pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Layoffs at istock  (Read 135964 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

lagereek

« Reply #300 on: January 19, 2012, 15:26 »
0
^^ Agreeing!  and for some weird, uncanny almost grotesque reasons, one gets the feeling, Its been destroyed on purpose and for what?


« Reply #301 on: January 19, 2012, 15:29 »
0
Frankly I'd be thrilled if all those buyers immediately gave up on IS and went to SS, DT and FT.  But unless the iStock management truly wants to throw money away, they have a plan for keeping those buyers in some capacity. 

I wonder.  I assume that if such a plan exists, they somehow expect to hold on to the buyers without holding on to the content that they buyers have been purchasing.  Because unless iStock stops screwing its suppliers, there's going to be less and less Getty-supplied content for them to spend their money on.

traveler1116

« Reply #302 on: January 19, 2012, 15:32 »
0
No, sorry, but this really is the beginning of the end of Istock as a major player n microstock. Even Getty doesn't really believe in them anymore.
I don't think this is correct at all, I would guess iStock becomes an even bigger part of Getty as Getty artists are pushed onto iStock.  The trend is going that way, there is little or no movement from iStock to Getty while there is a lot of movement the other way.  I think iStock becomes stronger but I am worried that iStock artists lose out.

« Reply #303 on: January 19, 2012, 15:35 »
0
Well I can say if they choose to cut me to 25% I'm good and gone as an Exclusive! Terrible decision to take a key person and spread their work around. This is what makes companies fail.
No, I don't think iStock will die over night but this year will say everything.

« Reply #304 on: January 19, 2012, 15:36 »
0
But unless the iStock management truly wants to throw money away, they have a plan for keeping those buyers in some capacity.  

I don't see Getty as ever understanding the business model, so any "plans" they might think they have for keeping buyers will fail, unless they can figure out what the magic (all three sides of the triangle working together to succeed - agency, contributors, AND buyers)  was that has been lost in their lust for profits. Unfortunately, big business does not understand that it is the people at the bottom, that they sh*t on, that props up the people at the top. They think the people at the bottom (the suppliers AND the customers - big business has a huge contempt for customers - the necessary evil that they are) are easily replaceable. There will always be more, right? WRONG! The more they weaken the base, the more likely the top will also collapse.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2012, 15:40 by caspixel »

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #305 on: January 19, 2012, 15:43 »
0
I think we can all agree that JJ and Kelly leaving does not bode well for any iStock exclusive. I don't know about the rest of you exclusives, but holy sh*t...what now?

velocicarpo

« Reply #306 on: January 19, 2012, 15:44 »
0
I'll never forget the day when I saw people in the Istock forums cheering that StockXpert was killed.
I wonder who's cheering now.

+1

« Reply #307 on: January 19, 2012, 15:45 »
0
In particular, it suggests to me that decisions about content - what's accepted, where it goes, etc. - are all moving to Getty. If I had to make a guess, I'd say that iStock will become an input portal for Getty Images "crowdsourced" content. Down to Thinkstock/photos.com or up to Getty (Vetta/Agency).

I've been saying for ages that one of the most important things about iStock is its inspection system, which could provide "triage" for Getty, allowing them to direct content to their main collection or to TS or iS depending on the inspector's judgement.

« Reply #308 on: January 19, 2012, 15:47 »
0
I think we can all agree that JJ and Kelly leaving does not bode well for any iStock exclusive. I don't know about the rest of you exclusives, but holy sh*t...what now?

Erm ... that's a really tricky one ... let me think about it for a nano-second or two and see if I can come up with any solutions.

« Reply #309 on: January 19, 2012, 15:52 »
0
JJRD lay off is really bad news. Istockphoto owes much to him. Worst of all: JJRD is a photographer and an artist; I won't be surprised if his replacement heading the content department is a marketing specialist, a seller. It has happened often lately in the whole culture industry and when, with time, these kind of changess backfire often is too late to ammend it.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #310 on: January 19, 2012, 15:54 »
0
JJRD lay off is really bad news. Istockphoto owes much to him. Worst of all: JJRD is a photographer and an artist; I won't be surprised if his replacement heading the content department is a marketing specialist, a seller. It has happened often lately in the whole culture industry and when, with time, these kind of changess backfire often is too late to ammend it.

this is true, unfortunately. but I think we're about to see iStock get swallowed up by the Getty machine. the question is whether to go with the flow or walk the plank and hope the sharks are friendly

« Reply #311 on: January 19, 2012, 15:55 »
0
I think we can all agree that JJ and Kelly leaving does not bode well for any iStock exclusive. I don't know about the rest of you exclusives, but holy sh*t...what now?

Erm ... that's a really tricky one ... let me think about it for a nano-second or two and see if I can come up with any solutions.

LOL... you two should just go and get married! :D

« Reply #312 on: January 19, 2012, 15:56 »
0
^^ Agreeing!  and for some weird, uncanny almost grotesque reasons, one gets the feeling, Its been destroyed on purpose and for what?

Perhaps because direct control of it had slipped out of the hands of people who believed in it and into the hands of people who, deep down inside, still feel that a bunch of amateurs with their digicams are destroying stock photography and wish they would go away. I'm sure that the Gettyimages bosses will have talked up their "market leading experience" to the new owners who probably neither know not understand the stock image market and the tensions inside it.

helix7

« Reply #313 on: January 19, 2012, 15:57 »
0
this is true, unfortunately. but I think we're about to see iStock get swallowed up by the Getty machine. the question is whether to go with the flow or walk the plank and hope the sharks are friendly

That's what it sounds like, since all of the jobs lost were on the istock side. The "redundancies" all seem to favor the Getty team, so any replacement to JJRD would come from Getty. istock is being eaten.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #314 on: January 19, 2012, 15:59 »
0
I think we can all agree that JJ and Kelly leaving does not bode well for any iStock exclusive. I don't know about the rest of you exclusives, but holy sh*t...what now?

Erm ... that's a really tricky one ... let me think about it for a nano-second or two and see if I can come up with any solutions.

LOL... you two should just go and get married! :D

I think my husband would have an issue with that, but I've learned to appreciate gostwyck's humour over the years.

Noodles

« Reply #315 on: January 19, 2012, 16:03 »
0
I think we can all agree that JJ and Kelly leaving does not bode well for any iStock exclusive. I don't know about the rest of you exclusives, but holy sh*t...what now?

Erm ... that's a really tricky one ... let me think about it for a nano-second or two and see if I can come up with any solutions.

I know this one!  Well, not really a solution but they do say "Every cloud has a silver lining"  :)

« Reply #316 on: January 19, 2012, 16:06 »
0
this is true, unfortunately. but I think we're about to see iStock get swallowed up by the Getty machine. the question is whether to go with the flow or walk the plank and hope the sharks are friendly

That's what it sounds like, since all of the jobs lost were on the istock side. The "redundancies" all seem to favor the Getty team, so any replacement to JJRD would come from Getty. istock is being eaten.

I think istock will be around this year, as they streamline what images go to Getty and what goes to stinkstock, but then BOOM!, one day an announcement will come and istock will be gone. You will be directed to either Getty or thinkstock directly. The "artist formerly known as istockphoto" will cease to exist.

« Reply #317 on: January 19, 2012, 16:09 »
0

No, sorry, but this really is the beginning of the end of Istock as a major player n microstock.

I'm pointing out that there are thousands of people around the world right now making purchases on the site and oblivious to what's happening behind the scenes.   And it's even possible that iStock could introduce some changes that make these buyers want to stick around for the foreseeable future.

Just because buyers are buying doesnt mean that their current situation is 'sustainable' ie. profitable. Buyers have been buying all the time in 2011 but that didnt stop 2011 from being a lot of contributors worst year ever which was a strong signal for the arrival of the events which we are currently witnessing.

You also mentioned that you yourself are seeing an increase in sales, i was too until the begining of the week when it all completely went dead. That's best match working its magic once again.

One thing i'd like to know is exactly why Kelly and JJRD left, was it money orientated or were they pushed out because they were the last major obstacles to remove so that Getty could steer istock directly into an iceberg, of course just before they raped it for all that it was worth.


istock have been riding the wave of being No.1 for too long now

helix7

« Reply #318 on: January 19, 2012, 16:12 »
0
Let's all take a deep breath here. I'd say we're in a "the reports of my death are greatly exaggerated" situation.

Yes, there are monumental changes happening in the offices of iStock.  And yes, JJRD's leaving is big news.  But even today, after the news broke, buyers are still buying.  How much will all of this "inside baseball" news affect sales today, tomorrow, next week, next month?  I'm guessing not much...

You're right, but I don't think the concerns being expressed have anything to do with buyers. The concern seems more to do with what Getty will do to contributors. Especially knowing that Getty pays everyone 20%, and whether they might want to implement that same standard at istock.

« Reply #319 on: January 19, 2012, 16:12 »
0
this is true, unfortunately. but I think we're about to see iStock get swallowed up by the Getty machine. the question is whether to go with the flow or walk the plank and hope the sharks are friendly

That's what it sounds like, since all of the jobs lost were on the istock side. The "redundancies" all seem to favor the Getty team, so any replacement to JJRD would come from Getty. istock is being eaten.

I think istock will be around this year, as they streamline what images go to Getty and what goes to stinkstock, but then BOOM!, one day an announcement will come and istock will be gone. You will be directed to either Getty or thinkstock directly. The "artist formerly known as istockphoto" will cease to exist.

No.  iStock as a name has way too much brand equity.  That wasn't really the case with StockXpert.  Even people who only marginally know what microstock is probably have heard of iStock.  If they know one place to turn to for buying cheap pictures, it's probably iStock.

They will transform the business but keep the name.  People will likely be screwed... probably contributors... but if the management has an ounce of sense about making money, they will find a way to keep buyers with the name iStock.

« Reply #320 on: January 19, 2012, 16:14 »
0
You also mentioned that you yourself are seeing an increase in sales, i was too until the begining of the week when it all completely went dead. That's best match working its magic once again.

For me, this week is running about 35% higher than last week.  If there was a change, I guess I benefited.  Sorry.

« Reply #321 on: January 19, 2012, 16:15 »
0
I think istock will be around this year, as they streamline what images go to Getty and what goes to stinkstock, but then BOOM!, one day an announcement will come and istock will be gone. You will be directed to either Getty or thinkstock directly. The "artist formerly known as istockphoto" will cease to exist.

Which just kills me. It would be like Amazon buying Overstock.com, dissolving Amazon.com and rerouting traffic over to Overstock. Why would you eliminate the stronger brand?

« Reply #322 on: January 19, 2012, 16:22 »
0
No.  iStock as a name has way too much brand equity.  That wasn't really the case with StockXpert.  Even people who only marginally know what microstock is probably have heard of iStock.  If they know one place to turn to for buying cheap pictures, it's probably iStock.

They will transform the business but keep the name.  People will likely be screwed... probably contributors... but if the management has an ounce of sense about making money, they will find a way to keep buyers with the name iStock.

You could be right, that would certainly be the smart thing to do, but Getty Images has an even bigger brand recognition. Could go either way, I suppose, unless you factor in your statement which I bolded above. Based on that, istockphoto will be gone.  ;)

« Reply #323 on: January 19, 2012, 16:25 »
0

I think istock will be around this year, as they streamline what images go to Getty and what goes to stinkstock, but then BOOM!, one day an announcement will come and istock will be gone. You will be directed to either Getty or thinkstock directly. The "artist formerly known as istockphoto" will cease to exist.

I think it will become just another collection on Getty's main site, just like the other collections they absorbed. They will get rid of the iStock website. Why continue to maintain it and incur the cost when they already have one umbrella site.

« Reply #324 on: January 19, 2012, 16:43 »
0
I know I'm in the minority, but I think iStock is actually doing well sales-wise. However, Getty is used to paying out a lower commission % and it's killing them that iStock is higher. They see getting that number down as a natural way to increase profits, and they will continue their march to lower the % paid out.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
5 Replies
13720 Views
Last post August 22, 2006, 15:49
by amanda1863
5 Replies
5688 Views
Last post September 12, 2007, 13:08
by michaeldb
17 Replies
8319 Views
Last post February 10, 2008, 15:51
by sharply_done
Corbis layoffs

Started by jsnover « 1 2  All » SnapVillage.com

27 Replies
24493 Views
Last post September 24, 2008, 17:16
by louoates
0 Replies
1774 Views
Last post January 18, 2012, 17:21
by gaja

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors