MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Another hint that Getty might dump StockXpert?  (Read 13359 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 28, 2009, 15:00 »
0
From iStock website today:

Quote
We're happy to welcome a new member into the Getty Images family. Starting today, the iStock team will start running Stock.xchng. That's right: the world's busiest free stock site is now part of our family.

So welcome to all you SXC customers and contributors. If you need any help getting around, you can give us a call toll-free at 1-866-478-6251 (international toll-free: 00-800-6664-6664).

Wasn't SXC ran by the StockXpert team?


bittersweet

« Reply #1 on: July 28, 2009, 15:06 »
0
I wonder if exclusives will be allowed to give their images away for free and still keep their crowns.  ;)

abimages

« Reply #2 on: July 28, 2009, 15:23 »
0
I wonder if exclusives will be allowed to give their images away for free and still keep their crowns.  ;)

From reading the thread over at IS, I gather SXC will be used to try and route customers over to IS. There will be a few 'IS Exclusive taster' images on the SXC site with links back to IS. These will only be links tho, they wont be available for free download.

It's a good idea if it works, but yes it does kinda put StockXpert further out in the cold :(
« Last Edit: July 28, 2009, 15:24 by abimages »

« Reply #3 on: July 28, 2009, 15:33 »
0
just received an email from SXC announcing it

Quote
Stock.XCHNG joins the Getty Images family
Getty Images is proud to welcome Stock.XCHNG into its family of companies, as a result of Getty Images' purchase of Jupitermedia Corporation in February 2009. Everything about your day-to-day SXC experience will stay the same but you'll notice more opportunities to access iStockphoto, the world's leading royalty-free stock multimedia destination.

Perks for SXC members
Same free site: SXC is still a fantastic free site with more than 400,000 photos.
Easy access to iStockphoto: every search will display premium results from iStockphoto starting at $1. Buy credits, iStockphoto's currency, to download files.
Discover the Dollar Bin: iStockphoto's Dollar Bin has more than 230,000 stellar photos and illustrations between $1-7.
Get 10% off 26 or more credits when you sign up.
Enter promo code: SXCiStock1. Offer expires August 31, 2009.

seems like another nail in the coffin :'(

bittersweet

« Reply #4 on: July 28, 2009, 15:36 »
0
I wonder if exclusives will be allowed to give their images away for free and still keep their crowns.  ;)

From reading the thread over at IS, I gather SXC will be used to try and route customers over to IS. There will be a few 'IS Exclusive taster' images on the SXC site with links back to IS. These will only be links tho, they wont be available for free download.

It's a good idea if it works, but yes it does kinda put StockXpert further out in the cold :(
Sorry, I was kidding. :)

I just went and read the thread.

It looks like a good traffic booster for istock. I hope it works how they expect it to. The article mentioned that 40% of StockXpert's traffic is (was) coming in from SXC. I don't know what that level of traffic is since I've never sold through StockXpert, but it looks good on paper.

The 5 exclusives files spotlighted at the top have a link to best match sorted search results that include non-exclusive files. I wonder how often the download will be from one of those five teaser images. If you're gonna spend money, you're gonna wanna see all the options.

« Reply #5 on: July 28, 2009, 15:44 »
0
I wish they would come out with a statement about the future of StockXpert.  It wont go down well if we continue uploading and then they close it.  Every time they do something like this that hurts StockXpert, it looks like StockXpert doesn't have a long term future.  Will the buyers be thinking the same way?  I hope they don't all go to istock, a lot of us have bigger portfolios on the other sites.

Moonb007

  • Architect, Photographer, Dreamer
« Reply #6 on: July 28, 2009, 15:52 »
0
I agree it would be nice to hear a statement.  SXC was run by SX like Eric stated.  I have seen sales drop there and sadly I have not seen sale increase at my iStock account.

« Reply #7 on: July 28, 2009, 16:12 »
0
seems like another nail in the coffin :'(

With redirections to IS instead of StockXpert, you're probably right.  So sad.

« Reply #8 on: July 28, 2009, 18:01 »
0
someone complained on istock forum that exclusives are getting a raw deal because their vetta images are not being promoted on a free site that now points to exclusive images ???

certainly seems like it is being stripped down and nothing put back in so that it will just slowly die...
« Last Edit: July 28, 2009, 18:23 by Phil »

« Reply #9 on: July 28, 2009, 19:28 »
0
Wow.  Not good for StockXpert.  It does seem like they are slipping away.  Yet still good sales there.  Don't understand why Getty wants to kill them.  Oh well...

I haven't read the thread on IS yet.  I am curious to see how this is greeted by exclusives - as a great way to drive traffic to their ports or as free competition for their images.

bittersweet

« Reply #10 on: July 28, 2009, 20:01 »
0
someone complained on istock forum that exclusives are getting a raw deal because their vetta images are not being promoted on a free site that now points to exclusive images ???

certainly seems like it is being stripped down and nothing put back in so that it will just slowly die...

1. The person who said that was quickly rebutted by several others, including an admin, who stated the Vetta collection would be so far removed from the audience who would be searching at a free site that it would not make a lot of sense.

2. They are not "pointing to exclusive images". They have FIVE teaser exclusive images with a link to search results on istock that contain ALL files, including non-exclusives.

bittersweet

« Reply #11 on: July 28, 2009, 20:03 »
0
I haven't read the thread on IS yet.  I am curious to see how this is greeted by exclusives - as a great way to drive traffic to their ports or as free competition for their images.

It's not really competition since the traffic is being directed toward istock, with no reciprocal links or advertising back to SXC from IS. It should be a positive thing for anyone with a portfolio at IS.

« Reply #12 on: July 28, 2009, 20:16 »
0
StockXpert is done.   No question.  Too many brands, something has to go.  And they got the traffic.  Thats what they wanted in the first place.

« Reply #13 on: July 28, 2009, 21:01 »
0
StockXpert is done.   No question.  Too many brands, something has to go.  And they got the traffic.  That's what they wanted in the first place.

It does look like another nail in the coffin. I was moderately optimistic about stockxpert being kept as a low-end brand and istockphoto growing into premium microstock brand. especially after announcement a few months ago that stockxpert was filtering out images not meeting gettys IP standards and implementing controlled vocab, if they are doing that then they are serious about keeping stockxpert going.

I didn't think that they would mix 'SXC freeness' with istock 'were premium'. but they have, and in doing so eroded stockpert some more.

is istock desperate for customers or does stockxpert convert clicks into buyers so badly that this makes business sense?

« Reply #14 on: July 29, 2009, 03:51 »
0
Wow.  Not good for StockXpert.  It does seem like they are slipping away.  Yet still good sales there.  Don't understand why Getty wants to kill them.  Oh well...


StockXpert pays 50% commission. Istock pays 20%. Both for non-exclusive content.

That's the one and only reason why they do everything possible to move buyers from StockXpert to Istock.

grp_photo

« Reply #15 on: July 29, 2009, 04:00 »
0
Just deleted all my files on SXC.hu with together 188.000 Downloads!
I know some people here have also a few images at SXC.hu you really should consider deleting them, don't support this bad moves from Getty and iSuck!

« Reply #16 on: July 29, 2009, 04:33 »
0
If they do close down StockXpert, I will stop uploading to istock.  They might think it is a good idea to buy and close down more sites.  I am not supporting them if that is their plan.


« Reply #17 on: July 29, 2009, 04:53 »
0
If they do close down StockXpert, I will stop uploading to istock.  They might think it is a good idea to buy and close down more sites.  I am not supporting them if that is their plan.

Same here.  I am getting more sales and more revenue from StockXpert, than from IS.  StockXpert is accepting more of my pics than IS (might be good or not, for me this is good ;-)  upload process is much easier and less time consuming, and they do not have that stupid upload limit per week ... I will not support this sort of buy-and-shutdown-competitors market strategy.

Just my 2

Alex

« Reply #18 on: July 29, 2009, 05:27 »
0
I must admit it is not looking good for StockXpert but I still think there's hope. It makes sense for IS to direct the SXC freeloaders to their higher-priced and exclusive content rather than StockXpert. The prices are higher and also they pay less % commission on any sales that result too.

Surely if they shut down StockXpert the main beneficiaries are likely to be IS's competitors rather than IS themselves? The market has become segmented with IS targetting the high-spending, less price-sensitive corporate customer and the competition between them are fighting over the more price-concious buyers. At least with StockXpert they retain a slice of that market too.

StockXpert has a turnover of something approaching $5M and is probably relatively profitable too. If it were for sale as an independent entity it might be worth $20M (or at least it would have been if the growth were consistent). I think it's likely that StockXpert still has sales and profitability significantly higher than JIU/PC combined and clearly there is no plan to shut them down. Just shutting down StockXpert would be writing-off a lot of money and be a gift to their competitors too. That doesn't make any sense to me.

It's not uncommon for a large group to have several companies offering similar products at different price-points, apparently competing for sales against each other, like Getty and IS for example. It's a big market and you need to cover all bases if you want the maximum slice of the overall pie.




Microbius

« Reply #19 on: July 29, 2009, 06:28 »
0
sorry, did I just get a post deleted from this thread or did I forget to press the submit button?

« Reply #20 on: July 29, 2009, 07:34 »
0
I commend those who will stop uploading to iStock because they are making good business sense and enhancing their offerings.  Eventually you will have only 3 sites to submit to.  But at the same time, these are the same people that were compelled to upload to winners such as Albumo, Crestock, CanStockPhoto and other 'big winners'.

Its called consolidation, it sometimes happens when companies can be bought at good prices to reduce competition.  It also happens for many other reasons.  And there will be more of it. 

« Reply #21 on: July 29, 2009, 07:53 »
0
I do not understand why someone would pay microstock site in millions of dollars and then shuts it down ...
Its OK  if it is the only competition, but it is not...

I think, there must be another plan for StockXpert, because StockXpert makes big profit...

Maybe something different of Vetta collection with all StockXpert porfolios...
« Last Edit: July 29, 2009, 07:55 by borg »

« Reply #22 on: July 29, 2009, 08:39 »
0
They did not pay for StockXpert, they paid formost, if not all, of Jupiter.  I do not remember the deal entirely, however, StockXpert is only a part of that family and I think that photos.com was the big reason for the acquisition - and if you had sub sales there, you would see that photos.com would make a large portion of your downloads on StockXpert too.

I don't think StockXpert generated loads of profit, but I do however think they were on the right track when I was there.

That being said, I still think its a good plan from what I've seen so far

« Reply #23 on: July 29, 2009, 09:46 »
0
I think that photos.com was the big reason for the acquisition - and if you had sub sales there, you would see that photos.com would make a large portion of your downloads on StockXpert too.

Nope!

photos.com hasn't got the big portion. JIU has the big portion. Photos.com has a promising domain name though  :)
If I break down my downloads it's something like this:

StockXpert (ppd + subs) = %62.3
photos.com = %4.5
JIU = %33.2

« Reply #24 on: July 29, 2009, 09:48 »
0
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)

« Reply #25 on: July 29, 2009, 09:55 »
0
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  :)

« Reply #26 on: July 29, 2009, 10:30 »
0
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

  • diablo como vd
« Reply #27 on: July 29, 2009, 10:49 »
0
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.

« Reply #28 on: July 29, 2009, 12:17 »
0
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 »
0
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

  • diablo como vd
« Reply #30 on: July 29, 2009, 12:32 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2009, 12:34 by puravida »

« Reply #31 on: July 29, 2009, 12:41 »
0
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

  • diablo como vd
« Reply #32 on: July 29, 2009, 12:50 »
0

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.

« Reply #33 on: July 29, 2009, 13:00 »
0
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

  • If you think you know, you know squat
« Reply #34 on: July 29, 2009, 13:10 »
0
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.

« Reply #35 on: July 29, 2009, 13:14 »
0
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!
« Last Edit: July 29, 2009, 13:23 by cidepix »

« Reply #36 on: July 29, 2009, 13:48 »
0
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

  • diablo como vd
« Reply #37 on: July 29, 2009, 13:54 »
0
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   ;)


« Reply #38 on: July 29, 2009, 14:11 »
0
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.

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.


« Reply #39 on: July 29, 2009, 16:12 »
0

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.

« Reply #40 on: July 29, 2009, 19:58 »
0
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. 

« Reply #41 on: July 29, 2009, 20:15 »
0
.... I deleted myself... I gotta take a break... LOL  8)=tom
« Last Edit: July 29, 2009, 20:19 by a.k.a.-tom »

« Reply #42 on: July 29, 2009, 20:24 »
0

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? 8)=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  ;)

« Reply #43 on: July 29, 2009, 20:30 »
0
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.  8)=tom

« Reply #44 on: July 29, 2009, 20:50 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2009, 21:41 by stockastic »

« Reply #45 on: July 29, 2009, 21:27 »
0
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.  8)=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  ;)

« Reply #46 on: July 30, 2009, 03:07 »
0
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.


« Reply #47 on: July 30, 2009, 03:56 »
0
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.

 

« Reply #48 on: July 30, 2009, 12:44 »
0

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.

« Reply #49 on: July 30, 2009, 14:07 »
0
There is no way istockphoto dumps non-exclusives  :D

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!

« Reply #50 on: July 30, 2009, 14:55 »
0

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



If you find a site with istock's volume that is willing to pay 80% commission to exclusive contributors, SIGN ME UP!

« Reply #51 on: July 30, 2009, 15:07 »
0
Of course on paper, they have to show some formal love to exclusives. But they really really loooove non-exclusives moneywise!

Money, that's what they love!


Really? You think? It's just disgusting for a business to love making money. I thought they were a not-for-profit collective on behalf of us poor struggling artists.

« Reply #52 on: July 30, 2009, 21:55 »
0
no annoucement or even comment from StockXpert. no response on the forums from admin.  seems like the site is back on autopilot.

hope the cleaner doesnt knock the power cord on the server, we may lose the site altogether :)

« Reply #53 on: July 31, 2009, 06:06 »
0
hope the cleaner doesnt knock the power cord on the server, we may lose the site altogether :)
You think Getty leaves them a budget for a cleaner? :D

« Reply #54 on: July 31, 2009, 06:21 »
0
Answering to cidepix last post:

It seems that, for some, the world stops at RF and microstock. That they wouldn't be able to do anything different in the photography market. We are just exclusive for RF, that's it. And besides of that, we even have a lot of opportunities at different Getty brands and, for those who could miss selling at Shutterstock for 0.30 cents, they have photos.com. Who knows if maybe we'll be uble to upload to Stockexpert too. We lose something not being able to upload at shutter or Dreamstime, yes, but we have almost unreachable upload limits at IS.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2009, 06:25 by loop »

« Reply #55 on: July 31, 2009, 06:44 »
0
There is no way istockphoto dumps non-exclusives  :D

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!

Excellent post!

I am putting my sign on this conclusion...




 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
30 Replies
9297 Views
Last post December 08, 2008, 17:13
by lagereek
65 Replies
12909 Views
Last post September 09, 2009, 17:05
by Alatriste
10 Replies
4184 Views
Last post August 21, 2009, 16:13
by Phil
37 Replies
7614 Views
Last post July 12, 2012, 09:11
by ShadySue
19 Replies
8806 Views
Last post February 16, 2016, 05:40
by Lana

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results