pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Big Change at IS  (Read 54181 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: August 05, 2011, 07:18 »
0
With regards to prices: I keep thinking of the software apps in the apple store. Sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars are poured into developing them, but they get sold for 2.99 USD. And you keep reading that people get their investment back in months.

Getty is a high price company. How much growth are they getting? How many buyers are they attracting?

It is always good to test price limits, but to actively drive customes to the competition isnt a clever strategy.

For me that is the main problem with "spreading customers over thinkstock, istock, photos.com...". This plan only sounds good on paper and if you are in a vacuum without competitors. Once you drive the customer away, they will flock to the next company with highest market penetration.

Building up new brands takes a lot of time and costs money. Im not saying they shouldnt do it, but I would prefer if they did it by grabbing customers from our competitors or bringing in entirely new buyers, for instance from emerging markets.

The buyers already on istock - please keep them there!!


SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #76 on: August 05, 2011, 07:19 »
0
really good post Don - any chance you want to move to Seattle? I think you have summarized fears perfectly...certainly the conversation in my iStock circles the past year is around whether we're giving up unit sales for increased revenue....I'd like to see dl numbers increasing along with revenue. not at the same rate maybe, but in the same direction consistently.

« Reply #77 on: August 05, 2011, 07:20 »
0
what has been squandered is the once-fanatical loyalty of both halves of its constituency.

I doubt that fanatical loyalty is ever a sustainable position. Fans are weird.

From the buyer perspective I believe that iStock is now a well established and respected brand with a solid professional profile. That's smart.

« Reply #78 on: August 05, 2011, 09:35 »
0
what has been squandered is the once-fanatical loyalty of both halves of its constituency.

I doubt that fanatical loyalty is ever a sustainable position. Fans are weird.



I have to disagree. People wait all night outside Apple stores to get the new Iphone but how many people wait outside all night for the new Blackberry?

Fanatical loyalty is what CEO's dream about and very few can achieve it.

Istock had it but since its an intangible asset and doesn't show up in the financial documents the accountants threw it away in favor of higher margins for the company.

To boost profits, I suspect Istock will keep the higher margins and make it mandatory with a new agreement that our non-selling work go to the PP. There we can get 20% of something instead of 100% of nothing. This of course at the cost of eroding the main collection at IS. Just like Getty RM, I think it will be a take or leave it offer.

edit: fixed your quotes so it displays properly
« Last Edit: August 05, 2011, 14:47 by leaf »

grp_photo

« Reply #79 on: August 05, 2011, 09:41 »
0
 :o :o there must be something else that comes with an exclusive contract - grass, pills, some mystic rays coming out of your computer - whatever it is it works pretty well  ::)

helix7

« Reply #80 on: August 05, 2011, 09:43 »
0
I don't know how many times we'll have to learn this harsh lesson before people finally get it. You can't constantly praise a company and then be surprised when that company does things that hurt you. Look at it from Getty/istock's perspective. We so quickly forget how they screwed us over, they announce a vague series of changes that will likely include some things we won't like (possibly alluding to mandatory collection inclusion), and yet the istock forum is still filled with compliments and praise. The corporate execs are licking their lips thinking, "Wow, these guys will go for anything we throw at them! How much more money can we take from them?"

It's a lost cause with istock. There are too many lemmings who will gladly take every cut and thank them for it. I'm more concerned with other companies that are still worth working with, particularly SS. A few certain individuals (one in particular) starts forum threads just to praise SS and everything they do. I worry that we're headed down the same road there, and SS execs might someday start thinking along the same lines. Maybe they already are. They already realized that they're under no obligation to continue the annual pay raises. Those quietly went away and yet the praises kept coming in. What's next? A pay cut? Probably, as long as people continue to say they're treating this like a business while refusing to act accordingly, kissing up to these companies and then being shocked when those companies act like businesses and make changes to improve their bottom line.

« Reply #81 on: August 05, 2011, 10:00 »
0
^ I don't think the execs are making decisions based on brown noser comments in the forums. The problem for all contributors is the ever increasing supply and that is making our individual value become less everyday. If a few of us revolt it doesn't matter because plenty will come to replace us.

« Reply #82 on: August 05, 2011, 10:01 »
0
The whole problem lies with the imbalance of power. Times and again the agencies were free to change the terms of agreement with the contributors and cannot be held accountable.

On the other hand, the agencies are holding the contributors to the strict performance of the agreement.

It is sickening.

« Reply #83 on: August 05, 2011, 10:11 »
0
:o :o there must be something else that comes with an exclusive contract - grass, pills, some mystic rays coming out of your computer - whatever it is it works pretty well  ::)


The old royalty system worked once you made it to 40%. As it is now, I will have to magically double my sales in one year to make it to 40% now. If I drop exclusivity, I will have to start at the bottom royalty everywhere else and I will likely suffer a large drop in income in the short-term in the hopes that I can swim against the ever increasing tide of supply to move up the royalty ranks in the long-term.

Every exclusive that depends on their microstock income was checkmated last September whether they view it that way or not.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #84 on: August 05, 2011, 10:15 »
0
There is truth in that. I'm not happy about the flexible exclusivity given to some members, when I work hard to honour my exclusivity agreement, which forces difficult limitations on selling my work. I hope the new management realizes the significant longterm value of prioritizing suppliers. Otherwise quality work will become less and less available to agencies. All it takes is one very prominent disgruntled contributor to lead by example.

There's only so much business you can do selling P&S crap files on flickr

« Reply #85 on: August 05, 2011, 11:14 »
0
Every exclusive that depends on their microstock income was checkmated last September whether they view it that way or not.

good point.

« Reply #86 on: August 05, 2011, 11:16 »
0
Certainly no cheering from me. I wonder what the catch will be in the next round of news when we get it.

Retrorocket that is a good point about us being checkmated.

lagereek

« Reply #87 on: August 05, 2011, 11:42 »
0
Certainly no cheering from me. I wonder what the catch will be in the next round of news when we get it.

Retrorocket that is a good point about us being checkmated.

Becky will slash our percentage  ;)

« Reply #88 on: August 05, 2011, 11:50 »
0
So perhaps someone should start a poll about what sort of royalty cut would have you deleting your IS portfolio rather than putting up with it :)

« Reply #89 on: August 05, 2011, 12:00 »
0
So perhaps someone should start a poll about what sort of royalty cut would have you deleting your IS portfolio rather than putting up with it :)

  :D

« Reply #90 on: August 05, 2011, 12:06 »
0
I don't know about deleting my pf. I'm exclusive so that really would leave me up wotsit creek with no means of propulsion. It's getting harder and harder not to get pushed off this exclusive spot on the fence I'm sitting on right now though. :-)

« Reply #91 on: August 05, 2011, 12:49 »
0
I have never (from the time that StockXpert was still alive and owned by Jupiter Images) understood why clipart dot com even exists any more. Given the incredible quality of content available at pretty modest prices at microstock sites, the utter dregs of clipart dot com seem to be a relic of another era (when you couldn't get any decent content inexpensively).

Seeing that site mentioned in KKT's e-mail inspired me to take another look to see if it had changed since I last looked in 2008. I was totally blown away by the garbage they're offering. I think this is all wholly owned garbage, so I'm going to post links to gems like these coins, this supposed night scene - look at the shadows, or the lovely composition of this shot of a banjo. Whoever shot these remains anonymous :)

The illustrations are just as bad - boy with puppy, stick insect, Christmas wreath. Then there's a 32x32 GIF of a palette.

Browse around and you'll see tons more like these. I truly and sincerely hope that nothing from iStock is placed on this site. OTOH if they're looking for content to own outright, I'd sell the rights to some of my 2004 rejects which would fit right in.  Given the prices, perhaps they can't afford to put anything there on which royalties have to be paid.

But it really makes me nervous that iStock's name is in a list with Getty's bargain basement brands.

« Reply #92 on: August 05, 2011, 12:57 »
0
It must be hard for exclusives that don't want to take the risk of giving up the crown and losing earnings while establishing their portfolios on the other sites.  If I was in that position, I would probably forget RF and try to build up a big RM portfolio on sites like Corbis and alamy.  There's nothing worse than feeling like you have to stick with a company that is just going to make life harder in years to come.  There's always a way to avoid checkmate, if you don't play by their rules.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #93 on: August 05, 2011, 13:45 »
0
[clipart.com]
Seeing that site mentioned in KKT's e-mail inspired me to take another look to see if it had changed since I last looked in 2008. I was totally blown away by the garbage they're offering. I think this is all wholly owned garbage, so I'm going to post links to gems like these coins, this supposed night scene - look at the shadows, or the lovely composition of this shot of a banjo. Whoever shot these remains anonymous :)
There are at least four very similar to one of those you linked to above doing well at iStock.

The illustrations are just as bad - boy with puppy, stick insect, Christmas wreath. Then there's a 32x32 GIF of a palette.

A lot of these illos look very similar to the sort of clipart you could get free with computer magazine discs back in the day.

« Reply #94 on: August 05, 2011, 13:50 »
0
They probably think that by putting better quality stuff on there they can save the site. I wonder where they'll get that better quality stuff from?

The very name "Clipart dot com" sounds very 90s to me.

Shank_ali

    This user is banned.
« Reply #95 on: August 05, 2011, 14:00 »
0
They probably think that by putting better quality stuff on there they can save the site. I wonder where they'll get that better quality stuff from?

The very name "Clipart dot com" sounds very 90s to me.
I know but....

« Reply #96 on: August 05, 2011, 14:24 »
0
They probably think that by putting better quality stuff on there they can save the site. I wonder where they'll get that better quality stuff from?

The very name "Clipart dot com" sounds very 90s to me.
I know but....

Pete, where have u been?

« Reply #97 on: August 05, 2011, 14:27 »
0
They probably think that by putting better quality stuff on there they can save the site. I wonder where they'll get that better quality stuff from?

The very name "Clipart dot com" sounds very 90s to me.
I know but....

Pete, where have u been?

LOL this forum is all about that these days :)

grp_photo

« Reply #98 on: August 05, 2011, 14:30 »
0
I thought he got a promotion, but some of you have deduced that he basically was demoted, so this could just be a 'saving face' thing.
Yeah same here after getting some background from people with more business knowledge I think the same - so no bad words from me about him (but none good words either).

He went from being the head of black sheep IS to one of the executives at mother ship Getty. Who knows if it was a promotion or demotion...
Kelly moves to a  newly created VP-position at Getty, another VP is promoted to do CEO at iStock as a side job without loosing her VP-position at Getty so which looks like that iStock is the only one that is getting a demotion  ;D
« Last Edit: August 05, 2011, 14:35 by grp_photo »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #99 on: August 05, 2011, 14:33 »
0
Kelly moves to a  newly created VP-position at Getty, another VP is promoted to do CEO at iStock without loosing her VP-position at Getty so which looks like that iStock is the only one that is getting a demotion  ;D
And iStock gets a part-time CEO.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
6151 Views
Last post December 12, 2006, 15:55
by madelaide
4 Replies
6738 Views
Last post May 29, 2007, 12:27
by sim
35 Replies
12496 Views
Last post October 14, 2007, 20:43
by travelstock
18 Replies
9084 Views
Last post June 15, 2009, 10:27
by willie
6 Replies
4346 Views
Last post April 19, 2010, 16:32
by pyrst

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors