So, is there are a consensus now ?

ccaetano

New Member

« Reply #50 on: February 07, 2010, 14:40 »

Out of the few hundreds of $$ I make monthly in IS, a couple of bucks are from subs sales. So, I don't really need this. I'm opting out and getting away from all this buzz.


	Ignore \| Logged

UncleGene

« Reply #51 on: February 07, 2010, 15:13 »

Quote from: FD-amateur on February 07, 2010, 13:05

Don't forget flowers and our pet! How about our pet ruining a flower bouquet in a sunset? Grin

Nope, this one deserves RM!


	Ignore \| Logged

dehooks

« Reply #52 on: February 07, 2010, 15:32 »

Quote from: cclapper on February 07, 2010, 11:34

Quote

Yes, this definitely has me doing a rethink.

+1

I was really hoping for the best with istock, they are my major earner. I just can't get behind what they have done this past week. Their past shenanigans kept me on the fence for a long time. It looked like they were moving in the right direction, I was preparing for exclusivity, and then this thinkstock slap in the face comes up. Now I find myself back on the fence again. I just don't think they can ever be trusted.

It just seems like way too risky a venture to go exclusive anywhere. Even if things at a particular agency seem perfect right now, you don't know what effect future ownership or management might have.


	Ignore \| Logged

nruboc

« Reply #53 on: February 07, 2010, 15:56 »

Quote from: dehooks on February 07, 2010, 15:32

Quote from: cclapper on February 07, 2010, 11:34

Quote

Yes, this definitely has me doing a rethink.

^^ E-X-A-C-T-L-Y


	Ignore \| Logged

Allsa

« Reply #54 on: February 07, 2010, 20:32 »

OK you've convinced me, I've opted out of Thinkstock and iStock's partner program. I simply don't trust Getty, and I don't want to be a part of what is beginning to look like their microstock ghetto. I decided against exclusivity long ago - it's just way, way too risky for my taste.


	Ignore \| Logged

macrosaur

« Reply #55 on: February 07, 2010, 20:51 »

Hello, my first post.

I'm following the micro market and i'm not surprised by iStock's move into subs and i think it can also go worse in the future because Getty's goal is the complete monopoly of microstock and they'll have it in one way or another but i'm afraid it will be photographers to pay the price for it.


	Ignore \| Logged

Jonathan Ross

« Reply #56 on: February 07, 2010, 22:39 »

Hi All,

I just see Thinkstock moving the pricing lower and lower like Micro stock did to Macro. Micro put a ton of professional stock shooters out of work when Micro came along. Please realize the agency sees you as a commodity they are not terribly concerned with which fish is on the hook when the lake is fully stocked. We did this to ourselves by accepting below standard prices from the beginning. This comes as no surprise what so ever to myself. More eggs in more baskets folks. Hang on there is more to come.
Also remember that Istock and Thinkstock are owned by the same company now, Istock doesn't negotiate special deals on behalf of their photographers Getty does because they own Istock, they cut the checks at both of these agencies.

Don't let it shake you customers still buy quality imagery,
Jonathan


	Ignore \| Logged

ShadySue

« Reply #57 on: February 08, 2010, 03:16 »

Way back in the long long threads about the partner program when it was first posited, and there was all the thrashing of details and the Opt Out campaign, Kelly (I'm pretty sure it was him) made a peeved little post stating that if we didn't play ball they'd source their imagery elsewhere.
I guess if Getty can source imagery from Flickr, so can Thinkstock. I'm sure 25c sounds better than nothing to a lot of people.


	Ignore \| Logged

ShadySue

« Reply #58 on: February 08, 2010, 03:18 »

Quote from: borg on February 06, 2010, 10:30

Time shows that we must help those who are good to us and "punish" (too hard word) those who did not.
But not to leave them, but to change them.
"Forgive them they know not what they doing"

I'm sure they know only too well what they're doing. Angry


	Ignore \| Logged

Caz

« Reply #59 on: February 08, 2010, 03:43 »

I had opted a few old images that weren't selling and weren't up to standard now. I opted them in because I believed Kelly's assertion in the initial announcment that the target market wasn't iStocks own (from an exclusives point of view, I'd be more than happy to take Shutterstock's subscription customers). However, the marketing email sent out to iStock's own customers encourgaing them to switch to Thinkstock shows me this isn't the case, and that more clearly than ever, it is Klein who is driving the ship.

Although my measly few images won't be missed, it's important to me that I'm not part of the problem. So I've opted out of the partner program.


	Ignore \| Logged

photoshow

Premium Member

« Reply #60 on: February 08, 2010, 04:16 »

I opted out as soon as it was announced. This really is looking like the year I will all but stop contributing to microstock and start seriously working the RM Agencies instead.


	Ignore \| Logged

macrosaur

« Reply #61 on: February 08, 2010, 05:52 »

Quote from: photoshow on February 08, 2010, 04:16

I opted out as soon as it was announced. This really is looking like the year I will all but stop contributing to microstock and start seriously working the RM Agencies instead.

Good luck.
RM is in big crisis because of microstock and because of the economic downturn.

Many RM shooters lost 40-50% of their sales in the last 2 years, many agencies
went bankrupt, many others are just surviving slashing prices and offering
subscriptions and cheap deals for newspapers.

If you think moving your micro portfolio on RM will pay well, think again :
the sort of imagery selling fine on micros will not sell on RM for the simple
reason the price is too hgh compared to micros, even if sold as RF.

And because of micros RM shooters are diversifying and me too.
I'm willing to put the good ones on RM and the rest on micros at least
to have a comparison.


	Ignore \| Logged

dehooks

« Reply #62 on: February 08, 2010, 09:10 »

I sure wish more people knew about this site. We need some kind of organization. Strength in numbers.


	Ignore \| Logged

sharpshot

« Reply #63 on: February 08, 2010, 10:13 »

Quote from: Jonathan Ross on February 07, 2010, 22:39

Having looked at the prices, they aren't moving them lower, just commission for istock non-exclusives.

1 month 25 downloads a day with photos.com cost the buyer $99.95,
1 month 25 downloads a day with photos.com plus cost the buyer $249.95, we used to be paid $0.30.

1 month 25 downloads a day with thinkphotos cost the buyer $249, we are being offered $0.25.

http://www.photos.com/subscriptions
http://www.thinkstockphotos.com/subscribe


« Last Edit: February 08, 2010, 10:16 by sharpshot »	Ignore \| Logged

Pages: 1 2 [3]

« previous next »

Microstock Group - A meeting place for microstock photographers

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Topic: So, is there are a consensus now ?

Follow Microstockgroup

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results