When Cutcaster announced its Betta Than Vetta image collection, its intent to ride on the coat tails of an earlier iStockphoto launch was patently obvious. The announcement was predictably followed by a cease-and-desist letter from iStock and a new—definitively Betta—product name for Cutcaster. Even those paying close attention to the micro segment quickly dismissed the entire thing as a weakly conceptualized publicity stunt, but Cutcaster founder John Griffin continues to fascinate onlookers with ramblings so devoid of professionalism as to cast doubt on the validity of his entire enterprise.
To be fair, there is nothing particularly wrong with taking on a competitor, in the media or otherwise. But if you are going to bark at the big dog, don’t you want to make sure your claims can withstand at least minimal scrutiny? The very notion that a 300-image non-exclusive offering from a sparsely trafficked newcomer can even begin to compare to a year-in-development 35,000-image exclusive collection from the company that sells the most stock photos in the world is… well, laughable. Yet Griffin writes on the corporate blog: “A lot of people/customers that I spoke to thought it was a great new collection and was in fact better on a few levels so I was telling the truth by calling it that.”
Eye of the beholder aside, one would have expected a chief executive of a business to get at least a phone call’s worth of legal advice before using a unique foreign-language word already in use by a competitor in a product name. Asked if he consulted an attorney, Griffin said: “I checked the trademark and it doesn’t appear to be trademarked. I don’t think you can trademark words like that but could be wrong ;-).” In other words, this rash could be skin cancer, but I’ll confirm this by dying later—instead of calling the doctor now.
What exactly was he thinking? “I liked the ‘playful’ name.” Griffin’s reaction to iStock’s cease-and-desist letter—which he posted online and then removed several hours later, in a manner befitting a senior business executive who carefully considers his actions before taking them—is along the same lines: “I was really bummed.” And overall: “To be completely honest, I found the whole process of creating a collection and the legal tussle that ensued to be very interesting, a bit fun [and] a bit scary due to some perceived threats.”
To give credit where credit is due, Griffin appears to have remained in good spirits despite the wave of criticism that far outweighs several “stick it to iStock” hurrays. But what has this stunt really accomplished? Yes, Cutcaster did get some press; it probably also stole a bit of iStock’s Vetta traffic—likely nothing meaningful. In contrast, the cost to the public image of Cutcaster and its CEO has been quite significant.
From a photographer’s perspective: “I’m not in a rush to contribute to a company which seems to come up with policies on the back of a beer mat,” reads one of the kinder comments on the Microstock Group forum. Others are flat-out laughing: “It’s such a hilariously bad name! I think most people can’t believe anyone could come up with something so ridiculous and actually put it into practice.”
And these are the reactions of contributors, who have a vested interest in Cutcaster’s success. How likely is a buyer to want to deal with a company whose chief executive appears to have taken permanent residence in the South Park zip code?
Griffin says he is not easily embarrassed and plans to “keep fighting for photographers and buyers so everyone gets a fair shake.” To achieve this worthy goal, he might consider modifying his management style. As aptly demonstrated by Bruce Livingstone, a suit and a post-graduate degree is not an absolute requirement for success, but being taken seriously by your peers and clients most certainly is.