Author Topic: Getty revenue declining: Shutterstock and Fotolia to blame (Read 41466 times)

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #76 on:** September 11, 2013, 11:40 »

Quote from: wds on September 11, 2013, 11:34

Him saying "...iStockphoto is the extreme example for that. We've put 13 people who had never been on the iStockphoto website before in a room and we watched them. At the end of a hour, they had no idea what we were actually doing..."

I have a hard time believing that not one out of 13 could figure out how to buy something on an ecommerce site. After "an hour".

cthoman · « **Reply #77 on:** September 11, 2013, 11:47 »

Quote from: tickstock on September 11, 2013, 11:38

Hence the lowering of prices of nonexclusive content and increased exposure for Thinkstock, I'm sure most people will blame Istock but really what caused them to change?

They were competing just fine for several years, so I don't think Shutterstock has much to do with it.

wds · « **Reply #78 on:** September 11, 2013, 11:49 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on September 11, 2013, 11:40

Quote from: wds on September 11, 2013, 11:34
Him saying "...iStockphoto is the extreme example for that. We've put 13 people who had never been on the iStockphoto website before in a room and we watched them. At the end of a hour, they had no idea what we were actually doing..."

I have a hard time believing that not one out of 13 could figure out how to buy something on an ecommerce site. After "an hour".

Agreed. I went on each site as an "new user" searching for an image with one keyword. Both processes were pretty much the same. I think his assertion for the cause of iStock having problems doesn't ring true.

I find his language interesting though, almost praising the competition. He must feel that it is well known and established that SS is doing much better than iS.

tickstock · « **Reply #79 on:** September 11, 2013, 11:50 »

ferdinand · « **Reply #80 on:** September 11, 2013, 12:10 »

SS and JO are magicians - they are successfully selling nothing ("no content")

cthoman · « **Reply #81 on:** September 11, 2013, 12:12 »

Quote from: tickstock on September 11, 2013, 11:50

Quote from: cthoman on September 11, 2013, 11:47
Quote from: tickstock on September 11, 2013, 11:38
Hence the lowering of prices of nonexclusive content and increased exposure for Thinkstock, I'm sure most people will blame Istock but really what caused them to change?

They were competing just fine for several years, so I don't think Shutterstock has much to do with it.
I think Shutterstock has grown a lot in the last few years. At least here many people that have been around for a while are saying Shutterstock is taking a much larger % of sales than they used to. Curiously to me, as Shutterstock goes up overall earnings for many seem to be declining. Any connection there?

I can't speak to much of that. My SS numbers are very different from most.

My point was that IS wounds seem self inflicted. They punched contributors and customers in the gut at the same time, so their reputation which used to be great went to garbage. They can blame SS for taking their customers and contributors, but really they just handed them over in a bloodless coup.

It doesn't make me happy that it happened because it messed everything up for me, but it happened.

Ron · « **Reply #82 on:** September 11, 2013, 13:42 »

Quote from: tickstock on September 11, 2013, 11:50

Quote from: cthoman on September 11, 2013, 11:47
Quote from: tickstock on September 11, 2013, 11:38
Hence the lowering of prices of nonexclusive content and increased exposure for Thinkstock, I'm sure most people will blame Istock but really what caused them to change?

They were competing just fine for several years, so I don't think Shutterstock has much to do with it.
I think Shutterstock has grown a lot in the last few years. At least here many people that have been around for a while are saying Shutterstock is taking a much larger % of sales than they used to. Curiously to me, as Shutterstock goes up overall earnings for many seem to be declining. Any connection there?

Shutterstock has a bigger piece of the pie for me because I stopped submitting to middle tier agencies. They arent bringing me any revenue to justify my time with them. On the other hand Shutterstock for the last 3 months has been really good. I know of others who have dropped agencies, so logically the SS piece of the pie grows % wise.

jjneff · « **Reply #83 on:** September 11, 2013, 14:20 »

Dear Getty,

You destroyed the community spirit at iStock. You yanked customers around with prices and raised them to high to fast. You kicked out one of your most helpful artist, remember Sean? You mocked us when we said sales are slipping and you said all is good.You are not up front and honest with how you did cash prices. Now take all the artist you shafted and their collective blogs and the forums they visit like this one and there you have it, business is not booming anymore. It's not your site!! iStock was doing just fine before your so called great changes for the customer! Stop blaming SS and site design for your own demise because you did this to yourself! Now Drop RC's pay a decent % to the artist... oh did you realized a lot of artist were buyers as well or maybe they knew a lot of buyers? SS has content and buyers don't care who owns it! they advertise on podcast and in the mail. They don't call my house offering me credits! they advertise in other countries and are pushing forward with their brand! Now you can figure it out can't you?

gostwyck · « **Reply #84 on:** September 11, 2013, 14:22 »

Quote from: jjneff on September 11, 2013, 14:20

Dear Getty,

You destroyed the community spirit at iStock. You yanked customers around with prices and raised them to high to fast. You kicked out one of your most helpful artist, remember Sean? You mocked us when we said sales are slipping and you said all is good.You are not up front and honest with how you did cash prices. Now take all the artist you shafted and their collective blogs and the forums they visit like this one and there you have it, business is not booming anymore. It's not your site!! iStock was doing just fine before your so called great changes for the customer! Stop blaming SS and site design for your own demise because you did this to yourself! Now Drop RC's pay a decent % to the artist... oh did you realized a lot of artist were buyers as well or maybe they knew a lot of buyers? SS has content and buyers don't care who owns it! they advertise on podcast and in the mail. They don't call my house offering me credits! they advertise in other countries and are pushing forward with their brand! Now you can figure it out can't you?

^^^ Excellent summary. I'd have given you 2 hearts if I could!

Snufkin · « **Reply #85 on:** September 11, 2013, 15:18 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on September 11, 2013, 11:40

Quote from: wds on September 11, 2013, 11:34
Him saying "...iStockphoto is the extreme example for that. We've put 13 people who had never been on the iStockphoto website before in a room and we watched them. At the end of a hour, they had no idea what we were actually doing..."

I have a hard time believing that not one out of 13 could figure out how to buy something on an ecommerce site. After "an hour".

Let me speculate: were those 13 persons by chance high ranked Getty officers?
Apart from Mr. Klein, there are actually 13 of them:
http://company.gettyimages.com/officers.cfm?idT=EA

and they certainly also "have no idea what they are doing".

They could have asked their janitors. I'm pretty sure after 1 hour most janitors would have no problems to figure out what a site is about.

gostwyck · « **Reply #86 on:** September 11, 2013, 15:48 »

Quote from: Snufkin on September 11, 2013, 15:18

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on September 11, 2013, 11:40
Quote from: wds on September 11, 2013, 11:34
Him saying "...iStockphoto is the extreme example for that. We've put 13 people who had never been on the iStockphoto website before in a room and we watched them. At the end of a hour, they had no idea what we were actually doing..."

I have a hard time believing that not one out of 13 could figure out how to buy something on an ecommerce site. After "an hour".

Let me speculate: were those 13 persons by chance high ranked Getty officers?
Apart from Mr. Klein, there are actually 13 of them:
http://company.gettyimages.com/officers.cfm?idT=EA

and they certainly also "have no idea what they are doing".

They could have asked their janitors. I'm pretty sure after 1 hour most janitors would have no problems to figure out what a site is about.

I think that the most unconventional and "not customer focused" issue for a new potential image buyer on Istock is the stupid CV-based search system. If Google, Amazon and every other web-based retailer allows you to search in your own 'normal' language then it should be good enough for Istock.

Every other site gathers huge amounts of useful data about their customer's needs from the actual keywords that they use to search with. The business is supposed to learn from their customers __ not the other way around.

Am I alone in noting the irony that Istock's ridiculous CV-based search facility ... was a 'gift' from Getty themselves?

cthoman · « **Reply #87 on:** September 11, 2013, 16:12 »

I like the CV idea. They just ignored it for years and stuffed whatever they wanted at the front of searches.

gbalex · « **Reply #88 on:** September 11, 2013, 16:24 »

Quote from: jjneff on September 11, 2013, 14:20

Dear Getty,

You destroyed the community spirit at iStock. You yanked customers around with prices and raised them to high to fast. You kicked out one of your most helpful artist, remember Sean? You mocked us when we said sales are slipping and you said all is good.You are not up front and honest with how you did cash prices. Now take all the artist you shafted and their collective blogs and the forums they visit like this one and there you have it, business is not booming anymore. It's not your site!! iStock was doing just fine before your so called great changes for the customer! Stop blaming SS and site design for your own demise because you did this to yourself! Now Drop RC's pay a decent % to the artist... oh did you realized a lot of artist were buyers as well or maybe they knew a lot of buyers? SS has content and buyers don't care who owns it! they advertise on podcast and in the mail. They don't call my house offering me credits! they advertise in other countries and are pushing forward with their brand! Now you can figure it out can't you?

As a buyer the thing that annoyed me more than anything else was the content they were serving us. The old IS allowed the cream of the crop to rise to the top of the searches. When they started serving crap content at high price points in lieu of better content, buyers became annoyed. Add to that, the many stunts they pulled on submitters and I will never ever be going back to buy from the site. The same goes for sites which choose to follow suit.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #89 on:** September 11, 2013, 16:32 »

But, the word that I struggle the most with since starting the company almost 19 years ago is "agency". That's a word you'll never hear me say. Because to me, an agency is an intermediary that doesn't add much value. I had to sell a house not too long ago, I used a real-estate agency. I booked my flight here with a travel agency.

Thats pretty good use of a word he never says!!!

KarenH · « **Reply #90 on:** September 11, 2013, 18:17 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on September 11, 2013, 11:40

Quote from: wds on September 11, 2013, 11:34
Him saying "...iStockphoto is the extreme example for that. We've put 13 people who had never been on the iStockphoto website before in a room and we watched them. At the end of a hour, they had no idea what we were actually doing..."

I have a hard time believing that not one out of 13 could figure out how to buy something on an ecommerce site. After "an hour".

If they were people who had never been on the iStock site and never bought anything on an ecommerce site (which is what it sounds like), who had no idea how to even buy something, I question why in the world he would use them as his test group.

tickstock · « **Reply #91 on:** September 11, 2013, 18:27 »

cobalt · « **Reply #92 on:** September 11, 2013, 19:07 »

Then maybe his interview wasn´t convincing enough in the way he conveyed those thoughts. People here are interested in their immediate prospects for making money. Reading here, can give a good analysis if any targets for marketing and corporate pr have been achieved.

travelwitness · « **Reply #93 on:** September 12, 2013, 05:17 »

I didn't find the interview particularly reassuring.

He seems resigned to Shutterstock winning the microstock war and doesn't really know what to do with iStock.

If they lose too much ground to SS and subs dominate image downloads it could eventually suck in a lot of high production images and I don't see how anyone will survive on subs alone without a huge increase in demand for images.

The overall value of Getty could deflate quite catastrophically, great for SS not so good for long term sustainability.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #94 on:** September 12, 2013, 05:58 »

IT strikes me as just an attempt to shift blame onto someone else. "It's not my fault istock's in a mess, those amateurs that run the place just can't make a proper website and don't have a professional approach", which sidesteps the fact that since Bruce Livingstone left Getty has been calling the shots there.

bunhill · « **Reply #95 on:** September 12, 2013, 11:10 »

Quote from: travelwitness on September 12, 2013, 05:17

He seems resigned to Shutterstock winning the microstock war and doesn't really know what to do with iStock.

Wow. I'm not reading that at all. I think he is acknowledging that they have done well. Is all. I think you are all trying to read far too much between the lines.

FWIW I think that Shutterstock are going to need to be ready to quickly diversify their business if and when a price war breaks out for non exclusive microstock content. As seems inevitable. All the roads are definitely leading in that direction.

Because as it stands SS have all of their eggs in that one basket. Their Offset brand still has not launched and most of the small stock houses and agents currently distribute via Getty.

Which is not a criticism of Shutterstock they have shown that they can be very innovative.

lisafx · « **Reply #96 on:** September 12, 2013, 12:50 »

Quote from: tickstock on September 11, 2013, 11:38

Quote from: wds on September 11, 2013, 11:34
Kind of interesting.

Him saying "...iStockphoto is the extreme example for that. We've put 13 people who had never been on the iStockphoto website before in a room and we watched them. At the end of a hour, they had no idea what we were actually doing..."

and then: "...You see businesses like Shutterstock that are doing extremely well.."

Sounds like from his view iStock is having major problems against the competition.
Hence the lowering of prices of nonexclusive content and increased exposure for Thinkstock, I'm sure most people will blame Istock but really what caused them to change?

I don't really see how slashing prices of content is an effective response to the problem of potential buyers being confused by the site

tickstock · « **Reply #97 on:** September 12, 2013, 13:05 »

Elenathewise · « **Reply #98 on:** September 12, 2013, 13:37 »

"No content" comment about SS is just a simple put-down. SS has great content, better actually that they themselves realize. It simply amazes me how after all these years some people still see microstock as low-level crowd-sourcing amateurish collection of images. They say "real" photographers don't sell on microstock ... how can someone be so blind? Even if you don't count so many extremely talented newcomers, look at Blend Images - they sell on SS. When they admit that SS is doing extremely well while pointing out they have no content in one sentence it tells you one thing - badmouthing SS is the only thing they have left, they don't get how and why SS is successful, which means they don't get the business. The only hope right now for them is drastic change of the leadership and strategy, but this doesn't seem to be happening. Instead, they decide that a garage sale will get them out of their financial trouble!

cthoman · « **Reply #99 on:** September 12, 2013, 13:58 »

Quote from: tickstock on September 12, 2013, 13:05

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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Getty revenue declining: Shutterstock and Fotolia to blame (Read 41466 times)

tickstock

Sean Locke Photography

cthoman

wds

tickstock

ferdinand

cthoman

Ron

jjneff

gostwyck

Snufkin

gostwyck

cthoman

gbalex

Pauws99

KarenH

tickstock

cobalt

travelwitness

BaldricksTrousers

bunhill

lisafx

tickstock

Elenathewise

cthoman

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors