MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Partner Program Delayed Earnings  (Read 27593 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: August 28, 2010, 20:38 »
0
It is nearly September now and we still haven't got the partner program royalties for July. Is it just me or is this much of a delay totally unacceptable?

They get to make interest off our earnings while we sit here and get nothing. Yet nobody seems to be complaining about this. I don't see any reason why they can't pay us the first of every month or at least within the first week. It's not like someone needs to manually go through and total up what everyone made during the month. It is all electronic so they should have all the numbers they need to do payouts as soon as the month ends.

Such a long delay could be grounds for a lawsuit.

And for the record, I didn't opt into the partner program until I went exclusive. So no I'm not taking a measly 25 cents per download.


« Reply #1 on: August 28, 2010, 21:22 »
0
And for the record, I didn't opt into the partner program until I went exclusive. So no I'm not taking a measly 25 cents per download.
Huh? You opted in or not? It seems you opted in (unless I misunderstood) so you knew you were going to get a measly 25 cents, no?

« Reply #2 on: August 28, 2010, 21:24 »
0
And for the record, I didn't opt into the partner program until I went exclusive. So no I'm not taking a measly 25 cents per download.
Huh? You opted in or not? It seems you opted in (unless I misunderstood) so you knew you were going to get a measly 25 cents, no?

Exclusives get more than 25 cents.

« Reply #3 on: August 28, 2010, 21:31 »
0
Exclusives get more than 25 cents.
Ah! Yes, there is a lot of racism around (never mind).

« Reply #4 on: August 28, 2010, 22:04 »
0
It is nearly September now and we still haven't got the partner program royalties for July. Is it just me or is this much of a delay totally unacceptable?

They get to make interest off our earnings while we sit here and get nothing. Yet nobody seems to be complaining about this. I don't see any reason why they can't pay us the first of every month or at least within the first week. It's not like someone needs to manually go through and total up what everyone made during the month. It is all electronic so they should have all the numbers they need to do payouts as soon as the month ends.

Such a long delay could be grounds for a lawsuit.

And for the record, I didn't opt into the partner program until I went exclusive. So no I'm not taking a measly 25 cents per download.

I agree with you - I think it's hugely unprofessional - but more than that, it does make me question Getty as a whole. What are they up to here? Why just PP - is there more shenanigans going on behind the scenes at other sites we don't know about? 

« Reply #5 on: August 28, 2010, 22:40 »
0
And for the record, I didn't opt into the partner program until I went exclusive. So no I'm not taking a measly 25 cents per download.
Huh? You opted in or not? It seems you opted in (unless I misunderstood) so you knew you were going to get a measly 25 cents, no?

Exclusives get more than 25 cents.

30 or 38 cents are measly too!   ::)

« Reply #6 on: August 28, 2010, 22:54 »
0
This topic isn't about whether the PP commission is fair or not. There are lots of other topics talking about that.

« Reply #7 on: August 28, 2010, 23:20 »
0
This topic isn't about whether the PP commission is fair or not. There are lots of other topics talking about that.

Then you shouldn't have mentioned anything about the 25 cents.  ;D

« Reply #8 on: August 29, 2010, 07:53 »
0
It is nearly September now and we still haven't got the partner program royalties for July. Is it just me or is this much of a delay totally unacceptable?

They get to make interest off our earnings while we sit here and get nothing. Yet nobody seems to be complaining about this. I don't see any reason why they can't pay us the first of every month or at least within the first week. It's not like someone needs to manually go through and total up what everyone made during the month. It is all electronic so they should have all the numbers they need to do payouts as soon as the month ends.

Such a long delay could be grounds for a lawsuit.

And for the record, I didn't opt into the partner program until I went exclusive. So no I'm not taking a measly 25 cents per download.

And yet you did opt in and have remain opted in. Measly 25 cents, 38 cents or whatever, the whole program was and remains a bad one. From day one when they bought StockXpert and dishonored those people (me included) who opted out yet proceeded to post their photos for sale at Thinkstock anyway. And continue to do so.

You know the saying...put up or shut up.

« Reply #9 on: August 29, 2010, 12:10 »
0
edited
« Last Edit: August 29, 2010, 13:49 by Kngkyle »

« Reply #10 on: August 29, 2010, 12:52 »
0
It is nearly September now and we still haven't got the partner program royalties for July. Is it just me or is this much of a delay totally unacceptable?

I was just reading the iStock forum topic about this and was wondering what . is going on there. While I personally don't really care, it is obvious that this can't be just technology. I think there are two main things in the area of PP:

1. They appear to delay the earnings report more and more. Now it seems to hardly hit before the end of month folowing the month for which the earnings are.
2. There appears to be problem with opting-in new files for many months (at least that's what people tell in the IS forums). Their staff aknowledged that it is really the case but that's it.

As I said, this can't be technology that is blocking these two things from being fixed. There must be more to it. I also highly doubt this is just ignorance. It seems that they don't want to fix it and they have a reason for not doing it. What reason?

I aslo feel ashamed by the approach that IS staff takes to these two topics in the forums. They play games with contributors a) pretending that everything is just fine with the PP earning being reported this late and b) bashing anyone that complains about the PP opt-in problem telling them that that is not the topic of the thread. Unethical. In may early days of microstocking I got the impression that IS is the best place with the best staff. It is sad it turned this way.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2010, 12:57 by Danicek »

« Reply #11 on: August 29, 2010, 13:23 »
0
It's certainly not proven that it is the IS staff. It is more likely to be the Getty side of the operation. IS has said that it simply posts the numbers when the data are delivered to it.

« Reply #12 on: August 29, 2010, 13:47 »
0
One thing I don't understand is the fact that StockXpert manages to post the Thinkstock earnings consistently a week earlier than IS does - considering the source is the same  ???

On a related note: On the StockXpert-forums someone posted a very polite reply from a senior IS director that he got after asking for the missing payments. It really is completely different from the BS you get on the IS forums about the "rare and fleeting beast" and some such - check it out here (big post halfway down the page):

http://www.stockxpert.com/forum/show_messages/28132/2

I wonder why a message like that is not possible on the IS forums - it would go a long way in calming the waves...

« Reply #13 on: August 29, 2010, 14:10 »
0
As I said, this can't be technology that is blocking these two things from being fixed. There must be more to it.
I also highly doubt this is just ignorance. It seems that they don't want to fix it and they have a reason for not doing it. What reason?

I aslo feel ashamed by the approach that IS staff takes to these two topics in the forums.
They play games with contributors
a) pretending that everything is just fine with the PP earning being reported this late and
b) bashing anyone that complains about the PP opt-in problem telling them that that is not the topic of the thread. Unethical. In may early days of microstocking I got the impression that IS is the best place with the best staff. It is sad it turned this way.

Agree, unfortunately...   ???>:(

« Reply #14 on: August 29, 2010, 15:42 »
0
Probably will be tomorrow... ;)

« Reply #15 on: August 29, 2010, 23:19 »
0
It's certainly not proven that it is the IS staff. It is more likely to be the Getty side of the operation. IS has said that it simply posts the numbers when the data are delivered to it.

Quite possible. IS staff attitude regarding the topics in the forums cannot be explained by that. Well, other than that they are theirs employer.

« Reply #16 on: August 30, 2010, 00:40 »
0
The forums seem to have been put in the hands of people who have been ordered to maintain tight censorship, encourage the iStock cult and to project what they imagine to be a super-cool attitude. The result is not entirely happy, or even appropriate, for a serious business. But, of course, for most contributors it isn't a serious business.

« Reply #17 on: August 30, 2010, 14:33 »
0
I get paid by another company like this. Month 1 it on the 15th, month 3 the 16th, month 5, 17th. The goal post gradually moves just enough so no one complains and the money stays in their bank longer. A dubious business practice.

Not sure if this is the case with IS, they are transparent with payment dates, however some claification with these additional earnings would be appreciated.

Oldhand

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #18 on: August 30, 2010, 15:01 »
0
I get paid by another company like this. Month 1 it on the 15th, month 3 the 16th, month 5, 17th. The goal post gradually moves just enough so no one complains and the money stays in their bank longer. A dubious business practice.

Not sure if this is the case with IS, they are transparent with payment dates, however some claification with these additional earnings would be appreciated.

Oldhand
Not that I'm in the PP, but when it started, payouts were made around the middle of the month, and now it's the end of the month, with no explanation.

« Reply #19 on: August 30, 2010, 19:31 »
0

Not that I'm in the PP, but when it started, payouts were made around the middle of the month, and now it's the end of the month, with no explanation.
[/quote]
This is my recollection as well - it's the lack of transperency that annoys me - if they said, hey it takes a month because (reason x. reasone y etc) ... that's fine. It's not really about the time but about the lack of communication - and hence lack or respect - that annoys me most.

« Reply #20 on: August 31, 2010, 19:12 »
0
You would think that even iStock/Getty could process a month's worth of partner sales 31 days after the fact.  And you'd be wrong.  They just announced a fsckup in the sales processing that will delay reporting until tomorrow.  I wonder what their excuse will be then.

« Reply #21 on: September 01, 2010, 04:00 »
0
... it's the lack of transperency that annoys me - if they said, hey it takes a month because (reason x. reasone y etc) ... that's fine. It's not really about the time but about the lack of communication - and hence lack or respect - that annoys me most.

If the lack of transparency and communication really does annoy you then why did you bother with the PP at all? They never offered any transparency from the start and it was always known that any comm's would be indirect via the disinterested medium of Istock. You've got exactly what they promised and what you signed up for.

The fiasco of JIU/PC sales at StockXpert, when weeks of sales were simply unrecorded and unacknowledged, should have been warning enough of how the PP was likely to play out. Once they've got your images they could care less about you as a contributor.

« Reply #22 on: September 01, 2010, 08:20 »
0
Quote
If the lack of transparency and communication really does  annoy you then why did you bother with the PP at all? They never offered any transparency from the start and it was always known that any comm's would be indirect via the disinterested medium of Istock. You've got exactly  what they promised and what you signed up for.

I would guess that they bothered because it's extra income... Just a guess.

« Reply #23 on: September 01, 2010, 08:43 »
0
I would guess that they bothered because it's extra income... Just a guess.

I would guess it's on a similar level to prostitution then. Less tangible or immediate concepts like self-worth, legitimacy/transparency or long-term health/business can just be ignored ... because it's extra income. Figuratively speaking they knew they were likely to be screwed ... and that's what happened. Heigh-ho.

« Reply #24 on: September 01, 2010, 10:20 »
0
...You've got exactly what they promised and what you signed up for.

The fiasco of JIU/PC sales at StockXpert, when weeks of sales were simply unrecorded and unacknowledged, should have been warning enough of how the PP was likely to play out. Once they've got your images they could care less about you as a contributor.


I would guess it's on a similar level to prostitution then. Less tangible or immediate concepts like self-worth, legitimacy/transparency or long-term health/business can just be ignored ... because it's extra income. Figuratively speaking they knew they were likely to be screwed ... and that's what happened. Heigh-ho.


Yeah, well, hindsight is always 20/20, isn't it? Neither do I see a reason for this hostility, nor do i appreciate being called a prostitute...

This is what we/they were promised:

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=88699&page=1

Payment structure is similar to SS - at least if your exclusive - they have OD downloads (image packs) now, and I fail to see the difference beween a $0.25 download on SS or Canstock and one in the partner program. Apart from the fact that I have three downloads per month on Canstock and three digit figures in the partner program, that is  :)

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #25 on: September 01, 2010, 11:29 »
0
I'm amazed anyone is contributing to the PP. big picture, I hope the PP is as lame a duck as it seems to be. would be happy to see it disappear completely.

« Reply #26 on: September 01, 2010, 11:35 »
0
I would guess that they bothered because it's extra income... Just a guess.

I would guess it's on a similar level to prostitution then. Less tangible or immediate concepts like self-worth, legitimacy/transparency or long-term health/business can just be ignored ... because it's extra income. Figuratively speaking they knew they were likely to be screwed ... and that's what happened. Heigh-ho.

I don't see the difference between $0.25 sales at Thinkstock and $0.25 sale at - let's say - Shutterstock. I don't think it's fair to call other people prostitutes here, because in a way we are all prostitutes in micro business...

I put my images on IS partner sites because I get about 10% more money from IS that way, without doing anything special, just clicking some boxes... But I'm still dissappointed that it takes weeks to give us the money, I think they either just want to get some interest on our money OR they have suddenly run out of money.

« Reply #27 on: September 01, 2010, 11:47 »
0
I don't believe it's a money problem.  I think it's just incompetence.  They have to transfer a large data file from one set of systems to another.  Should be simple, right?  Except that the file gets larger each month, and maybe there are errors in the data, which, being a bigger file, take longer to straighten out.  And whatever they use to merge the new data with the existing iStock system is probably grossly inefficient, written in some web language that was fine when they started but now takes forever with the increased load.  The problem is one of scale.  They should have seen it coming, but didn't.

« Reply #28 on: September 01, 2010, 11:59 »
0
I don't believe it's a money problem.  I think it's just incompetence.  They have to transfer a large data file from one set of systems to another.  Should be simple, right?  Except that the file gets larger each month, and maybe there are errors in the data, which, being a bigger file, take longer to straighten out.  And whatever they use to merge the new data with the existing iStock system is probably grossly inefficient, written in some web language that was fine when they started but now takes forever with the increased load.  The problem is one of scale.  They should have seen it coming, but didn't.

Are you sure you are not talking about my ex company?  :-\

« Reply #29 on: September 01, 2010, 12:08 »
0
I think disorderly could be right. My husband worked for a company once; when they started, he made a small billing program. As the company grew, he never had time to make a proper program, he just added fixes. Every month, he spent 2-3-4 days checking all the files manually to remove all the bugs. You can imagine what happened when he tried to quit. :lol:
The one who did the StockXpert-program has probably not continued in Istock. And Istock is not exactly bug free itself.

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #30 on: September 01, 2010, 12:38 »
0
partner program earnings are starting to show right now! slowly - few at a time as usual; another sign that it could be a technical issue

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #31 on: September 01, 2010, 13:40 »
0
partner program earnings are starting to show right now! slowly - few at a time as usual; another sign that it could be a technical issue
AFAIK, they do it in date order, meaning your sales from early in the month come in followed by the dates in turn.

RacePhoto

« Reply #32 on: September 02, 2010, 01:29 »
0
I would guess that they bothered because it's extra income... Just a guess.

I would guess it's on a similar level to prostitution then. Less tangible or immediate concepts like self-worth, legitimacy/transparency or long-term health/business can just be ignored ... because it's extra income. Figuratively speaking they knew they were likely to be screwed ... and that's what happened. Heigh-ho.

I don't see the difference between $0.25 sales at Thinkstock and $0.25 sale at - let's say - Shutterstock. I don't think it's fair to call other people prostitutes here, because in a way we are all prostitutes in micro business...

I put my images on IS partner sites because I get about 10% more money from IS that way, without doing anything special, just clicking some boxes... But I'm still dissappointed that it takes weeks to give us the money, I think they either just want to get some interest on our money OR they have suddenly run out of money.

Well as one of the local hookers, I'd say selling for 25c on SS or 25c on ThinkStock makes no difference to me either, it's still 25 cents! You can call me what you want. I have called the people who criticize ThinkStock and SS, but upload to Deposit Photos for upload payments, hypocrites and sell outs. (aka prostitutes for a crummy 25 cents) So it's only fair to take it if they call me the same for selling subs.  ;D

I don't think Getty is getting rich by holding my $1.50 ThinkStock commission from July for 15 days. That's a silly accusation. Also in most places it's against the law to invest that money, which is being held for us. They aren't running out of money like some smaller agencies or one of the big six, that sometimes take months to pay out. Where is the angry mob when those places don't pay, and we have asked for payouts! Hmm, interesting how they get quiet when it's not the evil empire of Getty or the Devil in Disguise Thinkstock! ;)

I'll say it again. We need to agree with these complainers so they don't upload and cut into our downloads and profits!  :D

Now the question. Exclusives get more than the crappy 25c per Thinkstock downnload? (not other PP sales, ThinkStock specifically)  Since when? And if they do get more? Better luck to them. They are exclusive and have made that decision, it's a loyalty reward. I don't care because I want to sell wherever I want. Each one of us can make that personal decision. If someone doesn't like exclusives getting higher pay, more uploads, or having other privileges, possibly better QC consideration, and it's such a good deal for exclusives, then STFU and become an exclusive!

Yeah, the people complaining the loudest about the delays and how we are getting screwed are people who opted out and aren't even ThinkStock contributors. How's that for irony?

« Reply #33 on: September 02, 2010, 04:22 »
0
Yeah, the people complaining the loudest about the delays and how we are getting screwed are people who opted out and aren't even ThinkStock contributors. How's that for irony?
Wrong as usual. The complaints are from those who signed up to the PP and are getting exactly what they were told to expect. Now that's irony for you.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2010, 04:24 by gostwyck »

« Reply #34 on: September 02, 2010, 04:30 »
0
as a business oriented company, everything should be on schedule. Delay of reporting sales or payment is unprofessional.

« Reply #35 on: September 02, 2010, 05:18 »
0
+1 for the Race Man

« Reply #36 on: September 02, 2010, 06:07 »
0
"it's on a similar level to prostitution then. Less tangible or immediate concepts like self-worth, legitimacy/transparency or long-term health/business can just be ignored ... because it's extra income"

This could be a quote from "fair trade photography", fulminating about everyone in the micros.
Remember how we laughed at that? Just throw in a bit about amateurs devaluing photography with crappy, sub-standard images and the comparison will be complete.

It's a business decision, whether or not to go into TS. I didn't like some of the implications that arose but eventually I decided that boycotting it would achieve nothing and was just cutting off my nose to spite my face.

I wonder if Gostwyck really believes that his choice has done anything at all to undermine this Getty operation (which doesn't seem able to cope with the volume of images it is being offered from iStock).

« Reply #37 on: September 02, 2010, 07:06 »
0
It's a business decision, whether or not to go into TS. I didn't like some of the implications that arose but eventually I decided that boycotting it would achieve nothing and was just cutting off my nose to spite my face.

I wonder if Gostwyck really believes that his choice has done anything at all to undermine this Getty operation (which doesn't seem able to cope with the volume of images it is being offered from iStock).

You have a remarkably short memory. You were every bit as vocal as I (and many others here) on the Istock forum expressing your total disregard for the PP programme __only to immediately sign up for it on the QT.

You're right __ it is a business decision. I didn't see any reason to be bullied into accepting 25c per sale instead of the 30c we got at StockXpert for our images on essentially the same JIU/PC site under a new name. The only reason I reluctantly accepted JIU/PC via StockXpert was that it meant opting out of all subs and , when I tried it, the lower sales meant lower sort order position and an immediate drop in overall revenue. Once that incentive was removed then there was absolutely no point in supporting an agency hell-bent on attacking the market of our other agencies that pay much better. Especially when it was actively promoted by Istock themselves to their biggest customers.

The reason that Getty 'can't cope' is that the PP is being run on a shoe-string __ and thank goodness for that. Obviously I don't know if my choice (and that of many others) is 'undermining' Getty's ambition for the PP but I'm certainly not going to give them any help. What I do know is that in the last year that, from my own figures, Istock are down 5% whilst both SS and FT are up 4% (as a % of my total revenue). Whether there is a cause/effect relationship is clearly unknown at this stage.

« Reply #38 on: September 02, 2010, 07:23 »
0

Payment structure is similar to SS - at least if your exclusive - they have OD downloads (image packs) now, and I fail to see the difference beween a $0.25 download on SS or Canstock and one in the partner program. Apart from the fact that I have three downloads per month on Canstock and three digit figures in the partner program, that is  :)

This is the exact same line that every single person who comes here uses to defend Thinkstock, and I don't know how many millions of time this response has been quoted:

Thinkstock IS NOT EVEN CLOSE to SS's payment system...at SS, you can move up in levels so that you increase the amount you receive for a download. For instance, on SS I average $.36 per DL, not including the ELs I get plus the PPDs I get. I have a chance to increase my income at all times. ON THINKSTOCK, an independent WILL NEVER MAKE more than $.25 per DL. And as far as I know, exclusives will never make more than $.32 or .38 or whatever that figure is that exclusives make.

As far as I know, this is the deal. If something has changed, someone please feel free to correct me. Unless Getty/IS/Thinkstock has given exclusives some secret deal whereby they can make MORE than whatever that base per DL payment is. If so, I haven't caught wind of it yet.

« Reply #39 on: September 02, 2010, 08:09 »
0
They locked the thread on IStock's Forum.
'Partner Program Sales' - locked. 
The official reason by Lobo is - people can't stay on topic, they wander away, discuss other matters, therefore the thread needs to be locked.
That's the official reason.
My explanation is a bit different - the whole thing is a failure, nothing ever works, sales are few, contributors ask too many questions and complain about poor results. Getty doesn't want the negative vibe going public.
That's the real reason if you ask me.

But then again, a locked thread is better than a deleted thread. A few days ago, a big,  corporate buyer, (10 K spent on IStock over the years), opened a new thread. On IStock's forum.
Title - 'IStock - too much crap!'
Subject - the search engine. Very poor results and options. The guy was clearly annoyed and threatened to take his business some other place.
The thread lasted for a few minutes.
Blink and you miss it!
Gone without a trace. I can't find it anymore.
And so, we're left with the 'Thank you IStock!' threads. Sexy Getty.

I have a hard time believing that ThinkStock's real target is Shutterstock. They're nowhere near and, if things don't radically change, they never will be. Which is great.

« Reply #40 on: September 02, 2010, 08:30 »
0
But then again, a locked thread is better than a deleted thread. A few days ago, a big,  corporate buyer, (10 K spent on IStock over the years), opened a new thread. On IStock's forum.
Title - 'IStock - too much crap!'
Subject - the search engine. Very poor results and options. The guy was clearly annoyed and threatened to take his business some other place.
The thread lasted for a few minutes.
Blink and you miss it!
Gone without a trace. I can't find it anymore.
And so, we're left with the 'Thank you IStock!' threads. Sexy Getty.  

Funny you mentioned the search. I just went over to IS to search for a photo. I pass by a billboard on my way to class and I think the photo belongs to one of my CN members (oops, meant friends...in this case it's true though, we were friends before IS). Anyway I wanted to search her port. It's a photo of 3 little girls making the peace sign and they have colored hippie glasses on. So I went to search within her portfolio...well, the only way I could find to do that was use the advanced search. So I entered girls AND glasses AND peace sign and hit search within. It came up with a bunch of CV terms. I checked the appropriate ones and it came up with 0 hits. Now, I know my friend has a bunch of photos with those terms. I gave up. Pretend I was actually buying a photo...I'm gone.

But I digress from the topic. Sorry. Carry on.

« Reply #41 on: September 02, 2010, 08:35 »
0
They locked the thread on IStock's Forum.
'Partner Program Sales' - locked.  
The official reason by Lobo is - people can't stay on topic, they wander away, discuss other matters, therefore the thread needs to be locked.
That's the official reason.
My explanation is a bit different - the whole thing is a failure, nothing ever works, sales are few, contributors ask too many questions and complain about poor results. Getty doesn't want the negative vibe going public.
That's the real reason if you ask me.

But then again, a locked thread is better than a deleted thread. A few days ago, a big,  corporate buyer, (10 K spent on IStock over the years), opened a new thread. On IStock's forum.
Title - 'IStock - too much crap!'
Subject - the search engine. Very poor results and options. The guy was clearly annoyed and threatened to take his business some other place.
The thread lasted for a few minutes.
Blink and you miss it!
Gone without a trace. I can't find it anymore.
And so, we're left with the 'Thank you IStock!' threads. Sexy Getty.

I have a hard time believing that ThinkStock's real target is Shutterstock. They're nowhere near and, if things don't radically change, they never will be. Which is great.


I googled  'IStock - too much crap!' and here is the first result:

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=249302
« Last Edit: September 02, 2010, 08:37 by peresanz »

« Reply #42 on: September 02, 2010, 08:37 »
0
TS isn't a million miles away from SS payments.

I understand the huge amount of negativity about TS, however coming from Macro, micro seemed a joke at first until I lost money and had to join in. Most of my old colleagues would't go near micro even now. Most of my old markets would however happily pay micro prices rather than those charged by traditional agencies.

I opted in to TS, why? It's additional meagre revenue for doing nothing. If I don't thousands of others still will. Greed. Lack of business sense?

As I see it, please correct me if I'm wrong... When micro started, the prices were very small paid to contributors. Over years most agencies have raised prices as much as they can. Now, we are bound to have companies and off-shoots of large established agencies filling sites with pictures at lower prices. That was always going to happen as no one site has a monopoloy on micro.

Agreed, by buying in to TS I may be hastening my own doom, but that pre-supposes anyone care's about my work in the great scheme of things. I could disappear in the morning and no one would care, everyone would still finds the pics they want. I don't like selling pics for 25c, nor SS 38c, or Alamy's Novel use 49c. Not much difference between the lot of them in my book.

Oldhand

« Reply #43 on: September 02, 2010, 08:56 »
0
Agreed, by buying in to TS I may be hastening my own doom, but that pre-supposes anyone care's about my work in the great scheme of things. I could disappear in the morning and no one would care, everyone would still finds the pics they want. I don't like selling pics for 25c, nor SS 38c, or Alamy's Novel use 49c. Not much difference between the lot of them in my book.
There's a world of difference. I wish people wouldn't keep quoting 'SS pay 25c' or even 38c when the average payout I receive on SS is actually 57c.

Not only is that more than double the TS payout but at least SS (and all the other agencies), actually do their own reviewing, credit you as the author of your work, pay you within a reasonable timescale, have direct communication channels for their contributors, allow you access to your portfolio for editing, enable instantaneous viewing of sales and are vastly more transparent.

As it is now my average sale commission is just over $1 per download. If TS were to win the game and as a consequence all my sales were instead on TS then I presume that my income would be barely more than one quarter what it is now __ for the same volume of sales.

If you 'can't see the difference' Oldhand then you need the services of a decent optician.

michealo

« Reply #44 on: September 02, 2010, 09:00 »
0
They locked the thread on IStock's Forum.

So in fact they moved it rather than some major conspiracy

A classic case of Occams razor

« Reply #45 on: September 02, 2010, 09:00 »
0
There's a world of difference. I wish people wouldn't keep quoting 'SS pay 25c' or even 38c when the average payout I receive on SS is actually 57c.

If you are really going to do some comparison, why not compare SS to IS+PP, that would be more fair because then both have "pay per downloads" and subscriptions.

In June, my average payout per download at IS+PP was $1.09
« Last Edit: September 02, 2010, 09:04 by Perry »

« Reply #46 on: September 02, 2010, 09:08 »
0
If you are really going to do some comparison, why not compare SS to IS+PP, that would be more fair because then both have "pay per downloads" and subscriptions.

Because PP is a separate agency ... and a direct competitor to IS (although of course both are owned by Getty). Would you prefer all your IS commissions to be on the PP instead? If so then carry on supporting the PP.

« Reply #47 on: September 02, 2010, 09:12 »
0
In June, my average payout per download at IS+PP was $1.09

What would it have been if all your sales had been on the PP? Just 25c or a little bit more?

« Reply #48 on: September 02, 2010, 09:12 »
0
If you are really going to do some comparison, why not compare SS to IS+PP, that would be more fair because then both have "pay per downloads" and subscriptions.

Because PP is a separate agency ... and a direct competitor to IS (although of course both are owned by Getty). Would you prefer all your IS commissions to be on the PP instead? If so then carry on supporting the PP.

So you think it's fair to compare the earnings per sale between a subscription site and a (partly) pay-per-download site?

In June, my average payout per download at IS+PP was $1.09

What would it have been if all your sales had been on the PP? Just 25c or a little bit more?

I think only a small portion of clients could switch from a pay-per-download site to a subscription site, and vice versa. Therefore I think your argument is invalid. You should compare a subscription site to another subscription site: At PP you make $0.25, at SS the average is propably something like $0.30-ish. It's still just peanuts.

And no, I don't like the $0.25 at PP, I'd rather get $0.40, but it isn't up to me. I just get a 10% boost on my IS earnings by just ticking a box. I think Oldhand earlier in this thread has the same philosophy as me.
I just want my tiny slice of the PP cake.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2010, 09:18 by Perry »

« Reply #49 on: September 02, 2010, 10:03 »
0
So, can we do something about it? Can we at least have some influence on Getty to do something, at least to make an opportunity for us to earn more based on number of sales, similar to SS?
Since we couldn't stop outsourcing, and since we are all happy when we pay 10 times less for NIKE shoes than we would have to pay if they were manufactured in US, can we at least "modify" the same process in microstock industry? Agencies are obviously relying on contributors from countries where 25 cents mean a lot more than in developed western world.
Can we do something to make this process less painful, because I think we can't really stop it.

« Reply #50 on: September 02, 2010, 10:44 »
0
I did hesitate before jumping in this thread, however. Justified and accurate as your observation are, ask of everything what is in it's nature. (quoting hannibal lecter here!). Microstock is about selling large volumes a a low price point. TS is just another revence stream, and those who sign up know exactly what they are getting. To me the difference between 25c and 57c or $1 is negligable compared to older, somewhat easier days.

I'm not complaining, time moves on, but unless there was a concerted effort by everyone to stop supplying TS etc (which I'd join in), then I'll take the hard and meagre cash.

Call it my wider perspective on things!

Agreeing to differ.. Oldhand the sentimentalist


Agreed, by buying in to TS I may be hastening my own doom, but that pre-supposes anyone care's about my work in the great scheme of things. I could disappear in the morning and no one would care, everyone would still finds the pics they want. I don't like selling pics for 25c, nor SS 38c, or Alamy's Novel use 49c. Not much difference between the lot of them in my book.
There's a world of difference. I wish people wouldn't keep quoting 'SS pay 25c' or even 38c when the average payout I receive on SS is actually 57c.

Not only is that more than double the TS payout but at least SS (and all the other agencies), actually do their own reviewing, credit you as the author of your work, pay you within a reasonable timescale, have direct communication channels for their contributors, allow you access to your portfolio for editing, enable instantaneous viewing of sales and are vastly more transparent.

As it is now my average sale commission is just over $1 per download. If TS were to win the game and as a consequence all my sales were instead on TS then I presume that my income would be barely more than one quarter what it is now __ for the same volume of sales.

If you 'can't see the difference' Oldhand then you need the services of a decent optician.

« Reply #51 on: September 02, 2010, 12:24 »
0
All right, Michealo.
Mea culpa, the thread was moved. I did search for it (at the time) and wasn't able to find it.
I can give you other examples though. Disappearing threads and modified announcements.
Common practice (probably not only on IStock).
'Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes.'
In this case, your razor it's fitted with a two-sided blade.
Debatable, I admit, and off topic.

« Reply #52 on: September 02, 2010, 12:29 »
0
So you think it's fair to compare the earnings per sale between a subscription site and a (partly) pay-per-download site?

No, I don't think it's fair to compare Thinkstock and Shutterstock at all. But every time someone who is opted in at Thinkstock wants to justify their presence, the first question they post is "why is contributing to Thinkstock any different than contributing to Shutterstock?" Then when people list about 20 reasons why Thinkstock isn't even close to SS in terms of earning money, all of a sudden comparing earnings from TS to SS is wrong. Make up your mind.

« Reply #53 on: September 02, 2010, 12:35 »
0
+ 1 heart Cathy.
Spot on.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #54 on: September 02, 2010, 13:13 »
0

But then again, a locked thread is better than a deleted thread. A few days ago, a big,  corporate buyer, (10 K spent on IStock over the years), opened a new thread. On IStock's forum.
Title - 'IStock - too much crap!'
Subject - the search engine. Very poor results and options. The guy was clearly annoyed and threatened to take his business some other place.
The thread lasted for a few minutes.
Blink and you miss it!
Gone without a trace. I can't find it anymore.
At the moment of writing, it's the second top thread on the third page in the Help forum.
(He apparently changed the thread title to 'too much crap').
« Last Edit: September 02, 2010, 17:57 by ShadySue »

« Reply #55 on: September 02, 2010, 15:25 »
0
You have a remarkably short memory. You were every bit as vocal as I (and many others here) on the Istock forum expressing your total disregard for the PP programme __only to immediately sign up for it on the QT.

You're right __ it is a business decision.

I think I only posted once and then to clarify what the problems with TS were, I wasn't campaigning. It's bizarre that you seem to consider it almost treasonous if I do something you don't agree with without making a ringing public announcement. In fact, I discussed it with another friend and we both felt the same way: It was crap but we couldn't achieve anything by standing in front of the juggernaut, particularly as there were big players climbing on board. We could either have it steamroller over us or we could climb on board and at least get some compensation if it screwed everything up.

In essence, I agree with Oldhand.

As it turns out, I cannot discern any impact that TS has had on my sales either at IS or SS or Fot. The latter two are doing well and until the "F5" event my sales were holding their own on iS.  Some of my best sellers on TS are files that had been buried with zero downloads on IS. I've generally kept unique stuff out of TS so buyers who need it will have to go somewhere else for it, but unique isn't really what stock is about.

I think your objections are generally well-founded but your conclusions are misguided because it was apparent from the very beginning that you couldn't organise an effective boycott by the top several hundred and without that you are p**sing in the wind. Sometimes the rational choice in business is to co-operate with people you don't like because it is the least harmful of two bad options.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2010, 15:26 by BaldricksTrousers »

lisafx

« Reply #56 on: September 02, 2010, 15:40 »
0
FWIW, I think that high volume sellers being opted out of TS is making a difference.  Doing a search there on nearly any keyword turns up very few decent images.  

I will admit that I have considered throwing in the towel and clicking that button to opt in.  I made the decision when I first joined micro that it was about volume over price/sale for me.  

The reasons I am still not on TS are well summed up here by Gostwyck:

... at least SS (and all the other agencies), actually do their own reviewing, credit you as the author of your work, pay you within a reasonable timescale, have direct communication channels for their contributors, allow you access to your portfolio for editing, enable instantaneous viewing of sales and are vastly more transparent.

 

Not to mention that I don't think acceptable volume will ever be achieved when Getty pushes TS wholly owned content to the front of the searches and the images they might have to pay a commission on are harder to find.  

And in addition to preferring to support subscriptions on sites that pay better (SS, DT, FT), I am trying to protect my Istock income from cannibalization.  With Istock advertising TS to their high volume clients, that seems like a strong possibility if you are on both sites.  I don't want a client who has credits on IS and a subscription on TS doing a search on IS and finding my image to then see it on TS and grab it there instead.  

Others are certainly within their rights to disagree, but I think the risk of TS taking istock sales is very real.  Apparently Getty thinks there is a crossover market or they wouldn't be marketing TS to istock customers.  The extreme drops in IS sales, even before the site redesign, would also tend to reinforce this idea IMO.  

I am grateful to the folks in the PP for sharing their experiences and info.  It is good to hear both sides so I can continue to make an informed decision. So far, with the information available, I am still happy to be opted out. 
« Last Edit: September 02, 2010, 15:45 by lisafx »

« Reply #57 on: September 02, 2010, 15:56 »
0
How big is ThinkStock database, and how much would hurt them if biggest contributors opt out?
I mean, how many people we should contact to ask them if they want to opt out and hurt ThinkStock enough?

I'm opted in, and that small amount of money means to me more than it means to many of you, but I'm ready to opt out if there is a real possibility of making things better generally.
Circular letter should be sent from you, big guys, to other big guys you know.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2010, 15:59 by Dreamframer »

« Reply #58 on: September 02, 2010, 17:00 »
0
You could also think of it this way: The less Istockers opted into TS the more money Getty makes. Buyers will be downloading more of Gettys wholly owned content which they don't have to pay any commission on.

lisafx

« Reply #59 on: September 02, 2010, 17:32 »
0
You could also think of it this way: The less Istockers opted into TS the more money Getty makes. Buyers will be downloading more of Gettys wholly owned content which they don't have to pay any commission on.

Not really.  If TS lacks enough good content then they will make even less when the buyers go to Shutterstock instead.  

Besides - the point isn't to keep Getty from making money. Surely everyone understands that the agencies have to make money.  The objections come if they make it by screwing over contributors.  
« Last Edit: September 02, 2010, 17:34 by lisafx »

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #60 on: September 02, 2010, 20:16 »
0
FWIW, I think that high volume sellers being opted out of TS is making a difference.  Doing a search there on nearly any keyword turns up very few decent images.  

 

As someone who initially opted in, it took me just one month to reason that opting out was the best and only way, especially as a modest volume seller, to protect our interests and income. I think becoming complacent is dangerous in regards to this issue. I opted out in month two and have never looked back, except to shake my head at those opted in, who do not realize that opting in affects us all in the long run. We are all entitled to discover this on our own time, but come on, enough time has passed to see the light. No excuses at this point.

« Reply #61 on: September 03, 2010, 03:05 »
0
You could also think of it this way: The less Istockers opted into TS the more money Getty makes. Buyers will be downloading more of Gettys wholly owned content which they don't have to pay any commission on.

Not really.  If TS lacks enough good content then they will make even less when the buyers go to Shutterstock instead.  

Besides - the point isn't to keep Getty from making money. Surely everyone understands that the agencies have to make money.  The objections come if they make it by screwing over contributors.  

Well, if the buyer's choice is between TS and SS, then there is no incentive whatsoever for iS exclusives to opt out, quite the reverse, in fact. Their sole concern would be TS taking iS sales.

I wonder how many of the big-hitters are in and how many are out. I quickly trawled up two "black diamonds" who are in. It was news of participation of people at that level (who don't sit and chat about the industry) that convinced me there was no point in trying to hold back the tide.

A search on iStock and business turned up 120,000 images. Food turned up 250,000 images. That's not enormous by iStock standards, but it must be enough to meet most needs even without the other 500,000 each of food and business images from Getty sources. 

I really doubt if TS is run on a shoestring. My observation is that it (or TS and Photos.com together - the latter never gets mentioned for some reason) is already delivering major returns to Getty and I don't believe they would skimp on the technical side (however much they may be skimping on payouts). I therefore wonder if they slammed the door on new iS content simply because they have decided that they've got enough of it to justify the claim that you can get Getty/iS/JUI stuff there and don't want to further dilute the wholly-owned offering. It does seem that a quarter to a third of the content is already from iS and the rate that the collection is growing, it might not be long before iS material became a majority of the TS stuff. That would cost Getty money but it might also blur the distinction between the too sites too much.

As Gostwyck says, there is lack of transparency and that means we have no hint about what is going on or why - and certainly not whether it is being run on a shoestring or not. The payment delays don't hurt Getty and are not unreasonable by the standards of the industry (RM) in general. Squeezing costs and maximising returns by using pre-approved material is what makes CEOs happy, it doesn't mean that they are not investing in technology or technicians. You direct your resources towards the things that generate the best returns.

Another possibility for the door being shut on new submissions is that they may have found they were too successful in pulling accounts away from iStock and discovered that the end result is a loss of earnings for Getty. Didn't someone say they had not bought a picture for years but got a "dear customer" survey letter from TS? Could that mean that they are redirecting marketing towards former iStock customers who have gone somewhere else? To me, that makes more sense than targetting the existing customer base.

My stats say that despite the lack of new material (which is supposed to be essential for a subscription site) TS maintained sales at a perfectly constant level from March to July.

« Reply #62 on: September 03, 2010, 09:28 »
0
I think I only posted once and then to clarify what the problems with TS were, I wasn't campaigning.

Oh really? Well I just counted about 20 posts from you on just one of the two main PP discussion threads before I got bored with scrolling through. Here's a snippet of one of them to jog your highly-selective memory;

"... it is about the fact it is an attack on one of the mainstays of our independence, the established subscription leader, and is offering only about half the commission per sale that some of us get there."

You can splutter and deny all you like __ but we know the truth. Heigh-ho.

« Reply #63 on: September 03, 2010, 09:46 »
0
As someone who initially opted in, it took me just one month to reason that opting out was the best and only way, especially as a modest volume seller, to protect our interests and income. I think becoming complacent is dangerous in regards to this issue. I opted out in month two and have never looked back, except to shake my head at those opted in, who do not realize that opting in affects us all in the long run. We are all entitled to discover this on our own time, but come on, enough time has passed to see the light. No excuses at this point.

Very well said Hawk-Eye. More than enough time has passed to evaluate the situation for those that were unsure.

Not being in the PP I don't personally have any data on exactly what the return is. However I would appreciate if any of our learned members could enlighten us in particular as a percentage of total income to get it in perspective.

When my port was included in JIU/PC via StockXpert the additional income was never more than 2% of my total from all micro agencies. I don't see that Getty have done that much more with TS so I assume the returns are likely to be similar __ but who knows?

Even ignoring the principles of the issue I'm not about to kow-tow to Getty and their feeble offering for anything like a miserable 2% of earnings. I'm certainly not going to give them any help whatsoever to attack the other 98% of my earnings either. If I want an extra 2% more than I currently earn then I'll just pull my finger out and upload another 2% more images. In my case that's about 60-odd images __ maybe a week's work if I go for it. It seems to me, for those who feel the need for a few more $'s, that's a far better solution than to risk undermining future earnings.

« Reply #64 on: September 03, 2010, 10:49 »
0
In my case we are talking about small, and low performance portfolio. But if I deduct earnings from audio files I come to the point that PP earnings are constantly between 20-30% of my total photo earnings (counting from March to July). August was different because of PP EL which helped PP earnings to mark a record of 50% of my total photo earnings.

I wonder how the percentage looks in case of big contributors who are opted in.

« Reply #65 on: September 03, 2010, 11:16 »
0
I wonder how the percentage looks in case of big contributors who are opted in.

ThinkStock made up 4% of my July earnings.  Interestingly, Hemera/StockXpert was up 287% compared to June, while iStock PP was off 37%, assuming they're done with their July reporting.

« Reply #66 on: September 03, 2010, 11:57 »
0
The Partner Program added 40% to my July returns on IS, with 348 images.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2010, 12:05 by etienjones »

« Reply #67 on: September 03, 2010, 12:11 »
0
I think I only posted once and then to clarify what the problems with TS were, I wasn't campaigning.

Oh really? Well I just counted about 20 posts from you on just one of the two main PP discussion threads before I got bored with scrolling through. Here's a snippet of one of them to jog your highly-selective memory;

"... it is about the fact it is an attack on one of the mainstays of our independence, the established subscription leader, and is offering only about half the commission per sale that some of us get there."

You can splutter and deny all you like __ but we know the truth. Heigh-ho.

OK, I plead guilty to a short memory, then. I can't be bothered to go back and see exactly what I said.  There are lots of different aspects to this and deciding what to do involved considering a lot of factors. The quote you posted turns out not to be true in the way I thought, because TS fixed its prices to be identical to SS rather than trying to grab customers by undercutting, I have no idea why but it doesn't seem to want to take SS's customers (happy customers won't abandon the shop they've always used because a new shop opens up offering a smaller range at the same price - and Getty's planners must know that).

The juggernaut aspect was certainly what persuaded me to give the thing a trial and the failure (in my view) of TS to impact on SS removes the crucial argument that you quoted from me. Sometimes fears turn out to be exaggerated.

« Reply #68 on: September 03, 2010, 12:22 »
0
I would appreciate if any of our learned members could enlighten us in particular as a percentage of total income to get it in perspective.

Fair question. Approx 7%.

« Reply #69 on: September 03, 2010, 12:28 »
0
I wonder how the percentage looks in case of big contributors who are opted in.

ThinkStock made up 4% of my July earnings.  Interestingly, Hemera/StockXpert was up 287% compared to June, while iStock PP was off 37%, assuming they're done with their July reporting.

So, roughly 37% of your earnings in July came from PP if I understood you right?
I forgot to say something that can be important. My regular sales at IS didn't fall since March. They remain on a very constant level. I don't know what future brings, but for now I wouldn't say PP sales are hurting regular IS sales.

lisafx

« Reply #70 on: September 03, 2010, 15:28 »
0
Thanks to those willing to post their % of total stock earnings that come from the PP.  It is interesting information to have. 

Also, Balderick, your theories on why no more images have been added make a lot of sense.  Particularly the one about having enough IS content already to advertise that it's there, but not enough to dilute the wholly owned earnings. 

I imagine that PP buyers will get bored with what's on offer though, unless new images begin rolling in again.

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #71 on: September 03, 2010, 16:35 »
0
iStock partner programme (TS+Photos.com) = 3.5 % of total earnings, or 26% of iStock earnings
Stockxpert Hemera (TS) = 3.1 % of total earnings
« Last Edit: September 03, 2010, 16:38 by microstockphoto.co.uk »

« Reply #72 on: September 03, 2010, 18:25 »
0
I wonder how the percentage looks in case of big contributors who are opted in.

ThinkStock made up 4% of my July earnings.  Interestingly, Hemera/StockXpert was up 287% compared to June, while iStock PP was off 37%, assuming they're done with their July reporting.

So, roughly 37% of your earnings in July came from PP if I understood you right?
I forgot to say something that can be important. My regular sales at IS didn't fall since March. They remain on a very constant level. I don't know what future brings, but for now I wouldn't say PP sales are hurting regular IS sales.

No, you misunderstood me.  PP (Hemera + iStock on Thinkstock) was 4% of my earnings for July across all agencies.  iStock PP was 10% of my iStock earnings for July, down from 14% in June.  Both my PP and direct earnings on iStock were down in July, but PP was down even more.  Direct earnings dropped even lower in August; I'm not optimistic about PP for August, although at least I can't feel like I'm cannibalizing my subscription sales elsewhere.  The numbers are way too small.

« Reply #73 on: September 04, 2010, 00:33 »
0
My understanding is that there are now pay-per-download or credit sales on TS. I know some people got those, so I know they exist. Could those willing to share say whether they had any and at what price? From what I know it may be pretty difficult to find out.

« Reply #74 on: September 04, 2010, 01:42 »
0
I seem to have had two pay-per-download sales, one for $2.36 and one for $1.60. You can tell days when the sales don't make a direct multiple of 25c and calculated it from the number of sales minus one, times 0.25 and subtract that from the total earnings. Of course, there could have been two PPDs on one of those days in which case my numbers would be wrong but it doesn't seem likely as they only appeared on two days in the month.

***

I just realised you can get an image count for given search terms on iStock photos from both sites.

IS has 565,216 "food" images, of which 283,438 are at TS, out of a total there of 817,638

IS has 401,903 "business" images, of which 120,818 are at TS out of a total there of 586,127
Travel: 330, 601 iS, 175,468 TS
beauty 649,594 iS,  370.047 TS
health 404,901 iS, 147,803 TS
So it has 52% of the food images, 30% of the business, 53% of travel, 57% of beauty and 37% of health

Bear in mind that no exclusive content newer than about September 2008 has been included, when the collection was half the size it is now (file numbers were in the seven millions then and are 14 millions now). So it seems likely that TS has at least two-thirds of the eligible iStock content and while a significant number of the business and health images have been held back, categories like travel, beauty and food are largely in.

Overall, IS seems to represent about a quarter of the TS offerings and the TS collection seems to be about double the size of iS (which is a lot bigger than I had realised).

« Reply #75 on: September 04, 2010, 04:30 »
0
In July our PP earning at IS (exclusives) where 2.4% of total earnings (PP BME)
We expect this figure to rise in the future because of the 18 month PP lockup for exc's.

lisafx

« Reply #76 on: September 04, 2010, 12:02 »
0
I am not willing to join the PP program at the moment.  If PPD sales were to increase and the average $/DL was to rise more toward the .30 I was getting at StockXpert or the .54 I get at SS then I might consider opting in. 

What I find amusing is that this isn't even an option because they haven't transferred anything over for months. 

Is Balderick right?  Do they no longer WANT new content in the PP?

« Reply #77 on: September 04, 2010, 16:26 »
0
Is Balderick right?  Do they no longer WANT new content in the PP?

I don't believe that's it.  Once again I fall back on, "Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity."  I think their processes are so hopelessly inept that they're overwhelmed by the volume of data they're trying to process.  They can't admit the royal incompetence behind this setup, both in their inability to populate their new library and integrate whatever sales they're seeing back.  Wouldn't be surprised to find somebody's idiot nephew in charge of this debacle.

« Reply #78 on: September 04, 2010, 16:37 »
0
I don't believe that's it.  Once again I fall back on, "Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity."  I think their processes are so hopelessly inept that they're overwhelmed by the volume of data they're trying to process.  They can't admit the royal incompetence behind this setup, both in their inability to populate their new library and integrate whatever sales they're seeing back.  Wouldn't be surprised to find somebody's idiot nephew in charge of this debacle.

Exactly. You've only got to view the site itself to see that TS is nobody's baby. The site is just another minor design re-hash of Photos.com, probably running off the same server. If they actually cared about it then you'd think they'd give the customer some options regarding the sort-order, etc. For whatever reason Getty don't seem very willing to pump significant resources into TS. The longer that continues the better for all of us independent contributors.

lisafx

« Reply #79 on: September 04, 2010, 16:44 »
0
For whatever reason Getty don't seem very willing to pump significant resources into TS. The longer that continues the better for all of us independent contributors.

^^ Definitely agree with this.

« Reply #80 on: September 04, 2010, 20:42 »
0
Time will tell. Getty's track record would not suggest that they lack the basic skills needed to run a photo agency. But maybe they've completely lost the plot. Who knows?

RacePhoto

« Reply #81 on: September 04, 2010, 22:27 »
0
I don't believe that's it.  Once again I fall back on, "Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity."  I think their processes are so hopelessly inept that they're overwhelmed by the volume of data they're trying to process.  They can't admit the royal incompetence behind this setup, both in their inability to populate their new library and integrate whatever sales they're seeing back.  Wouldn't be surprised to find somebody's idiot nephew in charge of this debacle.

Exactly. You've only got to view the site itself to see that TS is nobody's baby. The site is just another minor design re-hash of Photos.com, probably running off the same server. If they actually cared about it then you'd think they'd give the customer some options regarding the sort-order, etc. For whatever reason Getty don't seem very willing to pump significant resources into TS. The longer that continues the better for all of us independent contributors.

Yes, in this case I think you hit the nail on the head. I've been trying to make the same point. It's a collection or old stale collections and most of ThinkStock is owned by Getty, not contributor files from us. I think it's a red headed step-child also. Just there to put all the old files in one place, instead of scattered all over in multiple dull agencies.

My other question, never got answered. Does ThinkStock pay exclusives more than the rest of us peons? I don't think so. I've never seen anything over the stinkin' quarter per download. I signed up for it, I'm fully expected to only get a quarter, that's fine with me. And BTW yes for me and many others, it's idenbtical to SS. If I make the next level on SS, fine. But for now and for most people, it's identical. Sale = 25 cents, it's that simple.

The other point was, most of the detractors and people rallying against ThinkStock are NOT contributors. They just have a hard case against Getty or ThinkStock or both and haven't got anything else to pick on right now, so they blame ThinkStock for sales loss on IS, competition for SS and at the same time point out that ThinkStock has poor images, inadequate search and has low sales. I don't think it can be both at the same time?  ;D

Back to where you started, I tend to agree and think that ThinkStock is fairly irrelevant and of little consequence in the big picture. It's a minor distraction and cast off, and I don't particularly worry about what I sell there or don't. I don't check to see if new images got moved there or not. They are better off on IS, selling for four times as much. Why would I be concerned that they aren't on ThinkStock?  ???

« Reply #82 on: September 05, 2010, 02:45 »
0
My other question, never got answered. Does ThinkStock pay exclusives more than the rest of us peons? I don't think so. I've never seen anything over the stinkin' quarter per download.

I thought they get from 0.3 to 0.38 based on their canister.

« Reply #83 on: September 05, 2010, 06:18 »
0
My other question, never got answered. Does ThinkStock pay exclusives more than the rest of us peons? I don't think so. I've never seen anything over the stinkin' quarter per download.


I thought they get from 0.3 to 0.38 based on their canister.


That's correct.

0.30 - Bronze
0.32 - Silver
0.34 - Gold
0.36 - Diamond
0.38 - Black Diamond

See http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=88663&page=1

RacePhoto

« Reply #84 on: September 07, 2010, 20:09 »
0
My other question, never got answered. Does ThinkStock pay exclusives more than the rest of us peons? I don't think so. I've never seen anything over the stinkin' quarter per download.

I thought they get from 0.3 to 0.38 based on their canister.

Yeah, Jupiter and Photos.com, NOT on the devils own Thinkstock!  :o

The same link also says, "Exclusive content newer than 18 months will never be made available at more than one site. Exclusives will have the choice of which sites their older content appears on, on a file by file basis."

Much of the complaining and debate is based on something that doesn't exist for exclusives, but does for peons like myself.

Let me explain it another way. If I was an exclusive and serious, I wouldn't be in the partner program. Since I'm neither, I'll take a quarter sub over nothing at all.

« Reply #85 on: September 07, 2010, 23:06 »
0
I opted in the parthner program of IS for over 2 months,but still have no incomings form it, why????????

RacePhoto

« Reply #86 on: September 07, 2010, 23:10 »
0
I opted in the parthner program of IS for over 2 months,but still have no incomings form it, why????????


Mostly fine print, up to 45 days to report PP sales (clearly stated in their contract with us), that and Getty's inability to move images to PP, so they may not even be on sale. Maybe after all that, if they are sales on ThinkStock you shouldn't worry too much about that 25 cents.  ;D

Just remembered another "feature" that no one wants or asked for.

You need to search on your user name, not account name. But your real name, on ThinkStock, within quotes, and you can see what you have for sale there. If it says Hemera it's from StockXpert if it says iStockphoto, the obvious.

Here's an example which I found by searching for Tomato Slices on IS, then looked at the artists name and finally cut and pasted it in quotes on ThinkStock. Here you are, the finest sliced fruits on Thinkstock. I don't have a clue who she is, just used as an example of how to find your photos in the partner program, using your REAL NAME.

http://www.thinkstockphotos.com/search/#%22Serhiy%20Shullye%22/c=431,253,28,34,260,13,268,515,477,215,445,2,452,451,109,277,68,344/f=PIHV
« Last Edit: September 08, 2010, 12:46 by RacePhoto »

« Reply #87 on: September 09, 2010, 12:41 »
0
Here's a small surprise: looks like PP earnings for August are being processed.  I've seen two whole sales credited already!  Huzzah!


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
7 Replies
3796 Views
Last post April 26, 2010, 16:29
by click_click
24 Replies
6884 Views
Last post May 18, 2010, 06:24
by Sean Locke Photography
14 Replies
5168 Views
Last post June 28, 2012, 16:26
by luissantos84
5 Replies
3339 Views
Last post January 08, 2015, 15:39
by Uncle Pete
10 Replies
3118 Views
Last post February 04, 2017, 11:34
by YadaYadaYada

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle