Author Topic: Zack Arias on microstock (Read 41333 times)

Jonathan Ross · « **Reply #100 on:** November 30, 2010, 20:22 »

Hi grp_photo,

Good conversation thank you for taking the time to share opinions. The one thing also to remember about the third party agency is they are represented by maybe 100 different distributors. You can't say that about the big agencies. The idea is by selling to all these agencies and only getting half what you would if you went direct is that you can't go direct with all of these agencies without a sub agency to do so. If you send you image to Getty you get 20% - 35% but only through Getty distribution, they won't let you redistribute that same work through Corbis or any other site for that matter. With a sub you are distributed to many agencies across the world so the difference in the share is heavily outweighed by the multiple representation of your work. And they are nice and friendly to work with, that never hurts.

Best,
Jonathan

grp_photo · « **Reply #101 on:** November 30, 2010, 20:31 »

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on November 30, 2010, 20:22

And they are nice and friendly to work with

Absolutely!

ichiro17 · « **Reply #102 on:** December 01, 2010, 08:50 »

Quote from: donding on November 30, 2010, 15:13

Quote from: ichiro17 on November 30, 2010, 10:54
All the 50% commission sites have been taken over by other companies - SS with BigStock, iStock withi StockXpert.

Well I wonder why they were bought out...you reckon it was because they were making money??? Nobody is going to buy a company that loses money unless they need a write off because they are making to much.

Or...they were cheaper to buy because their flows weren't as high and they could still meet the strategic objectives of the buyer - for example, provide re-routed traffic to the main site or provide a different distribution method. Why would iStock/Getty buy StockXpert if it was making so much money and then promptly shut it down? I'm not sure why its so hard to think of the other side. I'm not saying that I'm 100% correct, but you're reasoning doesn't make sense

Perry · « **Reply #103 on:** December 01, 2010, 09:43 »

Quote from: ichiro17 on December 01, 2010, 08:50

Why would iStock/Getty buy StockXpert if it was making so much money and then promptly shut it down? I'm not sure why its so hard to think of the other side. I'm not saying that I'm 100% correct, but you're reasoning doesn't make sense

Wasn't StockXpert just a part of Jupiter Images (that Getty acquired) ?

ichiro17 · « **Reply #104 on:** December 01, 2010, 12:30 »

Quote from: Perry on December 01, 2010, 09:43

Quote from: ichiro17 on December 01, 2010, 08:50
Why would iStock/Getty buy StockXpert if it was making so much money and then promptly shut it down? I'm not sure why its so hard to think of the other side. I'm not saying that I'm 100% correct, but you're reasoning doesn't make sense

Wasn't StockXpert just a part of Jupiter Images (that Getty acquired) ?

So? they still shut this 'money making machine' (according everyone on this forum) down in favour of what seems to be other strategic objectives

cthoman · « **Reply #105 on:** December 01, 2010, 12:35 »

Quote from: ichiro17 on December 01, 2010, 12:30

So? they still shut this 'money making machine' (according everyone on this forum) down in favour of what seems to be other strategic objectives

If I was to guess I'd say that they wanted what they had created with subs to use for Thinkstock. They really didn't shut that part down just rebranded it. They gutted that part and threw out the rest.

djpadavona · « **Reply #106 on:** December 01, 2010, 12:37 »

It's not uncommon business practice to grow market share by purchasing a smaller competitor, and then closing it down to eliminate the competition. Not saying that is what happened in this case, but only a Polyanna would not consider the possibility.

ichiro17 · « **Reply #107 on:** December 01, 2010, 12:50 »

Quote from: djpadavona on December 01, 2010, 12:37

It's not uncommon business practice to grow market share by purchasing a smaller competitor, and then closing it down to eliminate the competition. Not saying that is what happened in this case, but only a Polyanna would not consider the possibility.

Of course thats considered, but you all say that it made money hand over fist. Closing down only in a market thats a) got few competitors to begin with and b) where you can be sure that the business will come to you. In this case, there's no guarantee of either and it would have been a horrible investment to buy somethign so profitable because it would have cost a premium. There were plenty of other sites to buy if they wanted to shut them down (and probably for a lot less)

donding · « **Reply #108 on:** December 01, 2010, 13:05 »

@ichiro17
Have you ever considered that StockXpert payed a higher commission than iStock and was a very big competitor with iStock? By leaving StockXpert in place they were paying out a lot higher commissions as well as losing buyers to StockXpert. It would make sense to close down StockXpert and merge everything to Thinkstock because of cheaper commissions meaning more money for iStock. A lot of big companies buy out smaller ones in order to reduce their competition. It's a very common business practice with bigger companies.

molka · « **Reply #109 on:** December 01, 2010, 13:52 »

Quote from: ichiro17 on December 01, 2010, 12:30

Quote from: Perry on December 01, 2010, 09:43
Quote from: ichiro17 on December 01, 2010, 08:50
Why would iStock/Getty buy StockXpert if it was making so much money and then promptly shut it down? I'm not sure why its so hard to think of the other side. I'm not saying that I'm 100% correct, but you're reasoning doesn't make sense

Wasn't StockXpert just a part of Jupiter Images (that Getty acquired) ?

So? they still shut this 'money making machine' (according everyone on this forum) down in favour of what seems to be other strategic objectives

Maybe because they didn't want their own competition? It's sad when you have to explain the obvious : ) I did ask the one of the owners of StockXpert whether they sold it because it wasn't making money for them, and the answer was prompt and short: no, StockXpert was making large profits, because runinng a stocksite is a really low cost adventure. Is that concept so hard to grasp? Really? Just ridiculous... : )

helix7 · « **Reply #110 on:** December 01, 2010, 14:41 »

Quote from: cthoman on November 30, 2010, 15:37

...I can't speak for iStock's sustainability, but I know this pattern is unsustainable for me.

That's a good way to put it.

My istock earnings are down month after month for all of 2010. If the trend continues, I'd say that's pretty unsustainable.

cthoman · « **Reply #111 on:** December 01, 2010, 14:45 »

Quote from: helix7 on December 01, 2010, 14:41

That's a good way to put it.

My istock earnings are down month after month for all of 2010. If the trend continues, I'd say that's pretty unsustainable.

I feel lucky that hasn't happened to me yet, but I'm definitely watching out for it. My concern was more growing my portfolio only to have my gains wiped out by royalty "adjustments".

lisafx · « **Reply #112 on:** December 01, 2010, 18:13 »

Quote from: Perry on December 01, 2010, 09:43

Wasn't StockXpert just a part of Jupiter Images (that Getty acquired) ?

Yes, it was. StockXpert wasn't shut down because it wasn't making money. Sales there were quite competitive with the other micros, and much better than some sites that are still around and making money for their owners.

Quote from: donding on December 01, 2010, 13:05

@ichiro17
Have you ever considered that StockXpert payed a higher commission than iStock and was a very big competitor with iStock? By leaving StockXpert in place they were paying out a lot higher commissions as well as losing buyers to StockXpert. It would make sense to close down StockXpert and merge everything to Thinkstock because of cheaper commissions meaning more money for iStock. A lot of big companies buy out smaller ones in order to reduce their competition. It's a very common business practice with bigger companies.

Yes, you have nailed it exactly Donna

StockXpert was shut down because they were part of a package buyout, and they were redundant. Getty simply didn't want or need two sites (Istock and StockXpert) doing the same thing, and of the two sites, Istock was making a lot MORE money, so they transferred the partner programs to Istock and then shut StockXpert down.

I can understand how this would be unknown information to someone who was exclusive at IS at the time, and so not aware of goings on at StockXpert. But those of us who were active StockXpert contributors had a front row seat for what happened and why.

Here's a clip from The Simpsons that covers the phenomenon pretty well. Bill Gates to Homer: "Buy him out boys!"

http://videosift.com/video/Bill-Gates-Buys-Homer-Out

donding · « **Reply #113 on:** December 01, 2010, 18:18 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 01, 2010, 18:13

Here's a clip from The Simpsons that covers the phenomenon pretty well. Bill Gates to Homer: "Buy him out boys!"

http://videosift.com/video/Bill-Gates-Buys-Homer-Out

exactly!!

Dr Bouz · « **Reply #114 on:** December 02, 2010, 03:34 »

it's more than obvious that StockXpert was bought to be shut down.
why should you first buy, and than shut down sucessful company?
answer is in my opinion somewhere in article regarding keywording on isp, an is something about:

the less is more.

Perry · « **Reply #115 on:** December 02, 2010, 04:39 »

Just realised how much I miss StockXpert

Those were the times...

rubyroo · « **Reply #116 on:** December 02, 2010, 05:25 »

Quote from: Perry on December 02, 2010, 04:39

Just realised how much I miss StockXpert

Those were the times...

Yes, me too. They were my favourite agency of all. Such a pleasure to deal with. Great, friendly service, terrific support and consistently high sellers.

FD · « **Reply #117 on:** December 02, 2010, 05:59 »

Quote from: Perry on December 02, 2010, 04:39

Just realised how much I miss StockXpert

+1

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Zack Arias on microstock (Read 41333 times)

Jonathan Ross

grp_photo

ichiro17

Perry

ichiro17

cthoman

djpadavona

ichiro17

donding

molka

helix7

cthoman

lisafx

donding

Dr Bouz

Perry

rubyroo

FD

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors