Musicians get 10-20% typically AFAIK. The rates for stock photographers and photographers with big agencies are typically roughly in the same area I think.

The little agencies and co-ops pay more or profit share but often struggle to survive as businesses. Do you want a big royalty of not many sales or a sustainable royalty of many sales ?

Also remember that the agencies are increasingly competing with people who want to give their images away for free.

it's not a perfect analogy but really I was reponding to the orange juice metaphor. Also, more than that, it's about branding.

And when we go in a shop - the thing which costs the most isn't always necessarily these best fit in all cases. No system is perfect.

Personally I can very much see the point of branding different images within different collections, lightboxes etc. When the collection is so huge especially there needs to be other ways of drilling down interestingly. It is definitely the way I would go if I was running the shop. Maybe the way in which those images get presented needs to be continually reviewed. And iStockphoto do  more or less say that it is under continual review.

The people (eta: buyers I mean)  I talk to are still saying that they think iStockphoto is great. This whole debate since last September has completely passed them by. And they like Vetta. Also - 1 of those people is someone I also shoot pictures for regularly. I can say for certain that one of the smallest costs of any project is still the images (to the extent that on occassions she has more or less told me to quote higher for jobs).

Instead of the generic orange juice shopping analogy try it with olive oil instead.

When I go to the supermarket looking for olive oil - well I might be after something quite cheap to use for roasting or as a base for a sauce. But then again I might be after something very expensive with a particular distinct flavor which I am going to want to actually taste. I expect to find both products in the store at different prices. Most likely the expensive stuff will be at eye level. Because not everything can be at eye level.

I tend to avoid the stores which only sell cheap stuff because both products are important.

I get the impression here sometimes than some people can only see the negatives. And yet it seems obvious to me that getting the right mix of stuff in front of clients is something for continual tweaking. The same as shops get rearranged and the windows re dressed regularly.

Maybe department store has a different meaning to you. I think of say Selfridges or the Galleries Laffayette or even Brown Thomas. Often you go in for the atmosphere but just buy a coffee or a tee shirt.

Not to labour the point.

Yes but in a department store it is usually easy to find the cheaper stuff if that is what you want.

They maybe need a few more signs, but it's not hard at iStock.

Lots of times stores will put sale stuff in the windows to entice people to come in and buy the more expensive stuff.

Destination stores always want the windows and entrances to look fantastic. Think of the big stores in any capital city.

Or think of the Apple website for that matter. You really have to hunt to find the refurb stuff. It's there if you search.

I think the suggestion about a price-oriented client-specific search result is interesting. but it would actually be the reverse of what we want. the search, AFAIK, is meant to produce regional results.

I am very skeptical of regional search.

If I was king - there would be a more clearly delineated sense of identity attached to the different collections. And as well as the big search it would be possible to search and browse within the various collections. And there would be more collections. Perhaps we could even apply to start our own - like an extension of lightboxing.

And I would try to think about reinventing search a little too. There would be something like --- "show me more stuff which potentially has the same feel or style as this". That would be algorithmically tied to lightboxing, previous choices etc. In that way it would be possible not only to drill down --- but also to sort of go sideways too. A bit like how people browse ffffound. This would enable users to more easily find stuff by accident when they don't know what they are looking for.

I would also introduce some sort of system of 'liking' (buyers only) - so you could follow through all the stuff which different people had liked. Bringing in the social aspect of search. Which is pretty much the holy grail, many believe. And that might well also feed into the threaded idea.

IMO old fashioned search fails when there is too much stuff. Looking for images I think many people almost want to see stuff which is more mood based. Small selections even.

ETA: and I would launch a Flipboard content stream with pages and pages of images for people to browse on the iPad, magazine style.

Have your sales at other sites made up for that ?

incessantly going on about not liking iStockphoto does seem a bit pointless. Not just you.

And I think it has the potential to somewhat undermine this forum TBH. I think this forum is at its best when it is more to do with trends and the picture industry in general.

Sean and Stacey are sometimes critical of iStockphoto. When someone is often positive then I take more notice of them if they are sometimes critical. That seems like a much more neutral position.

Nah! Nobody is going to buy a company by mistake. That's daft

EDIT: sorry not responding to the post immediately above

Think about it. You don't buy things because they are rubbish.

If it were to be sold then that would surely be a vote of confidence. And it will be all about continuity. My guess is that even if it were all to be sold not much would change.

I suppose you guys could be right about a sale sometime soon. But I should have thought that an IPO would be very unlikely.

Why would they sell it as a part finished transformation ? Why not wait until the transformation is more complete?

Also, with Getty most likely for sale

What makes you say it is for sale ? I think you hinted that on a previous thread too. Is it just a hunch?

I know that you might be right - but surely any potential buyer would be looking at any growth over the previous period and knowing full well that this had been achieved by cutting royalties and increasing prices. Is there much else left to do in terms of growing the business unless the economy actually starts to improve?

Well i suppose they could tweak the search engines to push more lower commission work ?

Also - if the business is profitable and genuinely growing then why sell it ?