pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: REDEEMED CREDIT SYSTEM BROKEN  (Read 24118 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #150 on: November 23, 2011, 14:56 »
0
Thank you! But dont worry, I am not intimidated by silly comments.  :)

I only have 120 "real" house images on getty plus 20 Vettas. But I am impressed that such a small portfolio generates very reliable sales. There are huge differences in the sales results though, anything from 1 dollar to over 100 dollars is possible. But I didnt see such a strong downturn on Getty as I see on istock.

However, I know many photographers who are not happy with their getty experience although they have uploaded fantastic content. It doesnt work for everyone. Maybe for someone like Sean, who has such a very large customer base on istock, it is simply better to upload there where he already has a loyal buyer group.

But for 2012 my strategy will be: upload the best on Getty, regular, normal content for istock and a big focus on video to learn about the market. Because it will take me two years to become a good videographer, I wish I had started earlier.

And then we will see.

Of course, Ill keep watching the site, are the bugs getting worse, what will the next RC levels be (and will they come out in early January)  and will finally someone from the management start an open thread to discuss the falling traffic? Will Rebecca ever step out from under the invisibility cloak?  ;)

But the traffic stats that everyone is watching together with the monthly sales threads here and on istock will be my main indicators of how istock is doing in the market place.

One thing I learned from the microstockexpo: istock is not alone, there is a huge industry out there and they have so many different projects and ideas, they dont seem to be looking to istock for leadership. It cant hurt to keep your eyes open and to look for industry trends.


lagereek

« Reply #151 on: November 23, 2011, 15:27 »
0
Its true, the house-collection and its contract, is really the holy-grail in stock shooting but only for RM, I would say. Back in 1994, I took some shots on brokers dealing-rooms, they are still today selling for thousands, as RM, that is.
Everything is differant there, differant people, etc, I mean your reviewer is not some frustrated photographer, as often seems to be the case in micro and RF, they are proper picture-editors, even art-directors, who will actually consider the picture language, the creative aspects of your shots.
Differant all together.

However, its not all roses, revenues today are nowhere near what they were around 10 years back and will probably never be and I have a feeling that in 5-10 years time, the RM sectors will slowly die out.

« Reply #152 on: November 23, 2011, 15:41 »
0
That was a fantastic, coherent, informative post!

Who are you and what have you done to Christian?  ;)

« Reply #153 on: November 23, 2011, 15:51 »
0
If you now send a file to the House editors and opt for RM and RF your images will also be inspected with RM in mind. I know photographers who had images taken for RM. But you have to select the RM option when you upload.

Personally I only used two PC RM slots and dont submit for RM otherwise. Did that change at some point, or was it different in the beginning? I must be getting old, I cant remember.

Did you want to cancel your getty contract? Did they offer to keep you after you contacted them?

4 months sounds reasonable, I thought it would be much longer, at least 6 months like many of the other agencies.

ETA: youre right, originally we only had access to RF. When they stopped the program they divided us into house and PC contracts. I was lucky I got the house contract. Sorry about the confusion.

But without istock or Bruce I would never have gotten into Getty.

Actually I would have been able to stay with Getty and sign up for the photographer's choice as well - at least that is what I was told.  Though the first round of the new contract was too sketchy for me so I decided to just close out of there and get my images back so that I could put them on other sites.  My contract with Getty was exclusive so I was not able to put the files anywhere else at that time, not even on iStock.  

I was told that my portfolio would be inactive and my files released once my contract was canceled.  the cancelling of the contract happened within a few weeks, as I recall, but they failed to remove my images.  I had to contact them regularly and keep checking until they were finally removed.  I have many emails going back and forth where they assured me the files would be removed, but it took 4 months for it to happen. that was NOT reasonable at all, since according to the original email correspondence I had with them when I canceled, the files should have been removed at the time of my cancellation, not 4 months and many emails later.  

needless to say, I never made much from my Getty portfolio, nor did I have a large portfolio there anyway.  It just wasn't worth it for me, though I know several people have been successful there, just not me.  "Quit your day job" was a great marketing campaign and I was ecstatic when I was able to join the Getty site, but the 60cent downloads were a huge letdown for me and so I quickly lost interest and didn't bother with uploading files there when I was making more with my files at iStock.  
« Last Edit: November 23, 2011, 15:53 by jamirae »

« Reply #154 on: November 23, 2011, 15:55 »
0
oh boy.. now RM is going down.. not a month ago you said you sold pics for over 4 figures.. you sold in the past some for 5 or 6?

I cannot hold myself sorry Sir

lagereek

« Reply #155 on: November 23, 2011, 16:22 »
0
That was a fantastic, coherent, informative post!

Who are you and what have you done to Christian?  ;)

It used to be the holy-grail, as another poster called it. Of course some shots will sell forever and for big sums but on the whole, RM sales have decreased over the years and ofcourse, much thanks to Micro and RF.

To be honest, I think you would have got into Getty and without IS or Bruce, I think your x-mas shots alone would have cut it. Besides, your a prolific stocketeer.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2011, 16:40 by lagereek »

« Reply #156 on: November 23, 2011, 16:37 »
0
Bruce genuinly believed that selling to Getty was the best way to take the company global. Getty had the international offices, the international CV, experience and contacts with big budget clients. And he negotiated the famous "quit your day job" offer that brought House contracts to high ranking istock exclusives. I am one of the many grateful contributors who got one. The offer was independent of style of portfolio, you just had to be at the right level to get in.

He did lead the company for another 3 (?) years and then moved on, took a break, bought a nice house and certainly enjoys his money. But then he took on a similar job at Saatchionline and is now promoting a marketplace for non commercial art. Again he is so successful at online marketing, that when I google my name the first thing that shows is my Saatchiportfolio with 20 images and not my istock portfolio with 3000+

He genuinly loves interacting with artists and is an excellent communicator and leader.

Whatever is happening now, is not his fault. Getty owns the istock marketplace and it is their responsibility to grow the business. I keep hearing people who blame Bruce for "leaving them", but again, the current managers at istock or Getty are responsible for what is going on now.

And since we dont have any numbers, it is entirely possible that with the focus on high end content that maybe istock is more profitable now than a year ago, who knows?

It just doesnt seem to trickle down to the artist like it used to.

Why did Livingstone 'have' to sell out to Getty "to take the company global"? Gates didn't sell Microstock to IBM to take them global ... Jobs didn't sell Apple ... Dyson didn't sell out to Hoover ... etc, etc, etc.

Istock was on the f**king internet. It already was 'global'. They had customers all over the world __ that's what 'global' means.

Warren Buffett once observed "I try to buy stock in businesses that are so wonderful that an idiot can run them. Because sooner or later, one will." Istock in 2006 was just such a business. Almost anyone could have run it ... and continued to have taken it 'global'.

The 'global' bit was just a cheap excuse because Livingstone couldn't bring himself to tell the truth ... that he sold his company and also the futures of the contributors who helped to build it, for a tiny fraction of what they were worth.

Imagine a world how it could have been. A true visionary (or anyone with some balls), who really did care about the content providers, might have done things totally differently.

Imagine if Istock had offered 50% commission for exclusivity to any contributor, irrespective of canister level. If that had happened then DT, CanStockPhoto and SS would have been killed off almost before they had started. Istock could have enjoyed the same sort of  total dominance of their industry that Microsoft have done for 20 years. It would have been almost impossible to unseat them from such a position provided they simply kept their contributors happy. What would have been the best way to do that? Allow them to invest in the business. I'm quite sure that hundreds if not thousands of contributors in those days would have been more than happy to have had their entire commissions converted into IS stock. Many (including myself) would have been very happy to have invested more money directly.

With no competition Istock by now would be huge. It could have raised prices even faster and higher than they did. It might well have had annual sales of $700M+ and be worth $2B. When the time was right it could have gone public making far more money for Bruce and millions for the contributors too.

When Microsoft went public more than 10,000 stock-owning employees became millionaires overnight. Something similar could have happened with Istock.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2011, 16:47 by gostwyck »

lagereek

« Reply #157 on: November 23, 2011, 16:43 »
0
Bruce genuinly believed that selling to Getty was the best way to take the company global. Getty had the international offices, the international CV, experience and contacts with big budget clients. And he negotiated the famous "quit your day job" offer that brought House contracts to high ranking istock exclusives. I am one of the many grateful contributors who got one. The offer was independent of style of portfolio, you just had to be at the right level to get in.

He did lead the company for another 3 (?) years and then moved on, took a break, bought a nice house and certainly enjoys his money. But then he took on a similar job at Saatchionline and is now promoting a marketplace for non commercial art. Again he is so successful at online marketing, that when I google my name the first thing that shows is my Saatchiportfolio with 20 images and not my istock portfolio with 3000+

He genuinly loves interacting with artists and is an excellent communicator and leader.

Whatever is happening now, is not his fault. Getty owns the istock marketplace and it is their responsibility to grow the business. I keep hearing people who blame Bruce for "leaving them", but again, the current managers at istock or Getty are responsible for what is going on now.

And since we dont have any numbers, it is entirely possible that with the focus on high end content that maybe istock is more profitable now than a year ago, who knows?

It just doesnt seem to trickle down to the artist like it used to.

Why did Livingstone 'have' to sell out to Getty "to take the company global"? Gates didn't sell Microstock to IBM to take them global ... Jobs didn't sell Apple ... Dyson didn't sell out to Hoover ... etc, etc, etc.

Istock was on the f**king internet. It already was 'global'. They had customers all over the world __ that's what 'global' means.

Warren Buffett once observed "I try to buy stock in businesses that are so wonderful that an idiot can run them. Because sooner or later, one will." Istock in 2006 was just such a business. Almost anyone could have run it ... and continued to have taken it 'global'.

The 'global' bit was just a cheap excuse because Livingstone couldn't bring himself to tell the truth ... that he sold his company and also the futures of the contributors who helped to build it, for a tiny fraction of what they were worth.

Imagine a world how it could have been. A true visionary (or anyone with some balls), who really did care about the content providers, might have done things totally differently.

Imagine if Istock had offered 50% commission for exclusivity to any contributor, irrespective of canister level. If that had happened then DT, CanStockPhoto and SS would have been killed off almost before they had started. Istock could have enjoyed the same sort of  total dominance of their industry that Microsoft have done for 20 years. It would have been almost impossible to unseat them from such a position provided they simply kept their contributors happy. What would have been the best way to do that? Allow them to invest in the business. I'm quite sure that hundreds if not thousands of contributors in those days would have been more than happy to have had their entire commissions converted into IS stock. Many (including myself) would have been very happy to have invested more money directly.

With no competition Istock by now would be huge. It could have raised prices even faster and higher than they did. It might well have had annual sales of $700+ and be worth $2B. When the time was right it could have gone public making far more money for Bruce and millions for the contributors too.

When Microsoft went public more than 10,000 stock-owning employees became millionaires overnight. Something similar could have happened with Istock.

I hate to think it! but you could actually be too bloody right on this one.

wut

« Reply #158 on: November 23, 2011, 17:05 »
0
Bruce genuinly believed that selling to Getty was the best way to take the company global. Getty had the international offices, the international CV, experience and contacts with big budget clients. And he negotiated the famous "quit your day job" offer that brought House contracts to high ranking istock exclusives. I am one of the many grateful contributors who got one. The offer was independent of style of portfolio, you just had to be at the right level to get in.

He did lead the company for another 3 (?) years and then moved on, took a break, bought a nice house and certainly enjoys his money. But then he took on a similar job at Saatchionline and is now promoting a marketplace for non commercial art. Again he is so successful at online marketing, that when I google my name the first thing that shows is my Saatchiportfolio with 20 images and not my istock portfolio with 3000+

He genuinly loves interacting with artists and is an excellent communicator and leader.

Whatever is happening now, is not his fault. Getty owns the istock marketplace and it is their responsibility to grow the business. I keep hearing people who blame Bruce for "leaving them", but again, the current managers at istock or Getty are responsible for what is going on now.

And since we dont have any numbers, it is entirely possible that with the focus on high end content that maybe istock is more profitable now than a year ago, who knows?

It just doesnt seem to trickle down to the artist like it used to.

Why did Livingstone 'have' to sell out to Getty "to take the company global"? Gates didn't sell Microstock to IBM to take them global ... Jobs didn't sell Apple ... Dyson didn't sell out to Hoover ... etc, etc, etc.

Istock was on the f**king internet. It already was 'global'. They had customers all over the world __ that's what 'global' means.

Warren Buffett once observed "I try to buy stock in businesses that are so wonderful that an idiot can run them. Because sooner or later, one will." Istock in 2006 was just such a business. Almost anyone could have run it ... and continued to have taken it 'global'.

The 'global' bit was just a cheap excuse because Livingstone couldn't bring himself to tell the truth ... that he sold his company and also the futures of the contributors who helped to build it, for a tiny fraction of what they were worth.

Imagine a world how it could have been. A true visionary (or anyone with some balls), who really did care about the content providers, might have done things totally differently.

Imagine if Istock had offered 50% commission for exclusivity to any contributor, irrespective of canister level. If that had happened then DT, CanStockPhoto and SS would have been killed off almost before they had started. Istock could have enjoyed the same sort of  total dominance of their industry that Microsoft have done for 20 years. It would have been almost impossible to unseat them from such a position provided they simply kept their contributors happy. What would have been the best way to do that? Allow them to invest in the business. I'm quite sure that hundreds if not thousands of contributors in those days would have been more than happy to have had their entire commissions converted into IS stock. Many (including myself) would have been very happy to have invested more money directly.

With no competition Istock by now would be huge. It could have raised prices even faster and higher than they did. It might well have had annual sales of $700+ and be worth $2B. When the time was right it could have gone public making far more money for Bruce and millions for the contributors too.

When Microsoft went public more than 10,000 stock-owning employees became millionaires overnight. Something similar could have happened with Istock.

I hate to think it! but you could actually be too bloody right on this one.

Indeed! Awesome post.

« Reply #159 on: November 23, 2011, 17:25 »
0
gostwyck,

it is always easy to play the armchair CEO. It is even easier if you do it with hindsight. By the way, you can always outdo him by building your own stocksite and doing a better job ;-)

I met Bruce shortly after the takeover and he genuinly believed it was a good decision for istock and to ensure the longterm success of the business. Unless he was a first class actor, I take his word for it. And as long as he was at the helm, the company was thriving, for all I can tell.

I think the question is - why did the current owners change the business model. What road are they taking the business? And is this in synch with our own business plans as photographers.

At least to me that is all that matters.

I am really curious to see what JJ and the team have been working on and hinting about. It must be a lot better than the "world changing referral program". I look forward to being impressed.

lagereek - thank you for the kind words! I am not a "traditionally trained photographer" and still amazed how far this career has taken me. And it is so much fun! Best job I ever had!
« Last Edit: November 23, 2011, 17:31 by cobalt »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
1988 Views
Last post December 27, 2010, 09:38
by ichiro17
25 Replies
5639 Views
Last post December 06, 2011, 18:15
by adamkaz
10 Replies
3923 Views
Last post January 11, 2013, 12:43
by fotografer
7 Replies
2461 Views
Last post May 13, 2014, 18:33
by Mantis
3 Replies
2420 Views
Last post October 16, 2014, 13:55
by Jo Ann Snover

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle