Author Topic: Another hint that Getty might dump StockXpert? (Read 18075 times)

cidepix · « **Reply #25 on:** July 29, 2009, 09:55 »

Quote from: MikLav on July 29, 2009, 09:48

Thus I don't think it will be bad for us contributors if the new customers will come from sxc.hu to istock instead of StockXpert.

If you think dropping down from %50 commission to %20 is good for us than I need to say no more

MikLav · « **Reply #26 on:** July 29, 2009, 10:30 »

Quote from: cidepix on July 29, 2009, 09:55

Quote from: MikLav on July 29, 2009, 09:48
Thus I don't think it will be bad for us contributors if the new customers will come from sxc.hu to istock instead of StockXpert.

If you think dropping down from %50 commission to %20 is good for us than I need to say no more

This reminds of the long-lasting debate between old-school photographers and microstockers, i.e. about microstock prices being too low for decent photographers.

I don't care too much what per cent of sale do I get because it's more important how many sales I get. Each of istock or shutterstock give me low per-image sales yet each of them generates more sales and $$ per month than StockXpert (some time ago my StockXpert sales were in line with IS or SS but that's not the case any longer. It will become even worse with JIU and photos.com sales getting away from StockXpert).

puravida · « **Reply #27 on:** July 29, 2009, 10:49 »

for the handful of us whose portfolio was left in limbo, it really doesn't matter if the site lives or dies. we have already given up on not seeing our pay out which is almost but not quite there.
maybe if Getty killed StockXpert, we could indeed get paid, instead of deleting our account.
so i think either ways, it 's no big deal to us.

Gregor909 · « **Reply #28 on:** July 29, 2009, 12:17 »

Quote from: MikLav on July 29, 2009, 10:30

Quote from: cidepix on July 29, 2009, 09:55
Quote from: MikLav on July 29, 2009, 09:48
Thus I don't think it will be bad for us contributors if the new customers will come from sxc.hu to istock instead of StockXpert.

If you think dropping down from %50 commission to %20 is good for us than I need to say no more
I don't care too much what per cent of sale do I get because it's more important how many sales I get. Each of istock or shutterstock give me low per-image sales yet each of them generates more sales and $$ per month than StockXpert (some time ago my StockXpert sales were in line with IS or SS but that's not the case any longer. It will become even worse with JIU and photos.com sales getting away from StockXpert).

Aren't you forgetting something?
What determents how many sales you get on a particular site? ......the amount of buyers!!!
So redirecting customers to Istock instead of StockXpert does make a difference.
And not only that......most of us have more images on StockXpert than on Istock.
So yes, definitely, it will be bad for us submitters!

RacePhoto · « **Reply #29 on:** July 29, 2009, 12:30 »

Quote from: b79 on July 28, 2009, 15:33

just received an email from SXC announcing it

seems like another nail in the coffin

Appears that you are correct!

They are competing with themselves, in the same market. By directing all the buyers to one site, it will probably make for more IS growth. Consolidation of acquisitions.

This moves me closer to only two or three sites for my shite.

puravida · « **Reply #30 on:** July 29, 2009, 12:32 »

Quote from: Gregor909 on July 29, 2009, 12:17

Quote from: MikLav on July 29, 2009, 10:30
Quote from: cidepix on July 29, 2009, 09:55
Quote from: MikLav on July 29, 2009, 09:48
Thus I don't think it will be bad for us contributors if the new customers will come from sxc.hu to istock instead of StockXpert.

If you think dropping down from %50 commission to %20 is good for us than I need to say no more
I don't care too much what per cent of sale do I get because it's more important how many sales I get. Each of istock or shutterstock give me low per-image sales yet each of them generates more sales and $$ per month than StockXpert (some time ago my StockXpert sales were in line with IS or SS but that's not the case any longer. It will become even worse with JIU and photos.com sales getting away from StockXpert).

Aren't you forgetting something?
What determents how many sales you get on a particular site? ......the amount of buyers!!!
So redirecting customers to Istock instead of StockXpert does make a difference.
And not only that......most of us have more images on StockXpert than on Istock.
So yes, definitely, it will be bad for us submitters!

not if you also have a port at IStock. it only means you will get more sales with your IStock port.
it's only for those who do not have a port with Istock .
then simply the thing to do is to start an Istock port.
(with but one problem. the limit to be a new Istocker. you won't be able to build as large a port as what you now have with StockXpert).

the writings are on the wall; or have been a long time ago.
either we move on , or give up.

willie · « **Reply #31 on:** July 29, 2009, 12:41 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on July 29, 2009, 12:30

Quote from: b79 on July 28, 2009, 15:33
just received an email from SXC announcing it

seems like another nail in the coffin

Appears that you are correct!

They are competing with themselves, in the same market. By directing all the buyers to one site, it will probably make for more IS growth. Consolidation of acquisitions.

This moves me closer to only two or three sites for my shite.

Yes, we keep thinking on our side. We forget Getty's own business objective.

Getty has to appease the IStock exclusives , after they got them mad with their curve ball of subs disparity with Stockxpert.

They don't give a hoot for Stockxpert. They have little vested interest. They can sell this loser anytime. Maybe to the next fella who sees microstock as the new freebie-geebie. They can make money simply on ads and traffic.

And Istock? Well, they have the tier system and subs. You stay and choose which ones you prefer to contribute. All 's well for the exclusives.

The independents? Well, we have to weigh the scales and go wherever we feel with which site is going to give us the best deal. Istock, with Vetta and subs, does not look so bad , at this moment.

Just my tuppenny's worth of seeing where we are headed.

puravida · « **Reply #32 on:** July 29, 2009, 12:50 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on July 29, 2009, 12:30

Appears that you are correct!

They are competing with themselves, in the same market. By directing all the buyers to one site, it will probably make for more IS growth. Consolidation of acquisitions.

This moves me closer to only two or three sites for my shite.

-In the end, Getty will prevail. They are the masters of monopoly and they know their stuff.
-Only Corbis has enough clout in the field.
-As for the rest, they will continue to push on for lowest price possible to get their money's worth before selling out the company, or move to be another Facebook, Flickr, Twitter,etc...
It's no loss for them. The only losers will be us, the contributors. The buyers will all be cheering for these lowest price ever; go on a scavenger hunt and gather as many road kill they can get
, before the sites close their doors.

Sad, but I challenge anyone to give me a better scenario forecast.

melastmohican · « **Reply #33 on:** July 29, 2009, 13:00 »

I stopped uploading there and watch them kind of like SnapVillage. I got some sales in both places but do not invest any time.

Price war and consolidation will cause weaker players to disapear. Survivers might have to rise prices just to heal the woulds but also because there will be no competition.

In meanwhile 10 wannabe site a day will pop up. They are not real threat to current ones and live on life support for years.

All this will happen at expense of contributors. Survivors might see better time in couple years from now.

Squat · « **Reply #34 on:** July 29, 2009, 13:10 »

Quote from: MikLav on July 29, 2009, 09:48

When we met with StockXpert and Jupiter folks in the conference last year they said that majority of new users were coming from sxc.hu

Thus I don't think it will be bad for us contributors if the new customers will come from sxc.hu to istock instead of StockXpert.

What will happen with StockXpert remains unclear... In any case I am quite sure there will be no rush and sudden moves - if they will phase it out they will do it gradually. Or perhaps they will leave it for non-exclusives and make istock exclusive-only site? (just an idea)

Not sure what StockXpert and Jupiter folks said, or that it makes any difference.

But we all know what Getty said.
They made it very clear that they invited StockXpert contributors to join IStock.

I think that is very clear what Getty prefers us to do.

cidepix · « **Reply #35 on:** July 29, 2009, 13:14 »

Quote from: puravida on July 29, 2009, 12:32

not if you also have a port at IStock. it only means you will get more sales with your IStock port.
it's only for those who do not have a port with Istock .
then simply the thing to do is to start an Istock port.
(with but one problem. the limit to be a new Istocker. you won't be able to build as large a port as what you now have with StockXpert).
the writings are on the wall; or have been a long time ago.
either we move on , or give up.

I have a port with istock and it is almost same as StockXpert!

But we still lose.. What's so hard to understand? If those customers went to StockXpert instead of IS we would get %50. They are clever guys, and they are certainly good at maths.

This is the most important reason! Otherwise why would they do it? StockXpert belongs to them as well. But they know StockXpert pays us %50 and if the traffic goes to IS then we get %20 and getty gets %80. As simple as that!

There are only 2 reasons for this move:
1- They want to pay us %20 instead of %50
2- They want to make exclusives happy by directing more traffic towards them!

And yes, We lose! This is not arguable!

stockastic · « **Reply #36 on:** July 29, 2009, 13:48 »

Yes Getty "invited StockXpert contributors to join IStock". They neglected to add "and good luck with that, you losers".

I can only get half my images accepted at IStock, and it takes twice as much work, and I get half as many sales, and they don't pay any more than any other site. So thank you for the kind invitation, Getty overlords, you are indeed kind and generous. And wise. Did I forget wise? Probably good looking too, like everyone at IStock.

puravida · « **Reply #37 on:** July 29, 2009, 13:54 »

Quote from: stockastic on July 29, 2009, 13:48

Yes Getty "invited StockXpert contributors to join IStock". They neglected to add "and good luck with that, you losers".

that's true too ,stockastc..

maybe they did say it ; only we could not flip our email to read other side

willie · « **Reply #38 on:** July 29, 2009, 14:11 »

Quote from: cidepix on July 29, 2009, 13:14

Quote from: puravida on July 29, 2009, 12:32
not if you also have a port at IStock. it only means you will get more sales with your IStock port.
it's only for those who do not have a port with Istock .
then simply the thing to do is to start an Istock port.
(with but one problem. the limit to be a new Istocker. you won't be able to build as large a port as what you now have with StockXpert).
the writings are on the wall; or have been a long time ago.
either we move on , or give up.
I have a port with istock and it is almost same as StockXpert!

But we still lose.. What's so hard to understand? If those customers went to StockXpert instead of IS we would get %50. They are clever guys, and they are certainly good at maths.

This is the most important reason! Otherwise why would they do it? StockXpert belongs to them as well. But they know StockXpert pays us %50 and if the traffic goes to IS then we get %20 and getty gets %80. As simple as that!

There are only 2 reasons for this move:
1- They want to pay us %20 instead of %50
2- They want to make exclusives happy by directing more traffic towards them!

And yes, We lose! This is not arguable!

It's the nature of the beast.

Quote from: melastmohican on July 29, 2009, 13:00

I stopped uploading there and watch them kind of like SnapVillage. I got some sales in both places but do not invest any time.

Price war and consolidation will cause weaker players to disapear. Survivers might have to rise prices just to heal the woulds but also because there will be no competition.

In meanwhile 10 wannabe site a day will pop up. They are not real threat to current ones and live on life support for years.

All this will happen at expense of contributors. Survivors might see better time in couple years from now.

Exactament. Nothing 's going to get better. No giant killers in any of those wannabe sites either.
All big promises and no buyers.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #39 on:** July 29, 2009, 16:12 »

Quote from: cidepix on July 29, 2009, 13:14

There are only 2 reasons for this move:
1- They want to pay us %20 instead of %50
2- They want to make exclusives happy by directing more traffic towards them!

And yes, We lose! This is not arguable!

That about sums it up, Cidepix. The 20% vs. 50% says it all.

louoates · « **Reply #40 on:** July 29, 2009, 19:58 »

Quote from: MikLav on July 29, 2009, 09:48

When we met with StockXpert and Jupiter folks in the conference last year they said that majority of new users were coming from sxc.hu

Thus I don't think it will be bad for us contributors if the new customers will come from sxc.hu to istock instead of StockXpert.

What will happen with StockXpert remains unclear... In any case I am quite sure there will be no rush and sudden moves - if they will phase it out they will do it gradually. Or perhaps they will leave it for non-exclusives and make istock exclusive-only site? (just an idea)

I said over a year ago that IS would eventually move toward an exclusive-only format. It makes a world of sense if you want to truly control a superior quality selection of images along with control over their markups. I fully expect IS to shed, gradually, the non-exclusive content to another acquired site.

a.k.a.-tom · « **Reply #41 on:** July 29, 2009, 20:15 »

.... I deleted myself... I gotta take a break... LOL

=tom

willie · « **Reply #42 on:** July 29, 2009, 20:24 »

Quote from: a.k.a.-tom on July 29, 2009, 20:15

Quote from: cidepix on July 29, 2009, 13:14

I have a port with istock and it is almost same as StockXpert!

But we still lose.. What's so hard to understand? If those customers went to StockXpert instead of IS we would get %50. They are clever guys, and they are certainly good at maths.

This is the most important reason! Otherwise why would they do it? StockXpert belongs to them as well. But they know StockXpert pays us %50 and if the traffic goes to IS then we get %20 and getty gets %80. As simple as that!

There are only 2 reasons for this move:
1- They want to pay us %20 instead of %50
2- They want to make exclusives happy by directing more traffic towards them!

And yes, We lose! This is not arguable!

Same here, almost an identical port.... WTH? I'm gonna miss StockXpert, always been a steady payout..... I dont know how many times (probably like most of you) I'll sell the same flippin pix on IS and StockXpert the same day.

Soooooo let me think about this Einsteinian logic.....that means... ah.... ah.....there are plenty of buyers out there that WERE buying the image at a higher rate and not caring too much about it. That's why I dont understand the business sense in it. If somebody wants to pay Rolls Royce prices when they can buy at a Chevy cost...

WHY TAKE THAT AWAY FROM THEM? It's still going in your (Getty's) wallet? =tom

Some of you may have been in the business during the previous stock market (ie the real thing, not this godforsaken micro - stock thing) crash. With re-structuring, there is always a business plan before the takeover.
Getty did not just happen to buy StockXpert and IS. You don't just takeover a business to kill them. You take over the business to control prices. It's been done many times before micro stock. Then when the business strategy is implanted and successful, you sell the same company (companies) for a profit to some joker who believes they too can be as successful with your takeover business.
Greed is a prime mover to all this. And we know there is also someone who is greedy enough to fall for it.

We only need to look no further then the man in the mirror

a.k.a.-tom · « **Reply #43 on:** July 29, 2009, 20:30 »

Quote from: Perseus on July 29, 2009, 20:24

You don't just takeover a business to kill them. You take over the business to control prices. It's been done many times before micro stock. Then when the business strategy is implanted and successful, you sell the same company (companies) for a profit to some joker who believes they too can be as successful with your takeover business.
Greed is a prime mover to all this. And we know there is also someone who is greedy enough to fall for it.

We only need to look no further then the man in the mirror

Perseus, I must admit, point well taken. That's why I deleted myself... I'm AM going overboard! Thanks for the humbling nudge.

=tom

stockastic · « **Reply #44 on:** July 29, 2009, 20:50 »

Acquisitions are often made in a burst of irrational exuberance. A company does well for a while, accumulates a lot of cash, and soon the people running it think they know everything, and they investors want the party to go on. So they go on an acquisition bender and make grandiose, unrealistic plans. They wake up with a hangover in the form of companies that they really don't know what to do with. Things turn out to be more complicated - and more difficult - than expected, and attention spans get exceeded...

You get my point.

willie · « **Reply #45 on:** July 29, 2009, 21:27 »

Quote from: a.k.a.-tom on July 29, 2009, 20:30

Quote from: Perseus on July 29, 2009, 20:24
You don't just takeover a business to kill them. You take over the business to control prices. It's been done many times before micro stock. Then when the business strategy is implanted and successful, you sell the same company (companies) for a profit to some joker who believes they too can be as successful with your takeover business.
Greed is a prime mover to all this. And we know there is also someone who is greedy enough to fall for it.

We only need to look no further then the man in the mirror

Perseus, I must admit, point well taken. That's why I deleted myself... I'm AM going overboard! Thanks for the humbling nudge. =tom

Hey Tom, I think we're all in the same boat. That's why we're all going or have been taken for a nice long ride

sharpshot · « **Reply #46 on:** July 30, 2009, 03:07 »

Quote from: louoates on July 29, 2009, 19:58

Quote from: MikLav on July 29, 2009, 09:48
When we met with StockXpert and Jupiter folks in the conference last year they said that majority of new users were coming from sxc.hu

Thus I don't think it will be bad for us contributors if the new customers will come from sxc.hu to istock instead of StockXpert.

What will happen with StockXpert remains unclear... In any case I am quite sure there will be no rush and sudden moves - if they will phase it out they will do it gradually. Or perhaps they will leave it for non-exclusives and make istock exclusive-only site? (just an idea)

I said over a year ago that IS would eventually move toward an exclusive-only format. It makes a world of sense if you want to truly control a superior quality selection of images along with control over their markups. I fully expect IS to shed, gradually, the non-exclusive content to another acquired site.

I don't think they can do that because they are making too much money out of non-exclusives. They take 80% of our earnings, it must be a large part of their profits. What they should do is introduce an exclusive images collection, lots of us would contribute to that.

Phil · « **Reply #47 on:** July 30, 2009, 03:56 »

Quote from: sharpshot on July 30, 2009, 03:07

Quote from: louoates on July 29, 2009, 19:58
Quote from: MikLav on July 29, 2009, 09:48
When we met with StockXpert and Jupiter folks in the conference last year they said that majority of new users were coming from sxc.hu

Thus I don't think it will be bad for us contributors if the new customers will come from sxc.hu to istock instead of StockXpert.

What will happen with StockXpert remains unclear... In any case I am quite sure there will be no rush and sudden moves - if they will phase it out they will do it gradually. Or perhaps they will leave it for non-exclusives and make istock exclusive-only site? (just an idea)

I said over a year ago that IS would eventually move toward an exclusive-only format. It makes a world of sense if you want to truly control a superior quality selection of images along with control over their markups. I fully expect IS to shed, gradually, the non-exclusive content to another acquired site.
I don't think they can do that because they are making too much money out of non-exclusives. They take 80% of our earnings, it must be a large part of their profits. What they should do is introduce an exclusive images collection, lots of us would contribute to that.

I agree they;

make more money from non exclusives
have the nonexclusives filling up the numbers for photos.com / jui
filter out not so good people by making it something you have to achieve
keep the door open for new people, who may get themselves established in the other agencies and do well without uploading to istock if exclusive only
and more importantly keep it open for some high earning people ie yuri, andres, jonathon, iophoto etc etc who would pick the cream of their images because of the upload limit.

They would know that most people dont care whether any an image is exclusive or not and dont care about how many its been used, but can still cater to the minority who do and they can market the exclusivity and how much better they are than their competition.

basically at the moment they have the best of both worlds, something to promote and making more money on the stuff that they dont promote.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #48 on:** July 30, 2009, 12:44 »

Quote from: Phil on July 30, 2009, 03:56

I agree they;

make more money from non exclusives
have the nonexclusives filling up the numbers for photos.com / jui
filter out not so good people by making it something you have to achieve
keep the door open for new people, who may get themselves established in the other agencies and do well without uploading to istock if exclusive only
and more importantly keep it open for some high earning people ie yuri, andres, jonathon, iophoto etc etc who would pick the cream of their images because of the upload limit.

Agreed. It would be really stupid from a competitive standpoint for istock to go to an all-exclusive format.

Not that businesses don't sometimes do stupid things out of greed, but in this case the greed should keep them wanting to have the exclusive and non-exclusive markets covered.

cidepix · « **Reply #49 on:** July 30, 2009, 14:07 »

There is no way istockphoto dumps non-exclusives

Definitelly no way!

You may not be aware of it but they love non-exclusives. As much as the exclusives and even more I think.

Of course on paper, they have to show some formal love to exclusives. But they really really loooove non-exclusives moneywise!

If it was up to istockphoto, they would want to sell non-exclusive images all they long! 7 days a week and pay only %20.

Money, that's what they love!

Exclusives are also a good thing for marketing and they should be kept happy so they are trying to find the balance between both!

I really don't understand exclusives!

If I was to be exclusive to some agency, I would require at least %80 commission. Any less is plain ridiculous!

istockphoto makes 1/3 of my microstock income currently and in a couple of months it may become 1/4 of even 1/5 (with the addition of some more agents)

And you know what's best!

I don't have to worry if the sales at X agency is low for a month or two, because the others compensate it!

The price for exclusivity is no less than %80 in my opinion!

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Another hint that Getty might dump StockXpert? (Read 18075 times)

cidepix

MikLav

puravida

Gregor909

RacePhoto

puravida

willie

puravida

melastmohican

Squat

cidepix

stockastic

puravida

willie

PixelBytes

louoates

a.k.a.-tom

willie

a.k.a.-tom

stockastic

willie

sharpshot

Phil

PixelBytes

cidepix

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors