pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Update about subs...(iStock vs photos.com)  (Read 26846 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #25 on: May 21, 2009, 18:04 »
0
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.  

Your hiunch seems more reputable.   ;D


« Reply #26 on: May 21, 2009, 18:06 »
0
25 cents? Bah. Should be at least 30 and then scaled up for the exclusives. 25 is too low.

« Reply #27 on: May 21, 2009, 18:07 »
0
Yay - on "photos.com - powered by iStockphoto"

« Reply #28 on: May 21, 2009, 18:09 »
0
If they are thinking of closing StockXpert, they would not be going through the cleaning up process there right now.

« Reply #29 on: May 21, 2009, 18:12 »
0
Why would they delete all images that are on StockXpert but not on IS? No sense...

« Reply #30 on: May 21, 2009, 18:16 »
0
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.

« Reply #31 on: May 21, 2009, 18:20 »
0
You're right KngKyle. Thanks.

Anyway, I think it's fruitless for us to spend energy trying to predict what Getty is going to do.

« Reply #32 on: May 21, 2009, 18:51 »
0
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.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #33 on: May 21, 2009, 19:05 »
0
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.

I'm trying to see that as a good thing.  Wouldn't StockXpert be left pretty much as a stand alone site?  I know the admin there was asking for opinions about offering subscriptions.  It didn't make sense to me at the time, but now, I am wondering if he was looking for the time when there was no longer a link between StockXpert and the sub sites?????  StockXpert may be developing their own subs plan????

WarrenPrice

« Reply #34 on: May 21, 2009, 19:07 »
0
Please read the above as questions.  I am no where near experienced enough in this field to be offering an opinion.

lisafx

« Reply #35 on: May 21, 2009, 19:18 »
0
Please read the above as questions.  I am no where near experienced enough in this field to be offering an opinion.

None of us know what's going to happen with this.  Your guess is as good as anyone else's Warren :)

« Reply #36 on: May 21, 2009, 20:23 »
0
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.
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?

stacey_newman

« Reply #37 on: May 21, 2009, 20:39 »
0
I think three of the biggest issues were addressed well.

1. opt in is no longer the default
2. new exclusive content will be available only on IS
3. "powered by iStockphoto" keeps photos.com in the iStock fold, which I think is very good in terms of branding, and allows exclusives to remain exclusive while exploring the lower-cost subscription market.

I am very impressed with the extent to which Getty worked with HQ on this. The revision indicates a definite willingness to consider contributor concerns.

iStock have done a lot lately to renew my trust in them. I think they will represent my work and my interests. I know there will be valid arguments against this plan, but the greatest issue in my mind was their willingness to compromise. the proof is there, and they have listened. I think that says a lot.




« Last Edit: May 21, 2009, 20:40 by stacey_newman »

« Reply #38 on: May 21, 2009, 20:58 »
0
I hope these words don't haunt me some day, but

25 cents?*!?**!  Screw You.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #39 on: May 21, 2009, 21:21 »
0
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?

« Reply #40 on: May 21, 2009, 21:32 »
0
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?
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.

helix7

« Reply #41 on: May 21, 2009, 21:48 »
0
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.

I'd agree, especially after reading this part of the new explanation:

Quote from: kkthompson
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.

If istock is to become the main source of content, that seems to indicate that another main source (StockXpert) might not be a main source in the future. 



stacey_newman

« Reply #42 on: May 21, 2009, 21:52 »
0
^ lol, I thought my career path was firmly rooted in novel writing also. photography was a hobby I couldn't really afford to indulge in seriously. iStock allowed me to take my photography far more seriously, to purchase additional professional equipment and to launch a career that I never anticipated.

photography is similarly satisfying to writing for me. it is a huge melding of creativity and technical experience. it requires the application of our individual styles to our work and though it is cliche, photos tell a story. sometimes better than words can.

sorry for the digression....but it is always interesting to see how different all of our backgrounds are.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2009, 22:06 by stacey_newman »

« Reply #43 on: May 21, 2009, 22:13 »
0
They are smart. They know that a lot of contributors are ready to sell for 0.25 (even Yuri and Lisa have images at Crestock). And StockXpert will disappear soon...

« Reply #44 on: May 22, 2009, 01:07 »
0
My guess is that they will put the StockXpert images to the back of the search until we go in and disambiguate them to be in line with the controlled vocabulary of IS.

« Reply #45 on: May 22, 2009, 02:20 »
0
Good luck Veer, it's now or never!

« Reply #46 on: May 22, 2009, 02:26 »
0
Anyway, it looks much better than before. So, we can do something when we unite, right :)

« Reply #47 on: May 22, 2009, 02:34 »
0
Until they have enough of a monopoly. After that both contributors and buyers will suffer!

« Reply #48 on: May 22, 2009, 02:54 »
0
Really for non-exclusives this deal makes absolutely no sense at all- 25 cents, thats Crestock standards. Oh and have you noticed that they offer 20% for single file downloads at Photos.com even for Exclusives? Thats worse than for non-exclusives who submit through StockXpert.
I guess there will be some dissapointments for many Exclusives if they notice what a "great" source of additional income photos.com and JIU is.

« Reply #49 on: May 22, 2009, 02:56 »
0
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 (edit:- make that 20%).  That is huge when you sell thousands of subs a year.  That isn't the only downside, it is going to stop other sites like SS paying us more.  I wasn't happy with 30 cents with StockXpert, SS pay me 38 cents and I want to see other sites closer to that level.  StockXpert was stuck on 30 cents and they said a few time that they would look at increasing that.  Pay per download prices have gone up and I want to see subs moving in the same direction, not going back to 25 cents.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2009, 03:29 by sharpshot »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
106 Replies
30336 Views
Last post August 28, 2015, 08:35
by madman
4 Replies
2831 Views
Last post October 19, 2008, 14:24
by cascoly
5 Replies
2749 Views
Last post July 19, 2012, 04:32
by sharpshot
12 Replies
4179 Views
Last post August 28, 2015, 11:29
by ShadySue
43 Replies
12165 Views
Last post October 14, 2015, 15:34
by Gel-O Shooter

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors