Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on October 30, 2013, 10:36

I know.  I didn't word that right.  You're saying if they're increasing their percentage of the take, their profits should be going up.  I'm saying their profits are going down, and as a reaction, they are trying to increase their percentage of the take.

I'm saying something a little different.  Basically what I'm saying is that it's not Getty transferring sales from higher priced to lower priced (or royalty) but the sub site that has the largest market share doing it.  The PP is a reaction to that.  Rather than a bid to transfer sales from higher to lower it's a reaction to the reality that there are very cheap sub sites out there that are being supported by contributors with 30 million images and their profits are growing along with their market share.

Quote from: pancaketom on October 30, 2013, 10:58

They could have easily provided RC for PP and Getty sales if they wanted to, but they want to get payouts down to 20% since that is "sustainable" or whatever.

I would guess their take matches the competition very closely.

Quote from: ShadySue on October 30, 2013, 11:08

^^ only TS, from your list.

But even if they had to set up TS, they didn't have to go overboard trying to persuade buyers to desert iS to go to TS, did they? It's as if they decided that iS was dead and everybody was going to switch to subscriptions so let's shift all the buyers to our own subs, rather than have them find SS first.
It was incredibly stupid and defeatest.

IStock's loss of sales is iStock's fault, not other people's. Consider these points:
After setting up TS, Getty decided to advertise it on the iStock homepage as a cheaper option
The iStock website is horribly slow even when it's working, costing customers valuable time
iStock prices were pushed up too far on a significant part of the content, encouraging budget buyers to look elsewhere for content (I think they even made some comment once about wanting corporate budgets, not low-volume buyers).
iStock pricing is extremely confusing and files can change price dramatically at any time, depending on the latest whim
iStock chose to tick-off its suppliers by squeezing them in innumerable ways, ensuring that it got a heap of bad publicity (and probably alerting a lot of customers to cheaper alternatives in the process)
Getty decided to swamp iS with mountains of third-rate material from old collections it had lying about, hoping to rake in a big return, but actually devaluing the collection
Getty decided to slash iStock's profitablity by cutting the cost of half its files by about 60%, thereby pulling some sales off the higher-priced material without - by all accounts - pulling in any extra customers.
Getty/iS decided to wipe out the community spirit that had allowed it to sail on with exclusives and a number of buyers alike viewing the collection through rose-tinted glasses.

Now, how much of that is really Shutterstock's fault?