The recent developments at iStock and the irritations at Fotolia have really highlighted for me the fact that three of the "Big Four" are propping each other up and if any one of them should be bought by Getty the other two will suffer a very severe blow indeed.

This week, Getty cut off StockXpert as a source of funds for non-exclusives. That comes just weeks after handsomely boosting the returns for exclusives.

Even before StockXpert's death, it took the sum total of earnings from all the significant micros to balance out - just maybe - iStock's payments. Now it is even less likely that they do (and you can get onto Thinkstock directly from iS if you want to, so the fact you can get there as an independent doesn't matter).

The remaining big three probably each contribute 30% of the non-Istock earnings. It would only need Istock to buy one of those for the equilibrium to shift decisively. If IS boosted its sales by a further 16% or with customers from another major site, then we would end up with a situation where exclusivity would pay twice as much as independence.

Wouldn't that suck every single major contributor into iStock's fold, leaving the remaining sites trying to groom new talent that might simply desert as soon as it got good enough to hit the 500 download level at iS?

It would just take one more acquisition for iStock to restore the monopoly it foolishly let slip five years ago by being too modest with its initial exclusivity offer.

How much would Getty be willing to pay for complete global domination of the microstock market? Was it really so far from the mark when someone said in another thread that Fotolia was preparing to sell out to Getty?

Does my analysis make sense?

IS only accounts for about 25% for me so it's a no-brainer.

I haven't any sale on every agencies except SS, for a last 24h...

Something happening!

Good post BT but in your assessment you seem to be assuming that if Getty, or whoever, buys out one the remaining 'Big 3' then earnings from that site will somehow evaporate into thin air. Surely, even if one site 'disappears', then the buyers will simply buy from somewhere else and it's not guaranteed to be Istock by any means.

What will happen to Stockxpert's buyers and their sales? They're unlikely to have vanished so presumably their sales will magically reappear somewhere else. They might use up any remaining credits at Istock but won't necessarily stay there.

It could also be that at some point in the future Istock could falter and/or one of the other sites achieve dominance. Nothing stays the same forever.

Yes, it is sure some former StockXpert user will go to other sites not to IS. But most of them will go to IS because it is the one advertised on StockXpert and they will not be disappointed because the quality on IS is high and they will meet a lot of exclusive stuff.

Hmm __ but there may also have been a reason why StockXpert's customers weren't buying from IS or elsewhere in the first place (unlikely that they were completely unaware of the other sites).

If I were a significant buyer of images, with a desire to buy the best images for my project but also at the best prices, then I would have accounts with two stock agencies. I'd look first at Istock for the best collection and then, if the image I wanted was non-exclusive, I'd pop over to the other agency to see if I could buy it there cheaper. StockXpert would have been perfect for that.

Having said that with IS having not increased (or actually reduced) non-exclusive prices this year, whilst most of the other agencies have increased, the price differential has closed so the incentive to shop around has reduced substantially.

Good post BT but in your assessment you seem to be assuming that if Getty, or whoever, buys out one the remaining 'Big 3' then earnings from that site will somehow evaporate into thin air. Surely, even if one site 'disappears', then the buyers will simply buy from somewhere else and it's not guaranteed to be Istock by any means.

What will happen to Stockxpert's buyers and their sales? They're unlikely to have vanished so presumably their sales will magically reappear somewhere else. They might use up any remaining credits at Istock but won't necessarily stay there.

It could also be that at some point in the future Istock could falter and/or one of the other sites achieve dominance. Nothing stays the same forever.

Good points, Gostwyck, but iStock would then have the complete records of the purchased site's customer base and would be able to work on transferring those willing to switch, while wooing the rest with special introductory offers etc. etc. The subscription crowd could also be pushed towards the new Thinkstock site, which probably has more variety than most with all the collections it is hosting.

Sure, things could go wrong with Istock (or with what individuals get from it), that's why I'm not already exclusive. But Getty's track record has been of thriving while it routinely gobbles up almost all the opposition. History, at least, says Getty/Istock will be the last agency standing.

First off, Baldrick, LOVE the screen name

Although I haven't guessed who you are, it is a safe bet that you are someone who has been around awhile and paying attention to the industry developments.  Your observations are all very astute IMO. 

I would agree that a sale of any of the non-istock top three would change the landscape entirely.  The question is do we respond by jumping on the istock bandwagon or by throwing all our support to the remaining sites and hope they can gain marketshare? 

If Getty really does completely take over it will be bad for all contributors - istock exclusives and independents.  If everyone who's any good is istock exclusive then exclusive sales will be diluted, at least, and worst case scenario is that Getty no longer has any need to appease exclusives and begins cutting back on benefits. 

I hate to sound so pessimistic, but I don't see a good outcome here for contributors ITLR, whether exclusive or not. 

If Getty really does completely take over it will be bad for all contributors - istock exclusives and independents.  If everyone who's any good is istock exclusive then exclusive sales will be diluted, at least, and worst case scenario is that Getty no longer has any need to appease exclusives and begins cutting back on benefits. 

I hate to sound so pessimistic, but I don't see a good outcome here for contributors ITLR, whether exclusive or not. 

Yes. Five or six years ago the established RM crowd were squealing like stuck pigs over the way Getty squeezed their commissions as soon as it had finished buying up every notable trad agency in sight.

But if it does happen, supporting the remaining sites could be an expensive option.

On the other hand, while competition seems to have been the key pushing iS to make all its special offers for exclusives, there is a risk that the subscription model is now becoming a drag on earnings/commissions. So supporting Shutterstock could also be self-defeating move.

The most rational behaviour may just be to grab whatever is in your short-term interests, because the long-term is too uncertain.

I suggest that Corbis buy FT and kill 'em. That would simplify matters.

The recent developments at iStock and the irritations at Fotolia have really highlighted for me the fact that three of the "Big Four" are propping each other up and if any one of them should be bought by Getty the other two will suffer a very severe blow indeed.

This week, Getty cut off StockXpert as a source of funds for non-exclusives. That comes just weeks after handsomely boosting the returns for exclusives.

Even before StockXpert's death, it took the sum total of earnings from all the significant micros to balance out - just maybe - iStock's payments. Now it is even less likely that they do (and you can get onto Thinkstock directly from iS if you want to, so the fact you can get there as an independent doesn't matter).

The remaining big three probably each contribute 30% of the non-Istock earnings. It would only need Istock to buy one of those for the equilibrium to shift decisively. If IS boosted its sales by a further 16% or with customers from another major site, then we would end up with a situation where exclusivity would pay twice as much as independence.

Wouldn't that suck every single major contributor into iStock's fold, leaving the remaining sites trying to groom new talent that might simply desert as soon as it got good enough to hit the 500 download level at iS?

It would just take one more acquisition for iStock to restore the monopoly it foolishly let slip five years ago by being too modest with its initial exclusivity offer.

How much would Getty be willing to pay for complete global domination of the microstock market? Was it really so far from the mark when someone said in another thread that Fotolia was preparing to sell out to Getty?

Does my analysis make sense?

Yes, it makes sense. If the last of the so-called "Ten days of Christmas" announcements, back in 2006 (or 2005?) had been a comission raise for exclusives, probably the other sites would have bitten the dust.

Has Corbis ever produced a profit or is it just a sink-hole for Bill Gates's loose change? It didn't take microstock seriously, even when it was setting up snap village (a name that was obviously designed to encourage serious, professional content providers to join up). And if it's job is just to lose money, is it really competing seriously?

Are there any other "traditional" agencies and big enough still around?

Totally agree with the OP. An acquisition of any of the other top sites by Getty at this point would be pretty much game over for independents. If SS, DT, or FT were to go, I'm deleting images asap and applying for that crown. I'd have no other choice.

The odd thing to me is that there are still some notable movements in the smaller independent market that make me hold out hope that some up-and-comers will finally rise to the occasion. I do surprisingly well at Vectorstock lately, especially since hitting the 2nd earnings tier. GraphicRiver is another one. Sites like that seem small but have decent followings and pull in some good business. And they are priced well enough below istock and some others to keep them competitive.

It is true that the balance right now is maintained by the big independent sites, but those smaller sites still show promise. If some of these sites can step it up, there would be opportunity to fill a gap if a big site got acquired. Especially if they can scoop up the buyers from the acquired sites that don't want to go to istock. The reality for StockXpert buyers is that if they migrate to istock, they are probably going to be spending more money than they are used to spending. There are cheaper options out there, and some buyers will seek them out.

"Does my analysis make sense? "

No, actually it doesn't. Just because your income or someone else's income from a place like let's say SS isn't that great doesn't mean that they don't make great business.