|
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 - gclk
26
« on: May 25, 2013, 10:28 »
"Who We Are: iStockphoto, a division of Getty Images is the world's leading creator and distributor of visual content and the first place creative professionals turn to discover, purchase and manage imagery. The company's award winning photographers and imagery help customers create inspiring work which appears every day in the world's most influential newspapers, magazines, advertising campaigns, films, television programs, books and Web sites. Headquartered in Seattle, WA and serving customers in more than 100 countries, Getty Images believes in the power of imagery to drive positive change, educate, inform, and entertain. Visit Getty Images at http://gettyimages.com." It's been said before... the fact that a company claiming to be the world leader in image distribution has consistently failed, over a period of years, to correctly distribute images between two of their own websites, speaks volumes about how important this issue is (or was) to iStock/Getty.
27
« on: May 21, 2013, 11:32 »
he might be a photographer but he'll go down in history as the photographer who killed the value of stock photography thanks to his bulk subs deals.
seriously, who's worse ? getty acting as a monopoly or SS selling images for 0.30$ ?
kudos to his coding and entrepreneurial skills but i see no reason to see him as a positive figure in our industry, SS is nothing but the Walmart of stock.
I got the lowest ever comissions, 9-7 cents from the getty/istock crooks... and getty is into nanopayment now, with that 'connect' junk - which actually is the final rock bottom everyone feared they will hit: the ad-space revenue model. Getty is the worst by far.
Fair or unfair, Connect is not for selling photos, just for showing them.
Maybe, but if the best we're going to get is (literally) a few pennies, at an unknown royalty %ge, I'd prefer to disConnect.
28
« on: May 19, 2013, 07:02 »
So many different angles to see this from, but whatever - it's big news.
I wish Yuri and his team well, and certainly don't blame him for 'getting into bed' with Getty, or for using his clout to negotiate the best possible deal with them. Who wouldn't?
I totally agree that a Stocksy-type model would be good for all of us, but at the moment, fantastic though Stocksy looks, it's a 'boutique' model just now, with a carefully curated approach. A Stocksy type of co-op model but aimed towards a wider market would be a great development, but also a huge undertaking. Who knows though, maybe it'll happen in time. A company like that, not lumbered with massive imposed debts and a demanding profit-obsessed ownership could do great business.
Fair enough it's very early days since this was only flagged up on Friday, but it would be in iStock's best interests to at least be somewhat clear about what's going on, there is already so much uncertainty about what's going on there, covering everything in more dollops of what sauce won't be good for anyone, including iS/Getty.
But as well as thinking that Yuri's perfectly entitled to get the best deal that he can, I can't really blame iStock for bending the rules or creating a special case for Yuri, especially around other sites still hosting his work for a brief period. But at the same time, normal exclusives at iStock have played (and continue to play) an important role in the success of iStock, and if the integrity and rules of the exclusive system get more and more eroded and foggy, both customers and contributors are bound to get confused and maybe a little cynical.
29
« on: April 25, 2013, 05:11 »
Just flicking an 'upload limit' switch, then sitting back to watch the dollars roll in is not likely to cut it.
I'm not sure why removing the upload limit would cause 'the dollars to roll in'. It doesn't increase the number of sales, just the breadth of choice for buyers surely?
Nor am I... but I did finish the sentence with ' is not likely to cut it.'  There could be some logic there. We know many established exclusives are dropping exclusivity and removing their best work to put it elsewhere. So iStock respond by allowing new exclusives and independents to upload as much as they want. Not exactly a like for like replacement. If they had higher management looking over their shoulders and asking why other sites are increasing their libraries so much faster than iStock, now they'll be able to say that's one thing that's improving. But in a few years time I doubt anybody will be looking back on the decision to scrap upload limits as being the thing that saved the fortunes of iStockphoto.
30
« on: April 25, 2013, 03:45 »
Depending on your situation and viewpoint, this scrapping of upload limits could be seen as a positive, indifferent or negative change.
Maybe it will allow iStock management to present some positive growth figures to their bosses - certainly growth in the overall number of images online, and maybe some income growth too, in the short term at least.
But there are loads of things which iStock could choose to do, which would be met with positivity pretty much across the board. If real, sustained growth is what is wanted, if they want to reverse the current trend where established exclusive artists continue to leave and iStock's once (pretty) good name is turning into a toxic brand, it will take hard work and a bit of pain. Maybe even an iota of humility. Just flicking an 'upload limit' switch, then sitting back to watch the dollars roll in is not likely to cut it.
31
« on: April 24, 2013, 15:19 »
Bizarre. Hope you manage to get it sorted out Axel.
32
« on: April 22, 2013, 17:13 »
Raising the bar or opening the floodgates... I think the term is 'meh...'
33
« on: April 15, 2013, 02:19 »
I guess they speak for everyone. Some of us are newer to iStock. I'm there still because it makes me the most $$$. The lower sales haven't been drastic for me and are the least of my issues with iStock. I'm more frustrated with the lack of action on site issues and the overall lack of transparency. The heavily moderated forums is just annoying and has only brought their contributors here to discuss the issues. The overall perception from a contributor stand point is that they just don't care...maybe that is from the top down. I'm sure this is perceived by buyers as well..and some contributors are also buyers and influence buyers...I don't think iStock is naive enough to not know this...so that just adds to the perception that they don't care anymore. It seems to me the folks still employed there are there for the paycheck...the fun and spirit of iStock is long gone, and I am sure iStock is just a small sliver on the pie chart for Getty. As of now the minute I feel I can start making more money without iStock I will surely jump ship. They always tease change for the better, but it never comes.
+1 from me to all your points, except re. iStock being a small sliver on the pie chart for Getty. Obviously I don't know anything concrete about the figures, but my guess would be that in terms of profit, iStock make up a decent chunk of Getty group's numbers, which they're very keen to grow rather than lose. iStock, Getty and Carlyle are three very different organisations, with contrasting histories and cultures. And all of Getty must be a sliver on Carlyle's pie chart. But even still, a sliver that cost them real money, and they'll want to grow it, because that's what they're in business to do. But IMHO, with the desire to make more profits filtering down from Carlyle to Getty, then Getty using their own methods to get push iStock to be more and more profitable, there's a risk that they're gradually getting rid of what was making iStock so buoyant and successful, and turning away their best people too. Even if they recognise the damage they're doing to iStock and want to turn it around, reversing the trend that's set in would be difficult. When Rebecca suddenly stepped into the forums in December to admit some errors and talk about positive changes, it did briefly seem that an effort was being made to turn things around. And very briefly it even translated into some action. But now here we are just a few months later, and it's hard to feel optimistic about iStock.
34
« on: April 13, 2013, 10:31 »
It's a shame there's still no sign of positive action from iStock/Getty to fix this mess. There's an interesting parallel from 2006, when users of Vox (the now defunct blogging site) were allowed to use low resolution iStock images in their blog. I think at first there was a lot of concern because there wasn't much attribution to artists. Things were changed, and this thread was opened, asking contributors to think about it and respond... www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=38036&page=1So.. - the images were clearly marked with an iStock logo and the artist's name - very low resolution images were used - images linked back to iStock, and if a purchase was made, the artist would get a referral bonus - artists could opt out if they weren't happy with the deal Fast forward to now, and what a huge contrast in the approach. It's a bit different because the images were licenced to Google (using a licence which is kept secret from the owners of the work). As with the Vox deal, it's about enabling end users to use our images for free. But this time.. - instead of the deal being discussed before it was made, we were told nothing until people noticed that it had already happened - there was no opportunity for artists to opt out - extremely high resolution images are being used - even if the end user wishes to give proper credit to the artists, they can't because they have no way of knowing who created the image As a bare minimum, using a similar solution of watermarking the image itself with the artists name and agency seems like a good, simple idea. Shouldn't be too technically demanding for either Getty or Google to manage. Getty keep saying things like "Copyright protection is absolutely central to our business and we remain committed to doing all we can to support and maintain your intellectual property rights." I think they'd find it tough to argue that they're doing all they can to support and maintain our intellectual property rights if they're happy to put 12,000 images on the web, without any possiblity of copyright protection. Guess that might explain why they're still refusing to say anything at all about it.
35
« on: April 08, 2013, 12:10 »
^^ I agree, iStock's strategy seems to be to move towards lower volumes of higher value sales.
But that doesn't mean they can't make money from lower prices. No doubt there are costs in dealing with thousands of contributors. But the web is good for keeping such costs low, as the success of eBay et al show. Facebook and twitter have quite a few contributors too.
iStock have changed things so they never even have to speak to their contributors. And support often just ignore messages that are sent in. The company keeps more than 85% of sale proceeds from some contributors.
If they can't make a very healthy profit in microstock at that rate, they have many competitors who can and will.
If they are starting to struggle, I don't think it's got so much to do with the costs of customers and contributors. It's more to do with customers and contributors being turned off by them not understanding where to stop with their policy of raising prices, lowering royalties and cutting staff and budgets.
36
« on: April 08, 2013, 05:04 »
Re. Shudderstock's post...
I agree that there's nothing unusual or wrong with a company being concerned about positive cash flow and returns.
But then you go on to describe the rates they are paying and the ways they are treating contributors as 'crap'.
My opinion is that in the long term, especially with the way the industry continues to open up beyond the reach of Getty group, iStock/Getty will have to realise that those two things above are mutually incompatible. Over the past few years right up to recent weeks, we've already seen plenty of damage done to iStock's credibility and bottom line as a result of the way they've treated contributors. Is this likely to get better or worse if they maintain their current approach?
Increasing cash flow more and more by screwing contributors more and more is totally and utterly unsustainable, and I think they've already pushed it too far. To their own loss.
Customers and contributors are able to move between sites relatively easy, and if one group leaves in significant numbers, the other won't be far behind.
37
« on: April 08, 2013, 01:36 »
Shudderstock I haven't been closely following things around here long enough to know what all the fuss is about, but I think the range of views and opinions allowed here is good for this forum against the iStock one. But allowing people to remain anonymous can lead to problems, you only need to look at the comment sections of online newspapers to see that.
Anyway, what are your views about the current level of success and the direction things are going at iStock? Colbalt mentioned some positive recent changes such as an upcoming lapse and the weekly showcase policy.
For me it's good to see these things, and they look like the work of iStock staff doing what they can to improve things.
But IMO it's going to take some effort from the people running iStock from higher up to reverse the damaging trend they've set in motion. It seems iStock don't even have their own people to keep the search running and optimised, and we've seen (and are still seeing) what damage that does.
iStock have lost or got rid of a lot of staff, contributors and customers. And the policy from the top continues to be monetize harder! For me, iStock's future looks bleak if their #1 policy continues to be to find ways to increase their commission at the contributors cost.
I don't know if you're exclusive or indy, but are you concerned about how iStock is being run, or do you think they're getting things right?
38
« on: April 07, 2013, 13:52 »
I don't think it's time to start drafting iStock's obituary, but I do think that (almost entirely due to their own actions and inactions) iStock position within the market is firmly on the slide. Not quite in freefall just now though.
As an exclusive there I'm still hoping they have the ability and will to turn things around, but having said that, I'm very glad to see iStock being forced to compete for customers and contributors within a lively and strong marketplace, because I think we all know how things would go if Getty&co really did have the market all sewn up.
39
« on: April 03, 2013, 12:35 »
My sales have been disappointing since the pile-up of disasters last September. And since iStock's only focus seems to be on finding new ways to reduce royalties and increase their own commission, it seems they'll continue to get less and less attractive for exclusives. And still no sign of any interest in making real steps towards improving things.
I'm hoping that strong competition from obviously fairer new sites like Stocksy, and the fact that a lot of the very best of iStock's exclusive content vanished so quickly from them will finally alert iS/Getty to the fact that that they're not going to be able to attract and keep the best content if they continue paying such low royalty rates, constantly moving the goalposts, and acting as though they fully own all of the content they're supposed to be distributing responsibly with our agreement.
This weird obsession with getting down to a royalty rate of 20%, then 15%, and now even below that for many sales looks more and more 'abusive' when people look around at what else is available.
And with established agencies like SS continuing to build on their successes, I wouldn't like to be in the shoes of an iS/Getty exec who's probably charged with increasing profits by some large double digit percentage every year.
40
« on: April 03, 2013, 09:30 »
Look, the question is a negative question, and a closed question where the answer is supposed to confirm one of the two negatives stated in the question. Its unrelated to the topic, and has nothing to do with my comment. So I have reason to believe the question was asked to revoke a reaction, or troll if you will, hence my specific reply for that person to go and find out himself.
Lets move on.
OK, perhaps best to just move on. It was actually just a genuine question, I really have no idea how Shutterstock deal with purchases made using non-USD currencies, and whether or not they use FX as an extra opportunity to make a higher commission. I don't see how your suggestion of looking at the prices myself would help me answer the question of whether they take an extra FX skim, as I'm not a SS contributor. Anyway - please don't take offence, but I think you read more into my post than was meant. I wasn't trying to have a go at Shutterstock or any contributors, it was just in response to your post about what kind of royalty SS contributors get paid. I don't know very much about that just now, but it's of more interest to me right now than previously. That's all.
41
« on: April 03, 2013, 06:25 »
So it's not me.
The quality on SS is certainly impressive though I believe the royalties are much less.
Depends on how you look at it, SS pays you around 25-30% which is more, but in $$$ it could be less.
Do SS pay themselves a big extra skim for non-USD purchases like iStock, or is their payment system too opaque for contributors to know?
42
« on: March 26, 2013, 01:38 »
I think in the long run image exclusivity is going to be the only way exclusive content and providers can survive, especially with the new group of libraries that are about to land.
Getty should do themselves a favour and get on that train early if they want to benefit.
Yes, browsing through some of Stocksy's excellent initial content, it's a surprise to see how many big and previously heavily featured iStock names have dropped exclusivity and are working with Stocksy. So iStock now find themselves with many tens of thousands of non-exclusive files from these prominent photographers, which they could still perhaps be exclusively representing and selling. My hat's off to these contribs, they certainly had more to lose than me, but went for it - I got a Stocksy invite a while back (to apply as a photograher, that is), and decided not to make any rash moves for the time being. Really interesting times. I'm not rabidly anti Getty/iStock, but I do think the whole market - from customers through to contributors - will benefit from this high quality addition to the market, and probably also from the fact that the rest of the opposition is also developing well.
43
« on: March 25, 2013, 07:32 »
For me, image exclusivity could be the saviour of my relationship with iStock/Getty. Due to their actions and policies, I currently feel stuck between a rock and a hard place.
The 'rock' being the hugely restrictive (on contributors, not on iStock) exclusive ASA, which (if followed honestly, and I do) requires contributors to place a very high level of trust in the company, at times that can be a major challenge.
But dropping exclusivity would put me in a 'hard place' where my content would be duplicated all over Getty's bottom priced sites, earning less than 15% royalties, and - with that being the case, and having a living to make - I'd be compelled to spread my work across a whole bunch of sites, all with different prices, royalty rates and levels of competence.
So as I see it just now, the viable alternative is to completely sever my relationship with iStock/Getty and get back control of my own work. But obviously that would come with a total RF earnings drop, followed by a long period of building earnings back up. Suppose there's also always the possibility that any of us could get "Locke'd", and have the decision made for us, who knows.
But IMO a better solution, which could work very well for iStock/Getty and for contributors, would be to offer image exclusivity. It's been suggested a fair bit, especially recently, and I didn't miss the opportunity to mention it in the survey. But it would be interesting to get views on it here.
Would indys consider removing files from all other sites to have them exclusive with iS/Getty, having them mirrored to Getty rather then TS etc, and at a better royalty rate? And would exclusives go for it, or prefer to just stick with full artist exclusivity?
44
« on: March 23, 2013, 21:22 »
FWIW I've asked iStock to confirm that the legality of what they're doing with Getty 360 has been properly looked at.
I'm most concerned if they push existing, major iStock clients to a site where independent and exclusive suppliers have been compelled without any option (short of ceasing all business with the site) to offer their work at a much lower royalty rate. A royalty rate of less than half in some cases.
It feels as though iStock have been doing everything possible to model themselves as the MacDonalds of photography. I'd very much like to see them working to prove otherwise, but recent moves have hardly been convincing.
45
« on: March 22, 2013, 09:12 »
It may have something to do with the importation of art from clip art.com
Yes - of course - that explains it, because of http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350915&page=1OP, with bold added:
I just wanted to give everyone a head's up that we will be moving some of the old clipart.com vector content into the Partner Program. In order to do so, it will be uploaded to iStock to a non-Exclusive contributor account so that it can be mirrored on Thinkstock and Photos.com.
These files will be very tightly curated: We're only moving the content that we feel still has a chance at selling. It's a very small portion of the overall collection of vectors still on clipart.com.
The files will go through the normal inspection process and will be subject to all the usual contributor rules such as the weekly upload limits. This way the files won't spam Best Match.
The files will eventually be moved to our Value Collection (formerly the Dollar Bin) once they've mirrored on the Partner Program sites.
We wanted to let you know in case you happened to recognize any of the content: This isn't an infringem, it's wholly owned content from Getty Images.
If anyone has any questions just let me know!
46
« on: March 19, 2013, 07:51 »
Ah thanks, sounds like they gave 10 credits to people who'd made a cash purchase in the past or something like that
47
« on: March 16, 2013, 02:35 »
I've not been checking my account or the forums much recently, but just logged into iS to find that I have a credit balance of 10, not sure why.
I remember years ago being given 10 credits for starting as an Audio contributor (I think), and that maybe there was also some promotion running with an old referral system, but that doesn't seem to explain it.
Don't think it's a 'modern' referral, as I'm set-up to get $20 for those, and despite having several sign-ups through my links, officially I have zero referrals anyway.
Anyone else seeing an odd credit balance? Cheers
48
« on: February 15, 2013, 21:37 »
Another crown begging to be banned (bottom of thread).
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=351105&page=8
Not at all! The point I was trying to make (seems I got got a bit tongue tied typing into my phone in the process) was that zero 'magic' is needed for iStock/Getty to simply allow people to find out if their work is involved in this deal. If people need to get 'booted' for asking for that, then things must be pretty bad indeed.
49
« on: February 13, 2013, 19:14 »
never thought of it like that. Will other top exclusive pick up sales with one less big competitor? Probably.
Will Sean find it hard to reboot his income stream elsewhere? Probably
Will IS miss his image? Probably not.
Will Istock sales decline? Of course yes but probably not due to this.
All good except for Sean. Not fair at all. Warnings could have been given rather than dismissal. Really though I am not sure they care. Better for Istock if he went?
(My bold above) - honestly I think it's more likely to be the other way round: All good for Sean; Better for iStock if they had properly considered their actions. What about: - Have iStock received a great deal of bad press and social media attention following his forced departure? - Have details of the disastrously badly conceived and handled Google Drive deal been further spread and discussed? - Does iStock appear to be a more well run or less well run company in light of this decision and the publicity surrounding it? - Are remaining large contributors at iStock now likely to trust the judgement and integrity of iStock/Getty management more or less? - Is this all likely to strengthen or weaken iStock's competitors?
50
« on: February 09, 2013, 14:16 »
Yes, they are definitely making an attempt to clean house. Very touchy.
Seems this is part 2 of "Changes in the way we communicate to the iStock community". Part 1 was cancelled due to lack of interest (though not from contributors).
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
