What's your laptop resolution? 640x480?  

The problem is I design software and to do it right I design at 1024 x 768, as it is used not only on different PC's but on dumb terminals, and it could be on really old kit in some countries, so all my testing of the GUI has to be done at 1024 x 768.

Back to Getty, I just had a try and picked up an RM image, selected a web use size and single website, it then asks 'In which territories will the image appear?' what a silly question on an intranet I could say which territories but not on the world wide web, the clue is in the name 'World'.

David    

Being a general manager for the country doesn't mean one has to work in it. Particularly for online businesses.

That explains why the general manager of nearly every UK companies call centre speaks with an Indian accent, when I say UK company they are not often owned by UK businesses but just trading here!

Still I suppose we have exported Alamy to the US.

David 

If these are your best images you have a long way to go. And I'm saying this in a friendly fashion, so don't take it too hard, you just may need to upgrade your camera or lenses and practice more.

Is it just the workflow and have you oversized or over processed some of the images, I looked at the Exif for 'Bristlecone 1W.jpg', a 55mb (18mb compressed), 3635 x 5335, 24 bit, and for some reason the Resolution is set at 4000 ppi, it was saved 3 times after conversion from a Tiff to a jpg which if they were edits would degrade the images.

There is no camera information in the exif, so is it a scan or what kit was used, 5335 would be a big sensor on good kit, or it could just be a scan size.

The Polo shot _DSC0718W.jpg from a Nikon D300 @ 500mm (full zoom or fixed?), f8, 400 ISO for 1/1000 of a second, not the sweetest of focal lengths or best ISO, maybe a few test shots to find the sharpest and best range for the Camera and Lens.

For me with submission shots use the K.I.S.S priciple, Keep it Short and Simple good sharp images minimal post processing, always worked for me.

David    

The point that many miss is the usage, you read about web or blog use and the comments tend to say that a website is visited by millions, or a blog is read millions of times, which is not often the case average websites and blogs may get from tens to a few hundred visits, I have 4 websites and they average 250 visitors a month each, many of them are returning visitors.

I would say I am an average blogger that might use small images in their blog posts, I purchase and licence these through Istock because all I need is an xsmall image medium resolution with limited use and Istock is the best value for my money, and I gladly pay 1 credit and may use more than one image in a single post, I will normally use the image only the once to catch the readers eye and illustrate a point, despite the doom and gloom mongers opinions, I am not going to print it, make a poster, presentation or a flyer, and with 5 - 6 images in a blog post it can cost me $10, I might spend $250 in a year to illustrate a point in a blog or article, but would I as a web image user pay more, I think not and I would look for free images instead or purchased RF image DVD or CD collections, as the web post could only get read 20-100 times, my average is about only 50 times, and it is unlikely the average reader will snatch the image, but like in all walks of life the focus will be on those that might abuse something rather than the majority that do not.

As I have written many times now I.M.H.O. the biggest market still to be catered for is web sized image users, to capture this market requires low price points and easy access, the price points on the microsites are about right but the access to using these images is not, as they are not Pay-as-you-go if I need a 1 credit image I may have to buy 10 for �14 so a sale might be lost if I can do without, but we can leave that for another topic.
  
Back to Getty, this is a very wise move as you need to look at current markets and growth, there is no room to move or grow in the current markets, a lot of the Getty customers will have websites and might think about cutting costs and the microsite to source images, if Getty can retain the existing Customers and bring in new Customers for the websize images then it is not a negative move.

David

[I hit your link and registered, assumed it worked as then had to go from that page to create account, be another few weeks before I upload though

Cheers, I have even Blogged about 3DStudio, http://bit.ly/3g7bai

David

I tried 3DStudio uploaded 27th July 2008 2009 and as of today:

Total active products 86
Total Downloads: 4
Total product views: 2,302
Royalties owed: $24.00

My royalty rate: 60%
Images Small: $4.00, Medium: $8.00, Large: $12:00, you can set your own.

Teen Girl with Cell Phone: Price: $8.00 Commission: $4.80
Amur Tiger: Price: $12.00 Commission: $7.20
Colorful Wooden Toy: Price: $12.00 Commission: $7.20
Young Boy: Price: $8.00 Commission: $4.80
Total royalties: $24.00
 
This is my Affiliate Link if you are thinking of joining  

David

and only a $50 payout for Paypal...yea...might want to get that form in ...lol. You might hit payout in August.

You might be right there, less than two weeks, 4 downloads, $24.00 commission:

Royalties owed: $24.00
Total active products 86
Total product views: 2,302
Total product downloads: 4

1 Big Cat image
1 Girl on mobile phone
1 Boy in hat
1 Wooden toy

David  

Quote from: perseus, Who ? on August 06, 2009, 20:01

As you can see, there are some familiar contributors from the Big 6 in here.
No wonder some of you are so worried that John is getting too much notice.

Yes, there are some familiar images from those familiar contributors that we've seen all over the Big 6.
I really haven't seen anyone here worried about anything at all, so I'm not sure to whom you are referring.

We have had some fun lets get back to the business side of Betta,
If you can identify that these familiar images can be purchased cheaper from the big 6 then likewise so can the customers, this then devalues the Betta collection for buyers, which could have the reverse effect, a collection within a library can have a negative effect if they are just images that can be purchased on any library especially if they are priced higher.

Betta is not really based on Vetta or even comparable, the pricipal difference is the photographer and image exclusivity on Istock which is the unique selling point of the Vetta collection and adds the value, I cannot see any unique selling point or added value more than 'we have selected a few images we think you might like'.

On this basis 'Vetta is Betta than Betta' because any purchase I make would mean that the images is not likely to have many random downloads to use up credits from a subscription plan, the Idea is with a collection you are getting something with a value.

Istock might be like Marmite or Vegimite to some people where you 'love it or hate it', but you would avoid any Wannabe imitations, so we have BETTA-A-WANNABE-VETTA but without the product

Yahoo are now just a wannabe Google that have Flickr who do not even backup thier users images and cannot restore a hacked account, they had thier chance and blew it big time!


David            

Why not really go for it, they are all still available at www.whois.com.

www.BettaThanVetta.com
www.BettaThanVetta.net
www.BettaThanVetta.co.uk


David 

Quote from: Adeptris on August 05, 2009, 16:34

There could be a claim that the reference to Vetta is damaging the 'brand' of 'Vetta' but as both are new collections then it would be hard to prove, and any action may never get off the ground and just end in a cease and desist.
With any claim for defamation, slander or libel the onus will be on john to prove that �Betta is better than Vetta, but as it is a subjective media it would be hard to prove the claim either way.

Actually David, I think you got it the other way around.
In  litigation, the burden of proof is placed on Vetta  "to proof the claim Betta than Vetta is false beyond any reasonable doubt"...
not the other way around.

Hi Perseus,
As I understand it libel is the written word, slander is the spoken word, libel would be a civil case where the burden of proof is the reverse of a criminal case, so by publising the text including any falsehood could be seen as libel.

All Istock would have to prove is that the words 'Betta than Vetta' are defamatory and set out to lower the reputation or harm their business in the eyes of right thinking members of society, the onus is on CutCaster the defence to prove that the defamatory words are in fact true as they would need to raise justification as a defence, the fact that they believe them to be true at the time of writing is not a defence.

Since the words were published by CutCaster, Istock could claimed they were libelled and claim damages regardless of whether they suffered any particular loss or not.
 
So in a case where justification is used by the defence it is up to them, the defence, to prove that what they said is correct, and not the plaintiff.

Is it libel is one question another is 'IP', by using the word Vetta within the new CC collection name, as Vetta is a brand name already trading by Istock, if it is registered by Getty or Istock trademark does not matter, it is clear by reference that it relates to the Istock Vetta collection's 'branding', so that could be an IP infringment, and as to legal advice and teams, not many small businesses have teams of lawyers to advise them and only refer to legal advise when there is a problem.

David 

Although I'm obviously not a big fan of IStock, that wasn't really the point I was trying to make.  IStock did introduce a second tier of pricing with Vetta, but it's of no use to me, because I can't choose to sell my images that way - only they can, and only if you're an exclusive.

Stockastic,
Is that not the point of a collection within the library, a selection of images that the site owners not artists feels have an added value, the inclusion will have guidelines and will be subjective, if everyone was allowed to submit thier images the management of the collection would have a much higher cost to maintain, at the moment the cost is minimal as the reviewers have to review all images, and they can just mark any that they feel qualify for the collection.

General Observations:
If you feel you have images that are to good for microstock then there are the midstock and macrostock agencies where the sales are slower but the return is higher, if they are niche then there are often niche agencies, if they are of local interest then there is self promotion, the world is much bigger than microstock.

Sure the agencies and thier customers want higher value assets at rock bottom costs to be purchased at low low prices to bring in new customers I would want that for my business, the question here is should anyone supply them under these terms?

This is a huge business and Istock was the lower end microstock, Getty are the top end traditional, they are missing the middle tier of customers, to target them through Getty would devalue the brand so they have launched vetta, and the other websites will follow this model, the returns will be less than placing the images with specialist middle tier agencies and once they have a big enough share they can squeeze costs and the artists options will be suffer or leave there will always be another artist to fill any gaps.

Microstock was created by photographers to hurt the big agencies that refused the part-time photographer by supplying free images and now the circle is complete they are hurting photographers, it did take some customers from the big agencies but that was not the value of the model, the value they stumbled on was in opening up the market to many millions of new small buyers like me, buyers that buy an image for a blog or article, or small businesses that need a flyer, the IT consultant that needs an image for the website or presentation, the fast growth has now peeked and there is no new markets for microstock so they are looking at getting a foot hold into other existing middle tier markets.  

When these agencies say they talk to buyers they don't mean the majority of small bread an butter buyers but a couple of hundred designers, editors and art directors that make a small part of the business and they are like the agencies the greedy ones that want high value low cost images, the rest of us buyers can find the image we want to add value to our blog, website or presentation are more humble and more than happy with the quality of the images we can licence for a couple of bucks.

If you have assets that you value above microstock the answer is not to get taken in by the hype, but to look for other markets where the image is a better fit, and will get a better return.

David 
  
 

Quote from: Adeptris on August 02, 2009, 09:22

[ Istock alone expects fiscal year revenue to exceed $262 million by 2012, add in all the other microstock agencies and you could be talking $600 million, then add in traditionals and maybe $1 billion, so you can see that even Yuri's revenue is a drop in the ocean.

David        

Your numbers are way out of whack.

Look at this article with the Istock expected revenue of 200 million for 2009 then add 3 years growth.

That is just one agency Istock now add SS and the others from the big six, Getty, Corbis, Alamy and the traditionals main agencies, and all the smaller macrostock, midstock and microstock players and the personal websites, and it will not be far out.

David

Simple Simon shots on a white background are overused. I see hundreds of grade "b" images with the big six agencies.

These types of images are often 'best sellers' and downloaded in thier many thousands every day and are the staple, 'the bread and butter of Microstock', and should not be dismissed so lightly, as they pay the bills for the agencies and some artists, the new higher priced 'quality collections' are a 'nice to have' and will bring in some extra revenue but they are never going to be the normal download price points for microstock.

Hundreds of start-up want to be agencies. Micro must change the days of monkeys with camera for peanuts are history.

Micros are going to have to start focusing on the better contributors. I am surprised that one of the Micro Agencies have not offered Yuri or others bonus commissions for exclusivity.

Business is just about supply and demand not people, because a new CEO of a start up is nice chap and all the artists wish him well because he wants to treat them well, that is all well and good but will not bring in sales, the buyers do not care who took and prepared the image Yuri or a monkey if it fits the requirement.
 
Artists will suffer lower commission from bigger stocksites for commercial reasons, because of pure sales volume and not higher price points, there are far more artists joining the party than there are leaving, the part-time monkeys can buy entry level kit for peanuts, not just cameras but the laptop as well, and revenue what might be peanuts to one monkey might be a reasonable living for another.

The day of the monkeys has just started, just like the flying monkeys in the Wizard of Oz, there is no shortages of new monkeys as the wicked witch in the Wizard of Oz who controlled the flying monkeys said, "Going so soon? I wouldn't hear of it. Why my little party's just beginning", which is very true of microstock, it is a very young business with hugh rapid growth, the option is to join the party or leave, but don't close the door as many more monkeys are expected.   

The fact that there are already hundreds of existing and start up agencies, and services tells the story of demand, it is not cheap to break into the market with any impact, setup and proof of concept could be as much as 500k for a small player, if there was no demand then they just would not be trying, Istock alone expects fiscal year revenue to exceed $262 million by 2012, add in all the other microstock agencies and you could be talking $600 million, then add in traditionals and maybe $1 billion, so you can see that even Yuri's revenue is a drop in the ocean.

David