MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Getty revenue declining: Shutterstock and Fotolia to blame  (Read 31002 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #100 on: September 12, 2013, 14:07 »
0
/
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 10:42 by Audi 5000 »


wds

« Reply #101 on: September 12, 2013, 14:17 »
0
The website was never the main issue, it's cheap prices at the competitors.

But, the main collection prices really weren't an issue. Those were fairly competitive already. It was all the specialty collections that were jammed at the front of searches that were expensive.
I'm not sure that's true.  I've posted some of the competitors pricing and the range was from around $2.50-$12 for many full sized images (much much less if you count subs, SS says they charge less than $3 average when all file types are counted) but Istock was charging $27 for that same exact content.  10x more than canstock, 3x more than Shutterstock and now guess what they lowered the prices to be the same as Shutterstock.  I think it's clear why they did it. 
You can look at Thinkstock too and see how their pricing and royalties mirrored Shutterstock, they paid exclusives the tiniest bit more than what Shutterstock's top level is (coincidence?) and the plans are very similar in terms and pricing.
The other collections pushed to the front were a separate issue and I think they changed that a while before lowering the prices.

So it appears to be a classic example of everyone attempting to copy (at least pricewise) the market leader. Is that enough? Usually, someone has to best the leader to take leadership. This is more like "follower-ship"

« Reply #102 on: September 12, 2013, 14:20 »
+1
/
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 10:42 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #103 on: September 12, 2013, 14:24 »
+2
The website was never the main issue, it's cheap prices at the competitors.

But, the main collection prices really weren't an issue. Those were fairly competitive already. It was all the specialty collections that were jammed at the front of searches that were expensive.
I'm not sure that's true.  I've posted some of the competitors pricing and the range was from around $2.50-$12 for many full sized images (much much less if you count subs, SS says they charge less than $3 average when all file types are counted) but Istock was charging $27 for that same exact content.  10x more than canstock, 3x more than Shutterstock and now guess what they lowered the prices to be the same as Shutterstock.  I think it's clear why they did it. 
You can look at Thinkstock too and see how their pricing and royalties mirrored Shutterstock, they paid exclusives the tiniest bit more than what Shutterstock's top level is (coincidence?) and the plans are very similar in terms and pricing.
The other collections pushed to the front were a separate issue and I think they changed that a while before lowering the prices.

It depends on who you compare. SS charges around $20 for single sale images. DT charges up to around $30. There are cheap sites too like FT and Envato, but IS always seemed to be within the same range ($1-$30) for their main collection.

I stopped shopping at IS several years ago when I couldn't find anything to spend my expiring credits on. Even with the price sliders, it was just too difficult to shop there.

« Reply #104 on: September 12, 2013, 14:28 »
+4
The differentiation is the ability of buyers to find what they want easily and quickly the opportunity  cost of visiting multiple sites makes  saving a few c on images trivial. With the ever increasing number of images this will become more significant.

« Reply #105 on: September 12, 2013, 14:32 »
0
/
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 10:42 by Audi 5000 »

wds

« Reply #106 on: September 12, 2013, 14:48 »
+2
The website was never the main issue, it's cheap prices at the competitors.

But, the main collection prices really weren't an issue. Those were fairly competitive already. It was all the specialty collections that were jammed at the front of searches that were expensive.
I'm not sure that's true.  I've posted some of the competitors pricing and the range was from around $2.50-$12 for many full sized images (much much less if you count subs, SS says they charge less than $3 average when all file types are counted) but Istock was charging $27 for that same exact content.  10x more than canstock, 3x more than Shutterstock and now guess what they lowered the prices to be the same as Shutterstock.  I think it's clear why they did it. 
You can look at Thinkstock too and see how their pricing and royalties mirrored Shutterstock, they paid exclusives the tiniest bit more than what Shutterstock's top level is (coincidence?) and the plans are very similar in terms and pricing.
The other collections pushed to the front were a separate issue and I think they changed that a while before lowering the prices.

So it appears to be a classic example of everyone attempting to copy (at least pricewise) the market leader. Is that enough? Usually, someone has to best the leader to take leadership. This is more like "follower-ship"
If all the content is exactly the same then there isn't too much room for real differentiation except maybe on price, but that is also becoming more homogenized.  The leader is still Istock by a large margin and they have the most unique content, I think that makes sense.

Why would iStock completely upend their pricing and collection scheme if they were the leader by a large margin? Wouldn't they stick with what made them the leader? Do you have data that supports this?
« Last Edit: September 12, 2013, 14:52 by wds »

« Reply #107 on: September 12, 2013, 14:53 »
0
'
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 10:41 by Audi 5000 »

ShadySue

« Reply #108 on: September 12, 2013, 14:56 »
+3
"No content" comment about SS is just a simple put-down.
Actually, I agree with Gostwyk that it's probably a mistake on the part of the reporter which wasn't picked up, and he meant, "no exclusive content" or some qualifier of that sort.
Saying 'no content' wouldn't be a put-down, it would just be nonsensical.
Trust me, I'm the Typo Queen. I've made far worse mistakes.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2013, 08:13 by ShadySue »

wds

« Reply #109 on: September 12, 2013, 15:46 »
0
The website was never the main issue, it's cheap prices at the competitors.

But, the main collection prices really weren't an issue. Those were fairly competitive already. It was all the specialty collections that were jammed at the front of searches that were expensive.
I'm not sure that's true.  I've posted some of the competitors pricing and the range was from around $2.50-$12 for many full sized images (much much less if you count subs, SS says they charge less than $3 average when all file types are counted) but Istock was charging $27 for that same exact content.  10x more than canstock, 3x more than Shutterstock and now guess what they lowered the prices to be the same as Shutterstock.  I think it's clear why they did it. 
You can look at Thinkstock too and see how their pricing and royalties mirrored Shutterstock, they paid exclusives the tiniest bit more than what Shutterstock's top level is (coincidence?) and the plans are very similar in terms and pricing.
The other collections pushed to the front were a separate issue and I think they changed that a while before lowering the prices.

So it appears to be a classic example of everyone attempting to copy (at least pricewise) the market leader. Is that enough? Usually, someone has to best the leader to take leadership. This is more like "follower-ship"
If all the content is exactly the same then there isn't too much room for real differentiation except maybe on price, but that is also becoming more homogenized.  The leader is still Istock by a large margin and they have the most unique content, I think that makes sense.

Why would iStock completely upend their pricing and collection scheme if they were the leader by a large margin? Where do you get your data that supports this?
Because they had an even wider margin before?  I got the information from the link in OP of this thread.  "One third of Gettys revenue comes from its midstock business"  by midstock they mean Istock.  Total revenue of around 900 million so Istock is at 300 million.  I think Shutterstock was projected at around 230 million for the year, close to that at least.

About 30% I guess that's believable. I thought you were implying an order of magnitude type of difference. I guess another interesting question is what is the "velocity" of the change (in relative revenue). Where was it a year ago...two years ago?

« Reply #110 on: September 12, 2013, 17:20 »
+7
"No content" comment about SS is just a simple put-down.
Actually, I agree with Gostwyk that it's probably a mistake on the part of the reporter which wasn't picked up, and he meant, "no exclusive content" or some qualifier of that sort.
Saying 'no content' wou'dn't be a put-down, it would just be nonsensical.
Trust me, I'm the Typo Queen. I've made far worse mistakes.

Sure could be a typo. Although in my opinion having exclusive content is another irrelevant for the buyer thing. Many said - it's about how fast and easy I can find and buy relevant content. So what matters is search engine and the order of search results. I just did an experiment - searched for the following phrase: "woman real estate agent"
On SS, I got 3,882 results
On FT - 3,600
On DT - 2,099
All 3 agencies are showing different files on their first page sorted by relevance (with a little overlap mostly of new images). Effectively, I am looking pretty much on different content on all 3, at least on first few pages.
You know what's funny though? I put those words in Istock search and it told me - "Sorry, no results were found." !!! :-)
No wonder they have trouble keeping buyers;-)

ShadySue

« Reply #111 on: September 12, 2013, 18:08 »
0
You know what's funny though? I put those words in Istock search and it told me - "Sorry, no results were found." !!! :-)
No wonder they have trouble keeping buyers;-)
Ah, see, that's where the 13 testers had their problem.
You need to understand that their system requires you to search on woman real "estate agent". You then get 398, very few of whom look like real estate agents, as they don't on the other sites.

On another note, is it not DT that I see complaints about 'similars' being rejected? (or is that Ft?) Because sorted by 'most relevant' there are a lot of pics of the same big-haired glamour puss.

« Reply #112 on: September 12, 2013, 18:34 »
+9
Ah, see, that's where the 13 testers had their problem.
You need to understand that their system requires you to search on woman real "estate agent". You then get 398, very few of whom look like real estate agents, as they don't on the other sites.

I understand that I need to understand but why should I understand?:-) I don't want to. I want to type in search terms, simple as in Google, and get my results. Their disambiguation system -  in my opinion - was introduced by a person (or for people) who had trouble learning how to use a search engine. Getty is so behind on many fronts it really is a wonder they are still in business. Giants usually take a while to die since they have a lot of inertia and money and also somewhat inert customer base, but eventually they do kick the bucket.  Unless some miracle saves them like a  visionary CEO... which they are sooo far from having at this point:)

« Reply #113 on: September 12, 2013, 18:42 »
+1
You're doing something wrong.

When I type "woman real estate agent" I get 2118 results, and they look like a pretty good result to me.

It does disambiguate to "woman" and "real estate agent" but that seems appropriate enough...


« Reply #114 on: September 12, 2013, 18:43 »
+4
While Getty is trying to find different ways to license photos like youtube ads ShutterStock is find customers who actually buy video's and images. How about plain old fashioned selling of our work instead of new ways to shaft the artist with pennies for views garbage!

fritz

  • I love Tom and Jerry music

« Reply #115 on: September 12, 2013, 18:56 »
0
"No content" comment about SS is just a simple put-down.

Actually, I agree with Gostwyk that it's probably a mistake on the part of the reporter which wasn't picked up, and he meant, "no exclusive content" or some qualifier of that sort.
Saying 'no content' wou'dn't be a put-down, it would just be nonsensical.
Trust me, I'm the Typo Queen. I've made far worse mistakes.


Sure could be a typo. Although in my opinion having exclusive content is another irrelevant for the buyer thing. Many said - it's about how fast and easy I can find and buy relevant content. So what matters is search engine and the order of search results. I just did an experiment - searched for the following phrase: "woman real estate agent"
On SS, I got 3,882 results
On FT - 3,600
On DT - 2,099
All 3 agencies are showing different files on their first page sorted by relevance (with a little overlap mostly of new images). Effectively, I am looking pretty much on different content on all 3, at least on first few pages.
You know what's funny though? I put those words in Istock search and it told me - "Sorry, no results were found." !!! :-)
No wonder they have trouble keeping buyers;-)

No, you did something wrong on IS.
Istock  Search Results is (2176) for "woman real estate agent"

http://www.istockphoto.com/search/text/woman%20real%20estate%20agent/filetypes/photos,illustrations,video/source/basic#17fdfd36

ShadySue

« Reply #116 on: September 12, 2013, 18:58 »
0
You're doing something wrong.

When I type "woman real estate agent" I get 2118 results, and they look like a pretty good result to me.

It does disambiguate to "woman" and "real estate agent" but that seems appropriate enough...


Interesting and surprising disambiguation, but indeed 2118 results with video turned off.
(I have no idea what purpose 'real' has with reference to most of these images.)
 :-[ I forgot Americans call it 'real estate', nothing to do with whether the 'estate agents' are 'real'.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2013, 07:30 by ShadySue »

« Reply #117 on: September 12, 2013, 19:15 »
+1
While Getty is trying to find different ways to license photos like youtube ads ShutterStock is find customers who actually buy video's and images. How about plain old fashioned selling of our work instead of new ways to shaft the artist with pennies for views garbage!

Yep, the customer is out there, just go and find them...and when you have them treat them well so they keep coming back to you. There is "no magic bullet" where you just piggy back your files on other businesses and just feed of their success automatically. Just normal business relationships, building years of trust with hard work.

By the way have a look at the comments below the article. Quite interesting. Didn't know the photographer with Klein is not "contributing" to Getty.


« Reply #118 on: September 12, 2013, 20:11 »
+2
You're doing something wrong.

When I type "woman real estate agent" I get 2118 results, and they look like a pretty good result to me.

It does disambiguate to "woman" and "real estate agent" but that seems appropriate enough...


Nope, I did not do anything wrong. When I did my first search I got no results - I copied and pasted the message I got. When I tried to search for exactly the same word combination again just now, I got 1968 results. Which is different from my first time searching and from the other results that were posted here. All the settings were default.
What it means the site and the search is incredibly flaky, but if I was a customer, I'd be gone after the first "no results found" and never came back, since other sites provided me with plenty to choose from. I spent less than a minute to search all 4 sites. If I was a buyer, I'd go with the site that served me best relevant results, fast, and had a simple way to pay.

« Reply #119 on: September 13, 2013, 06:15 »
+1
The website was never the main issue, it's cheap prices at the competitors.

But, the main collection prices really weren't an issue. Those were fairly competitive already. It was all the specialty collections that were jammed at the front of searches that were expensive.

Thank you.  Now I don't have to type that.

« Reply #120 on: September 14, 2013, 02:23 »
-6
Getty is doing fine, don't believe the hype on Bloomberg

What's the problem ? a 10-20% loss ? so what, there's economic crisis in the entire West, many industries are going to be shut down, Stock photography instead is not yet in dire straights, Getty selling a bit less is compensated by SS and some other micros selling a bit more.

I would be more scared in the pants of Apple or Microsoft or BlackBerry.

Debts : they will be repaid, it will just take a bit longer than expected and therefore cost a bit more in interests, but that's all, do you think banks have any problems ? their business is to keep you in debt forever not to make you pay back faster !

As for premium vs midstock content : it may be an indicator that the buyers are changing their needs and their budgets, actually i would have expected a drop in their editorial sales but instead they're doing fine.



 


« Reply #121 on: September 15, 2013, 03:24 »
+3
But there appears no coherent turnround plan to suggest losses won't continue. You are right about Blackberry - Toast!

« Reply #122 on: September 15, 2013, 07:39 »
+2
But there appears no coherent turnround plan to suggest losses won't continue. You are right about Blackberry - Toast!

Part of that plan will happen in a few months when our RC levels aren't adjusted with the crummy price reductions that just happened. Honestly, I will probably drop two levels.  That will be step one for sure.

« Reply #123 on: September 15, 2013, 07:59 »
+7
Getty is doing fine, don't believe the hype on Bloomberg

What's the problem ? a 10-20% loss ? so what, there's economic crisis in the entire West, many industries are going to be shut down, Stock photography instead is not yet in dire straights, Getty selling a bit less is compensated by SS and some other micros selling a bit more.

I would be more scared in the pants of Apple or Microsoft or BlackBerry.

Debts : they will be repaid, it will just take a bit longer than expected and therefore cost a bit more in interests, but that's all, do you think banks have any problems ? their business is to keep you in debt forever not to make you pay back faster !

As for premium vs midstock content : it may be an indicator that the buyers are changing their needs and their budgets, actually i would have expected a drop in their editorial sales but instead they're doing fine.


But Getty aren't 'doing fine' are they? Their revenues appear to have been roughly static since 2007 as you can read here;

http://company.gettyimages.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=169&isource=corporate_website_ind_press_release

Back in 2007 Istock were still a tiny part of the business but over the last 5-6 years they probably grew to become 30-40% of total revenues. It's pretty obvious from the recent drastic actions that Istock's revenues are imploding and it's not easy to see if and when they will be able to improve the situation. If revenue continues to fall then servicing the mountain of debt, bestowed by H&F as a parting gift to Getty, may become increasingly difficult.

Personally I think we are witnessing a massive upheaval, of truly geological proportions, within our industry. It won't happen overnight but the process is most definitely underway.

« Reply #124 on: September 16, 2013, 09:05 »
0
slightly offtopic but one of my contacts who is doing news and reportage yesterday had a bit of luck and his images of a political event have been published in almost a dozen mainstream newspapers and been credited as Demotix/Corbis, AP, AFP, Reuters, and Getty, not sure about his workflow i guess he uploads to at least two different agencies (demotix and AFP) and then they're sublicenced or cross-licenced ?

however, it just shows that if you're in the right place at the right time and with the right connections there's still good money to be made.

talking about RM, all those images are sold as RM editorial.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
11 Replies
2798 Views
Last post July 23, 2013, 04:16
by shudderstok
36 Replies
12477 Views
Last post August 05, 2013, 09:16
by gbalex
9 Replies
4335 Views
Last post May 20, 2014, 10:19
by stockastic
36 Replies
11469 Views
Last post April 01, 2016, 06:01
by Microstock Posts
195 Replies
25704 Views
Last post July 31, 2018, 20:05
by obj owl

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results