up for lack of volume.

I feel that the higher price is actually an advantage for both the buyer and seller.
On the seller's side there is the nebulous 'perceived value' factor. IE it is more expensive, therefore it must be better.

For the buyer, the higher price means that they are less likley to see the same shot in a competetor's advertisement.

SNP · « **Reply #27 on:** August 20, 2009, 20:54 »

do you think as many would sell through Vetta versus how they would have done in the regular collection (in terms of dollars, not dl numbers)? if so, I almost agree with the assertion that buyers will see Vetta files as more unique, but as soon as they sell a lot through Vetta, doesn't that negate the argument?

I wish everyone success in Vetta, I think it is a great business model and they are marketing it well. but I wish the acceptance standards were more obvious and visible in the collection.

Graffoto · « **Reply #28 on:** August 21, 2009, 09:41 »

I definitely feel that the Vetta file will sell at lower volumes than they might otherwise have.
But Mr. SJLocke would be better equiped to answer this question since he should have a better handle on what sort of files sell tons and tons, versus slower selling subjects.

Adeptris · « **Reply #29 on:** August 21, 2009, 10:56 »

The Vetta files are more unique, firstly they are exclusive to Istock and secondly less likely to be an impulse buy, someone with a few credit to burn is not likely to buy from Vetta, but they will buy from the library to use up a few credits, the price point will mean less buyers but the revenue should be better or balanced.

What is the better RPI for an image 100 @ $1 or 10 @ $10, none as both gross $100, however if the image is more suited to the regular microstock library and finds itself in the Vetta collection, the contributor might get an initial kick out of having the image in the collection at the longer term cost of reduced revenue as it might lose sales it would have got in the general library, so it is Istock getting a right balance which is more important than contributors ego's.

If Istock opened up the collection to less than worthy images, and worthy does not mean just quality but availability to purcahse, then they might be doing the collection and the contributors no favours.

David

stockastic · « **Reply #30 on:** August 21, 2009, 12:56 »

I took another look at the Vetta photos. They are mostly of very high quality. But that stuff about "take risks, develop ruthless standards .. seized their own artistic destiny and created a whole new calibre of art"? Give me a break. I'm seeing the same happy business people and confident doctors I see everywhere else. Not a lot of risk taking going on here.

Why not just say "here are some really good stock photos"?

pixdeluxe · « **Reply #31 on:** August 21, 2009, 13:40 »

Looking over my stats via lookstat.com for the past 30 days, my top earning images are mostly coming from Vetta. Images in the Vetta collection that have sold 15-20 times over 30 days are earning more for me than files that have sold 75-100 times in the same time frame.

I see some of the 'artsy' imagery, in Vetta, as being too specific and complete pieces of art. Thru nominating files that were difficult to produce or took an above normal effort, I can now start to see returns on those images right away.

Big big wraps to Vetta.

SNP · « **Reply #32 on:** August 21, 2009, 23:10 »

^ I think that is the best point made yet. I would buy vetta as a place for files that required a lot of cost or set up to produce -- but nothing anyone says has or probably could explain some of the files included in vetta. I suppose there is no explanation required, since it is a subjective process, there are bound to be images included that someone at any given moment disagrees with. thanks for everyone's opinions.

bittersweet · « **Reply #33 on:** August 22, 2009, 14:02 »

Quote from: hawk_eye on August 21, 2009, 23:10

files that required a lot of cost or set up to produce

A commonality that I noticed among some of the ones being called into question is that they are all available at XXXL size, which I guess technically puts them in the expensive to produce category, though truthfully not really what I interpreted that to mean when they first explained the collection.

That being said, I don't like posting other people's work and saying anything negative about it without their knowledge.

SNP · « **Reply #34 on:** August 22, 2009, 23:06 »

^ I normally agree with that. but I'm not saying anything negative about these images per se, I'm just suggesting they are good stock versus what I believe to be the recipe for Vetta. I think I approached it respectfully and certainly meant no offense to the contributors. frankly one of my own files was nominated for Vetta a couple of months ago and I was a bit incredulous. happy but wondering why THAT file versus some of those I had nominated and had rejected from the exact same series that I felt were much better.

anonymous · « **Reply #35 on:** August 23, 2009, 16:34 »

Quote from: Xalanx on August 19, 2009, 23:34

Quote from: Suljo on August 19, 2009, 22:12
Veta Beta Stokalipsa or any kind of lobotolipsa who carer here about that because this stuff is provided only for iStock exkljuzives?!?

Dude, whatever you're smoking... it's BAD!

I disagree...it seems VERY good : )

mericsso · « **Reply #36 on:** August 25, 2009, 17:52 »

As an art director, I've seen the industry change so much. In the beginning, you would hire a photographer with a style and concept in mine. That was the norm, not just reserved for huge accounts. Then, paying $600ish for RM was the new cool. Now days, a lot of agencies only have iStock accounts. The designers are emo about it. Constantly complaining, because the shot they really want is at Corbis or Getty or that illusive phootshoot, but instead they are forced to settle for less, because the end client doesn't care anyways. Vetta solves this, because now designers can buy better images with their iStock account. All they have to do is buy less, and they can stay on budget.

This will work until for a while until the non exclusive iStock photographers start producing equal quality images and selling them on the other stock sites for cheep.

lisafx · « **Reply #37 on:** August 25, 2009, 17:56 »

You sound like exactly the target market for Vetta. Thanks for sharing the designer's perspective with us.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #38 on:** August 25, 2009, 18:39 »

Quote from: mericsso on August 25, 2009, 17:52

This will work until for a while until the non exclusive iStock photographers start producing equal quality images and selling them on the other stock sites for cheep.

I'm not sure that is a valid reason buyers don't shop at other places. There's lots of good stuff all around. Something else is drawing them to Vetta then.

cdwheatley · « **Reply #39 on:** August 25, 2009, 18:55 »

Quote from: sjlocke on August 25, 2009, 18:39

Quote from: mericsso on August 25, 2009, 17:52
This will work until for a while until the non exclusive iStock photographers start producing equal quality images and selling them on the other stock sites for cheep.

I'm not sure that is a valid reason buyers don't shop at other places. There's lots of good stuff all around. Something else is drawing them to Vetta then.

How about "it costs more therefore it must be better". Well, that and good search placement.

Adeptris · « **Reply #40 on:** August 25, 2009, 23:06 »

Quote from: sjlocke on August 25, 2009, 18:39

Quote from: mericsso on August 25, 2009, 17:52
This will work until for a while until the non exclusive iStock photographers start producing equal quality images and selling them on the other stock sites for cheep.

I'm not sure that is a valid reason buyers don't shop at other places. There's lots of good stuff all around. Something else is drawing them to Vetta then.

Comfort, ease and time will be some of the reasons, as mericsso said "Now days, a lot of agencies only have iStock accounts."

If they only have an account with iStock then they are already tied-in and comfortable with the interface and how to use it, there is no need to waste expensive time shopping around if iStock can now deliver on price, quality and content.

But read what mericsso said again "now designers can buy better images with their iStock account. All they have to do is buy less, and they can stay on budget"

Istock are not creating a new market as the designers would have settled for lesser images because they did not have the budget or choice to shop around, so we have the same revenue 'no new market' the same only spread thinner, as Vetta is only taking exclusive images and buyer might now only look in the Vetta Collection then the suppliers of these images will benefit at the expense of the non exclusive revenue.

mericsso said "This will work until for a while until the non exclusive iStock photographers start producing equal quality images and selling them on the other stock sites for cheep."

Another sting in the tail for non exclusives to produce equal quality images is still not enough, the designers already have thier 'Itsock Accounts', but they may buy the same quality images from another site, but only if the artist is "selling them on the other stock sites for cheep.", so the real point is the designers want 'high production low volume agency exclusive images at microstock prices', I also want a $50,000 vehicle for $25,000 the difference is I will never get the car.

Just My Opinion:
Stocksites can create as many variant models and collections as they like, but there is "no new money" and all they will do is move it around or reduce the revenue allowing the designers and finance departments to cut budgets because they are now offering better for less.

The current model of the industry has all the customers already in the taget markets, and there is only one real option and that is one of consolidation, I think this has already started with the big sites grasping thier part of the market, which will force smaller sites to become niche or cease to trade as they cannot compete, the larger site will later streamline by cutting operating costs and improving delivery to maximise profits.

David

zzz · « **Reply #41 on:** August 26, 2009, 00:04 »

I disagree that the market will eventually see photos of Vetta caliber on other sites. At least not in a way that it would diminish the value of Vetta. I think 95% of microstock photographers won't bother spending the time or money to produce unique photos like the one's found in the Vetta collection. If someone chooses to produce the same quality, I bet they want a bigger share from the cake and join iStock so that they can submit to Vetta. iStock is way ahead of its competition.

Graffoto · « **Reply #42 on:** August 26, 2009, 00:19 »

Quote from: zzz on August 26, 2009, 00:04

I disagree that the market will eventually see photos of Vetta caliber on other sites. At least not in a way that it would diminish the value of Vetta. I think 95% of microstock photographers won't bother spending the time or money to produce unique photos like the one's found in the Vetta collection. If someone chooses to produce the same quality, I bet they want a bigger share from the cake and join iStock so that they can submit to Vetta. iStock is way ahead of its competition.

I hope you are correct.
From your mouth, to G_d's ear

rene · « **Reply #43 on:** August 26, 2009, 00:22 »

Quote from: zzz on August 26, 2009, 00:04

I disagree that the market will eventually see photos of Vetta caliber on other sites. At least not in a way that it would diminish the value of Vetta. I think 95% of microstock photographers won't bother spending the time or money to produce unique photos like the one's found in the Vetta collection. If someone chooses to produce the same quality, I bet they want a bigger share from the cake and join iStock so that they can submit to Vetta. iStock is way ahead of its competition.

Agree.
I don't imagine myself spending a hole day and lot of money to produce 2-3 high quality images, and then upload them to FT or DT. I'll never get my money back. With Vetta it's possible.
IMO an images that needs more, let's say, then 10 minutes and production cost exceed 10$ is not Faststock (microstock) worth.

Adeptris · « **Reply #44 on:** August 26, 2009, 00:29 »

Quote from: zzz on August 26, 2009, 00:04

I disagree that the market will eventually see photos of Vetta caliber on other sites. At least not in a way that it would diminish the value of Vetta. I think 95% of microstock photographers won't bother spending the time or money to produce unique photos like the one's found in the Vetta collection. If someone chooses to produce the same quality, I bet they want a bigger share from the cake and join iStock so that they can submit to Vetta. iStock is way ahead of its competition.

Ok I am confused here is a simple question:
Where were these 'iStock exclusive high value images' being sold before Vetta, they were shot for the Istock library and not shot for the Vetta collection, they should not have been on sale as RM on other websites and then added to iStock and Vetta as RF, so they must have already been on Istock as 'exclusive RF' and at microstock prices until they were hand picked and chosen for Vetta, or were they just sitting on hard drives waiting for the birth of Vetta?

The imaging world is much bigger than microstock and Istock, and as you say not many microstockers will produce high quality high production costs images for any agency as they do not have the funds or tools.

From those that do shoot high production images how many do you think are iStock exclusive, and why would they not be on other traditional or midstock sites at similar price points, and why would they consider losing other revenue streams and take a year to become iStock exclusive, just to add Vetta images?

It is far to early to sing the praises of Vetta, the Vetta images were uploaded for the general collection by exclusives, they are not new contributors so they would have calculated the value of the image based on high volume of sales, the images in Vetta at the moment might be getting a better return, but the Vetta collection will grow and this will cause dilution of revenue within the collection putting pressure on the other images, then the numbers will need to be crunched to see if 'Vetta is Betta', or higher volumes in the general library is better.

David

Gannet77 · « **Reply #45 on:** August 26, 2009, 04:29 »

Quote from: Adeptris on August 26, 2009, 00:29

Quote from: zzz on August 26, 2009, 00:04
I disagree that the market will eventually see photos of Vetta caliber on other sites. At least not in a way that it would diminish the value of Vetta. I think 95% of microstock photographers won't bother spending the time or money to produce unique photos like the one's found in the Vetta collection. If someone chooses to produce the same quality, I bet they want a bigger share from the cake and join iStock so that they can submit to Vetta. iStock is way ahead of its competition.

Ok I am confused here is a simple question:
Where were these 'iStock exclusive high value images' being sold before Vetta, they were shot for the Istock library and not shot for the Vetta collection, they should not have been on sale as RM on other websites and then added to iStock and Vetta as RF, so they must have already been on Istock as 'exclusive RF' and at microstock prices until they were hand picked and chosen for Vetta, or were they just sitting on hard drives waiting for the birth of Vetta?

David

Initially, they were indeed on iStock as 'exclusive RF'. iStock picked many for Vetta themselves and allowed exclusives to nominate a limited number from their own portfolio for consideration.

I think the rationale is that they were lost in a sea of 5 million other images, and iStock wanted to make them more visible at a higher price point. Seems a good idea to me, though as you say, only time will tell.

Graffoto · « **Reply #46 on:** August 26, 2009, 04:52 »

and newer file are nominated for Vetta as they are uploaded.
So going forward these new files never saw the light of day as part of the regular collection

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #47 on:** August 26, 2009, 05:07 »

Quote from: Adeptris on August 26, 2009, 00:29

It is far to early to sing the praises of Vetta, the Vetta images were uploaded for the general collection by exclusives,

I'll sing the praises

. Anyways, at this point, I'd say the majority of images are now new images, made specifically for Vetta, or with Vetta in mind.

Quote

But read what mericsso said again "now designers can buy better images with their iStock account. All they have to do is buy less, and they can stay on budget"

I don't think this is how most buyers think - we've had lots of posts from people unwilling to pay higher prices. They stick with what they are used to buying - the lower priced images in the regular collection. I think Vetta is drawing new buyers to iStock from somewhere. Or maybe it's causing the buyers to get more money from their clients.

Konstantin Sutyagin · « **Reply #48 on:** August 27, 2009, 00:55 »

Quote from: mericsso on August 25, 2009, 17:52

Constantly complaining, because the shot they really want is at Corbis or Getty or that illusive phootshoot, but instead they are forced to settle for less, because the end client doesn't care anyways. Vetta solves this, because now designers can buy better images with their iStock account. All they have to do is buy less, and they can stay on budget.

Yea, like those images weren't there before Vetta. Most of the Vetta images were uploaded to istock long before introduction of Vetta. Now they just have higher price tag combined with better search placement.

Gannet77 · « **Reply #49 on:** August 27, 2009, 03:53 »

Quote from: Konstantin Sutyagin on August 27, 2009, 00:55

Quote from: mericsso on August 25, 2009, 17:52
Constantly complaining, because the shot they really want is at Corbis or Getty or that illusive phootshoot, but instead they are forced to settle for less, because the end client doesn't care anyways. Vetta solves this, because now designers can buy better images with their iStock account. All they have to do is buy less, and they can stay on budget.

Yea, like those images weren't there before Vetta. Most of the Vetta images were uploaded to istock long before introduction of Vetta. Now they just have higher price tag combined with better search placement.

And you'd prefer your best images to have a lower price tag and poorer search placement?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Vetta (Read 31224 times)

Sean Locke Photography

Graffoto

SNP

Graffoto

Adeptris

stockastic

pixdeluxe

SNP

bittersweet

SNP

anonymous

mericsso

lisafx

Sean Locke Photography

cdwheatley

Adeptris

zzz

Graffoto

rene

Adeptris

Gannet77

Graffoto

Sean Locke Photography

Konstantin Sutyagin

Gannet77

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors