Author Topic: iStock-Thinkstock Relationship (Read 10139 times)

WarrenPrice · « **on:** February 11, 2012, 13:23 »

Maybe this has already been discussed. If so, I missed it:

It seems to me that the person in charge has determined that Thinkstock will be for Subscription Only buyers.
While iStockphoto will NOT sell subscriptions but offer Single Image Only to its buyers.

I deduced this by the ads on my login page at StockXpert.
http://www.stockxpert.com/home

Has this already been noted? Perhaps I am the Johnny-come-lately to the party?

stockastic · « **Reply #1 on:** February 11, 2012, 14:45 »

That's what I thought too. But, they might turn that all upside down tomorrow, or do any other crazy thing that some exec-of-the-month thinks will increase profits.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #2 on:** February 11, 2012, 15:09 »

since ever

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #3 on:** February 11, 2012, 16:29 »

Both sites offer both, don't they? Although iS is primarily credit sales and TS is mainly subs. That was certainly the situation a month ago.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #4 on:** February 11, 2012, 16:35 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 11, 2012, 16:29

Both sites offer both, don't they? Although iS is primarily credit sales and TS is mainly subs. That was certainly the situation a month ago.

I'm pretty sure TS is subscription only. Not as sure about iS but the ad certainly indicated they would be single image DL.
Again, I'm not sure. It is a question.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #5 on:** February 11, 2012, 16:41 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on February 11, 2012, 16:35

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 11, 2012, 16:29
Both sites offer both, don't they? Although iS is primarily credit sales and TS is mainly subs. That was certainly the situation a month ago.

I'm pretty sure TS is subscription only. Not as sure about iS but the ad certainly indicated they would be single image DL.
Again, I'm not sure. It is a question.

TS ain´t only subscription, had sales for over 1$

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #6 on:** February 11, 2012, 16:57 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on February 11, 2012, 16:35

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 11, 2012, 16:29
Both sites offer both, don't they? Although iS is primarily credit sales and TS is mainly subs. That was certainly the situation a month ago.

I'm pretty sure TS is subscription only. Not as sure about iS but the ad certainly indicated they would be single image DL.
Again, I'm not sure. It is a question.

They have offered Image Packs almost from the beginning. It's very like SS's on-demand sales.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #7 on:** February 11, 2012, 17:17 »

iS has an expensive form of subscription with a low volume of sales. It was brought in a few years back to provide for companies that prefer to buy a subscription - presumably for budgeting purposes. It pays at least the same as an equivalent credit download (unless they've changed the rules), sometimes more depending on how much of the daily subscription has been used.
I've had 9 iStock subscription sales so far this month, ranging from 11c to $1.10.

BTW, I notice that the subscription sales don't appear in the stats bars. I trust they are appearing in the overall cash total.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #8 on:** February 11, 2012, 17:21 »

IS subs pay based on how much the buyer has spent of their allotment or at $.65 minimum credit price, whichever is more.

mlwinphoto · « **Reply #9 on:** February 11, 2012, 19:41 »

I don't know about anyone else but my credit sales have come to a grinding halt at iStock while my TS sales have increased significantly since being forced to partake in the PP program. If the two models are targeted at different buyers I'm not seeing it.....

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #10 on:** February 11, 2012, 19:56 »

Quote from: mlwinphoto on February 11, 2012, 19:41

I don't know about anyone else but my credit sales have come to a grinding halt at iStock while my TS sales have increased significantly since being forced to partake in the PP program. If the two models are targeted at different buyers I'm not seeing it.....

It could be unrelated (and I'm not fan of the PP; for exclusives I think it's a disaster and for independents, they're just lowballing the royalties).

Because IS's IT is woefully incompetent, I have a grand total of 25 of my images over on TS and photos.com. My sales on IS over the last couple of months have been pitiful (slightly better last week, but better than pitiful is still bad). I don't think it can be because of the partner program in that my files aren't actually there.

lisafx · « **Reply #11 on:** February 11, 2012, 20:25 »

I agree with JoAnn. I don't see a direct relationship of TS taking away my IS sales. My IS sales were dropping like a rock before I was on TS.

OTOH, I think it's quite possible and maybe even very likely that TS bears some responsibility for Istock's loss of sales. Maybe not for each of us as individuals, but for the site as a whole. Meaning that IS customers are being directed to TS, but because artists are not named on TS, those customers may not be buying the images from the same artists, so each of us does not see a direct cause/effect link in our sales.

Also, once customers are convinced by Getty to buy subs, they are more likely to switch to the subscription leader, SS.

Suljo · « **Reply #12 on:** February 11, 2012, 20:53 »

I do not have any clue are they (IS and TS) contacting with each other even they are in the same H&F soup.
I dont know even that they have some kind of EL on PP program. In first day of december 2011 I have 2 PP sales with 28.28 royalties of this 2 PP sales which is added in late january 2012???
Are PP "lets say program" have EL or this is they standard product of constantly trying to made some result with adding apples with pears or standard lack of incompetence I really dont know...
Anyhow I dont believe them even that they add this retrograde earnings to IS acc. I really dont have time for inspecting but if I catch them in this kind of malversation I will sue them. Even mafia hidden as "venture investors" behind H&F will must take they pants off...

imageegami · « **Reply #13 on:** February 13, 2012, 22:40 »

Quote from: lisafx on February 11, 2012, 20:25

I agree with JoAnn. I don't see a direct relationship of TS taking away my IS sales. My IS sales were dropping like a rock before I was on TS.

OTOH, I think it's quite possible and maybe even very likely that TS bears some responsibility for Istock's loss of sales. Maybe not for each of us as individuals, but for the site as a whole. Meaning that IS customers are being directed to TS, but because artists are not named on TS, those customers may not be buying the images from the same artists, so each of us does not see a direct cause/effect link in our sales.

Also, once customers are convinced by Getty to buy subs, they are more likely to switch to the subscription leader, SS.

Agree that TS is canabalizing iStock sales. IMO, iStock exclusives are the sacrificial lamb in Getty attempt to compete with SS. As I see it, Getty is taking it on the chin, soooo glad I`m no longer iSTock exclusive.

markrhiggins · « **Reply #14 on:** February 13, 2012, 22:52 »

it is interesting that many at IS did want to put images up to SS because of low loyalties. Noew the real pain of much lower royaties at TS.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: iStock-Thinkstock Relationship (Read 10139 times)

WarrenPrice

stockastic

luissantos84

BaldricksTrousers

WarrenPrice

luissantos84

Jo Ann Snover

BaldricksTrousers

Sean Locke Photography

mlwinphoto

Jo Ann Snover

lisafx

Suljo

imageegami

markrhiggins

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors