The problems which they had run into were different. The problems were absolutely related to being a public company at at time when answering to stock holders expectations had become an hinderance to their focus on the future and also a big PITA. So much stuff was changing and looking over their shoulder to see what CNBC was saying might not have been the best way forward.

@bunhill

That is very interesting. It would be very reassuring actually if the reason they didn�t adapt sooner was because of short term shareholder influences, not a lack of market vision.

@disorderly

That is a very nice comparison. Although istock does continue to innovate/add new markets (editorial, Agency...)

I am not against V/A at all, just very worried about growth and losing buyers. They won�t go to Thinkstock, they will go elsewhere. Here in Germany Fotolia seems to be the market leader. At least from my own personal impressions when looking at websites.

For myself, the best I can do is somehow find time to shoot. The drop in my portfolio is my own fault, not istocks. But with all the news and the V/A dominance of searches I wonder if I should try so hard to find time for it. If even Sean can�t increase his income with 2000 new files (and probably lots of Vettas), what can I do?

I will not quit exclusivity, but maybe look at other things I can do with the studio.

I'm not so sure they are continuing to innovate.  hasn't editorial been available at other stock site for awhile now?  Isn't Agency just a move of Getty agency work to iStock?  and Vetta.. that may be innovative, but I think artistic type photos like Vetta have been available at Getty and other agencies for awhile now. Adding new categories and price points, they have done, yes.  But I dont think I'd call them innovative.  It seems to be slipping into desperation mode to save what they had. I think "innovation" left with Bruce.

Quote from: caspixel on May 04, 2011, 17:31

Quote from: gostwyck on May 04, 2011, 15:09

...Microstock was based on cheap images, all at the same price, selling in large volumes to a grateful public. As far as Shutterstock are concerned ... it still is.

And 123RF and Stockfresh. They seem to be maintaining the old model for the moment. Dreamstime is drifting away as well.

Where are you shopping these days (out of curiosity)? I applied to Stockfresh (which feels a lot like StockXpert did, unsurprisingly) as I thought it had some potential (even though it's early days). What do you like about 123rf as a buyer?

I was forced to charge a customer for a 150 credit image recently because I didn't see that it was an Agency image.

Quote from: stockastic on May 06, 2011, 15:55

Quote from: caspixel on May 06, 2011, 12:10

I was forced to charge a customer for a 150 credit image recently because I didn't see that it was an Agency image.

This has to be music to the ears of people at IS.  It tells them this plan is working exactly as intended.

Very short sighted though.  I doubt she, or most others, will make that mistake again.  

Well istock does have a nice return policy so in some cases, when it is not a last minute "gotta have it now and use it immediately" thing, buyers can fill out the destruction document and get their money/credits back.

Quote from: gostwyck on May 04, 2011, 17:03

Of course Getty 'failed'. If I remember correctly the stock value went from about 90c to barely above 20c in little more than a year. That's the value the market placed on Getty not just their shareholders.

The 2008 privatization valued the stock at $34. It had been trading at appx $24  and went to over $31 as the deal was announced. That's dollar$ not cents ! The previous year (2007) Getty had announced profits of $33 million up 43%. Profits were increasing but the stock price was falling. I've done the Googling

The stock had been taking a hammering on the markets because the company was very much in the process of re structuring and because the business was changing yet again - the jobs losses etc. That affected profits growth expectations (unrealistic) and sentiment.

Sometimes markets over value a stock. Analysts had been saying that the stock was over valued based on the P/E ratio back to 2005 at least etc - also noting that the price of pictures was falling and that this threatened the business. Not many investors want to hold stock if the short term outlook is less than exciting. If you look at it like that then the slide in the stock price would have represented a re adjustment rather than a failure. But it is very difficult for a business to operate under that sort of intense stockholder scrutiny. Lots of businesses went private at about that time and not because they were failing. It was also a time when private equity was very much in the business of buying companies which seemed to be undervalued. Though the business of pictures was completely and dramatically changing. As it is again today.

I'm not shilling for Getty here. But I think it is a much more interesting and subtle picture than is sometimes represented. I don't think it serves anyone well if we trade in inaccurate or hazy recollections.

istock and others are drifting quickly away from the business model that drew people to microstock in the first place: affordable, common-sense priced images, sold under a simple credit system where a credit actually equals $1. Not very many companies are adhering to that model any more, and I'm sure it wasn't the buyers requesting these expensive collections, varying pricing models, and expensive credits. Ultimately if buyers realize that they can get back to the old, simple, more affordable systems by moving their business to other companies, for the first time in a long time the door may be wide open for someone to come in and take the popularity crown from istock.