Author Topic: thinkstockphotos.com - Getty New Family (Read 100362 times)

cathyslife · « **Reply #175 on:** February 05, 2010, 15:40 »

Quote

Most of you are fine with this, because you see this as just another site.

No, we're not and no we don't. This doesn't only affect exclusives already at istock, this affects people who are seriously considering going exclusive at istock and it affects independents on istock who may upload to other subscription sites, none of which pays as low as 25 cents per image. This is pretty much a slap in the face, punch in the stomach, however you want to put it, to everybody in microstock.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #176 on:** February 05, 2010, 15:44 »

Quote from: gostwyck on February 05, 2010, 15:36

Quote from: sjlocke on February 05, 2010, 15:18
Most of you are fine with this, because you see this as just another site.

No we're not and no we don't. The only folk who want to play ball with TS are those with tiny portfolios and few sales. I don't know of any serious player who sees TS as anything other than Getty attempting to undermine other subscription sites (who already underpay us).

No, you're right. Just the last bunch of posts here were like - what's the big deal? I'm in! I'd hope most people avoid this low paying fiasco.

melastmohican · « **Reply #177 on:** February 05, 2010, 15:49 »

It makes perfect sense. What would hurt competition more, buying one of them and invest money to make it stronger or simple shoot it down, get good parts and lunch new site to start price war? If second attempt fails who care, they already eliminated on of enemies and hurt rest of them. Maybe some are not strong enough to survive.

RT · « **Reply #178 on:** February 05, 2010, 16:07 »

Quote from: sjlocke on February 05, 2010, 15:44

I'd hope most people avoid this low paying fiasco.

Most people probably aren't aware, I haven't seen any email from iStock telling me that if I'd previously enrolled my images into the iStock subscription package they've now been shoved over to a new site paying the lowest commission in the industry, most people will probably carry on hoping for that illusive subscription sale where the buyer didn't use all their package leaving a big cut for the contributor.

FD · « **Reply #179 on:** February 05, 2010, 16:09 »

Quote from: averil on February 05, 2010, 14:48

istock's edge is its current (18 months) exclusive content, none of which will be going to thinkstock. savvy buyers know this.

If this is true, it won't be much of a competition to SS, since SS will have the newest stuff (18 months is long enough), just like IS. In fact TS will look slightly as a leftovers site then.

To Racephoto: yes there is a big difference between SS and TS. Agreed, SS starts at 0.25$ too, but there is a fast growth path to 0.36$ (if even an amateur like me is already there). On TS there will probably only be a growth path for IS exclusives (to keep them happy).

ShadySue · « **Reply #180 on:** February 05, 2010, 16:16 »

Quote from: RT on February 05, 2010, 16:07

Quote from: sjlocke on February 05, 2010, 15:44
I'd hope most people avoid this low paying fiasco.

Most people probably aren't aware, I haven't seen any email from iStock telling me that if I'd previously enrolled my images into the iStock subscription package they've now been shoved over to a new site paying the lowest commission in the industry, most people will probably carry on hoping for that illusive subscription sale where the buyer didn't use all their package leaving a big cut for the contributor.

~~The payment is the same as you'd already get at photos.com, though now its a much smaller percentage of the price that Getty rakes in because the annual sub is so much higher.~~
My mistake; I misread your question. Your images shouldn't be opted into the Partner Program, i.e. Photos.com and Thinkstockphoto unless you have opted in to the Partner Program, either totally or image by image.
However, there have been loads of mistakes, so you should check if there are any of your images on ThinkStock (by searching for your real name in double quotes) and if they're there, contact Support.

Eireann · « **Reply #181 on:** February 05, 2010, 16:20 »

My portfolio is tiny with almost no sales.
I'm opted out at IStock.
I opted out at STX as soon as the Photos com deal came about and never took part in it. I will be deleting my STX port in the next few days. Account closed.
I'm not willing to jeopardize sales at better paying sites by accepting Getty's 0.25 cent deal.
They can keep it, I'm staying away from ThinkStock.

There is one thing only I sort of like about TStock and I hope they'll never change it.
The upload process.
It can happen only via IStock.
It's difficult, even more so for base newbies/independents.
It takes time, there are upload limits and there are eagle-eyed inspectors.
I hope they stay so. Make it as hard as possible to participate.
From where I stand, this is my only hope.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #182 on:** February 05, 2010, 16:24 »

Quote from: RT on February 05, 2010, 16:07

Quote from: sjlocke on February 05, 2010, 15:44
I'd hope most people avoid this low paying fiasco.

Most people probably aren't aware, I haven't seen any email from iStock telling me that if I'd previously enrolled my images into the iStock subscription package they've now been shoved over to a new site paying the lowest commission in the industry, most people will probably carry on hoping for that illusive subscription sale where the buyer didn't use all their package leaving a big cut for the contributor.

The iStock "partner program". The "iStock subscription" program is one that should be emulated for all sub plans.

RT · « **Reply #183 on:** February 05, 2010, 16:41 »

Quote from: sjlocke on February 05, 2010, 16:24

The iStock "partner program". The "iStock subscription" program is one that should be emulated for all sub plans.

I'm fine with the iStock subscription plan but can you be in that and not the other 'cheapo give em away for nothing schemes' ?

From the contributor info pages:
Are my files opted into Subscription?

As of May 26, 2008, all files uploaded to iStock are opted into Subscriptions. If you are a contributor and you want to control which files are sold to both Pay-as-you-go and Subscription plans just click the 'All Off' button in your Control Panel. You can also opt-out individual files from the 'Edit File' details page.

In my contributor panel the only 'All on' & 'All off' options are under the heading for partner program, and on the edit page of the file there is nothing mentioning the iStock subscription plan either opting in or out only that I'm opted out of the partner program.

SNP · « **Reply #184 on:** February 05, 2010, 16:46 »

there are many exclusives who have considered going independent because they see the sales happening elsewhere, in particular sales happening at SS, FT. at first glance, the PP looked like a viable way to reach those markets without losing the perks of the crown. not so. not even close. the more we get into this mess, the more it is obvious that Hellman & Friedman (Getty for all-intents & purposes) are so far removed from the process, they should be hung out to dry the same way they expect us to be.

if I was ever unclear about the way to go, the fog has lifted. exclusives, please, do not opt into this program. educate yourselves please because half the comments in here aren't even accurate -- really read the forums presenting the sides of this issue, here and on istock. forget about vilifying TPTB, they just want to make money too. so let's make it impossible for them to put our work on crap sites, which can't touch SS anyways.

any serious independents planning to go exclusive, stay opted out. stay opted out exclusives. that is the best and only way to accomplish this. seriously.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #185 on:** February 05, 2010, 17:02 »

Quote from: RT on February 05, 2010, 16:41

I'm fine with the iStock subscription plan but can you be in that and not the other 'cheapo give em away for nothing schemes'

When the introduced the partner opt out/in they discontinued the opt out/in for iStock subscriptions. IOW all iStock contributors participate in the on-site subs plan whether they want to or not. In practical terms it doesn't matter because the sales have been so meager - but then if you don't promote it because you're promoting Getty's cheapo options, then that shouldn't be surprising.

One thing the iStock subs plan - which is effectively a huge credit bundle at lower prices but with additional restrictions - has going for it is that you can get at Vetta (and Exclusive+) which you can't with the Thinkstock plans.

I suspect that the partner program appealed most to those exclusives who'd never been independent - or who were independent a long time ago. They just don't understand the damage they can do to their income (and everyone else's) by opting in. They also don't care to listen to anyone who tells them otherwise - it's not as though a number of us who don't support the partner program have been silent about the problems with it...

lisafx · « **Reply #186 on:** February 05, 2010, 17:15 »

Quote from: jsnover on February 05, 2010, 17:02

I suspect that the partner program appealed most to those exclusives who'd never been independent - or who were independent a long time ago. They just don't understand the damage they can do to their income (and everyone else's) by opting in. They also don't care to listen to anyone who tells them otherwise - it's not as though a number of us who don't support the partner program have been silent about the problems with it...

Absolutely right. Many of us (independents and recent exclusives) were warning of the dangers of cannibalization back when the partner program was first announced. Quite often it seemed the warnings of those of us with StockXpert experience fell on deaf, and even hostile ears.

It is a relief to see that so many who refused to believe it at the time have done a 180 now. Better late on this bandwagon than never, to be sure.

SNP · « **Reply #187 on:** February 05, 2010, 17:29 »

^ I would only partly agree Lisa. you and a few others maintain a level point of view in forums, but many of the same nay sayers repeatedly have the sky falling with any change announced. no one is going to jump on that. the same people, or many of them anyways, grumbled about best match 2.0, Vetta, and about price increases...and now regarding all three, we're laughing.

the partner program is turning out to be a greedy cash grab by Getty or their bosses, whatever. I don't care who the bad guy is, as long as the bad guy can't touch my images. but many of the problems that were supposedly predicted haven't happened, and sadly HQ have gone back on many of the conditions they said would not be present i.e. searching by contributor, and marketing the partner sites to istock buyers who they claimed weren't even remotely within the same market.

their plan is now exposed for what it is, and maybe they think we're idiots...so hopefully any intelligent exclusives will stay opted out

lisafx · « **Reply #188 on:** February 05, 2010, 17:50 »

Quote from: hawk_eye on February 05, 2010, 17:29

the partner program is turning out to be a greedy cash grab by Getty or their bosses, whatever. I don't care who the bad guy is, as long as the bad guy can't touch my images. but many of the problems that were supposedly predicted haven't happened, and sadly HQ have gone back on many of the conditions they said would not be present i.e. searching by contributor, and marketing the partner sites to istock buyers who they claimed weren't even remotely within the same market.

their plan is now exposed for what it is, and maybe they think we're idiots...regardless, the plan is now more clear and hopefully any intelligent exclusives will stay opted out

I agree, it's hard to see this latest as anything but pitifully shortsighted.

I will just add to the portion of your post that I highlighted - hopefully non-exclusives will opt out also. Getty lowballed us from the meager .30 we were making and has offered .25 for independents. This is well below the industry standard. Staying opted out is the only way to ensure that the industry standard doesn't drop to meet those insulting low royalties.

Another reason for independents to opt out is that it benefits the industry as a whole to preserve Istock in its current form. They have been the leader in raising prices and that has been good for all of us. Not to mention that it's nice to have the prospect of the crown as a backup if one gets tired of uploading to multiple sites.

cathyslife · « **Reply #189 on:** February 05, 2010, 17:59 »

Another day has now gone by and my images are still on thinkstockphotos...even though I opted out a long time ago. They can call it a h*ckup or a f*ckup or whatever sweet little terms they have going on over at the IS forums, but basically it doesn't seem to matter whether a person opts out or not.

I find it hard to believe my images couldn't have been removed in the past 3-1/2 days.

ShadySue · « **Reply #190 on:** February 05, 2010, 18:25 »

Quote from: cclapper on February 05, 2010, 17:59

Another day has now gone by and my images are still on thinkstockphotos...even though I opted out a long time ago. They can call it a h*ckup or a f*ckup or whatever sweet little terms they have going on over at the IS forums, but basically it doesn't seem to matter whether a person opts out or not.

I find it hard to believe my images couldn't have been removed in the past 3-1/2 days.

My oped out file is still there; I'm guessing they have a huge number of images to pull, and some poor junior is stuck doing it manually.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #191 on:** February 05, 2010, 18:43 »

Quote from: cclapper on February 05, 2010, 17:59

Another day has now gone by and my images are still on thinkstockphotos...even though I opted out a long time ago. They can call it a h*ckup or a f*ckup or whatever sweet little terms they have going on over at the IS forums, but basically it doesn't seem to matter whether a person opts out or not.

I find it hard to believe my images couldn't have been removed in the past 3-1/2 days.

Harder to believe they are up on that site at all. That's another up for your list that they shouldn't have done to you.

To answer the general tone of the disagreement. I'm doing the wait and see. When I reach payout at StockXpert/ThinkStock I can pull the plug. In fact I may not have to, since nothing has appeared of mine from StockXpert. If I don't like the way things are going on IS/ThinkStock I can click my way out in one easy Opt Out.

I still don't see how a choice of being on a new sub site is any different than joining a new sub site? Or rejecting the opt in, is any different than people who refuse to upload to any sub site. It's there and it's not going away. Hey, where are all the people saying DepositPhotos is the new hot site, when it's a sub site? "Subscription Plan. Our generous subscription plans have you covered with up to 40 downloads each day at prices as low as $0.10 per piece!" What kind of commissions are people going to get from that?

We have free will to contribute or not. Buyers who were buying from StockXpert on subscription will have to go someplace? Who knows, maybe buyers will see the images on IS because it's linked from ThinkStock, and come buy them. I don't know. But StockXpert is going to be gone soon.

I didn't start the site!

I'm just looking at their motivations. True it's underselling and lowball pricing. Maybe that will change too? Here's hoping.

Everyone can Opt Out if they want and ThinkStock will still have all those other collections that Getty owns. I don't see much harm in having my brand "CrapStock" included. Others will differ.

RT · « **Reply #192 on:** February 05, 2010, 18:50 »

Quote from: jsnover on February 05, 2010, 17:02

When the introduced the partner opt out/in they discontinued the opt out/in for iStock subscriptions. IOW all iStock contributors participate in the on-site subs plan whether they want to or not. In practical terms it doesn't matter because the sales have been so meager - but then if you don't promote it because you're promoting Getty's cheapo options, then that shouldn't be surprising.

Ah thanks, they obviously haven't amended the part of the contributor info I highlighted.

Suljo · « **Reply #193 on:** February 05, 2010, 20:03 »

Quote from: donding on February 04, 2010, 14:39

I found that but when you click on "read this first" button it says this

"Partner Program
You have the option to make any of your files available at certain Getty Images partner sites. Checking the Partner Program box will activate a column of 'Add to Partners' check boxes beside each of your files on the 'My Uploads' page. You can then decide which files to opt in or out

If you ever change your mind, you can remove any content currently available at other sites through the Partner Program by simply unchecking the box. Files will be removed within 10 days.
I think that means even though you opted in to the partner sites you have to still have to pick the files one by one. It doesn't auotmatically check these boxes

My problem is that geeks from IS steal some of my unchecked files and put them on Thing (I dont check my images on photos.konj). I am very scarry to do that to find the same problem. I will completely freak out on them???
1. Who allow them to do that??
2. How can I delete my images them from Thing.conj if they are not checked on iStock???
3. If I wrote to them it will not be nicely to read and if I am happy maybe I will receive stupid ignorant answer within month or two which will dont solve my problem and during that time my files will be prostituted on their Thing sites because they have lots of open tickets (read "problems which they produced by themselves")
4. How can I trust them any more (they are not capable to fix reading TCIP data during upload proces for years and how then can prevent themselves not to stealing my images and resend them away without my permission).
5. How can I sue them for they ignorance and slackness?

SNP · « **Reply #194 on:** February 05, 2010, 20:31 »

from Lisafx:
I agree, it's hard to see this latest as anything but pitifully shortsighted.

I will just add to the portion of your post that I highlighted - hopefully non-exclusives will opt out also. Getty lowballed us from the meager .30 we were making and has offered .25 for independents. This is well below the industry standard. Staying opted out is the only way to ensure that the industry standard doesn't drop to meet those insulting low royalties.

***

sorry, didn't mean to exclude independents. I only used exclusives because we're an obvious group since our stuff isn't anywhere else and the 'partner' sites are our only other option if we want sub sales, which thanks, I will pass on if it means subs sales through a half-baked, bumbling for a piece of the pie venture that screams of failed venture before it even leaves the gate. if I am wrong, whatever. then we all win. but I don't think any of us are wrong about the partner program being a great big mess that will not include any of my work. I'm really into being exclusive on iStock - I hope they don't screw it all up with this nonsense for much longer

Eireann · « **Reply #195 on:** February 05, 2010, 22:40 »

Hi Race,
I'm not trying to convince you, I respect your decision, but you might find the following facts about Deposit Photos interesting.
Deposit Photos is not a subscription only (or mainly) site. ThinkStock is.
Deposit Photos pays 0.30 cent minimum per subscription sale.
Their minimum royalty is 44% at lowest level (Beginner) and 60 % at highest (Platinum Exclusive).
Easy upload system and lots of other financial incentives going on at the moment.
They are trying harder and their deal is better than Getty's.
Or so it looks to me.

Anyka · « **Reply #196 on:** February 06, 2010, 02:01 »

What I don't understand is the "transfer" of images to ThinkStock. Most of us have many more images on StockXpert than on IS (in my case it's 3100/1800), and the StockXpert announcement talked about the Hemera collection of StockXpert images to ThinkStock.
I was opted in on StockXpert and IS and haven't changed anything (yet), but only 300 IS pictures are appearing on ThinkStock, and not even my bestsellers. If I click "hemera", the result is zero.
Why aren't they using the StockXpert collection? The number is not growing, so it's not a question of slow transfer. And why only 300 IS photos without the bestsellers? Any thoughts?

Danicek · « **Reply #197 on:** February 06, 2010, 03:15 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on February 05, 2010, 14:05

I'm pretty sure it was designed as direct competition against SS. Simple enough?

...

I admit to being on SS with most of the same shots, why not have them on ThinkStock for the same commission? A quarter for a snapshot is the same whether it's sold on IS or SS. Yes, I know at $500 SS gives me a nice 8c raise, and I'm looking forward to that.

Right, I would agree that it was designed as competition against SS. And I'm also pretty sure that SS pays on average much more (in %) than 0.25.

Therefor is the difference between ThinkStock and SS commission highly important and not insignificant as you seem to suggest.

Let's do the math for subscriptions on SS versus ThinkStock:

SS - if we apply the 20/80 rule, then we would get average commission of 0.354 (0.8*0.38+0.2*0.25). Even if that's currently significantly diluted by the inflow of new photographers we may rest assured that it is indeed above 0.3

ThinkStock - they have flat rate of 0.25 and I'm sure they will try to sell they wholly owned content as much as they can. That means that their average commission won't be 0.25, instead it will be less. If they sell 50% of wholly owned content, that would mean average commission 0.125. It probably won't be that much (sales of wholly owned content), yet we may still rest assured that it will be less than 0.25 of average commission payed on subscription sale.

DT - compute the numbers on your own. It renders sites paying us even more than SS completely irrelevant from pricing perspective.

So I bet SS will be paying 40% more (or even more) on commissions. That will mean that either ThinkStock will have more money for their operation including advertisement or they will have plenty of space to lower prices of their packages.

This all is bad enough. Let's also wait on what they announce as 'image packs' (5 / 25 / 100 / 250). If they come up with something close to subscription prices, it may be another hit.

All in all it looks like IS (Getty) was overwhelmed by FT's acting as IS exclusivity manager and is trying to push against it...

ShadySue · « **Reply #198 on:** February 06, 2010, 04:20 »

Quote from: Suljo on February 05, 2010, 20:03

I will completely freak out on them.
2. How can I delete my images them from Thing.conj if they are not checked on iStock???
3. If I wrote to them it will not be nicely to read and if I am happy maybe I will receive stupid ignorant answer within month or two which will dont solve my problem and during that time my files will be prostituted on their Thing sites because they have lots of open tickets (read "problems which they produced by themselves")

Keep it cool. Remember it's not the fault of the Support person who takes your call/reads your email.
Just check that you really are opted out in your Control Panel, then write a nice email to Support asking for all your images to be removed from the Partner Program.
Getting agitated will make your message less easy to understand. It's called 'red mist'.

Phil · « **Reply #199 on:** February 06, 2010, 06:44 »

personally just having Istock listed as the source (exclusive or not) in a bargain basement shop devalues the brand and says its nothing special, just in with the rest of the crowd. All the years of pushing that istock has better & exclusive images thrown away. Maybe I read it wrong but its hard to justify exclusive images as any better (and now worth more) when they are in the bargain bin (imo 18 months means nothing).

but what I think is dishearting is the 'new markets', 'different customers' tripe that the other sites did and people saying the same ' we should give it a try etc' and the marketing to exisitng customers, bye bye to my xxl sales at istock too

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: thinkstockphotos.com - Getty New Family (Read 100362 times)

cathyslife

Sean Locke Photography

melastmohican

RT

FD

ShadySue

Eireann

Sean Locke Photography

RT

SNP

Jo Ann Snover

lisafx

SNP

lisafx

cathyslife

ShadySue

RacePhoto

RT

Suljo

SNP

Eireann

Anyka

Danicek

ShadySue

Phil

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors