MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Poll

Did you boycott iStock's partner programme?

Yes (ind)
43 (36.8%)
No (ind)
37 (31.6%)
Yes (exc)
19 (16.2%)
No (exc)
17 (14.5%)
Not sure (ind)
0 (0%)
Not sure (exc)
1 (0.9%)

Total Members Voted: 102

Voting closed: December 29, 2011, 06:34

Author Topic: POLL: Did you boycott Thinkstock?  (Read 13794 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: November 29, 2011, 17:32 »
0
I didn't boycott, because I can't afford to shoot myself in the foot while watching regular revenue continue to dwindle.  However, I did start removing my images from IS and StockXpert as a compromise and continue to do so as revenue increases at other outlets.  I'm not putting up with Getty's BS anymore.


« Reply #51 on: November 29, 2011, 18:16 »
0
I didn't bother fighting Thinkstock.  I already had a few thousand images in there from StockXpert, which bring in a munificent $6-8 every month, plus a handful of slow and non-sellers from iStock that I opted in.  I'm continuing to delete images from both iStock and StockXpert a few a day.  I'm down to 1300 images on iStock from a high of 3000.  I figure I may as well take whatever pennies I can get on my way out the door.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #52 on: November 29, 2011, 18:19 »
0
At the beginning, I was naive enough to believe them when they said they were targetting a new market, so I opted in some old, low-sellers, and some 'seconds' from then-current shoots.
When they mailed out to existing big buyers trying to transfer them to TS, I rapidly opted out again.
I voted yes, but I guess it should maybe be 'not sure', as I guess my files were there for about a month.

« Reply #53 on: November 29, 2011, 18:56 »
0
Yes/ind. As long as TS was optional, I just enjoyed the 50$ or so monthly from IS being opted out of all PP. I stopped uploading for over a year ago (primarily because of the excess paperwork of a release for every shoot). The moment IS forced my content into their garbage bin, I had to do what a nun has to do: deactivate my entire IS port, just as I had to do with Stockexpert. Purely business and I have all possible sympathy for folks with 3-500$+ that have to stay.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2011, 19:03 by AttilaTheNun »

fritz

  • I love Tom and Jerry music

« Reply #54 on: November 29, 2011, 20:43 »
0
Like Lisa said I am making about 1/3 in the PP of what I make at IS too getting better and better and it's more than 50$.

« Reply #55 on: November 29, 2011, 23:06 »
0
perhaps the IS sales are mostly migrating to TS - keeping it in the Getty family so to speak. If they really do port all the independent content there but not most of the exclusive that means high $ IS exclusive sales are being turned into low $ indy PP sales. YAY.

helix7

« Reply #56 on: November 30, 2011, 00:05 »
0

I boycotted it until I didn't have a choice anymore.

There's always a choice.

There's always another option, but when you make your living in this business it's not so much of a choice sometimes. istock is on the decline, for sure, but at present they're still one of the microstock sites that you just have to be on to maximize earnings. For us vector folks, they're now finally introducing EPS10 files into the mix, which I have a pile of to submit once the doors are open. So the option to delete my portfolio and leave istock isn't a good one at the moment.

My istock earnings are a small fraction of what they used to be, but as long as they keep feeding and diapering my kid, I'm sticking around.

The only way it becomes a viable option for me to leave istock is if I ever get the sense that ThinkStock is actually cutting into my Shutterstock earnings. I don't see that happening, but if somehow it ever does, that's when it becomes a good business move for me to drop istock.

lagereek

« Reply #57 on: November 30, 2011, 01:52 »
0
I wouldn't want to encourage him to come back here and proselytize, but the Shankster is always saying he has good PP results...

Yes I know __ but you don't actually believe the figures he spouts do you? One moment he's made enough for fish and chips for his dinner, the next he's flicking through a Ferrari brochure. Shanks doesn't do 'serious' or 'facts'. I thought that was understood.

Ferrari brouchure?  Im sitting here in my 2009 Range-Rover and I expected IS, to pay for the fuel or at least the freaking oil but no sir, no a pot to piss in. Its all piss poor performance.
Maybe we should join up with TS ?  heard they pay for travels, etc.

« Reply #58 on: November 30, 2011, 02:56 »
0
Im sitting here in my 2009 Range-Rover and I expected IS, to pay for the fuel or at least the freaking oil but no sir, no a pot to piss in. Its all piss poor performance.
Maybe we should join up with TS ?  heard they pay for travels, etc.

Maybe they want us to start using the bicycle instead.

« Reply #59 on: November 30, 2011, 03:18 »
0
However, you should know me well enough to know that I'm telling it the way it is as far as I am concerned.

Oh yes, I don't doubt what you're saying, but if your numbers were 'normal' then the PP would be an astonishing success. When I visit the PP sites I can find almost no reason why anybody would buy there in preference to any of the 'Big 4'.

So now, after 28 indie "No" votes, we have Lisa, Luis and Alex with similar results to mine (though mine still seem a bit ahead of the others. Disorderly is the only indie saying the opposite but he deliberately only put a little cr*p there from iStock and his StockXpert files are old and may not be iStock quality.

It's obvious that my results are, at the very least, representative of a significant minority (one in seven) and could even be not very far from the norm.

I remember several people saying they would only put non-selling rubbish into PP, it's possible that some of those reporting cr*p sales had already biased the outcome. It also rather seems that nobody wanted to admit to doing well until someone else's head was above that particular parapet.

Rapideye's result is especially interesting, since if anyone can sell it should be him. Even there, sales of 1 on pp to 4 on iS are still significant, though clearly not impressive. It would be interesting to hear from other exlusives (and indies) to see if this is a divide consistently favouring independents.

Even with Rapideye's dl ratio, let alone with the other four, that website traffic figure seems to make no sense at all. Maybe we should all be less impressed with traffic statistics.

As for your comment about there being no reason for buyers to go there instead of to the other big sites, it's probably worth turning the question upside down: Once Getty gets them onto that site, by direct recruiting or diverting buyers from iS, is there any reason for them to leave and go elsewhere, or will they feel that good enough will do and stick with what they know? There's a tremendous amount of inertia in business.

lagereek

« Reply #60 on: November 30, 2011, 03:40 »
0
Some of us had no choice, really and I was one of them. I thought November was the date for the move into TS, but so far I cant see any of my shots over there. Maybe they forgot? one can always prey.

« Reply #61 on: November 30, 2011, 04:18 »
0
Some of us had no choice, really and I was one of them. I thought November was the date for the move into TS, but so far I cant see any of my shots over there. Maybe they forgot? one can always prey.

Yes, but the survey is about when you did have a choice. So you should be down as "Yes" to the boycott.

As for the move, I'll give you two possible explanations, you can tell me which is most likely:

1) They simply forgot that they want to force you to do their will or decided not to be dictaorial towards you
2) Their computer systems are totally screwed and out of control so they are a bit stuck at the moment.

« Reply #62 on: November 30, 2011, 05:14 »
0
FWIW - I went back and checked last month's numbers - I sold 3 times as many files on the PP as I did on IS, but IS still made nearly 5 times the revenue that PP did.  (caveat - bronze, low volumes)

« Reply #63 on: November 30, 2011, 05:23 »
0
FWIW - I went back and checked last month's numbers - I sold 3 times as many files on the PP as I did on IS, but IS still made nearly 5 times the revenue that PP did.  (caveat - bronze, low volumes)

Are you exclusive or independent? And do you have video income included in iStock? As an independent, you would have to be averaging $4.50 to get five times the income from one third the sales and it's hard to see how anyone would do that just off still images (unless you got an EL, of course).

« Reply #64 on: November 30, 2011, 05:32 »
0
FWIW - I went back and checked last month's numbers - I sold 3 times as many files on the PP as I did on IS, but IS still made nearly 5 times the revenue that PP did.  (caveat - bronze, low volumes)

Are you exclusive or independent? And do you have video income included in iStock? As an independent, you would have to be averaging $4.50 to get five times the income from one third the sales and it's hard to see how anyone would do that just off still images (unless you got an EL, of course).
independent, photos only.  No ELs, p+ sales at decent sizes seem to have brought the average up - like I say though, my numbers are so small it doesn't mean much - the month before I had 5 times more PP than IS sales, and the money was split about 50/50

« Reply #65 on: November 30, 2011, 05:44 »
0
Got it, thanks. Your ratio PP:iS sales is still up there with the others even if the earnings are liable to swing a lot.

Paulo M. F. Pires

  • "No Gods No Masters"
« Reply #66 on: November 30, 2011, 06:40 »
0
independent, photos only.  No ELs, p+ sales at decent sizes seem to have brought the average up - like I say though, my numbers are so small it doesn't mean much - the month before I had 5 times more PP than IS sales, and the money was split about 50/50

Same here. And after see November IS sales, I bet that i will have 80/20 for PP/IS.

 

« Reply #67 on: November 30, 2011, 09:26 »
0
Some of us had no choice, really and I was one of them. I thought November was the date for the move into TS, but so far I cant see any of my shots over there. Maybe they forgot? one can always prey.
they seem to be slowly getting moved over.  I had 3 there yesterday morning, 4 by the afternoon, and this morning I just checked and now I have 5 on there.  No particular order of the, either, it seems. 

« Reply #68 on: November 30, 2011, 09:39 »
0

Why? do they keep investing so much time, effort and money on advertising this TS?  hell, nobody is making anything over there, I havent heard of anybody happy with their earnings. Is it meant to be some Messiah micro site, which will open everybodys eyes, to see the light perhaps? beats me completely. :-\
[/quote]

It`s because they are trying to compete with Shutterstock. By opting in all independents, they automatically have the same content on Thinkstock as Shutterstock with the flick of a switch. Step 2 is to make this content cheaper than SS thereby capturing a large market share. This is the plan as best I can tell. Unfortunately its like medication, they all have side-effects. The unintended consequence of all this is that they are sacrificing a profitable revenue stream by migrating their customer base over to Thinkstock. The other problem with this is that SS is smart and they wont just stand idly by while this school yard bully swings his stick around. They have already announced single image pilot project and it wouldn`t surprise me a bit if they offered exclusivity at some point. Then you would see a massive shift to Shutterstock with iStock and Thinkstock sinking for good. This is how I see it.

lagereek

« Reply #69 on: November 30, 2011, 09:42 »
0
Amazing!  as far as I can see, these boozos at TS, they dont even give you a credit-line, just says Istockphoto under the picture.

« Reply #70 on: November 30, 2011, 09:48 »
0
.

lagereek

« Reply #71 on: November 30, 2011, 10:03 »
0

Why? do they keep investing so much time, effort and money on advertising this TS?  hell, nobody is making anything over there, I havent heard of anybody happy with their earnings. Is it meant to be some Messiah micro site, which will open everybodys eyes, to see the light perhaps? beats me completely. :-\

It`s because they are trying to compete with Shutterstock. By opting in all independents, they automatically have the same content on Thinkstock as Shutterstock with the flick of a switch. Step 2 is to make this content cheaper than SS thereby capturing a large market share. This is the plan as best I can tell. Unfortunately its like medication, they all have side-effects. The unintended consequence of all this is that they are sacrificing a profitable revenue stream by migrating their customer base over to Thinkstock. The other problem with this is that SS is smart and they wont just stand idly by while this school yard bully swings his stick around. They have already announced single image pilot project and it wouldn`t surprise me a bit if they offered exclusivity at some point. Then you would see a massive shift to Shutterstock with iStock and Thinkstock sinking for good. This is how I see it.
[/quote]

Jeez!  they wont even come close to SS, not in a million years, not in sales, not in how to run the outfit, not in moral aspects, not in know-how, not in how to treat staff or contributors. Pugh! Im running out of reasons.

RT


« Reply #72 on: November 30, 2011, 10:39 »
0
Im sitting here in my 2009 Range-Rover ...............

* wish you'd said that earlier, I just bought a Mercedes but I'd have got the Range Rover if I knew it had wi-fi in it  ;)

helix7

« Reply #73 on: November 30, 2011, 10:43 »
0
Some of us had no choice, really and I was one of them. I thought November was the date for the move into TS, but so far I cant see any of my shots over there. Maybe they forgot? one can always prey.

I only have 9 files over there,and had the same amount a couple of weeks ago. Maybe they forgot me. :)

I can only hope...

« Reply #74 on: November 30, 2011, 10:51 »
0
...one can always prey.

Getty's strategy in a nutshell - lovely typo! (I think you meant pray :) )


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
4805 Views
Last post July 01, 2008, 10:40
by sharpshot
30 Replies
7619 Views
Last post March 28, 2014, 23:11
by lisafx
31 Replies
3450 Views
Last post June 03, 2020, 06:44
by spike
54 Replies
6410 Views
Last post June 16, 2020, 16:51
by Clair Voyant
43 Replies
3892 Views
Last post September 19, 2020, 10:23
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle