Author Topic: bigstock? (Read 12707 times)

stockastic · « **on:** February 26, 2011, 14:30 »

What's happening with the recently hyped "bridge to bigstock"? I know a few contributors were invited in January, that's the last I heard of it.

On the Shutterstock site it says the 2 companies have different markets: "Shutterstock to high volume image users and Bigstock to users who only need a few images at a time." In the same page it says that only "high-volume" contributors are being invited over to BigStock. Is it just me, or is this self-contradictory?

So are they just creating yet another outlet for Yuri, and competing with themselves on price - or could this actually be a channel for lower volume/higher price images?

disorderly · « **Reply #1 on:** February 26, 2011, 15:05 »

It's just you. If you read what you just wrote, the difference is obvious. Your first statement refers to users, i.e. customers. The second refers to contributors, i.e. sellers, i.e. us. Shutterstock sees itself as appealing largely to people and companies that buy a lot of images, while BigStock fits better with lower volume one-at-a-time purchases. They want more sellers with large portfolios to offer their/our work at BigStock, so they offer to help. Of course, those of us who are already well represented at both sites aren't the target for this program. What would be the point?

stockastic · « **Reply #2 on:** February 26, 2011, 15:28 »

Ok, so it's a perfect match - high-volume sellers and low-volume customers. In other words, WalMart. Huh?

Well never mind that. What about my actual question - does anyone know the current status of this deal?

gostwyck · « **Reply #3 on:** February 26, 2011, 15:58 »

It's working well for me. They transferred a couple of thousand images that I couldn't be bothered to upload to Bigstock myself. Now, when I upload a batch to SS, the images are also transferred to BigStock shortly afterwards. Great programme as far as I'm concerned and this month my BigStock income is projected to be 50% above Feb 2010.

stockastic · « **Reply #4 on:** February 26, 2011, 16:10 »

If they're migrating the biggest selling portfolios, that obviously means they want to homogenize the content, and sell exactly the same stuff on both sites. So what's the point? If the 2 groups of buyers want the same stuff, why run 2 sites? I already know the answer: different 'pricing plans'.

I'll bet they end up with nothing but 2 web sites, operated by the same people, running on the same servers, and selling from the same image database. And putting all their efforts into ever-more-convoluted marketing schemes.

lisafx · « **Reply #5 on:** February 26, 2011, 16:20 »

I'll admit, when SS first bought BigStock I figured they would be closing it down eventually. I am glad to have been wrong, though.

Could be that Getty's acquisition of StockXpert set a good example of what NOT to do. The customers from StockXpert certainly didn't seem to all flock to Istock, or TS either. Lots of those sales were simply lost to other agencies.

Presumably this push to get SS content on BigStock, and the other improvements they are making at BigStock, indicate they are serious about keeping it open and keeping that segment of their buying market.

Seems like a smart move to me.

stockastic · « **Reply #6 on:** February 26, 2011, 17:13 »

Quote from: lisafx on February 26, 2011, 16:20

ISeems like a smart move to me.

I hope you're right. But I can't let go of the bricks-and-mortar analogies. On the internet, all stores are side-by-side and the idea that you can have 2 virtual storefronts, both selling the same goods, differentiated by "decor" and pricing plans, strikes me as a boat anchor. It might work if one site is in Chinese and one is in English.

But separate sites for high-volume vs low-volume buyers? Are the search results supposed to be different? Or just the fonts and colors? I don't get it.

lisafx · « **Reply #7 on:** February 26, 2011, 17:23 »

Quote from: stockastic on February 26, 2011, 17:13

I can't let go of the bricks-and-mortar analogies. On the internet, all stores are side-by-side and the idea that you can have 2 virtual storefronts, both selling the same goods, differentiated by "decor" and pricing plans, strikes me as a boat anchor. It might work if one site is in Chinese and one is in English.

But separate sites for high-volume vs low-volume buyers? Are the search results supposed to be different? Or just the fonts and colors? I don't get it.

Sounds like you have an idea of what's going on. Would be interested in hearing your theory on what the eventual endgame is?

stockastic · « **Reply #8 on:** February 26, 2011, 17:36 »

Quote from: lisafx on February 26, 2011, 17:23

Sounds like you have an idea of what's going on. Would be interested in hearing your theory on what the eventual endgame is?

Not sure if you're serious or just pointing out my ignorance, but in either case I've probably expressed enough cynicism for one day. What do I see happening here? Just another mindless corporate acquisition, the usual big talk about 'synergy' that isn't based on anything real, and the acquisition eventually shut down.

A microstock inventory is good until the clothes in the photos go out of style. These guys don't want to spend more millions reviewing images or editing keywords. They want marketers to come up with more ways to repackage what they already have.

As is often the case, I hope to be proven wrong.

lisafx · « **Reply #9 on:** February 26, 2011, 17:49 »

Quote from: stockastic on February 26, 2011, 17:36

Quote from: lisafx on February 26, 2011, 17:23
Sounds like you have an idea of what's going on. Would be interested in hearing your theory on what the eventual endgame is?

Not sure if you're serious or just pointing out my ignorance, but in either case I've probably expressed enough cynicism for one day. What do I see happening here? Just another mindless corporate acquisition, the usual big talk about 'synergy' that isn't based on anything real, and the acquisition eventually shut down.

A microstock inventory is good until the clothes in the photos go out of style. These guys don't want to spend more millions reviewing images or editing keywords. They want marketers to come up with more ways to repackage what they already have.

As is often the case, I hope to be proven wrong.

I was serious

Your theory sounds as plausible as any to me. Being cynical also, I assumed the same thing until I saw the efforts to improve BigStock. Since they haven't acted as I expected, I am confused, but cautiously optimistic...

None of us knows what's going to happen in this industry. Some of my best guesses and most ardently held views have turned out dead wrong! I remember arguing vehemently that Getty wouldn't do something stupid like shutting down StockXpert. It may have been stupid, but they went and did it anyway.

One big reason I enjoy this forum so much is I get to read everybody's theories, and some of them are a lot smarter than mine!

gostwyck · « **Reply #10 on:** February 26, 2011, 17:56 »

Quote from: stockastic on February 26, 2011, 17:36

Not sure if you're serious or just pointing out my ignorance, but in either case I've probably expressed enough cynicism for one day. What do I see happening here? Just another mindless corporate acquisition, the usual big talk about 'synergy' that isn't based on anything real, and the acquisition eventually shut down.

It's quite simple. SS and BigStock have separate employees although they are now housed in the same building. Each agency appeals to a different market sector so that's why BigStock won't be shut down.

I don't see it as any different to Getty who, as well as the 'big name agency', also have IS, TS, JUI & PC within their stable. I do think shutting down StockXpert was a huge mistake on their part though and a gift to their competitors.

Having different products to appeal to different types of customer is a well a known strategy. That's why nearly all those washing powders on your supermarket shelves are made by just two companies, Unilever and P&G.

visceralimage · « **Reply #11 on:** February 26, 2011, 22:11 »

I would like to see them unify the uploading process to only one agency; but keep the two agencies separate. It is really no problem to upload to both as I use lightburner and it is automated but the submission process at BigStock is a bit more arduous than SS. It would be nice to save that little bit of extra effort.

My sales are at zero at BigStock but only there for three weeks with a bit more than 500 images online. At SS, about 650 images with over 100 sales in two weeks. My pockets are bulging with all those quarters from SS.

stockastic · « **Reply #12 on:** February 27, 2011, 11:33 »

What I'm really asking is: when are the rest of us going to be allowed in on this marvelous synergy? I'm already getting 33 cents from high-volume buyers, now I want to get 33 cents from low-volume buyers too :-)

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #13 on:** February 27, 2011, 11:46 »

Quote from: stockastic on February 27, 2011, 11:33

What I'm really asking is: when are the rest of us going to be allowed in on this marvelous synergy? I'm already getting 33 cents from high-volume buyers, now I want to get 33 cents from low-volume buyers too :-)

I don't think I ever got 33 cents from BigStock. Most of my sales are a dollar to three dollars. Fifty cents (I'm pretty sure) has be the minimum? It really is a totally different place, and until recently, were much more particular about what they accepted than was ShutterStock.

stockastic · « **Reply #14 on:** February 27, 2011, 12:50 »

So as the big portfolios are linked to BigStock, all those low-volume buyers paying $1-$3 commissions are now going to be seeing tons of images they could be getting for a lot less, next door at SS. This couldn't be just a gimmick to herd them over to subscriptions at SS?

How can I possibly be so cynical?

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #15 on:** February 27, 2011, 12:56 »

Quote from: stockastic on February 27, 2011, 12:50

So as the big portfolios are linked to BigStock, all those low-volume buyers paying $1-$3 commissions are now going to be seeing tons of images they could be getting for a lot less, next door at Shutterstock. This couldn't be just a gimmick to herd them over to subscriptions at Shutterstock?

How can I possibly be so cynical?

I must be missing something? Will this link change the customers' buying habits? Won't the large spenders continue to buy via subscription while the smaller buyers continue to buy only what they need?

Phil · « **Reply #16 on:** February 27, 2011, 14:56 »

I couldn't see it changing anything for buyers.

but ss helps ensure that there biggest contributers are on BigStock and they are only paying for reviewing once, making BigStock more profitable.

stockastic · « **Reply #17 on:** February 27, 2011, 18:27 »

Warren, my feeling is that SS would really like to have all their buyers on subscriptions, and will be coming up with more and more plans aimed at different sorts of buyers. Let's see what they do with BigStock.

The big advantage to the agency is that a subscription breaks the connection between what was paid for an image and what the contributor receives - it destroys the notion of a 'commission'. With a subscription, there's no simple way to determine what the buyer paid for a particular image. The agency can simply maintain that some arbitrary part of the subscription cost is an up-front "fee", from which contributors get nothing. In this system, the photographer's "commission" is simply whatever the agency chooses to pay out.

Sandralise · « **Reply #18 on:** February 27, 2011, 19:03 »

I was just invited last week to their program. I don't have a large portfolio at SS but have much less on Bigstock so for me I'm quite
happy they are migrating the extra images over there.
Sales have been good but I'm hoping it will give a big boost to my portfolio's exposure and sales.

Kone · « **Reply #19 on:** February 27, 2011, 19:58 »

Hi all,
I am one of them and I don't see problem with that. There is no deal. Now I just have to submit to Shutterstock and they do the rest of the work for me and my images are accepted to BS as well. They transfer files and categorize them for me, so they save me time. Right now I see a slight increase in sale at BS. I hope it will stay like that. I don't know why but it is increase and I like it. My portfolio there is a bit over 7500 files.
Isn't that that we all wish sometimes, you submit files in one place and they appear everywhere else. And it is free of charge.

Kone

gwhitton · « **Reply #20 on:** February 27, 2011, 20:56 »

Quote from: stockastic on February 27, 2011, 12:50

So as the big portfolios are linked to BigStock, all those low-volume buyers paying $1-$3 commissions are now going to be seeing tons of images they could be getting for a lot less, next door at Shutterstock. This couldn't be just a gimmick to herd them over to subscriptions at Shutterstock?

How can I possibly be so cynical?

Stockastic,

Take it from a small-time buyer, there is a chasm of difference between Bigstock and Shutterstock. Despite Shutterstock's cheap "per image" prices, none of their subscriptions will be cheaper than Bigstock for me, until I have such a high volume of image requests from my clients to warrant maintaining a continuous subscription to their site. And there thousands of others just like me.

stockastic · « **Reply #21 on:** February 27, 2011, 21:36 »

Quote from: gwhitton on February 27, 2011, 20:56

Quote from: stockastic on February 27, 2011, 12:50
So as the big portfolios are linked to BigStock, all those low-volume buyers paying $1-$3 commissions are now going to be seeing tons of images they could be getting for a lot less, next door at Shutterstock. This couldn't be just a gimmick to herd them over to subscriptions at Shutterstock?

How can I possibly be so cynical?

Stockastic,

Take it from a small-time buyer, there is a chasm of difference between Bigstock and Shutterstock. Despite Shutterstock's cheap "per image" prices, none of their subscriptions will be cheaper than Bigstock for me, until I have such a high volume of image requests from my clients to warrant maintaining a continuous subscription to their site. And there thousands of others just like me.

I hope that continues to be true. But as i posted above, I think the real reason for pushing subscriptions is to break the 'commission' model. So watch for cheaper, smaller subscription plans to be announced, aimed at Bigstock's market.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #22 on:** February 27, 2011, 23:48 »

Quote from: stockastic on February 26, 2011, 17:36

Quote from: lisafx on February 26, 2011, 17:23
Sounds like you have an idea of what's going on. Would be interested in hearing your theory on what the eventual endgame is?

Not sure if you're serious or just pointing out my ignorance, but in either case I've probably expressed enough cynicism for one day. What do I see happening here? Just another mindless corporate acquisition, the usual big talk about 'synergy' that isn't based on anything real, and the acquisition eventually shut down.

A microstock inventory is good until the clothes in the photos go out of style. These guys don't want to spend more millions reviewing images or editing keywords. They want marketers to come up with more ways to repackage what they already have.

As is often the case, I hope to be proven wrong.

I think you said something else at the same time.

This brings all the new images from the biggest sellers and producers into Bigstock and invigorates the collection there, as well as making it much larger at the same time. That means new material faster.

Another way to look at it for the artists is The Rich Get Richer

In other threads people have commented on how IS is driving out the smaller producers and new shooters. This will have the same effect. You have just been carpet bombed by a couple million new images that took no review, no keywording and nothing but a bridge.

Looks to me like SS isn't trying to kill off BigStock but trying to bring in more new and high quality material that some bigger artists wouldn't have taken the time to upload to a smaller site?

Like others the lowest sale I've had on BigStock is 50c but the quarters add up faster on SS. Different markets, different buyers, same images.

Have you ever heard of Yum brands? They all sell franchised food, they all compete with each other. They are all owned by one Corp.

Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Long John Silver’s and A&W.

Some stores are KFC/Taco Bell, I've seen a KFC/Long John Silver and a Taco Bell/Long John Silver.

As long as SS and BigStock pay me, I'm happy. I'm not so sure I see some conspiracy here to drive anything down, just to bring in more sales of more images. It's not always about us?

lisafx · « **Reply #23 on:** February 28, 2011, 10:18 »

Quote from: stockastic on February 27, 2011, 21:36

I hope that continues to be true. But as i posted above, I think the real reason for pushing subscriptions is to break the 'commission' model. So watch for cheaper, smaller subscription plans to be announced, aimed at Bigstock's market.

I think in general, you are right about this trend. It's certainly true of agencies that started as PPD and then added subs.

But in the case of Shutterstock, they seem to be moving in the opposite direction. They started as a subs site and remained exclusively subs for years. Only a couple of years ago they seemed to recognize the importance of tapping into the market for single-image, low volume buyers. They added credit packs (basically PPD) on Shutterstock, and shortly after bought BigStock. I interpret these actions to mean they want a piece of both pies.

FWIW, I mostly had the same images on both sites, with very few exceptions. My sales at BigStock have dropped this month, significantly. I assume that is a result of the flood of images from the "Bridge" program. I am in the bridge program, but I am still feeling the dilution of sales.

stockastic · « **Reply #24 on:** February 28, 2011, 12:55 »

The way I see it, the microstocks would no doubt like to raise prices to their customers over time. But percentage-based payments to contributors would eat into those increases.

So one goal has to be to get rid off of the 'commission' model and come up with new marketing plans where the selling price isn't disclosed to the contributor - in fact, where there is no simple answer to the question "what did the buyer pay for the image?".

A simple way to do this is a subscription, where no commission is paid on the up-front subscription fee; we get paid an essentially arbitrary amount per sale. SS can raise their subscription rates without increasing payments to us; or just reduce our payments. They're still called commissions, but they're not.

Now SS owns the brand name and customer list of Bigstock. Watch for creative pricing schemes that move at least part of the buyer's payment out of the individual sale transaction. That doesn't mean pure subscriptions, necessarily, just ways to disguise payments for images as "service fees". Maybe the small buyer pays $10 a month to "join" the agency, and then gets discounts on individual image purchases; we get nothing from that $10 and percentage-based commissions go down.

I'm just speculating, of course, and don't have any inside knowledge of this business.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: bigstock? (Read 12707 times)

stockastic

disorderly

stockastic

gostwyck

stockastic

lisafx

stockastic

lisafx

stockastic

lisafx

gostwyck

visceralimage

stockastic

WarrenPrice

stockastic

WarrenPrice

Phil

stockastic

Sandralise

Kone

gwhitton

stockastic

RacePhoto

lisafx

stockastic

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors