Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 16, 2013, 11:40

Quote from: gostwyck on February 16, 2013, 10:39

Maybe the Getty managers have recently bought SSTK stock? Seems to me that SS shareholders will be amongst the major beneficiaries of their actions.

Only if the presumed major defection of exclusives (which has yet to be proven) leads to a similar defection by buyers. I think that istock's prices and a growing awareness of cheaper alternatives is more likely to be the factor that shifts buyers, not the movement of files out of exclusivity. Let's face it, most exclusive files already have counterpards on SS and on average exclusives are no better than independents on any site with tough inspections.

If there is no difference between IS exclusives and independents on other sites,  then why is there a price difference?  If everyone is selling Mercedes or Fords, then why would other sites leave so much money on the table?

Because the sites put whatever prices they like on stuff. It doesn't say anything about the quality.  There are hundreds of us who have the qualifications to be "istock exclusives" who chose not to take that route.

My portfolio wouldn't get any better if I went exclusive tomorrow (and I qualified to be exclusive eight years ago).  Sean's archive won't get worse when it's not on istock, and Yuri and his factory of independents pretty much set the standard for that genre.

So I'm afraid the idea that exclusives' work has some special superiority is in the "emperor's new clothes" category.

Quote from: gostwyck on February 16, 2013, 13:01

<Ploink>

You rang?

 

Not sure if somebody already posted this short blog article from Photoshelter

http://blog.photoshelter.com/2013/02/istockphoto-terminates-top-contributor-in-aftermath-of-gettygoogle-deal/

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57569639-93/istockphoto-founder-re-enters-the-market-with-stocksy/

Article From CNET:

iStockphoto founder re-enters the market with Stocksy
February 15, 2013 | Stephen Shankland

Bruce Livingstone, a pioneer of Internet-based stock-art sales, is launching a new venture even as his original company struggles with some disgruntled photographers.

Bruce Livingstone, who founded microstock powerhouse iStockphoto more than a decade ago and left it in 2009, is trying again with a new stock-art sales venture called Stocksy.

And he's doing it at a time when iStock is, if not necessarily vulnerable, the target of criticisms that it's out of touch with the army of photographers who contribute the imagery it licenses. To succeed, a microstock needs lots of customers licensing its photos, videos, and other works, and it needs a lot of contributors supplying a steady stream of fresh material.

It's these contributors Livingstone appears to be aiming to attract. The site describes Stocksy as "a stock photography cooperative owned and operated by artists," and it says contributors will have a stake in its success:

Our purpose is to create sustainable careers, ownership, and a long-term professional and equity strategy for our members.

Stocksy pays the highest royalty in the industry as well as dividends and patronage performance returns to artists, 50 percent on regular sales and 100 percent of extended licenses. By design, Stocksy pays out all profits to artists. In addition to paying dividend and patronage fees to artists on a yearly basis, each member of the co-op owns real equity in the company.

Livingstone declined to comment for this story.

Stocksy will face plenty of competitive challenges, and not just from iStockphoto, which since 2006 has been part of old-school stock-art firm Getty Images.

The microstock industry's growth was fueled by the abundance of low-cost, high-quality digital cameras and the Web, which provided a quick way to reach a global marketplace. Now there are dozens of microstocks around, including Fololia, Dreamstime, and Shutterstock, which is confident enough of growth that it went public in 2012.

But iStockphoto evidently is a source of talent for new microstocks. A case in point is photographer Sean Locke, who with 12,781 images and more than 900,000 sales is one of its top five contributors and a person who earned nearly all his income from sales through the company.

A week ago, iStock said it is terminating its relationship with Locke. According to his blog post on the subject, iStock was displeased with Locke's actions involving a Getty Images licensing deal with Google and with the fact that Locke had begun working with another stock-art firm.

"They also knew (somehow!) that I had joined this new stock site, even though it was closed to all but a relatively small group, and declared that this was against the 'spirit of the exclusivity agreement,'" Locke said.

Contributors often sign exclusivity contracts that pay them higher royalties if they agree to sell their imagery only through one microstock. Shutterstock founder Jon Oringer thinks exclusivity is bad -- "As a microstock photographer it just doesn't make sense to be exclusive to any one agency," he said in a January blog post -- but it's common. Now, though, Locke said he's moving his portfolio to multiple iStock competitors.

In a statement, iStockphoto laid the blame on the termination on Locke's helping a competitor:

In addition to other factors, Mr. Locke was actively recruiting exclusive iStock contributors to work with a competitive venture which is directly at odds with his relationship with iStockphoto. Given these actions, we made the decision to part ways with Mr. Locke under the terms of his exclusive agreement. We are excited to continue to work with the tens of thousands of contributors committed to the continued success of iStockphoto and Getty Images -- and wish Mr. Locke the best in his future endeavors.

Locke couldn't immediately be reached for comment about the recruiting issue. In his post, though, he said the severed relationship was liberating.

And the strong relations with contributors from iStockphoto's early days have faded, said Lee Torrens, author of the Microstock Diaries blog.

"iStock's soul is long gone," Torrens said. "They wiped out the entire content team, which was what kept the community functional...With the absence of leadership, old-time exclusives [exclusive photographers] are starting to jump ship. That probably doesn't hurt customers, but it bruises their reputation inside the industry."

Another photographer given the boot is Rob Sylvan, who also is author of "Lightroom 2 for Dummies.""I am very glad that I quit when I did and am no longer reliant on them as a source of income. I would urge any other iStock contributor to make sure you have a solid backup plan in place, and any exclusive contributor to start working on an exit strategy," he said in a comment to Locke.

iStockphoto said Sylvan "is identified as an administrator of a competitive venture's social media page, which, again, is directly at odds with his relationship with iStockphoto."

Some seeds of Locke's discontent were sown by the Getty deal with Google Drive, under which photographers' works could be used on Google Apps' online services for tasks such as word processing and presentations. The deal granted Google Apps users rights to 5,000 images, but they can be downloaded to a local computer and have copyright information and other metadata stripped out.

Locke objected to the Google Drive deal on iStock's forums, and a ruckus ensued with many photographers objecting. iStock scrambled to pull together its explanation as users howled.

Yesterday, iStock told CNET News it hopes for at least some changes to the Google Drive deal: "We can confirm that contributors were paid royalties for the use of their content in the license deal with Google. We are working with Google to refine the implementation which we believe will address some of the concerns raised by contributors."

all this talk about Stocksy is "vaporware".

as it is now, the microstock is a mature oversaturated cut-throat industry.
there's not a single chance for a tiny startup like Stocksy to get the foot in the door without being backed by investors and VCs fueling the company with TENS of millions $.

and these guys are there to make fat profits, not to provide photographers a "fair share" environment.
they will try to grow the company as much as they can and then sell it to the highest bidding competitor, that's their business plan.

early photographers who invest in Stocksy could make some money, but all the other random contributors being merely content providers will be taken for a ride again.

would you invest in Stocksy ? NO !

If you dont like micros, sean and stocksy, I suggest you open a new account at Alamy, it seems you have a better audience over there.

oh well, i'm probably already in "ignore" by most of the readers here.
i just come here to give my 2 cents about the stock industry, my holy war against micros is concluded.

i'll be glad to see the alamy forum sink, leave the boat while you're still in time.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 17, 2013, 06:35

Michael, we spent a lot of time here trying to work out whether the combined inde earnings were outweighed by the exclusivity deal.

I don't agree. As SS went public, you can look up their revenue history. You can also read how much they pay out to contributors if you know how to read financial statements. And if you go back a few years, you will also find public statements by iStock about revenue and royalties. Take the SS numbers and triple that to add for FT and DT, even though I doubt they are even close to SS numbers.

We didn't know four or five years ago what last year's SS accounts were going to say, nor - back then - had iS made any statement about its turnover. In addition you are forgetting about DT, Fotolia and all the rest that the inde weighs into the mix. So it was NOT clear that iStock exclusivity was a better option. Having a bigger turnover doesn't necessarily mean anything if it is divided among a much bigger pool.

If you want to know how the argument went, it was this: iStock generated about 35%-40% of an independent's income. Switching to exclusivity as a diamond would immediately cause that to double, leaving the newly-crowned about 20%- 30% down. Files that had already been buried in the search by the review time trick might move up a bit but they would remain buried. Perhaps the better search position would make up for the missing 20% after a year or two, but that was uncertain.

It was only when exclusive files started being priced higher than independent ones and the Vetta and Getty options were opened up that it started to look as if exclusivity really might be paying way better than independence. But a lot of exclusives were scared by the price differential and complained that it would push all the sales into the inde's laps.

So it has never been a no-brainer that exclusivity would pay better and I still have some doubts about whether it actually did between 2005 and 2009 (and even then you would have had to be gold or diamond; bronze or silver would almost certainly have been better as independents) . After 2009 iStock quickly started running into the Getty clawback with redeemed credits, the dumping of Agency collections etc. into the site, loss of leadershim, etc, which made it's middle- to long-term prospects as a good income source questionable.

And remember the best match shifts, where, on a whim, they would slice 20 or 30% of some contributors' earnings overnight? The first of those was in 2006 or 2007, wasn't it? It's always been a risk. I said it in 2005 (until Bruce suggested I shut up) and I've thought the same ever since.

all this talk about Stocksy is "vaporware".

Normally "vaporware" is describing something that has been promised for a long time and never materialized.  Hardly an accurate description of something we only learned about last month.

as it is now, the microstock is a mature oversaturated cut-throat industry.
there's not a single chance for a tiny startup like Stocksy to get the foot in the door without being backed by investors and VCs fueling the company with TENS of millions $.

I honestly am not aware of any industry that is not over-saturated and cut-throat at this time.  Lots of types of businesses used to be fun, you could work as you wished and make lots of money.  Not any longer.  I am really sorry for you that the world changed but it changed for a lot of people who suddenly found themselves working twice as hard to make a living.

and these guys are there to make fat profits, not to provide photographers a "fair share" environment.
they will try to grow the company as much as they can and then sell it to the highest bidding competitor, that's their business plan.

I certainly hope they are in it for the profit, I assume you are not giving your work away for free?  As to selling it off, well why worry? I thought you said it was vaporware?  And they do state it will be a cooperative, not a corporation.  Cooperatives are owned by all members not by stock holders.  And I was not aware they had published their business plan, perhaps you could link to that so the rest of us can be informed?

early photographers who invest in Stocksy could make some money, but all the other random contributors being merely content providers will be taken for a ride again.

would you invest in Stocksy ? NO !

I thought you said they had "not a single chance"?  And if this will be a cooperative then there is no opportunity to 'invest'.  In a cooperative contributors become owners based on their patronage, or usage, of the cooperative.

If all the shares in the coop of all contributors always only add up to 49 percent they can never prevent a sale of the coop? Am I thinking that correctly?

Just depends on how they draft up the legal stuff. Could be that the guy who owns 51% can only sell his 51% under the terms of a co op.

Quote from: Xanox on February 17, 2013, 07:40

all this talk about Stocksy is "vaporware".

as it is now, the microstock is a mature oversaturated cut-throat industry.
there's not a single chance for a tiny startup like Stocksy to get the foot in the door without being backed by investors and VCs fueling the company with TENS of millions $.

and these guys are there to make fat profits, not to provide photographers a "fair share" environment.
they will try to grow the company as much as they can and then sell it to the highest bidding competitor, that's their business plan.

early photographers who invest in Stocksy could make some money, but all the other random contributors being merely content providers will be taken for a ride again.

would you invest in Stocksy ? NO !

A lot of people here probably hate what the post above says, but he has a point. The overwhelming business model of choice for many agencies since about the late 90's has been to start an agency, grow the collection, then sell it off to Getty or at the very least sign a distribution agreement with them. To be fair, only iStock has taken this road as far as micro agencies are concerned.

...and Stockexpert.
(my bold above)

Quote from: Poncke on February 17, 2013, 07:48

If you dont like micros, sean and stocksy, I suggest you open a new account at Alamy, it seems you have a better audience over there.

oh well, i'm probably already in "ignore" by most of the readers here.
i just come here to give my 2 cents about the stock industry, my holy war against micros is concluded.

i'll be glad to see the alamy forum sink, leave the boat while you're still in time.

Are you twelve? They won't let you play, so they are going to fail.