pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: thinkstockphotos.com - Getty New Family  (Read 71313 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 01, 2010, 11:16 »
0
Hi Guys check this out

http://www.thinkstockphotos.com/

It is one of getty's site, and they sell by subscription only, just like SS
and the price is same to SS
$249 750/month 25/day

do you think this is SS rivals ?


« Reply #1 on: February 01, 2010, 11:21 »
0
Doesn't look up to much.  Looks similar to photos.com but with even less images.  I am sure they can do better than this.

« Reply #2 on: February 01, 2010, 11:30 »
0
There are a lot of website sources for the imagery.

IStock seems to be the biggest when looking at them individually.

Found some of my images there through iStock.

« Reply #3 on: February 01, 2010, 11:33 »
0
This one seems to be new and they are planning a lot with it. There are already numerous blog posts about it (from today 2/1).

see (an example):

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/introducing-thinkstock-a-new-kind-of-image-subscription,1144260.shtml

grp_photo

« Reply #4 on: February 01, 2010, 11:40 »
0
Stockxpert is now Hemera-Collection ::) another indication that it won't go to long with them :-(

sc

« Reply #5 on: February 01, 2010, 11:48 »
0

« Reply #6 on: February 01, 2010, 11:52 »
0
I still think it is a big mistake paying us just $0.25 commission.  If they paid a bit more, like most of the other sites do, they would have a much bigger collection of images.

sc

« Reply #7 on: February 01, 2010, 11:55 »
0
I still think it is a big mistake paying us just $0.25 commission.  If they paid a bit more, like most of the other sites do, they would have a much bigger collection of images.

+1

WarrenPrice

« Reply #8 on: February 01, 2010, 12:05 »
0
So, this is the JupiterImages replacement that was mentioned on the SX forum? 

There is a thread there, obviously ignored, about people opting out of any 25 cent subscription program.

m@m

« Reply #9 on: February 01, 2010, 12:12 »
0
I still think it is a big mistake paying us just $0.25 commission.  If they paid a bit more, like most of the other sites do, they would have a much bigger collection of images.

My sentiments exactly!  :)

« Reply #10 on: February 01, 2010, 12:20 »
0
My interest in another channel paying me 25 cents is zero.

Even though, according to a couple of posters on IS forum, the new site looks "hot".   :D

Dook

« Reply #11 on: February 01, 2010, 13:21 »
0
I opted out partner program and my pictures still show up at this new site. I contacted support. You should check too ( if you are opted out). It seems to me that there is a problem with files that were opted in once and then opted out. Because my newer files that were never opted in do not show up at this new site.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #12 on: February 01, 2010, 13:30 »
0
Not sure how I feel about this.

An additional revenue stream is good. Everybody here seems to love SS and it's a top earner. What if Thinkstock performed similarly to SS? Or given Getty's customer base, even better than SS?

My biggest concern is diminishing contributor influence on future changes. Istock has listened to complaints and ideas. Getty doesn't. Thinkstock was launched and that's the way it is. Don't like it? Opt-out? But will there come a point when you no longer have the option to opt-out? Or your complaints and ideas fall on deaf ears?

I think microstock as a whole is headed for a big shakeup this year. This affects all of you no matter where and how may sites you submit to.

Maybe time to start looking into other avenues.

lisafx

« Reply #13 on: February 01, 2010, 13:31 »
0
I don't see any up side at all to a .25 subscription site.  They are charging the same as SS, but not paying the same.  

Everyone with over 500 DL's on SS get .33 and up, with lots getting .38.  DT pays .35 and up for subs, depending on the image level, and FT pays .34 to .39 depending on size.


WarrenPrice

« Reply #14 on: February 01, 2010, 13:37 »
0
I don't see any up side at all to a .25 subscription site.  They are charging the same as SS, but not paying the same.  

Everyone with over 500 DL's on SS get .33 and up, with lots getting .38.  DT pays .35 and up for subs, depending on the image level, and FT pays .34 to .39 depending on size.



Lisa,
I agree with what you say but think that SS increases to 33 cents at the 500 dollar level rather than at 500 downloads.  I misread that in the beginning and was very disappointed when I checked again.   :'(

« Reply #15 on: February 01, 2010, 15:19 »
0
I don't think they will get anywhere near the sales volume of SS with their current collection.  They have probably stopped the other subs sites raising their prices and commissions.  Hopefully they will either see sense and raise commissions or the buyers will take a look and go to the sites with a far superior collection of images.

Reef

  • astonmars.com
« Reply #16 on: February 01, 2010, 15:40 »
0
I think I'm having a premonition because I can hear some familiar music in the background and words too  ....a long time ago  ......Microstock Wars.

The subs were the evil Dark Force and..... oh, premonition has gone now.


« Reply #17 on: February 01, 2010, 16:02 »
0
Death Star has arrived. Not fully functional but it's here ;-)

« Reply #18 on: February 01, 2010, 16:07 »
0
I still think it is a big mistake paying us just $0.25 commission.  If they paid a bit more, like most of the other sites do, they would have a much bigger collection of images.

I think quantity of images is a problem few sites have to worry about these days.  If it becomes widely known that there's a shortage of images there, they will soon see a glut of contributors who think they'll stand out more and do well on volume if not on individual commissions.

« Reply #19 on: February 01, 2010, 16:38 »
0
I don't see any up side at all to a .25 subscription site.  They are charging the same as SS, but not paying the same.  

Everyone with over 500 DL's on SS get .33 and up, with lots getting .38.  DT pays .35 and up for subs, depending on the image level, and FT pays .34 to .39 depending on size.

Not only that but much of their collection is wholly-owned by Getty anyway so they'll be paying no commission at all on DL's from those. No doubt those images will be flagged to mostly appear earlier in the search order too.

I could understand it if they were trying to undercut SS and the others but why would anyone subscribe to Thinkstock by choice? Try doing a few searches to discover the real limitations of the site. The sort order is hopeless, you can't change it and you have to laboriously flick through in page order. You would think that most buyers spending at that level on images would quickly identify such issues. As well as that they only appear to have about one tenth of the choice of images that SS has.

I don't see Thinkstock in having any more impact than Photos.com, probably less, and unlikely to live for too long.

« Reply #20 on: February 01, 2010, 16:50 »
0
If thinkstock needs better images from istock, it should pay more. More per sub dl, and more for the announced packs, that I understad they will give 20% to authors. If not, as photos.com it will be seen as a kind of Dollar Bin for non-selling photos.
Actually I think they should take the Istock route, and dare to sell subs at a higher rice, offering a better quality.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #21 on: February 01, 2010, 16:55 »
0
If thinkstock needs better images from istock, it should pay more. More per sub dl, and more for the announced packs, that I understad they will give 20% to authors. If not, as photos.com it will be seen as a kind of Dollar Bin for non-selling photos.
Actually I think they should take the Istock route, and dare to sell subs at a higher rice, offering a better quality.

I think iStock/Getty cares as much about what we think as Fotolia ... just being a little less blatant about expressing it.   :P

« Reply #22 on: February 01, 2010, 17:18 »
0
It needs to be rethinkstock.

lisafx

« Reply #23 on: February 01, 2010, 17:38 »
0
SS increases to 33 cents at the 500 dollar level rather than at 500 downloads.  I misread that in the beginning and was very disappointed when I checked again.   :'(

Ooops!  Sorry about that.  It came into place after I was already past the mark so I guess I misunderstood. 

« Reply #24 on: February 01, 2010, 19:11 »
0
There are two fact no one seems to realize:
1. Most of this collection - at least the top of the searches - are build from former macro images.
2. Images form microstock sources are far behind them in the search results.

Conclusion:
a) this site is very dangerous to SS because they sell 'high quality macro images' for the same low prize.
b) microstock images are there to make a quantity but they will not be sold as many times as you may think.

Final conclusion: Regardless of you are singing in or out this site is a VERY BAD NEWS for the majority of the microstock photographers.... and for SS.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
2509 Views
Last post February 09, 2010, 17:09
by lisafx
11 Replies
2022 Views
Last post November 01, 2013, 18:53
by w7lwi
27 Replies
3349 Views
Last post April 16, 2015, 10:30
by elvinstar
35 Replies
5383 Views
Last post March 30, 2016, 14:24
by ArenaCreative
6 Replies
2515 Views
Last post September 07, 2017, 03:59
by JQzmanovic

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results