MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Sales have tanked big time  (Read 122212 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: September 15, 2011, 02:48 »
0
Actually, you've got that backwards. Other agencies are introducing things like cut commissions (Fotolia is the market leader), subscription sales (DT and Fot) and iStock is running along behind them.

Does iStock need a competitor in order to avoid problems with monopolies legislation? It isn't trying to wipe out SS, if it was it would be undercutting the subscription price, which it could easily do, instead of pricing at similar or higher rates.

Sure!  nowdays, yes,  but IS, started the ball rolling a few years back, on purpose ofcourse!  then they take a back-seat, watching the others fall apart. Thankfully, some refuse to fall.

When, which ball, and by doing what?

Not first to cut commissions
Not first to launch associated subscriptions
Not first to force submitters to accept subscription sales or leave
Not first to force people into allowing images to be sold via partner sites

So what is the ball that they kicked into motion? I can't think of it.  I'm not being funny, I'm just perplexed as to what it is you think they did.


« Reply #76 on: September 15, 2011, 03:07 »
0
So, your theory is that Getty/IS created Thinkstock just for fun?

RT


« Reply #77 on: September 15, 2011, 03:13 »
0
So what is the ball that they kicked into motion? I can't think of it.  I'm not being funny, I'm just perplexed as to what it is you think they did.

They were the first to allow Forrest Gump to speak publicly to their suppliers.

lagereek

« Reply #78 on: September 15, 2011, 03:22 »
0
Actually, you've got that backwards. Other agencies are introducing things like cut commissions (Fotolia is the market leader), subscription sales (DT and Fot) and iStock is running along behind them.

Does iStock need a competitor in order to avoid problems with monopolies legislation? It isn't trying to wipe out SS, if it was it would be undercutting the subscription price, which it could easily do, instead of pricing at similar or higher rates.

Sure!  nowdays, yes,  but IS, started the ball rolling a few years back, on purpose ofcourse!  then they take a back-seat, watching the others fall apart. Thankfully, some refuse to fall.

When, which ball, and by doing what?

Not first to cut commissions
Not first to launch associated subscriptions
Not first to force submitters to accept subscription sales or leave
Not first to force people into allowing images to be sold via partner sites

So what is the ball that they kicked into motion? I can't think of it.  I'm not being funny, I'm just perplexed as to what it is you think they did.


As usual you are nitpicking?  surely you agree that no other agency have gone out of their way, setting up, organizing, launching, sister-agencies, in order to simply destroy?

If you know or have followed the Getty history since 1992,  thats the way they have been operating. Thats a far and vast cry from petty, little commission cuts, etc. wouldnt you say?

« Reply #79 on: September 15, 2011, 03:46 »
0
As usual you are nitpicking?  surely you agree that no other agency have gone out of their way, setting up, organizing, launching, sister-agencies, in order to simply destroy?

If you know or have followed the Getty history since 1992,  thats the way they have been operating. Thats a far and vast cry from petty, little commission cuts, etc. wouldnt you say?

I'm sorry if you think that wanting facts instead of opinions is nit-picking. Why not just admit you were engaged in polemics.

What sister-agencies has Getty set up simply to destroy? Are you referring to TS? Which other/s (agencies being a plural). As I stated earlier I am not convinced that the objective behind TS is to destroy SS.

Perry: You are creating a false dichotomy. The alternatives are not "TS exists to destroy SS" or "TS exists for fun". There are plenty of other reasons, including such possibilities as:

1) Getty realised subscriptions offer significant earnings potential and there was a hole in its coverage that needed plugging
2) Getty had a mountain of images that nobody was willing to pay premium prices for and thought it could give them another lease of earnings life
3) Having just been taken over, the management had to produce a significant initiative to impress the new owners and this was an obvious gap, albeit one they hadn't wanted to fill before.
4) Many images at iStock were not selling because they were below the current quality expectation, and it was a waste to have them using bandwidth for nothing or simply to delete them when it might be possible to monetise them in a significant size cut-price collection.

So there are plenty of possible motives for creating Thinkstock. I'm sure having fun wasn't one of them.

 

I am aware that Getty has a long history of absorbing rival agencies in order to increase its market share. Whether that reflects a long-running desire to establish a complete monopoly in the industry I don't know. It's an unrealistic objective, anyway, because people will always start up new agencies if only in the hope of being bought out and Corbis isn't going away.

« Reply #80 on: September 15, 2011, 03:47 »
0
So what is the ball that they kicked into motion? I can't think of it.  I'm not being funny, I'm just perplexed as to what it is you think they did.

They were the first to allow Forrest Gump to speak publicly to their suppliers.

Excellent point!

lagereek

« Reply #81 on: September 15, 2011, 04:45 »
0
As usual you are nitpicking?  surely you agree that no other agency have gone out of their way, setting up, organizing, launching, sister-agencies, in order to simply destroy?

If you know or have followed the Getty history since 1992,  thats the way they have been operating. Thats a far and vast cry from petty, little commission cuts, etc. wouldnt you say?

I'm sorry if you think that wanting facts instead of opinions is nit-picking. Why not just admit you were engaged in polemics.

What sister-agencies has Getty set up simply to destroy? Are you referring to TS? Which other/s (agencies being a plural). As I stated earlier I am not convinced that the objective behind TS is to destroy SS.

Perry: You are creating a false dichotomy. The alternatives are not "TS exists to destroy SS" or "TS exists for fun". There are plenty of other reasons, including such possibilities as:

1) Getty realised subscriptions offer significant earnings potential and there was a hole in its coverage that needed plugging
2) Getty had a mountain of images that nobody was willing to pay premium prices for and thought it could give them another lease of earnings life
3) Having just been taken over, the management had to produce a significant initiative to impress the new owners and this was an obvious gap, albeit one they hadn't wanted to fill before.
4) Many images at iStock were not selling because they were below the current quality expectation, and it was a waste to have them using bandwidth for nothing or simply to delete them when it might be possible to monetise them in a significant size cut-price collection.

So there are plenty of possible motives for creating Thinkstock. I'm sure having fun wasn't one of them.

 

I am aware that Getty has a long history of absorbing rival agencies in order to increase its market share. Whether that reflects a long-running desire to establish a complete monopoly in the industry I don't know. It's an unrealistic objective, anyway, because people will always start up new agencies if only in the hope of being bought out and Corbis isn't going away.
[/quote

No, your right, they start new agencies out of the godness of their hearts, giving away as much comission as possible, hoping to buy a premiere place by the side of St-peter.
In fact I think as contributors, we should freely give away more percentage, god knows we are really earning too much.
Amen and God bless.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2011, 04:52 by lagereek »

« Reply #82 on: September 15, 2011, 04:57 »
0
Sometimes you can be a complete moron, Lagereek.

« Reply #83 on: September 15, 2011, 04:59 »
0
Sometimes you can be a complete moron, Lagereek.

Sometimes?

lagereek

« Reply #84 on: September 15, 2011, 05:01 »
0
Sometimes you can be a complete moron, Lagereek.

Makes two of us!  only, I will be sober in the morning. Oh sorry I didnt realize the crettin no1, came in the middle, gotsy-boy has surfaced. WOW.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2011, 05:04 by lagereek »

Xalanx

« Reply #85 on: September 15, 2011, 05:13 »
0
The beauty of free speech on the internet - utter mix of reasonable and logical facts presented in a coherent manner, with almost unreadable drivel.

« Reply #86 on: September 15, 2011, 05:28 »
0

lagereek

« Reply #87 on: September 15, 2011, 05:41 »
0
Sometimes you can be a complete moron, Lagereek.

Sometimes?
;)

Ever heard of Narcissus complex? nothing wrong with self absorption, exept, shall we say:  it can get out of hand.

You know, youre not even a full-time photographer, nor is gotsy, so where youre getting your expert comments from I dont know, maybe you are using a dictionary or something.
The minute you earn your living from photography, be my guest, until then stay the amateur you are.
Had I known this from the start, I wouldnt even have wasted my time on part-timers.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2011, 08:17 by lagereek »

« Reply #88 on: September 15, 2011, 09:17 »
0
Sometimes you can be a complete moron, Lagereek.

Sometimes?
;)

Ever heard of Narcissus complex? nothing wrong with self absorption, exept, shall we say:  it can get out of hand.

You know, youre not even a full-time photographer, nor is gotsy, so where youre getting your expert comments from I dont know, maybe you are using a dictionary or something.
The minute you earn your living from photography, be my guest, until then stay the amateur you are.
Had I known this from the start, I wouldnt even have wasted my time on part-timers.

You don't know what you are talking about and are making yourself look more stupid than usual to those who do know who Gostwyck is and who I am.

PS: I just looked up your sales figures on IS and DT and I notice that they are well below Gostwyck's and mine, so what does that make you?

PPS: And while I think of it, there is no connection at all between being a professional photographer and being able to analyse what might or might not drive the decisions of a major company.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2011, 09:31 by BaldricksTrousers »

lisafx

« Reply #89 on: September 15, 2011, 09:25 »
0
So what is the ball that they kicked into motion? I can't think of it.  I'm not being funny, I'm just perplexed as to what it is you think they did.

They were the first to allow Forrest Gump to speak publicly to their suppliers.

ROFL!  Quite an innovative approach it turned out to be ;D

« Reply #90 on: September 15, 2011, 10:08 »
0
Does iStock need a competitor in order to avoid problems with monopolies legislation? It isn't trying to wipe out SS, if it was it would be undercutting the subscription price, which it could easily do, instead of pricing at similar or higher rates.

Ever heard of Thinkstock.com...? (They ARE trying to wipe out SS, and soon when they have forced all images to Thinkstock they will begin the fierce battle. I hope SS wins.)

they will never reach SS, I do like 10x more on SS and my PP sales are like half of IS

Slovenian

« Reply #91 on: September 15, 2011, 14:15 »
0
* XS&S party today :( . I really got used to to L+ days, that August and Sep (until today) was full of.

lagereek

« Reply #92 on: September 15, 2011, 14:36 »
0
Sometimes you can be a complete moron, Lagereek.

Sometimes?
;)



Ever heard of Narcissus complex? nothing wrong with self absorption, exept, shall we say:  it can get out of hand.

You know, youre not even a full-time photographer, nor is gotsy, so where youre getting your expert comments from I dont know, maybe you are using a dictionary or something.
The minute you earn your living from photography, be my guest, until then stay the amateur you are.
Had I known this from the start, I wouldnt even have wasted my time on part-timers.

You don't know what you are talking about and are making yourself look more stupid than usual to those who do know who Gostwyck is and who I am.

PS: I just looked up your sales figures on IS and DT and I notice that they are well below Gostwyck's and mine, so what does that make you?

PPS: And while I think of it, there is no connection at all between being a professional photographer and being able to analyse what might or might not drive the decisions of a major company.


I know you! who you are and what you do, make no misstake here. You really think that sales figures at a micro proves your a professional photographer? boy, your inferiority complex really shines through.
Youre a self-proclaimed walley Baldrick, one of those who pretends to be a lot more then they really are. As far as my sales figures at IS, is something to go by, well they beat yours and as far as my sales figures at Getty-RM, well?  if you can beat, approx, 5K, per month with the latest payout of well above that, good.

No Baldy and Gotsy, or should I say the BOYS,  go play in somebody elses playground,  your nothing but a bunch of wankers. ;D And you look like one as well, in your silly christmas-party pics.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2011, 14:42 by lagereek »

« Reply #93 on: September 15, 2011, 14:48 »
0
ahahaha this a joy, thats why I love this forum!

you three with all respect should meet, you guys could go like "Athos, Porthos and Aramis"

lisafx

« Reply #94 on: September 15, 2011, 14:55 »
0
I keep expecting someone is going to pull out a ruler and start measuring the size of their "portfolios". ;)

« Reply #95 on: September 15, 2011, 14:58 »
0
You obviously don't know who I am or you would know that my sales figures at iStock are way ahead of yours. I'm not the one going round making wild claims about what a wonderful old-time professional I am, claiming that I can just wander about on offshore oil rigs and shoot whatever I like to sell as stock and that the oil companies won't mind. Nor do I claim to have constant contact with stock agency execs who spill all the beans to me (though the tips never seem to come true), or to be getting $5k a month because I have 38 past-their-prime shots from Stone that ended up on the Getty collection.
Anyone can google your name and discover that you have your stuff all over every half-baked microstock site in existence trying to scrape together some pennies, Mr big-time Getty shooter .... and you say I'm the one pretending to be something I'm not?

But, back to the point, why are you so upset just because I wanted you to provide facts to back up what you were claiming?


PS, I'm glad to help with the entertainment (and I've got a bigger one than he has).
« Last Edit: September 15, 2011, 15:00 by BaldricksTrousers »

ShadySue

« Reply #96 on: September 15, 2011, 14:59 »
0
I keep expecting someone is going to pull out a ruler and start measuring the size of their "portfolios". ;)
LOL!
It must be a 'boy thing'.

« Reply #97 on: September 15, 2011, 15:02 »
0
ahahaha this a joy, thats why I love this forum!

you three with all respect should meet, you guys could go like "Athos, Porthos and Aramis"

More like Huey, Dewy and Louie, lol.  Just kidding.

« Reply #98 on: September 15, 2011, 15:03 »
0
ahahaha this a joy, thats why I love this forum!

you three with all respect should meet, you guys could go like "Athos, Porthos and Aramis"

More like Huey, Dewy and Louie, lol.  Just kidding.

:)


I think Gostwyck deserves special acclaim for having achieved his notoriety in this thread through the contribution of just one word.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2011, 15:06 by BaldricksTrousers »

« Reply #99 on: September 15, 2011, 15:17 »
0
I think Gostwyck deserves special acclaim for having achieved his notoriety in this thread through the contribution of just one word.

That's what I was thinking!
« Last Edit: September 15, 2011, 16:38 by gostwyck »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
16 Replies
4421 Views
Last post October 25, 2011, 01:02
by MicrostockExp
17 Replies
3502 Views
Last post September 18, 2012, 15:44
by tavi
2 Replies
1850 Views
Last post March 16, 2016, 06:25
by mirkic
17 Replies
3469 Views
Last post May 04, 2017, 16:38
by heywoody
28 Replies
5620 Views
Last post July 25, 2017, 01:34
by zorandim

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results