MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Google trends on Istock, ShutterStock, Fotolia, Alamy, Getty  (Read 11290 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


dpimborough

« 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


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
4056 Views
Last post December 06, 2008, 09:16
by leaf
1 Replies
2293 Views
Last post April 30, 2010, 17:40
by oboy
0 Replies
1481 Views
Last post October 02, 2012, 03:04
by John W.
72 Replies
11821 Views
Last post December 08, 2013, 00:16
by Uncle Pete
13 Replies
3324 Views
Last post December 12, 2018, 08:34
by Brasilnut

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results