FWIW - I am not claiming that this whole thing is necessarily entirely squared quite just yet. There are definitely a few anomalies which I am sure will be resolved. And I would be the last person to speak for iStock.

In terms of the PP the distinction between from and on seems to work perfectly well in that context. Which is where I came in.

Haven't they shoved stuff in from Getty's collections and possibly from elsewhere and put that "only from istock" line on it? Yuri's "only from iStock" files  should be labelled "only from Yuri", since he, not istock is the one who supplies them to the other agencies.

I am not not responding. But, simply, I am not going to comment on (stick my nose into) someone else�s business. I am not going to speculate about any contributor, agency etc.

Especially as I don't care.

@Sean - you will find that most, probably all, agencies will use expression such as "our content", "our images" etc. It does not imply ownership.

Quote from: bhr on November 13, 2013, 14:17

Quote from: mlwinphoto on November 13, 2013, 14:07

Pretty difficult to flaunt the 'Only on iStock' theme if most of the exclusive content is on the PP.

It's from, not on.

Would you care to explain that nuance. L*bo came out with it, but I don't see the technical difference, as they're clearly not only 'from' iStock either.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but in this context it seems completely obvious that content uploaded to iStock which is also part of the PP or is sold at GI is from iStock. From iStock the brand. Clearly it is not only on iStock, the portal.

^ winning

just minus-ed you both

the internet man ?

Quote from: tickstock on November 13, 2013, 11:27

Sorry just joking with gostwyck, I should have added quotes.  He said that about the Getty 360 deal before.  Now it seems to be a nice surprise?

What are you talking about? I couldn't have expressed an opinion about the "Getty 360 deal" because I don't even know what it is. I've heard references to it but assumed it was something to do with exclusives.

What exactly is the Getty 360 deal?

Here is your response from March in a thread in which it was being discussed with respect specifically to non-exclusives. You even quoted a bit about 360:

Quote from: tickstock on March 22, 2013, 16:56

Quote from: sjlocke on March 22, 2013, 16:52

Quote from: tickstock on March 22, 2013, 16:42

Quote from: sjlocke on March 22, 2013, 16:39

Quote from: tickstock on March 22, 2013, 16:35

As far as I can tell and from what has been said (read what I quoted above, standard Getty pricing) this is just offering all Istock content to a small amount of buyers at the normal prices.  Big buyers might get a discount but I don't know how much, I've said what my average RPD is at Getty so I would expect about the same from this.  Getty Connect is a totally different model and I don't think it has any similarity to this deal at all.

To come into this without the ability to comment on the actual pricing details is just asking for trouble.  Look, it's hidden behind a log in.  You'll never know what the prices are, how big the discounts are, or anything.  All you'll know is you got $2 for a sale.

That's how the mirroring of Vetta, Agency and E+ already is, isn't it?  I don't see any additional problems coming from this, please correct me if I'm wrong.  I have some $1 Getty sales and some $80 sales but the average is higher than Istock.

Well, you're wrong because we can go look at the pricing of those.  You can't see the pricing of 360.

We can't actually look at the pricing (what the buyer pays) of course, $1 sales are impossible for me since the lowest price is $10 when I go to the website but some buyers get discounts.  Lobo has said: " the fact that they will be licensing content at the Getty Images Standard RF pricing ".    I think the pricing(what is written on the website) will be the same but the discount unknown as is the case now.

I really can't believe what a total c**k you are making of yourself here in defending what is so clearly against the interests of all contributors.

The proposition, when it happens, is that Getty will be selling an unknown variety of OUR images to unknown buyers, at an unknown price, at an unknown discount with, effectively, an unknown value to the OWNER OF THE CONTENT (and you don't actually have any real choice about it) with no possibility of said owner of content being able to check that sales are being reported. Good luck with that.

At least with any other of Getty/Istock sales we have the opportunity to become 'secret shoppers' in that we could actually club together and test whether sales are being reported properly. With the 'exclusive' nature of 'Getty 360' we can't even do that.

If Getty wanted to design a system by which they could effectively pay zero royalties, because there was no possibility that the content providers could actually track any sales, then this would be it.

However, if it's keep going like this PP sales will be the BME

OMG - that will confound the miserablists.

Makes you wonder why so many people choose to continue to pay up to 85% for this service?

It's been a long, a long time coming
But I know a change gonna come, oh yes it will

As far as the stock image market, I think it continues to grow

The stock image market is not a single market. For a while over the past decade microstock and especially subscription has eaten into higher priced stock. I doubt that the microstock market is now growing. Certainly sites can trade microstock and subscription customers between each other. But if one company's microstock or subscription offering gains share - today that probably means that another's has lost share.

I doubt today the wisdom of sites buying each other's brands with the same content and in the same markets - especially given the headaches of integration. Probably much easier to get their customers by competing on price. The reason to buy another site would be for unique access into a different market.

SS is reporting growth since the first day, when are they going to decrease if I may ask?

My guess would be ... when they are no longer able to take customers from other sites - or when and if other companies start winning back customers from them - even at cost. But, of course, there are plenty of ways in which they can string it out even with diminishing customer growth.

The market for cheap microstock subscription content is not growing - the sites are trading customers with each other and the total pool of customers is not growing. The stock commentators are getting this wrong IMO. Also remember that the stock (i.e. shares) market is trading on very low volume.

SS did well in a new and growing market and then, in recent years, by taking customers from other sites. But they are basically over-exposed to microstock subscription IMO.

My guess is that things will seem great unless or until stock market prices start to change direction - and for the past few years prices have been underpinned by government liquidity. The thing you always have to remember is that there is no new or different economy. It is always the same patterns we saw with other companies, in other economies. What goes up relatively, comes down. Always.

At Shutterstock, they love Shutterstock, they love their contributors, they love their buyer, and they want everybody to do well, and have the same positive outlook. Everyone at Shutterstock is committed to the company and shares in Jon�s passion. It�s no good to them to turn the contributors against them. So in that light, a raise might not be possible, but it also means we shouldn�t worry about a cut or something similar. Shutterstock believes that the royalties set as is generates the right balance of contributor earnings and business growth.  Business growth is important for all of us.

Wouldn't you get a raise if prices increased - otherwise wouldn't that imply a gradually decreasing royalty percentage ? At some point you surely have to get a raise or else inflation will decrease the value of your %age or rising prices will diminish the rate.

I am neutral - but also fascinated by how these things play out over the years. I cannot get away from the belief that as a business SS is over-exposed to old-fashioned microstock and the subscription market specifically. It seems to me that this over exposure represents a stunning vulnerability. Obviously the stock has done very well - but in an extraordinary rising market - like the tide which rises all ships. And most of the commentary I have seen about this stock seems to have significantly missed many significant points - particularly about the realistic size of the microstock market. I think it could easily have gone either way with the IPO and they came out lucky. So far.

I do not see any evidence that the market for microstock and subscription is growing. I believe it is diminishing. Granted they can target customers at smaller microstock sites. But they also face competition from their own contributors with content at other sites which could choose to undercut them. And where are they apart from in microstock ? Their entry into mid stock has passed almost un-noticed so far.