pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Stock Sites And SEO Is This True? Ouch  (Read 7790 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: June 29, 2015, 20:04 »
+2


Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #1 on: June 29, 2015, 20:41 »
+24
I am exclusive and I have been with Getty Images for years. This is not a SEO problem, rather it is a CEO problem. You can't keep sh!tt!ng on the talent and expect positive long term results. Without a doubt the competition has brought the industry to new lows, but you combine this with reckless abandon and total disrespect to your contributors and buyers, people will leave you either as a contributor or a buyer. Mr. CEO you and your arrogant ego blew Getty Images, not the competition or Google search. You needed us more than you thought.

« Last Edit: June 29, 2015, 20:53 by Rose Tinted Glasses »

« Reply #2 on: June 29, 2015, 20:59 »
+11
Wasn't this the same company that gave away millions of images free for gogle ads?
 
Thought so.  ::) ::)

« Reply #3 on: June 29, 2015, 21:08 »
+2
It looks like the author is paid by Google, http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Jennifer-Slegg/719558548  it says she is a moderator at Google Inc. 

I think the arguments are misleading and mischaracterize what Getty is complaining about.  Her first point is Getty complained about large images with no watermarks and says that images from Getty have a watermark.  The point was about images that came from Getty and were used by buyers in full size, those show up without a watermark.  She then says Getty complained about right clicking but they don't stop it themselves.  Again the difference is between images bought from Getty and displayed at full size not smaller comp images with watermarks where the buyer would need to pay to get full resolution images without the watermark.  Her next point is that Getty says Google doesn't show images from the original site when they do according to her.  She searched for "stock photos" of course a stock site will come up first if you add that to the search, try the search again without adding that and you can see the original images are not first many times.  Then she says "Getty is clearly unhappy with the fact Google has their images in image search" that's just not true and isn't in the complaint at all this is just misleading, that's not what their complaint is about at all. 
« Last Edit: June 29, 2015, 21:30 by tickstock »

« Reply #4 on: June 29, 2015, 21:19 »
+6
I am exclusive and I have been with Getty Images for years. This is not a SEO problem, rather it is a CEO problem. You can't keep sh!tt!ng on the talent and expect positive long term results. Without a doubt the competition has brought the industry to new lows, but you combine this with reckless abandon and total disrespect to your contributors and buyers, people will leave you either as a contributor or a buyer. Mr. CEO you and your arrogant ego blew Getty Images, not the competition or Google search. You needed us more than you thought.

Wish I could give this 1,000 +'s! They dumped on all their talent and still don't get it!

« Reply #5 on: June 29, 2015, 21:36 »
+5
I am exclusive and I have been with Getty Images for years. This is not a SEO problem, rather it is a CEO problem. You can't keep sh!tt!ng on the talent and expect positive long term results. Without a doubt the competition has brought the industry to new lows, but you combine this with reckless abandon and total disrespect to your contributors and buyers, people will leave you either as a contributor or a buyer. Mr. CEO you and your arrogant ego blew Getty Images, not the competition or Google search. You needed us more than you thought.

Wish I could give this 1,000 +'s! They dumped on all their talent and still don't get it!
I don't think you can completely dismiss their complaint, even if Getty made other mistakes, those are separate issues.  It can't be good for any of us if it's easier for people to steal images and harder for them to come across the original sources.  I know SS has put out a few articles about SEO recently so I don't think it's just a Getty issue, I wonder if Dreamstime changed the amount of keywords for better SEO too.  It would be much better for all sites and contributors if Google showed original sources before others.

« Reply #6 on: June 29, 2015, 21:43 »
+4
I am exclusive and I have been with Getty Images for years. This is not a SEO problem, rather it is a CEO problem. You can't keep sh!tt!ng on the talent and expect positive long term results. Without a doubt the competition has brought the industry to new lows, but you combine this with reckless abandon and total disrespect to your contributors and buyers, people will leave you either as a contributor or a buyer. Mr. CEO you and your arrogant ego blew Getty Images, not the competition or Google search. You needed us more than you thought.

Wish I could give this 1,000 +'s! They dumped on all their talent and still don't get it!
I don't think you can completely dismiss their complaint, even if Getty made other mistakes, those are separate issues.  It can't be good for any of us if it's easier for people to steal images and harder for them to come across the original sources.  I know SS has put out a few articles about SEO recently so I don't think it's just a Getty issue, I wonder if Dreamstime changed the amount of keywords for better SEO too.  It would be much better for all sites and contributors if Google showed original sources before others.

Your right about the problems with the new google images.  Its all been discussed here before.  It has nearly put small sites like GL out of business and I hope the suit is successful.

But seriously, this is the least of the reasons for Gettys fall.  Rose Tinted Glasses summed up Gettys problems well.  +1 from me.


« Reply #7 on: June 29, 2015, 21:45 »
+1
I am exclusive and I have been with Getty Images for years. This is not a SEO problem, rather it is a CEO problem. You can't keep sh!tt!ng on the talent and expect positive long term results. Without a doubt the competition has brought the industry to new lows, but you combine this with reckless abandon and total disrespect to your contributors and buyers, people will leave you either as a contributor or a buyer. Mr. CEO you and your arrogant ego blew Getty Images, not the competition or Google search. You needed us more than you thought.

Wish I could give this 1,000 +'s! They dumped on all their talent and still don't get it!
I don't think you can completely dismiss their complaint, even if Getty made other mistakes, those are separate issues.  It can't be good for any of us if it's easier for people to steal images and harder for them to come across the original sources.  I know SS has put out a few articles about SEO recently so I don't think it's just a Getty issue, I wonder if Dreamstime changed the amount of keywords for better SEO too.  It would be much better for all sites and contributors if Google showed original sources before others.

Your right about the problems with the new google images.  Its all been discussed here before.  It has nearly put small sites like GL out of business and I hope the suit is successful.

But seriously, this is the least of the reasons for Gettys fall.  Rose Tinted Glasses summed up Gettys problems well.  +1 from me.
Getty doesn't say this is their only problem or their biggest one just that it is a problem.  There can be lots of issues, this is one that affects us and all the agencies.

Hongover

« Reply #8 on: June 29, 2015, 22:40 »
+2
Getty need to get with the times. The world has past them by and they just refuse to accept it.

NO ONE is going to pay for 1000X the price of an image when they can get it for 1/1000 of the price. It's simple economics. Maybe they should make Getty upper management buy water that's priced at $1000 a bottle instead of $2. Maybe then, they'll get their heads out of their asses and realize the predicament they're in.

They shouldn't blame Google, they should blame their idiot CEO and their entitled idiotic upper management.

« Reply #9 on: June 29, 2015, 23:21 »
+4
Does Getty really think they can push around Google????LOL  :o

They are so beyond STUPID and narcissistic. Google can just say Getty's SEO sucks (which they did) and then tweak the algorithms to push Getty content even farther back in search results or remove them -- because they can. And Getty cannot prove anything.

After all the ruthless activity (extortion letters) and price gouging (RM pricing) it is good to see the mighty Getty get's its az kicked by Google.

« Reply #10 on: June 29, 2015, 23:42 »
+2
You mean "extortion" letters to loving image thieves?

« Reply #11 on: June 30, 2015, 00:25 »
0
You mean "extortion" letters to loving image thieves?

that is another topic but many use an image they find online then Getty will try to bill them for about 1000 times the cost of actual licensing it.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #12 on: June 30, 2015, 01:21 »
+6
This is going to be a busy thread for Tickstock. And it Took him only 3 comments to get SS in the mix.

« Reply #13 on: June 30, 2015, 04:05 »
+2
You mean "extortion" letters to loving image thieves?

that is another topic but many use an image they find online then Getty will try to bill them for about 1000 times the cost of actual licensing it.



Yes I know, all those poor souls who downloaded and used an image "thinking it was free because it was online... It isn't free all what is online??" or saying  that "they did not know", "no one had told them", "had they know they had bought the image paying gladly for the license"  ... Sometimes I awake in the middle of the night and cry thinking about such a great injustice.

(And remember, this is not extortion, it's just an offer to avoid a lawsuit. If they are so confident they are right, they can always refuse to pay and meet demand)

Semmick Photo

« Reply #14 on: June 30, 2015, 05:25 »
0
You mean "extortion" letters to loving image thieves?


that is another topic but many use an image they find online then Getty will try to bill them for about 1000 times the cost of actual licensing it.




Yes I know, all those poor souls who downloaded and used an image "thinking it was free because it was online... It isn't free all what is online??" or saying  that "they did not know", "no one had told them", "had they know they had bought the image paying gladly for the license"  ... Sometimes I awake in the middle of the night and cry thinking about such a great injustice.

(And remember, this is not extortion, it's just an offer to avoid a lawsuit. If they are so confident they are right, they can always refuse to pay and meet demand)


Read this, especially the comments, it was some heated debate

http://www.ryanhealy.com/getty-images-extortion-letter/

And this

http://www.ryanhealy.com/attack-of-the-trollogs/

Sometimes the people handed a letter from Getty didnt even know the image was stolen,.

Anyhoo, its off topic. Carry on.

stock-will-eat-itself

« Reply #15 on: June 30, 2015, 05:32 »
+1
Getty are right on this one.

Google make it far too easy to search for an image at XXXL size and download it. When you do an image search on Google your not interested in the website it came from, it serves only one purpose.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #16 on: June 30, 2015, 06:14 »
+4
Getty need to get with the times. The world has past them by and they just refuse to accept it.

NO ONE is going to pay for 1000X the price of an image when they can get it for 1/1000 of the price. It's simple economics. Maybe they should make Getty upper management buy water that's priced at $1000 a bottle instead of $2. Maybe then, they'll get their heads out of their asses and realize the predicament they're in.

They shouldn't blame Google, they should blame their idiot CEO and their entitled idiotic upper management.

Not quite simple economics. People will pay more for the right image. I just sold a single use RM license for $300. And I get 100% instead of 20% of $2. How many of those $2 images could be selling for hundreds? So while Getty hasn't done a lot of things right for contributors lately, trying to preserve higher costs benefits a lot of us.


Shelma1

« Reply #17 on: June 30, 2015, 06:17 »
+7
Getty is right to pursue infringers, and i'm glad they do, but my understanding is that they collect only punitive damages and do not consider the settlement to include licensing of the image. So Getty gets paid for the infringement, but the image creator does not. And the demand letter includes the phrase "Getty Images and its artists expect to be fairly compensated for the use of the image(s) in question," leading the infringer to believe the photographer is involved in demanding payment and will get some "outrageous" sum, when in fact he or she will be paid nothing.

Shelma1

« Reply #18 on: June 30, 2015, 06:22 »
+1
Getty need to get with the times. The world has past them by and they just refuse to accept it.

NO ONE is going to pay for 1000X the price of an image when they can get it for 1/1000 of the price. It's simple economics. Maybe they should make Getty upper management buy water that's priced at $1000 a bottle instead of $2. Maybe then, they'll get their heads out of their asses and realize the predicament they're in.

They shouldn't blame Google, they should blame their idiot CEO and their entitled idiotic upper management.

Not quite simple economics. People will pay more for the right image. I just sold a single use RM license for $300. And I get 100% instead of 20% of $2. How many of those $2 images could be selling for hundreds? So while Getty hasn't done a lot of things right for contributors lately, trying to preserve higher costs benefits a lot of us.

It depends on budget constraints, usage and savvy. Mom and pop bloggers want free or next-to-nothing images because they make no money. Large corporations have big budgets and can afford RM to protect their brand. And everything in between. Microstock opened up new markets, but also created opportunity for pros to make a killing, both of which led to pressure to bring down prices across the board, unfortunately.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #19 on: June 30, 2015, 07:06 »
+6
Getty need to get with the times. The world has past them by and they just refuse to accept it.

NO ONE is going to pay for 1000X the price of an image when they can get it for 1/1000 of the price. It's simple economics. Maybe they should make Getty upper management buy water that's priced at $1000 a bottle instead of $2. Maybe then, they'll get their heads out of their asses and realize the predicament they're in.

They shouldn't blame Google, they should blame their idiot CEO and their entitled idiotic upper management.

Not quite simple economics. People will pay more for the right image. I just sold a single use RM license for $300. And I get 100% instead of 20% of $2. How many of those $2 images could be selling for hundreds? So while Getty hasn't done a lot of things right for contributors lately, trying to preserve higher costs benefits a lot of us.

It depends on budget constraints, usage and savvy. Mom and pop bloggers want free or next-to-nothing images because they make no money. Large corporations have big budgets and can afford RM to protect their brand. And everything in between. Microstock opened up new markets, but also created opportunity for pros to make a killing, both of which led to pressure to bring down prices across the board, unfortunately.

I don't agree with the idea that prices should be lowered because someone can't afford something. If bloggers couldn't afford images maybe they should have done without them or been limited to a thumbnail size single use license. A new product offering? Sure. But offering them full size high resolution images for a couple dollars benefits all buyers and the agencies but the value to us is questionable. We need to start getting back to a higher cost but simplified pay-per-use model rather than cheap all-you-can-eat subscriptions.

I just saw a Facebook ad for the new Adobe stock and somebody commented "your prices are way too high and you should consider lowering them". What? Wow.

Shelma1

« Reply #20 on: June 30, 2015, 07:38 »
0
Getty need to get with the times. The world has past them by and they just refuse to accept it.

NO ONE is going to pay for 1000X the price of an image when they can get it for 1/1000 of the price. It's simple economics. Maybe they should make Getty upper management buy water that's priced at $1000 a bottle instead of $2. Maybe then, they'll get their heads out of their asses and realize the predicament they're in.

They shouldn't blame Google, they should blame their idiot CEO and their entitled idiotic upper management.

Not quite simple economics. People will pay more for the right image. I just sold a single use RM license for $300. And I get 100% instead of 20% of $2. How many of those $2 images could be selling for hundreds? So while Getty hasn't done a lot of things right for contributors lately, trying to preserve higher costs benefits a lot of us.

It depends on budget constraints, usage and savvy. Mom and pop bloggers want free or next-to-nothing images because they make no money. Large corporations have big budgets and can afford RM to protect their brand. And everything in between. Microstock opened up new markets, but also created opportunity for pros to make a killing, both of which led to pressure to bring down prices across the board, unfortunately.

I don't agree with the idea that prices should be lowered because someone can't afford something. If bloggers couldn't afford images maybe they should have done without them or been limited to a thumbnail size single use license. A new product offering? Sure. But offering them full size high resolution images for a couple dollars benefits all buyers and the agencies but the value to us is questionable. We need to start getting back to a higher cost but simplified pay-per-use model rather than cheap all-you-can-eat subscriptions.

I just saw a Facebook ad for the new Adobe stock and somebody commented "your prices are way too high and you should consider lowering them". What? Wow.

It would be great if raising prices meant people would go on buying images and just pay more. But I doubt that would happen. Ending subs just means everyone gives up a big portion of their income.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #21 on: June 30, 2015, 07:47 »
+2
Getty need to get with the times. The world has past them by and they just refuse to accept it.

NO ONE is going to pay for 1000X the price of an image when they can get it for 1/1000 of the price. It's simple economics. Maybe they should make Getty upper management buy water that's priced at $1000 a bottle instead of $2. Maybe then, they'll get their heads out of their asses and realize the predicament they're in.

They shouldn't blame Google, they should blame their idiot CEO and their entitled idiotic upper management.

Not quite simple economics. People will pay more for the right image. I just sold a single use RM license for $300. And I get 100% instead of 20% of $2. How many of those $2 images could be selling for hundreds? So while Getty hasn't done a lot of things right for contributors lately, trying to preserve higher costs benefits a lot of us.

It depends on budget constraints, usage and savvy. Mom and pop bloggers want free or next-to-nothing images because they make no money. Large corporations have big budgets and can afford RM to protect their brand. And everything in between. Microstock opened up new markets, but also created opportunity for pros to make a killing, both of which led to pressure to bring down prices across the board, unfortunately.

I don't agree with the idea that prices should be lowered because someone can't afford something. If bloggers couldn't afford images maybe they should have done without them or been limited to a thumbnail size single use license. A new product offering? Sure. But offering them full size high resolution images for a couple dollars benefits all buyers and the agencies but the value to us is questionable. We need to start getting back to a higher cost but simplified pay-per-use model rather than cheap all-you-can-eat subscriptions.

I just saw a Facebook ad for the new Adobe stock and somebody commented "your prices are way too high and you should consider lowering them". What? Wow.

It would be great if raising prices meant people would go on buying images and just pay more. But I doubt that would happen. Ending subs just means everyone gives up a big portion of their income.

A big portion of what income? Maybe the people that are making crazy money are staying quiet but seems like most people that have been doing this for a while are reporting overall income is stagnant or dropping year over year regardless of how many new images they submit. The wall. The hamster wheel.

If pricing model changes continue to head in the same direction what will your micro income look like in five years? Higher? Lower? Non-existent?

Shelma1

« Reply #22 on: June 30, 2015, 08:02 »
+4

A big portion of what income? Maybe the people that are making crazy money are staying quiet but seems like most people that have been doing this for a while are reporting overall income is stagnant or dropping year over year regardless of how many new images they submit. The wall. The hamster wheel.

If pricing model changes continue to head in the same direction what will your micro income look like in five years? Higher? Lower? Non-existent?

I don't know what to tell you. There's a huge and growing influx of new contributors every year. Increased competition means lower earnings no matter what you do. For me it looks like about 2/3 of my micro income comes from subs. So how does ending subs help? It just deletes 2/3 of your shrinking income instantly.

At one time there were two distinct marketplaces...high-end pro images through RM and amateur (but not necessarily poor quality) images through RF. Then the pros realized they could make a ton of money out-competing the amateurs in RF, which led to an influx of high-quality pro images selling for peanuts, which led to amateurs having to up their games, which led to the simultaneous upward spiral of image quality and downward spiral of image price we're seeing now. I'm not sure what the solution is.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #23 on: June 30, 2015, 08:03 »
+2

A big portion of what income? Maybe the people that are making crazy money are staying quiet but seems like most people that have been doing this for a while are reporting overall income is stagnant or dropping year over year regardless of how many new images they submit. The wall. The hamster wheel.

If pricing model changes continue to head in the same direction what will your micro income look like in five years? Higher? Lower? Non-existent?

I don't know what to tell you. There's a huge and growing influx of new contributors every year. Increased competition means lower earnings no matter what you do. For me it looks like about 2/3 of my micro income comes from subs. So how does ending subs help? It just deletes 2/3 of your shrinking income instantly.

At one time there were two distinct marketplaces...high-end pro images through RM and amateur (but not necessarily poor quality) images through RF. Then the pros realized they could make a ton of money out-competing the amateurs in RF, which led to an influx of high-quality pro images selling for peanuts, which led to amateurs having to up their games, which led to the simultaneous upward spiral of image quality and downward spiral of image price we're seeing now. I'm not sure what the solution is.
This

« Reply #24 on: June 30, 2015, 11:22 »
+1
The link is a Google Trends comparison chart for search terms Shutterstock, Getty Images and istock. Absolutely shocking results. Not really.  ;)

www.microstockposts.com/agencies-whats-trending 

Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #25 on: June 30, 2015, 11:35 »
+4
This is going to be a busy thread for Tickstock. And it Took him only 3 comments to get SS in the mix.

Yet it took only your first comment for you to open your rather large flap and mention Tickstock.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #26 on: June 30, 2015, 12:03 »
+2
This is going to be a busy thread for Tickstock. And it Took him only 3 comments to get SS in the mix.

Yet it took only your first comment for you to open your rather large flap and mention Tickstock.
lol. Didn't take you long to give away your identity


« Reply #27 on: June 30, 2015, 12:19 »
+4
This is going to be a busy thread for Tickstock. And it Took him only 3 comments to get SS in the mix.

Yet it took only your first comment for you to open your rather large flap and mention Tickstock.
I didn't see it, I've had that troll on ignore for a while now.  If he ever chooses to say something interesting, relevant, or on topic maybe I'll reply but as it is I only expect more of the same so I'm happy keeping him on ignore.  That's all the space I want to waste on him, back to the topic.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2015, 12:52 by tickstock »

« Reply #28 on: June 30, 2015, 12:28 »
+2

A big portion of what income? Maybe the people that are making crazy money are staying quiet but seems like most people that have been doing this for a while are reporting overall income is stagnant or dropping year over year regardless of how many new images they submit. The wall. The hamster wheel.

If pricing model changes continue to head in the same direction what will your micro income look like in five years? Higher? Lower? Non-existent?

I don't know what to tell you. There's a huge and growing influx of new contributors every year. Increased competition means lower earnings no matter what you do. For me it looks like about 2/3 of my micro income comes from subs. So how does ending subs help? It just deletes 2/3 of your shrinking income instantly.

At one time there were two distinct marketplaces...high-end pro images through RM and amateur (but not necessarily poor quality) images through RF. Then the pros realized they could make a ton of money out-competing the amateurs in RF, which led to an influx of high-quality pro images selling for peanuts, which led to amateurs having to up their games, which led to the simultaneous upward spiral of image quality and downward spiral of image price we're seeing now. I'm not sure what the solution is.

Pros with 10,000 images realized they could have more money coming in NEXT WEEK if they dumped them on all the microstock sites.  Sounded too good to be true.  And it was.

Over the last few years I've seen this statement countless times:  "I want my images to be available from as many sources as possible."  Well, now they are - including many you don't even know about.   All competing on nothing but price. 


« Last Edit: June 30, 2015, 12:30 by stockastic »

« Reply #29 on: December 06, 2015, 12:15 »
+1
I am exclusive and I have been with Getty Images for years. This is not a SEO problem, rather it is a CEO problem. You can't keep sh!tt!ng on the talent and expect positive long term results. Without a doubt the competition has brought the industry to new lows, but you combine this with reckless abandon and total disrespect to your contributors and buyers, people will leave you either as a contributor or a buyer. Mr. CEO you and your arrogant ego blew Getty Images, not the competition or Google search. You needed us more than you thought.

whether or not this is a CEO problem, it also is true that Google and their arbitrary "algo updates" are designed with Google's bottom line in mind -- not yours, not Getty's, not mine nor anyone else's.

At the same time, Google delivers very mediocre "image search", if you can call it that at all. Actually, it seems the entire internet does not havy any "image search" worth its salt yet. This is ridiculous, and it seems they at Google, of all places, did not know the first thing about parsing certain pieces of data.

So, as much as I dislike Getty (or Rockefeller or any other corporation belonging to that cartel discovered by the ETH Zurich a few years back) as well as being aware of the fact that Getty seem to try and argue against any deep linking on the net in some way here and certainly still don't get how the internet works, they still have a point. At least sort of. (Also the "proof" offered by thesempost is incredibly lame and beside the point. That is where the real "ouch" lies: seriously, who in this world would only be searching for ridiculous terms like "stock photo of xyz"...?

No one should ignore the fact that Google pose a far greater threat to all internet users and their interests than an on-the-way-out joint like Getty.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2015, 13:07 by marquixHD »

« Reply #30 on: December 07, 2015, 09:48 »
+1
No one should ignore the fact that Google pose a far greater threat to all internet users and their interests than an on-the-way-out joint like Getty.

And if you can pay big $$$, as I understand it, your search results will be at the top on Google. As long as money influences the search results, the top images you are going to see in a search will belong to the company with the deepest pockets. That goes for any search engine.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
4022 Views
Last post August 17, 2007, 09:51
by w7lwi
21 Replies
8314 Views
Last post July 08, 2009, 18:16
by Squat
0 Replies
2444 Views
Last post July 07, 2011, 21:35
by click_click
4 Replies
2933 Views
Last post April 17, 2015, 16:27
by ShadySue
7 Replies
4504 Views
Last post April 12, 2018, 20:21
by Hildegarde

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle