pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStock Content to Sell on Photos.com and JupiterUnlimited  (Read 94414 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #225 on: May 06, 2009, 10:31 »
0
You've hit the nail on the head. Why would a buyer pay $200-$400 for "exclusive" images at istock when they can get those not so exclusive after all files for $100-$200? Just to make things worse, the up to 40% commission on the $200-$400 is being replaced by 22.5% on the $100-$200. Good for buyers, good for the "Getty Family" but terrible for istock and its contributors, especially the exclusives.

Both are valid questions and should and can be asked.

My personal assumption to question 1 would be:
1) Most customers will need much less than 50 images a month, they will need 1, 2 or 5. For them paying $100 a month is not an option.
2) Many customers don't care if one image costs $1, $5 or $20. It's still much less than they had to pay in the past. But they want access to the best library for their projects.
3) Quite a few customers think like the one above. They don't buy at iStock nowadays. So currently your share of that market is $0.00

Yes, it might be possible that some customers will switch from model A to model B. But did it ever occur to you it also might happen that some customers will switch from model B to model A once they find "hey, that's great content but I want to have access to it all"? It could be working in both ways. I don't say it will but it could.

Don't assume that ALL customers will buy an ANNUAL subscription and download ALL images they are allowed to. Because that's not business sense.

And what I also would consider a bit more respect is if people don't always state that Getty makes all the calls. I don't know if this is the case or not but neither do you. Maybe you could consider that each time you are stating "this must be an order of Getty" you are at the same time saying "I don't trust the people having led iStock to where it is now to have a opinion, standing or strength at all." I'd expect everybody to have a bit more respect for those people and at least give them the benefit of the doubt that they actually believe this is a right step for all of us. At the end, they are humans even if that gets lost sometimes in our virtual environments.

This is something that somehow got a bit lost these days and makes me more than just a bit sad. Sorry to share that if you don't care.

Michael you are being really naive, and you sound no more than a sounding board for the company.


« Reply #226 on: May 06, 2009, 10:36 »
0
Being as you're on the staff of IS I'm not sure how much trust to put into your reply either

Just to correct that: I am not on the staff. I am not hired by iStock, I am not sitting in an iStock office and I neither get involved nor informed in decisions like this. I am just helping to moderate the German-speaking forum to show people around who don't understand English.

And yes, still, I am biased in almost each and every of my opinions. Not only if they are around iStock.

lisafx

« Reply #227 on: May 06, 2009, 10:45 »
0
In some ways I really feel for the iStock admins.  I don't believe for a second they are on board with Getty's plan.  They are doing their jobs, doing their best to defend the indefensible.  I don't envy their position.

Dan, this is my thought too.  Most of istock's admins have been there for a long time and put their heart and soul into making it what it is today.  This has got to be devastating for them. 

I am guessing they secretly hope contributors raise such hell that this can't be implemented, or at least has to be drastically improved to be fairer to contributors.

« Reply #228 on: May 06, 2009, 10:51 »
0
Let me just say this has to be the most stupid decision IStock and Getty have ever made.

Nah __ they've got such a painfully sycophantic bunch of 'proud to be exclusive' followers that they'll just get away it. Again.

Remember how they all detested those nasty big corporations like Getty (Enemy #1 at the time) __ right up to the point when Brucie sold out to them. Within a couple of weeks they were all woo-yaying how proud they were to be part of Getty!

Wait for the shrill cries to die down a bit, give them a couple of minor concessions and then roll it out with barely a murmur. They can just remove the opt-out later when the fuss has died down.


« Reply #229 on: May 06, 2009, 10:57 »
0
In some ways I really feel for the iStock admins.  I don't believe for a second they are on board with Getty's plan.  They are doing their jobs, doing their best to defend the indefensible.  I don't envy their position.

Dan, this is my thought too.  Most of istock's admins have been there for a long time and put their heart and soul into making it what it is today.  This has got to be devastating for them. 

I am guessing they secretly hope contributors raise such hell that this can't be implemented, or at least has to be drastically improved to be fairer to contributors.

I would guess that this isn't what the Calgary folks wanted either. However, even if we manage to stall or change this proposal, how could things return to "normal"? We'll all know that Getty is just waiting to find another way to get the commission down. I'd be looking over my shoulder (and I knew Getty had a truly abysmal track record of contributor relations, but I didn't think they'd try to dismantle the IS system quite so soon).

IMO the folks that think this will bring business to IS are being naive. I still haven't heard anything rational about why the experience over the last year with StockXpert and the Jupiter properties would not play out again in the same way.

While this is particularly calamitous for IS exclusives, I think this is very bad news across the board as I don't expect the more generous 30 cents/30% commissions for StockXpert contributors to  continue unchanged.

tan510jomast

« Reply #230 on: May 06, 2009, 11:02 »
0

Dan, this is my thought too.  Most of istock's admins have been there for a long time and put their heart and soul into making it what it is today.  This has got to be devastating for them. 

what else can they say, lisafx? it's like the restructuring wave of 90's after the stock market crash. you know some , if not all ,of you could be laid off, but you smile and say nice things hoping the pink slip isn't for you.

« Reply #231 on: May 06, 2009, 11:15 »
0
Does Getty treat their traditional photographers this poorly?  Anyone know what commissions they give our big brothers?  Are they just trying to see what they can get away with?  Kick us an see if we'll get up (or notice)?

RacePhoto

« Reply #232 on: May 06, 2009, 11:17 »
0
Looks like Batman's flame is out.


They come... they go.  ;D Appeared in April, gone by May. Back again... I guess you can kill your account and then come back, post a message and turn it off again? Avava did that to write one message last month. Strange?

I just expected Batman to come back with a new name.

Funny, IS posts a Q&A and then locks the thread. Here's the one page answer that coveres the redundant 125 pages of the same messages, questions and answers.   http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=87898&page=1

One thread went 66 pages before being locked, the next went for 59 pages.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2009, 19:12 by RacePhoto »

stacey_newman

« Reply #233 on: May 06, 2009, 11:28 »
0
I have to be devil's advocate here again. the logic for the reaction to this plan still escapes me. (that is not an invitation for anyone to convince me, I have read all the points made in these threads. repeating those points louder and louder doesn't make them anymore factual for me.)

I believe the truth is far more innocuous than the scenario you have all created with the speculation and surmising. I believe this was simply a marketing initiative and that they are probably in Calgary wondering what the big deal is.

iStock is doing very well in the market in terms of sales and revenue. we now have the best search in microstock. I also don't think that many of the contributors being led by this mini-revolution really understand that the acquisition of Getty in 2008 by Hellman and Friedman is actually a very positive sign. Private equity firms buy companies like Getty in their prime. The only purpose of an acquisition like that is to continue the exponential growth of a company with momentum. Hellman and Friedman is not in the stock photo business. These types of companies don't manage the operations of the firms they acquire. That isn't how it works. Getty is in charge, they have not absorbed iStock's administration into their operations. I don't believe they will. it would be a stupid move and I'm certain they know that.

Big companies have a bottom line to maintain. We are the engine at iStock and we ultimately own the copyright to our work. So nothing is being hijacked here, and the market is by no means dwindling.

I believe this whole thing has been made into a monster when in reality is is just a marketing initiative in order to sell latent files. if you look at contributor charts....there are not that many opt out avatars. that tells me something.

though I do appreciate the advice of a couple of respected veterans (and that advice is what is keeping me on the fence), I also think this reaction has taken on a life of its own. people love to get their knickers in a twist. they smell excitement, but I don't see any solid evidence for this reaction.

I will do what I think is best. right now I am opting out, but only until I see some questions answered that I most concerned with about photos.com and JI.

« Reply #234 on: May 06, 2009, 11:32 »
0
I have to be devil's advocate here again. the logic for the reaction to this plan still escapes me. (that is not an invitation for anyone to convince me, I have read all the points made in these threads. repeating those points louder and louder doesn't make them anymore factual for me.)

I believe the truth is far more innocuous than the scenario you have all created with the speculation and surmising. I believe this was simply a marketing initiative and that they are probably in Calgary wondering what the big deal is.

iStock is doing very well in the market in terms of sales and revenue. we now have the best search in microstock. I also don't think that many of the contributors being led by this mini-revolution really understand that the acquisition of Getty in 2008 by Hellman and Friedman is actually a very positive sign. Private equity firms buy companies like Getty in their prime. The only purpose of an acquisition like that is to continue the exponential growth of a company with momentum. Hellman and Friedman is not in the stock photo business. These types of companies don't manage the operations of the firms they acquire. That isn't how it works. Getty is in charge, they have not absorbed iStock's administration into their operations. I don't believe they will. it would be a stupid move and I'm certain they know that.

Big companies have a bottom line to maintain. We are the engine at iStock and we ultimately own the copyright to our work. So nothing is being hijacked here, and the market is by no means dwindling.

I believe this whole thing has been made into a monster when in reality is is just a marketing initiative in order to sell latent files. if you look at contributor charts....there are not that many opt out avatars. that tells me something.

though I do appreciate the advice of a couple of respected veterans (and that advice is what is keeping me on the fence), I also think this reaction has taken on a life of its own. people love to get their knickers in a twist. they smell excitement, but I don't see any solid evidence for this reaction.

I will do what I think is best. right now I am opting out, but only until I see some questions answered that I most concerned with about photos.com and JI.

Just want to keep this one for an I told you so when the sh** hits the fan.

RT


« Reply #235 on: May 06, 2009, 11:41 »
0
people love to get their knickers in a twist. they smell excitement, but I don't see any solid evidence for this reaction.

Just FTR when people get their knickers in a twist generally speaking they're not excited, it's the reverse, in which case the smell is probably from the solid evidence in their twisted knickers.

stacey_newman

« Reply #236 on: May 06, 2009, 11:43 »
0
there's no I told you so. it isn't about me being right or wrong, I have no ego stake in this. I'm not convinced by the drama. I also think if it goes belly up, than it goes belly up. then what? iStock folds and we all go home? give me a break...

hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #237 on: May 06, 2009, 11:45 »
0
there's no I told you so. if I am wrong I'll say it. I'm jnot convinced by the drama. I also think if it goes belly up, than it goes belly up. then what? iStock folds and we all go home? give me a break...

istock won't fold, the contributors will, that's the point.. it's good that you're keeping an open mind, but it's take a stand now, or accept 22.5% for top contributors as industry standard in the future, then try paying for camera equipment, models etc and see how far you get!!

stacey_newman

« Reply #238 on: May 06, 2009, 11:53 »
0
I refuse to take a stand based on nothing but speculation.

ironically, it was the ridiculous devolution of that thread yesterday that made me question the wisdom of this movement. this is an individual choice. I'm not trying to convince anyone either way. everyone can do what they like.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2009, 11:56 by stacey_newman »

« Reply #239 on: May 06, 2009, 11:56 »
0
I am not taking a stand based on nothing but speculation. ironically, it was the devolution of that thread yesterday that made me question the wisdom of this movement. this is an individual choice. I'm not trying to convince anyone either way. everyone can do what they like. bet there are a bunch of traditional stock photographers who wish they had gotten in on the ground floor of microstock.

my main concern is the far lesser quality of work available on photos.com. I am asking questions directly instead of relying on speculation because there is nothing informative in the forum.

Because you refuse to listen to those who have been through it before. Why on earth do you think this will play out any different than the JUI Photo.com fiasco ?

« Reply #240 on: May 06, 2009, 11:57 »
0
The only purpose of an acquisition like that is to continue the exponential growth of a company with momentum.

I disagree. The only purpose of an acquisition like that is to generate a significant return on the investement.

Believing in the exponential growth of a company (and believing it will continue like that) and therefore running it just the same as before is one way to achieve this goal - not the only one.

A different one (very common in the world of private equity) is to put pressure on the company to increase the margin (either to profit from that directly or to increase the value of the company to resell it).
Increasing margin works via either increasing prices or reducing cost.
And at least this move by Istock does not increase sales prices.

Anything above that - there I agree with you - is speculation.
But not one that would be without example. Buying a company and then pressuring it to reduce cost is not uncommon. And commonly that pressure is put forward to the suppliers.

« Reply #241 on: May 06, 2009, 12:02 »
0
The real issue I have is that it is us the contributors who take all the risk here.  There is no bottom payment (well 3cents but come on).  To earn good money we have to rely on customer apathy and flaky internet conection so they don't use their full amount.

I think istock would have been better off saying 'you'll earn a dime minimum like in the old days, but it might be more.  You get new canisters for photos.com. Help us to become as successful at subscriptions as we are as PAYG. Woo Yay'  But they didn't.

stacey_newman

« Reply #242 on: May 06, 2009, 12:08 »
0
I am listening to advice, and frankly I have been getting way more advice by phone and by email from people who think this whole reaction is inappropriately charged. and the people I have heard from are also veterans. I have a journalism background, one of the things I am good at is research. I don't jump on any bandwagon without checking things out. the "facts" in this case don't entirely check out.

though for the record, I understand the emotion behind it and the concern.

I hold iStock responsible for inspiring the unrest. they have got to find a way to announce these things more intelligently and with far more information provided.

« Reply #243 on: May 06, 2009, 12:14 »
0
I have no ego stake in this.

That's funny __ I'd say that's all you have in it.

« Reply #244 on: May 06, 2009, 12:14 »
0
You've hit the nail on the head. Why would a buyer pay $200-$400 for "exclusive" images at istock when they can get those not so exclusive after all files for $100-$200? Just to make things worse, the up to 40% commission on the $200-$400 is being replaced by 22.5% on the $100-$200. Good for buyers, good for the "Getty Family" but terrible for istock and its contributors, especially the exclusives.

Both are valid questions and should and can be asked.

My personal assumption to question 1 would be:
1) Most customers will need much less than 50 images a month, they will need 1, 2 or 5. For them paying $100 a month is not an option.
2) Many customers don't care if one image costs $1, $5 or $20. It's still much less than they had to pay in the past. But they want access to the best library for their projects.
3) Quite a few customers think like the one above. They don't buy at iStock nowadays. So currently your share of that market is $0.00

Yes, it might be possible that some customers will switch from model A to model B. But did it ever occur to you it also might happen that some customers will switch from model B to model A once they find "hey, that's great content but I want to have access to it all"? It could be working in both ways. I don't say it will but it could.

Don't assume that ALL customers will buy an ANNUAL subscription and download ALL images they are allowed to. Because that's not business sense.

And what I also would consider a bit more respect is if people don't always state that Getty makes all the calls. I don't know if this is the case or not but neither do you. Maybe you could consider that each time you are stating "this must be an order of Getty" you are at the same time saying "I don't trust the people having led iStock to where it is now to have a opinion, standing or strength at all." I'd expect everybody to have a bit more respect for those people and at least give them the benefit of the doubt that they actually believe this is a right step for all of us. At the end, they are humans even if that gets lost sometimes in our virtual environments.

This is something that somehow got a bit lost these days and makes me more than just a bit sad. Sorry to share that if you don't care.

I don't think absolutely everyone will leave istock and buy the smallest credit package but it is just as bad an assumption to think all customers at istock won't buy a subscription at photos.com to get their hands on exclusive content and when it's a poor royalty on an already tiny price, it makes it a real bad deal for exclusive contributors if anyone goes over.

As far as I'm aware, istock had nothing to do with the arrangement at StockXpert so the fact it has been transferred over to istock makes it apparent the idea came from Getty. If istock did turn round to Getty and say "you're right, it's a great deal for istock, lets do it" then why has no-one from HQ been able to come up with anything to back up why this deal is good for contributors and won't just be a repeat of StockXpert?

alias

« Reply #245 on: May 06, 2009, 12:23 »
0
Does Getty treat their traditional photographers this poorly?  Anyone know what commissions they give our big brothers?  Are they just trying to see what they can get away with?  Kick us an see if we'll get up (or notice)?

Photographers have had a story relationship with Getty since Getty was got going. Sometimes they go where the market is inevitably going anyhow. Sometimes they almost seem to decide where to take it.

And not to forget that Getty has also defined very high standards.

Like the record labels, all of the agencies now face an uncertain future. I am now 100% certain that something else is coming. I do not say that because I have some special inside knowledge. Only because it is inevitable. Microstock was just the beginning.

Look at what an agency actually does for its money. Look at how microstock changed that (but not so much yet). Then extrapolate.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2009, 12:29 by alias »

« Reply #246 on: May 06, 2009, 12:33 »
0
As far as I'm aware, istock had nothing to do with the arrangement at StockXpert so the fact it has been transferred over to istock makes it apparent the idea came from Getty. If istock did turn round to Getty and say "you're right, it's a great deal for istock, lets do it" then why has no-one from HQ been able to come up with anything to back up why this deal is good for contributors and won't just be a repeat of StockXpert?


The StockXpert idea/implementation was down to Jupiter who weren't part of Getty at the time. Now that Jupiter have been bought by Getty it's reasonable to assume it is the same people at Jupiter who want the IS library to boost their own sites.

Historically IS have always been totally against the standard subscription model and also justifiably proud of their exclusive contributors. Being as this deal drives a coach and horses through both of those principles (as well as setting an extremely dangerous precedent in reducing the exclusive bonus) I struggle to believe IS staff would have been enthusiastic about the idea.

tan510jomast

« Reply #247 on: May 06, 2009, 12:33 »
0
Looks like Batman's flame is out.
They come... they go.  ;D Appeared in April, gone by May.
Don't we expect him back again with another name?

off topic : 
maybe batmans is a she, and she already is back with another name. I checked several new accounts today  ;)

anyway, back to topic: 
amidst all these going back and forth, I am just wondering if anyone is uploading to IS or /and StockXpert? if so, what's the point?  we need an incentive, and I can't seem to find one tentatively. however, I haven't stopped uploading to the other sites . I guess I have a lifejacket, but the exclusives
don't. this feels so tangled up for now for the IS exclusives. I sure hope for you this gets resolved soon, although, this also involves us who belong to StockXpert. thank goodness StockXpert didn't offer exclusiveness; I actually asked about it only a couple of months back. phew !
« Last Edit: May 06, 2009, 12:36 by tan510jomast »

lisafx

« Reply #248 on: May 06, 2009, 12:35 »
0
The idea that this is all speculation sounds reasonable.  For istock exclusives it may be true.  

But for those of us who have been through the same situation with Stockxpert as it was taken over my Getty, this is not speculation.  It is a very familiar scenario indeed.

Only difference is that the deal being offered istock exclusives is considerably worse than the one offered StockXpert contributors.  I think they are assuming that the loyalty of istock exclusives to the company and their inexperience with the rest of the industry will cause them to take a deal that is very much against their self interests.  

From some of the comments in this thread and the one on istock they may be right.

tan510jomast

« Reply #249 on: May 06, 2009, 12:40 »
0
The idea that this is all speculation sounds reasonable.  For istock exclusives it may be true. 

But for those of us who have been through the same situation with Stockxpert as it was taken over my Getty, this is not speculation.  It is a very familiar scenario indeed.

Only difference is that the deal being offered istock exclusives is considerably worse than the one offered StockXpert contributors.  I think they are assuming that the loyalty of istock exclusives to the company and their inexperience with the rest of the industry will cause them to take a deal that is very much against their self interests. 

From some of the comments in this thread and the one on istock they may be right.

it's probably more conditioning than anything else, lisafx. if you've been exclusive for so long, it must be hell trying to unravel a global mentality. it will take time for that, which again I think Getty is betting on this cooling down period to their advantage.
just my tuppence thought.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
14 Replies
6303 Views
Last post September 16, 2009, 16:03
by Sean Locke Photography
258 Replies
62464 Views
Last post June 15, 2011, 07:17
by bunhill
12 Replies
8848 Views
Last post November 16, 2014, 12:21
by etudiante_rapide
14 Replies
15345 Views
Last post March 23, 2016, 10:06
by Lukeruk
3 Replies
3963 Views
Last post May 28, 2015, 20:22
by WeatherENG

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors