pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Getty says "Don't buy at istock"  (Read 17676 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: March 19, 2010, 22:42 »
0
Why do you think Getty would kill Istock, a company that is making them a hundred million dollars per year?
You can expect anything from a company that killed a fine site like Stockexpert just because some overhyped white collar "managers" want their extra bonus. Reading between the lines on the IS forum, you can feel that Sylvan isn't that enthusiast about it all. In a very elusive way, he asked for support - and he will get it since IS isn't Getty and vice versa.


« Reply #26 on: March 19, 2010, 23:06 »
0
My cynical perspective on this sort of thing comes from the years I spent working in a big technology corporation.  

After the big execs go on an acquisition/startup binge, they wake up in bed with a financial hangover, and a new company they may not really know what to do with, and which may not look quite so 'hot' now that the thrill of the chase is over.   There is then enormous pressure to make the whole deal look like a winner.  Resources are quickly diverted to the new acquisition to pump up its bottom line before the next big accounting cutoff.  Those resources often come from other, established parts of the company that are doing well.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2010, 23:09 by stockastic »

« Reply #27 on: March 19, 2010, 23:23 »
0
Reading between the lines on the IS forum, you can feel that Sylvan isn't that enthusiast about it all.

You can 'read between the lines' all you like but actually Rob is supporting the PP with his best-selling images. Don't forget we were all encouraged right from the start to send our entire portfolios to the PP, exclusive and independents alike.

Only a particularly stupid person would provide their content to an agency that they hoped would eventually fail. Maybe the IS admin are on some sort of bonus scheme based on the success of the PP.

I'd be absolutely gutted about these latest developments if I were exclusive. It seems that Istock's real message is "You play ball with us ... and we'll shove the bat up your arse".

« Reply #28 on: March 19, 2010, 23:36 »
0
Maybe the IS admin are on some sort of bonus scheme based on the success of the PP.
Ah yes, good old capitalism at its best. If you can't beat them, bribe them. I was merely sliming in the hope to get a bump in the best match of course.  ;)

« Reply #29 on: March 19, 2010, 23:37 »
0
No surprise!  We already knew Getty's intentions to send IS clients to Thinkstock.

Well, Thinkstock supporters must be happy now... They are about to have a few more subscription sales a month  :-\

I guess most thinkstock supporters must be either very low Istock sellers who think they have nothing to lose or very greedy people who can't help leaving money on the table and can't see the damage they are causing to themselves.   The other group would be naive newbies.

This is sad.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2010, 00:11 by Digital66 »

nruboc

« Reply #30 on: March 20, 2010, 00:16 »
0
Subscriptions today, PPD tomorrow. Getty obviously stands to make a bundle if they can target their wholly owned content above content they have to pay up to a 40% commission on. It's so obvious, I don't know why people are so surprised when they hear news like this anymore, it's baffling.

« Reply #31 on: March 20, 2010, 00:21 »
0
I guess most thinkstock supporters must be either very low Istock sellers who think they have nothing to lose or very greedy people who can't help leaving money on the table and can't see the damage they are causing to themselves.   The other group would be naive newbies.

115 images on Istock.
2700 images on ThinkStock.

You tell me.

« Reply #32 on: March 20, 2010, 02:13 »
0
Sounds like a desperation move.
Cold calling is rarely viewed kindly by the call-ee (is that a word?).
Huh? The reason cold calling is done is because it works.

Speaking strictly from personal experience, it does not work on me.
I am in a position at my company where I get cold called.
I hang up almost instantaneously when I realize what the call is.

Yes, I have read that it works.
I have read that spam works as well, but I have yet to open and respond to a spam email, just as I have yet to buy anything from a cold caller.  ;D

In the early 80s in a fairly bad business climate, my then employer had all of his employees making cold calls to drum up business.
It did not work at all. Zilch, nada, zip.

I know I'm in the minority here and everyone else feels cold calling is just good business.
C'est la guerre.

« Reply #33 on: March 20, 2010, 06:11 »
0
Reading between the lines on the IS forum, you can feel that Sylvan isn't that enthusiast about it all.

You can 'read between the lines' all you like but actually Rob is supporting the PP with his best-selling images. Don't forget we were all encouraged right from the start to send our entire portfolios to the PP, exclusive and independents alike.

Only a particularly stupid person would provide their content to an agency that they hoped would eventually fail. Maybe the IS admin are on some sort of bonus scheme based on the success of the PP.

I'd be absolutely gutted about these latest developments if I were exclusive. It seems that Istock's real message is "You play ball with us ... and we'll shove the bat up your arse".

LOL!

« Reply #34 on: March 20, 2010, 06:15 »
0
I thought closing StockXpert was a bad decision and moving buyers from istock to thinkstock looks like another one.  This might not be bad for non-exclusives though, as I have seen increased sales on istocks rival sites.  Hopefully enough of us wont use thinkstock and the site will never appeal to buyers as much as the other subs sites.  Corbis haven't done well with microstock so far, perhaps Getty will be just as bad?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #35 on: March 20, 2010, 06:25 »
0
I thought closing StockXpert was a bad decision and moving buyers from istock to thinkstock looks like another one.  This might not be bad for non-exclusives though, as I have seen increased sales on istocks rival sites.  Hopefully enough of us wont use thinkstock and the site will never appeal to buyers as much as the other subs sites.  Corbis haven't done well with microstock so far, perhaps Getty will be just as bad?
Getty seem to have done pretty well with their microstock acquisition up 'til now.

« Reply #36 on: March 20, 2010, 06:58 »
0
Getty seem to have done pretty well with their microstock acquisition up 'til now.

I think it is more the case that IS have done very well for Getty rather than the other way around. IS and microstock generally was already a runaway train when Getty jumped aboard.

Getty were on the NYSE when they bought Istock but the rest of their business was in such sharp decline that the shareholders eventually gave up on them and they sold out cheaply to H&F. I certainly wouldn't put it beyond Getty to screw up Istock with a series of poor business decisions __ which is what they appear to be doing.

What did they gain by closing down StockXpert for example? Why then start afresh with Thinkstock, a virtual mirror of PC/JIU which have failed to make any impact? Crazy. Phoning their highest-spending Istock customers and suggesting they buy a sub at TS instead is little short of lunacy. There were very good business reasons why Istock always avoided going down the conventional subscription route and that seems to have served them very well up to now. Getty appear intent on dismantling all that made Istock so successful. The eventual winner out of all this will be Fotolia.

« Reply #37 on: March 20, 2010, 07:12 »
0
@Mantonino,

"115 images on Istock.
2700 images on ThinkStock.

You tell me."

One thing comes to my mind - Thank God for IStock's upload limits!
Hopefully they'll stay in place.


3 - out of the 5 searched for - Black Diamonds contribute to ThinkStock.
No surprise here. I knew it.
I wonder, if asked, what their reason for uploading there would be?
'Trust in HQ' is a popular reply.
But is it accurate?

Most people upload to ThinkStock because they want to make more money. (One would think an exclusive Black Diamond is past such worries. But no.) The further down Getty's road they go chasing, the less we're all going to get.
Let's keep those upload limits in place for as long as possible.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #38 on: March 20, 2010, 07:40 »
0

What did they gain by closing down StockXpert for example? Why then start afresh with Thinkstock, a virtual mirror of PC/JIU which have failed to make any impact? Crazy. Phoning their highest-spending Istock customers and suggesting they buy a sub at TS instead is little short of lunacy. There were very good business reasons why Istock always avoided going down the conventional subscription route and that seems to have served them very well up to now. Getty appear intent on dismantling all that made Istock so successful.
Totally agree.

« Reply #39 on: March 20, 2010, 08:02 »
0
I think we might now need to plan for the possibility of IS forcing participation in the PP.  I didn't think it would happen before, but now I'm not so sure.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #40 on: March 20, 2010, 08:08 »
0
I think we might now need to plan for the possibility of IS forcing participation in the PP.  I didn't think it would happen before, but now I'm not so sure.
In that scenario, I guess everything would hinge on how many of the Big Sellers 'pulled' their images from iStock in protest. (currently, for example, neither Lise nor Sean are opted in, though only Sean has posted his reasons and Lise is now heavily involved 'at the top')  What the rest of us small fry do is virtually irrelevant.
Would any of the 'opposition' sites offer them a Golden Hello? Otherwise they might virtually be forced to stay at iStock despite not liking the PP.
Way back when the PP was first proposed, and the OptOut avatars were appeaing, a BigWig (Kelly? JJRD?) made a peevish post that if we didn't opt in they'd populate the program in other ways (implied: so we'd better take the fantastic opportunity or lose it). Whether he meant by forcing us in, or whether he meant they'd trawl Flickr etc, who knows?
« Last Edit: March 20, 2010, 09:49 by ShadySue »

« Reply #41 on: March 20, 2010, 08:28 »
0
Afraid it all smacks of desperation IMO feels like IS is being sacrificed for the GGG (Getty Greater Good ) and we are still in the early stages :(

« Reply #42 on: March 20, 2010, 09:22 »
0
The only reason getty is doing this is "they would love to eventually kill istockphoto and pay us only 0.25 cents forever". It is even worse than usual %20 we are getting at istock.

lisafx

« Reply #43 on: March 20, 2010, 09:26 »
0
What does it say about this move that since iSuck at iStock and don't have more than .3% of my gallery there that I'm happy with this?  I think it should say they shafted you - but I think everyone already knew that.  It doesn't shaft me - I have 2700 pics on ThinkStock through StockXpert.  More business there helps me - but hurts true iStockers.

It doesn't help you either.  Not in the long run.  When Shutterstock stops paying you .33 or .38 or whatever level you're on and bumps everyone back to .25 because people are willing to accept that at TS then you get shafted right along with the rest of us.

« Reply #44 on: March 20, 2010, 09:46 »
0
What does it say about this move that since iSuck at iStock and don't have more than .3% of my gallery there that I'm happy with this?  I think it should say they shafted you - but I think everyone already knew that.  It doesn't shaft me - I have 2700 pics on ThinkStock through StockXpert.  More business there helps me - but hurts true iStockers.

It says to me that because you can't compete yourself you're happy to assist in destroying the market for everyone else.

alias

« Reply #45 on: March 20, 2010, 09:48 »
0
It seems to me that there is a good case for selling the same images under different brands and at different prices under different models. It works for many independents.

It doesn't help you either.  Not in the long run.  When Shutterstock stops paying you .33 or .38 or whatever level you're on and bumps everyone back to .25 because people are willing to accept that at TS then you get shafted right along with the rest of us.

For many people the rate they can earn at SS is 0.23 - 0.26 because of US taxes.

« Reply #46 on: March 20, 2010, 09:50 »
0
I don't think we will be forced in to joining the PP or that we will eventually have only $0.25 subs but I have been looking at other ways to make money and if I don't like what is happening with microstock, I can leave.  Hopefully thinkstock will work as well as snap village did.  I am not going to panic, earnings are still good overall, might as well wait and see what happens.

« Reply #47 on: March 20, 2010, 09:53 »
0
A lot of people says "i will not accept to sell a 0.20 cents" then you see this guy putting photos everywhere for free too.
This is the microstock illusion, only illusions.
Few years left and the databases  of clients will be full enough to allow them don't buy nothing anymore.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #48 on: March 20, 2010, 09:56 »
0
It seems to me that there is a good case for selling the same images under different brands and at different prices under different models. It works for many independents.

Maybe so, but fotolia isn't suggesting that its biggest buyers might get a better deal at dreamstime or vice versa.

« Reply #49 on: March 20, 2010, 10:26 »
0
In that scenario, I guess everything would hinge on how many of the Big Sellers 'pulled' their images from iStock in protest.
They don't have to pull their images. They just don't have to opt in the PP.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
2953 Views
Last post September 24, 2010, 12:44
by MatHayward
24 Replies
4353 Views
Last post May 03, 2011, 20:05
by caspixel
5 Replies
1399 Views
Last post June 19, 2015, 06:31
by chrisdorney
301 Replies
31084 Views
Last post August 21, 2016, 07:09
by ShadySue
0 Replies
358 Views
Last post July 02, 2017, 00:34
by Chichikov

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors