MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: Sean Locke Photography on May 01, 2009, 15:17
-
See here:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=87786
Hmmmmm.....
-
Um...wow :o
but now what's gonna happen with my StockXpert photos that are opted into sales on photos.com and JIU? ??? ???
Oh, what a tangled web...
-
Um...wow :o
but now what's gonna happen with my StockXpert photos that are opted into sales on photos.com and JIU? ??? ???
Oh, what a tangled web...
I just wanted to ask that.
-
Totally different payout schedule, too, I see. I wonder if they're going to change the payouts on StockXpert? Do the actual subscription prices on photos.com and JupImg vary with size? I know our commissions on StockXpert don't. IS didn't say anything about sizes vs price.
This is going to get interesting! ::) ::)
-
Worst scenario, buyers are going to see redundancy, as there is quite a number of StockXpert who is also on IS. So what next? Ask those redundant StockXpert'ers to close their account since they are already with IS? And ask the selling StockXpert'er who has not been with IS to merge, then shut StockXpert down?
Methinks it's slowly cutting off the oxygen once again to poor StockXpert. (requiescat in pace) ::)
-
If exclusives have images on JUI and Photos.com, that means those images are not exclusive for IS only. It's like they submit to some other sites as well...just they are not allowed to submit their images on all other sites. That practically limits them.
-
It sure sounds that way batman, is going to be very interesting to see how it develops, since I'm one of those that contributes to StockXpert as well as IS...It's not looking good for SX again. ???...and is beginning to sound even worse for us.
-
So much about exclusive images.
So now people can buy my image that's on StockXpert and I get a decent % or they can buy the same image that is on IS trough photos.com and I get only 20% ??? ;D Will every image from a non exclusive have duplicates?
Or even 20% off a subscription sale. How much would that be if someone uses all of his downloads that month? 10c?
-
StockXpert must have at least a million images that are not on istock because of the restrictive upload limits, their intolerance of non-vector illustrations and their tough vector application process. I don't see them closing StockXpert but perhaps they will make it a collection within the istock site, removing all the duplicate images.
-
wow, this is a lot of info to cogitate on. I'll withold judgment for a while. Seems like it could dilute the exclusitivity option quite a bit though.
-
An even worse scenario is StockXpert will be flooded with exclusive photos and we non-exclusives will be pushed to the even lower bottom of the food chain in searches and sales.
Worst scenario, buyers are going to see redundancy, as there is quite a number of StockXpert who is also on IS. So what next? Ask those redundant StockXpert'ers to close their account since they are already with IS? And ask the selling StockXpert'er who has not been with IS to merge, then shut StockXpert down?
Methinks it's slowly cutting off the oxygen once again to poor StockXpert. (requiescat in pace) ::)
-
We are now losing the only subscription system that allowed different prices for different sizes.
I don't think we should be glad...
Claude
-
Imagine now, for example, Shutterstock says: "We are inviting all our contributors to become exclusive for Shutterstock, and to pull out their images from Getty network".
Who would then lose money?
-
Well, for me it doesn't really make any difference. My images are already on JUI and Photos.com. But as so many istock exclusives seem to be against subscriptions I can't imagine many of them are going to be happy about this.
And as pointed out above, this really does dilute the value of istock having an exclusive collection. Add to that the fact that exclusives will only make 2.5% more than non-exclusives on these sales, regardless of cannister level, and it looks pretty discouraging.
One has to wonder if this is Getty's way of signaling that they are phasing out istock exclusivity altogether....
-
From the istock thread:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=87786&messageid=1330041
For those of you who already have images on Photos.com, we'll ensure there is no duplication. Yes, there will be extended licensing offered on those files on photos.com. If you opt in to the program and decide later to opt out or deactivate one of your files, the images will be removed within 24 hours.
-
So, when I sale something on Photos.com, where my earning goes? To StockXpert or IS? Or maybe IS won't send to Photos.com images that are already sent there by StockXpert?
-
So, when I sale something on Photos.com, where my earning goes? To StockXpert or IS? Or maybe IS won't send to Photos.com images that are already sent there by StockXpert?
I think that's what IS means--that they won't send them if the image is already on photos.com or JIU. However, I'm not sure how they're going to be able to tell as the images will have different keywords (IS uses their controlled vocabulary), and they could have different titles.
-
Actually, from IS forum, they say that we will be paid through IS, not other sites. If it is clear that we will be paid less through IS, it is better to opt out of this for non-exclusives.
-
Well, I'm opting out my IS images then, because I earn more on subs from StockXpert.
-
It actually looks like istock will pay more for subs "We’re projecting the average royalty payout to be 30˘ – 55˘". That might make it worthwhile opting out with StockXpert but I have around 2,000 more images with StockXpert, so I will might be better off staying opted in there.
-
Hope you're right sharpshot. Still seems to dilute exclusivity IMO.
-
We are now losing the only subscription system that allowed different prices for different sizes.
I hope we will be able to opt out.
PS: I have just read the IS forum thread, and we will be able to opt out. At least.
-
It actually looks like istock will pay more for subs "We’re projecting the average royalty payout to be 30˘ – 55˘". That might make it worthwhile opting out with StockXpert but I have around 2,000 more images with StockXpert, so I will might be better off staying opted in there.
Doesn't Getty own Stockxpert also? how long do you think it will be before exclusive istock material will be available on Stockxpert, perhaps a certain collection if they go that route(sounds like Getty). This might sweeten the deal for exclusivity, at least that's how I see it. I'm not sure there is anything stopping Getty from gobbling up a few more of top 7 micros either.
-
I'm not sure there is anything stopping Getty from gobbling up a few more of top 7 micros either.
That is certainly a disturbing thought.....
-
I'm not sure there is anything stopping Getty from gobbling up a few more of top 7 micros either.
That is certainly a disturbing thought.....
Haha!! who knows!! :) I wouldn't be surprised though. Collections, search revamp, stockxpert, jupiter, whats next???
-
I have a bunch of photos from Minilypses that I can "only" upload to iStock. (which is totally fair) So that means that these will be available through Photos.com and JI?
So whats the down side??
Oh... and I've got double the photos at StockXpert too.
-
I have a bunch of photos from Minilypses that I can "only" upload to iStock. (which is totally fair) So that means that these will be available through Photos.com and JI?
So whats the down side??
Well, so far it seems to be the commission structure. 20% of the actual sale price can go as low as .06 per image.
The question now is whether they will leave the StockXpert commission structure alone or drop that down as well.
-
Does this "gobbling up" not increase the importance of "startups?"
-
Well, for me it doesn't really make any difference. My images are already on JUI and Photos.com. But as so many istock exclusives seem to be against subscriptions I can't imagine many of them are going to be happy about this.
And as pointed out above, this really does dilute the value of istock having an exclusive collection. Add to that the fact that exclusives will only make 2.5% more than non-exclusives on these sales, regardless of cannister level, and it looks pretty discouraging.
One has to wonder if this is Getty's way of signaling that they are phasing out istock exclusivity altogether....
this is what I think also, but I don't always trust my gut when it comes to iStock. I am too emotional about it sometimes. for those of us on the fence about exclusivity, this certainly seems like a push to go non-exclusive. I have been hanging onto exclusivity believing that it would one day be required at iStock. now I think perhaps the opposite might be true.
this feels like a very big fish decision. from the top. I think the sale to Getty was the beginning of a prolonged end to iStock. it will eventually be absorbed IMHO. whether or not to be on the inside or the outside when/if that happens, that is the question.
-
Two questions I have about this. I posted in the istock forums. Hopefully someone knows the answer...
One thing that hasn't been pointed out is that often the non-selling images are similars from a series. Under Plan B, if those were to be available on Photos.com wouldn't it possibly undercut the better selling exclusive images here?
Also, since this will change the concept of "artist exclusivity" to more of an "image exclusivity" type agreement anyway, will image exclusivity on istock become an option for "non-exclusive" artists?
-
Well, for me it doesn't really make any difference. My images are already on JUI and Photos.com. But as so many istock exclusives seem to be against subscriptions I can't imagine many of them are going to be happy about this.
And as pointed out above, this really does dilute the value of istock having an exclusive collection. Add to that the fact that exclusives will only make 2.5% more than non-exclusives on these sales, regardless of cannister level, and it looks pretty discouraging.
One has to wonder if this is Getty's way of signaling that they are phasing out istock exclusivity altogether....
this is what I think also, but I don't always trust my gut when it comes to iStock. I am too emotional about it sometimes. for those of us on the fence about exclusivity, this certainly seems like a push to go non-exclusive. I have been hanging onto exclusivity believing that it would one day be required at iStock. now I think perhaps the opposite might be true.
this feels like a very big fish decision. from the top. I think the sale to Getty was the beginning of a prolonged end to iStock. it will eventually be absorbed IMHO. whether or not to be on the inside or the outside when/if that happens, that is the question.
I think they are just looking for other ways to market Istock images, Just like the Getty collections. Exclusivity is the one thing they have that no else does, why would they give that up? Why the search upgrade, why collections, why audio? Doesn't look like a shop that wants to close its doors. I could also see the collections as easy cross platform for some of the struggling RF macro guys who might like to get into micro but not at low pricing. Look what just happened with pump audio. Just a thought :)
-
this is what I think also, but I don't always trust my gut when it comes to iStock. I am too emotional about it sometimes. for those of us on the fence about exclusivity, this certainly seems like a push to go non-exclusive. I have been hanging onto exclusivity believing that it would one day be required at iStock. now I think perhaps the opposite might be true.
this feels like a very big fish decision. from the top. I think the sale to Getty was the beginning of a prolonged end to iStock. it will eventually be absorbed IMHO. whether or not to be on the inside or the outside when/if that happens, that is the question.
My thoughts exactly. Even if I opt out, other people opting in totally devalues the concept of exclusivity. I'll give it a chance to pan out first but it's certainly making me rethink exclusivity.
Exclusive artists being able to put totally separate files at getty makes sense and in a similar I would 100% back non-sellers at istock being moved to photos.com. What I object to is exclusive content being shared with sites selling it at a lower price. Makes exclusivity almost worthless!
-
I think they are just looking for other ways to market Istock images, Just like the Getty collections.
Difference there is the content is kept separate. Anything uploaded to istock by an exclusive can only be found at istock even though they may have totally separate files at Getty.
Now content is being shared elsewhere for a much lower price and a much worse deal for contributors.
-
yes Craig, exactly. and the problem is that exclusivity demands so much of a photographer and if the returns are diminishing, then there is a huge problem.
one issue that I wish could just be talked about on iStock forums without being shut down, is their method of making these announcements. they get people so wound up by releasing such little info. as an exclusive, I would have simply appreciated a mailing to just exclusives telling me how this is going to affect me, with a clear business model demonstrating the projected affect on exclusive sales.
-
yes Craig, exactly. and the problem is that exclusivity demands so much of a photographer and if the returns are diminishing, then there is a huge problem.
one issue that I wish could just be talked about on iStock forums without being shut down, is their method of making these announcements. they get people so wound up by releasing such little info. as an exclusive, I would have simply appreciated a mailing to just exclusives telling me how this is going to affect me, with a clear business model demonstrating the projected affect on exclusive sales.
I did have my fingers crossed after the premiere collection e-mail that things were going that way but it looks like it was just a one off!
-
rollercoaster....sigh. anyways, I don't want to be the whiner in the IS forum again, so for now I'm just going to let everyone else fight it out and once the dust settles, guess we'll see what happens.
-
I'm not exclusive, but I am getting a kick out of how IS is going about this...calling it an "opportunity" - which it could be considered for non-exclusives (although I will be opting out myself), but hey at least the non-exclusives aren't taking a royalty cut of nearly 50%.
Here's your opportunity Exclusives - its a doozy:
The opportunity to sell your 'exclusive' files on sites that Getty chooses and no where else making them no longer truely exclusive to IS.
The opportunity to devalue 'exclusivity'
The opportunity to sell subs that could actually provide you $0.06 or more of royalty
The opportunity to take a royalty cut of nearly 50% (22.5% vs 40% or so)
<insert sarcasm> Wow - it's overwhelming what a generous opportunity IS is providing <end sarcasm>
I hope no one opts into this deal...it stinks, but it's not surprising when even the admin's mentality is that 22.5% of something is better than 100% of nothing (the fact that the 22.5% is close to nothing does not seem to faze them...) Maybe the $0.01 photos are their next plan..because heck, $0.01 is better than $0.00! Right?
-
I deleted my post...I'm going to hold off on this one. too worried right now to be objective. everytime I think I have a firm footing in this industry, iStock makes another big announcement. arg, but wait and see I guess. that's like my IS mantra now. wait and see wait and see wait and see......there has to be some good reason they did this!? right?
-
If its just non-sellers being added to jup/photos.com I wouldn't think it would have much of an affect either way. There are plenty of "good selling files" available there. As far as it taking away costumers from istock ,I doubt that as well and if it did, why on earth would they want to do that. Buyers don't always flock to the cheapest site, if they did Istock would be taking a backseat to many many sites.
-
with the new model, exclusive no longer means exclusive to iStock. and often no sellers are in series with great sellers. as a buyer, why pay IS prices for a file, when its almost identical sibling is for sale for next to nothing on photos.com?
I think they are counting on a whole lot of buyer love at IS right now. buyers aren't loyal, they're frugal.
but if I am the devil's advocate, this is just a fancied up dollar bin and new opportunity for sales. so, I will probably opt in and give it a spin. but it is from a very guarded perspective that I am opting in some files.
-
I do not feel any sympathy for exclusives...
-
with the new model, exclusive no longer means exclusive to iStock. and often no sellers are in series with great sellers. as a buyer, why pay IS prices for a file, when its almost identical sibling is for sale for next to nothing on photos.com?
I think they are counting on a whole lot of buyer love at IS right now. buyers aren't loyal, they're frugal.
but if I am the devil's advocate, this is just a fancied up dollar bin and new opportunity for sales. so, I will probably opt in and give it a spin. but it is from a very guarded perspective that I am opting in some files.
If that were the case all of us non-exclusives would have very few sales on Istock. The problem is, who has the time to burn looking for that exact similar image on photos.com? There are similar on every site, why not just go to Fotolia, 123, bigstock, SS, Dreamstime, etc... If I were exclusive I would have no problem with them taking out my garbage and selling it elsewhere at a cheaper price as long as its not the "bread winners". I will also add, your going to need a pretty substantial size port of non-sellers to amount to anything more than 10-20 subs a day over at jup/photos.com. :)
-
I wonder if this will force shutterstock to introduce exclusive image content? It looks like they have already lost customers to the other subs sites and they will probably lose more if photos.com gets istock exclusive images and has a larger collection for the buyers.
-
Probably most exclusives won't opt in, there is not much to win anyway, with the amount of sales one has at JIU and Photos.com.
-
I just looked into my crystal ball and and I received an e-mail from the future We regret to inform you that we cannot accept your submission into the Istock collection BUT you better say WooYay Istock you're amazing because against our better judgement we will slog your crappy photo at our other dirty little distribution network, if you are lucky we might even throw you a few bones at the end of the month when we tally up our receipts.
-
You know what's really annoying? The fact that admins keep dropping into the thread to talk about relatively irrelevant things like why the announcement was made on a Friday but won't answer any important questions like how exclusivity stands even if you opt out when some exclusive artists will have their entire portfolios on sale for less elsewhere, why do Getty now deserve a 77.5% cut for any reason other than pure greed and whether vectors will be included.
I'm finding it incredibly difficult not to click on the cancel exclusivity button at the minute! This just feels like the decision has been made to benefit the Getty group as a whole at the detriment of istock which makes it a pretty lame time to be exclusive!
-
I find the decision of iStock to sell its content on photos.com and JU very strange. Why risk the reputation of IS with something that can only be perceived as lowering the value of its exclusive contents?
As a non-exclusive I will definitely opt out of this deal. I am contributing to StockXpert and my images are already on photos.com and JU. The big difference is that I have downsized my images for sites that offer subscriptions, while IS have my highest resolution images. I will definitely not allow my high res images on $0.30 subscription sites.
If Getty would like to utilize the potential of the newly acquired photos.com and JU, why not develop StockXpert further for this exact purpose. Open StockXpert (and thus photos.com and JU) to IS exclusive photographers, but keep it separate from IS. I don't know how they are going to avoid duplicates from IS and StockXpert. I also don't know how they are going to incorporate the unconventional keywording of IS with the more conventional keywording of photos.com and JU.
-
I've written many times in these forums supporting istock decisions. The reason was that I felt these decisions were right. I can't support this one.
-
Anybody else notice the fact that it's only been a handful of months since Bruce left and suddenly there are a flood of changes? Cooincidence?
-
What about IS keywords on Photos.com and JUI? The system on IS is different than he system on Photos.com. Do you think this will affect search?
My images that are already at Photos.com have different keywords than the same images here. Which inages will be easier to find on Photos.com?
-
One thing that hasn't been pointed out is that often the non-selling images are similars from a series. Under Plan B, if those were to be available on Photos.com wouldn't it possibly undercut the better selling exclusive images here?
You still have the option to remove those images from iStock if you feel you don't want them to be offered at the lowest price. Given that those images didn't sell well for two years, you probably won't lose much be removing them, right? Some people have done so in the past when they were about to be moved to the Dollar Bin. It's a decision you can make.
-
this feels like a very big fish decision. from the top. I think the sale to Getty was the beginning of a prolonged end to iStock. it will eventually be absorbed IMHO. whether or not to be on the inside or the outside when/if that happens, that is the question.
I don't know but I don't believe so. iStock and it's business model has proven very successful in the past and I truly believe Getty is respecting this. Obviously they always tried and will keep trying to create synergies between companies and collections. Maybe not all of them are in the best interest of all artists represented. And this move is the only recent announcement that makes me really think if it's a good move for me or not.
But at least it's my personal choice. Wherever I look around in the world, huge companies tend to tell me "take it or leave it" when it comes to changes. With this announcement they leave it up to me how I want to deal with it. And no, I don't believe it will be a big mass of contributors making their whole portfolio available through those subscription sales at once. So I don't believe I will be forced by the market to make the same move.
-
Oh boy, I sure am glad I never went exclusive to Istock!
Business is tough. They just made an early announcement on the forum, let the contributors whine and rant for a while, and eventually they just do whatever they want!
I think there's nothing we can do about it. There always enough contributors who take any deal and spoil it for the rest, so we all are forced to go along or lose out on sales.
It looks like non exclusives have a better choice now, but don't forget, Getty owns us as well. I think this is just the beginning!
-
Paying IS exclusives less than non exclusives for sub content at the sister site would be unacceptable.
Option A is a mistake which has the potential to split the community.
-
We need to remember Bruce is gone.
This is not Istock anymore, it is Getty period.
-
I find the decision of iStock to sell its content on photos.com and JU very strange. Why risk the reputation of IS with something that can only be perceived as lowering the value of its exclusive contents?
G-etty G-reed G-reenbacks
As a non-exclusive I will definitely opt out of this deal. I am contributing to StockXpert and my images are already on photos.com and JU. The big difference is that I have downsized my images for sites that offer subscriptions, while IS have my highest resolution images. I will definitely not allow my high res images on $0.30 subscription sites.
My initial point precisely re: redundancy
If Getty would like to utilize the potential of the newly acquired photos.com and JU, why not develop StockXpert further for this exact purpose. Open StockXpert (and thus photos.com and JU) to IS exclusive photographers, but keep it separate from IS. I don't know how they are going to avoid duplicates from IS and StockXpert. I also don't know how they are going to incorporate the unconventional keywording of IS with the more conventional keywording of photos.com and JU.
Simple, be like Nero playing la violin as Rome burns... Or Victoria saying,"Buf, let em eat cake!"
-
Michael - I think you are probably right, but I think this is a mistake too. and I think that Getty is slowly rebranding iStock, and that exclusivity might actually be phased out. which I didn't see coming. change is good, but this kind of change feel a little too Walmartesque...if that makes sense.
I plan on opting in some files and testing the waters. I don't think boycotts ever really work well.
-
Paying IS exclusives less than non exclusives for sub content at the sister site would be unacceptable.
Well, to be fair, on photos.com and JUI "istock exclusive" images won't really BE istock exclusive anymore, will they.
So it seems perfectly reasonable that people who are already represented on Jupiter sites, through StockXpert, continue to make the same royalties they contracted for on StockXpert.
I am rather surprised that what bothers you about this deal is not how little Istock will be paying you, but the fact that non-exclusives whose images are in the Stockxpert collection will be getting slightly more. Would it be okay for you to make 22.5% as a diamond exclusive as long as independents were getting say 5%??
-
Simple, be like Nero playing la violin as Rome burns... Or Victoria saying,"Buf, let em eat cake!"
Actually, that was Marie Anoinette. Read your history Batman (or at least your Bartlett's" ;)
-
Simple, be like Nero playing la violin as Rome burns... Or Victoria saying,"Buf, let em eat cake!"
Actually, that was Marie Anoinette. Read your history Batman (or at least your Bartlett's" ;)
Cheers lisafx, so glad someone reads my comments, C'est vrai, c'etait la Antionette !
-
Getty is slowly rebranding iStock, and that exclusivity might actually be phased out. which I didn't see coming.
I do not think that they will mess up the exclusive program because I think that defines the community. And it is the community, ultimately, which Getty bought. The loyalty etc. Kill the community and you will kill the loyalty and, ultimately, the business.
Getty know how crowd sourced microstock impacted their previous model and was set to destroy it before they got involved. They know that sooner or later there will be another model which might just take the business from under them again if they are not careful. Same as Twitter trumps Facebook which trumped MySpace etc. Same as Google killed Altavista. Same as RF seriously impacted the earlier stock models.
The next revolution will happen much more quickly thanks to tools like Twitter which pretty much link everyone in the industry. If the loyalty is lost then people will be much more likely to adopt new models.
The microstocks will be replaced as a model when something else comes along which offers the same content at the same or less cost to the buyers via a trusted payment system whilst paying a greater share to the contributors. And a search engine which learns.
-
sss
-
with the new model, exclusive no longer means exclusive to iStock.
It's been that way for a while. Any exclusive invited to submit to Getty has had their images hawked around several "outlets" that Getty distributes through. A Google search of my name brings my Getty submissions up on sites I've never heard of. I wonder if we should stop thinking of us being iStock exclusives and more Getty exclusive?
-
I don't have enough patience to read IS forum, are there many "Great", "Love it", "Way to go"?
-
The way I see it:
Getty buys all the microstock companies it can. They look at the market place and see they their microstocks are competing against themselves and the competition. Then they decide it would be smarter to consolidate their microstocks into one company. The company with the best name, photos.com. Once photos.com has enough good Istock content from exclusives who aren't paying attention or blindly trust TPTB then Getty can crush Shutterstock, Dreamstime, and Fotolia because photos.com will have the competitor's contributors plus Istock exclusives.
As exclusive images slowly start leaking out of Istock and more buyers start looking at photos.com first and then at Istock, that could be the beginning of the end for exclusivity. Once exclusivity erodes to a point of worthlessness because buyers will be less willing to pay the "high prices" at Istock, all contributors will be affected.
The erosion of Istock content slowly over a year or two to Photos.com will likely cause the competition to suffer greatly also. If DT, SS, or F goes out of business because of photos.com, then non-exclusives become losers in this game too. We will all sell at photos.com at a crappy 22%.
If I'm right, this is a genius plan by Getty to take over everything. If I'm wrong, why wouldn't Istock keep everything there? Why get buyers in the habit of checking two websites? Why not make a cheaper subscription Dollar Bin for the crappy non-sellers?
Option A - makes the transition to photos.com fast
Option B - gets momentum going towards photos.com
-
Walmartesque? Probably that's the way Getty intends it to remain. Don't forget IS started as a "free market" and then "flea market". I know many of us had wished that IS would become midstock, this new subscription model seems a bit demoralizing for the exclusives if I read the messages correctly.
Michael - change is good, but this kind of change feel a little too Walmartesque...if that makes sense.
-
I don't have enough patience to read IS forum, are there many "Great", "Love it", "Way to go"?
Very few, actually.
-
JJRD just posted in the subcription thread. I like him as IS admins go, he seems like a good guy. he very clearly stated the intention of the new subcription options. I'm relieved about his comment that the iStock business model is not changing, nor is that the intention. that is my main concern.
as I said earlier, I'll give it a whirl and see what happens with my sales. but in response to madelaide, not many wooyays in this thread. I'm hoping that is only because we don't understand this yet and that it turns out well.
-
The erosion of Istock content slowly over a year or two to Photos.com will likely cause the competition to suffer greatly also. If DT, SS, or F goes out of business because of photos.com, then non-exclusives become losers in this game too. We will all sell at photos.com at a crappy 22%.
This is rather a doomsday scenario IMO. Virtually my entire portfolio is available at Photos.com and JUI and I still get plenty of sales from DT, FOT, SS, and IS.
I don't think those sites are going anywhere. The only way Getty is likely to destroy them is to buy them all out. Which hopefully Getty's pockets are not currently deep enough to do.
-
yeah, it could be a very bad time to go non-exclusive and a bad time to be non-exclusive if Getty has big enough pockets.
-
Lisa,
It's not a Doomsday scenario for Getty. It could be windfall profits for them. If you're a buyer and photos.com subscription prices are the same as the others but now has Istock exclusives and quite possibly the BM2 search engine, why wouldn't you go to photos.com? Loyalty?
I hate to sound negative but when I saw option A (send over your entire portfolio), I can't think of any way possible that is positive for Istock as a stand-alone business or exclusives.
-
....
Getty can crush Shutterstock, Dreamstime, and Fotolia because photos.com will have the competitor's contributors plus Istock exclusives.
....
. If DT, SS, or F goes out of business
In a nutshell, perharps , cali_4590 ! You are assuming SS, DT, FT , have been sleeping through all this.
Sounds like USA trying to keep all the Latin American countries disunited, until Castro and Trudeau told them what the game plan was.
Scenario 3: DT , SS, FT could also form a union if their existence is a threatened.
This would form as large a continium as Getty, if not larger.
Are you forgetting that?
-
So, for me on a personal level (being non-exclusive) this whole thing really means nothing to me...I'm opting out.
But as my mind wanders (as it does often - geesh)...the question why Exclusives would only get 22.5% royalty has still not be answered by the admin's over on the IS forum. Why not? Why no answers?
Could it be the beginning of the end for higher royalties for Exclusive member? I mean, really, if they do it slow enough and start with this 22.5% on the JI/Photos.com subs - no one will pull their portfolio. Then lets say 8mo down the road...they lower the royalty on the photos in the not so 'dollar bin' to ..ahhh 22.5% - still no one will pull their portfolio. Then little by little they lower the royalty on all the other photos until all royalty payments are at .. lets say 20% non-exclusive and 22.5% for exclusive.
Total speculation of course as my mind wanders.....
-
I wonder how they are going to make sure we don't have our images twice on those sites.
There's no way they can automate this.
I got a feeling they are going to redirect this responsibility right back to us.
What a sh*tload of work this is going to be, especially for those who have thousands of images online.
-
yeah, it could be a very bad time to go non-exclusive and a bad time to be non-exclusive if Getty has big enough pockets.
Really??!!
This would be exactly the opposite of my take on the situation.
-
well, I might have read your last post wrong, but if photos.com and jupiter take off under the direction of Getty/iStock, doesn't that pose a significant threat to sales at SS and some of the others?
-
Scenario 3: DT , SS, FT could also form a union if their existence is a threatened.
This would form as large a continium as Getty, if not larger.
Are you forgetting that?
[/quote]
If Getty captures enough market share with photos.com that is a possiblilty. However, if those guys consolidated into a subscription model site, they would have to be competitive in price.
How does this scenario help us? Do companies competing for market share raise prices?
-
I'm not sure of anything except that given what we hear from Ellen Bough and Yuri and others, they are saying buyers are tired of getting the same old same old. So that could explain the drop in earnings for some . The training or the stumbling block are same old same old reviewers who would still approve same old same old
because of their small minds and inability to change.
At the same time, we have the new players like Cutcaster, Zymmetrical, etc.. hoping to recruit serious contributors to their fold. The promise of traditional prices as an incentive. Of course, this would mean trying to get images that micro don't have. Or else it would be pointless, which buyer is going to pay premium knowing the same is available as sub.
There will be a disparity growing between these images, which I suspect IS is playing with Premiere Collection . This perharps, will command the same price as say Cut, Zymm and Alamy,etc.. leaving the rest of the hackneyed images and clones of best seller to wallow in subs.
Just guessing like everyone else, as Cat Woman took my crystal ball, lol 8)
-
well, I might have read your last post wrong, but if photos.com and jupiter take off under the direction of Getty/iStock, doesn't that pose a significant threat to sales at SS and some of the others?
Photos.com and JUI have already been under the direction of Getty for months and have made absolutely no dent in the (rising) sales at the independently owned micros. The only thing that is new will be the addition of some istock formerly exclusive content.
I don't see any benefit for exclusive contributors in supporting the prospect of eventual monopolization of this industry. How long will istock exclusives be making up to 40% on istock if Getty owns it all and there is no DT, SS, FOT etc. to compete?
At this point it seems to me the best way for content providers to protect their future earnings is to support the sites that are independently owned.
-
I don't see any benefit for exclusive contributors in supporting the prospect of eventual monopolization of this industry. How long will istock exclusives be making up to 40% on istock if Getty owns it all and there is no DT, SS, FOT etc. to compete?
At this point it seems to me the best way for content providers to protect their future earnings is to support the sites that are independently owned.
[/quote]
I'm an exclusive at IS (staying anonymous :)) but I think you might be right. We also need a way to protect ourselves as a community. I never post in the forums but I'm sure the talk of a microstock contributer's union has come up in the past. That might need to be seriously considered, if it isn't happening already.
-
Scenario 3: DT , SS, FT could also form a union if their existence is a threatened.
This would form as large a continium as Getty, if not larger.
Are you forgetting that?
They all have roughly the same content. What would be the point in them working together? And they are culturally very different.
Photographers need to be careful to maintain their collections such that they are quickly able to respond to the evolving market. Suppose you want to output and keyword the best selling 50% of your work at a different size. Think like that. Then these sorts of uncertainties are less worrying. All photographers are independents ultimately unless under contract. The more everyone thinks like that the easier it will be to relax and enjoy the journey.
10 years ago IS did not exist. 5 years from now microstock may have been replaced by some other model.
-
So anyway how does the Premier Collection factor into this equation? Maybe that's the safety valve for the elite exclusives?
-
What a crappy plan yeah. Welcome all Istock contributors to the subscription sea, where nobody get water
-
I can't believe this photos.com nonsense is back again. Didn't they see how poorly this went over at StockXpert?
-
Lets take it in another way...
Step 1: Setting up a merge between photos.com and iSttock
Step 2: Asking exclusives to select photos to sell trough Photos.com and (step 2b) removing them from iStock
Step 3: Pushing non-exclusives to Photos.com.
The only model this industry has not try till now is a full exclusive content. So going this way, iStock (or Getty) would have a «regular» site to compete with the actual market AND a full exclusive to offer something buyers can't find anywhere else.
Think about it...
Claude
-
I don't have enough patience to read IS forum, are there many "Great", "Love it", "Way to go"?
Yes just look at the first page... I laugh so hard, tears in my eyes!
-
well, I might have read your last post wrong, but if photos.com and jupiter take off under the direction of Getty/iStock, doesn't that pose a significant threat to sales at SS and some of the others?
Photos.com and JUI have already been under the direction of Getty for months and have made absolutely no dent in the (rising) sales at the independently owned micros. The only thing that is new will be the addition of some istock formerly exclusive content.
I don't see any benefit for exclusive contributors in supporting the prospect of eventual monopolization of this industry. How long will istock exclusives be making up to 40% on istock if Getty owns it all and there is no DT, SS, FOT etc. to compete?
At this point it seems to me the best way for content providers to protect their future earnings is to support the sites that are independently owned.
Exactly what I'll be doing if this does go through!
-
Photographers need to be careful to maintain their collections such that they are quickly able to respond to the evolving market.
Huh? What does this mean?
How does istock exclusivity enable one to "quickly respond to the evolving market"? If anything, doesn't it do the opposite? Particularly with images that are model released only for istock and keyworded according to istock's unique scheme.
-
Claude,
That would create a hard push for some contributors to become exclusive but IS might lose big moneymakers like Yuri. It could work out for top contributors if it forced out some of the middle of the road contributors, reducing the size of the collection. They could get more exposure.
Instead of making that choice the big time contributors might just create their own site and invite who they want and keep it exclusive.
The all exclusive site is an interesting idea.
-
So anyway how does the Premier Collection factor into this equation? Maybe that's the safety valve for the elite exclusives?
Precisely, everyone here looks at the sub side they introduced. They forgot IS also introduced the PC just before this. Smoke screen, open your eyes people, you're not being objective. ::) You are not playing with the old IS anymore. This is not Oz 8)
-
I really hope you are right Lisa and I trust your perspective, you have such great experience in this industry. I hate the idea of a Getty monopoly. I sometimes wish I had never gone exclusive. it is so hard to switch out once you`re in. especially when this kind of decision making starts happening. no one knows who`s driving.
I`d really like to believe what JJ said. that the iStock model will remain the same, but in the same breath, this announcement clearly delineates plans to change the iStock business model. so I`m still so confused.
-
this is where the spartans dance and celebrate as they bring in the Wooden Horse left at the gate of sparta by the trojans. you know the ending , don't you?
-
^^
haha,
They'll probably have a wooden horse icon next to option A!
-
^^
haha,
They'll probably have a wooden horse icon next to option A!
yes ;D and rename themselves to Troy ! ;)
-
this is where the spartans dance and celebrate as they bring in the Wooden Horse left at the gate of sparta by the trojans. you know the ending , don't you?
Batman, you are filled with the historical references today!
But surely it was the Greeks who had been setting seige to the city of Troy that climbed inside the Trojan Horse, until the Trojans took it inside their city (Troy's) walls?
"Beware of Greeks bearing gifts".... :)
-
How does istock exclusivity enable one to "quickly respond to the evolving market"? If anything, doesn't it do the opposite? Particularly with images that are model released only for istock and keyworded according to istock's unique scheme.
Keywording and model releases would be two areas to think about definitely. Aperture and Lightroom are both great tools for managing a collection. Then it can relatively quickly be output at different sizes and with different keywords, profiles etc.
People who are exclusive at one site or who have content exclusively at one site still might want to think ahead and keep their future options open by being careful about how they manage and organize their work as they go along. If only from now on.
By keeping our options open we are often much more relaxed and less jittery about our current arrangements.
-
Lets take it in another way...
Step 1: Setting up a merge between photos.com and iSttock
Step 2: Asking exclusives to select photos to sell trough Photos.com and (step 2b) removing them from iStock
Step 3: Pushing non-exclusives to Photos.com.
The only model this industry has not try till now is a full exclusive content. So going this way, iStock (or Getty) would have a «regular» site to compete with the actual market AND a full exclusive to offer something buyers can't find anywhere else.
Think about it...
Claude
That makes sense, from a business point of view, and would ask some questions that right now are missing a logical answer. . But I would prefer it won't happen, even if I'm exclusice.
-
Claude,
That would create a hard push for some contributors to become exclusive but IS might lose big moneymakers like Yuri. It could work out for top contributors if it forced out some of the middle of the road contributors, reducing the size of the collection. They could get more exposure.
Hummm...
Getty would still sell Yury's and other major non-exclusives through StockXpert or Photos.com. From a business point of vue, I don't think that Getty would care from which channel they sell photos.
And a full exclusive site would bring some new buyers, that's for sure!
Claude
-
this is where the spartans dance and celebrate as they bring in the Wooden Horse left at the gate of sparta by the trojans. you know the ending , don't you?
Batman, you are filled with the historical references today!
But surely it was the Greeks who had been setting seige to the city of Troy that climbed inside the Trojan Horse, until the Trojans took it inside their city (Troy's) walls?
"Beware of Greeks bearing gifts".... :)
you are right beware of Greeks bearing gifts. and while everyone is debating over the decoy, the real issue of military strategy is not being considering. remember they did bring Helen back.
do you see any IS exclusive screaming bloody murder over this? where is the IS mob? do i have to paint it for everyone ? if i were exclusive, i would laugh too , hmm?
-
^^
There's plenty screaming bloody murder.
Check it: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=87786&page=1
-
:-X
do you see any IS exclusive screaming bloody murder over this? where is the IS mob? do i have to paint it for everyone ? if i were exclusive, i would laugh too , hmm?
:'( and u r not laughing, because bats can't laugh 8)
-
How does istock exclusivity enable one to "quickly respond to the evolving market"? If anything, doesn't it do the opposite? Particularly with images that are model released only for istock and keyworded according to istock's unique scheme.
Keywording and model releases would be two areas to think about definitely. Aperture and Lightroom are both great tools for managing a collection. Then it can relatively quickly be output at different sizes and with different keywords, profiles etc.
People who are exclusive at one site or who have content exclusively at one site still might want to think ahead and keep their future options open by being careful about how they manage and organize their work as they go along. If only from now on.
By keeping our options open we are often much more relaxed and less jittery about our current arrangements.
Ahh. Gotcha. Yes, that does sound like a wise strategy.
-
Given that SS and istock are the top two earners here I'm wondering how subs can be so disastrous, and how the two models can't coexist successfully.
-
Given that SS and istock are the top two earners here I'm wondering how subs can be so disastrous, and how the two models can't coexist successfully.
Well, for starters, at SS I make .38 per sub sale. Their lowest royalty for a sub sale is for newbies with less than 500 DL's (which happens VERY quickly at SS) and that is .25. Once they reach 500 it jumps to .33. With decent volume .33 (or .38) adds up to a nice chunk of change.
That doesn't begin to compare to the .03 bottom rate that Getty is offering istock members, including exclusives. Yeah, hypothetically you could earn more, but having been on Photos.com and JUI for months, I can tell you that the bottom price is mainly what you will get. There is no realistic amount of volume that would make .03 add up to anything beyond diddly squat.
IF istock goes ahead with this they should offer the same deal to Istock members that StockXpert members got. .30/sub DL and 30% of other sales. Or better yet cannister level % for exclusives.
-
Correction: the raise happens after 500$, not 500 dl's ;)
Claude
-
For 3 cents, why bother. I'm not understanding that at all. They should at least have a base commission of something like 25 cents and go up from there. I've only had a few ppd sales on jupiter and photos.com and agree its a non factor. Those two sites should not be marketed as PPD sites, they are subsciption sites as far as I'm concerned. Maybe someone else here has had a different experience?? I'm sure some Istock exclusives would like to know what the deal is.
-
Correction: the raise happens after 500$, not 500 dl's ;)
Claude
Oooops. Thanks for the correction Claude :)
-
For 3 cents, why bother. I'm not understanding that at all. They should at least have a base commission of something like 25 cents and go up from there. I've only had a few ppd sales on jupiter and photos.com and agree its a non factor. Those two sites should not be marketed as PPD sites, they are subsciption sites as far as I'm concerned. Maybe someone else here has had a different experience?? I'm sure some Istock exclusives would like to know what the deal is.
Well, I have a pretty large portfolio and I will be happy to share that PPD downloads accounted for 2 tenths of one percent of my downloads on the Jupiter family of sites. All the rest were subscription at the base price.
-
Is $0.03 a worst-case scenario or the expected average commission?
kkthompson in the original post stated that they are "projecting the average royalty payout to be 30˘ – 55˘".
Was this later rescinded? $0.03 is a long way from $0.30 - $0.55.
-
Is $0.03 a worst-case scenario or the expected average commission?
kkthompson in the original post stated that they are "projecting the average royalty payout to be 30˘ – 55˘".
Was this later rescinded? $0.03 is a long way from $0.30 - $0.55.
There is no guaranteed bottom under the istock plan. It could be .03 or it could be .30-.55. The higher estimate is VERY optimistic. Having been selling on Photos.com and JUI for a year, the higher commissions we were told would be abundant aren't.
When istock started their subscription plan there was also optimistic talk from admins about the subscription "lottery" where if someone didn't download their allotment you would get your % of all their alloted sales for the day. Please anyone step in if you have gotten more than one or two of these big payouts on a sub sale on istock. From my experience of selling sub sales and what I have read and heard from others, the vast majority are at the lowest end of the royalty structure. NO REASON to assume that it won't be the same in this case.
So many IS exclusives have voiced the opinion that their work is worth so much more than a .25 or .30 (or even .38) subscription royalty, that I can't believe any of them would honestly consider accepting a royalty of as low as .03. I sure as heck wouldn't.
The only reason might be if it gained you some exposure for your better istock work, like the free sections at DT and 123 link back to similar better work in our portfolios. Well, having been on Photos.com and JUI from the beginning of their tie in with StockXpert, in the exact same collection the istock images will be going in not only is there no promotional link back to our portfolios, contributors aren't even credited. I have been reluctantly willing to put up with it for a guaranteed .30/DL and 30% of higher sales (that 2/10 of one % of my sales I mentioned above).
FWIW, istockers are getting the shaft bigtime here. I will be opting out on istock and if they try to force the same horrendous terms on StockXpert members I will pull my stuff from that deal too.
I would rather have my stuff sitting on my hard drive rotting than accept .03 for a sale.
-
There is no guaranteed bottom under the istock plan. It could be .03 or it could be .30-.55. The higher estimate is VERY optimistic. Having been selling on Photos.com and JUI for a year, the higher commissions we were told would be abundant aren't.
Indeed. I am still waiting for my first > $0.30 sale on photos.com. Based on your 0.2% average, that's 1 in 500, isn't it? (I'm assuming that you included subs on all 3 StockXpert, um Jupiter, um Getty/Jupiter sites?). If so, I'm well past due by now. :-(
The biggest problem, then, is no guaranteed bottom. $0.03 for a DL is ridiculous and insulting, of course. However, if the average did turn out to be $0.30 or higher, as promised in "writing", then as painful as those -- I keep coming back to the word "ridiculous" -- $0.03 DLs would be, I suppose I wouldn't complain too much. I still think $0.30 per DL is too low, but as my total StockXpert earnings per DL is still above SS, I again can't complain too much.
Thanks for the info, Lisa.
-
There is no guaranteed bottom under the istock plan. It could be .03 or it could be .30-.55. The higher estimate is VERY optimistic. Having been selling on Photos.com and JUI for a year, the higher commissions we were told would be abundant aren't.
Indeed. I am still waiting for my first > $0.30 sale on photos.com. Based on your 0.2% average, that's 1 in 500, isn't it? (I'm assuming that you included subs on all 3 StockXpert, um Jupiter, um Getty/Jupiter sites?). If so, I'm well past due by now. :-(
Yes, I did include the StockXpert sub sales too. Hoping you get your PPD DL soon. :)
-
I am not happy with the direction that things are going for contributors and feel a need to add my 2 cent's worth.
Since most of us agree that this in not a good deal for contributors. Why don't all of us agree to not upload for a month. Say from now till the Que drops to zero to send a message that we are the reason they are so successful. Would that get their attention? Just wondering.
-
...the question why Exclusives would only get 22.5% royalty has still not be answered by the admin's over on the IS forum. Why not? Why no answers...
Anyone else thinking litigiously like I am and wondering when a lawsuit will be brought against istock for breech of contract? 22.5% is not the promised percentage that exclusives were supposed to get...
-
I'll tell you guys something, for the moment I'll wait and see how all of this IS, StockXpert is going to develop, but the first DL that pays me $0.03 as commission, I'll be pulling out all of my photos from both sites. If I needed a handout I'll go to the corner with a tin can and beg for pennies, as Lisa mention I would rather have them on my hard drive then give them away for 0.03, as far as I'm concern this would be the biggest insult a site could do to us,the people that makes them money, exclusives and nonexclusives.
It seems that Getty want to be a pimp, and I'm to old to be a prostitute.
-
well after a couple of days doing my homework (in other words, researching . out of this neurotically) as only I can do....it is terrible to admit a tiny bit of excitement about seeing where this one goes?
I thought when the announcement first came out that it would bring the exclusivity decision back into the foreground for me...and it did briefly.
but I have been reading and reading, and researching all these companies and how they are positioned in the market and you know, this plan might actually, shockingly, be a pretty intelligent thing to do. I can't believe I am saying it myself. though speculation means nothing without proof so I'll be opting in some files to see what happens. but, it feels a bit like an adventure.
my main concern was iStock changing its business model, which I no longer believe is the plan. and I see the potential for photos.com to compete well in the subscription theatre, which iStock has not been able to do since they are primarily known as a premium PAYG site.
in any case, I'm way less freaked and more optimistic.
-
Don't get too excited Stacey, these sites between them account for considerably less tha1% of my total microstock earnings. To give you an idea how that relates to you IS give me 25% of my earnings.
well after a couple of days doing my homework (in other words, researching . out of this neurotically) as only I can do....it is terrible to admit a tiny bit of excitement about seeing where this one goes?
I thought when the announcement first came out that it would bring the exclusivity decision back into the foreground for me...and it did briefly.
but I have been reading and reading, and researching all these companies and how they are positioned in the market and you know, this plan might actually, shockingly, be a pretty intelligent thing to do. I can't believe I am saying it myself. though speculation means nothing without proof so I'll be opting in some files to see what happens. but, it feels a bit like an adventure.
my main concern was iStock changing its business model, which I no longer believe is the plan. and I see the potential for photos.com to compete well in the subscription theatre, which iStock has not been able to do since they are primarily known as a premium PAYG site.
in any case, I'm way less freaked and more optimistic.
-
...the question why Exclusives would only get 22.5% royalty has still not be answered by the admin's over on the IS forum. Why not? Why no answers...
Anyone else thinking litigiously like I am and wondering when a lawsuit will be brought against istock for breech of contract? 22.5% is not the promised percentage that exclusives were supposed to get...
No, this is selling through photos.com, exclusives get their higher commission for istock. They also have an opt out. It looks like most of them will be using it.
-
Is $0.03 a worst-case scenario or the expected average commission?
kkthompson in the original post stated that they are "projecting the average royalty payout to be 30˘ – 55˘".
Was this later rescinded? $0.03 is a long way from $0.30 - $0.55.
There is no guaranteed bottom under the istock plan. It could be .03 or it could be .30-.55. The higher estimate is VERY optimistic. Having been selling on Photos.com and JUI for a year, the higher commissions we were told would be abundant aren't.
When istock started their subscription plan there was also optimistic talk from admins about the subscription "lottery" where if someone didn't download their allotment you would get your % of all their alloted sales for the day. Please anyone step in if you have gotten more than one or two of these big payouts on a sub sale on istock. From my experience of selling sub sales and what I have read and heard from others, the vast majority are at the lowest end of the royalty structure. NO REASON to assume that it won't be the same in this case.
So many IS exclusives have voiced the opinion that their work is worth so much more than a .25 or .30 (or even .38) subscription royalty, that I can't believe any of them would honestly consider accepting a royalty of as low as .03. I sure as heck wouldn't.
The only reason might be if it gained you some exposure for your better istock work, like the free sections at DT and 123 link back to similar better work in our portfolios. Well, having been on Photos.com and JUI from the beginning of their tie in with StockXpert, in the exact same collection the istock images will be going in not only is there no promotional link back to our portfolios, contributors aren't even credited. I have been reluctantly willing to put up with it for a guaranteed .30/DL and 30% of higher sales (that 2/10 of one % of my sales I mentioned above).
FWIW, istockers are getting the shaft bigtime here. I will be opting out on istock and if they try to force the same horrendous terms on StockXpert members I will pull my stuff from that deal too.
I would rather have my stuff sitting on my hard drive rotting than accept .03 for a sale.
I think if the average is anything under 30 cents, istock will have problems. Only a few people will want to opt in and this venture will be sunk. Anything over 30 cents and it is already above the current level for non-exclusives. Opting in for images that are over 18 months old with no sales might be a good option but these probably wont sell much on photos.com either. What is the point in clogging the site up with inferior images?
I had hoped that StockXpert would increase the 30 cents level and I will only put up with it for so long. I have already stopped uploading to crestock because they shouldn't be allowed to get away with 25 cents. I hope more people stop uploading there, as it could stop the other subs sites raising our commissions. If subs sites don't keep increasing their commissions, I will have to move on.
-
Don't assume eligible images are necessarily inferior. Plenty of istock photographers complain of good images disappearing into a black hole due to the vagaries of best match or something else. JJRD said pretty much the same thing about this deal.
-
well after a couple of days doing my homework (in other words, researching . out of this neurotically) as only I can do....it is terrible to admit a tiny bit of excitement about seeing where this one goes?
I thought when the announcement first came out that it would bring the exclusivity decision back into the foreground for me...and it did briefly.
but I have been reading and reading, and researching all these companies and how they are positioned in the market and you know, this plan might actually, shockingly, be a pretty intelligent thing to do. I can't believe I am saying it myself. though speculation means nothing without proof so I'll be opting in some files to see what happens. but, it feels a bit like an adventure.
my main concern was iStock changing its business model, which I no longer believe is the plan. and I see the potential for photos.com to compete well in the subscription theatre, which iStock has not been able to do since they are primarily known as a premium PAYG site.
in any case, I'm way less freaked and more optimistic.
I wish I could agree. Maybe if I were a photographer and used to seeing tiny commissions on XS sales, I could more easily slide into the mentality that all this is okay. But as a vector artist who rarely makes less than a dollar per sale, and averages closer to $3 per sale, this is a huge laughable insult.
No way in hell I will opt into this, no matter how many shades of rosy opportunity they try to paint it with.
-
Not that it will matter much to IS, but I will definitely be opting out of this as well.
I really hate subscriptions. They are really only beneficial to the the stock agencies and buyers.
-
I'll tell you guys something, for the moment I'll wait and see how all of this IS, StockXpert is going to develop, but the first DL that pays me $0.03 as commission, I'll be pulling out all of my photos from both sites. If I needed a handout I'll go to the corner with a tin can and beg for pennies, as Lisa mention I would rather have them on my hard drive then give them away for 0.03, as far as I'm concern this would be the biggest insult a site could do to us,the people that makes them money, exclusives and nonexclusives.
It seems that Getty want to be a pimp, and I'm to old to be a prostitute.
Very well said! 3 cents is definitely an insult. I will be opting out on that as well!
-
I'll just opt out and forget about it. ::)
-
I'm optimistic still. I think if it doesn't work out, they'll kill it. and if it does work out, it could be good. the way they announced it is awful. their worst announcement yet, what did they think contributors would do?
they announce something like this, they know there are contributors who are going to freak (not really me this time), but lots of others have. and let me tell you, it is like a union in there right now. I have said I will opt in under plan B to see how it works. I have received nasty emails from some thug contributor on IS. feels like the teamsters to me. I just ignored him, it is from someone who is known for being a thug around there.
in any case, there is a sense of freedom for me, perhaps I'm optimistic because this might be a great reason to leave the crown behind and feel good about it. or it might be a great reason to stay. either way, I'm looking forward to being off the fence.
iStock is run by a very smart group of people, and I believe they truly care about contributors for the most part. we'll see.
-
I am an optimist by nature and I was optimistic about the photos.com and JIU deals with StockXpert. After selling through this sites for a while now I was brought back to reality :) I did not shared the pessimism of a few fellow contributors. Now I know better and opted out just yesterday after I reviewed my income through the photos.com, JIU sites. For me it's as well less than 1% of my microstock income. I am rather selling my images through one or two subscription sites less.
-
iStock is run by a very smart group of people, and I believe they truly care about contributors for the most part. we'll see.
IS might be administered by nice people who care about the contributors but ... they are just employees, not owners.
IS is a relatively small part of Getty who themselves are owned by an investment house. It's the owners who really call the shots.
-
Interesting to see that donnelt (Vivozoom and ex Getty) has posted on the IS forum thread.
-
iStock is run by a very smart group of people, and I believe they truly care about contributors for the most part. we'll see.
IS might be administered by nice people who care about the contributors but ... they are just employees, not owners.
IS is a relatively small part of Getty who themselves are owned by an investment house. It's the owners who really call the shots.
good point.
-
iStock is run by a very smart group of people, and I believe they truly care about contributors for the most part. we'll see.
iStock is a business and like any successful business they care only for making as much profit as possible, like any other business they wish to maintain an alliance with their suppliers, but if you think they actually care about you as a contributor then you are living in a dream world.
As pointed out by gostwyck there's a huge difference between having friendly helpful staff and what the business plan is.
-
iStock is run by a very smart group of people, and I believe they truly care about contributors for the most part. we'll see.
iStock is a business and like any successful business they care only for making as much profit as possible, like any other business they wish to maintain an alliance with their suppliers, but if you think they actually care about you as a contributor then you are living in a dream world.
As pointed out by gostwyck there's a huge difference between having friendly helpful staff and what the business plan is.
Yes, but this business plan isn't good for Getty, in my view. Maybe they will get more percentage, but at the cost of losing much more dollars coming from sales at istock, even if they have there less commission.
-
RT -- I think caring about contributors and running a profitable business has proven to be iStock's differentiator. Getty knows this, or they would have dismantled the iStock culture four years ago. iStock's success is its contributors. that gives serious contributors a lot of power en masse.
when I was really freaking out about BM2.0, I still believe I was reasonable and respectful in their forums. but, if I look at it from their perspective, I was a very squeaky wheel. I was pi55ed. I was angry with admin, angry at the lack of answers and I said so, very bluntly, very frequently. they never banned me, and the moment I reached out asking them for guidance, they were there. I received personal calls, I was thoroughly supported despite the anger I had expressed publicly. they have 50,000 of us. that left a huge impression on me. I even got a personal sitemail from Bruce in response to a question I asked him, and this was just a few weeks before his resignation. my point is, their actions speak louder than their words and in my experience (3 years there now), their actions are consistent with their promises.
I'm not saying they don't do things I disagree with, I've been questioning exclusivity for a year now. but something keeps me there and I'm less worried about this new venture than others seem to be. at the same time, I am not suggesting those other contributors don't have something to worry about. we all have different perspectives based on our career needs.
of course Getty is calling the shots. but so far so good.
-
I think caring about contributors and running a profitable business has proven to be iStock's differentiator. Getty knows this, or they would have dismantled the iStock culture four years ago.
No, because the situation has changed dramatically relatively recently;
http://www.forbes.com/2008/02/25/getty-hellman-friedman-update-equity-cx_md_0226-markets33.html
Not only was Getty bought out last year but Getty have very recently acquired JI __ and almost immediately now we have a major change which does not appear to be in the contributors' best interests (at least that's what 80% of them who responded to the survey concluded)
-
Imagine now, for example, Shutterstock says: "We are inviting all our contributors to become exclusive for Shutterstock, and to pull out their images from Getty network".
Who would then lose money?
Shutterstock would! :) SS is very good in the beginning; but the more images you have, the better other sites get.
-
When will there be the button to opt out?
-
When will there be the button to opt out?
I remember someone saying over a month or so.
(that dammn thread is too long to read now)
-
I decided to delete my rage fueled nonsense :)
-
When will there be the button to opt out?
I remember someone saying over a month or so.
(that dammn thread is too long to read now)
Doesn't the first post in the thread say that "later this month" the opt in or out button will be added, and that they have already reversed the opt-outs for the current ISTOCK subscription program?
-
I think all Istock Exclusives should opt A, send everything to Photos.com, and immediately go non-exclusive.
How is putting my images up for sale for a few pennies going to hurt anyone but me?? Sorry but this makes no sense at all.
-
Whatalife,
That was a knee jerk revenge scheme :)
However, Istock won't last with this new photos.com plan. For now I'm opting out, but my gut tells my sales will start dropping drastically sooner rather than later, especially after hearing about StockXpert & Photos.com. Once sales drop enough, everyone one will be forced to go non-exclusive and upload to other sites. Getty gets a raise both ways, a lot less exclusives and 77.5% commission on photos.com.
When we become non-exclusive I believe there is a wait period before we can upload to other sites. We might as well make some money while we wait. If there is no wait period, you're right no need to upload to photos.com. Once we are non-exclusive, then we don't upload to Getty sites and eventually pull our work from Istock. The buyers have to go where the suppliers are and Getty will realize they killed the Golden Goose.
-
I'm also so mad about this that I'm probably not being very rational. It's a crushing blow.
-
There is a 30-day waiting period to switch from exclusive to non-exclusive.
-
..
-
I'm going to opt out. I have been convinced by the arguments of the majority of established contributors and microstock veterans. amazing what a day's worth of forum reading can accomplish. I have learned more about subscription sales today than I have in three month's worth of research.
though on one hand I saw this plan as a new avenue for sales, I see the danger in it quite clearly and I won't go against a majority of respected peers.
-
Once Getty have taken over the subscription market they will up prices but not the rates they pay.
This is about their market share. Probably later they will try to take Getty public again based on that market share and a projection of potential future earnings.
This has nothing to do with them following or trying to predict trends. This is about them attempting to squash competition. Which is only in the best interest of the people who own Getty.
-
Opt out as well... Maybe also from StockXpert, because this "deal" is a wonderful joke since the start.
I remember when it have been first announced at StockXpert. One particular person is behind this. It was a she and I forget her name. We had to participate to a conference call to tell her how xxx was this deal. She finally decided to exclude the XL and XXL images from the subscription deal. Maybe she was smart after all. She knew that we would be excited by having our images selling at 50$ for XL and XXL.
Still all my photos.com images have been downloaded at L size and simply UPSIZED!!
-
In case you haven't seen this yet:
Quote — Posted 13 hours ago
Minimum payouts: keep in mind these only happen if someone was to use their entire download allotment in a day.
It also varies depending on the package purchased. So the answer to that question is:
3˘, 4˘, 5˘, 6˘, 8˘, 21˘, 39˘, or 72˘ at the 20% payment level.
So a buyer with the biggest subscription package would have to download only 10% of the images so that I would get the same 30c as I get now from StockXpert, photos.com, JUI. Opting out for sure. Even though their "projected revenue" says 30-52. Wonder where they got those numbers?
PS: I also think it should say "entire download allotment in a month". Subs are monthly based and there is no daily limits right?
-
Very funny... Why they don't give all that images for free?
Authors will still be happy with downloads ;-)
Time for big changes indeed...
-
Imho Getty's/iStock's move is based on two wrong assumptions and will therefore fail:
1. Micro contributors are too dumb for understanding that subscriptions are a lousy deal
Wrong. Serious contributors know their numbers very well and are perfectly aware that subscriptions are rip off schemes for filling the agency's pockets at the supplier's expense.
2. There will always be enough supply from micro contributors independent from commission rates and how fair contracts are
Wrong. Fact is that the group of contributors accounting for most sales is not that large. Maybe 500 to 1,000 contributors worldwide. No micro agency could survive without the cooperation of this relatively small group. Getty will have a serious problem if these people decide that istock/jupiter/photos.com is not a profitable channel for them.
-
Nevertheless, I am glad due to Istock is making that step... It will drown them ;-)
Ok... Let's find some nice independent agency which cares about authors!
First contribution from me will be disabling my images (not many but good sellers elsewhere) from subscriptions on Istock.
-
Make sure to tell your friends, network, Twitter and all. It is important that the word gets around on this. This threatens the other sites and the business in general.
-
LOL!
It appears I can't find checkbox to opt-out from subscriptions in my profile control panel ;-)
I bet 16 cents that it was there while ago :-)
So, people - I want to sell my images on Istock only on Pay-as-you-go...
Help please!
Does someone know how to do that?
-
How will it work?
1. Today, we will remove the ability for iStock photographers to opt out of the current iStock subscription offering. Why would we do that? Because you’re making about the same amount on Pay-as-you-go sales as subscription, and only a few thousand files were opted out from the entire collection. By removing the option to keep your files out, you make more money, and customers are less confused. It’s a win-win situation. Those that are affected have already been notified.
-
How will it work?
1. Today, we will remove the ability for iStock photographers to opt out of the current iStock subscription offering. Why would we do that? Because you’re making about the same amount on Pay-as-you-go sales as subscription, and only a few thousand files were opted out from the entire collection. By removing the option to keep your files out, you make more money, and customers are less confused. It’s a win-win situation. Those that are affected have already been notified.
LOOOL - So, then disabling all files from further sales is only way?
OK - I can live with that!
;-)
[EDIT]
Hello!
Your latest policy is quite nasty. I would like all my files disabled from subscription model. If that is not possible to have decent earnings here via pay-as-you-go I'd rather have all my files disabled from such JUI sales!
Anyway all that files you have of me are already sold on JUI via other agency which represents me there!
This policy you are making is not good - and you'll see many people run away from this agency!
BTW, When I become member here there was EXCLUDE SUBSCRIPTION BUTTON - I would not like this NASTY behaviour of you with just deleting that button!
Best Regards,
milinz
-
No, no, no. You're missing the whole thing. Everyone is now participating in iStock subs, which are based on no less than $.96 a credit (cheapest PAYG package).
The button to opt out of JIU/Photos.com sub sales will be available later this month.
-
No, no, no. You're missing the whole thing. Everyone is now participating in iStock subs, which are based on no less than $.96 a credit (cheapest PAYG package).
The button to opt out of JIU/Photos.com sub sales will be available later this month.
Win-win on $0.96 sales - come on dude - that story even little kids can't buy anymore!
Also, I can't find the way to disable my files at all ;-)
Fortune is that I was lazy to upload my photos there and I am now very happy due to that!
I already left Crestock, Vectorstock, and seem this will be my third ex agency ;-)
Well.... I will forget on that agency for a while ;-)
-
Anyone who intends to opt out of the iStock/Getty plan to put content on Jupiter Images properties at low royalties, might like to change their iStock avatar to show that. You'll see a lot of red floating around the IS forums right now...
-
Fewer than 300 people had responded to the poll last time I looked. Most people will probably go along with it if IS says to. Pity.
-
No, no, no. You're missing the whole thing. Everyone is now participating in iStock subs, which are based on no less than $.96 a credit (cheapest PAYG package).
The button to opt out of JIU/Photos.com sub sales will be available later this month.
Win-win on $0.96 sales - come on dude - that story even little kids can't buy anymore!
Also, I can't find the way to disable my files at all ;-)
Fortune is that I was lazy to upload my photos there and I am now very happy due to that!
I already left Crestock, Vectorstock, and seem this will be my third ex agency ;-)
Well.... I will forget on that agency for a while ;-)
Sorry dear, you are confused. The current iStock subscription program is, at least for now, completely different than the newest scheme they are proposing. The guarantee is .96 PER CREDIT, not per sale, and it is far better than the no guarantee/good possibility of 3 cents PER SALE at photos.com and JUI.
They are removed the ability to opt images out of the ISTOCK subscription program, not the new program. The royalties being paid on the ISTOCK program have been, in my experience, averaging pretty close to normal PAYG sales.
There will be an option to opt out of the new scheme.
That being said, the only way you can disable your portfolio is to deactivate each file individually. However, you also have the option of contacting support and they can do it for you in one fell swoop.
-
The current iStock subscription program is, at least for now, completely different than the newest scheme they are proposing. The guarantee is .96 PER CREDIT, not per sale, and it is far better than the no guarantee/good possibility of 3 cents PER SALE at photos.com and JUI.
IS royalties on subs are much lower than 0.96 per credit. I have received a royalty on a sub for 0.34 and I'm sure it goes lower than that.
-
The current iStock subscription program is, at least for now, completely different than the newest scheme they are proposing. The guarantee is .96 PER CREDIT, not per sale, and it is far better than the no guarantee/good possibility of 3 cents PER SALE at photos.com and JUI.
IS royalties on subs are much lower than 0.96 per credit. I have received a royalty on a sub for 0.34 and I'm sure it goes lower than that.
Of course they are. They $.96 is the credit price. You get your cannister royalty based on that, which for $.34 means you're probably gold, right?
-
The current iStock subscription program is, at least for now, completely different than the newest scheme they are proposing. The guarantee is .96 PER CREDIT, not per sale, and it is far better than the no guarantee/good possibility of 3 cents PER SALE at photos.com and JUI.
IS royalties on subs are much lower than 0.96 per credit. I have received a royalty on a sub for 0.34 and I'm sure it goes lower than that.
Of course they are. They $.96 is the credit price. You get your cannister royalty based on that, which for $.34 means you're probably gold, right?
And just to add: All my sales via StockXpert on JUI and Photos.com are 30 cents... So, it is stupid to have the same images selling via Istock just to give Istock more money... It is fortune also that Istock doesn't need my illustrations... I now can choose them one by one sold via Fotosearch or even Corbis ;-) Nevertheless Canstockphoto earned me 2 times more money in this 5 months than Istock in almost 2 years with less sales! That is to be considered for future uploads... I will go Canstock way more and Istock will be left to collect dust.
-
Speaking of Corbis ^^...
As Corbis is one of the few agencies with enough reach to combat Getty, all of us who are independent should upload our content to Veer Marketplace as soon as that option becomes available. I certainly plan to.
-
Speaking of Corbis ^^...
As Corbis is one of the few agencies with enough reach to combat Getty, all of us who are independent should upload our content to Veer Marketplace as soon as that option becomes available. I certainly plan to.
why Veers? without any proven record. why not Cutcaster , as John has proven to take our interest in consideration. With all your support he could succeed in his vision to give all of us a fair cut.
He's always been here to dialogue with us, even taking a lot of criticisms of which he made good .
Veer hasn't proven to do anything, Corbis either other than being a monolith like Getty.
Why settle for a tired old dog when you have a hot young titan waiting to go the mileage?
-
Ok... Let's find some nice independent agency which cares about authors!
There's already a few of them. But they don't sell images worth a darn, so what's the point?
-
Ok... Let's find some nice independent agency which cares about authors!
There's already a few of them. But they don't sell images worth a darn, so what's the point?
they don't have the clout without all your images. any one of them could, if a significant number of dissatisfied exclusives and non moved their port to them.
-
I think all Istock Exclusives should opt A, send everything to Photos.com, and immediately go non-exclusive.
How is putting my images up for sale for a few pennies going to hurt anyone but me?? Sorry but this makes no sense at all.
Because it devalues all of our work. I think that is the point a lot of the upper echelon exclusives are making in the istock forum thread. I'm with them all the way. Besides, I thought istock was theoretically moving toward midstock, and raising the bar on quality/price?
-
No, no, no. You're missing the whole thing. Everyone is now participating in iStock subs, which are based on no less than $.96 a credit (cheapest PAYG package).
The button to opt out of JIU/Photos.com sub sales will be available later this month.
Thank you Mr. Locke. I'm not sure why everyone is so confusing this point.
-
Ok... Let's find some nice independent agency which cares about authors!
There's already a few of them. But they don't sell images worth a darn, so what's the point?
they don't have the clout without all your images. any one of them could, if a significant number of dissatisfied exclusives and non moved their port to them.
True, but some of us tried Gimmestock and Albumo and PhotoShelter - Lucky Oliver anyone? Putting images on a site isn't enough.
You need not only a site, but some credible marketing plan to get buyers to the site. Without that, fairness to contributors isn't really more than a nice principle.
-
IS royalties on subs are much lower than 0.96 per credit. I have received a royalty on a sub for 0.34 and I'm sure it goes lower than that.
I don't mind 19c for a XS. I do mind about a XXL for 30c.
-
Just got sitemail from StockXpert.
They're about to review the entire Stockxpert collection in order to identify and remove any images that infringe on someone's intellectual property.
Now at least we know Getty isn't getting rid of StockXpert in the near future.
-
why Veers? without any proven record. why not Cutcaster , as John has proven to take our interest in consideration. With all your support he could succeed in his vision to give all of us a fair cut.
He's always been here to dialogue with us, even taking a lot of criticisms of which he made good .
Veer hasn't proven to do anything, Corbis either other than being a monolith like Getty.
Why settle for a tired old dog when you have a hot young titan waiting to go the mileage?
Actually, Veer is a very well respected and proven name. I know a lot of designers who shop the micros and also shop at Veer.
Besides, if you want to fight a mammoth you need another mammoth. Corbis is big enough to compete with Getty in a way that no other agencies are at the moment.
-
Ok... Let's find some nice independent agency which cares about authors!
There's already a few of them. But they don't sell images worth a darn, so what's the point?
they don't have the clout without all your images. any one of them could, if a significant number of dissatisfied exclusives and non moved their port to them.
True, but some of us tried Gimmestock and Albumo and PhotoShelter - Lucky Oliver anyone? Putting images on a site isn't enough.
You need not only a site, but some credible marketing plan to get buyers to the site. Without that, fairness to contributors isn't really more than a nice principle.
again, i repeat, the clout. you said some of us. the picture is different here.
we 're not talking about some of us putting some images to try for a few months. did you read Adelphis comment on the other thread? that's discussing the same thing, except here, you guys are just talking about IS.
my thoughts about Corbis Veer is repetitive. Corbis was wiped out by Getty. so you still want to play with the old dog expecting a new life from an old dog? how rational is that?
you are settling for Veer because of Corbis reputation. but what reputation is that?
that's like asking for Alta Vista to come back and kick Google's arse.
i say give one of the new titans a shot. but not just for 2 or 3 months with a bit of my images.
we're talking everything. and every one has to be counted. the game plan has changed.
it's time we think out of the box, rather than expected a resurrection of an old beaten power.
-
another thing, even when the chips are down and the writing is on the wall, you exclusive still want to be separated and be elitists refusing to discuss with the non ex. this situation affects everyone, yet your mob still huddle together like little bandits thinking and excluding the masses.
how intelligent is that? be an exclusive and grovel in dust. lol...
i don't understand your mentality, that's for sure ! EXCLUSIVE IS , woo hoo !
-
i'm not finished...
so, you say you prefer Corbis to Cutcaster. hokey, case in a nutshell.
Snap Village, does this ring a bell?
At the same time, John Griffin came in to the forum asking for contributors. He made one thing clear, almost repeatedly in the face of criticisms and cynicisms,
still coming out saying, "hey guys , let's work together . i can't do it without you."
i don't know how many times he said that. compared to Corbis, how many times do we see one of the CEOs from Corbis coming in here to rub shoulders?
Sure, John's new, but somehow I don't think he is as wet behind the ears as you may think. Also, isn't open communication the one thing you look for in any successful business?
I remember attending a seminar and meeting people who worked with the amazing Bill Gates. I never met the man, but I met some of his instructors, who met him . I joking said to them, "so what do you do when you meet Bill Gates, do you bow and kowtow to him, as he snubs you people?"
the answer, "no, we call him Bill like anyone else here".
Bill, or John, isn't that what you expect. Or you still prefer to be nameless, faceless, and one pip out of you and your blog is banned like Yuri's.
even Yuri, man!!!! how much clearer do you need the picture to be painted?
All we want is respect for our creative images, and a good earning, and to be treated like we are holding the ship afloat. You don't think you are the ones holding the IS ship afloat? Try deleting all your images tomorrow, en masse.
Who wants to bet IS goes under? But it won't happen because you are all too scared like a little drug addict with the spoon of opium already in your system.
You can't let go.
And Getty knows that.
harsh reality, hate to say it, and i am sure you hate to read it and accept it.
sooooo, let's all go under together with our egos still inflated.
have a good swim my exclusive friends.
-
Who wants to bet IS goes under? But it won't happen because you are all too scared like a little drug addict with the spoon of opium already in your system.
You can't let go.
And Getty knows that.
harsh reality, hate to say it, and i am sure you hate to read it and accept it.
sooooo, let's all go under together with our egos still inflated.
have a good swim my exclusive friends.
Yikes! Batman, you postings toward exclusives give new meaning to the term Schadenfreude.
First off, lets not dance on istock's grave just yet. To paraphrase Mark Twain (I know how you love those historical references ;) ) "The rumors of Istock's death have been greatly exaggerated."
Secondly, lets not do the independents vs. exclusives thing here. Classic Divide and Conquer. It's not just exclusives who will suffer if this plan goes through intact. It is all of us and our entire industry.
We may not all agree on what the solution is here, but we certainly (almost) all agree there is a problem and something has to be done.
-
I agree with lisafx . The only thing that is certain from yesterday is that things are going to get volatile. batman , you're very eloquent and there is some truth in what you say. But this thing involves us too, especially those with StockXpert, and I being one.
-
Poor Batman.
-
Anyone who intends to opt out of the iStock/Getty plan to put content on Jupiter Images properties at low royalties, might like to change their iStock avatar to show that. You'll see a lot of red floating around the IS forums right now...
Good idea...
Get yours today for FREE!! (http://tgfwrw.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pZCWIob0gD92OFmUY6qRC_KXeSfgFHNN0Q2LZdYiL5n61BuL6F-qfSAjin2InkhM5PFOEFG_RmuEVKVpXi8VIpe3o7IKbeE3e/opt-out.jpg)
ADD to the discuss here http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=87899&page=1 and on MSG
-
Poor Batman.
No, you mean, poor us ! I don't see anyone of us laughing. ::) Unless you think it's nice to get a slap in the face and be told the objective truth :'(
-
Speaking of Corbis ^^...
As Corbis is one of the few agencies with enough reach to combat Getty, all of us who are independent should upload our content to Veer Marketplace as soon as that option becomes available. I certainly plan to.
+1
P.S. If they appear to like my illustrations ;-)
-
Anyone who intends to opt out of the iStock/Getty plan to put content on Jupiter Images properties at low royalties, might like to change their iStock avatar to show that. You'll see a lot of red floating around the IS forums right now...
Good idea...
Get yours today for FREE!! ([url]http://tgfwrw.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pZCWIob0gD92OFmUY6qRC_KXeSfgFHNN0Q2LZdYiL5n61BuL6F-qfSAjin2InkhM5PFOEFG_RmuEVKVpXi8VIpe3o7IKbeE3e/opt-out.jpg[/url])
ADD to the discuss here [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=87899&page=1[/url] and on MSG
rofl, How about one of peanuts? I have several of that in my portfolio ...
only 60 cents !!! ;D
-
Poor Batman.
No, you mean, poor us ! I don't see anyone of us laughing. ::) Unless you think it's nice to get a slap in the face and be told the objective truth :'(
I just said that out of compassion, inferring from his words the kind of person he is. I may be wrong, of course, but, after all, compassion is a good sentiment.
What is happening at stock is another matter. I'll wait and see and if there are no changes, I'll opt-out (that's a no-brainer). In the end, what will happen with me, will happen to the majority of exclusives: words can be said, but what rules are facts and numbers. If as a consequence of this plans exclusives see their income plummeting, they simply will thrown their crowns and flood the other sites. Or something else, we'll see. If, against all odds, the plan works, we'll stay there. That will be seen in the next 6-9 months. In the meantime, having considered from the beginning that the "basket" was all microstock and not just one agency, I haven't all my eggs in one basket, so I can take it without any angst.
-
Looks like Batman's flame is out.
-
Poor Batman.
No, you mean, poor us ! I don't see anyone of us laughing. ::) Unless you think it's nice to get a slap in the face and be told the objective truth :'(
I just said that out of compassion, inferring from his words the kind of person he is. I may be wrong, of course, but, after all, compassion is a good sentiment.
What is happening at stock is another matter. I'll wait and see and if there are no changes, I'll opt-out (that's a no-brainer). In the end, what will happen with me, will happen to the majority of exclusives: words can be said, but what rules are facts and numbers. If as a consequence of this plans exclusives see their income plummeting, they simply will thrown their crowns and flood the other sites. Or something else, we'll see. If, against all odds, the plan works, we'll stay there. That will be seen in the next 6-9 months. In the meantime, having considered from the beginning that the "basket" was all microstock and not just one agency, I haven't all my eggs in one basket, so I can take it without any angst.
(http://images.stockxpert.com/pic/m/j/js/jsltanm/38751031_54283485.jpg)
peanuts?
-
Looks like Batman's flame is out.
Yes, batty has left the bldg; probably went to steer Getty's boat ;D
oops, I meant to say, Corbis !...
NUTS !
(http://images.stockxpert.com/pic/m/j/js/jsltanm/38751031_54283485.jpg)
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
C'mon cheer up ppl, we're not at a 30cents funeral ! ::)
-
My neighboor who are wild buisnessman wants to help!!
(http://t9x96g.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pDMe4aQe0evEGFEwQNtiKX1rIVMP1zrkxAfsOcKwbTCWjq1Wh-GzzU7UTCN3R5OBERs4HmSnWqXaj0hsjaRELFpHwuhFwnjMH/good-istock.jpg)
-
My neighboor who are wild buisnessman wants to help!!
([url]http://t9x96g.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pDMe4aQe0evEGFEwQNtiKX1rIVMP1zrkxAfsOcKwbTCWjq1Wh-GzzU7UTCN3R5OBERs4HmSnWqXaj0hsjaRELFpHwuhFwnjMH/good-istock.jpg[/url])
rofl, you are so funny. i thought you were sleeping though all this 03 cents commission hari kiri whatever. what else we got to do, but laugh, laugh , laugh !
too bad i am not still in QC we could meet for a beer at Mtl Vieux.
Salut !
-
rofl, you are so funny. i thought you were sleeping though all this 03 cents commission hari kiri whatever. what else we got to do, but laugh, laugh , laugh !
too bad i am not still in QC we could meet for a beer at Mtl Vieux.
Salut !
Yeah actually some incompetent constrution workers are waking me up at 6am each morning. I am some kind of zombie right now and never end shouting "bip bip bip" like I had the tourette syndrome. Yeah if you come in Montreal we will take a beer at old port, I'm ready to drink at 7am in the morning these days!!!
-
rofl, you are so funny. i thought you were sleeping though all this 03 cents commission hari kiri whatever. what else we got to do, but laugh, laugh , laugh !
too bad i am not still in QC we could meet for a beer at Mtl Vieux.
Salut !
Yeah actually some incompetent constrution workers are waking me up at 6am each morning. I am some kind of zombie right now and never end shouting "bip bip bip" like I had the tourette syndrome. Yeah if you come in Montreal we will take a beer at old port, I'm ready to drink at 7am in the morning these days!!!
I may just be back next year. I miss my fashion shows, and money and business is slow here, and a lot better there. So you will probably see me back in M'real by 2010.
-
If Getty is merging the databases from all of their sites into Photos.com which sells cheap subscriptions. Why would buyers go anywhere but Photos.com in the future? The only thing that would get them to look at other sites would be exclusive unique content that isn't on Photos.com
Look at the threads on the StockXpert forums where the programmers there ADMIT they are spending most of their time working on updates on Photos.com which is why they don't have time to fix bugs on the StockXpert site.
IS will suffer the same fate with Getty pulling human resources from IS to make Photos.com more friendly and attractive for buyers.
In the end, they'll say that there isn't enough unique content or sales on IS or StockXpert to justify maintaining them separately and they'll be merged into Photos.com completely. And by then they will have enough of a customer base that submitters will have no choice but to stay with them and accept further cuts in payouts.
-
If Getty is merging the databases from all of their sites into Photos.com which sells cheap subscriptions. Why would buyers go anywhere but Photos.com in the future? The only thing that would get them to look at other sites would be exclusive unique content that isn't on Photos.com
Look at the threads on the StockXpert forums where the programmers there ADMIT they are spending most of their time working on updates on Photos.com which is why they don't have time to fix bugs on the StockXpert site.
IS will suffer the same fate with Getty pulling human resources from IS to make Photos.com more friendly and attractive for buyers.
In the end, they'll say that there isn't enough unique content or sales on IS or StockXpert to justify maintaining them separately and they'll be merged into Photos.com completely. And by then they will have enough of a customer base that submitters will have no choice but to stay with them and accept further cuts in payouts.
Aren't they still cleaning up StockXpert of IP offending images? So, you may be right, then the next thing will be to clean up StockXpert of images old w/o dls . If this is true, StockXpert will be better... leaner, meaner.
-
I'm in a state of shock reading through the iStock forum thread...
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=87899&page=11
Question by Susan_Stewart:
I'm going to shout again
WHAT ABOUT VECTORS. Are you going to sell 15 credit vectors for three cents.?
Answer by Sylvanworks:
That would be up to the individual contributor.
Oh my goodness. I am at a loss for words. I'm starting to wonder why any of us bother with microstock at all anymore.
-
I'm in a state of shock reading through the iStock forum thread...
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=87899&page=11[/url]
Question by Susan_Stewart:
I'm going to shout again
WHAT ABOUT VECTORS. Are you going to sell 15 credit vectors for three cents.?
Answer by Sylvanworks:
That would be up to the individual contributor.
Oh my goodness. I am at a loss for words. I'm starting to wonder why any of us bother with microstock at all anymore.
Yeah that answer kind of gobsmacked me. I'm not often lost for words, but!
-
the revolution thread has gotten embarrassing. look people, make up your own minds about this stuff. I`m opting out because I have done my homework. I`ve researched the issue and frankly I don`t want to have images at photo.com until certain issues with that site and the policies proposed are addressed.
but as for the protest, those involved need to step back and realize that unless they take a professional and more serious approach to this issue, they`re only making a ridiculous spectacle of an important issue.
it sounds like a group of angry teenagers in there. if they want contributors to come to the thread for information, one look at the idiotic posts and contributors will leave thinking it is just another stupid thread.
wow, stupid stuff on both sides of this one. I don`t get it. I`m too annoyed to go in that thread anymore. some of us just want some real information. NOT speculation and not BS.
-
Important note for IS Exclusives:
It is clear from the forum thread many of you think Photos.com and JIU are small players with insignificant traffic. I see Alexa stats being quoted.
Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth. The combined subs entity of Photos.com + JUI alone is enough to make it to #4 on my monthly earnings list. It regularly beats BigStockPhoto and 123RF in my experience. And it is growing.
Also consider the drastic drop in DL's many are experiencing at Shutterstock. Coincidence? Possibly, but I doubt it. Photos.com + JUI undercuts the competition, underpays the contributor, and perhaps becomes the new king of subscription sales. With Getty marketing, the sky is the limit.
Ironic in a way, isn't it? For so long, plenty of IS exclusives probably wanted to see SS and their subs model go up in flames. At least SS pays most of us 36c+ per download, $28 per EL, and has daily limits on downloads. They may very well be the only thing stopping Getty from taking over the subscription market. And if Getty takes over subscriptions, and puts their best effort (money) behind their favorite new toy, credit sales at iStock will go down in flames as customers are converted over to the cheaper solution.
-
the revolution thread has gotten embarrassing. look people, make up your own minds about this stuff. I`m opting out because I have done my homework. I`ve researched the issue and frankly I don`t want to have images at photo.com until certain issues with that site and the policies proposed are addressed.
Something to keep in mind Stacey...
Many of us discussing this here have already gone through this battle before. Very few of us believed Stockxpert/Jupiter when they told us Photos.com/JUI would add money to our pockets. Yet most of us gave them a chance.
The results were far worse than I could ever have imagined. Not only did overall income drop for many of us, but Stockxpert credit sales were quickly cannibalized by Photos/JUI 30 cent sub sales. It was an unmitigiated disaster for contributors who loved StockXpert and believed in getting a fair share for our efforts.
But it was a touchdown for Photos/JUI and parent Jupiter (now Getty). Photos.com and JUI traffic increased dramatically (I'm basing this on DL stats).
We've seen this before. There is no reason for me to believe Photos/JUI will not eat iStockphoto the same as it did Stockxpert. I don't believe for a second this will add to any contributor's bottom line. You will sell more for much, much less.
Anyone who cares at all about the future of microstock should be involved with this.
-
I just came back from the IS forum, and I agree with Stacey most of it are not flattering at all. But what's worse is the big players are almost voiceless, other than to say, "Heck, ridiculous!"
I am a small player or not even that, as I just came in, but I would think even as naive as I am of microstock , as I don't spend too much time on it, I have been in business long enough (including public auditing) to know the implications of all this.
Correct me if I am wrong, ok?
With this arrangement, what used to be more expensive is now a fire sale, is that right? So, given that the buyers who have had budgeted for the traditional IS prices to buy your images, now being told they could get these at much much lower prices. What is there to stop every buyer from buying everything until they are no more images left to buy. Much like dredging the whole ocean floor in the fishing business. You are left with no ocean and no more resources for a long time. I cannot see how this is going to profit even Getty. Not unless they intend to take the profit in this short interim and close up after making all the money they can get.
Then the only losers would be just be us.
sjlocke and company, who used to be much more eloquent , if you are in a state of shock, you better get out of it and start thinking of alternatives with all of us included.
-
EDITED FOR BREVITY
We've seen this before. There is no reason for me to believe Photos/JUI will not eat iStockphoto the same as it did Stockxpert. I don't believe for a second this will add to any contributor's bottom line. You will sell more for much, much less.
Anyone who cares at all about the future of microstock should be involved with this.
Spoken like a real trooper. Going over to IStock forum to talk is fruitless. We need you all here where there is an open forum, without censorship. But please, the teenage banters stay out of this.
-
sjlocke and company, who used to be much more eloquent , if you are in a state of shock, you better get out of it and start thinking of alternatives with all of us included.
I don't know what you are expecting. We're sort of in a holding pattern until stage 2 of the discussion, thus the little bit of fun and games to blow off steam.
-
sjlocke and company, who used to be much more eloquent , if you are in a state of shock, you better get out of it and start thinking of alternatives with all of us included.
I don't know what you are expecting. We're sort of in a holding pattern until stage 2 of the discussion, thus the little bit of fun and games to blow off steam.
Awesome Sean, I got your attention. At least we know you're paying attention and have not forgotten this is where we are more effective as a unit. I am not out to fight with you or anyone here. We need to hold position, like you say, wait for stage 2. But don't stay away from here. This is where your voice is more effective. Cheers Sean.
-
He started this thread so I'm sure he is very interested in all of the sane responses to it, as am I, and I'm sure as are other exclusives who are quietly researching their options behind the scenes.
I've checked in on the iStock thread twice but haven't read more than 4 pages total of it. I just am waiting for the dust to settle, for the opt-out button to become available, and for the Veer offering to be fully up and running.
-
He started this thread so I'm sure he is very interested in all of the sane responses to it, as am I, and I'm sure as are other exclusives who are quietly researching their options behind the scenes.
I've checked in on the iStock thread twice but haven't read more than 4 pages total of it. I just am waiting for the dust to settle, for the opt-out button to become available, and for the Veer offering to be fully up and running.
good to know. I guess our only problem, is as Stacey said, teenage banters making an arse of themselves, which reflects badly on us too. Let's not encourage them.
It's very late on my end of the world, I 'm gone. Hope to see you all tomorrow.
-
One more Fair Warning:
Since Jupiter ate Stockxpert, and Getty ate Jupiter, there has been occasional rumbling on the StockXpert forum that our ability to "opt out" from the Photos/JUI deal might be soon removed. It has always been met with contributor resistance, but I think it is only a matter of time before the "opt out" button is removed at StockXpert. I think it fair to assume this is coming from the very top of the food chain, which also oversees iStockphoto.
Is there any reason to believe the opt-out button will not one day be removed from iStockphoto too? I'll bet dollars to donuts iStock contributors will be opted-in to Photos/JUI within 18 months whether they like it or not.
I don't know if iStock exclusives can read the StockXpert forums. If you can, I suggest reading up on the history. But the story goes like this:
Step 1 - Introduce these 2 new sites and their very low priced subs sales
Step 2 - Convince Contributors they will make more money by selling through them
Step 3 - Overcome the Resistance by allowing an "Opt-Out" which is great relief to all contributors
Step 4 - Wait several months
Step 5 - Begin the campaign to remove the "Opt-Out" button
That's they way it has gone down so far. I'm pretty concerned this same story will play out at IS.
-
There's 58 pages on that thread on Istock. What people want, each pages new informations added? It's a bad plan we can repeat it on 58 pages nothing more relevent would be push.
It's the same each times there is a huge amount of people together for something bad in the last 2 years i followed decisions. First 10 pages are way enough to explain the whole problem. Then just keep the thread up while the agencies are covering themselves of ridicule
-
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.
-
One more Fair Warning:
Since Jupiter ate Stockxpert, and Getty ate Jupiter, there has been occasional rumbling on the StockXpert forum that our ability to "opt out" from the Photos/JUI deal might be soon removed.
Well, I would'nt lose any sleep about it and could opt-out of StockXpert and the 4% permanently. I'd have a hard time quitting Istock though, my miniscule port at IS does remarkably well.
-
Here is a Q&A thread about the move. Sorry if it has been posted in this thread already. I didn't see it if it has.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=87899&page=1
-
..
-
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.
That is NOT what IS admins have stated on their forums. Here is what was stated in one of the threads by JJRD (see http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=87786&page=11):
"Let me be clear, very clear: we at HQ firmly believe that offering multiple collections & multiple offerings to our contributors is the very best thing to do for the future of the exclusivity program; we at HQ strongly believe that it can only lead to empowering our contributors in choosing what they feel is best for them."
-
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.
That is NOT what IS admins have stated on their forums. Here is what was stated in one of the threads by JJRD (see [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=87786&page=11[/url]):
"Let me be clear, very clear: we at HQ firmly believe that offering multiple collections & multiple offerings to our contributors is the very best thing to do for the future of the exclusivity program; we at HQ strongly believe that it can only lead to empowering our contributors in choosing what they feel is best for them."
He does not explicitly state that they believe THIS collection is the "very best thing," and as they are offering multiple collections within iStock, and launching the new "iStock exclusive" collection over at Getty, they can certainly believe those are good without saying that the new plan sucks arse.
-
First of all let me say that I (as a non-exclusive contributor) feel not directly affected by this change, as I can (and most likely will) simply opt out.
But I do see the consequences for the value of exclusivity at Istock (not a direct concern for me) and I do not like the move as it looks like a move to promoting cheaper images, which in turn could put competitive pressure on other agencies - and that is the point where independents will be affected as well.
So overall, I do not believe that this concept is positive for neither IS exclusives nor non-exclusives.
But I have some question marks around the numbers that have been thrown around in this thread and the two long threads on the Istock forum:
It was stated, that the minimum possible commission would be around 3 cents. (This is obviously calculated from the cheapest photos.com plus subscription, one year for 1199,95).
It was also stated, that the "expected average" would be around 30 to 55 cents.
Now: many people assumed, that the reality will be closer to the 3 cents than to the "expected average". That puts one question to my mind. StockXpert currently pays a fixed 30 cents per download - out of the same subscription prices.
If the assumption were correct, that 20% (or 22,5%) of the real revenue of photos.com were at or near 3 cents, StockXpert would currently loose a gib amount of money. I can't believe that. So assuming that they take a similar 70% from total revenues for subscriptions as they do for PPD, the gross revenue per download would be at 1$ - leading to 20 - 22.5 cents per download for the proposed IS plan on average.
Still not a good deal (and still not one I support), but very different indeed.
Any mistakes in my thinking?
-
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.
That is NOT what IS admins have stated on their forums. Here is what was stated in one of the threads by JJRD (see [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=87786&page=11[/url]):
"Let me be clear, very clear: we at HQ firmly believe that offering multiple collections & multiple offerings to our contributors is the very best thing to do for the future of the exclusivity program; we at HQ strongly believe that it can only lead to empowering our contributors in choosing what they feel is best for them."
He does not explicitly state that they believe THIS collection is the "very best thing," and as they are offering multiple collections within iStock, and launching the new "iStock exclusive" collection over at Getty, they can certainly believe those are good without saying that the new plan sucks arse.
An IS admin stated this in a thread about the new subscription offering which was titled "Subscription Shuffle" and which had the following statement a page or two prior to his:
"I have a sneaky feeling that iStock HQ had no say in this. I believe that if it were up to them nothing like this would have happened."
It is obvious to me that he was reacting to this statement (along with another one about why they released this information on a Friday afternoon).
But of course, you are free to believe whatever you like... ;)
-
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.
That is NOT what IS admins have stated on their forums. Here is what was stated in one of the threads by JJRD (see [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=87786&page=11[/url]):
"Let me be clear, very clear: we at HQ firmly believe that offering multiple collections & multiple offerings to our contributors is the very best thing to do for the future of the exclusivity program; we at HQ strongly believe that it can only lead to empowering our contributors in choosing what they feel is best for them."
He does not explicitly state that they believe THIS collection is the "very best thing," and as they are offering multiple collections within iStock, and launching the new "iStock exclusive" collection over at Getty, they can certainly believe those are good without saying that the new plan sucks arse.
An IS admin stated this in a thread about the new subscription offering which was titled "Subscription Shuffle" and which had the following statement a page or two prior to his:
"I have a sneaky feeling that iStock HQ had no say in this. I believe that if it were up to them nothing like this would have happened."
It is obvious to me that he was reacting to this statement (along with another one about why they released this information on a Friday afternoon).
But of course, you are free to believe whatever you like... ;)
I'm afraid that I never take things JJRD says as definitive, bless him.
-
Looks like they've had enough of contributors telling them the idea sucks on the official forums! They're locking anything that mentions it!
-
It is obvious to me that he was reacting to this statement (along with another one about why they released this information on a Friday afternoon).
But of course, you are free to believe whatever you like... ;)
Yes, it is clear he was reacting to the statement. I'm just sayin that the actual wording of the response is a bit ambiguous and could be interpreted as the response of someone who is torn between their obligation to keep up the appearance of toeing the party line, and their belief that this new development sucks arse. ;)
Of course we may never know for sure.
-
Now: many people assumed, that the reality will be closer to the 3 cents than to the "expected average". That puts one question to my mind. StockXpert currently pays a fixed 30 cents per download - out of the same subscription prices.
If the assumption were correct, that 20% (or 22,5%) of the real revenue of photos.com were at or near 3 cents, StockXpert would currently loose a gib amount of money. I can't believe that. So assuming that they take a similar 70% from total revenues for subscriptions as they do for PPD, the gross revenue per download would be at 1$ - leading to 20 - 22.5 cents per download for the proposed IS plan on average.
Still not a good deal (and still not one I support), but very different indeed.
Any mistakes in my thinking?
Seems like you are a bit smarter in coming up with assumptions based on facts rather than the people stating that customers not using the 750 downloads are plain dumb.
From a customer perspective it's simple: I may need 50 images per month, medium quality, medium size. I have option A) to buy those at a PPD site for maybe $200-$400 a month and I have option B) to buy those at a subscription site for $100-$200 a month. If the quality on the subs site meets my purposes, I will buy the subscription. I don't care if I waste 700 potential downloads because the decision already makes sense for me.
Now here's customer B: He says, well beyond those 50 I need I will download quite some more to keep as a reserve for future use or for personal benefit (let's make it my wallpaper). Still just because he needs to invest some time to pick & download, he won't sit in front of a computer for hours to download 700 images that he most likely will never use. Maybe he will download 100, maybe 150. So he stores those images on his hard disk, now what... he won't be able to use all or many of them in future projects because he can't his customers/projects based on the image he already has. Yes, he will use some of them. But in most cases the contributor is getting paid for a "license" that never will get used.
Obviously I am not informed in detail how those sites have worked in the past. So my theories are speculation as well but do they sound unreasonable? Really?
I certainly don't trust anyone blindly that all his decisions are right. But I also put some trust in not everything is wrong that is being said by a group of people with an excellent track record of taking care of my images. And finally, it's still an optional thing, nobody is forcing anyone. As an everday consumer I am used to get treated much worse by big companies...
-
Now: many people assumed, that the reality will be closer to the 3 cents than to the "expected average". That puts one question to my mind. StockXpert currently pays a fixed 30 cents per download - out of the same subscription prices.
If the assumption were correct, that 20% (or 22,5%) of the real revenue of photos.com were at or near 3 cents, StockXpert would currently loose a gib amount of money. I can't believe that. So assuming that they take a similar 70% from total revenues for subscriptions as they do for PPD, the gross revenue per download would be at 1$ - leading to 20 - 22.5 cents per download for the proposed IS plan on average.
Still not a good deal (and still not one I support), but very different indeed.
Any mistakes in my thinking?
Seems like you are a bit smarter in coming up with assumptions based on facts rather than the people stating that customers not using the 750 downloads are plain dumb.
From a customer perspective it's simple: I may need 50 images per month, medium quality, medium size. I have option A) to buy those at a PPD site for maybe $200-$400 a month and I have option B) to buy those at a subscription site for $100-$200 a month. If the quality on the subs site meets my purposes, I will buy the subscription. I don't care if I waste 700 potential downloads because the decision already makes sense for me.
Now here's customer B: He says, well beyond those 50 I need I will download quite some more to keep as a reserve for future use or for personal benefit (let's make it my wallpaper). Still just because he needs to invest some time to pick & download, he won't sit in front of a computer for hours to download 700 images that he most likely will never use. Maybe he will download 100, maybe 150. So he stores those images on his hard disk, now what... he won't be able to use all or many of them in future projects because he can't his customers/projects based on the image he already has. Yes, he will use some of them. But in most cases the contributor is getting paid for a "license" that never will get used.
Obviously I am not informed in detail how those sites have worked in the past. So my theories are speculation as well but do they sound unreasonable? Really?
I certainly don't trust anyone blindly that all his decisions are right. But I also put some trust in not everything is wrong that is being said by a group of people with an excellent track record of taking care of my images. And finally, it's still an optional thing, nobody is forcing anyone. As an everday consumer I am used to get treated much worse by big companies...
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.
You're right, istock does have a pretty good track record taking care of its exclusives. Unfortunately, Getty don't have a great track record with this exact arrangement, even a short visit into the StockXpert forum on here shows that! I'd love to carry on as an istock exclusive but the only thing that's being considered is Getty's bottom line regardless of how it impacts on istock and that's exactly why I'll be an independent artist in 30 days time. For the record, I had never even considered it until Friday.
-
Anyone who intends to opt out of the iStock/Getty plan to put content on Jupiter Images properties at low royalties, might like to change their iStock avatar to show that. You'll see a lot of red floating around the IS forums right now...
Good idea...
Get yours today for FREE!! ([url]http://tgfwrw.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pZCWIob0gD92OFmUY6qRC_KXeSfgFHNN0Q2LZdYiL5n61BuL6F-qfSAjin2InkhM5PFOEFG_RmuEVKVpXi8VIpe3o7IKbeE3e/opt-out.jpg[/url])
ADD to the discuss here [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=87899&page=1[/url] 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 :)
-
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.
-
żGood for the "Getty family"?
Average comission at istock is 30% (70% for istock)
70% of 400 is 280 $.
Average comission at photos.com will be 21% (79% for Getty)
79% of 200 is 158 $
They will be barely doing a bit more than the half that waht they would have get at istock. I wpuldn't call that "good for the Getty family".
-
I certainly don't trust anyone blindly that all his decisions are right. But I also put some trust in not everything is wrong that is being said by a group of people with an excellent track record of taking care of my images. And finally, it's still an optional thing, nobody is forcing anyone. As an everday consumer I am used to get treated much worse by big companies...
Being as you're on the staff of IS I'm not sure how much trust to put into your reply either __ especially when you have "Yes _ I am biased" in your signature!
As far as it being an optional thing, then yes, it is for now __ but for how much longer? It started optional at StockXpert too but already, just a few short months later, they are talking about removing that option. I'm sure they would remove it if they thought that the contributor reaction was manageable.
The people that really run IS are actually the same people that really run StockXpert too.
-
The people that really run IS are actually the same people that really run StockXpert too.
And it would be in keeping with Getty tradition that the current friendly faces as IS and StockXpert will wake up one day to find they don't have a job due to rationalisation, all in the contributors interest of course.
-
Let me just say this has to be the most stupid decision IStock and Getty have ever made. And now they are shutting down or at least trying to quite down any type of comments concerning the issue. But they sure have time to talk up there field trip. The need to get something posted soon or there is going to be a lot of people starting to bail on them. I would be surprised that isn't already happening.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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!!
-
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.
-
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 ?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I have no ego stake in this.
That's funny __ I'd say that's all you have in it.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 !
-
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.
-
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.
-
The silence there is deafening . The place is like a morgue today.
-
They've got to come back with something eventually! The guys in Calgary (or whoever is pulling the strings) has a few choices:
- Stay quiet and just implement it, loosing a hell of a lot of trust
- Come out and say nothing's changing, upsetting a lot of of people who have just been ignored
- Offer some comprise, potentially diffuse the situation to some extent
- Scrap it completely, please the contributors but still have everyone wondering what'll be on the cards when Getty start pulling istock's strings next time
I'm glad I'm not an admin right now stuck between the owners and a whole host of angry contributors and a decision without any favourable outcomes for contributor relations.
If istock just kept the exclusive content separate from the content transferred to photos.com then it would just be a case of an individual decision with a lot less impact on the exclusive group who opt out and whilst most people would probably still be saying they'll opt out I don't think there would be quite the same number of complaints about it!
(Thanks for the correction on my last post, didn't realise Jupiter wasn't owned by Getty at the time)
-
The silence there is deafening . The place is like a morgue today.
rofl, don't you wish FlemishDreams were here ! his timezone is different, that's why.. when we sleep he wakes up. O think most of them went back to ISforum. it's best to check there. although not sure if they closed the blog or not.
but the lull is welcoming, it gives me the time to get another Guinness, lol
-
rofl, don't you wish FlemishDreams were here ! his timezone is different, that's why..
I thought he's from Belgium, then he should be awake right now!
but the lull is welcoming,
And that's not a nice word in Dutch/Flemish. ;D
-
rofl, don't you wish FlemishDreams were here ! his timezone is different, that's why..
I thought he's from Belgium, then he should be awake right now!
but the lull is welcoming,
And that's not a nice word in Dutch/Flemish. ;D
he is, but he 's working out in the far east now.
what's not a nice word? lull?
-
^ Lisa, you know you are one of these people whose advice I always trust and take to heart. I am listening to everything you, Jo Ann and Sean are saying (and a couple of others). I already said that if the collective is large enough and its motives based on sound numbers, I will opt out with the collective. but I'm not making a decision based on the opinions of a handful of upset contributors and so far it has not grown into anything larger.
gostwyck, if you're accusing me of being arrogant, you're definitely the pot calling the kettle black. you don't have to drag this down to a personal level all the time. I agree that in a forum I sound direct in the way that I write, tone is often misconstrued, but I'm not an egomaniac in real life, just someone who cares about my work and who has seen office politics spin non-issues into major issues based on rumour. I don't want to be a part of that.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree. I'm saying nothing on either side has convinced me that this is either something to worry about or nothing to worry about. is it really that offensive for someone to wait and see what happens?
-
he is, but he 's working out in the far east now.
what's not a nice word? lull?
Yes that's not a nice word, but I was just kidding, I know that's not what you meant.
-
This certainly seems to add a new wrinkle to the situation...
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/co-founder-of-istockphoto-joins-rival-fotolia-as-north-american-president/ (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/co-founder-of-istockphoto-joins-rival-fotolia-as-north-american-president/)
-
^ Lisa, you know you are one of these people whose advice I always trust and take to heart. I am listening to everything you, Jo Ann and Sean are saying (and a couple of others). I already said that if the collective is large enough and its motives based on sound numbers, I will opt out with the collective. but I'm not making a decision based on the opinions of a handful of upset contributors and so far it has not grown into anything larger.
gostwyck, if you're accusing me of being arrogant, you're definitely the pot calling the kettle black. you don't have to drag this down to a personal level all the time. I agree that in a forum I sound direct in the way that I write, tone is often misconstrued, but I'm not an egomaniac in real life, just someone who cares about my work and who has seen office politics spin non-issues into major issues based on rumour. I don't want to be a part of that.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree. I'm saying nothing on either side has convinced me that this is either something to worry about or nothing to worry about. is it really that offensive for someone to wait and see what happens?
Both here and iStock you sound like a split personality. One time you post one thing and in the next minute your contradicting even your own post. I think if you had any sense of how you sounded you would be quite embarrassed. You have every right to express an opinion. No one argues that. But at least have it one way or the other. Stop being so wishy washy. Who are you try to appease ? I think the damage has already been done. Now just stick to your guns.
-
^ Lisa, you know you are one of these people whose advice I always trust and take to heart. I am listening to everything you, Jo Ann and Sean are saying (and a couple of others). I already said that if the collective is large enough and its motives based on sound numbers, I will opt out with the collective. but I'm not making a decision based on the opinions of a handful of upset contributors and so far it has not grown into anything larger.
gostwyck, if you're accusing me of being arrogant, you're definitely the pot calling the kettle black. you don't have to drag this down to a personal level all the time. I agree that in a forum I sound direct in the way that I write, tone is often misconstrued, but I'm not an egomaniac in real life, just someone who cares about my work and who has seen office politics spin non-issues into major issues based on rumour. I don't want to be a part of that.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree. I'm saying nothing on either side has convinced me that this is either something to worry about or nothing to worry about. is it really that offensive for someone to wait and see what happens?
Both here and iStock you sound like a split personality. One time you post one thing and in the next minute your contradicting even your own post. I think if you had any sense of how you sounded you would be quite embarrassed. You have every right to express an opinion. No one argues that. But at least have it one way or the other. Stop being so wishy washy. Who are you try to appease ? I think the damage has already been done. Now just stick to your guns.
It could be worse. She could be going back and changing her original position, or the second one, or the one back to the original one. So you gotta give her some props for at least being proud of her indecisiveness. :)
Seriously though, none of us knows how it's going to shake out. Remove the speculation and look at what we DO know, and I personally feel a very compelling reason to believe it is a negative development. That is true whether I get phone calls from a lot of self-important folks telling me what I should think or not.
ETA: Stacey, my comments are in jest. You are of course free to change your mind as many times as you like. Research is a good thing, and you are the only one who has to live with your decision, so who cares what anyone else thinks.
-
One time you post one thing and in the next minute your contradicting even your own post. I think if you had any sense of how you sounded you would be quite embarrassed. You have every right to express an opinion. No one argues that. But at least have it one way or the other. Stop being so wishy washy.
Beautifully summarised Justme.
Stacey, I expressed my irritation because you write endless posts, all the time and everywhere, without actually saying anything or even having ownership of an opinion ... on anything at all. I can only assume that you're on some sort of ego trip seeing your meaningless drivel on screen. Trouble it gets in the way of the important stuff here that people are trying to read/respond.
-
so, forums are NOT a place to debate and change positions on important issues? I thought that was exactly the point of a forum. I don't look at forums as anything other than a round table where you can think out loud, which includes changing your mind about anything you want to.
I don't think it is necessary for you to insult me. though I take some of the things you are saying to heart, I also get enough reinforcement from people who tell me they appreciate my posts. so whatever. there's no need to get mean.
at least I'm not hiding behind an anonymous username.
-
at least I'm not hiding behind an anonymous username.
You may want to think about it. You may be better off if you were.
-
you know, I try to respond to this kind of stuff without getting upset. but gostwyck, I'm really tired of your rude and insulting attitude. you don't have to like me, and I can actually understand why you might think I am wishy washy. so I am not arguing there. I gets tons of advice from people whose advice is opposite around here. I come on here to get information and to give my current opinion on what I am thinking. current opinion doesn't mean final opinion.
I am the first to joke that I have verbal diarrhea and I am the first to admit when I am on the fence about something. so you're not telling me anything I don't already admit to openly.
If you were trying to upset me, mission accomplished. I'm really upset, your comments were really insulting. you've insulted so many people around here. when I first came to this site, yours was one of the names I was warned to watch out for.
-
rofl, don't you wish FlemishDreams were here ! his timezone is different, that's why..
I thought he's from Belgium, then he should be awake right now!
but the lull is welcoming,
And that's not a nice word in Dutch/Flemish. ;D
He is from belgium, Leuven in fact, about 50 miles from where i live. But he spends about 9 months per year on the Philipines.
Patrick H.
-
I don't look at forums as anything other than a round table where you can think out loud, which includes changing your mind about anything you want to.
Why not start your own topic and call it "Stacey Thinks Out Loud and Changes Her Mind". Then you could write down everything that came into your head, all day and every day __ and we could come and read it and join in if we wanted to. That would be fun.
-
I think your point is clear. please stop now. I don't think this is necessary.
-
at least I'm not hiding behind an anonymous username.
You may want to think about it. You may be better off if you were.
Why? At least Stacey is willing to listen other people's opinion and doesn't approach things with a closed mind. I'd choose a balanced discussion over a knee jerk mob reaction any day!
-
I think your point is clear. please stop now. I don't think this is necessary.
chill people, if we are to be held accountable for everything we say here, i think stacey would not be the only one guilty of committing such a natural thing. especially for this moment, things are so volatile.
the only difference between stacey and the rest of us is that she is openly voicing her thoughts to us,
which opens herself to criticism. but i don't think any of us deserve to be personally attacked like this.
i have to agree with stacey that this is unnecessary.
we're not here to find enemies , we're here to share our thoughts. she just gave us more than most of us.
chill.
-
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.
Not all the exclusives have been so a long time - me for example. I was in the conference call with the Jupiter folks trying to improve the horrible proposals they had for StockXpert - and a number of prior dust-ups with sites trying to impose new terms that were not in contributors' best interests. I have kept roughly abreast of what's been going on at the various sites in the last year as like it or not, there are some things that affect all of us as a group.
Even earlier I've been around software companies that were acquired and I've seen a number of these stories unfold. It's this collection of experiences that informs my best guesses about what is likely to happen. Clearly we don't know what will happen, but waiting until the stuff hits the fan instead of trying to alter the course of events where we can just makes no sense to me.
It's a real shame that some at IS will give this scheme the benefit of the doubt, because the only power we have is to withhold the content from the Jupiter sites. Getty doesn't care if anyone's upset, but they would take notice if they had no new content to provide to their subscription properties. Once the dribble of stuff starts because some people believe that something is better than nothing, it'll be very very hard to stop the momentum.
-
It's a real shame that some at IS will give this scheme the benefit of the doubt, because the only power we have is to withhold the content from the Jupiter sites. Getty doesn't care if anyone's upset, but they would take notice if they had no new content to provide to their subscription properties. Once the dribble of stuff starts because some people believe that something is better than nothing, it'll be very very hard to stop the momentum.
well said,
... and we already are seeing a light at the end of a tunnel...
(fotolia 's new president). 8)
this is certainly a big turn of the event. volatile , did i not say?
-
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.
Not all the exclusives have been so a long time - me for example. I was in the conference call with the Jupiter folks trying to improve the horrible proposals they had for StockXpert - and a number of prior dust-ups with sites trying to impose new terms that were not in contributors' best interests. I have kept roughly abreast of what's been going on at the various sites in the last year as like it or not, there are some things that affect all of us as a group.
Even earlier I've been around software companies that were acquired and I've seen a number of these stories unfold. It's this collection of experiences that informs my best guesses about what is likely to happen. Clearly we don't know what will happen, but waiting until the stuff hits the fan instead of trying to alter the course of events where we can just makes no sense to me.
It's a real shame that some at IS will give this scheme the benefit of the doubt, because the only power we have is to withhold the content from the Jupiter sites. Getty doesn't care if anyone's upset, but they would take notice if they had no new content to provide to their subscription properties. Once the dribble of stuff starts because some people believe that something is better than nothing, it'll be very very hard to stop the momentum.
I agree. But regardless of how many of us there are, there will always be more who are afraid to go against the grain. And settle for nothing. Particularly those who do not understand the business.
-
I agree. But regardless of how many of us there are, there will always be more who are afraid to go against the grain. And settle for nothing. Particularly those who do not understand the business.
[/quote
This is admittedly way out of left fieId, but I almost wonder if they will raise the upload limits for newbies in order to increase the number of files available from those more likely to fall into your above mentioned categories. :)
-
iStock is doing very well in the market in terms of sales and revenue.
To reiterate what Joe Gough told you in the iStock forum thread...Stockxpert was doing very well too prior to the Photos/JUI deal. It only took about 2 months for sales there to completely tank. While I appreciate your optimism, I think you are whistling past the graveyard at midnight.
-
It's a real shame that some at IS will give this scheme the benefit of the doubt, because the only power we have is to withhold the content from the Jupiter sites. Getty doesn't care if anyone's upset, but they would take notice if they had no new content to provide to their subscription properties.
That's not true __ you have far more powers than that if you choose to use them. You can suspend new uploads (which has proved very effective elsewhere), you can drop the crown (which takes a month to take effect anyway), etc, etc.
To be honest I've never understood the attraction of exclusivity. In the normal world higher risk should be in pursuit of higher reward but you guys earn significantly less for taking the risk, you put your livelihoods at the whim of a single distributor and then suffer all the instability that comes with it. Then you complain when it all goes wrong. Why?
-
It's a real shame that some at IS will give this scheme the benefit of the doubt, because the only power we have is to withhold the content from the Jupiter sites. Getty doesn't care if anyone's upset, but they would take notice if they had no new content to provide to their subscription properties.
That's not true __ you have far more powers than that if you choose to use them. You can suspend new uploads (which has proved very effective elsewhere), you can drop the crown (which takes a month to take effect anyway), etc, etc.
To be honest I've never understood the attraction of exclusivity. In the normal world higher risk should be in pursuit of higher reward but you guys earn significantly less for taking the risk, you put your livelihoods at the whim of a single distributor and then suffer all the instability that comes with it. Then you complain when it all goes wrong. Why?
Can you make an average of $3 on each download where your at ? Can you explain to me your ROI of each image ? If you haven't been there then it's really a mute point. I myself have been on both sides of the fence. And without any doubt I make much more there, being exclusive, than I did in 5 other sites combined. So to each thier own.
-
Can you make an average of $3 on each download where your at ? Can you explain to me your ROI of each image ? If you haven't been there then it really a mute point. I myself have been on both sides of the fence. And without any doubt I make much more there, being exclusive, than I did in 5 other sites combined. So to each thier own.
I'm not so bothered about 'the ROI on each image' as I consider it to be a fairly meaningless statistic __ I can't buy beer with ROI. I have a portfolio of 2000+ images and collectively I want it to make as much money as possible each month.
I've been at Diamond level for a couple of years and IS have only been over 40% of my total earnings on two occasions (which itself would be a 20% loss to me). IS have also dipped to 27% in that time too which would have meant a 46% loss. Enjoy the roller coaster ride __ looks like it might be bumpy ahead.
-
You can't calculate on percentages alone. Exclusives get preference in search. What's that worth?
-
So it looks like there has been a preliminary announcement " ass chewing " of iStocks contributors. And they are asking everyone to remove their Opt Out AVI's. Must be having an effect. I think I will keep my AVI !
-
So it looks like there has been a preliminary announcement " ass chewing " of iStocks contributors. And they are asking everyone to remove their Opt Out AVI's. Must be having an effect. I think I will keep my AVI !
Dead right. We change our Avatars when they change their preposterous proposal to the satisfaction of the majority. I can't believe just how quickly everyone appears to be rolling over for their tummy to be tickled after a few soothing words. I knew it would happen __ but not this quick.
-
It's a real shame that some at IS will give this scheme the benefit of the doubt, because the only power we have is to withhold the content from the Jupiter sites. Getty doesn't care if anyone's upset, but they would take notice if they had no new content to provide to their subscription properties.
That's not true __ you have far more powers than that if you choose to use them. You can suspend new uploads (which has proved very effective elsewhere), you can drop the crown (which takes a month to take effect anyway), etc, etc.
To be honest I've never understood the attraction of exclusivity. In the normal world higher risk should be in pursuit of higher reward but you guys earn significantly less for taking the risk, you put your livelihoods at the whim of a single distributor and then suffer all the instability that comes with it. Then you complain when it all goes wrong. Why?
In the absence of a forced move to subscriptions, suspending uploads at IS is relatively unimportant - it's subscription sites that depend very heavily on the flow of new uploads.
What I meant was that the only power exclusives had to stay exclusive and get Getty to change the plan was to opt out. I'm well aware of the option to drop exclusivity and very well may have to go that route. The appeal of exclusivity for me is a blend of factors, and of course I'm unhappy with a bone-headed move on the part of my agent. If you don't want to read about it, click the ignore button and be happy.
-
I don't mind changing my avatar, as requested, but my opinion will not be changed so easily.
JoAnn, love your new avatar. Very appropriate.
-
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.
that is my thinking too. Getty have pushed all the risk of subscriptions onto the contributor
-
I don't mind changing my avatar, as requested, but my opinion will not be changed so easily.
JoAnn, love your new avatar. Very appropriate.
We aim to please, ma'am :)
Yes, I got the idea that they were sorry they got everyone in an uproar, but I don't know how I can look at things the same way as before this disastrous announcement. The fact that they'd even think for one second it was a good idea says this isn't the foxhole I want to be in...
-
It's a real shame that some at IS will give this scheme the benefit of the doubt, because the only power we have is to withhold the content from the Jupiter sites. Getty doesn't care if anyone's upset, but they would take notice if they had no new content to provide to their subscription properties. Once the dribble of stuff starts because some people believe that something is better than nothing, it'll be very very hard to stop the momentum.
well said,
... and we already are seeing a light at the end of a tunnel...
(fotolia 's new president). 8)
this is certainly a big turn of the event. volatile , did i not say?
even just dollar bin images is more than a trickle when you consider the number of images per week. it is much the same arguments as free images. a few images from an awful lot of people = a lot of images
-
simple, be like Nero playing la violin as Rome burns... Or Victoria saying,"Buf, let em eat cake!"
nowadays the term is 'let them eat cak'
how come I cant click on your name batman? is this some sort of superpower?
-
So it looks like there has been a preliminary announcement " ass chewing " of iStocks contributors. And they are asking everyone to remove their Opt Out AVI's. Must be having an effect. I think I will keep my AVI !
Dead right. We change our Avatars when they change their preposterous proposal to the satisfaction of the majority. I can't believe just how quickly everyone appears to be rolling over for their tummy to be tickled after a few soothing words. I knew it would happen __ but not this quick.
I don't think anyone is waving the white flags just yet, it looks more like a cease fire to me. No point in being confrontational about it if things can be solved constructively!
-
even just dollar bin images is more than a trickle when you consider the number of images per week.
Add to that the fact that they are reanimating all the dollar bin images that "timed out" due to non-sales for 28 days. They've started with exclusives but with few exceptions all the rest post-2005 will follow.
-
Add to that the fact that they are reanimating all the dollar bin images that "timed out" due to non-sales for 28 days. They've started with exclusives but with few exceptions all the rest post-2005 will follow.
That smacks of desperation. Don't forget that many of us have already been there for several months with large portfolios of our best images. At those volumes, even at 30c a pop, it makes very little difference __ apart from the fact that it does appear to damage your PPD sales. You're welcome to it.
-
Add to that the fact that they are reanimating all the dollar bin images that "timed out" due to non-sales for 28 days. They've started with exclusives but with few exceptions all the rest post-2005 will follow.
That smacks of desperation. Don't forget that many of us have already been there for several months with large portfolios of our best images. At those volumes, even at 30c a pop, it makes very little difference __ apart from the fact that it does appear to damage your PPD sales. You're welcome to it.
Thanks for the blessing, but I have no intention of taking advantage of this awesome opportunity they've provided me.
-
Guys one thing is certain: Authors have power to raise voice against downgrading their work! Avatar change was perfect idea to do so and not break forum rules. Nevertheless, now I expect someone from management of agency to add line where will be 'no text allowed in avatars' - so you're then cut-off with your responses completely from their conspiracies and their tries to take more money from authors.
They will make such policy soon - trust me. They can do it and they will do it!
-
Nevertheless, now I expect someone from management of agency to add line where will be 'no text allowed in avatars' - so you're then cut-off with your responses completely from their conspiracies and their tries to take more money from authors.
They will make such policy soon - trust me. They can do it and they will do it!
They can do it, but really doubt they will enact such a petty "rule". It's one step above an agency hunting down people who talk bad about them on other forums and punishing them for their statements. In fact, they left the hundred or so "opt out" avatars that people created still in the collection. They could have easily deleted them.
I wouldn't be surprised by a lot of things they could do that I wouldn't like, but I still believe something like a "no text in avatar" rule is pretty unlikely to happen.
-
[EDIT] Live person there!
-
Now, I will wait to see if they have robotized reply ready for this kind of messages ;-)
I hope they do and I hope it says something along the lines of "You're an arse".
-
Now, I will wait to see if they have robotized reply ready for this kind of messages ;-)
I hope they do and I hope it says something along the lines of "You're an arse".
Yep why not!
Anyway I don't have anything to loose there - I am and will be always NON-EXCLUSIVE!
My earnings there are about $16 in 2 years with 19 images and 2 videos... THE LOWEST OF ALL AGENCIES I EVER WORKED WITH!
They sell my work badly and they don't need my vectors... So if there is no my vectors on iStock, I really don't need them at all! And I have over 700 vectors on-line on almost all other competiting agencies!
Next year May I will have over 1500 vectors on-line... So, their limits are quite stupid to follow for me!
If that justifies "You're an arse" response, let it be!
-
Aside from the concerns already listed I'm also wondering how enforcement will work. Who would I report a TOS violation to? Will photos.com and Jupiter modify their TOS to match IS's?
Jupiter allows for up to 10 people to use a single license, and for the images to be shared via a network for this purpose.
Photos.com allows for only a single seat license.
In addition to that Jupiter allows for images to be used in resale items. There is no mention of an EL being required. From the Jupiter website.
(III) Use the Image(s) on product packaging or in any items for personal use or resale, including book covers, calendars, consumer merchandise (T-shirts, posters, art, etc.), except in computer software and electronic video and computer games, which require a separate license (see Section F(IX) below), provided such use is not intended to allow the re-distribution, re-use of the Image(s) or access to the Image(s) apart from a product or service apart from a product or service.
-
Yes be very careful about using sitemail on these sites. The admins have access to them.
-
Yes be very careful about using sitemail on these sites. The admins have access to them.
Sorry, what was this comment in response to?
-
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?
HELLLLL NO ! I was about to take another name but bloody hell RACEPHOTO was already taken! you chimp! 8)
-
Welcome back Batty. Glad you decided to hang around. What would we do without your unique and controversial style? ;D
-
Welcome back Batty. Glad you decided to hang around. What would we do without your unique and controversial style? ;D
I couldn't do with you, luv ! All night driving in my italian police lambo with armini interiors, and all I see is you and your shade and red backdrop. I am immensely obsessed by your shades, lisafx 8)
-
it will be interesting to see how iStock HQ responds to this. this is quite the litmus test. we will at least have some idea as to the power balance between Getty and IS. though I am impressed with the responses and the candor from admins. cynics might scoff at it, but I believe it to be sincere.
The latest update thread is quite informative. everyone seems to be behaving and there's a lot of great information being passed along. I like the prisoner's dilemma analogy. the issue makes more sense to those of us without the benefit of non-exclusive experience.
I'd suggest that someone like Jo Ann or Sean write a guide to microstock or something, but then again, why help your competition?
-
it will be interesting to see how iStock HQ responds to this. this is quite the litmus test. we will at least have some idea as to the power balance between Getty and IS. though I am impressed with the responses and the candor from admins. cynics might scoff at it, but I believe it to be sincere.
The latest update thread is quite informative. everyone seems to be behaving and there's a lot of great information being passed along. I like the prisoner's dilemma analogy. the issue makes more sense to those of us without the benefit of non-exclusive experience.
I'd suggest that someone like Jo Ann or Sean write a guide to microstock or something, but then again, why help your competition?
Ciao catwoman ,
at worst, Tyler will own the rights to this blog and will publish his first million seller...
THE TITANIC OF MICROSTOCK.
luvly 2 c u toooooooooooooooooo, catty!
and to be quite honest, u would look a lot more attractive with shades like lisafx
. where ur catwoman outfit ? :P
-
there, I put my blue picture up....the catwoman suit is at the cleaners ;-) I can't copy Lisa's sunglasses, they are so her!
-
[]
-
there, I put my blue picture up....the catwoman suit is at the cleaners ;-) I can't copy Lisa's sunglasses, they are so her!
sweeeeeet ! and u did it all 4 moi???? i'm enchanted by blue ! :-*
So, what have I missed. I see no more OPT OUT in jsnover avatar. Instead I see her eating cacka...
(translation for the lesser educated : cacka is that thing you move out of your system every morning).
That's sooooo typical of Titanic. First , excommunication, now this.
This is hilarious.
I have much to catch up, so I am going to open up a case of Guinness and read up what I missed.
This is soooooo interesting. Alfred, go get me 4 pints, oh never mind the pints, get me 4 jugs !!!
-
Ciao catwoman ,
at worst, Tyler will own the rights to this blog and will publish his first million seller...
THE TITANIC OF MICROSTOCK.
luvly 2 c u toooooooooooooooooo, catty!
and to be quite honest, u would look a lot more attractive with shades like lisafx
. where ur catwoman outfit ? :P
rofl, batty boo... THE TITANIC OF MICROSTOCK. rofl you are as subtle as a train wreck. where do you get your punchlines? old marx brothers movies?
seriously, good to see you back, i was going to take up knitting after you flew off in Superman's arms ! ;D
:o :o :o :o tan, at least I am cool on subtlety. can't say the same 4 u, Meeester Tan !
do you know that you've got nothing on underneath that towel ? Where's your manner ? Go put on something decent, we have respectable ladies here !
-
[]
-
^ Lisa, you know you are one of these people whose advice I always trust and take to heart. I am listening to everything you, Jo Ann and Sean are saying (and a couple of others). I already said that if the collective is large enough and its motives based on sound numbers, I will opt out with the collective. but I'm not making a decision based on the opinions of a handful of upset contributors and so far it has not grown into anything larger.
gostwyck, if you're accusing me of being arrogant, you're definitely the pot calling the kettle black. you don't have to drag this down to a personal level all the time. I agree that in a forum I sound direct in the way that I write, tone is often misconstrued, but I'm not an egomaniac in real life, just someone who cares about my work and who has seen office politics spin non-issues into major issues based on rumour. I don't want to be a part of that.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree. I'm saying nothing on either side has convinced me that this is either something to worry about or nothing to worry about. is it really that offensive for someone to wait and see what happens?
Stacey, this is your own decision, so really I would just ignore whatever you hear except your own mind. You have been using your nodder to waffle back and forth. And this waffling is pissing off some people. Quite honestly, I wouldn't give a rat's arse notice on what they say. The final consequence is to be suffer or enjoy by you.
I would repeat what Nero the fiddler said in the other blog:
------ I admire those that wish to stand by their principles and try to buck the system. That is what this country is all about. I don't think it will make any difference as I see the threads at Istock have been locked. I believe their minds are made up. I will follow what ever an agency offers that is in my best interest. Will this benefit enough people to offset those that are opting out. I imagine they have thought this reaction through in detail. Diversity is your best answer to this problem in the future. Spread your images as far and wide as you can. Learn from this lesson if it effects your income negatively and adjust accordingly. Their company their rules, it will always be this way. Good luck to all involved.-------------(unquote Nero the fiddler).
Let's see where else this dialogue is going to get us. If the god (aka IS) is going to come down from Olympus to pull the tape off jsnover or not. I think the breach of faith has already been shattering.
Look at Stockxpert and learn from there. We are talking about the same motley crew so unless
the top people of IS and StockXpert are the typlical Dr Jeckyll Mr Hyde, I doubt there is going to be a miracle.
Just don't wait too long for a miracle, though ! You may be at the end of the gravy chain.
-
there, I put my blue picture up....the catwoman suit is at the cleaners ;-) I can't copy Lisa's sunglasses, they are so her!
LOL Stacey and Batman. I generally do look at the world through rose colored glasses, but I have to admit I have not done so with this deal ;)
FWIW I did like Sean's list of suggestions in the istock thread. If the subscription rates had a reasonable minimum and decent percentage for non sub sales (like the .30 and 30% at StockXpert) along with a provision to keep the exclusive images transferred to photos.com etc. to dollar bin images and deactivate them from the istock collection, that would seem to be a pretty decent deal for contributors. "Why bone us?" indeed.
For me it was mainly the pitifully lowball royalties offered and the dilution of the istock exclusive collection that were sticking points.
-
well, one good thing came out of gostwyck's lambasting of me yesterday....I was stuck at home with a sore back anyways, so I read every bloody thing I could find about this stuff, in particular I thoroughly read the new thread on iStock about this. I wasn't about to post here again unless I had an opinion.
my biggest concern is taking content from iStock period. I like iStock's hermetic appeal for exclusives. if they push this through, I just wonder why I would bother accepting tiny little sub sales at photos.com (sales that could also pull business from iStock) when I could just go non-exclusive and make way more at SS and elsewhere. so if this happens, I might as well go non-exclusive if I am going to take a hit on iStock anyways. at least as a non-exclusive, I can control where my files go.
I really hope they bin the whole thing. bad bad plan. though I think Sean's list is really intelligent, I'm not sure it would avoid the ultimate devaluation of the iStock brand.
-
there, I put my blue picture up....the catwoman suit is at the cleaners ;-) I can't copy Lisa's sunglasses, they are so her!
LOL Stacey and Batman. I generally do look at the world through rose colored glasses, but I have to admit I have not done so with this deal ;)
...
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 :))
-
Personally I feel embarressed for ever getting involved with microstock. I can see all the macro stalkers out their having their laugh and their "I told you so"
-
I have colleagues involved in both, as micro and macro stock photographers. I know there are strong feelings about micro....but I would never call it an embarrassing venture. on the contrary. on the whole, we are just photographers looking for markets in which to sell our work, whether you find yourself in the micro or the macro camp is secondary.
the arguments -- the valuation and devaluation of art, and the usage of art for commercial gain-- are a dime a dozen.
-
there, I put my blue picture up....the catwoman suit is at the cleaners ;-) I can't copy Lisa's sunglasses, they are so her!
LOL Stacey and Batman. I generally do look at the world through rose colored glasses, but I have to admit I have not done so with this deal ;)
...
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 ;D
-
there, I put my blue picture up....the catwoman suit is at the cleaners ;-) I can't copy Lisa's sunglasses, they are so her!
LOL Stacey and Batman. I generally do look at the world through rose colored glasses, but I have to admit I have not done so with this deal ;)
...
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 ;D
ouch, playing with fire
-
there, I put my blue picture up....the catwoman suit is at the cleaners ;-) I can't copy Lisa's sunglasses, they are so her!
LOL Stacey and Batman. I generally do look at the world through rose colored glasses, but I have to admit I have not done so with this deal ;)
FWIW I did like Sean's list of suggestions in the istock thread. If the subscription rates had a reasonable minimum and decent percentage for non sub sales (like the .30 and 30% at StockXpert) along with a provision to keep the exclusive images transferred to photos.com etc. to dollar bin images and deactivate them from the istock collection, that would seem to be a pretty decent deal for contributors. "Why bone us?" indeed.
For me it was mainly the pitifully lowball royalties offered and the dilution of the istock exclusive collection that were sticking points.
I think "why bone us?" is going to be remembered for some time LOL SJ"whyboneus?"Locke :)
-
Personally I feel embarressed for ever getting involved with microstock. I can see all the macro stalkers out their having their laugh and their "I told you so"
donding, no macro stalkers are laughing at this. remember they were there before... when microstock cut in on them. they too had to comply to microstock, and now, for many it 's the second time having the carpet pulled from beneath their feet.
nobody's laughing, only Getty !
-
Personally I feel embarressed for ever getting involved with microstock. I can see all the macro stalkers out their having their laugh and their "I told you so"
donding, no macro stalkers are laughing at this. remember they were there before... when microstock cut in on them. they too had to comply to microstock, and now, for many it 's the second time having the carpet pulled from beneath their feet.
nobody's laughing, only Getty !
However as I keep trying to remind people who make the comparison, with microstock making inroads, it was with new contributors and new content - by and large people the trad agencies wouldn't let in to their market.
In this case, Getty's asking us to do this to ourselves with our own content! What kind of nuts would you have to be to agree to that without something very big in return?
-
I think "why bone us?" is going to be remembered for some time LOL SJ"whyboneus?"Locke :)
How about a T-shirt:
Bonus! No Bone Us!
-
I think "why bone us?" is going to be remembered for some time LOL SJ"whyboneus?"Locke :)
How about a T-shirt:
Bonus! No Bone Us!
Heh you might actually get them printed up...you'd proubably make more money off it...lol
-
Personally I feel embarressed for ever getting involved with microstock. I can see all the macro stalkers out their having their laugh and their "I told you so"
donding, no macro stalkers are laughing at this. remember they were there before... when microstock cut in on them. they too had to comply to microstock, and now, for many it 's the second time having the carpet pulled from beneath their feet.
nobody's laughing, only Getty !
However as I keep trying to remind people who make the comparison, with microstock making inroads, it was with new contributors and new content - by and large people the trad agencies wouldn't let in to their market.
In this case, Getty's asking us to do this to ourselves with our own content! What kind of nuts would you have to be to agree to that without something very big in return?
So true Jo Ann ! hey , it's amazing how well you can still speak with the cakka in your mouth ;)
Good for you, only the brave will survive ! Some of us hide behind a mask, and others speak out
without them. I salute you for that 8)
-
Personally I feel embarressed for ever getting involved with microstock. I can see all the macro stalkers out their having their laugh and their "I told you so"
donding, no macro stalkers are laughing at this. remember they were there before... when microstock cut in on them. they too had to comply to microstock, and now, for many it 's the second time having the carpet pulled from beneath their feet.
nobody's laughing, only Getty !
Yeah I guess you're right...I hadn't really thought of it that way.. ;)
-
Don't bone me bro'!
-
Don't bone me bro'!
As they drag him away never to be heard from again...
-
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). :D
-
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 ;D
[/quote]
LOL!! Who am I, Sarah Palin?? ;)
-
Don't bone me bro'!
This can be our rallying cry. Sort of the "Don't tread on me" of the microstock industry ;D
-
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...
-
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.
-
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...
-
Don't bone me bro'!
This can be our rallying cry. Sort of the "Don't tread on me" of the microstock industry ;D
;D
I thought "Up your nose with a rubber hose" would be more appropriate!
-
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 !!!! 8)
-
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!
-
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? 8)
-
;D
I thought "Up your nose with a rubber hose" would be more appropriate!
Was that a quote from Vinnie Barbarino?
-
;D
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.
-
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?
HELLLLL NO ! I was about to take another name but bloody hell RACEPHOTO was already taken! you chimp! 8)
Hey, if someone took CRAPSTOCK, it wasn't me. ;D 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.
-
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?
HELLLLL NO ! I was about to take another name but bloody hell RACEPHOTO was already taken! you chimp! 8)
Hey, if someone took CRAPSTOCK, it wasn't me. ;D 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 !
8)
-
Hey, if someone took CRAPSTOCK, it wasn't me. ;D 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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" :)
-
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
-
This policy statement is worth repeating:
"If someone’s going to cannibalize your business, better it be one of your other businesses"
Getty CEO Jonathan Klein
link (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22If+someone’s+going+to+cannibalize+your+business%2C+better+it+be+one+of+your+other+businesses%22&btnG=Search&meta=)
-
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.
-
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 ;)
-
Get yours today for FREE!! ([url]http://tgfwrw.bay.livefilestore.com/y1pZCWIob0gD92OFmUY6qRC_KXeSfgFHNN0Q2LZdYiL5n61BuL6F-qfSAjin2InkhM5PFOEFG_RmuEVKVpXi8VIpe3o7IKbeE3e/opt-out.jpg[/url])
ADD to the discuss here [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=87899&page=1[/url] 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!!
-
in many or most cases, husbands are right ;)
Ssshhhh!!! Don't let that get out! My husband may get wind of it ;D
-
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.
-
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.
I thought this terse little sentence by Kelly in the latest OP was telling:
"As you can imagine, this is taking a heavy toll on the staff at HQ. They're busting their asses getting other stuff done for you, and this has become a huge distraction."
So, why aren't they just dropping it and getting on with the 'other stuff'?
-
that's the best question asked yet....just scrap the darn thing, unless they can't
-
in many or most cases, husbands are right ;)
Ssshhhh!!! Don't let that get out! My husband may get wind of it ;D
sorry ma'am, should have kept my bat gap shut. don't mean to cause a "smug hubbies of stock photographers weekend", not especially during this proximity to Mother's Day! :-X
speaking of mothers, check this out...
"mmmaaa ma , coo coo ooh ooh bat man"(http://www.funny-potato.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/baby-batman.jpg)
hope the photographer don't mind me posting it here.
-
that's the best question asked yet....just scrap the darn thing, unless they can't
Bingo. This is what I think.
-
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.
If only their intention was to embrace Photos.com/JUI, and then extinguish them. Their ridiculously cheap subs packages threaten to cut into all of our earnings.
-
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.
If only their intention was to embrace Photos.com/JUI, and then extinguish them. Their ridiculously cheap subs packages threaten to cut into all of our earnings.
Photos.com is just too good a domain name just to extinguish.
-
that's the best question asked yet....just scrap the darn thing, unless they can't
Bingo. This is what I think.
Steady on Stacey __ that's dangerously close to being a worthwhile contribution. ;)
Of course they'd love to drop it. I'm sure they really hate it every bit as much as we do __ probably 10x more in fact. Can you imagine what JJ thinks about this for example? Are we going to see his & other admins entire portfolios on JIU/PC in full support of the concept? I don't bloody think so.
-
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 ;)
mine would certainly agree :D
-
I know istock exclusives hate hearing this, but has anybody considered that Getty does not see "exclusivity" as valuable? As a buyer I sure don't - I think the whole exclusivity thing has come back to bite istock on the bum, so to speak ... sure there are files available on istock that cannot be found elsewhere - but hey, because of the upload limits for non-exclusives there are files available elsewhere that cannot be found on istock ... I remain convinced that exclusivity will soon be amended or dropped altogether on istock because it no longer makes sense as a business strategy.
The other thing is that no contributor knows what istock/Getty is looking at in terms of their market - are downloads up or down? Has revenue peaked? Has revenue dropped? What are they seeing in the market long term? What trends are they identifying? Nobody (i.e. contributors or istock admins) is privy to that information - istock/Getty never ever discuss their long term strategy nor identify the market and business trends they are confronting with their contributors so nobody knows what their business is facing. They always put on happy faces for their suppliers (as well they should) - but the market is changing I can guarantee that - and I don't think contributors are fully aware of this ... the days of expensive images are over - as went the trad agencies, so will go the micros ... micros took away trad business - the subs are lowering the prices even more - barriers to entry in the supplier market are so low now that everybody now thinks they are photographers ... this drives the prices down ... unlike gold and oil etc that are finite, micro suppliers are infinite ... and when you have infinite supply of something, prices go down.
Istock's subs system never took off because it was too expensive - but I fear that subs are the future ... not good news for the contributors but there we go ... the only hope is that some agency comes along and creates a niche in the mid-market - it will not get the bulk of the business but it should be able to do well on the quality rather than high volume - at least in more robust economic times ...
There is an irony here - as long istock remained the designers little secret it could control their own success - the more they became known, and less of a sceret, the more they destroyed the price point for images - our company has multinational clients now "telling us" about microstock - nobody is going to pay high prices for stock photos anymore (unless it is custom work) ... and that has painted the micros into a big corner ...
-
I have to disagree that there is an infinite supply. Rejection rates on most stock sites are clear evidence that not every image is an acceptable stock image. Also, hate to say it, but many fine amateur photographers find stock imagery boring - not what they really want to shoot without some incentive. If prices go down too far it won't be worth anyone's time to make acceptable stock images. It ain't that easy.
-
Averil I am not in any way questioning people's skill levels - there are some fantastic photographers out there doing great work - but for the vast majority of micro stock contributors I would say they began as amateurs with an "eye" perhaps and a digital camera - a lot of them were designers - when micro came along it gave them an outlet for their hobby and over time as contributors their skill levels rose and they became quite accomplished micro stock - yes, there are also those who began as professional photographers who then either felt compelled by economic necessity to join the micro world or saw an opportunity there - but they are still a small minority - the majority became contributors because istock and then the other micros opened up the opportunity for them ... the majority of contributors have other jobs and use microstock as an avenue for their passion and as an avenue to supplement their income - it's this group that I view as being the source of almost infinite supply ... with some hard work and a little bit of skill almost anybody can contribute - I know cause I make a few hundred a month on microstock myself and I would never ever consider myself especially skilled ... when I say infinite supply I refer largely to people like myself ... I am just not that good but I have learned enough over time that I actually am able to make money on it.
The fact that there are an increasing number of rejections at all sites, and largely for issues such as hard to find purple fringing for example or we have too many similar images, actually shows that supply is outstripping demand IMHO ... if it wasn't, rejections would not be on the rise and they would not be getting stricter on the quality front.
-
Interesting points Hoi Ha but I don't think I concur too closely with your conclusions. For starters, we're now four to five years into this game and yet IS is still as big as all the others put together. The main reason that keeps them well ahead of the pack is indeed their exclusives. This is a decision that has been imposed upon them from afar, I'm quite sure.
I'm also pleasantly surprised that there are still relatively few of us serious contributors. There are still fewer than 500 contributors with 1500 images or more on IS for example. You say that rejections are increasing but I haven't found this at all. I consider myself fortunate that I got in early and was able to learn at about the same pace as the quality standard increased. I think the barriers to entry for newbies, in terms of technical quality and saleability, are getting very high and I'd hate to be starting now. Even when they do get an image accepted the competition for sales is much fiercer now so they'll find it less encouraging. Meanwhile the top few hundred contributors will keep plugging away uploading and portfolios of 10K+ will be commonplace amongst them in another 4-5 years. Supply of images may be infinite but not supply of the good stuff.
As far as the IS business model is doing, you can work it out for yourself, all the numbers are on display __ and they're doing very indeed. They need this like they need a kick in the head.
-
You know what people?
Getty took wrong approach definitely! They are cutting branch they are sitting on.
With so much competition today if they buy sites one by one there will be always new ones which will grow faster than now.
They should not police their relation with contributors due to that contributors (well unfortunately not all) are not working for Getty than for themselves.
When Getty understands the FACT that agency is just one retailer then they can make something with their cuts in this industry.
Authors have power - they create content... So do you hear me Getty sharks?
Also shark-managers from getty are quite not the ones who should manage this kind of business...
We'll see that now Getty buying middle priced micro agencies... They forgot on what is the main problem: Agencies who give away images for lowest prices and cuts to authors! When someone extinguish such agencies there will be some improvement - no other way. So, Getty sharks - Go buy Crestock and Vectorstock. Kill that two and similar industry 'wallmats' and you'll find out that 50% share agency / author is the most fair way to earn money!
-
we're now four to five years into this game and yet IS is still as big as all the others put together.
But how do we know that? We are not privy to this kind of information ... contributors make assumptions about this all the time but based on what reliable information?
And don't you prove my point when you say you would hate to be starting now given how hard it is? That's because there are so many good shooters out there - exactly right - I submit that the supply of contributing photographers is perhaps greater than the actual demand - that's why the price points are dropping ... otherwise why are the prices going down (and that's what subs are doing - driving the prices way down)? It is not in the best interest of any of the micros to lower prices for no economic reason - prices are dropping because of the competition among sites and the competition is possible because the supply is there ... unless you subscribe to the theory that getty is out to destroy the competition by dropping prices so low it drives out the competitors - well that could be true (though unlikely IMHO) but that only opens the door to newer sites once getty forces everybody else out ... and the cycle begins again ...
-
we're now four to five years into this game and yet IS is still as big as all the others put together.
But how do we know that? We are not privy to this kind of information ... contributors make assumptions about this all the time but based on what reliable information?
And don't you prove my point when you say you would hate to be starting now given how hard it is? That's because there are so many good shooters out there - exactly right - I submit that the supply of contributing photographers is perhaps greater than the actual demand - that's why the price points are dropping ... otherwise why are the prices going down (and that's what subs are doing - driving the prices way down)? It is not in the best interest of any of the micros to lower prices for no economic reason - prices are dropping because of the competition among sites and the competition is possible because the supply is there ... unless you subscribe to the theory that getty is out to destroy the competition by dropping prices so low it drives out the competitors - well that could be true (though unlikely IMHO) but that only opens the door to newer sites once getty forces everybody else out ... and the cycle begins again ...
Rude truth about why is this happening is just before of this your post!
-
Of course they'd love to dr ;)op it. I'm sure they really hate it every bit as much as we do __ probably 10x more in fact. Can you imagine what JJ thinks about this for example? Are we going to see his & other admins entire portfolios on JIU/PC in full support of the concept? I don't bloody think so.
And if they are 'obliged' to do so, what effect will that have on iStock for the rest of our ports. At least Kelly doesn't stand to lose too much on royalties (though I admit his 8 to 1 dls to up stat is much better than mine ;)
-
(http://www.zazzle.com/n_a_t_o_no_action_talk_only_tshirt-235844749652988042)
maybe we could all buy one of these from zazzle 8)
-
I'm also pleasantly surprised that there are still relatively few of us serious contributors. There are still fewer than 500 contributors with 1500 images or more on IS for example. You say that rejections are increasing but I haven't found this at all. I consider myself fortunate that I got in early and was able to learn at about the same pace as the quality standard increased. I think the barriers to entry for newbies, in terms of technical quality and saleability, are getting very high and I'd hate to be starting now. Even when they do get an image accepted the competition for sales is much fiercer now so they'll find it less encouraging. Meanwhile the top few hundred contributors will keep plugging away uploading and portfolios of 10K+ will be commonplace amongst them in another 4-5 years. Supply of images may be infinite but not supply of the good stuff.
This is exactly my take on the situation as well. Yes, there is an infinite supply of images, but there is a relatively small pool of contributors supplying professional quality images. I would bet the vast majority of the quality content comes from maybe the top 10% or fewer of the suppliers.
And that professional content requires not only skill but also MONEY to make. If the good suppliers are not able to cover their costs and show a profit they will no longer be able to produce the top quality content that has caused so many buyers to migrate to micro in the first place.
When I started 4+ years ago this was still largely the market you describe, Hoi Ha, where hobbyists with their new digital cameras could make a few $ uploading their snapshots. But people like Yuri, Andres, Lise, Amanda, and SeanL have raised the bar for all of us. With competition as fierce as it is newbies aren't seeing the returns and instant gratification that used to make us want to try harder and upload more. I suspect a great many are dissuaded from even bothering with the pickiest and most competitive sites, and if they can manage to get some images on them, they aren't seeing much in the way of returns.
Bottom line is that any microstock site that wants to keep receiving and selling professional quality content will need to keep prices high enough to provide incentive for serious contributors to make it.
-
And there are all the people that think it is an insult to sell their masterpieces for $1 or less. Some of them even write blog posts about how stupid it is to use microstock sites. Lots of them will change their minds but it will keep the numbers of pros using microstock down.
-
And there are all the people that think it is an insult to sell their masterpieces for $1 or less. Some of them even write blog posts about how stupid it is to use microstock sites. Lots of them will change their minds but it will keep the numbers of pros using microstock down.
God bless those bloggers. I hope they keep at it and are extremely persuasive ;D
-
Photos.com is just too good a domain name just to extinguish.
No one said that they had to get rid of the domain name.
Ever hear of a redirect? It is quite easy to make it so that when someone types in Photos.com to have it redirect to > iStockphoto.com ;D
-
I have wondered if iStock was phasing out exclusivity too, but if they were to do that, as someone said above, it would be an entire rebranding of the iStock image and personally I think that would ruin them. I'm interested to see how HQ responds because I want to know how much pull they still have. that is the biggest test as far as I am concerned.
as for devaluing images, I want to understand this issue as much as possible for future reference. how does the proposed photos.com model compare with the existing sub model offered by SS? am I correct in presuming that the SS model is better than the model outlined for photos.com? (I realize that photos.com using shared iStock content is one of the biggest concerns also)
-
I have wondered if iStock was phasing out exclusivity too, but if they were to do that, as someone said above, it would be an entire rebranding of the iStock image and personally I think that would ruin them. I'm interested to see how HQ responds because I want to know how much pull they still have. that is the biggest test as far as I am concerned.
as for devaluing images, I want to understand this issue as much as possible for future reference. how does the proposed photos.com model compare with the existing sub model offered by SS? am I correct in presuming that the SS model is better than the model outlined for photos.com? (I realize that photos.com using shared iStock content is one of the biggest concerns also)
I mentioned this on an IS forum, but I'll post it here too. When Getty sent the letter to PumpAudio contributors telling them their cut was being reduced to 35% from 50%, they also called some of their contributors. I know because two of my brothers are PumpAudio contributors and they got called. If they are willing to become exclusive, they get to keep their 50% commission - at least for now.
I don't think the exclusive status will go away in the short term - but once there are no/few other viable choices, it may go away or see peremptory rate cuts.
-
Getty wants to own the image business, and they want to end up with 2 tiers. They'll continue to use subscriptions and forced cross-listing to drive down microstock prices until serious, talented professionals (which I am not, btw) give up. Microstock will become just a giant bargain bin full of mediocre and/or dated images. New, high quality images will only be available at much higher prices, through other Getty outlets.
Microstock will survive for a while but eventually technical standards and expectations will creep up - higher resolution, better lighting, more dynamic range - and cultural styles and editorial subjects will change - so the old archives won't sell as well. New microstock images will come from hobbyists who don't need to recover their costs, but won't spend money on professional models, lighting, setups or locations.
Embrace, extend, extinguish.
(These are just my own, relatively uninformed, ideas - although I'm serious, I actually think this is what's happening.)
-
I have asked for clarification from iStock HQ. I`m not trying to be naive, but the perceived sincerity of the reply was seemingly obvious. the reply indicated that iStock is not only NOT in trouble, but doing exceptionally well.
the speculation I am trying to grasp is that microstock is nose diving as a whole. I guess this is an extrapolation based on the outcome should everyone buy into the Getty initiatives...is this correct
-
Getty wants to own the image business, and they want to end up with 2 tiers. They'll continue to use subscriptions and forced cross-listing to drive down microstock prices until serious, talented professionals (which I am not, btw) give up. Microstock will become just a giant bargain bin full of mediocre and/or dated images. New, high quality images will only be available at much higher prices, through other Getty outlets.
Microstock will survive for a while but eventually technical standards and expectations will creep up - higher resolution, better lighting, more dynamic range - and cultural styles and editorial subjects will change - so the old archives won't sell as well. New microstock images will come from hobbyists who don't need to recover their costs, but won't spend money on professional models, lighting, setups or locations.
Embrace, extend, extinguish.
(These are just my own, relatively uninformed, ideas - although I'm serious, I actually think this is what's happening.)
I disagree. Getty hasn't lowered istock prices, they have increased a lot since they took over. When they wanted to use exclusive images on photos.com, they offered an opt out, nobody was being forced in to lower prices. Microstock prices overall have gone up a lot in the past few years, even subscriptions commissions are much more than they were when I started. Some sites have stuck with their subs commissions but can anyone name a big site that has ever lowered them? Hobbyists are finding it more difficult to get accepted with the big sites. They are more likely to give up than the pros who have no problems with quality control.
-
sharpshot, admittedly I have only been in this a few months. I am getting twenty-five cents per sale. Yet you are saying prices, - even for subscriptions - have "gone up a lot".
-
sharpshot, admittedly I have only been in this a few months. I am getting twenty-five cents per sale. Yet you are saying prices, - even for subscriptions - have "gone up a lot".
When many of us started on SS we were getting 20c but it had risen to 38c well within 4 years __ that's quite a significant rise albeit from a low base. The problem with the sub model is that the customer is likely to be more price-sensitive which then makes it difficult for a particular agency to increase prices.
-
Some sites have stuck with their subs commissions but can anyone name a big site that has ever lowered them? Hobbyists are finding it more difficult to get accepted with the big sites. They are more likely to give up than the pros who have no problems with quality control.
Are you asking only about sub commissions? If so, I am not aware of any site that has lowered them.
But if you are asking commissions in general, both Fotolia and Alamy have lowered them in the past few months.
Not a promising trend if it were to catch on. And it looks like Getty is trying to help it catch on.
-
as for devaluing images, I want to understand this issue as much as possible for future reference. how does the proposed photos.com model compare with the existing sub model offered by SS? am I correct in presuming that the SS model is better than the model outlined for photos.com? (I realize that photos.com using shared iStock content is one of the biggest concerns also)
Yes, IMO the sub model offered by Shutterstock is quite a bit better. They are the only sub site that increases payout by sales level. You start at .25 but after only $500 (fairly easy goal for anyone with a halfway decent port) you get promoted to .33. I am at .38, which is the highest sub royalty out there for nonexclusive content (DT offers .42 for exclusive images sold via sub).
EL's sold via Shutterstock are a flat $28 commission. This works out to more than I get from an EL on any of the other sites.
Nobody knows for sure what the take would be on the current Photos.com but the royalty split of 22.5% is pitiful, and not having a minimum payout is fishy. Reading the posts of the contributors who have run the numbers it looks like the average royalty is more likely to be .10 -.20 than the overly optimistic .30-.55 quoted in the original annoucement.
Shutterstock's plan promises a certain payout level and the risk if buyers use their whole allotment is all on the agency. The Getty/Istock plan in its current form puts all the risk on the contributors.
-
As I see it buyers are offered several price points on every microstock. with subscriptions being the lowest of course. While the prices themselves may have increased, my impression is that subs make up an ever-growing percentage of sales. So the result is an ever lower average return on an image. Isn't that what's happening?
-
As I see it buyers are offered several price points on every microstock. with subscriptions being the lowest of course. While the prices themselves may have increased, my impression is that subs make up an ever-growing percentage of sales. So the result is an ever lower average return on an image. Isn't that what's happening?
In theory that makes sense. On the sites that have gone heavily in favor of subs my RPI is down, but my overall RPI has gone up over time. Mostly due to istock and DT where lucrative PPD sales far outnumber subs.
-
I don't think the balance between subs and pay per download has changed much. Photos.com has taken some subs earnings from shutterstock but StockXpert pay per download has decreased. Shutterstock have introduced pay per download and are doing well, balancing out the fall in subs sales. The other sites don't seem to be selling large amounts of subs, perhaps some customers have changed but not enough to make me concerned.
-
My thinking is probably biased because my sales so far have been about 99% subs. It's hard for me to believe there is even any other sort of buyer out there. But my sales have been mostly on SS, where I think subscription buyers are picking up my images because they're new, not because they're finding them by keyword search.
-
And there are all the people that think it is an insult to sell their masterpieces for $1 or less. Some of them even write blog posts about how stupid it is to use microstock sites. Lots of them will change their minds but it will keep the numbers of pros using microstock down.
Yea there such photographers without a clue about photography industry and with conceptual names like "Che" taken from Che Guevara, who thinks they are genius by taking pics of someone washing his clothes. Then they want to sell those pics 300$ and more.
They don't know photoshop and are self confident because their mother tell them they are good... They don't seem to know that I get 1 650 000 results when I enter "washing clothes" in google image
-
lol, as a funny aside....speaking of mothers telling their children they are good when they really aren't:
I had a boss once who was the world's biggest jerk. it was remarkable how big a jerk this guy was. we would all sit around and marvel that he managed to found a fairly cool company, and we always wondered how it was possible. then one day someone got the dirt on him. turns out he had anger management problems most of his childhood and adult life, and his mom bought the company for him so he would have a job. every other job he had had, he was let go because of his attitude. at least he was smart enough to employ middle managers that got the job done. but boy did we laugh when we found that out. his mom bought it for him....too funny.
-
I don't think the balance between subs and pay per download has changed much. Photos.com has taken some subs earnings from shutterstock but StockXpert pay per download has decreased. Shutterstock have introduced pay per download and are doing well, balancing out the fall in subs sales. The other sites don't seem to be selling large amounts of subs, perhaps some customers have changed but not enough to make me concerned.
Fotolia sales for me seem to be switching over to more subs and fewer PPD each month. Still doing well there, but the balance is definitely shifting.
-
Perhaps the balance of customers (company vs individuals) is shifting as more companies come on board micro. I doubt your average joe who wants a desktop pic or something for a church flyer would buy a subscription.
-
Fotolia sales for me seem to be switching over to more subs and fewer PPD each month. Still doing well there, but the balance is definitely shifting.
Yes, I'd agree __ they are starting to go backwards. In fact, for the first time in over a year, they may be about to surrender 3rd place in my earnings to DT.
I think a lot of that has to do with reduced commissions, especially on exclusive images. I had several of my best-sellers there as exclusive images, which worked well under the previous royalty scheme, but now it seems pointless and most likely is losing me money.
The daft thing is I'm not aware that they ever actually flagged exclusive images to the customer. No point in adding extra-value if you're not going to tell anyone about it.
-
[]
-
The thing with subs is, from a business point of view, it is bookable revenue for a company - that is why subs are so attractive because for a business, especially in these times when companies are struggling with cash balances and credit issues, it makes their revenue more "forecastable" and stable.
With per photo sales you can look at trends and guess about future revenue based on those trends and market conditions but you never really know what your per photo sales will be and this is especially true when the world's economy is in the craps - subs are golden for a company because they are guaranteed bookable revenue the minute a sub is purchased. The other thing about subs a lot of people don't realise is that there is no cost for the company if they already are selling the images per photo - you have the general cost of course of having them on your server and admin costs - but you have those costs already whether you have subs or not - a lot of people keep saying companies will lose money if they sell subs too cheap - but there is no cost associated with selling them as part of sub packages - so the low percentage the contributors get is actually pretty insulting in the light of the fact that it is pure profit from the sellers point of view (though this is not the case with places like SS that are 100% subs).
-
hoi ha - pls forgive my ignorance, by why is this not the case with SS? I'm interested in what you are saying.
-
Hi Stacey - because SS is basically based around a subs model (yes they have some per photo buys but essentially they are a subs based site) obviously their costs for running the site is attributable to that particular model - that's how they sell the images ...but when sites like istock introduce a subs model on top of thier dominant pay per photo model, it's a freebie for them because they have already paid for the costs of the image - from an accounting point of view of course they can spread the costs around - but basically istock would accept an image on its site, and the costs associated with that image, regardless of whether they offered subs or not - yes? So the image is just sitting there already and it costs them nothing extra if it sells as a sub.
Subs are hugely attractive for the sites that have based their business model around per photo purchases because it is guaranteed revenue with no aditional cost - the problem for them is to make sure that they get the balance right - if the subs start to cannibalize their per photo sales then their overall revenue is likely to fall - that's why the pricing of the subs packages is really important ... istock priced their subs pretty high because any lower and they knew they would lose revenue on the per photos sales which brings them a much higher return ... it's a hard balance for these sites to find ... on the other hand, with the other sites competing and lowering and lowering the subs prices - it gets even harder to find the right balance ...
Look at it this way - the subs model is more revenue stable for a company - the per photo model is riskier for a company - it's a question of getting the right balance - right now especially it's hard because there is a rush to cash for business because credit has dried up - so companies are cash sensitive. But there is also a hige amount of flux in the microstock business regardless of the economic situation ...
For all sites it's about how to maximise profits - if people at istock honestly think that istock actually cares about them in more than a business sense they are really delusional ... maintaining good relationships with your suppliers is always a smart business proposition but what makes istock so amazing really is that they have succeeded in making many of their suppliers actually believe that they care about them personally. It's a great business strategy and it works to a degree because most of the time what is good for the suppliers is good for istock/getty's bottom line - but not always as this latest move shows ... the issue for them now is they have to decide whether the potential revenue gains from photos.com is worth upsetting many of their suppliers ... they will sneak it in somehow .... they are pretty darn good at that .. they do whatever is best for the company - and to be fair that is correct ... that is their obligation ...
-
thanks Hoi Ha, really good info, much appreciated...
-
For all sites it's about how to maximise profits - if people at istock honestly think that istock actually cares about them in more than a business sense they are really delusional ... maintaining good relationships with your suppliers is always a smart business proposition but what makes istock so amazing really is that they have succeeded in making many of their suppliers actually believe that they care about them personally. It's a great business strategy and it works to a degree because most of the time what is good for the suppliers is good for istock/getty's bottom line - but not always as this latest move shows ...
That's sad, :( but I have to agree with hoi ha. I always looked at it that way.
-
thanks Hoi Ha, really good info, much appreciated...
I agree. I have gotten a great education in business from reading posts like Hoi Ha's here and Jewlbug's on istock's forums.
It's very valuable information and I am grateful to have it.
-
they will sneak it in somehow .... they are pretty darn good at that .. they do whatever is best for the company - and to be fair that is correct ... that is their obligation ...
That is one of their obligations. Another is to deal with people honestly and openly.
-
The thing with subs is, from a business point of view, it is bookable revenue for a company - that is why subs are so attractive because for a business, especially in these times when companies are struggling with cash balances and credit issues, it makes their revenue more "forecastable" and stable.
With per photo sales you can look at trends and guess about future revenue based on those trends and market conditions but you never really know what your per photo sales will be and this is especially true when the world's economy is in the craps - subs are golden for a company because they are guaranteed bookable revenue the minute a sub is purchased. The other thing about subs a lot of people don't realise is that there is no cost for the company if they already are selling the images per photo - you have the general cost of course of having them on your server and admin costs - but you have those costs already whether you have subs or not - a lot of people keep saying companies will lose money if they sell subs too cheap - but there is no cost associated with selling them as part of sub packages - so the low percentage the contributors get is actually pretty insulting in the light of the fact that it is pure profit from the sellers point of view (though this is not the case with places like SS that are 100% subs).
I'll disagree. A month to month subscription is no more stable or forecastable than someone buying a point package at iStock. Yes, you have the cash in hand, but when those credits/time period end, the person could go elsewhere. A year subscription? Same as a thousand point package or whatever.
"The other thing about subs a lot of people don't realise is that there is no cost for the company if they already are selling the images per photo - you have the general cost of course of having them on your server and admin costs - but you have those costs already whether you have subs or not"
That makes no sense to me. Each image has an associated cost regardless of how you are selling it. You've got to inspect it, host it, pay for download bandwidth, pay for overhead, etc. That is separate from how you actually collect money from putting it in people's hands. In fact, SS probably has most costs associated with this, because people are constantly pumping everything they can in there to keep their cash up, so they probably have more inspection and hosting costs.
This is why the JIU/Photos thing is so egregious. There are no overhead costs. The stuff is already inspected. It just needs to be shunted over. And for that, they keep 80%?
-
I'd agree with Sean, I didn't understand your logic either. A model that generates thousands of small sales is inherently more stable than one that produces a few large sales. For example microstockers tend to have a more stable income than those who rely on traditional stock sites.
The purchase of a small sub package is often no different to a customer buying a sizeable chunk of credits anyway __ it's just as 'bookable' and probably of a similar value.
Subscription packages also carry an inherent degree of risk to the agency in that they are normally priced such that if the customer downloads all their entitlement the agency makes little or nothing from it. Purchase of credits, on the other hand, are guaranteed to be profitable.
Of course IS's plan shifts all of that risk onto the contributor. It's only just occurred to me that the way they've organised it means that it doesn't actually matter to the agency how many images the subscriber downloads __ the agency will always keep 77.5-80% of the subscription price. Effectively the contributors' pot always remains the same size too but will be divided between all the contributors whose images were downloaded.
For example if they sell an annual package for $1200 they the agency is always guaranteed to keep between $930-960. The contributors' pot will be between $240-270 irrespective of how many images are downloaded.
And that's before we've even thought about reducing prices even further to kill off the competition. This plan allows the agency to act as if the content was effectively wholly-owned by them. Clever __ very, very clever indeed.
-
For example if they sell an annual package for $1200 they the agency is always guaranteed to keep between $930-960. The contributors' pot will be between $240-270 irrespective of how many images are downloaded.
And that's before we've even thought about reducing prices even further to kill off the competition. This plan allows the agency to act as if the content was effectively wholly-owned by them. Clever __ very, very clever indeed.
Exacta-freaking-lutely.
-
...
That makes no sense to me. Each image has an associated cost regardless of how you are selling it. You've got to inspect it, host it, pay for download bandwidth, pay for overhead, etc. That is separate from how you actually collect money from putting it in people's hands. In fact, SS probably has most costs associated with this, because people are constantly pumping everything they can in there to keep their cash up, so they probably have more inspection and hosting costs.
This is why the JIU/Photos thing is so egregious. There are no overhead costs. The stuff is already inspected. It just needs to be shunted over. And for that, they keep 80%?
JIU/photos.com still have the costs you first outlined - the only cost they don't have is inspection. As far as shunting over goes, isn't that an additional cost they'll have that iStock doesn't? And what about maintaining their library? If an image is deactivated on iStock or it's keywords are revised, the JIU/photos.com sites will have to be likewise updated.
-
The additional cost for making the photos available on JIU/photos.com might be next to nothing. If IStock's system is a clean back-end architecture they can grant access their database to a new marketer who then extends his own front end to search and display those images along with what they already have. The content (images with associated keywording, indexing, popularity ranking, exclusivity flags etc) doesn't have to move, or be duplicated. It may already be on a big globe-spanning back end like Amazon's infrastructure.
Any changes to that content by IStock are immediately reflected in search results at the new outlet. After the front end is set up, ongoing costs to the new outlet might be just those of bandwidth.
One database - multiple front ends. Multiple prices. Maybe one takes VISA, the other Discovery.
-
Sorry, but the reality of affiliate sales is far more complicated than your speculations. Based on my experiences with affiliate sales at other agencies, I can say that with absolute certainty. If you delete an image on StockXpert, for example, it may take up to 90 days for it to disappear from photos.com. And what about the JIU/photos.com royalty reporting problems that StockXpert has had?
-
Well hey, what do I know, anyway? I have 20 years in software development and maintain a retail website that sells software via download and online activation. So just idle speculations on my part.
-
D
-
The topic is "iStock Content to Sell on Photos.com and JupiterUnlimited". My comment was that the costs of making IStock's images available through this new channel could be minimal, and if so, that would be a factor in the financial calculations behind this deal. I find that relevant to the discussion.
-
And per image sales are very much more unstable than subscriptions ... you are assuming people are buying large credit packages ... I don't believe that they are ... I suspect that most buyers are buying images as they need them or, if deal with a larger volume, then they are buying the subs ... Someone explain why all the microsites are rushing to sell subs if it does not have financial benefit for them?
-
And per image sales are very much more unstable than subscriptions ... you are assuming people are buying large credit packages ... I don't believe that they are ... I suspect that most buyers are buying images as they need them or, if deal with a larger volume, then they are buying the subs ... Someone explain why all the microsites are rushing to sell subs if it does not have financial benefit for them?
I think all the sites (I recall FT, DT and IS mentioning it when they implemented subscriptions) have pressure from some segment of buyers to have a subscription plan. The accounting at their companies prefers the fixed expense for images and they tell the sites they'd like to stay with [fill in site name] rather than go to [somewhere that sells subs] but they need a subscription vs. a package of credits. I guess from the accounting point of view the built-in limits of a subs plan help assure them departments won't go over budget.
-
And per image sales are very much more unstable than subscriptions ... you are assuming people are buying large credit packages ... I don't believe that they are ... I suspect that most buyers are buying images as they need them or, if deal with a larger volume, then they are buying the subs ... Someone explain why all the microsites are rushing to sell subs if it does not have financial benefit for them?
They buy the packages, certainly. It's easy to tell just looking at the comissions for each sale. Many of them come for large, disconted sales.
-
I don't have anything to add, but please keep discussing. I think some of the smartest people in microstock are into this thread -- I'm taking lots of notes.
-
I think we've run out of different ways to say how much we dislike this idea to be honest!
TPTB seem to be taking their time in making a decision on what to come back to the table with. It's been nearly two weeks since their original announcement was met with almost unanimous horror and disbelief. Hopefully that's a good sign.
-
It's been nearly two weeks since their original announcement was met with almost unanimous horror and disbelief. Hopefully that's a good sign.
From your mouth to God's ears (or Getty's) :)
-
It's been nearly two weeks since their original announcement was met with almost unanimous horror and disbelief. Hopefully that's a good sign.
From your mouth to God's ears (or Getty's) :)
cute ;D