I don�t think you can separate thinkstock from photos.com or other pp sites. But I understood the OP that he just meant sales in PP versus istock.

Probably just luck with best match. If your file got sales early on Thinkstock it apparently stayed visible longer. the same for files on istock, it is their search position that will determine your sales, unless what you shoot is so super unusual that nobody else has it.

But if you are competing with 100 000 other files, I guess it is more luck than skill these days.

I understand that, but from a contributors perspective 30% from Offset is more than 20% from Getty. Obviously.

The rest of the announcement sounds like normal marketing speak. I would be writing that too if I was trying to attract these customers.

The other important question for the contributors is in how many cases Offset actually achieves a sales price that is close to the price listed on the website. As we all know Getty has a huge variance in what customers pay so even with RM files and nominal high prices you might still end up with 5 dollar licenses, although the list price is hundreds of dollars. This is also what makes stocksy so interesting. They are already starting off at the "real" price point many high end customers are used too after their "special" discounts.

If Offset can consistently achieve a price that is inline with what contributors expect when looking at their website, they will get a huge following of artists. The Getty House contract is not artist exclusive, so any macro contributor can apply.

Anyway, I am just an interested observer at this point. But the more options and agencies are out there, the more choices the contributors and also the customers have.

Are the images for Offset exclusive? I thought they don�t want exclusive files and many of the files on offset are also available elsewhere.

This would be a major advantage to the artist. They could still sell from other sites with similar price point, or their own site.

In theory if files are non exclusive the could also be available on Getty, Corbis etc...

Thanks Ron. That is good to read. But then I don�t understand why that discussion on their forums was so negative? And why didn�t an admin get in there to get people excited about the coming opportunities? Anyway, I am still new to their forums. So I don�t know how their community builders handle things.

I think it is perfectly understandable they want to establish the brand first, but I would have thought that a few high ranking and quality contributors from SS would have been proudly presented from the beginning as well.

I think they have a stunningly beautiful collection. Really well chosen images. I love stocksy more, but offset is the other really interesting agency on the net right now IMO.

The style is less trendy or artistic than stocksy  but they have great, very timeless work. More European in style. And although I am sure you can find similar images on many micros, the customer is paying for the time they save. That is the whole advantage of prefiltered collections, you are paying for the service more than the image.

What I don�t understand is the bias against photographers who also supply micros, including Shutterstock. Apparently if you supply SS then they will not consider you for offset. At least this is the word from a thread on their own forums.

That is a great pity because SS has fantastic artists with a huge selection of work. It is strange they should be rejected from the more high end brand.

So perfectly normal contributor interaction that we have been sharing for as long as microstock companies exists now have become "demonized" as "helping the enemy".

And at the same time SS itself posts detailed earnings information, royalty rates etc...on their own website. But for us to post the same results is unacceptable.

Some things we write "may be" acceptable, some not, depending on context and to be determined by SS alone. And if what we write is deemed as "helping the enemy" we might face undisclosed consequences.

I am sorry, this is too complicated for me. And how about all the contributors whose first language is not English?

No explanation is also an explanation. Unfortunately.

If it is bad it will keep them active to get back onto the road to success. The online communities serve as a great echo chamber that amplify both good and bad results.

It prevents mediocrity and encourages excellence. It can be brutal yes, but business is not for the faint of heart.

SS is fantastic for selling videos. They even sell my amateur files, these �ber-artists will make a killing there!

Too bad they can never post their earnings and results to motivate others to join SS...

How many people have had their accounts closed because of what they said or wrote on the forums or anywhere else on the net?

I thought SS was a contributor friendly site?! All the admins I ever interacted with were great and seemed to really love their jobs.

I sincerly hope this is not the beginning of the path to istock like conformism and  "attitude" control.

But to forbid us from sharing information is a pretty aggressive move against the community. I can understand the 90 day rule coming from their bad experience with Yuri. But what prompted clause 7?

stocksy, gi images, pond5,

The stock community is not limited to the SS forums. It is everything - the blogs, the reports, Facebook,twitter.

People have been blogging their results for years and years. So why is it suddenly a problem??