Well, it means that I, as nonexclusive, will have much more chance to sell my images at photos.com and JUI, because I have all those files at StockXpert, but with different keywords, thanks to IS disambiguation system.I wouldn't count on that. It wouldn't surprise me if their software will do a search for duplicates (similar to tineye's ability), thereby eliminating your ability to have your images listed twice.
Whatever your opinion is about the iStock deal, take my advice in that you should not rely on your photos you have on StockXpert now being featured on Photos.com/JUI in the not so distant future.
I wouldn't count on that. It wouldn't surprise me if their software will do a search for duplicates (similar to tineye's ability), thereby eliminating your ability to have your images listed twice.The search would work with the same keywords, but that might not be true with the iStock Controlled Vocabulary.
Not to mention, you'd be giving up a whole nickel every time your IS-listed image sold. ;D
Well, I'll leave all my photos at StockXpert, and I'll opt in at IS. If they announce some duplicates removal, I will opt out, since StockXpert gives me more than IS for subs download. And if StockXpert disappears, I will opt in again at IS.Well, it means that I, as nonexclusive, will have much more chance to sell my images at photos.com and JUI, because I have all those files at StockXpert, but with different keywords, thanks to IS disambiguation system.I wouldn't count on that. It wouldn't surprise me if their software will do a search for duplicates (similar to tineye's ability), thereby eliminating your ability to have your images listed twice.
Not to mention, you'd be giving up a whole nickel every time your IS-listed image sold. ;D
Whatever your opinion is about the iStock deal, take my advice in that you should not rely on your photos you have on StockXpert now being featured on Photos.com/JUI in the not so distant future.
Are you saying we should Opt Out of subs? Or, that StockXpert will cease to exist?
Well, I'll leave all my photos at StockXpert, and I'll opt in at IS. If they announce some duplicates removal, I will opt out, since StockXpert gives me more than IS for subs download. And if StockXpert disappears, I will opt in again at IS.Exactly what I was thinking, but should things happen that way, I've got to decide whether or not I want my images sold for $0.25 commission each. That's a new low, AFAIK, and not the direction I'd hoped iStock/Getty would move things. :-[
I agree with the others. No benefit to a non-exclusive of opting in when we can get more through StockXpert.Maybe we should start a pool to bet on how long non-exclusives will be allowed to contribute via StockXpert? In fact, it wouldn't surprise me to see the demise of StockXpert, as many had predicted when Getty bought them.
RT, did you read somewhere about StockXpert?
I agree with the others. No benefit to a non-exclusive of opting in when we can get more through StockXpert.Maybe we should start a pool to bet on how long non-exclusives will be allowed to contribute via StockXpert? In fact, it wouldn't surprise me to see the demise of StockXpert, as many had predicted when Getty bought them.
I agree with the others. No benefit to a non-exclusive of opting in when we can get more through StockXpert.Maybe we should start a pool to bet on how long non-exclusives will be allowed to contribute via StockXpert? In fact, it wouldn't surprise me to see the demise of StockXpert, as many had predicted when Getty bought them.
If Getty were to close that avenue I still wouldn't opt in through istock.
Besides, with the sliding scale they are introducing through istock, it seems that the .30 they pay at StockXpert is well within what they are willing to pay.
FWIW I am having my best week in a long time at StockXpert so I don't think they are in danger of dying any time soon.
Why would they delete all images that are on StockXpert but not on IS? No sense...When what they want to do is beef up content on Photos.com, removing the StockXpert content would not make the current subscribers happy. There are probably others, but Stephen Coburn (nruboc) comes to mind as one independent who isn't on IS (has something tiny like 100 images, but effectively he's not there). Then there are all the composites and raster illustrations that they'd lose.
Why would they delete all images that are on StockXpert but not on IS? No sense...When what they want to do is beef up content on Photos.com, removing the StockXpert content would not make the current subscribers happy. There are probably others, but Stephen Coburn (nruboc) comes to mind as one independent who isn't on IS (has something tiny like 100 images, but effectively he's not there). Then there are all the composites and raster illustrations that they'd lose.
I don't see them removing the content, but I'm wondering if uploading via StockXpert will go away in time.
Please read the above as questions. I am no where near experienced enough in this field to be offering an opinion.
If StockXpert content were deleted, then Photos.com and JU would also lose all the images which non-exclusives (like me) submitted to IS to be rejected and which StockXpert accepted. Last month I made about $60 from subs sales on JU and Photos.com via StockXpert, and I think most of that was from images which IS said were 'not suitable for stock'. Since there are thousands of people like me whose most stock-worthy images are rejeced by IS as not being stock, would not the sales of JU and Photos.com suffer?Why would they delete all images that are on StockXpert but not on IS? No sense...When what they want to do is beef up content on Photos.com, removing the StockXpert content would not make the current subscribers happy. There are probably others, but Stephen Coburn (nruboc) comes to mind as one independent who isn't on IS (has something tiny like 100 images, but effectively he's not there). Then there are all the composites and raster illustrations that they'd lose.
25 cents? Bah. Should be at least 30 and then scaled up for the exclusives. 25 is too low.
Yes, I never wanted to be a photographer, I always thought I would be a novelist. If I had a nickel for every book Stephen King sold, I could probably Getty. Jk Rowlands and Tom Clancy put together could probably buy Getty, Nikon, and Canon. We stockers are in a mass market business, and it is good, IMO.25 cents? Bah. Should be at least 30 and then scaled up for the exclusives. 25 is too low.
Did you ever think you would do something to make money where an extra 5 cents was a big deal?
I think RT was suggesting that StockXpert content on Photos.com and JUI could possibly be removed to make way for the IS content and to prevent duplicates. Not that StockXpert itself would be closed.
iStockphoto is becoming the driving force behind Photos.com. The site will be 'Powered by iStock', and iStockphoto will become its main source of content. iStockers eventually will be able to upload directly to Photos.com from their iStock account. This will improve the quality of the Photos.com collection, and establish the iStock name in the subscription marketplace.
25 cents? Bah. Should be at least 30 and then scaled up for the exclusives. 25 is too low.
Did you ever think you would do something to make money where an extra 5 cents was a big deal?
It is a 10% difference.
The main issue I have is one little sentence in the original anouncement:
Starting in August, everyone who contributes to Photos.com will receive the standard Getty Images commission of 20% for these single image sales.
With this sentence they allowed their real goal to slip out.
The main issue I have is one little sentence in the original anouncement:
Starting in August, everyone who contributes to Photos.com will receive the standard Getty Images commission of 20% for these single image sales.
With this sentence they allowed their real goal to slip out.
Is that something new? I thought everybody who supplied images to other Getty collections already know that 20% is their standard commission in the RF field and most other areas.
The main issue I have is one little sentence in the original anouncement:
Starting in August, everyone who contributes to Photos.com will receive the standard Getty Images commission of 20% for these single image sales.
With this sentence they allowed their real goal to slip out.
Is that something new? I thought everybody who supplied images to other Getty collections already know that 20% is their standard commission in the RF field and most other areas.
Of course it's something new. Otherwise why would they start it in August? It would already be happening, right?
Right now through StockXpert, as you know, we are getting .30 sub commission and 30% on PPD sales on the photos.com/jui sites. Based on the highlighted statement above, they are evidently planning to reduce even that modest commission.
The writing on the wall is starting to become pretty clear for both exclusives and independents who submit to Getty sites. All that happened was they tried to toss the frogs into the boiling water and they jumped out. This time around they are wisely placing the frogs in the cool pot of water and slowly turning up the heat.
AND based on the latest bit of counter comments to catastrophe's hilarious thread on IS,
there are still a lot of happy froggies :D
... mostly old ones, though ;)
As an Exclusive contributor for 3 years I'm starting the see that being independent might be a better choice for me. I have my hand on the button to become independent again and I might press it today.
Anyone else thinking the same thing and planning to become independent again after hearing about the new changes?
I would love to hear suggestions either way?
The writing on the wall is starting to become pretty clear for both exclusives and independents who submit to Getty sites. All that happened was they tried to toss the frogs into the boiling water and they jumped out. This time around they are wisely placing the frogs in the cool pot of water and slowly turning up the heat.
The writing on the wall is starting to become pretty clear for both exclusives and independents who submit to Getty sites. All that happened was they tried to toss the frogs into the boiling water and they jumped out. This time around they are wisely placing the frogs in the cool pot of water and slowly turning up the heat.
Perfect synopsis of what is going on. But there are some who are too blind or blinkered to see. I would love to see your portfolio and how its too good for exclusivity?
I don't see the problem here with what they are doing. A lot of this will drive more traffic to iStock which will benefit those on the agency. I think the way they are handling exclusive content and giving the opt-in and out will be a good way to keep some IS files circulating, especially if they aren't selling on IS. It would seem they are tiering their offerings, and photos.com is a great domain name.
The fact that people complain about commissions but still submit to SS is hilarious too. I can't remember the exact figures, but somoene posited that the commission at SS for a regular contributor could have potentially been less than 20% or in that range.
The writing on the wall is starting to become pretty clear for both exclusives and independents who submit to Getty sites. All that happened was they tried to toss the frogs into the boiling water and they jumped out. This time around they are wisely placing the frogs in the cool pot of water and slowly turning up the heat.
You can buy a one-month sub on Photos.com (750 Large images) for less than the cost of 6 Large images on IS.Wow.
I don't see the problem here with what they are doing. A lot of this will drive more traffic to iStock which will benefit those on the agency. I think the way they are handling exclusive content and giving the opt-in and out will be a good way to keep some IS files circulating, especially if they aren't selling on IS. It would seem they are tiering their offerings, and photos.com is a great domain name.
The fact that people complain about commissions but still submit to SS is hilarious too. I can't remember the exact figures, but somoene posited that the commission at SS for a regular contributor could have potentially been less than 20% or in that range.
I don't think I've read quite so many nonsensical statements in so short a post for a very long time.
Why are you so emphatic that traffic will be driven towards IS when logic and economics suggest it is more likely to be the other way around? You can buy a one-month sub on Photos.com (750 Large images) for less than the cost of 6 Large images on IS.
Have you checked the current traffic figures at IS and Photos.com? Even if all of Photos.com customers migrated to IS it wouldn't even make a blip on the graph.
All they are likely to achieve is to boost a low cost competitor at the very great risk of undermining the crown jewels of microstock.
I wish you wouldn't keep perpetuating the idiotic supposition that "the commission at SS for a regular contributor could have potentially been less than 20% or in that range." For starters 'less than 20%' is not 'a range'. SS actually pay out 35-40%. How do we know this? Because Jon told us and the post is still on the forum. Look it up.
My average commission at SS is 53c per sale whereas at Photos.com it is 33c and JIU it is 30c. The volume of licenses sold at SS is about 700% higher than Photos.com/JIU combined too. Why do you think it is 'hilarious' that people express concerns about commissions at Photos/JIU?
I do wish you would go to the trouble of actually learning some facts before making such ridiculous statements.
I would take ichiro's posts with a grain of salt. He seems to be trying to justify this decision:
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/gone-exclusive/msg99177/?topicseen#new[/url]
;D
... and if Photos.com or whatever adds an extra 100 per month for me, then I'm cool with that.
... and if Photos.com or whatever adds an extra 100 per month for me, then I'm cool with that.
It might well do so. Unfortunately you'll probably lose 5x that from your IS income. Enjoy the ride ... and look forward to a dwindling income now that all your eggs are in one rather leaky basket. I guarantee you'll be regretting your decision within a year.
You clearly understand very little about the microstock market and I'm afraid your lack of research will cost you a great deal of money (and even more angst) in the medium to long term. Oh well!
My average commission at SS is 53c per sale whereas at Photos.com it is 33c and JIU it is 30c. The volume of licenses sold at SS is about 700% higher than Photos.com/JIU combined too.
The writing on the wall is starting to become pretty clear for both exclusives and independents who submit to Getty sites. All that happened was they tried to toss the frogs into the boiling water and they jumped out. This time around they are wisely placing the frogs in the cool pot of water and slowly turning up the heat.
Very well put Lisa. The three monkeys also comes to mind.
I've been exclusive for 9 months (was independent for nearly 4 years before that), and after the first announcement was pretty convinced I'd be returning to independent status very soon. I decided to wait for the revised plan before pulling the 30 day trigger as I didn't want to jump the gun in my fury at the wretchedness of the first plan and first "response" to it.
Right now I'm thinking I'll stay exclusive for a while longer - it's a complex mix of things, not just one factor.
best match 2.0 has been good to me, so May has been a very good month. My vectors are mostly complex ones that sell for very good prices (they quickly rise to the top 50 earners in my portfolio - though bear in mind some of the older photos were only earning 10-20-30 cent commissions when I started at iStock, so it's not an apples and apples comparison). Vector pricing, for complex vectors, is rotten everywhere else, so I used to upload just JPEGs of them when I was independent. I think that the established (gold/diamond) exclusives at IS will by and large act in their own self interest and keep a large body of exclusive work, which will keep IS viable for a while. I actually would like it if I could upload some of my former SS best sellers (very filtered images or raster illustrations) to photos.com as it would represent nice additional income. If IS will just let us upload JPEGs of vectors to Photos.com/JIU, I'll be very happy.
I think the long term worries about Getty and H&F are valid ones. However the recent moves at other agencies to squeeze contributors and some folks at DT seeing earnings drop suddenly (which is what happened to me a while ago for no reason I could fathom other than I got on the wrong side of some search results shift) remind me that it's overall quite a risky time for contributors. Even if I'm making just a short/medium term plan by staying exclusive at IS, I think it's probably marginally better for me than the short/medium term being independent again.
I plan to follow the IS thread and digest all that's said (pro and con), but that's my initial reaction to yesterday's new plan.
It's a shame this has once again descended into an exclusive vs. independent debate, and worse, personal attacks. Why the need to convince others they should do what you do? Can't we all make our own decisions here? It's not as if one person becoming exclusive takes something from you, or one person remaining independent is somehow a criticism of another person's choice to become or remain exclusive. It's really a silly argument.
...and you think you know more than anyone else? My lack of research has shown me that I don't have to upload to 4 tedious processes and I can spend more time shooting instead of worrying about 5 or 6 sites and how they manage their businesses. I also don't have toi listen to apparently enlightened posters talk about how they know whats going on and others don't.
It's a shame this has once again descended into an exclusive vs. independent debate, and worse, personal attacks. Why the need to convince others they should do what you do? Can't we all make our own decisions here? It's not as if one person becoming exclusive takes something from you, or one person remaining independent is somehow a criticism of another person's choice to become or remain exclusive. It's really a silly argument.
Very well put.
IMO the exclusive vs. independent thing is a red herring. Without having a crystal ball, it seems that if this industry continues it's race to the bottom all contributors will lose out, whether exclusive or not. And if it starts to trend once more to higher prices and royalties then all contributors will benefit.
ITLR the divisions between selling exclusive or not are minor compared with all our common interest in keeping this microstock ship afloat.
...and you think you know more than anyone else? My lack of research has shown me that I don't have to upload to 4 tedious processes and I can spend more time shooting instead of worrying about 5 or 6 sites and how they manage their businesses. I also don't have toi listen to apparently enlightened posters talk about how they know whats going on and others don't.
Probably more than most yes because I've been in microstock more or less from the start and I have the benefit of analysing the data of 150K-odd sales at 6 agencies over the last 4 years. I've also collected data from many other players over the same timescale.
Anyway, I've checked your likely earnings at Photos.com/JIU based on your current sales at IS which average just under 7 per day.
If you were to place your entire portfolio on Photos.com/JIU (which I don't think you can with files younger than 18 months?) then I would estimate you would earn about $14.60 per month there. That's based on my own experience with selling at both sites for the last 8 months and assuming that your sales will be similar to my own in proportion to portfolio size.
If, more likely, you were to place only about 30% of your portfolio on Photos/JIU and you chose images that sold little at IS then I would expect you to earn rather less than $5 per month __ probably about the same as you would earn (or lose) from a single Large sale at IS.
Enjoy your $5 and don't you go spending it all at once.
It's a shame this has once again descended into an exclusive vs. independent debate, and worse, personal attacks. Why the need to convince others they should do what you do? Can't we all make our own decisions here? It's not as if one person becoming exclusive takes something from you, or one person remaining independent is somehow a criticism of another person's choice to become or remain exclusive. It's really a silly argument.
Very well put.
IMO the exclusive vs. independent thing is a red herring. Without having a crystal ball, it seems that if this industry continues it's race to the bottom all contributors will lose out, whether exclusive or not. And if it starts to trend once more to higher prices and royalties then all contributors will benefit.
ITLR the divisions between selling exclusive or not are minor compared with all our common interest in keeping this microstock ship afloat.
Always such reasoned debate...you should be paid to post here Lisa :)
The writing on the wall is starting to become pretty clear for both exclusives and independents who submit to Getty sites. All that happened was they tried to toss the frogs into the boiling water and they jumped out. This time around they are wisely placing the frogs in the cool pot of water and slowly turning up the heat.
Perfect synopsis of what is going on. But there are some who are too blind or blinkered to see.
PPD and EL sales are almost unheard of on photos.com/jui. And of the very rare one or two you get they now want to keep 80% of that.My PPD sales on StockXpert via Photos.com have been rare and inconsistent, but not insignificant. I would hate to lose them or see them slashed if, as some suggest, my StockXpert images on Photos.com will be replaced by my IS versions in the case of dupes.
PPD and EL sales are almost unheard of on photos.com/jui. And of the very rare one or two you get they now want to keep 80% of that.My PPD sales on StockXpert via Photos.com have been rare and inconsistent, but not insignificant. I would hate to lose them or see them slashed if, as some suggest, my StockXpert images on Photos.com will be replaced by my IS versions in the case of dupes.
05-09 1 PPD for 3$ total (so far)
04-09 1 PPD for $1.50 total
03-09 4 PPD for $40.50 total
02-09 0
01-09 3 PPD for $12 total
It's a shame this has once again descended into an exclusive vs. independent debate, and worse, personal attacks. Why the need to convince others they should do what you do? Can't we all make our own decisions here? It's not as if one person becoming exclusive takes something from you, or one person remaining independent is somehow a criticism of another person's choice to become or remain exclusive. It's really a silly argument.
Very well put.
IMO the exclusive vs. independent thing is a red herring. Without having a crystal ball, it seems that if this industry continues it's race to the bottom all contributors will lose out, whether exclusive or not. And if it starts to trend once more to higher prices and royalties then all contributors will benefit.
ITLR the divisions between selling exclusive or not are minor compared with all our common interest in keeping this microstock ship afloat.
Whatever your opinion is about the iStock deal, take my advice in that you should not rely on your photos you have on StockXpert now being featured on Photos.com/JUI in the not so distant future.
If all the non-exclusives opted out, I think a lot of the buyers would go back to shutterstock.
If all the non-exclusives opted out, I think a lot of the buyers would go back to shutterstock.
But they won't. Regardless of where they are ranked in the best match, we both know there are a ton of contributors who will do anything for the prospect of a 25 cent sale. Same reason they are still contributing to sites like Crestock. For every one of us who is willing to take a stand on pricing, there are at least 10 more who will do anything to increase their total earnings. Getty has nothing to fear from a few ticked off non-exclusives pulling out of Photos/JUI because iStock exclusives are favored in search.
That is how iStock works... 2/3 for iStock and barely 1/3 for authors.... Quite fair play if you ask me...
You are of course right! Its amazing how much money I make for iStock.
There will be no any influence from iStocks best match search on Getty sites... They work completely different and there are no forced-advantage authors ;-)
There will be no any influence from iStocks best match search on Getty sites... They work completely different and there are no forced-advantage authors ;-)
I think you will see when the time comes that contributors exclusive to Getty under IS will be given a search advantage over others. It only makes sense for them to push their own content. You are right that they are not going to use the same engine (at least not right away). Too much to implement in too little time.
Wow Milinz, that's amazing. If it's not a secret, what kind of sale you had today on StockXpert?
So far this month I got in StockXpert about 70% of what I got in IS, but then IS is performing slow this month for me. StockXpert used to be an excellent site for me, now it's not that much.
On the other hand, I earned in FP more than in 123RF or BigStock, not to mention CS and CanStockPhoto.
Has anyone considered that StockXpert may be the one pulling out of JIU/Photos.com? Leaving Getty with an immediate need to get new content for the site before the final deadline?
Think about it. How many threads have there been about JIU payment posting issues? Or the numerous threads about how Jupiter just "forgets" to pay contributors? How many about TOS violations not being resolved? If StockXpert wasn't pulling out of JIU/Photos.com then wouldn't they be pissed off about the new marketing phrase "powered by istockphoto"?
That would seem like a slap in the face to anyone with images on those sites that isn't posting through IS.
It becomes the perfect way for Getty to solve 2 issues. StockXpert stops complaining about reporting and payment issues, and IS has a way to cut payments down once buyers figure out that they can get all their IS images for a cheaper price.
This would make sense except for the fact that StockXpert is owned by Getty. And on top of that their management seems to be in a shambles.
I doubt StockXpert are in any position to decide what they are or are not involved in.
This would make sense except for the fact that StockXpert is owned by Getty. And on top of that their management seems to be in a shambles.
I doubt StockXpert are in any position to decide what they are or are not involved in.
We might be saying the same thing about Istock in a few more months. Hmm.
I doubt StockXpert are in any position to decide what they are or are not involved in.
We might be saying the same thing about Istock in a few more months. Hmm.
A Theory: Presume that Getty's intention is to make as much money as possible as fast as possible. (That's not too far-fetched is it?)This would make sense except for the fact that StockXpert is owned by Getty. And on top of that their management seems to be in a shambles.
I doubt StockXpert are in any position to decide what they are or are not involved in.
We might be saying the same thing about Istock in a few more months. Hmm.
This would make sense except for the fact that StockXpert is owned by Getty. And on top of that their management seems to be in a shambles.
I doubt StockXpert are in any position to decide what they are or are not involved in.
This would make sense except for the fact that StockXpert is owned by Getty. And on top of that their management seems to be in a shambles.
I doubt StockXpert are in any position to decide what they are or are not involved in.
OK here's the plan. Since so many people like StockXpert and would like to have it be free of Getty, and allegations of unreported subs, plus many people want to be represented and get a fair cut of "all those profits". How about we buy StockXpert from Getty and solve all the problems? A microstock site run by the people who supply the photos.
Up the revolution! Stop complaining and take possession of your own work instead of having other people pay peanuts. I have a feeling this idea will be followed by silence and reasons why it won't happen.
This would make sense except for the fact that StockXpert is owned by Getty. And on top of that their management seems to be in a shambles.
I doubt StockXpert are in any position to decide what they are or are not involved in.
OK here's the plan. Since so many people like StockXpert and would like to have it be free of Getty, and allegations of unreported subs, plus many people want to be represented and get a fair cut of "all those profits". How about we buy StockXpert from Getty and solve all the problems? A microstock site run by the people who supply the photos.
Up the revolution! Stop complaining and take possession of your own work instead of having other people pay peanuts. I have a feeling this idea will be followed by silence and reasons why it won't happen.
..If the business is so profitable, why are sites going out of business. How did Digital RR with millions in investors backing, many photographers who loved the site, figure out that they had to close their doors to stop losing more money. Where's Lucky Oliver? Albumo? Snap Village? Photoshelter?...Haven't you noticed there is a credit crunch going on? I think some of those sites probably borrowed too much money before the credit crunch when it was easy to borrow money but found it impossible to keep going when their investors pulled out. This has happened in all industries, not just microstosk. Albumo was never a starter, it looks like a one man site and Snap Village is being changed in to the Veer market place.
So far this month I got in StockXpert about 70% of what I got in IS, but then IS is performing slow this month for me. StockXpert used to be an excellent site for me, now it's not that much.
On the other hand, I earned in FP more than in 123RF or BigStock, not to mention CS and CanStockPhoto.
Talking about Featurepics: Quite boosted sales if you ask me. But, still not all changes online... I expect very high growth in sales through Featurepics in next few months.