Author Topic: iStock Content to Sell on Photos.com and JupiterUnlimited (Read 94994 times)

lisafx · « **Reply #325 on:** May 07, 2009, 17:30 »

Quote from: jsnover on May 07, 2009, 13:37

But isn't that your daughter in the glasses Lisa? (I'm not trying to make one of those fake "you two must be sisters" compliments - I really think it's her

Yes, you are absolutely right. It is my daughter. No mistaking that for 44 year old me, LOL. I wish! But I use it for my avatar because it pretty well represents my outlook (or at least the one I try to have most of the time).

lisafx · « **Reply #326 on:** May 07, 2009, 17:34 »

Quote from: RT on May 07, 2009, 15:10

But isn't that your daughter in the glasses Lisa? (I'm not trying to make one of those fake "you two must be sisters" compliments - I really think it's her

Or grand daughter

[/quote]

LOL!! Who am I, Sarah Palin??

lisafx · « **Reply #327 on:** May 07, 2009, 17:37 »

Quote from: sjlocke on May 07, 2009, 16:59

Don't bone me bro'!

This can be our rallying cry. Sort of the "Don't tread on me" of the microstock industry

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #328 on:** May 07, 2009, 17:42 »

So to add to this twisted tale, some PumpAudio artists just posted forum posts (on IS) that they got letters from Getty saying that they were reducing the artist commission from 50% to 35%. I don't have the letter so I don't know what reason Getty gave.

They're squeezin' hard...

stockastic · « **Reply #329 on:** May 07, 2009, 17:43 »

During one of the Microsoft antitrust trials, a leaked internal Microsoft email summarized their real strategy for dealing with innovations by smaller competitors, which they saw as a threat. The expression they used - now famous within the industry - was "embrace, extend, extinguish".

I think the parallels with Getty and microstock are obvious.

lisafx · « **Reply #330 on:** May 07, 2009, 17:45 »

Quote from: jsnover on May 07, 2009, 17:42

So to add to this twisted tale, some PumpAudio artists just posted forum posts (on IS) that they got letters from Getty saying that they were reducing the artist commission from 50% to 35%. I don't have the letter so I don't know what reason Getty gave.

They're squeezin' hard...

Very unsettling news. Hard not to see a picture emerging here...

batman · « **Reply #331 on:** May 07, 2009, 17:46 »

Quote from: lisafx on May 07, 2009, 17:37

Quote from: sjlocke on May 07, 2009, 16:59
Don't bone me bro'!

This can be our rallying cry. Sort of the "Don't tread on me" of the microstock industry

I thought "Up your nose with a rubber hose" would be more appropriate!

batman · « **Reply #332 on:** May 07, 2009, 17:54 »

Quote from: jsnover on May 07, 2009, 17:42

So to add to this twisted tale, some PumpAudio artists just posted forum posts (on IS) that they got letters from Getty saying that they were reducing the artist commission from 50% to 35%. I don't have the letter so I don't know what reason Getty gave.

They're squeezin' hard...

Yup, if they keep squeezin' hard... everyone's goin to turn blue .
as you can see Stacey has already turn that shade

rather than JoAnn's "let us eat kaka" or the opt out logo,
maybe everyone gets an avatar and tinge it blue... to rally with Stacey...
gasping for air !!!!

Dreamframer · « **Reply #333 on:** May 07, 2009, 18:09 »

Quote from: jsnover on May 07, 2009, 17:42

So to add to this twisted tale, some PumpAudio artists just posted forum posts (on IS) that they got letters from Getty saying that they were reducing the artist commission from 50% to 35%. I don't have the letter so I don't know what reason Getty gave.

They're squeezin' hard...

This really becomes disturbing...Actually, looks more like a nightmare. I don't like when these negative emotions start to emerging from me, but I have to say I am pissed off!

batman · « **Reply #334 on:** May 07, 2009, 18:25 »

Quote from: GeoPappas on May 07, 2009, 17:07

Quote from: sjlocke on May 07, 2009, 16:59
Don't bone me bro'!

As they drag him away never to be heard from again...

Ya, who is the one lying in the stretcher or body bag , I am not sure...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc_dgbCHs58[/youtube]

Do you know?

GeoPappas · « **Reply #335 on:** May 07, 2009, 18:52 »

Quote from: batman on May 07, 2009, 17:46

I thought "Up your nose with a rubber hose" would be more appropriate!

Was that a quote from Vinnie Barbarino?

batman · « **Reply #336 on:** May 07, 2009, 19:06 »

Quote from: GeoPappas on May 07, 2009, 18:52

Quote from: batman on May 07, 2009, 17:46

I thought "Up your nose with a rubber hose" would be more appropriate!

Was that a quote from Vinnie Barbarino?

well, that was "made famous" by John Travolta as Vinnie, but in manhattan , and/or many places i've worked and travelled it was used in different permutations, way before Vinnie coined it.
let's say, "Vinnie" borrowed it.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #337 on:** May 07, 2009, 19:27 »

Quote from: batman on May 07, 2009, 11:19

Quote from: RacePhoto on May 06, 2009, 11:17
Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on May 05, 2009, 19:10
Looks like Batman's flame is out.

They come... they go. Appeared in April, gone by May.

Don't we expect him back again with another name?

HELLLLL NO ! I was about to take another name but bloody hell RACEPHOTO was already taken! you chimp!

Hey, if someone took CRAPSTOCK, it wasn't me.

I wanted my name to match my photo quality...

Be nice or I'll come back as Boy Wonder or Alfred The Butler. No wait... (evil laugh) The Riddler!

On Topic: I'm not going to read 125 PAGES of redundant messages and the log jam is getting pretty big here too. I thought it said, dollar photos, things that hadn't sold in two years and some other things, but finding the message is too much work.

I like SS and I'm all for sales from StockXpert on the sub sites and if IS decides to take the old and smaller images and dump them into the subscription market, it doesn't bother me any. I suspect there will be some conditions for a photo to make the non-exclusive agencies.

I really can't understand a site that has great exclusive photos and photographers, suddenly opening up all those exclusive photos to 30c downloads on subscription sites. There has to be something more to the details and conditions. Otherwise it's like blowing up the whole exclusive content conditions and becoming like all the rest of the sites.

batman · « **Reply #338 on:** May 07, 2009, 19:53 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on May 07, 2009, 19:27

Quote from: batman on May 07, 2009, 11:19
Quote from: RacePhoto on May 06, 2009, 11:17
Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on May 05, 2009, 19:10
Looks like Batman's flame is out.

They come... they go. Appeared in April, gone by May.

Don't we expect him back again with another name?

HELLLLL NO ! I was about to take another name but bloody hell RACEPHOTO was already taken! you chimp!

Hey, if someone took CRAPSTOCK, it wasn't me. I wanted my name to match my photo quality...

Be nice or I'll come back as Boy Wonder or Alfred The Butler. No wait... (evil laugh) The Riddler!

On Topic: I'm not going to read 125 PAGES of redundant messages and the log jam is getting pretty big here too. I thought it said, dollar photos, things that hadn't sold in two years and some other things, but finding the message is too much work.

I like SS and I'm all for sales from StockXpert on the sub sites and if IS decides to take the old and smaller images and dump them into the subscription market, it doesn't bother me any. I suspect there will be some conditions for a photo to make the non-exclusive agencies.

I really can't understand a site that has great exclusive photos and photographers, suddenly opening up all those exclusive photos to 30c downloads on subscription sites. There has to be something more to the details and conditions. Otherwise it's like blowing up the whole exclusive content conditions and becoming like all the rest of the sites.

good to see u , what took you so long ?
were you molesting Penguin?

yes, come back as Riddler , it would be fun !

back to topic:
when was the last time any corporation did anything sensible for money?
have you been sniffing your glue again ?
geesh !

NancyCWalker · « **Reply #339 on:** May 08, 2009, 06:54 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on May 07, 2009, 19:27

Hey, if someone took CRAPSTOCK, it wasn't me. I wanted my name to match my photo quality...

Be nice or I'll come back as Boy Wonder or Alfred The Butler. No wait... (evil laugh) The Riddler!

On Topic: I'm not going to read 125 PAGES of redundant messages and the log jam is getting pretty big here too. I thought it said, dollar photos, things that hadn't sold in two years and some other things, but finding the message is too much work.

I like SS and I'm all for sales from StockXpert on the sub sites and if IS decides to take the old and smaller images and dump them into the subscription market, it doesn't bother me any. I suspect there will be some conditions for a photo to make the non-exclusive agencies.

I really can't understand a site that has great exclusive photos and photographers, suddenly opening up all those exclusive photos to 30c downloads on subscription sites. There has to be something more to the details and conditions. Otherwise it's like blowing up the whole exclusive content conditions and becoming like all the rest of the sites.

The eligibility of files is in flux right now. For a while it was automatic all files, then it was dollar bin and images over 18 months with less than 5 downloads and the option to send others images. There is also discussion about removing images that are sent to JIU/photos.com from the IS collection (like the Getty contract you can do one or the other can't have the same photo on both). They have also reactivated all of the old dollar bin images and are considering sending just those.

The bottom line is that no one knows for sure what the image requirements will be because HQ is reviewing their plan after the unexpected reaction of contributors.

There are also several theories on why to send IS's images to other Getty owned sites. Theory 1) it's the beginning of the end. If you can't beat them, buy them and dismantle them so they are not a threat. 2) Photos.com and JIU are not as successful and profitable for Getty so they want to try to use what IS has to boost profitability of its other holdings. 3) No one really knows what they are doing and they are making it all up as they go along. 4) Some one really believed that offering the same content at a lower price on another site would increase exposure for IS exclusives without cannibalizing existing sales at IS.

Again we will never really know what the motivation or reason behind this was. Just for the record I'm saying if I do or don't believe any of these theories. These are just what I've read over the course of several threads and forums on this topic.

lisafx · « **Reply #340 on:** May 08, 2009, 09:43 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on May 07, 2009, 19:27

I really can't understand a site that has great exclusive photos and photographers, suddenly opening up all those exclusive photos to 30c downloads on subscription sites. There has to be something more to the details and conditions. Otherwise it's like blowing up the whole exclusive content conditions and becoming like all the rest of the sites.

I can see you are right about not having read the thread. The prices being discussed are not in any way guaranteed to be .30 like we get on StockXpert. The plan they are talking about is giving istock exclusives 22.5% of the cost of the sale, which can be as low as .03.

If it was definitely .30 and 30% of PPD like we independents get, and only dollar bin files eligible, I doubt there would be as much objection.

stockastic · « **Reply #341 on:** May 08, 2009, 10:16 »

From my experience in the technology business:

When a big company buys a smaller company, there's enormous pressure to make it pay off immediately. The people who pushed the deal inside the big company are on the spot to show that it was a good idea. And their rivals are circling like vultures, hoping it fails. So it's just about impossible to resist the temptation to do things that make quick profits, and forget about the future. All that talk about "synergy" and "a perfect fit" goes out the window pretty quick, and the only goal is to generate cash, right away.

And the big company people don't really know how the small company works. They don't have the history or the deep knowledge of the small company's business. Under pressure to produce quick profits, they forget about enhancing and fine-tuning the small company, and start looking at how to pull more money out of its existing assets and products. The people who made the small company successful get disillusioned and leave. The end result is all too predictable.

Sorry if these seems like a complete downer, but it's my experience, so I'm tossing it in. Of course, every business situation is unique and things could go in a totally different direction. My own prediction though is that Getty is going to leave the microstock business in a shambles.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #342 on:** May 08, 2009, 11:10 »

Quote from: stockastic on May 08, 2009, 10:16

Sorry if these seems like a complete downer, but it's my experience, so I'm tossing it in. Of course, every business situation is unique and things could go in a totally different direction. My own prediction though is that Getty is going to leave the microstock business in a shambles

It is a downer, but doesn't mean you're wrong

What, if anything, can contributors do to keep a productive environment for us in which to sell our images? It seems that stalling Getty's attempts to undercut the other sites that make money and offer better terms to contributors is a key thing. If there were no other sites (no significant ones; there's always going to be a NewStockOnTheBlock.com popping up every so often) then contributors would have no leverage at all and our take could be reduced almost at will.

If content from StockXpert was largely gone from Photos.com Plus/JIU+ but largely present at other sites, one would think that buyers would prefer SS subscriptions or DT or...

Joe Gough posted in the IS forums about his very small take from the StockXpert/Jupiter sites. If his experience is roughly typical, it should make it relatively painless to remove files there for many.

Then there are IS exclusives - like me - who can opt out of any of the deals (which I will). I guess if the pressure from Getty continues, it'll be time to revisit independence, skipping the StockXpert/Jupiter site of course.

My husband reminded me that I knew of Getty's history and should have expected something like this. It's true, but I didn't think it'd happen so soon and in such a destructive way... At least he didn't say "I told you so"

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #343 on:** May 08, 2009, 12:55 »

Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere. If not, the PDN article is an interesting read:

http://www.pdnpulse.com/2009/05/getty-makes-plans-for-photoscom-runs-into-istock-friction.html

alias · « **Reply #344 on:** May 08, 2009, 12:59 »

This policy statement is worth repeating:

Quote

"If someone’s going to cannibalize your business, better it be one of your other businesses"

Getty CEO Jonathan Klein

link

stockastic · « **Reply #345 on:** May 08, 2009, 13:28 »

That's also typical after a big company goes on an acquisition binge and wakes up with a hangover - they'll start bleeding profitable acquisitions to pump up unprofitable ones. It's all part of the "synergy".

For example, they tell profitable acquisition 'B' that henceforth, they must buy parts from acquisition 'A', which is not doing too well, in preference to 'B's previously established source. Suddently 'B' is getting substandard parts, so their quality goes down. Watch for more hasty and ill-conceived attempts by Getty to rewire the microstock businesses they're acquiring.

batman · « **Reply #346 on:** May 08, 2009, 13:57 »

Quote from: jsnover on May 08, 2009, 11:10

My husband reminded me that I knew of Getty's history and should have expected something like this. It's true, but I didn't think it'd happen so soon and in such a destructive way... At least he didn't say "I told you so"

in many or most cases, husbands are right

vonkara · « **Reply #347 on:** May 08, 2009, 14:00 »

Quote from: sharpshot on May 06, 2009, 10:02

Quote from: Vonkara on May 05, 2009, 18:27

Get yours today for FREE!!

ADD to the discuss here http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=87899&page=1 and on MSG

I wonder if the Miz would have his "opt in" avatar up if he was still around? He did like to go against the trend

True LMAO!!

lisafx · « **Reply #348 on:** May 08, 2009, 15:20 »

Quote from: batman on May 08, 2009, 13:57

in many or most cases, husbands are right

Ssshhhh!!! Don't let that get out! My husband may get wind of it

Pixart · « **Reply #349 on:** May 08, 2009, 15:42 »

From PDN about the opt out avatars:

We aren't sure who, if anyone, organized the protest, but it might have actually gotten results.

Whoever you might be, it was quite genious. Do I look good in my sash, or should I take it off now? I'm always a little behind in fashion trends.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: iStock Content to Sell on Photos.com and JupiterUnlimited (Read 94994 times)

lisafx

lisafx

lisafx

Jo Ann Snover

stockastic

lisafx

batman

batman

Dreamframer

batman

GeoPappas

batman

RacePhoto

batman

NancyCWalker

lisafx

stockastic

Jo Ann Snover

WarrenPrice

alias

stockastic

batman

vonkara

lisafx

Pixart

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors