pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Getty Subscription Site to replace JIUnlimited  (Read 22548 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Dook

« Reply #25 on: December 14, 2009, 15:50 »
0
"If you aren't interested in having your non-duplicated StockXpert images at this new site, you can always go to your profile http://www.stockxpert.com/user/edit_prof .. (point #7) and opt out. Please opt out before December 31, 2009 if you don't want us to move any of your images to the new site."
 
Why would I opt it out, when my non-duplicated StockXpert images will not be selling at new site unless i upload them through Istock? ???


« Reply #26 on: December 14, 2009, 16:10 »
0
There is a thread about it on istock too.  Might be worth mentioning it over there if you wont accept 25 cents.  I am sure people pay more attention to the istock forum than the StockXpert one.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=153831

« Reply #27 on: December 14, 2009, 16:22 »
0
I think these microstocks are just heading toward some sort of meltdown.  They're all introducing new gimmicks, and changing the existing rules, so fast that contributors can't even keep track.   My fear, as a small player, is not that my income drops off - I don't make enough to get concerned - but that one of these crazy companies will simply refuse to take my images offline when I decide to pull the plug, or will hand them to some crooked "partner", and my only recourse would be to sue them in some other state - or country.   

They're all becoming increasingly distasteful to do business with, and none of them really makes me enough money to justify sticking around.  Someday there will be a better place to sell my photos and I don't want to be blocked by cr@p like DT's 6-month waiting period or Fotolia's countless shadowy "partners".   So I'm thinking more and more of dropping all the sites except one.  The problem is, which one? At this point I distrust and dislike them all just about equally.


« Reply #28 on: December 14, 2009, 16:36 »
0
stockastic, I don't understand why you are bothering with microstock.  All your posts seem to be negative towards the micros.  Go with alamy or try to get in with Corbis or Getty.  Some people here knock the traditional sites but from the research I have done, it is possible to earn far more with them if you really work at it.  I like the micros because they work for me but if my earnings were low and all I could see was problems, I wouldn't be wasting my time on them.

« Reply #29 on: December 14, 2009, 16:44 »
0
stockastic, I don't understand why you are bothering with microstock.  All your posts seem to be negative towards the micros.  Go with alamy or try to get in with Corbis or Getty.  Some people here knock the traditional sites but from the research I have done, it is possible to earn far more with them if you really work at it.  I like the micros because they work for me but if my earnings were low and all I could see was problems, I wouldn't be wasting my time on them.

A M E N !

Yup... I already said that they will cut all royalties to $0.25.

There are two reasons:

1. They want to pay more to istock exclusives.
2. They want that small extra for istock administrators who overtaked Stockxpert...

Well guys - Time to think NON-GETTY and NON-ISTOCK!

« Reply #30 on: December 14, 2009, 16:47 »
0
With Both the JUI and Photo's streams moved to istock how long before StockXpert is killed?

« Reply #31 on: December 14, 2009, 16:54 »
0
With Both the JUI and Photo's streams moved to istock how long before StockXpert is killed?
Don't they want us to supply the new Getty subs sites with our StockXpert images?  They have said we should go to istock but they must see that there are millions of images on StockXpert that aren't on istock.  If they don't change the $0.25 though, I am going to have little motivation to upload more to StockXpert.

« Reply #32 on: December 14, 2009, 17:18 »
0
Boy, all that stuff is confusing.  Upload this here, or there, or what...

Yeah, very confusing.  For one thing they don't mention a category of people who are opted in to the StockXpert partner program but opted out of partner subs on istock. 



you nailed it Lisa.... hmm I am opted out at istock on moral grounds (as usual appalling treatment of independents, reduction in royalties)  guess I am going to have to opt out at StockXpert also  ::)

« Reply #33 on: December 14, 2009, 17:25 »
0
stockastic, I don't understand why you are bothering with microstock.  All your posts seem to be negative towards the micros.  Go with alamy or try to get in with Corbis or Getty.  Some people here knock the traditional sites but from the research I have done, it is possible to earn far more with them if you really work at it.  I like the micros because they work for me but if my earnings were low and all I could see was problems, I wouldn't be wasting my time on them.

Yep!!

Also, there is some good news today, with Dreamstime!

alias

« Reply #34 on: December 14, 2009, 17:29 »
0
why are they increasing pay per download prices with istock and keeping these stupidly low prices for subscriptions?

Because they want to win a greater share of the sub market ?

RacePhoto

« Reply #35 on: December 14, 2009, 17:35 »
0
Boy, all that stuff is confusing.  Upload this here, or there, or what...

Yeah, very confusing.  For one thing they don't mention a category of people who are opted in to the StockXpert partner program but opted out of partner subs on istock. 



in addition, i do have different emails for both of them, by accident. do i inform is, do i stay quiet? it's like 12 dimensional chess.


I would if I could. Since I have 500 images on Istock, I can't sell the 5000 I have on SX. Of course, I can 'feel free' to upload them at Istock

This is exactly where I sat up and paid attention. What the F? I don't care about 25c sales, I already get that at SS and it's expected. But this is confusing.

If I don't have IS files, then my StockXpert files would be transferred. Since I do, I can "upload them all through iStock" That's not true at all. I have many files on StockXpert that didn't get accepted on IS and have sold on StockXpert. What it says is, though luck, your files on StockXpert are getting dumped, but you can upload 15 a week for the next year or so, and have them rejected at IS. :(

Yes, I'm exaggerating a little, I have only double the number of photos on StockXpert over IS. I could have them all uploaded and rejected in under three months.  ;D

StockXpert takes 1MP files, IS needs 2MP files. Are they going through and cleaning up all those?

Time to make sure I have two different email addresses I guess?  ::)



« Reply #36 on: December 14, 2009, 18:01 »
0
One thing seems very simple. They wanted to reduce the commission from 30 cents to 25 and this is how they're going to do it.

I'm only on StockXpert, the other one refused my files so I just sit and wait....$.25 is even less than the $.30 I mostly get for my StockXpert files so maybe I stop uploading there and leave my work for the others as 123, DT and even Fotolia, if they want them :D

« Reply #37 on: December 14, 2009, 18:06 »
0
stockastic, I don't understand why you are bothering with microstock.  All your posts seem to be negative towards the micros.  Go with alamy or try to get in with Corbis or Getty.  Some people here knock the traditional sites but from the research I have done, it is possible to earn far more with them if you really work at it.  I like the micros because they work for me but if my earnings were low and all I could see was problems, I wouldn't be wasting my time on them.

Some truth to that, and I'm thinking seriously about it.  I've only been doing micro for 10 months.  In that time, I've gone from "gee I wonder if I could ever get in" to "maybe I don't need you jerks".   Micro has taught me a lot about quality and about what sells.   On the other hand, I've watched these companies skillfully applying the "boil the frog slowly" technique to make things ever worse for their contributors.

Before I tried micro, I tried to scope out macro and was told by people with some knowledge of it that getting approved was next to impossible without a referral, and that the vast number of images they already had would just render me a needle in a large haystack.   Alamy was hard to figure out, especially those crazy upsizing requirements, so I decided to try micro.  

At this point I like the few bucks that come in but I've lost the motivation to shoot more.   Maybe macro is a better place for me.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2009, 18:22 by stockastic »

« Reply #38 on: December 14, 2009, 18:10 »
0
opted out of the GI on IS and StockXpert. Now where can I tell them what I think of their insulting offer?

I guess maybe Getty needs to squeeze everyone for their coming battle to destroy SS so they can really squeeze everyone all the time?

Didn't Lee post on Microstock Diaries that November was a slow news month? Well, things have picked up big time.

ap

« Reply #39 on: December 14, 2009, 18:12 »
0

I guess maybe Getty needs to squeeze everyone for their coming battle to destroy SS so they can really squeeze everyone all the time?

 :o you think that is really happening??! wow, ss is turning out to be the good guys.

« Reply #40 on: December 14, 2009, 18:14 »
0
...I don't care about 25c sales, I already get that at SS and it's expected...
But SS pay us more as we reach higher levels, I am on 38c, it isn't that difficult to move from 25c if you want to.  They also have big sales volume, much more than I get with JIU.  By accepting 25c, it is going to stop other sites paying us more.  I also think keeping subs prices so low while raising pay per download prices is going to make more people switch.  That might benefit the sites but do we really want that?

« Reply #41 on: December 14, 2009, 18:18 »
0
... Now where can I tell them what I think of their insulting offer?

I started a thread in the StockXpert forum but I think the istock forum gets more attention:-
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=153831

KB

« Reply #42 on: December 14, 2009, 18:35 »
0
...I don't care about 25c sales, I already get that at SS and it's expected...
But SS pay us more as we reach higher levels, I am on 38c, it isn't that difficult to move from 25c if you want to.  They also have big sales volume, much more than I get with JIU.  By accepting 25c, it is going to stop other sites paying us more.  I also think keeping subs prices so low while raising pay per download prices is going to make more people switch.  That might benefit the sites but do we really want that?

This is OT, but I just wanted to share something that has scared me of late.

What are the chances that SS is going to figure out that their current tiered pricing scheme is "unsustainable", as more and more contributors reach the higher levels?

I'll be celebrating my 2nd anniversary with SS in March, and will reach the next plateau (if it isn't changed, and if I remain independent) sometime next year.  I've been looking forward to the raise for a while, but after the recent IS announcement, I'm wondering if SS is going to do the same thing?

I sure hope not!

lisafx

« Reply #43 on: December 14, 2009, 18:52 »
0
I just went to opt out of the new Getty Subs site on StockXpert and noticed the opt in to subs on StockXpert option is gone.

Looks like once the content is transferred to the new Getty Subs site, StockXpert is going the way of the dinosaur.

 RIP Stockxpert...  :'(

« Reply #44 on: December 14, 2009, 18:57 »
0
What are the chances that SS is going to figure out that their current tiered pricing scheme is "unsustainable", as more and more contributors reach the higher levels?

Pretty low, I'd say.  Maybe I'm being foolishly optimistic, but I've always felt that Jon at SS has been both fair with his suppliers and careful about his business.  SS has always adjusted prices, watched their effect on revenues and then announced changes to our compensation.  (And so far always upward, unlike various other agencies.)  

I'd further point out that SS's tiered compensation involves a limited number of tiers and, after the first jump, pretty modest increases.  (But welcome all the same.)  Where iS increases payouts by 25%, 20%, 17% and 11% for a compounded increase of 100% (but only for Exclusives), SS increases by 32%, 9% and 5.5% for a compounded increase of 52%.  Of course that applies to all contributors, and I suspect they were considered carefully before implementation.

In any event, it's iS's need to give to Exclusives by taking from Independents that leads to the kind of actions we're seeing.  Either they screw Independents or take a hit on their bottom line, which ain't gonna happen.  SS doesn't have a second class of citizens to punish for not being in the first class.

« Reply #45 on: December 14, 2009, 19:02 »
0
I just went to opt out of the new Getty Subs site on StockXpert and noticed the opt in to subs on StockXpert option is gone.

Looks like once the content is transferred to the new Getty Subs site, StockXpert is going the way of the dinosaur.

 RIP Stockxpert...  :'(
I suppose they can't allow us to get 30 cents from StockXpert subs when they only want to pay 25 cents from their subs site?  I presume the PPD StockXpert site will continue?  Perhaps sales will increase there again without subs?

lisafx

« Reply #46 on: December 14, 2009, 19:04 »
0
What are the chances that SS is going to figure out that their current tiered pricing scheme is "unsustainable", as more and more contributors reach the higher levels?

Pretty low, I'd say.  Maybe I'm being foolishly optimistic, but I've always felt that Jon at SS has been both fair with his suppliers and careful about his business.  SS has always adjusted prices, watched their effect on revenues and then announced changes to our compensation.  (And so far always upward, unlike various other agencies.)  


I agree Disorderly.  In addition to the points you made, Jon is also the founder and original owner of SS.  Presumably he cares about its long term health.

Unlike Hellman & Friedman who just bought Getty to milk it for whatever profits they can get in the short term and then turn around and sell to the highest bidder.

That is my biggest concern about what's happening at IS (and a big consideration in whether to go exclusive) - how can we trust the motives of the suits at the top of the Getty food chain?  

Jon, on the other hand, has always been straight with contributors and has a real vested interest in the long term success of his baby (SS).  

WarrenPrice

« Reply #47 on: December 14, 2009, 19:11 »
0
What are the chances that SS is going to figure out that their current tiered pricing scheme is "unsustainable", as more and more contributors reach the higher levels?

Pretty low, I'd say.  Maybe I'm being foolishly optimistic, but I've always felt that Jon at SS has been both fair with his suppliers and careful about his business.  SS has always adjusted prices, watched their effect on revenues and then announced changes to our compensation.  (And so far always upward, unlike various other agencies.)  


I agree Disorderly.  In addition to the points you made, Jon is also the founder and original owner of SS.  Presumably he cares about its long term health.

Unlike Hellman & Friedman who just bought Getty to milk it for whatever profits they can get in the short term and then turn around and sell to the highest bidder.

That is my biggest concern about what's happening at IS (and a big consideration in whether to go exclusive) - how can we trust the motives of the suits at the top of the Getty food chain?  

Jon, on the other hand, has always been straight with contributors and has a real vested interest in the long term success of his baby (SS).  

Personal dislike for Hellman and Friedman seems to cloud your judgement, Lisa.  I can't believe that any "suit" can be any more trusted than another.  It seems that everytime we offer our trust to any of the agencies ... WE get burned. 
Sorry to be negative but I don't see any of them as more trustworthy.  They do it for money...a lot more money than we can expect.  It is what it is.   :'(

ap

« Reply #48 on: December 14, 2009, 19:12 »
0

Jon, on the other hand, has always been straight with contributors and has a real vested interest in the long term success of his baby (SS).  
« Last Edit: December 19, 2009, 14:01 by ap »

KB

« Reply #49 on: December 14, 2009, 19:18 »
0
Thanks, Lisa & Disorderly. I feel better now.  ;D


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
25 Replies
9967 Views
Last post May 29, 2009, 09:36
by Milinz
7 Replies
2751 Views
Last post July 28, 2009, 14:21
by NYTumbleweeds
53 Replies
14130 Views
Last post January 04, 2011, 17:33
by pixel86
32 Replies
2375 Views
Last post August 22, 2019, 06:07
by Shelma1
44 Replies
1931 Views
Last post August 24, 2019, 16:11
by cthoman

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results