MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Photos.com Relaunched.  (Read 15829 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: January 14, 2011, 10:48 »
0

...I hate to say this, because it's curt and contrite, but if you (meaning anyone, not you personally) don't like what Getty is doing, "you" can always go someplace else. ...

A lot of people who didn't like Getty did go elsewhere. Problem is, Getty bought elsewhere and so now they're back at square one.

I find the comments on child rearing to be most strident and dogmatic from people who don't have children. No skin in the game, as it were. It's much easier to opine about who should do this or that and how everything can be fixed if only you have the right [fill in the blank] and we all have absolute freedom of choice when none of it really touches you.

The fact is that Getty is a very predatory outfit and having bought up a lot of the competition are beginning to turn the screws on suppliers. On top of which, Getty's obnoxious terms then become "industry standard" for other agencies to follow (with the bleat that they have to,  to stay competitive).

I've registered the fact that you don't like us complaining - or trying to do anything about - what's going on. Point noted. You can now move on and straighten out some other problem and leave us to it.


PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #26 on: January 14, 2011, 21:04 »
0
I hate to say this, because it's curt and contrite, but if you (meaning anyone, not you personally) don't like what Getty is doing, "you" can always go someplace else. I don't like what some other agencies have done with policy or payments, I quit.

We aren't prisoners, we aren't conscribed, we haven't sold our souls to the Devil, and we don't have to take this anymore.

Unless someone is holding your hand to the fire or has you chained to the computer and camera, we have free will to participate or find other outlets.

Some good points here. Problem is, for some people, leaving would be very costly. To walk away from hundreds or thousands of dollars per month isn't easy. Especially when this is primary income or critical secondary income. If someone is going to walk away according to your thoughts, then most likely they're going to walk away from stock as a whole.

In another thread this is why I suggested diversifying into other areas of photography. I love everything about photography but it's clear that stock is shifting toward being supplemental income except for the elite contributors. And even a lot of them are experiencing the hamster wheel of submitting thousands of new images annually with little or no growth.

For those that have several sources of income, they can easily shift focus if one income source is becoming a problem. And, when enough diversified contributors shift away from stock, the supply will drop, agencies will be stuck with stale content, and demand/prices/leverage will go up. Until then, the gigantic agency thumb is over a lot of us. Hardcore business is all about leverage.  

RacePhoto

« Reply #27 on: January 15, 2011, 00:20 »
0

...I hate to say this, because it's curt and contrite, but if you (meaning anyone, not you personally) don't like what Getty is doing, "you" can always go someplace else. ...

A lot of people who didn't like Getty did go elsewhere. Problem is, Getty bought elsewhere and so now they're back at square one.

I find the comments on child rearing to be most strident and dogmatic from people who don't have children. No skin in the game, as it were. It's much easier to opine about who should do this or that and how everything can be fixed if only you have the right [fill in the blank] and we all have absolute freedom of choice when none of it really touches you.

The fact is that Getty is a very predatory outfit and having bought up a lot of the competition are beginning to turn the screws on suppliers. On top of which, Getty's obnoxious terms then become "industry standard" for other agencies to follow (with the bleat that they have to,  to stay competitive).

I've registered the fact that you don't like us complaining - or trying to do anything about - what's going on. Point noted. You can now move on and straighten out some other problem and leave us to it.

Yeah and it always makes me wonder if Getty will buy someone else, or did they figure out they were buying the same images over and over, because the same people have their pictures pretty much on every site possible. That and the reasoning I believe behind ThinkStock which is, Getty has this musty closet full of small, outdated, lower quality images, and they need to do something with them, because they aren't worth what they paid for the collections. I think they bought out the competition without looking at the long term and how the values would fall so fast. Funny part is, they are part of the reason the prices and values have fallen. There's a little justice in that.

If you can explain how the constant bashing and hate towards Getty does anything about the situation or changes it, I'll join in. Sorry to be a dissenting voice of moderation in the mob of angry suppliers. I did quit three other sites because of their attitudes, payment flaws, or treatment of photographers. No I'm not big enough to make a drip in the bucket, but any agency that threatens people for what they write on forums is over the line. Anyplace that can't track sales right and loses commissions I can't trust. When a reviewer says "we don't take these because they don't sell well" and it's the best selling images I have on their site, it's time to wave farewell. :(

Now if people actually quit, instead of just complaining, I'm behind them. Otherwise it's just endless picking, whining and complaining, while nothing changes.


Some good points here. Problem is, for some people, leaving would be very costly. To walk away from hundreds or thousands of dollars per month isn't easy. Especially when this is primary income or critical secondary income. If someone is going to walk away according to your thoughts, then most likely they're going to walk away from stock as a whole.
  

Exactly the problem. People are in the hamster wheel or on a treadmill. Produce, produce and the agencies give less and less, while they expect more and more. That's why I have called it the donkey with the carrot on a string. First they made promises, sell those old photos. Make money based on volume, low prices, many sales. They promised, make money based on canisters or levels or jewels or whatever else. Work hard, build a collection and make more. Followed by higher standards, lower pay, and even worse terms, as they squeezed people for every penny.

This isn't just about Getty, or picking at everything they do, because they are the evil empire, the biggest agency. It's about the whole industry. Someone else cut commissions a couple of years ago and altered the levels for advancement. People complained and then did nothing. A small number dropped. So Getty and IS watched and said, it's all talk, we've got them trapped, they will complain, but nobody takes action. Funny how people talk about that other agency and compliment it for sales and growth. Funny how they all forget what a screw job that was two years ago?

Trapped between a rock and a hard place, it's got to be hurting some people who depend on whatever income it may be. From spare change to needed to make ends meet and their main source of income. Of course I have sympathy, no matter what the situation. I just get tired of hearing how Getty is the cause of everything that's wrong, when there's much more going on.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2011, 00:39 by RacePhoto »

« Reply #28 on: January 15, 2011, 19:19 »
0
What a confusing mixed up muddle!

Microscam you send us old pictures from P+S camera we send money. You make more pictures we send less money. You make many pictures, we cut commision. You make many high canister jewel ranking we cut that. Then we make you make bigger pictures from bigger camera, more expensive, we cut commissions more. Now we reject your pictures we have to many good pictures. You get angry we now own you and your pictures you have been scammed. Keep trying to make more microscam owns you you can't quit. Microscam owns you.

RacePhoto

« Reply #29 on: January 16, 2011, 14:46 »
0

I wasn't in the partner program and don't intend to start. Given that Thinkstock and photos.com are going after SS's business, I'd think that independents would do best supporting SS and leaving these two Getty offshoots alone.

I'd agree 100% and have said in humor for years, if SS offered an exclusive program of any sort, I'd be in. :)

I'm not convinced that all the sub companies from Getty are going after SS, (I think they are warehouse sales of old stock) but if they are, I'd be in favor of SS and drop the Getty branches.

JSNOVER - can you explain this for me? I see references and I searched but I can't seen to grasp what you are getting at?

"the RubberBall story really removes any sympathy I might otherwise have had for IS in this situation."

What is the Rubberball story? I'm lost.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2011, 14:51 by RacePhoto »

« Reply #30 on: January 16, 2011, 15:54 »
0

I wasn't in the partner program and don't intend to start. Given that Thinkstock and photos.com are going after SS's business, I'd think that independents would do best supporting SS and leaving these two Getty offshoots alone.


I'd agree 100% and have said in humor for years, if SS offered an exclusive program of any sort, I'd be in. :)

I'm not convinced that all the sub companies from Getty are going after SS, (I think they are warehouse sales of old stock) but if they are, I'd be in favor of SS and drop the Getty branches.

JSNOVER - can you explain this for me? I see references and I searched but I can't seen to grasp what you are getting at?

"the RubberBall story really removes any sympathy I might otherwise have had for IS in this situation."

What is the Rubberball story? I'm lost.


This post here explains the RubberBall story (or at least the part of it that I was referring to - these folks produce great images and I'm only talking about how Getty's handling their collection, not about the business itself)

A couple of years ago photos.com was owned by Jupiter Images and Thinkstock didn't exist.

When Jupiter purchased StockXpert they decided to solve a problem at photos.com and Jupiter Images Unlimited with stagnant content in their subscription programs (lots of unhappy buyers) by using the StockXpert collection. SS had tons of new content each week and subscription buyers weren't happy with the Jupiter properties because they didn't. I was independent at the time and was involved with a group of contributors trying to improve the terms and conditions under which StockXpert content was being sold via the Jupiter properties. There were a bucketload of technical glitches and it wasn't long after that that Getty purchased Jupiter.

All the micro sites who didn't have subscription programs (and at the beginning none of them did, except SS) were adding them, hoping to see some of SS's money coming their way. None of them have managed to knock SS off its perch as the top micro subscription site - and in terms of earnings as the top earner for many microstock contributors. IS launched its own subscription program, but while it was very fair to contributors, it was really just a bulk credit purchase program and too expensive, so it never really took off.

For reasons I can't fathom, instead of doing something with one of the best URLs for photos ever - photos.com - Getty launched Thinkstock first as its micro subscription offering. Its price was SS's price and I have to view it as their attempt to try and knock SS off their perch and pull some of those subscriptions over to Getty. Based on reports from independents of SS income growing nicely in the time since Thinkstock launched, I have to believe Getty's not doing so well there.

Now Jupiter Images has a subscription link on its pages, but it goes to Thinkstock (Jupiter Images Unlimited is no more AFAIK). Photos.com is relaunched, but it's clearly the cheapo site with the smallest collection of stuff.

So, no one at Getty told me they were trying to take away SS's title of the #1 subscription microstock agency, but I can't see any other explanation for the various actions they've taken.

RacePhoto

« Reply #31 on: January 17, 2011, 06:45 »
0

So, no one at Getty told me they were trying to take away SS's title of the #1 subscription microstock agency, but I can't see any other explanation for the various actions they've taken.

You mean you aren't buying my collection of collections, a warehouse or outlet sale of old archives and stale images? :D

Could be that both are true, because they sure have the old agencies and collections to market and didn't have any site to sell them all under one brand, until Thinkstock.

Yes, they would have been better just doing the relaunch of Photos.com with the same content and never starting ThinkStock. But we're talking Getty and the fiasco machine that they seem to be fueling with a minimal staff, month after month. LOL

« Reply #32 on: January 23, 2011, 04:29 »
0
Once that is accomplished, Istock will be completely redundant.  

Or is istock becoming the triage station, sorting incoming material into accepted/unaccepted and then routing it into different channels?

Photos.com and TS don't want to invest on the infrastructure for assessing image submissions, but iStock has a trained pool of cheap (I presume) labour doing that job. The IS inspectors are now working for IS, TS,P.com and Getty but only getting paid the rate for working for Istock.

It's quite clever, really.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2011, 10:58 by BaldricksTrousers »

« Reply #33 on: January 23, 2011, 10:19 »
0
In another thread this is why I suggested diversifying into other areas of photography. I love everything about photography but it's clear that stock is shifting toward being supplemental income except for the elite contributors. And even a lot of them are experiencing the hamster wheel of submitting thousands of new images annually with little or no growth.
This is what I suggested in another thread. With so many talented photographers here, I can not believe their only choice is to stick forever in micro stock, or even stock photography.

And I think RacePhoto's description is excellent:
Exactly the problem. People are in the hamster wheel or on a treadmill. Produce, produce and the agencies give less and less, while they expect more and more. That's why I have called it the donkey with the carrot on a string. First they made promises, sell those old photos. Make money based on volume, low prices, many sales. They promised, make money based on canisters or levels or jewels or whatever else. Work hard, build a collection and make more. Followed by higher standards, lower pay, and even worse terms, as they squeezed people for every penny.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
26 Replies
12574 Views
Last post August 04, 2008, 21:05
by dgilder
4 Replies
3004 Views
Last post March 05, 2009, 13:53
by vonkara
2 Replies
4001 Views
Last post October 07, 2009, 15:59
by madelaide
7 Replies
8610 Views
Last post January 28, 2011, 18:40
by RacePhoto
8 Replies
5952 Views
Last post February 22, 2010, 12:43
by Orchidpoet

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors