MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Kelly Thompson to 500PX  (Read 12182 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.



« Reply #1 on: November 19, 2015, 20:44 »
+6
Small world indeed.   Mr. " Money is not going to make you happy" is back.  >:(

« Reply #2 on: November 19, 2015, 20:47 »
+3
Money won't make you happy but pretty images will :-) In all honesty I am not sure it's all his fault at iStock. Getty likes to blame him but my guess is they tied his hands.

« Reply #3 on: November 19, 2015, 21:26 »
+11
Money won't make you happy but pretty images will :-) In all honesty I am not sure it's all his fault at iStock. Getty likes to blame him but my guess is they tied his hands.
You forgot all he said? If he had been an honest person, he would have resigned before writing all that garbage on Sept 2010. 

« Reply #4 on: November 19, 2015, 21:56 »
+7
And I was just getting ready to join 500px. Now on hold.

http://alisterpaine.com/2011/01/17/coo-interview-kelly-thompson-of-istockphoto-com/

Kelly: It often isnt about the cost of the image. Our images are so inexpensive that whats costing more is the time looking for the image. Hands down we have the best search and deliver the best images at an amazing price.

Kelly: We have 85,000+ contributors and 60,000 images a week are submitted. The images have to be technically perfect. Good lighting, razor sharp focus, no jpeg artifacts and no digital noise.

2011

Money will make me happier then low pay and people who try to cheat us for every penny they can get, always from the supply side.

« Reply #5 on: November 19, 2015, 22:08 »
+11
Is this a red flag for 500px?

Oh oh...

« Reply #6 on: November 19, 2015, 22:10 »
+11
Funny, I just signed back up for them. Now that I've read that he is in charge of growth with large companies, that means special promises of less money but more downloads.  fk that.

« Reply #7 on: November 19, 2015, 22:27 »
+13
Really depressing news.

I haven't done microstock in over a year, but recently I started reading posts about 500px and got interested.  So I signed up and put up a few photos. And now this.  500px is confusing enough to begin with;  really not interested in spending a lot of time figuring it out and submitting hundreds of photos if it's now in the hands of former IS people, especially someone whose agenda was clearly to beat photographers down to the ground on price, while claiming that customers are really paying for search functionality, not imagery.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2015, 22:35 by stockastic »

« Reply #8 on: November 19, 2015, 22:39 »
+10
Get ready for royalty cuts at 500px!

In case you've forgotten or just didn't know Mr. Thompson's words:
"Since roughly 2005 we've been aware of a basic problem with how our business works. As the company grows, the overall percentage we pay out to contributing artists increases. In the most basic terms that means that iStock becomes less profitable with increased success. As a business model, its simply unsustainable: businesses should get more profitable as they grow. This is a long-term problem that needs to be addressed."  Kelly Thompson. September 8th, 2010

« Last Edit: November 20, 2015, 00:33 by Digital66 »

« Reply #9 on: November 20, 2015, 01:02 »
+22
That's a massive bummer. I am very new at 500px but was very much hoping that it could be a good supplement for the more traditional stock sites.

Kelly Thompson being hired there is terrible news - it could be worse though. If they'd hired Jonathan Klein...

I'm not going to leave 500px just because they hired him, but I think I'll just stop uploading and go focus on something else (or find something else to focus on - we're a bit short on agencies with potential!)

« Reply #10 on: November 20, 2015, 01:12 »
+7
...In all honesty I am not sure it's all his fault at iStock. Getty likes to blame him but my guess is they tied his hands.

It absolutely isn't all Kelly Thompson's fault - there's lots of blame to go around. However,...

He handled the initial 2010 cash grab badly, and then when it blew up in the contributor community he tried to smooth it over and was so inept at that and clueless as to what he was dealing with that he made it much worse instead of better. Jonathan Klein's scorched earth policies and greed caught up with him in the end, but Kelly was just so out of his depth it wasn't funny. Prior to that, during 2009 when the site was in one of its many stages of being broken because they'd tried to "improve" it, he seemed completely out of touch with what a mess things were (this from a Q&A at the iStockalypse in Calgary). I don't know what he was supposed to be good at - other than being Bruce Livingstone's friend I don't know why he was there

« Reply #11 on: November 20, 2015, 01:15 »
+8
Yeah, saw this today and it sounded like terrible news. I was just getting excited about 500px and then they hired this guy to run the marketplace...

« Reply #12 on: November 20, 2015, 02:04 »
+7
I am sick beyond words.

PZF

« Reply #13 on: November 20, 2015, 03:25 »
+4
You see a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel - 500px looking at sorting watermark issue, taking on distributors - and then you find they've put this guy to hold the torch....
:(

« Reply #14 on: November 20, 2015, 07:36 »
+5
It is clearly simplistic and potentially malicious to personally blame Kelly Thompson for what happened at iStock during that transitionary era. The same as it would be wrong to blame any of the other people who used to once speak for the company. And at least he was not annoying like the clubby insiders with their bizarre group speak and addressing each other as member :)

We have no idea how hard he may have argued for things to be different.

ShadySue

« Reply #15 on: November 20, 2015, 08:09 »
+6
I have no knowledge of the man whatsoever, and hold no candle for him. I absolutely found JJRD infinitely more annoying with the silly F5s and childish 'teasers'.

"Money isn't what makes us happy" was an extremely unfortunate choice of phrasing. As was that interview when he was asked how contributor reaction to the rates cut announcement had been, and he answered to the effect that there had been some murmuring at the beginning, but that had sort-of faded out, disingenuously ignoring the fact that persistent protestors were Lobotomised.

I do remember KKT once having a meeting with Getty and reporting that he'd been charged with increasing profits by 50%. Being a clueless innocent, I thought, "Oh great, more marketing to get more sales  :)". That wasn't very long before the rates cut announcement.

I'm not sure what he could have done better given that Klein or someone else further up the chain had made the decisons that were made in late 2010. He either had to tell us or hand in his notice and go off sick for the duration, refusing to communicate the message. Whatever, it wouldn't have saved us from their greed and incompetency.

All that said, 500px clearly didn't do much research if they didn't know the bad feelings between the content providers and KKT, so that looks like a poor move on their part.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2015, 11:08 by ShadySue »

« Reply #16 on: November 20, 2015, 08:14 »
+6
bunhill, theres nothing malicious being posted here. as for thompson, i assume he had a role in istock and within that role he made decisions hurting us. if he was just a puppet then shame on him for being a hapless messenger


« Reply #17 on: November 20, 2015, 08:22 »
+1
bunhill, theres nothing malicious being posted here

I disagree.

Anyhow - most of what has happened in microstock including iStock is inevitable economics. If it had not been them it would have been someone else. Basic issues are that the economy collapsed about the same time as Facebook and the iPhone went mainstream. For many former customers that meant that they realised that they no longer needed a website (in many cases they never did). Content today is often something shared from 'friends' and followers.

Plus over-supply. The price of using mainstream stock photographs is trending towards zero.

« Reply #18 on: November 20, 2015, 08:40 »
+1
Kelly Thompson is a good guy who worked his ... off to move istock forward and earned us all a lot of money before getty brought istock down.

He made some stupid comments on the forums, yes, but to me he is one of the best istock had.

So this is good news.

Please give me a proper upload process with automatic downsizing and watermarks. I really would like to try 500pix.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #19 on: November 20, 2015, 08:42 »
+8
I've never met the guy and have no idea what was going on behind the scenes. Regardless of if he was the person who made the decisions or was just the messenger, my perception is he's questionable. Contributors have been conditioned that bad things tend to happen when he's involved. I think that's understandable. Part of the problem was communication. We were told to expect something and frequently experienced something different.

I only have a couple dozen images on 500px and have received a couple licensing requests. So that plus the higher prices and royalty percentage seemed like they were headed in the right direction. This move seems to be a fork in the road.

« Reply #20 on: November 20, 2015, 09:14 »
0
Bunhill "If it had not been them it would have been someone else. ", but it was them, not someone else

As for the value of photos, yes, I agree, until the entire market has been destroyed and all photographers have found refuge outside stock, we wont see an upturn

« Reply #21 on: November 20, 2015, 09:27 »
+3
It is clearly simplistic and potentially malicious to personally blame Kelly Thompson for what happened at iStock during that transitionary era.
I think we all agree it wasn't all Kelly Thompson's fault.  But several times he proved to be completely incompetent for the job.  As Jo Ann said above:  "I don't know what he was supposed to be good at - other than being Bruce Livingstone's friend I don't know why he was there"
« Last Edit: November 20, 2015, 10:51 by Digital66 »

« Reply #22 on: November 20, 2015, 09:29 »
+5
I think the market will and is turning. Stocksy grew 600% this year and they are not bottom pricing. The smart and talented photographers are leaving cheap stock and if the company has a strong social network and good business sense it will grow. The backend to customers is very important as if you treat them right and help them they will spend the money. You can't just throw a product out and say here it is anymore. Curation is the future and it has to be smart curation. I made good money on Vetta at iStock but they have chosen the cheap route on photos. 500px is a different beast and has chosen to better route. Interesting times ahead for sure.

« Reply #23 on: November 20, 2015, 09:37 »
+6
bunhill, theres nothing malicious being posted here

I disagree.

Anyhow - most of what has happened in microstock including iStock is inevitable economics. If it had not been them it would have been someone else. Basic issues are that the economy collapsed about the same time as Facebook and the iPhone went mainstream. For many former customers that meant that they realised that they no longer needed a website (in many cases they never did). Content today is often something shared from 'friends' and followers.

Plus over-supply. The price of using mainstream stock photographs is trending towards zero.
I disagree.   What happened to iStock started the day they changed the royalty system.  The other agencies just took advantage of Getty/iStock bad decisions. 

« Last Edit: November 20, 2015, 21:02 by Digital66 »

« Reply #24 on: November 20, 2015, 11:02 »
+3
One thing I think we can be sure about is that there will be big changes at 500px.  Maybe not tomorrow, and maybe not all at once, but it won't be what it was, or what we hoped it might become.  I'm not going to submit anything there until the new direction is made clear.

« Reply #25 on: November 20, 2015, 13:51 »
+2
Kelly wasn't as bad as some of you hint. Din't have good communication skills, that's true. I think he left istock because he couldn't run it in  his way.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2015, 15:39 by loop »

« Reply #26 on: November 20, 2015, 14:28 »
+2
What happened to iStock started the day the changed the royalty system.  The other agencies just took advantage of Getty/iStock bad decisions.

Change was coming anyhow. The main issue today is over-supply. The availability of thing determines it's price.  Plus the small business which once used microstock use Facebook today instead of having a website.

The smaller curated sites can, of course, offer a much better experience. They have lovely content presented in a way which makes it accessible. But that isn't microstock.


« Reply #27 on: November 20, 2015, 16:20 »
+4
What happened to iStock started the day the changed the royalty system.  The other agencies just took advantage of Getty/iStock bad decisions.

Change was coming anyhow. The main issue today is over-supply. The availability of thing determines it's price.  Plus the small business which once used microstock use Facebook today instead of having a website.

The smaller curated sites can, of course, offer a much better experience. They have lovely content presented in a way which makes it accessible. But that isn't microstock.

Over-supply is just another way of saying under-curation.  And maybe the real problem is one-size-fits-all pricing.  With some control over our pricing, microstock could make sense again.   If you think you can sell 100 downloads at 35 cents, go for it.  But if you spend the time to produce a unique image for a small market, you should be able to ask $5.   

It doesn't have to be just one big Dollar Store.  Will wait to see if 500px agrees, in the long run.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2015, 16:23 by stockastic »

« Reply #28 on: November 21, 2015, 02:17 »
+2
Kelly Thompson is a good guy who worked his ... off to move istock forward and earned us all a lot of money before getty brought istock down.

He made some stupid comments on the forums, yes, but to me he is one of the best istock had.

So this is good news.

Please give me a proper upload process with automatic downsizing and watermarks. I really would like to try 500pix.

Hi Jasmin,

This is already available on 500px. There are check boxes for to put watermark and also another for to be put on sale in Prime. I upload all images in bulk(in high resolution) and all is done automatically on the site after that.

« Reply #29 on: November 21, 2015, 02:35 »
+1
I upload all images in bulk(in high resolution) and all is done automatically on the site after that.

??????
How on earth do you manage a bulk upload??   

I just tried my first 20 images and I have to
(1) first manually remove keywords over 30  (one by one!)
(2) manually check the boxes for watermark and marketplace.   Is "Marketplace" the same as "Prime"? 
I can't call that "automatically" ....  :(

« Reply #30 on: November 21, 2015, 03:44 »
0
Do they have a real watermark, or is it still the tiny thing?

« Reply #31 on: November 21, 2015, 04:27 »
0
I don't think Kelly had anything to do with the changes at IStock.  It doesn't seem like he had any say or control. I get the feeling higher ups only put him in the job for PR reasons.

« Reply #32 on: November 21, 2015, 04:51 »
+1
I upload all images in bulk(in high resolution) and all is done automatically on the site after that.

   Is "Marketplace" the same as "Prime"? 



Originally the marketplace was called Prime. Then 500px created two collections in their shop, the core and prime collection, and changed the name of the shop to Marketplace to avoid ambiguity. But many user still call the shop "Prime", and it is possible that Prime is still used at some place on the website instead of Marketplace.

Things move fast at 500px marketplace, they are still searching the best formula, experimenting, it seems, and it is not always easy to follow. For the moment, it is always for the best to my opinion and I have confidence in them. I hope this will not change as they try to develop the marketplace.

« Reply #33 on: November 21, 2015, 05:36 »
+4
I think photos for "prime" collection are hand-picked by editors from "core" collection.

« Reply #34 on: November 21, 2015, 08:36 »
0
I upload all images in bulk(in high resolution) and all is done automatically on the site after that.

??????
How on earth do you manage a bulk upload??   

I just tried my first 20 images and I have to
(1) first manually remove keywords over 30  (one by one!)
(2) manually check the boxes for watermark and marketplace.   Is "Marketplace" the same as "Prime"? 
I can't call that "automatically" ....  :(

Click on "Upload", then "Browse photos", then select all photos you have and wait to be uploaded. Then select all photos with the mouse(click and hold and pulling the mouse to to cover all photos). When you have all photos selected you can just with one click to select to be watermarked and to go on sale in Prime. On the same way you can select categories to group of images.

My English is not so good, sorry :)

« Reply #35 on: November 21, 2015, 09:13 »
+1
I think photos for "prime" collection are hand-picked by editors from "core" collection.

This is true based on an email I just got from them. All you do is upload and submit. They do the rest and your Prime collection is merely at the mercy of their reviewers as to whether an image gets selected.

« Reply #36 on: November 21, 2015, 11:13 »
+4
Do they have a real watermark, or is it still the tiny thing?

They have not addressed the Watermark problem yet.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2015, 12:15 by rimglow »


« Reply #37 on: November 21, 2015, 11:28 »
+1
I upload all images in bulk(in high resolution) and all is done automatically on the site after that.

??????
How on earth do you manage a bulk upload??   

I just tried my first 20 images and I have to
(1) first manually remove keywords over 30  (one by one!)
(2) manually check the boxes for watermark and marketplace.   Is "Marketplace" the same as "Prime"? 
I can't call that "automatically" ....  :(

Yes.  Deleting keywords is a major PITA; if they'd just accept 50, few of us would have a problem.  The process is too slow for stock.  It would be ok for 'art' photos, but they don't sell prints anymore. 

I understand that 500px is still evolving; unfortunately now, with this announcement, I expect things to be completely churned up yet again and will be in flux for quite a while.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2015, 11:30 by stockastic »

« Reply #38 on: November 21, 2015, 11:40 »
+1
It is worth to waste the time uploading to 500px? Sales, as far as I know, are an exceptional event, with or without mr Thompson

« Reply #39 on: November 21, 2015, 11:57 »
0
I upload all images in bulk(in high resolution) and all is done automatically on the site after that.

??????
How on earth do you manage a bulk upload??   

I just tried my first 20 images and I have to
(1) first manually remove keywords over 30  (one by one!)
(2) manually check the boxes for watermark and marketplace.   Is "Marketplace" the same as "Prime"? 
I can't call that "automatically" ....  :(

Click on "Upload", then "Browse photos", then select all photos you have and wait to be uploaded. Then select all photos with the mouse(click and hold and pulling the mouse to to cover all photos). When you have all photos selected you can just with one click to select to be watermarked and to go on sale in Prime. On the same way you can select categories to group of images.
Thanks Deyan, I did not know working in bulk for marketplace/watermarking would leave the keywords intact.  Good to know!

« Reply #40 on: November 21, 2015, 13:50 »
+1
I was quite happy with 500pix. I guess the honeymoon is over now.
No uploading anymore..

« Reply #41 on: November 21, 2015, 14:42 »
+2
He did star in a leading role as Prince Kelly in a narrative I wrote. I'm sure his resume must seem impressive, but I wonder if 500px actually know about all the fond things we remember.  :'(

« Reply #42 on: November 21, 2015, 17:06 »
0
...In all honesty I am not sure it's all his fault at iStock. Getty likes to blame him but my guess is they tied his hands.

It absolutely isn't all Kelly Thompson's fault - there's lots of blame to go around. However,...

He handled the initial 2010 cash grab badly, and then when it blew up in the contributor community he tried to smooth it over and was so inept at that and clueless as to what he was dealing with that he made it much worse instead of better. Jonathan Klein's scorched earth policies and greed caught up with him in the end, but Kelly was just so out of his depth it wasn't funny. Prior to that, during 2009 when the site was in one of its many stages of being broken because they'd tried to "improve" it, he seemed completely out of touch with what a mess things were (this from a Q&A at the iStockalypse in Calgary). I don't know what he was supposed to be good at - other than being Bruce Livingstone's friend I don't know why he was there

i don't know about Kelly. but i know that Bruce Livingstone was the one who made all the money when he sold istock. wiki : 2006, Livingstone sold iStockphoto to Getty Images for $50 million
whether Kelly was his mouthpiece or getty's whipping boy, it seems many are not forgiving about Kelly.
if Kelly was BL's friend, why did Kelly not leave with BL??? anyway,
still, it's ironic how no one said the same thing about Livingstone and his new dream agency  ;)

if you were ever in a position where you were paid to be the whipping boy (eg. management to fire
the employees,etc) you will know that it is not your buddy the upper management
who is the one who fired you in the lower management. it is the owner or the people
who kept most of the money , and never did any of the dirty work.

my only thing i don't like about 500 is whether they want to be a social-media with thumbs up and
great work, come visit me  ppl over there.
once they decide they want to be another ss of the old fame, then i will take them seriously,
Kelly or not.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2015, 17:22 by etudiante_rapide »

« Reply #43 on: November 21, 2015, 17:56 »
+1
OMG, please fire Kelly before it is too late.
Maybe he is not the only one responsible of iStock's decline but he was an active actor.
He doesn't understand micro/macro stock business model, or at least contributors' part of it. He thinks that all contributors are happy to invest thousands in equipments and shots and getting nothing in return.

« Reply #44 on: November 21, 2015, 18:12 »
+1
OMG, please fire Kelly before it is too late.
Maybe he is not the only one responsible of iStock's decline but he was an active actor.
He doesn't understand micro/macro stock business model, or at least contributors' part of it. He thinks that all contributors are happy to invest thousands in equipments and shots and getting nothing in return.

so you really believe that everything is did was Kelly's idea??? ;D
Kelly was just a chess piece in the whole game...
he never got a share of the profit; just a choice between saying what the owner wants him to say
or a pink slip.
when he moves to 500, he probably took the pink slip after preparing his departure.

« Reply #45 on: November 21, 2015, 18:45 »
+4
OMG, please fire Kelly before it is too late.
Maybe he is not the only one responsible of iStock's decline but he was an active actor.
He doesn't understand micro/macro stock business model, or at least contributors' part of it. He thinks that all contributors are happy to invest thousands in equipments and shots and getting nothing in return.

so you really believe that everything is did was Kelly's idea??? ;D
Kelly was just a chess piece in the whole game...

I don't think it was his idea but it was a bad idea and it was his job to say it.
He was not a simple employee but the iStock's CEO. I am sure that his former boss (Klein) today is regretting the stupid idea and Kelly's 'obedience'.

And I am sure that 'Money will not make you happy' communication was Mr Thompson's personal touch - for me it's enough to doubt in his capacity to make 500px successful.

« Reply #46 on: November 21, 2015, 20:47 »
+4
Edited.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2015, 23:58 by hatman12 »


« Reply #47 on: November 21, 2015, 21:59 »
0
"I think the market will and is turning. Stocksy grew 600% this year"

Where did you read this? I couldn't find anything via internet search.

« Reply #48 on: November 21, 2015, 22:01 »
+2
OMG, please fire Kelly before it is too late.
Maybe he is not the only one responsible of iStock's decline but he was an active actor.
He doesn't understand micro/macro stock business model, or at least contributors' part of it. He thinks that all contributors are happy to invest thousands in equipments and shots and getting nothing in return.

so you really believe that everything is did was Kelly's idea??? ;D
Kelly was just a chess piece in the whole game...

I don't think it was his idea but it was a bad idea and it was his job to say it.
He was not a simple employee but the iStock's CEO. I am sure that his former boss (Klein) today is regretting the stupid idea and Kelly's 'obedience'.

And I am sure that 'Money will not make you happy' communication was Mr Thompson's personal touch - for me it's enough to doubt in his capacity to make 500px successful.


ok, as i said i don't know who he is, but as you informed me, he was not just management
but CEO. that changes everything.. yes, then, he wasn't just "following orders"...
he made them.

now, my decision with 500 changes too with that insight from you. i will not bother joining them even  if 500 decides to be an agency rather than just another fb.  8)

thx rene for clarifying . saves me the trouble to prepare for 500
another one bites the dust !!!
« Last Edit: November 21, 2015, 22:05 by etudiante_rapide »

« Reply #49 on: November 21, 2015, 22:22 »
+4
While I understand why people would be bitter and upset here, to blame all of iStock's woes over the last 5 years on one person is pointless.

I think iStockphoto grew too fast for these Canadian folks, who really did want the best for everyone. Hence why they left the toxic corporate environment. 500PX and Stocksy are both based in Canada, and it appears that they are both doing well, including providing sense of community for artists and a more sustainable pricing strategy. They will probably continue to thrive.

I'm not going to name names, but it wasn't Kelly that originally promoted the idea that "it's not about the money." I still try to roll with that philosophy, and follow my passions which meant getting out of the studio. My bills are still being paid as an exclusive iStock photog. I was doing very well under the leadership of both Bruce and Kelly, so I could never throw either of them under the bus.

« Reply #50 on: November 22, 2015, 09:06 »
+4
Kelly wasn't as bad as some of you hint. Din't have good communication skills, that's true. I think he left istock because he couldn't run it in  his way.

No, he was moved to Getty then shortly after he left Getty to to pursue other interests. I believe his fate was controlled by Getty.

« Reply #51 on: November 22, 2015, 10:20 »
+6
As someone who often defended 500px on here, I feel betrayed. What a terrible, terrible move, and what a signal to us contributors.

Also note how representatives of 500px are absent from this discussion when usually they jump in after less than a page of posts. Is that a preview of the coming iStockization of contributor relations?

Makes me sick.

« Reply #52 on: November 22, 2015, 11:09 »
+1
As someone who often defended 500px on here, I feel betrayed. What a terrible, terrible move, and what a signal to us contributors.

Also note how representatives of 500px are absent from this discussion when usually they jump in after less than a page of posts. Is that a preview of the coming iStockization of contributor relations?

Makes me sick.

They may be just as surprised as we are, and waiting to see what it means.   It seems like some sort of a "today we're excited to announce" has to be coming pretty soon.  If it isn't really, really positive for photographers - in some specific, concrete ways -  they can deal me out.   

Tror

« Reply #53 on: November 22, 2015, 12:05 »
+3
PLEASE FIRE THIS GUY!!!!!!!! ....`nough said.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #54 on: November 22, 2015, 12:22 »
+4
This will either be an opportunity for him to prove the person we saw at IS really wasn't him or it will just validate it really was him.

Or after seeing the negative responses and realizing they just bought a damaged product, 500px may decide to keep him out of the public eye and work as more of an operations role in the background so we never get to see what he has to say.

« Reply #55 on: November 22, 2015, 12:49 »
+1
I don't think this is hard to understand.  A few months ago they brought in tens of millions in venture capital.  After seeing it from the inside, some of the VCs decided they didn't have total confidence in the plan, and wanted a more 'experienced' guy, with the right connections. Or maybe the VCs brought him in along with them, but didn't want it to look that way.  It's a very common scenario, and of course, it's their money; when you go with VCs you surrender a lot of control. 

The original plan is off the table; we'll have to wait to see what the new plan - if any - really is.   

« Last Edit: November 22, 2015, 12:54 by stockastic »

« Reply #56 on: November 22, 2015, 13:09 »
+1
Really depressing news.

I haven't done microstock in over a year, but recently I started reading posts about 500px and got interested. So I signed up and put up a few photos. And now this.  500px is confusing enough to begin with;  really not interested in spending a lot of time figuring it out and submitting hundreds of photos if it's now in the hands of former IS people, especially someone whose agenda was clearly to beat photographers down to the ground on price, while claiming that customers are really paying for search functionality, not imagery.

we both keeping being on the same page, my friend... (see red line above)
but i held back due to the social-media brigade over there that looks too much like fb.
but yes, i agree, they have good images there..which got me to think this could be the one
i would consider after a long absence with single digit old agencies

going back to Kelly the CEO who preached money is not everything.
y'know, that was yesterday, as some pickup  expert say..."only count what is today. this moment..
when you pick a woman/man up; don't base your approach on what she/he said yesterday or worse 3 months, a year,etc ago".

i like to think this is wise because i have this amazing neighbor who was like Kelly 5 years ago.
today, guess what??? all he cares about is money... and he tells me the same thing flipflop
from the first time we met. ..for him today "money is not everything".

let's wait and see why he moved to 500px.


« Reply #57 on: November 22, 2015, 14:12 »
+3
I don't think this is hard to understand.  A few months ago they brought in tens of millions in venture capital.  After seeing it from the inside, some of the VCs decided they didn't have total confidence in the plan, and wanted a more 'experienced' guy, with the right connections. Or maybe the VCs brought him in along with them, but didn't want it to look that way.  It's a very common scenario, and of course, it's their money; when you go with VCs you surrender a lot of control. 

The original plan is off the table; we'll have to wait to see what the new plan - if any - really is.

It makes sense. If VC's are involved, they want a BIG ROI. That explains Kelly in my mind. He is that resource who will find ways to steal from us to line the pockets of 500PX and their VC's.  This is a VERY IMPORTANT POINT. Venture Capitalists + Kelly = high probability he is there to find ways to pad VC pockets at our expense. I just cannot think of any other way to spin it. That't what Kelly was tasked with doing at IS and what he was good at.

« Reply #58 on: November 22, 2015, 16:04 »
+4
It's inevitable, we have to reduce royalties to make you more money, just wait for it

Tror

« Reply #59 on: November 22, 2015, 17:46 »
+3
I still don`t get why anybody would hire somebody like Kelly Thompson. Do they actively want to irritate their supplier base? Or maybe they know that "money won`t make them happy"? :P

My personal view on him: I cannot judge since I have not been there with him BUT I do not forget or forgive such episodes which had been visible and observable. Maybe he did for 99% a good Job in the background. Maybe he was just Gettys Puppet. To me it does not matter. He did what he did. He said what he said. He is a big red flag and anyone working with him is in question to be taken seriously. I am deeply surprised actually that anyone in this industry is wiling to pay him.

« Reply #60 on: November 22, 2015, 19:38 »
+7
Well, people are always remembered for the worst thing they ever said or did, so KT will have to personally coo and kiss 20,000 photographers' babies before we will ever forget "money isn't going to be what make us happy".

« Reply #61 on: November 22, 2015, 21:26 »
0
Well, people are always remembered for the worst thing they ever said or did, so KT will have to personally coo and kiss 20,000 photographers' babies before we will ever forget "money isn't going to be what make us happy".

so true. i try to be objective but now i am more towards the "u can take the leopard out of the jungle but u cannot remove its spot" judgement.

tror is correct too in his saying  "hiring KT is just irritating suppliers".
i am sure even ss has parachuted a lot of ex-istock ppl esp reviewers
which is why the almost identical anal-ogy of ss these days. only thing is ss is not
stupid enough to announce hey we hired a lot of your notorious istock ppl
just to show u contributors how much we like to anal-ize you 8)

« Reply #62 on: November 23, 2015, 00:19 »
+4
I don't think this is hard to understand.  A few months ago they brought in tens of millions in venture capital.  After seeing it from the inside, some of the VCs decided they didn't have total confidence in the plan, and wanted a more 'experienced' guy, with the right connections. Or maybe the VCs brought him in along with them, but didn't want it to look that way.  It's a very common scenario, and of course, it's their money; when you go with VCs you surrender a lot of control. 

The original plan is off the table; we'll have to wait to see what the new plan - if any - really is.

It makes sense. If VC's are involved, they want a BIG ROI. That explains Kelly in my mind. He is that resource who will find ways to steal from us to line the pockets of 500PX and their VC's.  This is a VERY IMPORTANT POINT. Venture Capitalists + Kelly = high probability he is there to find ways to pad VC pockets at our expense. I just cannot think of any other way to spin it. That't what Kelly was tasked with doing at IS and what he was good at.

This explains it all as far as I am concerned.  Kelly was tasked with increasing profits by 50% for the VCs who bought Getty and no doubt he will be doing the same for the VCs who invested in 500px.  We've already seen this film, people.  We know how it ends. 

« Reply #63 on: November 23, 2015, 10:37 »
+1
I don't think this is hard to understand.  A few months ago they brought in tens of millions in venture capital.  After seeing it from the inside, some of the VCs decided they didn't have total confidence in the plan, and wanted a more 'experienced' guy, with the right connections. Or maybe the VCs brought him in along with them, but didn't want it to look that way.  It's a very common scenario, and of course, it's their money; when you go with VCs you surrender a lot of control. 

The original plan is off the table; we'll have to wait to see what the new plan - if any - really is.

It makes sense. If VC's are involved, they want a BIG ROI. That explains Kelly in my mind. He is that resource who will find ways to steal from us to line the pockets of 500PX and their VC's.  This is a VERY IMPORTANT POINT. Venture Capitalists + Kelly = high probability he is there to find ways to pad VC pockets at our expense. I just cannot think of any other way to spin it. That't what Kelly was tasked with doing at IS and what he was good at.

This explains it all as far as I am concerned.  Kelly was tasked with increasing profits by 50% for the VCs who bought Getty and no doubt he will be doing the same for the VCs who invested in 500px.  We've already seen this film, people.  We know how it ends.

capice, grazie mille.  VC = vampire corporates (suck our blood till nothing left of us but carcass).

« Reply #64 on: November 23, 2015, 11:55 »
+1
I don't think this is hard to understand.  A few months ago they brought in tens of millions in venture capital.  After seeing it from the inside, some of the VCs decided they didn't have total confidence in the plan, and wanted a more 'experienced' guy, with the right connections. Or maybe the VCs brought him in along with them, but didn't want it to look that way.  It's a very common scenario, and of course, it's their money; when you go with VCs you surrender a lot of control. 

The original plan is off the table; we'll have to wait to see what the new plan - if any - really is.

It makes sense. If VC's are involved, they want a BIG ROI. That explains Kelly in my mind. He is that resource who will find ways to steal from us to line the pockets of 500PX and their VC's.  This is a VERY IMPORTANT POINT. Venture Capitalists + Kelly = high probability he is there to find ways to pad VC pockets at our expense. I just cannot think of any other way to spin it. That't what Kelly was tasked with doing at IS and what he was good at.

This explains it all as far as I am concerned.  Kelly was tasked with increasing profits by 50% for the VCs who bought Getty and no doubt he will be doing the same for the VCs who invested in 500px.  We've already seen this film, people.  We know how it ends.

Yes it only ends well for a few key insiders. I do not have the stomach to see if the VC's in question have a track record of taking companies they invest in public.

« Reply #65 on: November 24, 2015, 01:58 »
+1
The most recent investment in 500px - $13m in July - was led by a company described in this article as China's equivalent of Getty Images. Visual China contributed $8m of the total $13m

http://techcrunch.com/2015/07/21/500px-raises-another-13m-to-take-on-getty-and-flickr/

The rest of the money came from the VC firms who gave them money in the previous round.

On paper, having a CEO who has held that position before at a roughly comparable company probably looks like the right move to someone with no real knowledge of the details of the last decade in the stock business in the US.

The quote in the above article that this deal will open up the China market to them seems not to offer much to those of us based outside of Asia - why would content from Boston, the Caribbean, the Pacific Northwest (for examples - they're locations I shoot) be of more than occasional interest to the Chinese market?

This round will also open the door for us to the Greater China market by working with the market leader Visual China Group.

« Reply #66 on: November 24, 2015, 02:53 »
+1
Very interesting article, thank you.

What I dont really get is the comparison to eyeem. The visual language there is completly different, on eyeem the content has to look amateur and overfiltered to go with the instagram vibe while 500pix has high quality macro style photography,

I also dont understand why all 55 million community images are considered part of a catalogue if they are not for sale.

Looks like the writer doesnt know much about the stock industry.


« Reply #67 on: November 24, 2015, 03:03 »
+1

I also dont understand why all 55 million community images are considered part of a catalogue if they are not for sale.


It's somewhat complicated for 500px: all the images are searchable in the market, even the ones not for sale, I think. And the buyer can request to buy any images; the photographer can accept or not.

« Reply #68 on: November 24, 2015, 03:56 »
0
Eyeem does that as well- But that is not the same as having 55 million images on sale, like on getty or Shutterstock.

« Reply #69 on: November 24, 2015, 04:30 »
0

I also dont understand why all 55 million community images are considered part of a catalogue if they are not for sale.


It's somewhat complicated for 500px: all the images are searchable in the market, even the ones not for sale, I think. And the buyer can request to buy any images; the photographer can accept or not.

I think you're correct.

« Reply #70 on: November 24, 2015, 10:10 »
+2
I can't see any reason to put an image on 500px without putting it in the marketplace.  500px no longer sells prints, so all you can get is comments and 'likes' from other photographers.  Probably the only reason you wouldn't offer a photo for sale is because you couldn't, for example because you don't have the necessary releases; and that's not likely to change even if someone requests to buy the image.  So why do it?   It just sits there in a great big preview, waiting to be stolen.

« Last Edit: November 24, 2015, 10:25 by stockastic »

« Reply #71 on: November 24, 2015, 10:33 »
0

It's somewhat complicated for 500px: all the images are searchable in the market, even the ones not for sale, I think. And the buyer can request to buy any images; the photographer can accept or not.

I don't understand why their reviewing is so very slow if they really want to offer sales. I have uploaded 235 images there from November 3 to 19th, all marked for sale. 5 have been approved (2 prime and 3 core) and the rest are in that limbo that says they can be requested. They do show up in searches, but I'd imagine it'd be off-putting to a buyer to think they'd have to wait to make the purchase versus just be able to pay and download the file.

Possibly they put reviews on hold pending some decisions about what the marketplace will become, but I've stopped uploading until we hear more about what they'll be doing with Marketplace now it has a new boss.

« Reply #72 on: November 24, 2015, 11:10 »
0
What is the normal review time for 500pix? Or is it like twenty20 were only a few files are reviewed and the rest only if a customer asks for them?

I thought they have a normal review queue.

« Reply #73 on: November 24, 2015, 11:39 »
+2
The most recent investment in 500px - $13m in July - was led by a company described in this article as China's equivalent of Getty Images. Visual China contributed $8m of the total $13m

http://techcrunch.com/2015/07/21/500px-raises-another-13m-to-take-on-getty-and-flickr/

The rest of the money came from the VC firms who gave them money in the previous round.

On paper, having a CEO who has held that position before at a roughly comparable company probably looks like the right move to someone with no real knowledge of the details of the last decade in the stock business in the US.

The quote in the above article that this deal will open up the China market to them seems not to offer much to those of us based outside of Asia - why would content from Boston, the Caribbean, the Pacific Northwest (for examples - they're locations I shoot) be of more than occasional interest to the Chinese market?

This round will also open the door for us to the Greater China market by working with the market leader Visual China Group.


China???  yes, it may be impressive to look to China with Alibaba,etc in the Forbes richest rung..
but again, as another wealthy Chinese tycoon once pointed out, "it's also a place where counterfeit rolexes , wine, etc are considered legal".   
good luck in getting any action against someone stealing your photographs and selling them.

ShadySue

« Reply #74 on: November 24, 2015, 11:50 »
+1
China???  yes, it may be impressive to look to China with Alibaba,etc in the Forbes richest rung..
but again, as another wealthy Chinese tycoon once pointed out, "it's also a place where counterfeit rolexes , wine, etc are considered legal".   
good luck in getting any action against someone stealing your photographs and selling them.
Indeed. AliExpress, an arm of Alibaba, is selling costumes of last year's Commonwealth Games copyrighted mascot, using copyrighted photos of the mascot from the games and the CG people have already been over a year unsuccessfully trying to get the costume and the photos removed. (They don't have the vast resources of the Olympics behind them.)
As I've said before, many of my legit sales from Alamy to UK newspapers appear on a plethora of Chinese websites and blogs, who seem to illegally scrape content from the newspapers, before I even know I've had a sale. The response from Alamy is invariably that the uses are illegal and I can pursue them if I want. I unfairly thought for a while that Alamy didn't care about image abuse, but in the last couple of months I've heard of abused being chased up by Alamy and the photographers getting paid, but they don't chase up where they are unlikely to be successful.
I certainly wouldn't cheer about getting exposure in China (hopefully that iS partner scheme has died at birth), even though presumably there are potentially some legitimate buyers there.

« Reply #75 on: November 24, 2015, 12:22 »
+3
Ok that did it.  I don't need more exposure in China for these huge 'previews'.   And the future direction of 500px is just one big question mark with a black cloud behind it. 

I just deleted all but 1 of the few I recently put up there.  I'll keep the account open, but will forget about 500px for now.

« Reply #76 on: November 24, 2015, 14:00 »
+1
I don't understand why their reviewing is so very slow if they really want to offer sales. I have uploaded 235 images there from November 3 to 19th, all marked for sale. 5 have been approved (2 prime and 3 core) and the rest are in that limbo that says they can be requested. They do show up in searches, but I'd imagine it'd be off-putting to a buyer to think they'd have to wait to make the purchase versus just be able to pay and download the file.

The reviews used to be relatively fast... I have images uploaded in late august that are still in review. The introduction of the core and prime collections is quite recent (August I think) and they had to review a second time all the images already accepted. I guess they have a large backlog.


« Reply #77 on: November 24, 2015, 15:29 »
0
Ok, that is understandable. So it is a temporary thing.

« Reply #78 on: November 24, 2015, 17:09 »
0
Help me out please: where do you see if images are still in review?
The only place where I can see what is available in the marketplace is when I go to "Manage Photos" - and my images do count for the "Marketplace" number directly after upload.
What am I missing?

« Reply #79 on: November 24, 2015, 17:42 »
+1
Go to your "manage photos" page, click on the symbol on the upper right hand corner of a thumbnail image and it will take you to the licensing page. If the page has a red banner on it like the one in this image it means it hasn't been reviewed yet.


« Reply #80 on: November 24, 2015, 17:50 »
+2
Thanks, didn't know that. So it's only possible to see that by clicking each image...
Contributor tools certainly need some improvement on 500px...

« Reply #81 on: November 24, 2015, 18:12 »
+3
Thanks, didn't know that. So it's only possible to see that by clicking each image...
Contributor tools certainly need some improvement on 500px...

There's a brief explanation here (second section)

https://support.500px.com/hc/en-us/articles/204031108-500px-Marketplace-Buyer-FAQ

If you have statistics (I have temporarily) it will tell me how many you have in the store - not which, but they show up at the beginning of your portfolio. Contributor tools are virtually non-existent unless there's something I've missed.

« Reply #82 on: November 24, 2015, 18:23 »
0
Get ready for royalty cuts at 500px!

In case you've forgotten or just didn't know Mr. Thompson's words:
"Since roughly 2005 we've been aware of a basic problem with how our business works. As the company grows, the overall percentage we pay out to contributing artists increases. In the most basic terms that means that iStock becomes less profitable with increased success. As a business model, its simply unsustainable: businesses should get more profitable as they grow. This is a long-term problem that needs to be addressed."  Kelly Thompson. September 8th, 2010
So he's the yokel who tried to convince everyone that percentages were absolute?

ShadySue

« Reply #83 on: November 24, 2015, 18:42 »
+3
Get ready for royalty cuts at 500px!

In case you've forgotten or just didn't know Mr. Thompson's words:
"Since roughly 2005 we've been aware of a basic problem with how our business works. As the company grows, the overall percentage we pay out to contributing artists increases. In the most basic terms that means that iStock becomes less profitable with increased success. As a business model, its simply unsustainable: businesses should get more profitable as they grow. This is a long-term problem that needs to be addressed."  Kelly Thompson. September 8th, 2010
So he's the yokel who tried to convince everyone that percentages were absolute?
No, the percentages were already factored in.
He was the stooge who had to tell us that Getty's sustainability and business model were much more important than those of the contributors.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2015, 19:41 by ShadySue »

« Reply #84 on: November 25, 2015, 21:09 »
0
Why some of my pics are with a watermark ( 500px ) and some are with no watermark  :-[

« Reply #85 on: November 25, 2015, 22:37 »
0
Why some of my pics are with a watermark ( 500px ) and some are with no watermark  :-[

Because on some of your images you put on watermark and on some not.

« Reply #86 on: November 25, 2015, 23:33 »
0
Why some of my pics are with a watermark ( 500px ) and some are with no watermark  :-[

Because on some of your images you put on watermark and on some not.

Thanks!


« Reply #87 on: November 27, 2015, 01:49 »
0
Thanks, didn't know that. So it's only possible to see that by clicking each image...
Contributor tools certainly need some improvement on 500px...

There's a brief explanation here (second section)

https://support.500px.com/hc/en-us/articles/204031108-500px-Marketplace-Buyer-FAQ

If you have statistics (I have temporarily) it will tell me how many you have in the store - not which, but they show up at the beginning of your portfolio. Contributor tools are virtually non-existent unless there's something I've missed.

Thanks, I didn't know that. Very helpful. As slow or better hardly-existent as their review is, it will make it impossible to build up a reasonable portfolio of images that are on sale.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
2808 Views
Last post November 19, 2008, 22:43
by hali
22 Replies
5886 Views
Last post September 21, 2010, 11:24
by Case
107 Replies
23134 Views
Last post April 13, 2011, 04:53
by ShadySue
84 Replies
19111 Views
Last post January 23, 2012, 21:38
by Suljo
206 Replies
33810 Views
Last post September 01, 2017, 19:42
by Zero Talent

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results