pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Adding Getty Images to the list  (Read 6323 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: September 08, 2015, 20:24 »
+1
Can we have a separate message board for GI? It would be great if GI is also included in the earning list which is shown on the right hand side of the website.


« Reply #1 on: September 08, 2015, 22:48 »
+6
I don't think Getty is considered to be microstock.

« Reply #2 on: September 08, 2015, 23:21 »
+4
I don't think Getty is considered to be microstock.
It can be added under Macro Stock like Alamy.com. Alamy also features in the poll results, then why not GI?
« Last Edit: September 09, 2015, 00:37 by 60D »

« Reply #3 on: September 09, 2015, 01:45 »
+6
I think that is a good idea. Also adding it to the polls. stocksy and 500pix arent micros either, eyeem is priced at 20 dollars on their marketplace but has list prices of 600 dollars on getty.

Anyway the macros like getty also sell our files for 20 cents and the micros like SS give downloads for 120 dollars, the market isnt strictly separated anymore.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2015, 04:00 by cobalt »

« Reply #4 on: September 09, 2015, 01:59 »
+3
Been with GI since 2002 and I agree with Cobalt here. They have come right down in prices and not even the so called house collection seem to fetch much more.
Personally I think GI will have to sit down and revamp the whole strategy, marketing and everything.

« Reply #5 on: September 09, 2015, 02:00 »
+3
To me it's all about collections. One good image can be priced 1$ in one collection and $1000 in another, but this is not valid for weak photos :)

We can find thousands of images in microstock exactly looking like this in the Stocksy's curated collection(or Offset...),but to find all them together will cost for one client so much time that he will always pay more but to look at tightly edited collection.

« Reply #6 on: September 09, 2015, 03:10 »
+2
To me it's all about collections. One good image can be priced 1$ in one collection and $1000 in another, but this is not valid for weak photos :)

We can find thousands of images in microstock exactly looking like this in the Stocksy's curated collection(or Offset...),but to find all them together will cost for one client so much time that he will always pay more but to look at tightly edited collection.

Good point but I don't believe there are any so called curated or special collections anymore. I know of at least three smaller agencies that are producing exactly the same content as Stocksy and offset and they have been in business for over fifteen years.
To the contrary I think GI would do very well in droppping all collections, aggregators and so on and go back to the original blueprint of having just three, The house, Rights and Royaly-free.

The rest is just all bewildering to buyers looking for images.

« Reply #7 on: September 09, 2015, 03:27 »
+12
I think the lines between macro and micro are getting sufficiently blurred that the forum can start dealing with more traditional macro sites in any case.

« Reply #8 on: September 09, 2015, 16:36 »
+2
I think the lines between macro and micro are getting sufficiently blurred that the forum can start dealing with more traditional macro sites in any case.

+1  It would be great to see earnings across all tiers here.
I'd love to see POD sites like FAA and redbubble added too but that may be too far out of line.
Leaf, please share your thoughts about this. Thanks!

ShadySue

« Reply #9 on: September 09, 2015, 16:52 »
+1
There's the complicating issue whereby all iS contributors can get sales from GettyPlus buyers - would these by reported under iS or Getty?
iS exclusives can get G+ sales, plus a proportion of their files are mirrored at Getty: likewise.
Also, as things stand at the moment, if an iStock exclusive reports their RM sales at Alamy, their iStock sales get aggregated in the indie total. Some iS contributors have a completely separate port at Getty, presumably complicating that same issue.

All of that would need to be sorted out before any poll totals would make any sense, even as much or as little sense as it might make now.

« Reply #10 on: September 09, 2015, 17:52 »
+3
I think people will report it in the way it feels right to them and that will be enough for us to see trends. This is not a science project trying to be completly accurate, but without having the option to add data for getty and corbis we have nothing at all.

« Reply #11 on: September 09, 2015, 20:02 »
+1
Leaf, please share your thoughts about this. Thanks!

Yes, please :)

« Reply #12 on: September 09, 2015, 21:40 »
+3
I don't think Getty is considered to be microstock.
Having gotten their royalty reports I'd have to argue that this isn't true.

« Reply #13 on: September 09, 2015, 22:05 »
+8
Leaf, please share your thoughts about this. Thanks!

Yes, please :)

I had had people ask for Getty before so perhaps I should give in and add it to the list.  I agree the lines between the sites are sufficiently blurred that there is no strict 'macro' or 'micro' site anymore.

I'm currently on holidays :)  I'll add it to the list when I get back and have better access to the site database.

« Reply #14 on: September 09, 2015, 22:40 »
+2
How about you raise the maximum to at least $5000 and allow exclusives to enter our earnings for Alamy, Pond5, and Getty.

« Reply #15 on: September 09, 2015, 22:47 »
+1
I had had people ask for Getty before so perhaps I should give in and add it to the list.  I agree the lines between the sites are sufficiently blurred that there is no strict 'macro' or 'micro' site anymore.

Thanks leaf. Also plz consider adding a separate massage board for GI under Macro, like for Alamy.
Enjoy holidays! :)

« Reply #16 on: September 09, 2015, 23:21 »
0
I don't think Getty is considered to be microstock.

Just can't wait to see the name Getty with no numbers after it like the other 40 that don't make the minimum. [minimum number of votes, 50, for tick who can't understand what minimum means without twisting what I write.]
« Last Edit: October 06, 2015, 19:02 by YadaYadaYada »

« Reply #17 on: September 09, 2015, 23:33 »
+1
I don't think Getty is considered to be microstock.

Just can't wait to see the name Getty with no numbers after it like the other 40 that don't make the minimum.
There is no minimum.  The reason those sites don't show up is because there aren't enough votes.   From what I remember a site needs 20 votes to get the numbers put up, that shows how few people are entering their numbers.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2015, 23:35 by tickstock »

« Reply #18 on: September 10, 2015, 08:49 »
0
I think it would be great, if we could see how many people entered data for an agency.

Maybe as a small number in brackets behind the name?

So it becomes easy to see, how many more people are needed to include an agency further up, or just to see how many people are interested.

Also higher top income levels for the full timers.

« Reply #19 on: September 10, 2015, 09:02 »
+2
I think it would be great, if we could see how many people entered data for an agency.

Maybe as a small number in brackets behind the name?

So it becomes easy to see, how many more people are needed to include an agency further up, or just to see how many people are interested.

Also higher top income levels for the full timers.

agreed, I'll get that working too

« Reply #20 on: September 10, 2015, 09:08 »
+2
Wouldn't it be more accurate if the poll did not ask for total revenue, but rather for RPI per month? That would include portfolio size in the answer and probably show a more realistic picture.

« Reply #21 on: September 10, 2015, 10:22 »
+4
I just wish all stock agencies have people like leaf, someone who listens to contributors.

« Reply #22 on: September 10, 2015, 10:27 »
+2
Wouldn't it be more accurate if the poll did not ask for total revenue, but rather for RPI per month? That would include portfolio size in the answer and probably show a more realistic picture.

I think that will be too complicated for many people. Not everybody does stock full time and is familiar with rpi etc...

But perhaps in a larger yearly poll more data points would be interesting.

Thank you leaf for listening!

« Reply #23 on: October 01, 2015, 10:15 »
0
I had had people ask for Getty before so perhaps I should give in and add it to the list.  I agree the lines between the sites are sufficiently blurred that there is no strict 'macro' or 'micro' site anymore.

I'm currently on holidays :)  I'll add it to the list when I get back and have better access to the site database.

Can anyone find GI in voting list?

« Reply #24 on: October 02, 2015, 02:55 »
+1
Probably Leaf forgot to add it.


 

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors