Quote from: Ron on November 10, 2013, 19:58
Ignore the fact that only a select group have the bridge and that no one can join these days as the program closed.

Ignore the fact that a significant quantity of the content at SS is on BS anyhow irrespective of the "bridge" because people like to compete with themselves.

Quote from: Ron on November 10, 2013, 19:58
Ignore the fact that only a select group have the bridge and that no one can join these days as the program closed.

SS implemented the bridge program so that they could funnel over files from SS that fit a long term BS target demographic.  I am sure that if you fit the demographic for the business's that SS hopes to develop business relationships with, you will still get an invitation. After all it has always been by invitation.

How long do you suppose the BS division of SS will be able to pay .38 at the subscription rates they are charging?

Enough of BS strategics, they are only one small piece of the overall picture.

Quote from: bhr on November 10, 2013, 20:05

Quote from: Ron on November 10, 2013, 19:58
Ignore the fact that only a select group have the bridge and that no one can join these days as the program closed.

Ignore the fact that a significant quantity of the content at SS is on BS anyhow irrespective of the "bridge" because people like to compete with themselves.

I am not ignoring anything. But Yes, so that makes the whole argument of SS creating a bridge to cut royalties moot. People have a free choice as well, they can upload and they can leave.

I am out of the bridge but I can tell you that I haven't upload there since that move (1 year ago) and I don't plan to resume

Quote from: luissantos84 on November 10, 2013, 20:22
I am out of the bridge but I can tell you that I haven't upload there since that move (1 year ago) and I don't plan to resume

Smart, why devalue your assets

There's actually no sign that they are pushing SS contributors over to BS, sales there have had no boost at all in my experience, in fact rather the reverse. Sending buyers to cheaper associated sites is a Getty/iS policy, not an SS one.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on November 11, 2013, 03:25
There's actually no sign that they are pushing SS contributors over to BS, sales there have had no boost at all in my experience, in fact rather the reverse. Sending buyers to cheaper associated sites is a Getty/iS policy, not an SS one.

I've seen a dip in SS subs sales and they have risen with BS because they used to not offer them at all.  I do think some SS subs buyers will move over to BigStock with their special offers.  As BigStock has impossible to reach levels for subs, I see this as being alarmingly similar to the Getty/IS policy.  I'm OK while the bridge $0.38 remains but how long will that last?

If they want to treat their contributors differently to Gett/istock, they should pay the same rates for subs with BigStock as they do with SS for everyone.

I wonder how many special deals Getty are going to do?  One or two contributors shouldn't hit SS that hard but if they plan to do this on a larger scale, I think SS will have to start doing something more to keep their highest earning contributors.

An intresting special deal with Getty you can see sorting the latest on Vetta images and check those from http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=10400019

As long as their special deals involve contributors who have lots of competition I don´t think it makes a difference. There is such an oversupply of images, you know the saying about of the size of the hole in a glass of water, when you take out your finger...also the content they are bringing in is not new, it has been seen millions of times over all the sites everywhere.

Good luck to those who take the deals and more money for the indies everywhere...

Quote from: Michael Lancaster on November 12, 2013, 12:28
An intresting special deal with Getty you can see sorting the latest on Vetta images and check those from http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=10400019

It's an incredibly random subset of that port which has been made Vetta.

Love the original Bondi Blue iMac

>23,000 images < 100 sales - looks like they're making a fortune

Quote from: heywoody on November 12, 2013, 13:27
>23,000 images < 100 sales - looks like they're making a fortune

indeed

last file approved on August 8th, that is over 3 months with 23k files and 90 sales

.

How do you arrive at 2000 sales in the last three weeks? The data don't exist for you to reach that conclusion, do they?

.

thank god man, that would have been depressing

.

Quote from: tickstock on November 12, 2013, 15:55

Quote from: luissantos84 on November 12, 2013, 15:53
thank god man, that would have been depressing

Yes it would have but $10,000+ per week doesn't sound too bad to me.

had worst weeks man

This new Getty dump had been talked about elsewhere. My favorite of the hand-picked (Editor's choice) gems? This crumpled paper with black border.



One of the keywords is Natural Phenomenon - for some reason Paper isn't in there but that is? What sort of IQ test are you failing if you buy this for $270?

Quote from: tickstock on November 12, 2013, 14:32
Sorry to say but that is incorrect.  The first 50 files have well over 500dls, the stats stopped updating a couple weeks ago.  The files were uploaded months ago but probably approved just a few weeks ago judging by how many downloads they've had since the stats stopped working. 

With lots of Vetta images and about 2000 sales in the last 3 weeks, they probably made at least $10,000 per week.

^^^ Sorry to say but that is incorrect too. Some of that portfolio dates back to 2010 so the sales numbers have been gathered over a much longer period than you surmise. I would be absolutely amazed if that portfolio were generating more than a fraction of what you estimate.

.

There might indeed be a date problem, if only for the simple reason that if these stellar vetta images had been ingested in 2010 we would all have heard about it. Loads of designers/contributors scan the new vettas every day. you can´t hide this kind of "quality"

Quote from: tickstock on November 12, 2013, 21:13

If you hover over some of those images it says  >10 but when you click on them they say >40.  My guess is that the images were actually uploaded in 2013 and wrongly say 2010 (or were from a Getty account and uploaded there in 2010).  I think some other Getty accounts had that issue before.  Maybe the hovered over number is since they were put up this time?  If you compare OJO_Images images from 2011 you'll see they have many times more downloads and views than that account.  Do you know for sure that they were on iStock since 2010?

So what you're saying is that, depending on where you click, you get different numbers and you are saying this in defense of IS??