Quote from: luissantos84 on July 30, 2011, 03:35

Quote from: Freedom on July 30, 2011, 03:11
At least I can opt out of Thinkstock if I want to.

not following you actually.. non-exclusives can opt out too

The Getty contract changes this spring took away from the contributors any opt out for subscriptions at Thinkstock or other Getty properties. The last several 'lypses (since Tokyo I think) have required that all lypse images go to the PP sites even if the contributor is otherwise opted out. I think it's a good bet that it will at some point no longer be possible to opt out of the PP on iStock.

I'm guessing that Freedom's comment referred to the fact that it was possible for exclusives at IS to avoid subscriptions entirely (iS subscriptions aren't really; they're just bulk purchase discounts).

I don't like subscriptions either (and that was a factor in the decision to go exclusive back in 2008). However, I have a bunch of things I don't like and am in a position to have to choose the least unpleasant. As an independent, I just have to live with subscriptions because SS makes such a decent contribution to the monthly total.

Jsnover said exactly what I meant - as an exclusive, I can opt in a few photos or nothing at all to Thinkstock.

Actually, the PP requirements are exempted in the recent new lypses, if I remember correctly.

Quote from: jsnover on July 30, 2011, 04:06

Quote from: luissantos84 on July 30, 2011, 03:35

Quote from: Freedom on July 30, 2011, 03:11
At least I can opt out of Thinkstock if I want to.

not following you actually.. non-exclusives can opt out too

The Getty contract changes this spring took away from the contributors any opt out for subscriptions at Thinkstock or other Getty properties. The last several 'lypses (since Tokyo I think) have required that all lypse images go to the PP sites even if the contributor is otherwise opted out. I think it's a good bet that it will at some point no longer be possible to opt out of the PP on iStock.

I'm guessing that Freedom's comment referred to the fact that it was possible for exclusives at IS to avoid subscriptions entirely (iS subscriptions aren't really; they're just bulk purchase discounts).

I don't like subscriptions either (and that was a factor in the decision to go exclusive back in 2008). However, I have a bunch of things I don't like and am in a position to have to choose the least unpleasant. As an independent, I just have to live with subscriptions because SS makes such a decent contribution to the monthly total.

It's like a love story. The girlfriends that do not loved, you not care that betray you. But the one you loved, you do not will never forgive ...

I just had a sale there for which I received 17 cents.  I think that's a new low.  

Obviously, all IS will do in the future is just continue to grind commissions into dust.

Quote from: stockastic on July 30, 2011, 04:44
I just had a sale there for which I received 17 cents.  I think that's a new low.  

Obviously, all IS will do in the future is just continue to grind commissions into dust.

I had one of 12 cents ... I think I read a thread that was one of 9 cent...

I have nothing positive to say - not a word , not a thought, nothing - they represent everything I despise. Even though I would lose money and I know other people would too, there is this a huge (secret  part of me that daydreams about their complete destruction. Nuff said.

The only nice thing I can think of is that I did like them at one time, I never liked 20% commission but the earnings were reasonable, a few years ago.  Then they made all these changes that hit my earnings, closing Stockxpert and cutting commissions is really unforgivable.

Quote from: Freedom on July 30, 2011, 04:11
Actually, the PP requirements are exempted in the recent new lypses, if I remember correctly.

Not for London, where they had the additional rule that any photos you took in London, even if you arrived a few days early or stayed a few days after the 'lypse had to go to the Getty family. Same in Tokyo.
The next Milan 'lypse requires all photos taken during the lypse to go to TS; I don't know about the 'before and after' rule for Milan.

They have no need to change the TS rule - they have plenty of people clamouring to go.

Quote from: hoi ha on July 30, 2011, 04:58
I have nothing positive to say - not a word , not a thought, nothing - they represent everything I despise. Even though I would lose money and I know other people would too, there is this a huge (secret  part of me that daydreams about their complete destruction. Nuff said.

I'm convinced there would be a net loss. Buyers will still need their images, they'd just buy them from one of the other sites we contribute to.

Quote from: stockastic on July 30, 2011, 04:44
I just had a sale there for which I received 17 cents.  I think that's a new low.  

Obviously, all IS will do in the future is just continue to grind commissions into dust.

I got 7c once, but just 2 days ago I got 2 11c sales. But OTOH I have a fresh photo in the P+ collection than usually sells as XXXL and it's nice to see a 7$ sale

I had a BME there last month, and another this month;  what's not to like?

Istock is better then diareea

Quote from: lthn on July 30, 2011, 13:16
Istock is better then diareea

Better hope they never get better then

I like the fact that they are the only agency which try seriously to bring prices up (of course this only happened after the get bought by Getty before they have ruined the prices in the first place).
I'm fully aware that other agencies did have some price-updating too but not on the same level and they only followed iStock in this regard, Dreamstime and Fotolia don't  have balls at all!

Quote from: grp_photo on July 30, 2011, 13:52
I'm fully aware that other agencies did have some price-updating too but not on the same level and they only followed iStock in this regard, Dreamstime and Fotolia don't  have balls at all!

not a contributor with many sales but DT seem nice when there are some high level downloads.. of course they don´t sell like IS but in the long run seem good.. at least regardind RPD are the closest to IS

p.s: not happy with IS or DT

Quote from: ToniFlap on July 30, 2011, 04:51

Quote from: stockastic on July 30, 2011, 04:44
I just had a sale there for which I received 17 cents.  I think that's a new low.  

Obviously, all IS will do in the future is just continue to grind commissions into dust.

I had one of 12 cents ... I think I read a thread that was one of 9 cent...

I had one get me 10c the other day.

But then, this means the buyer paid what, 85c or so for an XS image. What is more edible than a XXL for 36c or less as subs elsewhere.

Quote from: madelaide on July 30, 2011, 14:17

Quote from: ToniFlap on July 30, 2011, 04:51

Quote from: stockastic on July 30, 2011, 04:44
I just had a sale there for which I received 17 cents.  I think that's a new low.  

Obviously, all IS will do in the future is just continue to grind commissions into dust.

I had one of 12 cents ... I think I read a thread that was one of 9 cent...

I had one get me 10c the other day.

But then, this means the buyer paid what, 85c or so for an XS image. What is more edible than a XXL for 36c or less as subs elsewhere.

These XS sales are a plague.  Yes, buyers like getting images at very small size, for web/tablet/phone applications, at correspondingly reduced prices.   But we still have to produce full size images at ever-higher quality; we can't submit easily produced, low-quality images as "XS only".   We're required to produce full-size images even though the likelihood of selling them at that size is rapidly decreasing.  And of course all the rest of the work we do - finding subjects, props, lighting, composition - is still there in the XS image. 

XS sales are just another part of the 'race to the bottom'.   I realize this isn't new.

Quote from: stockastic on July 30, 2011, 15:16

Quote from: madelaide on July 30, 2011, 14:17

Quote from: ToniFlap on July 30, 2011, 04:51

Quote from: stockastic on July 30, 2011, 04:44
I just had a sale there for which I received 17 cents.  I think that's a new low.  

Obviously, all IS will do in the future is just continue to grind commissions into dust.

I had one of 12 cents ... I think I read a thread that was one of 9 cent...

I had one get me 10c the other day.

But then, this means the buyer paid what, 85c or so for an XS image. What is more edible than a XXL for 36c or less as subs elsewhere.

These XS sales are a plague.  Yes, buyers like getting images at very small size, for web/tablet/phone applications, at correspondingly reduced prices.   But we still have to produce full size images at ever-higher quality; we can't submit easily produced, low-quality images as "XS only".   We're required to produce full-size images even though the likelihood of selling them at that size is rapidly decreasing.  And of course all the rest of the work we do - finding subjects, props, lighting, composition - is still there in the XS image. 

XS sales are just another part of the 'race to the bottom'.   I realize this isn't new.

They should either loose it or charge it 2 credits. No wait, they couldn't do that it wouldn't make no sense for the bottom res to cost 2 credits. But they could introduce a ridiculously small res XXS (like at macro agencies) and sell it at 1 cr, while they could charge 2 for XS DLs.

sure! and change p+ too after (one or two more IS moves, no prob!)

I'm guessing that initially the microstocks just saw XS as another quick buck. They probably didn't anticipate the explosion in web usage, not to mention tablets, smartphones and other small-display devices, and the corresponding buyer rush to XS.  The small sizes are eating up their profits as well as ours.  But the great thing about a 'race to the bottom' is that it can only end one way.

money is the root of all evil 
look at all the seething hatred coming out

Quote from: sjlocke on July 29, 2011, 23:39
[Wow, insulting right from the start.

No more insulting and no less accurate than comments on any of the various critique fora - folks who commit to ANY single agency are going to be more inclined to buy into the crap.  I'm doing contract work for one of the big IT multinationals at the moment and see exactly the same thing in the permanent staff.  
Seeing the odd positive but much more negative.  I'd guess if I asked the same about the other big sites the reaction to FT would be similar but much more positive on the other 2.

Quote from: stockastic on July 30, 2011, 15:16

Quote from: madelaide on July 30, 2011, 14:17

Quote from: ToniFlap on July 30, 2011, 04:51

Quote from: stockastic on July 30, 2011, 04:44
I just had a sale there for which I received 17 cents.  I think that's a new low.  

Obviously, all IS will do in the future is just continue to grind commissions into dust.

I had one of 12 cents ... I think I read a thread that was one of 9 cent...

I had one get me 10c the other day.

But then, this means the buyer paid what, 85c or so for an XS image. What is more edible than a XXL for 36c or less as subs elsewhere.

These XS sales are a plague.  Yes, buyers like getting images at very small size, for web/tablet/phone applications, at correspondingly reduced prices.   But we still have to produce full size images at ever-higher quality; we can't submit easily produced, low-quality images as "XS only".   We're required to produce full-size images even though the likelihood of selling them at that size is rapidly decreasing.  And of course all the rest of the work we do - finding subjects, props, lighting, composition - is still there in the XS image. 

XS sales are just another part of the 'race to the bottom'.   I realize this isn't new.

Most XS sales are tryout DLs for layouts --> no watermark + somewhat better quality. We bought XS by the dozens to try them out in layouts... the winner got fullres DL.

'No more insulting and no less accurate than comments on any of the various critique fora - folks who commit to ANY single agency are going to be more inclined to buy into the crap.  I'm doing contract work for one of the big IT multinationals at the moment and see exactly the same thing in the permanent staff.  '

Sorry, obviously you were only looking for negative comments, under the guise of asking for positive ones, else you'd be happy to hear from anyone.

Quote from: stockastic on July 30, 2011, 15:16
These XS sales are a plague.  Yes, buyers like getting images at very small size, for web/tablet/phone applications, at correspondingly reduced prices.   But we still have to produce full size images at ever-higher quality; we can't submit easily produced, low-quality images as "XS only".   We're required to produce full-size images even though the likelihood of selling them at that size is rapidly decreasing.

But why do we need huge images for microstock, I always ask myself. If you disregard subscriptions, they are a huge minority of the sales. Yes, with good earnings when we sell them, no doubt that is something to look for. So personally, if images are good, even if they are not big, why not accept them, why request a minimum of 6Mpix like some agencies do? Many of the images I sell at IS are still the 2-3MPix ones.

BTW, does IS still accept 2MPix images? If so, that is something good to say about them.