MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: thinkstockphotos.com - Getty New Family  (Read 99361 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #350 on: February 11, 2010, 15:00 »
0
there was the comment here somewhere of it being the deathstar, judging by the (the site) and istock forums it's looking like it may turn out to be the whoopie cushion :)


« Reply #351 on: February 13, 2010, 11:06 »
0
According to this press release by Getty, the image packs will cost from $59 for 5 to $999 for 250. That means for the higher end pack, buyers will be paying $4 for maximum sized images while contributors get 80 cents.

So not only will the subscription plans eat away at current Istock customers, the LOWER pay per download prices will to.

alias

« Reply #352 on: February 13, 2010, 11:28 »
0
IMO this is about building market share. Not about cutting commissions. Cutting commissions would be collateral damage if it happened. It may not even be what they want. My guess is that they do not want a fight with the world of photographers. There are two good reasons why not:

1. Sooner or later another model might emerge. Nobody can tell with new models but the way things go they can take over a market very suddenly. If the 2 key issues could somehow be solved a new non agency model could become dominant.

2. Equally as worryingly for them. Someone else could set up an alternative league and  build a successful high end micro like agency for (guess) about $100m up front. That would have to include buying the exclusive loyalty of about 100 of the best and most prolific content producers.

« Reply #353 on: February 13, 2010, 12:15 »
0
...My guess is that they do not want a fight with the world of photographers...
Don't forget all the illustrators.  From what I have read about Getty, they have no problem lowering commissions and making their contributors angry.  Haven't they just done that with us by closing a site that paid 50% commission and $0.30 for subs?  It is the same with most big companies, they aren't concerned about their suppliers because they know they have a large piece of the market and people have little choice but to use them.  That is why I want their rival sites to remain strong and stop them dominating the market.

« Reply #354 on: February 13, 2010, 13:35 »
0
The real horror scenario (more for IS exclusives than for independents) would be that the PP on IS becomes mandatory. As Getty obviously doesn't care really about its contributors, that might be a possibility when TS doesn't make enough profit fast by its meager content.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #355 on: February 13, 2010, 14:00 »
0
The real horror scenario (more for IS exclusives than for independents) would be that the PP on IS becomes mandatory. As Getty obviously doesn't care really about its contributors, that might be a possibility when TS doesn't make enough profit fast by its meager content.

I'd say it's more than a possibility. It's highly likely. All of this opt-in opt-out stuff is probably perceived as a major headache for Getty. At some point fairly soon I believe there won't be an opt-out option. They will choose what goes where based on what will most boost revenue and profits. Or they'll leave the opt-out option available but will change the terms so much that you would hurt yourself to opt-out. The end result is the same. You won't have a choice.

Istock in the past has listened to contributors. Getty doesn't - they make changes and that's that.

Since Kelly has been tasked with 50% growth this year, assuming it won't happen by itself, there are probably going to be more frequent and radical changes. It's a business. So to meet those growth goals the IS team will probably be making more decisions that exclude contributor's input.

Because if they don't meet the goals the annual management meeting may go something like "First prize is a Cadillac Eldorado. Second prize is a set of steak knives. Third prize is you're fired. "
« Last Edit: February 13, 2010, 14:07 by PaulieWalnuts »

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #356 on: February 13, 2010, 14:45 »
0
Also, I'm surprised no one seems to be discussing the root cause of all of the changes. The 50% growth goal.

To me the 50% growth goal is the real concern. This drives every decision. If this 50% goal is a real stretch, and there's either big incentives or consequnces, the IS management team may end up with a do-whatever-it-takes attitude.

I've seen how people change when their employer slaps them with some unobtainable goal. I'm Not saying the IS goal isn't obtainable but we don't know and that's a concern. But from all the big changes I'd lean toward it being a stretch.

I wonder if when Bitter was there, or before Getty, if IS had hard growth goals. Or if they just kinda let it grow on it's own.

« Reply #357 on: February 13, 2010, 15:04 »
0
Getty is run by corporate "managers" that can't tell a photo from an illustration, and their loyalty is with themselves. This year they sell photos, next year they sell cookies. They want to please the shareholders that want short term ROI. Those corporate sharks aren't concerned with the long term. As soon as they have their bonuses, they move on to another pond.

Sites run by and privately/wholly owned by photographers themselves are different, since they have to work for long-term goals. iStock and the guys running it are in a very awkward position. They are (mostly very good) photographers and they love their child. On the other hand, they have to defend the Getty policy in public, as employees. They did a great job till know to keep the sharks out of the carps' pond and as long as they can realize this 50% growth, iStock is safe.  
« Last Edit: February 13, 2010, 15:07 by FD-amateur »

« Reply #358 on: February 13, 2010, 15:05 »
0
The real horror scenario (more for IS exclusives than for independents) would be that the PP on IS becomes mandatory. As Getty obviously doesn't care really about its contributors, that might be a possibility when TS doesn't make enough profit fast by its meager content.

I'd say it's more than a possibility. It's highly likely. All of this opt-in opt-out stuff is probably perceived as a major headache for Getty. At some point fairly soon I believe there won't be an opt-out option. They will choose what goes where based on what will most boost revenue and profits. Or they'll leave the opt-out option available but will change the terms so much that you would hurt yourself to opt-out. The end result is the same. You won't have a choice.



In that scenario, dropping exclusivity and uploading to all the sites is, certainly, a choice.

« Reply #359 on: February 13, 2010, 15:55 »
0
Quote
I'd say it's more than a possibility. It's highly likely. All of this opt-in opt-out stuff is probably perceived as a major headache for Getty. At some point fairly soon I believe there won't be an opt-out option. They will choose what goes where based on what will most boost revenue and profits. Or they'll leave the opt-out option available but will change the terms so much that you would hurt yourself to opt-out. The end result is the same. You won't have a choice.

I would tend to agree. I also believe if they keep independents around at all, they will go wherever Getty says they go and that most likely will be over to Thinkstock.

« Reply #360 on: February 13, 2010, 16:17 »
0
Has anyone figured out what will be the benchmark metric to determine if the ThinkStock experiment is a success or not?

Sounds like a nightmare for metrics ... (iStockPhoto, Hemera etc.)


-Mark
http://markwpayne.wordpress.com
 

helix7

« Reply #361 on: February 13, 2010, 16:43 »
0
...It is the same with most big companies, they aren't concerned about their suppliers because they know they have a large piece of the market and people have little choice but to use them.  That is why I want their rival sites to remain strong and stop them dominating the market.

Amen to that. I think it's more important than ever before to keep the competition strong and throw our support behind the sites that still give a crap about contributors. It's obvious the direction Getty is going. They've been on that road for a while, actually. It's just more obvious in their microstock holdings now.

It's funny... just a short time ago I was reconsidering the exclusive option, in light of the price increase. Now I'm so glad I decided to stay away from the crown. The direction istock (and Getty) is going just stinks. Browse the istock forums and you'll get the feeling that a whole lot of people are of the same opinion, including many istock exclusives. It's scary. Buyers are angry about price increases. Contributors are angry about policies and partner programs. If anyone is going to step up and try to dethrone the king, it certainly seems like the right time for it.

« Reply #362 on: February 13, 2010, 17:51 »
0
IMO this is about building market share. Not about cutting commissions. Cutting commissions would be collateral damage if it happened. It may not even be what they want. My guess is that they do not want a fight with the world of photographers. There are two good reasons why not:

1. Sooner or later another model might emerge. Nobody can tell with new models but the way things go they can take over a market very suddenly. If the 2 key issues could somehow be solved a new non agency model could become dominant.

2. Equally as worryingly for them. Someone else could set up an alternative league and  build a successful high end micro like agency for (guess) about $100m up front. That would have to include buying the exclusive loyalty of about 100 of the best and most prolific content producers.

I don't agree, getty loves to fight the world of photographers.

Getty will just buy any new serious competitors out.

They'll have a Big war chest after they screw everybody over.

If thinkstock doesn't work shutterstock will be bought out and destroyed.


« Reply #363 on: February 13, 2010, 18:08 »
0
If thinkstock doesn't work shutterstock will be bought out and destroyed.
Aren't there anti-cartel laws in the US that would forbid that? If Getty bought SS-BigStock, there would be no meaningful competitive microstock agency left in the US, if we consider DT as European. And even so,

lisafx

« Reply #364 on: February 13, 2010, 19:18 »
0
Aren't there anti-cartel laws in the US that would forbid that? If Getty bought SS-BigStock, there would be no meaningful competitive microstock agency left in the US, if we consider DT as European. And even so,

Yes, we have anti-trust laws here, but there has been some lax enforcement in recent years.


Amen to that. I think it's more important than ever before to keep the competition strong and throw our support behind the sites that still give a crap about contributors.


Mike, who are those sites that care about contributors?  Not being confrontational BTW.  I would really like to know which sites people feel cared about  as contributors?

helix7

« Reply #365 on: February 15, 2010, 19:02 »
0
Mike, who are those sites that care about contributors?  Not being confrontational BTW.  I would really like to know which sites people feel cared about  as contributors?

Sadly StockXpert was one of them, in my opinion. Maybe top of the list. They paid a very fair royalty, had good sales volume, and in the pre-Jupiter/Getty days the admin team was extremely helpful and responsive. 

Companies that I think are currently doing well by contributors are Cutcaster (we all know John's work ethic and how involved in the microstock community he is), Graphic Leftovers (Daniel and team are very responsive, very helpful, and actually asked my opinion on some new site design features), and Dreamstime is fair and responsive to member concerns. All three of these companies also pay fairly, Cutcaster paying 40%, GL paying 52%, and DT paying the tiered royalty scale that is certainly more fair than what many other companies offer.

I personally think the industry standard royalty rate should be 50% across the board, but obviously that's never going to happen. However there are some companies that work near or at that line, and I'm happy to support those companies. Keep in mind, however, that it's not all about royalties. The sites I support also have the ability and reach to bring in real buyer volume, and they are all contributor-friendly and fair when it comes to addressing problems and hearing contributor concerns.

« Reply #366 on: February 17, 2010, 12:43 »
0
Don't worry about SS+BigStock... They are fully privately held and I am sure Jon Oringer will sell his business for great money if they offer him buyout with six or seven zeros sum.
But, I doubt that Jon will agree on that if he doesn't plan to sell cookies too ;-)


lisafx

« Reply #367 on: February 17, 2010, 13:51 »
0

Companies that I think are currently doing well by contributors are Cutcaster (we all know John's work ethic and how involved in the microstock community he is), Graphic Leftovers (Daniel and team are very responsive, very helpful, and actually asked my opinion on some new site design features), and Dreamstime is fair and responsive to member concerns. All three of these companies also pay fairly, Cutcaster paying 40%, GL paying 52%, and DT paying the tiered royalty scale that is certainly more fair than what many other companies offer.



Thanks for the info Mike.  Of those three I am only on DT.  I will agree, though, that of the big sites they offer the fairest deal to contributors.

I have never heard of Graphic leftovers.  Are there any sales there? 

I have been contemplating adding Cutcaster to my lineup to replace StockXpert or Crestock, but what I have been reading about sales volume has me holding back.  Not to mention that the smaller sites seem to be folding like cheap suits all over the place.

« Reply #368 on: February 17, 2010, 14:13 »
0
I have never heard of Graphic leftovers.  Are there any sales there?
I signed up there but I made the mistake not to read what they accept. They don't accept people that need a model release. Of photos, they only like isolated product shots, food etc... As my port now is 2/3 people, I'll have to cancel them. I'll never get payout with 10 crappy food shots.

« Reply #369 on: February 17, 2010, 14:29 »
0

Companies that I think are currently doing well by contributors are Cutcaster (we all know John's work ethic and how involved in the microstock community he is), Graphic Leftovers (Daniel and team are very responsive, very helpful, and actually asked my opinion on some new site design features), and Dreamstime is fair and responsive to member concerns. All three of these companies also pay fairly, Cutcaster paying 40%, GL paying 52%, and DT paying the tiered royalty scale that is certainly more fair than what many other companies offer.




Thanks for the info Mike.  Of those three I am only on DT.  I will agree, though, that of the big sites they offer the fairest deal to contributors.

I have never heard of Graphic leftovers.  Are there any sales there?  

I have been contemplating adding Cutcaster to my lineup to replace StockXpert or Crestock, but what I have been reading about sales volume has me holding back.  Not to mention that the smaller sites seem to be folding like cheap suits all over the place.

Just started uploading to Graphic Leftovers and I have 3 sales already.  I see there are others here with over 100 sales, so it looks like they have something going for them.  If you do sign up, make sure to ask for an FTP account, it is the easiest upload, no categories, just upload and they appear in your portfolio.  Suppose I had better leave my referral :)

Graphic Leftovers
« Last Edit: February 17, 2010, 14:32 by sharpshot »

lisafx

« Reply #370 on: February 17, 2010, 14:41 »
0
Thanks for the info on GL.  I am in the same boat as Flemish though.  My portfolio is almost entirely people.

« Reply #371 on: February 17, 2010, 15:35 »
0
Hi there - I run my own macro agency, and used to scout for talent on the internet in it's early days. I took on as many contributors as possible, and all worked well while I was selling their material and providing good sales figures.

Hard time's hit about three years ago for me, suddenly I couln't be sure of making good returns on material, hence I had to stop taking on contributors. I sent them all off in the direction of larger trad agencies, although most were not taken on. They either gave up or ended with Alamy.

I cut all my overheads and increased by workload significantly just to survive. End of the day, all I want to do is pay the mortgage, and I'd sell my soul to the devil for that.

Whichever way you go about it, IS exclusive, selling great images for peanut subscription fee's, or hanging outside seedy hotel's waiting for indiscrete celebrities, it does not matter.

All come's to the bottom line for me, I've got a family to feed, so sod the principles and I'll take every extra cent I can. It doesn't make it right, but until I can give my family what they deserve, I'll reserve the luxury of principles.

Oldhand (who's not that old really)

« Reply #372 on: February 17, 2010, 15:54 »
0
Mike, who are those sites that care about contributors?  Not being confrontational BTW.  I would really like to know which sites people feel cared about  as contributors?

I'm not Mike and I don't want to be confrontational, either, but I feel "cared about" by Shutterstock for example - Yes, they do sell subscriptions  - but I knew that beforehand, they didn't drop it on me after I signed up, and I made good money there when every download was $0.25, and I'm making even better money there now that I'm at $0.36 and they introduced PPDs...

In my view they "just work": I don't have troubles logging in or uploading to, I can't remember an alien octopus, their stats are up to date within an hour, they pay promptly around the 7th or 8th each month, they are very easy to upload to, they have a decent concept of "editorial", they don't move the goalposts during the game, they handled the tax-withholding-thing decently - have I missed anything? I'm not trying to sound like a fanboy here, but these days I'm already content if I'm not "cared about" but if I'm at least not being f*cked around with - like at some other agencies I could name...

« Reply #373 on: February 17, 2010, 16:03 »
0
Quote
In my view they "just work": I don't have troubles logging in or uploading to, I can't remember an alien octopus, their stats are up to date within an hour, they pay promptly around the 7th or 8th each month, they are very easy to upload to, they have a decent concept of "editorial", they don't move the goalposts during the game, they handled the tax-withholding-thing decently - have I missed anything? I'm not trying to sound like a fanboy here, but these days I'm already content if I'm not "cared about" but if I'm at least not being f*cked around with - like at some other agencies I could name...

+1

« Reply #374 on: February 17, 2010, 16:38 »
0
Quote
In my view they "just work": I don't have troubles logging in or uploading to, I can't remember an alien octopus, their stats are up to date within an hour, they pay promptly around the 7th or 8th each month, they are very easy to upload to, they have a decent concept of "editorial", they don't move the goalposts during the game, they handled the tax-withholding-thing decently - have I missed anything? I'm not trying to sound like a fanboy here, but these days I'm already content if I'm not "cared about" but if I'm at least not being f*cked around with - like at some other agencies I could name...

+1

Agree very much so! (well, apart from the tax thing which they blew up nicely at first). Another nice detail about them is they absorb refund costs, and the recent EL action where they payed EL's to the contributors after they found a license infringement. They also don't get rich on "sleeping" accounts which makes them come across as less greedy than some of the other big players out there.
It's a relief getting treated correct, nothing more nothing less, some of the other biggies ought to take an exemple.
Just another reason for me not to go for Getty's TS crumbles, SS is doing it in a far more "fair-trade" manner.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2010, 16:44 by Artemis »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
3507 Views
Last post February 09, 2010, 17:09
by lisafx
11 Replies
4116 Views
Last post November 01, 2013, 18:53
by w7lwi
27 Replies
6884 Views
Last post April 16, 2015, 10:30
by elvinstar
35 Replies
10582 Views
Last post March 30, 2016, 14:24
by ArenaCreative
6 Replies
4418 Views
Last post September 07, 2017, 03:59
by JQzmanovic

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors