|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Karen
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12
201
« on: May 22, 2014, 07:51 »
Glad it start, but then it's stuck ... 
same here 
202
« on: May 21, 2014, 08:45 »
Getty is interested to boost the competition with SS
and to keep the operation costs as low as possible.
Adding subscription to iStock immediately
made a big drop in SS stock price.
Closing Thinkstock will save them lots of money
To pay their debt back.
203
« on: May 21, 2014, 08:00 »
They will do the same thing they did with photos.com ex-customers.
204
« on: May 21, 2014, 07:26 »
Why would they kill off TS now?
Getty created Thinkstock to compete with Shutterstock on subscriptions but Thinkstock failed to do it. Now Getty brought subscriptions to iStock and made it even cheaper then Thinkstock. I think they will close Thinkstock very soon to concentrate everything in one place.
205
« on: May 21, 2014, 07:09 »
I think the dissolve of thinkstock is a first major step towards some big news.
I guess Getty will close Thinkstock very soon. They wasted so much money on Thinkstock marketing and all they achieved is price sensitive clients moved from iStock to Thinkstock.
206
« on: May 21, 2014, 06:25 »
iStock (essentials) vs Thinkstock $1,919 / year $2,388 / year 750 dl/month 750 dl/month = 25 dl/day without daily limit with daily limit Why would anyone buy from Thinkstock  Am I missing something here?
207
« on: May 20, 2014, 06:01 »
Sales are so bad right now that I'm actually worried (or should I be glad?) that iStock may go bankrupt in a not too distant future.
Sales are almost non-existent, too bad to be true. It's more likely accounting / reporting issues, rather than real free fall.
208
« on: May 15, 2014, 05:40 »
I don't think about iStock anymore I think about Thinkstock - As an indie the PP accounts for 60-70% of my earnings there which means iStock is not much more than an uploading portal.
Initially Getty created Thinkstock as subs site to compete with SS, but it looks like Thinkstock failed to do it. With the introduction of subs at iStock I guess they will soon close the Thinkstock and move the subs business back to iStock.
209
« on: May 14, 2014, 00:19 »
Well said!
I guess Getty will bring back the old Canister level
Instead of the dead RC sustem to keep exclusives on board.
210
« on: May 13, 2014, 13:53 »
Initially iStock Getty decided that Image Subscription downloads will not be calculated toward contributor RC totals.
Actually it will reset the royalty rate to 15% (exclusive 25%) in no time.
Now iStock Getty seems to be afraid of exclusive's massive exodus - they threw a few bones to exclusives in the hope of winning some time.
I think they will drop the RC goals and will bring back the old canister levels to keep the exclusive on board.
211
« on: May 13, 2014, 05:07 »
With the last drop of sales on iStock and upcoming subscription plans I think I won't keep my 18%.  How about you? Thanks for taking part.
212
« on: March 14, 2014, 13:36 »
Yes they will share, how much? When will they generate ads? How does it work? You'd think they would have thought it out enough to say, yes, we will share X% of ad-based revenue with contributors or something similar.
The next question after the one I posted in the same article:
PDN: How might that be divvied up with contributors?
CP: We have contractual obligations back to our contributors that require us to pay certain royalty amounts to our contributors.
Check what your contract says, seems clear doesn't it?
Dear tickstock, you are making so much efforts to praise Getty no matter what they do. Why?
213
« on: March 13, 2014, 09:17 »
That's my point 'free' doesn't always mean the same thing just like using a small image inside the embed viewer is very different than getting a free image with an RF license.
From photographer point of view it is free as he will get nothing, not even single cent from this.
While the buyer will use his photo and safe his money,
Getty will sell advertisement via the embed viewer,
the advertiser will pay Getty to distribute his marketing messages over internet.
Everybody will get what they want but photographer will get nothing.
That's not true at all.
Well, what do you mean "not true at all"? Looks like you know much more then we do. Please enlighten us.
214
« on: March 13, 2014, 08:40 »
That's my point 'free' doesn't always mean the same thing just like using a small image inside the embed viewer is very different than getting a free image with an RF license.
From photographer point of view it is free as he will get nothing, not even single cent from this.While the buyer will use his photo and safe his money, Getty will sell advertisement via the embed viewer, the advertiser will pay Getty to distribute his marketing messages over internet. Everybody will get what they want but photographer will get nothing.
215
« on: March 13, 2014, 07:15 »
So I fully expect that credit sales will plummet even further (much further) than they have.
They will enroll the new iStock sub. model in April. It will take 2-3 months for a buyers to finish their current credit balances and to switch to the new sub. model... I expect in June with summer slowdown we will see a huge drop in revenue and massive exodus of exclusives from iStock flooding the market with their ports.
216
« on: March 13, 2014, 07:05 »
 ROFL
217
« on: March 13, 2014, 07:02 »
There's also a mind-boggling quote from the ethix.org article about trust - not that I disagree with what's written, but I have a hard time squaring that with the behavior of the company:
"This brings up an interesting point about ethics. Our unusual industry is based on trust. For example, a photographer comes and signs a contract with us. We take the photographers images that we want and contract to market them, agreeing to pay part of what we will get if someone uses the image. We send the photographer a monthly report which says how the image was used and what money was paid. But the photographer relies entirely on us. They dont really know if People Magazine paid us eighty bucks or eight hundred for their image. It is based on trust."
With endless refund of purchases, PP "over" payments, bugs in RC calculations, non real time reports. I have no reason to trust Getty.
218
« on: March 13, 2014, 02:07 »
<snip>
they'll be 75 cents and $2.50. Not great at all but not Shutterstock levels yet.
Of course this is all speculation on my part, but I don't think sales volume will be SS levels, either.
Unless IS is somehow successful in luring away SS buyers (I hope so for my sake, but highly doubt it), what's going to happen is that the new sub sales are going to come from whatever few new buyers they can attract, but mostly from existing IS buyers that they convert to subscriptions. Who would be interested in that? The buyers who buy the most files now. So I fully expect that credit sales will plummet even further.
Like I said, purely guesswork. But educated guesswork, IMO. And I do expect to be proven correct in the next few months. 
So what would you do? Drop the exclusivity and contribute to other agencies?
219
« on: March 12, 2014, 16:03 »
maybe you should post some kind of anonymous bio somewhere, so we at least get some idea what we can ask you about.
You can ask me anything, I might even answer you some of the time.
Who are you tickstock?
A stock photographer.
How do you think the new iSrock sub. model will affect your revenue?
220
« on: March 12, 2014, 16:00 »
Another percent down
Shutterstock Inc
NYSE: SSTK - Mar 12 3:17 PM ET
85.54-0.98 (-1.13%)
Late Yuri effect?
221
« on: March 11, 2014, 14:24 »
maybe you should post some kind of anonymous bio somewhere, so we at least get some idea what we can ask you about.
You can ask me anything, I might even answer you some of the time.
Who are you tickstock?
222
« on: March 11, 2014, 09:08 »
But of course you know that...don't you? Or you would if you were there as an istock exclusive from 2008 until today...
I've been there since before 2008 and last year was my best year, personally I'm not nostalgic for 2008 or Bruce.
With a new iStock sub. model there is a good chance everyone will be nostalgic for 2013. Even if it was not his best year.
223
« on: March 11, 2014, 08:48 »
Looks like Getty are still doing everything to kill iStock.
They forgot they bought it 8 years ago.
P.S. Thanks tickstock, 8 years ago.
224
« on: March 11, 2014, 06:33 »
Maybe it was people wanting to use free embeds. 
It's definitely a legal reason for a buyer to ask and get refund for purchase.
225
« on: March 11, 2014, 06:16 »
I just realised today that when you open the Photos.com website you can see this: http://www.photos.com/comingsoon:
Looking for royalty-free subscriptions or image packs? Please visit Thinkstock.
Looking for access to other digital images? Please visit Getty Images."
And where is the invitation to visit iStock???
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
