...
Getty was bought for 2400 million of which 50 million was for iStock. One is a lot the other is dinky. I see some major disparity there. Either the investors got ripped off or Getty got a huge bargain on iStock. These prices are largely based on present and future earning potential.

iStock was purchased in Feb 2006 for $50M. Getty was purchased 2.1/2 years later for $2.4B, when iStock annual revenue was already eclipsing its purchase price.
Yes, there is a major disparity in the price. iStock was certainly a bargain, but I'm not so sure Getty was.

Geez, macrosaur, one day you're saying "earning from RM are flat or decreasing a bit, no more no less", and the next you're saying "RM is bleeding money". Guess I convinced you, huh?

As for Getty trying to bankrupt their competitors, if that's their goal they would have come up with something much better than Thinkstock. What they've done is offered a minimally-functional site that offers only their least valuable assets - they've invested as little as possible into it. It's pretty clear - at least to my way of thinking - that all they're doing right now is testing the microstock subscription market. That's not "harakiri".

If Getty was as ruthless as everyone seems to think they are, they'd have done something revolutionary to kill their competition: drastically lower their RF/RM pricing to be competitive with microstock. But they're not doing that, are they?

I'd be happy to send 2mp to Thinkstock, but my conduit to them would have to be Istock since I'm closing shop at StockXpert.

I submitted a bunch of 2MP test images yesterday, some of which were accepted this morning. I'm hoping they appear near the top of the search results - if not, it'll be pointless submitting there: there's little hope for exposure if the newest microstock images are buried deep underneath the old RF stuff.
For now, I'm playing the wait and see game.

Quote from: sharply_done on February 08, 2010, 00:42

[On the other hand, it does seem a bit silly to be willing to license your imagery for, say 38c on Shutterstock, but not 36c/38c on Thinkstock.

I keep hearing this argument over and over.  The fundamental difference for me is that I don't send Shutterstock full size images.  I'd be quite happy to get a quarter for XS, but not XL.

So then don't send Thinkstock full-sized images.
If anything, Thinkstock is *better* than Shutterstock in this regard: Shutterstock accepts 4MP as their smallest size - it's 1.92MP for Thinkstock.

...
How did we get to a place where people agreed a photo was only worth 1 dollar to begin with, but now .30 cents is a rip off. It all started at Istock trading images for free.
...

If it doesn't seem like much of an argument to you, Jonathan, maybe it's because you're not taking into account the much larger numbers of downloads that subscription sites can afford. It's not uncommon to have a download-per-image (DLPI) ratio greater than 2:1, and for even a modest portfolio of 2000 images the difference of only a few pennies per DL can really add up. On the other hand, it does seem a bit silly to be willing to license your imagery for, say 38c on Shutterstock, but not 36c/38c on Thinkstock. I don't really 'get' that logic either.

Succeeding with subs requires a different approach than a normal pay-per-download site. People (like *you*, ahem)who make and market identical images for both marketplaces are, in my opinion and experience, failing to maximize their investment. I've mentioned this before, only to have most people here tell me I was wasting my time. Whatever.

... just curious to see how many sports fans there are here.

According to his success and impressive number of downloads, I would say that customers value much more the "fancy" images of Sean than others cheap stuff.

You need to pay closer attention, loop: I was talking about Getty, where he's remarked that his RPI has been a disappointment.

...
In the mid-long term, suscription cheapo sites will lose a great numer of good potographers.

That may very well be, but if there are enough buyers who are content with 'good enough' images, not having the 'best' images won't stop these agencies from succeeding. Like I said earlier, boycotting agencies that don't surpass a minimum revenue-per-download is a strategy with a track record of failing - the only thing you will succeed in doing is removing yourself from a growing marketplace.

History shows that you - those vehemently opposed to subscriptions - need a better plan than the one you've got. Assuming subscription agencies are here to stay, you need to change your way of thinking. Instead of ignoring sites that (you think) don't pay enough for your imagery, wouldn't it be better to produce stuff specifically intended for them? As an iStock exclusive, I have the option of producing images that I can easily dedicate to the various collections: main, Vetta, ThinkStock, and the soon-to-be Exclusive+. And I intend to do just that. On the flip side of the coin, I also have the opportunity to make imagery for Getty - but I have chosen not to do so. Why? Because that marketplace is in (sharp) decline, and I'd rather invest my time in a growing market.

What are those evolutionary buzzwords again - adapt or perish?

...
I tried taking a screen cap of a DVD playing in Nero once and it always failed, I just got a blank box when pasting into Photoshop.
...

There are many freeware/shareware/software apps that can screen capture from a DVD - in Windows you can even do it without additional software by simply turning off the Hardware Acceleration on your video card.

I have over 800 images on SS and do not notice the wall you are talking about. My sales have risen steadily over the 4-1/2 years I have been there. Unlike Gostwyck, I don't make anyways NEAR $100k, but for the type of images I have and the frequency with which i upload, I would say that I am probably on the right track. You will make yourself crazy if you constantly try to analyze the typical ebbs and flows of microstock.  

You've misread the post - gostwyck said he's sold 100,000 images on SS in 5+ years.
He didn't say he's made $100,000 there, nor did he say he earns $100,000 annually. Big difference.

...
I hope you exclusives genuinely are getting your just reward because I'll be joining you guys just as soon as I can. FT have gone too far this time __ much, much too far __ and they are going to lose a lot of their contributors as a result.

Good for you, gostwyck, good for you.
When all is said and done I'm sure you'll find yourself wondering why you waited so long.

...
Meanwhile, over on Istock, all exclusives are enjoying an increase in their commissions of about 50%.

Yep, we're laughing all the way to the bank!

In addition to those two I also opted out of partner sites on BigStock and StockXpert.  I am still waiting to hear back from Fotolia on how to opt out there.  

If there's no way to opt out at Fotolia - and I don't think there is - you should ask them to provide a list of partner sites. You might then want to notify those sites of your plans well ahead of time to avoid unforeseen problems - having a contact name and paper tail is very helpful when attention is required. Being professional can really pay off, and my transition went off without a hitch - don't expect things go well if you don't plan ahead and do your homework.

Given the size of your portfolios, you might want to write some scripts to disable/delete images - I used AutoHotKey. I tested things ahead of time (by deleting low-sellers) so that when the time came I was able to 'get er done' with minimal disruption of my income stream. If you're not saavy enough to do this yourself you might want to consider hiring someone who is - the time saved is easily worth it.