Author Topic: iStock Content to Sell on Photos.com and JupiterUnlimited (Read 35351 times)

sharply_done · « **Reply #400 on:** May 11, 2009, 15:21 »

Quote from: sjlocke on May 11, 2009, 14:25

...
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.

stockastic · « **Reply #401 on:** May 11, 2009, 16:56 »

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.

sharply_done · « **Reply #402 on:** May 11, 2009, 17:20 »

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?

stockastic · « **Reply #403 on:** May 11, 2009, 17:24 »

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.

gostwyck · « **Reply #404 on:** May 11, 2009, 18:53 »

stockastic · « **Reply #405 on:** May 11, 2009, 19:12 »

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.

hoi ha · « **Reply #406 on:** May 11, 2009, 22:48 »

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?

jsnover · « **Reply #407 on:** May 12, 2009, 01:24 »

Quote from: hoi ha on May 11, 2009, 22:48

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.

loop · « **Reply #408 on:** May 12, 2009, 05:37 »

Quote from: hoi ha on May 11, 2009, 22:48

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.

stacey_newman · « **Reply #409 on:** May 12, 2009, 08:26 »

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.

gostwyck · « **Reply #410 on:** May 13, 2009, 13:22 »

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.

lisafx · « **Reply #411 on:** May 13, 2009, 14:17 »

Quote from: gostwyck on May 13, 2009, 13:22

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)

willie · « **Reply #412 on:** May 13, 2009, 14:29 »

Quote from: lisafx on May 13, 2009, 14:17

Quote from: gostwyck on May 13, 2009, 13:22
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