MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Cutcaster => Topic started by: johngriffin on August 04, 2009, 10:01
-
August 4, 2009 - San Francisco, California
From their new headquarters in foggy San Francisco, Cutcaster is proud to introduce its much-ballyhooed ‘BTV’ (BTV) photo and vector collection to creative professionals today. Take a sneak peak at ‘BTV’ by going to www.cutcaster.com/crescendo (http://www.cutcaster.com/Crescendo).
“Creative professionals deserve a better experience when searching for and purchasing content. What Cutcaster provides is better search, better results, better rights offering and all at better market prices,” Cutcaster founder John Griffin explained. “We introduced ‘BTV’ our first premium collection, to highlight the amazing quality of work in our marketplace and show buyers how easy the website is to use.”
The best of the best included in the BTV photo and vector collection were hand-picked by our highly-caffeinated reviewers and industry professionals for their uniqueness, execution and overall quality. The diverse collection will have graphic designers, creative professionals and photo buyers singing from the top of the closest mountain peaks.
‘BTV’, Irish for “mountaintop,” gives creative professionals looking for exceptional imagery a new and untapped source of photos and illustrations priced by the free market. Inclusive of both exclusive and non-exclusive contributors, the BTV collection will expand over time. Contributors may also request a file be added to the collection but every file included must pass an intense inspection process and meet the collection’s strict acceptance criteria. "The Cutcaster flexible pricing model provides a unique and hard-data insight into the market value of stock photos,” Lee Torrens, a stock photography insider observed. “‘BTV’ is a welcome opportunity for all stock photography and illustrators to see our higher value images lifted to another level."
Prices range from $1 for small sizes up to $35 USD for XXL. Sellers set the price for the BTV files. If a buyer wanted to name their price, they are always free to bid on any of the images if they have more time or are working with a smaller budget.
“We haven’t even come close to hitting our peak yet but I’m excited by the growth of sales, which have been doubling every month and also by the number of great photographers we are fortunate enough to be working with and trust us to represent their work. Our diverse collection is on the verge of breaking 400,000 royalty free images and illustrations and the ‘BTV’ collection will be one more way we can promote our great library to buyers,” Griffin added.
In other news, Cutcaster announced that the increase in revenues has been re-invested into advertising and marketing and more customer service help, which continues to be an industry leader. The number of Corporate Accounts and buyer sign-ups has been growing faster over the last 6 months because buyers like the flexible payment options, easy to use search and invoicing capabilities. Cutcaster released figures that buyers bid on content around 6% of the time and on average bid 40% less than the listed price for the largest file size. The time it takes for a typical seller’s response to a proposed bid has averaged 81 minutes and buyers have accepted the final price 43% of the time.
In addition, Cutcaster released new features that include scaled pricing for different file sizes so buyers now have a choice over what image size they want. Also Cutcaster improved its search functionality and introduced a new suggestive search tool that shows buyers as they type in a keyword what other keyword options are available.
For more information on the ‘BTV’ see www.cutcaster.com/BTV (http://www.cutcaster.com/crescendo) or email [email protected].
About Cutcaster
Cutcaster has tapped into a new and unique source of photo and vector illustrations that can be purchased for any kind of publishing, web design project, printing brochures, advertising, annual reports or electronic usage on websites and presentations. Cutcaster created the first model that adds structure to support licensing user-generated photography and vectors when you don't have the budget to create it yourself. Sellers can set their prices or those new to the world of licensing can use the Cutcaster Algorithm to find the fair market price.
Visit www.cutcaster.com (http://www.cutcaster.com) for more information.
-
Hmmm I'd be interested to see what iStockphoto have to say about you using the term Vetta in your collections title.
And even though I don't qualify to submit to the iStock Vetta collection I must say your 'Better than Vetta' title is a bit cheap and rather pathetic IMO, especially for a site with so few sales, why not work on improving your sales with serious established marketing instead of tacky cheap phrases.
-
Hey John,
Good to know istock isn't the only site out there with a "premium" collection. Thanks for including a couple of my photos.
-
Hmmm I'd be interested to see what iStockphoto have to say about you using the term Vetta in your collections title.
And even though I don't qualify to submit to the iStock Vetta collection I must say your 'Better than Vetta' title is a bit cheap and rather pathetic IMO, especially for a site with so few sales, why not work on improving your sales with serious established marketing instead of tacky cheap phrases.
I have to agree with Richard here.
I admire your 'go-get' attitude John but this just looks a bit wrong.
-
I've just taken a quick look at your 'Better than Vetta' collection, the images aren't exclusive, and they cost more in your collection than they would on one of the established successful sites for the same size!!
So in short maybe your ad should read "Better than Vetta - the same stuff from the same contributors thats available elsewhere but this time it's more expensive" and I'd suggest you remove the terms 'untapped' and 'unique source' from your statement because neither really apply.
-
I am OK with cutcaster having a premium collection but man, What's that name?!
I don't like the name. Seriously, this is killing me!
- Hey, wassup?!
- It's Betta than vetta?!
Please remove it! Can't look at it anymore ;D
-
I thought it was supposed to be a joke post. No one else read it that way?
-
I thought it was supposed to be a joke post. No one else read it that way?
Unfortunately, it's for real. I posted a link to it in the Vetta thread earlier today, before this announcement post. Should be interesting to see the response from Getty Images, or maybe it will just be kept between the attorneys.
-
It´s ok. when I see some of my old work, I wonder why . did I...
Change the name and forget :D
-
"Irish for mountaintop"? Cmon, that reads like an Onion news story...
-
Mmmmh... Is it April Fools' Day again?
-
If it isn't a joke, all it will do is 1. Get them in trouble with istock who, I am sure, has the name trademarked or something, and b. Send people out there wonering what 'Vetta' is, only to find a source of previously unseen content.
It's like an inside joke, but the buyers aren't in on it.
-
John comes up with some idea
Really? Is that what happened?
-
I doubt IStock has been able to trademark an Italian noun.
-
Jokes aside Monsieur Griffin, the last time some site (hint: Photo Shelter) got into the rink with Getty ... you know what happened? Might I suggest you check out ebay for a very very large torpedo, should you aspire to blast Getty/Vetta out of the water ;)
But it's funny , nonetheless!
-
I doubt IStock has been able to trademark an Italian noun.
lol, agree stockastic.
not unless Getty has italian :connections: ;D
last i looked, they are still based in calgary, ab... not milan IT
;)
-
If it isn't a joke, all it will do is 1. Get them in trouble with istock who, I am sure, has the name trademarked or something, and b. Send people out there wonering what 'Vetta' is, only to find a source of previously unseen content.
It's like an inside joke, but the buyers aren't in on it.
This will make cutcaster 2nd biggest traffic source after sxc.hu. Maybe they just gave up on sales and decided to be an affiliate of istockphoto.
and o - bladi - hell, wassup bro! :D
I do like john's efforts but he could have come up with a better name. This name is bad, and it is good he hears it now.
-
I doubt IStock has been able to trademark an Italian noun.
What? ??? I thought it was Irish! :D
-
and o - bladi - hell, wassup bro! :D
I do like john's efforts but he could have come up with a better name. This name is bad, and it is good he hears it now.
ya right ...cidepix bud .
en serio, methinks John should avoid any word that rhymes with :
PASTA
or
crappy
:D :D :D
-
I doubt IStock has been able to trademark an Italian noun.
What? ??? I thought it was Irish! :D
Nope, Italian.
And as for trademarking, Apple did a good job with a common English noun. >:(
-
ya right ...cidepix bud .
en serio, methinks John should avoid any word that rhymes with :
PASTA
or
crappy
:D :D :D
All he should avoid is "emulation"
Other than that, he can use whatever word he wants. It's not like he can not come up with something original. Why are we talking about istockphoto now, if this is original.
Betta than Vetta = Plain BAD = Truth hurts
-
I googled for .5 seconds and found all sorts of products and enterprises named "Vetta". It's the Italian equivalent of Acme.
I think John Griffin can call this "Betta than Vetta" if he wants, although I think just "Betta" would get the idea across and would be funnier. "Betta" would also play nicely off the image of the beautiful tropical fish by that name.
-
Old MacDonald had a farm....
I don't know about trademark issues and lawyers. I just see the strategy. How could you get more attention than going right at the big guy? Go for it, John. Win or ... GO DOWN IN A BLAZE OF GLORY. 8)
-
I doubt IStock has been able to trademark an Italian noun.
I'd check the (TM) by the collection name in the June 24th press release: http://www.istockphoto.com/press_release.php (http://www.istockphoto.com/press_release.php) . I'd guess the lawyers would not let them do that without it being ... correct. Does that help?
-
Nope, Italian.
And as for trademarking, Apple did a good job with a common English noun. >:(
We were just making fun of the press release linked above where it said it was Irish. Thus, my thoughts the whole thing is a joke.
Man, I have never seen such sour grapes and whining. You guys are all really bitter today.
-
I doubt IStock has been able to trademark an Italian noun.
What? ??? I thought it was Irish! :D
Nope, Italian.
And as for trademarking, Apple did a good job with a common English noun. >:(
Yes, my understanding is that trademark is applied by industry. For instance there may be an Apple Publishing Company, or Apple Motors, but there cannot be another Apple in the computer industry.
The criticism here does not stem from the fact that he's decided to create a new collection. It is in response to the fact that the name he chose for it seems like a cheap shot at a competitor, and imho, is not a name that demands respect, but instead seems a little sad.
It's great that he is trying to create a successful site where contributors are better rewarded. A name like this only makes it seem like he's more focused on his competition than his vetta.
-
I googled for .5 seconds and found all sorts of products and enterprises named "Vetta". It's the Italian equivalent of Acme.
I think John Griffin can call this "Betta than Vetta" if he wants, although I think just "Betta" would get the idea across and would be funnier. "Betta" would also play nicely off the image of the beautiful tropical fish by that name.
I like BETTA
it would serve a dual purpose , albeit subtle ;D
or a play with another italian icon MASERATI
combine VETTA with GETTY
and get somethin like
BETTAYETTI , as in better yet ! :D
-
I googled for .5 seconds and found all sorts of products and enterprises named "Vetta". It's the Italian equivalent of Acme.
I think John Griffin can call this "Betta than Vetta" if he wants, although I think just "Betta" would get the idea across and would be funnier. "Betta" would also play nicely off the image of the beautiful tropical fish by that name.
I like BETTA
it would serve a dual purpose , albeit subtle ;D
or a play with another italian icon MASERATI
combine VETTA with GETTY
and get somethin like
BETTAYETTI , as in better yet ! :D
Yetti makes me think of Big Foot. ;D
-
Sean's right.
Knowing John, he's probably playing . As in "better than cheddar". Of which there is also a cheese called Vetta, if I am not mistaken. Italian too. Correct me if I am mistaken.
It's funny , though ! We need funny nowadays , the way things have been going lately with all the Big 6 stealthily expanding into the "lubrication" enterprise
( m@m, so funny) ;D
-
I googled for .5 seconds and found all sorts of products and enterprises named "Vetta". It's the Italian equivalent of Acme.
I think John Griffin can call this "Betta than Vetta" if he wants, although I think just "Betta" would get the idea across and would be funnier. "Betta" would also play nicely off the image of the beautiful tropical fish by that name.
I like BETTA
it would serve a dual purpose , albeit subtle ;D
or a play with another italian icon MASERATI
combine VETTA with GETTY
and get somethin like
BETTAYETTI , as in better yet ! :D
Yetti makes me think of Big Foot. ;D
... ROFL whatalife,
so much the BETTA,
John could use his (bigfoot) to stomp on the competition ;D
-
and more,
the logo could be a giant footprint.
implying, Cut Bettayetti stomps on sub zero prices ...
8) :-*
-
whatver John's ulterior motive is, if it is to dig at those Big 6 who have been giving us their incredible curve balls, I wholeheartedly say, "Go for it Cutcaster!
If you truly wish contributors get better commissions, then, I hope you succeed . out of getting the buyers to think they should be paying as much on good images as they themselves expect their work to be highly valued".
i , for one, cannot believe that ALL BUYERS are scavengers, and will only pay us peanuts. ::)
it's the blooming greed of the Big 6 of micro stock that have made the buyers think like scavengers, and that we, the contributors do not deserve to be paid anything more than a few pennies for our work.
-
whatver John's ulterior motive is, if it is to dig at those Big 6 who have been giving us their incredible curve balls, I wholeheartedly say, "Go for it Cutcaster!
If you truly wish contributors get better commissions, then, I hope you succeed . out of getting the buyers to think they should be paying as much on good images as they themselves expect their work to be highly valued".
i , for one, cannot believe that ALL BUYERS are scavengers, and will only pay us peanuts. ::)
it's the blooming greed of the Big 6 of micro stock that have made the buyers think like scavengers, and that we, the contributors do not deserve to be paid anything more than a few pennies for our work.
I think you give the buyers more credit than they deserve.
Buyers are no different from children. They will take whatever daddy and mommy allow them . In fact, some, if not many, of these buyers were living on daddy's credit card through Art School, and are used to getting everything for nothing. They don't know what value is.
If the sites can sell for more, don't you think they would?
-
The best of the best included in the BTV photo and vector collection were hand-picked by our highly-caffeinated reviewers and industry professionals
It was already fun reading when I got the email from John, and this thread made it even better... it made made evening and I'll have a happy sleep today :)
combine VETTA with GETTY
and get somethin like
BETTAYETTI , as in better yet ! :D
-
whatver John's ulterior motive is, if it is to dig at those Big 6 who have been giving us their incredible curve balls, I wholeheartedly say, "Go for it Cutcaster!
If you truly wish contributors get better commissions, then, I hope you succeed . out of getting the buyers to think they should be paying as much on good images as they themselves expect their work to be highly valued".
i , for one, cannot believe that ALL BUYERS are scavengers, and will only pay us peanuts. ::)
it's the blooming greed of the Big 6 of micro stock that have made the buyers think like scavengers, and that we, the contributors do not deserve to be paid anything more than a few pennies for our work.
I think you give the buyers more credit than they deserve.
Buyers are no different from children. They will take whatever daddy and mommy allow them . In fact, some, if not many, of these buyers were living on daddy's credit card through Art School, and are used to getting everything for nothing. They don't know what value is.
If the sites can sell for more, don't you think they would?
u mayb just be right . re. the mentality of the generation. but, not all buyers belong of that generation of "mooches". many are of the generation that are used to traditional stock photos,
and of an era where a photographer is paid well.
the buyers have been weaned to get as much for next to nothing.
look at the ads on the main page of 4 out of 5 of every micro stock site.
what dya see as headlines?
u don't see , "we charge more because our images are the best!"
you only see, "now you can get even more for less!"
every blooming site is competing with the other to drop the sub prices to lower than the next guy.
until the agenda of the project is not "better commission for our contributors" but "we hear what our buyers are saying ".
there are enough wannabees to replace anyone who suddenly wakes up to think that getting a few pennies for their images is ridiculous . the sites know that, and the world is very full of the next horde of wannabees with cheaper DSLRs. even if the whole of North Am quits on micro, the whole of China can replace them 10 folds, and the sites will not even blink or miss any one of you who quits
and pull out your portfolio.
-
You mention photographes and illustrations but the main thing I see are only photos.
Also I see a lot of photographes of one person....
-
Old MacDonald had a farm....
I don't know about trademark issues and lawyers. I just see the strategy. How could you get more attention than going right at the big guy? Go for it, John. Win or ... GO DOWN IN A BLAZE OF GLORY. 8)
eee aye ee aye oh
Amen WP !
-
I agree with you abladihell...WTH do these guys want? it seems to be a dam if you do, and dam if you don't situation with them, common give someone else a chance to do something to compete with the big guys, or at the very least give it a good try, I guess some of the people on this forum have nothing better to do with their time than acting like frustrated housewives, criticizing, snitching and gossipping on everyone else's ideas...but if the ideas came from the LUBE MASTERS then is all fine...uuuh! I don't like the name!, uuuh! I'll tell on you!...Give me a F.....g break...and let John do what he needs to do to make his site a better place for the rest of us...then you guys can stay with your LUBE MASTERS AND TAKE ALL OF THEIR CRAP!
m@m 4 president !
YAY... oops sorry, I mean... Hurrah Cutcaster!
JOHN GRIFFIN a.k.a. Terminator ! 8)
-
JOHN GRIFFIN a.k.a.
Terminator Bryan Zmijewski
-
This is a bad idea (in my opinion), but I wish John all the success if he thinks it is the right way to go.
-
This is a bad idea (in my opinion), but I wish John all the success if he thinks it is the right way to go.
John's a daydreamer, like John Lennon.
How can he expects to be a giant killer , lol.
But then again, if I remember my giant killer story, David used a slingshot to kill Goliath.
Here John Griffin, pick a pebble ;)
-
"Irish for mountaintop"? Cmon, that reads like an Onion news story...
I have to agree with Sean on this. Seriously... What the heck?! There are reasons shutterstock didnt call itself "better than istock". Its got to be a joke... It's pretty funny though I give them that.
-
JOHN GRIFFIN a.k.a. Terminator Bryan Zmijewski
LOL
Lot of noise and no sales.
Immature guys. They should first try to give us 10% what we make with IS and then start joking. Do you remember the day when Crestock bought Corbis (or Getty) ?
-
Good grief that graphic banner on the page looks like it was done by a high schooler in love with Edwardian Script.
-
The "Betta than Vetta" name makes the site sound unproffessional, cheap and childish. I'm embarrased for you.
-
Any comment like this "Betta than Vetta" , about competition, or similar acts, seems like some desperate move... :'(
-
The "Betta than Vetta" name makes the site sound unproffessional, cheap and childish. I'm embarrased for you.
I was embarrased for him too, but didn't want to say not to break his heart :D Come on John, get rid of this. These people here; are not all wrong. Good feedback for you this is!
Personally, I am not the kind of guy who will bash you whatever you do. If this was a good move I would certainly applaud it. It really is a bad move in my opinion. You can't emulate others; find a better name, and as someone mentioned, the banner does look like a kid did it.
-
I know that John will give us some words of encouragement and seriousness...
-
Has anyone acutally tried to compare the two collections? Betta? No way! The supposed betta photos are no match for Vetta.
-
Vetta is only available to exclusives at IS, and if history is correct, only select exclusives ever get their work accepted. Betta is open to all CC contributors who submit outstanding work. I will admit I'm not fond of the name but at least CC has some variety and is not making up a payment system so confusing that you can't figure out what your royalty is supposed to be.
-
I am sure Mr. Griffin considered his actions well before making it known to us. He is not a silly person and of course not unprofessional. He would not send us an email just to act like an idiot.
I am all for Mr. Griffin BETTA THAN VETTA.
What is the worse that can happen? He makes a fool of himself?
Well, I don't think whatever Mr. Griffin do can exceed whatever Getty has done, and any other CEOs of the Big 6 before him.
-
There could be a claim that the reference to Vetta is damaging the 'brand' of 'Vetta' but as both are new collections then it would be hard to prove, and any action may never get off the ground and just end in a cease and desist.
With any claim for defamation, slander or libel the onus will be on john to prove that ‘Betta is better than Vetta, but as it is a subjective media it would be hard to prove the claim either way.
There is nothing wrong in the UK to name a competitor in a factual way, like with supermarket 'A' saying we have a given number of products cheaper than a competitor supermarket 'B', then the supermarket 'B' comes back and says a basket of the most popular items are cheaper than supermarket 'A', so there is nothing wrong with saying “artists earn 30% more with us than they do at [Named Agency] as that is factual, or we have xx number of images more, or we are xx% cheaper.
Any business needs to find it strengths and focus thier marketing on them, as already said it looks a bit tacky and a cheap shot, however it is also cheap marketing, and it is working as Sean said it is posted on the Istock forum so one side of the marketing is working, think why it was posted in a 'contributors forum' photographers are the target market here not buyers, so there may be new artists joining MSG and CC.
David ;)
-
Adeptris right.
The basis of civil cases is a set precedent.
If you bring in Vetta and Betta and said this is liable, all the lawyer for Cutcaster needs to bring in Pepsi Cola and Coca Cola.
If the Cola name can be used without Coca charging Pepsi. Vetta has no leg to stand on. If so, it will open a can of worms for Pepsi .
We have been taking the Pepsi challenge for as long as I can remember. From highschool to past adulthood. Cheapshot for Pepsi? I don't think so. Pepsi actually gained momentum with this.
So if that is unprofessional and cheap shot, you don't have any idea about marketing and brand competition.
I highly doubt that Vetta is going to change the legal name world in an amazing case of the micro stock .
Vetta is not an original either. So even if they succeed to stop Betta to use it,
some other Vetta before IStock will come after IS and this is highly unlikely that Vetta wants to encourage.
It cost money to retain a lawyer. Getty already has one case with those photographers sueing them.
I don't think Getty wants to get themselves tied up in court with Cutcaster as well.
That would have to take a lot of subscription sales to pay to retain the lawyers and a lot of time spent in court.
Highly unlikely.
Is Betta than Vetta provable ?
Sure, ask any of those Cutcaster contributors who will submit their images to Betta Than Vetta.
There will be enough people to uphold the proof that BETTA is in fact BETTA THAN VETTA.
And since Vetta has no history beyond a reasonable doubt than it is in fact better than Betta than Vetta, it is their word against some others' words.
You don't win court cases this way. It will be thrown out of court in an instant.
-
Vetta is only available to exclusives at IS, and if history is correct, only select exclusives ever get their work accepted. Betta is open to all CC contributors who submit outstanding work. I will admit I'm not fond of the name but at least CC has some variety and is not making up a payment system so confusing that you can't figure out what your royalty is supposed to be.
This pretty much sums up how I feel. Maybe "Betta than Vetta" isnt the best name, but at least its a collection of the truly best photos Cuctcaster has to offer, where as the Vetta collection is only the best of what their exclusive contributors have to offer.
Is photo really any "betta" just because it's coming from an exclusive photographer?
-
Vetta is only available to exclusives at IS, and if history is correct, only select exclusives ever get their work accepted. Betta is open to all CC contributors who submit outstanding work. I will admit I'm not fond of the name but at least CC has some variety and is not making up a payment system so confusing that you can't figure out what your royalty is supposed to be.
This pretty much sums up how I feel. Maybe "Betta than Vetta" isnt the best name, but at least its a collection of the truly best photos Cuctcaster has to offer, where as the Vetta collection is only the best of what their exclusive contributors have to offer.
Is photo really any "betta" just because it's coming from an exclusive photographer?
Is photo really any "betta" just because it's coming from an exclusive photographer?
There is not enough proof of this. And if there is a case, the onus of proof will be on Vetta, not on CC.
I'm with John and CC on this one, for sure 8)
-
There could be a claim that the reference to Vetta is damaging the 'brand' of 'Vetta' but as both are new collections then it would be hard to prove, and any action may never get off the ground and just end in a cease and desist.
With any claim for defamation, slander or libel the onus will be on john to prove that ‘Betta is better than Vetta, but as it is a subjective media it would be hard to prove the claim either way.
Actually David, I think you got it the other way around.
In litigation, the burden of proof is placed on Vetta "to proof the claim Betta than Vetta is false beyond any reasonable doubt"...
not the other way around.
-
iStock is not the site making claims about who is betta.
I think the whole thing is silly. The reason that the images are priced higher on istock is because you can't get them anywhere else. If non-exclusive images were included, there would be little reason to purchase them there for 10X what they could be purchased for on any number of other sites. However, the new collection at CC will see how that strategy pays off. Maybe there are people who only shop at CC and who have no idea that these "betta" images are available elsewhere for a much much lower price.
-
Yes... the whole argument is silly. Who really gives a big rat's a$$. If it increases sales, GREAT. Otherwise, the Nay Sayers can say "I told you so."
My only objection is ... none of my images are included. LOL
-
Sorry. There's a difference between an Apple commercial naming Vista, and actually naming your product to include a trademark. You can't call the new Pepsi 'Not Coca-Cola' any more than this situation here.
-
Sorry. There's a difference between an Apple commercial naming Vista, and actually naming your product to include a trademark. You can't call the new Pepsi 'Not Coca-Cola' any more than this situation here.
iStock is not the site making claims about who is betta.
I think the whole thing is silly. The reason that the images are priced higher on istock is because you can't get them anywhere else. If non-exclusive images were included, there would be little reason to purchase them there for 10X what they could be purchased for on any number of other sites. However, the new collection at CC will see how that strategy pays off. Maybe there are people who only shop at CC and who have no idea that these "betta" images are available elsewhere for a much much lower price.
ok, there is some justification in what both you (Sean and whatalife) say.
i won't dispute either.
we also know that IS vetta exclusive have a better chance of selling.
so , what if, CC wants to give Getty a heave-ho, and do what they did.
what are you IS people so afraid of?
are you really afraid CC will cut into your breadline? if so, why the fuss?
all John is getting is a lot more publicity with this forum about his new thing.
good or bad, the buyers will decide.
and if being exclusive is going to make the diff. well, the CC contributors can make their Betta than Vetta exclusive to CC. if that's the deal, why not?
maybe John will make BTV exclusive.
the big diff is as azure and travis pointed out. Vetta is only available for IS exclusives, we the indies are not eligible. so to us, BTV is a good thing.
,...simply because there is no discrimination.
Which is why we are cheering for John and CC.
It's only a cheapshot to you , but not to us who cannot submit to Vetta.
So, chill already ;)
we can still be friends agreeing to disagree . ;) ;D
-
Yes... the whole argument is silly. Who really gives a big rat's a$$. If it increases sales, GREAT. Otherwise, the Nay Sayers can say "I told you so."
My only objection is ... none of my images are included. LOL
OR MINE!...LOL
-
we can still be friends agreeing to disagree . ;) ;D
Or a love-hate relationship (we love to hate you and you hate to love us, heh!heh).
-
Jokes aside, IS exclusives,.
The thing is that buyers are going to wonder , "Betta than Vetta" ... what is Vetta.
Then they will go to IStock and see your Vetta images.
If they think your Vetta images are indeed BETTA THAN BETTA , ha!ha!...
you laugh your way to the bank.
So, really, you Vetta exclusives will profit too, because BETTA THAN VETTA
refers to Vetta.
And since you say that your Vetta images are BETTA THAN BETTA,
well, that's for the buyers to decide, and which ever ways either one or us get a sale. So, everyone's happy.
BETTA THAN VETTA actually makes it BETTA FOR VETTA too.
:D
but if we contributors of BETTA THAN VETTA make sure our images are in fact BETTA THAN VETTA then the buyers will come back to BETTA THAN VETTA
because in fact, CC has images that are truly BETTA THAN VETTA.
capische ? everyone get happy ! ;D
-
I can't believe you guys that are so against the whole BTV thing, but the way I see it is that for a group of guys and gals that thinks the idea is a silly and stupid one, you sure can carry on about it, who are you trying to convince? your self's?
just don't upload there, very simple, and let everyone else that thinks this may attract good sales and customer traffic to CC enjoy the moment, and take you criticism else where...I'm sure there are other threads on this forum you would enjoy criticising and putting down...time will tell if it works or not, but I'm a bit tired of listening to you bunch of downers talking crap about just about anything that does not come out of the big sites, IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, HIT THE ROAD JACK... ;) Who cares what your oppinion is :P
-
I'm not sure why you all think we're against the collection per se. John ( or anyone else ) can make whatever collections they want to compete with whomever they want and include whoever they want.
The issue is with the name ( if it really isn't a joke ). 'Infinite Collection' ? Great - whatever... 'betta then Vetta' - ????? It comes off as a childish Nya-Nya-Nya ..
-
my oh my, what a lot of people taking about cutcaster :)
who'd of thought it...
-
I'm not sure why you all think we're against the collection per se. John ( or anyone else ) can make whatever collections they want to compete with whomever they want and include whoever they want.
The issue is with the name ( if it really isn't a joke ). 'Infinite Collection' ? Great - whatever... 'betta then Vetta' - ????? It comes off as a childish Nya-Nya-Nya ..
Exactly.
And for the record, I'm not eligible to participate in Vetta either, so don't assume you know anything about me other than that I think the name is childish.
-
my oh my, what a lot of people taking about cutcaster :)
who'd of thought it...
I think thats the point :) how much reaction would there be to 'cutcaster premium' or similar :)
how many people are going to look (and generate traffic) to see if it really is better?
-
@whatalife, just for the record, I don't assume to know anything about you, because is plain and simple "I could care less who you are" or wether you're able or willing to upload to Vetta, or you opinion of the name of CC's new project, lets get that clear!
Bottom line is that if I spend my money, time and effort lets just say, to open my own photo stock site and decided to call it imStock, it is no one else's business what my choice of name is, and I would not loose one minute of sleep over what other people think of it, (including all of you guys that have a problem with John's choice of names) I would call my investment whatever . I want, and if anyone has a problem with it, they can always put their money where their mouth is and help me pay for the site (I'm using a site as an example whatalife, in case you get confused)...so as far as I'm concern, JOHN IS A GREAT NAME! use it with pride. ;)
-
my oh my, what a lot of people taking about cutcaster :)
who'd of thought it...
I think that's the point :) how much reaction would there be to 'cutcaster premium' or similar :)
how many people are going to look (and generate traffic) to see if it really is better?
Controversy is a very powerful tool, as an example, look at how many people are talking about CC on this thread, some that would have not given Cutcaster a second look, just because they're new and small, are now here giving their opinion (positive and negative) about their new project, buyers will do the same, even if it is for a minute just to see what they got...I think that this new project will attract plenty of people, maybe out of curiosity at first, but you know what, if they do like what they see, they will come back...and that will make it all BETTA!!! for John, Cutcaster and the sites contributors...just the way I see it.
-
Sorry, as we've already discussed, it is a lot of other people's business. You cannot call your venture 'GettieImages", anymore than you can include a trademark in your product name. 'Microsoft Stock' for example.
But go on thinking what you like. It's probably good that John doesn't have you on his legal team :) ...
Also, controversy on this board won't do anything. Buyers certainly do not read this stuff.
-
sjlocke, we go back in circles to square one here, you've got your opinion and I have mine, TIME WILL TELL...as far as the legal side, I'm sure John and his legal team already did their homework before using that name, I really don't think that such a professional like John crawl out from under a rock, or is making legal decisions without researching his legal options. Also keep in mind that many photographers on this forum are also buyer...just some food for thought.
Have a good one.
-
But go on thinking what you like. It's probably good that John doesn't have you on his legal team :) ...
I am sure John doesn't NEED any of us on his legal team.
He made that decision way before we did here on this forum. It isn't our idea that is BETTA THAN VETTA
It's John's idea.
..
Also, controversy on this board won't do anything. Buyers certainly do not read this stuff.
Then you have nothing to worry about. If as you say, "
controversy on this board won't do anything. Buyers certainly do not read this stuff."
So why are you shouting so loudly in this thread? lol
Buyers certainly do not read this stuff.
BUT, just for a moment, you could be wrong for once,
then you know what?
BETTA THAN VETTA is going to be what we all have been waiting for.
..and that will make it all BETTA!!! for John, Cutcaster and the sites contributors...just the way I see it.
Amen ! m@m
I second that.
-
sjlocke, we go back in circles to square one here, you've got your opinion and I have mine, TIME WILL TELL...as far as the legal side, I'm sure John and his legal team already did their homework before using that name, I really don't think that such a professional like John craw out from under a rock, or is making legal decisions without researching his legal options.
This comment crossed mine as I was writing it,
and once again, I echo m@m
to say,
Hear ! Hear!
Well said, caballero !
-
..., I really don't think that such a professional like John crawl out from under a rock..
rofl, i highly doubt that Mr Griffin crawl out from under a rock.
but maybe if he was trying to emulate David, who did crawl out from under a rock, in his duel with Golaith, armed with only a slingshot. that might just be the inspiration Mr Griffin needs to bring his vision into fruition.
Cheapshot? Hell, no, it's a sling shot !
go for it David, i mean John !
8)
-
so , what if, CC wants to give Getty a heave-ho, and do what they did.
what are you IS people so afraid of?
are you really afraid CC will cut into your breadline? if so, why the fuss?
I dont think anyone is afraid of cutcaster. The reason people are posting is because its such a hilariously bad name! I think most people cant believe anyone could come up with something so ridiculous and actually put it into practice without realising.
-
There could be a claim that the reference to Vetta is damaging the 'brand' of 'Vetta' but as both are new collections then it would be hard to prove, and any action may never get off the ground and just end in a cease and desist.
With any claim for defamation, slander or libel the onus will be on john to prove that ‘Betta is better than Vetta, but as it is a subjective media it would be hard to prove the claim either way.
Actually David, I think you got it the other way around.
In litigation, the burden of proof is placed on Vetta "to proof the claim Betta than Vetta is false beyond any reasonable doubt"...
not the other way around.
Hi Perseus,
As I understand it libel is the written word, slander is the spoken word, libel would be a civil case where the burden of proof is the reverse of a criminal case, so by publising the text including any falsehood could be seen as libel.
All Istock would have to prove is that the words 'Betta than Vetta' are defamatory and set out to lower the reputation or harm their business in the eyes of right thinking members of society, the onus is on CutCaster the defence to prove that the defamatory words are in fact true as they would need to raise justification as a defence, the fact that they believe them to be true at the time of writing is not a defence.
Since the words were published by CutCaster, Istock could claimed they were libelled and claim damages regardless of whether they suffered any particular loss or not.
So in a case where justification is used by the defence it is up to them, the defence, to prove that what they said is correct, and not the plaintiff.
Is it libel is one question another is 'IP', by using the word Vetta within the new CC collection name, as Vetta is a brand name already trading by Istock, if it is registered by Getty or Istock trademark does not matter, it is clear by reference that it relates to the Istock Vetta collection's 'branding', so that could be an IP infringment, and as to legal advice and teams, not many small businesses have teams of lawyers to advise them and only refer to legal advise when there is a problem.
David :D
-
Point is in web search engines, I think... :P
-
I have not laughed so much for ages! You all sound like children arguing in a playground. Anyway, it cheered my up an a really bad day. Thanks ;D
-
I have one photo in this collection so I can't complain. :D The fight about the name is no more than entertaining :P .
-
I have not laughed so much for ages! You all sound like children arguing in a playground. Anyway, it cheered my up an a really bad day. Thanks ;D
Different perspectives, you see it as 'children arguing in a playground', I see it as 'adults having a healthy debate'.
From a personal experience, when I posted a comment in another open forum I was not imune from claims of libel and threats of action unless I retracted my statement, which I quickly did, so the question is simple is there any proof that Betta is better than Vetta in the eyes of right thinking members of society not people with a vested intrest, if not then it is an untrue statement.
David :P
-
@whatalife, just for the record, I don't assume to know anything about you, because is plain and simple "I could care less who you are" or wether you're able or willing to upload to Vetta, or you opinion of the name of CC's new project, lets get that clear!
Bottom line is that if I spend my money, time and effort lets just say, to open my own photo stock site and decided to call it imStock, it is no one else's business what my choice of name is, and I would not loose one minute of sleep over what other people think of it, (including all of you guys that have a problem with John's choice of names) I would call my investment whatever . I want, and if anyone has a problem with it, they can always put their money where their mouth is and help me pay for the site (I'm using a site as an example whatalife, in case you get confused)...so as far as I'm concern, JOHN IS A GREAT NAME! use it with pride. ;)
This highlights why no doubt you're not a very successful businessman.
This forum is here to enable people to express their opinions, it is not here to let people say things that please you and if you read things you don't like then don't come here.
If you run a business you have to appeal to the people you're trying to do business with, your attitude of "I would not loose one minute of sleep over what other people think of it" is a road to disaster.
What has been highlighted by many is that the name 'Betta than Vetta' not only has legal implications but is also seen by many as a very cheap and tacky approach not one that would be taken by a professional site, to state that a collection is better than another is subjective and we can all form our own opinion of that, however another thing that has been highlighted is the fact that unlike the Vetta collection on iStock which contains exclusive images the images in Cutcasters collection are not unique and are available elsewhere for a lower price, so therefore what does this collection offer to anyone - the answer is: nothing.
For a new site struggling to attract buyers and with low reported sales figures I'd have thought they would value any feedback, however as the guy in charge decided to ignore any comments on another thread about the lack of sales I wouldn't be surprised if he ignores the advice given here.
-
I have one photo in this collection so I can't complain. :D The fight about the name is no more than entertaining :P .
Me too! I found my on first day of Betta...
I know that Mr. John will calm spirits...
-
Quote from RT: This forum is here to enable people to express their opinions, it is not here to let people say things that please you and if you read things you don't like then don't come here.
Exactly! ;)
-
Adeptris,
If ... and that's a big IF, if ever IS or Getty takes the initiative to take Cutcaster to court , perharps that would be an action that would be the same initiative to get contributors of all the Big 6 who had their commissions changed and changed,
and changed,etc... without their permission.
If one 's action is so justified to get Getty to sue Cutcaster, then we, the contributors should also be motivated from consistently state of inaction to do the same thing as a whole unit to stop the abuse of those micro stock agencies who change their rules to suit their own agenda without consulting the contributors.
After all, the agreement also states that the images belong to the contributors
and the ownership does not transfer to the agencies.
A bit off topic , perharps, but the prime motive of this thread, and the people supporting John and Cutcaster , is that this is a site that is thinking about the contributors and is willing to open up doors for contributors to be treated fairly and squarely.
I highly doubtly Getty will take Cutcaster to court, anymore than the contributors will take the agencies to court.
But if the former does makes that strategic move, it would be wonderful to see it as instrumental for the latter to do the same.
-
so , what if, CC wants to give Getty a heave-ho, and do what they did.
what are you IS people so afraid of?
are you really afraid CC will cut into your breadline? if so, why the fuss?
I dont think anyone is afraid of cutcaster. The reason people are posting is because its such a hilariously bad name! I think most people cant believe anyone could come up with something so ridiculous and actually put it into practice without realising.
Leontura, I so agree with you. Betta than Vetta is such a hilariously bad name.
It sounds just as hilariously bad as Yahoo - Twitter - Google - Flickr -
you are so right.
-
It is irrelevant whether Getty feels 'threatened' by CC. What matters is keeping an active effort to protect use of your trademark. If you don't, you lose power to protect it in the future.
-
Cheap, unprofessional and not at all creative :D
-
Welcome to the MSG forum abimages ;)
-
I don't know about anyone else but despite being logged in I'm seeing Cutcaster ads in this thread with 'log in to remove ads' under them.
-
Cheap, unprofessional and not at all creative :D
unprofessional ?
no more unprofessional than the Big 6 moving subscription prices lower until there is no ground rules left.
cheap?
not as cheap as the prices the competitors have our images selling at
not at all creative ?
that's totally up to the buyers to decide.
8)
-
Why not really go for it, they are all still available at www.whois.com (http://www.whois.com).
www.BettaThanVetta.com (http://www.BettaThanVetta.com)
www.BettaThanVetta.net (http://www.BettaThanVetta.net)
www.BettaThanVetta.co.uk (http://www.BettaThanVetta.co.uk)
David ;D
-
Why not really go for it, they are all still available at [url=http://www.whois.com]www.whois.com[/url] ([url]http://www.whois.com[/url]).
[url=http://www.BettaThanVetta.com]www.BettaThanVetta.com[/url] ([url]http://www.BettaThanVetta.com[/url])
[url=http://www.BettaThanVetta.net]www.BettaThanVetta.net[/url] ([url]http://www.BettaThanVetta.net[/url])
[url=http://www.BettaThanVetta.co.uk]www.BettaThanVetta.co.uk[/url] ([url]http://www.BettaThanVetta.co.uk[/url])
David ;D
Are these all from Cutcaster?
-
Why not really go for it, they are all still available at [url=http://www.whois.com]www.whois.com[/url] ([url]http://www.whois.com[/url]).
[url=http://www.BettaThanVetta.com]www.BettaThanVetta.com[/url] ([url]http://www.BettaThanVetta.com[/url])
[url=http://www.BettaThanVetta.net]www.BettaThanVetta.net[/url] ([url]http://www.BettaThanVetta.net[/url])
[url=http://www.BettaThanVetta.co.uk]www.BettaThanVetta.co.uk[/url] ([url]http://www.BettaThanVetta.co.uk[/url])
David ;D
Are these all from Cutcaster?
No they are unregistered website domains.
David ;D
-
Mm, good idea. You get one to start your own site to sell direct.
-
And if 2 other stock photgraphers get the other two to do same.
Vetta's headache with BTV cutcaster will grow in a large migraine :D
-
And if 2 other stock photgraphers get the other two to do same.
Vetta's headache with BTV cutcaster will grow in a large migraine :D
Hahaha. Then they can all fight for the 'Vetta' Registered trademark since it doesnt show up as a US registered trademark for either Getty or IStock (although, they could still be in the application process???)
-
Cheap, unprofessional and not at all creative :D
and tacky and playing with fire.
(but Getty would know that coming down hard has a good chance of blowing up in their face and making it worse, my guess would be a nice quiet please cease and desist is in the mail :)
but would you have guessed last week that cutcaster would do somethign that would get so many people talking, I'd assume that the press release was announced many places, how many people have gone and looked. Something like this has the possibility to make (or break :)) the site, even if in a weeks time it has to be renamed to cutcaster premium etc.
there is old saying all publicity is good publicity :)
-
but would you have guessed last week that cutcaster would do somethign that would get so many people talking, I'd assume that the press release was announced many places, how many people have gone and looked. Something like this has the possibility to make (or break :)) the site, even if it a weeks time it has to renamed to cutcaster premium etc.
there is old saying all publicity is good publicity :)
My sentiments exactly Phil! ;)
-
August 4, 2009 - San Francisco, California
From their new headquarters in foggy San Francisco, Cutcaster is proud to introduce its much-ballyhooed “Betta than Vetta” (BTV) photo and vector collection to creative professionals today. Take a sneak peak at ‘Betta than Vetta’ by going to [url=http://www.cutcaster.com/Betta-Than-Vetta]www.cutcaster.com/Betta-Than-Vetta[/url] ([url]http://www.cutcaster.com/Betta-Than-Vetta[/url]).
“Creative professionals deserve a better experience when searching for and purchasing content. What Cutcaster provides is better search, better results, better rights offering and all at better market prices,” Cutcaster founder John Griffin explained. “We introduced ‘Betta than Vetta,’ our first premium collection, to highlight the amazing quality of work in our marketplace and show buyers how easy the website is to use.”
The best of the best included in the BTV photo and vector collection were hand-picked by our highly-caffeinated reviewers and industry professionals for their uniqueness, execution and overall quality. The diverse collection will have graphic designers, creative professionals and photo buyers singing from the top of the closest mountain peaks.
‘Betta than Vetta’, Irish for “mountaintop,” gives creative professionals looking for exceptional imagery a new and untapped source of photos and illustrations priced by the free market. Inclusive of both exclusive and non-exclusive contributors, the BTV collection will expand over time. Contributors may also request a file be added to the collection but every file included must pass an intense inspection process and meet the collection’s strict acceptance criteria. "The Cutcaster flexible pricing model provides a unique and hard-data insight into the market value of stock photos,” Lee Torrens, a stock photography insider observed. “Betta than Vetta is a welcome opportunity for all stock photography and illustrators to see our higher value images lifted to another level."
Prices range from $1 for small sizes up to $35 USD for XXL. Sellers set the price for the BTV files. If a buyer wanted to name their price, they are always free to bid on any of the images if they have more time or are working with a smaller budget.
“We haven’t even come close to hitting our peak yet but I’m excited by the growth of sales, which have been doubling every month and also by the number of great photographers we are fortunate enough to be working with and trust us to represent their work. Our diverse collection is on the verge of breaking 400,000 royalty free images and illustrations and the ‘Betta than Vetta’ collection will be one more way we can promote our great library to buyers,” Griffin added.
In other news, Cutcaster announced that the increase in revenues has been re-invested into advertising and marketing and more customer service help, which continues to be an industry leader. The number of Corporate Accounts and buyer sign-ups has been growing faster over the last 6 months because buyers like the flexible payment options, easy to use search and invoicing capabilities. Cutcaster released figures that buyers bid on content around 6% of the time and on average bid 40% less than the listed price for the largest file size. The time it takes for a typical seller’s response to a proposed bid has averaged 81 minutes and buyers have accepted the final price 43% of the time.
In addition, Cutcaster released new features that include scaled pricing for different file sizes so buyers now have a choice over what image size they want. Also Cutcaster improved its search functionality and introduced a new suggestive search tool that shows buyers as they type in a keyword what other keyword options are available.
For more information on the Betta than Vetta collection see [url=http://www.cutcaster.com/Betta-Than-Vetta]www.cutcaster.com/Betta-Than-Vetta[/url] ([url]http://www.cutcaster.com/Betta-Than-Vetta[/url]) or email [email protected].
About Cutcaster
Cutcaster has tapped into a new and unique source of photo and vector illustrations that can be purchased for any kind of publishing, web design project, printing brochures, advertising, annual reports or electronic usage on websites and presentations. Cutcaster created the first model that adds structure to support licensing user-generated photography and vectors when you don't have the budget to create it yourself. Sellers can set their prices or those new to the world of licensing can use the Cutcaster Algorithm to find the fair market price.
Visit [url=http://www.cutcaster.com]www.cutcaster.com[/url] ([url]http://www.cutcaster.com[/url]) for more information.
we begin again !
-
Am I the only person speaking English anymore?
No, but you are definitely one of the few who are not registering new accounts so that they can have conversations with themselves.
;D
-
Am I the only person speaking English anymore?
No, but you are definitely one of the few who are not registering new accounts so that they can have conversations with themselves.
;D
OK, now check this out and cry
http://www.cutcaster.com/Betta-Than-Vetta (http://www.cutcaster.com/Betta-Than-Vetta)
As you can see, there are some familiar contributors from the Big 6 in here.
No wonder some of you are so worried that John is getting too much notice.
-
As you can see, there are some familiar contributors from the Big 6 in here.
No wonder some of you are so worried that John is getting too much notice.
Yes, there are some familiar images from those familiar contributors that we've seen all over the Big 6.
I really haven't seen anyone here worried about anything at all, so I'm not sure to whom you are referring.
-
As you can see, there are some familiar contributors from the Big 6 in here.
No wonder some of you are so worried that John is getting too much notice.
Yes, there are some familiar images from those familiar contributors that we've seen all over the Big 6.
I really haven't seen anyone here worried about anything at all, so I'm not sure to whom you are referring.
WONDERFUL,
there is not anyone here worried about anything at all.
So let us all wish John Griffin and BETTA THAN VETTA
every success !
And everybody's happy ! ;)
-
there is only one thing BETTA
than a happy ending
and
that
is
a happy beginning
BETTA THAN VETTA
John Griffin and Cutcaster
every body here on MSG who is "not worried"
wishes you every success for the BETTA of all contributors
8)
-
Much ado about nothing!
It is a shame that this thread got this many responses. I blame myself as well for over contributing to this thread.
Since when CC is the site to talk about? Let's see the sales first. Seriously, too much talk for what!?
-
Much ado about nothing!
It is a shame that this thread got this many responses. I blame myself as well for over contributing to this thread.
Since when CC is the site to talk about? Let's see the sales first. Seriously, too much talk for what!?
you are right too, cidepix. NATO.
but it is good to be given an alternative, and not to feel like the Big 6 has a monopoly.
Like every business on the www, you never know who the next big thing is.
I remember when I was in a company that was bidding to get business many years ago
with a new fledgling company on www . It was called Yahoo, and everyone started to laugh
at the mention of the name . No one took it seriously , except a few people
who actually went out to buy some Yahoo stocks.
We know the rest of that story. Not many of us from that office laughs anymore
whenever some new company on the web comes up and say they are going to do something
incredible.
I think the same applies to micro stock.
-
Much ado about nothing!
It is a shame that this thread got this many responses. I blame myself as well for over contributing to this thread.
Since when CC is the site to talk about? Let's see the sales first. Seriously, too much talk for what!?
you are right too, cidepix. NATO.
but it is good to be given an alternative, and not to feel like the Big 6 has a monopoly.
Like every business on the www, you never know who the next big thing is.
I remember when I was in a company that was bidding to get business many years ago
with a new fledgling company on www . It was called Yahoo, and everyone started to laugh
at the mention of the name . No one took it seriously , except a few people
who actually went out to buy some Yahoo stocks.
We know the rest of that story. Not many of us from that office laughs anymore
whenever some new company on the web comes up and say they are going to do something
incredible.
I think the same applies to micro stock.
That's a good example why CC isn't the one ;) Yahoo was something new! Something interesting!
CC and interesting? Nope, not after this thread. At least it doesn't sound like it. Sure I wish it can be the next big site, but it looks like it won't be.
Fading hopes.
-
That's a good example why CC isn't the one ;) Yahoo was something new! Something interesting!
CC and interesting? Nope, not after this thread. At least it doesn't sound like it. Sure I wish it can be the next big site, but it looks like it won't be.
Fading hopes.
Ah yes, I agree with you too.
was it you who said Cutcaster is a cool site but it has to be something different rather than emulate IS, etc.
You are right there too. Which is why the need to discussion .
If we all sit on our hands and just say forget it, what's the use, nothing new is going to happen either.
The change is not going to come for us contributors if we simply accept whatever the Big 6 offers us.
They say Jump, We say How High?
Well, that's what been happening for all these times. That is why all we see is subs and prices going lower each day.
If we have a dialogue, we can let some sites know what changes we want. Hopefully the Big 6 will change too with this dialogue , although I won't hold my breath on that.
But maybe just maybe someone else has a better idea and a greater vision
and a better marketing division, that will provide us contributors with a fair alternative.
Dreaming? perharps, so long as we are not falling asleep .
It's like everything in life. The change comes with one person. That person is the man in the mirror.
You know the losers in life. They are the ones who does nothing. :)
-
As you can see, there are some familiar contributors from the Big 6 in here.
No wonder some of you are so worried that John is getting too much notice.
Yes, there are some familiar images from those familiar contributors that we've seen all over the Big 6.
I really haven't seen anyone here worried about anything at all, so I'm not sure to whom you are referring.
We have had some fun lets get back to the business side of Betta,
If you can identify that these familiar images can be purchased cheaper from the big 6 then likewise so can the customers, this then devalues the Betta collection for buyers, which could have the reverse effect, a collection within a library can have a negative effect if they are just images that can be purchased on any library especially if they are priced higher.
Betta is not really based on Vetta or even comparable, the pricipal difference is the photographer and image exclusivity on Istock which is the unique selling point of the Vetta collection and adds the value, I cannot see any unique selling point or added value more than 'we have selected a few images we think you might like'.
On this basis 'Vetta is Betta than Betta' because any purchase I make would mean that the images is not likely to have many random downloads to use up credits from a subscription plan, the Idea is with a collection you are getting something with a value.
Istock might be like Marmite or Vegimite to some people where you 'love it or hate it', but you would avoid any Wannabe imitations, so we have BETTA-A-WANNABE-VETTA but without the product
Yahoo are now just a wannabe Google that have Flickr who do not even backup thier users images and cannot restore a hacked account, they had thier chance and blew it big time!
David ;)
-
What about anoter tiny agency releasing "Betta than Betta than Vetta"?
-
so , what if, CC wants to give Getty a heave-ho, and do what they did.
what are you IS people so afraid of?
are you really afraid CC will cut into your breadline? if so, why the fuss?
I dont think anyone is afraid of cutcaster. The reason people are posting is because its such a hilariously bad name! I think most people cant believe anyone could come up with something so ridiculous and actually put it into practice without realising.
Leontura, I so agree with you. Betta than Vetta is such a hilariously bad name.
It sounds just as hilariously bad as Yahoo - Twitter - Google - Flickr -
you are so right.
Really? Those other memorable but silly names sound as bad to you as "betta than vetta"? Would you prefer "better than microsoft" to "google"? *shrug* you must be seeing something that Im not. Maybe you should change your name to "betta than yuri" before anyone else does.
-
As you can see, there are some familiar contributors from the Big 6 in here.
No wonder some of you are so worried that John is getting too much notice.
Yes, there are some familiar images from those familiar contributors that we've seen all over the Big 6.
I really haven't seen anyone here worried about anything at all, so I'm not sure to whom you are referring.
We have had some fun lets get back to the business side of Betta,
If you can identify that these familiar images can be purchased cheaper from the big 6 then likewise so can the customers, this then devalues the Betta collection for buyers, which could have the reverse effect, a collection within a library can have a negative effect if they are just images that can be purchased on any library especially if they are priced higher.
Betta is not really based on Vetta or even comparable, the pricipal difference is the photographer and image exclusivity on Istock which is the unique selling point of the Vetta collection and adds the value, I cannot see any unique selling point or added value more than 'we have selected a few images we think you might like'.
On this basis 'Vetta is Betta than Betta' because any purchase I make would mean that the images is not likely to have many random downloads to use up credits from a subscription plan, the Idea is with a collection you are getting something with a value.
Istock might be like Marmite or Vegimite to some people where you 'love it or hate it', but you would avoid any Wannabe imitations, so we have BETTA-A-WANNABE-VETTA but without the product
Yahoo are now just a wannabe Google that have Flickr who do not even backup thier users images and cannot restore a hacked account, they had thier chance and blew it big time!
David ;)
Cheers David, once again good points.
my stand for Betta than Vetta was not due whether it is unique or not, but rather over the furor of whether Cut was allowed to use that name.
it wasn't to disqualify Vetta Istock being Marmite or Bovril, to use your analogy.
i complemented Istock for giving exclusive Vetta, after they sent a curve ball to the disgruntlement of their faithful contributors. But of course, we know that this would not have happened if the regular IStock-ers like Joanne , Sean,etc.. did not come in force to display their disapproval.
it isn't a case of love Cutcaster hate Istock. In fact, i have been in regular PM contact with some of the more outstanding IS exclusives i met through this forum.
good or bad, i vouch for Betta than Vetta simply because they provide an alternative to contributors looking for a better deal , and a way from the subs that have been moving lower and lower each day with every Big 6 competing to win the honours of being the one that offers the lowest price ever to give away our "worthless" images in the form of a micro stock garage sale.
touching on Yahoo and it's inaction to protect Flickr image is also another good point that you bring out. this is no different from the Big 6 turning a deaf and dumb when it comes to addressing image theft or negotiating a better income source for us the contributors.
if Yahoo had lost favor with its creditibility , then i am quite surprise the Big 6 have not also lost credibility with their contributors after all the rant of how unfair things have been going on for the contributors.
i am not in love with any specific site. i am only here to press on a point that as long as contributors are divided to argue for one site against another, we are simply playing into the cards of the Big 6 for not doing anything to re-instate the importance of their contributors.
we all know how much they keep stressing on the importance of their buyers.
naturally so, their buyers are not arguing amongst themselves and being judas goats on each others
to help water down their interest .
Really? Those other memorable but silly names sound as bad to you as "betta than vetta"? Would you prefer "better than microsoft" to "google"? *shrug* you must be seeing something that Im not. Maybe you should change your name to "betta than yuri" before anyone else does.
i think we've taken this rant on whether it is silly or not way past its usefulness in this thread.
so let's, as Adeptris so boldly re-instated, let's direct this discussion on whether Vetta is in fact better than Betta than Vetta.
as i said above, i really don't give a rat's arse whatever name they use. i am more interested in what Cut and any other sites is providing us contributors with a better alternative, to give us a fairer earning opportunity.
-
Well said Perseus!
-
Well said Perseus!
I second greatly to make vote of confidence. Also to make vote of confidence for m@m to have been making same strong stand on subject .
Bravissimo Monsieur.
-
I think we've all given our opinion, (pro and against) and then some, on the new Cutcaster venture BTV, and have debated enough on the name choice and what not...NOW, there's only one thing missing here, and that is some words from the person that created and posted the idea to begin with, Mr. Griffin, I believe that after so many people took their time posting their ideas and opinions on this thread, is about time we all hear from you...mind you all, it's not my intention to start arguing with each other again over the matter, but I think that his presence on this thread is now over due...Mr. Griffin I believe it's time for you to speak out about your project, peoples concerns, ideas and opinions.
I think we all deserve that, after all that has been said and done!
-
I think that Mr. Griffin knows what he doing...
Cutcaster is more popular now, and name of the premium collection is only "Betta collection" now.
-
Don't forget to remove the Alt tag on the 'Betta than Vetta' banner pic, it still includes the Getty brandname. :P
-
I think that Mr. Griffin knows what he doing...
Cutcaster is more popular now, and name of the premium collection is only "Betta collection" now.
Good move,
I will check back when the collection is out of 'Beta' and fully released, I wonder will it just be 'The Collection' by then?
'The Betta Collection' sounds a bit upmarket and exclusive, but 'exclusive content' is the sticking point!
David ;D
-
No room for new sites for microstock. The big 6 already have it in the bag.
Oh Yeah?
I remember when Railway Express had it in the bag until UPS came on board.
I remember when film could not be replaced until digital came along.
I remember when when Kmart was king, until Wal-Mart came along.
I remember when Polaroid would replace film!
I remember when General Motors was not under Government Motors control.
Things change folks! Do not ever underestimate the new guy. (or gal)
-Larry
-
No room for new sites for microstock. The big 6 already have it in the bag.
<...
>...
I remember when Railway Express had it in the bag until UPS came on board.
I remember when film could not be replaced until digital came along.
I remember when when Kmart was king, until Wal-Mart came along.
Things change folks! Do not ever underestimate the new guy. (or gal)
<...
>...
-Larry
Larry, these were where a new model replaced an existing one, by offering cheaper prices to the consumer and by cutting costs including squeezing the suppliers.
So there is a huge difference between another microstock website and a 'brand new model', in the examples above (excluding film v digital) there was a change in an existing service and a looser in each case, by taking the customers from one service and independants to the new service they did not generate new customers, but some of the suppliers of Kmart that surived will be supplying Wal-Mart at lower prices.
When a new microstock website comes onto the market it can only damage and further dilute the existing market if it can attract any quantity of customers from the existing services that is, as the revenue for the existing services dilutes the costs are still growing, and the affected websites will have to cut costs and squeeze the photographers still further to maintain a profit, it is just robbing Peter to pay Paul .
I will welcome any new service model which opens up new revenue streams from new customers, but any service that will dilute the already limited revenue should not be welcomed with open arms, how we turn things around and get the big websites to look at how they treat the suppliers is beyond my skill set.
David ;)
-
how we turn things around and get the big websites to look at how they treat the suppliers is beyond my skill set.
Kidnap the CEO's on xmas, subject them to your crazy family (Merry Christmas, shitter was full (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fyS5CLBgyM&feature=PlayList&p=9F9367681FD9B654&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=61#lq-lq2-hq)), they will see the error in their ways, everyone lives happily ever after. ;)
-
we have a fridge magnet "remember as far anyone else knows we are a nice normal family" and another "everyone is normal until you get to know them".
should invite to my place for dinner, I have literaly fallen off my seat laughing so hard during a meal :) and most outsiders wouldn't have understood half the jokes :)
-
betta than vetta is now just betta
Cutcaster blog (http://blog.cutcaster.com/2009/08/11/update-on-betta-name-change-and-what-happened-behind-the-scenes/)
edit: oh, i just see that John started a thread already about this (http://www.microstockgroup.com/cutcaster/update-on-%27betta%27-name-change-and-what-happened-behind-the-scenes/msg0/?topicseen#new)