One of the biggest problems with best match (IMO) is the positive feedback factor (in the systems sense). If an image that sells gets preferential placement in search as a result, then it will continue to sell well. It is probably an attempt to prevent this that images that take off have been getting squashed pretty quickly lately (in some recent version of the best match).  It will be interesting to see if this remains a significant problem with the new algorithm in place.

Quote from: averil on December 10, 2008, 14:57

If istock wishes to be an exclusive only agency, why don't they just say so and stop wasting the time of non-exclusives? Their current policy allows non-exclusives to upload but ensures that they will have very few sales by giving very poor exposure. Non-exclusives then have to consider whether it's worth the effort to continue with them. No doubt istock prefers to keep us on a string so that they can make something from us if their exclusives can't cover a particular image request. However it means we have to invest considerable time and effort for very little reward. Of course, istock could change their policy tomorrow, so no one wants to risk writing them off. I think if exclusives had to work so hard for so little on istock they might have second thoughts too.

They don't want to be exclusives only, I thought it's pretty evident. Otherwise they wouldn't let you submit stuff. But why they should give you an edge over lets say SJ or Lise or DNY or whatever? Of course all these guys have the priority in best match.
The rest of the whining I'm not willing even to comment on, if you think that you put more effort then you're paid for then just quit submitting to IS.

I'm a very small player. However I have put a lot of time and effort into learning 3D techniques, and will start producing significant amounts of stock worthy material fairly soon. I won't be wasting my time uploading to istock however. If istock loses market share due to the increasing amount of material not available there, guess who will suffer the most...

If istock wishes to be an exclusive only agency, why don't they just say so and stop wasting the time of non-exclusives? Their current policy allows non-exclusives to upload but ensures that they will have very few sales by giving very poor exposure. Non-exclusives then have to consider whether it's worth the effort to continue with them. No doubt istock prefers to keep us on a string so that they can make something from us if their exclusives can't cover a particular image request. However it means we have to invest considerable time and effort for very little reward. Of course, istock could change their policy tomorrow, so no one wants to risk writing them off. I think if exclusives had to work so hard for so little on istock they might have second thoughts too.

An istock admin has confirmed that the Premier Collection is for istock exclusive contributors only.

The Fine Art is destined for the Premier Collection - for Exclusive content. In this case I'm sure that means Exclusive Contributor.

I think this kind of image (Fine Art) will be going to the exclusive collection, meaning that only images from istock exclusives will be considered. As the admins will be selecting images for that collection anyway, maybe this won't be so difficult to implement after all.

Quote from: Read_My_Rights on December 09, 2008, 15:34

I would not contribute my 5D files to the dollar bin.

According to my understanding of the announcements, istock admins are going to be more actively choosing what files go in. 

I don't think whether images were taken with your rebel or 5D will be a big part of the criteria they use....

Interesting that Yuri said in that session Rob blogged about that the camera isn't as important as many people think - one should spend the money on location, models, studio equipment.

There are two threads. JJRD posted in the xnet blog (available on the upload page) and it was copied to the discussion forum by evilclown. The other thread was created by Kelly Thompson about the new structure.

I'm interested in the apparent lack of response to JJRDs statement that images with bad light, visible flash, etc can now be acceptable, that istock is accepting 'Fine Art'. My guess is that  no one thinks it will sell anyway so who cares.

If you check the graph of the top 25 contributors on MichaelJay's blog you'll see that they have been doing very well for the past 5 weeks.

I think we need to redefine what an image is. We are really selling concepts. If you hire a few models, create a set and add some props and take 1000 frames, what then? You could select the best frame (in your own judgement), and attempt to sell it once for a high price. Or you could make all 1000 frames available, maybe at lower prices, giving designers more flexibillity in fitting your concept into their design. Or anywhere in between. The real measure is ROI, not return per image. The value of any given file is irrelevant. If you can't sell it, you might be able to recreate the concept slightly differently, and time and tide might be on your side. Investment, in this case, is the totality of your creative imagination, technical skill, and investment of physical resources.

I've had accounts on several sites for a while, mostly inactive, under various usernames, but decided recently to stick with one 'brand' to create a bigger presence in the industry (which wouldn't be hard as my presence is tiny at the moment). Several sites were happy to change my username, but shutterstock refused. My first application for submitter, about a year ago, was rejected, and I haven't applied since, although I'd like to have another go once I've got my accounts sorted.

So, I asked ss to close my account, which they did, telling me not to try opening a new one anytime. Why do they make such a big deal about something that no one else has any problem with? They pretty much said that if I ever want to contribute then they might consider reactivating my old username. However, my other option is simply to try for exclusivity on istock. I know ss is a good earner for most people here, but I'm  wondering why I would want to deal with such a company. istock might have faults too, but support is not one of them APAIK.

OK, point taken. I admit I don't have that overview that you people have, so I'll revise my thinking here.

I think the success of the buying gangs about this time last year proves the extent to which success breeds success regardless of quality.