Author Topic: Getty will be eating dust soon - yeah right (Read 12187 times)

Noodles · « **on:** February 05, 2009, 03:51 »

http://www.smartmoney.com/Spending/Technology/Small-Business-How-to-Beat-a-Goliath/

The devoted SS groupies are patting Jon on the back right now but as quoted in the comments, sloppy reporting.

leaf · « **Reply #1 on:** February 05, 2009, 04:54 »

well it is nice for shutterstock to get some press.

I can't see the need for the article to necessarily mention istock. The article isn't a history of microstock, or an industry wide summary of it, it is just a profile of shutterstock.

But I am not sure Gety (iStock) will be left in the dust any time soon, Corbis on the other hand....

RT · « **Reply #2 on:** February 05, 2009, 06:06 »

I see this as more of an advertisement article for Shutterstock rather than a report on the industry, as others have stated there's no true facts and figures other than what has obviously been provided to the reporter by Shutterstock themselves.

I'd imagine the top brass at Getty and iStockphoto read it and tossed it in the bin laughing to themselves.

bittersweet · « **Reply #3 on:** February 05, 2009, 08:48 »

While it doesn't purport to be a history of microstock, the wording was carefully chosen to imply that his idea was an original one that popped into his head when he "noticed" the pricing at the macro firms. This is somewhat expect for press releases or marketing hype, not "journalism".

But anyone who really cares already knows the truth, so I think it just looks a little silly.

caspixel · « **Reply #4 on:** February 05, 2009, 10:05 »

Quote from: whatalife on February 05, 2009, 08:48

But anyone who really cares

Buyers don't care. The only people who care are the iStock cultists.

I think it's funny that so many have their knickers in a twist over that stupid article.

IStock *could* have been featured in that article, because it almost did beat a goliath...until it sold out to one.

null · « **Reply #5 on:** February 05, 2009, 10:09 »

Oringer didn't invent microstock, but he DID invent the subscription model, with fabulous success.
There are 3 geniuses in microstock: Enache, Oringer and the guy that sold iStock to Getty, nipping now on his tequila near the pool on the Bahamas.

tan510jomast · « **Reply #6 on:** February 05, 2009, 10:35 »

Quote from: whatalife on February 05, 2009, 08:48

While it doesn't purport to be a history of microstock, the wording was carefully chosen to imply that his idea was an original one that popped into his head when he "noticed" the pricing at the macro firms. This is somewhat expect for press releases or marketing hype, not "journalism".

But anyone who really cares already knows the truth, so I think it just looks a little silly.

not just marketing hype. also, when was the last time i read those same headliner words.... laughing at GIANTS like Getty or Corbis ?
Hmm, wasn't it PhotoShelter?

If anything, i think SS would price themselves out of business to giving it all free.
But I am a newbie, so don't listen to me

bittersweet · « **Reply #7 on:** February 05, 2009, 10:46 »

Quote from: caspixel on February 05, 2009, 10:05

Quote from: whatalife on February 05, 2009, 08:48

But anyone who really cares
Buyers don't care.

Finally you understand my point.

caspixel · « **Reply #8 on:** February 05, 2009, 10:54 »

Quote from: whatalife on February 05, 2009, 10:46

Quote from: caspixel on February 05, 2009, 10:05
Quote from: whatalife on February 05, 2009, 08:48

But anyone who really cares
Buyers don't care.

Finally you understand my point.

Finally I understand what point?

My point is that buyers see who is no longer "microstock". They don't care who started it. The minute iStock sold out to Getty, they were on their way towards "midstock".

I certainly don't blame Bruce for doing it. If I had the chance to make millions immediately from my brain child, I'd do it in a heartbeat. I just wish iStock would stop pretending they actually cared about the buyers. Every time I see a post on their forum that acts like they have the best interests of the buyers at heart (like that one in which they added credits to the smallest credit package, the "you asked and we listened" BS) it makes me want to puke. If they actually came out and said, "our parent company is requiring that we raise the prices to milk they buyers for as much money as we possibly can, we are no longer the mavericks we pretend to be but are beholden to the stockholders and our parent company", I'd sure respect them a whole lot more. But all this fakey-fakey concern about how I spend my money just grates on my nerves.

jsnover · « **Reply #9 on:** February 05, 2009, 12:55 »

Quote from: FlemishDreams on February 05, 2009, 10:09

Oringer didn't invent microstock, but he DID invent the subscription model, with fabulous success.

Other stock agencies, notably Jupiter Images, might take issue with that. Subscriptions had been in place for royalty free stock before SS brought them to microstock.

Jon Oringer's a great businessman; I'm not taking any issue with anyone writing up his success. I do take issue with the bucketloads of factual errors in a sloppily reported story.

gostwyck · « **Reply #10 on:** February 05, 2009, 13:51 »

Quote from: jsnover on February 05, 2009, 12:55

I do take issue with the bucketloads of factual errors in a sloppily reported story.

Jo Ann,

Please can you point out just a few of the 'factual errors' out of the 'bucketloads' you have identified? I'm struggling to see any at all.

Despite all the hysteria on the IS forum I think it is quite a reasonable article. (NB: Is it actually part of the contract as an admin or inspector to rush out and and post appropriate woo-yahs or boo-hisses when called upon? Surely that sort of behaviour is far more myopic and biased?).

As far as I'm concerned Jon Oringer has arguably been more responsible than any other individual for the 'invention' of microstock. It was because of his aggressive marketing and referral programme that I first became aware of microstock (via a cheeky referral on Fred Miranda). I only found out about IS later, ironically enough, from the SS forums.

In over 4 years with SS I've sold more licenses than I have on IS, DT and FT combined.

SS was the first micro agency to offer subscriptions and most of the others have followed with their own versions but nothing like as successfully.

SS was the first micro agency to be available in multiple languages __ again most of the others have followed suit.

SS was the first micro agency to offer video footage __ again most of the others have followed suit.

SS was the first micro agency to offer editorial images. Quite a few have followed them.

SS is the first micro agency to arrange access and press passes to newsworthy events, etc.

jsnover · « **Reply #11 on:** February 05, 2009, 14:12 »

When I get a minute I'll try to get back to this but I have to leave shortly.

shank_ali · « **Reply #12 on:** February 05, 2009, 15:26 »

Just scroll down on the link to Matt Heimer's (editor - Smart money) responce and all becomes clear.

loop · « **Reply #13 on:** February 05, 2009, 17:39 »

Caspixel dixit:

I just wish iStock would stop pretending they actually cared about the buyers. Every time I see a post on their forum that acts like they have the best interests of the buyers at heart (like that one in which they added credits to the smallest credit package, the "you asked and we listened" BS) it makes me want to puke.

My answer:

Don't puke, please, but remember that thanks to istock, which created the concept of microstock, buyers can buy today photos and graphics for ten to fifty times less money that they used to cost 8-9 years ago before Bruce created istock. That is something that you seem to forget constantly.

loop · « **Reply #14 on:** February 05, 2009, 17:45 »

Quote from: gostwyck on February 05, 2009, 13:51

Quote from: jsnover on February 05, 2009, 12:55
I do take issue with the bucketloads of factual errors in a sloppily reported story.

Jo Ann,

Please can you point out just a few of the 'factual errors' out of the 'bucketloads' you have identified? I'm struggling to see any at all.

Despite all the hysteria on the IS forum I think it is quite a reasonable article. (NB: Is it actually part of the contract as an admin or inspector to rush out and and post appropriate woo-yahs or boo-hisses when called upon? Surely that sort of behaviour is far more myopic and biased?).

As far as I'm concerned Jon Oringer has arguably been more responsible than any other individual for the 'invention' of microstock. It was because of his aggressive marketing and referral programme that I first became aware of microstock (via a cheeky referral on Fred Miranda). I only found out about IS later, ironically enough, from the SS forums.

In over 4 years with SS I've sold more licenses than I have on IS, DT and FT combined.

SS was the first micro agency to offer subscriptions and most of the others have followed with their own versions but nothing like as successfully.

SS was the first micro agency to be available in multiple languages __ again most of the others have followed suit.

SS was the first micro agency to offer video footage __ again most of the others have followed suit.

SS was the first micro agency to offer editorial images. Quite a few have followed them.

SS is the first micro agency to arrange access and press passes to newsworthy events, etc.

Yes SS applied all these concepts, already existing in traidtional stockfor years, to the real new concept created by istock.

jsnover · « **Reply #15 on:** February 05, 2009, 17:56 »

Some of the errors I noticed in Smart Money's article:

"The stock-photo industry has two main branches. There’s the royalty-paying segment, for distinctive copyrighted photos like ..." I assume they're struggling to describe rights managed licensing

"Then there is the less arty, rights-free segment for ordinary images..." I assume they mean royalty-free. I've never seen the term "rights-free" used anywhere else.

"He also used the Internet to do “crowdsourcing”—making an open call for content. " Shutterstock was not open to anyone back when it was founded in 2003, it was only in October 2004 when it became clear he needed more volume that SS was opened for outsiders to submit. You can read a quote from SS about this in this article if you want more than my word for it. I joined SS in late October 2004 after reading that article.

"While Shutterstock and other so-called microstock houses like iStockphoto and Fotolia stole market share..." This makes it sound as though all this was happening at the same time, which isn't so. IS was around before SS and FT didn't start accepting submissions until the fall of 2005 and it didn't really start to gain any traction until Spring 2006.

"But Shutterstock’s technological head start helped it to build a thriving business..." This is misleading. SS didn't invent stock subscriptions, Photos.com was there several years earlier. SS didn't invent microstock, it tried to find a way to compete with IS and found subscriptions were the way to do that. SS had very primitive technology at the beginning (I was uploading while they tried to get FTP working; it was painful, although they get kudos for offering FTP and later, stored model releases). FT was the real leader in breaking into the non-English speaking market.

I wouldn't argue that SS is a thriving business, but I don't think it's got squat to do with a technological head start.

And as far as your snide comments on Smart Money's site about the objections coming from IS exclusives who have a vested interest, that's just unpleasant. I was an independent until last August and I objected because I was around for most of this and the story got it wrong. Impugning my motives is just a weak argument to make in rebutting any criticism.

caspixel · « **Reply #16 on:** February 06, 2009, 00:59 »

Quote from: loop on February 05, 2009, 17:39

Quote from: link=topic=7001.msg82893#msg82893 date=1233841711

I just wish iStock would stop pretending they actually cared about the buyers. Every time I see a post on their forum that acts like they have the best interests of the buyers at heart (like that one in which they added credits to the smallest credit package, the "you asked and we listened" BS) it makes me want to puke.

Don't puke, please, but remember that thanks to istock, which created the concept of microstock, buyers can buy today photos and graphics for ten to fifty times less money that they used to cost 8-9 years ago before Bruce created istock. That is something that you seem to forget constantly.

If Bruce didn't do it, someone else would have. Oh, BTW, I was buying inexpensive photos and clipart on clipart.com (a subscription model) before I ever discovered iStock.

I think now, I'm going to use the new "ignore" feature. It's going to feel gooood. Thanks for your great customer service!

bittersweet · « **Reply #17 on:** February 06, 2009, 01:21 »

What the heck?? I don't know how caspixel's quote got attributed to me, but please edit your posts to correct it.

caspixel · « **Reply #18 on:** February 06, 2009, 01:25 »

Quote from: whatalife on February 06, 2009, 01:21

What the heck?? I don't know how Carolynne's quote got attributed to me, but please edit your posts to correct it.

Please don't use my first name. I don't mind if my friends do, but, well, I don't consider you a friend. And since I don't know your first name, I find it quite rude.

loop · « **Reply #19 on:** February 06, 2009, 07:50 »

Quote from: caspixel on February 06, 2009, 01:25

Quote from: whatalife on February 06, 2009, 01:21
What the heck?? I don't know how Carolynne's quote got attributed to me, but please edit your posts to correct it.
Please don't use my first name. I don't mind if my friends do, but, well, I don't consider you a friend. And since I don't know your first name, I find it quite rude.

Oh, my god.

bittersweet · « **Reply #20 on:** February 06, 2009, 09:21 »

Quote from: caspixel on February 06, 2009, 01:25

Quote from: whatalife on February 06, 2009, 01:21
What the heck?? I don't know how Carolynne's quote got attributed to me, but please edit your posts to correct it.
Please don't use my first name. I don't mind if my friends do, but, well, I don't consider you a friend. And since I don't know your first name, I find it quite rude.

Classic. I edited my post. Please return the courtesy and remove my name from your attempts to hijack this thread into yet another diatribe on the evils of istock.

Loop, I think the quote originally got messed up in your post (Reply #13). The wrong name got deleted and mine was left there attached to caspixel's statements. I would appreciate it if you would fix that so that there is no confusion about who said what. Thanks!

caspixel · « **Reply #21 on:** February 06, 2009, 09:39 »

Quote from: whatalife on February 06, 2009, 09:21

Quote from: caspixel on February 06, 2009, 01:25
Quote from: whatalife on February 06, 2009, 01:21
What the heck?? I don't know how Carolynne's quote got attributed to me, but please edit your posts to correct it.
Please don't use my first name. I don't mind if my friends do, but, well, I don't consider you a friend. And since I don't know your first name, I find it quite rude.

Classic. I edited my post. Please return the courtesy and remove my name from your attempts to hijack this thread into yet another diatribe on the evils of istock.

Loop, I think the quote originally got messed up in your post. The wrong name got deleted and mine was left there attached to caspixel's statements. I would appreciate it if you would fix that so that there is no confusion about who said what. Thanks!

Good. Now that that's done, I'll be using the new ignore feature again. Thanks!

bittersweet · « **Reply #22 on:** February 06, 2009, 09:54 »

Quote from: caspixel on February 06, 2009, 09:39

Quote from: whatalife on February 06, 2009, 09:21
Quote from: caspixel on February 06, 2009, 01:25
Quote from: whatalife on February 06, 2009, 01:21
What the heck?? I don't know how Carolynne's quote got attributed to me, but please edit your posts to correct it.
Please don't use my first name. I don't mind if my friends do, but, well, I don't consider you a friend. And since I don't know your first name, I find it quite rude.

Classic. I edited my post. Please return the courtesy and remove my name from your attempts to hijack this thread into yet another diatribe on the evils of istock.

Loop, I think the quote originally got messed up in your post. The wrong name got deleted and mine was left there attached to caspixel's statements. I would appreciate it if you would fix that so that there is no confusion about who said what. Thanks!
Good. Now that that's done, I'll be using the new ignore feature again. Thanks!

Awesome! Glad to hear it!

null · « **Reply #23 on:** February 06, 2009, 10:05 »

Cool it down guys and gals, life is too short to biatch around

There should be a good article around about the history of microstock. If not, is there a Lee Torrens in the audience?

loop · « **Reply #24 on:** February 06, 2009, 10:14 »

Quote from: whatalife on February 06, 2009, 09:21

Quote from: caspixel on February 06, 2009, 01:25
Quote from: whatalife on February 06, 2009, 01:21
What the heck?? I don't know how Carolynne's quote got attributed to me, but please edit your posts to correct it.
Please don't use my first name. I don't mind if my friends do, but, well, I don't consider you a friend. And since I don't know your first name, I find it quite rude.

Classic. I edited my post. Please return the courtesy and remove my name from your attempts to hijack this thread into yet another diatribe on the evils of istock.

Loop, I think the quote originally got messed up in your post (Reply #13). The wrong name got deleted and mine was left there attached to caspixel's statements. I would appreciate it if you would fix that so that there is no confusion about who said what. Thanks!

Done, whatalife. I deleted some of the text to make the quote shorter and to the point I wanted to comment and I didn't notice what happened. I'm sorry, accept my apologies, I neither would like to see this kind of comment associated to my name.

bittersweet · « **Reply #25 on:** February 06, 2009, 10:30 »

Thank you, Loop!

Now... back to Getty and the dust eating.

Lee Torrens · « **Reply #26 on:** February 06, 2009, 10:32 »

Quote from: FlemishDreams on February 06, 2009, 10:05

Cool it down guys and gals, life is too short to biatch around

There should be a good article around about the history of microstock. If not, is there a Lee Torrens in the audience?

I think it's time to dust of my old draft post titled 'Microstock for the Mainstream Press'. Maybe an industry timeline to accompany it - good idea.

null · « **Reply #27 on:** February 06, 2009, 11:23 »

Quote from: Lee Torrens on February 06, 2009, 10:32

I think it's time to dust of my old draft post titled 'Microstock for the Mainstream Press'. Maybe an industry timeline to accompany it - good idea.

A graphic timeline would be fantastic and most instructive. I loved the graphic timeline in the Economist or WSJ of the banking crisis last year. It was very instructive to see who toppled who and when. You could also represent the agencies by bars according to # pictures online as measure for their size. The Wayback machine can help.

ichiro17 · « **Reply #28 on:** February 06, 2009, 11:30 »

I like iStock. I think they have a sustainable model. And it works well and people are paying more and more and still getting what they want at a reasonable price.

SS doesn't have a reasonable model. Its not sustainable and thats why they introduced the per-download model instead. Both earn the most for me, alternating who earns more on a monthly basis.

In the end, I just want more money. Who's going to give that to me?

gostwyck · « **Reply #29 on:** February 06, 2009, 11:31 »

Quote from: jsnover on February 05, 2009, 17:56

Some of the errors I noticed in Smart Money's article:

"The stock-photo industry has two main branches. There’s the royalty-paying segment, for distinctive copyrighted photos like ..." I assume they're struggling to describe rights managed licensing

You 'assume' do you? That's hardly a 'factual error' is it?

"Then there is the less arty, rights-free segment for ordinary images..." I assume they mean royalty-free. I've never seen the term "rights-free" used anywhere else.

You 'assume' again. No factual error.

"He also used the Internet to do “crowdsourcing”—making an open call for content. " Shutterstock was not open to anyone back when it was founded in 2003, it was only in October 2004 when it became clear he needed more volume that SS was opened for outsiders to submit. You can read a quote from SS about this in this article if you want more than my word for it. I joined SS in late October 2004 after reading that article.

He did use crowdsourcing from Oct 2004. The article does not give a timescale so no 'factual error'

"While Shutterstock and other so-called microstock houses like iStockphoto and Fotolia stole market share..." This makes it sound as though all this was happening at the same time, which isn't so. IS was around before SS and FT didn't start accepting submissions until the fall of 2005 and it didn't really start to gain any traction until Spring 2006.

The article does not mention who started first and it is certainly true that all 3 agencies were operating together so again no 'factual error'

"But Shutterstock’s technological head start helped it to build a thriving business..." This is misleading. SS didn't invent stock subscriptions, Photos.com was there several years earlier. SS didn't invent microstock, it tried to find a way to compete with IS and found subscriptions were the way to do that. SS had very primitive technology at the beginning (I was uploading while they tried to get FTP working; it was painful, although they get kudos for offering FTP and later, stored model releases). FT was the real leader in breaking into the non-English speaking market.

What's misleading? Once again you're attempting to claim that the article states facts that it clearly does not __ you're simply using your own misleading interpretations to make judgements. No factual error.

I wouldn't argue that SS is a thriving business, but I don't think it's got squat to do with a technological head start.

And as far as your snide comments on Smart Money's site about the objections coming from IS exclusives who have a vested interest, that's just unpleasant. I was an independent until last August and I objected because I was around for most of this and the story got it wrong. Impugning my motives is just a weak argument to make in rebutting any criticism.

Hardly. If anyone's being 'snide' then it has to be those who are making wild, inaccurate claims that they cannot validate __ whilst not happening to mention that they've got a strong vested interest in another agency.

I don't see that you've identified a single 'factual error' so far __ let alone 'bucketloads'. They could probably sue you for libel for making such absurd accusations and, if that's the best you can come up with, you wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

The article isn't a PhD thesis on the entire history of microstock __ it's a brief, newsy interview with one of the guys at the foremost of the microstock industry. It's also written for a general financial-oriented readership, not microstock photographers, so naturally they have to give light explainations of the different types of license, etc. I think they did quite well.

ichiro17 · « **Reply #30 on:** February 06, 2009, 11:39 »

No wonder this is getting heated. Whenever you have an author, right or wrong, you are going to get some bias points of view in a public forum. Why can't we all just get along?

PS - don't write articles and subject yourself to public forums if you don't want criticisms

Eco · « **Reply #31 on:** February 06, 2009, 11:44 »

This post now takes on the likes of the useless Canon vs. Nikon debates on another well known forum. The pro SS crowd vs. the pro IS crowd, along the lines of my daddy have a bigger, faster car than your daddy. All we now need is to involve some of the active Alamy forum members that despise microstock in all its forms to demonstrate to us with “facts” how microstock has killed the stock industry.

I think it is time to lock this ridiculous discussion.

tuilay · « **Reply #32 on:** February 06, 2009, 12:07 »

Quote from: Eco on February 06, 2009, 11:44

This post now takes on the likes of the useless Canon vs. Nikon debates on another well known forum. The pro SS crowd vs. the pro IS crowd, along the lines of my daddy have a bigger, faster car than your daddy. All we now need is to involve some of the active Alamy forum members that despise microstock in all its forms to demonstrate to us with “facts” how microstock has killed the stock industry.

I think it is time to lock this ridiculous discussion.

ironic , i just came from another topic and gostwyck was there too.
gost, are you and whatalife some Istock mafia always coming in here to cyberbully another who disagrees with IS?

oh, attaching wiki's cyberbullying..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber-bullying

gostwyck · « **Reply #33 on:** February 06, 2009, 12:26 »

Quote from: tuilay on February 06, 2009, 12:07

ironic , i just came from another topic and gostwyck was there too.
gost, are you and whatalife some Istock mafia always coming in here to cyberbully another who disagrees with IS?

oh, attaching wiki's cyberbullying..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber-bullying

I see you're brand new here. This is called a 'forum' __ it's a place where folk come to discuss issues and sometimes they might have opposing views to each other. That's OK. Here's a Wki link for you being as you seem to like them so much;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_forum

If you'd actually this thread then you would be aware that I'm anything but an 'Istock mafia' __ as an indepedent contributor I'm quite the reverse in fact.

Have you any views regarding the topics of the threads on which you have added your irrelevant Wiki links?

tuilay · « **Reply #34 on:** February 06, 2009, 12:39 »

Quote from: gostwyck on February 06, 2009, 12:26

Quote from: tuilay on February 06, 2009, 12:07

ironic , i just came from another topic and gostwyck was there too.
gost, are you and whatalife some Istock mafia always coming in here to cyberbully another who disagrees with IS?

oh, attaching wiki's cyberbullying..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber-bullying

I see you're brand new here. This is called a 'forum' __ it's a place where folk come to discuss issues and sometimes they might have opposing views to each other. That's OK. Here's a Wki link for you being as you seem to like them so much;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_forum

If you'd actually this thread then you would be aware that I'm anything but an 'Istock mafia' __ as an indepedent contributor I'm quite the reverse in fact.

Have you any views regarding the topics of the threads on which you have added your irrelevant Wiki links?

i am not brand new. check the forum for Tuilay. I am familiar with your spiel of cyberbullying.
Dont' give me that ignorant schmuck attitude.

reathe agreement you sign when you came into this forum:

READ YOUR AGREEMENT...that you agree when you join this forum:
You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, adult material, or otherwise in violation of any International or United States Federal law.

caspixel · « **Reply #35 on:** February 06, 2009, 13:52 »

It's interesting to me that when anyone dares to suggest that increasing prices might also correlate with decreasing sales that some people get so personally offended and feel the need to resort to attacks on the messenger. Are they afraid deep down that there might be some truth to this?

Or, back to the original topic, that some perceived "inaccuracies" in an article is a deliberate slight to iStock.

I'm also wondering how many people would be selling photos if it wasn't for all the small time designers who made microstock what it is today. Or is everyone also a contributor to Jupiter, Getty, and the like?

And one final point...without inexpensive imagery, designers could still design. They've been doing it long before microstock came along. But without designers, would there be enough people to sustain your sales?

RacePhoto · « **Reply #36 on:** February 06, 2009, 14:08 »

Quote from: caspixel on February 05, 2009, 10:05

Buyers don't care. The only people who care are the iStock cultists. I think it's funny that so many have their knickers in a twist over that stupid article.

IStock *could* have been featured in that article, because it almost did beat a goliath...until it sold out to one.

Is that you Bateleur? Guess not if you are Carolynne.

IS and SS will do fine, it's the rest that may start to see things developing into a two site competition.

Buyer Q: What do you offer that IS or SS don't provide.
Other sites A: Nothing, we have all the same photographers and photos.
(except the IS exclusives of course, but they have spouses and room mates that shoot the same material by co-incidence, and it's for sale on the other sites.)

Buyer Q: Why should we buy from you then?
Other site A: Because we think you are stupid and will fail to recognize that we offer less photos and little or nothing distinctive.

Buyer Q: Do you offer anything that IS and SS don't gve us?
Other site A: Oh yes... Higher prices.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Getty will be eating dust soon - yeah right (Read 12187 times)

Noodles

bittersweet

tan510jomast

bittersweet

jsnover

jsnover

shank_ali

jsnover

bittersweet

bittersweet

bittersweet

bittersweet

tuilay

tuilay

RacePhoto

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors