Author Topic: iStock Content to Sell on Photos.com and JupiterUnlimited (Read 95112 times)

stacey_newman · « **Reply #75 on:** May 02, 2009, 15:57 »

well, I might have read your last post wrong, but if photos.com and jupiter take off under the direction of Getty/iStock, doesn't that pose a significant threat to sales at SS and some of the others?

cali_4590 · « **Reply #76 on:** May 02, 2009, 16:00 »

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?
[/quote]

If Getty captures enough market share with photos.com that is a possiblilty. However, if those guys consolidated into a subscription model site, they would have to be competitive in price.

How does this scenario help us? Do companies competing for market share raise prices?

batman · « **Reply #77 on:** May 02, 2009, 16:14 »

I'm not sure of anything except that given what we hear from Ellen Bough and Yuri and others, they are saying buyers are tired of getting the same old same old. So that could explain the drop in earnings for some . The training or the stumbling block are same old same old reviewers who would still approve same old same old
because of their small minds and inability to change.
At the same time, we have the new players like Cutcaster, Zymmetrical, etc.. hoping to recruit serious contributors to their fold. The promise of traditional prices as an incentive. Of course, this would mean trying to get images that micro don't have. Or else it would be pointless, which buyer is going to pay premium knowing the same is available as sub.
There will be a disparity growing between these images, which I suspect IS is playing with Premiere Collection . This perharps, will command the same price as say Cut, Zymm and Alamy,etc.. leaving the rest of the hackneyed images and clones of best seller to wallow in subs.

Just guessing like everyone else, as Cat Woman took my crystal ball, lol

lisafx · « **Reply #78 on:** May 02, 2009, 16:21 »

Quote from: stacey_newman on May 02, 2009, 15:57

well, I might have read your last post wrong, but if photos.com and jupiter take off under the direction of Getty/iStock, doesn't that pose a significant threat to sales at SS and some of the others?

Photos.com and JUI have already been under the direction of Getty for months and have made absolutely no dent in the (rising) sales at the independently owned micros. The only thing that is new will be the addition of some istock formerly exclusive content.

I don't see any benefit for exclusive contributors in supporting the prospect of eventual monopolization of this industry. How long will istock exclusives be making up to 40% on istock if Getty owns it all and there is no DT, SS, FOT etc. to compete?

At this point it seems to me the best way for content providers to protect their future earnings is to support the sites that are independently owned.

cali_4590 · « **Reply #79 on:** May 02, 2009, 16:30 »

I don't see any benefit for exclusive contributors in supporting the prospect of eventual monopolization of this industry. How long will istock exclusives be making up to 40% on istock if Getty owns it all and there is no DT, SS, FOT etc. to compete?
At this point it seems to me the best way for content providers to protect their future earnings is to support the sites that are independently owned.
[/quote]

I'm an exclusive at IS (staying anonymous

but I think you might be right. We also need a way to protect ourselves as a community. I never post in the forums but I'm sure the talk of a microstock contributer's union has come up in the past. That might need to be seriously considered, if it isn't happening already.

alias · « **Reply #80 on:** May 02, 2009, 16:34 »

Quote from: batman on May 02, 2009, 15:32

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?

They all have roughly the same content. What would be the point in them working together? And they are culturally very different.

Photographers need to be careful to maintain their collections such that they are quickly able to respond to the evolving market. Suppose you want to output and keyword the best selling 50% of your work at a different size. Think like that. Then these sorts of uncertainties are less worrying. All photographers are independents ultimately unless under contract. The more everyone thinks like that the easier it will be to relax and enjoy the journey.

10 years ago IS did not exist. 5 years from now microstock may have been replaced by some other model.

fullvalue · « **Reply #81 on:** May 02, 2009, 16:37 »

So anyway how does the Premier Collection factor into this equation? Maybe that's the safety valve for the elite exclusives?

vonkara · « **Reply #82 on:** May 02, 2009, 16:42 »

What a crappy plan yeah. Welcome all Istock contributors to the subscription sea, where nobody get water

cthoman · « **Reply #83 on:** May 02, 2009, 16:47 »

I can't believe this photos.com nonsense is back again. Didn't they see how poorly this went over at StockXpert?

le_cyclope · « **Reply #84 on:** May 02, 2009, 16:54 »

Lets take it in another way...

Step 1: Setting up a merge between photos.com and iSttock
Step 2: Asking exclusives to select photos to sell trough Photos.com and (step 2b) removing them from iStock
Step 3: Pushing non-exclusives to Photos.com.

The only model this industry has not try till now is a full exclusive content. So going this way, iStock (or Getty) would have a «regular» site to compete with the actual market AND a full exclusive to offer something buyers can't find anywhere else.

Think about it...

Claude

vonkara · « **Reply #85 on:** May 02, 2009, 17:07 »

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"?

Yes just look at the first page... I laugh so hard, tears in my eyes!

CraigSwatton · « **Reply #86 on:** May 02, 2009, 17:08 »

Quote from: lisafx on May 02, 2009, 16:21

Quote from: stacey_newman on May 02, 2009, 15:57
well, I might have read your last post wrong, but if photos.com and jupiter take off under the direction of Getty/iStock, doesn't that pose a significant threat to sales at SS and some of the others?

Photos.com and JUI have already been under the direction of Getty for months and have made absolutely no dent in the (rising) sales at the independently owned micros. The only thing that is new will be the addition of some istock formerly exclusive content.

I don't see any benefit for exclusive contributors in supporting the prospect of eventual monopolization of this industry. How long will istock exclusives be making up to 40% on istock if Getty owns it all and there is no DT, SS, FOT etc. to compete?

At this point it seems to me the best way for content providers to protect their future earnings is to support the sites that are independently owned.

Exactly what I'll be doing if this does go through!

lisafx · « **Reply #87 on:** May 02, 2009, 17:10 »

Quote from: alias on May 02, 2009, 16:34

Photographers need to be careful to maintain their collections such that they are quickly able to respond to the evolving market.

Huh? What does this mean?

How does istock exclusivity enable one to "quickly respond to the evolving market"? If anything, doesn't it do the opposite? Particularly with images that are model released only for istock and keyworded according to istock's unique scheme.

cali_4590 · « **Reply #88 on:** May 02, 2009, 17:14 »

Claude,

That would create a hard push for some contributors to become exclusive but IS might lose big moneymakers like Yuri. It could work out for top contributors if it forced out some of the middle of the road contributors, reducing the size of the collection. They could get more exposure.

Instead of making that choice the big time contributors might just create their own site and invite who they want and keep it exclusive.

The all exclusive site is an interesting idea.

batman · « **Reply #89 on:** May 02, 2009, 17:17 »

Quote from: fullvalue on May 02, 2009, 16:37

So anyway how does the Premier Collection factor into this equation? Maybe that's the safety valve for the elite exclusives?

Precisely, everyone here looks at the sub side they introduced. They forgot IS also introduced the PC just before this. Smoke screen, open your eyes people, you're not being objective.

You are not playing with the old IS anymore. This is not Oz

stacey_newman · « **Reply #90 on:** May 02, 2009, 17:20 »

I really hope you are right Lisa and I trust your perspective, you have such great experience in this industry. I hate the idea of a Getty monopoly. I sometimes wish I had never gone exclusive. it is so hard to switch out once you`re in. especially when this kind of decision making starts happening. no one knows who`s driving.

I`d really like to believe what JJ said. that the iStock model will remain the same, but in the same breath, this announcement clearly delineates plans to change the iStock business model. so I`m still so confused.

batman · « **Reply #91 on:** May 02, 2009, 17:25 »

this is where the spartans dance and celebrate as they bring in the Wooden Horse left at the gate of sparta by the trojans. you know the ending , don't you?

cali_4590 · « **Reply #92 on:** May 02, 2009, 17:28 »

^^
haha,
They'll probably have a wooden horse icon next to option A!

batman · « **Reply #93 on:** May 02, 2009, 17:38 »

Quote from: cali_4590 on May 02, 2009, 17:28

^^
haha,
They'll probably have a wooden horse icon next to option A!

yes

and rename themselves to Troy !

lisafx · « **Reply #94 on:** May 02, 2009, 17:50 »

Quote from: batman on May 02, 2009, 17:25

this is where the spartans dance and celebrate as they bring in the Wooden Horse left at the gate of sparta by the trojans. you know the ending , don't you?

Batman, you are filled with the historical references today!

But surely it was the Greeks who had been setting seige to the city of Troy that climbed inside the Trojan Horse, until the Trojans took it inside their city (Troy's) walls?

"Beware of Greeks bearing gifts"....

alias · « **Reply #95 on:** May 02, 2009, 18:09 »

Quote from: lisafx on May 02, 2009, 17:10

How does istock exclusivity enable one to "quickly respond to the evolving market"? If anything, doesn't it do the opposite? Particularly with images that are model released only for istock and keyworded according to istock's unique scheme.

Keywording and model releases would be two areas to think about definitely. Aperture and Lightroom are both great tools for managing a collection. Then it can relatively quickly be output at different sizes and with different keywords, profiles etc.

People who are exclusive at one site or who have content exclusively at one site still might want to think ahead and keep their future options open by being careful about how they manage and organize their work as they go along. If only from now on.

By keeping our options open we are often much more relaxed and less jittery about our current arrangements.

loop · « **Reply #96 on:** May 02, 2009, 18:14 »

Quote from: le_cyclope on May 02, 2009, 16:54

Lets take it in another way...

Step 1: Setting up a merge between photos.com and iSttock
Step 2: Asking exclusives to select photos to sell trough Photos.com and (step 2b) removing them from iStock
Step 3: Pushing non-exclusives to Photos.com.

The only model this industry has not try till now is a full exclusive content. So going this way, iStock (or Getty) would have a «regular» site to compete with the actual market AND a full exclusive to offer something buyers can't find anywhere else.

Think about it...

Claude

That makes sense, from a business point of view, and would ask some questions that right now are missing a logical answer. . But I would prefer it won't happen, even if I'm exclusice.

le_cyclope · « **Reply #97 on:** May 02, 2009, 18:18 »

Quote from: cali_4590 on May 02, 2009, 17:14

Claude,

That would create a hard push for some contributors to become exclusive but IS might lose big moneymakers like Yuri. It could work out for top contributors if it forced out some of the middle of the road contributors, reducing the size of the collection. They could get more exposure.

Hummm...
Getty would still sell Yury's and other major non-exclusives through StockXpert or Photos.com. From a business point of vue, I don't think that Getty would care from which channel they sell photos.

And a full exclusive site would bring some new buyers, that's for sure!

Claude

batman · « **Reply #98 on:** May 02, 2009, 18:19 »

Quote from: lisafx on May 02, 2009, 17:50

Quote from: batman on May 02, 2009, 17:25
this is where the spartans dance and celebrate as they bring in the Wooden Horse left at the gate of sparta by the trojans. you know the ending , don't you?

Batman, you are filled with the historical references today!

But surely it was the Greeks who had been setting seige to the city of Troy that climbed inside the Trojan Horse, until the Trojans took it inside their city (Troy's) walls?

"Beware of Greeks bearing gifts"....

you are right beware of Greeks bearing gifts. and while everyone is debating over the decoy, the real issue of military strategy is not being considering. remember they did bring Helen back.

do you see any IS exclusive screaming bloody murder over this? where is the IS mob? do i have to paint it for everyone ? if i were exclusive, i would laugh too , hmm?

cali_4590 · « **Reply #99 on:** May 02, 2009, 18:25 »

^^
There's plenty screaming bloody murder.

Check it: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=87786&page=1

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: iStock Content to Sell on Photos.com and JupiterUnlimited (Read 95112 times)

stacey_newman

cali_4590

batman

lisafx

cali_4590

alias

fullvalue

vonkara

cthoman

le_cyclope

vonkara

CraigSwatton

lisafx

cali_4590

batman

stacey_newman

batman

cali_4590

batman

lisafx

alias

loop

le_cyclope

batman

cali_4590

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors