You really think so?

I always thought the download numbers and flames were from the early days of istock, when file sharing was free or cheap. It was a fun way to get recognized.

I still enjoy seeing my files burst into flames, it�s like a badge of honour for that file, but unfortunately now I really depend on the money and with
120 000 photographers, the copycats make a painful impact, so painful, that I wish I could extinguish all flames and hide my numbers.

Hi everyone,

I would like to invite you to a discussion about the use and abuse of visible download numbers. I contribute to both istock and Getty and I am very grateful that Getty does not display my download numbers. In all the time I have been there I have never seen anyone trying to copy my files.

This year I didn�t have much time to shoot, but next year, I will make a big push for Getty and fill any slots I have, because I really feel like my hard work is much better protected there.

istock has introduced the "fuzzy numbers" to help protect the new files. But because the number of sales have fallen with rising prices, any file that has more than 10 downloads in 6 months is still a very visible bestseller.

And the files with flames, well they just scream to be copied. When you do a best match search for xmas right now you can easily see the blue flames right next to the copies or "creatively inspired" ones. It also forces teh artist with bestsellers to continuosly reshoot them, otherwise all downloads go to the copy cats. This leads to endless duplications and I think is a reason why so many stock sites are boring and bland.

For the istock exclusives there is the additional problem that our bestsellers get copied by independents and are uploaded to other sites. Of course I know anyone active here would never do such a thing ;-). But the visible download numbers on exclusive files are fuelling the competition.

Now of course I do use download numbers when I do my market research on a new subject. Say, I want to create a series on pumpkin pie, with or without people. Of course I will look at the download numbers and analyse the style of the successful files. But I think I could be just as creative if I did a search without the download numbers.

In fact, if the download numbers were NOT visible I think it would then become interesting to shoot something that is different to what is already in the library. It encourages you to stand out and make something new.

Customers can still be offered a search by "popularity", but this doesn�t tell them if the top images have been downloaded 100 or 10 000 times.
They are buying RF images at very low prices and they always have the risk that their competition chooses the same file.

It would be wonderful if istock gradually removed the DL numbers and works more like Getty. I think it is one of the reasons the Getty portfolio has so much unique and unusual content (I love their style).

No Download numbers - no incentive to copy.

So what do you think?

Is showing the numbers essential for success, learning or the customers?

Are copy cats a big problem for you and does it affect how you work? Do you have any strategies that help against them?

I would be interested in hearing opinions from all players - contributors, customers, agencies.

Jonathan,

I have a question: the macro agencies take the files on an exclusive basis - but then they license them all over and freely to each other. So what is the point of this form of "exclusivity"?

It cannot be having "exclusive" content to attract buyers, can it?

I really have spent a lot of time doing image research in my subject field and in the end it always seems to be that a very large portion of the collection is shared with everyone.

I don think aristic is "better" than generic. When I look at stock I just distinguish between high volume and low volume content and the related production costs. "Artistic" usually is the opposite of generic and therefore too specific to be sold in high volume. It does have the "whow factor", but stock sites are not an art gallery.

But to encourage "artistic" photographers to upload more "art" to stock, where they know it will sell a lot less than a brown envelope isolated on white, it has to be marketed in a different way and needs a higher price to be produced. That is all.

Doing "simple" well, is very, very, very hard work. I spend hours, sometimes more than a week until I get one still life right. But because it looks "simple" people think it is easy (and often don appreciate the amount of work I put into it).

Of course I get really mad when I see the copy cats stealing our compositions. Because arriving at this "simple" compositions that have a "flow", is such a challenge.  Luckily the copycats often miss important details, so you can see it is a copy. But if B; serves it up first...anyway...different story.

I always think of the elegant design of the iPhone or the iPad. Once it is out - everyone say "this is easy" and tries to copy it.

This is what I get from the interview and my own experience on getty. This interview is a lot clearer than all the nebulous hints from jj. If you want to decide which files go where in the gettyverse, they have to see them all. I cannot think of any other way of doing it.

Imagine you upload a set of files, they take the best one for getty and then next week you upload an even better file from the series.

what he didn�t mention was when they would ago forward with this. maybe it is something for next year? he said they have plans for many years to come.

Guys, did you even listen to what he is saying: we will get a new upload interface.

Something similar to Getty, which means you will upload all images from a shoot in one batch. No more uploading half the files now and the rest in six months if you see that a series sells well (and it is worth processing all the pics). The files then get distributed over all their agencies, depending on quality. Some might even go straight into Getty RM. Files that might normally be rejected by istock will get a life on their lower level agencies, because istock these days rejects a lot of stuff that could still make money, just not at istock prices.

If this is a good or a bad system will depend on how it is implemented. My acceptance rate for istock is over 90%, as long as the files that I want to send to istock find their way into my portfolio, I am happy and if they move some files from a batch up towards getty, I wouldn�t mind either.

I must say, i like the Getty interface. But I think for many people, especially those who do stock on the side, this will be quite a change, because processing takes so much time, that usually you spread it out over several weeks.

Let�s see what is coming and how much time they give us to prepare.

I have seen that one before, it is an outstanding image, that sticks in your mind. A good example how difficult it is to do such a simple yet effective picture.

I have trained a lot of people and noone has ever copied me. Obviously I explain the problem to them before we start.

Copycats are normal when you are successful in business. But publishing my sales stats with the download numbers is not good. When the files were sold for 10 cents and it was all for fun, it was different. Now people feed their families from their income, they need better protection. You can always then decide to share a special celebration through your blog or the forums or social networks if you want to, but it will be my personal decision.

Usually customer traffic will flock to the next company with the strongest brand and reputation in the market. If  Mc Donalds becomes expensive then Burger King is next, not the small start up in your neighbourhood.

Others might withhold buying or spend less overall. That is if they want to stay with istock and buy a lot of V/a but their budget does not increase, they will buy a lot less (volume in downloads) although they are still spending the same amount of money per year.

The traffic however would drop if a large number of customers do this. One V/A sale must equal at least 5 "normal" downloads, if not more.

The traffic stats are an indicator of how much normal high volume "coffee" stock is being bought. istock itself might still be doing financially very well, if the "wine" business is up.

Nico has one of the most successful portfolios on istock ever. And like Sean, as far as I know, he does it all himself, he is not a stock factory.

Something is seriously wrong. The dramatic drop in traffic is the only explanation. Buyers must be migrating to other sites.

At some point istock has to address the pink elephant in the room and tell the contributors what their plans are and if the high volume market has been abandoned in favor of the high price, but niche V/A market.

Of course they can do with their company whatever they want, we are not shareholders in the business. But I think they should let us know the customer target group.

I have absolutely no problem, if they say that they want to specialize istock on the high end V/A market. Just tell us.

But to keep pretending you are a coffee shop even if most of your income is from wine...

Personally I thought the drop in traffic is the result of not uploading enough, but if Sean and Nico are down, then it is not all my fault. I also have a lot of files in good search positions, so I wasn t expecting such a large drop.

At the moment I am shooting video to learn more about it and add another income stream to my portfolio. Basically I am adding tea, to my coffeeshop. But it will take me at least 2 years to become a good videographer and understand the video market. It is more difficult than I thought.

Getting into Vetta on istock is extremely difficult. The rejection rate is over 90%, at least that is what I hear. I don�t know if your renders would be suitable. Have a look at the renders in the collection and then decide for yourself if you can meet the editors expectations.

This is a good idea. I always thought something like this could be offered for buyers of photos as well. Add text, trim the image, tweak a few things and then download the end result. eeven allow the customer to do this again and again with the files that he bought.

I think many customers would appreciate this.

I would't be surprised if they end up putting all Rf content into one global site. The idea of a universal search or universal credits is not about innovation, but to bring together a company that seems to be spread over many different sites.

Of course I can use money to buy from different places, but every time I have to get credits at different price points. I think especially for customers who buy many images it would be useful if they can negotiate a price once for "universal credifs"

As a contributor, bringing all collections together means more competition, but istock already is a site with a huge influx of images, I think it is the Getty photographers who will be more afraid than us. They are not used to competing with 100000 other contributors and their files.

Anyway, nobody knows what thir plans are, maybe this is just an idea that is being floated around the boardroom.