Author Topic: Blast from the past (Read 9654 times)

FreeTransform · « **on:** March 27, 2011, 22:20 »

*sigh*

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=38036&messageid=551308

"But if the majority of members don't believe this is good for us all, well, that's all there is to it - we'll turn it off. Simple as that. Our community is the reason for our success, and we will not act against your wishes. "

Graffoto · « **Reply #1 on:** March 27, 2011, 23:43 »

Different era.
Different corporate masters.
Things change.
We don't have to like it, but its up to each of us to decide whether or not to put up with it.

OhGoAway! · « **Reply #2 on:** March 28, 2011, 00:25 »

Yeah, I tried to look up something on the forums that i remembered reading a long while ago . . . anyway, spent about an hour re-reading old (fun, happy) threads from 2006 & 2007. Made me smile to read them . . . then made me sad at how far gone they are.

leaf · « **Reply #3 on:** March 28, 2011, 01:58 »

I feel that's the clear difference between the original owner (someone who was in love with the company and wanted to treat it with care) talking and someone who only has the business for business sake. Bruce was in love with iStock, it was his baby. To Getty, iStock is just another business venture where profits need to be maximized. Investors need to be constantly impressed.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #4 on:** March 28, 2011, 02:56 »

Bruce wasn't exactly averse to making money but at least he understood what he created and was a good communicator. I'd love to know how he remembers the moment when they stood on a bridge together, not sleeping for nights on end, wondering whether, if they introduced unsustainability, would everyone else immediately do the same and create havoc? Somehow, I think his recollection would be rather different.

Perry · « **Reply #5 on:** March 28, 2011, 04:31 »

Quote from: leaf on March 28, 2011, 01:58

Bruce was in love with iStock, it was his baby.

He still sold his baby... nevertheless, iStock was a great place in Ye Olde Times.

sharpshot · « **Reply #6 on:** March 28, 2011, 04:57 »

I used to like istock but I never really thought 20% commission was fair. Perhaps if they had started at a much higher level, like 50%, Getty wouldn't of considered buying them and the site would be much better now? I also think it's had a really negative effect with the other sites, giving them the justification to cut commissions.

travelstock · « **Reply #7 on:** March 28, 2011, 06:52 »

I just looked at my stats from Aug 2006.

iStock: $6.2 RPD: 0.48
Fotolia: $9 RPD: 0.36
Shutterstock: $25 RPD: 0.24

Happy times indeed!

Microbius · « **Reply #8 on:** March 28, 2011, 07:00 »

Quote from: Perry on March 28, 2011, 04:31

Quote from: leaf on March 28, 2011, 01:58
Bruce was in love with iStock, it was his baby.

He still sold his baby... nevertheless, iStock was a great place in Ye Olde Times.

Yup, that's the thing not to forget, he knew what Getty was when he sold his "baby".
Does it make it better or worse that he loved the community he sold out? I'm not sure

cathyslife · « **Reply #9 on:** March 28, 2011, 07:12 »

Quote from: Microbius on March 28, 2011, 07:00

Quote from: Perry on March 28, 2011, 04:31
Quote from: leaf on March 28, 2011, 01:58
Bruce was in love with iStock, it was his baby.

He still sold his baby... nevertheless, iStock was a great place in Ye Olde Times.

Yup, that's the thing not to forget, he knew what Getty was when he sold his "baby".
Does it make it better or worse that he loved the community he sold out? I'm not sure

That's right. When it came down to it, money won over his "baby". I am not saying I blame him one bit, but his motives were the same as Getty's. Business is still business.

caspixel · « **Reply #10 on:** March 28, 2011, 09:13 »

Quote from: cclapper on March 28, 2011, 07:12

That's right. When it came down to it, money won over his "baby". I am not saying I blame him one bit, but his motives were the same as Getty's. Business is still business.

I think Getty sold him a bill of goods too...how they were totally going to leave iStock alone, how he could run it just the way he always had, how much better it was going to be with the added infusion of cash...I'm sure they made it sound too good to pass up. And of course, all that money. I know I'm not that strong.

jamirae · « **Reply #11 on:** March 28, 2011, 10:20 »

Quote from: caspixel on March 28, 2011, 09:13

Quote from: cclapper on March 28, 2011, 07:12

That's right. When it came down to it, money won over his "baby". I am not saying I blame him one bit, but his motives were the same as Getty's. Business is still business.

I think Getty sold him a bill of goods too...how they were totally going to leave iStock alone, how he could run it just the way he always had, how much better it was going to be with the added infusion of cash...I'm sure they made it sound too good to pass up. And of course, all that money. I know I'm not that strong.

I agree.

back when Bruce was at the helm, they would ask us our opinion and listen and act based on feedback. Today they ask for our opinion, say they will listen and act based on that, but in the end they just do what they want to do. (e.g. PTOTW)

Risamay · « **Reply #12 on:** March 28, 2011, 14:29 »

caspixel · « **Reply #13 on:** March 28, 2011, 15:24 »

And there is no doubt in my mind that they sought him out, not the other way around. iStock was killing their business. As Jonathan Klein said, "If someone's going to cannibalize your business, better it be one of your other businesses".

FreeTransform · « **Reply #14 on:** March 28, 2011, 18:50 »

Quote from: holgs on March 28, 2011, 06:52

I just looked at my stats from Aug 2006.

iStock: $6.2 RPD: 0.48
Fotolia: $9 RPD: 0.36
Shutterstock: $25 RPD: 0.24

Happy times indeed!

What does all that mean? RPD? The numbers?

lisafx · « **Reply #15 on:** March 28, 2011, 19:28 »

Quote from: FreeTransform on March 28, 2011, 18:50

Quote from: holgs on March 28, 2011, 06:52
I just looked at my stats from Aug 2006.

iStock: $6.2 RPD: 0.48
Fotolia: $9 RPD: 0.36
Shutterstock: $25 RPD: 0.24

Happy times indeed!
What does all that mean? RPD? The numbers?

RPD is Royalty Per Download. So what you make, on average, per sale.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #16 on:** March 29, 2011, 01:31 »

Quote from: holgs on March 28, 2011, 06:52

I just looked at my stats from Aug 2006.

iStock: $6.2 RPD: 0.48
Fotolia: $9 RPD: 0.36
Shutterstock: $25 RPD: 0.24

Happy times indeed!

The missing stat is DPF - downloads per file. As the RPD has gone up the DPF has sunk ever lower.

travelstock · « **Reply #17 on:** March 29, 2011, 02:23 »

Quote from: FreeTransform on March 28, 2011, 18:50

Quote from: holgs on March 28, 2011, 06:52
I just looked at my stats from Aug 2006.

iStock: $6.2 RPD: 0.48
Fotolia: $9 RPD: 0.36
Shutterstock: $25 RPD: 0.24

Happy times indeed!
What does all that mean? RPD? The numbers?

It means that I wasn't making much money then, either per download, in total, or per image. In perspective though my portfolio was also much smaller and didn't have too many files that sold regularly.

It wasn't all great then, and it isn't all bad now, it sort of depends on your perspective on how things have progressed.

michealo · « **Reply #18 on:** March 29, 2011, 04:48 »

Quote from: holgs on March 29, 2011, 02:23

Quote from: FreeTransform on March 28, 2011, 18:50
Quote from: holgs on March 28, 2011, 06:52
I just looked at my stats from Aug 2006.

iStock: $6.2 RPD: 0.48
Fotolia: $9 RPD: 0.36
Shutterstock: $25 RPD: 0.24

Happy times indeed!
What does all that mean? RPD? The numbers?

It means that I wasn't making much money then, either per download, in total, or per image. In perspective though my portfolio was also much smaller and didn't have too many files that sold regularly.

It wasn't all great then, and it isn't all bad now, it sort of depends on your perspective on how things have progressed.

But now it pays you to travel the world , not too shabby ;-)

FreeTransform · « **Reply #19 on:** March 29, 2011, 11:01 »

Quote from: nosaya on March 27, 2011, 23:43

Different era.
Different corporate masters.
Things change.
We don't have to like it, but its up to each of us to decide whether or not to put up with it.

True. 2006 was another era, and I suppose it's not entirely fair to compare it to today. In 2007 I was able to quit my job because of iStock. In fact, we were all encouraged to do so, if you recall the very first Getty deal. Now, for the first time since, I had to get a part-time job. IStock changed my life once; it is changing it again.

jamirae · « **Reply #20 on:** March 29, 2011, 11:07 »

Quote from: FreeTransform on March 29, 2011, 11:01

Quote from: nosaya on March 27, 2011, 23:43
Different era.
Different corporate masters.
Things change.
We don't have to like it, but its up to each of us to decide whether or not to put up with it.
True. 2006 was another era, and I suppose it's not entirely fair to compare it to today. In 2007 I was able to quit my job because of iStock. In fact, we were all encouraged to do so, if you recall the very first Getty deal. Now, for the first time since, I had to get a part-time job. IStock changed my life once; it is changing it again.

that is so sad.

FreeTransform · « **Reply #21 on:** March 29, 2011, 12:01 »

Quote from: jamirae on March 29, 2011, 11:07

True. 2006 was another era, and I suppose it's not entirely fair to compare it to today. In 2007 I was able to quit my job because of iStock. In fact, we were all encouraged to do so, if you recall the very first Getty deal. Now, for the first time since, I had to get a part-time job. IStock changed my life once; it is changing it again.
[/quote]

that is so sad.

[/quote]
Well, I am now beginning to accept it and know that there will be other, better things on the horizon. I'm looking into other ways of selling my stock work, as well as pursuing more creative avenues. It's funny. When I discovered iStock, I was mired in a soulless job and I was so excited just to be looking at things differently and making art again. I didn't care about the money, and didn't expect it to be much. I was truly happy that my creativity had been awakened. Now I can't look at anything without thinking how I can make it into a stock image.

So perhaps it is time to move on again.

You know, the irony of all of these changes is that they were partly intended to encourage new, fresh work. And I was totally on board with that. But the unintended consequence, for me anyway, is that I have no incentive to create anything beyond the most generic, "stock-y" stuff and just crank it out as fast as I can. I mean, 26% for Vetta quality work? No thanks.

lisafx · « **Reply #22 on:** March 29, 2011, 14:54 »

Quote from: FreeTransform on March 29, 2011, 11:01

True. 2006 was another era, and I suppose it's not entirely fair to compare it to today. In 2007 I was able to quit my job because of iStock. In fact, we were all encouraged to do so, if you recall the very first Getty deal. Now, for the first time since, I had to get a part-time job. IStock changed my life once; it is changing it again.

I'm really sorry to hear that. Going back to a real "job" after working for yourself for years is a tough change to make. Hope it works out well for you

Istock's glory days were certainly fun while they lasted.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Blast from the past (Read 9654 times)

FreeTransform

Graffoto

OhGoAway!

leaf

BaldricksTrousers

Perry

sharpshot

travelstock

Microbius

cathyslife

caspixel

jamirae

Risamay

caspixel

FreeTransform

lisafx

BaldricksTrousers

travelstock

michealo

FreeTransform

jamirae

FreeTransform

lisafx

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors