Author Topic: New Vetta pricing and royalty rates in effect today (Read 26087 times)

TheSmilingAssassin · « **Reply #50 on:** September 28, 2010, 06:34 »

Quote from: gostwyck on September 28, 2010, 06:25

Quote from: pseudonymous on September 28, 2010, 06:15
As I mentioned above, they didn't wait because they're probably not going to hit their targets... I meant their year end targets.

I agree with you but, in the greater scheme of things, this probably isn't going to make that much difference to the bottom-line. I suppose it will have a magnifying effect on the % profitability though.

Yes, I'm just saying why I believe they did it. You're right about it probably not making much difference and in fact, it could back fire and have the opposite effect on their bottom line if more buyers are turned off by the increase... and I suspect they will be turned off if they're not turned off already. If I were a buyer and was in two minds about leaving the site after the last announcement, this price increase would be the final nail in the coffin and I would definitely walk.

I'm amazed how badly istock is being run. It's as if they're purposely trying to self destruct. The company is burning bridges on all sides and come next year, I expect even their most loyal exclusives and buyers will be telling them where to stick it.

cidepix · « **Reply #51 on:** September 28, 2010, 07:00 »

Quote from: jen on September 27, 2010, 16:37

They need to make a friggin announcement already. The complete lack of communication from management is shady and obnoxious.

Communication or not!

Does it change anything?

gostwyck · « **Reply #52 on:** September 28, 2010, 07:09 »

Quote from: pseudonymous on September 28, 2010, 06:34

I'm amazed how badly istock is being run. It's as if they're purposely trying to self destruct. The company is burning bridges on all sides and come next year, I expect even their most loyal exclusives and buyers will be telling them where to stick it.

It is truly bizarre. It is difficult to conceive of any other outcome other than a negative one for Istockphoto. The wanton destruction of their greatest assets, the goodwill and exclusive status of so many of their best contributors, is almost beyond belief. Heigh-ho.

anonymous · « **Reply #53 on:** September 28, 2010, 07:49 »

Quote from: & then... on September 27, 2010, 21:23

of course there's a bias towards Vetta. that isn't new, nor is it the point. you know what, you guys have your little club for the disgruntled over here. enjoy throwing sand in each others' faces and peeing in the pool.

peeing on your pom poms

Chico · « **Reply #54 on:** September 28, 2010, 07:57 »

Quote from: cidepix on September 28, 2010, 07:00

Quote from: jen on September 27, 2010, 16:37
They need to make a friggin announcement already. The complete lack of communication from management is shady and obnoxious.

Communication or not!

Does it change anything?

Maybe not, but after several years as Istock contributor and buyer, i've never seen this total lack of communication. Even F5 trhead about bugs have no answers and errors remain there after long time. Sometimes i think that Istock people closed office doors and went to the beach.

Very sad to witness the destruction of a wonderful company as Istock was one day.

NancyCWalker · « **Reply #55 on:** September 28, 2010, 08:59 »

Here's my thought on why they didn't wait. RC's are based on cost of the image. Each credit is an RC. If they raise the Vetta pricing now then they have a better chance of proving their point about the contributors making "1/2" of their credits in the last 3 months of the year. If they can prove they were right, and exclusives manage to get back to their canister percentages, then exclusives may choose to stick around after January rather than leave or drop the crown, which many are stating they have/will.

dgilder · « **Reply #56 on:** September 28, 2010, 09:06 »

This isn't a move to help people make up the difference. The vetta price increase came with a pretty severe cut in royalty percentage. In the end the exclusives only end up making *slightly* more than they would have under the old price/royalty. iStock rakes in the cash though.

caspixel · « **Reply #57 on:** September 28, 2010, 09:08 »

Quote from: dgilder on September 28, 2010, 09:06

This isn't a move to help people make up the difference. The vetta price increase came with a pretty severe cut in royalty percentage. In the end the exclusives only end up making *slightly* more than they would have under the old price/royalty. iStock rakes in the cash though.

They are probably no wear near the 50% increase in revenues that Kelly was tasked with at the beginning of the year. Hence this desperate Hail Mary pass.

gostwyck · « **Reply #58 on:** September 28, 2010, 09:13 »

Quote from: azurelaroux on September 28, 2010, 08:59

Here's my thought on why they didn't wait. RC's are based on cost of the image. Each credit is an RC. If they raise the Vetta pricing now then they have a better chance of proving their point about the contributors making "1/2" of their credits in the last 3 months of the year. If they can prove they were right, and exclusives manage to get back to their canister percentages, then exclusives may choose to stick around after January rather than leave or drop the crown, which many are stating they have/will.

If that's what they wanted to achieve then there are much easier and more direct ways of doing it. The hurdles have been set specifically to exclude a certain number of contributors from the higher commission levels. In the event of too many contributors getting there ... then they'll just move the hurdles up a bit. These changes almost appear designed to ensure that the lower-earning exclusives will give up their crowns. Istockphoto don't want them __ they're not valuable enough to justify paying out the higher commissions.

NancyCWalker · « **Reply #59 on:** September 28, 2010, 09:22 »

It was a thought.

SNP · « **Reply #60 on:** September 28, 2010, 10:32 »

Quote from: Dreamframer on September 28, 2010, 01:56

I don't know why so many people have to make a new account to say what they really think... Are they afraid that someone will punish them because they say something bad about Istock or what??
So many new members and "new members" here.

actually, people make new accounts here, not because of fear of iStock retribution--but because their fellow contributors are so abusive at times that they get tired of being bashed. Tyler needs to be more diligent about personal atatcks here. I'm not talking about disagreements or arguments or two way heated discussions. I'm talking about blatantly abusive comments telling people to suck c*cks etc. that stuff is offside, unprofessional and completely abusive.

lisafx · « **Reply #61 on:** September 28, 2010, 10:50 »

Quote from: gostwyck on September 28, 2010, 05:38

The Vetta price increase now, when they're actually on record saying that they wouldn't, does smack of desperation or panic. Why couldn't Istockphoto have waited until January and slipped this one in amongst all the other price 'adjustments' that they'll no doubt be implementing? That's only 3 months from now. Makes me wonder what is coming later if they are prepared to do this. It would seem that Getty are determined to milk this cash cow dry in the shortest possible time. The time horizon that they are working to cannot be too far away.

My husband and I were discussing the same thing last night. Seems clear they are fattening up the balance sheets for the 4th quarter and the 1st quarter of next year - at the expense of the long term health of the company - in preparation for a sale early in the year. I am certain that Getty will be on the auction block by June 2011 at the very latest.

SNP · « **Reply #62 on:** September 28, 2010, 10:54 »

does it matter if we are owned by one VC versus another? as long as operations continue. it's not like Getty Images is going anywhere...

gostwyck · « **Reply #63 on:** September 28, 2010, 10:59 »

Quote from: & then... on September 28, 2010, 10:54

does it matter if we are owned by one VC versus another? as long as operations continue. it's not like Getty Images is going anywhere...

Yes it does, very much so. PE outfits are only interested in short timescales of 2-4 years whereas contributor's 'investment' horizons are much longer. Being pumped and squeezed for short-term greed will eventually kill Istockphoto.

lisafx · « **Reply #64 on:** September 28, 2010, 11:04 »

Quote from: & then... on September 28, 2010, 10:54

does it matter if we are owned by one VC versus another? as long as operations continue. it's not like Getty Images is going anywhere...

I think it does matter. Operations aren't continuing as usual. Getty's interests have diverged from both the contributors interests, and the buyers interests. Who knows where Getty Images is going ITLR? What's painfully obvious is that Istockphoto in its current form is certainly going somewhere.

The Istockphoto we know is already gone, much like a chicken's head on the chopping block, and all this activity in the forums is just it's noisy death throes.

SNP · « **Reply #65 on:** September 28, 2010, 11:12 »

it won't surprise anyone, but frankly, I'm a fairly established exclusive so whether you agree with me or not, this is till information. I think the GENERAL direction we've headed towards has been pretty lucrative, for exclusives. again, I truly appreciate how bad the new structure is for independents. so to suggest that iStock is going down the sh*tter is either something some people here wish to see happen, or simply denial.

to suggest an established brand that is continually being grown to fill more market pockets is being fattened for the slaughter is illogical. I also think that the loudest, most 'convincing' opinions here (Lisa, not including you in this) are from independents, therefore without any experience with Vetta, E+ etc.

dirkr · « **Reply #66 on:** September 28, 2010, 11:21 »

Quote from: lisafx on September 28, 2010, 10:50

My husband and I were discussing the same thing last night. Seems clear they are fattening up the balance sheets for the 4th quarter and the 1st quarter of next year - at the expense of the long term health of the company - in preparation for a sale early in the year. I am certain that Getty will be on the auction block by June 2011 at the very latest.

This idea has come up several times in multiple threads over the last weeks: That the changes made are only done to boost short term profits to increase a sale price - at the cost of long term profitability or even survival of Istock.

But there is one thing that strikes me as strange when looking closer at this scenario:
Any investor who would be willing to pay a substantial amount of money for Getty / Istock will certainly perform a very thorough due diligence. And they will certainly find out about what changes to their business model Istock has done in the recent past. And then they will make their assessment on what these changes mean for the future of the business (that's how the process works, you don't simply extrapolate past numbers into the future, as a potential buyer you actively search for risk factors that allow you to discount from that extrapolation and therefore your bid).

So there are two possibilities:
Either a potential buyer comes to a different conclusion about Istock's future than those people here on MSG that predict a negative outcome for Istock.
And they will have all the information at hand that we don't have, they will be able to look into Istock's books. And then they will buy.

Or they come to the same conclusion as some of us here - then they will not buy.

It's just hard for me to believe that the Getty / Istock management - if they are trying to sell - would knowingly make changes that maybe boost profits short term but carry too high risks for the longer term, because then they would be achieving exactly the opposite of what we are assuming - driving the price up.

So either we are missing some facts and are mis-interpreting the impact of these changes on Istock's future business or their management must have completely underestimated the impact these changes will have.

dgilder · « **Reply #67 on:** September 28, 2010, 11:29 »

Or, in typical iStock fashion, they completely goofed the announcements, and did not fully understand what the reaction would be.

lisafx · « **Reply #68 on:** September 28, 2010, 11:29 »

Definitely I fall into the category of not having been exclusive. But I do believe you that Istock's gold and diamond exclusives have been making out really well in 2010, due to those Vetta and E+ files, higher prices of the exclusive collection, etc. Talking to exclusives who are at or even below my sales level would support that.

I am sure looking through the prism of the excellent money that has been coming into exclusive pockets for the past year it seems like it can go on forever. I hope it will. Believe me - Istock's failure is not something I root for at all. It is something I dread. But the things I am seeing happening there just look very ominous to me. Judging from the IS forum thread, many exclusives, including gold and diamonds, are quit worried too.

The really unfortunate thing is that we can all debate this forever - pro and con - but none of us will know for sure how this turns out until next year around March or so. It is just nerve-racking waiting for that other shoe to drop.

Quote from: dirkr on September 28, 2010, 11:21

So there are two possibilities:
Either a potential buyer comes to a different conclusion about Istock's future than those people here on MSG that predict a negative outcome for Istock.
And they will have all the information at hand that we don't have, they will be able to look into Istock's books. And then they will buy.

Or they come to the same conclusion as some of us here - then they will not buy.

Or the rather obvious third possiblity that prospective buyers won't be all that diligent, will take the massive 4th and 1st quarter profits reflected in the books as indication of continuing growth and good management, and fork over a bundle, then be stuck dealing with the wreckage.

Risamay · « **Reply #69 on:** September 28, 2010, 11:47 »

Quote from: & then... on September 28, 2010, 10:32

actually, people make new accounts here, not because of fear of iStock retribution--but because their fellow contributors are so abusive at times that they get tired of being bashed. Tyler needs to be more diligent about personal atatcks here. I'm not talking about disagreements or arguments or two way heated discussions. I'm talking about blatantly abusive comments telling people to suck c*cks etc. that stuff is offside, unprofessional and completely abusive.

If you're going to go to the trouble to create new accounts here because you don't like being bashed, you'll have to do more than simply don a different burka to escape the mob.

As a writer/editor, I should think you'd be acutely more adept at the development and perfection of more than one voice

But do keep donning new burkas to say the same thing in the same tone/voice. It's endlessly entertaining.

As were your recent posts on that iStock thread which you'd deemed dead, uninteresting, unproductive, etc. and called for it (numerous times) to be shut down. The one you were no longer looking in on or posting to? Funny thing, that. Because you were quite busy over yonder there last night - and today too, I see. How curious!

Risamay · « **Reply #70 on:** September 28, 2010, 11:55 »

Quote from: azurelaroux on September 28, 2010, 08:59

Here's my thought on why they didn't wait. RC's are based on cost of the image. Each credit is an RC. If they raise the Vetta pricing now then they have a better chance of proving their point about the contributors making "1/2" of their credits in the last 3 months of the year. If they can prove they were right, and exclusives manage to get back to their canister percentages, then exclusives may choose to stick around after January rather than leave or drop the crown, which many are stating they have/will.

Hm. You have a strong point there, I think.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #71 on:** September 28, 2010, 11:56 »

Quote from: dirkr on September 28, 2010, 11:21

Quote from: lisafx on September 28, 2010, 10:50

My husband and I were discussing the same thing last night. Seems clear they are fattening up the balance sheets for the 4th quarter and the 1st quarter of next year - at the expense of the long term health of the company - in preparation for a sale early in the year. I am certain that Getty will be on the auction block by June 2011 at the very latest.

This idea has come up several times in multiple threads over the last weeks: That the changes made are only done to boost short term profits to increase a sale price - at the cost of long term profitability or even survival of Istock....

So there are two possibilities:
Either a potential buyer comes to a different conclusion about Istock's future than those people here on MSG that predict a negative outcome for Istock.
And they will have all the information at hand that we don't have, they will be able to look into Istock's books. And then they will buy.

Or they come to the same conclusion as some of us here - then they will not buy.

It's just hard for me to believe that the Getty / Istock management - if they are trying to sell - would knowingly make changes that maybe boost profits short term but carry too high risks for the longer term, because then they would be achieving exactly the opposite of what we are assuming - driving the price up.

I think what you say is logical, but past events with other acquisitions suggest that buyers don't always see the full picture before they purchase, due diligence notwithstanding. It's easiest when the buyer really doesn't know much about the business they're purchasing (i.e. they're money people, and know nothing about photography, stock, etc.). They don't know enough to see the writing on the wall for what it is.

I certainly think that the containment strategy in the IS forums - one huge thread and lock anything else that talks about the current debacle - could be to avoid there being too much stink about contributor unrest.

And remember, it's H&F that wants to sell Getty. H&F tells Getty what they want and Getty turns the screws on IS management. We used to call that dump truck management at a company I used to work for.

I want iStock to succeed long term too. In addition to liking it as a business partner (in the past), the recent GD survey confirmed their market leadership position. Excerpting from the summary:

When further queried about their choice preferences if visiting multiple sites, iStockphoto emerged as the favorite/go-to microstock agency

* 70% of designers who have a preference use iStock
* 13% list no favorite
* No other microstock agency was favored by more than 7%

And as far as major business entities making stupid decisions while riding high on a short term success that was masking long term disaster, we have to look no further than the recent economic meltdown among major US financial firms. It can happen that a business screws the pooch and takes down a previously successful, viable business. I'm not sure whether the current crap at IS is in that category, but when I see that the number one factor for designers (on that same GD survey) was affordable pricing it makes me worry about IS jacking up prices the way they are.

The Graphic Design website has a preview of their survey - sponsored by iStockphoto. I don't know what this means in terms of independence of the data, but Graphic Design has been around for decades, and so I'm assuming this is a legit survey.

Risamay · « **Reply #72 on:** September 28, 2010, 12:02 »

Quote from: jsnover on September 28, 2010, 11:56

I want iStock to succeed long term too. In addition to liking it as a business partner (in the past), the recent GD survey confirmed their market leadership position.

Absolutely. I wish iStock only success.

Though I, like many exclusives, am frustrated and disappointed by recent developments and changes, I would like nothing more than to be won back over and return to an exclusive contract at some point down the line - when/if I can be (more) sure that it is the most beneficial business move for me/my work.

It is for that reason that I intend to leave my portfolio on iStock as I build up new ports with other agencies as a non-exclusive. That way, if something changes, I don't have to start from scratch again with IS. Although, at present, I do not intend to upload new work to IS. I want to focus on other agencies as my time for port-building is so limited at present.

If my non-exclusive sales at a paltry 15% are notable, I will reconsider my decision not to load new work on IS.

Really hoping the company pulls through and gets its act together. It would be a godsend to, again, work with just a single agent, exclusively.

gbalex · « **Reply #73 on:** September 28, 2010, 13:20 »

Quote from: jsnover on September 28, 2010, 11:56

Quote from: dirkr on September 28, 2010, 11:21
Quote from: lisafx on September 28, 2010, 10:50

My husband and I were discussing the same thing last night. Seems clear they are fattening up the balance sheets for the 4th quarter and the 1st quarter of next year - at the expense of the long term health of the company - in preparation for a sale early in the year. I am certain that Getty will be on the auction block by June 2011 at the very latest.

This idea has come up several times in multiple threads over the last weeks: That the changes made are only done to boost short term profits to increase a sale price - at the cost of long term profitability or even survival of Istock....

So there are two possibilities:
Either a potential buyer comes to a different conclusion about Istock's future than those people here on MSG that predict a negative outcome for Istock.
And they will have all the information at hand that we don't have, they will be able to look into Istock's books. And then they will buy.

Or they come to the same conclusion as some of us here - then they will not buy.

It's just hard for me to believe that the Getty / Istock management - if they are trying to sell - would knowingly make changes that maybe boost profits short term but carry too high risks for the longer term, because then they would be achieving exactly the opposite of what we are assuming - driving the price up.

I think what you say is logical, but past events with other acquisitions suggest that buyers don't always see the full picture before they purchase, due diligence notwithstanding. It's easiest when the buyer really doesn't know much about the business they're purchasing (i.e. they're money people, and know nothing about photography, stock, etc.). They don't know enough to see the writing on the wall for what it is.

I certainly think that the containment strategy in the IS forums - one huge thread and lock anything else that talks about the current debacle - could be to avoid there being too much stink about contributor unrest.

And remember, it's H&F that wants to sell Getty. H&F tells Getty what they want and Getty turns the screws on IS management. We used to call that dump truck management at a company I used to work for.

I want iStock to succeed long term too. In addition to liking it as a business partner (in the past), the recent GD survey confirmed their market leadership position. Excerpting from the summary:

When further queried about their choice preferences if visiting multiple sites, iStockphoto emerged as the favorite/go-to microstock agency

* 70% of designers who have a preference use iStock
* 13% list no favorite
* No other microstock agency was favored by more than 7%

And as far as major business entities making stupid decisions while riding high on a short term success that was masking long term disaster, we have to look no further than the recent economic meltdown among major US financial firms. It can happen that a business screws the pooch and takes down a previously successful, viable business. I'm not sure whether the current crap at IS is in that category, but when I see that the number one factor for designers (on that same GD survey) was affordable pricing it makes me worry about IS jacking up prices the way they are.

The Graphic Design website has a preview of their survey - sponsored by iStockphoto. I don't know what this means in terms of independence of the data, but Graphic Design has been around for decades, and so I'm assuming this is a legit survey.

Did anyone else notice that this is a landing page. It is essentially a istock marketing page. Shutterstock has one as well. They each highlight and exclude information which will make their product look attractive.

jen · « **Reply #74 on:** September 28, 2010, 14:15 »

Quote from: cidepix on September 28, 2010, 07:00

Quote from: jen on September 27, 2010, 16:37
They need to make a friggin announcement already. The complete lack of communication from management is shady and obnoxious.

Communication or not!

Does it change anything?

Yes. Faith in the company and its management is worth a lot.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: New Vetta pricing and royalty rates in effect today (Read 26087 times)

TheSmilingAssassin

cidepix

gostwyck

anonymous

Chico

NancyCWalker

dgilder

caspixel

gostwyck

NancyCWalker

SNP

lisafx

SNP

gostwyck

lisafx

SNP

dirkr

dgilder

lisafx

Risamay

Risamay

Jo Ann Snover

Risamay

gbalex

jen

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors