MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Google trends on Istock, ShutterStock, Fotolia, Alamy, Getty  (Read 11105 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: March 30, 2016, 11:06 »
+6
From time to time, I run google trends on our popular stock agencies names. It is quite interesting to see the changes over the time.
What is really strange though, is the presence or actually the absence of Alamy in those statistics. I know they are primarily in UK but anyway.

If you wanna check it out, here is the link : http://www.google.com/trends/explore?hl=en-US&q=istock,+shutterstock,+fotolia,+alamy&date=1/2005+133m&cmpt=q&tz=Etc/GMT-1&tz=Etc/GMT-1&content=1#q=istock%2C%20shutterstock%2C%20fotolia%2C%20Alamy&date=1%2F2005%20133m&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT-1

Any comments are welcome.



With Getty:


« Reply #1 on: March 30, 2016, 11:25 »
0
interesting. so what do you think this means to you???
to me, as clueless to graphs etc , i see that only constant is
1) ss keep rising
2) getty keep falling

now with the recent merger of editorial giants with ss, i think it is evident who will be
the new getty.
maybe there is a reason to all those rejections with ss.

what do you think? if only ss raise the earning for us, but still bring the cost to clients
of getty down... to mean ...  meeting somewhere in the middle,
it will still be able to beat getty and also give ss contributors a raise.

« Reply #2 on: March 30, 2016, 11:31 »
0
Thanks for sharing!

« Reply #3 on: March 30, 2016, 12:12 »
+3
fotolia is skewed because they are now adobe stock

Hongover

« Reply #4 on: March 30, 2016, 12:29 »
0
fotolia is skewed because they are now adobe stock

Agreed. Adobe Stock has nearly twice as much traffic as Fotolia right now. When you combine those numbers, it's on the rise.

« Reply #5 on: March 30, 2016, 12:47 »
+2
I wrote about this a couple of years ago, as the stats were quite revealing. I used the term Getty Images though instead of just Getty. This is the post.

http://www.microstockposts.com/agencies-whats-trending/

The table at the top of the post keeps updating until the present day.

« Reply #6 on: March 30, 2016, 13:41 »
+3
Wow. Is there anything to be made of the Getty graph? They've dropped off dramatically more than the micros have picked up. Is there another macro service that's made up for it?

« Reply #7 on: March 30, 2016, 13:54 »
+6
Wow. Is there anything to be made of the Getty graph? They've dropped off dramatically more than the micros have picked up. Is there another macro service that's made up for it?
I dont think so, my wife is a designer and I remember back then, Getty was for her a go to site for really good pictures for webdesign etc. After the micro picked almost the same RF content and quality she immediately switch to iStock, than later on to deposit, fotolia and shutterstock. I think this is what happened in the industry for tons of designers, bloggers etc.   

« Reply #8 on: March 31, 2016, 02:28 »
0
I upload to Fotalia but I have not worked out how to upload to Adobe Stock. Can someone let me know please?

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk


« Reply #9 on: March 31, 2016, 02:48 »
+1
I upload to Fotalia but I have not worked out how to upload to Adobe Stock. Can someone let me know please?

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

You can't! Just carry on uploading to FT and it will be automatically mirrored on Adobe Stock  :)

« Reply #10 on: March 31, 2016, 02:49 »
0
Thank you very much

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk


« Reply #11 on: March 31, 2016, 04:49 »
+3
Bear in mind SS is a $425million a year business and Alamy is 14million ($20.5million) size wise it's like comparing McDonalds with a Mom & Pop burger bar.

Last I read Getty were $800million per year.

Apples and oranges

« Last Edit: March 31, 2016, 04:51 by Teddy the Cat »

« Reply #12 on: March 31, 2016, 07:39 »
+1
Hello Teddy the cat
Your 'name' makes me smile. I own a huge Maine Coon cat whose name is Teddy.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk


« Reply #13 on: March 31, 2016, 08:52 »
+1
Pity!

I become a Getty contributor a year ago. Ten years late!
2006 was an exciting year for Getty contributors i think.

Someone from the golden years here in the group?

Best regards,

Martin

Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #14 on: March 31, 2016, 09:02 »
0
Wow. Is there anything to be made of the Getty graph? They've dropped off dramatically more than the micros have picked up. Is there another macro service that's made up for it?
I dont think so, my wife is a designer and I remember back then, Getty was for her a go to site for really good pictures for webdesign etc. After the micro picked almost the same RF content and quality she immediately switch to iStock, than later on to deposit, fotolia and shutterstock. I think this is what happened in the industry for tons of designers, bloggers etc.

Not only did it happen for tons of designers, it also happened to tons of photographers. Really good pictures for web designs went from $50-$75 to 0.50c - 0.75c overnight.

« Reply #15 on: March 31, 2016, 09:41 »
0
Bear in mind SS is a $425million a year business and Alamy is 14million ($20.5million) size wise it's like comparing McDonalds with a Mom & Pop burger bar.

Last I read Getty were $800million per year.

Apples and oranges
For me nothing to care, anyway my images are displayed on iS/getty, but "not available for sale", so i don't bother to upload

ShadySue

« Reply #16 on: March 31, 2016, 09:45 »
0
Bear in mind SS is a $425million a year business and Alamy is 14million ($20.5million) size wise it's like comparing McDonalds with a Mom & Pop burger bar.

Last I read Getty were $800million per year.

Apples and oranges
For me nothing to care, anyway my images are displayed on iS/getty, but "not available for sale", so i don't bother to upload

"Not available for sale" on iStock?
Or just not on Getty?
The former is a new issue/bug and should be reported to CR.
The second is a should have been foreseen side-effect of their Getty Plus scheme: stupid, but has been around for many months and isn't on their high-priority list to fix.


« Reply #17 on: March 31, 2016, 09:54 »
0
on Getty, didn't check iStock for a long time.
Some months ago i sent email to support, and it was not answered, as well as one email for previous issue, year ago

ShadySue

« Reply #18 on: March 31, 2016, 10:05 »
+1
on Getty, didn't check iStock for a long time.
Some months ago i sent email to support, and it was not answered, as well as one email for previous issue, year ago
OK, here is the explanation.
All iStock images are available to a subset of Getty buyers through a scheme called Getty Plus.
A side effect of that is that by Googling, the photos 'seem' to be available on Getty, but are unavailable, and there isn't a link to where the file CAN  be bought on iStock.

So, you might ask, why are they Googlable if they're not buyable via Google?
Shouldn't they only be findable inside Getty, and then only to the Chosen Sample of buyers?
Ha: as Cobalt said on another issue, don't expect logic from iS/Getty.

Tror

« Reply #19 on: March 31, 2016, 10:16 »
+4
Shutterstock is the only Agency which did not screw up with the Contributors.

This might be a lesson to learn for greedy investors messing with the community for the sake of some more Profit.

Istock lost its name through all the BS they produced as well as most of the others mentioned here.

EDIT: personally I started buying on istock in 2005. I recommended them to companies and opened accounts there for companies. After they introduced Photographer exclusivity I calmed down a bit. The concept is, excuse me very much, plain stupid. After Bruce left and they started to behave like **** and lie I switched to dreamstime and - still doing freelance stuff - took about 5 companies with me. Then I switched to Deposit and partially SS. I do not do freelance work anymore, but none of the companies is using istock anymore, but are splattered between SS, DT, DP etc.

If an agency messes with the royalty rate, hires "subjects" like Kelly Thompson, lies to me etc. I do my very best to drive customers away with word of mouth, action, help of opening accounts on other agencies, stop buying myself there, call some Ad Agencies I know or stray the word in etc.

Many are doing this and despite the opinion of the pessimists it is not without effect on the market position of those companies.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2016, 10:30 by Tror »

« Reply #20 on: March 31, 2016, 11:32 »
+4
Dreamstime and DP are horrid agencies too....so I would not brag so much about going to fair agencies......Shutterstock is the main reason we are all now in the deep mud....remember they pushed the eat as much as you can for peanuts.......

And for Istock.......well their greed (aka investors) is biting them back fiercely. They deserve what they got now because they destroyed not only their community of contributors but also the trust of buyers with their stupid price rises every other month........

For me they could all dissapear in a big black hole as they care a rat about "suppliers"........

Shutterstock is the only Agency which did not screw up with the Contributors.

This might be a lesson to learn for greedy investors messing with the community for the sake of some more Profit.

Istock lost its name through all the BS they produced as well as most of the others mentioned here.

EDIT: personally I started buying on istock in 2005. I recommended them to companies and opened accounts there for companies. After they introduced Photographer exclusivity I calmed down a bit. The concept is, excuse me very much, plain stupid. After Bruce left and they started to behave like **** and lie I switched to dreamstime and - still doing freelance stuff - took about 5 companies with me. Then I switched to Deposit and partially SS. I do not do freelance work anymore, but none of the companies is using istock anymore, but are splattered between SS, DT, DP etc.

If an agency messes with the royalty rate, hires "subjects" like Kelly Thompson, lies to me etc. I do my very best to drive customers away with word of mouth, action, help of opening accounts on other agencies, stop buying myself there, call some Ad Agencies I know or stray the word in etc.

Many are doing this and despite the opinion of the pessimists it is not without effect on the market position of those companies.

Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #21 on: March 31, 2016, 11:52 »
+2
Shutterstock is the main reason we are all now in the deep mud....remember they pushed the eat as much as you can for peanuts......."






« Last Edit: March 31, 2016, 11:55 by Rose Tinted Glasses »

« Reply #22 on: March 31, 2016, 11:54 »
0
For me they could all dissapear in a big black hole as they care a rat about "suppliers"........


careful what you wish...

for many here, like it or not, ss is still the main earner for them.
we still all make money there... maybe less with absence of the $28-102 single commissions
but still getting paid monthly.

until we find another agency that can replace the history of ss and stability,
(like Tror says rightly) the only one that did not screwup the contributors,

i think many still , unlike you, give r*t-ar$e for ss

« Reply #23 on: March 31, 2016, 11:55 »
0
You can't even compare DP to DT IMHO, even with the recent license debacle at DT.

« Reply #24 on: March 31, 2016, 12:14 »
0

« Reply #25 on: March 31, 2016, 12:35 »
0
on Getty, didn't check iStock for a long time.
Some months ago i sent email to support, and it was not answered, as well as one email for previous issue, year ago
OK, here is the explanation.
All iStock images are available to a subset of Getty buyers through a scheme called Getty Plus.
A side effect of that is that by Googling, the photos 'seem' to be available on Getty, but are unavailable, and there isn't a link to where the file CAN  be bought on iStock.

So, you might ask, why are they Googlable if they're not buyable via Google?
Shouldn't they only be findable inside Getty, and then only to the Chosen Sample of buyers?
Ha: as Cobalt said on another issue, don't expect logic from iS/Getty.

Thanks for the explanation.  An even better question would be, if the images are viewable on Getty, why don't they just SELL them on Getty?  The days when iStock exclusivity meant anything are long gone.  Why not just fully integrate the Getty and Istock content?

ShadySue

« Reply #26 on: March 31, 2016, 12:51 »
0
on Getty, didn't check iStock for a long time.
Some months ago i sent email to support, and it was not answered, as well as one email for previous issue, year ago
OK, here is the explanation.
All iStock images are available to a subset of Getty buyers through a scheme called Getty Plus.
A side effect of that is that by Googling, the photos 'seem' to be available on Getty, but are unavailable, and there isn't a link to where the file CAN  be bought on iStock.

So, you might ask, why are they Googlable if they're not buyable via Google?
Shouldn't they only be findable inside Getty, and then only to the Chosen Sample of buyers?
Ha: as Cobalt said on another issue, don't expect logic from iS/Getty.

Thanks for the explanation.  An even better question would be, if the images are viewable on Getty, why don't they just SELL them on Getty?  The days when iStock exclusivity meant anything are long gone.  Why not just fully integrate the Getty and Istock content?
It so happened I discovered this week a whole lot of pics on a Getty search which I was pretty shocked by. Turns out they were snapshots from Eyeem. Unbelievable, and a real slap on the face, given that for many months they have reneged and postponed their promise to mirror exclusive Editorial files on Getty.
Still, be careful what we wish for, as my Getty sales are often for less $$ than my few remaining credit sales on iStock.


« Reply #27 on: March 31, 2016, 12:52 »
+4
In the boom years people were making $20-25,000 a month on average travel pics, more on lifestyle pics.

Then came micro which devalued the whole industry, and Shutterstock was the King at that. People think Shutterstock is some great agency but they have done more damage than anyone else.

Just imagine you were earning $250,000 a year, living a great life, nice house, nice lifestyle then Micro comes along and you find yourself earning $10,000 a year!


Pity!

I become a Getty contributor a year ago. Ten years late!
2006 was an exciting year for Getty contributors i think.

Someone from the golden years here in the group?

Best regards,

Martin

« Reply #28 on: March 31, 2016, 12:57 »
+1

Just imagine you were earning $250,000 a year, living a great life, nice house, nice lifestyle then Micro comes along and you find yourself earning $10,000

I don't have to imagine.  People that used to earn solid 6 figures in micro are in a similar boat.  And the newbs wonder why some of us complain so much...

« Reply #29 on: March 31, 2016, 16:22 »
+3
In the boom years people were making $20-25,000 a month on average travel pics, more on lifestyle pics.

Then came micro which devalued the whole industry, and Shutterstock was the King at that. People think Shutterstock is some great agency but they have done more damage than anyone else.

Just imagine you were earning $250,000 a year, living a great life, nice house, nice lifestyle then Micro comes along and you find yourself earning $10,000 a year!


Pity!

I become a Getty contributor a year ago. Ten years late!
2006 was an exciting year for Getty contributors i think.

Someone from the golden years here in the group?

Best regards,

Martin

Do you blame Amazon for ruining electronic store business, Toyota for ruining the American auto industry, eBay for ruining the auction market, or maybe cell phones for ruining long distance companies business. Times change, we don't shoot film and mail slides to agencies. I can take a photo of rain in NY and send it to Tokyo before the sidewalk dries.

Not only does averybody own a good digital camera or could, they now own 4K video phone that take 8MP photos with acceptable quality.

Without Shutterstock your whipping boy for the industry, nothing would be different. This is technology, communications and the world market. iStock started this, the rest did a better job of marketing to the masses. You can't have a false value when the production of photos has become accessable to anybody who wants it.

Blame technology and competition, not Shutterstock.

Tror

« Reply #30 on: March 31, 2016, 16:29 »
0
Dreamstime and DP are horrid agencies too....so I would not brag so much about going to fair agencies......


I`m talking about history. Back in those days DT paid 50% flat and had fair prices. No subs yet if I remember correctly. DP hasn`t shown its nasty face yet. They even paid for uploads.

« Reply #31 on: March 31, 2016, 17:59 »
+7
...DP hasn`t shown its nasty face yet. They even paid for uploads.


Are you referring to Deposit Photos or was that a typo? Deposit Photos has an abysmal track record of saying one thing and doing another. The Shotshop mess being a prime example, but the various schemes that offer people preferential search placement if they upload their portfolio (which is inherently a scam as they keep offering it and you can't have a preference for all the contributors you sell that line to) and cutting royalty rates while they raised prices.

That face looks pretty nasty to me

« Reply #32 on: April 01, 2016, 01:45 »
+2
"In the boom years people were making $20-25,000 a month on average travel pics, more on lifestyle pics." That was never going to be sustainable was it? Celebrate the good times now get real

Tror

« Reply #33 on: April 01, 2016, 02:44 »
+1
...DP hasn`t shown its nasty face yet. They even paid for uploads.


Are you referring to Deposit Photos or was that a typo? Deposit Photos has an abysmal track record of saying one thing and doing another. The Shotshop mess being a prime example, but the various schemes that offer people preferential search placement if they upload their portfolio (which is inherently a scam as they keep offering it and you can't have a preference for all the contributors you sell that line to) and cutting royalty rates while they raised prices.

That face looks pretty nasty to me


jeepers creepers! Is it that english is not my native language or do you people just not read properly? I AM TALKING ABOUT HISTORY!!!!! BACK WHEN DREAMSTIME AND DEPOSITPHOTOS OPENED YEARS AGO. NOT TODAY! The shotshop debacle was years later as well as their lies.

If you read the original thread I was telling my "carreer" of switching from one agency to another as a buyer. I switched to DT as a buyer around 2007/2008. That is a year and it happened in the past . One attribute of things that happened in the past is that other things happened afterwards ;D ::) :o Not sure how I can make it more clear loool
« Last Edit: April 01, 2016, 02:50 by Tror »

« Reply #34 on: April 01, 2016, 03:54 »
+2
...DP hasn`t shown its nasty face yet. They even paid for uploads.


Are you referring to Deposit Photos or was that a typo? Deposit Photos has an abysmal track record of saying one thing and doing another. The Shotshop mess being a prime example, but the various schemes that offer people preferential search placement if they upload their portfolio (which is inherently a scam as they keep offering it and you can't have a preference for all the contributors you sell that line to) and cutting royalty rates while they raised prices.

That face looks pretty nasty to me


jeepers creepers! Is it that english is not my native language or do you people just not read properly? I AM TALKING ABOUT HISTORY!!!!! BACK WHEN DREAMSTIME AND DEPOSITPHOTOS OPENED YEARS AGO. NOT TODAY! The shotshop debacle was years later as well as their lies.

If you read the original thread I was telling my "carreer" of switching from one agency to another as a buyer. I switched to DT as a buyer around 2007/2008. That is a year and it happened in the past . One attribute of things that happened in the past is that other things happened afterwards ;D ::) :o Not sure how I can make it more clear loool

It's ok even native English speakers make mistakes. It would have been a lot less effort for you to just correct yourself instead of ranting needlessly, but some people prefer to rant at others than correct themselves. Allow me to correct you. Your sentence should have read like this. DP hadn't shown its nasty face yet.

Tror

« Reply #35 on: April 01, 2016, 05:52 »
+1
...DP hasn`t shown its nasty face yet. They even paid for uploads.


Are you referring to Deposit Photos or was that a typo? Deposit Photos has an abysmal track record of saying one thing and doing another. The Shotshop mess being a prime example, but the various schemes that offer people preferential search placement if they upload their portfolio (which is inherently a scam as they keep offering it and you can't have a preference for all the contributors you sell that line to) and cutting royalty rates while they raised prices.

That face looks pretty nasty to me


jeepers creepers! Is it that english is not my native language or do you people just not read properly? I AM TALKING ABOUT HISTORY!!!!! BACK WHEN DREAMSTIME AND DEPOSITPHOTOS OPENED YEARS AGO. NOT TODAY! The shotshop debacle was years later as well as their lies.

If you read the original thread I was telling my "carreer" of switching from one agency to another as a buyer. I switched to DT as a buyer around 2007/2008. That is a year and it happened in the past . One attribute of things that happened in the past is that other things happened afterwards ;D ::) :o Not sure how I can make it more clear loool

It's ok even native English speakers make mistakes. It would have been a lot less effort for you to just correct yourself instead of ranting needlessly, but some people prefer to rant at others than correct themselves. Allow me to correct you. Your sentence should have read like this. DP hadn't shown its nasty face yet.


Thanks for the correction. Guess I was in ranting mood :-)

« Reply #36 on: April 01, 2016, 06:01 »
0
...DP hasn`t shown its nasty face yet. They even paid for uploads.


Are you referring to Deposit Photos or was that a typo? Deposit Photos has an abysmal track record of saying one thing and doing another. The Shotshop mess being a prime example, but the various schemes that offer people preferential search placement if they upload their portfolio (which is inherently a scam as they keep offering it and you can't have a preference for all the contributors you sell that line to) and cutting royalty rates while they raised prices.

That face looks pretty nasty to me


jeepers creepers! Is it that english is not my native language or do you people just not read properly? I AM TALKING ABOUT HISTORY!!!!! BACK WHEN DREAMSTIME AND DEPOSITPHOTOS OPENED YEARS AGO. NOT TODAY! The shotshop debacle was years later as well as their lies.

If you read the original thread I was telling my "carreer" of switching from one agency to another as a buyer. I switched to DT as a buyer around 2007/2008. That is a year and it happened in the past . One attribute of things that happened in the past is that other things happened afterwards ;D ::) :o Not sure how I can make it more clear loool

It's ok even native English speakers make mistakes. It would have been a lot less effort for you to just correct yourself instead of ranting needlessly, but some people prefer to rant at others than correct themselves. Allow me to correct you. Your sentence should have read like this. DP hadn't shown its nasty face yet.


Thanks for the correction. Guess I was in ranting mood :-)

No worries. I have been in that mood on the odd occasion myself.  ::)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
4035 Views
Last post December 06, 2008, 09:16
by leaf
1 Replies
2249 Views
Last post April 30, 2010, 17:40
by oboy
0 Replies
1443 Views
Last post October 02, 2012, 03:04
by John W.
72 Replies
11716 Views
Last post December 08, 2013, 00:16
by Uncle Pete
13 Replies
3058 Views
Last post December 12, 2018, 08:34
by Brasilnut

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results