MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: leolintang on February 01, 2010, 11:16
-
Hi Guys check this out
http://www.thinkstockphotos.com/ (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 ?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/introducing-thinkstock-a-new-kind-of-image-subscription,1144260.shtml)
-
Stockxpert is now Hemera-Collection ::) another indication that it won't go to long with them :-(
-
Read about it in the istock forums
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=171201 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=171201)
-
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 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
-
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.
-
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! :)
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :'(
-
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.
-
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.
-
Death Star has arrived. Not fully functional but it's here ;-)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
It needs to be rethinkstock.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Hi All,
Just had a chance to see what the new collection is made of. Say goodbye to Macro RF. Getty is pulling images from every collection they have in RF Macro to fill this site. It will have great images all Macro RF and the work that Istock photographers get to put on Getty will go there as well.
Not necessarily a good thing for Macro but we all new it had to change. Getty is now clumping it's Macro RF into a new subscription site that will be very popular to directly compete with SS and the Micro markets in general. Tons of professionally shot stock from Digital Vision to Brand X and everything in between. Hang on it's gonna get a bit crazy again.
Problem is the next step for Micro shooters working through Getty is they will only have this option unless they can produce quality to meet their RM collections or they are willing to pay for Photographers Choice uploads. Really take a hard look at this. Maybe it will revive Macro RF a bit but at what cost to Micro RF. Subscription Macro RF, that is kinda scary at first thought but we will have to see what will come of it.
Best,
Jonathan
-
I did a search for "London" and there are only 505 photos, lots of them with spam keywords that have nothing to do with London. I did a few more searches and wasn't impressed. There are lots of nice people photos but haven't all the sites got those in vast quantities now? I don't see this threatening SS yet, is it really much different to photos.com?
-
This is fine on IS and thinkstock
(http://tinyurl.com/ycqbzjq)
but this one is refused on IS for copyright, because they can recognize the Mfg.?
(http://images.stockxpert.com/pic/m/p/pk/pklinger/10465072_57102869.jpg)
They don't even pretend that they made any attempt to clean the catalog and remove copyrighted images. Notice CV designation and search results.
857 search results for Ford (Car Manufacturers' Brand Names)
This is going to be interesting.
Yes, I recognize the opportunity to have more sales at a sub site, which should be helpful. But what about the double standard? I thought these were hand picked and reviewed?
-
Are we going to hear the saying "Macro is ruining the Micro Industry". Kinda reversed from whats been said for years.
-
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.
These "former macro images" are mostly the bottom of the barrel. They are not "high quality". The reason they are being sold as subs is just to clear out old underselling inventory. Not much to feel threatened by there... ::)
-
I think iStock/Getty cares as much about what we think as Fotolia
I don't really think that any site/agency cares about what we think. Why should they? We're just wallets with cameras...
-
Another thing I just noticed is it includes Photodisc images but not Flickr.
Is Getty Flickr stuff now considered premium?
-
Hi All,
Just had a chance to see what the new collection is made of. Say goodbye to Macro RF. Getty is pulling images from every collection they have in RF Macro to fill this site. It will have great images all Macro RF and the work that Istock photographers get to put on Getty will go there as well.
Not necessarily a good thing for Macro but we all new it had to change. Getty is now clumping it's Macro RF into a new subscription site that will be very popular to directly compete with SS and the Micro markets in general. Tons of professionally shot stock from Digital Vision to Brand X and everything in between. Hang on it's gonna get a bit crazy again.
Problem is the next step for Micro shooters working through Getty is they will only have this option unless they can produce quality to meet their RM collections or they are willing to pay for Photographers Choice uploads. Really take a hard look at this. Maybe it will revive Macro RF a bit but at what cost to Micro RF. Subscription Macro RF, that is kinda scary at first thought but we will have to see what will come of it.
Best,
Jonathan
Jonathan,
how do you know that I stock exclusives working through Getty will have only this option? Has this been announced somewhere on Istock? I can not find it.
-
Don't really see any quality RF macro images on there...just their wholly owned stuff and it all looks very micro to me
-
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.
Whatever reservations I have about Thinkstock, the assertion you made isn't (always?) true. I just did a search on 'elephant' and there were 19 iStock images in the top 96 (first one in position 10) in a search result of 4712 results, plus some from photos.com old collection.
Admittedly only six/top 96 on a smaller result for 'handshake', but well mixed in.
40 of the top 96 (in a result set of 1284) goldfish are from istock.
-
First of all. Elephants, goldfish or even London is close to niche. These are not the images you make big money from in micro business or anywhere. This is why the uploaded macro collections do not have thousands them. Make a search for 'business', 'people', 'family'! Some istock images can find their way to the top of the searches but they are the minority. Just look at the pictures you see on the first 5 pages and ask yourself are my similar images better then these? Yes, these are not the bests of Getty but very decent images. They are still much better than 99% of micro images. Only a very few of microstock contributors can compete with them. If you feel you are one of them then ok, you are lucky.
Oh, and one more thing. Yes, these macro images look a bit microstockish... because these are the images the micro shooters are trying to copy.
-
As someone mentioned Death Star...
To Luke Skywalker: May the Force be with you!
-
I opted out of third party and promotional use, as well as the partner programs at IS, and yet I just found one of my images being sold on thinkstockphotos.com.
Off to email support.
edit: done. I went to the page where my image is on thinkstock. Tried to copy and paste the url so IS would know where to find it...it wouldn't work. I also noticed a note on the support ticket page:
* Please note * Due to an extremely high volume of tickets at this time, there may be up to a 5 day wait for ticket responses. If you require immediate assistance, please call us:
I would imagine they are going to be busy. Think I'll call them.
-
The search engine experience is KEY in having success these days, and I just don't see a very good one on the new site.
As for Macro quality VS Micro quality, I don't see much of a difference anymore for most content, perhaps thats the real reason they are dumping lots of it into a subscription site.
-
Looks awful. I don't see anything positive for contributors coming from this.
-
Looks awful. I don't see anything positive for contributors coming from this.
You are right. Microstock (or should that now read 'RF Stock') is not about contributors, it's about buyers.
-
Looks awful. I don't see anything positive for contributors coming from this.
You are right. Microstock (or should that now read 'RF Stock') is not about contributors, it's about buyers.
Isn't All business about the customer?
-
I think iStock/Getty cares as much about what we think as Fotolia
I don't really think that any site/agency cares about what we think. Why should they? We're just wallets with cameras...
Not to mention that most contributors roll over... Sure, they complain, but none of them are willing to give up existing revenue by removing their portfolios. As a whole, the MS sites know they run the industry the way they want.
-
Not to mention that most contributors roll over... Sure, they complain, but none of them are willing to give up existing revenue by removing their portfolios. As a whole, the MS sites know they run the industry the way they want.
Don't be so sure. Lots of noise about going Istock exclusive in response to the latest from Fotolia...
-
I opted out of third party and promotional use, as well as the partner programs at IS, and yet I just found one of my images being sold on thinkstockphotos.com.
Off to email support.
edit: done. I went to the page where my image is on thinkstock. Tried to copy and paste the url so IS would know where to find it...it wouldn't work. I also noticed a note on the support ticket page:
* Please note * Due to an extremely high volume of tickets at this time, there may be up to a 5 day wait for ticket responses. If you require immediate assistance, please call us:
I would imagine they are going to be busy. Think I'll call them.
This is pretty strange. I opted in and I can not find my images at all. I checked the StockXpert originated selection (don't know its name) and they seem to have images form some contributors only... for example none from Yuri. Strange.
-
I think iStock/Getty cares as much about what we think as Fotolia
I don't really think that any site/agency cares about what we think. Why should they? We're just wallets with cameras...
Not to mention that most contributors roll over... Sure, they complain, but none of them are willing to give up existing revenue by removing their portfolios. As a whole, the MS sites know they run the industry the way they want.
I have given up revenue by opting out of subs with StockXpert and opting out of the istock partner program. It looks like a lot of us have had enough of them reducing subs commissions to $0.25. I am also going to spend more time doing RM, footage and using other ways to sell my photos this year. It wont make a difference to the sites but I will feel better not having to rely on them so much.
-
I also noticed a note on the support ticket page: * Please note * Due to an extremely high volume of tickets at this time, there may be up to a 5 day wait for ticket responses. If you require immediate assistance, please call us:
That note has been on the ticket page at least since I joined iStock in Dec 2006.
Like several others, I found a pic I'd deactivated from iStock on Thinkstock.
-
Not to mention that most contributors roll over... Sure, they complain, but none of them are willing to give up existing revenue by removing their portfolios. As a whole, the MS sites know they run the industry the way they want.
Don't be so sure. Lots of noise about going Istock exclusive in response to the latest from Fotolia...
There's always "noise", but rarely ever much action. Nobody wants to be the "first" to stand up to the agencies because they're afraid nobody else will follow.
One major problem is the sheer volume of contributors... So many of whom are not doing or attempting to do MicroStock for a living... They are 'tickled pink' to get that extra $20 a month and they just keep on uploading not caring what the agencies do. Sadly, THEY are the contributors who are in control and the agencies use them as the stick to beat the pros into submission.
-
That note has been on the ticket page at least since I joined iStock in Dec 2006.
Shows how much I pay attention.
-
Hi Dook,
Actually I wrote that incorrectly. Istock shooters as of now will still have the opportunity to upload to Getty collections. So far it seems that most of the Macro work that Istock exclusives have posted on Getty has been through Photodisc one of their poorest sellers. It's not impossible that eventually all of the images that Istock exclusives send up stream will fall into this category along with all their holly owned imagery. Getty will post their holly owned images at the top this will hurt Micro and Macro photographers. They did it to Macro RF before Micro was getting off the ground, they will do it again. Images at the very top of the search from their holly owned work doesn't have to be stronger, placement is a huge part of sales in stock. Besides when this collection gets going they just launched and you have not seen the amount of work they will be pushing over to this collection yet, just the tip of the iceberg so far.
Another side is the images they have wholly owned in these collections are going to become more selective as they try to offer more of a Vetta look to their new collection, they own some great imagery that is not on the new site yet. I don't think there are massive buyers for these individual styles of imagery but they will be subscription so buyers might shop there instead of paying Vetta prices for great imagery.
This is Getty the guys that own everything with the exception of one big agency. The only other agency that can give Getty a run for it's money is Corbis, pretty small market to try and grab a piece of. Like I said not everything is on the table and we will have to see where this goes. I am just not excited about it as an RF producer. I am focused on producing RM completely now in Macro, we made this change a while ago thinking something very much like this to happen between Macro and Micro RF, one big happy family. Just my opinion.
One up side for Istock, they are owned by Getty it is the other Micro sites that are in trouble from this move more than ever.
Best,
Jonathan
-
This is Getty the guys that own everything with the exception of one big agency. The only other agency that can give Getty a run for it's money is Corbis, pretty small market to try and grab a piece of.
Jonathan, sorry to only sample one part of your very interesting and informative post. However I am curious in what way you anticipate Corbis giving Getty a run for its money?
I had high hopes for Veer marketplace to compete effectively in micro, but the results have been beyond underwhelming (closer to pitiful). It was quite clear to me as a contributor that Veer had absolutely no idea what they were doing as far as microstock is concerned.
-
Another side is the images they have wholly owned in these collections are going to become more selective as they try to offer more of a Vetta look to their new collection, they own some great imagery that is not on the new site yet. I don't think there are massive buyers for these individual styles of imagery but they will be subscription so buyers might shop there instead of paying Vetta prices for great imagery.
I don't see any Vetta-type images in the Thinkstock collection, just conventional stock images some quite good, some no so good, some a bit outdated. What they will do in the future, we will learn in the future, but I seriously doubt they are going to risk their more profitable business for an SS type subscription site and on the intent to get the SS costumers. SS is a good business, but because of his model, prices and comissions paid, far less profitable than Istock.
-
There's always "noise", but rarely ever much action. Nobody wants to be the "first" to stand up to the agencies because they're afraid nobody else will follow.
I presume you are referring to your own mindset in the above statement?
As it happens I know of at least 4 other major independent contributors (with over 400K DL's at Istock between them) who, as a result of FT raising credit prices for customers but not contributors, are now taking positive action preparing for exclusivity.
Many of us that do this for a living talk much more to each other via private email or phone than we do on the forums. Trust me, there is plenty of action being taken behind the scenes.
-
There's always "noise", but rarely ever much action. Nobody wants to be the "first" to stand up to the agencies because they're afraid nobody else will follow.
One major problem is the sheer volume of contributors... So many of whom are not doing or attempting to do MicroStock for a living... They are 'tickled pink' to get that extra $20 a month and they just keep on uploading not caring what the agencies do. Sadly, THEY are the contributors who are in control and the agencies use them as the stick to beat the pros into submission.
I think I am example of this "noise". I got 1% of my income from microstock but actually it's my second year and I doubled it in comparison to first one. I am going to reach next canister on SS this year so I have to focus more on others to make them earn more otherwise there is no chance for another double.
-
I think patience is needed...Veer MP has only been up and running for 6 months or so in an overcrowded market...what I have found is that their average sale is higher than any of the other sites...visually their site beats the others...give them a chance to produce results.
This is Getty the guys that own everything with the exception of one big agency. The only other agency that can give Getty a run for it's money is Corbis, pretty small market to try and grab a piece of.
Jonathan, sorry to only sample one part of your very interesting and informative post. However I am curious in what way you anticipate Corbis giving Getty a run for its money?
I had high hopes for Veer marketplace to compete effectively in micro, but the results have been beyond underwhelming (closer to pitiful). It was quite clear to me as a contributor that Veer had absolutely no idea what they were doing as far as microstock is concerned.
-
I think patience is needed...Veer MP has only been up and running for 6 months or so in an overcrowded market...what I have found is that their average sale is higher than any of the other sites...visually their site beats the others...give them a chance to produce results.
I wasn't just talking about the low sales, but also the weird (and overabundant) rejections. Every admin I spoke with there seemed pretty clueless about the type of images that sell in micro.
Even had one very nice guy there call and offer me a remedial class on photo editing. Apparently my images all left something to be desired. Something buyers at the other micros seem to be overlooking when they buy them. ;)
In all seriousness, if I were to edit each image the way they suggested it would take me 20-30 minutes an image to edit each one for minimal gain in appearance. There is no way that would be affordable to do in micro.
Like I said, they really don't understand this market. At all.
-
I opted out of third party and promotional use, as well as the partner programs at IS, and yet I just found one of my images being sold on thinkstockphotos.com.
Off to email support.
edit: done. I went to the page where my image is on thinkstock. Tried to copy and paste the url so IS would know where to find it...it wouldn't work. I also noticed a note on the support ticket page:
* Please note * Due to an extremely high volume of tickets at this time, there may be up to a 5 day wait for ticket responses. If you require immediate assistance, please call us:
I would imagine they are going to be busy. Think I'll call them.
I called IS support. I was told that they are shuffling portfolios over to thinkstock, whether you are opted out of subs or not, apparently. She said she would put me on a list to have my images removed and that should happen in the next 24-48 hours.
Things like this are one reason why I never wanted to go exclusive with IS.
-
I opted out of third party and promotional use, as well as the partner programs at IS, and yet I just found one of my images being sold on thinkstockphotos.com.
Off to email support.
edit: done. I went to the page where my image is on thinkstock. Tried to copy and paste the url so IS would know where to find it...it wouldn't work. I also noticed a note on the support ticket page:
* Please note * Due to an extremely high volume of tickets at this time, there may be up to a 5 day wait for ticket responses. If you require immediate assistance, please call us:
I would imagine they are going to be busy. Think I'll call them.
I called IS support. I was told that they are shuffling portfolios over to thinkstock, whether you are opted out of subs or not, apparently. She said she would put me on a list to have my images removed and that should happen in the next 24-48 hours.
Things like this are one reason why I never wanted to go exclusive with IS.
Thats rather sad...so what do you have to do if you aren't even aware of what is going on, which I'm sure there are alot out there that don't have a clue. Does each indivual photographer that opted out of subs have to contact them requesting the images be taken off? It appears to be the case.
-
You are supposed to be able to find your images by putting your name in quotes, right? If so, I don't have any images there.
-
Hi Dook,
Actually I wrote that incorrectly. Istock shooters as of now will still have the opportunity to upload to Getty collections. So far it seems that most of the Macro work that Istock exclusives have posted on Getty has been through Photodisc one of their poorest sellers. It's not impossible that eventually all of the images that Istock exclusives send up stream will fall into this category along with all their holly owned imagery. Getty will post their holly owned images at the top this will hurt Micro and Macro photographers. They did it to Macro RF before Micro was getting off the ground, they will do it again. Images at the very top of the search from their holly owned work doesn't have to be stronger, placement is a huge part of sales in stock. Besides when this collection gets going they just launched and you have not seen the amount of work they will be pushing over to this collection yet, just the tip of the iceberg so far.
Another side is the images they have wholly owned in these collections are going to become more selective as they try to offer more of a Vetta look to their new collection, they own some great imagery that is not on the new site yet. I don't think there are massive buyers for these individual styles of imagery but they will be subscription so buyers might shop there instead of paying Vetta prices for great imagery.
This is Getty the guys that own everything with the exception of one big agency. The only other agency that can give Getty a run for it's money is Corbis, pretty small market to try and grab a piece of. Like I said not everything is on the table and we will have to see where this goes. I am just not excited about it as an RF producer. I am focused on producing RM completely now in Macro, we made this change a while ago thinking something very much like this to happen between Macro and Micro RF, one big happy family. Just my opinion.
One up side for Istock, they are owned by Getty it is the other Micro sites that are in trouble from this move more than ever.
Best,
Jonathan
Jonathan,
thanks for all these information!
-
You are supposed to be able to find your images by putting your name in quotes, right? If so, I don't have any images there.
I didn't search that way. I searched for horses, since I have a ton in my port, and found them that way. But it's weird, I searched for my best seller, ear of corn, looked through all 56 pages and it wasn't there. Could be that data is still in transit and it just didn't make it over yet.
donding, I agree. The whole point of opting out on the control panel is so you are, well, OPTED OUT.
-
Somebody did a crap job making the jpeg previews for this site. The few images of mine that migrated there look like complete garbage and the colors are an RGB mess. Not to mention that most of the images are blurry and not sharp.
-
You are supposed to be able to find your images by putting your name in quotes, right? If so, I don't have any images there.
I tried that and it didn't work for me. I did do a search for "chincoteague" (a little coastal town in Virginia) and found my stuff, coming from IS not StockXpert.
-
Hi All,
Yes this is the hot topic today isn't it. No worries on the post Lisa, I used Corbis as the only company that has the money and the staying power in the Macro game to hold up to Getty. If they do is still to be seen but I do believe a great deal in Corbis. They are kind of my Obiwan these days. If they can't help us no one can " Help me Corbis you're my only hope " ( I am wearing a danish on each ear as I type to get into Princess Leia's charecter ) :). I think this is a good time for other models to start popping up and I can only speculate but I would imagine we will slowly see the demise of Macro RF as Micro and Macro merge over the next couple of years.
So there is motion, RM and Micro/ Macro RF not a great deal different than yesterday but the packaging has changed drastically. Subs are the part of this that will hurt the business, there just aren't enough buyers to keep up our personal sales with these many images flooding the market from Getty over the next year from their Holly Owned content in Macro RF.
Once again just my opinion based on what little I know about this business.
Best,
Jonathan
-
Loop,
Please read my posts again. Right in the portion that you refer to I said " They own some great imagery that is not on the site yet ". Please don't base your thoughts of the quality of Getty from their first selections to this new collection, they have gobs of great images to add, I believe as they always do, they are testing the waters first.
Thanks,
Jonathan
-
Their search engine must not know how to search...I put in Automotive Paint Gun for a search and it pulled up 4 vector images of ships.
-
You'd think that with a huge migration to another site there would at least be a good FAQ somewhere to explain all the elements. I can't make much out of the emails I got from them. I was able to find some of my images there under the istock sort but not under any other sort. They also said we could use an option for StockXpert to transfer StockXpert credits to our existing IS account but the links between the two sites didn't seem to lead anywhere to invoke that option. And do we upload to the new site? Questions, questions.
Very confusing mess.
I very much hope, Lisa, that this won't be another Veer, Lucky Oliver, Yay, etc., etc.
-
You are supposed to be able to find your images by putting your name in quotes, right? If so, I don't have any images there.
Worked for me but I had to follow exactly what they said. Not my account name but "first last" as I was registered on StockXpert which showed all my IS images and no StockXpert images.
Not one image moved? That's odd because I had many different images on StockXpert and IS.
-
Loop,
Please read my posts again. Right in the portion that you refer to I said " They own some great imagery that is not on the site yet ". Please don't base your thoughts of the quality of Getty from their first selections to this new collection, they have gobs of great images to add, I believe as they always do, they are testing the waters first.
Thanks,
Jonathan
Yes, I read that, but I also said that what will happen, we will know in the future, not now. Mi opinion is that they won't put first line content on thinkstock. I may be wrong. I have been been wrong in the past and I'll be in the future. But I would bet money on that should I had to bet.
-
How much cash you want to place on that bet Loop ;D
-
[quote author=RacePhoto link=topic=9858.msg132238#msg132238 date=1265152421
Worked for me but I had to follow exactly what they said. Not my account name but "first last" as I was registered on StockXpert which showed all my IS images and no StockXpert images.
Not one image moved? That's odd because I had many different images on StockXpert and IS.
[/quote]
i have about 1/3 under the istock brand and 2/3 under the hemera (StockXpert) brand.
-
Worked for me but I had to follow exactly what they said. Not my account name but "first last" as I was registered on StockXpert which showed all my IS images and no StockXpert images.
Not one image moved? That's odd because I had many different images on StockXpert and IS.
i have about 1/3 under the istock brand and 2/3 under the hemera (StockXpert) brand.
Maybe they started at the letter "A" and haven't gotten to "P" yet? Like I said, not a one! Every photo of mine on ThinkStock says iStock. Nothing of mine is under Hemera. I did a search for Hemera then search only this collection for "my name".
I'm sure others will look and see what they had moved, or not moved. It's not the same as if I had identical photos on both sites, some were never uploaded to IS. I suppose I can go cross reference and submit them all and hope? Oh wait, we can't submit to ThinkStock can we?
Maybe they were all refused? Maybe some reviewer looked and said, looks like most are dupes, "next please" ;)
Let me put is in a simple way. Not One Photo Moved from StockXpert to ThinkStock? ???
Still searching hemera all I see are AbleStock.com, Photos.com and PhotoObjects.net. None marked stockxpert.com
Could you link to one photo so I can see how they are spelling it and listing them? Thanks
-
How much cash you want to place on that bet Loop ;D
Tell me you the figure.
-
When I put in my name I get nothing what so ever...no hemera...no iStock,
My last name starts with a "B"... :-\
-
I input my last name start with R ans only Istock content..no Hemera!
-
A couple of things surprise me about this latest move by Getty, firstly that they didn't use this opportunity to create an exclusive subscription collection which is something that could be marketed with unique appeal, secondly that they didn't complete the collection before launch.
I could understand this whole thing if they had announced they were going to segment the RF sector between high quality/production value guaranteed images that remain on the macro side at macro prices, and the low cost low production RF images available via subscription, it all seems a bit of a rush job to me.
Although it pains me to say it ;) I do agree with JR they do have "gobs of great images" on the RF side, it'll be a shame if some of these go to the thinkstock collection.
-
When I put in my name I get nothing what so ever...no hemera...no iStock,
Same here __ my images don't appear either. That's because I don't need to risk undermining my sales elsewhere by s*cking up to this feeble low-life nonsense of an 'agency'.
-
Hey Loop,
I was just messin with you :D but I am impressed by your reply ;) I found out a bit of info for certain that they will not be moving any images from contributors that they will only stick to Holly owned when it comes to Macro RF being added to this new collection, along with other micro work they have recently acquired through their purchase of Jupiter. In a way this removes a great deal of competition from the old Getty site for Macro RF because people with content at Getty will no longer have their work hidden behind any holly owned stuff, it will all slowly move to the new sub site. Still have to wait and see.
Seriously though Loop, if you wanta put a wager down drop me a PM, it will make a bit of fun out of all this guess work ;)
Cheers,
Jonathan
-
I input my last name start with R ans only Istock content..no Hemera!
Me too, but I have more images there than I have on Istock ?!?
-
Maybe they started at the letter "A" and haven't gotten to "P" yet? Like I said, not a one! Every photo of mine on ThinkStock says iStock. Nothing of mine is under Hemera. I did a search for Hemera then search only this collection for "my name".
I'm sure others will look and see what they had moved, or not moved. It's not the same as if I had identical photos on both sites, some were never uploaded to IS. I suppose I can go cross reference and submit them all and hope? Oh wait, we can't submit to ThinkStock can we?
Maybe they were all refused? Maybe some reviewer looked and said, looks like most are dupes, "next please" ;)
Let me put is in a simple way. Not One Photo Moved from StockXpert to ThinkStock? ???
Still searching hemera all I see are AbleStock.com, Photos.com and PhotoObjects.net. None marked stockxpert.com
Could you link to one photo so I can see how they are spelling it and listing them? Thanks
i searched under my real name, first and last, in quotes (" "). it starts with s, not a. with that search, all my images from both the "istock" and "hemera" collection show up together, about 135 in total, which is more than what i have at istock, but less than StockXpert. if you are not aware yet, the StockXpert brand is now the "hemera" brand.
to encapsulate, we're no longer searching under pseudonyms, only real names.
-
Well that's a lot more positive scenario than 'the end of macro rf is nigh' that was floating around earlier.
I should imagine there would be a macro artist revolution if they put our images on the sub site...I for one would stop submitting to Getty if that happened
Hey Loop,
I was just messin with you :D but I am impressed by your reply ;) I found out a bit of info for certain that they will not be moving any images from contributors that they will only stick to Holly owned when it comes to Macro RF being added to this new collection, along with other micro work they have recently acquired through their purchase of Jupiter. In a way this removes a great deal of competition from the old Getty site for Macro RF because people with content at Getty will no longer have their work hidden behind any holly owned stuff, it will all slowly move to the new sub site. Still have to wait and see.
Seriously though Loop, if you wanta put a wager down drop me a PM, it will make a bit of fun out of all this guess work ;)
Cheers,
Jonathan
-
Hey Loop,
I was just messin with you :D but I am impressed by your reply ;) I found out a bit of info for certain that they will not be moving any images from contributors that they will only stick to Holly owned when it comes to Macro RF being added to this new collection, along with other micro work they have recently acquired through their purchase of Jupiter. In a way this removes a great deal of competition from the old Getty site for Macro RF because people with content at Getty will no longer have their work hidden behind any holly owned stuff, it will all slowly move to the new sub site. Still have to wait and see.
Seriously though Loop, if you wanta put a wager down drop me a PM, it will make a bit of fun out of all this guess work ;)
Cheers, Jonathan
Only a portion of the Photodisc stuff is showing up so I was wondering how they picked them. Hope your info is accurate about them leaving the contributor stuff out... for now.
So are you saying they're going to remove the wholly owned stuff from Getty to put on Thinkstock? Why only wholly owned? Why wouldn't they purge slow selling contributor stuff too?
-
It seems like they are feverishly adding them. There are more now than when I looked earlier. I unchecked the box on StockXpert, so hopefully that will put a stop to it.
Does anyone know how to get rid of the images there? I'm pretty cautious when it comes to stock, so I'd rather make a decision than have my images just thrown up there. Plus, I was pretty much disgusted by the previews for my CMYK vectors. They need to work out the kinks before I even think about making a decision.
-
what does hemera mean or stand for ??
If I was Getty I would set the site up with say 2,000,000 photos holding back content so they can always have 20,000 new photos added this week. Maybe this is what is happening with the getty owned content.
-
I couldn't find the commission structure anywhere but finally found it on the istock site.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=88699&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=88699&page=1)
Subscription Royalties – Photos.com & JIU
Photos.com/Thinkstock will pay a flat royalty per download to all iStockers.
Non-exclusives will earn $0.25 per download.
Exclusives will earn according to their canister level:
Bronze – 30¢
Silver – 32¢
Gold – 34¢
Diamond – 36¢
Black Diamond – 38¢
Single Image Sale Royalties
not yet set
-
what does hemera mean or stand for ??
In Greek mythology Hemera (Greek: Ἡμέρα) was the personification of day and one of the Protogenoi or primordial deities. ...
Quoted from - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemera
-
I found only 1 image (vector) yet, that is not in my istock port, but it was in my StockXpert.
As I see it is on Hemera.
-
what does hemera mean or stand for ??
In Greek mythology Hemera (Greek: Ἡμέρα) was the personification of day and one of the Protogenoi or primordial deities. ...
Quoted from - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemera
what does Protogenoi or primordial deities mean or stand for ?? ;)
-
what does Protogenoi or primordial deities mean or stand for ??
First Born or Primeval and are a group of deities who were born in the beginning of our universe.
The Protogenoi are the first entities or beings that come into existence. They form the very fabric of our universe and as such are immortal.
Can you click links? :(
-
Non-exclusives will earn $0.25 per download.
No pasaran! (well at least not for me).
DT is 0.35$ for level 1-2 images, and SS is 0.36$. Even a new site like DP gives 0.30$. Getty can stick its stinkstock where the sun doesn't shine. ;)
-
Non-exclusives will earn $0.25 per download.
No pasaran! (well at least not for me).
DT is 0.35$ for level 1-2 images, and SS is 0.36$. Even a new site like DP gives 0.30$. Getty can stick its stinkstock where the sun doesn't shine. ;)
LOL Exactly you and me both ;) will remain opted out here, not very impressive and think SS HQ will still sleep well at nights.
What strikes me however is with this and the constant dilution of the Exclusive content at istock surly it is now about 'Image Exclusivity' you can argue all you like about 'Yes but out latest or best content is not there' and so forth however the fact remain that Artists bearing Crowns are no longer Exclusive to iStockphoto which in the past has been an attraction and the IS sales pitch for their customer base?
Oh and someone asked about The Name :)
"About Our Name.
Hemera stands for clarity - literally.
And what better label for a provider of digital image content? We chose to name ourselves after the Greek goddess of Light (or Day), because light is the primal ingredient of photography, and dictates the quality, and resolution, of each image.
Because our image collection meets every standard of photographic and digital quality, we believe we deserve to name ourselves after the essence of light. And besides, H-E-M-E-R-A really isn't that hard to remember, is it?"
-
I couldn't find the commission structure anywhere but finally found it on the istock site.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=88699&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=88699&page=1[/url])
Subscription Royalties – Photos.com & JIU
Photos.com/Thinkstock will pay a flat royalty per download to all iStockers.
Non-exclusives will earn $0.25 per download.
Exclusives will earn according to their canister level:
Bronze – 30¢
Silver – 32¢
Gold – 34¢
Diamond – 36¢
Black Diamond – 38¢
Single Image Sale Royalties
not yet set
I preferred the initial subs deal they came up with for photos.com, where non-exclusives and exclusives were treated the same. Not sure why exclusives should get higher commissions for using a site other than istock and we are offered the lowest commission going. There is no way I will ever opt in to this. I am so annoyed with Getty/istock lowering subs commissions, if shutterstock came up with a decent image exclusivity deal, they would be history for me.
-
Because our image collection meets every standard of photographic and digital quality, we believe we deserve to name ourselves after the essence of light. And besides, H-E-M-E-R-A really isn't that hard to remember, is it?"
I know what that name makes me think of and it is nothing to do with clarity and quality :)
-
I know what that name makes me think of and it is nothing to do with clarity and quality :)
No that starts with "hemor" and not with "hemer" :P
-
If you are looking to see if your stuff is at ThinkStock you need to use your real full name in single quotes.
'John Smith' not "John Smith"
-
I couldn't find the commission structure anywhere but finally found it on the istock site.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=88699&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=88699&page=1[/url])
Subscription Royalties – Photos.com & JIU
Photos.com/Thinkstock will pay a flat royalty per download to all iStockers.
Non-exclusives will earn $0.25 per download.
Exclusives will earn according to their canister level:
Bronze – 30¢
Silver – 32¢
Gold – 34¢
Diamond – 36¢
Black Diamond – 38¢
Single Image Sale Royalties
not yet set
I preferred the initial subs deal they came up with for photos.com, where non-exclusives and exclusives were treated the same. Not sure why exclusives should get higher commissions for using a site other than istock and we are offered the lowest commission going. There is no way I will ever opt in to this. I am so annoyed with Getty/istock lowering subs commissions, if shutterstock came up with a decent image exclusivity deal, they would be history for me.
the original (or at least one of the early :)) deals was roughly 20% on what the customers subscription cost. Pixmac do this with (I think) 50% and that gets $0.03 sales on current prices. Considering that getty have no reviewing costs etc with this site and their history of undercutting by large margins, a % royalty with them on subs scared . out of me.
-
If you are looking to see if your stuff is at ThinkStock you need to use your real full name in single quotes.
'John Smith' not "John Smith"
Not so for me.
Mine only works if I enter "firstname lastname" in double quotes (") and with TWO spaces between the names...
-
If you are looking to see if your stuff is at ThinkStock you need to use your real full name in single quotes.
'John Smith' not "John Smith"
Not so for me.
Mine only works if I enter "firstname lastname" in double quotes (") and with TWO spaces between the names...
Single quotes work for me, double quotes don't. Here is part of the message from StockXpert:
As an StockXpert contributor who is opted-in to subscriptions, some of your content has been migrated to Thinkstock.com. You can find your content on Thinkstock by searching for your first and last name in single quotes: 'John Doe'. Please note that the migration is still ongoing and will take some more time to complete. If don't see your opted-in files, be patient –Â they will show up eventually. StockXpert content will show up as the Hemera Collection.
See Thinkstock here: http://www.thinkstock.com (http://www.thinkstock.com) .
-
Yes, I know what they say.
I'm saying that doesn't work with my name.
-
Yes, I know what they say.
I'm saying that doesn't work with my name.
Okay, just trying to help.
-
I unchecked the box on StockXpert, so hopefully that will put a stop to it.
Don't count on it. I have been opted out on both IS and StockXpert for over a month now and my whole port has been sent over to thinkstock. I had to call yesterday and ask them to remove my photos from the subs.
Does anyone know how to get rid of the images there? I'm pretty cautious when it comes to stock, so I'd rather make a decision than have my images just thrown up there. Plus, I was pretty much disgusted by the previews for my CMYK vectors. They need to work out the kinks before I even think about making a decision.
I called istock support yesterday and asked they be removed. The woman I spoke to said that she would put my name on a list and they would be removed in 24-48 hours.
I am glad to see that they are paying exclusives more for the subs. Since I am contemplating exclusivity, that makes it all much more appealing and if I were to take that step, I would opt back in to the subs.
-
If you are looking to see if your stuff is at ThinkStock you need to use your real full name in single quotes.
'John Smith' not "John Smith"
Not so for me.
Mine only works if I enter "firstname lastname" in double quotes (") and with TWO spaces between the names...
Thanks for the trick, I have been trying to see what . they have of mine and couldn't . . with double spaces it works, so thanks again.
-
I tryed " ' first last...first last double space....first last single space...triple space and even last name first with all of the above and it shows nothing...not even under iStock. I went ahead and ask for my payout from StockXpert because of this.
-
I called istock support yesterday and asked they be removed. The woman I spoke to said that she would put my name on a list and they would be removed in 24-48 hours.
Thanks. My portfolio is still growing there, so I guess I'll put in a support ticket on IS.
-
my portfolio is still there too, we seem to all be in the same boat. the people voicing concern about opting out have been placated, and those of us who were on the fence are now off the fence and also opposed to the PP now. talk about eroding contributor confidence. I don't know what they are trying to do.
thinkstock can't compete with SS as is and I doubt it will ever get to a point when it can compete. the whole thing comes across as poorly planned and rushed. the only thing Getty can do if they want subs is to buy SS (tongue in cheek)....good luck with that. in the meantime, exclusives at istock need to keep their work on istock and istock only if they want their images to grow in terms of value.
I feel for independents deciding which way to go on this one.
-
Hi Paulie,
Not all Photodisc is holly owned I have a bunch of Photodisc. That is probably why you aren't seeing everything the same at both sites. I also think there will be a migration of images I don't think they released everything yet. I think it will be released slowly. I saw the news about StockXpert shutting down and I imagine they will move all of those over to either Istock or the new brand. Everyones images are still going to be available they are just going to liceanse them differently. This is still a bit of a scare. I don't like it when one company has so much power in any industry, it always hurts the worker bees in the end. Balance of power is much better for all of us. Help me Obi- Wan... :)
Best,
Jonathan
-
Well, I tried "Maria Adelaide Silva" and "Maria Silva" in various forms mentioned herein, and I did not find anything. Gladly.
Did thinkstock exist before StockXpert's murder?
-
Did thinkstock exist before StockXpert's murder?
No, it's brand new.
-
Did thinkstock exist before StockXpert's murder?
I'm not sure when they started but there was chatter on this forum about it then the next chatter was the StockXpert closing down all on the same day.
-
If I remember rightly...Thinkstock was one of Jupiter's brands...they commissioned wholly owned shoots...so Getty just put the name to a different use after they killed of the Jupiter wholly owned program.
Did thinkstock exist before StockXpert's murder?
No, it's brand new.
-
If I remember rightly...Thinkstock was one of Jupiter's brands...they commissioned wholly owned shoots
I also believe that Thinkstock has been around for quite awhile.
-
If I remember rightly...Thinkstock was one of Jupiter's brands...they commissioned wholly owned shoots
I also believe that Thinkstock has been around for quite awhile.
You know you're proubably right...right now it would be very difficult to buy a domian name with the word "stock" or "photos" in it so it may have been around awhile
-
I also believe that Thinkstock has been around for quite awhile.
I didn't realize the name had been around already. Still, the site in its current incarnation is new.
-
I also believe that Thinkstock has been around for quite awhile.
I didn't realize the name had been around already. Still, the site in its current incarnation is new.
But it looks and operates just like Photos.com. I'm sure they just crossed out the name at the top and inserted the new logo and changed the colours and wording a bit. It's destined to be yet another short-term adventure by the ex-Jupiter crew into the world of microstock. After Istock they'll surely have run out of places from which to purloin content from others.
-
But it looks and operates just like Photos.com. I'm sure they just crossed out the name at the top and inserted the new logo and changed the colours and wording a bit. It's destined to be yet another short-term adventure by the ex-Jupiter crew into the world of microstock. After Istock they'll surely have run out of places from which to purloin content from others.
I hope you're right, G, and that it doesn't turn out to be a big deal. Lots of concern over at Istock that they will be aiming for a higher end market rather than the bottom of the barrel that Photos.com goes after. I would be sorry to see lucrative credit sales at IS siphoned off to a sub site.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=171201&page=12 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=171201&page=12)
-
Don't the higher end buyers like paying higher prices? That might seem strange but I remember watching a seminar video and the buyer wouldn't look at microstock sites. The higher end buyers want to pay more for something special, they are not looking for cheap subs sites that are selling old images that haven't sold on other sites.
Thinkphotos looks like a mess to me at the moment. They should of at least sorted the search and got rid of some of the inappropriate images before launching it. I don't understand why people have such faith in Getty here. They might be the biggest company in the stock industry but I remember their share price was sinking before they were taken over. How do we know they have sorted out their problems and they are now going in the right direction?
-
Still, the site in its current incarnation is new.
Yes. What I remember is (and please bear with me because this was a good number of years ago before microstock was even thought of). I used to buy stock photos and your choices were macro RM agencies. They all used to send out expensive, four-color catalogs and promo pieces. Along with Thinkstock was Creatas, Masterfile, Comstock and a few other names I could probably dig from the archives in my head if I had to.
I believe I am remembering correctly (the name thinkstockphoto rang a bell immediately yesterday when I saw it), they just added the photo to the end now. Again, I could be way off base.
-
But it looks and operates just like Photos.com.
With the big difference that an annual sub for the same number of downloads is about $1000 more, yet contributors get the same amount per sale.
-
Thinkphotos looks like a mess to me at the moment. They should of at least sorted the search and got rid of some of the inappropriate images before launching it. I don't understand why people have such faith in Getty here. They might be the biggest company in the stock industry but I remember their share price was sinking before they were taken over. How do we know they have sorted out their problems and they are now going in the right direction?
Apparently it's a beta release, so hopefully they're right onto sorting out the bugs pdq.
What scares me is that Getty are aiming to take over the photo universe; then they could well start squeezing the contributers, when there's nowhere else to go (as we've seen how difficult it is for new starts to take on Goliath).
-
Hi Sharpshooter,
Many companies tank their sales value when they want to become a privately owned company. It allows them to buy out at a low price then spend the next few years raising that underpriced stock so they can sell for a profit. Happens quite a lot to companies that want their stock holders gone. Not saying they did this but it is a very common practice.
Best,
Jonathan
-
Hi CC,
The sale of RF imagery goes way back to before Micro was invented so there was RF for you to choose from 10 years ago it just wasn't at Micro prices. Masterfile is still strong Corbis is still strong as well as a couple more but they seem to struggle to take over more of the share from Getty. This might be a good opportunity for other top agencies in the Macro market to make a move and pick up some of the customer base out there. Still hard to say. Macro RF I think is on the way out or I should say merging with Micro. Only the Shadow knows :) Anyone around here old enough to remember The Shadow? ;D
Best,
Jonathan
-
Are my istock images at risk of being sold at ThinkStock?
-
Still, the site in its current incarnation is new.
Yes. What I remember is (and please bear with me because this was a good number of years ago before microstock was even thought of). I used to buy stock photos and your choices were macro RM agencies. They all used to send out expensive, four-color catalogs and promo pieces. Along with Thinkstock was Creatas, Masterfile, Comstock and a few other names I could probably dig from the archives in my head if I had to.
I believe I am remembering correctly (the name thinkstockphoto rang a bell immediately yesterday when I saw it), they just added the photo to the end now. Again, I could be way off base.
I actually have a big fat Masterfile catalog thing laying around from just a few years ago.
-
Hi CC,
The sale of RF imagery goes way back to before Micro was invented so there was RF for you to choose from 10 years ago it just wasn't at Micro prices. Masterfile is still strong Corbis is still strong as well as a couple more but they seem to struggle to take over more of the share from Getty. This might be a good opportunity for other top agencies in the Macro market to make a move and pick up some of the customer base out there. Still hard to say. Macro RF I think is on the way out or I should say merging with Micro. Only the Shadow knows :) Anyone around here old enough to remember The Shadow? ;D
Best,
Jonathan
Did he follow Bobby Benson of the B Bar B and his golden palomino Amigo?
Or, was that Sky King? ;D
-
The site is new but it has blood on it's hands! StockXpert and the old Thinkstock have been bumped off.
I also believe that Thinkstock has been around for quite awhile.
I didn't realize the name had been around already. Still, the site in its current incarnation is new.
-
Are my istock images at risk of being sold at ThinkStock?
You'll need to check for yourself. I found an image of mine, which I deactivated last October, on there. Support are onto it, but I guess they have a huge mound of these issues to wade through.
-
Hi Sharpshooter,
Many companies tank their sales value when they want to become a privately owned company. It allows them to buy out at a low price then spend the next few years raising that underpriced stock so they can sell for a profit. Happens quite a lot to companies that want their stock holders gone. Not saying they did this but it is a very common practice.
Best,
Jonathan
That might happen with a management buyout but I really don't think that's what happened to Getty. The share price had been falling for a long time and was down 50%. They were struggling before being taken over by a private equity fund.
-
Remember this?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/business/media/21deal.html?_r=2&th&emc=th&oref=slogin (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/business/media/21deal.html?_r=2&th&emc=th&oref=slogin)
-
Opted out at IStock.
Deleting port at STX and asking for final payout.
0.25 cent from Getty is too low.
I like DT, I like SS, no need to help jeopardize their sales.
Staying away from this one.
Thank you LSD for the link. Interesting read.
-
The site is new but it has blood on it's hands! StockXpert and the old Thinkstock have been bumped off.
I also believe that Thinkstock has been around for quite awhile.
I didn't realize the name had been around already. Still, the site in its current incarnation is new.
The thinkstock domain was originally registered in 2004 and yes I believe it is one of Jupiter's old properties. As I stated in another thread, Jupiter had an extensive "in place" web architecture which when taken as a whole, could very well have exceeded the value of the image files held. One factor being ownership of the highly desirable Photos.com.
And the migration thing gets crazier. A handful of my old StockXpert files are on TS at present, they are all Valentine vectors. But some keywords appear that I never put in like wedding, honeymoo, and celery. o figure that one. This will be interesting. And I was opted out of everything at StockXpert.
-
Opted out at IStock.
Deleting port at STX and asking for final payout.
0.25 cent from Getty is too low.
I like DT, I like SS, no need to help jeopardize their sales.
Staying away from this one.
Thank you LSD for the link. Interesting read.
Have you asked for the payout through Stockexpert Support Service or simply by mail?
*By the way, where can you opt in or out at istock???
-
*By the way, where can you opt in or out at istock???
For Partner Program - login to your account, look up across the top when you are in "My Uploads" or click the brief case icon up on top, right to get there. 4th one says, Partner Program. When you go there, it shows every image with a box on the right, you can allow them or disallow, select image by image by checking or unchecking the box.
The other for Extended Licenses is under, Member Profile, which allows you to Opt In or Opt Out for extended licenses.
These are choices that you made when you initially uploaded photos, but can it be changed later.
As far as I know, the default is for both of these choices to be unmarked, so people essentially had to Opt in or allow files for either one. IS didn't just mark them for us.
-
Thank you RacePhoto!
-
*By the way, where can you opt in or out at istock???
As far as I know, the default is for both of these choices to be unmarked, so people essentially had to Opt in or allow files for either one. IS didn't just mark them for us.
Yes indeed; but it took quite a fight on the huge thread last summer: originally people were going to be opted in by default.
Some people have, however, found their images in Thinkstock even though opted out, so it's always worth checking and if there's a mistake, contact CR.
-
For Partner Program - login to your account, look up across the top when you are in "My Uploads" or click the brief case icon up on top, right to get there. 4th one says, Partner Program. When you go there, it shows every image with a box on the right, you can allow them or disallow, select image by image by checking or unchecking the box.
The other for Extended Licenses is under, Member Profile, which allows you to Opt In or Opt Out for extended licenses.
Are you confusing Extended Licenses and the Partner Program? There is a Partner Program Opt In/Out choice in the Control Panel.
The Extended License program is within the iStock site for customers who want to purchase commercial licenses, multi-seat license etc. I would reconsider if you really want to opt out of those because they a rare but make a lot of money.
-
For Partner Program - login to your account, look up across the top when you are in "My Uploads" or click the brief case icon up on top, right to get there. 4th one says, Partner Program. When you go there, it shows every image with a box on the right, you can allow them or disallow, select image by image by checking or unchecking the box.
The other for Extended Licenses is under, Member Profile, which allows you to Opt In or Opt Out for extended licenses.
Are you confusing Extended Licenses and the Partner Program? There is a Partner Program Opt In/Out choice in the Control Panel.
The Extended License program is within the iStock site for customers who want to purchase commercial licenses, multi-seat license etc. I would reconsider if you really want to opt out of those because they a rare but make a lot of money.
You are right MichaelJay, thank you for the info.
-
OK There are FOUR places where you can make these changes, and yes, I clearly did say EL opt in or out, along with the Partner, they are different.
Here's the control panel view, where you can only do ALL. Including prints, on or off. Plus in the edit section of each file you can set each of these to on or off, so it doesn't have to be all or none.
(http://pages.prodigy.net/mycroft-holmes/temppics/opt-control.jpg)
Then there's the partner program view, where you can select individual files, instead of ALL or None.
(http://pages.prodigy.net/mycroft-holmes/temppics/opt-partner.jpg)
And finally the Profile section where you can select Extended Licenses in or out.
(http://pages.prodigy.net/mycroft-holmes/temppics/opt-profile.jpg)
As you can see, in the Control Panel, the Partners are listed as Opt in Opt out, but in the Profile the EL is listed as Opt in Opt out.
I never said anyone should ever opt out of ELs. I'd like to have more! :D
-
Question...are the subscription and partner programs one in the same? I assumed everything went automatically to subscription unless you specified that it didn't. I see this is all or nothing so how do you know for sure you are opted in or out? If thinkstockphotos his considered one of their partner sites then that may explain why I can't find myself on there because I never checked the boxs for that, but I have had a couple of sub sales showing up on my control page so I'm completely lost here... ::)
-
Question...are the subscription and partner programs one in the same? I assumed everything went automatically to subscription unless you specified that it didn't. I see this is all or nothing so how do you know for sure you are opted in or out? If thinkstockphotos his considered one of their partner sites then that may explain why I can't find myself on there because I never checked the boxs for that, but I have had a couple of sub sales showing up on my control page so I'm completely lost here... ::)
Istock also has its own, on-site subscription plan, which pays according to the size purchased and some other complex criteria. There aren't a lot of sales through Istock's subs, but they pay comparably to Istock's credit sales, so it's worth being opted in to those IMO. The partner program is for the offsite (cheap!) sub plans.
Also, the default for the partner program is opted out. If you want to opt in, you have to opt in to the partner program and then go through your files and opt in each one individually.
-
Question...are the subscription and partner programs one in the same? I assumed everything went automatically to subscription unless you specified that it didn't. I see this is all or nothing so how do you know for sure you are opted in or out? If thinkstockphotos his considered one of their partner sites then that may explain why I can't find myself on there because I never checked the boxs for that, but I have had a couple of sub sales showing up on my control page so I'm completely lost here... ::)
Istock also has its own, on-site subscription plan, which pays according to the size purchased and some other complex criteria. There aren't a lot of sales through Istock's subs, but they pay comparably to Istock's credit sales, so it's worth being opted in to those IMO. The partner program is for the offsite (cheap!) sub plans.
Also, the default for the partner program is opted out. If you want to opt in, you have to opt in to the partner program and then go through your files and opt in each one individually.
Thank you Lisa for explaining that. Deciding to join the partner site sound like a pain in the a** It would take me a long time to check all those boxes..or course not as long as some but it would take awhile,,,don't know if I want to bother.
-
Maybe I'll just opt in the ones that are older and are stuck in that file folder clear at the bottom of the stack which has never had a sale...heh if I sale them on MostStockPhotos its money on a non performing photo, otherwise it will just continue to sit there doing nothing
-
There's a button you can opt them all in, better yet, a button to opt them all out.
-
Thank you Lisa for explaining that. Deciding to join the partner site sound like a pain in the a** It would take me a long time to check all those boxes..or course not as long as some but it would take awhile,,,don't know if I want to bother.
I'm with you, Donna. Don't know why they made it so difficult. Who wants to go to all that trouble for .25 a sale?
-
Also, the default for the partner program is opted out. If you want to opt in, you have to opt in to the partner program and then go through your files and opt in each one individually.
If someone wanted to opt in all their pics, they could go into their control panel -> Contributer -> tick the box at Partner Program to opt into the scheme, then if you want to opt all eligible files in, you click 'add all'. If you want to remove all, you can do that too.
-
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
-
Also, the default for the partner program is opted out. If you want to opt in, you have to opt in to the partner program and then go through your files and opt in each one individually.
If someone wanted to opt in all their pics, they could go into their control panel -> Contributer -> tick the box at Partner Program to opt into the scheme, then if you want to opt all eligible files in, you click 'add all'. If you want to remove all, you can do that too.
THanks Sue! I didn't know that was possible. Not that I will be doing it anyway. I still think .25 from Getty is chintzy.
-
Thanks Sue...I figured it out. I opted in then went back and unchecked the ones I don't want on the Partner site. The ones I opted in on are the ones that never sell and have only sold a limited amount and that was when they were at the top of the barrel and not at the bottom. So maybe I'll get some sales on those forgotten antique photos sitting in their recycling bin or maybe I won't, but I feel 25 cents is better than 0 cents on these none performing photos. ;D I haven't made it up above the 25 cent level at Shutterstock yet...but getting close...so it really isn't that much different.
-
Thanks Sue...I figured it out. I opted in then went back and unchecked the ones I don't want on the Partner site. The ones I opted in on are the ones that never sell and have only sold a limited amount and that was when they were at the top of the barrel and not at the bottom. So maybe I'll get some sales on those forgotten antique photos sitting in their recycling bin or maybe I won't, but I feel 25 cents is better than 0 cents on these none performing photos. ;D I haven't made it up above the 25 cent level at Shutterstock yet...but getting close...so it really isn't that much different.
That's also my strategy for the moment. I suspect there may be some s**t hitting the fan before too long.
-
Also, the default for the partner program is opted out. If you want to opt in, you have to opt in to the partner program and then go through your files and opt in each one individually.
If someone wanted to opt in all their pics, they could go into their control panel -> Contributer -> tick the box at Partner Program to opt into the scheme, then if you want to opt all eligible files in, you click 'add all'. If you want to remove all, you can do that too.
Yeah, every time I try to make it easier to understand it seems to go further down the road. :D
You can hit ALL (or none) in the Control Panel, OR you can select only some images if you are in the Partner Program link. You can hit none and then select a few, or hit all and select some that you don't want. There's complete control over each image or all images. That's what I was trying to get to. For people who don't want to participate it's pretty easy, just hit none and you're done.
I don't know why anyone would want to opt out of ELs but the same is true. You can select none or all in the Profile section, OR you can go to each image and edit with the box that includes it or excludes that individual photo.
Complete freedom to be in or out for anything. I probably shouldn't add to the confusion, but this works for Allow Prints as well.
-
Istock are actively pushing buyers away from their main site towards thinkstock. I couldn't believe it when I happened upon the latest istock contact sheet.
http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=731 (http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=731)
-
Istock are actively pushing buyers away from their main site towards thinkstock. I couldn't believe it when I happened upon the latest istock contact sheet.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=731[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=731[/url])
Makes perfect sense to me, they make much more off their wholly owned content
-
Well, I tried "Maria Adelaide Silva" and "Maria Silva" in various forms mentioned herein, and I did not find anything. Gladly.
Totally off-topic, but just thought it was funny to read my wife's maiden name in these forums. No joke, she was once a "Maria Silva." :)
-
Istock are actively pushing buyers away from their main site towards thinkstock. I couldn't believe it when I happened upon the latest istock contact sheet.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=731[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=731[/url])
Makes perfect sense to me, they make much more off their wholly owned content
And I love how they don't have PPD, but they're going to bring in image packs starting at 5.....wink....wink
-
Not sure if this is covered already in this thread, but does anyone know how we are supposed to get new images into ThinkStock if we can't upload via StockXpert?
-
Not sure if this is covered already in this thread, but does anyone know how we are supposed to get new images into ThinkStock if we can't upload via StockXpert?
IStockPhoto and then opt in to the Partner Program
-
Istock are actively pushing buyers away from their main site towards thinkstock. I couldn't believe it when I happened upon the latest istock contact sheet.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=731[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=731[/url])
So all that guff they fed us about it being a different market was just that - guff. They're trying to encourage iStock's customers to become cheap sub buyers. To be honest, I don't understand the argument of 'profitability' over 'turnover', but that's just me.
-
Istock are actively pushing buyers away from their main site towards thinkstock. I couldn't believe it when I happened upon the latest istock contact sheet.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=731[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=731[/url])
That's discouraging, and even a bad business movement for them.
-
Istock are actively pushing buyers away from their main site towards thinkstock. I couldn't believe it when I happened upon the latest istock contact sheet.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=731[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=731[/url])
What couldn't you believe, iStock or any other site come to that only have one interest at heart and that is making a profit for themselves, they don't care whether they pay the contributor 25c or $5 commission as long as it returns a profit for them and they'll do whatever they can to attract the buyers to their site, if that means you making less money so be it.
-
As an exclusive this is really disappointing, but not a surprise.
Different buyers, eh? BS. This now shows they're willing to sacrifice Istock for overall profitibility. If Istock makes over $100 million a year why not encourage that massive group of buyers and their cash to go to a site of mostly wholly owned content? Way more profitable. Istock isn't their cash cow. Istock's buyers are their cash cow.
I said recently what happens if there comes a point when they remove the opt-out button. This effectively is the same thing done a bit differently. If you opt out, you now potentially risk missing former Istock buyers. The squeeze is already happening and this is only another step, although a lot more obvious.
A big question is how many buyers will move versus there being new buyers. Given the (lack of) earnings people have seen from Photos.com I think that's a good indicator of what to expect.
I don't know how many buyers will jump and how much money will be shifted but this shows their mindset.
The trust is gone. It's all business now.
-
Hi All,
Just had a chance to see what the new collection is made of. Say goodbye to Macro RF. Getty is pulling images from every collection they have in RF Macro to fill this site. It will have great images all Macro RF and the work that Istock photographers get to put on Getty will go there as well.
Not necessarily a good thing for Macro but we all new it had to change. Getty is now clumping it's Macro RF into a new subscription site that will be very popular to directly compete with SS and the Micro markets in general. Tons of professionally shot stock from Digital Vision to Brand X and everything in between. Hang on it's gonna get a bit crazy again.
Problem is the next step for Micro shooters working through Getty is they will only have this option unless they can produce quality to meet their RM collections or they are willing to pay for Photographers Choice uploads. Really take a hard look at this. Maybe it will revive Macro RF a bit but at what cost to Micro RF. Subscription Macro RF, that is kinda scary at first thought but we will have to see what will come of it.
Best,
Jonathan
I couldn't find any of your Getty-Images at Thinkstock it isn't the High-Quality-Stuff the moved in this collection. It's just another Shutterstock with some iStockphoto-content.
-
I said recently what happens if there comes a point when they remove the opt-out button. This effectively is the same thing done a bit differently. If you opt out, you now potentially risk missing former Istock buyers. The squeeze is already happening and this is only another step, although a lot more obvious.
The squeeze is right. And I must say I am more than a little annoyed at how the whole thinkstockphotos has been handled. If you remember correctly, we had to make a BIG stink about getting an opt-out button for partner programs. Then when they did add one, you were automatically opted-in by default and we had to make another BIG stink about changing that. Since that time I have been opted out of partner programs.
And yet my whole portfolio is on thinkstockphotos. To me that shows a HUGE lack of respect by istockphoto for me and my wishes and that is really bothering me. I contacted support on Feb. 2 and asked that my images be removed. I was told in an email that the numbers of the images are messed up so they have to do it all manually. When I called, I was told 24-48 hours they would be down. When I finally got an answer via email, I was told I was on a list and they would get to when they could but the list was long.
I just checked, they are still there.
I am spitting nails right now. >:(
-
I was reading the Welcome Thinkstock to the Family over on the istock forum.
this was posted:
Looking just at the facts: iStock's latest marketing mailshot is now promoting Thinkstock over and above iStock's own subscription service. The only aim of that can possibly be to drive iStock's subscription clients to there. Thinkstock will themselves very soon start selling "image packs" which look to be basically the same thing as iStock credit bundles, semantics aside.
As for the future I obviously don't know what will happen, but here's my wild stab in the dark. I sense that iStockers will be increasingly impelled to make our images available on Thinkstock. I would then expect that we would see fewer sales here & more "image pack" sales there of regular stock imagery, for which we will earn a smaller commissions than we currently do here.
iStock may then continue it's transition to becoming a mid level stock agency - being no longer microstock or a trad agency, and it could concentrate on selling Vetta & more high end imagery at the higher price level. But the days of selling bog standard objects on white here are possibly receding... just my crystal ball gazing nonsense.
And I know it's not the end of the world, because I am reliably informed by REM that if it was then I would "feel fine", but believe me, I really don't.
I agree with this poster's assessment of where it looks like Getty is headed. I have felt that for quite awhile. Stock is not my main career. I cannot compete with the big guys and shoot Vetta-type material. Which means my stuff will basically be shuffled to Thinkstock.
As an independent, I currently contribute to SS and make more than what Thinkstock will pay me. I was contemplating exclusivity at IS, because before this whole announcement, I would stand to make more money as an exclusive. This announcement, and my thoughts about what is going to happen to Getty in the future, have once again given me pause for the whole exclusivity thing. Coupled with the previous post I made.
The saga continues.
-
Indeed the saga does continue and I think it will be a while before the dust settles with everything that is going on and we get to see a clearer picture.
-
Here is PDN's take on ThinkStock: clickme (http://www.pdnpulse.com/2010/02/did-getty-just-repackage-its-rf-dregs.html).
-
Indeed the saga does continue and I think it will be a while before the dust settles with everything that is going on and we get to see a clearer picture.
On the evidence of the past year, there's no chance of that happening. In fact, they seem to have appointed a professional waters-muddier so that we never get a clear picture.
-
I am quite bullish about where things are going and am convinced that subs is mostly a different market. I am also fairly convinced that certain sorts of images make better sense on a subscription / churn site.
The way I see things going there will be Vetta, something in the middle and subs. Obviously with some crossover at the edges. More interesting, very high quality and niche images which less often have to be priced higher.
I see it this way: the customers already know that there are other brands out there apart from IS and with different pricing structures.
So why not compete with those other brands ? Given that IS has competition, the more that competition is broken up the better. And if the customers are not buying subs from a sub site which IS is involved with then they might be thinking of buying a sub from a company which IS is not involved with. Building competing sub sites directly challenges the competition. The more competition the better in some ways.
I am certain that a customer who lands at one of the sister sites is more likely to transfer to IS than a customer who lands at Shutterstock.
I believe that cross branding and cross marketing works. I believe in selling the same stuff in different shops at different prices. I also believe in unicorns and rainbows and elves.
-
I am quite bullish about where things are going and am convinced that subs is mostly a different market. I am also fairly convinced that certain sorts of images make better sense on a subscription / churn site.
The way I see things going there will be Vetta, something in the middle and subs. Obviously with some crossover at the edges. More interesting, very high quality and niche images which less often have to be priced higher.
I see it this way: the customers already know that there are other brands out there apart from IS and with different pricing structures.
So why not compete with those other brands ? Given that IS has competition, the more that competition is broken up the better. And if the customers are not buying subs from a sub site which IS is involved with then they might be thinking of buying a sub from a company which IS is not involved with. Building competing sub sites directly challenges the competition. The more competition the better in some ways.
I am certain that a customer who lands at one of the sister sites is more likely to transfer to IS than a customer who lands at Shutterstock.
I believe that cross branding and cross marketing works. I believe in selling the same stuff in different shops at different prices. I also believe in unicorns and rainbows and elves.
I too believe subs is a different market, I also believe image packs starting at 5 is closer to the PPD market than it is to the subs market. Thinkstock will be competing with IStock in this regard.
-
Here is PDN's take on ThinkStock: clickme ([url]http://www.pdnpulse.com/2010/02/did-getty-just-repackage-its-rf-dregs.html[/url]).
I'd say it's possible. But how many of the collections on TS are from Jupiter? It can't be all of them. Definately not Photodisc which is Getty RF. So how do they decide which Photodisc stuff goes on TS? I don't want my Getty stuff on TS.
Is Thinkstock really a premium offering? Do they have content editors filtering out garbage? What's preventing it from being a dumping ground of low/no selling stuff? How is it different from the cheaper Photos.com?
The concern I have is their intent. In that article Getty says "Thinkstock will offer more depth and breadth of subject matter, with more diversity of models, than iStockphoto". No matter what IS seems to be the bad family member.
Like Rob Sylvan said in the IS forum it's not the end of the world. No, it isn't, not now. But this is a sign of what's coming. Photos.com seems sluggish and TS may fizzle, who knows. But they will keep trying new things and at some point something will work that may not be good for us.
We're simmering frogs that just had the heat turned up a tiny bit.
-
I'm pretty sure it was designed as direct competition against SS. Simple enough?
If you look the PhotoObjects collection is most of the site. Some pretty interesting isolations. Nothing fantastic, but surely useful for someone needing a nice simple photo of an object?
Since I'm pretty simple, and nothing from StockXpert has been moved from my photos (yet?), it looks like they took things that haven't sold well and more common materials. Roughly 60% of my IS photos appear on ThinkStock.
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.
What I can't see is what's the big stink for people who already sell subs on other sites? Since anyone else can opt out, all photos or by individual photo, they aren't doing anything against the members who don't wish to sell this way.
Another way of looking at it, is the pictures that are on ThinkStock are not the same as the top of the line shots on IS. What's odd when I think about it, is people who sell on SS are complaining that ThinkStock is somehow wrong and different. These people send all the same shots to at least a half dozen agencies, so what's the difference if there's one more market.
Also anything that's lost from StockXpert, as people have been complaining of lost sales and income, will be purchased somewhere. Buyers don't just dry up and evaporate because StockXpert has shut down. They have to get their photos somewhere? All the closing does is re-distribute the buyers to other agencies. ThinkStock will be one of them?
I'm trying to shut up and give this a rest. I was disappointed because nothing from StockXpert was moved to ThinkStock. After that, it's just like getting those 60% of my IS photos into a new agency and I didn't have to upload, edit data, wait, or anything. One is gone, a new place has arrived.
Yes, there will be less options for buyers and we will be getting a flat rate, which isn't the same as StockXpert, but for me, nothing changes. I was getting almost 100% 30c downloads on StockXpert. If this brings in more sales, I'll hope to make up for that lost nickle in volume. ;) This is little more than a re-branding of the same products, from multiple sources. Instead of five mixed sites, they are now all under one roof. A microstock mini-mall? More attractive location for buyers to come shop.
(http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/3827/beathorse8aq.gif)
If you don't sell subs and don't sell on SS, then complaining about ThinkStock is like a bar complaining because there's a kid on the corner with a lemonade stand selling drinks for a quarter, and claiming it's hurting their business? Are they the same customers? Is the product the same quality? No and no...
Now I'll try to stifle myself.
-
yes I feel optimistic about the whole deal,I believe in the long run it will work out. just a little patience .
-
The IS forum is a bit bipolar sometimes. Things are always either really great or really awful.
It's always the same crowd who think that the sky is falling. Who would dare to post that they were happy to just see how things pan out ? Not that I don't love reading those threads.
Fact is that not Getty and not anyone else has got us all by the balls. And one of these days (inevitably) some other model is going to emerge. As happens every few years in photography without fail.
-
istock's edge is its current (18 months) exclusive content, none of which will be going to thinkstock. savvy buyers know this.
-
Most of you are fine with this, because you see this as just another site. What we (exclusives) don't like is #1, exclusive contributors giving in and diluting the idea of the iStock unique selling point of "exclusive content" by dumping it on a subscription site, and the second sub site for that matter. #2, iStock using its bi-weekly marketing letter to try and push people who are "frequently buying" from iStock to another site.
Of course, I think giving away the farm with subs isn't the smartest move in the world anyways, but that's jmo.
-
Most of you are fine with this, because you see this as just another site. What we (exclusives) don't like is #1, exclusive contributors giving in and diluting the idea of the iStock unique selling point of "exclusive content" by dumping it on a subscription site, and the second sub site for that matter. #2, iStock using its bi-weekly marketing letter to try and push people who are "frequently buying" from iStock to another site.
Of course, I think giving away the farm with subs isn't the smartest move in the world anyways, but that's jmo.
Some people simple want to have a cake (exclusivity) and eat it (sell in more outlets) at the same time :-)
-
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).
The strange thing is they've killed off StockXpert which probably had a turnover approaching $10M, highly profitable and growing at the same pace as the rest of the industry __ in favour of TS. That doesn't make any sense to me.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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. :)
-
^ 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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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! ;D I'm just looking at their motivations. True it's underselling and lowball pricing. Maybe that will change too? Here's hoping.
(http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/3999/deadhorse.png)
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.
-
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.
-
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?
>:(
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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...
-
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'.
-
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 :(
-
^ yup. but the power lies with contributors, don't opt in...enough of us don't and they can power thinkstock without our images....good luck with that
-
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.
It is better for you to contact support. I did few days ago and my pictures were removed from Thinkstock yesterday.
-
It is better for you to contact support. I did few days ago and my pictures were removed from Thinkstock yesterday.
I did contact support, almost 4 days ago, and my images are still up. Like you, others are reporting that they are coming down, but so far mine are still there.
-
The people who do not like the way the PP is going are so vociferous and angry on the IS forum that it would be almost impossible now for anyone to contradict them without suffering their anger.
There is clearly an issue with image packs because those are essentially credit sales.
But subs are inevitable. Cheap images for people who use lots are inevitable. Print is dying. Ultimately, for the most part, there will probably be Vetta, maybe something in the middle and sub prices. And we will make the rest of our income on work for hire and / or commissions. The same as ever.
It's a pity that the forum previously rejected % royalties. 20% is where it's going.
-
Not sure if this is covered already in this thread, but does anyone know how we are supposed to get new images into ThinkStock if we can't upload via StockXpert?
IStockPhoto and then opt in to the Partner Program
Seems ridiculous that you'd have to have one ThinkStock portfolio via StockXpert and another ThinkStock portfolio of all images going forward on istock.
I'm just going to delete my StockXpert portfolio next week and leave it at that for now. Hopefully some day istock makes it worthwhile to get involved with ThinkStock, but until then I'm just going to stay away from this one.
-
But subs are inevitable.
Don't know why you'd think this.
-
But subs are inevitable.
Don't know why you'd think this.
Nor do I, there is nothing inevitable here, we are in charge. In the highly unlikely event of the microstock industry going to cheap subs only, I would get out of it. There is always the option for us to sell direct to the buyers. I think it is more likely that someone will come up with a new way of selling digital files, so we wont have to rely on sites that take a large chunk of our commissions. Perhaps the idea that we upload once to our own site and people get a small commission for selling our images will be the way forward? It is a big market now and we are using a selling system that is looking old, I am sure someone will be working on something better.
-
Subscription makes sense for websites [with frequently updated content]. If the prices work then the volume can be huge. Image prices have to be low enough to make sense relative to the other costs associated with making an online page and in terms of the lower ad revenues generated vs print. Web is going to be the main place where images get used. Print being in massive decline.
There is still going to be a market for more expensive stylish and more obscure boutique images for designers.
@sharpshot: The no1 issue about selling direct to clients via some marketplace system relates to the need to guarantee the images and indemnify the clients. Specifically in terms of copyright and releases. Solve that affordably and you would be king. Any different model has to offer the clients something better or at least as good.
Getty have always been impressive at seeing where the market is going.
-
Subscription makes sense for websites [with frequently updated content]. If the prices work then the volume can be huge. Image prices have to be low enough to make sense relative to the other costs associated with making an online page and in terms of the lower ad revenues generated vs print. Web is going to be the main place where images get used. Print being in massive decline.
No it doesn't. Newspapers have always had frequently updated content. Why do suddenly websites that need frequently updated content get it for nearly free? Costs associated with making an online page are negligible. Why should Yahoo, serving pages to millions, get their content for $.30?
-
^ + 1
-
Newspapers have always had frequently updated content. Why do suddenly websites that need frequently updated content get it for nearly free? Costs associated with making an online page are negligible. Why should Yahoo, serving pages to millions, get their content for $.30?
Costs of producing online content are not negligible. Publishers still have to employ writers and editors. But advertising revenues are significantly less.
Photographers with large portfolios of high quality relatively generic lifestyle images have a fantastic opportunity to make money selling more images for less. If the prices are low enough volumes will be higher.
Didn't the industry more or less have this same volume vs price argument as microstock emerged ? How is this any different ?
-
Why should Yahoo, serving pages to millions, get their content for $.30?
Thats a bit misleading - to get $0.30 an image you have to buy in bulk, just saying.
I think the future might actually be the purchase of controlled hot linked images you can't easily take a screen capture of, you get it for "x" amount of time on your domain and then its gone. Not sure if the technology is here yet on the anti screen capture thing, but I don't see why it couldn't happen, I tried taking a screen cap of a DVD playing in Nero once and it always failed, I just got a blank box when pasting into Photoshop. Thats were the idea came from. They could also hide the source file, and maybe even do something to prevent right clicking and saving from the agency site. Just a futurist guess.... and yes I have plenty more! LOL.
-
I don't know how everyone can take it so lightly that their photos are appearing on Thinkstock when you didn't opt-in. Why wouldn't you send a cease and desist or a take down notice? They are in clear violation of your copyright and breaking the law.
-
Thats a bit misleading - to get $0.30 an image you have to buy in bulk, just saying.
It's not misleading. A sub plan at $250 a month for 750 an image is around $.30. That's not bulk, that's the plan.
-
Costs of producing online content are not negligible. Publishers still have to employ writers and editors. But advertising revenues are significantly less.
Photographers with large portfolios of high quality relatively generic lifestyle images have a fantastic opportunity to make money selling more images for less. If the prices are low enough volumes will be higher.
Didn't the industry more or less have this same volume vs price argument as microstock emerged ? How is this any different ?
Costs of producing image content are not negligable. If they have to employ writers and editors, there's no reason images have to be essentially free.
So what, we have to cycle up and and down every couple years? That makes no sense. How is it different? We were already there at cheap to free. We've worked our way up from there.
-
Costs of producing image content are not negligable. If they have to employ writers and editors, there's no reason images have to be essentially free.
So what, we have to cycle up and and down every couple years? That makes no sense. How is it different? We were already there at cheap to free. We've worked our way up from there.
Difference between images and the written word is that the images we are talking about are RF which means they can be sold over and over. Where as the written content is generally salaried. It might be syndicated but it won't be sold over and over differently. Mostly.
I'm saying that I think cheap subs are part of the inevitable future. And bigger prizes for more obscure images which sell less often.
No point in us getting into too much of a back and forth about it though. If you don't sell them cheap subscription images I am fairly certain that someone else will. That's what I think will happen.
9/10x I think it is better for any content producer to be on a fixed fee rather than a per image price. That way everyone shares the same incentives. That fixed download amount is what I would focus on.
-
...
I tried taking a screen cap of a DVD playing in Nero once and it always failed, I just got a blank box when pasting into Photoshop.
...
There are many freeware/shareware/software apps that can screen capture from a DVD - in Windows you can even do it without additional software by simply turning off the Hardware Acceleration (http://www.pptfaq.com/FAQ00129.htm) on your video card.
-
...
No point in us getting into too much of a back and forth about it though. If you don't sell them cheap subscription images I am fairly certain that someone else will. That's what I think will happen.
...
Yep, that's what the short history of the stock photography industry shows. The argument microstock photographers are making to boycott sub sites (because of too-low-commissions) is akin to the argument traditional stock photographers are making to boycott microstock agencies (also because of too-low-commissions). And we all know how well that approach is working.
-
Subscription makes sense for websites [with frequently updated content]. If the prices work then the volume can be huge. Image prices have to be low enough to make sense relative to the other costs associated with making an online page and in terms of the lower ad revenues generated vs print. Web is going to be the main place where images get used. Print being in massive decline.
No it doesn't. Newspapers have always had frequently updated content. Why do suddenly websites that need frequently updated content get it for nearly free? Costs associated with making an online page are negligible. Why should Yahoo, serving pages to millions, get their content for $.30?
Exactley, I had one of my images used on yahoo's homepage one time and everyone who saw it asked how much they paid for it and when I told them, they laughed.. It felt kind of degrading, because I knew it was too cheap.. But I made the choice to sell at those price points, although it doesn't have to be like that, we do have a choice but it usually means sacrificing and risking some profits temporarily, so most people are understandably reluctant..
-
The only reason because ceap suscription sites exists is because agencies can still make money with this scheme. Contributor, in the long term an taking in account the weekly influx of new images, doesn't. For an agency, selling 100 photos from 100 different contributors gives the same benefit that selling 100 photos of the same contributor. Selling for pennies is, have been and will be always against our interest. In the mid-long term, suscription cheapo sites will lose a great numer of good potographers.
-
...
In the mid-long term, suscription cheapo sites will lose a great numer of good potographers.
That may very well be, but if there are enough buyers who are content with 'good enough' images, not having the 'best' images won't stop these agencies from succeeding. Like I said earlier, boycotting agencies that don't surpass a minimum revenue-per-download is a strategy with a track record of failing - the only thing you will succeed in doing is removing yourself from a growing marketplace.
History shows that you - those vehemently opposed to subscriptions - need a better plan than the one you've got. Assuming subscription agencies are here to stay, you need to change your way of thinking. Instead of ignoring sites that (you think) don't pay enough for your imagery, wouldn't it be better to produce stuff specifically intended for them? As an iStock exclusive, I have the option of producing images that I can easily dedicate to the various collections: main, Vetta, ThinkStock, and the soon-to-be Exclusive+. And I intend to do just that. On the flip side of the coin, I also have the opportunity to make imagery for Getty - but I have chosen not to do so. Why? Because that marketplace is in (sharp) decline, and I'd rather invest my time in a growing market.
What are those evolutionary buzzwords again - adapt or perish?
-
No, I don't believe in boycotts. I go by "Act Local, Think global".
But thee logic is the logic. A moment will arrive when the low prices an the dilution will lower very much the photographer's earnings. Amateurs and hobbyists will stay, professionals will leave because costs of production will make it anti-economic. It's not a boycott, read my lips, it's just the economy.
-
So, how many times are you going to vote to reduce your royalties? Now, it's $.30 or so flat. Until someone offers $.10 per, because someone will fill it up with useful stuff. The next comes in at $.02. Because the volume is huge! Now you've taken what we've worked hard to improve over the last 8 years and just dumped it in the trash.
Again, this is not the macro-micro discussion. This is actually your peers trying to actively work more for less.
-
...
Again, this is not the macro-micro discussion. This is actually your peers trying to actively work more for less.
Yes, but it's a similar argument that will have similar results.
If there's a marketplace for cheaper imagery - and there definitely is - you ignore it at your own financial loss. So go ahead, sjlocke, continue making fancy images for a so-so return at Getty. I'll practice techniques to whip off a lot of simple low-res stuff for the ultra-cheap subscription market - I'm already pretty good at it thanks to Shutterstock. Let's rejoin the discussion in a year to see how we fared.
-
...
Again, this is not the macro-micro discussion. This is actually your peers trying to actively work more for less.
Yes, but it's a similar argument that will have similar results.
If there's a marketplace for cheaper imagery - and there definitely is - you ignore it at your own financial loss. So go ahead, sjlocke, continue making fancy images for a so-so return at Getty. I'll practice techniques to whip off a lot of simple low-res stuff for the ultra-cheap subscription market - I'm already pretty good at it thanks to Shutterstock. Let's rejoin the discussion in a year to see how we fared.
Wouldn't you be better off being independent if the future is low cost subs?
-
...
Again, this is not the macro-micro discussion. This is actually your peers trying to actively work more for less.
Yes, but it's a similar argument that will have similar results.
If there's a marketplace for cheaper imagery - and there definitely is - you ignore it at your own financial loss. So go ahead, sjlocke, continue making fancy images for a so-so return at Getty. I'll practice techniques to whip off a lot of simple low-res stuff for the ultra-cheap subscription market - I'm already pretty good at it thanks to Shutterstock. Let's rejoin the discussion in a year to see how we fared.
According to his success and impressive number of downloads, I would say that customers value much more the "fancy" images of Sean than others cheap stuff.
-
According to his success and impressive number of downloads, I would say that customers value much more the "fancy" images of Sean than others cheap stuff.
You need to pay closer attention, loop: I was talking about Getty, where he's remarked that his RPI has been a disappointment.
-
According to his success and impressive number of downloads, I would say that customers value much more the "fancy" images of Sean than others cheap stuff.
You need to pay closer attention, loop: I was talking about Getty, where he's remarked that his RPI has been a disappointment.
Oh, it isn't just me. We all pretty much report disappointing uneven results. As I said earlier, my Getty submissions are certainly not a high priority for me, at this point.
Of course, I'm not sure why you're so interested to give your work away: "whip off a lot of simple low-res stuff for the ultra-cheap subscription market". You're just going to be one of a bunch of people uploading the same content, but now with the chance to get $.25 instead of more. No chance to move up in the world even if you sell a lot, like the can system or the DT multiple sales bump. This is a Getty site, with no forum, no communication with others, no recognition of success (either with an icon :) or actual royalty increases) that we've come to enjoy and rely on.
Look, I'm not saying there's not a place for a subscription plan, but why does it have to be so one sided? And I'm used to the idea of a blog sized image costing $2. Here's a few ideas:
1. Make it like the IS plan. It's a credit subscription, not an image subscription. With an RF license (unfortunately), the one thing that can provide value to the buyer is use flexibility, and that comes from pixel resolution. Why give away XXL files for a quarter? Equipment to produce isn't free. Why should the result be? So, for $250 a month, you get X credits to spend a day. Need a lot of smalls, then buy a lot of smalls. Need XXLs, buy a larger package or spread it out. The contributor is compensated fairly for the investment it takes to create usable imagery
2. Want an all you can eat buffet of images? Limit the value of the download to Small for $250. Need Larges? Up the price to $500. You want flexibility, you pay for it.
3. Can't stomach the idea of assigning value based on size? Make it an RM hybrid. $100 a month for up to M for personal/student use. $250 a month for up to L for blog/small business use. $750 a month for up to XL/commercial use.
I'm not giving details on person X actually downloads Y a month to make it work, or worrying about the cash payment, but you get the idea.
-
.nevermind.
-
3. Can't stomach the idea of assigning value based on size? Make it an RM hybrid. $100 a month for up to M for personal/student use. $250 a month for up to L for blog/small business use. $750 a month for up to XL/commercial use.
This so much appeals to me, but it would be very difficult to police.
-
To Sjlocke: while I agree you completely I still have the impression that your approach is idealistic. What Getty is doing is not independent from the market. I am sure they loved the macro plan the most, they learned to live with the micro, and now they must adopt the subs as well. They need a subscription site because other sub sites are already existing. And as soon as they have it they want to be the one on market who earns the most. And they have strategies. That nice and idealistic (call it fair) subscription plan what they have on IS were nothing more than taming the beast. You bought is, I bougth it, everyone bought it - we all were socialized to the idea. Now they can move to the next level. Call it Thinkstock.
-
...
Again, this is not the macro-micro discussion. This is actually your peers trying to actively work more for less.
Yes, but it's a similar argument that will have similar results.
If there's a marketplace for cheaper imagery - and there definitely is - you ignore it at your own financial loss. So go ahead, sjlocke, continue making fancy images for a so-so return at Getty. I'll practice techniques to whip off a lot of simple low-res stuff for the ultra-cheap subscription market - I'm already pretty good at it thanks to Shutterstock. Let's rejoin the discussion in a year to see how we fared.
Thinkstock's subs packages are more expensive than photos.com but non-exclusives were earning 20% more commission with photos.com. This isn't really about lower subs prices, it is lower commissions for contributors. Buyers seem to be perfectly happy paying more for pay per download each year but subs prices have remained low. I think this is just while the sites fight over subs buyers, when they have enough hooked, they will raise prices. I will wait until subs commissions go over $0.30 and decide if they are worth using then. At the moment, I will supply the sites that pay me the higher subs commission. $0.25 has failed for crestock and they spent lots on marketing. Thinkstock might have a better chance with Getty behind it but I remember thinking snap village would do well with the backing of Corbis and look how that turned out. Thinkstock are going to be supplied through istock, it looks like lots of us will opt out and even if people opt in, they are stuck with the low upload limits. Shutterstock will have lots more fresh images each week, subs buyers seem to love that.
-
According to his success and impressive number of downloads, I would say that customers value much more the "fancy" images of Sean than others cheap stuff.
You need to pay closer attention, loop: I was talking about Getty, where he's remarked that his RPI has been a disappointment.
That doesn't change the basic fact. By any means I would categorise Sean's istockphoto portfolio as the cheap stuff you were doing or you are doing or you are intending to do, I'm not sure because not paying enough attention.
-
A friend received this (or maybe it's something StockXpert said and I missed):
If you do not want to go forward with the Thinkstock program through StockXpert, are under 50$ and want to cash out, please delete all of your images and then email our customer support team and they will submit your payment as well as close your account.
So even if I was opted out from subs (therefore, as I understood, my images would not migrate), do I hve to delete them from StockXpert before asking for my last payout?
They also said:
StockXpert is not shutting down. Your images have been migrated to Thinstock but you will still use StockXpert as your main account for those images and sales.
???
-
Hi All,
This sounds like some pots calling the kettle black. How did we get to a place where people agreed a photo was only worth 1 dollar to begin with, but now .30 cents is a rip off. It all started at Istock trading images for free.
This sounds very much like the Macro whiners when they said this Micro crap is B.S. and will ruin our business. Be careful what you wish for :D It's a bitch isn't it. If you didn't see it coming you are either new to business or you have your head in the clouds. Wake up peoples I have been screaming this from the roof tops for over a year here. More eggs in more baskets, the more diverse the balance of power in several agencies the better it is to the photographers.
Last month several of you were ready to jump ship because of the way Istock was wooing you and making threats disguised as opportunities ( canister changes and such ) which would have caused even more of a shift of balance in the industry. It appears to me that most everyone in this business is tying to help themselves with little concern to the damage caused to their industry, now there has been a turn of events get use to them. All I can say is it will never stop evolving into a different monster and you better keep you blade honed if you plan on fighting the beast.
Best,
Jonathan
-
A friend received this (or maybe it's something StockXpert said and I missed):
If you do not want to go forward with the Thinkstock program through StockXpert, are under 50$ and want to cash out, please delete all of your images and then email our customer support team and they will submit your payment as well as close your account.
So even if I was opted out from subs (therefore, as I understood, my images would not migrate), do I hve to delete them from StockXpert before asking for my last payout?
They also said:
StockXpert is not shutting down. Your images have been migrated to Thinstock but you will still use StockXpert as your main account for those images and sales.
???
Madelaide...I just e-mailed support and ask them if I could close my account and receive my payout, even though it was below $50.00. They e-mailed me back and said they would close the account on Feb 11..or 12..don't remember exactly, but then they would send me my payment in case any more royalties were earned before that date.
-
...
How did we get to a place where people agreed a photo was only worth 1 dollar to begin with, but now .30 cents is a rip off. It all started at Istock trading images for free.
...
If it doesn't seem like much of an argument to you, Jonathan, maybe it's because you're not taking into account the much larger numbers of downloads that subscription sites can afford. It's not uncommon to have a download-per-image (DLPI) ratio greater than 2:1, and for even a modest portfolio of 2000 images the difference of only a few pennies per DL can really add up. On the other hand, it does seem a bit silly to be willing to license your imagery for, say 38c on Shutterstock, but not 36c/38c on Thinkstock. I don't really 'get' that logic either.
Succeeding with subs requires a different approach than a normal pay-per-download site. People (like *you*, ahem)who make and market identical images for both marketplaces are, in my opinion and experience, failing to maximize their investment. I've mentioned this before, only to have most people here tell me I was wasting my time. Whatever.
-
...
How did we get to a place where people agreed a photo was only worth 1 dollar to begin with, but now .30 cents is a rip off. It all started at Istock trading images for free.
...
If it doesn't seem like much of an argument to you, Jonathan, maybe it's because you're not taking into account the much larger numbers of downloads that subscription sites can afford. It's not uncommon to have a download-per-image (DLPI) ratio greater than 2:1, and for even a modest portfolio of 2000 images the difference of only a few pennies per DL can really add up. On the other hand, it does seem a bit silly to be willing to license your imagery for, say 38c on Shutterstock, but not 36c/38c on Thinkstock. I don't really 'get' that logic either.
I don't think it's uncommon to have a DPE of more than 2:1 on iStock either. Heck I'm a miniscule player and my dls are 4:1.
Also your second argument doesn't make sense. If you're selling your imagery for 38c on SS, you clearly aren't iStock exclusive, and non-exclusives are getting 25c from Thinkstock.
-
On the other hand, it does seem a bit silly to be willing to license your imagery for, say 38c on Shutterstock, but not 36c/38c on Thinkstock.
Thinkstock is 0.25$ for independents, no growth path. That's where it all started. If they had announced 0.30$, there would hardly have been this kind of opposition.
-
3. Can't stomach the idea of assigning value based on size? Make it an RM hybrid. $100 a month for up to M for personal/student use. $250 a month for up to L for blog/small business use. $750 a month for up to XL/commercial use.
This so much appeals to me, but it would be very difficult to police.
RM is still cheaper than hiring a photographer on assignment.
That's why RM is still popular.
So, custosters are saving a lot of money with RM but yet they want to pay less and less
and switching to microstock.
How is it possible nowadays is accetable to sell for as low as 0.25$ ?
And reading the istock forum i see also buyers complaining it's getting expensive. ???
What's next ? Do they really expect we work for free ?
-
This sounds very much like the Macro whiners when they said this Micro crap is B.S. and will ruin our business. Be careful what you wish for :D It's a bitch isn't it. If you didn't see it coming you are either new to business or you have your head in the clouds. Wake up peoples I have been screaming this from the roof tops for over a year here. More eggs in more baskets, the more diverse the balance of power in several agencies the better it is to the photographers.
I'm a former macro whiner but i can tell you i'm not at all surprised by istock's move.
Microstock's only reason to exist is CHEAP PRICES, so where else do you think the micro
market is heading if not to more subscription deal, promotions, dollar bins, all-you-can-eat deals,
photo-packs, etc ?
It's obvious once the only big factor is the price, it happened everywhere not just for micros
and that's also the reason microstock is "locked in" in its own race to the BOTTOM.
What's cheaper than 0.25$ ? 0.10$, for instance ! and who knows what's next ...
Will it go like for hosting companies offering "unlimited bandwidth, unlimited space, unlimited whatever" ?
Because this is the clear direction the market has taken.
-
Hi All,
This sounds like some pots calling the kettle black. How did we get to a place where people agreed a photo was only worth 1 dollar to begin with, but now .30 cents is a rip off. It all started at Istock trading images for free.
Best,
Jonathan
Sorry Jon, it's completely different. Macro was a closed shop. No access for people unlike yourself to enter. As new entrants into the industry, I was certainly happy to get what I got, and over time, content to better my work (and others), so that iStock was able to increase prices to better reflect the talent, equipment costs and quality of the content coming in. Now, they want us to just belly up and take less. This is not a new wave of people coming into a new industry who haven't participated until Thinkstock magically appeared. These are some of the same people already in the industry who have accepted the current standard (which does keep moving up a bit), and are suddenly willing to scramble for whatever new scraps are tossed to them just because someone puts up a site with the word "stock" in the title.
-
So even if I was opted out from subs (therefore, as I understood, my images would not migrate), do I hve to delete them from StockXpert before asking for my last payout?
Madelaide, I did what you said...deleted my images and requested a final payout last week. Today I had another sale. It appears that even though you delete your images from your portfolio, they still remain in the StockXpert database and can be sold, because I had another sale today. (not complaining about that). Apparently, everything will be done automatically on Feb. 11 or 12 (whatever the final date is for StockXpert). I would say you don't need to worry about it, but frankly, at this point, they have (what I think is purposefully) created so much confusion, it's difficult to determine what the right thing to do is.
How did we get to a place where people agreed a photo was only worth 1 dollar to begin with, but now .30 cents is a rip off. It all started at Istock trading images for free.
Because we all had hoped that as sites increased prices to buyers, our commissions would also increase. There have been a number of sites who have done that. We all expected our commissions to grow, not go down. I think that was a realistic expectation at the time. Big business is trying to shove this concept of "you should be glad you have any work/sales at all and should be happy at whatever meager sum we throw your way" down our throats, and I am really, really tired of it.
-
Macro was a closed shop. No access for people unlike yourself to enter.
Not completely true.
It was hard to get in because years ago they requested to send a CD with at least 500
edited images, it took months to get a reply and months to make a single sale and
agencies were usually elitist and snotty.
Nowadays everything changed, it's all in real time, anyone can compare prices,
competitors portfolios, buy anywhere in few clicks and receive the image they need
in few minutes.
If microstock start being more selective with new contributors there's a chance
only the ones really wanting to get into the business will get a foot in the door.
Why should they accept any guy sending them 4 decent images ?
Anyone can do that.
Try asking for a 500 images portfolio and see the difference.
But they're not gonna do it, because they make too much money on the shoulders of small
photographers who can't even reach the minimum payout.
I'm curious also to see what evil plans they have in store with Flickr...
-
If microstock start being more selective with new contributors there's a chance
only the ones really wanting to get into the business will get a foot in the door.
Why should they accept any guy sending them 4 decent images ?
Is that a rhetorical question?
If that happened - someone else would set up a site which people could get on with 4 decent images. And before long they would have a nice chunk of content to sell cheap.
As long as the market wants cheap usable images somebody is going to supply them.
I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that actually the market basically wants very cheap and quite expensive images. I'm not sure there is much space for anything in the middle.
It's not about 25c or 30c or 10c. It's about the %age.
-
If microstock start being more selective with new contributors there's a chance
only the ones really wanting to get into the business will get a foot in the door.
Why should they accept any guy sending them 4 decent images ?
Is that a rhetorical question?
If that happened - someone else would set up a site which people could get on with 4 decent images. And before long they would have a nice chunk of content to sell cheap.
As long as the market wants cheap usable images somebody is going to supply them.
I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that actually the market basically wants very cheap and quite expensive images. I'm not sure there is much space for anything in the middle.
It's not about 25c or 30c or 10c. It's about the %age.
What i mean is the pie is not big enough for everybody.
Booting out the small contributors is a good way to bring more
money on the table for serious shooters.
Let the small fishes free to join the third-rate micro agencies
selling for 0.10$/download.
The market wants high cost images and is willing to pay 0.25$ ?
Then I'm afraid the only solution is outsourcing to India or China.
How can they want more for less ?
Nobody's gonna shoot for less than 0.25$ and the market will
realize it the hard way i hope.
-
I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that actually the market basically wants very cheap and quite expensive images. I'm not sure there is much space for anything in the middle.
I have been thinking the same... http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-midstock/why-does-midstock-not-work/ (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-midstock/why-does-midstock-not-work/)
-
I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that actually the market basically wants very cheap and quite expensive images. I'm not sure there is much space for anything in the middle.
I have been thinking the same... [url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-midstock/why-does-midstock-not-work/[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-midstock/why-does-midstock-not-work/[/url])
Midstock doesn't fly because it can't compete with microstock, not because it's a bad idea.
It's not the market "wanting" cheap price and expensive images, the market was happy to
pay RM prices until few years ago, it's because of Getty that nowadays they expect to pay
peanuts for images that they were used to pay 100$ a pop.
And guess what ? Now they want more ... cheaper images, higher quality ... well i'm afraid
soon they'll have to shoot the pics themselves as many contributors will give up.
-
[On the other hand, it does seem a bit silly to be willing to license your imagery for, say 38c on Shutterstock, but not 36c/38c on Thinkstock.
I keep hearing this argument over and over. The fundamental difference for me is that I don't send Shutterstock full size images. I'd be quite happy to get a quarter for XS, but not XL.
-
On the other hand, it does seem a bit silly to be willing to license your imagery for, say 38c on Shutterstock, but not 36c/38c on Thinkstock.
Thinkstock is 0.25$ for independents, no growth path. That's where it all started. If they had announced 0.30$, there would hardly have been this kind of opposition.
Exactly!
What Getty doesn't understand is, that for a small increase, instead of poor artist and contributor relations, they could have given us 35 cents and had photographers flocking to them, (via IS) adding all kinds of better content.
They missed out on having the good content and potentially a knock out punch in the fight against the new sub sites.
Getty with ThinkStock is playing down to the level of the lowest competition. That's what they will get from contributors as well.
Booting out the small contributors is a good way to bring more
money on the table for serious shooters.
Let me paraphrase that into what I've been saying for a couple of years.
Cutting out the small agencies is a good way to bring more
money on the table for serious agencies.
Stop cultivating the fly-by-night subscription places that pop up like mushrooms on rotting fallen trees. :)
-
I don't think it's uncommon to have a DPE of more than 2:1 on iStock either. Heck I'm a miniscule player and my dls are 4:1.
Also your second argument doesn't make sense. If you're selling your imagery for 38c on SS, you clearly aren't iStock exclusive, and non-exclusives are getting 25c from Thinkstock.
Downloads-per-image (DLPI) means downloads-per-image-per-month. Same thing goes for revenue-per-image (RPI): it's revenue-per-image-per-month.
A DLPI of 2.0 means that a portfolio of 2000 images would license 4000 images per month. An RPI of $5 for this same portfolio would mean that it earns $10,000 per month. Although there are people on iStock who can match this level of performance, it's a much lower bar on Shutterstock.
My second argument was made from the point of view of a non-exclusive who is currently licensing image at 38c on Shutterstock. By staying independent you'll only be able to sell your images for only 25c on Thinkstock, which isn't very attractive. By going exclusive you'll be able to get more - 36c if you're a diamond, 38c for a black diamond.
And yes, clearly I am an iStock exclusive.
-
[On the other hand, it does seem a bit silly to be willing to license your imagery for, say 38c on Shutterstock, but not 36c/38c on Thinkstock.
I keep hearing this argument over and over. The fundamental difference for me is that I don't send Shutterstock full size images. I'd be quite happy to get a quarter for XS, but not XL.
So then don't send Thinkstock full-sized images.
If anything, Thinkstock is *better* than Shutterstock in this regard: Shutterstock accepts 4MP as their smallest size - it's 1.92MP for Thinkstock.
-
[On the other hand, it does seem a bit silly to be willing to license your imagery for, say 38c on Shutterstock, but not 36c/38c on Thinkstock.
I keep hearing this argument over and over. The fundamental difference for me is that I don't send Shutterstock full size images. I'd be quite happy to get a quarter for XS, but not XL.
So then don't send Thinkstock full-sized images.
If anything, Thinkstock is *better* than Shutterstock in this regard: Shutterstock accepts 4MP as their smallest size - it's 1.92MP for Thinkstock.
I would recommend not downsizing for Thinkstock because when they introduce their image packs, I'm sure they will have tiered pricing like on IStock, so you will want to have the largest size available....woot..woot
-
Let me paraphrase that into what I've been saying for a couple of years.
Cutting out the small agencies is a good way to bring more
money on the table for serious agencies.
Stop adding the fly-by-night subscription places that pop up like mushrooms on rotting fallen trees. :)
There's no more serious agencies.
The most serious, Getty, is willing to ripoff its own top sellers
with unwanted 0.25$/photo deals.
Killing the smaller worms can only do good, thought.
-
... if the future is low cost subs?
I read the discussions here and many are intelligently presented. However the words future and low cost subs can't, or at least shouldn't, be used in the same sentence. Perhaps it can be said that there are low-cost-subs and really-low-cost-subs and eventually there will likely be pathetically-low-cost-subs etc. But there is no future in that.
-
. On the flip side of the coin, I also have the opportunity to make imagery for Getty - but I have chosen not to do so. Why? Because that marketplace is in (sharp) decline, and I'd rather invest my time in a growing market.
What are those evolutionary buzzwords again - adapt or perish?
Looking at those little red arrows pointing downwards to the right of this post I'd have to say that perhaps the market is not growing all that well even in the world of micro. Adaption should involve some consideration for the host organism; it's just too easy to overpopulate and starve.
-
I'm usually the first person in line to say "follow the money" in microstock, but even I can't stomach this one. Maybe I'm a hypocrite for taking $0.25 per DL from SS back in the day. Maybe it's my ego saying I'm worth much more than that now. Whatever it is, all I know is that $0.25 sucks and this has been handled badly by both istock and StockXpert admins from the start. Confusing credit transfer messaging, disappearing referral earnings, no way to add new images to TS via StockXpert, etc. On top of the low pay rate, it's all just plain old crap and I'm not getting on board with it.
What really gets me is that I used to really like and respect StockXpert. They have always paid well, and brought in enough buyer volume to make up more than 10% of my monthly microstock earnings. But this whole situation just stinks and for the first time ever in my microstock career I am finally drawing that proverbial line in the sand where I think enough is really enough. I yanked all of my images from StockXpert today. To hell with this week's earnings. I want my stuff off TS asap, and I emailed support for that final payout.
I'll figure out a way to make up that lost 10% some other way. It's just not going to be through TS.
-
. On the flip side of the coin, I also have the opportunity to make imagery for Getty - but I have chosen not to do so. Why? Because that marketplace is in (sharp) decline, and I'd rather invest my time in a growing market.
What are those evolutionary buzzwords again - adapt or perish?
Looking at those little red arrows pointing downwards to the right of this post I'd have to say that perhaps the market is not growing all that well even in the world of micro. Adaption should involve some consideration for the host organism; it's just too easy to overpopulate and starve.
Who told you Getty's RM market is in sharp decline ?
RM agencies are in deep crap since 2-3 years but putting this into perspective they were
making a ton of money selling crap at premium price and now they're making decent money
selling at cheaper prices but it's still a good payout for their photographers unless you pretend
to have a pension just because you have a few dozen pics sitting on Getty ...
Alamy'd doing fine considering many other agencies went down the drain last year.
Lost maybe 30% of its RM biz but it's still alive and paying on time.
Even wanting i don't think microstocker could make a quick switch to RM, it
takes a very long time to get the foot in the door and start making sales there
and big portfolios in most of the cases.
One of Alamy's top sellers has next to 100.000 pics online for instance.
I can't imagine the time he spent keywording it all ...
-
[On the other hand, it does seem a bit silly to be willing to license your imagery for, say 38c on Shutterstock, but not 36c/38c on Thinkstock.
I keep hearing this argument over and over. The fundamental difference for me is that I don't send Shutterstock full size images. I'd be quite happy to get a quarter for XS, but not XL.
So then don't send Thinkstock full-sized images.
If anything, Thinkstock is *better* than Shutterstock in this regard: Shutterstock accepts 4MP as their smallest size - it's 1.92MP for Thinkstock.
I'd be happy to send 2mp to Thinkstock, but my conduit to them would have to be Istock since I'm closing shop at StockXpert. :(
-
Looking at those little red arrows pointing downwards to the right of this post I'd have to say that perhaps the market is not growing all that well even in the world of micro.
...
From Jonathan Klein, Getty Co-founder and CEO:
"iStockphoto is the fastest growing part of our business. It is expected to hit $200 million in revenue this year - that is growth of more than 35 percent."
Who told you Getty's RM market is in sharp decline ?
...
Also from Jonathan Klein, Getty Co-founder and CEO:
"Traditional creative stills (RM and RF) is becoming a smaller part of our business. Our customers use more imagery online, which means more volume, but at a lower price. Big-spend print campaigns are not dead, but there are certainly fewer."
"Getty Images did not grow overall revenues in 2009. We must be a growing business, and we must increase our revenue in 2010."
They've been in the news quite a lot lately - slashing budgets, freezing payroll, laying people off, ceasing in-house production ... the list goes on. Companies don't do those sorts of things unless they absolutely need to.
-
I'd be happy to send 2mp to Thinkstock, but my conduit to them would have to be Istock since I'm closing shop at StockXpert. :(
I submitted a bunch of 2MP test images yesterday, some of which were accepted this morning. I'm hoping they appear near the top of the search results - if not, it'll be pointless submitting there: there's little hope for exposure if the newest microstock images are buried deep underneath the old RF stuff.
For now, I'm playing the wait and see game.
-
Looking at those little red arrows pointing downwards to the right of this post I'd have to say that perhaps the market is not growing all that well even in the world of micro.
...
From Jonathan Klein, Getty Co-founder and CEO:
"iStockphoto is the fastest growing part of our business. It is expected to hit $200 million in revenue this year - that is growth of more than 35 percent."
Who told you Getty's RM market is in sharp decline ?
...
Also from Jonathan Klein, Getty Co-founder and CEO:
"Traditional creative stills (RM and RF) is becoming a smaller part of our business. Our customers use more imagery online, which means more volume, but at a lower price. Big-spend print campaigns are not dead, but there are certainly fewer."
"Getty Images did not grow overall revenues in 2009. We must be a growing business, and we must increase our revenue in 2010."
They've been in the news quite a lot lately - slashing budgets, freezing payroll, laying people off, ceasing in-house production ... the list goes on.
macrosaur still gets his news via the newspaper...he's a bit behind in the times...
-
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?
They play they own game running around the tree and try to fuck they selves.
When they realize that they dont can do it then they want to put you in they endles rottary game.
Now WE for any reason must be detective who in this f.. game screw us???
Why my all port is not on that Fckin Tihig.com from eXpert
Why my non checked images from iStock is on that Thing.conj?!
For greedy company which takes 80% of our royalty I think that they just must be able to do what they are to much payed for.
TO KEEP THINGS ON F... TRACK
>:(
I dont want to say that they will MUST to compensate US our average month royalty from eXpert site for every month while they Ting.com exist + sales from that thing.com if they have any balls.
From all posts of many users it seems thaat they dont have it.
OK now is cold wet season but for me they are cold bloody murderess in first agree...
-
Hi SJ,
Who said you can't get in. I know 200 photographers that are shooting Macro stock photography now that weren't two years ago and that's just me. Why sell yourself short if you have what the market wants they will represent you. They still do. New agencies and people being signed to Getty and Corbis everyday. This is a fallacy that has no warrant except for the fact that not EVERYONE can get in. That is the position I think you really should defend.
Best,
Jonathan
-
I keep on wondering when an angry ASSIGNMENT commercial photographer will join this thread and start ranting about how all forms of stock photography are hurting their business.
:P
-
Also from Jonathan Klein, Getty Co-founder and CEO:
"Traditional creative stills (RM and RF) is becoming a smaller part of our business. Our customers use more imagery online, which means more volume, but at a lower price. Big-spend print campaigns are not dead, but there are certainly fewer."
"Getty Images did not grow overall revenues in 2009. We must be a growing business, and we must increase our revenue in 2010."
They've been in the news quite a lot lately - slashing budgets, freezing payroll, laying people off, ceasing in-house production ... the list goes on.
macrosaur still gets his news via the newspaper...he's a bit behind in the times...
He's just saying the truth : earning from micros are rising fast, while earning from RM are flat or decreasing a bit, no more no less.
He's not saying they'll soon close Getty Images and bet the company on iStock.
Besides, if they don't care anymore about RM, their buyers will just move elsewhere to Alamy, Corbis, AGE, Masterfile, and other smaller specialized agencies.
-
Hi SJ,
Who said you can't get in. I know 200 photographers that are shooting Macro stock photography now that weren't two years ago and that's just me. Why sell yourself short if you have what the market wants they will represent you. They still do. New agencies and people being signed to Getty and Corbis everyday. This is a fallacy that has no warrant except for the fact that not EVERYONE can get in. That is the position I think you really should defend.
Best,
Jonathan
I said I can't get in. Because I didn't get in. Tried. And I'm not/wasn't talking about today. I'm talking about 5-10 years ago. That's when the boat sailed.
-
I said I can't get in. Because I didn't get in. Tried. And I'm not/wasn't talking about today. I'm talking about 5-10 years ago. That's when the boat sailed.
Seems like they really missed the boat on that one. You could be making them a ton of dough today. But wait, under Thinkstock, you would be making them more than a ton of dough.
-
I agree with Sjlocke. Trad agencies were very arrogant and repeling with new applicants. What is funny most of them still are. They were/are accepting new photographers not because of their talent or work but because of their track record, name and/or contacts. They were digging their own graves when they were ignorant with the boom of emerging nameless talents. The digital age grown up and the old players can not control them. They could a few years ago... but meanwhile the market has changed and there is no way back anymore.
It is sad the fists who die are those small companies who were the less ignorant - while the big ones have enough money to buy a slot in the future. Now it costs them a lot but still, they survive and can stay dominant.
-
acrosaur link=topic=9858.msg133638#msg133638 date=1265676285]
Also from Jonathan Klein, Getty Co-founder and CEO:
"Traditional creative stills (RM and RF) is becoming a smaller part of our business. Our customers use more imagery online, which means more volume, but at a lower price. Big-spend print campaigns are not dead, but there are certainly fewer."
"Getty Images did not grow overall revenues in 2009. We must be a growing business, and we must increase our revenue in 2010."
They've been in the news quite a lot lately - slashing budgets, freezing payroll, laying people off, ceasing in-house production ... the list goes on. Companies don't do those sorts of things unless they absolutely need to.
We are in the midst of a very deep recession. There are many good arguements being made that business will never return to normal even as the economy grows. It's hard to say until we reach that point what will happen. I think it is easy to say we must increase our revenue growth for 2010 but not so easy to actually accomplish it.
-
Just FYI, the thread on iStock was just locked, pending some kind of official response sometime today.
-
Trad agencies were very arrogant and repeling with new applicants.
Its the sole reason I am in the microstock world at all. Relatives in the photography biz asked how I could stomach selling photos for so little. Well, they were the only place that would take me.
-
thread is locked on iS...until new announcement. I don't subscribe to the conspiracy theories usually, but this whole thing feels uncharacteristically shady for iS. even the way the admins seem to be gagged. I know they would insist they aren't, but their silence and the reasons for it leave me feeling uneasy. I have received notices in response to my support tickets to remove my images from the PP, which I opted out of last year. the reply was that my images had been removed, however upon searching both sites, all images still there.
I don't know what is going on, but I hope Getty are not so stupid that they would kill their iStock cash cow. quickly, or slowly.
-
I have received notices in response to my support tickets to remove my images from the PP, which I opted out of last year. the reply was that my images had been removed, however upon searching both sites, all images still there.
That IS scary. I haven't received notice mine were removed (I opted out months ago), they told me it was being done manually and would take some time. Mine are still there.
-
Last month several of you were ready to jump ship because of the way Istock was wooing you and making threats disguised as opportunities ( canister changes and such ) which would have caused even more of a shift of balance in the industry. It appears to me that most everyone in this business is tying to help themselves with little concern to the damage caused to their industry, now there has been a turn of events get use to them.
In fairness, Jonathan, a number of us who were thinking of "jumping ship" to IS exclusivity were doing it less in response to the threats/carrots from Istock and more in response to disagreeable conditions at some other sites. Which is actually more of an effort to stand up for contributor's rights than it is to line our own pockets at the expense of the industry.
As soon as it became obvious that Getty was not ultimately offering any better than the other sites we hopped back on the fence.
Don't get me wrong, my own financial interests are of great importance to me, but you seem to be assuming that those of us who have been seriously planning to go exclusive at IS are indifferent to the fate of the industry as a whole, and that could not be further from the truth.
And BTW, the irony that we microstockers are faced with similar issues that macro photographers were a few years ago is not lost on a number of us. However, like Sean, I applied to Corbis and Getty over 5 years ago before joining the micros and was rejected.
-
Hi SJ,
Who said you can't get in. I know 200 photographers that are shooting Macro stock photography now that weren't two years ago and that's just me. Why sell yourself short if you have what the market wants they will represent you. They still do. New agencies and people being signed to Getty and Corbis everyday. This is a fallacy that has no warrant except for the fact that not EVERYONE can get in. That is the position I think you really should defend.
Best,
Jonathan
I said I can't get in. Because I didn't get in. Tried. And I'm not/wasn't talking about today. I'm talking about 5-10 years ago. That's when the boat sailed.
And BTW, the irony that we microstockers are faced with similar issues that macro photographers were a few years ago is not lost on a number of us. However, like Sean, I applied to Corbis and Getty over 5 years ago before joining the micros and was rejected.
You guys must be good. I didn't even get rejected, they didn't answer! I tried again after a year and don't even get the courtesy of a rejection email.
That's why I'm working for Alamy.
-
Dug this out of my email, dated 12/28/05...
"Thank you for your submission to Getty Images, and giving us the opportunity to review your imagery. However, after careful consideration, our submission review team has decided that your work does not match our needs at this time. You may like to consider getting in touch with PACA (The Picture Archive Council of America), at www.stockindustry.org (http://www.stockindustry.org), who will be able to direct you to other Stock Agencies who might be interested in reviewing your images."
-
Excuse me guys but as macrosaur i've something to say ...
1 - If Getty or Corbis rejected your portfolios is for a simple reason : they felt your images are either not good enough for them or have simply nothing special to add to what they're already selling.
RM agencies want creative photos, not holiday snapshots or copies of famous images they've in store since the '80s.
The sad thing is also they've lots of crap as well but it's usually stuff shot years ago that today sound a bit dated.
2 - Why RM agencies should invest on you as long as your portfolio is nothing to write home about ?
I don't mean your images suck, your images can probably be much better than the ones they're selling now, the issue there is maybe they're not as original and as creative as they want.
Creativity cannot be judjed or classified, it's something you either have or not, and if you look at your pictures and can't see anything wrong than maybe the only place you can belong is iStock or mabe Alamy since they don't edit.
3 - Why you keep comparing apples and oranges ?
The RM market can NOT disappear for the simple reason they sell anything including copyrighted logos, news, editorial, historic images, whatever under the sun.
Microstock is just a niche of the whole stock market and a very small one because of the many limitations
about copyright and model/property releases etc
-
1. We're not talking RM. We're talking Getty which has brands, both RM and RF.
3. "editorial" is not limited to RM.
-
Dug this out of my email, dated 12/28/05...
"Thank you for your submission to Getty Images, and giving us the opportunity to review your imagery. However, after careful consideration, our submission review team has decided that your work does not match our needs at this time. You may like to consider getting in touch with PACA (The Picture Archive Council of America), at [url=http://www.stockindustry.org]www.stockindustry.org[/url] ([url]http://www.stockindustry.org[/url]), who will be able to direct you to other Stock Agencies who might be interested in reviewing your images."
It doesn't mean your images suck, it can simply mean they had a look and thought "yet another guy shooting business/lifestyle".
You can't blame them, there's so much people shooting the same stuff as you and Yuri and what you see on Getty is usually
pretty expensive stuff done by professionals investing lots of money on this, you can't easily compete with them or adding
something new and special unless you're very talented and gifted.
Joining Getty is every photographer's dream.
They must be flooded with applications.
-
Dug this out of my email, dated 12/28/05...
"Thank you for your submission to Getty Images, and giving us the opportunity to review your imagery. However, after careful consideration, our submission review team has decided that your work does not match our needs at this time. You may like to consider getting in touch with PACA (The Picture Archive Council of America), at [url=http://www.stockindustry.org]www.stockindustry.org[/url] ([url]http://www.stockindustry.org[/url]), who will be able to direct you to other Stock Agencies who might be interested in reviewing your images."
It does make you wonder ... did the 'careful consideration' involve actually looking at the submissions at any point in the process? If they'd had any sense they'd have been welcoming all the best microstockers with open arms and neutralising their threat with 'golden handcuff' deals.
Funnily enough the date of that rejection coincided almost exactly with the point at which it all went so tragically wrong for Getty. Back then the share price was at an all-time high but just two years later had dropped over 70% and they were vulnerable to a buyout on the cheap.
I just hope that their arrogance and the ignorance of the market that they displayed then isn't rearing its ugly head again in the shape of Thinkstock.
-
You guys must be good. I didn't even get rejected, they didn't answer! I tried again after a year and don't even get the courtesy of a rejection email.
Don't take it personally, even when you are with them they don't answer emails, I learnt a long time ago the only way to get a response is by phonecall.
-
Joining Getty is every photographer's dream.
They must be flooded with applications.
You think so, these days for $50 a pop they'll take pretty much anybody on PC. Now joining Magnum is what I'd consider as every photographers dream.
-
Dug this out of my email, dated 12/28/05...
"Thank you for your submission to Getty Images, and giving us the opportunity to review your imagery. However, after careful consideration, our submission review team has decided that your work does not match our needs at this time. You may like to consider getting in touch with PACA (The Picture Archive Council of America), at [url=http://www.stockindustry.org]www.stockindustry.org[/url] ([url]http://www.stockindustry.org[/url]), who will be able to direct you to other Stock Agencies who might be interested in reviewing your images."
It does make you wonder ... did the 'careful consideration' involve actually looking at the submissions at any point in the process? If they'd had any sense they'd have been welcoming all the best microstockers with open arms and neutralising their threat with 'golden handcuff' deals.
Funnily enough the date of that rejection coincided almost exactly with the point at which it all went so tragically wrong for Getty. Back then the share price was at an all-time high but just two years later had dropped over 70% and they were vulnerable to a buyout on the cheap.
I just hope that their arrogance and the ignorance of the market that they displayed then isn't rearing its ugly head again in the shape of Thinkstock.
I disagree.
Getty is a brand known for top quality and top prices.
They can't open the door to young wannabee unless their portfolios are at least on par with Getty's minimum standards.
The alternative is Alamy where 90% of their collection is junk.
And i can't see anything arrogant in that email.
It's your duty as an applicant to provide them with material that in few seconds can convince them you're worth of joining Getty.
These guys see 1000s of amazing images per day.
They can spot in a flash if you're great, good, or mediocre : it's their work full time job and they know their job.
-
He's just saying the truth : earning from micros are rising fast, while earning from RM are flat or decreasing a bit, no more no less.
He's not saying they'll soon close Getty Images and bet the company on iStock.
...
Assuming that Getty has two revenue streams (RF/FM and microstock), overall revenue was (at best) flat in 2009, and microstock made them $200M, it's fair to assume their RF/RM income stream decreased by (at least) $200M last year. That's not "flat or decreasing a bit". Furthermore, Getty was purchased for $2.4B in mid-2008, which pegs that drop at more than 8% of its valuation.
Nobody said Getty was going to close or "bet the company" on iStock, but with this lastest microstock offering one can guess they're aiming to increase their exposure in the only stock photography market that's growing.
-
It doesn't mean your images suck, it can simply mean they had a look and thought "yet another guy shooting business/lifestyle".
You can't blame them, there's so much people shooting the same stuff as you and Yuri and what you see on Getty is usually
pretty expensive stuff done by professionals investing lots of money on this, you can't easily compete with them or adding
something new and special unless you're very talented and gifted.
Did such considerations as "What the customers want" and "At the price they can afford to pay" ever come into the calculations?
It does now of course. Yesterday I got an email from John Lewis, a premium department store in the UK, which included this Getty image available for just £5.
http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/76688714/Rubberball-Productions (http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/76688714/Rubberball-Productions)
-
Joining Getty is every photographer's dream.
They must be flooded with applications.
You think so, these days for $50 a pop they'll take pretty much anybody on PC. Now joining Magnum is what I'd consider as every photographers dream.
Yeah except the fact that Magnum photographers are actually making more money with their expensive
workshops than what they make shooting feature stories in Kabul or Baghdad risking their ass.
And the Photographer's Choice is a good deal as it gives you the opportunity to see if you can sell there
or not.
I heard of people making big sales there with just 50$ of investment.
You can say what you want about Getty but they're the ones with the biggest paying buyers in the market.
Alamy, Corbis, and the gang are simply no match with Getty.
I've read recently about a guy in the Alamy forum selling a pic on Getty for 60.000$ (an advertising with eleephants),
try to do that with Alamy or micros...
-
I am talented and gifted. Unfortunately I am also lazy.
-
Nobody said Getty was going to close or "bet the company" on iStock, but with this lastest microstock offering one can guess they're aiming to increase their exposure in the only stock photography market that's growing.
Companies have all one single goal : making profits.
And it's the duty of every good CEO to push the company where the money is.
Now the money is growing fast in microstock so for them it would be criminal
to waste the opportunity of dominating the micro market leaving the $bucks
to their competitors at SS, Fotolia, etc.
I don't think their CEO gives a crap about microstock eroding their RM/RF
collection, he's getting bonuses based on quarter results, and if tomorrow
their RM collection is not selling anymore he will be already somewhere else
with millions of $ in his pocket.
Said that, i think they know their chickens and what to us may appear as
a "harakiri" is simply a move to bankrupt their competitors.
After all RM is bleeding money because the old buyers are bankrupt or
surviving with small budgets, and there's nothing Getty or me and you can do
about this.
-
I've read recently about a guy in the Alamy forum selling a pic on Getty for 60.000$ (an advertising with eleephants),
try to do that with Alamy or micros...
Pretty much every week someone or even several people in the UK become rich after winning the lottery. It happens all the time although, at odds of 14M to 1, it is probably not worth relying on it as income.
-
Yeah except the fact that Magnum photographers are actually making more money with their expensive
workshops than what they make shooting feature stories in Kabul or Baghdad risking their ass.
And the Photographer's Choice is a good deal as it gives you the opportunity to see if you can sell there
or not.
I heard of people making big sales there with just 50$ of investment.
You can say what you want about Getty but they're the ones with the biggest paying buyers in the market.
Alamy, Corbis, and the gang are simply no match with Getty.
I've read recently about a guy in the Alamy forum selling a pic on Getty for 60.000$ (an advertising with eleephants),
try to do that with Alamy or micros...
I agree about Magnum, but what I meant is that I can't think of a bigger accolade than to be one of their listed photographers, I've heard arguments from both sides about the quality of the shots on the site, I guess you either like them or you don't but one things for sure they've got that certain 'something'
When Getty announced PC I couldn't think why anybody would want to pay to have shots featured on their site, but it's worked and now I think about it it's actually a very shrewd move.
And I'd imagine the elephant shot you're referring to was one of Bob Elsdales, he works with his wife and they did a series of great elephant shots doing unusual things, and they also had a pig living with them for a while!
Getty are undoubtably the biggest player in the industry, I still wouldn't and don't trust them though
-
Geez, macrosaur, one day you're saying "earning from RM are flat or decreasing a bit, no more no less", and the next you're saying "RM is bleeding money". Guess I convinced you, huh?
As for Getty trying to bankrupt their competitors, if that's their goal they would have come up with something much better than Thinkstock. What they've done is offered a minimally-functional site that offers only their least valuable assets - they've invested as little as possible into it. It's pretty clear - at least to my way of thinking - that all they're doing right now is testing the microstock subscription market. That's not "harakiri".
If Getty was as ruthless as everyone seems to think they are, they'd have done something revolutionary to kill their competition: drastically lower their RF/RM pricing to be competitive with microstock. But they're not doing that, are they?
-
Joining Getty is every photographer's dream.
I don't know how old you are but I've been around since before Getty came along in the 1990s and I have to say that they have never particularly been popular with photographers.
Now I happen to think that they are great because I happen to have been impressed with the way in which they have predicted what will happen. Give or take a couple of hiccups. They treat image as commodity and they understand it like that. They have a point.
All that said I think you are talking a bigger game than you are actually running. Sure you've sold a few pictures RM. I bet Sean is pulling in more $. Which is all that matters if you are in stock pictures.
Now joining Magnum is what I'd consider as every photographers dream.
/nightmare maybe. It's also a bitchfest. Read the history or talk to anyone who has ever been involved with them. Even the different offices don't always get on let alone the different photographers / egos. It's not all sweetness and love.
-
We are in the midst of a very deep recession. There are many good arguements being made that business will never return to normal even as the economy grows. It's hard to say until we reach that point what will happen. I think it is easy to say we must increase our revenue growth for 2010 but not so easy to actually accomplish it.
From my vantage point, this is microstock's "happy time": revenue is up, competition is down, and management is thinking innovatively.
I know it's not going to last forever, but I'm enjoying it while it's here.
-
/nightmare maybe. It's also a bitchfest. Read the history or talk to anyone who has ever been involved with them. Even the different offices don't always get on let alone the different photographers / egos. It's not all sweetness and love.
That's pretty much the same story for any other site/agency/club/forum or anything else to do with photography or other industries that involve creative people, because if we all had the same 'vision' I doubt many of us would do it.
-
Dug this out of my email, dated 12/28/05...
"Thank you for your submission to Getty Images, and giving us the opportunity to review your imagery. However, after careful consideration, our submission review team has decided that your work does not match our needs at this time. You may like to consider getting in touch with PACA (The Picture Archive Council of America), at [url=http://www.stockindustry.org]www.stockindustry.org[/url] ([url]http://www.stockindustry.org[/url]), who will be able to direct you to other Stock Agencies who might be interested in reviewing your images."
At Getty I wasn't accepted the first time too, updated my website half a year later, applied and bingo. Also there are different channels to join Getty, nowadays I rarely use the direct creative channel much to complicated and labour-intense. I'm a long-term Corbis Contributor but with a tiny portfolio. Also I'm in a small cutting edge Macro library which performs amazingly well ( a par with Getty and Corbis). But most of the stuff Sean and Lisa produces doesn't fit to today's macro-market so I don't wonder that they didn't get accepted, but if you prepare them a creative portfolio with fresh ideas and not to mainstream you will get accepted at every macro agency - it's up to you.
-
[
Assuming that Getty has two revenue streams (RF/FM and microstock), overall revenue was (at best) flat in 2009, and microstock made them $200M, it's fair to assume their RF/RM income stream decreased by (at least) $200M last year. That's not "flat or decreasing a bit". Furthermore, Getty was purchased for $2.4B in mid-2008, which pegs that drop at more than 8% of its valuation.
Nobody said Getty was going to close or "bet the company" on iStock, but with this lastest microstock offering one can guess they're aiming to increase their exposure in the only stock photography market that's growing.
It never has to be one or the other. My only real point. Every photographer produces images that are suitable for the other market, Whatever that is.
Getty was bought for 2400 million of which 50 million was for iStock. One is a lot the other is dinky. I see some major disparity there. Either the investors got ripped off or Getty got a huge bargain on iStock. These prices are largely based on present and future earning potential.
-
As a side note, I flew to NYC (live in Vancouver) to present my portfolio in person to agencies. I got accepted. Have you read The Outliers.? Interesting read.
-
But most of the stuff Sean and Lisa produces doesn't fit to today's macro-market so I don't wonder that they didn't get accepted,
I'm not crying at night ;) .
-
...
Getty was bought for 2400 million of which 50 million was for iStock. One is a lot the other is dinky. I see some major disparity there. Either the investors got ripped off or Getty got a huge bargain on iStock. These prices are largely based on present and future earning potential.
iStock was purchased in Feb 2006 for $50M. Getty was purchased 2.1/2 years later for $2.4B, when iStock annual revenue was already eclipsing its purchase price.
Yes, there is a major disparity in the price. iStock was certainly a bargain, but I'm not so sure Getty was.
-
...
Getty was bought for 2400 million of which 50 million was for iStock. One is a lot the other is dinky. I see some major disparity there. Either the investors got ripped off or Getty got a huge bargain on iStock. These prices are largely based on present and future earning potential.
iStock was purchased in Feb 2006 for $50M. Getty was purchased 2.1/2 years later for $2.4B, when iStock annual revenue was already eclipsing its purchase price.
Yes, there is a major disparity in the price. iStock was certainly a bargain, but I'm not so sure Getty was.
Good points for sure, but would you say that iStock increased a factor of 10 in that period of time? I doubt it, did but even if this is so that would make 500 million, still a small overall percentage of the companies value.
-
But most of the stuff Sean and Lisa produces doesn't fit to today's macro-market so I don't wonder that they didn't get accepted,
I'm not crying at night ;) .
I don't think so too ;).
I'm just saying you have to meet certain standards to get accepted at any agency at SS and iStock the standards are more technical at Getty and Corbis the standards are more creative you need a modern picture language and fresh ideas. And you have to do some research in advance about the standards and the market you wanna join. Just complaining you couldn't get in is stupid. The standards are different but if you are doing some work and have the talent to do so you can get accepted at any agency on this planet but sometimes you have to rethink your strategy and try it a second time if it didn't work the first time, it's the same for macro and micro, it's up to you - it's that simple!
-
Well, 722 of my 836 files are still showing on thinkstockphoto, even though I opted out months ago. Wonder what happened to the others? Not complaining, mind you, that they all aren't there, just sayin...
Where do you go to see which individual files are opted in for partner programs? I looked in My Uploads and don't see a column.
Anyone see an announcement yet? Oh wait, it will come 2 minutes before IS closes for the day.
-
Kelly Thompson just posted a statement here:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=175321&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=175321&page=1)
-
Just FYI, the thread on iStock was just locked, pending some kind of official response sometime today.
Response is posted (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=175321&page=1).
Dang, I was sjlocked.
-
Where do you go to see which individual files are opted in for partner programs? I looked in My Uploads and don't see a column.
On the My Uploads page, click on the Partner Program link. Each image has a checkbox under Available on Partner sites.
-
thanks disorderly.
So, any surprises on the announcement? I think not.
-
On the My Uploads page, click on the Partner Program link. Each image has a checkbox under Available on Partner sites.
Is it on the line with the other links directly under My Uploads? Because I don't have one. Maybe because I am/have been opted out?
-
Macrosaur, you seem to have completely missed the point of my post and a number of others.
I don't in any way blame Getty or Corbis for rejecting my images. Particularly five years ago when I was a fledgling newbie to the idea of stock.
However, by dismissing so many photographers out of hand, they laid the foundation for the massive success that microstock has turned out to be. Ultimately that mistake has cost them an enormous part of their formerly lucrative businesses, and has left them playing catch up.
I am truly sorry that the end result has been the devaluing of imagery. Had I been offered the choice I would certainly have preferred to sell through macro prices at macro agencies.
But I didn't have that chance, and for you and Jonathan to be urging us to change course at this late date really is trying to close the barn door after the horse is gone.
-
On the My Uploads page, click on the Partner Program link. Each image has a checkbox under Available on Partner sites.
Is it on the line with the other links directly under My Uploads? Because I don't have one. Maybe because I am/have been opted out?
Yep, between Extended Licenses and Prints. I guess your being opted out would explain it.
-
Well, 722 of my 836 files are still showing on thinkstockphoto, even though I opted out months ago. Wonder what happened to the others? Not complaining, mind you, that they all aren't there, just sayin...
Where do you go to see which individual files are opted in for partner programs? I looked in My Uploads and don't see a column.
Anyone see an announcement yet? Oh wait, it will come 2 minutes before IS closes for the day.
I opted out last week.
My images are still showing but when you click on any of them, they take you to an error page: http://www.thinkstockphotos.com/pagenotfound (http://www.thinkstockphotos.com/pagenotfound)
Hey! You were right, annoncement came just when they closed. I'll read it now.
-
But most of the stuff Sean and Lisa produces doesn't fit to today's macro-market so I don't wonder that they didn't get accepted,
I'm not crying at night ;) .
Heck, I'm just flattered to have my crap mentioned in the same breath as your crap ;D
-
My images are still showing but when you click on any of them, they take you to an error page:
Mine don't do that, they still go to another page where you can buy a subscription. With all the screaming I did, I'm probably at the back of the line. ::)
-
So the commission from the image packs will be a flat rate of 20%.
Awful.
-
"Getty is not the enemy" they state in the forums.
I have little doubts Getty is doing good things for istock and helps it grow but unfortunately it mostly happens behind the screens. What i get to see from Getty is this: first announce how great they are doing, throwing big numbers around about how much they grow and how much profit they make. Then next in all seriousness declare the current canister system is 'unsustainable' and double them! ==>lowering royalties
Next offer us a bad deal with TS, which is a new low for contributors (==> lowering royalties again); i'm not a sparrow happy with every little crumb thrown at me. No thank you indeed. Getty might not be the enemy, but they surely come across as greedy because the only things we see from them is them trying to get more for themselves and less for us ;(
-
Woah !
So many replies.
Most of you guys just can NOT join Getty, do you realize it or not ?
Nowadays even monkeys can do "good enough" images, live with it.
And you complain about Getty, try joining serious agencies like Magnum, VII, Rex, Noor, Polaris, etc
-
Macrosaur, you seem to have completely missed the point of my post and a number of others.
I don't in any way blame Getty or Corbis for rejecting my images. Particularly five years ago when I was a fledgling newbie to the idea of stock.
However, by dismissing so many photographers out of hand, they laid the foundation for the massive success that microstock has turned out to be. Ultimately that mistake has cost them an enormous part of their formerly lucrative businesses, and has left them playing catch up.
I am truly sorry that the end result has been the devaluing of imagery. Had I been offered the choice I would certainly have preferred to sell through macro prices at macro agencies.
But I didn't have that chance, and for you and Jonathan to be urging us to change course at this late date really is trying to close the barn door after the horse is gone.
I don't blame microstockers for "doing all they can", i just blame them for "selling their best pics at 0.25$".
Hope you agree with me.
-
Hi All,
I know lots of young photographers and new agencies ( third Party ) that are still being accepted. Why are they getting accepted. I don't think you can play the victim card on this. Maybe they felt your work needed some improving to understand the buyers needs. I know they taught me a great deal over the years. I came in there wanting to shoot still life. They said sorry we don't need any new still life shooters. I had been shooting still life for 12 years and so I took another route. I asked what do you need and can I have a shot at producing a test shoot for you. They said they needed Lifestyle, had I done any of that. I had a few small clients that I had their clothing line on body for shots in their catalog. One was Cutter and Buck a golf wear company. They liked it and signed me.
That line may not work today but great image makers are being signed by the major agencies every day with strong presentations. Many ways in a door I think learning your craft and continuing to really push your limits of creativity will always pay off in the long run. Do what you do because you love it that will inspire you to push yourself like all good artists, the term starving artist came from somewhere :D.
I was a starving artist when I opened my doors and I am watching other young starving artists create imagery that just blows my mind. Pick up a copy of this months PDN and look at some of the work. And good luck to everyone I hope you all do well in your ventures and I am not trying to put any of you down or make you feel bad just sharing my opinion down. If I have please accept my apologies.
Best,
Jonathan
-
PDN.
Everybody talk about PDN.
But where's the money ?
-
Hi All,
I know lots of young photographers and new agencies ( third Party ) that are still being accepted. Why are they getting accepted. I don't think you can play the victim card on this.
...
just sharing my opinion down. If I have please accept my apologies.
Before sharing your opinion, read Lisa's post above about missing the point. No one here is playing any "victim card".
-
Where do you go to see which individual files are opted in for partner programs? I looked in My Uploads and don't see a column.
Click on My Uploads (also the little briefcase up top), then Partner Program.
(http://pages.prodigy.net/mycroft-holmes/temppics/my-uploads-menu.jpg)
This is the view you get:
(http://pages.prodigy.net/mycroft-holmes/temppics/opt-partner.jpg)
You can also click on the Available on Partner sites and sort by those that are in or out.
Might as well repeat this part, for everyone, before I get told about the single button...
CONTROL PANEL (it's up on top when you first go to your account) then look on the left
+CONTRIBUTOR (you have to click on the + )
(http://pages.prodigy.net/mycroft-holmes/temppics/opt-control.jpg)
Hope that helps.
-
Hi All,
... I don't think you can play the victim card on this.
Did you actually read the posts preceding yours? You appear to have completely missed the point. If there is a 'victim' here at all then it is Getty and other macro agencies whose sales are now a fraction of what they were just 3-4 years ago. The truth is they didn't recognise until far too late the danger that their industry faced or indeed the talent available to them to combat it.
-
Hi All,
I read all the post and I still think some people are trying to play victim to a business that they help create. No bad, I did it to but I am not blaming the agencies or the photographers it is just hearing people change direction when it suites them directly that kind of comes across as a bit ironic to me. I see a lot of that around here. No one in particular just the occasional blame game.
Getty bought Istock for 50 million it is now worth 5 times that. Who wasn't aware of what was to come, you can't say Getty didn't see it coming , wake up there Gostyk and smell the Java. Getty saw it miles off and have helped to build up Istock despite their other divisions. They also said they could not sustain Getty on Micro stock alone, they are playing their cards the way they seem them, close to their chest how can you blame them. They don't owe us anything. If you don't like what they offer then just don't accept. Once again just my opinion, don't take it to personally please.
Best,
Jonathan
-
Hi Lisa,
That is a nice perspective but it makes it sound a bit like you guys came up with Micro because they didn't accept you to Macro. That is not how Micro was built it was a vehicle that came along with the door open to lower end shooters and designers for free swapping of images, it evolved from that but not because Getty wouldn't take you it was because it was easier and more accessible.
If that were true then you are sort of saying Getty should have taken everyone because behind you are a million more shooters who's work was and still is not of the quality that RM calls for, not your work Lisa.
Lisa your work is great and if you wanted the option to go to Macro that is totally feasible and I would be happy to introduce you to anyone you would like that might help you in that door.
To the rest of you the ride eventually slows and comes to an end, change is constant and you have to live with that part of the ride. Evolve and survive, don't try to make it out to be the agencies fault. We all face the exact same wall to climb over.
We can debate all night over this I have said my peace, anyone want to cut and paste to reply please feel welcome. Always love to read the responses. Good luck to all of us.
Best,
Jonathan
-
I agree with Jonathan.
If Getty doesn't like you maybe you're just unworth it.
-
Hi Lisa,
That is a nice perspective but it makes it sound a bit like you guys came up with Micro because they didn't accept you to Macro. That is not how Micro was built it was a vehicle that came along with the door open to lower end shooters and designers for free swapping of images, it evolved from that but not because Getty wouldn't take you it was because it was easier and more accessible.
I seriously don't understand how the point just seems to evade you. Obviously none of us here created the microstock industry. However, when the time came that "we" were interested in taking part in the stock content industry, it was there to welcome us with open arms. Unlike Getty, which was/is very unfriendly, lacking communication and only interested in proven performance. Their loss was not seeing that a new generation of creatives with new technology would be able to take their business away. Lucky for them, they acted in time to own the leader.
-
I agree with Jonathan.
If Getty doesn't like you maybe you're just unworth it.
I don't care what Getty thinks of my work as long as they get the message loud and clear that they can't have it on the cheap. I don't want to submit to Getty, I just want to continue with a royalty structure at IS that is much more favorable (to me) than what Getty wants to put in its place.
This is all about not rolling over and playing dead because the schoolyard big boy says he wants half my lunch money.
This is not about any notion that I have that Getty proper is my rightful place - can't even figure out why you keep bringing that up. I'll stipulate that my place is with the micros if you stop going on about how none of us is any good for the macros anyway.
The discussion here is only about attempts to cut royalties by moving the business over to a low-royalty newbie site Getty has cooked up.
-
I agree with Jonathan.
If Getty doesn't like you maybe you're just unworth it.
I see. Is Yuri 'just unworth it' too for example? Apparently Yuri has been named within PDN's list of 'The most influential photographers of the decade'.
Were you or Jonathun in that list by any chance __ or were you 'just unworth it'?
-
... Apparently Yuri has been named within PDN's list of 'The most influential photographers of the decade'.
...
Well, yeah ... kinda.
That poll suffered (hugely) from unregulated internet voting - if Stephen Colbert had heard about it he could have had himself voted as #1.
-
I agree with Jonathan.
If Getty doesn't like you maybe you're just unworth it.
I see. Is Yuri 'just unworth it' too for example? Apparently Yuri has been named within PDN's list of 'The most influential photographers of the decade'.
Were you or Jonathun in that list by any chance __ or were you 'just unworth it'?
ROFLMAO .. so what Ashton Kutcher made that list too !! ;D That list is a joke. Actually, when you consider the fact that the list contains a few deserving names like Annie Leibovitz and Mary Ellen Mark it honestly becomes more insulting than anything. I mean that is seriously F'd up !!!
That's like Car & driver publishing a 30 most influential cars of the decade list that included the Bugatti Veyron, Lamborghini Reventon ... and the Ford Escort LMAO
-
Macrosaur reminds me of Old Hippie (or what was his name?). Probably the same. Talking like the gods of the Olympus but no hard portfolio links to support claims. I'd rather read Locke.
-
Macrosaur reminds me of Old Hippie (or what was his name?). Probably the same. Talking like the gods of the Olympus but no hard portfolio links to support claims. I'd rather read Locke.
Sleeper Cell. Registered early in Dec. and waited two months to do the "drive by" postings. What's the over under on when he disappears again? ;)
-
I agree with Jonathan.
If Getty doesn't like you maybe you're just unworth it.
I see. Is Yuri 'just unworth it' too for example? Apparently Yuri has been named within PDN's list of 'The most influential photographers of the decade'.
Were you or Jonathun in that list by any chance __ or were you 'just unworth it'?
lol ;D
-
What's the over under on when he disappears again? ;)
Well Perseus/Batman disappeared. It must be something like the seven-year itch. Anyways, I feel 'unworthy' to be on Thinkstock. ;)
-
Well, who talks about opening the gates wide and allowing anyone to submit to Getty (or to other big macro)?!
But there are microstock photographers - like Yuri who was already mentioned here - who's lifestyle images can compete with the best RF images of Getty. These images are not fresh ideas nor new approaches but very decent competitors of the macro RF collections. They might not add anything new to that 'highly creative' Getty RF collection. Yes, there may be a creativity gap between these images and their macro RF counterparts but the difference is not visible for 99% of the customers. And this 99% is happy to buy the 10$ version instead of the 400$ version. This 99% is what is missing from the macro market and this is the symptom ruining the older/more profitable business model.
And Yuri in not the only example. There might not be 1000s of them but 20-50. If Getty would have been open or wise enough to hunt down these 'talents' before they grow up the stock industry would be very different now. I am not talking about accepting their application, I am going further by talking about actively hunting them down and offering them a golden cage inside the macro boundaries. But now, it is too late. Offer them anything, they will reject if leaving the micro market is part of the deal. Simply because they earn more than most of the RF shooters. But a few years ago it could have been done.
-
Ah... and not to mention that Yuri's loud success magnetized many seasoned pro to join the micro universe. Now they are also raising the bar and actively filling in the gap between the two worlds. If Yuri would have been magnetized by Getty before he can magnetize others... I am sure you got my point already.
-
Ah... and not to mention that Yuri's loud success magnetized many seasoned pro to join the micro universe. Now they are also raising the bar and actively filling in the gap between the two worlds. If Yuri would have been magnetized by Getty before he can magnetize others... I am sure you got my point already.
Ifsare simple to dole out. If you kept the Wright brothers from flying it would have hardly stopped aviation. I'll mention the book The Outliers one last time. It delves into what makes a success and what doesn't.
-
Hi Lisa,
That is a nice perspective but it makes it sound a bit like you guys came up with Micro because they didn't accept you to Macro. That is not how Micro was built it was a vehicle that came along with the door open to lower end shooters and designers for free swapping of images, it evolved from that but not because Getty wouldn't take you it was because it was easier and more accessible.
I seriously don't understand how the point just seems to evade you. Obviously none of us here created the microstock industry. However, when the time came that "we" were interested in taking part in the stock content industry, it was there to welcome us with open arms. Unlike Getty, which was/is very unfriendly, lacking communication and only interested in proven performance. Their loss was not seeing that a new generation of creatives with new technology would be able to take their business away. Lucky for them, they acted in time to own the leader.
Sean - that summary is brilliant. and has broader implications for the partner program crowd too. well said dude.
-
What's the over under on when he disappears again? ;)
Well Perseus/Batman disappeared. It must be something like the seven-year itch.
Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner!
Poor guy just cannot manage to keep that much crazy contained for very long.
Well spotted FD, and Race. ;D
-
What's the over under on when he disappears again? ;)
Well Perseus/Batman disappeared. It must be something like the seven-year itch.
Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner!
Poor guy just cannot manage to keep that much crazy contained for very long.
Well spotted FD, and Race. ;D
Yes.
Macrosaur == Old Hippy
But now i'm a good boy.
-
Posted this on the IS topic, figured I'd post it here as well. Perhaps more of you can share your experience with this.
I was with StockXpert when they introduced subscriptions in Q4 2007. I compiled this graph to show the percentage of my earnings coming from StockXpert from Q4 2007 to Q4 2009. I used percentage of income instead of just income because obviously over the years my portfolio has gotten larger. These numbers are a 3 month rolling average to smooth the outliers.
(http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/9274/scr1265837369.jpg)
-
What's the over under on when he disappears again? ;)
Well Perseus/Batman disappeared. It must be something like the seven-year itch.
Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner!
Poor guy just cannot manage to keep that much crazy contained for very long.
Well spotted FD, and Race. ;D
Yes.
Macrosaur == Old Hippy
But now i'm a good boy.
I liked your dinosaur avatar better :)
(although it did always make me think of the dinosaur in 'meet the robinsons' (kids movie) and it saying "I dont how well thought through this plan was" which I also thought was appropriate :) - sorry you'd have to see the movie to understand)
-
Posted this on the IS topic, figured I'd post it here as well. Perhaps more of you can share your experience with this.
I was with StockXpert when they introduced subscriptions in Q4 2007. I compiled this graph to show the percentage of my earnings coming from StockXpert from Q4 2007 to Q4 2009. I used percentage of income instead of just income because obviously over the years my portfolio has gotten larger. These numbers are a 3 month rolling average to smooth the outliers.
([url]http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/9274/scr1265837369.jpg[/url])
This is just my earnings from the same period. I was doing well with subs, having several BME's. Then there was a slow down, while I was still opted in and a big slump after I turned them off. I wont miss them going now, last month was my worst in years.
(http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/4013/sxpsales.jpg)
-
I guess it's another flame war: Mac vs PC, Canon vs Nikon, Christmas vs Easter :-) Some people do well since subs were introduced, some suffer. Television did not kill books so micros will not kill macros either. Obviously more people will share a cake instead of few "chosen" ones so it's obvious that individual shares might be lower. Some industries are coming another ones are going. We cannot stop the change.
-
I guess it's another flame war: Mac vs PC, Canon vs Nikon, Christmas vs Easter :-) Some people do well since subs were introduced, some suffer.
Sorry, could you point me to the people whose RPD on any site has gone UP with the introduction of subs? I must have missed those posts...
-
Yes.
Macrosaur == Old Hippy
But now i'm a good boy.
Busted.
Haa. A good boy? That can't last. It's only a matter of time before you lose control over the filter between your brain and fingers.
-
I guess it's another flame war: Mac vs PC, Canon vs Nikon, Christmas vs Easter :-) Some people do well since subs were introduced, some suffer.
Sorry, could you point me to the people whose RPD on any site has gone UP with the introduction of subs? I must have missed those posts...
Did I say RPD? There are quite few people claiming on this forum that their revenue went up not RPD. Even in this thread somebody said that top microstockers get more than from macro RF and obviously they got lower RPD but larger volume. I am just trying to say that there is no consensus on subs, everybody is different. Market is saturated and competition is harder so maybe this is a reason that some people earn less?
-
Yes.
Macrosaur == Old Hippy
But now i'm a good boy.
Busted.
Haa. A good boy? That can't last. It's only a matter of time before you lose control over the filter between your brain and fingers.
:D :D :D :D :D :D
-
Yes. Macrosaur == Old Hippy
;D - so where's your port on Flickr? Or are you really Ansel Adams?
-
Sorry, could you point me to the people whose RPD on any site has gone UP with the introduction of subs?
Slightly OT but I noticed the past week a few XS sales on DT for 0.28$, 1 2008 credit. Apparently they finally fell back on their 30% as announced. The subs are still 0.35$ for level 1's, and 0.36$ on SS. In that scheme, I prefer subs.
-
there was the comment here somewhere of it being the deathstar, judging by the (the site) and istock forums it's looking like it may turn out to be the whoopie cushion :)
-
According to this (http://company.gettyimages.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=215&isource=corporate_website_ind_press_release) press release by Getty, the image packs will cost from $59 for 5 to $999 for 250. That means for the higher end pack, buyers will be paying $4 for maximum sized images while contributors get 80 cents.
So not only will the subscription plans eat away at current Istock customers, the LOWER pay per download prices will to.
-
IMO this is about building market share. Not about cutting commissions. Cutting commissions would be collateral damage if it happened. It may not even be what they want. My guess is that they do not want a fight with the world of photographers. There are two good reasons why not:
1. Sooner or later another model might emerge. Nobody can tell with new models but the way things go they can take over a market very suddenly. If the 2 key issues could somehow be solved a new non agency model could become dominant.
2. Equally as worryingly for them. Someone else could set up an alternative league and build a successful high end micro like agency for (guess) about $100m up front. That would have to include buying the exclusive loyalty of about 100 of the best and most prolific content producers.
-
...My guess is that they do not want a fight with the world of photographers...
Don't forget all the illustrators. From what I have read about Getty, they have no problem lowering commissions and making their contributors angry. Haven't they just done that with us by closing a site that paid 50% commission and $0.30 for subs? It is the same with most big companies, they aren't concerned about their suppliers because they know they have a large piece of the market and people have little choice but to use them. That is why I want their rival sites to remain strong and stop them dominating the market.
-
The real horror scenario (more for IS exclusives than for independents) would be that the PP on IS becomes mandatory. As Getty obviously doesn't care really about its contributors, that might be a possibility when TS doesn't make enough profit fast by its meager content.
-
The real horror scenario (more for IS exclusives than for independents) would be that the PP on IS becomes mandatory. As Getty obviously doesn't care really about its contributors, that might be a possibility when TS doesn't make enough profit fast by its meager content.
I'd say it's more than a possibility. It's highly likely. All of this opt-in opt-out stuff is probably perceived as a major headache for Getty. At some point fairly soon I believe there won't be an opt-out option. They will choose what goes where based on what will most boost revenue and profits. Or they'll leave the opt-out option available but will change the terms so much that you would hurt yourself to opt-out. The end result is the same. You won't have a choice.
Istock in the past has listened to contributors. Getty doesn't - they make changes and that's that.
Since Kelly has been tasked with 50% growth this year, assuming it won't happen by itself, there are probably going to be more frequent and radical changes. It's a business. So to meet those growth goals the IS team will probably be making more decisions that exclude contributor's input.
Because if they don't meet the goals the annual management meeting may go something like "First prize is a Cadillac Eldorado. Second prize is a set of steak knives. Third prize is you're fired. "
-
Also, I'm surprised no one seems to be discussing the root cause of all of the changes. The 50% growth goal.
To me the 50% growth goal is the real concern. This drives every decision. If this 50% goal is a real stretch, and there's either big incentives or consequnces, the IS management team may end up with a do-whatever-it-takes attitude.
I've seen how people change when their employer slaps them with some unobtainable goal. I'm Not saying the IS goal isn't obtainable but we don't know and that's a concern. But from all the big changes I'd lean toward it being a stretch.
I wonder if when Bitter was there, or before Getty, if IS had hard growth goals. Or if they just kinda let it grow on it's own.
-
Getty is run by corporate "managers" that can't tell a photo from an illustration, and their loyalty is with themselves. This year they sell photos, next year they sell cookies. They want to please the shareholders that want short term ROI. Those corporate sharks aren't concerned with the long term. As soon as they have their bonuses, they move on to another pond.
Sites run by and privately/wholly owned by photographers themselves are different, since they have to work for long-term goals. iStock and the guys running it are in a very awkward position. They are (mostly very good) photographers and they love their child. On the other hand, they have to defend the Getty policy in public, as employees. They did a great job till know to keep the sharks out of the carps' pond and as long as they can realize this 50% growth, iStock is safe.
-
The real horror scenario (more for IS exclusives than for independents) would be that the PP on IS becomes mandatory. As Getty obviously doesn't care really about its contributors, that might be a possibility when TS doesn't make enough profit fast by its meager content.
I'd say it's more than a possibility. It's highly likely. All of this opt-in opt-out stuff is probably perceived as a major headache for Getty. At some point fairly soon I believe there won't be an opt-out option. They will choose what goes where based on what will most boost revenue and profits. Or they'll leave the opt-out option available but will change the terms so much that you would hurt yourself to opt-out. The end result is the same. You won't have a choice.
In that scenario, dropping exclusivity and uploading to all the sites is, certainly, a choice.
-
I'd say it's more than a possibility. It's highly likely. All of this opt-in opt-out stuff is probably perceived as a major headache for Getty. At some point fairly soon I believe there won't be an opt-out option. They will choose what goes where based on what will most boost revenue and profits. Or they'll leave the opt-out option available but will change the terms so much that you would hurt yourself to opt-out. The end result is the same. You won't have a choice.
I would tend to agree. I also believe if they keep independents around at all, they will go wherever Getty says they go and that most likely will be over to Thinkstock.
-
Has anyone figured out what will be the benchmark metric to determine if the ThinkStock experiment is a success or not?
Sounds like a nightmare for metrics ... (iStockPhoto, Hemera etc.)
-Mark
http://markwpayne.wordpress.com (http://markwpayne.wordpress.com)
-
...It is the same with most big companies, they aren't concerned about their suppliers because they know they have a large piece of the market and people have little choice but to use them. That is why I want their rival sites to remain strong and stop them dominating the market.
Amen to that. I think it's more important than ever before to keep the competition strong and throw our support behind the sites that still give a crap about contributors. It's obvious the direction Getty is going. They've been on that road for a while, actually. It's just more obvious in their microstock holdings now.
It's funny... just a short time ago I was reconsidering the exclusive option, in light of the price increase. Now I'm so glad I decided to stay away from the crown. The direction istock (and Getty) is going just stinks. Browse the istock forums and you'll get the feeling that a whole lot of people are of the same opinion, including many istock exclusives. It's scary. Buyers are angry about price increases. Contributors are angry about policies and partner programs. If anyone is going to step up and try to dethrone the king, it certainly seems like the right time for it.
-
IMO this is about building market share. Not about cutting commissions. Cutting commissions would be collateral damage if it happened. It may not even be what they want. My guess is that they do not want a fight with the world of photographers. There are two good reasons why not:
1. Sooner or later another model might emerge. Nobody can tell with new models but the way things go they can take over a market very suddenly. If the 2 key issues could somehow be solved a new non agency model could become dominant.
2. Equally as worryingly for them. Someone else could set up an alternative league and build a successful high end micro like agency for (guess) about $100m up front. That would have to include buying the exclusive loyalty of about 100 of the best and most prolific content producers.
I don't agree, getty loves to fight the world of photographers.
Getty will just buy any new serious competitors out.
They'll have a Big war chest after they screw everybody over.
If thinkstock doesn't work shutterstock will be bought out and destroyed.
-
If thinkstock doesn't work shutterstock will be bought out and destroyed.
Aren't there anti-cartel laws in the US that would forbid that? If Getty bought SS-BigStock, there would be no meaningful competitive microstock agency left in the US, if we consider DT as European. And even so,
-
Aren't there anti-cartel laws in the US that would forbid that? If Getty bought SS-BigStock, there would be no meaningful competitive microstock agency left in the US, if we consider DT as European. And even so,
Yes, we have anti-trust laws here, but there has been some lax enforcement in recent years.
Amen to that. I think it's more important than ever before to keep the competition strong and throw our support behind the sites that still give a crap about contributors.
Mike, who are those sites that care about contributors? Not being confrontational BTW. I would really like to know which sites people feel cared about as contributors?
-
Mike, who are those sites that care about contributors? Not being confrontational BTW. I would really like to know which sites people feel cared about as contributors?
Sadly StockXpert was one of them, in my opinion. Maybe top of the list. They paid a very fair royalty, had good sales volume, and in the pre-Jupiter/Getty days the admin team was extremely helpful and responsive.
Companies that I think are currently doing well by contributors are Cutcaster (we all know John's work ethic and how involved in the microstock community he is), Graphic Leftovers (Daniel and team are very responsive, very helpful, and actually asked my opinion on some new site design features), and Dreamstime is fair and responsive to member concerns. All three of these companies also pay fairly, Cutcaster paying 40%, GL paying 52%, and DT paying the tiered royalty scale that is certainly more fair than what many other companies offer.
I personally think the industry standard royalty rate should be 50% across the board, but obviously that's never going to happen. However there are some companies that work near or at that line, and I'm happy to support those companies. Keep in mind, however, that it's not all about royalties. The sites I support also have the ability and reach to bring in real buyer volume, and they are all contributor-friendly and fair when it comes to addressing problems and hearing contributor concerns.
-
Don't worry about SS+BigStock... They are fully privately held and I am sure Jon Oringer will sell his business for great money if they offer him buyout with six or seven zeros sum.
But, I doubt that Jon will agree on that if he doesn't plan to sell cookies too ;-)
-
Companies that I think are currently doing well by contributors are Cutcaster (we all know John's work ethic and how involved in the microstock community he is), Graphic Leftovers (Daniel and team are very responsive, very helpful, and actually asked my opinion on some new site design features), and Dreamstime is fair and responsive to member concerns. All three of these companies also pay fairly, Cutcaster paying 40%, GL paying 52%, and DT paying the tiered royalty scale that is certainly more fair than what many other companies offer.
Thanks for the info Mike. Of those three I am only on DT. I will agree, though, that of the big sites they offer the fairest deal to contributors.
I have never heard of Graphic leftovers. Are there any sales there?
I have been contemplating adding Cutcaster to my lineup to replace StockXpert or Crestock, but what I have been reading about sales volume has me holding back. Not to mention that the smaller sites seem to be folding like cheap suits all over the place.
-
I have never heard of Graphic leftovers. Are there any sales there?
I signed up there but I made the mistake not to read what they accept. They don't accept people that need a model release. Of photos, they only like isolated product shots, food etc... As my port now is 2/3 people, I'll have to cancel them. I'll never get payout with 10 crappy food shots.
-
Companies that I think are currently doing well by contributors are Cutcaster (we all know John's work ethic and how involved in the microstock community he is), Graphic Leftovers (Daniel and team are very responsive, very helpful, and actually asked my opinion on some new site design features), and Dreamstime is fair and responsive to member concerns. All three of these companies also pay fairly, Cutcaster paying 40%, GL paying 52%, and DT paying the tiered royalty scale that is certainly more fair than what many other companies offer.
Thanks for the info Mike. Of those three I am only on DT. I will agree, though, that of the big sites they offer the fairest deal to contributors.
I have never heard of Graphic leftovers. Are there any sales there?
I have been contemplating adding Cutcaster to my lineup to replace StockXpert or Crestock, but what I have been reading about sales volume has me holding back. Not to mention that the smaller sites seem to be folding like cheap suits all over the place.
Just started uploading to Graphic Leftovers and I have 3 sales already. I see there are others here with over 100 sales, so it looks like they have something going for them. If you do sign up, make sure to ask for an FTP account, it is the easiest upload, no categories, just upload and they appear in your portfolio. Suppose I had better leave my referral :)
Graphic Leftovers (http://graphicleftovers.com/ref=sharpshot/)
-
Thanks for the info on GL. I am in the same boat as Flemish though. My portfolio is almost entirely people.
-
Hi there - I run my own macro agency, and used to scout for talent on the internet in it's early days. I took on as many contributors as possible, and all worked well while I was selling their material and providing good sales figures.
Hard time's hit about three years ago for me, suddenly I couln't be sure of making good returns on material, hence I had to stop taking on contributors. I sent them all off in the direction of larger trad agencies, although most were not taken on. They either gave up or ended with Alamy.
I cut all my overheads and increased by workload significantly just to survive. End of the day, all I want to do is pay the mortgage, and I'd sell my soul to the devil for that.
Whichever way you go about it, IS exclusive, selling great images for peanut subscription fee's, or hanging outside seedy hotel's waiting for indiscrete celebrities, it does not matter.
All come's to the bottom line for me, I've got a family to feed, so sod the principles and I'll take every extra cent I can. It doesn't make it right, but until I can give my family what they deserve, I'll reserve the luxury of principles.
Oldhand (who's not that old really)
-
Mike, who are those sites that care about contributors? Not being confrontational BTW. I would really like to know which sites people feel cared about as contributors?
I'm not Mike and I don't want to be confrontational, either, but I feel "cared about" by Shutterstock for example - Yes, they do sell subscriptions - but I knew that beforehand, they didn't drop it on me after I signed up, and I made good money there when every download was $0.25, and I'm making even better money there now that I'm at $0.36 and they introduced PPDs...
In my view they "just work": I don't have troubles logging in or uploading to, I can't remember an alien octopus, their stats are up to date within an hour, they pay promptly around the 7th or 8th each month, they are very easy to upload to, they have a decent concept of "editorial", they don't move the goalposts during the game, they handled the tax-withholding-thing decently - have I missed anything? I'm not trying to sound like a fanboy here, but these days I'm already content if I'm not "cared about" but if I'm at least not being f*cked around with - like at some other agencies I could name...
-
In my view they "just work": I don't have troubles logging in or uploading to, I can't remember an alien octopus, their stats are up to date within an hour, they pay promptly around the 7th or 8th each month, they are very easy to upload to, they have a decent concept of "editorial", they don't move the goalposts during the game, they handled the tax-withholding-thing decently - have I missed anything? I'm not trying to sound like a fanboy here, but these days I'm already content if I'm not "cared about" but if I'm at least not being f*cked around with - like at some other agencies I could name...
+1
-
In my view they "just work": I don't have troubles logging in or uploading to, I can't remember an alien octopus, their stats are up to date within an hour, they pay promptly around the 7th or 8th each month, they are very easy to upload to, they have a decent concept of "editorial", they don't move the goalposts during the game, they handled the tax-withholding-thing decently - have I missed anything? I'm not trying to sound like a fanboy here, but these days I'm already content if I'm not "cared about" but if I'm at least not being f*cked around with - like at some other agencies I could name...
+1
Agree very much so! (well, apart from the tax thing which they blew up nicely at first). Another nice detail about them is they absorb refund costs, and the recent EL action where they payed EL's to the contributors after they found a license infringement. They also don't get rich on "sleeping" accounts which makes them come across as less greedy than some of the other big players out there.
It's a relief getting treated correct, nothing more nothing less, some of the other biggies ought to take an exemple.
Just another reason for me not to go for Getty's TS crumbles, SS is doing it in a far more "fair-trade" manner.
-
Companies that I think are currently doing well by contributors are Cutcaster (we all know John's work ethic and how involved in the microstock community he is), Graphic Leftovers (Daniel and team are very responsive, very helpful, and actually asked my opinion on some new site design features), and Dreamstime is fair and responsive to member concerns. All three of these companies also pay fairly, Cutcaster paying 40%, GL paying 52%, and DT paying the tiered royalty scale that is certainly more fair than what many other companies offer.
Thanks for the info Mike. Of those three I am only on DT. I will agree, though, that of the big sites they offer the fairest deal to contributors.
I have never heard of Graphic leftovers. Are there any sales there?
I have been contemplating adding Cutcaster to my lineup to replace StockXpert or Crestock, but what I have been reading about sales volume has me holding back. Not to mention that the smaller sites seem to be folding like cheap suits all over the place.
Just started uploading to Graphic Leftovers and I have 3 sales already. I see there are others here with over 100 sales, so it looks like they have something going for them. If you do sign up, make sure to ask for an FTP account, it is the easiest upload, no categories, just upload and they appear in your portfolio. Suppose I had better leave my referral :)
Graphic Leftovers ([url]http://graphicleftovers.com/ref=sharpshot/[/url])
Thanks for the referral link to GL Sharpshot. I'm going to try and give them a shot.
-Mark
http://markwpayne.wordpress.com (http://markwpayne.wordpress.com)
-
SoooOoo
is there any dl from this weak or is same Getty scheme on the end of the month?
(when they decide your half sales and pay you 20%)
-
In my view they "just work": I don't have troubles logging in or uploading to, I can't remember an alien octopus, their stats are up to date within an hour, they pay promptly around the 7th or 8th each month, they are very easy to upload to, they have a decent concept of "editorial", they don't move the goalposts during the game, they handled the tax-withholding-thing decently - have I missed anything? I'm not trying to sound like a fanboy here, but these days I'm already content if I'm not "cared about" but if I'm at least not being f*cked around with - like at some other agencies I could name...
That fact that nothing goes wrong may have to do with the fact they never seem to change anything.
They're still the king of subs but that can't last forever. At some point they'll need to change to survive or they'll fail.
Maybe they don't want to change because they're waiting for a buyer before the SHTF.
-
Shutterstock is my best performer by far. Upload process is fast and painless and review times are great. I'm also loving the ODD's! I think that it will be more than a bit difficult to dethrone SS as the sub king for quite some time to come. Maybe they just subscribe to the philosophy "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"
-
That fact that nothing goes wrong may have to do with the fact they never seem to change anything.
They're still the king of subs but that can't last forever. At some point they'll need to change to survive or they'll fail.
Maybe they don't want to change because they're waiting for a buyer before the SHTF.
Not necessarily __ I haven't noticed much change at places like McDonald's, Ikea, etc over the years. From a buyer's perspective they're providing a great service. If I were looking to buy a sub then the vast choice, sort order engine and the speed/reliability of the site would almost certainly put them at the top of my list.
If Jon were looking to sell he'd already have done so by now __ instead he's been on the acquisition trail. Frankly I doubt that anyone other than Getty could afford to buy them anyway, they're a much bigger operation than most people realise, probably about one third the size if IS.
-
In fact that is nottt gggoooinnggg wrrrrrooongggggggggggg??!!!?!???????!?
Ecept that I must make tricky xx No-s attempts to just sign up on my acc.
I Just figure how they will pay me if some kind of simple LogIn is so difficult.
OK I will wait next 1st of month to see if some 0.20$ will bee added on my acc thru StockXpert acc but I dont belive them nothing al all.
I give them 2 months and if they dont made same ammount that they steal from us from StockXpert they will hear my final curse...
>:(
-
That fact that nothing goes wrong may have to do with the fact they never seem to change anything...
You nailed it. SS never upgrades the site, never fixes anything, the site is pretty much on autopilot except for reviews. The site design is dated. I am still amazed that after all these years they can't seem to get the JPG and vector versions of an image on one page under one file number. No one stays successful by resting on their laurels and not making any forward progress.
-
...I have never heard of Graphic leftovers. Are there any sales there?...
I do well there. It is definitely more of a graphics/vectors type of site, but they pay well and price most images at $5, so a typical sale gets you $2.60. I usually get 1 sale per day on weekdays, sometimes 2, typically averaging around 25 per month. Although I managed to get 7 sales on Monday alone. Uploading is dirt simple, too. Drop the EPS and JPG via FTP, and that's it. Highly recommended.
-
Khm Khm
But this post is about something about ThingStoka which wanabe from strach bee major player in subs and screw us ALL....
>:(
-
In my view they "just work": I don't have troubles logging in or uploading to, I can't remember an alien octopus, their stats are up to date within an hour, they pay promptly around the 7th or 8th each month, they are very easy to upload to, they have a decent concept of "editorial", they don't move the goalposts during the game, they handled the tax-withholding-thing decently - have I missed anything? I'm not trying to sound like a fanboy here, but these days I'm already content if I'm not "cared about" but if I'm at least not being f*cked around with - like at some other agencies I could name...
+1
Agree very much so! (well, apart from the tax thing which they blew up nicely at first). Another nice detail about them is they absorb refund costs, and the recent EL action where they payed EL's to the contributors after they found a license infringement. They also don't get rich on "sleeping" accounts which makes them come across as less greedy than some of the other big players out there.
It's a relief getting treated correct, nothing more nothing less, some of the other biggies ought to take an exemple.
Just another reason for me not to go for Getty's TS crumbles, SS is doing it in a far more "fair-trade" manner.
Yes I agree with the above two posts sums up why I chose not to support Gettys latest sibling TS, why assist in attempting to bring something this good down with something that offers so little in return
-
Hello i'm back.
-
Hello i'm back.
Where have you been? 8)
-
Hello i'm back.
Where have you been? 8)
He's been busy uploading his portfolio to the micros :)
-
I got banned but today i tried logging in and it works ...
-
They also banned me in the Alamy forum, such a pain in the ass.
Can i stay here ?
I promise i'm a good boy now but you know it already.
-
They also banned me in the Alamy forum, such a pain in the ass.
What did you do wrong at Alamy forum? Criticized the macrostock agencies? :D
-
marcos, is that you?
-
marcos, is that you?
Yes, it's me, and Franz as well.
-
They also banned me in the Alamy forum, such a pain in the ass.
What did you do wrong at Alamy forum? Criticized the macrostock agencies? :D
I don't know exactly, today i argued that Nikon was better than Canon and their admin
closed the thread and banned me.
-
Hi Lisa FX and All,
Please remember that there are several very good Macro third party companies that support and guide their contributors with a great deal of kindness and effort. They make themselves a community to grow and build as a team. Agencies like Rubberball, Blend, Cultura, Tetra. These are all strong Macro third party smaller agencies that truly support the investment of their contributors. This is something I think is overlooked a lot.
It is not just Getty to choose from when entering Macro. I just got back from a big gathering of one agency that included speakers and information for two days that was very valuable. They want to make their shooters better at what they do, it makes sense for both sides. I am off to another one this month for creative briefs and to share information with and learn from some really talented friendly people.
I think everyone should consider third party agencies in Macro as an option, I don't here them mentioned here very often. I make far more money at third party agencies per image than I do at Micro. It doesn't make it better and might not be to some peoples liking but as far as supporting their contributors they could not do a better job in my opinion. I only named 4 of them, there are more.
Best,
Jonathan
-
Thanks for the info Jonathan :)
Personally, I am all for submitting to macro agencies in theory. In practice, I don't know where to begin. Not to mention I still haven't managed the workflow of shooting for different markets.
-
Hi all
My first post here...
If you are still considering wether to opt in or out on Thinkstock consider this (if you don't like calculations then skip to the last line):
A buyer wants 7 of your XXXL pictures on iS and nothing more. You are non-exclusive so the buyer needs 7 x 25 = 175 credits. He sees that the cheapest way to get this amount of credit would be to buy the following combination of credit packages: 120 credits for 170 $, 50 credits for 73 $ and 12 credits for 18,25 $. This will give the buyer 182 credits and cost him 261,25. You make 20% x 1,44$/credit (the average credit price for his purchase) x 175 credit = 50,24 $ and Getty makes 261,25 – 50,24 = 211,01$. Weirdly enough this 20 % (actually: 19,2%) commission scenario is what you are hoping for, but it ain't gonna happen! Because, just before he clicks ”buy” he notices the link to Thinkstock and decides to see if your pictures are there - And they are, cause you want those extra nuts don't you?! He buys the subscription plan as he can save 261,25 – 249 = 12,25$ dollars this way. He downloads the 7 pictures he wants and nothing more. You get 7 x 0,25 = 1,75 $ and Getty gets 249 – 1,75 = 247,25 $. Getty makes 247,25 – 211,01 = 36,24 $ MORE than if the pictures had been bought on iS, whereas you get a pay cut from 50,24 to 1,75 $ (3% of your usual pay).
The commission you have received is 1,75 $ / 249 $ = 0,7%
This is an extreme example, but the point is, that there are many reasons for Getty to push the business towards more subscriptions...
-
Hi all
A buyer wants 7 of your XXXL pictures on iS and nothing more. You are non-exclusive so the buyer needs 7 x 25 = 175 credits. He sees that the cheapest way to get this amount of credit would be to buy the following combination of credit packages: 120 credits for 170 $, 50 credits for 73 $ and 12 credits for 18,25 $. This will give the buyer 182 credits and cost him 261,25. You make 20% x 1,44$/credit (the average credit price for his purchase) x 175 credit = 50,24 $ and Getty makes 261,25 – 50,24 = 211,01$. Weirdly enough this 20 % (actually: 19,2%) commission scenario is what you are hoping for, but it ain't gonna happen! Because, just before he clicks ”buy” he notices the link to Thinkstock and decides to see if your pictures are there - And they are,
Hi -
Can you post a link to the 'link to Thinkstock' the buyer can see in your scenario? Thanks!
-
Hi Lisa FX and All,
Please remember that there are several very good Macro third party companies that support and guide their contributors with a great deal of kindness and effort. They make themselves a community to grow and build as a team. Agencies like Rubberball, Blend, Cultura, Tetra. These are all strong Macro third party smaller agencies that truly support the investment of their contributors. This is something I think is overlooked a lot.
It is not just Getty to choose from when entering Macro. I just got back from a big gathering of one agency that included speakers and information for two days that was very valuable. They want to make their shooters better at what they do, it makes sense for both sides. I am off to another one this month for creative briefs and to share information with and learn from some really talented friendly people.
I think everyone should consider third party agencies in Macro as an option, I don't here them mentioned here very often. I make far more money at third party agencies per image than I do at Micro. It doesn't make it better and might not be to some peoples liking but as far as supporting their contributors they could not do a better job in my opinion. I only named 4 of them, there are more.
Best,
Jonathan
Hi Jonathan,
Thanks for all of your input in this forum. They have been more than helpful.
I was just wondering how some people can do all of this and does your day have more than 24 hours?
I see you're active at this forum and you are doing macro stock, mid stock and microstock, and also you are in the video productions business, family stuff and .... .
My days are much shorter and I hardly have the time for this forum, trying to keep sales at the same level. Is there a formula or is that just how you organize yourself?
I apologize to all other helpful people here, there are more, but I picked Jonathan because I like to read his posts and he looks to be an honest guy.
Kone
-
Hi Lisa FX,
If you ever want any introductions into third party Macro agencies just drop me a PM and I'll connect you with some good people.
Best,
Jonathan
-
Hi Kone,
Thank you for the kind words they mean a ton to me. I have had a very limited social life, ahhh zero : ) My family takes up all my extra time from work. Since my wife and I work together we spend lots of time focused on the same subject but rarely do we go out on dates without the kids.
I think scheduling has a great deal to do with it but also remember I have my wife who runs the business part of the company and an increadable producer that sets up everything with me and gets all our ducks in a row for our shoots.
We just plod away at it one day at a time. I always try to keep very busy and usually put in about 100 hours a week on work and the rest is the family.
If you break down a week by hours there are 168 hours a week. 42 for sleep and the rest for family and work that leaves me with about 120 hours or so for work and kids. Work gets about 90 kids and wife get about 30.
I recently have taken a step back and now put in 3-4 hours a day at the gym so the work load has dropped as I turn 50. I want to make it to my old age in good shape so the gym has been a great help. I now put in about 20 hours a week in the gym and that has been stolen from mostly my work load so my work is now more like 80 hours a week.
Having 80 hours and two people to help allow you to get quite a bit done but I know guys out there in stock that spend way more time on their work than I do, they don't have family.
I try to stay very organized and have a condition called hyper OCD that makes my mind never shut off. Not the best thing to have but it does have the advantage of feeling like you are always slacking and can achieve more if you just organize better. I wouldn't wish it on anyone.
I hope that helps, it comes down to the fact that we are all wired slightly differently and I don't think any one way is better than another, for me it is the pursuit of happiness. I said pursuit, the happiness is fleeting : ) Thanks for the question I don't know if the answer helped but in a word ORGANIZATION of every minute in the day.
Keep shooting and drop me a PM anytime.
Best,
Jonathan
-
that's pretty helpful but probably impossible advice for a slacker like me. i tend to focus on only one thing at once and it normally takes a really long time.
i'd like to pose kone's question to sjlocke, who seems to accomplish a lot whilst appearing at every forum i visit. i know he's two or three different people, but i still like to learn of his organizational secrets too.
-
that's pretty helpful but probably impossible advice for a slacker like me. i tend to focus on only one thing at once and it normally takes a really long time.
i'd like to pose kone's question to sjlocke, who seems to accomplish a lot whilst appearing at every forum i visit. i know he's two or three different people, but i still like to learn of his organizational secrets too.
Instigator. ;D
-
Lisa, you have a white knight! :)
" I recently have taken a step back and now put in 3-4 hours a day at the gym so the work load has dropped as I turn 50."
You must look like Lou Ferigno at this point.
-
You must look like Lou Ferigno at this point.
Only when he thinks of you.
Serious point though I know how he feels, I'm 45 this year and thinking about old age and my fitness has crossed my mind too.
-
@ Jonathan Ross
Thanks for your response.
Kone
-
Serious point though I know how he feels, I'm 45 this year and thinking about old age and my fitness has crossed my mind too.
I'm 40. Dropped 20 lbs. so far this year :) .
-
i once saw a b-card that said 40 is sporty...now i know what it means.
-
Hi All,
Yea I don't know if it's a mid life crisis but the exercise is awesome, it has been life changing. Lost 37 pounds over the past year and now just working on putting 25 back but not on my gut and hips : ) Dropped the heart rate down to a much healthier level, almost in half. Makes those long shoot days easier to. And my wife and I work out together so we can get away from our lives always being about work. I know I am starting to make people ill. I sound like an evangalist for exersize. I'm done here. ;D
I also had several PM's about entering third party Macro and how to approach the agencies. It's friday night and I'm relaxing for the evening but I'll be happy to post more advice in the near future on the subject.
Keep shooting,
Jonathan
-
it should be an interesting read!
-
I also had several PM's about entering third party Macro and how to approach the agencies. It's friday night and I'm relaxing for the evening but I'll be happy to post more advice in the near future on the subject.
That would be great.
Kone
-
Hi All,
I am sorry for letting this slip through without a follow up. I am getting forgetful in my age . My approach to getting into the big Macro agencies is to enter through a back door or what's known as third party agencies and get yourself recognized. If you produce solid work for these third party agencies under the Getty or Corbis umbrella and your sales are good the big dogs are going to notice.
After some time feeding several or only one third party and selling well then that is the best time to make your direct introduction to the big agency with an e-mail. Explain who you are and that you have work on their site through so and so brand and would love to work directly with their agency if possible. If your work is selling they will know and they will invite you to join there agency as well. That is a big part of diversifying.
It is important that you shoot different work for each third party agency so you will have to produce new work but that is a given as you will want to produce your very best, I mean better than what you find on the Third party agency for them to be interested in you. It doesn't take a lot of images but they need to be stelar. Every third party agency has some bad work in their collection but this is not your gage. You want to look at their best work and meet those standards if you want in. The first work is really under the microscope so you must kick some butt on those first submissions.
Once in then you can follow your sales and see how they are stacking up, remember the idea is to build diversification and an entrance into the big agencies so that has to be your focus at first rather than how much you will make. If your work is strong don't worry about the revenue it will start to grow, however in the Macro market it can take longer to get your work up and even longer for the buyers to find it at first so you have to be patient. I give all our work a six month wait before I start to calculate the sales and see if the subject is selling well.
The third party lifestyle agencies I would approach are. Image Source, Blend Images, Superstock, Cultura Images, Tetra and many more. You can go to Getty or Corbis and see a list of all their third party collections by using their advanced search section. That way you can look to see what the third party agencies are offering and see if it is a good fit for your interest and style.
I hope this helps a bit if anyone has any questions please feel welcome to P.M. me or just make a follow up post. I promise not to fall asleep at the wheel again ;)
Good Luck,
Jonathan
-
Hi All,
I am sorry for letting this slip through without a follow up. I am getting forgetful in my age . My approach to getting into the big Macro agencies is to enter through a back door or what's known as third party agencies and get yourself recognized. If you produce solid work for these third party agencies under the Getty or Corbis umbrella and your sales are good the big dogs are going to notice.
After some time feeding several or only one third party and selling well then that is the best time to make your direct introduction to the big agency with an e-mail. Explain who you are and that you have work on their site through so and so brand and would love to work directly with their agency if possible. If your work is selling they will know and they will invite you to join there agency as well. That is a big part of diversifying.
It is important that you shoot different work for each third party agency so you will have to produce new work but that is a given as you will want to produce your very best, I mean better than what you find on the Third party agency for them to be interested in you. It doesn't take a lot of images but they need to be stelar. Every third party agency has some bad work in their collection but this is not your gage. You want to look at their best work and meet those standards if you want in. The first work is really under the microscope so you must kick some butt on those first submissions.
Once in then you can follow your sales and see how they are stacking up, remember the idea is to build diversification and an entrance into the big agencies so that has to be your focus at first rather than how much you will make. If your work is strong don't worry about the revenue it will start to grow, however in the Macro market it can take longer to get your work up and even longer for the buyers to find it at first so you have to be patient. I give all our work a six month wait before I start to calculate the sales and see if the subject is selling well.
The third party lifestyle agencies I would approach are. Image Source, Blend Images, Superstock, Cultura Images, Tetra and many more. You can go to Getty or Corbis and see a list of all their third party collections by using their advanced search section. That way you can look to see what the third party agencies are offering and see if it is a good fit for your interest and style.
I hope this helps a bit if anyone has any questions please feel welcome to P.M. me or just make a follow up post. I promise not to fall asleep at the wheel again ;)
Good Luck,
Jonathan
Thanks Jonathan
What is your suggestion: Send sample images or link to website (or even link to portfolio in MS Agency)?
-
Hi Kone,
The Macro agencies are going to want to see new work that is the caliber of their very best they already offer. That is the part of being under the microscope. They want people they feel are going to add something that is easy for them to sell and make their company look better to their distributors by showing high STR or sell through rate ( the number of images in their collection that have at least sold once in it's life ).
Study the third party agencies look at what is their best work and match or exceed that quality with new work. They will not be interested in representing any images that are already sold in Micro so it really has to be new work.
Cheers,
Jonathan
-
Thank you, Ross! Very useful information. I wish there were more posts like yours and less of My Overall FT Rank kind of threads.
-
Thank you, Ross! Very useful information. I wish there were more posts like yours and less of My Overall FT Rank kind of threads.
Totally agree.
Thanks Ross
-
I love Ross!
(http://www.cornell.k12.wi.us/studentweb/bobbi/pictures/david3%5B1%5D.jpg)
-
So do I :) This one is Jonathan Ross from the UK.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/41/JonathanRoss.jpg/347px-JonathanRoss.jpg)
-
I appreciate all the warmth and whit. Thanks you guys, I didn't know you cared so much to take the time to show it. This place is getting more friendly by the day. Keep spreading the love ;D
Cheers,
Jonathan
-
Here is why I am such a good guy. My mom Marion Ross ;)