Author Topic: iStock Content to Sell on Photos.com and JupiterUnlimited (Read 94985 times)

Freezingpictures · « **Reply #125 on:** May 04, 2009, 10:54 »

I am an optimist by nature and I was optimistic about the photos.com and JIU deals with StockXpert. After selling through this sites for a while now I was brought back to reality

I did not shared the pessimism of a few fellow contributors. Now I know better and opted out just yesterday after I reviewed my income through the photos.com, JIU sites. For me it's as well less than 1% of my microstock income. I am rather selling my images through one or two subscription sites less.

gostwyck · « **Reply #126 on:** May 04, 2009, 11:09 »

Quote from: stacey_newman on May 04, 2009, 10:34

iStock is run by a very smart group of people, and I believe they truly care about contributors for the most part. we'll see.

IS might be administered by nice people who care about the contributors but ... they are just employees, not owners.

IS is a relatively small part of Getty who themselves are owned by an investment house. It's the owners who really call the shots.

alias · « **Reply #127 on:** May 04, 2009, 11:13 »

Interesting to see that donnelt (Vivozoom and ex Getty) has posted on the IS forum thread.

stacey_newman · « **Reply #128 on:** May 04, 2009, 11:24 »

Quote from: gostwyck on May 04, 2009, 11:09

Quote from: stacey_newman on May 04, 2009, 10:34
iStock is run by a very smart group of people, and I believe they truly care about contributors for the most part. we'll see.

IS might be administered by nice people who care about the contributors but ... they are just employees, not owners.

IS is a relatively small part of Getty who themselves are owned by an investment house. It's the owners who really call the shots.

good point.

RT · « **Reply #129 on:** May 04, 2009, 11:27 »

Quote from: stacey_newman on May 04, 2009, 10:34

iStock is run by a very smart group of people, and I believe they truly care about contributors for the most part. we'll see.

iStock is a business and like any successful business they care only for making as much profit as possible, like any other business they wish to maintain an alliance with their suppliers, but if you think they actually care about you as a contributor then you are living in a dream world.

As pointed out by gostwyck there's a huge difference between having friendly helpful staff and what the business plan is.

loop · « **Reply #130 on:** May 04, 2009, 11:46 »

Quote from: RT on May 04, 2009, 11:27

Quote from: stacey_newman on May 04, 2009, 10:34
iStock is run by a very smart group of people, and I believe they truly care about contributors for the most part. we'll see.

iStock is a business and like any successful business they care only for making as much profit as possible, like any other business they wish to maintain an alliance with their suppliers, but if you think they actually care about you as a contributor then you are living in a dream world.

As pointed out by gostwyck there's a huge difference between having friendly helpful staff and what the business plan is.

Yes, but this business plan isn't good for Getty, in my view. Maybe they will get more percentage, but at the cost of losing much more dollars coming from sales at istock, even if they have there less commission.

stacey_newman · « **Reply #131 on:** May 04, 2009, 11:56 »

RT -- I think caring about contributors and running a profitable business has proven to be iStock's differentiator. Getty knows this, or they would have dismantled the iStock culture four years ago. iStock's success is its contributors. that gives serious contributors a lot of power en masse.

when I was really freaking out about BM2.0, I still believe I was reasonable and respectful in their forums. but, if I look at it from their perspective, I was a very squeaky wheel. I was pi55ed. I was angry with admin, angry at the lack of answers and I said so, very bluntly, very frequently. they never banned me, and the moment I reached out asking them for guidance, they were there. I received personal calls, I was thoroughly supported despite the anger I had expressed publicly. they have 50,000 of us. that left a huge impression on me. I even got a personal sitemail from Bruce in response to a question I asked him, and this was just a few weeks before his resignation. my point is, their actions speak louder than their words and in my experience (3 years there now), their actions are consistent with their promises.

I'm not saying they don't do things I disagree with, I've been questioning exclusivity for a year now. but something keeps me there and I'm less worried about this new venture than others seem to be. at the same time, I am not suggesting those other contributors don't have something to worry about. we all have different perspectives based on our career needs.

of course Getty is calling the shots. but so far so good.

gostwyck · « **Reply #132 on:** May 04, 2009, 12:16 »

Quote from: stacey_newman on May 04, 2009, 11:56

I think caring about contributors and running a profitable business has proven to be iStock's differentiator. Getty knows this, or they would have dismantled the iStock culture four years ago.

No, because the situation has changed dramatically relatively recently;

http://www.forbes.com/2008/02/25/getty-hellman-friedman-update-equity-cx_md_0226-markets33.html

Not only was Getty bought out last year but Getty have very recently acquired JI __ and almost immediately now we have a major change which does not appear to be in the contributors' best interests (at least that's what 80% of them who responded to the survey concluded)

cidepix · « **Reply #133 on:** May 04, 2009, 15:55 »

Quote from: Whitechild on May 01, 2009, 16:53

Imagine now, for example, Shutterstock says: "We are inviting all our contributors to become exclusive for Shutterstock, and to pull out their images from Getty network".
Who would then lose money?

Shutterstock would!

SS is very good in the beginning; but the more images you have, the better other sites get.

madelaide · « **Reply #134 on:** May 04, 2009, 17:39 »

When will there be the button to opt out?

Gregor909 · « **Reply #135 on:** May 04, 2009, 18:15 »

Quote from: madelaide on May 04, 2009, 17:39

When will there be the button to opt out?

I remember someone saying over a month or so.
(that dammn thread is too long to read now)

cali_4590 · « **Reply #136 on:** May 04, 2009, 19:08 »

I decided to delete my rage fueled nonsense

bittersweet · « **Reply #137 on:** May 04, 2009, 19:20 »

Quote from: Gregor909 on May 04, 2009, 18:15

Quote from: madelaide on May 04, 2009, 17:39
When will there be the button to opt out?
I remember someone saying over a month or so.
(that dammn thread is too long to read now)

Doesn't the first post in the thread say that "later this month" the opt in or out button will be added, and that they have already reversed the opt-outs for the current ISTOCK subscription program?

bittersweet · « **Reply #138 on:** May 04, 2009, 19:21 »

Quote from: cali_4590 on May 04, 2009, 19:08

I think all Istock Exclusives should opt A, send everything to Photos.com, and immediately go non-exclusive.

How is putting my images up for sale for a few pennies going to hurt anyone but me?? Sorry but this makes no sense at all.

cali_4590 · « **Reply #139 on:** May 04, 2009, 19:58 »

Whatalife,

That was a knee jerk revenge scheme

However, Istock won't last with this new photos.com plan. For now I'm opting out, but my gut tells my sales will start dropping drastically sooner rather than later, especially after hearing about StockXpert & Photos.com. Once sales drop enough, everyone one will be forced to go non-exclusive and upload to other sites. Getty gets a raise both ways, a lot less exclusives and 77.5% commission on photos.com.

When we become non-exclusive I believe there is a wait period before we can upload to other sites. We might as well make some money while we wait. If there is no wait period, you're right no need to upload to photos.com. Once we are non-exclusive, then we don't upload to Getty sites and eventually pull our work from Istock. The buyers have to go where the suppliers are and Getty will realize they killed the Golden Goose.

cali_4590 · « **Reply #140 on:** May 04, 2009, 20:09 »

I'm also so mad about this that I'm probably not being very rational. It's a crushing blow.

bittersweet · « **Reply #141 on:** May 04, 2009, 20:23 »

There is a 30-day waiting period to switch from exclusive to non-exclusive.

cali_4590 · « **Reply #142 on:** May 04, 2009, 20:25 »

stacey_newman · « **Reply #143 on:** May 04, 2009, 23:46 »

I'm going to opt out. I have been convinced by the arguments of the majority of established contributors and microstock veterans. amazing what a day's worth of forum reading can accomplish. I have learned more about subscription sales today than I have in three month's worth of research.

though on one hand I saw this plan as a new avenue for sales, I see the danger in it quite clearly and I won't go against a majority of respected peers.

alias · « **Reply #144 on:** May 05, 2009, 06:43 »

Once Getty have taken over the subscription market they will up prices but not the rates they pay.

This is about their market share. Probably later they will try to take Getty public again based on that market share and a projection of potential future earnings.

This has nothing to do with them following or trying to predict trends. This is about them attempting to squash competition. Which is only in the best interest of the people who own Getty.

vonkara · « **Reply #145 on:** May 05, 2009, 07:53 »

Opt out as well... Maybe also from StockXpert, because this "deal" is a wonderful joke since the start.

I remember when it have been first announced at StockXpert. One particular person is behind this. It was a she and I forget her name. We had to participate to a conference call to tell her how xxx was this deal. She finally decided to exclude the XL and XXL images from the subscription deal. Maybe she was smart after all. She knew that we would be excited by having our images selling at 50$ for XL and XXL.

Still all my photos.com images have been downloaded at L size and simply UPSIZED!!

CofkoCof · « **Reply #146 on:** May 05, 2009, 08:20 »

In case you haven't seen this yet:

Quote from: kkthompson

Quote — Posted 13 hours ago
Minimum payouts: keep in mind these only happen if someone was to use their entire download allotment in a day.

It also varies depending on the package purchased. So the answer to that question is:

3¢, 4¢, 5¢, 6¢, 8¢, 21¢, 39¢, or 72¢ at the 20% payment level.

So a buyer with the biggest subscription package would have to download only 10% of the images so that I would get the same 30c as I get now from StockXpert, photos.com, JUI. Opting out for sure. Even though their "projected revenue" says 30-52. Wonder where they got those numbers?

PS: I also think it should say "entire download allotment in a month". Subs are monthly based and there is no daily limits right?

Milinz · « **Reply #147 on:** May 05, 2009, 08:41 »

Very funny... Why they don't give all that images for free?
Authors will still be happy with downloads ;-)

Time for big changes indeed...

Gizeh · « **Reply #148 on:** May 05, 2009, 08:45 »

Imho Getty's/iStock's move is based on two wrong assumptions and will therefore fail:

1. Micro contributors are too dumb for understanding that subscriptions are a lousy deal

Wrong. Serious contributors know their numbers very well and are perfectly aware that subscriptions are rip off schemes for filling the agency's pockets at the supplier's expense.

2. There will always be enough supply from micro contributors independent from commission rates and how fair contracts are

Wrong. Fact is that the group of contributors accounting for most sales is not that large. Maybe 500 to 1,000 contributors worldwide. No micro agency could survive without the cooperation of this relatively small group. Getty will have a serious problem if these people decide that istock/jupiter/photos.com is not a profitable channel for them.

Milinz · « **Reply #149 on:** May 05, 2009, 09:00 »

Nevertheless, I am glad due to Istock is making that step... It will drown them ;-)
Ok... Let's find some nice independent agency which cares about authors!

First contribution from me will be disabling my images (not many but good sellers elsewhere) from subscriptions on Istock.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: iStock Content to Sell on Photos.com and JupiterUnlimited (Read 94985 times)

Freezingpictures

gostwyck

alias

stacey_newman

RT

loop

stacey_newman

gostwyck

cidepix

madelaide

Gregor909

cali_4590

bittersweet

bittersweet

cali_4590

cali_4590

bittersweet

cali_4590

stacey_newman

alias

vonkara

CofkoCof

Milinz

Gizeh

Milinz

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors