Thanks for posting about this here. I posted a comment on the blog, but I'll repeat it here:

"I like the video as a way to introduce the new service � very effective way to get your message out to us.

There�s a lot of potential here, but I�d like to know more about the mechanics of the provider getting paid and the buyer dealing with any issues with the work.

In some ways I think this might be like the buyer and seller feedback system on eBay where you try to avoid buyers not paying even though the work was as requested or freelancers not delivering what the buyer asked for.
Another site tried something similar a while back and discontinued it because they didn�t address the above issues."

The other site was iStock and BuyRequest was the attempt they made at addressing this market. Some of their problems were in the implementation, but some were perhaps inherent in the issues of client and freelancer interaction.                                                 As a potential freelancer in this system, how would I avoid situations where I do work and the buyer backs out or doesn't pay?

Understandable, but sad. I'm certainly going to keep my eyes on solutions other than KTools as I can't find much good to say about it given your experiences with it. Perhaps Michael Jay will start selling his web site in addition to selling Stock?

I compared Dec 1-23 with Jan 1-23 (they're adding to the 24th) via the CSV files for both and it's more like January is a quarter of December's $$ and downloads. I don't mean they're down by a quarter, I really mean a quarter of December!

I deactivated Feb 2nd so that has nothing to do with PP numbers for January.

Perhaps they had a huge influx of other content in January that diluted sales? Or buyers had yearly subscriptions they didn't renew? At any rate it's not relevant for me as I'm done once this payout is complete.

I had an EL a few months back - at least I think that's what it was at 26.01 (or some odd number like that). So an EL and a couple of image pack items could definitely add up. If you can find the images in question (sort PP list by last download and look for items with a disproportionate $$ to DL#s) you might make better sense of it but that's a bit luck of the draw...

123RF seems to have done something to tell Google's Image search that its images are 1200 x 1200 even though all you really get is a small watermarked thumb if you look at the original image. I suspect this is on purpose to get a higher ranking in the search results.

Deposit photos appears to be doing something similar - it's watermarked images are larger than 123RF but aren't as big as the dimensions shown.

I think the agencies are trying to game Google's system to get better placement without giving away anything. Within a broken system, this is probably a reasonable response

I don't post very often but I am a bit tired of reading all the taunting from the macro duo. It's in bad taste. It looks like they are taking bets on how long they can act like a$$holes before they get banned...

I'm sympathetic to your frustration. It is pointless and mean behavior on their part.

They are attention seeking. The best way to get rid of them is just ignore them. No replies (they appear not to be interested in dialog anyway). They'll get bored and go bother someone else.

If you're concerned that other people will get distracted by their rubbish, enough minus votes and their posts will go poof for everyone...

I wouldn't do it - even though they only give away a very small size.

They pitch it as getting you exposure but I think that may be overstating the case a bit. It helps the site to have some freebies - perhaps.

I have only done free image of the week at a few sites (iStock never took any of the things I offered) as it seems that a 1-3 week giveaway as a way to help a site that it truly your partner (remember those days??) is a reasonable thing to do even if it doesn't boost your sales. But that's one at a time rather than the pool of freebies.

I recall selling an image at one agency while it was a freebie that week at another - I don't think regular buyers go looking for freebies - so in general I don't think it hurts much.

And as far as doing anything to help 123RF, even if I thought it would help them I'd stay away as they've been so anti-contributor as they've walked away from the 50/50 split to a "what did you do for me last month" model of royalty levels.

I just received $0.189 for an S size download. Is this normal? It's the lowest amount I've ever received for a small size download.

A while back they promised a minimum price per credit for royalty calculations of 40 cents. With the new mini-royalties they're paying, 30% of 40 cents is 12 cents for a 1 credit sale, 35% is 14 cents, 40% is 16 cents, 45% is 18 cents and so on.

IS can do better than that though - an XS for 7 cents if you're at the 15% floor for an indie

...PS: I actually agree with your line about "there is no enemy, it's just business".

I think that if two businesses cease to be partners when one takes something from the other you can quibble about whether you call the taker an enemy or the competition or something else, but Getty images sure as heck isn't a partner or on the side of its contributors. I picked the word enemy to describe what they became after the reneged on a number of terms in iStock the ASA - using the 30 day notice and ability to change the contract in any way they felt like - stopped being an agent and became a distributor, and so on.

"It's just business" seems to suggest that there is no place for ethics, honesty or long term partnerships in business. I don't buy that argument even if there's a huge pool of businesses that operate on the moral code of "if it's not illegal it's OK". Perhaps if you start out on the footing that "I'm bigger than you and will try to take the most from you and pay you the smallest amount I can get away with" you'd know what you were dealing with. Getty said one thing and later did something entirely different. They are certainly an obstacle to my success and a force that has done harm to many of their acquisitions and contributors. I think enemy fits reasonably well even if there's nothing personal about it at all.

My point was that Sean Locke was not the appropriate target of the posters' ire - that they should direct it at Getty Images where it properly belonged.

So if you buy a one-month subscription at BigStock, 30 images a day, it's $209. If you buy a one month at SS, 25 a day, it's $249. If you did an extrapolation from the 25 a day at SS to BigStock prices you'd have $174 a month

If you're in the Bridge to Bigstock program, why would you want to ship off your images to sell for less at a sister site? Where after the 6 months are up you'll get less per download?

It seems even more targeted at shifting business away from SS subscriptions than when we saw only the royalty charts.

My two sales there today were credits, not subs, but perhaps it's going to take a while to ramp up.

Thinkstock charges $299 a month for 25 a day ; Dreamstime is $239.99 for 25 a day and 123rf charges $230 for 26 a day.

Why is SS trying to undercut prices this way? Do they really think they can steal business from the other sites but not from Shutterstock's main site?

Quote from: bokehgal on February 12, 2013, 14:48

It appears Sean wrote a script to help a lot of his competition remove themselves from his game.

Sadly for him that act of trying to be clever backfired and blew up in his face and then ended up earning him a microstock Darwin Award instead.

I guess he is a bit shocked by it all because he was just trying to help, right?

Seems like a very cynical interpretation of the facts.

It's utter rubbish!

If Sean wanted to get rid of his competition (which I do not think is the case) he'd never have written all the other greasemonkey scripts whose only purpose was to make the total disaster interface that the iStock engineers produced usable by humans.

What's with all the "he was asking for it, dressed the way he was" stuff? Talk about blaming the victim - isn't there some political squabble to go join (elsewhere)?

Clearly lots of smart people plan for various things and only act on some. However the number of crowns gone or going is likely to rise. Just yesterday swilmor (diamond exclusive) announced he'd dropped his crown. Earlier this month theprint (Rasmus Rasmussen, one of iStock's earliest members, diamond) gave up his crown. Jani Bryson (JBryson), diamond exclusive, just dropped hers.