Sites targeted to buyers with good content are probably good.

The rest, especially when loaded with content (if any) of doubtful quality, usually one-sided or totally misleading are just that - doubtful and misleading.

The sites that have it should really discontinue their contributors part of referral programs. And when doing that, they could raise their commission payed to owners of the content to account for the savings they would have for payed out referrals.

I miss the independent (and still relatively 'big') site it once was.

Quote from: leaf on February 11, 2010, 12:31

Quote from: Danicek on February 11, 2010, 09:43

Quote from: Kenny G. Adams on February 11, 2010, 06:02
The sad thing about this is naive artists will contribute to StockXpose.com. One of the reasons I say this is because the websmaster of this site, microstockgroup.com, has made this very important topic only available to registered users! If you are not a member, you can not read this topic. It has been blocked from the search engines as well. 

Kenny

Hm... Leaf?

Ok thanks. Hope it makes Kenny feel better :]

fixed

Quote from: Kenny G. Adams on February 11, 2010, 06:02
The sad thing about this is naive artists will contribute to StockXpose.com. One of the reasons I say this is because the websmaster of this site, microstockgroup.com, has made this very important topic only available to registered users! If you are not a member, you can not read this topic. It has been blocked from the search engines as well. 

Kenny

Hm... Leaf?

Quote from: gostwyck on February 10, 2010, 19:22
Only last night I had 2 requests to join my CN at Istock __ coincidentally both from Chinese contributors. Think about it.

Yes, I went through this in past. I freelanced as a software developer, mostly via RentACoder.com. The marketplace there (based on tasks on which the coders bid) was flooded with 'coders' that were willing to do the work for much less than I was willing to. They were ok biding with what sometimes was around $1 per hour (estimated by me)... And they were mostly from China and other countries.

Great update Bob. Thanks for the hard work...

Quote from: Xalanx on February 10, 2010, 13:00
- you can't print video on newspapers / magazines / books / banners / etc
- video is much larger in size (web usage wise)
- it doesn't cover all the things that photography does.
- video is much harder to produce, as already mentioned.
- ...and perhaps some other disadvantages.

So no, it's not the next big thing.

+ Much more difficult editing. Where designer takes 5 photos and makes a product in 2 hours, it would be almost impossible with Video. Aside from very small modifications, this still needs huge software development.

Quote from: lisafx on February 09, 2010, 17:50

Quote from: massman on February 09, 2010, 16:11

Quote from: warren0909 on February 09, 2010, 14:53
Depending on the quantity purchased, bundle credits range from £0.63 - £1. When customers purchase bundles that put credits to a value of under £1, contributors are still paid out at £1.

^ Just a portion from FT's reply to Warren.

Am I misunderstanding this. Does is say we are paid at the rate of £1?

Only contributors signed up through British Fotolia are paid at the one Pound rate. (sorry I don't have that symbol on my keyboard), just as those signed up through European Fotolia sites are paid at the rate of one Euro, as I understand it.

If you are in USA then your credit is worth $1. 

Yeah, but theirs is not worth one pound but 0.75 pound. I really think that's just typo in support's message.

It starts to look like they will leave it at this. No more info, no more changes.

The ThinkStockPhoto came at right moment for them dragging much of the attention ...

I don't see how it could make sense for him to come here and advertise it which he did (he started this thread).

Quote from: massman on February 08, 2010, 15:10

Quote from: Stu49 on February 08, 2010, 15:01

Quote from: massman on February 08, 2010, 14:47

Quote from: Perry on February 08, 2010, 14:39
I was just thinking about uploading all my images to DepositPhotos and then I read here that they have CATEGORIES!? Why can't all these startup sites listen to contributors? We want easy uploads like 123r of canstock...

Never mind about the categories, is nobody troubled by this? - http://www.microstockgroup.com/new-sites-general/discussion-for-those-submitting-to-depositphotos/

Should we be !?   

That is what I'm asking.

They have 700.000 photos at the moment meaning they payed approx. $170.000 for them (assuming they paid for all).

BTW, did anyone notice they are offering free subscription trial?

http://depositphotos.com/pages/buyer-price


Free Trial
In order for you to appreciate simplicity of our services we offer you Free trial is based on a Subscription Plan.
It lasts for 14 days and allows to download up to 10 images of L+ size (2600 x 1800 pixels) per day.
You will get up to 140 images absolutely Free of charge! It is as good as a Free subscription for 14 days!


I just hope they are paying us for these free downloads. I would assume they are (I guess it would be illegal otherwise).

Quote from: patrick1958 on February 08, 2010, 07:37
Just an observation...
Every one got 0.05 credits payed for donating an image to the free section...
But removing it from free section FT charges 0.35 credits from your balance.?..

Patrick.

I believe it is 0.5 credits, not 0.05.

Yes, I've noticed that as well over the weekend.

Quote from: Artemis on February 07, 2010, 20:34
I live in Europe and was directed to the US site when signing up. Thus paid in dollars.
...

Exactly the same here. Live in EU, was directed to US without knowing at that moment about any difference and hence being paid in $.

Quote from: cclapper on February 07, 2010, 16:34

QuoteYes, this definitely has me doing a rethink.

+1

I was really hoping for the best with istock, they are my major earner. I just can't get behind what they have done this past week. Their past shenanigans kept me on the fence for a long time....

Just for the record - I strongly believe it is not IS staff behind it and I would think most of them share our/exclusives feeling. I would say this comes from above, from big G headquarters.

I'm not saying it has any actual impact on your decisions regarding exclusivity.

Quote from: dgilder on February 07, 2010, 15:26
Back on topic, I still say everyone should opt in a single sunset photo, and make ThinkStock the worlds largest sunset photo collection.

LOL... just heading out to shoot one. I don't have any in my portfolio. It may be though task to get one in through IS (as that's the only way from now on, as I understand it).

Quote from: donding on February 07, 2010, 13:51

Quote from: leaf on February 07, 2010, 13:37

Quote from: donding on February 07, 2010, 13:24
I agree..that reponse to madelaide from them was double talk, I read that over and over.

"For example, contributors still earn 1 credit to the dollar for bulk consumer purchases that put credits at $0.75."

How can $1.00 equal  1 credit which puts that credit at .75 cents. That doesn't even make sense.

With that quote I believe they were saying how generous they are.  When they sell credits for $0.75/credit, they still give us commissions as though the credits were sold at $1.00 - so we get our % of $1.00, not $0.75 - if that makes any more sense.  The same sort of difference as when they sell credits for $1.20 and we only get commissions on $1.00, except the other way around.

Thanks for explaining that. So they are still going to pay a percentage of $1.00 rather they sell it for .75 cents or 1.20, except they won't be sellin the .75 cent one anymore and only the 1.20 ones. Am I understanding that right?

No. As far as I know up to now the diff in the 'real credit price' and 'credit price for photographers' was dependent only on one thing - the 'platform' (EU vs. UK vs. US) where you happened to register yourself. As a result customer might purchase 1 credit for 1 Euro and your commission could be computed as % from $1 per 1 Credit.

Now, on top of that long existing boobery, they introduced floating credit price. So on top of that currency uncertainty that remains the same, there is also floating prices of credits (based on how much of them you purchase).

The worst case is, I believe, 16% commission (white user, being on the US platform (in $), customer pays with credits from smallest package bought in Euro) as Gostwyck computed in another thread.

They will buy credit at Euro 1.143 which is approx. $1.6 and you will get your % as if the credit cost $1.

There are obviously cases when you actually get more than the % you are supposed to get based on the official commission structure.

However, and that's very important, essentially all the credit packages for which you would get more % and not less % than what your commission should be are packages that do not make any sense when compared to subscription packages FT offers. They are much more expensive and as far as I know do not offer any pros when compared to them. No one in their right mind would buy them.

Isn't the above old rather old communication with FT. They were acting like this before the main furror arise and before Chad posted that rather apologetic bit on the FT forum.

^^ None yet. I'm watching that FT thread from Chad and expecting something there... It may well be they are expecting us to give up on following this.

Quote from: FD-amateur on February 06, 2010, 13:37

Quote from: loop on February 06, 2010, 12:01Where did you get that? I think it's not true, I mean the part about the PPD sales.

I thought stinkstock was a subs-only site?
They have to be by design or they would compete with iStock, something the exclusives there won't be amused with.

They are not amused with it.

Look here: http://www.thinkstockphotos.com/subscribe

And there is:
Image packs

Don't need a full subscription? Our 5, 25, 100, and 250-shot image packs are perfect for smaller budgets or per-project use. Check back soon for details.   COMING SOON

Quote from: sharpshot on February 06, 2010, 10:02
I am also going to do something positive buy uploading some exclusive images to Cutcaster this year.  There are no cheap subs there and it would be great to see them in the top 6 and giving the sites that have disappointed us some competition.  Instead of being worried about StockXpert going and panicking, perhaps we should be doing all we can to make the sites we like successful?

Agreed. I'm going to do the same (although, hard to say if it won't be punishment for CC given my photo skills ;]]).

Quote from: ThomasAmby on February 06, 2010, 09:43
- Couldn't find any information about where you are based, names etc. - not even an e-mail address! That always looks suspicious to me, I can't help it.

Contact Us takes you to just a form you can fill in.

That can mean one of two things - you have something to hide or you have not put enough thoughts into content of your site.

Bad, bad...

And whois:

Domain ID:
Domain Name: stockxpose.com
Created On: 17-Nov-2009 00:00:00
Expiration Date: 17-Nov-2010 00:00:00
Sponsoring Registrar: 'Check Whois' (PUBLICDOMAINREGISTRY) (PUBLICDOMAINREGISTRY)
Status: ok
Name Server: ns1.panelboxmanager.com
Name Server: ns2.panelboxmanager.com
Registrant ID: Unknown
Registrant Name: Naveen Kumar       
Registrant Organization: Unknown
Registrant Street1: 25/17, Neathaji Nagar
Registrant Street2: Unknown
Registrant Street3: Unknown
Registrant City: Villivakkam
Registrant State/Province: Chennai
Registrant Postal Code: Unknown
Registrant Country: tamilnadu,600049
Registrant Phone: Unknown
Registrant Fax: Unknown
Registrant Email: Unknown
Admin ID: Unknown
Admin Name: Unknown Naveen Kumar       
Admin Organization: Unknown
Admin Street1: IN
Admin Street2: Unknown
Admin Street3: Unknown
Admin City: 25/17, Neathaji Nagar
Admin State: Villivakkam
Admin Postal Code: Unknown
Admin Country: Chennai
Admin Phone: +91.9841343717
Admin Fax: Unknown
Admin Email: [email protected]

Quote from: RacePhoto on February 05, 2010, 19:05
I'm pretty sure it was designed as direct competition against SS. Simple enough?

...


I admit to being on SS with most of the same shots, why not have them on ThinkStock for the same commission? A quarter for a snapshot is the same whether it's sold on IS or SS. Yes, I know at $500 SS gives me a nice 8c raise, and I'm looking forward to that.

Right, I would agree that it was designed as competition against SS. And I'm also pretty sure that SS pays on average much more (in %) than 0.25.

Therefor is the difference between ThinkStock and SS commission highly important and not insignificant as you seem to suggest.

Let's do the math for subscriptions on SS versus ThinkStock:

SS - if we apply the 20/80 rule, then we would get average commission of 0.354 (0.8*0.38+0.2*0.25). Even if that's currently significantly diluted by the inflow of new photographers we may rest assured that it is indeed above 0.3

ThinkStock - they have flat rate of 0.25 and I'm sure they will try to sell they wholly owned content as much as they can. That means that their average commission won't be 0.25, instead it will be less. If they sell 50% of wholly owned content, that would mean average commission 0.125. It probably won't be that much (sales of wholly owned content), yet we may still rest assured that it will be less than 0.25 of average commission payed on subscription sale.

DT - compute the numbers on your own. It renders sites paying us even more than SS completely irrelevant from pricing perspective.

So I bet SS will be paying 40% more (or even more) on commissions. That will mean that either ThinkStock will have more money for their operation including advertisement or they will have plenty of space to lower prices of their packages.

This all is bad enough. Let's also wait on what they announce as 'image packs' (5 / 25 / 100 / 250). If they come up with something close to subscription prices, it may be another hit.

All in all it looks like IS (Getty) was overwhelmed by FT's acting as IS exclusivity manager and is trying to push against it...

Quote from: warren0909 on February 05, 2010, 06:45
I totaly depend on the money I earn on stock sites, people who know me know this only too well, and dont doubt for one second what FT are capable of, so yeah anyone can hide there true identity, even Fotolia so thats why the likes of me have to be careful in what we say and what we do.

Then you are the brave one (seriously). I don't blame some of the others not taking the risk, though...

Quote from: melastmohican on February 05, 2010, 06:53
Aren't there any other sites that have 25 cents commission for subs? I do not believe that SS will feel any pressure to lower prices just because a new site is popping up.

Yes, there is CanStockPhoto. I believe the CanStockPhoto standard subscription pays 0.25. Fotosearch subscription through CanStockPhoto is 0.3.