|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - loop
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 26 ... 44
501
« on: October 16, 2011, 06:25 »
I'm not sure if it is in our best interest to push all the buyers away from Istock. If earnings decreased too much for the exclusives then maybe they would decide to become independent and compete with us for sales at all the other agencies. At one particular agency I have amazing placement in the searches but I'm sure that would drop if some of the better Istock exclusives joined.
You're making a pretty big assumption that exclusives at iStockphoto are 'better' photographers than non-exclusives. Clearly they are not (based on total downloads each month and each quarter) - you can do the math yourself - visit the contributor lounge and review trends. This current quarter exclusives (again) only have 33% ranking in the most downloaded images. 66% of the largest downloaded images are from non-exclusive contributors.
If you agree with the principle that customers download what they consider to be the best or at least better photographs than others on the same site and that equates to 2:1 in favor of non-exclusives the answer is clear. The 'better' photographers are non-exclusive contributors. Clearly that statistic supports that position.
As far as 'pushing' buyers away from iStockphoto is concerned at the end of the day buyers make their own decisions based on their own real-life experiences with iStockphoto. Three of my biggest clients have all switched their accounts in the last two months to DT and SS where before they purchased virtually everything from iSP - and it had nothing to do with me - they felt they were being ripped off price-wise and 'forced to trawl through overpriced collections' etc. I mentioned the price filter to them and they simply were not interested.
If exclusives start to leave the sinking-iSP ship in droves as you predict (might happen), no problem. Independents have good ranking positions with really good images in all the other sites and I very much doubt they'll be afraid of some new competitors that hither-to have been blindly loyal to one company that has generally treated them like dirt. Even-less-so if you consider my first point to be a valid one.
It's all a price question. Non ex files are way cheaper at istock, until 50% cheaper. Elsewhere, the price would be the same. That's not rocket sciencie. And, price again: should istock collapse, it would mean the triumph of low prices and subs. Customers are being used to the idea that an extra-big file shouldn't cost more than 30 c, no matter the effort and the production behind. It's not their fault, but ours. That said, add that although true that revenue has went down, in my case this fall doen't seem related to the quoted fall in USA traffic posted. Month to month, my fall doesn't go further tan 15% from last's years's (BYE). Maybe less dl's, but with E+, Vetta, Agency and El's (some of them at 90 $ comission) and Vetta-Ag. getty sales, RPI is strong and RPD is higher. Obviously all these dl's come from another class of costumers. All the other factors (angry contributors, bad mouthing etc) probably have a weigth too, but a nano-weigth compared with the price factor.
502
« on: October 12, 2011, 06:08 »
Back in 2008 they were paying 1.1 million weekly to contributors. Now, 1.9, and this is from a lower percentage because of royalty changes last year. I see room for a rotalty increase.
503
« on: October 11, 2011, 14:04 »
Well, but making the rule of "if you sell your product elshewere cheaper we'll match this price" is not price fixing prices at all. And many internet business do that, beggining with Amazon.
504
« on: October 11, 2011, 12:08 »
Are you sure? the last I heard it was hexagonal.
Not surprised you believed it...
505
« on: October 11, 2011, 11:58 »
Forget about best match and customers fleeing because they feel contributors are not well treated. best match results are not bad at all, unless you think that the only good best match is the one that puts all your images in the first places. Search engine is great, and vastly better than any other site if you use any language that is not English. Customers give a dam m about contributors or suppliers, like in any other business. If IS is losing speed is because of the prices.
Istock made a mistake when they created the concept of microstock. Too much micro. Too much cheap. It wasn't necessary, because any intermediate prices would had been seen as an steal as well, compared with Getty, Corbis etc. SS made another mistake when creating subscriptions; even cheaper, hiper-devaluated value of our work. That, of course, spoiled the customers. With time, IS corrected the mistake, now prices are reasonable. SS never did it (except for a reduction from 30 to 25 downloads/day, I think), other agencies followed this path; so IS nowadays prices seem not-reasonable to many customers. Should IS lower its prices now all the other agencies would lower theirs the next minute.
Well Loop, we have heard this argument now for two years, etc and frankly its getting worn out, all this about good best match only if it suits oneself, etc. How can a search-engine be good if its based on favorism? crap I would say, how can a search be good when the whole damned site looks like a neewbie TS search ?
IS, simply doesnt have the traffic, its gone. period and I wonder why?
Yes, and we have heard that the Earth is round for hundreds of years. And it is.
506
« on: October 11, 2011, 10:12 »
Forget about best match and customers fleeing because they feel contributors are not well treated. best match results are not bad at all, unless you think that the only good best match is the one that puts all your images in the first places. Search engine is great, and vastly better than any other site if you use any language that is not English. Customers give a dam m about contributors or suppliers, like in any other business. If IS is losing speed is because of the prices.
Istock made a mistake when they created the concept of microstock. Too much micro. Too much cheap. It wasn't necessary, because any intermediate prices would had been seen as an steal as well, compared with Getty, Corbis etc. SS made another mistake when creating subscriptions; even cheaper, hiper-devaluated value of our work. That, of course, spoiled the customers. With time, IS corrected the mistake, now prices are reasonable. SS never did it (except for a reduction from 30 to 25 downloads/day, I think), other agencies followed this path; so IS nowadays prices seem not-reasonable to many customers. Should IS lower its prices now all the other agencies would lower theirs the next minute.
507
« on: October 07, 2011, 18:10 »
Almost without exception, "newbies" (let's say from 2007 and on) report BMEs or good sales in the September sales thread. "Oldies" report bad sales. I'm an "oldie" and my sales improved from August but not enough for a September.
508
« on: October 07, 2011, 03:21 »
rogermexico's post about 32 minutes ago:
What I'll be doing is highlighting all the little niche growth areas where there's room for more, and provide additional creative direction for interested contributors about emerging trends and areas with opportunities.
Oh good. So anyone with successful niche areas better be prepared for a whole flood of images destroying their income. 
That's how I interpreted rogermexico's post, too. Maybe our thinking reflects 'battered contributor syndrome'.
iStock is trying to help make the sales grow and you find flaw with that, just like always you people hate everything IS.
Lisa has a point here. On the other hand, these ideas will also be available to independents to submit to other sites. I hope this to be somenthing generic enough ("shoot cuisine recipes of your region") to not stir conflict. Something like the Getty Newsletter for contributors.
509
« on: October 05, 2011, 16:05 »
They must be just returning from Milano.
510
« on: October 05, 2011, 14:46 »
These last days, sales aren't bad, but very uneven.
511
« on: October 04, 2011, 05:54 »
Ah, ok, well ... a couple minutes of searching will bring up things like photaki and the israeli micro and yay, etc.
Anyways, yes, the whole punishment program is confusing.
This is hilarious, watching sjlocke calling out Fotolia, while submitting to IStockphoto - talk about pot calling kettle black...LOL.
Maybe it is, I don't know... but it is not a bit less hilarious than watching nruboc calling out constantly istock while submitting to Fotolia and affiliates and supporting their new policies.
512
« on: October 03, 2011, 18:06 »
This is almost funny. Microstock agencies came in and literally pulled the rug out from under the entire stock photo industry and put many stock photo agencies that charged fair prices out of business by licensing photos for less than pennies on the dollar compared to the pricing structure at that time. They are now finding both that they can't survive on the prices they themselves set and they are attempting to address this by cutting royalties... and they are finding THEY DON'T LIKE IT MUCH WHEN SOMEONE DOES TO THEM ON A SMALL SCALE WHAT THEY DID TO THE INDUSTRY ON A GRAND SCALE.
It's poetic justice and it would be funny were it not for the fact that the real losers are the photographers who earn their livings making images that others depend on to market themselves.
It's not the same. Macro agencies and macro photographers didn't react, they just made fun of the "poor quality" of microstock agencies and photographer's, stating that susch stuff could never be a threat. I read that hundreds of times in a variety of forums. Big mistake, but their mistake. Never the arrogance sin had a worse punishment.
513
« on: October 03, 2011, 10:18 »
I think thet are going to install some automated process for artifacts, noise, out of focus etc
514
« on: September 29, 2011, 17:52 »
I think is changin all the tme, but it's no bad for me. Vettas sales have clearly risen dor me , wich is strange, because Vetta is now less visible, more sunken by the best match.
515
« on: September 28, 2011, 12:11 »
I'm guessing it's time to bring Getty's other collections into IStock. First, let's bring in a seemingly harless collection, like editorial, to test the induction process, then bring over the others.
you're not even an istock contributor, you never have been.
I appreciate that they try to keep things warm and fuzzy, but I think it would be received a lot better if they just put things out there, clearly. no drama, no f5, no carrot dangling. I'd guess that most of us just want to know how this is going to affect our sales and evasive announcements make it seem that there is something to hide, even if there isn't.
Yes, he was a member, but has been crusading against istock sinc the beggining of the times
516
« on: September 27, 2011, 10:06 »
Do they talk of this at their forums (FT)? What people in these forums say?
517
« on: September 24, 2011, 17:38 »
I don't think all that is because TS. Should tey force to choose between istock-TS and them, they would lose a lot of contributors. Maybe Fotolia subs pay 1 or 5 cents more, I don't know, maybe IS just offers 15-20%, but IS sells more that FT and at a higher prices, so the loss in revenue --with the same portfolio size-- would be higher on IS.
518
« on: September 24, 2011, 07:15 »
This is no new in the field of internet sales. For instance, you can't sell Kindle e-books in Amazon and sell them as well, at a lower price, at Barnes and Noble and others (and viceversa). You have to match the price. In the end, that maybe it isn't so bad --if applies too to big producers, of course-- because it could somewhat stop a little the race to the bottom. But, well, the pity is that Fotolia prices are very near the bottom. And I (although not directly affected, I'm exclusive at IS), I understand the matching prices part, but lowering too the comission to the contributor after having lowered the price wouldn't be necessary.
I don't think 'real life' works like that. In the UK we had the Net Book Agreement for 95 years which prevented retailers from discounting the cover price. I'm sure it was good for the publishers and certainly small retailers but I doubt if any authors (i.e. "us") benefited at all. They probably lost out because fewer books were bought.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_Book_Agreement
It's a matter of opinion. I think that maybe sales would increase, but revenue would go down. In a commercial war of prices the producer of the product always lose. I'm sure that needing the shops and editors more fuel for this war, even author's comission woul have ended being lowered.
519
« on: September 24, 2011, 06:36 »
On the other hand...
This is no new in the field of internet sales. For instance, you can't sell Kindle e-books in Amazon and sell them as well, at a lower price, at Barnes and Noble and others (and viceversa). You have to match the price. In the end, that maybe it isn't so bad --if applies too to big producers, of course-- because it could somewhat stop a little the race to the bottom. But, well, the pity is that Fotolia prices are very near the bottom. And I (although not directly affected, I'm exclusive at IS), I understand the matching prices part, but lowering too the comission to the contributor after having lowered the price wouldn't be necessary.
520
« on: September 23, 2011, 18:01 »
On a general basis is not a good signal when a bussiness reaches the conclusion that the only way to sell their products is selling them cheaper than anybody else on its field.
521
« on: September 19, 2011, 18:36 »
(Re: Elena)
I thnk she was headhunted and 'hothoused'. So fast that I remember that after she became exclusive, you could still freely download at least some of her iStock pics, full size, free from Flickr, including her IOW puppy/laundry (yet at least 250 people had paid to download it from iStock). I'm guessing she was 'rushed' so fast, she didn't realise it wasn't allowed.
well, again, I don't know if any of that is true. I just know what we all saw and how many of us felt about it. not begrudging the success of another contributor, but certainly concerned about preferential treatment when we play by the rules and all pay the same royalties (hah, in fact some of us are paying more since the RC debacle). add to that recent flexible exclusivity given to certain contributors....how do you keep yourself from thinking competitively? as I said earlier, kindness is wonderful, but this is business too and kindness is not a currency in our industry.
The Flickr bit is objective truth. I downloaded the pic at full size after she was exclusive. My other statements are subjective opinion, qualified as such by "I think" and "I guess". IIRC, other people have been refused exclusivity until they have restricted their Flickr images. [/quote] I wasn't concerned at all. I found her work to be excellent and, most important, different, and I felt se deserved being showcased (very often, POW and Artist of the Week are newbies). Getting to 250 si fast was natural, given the quality of her art, han having it showcased in the main page. The free pass to "Agency" artists from outer space is another matter...
522
« on: September 19, 2011, 17:45 »
years ago I probably would have argued that iStock doesn't do special deals with hand-picked contributors. but then I saw the speed with which contributor Elena Vizerskaya was brought in, downloaded, made exclusive and boom--all in a very orchestrated fashion.....I love her work, that is beside the point. and theoretically I don't have any problem with superstar contributors being brought in to boost traffic etc.
however, there are clearly many special deals going down these days.....like Agency contributors with flexible exclusivity etc. not to mention special collections we're ostracized from. the backroom shenanigans are so much more apparent today, that even we optimists are in or ready to jump into self-preservation mode.
Why do you mean by "brought in"? As far as I know she had a POW, yes, and she became exclusive after reaching 250 downloads.
523
« on: September 19, 2011, 13:08 »
I just searched the word "refinery", since its in my interest and what do I find? same boring models, posing as refinery workers, Colgate smile into the camera and ofcourse the max DL, for one of these shots are embarrassing, why? because the people in these shots are not working, they are posing, hecne, they dont sell.
Now, you would think that a site like IS would have the knowledge, the expertice? right? but sadly no, they dont and why? because then obviously the pohotographer is an exclusive.
This is why IS, apart from the Vettas, is not making any money from independants.
As I have always maintained, you have to think commercially, you have to think, reallity.
Maybe yes, but more than 90% of people in stock are models, professional or amateur. Stock is not exactly "photo-verit", there are other places for that. I have shots with models playing doctors and shots with real doctors in action and the ones with models sell better (and the same with teachers). On the other hand, these shots you say about the refinery with models theme seem to sell well too.
524
« on: September 18, 2011, 07:33 »
Is exclusive here; sales on the rise this month after a weak August. But they should rise more, current best match doesn't help much exclusives.
525
« on: July 22, 2011, 06:14 »
We do not need more competition. Lets them thinking that is not posisible to get a decent/great income doing microsock.
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 26 ... 44
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
