Author Topic: Getty Subscription Site to replace JIUnlimited (Read 30843 times)

mwp1969 · « **on:** December 14, 2009, 12:34 »

Received the following today from StockXpert regarding the future of JIUnlimited and Getty's announced subscription site ...

Start Quote:

Hello mwp1969,

We have news for all StockXpert contributors regarding the future of JIUnlimited.

A new Getty Images subscription site will launch early 2010 and will take the place of the current JIUnlimited.

We have updated the StockXpert end user license agreement summary table to include the new Getty Images subscription site. You can see the new table here http://www.stockxpert.com/lpages/contrib ...

The royalty for subscription sales at the new site will be $0.25 per download and a 20% royalty on all single image sales.

We will be migrating certain StockXpert content over to this new site. Depending on your preference settings and if you contribute to iStockphoto, you will fall into one of three groups:

Group one – Opted-in to Subscriptions and EL's on StockXpert
If, as of November 5, 2009, you have opted-in for both Subscriptions and Extended Licenses, and you do not have content on iStockphoto, your StockXpert content on JIUnlimited will be migrated automatically to the new site. You will receive an email in early January with the file numbers of each image migrated.

Group two – Opted-out of Subscriptions and/or EL's on StockXpert
If, as of November 5, 2009, you were not opted-in for Subscriptions and/or Extended Licenses, and you have no content on iStockphoto, your StockXpert content will not be added to this new site. If you would like to have your content available, enable both Subscriptions and Extended Licenses in your profile. We will be doing another migration of StockXpert content in Spring 2010 and will add your content then.

Group three – Joint StockXpert and iStock Contributor
If you are currently an iStockphoto contributor and have files already opted-in to the iStock Partner Program, iStock files will appear on the new Getty Images subscription site when it launches in early 2010. If you had non-duplicated files opted into subscriptions on StockXpert, please feel free to upload them to your existing portfolio on iStockphoto to continue their subscription sales.

All Groups
In order to determine duplication between StockXpert and iStockphoto, we compared email addresses. If you used different email address for your accounts, we may have missed you in our matching. If you used different email addresses for each account, please follow this link and login at iStock so we can match up your accounts http://www.istockphoto.com/stockxpert?SX ...

We encourage everyone who hasn't done so to become a contributor at iStockphoto. As an iStock contributor you can continue to sell at Photos.com, as well as the new Getty Images subscription site when it launches, through their Partner Program. Join iStockphoto here http://www.istockphoto.com/stockxpert?SX ...

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.

We'd like to thank you again for your continued patience and support. We will stay in touch with more news as we're able.

End Quote

-Mark
http://markwpayne.wordpress.com

KB · « **Reply #1 on:** December 14, 2009, 12:37 »

Time to opt-out.

lisafx · « **Reply #2 on:** December 14, 2009, 12:39 »

Thanks for posting this Mark. Very bad news indeed.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #3 on:** December 14, 2009, 12:43 »

Boy, all that stuff is confusing. Upload this here, or there, or what...

lisafx · « **Reply #4 on:** December 14, 2009, 12:46 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 14, 2009, 12:43

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.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #5 on:** December 14, 2009, 12:48 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 14, 2009, 12:39

Thanks for posting this Mark. Very bad news indeed.

I am really confused. I just changed my options a few days ago, electing the subscriptions sales. I wondered why I was not seeing an increase in sub sales? I think I'm understanding that my images (not opted in on November 9) will not be transferred until Spring of 2010?

I do not have an account with iStock. The biggest change I see is the lowering of subs to 25 cents, vice 30 cents. Is that the very bad news you are talking about, Lisa?

This old brain isn't grasping this very quickly. Can someone help me understand? Should I be baling out of StockXpert, Completely?

disorderly · « **Reply #6 on:** December 14, 2009, 12:48 »

The short version: Get less for every sale than you got before. Oh, and if you're on iStock, be sure to upload everything you don't already have there. Except of course you can't, since you're so severely limited on uploads. (My port on iStock is about a third the size of StockXpert. And the subset of images I've opted in for partner sales is far smaller and will stay that way.)

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #7 on:** December 14, 2009, 12:50 »

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.

sc · « **Reply #8 on:** December 14, 2009, 12:50 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 14, 2009, 12:46

Quote from: sjlocke on December 14, 2009, 12:43
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.

I was wondering about that too

ap · « **Reply #9 on:** December 14, 2009, 12:52 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 14, 2009, 12:46

Quote from: sjlocke on December 14, 2009, 12:43
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.

gostwyck · « **Reply #10 on:** December 14, 2009, 12:52 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 14, 2009, 12:39

Very bad news indeed.

I don't think it is to be honest. JIU & PC are both bottom-of-the-barrel sites and simply undermine the greater micro market IMHO.

I don't like the way StockXpert/Jupiter handled the original placing of our images there, I don't like the way IS handled the 'partnership programme' either, I don't like the low commissions, I don't like the late/lost reporting of sales, I don't like that our images are not even credited to us, having supported the site in the past I like even less that they are now lowering the commissions even further.

In short I really don't like anything about JIU/PC at all. Good riddence to them.

lisafx · « **Reply #11 on:** December 14, 2009, 12:53 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on December 14, 2009, 12:48

The biggest change I see is the lowering of subs to 25 cents, vice 30 cents. Is that the very bad news you are talking about, Lisa?

This old brain isn't grasping this very quickly. Can someone help me understand? Should I be baling out of StockXpert, Completely?

Yes, the lowering of the commission by .05 is what I consider very bad news.

They tried to do the same to StockXpert members who had images on Photos.com and most of us independents resisted. Now they are trying to do the same with JIU. Looks like the ultimate plan is to just wear us down.

And yeah, it is tempting to just throw in the towel on this one. But how can we expect to continue getting up to .38 at SS, .34 on FT and even higher (tiered) sub sales on DT if we roll over for .25 on JIU or Photos.com?

mwp1969 · « **Reply #12 on:** December 14, 2009, 12:56 »

"If you had non-duplicated files opted into subscriptions on StockXpert, please feel free to upload them to your existing portfolio on iStockphoto to continue their subscription sales."

In my case I have more images online at StockXpert than at IS. It sounds like those images that are unique to StockXpert that are not cuurently approved at IS must be uploaded to IS in order to be considered for sale ... Will they continue to sell on StockXpert if I don't do this?

On another note: Will this new Getty subscription site become a true competitor to Shutterstock's subscription business model ? I can only imagine this is would just be damaging and have a direct impatct to the contributor commission structure across multiple agencies in the long run ...

-Mark
http://markwpayne.wordpress.com

nruboc · « **Reply #13 on:** December 14, 2009, 12:58 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 14, 2009, 12:53

Quote from: WarrenPrice on December 14, 2009, 12:48
The biggest change I see is the lowering of subs to 25 cents, vice 30 cents. Is that the very bad news you are talking about, Lisa?

This old brain isn't grasping this very quickly. Can someone help me understand? Should I be baling out of StockXpert, Completely?

Yes, the lowering of the commission by .05 is what I consider very bad news.

They tried to do the same to StockXpert members who had images on Photos.com and most of us independents resisted. Now they are trying to do the same with JIU. Looks like the ultimate plan is to just wear us down.

And yeah, it is tempting to just throw in the towel on this one. But how can we expect to continue getting up to .38 at SS, .34 on FT and even higher (tiered) sub sales on DT if we roll over for .25 on JIU or Photos.com?

Exactly.... I'm opted out. Only a matter of time before they bring the same pathetic commissions to StockXpert itself, in which case I will be leaving altogether.

KB · « **Reply #14 on:** December 14, 2009, 12:59 »

I didn't notice any mention of maximum size.

IIRC, JIU sub sales are at maximum size, whereas photos.com sales are limited (~4MP max?).

If GI sub sales are limited to such a small size, if there are enough 20% larger size sales, and if there are a lot of sales overall, it just might be worth considering. If, if, if.

But definitely my first move is to opt-out, and then wait and see. $0.25 continues to be an insult.

dbvirago · « **Reply #15 on:** December 14, 2009, 13:09 »

Quote from: ap on December 14, 2009, 12:52

Quote from: lisafx on December 14, 2009, 12:46
Quote from: sjlocke on December 14, 2009, 12:43
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

suwanneeredhead · « **Reply #16 on:** December 14, 2009, 13:11 »

Quote from: KB on December 14, 2009, 12:59

$0.25 continues to be an insult.

Agreed. I personally would like to avoid any reductions in commission, these micro-commissions are already insulting and demeaning to us. I guess they figure they can do it, though, because if one photographer opts out, several more are there to take his/her place.

sharpshot · « **Reply #17 on:** December 14, 2009, 13:18 »

I will opt out, 25 cents is a big insult, 30 cents was lower than I was happy with. Why oh why are they increasing pay per download prices with istock and keeping these stupidly low prices for subscriptions?

Hopefully the buyers who left photos.com to go to JIUunlimited will now go to shutterstock.

sharpshot · « **Reply #18 on:** December 14, 2009, 13:23 »

We have until December 31, 2009 to opt out, so I suggest we all go over to the StockXpert forum and say we will opt out unless they match the 30 cents we are currently getting. Probably wont work but might be worth a try.

Eireann · « **Reply #19 on:** December 14, 2009, 13:32 »

I'm starting to feel sorry for Getty.
They must be doing really bad. Otherwise why would anyone go to such lengths in the hope of grabbing a cheap 0.5 cent?
Is it greed?
Regardless, where's that 'Opt out' button?

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #20 on:** December 14, 2009, 14:03 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 14, 2009, 12:53

Quote from: WarrenPrice on December 14, 2009, 12:48
The biggest change I see is the lowering of subs to 25 cents, vice 30 cents. Is that the very bad news you are talking about, Lisa?

This old brain isn't grasping this very quickly. Can someone help me understand? Should I be baling out of StockXpert, Completely?

Yes, the lowering of the commission by .05 is what I consider very bad news.

They tried to do the same to StockXpert members who had images on Photos.com and most of us independents resisted. Now they are trying to do the same with JIU. Looks like the ultimate plan is to just wear us down.

And yeah, it is tempting to just throw in the towel on this one. But how can we expect to continue getting up to .38 at SS, .34 on FT and even higher (tiered) sub sales on DT if we roll over for .25 on JIU or Photos.com?

There's one thing (only) that subscription sites care about - if as a contributor you want to influence their behavior. Cut back/off their stream of new content.

We went through this before (for those who remember when Jupiter started the Photos.com+ and JIU/unlimited and to some extent when FT started subscriptions) and did both times get some increases in the original money (although some skeptics think that was the plan all along and they just played games - who knows).

Buried in the steaming pile of the recent IS announcement was a "please opt in to the partner program". I'm opted out and will stay that way as I think it's a very, very bad idea and gets worse over the long term. It does suggest, however, that they didn't get as many images opted in as they hoped, and may feel the pain if a lot of people opt out.

Some people won't want to stay away feeling that 25 cents is better than nothing, but if they didn't get any content at 25 cents they'd be forced to up the royalty (or go buy some fresh, recent & decent wholly owned content somewhere; I'm assuming they can't easily or they'd have already done it).

Don't give them the content at the cheapo price and there's at least a chance they'll have to reconsider...

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #21 on:** December 14, 2009, 14:23 »

Okay... I've joined those on the StockXpert thread expressing opinion of the 25 cent subs ... for whatever it is worth.

Perhaps this will increase the possibilities of success at the smaller agencies? 123rf,canstock,cutcaster??? Maybe???

Or, maybe that is just a contirbutor's opinion, totally unrelated to how buyers think?

dirkr · « **Reply #22 on:** December 14, 2009, 14:29 »

Quote from: sharpshot on December 14, 2009, 13:23

We have until December 31, 2009 to opt out, so I suggest we all go over to the StockXpert forum and say we will opt out unless they match the 30 cents we are currently getting. Probably wont work but might be worth a try.

Done that.
And opted out directly.
I can well live without those 0,25 sales.

If Getty changes the comission (which I doubt) I can still opt in again...

jsolie · « **Reply #23 on:** December 14, 2009, 14:35 »

One thing I will say about stock...it's rarely dull. If things seem to go quiet, get ready. More drama is right around the corner.

madelaide · « **Reply #24 on:** December 14, 2009, 15:06 »

I'm already opted-out in StockXpert, it seems it's time to opt-out in IS too (if I haven't already).

Dook · « **Reply #25 on:** December 14, 2009, 15:50 »

"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?

sharpshot · « **Reply #26 on:** December 14, 2009, 16:10 »

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

stockastic · « **Reply #27 on:** December 14, 2009, 16:22 »

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.

sharpshot · « **Reply #28 on:** December 14, 2009, 16:36 »

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.

Albert Martin · « **Reply #29 on:** December 14, 2009, 16:44 »

Quote from: sharpshot on December 14, 2009, 16:36

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!

Tim Markley · « **Reply #30 on:** December 14, 2009, 16:47 »

With Both the JUI and Photo's streams moved to istock how long before StockXpert is killed?

sharpshot · « **Reply #31 on:** December 14, 2009, 16:54 »

Quote from: tsmarkley on December 14, 2009, 16:47

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.

iclick · « **Reply #32 on:** December 14, 2009, 17:18 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 14, 2009, 12:46

Quote from: sjlocke on December 14, 2009, 12:43
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

borg · « **Reply #33 on:** December 14, 2009, 17:25 »

Quote from: sharpshot on December 14, 2009, 16:36

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 »

Quote from: sharpshot on December 14, 2009, 13:18

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 »

Quote from: dbvirago on December 14, 2009, 13:09

Quote from: ap on December 14, 2009, 12:52
Quote from: lisafx on December 14, 2009, 12:46
Quote from: sjlocke on December 14, 2009, 12:43
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.

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?

studioportosabbia · « **Reply #36 on:** December 14, 2009, 18:01 »

Quote from: jsnover on December 14, 2009, 12:50

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

stockastic · « **Reply #37 on:** December 14, 2009, 18:06 »

Quote from: sharpshot on December 14, 2009, 16:36

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.

pancaketom · « **Reply #38 on:** December 14, 2009, 18:10 »

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 »

Quote from: pancaketom on December 14, 2009, 18:10

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

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

sharpshot · « **Reply #40 on:** December 14, 2009, 18:14 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on December 14, 2009, 17:35

...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?

sharpshot · « **Reply #41 on:** December 14, 2009, 18:18 »

Quote from: pancaketom on December 14, 2009, 18:10

... 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 »

Quote from: sharpshot on December 14, 2009, 18:14

Quote from: RacePhoto on December 14, 2009, 17:35
...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 »

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...

disorderly · « **Reply #44 on:** December 14, 2009, 18:57 »

Quote from: KB on December 14, 2009, 18:35

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.

sharpshot · « **Reply #45 on:** December 14, 2009, 19:02 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 14, 2009, 18:52

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 »

Quote from: disorderly on December 14, 2009, 18:57

Quote from: KB on December 14, 2009, 18:35
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 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 14, 2009, 19:04

Quote from: disorderly on December 14, 2009, 18:57
Quote from: KB on December 14, 2009, 18:35
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 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 14, 2009, 19:04

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).

KB · « **Reply #49 on:** December 14, 2009, 19:18 »

Thanks, Lisa & Disorderly. I feel better now.

sharpshot · « **Reply #50 on:** December 14, 2009, 19:29 »

I couldn't wait until the 31st, I have opted out. Probably wont get many subs downloads for the rest of the month and they might not remove them until the 31st anyway.

cathyslife · « **Reply #51 on:** December 14, 2009, 19:35 »

I just opted out on both sites also.

tdoes · « **Reply #52 on:** December 14, 2009, 19:51 »

Quote from: sc on December 14, 2009, 12:50

Quote from: lisafx on December 14, 2009, 12:46
Quote from: sjlocke on December 14, 2009, 12:43
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.

I was wondering about that too

When you go to StockXpert and view your portfolio chances are you will have a check mark pre-selecting a box opting you into the Getty Subscription. De-selecting that box should opt you out of that program. That's what I did!

Pixart · « **Reply #53 on:** December 14, 2009, 19:57 »

I too wondered if I opted out of StockXpert subs also. To be honest, there aren't that many to be concerned about. Are they killing their subs program or the whole site?

FD · « **Reply #54 on:** December 14, 2009, 21:36 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 14, 2009, 18:52

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.

I just did the same. I had a look at the past months and JIU + photos.com made more than half of my income at StockXpert. I have the impression that also StockXpert ppd is going down lately, as buyers might have been alarmed by the rumors and the lessened support.

Accepting 0.25$, it has been mentioned here before, will weaken the position of SS and DT in the sub market as the main non-Getty competitors. It's also clear that Getty wants to make a new site, not just take over JUI and let live, but sub buyers might be confused by the name and policy changes, and just try out and switch to SS which has most of StockXpert and iStock content already, plus more (minus iStock exclusives).

If most independents opt out of iStock and StockXpert subs, Getty's subs site will become a flop. It will take time to build it, and DT/SS have a large advantage content-wise as it is. StockXpert is virtually dead by all this turmoil (certainly affecting buyers), so the time spent uploading there at StockXpert can better be invested in iStock itself that gives good revenue after all.

FD · « **Reply #55 on:** December 14, 2009, 21:46 »

Quote from: Pixart on December 14, 2009, 19:57

I too wondered if I opted out of StockXpert subs also. To be honest, there aren't that many to be concerned about. Are they killing their subs program or the whole site?

The StockXpert tick box has just gone. That can only mean that StockXpert subs will be phased out, and all (StockXpert, JIU) subs will be handled through the new Getty sub site. If you opt out there at StockXpert, all that will remain in 2010 are StockXpert ppd. Buyers were already advised a while ago to join iStock. In effect, this will kill StockXpert.

A view from the board room of StocXtanic.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #56 on:** December 15, 2009, 01:20 »

Quote from: FD-amateur on December 14, 2009, 21:46

Quote from: Pixart on December 14, 2009, 19:57
I too wondered if I opted out of StockXpert subs also. To be honest, there aren't that many to be concerned about. Are they killing their subs program or the whole site?

The StockXpert tick box has just gone. That can only mean that StockXpert subs will be phased out, and all (StockXpert, JIU) subs will be handled through the new Getty sub site. If you opt out there at StockXpert, all that will remain in 2010 are StockXpert ppd. Buyers were already advised a while ago to join iStock. In effect, this will kill StockXpert.

A view from the board room of StocXtanic.

Funny, but I was picturing the NGSS (new Getty sub site) as the Three Stooges running the StockXpert offices in the end game? The explanation of how your photos will come from StockXpert, maybe, or IS if you are there, but not IS if you are opted out, but you should upload to IS... It reads like a Chinese restaurant menu special, or something close to Who's on First!

PixelBitch · « **Reply #57 on:** December 15, 2009, 01:43 »

One view of the situation...

lisafx · « **Reply #58 on:** December 15, 2009, 10:41 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on December 14, 2009, 19:11

Personal dislike for Hellman and Friedman seems to cloud your judgement, Lisa.

What "personal dislike"? I have never met anyone at H&F or Getty, nor Jon Oringer either, for that matter. This is business, it isn't personal.

Although for some reason, Warren, you keep trying to make it so.

Maybe lets stick to the facts and stop insulting the judgment of the people you disagree with.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #59 on:** December 15, 2009, 11:41 »

Sorry, that was not intended as an insult. Your quote left out a lot of my point ... none of them can be trusted.
You are right. We need to stick together.

graficallyminded · « **Reply #60 on:** December 15, 2009, 18:53 »

I'm in Group Three, but the part about losing the partner program with our StockXpert port is nothing we haven't already known for at least 6 months now. I, like many others, also have very few images on istock compared to stockxpert mostly due to the weekly upload cap. Am I happy about this? Not really. Will I be losing a lot of money from this? Probably hundreds each month. Is it the end of the world? Definitely not.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #61 on:** December 16, 2009, 16:59 »

Quote from: arenacreative on December 15, 2009, 18:53

I'm in Group Three, but the part about losing the partner program with our StockXpert port is nothing we haven't already known for at least 6 months now. I, like many others, also have very few images on istock compared to stockxpert mostly due to the weekly upload cap. Am I happy about this? Not really. Will I be losing a lot of money from this? Probably hundreds each month. Is it the end of the world? Definitely not.

But what of Group four, the one they forgot. I'd like to have my StockXpert photos moved to the new site, like the other people, not be penalized for having an IS account and not be penalized for being opted in for subscriptions and partners at IS. Oh thank you, because I've been working for you and have quality images on IS, I get penalized.

What do they offer for me? "If you had non-duplicated files opted into subscriptions on StockXpert, please feel free to upload them to your existing portfolio on iStockphoto to continue their subscription sales." Oh thanks I can take all the files that are on StockXpert and upload them to IS, 15 a week... where they will be refused.

But people in group one, who aren't on IS - "you do not have content on iStockphoto, your StockXpert content on JIUnlimited will be migrated automatically to the new site.

Squeak, Squeak, Squeak.

Payback for hard work and being an IS member is to have your StockXpert files ignored in the move. It doesn't seem right?

If I had known this I would have opted out of Partners at IS. That way my StockXpert photos would have been migrated.

I can't understand how they decided to ignore the people who have been supporting their subscription and partner plan in favor of non-IS members?

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #62 on:** December 16, 2009, 22:52 »

http://fairtradephotographer.blogspot.com/2009/11/getty-images-youre-fired.html

It seems that the UK agency had placed my images with an agency based in South Africa who had then placed them with Getty Images.

FD · « **Reply #63 on:** December 17, 2009, 07:10 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on December 16, 2009, 16:59

But what of Group four, the one they forgot. I'd like to have my StockXpert photos moved to the new site, like the other people, not be penalized for having an IS account and not be penalized for being opted in for subscriptions and partners at IS. Oh thank you, because I've been working for you and have quality images on IS, I get penalized.

It boils down to that. I am in group 4 (opted in on subs/EL at StockXpert - opted out of photos.com on IS). Hence my content on StockXpert will not be moved over automatically to GettySub, no, I will have to reupload these shots first to iStock and pass the stricter acceptance criteria there and go through the disambiguation process.

If I never had uploaded to IS, my StockXpert content would have been moved automatically. No sweat, no re-reviewing, no disambiguation. In fact, IS-StockXpert contributors are punished.

Adding insult to injury, JIU, Photos.com and StockXpert subs paid 0.30$, now those images would earn only 0.25$. JIU, photos.com and StockXpert subs made up 3/4 of my income on StockXpert. StockXpert's customers were already asked to move over to IS, so it can be expected that the few remaining StockXpert credit sales will go down further. I can't see any reason to upload further to StockXpert under these circumstances.

So in hindsight, the Getty acquisition of StockXpert was a hostile takeover with the purpose to shut them down, and to increase market share by acquiring the StockXpert customers. What Getty bought was not the portfolio and contributor assets of StockXpert, but their customers only.

mwp1969 · « **Reply #64 on:** December 17, 2009, 10:59 »

Very confusing. It appears I am in "Group 4" mentioned above. If I understand correctly, if I want my images my StockXpert ported to the new site (I'm on StockXpert (200+images) & IS (35 images), I need to opt out on IS or am I just stuck since I'm already a member on IS but with a slim to non-existent portfolio due primarily to their upload restrictions?

I'm getting a headache trying to sort through all of this ...

-Mark
http://markwpayne.wordpress.com

MichaelJay · « **Reply #65 on:** December 17, 2009, 11:03 »

Quote from: mwp1969 on December 17, 2009, 10:59

primarily to their upload restrictions?

Member since November 2007... that's about 106 weeks... 15 uploads per week... let's see... LOL

(sorry, couldn't resist

)

sharpshot · « **Reply #66 on:** December 17, 2009, 11:22 »

Quote from: mwp1969 on December 17, 2009, 10:59

Very confusing. It appears I am in "Group 4" mentioned above. If I understand correctly, if I want my images my StockXpert ported to the new site (I'm on StockXpert (200+images) & IS (35 images), I need to opt out on IS or am I just stuck since I'm already a member on IS but with a slim to non-existent portfolio due primarily to their upload restrictions?

I'm getting a headache trying to sort through all of this ...

-Mark
http://markwpayne.wordpress.com

Just opt out with StockXpert and istock and all your problems go away

etienjones · « **Reply #67 on:** December 17, 2009, 12:09 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on December 16, 2009, 16:59

Quote from: arenacreative on December 15, 2009, 18:53
I'm in Group Three, but the part about losing the partner program with our StockXpert port is nothing we haven't already known for at least 6 months now. I, like many others, also have very few images on istock compared to stockxpert mostly due to the weekly upload cap. Am I happy about this? Not really. Will I be losing a lot of money from this? Probably hundreds each month. Is it the end of the world? Definitely not.

But what of Group four, the one they forgot. I'd like to have my StockXpert photos moved to the new site, like the other people, not be penalized for having an IS account and not be penalized for being opted in for subscriptions and partners at IS. Oh thank you, because I've been working for you and have quality images on IS, I get penalized.

What do they offer for me? "If you had non-duplicated files opted into subscriptions on StockXpert, please feel free to upload them to your existing portfolio on iStockphoto to continue their subscription sales." Oh thanks I can take all the files that are on StockXpert and upload them to IS, 15 a week... where they will be refused.

But people in group one, who aren't on IS - "you do not have content on iStockphoto, your StockXpert content on JIUnlimited will be migrated automatically to the new site.

Squeak, Squeak, Squeak.

Payback for hard work and being an IS member is to have your StockXpert files ignored in the move. It doesn't seem right?

If I had known this I would have opted out of Partners at IS. That way my StockXpert photos would have been migrated. I can't understand how they decided to ignore the people who have been supporting their subscription and partner plan in favor of non-IS members?

This tell me that, at least for the next couple of mouths, the smart thing to do is to opt-out at IS until the transfer is complete . . . . . then opt-in at IS after, if that is your intention.

Does that make sense?.

Dook · « **Reply #68 on:** December 17, 2009, 12:20 »

Quote from: mwp1969 on December 17, 2009, 10:59

Very confusing. It appears I am in "Group 4" mentioned above. If I understand correctly, if I want my images my StockXpert ported to the new site (I'm on StockXpert (200+images) & IS (35 images), I need to opt out on IS or am I just stuck since I'm already a member on IS but with a slim to non-existent portfolio due primarily to their upload restrictions?

I'm getting a headache trying to sort through all of this ...

-Mark
http://markwpayne.wordpress.com

Yes, you are stuck. they expect you to upload your pictures through Istock.

FD · « **Reply #69 on:** December 17, 2009, 12:24 »

Quote from: MichaelJay on December 17, 2009, 11:03

Member since November 2007... that's about 106 weeks... 15 uploads per week... let's see... LOL

Naughty!

I only have 440 images on IS, not for the upload restrictions but for the simple fact I forgot them for a year. Now that StockXpert virtually is closing doors and I jumped out of CC, Veer and YAY, and I stopped uploading to a few others, I will use the freed time to upload more to IS. If that's what they want, that's what they'll get. Things happened, look forward, move on.

ap · « **Reply #70 on:** December 17, 2009, 14:35 »

Quote from: etienjones on December 17, 2009, 12:09

Quote from: arenacreative on December 15, 2009, 18:53

But what of Group four, the one they forgot. I'd like to have my StockXpert photos moved to the new site, like the other people, not be penalized for having an IS account and not be penalized for being opted in for subscriptions and partners at IS. Oh thank you, because I've been working for you and have quality images on IS, I get penalized.

What do they offer for me? "If you had non-duplicated files opted into subscriptions on StockXpert, please feel free to upload them to your existing portfolio on iStockphoto to continue their subscription sales." Oh thanks I can take all the files that are on StockXpert and upload them to IS, 15 a week... where they will be refused.

But people in group one, who aren't on IS - "you do not have content on iStockphoto, your StockXpert content on JIUnlimited will be migrated automatically to the new site.

This tell me that, at least for the next couple of mouths, the smart thing to do is to opt-out at IS until the transfer is complete . . . . . then opt-in at IS after, if that is your intention.

Does that make sense?.

actually if you're a member of is and StockXpert, it doesn't really matter whether you opt in or out, at either site. if you want any of your StockXpert photos in the getty collection, you'll need to do it through your stock portfolio. the transfer of photos from StockXpert to getty is automatic only if you're not a member of is.

packerguy · « **Reply #71 on:** December 17, 2009, 14:53 »

I don't know if this clears things up, but here is an exchange between an contributer and an StockXpert admin (Sep) from the StockXpert forum.

Contributer: I'm a bit confused, as the message seems to suggest that if you're NOT a member of istock and are opted in correctly at StockXpert, your images will be transferred automatically, but if you ARE a member of iStock, you have to put them through the iStock approval process (which restricts you to 15 uploads a week) in order to get them back on JIU - which would seem to penalise those who joined iStock, as recommended, by slowing down the reinstatement of their subs portfolios. Is that correct?

Sep:Actually JIU is being replaced by a new product in early 2010. If you are opted-in for subscriptions on StockXpert, your images will be on the new site.

Basically this only has to do with StockXpert images. If you are opted-in on StockXpert for subcriptions sales, keep it this way. If you do not want to have your images on the replacement site, you must opt-out here on StockXpert.

This only involves images in your portfolio on StockXpert, not the ones on iStock.

Contributer:Thanks SEb. Sorry, I should'n't have referred to the new product as JIU. My mistake.

I'm still confused though, as I fall into group three where it says:

"If you had
non-duplicated files opted into subscriptions on StockXpert, please feel free to
upload them to your existing portfolio on iStockphoto to continue their
subscription sales."

Doesn't that suggest that non-duplicated files have to be uploaded to iStock rather than being automatically transferred?

Very grateful for your help with this, as ever Seb.

Sep:There are a few reasons why they suggest that you upload to iStock non-duplicated images;

1- These images will benefit from Photos.com subscriptions sales. This is no longer the case with your StockXpert images.

2- I believe that all opted-in images on iStock will feed the new site. It is not the case with StockXpert images as iStock has (will) selected most but not all images to be transferred to the new site from StockXpert. There are chances that most but not all of your StockXpert images appear on the new site

RacePhoto · « **Reply #72 on:** December 17, 2009, 15:32 »

Quote from: etienjones on December 17, 2009, 12:09

This tell me that, at least for the next couple of mouths, the smart thing to do is to opt-out at IS until the transfer is complete . . . . . then opt-in at IS after, if that is your intention.

Does that make sense?.

It would except they did the first transfer Nov. 5th. so it's done. They matched accounts by email addresses, in which case (had we known in advance) we could have changed that and had the photos moved over from StockXpert. So yes, good idea in theory, too late.

This is important, if I understand it right: Moderator - I believe that all opted-in images on iStock will feed the new site. It is not the case with StockXpert images as iStock has (will) selected most but not all images to be transferred to the new site from StockXpert.

Something tells me that the most but not all will be like Snap Village to Veer, where more than some select accounts and photos were not transferred.

In my case the photos that StockXpert accepted an IS won't, may be better off going into limbo forever.

At first I thought I'd be losing effort and sales, but considering how they haven't sold on StockXpert, I guess it can't be that important. I still would have rather had them transferred and languishing on the sub site, than just going away, but that's life.

Here are the groups:

1: you can't get your photos accepted at IS or failed the IS submission test, but you uploaded to StockXpert. We're taking your StockXpert photos.

2: you don't care about subs and opted out of them at IS because you don't want your photos sold for pennies. We're taking your StockXpert photos.

3: You allowed subscriptions, submitted to both sites, supported our partner program on IS and have files on both sites. Your StockXpert photos can go suck eggs, but feel free to re-upload 15 a week for rejection, until you get bored. We appreciate your loyalty and past contributions!

etienjones · « **Reply #73 on:** December 17, 2009, 16:21 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on December 17, 2009, 15:32

Quote from: etienjones on December 17, 2009, 12:09

This tell me that, at least for the next couple of mouths, the smart thing to do is to opt-out at IS until the transfer is complete . . . . . then opt-in at IS after, if that is your intention.

Does that make sense?.

Here are the groups:

1: you can't get your photos accepted at IS or failed the IS submission test, but you uploaded to StockXpert. We're taking your StockXpert photos.

2: you don't care about subs and opted out of them at IS because you don't want your photos sold for pennies. We're taking your StockXpert photos.

3: You allowed subscriptions, submitted to both sites, supported our partner program on IS and have files on both sites. Your StockXpert photos can go suck eggs, but feel free to re-upload 15 a week for rejection, until you get bored. We appreciate your loyalty and past contributions!

Well stated, that's it . . . . . . . say it ain't so, Joe.

Albert Martin · « **Reply #74 on:** December 17, 2009, 17:53 »

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on December 16, 2009, 22:52

http://fairtradephotographer.blogspot.com/2009/11/getty-images-youre-fired.html

It seems that the UK agency had placed my images with an agency based in South Africa who had then placed them with Getty Images.

I think that you should give NAME of that UK agency so we know confidentiality to where not to upload?

RT · « **Reply #75 on:** December 17, 2009, 18:19 »

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on December 16, 2009, 22:52

http://fairtradephotographer.blogspot.com/2009/11/getty-images-youre-fired.html

It seems that the UK agency had placed my images with an agency based in South Africa who had then placed them with Getty Images.

Is that your blog?

PixelBitch · « **Reply #76 on:** December 17, 2009, 21:33 »

I've just joined StockXpert and am uploading my port...there is a box to tick to opt in to my images being made available on the new Getty sub site...so I'm assuming they will be available for sale on there...perhaps my also being with iStock, opted in to the partner program, will be an impediment but I'll wait and see.

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #77 on:** December 21, 2009, 14:33 »

Quote from: Albert Martin on December 17, 2009, 17:53

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on December 16, 2009, 22:52
http://fairtradephotographer.blogspot.com/2009/11/getty-images-youre-fired.html

It seems that the UK agency had placed my images with an agency based in South Africa who had then placed them with Getty Images.

I think that you should give NAME of that UK agency so we know confidentiality to where not to upload?

I dont know but I'd guess Alamy not my blog. You can block sellers by country and control distribution which makes the complaint sombody that can't read license terms when uploading.

mwp1969 · « **Reply #78 on:** December 21, 2009, 18:26 »

Quote from: MichaelJay on December 17, 2009, 11:03

Quote from: mwp1969 on December 17, 2009, 10:59
primarily to their upload restrictions?

Member since November 2007... that's about 106 weeks... 15 uploads per week... let's see... LOL

(sorry, couldn't resist )

MichaelJay,

First of all I can take joke. Try resisting this ...

iStock's "Member since November 2007" refers to date I first creating an account with them. That date goes back to when I first started researching stock photography. I was approved at IS April 2009 and have achieved 38 approvals and 40 downloads ...

-Mark
http://markwpayne.wordpress.com

FD · « **Reply #79 on:** December 21, 2009, 23:32 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on December 17, 2009, 15:32

Here are the groups:

1: you can't get your photos accepted at IS or failed the IS submission test, but you uploaded to StockXpert. We're taking your StockXpert photos.

2: you don't care about subs and opted out of them at IS because you don't want your photos sold for pennies. We're taking your StockXpert photos.

3: You allowed subscriptions, submitted to both sites, supported our partner program on IS and have files on both sites. Your StockXpert photos can go suck eggs, but feel free to re-upload 15 a week for rejection, until you get bored. We appreciate your loyalty and past contributions!

Hahaha, at least that's clear. Thanks for translating the corporate newspeak.

MichaelJay · « **Reply #80 on:** December 22, 2009, 04:18 »

Quote from: mwp1969 on December 21, 2009, 18:26

iStock's "Member since November 2007" refers to date I first creating an account with them. That date goes back to when I first started researching stock photography. I was approved at IS April 2009 and have achieved 38 approvals and 40 downloads ...

Yeah, alright. I´m happy you don´t take it personal. My point was that "limited by the upload restrictions" is not fully true. You could have uploaded much more images. It´s a decisions you took how to spend your time and that´s totally within your rights, of course.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #81 on:** December 22, 2009, 11:51 »

Quote from: FD-amateur on December 21, 2009, 23:32

Quote from: RacePhoto on December 17, 2009, 15:32
Here are the groups:

1: you can't get your photos accepted at IS or failed the IS submission test, but you uploaded to StockXpert. We're taking your StockXpert photos.

2: you don't care about subs and opted out of them at IS because you don't want your photos sold for pennies. We're taking your StockXpert photos.

3: You allowed subscriptions, submitted to both sites, supported our partner program on IS and have files on both sites. Your StockXpert photos can go suck eggs, but feel free to re-upload 15 a week for rejection, until you get bored. We appreciate your loyalty and past contributions!

Hahaha, at least that's clear. Thanks for translating the corporate newspeak.

To be fair, it doesn't tell the whole story, but neither did they until some details dribbled out in individual responses. For example: Not all StockXpert files will be moved to the new site.

Still I have been selling images that have been accepted at StockXpert and all other sites, except IS, and I'd like them to go to the Sub site. Who knows if StockXpert will stay as a mini and neutered site or if they will close the doors. It's owned by Getty, which with IS, Vetta, the new yet to be named site, and all the rest, has covered high, low and middle prices. It has all variations of size and quality. They have the market presence saturated, possibly over saturated.

Getty has also managed to wrap up some exclusive content, which can be attractive to some buyers. If that is also divided by the levels, it could enhance the sub sites marketability in the future. Having an all new (in name, and design, even if not in content) lower tier site as part of the Getty family, completes the industry domination, with individual Getty identified names, in all market areas.

FD · « **Reply #82 on:** December 22, 2009, 15:06 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on December 22, 2009, 11:51

the new yet to be named site

Somebody (Suljo?) suggested GettySubscription. I suggest GettyConscription.

mwp1969 · « **Reply #83 on:** December 22, 2009, 16:22 »

Quote from: MichaelJay on December 22, 2009, 04:18

Quote from: mwp1969 on December 21, 2009, 18:26
iStock's "Member since November 2007" refers to date I first creating an account with them. That date goes back to when I first started researching stock photography. I was approved at IS April 2009 and have achieved 38 approvals and 40 downloads ...

Yeah, alright. I´m happy you don´t take it personal. My point was that "limited by the upload restrictions" is not fully true. You could have uploaded much more images. It´s a decisions you took how to spend your time and that´s totally within your rights, of course.

You are correct. I wasn't right on top of uploading the max right away. This last couple of months I have been maxing out my uploads as much as I can. It also took awhile to get used to disambiguation process but think I've got it down now.

I have been having BMEs overall lately both at iStock and overall so I will look forward to when iStock rises to be my #2 or #1 earner.

Thanks for keeping me on my toes

-Mark
http://markwpayne.wordpress.com

Beach Bum · « **Reply #84 on:** December 30, 2009, 20:54 »

Quote from: lisafx on December 14, 2009, 12:53

Quote from: WarrenPrice on December 14, 2009, 12:48
The biggest change I see is the lowering of subs to 25 cents, vice 30 cents. Is that the very bad news you are talking about, Lisa?

This old brain isn't grasping this very quickly. Can someone help me understand? Should I be baling out of StockXpert, Completely?

Yes, the lowering of the commission by .05 is what I consider very bad news.

They tried to do the same to StockXpert members who had images on Photos.com and most of us independents resisted. Now they are trying to do the same with JIU. Looks like the ultimate plan is to just wear us down.

And yeah, it is tempting to just throw in the towel on this one. But how can we expect to continue getting up to .38 at SS, .34 on FT and even higher (tiered) sub sales on DT if we roll over for .25 on JIU or Photos.com?

Exactly Lisa. That's why I opted out.

UncleGene · « **Reply #85 on:** December 31, 2009, 01:50 »

For somebody who is late for the party: where on IS can I opt out? I cannot find anything...

ShadySue · « **Reply #86 on:** December 31, 2009, 05:28 »

Quote from: UncleGene on December 31, 2009, 01:50

For somebody who is late for the party: where on IS can I opt out? I cannot find anything...

You should be opted out as default. It was one of the things we fought about when the scheme was introduced, when they proposed that everyone was opted in by default.
However, if you go into your Control Panel (link very top right, beside language and logout), then click 'Contributer' (Left hand column), the Partner opt in/out button is right in the middle of the page.

UncleGene · « **Reply #87 on:** December 31, 2009, 13:38 »

Thanks!!!

willie · « **Reply #88 on:** January 03, 2010, 11:27 »

personally, I feel most of you have too much vested interest to throw in the towel.
but for newbies like myself (2 years old at the most), I think we can decide whether we really want to continue in an environment that thrive of reducing your commissions until it is non-existent, or move to lesser promising (and even riskier, as Zymmetrical , Photo Shelter,..has proven to be) sites.
my point is, people like me have less to lose, and perharps we in 2010 should make a stand and say, "bastante!",, and give sites like Alamy, 3dstudio, Cutcaster,etc..
their moral support.

i think someone said in the Zymm farewell thread, that contributors wait for the sites to get going before they make the exodus. well, if you wait for the exodus, the site, like Zymmetrical, may not last that long.

you cannot expect salvation if you are not yourself willing to make that sacrifice.
no one has ever moved mountains sitting on the fence.
BUT, old habits die hard.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #89 on:** January 03, 2010, 12:31 »

Well Said, Perseus. However, it is difficult to make the necessary commitment. It could mean a long run without a payout. Maybe begin by uploading a few images "exclusively" to those sites?

willie · « **Reply #90 on:** January 03, 2010, 17:46 »

Quote from: WarrenPrice on January 03, 2010, 12:31

Well Said, Perseus. However, it is difficult to make the necessary commitment. It could mean a long run without a payout. Maybe begin by uploading a few images "exclusively" to those sites?

already considered that. and actually putting at least 50% exclusively to Alamy ... beginning Jan 1 2010.
cheers WarrenPrice,

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Getty Subscription Site to replace JIUnlimited (Read 30843 times)

lisafx

lisafx

WarrenPrice

sc

lisafx

nruboc

dbvirago

WarrenPrice

Dook

alias

RacePhoto

lisafx

lisafx

WarrenPrice

RacePhoto

lisafx

WarrenPrice

graficallyminded

RacePhoto

Dook

RacePhoto

RacePhoto

WarrenPrice

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors