How will all this end up ..? . What do you think ?

I posted this in another thread but this is what I personally I think is going on is they are getting ready to set up iStock as a mid stock company. iStock is a brand name and a lot of buyers now it. With them implementing the increase in cost for the Vetta and bringing in the Agency stuff for higher prices and inviting exclusives to particpate it looks to me like this is where they are going. I then believe they will basically say....if you're not exclusive then you are being moved to ThinkStock which is our subscription site. There is a reason they started up Thinkstock and this may very well be why. I think the slow price increase in their "special collections" is kinda like going to the grocery store and paying a little extra, then the next week a little more. It's not as noticeable to your pocket book as a buyer. Why else would they introduce the Agency collection if not for this reason? Many agencies have tried mixing mid stock and microstock and haven't been to successful at it and that's why I believe they created Thinkstock.

Quote from: donding on September 11, 2010, 13:41

I posted this in another thread but this is what I personally I think is going on is they are getting ready to set up iStock as a mid stock company. iStock is a brand name and a lot of buyers now it. With them implementing the increase in cost for the Vetta and bringing in the Agency stuff for higher prices and inviting exclusives to particpate it looks to me like this is where they are going. I then believe they will basically say....if you're not exclusive then you are being moved to ThinkStock which is our subscription site. There is a reason they started up Thinkstock and this may very well be why.

Donna, this makes a lot of sense.  Ever since Getty bought IS I guessed they might try to make it into a midstock, and when they opened thinkstock I worried that eventually all non-exclusives would be herded there.

What has totally taken my by surprise, though, is lowering non-exclusive commissions below 20%.  Who would have guessed that paying the lowest commission in the industry would not be low enough for them?   

 Maybe their plan was to geared towards getting those independents to go exclusive to get the better % or leave, but it kinda backfired. If they do go with a midstock company they would want exclusive content to make it more desirable for the buyers, therefore the buyer would be willing to pay more just because it's exclusive. They already have Thinkstock as their dump site and that may very well be where the non exclusives end up at. I don't know what their motives are but I really think it won't be to long before we find out.

What has totally taken my by surprise, though, is lowering non-exclusive commissions below 20%.  Who would have guessed that paying the lowest commission in the industry would not be low enough for them?   

There was a post on the IStock thread that made a lot of sense. It could just be that IStock management has been told from on high that Getty doesn't pay out more than 20% so get your average payout to that level any way you can.
Dropping independents to an unbelievably low commission was the least offensive to their exclusives, which they see as giving them the competitive advantage.

I posted this in another thread but this is what I personally I think is going on is they are getting ready to set up iStock as a mid stock company. iStock is a brand name and a lot of buyers now it. With them implementing the increase in cost for the Vetta and bringing in the Agency stuff for higher prices and inviting exclusives to particpate it looks to me like this is where they are going. I then believe they will basically say....if you're not exclusive then you are being moved to ThinkStock which is our subscription site. There is a reason they started up Thinkstock and this may very well be why. I think the slow price increase in their "special collections" is kinda like going to the grocery store and paying a little extra, then the next week a little more. It's not as noticeable to your pocket book as a buyer. Why else would they introduce the Agency collection if not for this reason? Many agencies have tried mixing mid stock and microstock and haven't been to successful at it and that's why I believe they created Thinkstock.

yep I agree I think istock gets more expensive, thinkstock takes the bottom part of the market. For Istock it comes down to what their accountants have worked is the optimum price vs customers leaving (which in their arrogance they will say that TS will pick them up)

I'd guess at most 10% of contributors will leave, the new thread already has a lot I'll wait and see and then it will happen and people wont be happy but put up with it (fair enough it's not an easy decision, I can't afford to drop my port on istock, the best I can do is not upload anymore) and new people will come along and accept 15% in the hope of increasing it and take the view it's better than making nothing, and there will races to hit RC xyz (they could offer 5% and some people will still take it, look at how many people pay $50 an image to submit to getty).

i think people are also forgetting that getty is getting a lot of material through flicker, not just through the curated getty flicker program, but also just anyone who options for getty to broker their casual photos. the prices through these programs are substantially higher than micro, but it's still 20% commission.

whatever can be photographed has been photographed....

unless the top contributors start a coop or a new agency to steer the masses, there is a lot of stasis here.

why would you want microstockers to not accept these terms? i'm sure many will be joining you in rm competition very soon if you instigate them any further.

I think Vetta will become a lot more important.  The ones in the Vetta club will do well, the ones who aren't will have to struggle on. 

Quote from: hiddenstock on September 11, 2010, 18:22

I think Vetta will become a lot more important.  The ones in the Vetta club will do well, the ones who aren't will have to struggle on. 

Is that the same "Vetta Club" that is taking something like a 10% cut in royalties? 

Prices are going up though, and many will have access to The Agency. Financially they'll be better off, and will accept that. They don't really have much choice.

I think Istock will decline from here on. Come january 1., many smaller and midsized independents will leave together with smaller exclusives,  because the paydrops and the trouble uploading to IS, it's no longer worth while.

As they go, they remove linkes to IS, refer clients to oter sites, and stop buying at IS. Many of the smaller contrinuters to IS, are often also big buyers - IS forget to include this in their calculations.

As the word spreds further, traffic will decline further. Those who leave take with them some (not all) unique content, so buyers will have trouble finding what they want at IS.

And so on, and so on, and so on. IS has startet a negative ongoing downwards spiral.
Each time they lose a selling picture, they have to make extra sales to make up for that.
Each time a parttimer leave and take whith him his spending at IS, the will have to find new buyers to compenate for that.
With diminishing traffic, it will be very hard to attract new buyers, and with lower pay it will become morediifcult fo find new talent.

I simply cant see how they with rising prices, market saturation, and less unique material, can make up for the losses.

The fluffy love and adoration for istock is lost forever. I think people from the Trad/Macro agencies realised all along that Getty is the devil in disguise and Micro is bad for business. Getty treat photographers like stray dogs.. They always have. Now that bankers are calling all the shots. Money talks - nothing else matters.  I guess the Trad/Micro they can now say: "We told you so!"

I think istock will remain as market leader but  more people will drift to other micro, Alamy and sell direct.

The most frustrating thing is that Getty don't even seem to be able to see how terribly bad they are at running things.
They failed to run the rest of their collections with any sort of profit even with massive commission percentages, then they buy a profitable company and think they can make it more profitable by running it the same way as their other, poorly performing, collections what

LOL

I think Istock will decline from here on. Come january 1., many smaller and midsized independents will leave together with smaller exclusives,  because the paydrops and the trouble uploading to IS, it's no longer worth while.

As they go, they remove linkes to IS, refer clients to oter sites, and stop buying at IS. Many of the smaller contrinuters to IS, are often also big buyers - IS forget to include this in their calculations.

As the word spreds further, traffic will decline further. Those who leave take with them some (not all) unique content, so buyers will have trouble finding what they want at IS.

And so on, and so on, and so on. IS has startet a negative ongoing downwards spiral.
Each time they lose a selling picture, they have to make extra sales to make up for that.
Each time a parttimer leave and take whith him his spending at IS, the will have to find new buyers to compenate for that.
With diminishing traffic, it will be very hard to attract new buyers, and with lower pay it will become morediifcult fo find new talent.

I simply cant see how they with rising prices, market saturation, and less unique material, can make up for the losses.

I sincerely hope you're right __ it would be the best outcome for most of us. It'll be interesting to see the true value of 'goodwill', or in Istock's case ... the lack of.