Author Topic: What is happening to iStock, is it the end? (Read 52723 times)

gillian vann · « **Reply #100 on:** July 17, 2013, 04:57 »

^ agree, but there are plenty of conspiracies and even an "is this the end" thread.

I think it's just - as has been said aplenty - good ol' fashioned incompetence. phew. $:-\$

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #101 on:** July 17, 2013, 05:03 »

Quote from: cobalt on July 17, 2013, 04:08

No, not when to pay people. But to make decisions with priorities in IT for instance. That would definetely be a decision for the general manager.

If they have cut down the IT team and their resources must be spread over many issues, then it is likely that the distribution of their time and attention is decided by the general manager. And if they had a new manager coming in, then it is normal that decisions are delayed.

But she's still only a GM, not a CEO. She won't be able to do anything Getty doesn't want - and I suspect Getty still has a deep-seated contempt for microstock.

They haven't had a coherent approach to anything since Bruce left. And I wonder where the new collections plan came from? The timing of it is wrong - if it had been Rebecca's master plan it would probably have been mothballed so the new GM could reassess it. It happened before the new GM arrived. I think there is a whiff of Getty about it.

Here's a wildly speculative idea ....

How about the storm over Google Drive having severely embarrassed the Getty top-dogs? Klein decides that Rebecca has failed in her mission of bringing the amateur snappers at iStock under control and demands to know who leaked the story - he gets pointed to the thread started by Sean Locke. He sacks both Rebecca and Sean and takes personal control while a new GM is dug up. People tell him Sean is too big a loss - so he demands to know who there is who can be bought out to replace him and the name Arcurs pops up. "Give him anything he wants but make him a replacement exclusive!" thunders the great man. He looks at the sales figures and sees buyers are seeping away. Having been told for years that exclusives are the heart of iS and all the best artists, while the indes are the rubbish anyone can get anywhere he sees that exclusive sales bring in much more money than inde ones and hits on the idea of bringing back customers by accepting all the old rubbish the other sites have got ("allow 999 uploads a week and don't reject many!") and then sacrificing the indes to lure buyers with the cheap rubbish they are buying elsewhere. Once the buyers are back, they will be lured by the brilliant exclusive material which has always shown it sold better than the other stuff, so the losses incurred on cheap inde sales will be made up for by a surge in exclusive sales.

Thus, in a six-month hiatus while Rebecca is replaced, Getty shows the iStock lot how things are done when professionals take charge, and everything will be up and running in time for the new GM to take over and keep this strategy and the main collection prices in place FOREVER! Any tech problems that crop up in the interim can be sorted by the new woman when she eventually arrives, that mundane stuff doesn't need brilliant strategic thinking.

Well, that's just a bit of creative writing, probably nothing like what's really happened, but it's fun to speculate.

gillian vann · « **Reply #102 on:** July 17, 2013, 05:11 »

you forgot the bit about how the main collection (of indie content) was just slashed by over 50%

(but it was a great read.)

travelwitness · « **Reply #103 on:** July 17, 2013, 05:44 »

Sounds about right, problem is the indie work is as good as the exclusive work so they will end up cannibalizing their own sales. My guess is income will drop on both sides of the fence.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #104 on:** July 17, 2013, 05:55 »

Quote from: travelwitness on July 17, 2013, 05:44

Sounds about right, problem is the indie work is as good as the exclusive work so they will end up cannibalizing their own sales. My guess is income will drop on both sides of the fence.

Yes, but they won't have told him that down the years, while they've been justifying the exclusive programme to him.

And I never suggested that it was a plan that would actually work.......

shudderstok · « **Reply #105 on:** July 17, 2013, 06:24 »

my bet is if you produce good work consistently your sales will be good. if i did not know any better, i'd say IS is simply trying to compete with the micros on their own level and up the ante a bit on another level. the days of micros just being micros is nearing an end, i think getty sees this clearly. let's remember, it's not all about us as contributors (though we'd like to think it is), rather it's about the buyers - this can't be disputed. i think the direction IS is taking is making it a one stop shop for all buyers of all budgets. sure if buyers are only budget conscious then there are certainly other sites to go to, but most buyers are on a budget of time, and they want to get the best imagery they can, regardless of price. time is the new currency and i think IS is betting on this, and i think they will win the bet going forward long term. this is not to say what they are doing to contributors is acceptable, but it is to say going forward long term they are doing the right thing for the buyers, who in turn buy our images. i have seen both sides of the coin from micros to trads and this i feel is a very happy meeting point of both pricing points in one shop. it's still too early to tell of course and i hope i am right. i think this move will certainly sort the "crapstock" that has become acceptable as of the last few years and lean towards more quality work which is sorely lacking more often than not on the micros.

and please, don't turn this post into a micro versus trad argument, or an IS versus all the other micros argument, or a getty is the best argument. this is not what i am saying. so please, don't twist it into an argument of convenience.

travelwitness · « **Reply #106 on:** July 17, 2013, 06:43 »

iStock are at a major crossroads.

Contributors are an important part of the equation - if exclusives see their income become sustainable they will stay - but that is a big IF . If sales keep falling at recent rates they will hedge their bets and ditch the crown to maintain some income stability - if that happens the high quality work starts dropping into the lowest tier and sales cannibalization starts.

They are walking a tightrope, one side is keeping exclusives happy - the other is a negative sales spiral.

Like the old chinese curse says 'may you live in interesting times'.

JPSDK · « **Reply #107 on:** July 17, 2013, 06:55 »

Lets face it, someone has to say it.

Istocks real problem are the exclusives.
They are paid 10 times more than out in the cold competition in the real world.
Therfore they are 10 times less motivated to improve.
Its the truth, its a factor. 10 times is ten times.

The exclusives might once have been an asset, they were good once and they provided unique pictures.
But it does not take many years of hard competition outside of the istock glasshouse before a lot of imagery is created that far surpasses istocks. It happened. Customers saw it and moved.

And then istock sits back with a lot of overpriced non competitive content. And they even raise prices during a period of financial crisis clinging to the glasshouse concept.

Add to that their shaking hands with all decisions and very poor communication, then the collosus of clay is in danger.

And I hope they will die, I detest them for all their abuse and borderline fraudulent business etics.

shudderstok · « **Reply #108 on:** July 17, 2013, 06:57 »

Quote from: travelwitness on July 17, 2013, 06:43

iStock are at a major crossroads.

Contributors are an important part of the equation - if exclusives see their income become sustainable they will stay - but that is a big IF . If sales keep falling at recent rates they will hedge their bets and ditch the crown to maintain some income stability - if that happens the high quality work starts dropping into the lowest tier and sales cannibalization starts.

They are walking a tightrope, one side is keeping exclusives happy - the other is a negative sales spiral.

Like the old chinese curse says 'may you live in interesting times'.

but i think if you are exclusive, you will get the added bonus of having your images double dipping on getty as well. time will tell for sure, but so far this whole shuffle has done me ok, downloads down a bit, but income up overall in the first month, and that has not factored in the eventual getty sales. this whole thing sucks for non-exclusives, but that is also the choice they made to market their work, for better or worse. i for one will run full steam ahead and hope for the best.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #109 on:** July 17, 2013, 07:11 »

Quote from: travelwitness on July 17, 2013, 06:43

iStock are at a major crossroads.

Contributors are an important part of the equation - if exclusives see their income become sustainable they will stay - but that is a big IF . If sales keep falling at recent rates they will hedge their bets and ditch the crown to maintain some income stability - if that happens the high quality work starts dropping into the lowest tier and sales cannibalization starts.

But the exclusive stuff isn't that great, anyway. All you've got to do is sell 500 shots to join the programme. The approval standard for both was meant to be the same though there were some signs that it was tougher for indes in the past. It's a false dichotomy.

I really don't believe you can mix Walmart and Harrods counters up in the same premises and make a success out of it which, as Shudderstock suggests, appears to be the current strategy. Rather than being all things to all men they risk being nothing to anybody.

travelwitness · « **Reply #110 on:** July 17, 2013, 07:17 »

Lots of IF's Shudderstock - you'll just have to wait it out and see what happens.

For me as a former exclusive with a fair amount of work over at Getty, sales fluctuated wildly from September last year - sometimes chopping my income in half even with a steady stream of new work.

There is no easy answer in the long term for anyone - saturation is the biggest problem artists face and the doors are open wider than ever now. There is only one clear winner in this pyramid scheme - and its rarely the contributors.

I'm hedging my bets while the storm brews on the horizon.

Xanox · « **Reply #111 on:** July 17, 2013, 08:16 »

if you think saturation is bad today wait 2-3 yrs when the images on sale will be 30-40 millions.

this is no problem for RM as the variety of subject is pretty much infinite but it's THE problem for RF micro, who needs another million photos of shaking hands and smiling businessmen ? not the frustrated buyers, i guess.

tickstock · « **Reply #112 on:** July 17, 2013, 08:36 »

travelwitness · « **Reply #113 on:** July 17, 2013, 08:43 »

I tend to agree, all the low hanging fruit has been picked - newcomers don't realise this and the dilution continues to accelerate.

I think it's going to be musical chairs over the next few years with higher production images moving from micros into higher priced agencies.

Not sure how iStock's one stop shop approach is going pan out, trying to be all things to all people might actually compound their problem.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #114 on:** July 17, 2013, 09:17 »

Quote from: Xanox on July 17, 2013, 08:16

if you think saturation is bad today wait 2-3 yrs when the images on sale will be 30-40 millions.

this is no problem for RM as the variety of subject is pretty much infinite but it's THE problem for RF micro, who needs another million photos of shaking hands and smiling businessmen ? not the frustrated buyers, i guess.

It is a problem for RM because while the subjects may be infinite the amount being spent is not. If the RM collections treble in size and the spend is unchanged then the RPI will drop by two-thirds.

dingles · « **Reply #115 on:** July 17, 2013, 09:28 »

I love the exclusive versus indie argument. I do agree that exclusive content doesn't mean it is quality. In fact overtime once you hit the sales quota you can become an exclusive...there is not review of the quality of your work...the only thing was the acceptance rate had to be at a certain percentage, but with the lax inspections, that is now moot. The reality is there is good exclusive content and bad exclusive content...same as there is good indie content and bad indie content. The collections are an illusion of paying more for quality...not a reality. For a while when Vetta content was well curated, the quality was usually up, but now there is a lot of crap that has deteriorated Vetta.

I agree though, you produce quality work and are willing to put in the effort then you are better off regardless of your label.

gostwyck · « **Reply #116 on:** July 17, 2013, 10:09 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on July 17, 2013, 09:17

Quote from: Xanox on July 17, 2013, 08:16
if you think saturation is bad today wait 2-3 yrs when the images on sale will be 30-40 millions.

this is no problem for RM as the variety of subject is pretty much infinite but it's THE problem for RF micro, who needs another million photos of shaking hands and smiling businessmen ? not the frustrated buyers, i guess.

It is a problem for RM because while the subjects may be infinite the amount being spent is not. If the RM collections treble in size and the spend is unchanged then the RPI will drop by two-thirds.

Exactly. The problem is always going to be worse for RM. As the quality and quantity of micro continues to increase then so they will also take an ever-increasing share of the total money spent on stock imagery.

Red Dove · « **Reply #117 on:** July 17, 2013, 10:12 »

There are kids out there with buck teeth and flat foreheads who do a better job running their ant farms.

The complexity involved with having to deal with them either as a buyer or a contributor is a weakness that IS have tried to sell as diversity and exclusivity. The recent "simplification" of their collection into main and other spurious strata, plus the price drop feels like a continuation of a knee-jerk strategy and is not a game changer IMO. If it doesn't work I forsee the break up of the collection altogether into new agencies grouped around exclusives, indies and perhaps a higher tier collection based on the old Vetta - parts of which GI will keep or sell off as they see fit.

I forgot to add, in line with other comments, I don't think exclusivity has been a big selling point for buyers for some years now.

Xanox · « **Reply #118 on:** July 17, 2013, 11:23 »

Quote from: gostwyck on July 17, 2013, 10:09

Exactly. The problem is always going to be worse for RM. As the quality and quantity of micro continues to increase then so they will also take an ever-increasing share of the total money spent on stock imagery.

the limit of microstock is it can only be profitable and sustainable with selling a cheap image many times.
and therefore this is possible only with mainstream subjects.

but the mainstream (or "low hanging fruits") subjects are not infinite !
as you can see all the niches are already saturated and because of the restrictions imposed by agencies and by the RF licence itself there's a ton of good subjects that will never make it to micros and will be only available as RM or editorial.

micro's perimeter of action is very small actually and not all the niches are taken.
do you see any solution for that ? i don't.
and unless they dump half of their archive into an even cheaper separate colletion the situation will only go worse for suppliers.

on the other side it will take 100 yrs before the same phenomenon applies to RM.
i agree you aint making money anymore with pics of the Tour Eiffel on RM but apart the top-selling destinations and places anything else is still ready to be covered in depth, many of my RM sales are about obscure subjects i've no idea why and how they will be used but they would never be found on IS or SS and that's the point.

Xanox · « **Reply #119 on:** July 17, 2013, 11:23 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on July 17, 2013, 09:17

It is a problem for RM because while the subjects may be infinite the amount being spent is not. If the RM collections treble in size and the spend is unchanged then the RPI will drop by two-thirds.

in my opinion the trend in RM will be about being more picky or offering "creative collections", that's the new alamy's strategy for example, a creative side for pro photographers and a generic "editorial" side for the many others who use alamy as a dump (and they're many !).

RPI : that's not an important factor in RM as it is for micros, what matters are the monthly sales and despite all the bad news we read here they're pretty stable in the RM world, those who suffered most were the ones shooting subjects that now are top sellers on micro RF but it seems the agencies recovered pretty well, it's you guys having this blind belief that price is THE factor, that's certainly true for cheap designers and their cheap customers but in the rest of the world buyers see nothing wrong paying at least 50 bucks for a picture they need.

ShadySue · « **Reply #120 on:** July 17, 2013, 11:45 »

Quote from: Xanox on July 17, 2013, 11:23

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on July 17, 2013, 09:17
It is a problem for RM because while the subjects may be infinite the amount being spent is not. If the RM collections treble in size and the spend is unchanged then the RPI will drop by two-thirds.
in my opinion the trend in RM will be about being more picky or offering "creative collections", that's the new alamy's strategy for example, a creative side for pro photographers and a generic "editorial" side for the many others who use alamy as a dump (and they're many !).

In many cases it's impossible to tell why something on Alamy has been labelled 'creative' and others have not. I can see that from my own 'creatives' as well as those from others.

I don't think being 'creative' in Alamy gains any more cash - AFAIK, creative images can also be sold sub-$6.

gostwyck · « **Reply #121 on:** July 17, 2013, 12:15 »

Quote from: Xanox on July 17, 2013, 11:23

Quote from: gostwyck on July 17, 2013, 10:09
Exactly. The problem is always going to be worse for RM. As the quality and quantity of micro continues to increase then so they will also take an ever-increasing share of the total money spent on stock imagery.

the limit of microstock is it can only be profitable and sustainable with selling a cheap image many times.
and therefore this is possible only with mainstream subjects.

but the mainstream (or "low hanging fruits") subjects are not infinite !
as you can see all the niches are already saturated and because of the restrictions imposed by agencies and by the RF licence itself there's a ton of good subjects that will never make it to micros and will be only available as RM or editorial.

micro's perimeter of action is very small actually and not all the niches are taken.
do you see any solution for that ? i don't.
and unless they dump half of their archive into an even cheaper separate colletion the situation will only go worse for suppliers.

on the other side it will take 100 yrs before the same phenomenon applies to RM.
i agree you aint making money anymore with pics of the Tour Eiffel on RM but apart the top-selling destinations and places anything else is still ready to be covered in depth, many of my RM sales are about obscure subjects i've no idea why and how they will be used but they would never be found on IS or SS and that's the point.

Unfortunately you are wrong on both counts. Both micro and RM markets are governed by the laws of supply and demand. Over-supply will continue to outstrip the growth in demand in both markets for the foreseeable future ... probably forever. Both markets have probably peaked for all but the newest of contributors. RM has been in severe decline for years and most likely that will continue, even for your obscure niche subjects.

Pixart · « **Reply #122 on:** July 17, 2013, 12:25 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on July 17, 2013, 05:03

Here's a wildly speculative idea ....

How about the storm over Google Drive having severely embarrassed the Getty top-dogs? Klein decides that Rebecca has failed in her mission of bringing the amateur snappers at iStock under control and demands to know who leaked the story - he gets pointed to the thread started by Sean Locke. He sacks both Rebecca and Sean and takes personal control while a new GM is dug up. People tell him Sean is too big a loss - so he demands to know who there is who can be bought out to replace him and the name Arcurs pops up. "Give him anything he wants but make him a replacement exclusive!" thunders the great man. -snip

Well, that's just a bit of creative writing, probably nothing like what's really happened, but it's fun to speculate.

I had actually pondered if Sean wasn't part of the Yuri deal. Getty was salivating at the idea to own Yuri but he must have had his own demands. Sean was one of his top "competitors" (if you can call it that) and never bowed down and worshipped the guy. Probably drove him nuts the way Sean kept it real. "Sure, I'll sign with you, but not until....."

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #123 on:** July 17, 2013, 13:15 »

Quote from: gostwyck on July 17, 2013, 12:15

RM has been in severe decline for years and most likely that will continue, even for your obscure niche subjects.

Ilike obscure niches because 1) you are usually not competing against the image factories and 2) while the demand is low, so is the supply, which means your chances of a sale might be as good or better than with one of the big-selling subjects. That said, if a niche is so obscure there is no demand at all, then you're not going to get a sale, and the competition in obscure niches, if there is any demand at all, will tend to grow propotionately with the size of the collection. So niches are subject to just the same process of being undermined as everything else.

Xanox · « **Reply #124 on:** July 17, 2013, 14:59 »

well i dont mean really obscure stuff, it happens sometimes but most of my stuff is about travel and my best sellers are still people, lifestyle, and markets.

as for Alamy, i written too much against them already and i rest my case about their creative collection being a joke from top to bottom.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: What is happening to iStock, is it the end? (Read 52723 times)

gillian vann

BaldricksTrousers

gillian vann

travelwitness

BaldricksTrousers

shudderstok

travelwitness

JPSDK

shudderstok

BaldricksTrousers

travelwitness

Xanox

tickstock

travelwitness

BaldricksTrousers

dingles

gostwyck

Red Dove

Xanox

Xanox

ShadySue

gostwyck

Pixart

BaldricksTrousers

Xanox

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors