MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStock Content to Sell on Photos.com and JupiterUnlimited  (Read 94401 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

« Reply #200 on: May 05, 2009, 20:46 »
0
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.


tan510jomast

« Reply #201 on: May 05, 2009, 20:49 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2009, 20:51 by tan510jomast »

bittersweet

« Reply #202 on: May 05, 2009, 20:59 »
0
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.

tan510jomast

« Reply #203 on: May 05, 2009, 21:09 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2009, 21:11 by tan510jomast »

DanP68

« Reply #204 on: May 05, 2009, 21:13 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2009, 21:51 by DanP68 »

vonkara

« Reply #205 on: May 05, 2009, 22:18 »
0
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

DanP68

« Reply #206 on: May 05, 2009, 22:23 »
0
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.

« Reply #207 on: May 05, 2009, 23:02 »
0
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.

« Reply #208 on: May 06, 2009, 00:54 »
0
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

tan510jomast

« Reply #209 on: May 06, 2009, 05:41 »
0
..
« Last Edit: May 06, 2009, 06:00 by tan510jomast »

« Reply #210 on: May 06, 2009, 05:59 »
0
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."

bittersweet

« Reply #211 on: May 06, 2009, 07:00 »
0
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."


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.

« Reply #212 on: May 06, 2009, 07:38 »
0
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?

« Reply #213 on: May 06, 2009, 07:57 »
0
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."


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...  ;)


« Reply #214 on: May 06, 2009, 08:11 »
0
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."


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.

« Reply #215 on: May 06, 2009, 09:07 »
0
Looks like they've had enough of contributors telling them the idea sucks on the official forums!  They're locking anything that mentions it!

bittersweet

« Reply #216 on: May 06, 2009, 09:19 »
0
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.



« Reply #217 on: May 06, 2009, 09:33 »
0
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...
« Last Edit: May 06, 2009, 09:34 by MichaelJay »

« Reply #218 on: May 06, 2009, 09:52 »
0
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.

« Reply #219 on: May 06, 2009, 10:02 »
0
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!!

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


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

« Reply #220 on: May 06, 2009, 10:08 »
0
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.

« Reply #221 on: May 06, 2009, 10:13 »
0




Good 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".

« Last Edit: May 06, 2009, 10:16 by loop »

« Reply #222 on: May 06, 2009, 10:15 »
0
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.

« Reply #223 on: May 06, 2009, 10:21 »
0

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.

« Reply #224 on: May 06, 2009, 10:26 »
0
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.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
14 Replies
6303 Views
Last post September 16, 2009, 16:03
by Sean Locke Photography
258 Replies
62459 Views
Last post June 15, 2011, 07:17
by bunhill
12 Replies
8847 Views
Last post November 16, 2014, 12:21
by etudiante_rapide
14 Replies
15344 Views
Last post March 23, 2016, 10:06
by Lukeruk
3 Replies
3962 Views
Last post May 28, 2015, 20:22
by WeatherENG

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors