MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: ljupco on February 06, 2010, 04:32
-
That no one, not even a newbie, exclusive, non-exclusive should offer any of their images new or old to thinkstock ? Not even to test out the water (If I ever get to understand this).
We as photographers are hurt on so many levels by this and that opting-in is just like digging your own grave.
They not only offer 0.25 per image, but also are introducing the lowest photographer commission across the industry. You'll get 0.25 even if they sell a single image or a bundle of images, like Shutterstock's On Demand for example and that's far from 20 % commission.
Also by inviting Istock customers to their new founded site, it only shows that the owners do not give a * for anything except their own profits. Many people at Istock signed up for exclusivity only to realize that their own company is sending the customers elsewhere, another site where prices are much lower. Not good.
And the last thing we need is a new subscription site. Offering 0.25 per image in 2010 is just a joke. Hope they realize that.
-
I agree but there will be people trying to justify opting in for $0.25. As long as the majority of us opt out, they should find it hard attracting buyers. People will see others there and think they need to be, it is human nature but hopefully they will resist. This might also make people think twice about going exclusive with istock. I know contributors are angry with fotolia at the moment but who wants to be exclusive with a site that is encouraging buyers to use the lowest paying subs site?
I am also going to do something positive buy uploading some exclusive images to Cutcaster this year. There are no cheap subs there and it would be great to see them in the top 6 and giving the sites that have disappointed us some competition. Instead of being worried about StockXpert going and panicking, perhaps we should be doing all we can to make the sites we like successful?
-
I am also going to do something positive buy uploading some exclusive images to Cutcaster this year. There are no cheap subs there and it would be great to see them in the top 6 and giving the sites that have disappointed us some competition. Instead of being worried about StockXpert going and panicking, perhaps we should be doing all we can to make the sites we like successful?
Agreed. I'm going to do the same (although, hard to say if it won't be punishment for CC given my photo skills ;]]).
-
Totally agree; let's not dig our own graves and tell the industry it's ok to lower sub commissions to $0,25 by opting in for Thinkstock. I'm firmly opted out and hope others will be as well...
-
That no one, not even a newbie, exclusive, non-exclusive should offer any of their images new or old to thinkstock ? Not even to test out the water (If I ever get to understand this).
They not only offer 0.25 per image, but also are introducing the lowest photographer commission across the industry. You'll get 0.25 even if they sell a single image or a bundle of images, like Shutterstock's On Demand for example and that's far from 20 % commission.
Where did you get that? I think it's not true, I mean the part about the PPD sales.
Just for precission, low prices/commisions are not good for us.
Think Global, Act Local
-
Where did you get that? I think it's not true, I mean the part about the PPD sales.
I thought stinkstock was a subs-only site?
They have to be by design or they would compete with iStock, something the exclusives there won't be amused with.
-
Where did you get that? I think it's not true, I mean the part about the PPD sales.
I thought stinkstock was a subs-only site?
They have to be by design or they would compete with iStock, something the exclusives there won't be amused with.
They are not amused with it.
Look here: http://www.thinkstockphotos.com/subscribe (http://www.thinkstockphotos.com/subscribe)
And there is:
Image packs
Don't need a full subscription? Our 5, 25, 100, and 250-shot image packs are perfect for smaller budgets or per-project use. Check back soon for details. COMING SOON
-
They have to be by design or they would compete with iStock, something the exclusives there won't be amused with.
No one is amused by it, exclusives OR non-exclusives. It's a bad deal for every contributor in microstock.
-
I agree. If we allow ourselves to be paid 25 cents, what's to stop these same agencies from dropping it even further just to see what they can get away with. Also, if we accept 25 cents for subscription sales elsewhere, what motivation does Shutterstock have to increase commissions or even keep them where they are?
-
I have a plan...
With more sales at the Cutcaster, I'll put my new image there exclusively for a month or more....
Then after that that pictures will go from expensive sites to cheaper through the time..
Cheapest sites will be last, also without of good sale photos...
So cheapest sites (read cheapest sub sites) will get old second-hand photos with not too many sales....
That is better way to force sites on rising prices....
I need to make plan for this strategy, do it the same and every agency will fight for our new contents...
P.S.
John and Cutcaster deserved that for their efforts...
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"
-
Some of my images automatically were migrated over to Thinkstock, although it was mostly moldy oldies that don't sell. I was thinking maybe ThinkStock is a place where IS plans to dump non-sellers, and that seemed like a good idea. Now, after reading this thread, I'm wondering if I'm harming the Micro industry by leaving them up. Wouldn't a cheap subs site be a good place to dump our non-sellers and at least get something for them? And have most of our porfolio on the higher paying sites? That was going to be my strategy, but after reading this thread, I'm wondinering if I should opt out completely.
-
^ yeah, that was my original plan also but I went in and opted out everything. The future for us is bleak, to say the least, if we don't stand together and fight for our hard work.
-
Some of my images automatically were migrated over to Thinkstock, although it was mostly moldy oldies that don't sell. I was thinking maybe ThinkStock is a place where IS plans to dump non-sellers, and that seemed like a good idea.
Not so. Very often low sellers on one site sell well on another. When I deleted my port at SX a few days ago (to avoid those convenient "mistakes" of TS) I had a good look at what sold there over 3 years, and that was totally different from other sites.
But it would be wrong to blame iStock for all this, since they gave a button to opt out of TS. I think the iStock people had to fight hard for this with Getty.
-
OK, I'm in, just opted out for all images on both sites.
Not sure if this opting out is a great success though : a search on "animal" gave 222000 results on Istock and 292000 on Thinkstock. On the other hand : images will only be removed 10 days after opting out, so may-be they're far behind removing files ;D
-
I wonder how many microstock contributors NEVER see this forum? Are we (MSG) a consensus?
-
I think you are dead right Ljupco about the consequences of supporting Getty's efforts to lower us to a .25 royalty. Every image placed there - even old non-sellers - makes it more likely the site will succeed, and then there will be even more pressure to put images there. The old "if you can't beat them join them".
I doubt there will ever be a real consensus among micro contributors. But as individuals we need to decide what standards we want for ourselves and draw the line somewhere. This is where I draw the line for myself.
-
^ I think this has drawn the line for most serious contributors, exclusive or not. even the ones who trusted TPTB see the writing on the wall now. me included. ironic way to unite us...but I refuse to participate in what can only be described as a cash grab...what a bloody fiasco, so disappointing
-
Is it the opt out button for Extended Licence I should click?
-
No, watch out, don't touch the "Extended License Opt Out" button! :)
To opt out of Thinkstock : Control Panel (top right) => Contributor (bottom left)
=> Partner Program => click "Remove All" button.
-
Opted out here. Waiting and watching to see that all my images are removed/never added to Stinkstock.
-
Totally agree; let's not dig our own graves and tell the industry it's ok to lower sub commissions to $0,25 by opting in for Thinkstock. I'm firmly opted out and hope others will be as well...
Thinkstock pays .25 many others pay .30 but .30 is good and .25 is bad. Isn't .30 bad too, but people say that's good. Why are .30 subscriptions good and .25 bad? Shutterstock pays .25 thats good, Thinkstock pays .25 thatsbad.
-
Is it the opt out button for Extended Licence I should click?
How can you do anything on iStock if you're exclusive on Dreamstime?
-
Shutterstock pays .25 thats good, Thinkstock pays .25 thatsbad.
This has been explained before. Because you're fast getting 0.33$ and later 0.36$ then 0.38$ at SS.
-
To opt out of Thinkstock : Control Panel (top right) => Contributor (bottom left)
=> Partner Program => click "Remove All" button.
I opted out too
-
I was upset last year because iStock wouldn't accept my vectors. Now I'm thinking that's a good thing they didn't. Looks like a slap in the face to everyone that works hard to create their photographs/illustrations. Am I understanding it right that if you opt in for thinkstock that all images no matter the size is all .25? If so that's just wrong.
-
^ I think this has drawn the line for most serious contributors, exclusive or not. even the ones who trusted TPTB see the writing on the wall now. me included. ironic way to unite us...but I refuse to participate in what can only be described as a cash grab...what a bloody fiasco, so disappointing
I am afraid that many contributors are not informed about this serious situation. Many of contributors do not read forums, many of them do not even speak English. It would be good idea to write some kind of email letter and send to everybody, written in a clear and simple language.
-
Didn't opt-out yet. Waiting for an official explanation/change on Monday. Without much hope, but who knows.
Anyway, I'm not opting in more photos, and what I have there is a handful of second rate quality photos, some of them even already outdated for fashion motives.
-
...Instead of being worried about StockXpert going and panicking, perhaps we should be doing all we can to make the sites we like successful?
Never really thought of it that way, but I like the idea. Spur on more competition (which is what it seems like Getty is trying to prevent) and change the market by supporting sites that are doing the right thing.
-
Thinkstock pays .25 many others pay .30 but .30 is good and .25 is bad. Isn't .30 bad too, but people say that's good. Why are .30 subscriptions good and .25 bad? Shutterstock pays .25 thats good, Thinkstock pays .25 thatsbad.
Subs were NEVER good for any contributor. But they have now gone from bad to worse at Thinkstock.
-
...Instead of being worried about StockXpert going and panicking, perhaps we should be doing all we can to make the sites we like successful?
Never really thought of it that way, but I like the idea. Spur on more competition (which is what it seems like Getty is trying to prevent) and change the market by supporting sites that are doing the right thing.
Agree - this is very well put. We should be supporting the sites that take good care of us. That is something positive we can do.
-
Is it the opt out button for Extended Licence I should click?
How can you do anything on iStock if you're exclusive on Dreamstime?
A friend wants to know, for sure.
-
I'm going to hold out for a few more days to see what happens (I'm still a little confused by all this), but I am pretty sure that I do not want my images on thinkstock. $.25 per image is a slap in the face for the amount of time I put into my images, and I'd rather focus my efforts on something more worthwhile.
-
I'm a very very small player at IS (only 76 images) but had much more at StockXpert. I deleted my port at StockXpert and opted out on IS. So yes, though I am peanuts compared to all of you, count me in :)
-
@Sharpshot, Borg
Just so you know you're not alone.
This is what I do, what I've been doing for a long time.
Click on my portfolio, (you don't have to, I'm just saying) and look at the number of images. At DT I have 268. My highest number.
It's higher there not because other sites reject my work. Mostly they don't. Due to the nature of my images (boring stock, nothing adventurous) my acceptance rate is pretty high across the board.
My portfolio is larger at DT because of exclusive images.
I submit photos in small batches, 5 - 7. Around 40 a month.
At DT with every submitted batch I also include one exclusive image. One image only for them. No similars and not part of series.
It has nothing to do with DT's Assignments / higher levels.
I'm doing it because I like DT.
In my mind, and my own little world, this is my way of trying to support the one site that pays me a little bit better.
It's insignificant, I know, but it's the best I can do.
After reading your posts I might join you and add Cutcaster to the 'Show support, give a few exclusive images' list. It's difficult, I have such a small port, but John is a great guy.
I'll try.
Ah, and of course, I'm staying far and away from TStock / Photos.com. I was never opted in.
-
...Instead of being worried about StockXpert going and panicking, perhaps we should be doing all we can to make the sites we like successful?
Never really thought of it that way, but I like the idea. Spur on more competition (which is what it seems like Getty is trying to prevent) and change the market by supporting sites that are doing the right thing.
Agree - this is very well put. We should be supporting the sites that take good care of us. That is something positive we can do.
Lisa, i know you almost decided to go exclusive at Istock. Have you changed your mind now? Just curious, because I have the same dilemma.
-
Is it the opt out button for Extended Licence I should click?
How can you do anything on iStock if you're exclusive on Dreamstime?
I'm exclusive, the husband is not. It has all been cleared with Dreamstime, we do quite different things. I do the administrative work for both of us, in return I get full copyright of all the people shots he does. He only uploads objects and landscapes.
This is his port on istock:http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=5347761
So no, no secret friend. Everything is very straight forward and all done in nice legalise documents.
-
...In my mind, and my own little world, this is my way of trying to support the one site that pays me a little bit better.
It's insignificant, I know, but it's the best I can do...
I think every little bit helps, we are always being told that about the environment. If 1,000 of us started supporting the sites we like by uploading some exclusive images, they would build up a nice collection and that might bring in more buyers. I am struggling here in the UK winter, my image production grinds to a halt but I will be adding exclusive images to the few sites I really like as soon as I can, DT will probably be one of them.
-
Its nice to hear that Eireann...
We can look on our products like every other business...
The new product is always more valued than the old...
Our photos is also product, so we can choose where and when we want to publish it,and at what cost...
-
I'm exclusive, the husband is not. It has all been cleared with Dreamstime, we do quite different things. I do the administrative work for both of us, in return I get full copyright of all the people shots he does. He only uploads objects and landscapes.
This is his port on istock:http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=5347761
So no, no secret friend. Everything is very straight forward and all done in nice legalise documents.
Having your cake and eating it too. Sounds pretty shady, even if "legal".
-
I'm exclusive, the husband is not. It has all been cleared with Dreamstime, we do quite different things. I do the administrative work for both of us, in return I get full copyright of all the people shots he does. He only uploads objects and landscapes.
This is his port on istock:http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=5347761
So no, no secret friend. Everything is very straight forward and all done in nice legalise documents.
Having your cake and eating it too. Sounds pretty shady, even if "legal".
Why? We are to different photographers, and there are no similar pictures in our portfolios. If we had been using the same models and photographing the same props, I could see the problem. But I know that pictures of my models never will be sold by any other photographer than me, and are therefore found only on Dreamstime as long as I stay exclusive to them. How many "exclusives" can say the same?
The first thing I did, before my husband even registered at any site, was to ask DT if they were OK with this, or if they would prefer that I dropped being an exclusive photographer with them. They didn't object at all, and that kind of matters a little bit more than your personal opinion. ;)
-
Back on topic, I still say everyone should opt in a single sunset photo, and make ThinkStock the worlds largest sunset photo collection.
-
Lisa, i know you almost decided to go exclusive at Istock. Have you changed your mind now? Just curious, because I have the same dilemma.
Yes, this definitely has me doing a rethink. Depending on what occurs this next week I may start uploading to DT again (which is effectively making a commitment to stay independent for at least 6 months).
I will hate to lose the deal I signed up for with Istock, but with the business in the state of flux it's in now this may not be the right time to throw all my eggs in that basket.
-
Back on topic, I still say everyone should opt in a single sunset photo, and make ThinkStock the worlds largest sunset photo collection.
LOL... just heading out to shoot one. I don't have any in my portfolio. It may be though task to get one in through IS (as that's the only way from now on, as I understand it).
-
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.
-
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....
Just for the record - I strongly believe it is not IS staff behind it and I would think most of them share our/exclusives feeling. I would say this comes from above, from big G headquarters.
I'm not saying it has any actual impact on your decisions regarding exclusivity.
-
I think the biggest problem is that you will not get to the next canister level in ages. If Thinkstock attracts lots of Istock buyers, contributors will make money, but these downloads do not count at Istock.
-
And one more thing. If they want this Thinkstock to get working, they must let contributors upload without Istock limit. SS is example how subs model works. They will have, sooner or later, separate TS from IS.
-
And one more thing. If they want this Thinkstock to get working, they must let contributors upload without Istock limit. SS is example how subs model works. They will have, sooner or later, separate TS from IS.
Works for a while until they are just so saturated that images disapear into the abys overnight.. I used to try to stay up with the feed the beast thing and I noticed as much as I uploaded my downloads stayed the same, and I even have noticed drops in downloads the only thing keeping it semi profitable is the PPD's otherwise things would be much different.. SS's model will eventually fold on itself because sooner or later it will get to the point (unless they raise prices) where people will not be able to produce the quality images for the return.. SS's model depends (for the photog) on large quantities of downloads.. If the pie progressively get smaller and smaller with more and more photographers joining and photos being uploaded by the hundreds of thousand per week.. Pretty soon that will become cumbersome for people to try and keep up with..
Just for the record I am not saying thinkstock is a good or anything.. I am really against it.. Actually I am not in favor of the microstock subscriptions stuff at all although at this point I am forced into it unless I want to be exclusive at Istock and opt out of subscriptions which I wouldn't do now.. But will not step down to thinkstocks levels..
-
Back on topic, I still say everyone should opt in a single sunset photo, and make ThinkStock the worlds largest sunset photo collection.
Hahahahaha! Don't forget flowers and our pet! How about our pet ruining a flower bouquet in a sunset? ;D
-
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.
Exactly. There is no evidence that ANY agency can be trusted.
-
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.
-
Don't forget flowers and our pet! How about our pet ruining a flower bouquet in a sunset? ;D
Nope, this one deserves RM!
-
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.
-
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.
^^ E-X-A-C-T-L-Y
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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. >:(
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I sure wish more people knew about this site. We need some kind of organization. Strength in numbers.
-
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
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.photos.com/subscriptions)
http://www.thinkstockphotos.com/subscribe (http://www.thinkstockphotos.com/subscribe)