Author Topic: Getty Images to Acquire Jupiterimages (Read 30638 times)

RacePhoto · « **Reply #50 on:** October 24, 2008, 19:48 »

I'll just go off on my own here. I don't think Getty's owners are positive what direction this will eventually go, so there's no reason why we would know.

This may not be the plan, but it's possible.

Multiple brands of stock photos under one ownership. iStock has many exclusives, which means it has exclusive photos. (that wasn't too deep, was it?) StockXpert has the usual collections from pretty much the usual people, which is the rest of the photos that IS doesn't have, and a bunch that the non-exclusives have uploaded to the top six. Getty is the obvious other market, which caused an uproar when they tried to license photos at a reduced price for the web. Now they don't have to worry about the traditional stock shooters going ballistic over the micro or mid-stock offerings, it's a whole different agency label that's been around for years. Problem solved.

Coke has Diet Coke, Diet Coke with Splenda,Tab, and Coke Zero. (Sprite, Coke, Coke Classic, Dissani... Fanta, 250 brands of 2,800 products! you get the idea) They are all pretty much the same, colored, flavored water. Getty has macro, Digital Vision, Stockbyte, iStock and Photodisc. With Jupiter Images that brings Comstock, Picture Arts, and StockXpert, (and more about 50 more collections http://www.jupiterimages.com/rmimages.aspx ) which are basically different labels for the same products. There's no reason why Getty can't keep all these agencies running as long as they are profitable on their own. Multiple brands for different tastes and budgets.

-=-=-

OT, but since people start it,

Sure thing GM bought the patents for the 150 MPG carb and the battery cars in the 80s and 90s. Funny thing is we didn't have the high performance batteries 25 years ago, that we do now, and no one seems to be able to build a battery powered car that's less expensive and more economical to run than a gasoline car. What is that, alchemy or some secret, maybe magic, that no one else can invent or discover? Or maybe mythology that any of the rumors of a conspiracy are true. Same for the 150 MPG carb. If one person can invent it, someone else could discover it. Gee computers have gone from the Apple II with 64 KB of memory to quad processors with large megabytes of memory, and we can't make a battery powered car or a better carburetor? Hmm, isn't that strange? 640 x 480 cameras used to cost $700 in the 80s, now a 12MB DSLR costs that. But no one in the world can re-invent something that was discovered 25 years ago? PLEASE!

fotografer · « **Reply #51 on:** October 25, 2008, 01:35 »

I was wondering where Steve-oh fits in with all this. I hope he gets to keep his job as he is one of the best admins at all the sites.

Quote from: madelaide on October 24, 2008, 18:31

Not to mention the much more responsive staff, including Steve-Oh.

Pixart · « **Reply #52 on:** October 25, 2008, 12:19 »

They could still sell these small companies one-off like StockXpert and Photos.com.

I'm taking a guess here, but Istock is a bit of an elite club. They are really favoring exclusives at the moment. Would it be possible that they are moving toward exclusive content and dumping the non-exclusive stuff on StockXpert?

Maybe they can control 2 segments of the market here then: Istock raises to a mid priced RF, then StockXpert remains micro RF. (A large photo on IS is around $10, that doesn't exactly seem "micro" to me and the prices may go up again in the new year).

I guess it's admirable that IS has such exemplary standards, but they must surely recognize that they are losing fistfulls of money from 50% of their rejects. Wouldn't it make sense for them to become the GAP and SPX to become Old Navy? Same owners, but different price points and different acceptable quality.

Phil · « **Reply #53 on:** October 25, 2008, 16:36 »

Miscellanous thoughts

sadly the agency that thinks photogs paying $50 an image to submit and/or photog exclusivity etc etc is a good thing just got bigger, but then jupiter offered 15% commission for dynamic graphics, so the two lowest commission (StockXpert excluded) agencies combined.

I read a few years ago getty, corbis and jupiter have over 80% of stock market (in $ terms, and probably not considering micro)
I would think that in $ terms IS would have to be 30-50% of micro market. To my thinking in dollar terms getty probably now control roughly 50% of both macro and micro worldwide market.

previously when jupiter or getty acquired another stock agency they would flick through and tell people thanks this image is no longer required and trim collections and either absorb into other 'brands' or continue them as a brand. I would guess the key is profitability of the brand.

many people expected getty to kill IS when they bought it but it is too profitable, I would think StockXpert would also be one of the more profitable micro agencies, particularly as it being used to bolster up the jupiter collections. I would guess there will be changes (who knows what getty thinks of photos.com and JI unlimited offerings, i don't believe they have similar offerings and the IS subs are very different), but I'd be surprised if they got rid of StockXpert in its entirety. (Always a good thing to be competing against yourself. People who dont like IS may buy from StockXpert and you still get the sale.) of course just guesses.

personally I'd be a lot more worried if I had a substantial JI macro collection (which I dont

, I would think this is where the bigger changes will be.

Phil

loop · « **Reply #54 on:** October 25, 2008, 17:09 »

One possibility would be that they redirect the url photos.com to istock.com, and leave StockXpert as now, but including one row or a side-show of istock exclusive content in the SPX search results.Another possibility for photos.com, would be leave it as before, a kind of dollar bin for fully or not fully owned content --quite outdated, after all what it was until one or two months ago-- although I don't think they will do that. I don't now, but I think that anything they do will be to reinforce istockphoto --and so exclusives--. After all, istock is the bussines which sells 70 million a year, I doubt that StockXpert results can approach to that.

michealo · « **Reply #55 on:** October 26, 2008, 05:50 »

Quote from: hali on October 24, 2008, 19:30

Adelaide,
i think we all agree StockXpert is a better site than IS. their rejections are mostly
well explained and justified. something many of us cannot say the same about IS.
but IS is higher of Big 6 than StockXpert. If anything StockXpert will become IS, and we will lose our better earner. It's bad enough we're losing more sites to market our images,
and everyday we seem to see more disappearing.

We don't all agree that StockXpert is a better site than IS.

sharpshot · « **Reply #56 on:** October 26, 2008, 06:11 »

I did a bit of research on the company that now owns getty, jupiter images, istock and StockXpert, Hellman & Friedman. They seem to have a good reputation and recently made a 10x return on one of their investments. Could be good for us if they mange to do something similar with istock and StockXpert.

http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/04/17/after-doubleclick-home-run-hellman-and-friedman-raised-8-4-billi/

bittersweet · « **Reply #57 on:** October 26, 2008, 11:15 »

I guess these posts by admins on the StockXpert thread are supposed to convince you that all is peachy and you won't even notice that this insignificant little transaction has even taken place?

Quote

There will be no change in your relationship with StockXpert as a result of this announcement.
We will continue to operate as we always have.

Quote

Jupitermedia owned 90% of HAAP which owns two sites, StockXpert and SXC. Getty only bought that 90% share, so the remaining 10% of StockXpert/SXC is still owned by HAAP.

I know I'm convinced. How 'bout you?

Pixart · « **Reply #58 on:** October 26, 2008, 18:11 »

That's right... as a result of this announcement there will be no change in your status. But, there is no deal yet. Wait until there's a deal and pay attention to that announcement.

epixx · « **Reply #59 on:** October 26, 2008, 19:19 »

Quote from: sharpshot on October 26, 2008, 06:11

I did a bit of research on the company that now owns getty, jupiter images, istock and StockXpert, Hellman & Friedman. They seem to have a good reputation and recently made a 10x return on one of their investments. Could be good for us if they mange to do something similar with istock and StockXpert.

http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/04/17/after-doubleclick-home-run-hellman-and-friedman-raised-8-4-billi/

That depends. If they lower the commissions at StockXpert to the same level as at IS, I couldn't care less about how they're doing. I will still be the one losing on the deal.

Phil · « **Reply #60 on:** October 27, 2008, 20:54 »

Quote from: whatalife on October 26, 2008, 11:15

I guess these posts by admins on the StockXpert thread are supposed to convince you that all is peachy and you won't even notice that this insignificant little transaction has even taken place?

Quote
There will be no change in your relationship with StockXpert as a result of this announcement.
We will continue to operate as we always have.

Quote
Jupitermedia owned 90% of HAAP which owns two sites, StockXpert and SXC. Getty only bought that 90% share, so the remaining 10% of StockXpert/SXC is still owned by HAAP.

I know I'm convinced. How 'bout you?

LOL!

haap · « **Reply #61 on:** October 28, 2008, 00:19 »

Quote from: whatalife on October 26, 2008, 11:15

I guess these posts by admins on the StockXpert thread are supposed to convince you that all is peachy and you won't even notice that this insignificant little transaction has even taken place?

Quote
There will be no change in your relationship with StockXpert as a result of this announcement.
We will continue to operate as we always have.

Quote
Jupitermedia owned 90% of HAAP which owns two sites, StockXpert and SXC. Getty only bought that 90% share, so the remaining 10% of StockXpert/SXC is still owned by HAAP.

I know I'm convinced. How 'bout you?

You misinterpreted those posts.

The point is that this deal will take months to go through. Obviously until it gets approved by the authorities, it's business as usual. They might not even approve it, but that's not likely. Getty might bring some changes of course, but it's a little bit early to interpret that as the doom of StockXpert. I believe there are plenty of opportunities that can be equally beneficial for everyone, and most of them don't entail doing something "bad" to the site.

As for the second quote, that was merely a reply to someone asking about our own share, it wasn't put there to reassure anybody about anything.

grp_photo · « **Reply #62 on:** October 28, 2008, 09:49 »

Welcome here haap

and thank you for chime in and make things clearer.
It would be very nice if you could point out some of the opportunities as an example as i have a hard time to see one. For me it still looks bad.

michaeldb · « **Reply #63 on:** October 28, 2008, 12:58 »

It seems to be human nature to look at a new development and see the threats and dangers, while the opportunities go unseen. I think that most of the contributors at IS have not found the acquisition by Getty to have been a bad thing. They seem happy to be a part of it.

In the past, StockXpert has worked to create new opportunities for contributors because that is good businees for StockXpert, and many people reacted with fear and loathing. This new development could create new opportunites for submitters, not just negatives.

hali · « **Reply #64 on:** October 28, 2008, 13:15 »

michaeldb,
maybe it's because StockXpert has always been communicative, fast reviews, good explanation for rejections (quick acceptance upon re-submission ), etc...
whereas IS is snail slow , bureaucratic, almost irresponsive, and if ever,
most times condescending.
We had a good thing with StockXpert, and we hate to lose it to a culture similar to IS.
Sure, we are a bit wary. Aren't you?

michaeldb · « **Reply #65 on:** October 28, 2008, 13:39 »

Quote from: hali on October 28, 2008, 13:15

michaeldb,
maybe it's because StockXpert has always been communicative, fast reviews, good explanation for rejections (quick acceptance upon re-submission ), etc...
whereas IS is snail slow , bureaucratic, almost irresponsive, and if ever,
most times condescending.
We had a good thing with StockXpert, and we hate to lose it to a culture similar to IS.
Sure, we are a bit wary. Aren't you?

You have some good points. Definitely some very good points. I would add to IS's problems: The current Best Match disaster, and the ongoing keyword disambiguation nightmare, and the ridiculous "We do not consider this stock.." rejections, and the archaic uploading procedures for vectors, and on and on.

But I have been submitting at IS since 2005 or so and the problems you list were there then too (in fact the condescension was worse, in the days of Peebert, and when if you cancelled the uploading of a file a message would say something like, "Good riddance. It probably wouldn't have sold anyway"). Maybe you could be negative and point out that Getty has not fixed things at IS. But maybe you could be positive and say that it means Getty will not change things at StockXpert and screw it up. At least we can hope.

hali · « **Reply #66 on:** October 28, 2008, 13:48 »

Quote from: michaeldb on October 28, 2008, 13:39

But I have been submitting at IS since 2005 or so and the problems you list were there then too (in fact the condescension was worse, in the days of Peebert, and when if you cancelled the uploading of a file a message would say something like, "Good riddance. It probably wouldn't have sold anyway").

Maybe you could be negative and point out that Getty has not fixed things at IS. But maybe you could be positive and say that it means Getty will not change things at StockXpert and screw it up. At least we can hope.

my goodness! i am glad i was not around for Peebert

your final point makes sense. Let's hope that Getty knows StockXpert has a good thing going
and not screw it up. Let's hope so.

sharpshot · « **Reply #67 on:** October 28, 2008, 15:15 »

Getty don't own StockXpert, Hellman & Friedman bought Jupiter Images and now own StockXpert. I hope they are just making an investment to sell on at a higher price later, as that seems to be there MO.

bittersweet · « **Reply #68 on:** October 28, 2008, 15:20 »

Quote from: sharpshot on October 28, 2008, 15:15

Getty don't own StockXpert, Hellman & Friedman bought Jupiter Images and now own StockXpert. I hope they are just making an investment to sell on at a higher price later, as that seems to be there MO.

Technically yes, but I wonder why they purchased it under the Getty umbrella instead of as a separate entity. Getty has a long history of swallowing up smaller companies, and that is why the panic when they purchased iStock. The situation was quite different though. iStock was not on the brink of bankruptcy. Getty wanted iStock because it was a cash cow, and Bruce had all the bargaining power in the world to make sure they were not going to just kill it off.

Should be interesting to see how it all shakes out.

leaf · « **Reply #69 on:** October 29, 2008, 01:58 »

Quote from: whatalife on October 28, 2008, 15:20

Quote from: sharpshot on October 28, 2008, 15:15
Getty don't own StockXpert, Hellman & Friedman bought Jupiter Images and now own StockXpert. I hope they are just making an investment to sell on at a higher price later, as that seems to be there MO.

Technically yes, but I wonder why they purchased it under the Getty umbrella instead of as a separate entity. Getty has a long history of swallowing up smaller companies, and that is why the panic when they purchased iStock. The situation was quite different though. iStock was not on the brink of bankruptcy. Getty wanted iStock because it was a cash cow, and Bruce had all the bargaining power in the world to make sure they were not going to just kill it off.

Should be interesting to see how it all shakes out.

I can't figure how all three statments can be true. Either they were on the verge of bankruptcy or they were a cash cow, ... how can they be both? I would think the truth lies more with the latter though!?

haap · « **Reply #70 on:** October 29, 2008, 03:03 »

Quote from: grp_photo on October 28, 2008, 09:49

Welcome here haap and thank you for chime in and make things clearer.
It would be very nice if you could point out some of the opportunities as an example as i have a hard time to see one. For me it still looks bad.

Well, I'm just saying that I believe it makes sense to keep StockXpert growing in one way or another. It is always a good idea to diversify (especially when times are tough), and micro sites are very very cost efficient. StockXpert also has its own customer base. For one reason or another those people come to this site, and if you shut it down, they are not necessarily going to switch to IS, many of them are going to choose a competing service.

Of course the situation is a little more complicated with all the other acquired properties such as Photos.com and Jupiterimages.com. There are tons of variables, and the people at Getty are going to have a hard time figuring out how to make the most out of everything, but ultimately the goal is always to sell more stuff to more people, and the more stuff they sell the more money you earn.

This is just my opinion though, we won't know anything for sure until the deal gets approved.

MikLav · « **Reply #71 on:** October 29, 2008, 03:19 »

I too hope they will not screw up StockXpert. StockXpert is one of my best earners and I like it much better than IS.

bittersweet · « **Reply #72 on:** October 29, 2008, 07:57 »

Quote from: leaf on October 29, 2008, 01:58

Quote from: whatalife on October 28, 2008, 15:20
Quote from: sharpshot on October 28, 2008, 15:15
Getty don't own StockXpert, Hellman & Friedman bought Jupiter Images and now own StockXpert. I hope they are just making an investment to sell on at a higher price later, as that seems to be there MO.

Technically yes, but I wonder why they purchased it under the Getty umbrella instead of as a separate entity. Getty has a long history of swallowing up smaller companies, and that is why the panic when they purchased iStock. The situation was quite different though. iStock was not on the brink of bankruptcy. Getty wanted iStock because it was a cash cow, and Bruce had all the bargaining power in the world to make sure they were not going to just kill it off.

Should be interesting to see how it all shakes out.

I can't figure how all three statments can be true. Either they were on the verge of bankruptcy or they were a cash cow, ... how can they be both? I would think the truth lies more with the latter though!?

I said they were NOT on the brink of bankruptcy (as is the case with Jupiter). I was pointing out the differences in this transaction vs the Getty/istock transaction.

leaf · « **Reply #73 on:** October 29, 2008, 09:00 »

opppsss. sorry...
sometimes i think i am dyslexic

bittersweet · « **Reply #74 on:** October 29, 2008, 11:34 »

Quote from: leaf on October 29, 2008, 09:00

opppsss. sorry...
sometimes i think i am dyslexic

No problem! You had me reading what I wrote over and over to make sure that I was not the dyslexic one.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Getty Images to Acquire Jupiterimages (Read 30638 times)

RacePhoto

fotografer

Pixart

Phil

loop

michealo

sharpshot

bittersweet

Pixart

epixx

Phil

haap

grp_photo

michaeldb

hali

michaeldb

hali

sharpshot

bittersweet

leaf

haap

MikLav

bittersweet

leaf

bittersweet

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors