Nav: Home
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 26, 2012, 07:15

Login with username, password and session length

MicrostockGroup

Microstockgroup Sponsors


« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print

Topic: Getty and Corbis Monopoly by Piclet  

(Read 2461 times)
Chico


« on: March 30, 2011, 14:28 »

Very good way to understand image market since early years.

http://www.mystockphoto.org/getty-and-corbis-monopoly-by-piclet/?utm_source=microstock.info&utm_medium=microstock%2C+photos%2C+stock%2C+photography&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+mystockphotoorg+%28My+Stock+Photography%29


Ignore | Logged


DepositPhotos.com
ap


« Reply #1 on: March 30, 2011, 14:38 »

excellent!


Ignore | Logged


Zeus


Dreamstime GaugeiStock Gauge
« Reply #2 on: March 30, 2011, 14:42 »

There is a lot missing from the timeline.


Ignore | Logged


Lagereek


« Reply #3 on: March 30, 2011, 15:16 »

I personally know dozens of buyers at Getty, I dont know anybody or even heard of anybody buying from Corbis, maybe Bill is doing most of the buying himself, he can afford it.


Ignore | Logged


wiser


« Reply #4 on: March 30, 2011, 19:48 »

Nice timeline, very easy to follow.

We use to buy RF regularly from Corbis, Alamy, AGE and Getty until IS got as good as it is around 2008-2009 or so (image-quality wise that is).  My shop now mostly buys from Shutterstock and IS. We only go to Getty for the occasional RM stunner for a cover or full page glamour shot.


Ignore | Logged


luissantos84

Dreamstime GaugeiStock Gauge
« Reply #5 on: March 30, 2011, 20:41 »

infographic" border="0
Via: Free Stock Photography


Ignore | Logged


OhGoAway!

iStock Gauge
« Reply #6 on: March 30, 2011, 21:06 »

Well, I need a drink now. That was about as cheery as I expected it to be Cheesy


Ignore | Logged


sjlocke

iStock Gauge
« Reply #7 on: March 30, 2011, 21:12 »

That bottom right box about the iStock royalty changes makes no sense at all.


Ignore | Logged


SNP


iStock Gauge
« Reply #8 on: March 30, 2011, 21:46 »

look here ;-)

http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/getty-and-corbis-monopoly-by-piclet/msg0/?topicseen#new


Ignore | Logged


BaldricksTrousers

Dreamstime GaugeiStock Gauge
« Reply #9 on: March 31, 2011, 00:57 »

That bottom right box about the iStock royalty changes makes no sense at all.

+ 1

It's propaganda, but not very good propaganda because I still don't know what it wants me to think.


Ignore | Logged


RacePhoto



« Reply #10 on: March 31, 2011, 01:33 »

That bottom right box about the iStock royalty changes makes no sense at all.

+ 1

It's propaganda, but not very good propaganda because I still don't know what it wants me to think.

The red camera gun winds backwards.  Cheesy (it's a lefty?)

Interesting collection and timeline.


Ignore | Logged


sharpshot


Dreamstime GaugeiStock Gauge
« Reply #11 on: March 31, 2011, 02:40 »

That bottom right box about the iStock royalty changes makes no sense at all.
It makes about as much sense as the management spin we get from istock.  They try and polish the turd, this is making it smell worse Smiley


Ignore | Logged


leaf
« Reply #12 on: March 31, 2011, 02:59 »

I just merged the two similar topics


Ignore | Logged


sjlocke

iStock Gauge
« Reply #13 on: March 31, 2011, 03:03 »

That bottom right box about the iStock royalty changes makes no sense at all.
It makes about as much sense as the management spin we get from istock.  They try and polish the turd, this is making it smell worse Smiley

No, I mean they are randomly pasting things together:
"In 2010, iStockphoto announced a big change in royalty rates: photographers need to sell more than 150,000 credits a year to receive 40% in royalties, otherwise they'd see a pay cut.  This means iStockphoto receives 85% while photographers receive a payout of 15%."

To start, it makes no sense, because it mixes exclusive with non-exclusive terms.  Then it compares almost the highest of one to the lowest of the other.  It also seems to assume that all exclusives were making 40% prior to the new paradigm.  Then it erroneously assumes everyone who doesn't make 150,000 credits falls to the lowest level of independent.  And photographers don't sell credits.


Ignore | Logged


sjlocke

iStock Gauge
« Reply #14 on: March 31, 2011, 03:04 »

I just merged the two similar topics

Ha, you did that right as I was posting in the other one.  I was WTH, where'd it go?


Ignore | Logged


ProArtwork

iStock Gauge
« Reply #15 on: March 31, 2011, 05:09 »

That bottom right box about the iStock royalty changes makes no sense at all.
It makes about as much sense as the management spin we get from istock.  They try and polish the turd, this is making it smell worse Smiley

No, I mean they are randomly pasting things together:
"In 2010, iStockphoto announced a big change in royalty rates: photographers need to sell more than 150,000 credits a year to receive 40% in royalties, otherwise they'd see a pay cut.  This means iStockphoto receives 85% while photographers receive a payout of 15%."

To start, it makes no sense, because it mixes exclusive with non-exclusive terms.  Then it compares almost the highest of one to the lowest of the other.  It also seems to assume that all exclusives were making 40% prior to the new paradigm.  Then it erroneously assumes everyone who doesn't make 150,000 credits falls to the lowest level of independent.  And photographers don't sell credits.

Where is the outrage from those that like to point out misleading information?


Ignore | Logged


Microbius
« Reply #16 on: March 31, 2011, 05:42 »

I guess people are less bothered by nonsense spouted by random bloke on the internet then they are by the COO of an agency that is meant to be representing their interests (?)


Ignore | Logged


Piclet


New Member


« Reply #17 on: April 19, 2011, 09:34 »

That bottom right box about the iStock royalty changes makes no sense at all.
It makes about as much sense as the management spin we get from istock.  They try and polish the turd, this is making it smell worse Smiley

No, I mean they are randomly pasting things together:
"In 2010, iStockphoto announced a big change in royalty rates: photographers need to sell more than 150,000 credits a year to receive 40% in royalties, otherwise they'd see a pay cut.  This means iStockphoto receives 85% while photographers receive a payout of 15%."

To start, it makes no sense, because it mixes exclusive with non-exclusive terms.  Then it compares almost the highest of one to the lowest of the other.  It also seems to assume that all exclusives were making 40% prior to the new paradigm.  Then it erroneously assumes everyone who doesn't make 150,000 credits falls to the lowest level of independent.  And photographers don't sell credits.

Guys, sincere thanks for ripping apart the wording in the ‘royalty changes’ section! It made perfect sense at the time of publishing but with hindsight, it was rather confusing Huh The info has been updated in the graphic...


Ignore | Logged


Lagereek


« Reply #18 on: April 19, 2011, 12:02 »

To be quite honest,  I think their monopoly is grossly overrated.


Ignore | Logged


cclapper
« Reply #19 on: April 19, 2011, 17:03 »

That bottom right box about the iStock royalty changes makes no sense at all.
It makes about as much sense as the management spin we get from istock.  They try and polish the turd, this is making it smell worse Smiley

LOL!


Ignore | Logged


Envateo Photo ToolsMicrostock Insider
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


TinyPortal v1.0.5 beta 1© Bloc