MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Layoffs at istock  (Read 135967 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

velocicarpo

« Reply #225 on: January 19, 2012, 09:56 »
0
To all those who think it would be a disadvantage if istock is going down:

1. istock was/is responsible for the latest wave of commission cuts after their Sept. 10 royalty cut.
2. Lately I see much more sales at newcomer agencies, which means the old rule of a monopoly of the big four is not entirley true anymore. I earn already more on Veer and Depositphotos than on DT e.g..
If istock goes down buyer would distribute all over the place, increasing competition between the reamining agencies and lowering the power to abuse.
3. Lots of competition would go out of business. I guess many people wouldn`t start again uploading their Portfolio again. Others may even not be active anymore but still have their Portfolio on the site. Off course others would upload to the remaining agencies and increase competition their, but their images had been on sale before (on istock) too, therefore the total amount of competing files lowers.
4. If istock goes down, it would be a HUGE sign to all Agencies treating Contributors bad and working with the "profit is all" scheme that this DOES NOT WORk. It would be a well appreciated warning.


« Reply #226 on: January 19, 2012, 09:58 »
0
iStock offers a brand, an exclusive product, and higher prices for a (generally) better standard of image. at least that is what they used to do, very well.

those waiting gleefully for their demise should be very careful what they wish for. the impact on prices and commission structures in microstock on the whole could be huge if something were to go down with iStock. again, the best outcome would be a visible return to contributor relations. a brave and bold Jerry Maguire move---doing the right thing and leading the way, even if it means a short-term hit to the bottomline that increases longevity and their position as a leader that offers exclusive content unavailable elsewhere. and the way to build that exclusive content is to make contributors happy. sweeten the deal for us and demand exclusivity. win-win.

Commission rates? Istock is the worst agency out there in terms of commission rates. The always were with their 20% for indies and still decided that's not low enough.
And if you now start about exclusive rates: I only know two other microstock agencies that offer a similar exclusive program. FT and DT. And the commission rates they offer for their exclusives are way better than those at IS.

« Reply #227 on: January 19, 2012, 09:58 »
0
IS is the only place keeping up image costs and royalties.  Without them, you'd be getting $.10 from SS and images at DT would be $.50 .

I've never had a problem with iStock's pricing. In fact I am one of the few who have applauded their consistency in pushing up prices. But it's a little disingenuous to point the finger at Shutterstock when you have iStock clearly pushing Thinkstock subscriptions. The bottom line is they can't have 84% of the commission for my work. It's pathetic, and their treatment of contributors completely undermines their desire to raise microstock pricing to midstock.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #228 on: January 19, 2012, 10:02 »
0
If istock goes down buyer would distribute all over the place, increasing competition between the reamining agencies and lowering the power to abuse.
But would lead to a pricing 'race to the bottom', as contributors would be loathe to commit to exclusivity (other than maybe image exclusivity, but that's subjective anyway and could lead to all sorts of disputes) so all agencies would have to differentiate themselves would be pricing, customer service (expensive) and/or search.

« Reply #229 on: January 19, 2012, 10:05 »
0
IS is the only place keeping up image costs and royalties.  Without them, you'd be getting $.10 from SS and images at DT would be $.50 .

I've never had a problem with iStock's pricing. In fact I am one of the few who have applauded their consistency in pushing up prices. But it's a little disingenuous to point the finger at Shutterstock when you have iStock clearly pushing Thinkstock subscriptions. The bottom line is they can't have 84% of the commission for my work. It's pathetic, and their treatment of contributors completely undermines their desire to raise microstock pricing to midstock.

+1.  That 84% cut feels like outright theft, especially considering we're paying them more for a service that is continuously deteriorating. 

wds

« Reply #230 on: January 19, 2012, 10:13 »
0
Are folks aware of this: http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2140045/jobs-shed-getty-images-absorbs-istockphoto

Apparently in addition to the layoffs, KT is leaving Getty.
Very scary and uncertain times indeed.

------- Oops!, see this was already posted.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2012, 11:00 by wds »

velocicarpo

« Reply #231 on: January 19, 2012, 10:15 »
0
I'm not sure where that statement came from, but the important part is "we are completing the process of full functional integration across the two brands".  Ick.

True....

« Reply #232 on: January 19, 2012, 10:18 »
0
As a former Getty-iStock employee who was also let go in July (after doing GREAT work there), I can only say there is a much better door open for these people. I'm now at Shutterstock, and we're hiring like crazy. So we'd love to hear from talented people who have much to contribute in this industry. All my best to the 30 iStock people at this time of transition. I know from personal experience that it can be scary for you (and those close to you) right now, but it may get a lot better as it did for me.

Welcome and thanks for sharing!  IMO...you're working for a much better company.  SS has been my favorite since Day 1 for good reason. 

Mind if I ask a question?  Hmm...let me see if I can put this delicately..........................WT* is going on over at Getty and IS?!?!!  This is the first I've heard of layoffs last July.

I'll second Karimala's welcome and also her question! What exactly is going on in Calgary?

Great to hear that SS is still 'hiring like crazy'. Looks like the guys with the white hats are winning through!

« Reply #233 on: January 19, 2012, 10:27 »
0
I do know one thing that's going on, at least with Getty.  They are calling people who created accounts at Thinkstock, inquiring about their photo buying needs.  

Yes, Getty called me yesterday.  Out of curiosity, last week I created an account at Thinkstock to see if there was anything additional available to registered users.  Nope...what you see is what you get.  The only difference is you get a phone call from Getty plugging Thinkstock.  Woohoo!   ::)  At least they also mentioned IS, which gave me a teensy tiny bit of relief, but nevertheless I had to laugh, because I'm in the middle of deactivating all of my IS images.  Such impeccable timing!

Much preferred when Anthony from Shutterstock called me.  He called to let me know about the integration of images from SS to BigStock before it happened, and wanted to know what I thought about it.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2012, 10:30 by Karimala »

wut

« Reply #234 on: January 19, 2012, 10:28 »
0
I still firmly believe that a drastic across-the-board price reduction is the only way to turn things around, but that won't ever happen while Getty is at the helm.

I can't understand why would anyone believe that, much less believe that firmly? What's your reasoning behind it? Aren't the $250 sub packages (750 images/month) low enough? As far as I'm concerned those are the rock bottom prices. Most ppl that aren't willing to pay even as low a price won't buy it for half the price anyway, they'll just steal it. And even if there was, for instance a 10, 20, even 30% growth, what good does it do if the prices are reduced by 50% (because 20% wouldn't bring in any significant number of additional buyers)
« Last Edit: January 19, 2012, 10:48 by wut »

« Reply #235 on: January 19, 2012, 10:35 »
0
Great to hear that SS is still 'hiring like crazy'. Looks like the guys with the white hats are winning through!

I'm seeing growth at Dreamstime too. My DT income is now significantly higher than my IS income, and yet I have far more images online with IS than at DT. I very much like Serban and DT and consider them a "white hat" agency too.

michealo

« Reply #236 on: January 19, 2012, 10:41 »
0
Great to hear that SS is still 'hiring like crazy'. Looks like the guys with the white hats are winning through!

I'm seeing growth at Dreamstime too. My DT income is now significantly higher than my IS income, and yet I have far more images online with IS than at DT. I very much like Serban and DT and consider them a "white hat" agency too.

With a 6 month lock on images?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #237 on: January 19, 2012, 10:44 »
0
I still firmly believe that a drastic across-the-board price reduction is the only way to turn things around, but that won't ever happen while Getty is at the helm.

I can't understand why would anyone believe that ...
That's absolutely NOT my quote.

This is Helix's belief:
I still firmly believe that a drastic across-the-board price reduction is the only way to turn things around, but that won't ever happen while Getty is at the helm.
To which I replied:
I'm not so keen on the price cut idea, but it could easily happen under Getty if they slash all commissions again [...]
« Last Edit: January 19, 2012, 10:48 by ShadySue »

« Reply #238 on: January 19, 2012, 10:45 »
0
Michaelo-
It doesn't bother me because I'm not planning to leave them. Also, I rarely contribute to microstock agencies anymore. I'm probably past the 6 months already  :P

Besides, the 6-month lock-in is very transparent. It's not hidden. So you might disagree with it and prefer not to join DT, but it hardly makes them "black hat."

Tryingmybest

  • Stand up for what is right
« Reply #239 on: January 19, 2012, 10:49 »
0
If sales and revenue are falling then unfortunately lay-offs are a likely outcome. If it's true then it just confirms what all the circumstantial evidence has been indicating.

Anyone seen Lobo on the forums today?

Almost everything about iStock produces bad karma. That Lobo character is an icon of their sheer arrogance. Sorry if folks are getting laid off, but istock is one beast whose time is up and they have very little time to change their ways.

wut

« Reply #240 on: January 19, 2012, 10:50 »
0
I still firmly believe that a drastic across-the-board price reduction is the only way to turn things around, but that won't ever happen while Getty is at the helm.

I can't understand why would anyone believe that ...
That's absolutely NOT my quote.

This is Helix's belief:
I still firmly believe that a drastic across-the-board price reduction is the only way to turn things around, but that won't ever happen while Getty is at the helm.
To which I replied:
I'm not so keen on the price cut idea, but it could easily happen under Getty if they slash all commissions again [...]


Sorry Sue, I've corrected it. I wanted to quote you both at first, but then I, in the middle of writing my reply, realized it's really directed at what helix wrote, decided to remove yours, but unfortunately made a mistake

ETA I don't know what's going on, I can't unquote myself...And I'm not even in the quote ??? (no quote code for my nick, it's just in Sue's post)
« Last Edit: January 19, 2012, 10:53 by wut »

« Reply #241 on: January 19, 2012, 10:52 »
0
I'm seeing growth at Dreamstime too. My DT income is now significantly higher than my IS income, and yet I have far more images online with IS than at DT. I very much like Serban and DT and consider them a "white hat" agency too.

With a 6 month lock on images?

What's wrong with that? Is 6 months too much of a commitment for your precious images? Might you suddenly change your mind tomorrow or next week so can't commit to anything? They claim to have 129K photographers who appear to be OK with it.

wut

« Reply #242 on: January 19, 2012, 10:56 »
0
I'm seeing growth at Dreamstime too. My DT income is now significantly higher than my IS income, and yet I have far more images online with IS than at DT. I very much like Serban and DT and consider them a "white hat" agency too.

With a 6 month lock on images?

What's wrong with that? Is 6 months too much of a commitment for your precious images? Might you suddenly change your mind tomorrow or next week so can't commit to anything? They claim to have 129K photographers who appear to be OK with it.

How's that even working AFAIK you can deactivate your images at any time, I tested it with one image last year, that wasn't online for at least 6 months and I had no problem with doing it, it disappeared from my port

« Reply #243 on: January 19, 2012, 10:58 »
0
Karin - SS called me about a week after I created a purchasing account - and they gave me a 15% coupon after the call because I still had credits at Dreamstime.  I would say it's not isolated to Thinkstock, think of all the phone calls you get after you testdrive a new car .   ;)

helix7

« Reply #244 on: January 19, 2012, 11:01 »
0
I still firmly believe that a drastic across-the-board price reduction is the only way to turn things around, but that won't ever happen while Getty is at the helm.

I can't understand why would anyone believe that, much less believe that firmly? What's your reasoning behind it?...

As credit prices and image costs steadily increased at istock over the years, buyer volume has dropped. You used to be able to get just about any Large photo for around $10. Now those same images can cost $50. I think there is a pretty clear correlation between rising prices and buyer dissatisfaction.

I used to be a buyer at istock. I'd pick up small images on a whim for comp purposes because they were cheap and it was nice to put an unwatermarked image into a design comp. Now an XS E+ image can cost $9. No way I'm spending $9 on a comp image. Even at the large size, if I bought a Large photo for $10 and didn't use it, no big deal. If I spend $50 I'm sure as heck going to be bummed about not using it, and certainly more inclined to get a refund.

For $50 you can go to SS and get 5 images, any size. For buyers this seems like a no-brainer, and I think that istock's pricing has had a profound effect on the decline in earnings many people see and the overall decline in site traffic and buyer activity. Returning prices to a true microstock level is the only way to bring buyers back around.

michealo

« Reply #245 on: January 19, 2012, 11:01 »
0
I'm seeing growth at Dreamstime too. My DT income is now significantly higher than my IS income, and yet I have far more images online with IS than at DT. I very much like Serban and DT and consider them a "white hat" agency too.

With a 6 month lock on images?

What's wrong with that? Is 6 months too much of a commitment for your precious images? Might you suddenly change your mind tomorrow or next week so can't commit to anything? They claim to have 129K photographers who appear to be OK with it.

If my images aren't so precious why do they need to hang on to them for 6 months?

wut

« Reply #246 on: January 19, 2012, 11:11 »
0
I still firmly believe that a drastic across-the-board price reduction is the only way to turn things around, but that won't ever happen while Getty is at the helm.

I can't understand why would anyone believe that, much less believe that firmly? What's your reasoning behind it?...

As credit prices and image costs steadily increased at istock over the years, buyer volume has dropped. You used to be able to get just about any Large photo for around $10. Now those same images can cost $50. I think there is a pretty clear correlation between rising prices and buyer dissatisfaction.

I used to be a buyer at istock. I'd pick up small images on a whim for comp purposes because they were cheap and it was nice to put an unwatermarked image into a design comp. Now an XS E+ image can cost $9. No way I'm spending $9 on a comp image. Even at the large size, if I bought a Large photo for $10 and didn't use it, no big deal. If I spend $50 I'm sure as heck going to be bummed about not using it, and certainly more inclined to get a refund.

For $50 you can go to SS and get 5 images, any size. For buyers this seems like a no-brainer, and I think that istock's pricing has had a profound effect on the decline in earnings many people see and the overall decline in site traffic and buyer activity. Returning prices to a true microstock level is the only way to bring buyers back around.
I thought you were referring to across the board reduction as in at all agencies (as it was obvious from my reply) - that wouldn't make any sense. Still, I think it's a good thing someone's trying to drive the prices up, where they rightly belong IMO, at all agencies, content is also getting better and better, there are fewer amateurish shots every year and they don't sell anyway. Better quality deserves higher prices, our productions costs go up all the time if we want to remain competitive. And like you said, it's a no brainer for the buyers to go to SS and similar agencies. So there's really no need for that, there's a price point for everyone, or else macro wouldn't exist anymore ;)

« Reply #247 on: January 19, 2012, 11:20 »
0
in the spirit of transparency...

one post was removed because it didn't add anything to the conversation and only served as an insult to one of the employees of iStock (even if it was simply meant as light humor)

The post wasn't really all that bad, and perhaps border line if it needed to be removed at all, but this thread has really been a great discussion so far and I don't want it to degrade into cheap insults.

Wow, my apologies for trying to input some levity into this thread, a chimp in front of a computer with a Lobo reference.... I should have known better, starting to feel like IStock around here.

[off-topic]I feel the difference between MSG and an agency forum is, on MSG you can talk about virtually any topic or subject matter - the only reason a post would be moderated is the manner in which it it is said.  Everyone is certainly free to post negative views of an agency (or this site for that matter), as long as it is stated in a respectful manner.  I realize your post was very borderline in regards to if it should have been removed - perhaps it should have been left.. it is a grey line and it's tough to always know which side of the line to pick.  No matter what i pick, I certainly won't please everyone.  As the post wasn't adding anything to the conversation in terms of opinions or thoughts and was simply humor at Lobo's expense I thought it just as well to remove it and in doing so, hopefully keep the thread on task. ... anyhow, enough thoughts.. back on topic [/off-topic]  ... [/moderators thoughts]

ayzek

« Reply #248 on: January 19, 2012, 11:26 »
0
Before than talking about an agency like hero of stock photography. Do not forget that there is an agency that selling Large RF images from 35 to 260 bucks and giving %60 to their contributors.

« Reply #249 on: January 19, 2012, 11:34 »
0
As credit prices and image costs steadily increased at istock over the years, buyer volume has dropped. You used to be able to get just about any Large photo for around $10. Now those same images can cost $50. I think there is a pretty clear correlation between rising prices and buyer dissatisfaction.

I used to be a buyer at istock. I'd pick up small images on a whim for comp purposes because they were cheap and it was nice to put an unwatermarked image into a design comp. Now an XS E+ image can cost $9. No way I'm spending $9 on a comp image. Even at the large size, if I bought a Large photo for $10 and didn't use it, no big deal. If I spend $50 I'm sure as heck going to be bummed about not using it, and certainly more inclined to get a refund.

For $50 you can go to SS and get 5 images, any size. For buyers this seems like a no-brainer, and I think that istock's pricing has had a profound effect on the decline in earnings many people see and the overall decline in site traffic and buyer activity. Returning prices to a true microstock level is the only way to bring buyers back around.

That's kind of an apple to oranges comparison. My average image sells for about $18.50 at IS. That same image would cost $19 at SS to buy as a single image. It would cost $15-$38 at DT and would cost $10.4 at FT. That's not really a huge difference.


 

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