Author Topic: thinkstockphotos.com - Getty New Family (Read 100130 times)

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #325 on:** February 09, 2010, 22:37 »

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on February 09, 2010, 22:12

Hi Lisa,

That is a nice perspective but it makes it sound a bit like you guys came up with Micro because they didn't accept you to Macro. That is not how Micro was built it was a vehicle that came along with the door open to lower end shooters and designers for free swapping of images, it evolved from that but not because Getty wouldn't take you it was because it was easier and more accessible.

I seriously don't understand how the point just seems to evade you. Obviously none of us here created the microstock industry. However, when the time came that "we" were interested in taking part in the stock content industry, it was there to welcome us with open arms. Unlike Getty, which was/is very unfriendly, lacking communication and only interested in proven performance. Their loss was not seeing that a new generation of creatives with new technology would be able to take their business away. Lucky for them, they acted in time to own the leader.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #326 on:** February 10, 2010, 00:15 »

Quote from: macrosaur on February 09, 2010, 22:24

I agree with Jonathan.

If Getty doesn't like you maybe you're just unworth it.

I don't care what Getty thinks of my work as long as they get the message loud and clear that they can't have it on the cheap. I don't want to submit to Getty, I just want to continue with a royalty structure at IS that is much more favorable (to me) than what Getty wants to put in its place.

This is all about not rolling over and playing dead because the schoolyard big boy says he wants half my lunch money.

This is not about any notion that I have that Getty proper is my rightful place - can't even figure out why you keep bringing that up. I'll stipulate that my place is with the micros if you stop going on about how none of us is any good for the macros anyway.

The discussion here is only about attempts to cut royalties by moving the business over to a low-royalty newbie site Getty has cooked up.

gostwyck · « **Reply #327 on:** February 10, 2010, 00:40 »

Quote from: macrosaur on February 09, 2010, 22:24

I agree with Jonathan.

If Getty doesn't like you maybe you're just unworth it.

I see. Is Yuri 'just unworth it' too for example? Apparently Yuri has been named within PDN's list of 'The most influential photographers of the decade'.

Were you or Jonathun in that list by any chance __ or were you 'just unworth it'?

sharply_done · « **Reply #328 on:** February 10, 2010, 01:04 »

Quote from: gostwyck on February 10, 2010, 00:40

... Apparently Yuri has been named within PDN's list of 'The most influential photographers of the decade'.
...

Well, yeah ... kinda.
That poll suffered (hugely) from unregulated internet voting - if Stephen Colbert had heard about it he could have had himself voted as #1.

Randy McKown · « **Reply #329 on:** February 10, 2010, 01:36 »

Quote from: gostwyck on February 10, 2010, 00:40

Quote from: macrosaur on February 09, 2010, 22:24
I agree with Jonathan.

If Getty doesn't like you maybe you're just unworth it.

I see. Is Yuri 'just unworth it' too for example? Apparently Yuri has been named within PDN's list of 'The most influential photographers of the decade'.

Were you or Jonathun in that list by any chance __ or were you 'just unworth it'?

ROFLMAO .. so what Ashton Kutcher made that list too !!

That list is a joke. Actually, when you consider the fact that the list contains a few deserving names like Annie Leibovitz and Mary Ellen Mark it honestly becomes more insulting than anything. I mean that is seriously F'd up !!!

That's like Car & driver publishing a 30 most influential cars of the decade list that included the Bugatti Veyron, Lamborghini Reventon ... and the Ford Escort LMAO

FD · « **Reply #330 on:** February 10, 2010, 01:49 »

Macrosaur reminds me of Old Hippie (or what was his name?). Probably the same. Talking like the gods of the Olympus but no hard portfolio links to support claims. I'd rather read Locke.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #331 on:** February 10, 2010, 02:58 »

Quote from: FD-amateur on February 10, 2010, 01:49

Macrosaur reminds me of Old Hippie (or what was his name?). Probably the same. Talking like the gods of the Olympus but no hard portfolio links to support claims. I'd rather read Locke.

Sleeper Cell. Registered early in Dec. and waited two months to do the "drive by" postings. What's the over under on when he disappears again?

grp_photo · « **Reply #332 on:** February 10, 2010, 03:34 »

Quote from: gostwyck on February 10, 2010, 00:40

Quote from: macrosaur on February 09, 2010, 22:24
I agree with Jonathan.

If Getty doesn't like you maybe you're just unworth it.

I see. Is Yuri 'just unworth it' too for example? Apparently Yuri has been named within PDN's list of 'The most influential photographers of the decade'.

Were you or Jonathun in that list by any chance __ or were you 'just unworth it'?

lol

FD · « **Reply #333 on:** February 10, 2010, 03:45 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on February 10, 2010, 02:58

What's the over under on when he disappears again?

Well Perseus/Batman disappeared. It must be something like the seven-year itch. Anyways, I feel 'unworthy' to be on Thinkstock.

NitorPhoto · « **Reply #334 on:** February 10, 2010, 05:49 »

Well, who talks about opening the gates wide and allowing anyone to submit to Getty (or to other big macro)?!
But there are microstock photographers - like Yuri who was already mentioned here - who's lifestyle images can compete with the best RF images of Getty. These images are not fresh ideas nor new approaches but very decent competitors of the macro RF collections. They might not add anything new to that 'highly creative' Getty RF collection. Yes, there may be a creativity gap between these images and their macro RF counterparts but the difference is not visible for 99% of the customers. And this 99% is happy to buy the 10$ version instead of the 400$ version. This 99% is what is missing from the macro market and this is the symptom ruining the older/more profitable business model.
And Yuri in not the only example. There might not be 1000s of them but 20-50. If Getty would have been open or wise enough to hunt down these 'talents' before they grow up the stock industry would be very different now. I am not talking about accepting their application, I am going further by talking about actively hunting them down and offering them a golden cage inside the macro boundaries. But now, it is too late. Offer them anything, they will reject if leaving the micro market is part of the deal. Simply because they earn more than most of the RF shooters. But a few years ago it could have been done.

NitorPhoto · « **Reply #335 on:** February 10, 2010, 05:59 »

Ah... and not to mention that Yuri's loud success magnetized many seasoned pro to join the micro universe. Now they are also raising the bar and actively filling in the gap between the two worlds. If Yuri would have been magnetized by Getty before he can magnetize others... I am sure you got my point already.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #336 on:** February 10, 2010, 11:51 »

Quote from: NitorPhoto on February 10, 2010, 05:59

Ah... and not to mention that Yuri's loud success magnetized many seasoned pro to join the micro universe. Now they are also raising the bar and actively filling in the gap between the two worlds. If Yuri would have been magnetized by Getty before he can magnetize others... I am sure you got my point already.

Ifsare simple to dole out. If you kept the Wright brothers from flying it would have hardly stopped aviation. I'll mention the book The Outliers one last time. It delves into what makes a success and what doesn't.

SNP · « **Reply #337 on:** February 10, 2010, 12:06 »

Quote from: sjlocke on February 09, 2010, 22:37

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on February 09, 2010, 22:12
Hi Lisa,

That is a nice perspective but it makes it sound a bit like you guys came up with Micro because they didn't accept you to Macro. That is not how Micro was built it was a vehicle that came along with the door open to lower end shooters and designers for free swapping of images, it evolved from that but not because Getty wouldn't take you it was because it was easier and more accessible.

I seriously don't understand how the point just seems to evade you. Obviously none of us here created the microstock industry. However, when the time came that "we" were interested in taking part in the stock content industry, it was there to welcome us with open arms. Unlike Getty, which was/is very unfriendly, lacking communication and only interested in proven performance. Their loss was not seeing that a new generation of creatives with new technology would be able to take their business away. Lucky for them, they acted in time to own the leader.

Sean - that summary is brilliant. and has broader implications for the partner program crowd too. well said dude.

lisafx · « **Reply #338 on:** February 10, 2010, 12:51 »

Quote from: FD-amateur on February 10, 2010, 03:45

Quote from: RacePhoto on February 10, 2010, 02:58
What's the over under on when he disappears again?
Well Perseus/Batman disappeared. It must be something like the seven-year itch.

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner!

Poor guy just cannot manage to keep that much crazy contained for very long.

Well spotted FD, and Race.

macrosaur · « **Reply #339 on:** February 10, 2010, 14:24 »

Quote from: lisafx on February 10, 2010, 12:51

Quote from: FD-amateur on February 10, 2010, 03:45
Quote from: RacePhoto on February 10, 2010, 02:58
What's the over under on when he disappears again?
Well Perseus/Batman disappeared. It must be something like the seven-year itch.

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner!

Poor guy just cannot manage to keep that much crazy contained for very long.

Well spotted FD, and Race.

Yes.
Macrosaur == Old Hippy

But now i'm a good boy.

Kngkyle · « **Reply #340 on:** February 10, 2010, 16:41 »

Posted this on the IS topic, figured I'd post it here as well. Perhaps more of you can share your experience with this.

I was with StockXpert when they introduced subscriptions in Q4 2007. I compiled this graph to show the percentage of my earnings coming from StockXpert from Q4 2007 to Q4 2009. I used percentage of income instead of just income because obviously over the years my portfolio has gotten larger. These numbers are a 3 month rolling average to smooth the outliers.

Phil · « **Reply #341 on:** February 10, 2010, 17:07 »

Quote from: macrosaur on February 10, 2010, 14:24

Quote from: lisafx on February 10, 2010, 12:51
Quote from: FD-amateur on February 10, 2010, 03:45
Quote from: RacePhoto on February 10, 2010, 02:58
What's the over under on when he disappears again?
Well Perseus/Batman disappeared. It must be something like the seven-year itch.

Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner!

Poor guy just cannot manage to keep that much crazy contained for very long.

Well spotted FD, and Race.

Yes.
Macrosaur == Old Hippy

But now i'm a good boy.

I liked your dinosaur avatar better

(although it did always make me think of the dinosaur in 'meet the robinsons' (kids movie) and it saying "I dont how well thought through this plan was" which I also thought was appropriate

- sorry you'd have to see the movie to understand)

sharpshot · « **Reply #342 on:** February 10, 2010, 17:46 »

Quote from: Kngkyle on February 10, 2010, 16:41

Posted this on the IS topic, figured I'd post it here as well. Perhaps more of you can share your experience with this.

I was with StockXpert when they introduced subscriptions in Q4 2007. I compiled this graph to show the percentage of my earnings coming from StockXpert from Q4 2007 to Q4 2009. I used percentage of income instead of just income because obviously over the years my portfolio has gotten larger. These numbers are a 3 month rolling average to smooth the outliers.

This is just my earnings from the same period. I was doing well with subs, having several BME's. Then there was a slow down, while I was still opted in and a big slump after I turned them off. I wont miss them going now, last month was my worst in years.

melastmohican · « **Reply #343 on:** February 10, 2010, 18:07 »

I guess it's another flame war: Mac vs PC, Canon vs Nikon, Christmas vs Easter :-) Some people do well since subs were introduced, some suffer. Television did not kill books so micros will not kill macros either. Obviously more people will share a cake instead of few "chosen" ones so it's obvious that individual shares might be lower. Some industries are coming another ones are going. We cannot stop the change.

lisafx · « **Reply #344 on:** February 10, 2010, 18:16 »

Quote from: melastmohican on February 10, 2010, 18:07

I guess it's another flame war: Mac vs PC, Canon vs Nikon, Christmas vs Easter :-) Some people do well since subs were introduced, some suffer.

Sorry, could you point me to the people whose RPD on any site has gone UP with the introduction of subs? I must have missed those posts...

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #345 on:** February 10, 2010, 18:24 »

Quote from: macrosaur on February 10, 2010, 14:24

Yes.
Macrosaur == Old Hippy

But now i'm a good boy.

Busted.

Haa. A good boy? That can't last. It's only a matter of time before you lose control over the filter between your brain and fingers.

melastmohican · « **Reply #346 on:** February 10, 2010, 18:32 »

Quote from: lisafx on February 10, 2010, 18:16

Quote from: melastmohican on February 10, 2010, 18:07
I guess it's another flame war: Mac vs PC, Canon vs Nikon, Christmas vs Easter :-) Some people do well since subs were introduced, some suffer.

Sorry, could you point me to the people whose RPD on any site has gone UP with the introduction of subs? I must have missed those posts...

Did I say RPD? There are quite few people claiming on this forum that their revenue went up not RPD. Even in this thread somebody said that top microstockers get more than from macro RF and obviously they got lower RPD but larger volume. I am just trying to say that there is no consensus on subs, everybody is different. Market is saturated and competition is harder so maybe this is a reason that some people earn less?

HughStoneIan · « **Reply #347 on:** February 10, 2010, 23:43 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on February 10, 2010, 18:24

Quote from: macrosaur on February 10, 2010, 14:24
Yes.
Macrosaur == Old Hippy

But now i'm a good boy.

Busted.

Haa. A good boy? That can't last. It's only a matter of time before you lose control over the filter between your brain and fingers.

FD · « **Reply #348 on:** February 11, 2010, 00:57 »

Quote from: macrosaur on February 10, 2010, 14:24

Yes. Macrosaur == Old Hippy

- so where's your port on Flickr? Or are you really Ansel Adams?

FD · « **Reply #349 on:** February 11, 2010, 01:12 »

Quote from: lisafx on February 10, 2010, 18:16

Sorry, could you point me to the people whose RPD on any site has gone UP with the introduction of subs?

Slightly OT but I noticed the past week a few XS sales on DT for 0.28$, 1 2008 credit. Apparently they finally fell back on their 30% as announced. The subs are still 0.35$ for level 1's, and 0.36$ on SS. In that scheme, I prefer subs.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: thinkstockphotos.com - Getty New Family (Read 100130 times)

Sean Locke Photography

Jo Ann Snover

gostwyck

sharply_done

Randy McKown

FD

RacePhoto

grp_photo

FD

NitorPhoto

NitorPhoto

PeterChigmaroff

SNP

lisafx

macrosaur

Kngkyle

Phil

sharpshot

melastmohican

lisafx

PaulieWalnuts

melastmohican

HughStoneIan

FD

FD

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors