MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Thinkstock is alive?  (Read 28025 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: June 18, 2010, 08:00 »
0
Anyone knows whether Thinkstock is alive and  is generating earnings from it?


« Reply #1 on: June 18, 2010, 08:42 »
0
Unfortunately yes, it is alive.

« Reply #2 on: June 18, 2010, 09:01 »
0
... and it is generating money  ;D

« Reply #3 on: June 18, 2010, 11:25 »
0
... and it is generating money  ;D

For Getty...

« Reply #4 on: June 18, 2010, 16:20 »
0
Anyone knows whether Thinkstock is alive

Like Frankenstein's monster.

« Reply #5 on: June 18, 2010, 17:34 »
0
Haven't sold a thing.   Sure isn't like old StockXpert.    Was sure to have daily sales there... but... not good old TS.

btw...   I just got migrated there in the last couple weeks... however, none of my IS stuff is there  (and frankly, of all the images I had on StockXpert,  most of these even I WOULDN'T have moved over there). My better images and better sellers, didn't come over.   Maybe because they were also on IS???   Any of you others that just got migrated... is your IS stuff showing?

 8)=tom

« Reply #6 on: June 18, 2010, 17:48 »
0
They are doing 10x worse than StockXpert but my portfolio was just migrated this month. I few sales one day and after that nothing. I do not know if they are going to  update sales reports every day or monthly like with iStock photos. Anyway they are not a big competition to SS right now :-)

« Reply #7 on: June 18, 2010, 18:02 »
0
TS is not doing bad at all for me. At least a lot better than the subscription of StockXpert, Photos.com and JUI together so nothing to complain here.

I was under the impression though that TS's earnings that are reported through StockXpert only show up once a month - the same like at iStock.

Or did anybody get reports on StockXpert for daily subscription activity?

« Reply #8 on: June 18, 2010, 18:08 »
0
TS is not doing bad at all for me. At least a lot better than the subscription of StockXpert, Photos.com and JUI together so nothing to complain here.

I was under the impression though that TS's earnings that are reported through StockXpert only show up once a month - the same like at iStock.

Or did anybody get reports on StockXpert for daily subscription activity?

I just got my first photos migrated to TS, so I haven't seen sales from Hemera..! Just from IS and actually better than on IS..!

« Reply #9 on: June 18, 2010, 20:57 »
0
I still get my 100-150 downloads there every month. Was trying to see if I could log in via my StockXpert login but couldn't get it to work, so dunno..

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #10 on: June 19, 2010, 01:51 »
0
I was under the impression though that TS's earnings that are reported through StockXpert only show up once a month - the same like at iStock.

Or did anybody get reports on StockXpert for daily subscription activity?

You're right. TS earnings are reported once a month on StockXpert. May's sales were reported on June, 8th

« Reply #11 on: July 08, 2010, 20:12 »
0
I just noticed today that Thinkstock is now selling image packs. The pricing - which I assume will only appeal to those who want to buy the largest sizes where it's a bargain - seriously undercut's pricing on iStock's site for equivalent credit packs.

I posted some details with a couple of examples on the iStock forums here.

For independents, the 20% royalty rate at Thinkstock is a wash (not so for exclusives however). But given the big discount these image packs represent over the prices in iStock credits for the largest sizes, it will likely cut into income for independents as well.

« Reply #12 on: July 09, 2010, 01:45 »
0
I will probably remove my pics from TS, even the worst non-selling images, only because I can't find my name near the photo...

« Reply #13 on: July 09, 2010, 04:23 »
0
I just noticed today that Thinkstock is now selling image packs. The pricing - which I assume will only appeal to those who want to buy the largest sizes where it's a bargain - seriously undercut's pricing on iStock's site for equivalent credit packs.

I posted some details with a couple of examples on the iStock forums here.

For independents, the 20% royalty rate at Thinkstock is a wash (not so for exclusives however). But given the big discount these image packs represent over the prices in iStock credits for the largest sizes, it will likely cut into income for independents as well.


Inevitable I guess considering that TS is basically trying to become a clone of SS. What surprises me most is just how many contributors, both Exc and Ind, have chosen to support TS despite the miserable commissions and the undermining of better agencies who they rely on much more for their income. Never in the field of stock photography have so many turkeys voted for Christmas all at the same time.

« Reply #14 on: July 09, 2010, 05:04 »
0
Yep, first it was those microstockers who ruined the business for the traditional photogs, and now it is the TSers who ruin the business for the microstockers. What's the old saying . . "what goes 'round . .. It's a personal business decision where and how one sells their products, and there could be many more individual factors at play than just the selling price or profit margin.

« Reply #15 on: July 09, 2010, 11:44 »
0
Just kindly wondering what those other factors might be, apart from the $$ and profit margin?

« Reply #16 on: July 09, 2010, 13:23 »
0
Well, Artemis, what about the toxic green of the Search buttons on ThinkStock? Will you take that for a reason?

They're not only targeting SS, but Getty's all over IStock as well.
New Retrofile Collection, B&W stock photography from the 30's, hundreds upon hundreds of them. Content wholly owned by Getty, all images straight to Vetta, most with an initial rating of + 5. (ease of workflow?)
How's that for fair inspections?
There's no stopping Getty.  
There's no stopping photographers from uploading to ThinkStock either. Some are getting hundreds of downloads a month. Hard to convince them to consider the future and close accounts today.
Luckily we still have IStock's upload limits on our side. For now.
But what about the other sites?
Will they simply let Getty crawl all over microstock?
« Last Edit: July 09, 2010, 14:30 by Eireann »


« Reply #17 on: July 09, 2010, 14:28 »
0
It costs as low as $5.99 for a XXXL image on Thinkstock as opposed to $30 on IS. We only get 20% of the 5.99 as opposed to 20-40% on IS. So that is $1.20 commission from Thinkstock and about $7.00 commission from Istock. For the same photo at the same size.

That is a 583%-1000% decrease in earnings, depending on your canister and exclusivity. Of course when you have people like Shank Ali on the IS forums saying this is the greatest thing since sliced bread you know we're screwed.  ::)
« Last Edit: July 09, 2010, 14:33 by Kngkyle »

« Reply #18 on: July 09, 2010, 14:34 »
0
There you go!
But then again, some might argue that 1.20 is better than nothing.
And we're on the road to the bottom.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2010, 15:10 by Eireann »

« Reply #19 on: July 09, 2010, 14:44 »
0
$1.20 is much worse than nothing because it could make the other sites lower prices and commissions.  Then we end up losing lots, not making more.

lisafx

« Reply #20 on: July 09, 2010, 14:51 »
0
$1.20 is much worse than nothing because it could make the other sites lower prices and commissions. 

I'm still waiting for those "other sites" to offer some incentive NOT to participate in TS (like a long-overdue raise).  Guess I won't be holding my breath though...  :(

« Reply #21 on: July 09, 2010, 15:04 »
0
Absolutely Sharpshot.
I modified my previous post, for the sake of clarity.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2010, 15:12 by Eireann »

« Reply #22 on: July 09, 2010, 15:32 »
0
Absolutely Sharpshot.
I modified my previous post, for the sake of clarity.

I'm glad you did that. For a minute, I thought you crossed over to the dark side.  ;)

« Reply #23 on: July 09, 2010, 15:41 »
0
I keep wondering if Getty's ultimate, long term goal isn't to kill the microstock business model altogether, or at least limit it to mostly snapshots.

lisafx

« Reply #24 on: July 09, 2010, 15:53 »
0
I keep wondering if Getty's ultimate, long term goal isn't to kill the microstock business model altogether, or at least limit it to mostly snapshots.

Well if killing Istock's sales is part of the plan...Mission Accomplished!! 

Average daily sales at IS down 30% from the high of March '10 and down 21% from LAST JULY, which was second worst month of last year.

« Reply #25 on: July 09, 2010, 16:20 »
0
I'm with you there Lisa...istock in 2009 (and 2010 until march) was the big majority of my stock income, double or triple (depending on the month) of my #2, SS.
Since march downloads have been going steadily downhill and i'm since the past 2 months down to half of what i used to make there (iS). Sure there might be a summerslump like they love to point out there, strange though on other sites i barely feel it. No matter what everyone says, i remain convinced it's the darn TS (WITH it's toxic green search button ;)).
(on a sidenote: DT suddenly is doing better than ever here...i've been wondering if i'm an isolated case? I do have a small portfolio thus not entirely relevant for statistics)

« Reply #26 on: July 09, 2010, 16:33 »
0
Never in the field of stock photography have so many turkeys voted for Christmas all at the same time.

Excellent description of TS supporters.  :D


« Reply #27 on: July 09, 2010, 18:24 »
0
It costs as low as $5.99 for a XXXL image on Thinkstock as opposed to $30 on IS. We only get 20% of the 5.99 as opposed to 20-40% on IS. So that is $1.20 commission from Thinkstock and about $7.00 commission from Istock. For the same photo at the same size.

Exactly, and this is why I choose not to support TS. Once StockXpert went kaput, I deleted all my images and kindly asked them to delete anything that had already migrated over to TS.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2010, 18:25 by Norebbo »

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #28 on: July 09, 2010, 20:17 »
0
I keep wondering if Getty's ultimate, long term goal isn't to kill the microstock business model altogether, or at least limit it to mostly snapshots.
Well if killing Istock's sales is part of the plan...Mission Accomplished!!  Average daily sales at IS down 30% from the high of March '10 and down 21% from LAST JULY, which was second worst month of last year.

I'm beginning to wonder if Thinkstock is starting to finally draw enough business from IS that it's now noticeable.

My sales have been pretty consistent for the past couple years but in May they dipped, June dipped more, and if July keeps going as it is I'll be back to July 08 download levels with 3x the number of images. This could be caused by a lot of things but it seems like there's a higher than normal amount of people complaining about a summer slowdown. Summer may have something to do with it but something else is going on here.

And if Getty does kill micro they had better replace it with something that has higher pricing and commissions, not lower.

« Reply #29 on: July 10, 2010, 07:08 »
0
And if Getty does kill micro they had better replace it with something that has higher pricing and commissions, not lower.

They already have something with higher pricing and commissions...Getty Images. Look at the pool of photographers they have to choose from, ones that they have watched come up through the ranks at IS, that they can now shuffle over into the trad agency. The rest is collateral damage.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #30 on: July 10, 2010, 07:29 »
0
And if Getty does kill micro they had better replace it with something that has higher pricing and commissions, not lower.

They already have something with higher pricing and commissions...Getty Images. Look at the pool of photographers they have to choose from, ones that they have watched come up through the ranks at IS, that they can now shuffle over into the trad agency. The rest is collateral damage.

Yes but Getty seems to be in decline. IS is growing. But they're heavily promoting Thinkstock. And promoting it to buyers at Getty and IS !!??

Not sure what the strategy is here but if Thinkstock grows into a monster that drains Getty, IS, and other micros of buyers I don't think this is good for any of us.

« Reply #31 on: July 10, 2010, 07:48 »
0
And if Getty does kill micro they had better replace it with something that has higher pricing and commissions, not lower.

They already have something with higher pricing and commissions...Getty Images. Look at the pool of photographers they have to choose from, ones that they have watched come up through the ranks at IS, that they can now shuffle over into the trad agency. The rest is collateral damage.

Yes but Getty seems to be in decline. IS is growing. But they're heavily promoting Thinkstock. And promoting it to buyers at Getty and IS !!??

Not sure what the strategy is here but if Thinkstock grows into a monster that drains Getty, IS, and other micros of buyers I don't think this is good for any of us.

It looks like Getty has been pouring massive amounts of money into promoting Thinkstock; I keep seeing Thinkstock ads everywhere online. Thinkstock seems to be as widely advertised as Netflix, and who hasn't heard of Netflix? If I were an iStock exclusive, I would be furious about this.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #32 on: July 10, 2010, 07:55 »
0
And if Getty does kill micro they had better replace it with something that has higher pricing and commissions, not lower.
They already have something with higher pricing and commissions...Getty Images. Look at the pool of photographers they have to choose from, ones that they have watched come up through the ranks at IS, that they can now shuffle over into the trad agency. The rest is collateral damage.
Yes but Getty seems to be in decline. IS is growing. But they're heavily promoting Thinkstock. And promoting it to buyers at Getty and IS !!??Not sure what the strategy is here but if Thinkstock grows into a monster that drains Getty, IS, and other micros of buyers I don't think this is good for any of us.
It looks like Getty has been pouring massive amounts of money into promoting Thinkstock; I keep seeing Thinkstock ads everywhere online. Thinkstock seems to be as widely advertised as Netflix, and who hasn't heard of Netflix? If I were an iStock exclusive, I would be furious about this.

I'm IS exlusive. I'm not furious but more concerned. Getty isn't dumb. They will invest where they see the most buyer demand and highest profits. And that apparantly is Thinkstock. I understand that from a business perspective that they must adapt to market changes. But if micro subscription is the future I don't know how sustainable that is for contributors.

« Reply #33 on: July 10, 2010, 08:58 »
0
Getty, like every giant company, cares mostly about the profit. That said, they will move wherever the money is. If they see the money in Thinkstock, and if they want to kill Istock, they will do it anyway. If that's the case, I'm afraid they are investing so much in promoting Thinkstock until they reach SS in sales. I doubt they will do anything before reaching the level of sales at SS. They are maybe testing the field right now, to see which of two (IS or TS) costs less and brings more money. So, maybe they are moving in two directions now to see which one is better for them.
One thing is certain... Copying SS model, they are obviously trying to steal buyers from SS

« Reply #34 on: July 10, 2010, 09:02 »
0
Getty isn't dumb. They will invest where they see the most buyer demand and highest profits. And that apparantly is Thinkstock.

Getty does have a track record of being 'dumb' __ that's why they got bought out cheap by H&F when the share price plummetted by 75% in about a year (and the shareholders had so little confidence in the management that they voted in favour of it).

'Getty' isn't a person, at least in this context. It's actually a collection of people mostly with responsibilities for their own departments/companies with little or no regard for other parts of the overall business, some of which they are in competition with.

There's no chance of TS generating higher profits than IS either. Just as contributors earn hugely less when an image is bought on TS rather than IS, it also follows that far less profit, in terms of $'s, is generated from a TS sale. TS however certainly could damage IS which currently is probably the most profitable and valuable part of the Getty stable. You should be concerned __ very, very concerned.

« Reply #35 on: July 10, 2010, 09:56 »
0
Corbis spent lots advertising snap village and that didn't do much damage to the established sites.  I think it is very hard to move buyers from a site they are satisfied with.  That's why new sites don't work.  Corbis are now trying an alternative option, building a big collection by paying us to upload.  Will be interesting to see if that works.  Getty are doing the opposite with TS, penalizing contributors by paying a low commission, having an opt out and upload limits that will keep the collection small.  It doesn't make sense to me and I wish them as much success as snap village had :)

lisafx

« Reply #36 on: July 10, 2010, 10:12 »
0
Maybe I am just feeling pessimistic at the moment, but as I see more TS advertising and their name appears in more photo credits, it is beginning to feel like not IF, but WHEN TS kills off Istock. 

Reading the monthly stats threads doesn't inspire confidence either.  Pretty much everyone with a mature portfolio is reporting steep declines in downloads.  Even the few exclusives still managing to have BME's are reporting actual DL numbers are down.       

I can't help but wonder what TS is doing to Getty's goal of growing Istock profits by 50% this year.  Unless they are including TS in that "growth". 


KB

« Reply #37 on: July 10, 2010, 10:51 »
0
My prediction: TS has begun, and will continue, to negatively impact iStock sales. Getty knew this would happen, and will use the "unexplained downturn" to do the unthinkable and cut exclusive commissions. Just a little at a time, of course (gotta keep that frog in the pot). When commissions are down to where Getty wants them, perhaps then they will merge TS & IS or otherwise kill off the lower-end product.

lisafx

« Reply #38 on: July 10, 2010, 11:21 »
0
My prediction: TS has begun, and will continue, to negatively impact iStock sales. Getty knew this would happen, and will use the "unexplained downturn" to do the unthinkable and cut exclusive commissions. Just a little at a time, of course (gotta keep that frog in the pot). When commissions are down to where Getty wants them, perhaps then they will merge TS & IS or otherwise kill off the lower-end product.

^^Makes sense.  Or perhaps keep IS as an "exclusive only" site and shuttle independents over the TS. 

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #39 on: July 10, 2010, 12:59 »
0
Getty does have a track record of being 'dumb' __ that's why they got bought out cheap by H&F when the share price plummetted by 75% in about a year (and the shareholders had so little confidence in the management that they voted in favour of it). 'Getty' isn't a person, at least in this context. It's actually a collection of people mostly with responsibilities for their own departments/companies with little or no regard for other parts of the overall business, some of which they are in competition with. There's no chance of TS generating higher profits than IS either. Just as contributors earn hugely less when an image is bought on TS rather than IS, it also follows that far less profit, in terms of $'s, is generated from a TS sale. TS however certainly could damage IS which currently is probably the most profitable and valuable part of the Getty stable. You should be concerned __ very, very concerned.
They have a track record of making drastic changes often. The more decisions and changes you make the more likely mistakes will be made. Most of the other non-Getty companies rarely make changes which, ultimately, could be their biggest mistake.

TS may not be earning Getty more total profits today. But I bet it earns a higher profit percentage than their macro offerings or Istock. From what I understand a good chunk of the content is wholly owned so they have no commissions to pay on some of it. If they transition buyers to TS so that it's generating as much revenue is IS it will most likely generate higher total profits which is probably why they're promoting it so much.

I am concerned, but planning and action is more productive than worrying. 

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #40 on: July 10, 2010, 13:15 »
0
Maybe I am just feeling pessimistic at the moment, but as I see more TS advertising and their name appears in more photo credits, it is beginning to feel like not IF, but WHEN TS kills off Istock. 
Reading the monthly stats threads doesn't inspire confidence either.  Pretty much everyone with a mature portfolio is reporting steep declines in downloads.  Even the few exclusives still managing to have BME's are reporting actual DL numbers are down.       
I can't help but wonder what TS is doing to Getty's goal of growing Istock profits by 50% this year.  Unless they are including TS in that "growth". 

My revenue is down a bit but downloads are significantly down. My revenue is almost flat but it's an illusion. The exclusive cost bump and E+ kept the revenue up while downloads were declining. There aren't any more cost bumps coming.

Maybe the 50% will come from ex-Getty buyers. With this economy I'd bet a ton of Getty buyers have/are headed for micro and subscriptions. So Getty is probably pushing existing buyers who are at risk of being lost, and also buyers they have already lost, to IS and/or TS. Getty corporate buyers who used to have big million dollar budgets but now only have a fraction of that would still be big revenue bumps for IS and TS.

« Reply #41 on: July 10, 2010, 14:58 »
0

I am concerned, but planning and action is more productive than worrying. 

But what plans? What actions? What can we, as individuals, do?

« Reply #42 on: July 10, 2010, 16:08 »
0
But what plans? What actions? What can we, as individuals, do?

Don't support TS with your content. Without content it can never become a threat. Simples.

« Reply #43 on: July 10, 2010, 16:15 »
0
I think if Getty wanted to destroy Istock they would just sell cheap subs through Istock. No one is holding a gun to your head making you submit to thinkstock or any of the other sites that pop up hourly. More likely they have just found a way to cut into the competition with minimal damage to Istock. Thinkstock and sub sites in general should only sell dated or slow sellers, leave the better or new stuff priced higher until demand falls like most products on the market. All you can eat buffets usually have mediocre food.

If your sales are dropping on Istock as a nonexclusive, it's not hard to see what one of biggest factors might be. best match is littered with Vetta files. If E+ files ever get a push it will only get worse.  Low visibility=low sales. As mentioned before, in the past Istock made more money off of nonexclusive files, that is not the case anymore.

« Reply #44 on: July 10, 2010, 16:19 »
0
Don't support TS with your content. Without content it can never become a threat. Simples.

I thought the plan was to ceaselessly complain about it and make up wild speculations?   ;D  I guess nobody ever talks about the other possibility. Thinkstock actually increasing prices and royalties down the road. That's been known to happen in the stock world too. I'm just saying it could happen, but I'm sure it is all doom and gloom in the future.  ;)

lisafx

« Reply #45 on: July 10, 2010, 16:43 »
0


If your sales are dropping on Istock as a nonexclusive, it's not hard to see what one of biggest factors might be. best match is littered with Vetta files. If E+ files ever get a push it will only get worse.  Low visibility=low sales.

It seems that the drop in sales is not unique to independents.  Exclusives are seeing it too, but the effects are softened by the higher prices and percentages.  

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #46 on: July 10, 2010, 17:01 »
0
Don't support TS with your content. Without content it can never become a threat. Simples.

I thought the plan was to ceaselessly complain about it and make up wild speculations?   ;D  I guess nobody ever talks about the other possibility. Thinkstock actually increasing prices and royalties down the road. That's been known to happen in the stock world too. I'm just saying it could happen, but I'm sure it is all doom and gloom in the future.  ;)

Increase prices? Probably. Increase royalties? Probably not. You think Getty is going to increase royalties out of the kindness of their hearts?

The trend has been to increase prices while "adjusting" the terms where contributors either get less or must reach higher goals to earn more.


« Reply #47 on: July 10, 2010, 17:26 »
0
The trend has been to increase prices while "adjusting" the terms where contributors either get less or must reach higher goals to earn more.

If it's a trend, then I'm not sure which direction it is going. Up would be my guess though. For a while, it was all upward with raises at SS and IS. Then, it was a mix of simultaneous up and down like at FT or DT. That's probably still an up trend for contributors though. Things get tougher in stock over the years, but companies generally want to make more. And some of that trickles down to us.

I removed my portfolio at Thinkstock, but I don't really have any ill will towards them like many others. As far as microstock atrocities, It's pretty low on my list. If it is even on it.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #48 on: July 10, 2010, 18:47 »
0
The trend has been to increase prices while "adjusting" the terms where contributors either get less or must reach higher goals to earn more.
If it's a trend, then I'm not sure which direction it is going. Up would be my guess though. For a while, it was all upward with raises at SS and IS. Then, it was a mix of simultaneous up and down like at FT or DT. That's probably still an up trend for contributors though. Things get tougher in stock over the years, but companies generally want to make more. And some of that trickles down to us. I removed my portfolio at Thinkstock, but I don't really have any ill will towards them like many others. As far as microstock atrocities, It's pretty low on my list. If it is even on it.

I don't remember IS giving contributors a raise. When did that happen? They've raised prices which I'm glad they did. I think all micro sites should raise prices. But they're also talking about increasing the canister level requirements which effectively would delay commission raises for most contributors.

Complaining and wild speculation doesn't help but I don't think blind optimism does either.

« Reply #49 on: July 10, 2010, 19:21 »
0
Complaining and wild speculation doesn't help but I don't think blind optimism does either.
Hahaha. I wouldn't say blind optimism. There's been a lot of bumps in the road. SS needs a raise to keep pace, DT is still recovering from their changes and FT is constantly on double secret probation with me. Despite all that, I'm having my best year in stock, so I can only tell it from my perspective (which is optimistic).

I guess I was joking about the Thinkstock complaining because I don't get it. Thinkstock wasn't for me, so I left. End of story. I wouldn't fault anyone for joining them though, and I don't really think their warts are much different than all the other agencies. I guess I've resigned myself to the fact that no agency really represents my interests. They represent their own, so there are always going to be issues and conflicts. But complaining about agencies that I don't even participate at is just silly.

« Reply #50 on: July 11, 2010, 00:21 »
0
I don't remember IS giving contributors a raise. When did that happen? They've raised prices which I'm glad they did. I think all micro sites should raise prices. But they're also talking about increasing the canister level requirements which effectively would delay commission raises for most contributors.

What commission raises would those be, Paulie? As an independent at iS, my commission is frozen at 20%.  The only benefit to higher canisters is an increase in upload slots.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #51 on: July 11, 2010, 05:17 »
0
I don't remember IS giving contributors a raise. When did that happen? They've raised prices which I'm glad they did. I think all micro sites should raise prices. But they're also talking about increasing the canister level requirements which effectively would delay commission raises for most contributors.

What commission raises would those be, Paulie? As an independent at iS, my commission is frozen at 20%.  The only benefit to higher canisters is an increase in upload slots.

Yeah, I left a word out. ...would delay commission raises for most exclusive contributors

« Reply #52 on: July 11, 2010, 06:25 »
0
I don't see any incentive for IS exclusives to fed TS. Sub sales are one of the reasons because many of us are Exckusives at istock; many of us don't like them, except in the istock form. Just one or two XLarge or XXLarge sold at TS instead from istock eats all the possible profit made from subs at TS (I even got and e-mail from a costumer asking me to put one specific photo at TS; I didn't do it at she finally bougth it big at Istock). And PPD sales... getting just 20%, like independants that can upload everywhere else?? I don't get the point, neither I feel motivated to upload anything there. All I would consider would be old and sullen pics that I delete from Istock.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2010, 06:28 by loop »

« Reply #53 on: July 11, 2010, 07:35 »
0
I think if Getty wanted to destroy Istock they would just sell cheap subs through Istock. No one is holding a gun to your head making you submit to thinkstock or any of the other sites that pop up hourly. More likely they have just found a way to cut into the competition with minimal damage to Istock. Thinkstock and sub sites in general should only sell dated or slow sellers, leave the better or new stuff priced higher until demand falls like most products on the market. All you can eat buffets usually have mediocre food.

If your sales are dropping on Istock as a nonexclusive, it's not hard to see what one of biggest factors might be. best match is littered with Vetta files. If E+ files ever get a push it will only get worse.  Low visibility=low sales. As mentioned before, in the past Istock made more money off of nonexclusive files, that is not the case anymore.


Actually, IS does sell cheap subs. See this page:

http://www.istockphoto.com/istock_thinkstock_subscription.php

« Reply #54 on: July 11, 2010, 09:48 »
0

Actually, IS does sell cheap subs. See this page:

http://www.istockphoto.com/istock_thinkstock_subscription.php



My last 10 Istock subs commissions:

3.80-m
.76- xs
1.90-s
.76-xs
1.58-xs
3.80-s
.76 -xs
1.90-s
3.80-m
.76-xs

Nothing over medium size and the average commission is pretty good.

I don't think advertising thinkstock is the same as selling thinkstock images from Istock searches, same goes for getty images. I would be worried about that site if they forced us to upload there.

Lisa,
The istock forum is a mixed bag with plenty of BME and "what . happened to my sales" :) It's also summer which doesn't bode well for most.
Vetta images have an affect on everyone exclusive or not. If you are lucky enough to have a bunch then things are looking up for you, even a few will help. I haven't had the best luck, but keep trying. As far as falling downloads in general: comparing the past to present is tough with how fast things are growing, returns are less, I don't expect to get as many downloads off a shoot today compared to 2007-2008. If your money is up regardless of download #'s, then life is good, no?

« Reply #55 on: July 11, 2010, 10:26 »
0
If anyone wants to know how exclusive sales are going day to day, just read the "race" threads in the off-topic forum.  50% of the posts in those are just whines about lack of sales.

« Reply #56 on: July 11, 2010, 11:22 »
0
If anyone wants to know how exclusive sales are going day to day, just read the "race" threads in the off-topic forum.  50% of the posts in those are just whines about lack of sales.

That graph in the "race for gold" thread is pretty sad. I guess the sky is falling after all.


« Reply #57 on: July 11, 2010, 12:33 »
0
They've raised prices which I'm glad they did. I think all micro sites should raise prices.
They have been raising prices eveyr year, but I think they never raise prices of subs plans. This only makes subs more entiving for a frequent buyer, even if he doesn't need dozens of images a day.

« Reply #58 on: July 11, 2010, 14:37 »
0
But what plans? What actions? What can we, as individuals, do?

Don't support TS with your content. Without content it can never become a threat. Simples.

Good advice.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2010, 01:57 by Digital66 »

« Reply #59 on: July 12, 2010, 02:59 »
0
But complaining about agencies that I don't even participate at is just silly.

Do you really believe TS will not have any effect on istock or any other agencies? I think it would be more silly to complain while your participating (bending over) to Thinkstock.

« Reply #60 on: July 12, 2010, 04:05 »
0
To answer your Q it seems to be limping along, the bigger picture of course is that for Contributers sake rather than Gettys it fails

WarrenPrice

« Reply #61 on: July 12, 2010, 10:51 »
0
To answer your Q it seems to be limping along, the bigger picture of course is that for Contributers sake rather than Gettys it fails

I'm not sure that I would celebrate the failure of any microstock site?  Aren't we cheering for MORE competition; not LESS? 

« Reply #62 on: July 12, 2010, 16:46 »
0
If anyone wants to know how exclusive sales are going day to day, just read the "race" threads in the off-topic forum.  50% of the posts in those are just whines about lack of sales.

That graph in the "race for gold" thread is pretty sad. I guess the sky is falling after all.

I'm sure that I can't be the only one for whom downloads as well as dollars are growing over 2009. I post that every so often, but it just gets lost in the shuffle - perhaps because I'm a pretty small contributor, perhaps because the current "story" is how downloads are declining.

lisafx

« Reply #63 on: July 12, 2010, 16:54 »
0


I'm sure that I can't be the only one for whom downloads as well as dollars are growing over 2009. I post that every so often, but it just gets lost in the shuffle - perhaps because I'm a pretty small contributor, perhaps because the current "story" is how downloads are declining.

Actually, I am really happy to read this.  Must have missed it in the June thread.   It means a lot when a long-timer with a mature portfolio is seeing that kind of growth.  

Maybe after all those of us getting hit with this (dismal!) downturn are just on the wrong side of the best match, rather than an overall decline in sales.  

Impossible to know for sure, but the increased crankiness of some admins in the IS forums lately does not inspire much confidence. :-X

« Reply #64 on: July 12, 2010, 17:05 »
0
I'm sure that I can't be the only one for whom downloads as well as dollars are growing over 2009. I post that every so often, but it just gets lost in the shuffle - perhaps because I'm a pretty small contributor, perhaps because the current "story" is how downloads are declining.

When I look at all my stats over 2009, I have shown growth in both areas too. But since the start of 2010, things seem to be falling off. I was hoping that growing my port and improving my skills would mean a continual uptick, but that is not happening and that is where I (and a lot of others) are becoming concerned.

When things are busy and successful, most people don't take the time to post in forums...they are too busy making money! But when things are on the downside, more people come to the forums to commiserate...misery loves company. I think that's why we are seeing a lot of shuffling. I have no doubt there are a good number of contributors out there doing well. It is no surprise to me that you are, too, jsnover!

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #65 on: July 12, 2010, 17:57 »
0
my earnings are still increasing, and this is good

my earnings are incresing less than proportionally compared to the number of new images in my port, and this is not so good

so I am not sure whether I should be happy (and how much longer) or not
« Last Edit: July 12, 2010, 17:59 by microstockphoto.co.uk »

« Reply #66 on: July 13, 2010, 06:39 »
0
I'm sure that I can't be the only one for whom downloads as well as dollars are growing over 2009. I post that every so often, but it just gets lost in the shuffle - perhaps because I'm a pretty small contributor, perhaps because the current "story" is how downloads are declining.

Joanne __ As I've pointed out before you've pretty much doubled your portfolio in the last year. Of course your sales and income have been growing. You've done about as much work on your port in the last year as you had in the previous five years put together. Blithely commenting that 'sales are growing' without mentioning that little factor is somewhat disingenuous.


« Reply #67 on: July 14, 2010, 17:27 »
0
still havent sold a single image from the former StockXpert  stable and my IS stuff is still not there...    guess I suck. 8)=tom

« Reply #68 on: July 15, 2010, 03:00 »
0
To answer your Q it seems to be limping along, the bigger picture of course is that for Contributers sake rather than Gettys it fails

I'm not sure that I would celebrate the failure of any microstock site?  Aren't we cheering for MORE competition; not LESS? 

Sorry let me clarify  I am referring to is Getty's attempts with TS to dominate the subscription market (which used to be a dirty word over at IS) and drive prices down, and indeed away from IS

My sales there of late have been atrocious even by summer slump standards  :(

RacePhoto

« Reply #69 on: July 19, 2010, 14:07 »
0
still havent sold a single image from the former StockXpert  stable and my IS stuff is still not there...    guess I suck. 8)=tom


Me Too, one sale from the StockXpert collection for 25 cents since Feb. Best part is it was shot that was refused by every other agency except StockXpert! Ancient Neolithic Dwelling.



Which makes me ask... how much can ThinkStock be hurting the market if they aren't selling much of anything?  ???

There's a place down the street selling cheap subs same prices as SS and others, (not cheaper than Deposit Photos by the way) but they have no business and no customers, plus their product is mostly old re-cycled leftovers.  ;D

Lets pretend for a moment, that StockXpert/ThinkStock doesn't exist. As far as all reports from everyone here, the sales there are minimal if any at all.

Then where are the customers going? ThinkStock is getting blamed, called out, people write nasty-grams, but the place can't logically be the cause, if ThinkStock sales suck?

« Reply #70 on: July 19, 2010, 15:50 »
0
still havent sold a single image from the former StockXpert  stable and my IS stuff is still not there...    guess I suck. 8)=tom


Me Too, one sale from the StockXpert collection for 25 cents since Feb. Best part is it was shot that was refused by every other agency except StockXpert! Ancient Neolithic Dwelling.



Which makes me ask... how much can ThinkStock be hurting the market if they aren't selling much of anything?  ???

There's a place down the street selling cheap subs same prices as SS and others, (not cheaper than Deposit Photos by the way) but they have no business and no customers, plus their product is mostly old re-cycled leftovers.  ;D

Lets pretend for a moment, that StockXpert/ThinkStock doesn't exist. As far as all reports from everyone here, the sales there are minimal if any at all.

Then where are the customers going? ThinkStock is getting blamed, called out, people write nasty-grams, but the place can't logically be the cause, if ThinkStock sales suck?



ThinkStock isn't hurting the market, but it is pushing it to the inevitable 3 tiered system of Maco, Exclusive, and 25 cent-ers.

By the way, where in . did you find that shot . . . . . it looks a little like my place :)
« Last Edit: July 19, 2010, 15:54 by etienjones »

« Reply #71 on: July 19, 2010, 17:27 »
0
^
It's Skara Brae on the Orkney Islands in Scotland, isn't it?

« Reply #72 on: July 20, 2010, 03:24 »
0
still havent sold a single image from the former StockXpert  stable and my IS stuff is still not there...    guess I suck. 8)=tom


Me Too, one sale from the StockXpert collection for 25 cents since Feb. Best part is it was shot that was refused by every other agency except StockXpert! Ancient Neolithic Dwelling.






Hey, I thought you need a property release for interior shots? ;D

RacePhoto

« Reply #73 on: July 20, 2010, 12:50 »
0
^
It's Skara Brae on the Orkney Islands in Scotland, isn't it?

Yes, it is Orkney. Kind of rough but after a few thousand years it's still there. Film photo taken 1988.

Restrictions at Maas Howe were no video, but I could take still shots. Who knows where they get some of these regulations. Inside some buildings Windsor Castle for example, no photos at all. They claim something about security.

Speaking of property shots: Under strict rules, the National Trust bans the commercial use of photographs taken at its properties. "This section of the 1965 National Trust byelaws is the basis on which the Trust's photographic policy is based. Our policy is explicit in welcoming people to take photographs out of doors at properties for personal use and research but the Trust does not permit photography for profit or  publication without permission. ....The byelaw protecting the Trust relates to all National Trust property, including non-paying properties such as coastlines and landscapes. "

Coastline and landscapes? They want to own the rights to everything? This is what's behind the restrictions at Uluru/Ayers Rock. The religious claim is just thrown in for the politically correct, so they can tug on our heart strings. It's not a rock, it's a small mountain. How can they claim to own all rights to a mountain? The National Trust wants to grab all rights to all images and had been perusing removal of images on a number of agency sites.

Meanwhile, that was my only sale of StockXpert photos on ThinkStock in six months. ThinkStock is a collection of collections, recycled old photo agencies that were languishing on their own, now under one roof. People don't seem to see past the end of their own nose. ThinkStock is not dependent on IS partner shots or the StockXpert collection, it's the other 80-90% of their old material that's being exposed to buyers at bargain prices.

Subscriptions are already here at many sites. I don't know why some people are picking at thsi one so much, when there are others that sell subscription plans, to buyers for much less. Price undercutting will hurt the market much more than ThinkStock ever will!

People should not confuse crummy pay and commissions with low prices. ThinkStock is matching the general market for prices, not undercutting it. We need to be concerned with the health of the entire market and upholding price levels, not individual percentages. If the prices go down, the profits go down, for us and the agencies.

With that, some new upstart with lower subscription rates for buyers is a worse problem and threat, than ThinkStock. But as I've pointed out before and been ignored, some people send that type of parasitic agency hundreds of images, because they can get a 25c upload stipend while complaining that 25c a download isn't enough. So it's OK to sell out for a quarter and weaken the market, but it's not OK to sell images for 25c?

I still don't get it!  :D

« Reply #74 on: July 20, 2010, 17:18 »
0
Have any new sites that paid for uploads weakened the market?  I don't think so, none of them have enough buyers.  I am sure thinkstock has lost me money.  There is still a huge gap between subs and pay per download prices.  Subs prices were moving up but how can other sites raise prices if thinkstock is a success?  Some pay per download buyers will move to subs sites if the gap in prices carries on, I just don't believe they are two completely separate markets.

And I still don't see why I should be grateful for 25 cents from thinkstock when other sites pay 35 cents or more, it just isn't appealing to me.

« Reply #75 on: July 20, 2010, 18:44 »
0
had my first sale...   25 cents....      nothing like the old StockXpert days...  before she went belly-up.. StockXpert was usually my #3 money.   Hope the boys from Fresh pick me up.... 8)=tom

« Reply #76 on: July 20, 2010, 19:02 »
0
I agree sites undercutting is a problem

But thinkstock is marketed directly at the customers currently buying ppd at istock. Plenty of reports of decreased earnings. As expected (from the same thing happening elsewhere) my extra large sales were the first hit and have plummeted because these are the first customers to go to subs.

With thinkstock I'm limited to my weekly upload limit at istock.  There is only a small capacity for me build a large portfolio on ts. That small port is then thrown to the back behind getty's owned content, reducing further what I could hope to earn. On my sites I can hope to get best sellers that sit at or near the top of the search. That wont happen at TS, because I behind getty's 17 sites and istock exclusives. I can only ever hope for the crumbs.

as well as the fact that I earn from 30c to $1.05 for a subs sale everywhere else, I've had raises on subs prices at SS and DT. Raises at Thinkstock are just not going to happen, especially for independants. Not a hope.

Getty have a long history of undercutting, I am surprised they havent done some amazing deals aimed purely at destroying the competition, especially as they have the lowest costs of running the site. I expect it to come (but hopefully not).

Thankfully the chances of it pulling subs buyers from other sites, particularly SS is minimal, but when its customer base is istock, supporting Thinkstock is purely undercutting yourself and shooting yourself in the foot.  

I'm not normally this grumpy, but still just dont see anything positive in TS. There is only 2 sites who a worse deal (and I wont contribute to them) I even get a better deal from crestock.


« Reply #77 on: August 15, 2010, 23:28 »
0
So im reading the news on my handy ipad, and what do i see? An image on the death tax story "courtesy of thinkstock". Thanks for being penny-pinchers,  CNN.  I looked it up on thinkstock and it's credited to Brand X. Here's the link in case you want to see

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/OPINION/08/15/greene.death.taxes/t1larg.field.cememtery.courtesy.jpg   

lisafx

« Reply #78 on: August 16, 2010, 15:05 »
0
Yikes - that is so oversaturated and oversharpened it nearly blinded me!   

Looks like what was stated in another thread about volume sub buyers not caring about quality is absolutely correct!

« Reply #79 on: August 16, 2010, 15:09 »
0
I thought so too, but I'm new, so I keep my mouth shut on that stuff.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
Its alive!

Started by josh_crestock Crestock.com

9 Replies
4057 Views
Last post November 14, 2008, 10:08
by MikLav
4 Replies
9071 Views
Last post May 23, 2013, 11:03
by sharpshot
17 Replies
3967 Views
Last post October 07, 2014, 07:20
by stocked
8 Replies
3190 Views
Last post December 16, 2015, 20:58
by stockastic
12 Replies
3382 Views
Last post December 30, 2015, 13:38
by Monty-m-gue

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results