Author Topic: Is DT for sale? (Read 9693 times)

litifeta · « **on:** December 05, 2006, 16:49 »

a rumour getting around they in negotiation?

anyone heard?

CJPhoto · « **Reply #1 on:** December 06, 2006, 07:01 »

Which macro doesn't own a micro (Getty, Corbus and Jupiter already do)

eendicott · « **Reply #2 on:** December 07, 2006, 11:13 »

Quote from: CJPhoto on December 06, 2006, 07:01

Which macro doesn't own a micro (Getty, Corbus and Jupiter already do)

CJ - which micro does Corbis own? My understanding is they don't own a micro but they "have considered" shopping around.

Also would be curious to hear where the rumor is coming from.

CJPhoto · « **Reply #3 on:** December 07, 2006, 11:27 »

oops my bad - who owns 123rf. it is inmagine??

eendicott · « **Reply #4 on:** December 07, 2006, 12:09 »

123RF is owned by Inmagine.

I think there will be more Getty/iStock type deals in the future, but I still wonder where the rumors are originating from.

leaf · « **Reply #5 on:** December 07, 2006, 12:15 »

where did you hear it from litifeta??

or did you start it

phildate · « **Reply #6 on:** December 12, 2006, 10:23 »

I don't mind as long as they don't go and change things in the way IS did after being taken over. If it increases revenues the all well and good. If the new parent company puts pressure on for DT to just have exclusive photographers then it's going to get messy.

madelaide · « **Reply #7 on:** December 12, 2006, 16:12 »

Quote from: phildate on December 12, 2006, 10:23

I don't mind as long as they don't go and change things in the way IS did after being taken over. If it increases revenues the all well and good. If the new parent company puts pressure on for DT to just have exclusive photographers then it's going to get messy.

I regret the long waiting queues even with fewer upload allowance, but at least the keyword thing seems to have done well to my sales there. Not that keyword spam has died, but anyway, this is a problem everywhere.

Regards,
Adelaide

vicu · « **Reply #8 on:** December 20, 2006, 20:11 »

I heard speculation that the new increase in the free image collection is to generate more traffic to the site which will make them more appealing to buyers. It's a shame it might come at the cost to contributors, especially since they are locked in for 6 months.

leaf · « **Reply #9 on:** December 21, 2006, 01:33 »

Quote from: vicu on December 20, 2006, 20:11

I heard speculation that the new increase in the free image collection is to generate more traffic to the site which will make them more appealing to buyers. It's a shame it might come at the cost to contributors, especially since they are locked in for 6 months.

if the free images thing comes at a cost to the submitters that means they are getting less sales. Less sales is less revenue for them, and thus LESS attractive to buyers of the site (if that is what they are hoping)

CJPhoto · « **Reply #10 on:** December 21, 2006, 04:59 »

Leaf - the internet isn't about making money, it is about page views.

Well that is one view anyway (esp during the internet bubble).

leaf · « **Reply #11 on:** December 21, 2006, 05:23 »

page views don't do much good for people who don't have advertising on their site though.
if people are viewing they are costing the site money. Only if there is ads or something else to generate income will they make any money.

I don't think istock or getty makes anything of pageviews. Youtube (now that google own it) on the other hand...

photovan · « **Reply #12 on:** December 21, 2006, 07:56 »

Apparently designers get stuck into a couple or three sites they like and stop looking around because it is too time consuming. Or so several have said in posts. So if a site can lure a designer, the hope would be that desiginer would like the site and use it forever.

I have a travel blog at blogger with adsense on it, and I mentioned stock photography in a post and within minutes my blog had a dreamstime ad for free photos. Maybe they are after the markets that aren't professional designers, the bloggers and the people who do training and presentations, and just want something to spice up the dry stuff.

leaf · « **Reply #13 on:** December 21, 2006, 08:02 »

dreamstime doesn't really say in where their ads come up. They just come up on any site that has the keyword microstock on it. If it is a karate site that mentions stock photography, it doesn't mean that dreamstime is looking for karate experts who need images.

however i agree with you that a desinger probably have their couple sites they like the best. I was looking for an image yesterday for a project and it was VERY time consuming to find just one image. If i have a site i know i will find it (and have already bought credits there) i am not going to spend hours looking at other sites sifting through images.

vicu · « **Reply #14 on:** December 21, 2006, 08:49 »

Heard of Alexa ratings?

a.k.a.-tom · « **Reply #15 on:** December 27, 2006, 17:37 »

A friend of mine recently got into the design field. I asked him where he was buying. His outfit buys from Getty and another macro I don't recall, but not one of the Big 3. I asked why they didn't use the micros. He said it didn't matter to his outfit as the cost is always passed on to the customer. He did say that they have used DT in a pinch.
I told him to surf the micros... the work's as good or better than images on the macros. And sure a lot less costly. In fact, I finished the conversation by saying... "Call ME when you need your next image" Ha ha ha ha ha.

the point.. evidently, designers and design outfits DO get in ruts or develop 'comfort zones' with certain photo shops. On the other hand, to Leaf's point, if you know what they have and you're happy with it... would make no sense to 'shop around'.

robertosch · « **Reply #16 on:** March 02, 2011, 05:10 »

Quote from: litifeta on December 05, 2006, 16:49

a rumour getting around they in negotiation?

anyone heard?

Great,

How much they asked for? maybe I'll buy it...

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #17 on:** March 02, 2011, 05:17 »

You just replied to a rumour that was five years old. Five years is a long time in microstock.

robertosch · « **Reply #18 on:** March 02, 2011, 05:23 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 02, 2011, 05:17

You just replied to a rumour that was five years old. Five years is a long time in microstock.

Yep, you're wright. No problem for me, thought.

qwerty · « **Reply #19 on:** March 02, 2011, 05:49 »

errrgggh does this win the record for the oldest thread dug up ?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Is DT for sale? (Read 9693 times)

litifeta

CJPhoto

eendicott

CJPhoto

eendicott

leaf

phildate

madelaide

vicu

leaf

CJPhoto

leaf

photovan

leaf

vicu

a.k.a.-tom

robertosch

BaldricksTrousers

robertosch

qwerty

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors