Author Topic: iStock Content to Sell on Photos.com and JupiterUnlimited (Read 95007 times)

MichaelJay · « **Reply #50 on:** May 02, 2009, 07:31 »

Quote from: lisafx on May 01, 2009, 19:21

One thing that hasn't been pointed out is that often the non-selling images are similars from a series. Under Plan B, if those were to be available on Photos.com wouldn't it possibly undercut the better selling exclusive images here?

You still have the option to remove those images from iStock if you feel you don't want them to be offered at the lowest price. Given that those images didn't sell well for two years, you probably won't lose much be removing them, right? Some people have done so in the past when they were about to be moved to the Dollar Bin. It's a decision you can make.

MichaelJay · « **Reply #51 on:** May 02, 2009, 07:36 »

Quote from: stacey_newman on May 01, 2009, 18:40

this feels like a very big fish decision. from the top. I think the sale to Getty was the beginning of a prolonged end to iStock. it will eventually be absorbed IMHO. whether or not to be on the inside or the outside when/if that happens, that is the question.

I don't know but I don't believe so. iStock and it's business model has proven very successful in the past and I truly believe Getty is respecting this. Obviously they always tried and will keep trying to create synergies between companies and collections. Maybe not all of them are in the best interest of all artists represented. And this move is the only recent announcement that makes me really think if it's a good move for me or not.

But at least it's my personal choice. Wherever I look around in the world, huge companies tend to tell me "take it or leave it" when it comes to changes. With this announcement they leave it up to me how I want to deal with it. And no, I don't believe it will be a big mass of contributors making their whole portfolio available through those subscription sales at once. So I don't believe I will be forced by the market to make the same move.

Gregor909 · « **Reply #52 on:** May 02, 2009, 08:07 »

Oh boy, I sure am glad I never went exclusive to Istock!

Business is tough. They just made an early announcement on the forum, let the contributors whine and rant for a while, and eventually they just do whatever they want!
I think there's nothing we can do about it. There always enough contributors who take any deal and spoil it for the rest, so we all are forced to go along or lose out on sales.

It looks like non exclusives have a better choice now, but don't forget, Getty owns us as well. I think this is just the beginning!

alias · « **Reply #53 on:** May 02, 2009, 10:35 »

Paying IS exclusives less than non exclusives for sub content at the sister site would be unacceptable.

Option A is a mistake which has the potential to split the community.

KW400 · « **Reply #54 on:** May 02, 2009, 10:46 »

We need to remember Bruce is gone.
This is not Istock anymore, it is Getty period.

batman · « **Reply #55 on:** May 02, 2009, 10:52 »

Quote from: Eco on May 02, 2009, 04:36

I find the decision of iStock to sell its content on photos.com and JU very strange. Why risk the reputation of IS with something that can only be perceived as lowering the value of its exclusive contents?

G-etty G-reed G-reenbacks

Quote from: Eco on May 02, 2009, 04:36

As a non-exclusive I will definitely opt out of this deal. I am contributing to StockXpert and my images are already on photos.com and JU. The big difference is that I have downsized my images for sites that offer subscriptions, while IS have my highest resolution images. I will definitely not allow my high res images on $0.30 subscription sites.

My initial point precisely re: redundancy

Quote from: Eco on May 02, 2009, 04:36

If Getty would like to utilize the potential of the newly acquired photos.com and JU, why not develop StockXpert further for this exact purpose. Open StockXpert (and thus photos.com and JU) to IS exclusive photographers, but keep it separate from IS. I don't know how they are going to avoid duplicates from IS and StockXpert. I also don't know how they are going to incorporate the unconventional keywording of IS with the more conventional keywording of photos.com and JU.

Simple, be like Nero playing la violin as Rome burns... Or Victoria saying,"Buf, let em eat cake!"

stacey_newman · « **Reply #56 on:** May 02, 2009, 11:00 »

Michael - I think you are probably right, but I think this is a mistake too. and I think that Getty is slowly rebranding iStock, and that exclusivity might actually be phased out. which I didn't see coming. change is good, but this kind of change feel a little too Walmartesque...if that makes sense.

I plan on opting in some files and testing the waters. I don't think boycotts ever really work well.

lisafx · « **Reply #57 on:** May 02, 2009, 12:45 »

Quote from: alias on May 02, 2009, 10:35

Paying IS exclusives less than non exclusives for sub content at the sister site would be unacceptable.

Well, to be fair, on photos.com and JUI "istock exclusive" images won't really BE istock exclusive anymore, will they.

So it seems perfectly reasonable that people who are already represented on Jupiter sites, through StockXpert, continue to make the same royalties they contracted for on StockXpert.

I am rather surprised that what bothers you about this deal is not how little Istock will be paying you, but the fact that non-exclusives whose images are in the Stockxpert collection will be getting slightly more. Would it be okay for you to make 22.5% as a diamond exclusive as long as independents were getting say 5%??

lisafx · « **Reply #58 on:** May 02, 2009, 12:46 »

Quote from: batman on May 02, 2009, 10:52

Simple, be like Nero playing la violin as Rome burns... Or Victoria saying,"Buf, let em eat cake!"

Actually, that was Marie Anoinette. Read your history Batman (or at least your Bartlett's"

batman · « **Reply #59 on:** May 02, 2009, 12:51 »

Quote from: lisafx on May 02, 2009, 12:46

Quote from: batman on May 02, 2009, 10:52

Simple, be like Nero playing la violin as Rome burns... Or Victoria saying,"Buf, let em eat cake!"

Actually, that was Marie Anoinette. Read your history Batman (or at least your Bartlett's"

Cheers lisafx, so glad someone reads my comments, C'est vrai, c'etait la Antionette !

alias · « **Reply #60 on:** May 02, 2009, 13:36 »

Quote from: stacey_newman on May 02, 2009, 11:00

Getty is slowly rebranding iStock, and that exclusivity might actually be phased out. which I didn't see coming.

I do not think that they will mess up the exclusive program because I think that defines the community. And it is the community, ultimately, which Getty bought. The loyalty etc. Kill the community and you will kill the loyalty and, ultimately, the business.

Getty know how crowd sourced microstock impacted their previous model and was set to destroy it before they got involved. They know that sooner or later there will be another model which might just take the business from under them again if they are not careful. Same as Twitter trumps Facebook which trumped MySpace etc. Same as Google killed Altavista. Same as RF seriously impacted the earlier stock models.

The next revolution will happen much more quickly thanks to tools like Twitter which pretty much link everyone in the industry. If the loyalty is lost then people will be much more likely to adopt new models.

The microstocks will be replaced as a model when something else comes along which offers the same content at the same or less cost to the buyers via a trusted payment system whilst paying a greater share to the contributors. And a search engine which learns.

Blue_Skies · « **Reply #61 on:** May 02, 2009, 13:59 »

Caz · « **Reply #62 on:** May 02, 2009, 14:21 »

Quote from: stacey_newman on May 02, 2009, 00:22

with the new model, exclusive no longer means exclusive to iStock.

It's been that way for a while. Any exclusive invited to submit to Getty has had their images hawked around several "outlets" that Getty distributes through. A Google search of my name brings my Getty submissions up on sites I've never heard of. I wonder if we should stop thinking of us being iStock exclusives and more Getty exclusive?

madelaide · « **Reply #63 on:** May 02, 2009, 14:25 »

I don't have enough patience to read IS forum, are there many "Great", "Love it", "Way to go"?

cali_4590 · « **Reply #64 on:** May 02, 2009, 14:27 »

The way I see it:

Getty buys all the microstock companies it can. They look at the market place and see they their microstocks are competing against themselves and the competition. Then they decide it would be smarter to consolidate their microstocks into one company. The company with the best name, photos.com. Once photos.com has enough good Istock content from exclusives who aren't paying attention or blindly trust TPTB then Getty can crush Shutterstock, Dreamstime, and Fotolia because photos.com will have the competitor's contributors plus Istock exclusives.

As exclusive images slowly start leaking out of Istock and more buyers start looking at photos.com first and then at Istock, that could be the beginning of the end for exclusivity. Once exclusivity erodes to a point of worthlessness because buyers will be less willing to pay the "high prices" at Istock, all contributors will be affected.

The erosion of Istock content slowly over a year or two to Photos.com will likely cause the competition to suffer greatly also. If DT, SS, or F goes out of business because of photos.com, then non-exclusives become losers in this game too. We will all sell at photos.com at a crappy 22%.

If I'm right, this is a genius plan by Getty to take over everything. If I'm wrong, why wouldn't Istock keep everything there? Why get buyers in the habit of checking two websites? Why not make a cheaper subscription Dollar Bin for the crappy non-sellers?

Option A - makes the transition to photos.com fast

Option B - gets momentum going towards photos.com

Freedom · « **Reply #65 on:** May 02, 2009, 14:57 »

Walmartesque? Probably that's the way Getty intends it to remain. Don't forget IS started as a "free market" and then "flea market". I know many of us had wished that IS would become midstock, this new subscription model seems a bit demoralizing for the exclusives if I read the messages correctly.

Quote from: stacey_newman on May 02, 2009, 11:00

Michael - change is good, but this kind of change feel a little too Walmartesque...if that makes sense.

lisafx · « **Reply #66 on:** May 02, 2009, 14:58 »

Quote from: madelaide on May 02, 2009, 14:25

I don't have enough patience to read IS forum, are there many "Great", "Love it", "Way to go"?

Very few, actually.

stacey_newman · « **Reply #67 on:** May 02, 2009, 15:00 »

JJRD just posted in the subcription thread. I like him as IS admins go, he seems like a good guy. he very clearly stated the intention of the new subcription options. I'm relieved about his comment that the iStock business model is not changing, nor is that the intention. that is my main concern.

as I said earlier, I'll give it a whirl and see what happens with my sales. but in response to madelaide, not many wooyays in this thread. I'm hoping that is only because we don't understand this yet and that it turns out well.

lisafx · « **Reply #68 on:** May 02, 2009, 15:04 »

Quote from: cali_4590 on May 02, 2009, 14:27

The erosion of Istock content slowly over a year or two to Photos.com will likely cause the competition to suffer greatly also. If DT, SS, or F goes out of business because of photos.com, then non-exclusives become losers in this game too. We will all sell at photos.com at a crappy 22%.

This is rather a doomsday scenario IMO. Virtually my entire portfolio is available at Photos.com and JUI and I still get plenty of sales from DT, FOT, SS, and IS.

I don't think those sites are going anywhere. The only way Getty is likely to destroy them is to buy them all out. Which hopefully Getty's pockets are not currently deep enough to do.

stacey_newman · « **Reply #69 on:** May 02, 2009, 15:21 »

yeah, it could be a very bad time to go non-exclusive and a bad time to be non-exclusive if Getty has big enough pockets.

cali_4590 · « **Reply #70 on:** May 02, 2009, 15:31 »

Lisa,

It's not a Doomsday scenario for Getty. It could be windfall profits for them. If you're a buyer and photos.com subscription prices are the same as the others but now has Istock exclusives and quite possibly the BM2 search engine, why wouldn't you go to photos.com? Loyalty?

I hate to sound negative but when I saw option A (send over your entire portfolio), I can't think of any way possible that is positive for Istock as a stand-alone business or exclusives.

batman · « **Reply #71 on:** May 02, 2009, 15:32 »

Quote from: cali_4590 on May 02, 2009, 14:27

....

Getty can crush Shutterstock, Dreamstime, and Fotolia because photos.com will have the competitor's contributors plus Istock exclusives.
....
. If DT, SS, or F goes out of business

In a nutshell, perharps , cali_4590 ! You are assuming SS, DT, FT , have been sleeping through all this.
Sounds like USA trying to keep all the Latin American countries disunited, until Castro and Trudeau told them what the game plan was.

Scenario 3: DT , SS, FT could also form a union if their existence is a threatened.
This would form as large a continium as Getty, if not larger.
Are you forgetting that?

snaprender · « **Reply #72 on:** May 02, 2009, 15:41 »

So, for me on a personal level (being non-exclusive) this whole thing really means nothing to me...I'm opting out.

But as my mind wanders (as it does often - geesh)...the question why Exclusives would only get 22.5% royalty has still not be answered by the admin's over on the IS forum. Why not? Why no answers?

Could it be the beginning of the end for higher royalties for Exclusive member? I mean, really, if they do it slow enough and start with this 22.5% on the JI/Photos.com subs - no one will pull their portfolio. Then lets say 8mo down the road...they lower the royalty on the photos in the not so 'dollar bin' to ..ahhh 22.5% - still no one will pull their portfolio. Then little by little they lower the royalty on all the other photos until all royalty payments are at .. lets say 20% non-exclusive and 22.5% for exclusive.

Total speculation of course as my mind wanders.....

Gregor909 · « **Reply #73 on:** May 02, 2009, 15:45 »

I wonder how they are going to make sure we don't have our images twice on those sites.
There's no way they can automate this.

I got a feeling they are going to redirect this responsibility right back to us.
What a sh*tload of work this is going to be, especially for those who have thousands of images online.

lisafx · « **Reply #74 on:** May 02, 2009, 15:50 »

Quote from: stacey_newman on May 02, 2009, 15:21

yeah, it could be a very bad time to go non-exclusive and a bad time to be non-exclusive if Getty has big enough pockets.

Really??!!

This would be exactly the opposite of my take on the situation.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: iStock Content to Sell on Photos.com and JupiterUnlimited (Read 95007 times)

MichaelJay

MichaelJay

Gregor909

alias

KW400

batman

stacey_newman

lisafx

lisafx

batman

alias

Blue_Skies

Caz

madelaide

cali_4590

Freedom

lisafx

stacey_newman

lisafx

stacey_newman

cali_4590

batman

snaprender

Gregor909

lisafx

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors