MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Partner Program Delayed Earnings  (Read 31623 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
7 Replies
4463 Views
Last post April 26, 2010, 16:29
by click_click
24 Replies
7921 Views
Last post May 18, 2010, 06:24
by Sean Locke Photography
14 Replies
6352 Views
Last post June 28, 2012, 16:26
by luissantos84
5 Replies
4015 Views
Last post January 08, 2015, 15:39
by Uncle Pete
10 Replies
3956 Views
Last post February 04, 2017, 11:34
by YadaYadaYada

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors