MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: madman on August 01, 2015, 11:33
-
I am very angry with istock for what has happened in recent years, istock doesnt care anymore exclusive artist, lots of exclusives turn to non-exclusive recent years, me too, because of exclusivity has no meaning anymore...
My revenus decrase 4-5 times in recent 2 years while I am in exclusive and now almost 10 times down since I left exclusivity....
I am very angry with istock because I feel like to be fired my job....
I am very angry with istock because istock doesnt care and listen contributors anymore...
I am very angry with istock because our works and efforts serving agencies at very tragic-comic prices and we all lost money...
-
If you're doing bad at iStock you'll make it up on your other sites, no big deal.
-
If you're doing bad at iStock you'll make it up on your other sites, no big deal.
Not necessarily.
Some report that they are doing better by spreading their assets, others say they're doing worse.
As always, it depends on so many factors, one's port being only one.
-
I am very angry with istock for what has happened in recent years, istock doesnt care anymore exclusive artist, lots of exclusives turn to non-exclusive recent years, me too, because of exclusivity has no meaning anymore...
My revenus decrase 4-5 times in recent 2 years while I am in exclusive and now almost 10 times down since I left exclusivity....
I am very angry with istock because I feel like to be fired my job....
I am very angry with istock because istock doesnt care and listen contributors anymore...
I am very angry with istock because our works and efforts serving agencies at very tragic-comic prices and we all lost money...
getty bought IS and tried to raise pricing slowly for micro stock images. they had good intentions and benefited contributors for a while until Shutterstock gained more market share and awareness. getty miscalculated and was too aggressive in pricing and the product presentation got more confusing causing more buyer exodus.
the whole idea, was to make more money for them and us... but subscriptions and cheaper pricing pretty much killed that initiative. it happens.
getty went into panic mode and has been trying to establish its brand as a middle-stock content provider while competing with SS's price points. i see signs that the ship is slowing turning around.
yep... we are all frustrated about IS/gettys downward slide from 2012 but that is how markets work sometimes.
Now that shutterstock is a public company, i expect some blunders and aggressive behavior in their future as well....
-
already I leave exclusivity, I was forced to do so, because my income was decreasing gradually like it never stopped, despite I raise my portfolio to 3 times...
we loose, them loose, look at istock alexa visitors graph, constantly and dramatically decrasing...
seems to istock is killing itself slowly and they dont do anything to fix it...
I dont understand what is happening to istock, really dont....
-
already I leave exclusivity, I was forced to do so, because my income was decreasing gradually like it never stopped, despite I raise my portfolio to 3 times... we loose, them loose, look at istock alexa visitors graph, constantly and dramatically decreasing...
I don't understand what is happening to istock, really don't....
Getty had a dreadful reputation with photographers for a while before they bought iStock.
But also, as the competition were not raising prices from rock bottom, they were on a sticky wicket.
It's like supermarket competition in the UK: the price wars have meant that what were the better supermarkets are stocking fewer lines to sell cheaper to bump up profitability, and the quality of what they sell is often decreasing to hold price points. For the buyer, it means it's far more difficult to source things physically, so more and more things which we could easily buy in local-ish shops until recently can now only be found online, adding postage and packing costs and the bother of delivery.
Similarly, with new files at iStock only getting subs sales, if that, it's not viable or sustainable to supply low-demand, low supply files which used to fare reasonably there, ultimately lowering choice for buyers.
-
already I leave exclusivity, I was forced to do so, because my income was decreasing gradually like it never stopped, despite I raise my portfolio to 3 times... we loose, them loose, look at istock alexa visitors graph, constantly and dramatically decreasing...
I don't understand what is happening to istock, really don't....
Getty had a dreadful reputation with photographers for a while before they bought iStock.
But also, as the competition were not raising prices from rock bottom, they were on a sticky wicket.
It's like supermarket competition in the UK: the price wars have meant that what were the better supermarkets are stocking fewer lines to sell cheaper to bump up profitability, and the quality of what they sell is often decreasing to hold price points. For the buyer, it's means it's far more difficult to source things physically, so more and more things which we could easily buy in localish shops until recently can now only be found online, adding postage and packing costs and the bother of delivery.
Similarly, with new files at iStock only getting subs sales, if that, it's not viable or sustainable to supply low-demand, low supply files which used to fare reasonably there, ultimately lowering choice for buyers.
Oh...you should watch all the gardening allotment videos on YouTube, then! Growing your own veggies seems to be a trend in the UK.
-
already I leave exclusivity, I was forced to do so, because my income was decreasing gradually like it never stopped, despite I raise my portfolio to 3 times... we loose, them loose, look at istock alexa visitors graph, constantly and dramatically decreasing...
I don't understand what is happening to istock, really don't....
Getty had a dreadful reputation with photographers for a while before they bought iStock.
But also, as the competition were not raising prices from rock bottom, they were on a sticky wicket.
It's like supermarket competition in the UK: the price wars have meant that what were the better supermarkets are stocking fewer lines to sell cheaper to bump up profitability, and the quality of what they sell is often decreasing to hold price points. For the buyer, it's means it's far more difficult to source things physically, so more and more things which we could easily buy in localish shops until recently can now only be found online, adding postage and packing costs and the bother of delivery.
Similarly, with new files at iStock only getting subs sales, if that, it's not viable or sustainable to supply low-demand, low supply files which used to fare reasonably there, ultimately lowering choice for buyers.
Oh...you should watch all the gardening allotment videos on YouTube, then! Growing your own veggies seems to be a trend in the UK.
It is, but I'm establishing a wildlife garden. 8)
I wasn't thinking particularly of veg. Recently it was quite a palaver to find French mustard, formerly an absolute basic in any small shop.
-
There is some serious revisionist history going on here - iStock's troubles did not come about because of price competition from Shutterstock, IMO
Shutterstock has been around since 2004 and has done nothing but increase its prices over time.
iStock was doing fine raising prices and introducing the Vetta collection (which I was initially very skeptical about) at first. Whether you agreed with every decision the editors made or not, you could see that the more expensive images were not the same as the cheaper ones.
Getty and their two private equity owners started down the road to the current mess when they jacked the prices up significantly, introduced the Agency collection and poured a bunch of old Getty stuff onto iStock - suposedly as "exclusive" even though it wasn't - charging even more (most went in as Agency). Anyone remember the flash picture of the bathroom door? The underexposed fruit slices with black bars down the side and so on?
You can't charge premium prices for content without the buyers understanding the difference between the price tiers. Looking at any search results, any buyer would be hard pressed to figure out why things are priced the way they are.
The reason? The private equity owners wanted out but couldn't given the state of the company and financial markets and so larded Getty with debt to pay themselves a "dividend" of over half a billion dollars.
The business was not able to soak both buyers and contributors to pay these leeches without suffering loss of designers, contributors and bucketloads of goodwill.
Getty/iStock have done this to themselves and Shutterstock has eagerly courted Getty's corporate customers, happily taking advantage of every eff up.
Getty then convinced themselves that the problem was price, and lurched into badly priced subscriptions and even worse one price for all on credit sales - driving away any small design firms they hadn't already lost.
If the problem was price competition, iStock would never have been the leader up until 2010/11 as the other sites were always cheaper. The big slide in iStock has only come since then when its primary competitor, Shutterstock, has only increased prices, not cut them.
-
What affect me most, is when they got rid of the canister level and use the year credit level system. With their price raise and all changes, I sold less, and then got less even if I was diamond. And now it's just got worst and worst. But thank that it goes very well on shutterstock, and I think the stability of SS help a lot to succeed with buyers and contributors.
-
What affect me most, is when they got rid of the canister level and use the year credit level system. With their price raise and all changes, I sold less, and then got less even if I was diamond. And now it's just got worst and worst. But thank that it goes very well on shutterstock, and I think the stability of SS help a lot to succeed with buyers and contributors.
I agree with you and JoAnn. The cannister changes were when they start losing the goodwill of the contributors, and Getty never thought about that lots of the contributors were buyers too so the angry sellers took their business to other sites and stopped buying at Istock. Everything was downhill after that. Lots of people say this and I believe its true.
-
There is some serious revisionist history going on here - iStock's troubles did not come about because of price competition from Shutterstock, IMO
Shutterstock has been around since 2004 and has done nothing but increase its prices over time.
iStock was doing fine raising prices and introducing the Vetta collection (which I was initially very skeptical about) at first. Whether you agreed with every decision the editors made or not, you could see that the more expensive images were not the same as the cheaper ones.
Getty and their two private equity owners started down the road to the current mess when they jacked the prices up significantly, introduced the Agency collection and poured a bunch of old Getty stuff onto iStock - suposedly as "exclusive" even though it wasn't - charging even more (most went in as Agency). Anyone remember the flash picture of the bathroom door? The underexposed fruit slices with black bars down the side and so on?
You can't charge premium prices for content without the buyers understanding the difference between the price tiers. Looking at any search results, any buyer would be hard pressed to figure out why things are priced the way they are.
The reason? The private equity owners wanted out but couldn't given the state of the company and financial markets and so larded Getty with debt to pay themselves a "dividend" of over half a billion dollars.
The business was not able to soak both buyers and contributors to pay these leeches without suffering loss of designers, contributors and bucketloads of goodwill.
Getty/iStock have done this to themselves and Shutterstock has eagerly courted Getty's corporate customers, happily taking advantage of every eff up.
Getty then convinced themselves that the problem was price, and lurched into badly priced subscriptions and even worse one price for all on credit sales - driving away any small design firms they hadn't already lost.
If the problem was price competition, iStock would never have been the leader up until 2010/11 as the other sites were always cheaper. The big slide in iStock has only come since then when its primary competitor, Shutterstock, has only increased prices, not cut them.
* Snover! you know your stuff. thanks for filling in the blanks on my post:)
question:
what do you think of the current state of IS/getty and future prospects. it appears the futzing has stabilized for the moment. (did i really say that?) :o
-
...what do you think of the current state of IS/getty and future prospects. it appears the futzing has stabilized for the moment. (did i really say that?) :o
I think that they have one big problem they haven't figured out. 3 credits versus 1 credit for essentially the same content -search for orange slice, woman gym, new home and you can't see any reason that one image is three times the price of another.
And they still have the should-have-been-rejected content that came from off site and flooded the collection with rubbish - two examples (no surprise they haven't sold since 2013):
http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/close-up-of-orange-slice-25406435 (http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/close-up-of-orange-slice-25406435)
http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/juicy-green-apple-25406521 (http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/juicy-green-apple-25406521)
There are smaller problems - the site regularly not working well and some really odd choices with the "new" interface versus the "classic"; inspection standards that I hear let just about anything in (when they used to have some of the most exacting standards, at least for technical excellence); no inexpensive sizes for blog or web use any more.
Why would you shop at iStock if you were a buyer? You have so many other choices that are a whole lot easier to deal with.
-
in my opinion, microstock sites doesnt good way for making good money anymore, especially iStock,
Although I upload more and more new images, I saw my income dropped from day by day,
I waited two years to recover and I continued to upload new images, but nothing changed,
so, why should I produce new images by spending my precious time?
Instead of, I deal with another business to make more money.
-
Why would you shop at iStock if you were a buyer? You have so many other choices that are a whole lot easier to deal with.
I think most of buyers already chosen other agencies, all situations show it so.
-
I think that they have one big problem they haven't figured out. 3 credits versus 1 credit for essentially the same content -search for orange slice, woman gym, new home and you can't see any reason that one image is three times the price of another.
That is totally true. Makes no sense whatsoever.
-
I think that they have one big problem they haven't figured out. 3 credits versus 1 credit for essentially the same content -search for orange slice, woman gym, new home and you can't see any reason that one image is three times the price of another.
That is totally true. Makes no sense whatsoever.
Buyers are still willing to pay for exclusive content, don't shoot generic shots and they'll have to if they want them. That argument seems to be more problematic for SS now that Adobe and iStock are cheaper for nonexclusive content and that's the exact same content not just kinda similar content.
-
I am sharing your pain. If we don't take control of our sales, agencies, be it iStock or SS, will not hesitate to devalue our work as long as they have unlimited supply of images.
Exclusive contents is only valuable when an agency is selling them as such. My sales are so bad these days that I don't even look at the numbers anymore.
I am not going to leave IS for SS either. However, I am not uploading any unique images to IS anymore.
-
My experience is:
1. Nothing uploaded in the past ages is selling as credit sales. My old scans from before I was a contributor are far more likely to sell than anything from the past 2+ years.
1b. The New search isn't new as such.
2. Newish uploads can sell as subs. I have no way of knowing if subs buyers see a different best match than credit buyers.
2b. So no matter if my subject matter is unique on the Top 4, if uploaded in the past two - three years, I get 75c for it.
2c. So apart from stupidly going out and shooting an editorial series when they told us editorial was going to be mirrored to Getty :-[, I'm not making any effort to shoot things for iStock.
3. In any case, you can have something unique, which sells, then an indie comes along, undercuts you, and a buyer can filter out your images with one tick in a box.
And now buyers can be even more confused, as new indies (viz ex-exclusive) sometimes still have their old files listed as Exclusive, even when they're not. (How can that be legal?)
-
The whole point is, I have figured out that I cannot control what others do. All I can do is to do what I can control.
Trying to work like a slave for iStock, or Alamy or SS, will work for a while only.
-
I do not enter the istock site for a few days because I'm afraid to see my terrify falling downloads... thats scary but thats true guys...
-
There is some serious revisionist history going on here - iStock's troubles did not come about because of price competition from Shutterstock, IMO
Shutterstock has been around since 2004 and has done nothing but increase its prices over time.
iStock was doing fine raising prices and introducing the Vetta collection (which I was initially very skeptical about) at first. Whether you agreed with every decision the editors made or not, you could see that the more expensive images were not the same as the cheaper ones.
Getty and their two private equity owners started down the road to the current mess when they jacked the prices up significantly, introduced the Agency collection and poured a bunch of old Getty stuff onto iStock - suposedly as "exclusive" even though it wasn't - charging even more (most went in as Agency). Anyone remember the flash picture of the bathroom door? The underexposed fruit slices with black bars down the side and so on?
You can't charge premium prices for content without the buyers understanding the difference between the price tiers. Looking at any search results, any buyer would be hard pressed to figure out why things are priced the way they are.
The reason? The private equity owners wanted out but couldn't given the state of the company and financial markets and so larded Getty with debt to pay themselves a "dividend" of over half a billion dollars.
The business was not able to soak both buyers and contributors to pay these leeches without suffering loss of designers, contributors and bucketloads of goodwill.
Getty/iStock have done this to themselves and Shutterstock has eagerly courted Getty's corporate customers, happily taking advantage of every eff up.
Getty then convinced themselves that the problem was price, and lurched into badly priced subscriptions and even worse one price for all on credit sales - driving away any small design firms they hadn't already lost.
If the problem was price competition, iStock would never have been the leader up until 2010/11 as the other sites were always cheaper. The big slide in iStock has only come since then when its primary competitor, Shutterstock, has only increased prices, not cut them.
Excellent summary. I think the only point you've missed is the role of Bruce Livingstone in all this. You remember when iStock introduced country based pricing that charged more for users in UK and Europe? It was protested, taken back and Bruce apologized. And if I remember correctly, it was about a year after Bruce left that the Agency collection was introduced, the RC levels were introduced.
To me the whole thing was the change from someone with an entrepreneurial mindset at the top towards people with calculators and spreadsheets leading the company that was the main cause for all that has developed from then on.
-
The new interface simply doesn't work at all, it messes up searches, it hides search options, it irritates customers that leave fast. Hard to understand how after months of moths of this problem, they haven't come back to the old one.
-
I'd give up now, :'(
I will not any new upload to istock, coz that is completely waste of time,
coz, new uploads does not bring any significant revenue from istock (I've been trying since 2 years)
coz, the more you upload, the more you earn with another microstock sites systems are better than istock's new more upload, less earn system.
-
The new interface simply doesn't work at all, it messes up searches, it hides search options, it irritates customers that leave fast. Hard to understand how after months of moths of this problem, they haven't come back to the old one.
Because somehow they've been indoctrinated to believe that the new interface is somehow better, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
Like somehow someone persuaded them to outsource writing titles in English to people whose first language isn't English. What a farce >:(
There's someone really gullable and aggressive at the top and no-one dares tell them when they're wrong. The same attitude has virtually silenced any meaningful discussion with contributors.
-
...To me the whole thing was the change from someone with an entrepreneurial mindset at the top towards people with calculators and spreadsheets leading the company that was the main cause for all that has developed from then on.
Nail on the head. Once the guy with vision is replaced by bean counters companies tend to go into a downward spiral.
-
Only a relative detail but somethig else which doesn't help is that anything a tad unusual, technical or sometimes even creative then often lacks the vocabulary to even keyword it properly....
There needs to be a quick route to get new words added....
-
...To me the whole thing was the change from someone with an entrepreneurial mindset at the top towards people with calculators and spreadsheets leading the company that was the main cause for all that has developed from then on.
Nail on the head. Once the guy with vision is replaced by bean counters companies tend to go into a downward spiral.
All my best years were 2006 and later.
-
The whole point is, I have figured out that I cannot control what others do. All I can do is to do what I can control.
Trying to work like a slave for iStock, or Alamy or SS, will work for a while only.
That about sums it up I reckon. We can surmise what we like about any of them, and we can make a pretty good guess at what has been done and why, but at the end of the day, they don't generally listen to us, and our choice is limited to "in" or "out"
None of them ever promised any particular amount of income for anyone AFAIK.
I'm not defending incidentally, but it's a fact.
-
Only a relative detail but somethig else which doesn't help is that anything a tad unusual, technical or sometimes even creative then often lacks the vocabulary to even keyword it properly....
There needs to be a quick route to get new words added....
Even unusual place names suffer the same fate and I hate that I have to hyphenate double barrel names that are common in Australia, like Gin Gin, Wagga Wagga and hundreds more, in the titles and of course are not in the CV at all.
-
I think there's a curse on iStock, coming from the somewhere deep inside...
-
I think there's a curse on iStock, going from the somewhere deep inside...
It's incompetent management, with maybe a touch of malice.
-
There are 3 main issues, not just with respect to iStock but also relating to all microstock sales - where microstock largely replaced previous RF stock:
1. Over-supply: In 2001 only a few people had DSLRs or knew Photoshop. Today all of that is ubiquitous to the point of no longer even being interesting any longer -> and becomes increasingly irrelevant vs iPhones and great apps. DSLRs are what the grandparents are probably using to make pictures today.
2. Declining market vs a peak in the 2007-2010 era. The market peak came in the era following ubiquitous broadband but before the full impact of the financial crash filtered through. About the time that Facebook was opened up for anyone to join. A down obviously always lags some years behind the crash. The sorts of client businesses which once fuelled a peak in microstock sales often simply no longer exist.
3. Competition from free/shared content. This is particularly relevant with respect to the huge number of companies, NGOs, local govt bodies and small businesses which once believed or were convinced that they needed a website. They don't today because a Facebook page reaches their customers better. A plumber or local shop doesn't need a website which is much more than a business card. For interacting with customers they can use Facebook. And the knock-on is that the customers ("friends") share content. Companies and small businesses looking for fresh content can today often achieve that simply by sharing what their "friends" post.
The companies selling stock will do okay provided that they can keep their costs low. I would be worried for any companies which have stockholders with expectations of growth or which are servicing significant debt. Unless those companies can find completely new things to do. Meanwhile the images which a significant number of the existing customers actually use are trending ever closer towards being free at the point of use.
Company valuations and expectations of future profits which seemed to make sense even a few years ago now seem hopelessly daft.
-
...what do you think of the current state of IS/getty and future prospects. it appears the futzing has stabilized for the moment. (did i really say that?) :o
I think that they have one big problem they haven't figured out. 3 credits versus 1 credit for essentially the same content -search for orange slice, woman gym, new home and you can't see any reason that one image is three times the price of another.
And they still have the should-have-been-rejected content that came from off site and flooded the collection with rubbish - two examples (no surprise they haven't sold since 2013):
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/close-up-of-orange-slice-25406435[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/close-up-of-orange-slice-25406435[/url])
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/juicy-green-apple-25406521[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/juicy-green-apple-25406521[/url])
There are smaller problems - the site regularly not working well and some really odd choices with the "new" interface versus the "classic"; inspection standards that I hear let just about anything in (when they used to have some of the most exacting standards, at least for technical excellence); no inexpensive sizes for blog or web use any more.
Why would you shop at iStock if you were a buyer? You have so many other choices that are a whole lot easier to deal with.
All the points mentioned about the mistakes iStock has made over the years thus, leading us to this low point are all spot on. But the mention above of the "3 credits versus 1 credit for essentially the same content" is really the key to why the bloodletting still continues and never stops.
Basically iStock decided if content is exclusive to their site then it gives them the right to charge buyers more for it. But what they don't understand is that most buyers who are looking for micro/mid stock priced content don't see the value in paying triple the price simply because an image is offered for rent on only one site.
Then you have to ask yourself, "Why is iStock really charging more for exclusive content, is it actually better or more valuable?" The answer is no of course on the issue of better and very debatable on the matter or more valuable.
So when the photo buyer doesn't want to pay 3 credits for an image they don't usually bite the bullet and pay the higher price anyway just because they can't buy the exact same image elsewhere. No, they find another solution.
First the buyer might try and find what he/she is looking for in the 1 credit category on iStock, and, if they can't, then they simply move onto lower cost pastures to get their content elsewhere, and then usually they never come back.
But what actually drives all this as always is the fact that iStock is simply looking for a way to make more money from their images by splitting them into multiple price categories.
Though if you want to charge buyers more for certain images then the images really need to be more valuable. And since they are not, what iStock should be doing instead (to achieve their goal of making more money out of certain content) is not penalize the buyers, as their current 3 credits versus 1 credit structure does, but penalize the non-exclusives instead by raising prices on non-exclusive content (content where iStock keeps a bigger piece of the pie) and up all non-exclusive content to the same price as exclusive content.
Then this current problem of wrongly penalizing the buyers is easily solved by splitting the present pricing down the middle and making all content only 2 credits. This would completely simplify their pricing and no longer raise questions from buyers about why some pictures are 3 credits and others are 1 credit for virtually the same quality picture.
Do that to the pricing, and maybe Getty has a chance of selling more total pictures again than before and saving iStock. Well, maybe not saving iStock, but perhaps stopping the bloodletting from continuing until the dead horse starts rotting even more.
-
Non exclusive photos are a commodity that can be found elsewhere for the price of 1 credit or less, and most customers know that. I wouldn't make sense to put it at 2 credits. Exclusive content can't be found outside the Getty group, so it'ts natural giving it a higher price.
-
I agree with iFlop, the price difference between non-exclusive and exclusive photos doesn't make any sense to me. If people are buying images from micro stock sites, they're really are not worried about if an image is exclusive to one site or not. I've worked at several companies that buy a lot of stock images and the price difference between non-exclusive and exclusive for roughly the same quality of images causes a lot of confusion.
-
... so it'ts natural giving it a higher price.
Only if there are no essentially identical images available elsewhere.
Lots of the exclusive content on iStock (from real iStock exclusive contributors) is just generic stock with lots of readily available substitutes.
There is some stunning imagery that really is different and that would command a higher price, but lots of fruits, veggies and handshakes that are technically exclusive but easily purchased anywhere.
-
In many cases, even almost identical (or copycated) images don't serve the same purpose in the same way. Besides being a photographer I'm a buyer, and it's when you are buying and choosing when you realize that.
-
All IS exclusives should stop being IS exclusives. They will make more money and protect themselves against market fluctuations, after spreading their eggs in multiple baskets.
Hopefully, this will drive the IS customers towards agencies that pay better their contributors (= all the other major agencies).
And this will be good for everybody.
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
-
All IS exclusives should stop being IS exclusives. They will make more money
Not always true
and protect themselves against market fluctuations, after spreading their eggs in multiple baskets.
Hopefully, this will drive the IS customers towards agencies that pay better their contributors (= all the other major agencies).
Which micros pay their contributors better than iS pays their exclusives?
-
All IS exclusives should stop being IS exclusives. They will make more money and protect themselves against market fluctuations, after spreading their eggs in multiple baskets.
Hopefully, this will drive the IS customers towards agencies that pay better their contributors (= all the other major agencies).
And this will be good for everybody.
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
I think so exactly... because there is no other logical thing to do...
-
and protect themselves against market fluctuations, after spreading their eggs in multiple baskets.
Hopefully, this will drive the IS customers towards agencies that pay better their contributors (= all the other major agencies).
Which micros pay their contributors better than iS pays their exclusives?
as I've been trying since 2 years, new uploads does not bring any significant revenue from istock, I dont any new upload to istock, because that is completely waste of time, but the other microstock sites give us the more you upload, the more you earn, this system better than istock's more upload, less earn system.
-
and protect themselves against market fluctuations, after spreading their eggs in multiple baskets.
Hopefully, this will drive the IS customers towards agencies that pay better their contributors (= all the other major agencies).
Which micros pay their contributors better than iS pays their exclusives?
When it comes to RPD, none of the micros do. Then again, iS exclusivity wasn't about "micro only" since 2009, and they keep pushing that fact by encouraging contributors to do more than "just" the micro stuff. Comparing to premium sites, I get paid better in RPD than I ever did as an IS exclusive, plus I am much more successful to get my content in there than I ever was with Vetta/Agency. When you compare actual RPD (that is, figuring in all the subscription sales that are easily forgotten these days), I believe for IS exclusives it has dropped to something in the range of $3-4. Correct me if your numbers are different.
When it comes to RPI, I am not sure either. I happen to hear the numbers of several iS exclusives every now and then. They are probably still ahead of the overall market. But not by much. And until now I have seen no indication of the trends changing.
But yes, it definitely doesn't make sense for all IS exclusives to go non-exclusive. For many of them, it wouldn't pay off to distribute all of their images through all the micro channels.
-
Michael, spreading into macros is clearly a good way to go. Though IMO profitability is far more important than mere return per download or per image, and generally (with exceptions) expenses for taking Macro images would be more.
However, this is a micro group, and ZeroTalent said nothing to imply that he was talking about macros in his suggestion, and that is all I was replying to.
All I'm saying is that s/he made a sweeping statement, which is not universally applicable.
iS is on the way down, down, deeper 'n' down with no safety net. But Zero's suggestion of how to cope with this is not the only answer. (Flipping burgers, literally, might be a better moneyearner for some.) Also, s/he has forgotten to factor in that if everyone spread their ports, income at the other agencies would be spread thinner, given that rpd on the other micros often isn't high to start with. It's not like iS has all that many buyers to spread around.
Everyone has to make their own decisions about where they will put their work based on how acceptable they find the terms and conditions (and contracts allow 'them' to change on a whim). Years of reading msg don't make me think any other micro would be acceptable (to me). If I was starting now, I wouldn't. ::)
(I just calculated and FWIW my iS rpd is down to $2.96 this year to the end of July, but falling rapidly because of subs. I'd expect a lot of exclusives to get getting more than that because of their higher percentage rate and because I have very few images on Getty. I read here that at least some exclusives do well from Getty - a fair proportion of my Getty sales are lower value than my regular iS sales. Also I'm not in the PP, so some exclusives who are in the PP may have a lower rpd still, but a higher overall income.)
-
In my case, RPD, including subs and Getty, is a little more than 5, being at 40% (just for regular IS downloads, of course)
-
... so it'ts natural giving it a higher price.
Only if there are no essentially identical images available elsewhere.
Lots of the exclusive content on iStock (from real iStock exclusive contributors) is just generic stock with lots of readily available substitutes.
There is some stunning imagery that really is different and that would command a higher price, but lots of fruits, veggies and handshakes that are technically exclusive but easily purchased anywhere.
Yes Yes Yes... only high quality contributors are making good amount of money. If a contributor shot self isolated expressives portraits or generic stock, the sales willl continue decreasing...
Today with generic content exclusivity has no sense... because of this only sites with high quality-different content like offset, stocksy, westend61 or fotolia infinite are succes
-
Isn´t part of the problem that direction and vision are missing? Klein is no longer CEO, but who will replace him?
Until they have a new boss, many decisions will be delayed and when a new person comes in, there are usually a few months until he or her with their team are settled in. Scott Braut was snapped up by Adobe and he was the most visible talent on the market, who else is there that has his level of experience?
Exclusive images would be an easy solution, they would get more good quality content if the money is there and the generic stuff no longer clogs up the system.
But September is coming...let´s see what new and exciting changes and announcements they have for us.
-
But September is coming...let´s see what new and exciting changes and announcements they have for us.
Oh, I wish you hadn't reminded us. ??? :o :( >:( ::)
-
With credits it is smoke and mirrors buyers wise up really quick on that and when you could get an image for a couple of bucks with out having to have a subscription buyers bought as needed. Now subs replaced that but iStock was already late to that market. Yes subs is a good deal on istock but they left their edge when they just went for that market. I made more with old credit pricing and % then I do with subs! Next they dropped Vetta, instead of making it a better value they just dropped it which was a mistake! For video it is a whole mess for non-exclusive's, I am happy with the pricing as an exclusive but it is obvious that buyers have left in large numbers for video! I have been with iStock since 2006 and have around 8,000 video clips in my gallery. I have uploaded better and more content then last year but am earning a lot less this year! I just want to scream when admin says you don't know the market, well obviously you don't either! Now lets talk about the new search and ADP it is slow and buggy we have been in a testing phase for months and it is obvious! buyers don't know what they will find from one day to the next! that sure breeds a lot of confidence! Now people say if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem. First stop testing everything and don't roll out more changes until you have settled on a design. I don't care if I like it or not at this point I just want something that works! Getty has a fine design on their search page so just copy that if you are confused. I did not see Getty go through all this testing. Next make a way for buyers to purchase images like that use too for a couple of bucks for a small image, bloggers don't need 21meg. images! and many business don't either! Now pay non-exclusives 25% and Exclusives 35% to 45% and drop RC's!! If exclusives are favored right in search then we won't mind non-exclusives earning more! Now you can reduce the gap between the two at 2 to 1 which makes more sense. Next be sure to include descriptions when searching for images, why not give the buyer more info on purchasing? For video do the same percentage and artist will return. Be more picky if needed buy don't drive artist away! I love iStock and I love what I do! Let's fix this now!
-
jjneff, I´ll vote for you! :)
Just make it 30% for video, that should be the lowest anywhere.
-
Yes, yes, yes! jjneff and cobalt 👍
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Isn´t part of the problem that direction and vision are missing? Klein is no longer CEO, but who will replace him?
Until they have a new boss, many decisions will be delayed and when a new person comes in, there are usually a few months until he or her with their team are settled in. Scott Braut was snapped up by Adobe and he was the most visible talent on the market, who else is there that has his level of experience?
Exclusive images would be an easy solution, they would get more good quality content if the money is there and the generic stuff no longer clogs up the system.
But September is coming...let´s see what new and exciting changes and announcements they have for us.
any changes made recently are not very useful for the contributors, at the same time not good for themselves too...
only beneficiaries are the big agencies who buy our images almost free...
I do not think it would be something different changes...
-
I'll confess I'm a former exclusive turned indi that's why I'm new at SS.
IS can make new forums that are just moving the same bad attitude and arrogance to a different web site. The new interface is still broken and features are either gone or don't work. Last question to Scout was Feb. and I got a answer in July that didn't answer the question. IS is out of touch. They make new policy without thinking what it will do.
The loss of canister was the end for me. Another IS idea to screw us for more profit.
Buyers are finding the same poor site and arrogant attitude which drives them away. Everything isn't about price. Service or finding what you need and dealing with respectible salespeople counts too.
If you think it was bad in 2014 just watch 2016 with Adobe growing up and SS expanding.
-
I was too a former Exclusive. I left because of the RC credit system. I wont go back to Exclusive even if they remove the credit system.
-
Forgive me, but, It does not seem normal to me to fall my earnings several times in a short time,
that makes me think deeper, we have nothing to make any changes by ourselves, except increasing our folio or trying other selling sites, we only take what they give it to us,
before I was making almost $5 per image downloads in istock but for now only 0,25 cents, why would I want to earn less?
The worst part of the job is "we have nothing to make any improvements at this situation" as a contributor....
that makes me think deeper and deeper...
-
__________________________________
-
...what do you think of the current state of IS/getty and future prospects. it appears the futzing has stabilized for the moment. (did i really say that?) :o
I think that they have one big problem they haven't figured out. 3 credits versus 1 credit for essentially the same content -search for orange slice, woman gym, new home and you can't see any reason that one image is three times the price of another.
And they still have the should-have-been-rejected content that came from off site and flooded the collection with rubbish - two examples (no surprise they haven't sold since 2013):
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/close-up-of-orange-slice-25406435[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/close-up-of-orange-slice-25406435[/url])
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/juicy-green-apple-25406521[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/juicy-green-apple-25406521[/url])
There are smaller problems - the site regularly not working well and some really odd choices with the "new" interface versus the "classic"; inspection standards that I hear let just about anything in (when they used to have some of the most exacting standards, at least for technical excellence); no inexpensive sizes for blog or web use any more.
Why would you shop at iStock if you were a buyer? You have so many other choices that are a whole lot easier to deal with.
You think that's bad, have you seen what's happening with illustration search results? Type in certain key words and you get results like these:-
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/19999283/iStock-spam.jpg (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/19999283/iStock-spam.jpg)
Page after page dominated by a growing minority of contributors. You can have 2 to 3 pages, 100 per page, taken up almost entirely by one contributor. The same simple symbol uploaded several times with very minor changes, or the same set of icons rearranged into different shapes, or ten minute doodles. None of these would have been accepted a few years back. And to add insult to injury keyword spamming means half these images shouldn't even turn up in the searches.
Why is iStock allowing this to happen? Is this part of some clever master plan to bring in more buyers? When a buyer is presented with such results are they going to think "wow, iStock have really upped their game", or are they more likely to think "what the f.... is going on here?" and then leave to search another site?
This type of spamming seems to have exploded since a few months ago and what's worrying is that it's not just newbies but veterans who used to be identified as inspectors and admins on their profile so I'm wondering if iStock is actually encouraging this for whatever reason.
It's pointless spending extra time creating anything decent if it's going to end up buried under all this stuff in best match.
When, a little over five years ago, I first thought of joining stock image sites I spent a lot of time researching and reading reviews and forum posts. Back then iStock was by far the most respected site, held in the highest esteem with the most stringent acceptance standards and quality control. It was with great pride when I was accepted and would boast to my artist peers who were always impressed, some having tried and failed several times to get accepted. Now I never mention iStock by name, it's more of an embarrassment, increasingly being referred to as laughingstock.
-
...what do you think of the current state of IS/getty and future prospects. it appears the futzing has stabilized for the moment. (did i really say that?) :o
I think that they have one big problem they haven't figured out. 3 credits versus 1 credit for essentially the same content -search for orange slice, woman gym, new home and you can't see any reason that one image is three times the price of another.
And they still have the should-have-been-rejected content that came from off site and flooded the collection with rubbish - two examples (no surprise they haven't sold since 2013):
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/close-up-of-orange-slice-25406435[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/close-up-of-orange-slice-25406435[/url])
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/juicy-green-apple-25406521[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/juicy-green-apple-25406521[/url])
There are smaller problems - the site regularly not working well and some really odd choices with the "new" interface versus the "classic"; inspection standards that I hear let just about anything in (when they used to have some of the most exacting standards, at least for technical excellence); no inexpensive sizes for blog or web use any more.
Why would you shop at iStock if you were a buyer? You have so many other choices that are a whole lot easier to deal with.
You think that's bad, have you seen what's happening with illustration search results? Type in certain key words and you get results like these:-
[url]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/19999283/iStock-spam.jpg[/url] ([url]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/19999283/iStock-spam.jpg[/url])
Page after page dominated by a growing minority of contributors. You can have 2 to 3 pages, 100 per page, taken up almost entirely by one contributor. The same simple symbol uploaded several times with very minor changes, or the same set of icons rearranged into different shapes, or ten minute doodles. None of these would have been accepted a few years back. And to add insult to injury keyword spamming means half these images shouldn't even turn up in the searches.
Why is iStock allowing this to happen? Is this part of some clever master plan to bring in more buyers? When a buyer is presented with such results are they going to think "wow, iStock have really upped their game", or are they more likely to think "what the f.... is going on here?" and then leave to search another site?
This type of spamming seems to have exploded since a few months ago and what's worrying is that it's not just newbies but veterans who used to be identified as inspectors and admins on their profile so I'm wondering if iStock is actually encouraging this for whatever reason.
It's pointless spending extra time creating anything decent if it's going to end up buried under all this stuff in best match.
When, a little over five years ago, I first thought of joining stock image sites I spent a lot of time researching and reading reviews and forum posts. Back then iStock was by far the most respected site, held in the highest esteem with the most stringent acceptance standards and quality control. It was with great pride when I was accepted and would boast to my artist peers who were always impressed, some having tried and failed several times to get accepted. Now I never mention iStock by name, it's more of an embarrassment, increasingly being referred to as laughingstock.
Oh wow, that's some horrible search. No wonder sales are down the drain.
I too notice lots of new contributors (signed up this July) with bucketloads of simple icons (created in 5 minutes) that indeed would never have been accepted 5 years ago. Worse thing is, these newbies are getting sales. It's feeding the beast all over again, quantity over quality. Or I must be doing something horribly wrong.
-
The sales you see there could well be subs sales, but the problems are as stated. Who knows what their Evil Plan is? They might not even know themselves yet: they don't have a history of mid-term planning .
-
Oh wow, that's some horrible search. No wonder sales are down the drain.
I too notice lots of new contributors (signed up this July) with bucketloads of simple icons (created in 5 minutes) that indeed would never have been accepted 5 years ago. Worse thing is, these newbies are getting sales. It's feeding the beast all over again, quantity over quality. Or I must be doing something horribly wrong.
They're certainly not getting sales, at least not on these kind of designs.
I left the file details out to spare the contributors' blushes but if I had left them in all you would have seen is a whole load of zero downloads.
-
Some day with zero download. Maybe sub or PP. If AT LEAST, at least they were reported in real time ... we could more easily track our daily sales instead of a month later. that is very ridiculous from a big site as istock. Also those sales are not counting in the redeem credit level system , that is completely a way to give them more % on sales and contributor got almost nothing now. Things can't get better on istock, it's still going worst and worst month by month... sadly.
-
sadly, my revenue so down at this times on istock so now I can not earn within 20 days, once I earned in 2 days :o
-
TS was the start, removing canister replaced by RC was the final insult. Consolidation, merge, cut cost. They don't care about anything but profit. iStock is losing money. Will a division be harder to sell by Getty or easier? If they merge all of iStock to the Getty servers, that's the end. It will get worse.
-
They wasted a lot of development time and money on site changes which are either stupid (removing descriptions) or don't work properly/consistently.
The similars is still very dubious, and in case anyone hasn't noticed, they're now putting other people's alleged similars under any they manage to find of your own.
I checked one random file of mine, a particular bird species. They didn't manage to find any of my alternatives from different seasons, (uploaded at different times, obviously), but managed to fine one other from another contributor.
Clicked on that file, and there are a lot of totally random birds linked as similars there, plus some mammals (by various contributors). I checked the keywords and apart from very generic similar words like 'nature' and 'living organism', I can't see why the system thought they were 'similar'.
And my file isn't reciprocated there.
They tried before, a couple of years ago, and it didn't work then.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
-
I am waiting more bad news after all this neutral happenings, e.g. maybe istock completely will remove the exclusivity like SS or will merge the istock with getty, I can not think of something positive after all bad developments, history repeats itself...
-
It is just business. ;) Take it easy. I was angry 5 years ago when it started. Now I am relaxed. 8)
-
iWho
-
I guess I should admit this. Istock crashed because I badly overused their referal program by placing referral links all over my lightbox banners, profile, flickr, and pretty much anywhere a human could click accidentally or not.
Those were the good ol' days.
Its my fault everyone :-\
-
I worked out why the similars aren't very similar, or not similar at all.
I keyword specific to general.
However, by the time the file is indexed, and with no recorded views, the order has changed, as it has for years now.
BUT in the new view (different from the classic view) the keywords are really messed up, so that the generic words have gone to the top and the specific words are at the bottom. So, for example, the generic 'nature' goes to the top, and is lumped with other files with that keywords. Many files with 'nature' keyworded must be what city dwellers count as 'nature', leading to a total mismatch with 'similars'.
This can't help the buyer. If someone has searched on X species, how does it help them to find 'similars' including several files of girls sitting on manicured, 'unnatural' grass?
I only looked within my own areas of activity. Presumably this phenomenon ('general' keywords trumping 'specifics') is across all genres.
Why do they continue to shoot themselves in the foot, year after year, by launching 'new' or 'revived failed' features without thorough testing? H*ck, if I could find this so easily, why couldn't someone on their QA team? (Do they even have a QA team?)
-
They said many months ago that the mixed up order of keywords in the new UI was simply a 'display issue' and that the 'correct' keyword order could be seen by switching to the old UI. Unfortunately that was a long time ago and nothing appears to have been done to solve the problem. One would have thought that if it was just a 'display issue' it would have been a relatively simple thing to resolve.
If the search actually changes to the 'new' keyword order, then that will probably be disastrous for sales as the order shown in the new UI appears to be nonsense.
If, as ShadySue implies, the similars thing is based on the new keyword order then that of course would explain why that function also seems unable to work properly.
Unfortunately all of this is 'par for the course' at istock. Their technology people appear to be incapable of completing tasks without screwing lots of things up, which usually results in a negative impact on sales.
It really is quite extraordinary that they cannot implement a similars display. Nearly all retail web sites do it in some form, yet here we are (again) with istock seemingly incapable of introducing a function that should be quite straightforward. They just don't seem to be prepared to spend money on good technology people (or they are not allowed to because the money has to be given to the venture capitalists).
Edit: well I think I need to stand corrected on this one. I've just looked at my last five sales, and the keyword order shown on both old and new UIs is the same. So it looks like that problem has been solved, at least for those few files. If it's still screwed up for other files, perhaps it is something that will be gradually implemented.
Also, the similars links appear to be reasonable. Not perfect, but not outrageously poor. Some files have a 'same series' display, others don't.
-
I can even understand why they introduced RC, but the problem is the same as with bigstock. They didn't actually make the levels in any way obtainable and the compensation in any case way too low. It's the dishonesty when what they were actually doing was slashing our returns under the pretence of having a new, but still fair system.
-
They said many months ago that the mixed up order of keywords in the new UI was simply a 'display issue' and that the 'correct' keyword order could be seen by switching to the old UI.
But on one hand, they say that the phantom downloads are just a 'display issue'; and at the same time, they say that the phantom issues are sub sales showing in real time (before being reported).
::)
It's probably code for "don't ask awkward questions".
-
Also, the similars links appear to be reasonable. Not perfect, but not outrageously poor. Some files have a 'same series' display, others don't.
Yep similars look pretty good to me, even new files with no dls or views have mostly relevant similars.
-
Also, the similars links appear to be reasonable. Not perfect, but not outrageously poor. Some files have a 'same series' display, others don't.
Yep similars look pretty good to me, even new files with no dls or views have mostly relevant similars.
Really?
Well, totally at random, I chose a mainstream search in which I have no vested interest: girl, pony.
I was already in a search by new, so lots of the hits were pretty irrelevant (maybe people are tagging a pony tail as a pony (horse), and it's not being picked up on inspection?). So I clicked on one which was the sort of thing I might have been expecting, and every one of the similars was totally irrelevant to my original search.
And as I found on my own files (I checked a lot of my own), the original order of the keywords (found by going in as though to wiki them (NB, that's just how to find the original order) was pony, girl, happy, horse, and the order in the new view is cheerful, child and happiness, all perfectly good keywords for the file, but the alleged similars bear no relationship to my search for girl, pony.(The file has no recorded views or sales.)
NB, I am not in any way criticising the file I picked. I praised it for being relevant to my search.
(http://www.lizworld.com/girl%20pony.jpg)
-
Yep that's how it works. Until you get sales or maybe views the first keywords are given extra relevancy, you have to make sure to put the relevant ones first.
-
Yep that's how it works. Until you get sales or maybe views the first keywords are given extra relevancy, you have to make sure to put the relevant ones first.
My point is that even if you do put the relevant keywords first, iStock changes them on acceptance (particularly in the new view), making the similars dissimilar.
QED.
-
That's not exactly what's happening.
-
That's not exactly what's happening.
What, exactly, is happening?
I've seen this on so many of my own files, as well as some others which have been pointed out to me as having egregious similars, that I have a pretty strong theory.
-
That's not exactly what's happening.
That is exactly what is happening, at least to my files. If it's not happening to your files then good for you but I and many others have complained about this in the iStock forums and we just get stone walled, being told it doesn't happen and everything is rosy in the garden and working as it should.
I got so fed up with this a while back that I raised a support ticket and was told that the popularity of keywords can affect the display order, which is absolutely crazy because you can put your four least relevant keywords last and have them immediately sent to the front because they happen to be popular in the searches, ruining the similars and best match relevancy.
The whole keywording system is so fundamentally flawed it's as if iStock are deliberately trying to lose sales.
-
That's not exactly what's happening.
That is exactly what is happening, at least to my files. If it's not happening to your files then good for you but I and many others have complained about this in the iStock forums and we just get stone walled, being told it doesn't happen and everything is rosy in the garden and working as it should.
I got so fed up with this a while back that I raised a support ticket and was told that the popularity of keywords can affect the display order, which is absolutely crazy because you can put your four least relevant keywords last and have them immediately sent to the front because they happen to be popular in the searches, ruining the similars and best match relevancy.
The whole keywording system is so fundamentally flawed it's as if iStock are deliberately trying to lose sales.
Keywords move up as your file is downloaded, buyers should be determining the relevancy not an algorithm or some editor.
-
That's not exactly what's happening.
That is exactly what is happening, at least to my files. If it's not happening to your files then good for you but I and many others have complained about this in the iStock forums and we just get stone walled, being told it doesn't happen and everything is rosy in the garden and working as it should.
I got so fed up with this a while back that I raised a support ticket and was told that the popularity of keywords can affect the display order, which is absolutely crazy because you can put your four least relevant keywords last and have them immediately sent to the front because they happen to be popular in the searches, ruining the similars and best match relevancy.
The whole keywording system is so fundamentally flawed it's as if iStock are deliberately trying to lose sales.
Keywords move up as your file is downloaded, buyers should be determining the relevancy not an algorithm or some editor.
In my experience what SHOULD be happening and what IS happening at Istock are two very different things.
-
When the keyword relevancy thing was introduced a few years ago it worked fine. It worked fine because it counted both sales and views. Also, back in those days, sales and views had high volume. With that high volume the 'most important or relevant' words made their way quite quickly to the top of the list. It was actually rare to see a problem, and most files had a very accurate relevance order.
In September 2012 when all the big changes to search were made, the 'views' part of the equation was taken away. And more recently (as admitted and accepted by Lobo) the subs sales have not been linked to keyword order. All that's left for relevancy is normal credit sales, which for most people are very small compared to several years ago.
So when the system was first designed it worked swimmingly, because high volume naturally made relevant words float higher. The problem now is that there is no volume.
In addition, the changes made by Searchfairy in September 2012 placed a much higher emphasis on the first few keywords, and a much lower emphasis on the others. Nowadays only the first half dozen or so words are considered to be 'sufficiently relevant' (see keywords forum couple of years ago for this discussion).
-
Duplicate post
-
That's not exactly what's happening.
That is exactly what is happening, at least to my files. If it's not happening to your files then good for you but I and many others have complained about this in the iStock forums and we just get stone walled, being told it doesn't happen and everything is rosy in the garden and working as it should.
I got so fed up with this a while back that I raised a support ticket and was told that the popularity of keywords can affect the display order, which is absolutely crazy because you can put your four least relevant keywords last and have them immediately sent to the front because they happen to be popular in the searches, ruining the similars and best match relevancy.
The whole keywording system is so fundamentally flawed it's as if iStock are deliberately trying to lose sales.
Keywords move up as your file is downloaded, buyers should be determining the relevancy not an algorithm or some editor.
In my experience what SHOULD be happening and what IS happening at Istock are two very different things.
That is how it works. When there is no data (sales or views) you get a boost in your first keywords set by the contributor. Nothing is determined by an editor's subjective thoughts or an algorithm that guesses what the subject is.
-
That's not exactly what's happening.
That is exactly what is happening, at least to my files. If it's not happening to your files then good for you but I and many others have complained about this in the iStock forums and we just get stone walled, being told it doesn't happen and everything is rosy in the garden and working as it should.
I got so fed up with this a while back that I raised a support ticket and was told that the popularity of keywords can affect the display order, which is absolutely crazy because you can put your four least relevant keywords last and have them immediately sent to the front because they happen to be popular in the searches, ruining the similars and best match relevancy.
The whole keywording system is so fundamentally flawed it's as if iStock are deliberately trying to lose sales.
Keywords move up as your file is downloaded, buyers should be determining the relevancy not an algorithm or some editor.
In my experience what SHOULD be happening and what IS happening at Istock are two very different things.
That is how it works. When there is no data (sales or views) you get a boost in your first keywords set by the contributor. Nothing is determined by an editor's subjective thoughts or an algorithm that guesses what the subject is.
Are you sure you don't work for iStock/Getty? I've read conspiracy posts from others who have suggested that, and always mentally belittled the idea. But now I am confronted with posts from you that seem 100% as if they were written by iStock staffers: Totally ignoring both the evidence that is clear to everyone else, as well as posts made by ShadySue, crispy, and hatman12 that clearly state what we all (but you) have seen.
I'm sorry, you can reiterate the company line ad infinitum (whether you are or are not staff is irrelevant), but that will not make the facts of what is actually happening any less true.
-
That's not exactly what's happening.
That is exactly what is happening, at least to my files. If it's not happening to your files then good for you but I and many others have complained about this in the iStock forums and we just get stone walled, being told it doesn't happen and everything is rosy in the garden and working as it should.
I got so fed up with this a while back that I raised a support ticket and was told that the popularity of keywords can affect the display order, which is absolutely crazy because you can put your four least relevant keywords last and have them immediately sent to the front because they happen to be popular in the searches, ruining the similars and best match relevancy.
The whole keywording system is so fundamentally flawed it's as if iStock are deliberately trying to lose sales.
Keywords move up as your file is downloaded, buyers should be determining the relevancy not an algorithm or some editor.
In my experience what SHOULD be happening and what IS happening at Istock are two very different things.
That is how it works. When there is no data (sales or views) you get a boost in your first keywords set by the contributor. Nothing is determined by an editor's subjective thoughts or an algorithm that guesses what the subject is.
Are you sure you don't work for iStock/Getty? I've read conspiracy posts from others who have suggested that, and always mentally belittled the idea. But now I am confronted with posts from you that seem 100% as if they were written by iStock staffers: Totally ignoring both the evidence that is clear to everyone else, as well as posts made by ShadySue, crispy, and hatman12 that clearly state what we all (but you) have seen.
I'm sorry, you can reiterate the company line ad infinitum (whether you are or are not staff is irrelevant), but that will not make the facts of what is actually happening any less true.
If you understand how the keywording works you'll be able to fix most of the issues you're having. Not that the system works perfectly just that there are ways to get around it and make it work reasonably well. While you guys are looking for things to complain about I try to figure out solutions.
-
If you understand how the keywording works you'll be able to fix most of the issues you're having. Not that the system works perfectly just that there are ways to get around it and make it work reasonably well. While you guys are looking for things to complain about I try to figure out solutions.
So - are you just going to keep the solutions to yourself smugly?
At the moment, and for at least a couple of years, probably more, iStock changes the order of your keywords as soon as they hit the database, or before. Nothing to do with views or sales, contrary to the mantra they keep repeating, despite the evidence.
Note that, inexplicably, the keywords are re-ordered differently in the classic view than in the new view, and the reordering is worse in the new view, which seems to trigger the similars. Obviously although I've checked several of my own files, and some from others, it's only a tiny section of the entire collection, and I've only checked newer files. As Hatman said, keywording / best match worked better prior to the unfixable disaster that happened in Sept 2012.
I haven't done it recently, but when I discovered the keywording reordering issue way back, I tried re-ordering my keywords manually, but it made no difference.
The only other way I can see would be to leave out generics such as location (where it's not absoutely crucial, but still relevant - e.g. a buyer might want to see all that's available of European birds or flowers etc. rather than American ones, or vice versa) or e.g. 'nature', 'outdoors' or 'happy' etc etc.
If you've found a way of circumnavigating the issues, you could share it rather than just saying "If you understand how the keywording works you'll be able to fix most of the issues you're having. " It doesn't work they way they say it should, and manually fixing doesn't help.
As you said "Keywords move up as your file is downloaded, buyers should be determining the relevancy not an algorithm or some editor." Indeed, that's what they say should be happening, but as demonstrated above and complained about often by many people, the keywords are being changed with no downloads, and no recorded views, often as soon as they hit the database.
(I know they have said they keep changing the way views are recorded. Interestingly, that girl with pony file, which had 0 views less than 12 hours ago, now has 4.)
If you don't want to share the solution, why even mention it?
It would be better if they fixed it themselves rather than force contributors into a secret workaround, but that would be too much to hope for.
-
I don´t see why I should have to rearrange my keywords. It is the job of software to handle that and they have enough data from views, sub sales etc...to make it work.
-
The fact that it clearly doesn't work properly, the fact that the search has been crippled by the changes made in Sept 2012, and the nonsense of two and three keyword searches throwing up pages of files with zero downloads, are all factors that have contributed to istock's disastrous financial performance since 2012. Customers are fed up and have left. That's the only proof needed.
According to the Moody's financial reports, istock's gross revenue declined 7% in the year Sept 2012 to Oct 2013. It then declined a further 7% in the following year. Then, following the decision to radically change the pricing schedule in September 2014, gross revenue fell a further 17% in the final quarter. Now, in their latest bulletin, Getty has announced that the 'decline has stopped' because revenue 'only fell another 3% in the second quarter of 2015'. Gross revenue started out in the $350 million area in 2012, fell 7%+7%+17+3% or a drop of $120 million or so (annualised).
These are the plain facts. The search is awful, the keyword relevancy is questionable, the web site is plagued with problems, the redesign is cumbersome. The numbers speak for themselves.
Personally I would like them to sort out all the problems, get new management, get a new technology team, and get back on a growth track. But unfortunately they constantly deny that anything is wrong. And while this 'head in the sand' attitude continues, none of the problems discussed here will be resolved, customers will continue to leave, and istock's market share will continue to decline.
-
The culture of denial is something I associate with Getty. Unless it is replaced with a culture of facing reality, they won´t recover. Whoever the new CEO will be, he or she has incredible work to do.
How do you change a companies DNA and corporate culture? Usually these companies get swallowed by a competitor who replaces everything with their own successful team.
How will they pay a high quality CEO? And where will the money for new technology come from?
-
is there anyone know who was the old CEO?
-
The culture of denial is something I associate with Getty. Unless it is replaced with a culture of facing reality, they won´t recover. Whoever the new CEO will be, he or she has incredible work to do.
How do you change a companies DNA and corporate culture? Usually these companies get swallowed by a competitor who replaces everything with their own successful team.
How will they pay a high quality CEO? And where will the money for new technology come from?
More of that denial and a culture of deniability where nobody wants to take responsibility or look forward. Write to support, it takes months to get an evasive answer or nonresponse reply. Write about a problem and they answer, we have no intention of changing this policy. I think more people work in fear of losing their jobs and don't make decisions. Just do what they are told and fill a cubical. No progress, no body cares, a plan for failure.
No new CEO because he would come in with hands tied following the same path of failure. No body smart will take the job.
-
What could be the reason for their insistence on such a failure?
Apparently, they do not want to earn money anymore so they don't want to earn their contributors, too.
So then, what's the purpose? :-\
Strange things happening into istock and getty, folks, deep matters keep going on so that we dont understand.
-
It's definitely still declining, I just checked my stats and they're down around 35% $ compared to 2014.
Shame really, it could mark the end of decent credit sales across the board.
-
It's definitely still declining, I just checked my stats and they're down around 35% $ compared to 2014.
Shame really, it could mark the end of decent credit sales across the board.
me was the same, too, thats fantastic failure, really fantastic, I believe that moments will be recorded in history, this declining trend will newer end to forever. :P
-
They said many months ago that the mixed up order of keywords in the new UI was simply a 'display issue' and that the 'correct' keyword order could be seen by switching to the old UI. Unfortunately that was a long time ago and nothing appears to have been done to solve the problem. One would have thought that if it was just a 'display issue' it would have been a relatively simple thing to resolve.
If the search actually changes to the 'new' keyword order, then that will probably be disastrous for sales as the order shown in the new UI appears to be nonsense.
If, as ShadySue implies, the similars thing is based on the new keyword order then that of course would explain why that function also seems unable to work properly.
Unfortunately all of this is 'par for the course' at istock. Their technology people appear to be incapable of completing tasks without screwing lots of things up, which usually results in a negative impact on sales.
It really is quite extraordinary that they cannot implement a similars display. Nearly all retail web sites do it in some form, yet here we are (again) with istock seemingly incapable of introducing a function that should be quite straightforward. They just don't seem to be prepared to spend money on good technology people (or they are not allowed to because the money has to be given to the venture capitalists).
Edit: well I think I need to stand corrected on this one. I've just looked at my last five sales, and the keyword order shown on both old and new UIs is the same. So it looks like that problem has been solved, at least for those few files. If it's still screwed up for other files, perhaps it is something that will be gradually implemented.
Also, the similars links appear to be reasonable. Not perfect, but not outrageously poor. Some files have a 'same series' display, others don't.
How simple it would of been to just leave the similars links that many of us spent countless hours creating for them on the display page.
-
My fourth month on Istock (June 2010) I made more money than August 2015. It's that bad.
-
everyone has the same issue.
-
In a glorious irony, I got 15% more subs in July than June, but actually earned less for them.
Way to go, iStock. >:(
(That's only my experience. I know others got rising $$ from subs sales.)
Whatever, I hate 'cheap subs', and can't get my head round uploading files to get 75c, followed by a demotion for not selling as a credit sale and earning 34c.
-
In a glorious irony, I got 15% more subs in July than June, but actually earned less for them.
Way to go, iStock. >:(
(That's only my experience. I know others got rising $$ from subs sales.)
Whatever, I hate 'cheap subs', and can't get my head round uploading files to get 75c, followed by a demotion for not selling as a credit sale and earning 34c.
Don't be so sure you earned less for them, maybe they are pocketing heaps from the subs program even if very little makes it to your pockets.
-
As a basical maths setup, a buyers get 100 images from $250 in a month, then buyers give $2,5 per image to istock, so istock earn $2,5 per image selling via subscription, but we get $0,27 per image, it almost equal 10% commision, istock get 90%, we get 10%, look what a big difference and what a big GREED!!!
-
In a glorious irony, I got 15% more subs in July than June, but actually earned less for them.
Way to go, iStock. >:(
(That's only my experience. I know others got rising $$ from subs sales.)
Whatever, I hate 'cheap subs', and can't get my head round uploading files to get 75c, followed by a demotion for not selling as a credit sale and earning 34c.
Don't be so sure you earned less for them, maybe they are pocketing heaps from the subs program even if very little makes it to your pockets.
I think you misunderstood.
I am perfectly sure that I earned less $$ for the subs I sold in July, even though I sold 15% more subs. So I earned less for them, i.e. the subs I sold.
-
In a glorious irony, I got 15% more subs in July than June, but actually earned less for them.
Way to go, iStock. >:(
(That's only my experience. I know others got rising $$ from subs sales.)
Whatever, I hate 'cheap subs', and can't get my head round uploading files to get 75c, followed by a demotion for not selling as a credit sale and earning 34c.
Don't be so sure you earned less for them, maybe they are pocketing heaps from the subs program even if very little makes it to your pockets.
I think you misunderstood.
I am perfectly sure that I earned less $$ for the subs I sold in July, even though I sold 15% more subs. So I earned less for them, i.e. the subs I sold.
maybe subs prices lowered.
-
In a glorious irony, I got 15% more subs in July than June, but actually earned less for them.
Way to go, iStock. >:(
(That's only my experience. I know others got rising $$ from subs sales.)
Whatever, I hate 'cheap subs', and can't get my head round uploading files to get 75c, followed by a demotion for not selling as a credit sale and earning 34c.
Don't be so sure you earned less for them, maybe they are pocketing heaps from the subs program even if very little makes it to your pockets.
I think you misunderstood.
I am perfectly sure that I earned less $$ for the subs I sold in July, even though I sold 15% more subs. So I earned less for them, i.e. the subs I sold.
maybe subs prices lowered.
No, just my balance of 34c subs was increased. Maybe there are a lot more people with essentials subs, or maybe it was just my bad luck.
The subs rates are:
Non-exclusive $0.28
Exclusive Main Collection $0.34
Exclusive Signature Collection $0.75
Exclusive Signature+ Collection $2.50
Non-Exclusive Signature Collection $0.28
Non-Exclusive Signature+ Collection $0.28
-
interesting, maybe some error, maybe you must contact to support.
-
interesting, maybe some error, maybe you must contact to support.
No, I just got proportionately more 34c sales.
I don't like it, but I don't think it's a mistake.
It's just like average rpd on credit sales, seesaws from month to month.
-
Anyone who thinks that istock is going to continue to pay those $2.50 subs commissions is living in a dreamworld. With gross financial revenue having declined significantly, and no evidence (yet) of any growth following the price changes made in Sept 2014 and the redesigned UI, they are going to use whatever means possible to sustain or improve profits. And the prime contender is those $2.50 subs. Why would they willingly make those payments when there are perfectly good ordinary exclusive files that pay $0.75 or even non-exclusive files that pay only 28c (approximately one-tenth). No, what they really want is to get as many customers as possible on the premium subscription, then gradually reduce the exposure given to those $2.50 files. For exclusives, subs sales might rise, but subs income will not rise at the same pace (or might even decline).
-
With subs, I've been selling reasonably proportionately to my uploads from each year; with what few credit sales are left, not so (sales from uploads in 2014/5 are extremely few, and from Sept 2012, few).
That's only my own sales: but just from that limited data I suspect subs buyers see a different search.
That is only a vague hypothesis; I don't intend to take out a sub to find out. ::)
-
I am very angry with istock because I feel like to be fired my job....
It is always hard for me to remember that I don't have a job in Microstock. I have a job outside of Micostock. They set goals for me, tell me how to do my work, require me to put in 40 hours a week... For me, Microstock is a way to make a little extra money until I retire from my real job and pursue photography full time. In a way I feel fortunate that I never got a taste of the golden years of Microstock as I entered the market way too late, but I do feel for all of you who had the ability to support yourselves in this industry and saw that deteriorate. I had the same thing happen to me in the 90's with IT consulting. All I am saying is that I feel your pain.
-
Well apart from istock stuff ups there are a lot of other factors involved in the downgrade of microstock like over supply.
-
Well apart from istock stuff ups there are a lot of other factors involved in the downgrade of microstock like over supply.
so, why istock downloads and revenues still constantly down within 2 years? despite increasing folio and despite sales on other sites still going on normally. WHY???
-
Well apart from istock stuff ups there are a lot of other factors involved in the downgrade of microstock like over supply.
so, why istock downloads and revenues still constantly down within 2 years? despite increasing folio and despite sales on other sites still going on normally. WHY???
Settle down mad mad man. If sales are normal on other sites focus your attention there.