Uncle Pete, are you saying that all the stuff about square bracket phrases etc shown on this page have never been activated and don't work?

http://www.alamy.com/contributor/help/annotation-options.asp

I started uploading to Alamy a couple of weeks ago.  I spent a lot of time trying to understand their upload and keywording process, particularly the use of phrases.  Had about 30 pics accepted, and I'm encouraged by the number of views on such a small selection.  Clearly I've done something right in the keywording process.

However, this is a cumbersome and time consuming thing to do.  We're talking hours upon hours of work to get the phrases absolutely correct.

Is it worth it?  I've heard that (in the past) people have made good livings concentrating solely on Alamy.  Of course those times might have changed.  Has anyone here experienced success with Alamy - enough to justify the investment of time and effort?  And by 'enough' I'm talking at least the $500 - $1,000 per month range.

The current best match search only considers the first six or seven keywords as being 'relevant'.  Any words outside of the first half dozen are considered 'not sufficiently relevant'.  So if your most important keyword falls outside of the first few keywords your image will be sent to the back of the search result.

Unfortunately this system also applies to multiple keyword searches.  For a two keyword enquiry, BOTH words have to appear in the first half dozen for the search to be considered 'relevant' to that image.  If not, it's sent to the back.

When the system exhausts the number of 'relevant' files, it defaults to a 'show new uploads' order.  This is why, with multiple keyword searches, so many enquiries produce pages of files with zero downloads - the system cannot find enough 'relevant' files, so it shows new uploads first.

Clearly the problem is exacerbated for a search with three or more keywords.

This basically means that all the sales that used to be made from multiple keyword searches no longer exist - the system is so rigid that most files don't appear and 'new uploads' are shown instead.

It does mean that the search results are clean and refreshingly free from spam, but unfortunately it also results in lower sales for most people.

This system was introduced in September 2012 and explains why there was a sudden drop in sales at that time which have never recovered.

Those interested can see my correspondence about all this in the 'keywords and search' section of the iStock forum.

With this current system it makes sense to have as few keywords as possible - any secondary or unnecessary words will almost certainly result in lower sales.  It is critically important to have the most relevant words in the top half dozen or so.

I saw the StockTal advert a couple weeks ago and wrote to them questioning the fact that they have no contact address, business address or business registration details on the web site.  Received an enthusiastic reply from a girl in the Philippines who gave me lots of runaround but didn't supply the information requested except to say that it is being run by some Australians.

Doesn't really interest me because I'm an iStock/Getty exclusive, but I thought I'd write just to see what sort of response I'd get.  Interesting that StockBo has straight away put all their company information available for public scrutiny, whereas StockTal still hasn't.

Shutterstock was recently valued by the market at $3 billion or so.  That's a very high valuation of roughly 80PE, reflecting huge growth expectations.

The recent moves by Getty, notably introducing subs at iStock, seem intended on eventually convincing the markets that it, too, should command a very high rating.  Then, Carlyle can float the thing off, make a profit, and Getty repays its debts, leaving it clean again.  The 'embedding' program, pinterest links, subs etc, are all intended to change the perception of Getty from a utility supplier to a technology based growth business.  That way it will get double the valuation.

I see the strategy and agree its the right thing to do.

If you do a search at Getty you'll now see banners all over the place advertising subs at istock.  That's a big change from before and underlines Getty's determination to make istock subs a success.  Then they'll say to the market "hey - we're the same as Shutterstock, and we're worth high multiples too".

It would be nice if iStock fixed its search and all the other bugs, and actually invested enough money to make this strategy work.  Perhaps that's part of the plan and we'll see improvements in those areas soon.

$2.6 billion of rated debt affected
New York, October 31, 2013 -- Moody's Investors Service ("Moody's") downgraded Getty Images, Inc's ("Getty Images") Corporate Family Rating to B3 from B2 and Probability of Default Rating to B3-PD from B2-PD reflecting weakened credit metrics and our revised expectations for the company's operational performance over the next 12-18 months. Ratings on the 1st lien senior secured credit facilities were also downgraded to B2 from B1 and the 7% senior unsecured notes were downgraded to Caa2 from Caa1. The rating outlook is stable. These actions conclude Moody's review for a downgrade of ratings initiated on September 3, 2013.

Downgrades:

..Issuer: Getty Images, Inc.

.Corporate Family Rating: Downgraded to B3 from B2

.Probability of Default Rating: Downgraded to B3-PD from B2-PD

Issuer: Getty Images, Inc. and Abe Investment Holdings, Inc.

$150 million 1st Lien Sr Secured Revolver due 2017: Downgraded to B2, LGD3 - 38% from B1, LGD3 - 38%

$1.9 billion 1st Lien Sr Secured Term Loan due 2019: Downgraded to B2, LGD3 - 38% from B1, LGD3 - 38%

$550 million of 7.0% Senior Unsecured Notes due 2020: Downgraded to Caa2, LGD6 - 90% from Caa1, LGD6 - 90%

Overall debt is $2.6 billion.  As an istock and getty photographer I'm concerned about it, particularly as top line revenue isn't growing.  However, the largest part of the debt doesn't mature until 2019.  That's five years away and a lot can happen between now and then.

Wouldn't surprise me to see SSTK make a quick trip back to support in the 80 area.

It failed to hold at 80/82 and is now testing solid support at 75/6.  It will probably consolidate here and in due course try to rally upwards again.

I enquired about the right click problem in Getty's own forums and received a reply that right click will shortly be disabled.

Isn't the Chrome browser free?  Isn't the Android software free?  Isn't WhatsApp free (yet is somehow worth $19B).  Do I view all my favorite web sites for free?  Do I now read all my morning newspapers for free?  And yet all of these things happen to be worth a fortune because they are all a portal to something else or they attract advertising fees.  So being free to them wasn't a dumb move at all.  Of course I can't add advertising to my images, but I can see why there are more and more apps that are free yet become worth a substantial amount of money.

I'm just a simple person.  The way I see it is this:  at the moment people have to search at Getty's web site to see my stuff.  What if every web site in the world decides to use the Getty embedded viewer and an extra billion people a day get to see my stuff. And every one of those views sees my attributed name and a one click link to my portfolio.  Will I lose money or make money?  The answer is:  I will make a lot more sales and a lot more money.  And do I care if Getty also makes money through views or clicks or advertising?  No, actually I don't care at all. In fact, I'll encourage them to do so. Why? Because I know that the more views they generate the more money I will make.  It's like putting a personal link to my portfolio on every web site in the world.

I think Jo Ann hit the nail on the head when she said she couldn't understand the management strategy behind this move.  I've thought about it, and I can't understand it either.  Unless, that is, there are larger strategic things going on.

What confuses me (and probably everyone else) is that Getty has put so much effort into Thinkstock.  Getty's CEO even announced a year or two back that they planned to 'aggressively grow their Thinkstock business'.  Aggressive was the word he used.  And indeed I personally thought that Thinkstock was making good progress - I've had my portfolio there from the beginning so I've seen the tremendous growth in sales.  And some of the people on the 'refund' thread were showing big numbers, so clearly their sales must have been pretty good.  Not Shutterstock, of course, but pretty impressive for a two year start-up, albeit one probably funded by transferring thousands of customers away from iStock and other Getty sites.  Perhaps that's the problem - perhaps it's been Peter paying Paul and no genuine organic growth.

At the same time they've run down iStock.  It's clear to anyone that iStock lacks resources.  Just look at the landing page Valentine fiasco.  And the unpaid subs.  And the search that still doesn't work after more than a year.  And the long list of bugs never resolved.  And no customer support worth talking about.  It gives the impression of a shoestring operation, struggling through from one day to the next.

And now we get this subs announcement.  It's clearly aimed at stemming the flow of customers to Shutterstock.  There might even be a plan to revitalise iStock.  But without resources?  And no live sales reporting?  And lack of staff?

And then what happens to Thinkstock?  Are they going to kill Thinkstock and put all those resources, advertising etc into iStock?  That would be counter to everything they've done to iStock over the last two or three years.  And would make iStock a direct competitor to Thinkstock.

Doesn't make the slightest bit of sense to me.  Unless, of course, there's something more important going on and they've had independent analysis that tells them they've been wrong with their iStock strategy and a new period of investment and growth will ensue.

I've read this entire thread from start to finish, and I must say I'm astonished by the actions of Deposit and ShotShop.  I don't have any personal involvement because I'm exclusive iStock/Getty, but I'd like to add my commiserations to all those affected by this situation.

It seems to me inconceivable that Deposit could not have known that photographers were being fleeced by this deal.  And it also seems very unlikely indeed that they would have entered into this arrangement if there wasn't some significant financial benefit to Deposit.  There is certainly massive financial incentive for ShotShop who appear to be actively selling photographer's work knowing that they are paying hardly any compensation to those photographers.

Extraordinary and unacceptable behaviour.

The extra money this month is something to do with the Getty 360 scheme.  Lobo has confirmed that Getty 360 sales are being reported in the PP.

For those who are not aware, a few months ago Getty announced a new scheme called Getty 360.  This is a private web site available only to Getty's largest customers.  The site merges all Getty, iStock and PP content into one place and allows those customers to browse everything on the one site.

I presume that one reason for reduced 'normal' sales from iStock is the transfer of large accounts to the new Getty arrangement.  However, 'lost' sales from those accounts are now being credited in the PP numbers.

I hope this makes sense.

Oops, I didn't notice the date.  I just saw it under the sale announcement.  I wondered why nobody here had mentioned it.....

Perhaps leaf should just delete this thread.....