MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Partner Program Delayed Earnings  (Read 31618 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« 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).


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
7 Replies
4460 Views
Last post April 26, 2010, 16:29
by click_click
24 Replies
7916 Views
Last post May 18, 2010, 06:24
by Sean Locke Photography
14 Replies
6351 Views
Last post June 28, 2012, 16:26
by luissantos84
5 Replies
4014 Views
Last post January 08, 2015, 15:39
by Uncle Pete
10 Replies
3955 Views
Last post February 04, 2017, 11:34
by YadaYadaYada

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors