Author Topic: Getty Images to Acquire Jupiterimages (Read 27252 times)

Perry · « **on:** October 23, 2008, 09:39 »

http://www.stockphototalk.com/the_stock_photo_industry_/2008/10/jupiter_getty.html
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/h?s=JUPM

iStockphoto and StockXpert under the same roof... what will happen?

Pixart · « **Reply #1 on:** October 23, 2008, 09:50 »

So, what does this mean to us? Will they send Istock's reviewers to StockXpert and then give our photos, the ones that aren't rejected for edges being too feathered or rough, to Jupiter Images for 30 cents?

sharpshot · « **Reply #2 on:** October 23, 2008, 09:56 »

They could let istock exclusives upload there or they could sell off StockXpert. Either way, I don't see how this will be positive for my earnings there.

jsnover · « **Reply #3 on:** October 23, 2008, 10:12 »

Here are a couple more links
http://www.abouttheimage.com/3953/jupiter_media_selling_stock_photography_licensing_business_getty_96_million/author2
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Jupitermedia-Corporation-Signs-Agreement-Sell/story.aspx?guid={71ADD45D-FBDC-47F5-A146-031A03CA5087}

I can see how the bargain basement stuff could be used (as it doesn't overlap with other Getty stuff) but how do you deal with StockXpert and iStock? A lot of the same content is already on iStock anyway...

PenelopeB · « **Reply #4 on:** October 23, 2008, 10:19 »

I guess I may as well go exclusive with iStock now? The big fish consume the little fish.

Sh*t, StockXpert was my first way back when they opened. And the sales have picked up nicely with those great commissions to contributors. That only leaves DT and FT (i've almost written off SS) for me, and maybe exclusivity with iStock will make up that difference. Dam!

vonkara · « **Reply #5 on:** October 23, 2008, 10:37 »

I hope StockXpert will stay as it is or be better and not becoming a little Istock. The micros and macros industry is moving day after day, because it still a new industry in a way, let see what will happen

loop · « **Reply #6 on:** October 23, 2008, 10:41 »

Pixart · « **Reply #7 on:** October 23, 2008, 10:44 »

I can't find where, but this week I read something about microstock and it said that in these tough economic times buyers won't take any kind of risk - like a new and slightly different Photoshelter. They predicted that buyers will stick with the same old trusted names, making the big agencies even stronger and the young agencies will suffer or fail or be consumed.

I've noticed especially poor sales at 123, StockXpert and BS these days. I was chalking it up to lack of new content from me, but I wonder if they are feeling the recession worse than others? The bigger names: DT, FT have been doing very well for me, and who knows what is going on at IS with the search changes, they seems to be back to normal this week.

bittersweet · « **Reply #8 on:** October 23, 2008, 10:58 »

Quote from: Vonkara on October 23, 2008, 10:37

I hope StockXpert will stay as it is or be better and not becoming a little Istock.

I think the chances of that happening are pretty slim.

Isn't photos.com part of Jupiter as well? There was no mention of these two entities, but they weren't among the five that JupiterMedia is going to retain. (ETA: After reading the press release again, it does say "...including the Jupiterimages Unlimited subscription product" which I assume does mean photos.com)

I guess further announcements will come after the shareholders have approved the deal.

lisafx · « **Reply #9 on:** October 23, 2008, 11:02 »

Quote from: Vonkara on October 23, 2008, 10:37

I hope StockXpert will stay as it is or be better and not becoming a little Istock. The micros and macros industry is moving day after day, because it still a new industry in a way, let see what will happen

To be honest, they could stand to be a bit more like istock. I never have had any trouble getting paid by istock, and I have never had sales fail to be recorded or royalties accrued for over two weeks on istock, although both those problems are happening on StockXpert.

leaf · « **Reply #10 on:** October 23, 2008, 11:24 »

well how many different brands do getty have. It seems like there are tons. I don't see any reason why they couldn't have two brands of microstock.

hali · « **Reply #11 on:** October 23, 2008, 11:26 »

argh, nightmare. i hate IS but i like StockXpert very much.
now i am really in deep s**t.
all my images with StockXpert will be re-reviewed and rejected if IS reviewers
get their filthy hands on them.
but if StockXpert reviewers review my future IS images, then all will work out 200% to my joy.
this is enough to make me go out and get a large bottle of whisky.

bittersweet · « **Reply #12 on:** October 23, 2008, 11:34 »

Quote from: leaf on October 23, 2008, 11:24

well how many different brands do getty have. It seems like there are tons. I don't see any reason why they couldn't have two brands of microstock.

How many operate as separate entities? i hope to be proven wrong. To be honest, I hope they do not merge the two. There is already enough competition on istock as it is. However I think that the exclusive contributors at istock will have a good case for being on StockXpert as well. (But I think this whole scenario is unlikely)

If for some reason they do merge the collections, I cannot imagine istock's acceptance standards being applied after the fact to the incoming images. I'm sure that won't happen. If they were that concerned with it, they'd have cleaned up the collection of old crap they already have. The dollar bin can only accommodate so much.

Seren · « **Reply #13 on:** October 23, 2008, 11:45 »

Quote from: hali on October 23, 2008, 11:26

all my images with StockXpert will be re-reviewed and rejected if IS reviewers
get their filthy hands on them.

I think if you feel that way then you need to go out and learn how to use your camera.

Karimala · « **Reply #14 on:** October 23, 2008, 11:47 »

Quote from: leaf on October 23, 2008, 11:24

well how many different brands do getty have. It seems like there are tons. I don't see any reason why they couldn't have two brands of microstock.

Agreed. And I wouldn't be surprised if the whole JIU and Photos.com revamping had something to do with JI making itself attractive for potential buyers. If JI can have three different subscription services, Getty can have multiple microstock services as well.

We probably won't even notice much of a change. The only thing I'm worried about is if this will mean Getty implements disambiguation on StockXpert. Now that would suck!!!

Seren · « **Reply #15 on:** October 23, 2008, 11:51 »

Something to keep in mind. Getty now own a third of the top microstock sites. One more purchase and they'll own 50%.

They can now pretty much dictate the market... I wonder what they'll do to make their traditional collection more attractive to buyers?

bittersweet · « **Reply #16 on:** October 23, 2008, 11:57 »

Quote from: Seren on October 23, 2008, 11:51

Something to keep in mind. Getty now own a third of the top microstock sites. One more purchase and they'll own 50%.

They can now pretty much dictate the market... I wonder what they'll do to make their traditional collection more attractive to buyers?

Buy all the rest so we won't have a choice?

Seriously, the customer service at Getty has sucked... to the point that I've been given instructions not to use them by one of my larger clients. I've been told to use Jupiter whenever possible, and Veer as a secondary. Was sad to see the release said they would integrate Getty "service".

bittersweet · « **Reply #17 on:** October 23, 2008, 12:00 »

Quote from: Karimala on October 23, 2008, 11:47

If JI can have three different subscription services,

I'm not sure using their business practices as an example of "why not?" is all that convincing, since their being way in the red is I'm sure a big part of the reason they needed to be sold in the first place.

But who knows!?!

stokfoto · « **Reply #18 on:** October 23, 2008, 12:06 »

I wonder what will happen to the 50% cut. the new deal with the photos.com already reducing it to 30% .

it seems to me they are actually buying the customers not the site:) Just trying to be optimistic I hope this change will have positive impact on us I have no clue how that could happen though ....

All I can see now is that the giant is growing even bigger.

runamock · « **Reply #19 on:** October 23, 2008, 12:10 »

So what is best...to continue to upload to StockXpert or to wait to see what happens?

bittersweet · « **Reply #20 on:** October 23, 2008, 12:17 »

Quote from: Runamock on October 23, 2008, 12:10

So what is best...to continue to upload to StockXpert or to wait to see what happens?

It will be months before anything "happens" so I don't see any reason not to continue uploading until you hear otherwise (as long as you are getting paid).

hali · « **Reply #21 on:** October 23, 2008, 13:33 »

Quote from: Seren on October 23, 2008, 11:45

I think if you feel that way then you need to go out and learn how to use your camera.

and take snapshots like you Seren? no thx i'd prefer to stop breathing...
and...you should learn to have some manner, too kiddo

cascoly · « **Reply #22 on:** October 23, 2008, 13:43 »

Quote from: whatalife on October 23, 2008, 11:34

... To be honest, I hope they do not merge the two. There is already enough competition on istock as it is. However I think that the exclusive contributors at istock will have a good case for being on StockXpert as well. (But I think this whole scenario is unlikely)

If for some reason they do merge the collections, I cannot imagine istock's acceptance standards being applied after the fact to the incoming images. I'm sure that won't happen. ....

i doubt it's even theoretically possible to merge the holdings of any 2 MS agencies - even assuming photographers use the same profile on each site, the sites dont keep the photographer's original file names [again even assuming p's have a unique naming convention. so there's no way to eliminate overlap between 2 collections.,

much more likely would be to just shut down one collection and merge customer lists

grp_photo · « **Reply #23 on:** October 23, 2008, 13:53 »

I think this is extremely bad news for independent photographers

.
I guess StockXpert and IS will coexist for a while but there is a risk that StockXpert will be either shutdown or getting less exposure and marketing budget. Contributors with a small or none Portfolio on IS and a big portfolio on StockXpert would be the loosers.

Gizeh · « **Reply #24 on:** October 23, 2008, 13:59 »

Jupiter had only one strength which was their subscription business. My guess is we will see Getty aggressively moving into subscriptions by using the Jupiterimages brands including StockXpert.

No good news for contributors.

jsnover · « **Reply #25 on:** October 23, 2008, 14:07 »

Quote from: leaf on October 23, 2008, 11:24

well how many different brands do getty have. It seems like there are tons. I don't see any reason why they couldn't have two brands of microstock.

No problem in theory, but in practice, given the two collections, how would you differentiate the two for customers? I just can't imagine any division - quality, price, themes - that you could make.

I think people have suggested "collections" to break up iStock's large image pile into several smaller themed ones (on iStock's forums). I wouldn't mind allowing more "creative" (i.e. aggressively altered) images, for example. Even if I hate the flood filter, take a look at many of SS's bestsellers - there's a market for that sort of stuff.

If you imagine yourself a new customer being presented with IS and StockXpert collections and asking "what's the difference"? I know there are some different images (IS exclusives and more images from new contributors on StockXpert who face IS upload restrictions) but overall there's a huge amount that's the same.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #26 on:** October 23, 2008, 14:10 »

I'm told the deal is under review by regulators and government and can take several months to complete. Meanwhile it's business as usual. Getty has a log standing reputation of keeping brand names and equally long standing reputation of twisting arms into signing one contract. I guess it was just a matter on time before the micros suffered the same form of acquisition as the macros have although in this case its one big package.

loop · « **Reply #27 on:** October 23, 2008, 14:23 »

In my view, for various reasons, photos.com is more worthy than stockxpert.
I wish, too, that Getty puts a end to the free collection stockechange.

sharpshot · « **Reply #28 on:** October 23, 2008, 14:29 »

This isn't like a Getty takeover because Getty were bought by a private equity group Hellman & Friedman. We will have to wait and see what their plans are. The only change I have seen with istock is my earnings have recently gone down

astrocady · « **Reply #29 on:** October 23, 2008, 15:21 »

Maybe Istock will become exclusively exclusive, contributer wise, while StockXpert/et. al. we be for independants only.

Alatriste · « **Reply #30 on:** October 23, 2008, 15:57 »

I dont think merging would be a good deal for them.

If StockXpert is working why will getty change anything? They can work as diferent arms of the same body

bittersweet · « **Reply #31 on:** October 23, 2008, 16:35 »

Quote from: Trebuchet on October 23, 2008, 15:57

I dont think merging would be a good deal for them.

If StockXpert is working why will getty change anything? They can work as diferent arms of the same body

So you think it's likely they will be okay with offering the "exact same" product on two different sites for two different prices?

melastmohican · « **Reply #32 on:** October 23, 2008, 16:46 »

It will take some time, maybe half a year to finalize this transaction but I guess it would end up like GM acquiring Chrysler. Cherry picking a good stuff and killing rest of the competitor :-)

bittersweet · « **Reply #33 on:** October 23, 2008, 17:38 »

Well Bitter himself chimed in on the istock thread about this with a completely vague comment:

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=78556&messageid=1183789

vonkara · « **Reply #34 on:** October 23, 2008, 18:09 »

Maybe it mean that exclusive could upload to jupiter. Then it maybe mean even more images online there... even more than on getty with all the StockXpert (non exclusive) images. But it would be hard to set the prices, because I don't think the IS exclusive would like to sell on subscriptions. Though they could sell their images on macro prices like on Getty if I understand correctly.

And they will get also Stockxpert. I don't know if Getty already owned another microstock agency than Istock? Do they allowed the IS exclusive to upload there?

bittersweet · « **Reply #35 on:** October 23, 2008, 18:21 »

Quote from: Vonkara on October 23, 2008, 18:09

I don't know if Getty already owned another microstock agency than Istock? Do they allowed the IS exclusive to upload there?

Currently, gold and diamond canister exclusives can upload to Getty. Sometime soon, silver level will also be included. And no, Getty does not currently own another microstock agency.

iStock does have a subscription model, but contributors are free to opt out, and they don't pay ridiculously low royalties on those sales as compared to pay-per-download sales.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #36 on:** October 23, 2008, 19:53 »

Quote from: Vonkara on October 23, 2008, 18:09

Maybe it mean that exclusive could upload to jupiter. Then it maybe mean even more images online there... even more than on getty with all the StockXpert (non exclusive) images. But it would be hard to set the prices, because I don't think the IS exclusive would like to sell on subscriptions.

I don't want to waste time uploading to multiple sites. That's a reason I'm exclusive.

Gregor909 · « **Reply #37 on:** October 23, 2008, 20:20 »

All stocksites merging would be convenient , having the same income but less work!
But somehow I have a bad feeling about this. Like someone said before; óne company dictating the market, and less rights for us contributors!
If there is much competition, we can run of to the competitor if the price isn't right. But what if we're all dependent on óne lare company?

vonkara · « **Reply #38 on:** October 23, 2008, 20:24 »

I'm not creating enough images to care about the time I take upload

litifeta · « **Reply #39 on:** October 23, 2008, 21:08 »

Consolidation is a consequence of business these days. All sectors are in the process. Even biggies like Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton are involved.

Pixart · « **Reply #40 on:** October 23, 2008, 21:29 »

Quote from: Gregor909 on October 23, 2008, 20:20

All stocksites merging would be convenient , having the same income but less work!

And lower commissions! You think we have no power now, just wait till Getty owns the world.

michaeldb · « **Reply #41 on:** October 24, 2008, 00:18 »

Quote from: Vonkara on October 23, 2008, 18:09

Maybe it mean that exclusive could upload to jupiter. Then it maybe mean even more images online there... even more than on getty with all the StockXpert (non exclusive) images. But it would be hard to set the prices, because I don't think the IS exclusive would like to sell on subscriptions. Though they could sell their images on macro prices like on Getty if I understand correctly.

And they will get also Stockxpert. I don't know if Getty already owned another microstock agency than Istock? Do they allowed the IS exclusive to upload there?

That IS exclusives could upload to StockXpert and Photos.com would be interesting.

What bitter said was that Getty+Jupiter would mean something interesting for IS non-exlusives. Being one, I will be very interested to find out what he meant.

vonkara · « **Reply #42 on:** October 24, 2008, 00:44 »

Quote from: michaeldb on October 24, 2008, 00:18

What bitter said was that Getty+Jupiter would mean something interesting for IS non-exlusives. Being one, I will be very interested to find out what he meant.

Exactly, but I don't think he meant anything specific. We'll see, it will take a lot of time to see what will happen

runamock · « **Reply #43 on:** October 24, 2008, 05:51 »

Just wondering...how long before they make a bid for Shutterstock?

sharpshot · « **Reply #44 on:** October 24, 2008, 06:08 »

We will have to see what the plan is. Are the people who bought getty and jupiter images more interested in the traditional sites? If they are, they could sell off istock or StockXpert and they wont be interested in more microstock sites. Perhaps corbis will be more interested in SS, as they have so far failed to make an impression with snapvillage. Would the owners of SS want to sell when valuations are going to be low during an economic slow down? It might make more sense to keep SS until there is a recovery.

grp_photo · « **Reply #45 on:** October 24, 2008, 06:25 »

I only can imagine that they bought Jupiter to have more control over the market as a whole. They still make a lot more money with traditional stock so microstock and subscription can't be their primary interest. Also a site that pays 50% commission to the contributors is certainly not in their interest. They won't sell istock or StockXpert because it's better for them to have them (und us) under control. But i can foresee a slow death to StockXpert

hali · « **Reply #46 on:** October 24, 2008, 15:52 »

double entry oops

hali · « **Reply #47 on:** October 24, 2008, 15:56 »

Quote from: melastmohican on October 23, 2008, 16:46

It will take some time, maybe half a year to finalize this transaction but I guess it would end up like GM acquiring Chrysler. Cherry picking a good stuff and killing rest of the competitor :-)

argh, melastmohican, sharpshot , grp... you may all be so bright...
wasn't that how bill gates did at the beginning with microsoft ? get someone from apple? same with the auto makers buying over patents to battery-operated cars in the 80s and 90s, to stop production, and protect their gas driven interest.

why worry about competition when you have money?
you simply buy them and keep them in the can.
good point melastmohican, sharpshot , grp !

madelaide · « **Reply #48 on:** October 24, 2008, 18:31 »

Quote from: Vonkara on October 23, 2008, 10:37

I hope StockXpert will stay as it is or be better and not becoming a little Istock. The micros and macros industry is moving day after day, because it still a new industry in a way, let see what will happen

I hope that too! StockXpert is an excellent earner for me, their commission is much higher and the upload process is so fast. I haven't had too many problems with reviewers, with technical rejections that made sense, whereas in IS they see flaws I fail to understand. Not to mention the much more responsive staff, including Steve-Oh.

in many fields there are companies who own different brands and let them coexist - JI itself. Let's hope they leave StockXpert unchanged.

Regards,
Adelaide

hali · « **Reply #49 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.

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.

hali · « **Reply #75 on:** October 29, 2008, 13:09 »

Quote from: haap on October 29, 2008, 03:03

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.

that is true too. because buyers will feel you're unreliable. and they will lose contributors too.
IS is not exactly the model site , definitely not after dealing with StockXpert , who is very contributors (and i am sure buyers) communicative. Jupiter is also similarly communicative, which could explain StockXpert open culture.
let's hope for the best, and we will stay with StockXpert, and won't jump ship...
but only if we get shafted ... lol, i mean..shipped to IS.

lagereek · « **Reply #76 on:** November 06, 2008, 10:17 »

StockXpert is a great earner and it would be terrible to see it destroyed.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Getty Images to Acquire Jupiterimages (Read 27252 times)

jsnover

vonkara

bittersweet

lisafx

hali

bittersweet

bittersweet

bittersweet

bittersweet

hali

grp_photo

jsnover

bittersweet

bittersweet

vonkara

bittersweet

vonkara

vonkara

grp_photo

hali

hali

hali

RacePhoto

michealo

bittersweet

grp_photo

hali

hali

bittersweet

bittersweet

bittersweet

hali

lagereek

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors