MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Bad things about to happen ...  (Read 57666 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: November 05, 2009, 14:22 »
0

If you have followed the threads on istock about this, you will know that this is ground that has already been well covered.  Many istock exclusives were not at all enthusiastic about selling cheap subs and staged a revolt when istock tried to force them into Photos.com.  The resulting compromise was, as Ichiro correctly points out, only exclusive content 18 mos. and older is eligible.  

Independents can opt in all their content through istock, but since they are lowballing us by only offering .25 instead of the .30 we got through StockXpert, I don't know a single independent who is opting in.

Bottom line is they are losing millions of top quality images through StockXpert and haven't managed to come up with a way to replace those via istock.  

Which explains why the date keeps getting pushed back...

Actually, exclusives CAN opt in content less than 18 months old, but it can only go to either the partner program (photos.com) or to iStock, not both.

I doubt any would do that though.  Certainly I haven't.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2009, 14:23 by Gannet77 »


lisafx

« Reply #76 on: November 05, 2009, 16:56 »
0

Actually, exclusives CAN opt in content less than 18 months old, but it can only go to either the partner program (photos.com) or to iStock, not both.

I doubt any would do that though.  Certainly I haven't.

Ah.  This is news.  Thanks for the clarification Gannet :)

FWIW I think you are in good company.  Can't imagine why any exclusive would opt an image in to cheap subs INSTEAD of adding to the istock collection.   Unless the inspection standards are way lower - then maybe you could send the stuff you are sure istock would reject...?

« Reply #77 on: November 05, 2009, 17:25 »
0
I opted out of this partner program and intend to stay that way unless something changes materially.

One thing that would make me think differently is if they allowed different standards for content for the partner site - not to put too fine a point on it, my chessier raster illustrations and composites that used to sell very nicely thank you on SS when I was an independent. IS won't accept those (and that's fine) but that sort of  "cheap and cheerful" stuff works well for the all-you-can-eat (as long as it's not more than 25 a day) subs deals.

If they'd then fix the dollar bin so it was two prices 1 credit for Large and below, 2 credits for XL up for the main collection content that hasn't sold, I think they'd have a reasonable spread of prices.

The problem is that they want the good stuff (main collection) for too low a commission (worse for indepdents, but it was still pretty icky for exclusives even after the improvements).

I think the best course is to hold off letting them have the content cheap (i.e stay opted out). There is perhaps a slim chance that they'll get desperate and remove the opt out, but they'd have to be really desperate as there'd be peasants with large pitchforks if they did (IMO).

The weak spot is long time exclusives who have bought the total crock that this will be incremental revenue and can't wait to opt in lots of stuff. Not sure what to do about that though as just about everything got said in those massive threads that appeared back when this whole nasty business started.

« Reply #78 on: November 07, 2009, 05:24 »
0
If you have followed the threads on istock about this, you will know that this is ground that has already been well covered.  

So what is your interpretation of the Klein quote? Just one more executive with his head in the clouds?

Don't forget: Subscriptions are much more profitable for agencies than single sales. Getty will try every dirty trick to bring as much contributors as possible into this model.

Getty made mistake with buying istock if subs was main goal... They should talked to Jon from Shutterstock about that ;-) Now it will be very interesting race to watch: How Istock can compete with SS-BigStock business model where weekly over 100.000 new images are added. If Getty close Stockxpert they will have very great disadvantage. Some of Istock policies will have to be abandoned to have this race running for Getty.

Since quantity is preferable to have when selling subs, begining next year Shutterstock will have over 10.000.000 images... What about Istock?

Added:

Regarding to logic here I don't see any logic about closing Stockxpert as well I see a big mistake in pulling-out StockXpert images from Photos.com and JIU.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2009, 05:25 by Albert Martin »

« Reply #79 on: November 07, 2009, 06:01 »
0
One word "Flickr"!

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #80 on: November 07, 2009, 07:10 »
0

Actually, exclusives CAN opt in content less than 18 months old, but it can only go to either the partner program (photos.com) or to iStock, not both.

I doubt any would do that though.  Certainly I haven't.
Although I don't like the idea much I have a personal compromise.
I have opted in new files, but only the 'seconds' of a series, e.g. those which are still up to iStock's inspection but which are weaker compositionally than the ones I sent to iStock. And all sized down to a max of large, mostly sized down to medium. So they're not getting my firsts or larger files for the price, but I'll maybe pick up some sales (as they say, better than sitting on my hard disc). Embarrasingly, when I put about a dozen of such up in late August, expecting them to go straight into Photos.com/JU, they went into my iStock port when the partner program was held up. (I'd have thought they'd have gone into a limbo until then.) Two of them have sold over what I considered the better shots!
I asked at least three times what the difference between photos.com and JupiterUL was going to be, but got no answer.

« Reply #81 on: November 07, 2009, 08:31 »
0
At last count Getty had over 88 million images.  That's a LOT of images, and it doesn't take much thought to work out how Getty is going to seed the subscription sites.  With perhaps a million images from iStock and several million more from Getty, Photos.com and JUI can quickly become a major force to be reckoned with.

Imagine when the marketing gets going - 'ten million images from Getty and iStock all available at reasonable subscription rates'.  That's a very powerful message and will cause the entire design community to take notice.

It might cause some customer loss at Getty and iStock, but on the other hand the opportunity to gain thousands of new subscription customers is clearly compelling.  The sheer volume potential should easily compensate iStock exclusives for the business risk.

« Reply #82 on: November 07, 2009, 10:30 »
0
I remember reading some photogs were suing Getty for selling their images as subs. Does anyone know the outcome of the lawsuit?

My sales were very good last month at StockXpert. But this month, StockXpert is doing poorly. Even 123rf performing better for the first week of November.



http://www.m-restaurantgroup.com/mbund/home.html

At last count Getty had over 88 million images.  That's a LOT of images, and it doesn't take much thought to work out how Getty is going to seed the subscription sites.  With perhaps a million images from iStock and several million more from Getty, Photos.com and JUI can quickly become a major force to be reckoned with.

Imagine when the marketing gets going - 'ten million images from Getty and iStock all available at reasonable subscription rates'.  That's a very powerful message and will cause the entire design community to take notice.

It might cause some customer loss at Getty and iStock, but on the other hand the opportunity to gain thousands of new subscription customers is clearly compelling.  The sheer volume potential should easily compensate iStock exclusives for the business risk.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2009, 10:51 by Freedom »

« Reply #83 on: November 07, 2009, 12:47 »
0
If you have followed the threads on istock about this, you will know that this is ground that has already been well covered.  

So what is your interpretation of the Klein quote? Just one more executive with his head in the clouds?

Don't forget: Subscriptions are much more profitable for agencies than single sales. Getty will try every dirty trick to bring as much contributors as possible into this model.

Getty made mistake with buying istock if subs was main goal... They should talked to Jon from Shutterstock about that ;-) Now it will be very interesting race to watch: How Istock can compete with SS-BigStock business model where weekly over 100.000 new images are added. If Getty close Stockxpert they will have very great disadvantage. Some of Istock policies will have to be abandoned to have this race running for Getty.

Since quantity is preferable to have when selling subs, begining next year Shutterstock will have over 10.000.000 images... What about Istock?

Added:

Regarding to logic here I don't see any logic about closing Stockxpert as well I see a big mistake in pulling-out StockXpert images from Photos.com and JIU.

Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Its not all about subs - its about offering a variety of premium products and competitive products to grab the biggest customer base.  Getty will be the biggest house, and acquiring BigStock for SS was just something to do.  BigStock doesn't have anything that SS doesn't have, or very little.  And the quality at SS on average is no where near the same at IS, but this is an old argument that will never end.

To 2010!

traveler1116

« Reply #84 on: November 07, 2009, 13:08 »
0
If you have followed the threads on istock about this, you will know that this is ground that has already been well covered.  

So what is your interpretation of the Klein quote? Just one more executive with his head in the clouds?

Don't forget: Subscriptions are much more profitable for agencies than single sales. Getty will try every dirty trick to bring as much contributors as possible into this model.

Getty made mistake with buying istock if subs was main goal... They should talked to Jon from Shutterstock about that ;-) Now it will be very interesting race to watch: How Istock can compete with SS-BigStock business model where weekly over 100.000 new images are added. If Getty close Stockxpert they will have very great disadvantage. Some of Istock policies will have to be abandoned to have this race running for Getty.

Since quantity is preferable to have when selling subs, begining next year Shutterstock will have over 10.000.000 images... What about Istock?

Added:

Regarding to logic here I don't see any logic about closing Stockxpert as well I see a big mistake in pulling-out StockXpert images from Photos.com and JIU.

Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Its not all about subs - its about offering a variety of premium products and competitive products to grab the biggest customer base.  Getty will be the biggest house, and acquiring BigStock for SS was just something to do.  BigStock doesn't have anything that SS doesn't have, or very little.  And the quality at SS on average is no where near the same at IS, but this is an old argument that will never end.

To 2010!

I'm going exclusive at IS soon so maybe I'm biased but they do have great material and a great site but they pay a very low %.  I'm surprised that most of the other sites don't offer exclusive deals that are better than IS, I know FT does but they keep screwing contributors same goes for DT but where is a company that is willing to invest in giving the best deal to the contributor.  I think if SS offered a good exclusivity deal they would get a lot of people on board and push up the overall quality.  Most of the other sites including StockXpert seem to be the ones that get all the images not exclusive to IS and therefore have relatively little to offer that's different than the rest, there needs to be more of a shake up in order to change this.

« Reply #85 on: November 07, 2009, 13:32 »
0
Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Its not all about subs - its about offering a variety of premium products and competitive products to grab the biggest customer base.  ...

There is nothing even remotely premium about JIU/Photos.com+. The content from StockXpert tarted up a very close to moribund site. And why would any sane independent contributor offer premium images in XXXL size for a 25 cent commission? Flogging bargain subscriptions with wholly owned content is one thing. Trying to do that and pay photographers is something different.

Didn't someone post earlier about this being akin to asking turkeys to vote for Thanksgiving? Why would we do that? Any gain is going to be very short term, IMO, if we were to start the long slide down to ever cheaper commissions for the previously "premium" work.

vonkara

« Reply #86 on: November 07, 2009, 16:01 »
0
Same, I am going exclusive with Istock next month. I have a vaumit taste when I see my XXL images sold for 30 cents. About the big customer base buying subscriptions... I am not interested to sell to them.


Batman

« Reply #87 on: November 07, 2009, 16:49 »
0

Added:

Regarding to logic here I don't see any logic about closing Stockxpert as well I see a big mistake in pulling-out StockXpert images from Photos.com and JIU.

They are closing StockXpert I didn't see that announcement, where did you read it.


« Reply #88 on: November 07, 2009, 17:05 »
0
If you have followed the threads on istock about this, you will know that this is ground that has already been well covered.  

So what is your interpretation of the Klein quote? Just one more executive with his head in the clouds?

Don't forget: Subscriptions are much more profitable for agencies than single sales. Getty will try every dirty trick to bring as much contributors as possible into this model.

Getty made mistake with buying istock if subs was main goal... They should talked to Jon from Shutterstock about that ;-) Now it will be very interesting race to watch: How Istock can compete with SS-BigStock business model where weekly over 100.000 new images are added. If Getty close Stockxpert they will have very great disadvantage. Some of Istock policies will have to be abandoned to have this race running for Getty.

Since quantity is preferable to have when selling subs, begining next year Shutterstock will have over 10.000.000 images... What about Istock?

Added:

Regarding to logic here I don't see any logic about closing Stockxpert as well I see a big mistake in pulling-out StockXpert images from Photos.com and JIU.

Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Its not all about subs - its about offering a variety of premium products and competitive products to grab the biggest customer base.  Getty will be the biggest house, and acquiring BigStock for SS was just something to do.  BigStock doesn't have anything that SS doesn't have, or very little.  And the quality at SS on average is no where near the same at IS, but this is an old argument that will never end.

To 2010!

I'm going exclusive at IS soon so maybe I'm biased but they do have great material and a great site but they pay a very low %.  I'm surprised that most of the other sites don't offer exclusive deals that are better than IS, I know FT does but they keep screwing contributors same goes for DT but where is a company that is willing to invest in giving the best deal to the contributor.  I think if SS offered a good exclusivity deal they would get a lot of people on board and push up the overall quality.  Most of the other sites including StockXpert seem to be the ones that get all the images not exclusive to IS and therefore have relatively little to offer that's different than the rest, there needs to be more of a shake up in order to change this.

I've looked at SS library vs Istock library... Material is completely different in mass. But, if you look more closer what sells it comes to similar images... So, that is why I said that Istock will need to change some policies... If they continue to rise their noses they will hit something because they don't look at where they are going...
For example: SS sells simple images mostly as well as istock. But, regarding official statements of istock they are 'full' of simple stuff... I don't believe it is true!
I saw here that some people got rejected their Rasterized illustrations and scout overturning inspectors decision. It is good to see that, but there sure are so many stuff which is very good and rejected imho...
At last, there are designers and 'designers'. Real designer really don't need any stock image at all - they can do it all by themselves. But, since there are many 'designers' who are positioned as designers and they don't know how to draw they buy images. Regarding their knowledge and what is sold here and there I am sure that huge percentage of designers don't know to draw or they don't have time to do so. It comes so far that they buy the most simple images what almost anyone can shoot or draw.
It is interesting to see this on microstock... I didn't used to see so many snapshots and basic illustrations sold...  Well... It might be because I am stock 'dinosaur'...

« Reply #89 on: November 07, 2009, 17:07 »
0

Added:

Regarding to logic here I don't see any logic about closing Stockxpert as well I see a big mistake in pulling-out StockXpert images from Photos.com and JIU.

They are closing StockXpert I didn't see that announcement, where did you read it.



I've read it here and there... Mostly as speculations - not as anything official...

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #90 on: November 07, 2009, 17:10 »
0

FWIW I think you are in good company.  Can't imagine why any exclusive would opt an image in to cheap subs INSTEAD of adding to the istock collection.   Unless the inspection standards are way lower - then maybe you could send the stuff you are sure istock would reject...?
The inspection standards are to be the same as for iStock. I and others asked in the hugely long forums earlier in the year.

lisafx

« Reply #91 on: November 07, 2009, 17:17 »
0

The inspection standards are to be the same as for iStock. I and others asked in the hugely long forums earlier in the year.

Thanks for the clarification Sue.  That must have slipped by me. :)

In that case I don't see any reason at all for an exclusive to opt in new content.  But who knows - there are some folks who will do whatever TPTB tell them without question...   

« Reply #92 on: November 08, 2009, 00:49 »
0
Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Its not all about subs - its about offering a variety of premium products and competitive products to grab the biggest customer base.  ...

There is nothing even remotely premium about JIU/Photos.com+. The content from StockXpert tarted up a very close to moribund site. And why would any sane independent contributor offer premium images in XXXL size for a 25 cent commission? Flogging bargain subscriptions with wholly owned content is one thing. Trying to do that and pay photographers is something different.

Didn't someone post earlier about this being akin to asking turkeys to vote for Thanksgiving? Why would we do that? Any gain is going to be very short term, IMO, if we were to start the long slide down to ever cheaper commissions for the previously "premium" work.

You need to read more carefully.  I said premium and competitive.  The competitive comes from subs/photo.com.  Make no mistake, there is a clear product distinction and Getty is working very well at making sure they don't eat themselves out of business through overlapping product offerings.  There is also a clear distinction of whats available at photos.com - its been discussed already. 

That way Getty is a one-stop shop.  They cover all the bases, and if one offering isn't good, you can always purchase from another - aka if you don't find what you need in subs or you need something special and rare, you can go to RM, or if you want something much newer, you can go to IS - or if you want something exclusive and not available anywhere else.

For anyone to imply that IS needs to be more like SS doesn't get it.  SS is now the one that wants to be like IS.  And if anyone has a concept of how to run an image company, I think I will put my faith in Jonathan Klein over anyone else.  Period.  
« Last Edit: November 08, 2009, 00:51 by ichiro17 »

alias

« Reply #93 on: November 08, 2009, 14:07 »
0
I don't see any reason at all for an exclusive to opt in new content.  But who knows - there are some folks who will do whatever TPTB tell them without question...   

Some pictures will probably make more money on subscription. I can think of my many weaker images which would seldom sell la carte but would inevitably pick up volume on an all you can eat menu. Ultimately I can imagine subscription as the natural home for much of the bread and butter stuff. Stuff which is useful but not great.

As I noted on another thread the amount paid will match Shutterstock for anyone who lives in a jurisdiction which does not have a double taxation agreement with the US - and close for many people even in jurisdictions which do.

I predict that the Getty sub site will quickly be huge. So the subscription site potentially offers IS photographers a good opportunity. It will be a big launch so I can see them wanting to get it right.

lisafx

« Reply #94 on: November 09, 2009, 10:24 »
0

Some pictures will probably make more money on subscription. I can think of my many weaker images which would seldom sell la carte but would inevitably pick up volume on an all you can eat menu. Ultimately I can imagine subscription as the natural home for much of the bread and butter stuff. Stuff which is useful but not great.

As I noted on another thread the amount paid will match Shutterstock for anyone who lives in a jurisdiction which does not have a double taxation agreement with the US - and close for many people even in jurisdictions which do.

I predict that the Getty sub site will quickly be huge. So the subscription site potentially offers IS photographers a good opportunity. It will be a big launch so I can see them wanting to get it right.

You make some excellent points, but reading your comment and Ichiro's one would conclude that these Getty sub sites are a new thing.  Fact is they have been up and operating for years, and for the past year and a half have already had millions of top quality micro images from nearly every independent in the business.

There are not likely to be any great changes or big surprises in this big "launch".  The only change is that they are getting rid of the best 2 million plus images currently on the site and are scrambling to replace them.  So far I haven't read anything that makes it clear how they are going to successfully replace all that content.

Selling subs may be a completely new thing for many istock exclusives, but it is certainly not a new thing within the Getty product line, and it is old hat in the stock industry.  The wheel is not being reinvented here.

« Reply #95 on: November 09, 2009, 11:19 »
0
Not sure if this was mentioned, but isn't the simple solution to leave StockXpert content on the partner sites and just open up the partner sites to istock exclusives.

« Reply #96 on: November 09, 2009, 11:49 »
0

Some pictures will probably make more money on subscription. I can think of my many weaker images which would seldom sell la carte but would inevitably pick up volume on an all you can eat menu. Ultimately I can imagine subscription as the natural home for much of the bread and butter stuff. Stuff which is useful but not great.

As I noted on another thread the amount paid will match Shutterstock for anyone who lives in a jurisdiction which does not have a double taxation agreement with the US - and close for many people even in jurisdictions which do.

I predict that the Getty sub site will quickly be huge. So the subscription site potentially offers IS photographers a good opportunity. It will be a big launch so I can see them wanting to get it right.

You make some excellent points, but reading your comment and Ichiro's one would conclude that these Getty sub sites are a new thing.  Fact is they have been up and operating for years, and for the past year and a half have already had millions of top quality micro images from nearly every independent in the business.

There are not likely to be any great changes or big surprises in this big "launch".  The only change is that they are getting rid of the best 2 million plus images currently on the site and are scrambling to replace them.  So far I haven't read anything that makes it clear how they are going to successfully replace all that content.

Selling subs may be a completely new thing for many istock exclusives, but it is certainly not a new thing within the Getty product line, and it is old hat in the stock industry.  The wheel is not being reinvented here.

The wheel isn't being reinvented, but changing how its attached to the rest of the car is changing a bit. 

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #97 on: November 09, 2009, 13:11 »
0
I just posted in the IS forums asking for an update. If customers are being told something, seems only right contributors should be kept updated too...
You might like to think so! :o

alias

« Reply #98 on: November 09, 2009, 14:01 »
0
Will effectively be a new product and likely to be well marketed. See how Getty already uses life.com to cross promote its other brands including IS. Microstockers who want to sell subscription pictures will want to be part of it.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2009, 14:04 by alias »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #99 on: November 09, 2009, 16:29 »
0
I just posted in the IS forums asking for an update. If customers are being told something, seems only right contributors should be kept updated too...
You might like to think so! :o
Aha, so the news is now 'out'.
Nov 12th is launch day.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
4557 Views
Last post March 23, 2007, 11:17
by ptlee
2 Replies
2989 Views
Last post March 29, 2007, 08:58
by leaf
28 Replies
11806 Views
Last post September 15, 2008, 02:56
by sgraphics
7 Replies
4548 Views
Last post August 19, 2008, 20:18
by leszek
1 Replies
1811 Views
Last post March 24, 2012, 02:32
by rubyroo

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors