pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Envato Elements

Author Topic: Bad things about to happen ...  (Read 41669 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

lisafx

« Reply #25 on: October 13, 2009, 18:05 »
0
StockXpert is redundant in the Getty scheme of things.  If they decide to dump the non-exclusives to IS then thats different, but they have their subs in photos.com powered by old IS files, and they have their premium stock at IS, so I'm not sure where StockXpert fits.

Probably good to say the goodbyes now

Sorry for being a Negative Nelly, but I think Ichiro is right here. 

Vast majority of sales in recent months on StockXpert are from the JIU/Photos.com sites.  Grapevine has it that Getty has pulled resources (staff, advertising, etc.) from StockXpert already.  No real reason to keep them going if they aren't going to be feeding those sites. 

And FWIW the reason this concerns me is because StockXpert (and it's partnerships) bring in 6% of my income, which for me is a significant loss.


« Reply #26 on: October 13, 2009, 18:26 »
0

Sorry for being a Negative Nelly, but I think Ichiro is right here. 

Vast majority of sales in recent months on StockXpert are from the JIU/Photos.com sites.  Grapevine has it that Getty has pulled resources (staff, advertising, etc.) from StockXpert already.  No real reason to keep them going if they aren't going to be feeding those sites. 

And FWIW the reason this concerns me is because StockXpert (and it's partnerships) bring in 6% of my income, which for me is a significant loss.


Yeah, I did away with the JIU/Photos .com subscriptions months ago. The end result was my sales plummeting by about seventy percent or so. So unless something changes, many of you will probably experience a drop in earnings. Hopefully, if iStockphoto does shut them down, they will redistribute our money into our iStockphoto accounts. Or just send us payments of whatever is in our Stockxpert accounts at the time of closing.

« Reply #27 on: October 13, 2009, 18:47 »
0
I think the photos.com part is important because it will include exclusive material older than 18 months.  No one has really noticed, but the IS subs don't work very well.  And I think that photos.com will be important because I do think that compared to everywhere else, IS does have a better search so I think they may be using the same type of engine over at photos.com.

Regardless, StockXpert was just part of the package, so they needed to take it and since they did, they killed off a competitor.  This is a great long term thing for the industry.  Consolidation is great and the buyers will have to go somewhere, so its not like they will disappear.  In the end, it will mean higher prices charged, and hopefully, bigger commissions.  When you have too many players, they compete on price.  IS is allowed to get away with their prices because they have selected content not available anywhere else.  The only thing that sucks is that people who submitted essentially are losing the time they spent in submitting.  Nonetheless, the buyers will still be there.

« Reply #28 on: October 13, 2009, 20:09 »
0
But, like the Gap has Old Navy, if Istock is the Gap wouldn't it make sense for them to groom an Old Navy site that has a library that can compete with Dreamstime, Shutterstock and Fotolia?  

Istock is certainly in a league of their own and their prices are beginning to migrate up.  Yes, they have exclusive content and impeccable standards, but they don't have the same content as their competitors:  the artists who snubbed 20% commission, or those who didn't pass the entrance exam, and of course all those rejected files that are good enough to sell well for the other sites.

« Reply #29 on: October 13, 2009, 20:57 »
0
But, like the Gap has Old Navy, if Istock is the Gap wouldn't it make sense for them to groom an Old Navy site that has a library that can compete with Dreamstime, Shutterstock and Fotolia?  

Istock is certainly in a league of their own and their prices are beginning to migrate up.  Yes, they have exclusive content and impeccable standards, but they don't have the same content as their competitors:  the artists who snubbed 20% commission, or those who didn't pass the entrance exam, and of course all those rejected files that are good enough to sell well for the other sites.

Photos.com is Old Navy.  Just like Toyota is to Lexus.  Cars may be a bad example, just because you can't buy a subscription on a car.  iStock has the same content as most other sites minus the odd ones here and there that refuse to submit or don't for various reasons, but the attractive draw is that you can get the best of the exclusive world and the regular world.  Add that you have subs too, and you are covering your bases.  StockXpert would then be a duplicate - a bad idea for business - just like GM - too much duplication.  Smart, streamlined model that makes sense business-wise for them.  Costs are cut, buyers go to one place, and the charts show an increase in traffic.

My opinion, I'm not Jon Klein but I'm just trying to put together the clues.

KB

« Reply #30 on: October 13, 2009, 21:20 »
0
In the end, it will mean higher prices charged, and hopefully, bigger commissions.  When you have too many players, they compete on price.  IS is allowed to get away with their prices because they have selected content not available anywhere else.  The only thing that sucks is that people who submitted essentially are losing the time they spent in submitting.  Nonetheless, the buyers will still be there.
The buyers may still be there, but I won't be.

StockXpert's sub commission of $0.30 was already too low; IS wants to replace that with a commission that's nearly 20% below. I'm not signing up.

It hurts, though, since StockXpert ranged from 8%-13% of my monthly income. That's going to be a big cut, since about 75% or so of sales were via JIU and photos.com.  :(

RacePhoto

« Reply #31 on: October 13, 2009, 21:47 »
0

Actually on Photos.com it says "Search over 2 million images". Maybe for new customers they limited the access to only 350,000.
I actually do not believe that the one million will come through other sources than from iS. There was a newsletter a long time ago which stated that istock already has a few hundered thousand images opted in for that plan. It was a pretty high number not so far away from that 1 million.

Oh and StockXpert is a far better earner than LO and SV combined.

True, they say 350,000 available for subscription and over 2 million, it's kind of odd, isn't it?

StockXpert says millions and claims 50,000 new uploads a month. That would be 2,6000,000 new photos a year. New photos this month shows 37,000 unless they only show the last three weeks?

While some people complain about subs, all subs, especially JUI/PDot at 30c each, now that we are losing the affiliate, many are saying they will be hurt by losing those same subs?

What's to say that the customers won't move to StockXpert and other agencies, or that the lose of JUI/Pdot won't be beneficial to income from StockXpert?

If Getty shuts down one of the top six outlets, where are they going to make up those sales and that income? I don't think this is as simple as, losing some cheap subs and then just pulling the plug on StockXpert. If StockXpert is 6-8% of the stock sellers income, it stands to reason that it's going to be at least that much of IS style/Getty income. Would they throw away that much income without having some plan to compensate for the situation.

Find out if the sky is falling, in three weeks.  ;D
« Last Edit: October 13, 2009, 23:24 by RacePhoto »

alias

« Reply #32 on: October 14, 2009, 06:28 »
0
What was the relationship between photos.com and StockXpert in terms of content and how they fit together with jui? A quick recap of the story so far and going forward would be great.

« Reply #33 on: October 14, 2009, 07:35 »
0
It is my prediction that the only change to StockXpert as a contributor is that the majority of their sales will be on demand sales.  If StockXpert's database becomes more different then what's available on Istock's then this may be a possitive change for us contributors.

OD sales are 0 right now.  Do you mean "positive" zero???

I still get some!   Lately they've equaled aprox. 50% of my income at StockXpert.  It only takes a handfull of the OD sales to accomplish this!

« Reply #34 on: October 14, 2009, 08:23 »
0
Of my total imcome there Jupiter and photos.com make between them less than 20% of my earnings the rest all comes from StockXpert and mostly from credit sales.

I would lose about 4% of my total income from all sites if they closed the whole lot down which while it would hurt  me it wouldn't be too disastrous especially if some of the buyers moved to some of the other sites that I upload to which I guess would happen.  I'm positive that they won't all automatically move over to Istock.

« Reply #35 on: October 14, 2009, 08:58 »
0
^^^ More or less the same here. JIU/PC sales represent about 2% of my total stock revenue so hopefully I won't starve to death when they go. If their customers were prepared to pay Istock's prices then they'd already be doing so. If they miss the 3M-odd images that they are about to lose (including over 20K of Yuri's for example) then they can always stump up for a subscription at SS, DT or FT.

JIU/PC subscriptions appear to be priced to attract the bottom of the market, not the sort of accounts we should be chasing IMHO. The site facilities are very poor in comparison to most micros too. For example, because they don't name the artist, it makes it impossible to search for more images in a particular series. There's only one search-order option too, you can't search by age, popularity, downloads, etc. The search-order also promotes their own wholly-owned content above all else too, most of which are horribly dated and rubbish by today's standards, presumably so that they don't have to pay any commissions. If you try a search on 'business team' for example then you've got to jump to page 25 before you get to see the modern quality stuff. It'll be interesting to see if they do anything about the fact that all IS files' keywords are CV'd but, at least at the moment, JIU/PC do not have such a system in place.

I still can't understand why any IS exclusive or independent contributor would support this plan. At best they're likely to increase their income by about 1% (because it is only their non-selling rubbish going there) whilst allowing JIU/PC to promote themselves with the IS name __ basically turkeys voting for Christmas.

helix7

« Reply #36 on: October 14, 2009, 11:58 »
0
...Just like Toyota is to Lexus...

...StockXpert would then be a duplicate - a bad idea for business - just like GM - too much duplication...

If StockXpert is just a dupe, then by that example wouldn't Toyota go away since Lexus offers the better product?

The thing that has me doubting the demise of StockXpert any time soon is the sheer volume of sales there that I see. And not JIU or Photos.com. My StockXpert PPDs and subs combined earn me more per month than SS. Even when the JIU and Photos.com sales go away, StockXpert will probably still be my 2nd highest earner. Maybe I'm the weirdo and my numbers aren't typical, but from where I'm standing, Getty has a nice thing going with StockXpert and I don't know why they would shut it down. There's no guarantee that StockXpert buyers will just go over to istock if StockXpert ceases to do business. Getty has those buyers right now. Closing StockXpert means they run the risk of losing some of those buyers who go to non-Getty owned sites. Why take the chance?


RacePhoto

« Reply #37 on: October 14, 2009, 12:05 »
0
^^^ More or less the same here. JIU/PC sales represent about 2% of my total stock revenue so hopefully I won't starve to death when they go. If their customers were prepared to pay Istock's prices then they'd already be doing so. If they miss the 3M-odd images that they are about to lose (including over 20K of Yuri's for example) then they can always stump up for a subscription at SS, DT or FT.

JIU/PC subscriptions appear to be priced to attract the bottom of the market, not the sort of accounts we should be chasing IMHO. The site facilities are very poor in comparison to most micros too. For example, because they don't name the artist, it makes it impossible to search for more images in a particular series. There's only one search-order option too, you can't search by age, popularity, downloads, etc. The search-order also promotes their own wholly-owned content above all else too, most of which are horribly dated and rubbish by today's standards, presumably so that they don't have to pay any commissions. If you try a search on 'business team' for example then you've got to jump to page 25 before you get to see the modern quality stuff. It'll be interesting to see if they do anything about the fact that all IS files' keywords are CV'd but, at least at the moment, JIU/PC do not have such a system in place.

I still can't understand why any IS exclusive or independent contributor would support this plan. At best they're likely to increase their income by about 1% (because it is only their non-selling rubbish going there) whilst allowing JIU/PC to promote themselves with the IS name __ basically turkeys voting for Christmas.

Thank you for the added perspective.

I don't care about Jupiter because they are bottom feeders? I could have started at that point and avoided reasons why losing them shouldn't matter that much?  ;D

Here's the list of their image sources. Seems that the one they list as "New" is StockXpert, which will soon be gone.

Brand X Pictures
Comstock Images
BananaStock
Creatas Images
Thinkstock Images
Polka Dot Images
Goodshoot
Pixland
Essential Collections
Photos.com
AbleStock.com
liquidlibrary
PhotoObjects.net
Stockxpert

I really think some people are jumping way ahead with what they think will be happening vs what will actually happen. (doom and gloom, earnings loss and the demise of StockXpert) Back to the usual, please wait and see.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #38 on: October 14, 2009, 12:07 »
0
It obviously is a dilemma for Getty, iStock, JIU, etc.  Was the original shutdown date in August???  They are still going strong for those who did not opt out of subs.  
Maybe I should reconsider?   :-\

« Reply #39 on: October 14, 2009, 12:12 »
0
I still can't understand why any IS exclusive or independent contributor would support this plan. At best they're likely to increase their income by about 1% (because it is only their non-selling rubbish going there) whilst allowing JIU/PC to promote themselves with the IS name __ basically turkeys voting for Christmas.
Neither can I, but then I opted out.

I think there's some notion that it's incremental revenue that won't have any impact on the IS revenue - IOW only upside potential. I think that's false - (a) that there's much income to be had from this (b) that it will have no effect on IS revenue. The other argument I heard was that (paraphrasing massively) we're all headed down the toilet with these bargain basement subscriptions, but grabbing as much cash as fast as you can is the best way to deal with this gloomy situation.

I think you were too kind in describing the Jupiter wholly owned content as rubbish by today's standards - I guess the fact that StockXpert contributors have been making anything from Jupiter subs at all (given their terrible search results position) is a testament to how much buyers don't want the old dated dreck.

I wish IS would fix the dollar bin (two prices; 1 credit for Large and smaller, 2 credits for XL and up) and promote their own subscriptions (which have lower, but still reasonable commissions) instead of pursuing moving content to the other sites.

« Reply #40 on: October 14, 2009, 12:16 »
0
StockXpert on its own is bigger than BigStock and shutterstock just spent money buying them.  It makes no sense closing StockXpert down, as they must have at least a million images that aren't on the istock site and they must be making a decent profit.  Would istock alone be bigger than a combined SS/BigStock?  Can they risk losing their No. 1 status?

Perhaps StockXpert will be closed anyway but I am sure a lot of the buyers would move to sites other than istock because they want access to the full portfolio of the best non-exclusives.

« Reply #41 on: October 14, 2009, 12:23 »
0
I think most, if not all, of the 'sources' are actually stock agencies that they bought out years ago __ that why so many of the images look dated.

StockXpert are still proudly claiming '46,504 images added this week' and that takes a lot of money to achieve __ probably half a dozen full-time employees going balls-out reviewing images.

Reviewing images is a significant cost and is an investment that will hopefully be recovered sometime in the future. If Getty had already decided that they were going to close StockXpert down there would be no point in continuing to make that investment. I suspect StockXpert is being run very lean, to make it as profitable as possible, and little or nothing will be spent on marketing.Our first warning of any impending change might be if they stop accepting new submissions.

alias

« Reply #42 on: October 14, 2009, 12:24 »
0
Of my total imcome there Jupiter and photos.com make between them less than 20% of my earnings the rest all comes from StockXpert and mostly from credit sales.

I would lose about 4% of my total income from all sites if they closed the whole lot down which while it would hurt  me it wouldn't be too disastrous especially if some of the buyers moved to some of the other sites that I upload to which I guess would happen.  I'm positive that they won't all automatically move over to Istock.

Getty may come in with a strong subscription product which goes head to head against SS.

I believe that subs and credit sales are two basically different, only slightly overlapping, markets.

« Reply #43 on: October 14, 2009, 12:32 »
0
Getty may come in with a strong subscription product which goes head to head against SS.



Yes __ Klein has already stated so. Have a read of our honourable friend Sean's thread at IS;

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=127691&page=1

Unfortunately for us all Getty's chosen vehicle for subscriptions is JIU/PC.

alias

« Reply #44 on: October 14, 2009, 12:33 »
0
Perhaps StockXpert will be closed anyway but I am sure a lot of the buyers would move to sites other than istock because they want access to the full portfolio of the best non-exclusives.

Have you talked to many buyers ? The few customer I have met do not say things like that. It would not occur to them.

RacePhoto

« Reply #45 on: October 14, 2009, 13:05 »
0
...traditional creative stills continues to decline, and even if we see a bump in revenue here after the recession, we must expect that the trends will continue for it to be a smaller part of our overall business. Klein

« Reply #46 on: October 14, 2009, 14:59 »
0
StockXpert on its own is bigger than BigStock and shutterstock just spent money buying them.  It makes no sense closing StockXpert down, as they must have at least a million images that aren't on the istock site and they must be making a decent profit.  Would istock alone be bigger than a combined SS/BigStock?  Can they risk losing their No. 1 status?

Perhaps StockXpert will be closed anyway but I am sure a lot of the buyers would move to sites other than istock because they want access to the full portfolio of the best non-exclusives.

Unofficial estimates put IS at over 50% of the market by itself - which I would be interested to see verified

« Reply #47 on: October 14, 2009, 15:18 »
0
Unofficial estimates put IS at over 50% of the market by itself - which I would be interested to see verified

IS has about 50% of the market in terms of revenue however they are probably only about 30% in volume of licenses sold.

BigStock is probably less than 10% the turnover of SS and even together they'd be less than half the size of IS.

I reckon FT is coming up on the rails really fast though and are seriously pushing SS for 2nd place.

« Reply #48 on: October 14, 2009, 16:15 »
0
It hurts, though, since StockXpert ranged from 8%-13% of my monthly income. That's going to be a big cut, since about 75% or so of sales were via JIU and photos.com.  :(

StockXpert typically accounts for around 13% of my monthly earnings, so it would mean a big cut for me as well  :'(

lisafx

« Reply #49 on: November 02, 2009, 20:39 »
0
So today's the big day.  Supposedly they are already in the process of removing the StockXpert content from Photos.com.  

Personally, I have had sales on both Photos and JIU today, and from what I can see doing searches for my images, they appear to be there still as of 8:37pm EST.  

Tomorrow (Tuesday 11/3) I am assuming all those images will be gone.  I plan to do searches when I wake up.  

Will be interesting to see if they finally follow through on their plan, and to watch the fallout.  Still having a hard time believing they will actually implement this.

On a more positive note, I had an exceptionally high number of credit sales on StockXpert today :)
« Last Edit: November 02, 2009, 20:41 by lisafx »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
2842 Views
Last post March 23, 2007, 11:17
by ptlee
2 Replies
1926 Views
Last post March 29, 2007, 08:58
by leaf
28 Replies
8277 Views
Last post September 15, 2008, 02:56
by sgraphics
7 Replies
3190 Views
Last post August 19, 2008, 20:18
by leszek
1 Replies
958 Views
Last post March 24, 2012, 02:32
by rubyroo

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results