MicrostockGroup

This is so depressing, have a look and note the credit in the upper right hand  corner of the photo:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/05/17/general.anesthesia/index.html?hpt=C1

Looks like Getty's advertising blitz is working (sigh).

Lisa, there's a series on TLC about that subject.

Notice they don't even credit the photographer for the photo, only Thinkstock.

They probably took Shutterstock system. They also don't require of buyers to credit photographers.

We who?  I don't have any images on Thinkstock.

My average $/DL is over a dollar.   I'm not interested in a site that pays no more than .25/DL

 

Who wants to be a celebrity? Doctors who save lives every day don't get to be celebrities. Thousands of people do amazing things that nobody hears about and are far more important than what the vast majority of "hot-shot" egotists will ever achieve.  What's so special about running around after wannabes and people who have an over-inflated opinion of themselves?

Some of us prefer to be able to shoot what we want, when we want and have nobody telling us how to go about our business.

Building your name(brand) means getting more traffic on your portfolio, more sales, more job. I was not talking about that celebrity life.

...and now, lisafx. 

That's awesome

LOL - I wish!  If anyone knows who I am it is more likely because of my big mouth on the forums than for my sales numbers

I've one of my best sellers at IS that shows more than 10 sales for less than 20 US cents per XS download.

I don't want to get the whole discussion heated up again why or why not anybody should sell on Thinkstock but we all started with 25 cents at Shutterstock. Every single one of us - except you Sean ( I guess). No need to jump in on that one 

And lets' not forget that most of the Shutterstockers are selling their stuff elsewhere as well. So we are not just restricting ourselves to the income of Shutterstock - because why? Because it's not enough income.

Yet we accept 25 cents/download in the beginning up to the 38 cents/download. It's not like that we leave Shutterstock because they pay us a measly 25-38 cents/download (doesn't it sound paradox that the same image could pay anywhere from 25 cents to hundreds of dollars on Alamy?).

 It's the amount of individual sales that make it worthwhile. Thinkstock performs well enough for me so I have the quantity I need to compensate for the loss of an entire microstock agency.

So far it's been panning out for me and probably this isn't the way to go for everyone but just blaming it on the 25 cents per download? Not so sure...

Is it expensive to sell cheaply!?

Just to update this (I know it's been awhile) I just noticed that a TON of CNN articles are using ThinkStock.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/social.media/11/24/facebook.profile.shots.netiquette/index.html

This one has about 4 or 5 different TS photos.  While bad for the low payout is it good they used so many (and hopefully paid for the use) in ONE story?  With as many as they run, that is a good partner for TS to have (even if we wish it was IS, DT, FT or anyone else?)