Update, after the long reply of Arian.

1) No mentioning of opting out the subs so your largest sizes there will be available for HeroTurko at a price lower than at Shutterstock. No mentioning of extended licenses, so buyers can do all they want with the images "as low as 0.19euro".

2) The plan clearly hasn't been thought through, as they will calculate your subs share after the month passed by. A scheme that proved unworkable. In the worst case you'll get 11 cents or so. Considering all the glitches on MP in the past, I don't think they can handle the bookkeeping well.

I also politely expressed my disgust about the fact that this major policy change was introduced overnight without any warning or preliminary discussion.

I don't like to cannibalize my sales at much better paying sites so I deleted my images there quickly. Enough time wasted there. Good luck on MP.

I'm sorry, that's not true for all of us. At any given day SS dwarfs DT in terms of PPD sales for me. Also, these are my last 10 sales at DT. Can you spot a pattern?

I had periods just like that, both on SS and on DT. You just have to be lucky to be hit by an occasional (credit) buyer that wants your content - if it's niche. That makes it all so random. I asked payout on DT begin of September (for the tax rule) and I'm well on my way to a new payout soon. Although half of my port now is models, I still get most downloads from my niche on DT. There is just too much competition on models. At SS, it's opposite: models do relatively well. You really can't predict.

But I was talking from the buyer's point of view, which is totally different from the contributor's. I still think DT is a good compromise for an (occasional credit) buyer as it has the same content as IS of non-exclusives, plus Editorial (better than SS). It will also depend on the type of buyer. Somebody into design, templates, commercial work will find great content on IS. A media buyer will be better off at DT. SS is more for the well-seasoned buyers that need a large volume all the time.

I picked Dreamstime mainly thinking as a buyer. While SS is my best earner, their main market is subs and most customers there are high volume well-seasoned designers that know their way around microstock.

Dreamstime still has a lot of credit sales (I had a 50 credit sale yesterday) attracting random traffic of occasional buyers. Moreover, DT has it all: Editorial (not just News like SS) and Commercial. Most stuff on iStock is also on DT, plus DT has more.

Time to leave.

I am waiting for their reply on the opting-out and contributor share question. I used them for backup. It will teach me a lesson again : don't waste time uploading to low-sellers or beginners. Plus, they never keep their promises, none of them, changing goalposts midway.

My two kids are willing victims, and while I know that I could ask any number of friends to pose for some photos, the new world of "this photo could feasibly show up anywhere" is a bit much to ask of even my best friends.  I do, however, have a good friend and neighbor who actually happens to BE a model (impossibly attractive, but in a wonderfully wholesome way); I wonder what her feelings would be on the subject.

Kids are a great subject, especially if they are your own. You can please your occasional models by making a deal, and that's what I do. They want glamor, and just good portraits - I want stock. So we do both. Everybody happy. For the type of models, you can read my article here (third paragraph), especially about the guy/girl nextdoor. This info was largely stolen from a forum post here of RT (Richard).
Don't miss this mandatory video of Arcurs:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fCwjQztyXA[/youtube]

Quote from: FD-regular on September 09, 2010, 14:23

That's the DT approach, and it works well. A buyer doesn't buy a contributor or a canister, but an image.

I would love to see something like the DT image levels on Istock

It's a sustainable solution since on level 1 (at entry) images, they can recuperate the review costs and the database overhead. As the image goes up in levels, the marginal cost will become lower for the site. Thomson was right, the IS model was unsustainable in the long run but he addressed it the wrong way, both for IS and for its contributors.

Good timing  but will it work?

They undercut the SS subs plan 199eu/25 a day by a 199eu/30 a day subs plan. What's more, they did it totally under the radar. I didn't upload my full size 24MP stuff there to be dowloaded under a subs plan. What evil devil stinged them?

Update: I started a new thread on their (dead) forum under "subscriptions".

Undercutting my best selling microstock site SS by a subs plan of 30 full size images for 199eu is not why I uploaded my largest size images here. Subs sites always get my smaller sizes. Introducing this drastic change apparently under the radar is not a very fair thing to do. I expect at least to know what the contributor share on a subs sale will be and if we will be able to opt out.

i had tried filezilla, basically you just connect it to the website server and browse the file to transfer? are there a way to make the same file transfer to multiple location?

Yes. Just disconnect from your current server and go to the next one. The files to upload will be added to the queue, embedded with site/usr/pwd. Basically, you can let it all run overnight if you're on a slow connection. The failed transfers go in the failed queue, and you can reschedule them the next morning.

Actually, I agree with some of the changes they propose. It's a good way for new talented peoples to get better earning faster. And I also think it's faire that the more you bring money, the higher your commission should be.

There is a lot of sense in what Thomson said, in the way that historical earnings will break down the profitability model in the end. They could have had 2 responses: cut in their fat (who needs all those costly lypses?) and bonuses, or make image earnings dependent, not on contributor performance, but on image performance (the level system of DT).

Should've kept the permalinks though :\

For what? The thread on IS will vanish soon. They can't afford that kind of content creeping into Google.

It costs the same, but I wonder if that image has the same value over time.  If they were to determine that the average exclusive's image generates more revenue than the average independent's, then the review cost of that exclusive's image is a smaller expense at the front end.  So independents represent a greater cost due to the reduced benefit, and getting rid of a bunch of them improves profit even as it decreases revenue.

This a self-inflicted artifact or a self-fulfilling prophecy since exclusives have a better placement in the best match.

I think you've mistaken me for someone else.  I have never seen your portfolio and I never meant to imply that it (or anyone else's portfolio) is not good enough.  I posted my suggestions above because I wish that IS would come up with a business plan that is more ... (like I said) ... business-like.  If they did so it would cool people's emotions and make microstock more profitable for everyone.

Sorry in that case. But you (or somebody else) implied that the small fish should be punished for a low production and content that only sells occasionally. If you're in a niche, that's unavoidable. It would make more sense to reward on a per-picture base than on a per-contributor base. As Shadysue said, kicking out the "unproductive" contributors will diminish IS's diversity and the site will be full of lookalikes in the style of the top 100-500. I don't see that as "good business" since part of the buyers might be attracted by diversity, even if they don't buy the diverse shots.

They have wanted to get rid of independents since Getty bought the place, and that's exactly what's going to happen.

Is that so? Some simple math leads me to the conclusion that IS makes much more money (84%) off small independents than off big time exclusives (60%) given the same amount of credits spent. That scenario (of kicking out the John Doe independents) doesn't make sense, logically.