Author Topic: Is Thinkstock proving to be benificial? (Read 8906 times)

malamus · « **on:** July 16, 2012, 08:27 »

Hello.

This is a similar thread to the E+ one. but relating to Thinkstock and the Partner programe

I had decided to keep all of my images off thinkstock and partner programs a while back because I thought my Istock sales would deminish if they were for sale elsewhere cheaper, and offering a lower royalty. Much time has passed since then and I would be gratefull of your opinions/results in adding images to the partner program.

Should it only be for images that do not sell at IS?
Has anybody had positive results from making all their files available on thinkstock?

Hopefully this will guide me in maximising my profitability at IS and give me some clues about opting files in to thinkstock

Thank you

Sadstock · « **Reply #1 on:** July 16, 2012, 11:29 »

I'm an independent forced onto Thinkstock and with about half my portfolio now showing there, it is adding about 25% to my monthly Istock earnings. That number will grow as my full portfolio is there, so my bottom line is better.

Flipside is the volume of sales at Thinkstock appears to be really huge. I've not counted, but I suspect that I get more Thinkstock sales per month then I do for the rest of my sales accross all other sites combined. Those are sales that would likely pay me more at another site or on Istock itself. Long term I think Thinkstock accelerates the inevitable race to the bottom.

ShadySue · « **Reply #2 on:** July 16, 2012, 11:32 »

Quote from: Sadstock on July 16, 2012, 11:29

Flipside is the volume of sales at Thinkstock appears to be really huge. I've not counted, but I suspect that I get more Thinkstock sales per month then I do for the rest of my sales accross all other sites combined. Those are sales that would likely pay me more at another site or on Istock itself. Long term I think Thinkstock accelerates the inevitable race to the bottom.

And for a tiny price gets your images onto really huge number of places from which they can be stolen.

cmannphoto · « **Reply #3 on:** July 16, 2012, 11:51 »

Quote from: ShadySue on July 16, 2012, 11:32

Quote from: Sadstock on July 16, 2012, 11:29
Flipside is the volume of sales at Thinkstock appears to be really huge. I've not counted, but I suspect that I get more Thinkstock sales per month then I do for the rest of my sales accross all other sites combined. Those are sales that would likely pay me more at another site or on Istock itself. Long term I think Thinkstock accelerates the inevitable race to the bottom.
And for a tiny price gets your images onto really huge number of places from which they can be stolen.

You can say the same thing with images licensed through IS. I found numerous images of mine, that have been used, where you can click on the image and it takes you to a full size unmarked file, just ready for the taking. Nothing is safe anymore online.

ShadySue · « **Reply #4 on:** July 16, 2012, 12:06 »

Quote from: cmannphoto on July 16, 2012, 11:51

Quote from: ShadySue on July 16, 2012, 11:32
Quote from: Sadstock on July 16, 2012, 11:29
Flipside is the volume of sales at Thinkstock appears to be really huge. I've not counted, but I suspect that I get more Thinkstock sales per month then I do for the rest of my sales accross all other sites combined. Those are sales that would likely pay me more at another site or on Istock itself. Long term I think Thinkstock accelerates the inevitable race to the bottom.
And for a tiny price gets your images onto really huge number of places from which they can be stolen.

You can say the same thing with images licensed through IS. I found numerous images of mine, that have been used, where you can click on the image and it takes you to a full size unmarked file, just ready for the taking. Nothing is safe anymore online.

This is absolutely true; but with tiny value subs, you have even more outlets.

That said, the tiny newspaper sales from Alamy seem to generate large numbers of people just lifting the whole articles and putting them onto their own sites, words, photos and all. (Not syndicated, which isn't counted in RM anyway).

antistock · « **Reply #5 on:** July 16, 2012, 12:28 »

thinkstock is 20-30% of my sales at IS, i would think twice before removing my pics from TS.

i also don't see the point about all this negativity on TS ... as if selling a photo for half a dollar on IS or SS was so much better ?

if you do micros you accept you will sell for a pittance, period.

Lagereek · « **Reply #6 on:** July 16, 2012, 12:32 »

Quote from: antistock on July 16, 2012, 12:28

thinkstock is 20-30% of my sales at IS, i would think twice before removing my pics from TS.

i also don't see the point about all this negativity on TS ... as if selling a photo for half a dollar on IS or SS was so much better ?

if you do micros you accept you will sell for a pittance, period.

Agreeing with you actually. I used to be against it and so on but, what the heck, micro is micro, period.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #7 on:** July 16, 2012, 13:42 »

Quote from: antistock on July 16, 2012, 12:28

thinkstock is 20-30% of my sales at IS, i would think twice before removing my pics from TS.

i also don't see the point about all this negativity on TS ... as if selling a photo for half a dollar on IS or SS was so much better ?

if you do micros you accept you will sell for a pittance, period.

While I was exclusive I was very vocal about how bad for exclusives TS was - I haven't changed my mind about that at all. I won't rehash the debate, but the bottom line is that I believe it's part of Getty's plan to wean exclusives from their higher royalty rates and get everyone to 20% max for RF across the board. Just as I can't see turkeys voting for Thanksgiving, I saw no reason for exclusives to help Getty out - and even if the end result is inevitable, delay is good and in the interim the holdouts won one increase for exclusives in the TS payouts as IS tried to tempt more to supply the site.

However as an independent, my only choices were to put up with TS or remove my portfolio from IS. Given that, I've been pleased to see the total rising each month from TS. I don't know that there's any growth in the site overall as I think my increases reflect the increased availability of my port (they're now up to 1,700+ of 2,500+). So it's like adding another agency the size of 123rf or DT each month to my totals.

I'm not worried about increased theft potential as my work's all over the place as it is. So it's a bit of extra cash from a situation that isn't good for contributors. Given I don't think I have any influence over the long term anyway, I'll take the cash in the short term

bunhill · « **Reply #8 on:** July 16, 2012, 17:02 »

I regret the forum brouhaha which resulted in exclusive content being excluded until it is 18 months old.

loop · « **Reply #9 on:** July 16, 2012, 17:21 »

Quote from: bhr on July 16, 2012, 17:02

I regret the forum brouhaha which resulted in exclusive content being excluded until it is 18 months old.

I'm very happy people complained and istock understood that a thing like that would be like shooting thrice in its own leg. Twice was enough.

malamus · « **Reply #10 on:** July 17, 2012, 03:14 »

What I'm reading here is that I should add all my images into the partner program. (do files have to be over 18 months old)?

ShadySue · « **Reply #11 on:** July 17, 2012, 03:21 »

Quote from: malamus on July 17, 2012, 03:14

What I'm reading here is that I should add all my images into the partner program. (do files have to be over 18 months old)?

That's what you're choosing to see here.
If you're exclusive, files have to be over 18 months old.

Gannet77 · « **Reply #12 on:** July 17, 2012, 03:32 »

Quote from: malamus on July 17, 2012, 03:14

What I'm reading here is that I should add all my images into the partner program. (do files have to be over 18 months old)?

I'm not sure how you're reaching that conclusion. If you add files to the Partner Program you will get sales there, but there is no way to know how many sales of those files you may lose from iStock's regular and E+ collections, which pay much more. Your choice.

You CAN add files that are less than 18 months old, but they CANNOT be on both the PP and IS until they are at least 18 months old. I fail to see any reason why anyone would want to do that (especially as files are currently taking months to move across), but again, it's your choice.

ShadySue · « **Reply #13 on:** July 17, 2012, 03:36 »

Quote from: Gannet77 on July 17, 2012, 03:32

You CAN add files that are less than 18 months old, but they CANNOT be on both the PP and IS until they are at least 18 months old. I fail to see any reason why anyone would want to do that (especially as files are currently taking months to move across), but again, it's your choice.

^^^ Gannet is correct. It slipped my mind that you can put new files into PP ONLY.

sharpshot · « **Reply #14 on:** July 17, 2012, 03:44 »

Thinkstock has been a disaster because so many istock buyers have gone there. My TS earnings don't make up for the loss with istock. And they pay me a much smaller commission than SS, it makes a huge difference in the long term. There was really no point in removing my portfolio from istock because it's not going to make any difference, other than losing me more money. It's one of the reasons why I'm not contributing much to the micros now though. If they start thinking of ways to make me more money, my enthusiasm might return but there's no sign of that happening yet.

malamus · « **Reply #15 on:** July 17, 2012, 04:52 »

Quote from: Gannet77 on July 17, 2012, 03:32

Quote from: malamus on July 17, 2012, 03:14
What I'm reading here is that I should add all my images into the partner program. (do files have to be over 18 months old)?

I'm not sure how you're reaching that conclusion.

I am not reading that anybody has lost income by putting their files into TS, (very hard to tell, I know) rather, they are re couperating some of the losses created by the existence of TS. I think this is a much easier choice to make than the E+ option as there are only sales to be gained and not lost. Is there a "lock in" period like E+ (I'm just reading the thread on IS of the details)

Gannet77 · « **Reply #16 on:** July 17, 2012, 06:24 »

Quote from: malamus on July 17, 2012, 04:52

Quote from: Gannet77 on July 17, 2012, 03:32
Quote from: malamus on July 17, 2012, 03:14
What I'm reading here is that I should add all my images into the partner program. (do files have to be over 18 months old)?

I'm not sure how you're reaching that conclusion.

I am not reading that anybody has lost income by putting their files into TS, (very hard to tell, I know) rather, they are re couperating some of the losses created by the existence of TS. I think this is a much easier choice to make than the E+ option as there are only sales to be gained and not lost. Is there a "lock in" period like E+ (I'm just reading the thread on IS of the details)

As you say, it is impossible to tell if you've lost income by putting files into the PP; you can't be sure if you've lost (or gained) by putting files in E+ either, but at least there the potential gain is significant.

I only put poorly performing files into the PP, and I only have one which has managed good sales there, but perhaps that's not surprising, given that if they don't sell on IS, there's no reason to suppose they will on the PP either!

The general concern is that buyers will migrate to the cheaper site if they find they can get the same files there for so much less, and that will be to the detriment of everyone. Others (iStock) argue that the PP attracts a different set of buyers. I don't know. The choice is yours, there is no easy answer.

No, there is no "lock in" period, but the experience of many (including myself) is that files marked for transfer to the PP can take months to get moved over, and sometimes have keyword problems when they get there. Removing them from the PP though seems to work quite quickly.

Caz · « **Reply #17 on:** July 17, 2012, 06:34 »

I resisted adding anything to TS on principle (along the lines of Joanne's thinking) But, I recently came to the realisation that I'm p*ssing in the wind, not having my images on there penalises no one except myself. Not participating in TS wasn't sending a message to anyone - the genie is well and truely out of the bottle. So I added everything up to 18 months old with the exception of some sensitive content and my 5 best sellers (I might re-think that strategy as TS doesn't appear to have affected IS sales, although it's impossible to be 100% sure).

ShadySue · « **Reply #18 on:** July 17, 2012, 06:49 »

Quote from: Gannet77 on July 17, 2012, 06:24

Others (iStock) argue that the PP attracts a different set of buyers.

That's what they said when they launched it and were trying to get us to opt in.
Almost immediately, they mass emailled their biggest buyers and suggested they sign up to TS subs.
So now e.g. the BBC, which formerly used a lot of iStock photos, now uses TS when they can, and I've noticed the RSPB, formerly an iStock user now uses TS when possible too.
For an indie, that may not be a bad thing: considering the tiny royalties we've had reported here (down to 8c), TS can sometimes be better than Sm or XSm iS sales. For exclusives, the price difference is considerable, expecially on L and above. TS sales are the same price for any size of photo.

ShadySue · « **Reply #19 on:** July 17, 2012, 06:53 »

Quote from: Gannet77 on July 17, 2012, 06:24

I only put poorly performing files into the PP, and I only have one which has managed good sales there, but perhaps that's not surprising, given that if they don't sell on IS, there's no reason to suppose they will on the PP either!

Every now and then, the devil on one shoulder whispers into my ear that I should remove my old non- and low-sellers from iStock and put them into the PP only. (That's just vanity). Then, as happened last week, suddenly I get a first sale of an old file from early 2007, and realise I'd need to have 10 TS sales to make up that 1 iStock sale.
Of course, you wouldn't have to remove old files from iStock to have them on the PP.

bunhill · « **Reply #20 on:** July 17, 2012, 08:10 »

Quote from: ShadySue on July 17, 2012, 06:49

e.g. the BBC, which formerly used a lot of iStock photos, now uses TS when they can, and I've noticed the RSPB, formerly an iStock user now uses TS when possible too.

It makes sense for magazine style websites which consume large amounts of content to use subscription websites. And the sites you mention have a special responsibility to keep costs low.

I doubt it is a case of iStockphoto having lost out to TS. More likely it is a case of that business not having been lost, sooner or later, to a subscription site elsewhere.

Having content available at lots of different price points makes sense. People still shop in Fortnum and Mason despite lots of places being more affordable.

sharpshot · « **Reply #21 on:** July 17, 2012, 08:26 »

The BBC were happy using istock for years before they were informed about TS. I doubt they would ever of changed from istock if they weren't prompted. They used istock for their regional websites but they also use Getty a lot for their TV programmes. I wonder if using TS has lost money for Getty?

malamus · « **Reply #22 on:** July 17, 2012, 08:29 »

Quote from: Caz on July 17, 2012, 06:34

I resisted adding anything to TS on principle (along the lines of Joanne's thinking) But, I recently came to the realisation that I'm p*ssing in the wind, not having my images on there penalises no one except myself. Not participating in TS wasn't sending a message to anyone - the genie is well and truely out of the bottle. So I added everything up to 18 months old with the exception of some sensitive content and my 5 best sellers (I might re-think that strategy as TS doesn't appear to have affected IS sales, although it's impossible to be 100% sure).

SNAP

bunhill · « **Reply #23 on:** July 17, 2012, 09:07 »

Quote from: sharpshot on July 17, 2012, 08:26

The BBC were happy using istock for years before they were informed about TS. I doubt they would ever of changed from istock if they weren't prompted. They used istock for their regional websites but they also use Getty a lot for their TV programmes. I wonder if using TS has lost money for Getty?

BBC online funding cuts of £30M PA were approved in 2010. That represented 25% of the budget.

guardian.co.uk

Gannet77 · « **Reply #24 on:** July 17, 2012, 12:07 »

Quote from: ShadySue on July 17, 2012, 06:53

Quote from: Gannet77 on July 17, 2012, 06:24
I only put poorly performing files into the PP, and I only have one which has managed good sales there, but perhaps that's not surprising, given that if they don't sell on IS, there's no reason to suppose they will on the PP either!
Every now and then, the devil on one shoulder whispers into my ear that I should remove my old non- and low-sellers from iStock and put them into the PP only. (That's just vanity). Then, as happened last week, suddenly I get a first sale of an old file from early 2007, and realise I'd need to have 10 TS sales to make up that 1 iStock sale.
Of course, you wouldn't have to remove old files from iStock to have them on the PP.

That can happen, yes. In fact it's happened to me too on several files AFTER they were moved to the PP, almost as though they were found on the PP and the buyer then went to IS to buy them, although that's pure surmise!

On the other hand, the one file I have that sells well on the PP has sold a grand total of 10 times on IS since 2007, garnering a whole $15.16, whereas on the PP it has sold 329 times getting $135.26, although there is nothing special about it and there are similars.

You just can't tell. Overall though, less than 5% of my royalties come from PP sales. Useful, but not critical, and even if it is just vanity, it's nice to think they are being made use of!

But I don't like letting stuff go at 40 cents a pop if there's any chance of it selling on iStock, no...

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Is Thinkstock proving to be benificial? (Read 8906 times)

malamus

Sadstock

ShadySue

cmannphoto

ShadySue

antistock

Lagereek

Jo Ann Snover

bunhill

loop

malamus

ShadySue

Gannet77

ShadySue

sharpshot

malamus

Gannet77

Caz

ShadySue

ShadySue

bunhill

sharpshot

malamus

bunhill

Gannet77

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors