Partner Program Delayed Earnings

aeonf

« Reply #75 on: September 04, 2010, 04:30 »

#link

In July our PP earning at IS (exclusives) where 2.4% of total earnings (PP BME)
We expect this figure to rise in the future because of the 18 month PP lockup for exc's.


	Ignore \| Logged

lisafx

Premium Member

« Reply #76 on: September 04, 2010, 12:02 »

#link

I am not willing to join the PP program at the moment. If PPD sales were to increase and the average $/DL was to rise more toward the .30 I was getting at StockXpert or the .54 I get at SS then I might consider opting in.

What I find amusing is that this isn't even an option because they haven't transferred anything over for months.

Is Balderick right? Do they no longer WANT new content in the PP?


	Ignore \| Logged

disorderly

« Reply #77 on: September 04, 2010, 16:26 »

#link

Quote from: lisafx on September 04, 2010, 12:02

Is Balderick right? Do they no longer WANT new content in the PP?

I don't believe that's it. Once again I fall back on, "Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity." I think their processes are so hopelessly inept that they're overwhelmed by the volume of data they're trying to process. They can't admit the royal incompetence behind this setup, both in their inability to populate their new library and integrate whatever sales they're seeing back. Wouldn't be surprised to find somebody's idiot nephew in charge of this debacle.


	Ignore \| Logged

gostwyck

« Reply #78 on: September 04, 2010, 16:37 »

#link

Quote from: disorderly on September 04, 2010, 16:26

Exactly. You've only got to view the site itself to see that TS is nobody's baby. The site is just another minor design re-hash of Photos.com, probably running off the same server. If they actually cared about it then you'd think they'd give the customer some options regarding the sort-order, etc. For whatever reason Getty don't seem very willing to pump significant resources into TS. The longer that continues the better for all of us independent contributors.


	Ignore \| Logged

lisafx

Premium Member

« Reply #79 on: September 04, 2010, 16:44 »

#link

Quote from: gostwyck on September 04, 2010, 16:37

For whatever reason Getty don't seem very willing to pump significant resources into TS. The longer that continues the better for all of us independent contributors.

^^ Definitely agree with this.


	Ignore \| Logged

BaldricksTrousers

« Reply #80 on: September 04, 2010, 20:42 »

#link

Time will tell. Getty's track record would not suggest that they lack the basic skills needed to run a photo agency. But maybe they've completely lost the plot. Who knows?


	Ignore \| Logged

RacePhoto

« Reply #81 on: September 04, 2010, 22:27 »

#link

Quote from: gostwyck on September 04, 2010, 16:37

Quote from: disorderly on September 04, 2010, 16:26

Yes, in this case I think you hit the nail on the head. I've been trying to make the same point. It's a collection or old stale collections and most of ThinkStock is owned by Getty, not contributor files from us. I think it's a red headed step-child also. Just there to put all the old files in one place, instead of scattered all over in multiple dull agencies.

My other question, never got answered. Does ThinkStock pay exclusives more than the rest of us peons? I don't think so. I've never seen anything over the stinkin' quarter per download. I signed up for it, I'm fully expected to only get a quarter, that's fine with me. And BTW yes for me and many others, it's idenbtical to SS. If I make the next level on SS, fine. But for now and for most people, it's identical. Sale = 25 cents, it's that simple.

The other point was, most of the detractors and people rallying against ThinkStock are NOT contributors. They just have a hard case against Getty or ThinkStock or both and haven't got anything else to pick on right now, so they blame ThinkStock for sales loss on IS, competition for SS and at the same time point out that ThinkStock has poor images, inadequate search and has low sales. I don't think it can be both at the same time? Grin

Back to where you started, I tend to agree and think that ThinkStock is fairly irrelevant and of little consequence in the big picture. It's a minor distraction and cast off, and I don't particularly worry about what I sell there or don't. I don't check to see if new images got moved there or not. They are better off on IS, selling for four times as much. Why would I be concerned that they aren't on ThinkStock? Huh


	Ignore \| Logged

Danicek

« Reply #82 on: September 05, 2010, 02:45 »

#link

Quote from: RacePhoto on September 04, 2010, 22:27

My other question, never got answered. Does ThinkStock pay exclusives more than the rest of us peons? I don't think so. I've never seen anything over the stinkin' quarter per download.

I thought they get from 0.3 to 0.38 based on their canister.


	Ignore \| Logged

Gannet77

« Reply #83 on: September 05, 2010, 06:18 »

#link

Quote from: Danicek on September 05, 2010, 02:45

Quote from: RacePhoto on September 04, 2010, 22:27

My other question, never got answered. Does ThinkStock pay exclusives more than the rest of us peons? I don't think so. I've never seen anything over the stinkin' quarter per download.

I thought they get from 0.3 to 0.38 based on their canister.

That's correct.

0.30 - Bronze
0.32 - Silver
0.34 - Gold
0.36 - Diamond
0.38 - Black Diamond

See http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=88663&page=1


	Ignore \| Logged

RacePhoto

« Reply #84 on: September 07, 2010, 20:09 »

#link

Quote from: Danicek on September 05, 2010, 02:45

Quote from: RacePhoto on September 04, 2010, 22:27

My other question, never got answered. Does ThinkStock pay exclusives more than the rest of us peons? I don't think so. I've never seen anything over the stinkin' quarter per download.

I thought they get from 0.3 to 0.38 based on their canister.

Yeah, Jupiter and Photos.com, NOT on the devils own Thinkstock! Shocked

The same link also says, "Exclusive content newer than 18 months will never be made available at more than one site. Exclusives will have the choice of which sites their older content appears on, on a file by file basis."

Much of the complaining and debate is based on something that doesn't exist for exclusives, but does for peons like myself.

Let me explain it another way. If I was an exclusive and serious, I wouldn't be in the partner program. Since I'm neither, I'll take a quarter sub over nothing at all.


	Ignore \| Logged

sobm

« Reply #85 on: September 07, 2010, 23:06 »

#link

I opted in the parthner program of IS for over 2 months,but still have no incomings form it, why? Huh


	Ignore \| Logged

RacePhoto

« Reply #86 on: September 07, 2010, 23:10 »

#link

Quote from: sobm on September 07, 2010, 23:06

I opted in the parthner program of IS for over 2 months,but still have no incomings form it, why? Huh

Mostly fine print, up to 45 days to report PP sales (clearly stated in their contract with us), that and Getty's inability to move images to PP, so they may not even be on sale. Maybe after all that, if they are sales on ThinkStock you shouldn't worry too much about that 25 cents. Grin

Just remembered another "feature" that no one wants or asked for.

You need to search on your user name, not account name. But your real name, on ThinkStock, within quotes, and you can see what you have for sale there. If it says Hemera it's from StockXpert if it says iStockphoto, the obvious.

Here's an example which I found by searching for Tomato Slices on IS, then looked at the artists name and finally cut and pasted it in quotes on ThinkStock. Here you are, the finest sliced fruits on Thinkstock. I don't have a clue who she is, just used as an example of how to find your photos in the partner program, using your REAL NAME.

http://www.thinkstockphotos.com/search/#%22Serhiy%20Shullye%22/c=431,253,28,34,260,13,268,515,477,215,445,2,452,451,109,277,68,344/f=PIHV