Just another piece of data about them. My brothers sell music - via PumpAudio, Revostock and ProductionTrax among others. They tell me that sales at ProductionTrax haven't been good (for the same music that sells well via PumpAudio and Revostock). Beyond their comment I know nothing about the company.

And per image sales are very much more unstable than subscriptions ... you are assuming people are buying large credit packages ... I don't believe that they are ... I suspect that most buyers are buying images as they need them or, if deal with a larger volume, then they are buying the subs ... Someone explain why all the microsites are rushing to sell subs if it does not have financial benefit for them?

I think all the sites (I recall FT, DT and IS mentioning it when they implemented subscriptions) have pressure from some segment of buyers to have a subscription plan. The accounting at their companies prefers the fixed expense for images and they tell the sites they'd like to stay with [fill in site name] rather than go to [somewhere that sells subs] but they need a subscription vs. a package of credits. I guess from the accounting point of view the built-in limits of a subs plan help assure them departments won't go over budget.

I have wondered if iStock was phasing out exclusivity too, but if they were to do that, as someone said above, it would be an entire rebranding of the iStock image and personally I think that would ruin them. I'm interested to see how HQ responds because I want to know how much pull they still have. that is the biggest test as far as I am concerned.

as for devaluing images, I want to understand this issue as much as possible for future reference. how does the proposed photos.com model compare with the existing sub model offered by SS? am I correct in presuming that the SS model is better than the model outlined for photos.com? (I realize that photos.com using shared iStock content is one of the biggest concerns also)

I mentioned this on an IS forum, but I'll post it here too. When Getty sent the letter to PumpAudio contributors telling them their cut was being reduced to 35% from 50%, they also called some of their contributors. I know because two of my brothers are PumpAudio contributors and they got called. If they are willing to become exclusive, they get to keep their 50% commission - at least for now.

I don't think the exclusive status will go away in the short term - but once there are no/few other viable choices, it may go away or see peremptory rate cuts.

Sorry if these seems like a complete downer, but it's my experience, so I'm tossing it in.   Of course, every business situation is unique and things could go in a totally different direction.  My own prediction though is that Getty is going to leave the microstock business in a shambles

It is a downer, but doesn't mean you're wrong

What, if anything, can contributors do to keep a productive environment for us in which to sell our images? It seems that stalling Getty's attempts to undercut the other sites that make money and offer better terms to contributors is a key thing. If there were no other sites (no significant ones; there's always going to be a NewStockOnTheBlock.com popping up every so often) then contributors would have no leverage at all and our take could be reduced almost at will.

If content from StockXpert was largely gone from Photos.com Plus/JIU+ but largely present at other sites, one would think that buyers would prefer SS subscriptions or DT or...

Joe Gough posted in the IS forums about his very small take from the StockXpert/Jupiter sites. If his experience is roughly typical, it should make it relatively painless to remove files there for many.

Then there are IS exclusives - like me - who can opt out of any of the deals (which I will). I guess if the pressure from Getty continues, it'll be time to revisit independence, skipping the StockXpert/Jupiter site of course.

My husband reminded me that I knew of Getty's history and should have expected something like this. It's true, but I didn't think it'd happen so soon and in such a destructive way... At least he didn't say "I told you so"

Quote from: donding on May 07, 2009, 14:55

Personally I feel embarressed for ever getting involved with microstock. I can see all the macro stalkers out their having their laugh and their "I told you so"

donding, no macro stalkers are laughing at this. remember they were there before... when microstock cut in on them. they too had to comply to microstock, and now, for many it 's the second time having the carpet pulled from beneath their feet.
nobody's laughing, only Getty !

However as I keep trying to remind people who make the comparison, with microstock making inroads, it was with new contributors and new content - by and large people the trad agencies wouldn't let in to their market.

In this case, Getty's asking us to do this to ourselves with our own content! What kind of nuts would you have to be to agree to that without something very big in return?

I don't mind changing my avatar, as requested, but my opinion will not be changed so easily. 

JoAnn, love your new avatar.  Very appropriate.

We aim to please, ma'am

Yes, I got the idea that they were sorry they got everyone in an uproar, but I don't know how I can look at things the same way as before this disastrous announcement. The fact that they'd even think for one second it was a good idea says this isn't the foxhole I want to be in...

Quote from: lisafx on May 06, 2009, 12:35

The idea that this is all speculation sounds reasonable.  For istock exclusives it may be true. 

But for those of us who have been through the same situation with Stockxpert as it was taken over my Getty, this is not speculation.  It is a very familiar scenario indeed.

Only difference is that the deal being offered istock exclusives is considerably worse than the one offered StockXpert contributors.  I think they are assuming that the loyalty of istock exclusives to the company and their inexperience with the rest of the industry will cause them to take a deal that is very much against their self interests. 

From some of the comments in this thread and the one on istock they may be right.

it's probably more conditioning than anything else, lisafx. if you've been exclusive for so long, it must be hell trying to unravel a global mentality. it will take time for that, which again I think Getty is betting on this cooling down period to their advantage.
just my tuppence thought.

Not all the exclusives have been so a long time - me for example. I was in the conference call with the Jupiter folks trying to improve the horrible proposals they had for StockXpert - and a number of prior dust-ups with sites trying to impose new terms that were not in contributors' best interests. I have kept roughly abreast of what's been going on at the various sites in the last year as like it or not, there are some things that affect all of us as a group.

Even earlier I've been around software companies that were acquired and I've seen a number of these stories unfold. It's this collection of experiences that informs my best guesses about what is likely to happen. Clearly we don't know what will happen, but waiting until the stuff hits the fan instead of trying to alter the course of events where we can just makes no sense to me.

It's a real shame that some at IS will give this scheme the benefit of the doubt, because the only power we have is to withhold the content from  the Jupiter sites. Getty doesn't care if anyone's upset, but they would take notice if they had no new content to provide to their subscription properties. Once the dribble of stuff starts because some people believe that something is better than nothing, it'll be very very hard to stop the momentum.

Quote from: DanP68 on May 05, 2009, 22:23

In some ways I really feel for the iStock admins.  I don't believe for a second they are on board with Getty's plan.  They are doing their jobs, doing their best to defend the indefensible.  I don't envy their position.

Dan, this is my thought too.  Most of istock's admins have been there for a long time and put their heart and soul into making it what it is today.  This has got to be devastating for them. 

I am guessing they secretly hope contributors raise such hell that this can't be implemented, or at least has to be drastically improved to be fairer to contributors.

I would guess that this isn't what the Calgary folks wanted either. However, even if we manage to stall or change this proposal, how could things return to "normal"? We'll all know that Getty is just waiting to find another way to get the commission down. I'd be looking over my shoulder (and I knew Getty had a truly abysmal track record of contributor relations, but I didn't think they'd try to dismantle the IS system quite so soon).

IMO the folks that think this will bring business to IS are being naive. I still haven't heard anything rational about why the experience over the last year with StockXpert and the Jupiter properties would not play out again in the same way.

While this is particularly calamitous for IS exclusives, I think this is very bad news across the board as I don't expect the more generous 30 cents/30% commissions for StockXpert contributors to  continue unchanged.

Quote from: DanP68 on May 05, 2009, 16:28

Quote from: Milinz on May 05, 2009, 09:00

Ok... Let's find some nice independent agency which cares about authors!

There's already a few of them.  But they don't sell images worth a darn, so what's the point?

they don't have the clout without all your images. any one of them could, if a significant number of dissatisfied exclusives and non moved their port to them.

True, but some of us tried Gimmestock and Albumo and PhotoShelter - Lucky Oliver anyone? Putting images on a site isn't enough.

You need not only a site, but some credible marketing plan to get buyers to the site. Without that, fairness to contributors isn't really more than a nice principle.