I�d love to hear how that goes. With 1 dollar a year it will be a numbers game.

And thanks Sue for the interesting examples. Yes, it looks like they have customers all over.

I am going into town tomorrow, we have a lot of xmas markets open now. So I�ll try to shoot for istock editorial, maybe take some editorial videos for pond5 and think of what I can do for alamy as well. I�ll upload to istock immediatly, maybe it will go live in time to be sold tis year and process the rest over the holidays, or whenever I have time for it.

Alamy will be adding video next year, so that is why I want to learn how their system works. I suppose they will take editorial video as well.

Just found this on their press page:

http://www.alamy.com/pressreleases/2011/earn_money_from_your_photos.asp

Really impressive.

Very interesting, thank you. So I could upload normal content and just wait and see what happens. This might be easier to leave in RM.

I think I�ll browse through the alamy collection a bit more. I think if someone has thousands of images there, they must know what they are doing.

One sale per 100 images per year?

What is the average payout for these sales?

The payouts must be extremely high, otherwise surely nobody would bother uploading thousands of files?

If I had my 3000 images there and only got 30 sales at 10 dollars...I mean you can earn more than that in 2 or 3 days on istock.

I hope it gets fixed tomorrow, it is really frustrating that I can�t see my last downloads.

And yes, i do worry what else will break while they try to fix this bug...

 

"I don't think we can say that the sale of iStock is irrelevant. the details of the sale between Bruce and Getty may no longer be relevant (maybe that's what you meant Jasmin?). but the sale has completely shifted the iStock infrastructure. "

I meant that it is the decision of the CURRENT management that is giving us the results we see. They could have decided to continue it along the path Bruce set up.

And most of the people I know are earning a lot more now than in 2006 and those who are good at shooting vetta and agency are doing extremely well. And I don't see any site out there that can replace istock's earning power. If you go independent, you still have to sign up with at least 4 agencies to replace what you got from as an exclusive. If the other business managers are so much better, why haven't they overtaken istock? They've had 5 years since the sale...?

I see a lot of blame being shifted to Bruce, which IMO deflects from the responsibility of the current management.

They, and they alone are responsible for how the business is being run.

I am sorry, but all that nostalgia about Bruce won�t get us anyhwere. And again, nobody knows if he really would have continued to be successful with istock if Getty had bought a different stock site. He wasn�t the only player in the market and getty was out to buy a company. You cannot just take a point of time in the past and "extrapolate a better present". That is wishful thinking.

Also for me being part of Getty is a very positive thing, because I really enjoy how well my portfolio is doing over there. This is money and an opportunity that I would not have had, if this sale had not taken place.

Again - those in charge NOW are responsible. Noone else.

I also don�t buy into this "but Getty always behaves like that"- getty is a business. It has owners. It has managers. Nobody is stopping them from evolving as a company, bringing in new technology, hiring new managers with a solid background in growing a business on the internet. Every single day those managers take decisions. Every day they have to realign their business with the current market situation.

It is not a law of nature for getty "to behave in a certain way"

They can take their company any direction they like. Or any directions the owners want it to go. It is a free enterprise, not a state run bureau.

So that is why for me, the past is over, and whatever Bruce did or did not do makes no difference to me.

I focus on the here and now, always.  

actually I know quite a few people who joined ww and never got the weight back. however controlling body weight is a complex issue. if it was easy to solve with a solution that worked for everyone, the whole world wold be slim.

I was not judging the ww program, just that anyone in charge of a franchise business that had mostly small time entrepreneurs as business partners would have useful, comparable experience to supporting digital entrepreneurs who are connected globally through the internet and usually work alone or in very small teams.

This is different from say a business manager who was in charge of the Mc Donalds franchise, where the franchisees are running larger businesses, up to 40 employees, the business was dependent on the local market etc...

I mean if you want to hire an outsider to lead a microstock operation - where do you find a suitable manager?

anyway...

However I disagree with you that all microsites and their relationships with their business partners are the same.

The quality of a business partner I work with can be tremendously influenced by whoever is in charge of the place. A highly successful company can be ruined in a few months by an incompetent manager. Or it can blossom with the right one. So I believe this thread, if it looks at the behaviour and experiences contributors have had with the different agencies is very valuable.

But to differentiate into "evil or good", that makes no sense to me at all. After all - are the photographers all good and never "evil"? Do they not do everything they can to maximize their profit?

Just because they are small businesses doesn�t make them "victims" of "large cooperations" or makes them more ethical in any way.  They are not even more vulnerable, their small size makes them much more flexible than the agencies. They can sell wherever they want, to whomever they want - globally.

Their success just depends on the skills of the digital entrepreneur himself (herself).

But I don�t want to move too much off topic, I�ll let you guys continue and watch from the sidelines. I have very limted experience with agencies outside of istock/getty.

Actually the fact that the President was at weigtwatchers for over 8 years, makes him a good candidate for leading a microstock site. Weightwatchers is based on thousands of small time, very local entrepreneurs who although they work at their own risk have the support of an international franchise behind them.

So if he was successful at growing the weight watchers business (was he?? - I have no idea?), he should have very good operational experience with an international freelancing sales team.

But this is just from looking at his CV on the internet. I have no idea if he has had any impact on the SS business.

The concept of "finding and growing the sales warrior diamonds" is something he should be familiar with.

That was a fantastic, coherent, informative post!

Who are you and what have you done to Christian? 

No doubt he will!

And tell me about the good old days when he and his buddies had to drag their cameras through snow and mud, defend themselves against werewolves and dragons to get their pics delivered to stone in time...

The house contract is a contract with gettyimages directly. Apparently the "Holy Grail" in stock photography that thousands of photographers the world over would love to have.

Thanks to Bruce, now many istockers are "in".

The program was stopped, because for many it was enough to work with the Vetta collection. All V/A files are duplicated on Getty.

But a house contract gives you acces to Getty RM division and many other collections.

It is not a license to print money, but my own results are very good, better than on istock. Others are disappointed and after trying it went back to uploading to istock.

It is an opportunity that other agencies cannot offer you. Unfortunately, if you give up your photo exclusivity with istock, you also lose the Getty contract.

It has no effect on your RC�s with istock. It is just an opportunity to build a second portfolio on Getty itself.

If you do that then the company in the name of your spouse is the legal copyright holder. Which means you need a stable marriage ;-) or at least excellent contracts in case you fall out. And obviously it cannot have a small print saying that basically everything is owned by you, because then you are breaking exclusivity...you�ll definetly need a good lawyer if you want to go that route.

The other thing to consider is the holding time for images on getty.

If you are really giving up exclusivity, I think you will lose your house contract. But getty has much longer holding times than istock, you cannot sell those files anywhere else as long as they have exclusive rights to them.

Of course you will still get paid on any sales, but you can't take them with you after 30 days.

I have no idea how long their lock up period lasts.

Maybe your portfolio is good enough and they keep you, might be worth negotiating directly with them.