I was going for a bit of levity, oh well :-)

I firmly believe that if they had replaced Getty's top management with a dog around 2009, they would be in a much better shape now and their turnover would be significantly higher than it is now. A dog could never have taken so many stupid decisions. As a matter of fact, a dog might not have taken too many decisions at all. I am convinced that if they had appointed a dachshund as CEO in 2009, iStock would still be the No. 1 microstock agency.

Quote from: HughStoneIan on January 16, 2013, 14:27

For myself I've narrowed it down to three choices:

1) They hate microstock and are on the attack to get rid of at least Istock as the former micro leader and damage as many others as they can, because they want their high-priced macro to dominate the market.

2) They are exceedingly and unfathomably incompetent businesspeople totally out of touch with real life. So they'll throw everything against the wall and see what sticks.

3) This is just a fun interesting experiment and no one there really cares about anything or anyone else. They can survive quite comfortably on their inherited billions for the rest of their lives.

I'm really not sure which choice is closest to the truth.

May I add another? 

4) The Carlyle Group has discovered it has bought a company in deep financial trouble.  They are selling off assets at fire sale prices just to make a quick buck and once they've gotten everything they can out of it, they will take the rest of the losses as a write-off and move on to destroy the next hapless company.

Quote from: mattdixon on January 16, 2013, 12:03

Their Macro side is dying on its arse as well, they're just running around with fire extinguishers wondering what to do next.
Getty remind me of Marlon Brando in Apocalypse Now, a mad shaved headed old veteran chopping everything up and spouting nonsense.

There is no plan.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/WdNsltQXTVU

Matt!  that is such a naive and dangerous thinking, wishful thinking its truly unbelievable. I could show you my and some friends sales-reports from the RM collections and you would not believe your eyes and then ask if its dying.

Getty wants to control the stock photo business. Shock? Virtually every corporation which sees an opportunity to control distribution to a large market wants has the same ambition. Why wouldn't they? Getty's ineptitude at running IS so far really doesn't matter. Its strategy can succeed whether IS is the best microstock site or not.

How can Getty/iStock get rid of microstock competitors? The strategy has been discussed in other threads since the Google-Drive controversy began. It is simply deep-pockets + 'dumping'. Getty lowers the price for micrsostock images to near zero (by means of deals like the Google one and in other ways), driving out of business those companies which do not have the financial resources to take losses for a long time (Getty does have the deep pockets to take those losses).

When SS, DT, FT, etc are out of the picture, Getty has a strangle hold on distribution. It jacks prices back up, and it kicks out the photographers and illustrators it doesn't like and promotes the work of its pets. That will be a good day for some of the IS exclusives who post here, but for independents it means: get very good at * up (see iStock forums for valuable examples of how to perfect this skill), or go looking for work in some other industry.

ClaridgeJ - in the last 10 years - who made more money - the company selling apps for 150 or 1700 dollars - or the ones for 99 cent?

the 1700 dollar license app company can keep patting themselves on the back all they want for "asking real money for real work" but the millionaires will be the 99 centers.

It is the same with stock. The volume market can create many more millionaires or just plain good income than the tiny little RM market that is on it�s way into oblivion. I am sure there will be always be group that makes good money with it, just like in the art market where you will find painters who get paid 200 000 dollars for one painting.

But if you are in that club, good for you, may you enjoy all the millions you can make Don�t forget to take vacations as well...you need to have the fun too!

My problem with RM is that simply at that price point it is usually a lot cheaper and more efficient to have a designer whip up something totally unique for you, something noone can rent from any library and that was created exclusively for you and whatever occasion you need it (trade show, important company brochure, yearly catalogue etc...

I do see a place for RM for some highly unusual images. A polar bear dancing in a pink dress, rare animals in the wild where only 3 are deemed to exist, heart transplant surgery, very specific industry shots like engineering shots on oil plattforms all model and property released etc....

Authentic files like these, I think RM is the right place for them.

But they always have to be balanced with what a good designer can do with photoshop or illustration. He or her are the real enemies of RM, not just the masses of royalty free content.

Of course when you are doing a large advertising campaign any image renting costs are negligable. Even 50 000 to rent one image for three months is peanuts compared to what a large stand costs at a regular industry trade show.

So I do see a certain base level market that will always be there. But I would think that the only way to create a reliable income from it, would be to stay industry specific.

I used to work in the traffic engineering field, actually I grew up in it. I know all the major players, it is a very tightly knit network of companies with just very few, industry specific trade shows. the end client, cities and engineering offices, don�t go there, so the whole thing is one small club although they are serving a world market. Obviously they don�t all love each other either and waste their time and money in all kinds of aggressive ego boosting court cases.

If I wanted to, I could create great photos and videos for general use in this industry. I could use my old contacts to take images of the latest technology. I know what kind of imagery they need. I know all the magazines and websites and trade shows they advertise in, becuase I used to do it myself.

But here is the thing: to license it - I don�t need getty anymore. In the old catalogue days, i would have needed an agent to handle it for me. But for industry specific content where you need insider knowledge to take the pictures - you can handle all the licensing yourself through the internet. My family name is a lot better known in the industry than Getty or any library anyway.

And this holds true for every other niche subject, especially in technology. If you know how to shoot it, if you have the contacts, if you want to make money from "your" home industry, IMO you would be totally crazy to let an agency handle the licensing for you. After all the work of getting locations, people and shooting right, you already have everything you need to license.

So what kind of RM market is left where you as the specialized artist cannot license directly?

I believe this would be rare quality shots that however are more generic, i.e. they can be used in multiple industries. that is when an agncy like getty or any other agency might be useful.

So this is my take from a business managers perspective of the RM market.

I would rather shine shoes than go back into that industry I might do a little work on a lower level, especially with video. But to leave the industry and do something else was the best decision of my life.

There were some really nice people there also of course, especially the older generation. They have style.
 
But the younger and newer companies are incredible aggressive and very short sighted. The older companies created some very high quality technology, built to last for a long time. Now it is all cheap electronics and if more people die in traffic accidents because the tech keeps failing - who cares, the more it fails, the more you can sell.

No, my plan B and C are different.

But I don�t see the sky falling yet for stock. there is a huge demand for all media productions and this will only be increased in the coming years with larger TV�s, 3D technology and the new 3D printers. And of course a huge new market of buyers of professional imagery coming in from the rising middle classes and online businesses in china, india and south america. The more densely populated, the more need for technology. And of course wherever laws become more professional about IP copyright. But I�d say if you want to look where the market is rising - follow the ipad and tablets sales reports. wherever they rise, there will be more online/website business that can afford our content.

It is just istock that will continue to see the traffic falling down, much faster than I thought. I had no idea how out of touch the top level getty managers really are from the RF industry and 21st century business in general.

There is a reason these very modern marketplaces and companies are called "community driven" companies, not management driven. Because the content producers hold the key, the internet has  made all customers available with one click.

The flow of content from the media creators will go to the agency that offers the best service to them and to the customer. Which is why Shutterstock have truly worked their business model to perfection.

Since istock does not seem to be offering a lot of advantage to the exclusive media producers anymore, the flow of content will start to move elsewhere. The agility of communities is incredibly fast. Instagram lost half it�s users in just one month when they played their little games in December:

http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2013/01/15/instagram-loses-nearly-half-its-daily-users-after-terms-of-use-controversy/

Exclusive artists with large portfolios of 6000+, some over 10 000, they will need more time to prepare. Joe Gough predicted a large exodus of exclusives for April. I think his timing is right.

In the stock industry the media creators are often also the buyers of media. So where the content creators go, the customers walk with them. Automatically.

In the beginning all agencies will benefit from the redistribution of former exclusive content. Over the next 2-3 years some super agencies will emerge again.

But I think full artist exclusivity will be a rare breed. Image exclusivity, that might be the thing to do.

But I have to get in touch with everyone and if they are my personal customers also be nice and charming. I don't feel like doing that. With few exceptions...

The advantage of stock is that I can choose my own peer group and people I want to deal with by deciding what stock themes I want to work with.

Quote from: mattdixon on January 16, 2013, 12:03

Their Macro side is dying on its arse as well, they're just running around with fire extinguishers wondering what to do next.
Getty remind me of Marlon Brando in Apocalypse Now, a mad shaved headed old veteran chopping everything up and spouting nonsense.

There is no plan.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/WdNsltQXTVU

Matt!  that is such a naive and dangerous thinking, wishful thinking its truly unbelievable. I could show you my and some friends sales-reports from the RM collections and you would not believe your eyes and then ask if its dying.