Good words gone bad

I had to google chook! New word for today

Welcome.

As you'll see from reading here, you've started at a most "interesting" time for microstock.

Hi - you are in luck - I recently wrote a blog post on just this subject!

http://stockcube-stockcube.blogspot.com/

Best of luck, Bridget

Very helpful blog post.

One part didn't correspond with my experience, however. I had DT suspend my account so that I could upload while I was waiting out my 30 days notice at iStock. I was able to have images be approved during that time, and given DT's weekly upload limits, the advantage of uploading while waiting is to be able to get as much of your portfolio on line as soon as possible. Their limits make that hard for a large port. I did this in May 2011, so perhaps things have changed since, but I did get images inspected and approved while the account was suspended.

There may not be a direct and obvious connection, but over the long run, csproduction's point is valid.   Assuming that price and selection are at least comparable, simplicity and ease of use will prevail. 

What I notice about many of the sites is that they never advance past rev 1.0.   The company spends a lot of time and money to create the site, and then it's frozen for all time and never evolves or (substantially) improves.   A price will be paid, eventually, for that lack of investment.

To use Canstock as an example, they've never sat on the laurels and have been innovating - both for buyers and contributors - since the site began. They had image zoom before anyone else. They had a great notion of series (contributor defined) with a collapsed display in searches so you could avoid those results with masses of similars, and so on. They started out with much higher pricing than iStock - with a notion of being fair to photographers - and photographers got 50%. They lowered prices later on (I assume trying to compete).

The sales have never been there. It's a shame, but it is not a lack of investment in the site that's the problem.

No correlation whatever.

I'd put Canstock in the good upload bad sales column, but otherwise agree with disorderly's summary.

PhotoDune has decent sales and a so-so upload process - it's so far away from SS's which is I think the best out there that I don't think they belong in the same bucket.

Agree with gostwyck that today's announcement is corporate blah blah with no real meaning.

@cobalt. In the iStock thread you mentioned concern over Getty editors making choices over where content goes. i think that's a real concern. I have two brothers who submitted music to Pump Audio prior to the time Getty bought it. It had done well for them. After Getty bought it things went OK for a while but recently they wondered what happened to their new submissions as they couldn't find them at Pump Audio. Contacting Getty about this they were told that Getty decided they'd be best at iStock - where they haven't sold at all. So their old stuff at Pump still sells but they can't get new stuff there.

It certainly seems clear that the new regime doesn't plan to have a visible presence - and a name - in the iStock forums. They won't even put a name out there - I'd love to see a post from this he/she who will not be named HQ account on the importance of the iStock community

Interesting that one of ThinkStock's selling points is "simplicity". Wonder who they're trying to differentiate themselves from?

If I had to guess, this is insider thinking from some Getty folks - it's simpler than RM license pricing or their main site with both RM and RF plus a pile of collections. This ignores the fact that there are a bunch of other micro sites out there that are equally simple. If you were comparing SS and TS, I don't think you'd find TS "simpler".

Is that Kelley Thompson at ShutterStock?

Kelley (vs. Kelly) has hg for last name and says they were let go in July, so I think it isn't KKT.

... but I think we're about to see iStock get swallowed up by the Getty machine. the question is whether to go with the flow or walk the plank and hope the sharks are friendly

I think there are negative ramifications of trouble at iStock for all of us who sell there - independents for whom it is one of the top earners (even if smaller than it was), and exclusives for whom the Getty-run business may be as shark infested as independent waters seem to be. I think it will mean lower royalty percentages, fewer choices over where your content goes (I think the opt out for the partner program will very soon be gone, for example).

I think that a flood of new content from departing exclusives may dilute earnings for independents at other sites, although that might improve as more buyers migrate to find the content.

That curse - may you live in interesting times - comes to mind.

In particular, it suggests to me that decisions about content - what's accepted, where it goes, etc. - are all moving to Getty. If I had to make a guess, I'd say that iStock will become an input portal for Getty Images "crowdsourced" content. Down to Thinkstock/photos.com or up to Getty (Vetta/Agency).

JJRD's leaving!

Pursuing other interests or spending more time with your family are both ways of saying someone's been pushed out, IMO.

I feel bad for someone who relocates and is then dumped, but I do think it was pretty predictable this would happen when you're offered VP after being COO of a business unit (which always seemed like one of those temporary slots used to move people out without a fuss). Given that my opinion of Kelly's tin ear for the iStock community and how his messages would go over, perhaps he's just really bad at reading people and situations and couldn't read Getty's messages to him any more than he could read those of contributors to iStock.

I hope he can land on his feet somewhere, but I hope it's a million miles from any stock agency or software development outfit I am in any way associated with.

"us indies" can always go exclusive and get a fair price for your work, a higher commision and so on. (much MORE then you get anywhere else).

There are a number of indies who are ex-exclusives. From my point of view "fair" ended in September 2010.

Now I'm back with fewer dollars per transaction in many cases (not all) and more transactions. It's the monthly total for my porfolio that I measure.

Even so, many of my iStock extended licenses are less than the $28 I make at SS. The $3.37 I earned last week from a medium at DT beats most of the large sales I've had at iStock. The Single sales at SS are more than most of my large and some XL and up sales at iStock . $2.28 for an XS at CanStock's parent beats every iStock XS. This notion that everything at iStock is much more is just a massive oversimplification.