MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStock surveying buyers again...  (Read 25681 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

wut

« Reply #150 on: May 13, 2012, 09:59 »
0
I totally agree. I'm saying all the time, that the prices should go up, quadruple at least. They're absurd at the moment, especially if you look at the quality of the best images (only a few %, but that's more than enough to find a good image for most subjects)

they should go up anyways, inflation is pretty bad in europe but even more here in asia, here it's running at 10-20% per year for many items and 5-10% for anything else with some goods peaking at 100-200% compared to 2011.

all this is first and foremost reflected in the average cost of transportation and the production costs are therefore skyrocketing but agencies are still paying peanuts, selling less than before, and pretending to slash royalty fees even more.

So you don't think these issues also affect the people who buy photos?

They do, but the free ride has to end, it's about bloody time. Not too, little too late, but a lot (way overdue)


« Reply #151 on: May 13, 2012, 10:04 »
0
From the questions in the survey referring to "Professional Photographers" and "Curated Collections", I get the uncomfortable, sneaking suspicion that in their hearts they still believe in the original Getty model and are trying to manipulate false support of them slowly morphing istock's model into the old Getty model.

It's the classic marketing mistake of not first finding out what buyers want and strategizing a profitable way to provide it, but rather coming up with an idea that you like on your own and trying to convince buyers it's the best way. It usually never works. But those who do it this way usually fight their way to the death.

On another note, if the site becomes more and more like Getty, and if they start to include Getty more and more in their branding, I am afraid they will hit the old Getty extortion letter stumbling block. We don't hear much about it today, but evidently it is still fresh in the minds of large, longtime stock buyers. I was talking to one the other day, casually, mentioning recent changes at istock. They told me in no uncertain terms that they would NEVER buy from Getty again because many of their clients continue to fight those letters. In fact, in their circles it is still a very fresh wound. If this is any reflection of the industry as a whole, it would seem that keeping istock as far away from the Getty brand as possible would be the best path to take. (Google "Getty Letter" if unfamiliar with the issue).

eta: the Getty extortion letter was not COOL
« Last Edit: May 13, 2012, 10:08 by jbryson »

« Reply #152 on: May 13, 2012, 10:11 »
0

So you don't think these issues also affect the people who buy photos?

They do, but the free ride has to end, it's about bloody time. Not too, little too late, but a lot (way overdue)

Well, all I can say is, be careful what you wish for. You may find yourself with a lot of more appealingly priced (to you) images that are not selling at all. Raising the prices is going to further shrink the market share. People *will* stop buying photos. They didn't buy them before and they will go back to not buying them again. The problem with the microstock market is not the demand, it is the supply. Too much is available now. If you aren't seeing any growth at the lower prices, why do you think you will see growth at higher prices? People also seem to forget that microstock opened up photography sales for *a lot* of photographers to which it was closed. How many microstock photographers is Getty images *still* closed to?

traveler1116

« Reply #153 on: May 13, 2012, 10:12 »
0
From the questions in the survey referring to "Professional Photographers" and "Curated Collections", I get the uncomfortable, sneaking suspicion that in their hearts they still believe in the original Getty model and are trying to manipulate false support of them slowly morphing istock's model into the old Getty model.

It's the classic marketing mistake of not first finding out what buyers want and strategizing a profitable way to provide it, but rather coming up with an idea that you like on your own and trying to convince buyers it's the best way. It usually never works. But those who do it this way usually fight their way to the death.

On another note, if the site becomes more and more like Getty, and if they start to include Getty more and more in their branding, I am afraid they will hit the old Getty extortion letter stumbling block. We don't hear much about it today, but evidently it is still fresh in the minds of large, longtime stock buyers. I was talking to one the other day, casually, mentioning recent changes at istock. They told me in no uncertain terms that they would NEVER buy from Getty again because many of their clients continue to fight those letters. In fact, in their circles it is still a very fresh wound. If this is any reflection of the industry as a whole, it would seem that keeping istock as far away from the Getty brand as possible would be the best path to take. (Google "Getty Letter" if unfamiliar with the issue).

eta: the Getty extortion letter was not COOL
I read the questions the same way you did, confusing terminology that can be used to justify bringing more outside content onto iStock.  The other point about the letter though, how were buyers of Getty content getting the letters unless?  Maybe I haven't looked hard enough but I can't remember hearing anyone say they licensed the content correctly and Getty still tried to get them to pay for not licensing it correctly.  

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #154 on: May 13, 2012, 10:20 »
0
From the questions in the survey referring to "Professional Photographers" and "Curated Collections", I get the uncomfortable, sneaking suspicion that in their hearts they still believe in the original Getty model and are trying to manipulate false support of them slowly morphing istock's model into the old Getty model.

It's the classic marketing mistake of not first finding out what buyers want and strategizing a profitable way to provide it, but rather coming up with an idea that you like on your own and trying to convince buyers it's the best way. It usually never works. But those who do it this way usually fight their way to the death.

On another note, if the site becomes more and more like Getty, and if they start to include Getty more and more in their branding, I am afraid they will hit the old Getty extortion letter stumbling block. We don't hear much about it today, but evidently it is still fresh in the minds of large, longtime stock buyers. I was talking to one the other day, casually, mentioning recent changes at istock. They told me in no uncertain terms that they would NEVER buy from Getty again because many of their clients continue to fight those letters. In fact, in their circles it is still a very fresh wound. If this is any reflection of the industry as a whole, it would seem that keeping istock as far away from the Getty brand as possible would be the best path to take. (Google "Getty Letter" if unfamiliar with the issue).

eta: the Getty extortion letter was not COOL

While I don't know if the letters were the best approach, why did these people receive a letter?

Was Getty mistaken and these were good customers? Or maybe, were they stealing images? If stealing, why would an experienced image buyer steal images? Surely they should know a little about copyright.

One of my friends received a letter. Her business partner put together their website and "found" images on the internet. One of those images was a Getty image. My friend had no idea her partner used stolen images. But my friend didn't blame Getty. She blamed the source of the problem, her partner. The thief.

It's like a thief stealing a bunch of stuff from a major electronics store and then after being caught saying "I'll never shop there again".

 

« Reply #155 on: May 13, 2012, 10:32 »
0
From the questions in the survey referring to "Professional Photographers" and "Curated Collections", I get the uncomfortable, sneaking suspicion that in their hearts they still believe in the original Getty model and are trying to manipulate false support of them slowly morphing istock's model into the old Getty model.

It's the classic marketing mistake of not first finding out what buyers want and strategizing a profitable way to provide it, but rather coming up with an idea that you like on your own and trying to convince buyers it's the best way. It usually never works. But those who do it this way usually fight their way to the death.

On another note, if the site becomes more and more like Getty, and if they start to include Getty more and more in their branding, I am afraid they will hit the old Getty extortion letter stumbling block. We don't hear much about it today, but evidently it is still fresh in the minds of large, longtime stock buyers. I was talking to one the other day, casually, mentioning recent changes at istock. They told me in no uncertain terms that they would NEVER buy from Getty again because many of their clients continue to fight those letters. In fact, in their circles it is still a very fresh wound. If this is any reflection of the industry as a whole, it would seem that keeping istock as far away from the Getty brand as possible would be the best path to take. (Google "Getty Letter" if unfamiliar with the issue).

eta: the Getty extortion letter was not COOL

I read the questions the same way you did, confusing terminology that can be used to justify bringing more outside content onto iStock.  The other point about the letter though, how were buyers of Getty content getting the letters unless?  Maybe I haven't looked hard enough but I can't remember hearing anyone say they licensed the content correctly and Getty still tried to get them to pay for not licensing it correctly.  


Here's all the examples of Getty's actions you'll ever want to read!  http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/

One of the main problems for web designers buying images at Getty was Getty coming after their clients for copyright infringement.  Getty would send a letter demanding $1000-$2000 and if the designer's client didn't pay up, Getty threatened to sue them.  Countless confused clients paid Getty instead of being sued, even though they purchased licenses through their web site designers.    

People were also buying web site templates featuring Getty images (that were properly licensed for template use) and later receiving letters from Getty demanding payment in order to prevent a lawsuit.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2012, 10:34 by Karimala »

lisafx

« Reply #156 on: May 13, 2012, 10:40 »
0
To add to what Karimala said, there are also examples of people who licensed the images from sites that Getty LATER bought.  If they didn't keep track of their proof of purchase, they were still harassed. 

Personally, I don't save my business receipts beyond the 7 years max suggested by the IRS.

Interestingly, while googling this, I found quite a few examples where Getty backed off immediately when contacted by people's lawyers.  Clearly they knew they didn't have a legal leg to stand on in a lot of cases.  This "extortion letter" sounds like it was mainly a fishing expedition. 

wut

« Reply #157 on: May 13, 2012, 11:30 »
0

So you don't think these issues also affect the people who buy photos?

They do, but the free ride has to end, it's about bloody time. Not too, little too late, but a lot (way overdue)

Well, all I can say is, be careful what you wish for. You may find yourself with a lot of more appealingly priced (to you) images that are not selling at all. Raising the prices is going to further shrink the market share. People *will* stop buying photos. They didn't buy them before and they will go back to not buying them again. The problem with the microstock market is not the demand, it is the supply. Too much is available now. If you aren't seeing any growth at the lower prices, why do you think you will see growth at higher prices? People also seem to forget that microstock opened up photography sales for *a lot* of photographers to which it was closed. How many microstock photographers is Getty images *still* closed to?

So where will the buyers go to get photos? YOu're saying they'd rather go out of business, than pay more? You can't get free photos (steal them), since no one is doing commercial stuff for his own pleasure. Besides you don't need growth if the prices would quadruple. You'd earn 4x more anyway and even if the sales would be split in half (which they probably would be if prices would indeed be quadrupled), you'd still get 2x more than you do now ;) .

lagereek

« Reply #158 on: May 13, 2012, 11:34 »
0

So you don't think these issues also affect the people who buy photos?

They do, but the free ride has to end, it's about bloody time. Not too, little too late, but a lot (way overdue)

Well, all I can say is, be careful what you wish for. You may find yourself with a lot of more appealingly priced (to you) images that are not selling at all. Raising the prices is going to further shrink the market share. People *will* stop buying photos. They didn't buy them before and they will go back to not buying them again. The problem with the microstock market is not the demand, it is the supply. Too much is available now. If you aren't seeing any growth at the lower prices, why do you think you will see growth at higher prices? People also seem to forget that microstock opened up photography sales for *a lot* of photographers to which it was closed. How many microstock photographers is Getty images *still* closed to?

So where will the buyers go to get photos? YOu're saying they'd rather go out of business, than pay more? You can't get free photos (steal them), since no one is doing commercial stuff for his own pleasure. Besides you don't need growth if the prices would quadruple. You'd earn 4x more anyway and even if the sales would be split in half (which they probably would be if prices would indeed be quadrupled), you'd still get 2x more than you do now ;) .

Absoloutely!  look at the price of petrol, no matter how much an increase, people never stop driving,  in fact, in Europe there is an increase of drivers and car sales, in spite of enormous petrol increases.

« Reply #159 on: May 13, 2012, 12:03 »
0

One of the main problems for web designers buying images at Getty was Getty coming after their clients for copyright infringement.  Getty would send a letter demanding $1000-$2000 and if the designer's client didn't pay up, Getty threatened to sue them.  Countless confused clients paid Getty instead of being sued, even though they purchased licenses through their web site designers.    


In the case of this person, a large webdesign firm, they licensed the images used them on customers' sites, and the customers received the letters. I don't know all details, and admit there are always two sides to every story. From what I understand, it didn't go away easily, and the webdesign firm just ended up replacing all Getty images with images licensed from other sites and vowing never to use Getty again. They used Shutterstock for a time but currently use 123RF and are very pleased.

« Reply #160 on: May 13, 2012, 18:26 »
0

So you don't think these issues also affect the people who buy photos?

They do, but the free ride has to end, it's about bloody time. Not too, little too late, but a lot (way overdue)

Well, all I can say is, be careful what you wish for. You may find yourself with a lot of more appealingly priced (to you) images that are not selling at all. Raising the prices is going to further shrink the market share. People *will* stop buying photos. They didn't buy them before and they will go back to not buying them again. The problem with the microstock market is not the demand, it is the supply. Too much is available now. If you aren't seeing any growth at the lower prices, why do you think you will see growth at higher prices? People also seem to forget that microstock opened up photography sales for *a lot* of photographers to which it was closed. How many microstock photographers is Getty images *still* closed to?

So where will the buyers go to get photos? YOu're saying they'd rather go out of business, than pay more? You can't get free photos (steal them), since no one is doing commercial stuff for his own pleasure. Besides you don't need growth if the prices would quadruple. You'd earn 4x more anyway and even if the sales would be split in half (which they probably would be if prices would indeed be quadrupled), you'd still get 2x more than you do now ;) .

I'm saying they'll use something *other* than photos to get the point across. Like people did *before* microstock. Remember those days? Part of a designer's job is to look for solutions. They will just create something that does not need a photo. And a new trend will arise.

And at some point, you would still need growth. If the collections still grew and the target market was shrinking, your returns would also eventually diminish. Just ask macrostock photographers.

« Reply #161 on: May 14, 2012, 08:33 »
0
Where they will get the photos, when they dont want to pay?
There are several ways.
Russian copy sites.
Download them from facebook.
Begging.
I have quite many people begging for photos.
always the same... "Since I dont have a budget". Even government institutions and the military.

« Reply #162 on: May 14, 2012, 10:27 »
0
Where they will get the photos, when they dont want to pay?
There are several ways.
Russian copy sites.
Download them from facebook.
Begging.
I have quite many people begging for photos.
always the same... "Since I dont have a budget". Even government institutions and the military.


Yes, I've had site mails on istock in the past from people describing a "no budget" situation, and asking for photos for free. It's not unusual.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
30 Replies
14686 Views
Last post October 23, 2010, 14:12
by gbalex
Buyers Bailing on Istock

Started by lisafx « 1 2 ... 67 68 » iStockPhoto.com

1692 Replies
327086 Views
Last post December 24, 2012, 21:19
by gostwyck
18 Replies
5144 Views
Last post November 24, 2011, 15:34
by lagereek
20 Replies
6002 Views
Last post February 14, 2013, 17:41
by Poncke
9 Replies
3851 Views
Last post January 15, 2014, 19:56
by djpadavona

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle