Quote from: Freedom on July 29, 2011, 21:11

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Istock is better then diareea

Better hope they never get better then

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 29, 2011, 22:51

Quote from: stockastic on July 29, 2011, 22:44

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.

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

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

Quote from: madelaide on July 30, 2011, 08:17

Quote from: ToniFlap on July 29, 2011, 22:51

Quote from: stockastic on July 29, 2011, 22:44

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.

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.