Which macro doesn't own a micro (Getty, Corbus and Jupiter already do)

oops my bad - who owns 123rf.  it is inmagine??

where did you hear it from litifeta??

or did you start it

I don't mind as long as they don't go and change things in the way IS did after being taken over. If it increases revenues the all well and good. If the new parent company puts pressure on for DT to just have exclusive photographers then it's going to get messy.

I regret the long waiting queues even with fewer upload allowance, but at least the keyword thing seems to have done well to my sales there.  Not that keyword spam has died, but anyway, this is a problem everywhere.

Regards,
Adelaide

I heard speculation that the new increase in the free image collection is to generate more traffic to the site which will make them more appealing to buyers. It's a shame it might come at the cost to contributors, especially since they are locked in for 6 months.

if the free images thing comes at a cost to the submitters that means they are getting less sales.  Less sales is less revenue for them, and thus LESS attractive to buyers of the site (if that is what they are hoping)

page views don't do much good for people who don't have advertising on their site though.
if people are viewing they are costing the site money.  Only if there is ads or something else to generate income will they make any money.

I don't think istock or getty makes anything of pageviews.  Youtube (now that google own it) on the other hand...

dreamstime doesn't really say in where their ads come up.  They just come up on any site that has the keyword microstock on it.  If it is a karate site that mentions stock photography, it doesn't mean that dreamstime is looking for karate experts who need images.

however i agree with you that a desinger probably have their couple sites they like the best.  I was looking for an image yesterday for a project and it was VERY time consuming to find just one image.  If i have a site i know i will find it (and have already bought credits there) i am not going to spend hours looking at other sites sifting through images.

A friend of mine recently got into the design field. I asked him where he was buying.  His outfit buys from Getty and another macro I don't recall, but not one of the Big 3.  I asked why they didn't use the micros. He said it didn't matter to his outfit as the cost is always passed on to the customer.  He did say that they have used DT in a pinch. 
    I told him to surf the micros... the work's as good or better than  images on the macros.    And sure a lot less costly.   In fact,  I finished the conversation by saying...   "Call ME when you need your next image"   Ha ha ha ha ha.
 

the point..    evidently, designers and design outfits DO get in ruts or develop 'comfort zones' with certain photo shops.  On the other hand, to Leaf's point,  if you know what they have and you're happy with it...  would make no sense to 'shop around'.

You just replied to a rumour that was five years old. Five years is a long time in microstock.

errrgggh does this win the record for the oldest thread dug up ?